1. God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time
past unto the fathers by the prophets,
1. Deus olim multifariam multisque modis loquutus patribus per prophetas,
2. Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he
hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
2. Extremis hisce diebus loquutus est nobis per Filium, quem constituit
haeredem omnium, per quem etiam secula condidit.
1. God formerly, etc. This beginning is for the purpose of commending
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. That we may 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 had adopted as to the fathers, to the last revelation brought to us
by Christ. But in this diversity he still sets before us but one God, that
no one might think that the Law militates against the Gospel, or that the
author of one is not the author of the other. That you may, therefore,
understand the full import of this passage, the following arrangement shall
be given, —
Formerly by the Prophets Now by the Son;
Then to the Fathers But now to us;
Then at various times Now as at the end of the times.
This foundation being laid, the agreement between the Law and the Gospel
is established; for God, who is ever like himself, and whose word is the
same, and whose truth is unchangeable, has spoken as to 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 towards
us now. And first indeed as to them 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 to be also classed
among the prophets, as he is one of the number 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 as to visions and other means adopted
under the Old Testament, was an indication that it was not yet a fixed
state of things, as when matters are put completely in order. Hence he
says, multifariously and in many ways”. God would have indeed followed
the same mode perpetually to the end, had the mode been perfect and complete.
It hence follows, that this variety was an evidence of imperfection.
The two words I thus understand: I refer multifariously to a diversity
as to times; for the Greek word polumerw~v which we may render, “in many
parts,” as the case usually is, when we intend to speak more fully hereafter;
but polutropw~v points out a diversity, as I think, in the very manner
itself. And when he speaks of the last times, he intimates 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 take 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 spoken now for the last time, it is right to advance
thus far; so also when you come to Christ, you ought not to go farther:
and these two things it is very needful for us to know. For it was a great
hindrance to the Jews that they did not consider that God had deferred
a fuller revelation to another time; hence, 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? As, then,
the Spirit of God in this passage invites all to come as far as Christ,
so he forbids them to go beyond the last time which he mentions. In short,
the limit of our wisdom is made here to be the Gospel.
2. Whom he has appointed, heir, etc. He honors Christ with high
commendations, in order 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 intimates that no good can be found apart from him, as he is the
heir of all things. It hence follows that we must be very miserable and
destitute of all good things except he supplies us with his treasures.
He further adds that this honor of possessing all things belongs by right
to the Son, because by him have all things been created. 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 his works from the beginning;
and hence is proved the eternity of Christ, for he must have existed before
the world was created by him. If, then, the duration of his time be inquired
of, it will be found that it has no beginning. Nor is it any derogation
to his power that he is said to have created the world, as though he did
not by himself create it. According to the most usual mode 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 men, 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 applied to God only should belong to both; and yet there is
nothing in this to prevent each from 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,
and that for this purpose, 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 hence only then begin to enjoy by right
the good things of God, when Christ, the universal heir, admits to a union
with himself; for he is an heir that he may endow us with his riches. But
the Apostle now adorns him with this title, 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, except we be united to Christ.
3. Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of
his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he
had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty
3. Qui quum sit splendor gloriae et character substantiae ejus, portetque
omnia verbo suo potenti, peccatorum nostrorum purgatione per seipsum facta,
considit in dextera magnificentiae in excelsis.
3. Who being the brightness of his glory, etc. These things are
said of Christ partly as to his divine essence, and partly as a partaker
of our flesh. When he is called the brightness of his glory and the impress
of his substance, his divinity is referred to; the other things appertain
in a 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,
but by similitudes taken from created things. There is therefore no need
refinedly to discuss the question how the Son, who has the same essence
with 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 indent to our senses are fitly applied to God, and
for this end, that we may know what is to be found in Christ, and what
benefits he brings to us.
It ought also to be observed that frivolous speculations are not here
taught, but an important doctrine of faith. We ought therefore to apply
these high titles given to Christ for our own benefit, for they bear a
relation to us. When, therefore, thou hear that the Son is the brightness
of the Father’s glory, think thus with thyself, 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. They who overlook this
connection and carry their philosophy higher, weary themselves to no purpose,
for they do not understand the design of the Apostle; for it was not his
object to show what likeness the Father bears 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 as to
the essence of God, so immense is the brightness that it dazzles our eyes,
except it shines on us in Christ. It hence follows, that we are blind as
to 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 to us incomprehensible, his form appears to us only in his
The word ajpau>gasma means here nothing else but visible light or refulgence,
such as our eyes can bear; and carakth<r 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
it behaves us all to be illuminated, this light sheds itself upon us, so
to speak, only by irradiation. 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 money 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 manner engraven
on the Son.
The word u~posta>siv which, by following others, I have rendered 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
fitly be said that whatever peculiarly belongs to the Father is exhibited
in Christ, so that he who knows him knows what is in the Father. And in
this sense do the orthodox fathers take this term, hypostasis, considering
it to be threefold in God, while the essence (oujsi>a) is simply one. Hilary
everywhere takes the Latin word substance for person. But though it be
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 Asians
and Sabellians; for he claims for Christ what belongs to God alone, and
also refers to two distinct persons, as to the Father and the Son. For
we hence 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
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 intimates that all things would instantly come to nothing, were
they 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 rendered “his own,” yet
as the other exposition is more commonly received, and well suits the context,
I am disposed to embrace it. Literally it is, “by the word of his power;”
but the genitive, after the Hebrew manner, is used instead of an adjective;
for the perverted 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 of such forced explanation; for
Christ is not wont to be called rJh~ma, saying, but lo>gov, word. Hence
the “word” here means simply a nod; and the sense is, that Christ who preserves
the whole world by a nod only, did not yet refuse the office of effecting
Now this is the second part of the doctrine handled in this Epistle;
for a statement of the whole question is to be found in these two chapters,
and that is, that Christ, endued with supreme authority, ought to 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, is yet a tea of old clause.
When he further says, by himself, there is to be understood here a contrast,
that he had not been aided in this by the shadows of the Mosaic Law. He
shows besides 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 helps by stating that
the price and the power of purgation were found only in Christ.
Sat down on the right hand, etc.; as though he had said, that
having in the world procured salvation for men, he was received into celestial
glory, in order that he might govern all things. And he added this in order
to show that it was not a temporary salvation he has obtained for us; for
we should otherwise be too apt to measure his power by what now appears
to us. He then reminds us that Christ is not to be less esteemed 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 by a similitude applied to God, though he
is not confined to any place, and has not a right side nor left. The session
then of Christ means nothing else but 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) Hence to sit at the right hand of the
Father is no other thing than to govern in the place of the Father, as
deputies of princes are wont to do to whom a full power over all things
is granted. And the word majesty is added, and also on high, and for this
purpose, to intimate that Christ is seated on the supreme throne whence
the majesty of God shines forth. As, then, he ought to be loved on account
of his redemption, so he ought to be adored on account of his royal magnificence.
4. Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance
obtained a more excellent name than they.
4. Tanto praestantior angelis factus, quanto excellentius prae ipsis
sortitus est nomen.
5. For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my
Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father,
and he shall be to me a Son?
5. Cui enim inquam angelorum dixit, Filius meus es tu, ego hodie
genui te? Et rursus, ego illi in Patrem, et ipse erit mihi in Filium.
6. And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world,
he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
6. Rursus autem quum introducit filium in orbem dicit, Et adorent
eum omnes angeli Dei.
4. Being made so much better, etc. After having raised Christ
above Moses and all others, he now amplifies His 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 reduce them to their own rank, that they might not overshadow
the brightness of Christ. And first he proves from his name, that Christ
far excelled them, for he is called the Son of God; and that he was distinguished
by this title he shows by two testimonies from Scripture, both of which
must be examined by us; and then we shall sum up their full import.
5. Thou art my Son, etc. It cannot be denied but that this was
spoken of David, that is, as he sustained the person of Christ. Then the
things found in this Psalm must have been shadowed forth in David, but
were fully accomplished in Christ. For that he 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, 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 peculiar privilege to Christ alone, and
cannot in this sense be applied to any other without profanation, for him
and no other has the Father sealed.
But still the argument of the Apostle seems not to be well-grounded;
for how does he maintain that Christ is superior to angels except on this
ground, that he has the name of a Son? As though indeed he had not this
in common with princes and those high in power, of whom it is written,
“Ye are gods and the sons of the most”, (Psalm 50:6;) and as though Jeremiah
had not spoken as honorably of all Israel, when he called them the firstborn
of God. (Jeremiah 31:9.) They are indeed everywhere called children or
sons. Besides, David calls angels the sons of God;
“Who,” he says, “is like to Jehovah among the sons of God?” (Psalm 84:6.)
The answer to all this is in no way difficult. Princes are called by
this name on account of a particular circumstance; as to Israel, the common
grace of election is thus denoted; angels are called the sons of God as
having a certain resemblance to him, because they are celestial spirits
and possess some portion of divinity in their blessed immortality. But
when David without any addition calls himself as the type of Christ the
Son of God, he denotes something peculiar and more excellent than the honor
given to angels or to princes, or even to all Israel. Otherwise it would
have been an improper and absurd expression, if he was by way of excellence
called the son of God, and yet had nothing more than others; for he is
thus separated 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 any one again objects and says, that David was thus raised above
the angels; to this I answer, that it is nothing strange for him to be
elevated above angels while bearing the image of Christ; for in like manner
there was no wrong 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 by right their own; but as they represented the kingdom of Christ, they
derived also the name from him. Moreover, the sacraments, though in themselves
lifeless, are yet honored with titles which angels cannot claim without
being guilty of sacrilege. It is hence evident that the argument derived
from the term Son, is well grounded.
As to his being begotten, we must briefly observe, that it 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, in which respect is had to men, by
whom Christ was acknowledged to be the Son of God after the Father had
manifested him. Hence that declaration or manifestation which Paul mentions
in Romans 1:4, was, so to speak, a sort of an external begetting; for the
hidden and internal which had preceded, was unknown to men; nor could there
have been any account taken of it, had not the Father given proof of it
by a visible manifestation.
I will be to him a Father, etc. As to this second testimony the
former observation holds good. Solomon is here referred to, and though
he was inferior to the angels, yet when God promised to be his Father,
he was separated from the common rank of all others; for he was not to
be to him a Father 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 the like 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 has confined within narrow bounds, and was
so far from being perpetual, that immediately after his death it was divided,
and some time afterwards it fell altogether. Again, in that Psalm the sun
and moon are summoned as witnesses, and the Lord swears that as long as
they shall shine in the heavens, that kingdom shall remain safe: and on
the other hand, the kingdom of David in a short time fell into decay, and
at length utterly perished. And further, we may easily gather from many
passages in the Prophets, that that promise was never understood otherwise
than of Christ; so that no one can evade by saying that this is a new comment;
for hence also has commonly prevailed among the Jews the practice of calling
Christ the Son of David.
6. And again, when he bringeth or introduceth, etc. He now proves
by another argument that Christ is above the angels, and that is because
the angels are bidden to worship him. (Psalm 97:7.) It hence follows that
he is their head and Prince. But it may seem unreasonable to apply that
to Christ which is spoken of God only. Were we to answer that Christ is
the eternal God, and therefore what belongs to God may justly be applied
to him, it would not perhaps be satisfactory to all; for it would avail
but little 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 thus spoke when Christ was introduced into the world;
but this would not have been said consistently with truth except the manifestation
of Christ be really spoken of in the Psalm. And so the case indeed is;
for the Psalm commences with an exhortation to rejoice; nor did David address
the Jews, 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. Further, if you read the whole Psalm, you will find nothing else
but the kingdom of Christ, which began when the Gospel was published; nor
is the whole Psalm anything else but 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, except it brought salvation to the whole world,
to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews? Aptly then does the Apostle say
here, that he was introduced into the world, because in that Psalm what
is described is his coming to men.
The Hebrew word, rendered angels, is Elohim — gods; but there is no
doubt but that the Prophet speaks of angels; for the meaning is, that there
is no power so high but must be in subjection to the authority of this
king, whose advent was to cause joy to the whole world.
7. And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and
his ministers a flame of fire.
7. Et ad angelos quidem dicit, Qui facit angelos suos spiritus et
ministros suos flamman ignis.
8. But unto the Son [he saith], Thy throne, O God, [is] for ever
and ever: a scepter of righteousness [is] the scepter of thy kingdom.
8. Ad Filium vero, Thronus tuus, O Deus, in seculum seculi; virga
directionis, virga regni tui:
9. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore
God, [even] thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above
9. Dilexisti justitiam et odisti iniquitatem; propterea unxit te
Deus tuus oleo laetitiae prae consortibus tuis.
7. And to the angels, etc. To the angels means of the angels.
But the passage quoted seems to have been turned to another meaning from
what it appears to have; for as David is there describing the manner in
which we see the world to be governed, nothing is more certain than 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 had recourse to an allegory,
as though the Apostle explained the plain, and as they say, the literal
sense allegorically of angels. But it seems preferable to me to consider
this testimony is brought forward for this purpose, that it might by a
similitude be applied to angels, and in this way David compares winds to
angels, because they perform offices in this world similar to what the
angels do in heaven; for the winds are, as it were, visible spirits. And,
doubtless, as Moses, describing the creation of the world, mentioned only
those things which are subject to our senses, and yet intended that higher
things should be understood; so David in describing the world and nature,
represented to us on a tablet what ought to be understood respecting the
celestial orders. Hence I think that the argument is one of likeness or
similarity, when the Apostle transfers to angels what properly applies
to the winds.
8. But to the Son, etc. It must indeed be allowed, that this
Psalm was composed as a marriage song for Solomon; for here is celebrated
his marriage with the daughter of the king of Egypt; but it cannot yet
be denied but that what is here related, is much too high to be applied
to Solomon. The Jews, that they may not be forced to own Christ to be called
God, make an evasion by saying, it at the throne of God is spoken of, or
that the verb “established” is to be understood. So that, according to
the first exposition, the word Elohim, God, is to be in construction with
throne, “the throne of God;” and that according to the second, it is supposed
to be a defective sentence. But these are mere evasions. Whosoever will
read the verse, who is of a sound mind and free from the spirit of contention,
cannot doubt but that the Messiah is called God. Nor is there any reason
to object, that the word Elohim is sometimes given to angels and to judges;
for it is never found to be given simply to one person, except to God alone.
Farther, that I may not contend about a word, whose throne can be said
to be established forever, except that of God only? Hence the perpetuity
of his kingdom is an evidence of his divinity.
The scepter of Christ’s kingdom is afterwards called the scepter of
righteousness; of this there were some, though obscure, lineaments in Solomon;
he exhibited them as far as he acted as a just king and zealous for what
was right. But righteousness in the kingdom of Christ has a wider meaning;
for he by his gospel, which is his spiritual scepter, renews us after the
righteousness of God. The same thing must be also understood of his love
of righteousness; for he causes it to reign in his own people, because
he loves it.
9. Wherefore God has appointed him, etc. This was indeed truly
said of Solomon, who was made a king, because God had preferred him to
his brethren, who were otherwise his equals, being the sons of the king.
But this applies more suitably to Christ, who has adopted us as his joint
heirs, though not so in our own right. But he was anointed above us all,
as it was beyond measure, while we, each of us, according to a limited
portion, as he has divided to each of us. Besides, he was anointed for
our sake, in order that we may all draw out of his fatness. Hence he is
the Christ, we are Christians proceeding from him, as rivulet from a fountain.
But as Christ received this unction when in the flesh, he is said to have
been anointed by his God; for it would be inconsistent to suppose him inferior
to God, except in his human nature.
10. And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of
the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
10. Et tu ab initio, Domine, terram fundasti; et opera manuum tuarum
11. They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax
old as doth a garment;
11. Ipsi peribunt, tu autem permanes; et omnes quasi vestimentum
12. And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be
changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.
12. Et tanquam amictum involves eos, et mutabuntur: tu autem idem
es, et anni tui non deficient.
13. But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right
hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?
13. Ad quem vero angelorum dixit inquam, Sede a dextris meis, donec
ponam inimicos tuos scabellum pedum tuorum?
14. Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister
for them who shall be heirs of salvation?
14. Annon omnes sunt administratorii spiritus, qui in ministerium
emittuntur propter eos qui haereditatem capiunt salutis?
10. And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning, etc. This testimony at
first sight may seem to be unfitly applied to Christ, especially in a doubtful
matter, such as is here handled; for the subject in dispute is not concerning
the glory of God, but what may be fitly applied to Christ. Now, there is
not in this passage any mention made of Christ, but the majesty of God
alone is set forth. I indeed allow that Christ is not named in any part
of the Psalm; but it is yet plain that he is so pointed out, that no one
can doubt but that his kingdom is there avowedly recommended to us. Hence
all the things which are found there, are to be applied to his person;
for in none have they been fulfilled but in Christ, such as the following,
— “Thou shalt arise and have mercy on Sion, that the heathens may fear
the name, and all the kings of the earth thy glory.” Again, — “When the
nations shall be gathered together, and the kingdoms, to serve the Lord.”
Doubtless, in vain shall we seek to find this God through whom the whole
world have united in one faith and worship of God, except in Christ.
All the other parts of the Psalm exactly suit the person of Christ,
such as the following, that he is the eternal God, the creator of heaven
and earth, that perpetuity belongs to him without any change, by which
his majesty is raised to the highest elevation, and he himself is removed
from the rank of all created beings.
What David says about the heavens perishing, some explain by adding,
“Were such a thing to happen,” as though nothing was affirmed. But what
need is there of such a strained explanation, since we know that all creatures
are subjected to vanity? For to what purpose is that renovation promised,
which even the heavens wait for with the strong desire as of those in travail,
except that they are now verging towards destruction?
But the perpetuity of Christ which is here mentioned, brings no common
comfort to the godly; as the Psalm at last teaches us, they shall be partakers
of it, inasmuch as Christ communicates himself and what he possesses to
his own body.