The interrogation is, as in so many other cases, equivalent to a strong negation. Never has it been raid by God to any one of the angels,—

          My son art thou,

          I this day have begotten thef!.

Never, so far at least as statement or hint in 'the. volume of the Book ' is concerned:—and it is Biblical evidence alone that the writer takes into account. Never, moreover, could such language have been employed in its highest and truly normal acceptation; for the begotten Son must be partaker of the very nature of the Father.

In the expression, said 'he' at any time? there is no pronoun in the original corresponding to the English 'he.' Hence J. Cappel would interpret the verb impersonally,—was it ever said? Sykes, again, would supplement the expression thus, did the Scripture' ever say? But both devices put the phraseology to intolerable torture. The natural nominative is just the pronoun representing ' God.' The idea of ' God' was prominent throughout the preceding sentence; and the writer's mind was so full of it, that, instead of pausing to repeat a formal introduction of it, he simply proceeds forward on the unbroken line of his own continuity of thought.

The Old Testament Scripture appealed to is the seventh verse of the second Psalm. And the force of the appeal hinges on the assumption that the words quoted find their highest, if not their only, verification in the relation that subsists between the Divine Father and the Messiah,· and thus in the relation that subsists between the Divine Father and Jesus.

Gottlob Paulus, indeed, takes a different view of. the writer's conception. He contends, not only that the Divine address had reference to Solomon, and Solomon. alone; but also, that the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews understood the passage so. Why, then, it might be asked, did he quote the words as applicable to Jesus, and as evidence that a more excellent name than belonged to angels was his by right? On the principle, replies Paulus, of reasoning from the less to the greater. If even Solomon was God's son, much more was Jesus.

This is not, however, satisfactory exegesis, unless we be prepared to maintain that not only Jesus, but Solomon also, and all others who for any reason are called sons of God, are, according to the Letter—writer's theology, higher in the pyramid of universal being than angels. But if tint were the case, not only would the expression, a little lower than the angels (chap. ii. 9), be inexplicable, the angels themselves would be higher than themselves, for they too are sons of God in a sense corresponding to that in which Solomon and other men are sons.

Von Hofmann, like Paulus, does not regard the words of the Psalm as having an intentionally Messianic reference. Still, he does not adopt the idea of Paul us, that the inspired writer reasons from the less to the greater. He supposes, on the contrary, that there is nothing at all, in the words, of the nature of a logical appeal. They are not adduced as evidence, according to his conception. They are merely grand old words, sanctified and sublime, that lay ready to the writer's hand, where with to clothe his own ideas. (Die angefiihrten Stellen nicht beweisen sollen dass Christus oder dass Jesus Gottes Sohn zst, noch etwas dergleichen, sondern nur dazu dienen, was der Vetfasser mit ezgenen Worten sagen könnte, m£t Schriftworten auszudriicken.-SCHRIFTBEWEIS, I. p. 152.)

But this exegesis is as objectionable as that of Paulus; for it was not mere asseveration that was needed by the faltering Hebrews to establish them in the Christian faith. It was evidence. And one indispensable element of the evidence required by them, in their peculiar circumstances, consisted in the integrity of that arch of revelation which combined into a Messianic unity time past and time present. God had spoken to the fathers through the prophets, and in his utterances had stirred the hopes of the people.. These hopes, bending forward, were looking out wistfully for a Deliverer to come. The arch of Messianic revelation was, so to speak, carried half way over. Thus for ages had it stood, a fragment waiting for its complement. And therefore, unless from the abutment that was resting on the professedly complementary Revelation, which consisted of the nature, character, words, and works of Jesus, there sprang backward a precisely corresponding New Testament arc, to complete in symmetry the comprehensive span, there must, the Jew would conclude, be a flaw somewhere. He would further conclude that the flaw could not be found in the Old Testament segment of the arch. With him it would be an axiom, as it was afterward with Augustine, that, as the Old Testament lies 'patent' in the New) so must the New Testament in the Old. Thus Old Testament evidence was required for the readers of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

And, as a matter of fact, it is given. The inspired writer does not merely assert; he reasons. Hence the reason-rendering particle that stands at the commencement of this 5th verse: 'For' to which of the angels did he ever say? &c.

Are we, then, to regard the second Psalm as being, in the estimation of the inspired writer, a Messianic composition? Are we to accept · the quoted address of the 7th verse of the Psalm as having, according to his belief, an intentional reference to the Messiah? If so, is his belief to be regarded as intrinsically reasonable? Or, should it be looked upon as a Rabbinical prejudice? Is it a belief, or is it not, which is in harmony with the possibilities and probabilities of literary activity during the Psalm-epoch of the Old Testament Dispensation?

These are questions that have for long exercised the minds of Bible students, and never more earnestly than at the present day. Very weighty interests are at stake; and hence reverence, candour, patient research, and comprehensive consideration are called for.

We cannot hesitate to confess to the twofold conviction, ( 1) that the Psalm was regarded by the Letter-writer as Messianic, and (2) that his view of its import is intrinsically reasonable and right.

There are various considerations that render it probable that the Psalm would be regarded by the Letter-writer as Messianic. (1) Several of the most eminent of the modern Jewish Rabbis, while themselves opposing, on the ground of expediency, the Messianic interpretation, expressly admit that it prevailed among the ancient Rabbis. (See, among many others, Schottgen's ·"'Jesus der Wahre Messias," pp. 418-423.) (2) This interpretation must certainly have prevailed among those very ancient Rabbis who shaped the opinions that were current in Jewish society during the career of our Lord. When the High Priest adjured our Saviour by the living God to tell " whether he was the Christ, the Son of God," he intended to refer to the most distinctive designations of the expected Messiah. But both of the designations, which he particularized, were borrowed from this Psalm. Then (3), the Apostles, whose understandings had been opened by their risen Lord, "that they might understand the Scriptures" (Luke xxiv. 45), expressly quoted to one another, in a crisis· time of mutual congratulation (Acts iv. 24-28,) part of the first strophe of the ·Psalm as having been verified in the experience of our Lord. And (4) the Apostle Paul saw in the words, My son art thou, I this day have begotten thee, a representation that was equivalent to a "promise" that a Divine Saviour would, in due time, make his appearance on our earth. (Acts xiii. 32, 33·) He reasoned to that effect in the Jewish Synagogue at Antioch. Then (S) there are several references in the Book of Revelation {see chaps. ii. 27; xii. 5; xix. I 5) to the retributive representations in the third strophe of the Psalm. And in these references it is the 'iron rod' of the Messiah that is particularized.

The Messianic meaning of the Psalm seems thus to have been, during the first century of the Christian era, assumed or conceded by all parties among the Jews. And therefore it is quite probable that it would be one of the cherished beliefs of the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews.