CHAP. 1. 5.

Christ principally intended.

2 Sam. vii. 19.

Lord, and David prepared materials accordingly.

It is equally evident, that Christ is principally and mystically intended, not only from the Apostle's quoting it, but from David's thanksgiving, which shews, that he understood this to be a promise, "that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he (i. e. God,) would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne."

6

Who am I, O my house, that

Ver. 18. "Then went King David in, and sat "before Jehovah; and he said, "Adonai Jehovah? and what is "thou hast brought me hitherto?" " That is, from tending the sheep, to be placed on the throne of Israel, he dwelling in a house of cedar, and the Lord giving him rest round about from all his enemies." (v. 1.)

66

Ver. 19. "And this was yet a small thing in thy 66 sight, O Adonai Jehovah."

As what is here mentioned, as coming under the description of but a small thing in the sight of God, does, nevertheless, embrace the greatest of earthly changes; so that, which follows, must necessarily be spiritual and heavenly; the source of wonder, (for it is ONE allabsorbing marvel,) was the promise, that out of his bowels a seed should come, whose kingdom should be established for ever: and though he should be David's literal seed, yet the Lord says, (v. 14,) "I will be his Father, and he shall be my Son."

How could he be Son of David, and Son of God?

ever.

CHAP. I. 5.

"That holy thing" must have been understood by David so to have derived its personality from "The Word," as to come into the very same relation of Son to the Father. But thou hast spoken of thy servant's house for a great while to come. This, we see, by v. 25, David understood to mean for The Targumist also so interpreted it; his paraphrase is, "Thou hast spoken of Targum. the house of thy servant unto the world to come;" an expression adopted in this Epistle, to denote the time of Messiah's kingdom: David, as we must suppose, so understanding it, breaks out into the exclamation that follows, "And is this the law of the Man Adonai Jehovah?" So Luther and Osiander Luther. Osiander. translate it, or, "Is this the delineation of the Man Adonai Jehovah," as rendered by Hiller, or "that Man," so Willet. In the Hiller. Willet. parallel passage, 1 Chron. xvii., "And hath 1 Chron. xvii. regarded me as the representative of the Adam above," or "the man above Jehovah Elohim." 66 Such, (says a learned modern Hebrew,) is the literal meaning of the words, and the whole context shews it also to be David's meaning;" the same author also mentions that "Man above" is frequently to be met with in the writings of the Jewish nation, designating the Angel Jehovah ; and does not Paul allude to this, when he calls Messiah "the second Adam, the Lord from Heaven?"

Ver. 20. "And what can David say more unto

1 Cor. xv. 45, 17.

CHAP. I. 5.

Matt. xi. 27.

Targum.

This, I think, is pointed out by Witsius, who understands it of Messiah; so also does Arrowsmith on John i. 1.

Or, "All this greatness, making

servant." Annot.

"thee," (" for the honour of thy servant," 1 Chron. xvii. 18; that is, "The Word," v. 21,) " for thou, "Adonai Jehovah, knowest thy servant."

Ver. 21. "For thy Word's sake."

That is, apparently, the Memra, the essential Word, which is also the opinion of the Targumist, and is confirmed by the parallel passage, 1 Chron. xvii. 19, for he who is here called the Word, is there called the Servant;

"And according to thine own heart,"

66

His own voluntary decree in election and predestination, "hast thou done all this great thing;" not these great things," [it] known to thy in the plural, but, as is pointed out by Roberts, of Eton. Roberts, of Eton, it is in the singular; it is this one all-absorbing thing, that the bringing David to the peaceful possession of his kingdom was, in comparison, but a small thing; and taking this passage altogether, it is a glorious testimony Testimony to the from the Church of old, to Messiah's being predestinatively set up, as the Man Adonai Jehovah, the Word and Servant of Jehovah.

God-man predestinatively set up.

The sons of

David's seed, what.

It remains to remove a difficulty in ver. 14, "If he commit iniquity," &c.

We have seen, that this promise referred primarily to Solomon, as a type of Christ. Now as no personal type can in all things typify, even in his typical character, this expression may refer to the moral duty of Solomon in the typical administration of his

CHAP. I. 5.

kingdom. The promise to David does not refer to saving grace, I conceive, but to the privilege, which was taken from Saul, ver. 15, viz. the honour of his being Messiah's progenitor, which ensured, therefore, the kingdom of Israel remaining for ever in David's family, though his seed should sin, yet Messiah should be of that seed of David. In this way" HE" may refer to the seed collectively, as Ahaz is styled in Isaiah, "the House of Isa, vii 2. David:"" and it was told in the House of "David, Syria is confederate with Ephraim, "and HIS heart was moved," &c. So it may refer to the iniquity of any one, or every "Whosoever * in the line between David and Mes- quity," &c. siah, for the promise of sitting on his throne, rested with the representative of David's line, whoever he might be, until the seed was

one,

* Hales mentions that the conditional particle “if” is wanting in the original; also that the first term, TN Asher frequently signifies "Whosoever," as Ex. ix. 21; Jos. xv. 16; Ps. cxv. 8; 66 every one." Kennicot would render it," Even in his suffering for iniquity;" Boothroyd, "Him who committeth iniquity," which quite supports my view. Owen is inclined to refer it to Christ, as the covenant head of the whole mystical body, supporting the opinion from Ps. lxxxix. 30, where David changes those words, "If he commit iniquity" into "If his children forsake my law;" but if this refer to the mystical Christ, then the Apostle's testimony would not be to the exaltation of Messiah individually, but to that of the whole church: and I think the 89th Psalm goes as strongly to corroborate the view I have advanced, as it does that of Owen. Moreover, the chastening of feeble men, as this () is generally understood to denote, would but ill comport with the vicarious piacular sufferings of the man whom Jehovah had made strong for himself.

committeth ini

CHAP. I. 5. drawn out, and individuated into the person

Rom. i. 4.

2 Sam, vii. 12.

David and Solomon Types as God's Sons.

Mestrezat in locum.

A Type in a

lower form than the antetype.

of the Son of God, on whom the promise would rest; until then, that seed was in the loins of Solomon, or Ahaz, &c. who, of course, might and did sin, yet without their forfeiting the honour of being Messiah's progenitor, as had been the case with Saul.

The line was stopped, and the individual seed "defined" by the resurrection from the dead; which is rendered, though not, perhaps, very happily, in our translation of 2 Sam. vii. 12, by the words "set up."

We must next note, that, seeing the Sonship, in one of these citations, is applicable to David, and in the other belongeth unto Solomon, how is it, that this title can intimate a peculiar Sonship in Messiah, which gives him a pre-eminence above the highest angels? And yet it is evident, that the Apostle, by his reasoning, intends to convey this glorious truth.

My answer shall be taken from Mestrezat.

66

Nothing is capable of being represented by types and shadows, but that, which is the substance and the truth; if, then, Jesus Christ had types and shadows of his condition of Son, it follows, that he had the substance and the truth of that condition; and that to David and Solomon belonged only some little ray of this quality of Son of God. By this means, (quite the reverse of the objection, that the Apostle could not consider in Christ any other quality of Son, but