John Calvin Commentary Hebrews 1

God formerly, etc. This beginning is to commend the doctrine taught by Christ, for it shows that we ought not only reverently to receive it but also to be satisfied with it alone. To understand this more clearly, we must observe the contrast between each of the clauses.

First, the Son of God is set in opposition to the prophets; then we to the fathers; and thirdly, the various and manifold modes of speaking which God employed with the fathers, as opposed to the final revelation brought to us by Christ. But in this diversity, he still presents to us only one God, so that no one might think that the Law conflicts with the Gospel, or that the author of one is not the author of the other.

Therefore, so that you may understand the full meaning of this passage, the following arrangement will be given—

This foundation being laid, the agreement between the Law and the Gospel is established; for God, who is always like himself, and whose word is the same, and whose truth is unchangeable, has spoken concerning both in common.

But we must notice the difference between us and the fathers, for God formerly addressed them in a way different from that which he adopts toward us now. And first, indeed, in their case, he employed the prophets, but he has appointed his Son to be an ambassador to us.

Our condition, then, in this respect, is superior to that of the fathers. Even Moses is also to be classed among the prophets, as he is one of those who are inferior to the Son.

In the manner also in which revelation was made, we have an advantage over them. For the diversity of visions and other means adopted under the Old Testament was an indication that it was not yet a settled state of things, as when matters are put completely in order.

Hence he says, multifariously and in many ways. God would indeed have followed the same mode perpetually to the end, had that mode been perfect and complete. It therefore follows that this variety was an evidence of imperfection.

I understand the two words thus: I refer multifariously to a diversity in times, for the Greek word πολυμερῶς, which we may render “in many parts,” as is usually the case when we intend to speak more fully later; but πολυτροπῶς points out a diversity, as I think, in the very manner itself.

And when he speaks of the last times, he implies that there is no longer any reason to expect any new revelation, for it was not a word in part that Christ brought, but the final conclusion.

It is in this sense that the Apostles understand the last times and the last days. And Paul means the same when he says, “Upon whom the ends of the world are come.” (1 Corinthians 10:11).

If God then has now spoken for the last time, it is right to advance this far; so also when you come to Christ, you ought not to go further. And it is very necessary for us to know these two things.

For it was a great hindrance to the Jews that they did not consider that God had postponed a fuller revelation to a later time; therefore, being satisfied with their own Law, they did not hasten forward to the goal.

But since Christ has appeared, an opposite evil began to prevail in the world, for men wished to advance beyond Christ. What else indeed is the whole system of Popery but the overleaping of the boundary which the Apostle has fixed?

So then, as the Spirit of God in this passage invites all to come as far as Christ, he also forbids them to go beyond the last time which he mentions. In short, the Gospel is here made the limit of our wisdom.

Whom he has appointed, heir, etc. He honors Christ with high commendations to lead us to show him reverence; for since the Father has subjected all things to him, we are all under his authority.

He also implies that no good can be found apart from him, as he is the heir of all things. It therefore follows that we must be very miserable and destitute of all good things unless he supplies us with his treasures.

He further adds that this honor of possessing all things belongs by right to the Son, because all things have been created by him. At the same time, these two things are ascribed to Christ for different reasons.

The world was created by him, as he is the eternal wisdom of God, which is said to have been the director of all God’s works from the beginning. And hence the eternity of Christ is proved, for he must have existed before the world was created by him. If, then, we inquire into his duration, it will be found that it has no beginning.

Nor does it detract from his power that he is said to have created the world, as though he did not create it by himself. According to the most usual way of speaking in Scripture, the Father is called the Creator; and it is added in some places that the world was created by wisdom, by the word, by the Son, as though wisdom itself had been the creator [or the word, or the Son]. But still we must observe that there is a difference of persons between the Father and the Son, not only with regard to humanity, but with regard to God himself.

But the unity of essence requires that whatever is peculiar to Deity should belong to the Son as well as to the Father, and also that whatever is attributed to God alone should belong to both. And yet there is nothing in this to prevent each Person from having His own peculiar properties.

But the word heir is ascribed to Christ as manifested in the flesh; for being made man, he put on our nature, and as such received this heirship, so that he might restore to us what we had lost in Adam.

For God had at the beginning constituted man, as his son, the heir of all good things; but through sin the first man became alienated from God and deprived himself and his posterity of all good things, as well as of the favor of God.

We therefore only then begin to enjoy by right the good things of God when Christ, the universal heir, admits us to a union with himself; for he is an heir so that he may endow us with his riches.

But the Apostle now adorns him with this title so that we may know that without him we are destitute of all good things.

If you take all in the masculine gender, the meaning is that we ought all to be subject to Christ, because we have been given to him by the Father. But I prefer reading it in the neuter gender; then it means that we are driven from the legitimate possession of all things, both in heaven and on earth, unless we are united to Christ.

Who being the brightness of his glory, etc. These things are said of Christ partly regarding his divine essence, and partly as a partaker of our human nature. When he is called the brightness of his glory and the impress of his substance, his divinity is referred to; the other things pertain in some measure to his human nature. The whole, however, is stated in order to set forth the dignity of Christ.

But it is for the same reason that the Son is said to be the brightness of his glory, and the impress of his substance: they are words borrowed from nature. For nothing can be said of things so great and so profound, except by analogies taken from created things. There is therefore no need for overly refined discussion of the question of how the Son, who has the same essence as the Father, is a brightness emanating from his light. We must allow that there is a degree of impropriety in the language when what is borrowed from created things is transferred to the hidden majesty of God. But still, the things which are evident to our senses are suitably applied to God, and for this purpose: that we may know what is to be found in Christ, and what benefits he brings to us.

It should also be noted that frivolous speculations are not taught here, but an important doctrine of faith. We should therefore apply these high titles given to Christ for our own benefit, for they relate to us. When, therefore, you hear that the Son is the brightness of the Father’s glory, think this to yourself: that the glory of the Father is invisible until it shines forth in Christ, and that he is called the impress of his substance because the majesty of the Father is hidden until it shows itself impressed, as it were, on his image.

Those who overlook this connection and carry their philosophy to more abstract levels fruitlessly weary themselves, for they do not understand the Apostle's purpose. His aim was not to show what resemblance the Father has to the Son; but, as I have said, his purpose was really to build up our faith, so that we may learn that God is made known to us in no other way than in Christ.

For regarding the essence of God, so immense is the brightness that it dazzles our eyes, unless it shines on us in Christ. It therefore follows that we are blind regarding the light of God, until in Christ it beams on us. It is indeed a profitable philosophy to learn Christ by the real understanding of faith and experience.

The same view, as I have said, is to be taken of the impress; for as God is in himself incomprehensible to us, his form appears to us only in his Son.

The word ἀπαύγασμα means here nothing else but visible light or radiance, such as our eyes can bear; and χαρακτὴρ is the vivid form of a hidden substance. By the first word we are reminded that without Christ there is no light, but only darkness. For as God is the only true light by which we must all be illuminated, this light shines upon us, so to speak, only by its radiance.

By the second word we are reminded that God is truly and really known in Christ; for he is not his obscure or shadowy image, but his impress which resembles him, as a coin shows the impress of the die with which it is stamped. But the Apostle indeed says what is more than this, even that the substance of the Father is in a way engraved on the Son.

The word ὑπόστασις, which, by following others, I have translated as substance, denotes not, as I think, the being or essence of the Father, but his person; for it would be strange to say that the essence of God is impressed on Christ, as the essence of both is simply the same.

But it may truly and suitably be said that whatever specifically belongs to the Father is exhibited in Christ, so that he who knows him knows what is in the Father. And in this sense the orthodox fathers understand this term, hypostasis, considering it to be threefold in God, while the essence (οὐσία) is simply one. Hilary everywhere takes the Latin word substance for person.

But though it is not the Apostle’s object in this place to speak of what Christ is in himself, but of what he is really to us, yet he sufficiently confutes the Arians and Sabellians. For he claims for Christ what belongs to God alone, and also refers to two distinct persons, namely the Father and the Son. For we therefore learn that the Son is one God with the Father, and that he is yet in a sense distinct from him, so that a subsistence or person belongs to both.

And upholding (or bearing) all things, etc. To uphold or to bear here means to preserve or to continue all that is created in its own state, for he implies that all things would instantly come to nothing if they were not sustained by his power. Though the pronoun his may be referred to the Father as well as to the Son, as it may be translated his own, yet as the other interpretation is more commonly received and well suits the context, I am inclined to accept it.

Literally it is, by the word of his power; but the genitive, in the Hebrew manner, is used instead of an adjective. For the distorted explanation of some—that Christ sustains all things by the word of the Father, that is, by himself who is the Word—has nothing in its favor. Besides, there is no need for such a strained explanation, for Christ is not usually called ῥῆμα (saying), but λόγος (Word).

Hence the word here means simply a nod. The sense is that Christ, who preserves the whole world by a mere nod, did not on that account refuse the office of effecting our purgation.

Now this is the second part of the doctrine addressed in this Epistle. For an outline of the whole question is to be found in these two chapters: namely, that Christ, endowed with supreme authority, should be head above all others, and that as he has reconciled us to his Father by his own death, he has put an end to the ancient sacrifices. And so the first point, though a general proposition, yet has two aspects.

When he further says, by himself, a contrast is to be understood here: that he had not been aided in this by the shadows of the Mosaic Law. He also shows a difference between him and the Levitical priests, for they also were said to expiate sins, but they derived this power from another. In short, he intended to exclude all other means or aids by stating that the price and the power of purgation were found only in Christ.

Sat down on the right hand, etc. It is as though he had said that, having in the world secured salvation for humanity, he was received into celestial glory so that he might govern all things. And he added this to show that it was not a temporary salvation he has obtained for us, for we would otherwise be too inclined to measure his power by what now appears to us.

He then reminds us that Christ is not to be esteemed less because he is not seen by our eyes; but, on the contrary, that this was the height of his glory: that he has been taken and conveyed to the highest seat of his empire. The right hand is applied to God as an analogy, though he is not confined to any place and has neither a right side nor a left.

The session of Christ, then, means nothing other than the kingdom given to him by the Father, and that authority which Paul mentions when he says that in his name every knee should bow (Philippians 2:10).

Therefore, to sit at the right hand of the Father is nothing other than to govern in the place of the Father, as deputies of princes typically do to whom full power over all things is granted. The words majesty and on high are also added for this purpose: to indicate that Christ is seated on the supreme throne from which the majesty of God shines forth. As, then, he should be loved on account of his redemption, so he should be adored on account of his royal magnificence.

4. Being made so much better, etc. After having raised Christ above Moses and all others, the author of Hebrews now amplifies Christ’s glory by a comparison with angels.

   It was a common notion among the Jews that the Law was given by angels. They attentively considered the honorable things spoken of them everywhere in Scripture. And, as the world is strangely inclined to superstition, they obscured the glory of God by extolling angels too much.

   It was therefore necessary to restore angels to their proper rank, so that they might not overshadow the brightness of Christ. First, the author proves from Christ’s name that He far excelled them, for He is called the Son of God. That He was distinguished by this title, the author shows by two testimonies from Scripture, both of which we must examine; then we will sum up their full meaning.

5. Thou art my Son, etc. It cannot be denied that this was spoken of David, that is, as he represented the person of Christ. The things found in this Psalm, then, must have been foreshadowed in David but were fully accomplished in Christ.

   For when David, by subduing many enemies around him, enlarged the borders of his kingdom, it was some foreshadowing of the promise, I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance. But how little was this in comparison with the amplitude of Christ’s kingdom, which extends from the east to the west?

For the same reason, David was called the son of God, having been especially chosen to perform great things. But his glory was hardly a spark, even the smallest, compared to that glory which shone forth in Christ, on whom the Father has imprinted His own image.

So the name of Son belongs by a unique privilege to Christ alone and cannot, in this sense, be applied to any other without profanation, for the Father has sealed Him and no other.

But still, the Apostle’s argument seems not to be well-grounded. For how does he maintain that Christ is superior to angels, except on the basis that He has the name of a Son? It is as though He did not have this in common with princes and those high in power, of whom it is written, Ye are gods and the sons of the most (Psalms 50:6). And it is as though Jeremiah had not spoken as honorably of all Israel when he called them the firstborn of God (Jeremiah 31:9).

Indeed, people are everywhere called children or sons. Besides, David calls angels the sons of God:

He says, Who is like to Jehovah among the sons of God? (Psalms 89:6).

The answer to all this is not at all difficult. Princes are called by this name on account of a particular circumstance. As for Israel, the common grace of election is thus denoted. Angels are called the sons of God because they have a certain resemblance to Him, being celestial spirits and possessing some portion of divinity in their blessed immortality.

But when David, as the type of Christ, calls himself the Son of God without any addition, he denotes something unique and more excellent than the honor given to angels, to princes, or even to all Israel. Otherwise, it would have been an improper and absurd expression if he, preeminently called the son of God, yet had nothing more than others; for he is thus set apart from all other beings.

When it is said so exclusively of Christ, Thou art my Son, it follows that this honor does not belong to any of the angels.

If anyone objects again, saying that David was thus raised above the angels, to this I answer that it is not strange for him to be elevated above angels while bearing the image of Christ. For, similarly, no wrong was done to angels when the high priest, who made an atonement for sins, was called a mediator.

They did not indeed obtain that title as their own by right; but as they represented the kingdom of Christ, they also derived the name from Him. Moreover, the sacraments, though in themselves lifeless, are yet honored with titles that angels cannot claim without being guilty of sacrilege.

It is therefore evident that the argument derived from the term Son is well-grounded.

Regarding His being begotten, we must briefly observe that this is to be understood relatively here. For the subtle reasoning of Augustine is frivolous when he imagines that today means perpetuity or eternity.

Christ doubtless is the eternal Son of God, for He is wisdom, born before time. But this has no connection with this passage, which concerns men, by whom Christ was acknowledged to be the Son of God after the Father had manifested Him.

Therefore, that declaration or manifestation which Paul mentions in Romans 1:4 was, so to speak, a sort of external begetting. For the hidden and internal begetting which had preceded was unknown to men; nor could it have been recognized, had not the Father given proof of it by a visible manifestation.

I will be to him a Father, etc. Regarding this second testimony, the former observation holds good.

Solomon is referred to here. And though he was inferior to the angels, yet when God promised to be his Father, he was set apart from the common rank of all others. For God was not to be a Father to him as to one of the princes, but as to one who was more eminent than all the rest.

By the same privilege he was made a Son; all others were excluded from such an honor. But that this was not said of Solomon otherwise than as a type of Christ is evident from the context. For the empire of the whole world is destined for the Son mentioned there, and perpetuity is also ascribed to His empire.

On the other hand, it appears that the kingdom of Solomon was confined within narrow bounds and was so far from being perpetual that, immediately after his death, it was divided, and sometime afterward it fell altogether.

Again, in that Psalm, the sun and moon are summoned as witnesses, and the Lord swears that as long as they shine in the heavens, that kingdom will remain safe. On the other hand, the kingdom of David, in a short time, fell into decay and eventually utterly perished.

Furthermore, we may easily gather from many passages in the Prophets that this promise was never understood otherwise than of Christ, so that no one can evade this by saying that it is a new interpretation. For from this also, the practice of calling Christ the Son of David has commonly prevailed among the Jews.

And again, when he brings or introduces, etc. The author now proves by another argument that Christ is above the angels: because the angels are bidden to worship Him (Psalms 97:7). It therefore follows that He is their head and Prince.

But it may seem unreasonable to apply to Christ that which is spoken of God only. If we were to answer that Christ is the eternal God, and therefore what belongs to God may justly be applied to Him, it would perhaps not be satisfactory to all. For it would be of little help in proving a doubtful point to argue in this case from the common attributes of God.

The subject is Christ manifested in the flesh, and the Apostle expressly says that the Spirit spoke this way when Christ was introduced into the world. But this would not have been said consistently with truth unless the manifestation of Christ is truly spoken of in the Psalm.

And this is indeed the case, for the Psalm commences with an exhortation to rejoice. And David did not address the Jews only, but the whole earth, including the islands—that is, countries beyond the sea.

The reason for this joy is given: because the Lord would reign. Furthermore, if you read the whole Psalm, you will find nothing else but the kingdom of Christ, which began when the Gospel was published. And the whole Psalm is nothing less than a solemn decree, as it were, by which Christ was sent to take possession of His kingdom.

Besides, what joy could arise from His kingdom unless it brought salvation to the whole world—to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews? The Apostle, therefore, aptly says here that Christ was introduced into the world, because what is described in that Psalm is His coming to mankind.

The Hebrew word rendered as "angels" is Elohim—gods. But there is no doubt that the Prophet speaks of angels, for the meaning is that no power, however high, is exempt from subjection to the authority of this King, whose advent was to bring joy to the whole world.

And to the angels, etc. To the angels means of the angels. But the passage quoted seems to have been given a different meaning from what it appears to have; for as David is there describing how we see the world to be governed, nothing is more certain than that the winds are mentioned, which he says are made messengers by the Lord, for He employs them as His runners; so also, when He purifies the air by lightnings, He shows what quick and swift ministers He has to obey His orders.

But this has nothing to do with angels. Some have resorted to an allegory, as if the Apostle explained the plain sense—and, as they say, the literal sense—allegorically concerning angels.

But it seems preferable to me to consider that this testimony is brought forward for this purpose: that it might, by a similitude, be applied to angels. In this way, David compares winds to angels because they perform roles in this world similar to what the angels do in heaven; for the winds are, as it were, visible spirits.

And, doubtless, just as Moses, in describing the creation of the world, mentioned only those things which are subject to our senses, and yet intended for higher things to be understood; so David, in describing the world and nature, represented to us on a tablet what ought to be understood concerning the celestial orders. Hence, I think that the argument is one of likeness or similarity, in that the Apostle transfers to angels what properly applies to the winds.

But to the Son, etc. It must indeed be allowed that this Psalm was composed as a marriage song for Solomon, for his marriage with the daughter of the king of Egypt is celebrated here; but it cannot be denied that what is related here is much too exalted to be applied to Solomon.

The Jews, so that they may not be forced to acknowledge Christ as God, make an evasion by saying that the throne of God is spoken of, or that the verb “established” is to be understood. Thus, according to the first interpretation, the word Elohim, God, is to be construed with “throne,” as in “the throne of God;” and according to the second, it is assumed to be an incomplete sentence.

But these are mere evasions. Whoever reads the verse, if they are of a sound mind and free from a spirit of contention, cannot doubt that the Messiah is called God. Nor is there any reason to object that the word Elohim is sometimes applied to angels and to judges, for it is never found applied simply to one person, except to God alone.

Furthermore, not to argue about a word, whose throne can be said to be established forever, except that of God alone? Hence, the perpetuity of his kingdom is evidence of his divinity.

The scepter of Christ’s kingdom is later called the scepter of righteousness. There were some, though obscure, features of this in Solomon; he exhibited them insofar as he acted as a just king and was zealous for what was right. But righteousness in the kingdom of Christ has a wider meaning, for by his gospel, which is his spiritual scepter, he renews us after the righteousness of God. The same must also be understood of his love of righteousness, for he causes it to reign in his own people because he loves it.