Estudo de Hebreus 1:8 – Comentado e Explicado

ao passo que do Filho diz: O teu trono, ó Deus, subsiste para a eternidade. O cetro do teu Reino é cetro de justiça.
Hebreus 1:8

Comentário de Albert Barnes

But unto the Son he saith – In Psalm 45:6-7 . The fact that the writer of this Epistle makes this application of the Psalm to the Messiah, proves that it was so applied in his time, or that it would be readily admitted to be applicable to him. It has been generally admitted, by both Jewish and Christian interpreters, to have such a reference. Even those who have doubted its primary applicability to the Messiah, have regarded it as referring to him in a secondary sense. Many have supposed that it referred to Solomon in the primary sense, and that it has a secondary reference to the Messiah. To me it seems most probable that it had an original and exclusive reference to the Messiah. It is to be remembered that the hope of the Messiah was the special hope of the Jewish people. The coming of the future king, so early promised, was the great event to which they all looked forward with the deepest interest.

That hope inspired their prophets and their bards, and cheered the hearts of the nation in the time of despondency. The Messiah, if I may so express it, was the “hero” of the Old Testament – more so than Achilles is of the Iliad, and Aeneas of the Aenead. The sacred poets were accustomed to employ all their most magnificent imagery in describing him, and to present him in every form that was beautiful in their conception, and that would be gratifying to the pride and hopes of the nation. Everything that is gorgeous and splendid in description is lavished on him, and they were never under any apprehension of attributing to him too great magnificence in his personal reign; too great beauty of moral character; or too great an extent of dominion. That which would be regarded by them as a magnificent description of a monarch, they freely applied to him; and this is evidently the case in this Psalm. That the description may have been in part derived from the view of Solomon in the magnificence of his court, is possible, but no more probable than that it was derived from the general view of the splendor of any Oriental monarch, or than that it might have been the description of a monarch which was the pure creation of inspired poetry.

Indeed, I do see not why this Psalm should ever have been supposed to be applicable to Solomon. His “name” is not mentioned. It has no special applicability to him. There is nothing that would apply to him which would not also apply to many an Oriental prince. There are some things in it which are much less applicable to him than to many others. The king here described is a conqueror. He girds his sword on his thigh, and his arrows are sharp in the hearts of his foes, and the people are subdued under him. This was not true of Solomon. His was a reign of peace and tranquillity, nor was he ever distinguished for war. On the whole, it seems clear to me, that this Psalm is designed to be a beautiful poetic description of the Messiah as king. The images are drawn from the usual characteristics of an Oriental prince, and there are many things in the poem – as there are in parables – for the sake of keeping, or verisimilitude, and which are not, in the interpretation, to be cut to the quick.

The writer imagined to himself a magnificent and beautiful prince; a prince riding prosperously in his conquests; swaying a permanent and wide dominion; clothed in rich and splendid vestments; eminently upright and pure; and scattering blessings everywhere – and that prince was the Messiah. The Psalm, therefore, I regard as relating originally and exclusively to Christ; and though in the interpretation, the circumstances should not be unduly pressed, nor an attempt be made to spiritualize them, yet the whole is a glowing and most beautiful description of Christ as a King. The same principles of interpretation should be applied to it which are applied to parables, and the same allowance be made for the introduction of circumstances for the sake of keeping, or for finishing the story. If this be the correct view, then Paul has quoted the Psalm in conformity exactly with its original intention, as he undoubtedly quoted it as it was understood in his time.

“Thy throne.” A throne is the seat on which a monarch sits, and is here the symbol of dominion, because kings when acting as rulers sit on thrones. Thus, a throne becomes the emblem of authority or empire. Here it means, that his “rule” or “dominion” would be perpetual – “forever and ever” – which assuredly could not be applied to Solomon. “O God.” This certainly could not be applied to Solomon; but applied to the Messiah it proves what the apostle is aiming to prove – that he is above the angels. The argument is, that a name is given to “him” which is never given to “them.” They are not called “God” in any strict and proper sense. The “argument” here requires us to understand this word, as used in a sense more exalted than any name which is ever given to angels, and though it may be maintained that the name ????? ‘elohiymis given to magistrates or to angels, yet here the argument requires us to understand it as used in a sense superior to what it ever is when applied to an angel – or of course to any creature, since it was the express design of the argument to prove that the Messiah was superior to the angels.

The word “God” should be taken in its natural and obvious sense, unless there is some necessary reason for limiting it. If applied to magistrates Psalm 82:6 , it must be so limited. If applied to the Messiah, there is no such necessity, John 1:1 ; Isaiah 9:6 ; 1 João 5:20 ; Philemon 2:6 , and it should be taken in its natural and proper sense. The “form” here – ?? Te?`? ho Theos- is in the vocative case and not the nominative. It is the usual form of the vocative in the Septuagint, and nearly the only form of it – Stuart. This then is a direct address to the Messiah, calling him God; and I see not why it is not to be used in the usual and proper sense of the word. Unitarians proposed to translate this, “God is thy throne;” but how can God be “a throne” of a creature? What is the meaning of such an expression? Where is there one parallel? And what must be the nature of that cause which renders such an argument necessary? – This refers, as it seems to me, to the Messiah “as king.”

It does not relate to his mode of existence before the incarnation, but to him as the magnificent monarch of his people. Still, the ground or reason why this name is given to him is that he is “divine.” It is language which properly expresses his nature. He must have a divine nature, or such language would be improper. I regard this passage, therefore, as full proof that the Lord Jesus is divine; nor is it possible to evade this conclusion by any fair interpretation of it. It cannot be wrong to address him as God; nor addressing him as such, not to regard him as divine. “Is forever and ever.” This could not in any proper sense apply to Solomon. As applied to the Messiah, it means that his essential kingdom will be perpetual, Luke 1:33 . As Mediator his kingdom will be given up to the Father, or to God without reference to a mediatorial work, ( 1 Corinthians 15:24 , 1 Corinthians 15:28 – see notes on these verses), but his reign over his people will be perpetual.

There never will come a time when they shall not obey and serve him, though the special form of his kingdom, as connected with the work of mediation, will be changed. The form of the organized church, for example, will be changed, for there shall be no necessity for it in heaven, but the essential dominion and power of the Son of God will not cease. He shall have the same dominion which he had before he entered on the work of mediation; and that will be eternal. It is also true that, compared with earthly monarchs, his kingdom shall be perpetual. They soon die. Dynasties pass away. But his empire extends from age to age, and is properly a perpetual dominion. The fair and obvious interpretation of this passage would satisfy me, were there nothing else, that this Psalm had no reference to Solomon, but was designed originally as a description of the Messiah as the expected King and Prince of his people. “A scepter of righteousness.”

That is, a right or just scepter. The phrase is a Hebraism. The former expression described the perpetuity of his kingdom; this describes its “equable nature.” It would be just and equal; see notes on Isaiah 11:5 . A “scepter” is a staff or wand usually made of wood, five or six feet long, and commonly overlaid with gold, or ornamented with golden rings. Sometimes, however, the scepter was made of ivory, or wholly of gold. It was borne in the hands of kings as an emblem of authority and power. Probably it had its origin in the staff or crook of the shepherd – as kings were at first regarded as the “shepherds” of their people. Thus, Agamemnon is commonly called by Homer the “shepherd” of the people. The “scepter” thus becomes the emblem of kingly office and power – as when we speak of “swaying a scepter;” – and the idea here is, that the Messiah would be a “king,” and that the authority which he would wield would be equitable and just. He would not be governed, as monarchs often are, by mere caprice, or by the wishes of courtiers and flatterers; he would not be controlled by mere “will” and the love of arbitrary lower; but the execution of his laws would be in accordance with the principles of equity and justice. – How well this accords with the character of the Lord Jesus we need not pause to show; compare notes on Isaiah 11:2-5 .

Comentário de E.W. Bullinger

até. Grego. profissionais, como Hebreus 1: 7 .

Deus App-98.

para sempre, etc. App-151.

a = o.

cetro . Compare Salmos 2: 9 . Apocalipse 2:27 .

retidão = retidão. Grego. euthutes Veja App-191.

Comentário de John Calvin

8. Mas para o Filho, etc. De fato, deve ser permitido que este Salmo tenha sido composto como uma canção de casamento para Salomão; pois aqui é celebrado seu casamento com a filha do rei do Egito; (23) mas ainda não pode ser negado, mas o que aqui está relacionado é muito alto para ser aplicado a Salomão. Os judeus, para que não sejam forçados a possuir a Cristo para serem chamados Deus, evasão dizendo que é mencionado no trono de Deus ou que o verbo “estabelecido” deve ser entendido. De modo que, de acordo com a primeira exposição, a palavra Elohim, Deus, deve estar em construção com o trono, “o trono de Deus”; e que, de acordo com o segundo, deveria ser uma sentença defeituosa. Mas essas são meras evasões. Quem quer que leia o versículo, que tem uma mente sã e livre do espírito de discórdia, não pode duvidar, mas que o Messias se chama Deus. Tampouco há razão para objetar que a palavra Elohim seja dada às vezes a anjos e juízes; pois nunca se considera que seja dado simplesmente a uma pessoa, exceto somente a Deus. (24)

Além disso, para que eu não contenda uma palavra, cujo trono pode ser dito para ser estabelecido para sempre , exceto apenas o de Deus? Portanto, a perpetuidade de seu reino é uma evidência de sua divindade.

O cetro do reino de Cristo é posteriormente chamado de cetro da justiça; disso, havia alguns, embora obscuros, lineamentos em Salomão; ele os exibiu na medida em que agia como um rei justo e zeloso pelo que era certo. Mas a justiça no reino de Cristo tem um significado mais amplo; pois ele, pelo seu evangelho, que é seu cetro espiritual, nos renova após a justiça de Deus. A mesma coisa também deve ser entendida de seu amor pela justiça; pois ele faz com que reine em seu próprio povo, porque ele ama.

A Vulgata, após literalmente o mês de setembro, sem considerar a peculiaridade precedente, traduziu “Deus” no nominativo ” Deus ” e não ” O Deus “. – Ed.

Comentário de Adam Clarke

Teu trono, ó Deus, é para todo o sempre – Se isto é dito do Filho de Deus, ou seja, Jesus Cristo, então Jesus Cristo deve ser Deus; e, de fato, o objetivo do apóstolo é provar isso. As palavras aqui citadas são retiradas do Salmo 45: 6 , Salmo 45: 7 , que os antigos caldeus parafrastam e os coelhos mais inteligentes, se referem ao Messias. No terceiro verso deste Salmo, Tu és mais justo que os filhos dos homens, o Targum diz: “Tua beleza, ????? ???? malca Meshicha , ó Rei Messias, é maior que os filhos dos homens”. Aben Ezra diz: “Este Salmo fala de Davi, ou melhor, de seu filho, o Messias, pois esse é o nome dele”, Ezequiel 34:24 ; : E Davi, meu servo, será para sempre um príncipe sobre eles. Outros coelhos confirmam essa opinião.

Este versículo é considerado adequadamente uma prova, e de fato forte, da Divindade de Cristo; mas algumas versões posteriores do Novo Testamento tentaram evitar a evidência dessa prova ao traduzir as palavras: Deus é o teu trono para todo o sempre; e se esta versão estiver correta, é certo que o texto não pode ser prova da doutrina. O Sr. Wakefield justifica essa tradução em geral em seu History of Opinions; e ? Te?? , sendo o caso nominativo, deve ser uma justificativa suficiente para esta versão. Em resposta a isso, pode-se afirmar que o caso nominativo é frequentemente usado para o vocativo, particularmente pelos Attics; e todo o escopo do local exige que ele seja usado aqui; e, com a devida deferência a todas as opiniões contrárias, o hebraico original não pode ser traduzido consistentemente de nenhuma outra maneira, ??? ???? ????? ???? kisaca Elohim olam vaed , Teu trono, ó Deus, é para sempre e para a eternidade. Está nos dois mundos; e se estende ao longo do tempo; e existirá por toda a duração sem fim. A isso nosso Senhor parece se referir, Mateus 28:18 ; : Todo poder é dado a mim, tanto no céu quanto na terra. Meu trono, isto é, meu domínio, se estende da criação à consumação de todas as coisas. Estes eu fiz, e estes eu sustento; e desde o fim do mundo, por toda a eternidade, terei a mesma glória – soberana, poder e autoridade ilimitados, que tive com o Pai antes do mundo começar; João 17: 5 . Devo acrescentar que nenhuma das versões antigas o entendeu da maneira como os que negam a Divindade de Cristo, seja no Salmo de onde é tirado, seja no lugar em que é citado. Aquila traduz ????? Elohim , por Tee , ó Deus, no caso vocativo; e o árabe acrescenta o sinal do vocativo ya , lendo o local assim: korsee yallaho ila abadilabada , o mesmo que em nossa versão. E mesmo permitindo que ? Te?? aqui seja usado como caso nominativo, não fará sentido, sem acrescentar est? , uma leitura que não é financiada por nenhuma versão nem por nenhum MS. ainda descoberto. Wiclif, Coverdale e outros, o entenderam como nominativo e o traduziram; e, no entanto, é evidente que esse nominativo tem o poder do vocativo: conceder ao único Deus e seu trono no mundo do mundo: um monte de eqüidade, o grupo desse currículo. Dou isso, apontando e tudo, como está no meu antigo MS. Bíblia. Wiclif é quase o mesmo, mas é evidentemente de um elenco mais moderno: mas para o único que ele vê, Deus teu trono está no mundo do mundo, um monte de equyte é o monte desse rewme. Coverdale traduz assim: Mas, para o filho, ele diz: Deus, este lugar dura para todo o sempre: o cepter deste kyngdome é o cepter certo. Tindal e outros seguem da mesma maneira, todos lendo no caso nominativo, com a força do vocativo; pois nenhum deles inseriu a palavra est? , é, porque não autorizada pelo original: uma palavra que os opositores da Divindade de nosso Senhor são obrigados a implorar, a fim de apoiar sua interpretação. Veja algumas críticas adicionais sobre isso no final deste capítulo.

Um cetro de justiça – O cetro, que era uma espécie de bastão ou instrumento de várias formas, era o alferes do governo e é usado aqui para o próprio governo. Isso os escritores judeus antigos também entendem do Messias.

Comentário de John Wesley

Mas ao Filho ele diz: Teu trono, ó Deus, é para todo o sempre; um cetro de justiça é o cetro do teu reino.

Ó Deus – Deus, no número singular, nunca é usado nas escrituras absolutamente de ninguém, exceto o Deus supremo. Teu reinado, do qual o cetro é o alferes, está cheio de justiça e eqüidade. Salmo 45: 6,7 .