Milo

Hebrews 1:3

He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

Who being the brightness . . .–Who being the effulgence of His glory and the exact image of His substance. The first figure is familiar to us in the words of the Nicene Creed (themselves derived from this verse and a commentary upon it), “God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God.” Again striking parallels to the language present themselves in Philo, who speaks of the spirit breathed into man at his creation as an “effulgence of the Blessed and Thrice-blessed Nature”; and in the well-known passage of the Book of Wisdom, “She (Wisdom) is the effulgence of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of His goodness” (Wisdom Of Solomon 7:26). In the Old Testament the token of the divine presence is the Shechinah, the “cloud of glory” (called “the glory” in Romans 9:4; comp. Hebrews 9:5 in this Epistle); here it is the divine nature itself that is denoted by the “glory.” Of the relation between this word and that which follows (“substance”) it is difficult to speak, as the conceptions necessarily transcend human language; but we may perhaps say (remembering that all such terms are but figurative) that the latter word is internal and the former external,–the latter the essence in itself, the former its manifestation. Thus the “Son” in His relation to “God” is represented here by light beaming forth from light, and by exact impress–the perfect image produced by stamp or seal. These designations, relating to the essential nature of the Son, have no limitation to time; the participle “being” must be understood (comp. Philippians 2:6; John 1:1) of eternal, continuous existence. The word “person” is an unfortunate mistranslation in this place. Most of the earlier English versions have “substance,” person being first introduced in the Genevan Testament in deference to Beza.
By the word.–The thought seems suggested by Genesis 1. (Psalm 33:9); the spoken word was the expression of His power. What is said above of “being” applies to “upholding,” except that the latter implies a previous creative act. . . .

Hebrews 1:2

but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.

Hath in these last days . . .–Better, at the end of these days spake unto us in a Son. The thought common to the two verses is “God hath spoken to man”; in all other respects the past and the present stand contrasted. The manifold successive partial disclosures of God’s will have given place to one revelation, complete and final; for He who spake in the prophets hath now spoken “in a Son.” The whole stress lies on these last words. The rendering “a Son” may at first cause surprise, but it is absolutely needed; not, “Who is the Revealer?” but, “What is He?” is the question answered in these words. The writer does not speak of a Son in the sense of one out of many; the very contrast with the prophets (who in the lower sense were amongst God’s sons) would be sufficient to prove this, but the words which follow, and the whole contents of this chapter, are designed to show the supreme dignity of Him who is God’s latest Representative on earth. The prophet’s commission extended no farther than the special message of his words and life; “a Son” spoke with His Father’s authority, with complete knowledge of His will and purpose. It is impossible to read these first lines (in which the whole argument of the Epistle is enfolded) without recalling the prologue of the fourth Gospel. The name “Word” is not mentioned here, and the highest level of St. John’s teaching is not reached; but the idea which “the Word” expresses, and the thought of the Only Begotten as declaring and interpreting the Father (John 1:18; also John 14:10; John 14:24) are present throughout. There is something unusual in the words, “at the end of these days.” St. Peter speaks of the manifestation of Christ “at the end of the times” (1Peter 1:20); and both in the Old Testament and in the New we not unfrequently read “at the end (or, in the last) of the days.” (See 2Peter 3:3; Jude 1:18; Numbers 24:14; Daniel 10:14, &c.) The peculiarity of the expression here lies in “these days.” The ages preceding and following the appearance of Messiah are in Jewish writers known as “this world” (or, age) and the “coming world” (or, age); the “days of Messiah” seem to have been classed sometimes with the former, sometimes with the latter period; but “the end of these days” would be understood by every Jewish reader to denote the time of His appearing. . . .

Pulpit Commentary
Verse 2. – In these last days. The true reading being ἐπ ἐσχάτον τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων, not ἐπ ἐσχάτων, as in the Textus Receptus, translate, at the end of these days’, The Received Text would, indeed, give the same meaning, the position of the article denoting’ “the last of these days,” not “these last days.” The reference appears to be to the common rabbinical division of time into αἰὼν οϋτος, and αἰὼν μέλλων, or ἐρχόμενος: the former denoting the pro-Messianic, the latter the Messianic period. Thus “these days” is equivalent to αἰὼν ου{τος, “the present age,” and the whole expression to ἐπὶ συντέλειᾳ τῶν αἰώνων, “at the end of the ages” (infra, Hebrews 9:26); cf. 1 Corinthians 10:11,” for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages are come.” The term, αἰὼν μέλλων, is also used in this Epistle (Hebrews 6:5); cf. Hebrews 2:5, τὴν οἰκουμένην τὴν μέλλουσαν. For allusions elsewhere to the two periods, cf. Matthew 12:32; Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30; Luke 20:35; Ephesians 1:21; Titus 2:12. Cf. also in Old Testament, Isaiah 9:6, where, for “Everlasting Father,” Cod. Alex. has πατὴρ τοῦ μελλόντος αἰῶνος. A subject of discussion has been the point of division between the two ages – whether the commencement of the Christian dispensation, ushered in by the exaltation of Christ, or his second advent. The conception in the Jewish mind, founded on Messianic prophecy, would, of course, be undefined. It would only be that the coming of the Messiah would inaugurate a new order of things. But how did the New Testament writers after Christ’s ascension conceive the two ages? Did they regard themselves as living at the end of the former age or at the beginning of the new one? The passage before us does not help to settle the question, nor does Hebrews 9:26; for the reference in both cases is to the historical manifestation of Christ before his ascension. But others of the passages cited above seem certainly to imply that “the coming age” was regarded as still future. It has been said, indeed, with regard to this apparent inference from some of them, that the writers were regarding their own age from the old Jewish standing-point when they spoke of it as future, or only used well-known phrases to denote the two ages, though they were no longer strictly applicable (see Alford’s note on Hebrews 2:5). But this explanation cannot well be made to apply to such passages as 1 Corinthians 10:11 and Ephesians 1:21, or to those in the Gospels. It would appear from them that it was not till the παρούσια (or, as it is designated in the pastoral Epistles, the ἐπιφάνεια) of Christ that “the coming age” of prophecy was regarded as destined to begin, ushering in “new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness” (2 Peter 3:13). Still, though “that day” was in the future, the first coming of Christ had been, as it were, its dawn, signifying its approach and preparing believers for meeting it. “The darkness was passing away; the true light was already shining” (1 John 2:8). Hence the apostolic writers sometimes speak as if already in the “coming age;” as being already citizens of heaven (Philippians 3:20); as already “made to sit with Christ in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 2:6); having already “tasted the powers of the age to come” (Hebrews 6:5). In a certain sense they felt themselves in the new order of things, though, strictly speaking, they still regarded their own age as but the end of the old one, irradiated by the light of the new. To understand fully their language on the subject, we should remember that they supposed the second advent to be more imminent than it was. St. Paul, at one time certainly, thought that it might be before his own death (2 Corinthians 5:4; 1 Thessalonians 4:15). Thus they might naturally speak of their own time as the conclusion of the former age, though regarding the second advent as the commencement of the new one. But the prolongation of “the end of these days,” unforeseen by them, does not affect the essence of their teaching on the subject. In the Divine counsels “one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” Hath spoken unto us (more properly, spake to us) in his Son. “His” is here properly supplied to give the meaning of ἐν υἱῷ. The rendering, a SON, which seems to have the advantage of literalism, would be misleading if it suggested the idea of one among many sons, or a son in the same sense in which others are sons. For though the designation, “son of God,” is undoubtedly used in subordinate senses – applied e.g. to Adam, to angels, to good men, to Christians – yet what follows in the Epistle fixes its peculiar meaning here. The entire drift of the earlier part of the Epistle is to show that the idea involved in the word “Son,” as applied to the Messiah in prophecy, is that of a relation to God far above that of the angels or of Moses, and altogether unique in its character. This idea must have been in the writer’s mind when he selected the phrases of his exordium. Nor is the article required for the sense intended. Its omission, in fact, brings it out. Ἐν τῷ υἱῷ would have drawn especial attention to “the personage in whom God spake; ἐν υἱῷ does so rather to the mode of the speaking – it is equivalent to “in one who was SON.” Son-revelation (as afterwards explained), is contrasted with previous prophetic revelations (cf. for omission of the article before υἱὸς, Hebrews 3:6; Hebrews 5:8; Hebrews 7:28). Whom he appointed (or, constituted) heir of all things; not, as in the A.V., “hath appointed.” The verb is in the aorist, and here the indefinite sense of the aorist should be preserved. “Convenienter statim sub Filii nomen memoratur haereditas” (Bengel). Two questions arise.
(1) Was it in respect of his eternal Divinity, or of his manifestation in time, that the Son was appointed “Heir of all things?”

(2) When is God to be conceived as so appointing him? i.e. What is the time, if any, to be assigned to the indefinite aorist? In answer to question

(1) the second alternative is to be preferred. For

(a) his eternal pre-existence has not yet been touched upon: it is introduced, as it were parenthetically, in the next and following clauses.

(b) Though the term Son is legitimately used in theology to denote the eternal relation to the Father expressed by the Λόγος of St. John, yet its application in this Epistle and in the New Testament generally (excepting, perhaps, the μονογενὴς υἱὸς peculiar to St. John, on which see Bull, ‘Jud. Eccl. Cath.,’ 5:4, etc.), is to the Word made flesh, to the Son as manifested in the Christ. And hence it is to him as such that we may conclude the heirship to be here assigned.

(c) This is the view carried out in the sequel of the Epistle, where the SON is represented as attaining the universal dominion assigned to him after, and in consequence of, his human obedience. The conclusion of the exordium in itself expresses this; for it is not till after he had made purification of sins that he is said to have “sat down,” etc.; i.e. entered on his inheritance; having become (γένομενος not ω}ν) “so much better,” etc. This is the view of Chrysostom, Theodoret, and the Fathers generally (cf. the cognate passage, Philippians 2:9).

(2) It seems best to refer the aorist ἔθηκε, not to any definite time, as that of the prophetic utterances afterwards cited, or that of the actual exaltation of Christ, but indefinitely to the eternal counsels, which were indeed declared and fulfilled in time, but were themselves ἐνἀρχῇ. A similar use of the aorist, coupled with other aorists pointing to events in time, is found in Romans 8:29, 30. What this heirship of all things implies will appear in the sequel, By whom also he made the worlds. Interposed clause to complete the true conception of the SON; showing who and what he was originally and essentially through whom God “spake” in time, and who, as SON, inherited. Here certainly, and in the expressions which follow, we have the same doctrine as that of the Λόγος of St. John. And the testimony of the New Testament to the pre-existence and deity of Christ is the more striking from our finding the same essential idea under different forms of expression, and in writings differing so much from each other in character and style. He who appeared in the world as Christ is, in the first place, here said (as by St. John 1:3) to have been the Agent of creation; cf. Colossians 1:15-17, where the original creative agency of “the Son of his love” is emphatically set forth, as well as his being “the Head of the body, the Church.” This cognate passage is of weight against the view of interpreters who would take the one before us as referring to the initiation of the gospel ages; with respect to which view see also the quotation from Bull given below under ver. 3. Here τοὺς αἰῶνας is equivalent to “the worlds,” as in the A.V. For though the primary meaning of αἰών has reference to time – limited in periods, or unlimited in eternity – it is used to denote also the whole system of things called into being by the Creator in time and through which alone we are able to conceive time. “Οἱ αἰῶνες, saecula, pro rerum creatarum universitate est Hebraismus” (Bull); cf. Hebrews 11:3, καταρτίσθαι τοὺς αἰῶνας ῤήματι Θεοῦ: also 1 Corinthians 2:7, πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων: and 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2, πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων.

“God told me to tell you…” “I have a word from the Lord for you.” “I am a prophet of God.” “I know what the Bible says, but God spoke to me and…”

Claims like the above are increasingly common these days. Sadly, most people who say them do not understand how dangerous they are. Claiming direct revelation from God is essentially putting yourself in a place of equal authority with the Word of God. If God speaks, it is always going to be 100% inerrant, authoritative, true, holy, and perfect. If God truly told you to tell me something, I better listen or I am in direct rebellion against God.

The problem with this idea that God is directly speaking to people, and through people, today, is the fact that the messages attributed to Him are everything but inerrant, authoritative, and true. They are almost always a jumbled mess of confusion, inconsistencies, and outright contradictions of the Word of God. Far too often, “God told me…” is in reality, “I think…and I think God would agree with me…therefore, I am going to tell you that God told me…”

In response to this, many argue that God no longer speaks outside of His Word. Period. Never. The Bible is the complete and sufficient Word of God that gives us everything we need to be saved and walk with God (2 Timothy 3:16-17; Hebrews 4:12). Therefore, there is no need for any further revelation from God. God does not speak. Rather, God has spoken.

This is the viewpoint I was taught in Bible College and Seminary. This is still the viewpoint that I strongly lean towards. Admittedly, it is a very comforting position. It means I can ignore all the claimed messages from God. It frees me from having to use biblically informed discernment in separating truth from error in supposed messages from God. The problem for me is … I do not see solid biblical evidence on which to claim God NEVER speaks today.

Interestingly, even those who hold the “God never speaks” position seem to allow for exceptions to the rule. For example, stories of people in closed countries having dreams/visions that result in them coming to faith in Christ seem to be accepted, even rejoiced over. Accounts of people in third world countries being told to go to such and such a place at such and such a time to speak with God’s messenger, only to bump into a missionary at the exact place and time, are accepted as amazing miracles of God. The justification for the exception is usually something along the lines of, “Well, God only does stuff like that in places where they don’t have access to the Bible.”

Hmm. Where does the Bible say that God works differently based on whether a person has access to the Bible? And, the fact that the United States has tens of millions more Bibles than Yemen does not mean the average American is significantly more biblically literate than the average Yemeni. One could argue that with the massive amount of false doctrine being propagated in the United States that the United States is more in need of corrective direct revelation from God than most third world countries. I just don’t see a solid biblical or reasonable basis for the “God only does stuff like that over there” argument.

So, where does that leave us? To be honest, I am not completely sure.

I firmly believe that the Bible is the perfect and complete Word of God. It contains everything we need to know to follow God’s will for our lives. While it does not give specific instructions related to the personal situations and decisions we face, it does provide all the wisdom we need to be able to make right judgments in those situations and decisions.

With that in mind, I do not see any reason for God to “supplement” His Word with additional revelation. But, at the same time, there is nothing in the Bible that indicates God NEVER speaks today. I do not know the mind of God, and therefore I do not claim to know every reason why God might say something to someone (Isaiah 55:8-9; Romans 11:34).

What I do know is this: if God were to speak today, what He said would be in perfect agreement with His Word. God does not contradict Himself. God does not change His mind. Compare any supposed message from God with God’s Word, and if the message in any way is in contradiction or disharmony with God’s Word, reject the message. If you think God has spoken to you, but are unsure about it, ask Him for confirmation (Judges 6:36-40; 1 Samuel 3:1-10). Seek wise counsel from men and women of God whom you respect and trust (Proverbs 11:14; 15:22).

Above all, understand that God speaking is a miracle, not a normal. Even in the Bible, God speaking directly to people, whether through an audible voice or a “still small voice,” is rare. We would all benefit from spending far more time on what God has said instead of on what God might be saying.

S. Michael Houdmann

Philippians 4:8

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.

True . . . honest (better, venerable; see margin).–Truth is the inherent likeness to God, who is Truth. Whatever is true in itself is also “venerable”–i.e., as the original word, usually rendered “grave” (as in 1Timothy 3:8; 1Timothy 3:11; Titus 2:2) etymologically signifies, it claims a share of the reverence due primarily to God; it has in it a certain majesty commanding worship.

Just . . . pure.–“Just” is (as St. Paul’s habitual usage of “justify” shows) righteous in act and word, as tested by the declared will of man or God. “Pure” is righteous in essence, in the thought, which cannot be thus tested–showing itself in what is just and indeed perfected thereby, but in itself something holier still.

Lovely . . . of good report.–Both words are peculiar to this passage: in both we pass from truth and righteousness to love. “Lovely” is that which deserves love. The phrase “of good report” represents a Greek word which is commonly used for “fair-sounding,” or “auspicious” and “acceptable.” It is therefore the outward expression of what is “lovely,” winning the acceptance which loveliness deserves.

Verse 8. – Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true. He repeats the “finally” of Philippians 2:1, He again and again prepares to close his Epistle, but cannot at once bid farewell to his beloved Philippians. He urges them to fill their thoughts with things good and holy. Christ is the Truth: all that is true comes from him; the false, the vain, is of the earth, earthy. Perhaps the verb (ἐστίν) may be emphatic. Sceptics may deny the existence of absolute truth; men may scoffingly ask, “What is truth?” Truth is real, and it is found in Christ, the Truth. Whatsoever things are honest. The word (σεμνά) occurs only here and four times in the pastoral Epistles. It is a word difficult translate. “Honourable” or” reverend” (the renderings of the R.V.) are better equivalents than “honest.” It points to a Christian decorum, a Christian self-respect, which is quite consistent with true humility, for it is a reverence for the temple of God. Whatsoever things are just; rather, perhaps, righteous, in the widest meaning. Whatsoever things are pure; not only chaste, but free from stain or defilement of any sort. The word used here (ἁγνός) is not common in the New Testament. The adverb occurs in Philippians 1:16, where it is rendered “sincerely,” and implies purity of motive. Whatsoever things are lovely (προσφιλῆ); not beautiful, but pleasing, lovable; whatsoever things would attract the love of holy souls. Whatsoever things are of good report. The word (εὔφημα) means “well-speaking” (not “well spoken of”), and so “gracious,” “attractive;” in classical Greek it means “auspicious,” “of good omen.” Of these six heads, the first two describe the subjects of devout thought as they are in themselves; the second pair relate to practical life; the third pair to the moral approbation which the contemplation of a holy life excites in good men. If there be any virtue. This word, so very common in the Greek moralists, occurs nowhere else in St. Paul. Nor does any other of the New Testament writers use it except St. Peter (l Peter 2:9 (in the Greek); 2 Peter 1:3, 5). Bishop Lightfoot says, “The strangeness of the word, combined with the change of expression, εἴ τις, will suggest another explanation: ‘Whatever value may reside in your old heathen conception of virtue, whatever consideration is due to the praise of men; ‘ as if the apostle were anxious not to omit any possible ground of appeal.” And if there be any praise; comp. Romans 12:17 and 2 Corinthians 8:21, where St. Paul bids us “provide for honest things, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men.” Nevertheless, in the highest point of view, the praise of the true Israelite is not of man, but of God. Think on these things; or, as in the margin of R.V., take account of. Let these be the considerations which guide your thoughts and direct your motives. The apostle implies that we have the power of governing our thoughts, and so are responsible for them. If the thoughts are ordered well, the outward life will follow.

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

1. On Bozrah, a city of Edom, see on ch. Isaiah 34:6.

with dyed garments] Better, with bright coloured garments. The word for “dyed” means literally “sharp,” “piercing.”

The mention of Edom as the scene of a judgement which is obviously universal (see Isaiah 63:3; Isaiah 63:6), including all the enemies of Jehovah and Israel, is a feature common to this prophecy and that of ch. 34. It is partly accounted for by the embittered relations between the two peoples, of which traces are found in post-exilic writings (see the note on ch. 34); and partly perhaps by the ancient conception that Jehovah marches from Edom to the succour of His people (Jdg 5:4). There can hardly be a reference to anticipated resistance on the part of the Edomites to the re-establishment of the Jewish State, for the judgement is not on Edom alone but on all nations; and moreover the prophecy in all probability belongs to a date subsequent to the first return of the exiles from Babylon.

glorious in his apparel] The word for glorious is lit. “swelling,” being identical with that which is wrongly rendered “crooked” in ch. Isaiah 45:2 (see the note). It is doubtful what is the exact sense of the expression “swelling in his raiment.” Duhm’s suggestion of loose robes inflated by the wind seems a little fanciful. On the other hand “glorious” or “splendid” (LXX. ὡραῖος) conveys an impression hardly consistent with the image, since the garments of the divine champion are said to be “defiled” by the blood of His enemies (Isaiah 63:3).

travelling] R.V. marching; Vulg. gradiens. This however may represent a variant reading (çô‘çd, cf. Jdg 5:4) which is perhaps preferable to the Massoretic text (çô‘eh). The Hebr. word occurs in the difficult passage Isaiah 51:14 with the sense of “crouching.” Those who retain it here explain it in various ways with the help of the Arabic as a “gesture of proud self-consciousness” (Del.); “swaying to and fro”; “with head thrown back,” &c.

I that speak in righteousness &c.] i.e. “speak righteously” (cf. Isaiah 45:19). Jehovah declares Himself to be true in speech, faithfully fulfilling His prophecies, and powerful in deed (mighty to save).

Pulpit Commentary
Verses 1-6. – A JUDGMENT ON IDUMAEA. Isaiah had already, in the first portion of his prophecy, announced” a great slaughter in the land of Idumaea” as resolved on in the counsels of God (Isaiah 34:5-10). He now recurs to the subject, and represents Jehovah as a warrior with blood-stained garments, fresh from the field of battle in Edom, where he has trodden down his foes and taken a fierce vengeance on them. The Idumaeans probably represent the world-power; and the “day of vengeance” may be one still future, in which the enemies of God will feel the weight of his hand. The description stands by itself, neither connected with what goes before nor with what follows. It has the appearance of a separate poem, which accident has placed in its present position. In form it is “a lyrico-dramatic dialogue between the prophet as a bystander and a victorious warrior (i.e. Jehovah) returning from battle in Idumaea” (Cheyne). Verse 1. – Who is this? The prophet opens the dialogue with an inquiry, “Who is it that presents himself before him suddenly in a strange guise?” He comes from Edom, from Bozrah – a principal Edomite city (see the comment on Isaiah 34:6) – with dyed garments; or, rather, with blood-red garments-garments incarnadined with gore. “Who is this,” again he asks, “that is glorious (or, splendid) in his apparel” – the blood-stained vesture of the conqueror was a glory to him (Nahum 2:3; Revelation 19:13)- “as he travels” (or, “bends forward” ) in the greatness of his strength – exhibiting in his movements a mighty indomitable strength? Who is it? The reply is immediate – I that speak in righteousness, mighty to save; i.e. I, whose every word is “holy, just, and true,” who alone am able to “save to the uttermost all that come to me” (Hebrews 7:25). The answer unmistakably indicates that the figure which has appeared to the prophet is that of Jehovah. Isaiah 63:1

MacLaren’s Expositions
Isaiah

MIGHTY TO SAVE

Isaiah 63:1.

We have here a singularly vivid and dramatic prophecy, thrown into the form of a dialogue between the prophet and a stranger whom he sees from afar striding along from the mountains of Edom, with elastic step, and dyed garments. The prophet does not recognise him, and asks who he is. The Unknown answers, ‘I that speak in righteousness, mighty to save.’ Another question follows, seeking explanation of the splashed crimson garments of the stranger, and its answer tells of a tremendous act of retributive destruction which he has recently launched at the nations hostile to ‘My redeemed.’

Now we note that this prophecy follows, both in the order of the book and in the evolution of events, on those in Isaiah 61:1 – Isaiah 61:11, which referred to our Lord’s work on earth, and inIsaiah 62:1 – Isaiah 62:12, which has for part of its theme His intercession in heaven. And we are entitled to take the view that the place as well as the substance of this prophecy referred to the solemn act of final Judgment in which the returning Lord will manifest Himself. Very significant is it that the prophet does not recognise in this Conqueror, with blood-bespattered robes, the meek sufferer of Isaiah 53:1 – Isaiah 53:12, or Him who in Isaiah 62:1 – Isaiah 62:12 came to bind up the broken-hearted. And very instructive is it that the title in our text comes from the stranger’s own lips, as relevant to the tremendous act of judgment from which He is seen returning. The title might seem rather to look back to the former manifestation of Him as bearing our griefs and carrying our sorrows. It does indeed, thank God, look back to that never-to-be-forgotten miracle of mercy and power, but it also brings within the sweep of His saving might the judgment still to come.

I. The mighty Saviour as made known in the past and present.

We think much of the meek and gentle side of Christ’s character. Perhaps we do not think enough of the strength of it. We trace His great sacrifice to His love, and we can never sufficiently adore that incomparable manifestation of a love deeper than our plummets can fathom. But probably we do not sufficiently realise what gigantic strength went to the completion of that sacrifice. We know the solemn imagining of a great artist who has painted a colossal Death overbearing the weak resistance of a puny Love; but here love is the giant, and his sovereign command brings Death obedient to it, to do his work. Yes, that weak man hanging on the Cross is therein revealed as ‘the power of God.’ Strange clothing of weakness which yet cannot hide the mighty limbs that wear it!

And if we think of our Lord’s life we see the same combination of gentleness and power. His very name rings with memories of the captain whose one commanded duty was to ‘be strong and of a good courage.’

In Him was all strength of manhood-inflexible, iron will, unchanging purpose, strength from consecration, strength from righteousness. In Him was the heroism of prophets and martyrs in supreme degree.

In Him was the strength of indwelling Divinity. He fought and conquered all man’s enemies, routed sin, and triumphed over Death.

In the Cross we see divine power in operation in its noblest form, in its intensest energy, in its widest sweep, in its most magnificent result. He is able to save, to save all, to save any.

He is mighty to save, and is able to save unto the uttermost, because He lives for ever, and His power is eternal as Himself.

II. The mighty Saviour as to be manifested in the future.

Clearly the imagery of the context describes a tremendous act of judgment. And as clearly the Apocalyptic Seer understood this prophecy as not only pointing to Christ, but as to be fulfilled in the final act of judgment. He quotes its words when he paints his magnificent vision of the Conqueror riding forth on his white horse, with garments sprinkled with blood and treading the ‘winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.’ And the vision is interpreted unmistakably when we read that, though this Conqueror had a name unknown to any but Himself, ‘His name is called the Word of God.’ So the unity of person in the Word made flesh who dwelt among us, full of grace and of this Mighty One girt for battle, is taught.

Keeping fast hold of this clue, the contrast between the characteristics of the historical Jesus and of the rider on the white horse becomes solemn and full of warning. And the contrast between the errand of the historical Jesus and that of the Conqueror bids us ponder on the possibilities that may sleep in perfect love. We have to widen our conceptions, if we have thought of our Jesus only as love, and have thought of love as shallow, as most men do. We are sometimes told that these two pictures, that of the Christ of the Gospels and that of the Christ of the Apocalypse, are incapable of being fused together in one original. But they can be stereoscoped, if we may say so. And they must be, if we are ever to understand the greatness of His love or the terribleness of His judgments. ‘The wrath of the Lamb’ sounds an impossibility, but if we ponder it, we shall find depths of graciousness as well as of awe in it.

Let us learn that the righteous Judge is logically and chronologically the completion of the picture of the merciful Saviour. In this age there is a tendency to treat sin with too much pity and too little condemnation. And there is not a sufficiently firm grasp of the truth that divine love must be in irreconcilable antagonism with human sin, and can do nothing but chastise and smite it.

III. The saving purpose of even that destructive might.

Through the whole Old Testament runs the longing that God would ‘awake’ to smite evil.

The tragedy of the drowned hosts in the Red Sea, and Miriam and her maidens standing with their timbrels and shrill song of triumph on the bank, is a prophecy of what shall be. ‘Ye shall have a song as in the night a holy feast is kept, and gladness of heart as when one goeth with a pipe to come unto the mountain of the Lord.’ And at the thought of that solemn act of judgment they who love the Judge, and have long known Him, ‘may lift up their heads’ in the confidence that ‘their redemption draweth nigh.’ That is the last, and in some sense the mightiest, greatest act by which He shows Himself ‘mighty to save His redeemed.’

So we may, like the prophet, see that swift form striding nearer and nearer, but, unlike the prophet, we need not to ask, ‘Who is this that cometh?’ for we have known Him from of old, and we remember the voice that said, ‘This same Jesus shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven.’ ‘Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness before Him in the day of judgment.’

Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Who is this – The language of the people who see Yahweh returning as a triumphant conqueror from Idumea. Struck with his stately bearing as a warrior; with his gorgeous apparel; and with the blood on his raiment, they ask who he could be? This is a striking instance of the bold and abrupt manner of Isaiah. He does not describe him as going forth to war nor the preparation for battle; nor the battle itself, nor the conquests of cities and armies; but he introduces at once the returning conqueror having gained the victory – here represented as a solitary warrior, moving along with majestic gait from Idumea to his own capital, Jerusalem. Yahweh is not unfrequently represented as a warrior (see the notes at Isaiah 42:13).
From Edom – On the situation of Edom, and for the reasons of the animosity between that country and Judea, see the Aanlysis to Isaiah 34.

With dyed garments – That is, with garments dyed in blood. The word rendered here ‘dyed’ ( חמוּץ châmûts), is derived from חמץ châmats, to be sharp and pungent, and is usually applied to anything that is sharp or sour. It is applied to color that is bright or dazzling, in the same manner as the Greeks use the phrase χρῶμα ὀξύ chrōma oxu – a sharp color – applied to purple or scarlet. Thus the phrase πορφύραι ὀξύταται porphurai oxutatai means a brilliant, bright purple (see Bochart, Hieroz. i. 2. 7). It is applied to the military cloak which was worn by a warrior, and may denote here either that it was originally dyed of a scarlet color, or more probably that it was made red by the blood that had been sprinkled on it. Thus in Revelation 19:13, the Son of God is represented as clothed in a similar manner: ‘And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood.’ In Isaiah 63:3, the answer of Yahweh to the inquiry why his raiment was red, shows that the color was to be attributed to blood.

From Bozrah – On the situation of Bozrah, see the notes at Isaiah 34:6. It was for a time the principal city of Idumea, though properly lying within the boundaries of Moab. In Isaiah 34:6, Yahweh is represented as having ‘a great sacrifice in Bozrah;’ here he is seen as having come from it with his garments red with blood.

This that is glorious in his apparel – Margin, ‘Decked.’ The Hebrew word (הדוּר hâdûr) means “adorned, honorable, or glorious.” The idea is, that his military apparel was gorgeous and magnificent – the apparel of an ancient warrior of high rank.

Traveling in the greatness of his strength – Noyes renders this, ‘Proud in the greatness of his strength,’ in accordance with the signification given by Gesenius. The word used here (צעה tsâ‛âh) means properly “to turn to one side, to incline, to be bent, bowed down as a captive in bonds” Isaiah 51:14; then “to bend or toss back the head as an indication of pride” (Gesenius). According to Taylor (Concord.) the word has ‘relation to the actions, the superb mien or manner of a triumphant warrior returning from battle, in which he has got a complete victory over his enemies. And it may include the pomp and high spirit with which he drives before him the prisoners which he has taken.’ It occurs only in this place and in Isaiah 51:14; Jeremiah 2:20; Jeremiah 48:12. The Septuagint omits it in their translation. The sense is doubtless that Yahweh is seen returning with the tread of a triumphant conqueror, flushed with victor, and entirely successful in having destroyed his foes. There is no evidence, however, as Taylor supposes, that he is driving his prisoners before him, for he is seen alone, having destroyed all his foes.

I that speak in righteousness – The answer of the advancing conqueror. The sense is, ‘It is I, Yahweh, who have promised to deliver my people and to destroy their enemies, and who have now returned from accomplishing my purpose.’ The assurance that he speaks in righteousness, refers here to the promises which he had made that be would rescue and save them.

Mighty to save – The sentiment is, that the fact that he destroys the foes of his people is an argument that he can save those who put their trust in him. The same power that destroys a sinner may save a saint; and the destruction of a sinner may be the means of the salvation of his own people.