John Calvin Commentary Hebrews 2

Therefore we ought, etc. He now declares what he previously intended by comparing Christ with angels: namely, to secure the highest authority for his doctrine. For if the Law given through angels could not be treated with contempt, and if its transgression was met with severe punishment, what will happen, he asks, to those who despise that gospel, which has the Son of God as its author and was confirmed by so many miracles? The meaning of all this is that the greater Christ's dignity is than that of angels, the more reverence the Gospel deserves than the Law. Thus he commends the doctrine by mentioning its author.

But if it seems strange to anyone that, since the doctrine of both the Law and the Gospel is from God, one should be preferred to the other (inasmuch as lowering the Law would degrade God’s majesty), the clear answer is this: He should indeed always be heard with equal attention whenever he speaks. Yet, the more fully he reveals himself to us, it is only right that our reverence and attentive obedience should increase in proportion to his revelations. This is not because God is intrinsically less at one time than at another, but because his greatness is not always equally revealed to us.

Here also another question arises. Was not the Law also given by Christ? If so, the Apostle’s argument seems not to be well-founded. To this I reply that this comparison considers a veiled revelation on one hand, and a manifest one on the other. Now, since Christ, in bringing the Law, revealed himself only obscurely or dimly, and, as it were, under coverings, it is not strange that the Law is said to have been brought by angels without any mention of his name. For in that event he never appeared openly; but in the proclamation of the Gospel his glory was so conspicuous that he may justly be considered its author.

Lest at any time we should let them slip—or, as some translate, “lest we should at any time flow abroad,” or, if you prefer, “let dip”—although in reality there is not much difference. The true meaning is to be gathered from the contrast, for to pay attention and to let slip are opposites. The first means to hold something, and the other to let it escape, like a sieve or a perforated vessel allows whatever is poured into it to drain away. I do not, indeed, approve of the opinion of those who interpret it as meaning dying, according to what we find: We all die and slide away like water (2 Samuel 15:14). On the contrary, as I have said, we should consider the contrast between attention and flowing out. An attentive mind is like a vessel capable of holding water, but a mind that is wandering and indolent is like a vessel with holes.

Steadfast, or “firm,” or sure, etc.; that is, it was the word of authority, for God required it to be believed; and its authority was made more evident by its sanctions, for no one despised the law with impunity. Then firmness means authority; and what is added concerning punishment should be understood as explanatory, for it is evident that the doctrine God shows Himself to be its avenger is by no means unprofitable or unimportant.

If we neglect so great a salvation, etc. Not only the rejection of the Gospel, but also its neglect, deserves the heaviest punishment, and that on account of the greatness of the grace which it offers. For this reason, he says, so great a salvation. God indeed intends for His gifts to be valued by us according to their worth. Then the more precious they are, the more shameful is our ingratitude when we do not value them. In short, in proportion to the greatness of Christ will be the severity of God’s vengeance on all who despise His Gospel.

And observe that the word "salvation" is used here metonymically for the doctrine of salvation. For as the Lord does not intend for people to be saved in any other way than by the Gospel, so when the Gospel is neglected, the whole salvation of God is rejected; for it is God’s power unto salvation to those who believe (Romans 1:16). Therefore, whoever seeks salvation in any other way seeks to attain it by a power other than God’s, which is evidence of extreme madness. But this high praise is not only a commendation of the Gospel but is also a wonderful support to our faith, for it is a testimony that the word is by no means unprofitable, but that a sure salvation is conveyed by it.

Which at first began, etc. Here he contrasts the Son of God, the first herald of the Gospel, with angels, and also anticipates what was necessary to remove a doubt that might have crept into the minds of many. For they had not been taught by Christ Himself, whom the majority had never seen. If, then, they regarded only the man by whose ministry they had been led to the faith, they might have undervalued what they had learned from him. Therefore, the Apostle reminded them that the doctrine which had been delivered to them by others nevertheless proceeded from Christ, for he says that those who had faithfully declared what had been committed to them by Christ had been His disciples. He therefore uses the word, was confirmed, as if he were saying that it was not a random report, without any author or from witnesses of questionable credibility, but a report that was confirmed by men of importance and authority.

Moreover, this passage indicates that this epistle was not written by Paul; for he did not usually speak so humbly of himself as to confess that he was one of the Apostles’ disciples. Nor did he speak in this manner from ambition, but because wicked men, under such a pretext, attempted to detract from the authority of his doctrine. It therefore appears evident that it was not Paul who wrote that he had received the Gospel by hearing and not by revelation.

God also bearing them witness, etc. The Apostles received what they preached from the Son of God. In addition to this, the Lord also demonstrated His approval of their preaching through miracles, as if by a solemn endorsement. Therefore, those who do not reverently receive the Gospel, recommended by such testimonies, disregard not only the word of God but also His works.

To emphasize their importance, He designates miracles by three names. They are called signs because they rouse people’s minds so that they may think of something higher than what appears; and wonders, because they present what is rare and unusual; and miracles, because the Lord shows in them a singular and extraordinary evidence of His power.

Regarding the phrase bearing witness, or attesting, it points out the right use of miracles: specifically, that they serve to establish the Gospel. For almost all the miracles performed in all ages were, as we find, for this purpose: that they might be the seals of God’s word. How much more strange, then, is the superstition of the Papists, who employ their own fictitious miracles for the purpose of overthrowing the truth of God.

The conjunction συν, together with, has this meaning: that we are confirmed in the faith of the Gospel by the joint testimony of God and humans, for God’s miracles were testimonies concurring with the voice of humans.

He adds, by the gifts or distributions of the Holy Spirit, by which the doctrine of the Gospel was also adorned, and of which they were the accompaniments. For why did God distribute the gifts of His Spirit, except in part that they might be helps in proclaiming it, and in part that they might, through admiration, move the minds of people to obey it? Hence Paul says that tongues were a sign to unbelievers. The words, according to His will, remind us that the miracles mentioned could be ascribed to no one except God alone, and that they were not performed without design but for the specific purpose of sealing the truth of the Gospel.

For unto the angels, etc. He again proves by another argument that Christ should be obeyed, for the Father has conferred on Him the sovereignty of the whole world, while the angels are entirely lacking such an honor. It therefore follows that none of the angels should stand in the way of His preeminence, who alone possesses supremacy.

But first, the Psalm which he quotes must be examined, for it seems to be inappropriately applied to Christ. David there mentions the benefits which God bestows on mankind; for after having contemplated God’s power as manifested in heaven and the stars, he comes to man, among whom the wonderful goodness of God appears in a unique manner.

He does not, then, speak of any particular person, but of all mankind. To this I answer that all this provides no reason why the words should not be applied to the person of Christ.

I indeed allow that man was at first put in possession of the world, so that he might rule over all the works of God. But by his own rebellion, he deserved the loss of his dominion. This was a just punishment for ingratitude: the Lord, whom he refused to acknowledge and faithfully worship, deprived him—one so favored—of a right previously granted to him.

Therefore, as soon as Adam alienated himself from God through sin, he was justly deprived of the good things which he had received. This was not because he was denied the use of them, but because he would have had no right to them after he had forsaken God.

And in the very use of them, God intended that there should be some signs of this loss of right, such as these: wild beasts ferociously attack us; those who ought to be awed by our presence are dreaded by us; some never obey us; others can hardly be trained to submit; and they do us harm in various ways. The earth does not meet our expectations in cultivating it; the sky, the air, the sea, and other things are often adverse to us.

But even if all creatures were to continue in subjection, still, whatever the sons of Adam possessed would be considered a robbery. For what can they call their own when they themselves are not God’s?

With this foundation established, it is evident that God’s bounty does not belong to us until the right lost in Adam is restored by Christ. For this reason, Paul teaches us that food is sanctified to us by faith (1 Timothy 4:5); and in another place, he declares that to the unbelieving nothing is clean, for they have a polluted conscience (Titus 1:16).

We found at the beginning of this letter that Christ has been appointed by the Father as the heir of all things. Doubtless, as the Father ascribes the whole inheritance to One, He excludes all others as aliens—and justly so, for we have all become exiles from God’s kingdom. Therefore, what food God has destined for His own family, we have no right to take.

But Christ, by whom we are admitted into this family, also admits us to share in this right, so that we may enjoy the whole world, together with the favor of God.

Therefore, Paul teaches us that Abraham was by faith made an heir of the world—that is, because he was united to the body of Christ (Romans 4:13).

If, then, men are excluded from all God’s bounty until they receive a right to it through Christ, it follows that the dominion mentioned in the Psalm was lost to us in Adam, and that on this account it must be restored again as a gift. Now, the restoration begins with Christ as the Head. There is, then, no doubt that we are to look to Him whenever the dominion of man over all creatures is spoken of.

This is what is referred to when the Apostle mentions the world to come, or the future world, for he understands this to mean the renovated world.

To make this clearer, let us suppose two worlds: the first, the old world, corrupted by Adam’s sin; the other, later in time, as renewed by Christ.

The state of the first creation has become entirely decayed and, with man, has fallen as far as man himself is concerned. Until, then, a new restitution is made by Christ, this Psalm will not be fulfilled.

Thus, it now appears that here the world to come is not that which we hope for after the resurrection, but that which began at the beginning of Christ’s kingdom. However, it will undoubtedly have its full accomplishment in our final redemption.

But why he omitted David's name is not clear to me. Doubtless, he says one, or someone, not in contempt, but for honor’s sake, designating him as one of the prophets or a renowned writer.