Heb
1:10: “And you, Lord, in the beginning founded the earth, etc.”
With great agreement the
Trinitarians interpret this passage, adduced from Psalm 101, of Christ, and
contend that he is here plainly affirmed to be the creator of heaven and earth.
But before we answer them, let us
consider the connection of the sentences and the course of the words. It is
certain, then, that from verse 5 — namely from the words: “For to which of the
angels did he ever say”, etc. — up to this passage, namely the tenth verse,
various sayings and testimonies of the Old Testament are gathered together by
which the excellence of Christ is to be shown.
Further, this too is clear: that
these testimonies are recited in such a way that at the beginning of each the
expression is elliptical and must be filled out from what precedes. For
example, when it is written in verse 5: “For to which did he say”, “God the
Father”, who had been mentioned before, is to be understood. And when there it
is added: “And again”, it is to be understood: “to whom God said”. Likewise in
the third place, where we read: “And when he again brings in”, it is to be
understood: “God says”. The same holds for the following clauses and
testimonies, namely that the name of God the Father is always to be understood.
From this it follows that in this testimony also, which stands in verse 10, if
it is adduced to show the dignity of Christ, after the conjunction “And” there
is to be understood: “God the Father said”, so that God the Father would have
spoken these words to Christ: “You in the beginning, Lord”, etc.
But if anyone prefers to supply
this ellipsis from what precedes in such a way that not “to whom he said”, but
what is found in verse 7: “To the angels indeed he says” — which some interpret
thus: “of the angels indeed he says” — is to be repeated ἀπὸ τοῦ κοινοῦ, and so
contends that after the conjunction “And” these words are to be understood: “of
the Son he says”, I do not much object.
Only let this be granted, which
cannot be denied: that these words, “You in the beginning”, if they are to be
understood of Christ, are words of God the Father speaking of Christ. For if
the conjunction “And” is separated from the words “You in the beginning” —
which all do who interpret this passage of Christ — the expression will
necessarily be elliptical and must be filled out from what precedes in one or
the other of the two ways we have mentioned.
This being laid down, let us now
proceed to the explanation of the passage, which different interpreters are
wont to offer not in one single way.
For, first, there are those who
deny that these words, “You in the beginning”, etc., were said of Christ and
are to be taken so, but hold that they were said of God the Father. This view
of theirs they confirm with the following arguments. First: if these words are
understood of Christ, the writer of the epistle will contradict himself, who
said above, in verse 2, that God the Father created the world through the Son.
But by these words the creation of the world would be expressly attributed to
the Son. Yet to make the principal cause out of the instrument, and to
attribute the creation of one and the same thing in the same place to different
authors, is the mark of one who is inconsistent and at odds with himself.
This reason is confirmed by the
constant agreement of Scripture: for nowhere is creation ascribed to Christ,
but everywhere to God, who created all things through the Son. Therefore this
testimony, too, ought not to be taken and understood otherwise.
Furthermore, this very thing is
proved from the purpose of the Apostle. For he wishes to exalt Christ above
other men and above the angels, and to prove this he carefully gathers various
testimonies from every side. But if he here ascribed the creation of the world
to Christ, he would be comparing the Creator with the creature, which would
surely be foolish and absurd. For who does not know that the Creator is
infinitely more excellent than his creatures? And yet we see that the Apostle
is exceedingly diligent and careful in confirming his purpose; from which it
appears that he wishes to confirm, and to persuade men of, a matter that was
doubtful among some and not believed. But no one ever doubted that the Creator
is more excellent than the creature; hence that matter stood in no need of
proof. And it is a fault to do by many means what can be done by fewer. Since,
then, he could have demonstrated by a single argument that Christ is more
excellent than the angels and men, by saying that he is the Creator and they
creatures — what need would there have been to heap up so many arguments and
testimonies?
Next, we have already shown that
if that conjunction “And” is separated from the following words, the defect of
the sentence must necessarily be supplied in such a way that God the Father
speaks those words to the Son: “You, Lord, in the beginning founded the earth,”
etc.
But it is not only unheard of,
but even impious, to affirm that God the Father calls his Son “Lord” and
ascribes to him the creation of the world. Not even the doctrine of the
Trinitarians permits this. For if the persons of the Trinity are wholly equal and
alike, then surely one person neither ought to nor can call another “Lord.” For
if anyone objects that Christ often called the Father his Lord and God, they
are accustomed to excuse this by saying that Christ had become incarnate and
been made lowly. Therefore, with respect to his office and the flesh, or, as
they themselves put it, the human nature, he was less than the Father, and
could therefore call the Father his Lord and God.
But of the Father they can invent
nothing of the kind, because he was never incarnate and never humbled, so that
in some respect he could at some time be called less than the Son. Therefore it
is not only absurd, but even blasphemous, to assert that God the Father calls
the Son his Lord and the creator of heaven and earth. Yet if the opinion of the
opponents is true, this absurdity and impiety cannot be avoided, as has been
demonstrated.
If this interpretation of the
words is admitted — namely, that here, too, just as in the Psalm it is certain
that it is ascribed to him, the creation of the world is ascribed to God the
Father — the question arises what the sense will be, and what the connection of
the words and sentences. The authors of this explanation resolve it thus. In
the first place, they say, that conjunction “And” is not to be separated, as
the Trinitarians do, but joined with the following words, so that the sentence
is not elliptical but complete. This they confirm not only from what has
already been said, but also by the following argument: when the Apostle cites
testimonies of the kind that he applies to Christ, he uses several words in
distinguishing them from one another, not the bare conjunction “And,” as can be
seen in the preceding ones. For thus we read: “And again”; “And once more”;
“But to the Son.” Therefore, had he wished to separate this saying from the
preceding ones and to make it a new testimony for showing the dignity of
Christ, he would not have put the simple conjunction “And,” but would have
added something more, after his usual manner. Since he did not do so, this is
proof that he wished to connect this testimony with the preceding one and to
continue it, so that the latter should be understood of the same one of whom
the former was understood. But what precedes pertains to God the Father;
therefore this does also. The sentence, then, is continued in this way: “God,”
namely the Father, “has anointed you,” O Christ, “with the oil of gladness”;
“and you, Lord,” namely you who anointed Christ, “in the beginning founded the
earth.”
Thus the address is turned to the
Father: the Apostle, as if carried out of himself by a kind of wonder,
considering to what exceedingly great honor God the Father had raised Christ, a
lowly and despised man, cries out and proves that this was easy for him to do,
since he was able to found heaven and earth; as if he were saying: You anointed
Christ, and you are the same who founded the earth. This is one interpretation
of these words.
Others, however, explain it thus.
It is certain that the Apostle in this place speaks of the royal dignity and of
the excellence of the kingdom of Christ, which, as he testified in verse 2,
Christ received from the Father by right of inheritance. That this kingdom is
not this world, nor of this world, Christ himself confesses elsewhere, and the
Apostle also indicates it here, in Heb 2:5, when he says that he is speaking of
the world to come. Now concerning this world to come, over which Christ was to
be set, and of which he was Father and Prince, there is a remarkable prophecy
in this passage of the Psalm, as those words show: “They will perish, but you
will remain; and they will all grow old like a garment, and like a cloak you
will change them.”
The Apostle, then, wishing to
bring forward these words and to show that in them the new kingdom of Christ
and the abolition of the old world are described, wrote out the passage of the
Psalm whole and entire — not because those words, “You, Lord, in the
beginning”, etc., contributed anything to his purpose, but because the later
words, which he wished to adduce, depended on them and were joined to them;
therefore he quoted those as well, yet in the meantime had regard only to the
words by which the change and renewal of the world was signified.
That sacred as well as other
writers are accustomed to adduce whole and sometimes even rather long sentences
for the sake of a single little sentence, or even of a single little word, is
generally admitted. And so that the Papists especially may doubt it the less, I
will set down the judgment of two men who are of great name and authority,
chiefly among them.
Jerome, then, when he wished to
solve the question how Christ on the cross could have said that he was forsaken
by his God, since the Godhead had been hypostatically united to the humanity
and they could never afterwards have been separated, answered — as Galatinus
also reports in book 8, chapter 18 — that Christ on the cross sang Psalm 21 and
all the following ones up to the sixth verse of the thirtieth Psalm, where
these words stand: “Into your hands I commend my spirit.”
And because among other things
this too is contained in Psalm 21: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”,
he sang this as well — not in order to show that he was forsaken by God, but
because it came to his mind to be spoken together with the other words of the
same Psalms.
Robert Bellarmine, the Jesuit,
also writes as follows in the first volume, in the sixth controversy, which
concerns Purgatory, book 2, chapter 5: “Therefore the Church, for the sake of
one or another sentence that bears on the matter at hand, is accustomed to read
some passage of Scripture in its entirety, even if the greater part of that
passage does not bear on the matter at hand.” Thus far he.
There he also confirms what he
says with examples brought forward. It is therefore neither strange nor unusual
to adduce a whole passage for the sake of a single sentence. This the author of
this epistle also did.
The sense of these words, then,
according to this interpretation, will be this: “And,” namely “to the Son,”
that is, concerning the Son, (just as a little before it is said “And to the
angels” instead of “concerning the angels”), that is: something pertaining to
the Son is said in that passage of the Psalm.
“You, Lord, in the beginning”
etc. There it is affirmed that the earth and the heavens are to be changed and
renewed. And this not on account of the angels, but through Christ and for
Christ’s sake. For God has not subjected the world to come to the angels, but
to Christ. Therefore Christ is more excellent than the angels, since he himself
is the king and prince of the new world; the angels, however, are ministering
spirits. This is the aim of the Apostle in that passage.
The third interpretation, which
seems to me the most fitting of all, is this: we have already said that the
author of this epistle applies all the sayings and deeds of the Old Testament
allegorically to the New, in order to show that the old things were a figure of
the new, and that the New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old. Therefore he
adduces a great many things from the Old Testament which, among the Prophets,
are said of a quite different matter and in a different sense. But on account
of a certain likeness, whether of words or of things, he himself applies them
to the New Testament.
Not to wander far, let us
consider this first chapter: in verse 6 he says: “I will be to him a Father.”
That this applies to Christ that saying was said of Solomon (2 Sam 7) is shown
most clearly even by what follows: “If he commits any iniquity, I will chasten
him with the rod” etc.
And again, not to touch on the
rest, that saying: “Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever” etc. is applied
to Christ, although it is certain that in the Psalmist it was said of Solomon,
as all learned interpreters, and indeed the title of the Psalm itself, teach.
Thus, then, I argue: in whatever
sense the Apostle cited the aforesaid passages, in that same sense he also
cited this one: “You in the beginning” etc.
But the aforesaid he cited in
such a way that he had regard to the spiritual sense, not to the historical and
literal.
Therefore he also cited this one,
“You, Lord, in the beginning” etc., in that way.
This being laid down, we say that
the Apostle is here treating of the new, or renewed, world, as he himself
testifies in Heb 2:5; whose prince and father, as Isaiah testifies, was Christ,
and, as Paul says in Eph 2:14, he himself made (ἐποίησε) the two into one.
What, therefore, the Psalmist had
said of God the Father and of the old world, that the Apostle applies in a
mystical sense to Christ and the new world.(George Enyedi, Explanations of
the Trinitarian Proof-Texts: Enyedi’s Critique of the Scriptural Proofs for the
Trinity [trans. Marcin Poholski; 2026], 411-17)
