The Pulpit Commentary — Hebrews — Section 25

fire " the prediMtes), seems to necessitl\te this psalm to Christ, notwithstanding ita this meRning, which is further probable primary import. Like Pa. ii., it presente. from what we 1.--now of Alexandrian angelo• (in pll.l'ts at least) an ideal picture, euggeeted logy. It may thus well be that, whether or only and imperfectly realized by the tempo- not the LXX. (rendering, as it does, the rary type; o.n ideal of which we find the germ Hebrew word for word) gives the exact in 2 Sam. vii., and the ampli11.cation in la.tor force of the original phrase, it hits its essen- prophecy. Further, the title, "For the pre- tinl meaning. as intimating angelic agency centor" (" To tho chief musioie.n," A.V.), in nature. And the learned Jews of Alex- shows that the psalm was used in the andria, followed as they a.re by the later temple services, and thus, whatever might rabbis generally, and by the writer of this be the occasion of its composition, was Epistle, were, to BRY the least, as likely to understood by the Jews of old as having an understand the Hebrew as any modern ulterior meaning. Further, there is possibly scholars. Th.:i question, however, is not, ( DB Delitzsch points out) a. reference to the after all, of great importance. For let us psalm as Messianic in Isa. lxi. 1-3, whero grant that the writer of the Epistle un- "the Servant of Jehovah,'' "the Anointed.," wittingly adduced an erroneous rendering in gives the •• oil of gladness" for mourning; and the course of his argument. 'What then? in ix. 5, where the words of the psalm," God" It is not necessary to suppose that the in- (ver. 6) and "mighty" (ver. 3) a.re com- spiration of the sacred writers was such as pounded for a designation of the Messiah ; to enlighten them in matters of Hebrew also in Zech. xii. 8, where it is prophesied criticism. If it guarded them from erro- that in the latter days" the house of David" neous teaching, it was sufficient for its pur- shall be "a.s God." The Mes11ie.nic inter- pose. And in this case the pase.e.ge, as pretation is undoubtedly ancient. The cited, at any rate expresses well the general Che.ldee paraphrast (on ver. 3) writes, "Thy doctrine of the Old Testament a.bout angels, beauty, 0 King Messiah, is greater than that viz. that, unlike the Son, they a.re but of the sons of men." Thy th:rone; 0 God, is subordinate agents of the Divine purposes, for ever and ever. Attempts have been made and connected especially with the operations to evade the conclusion that the king is here of nature. It is to be observed, too, that the addressed as "God," (1) by ta.king the quotations generally in this Epistle are ad- clause as a parenthetic address to God him- duced, not as exhaustive proofs, but rather self; (2) by regarding" God " as appended to as saggestive of the general teaching of the " throne," or as the predicate of the sentence; Old Testament, with which the readers are i.e. tra.nsle.tiug either •• Thy throne-of-God supposed to be familiar. is," etc. ( according to the sense of 1 Chron. Vera. 8-13.-Two more quotations from :xili. 23, " Solomon eat on the throne of the the psaJ..ms with reference to the SoN ad- LORD as king"), or "Thy throne is God [i.e. duced ll\ contra.at. Divine] for ever and ever." As to (1), the Vers. 8, 9.-Bnt Ullto the Son he saith. context repudiates it. As to (2), it is e. The prepoaition here translated " unto " is question whether tho Hebrew is patient of '11'pas, as in ver. 7, there translated "of." As the supposed construction. At any rate, :is evident from its use in ver. 7, it does not "God" is understood as a vocative in the imply of necessity that the persons spoken LXX. as well as in the Epistle, in which the of a.re 'addressed in the quotations, though it LXX. is quoted (for the use of the nomina- :is so in tbis second case. The force of the tive form, .I 0eh, in a vocative sense, cf. preposition itself need only be "in reference Luke xviii. 11, 13; Matt. x:xvii. 29; Mark to." The first quotation is.from Pa. xlv. 6, 7. ix. 25 ; Luke viii. 54; xii. 32) ; and in the The psalm was evidently written origin- Chaldee pa.re.phrase, and all e.noient versions, ally as an epithalamium on the occamon of it is understood so also. Probably no other the marriage of some king of Israel to some interpretation would have been thought of foreign princess. The general and probable but for the difficulty of supposing an earthly opinion :is that the king was Solomon. Hia king to be thus addressed. It is to be ob- marriage with Pharaoh's daughter may served, however, that the other rendering have been the occasion. The view taken would express essentially the same iJea, and by some (as Hengstenberg), that the psalm be sufficient for the argument. In either had no original reference to an actual case the throne of the SoN is represented as marriage, being purely a Messianic prophecy, God's throne, and eternal. The only dif- iii inconsibwnt both with its own contents ference is that the vocative rendering makes nnd with the analogy of other Messianic more marked and manifest the ideal view of psalms (see who.t was said on this head '!ith his subject ta.ken by the psalmist. For it !'eference to Ps. ii.). Tbose who enter rnto is most unlikely that a. bard of the sanctuary, tl,e view of Messianic prophecy that hae a worshipper of the jealous God of Israel, boon given aboye, will have no difficulty in would have so apostrophized any ea.rthly perceiving tho justness of the application of king except as prefiguring "o. greater thiw Oil, L 1-14.] THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 15