Hebrews 1:10

10. And Quoted from Psalms 102:26-28, where see notes. Though this psalm is within the Messianic number, there is nothing in its contents which limits it to him. We are at liberty, indeed, whether applied to the Trinity or to the Son, to see that our author intends it to be an expansion of his own words in Hebrews 1:2, by whom also he made the worlds. It is to the Logos, the executive Maker of the worlds, that in accordance with the mind of the Church he applies them.

In the beginning Literal Greek, κατ ’ αρχας , at beginnings. At the various commencements, whether of different things in the same world, or of serial worlds in succession. Less solemn and aboriginal than St. John’s εν αρχη , “In the beginning was the Word.” For even if a scientist maintains that matter is chronologically eternal, still in the order of nature and truth God, the Word, is back of it. It is dependent and phenomenal: He is independent, unconditioned, and absolute. If creation, or creations, be eternal in series, it is because He eternally and freely creates.

Laid the foundation It is not illegitimate for modern science to read into these words the definite facts comprehensively embraced in them. By the divine Word, the author of order in chaos, the work of order, whatever it was, was performed. If that chaos was a nebula, there was nothing in the mere nebula itself by which it could frame itself into an intellective system. If it condensed and hardened, without some regulative mind it would harden into an unintelligent solidity. It required an indwelling Mind, a divine Logos, to translate the unintelligent mass into intelligent forms. As easily could a pile of type lying in pi form themselves into a poem without a forming mind, as a pile of matter frame itself into a cosmos without the formative Logos. No atheistic philosophy, whether of Hume or Herbert Spencer, has been able to bridge this chasm.

Foundation Geology reveals such “foundation” in the primitive rocks, and in the strata of successive ages.

Heavens The atmospheric expanse; and we may add, as speaking optically from our earth-centre, the firmament and the starry heavens.

Works of thine hands Spoken anthropomorphically, that is, under momentary conception, as if God were an infinite man; which abstracting away from him all imperfection, and adding all perfection, we rightfully do. Weak-minded pseudo-philosophers raise a great protest against such anthropomorphism, showing a sudden sensitiveness at our degrading God a God in whom they themselves do not believe. And yet Mr. Spencer, who leads in this outcry against anthropomorphizing “the Absolute,” thinks he elevates him by denying to him the attribute of intelligence. A better philosopher, Sir Isaac Newton, says, (at the close of his “Optics,”) that the entire universe, including all material things from the planets down to animal bodies, the organs of sense and motion, and the instinct of brutes and insects, “can be the effect of nothing else than the wisdom and skill of a powerful everliving Agent, who, being in all places, is more able by his will to move the bodies within his boundless, uniform sensorium, (of space,) and thereby to form and reform the parts of the universe, than we are by our will to move the parts of our own bodies.” In his “Principia” he says: “It is confessed that God supreme exists necessarily. By the same necessity he is always and everywhere. Whence he is all similar to himself all eye, all ear, all brain; all perceptive, intellective, and active force; but in a manner not at all human or corporeal, but in a mode to us unknown.” Liber iii, De Mundi Systemate.

That acute Christian philosopher, Tayler Lewis, rebuking the squeamish avoidance of anthropomorphisms by later Jewish writers, as Philo and the Rabbis, shows that the divine mind is truly competent to see things as man sees them, and to realize the human feeling. If God knows how things appear to our human thought he must be able to see them not only as he absolutely sees them, but as we finitely see them; that is, he thinks our thoughts. “May not God come actually into the human sphere and the human finity? May he not, if it pleases him, tabernacle in the human mind, knowing things as we know them, feeling them as we feel them? For, unless he thus knows them as we know them, feels them as we feel them, there would be a knowledge unknown to him as it really is that is, as it exists in our mind.” And yet, Moses, who uses the strongest anthropomorphisms, (and we may add, Newton, as in the above quotation,) “knew that God was infinite as well as Spinoza” knew it.