10. For it became him, etc. His object is, to make Christ’s humiliation to appear glorious to the godly; for when he is said to have been clothed with our flesh, he seems to be classed with the common order of men; and the cross brought him lower than all men. We must therefore take heed, lest Christ should be less esteemed, because he willingly humbled himself for us; and this is what is here spoken of. For the Apostle shows that this very thing ought to be deemed honorable to the Son of God, that he was by these means consecrated the Captain of our salvation.
He first assumes it as granted, that we ought to be satisfied with God’s decree; for as all things are sustained by his power, so all things ought to serve to his glory. No betters cause, then, can be found out than the good pleasure of God. Such is the purport of the circumlocution which he employs, for whom, and by whom, are all things. He might by one word have named God; but his purpose was to remind us, that what is to be deemed best is that which he appoints, whose will and glory is the right end of all things. (39)
It does not, however, appear as yet what he intends by saying, that it became Christ to be thus consecrated. But this depends on the ordinary way which God adopts in dealing with his own people; for his will is to exercise them with various trials, so that they may spend their whole life under the cross. It was hence necessary that Christ, as the firstbegotten, should by the cross be inaugurated into his supremacy, since that is the common lot and condition of all. This is the conforming of the head with the members, of which Paul speaks in Romans 8:29.
It is indeed a singular consolation, calculated to mitigate the bitterness of the cross, when the faithful hear, that by sorrows and tribulations they are sanctified for glory as Christ himself was; and hence they see a sufficient reason why they should lovingly kiss the cross rather than dread it. And when this is the case, then doubtless the reproach of the cross of Christ immediately disappears, and its glory shines forth; for who can despise what is sacred, nay, what God sanctifies? Who can deem that ignominious, by which we are prepared for glory? And yet both these things are said here of the death of Christ.
By whom are all things, etc. When creation is spoken of, it is ascribed to the Son as his own world, for by him were all things created; but here the Apostle means no other thing than that all creatures continue or are preserved by the power of God. What we have rendered consecrated, others have rendered made perfect. But as the word, τελειῶσαι which he uses, is of a doubtful meaning, I think it clear that the word I leave adopted is more suitable to the context. (40) For what is meant is the settled and regular way or method by which the sons of God are initiated, so that they may obtain their own honor, and be thus separated from the rest of the world; and then immediately sanctification is mentioned.
(39) Having vindicated Christ’s superiority over angels, he being “crowned with glory and honor,” notwithstanding his assumption of human nature, and for his sufferings, the Apostle now, as it were, goes back, and proves the necessity of what has been done; showing how needful it was for him to become man, and to suffer as he did; and we find he states two especial reasons — that he might reconcile us to God and be able to sympathize with his people. — Ed.
(40) Our version seems more intelligible — “to make perfect.” As it appears afterwards his perfection consisted in his having made an atonement for sin, and in being capable of sympathy with his people. God made him perfectly qualified to be the Captain or leader in our salvation, that is, in the work of saving us, even through sufferings, as thereby he procured our salvation and became experimentally acquainted with the temptations and trials of humanity.
The sense given by Stuart and some others, borrowed from the use of the word in the classics, which is that of crowning or rewarding the victor at the games is not suitable here; for what follows clearly shows that its meaning is what has been stated.
Both Scott and Stuart connect “the bringing many sons unto glory” with “the captain of their salvation.” One thing is indeed thus gained, the cases seem to suit better; but then the sense is violated. When the sentence is thus rendered, there is no antecedent to “their” connected with “salvation;” and the faithful are not called the “sons” of Christ, but his brethren. As to the case of the participle for “bringing,” an accusative for a dative, it is an anomaly, says Bloomfield, that sometimes occurs in Paul’s writings and also in the classics. — Ed.