f syne a \ 7 Book, | No) se. Vs fee hap hy A HY Theological Seminary; PRINCETON, N.J. <— Pal 7 IF ae ia. ; / ) Case, tO ok Wabi iene Voce Shelf, . Sectionaeal, A bak wong a ae sonnet COP, | é —— oo ed <2 re. = [ a r ' > ‘tied | oe ae . ger ree mand wa ” ” a a -- f-. j + J ; ‘Wa : ds y ¥ a » * 9 | “Se fe @ ~ ; ° - re ‘ ¥ : 3 a -_ a 4 ha é “. ’ ‘ P Ns a * = + J oe , as , . ; ae : ‘ ai . “ye 4 fs me sce orgidetails/commentaryonepis02stua sh, et ae /. x! PART II. at ees Oe COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. IN TWO VOLUMES. BY M. STUART Associate Professor of Sacred Literature in the Theol. Seminary at Andover. VOL. It. ANDOVER: PUBLISHED AND FOR SALE BY MARK NEWMAN Codman press....Flagg & Gould. 1828. a z oe UF Ply ws af vee ay “Oy r ayy i Ph leeiete ‘te pring! - wt . 5a” - : fe y per, ri bb: pe ee me Pi; vag yA ssi et, PREFACE. It is proper to advertise the reader, that in the translation of the Epistle to the Hebrews, which is prefixed to the present vol- ume, I have purposely avoided the usual division into chapters and verses, which is exhibited in our common editions of the Scrip- tures. I have done this, because the sense is sometimes disturbed by it, and the reader is unwarily led to associate things together, in a manner which the writer of the epistle never intended. The words or phrases, which are supplied in the translation, and which are not expressed in the original Greek, I have uniform- ly included in brackets, so that the reader may at once see the ex- tent of the liberty that has been taken, in order to render the ver- sion more explicit. For the sake of accommodation, the designation of the chapters and verses is made upon the margin. The larger pauses mark the end of a verse, when they occur in a line that is opposite to any number designating a verse ; and when these fail to do it, the de- signation is made by a perpendicular stroke (| ). I have, in most cases, repeated the greater part of the transla- tion, in printing the Commentary or Notes upon the Original. This has been done, merely to save the reader the trouble of turning continually back to the version; which is often tedious, and al- ways inconvenient. But I have not been careful always to repeat verbatim, in the notes, the words of the translation, as they stand at the commencement of this volume. In fact, the reader may re- gard the version at the head of the volume, and that contained among the notes, as two different versions. They were, for the most part, made at different times, and in a measure independently of each other. The former, is that on which I have bestowed most pains as to diction. The latter, is merely designed to facilitate the tabours of the student. IV PREFACE. In regard to the Excursus, different opinions will not improba- bly be entertained respecting them. The expediency of them, their length, and the correctness of some of the positions which they advance, may all be called in question. In matters so difficult and delicate, and which have so long been the theme of controver- sy, it cannot be expected that there will be, at once, an entire and universal agreement of opinion. The writer of these sheets does not venture to flatter himself with the expectation, that all will adopt his views. Of one thing however he is very confident; and this is, that he claims no authority of any kind, over the opinions of others. But he thinks it proper to express his sincere desire, that those, who may differ from him as to some of the opinions advanced in the Excur- sus, or in the body of the work, would thoroughly examine the sub- jects in respect to which they may think him erroneous, before they pass sentence of condemnation. It is not too much, moreover, to request that they would assign their reasons why they differ from him. In this way, differences of opinion may ultimately aid in the discovery of truth, with respect to dark and difficult subjects, and so prove to be of real utility to the church. Subjects of high and awful interest in religion should not be treated with obtrusive confidence, nor with presumption. [I shall most thankfully accept any better light than I now have, let it come from what quarter it may. Being a Protestant, and nudlius addictus jurare in verba magistri, I deem it not unreasonable to expect, that where I may be in the wrong, I may be convinced by argument, not silenced by authority. Appeals should ever be made, by Protestants, to the understanding ; not ad invidiam, nor to current or popular prejudice. _. With these explanations of my views and feelings, I commit the work to the friends of exegetical study, not without much solici- tude as to the opinion which the wise and the good may entertain respecting it; but still, with some hope, that it may serve to aid such as are aiming io attain a critical knowledge of the Scriptures, or at least, excite some to efforts, which shall end in the produc- tion of better Commentaries on the Scriptures, than are yet before the public. M. STUART. Theological Seminary, Andover, March 25, 1828. THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. Dignity of Christ. His superiority over the angels. Gop, who in ancient times spake often and in various ways to the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days 2 spoken to us by his Son; whom he hath appointed Lord 3 of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; who, (be- ing the radiance of his glory and the exact image of his sub- stance, and controlling all things by his own powerful word), after he had by himself made expiation for our sins, sat down 4 atthe right hand of the majesty on high, 1 being exalted as much above the angels, as he hath obtained a name more excellent than they. 5 For to which of the angels said he, at any time, “ Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?” And again, oe 6 will be his Father, and he shall be my Son?” Again also, when he bringeth his first begotten into the world, he saith, “ Let all the angels of God worship him.” i Moreover, of the angels it is said, ““ Who maketh his an- gels winds, and his ministering servants a flame of fire.” 8 But of the Son, “Thy throne, O God, is eternal; a sceptre 9 of uprightness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity ; therefore, O God, VOL. I. . 2 10 10 it 12 13 14 i. i) 6 ~t HEBREWS I. 10—II. 7. thy God hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” Alse, “Thou Lord, in the beginning, didst lay the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands ; | they shall perish, but thou shalt endure ; yea, they shall all wax old like a garment, | and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall decay; but thou art the same, and thy years shall never cease.” Unto which of the angels, also, hath he ever said, “ Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy foot- stool?” Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to as- sist those who are to obtain salvation ? Exhortation diligently to seek the salvation proffered by the Lord of glory. Ir behooveth us, therefore, the more abundantly to give heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should slight them. For if the law communicated by angels was established, and every transgression aud disobedience re- ceived a just reward ; how shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation? which, being first declared by the Lord, was afterwards confirmed unto us by those who heard [him] ; God also bearing witness with them, by signs, and wonders, and diverse miraculous powers, and communications of the Holy Spirit, according to dis will. Further declaration of Christ’s superiority over the angels. Objections against this, drawn from his human nature, removed by showing the elevation of that nature, and the important objects accomplished by assuming it. _ Moreover, unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world that was to come, of which we are now speaking. But one, in a certain place, hath testified, saying, “ What is man, that thou art mindful of him; or the son of man, that thou dost regard him? [Yet] thou hast made him but little lower than the angels; thou hast crowned him with glory HEBREWS If. 8—18. li 8 10 11 12 13 14 and honour, and hast set him over the works of thy hands. All things hast thou put under his feet.” Now by putting all things in subjection to him, he left nothing which is not sub- ject to him. For the present, indeed, we do not see all things yet subjected to him; but we see Jesus, who was made but little lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honour on account of the suffering of death, when by the grace of God he had tasted death for all. It became him, also, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, to bestow, on account of sufferings, the highest hon- ours upon him who is the Captain of their salvation, leading many sons to glory. Furthermore, both he who maketh expiation, and they for whom expiation is made, are of one [nature]; for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, | saying, “1 will declare thy name to my brethren; in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.” And again, “I will put my trust in him.” And again, “ Behold, I and the children which God hath given me!” Since then the children are partakers of flesh and blood, himself also in like manner par- took of them, in order that by his death he might subdue him 15 who had a deadly power, that is, the devil, | and free those, 16 17 18 who, through fear of condemnation, had during their whole lives been exposed to a state of bondage. Besides, he doth not at all help the angels, but he helpeth the seed of Abraham. Hence it was necessary, that in all respects he should be like to his brethren, so that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest as to things which per- — tain to God, in order to make atonement for the sins of the people. For inasmuch as he himself suffered, being tempted, he is able to succour those who are tempted. ‘12 HEBREWS Ill. 1—15. Comparison of Christ with Moses. Warning against disregarding his admonitions. Hil. W uererore, holy brethren, who have received the hea- venly invitation, attentively consider Jesus, the apostle and 2 high priest whom we have acknowledged ; who was faith- ful to him that appointed him, even as Moses [was], in all 3 his house. For he is worthy of more glory than Moses, in-_ asmuch as the builder is entitled to more honour than the 4 house. (Now every house is built by some one, and he who 5 formed all things is God.) Moses, however, was faithful in all his house as a servant, for the sake of testifying those 6 things which were to be declared; but Christ, as a Son, over his house ; whose house we are, provided we hold fast unto the end our confidence and joyful hope. 7 Wherefore, as the Holy Spirit saith, “To day, while ye 8 hear his voice, 1 harden not your hearts, as in the provoca- 9 tion, in the day of temptation in the wilderness, | when your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty 10 years. Wherefore ] was angry with that generation, and said, They do always err in their hearts, and they have not 11 acknowledged my ways. So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.” * i 12 _ Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil and unbelieving heart, so that he may apostatise from the living 13 God. But admonish one another continually, while it is call- ed to day, so that no one of you may become hardened by 14 sinful delusion. For we shall be made partakers of the bless- ings which Christ bestows, provided we hold fast even to the end our first confidence. 15 With regard to the saying, “To day, while ye hear his HEBREWS IIIf. 16—IV. 8. 13 > who 16 voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation ;? now were they, that when they heard did provoke? Nay, did 17 not all, who came out of Egypt under Moses? And with whom was he angry, forty years? Was it not with those 18 who sinned, whose corpses fell in the wilderness? To whom did he swear, that they should not enter into his rest, except 19 to those who did not believe? We see, then, that they could not enter in, because of unbelief. The rest promised to believers in ancient times is still proffered. The threateninge against unbelief remain in full force. IV. Let us beware, therefore, since a promise is still left of entering into his rest, lest any one of you should come short 2 of it. For to us also blessings are proclaimed, as well as to them; the word, however, which they heard, did not profit them, not being connected with faith in those who heard it. 3 But we who believe do enter into the rest ; as he says, “ So I sware, in my wrath, [unbelievers] shall not enter into my rest ;” namely, [rest from] the works which had been per- 4 formed, after the foundation of the world was laid. For [the Scripture] speaketh, in a certain place, concerning the seventh day, in this manner, “ And God rested, on the seventh day, 5 from all his works.” And again, in this [manner], “ They 6 shall not enter into my rest.” Since then it remaineth that some must enter into that [rest], and they, to whom this bless- ing was formerly proclaimed, did not enter in because of unbelief, [it followeth, that believers only can enter into it.*] Again, he specifieth a particular day, To-pay, when speak- ing by David, so long a time afterwards; as it is said, * 'To- 8 pay, while ye hear his voice, harden not your hearts.” Now, * Supplied from v. 3. 14 HEBREWS IV. 9—V. 2. 11 12 13 14 16 i) if Joshua had given them rest, then he would not have spoken of another day. Consequently, there remaineth a rest for the people of God. He, moreover, who entereth into his [God’s] rest, will also cease from his own works, as God did from his. Let us strive, then, to enter into that rest, so that no one may perish in like manner, through unbelief. For the threatening of God hath an active and mighty power, yea, it is sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of both life and spirit, and of the joits and marrow: he also judgeth the thoughts and purposes of the heart; nor is there any thing which can be concealed from his sight, but all is naked and exposed to the view of him, unto whom we must render our account. Comparison of Christ with the Jewish high priest introduced. Reproof for ignorance of the higher doctrinesof the Christian religion, followed by encouragement and exhorta- tion. Moreover, since we have a high priest who has pass- ed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast to our profession. For we have not a high priest, who is not able to sympathize with our weaknesses; but one who was tempted in_all respects as we are, [yet] without sin. Let us, therefore, approach the throne of grace with confi- dence that we may obtain mercy, and find favour, so as to be assisted in time of need. Now every high priest, taken from among men, is ap- pointed in behalf of men on account of things which pertain to God, that he may present both oblations and sacrifices for sin; being able to shew kindness to the ignorant and the erring, inasmuch as he himself is compassed with infirmity. HEBREWS V.3—VI. 2. 15 _ 3 On this account, also, he must present sin-offerings, as well 4 11 12 13 14 VE 2 for himself as for the people. Moreover, noone assumeth for himself this honour, but he is called [thereto] of God, even as Aaron was. In like manner, Christ also did not claim for himself the honour of being high priest; but he who said, “ Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee,” [bestowed this hon- our upon him]. So also he saith, in another place, “ ‘Thou art a priest forever, after the order of Melchisedek.” The same, in the days of his incarnation, (having offered up prayers and supplications, with strong cries and with tears, unto him that was able to save him from death, and being de- livered from that which he feared,) | although a Son, was made acquainted with obedience in a state of suffering. Then, when exalted to glory, he became the author of eter- nal salvation, to all who obey him, | being called of God, “ A high priest, after the order of Melchisedek.” Respecting him we have much to say, which it will be difficult to explain, since ye are dull of apprehension. For even when ye ought to be able to teach, after [so long] a time, ye have need to be taught again the first elements of the oracles of God, and need milk rather than solid food. For every one, who is a partaker of milk, is unskilled in the doctrines of religion; he is yet achild. But solid food is for those of mature age, who have faculties exercised by practice for the distinguishing of both good and evil. Wherefore, leaving the first principles of Christian doc- trine, let us go-on toward a mature state [of religious know]- edge]; not laying again the foundation, concerning repent- ance from works which cause death, and faith towards God ; [concerning] the doctrine of baptisms, and the laying on 16 HEBREWS VI. 3—17. of hands, and the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judg- 3,4 ment. And this will we do, if God permit. For it is im- Oo on oO 10 ll 12 14 16 possible, that they, who have been once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and been made partakers of the holy Spirit, 1 and have tasted the good word of God, and the miraculous powers of the age which was to come, | and have fallen away, should be again renewed to repentance, since they have crucified for themselves the Son of God, and openly exposed him to shame. Now the earth, which drinketh in the rain that frequent- ly cometh upon it, and bringeth forth fruits useful to those for whose sake it is tilled, receiveth blessings from God. But that which bringeth forth thorns and briars, is reprobate, and is near to a curse which will end in burning. But, beloved, we confidently hope for better things con- cerning you, even those connected with salvation, although we thus speak. For God is not unkind, so that ‘he will for- get your labour, and the love which ye have shown toward his name, in having performed kind offices toward the saints, and in still performing them. Moreover, we are desirous that every one of you should manifest the same diligence, for the sake of a full assurance of hope, even to the end; so that ye may not be slothful, but imitators of those, who, through faith and patient expec- tation, have come to the possession of promised blessings. For when God made a promise to Abraham, seeing he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself, saying, “T will greatly bless thee, and exceedingly multiply thee.” And so, having patiently waited, he obtained the promised blessing. Now men swear by one who is greater, and the oath for confirmation [maketh] an end of all dispute among wf HEBREWS VI. 17—VII. 7. 17 17 them. In like Miter: God, desirous of shewing more abundantly to the heirs of promise the immutability of his 18 purpose, interposed by an oath; so that by two immutable things, concerning which it is impossible for God to lie, we, who have sought for a refuge, might be strongly persuaded 19 to hold fast the hope that is set before us, 1 which we cleave to as an anchor of the soul sure and firmly fixed, and which 20 entereth within the vail, | whither Jesus our forerunner hath gone, being made high priest forever, after the order of Mel- chisedek. Comparison of Christ, as a priest, with Melchisedek. New order of things required by the appointment of such a priest; which appointment was made with the solemnity of an oath; and the office created by it was perpetual, allowing of no succession like that of the Jewish priests. Vil. Now this Melchisedek was king of Salem, and .priest of the most high God. The same met Abraham returning 2 from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him. To him, also, Abraham gave a tenth part of all. By interpretation, [his name] meaneth, first, King of Righteousness ; and then, he is also King of ‘Salem, which meaneth, King of Peace. 3 Without father, without mother, without genealogy ; having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but being like to the Son of God; he remaineth a high priest perpetually. Consider, now, how great he must be, to whom Abraham 5 the patriarch gave a tenth part of the spoils! Even the sons of Levi, who take the office of priests, have indeed a command by the law to tithe the people, that is, their breth- 6 ren, although descended from the loins of Abraham; but he, whose descent is not counted from them, tithed Abraham, 7 and blessed him to whom the promises were made. And beyond all controversy, the inferior was blessed by the su- perior. VOL. II. 3 od i ‘iy 18 HEBREWS VII. 8~22., - 8 Here, also, men receive tithes who die; but there, one 9 of whom it is testified that he liveth. Yea, (if I] may so 10 11 12 13 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 speak), even Levi himself, who receiveth tithes, was tithed in Abraham; for he was then in the loins of his ancestor, when Melchisedek met him. Moreover, if there had been a perfect accomplishment of what was needed, by the Levitical priesthood, (for the law was given to the people, in connexion with this), what ve- cessity was there still, that another priest should arise after the order of Melchisedek, and not be named after the order of Aaron? But if the priesthood be changed, there must needs be also a change of the law. Now he, concerning whom these things are said, belonged to a different tribe, none of whom served at the altar; for it is plain, that our Lord sprang from Judah, in respect to which tribe, Moses said nothing concerning the priesthood. And _ still more manifest is it, [that the priesthood is changed], if another priest hath arisen, like to Melchisedek ; who hath not been made so by a law of temporary obligation, but by an authori- ty of endless duration. For [the Scripture] declareth, “ Thou art a priest forever, after the order of Melchisedek.” There is, also, a setting aside of the preceding law, be- cause it was weak and unavailing. For the law did not fully accomplish any thing; but the introduction of a better hope [doth], by which we draw near to God. Furthermore, in as much as not without an oath [Jesus was made a priest], 1 (for they are made priests without an oath, but he with an oath, by him who said to him, “The Lord hath sworn and will not repent, Thou art a priest for- ever, afier the order of Melchisedek,)” 1 by so much hath Je- sus become the surety of a Paper ep ronan. 23 24 25 26 27 28 at HEBREWS VII. 23—VII. 5. 19 Those priests, moreover, are many, because they are not suffered to continue by reason of death; but he, because he continueth forever, hath a priesthood without any succession ; and on this account he is able always to save those who come unto God by him, since he ever liveth to interpose in their behalf. The subject of Christ’s qualifications for the office of a priest, (proposed in 5:23, and briefly discussed in 5: 7—9), resumed. His superiority over the Jewish priests, in respect to these, exhibited. Such a high priest, moreover, was needful for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and exalted above the heavens; who hath not any daily necessity, like the high priests, to offer sacrifices, first for their own sins, and then for the sins of the people ; for this he did, once for all, when he offered up himself. Now the law maketh men high priests, who have infirmity ; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, [maketh] the Son [high priest], who is exalted to glory for ever more. Expiatory office of Christ as a priest. His functions, the dispensation under which they are performed, the place of exercising them, the manner and effects of them, com- pared with those of the Jewish priests. VIII. The principal thing, however, among those of which we cr are speaking, is, that we have sucha high priest, who is seated on the right hand of the throne of Majesty in the heav- ens, | a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle which the Lord hath reared and not man. Now every high priest is appointed, in order that he may present oblations and sacrifices; whence it becometh necessa- ry, that this one also should have something which he may pre- sent. But if he were on earth, then he could not bé a priest, seeing there are priests who present oblations according to the law; (the same who perform service in [that sanctuary 20. 10 11 12 13 IX. 2 HEBREWS VIII. 6—IX. 2. which is but] a mere copy of the heavenly one; for Moses, when about to build the tabernacle, was divinely admonished, “See, now,” said he, “that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed thee in the mount.)” But now, he- hath obtained a service which is more excellent; as much more as the covenant is better of which he is mediator, and which is sanctioned by better promises. Moreover, if that first covenant had been faultless, then would no place have been sought for the second. But find- ing fault [with the first], he saith to them, “ Behold the days are coming, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers, in the day when I took them by the hand, to bring them out of the land of Egypt; for they did not continue in my cove- nant, and I rejected them, saith the Lord. But this is the covenant, which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord ; I will impress my laws upon their minds, and engrave them upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. No one shall teach his fellow-citizen, nor any one his brother, saying, Know the Lord; for all shall know me, from the least even to the great- est. For I will be merciful in respect to their miquities, and their sins and their ‘transgressions will I remember no more.” By saying, “a new [covenant],” he representeth the first as old; now that which hath become old, and is advancing in age, is nigh to dissolution. Moreover the first [covenant] had ordinances of service, and a sanctuary of an earthly nature.- For an outer taber- nacle was prepared, in which was the candlestick, and the table, and the shew-bread, which is called, ‘The holy place. 10 rt 12 14 HEBREWS IX. 3—14. 21 Avd behind the second vail was the tabernacle, which is call- ed, The holy of holies, | containing the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid with gold on every part, in which was the golden urn that contained the manna, and the rod of Aaron which budded, and the tables of the covenant. Over it, also, were the Cherubim of glory, overshadowing the mercy-seat. Of these things, it is not necessary, at present, particularly to speak. Now these being thus prepared, the priests performing the services entered. continually into the outer tabernacle. But into the inner one, only the high priest [entered], once in each year, not without blood, which he presented for him- self and for the sins of the people. By this the Holy Spirit signified, that the way to the most holy place was not yet open, while the first tabernacle had a standing ; which hath been a type down to the present time, in which both oblations and sacrifices are presented, that cannot fully accomplish what is needed in regard to the conscience, for him who performeth the services ; [and all the] ordinances pertaining to the flesh, had respect only to meats, and drinks, and divers ablutions, enjoined until the time of reformation. But Christ being come, a high priest of future blessings, through a great- er and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is, not of this [material] creation, | he entered once for all into the holy place, not with the blood of goats and of bullocks, but with his own blood, procuring eternal redemption. Now if the blood of bulls and goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, cleanse in respect to the purification of the flesh, 1 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who by an eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, 22 15 18 19 HEBREWS IX. 15—26. purify our conscience from works which cause death, so that we may serve the living God ! On this account, also, he is the mediator of a new cove- nant, so that, his death being a ransom for the sins [com- mitted] under the former covenant, they who have been called might receive the promised blessing of the eternal in- heritance. For where there is a testament, it is necessary that the death of the testator should take place; because a testament is valid in respect to those only who are dead, see- ing it hath no force, while the testator is living. Hence, not even the first [covenant] was ratified with- out blood. For when all the commandment, according to the law, had been read by Moses to all the people, taking the blood of bullocks and of goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, he sprinkled both the book itself and all the ‘people, | saying, ‘This is the blood of the covenant which God hath enjoined upon you.” The tabernacle, also, and likewise all the vessels for service, did he sprinkle in the same manner with blood. Indeed, almost every thing is required by the law to be purified by blood ; and with- out the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. Since, then, the likenesses of heavenly things must needs be purified in- this matter, the heavenly things themselves [must be purified] by better sacrifices than these. For Christ did‘not enter into a sanctuary made with hands, which is only a copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, that he might thenceforth appear before God for us. Yet not that he might frequently make an offering of himself, like the high priest who entereth into the sanctuary every year with 26 blood not his own, 1 (for then he must needs have often suf- fered, since the foundation of the world); but now, at the HEBREWS IX. 27—X. 10. 98 27 28 10 close of this age, he hath once for all. made his appearance, in order that he might remove the punishment due to sin, by the sacrifice of himself. For since it is appointed unto men-to die but once, and after this [cometh] the jugdment; so Christ also, after having once for all made an offering of himself to bear the sins of many, will appear, at his second [coming}, without a sin-offering, for the salvation of those who wait for him. Moreover, the law, which containeth a mere outline of future blessings, and not the complete image of these things, can never, by those yearly sacrifices which are continually offered, fully accomplish what is needed for those who ap- proach [the altar]. For if it could, then would not these offerings have ceased, because the worshippers, once for all made clean, would no longer have been conscious of sins? Ona the contrary, by these [sacrifices] yearly remembrance is made of sin. And truly, it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sin. Wherefore, [Christ], entering into the world, saith, “‘ Sacrifice and oblation thou desirest not, but a body hast thou prepared -for me ; in whole burnt offerings and [offerings] for sin thou hast no pleasure. Then said I, Lo! I come, O God, to do thy will; (in the volume of the book it is written concerning me).” | When he saith, in the first place, ‘ Sacrifice and oblation, and whole burnt offerings and [offerings] for sin, thou desirest not, nor hast pleasure in them,” (which are presented according to the law) ; | [and] then saith, “ Lo! I come to do thy will;” he abolisheth the first, that he may establish the second. By this will, expiation is made for us, through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 HEBREWS X. 11-25. Now every priest standeth, performing daily service, and oftentimes presenting the same sacrifices which can never take away sin; but this one, having once offered a perpetual sacrifice for sin, sat down at the right hand of God, 1 thence- forth waiting until his enemies be made his footstool. By one offering, then, he hath fully accomplished, forever, what was needed by those for whom expiation is made. Moreover, the Holy Spirit also testifieth this to us; for after saying, | ‘‘ This is the covenant which I will make with them, after those days, saith the Lord, I will write my laws upon their hearts, and engrave them upon their minds,” then [he saith], “Their sins and their iniquities will I re- member no more.” But where there is remission of these, there is no more offering for sin. Exhortation to perseverance, from a consideration of the faithfulness of God, of the severe doom of apostates, and of the sufferings which the Hebrew Christians had already endured for the sake of religion. Hiavine then, brethren, free access to the sanctuary, by the blood of Jesus, in a new and living way, | which he hath consecrated through the vail, (that is, his flesh); and [having] also a high priest over the house of God; let us approach in full confidence, with a true heart, being purified as to our hearts from.a consciousness of evil. Being cleans- ed, also, as to our bodies, with pure water, let.us hold fast without wavering the hope which we profess ; for faithful is he who hath promised. Let us, moreover, attentively regard one another, for the sake of exciting to love and good works ; not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, (as the custom of some is), but admonishing [one another]; and this so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 39 36 37 38 39 id ’ * HEBREWS X. 26—39. 25 Moreover, should we voluntarily sin, after having receiv- ed the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin; but a certain fearful expectation of punish- ment, yea, of fiery indignation which will consume the adver- saries. Whosoever transgressed the law of Moses, suffered death without mercy, in case of two or three witnesses; of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be counted worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and regarded the blood of the covenant by which he hath been consecrated as unclean, and done despite to the Spirit of grace! Surely we know him, who hath said, “ Vengeance is mine, I will render it,” saith the Lord; and again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Call to mind, now, the former days, in which, after ye were enlightened, ye endured a great contest with suffer- ings; partly because ye were made a public spectacle both by reproaches and afilictions, and partly because ye had sympa- thy with those who were thus treated. For ye did truly sympathize with those who were prisoners, and cheerfully suffer the plundering of your own substance, knowing that ye have for yourselves a better possession in heaven, yea, one which is enduring. Cast not away, then, your confidence, which will obtain a great reward. Ye have need, it is true, of patient waiting, in order that when ye have done the will of God, ye may receive the promised blessing. Yeta very little while, nevertheless, and ‘he who is coming will come, and’ will not delay.” “The just,” also, “shall live by faith ;” but, “If any man draw back, my soul hath no pleasure in him.” We, however, are not of those who draw back unto destruction; but of those who believe unto the salvation of the soul. VOL. II. 4 w 7 26 HEBREWS XI. 1—12. Deseription of faith, and of the effects of it in respect to the saints of ancient times. XI. Now faith is confidence in respect to things hoped for, 2 [and] convincing evidence of things not seen. On account of this, moreover, the ancients obtained commendation. 3 By faith we perceive, that the worlds were formed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen, were not made from those which do appear. 4 By faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain, on account of which he was commended as righteous, God himself bestowing commendation upon his oblations ; * and by the same, though dead, he still speaketh. 5 By faith Enoch was translated, without seeing death, and “he was no more found, because God had translated him.” He is commended, also, as “having pleased God,” before 6 his translation. But without faith, it is impossible to please him ; for he who cometh unto God, must believe that he is, and that he will reward those who seek him. 7 By faith Noah, being divinely admonished respecting the future, with reverence prepared an ark for the safety of his household, by which he condemned the world, and obtained the justification which is by faith. 8 By faith Abraham obeyed, when called to go forth unto the place which he was to receive for a possession; yea, 9 he went forth not knowing whither he was going. By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, while it belonged to strangers, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, who were 10 heirs of the same promise; for he expected a city which 11 hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God. By faith, also, Sarah herself received the power of conception, and this beyond the customary season of life, inasmuch as 12 she counted him to be faithful who had promised. Where- 13 14 15 16 * é HEBREWS XI. 13—25, s 27 fore there sprang, even from one who was dead too as to these things, [a seed] like the stars of heaven for multitude, and like the sand on the shore of the sea which cannot be numbered. These all died in faith, not having received the promised blessings; but seeing them afar off, and hailing. them with joy, they professed themselves to be strangers and sojourners on the earth. Now they who thus profess, shew that they are in quest of a country; for if they had cherished the re- membrance of that from which they came, they had oppor- tunity to return thither. But now they were desirous of a better [country], that is, of a heavenly one. Wherefore God is not ashamed of them, [nor] to be called their God ; for he hath prepared a city for them. By faith Abraham, when put to trial, made an offering of Isaac ; yea, he who had received the promises made an of- fering of his only Son ; unto whom it had been said, “ After Isaac shall thy seed be named ;” counting that God was able to raise him even from the dead, whence also, comparatively [speaking], he obtained him. By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau, in regard to the future. By faith Jacob, when about to die, blessed each of Joseph’s sons, and bowed himself upon the top of his staff. By faith Joseph, at the close of life, made mention of the departure of the children of Israel [from Egypt], and gave commandment respecting his own bones. By faith Moses, after his birth, was concealed for three months, by his parents, because they saw that he was a good- ly child, and did not fear the king’s commandment. By faith Moses, when arrived at mature age, refused to be called the Son of Pharaoh’s daughter, 1 choosing rather to suffer afflic- ‘tion with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of 28 -* ¢ » ‘ = 4 HEBREWS XI. 26—39. 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 30 34 35 36 37 38 39 sin for a season; counting reproach, such as Christ en- dured, to be greater riches than all the treasures of Egypt ; for he had respect toa state of reward. By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the anger of the king ; for he continued stedfast, as one who sceth him that is invisible. By faith he observed the passover and the sprinkling of blood, so that he who destroyed the first born might not touch them. By faith they passed through the Red Sea, as on dry land; which the Egyptians assaying to do, were drowned. By faith the walls-of Jericho fell down, after they had been compassed about for seven days. By faith Rahab, the harlot, having entertained the spies in a friendly manner, perished not with the unbelieving. - And what shall I say more? For time would fail me, should I tell of Gideon, of Barak also, and Sampson, and Jephtha, of David too, and Samuel, and the prophets ; who, through faith, subdued kingdoms, executed justice, obtained promised blessings, stopped the mouths of lions, | quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, were made strong from a state of infirmity, became mighty in war, overthrew the armies of foreigners. _Women recovered their dead by a resurrection. Some were tortured, not accepting deliverance, in order that they might attain to a better resur- rection. Others were tried by mockings and scourges, and also by bonds and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, they were tempted, they perished by the murderous sword, they went about in sheep-skins and goat- skins, suffering want, afflicted, injuriously treated, | (of whom the world was not worthy), wandering around in deserts and mountains, in caves also and dens of the earth. All these, moreover, who are commended on account of their faith, did not receive the promised blessing ; God hav- pe f HEBREWS XII. 1—11. 29 XI. 10 11 ing provided some better thing for us, so that without us they could not obtain a full accomplishment of what was needed. Encouragement fo persevere. Trials must not dishearten, for God sends them in kind- ness to his children. The gospel holds out more that is cheering and encouraging, than the law. The voice of its author must not be slighted. SINCE now we are encompassed by so great a multitude of witnesses, laying aside every incumbrance, and especially the sin which easily besetteth us, let us run with perseverance the race which is set before us; looking unto Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who, on account of the joy set be- fore him, endured the cross, not regarding shame, and hath sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider, now, him who endured such opposition against himself from sinners, lest becoming discouraged in your minds ye grow weary. Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, in your struggle against sin. And have ye forgotten the exhortation, which is addressed to you as children, ‘* My son, do not slight the chastenings of the Lord, nor be disheartened when re- proved by him; for whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth’” If ye endure chastisement, God is .dealing with you as children ; for what son is there, whom his father does not chasten? But if ye are without chastisement, of which all [children] are partak- ers, then are ye bastards and not sons. Furthermore, we have had fathers of our flesh, who have chastened us, and we have yielded them reverence ; shall we not much more yield subjection to the Father of [our] spirits, that we may live? They, indeed, chastened us for a little while, according to their own pleasure ; but he, for our good, that we might be made partakers of his holiness. Now all chastening seemeth, for the present, not to be matter of Joys but of grief; yet afterwards, it yieldeth the happy fruits of righteousness, to those who are exercised thereby. ° a” * "e , 30 HEBREWS XIlI.-12—26. 12 Wherefore, “ Strengthen the weak hands and the feeble 13 knees,” | and “ Make plain the paths for your feet,” so that what is lame may not be wrenched, but rather healed. 14 Follow after peace with all men, and holiness, without 15 which no man shall see the Lord. See to it, that no one fail of the favour of God ; that no root of bitterness spring up 16 and trouble you, and many be defiled thereby. Leet there be no fornicator, nor profane person, like Esau, who for one 17 morsel of meat sold his birthright. For ye know, that when he was afterwards desirous to obtain the blessing, it was re- fused ; yea, he found no place for a change of mind [in his father], although he sought for it with tears. 18 Moreover, ye are not come to the mount which could be touched, and to flaming fire, and thick clouds, and dark- 19 ness, and tempest ; nor to the sound of the trumpet, and the voice of commands, the hearers of which refused that another 20 word should be added to them; (for they could not endure the admonition, ‘‘ If even a beast touch the mountain, it shall 2 22 said, “I fear and tremble) :” but ye are come to mount Zion ; and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem ; —_ be stoned ;” and—so terrible was the sight—even Moses and to an innumerable,company, the joyful host of angels ; 23 and to the assembly of the first-born, enrolled in heaven ; and to the Judge, the God of all; and to the spirits of the just, 24 who have obtained their final reward ; and to the mediator of the new covenant, Jesus; and to the blood of sprinkling, which speaketh better things than [the blood of ] Abel. 25 Take heed, that ye turn not away from him, who speak- eth to you; forif they did not escape, who turned away from him who warned them on earth, much more shall we [not escape,] if we slight him who [warneth us] from heaven. 26 His voice then shook the earth ; but now it is promised, say- f=?) ww ~~ =_ =. %, ee. ; : * 7 * , HEBREWS XII. 27—Xill. 11. Bl ing, ‘ Yet once more, I will shake not only the earth, but 27 heaven also.” Now this “ Yet once more,” denotes a remov- ing of the things which are shaken, as of created things, in order that the things which are not shaken may remain. 28 Wherefore, having obtained a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us manifest gratitude, (by which we may serve 29 God acceptably), with reverence and godly fear. For our * God is a consuming fire.” Various practical directions and cautions. Closes with affectionate requests and salu- tations. XIII. Ler brotherly love continue. Forget not hospitality ; 3 for by this, some have entertained angels unawares. Re- member those who are in bonds, as if ye yourselves were fel- low-prisoners ; those who are suffering evil, as being your- 4 selves yet in the body. Let marriage be honourable among all, and the bed undefiled ; for whoremongers and adulterers 5 God will judge. Let your conduct be free from covetous- ness, and be contented with what ye possess. For he hath > so that we 6 said, ‘‘ I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee ;’ may boldly say, “ The Lord is my helper, and I will not be afraid. What can man do to me 2” - Remember your leaders, who have spoken unto you the word of God; and attentively considering the end of their 8 manner of life, imitate their faith. Jesus Christ is the same, 9. yesterday, to-day, and forever. Be not carried hither and thither by diverse and strange doctrines; for it is good that the heart should be confirmed by grace, and not by meats, by which those have not been profited, who have been occu- 10 pied therewith. We have an altar, of which they have no right to eat, who render their service to the tabernacle. 11 Moreover, the bodies of those animals, whose blood was carried into the sanctuary as a sin-offering by the high priest, 32 12 15 14 15 HEBREWS XIIl. 12—25. were burned without the camp. Wherefore, Jesus also, that he miguneniace expiation for the people by his own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us, then, go forth to him with- out the camp, bearing reproaches like his ; for here we have no abiding city, but are seeking for one yet future. By him, x _ therefore, let us continually present to God the sacrifice of 16 1 J 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 praise, that is, the fruit of our lips ascribing praise to his name. Forget not kindness, also, and liberality ; for with such sacrifices God is well pleased. Obey your leaders, and be subject to them ; for they watch over your souls, as those who must give an account. [So obey], that they may do this with joy, and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable to you. Pray for us; for we trust that we have a good conscience, being desirous in all things to demean ourselves uprightly. I make this request, also, the more earnestly, in order that I may speedily be restored to you. Now may the God of peace, that raised from the dead our Lord Jesus, (who by the blood of an everlasting covenant has become the great Shepherd of the sheep), 1 prepare you for every good work, that ye may do his will; working in you that which is well pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever! Amen. Moreover, I beseech you, brethren, to bear with this word of exhortation ; for | have written briefly to you. - Know ye, that our brother Timothy is sent away ; with whom, if he return speedily, I shall. visit you. Salute all your leaders, and all the saints. They of Italy salute you. Grace be with you all! Amen. COMMENTARY. GENERAL VIEW OF THE CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. Tue writer of this epistle is a Hebrew, and addresses his He- brew brethren, who had made a profession of the Christian reli- gion. Nothing can be plainer, than that those addressed are consid- ered as being in danger of apostasy from that religion. ‘To warn them against this danger, is the principal object of our epistle. In order to do this, the writer proceeds to lay before them the aggra- vated guilt, and the awful doom, of those who make defection from Christianity ; to direct their views towards that crown of glory which fadeth not away, and which is reserved in heaven for all who persevere, even to the end of life, in their fidelity to Christ; to put them on their guard against the various enticements of sin, which might allure them from the path of Christian duty ; and especially to guard them against relapsing into superstitious views, respecting the importance and necessity of the ceremonial rites and sacrifices of the Levitical institutions, and against being induced by these to relax their confidence in Jesus, and in his atoning sa- crifice. It was these last sources of danger, to which the Hebrew Chris- tians were particularly exposed. Nothing could well be more mag- nificent and imposing, than the temple worship as practised by the Jews at that time. The temple, built after their return from the captivity, was not, indeed, so rich in ornament as that which Solo- mon had built. But it had, at a vast expense, been greatly extend- ed and beautified by Herod. It was regarded by all Jews, as the peculiar dwelling place of Jehovahthe only one in which he deigned to manifest himself on earth. The Jewish nation, also, habitually regarded themselves, as the only one to whom God had made a special revelation. The worship, practised in the temple, VOL, II. 5 34 GENERAL VIEW OF THE CONTENTS had been instituted by Moses, under divine guidance, and continu- ed, with but partial interruptions, for about 1500 years. All the exterior of this worship was adapted to sirike the eye, and impress the mind, of the beholder. ‘The awfulness of the place in which it was celebrated ; the magnificent costume of the priests; the spa- cious and lofty apartment in which they officiated ; the solemn part which he who offered any sacrifice was himself called to perform ; above all, the apprehension that full pardon for sin and reconcilia- tion to God were obtained by the rites and offerings which the Jaw prescribed ; contributed to make deep and lasting impressions on the mind of all Hebrews, who seriously exercised their thoughts on the subject of religion, and paid their devotions in the temple. All their education, from the first dawning of the youthful mind, had a direct tendency to confirm and strengthen these impressions. Never was a nation more enthusiastically attached to its customs, rites, and country, than were the Jews. ‘They looked abroad upon other nations, as outcasts front God, and unworthy of his paternal kindness and blessing. The New Testament is full of evidence, adapted to shew the correctness of this statement. The disputes which the extension of Christian privileges to the Gentiles occasioned, among the first Jewish converts ; the reluctance with which the former were ad- mitted to participate in them ; and the repeated, violent, and long protracted opposition that was made to abandoning the peculiar rites of the Mosaic institutions; all contribute to evince, how deeply en- graven upon the mind of every Jew was the impression, that the laws of Moses were never to be changed, and that the Messiah him- self was rather to restore andsmodify, than to repeal them. In such a state of mind had the Christian converts once been, whom the writer of our epistle addressed. What wonder, now, if they were exposed from this quarter to be shaken in their attach- ment to the new religion which they had professed, and which con- fessedly gave up all confidence in the religious rites of the Leviti- cal institutions ! Temptations from without also assailed them. Their unbelieving Hebrew brethren argued with them; opposed them; ridiculed them; made*powerful appeals to all the feelings with which their birth, education, and former worship had inspir- ed them ; persecuted them ; traduced them to heathen magistrates ; and excommunicated them. They suffered the loss of property, ‘ * OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 35 and of liberty. Their lives were threatened. The coming of Christ, which they had supposed would speedily take place for their deliverance, was delayed. How could it be, that human frailty, joined with former prejudices and present sufferings, should not have a dangerous influence upon them ? In this state the apostle saw them to be, and set himself about the important and difficult work of correcting their errors, and en- couraging their desponding minds. How was this to be done, with the greatest probability of success? Plainly, arguments and considerations, of such a nature as were best adapted to meet the difficulties with which they were contending, were those to which he would most readily resort. And throughout the whole epistle, it is manifest that he has done this, with consummate skill, judg- ment, and force. As the greatest of all the dangers to which the Hebrew converts were exposed, was that which resulted from their former religious attachments and prejudices, excited and augmented, as they daily were, by the efforts of their unbelieving Jewish brethren; so the writer of our epistle employs his principal force, in order to pre- clude or avert thisdanger. Other topics are subordinate with him. Although they are often touched upon, and with great skill and power, yet they are so mterwoven with the main object before him, that they are in a measure concealed from the first view of a hasty reader. The general plan of the epistle may be briefly represented. It consists in a comparison of the new dispensation with the old, and in pointing out the various grounds of preference which belong to the new. From this superiority of the new dispensation various ar- guments are deduced, in order to shew the importance of cleaving to the Christian profession, instead of reverting back to Judaism, which could not now be the means of saving those who embraced it. Considerations of such a nature are repeated, as often as the com- parisons introduced afford occasion for them. This accouuts for the repetition of hortatory addresses, so often found in our epistle. - The Jews gloried in their dispensation, because angels had been employed as mediators of it, when the law was given at S$ nai. In their view, this stamped a high and heavenly honour upon it. Our author does not attack their views of this subject, but he commences his epistle by shewing that Christ, the mediator and 36 GENERAL VIEW OF THE CONTENTS head of the new dispensation, as it regards his name, his rank, his dominion, his creative and eternal power, is superior to the angels, 1: 1—14. On this ground, then, Christianity may claim a prece- dence ; and hence he exhorts them to give their most earnest at- tention to it, 2: 1—4. Nor can they object to the superiority of the Messiah, that he possessed a human nature, while the angels are spiritual and heaven- ly beings. For in his human nature he is Lord of the universe, 2: 5—10. It was this nature, too, which gave him a nearer and more endearing sympathy with his followers; and by taking this upon him, he was enabled to make an expiatory offering for sin by his death ; so that he is now fitted not only to exercise compassion toward men, but to save them from the bondage of sin, and from its condemning power, 2: 11--18. Having thus disposed of this topic, he next proceeds to com- pare Jesus, the head of the new dispensation, with Moses the head of the ancient one. Like Moses, he was set over the house of God, and entrusted with it, and was faithful to his trust. But the hon- our due to Jesus is as much more than that due to Moses, as the builder of a house is worthy of more honour than the house itself. Christ too was set over God’s house as a Son; but Moses only as a servant, 3: 1—6. If now the Israelites of old were solemnly admonished to heark- en to the precepts given under the Mosaic dispensation ; then sure- ly believers in Christ may be more solemnly urged, to beware of disobedience to his injunctions, 3: 7—19. And this warning holds good, and is applicable in all respects, because the rest which was promised to believers in anciént times, and was lost through unbe- lief, is still proffered to all who believe in Jesus and persevere in their profession, and only to believers, 4: 1--10. Awful commina- tion is indeed still uttered against those who are guilty of apostasy, 4: 11—13. Thus much for the comparison of Christ with Moses. Next, the writer proceeds to compare Jesus, as a priest, with the Jewish priesthood, and particularly with the high priest, the most dignified of all who were invested with the sacerdotal office. He first introduces Christ as a compassionate high priest, and exalted to the highest dignity in the heavens, 4: 14-16. Next, he states the various things which are attached to the priesthood, OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. oT as existing among the sons of Levi. (1) A high priest must pre- sent oblations and sacrifices, 5: 1. (2) He must be compassionate and sympathetic towards others, and especially so, as he is himself frail and erring, 5: 2, 3. (3) He must be appointed of God to this office, 5: 4. In all these respects, he now goes on to make a comparison of Jesus, the high priest of Christianity, and to shew his superiority. He shews, First, that Christ was divinely appointed a priest, and that of the highest order, 5: 5, 6. Next, he shews that Christ our great high priest was compass- ed with human infirmity, like other priests, so that, like them, he was fitted to exercise compassionate sympathy, 5: 7,8. But after he had suffered, he was raised to glory and became a high priest of the most exalted order, i. e. of the order of Melchisedek, 5: 9, 10. The difficulty of the subject now suggested, affords an occasion for the writer to advert to the state of religious ignorance, in which those were whom he addressed, 5: 11-—-14; to exhort them to come out of it, and to warn them against the fearful danger that would result from not doing so, 6: 1—8. 'To this he subjoins commenda- tion as to some things, and powerful motives of encouragement, 6: 9-—20. He now resumes the subject of Melchisedek ; shews the supe- riority of his priesthood over that of the sons of Levi, 7: 1—10; and then argues that Christ, who was a perpetual priest of the like order with Melchisedek, must of course be superior to the Jewish priests, 7: 11—25. Christ too, as high priest, differed in one important respect from other priests, viz. in that he needed no sacrifice for himself, as an erring, sinful man, like the sons of Levi, but was sinless and perfect, yea, even exalted to a state of supreme glory, 7: 26—28. The great object, however, at which the writer is going to aim in the sequel of his epistle, is, to shew that the high priest of Chris- tianity officiates in heaven for his followers, 8: 1,2. The Jewish priests perform their functions in a temple, which is merely an im- age of the heavenly one, 8: 3--6. The new covenant, of which Jesus is mediator, is altogether superior, also, to the old, 8: 6-13. The ordinances and appa- 38 GENERAL VIEW OF THE CONTENTS ratus of service attached to this, were all mere types of heavenly things, 9: 1—10. The services themselves were imperfect, as to the end attained by them, since they accomplished nothing more than external purification ; but the blood of Christ sanctifies inter- nally, and procures eternal redemption and an everlasting inheri- tance, for all the chosen of God in every age of the world, 9: 11—15. The new testament, which gives an inheritance to the people of God, was sanctioned by the death of Jesus, 9:15. Such is the custom in regard to testaments, 9: 16,17. Asa symbol of this, even the first covenant, (dca@2x), with all the apparatus attached to it, was sanctioned by blood, i. e. the emblem of death, 9: 18 —22. If the earthly sanctuary was thus consecrated, then the heavenly one must be so, by a sacrifice ofa still higher nature, 9: 23, 24. Sacrifices in the earthly temple must be often repeated ; but the sacrifice of Christ did, once for all, accomplish the great purposés for which it was offered, 9: 24—28. Indeed, no legal sacrifices could make any real atonement for sin, 10: 1—4. Therefore Christ voluntarily proffered himself as a sin offering, entirely and forever to effect this, 10: 5—18, Thus is completed the comparison of Christ, and of his func- tions as a priest in the heavenly tabernacle, with the Jewish priests and their functions in the earthly tabernacle. In all respects Jesus the great high priest of the Christian religion, appears greatly su- perior. The writer now proceeds to various bold and powerful exhorta- tions, mixed with awful warnings against defection from the Chris- tian religion, 10: 19—31. He sets before them the effects of per- severing faith in the ancient patriarchs, prophets, and distinguished worthies, 11: 1—49. ‘This he follows up with continued exhorta- tions, and encouragements, and warnings, 12: 1—29; and then closes his epistle with divers practical directions, cautions, and sal- utations, 13: 1-—25. Such is the brief view of the course of thought and reasoning in our epistle. It is plain that there dre three great points of com- parison: in it, which constitute the main object at which the writer aims, in order that he may shew the superiority of Christianity over Judaism. I. The superiority of Christ, the mediator of the new covenant, ‘over angels who were employed as mediators, when the old cove- nant was established, Chap. 1. 1. OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 39 ——_ II. The superiority of Christ, the head of the new dispensation, over Moses the head of the old, Chap. ur. 1v. 111. The superiority of Christ as high priest of the new dis- pensation, and of the services which he performs, over the priest- hood of the Mosaic institution, and all the services which were ap- propriate to their office, 5: 1—10: 18. Exhortations, warnings, reproofs, and encouragements, are in- termixed in some manner with the main discussions, ; e. g. 2: 1—4, 3: 1. 3: 7—4: 16. 4: 11—6:20; but from 10: 19 to the end of the epistle, nearly all is of the nature just described ; so that about one half of the epistle is of a parenetical or hortatory nature. In judging of the relevancy and importance of the subjects dis- cussed in our epistle, it is very plain, that we are not to make up an opinion, deduced merely from viewing the present necessities and condition of Christians. We were not born Jews, nor educated as such. We have none of their prejudices, peculiar sympathies, temptations, and trials. What was adapted to them, in the days of Paul, and under the circumstances above described; nay, what was absolutely indispensable for their instruction, reproof, and con- firmation ; may, in many respects, be scarcely appropriate to us, in our condition and circumstances. Such is indeed the fact, in regard to many of the things introduced into the epistle to the He- brews; as I-shall have occasion hereafter repeatedly to notice. But who, that judges with any good degree of candour and fair- ness, would ever think of bringing it as an accusation against our author, that he has inserted in his epistle, that which was altogeth- er appropriate to those whom he addressed, although it may not, and does not, have an equal bearing upon all times and nations? Surely, the last ground of just accusation which can be advanced against any writer, is, that ‘he has written in a manner peculiarly adapted to accomplish the end for which he wrote.’ In what a dif- ferent plight would the world of authors be, if all of them were justly liable to such an imputation ! Of necessity, now, many things addressed to the Jews of Paul’s day, are comparatively inapplicable to us. So far, however, as our circumstances agree with theirs in any respect, just so far the spir- it of what was said to them will apply to us. So far as what was ° said to them was founded in general Christian truths and princi- ples, just so far we may be instructed and guided by it. Conse- 40 GENERAL VIEW OF THE CONTENTS, ETC. quently, as it must follow from these positions, the epistle, while it contains many things appropriate to the Hebrews of early times, also contains many which can never cease to interest the church of God, while Christianity exists in the world. These general views may serve to aid the critical student, in commencing the exegetical study of our epistle. ‘The more partic- ular detail of what is here hinted, is reserved for the introduc- tions to various parts of the epistle, which are inserted, pro re natd, in the body of the commentary which follows. COMMENTARY. cCoNTENTs or cuapTers I. 1 —II. 4. The object of the writer being to commend Christianity to those whom he addressed, in such a manner as to prevent defection from this religion; he begins by setting forth Christ as the author of the new revelation which God had made to men, 1:1. He then touches upon the dignity of his office; he is Lord of the universe; which indeed he also created, 1:2. He is the true image of God, and the representative of his glory and perfections to men ; he is en- dowed with sovereign power; and having made atonement for the sins of men, he is exalted to the highest majesty in the heavens, 1:3. This mediator of the new dispensation is exalted above angels, who were the mediators of the ancient one. His name, SON, is more exalted than theirs; for they have not been addressed, like him, with such an appellation, 1: 4,5. He is the object of worship by the angels; while they are employed only as the swift and ready mes- sengers of God, 1:6,7. The King Messiah has an eternal and righteous dominion; and is el- evated, on account of his love of righteousness, to honour and happiness above all other kings, 1:8, 9. Him, too, the sacred writer addresses, as the creator of the heavens and the earth, and as immutable and imperishable, 1: 10—12. But no exaltation to such dominion is con- ferred upon angels, 1:13; they are only ministerial agents, employed for the good of those, who are to be heirs of the salvation which Christ bestows, 1: 14. If such be the ‘dignity and elevation of the Messiah, then surely he may justly demand the attentive consideration of all which he addresses to his followers. Obedience to the ancient revelation was enforced by just and unavoidable penalties; how can the neglect of the new and more perfect one go unpunished? 2: 1,2. Especially must this be the case, since it was promulgated by Christ himself in person, and was confirmed, on the part of God, by a great variety of wondrous miracles, 2: 3, 4. Ld CHAP. I. ‘H mo0¢ ‘EBgatovs énistody. See, on this title, Vol. I. §.10. p. 49. seq. 1. Tlohuusows xai MOAVTOONHS, literally in various parts and in various ways. Of the Greek commentators, some give a different sense to each of the words; e. g. Theodoret, roAuu ee «) G—TES navrodanac oixovoulas onuaiver, tO OE TOAUTO 0 1 w G, tov Feiov éaraccav vo diegogor, i.e. xovpegors signifies the various dispensd- VOL. II. 6 42 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 1: 1. tions, and nodurgomms the diversity of divine visions. Theophy- lact interprets the words in question, by dvagogws xual modverdus, diversely, and in various ways. But Chrysostom expresses the sense of both words, by dvaqoomws simply. Modern commentators are di- vided in the same manner. The Greek idiom allows either mode of interpretation ; and precedents may be found for each. See Schleus- ner on the words; and compare Clem. Alex. Strom. I. 4. p. 331. V. 6. p- 667, ed. Potter. If the two words be construed separately, then zoAveoas should be interpreted as referring to the matter of ancient revelation, given in different parts and at different times, thus conveying the idea of the gradual development of truth in different ages and by different persons; and moAvreomwe¢ must be understood as indicating the various ways in which these revelations were com- municated, i, e. by dreams, visions, symbols, Urim and Thummim, prophetic ecstacy, etc. But if both words are regarded, as being used only to designate with intensity the variety of ancient revela- tions, (and such a mode of phraseology is very common both in the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures), then the whole may be paraphra- sed thus; ‘God, who in ancient times made communications, in many different ways, by the prophets to the fathers, hath etc.’ The word zoAuueges does not, of itself, signify sundry times; but still, the idea of various parts or portions, which it does properly sig- nify, may very naturally be understood as implying, diverse times at which, or occasions on which, the different parts of revelation were communicated ; or the idea of oduusoms may be simply that of repetition, so that often would well communicate the sense of it. Tn this way If have ventured to translate it. Of the two modes of itterpreting these words, I rather prefer that which separates them, and gives a distinct meaning to each. The weiter evidently designs to present an antithesis between the manner of the ancient and the Christian dispensation. This anti- thesis is rendered more striking, if we understand the first clause in the verse thus; ‘God, who in ancient times made communica- tions to the fathers by the prophets, in sundry parts and in various ways, has now made a revelation to us. by his Son;’ 1. e. he has completed the whole revelation, which, he intends to make under the new dispensation, by his Son,—by his Son only, and not by a long continued series of prophets, as of old. 'The apostles, and oth- er inspired writers of the New Testament, received their commu- } ‘ COMMENTARY ON HEB. 1: 1. 43 ir an nications from the Son, who gave them the Holy Spirit, Matt. 11: 27. comp. John 14: 26. 16: 135 and facts shew, that the Christian revelation was completed, during that generation who were cotem- _ porary with the Saviour, when he dwelt on earth. Fala, in ancient times; for communications by prophets to the Jews had ceased, from the time of Malachi and his cotempora- ries, i. e. for the space of about four hundred years. Hence, the writer avoids using an expression which would imply, that revela- tions had been continued down to the time then present. By ma- iat, he evidently means to designate the whole time, during which communications of the divine will were continued, under the former despensation. Aakioug most commonly designates oral communication. But since the writer here affirms, that God had spoken (AaA7joug) mo0dv- ToOaWMs, it must of course be understood, (as indeed it is often used), to designate the more general idea of communication made in any manner, by visions, symbols, etc, as well as by voices. Tois murgact, ancestors; see Wahl’s Lex. We might natu- rally expect that suv would be subjoined ; but Paul commonly uses the word mazégs¢ in the sense just noted, without the pronoun an- nexed. See Rom. 9: 5, 11:28. 15: 8. "Ev vorg xoognrees, by the prophets. The use of éy with the dative, instead of Ove with the genitive, is, frequent in the New Testament; as any one may see in Wahl’s Lexicon, éy no. 3. a. The frequent use of it, in this way, is Hebraism ; for év corresponds to the Hebrew zs, which is employed with great latitude of significa- tion, and in cases of the same nature as that in question; e. g. Hosea 1: 2, the word of the Lord by Hosea, ytim2. But an occa- sional use of éy in a similar way, by native Greek writers, may also be found; e. g. Thucyd. VII. 11, what has been done before, ye know év dhdoug modhaig éntotodats, by many other letéers. TIgoq7racs, in the language of the New Testament, means, not only those who predict future events, but all who were employed by God, as the medium of making religious communications of any kind to his people. "Ex’ goyarov tov rusgwv, in many copies, én’ goyaroy tov ajueoov. ‘The Seventy use both forms of expression, as a transla- tion of the Hebrew ava77 n°7nN; thus shewing that they were 44 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 1: 1. toe * regarded by them as synonymes. It is a matter of indifference, as to the sense of the text, which reading is adopted. The meaning of the phrase is best understood, from a compari- son of the corresponding expressions in Hebrew. In the Old Tes- tament, DY NINN, MAGN, 72777, and 7349N8 53°, are often employed synonymously ; ; and all of them to designate the general idea of hereafter, at a future time, in the sequel. Whether this future time be more or less remote, depends entirely on the context, and scope of the passage. See Gen. 49: 1. Num. 24:14. Deut. 4: 30. Prov. 31:25. But C2: n°4MN, in particular, is used to denote the future period in which the Messiah (6 éo7ouevos) was to appear; Is. 2: 2. Hos. 3:5. Micah 4:1. Joel 3:1[2: 28], ja-24ns8. This phrase, (as it d seem from the usage in these places), early passed into a kind of technical designation of the time of the Messiah, or rather of the new dispensation under him. ‘Thus Rabbi Nachmanides, on Gen. 49: 1, says “ All our doctors agree, that 097277, N°INN means, the times of the Messiah.” That such a use of the phrase in question, was already an established one, in the time of out Saviour, is abundantly evident, from the frequency with which ai éoyarae ajueoaue is employed, in the New Testament, to designate the period of the Christian dispensation. Like other appellations, acquired in a similar way, (comp. Luke 7: 20), it continued to be employed, after the “last days,” i.e. the Christian dispensation, had commenc- ed; and it is employed to designate any part of the time which this dispensation comprises; being limited only by the context, in the _ same manner as the Hebrew n 7m, etc. as exhibited above. In John 6: 39, 40, 44, 54 and 1]: 24. é07arny 7uéoa is indeed used to denote the end of time, when the resurrection of the dead will take place.» But in each of these cases, LVAGTHGW OF aVaGTAGLS accompaiilies it, so as'to save all doubt in respect to its meaning. In all other cases, it designates the period of the new dispensation. Many synonymous expressions are also employed to designate the the same idea; e. g. 6 €67aT0$ ZuLQ03, vi EoZaTOL xaLgO!, 7 EOZaTH aoc, and v6regor xuLgol. The Jews, it is said, divided the periods of the world into min D>5on, the present age or world, i. e. the period of the Mosaic dispensation, and N27 D>4ym, the age or world to come, i. e. the time of the Messiah’s reign. The former is called, in the New Testament, 0 aéoiv 0UT0S, 0 vir uiwy TOU ZOGMOU TOUTOL, 0 aiaY O Ls 6 7 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 1: 1. 45 ¢, 6 “uL00S sted and 6 aiwy; the latter, 6 aiov 6 uehhov —éoyourvos—éxeivos, ob aiwves of Enegyouevor, 7 Oinovpevn 7 pédiovoa. ‘This latter class of expressions, thus understood, are equivalent to the phrases Zovaras 7juzout, Zoyatov 7ueour, ete. Such is the representation of Wahl, (on the word aéoy, in his Lexicon), of Brettschneider (Lex.), and of other critics, in regard to this subject. But that it is too definitely made, and therefore not in all respects well founded, is quite clear from the very authority to which Wahl refers; i. e. Buxtorf. Lex. Chald. sub voc. BDt3. The Rabbins certainly used =37 02> for mundus hic, mundus habitabilis ; also for mundus medius, i. e. the regions of the air, stars, firmament, ete; and for mundus supremus, i.e. of angels and spirits. It is “a ly certain, that they employed Nam D23> for mundus post resurr nem mortuorum, mundus animarum a corpore solutarum, as well as for the age of the Messiah. Buxtorf merely says, “ Quidam per 8am ob4> intelligunt m2 nin7, dies Messiae.” ould seem then, that Wahl and Brettschneider have made -xcessive use of the supposed Rabbinic sense of the word ao. Be this, however, as it may; from the Old Testament usage we may easily make out, (as I have endeavoured to do), the sense of éx éozatov tov yuéowv. The phrase, in Heb. 1: 1, appears to mean, during the last dispensation, or, under the last period, viz. that of the Messiah. : Tovrewy, THESE last days, is as much as to say, ‘ The period in question has already commenced.’ ‘Huty, to us, by a zoivwoes, i. e. a figure of speech, or mode of speaking, in which the writer joins himself with those whom he ad- dresses. The meaning is, to Christians, to the church ; not exclud- ing others, but intending still to designate, in this place, particu- larly himself and those to whom he wrote. So Luke uses gjuty for Christians, in chap. 1: 1; and Paul in like manner, often, in his epistles. “ “Ev vig, i. e. dt tov viot. So Chrysostom andyTheophylact ; for 2y here is used as above, in éy to1¢ agogyrats. That the ar- ticle would be added to viw here, if the phrase was gear ac- cording to the common usage of the Greek fgets ge and of the New Testament writers, is quite obvious; although I find, no of the modern commentators who take notice of it. In = ce with this principle, both Chrysostom and Theophylact supply it in —) 46 COMMENTARY ON HEB. I: I. their paraphrase, expressing the sense by due x00 viov. Afterall the rules which have been laid down respecting the insertion or omission of the article in Greek, and all the theories which have been advanced, he who investigates for himself, and is guided only by facts, will find not a little that is arbitrary in the actual use of it. The cases are certainly very numerous, where Greek writers insert or reject it at pleasure. What is this but an arbitrary use of it? Some very sensible remarks on this subject may be found, in Lawrence’s Remarks on our English Version. It is plain, in the present case, that vied is monadic ; that it designates one individual peculiarly distinguished ; and that the pronoun a@vrov is omitted after it; on all which accounts, (accord- ing to édeory), the article should be added. But all the Codices of the New Testament agree in omitting it. ‘The circumstance is in itself of but little importance ; still, as it has an important bearing upon Aeaaliebich respect the use of the article, it well deserves particular notice. Perhaps viq, in this case, may be employed as a kind of proper name, (just as we now use it); and on this account it omits the article, by a license usual in respect to proper names. Some distinguished commentators have maintained, that the sentiment of Heb. 1: 1, is in direet opposition to the opinion com- monly received by the Christian fathers, and still very generally _maintained, viz. that the Son of God made all the revelations to the ancient prophets ; and that all the ¢heophanies, mentioned in the Old Testament, are to be ascribed to the Logos. These commen- tators suppose their own views, in opposition to the’ sentiment of those fathers, to be confirmed by Heb. 2: 1—4; where the aggra- vated guilt of those who reject the gospel, which was revealed by the Son of God, is urged ; and the writer grounds the fact of its being aggravated, upon the assamption that the law, in ancient times, was spoken only by the mediation of angels. But still, though this r@é&soning seems to be satisfactory, at first view, it should be remembered that the writer is there, as well as in om @ }: 1, speakin f the Son of God as incarnate, as possessing “our nature and deg: us in it. In this manner he did not address the ¢hureh, in ancient times ;-and the emphasis may lie upon this circumstance. Comp. John 1: 14. For, that the Legos, or Christ in his divine nature, did make revelations to the ancient church, & COMMENTARY ON HEB. 1: 2. 47 seems to be an obvious deduction, from John 12: 41. 1 Cor. 10: 9. 10: 4, and other like passages. 2. “Ov ZOnue xAnoovouor navtwy, whom he has constituted lord of all, i. e. of the universe. ”Oxx<, constituted, appointed, ordain- ed; see Wahl on ridnyuc, no. 3. In the same sense the Greeks employ ridyjue. Kinoovouor, lord, possessor, in accordance with the Heb. idiom. In classic Greek, xAnjeovomos is (1) One who acquires any thing by lot ; (2) One who inherits any thing after the death of the possessor. The Son inherited the universe in neither of these ways; consequently zAjgovouog here is employed in the manner of the Hebrew 43, which means, to fake into possession in any manner, or simply, to acquire. To inherit is only a secondary sense of i>. The Latins employed haeres, ina sense like that here assigned to xAyoovouosg. Thus Justinian, Inst. IL. 19. § ult., Pro haerede gerere, est pro domino gerere ; veteres e1 pro dominis appellabant. So Festus, Haeres apud— domino ponebatur. Comp. Gal. 4: 1. Acts 10: 36. 2:36. Ps. 89: 27 [28]. John 17:10; which confirm the interpretation here given, as to the correctness of the sentiment which it conveys. "At ov, by whom. It is contended here, that dca is not limited to signify the instrumental cause (so called), but that it often desig- nates the principal cause. 'This is true ; see Wahl on dove, 1. c. "where both the classical and New Testament usage of dva, in this sense, is shewn. But there is still a possibility of the sense which Grotius gives it here, viz. on account of whom; see Wahl, no. 2. and to the instances there adduced of dv@ used with the genitive, and signifying on account of, add Rom. 5: 19 bis. 8: 3, and perhaps 2 Cor. 9: 13 and 2 Pet. 1: 3, dsa dofyc. In all these cases, how- ever, dua does not properly denote the final cause or end for which a thing is done; but only a motive for doing it, an instrument as it were in bringing it about. To say, that the worlds were made on account of the Son, as the final end or object of them, would im- ply something more, or something different from saying, that they were made by him. The sense which Grotius puts upon dca can- not be defended by any examples sufficiently plain, and cogent enough to justify the admission of it. . Tous uiavags éndinos, he [i. e. 0] made the worlds, or the universe. So, beyond any reasonable doubt, ezcayveg is to be under- % 48 COMMENTARY ON HEB. I: 3. stood in 11: 3, and in L Tim. 1: 17. The singular (ao) is not employed to designate world. The classical use of aiwy is (1) Age, period of time. (2) Age of man, time of life. Aidvag, then, is used here, (like 0549, 0172549, in the Chaldee and later Hebrew), for world, worlds, universe. Theodoret explains it as meaning, ages; and so others have since done. But what is the sense of the assertion, that God made the ages by his Son? If we understand this of the common periods of the life of man; or (with Theodoret) of the ages of the world; or of the Jewish and Christian dispensa- tions, with others ; what is it to the writer’s purpose to assert this, in a passage which is evidently designed to shew the exalted pre-em- inence of the Son of God? As to the sentiment conveyed by the interpretation which I have adopted, viz. ke made the worlds, it is confirmed by Eph. 3:9. Col. 1: 15—19. John 1: 3, 10. 1 Cor. 8: 6. Heb. 1: 10. See Excursos I. II. 8. ° Os av anatyaoue ris Oons xol yeouxtHO THS UnoGTAGEWS avrov. The ancient Greek commentators, and after them most of the modern ones, have applied these words to the divine nature of Christ. An examination of the imagery which they present, is necessary, in order to developt their real meaning. "Anavyaoue means radiance, light flowing from a luminous body, and is a derivate of emarvyaso i. g. avyase, to shine, to emit splendour. Aoka, in classical Greek, means (1) Opinion, senti- ment, supposition, maxim. (2) Fame, honour, reputation. But in our text, it plainly means the same as the Hebrew 3532 often does, viz. splendour, brightness. Comp. Luke 2: 9. 9: 31. Acts 22: 11. 7: 55. Matt. 6: 29. 1 Cor, 15: 41. ; Xaguxryo is-properly an engraving or stamping instrument, or, a person who engraves or stamps. But it is very commonly employ- ed for the figure itself, or image engraved or stamped, e. g. upon coins, stones, metal, wood, or wax. So our English version, ez- press image, i. e. image expressed or stamped. Hence, because the resemblance between the figure enstamped and the instrument by which it is enstamped, is so exact, yugax17g@ means also, exact image, resemblance, or delineation. . ® “Ynooracig, in the classical sense anciently attached to it, means (1) Foundation, substratum, substructio. (2) Steadfastness, courage. (3) Purpose, resolution, determination. (4) Substance, essence, being. In the sense of person, it first began to be used COMYENTARY ON HEB. 1: 8. 49 by the Greek writers after the Arian controversy commenced. It was employed particularly in this way by Athanasius, in order that he might make a distinction between vvotu and Undaruocre, while he maintained that the persons (xgvowne) in the ‘Trinity were of one ovola, but yet were three ymooracsig. The sense of person, then, being attached to this word long after the New Testament was written, it cannot be properly assigned to the word here. It plainly retains the more ancient meaning of substance or essence. The nature of the imagery, presented by the two phrases in our verse, may be thus explained. If God be represented to us under the image of splendour, of a luminary, the source of light; then is Christ the radiance of that splendour, or the light emitted from that luminary. 'That is, as a luminous body becomes perceptible in consequence of the light radiated from it, so God has manifested or exhibited himself to us, in the person of his Son. To the same purpose, John says, ‘‘ No man hath seen God at any time; the on- ly begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath reveal- ed him,” John 1: 18. So again, “ He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father,” 14: 9; and again, “ He that seeth me, seeth him that sent me,’’ 12: 45. In Col. 1: 15, Christ is called “the image of the invisible God,” 1. e. he by whom the invisible God is, as it were, presented to our inspection. In him, God has exhibited to men the perfections of his character, i. e. has exhibited ray dokav avrov, which word is figuratively used to designate the divine per- fections. So2Cor. 4:6, doéy¢ tot Deov év agoowaw /yood Xoto- 700, i.e. the divine perfections as displayed by Jesus Christ; a phrase of the like nature with that which I am endeavouring to explain. Again; if God be represented under the image of vadoraoce, substance, essence, then is Christ the developement of that substance to our view; he is the zmage, representation, or delineation of it. As an image upon a coin presents the exact lineaments of the stamp which made it; so does Christ present the yaoaxzr/jo of the Fa- ther, he presents us with his likeness, i. e. reveals to us, in his person and work, just and proper views of the perfections of the Father. So, the old Syriac version renders vmdotaorg avrod by oiZo2a!; i.e. his substance. "That both expressions are to be understood figuratively, is be- yond all doubt ; for God is not, in a literal sense, splendour or a luminous substance ; nor is his undoraoug, in itself considered, i. e. - VOL. I, | 7 50 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 1: 3. physically or metaphysically considered, capable of being represent- ed to our senses. Tn the opinion, that the verse now under consideration relates to the incarnate Messiah, and not to the Logos in his divine nature simply considered, I find that Scott and Beza concur, not to men- tion others of the most respectable commentators. See Excur- sus III. Diowy ... rH¢ Ovvapews wvrov, sustaining, i. e. guiding, man- aging, controlling, the universe by his own powerful word. So Chrys- ostom gévmr, touréore xuBEovarv, ta OLanintovtTa ovyzoatar, gov- erning, holding together that which is ready to fall asunder, or, pre- serving that which ts ready to perish. So Paul says of Christ, as eizov tov Geou, that he is before all things, xvi ta navra év aut ouviornue, Col. 1: 17. géowy, thus employed, corresponds to the Hebrew Nib, as used in Is. 46: 3. 66: 9, in the sense of cure, con- servo, to sustain and preserve, as a mother does her child. The Greeks sometimes joined gégecv and ayevy in the same phrase, in order to express the administration of affairs. Te mavie is a common expression in Greek, for the universe. To Ojnuare ryg Ovvenens avtov his own powerful word. Such a mode of expression is not, as Ernesti names it, properly Hebra- ism; for it is very common in all languages, although more fre- quent in the oriental than in the occidental tongues. _4vrov, sc. éautov (not auvrov) that is, by his own powerful word, viz. the word of the Son, and not by the word of God, as @vzov would mean. The meaning of the whole phrase is, ‘He directs and controls the universe by his omnipotent word.’ It seems to be evidently an ex- pression of the like nature*with “ God said, Let there be light and there was light, Gen. 1: 3;” also, “ He spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast, Ps. 33:9.” In other terms, The Son has the universe at the control of his mere word ; an expres- sion signifying omnipotent, irresistible control. But, inasmuch as the universe was created by him (verse 2), it surely cannot appear strange, that he who made it should control it. Ae éavrob...cdv duaoriay ruav, having by himself made expia- tion for our sins.. KoOaovoudg usually means purification; but in Hellenistic Greek, it is also employed for expiation; e. g. in Ex. 29: 36, 30: 10, the Seventy use it for the Hebrew p25 5z, atone- ment, expiation. That xaPagcouov cannot be used here in the COMMENTARY ON HEB. 1: 4. 51 simple sense of purification by moral means, such as doctrine, ete. is evident from its being joined with dv’ éavrov ; which is explain- ed in 2: 14, by dea rov Tavaron ; in 9: 12 » by Big tou tWiov aima- cog; and in 9: 26, by dva 17¢ Ovolag avtov. This last expression I regard as the full form, expressing what is elliptically expressed in our text by dv éduzou. After he had thus by the sacrifice of himself made expiation for sin, éxadcoer év dskea Tyg wEyakmovyns év VYyndois, he sat down at the right of tie majesty on high, i.e. of God-in the highest heavens, ovoavoi¢ being understood after vymdors ; or, of supreme majesty ; (see Wahl Lex. on ovgavos). The verb éxa@coe here corresponds to the Hebrew 333, which applied to God, and to kings, does not mean simply ¢o sit, but to sit enthroned, to sit on a throne; e. g. Ps. 2:4, and often. To sit on a throne, or, to sit at the right hand of one ona throne, implies here, commanding, ruling, judging. Meyaioouvns means, majesty, magnificence, NYIN, Di, 75935. Here it is the abstract (as grammarians say) used for the concrete, i. €. on the right hand of the majestic One, or the magnificent One, Viz. 255 TDN p32: So Liber Enochi, (Fabricit Cod. Pseudep. ME: p: ‘187), évantoy tH Oosns TAS meyakwourng. See Excur- sus IV. 4. Tocovrm xositrwy .... Ovoma, being exalted as much above the angels, as he has obtained an appellation more honourable than they. Kosirtwy, praestantior, augustior, of higher rank or place, eminentior. I’vouevos, constituted, rendered, etc. It is here ap- plied to the elevation of the Son to the mediatorial throne, after his death. Avagogwregoy, more eminent, more distinguished ; nag auvrous, than they, i. e. the angels. JTwoa, after the comparative degree, appears to be peculiar to this heiikotes It makes of itself a comparative degree, as used in Rom. 1: 25. 14:5. Heb. 1: 9. 2: 7. Kexdnoovounze, obtained, acquired, as in verse 2d. “Ovoua, either name, i. e. title as viog, or rank, dignity. Commentators are divided in opinion, respecting which of these meanings should be preferred. But the argument, in the sequel, shews that the title, SON, is the ground on which the superiority of Christ over the an- gels is proved. If it be objected that angels are also called sons ; and men too ; the answer is easy. No one individual, except Je- sus, is ever called, by way of eminence, THE Son of Giod, i. e. the Messiah, or the king of Israel, John 1: 49. 52 COMMENTARY ON HEB. I: 5. The appeal is here made to Jewish readers of the Oid Testa- ment, who applied Ps. 2: 7, and 2 Sam. 7: 14, tothe Messiah. In such a sense as in these passages, namely one that imported su- preme dominion and authority, neither angels nor men were called sons of God. But Jesus bore this title, which, according to the Jewish Scriptures, was indicative of supreme dignity ; and conse- quently he had an appellation of a more exalted nature than that of the angels, who are servants (1: 14), not lords. 5. Tiveyao.... yryévvyne. o&, for to which of the angels said he at any time, Tiou art my Son; this day have I begotien thee ? Teyévvnue o€ must of course be figuratively uuderstood. But how? In Ps. 11. the context shews that the expression here quoted has reference to Christ as king, as constituted king or lord over all; see vs. 6,8, etc. To beget, is metaphorical language suited to the name Son; but as Son here plainly means Messiah, or the anointed king, dropping the metaphor, we come of course to the meaning, constituted, made, appointed, or yevOMevo3 as above. In regard to ovjusevoy, which has been often construed as meaning, from eternity, Theodoret has plainly expressed its true sense 3 OV THY ccveoy Onkol yevynow, Ghka cAV TH YoOVM OuvE- Cevyuevny, it does not express iis eternal generation, but that which is connected with time. For surely Christ was. exalted to the me- diatorial throne in time, 1. e. after his resurrection; and such an exaltation is the subject of description, in the second Psalm. Such a view of the meaning the context also demands, where his ac- quired condition is the particular subject of comparison with the rank and condition of the angels. So Chrysostom, after quoting v. 5, says, Tavra eiontae men €@g Tv Oaoxa, this is spoken concerning his human nature. Lye Eoomee Va eis vicy. In common Greek it would be, éyo Foopae muryng avrov....vi0g mov. The form of expression, OUT ele THOT EGO, corresponds altogether to the Hebrew 2N5 1; and joi ¢¢ viov, to 72> 7, 2 Sam. 7: 14, whence the quotation is taken. The term, Syn, seems here to designate one who should be entitled to all the rights and privileges of a Son; and in parti- cular, one who should be an heir to the-throne of his Father. This same figurative expression, heirship, being heir, the writer has ap- plied to the Son in the context, vs. 2,4. Now as the angels are not entitled to such privileges, the appellation Son, (which implies COMMENTARY ON HEB. 1: 6. 53 a right to them in this case), shews that he to whom it is applied, is elevated above the angels. And this is the position, which the argument in Heb. 1. is designed to establish. If we may credit Abarbanel, the ancient Jewish doctors held that the Messiah would be exalted above Abraham, Moses, and the angels. However this may be, the apostle in applying this and the following quotations to the Messiah, must have supposed him- self addressing those, who would readily concede that. they ought to be thus applied. Otherwise, we cannot suppose that he could have regarded this mode of reasoning as at all efficacious, or adapt- ed to convince those to whom he wrote. 6. “Orav 0€ madi .... diver, again also, when he bringeth his first begotten into the world, he saith; a passage replete with dif- ficulties. Does nadvy qualify efovyoyn? Or is it to be transpos- ed-thus, madi dé, Otay x. t.4.? Many contend for this trans- position ; and Abresch cites what he calls similar instances of a metathesis, in Acts 13:27. 1 Cor. 4:18. 2 Cor. 7:6. These, however, come short of establishing his position. Admitting the transposition in question, we must translate audvv, x. 7.4. by, again, i.e. in another passage of Scripture, when he introduces etc. But this transposition is unnecessary, even if the sense here given to madcy be retained ; for we may translate equally well, but when, in another place, he introduces, etc. One might translate a- dv here, (with Storr, Wahl, and others), on the other hand, on the contrary, i. e. God speaks in quite a different way to the angels, when he introduces his first begotten into the world, viz. instead of calling them sons, he commands them to worship kis Son. See - Wahl’s Lex. on meduv. So Schneider, meduv, im Gegentheile, (ex adverso), specially in composites, as makiugnuoas, contradictory, etc. There is no ground for the sneer with which Schulz treats Storr’s translation of nade by hingegen, i.e. é& évavrias. After all, however, I am more inclined to interpret madey here as meaning, again, i. e. something in addition to what had been already said or stated. But as the position, which the writer has given it, is somewhat different from that of the preceding xa maduy, (which commences the clause or assertion in which it stands), I suppose the writer means to convey the idea, by using 02 macy in the latter case, that what he is going to suggest is only additional matter, and not simply additional Scriptural quotation. Certain it 54 COMMENTARY ON HEB. I: 6. is, that, on other occasions, where he cites several texts of Scrip- ture continuously, he uses xai maAcy in the same way before each citation; e. g. Heb. 2: 12, 13. The assertions of our author, (ac- cording to the views which I have of the use of dé xadcv here), would run thus, ‘ God declares in the Scritpture, that he has be- gotten the Messiah his Son ; and again, that he is his Father, and the Messiah his Son; and God has also said, (which shews the superiority of Christ over the angels), that all the angels must wor- ship him.’ In this way all is natural and easy. As another reason for translating as I have done, it may be ad- ded, that no direct antithesis, (between the declarations, that God had begotten the Messiah his Son, and that the latter was the Son of God the Father, contained in v. 5), is found in v. 6. This is a sufficient reason for avoiding here the translation which Storr, Wahl, and others, have given to aadey, viz. ex adverso, hingegen= é& évavtiag. I have no doubt that aa@dey may have, and sometimes has, such a meaning; but it is unnecessary here, and on the whole, it is an improbable one. Lisayayy %.t.4. Does this mean, to introduce to the world, in the same sense as we now speak of introducing one to the world, i. €. announcing him to them? 'This is the common mode of in- terpretation. But some interpret efooyayn by commend, preducere et conspicuum facere. Others, (with Chrysostom and Theophylact), Oray éyyeroion avr tyy otxounevyy, when he delivers the world into his hands, i. e. makes him king over all; a sense which intro- ducing to the world, or into the world, will hardly bear. None of these interpretations seem to accord with the wsus loquendi of the New Testament. -Hroayuysty ig ty ofxouuévny and anooréddecy sig TOV xOGMOY, are plainly phrases of equivalent import; and the latter is repeatedly used concerning Christ, John 3: 17. 10: 36, and employed to denote either his birth, or his appearing before the world in his public character. Such too is the Rabbinic usage of D>4ya Na. Comp. Heb. 10: 5. John 16: 28. 18: 37. 1:9. It is not, then, an introduction of the Son to the world by prophecy, as expressed in the Old Testament, which is here spoken of; but an introduction in fact, i. e. his birth, or perhaps his entrance on his public office. It was at that time, as it would seem, that the angels received the command in question. Gregory Nyssen says, zado TO ¥TLOTOY HvOoEY EaUTO, EtouyOnvas Aeyerae Eig tnv xtiow, as he COMMENTARY ON HEB. I: 7. 55 united that which was created with himself, he is said to be introduc- ed into the creation ; cited by Theoph. in locum. Kai noooxvynsarwouy avr1m .... ov, let all the angels of God worship him. Compare with this, Luke 1: 11 seq., 1: 26. seq., in particular 2: 8 seq., where the angelic choir appear, and cele- brate the birth of the Saviour. The xa here denotes, that the sentence quoted stood in connexion with something else which preceded it; but as this is not quoted also, the xaé cannot well be translated. If this exposition be admitted, (and it appears to be supported both by the wsus loguendi of the New Testament and by fact), then we need not be very solicitous, whether the passage in Deut. 32: 43 (Sept.), or in Ps. 97: 7, is here quoted by the writer ; nor whether either of them is quoted. See Excursus VI. If I have rightly interpreted vs. 5 and 6, the meaning may be briefly expressed thus ; ‘Prediction in the Scripture assigned to the Son a rank above that of the angels, and occurrences at his birth demonstrate such to be the fact.’ 7. Kai moog pév.... mvo0s, moreover, with respect to the an- gels it is said, Who maketh his angels winds, and his ministering servants flaming fire; i.e. who maketh his angels that serve him the ministers of his will, as the winds and the lightning are. The Hebrew o> wa, and Greek rugos gidya, often mean lightning ; as plainly they do here. ‘The whole phrase is susceptible of anoth- er interpretation ; viz. who making his angels winds, i. e. swift as the winds, and his servants lightning, i. e. rapid, or terrible, or re- sistless as the lightning. But this does not suit the design for which the apostle quotes it, so well as the first interpretation. His object is to shew, that the angels are employed simply in a ministe- rial capacity ; while the Son is Lord of all. Our English version, which has rendered nimas (Ps. 104: 4) by spirits, gives an erro- neous view of the meaning of the original. Others construe the Hebrew original thus, Who maketh the winds his messengers, and the lightnings his servants ; and they de- fend this by alleging, that the context in the Psalm shews the de- sign of the writer to be, only to declare the glory of God as display- ed in the visible creation; and consequently, it is inapposite to suppose him here to be speaking of the angels, as an order of invisible, intelligent beings. But in Ps. 104: 1—3, the invisible 56 COMMENTARY ON HEB. I: 8, 9. as well as visible majesty of God is described; and it is natural that the writer should proceed, and augment the force of his de- scription, by introducing the angels as the ministering servants of the Deity. Besides, the Hebrew does not allow us properly to translate, Wio maketh the winds his angels or messengers. In or- der to mean this, the Hebrew must be written PND NMA AL, and not (as now) nina MaNtA myy. See Heb. Gram. § 197, 3, and comp. in Ps. 104: 3. 42927 D°ay Dw, which surely cannot be rendered, ‘“* Who maketh his chariot clouds.” As to A: ve, in this verse, it is clear that the nominative can- not be zo, for then the quotation would be in the first person, as it isin v. 5 above. The nominative, beyond all reasonable doubt, is 4 yougn, or 0 vouos. 1 have rendered A¢yev in the passive voice, merely to avoid expressing the nominative, since the writer has not expressed it. To the same purpose Storr and Schulz, heisst es, it is said. So the usual appeal in the Mishna, 77283. Compare also, got, in | Cor. 6: 16. The quotation, in our verse, is from Ps. 104: 4. 8,9. IToos 0é tov view... . aéeivtos, but respecting the Son, [he saith], Thy throne, O God, is eternal. Oyovos is plainly the emblem of dominion ; because kings, when acting in their capacity as rulers, were accustomed to sit on thrones. “O @s0¢ is not the nominative case, as some have maintained, but the vocative. It is the usual vocative, and nearly the only form of it, throughout the Septuagint; e. g. Ps. 3: 7. 4: 1. 5: 10. 7: 1, et passim. The At- tics, moreover, frequently retain the form of the nominative, in the vocative of the second declension. Buttmann’s Gram. § 33. n.2. To translate the phrase by God is thy throne, would” be to intro- duce-a mode of expression foreign to the wsus loquendi of the Scrip- tures; for where -is God ever said to be the throne of his creatures? And what could be the sense of such an expression ? Throne is the emblem of dominion, not. of support. So Theoph., Doovos yao .... 0 Paothelag ovufodov. Figuratively used, as here, it is of the same import as sceptre, 6a@d0s. Gesenius ren- ders the phrase, thy God’s throne is eternal, i. e. the throne which God gives thee. But this is doing violence to D975 FNOD, which to support his rendering should be, wT SN NOD, the pronoun follow- ing the second of two nouns in regimen, cecardins to the usual custom, Heb. Gram. § 185. 1. COMMENTARY ON HEB. 1: 8, 9. 57 “Pados evOurntos .... oov, a sceptre of justice is the sceptre of thy kingdom, or, thy reign is gust. The former clause desig- nates the perpetuity of the Son’s reign ; the present one, its equita- ble nature. It is quite plain, too, that the two clauses are a poetic parallelism, as they belong to Ps. 45: 7 ; and also that the subject of both clauses is the same, viz. the dominion or reign of the Son or Messiah. “Hyannoag... avomiav, thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity, 1. e. thou hast administered the affairs of thy government in a manner altogether just; or, thine equity is highly conspicuous. Such a negative form of expression (zai éulonoas avoutur), follow- ing an affirmative one, is very common in the Scriptures, and is designed to give intensity to the affirmative assertion which pre- cedes it. Comp. John 1: 3, 20. et al. saepe. Ava rovte ... . ayaldvacens, because of this, O God, thy God has anointed thee with the oil of gladness. But the phrase is equal- ly susceptible of the rendering, God, thy God, has anointed thee, etc ; and this without any alteration of the general sense of the passage. Theophylact, however, thought otherwise; for he says “6 Meo, avti tou w Mee ore, as Our enemy Symmachus (here a credible witness) affirms, who renders the Hebrew thus, dé, 0 0g cov.” "Phavov ayaddicoens, i.e. xar éhovov. Kings were anointed with oil, in order to consecrate them to their office ; see Ps. 2: 6. 1 Sam. 10: 1. 16:13. But perfumed oil, or precious ointment, was often employed also on festive occasions; and honoured guests at an entertainment were often bedewed with it. That éecov ay- aAdecoewe here does not mean the oil of consecration to office, is plain from the consideration, that the administration of the kingly office is described, in the preceding context, as having already ex- isted. The meaning then must be, ‘God has exalted his Son, with honour greater than that bestowed on kings,’ or, ‘ bestowed a higher joy on him than on other kings.’ Tlage rove pero zous cou, lit. in comparisonwith thine associates, i. e. in office, viz. kings. God has bestowed a higher reward, a greater honour on the king Messiah, than on any other kings. Thus much for the words. The general sentiment remains to be stated. ‘The words are quoted from Ps. 45: 6, 7. That this whole psalm relates to the Messiah, has been generally believed by VOL II. : 8 58 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 1: 10. Jewish and Christian commentators ; and it is at last acknowledg- ed by Rosenmueller, in the second edition of his Comm. in Psalmos. All other explanations seem liable to insuperable dif- ficulties ; and this, one may hope, will soon be universally felt and acknowledged. That the whole Psalm relates to the Messiah, however, as me- diatorial king, can scarcely be doubted by any one who compares together all its different parts. This king is called pbx, ded. Does the word Jog here denote the divine, or the kingly nature or condition of the Messiah? Most interpreters, who admit the doc- trine of the Saviour’s divine nature, contend for the first of these senses; as I have myself once done, in a former publication. But further examination has led me to believe, that there are grounds to doubt of such an application of the word og, in this passage. The king, here called @s0¢, has for himself a @eog; “thy God hath anointed thee.” The same king has associates (ueroyovs), i. e. others who in some respects are in a similar condition or of- fice. As divine, who are pétozor with the Saviour? Besides, his equity, his government, his state, as described in Ps. xLy., are all such as belong to the king Messiah. Now as Elohim is a title sometimes given to kings or magistrates, as one may see in Ps. 82: 1, 6. comp. John 10: 35, (in Ex. 7: 1 and 4: 16, it isa differ- ent case), although no one individual king or magistrate is ever called simply Elohim, may not this title be applied, in a sense alto- gether peculiar and preeminent, to the Messiah as king; designat- ing his great superiority over all other kings, and distinguishing him as ouvy%eovoes with God, as ‘ King of kings, and Lord of lords?” Rey. 17: 14. Comp. Heb. &: 3, and the note on éxa0voev év deka 4. t. 4. Such an explanation, to say the least, removes some of the difficulties which attend the usual one ; while the following verses leave no just room to doubt what was the opinion of the wri- ter of our epistle, in regard to the divine nature of the Messiah. The perpetuity of the kingdom mentioned here, may be the same as that in Luke 1: 33; with which is to be compared | Cor. 15: 24—28. Indeed, it must be such, allowing the kingdom of the Messiah to be the one which is here meant. 10. Kal, ov uar aoyas.... &0spehineas, also, Thou Lord in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the caurth. This verse is, by construction, necessarily connected with the preceding ones ; COMMENATRY ON HEB. I: 11, 12. 59 v. 7% nad moog mév TOUS ayyéhous Aéyer—v. 8, mod dé TOY vidv [Aeyev]—v. 10, wai [i. e. moog tov viov Agyec]. An -address to Je- hovah here, considered simply as creator, is utterly irrelevant to the scope of the writer, and tothe object which he evidently has in view. Both the grammatical construction, and the plain design of the passage, unite in declaring this. Kar awoyas, in the Hebrew, Ps. 102: 25, it is b°3 3BD, of old, for- meriy, equivalent to m¥N AZ in Gen. 1:1. Auge, in the New Testament and Septuagint, corresponds both to maim? and 5k or Dod, in the Hebrew. Here it corresponds to $x, in Ps. 102: 24. "Edsushiooag, thou hast laid the foundation; Geuehvow, applied to a building, has this sense. But here it is, of course, applied in a figurative manner, to designate the original and primary act of creation, (so to speak); viz. that act which may be compared to what a workman does, when he lays the foundation of a building. The Son, therefore, did not merely arrange or set in order the materials of creation already brought into being, but laid the foun- dation of the universe, i. e. performed the original act or first work, viz. that of bringing it into being. "Eoya tov yeouy oov, {772 mvs, the work of thy hands, i. q. thy work. The phrase is borrowed from the fact, that hands are the instruments by which men usually perform any operation ; and this is, like other human operations and affections, figurative- ly transferred to God. Oi ovgavoi means, all parts of the crea- tion except the earth; see Gen. 1: 1. The Hebrews designated the sun, moon, and stars, i. e. all the visible creation besides the earth, by the word o772w, heavens. 11. Avro, they, i. e. the heavens and the earth. Sv dé dvaue- veic, (Hebrew 422m), thow shalt continue, be permanent, stand fast. It is the opposite of axodovvras. Tlekowwdrjoovree, shall wax old, a word which, applied to a garment (the image here used) means, to go into a state of decay or desuetude, to become unfit for use. Hence the metaphorical language that follows. 12. Kal wosi.... avrovg, and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up. “Ehikerg means, to fold up, to roll together. The heav- ens are often represented as an expanse (3*p7), and rolling them up is, of course, toremove them. The language, however, in the case before us, is borrowed from the custom of folding up and laying aside garments, which have become’ unfit for use. The Hebrew * 60 COMMENTARY ON HEB. I: 13, 14. word (for which éA/fevg is put) is #7bnn, thou shalt change, remove. “Adhaynoovras, they shall decay, they shall be changed, i. e. remov- ed, taken away, or shall pass away, Hebrew 355m, Ps. 102: 26. Comp. 2 Pet. 3: 10. Is. 51: 6, also 34: 4, where the image is fully presented. 2v 62 0 avrog «i, (Hebrew yin mms), thou art he, viz. who liveth for ever, thou art always the same. So the sequel leads us to interpret this. Za éry cou ovx éxdelwouor, thy years shall never cease or fail, i. e. shall never come to an end. This would be true, if it was spoken merely with reference to the future, and should be construed as having respect only to eter- nity a parte post, as it is technically called, i. e. eternity to come. But as it stands here, in connexion with having created the heavens and the earth zaz aoyas, it can hardly be understood to mean less than absolute eternity, or eternity a parte ante et a parte post. See Excursus VII. 13. TIgo0¢ viva 02 tov ayyzhov .... OeEcov pou, unto which of the angels, also, has he ever said, sit at my right hand. That is, where is any example of his addressing any one of the angels, and asking him fo sit at his right hand, i. e. to be cvyGgovog with him? See on dete preyahoourns, under v. 3 above. "Ewo av 90 ....700mv cov, until I shall make thine enemies thy footstool, 1. e. reduce them to the most entire subjection. These words are quoted from Ps. 110: 1 (Sept. 109.1), and are applied tothe Messiah. Jo make enemies a footstool, is an expres- sion borrowed from the custom, in ancient times, of treading upon the necks of captives and captive kings, on the occasion of cele- brating a triumph over them, and in token of their complete pros- tration and subjection ; see Joshua 10: 24, and so often in Homer. Enemies signifies all such as are opposed to the doctrines or duties of the Christian religion.- In Ps. 110: 1, the Messiah is invited to sit at the right hand of God, (i. e. at his right hand on his throne, comp. Rey. 3: 21), until (a2, Ewe av) his enemies should be utterly subdued. But what follows this period, when they shall have been thus subdued? The apostle has told us. It is the mediatorial throne to which the Messiah is exalted; it is to him as constituted king, that his enemies are to be brought in subjection ; and when this is accomplished, the mediatorial throne and reign, as such, are to cease. So ] Cor. 15; 24-28 seems to assure us. 14. How different the station and employment of angels, from COMMENTARY ON HEB. 1: 14. 2: 1. 61 that of the Messiah! He is ovy@govog with God, and commands the universe; they are spirits employed merely as ministers to ex- ecute his will. Are they not all Aserovgyexa avevuara? Comp. 1K. 22:19. Zech. 3: 5—7. Dan. 7: 10. Is.6: 1. Luke 1: 19. By the Rabbins, the angels are frequently named anaes "28572, angeli ministerti. Etc dvaxoviay, for ministering, in order to serve, i. e. assist. eaxovia, means, any kind of service or assistance whatever. It is here said to be performed, dca tous wéAdovtag zAnoovousiy Gwtygiav, on account of those who are to obtain salva- tion, i. e. on account of Christians who are the heirs of future glory or happiness, or, who will obtain it. Whatever may be the opinion of some modern critics, in regard to the real existence of angels as intelligent beings; it appears quite clear, that the writer of our epistle regarded them as such. To have instituted a comparison between the Son of God, on the one hand, and mere abstract qualities or imaginary beings, on the oth- er, would not seem to be very apposite, at least not apposite to any serious purpose. And if the writer looked upon angels as only im- aginary beings, or personifications of qualities, with what propriety or consistency could he represent them as worshipping the Son of God, or as ministering to the saints? But Ps. 102: 3, is first er- » roneously translated, He maketh the winds his angels, and flaming fire his servants, Aecrovoyous avrou, and it is then used as a proof, that the elements themselves are called angels. Hence it is con- cluded, that it is unnecessary to suppose angels to be an order of real, intelligent beings. But as this translation is not well ground- ed, (see on v. 7th), any such conclusion built upon it cannot be stable. That the sacred writers every where regard angels, and speak of them, as intelligent beings, having a real existence, ap- pears so plain, that it would seem as if no one who is not strongly wedded to his own a priori and philosophical reasoning, could ven- ture to deny it. CHAP. II. 1. Ave tovro, on this account, therefore, i. e. since Christ, who is at the head of the new dispensation, is so much exalted above the angels who were the mediators of the old (see v. 2), it becomes us, etc. "Huas, us by xolrwocg, i. e. a method of speaking in which 62 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 2: 1. the writer includes himself with those whom he addresses. See Heb. 1: 1. 2: 3. 3: 1, 14. 4:2, ete. See also similar cases in 1 Cor. 10: 8, 9. 2 Cor. 7: 1. Acts 16: 17, et alibi. Tlooceyevy is elliptical, (wo00¢zecv tov vovr is the full expres- sion), and means, attendere, to give heed to. Abresch thinks it is here equivalent to avrézyeoGou, retinere, tenaciter adhaerere; which Dindorf also favours. But evidently this is unnecessary, inasmuch as 7EgLOoOTEgMs is connected with it, and designates the intensity of mind, with which attention should be paid to the things that the Son of God reveals. “Azxovotsetor, things heard, are the truths and doctrines of the Christian religion, which had been declared to them, see ys. 3, 4. Tlagag6vensy, a long contested and difficult word. Two sen- ses have been principally contended for; (1) Vo fall, to stumble, or to perish. This latter sense Chrysostom and Theophylact give it; magagguepmer, ToVTEOTL, anohMMEedu, éExnéowuev. Both illus- trate it by the proverbial saying, addressed to a child, vid, ay) m0- oagouns, Prov. 3: 21, in order to guard him against stumbling. In like manner ‘Theodoret represents the word as spoken here, “va m7) tive OhLoGoy Vi0MEtvouEr, so that we may not suffer a lapse, or, may not stumble, fall. So Suidas explains it by meganéowper ; Hesych. by éxaéouperv; Lex. Cyrilli, uy aagagéurs, wy éxnéons, px magaovons. The Syriac and Arabic interpreters have render- ed it, that we may not fall. Alberti and Matthiae, with many mod- ern critics, assign to it the same sense. ‘I'he idea connected with stumbling, falling, by this class of commentators, is not that of transgression, but of punishment, of destruction; as is evident from the whole of their illustrations, when compared each with himself and with the others. But, although this view of the word has been often given, none of the passages adduced from the Greek writers, and alleged to justify it, seem adequate for this purpose. Wetstein has collected a large number of passages, which contain the word in question. But most of them, are only such as designate the well known senses of the word nagagdum, viz. to flow, to flow by; as tm naga moh nagupgeovte moraum (Plutarch); mvsiy ano tov magaggéovtos xotamov (Xen.); to flow into, as mugagdvels.... &g TO ordpue idgws (Galen) ; in all which cases the word is applied to the flow- ing of liquids: to flow out, as ei rug apoodiovos hoyos aagaguy, c° COMMENTARY ON HEB. 2: 1. 3 (lian). In some cases the word is figuratively applied to loco- motion in men; as magagévels yao avPowmos eg tov veo [var] rou Aoxhynov (Plutarch). None of these instances justify the sense of perishing, falling into ruin. ( 2,) The other sense contended for, is that of suffering to flow from the mind or memory, i.e. to forget. That nagagéveiy is frequently applied to things that glide or pass away from the mind, is well established. E. g. “‘ Many, who seem to be believers, . . need, for the sake of remembering, .... examples drawn from ob- jects of sense .... ive ur) redeov nagagéuy, so that they will not entirely escape, i. e. from the mind, Origen contra Celsum, p. 393.” “That ra xako may not be merely temporary, zal a7 magagévn AjOns Bvdois auavoovueva, and may not escape |flow away], be- _ ing obscured in the abysses of forgetfulness, Greg. Nazianz.” So Lucian, ef rz év 1) morjoews Oooum magagover Lady, if any thing flowing away [escaping] in the poetic course is forgotten, Diss. cum Hesiod. 5. So in Latin, “ frustra docemur, si quidquid audimus praeterfluat [naoagéver], Quinctil. XI. 2.” ‘It cannot enter in- to the mind of the judge, ante enim practerlabitur quam percepta est, for it glides away before it is apprehended, Cicero de Orat. ra But in all these cases, zag¢6um is applied only to things, and not to persons. That a thing rage¢g¢uy, should escape from me, and that J should be said magagévery in respect to that thing, are two very different expressions ; and consequently, all the instances above, which have been adduced by learned critics, do not meet the difficulty of the case. ITaga¢géuwper is applied, in our text, to persons, not (as here) to things. In the classics, I have been able to find no example, which is in point for our case. The Septuagint have used the word but once, Prov. 3: 21, vie, ur) magagduys, t7gnoor 02 Euny Bovdry nol évvorav, Son, do not pass by [neglect], but keep my counsel and ad- vice. This is the very proverb to which Chrysostom and 'Theophy- lact appeal, as an illustration of the word in question ; but the true sense of this word, in Prov. 3: 21, they do not seem to have ap- prehended. JTagagéu7¢ here plainly does not mean to perish, to fall, but it isthe antithesis of ryonoor, keep, attend to, practice, and consequently means, to pass by, to neglect, to transgress. In like manner Clemens Alex., speaking of women, says, ‘“ They are bound 64 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 2: 2. by virtuous modesty, ‘ve 7) magagéumo: tHS alndelas dia yavro- tyra, not to neglect [pass by, transgress] the truth on account of effeminate weakness Pedagog. III. p. 246.” These two instances seem to meet the wants of our case, as magagéuv@ is here applied to persons, The sense which our passage demands, is better made out by following these examples, than in any other way. The writer of our epistle does not design to say, in chap. 2:1, Take heed, or you will perish ; for he speaks of punishment immediately after, in 2:2. The explanation of Chrysostom, then, and of the great number of critics who have followed him, is rendered improbable by the nature of the context, and it is unsupported by any classic example in point. ‘The other explanation, lest we should let them slip, lest we should not retain them, lest they should glide away, is an approximation to the right meaning of the word. Plainly 7 maoagdvaper, here applied to persons, means, lest we should pass by, viz. the things which we have heard, lest we should neglect them, lest we should transgress [pass beyond] them; for so the writer him- self has explained it, in the context. For if, says he, every maga- Bao and naoaxon received a due reward [under the law of Mo- ses], how shall we escape punishment, anehnoarvtes, having neglected so great salvation. That opednoarres here refers to the same thing which is designated by aagagéummev, is quite clear ; for first, the writer exhorts them ‘ to attend diligently to what they had heard, lest they should pass by or neglect it ;’ and then he says, ‘if they do neglect it (auedjoarrec), punishment will be the cer- tain consequence, a punishment more severe than that, inflicted on transgressors under the law.’ - The same sentiment is obtained, if we compare magagévmpev with the preceding meguoooréoms .... meooezery, of which it is plain- ly the opposite or antithesis. Now as mgoo¢yecy means, to attend diligently, to give heed, so nagagGvmmpev must mean, (as its antithe- sis), not to attend diligently, i. e. to treat with neglect, to be amedr- Ouvrés, as it is expressed in the following verse. In a word, the sentiment is, ‘ diligent attention to the truths of the gospel is necessary to guard us against neglect ot transgression ; which neg- lect is followed by certain and aggravated condemnation. If an apology be due for dwelling so long on the verbal criticism of this word, it is, that the word has been so long contested, and so unsatisfactorily illustrated. COMMENTARY ON HEB. 2: 2, 3. 65 c 2. Hi yao 6 ov ayytiwy hadlnteig hoyos, if the communication [revelation] made by angels. The Jewish law is undoubtedly the hoyos dv ayyehov hodndeis, in this case. The meaning is, that an- gels were present and assisted, at the giving of the law. See Ex- cursus VIII. ‘Lyévero BeBacog, was ratified, was made firm and stable, i.e. its threatenings and promises were exactly fulfilled ; nothing which the law declared was null, or failed of being carried into execution. Comp. Rom. 4: 16. Heb. 9: 17. 2 Pet. 1: 19. Koi naou nagafaces xai meoaxon, every transgression and act of disobedience. ‘The words are nearly or quite synonymous by usage, both of them being employed in a secondary or derived sense. Tlaoaface (from ragafaiv), literally, going beyond, passing by any thing, is here applied to a moral action. So - 2 comes from MAOaKXOVO, which means, first, to hear in a careless or negli- gent manner ; and secondly, to disobey, i. e. it is the opposite of exovw to hear, and, to obey. Tlagafacu xai nagaxon taken to- gether mean, every kind of transgression, or, every kind of offence against the law. "Evdwnzov proSanodooiar, just retribution, or, condign punish- ment. MisSanodoola designates the reward of retributive justice, i. e. punishment, as well as the reward for virtuous conduct ; and this, in heathen as well as sacred writers. 3. Img auzic éxpevsoueda, how shall he escape? viz. escape the ywo0arodoctay reserved for transgressors. Comp. Heb. 12: 25. So Rom. 2:3, éxgevyev to xoiua tov Geov. So Aesch. Eumen. v. 756, éxpevyecy aiuatog Olxny. Tnkixavrns owrngias, i.e. the Christian religion ; for so the word cwrnoia sometimes signifies. Comp. Jude ¥. 8, perhaps Rom. 11: 11, and Heb. 6: 9. The full phrase would seem to be 6 Adyog rag owrtngias, which is found in Acts 13:26. It is, however, the Chris- tian religion with all its promised blessings and tremendous threats, which is here designated by cmwznoia. How can we escape with impunity, if we neglect (aedrjouvtes) them? °Auedjouvteg here means more than simple neglect ; it is plainly emphatic in this con- nexion, and means, to treat with utter disregard or contempt, such namely as would be implied in apostasy. “Hrs aoynv hoBovou hudsiodac, equivalent to év eeyn Aady- eiow, which was at first declared or published. The Greeks often VOL. I. 9 | 66 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 2: 3, 4. use the phrase woznv AuBwv, for, at first, or taking its rise, com- mencing its origin. Tov Kugiov, viz. Christ. “x0 tay axovoavroy sic rpmas éfeBarwOn, was confirmed unto us by those who heard [him], i. e. the Lord, or, by those who heard [it], i.e. the gospel, cwrygiav. “EPefacdn here means delivered or declared with confirmation to us, i.e. Christians. So Theophy- lact, OverogOuevOn eis juas BEePaiwg xol moras, was propagated to us surely and faithfully. Because the writer here says e¢g 7uac, some critics draw the conclusion, that Paul could not have been the author of this epistle, since he received the gospel immediately from Christ himself, Gal. 1: 12, and not from those who heard the Sa- viour declare it. But who that reads his writings with care, can fail to -_ how often he employs zodymoec, when addressing Christians? Cicero says, in one of his orations, Nos perdimus rem- publicam. Shall we conclude that he did not write the oration, be- cause he did not himself destroy the republic? See on zjua¢, under v. 1, and also Introduction, § 27, no. 17. 4. Suvenuuagrvoovvrog tov Geov onueiorg re nai téocor, God attesting, being co-witness, viz. to the truth of what was preached, by various wonderful events. SLnusiov, as used often in the New Tes- tament and in the Septuagint, means, any extraordinary sign or mi- raculous event, designed to shew the certainty that something which had been promised or predicted should take place, or that a prophet was what he professed to be. Téoag¢, portentum, prodigium, miracle, has nearly the same meaning, and is very commonly joined with onusiov, in the New Testament. Both connected mean, various extraordinary events or prodigies, designed to confirm, establish, or render credible, any prediétion or declaration of Christ, or of his messengers. ‘ Heathen writers sometimes employ both words in connexion ; e. g. Aelian, Var. Hist. XII. 57. The corresponding Hebrew phrase is, DnD4vaa MANN, signs and wonders, i. e. wonderful signs or proofs of any thing. Such the people of God often requir- ed, and such were often given. See Gen. 15: 8—18. 24: 12—27. Judges 6: 17, 21, 36—40. 2 K. 19: 29. Is. 38: 7, 8. 7: 14—16, et alibi. Comp. Matt. 12: 38. 16: 1—3. Koi mocxihace Ouvamede, and various miraculous powers. Some- times duvemes is put for miracle, as Matt. 7: 22. 11: 20, 21, 23, et alibi. But as onuetosg xol téoaoe denote miraculous events, in our verse, I understand duvameov as referring here to the miraculous pow- COMMENTARY ON HEB. 2: 4. 67 ers which were imparted to the primitive teachers of the Christian religion. In such a sense the word is employed, in Mark 6:14. Acts 6: 3. 10: 38. The Septuagint do not employ this word to translate either mix or D947, but always use ojmeroy and révata. What follows, is connected with the phrase just explained; viz. wal MVEVUATOS ayiou péotouors, literally, and distributions of the Holy Spirit, i.e. the imparting of divine influence ; which refers particularly to the species of this influence, which consisted in the power of working miracles. See 1 Cor. 12: 6—11. Comp. also John 7: 39. Acts 1: 5, 8. 2: 4,17, 18, 33. 5: 32. 8: 15--19. 10: 44-- A7. 19: 1--6. Tlotxihars dvvaneoe.... xed ueoropois, if considered as a Hen- dyadis (ev dva dvoiv), may be thus rendered, various miraculous powers, imparted by divine influence. But I rather prefer the ren- dering which I have given it in the version, as sregvopoig probably designates the additional gifts of the Spirit, other than miraculous powers. Kare tiv adrovu behnour, as it seemed good in his [God’s] sight, as he pleased; or, as the Holy Spirit pleased, which last is favoured by L Cor. 12: 6—11. The sum of the whole warning (vs. 1—4) is, ‘ Beware that ye do not slight the gospel, whose threatenings are more to be dreaded than those of the law; inasmuch as the gospel is a revelation of a higher nature, and has been confirmed by more striking and more abundant miracles, wrought by divine power.’ . The writer, after having thus stopped for a moment to warn his readers against the con- sequences of defection from Christianity, returns to his subject; viz., the comparison of Christ with the angels. Having established, by appeals to the Old Testament, (1: 5—14), the superi- ority of the former over the latter, in several points of view ; he now proceeds to shew, that the new or Obristian dispensation was not ordered or arranged (like the Mosaic one) by angels, but that the Son of Man, the Messiah, was, in his human nature, placed at the head of it. Now as the Jews, one and all, conceded that the dispensation of the Messiah would be of a higher order than that of Moses, proof that Jesus was the sole mediator or head of the new dispensa- tion, and that angels were not employed as mediators or internuntii in it, would satisfy them that Jesus was superior to the angels ; since the place which he holds in the new economy, is higher than that which they had under the old, because the new economy itself is of a higher nature than the old. At the same time, an objection, which a Jew, weak in Christian faith and strong in his attachment to the Mosaic institutions, would very naturally feel, is met, and tacitly answered by the apostle, in what follows. The unbelieving Jews doubtless urged upon those who professed an attachment to Christianity, the seeming absurdity of renouncing their subjection to a dispensation of which angels were the mediators, and of acknowledging a subjec- tion to one of which the professed head and mediator appeared in our nature. The history of the objections made by the unbelieving Jews, to the claims of Jesus as being the Son of God (John 10: 30—39 et alibi), shews how very repulsive it was to their feelings, that one to all "ae wk neh. “ 68 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 2: 5, 6. appearance like a man, and made up of flesh and blood in the same manner as themselves, should advance a claim to the exalted honours of a superior and divine nature. The sects of the Nazarenes and Ebionites, which arose even in the apostolic age from professed Jewish Christians in Palestine, shew how prone the Jewish Christians were, to feel doubts and difficul- ties about the claims of Jesus to a nature higher than the human, and to which divine honours were due. No wonder, then, that the apostle found it necessary to meet, in our epistle, those doubts and difficulties with regard to the superior nature of the Christian dispensation, which were urged upon the minds of Jewish converts, by the unbelieving Jews who regarded Christ as a mere man. We shall see, however, that our author disposes of this difficulty, so as to further the great purpose of his general argument. He concedes the fact entirely, that Jesus had a nature truly and properly human, v. 6—18. But instead of granting that this proves the new dispensation t6 be inferior to that of Moses, he proceeds to adduce evidence from the-Old Testament Scriptures, to shew that man, or the human nature in the person of the Messiah, should be made Lord of the universe. Consequent- ly, in this nature, Jesus the Messiah is superior to the angels. Of course, the possession by Jesus of a nature truly and properly human, does not at all prove either his inferiority, or the inferiority of the dispensation of which he is the head (v. 6—9); which meets an objection strongly urged n the Hebrew Christians, by their unbelieving brethren. Nay more os becoming that God should exalt Jesus, in consequence of his obedience unto death; a death necessary for the salvation of Jew and Gentile, v. 9.10. To suffer this death, he must needs take on him a nature like ours; and, as his object was the salvation of men, (and not of angelic beings), so he participated in the nature of men, in order that by ex- perience he might know their sufferings, temptations, and trials, and thus be prepared, in a pe- culiar manner and in their own nature, to be compassionate, faithful, and ready to succour them, vy. 11—18. ( The sum of the whole is; ‘ The possession of a human nature by Jesus, is far from being a reason, why the ancient dispensation (of which angels were the internuntii) is preferable to the new one; for (1) This very nature is exalted far above the angels. (2) Without partici- pating in this nature, Jesus could not bave made expiation for sin by his death. And (3) The possession of such a nature did contribute, in a peculiar and endearing manner, to constitute him such a Saviour as men could approach with the greatest boldness and confidence, in all their wants and all their woes.’ a Such appears to be the course of reasoning and thought, in Heb. II. The words and phras- es remain to be explained. squivalent to 6 alwy oO wed- world as it will be in future, 0 péddwy, i. e. the world unger the reign of Christ. See Wahl, on the word wimy. The addition of the writer, megi 7¢ AoAovuer, shews that such is the sense of the phrase ; for it is Clris{ianity, to which he had just been urging the Hebrews to pay the strictest re- gard. . x 5 pane ‘ oe 5. Try oixovutvyny tiv pehdovoer, Aoy, i.e. the Christian dispensation, 1 6. AMewaorvoato Oé mou Tig, one in a certain place, i. e. passage of Scripture, bears this testimony. The writer speaks to those who were supposed to be familiar with the Jewish Scriptures, and who needed only a reference to them, by quoting some of the words which any passage contained in order that they might be found. For a Hebrew to acknowledge the authority of his own Scriptures, might be expected as a matter of course. ‘The passage quoted here is Ps. 8: 4—6, exactly according to the version of the Seventy. e ws COMMENTARY ON HEB. 2: 6, 7. 69 Ti éorw evPownos, Ore uouyvnjoxy avrou ; what is man that thou shouldest kindly remember him? 'The secondary sense of weu- vynoxnw is, to remember with affection, to treat with kindness. So the Heb. 137; and so wemrjoxeode, in Heb. 13: 3. “HL vidg aviownov, Ore énvoxentyn avrov, or the son of man, that thou shouldest regard him! The phrase vidg avdoumov, is equivalent to GyOowmos; just asin Hebrew, DIN 72 is equivalent to pix. The subject is evidently the same as in the preceding clause, and viog avGoomov is employed merely for the sake of giving vari- ety to the mode of expression. " Envoxentouce, to visit, is usually, to inspect or look upon favourably, to watch over one for his good, to succour him, to assist him. See Matt. 25: 36. Luke 1:68. James 1:27. In the New Testament, it is used only in a sense which de-. signates inspecting with an eye of favour. But in the Septuagint it is also used for, visiting in order to punish; as is the Hebrew pe, e.g. Ex. 32: 34. 34: 7, et alibi. Our English word regard, (taken in a good sense), answers well to éncoxentouae. The clas- sical use of the word sometimes, though rarely, accords with the sense in which it is here employed. 7. Hharrmoas avroyv Boayu TL 100 ayythous, thou hast made him but little inferior to the angels. TIaga here means, in compar- ison with; as in 1:4 nag avrovs. Boayv te may signify either a little time, or, a Little in respect to degree or rank; in which last case, it would be equivalent here to our English word somewhat. In the Septuagint it is employed in both these senses; as is also the Hebrew word oy72, which is here rendered by Pgayv re. In Ps. 8: 6, oy72 seems pretty plainly to refer to inferiority of rank or station, and not to time. But in our text, most recent commentators have maintained that it refers to #ime ; and consequently, that the apostle has merely accommodated the passage in Ps. vin. to an expression of his own views. But such a mode of interpretation is, at least, unnecessary here. ‘Che object which the writer of our epistle has in view, is not to prove how little time Christ appeared in our na- ture ; but that, although he did possess a nature truly human, still, in this nature he was exalted above the angels. *"Hilarrmoue avror Boayv te mag ayyedous, then, simply designates the condition of man, as being in itself but little inferior to that of the angels. Man is made in the image of God, Gen. 1: 26, 27. 9:6. It is plainly the dignity of man which the Psalmist intends to describe, when he > 4 + ie 70 Ks Evans ON HEB. 2: 7 7 — B ta: 7. | says, DTSNB Sra AT TOANN1. To such a view of his design, the context of this passage, in Ps. ymu., leads us. The Psalmist looks abroad, and surveys the heavens in all their splendour and glory, and then, with deep sensations of his own comparative insignifi- _.cance, he exclaims, ‘“‘ What is man that thou shouldest be mindful of . him! Or the son of man, that thou shouldest regard him! Yet [1 but, yet] thou hast made him but little eens (nz72 AM OMNN?) to the angels, thou hast crowned him etc.” The nature of the case, and the nature of poetic parallelism, here require such an interpre- tation of the passage in the original Psalm. But the very same interpretation of it is altogether apposite to the purpose of the writer, in Heb. 2:1. What is his design? To prove that Christ, in his human nature, is exalted above the angels. How does he undertake to prove this? First, by shewing that this nature itself is made but little inferior to that of the angels, jiat- THGUus avTOYV Foayv te aap eyyéh.ous; and next, that it has been exalted to the empire of the world, “ Thou hast crowned him with glory and honour, and set him over the work of thy hands.” But suppose, now, that we should render Goayu te, for a little while ; what object, which the writer designs to accomplish, is ac- complished by such an assertion? It would not contain any proof of the dignity of Christ in his human nature, but merely of tempo- rary inferiority, i. e. inferiority during the time of his incarnation. Clearly it is not the present object of the writer to prove this. Much more to the purpose does he appear to reason, when we un- derstand him as using Seayu te, in the same sense as 0379 is used by the Psalmist. The passage thus understood, renders the vindi- cations (attempted by m&ny) of the /iberties, which the writer is _alleged to have taken with Ps. 8: 6, quite unnecessary. Tlag’ eyyéiovs, in the Hebrew, 29>N73. On the subject of rendering D°G>N, ayyshou, see on 1: 6. If we insist that the usual meaning o the Hebrew word Elohim should be retained, the ar- gument would be still stronger, to prove the dignity of the Messiah in his human nature. Thou hast made him but little inferior to Elohim, would represent him, at least, as touyyehos, if not above the angels. See Gen. 1: 26, 27, from which the language here, and in the sequel, appears to be borrowed. But how could the apostle use aa@’ ayyéhous, as conveying the sense of 578727 In answer to this, we may say, (1) It conveys << e 4. v ' COMMENTARY ON HEB. a a 7 no meaning that is untrue. If man is but little below Elohim, surely he is not much inferior to the angels. (2) As angels are here compared by the writer with man, or rather, the angelic with the human nature in the person of the Saviour, the passage, as it stands in the Septuagint and as the apostle has quoted it, is appo- site to his purpose ; although it claims, in fact, less for the argu- ment, than would be claimed, by insisting that the word D=a>y should be interpreted as usual. As the writer was addressing those who used the Septuagint version of the Scriptures, nothing could be more natural than to quote that version as it stood, unless it conveyed an idea that was essentially erroneous. This is just what we do, every day, with our English version of the Scriptures, without suspecting that we are violating any rule of propriety. Besides the Seventy, the Chaldee has rendered Dx >x72 by N2DN57272, 1. e. mao ayyéhovg. With this rendering Aben ‘Ezra agrees; as do Mendelsohn, Michaelis, Dathe, and others. But, as the writer seems to refer, in Ps. 8: 6—9, to Gen. 1: 26--28, the probability that o-4>x in Ps. 8: 6 means, God, i. e. that the author of the Psalm originally meant to convey this idea when he used it, is pretty strong. Still the apostle, by using the version of the Seventy, mug ayyéhous, has, as I have already said, assumed less in the argument, than the original would have given him; and, at the same time, he has taken a version, which in its present shape is exactly apposite to his purpose, 1. e. to shew, that if a comparison of Christ with the angels be made, it will be seen, that during his humiliation he was but little inferior to them, while in his exalta- tion in the human nature, he is far above them. Aokn nae TUMy éoreqavwoas aurby, thou hast crowned him with glory and honour, or, with exalted honour. Aokn xai Tum are nearly equivalent or synonymous ; and two synonymous nouns, thus constructed, are expressive of intensity, agreeably to the well known usage of the Hebrew language, from which this idiom is borrowed. In the original, a=3G9n "37} 7123), which is very literally rendered in the Greek. But what is the exalted honour eonkarned upon the human na- ture of Jesus? Kel xaréornoas avror énl ta éoya tw yetoor oou, thou hast set him over the works of thy hands, i. e. thou hast given him dominion over the creation. “Hoya tov yergwy cov means simply, the works which thou hast made, i. e. thy works. The form * 72 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 2: 8, 9. of expression is borrowed from the mode of human operations, in which hands are the most conspicuous instrument. Aadlornmte, sisto, colloco, statuo. It should be noted, however, that this clause is omitted in some Codices of good authority ; such as B. D. and several others. 8. Tavra vaérakag vnoxarw tov nodwy avrot, thou hast subjected all things to him, i.e. given him universal dominion. The phrase, to put under one’s feet, denotes, to put in a state of complete, entire subjection. See Excursus IX. The writer proceeds to comment on the quotation just made. ‘Ev yao tw Umorakae wvim ve wavta, ovdey agHxEY ALLO avUTO- tTaxtov, 1. e. the expression is one of universality, it makes no ex- ception, put enki, God himself ; comp. 1 Cor. 15: 27. Nov 62 ova doumev GUIW TH MAVTE UMOTETOYMEVE, at present, indeed, we do not see all things yet subjected to him. ©Ynoreray- peva, subject to his ordering, arrangement, or disposal. In other words, ‘ This prophecy of the Psalmist is not, as yet, wholly fulfill- ed; but so much of it has been accomplished, that we may regard it as a pledge, that a fulfilment of the rest will certainly follow.’ So the sequel. 9. Tov 62 Boayt te... . yevontar Oavarov, but we see Jesus, who was made but little inferior to the angels, crowned with glory and honour on account of the suffering of death, after that he had, by the grace of God, tasted of death for all, i. e. for Jew and Gen- tile. So I understand this much controverted and somewhat dif- ficult passage. ‘Two objections against the superiority of Christ over angels, were very naturally urged by the unbelieving Jews upon the believing ones. * (1) Christ wasa man. (2) He suffered an ignominious death. To the first, the apostle replied in the quo- ‘tation which precedes, and on which he is commenting. But in doing this, he also suggests the consideration, that the death of Je- sus, so far from proving his condition to be inferior to that of the angels, was immediately connected with his exaltation to glory, and with the salvation of the world. It would be tedious to recount all the various interpretations which have been given to particular parts of the 9th verse. I lim- it myself merely to stating the reasons of the interpretation which T have given. Abéy nai tiun éEorepavapevoy, crowned with the highest honour, COMMENTARY ON HEB. 2: 9. 73 dia tO neOHUG TOV Pavarov, on account of his suffering death. See the same sentiment in Phil. 2: 8—I1. Heb. 12:2. Comp. John 17: 4, 5. Heb. 5: 7—9. Eph. 1: 20—23. Rev. 3: 21. “One, the great mass of commentators have translated, wt, eum in finem ut, unde sequitur ut, etc. But how was Christ crowned with glory and honour, that he might taste death? To avoid this difficulty, most of them transpose the clause onwg yavere x. tT. A. so as to connect it with the first clause of the verse, and translate thus, Jesus, made for a little time lower than the angels, in order that [ut, ut si¢] he might taste of death etc. But the apostle’s ob- ject here, is not to shew simply that Jesus possessed a nature in which he might taste of death; but that the suffering of death in it, (a fact conceded by all), is no reason why he should be deemed inferior to the angels. Consequently the turn given to the passage, by the above transposition and explanation, is inapposite to the pur- pose of the writer. That Omwg generally means, that, so that, in order that, etc. ; particularly that it has this meaning, in most instances where it occurs in the New Testament; there can be no reasonable doubt. But omg also means, cum, quando, postquam, when, after, after that. So it means, plainly, in Acts 3: 19, although Wahl has over- looked the passage. So also in Herod. 1:17. Aristoph. Nub. 61. Soph. Oedip. Col. 1638. Homer. Il. XII. 208. Odys. HII. 373. XXII. 22. Eurip. Phoenis. 1155. 1464. This sense also Hooge- veen, Zeunius, Ernesti, Schleusner, and Schneider, assign to it. “Onmg is construed more usually, with the future indicative, or with the subjunctive Ist or 2d aorist, in case these tenses are found in any verb. In the instance before us, it is followed by yEVONTAL, in the subjunctive aorist | middle voice. It may then be render- ed by the past time, (as I have translated it); just as in the cases where the formula omw¢ mAnowdy, occurs, it is often rendered, or should be rendered, so that there was an accomplishment. 'The on- ly difference in the latter case is, that the voice is passive ; which however does not affect the question about the mode of rendering the tense. This method of interpreting the verse frees us from the very great embarrassments, which are presented by most of the others 5 and the sentiment becomes plain and apposite. ‘Jesus did indeed take on him our nature, and suffer in it; but his sufferings were Vou. u. 10 74 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 2: 9. means of advancing him to supreme dignity, after he had by them procured salvation for the human race, vnég aavidg. So long, then, as the highest glory was consequent upon the sufferings of Jesus, and the salvation of Jew and Gentile was accomplished by it, surely the death of Christ can never prove that he is inferior to the angels.’ In this way, all the reasoning of the writer seems to be apposite to his purpose. Xaovre Fe0v means, by the goodness, kindness, mercy of God. ‘Ynéo navrog means, all men without distinction, i.e. both Jew and Gentile. The same view is often given of the death of Christ. See John 3: 14—17. 4: 42. 12:32. 1 John 2: 2. 4:14. 1 Tim. 2: 3, 4. Tit. 2: 11. 2 Pet. 3:7. Comp. Rom. 3: 29, 30. 10: 11— 13. In all these and the like cases, the words all, and all men, evidently mean, Jew and Gentile. They are opposed to the Jew- ish idea, that the Messiah was connected appropriately and exclu- sively with the Jews, and that the blessings of his kingdom were appropriately if not exclusively theirs. The sacred writers mean to declare, by such expressions, that Christ died really and truly as well, and as much, for the Gentiles as for the Jews; that there is no difference at all in regard to the privileges of any one who may belong to his kingdom ; and that all men, without exception, have equal and free access to it. But the considerate interpreter, who understands the nature of this idiom, will never think of seeking, in expressions of this kind, proof of the final salvation of every in- dividual of the human race. Nor do they, when strictly scanned by the wsus loquendi of the New Testament, decide directly against the views of those who advocate what is éalled a particular redemp- tion. The question, in all these phrases, evidently respects the offer of salvation, the opportunity to acquire it through a Redeem: er; not the actual application of promises, the fulfilment of which is connected only with repentance and faith. But whether such an offer can be made with sincerity to those who are reprobates, (and whom the Saviour knows are and will be such), consistently with the grounds which the advocates for particular redemption maintain, is a question for the theologian rather than the commen- tator to discuss. : Tevonrae Yavarov, taste of death, i. e. expertencewdeath, suffer it. So the Hebrew writers use the word pro for experience; and classic Greek authors, the word yevouar in the samesense. E. g. COMMENTARY ON HEB. 2: 9, 10. 75 Ps, 34: 9. Sibyll. Orac. I. p. 164, "Addu yevocusvoc Savarov. Eanapius de Porphyrio, “Porphyry praised the spell of purity, noi doa méivag yevouevos, and first tried [tasted] it himself.” Philo (de vita Mosis p. 632), 1 Ovavove tov yevoumevarv Oovorntos, the mind of those who have experienced [tasted] holiness. 10. "Lngene yao avro dv ov ta nova nui Ov ob Ta navre, it became him, for whom all things [were made], and by whom all things [were made]; i. e. it became the supreme Lord and Crea- tor of all things. The writer leaves his readers to feel and ac- knowledge the truth of this assertion, without stopping to offer proof of its correctness. The foree of the appeal seems to lie, in the tacit acknowledgment of all, that reward is properly consequent upon trial and approbation, and is not to be bestowed without them. Now as Christ possessed a nature truly human, and as all men are, by the universal arrangement of a wise and overruling providence, subjected to trial; so it was proper or becoming in God, that Je- sus should be subjected to trial in our nature, before he was ad- vanced to glory in it. Tloahovs viovs ayayovra x. 7.4. This part of the verse con- tains an involved construction of the words, in respect to their or- der. The arrangement of the sense I take to be as follows; "Enoene yao auto .... dua mad nuctwy tehecmoae Tov aoynyor THs owrnulas avTOV, ayayoute moAhove viove ig Ookav. It became him tehevooue tov agynyov. The word rédecog means, full grown, of mature age, either literally, or figuratively. In the latter sense it is employed, in 1 Cor. 2: 6, however, we speak the doctrines of wisdom év toie tehetore. So Heb. 5: 14, comprehending as it were both the above senses, where it is opposed to v7jmv0g. See also 1 Cor. 14: 20. Eph. 4: 3, et alibi. TZedevog also means, mature in a moral sense, i. e. integer, just, free from vices, perfect. It is also, very naturally, used in a secondary sense, to denote a consummation or maturity of our nature and happiness in a better world; e. g. 1 Cor. 13: 10. Hence the verb redecow, formed from the adjec- tive reievog, is often used to designate, exaltation to a state of re- ward or happiness in a future world. Among the Greeks, this verb was employed to designate the condition of those, who, having run in the stadium and proved to be victorious in the contest, were proclaimed as successful ¢yaveorai, and had the honours, and re- wards of victory bestowed upon them. (So rédog is used by the 76 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 2: 10, 11. Greeks, for reward, i. e. consummation ; see Schleusner on reAevow). Such persons were reredecpevos. Ina sense like this is reevow usually employed, with reference to Jesus, throughout the epistle to the Hebrews. E. g. 5: 9, redecdels, being advanced to a state of glory; 7: 28, rétehecomevov, id. 'The same sense the word has, in the verse under examination. In v. 9, the writer had said, that, on account of the suffering of death, Jesus was do&y nul tyr eortE- gavouevoyv. Here he says, dca maOyparwy tehecwour, on account of sufferings to exalt to glory, or, to bestow the highest honours. As the writer evidently says this, in commenting on the preceding ex- pression, it is plain that dva noOnuacwy tedscooue is merely an equivalent for deca ro nadnne tov Pavarov Ookn nal tym éotE- guvopéevoyv. So Theophylact ; ‘ zedeiwoug here means, doguy nv E08: HOw ys. Lov aoynyov owrnolas avrwv, auctor salutis, the author of sal- vation ; so it is usually interpreted. So Chrysostom, WLTLOS, 0 uy oor nolar texwyv Probably the phrase, conriyor OWTNELES GULMY, may mean here, the same as avynyoy xal owrr ye in Acts 5: 351, i. e. their prince and Saviour. In Acts 3: 15, aeynyov ry Suis is applied to Jesus; and in Heb. 12:2, aoynyor rg mistress ; which would rather favour the first interpretation. The sense, however, seems to be substantially expressed, if we render, on ac- count of sufferings, to exalt to a state of glory their Prince and Sa- viour. Thus understood, the passage contains admirable matter of exhortation to the Hebrew Christians, to persevere in their ad- _ herence to Christianity, amid all their trials and sufferings ; for Je- ' sus their Prince and Saviour himself suffered, and was exalted to glory by his sufferings. If* Jesus himself, then, exalted as he was, endured suffering, how could they expect to be exempt from it? Yet, if they persevered in their adherence to him, like him they would be zeredecapevoe. AL "O,te yao ayiusov nai of ayeagousvoe & évog mavres. The word aycagw scems not to have been well understood here, by most commentators, and requires, in order to explain the sense in which it is used in our epistle, a particular investigation. ‘Ayt afm corresponds to the Hebrew wap w> 3727, which often means, to consecrate to God as an offering ; e. g- Lev, 22: 2, % DWI, “— dyraCovot poe; 22: 3, WAP Bépt, Cy LALaoe 5 Ex. 13: 2. "> wip, Sept. ayiaoov mot, et alibi. ‘The verb wyzp also means, COMMENTARY ON HEB. 2: 11, aA by a natural association of ideas, to expiate, to make atonement for ; e. g. Job. 1: 5, Dw, he made atonement for them, where however the Sept. has dustbin aurovg; so Ex. 19: 10,14 and Josh. 7 13, according to Gesenius, where the Sept. has eyyoov, lel and wyiacov. Comp. also Ezek. 44: 19. The verb eyiegw also corresponds, in the Septuagint, to the Hebrew >25, which is the appropriate word to designate the making of an atonement, to wr ate; e. g. Ex. 29: 33, they shall eat those things D2 42D VON with which expiation was made, Sept. év oi¢ iyo I nour év wvrois ; ; Ex. 29: 36, and thou shalt purify the alter, 722 37222, when thou makest an expiatory sacrifice upon it, Sept. év tw ayragery os éx autw. From the usus loquendi of the Hebrew and the Sept. it is plain, then, that éyvafw may mean, to make expiation, to atone. Our epistle presents some plain instances of the use of aysaton in this sense. E. g. 10: 10, according to which will nytaopéevor éo- fev, we are atoned for, i. e. expiation is made for us. How? The writer immediately subjoins, dra ru¢ mo0cqogas TOU oumaros ’/y- cov Xocorov épanaé ; which necessarily refers 7yseouevoe to the propitiatory offering of Christ; and consequently it has the sense which I have given to it. So 13: LI, 12, “ For the bodies of those animals, whose blood was carried into the sanctuary by the high priest, as a sin offering, were burned without the camp; where- fore Jesus, “va eyenon the people with his own blood, suffered with- out the gate ;’” where aycaon plainly means, to make expiation for, to atone for. Both of these passages compare well with that un- der consideration ; and all three predicate @yzaouos of the suffer- ings and death of Christ ; for in our context, in the very next pre- ceding clause, the writer has spoken of Christ as revsdecoucvor Ota madnuetwy; and he bad just declared, that “ Jesus by the grace of God, had tasted of death for all men.” We may then render 0,7 ayvagwy nai of ayraSousroe, both he who makes expiation for sin, and they for whom expiation is made, byS Nap AWA. The usus loquendi of the epistle seems not mere- ly to justify, but to demand, this interpretation. “EE évog mavreg, i. e. have God for their common father, So most commentators. Some say, ‘Have Adam for their father ;’ others, ‘ Abraham.’ The context leads me to doubt whether any of these interpretations is correct. V. 14 et seq. very plainly re- fers to a community of nature, and states the grounds or reason 78 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 2: 11, 12. why such a community existed. “AE évo¢g then means, that Christ, and those for whom he atoned by his sufferings, were é& évog ye- vous, i.e. possessed in common of the same nature, see v. 14. The reasoning of the writer, when the words are thus understood, is altogether apposite. It seems to be this; ‘That Christ had a nature truly human, is no objection to regarding him as a Saviour exalted above the angels, and altegether adapted to the wants and woes of the human race. Inthe human nature he suffered, and was advanced to glory; in it he made atonement for men; in it he sustains a most endearing relation to those for whom he made expiation, he sympathizes with them, vs. 17, 18, and they are unit- ed to him as brethren having one common nature, é& évog mavteg 4%. td, vs. LI—13. Ai nv wiviay.... xahsiv, on account of which, i. e. because he possesses the same nature in common with them, he disdains not to call them his brethren. Ovx énavoyvverar, Chrysostom says, is used with regard to a person of higher rank, who condescends to associate with those of a lower standing. But if Christ were mere- ly a man, and nothing more, where (we may ask with Abresch) would be either the great condescension, or particular kindness, manifested in calling men his brethren? If, however, he possess- ed a higher nature, if éxevwos éavrov, woogyy Oovdov Aefar, Phil. 2:7; if éranelvwoe éxvrov, Phil. 2:8; then was it an act of pe- culiar kindness and condescension in him, to call men his brethren. It is this high privilege, to which men have attained, that the apos- tle is endeavouring to establish and illustrate ; and all this affords additional reason not to think diminutively of Jesus, as possess- ing a human nature. - Having introduced the proposition, that ‘ Christ, possessing a na- ture truly human, regards men as his brethren ;’ the writer appeals, as is usual with him, to the Old Testament, in confirmation of this sentiment, and to shew the Hebrews, that it is no new doctrine respecting the Messiah which he inculeates. 12. Agywy, saying, i. e. since he (Christ) says; anayyeho z.t.4, The passage is quoted from Ps. 22: 23 [21:22], where, for the Hebrew >4208, the Seventy hive denyrjoouce ; instead of which, our text employs its equivalent or synonyme, enayyeho. Such departures from the Septuagint are very common, in the New Testament quotations. s ‘COMMENTARY ON HEB. 2: 12, 13. 79 That the 22d Psalm relates to the Messiah, the Jews themselves confess, (see Dindorf in loc.) ; and the history of his death seems, indeed, to be a kind of practical commentary upon it. I “@an find nothing in the Psalm which forbids the application of it to the Messiah ; although I can find enough to satisfy me, that it is quite inapplicable to David. The general he the nations to God, (vs. 28—32), accords well with the ith wl not with the Jewish ; which from its very nature ty, a universal religion; for how could all nations, from the extfemities of the earth, ever go up three times in a year to Jerusalem, to wor- ship and to offer sacrifice there? And can it be rationally suppos- ed, that David uttered such words as those to which I have just ad- verted, in reference merely to Judaism ? The whole object of the present quotation is merely to shew, that Christ is exhibited in the Jewish Scriptures, as having recog- nized men as his brethren, adedqovs. "Ev néow éxndAnoiag vuvyow ce, among the assembly will I praise thee, i. e. in or among the assembly of my brethren, of men, will I celebrate thy praise. In the Hebrew, the word “TN and S57 y7n2 correspond to each other, and are equivalent, as to the subjects comprised in them. The first part only of the apostle’s quotation, is directly to the point which he is labouring to illustrate and con- firm ; the second part, (as in many like cases), is cited: principally because of the intimate connexion which exists between it and the preceding parallelism, and because the memory of those whom he addressed would be assisted, by a quotation at large of the whole verse. : 13. Kalmah, again the Scripture says; éyo éoouoe menot- Gus én avr@, I confide in him, or, I will confide in him. But whence is this quoted? In Ps. 18: 3, the Hebrew has 42 MOM, which the Seventy render, éinco) avra ; in 2 Sam. 22: 3, the same Hebrew words occur, which they render according to the phrase- ology of our text, renovOwg Zoouce ex’ arg. Some crftics have defended the opinion, that the quotation of the apostle is from one of these passages. But as it is plain, not only that the Messiah is not described or alluded to in these passages, but also that the Jews have never been accustomed to interpret them as referring to him ; so there is surely no need of defending this position, if another pas- Sage as apposite as these can be found, which is less exceptionable 80 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 2: 13, 14. in regard to its application. Critics are pretty generally agreed, therefore, that Is. 8: 17 is quoted, the Hebrew of which is 55 "2p), the Septuagint version of which is the same as our quotation. This, considered in connexion with the quotation immediately fol- lowing, (which is taken from Is. 8: 18), renders it altogether pro- bable, that the wri d this place of Scripture rather than either oO . og in nd, when he made the two quotations in qu : " Hebrew, 45 "n2p1, may be rendered, I will wait Sor hint” will trust in him. The latter is adopted by the Sep- tuagint, and by the apostle. Kai nade tdov x. t. 1. has been adduced as an argument that the passage quoted here must be from a different part of Scripture and not from the same with that of the quotation immediately pre- ceding. But this does not follow; for in this same epistle, 10: 30, a quotation is made from Deut. 32: 35, and another from Deut. 32: 36, with xa? madev between them as here. In such a case, xai 16- uy is to be rendered, and further, or, and moreover. The argument in this case appears to be this. ‘Men exercise trust or confidence in God. This is predicated of them as depen- dent, and possessing a feeble nature. The same thing is predica- ted of the Messiah ; and consequently he possesses a nature like theirs, and therefore they are his brethren; 2& évog mavtec.’ See Excursus X. 14. Kexowwryxe oaguos nai aiucros, participated in flesh and blood, i. e. possesSed a nature human, a body made up of flesh and blood. See 1 Cor. 15: 50. Eph. 6: 12. and comp. Matt. 16: 17. Gal. 1: 16. Sirach. 14: 18. The children, wawdte, here mentioned, are the same that are described in the preceding verse, viz. the disciples, the spiritual children of the Messiah. Kei avros navandnoias meréoyse tov avtwy. Here pereoze is a synonyme of xexowwvyxe, participated in. . Tavanknoing is equivalent to Omoiws, in the same manner as, as well as. The Docetae e&changed naoandAnoliws here for ouoimg, and then con- strued duoims as indicating only an appearance similar to flesh and blood ;.in opposition to whom the Christian fathers maintained, that xapandnoiws signified, ov doxyras add chnOivas, ov pavtrao- TinMg GAA OrTwE. Tay avroy, i. e. oagx0s zal afuaros. The meaning is, that Christ had a natural body, truly corporeal and mortal. With this COMMENATRY ON HEB. 2: 14, 15. 81 he was endowed, in order that he might suffer death in it, and by that death vanquish the spiritual enemy of mankind, the great ad- versary of souls. “Iva. Ove Oauvatov.... tov dvaforor, that by his death he might subdue him who has a deadly power, that is, the devil. » Soest is scarcely used by Greek writers, and when it is employed, it has the sense of delaying, rendering inactive, hindering, i.q. éunodi- Cevv, which is used to explain it, by the Scholiast on Eurip. Phoeniss. 760. In this sense, it is often used in the Apocrypha. In the New ‘Testament, the use of the word is not unfrequent; but with some latitude of signification, as may be seen by the lexicons. Here it means, to render inefficacious, or, to subdue, viz. Satan the spiritual enemy of man, who has a deadly power ; comp. 1 Cor. 15: 24— 26. 2 Tim. 1: 10. I understand rov ro xgarog tov Gavatou éyovto, in this plain and simple manner; which renders all the speculations, about the power of the devil to inflict the sentence of natural death upon men, unnecessary ; and equally so, all the ef- forts'to show what the Rabbins have taught about Sammael, the angel of death, nytt Nb. That a deadly power, i. e, a power of leading men to sin, and consequently of bringing them under sentence of spiritual death, is ascribed to Satan in the New Tes- tament is sufficiently plain; see John 16:11. 12:31. 14: 80. Eph. 2: 2. 6: 12. Col. 2: 15. 2 Cor. 4: 4. et alibi. In 1 John 3: 8, is a passage altogether of the same tenour as ours. To render null the deadly power of Satan, is to prevent the effects of it as bringing men to incur the sentence of spiritual death, i. e. to re- deem them from the effects of such a sentence, or to redeem them from the curse of the law, Gal. 3:13; comp. Rom. 5:9 seq. 1 Thess. 1: 10. Even the temporal consequences of death are re- moved by Christ, 1 Cor. 15: 21, 26, 45, 52 seq. Thus interpreted, we have a plain sense of the passage, and one analogous to numer- ous other parts of the Scriptures. 115. Kat anadlatyn rovrovsg .... dovisiag, and free those [from condemnation], who, during their whole lives, through fear of con- demnation, had been exposed to a state of bondage. ” Anulhaky means primarily, to remove, to depel, to depart. But here, (as some- times in classic authors), it means, to free, to liberate. So The- ophylact, gAsuPnemMoae. It may be questionable, whether it is con- nected with Gevarog understood, or with dovasia. Either way of VOL. Il. IL 82 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 2: 15. M. construing it would make good sense, and be apposite to the de- sign of the writer. I have preferred to connect it with @avaros, because of the sentiment in the preceding verse, which respects the Savaroy inflicted by Satan, i. e. the condemning sentence of the law incurred in consequence of sin, committed through the wiles or temptation of Satan. ®ofw Gaverov, I understand as referring to the fear of that condemnation or punishment, to which sin exposes men; not to the fear of natural death ; an evil from which no precaution can deliver us, and which Christians as well as others must suffer, not- withstanding the death of Christ. But the death of Christ has freed them from suffering that condemnation or punishment which they feared, in a future life. This seems to be the obvious mean- ing of the writer ; although it has been generally overlooked. Ave navtos tov byv, i. q. Ova maong tg Sw7¢, the infinitive mode being here used, as it often is in the Greek classics, as a mere noun. But it is not the usage of the older Greek writers, to put the infinitive nominascens after an adjective, as here. We may, therefore, understand yoovou as implied after maavzog. The later Greek, however, affords examples like ours; e. g. 70 advaxou- tov Srv, 70 adnOuvov Snv, é« tou mooxermevov Snv, Ignat. Ep. ad. Trall. “Evoyou jour dovisiac, had been subjected, [obnoxious, exposed | to servitude, i. e. subject to a depressed and miserable condition, like that of slaves under a tyrannical master. “voyog comes from évéyoucs, adstringor, and so means, adstrictus, alligatus. It usually governs the dative, as Matt. 5: 21, 22 bis; and thus in classic writers. But it also governs the genitive, aS here; e. g. Matt. 26: 66. Mark 3: 29. 14: 64. 1 Cor. 11:27. James 2: 10. Aovieiag means, the servile and depressed condition of those who are exercised with the fear of death, 1. e. of future misery. It is the death of Christ which delivers them from the condemnation, the anticipation or fear of which had often, during their lives, de- pressed them, or made them unhappy. Comp. John 8: 32—35, where, however, the dovde/a referred to is the servitude of sin. Here it is the condition, into which the fear of future condemna- tion casts Christians. The deliverance spoken of, is accomplished by anticipation here, Rom. 8: 14—17; but fully and finally, in another world, 4 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 2: 15, 16. 83 Se where the pious are admitted to a state of confirmed happiness. Ae navrose tov Env evoyou yoav dovisiag, does not necessarily imply, that the whole time of life had been actually occupied with a state of fear and depression, dovdeiag ; but that during the whole of it, those who are delivered had been, more or less, exposed to agitation by fears of this nature. From the object of such fears Christ delivers, or will deliver them ; and this is the simple senti- ment of the text. 16. Ov yoo Ojnov ayyéhwy énchouBaveras, besides, he did not extend aid at all to the angels ; another reason why he took on him a nature that was human. He came to the aid of man; he be- came like him, so as the more intimately to sympathize with him, and to help him. Ayov, profecto, omnimodo, certe, strengthens the affirmation, i.e. gives intensity to it. “LnvdauPaverou, lit. to grasp, or, to take hold of with the hand. Hence, figuratively, (1) To assert one’s right to a thing ; to lay hold of it as one’s own; and (2) To aid, help, succour, to take hold of when falling or in danger. In the Septuagint, it answers to the Hebrew pin, 7aN, wen. The Christian fathers have applied it to the assumption of an an- gelic nature, which they suppose the writer here denies. But the usus loquendi is against this; and the context also. For the apos- tle had just asserted above, that Jesus took on him a nature human ; and it would be a mere repetition of the same sentiment here, if we construe v. 16 as meaning thus; ‘He did not assume the an- gelic nature, but that of the seed of Abraham.’ But if the argu- ment be, that ‘ Jesus assumed the human nature, because he was to aid men and not angels,’ then the 16th verse contains a reason why the Saviour did and should take on him the nature of man; viz. that it was altogether accordant with the great object of his mission. . Sngouaros’ ABoacu, progeny of Abraham. In such a sense, profane as well as sacred writers use ogouo. Is it the natural or spiritual seed of Abraham, which is here meant? Either will make good sense, and agree with the object of the writer. Believ- ers are the children of Abraham, Gal. 3:'7; and Gentiles as well as Jews, Rom. 4: 12--18. 9:7, 8. 3: 29, 30. So, the assertion that Christ died dxée maytog (v. 9), does not disagree with the as- sertion that he helped the seed of Abraham, who are both Jews and Gentiles. But, although this interpretation may be sufficiently ° 84 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 2: 16, 17. justified to render it worthy of acceptation, I am inclined to be- lieve, that it does not give the original sense of the writer. He is addressing Jews. He says, ‘Christ had a human nature; this it behooved him to possess, for he came to help the seed of Abraham, i. e. those who, being descended from Abraham, possessed a na- ture that was human.’ His assertion extends merely to such as he was addressing. But surely this would not imply a denial that he helped any others, who were possessed of the same nature. So far is it from this, that it implies the contrary ; for the amount of the as- sertion is, ‘ He came to help those, who possessed a nature such as that which he had assumed.’ 17. “Oder, an illative particle, whence, i.e. because he was to help the seed of Abraham. “Qqevde.... OuotwOyvat, he must needs be made like unto his brethren, i. e. to men, vs. 10O—12. Ka- Toe uéyra, i. €. in all things requisite to constitute a nature truly human. The meaning is, that he should be wanting in none of the innocent infirmities, and in none of the sympathies, of man’s na- ture. To deduce more than this from the expression now in question, would be to do what the writer plainly never designed should be done. But why? “fe dherjuoy yévnroe nai meoros woyregeus, that he might be a compassionate and faithful high priest. °Elejuwv, merciful, sympathizing with those who are in distress. As those are best adapted to do this, who have themselves been sufferers ; so Jesus took on him our nature, in order that he might suffer in it. Thorog is either, faithful, or, worthy of trust or confidence. In the former sense I take it here. Jesus assumed our nature, that he might qualify himself in a peculiar manner to exercise compassion toward us; and that he might discharge with fidelity the duty laid upon him as our high-priest. A priest to offer sacrifice for us, must be homogeneous with us. Such a priest was Jesus, faithful in discharging the duties of his office. What were those duties ? They were ta moog roy Oedr, things which had respect to God, i. e. services of a religious nature. The phrase morog... .T@ 1009 zov Gedy, is elliptical. In full, it would be thus; xaca ra moaype- ra ta 1e0S tov sor, faithful as to things ete. But what things were these? ‘/AaoxsoOas rag auaotiag TOU Aaov. The common expression is, écAcouoMae megi revog 3 as in Lev. 4: 20, 26, 31, 35; or e&lacaoar neal rig amaotias TLVOS, » COMMENTARY ON HEB. 2:17, 18. 85 Lev. 5: 13. 4: 35. But ecAaouoPae anaortiag also occurs, Dan. 9: 24. 1 Sam. 3:14. Sirach 28:5. “/Maoxouae means, to render propitious, to appease. But this sense it can have directly, only when the person appeased is expressed or understood after the verb. Hence ihaoxeo9oe auagtiag must mean the same as 45 non, to make appeasement for sin, to cover sin, to make atonement oh fOr “it. The Septuagint sometimes translate “p> by ihaoxouae. Christ, then, as high priest, was faithful to perform the peculiar duty of that office ; which was, on the great day of atonement, to make a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the people. How he did this, is shewn in the sequel of the epistle. Here, only so much is asserted, as was requisite to enforce the considerations which the writer had immediately in view. 18. “Ev o yuo, for since, i. q. OTe yao, Hebrew UNI, because that, inasmuch as. Teénovdev avros nevoaodsic, he himself suffer- ed when exercised with trials. TleoaSa means, to try, to put to the proof, in order to ascertain the disposition, purpose, capaci- ty, etc. of anyone. This trial may be, (1.) For a good purpose; by subjecting one to any evils'or dangers, as God tried (02) Abra- ham, Gen. 22: 1; or, by placing him in circumstances either pros- perous or adverse, that are of a peculiar nature, as God did Israel, Ex. 16: 4. Judg. 2: 22. Trial may be, (2.) For an evil purpose ; as the Pharisees éxe/yoou '/joouv, by proposing to him ensnaring and subtile questions, Matt. 19: 3 seq. 22: 18, 35, et saepe; or, by laying before any one inducements to sin, as Satan does before the minds of men, 1 Cor. 7:5. 1 Thess. 3:53 comp. James 1: 13, 14. In both of these senses, Christ was tried. ‘ It pleased the Lord to bruise him, and to put him to grief, Is. 53: 10;” and, “It became him, for whom and by whom are all things, to advance to glory our Prince and Saviour, dva aadnuarwy, Heb. 2: 10.” The same Saviour was solicited by Satan to sin, Matt. 4: 1, 3. Mark 1: 13. Luke 4: 2. Understood in either way, then, the Sa- viour was tempted in like manner as we are, (xara mavtTe, x00 Ouovornta, Heb. 4:15), though without sin. That he did not yield to any excitement to sin, was owing to the strength of his virtue and holiness, not to the weakness of the temptation in itself considered. ‘Temptation, in the second sense, is that which is presented to the mind as an inducement to sin, and does not relate to the actual state of the mind or person to which it is presented. * 86 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 3: 1. t Men tempt God ; they tempt Christ; and so did Satan; but there never was any disposition in Christ to yield to it. There are two or three cases, however, in which the word nevoagw seems to denote yielding to sin, i. e. having the effect of mévoaouos produced upon one; e. g. Gal. 6: 1, perhaps James 1: 14; comp. ameigaoros, not induced to sin, in James 1:13. But this is an wnusual sense of the word mecoatw, and altogether inap- plicable to the Saviour, who was “separate from sinners,’’ Heb. 7: 26. Christ then, mevgaodeic, being proved, both by sufferings and by solicitations to sin, dvvatae toig méevoalouevorg BonOyjows, is fitted in a peculiar manner to succour those, who undergo either kind of trial. He is not only possessed of a merciful regard for them (v. 17), but he has direct and immediate sympathy with them, the result of his own personal feeling and experience. Won- derful condescension of redeeming love! Here lies the great mys- tery of godliness, God made manifest in the flesh. And while Je- sus sits on the throne of the universe, Lord over all, the Christian is reminded, that he does this in his nature, as his brother, v. 11. In the person of Jesus, man is exalted above the angels; yea, he himself is to attain a rank superior to theirs; for while Jesus pass- ed them by (v. 16), he laid down his life for us, in order to exalt us above them, 1 Cor. 6:3. Deeper and deeper still becomes the mystery. The debt of gratitude appears boundless, when viewed in this light; the baseness of our ingratitude and disobedience as boundless too ; and all that we can do is to lie down in the dust, overwhelmed with a sense of them, exclaiming at the same time with the prophet, ‘ Who is like unto thee? A God forgiving po iniquity, and passing by the Offences of thine heritage! Next. to the consideration, that the “law was dvatayels dv ayyé2wy,?? the grounds of its preeminence in the estimation of the Jews were, the exalted character of Moses, and the dignity and offices of the high priest, who was the instrument of reconciling the people to God, when they had lost his favour by sinning. In respect to both these points, the apostle undertakes to shew that the gospel has a preference, because that Jesus is superior. If he be compared with Moses as mw, a60t020¢, curator aedis sacrae, (0lzxov, vy, 2,3), he will be found to excel him. If he be compared with the high priest, his superiority, in every respect, is equally visible. The first comparison is made in 3: 2—6, and the warning against defection from the gospel that immediately follows it, is continued through 3: 7—19 to 4: 13. The writer then proceeds with the comparison of Christ as high priest, and extends it through the remainder of the doctrinal part of the epistle. * COMMENTARY ON HEB. 3: 1. 87 CHAP. III. "Oder, whence, i. q. dia tovro, by which Chrysostom expresses the sense of it. It refers to place, in common usage ; but it is also illative, particularly in our epistle. The manner in which the writer makes his transition here, from one topic to another, is deserving of notice. He had just been shewing how and why Christ was a ‘‘ merciful and faithful high priest, and able to succour all who are tempted.” He now adds, o@ev, 1. e. allowing these things to be true, it follows, that we are under peculiar obligation to contemplate and well examine the Saviour’s character, before we venture to reject him. But in making this suggestion, the writer at the same moment introduces new topics for discussion, viz. the comparison of Christ with Mo- ses, and with the high priest under the Jewish dispensation. The transition is almost insensible, as it is actually introduced under the form of a deduction from the preceding discussion. * Adehgpot, as applied by Christians to each other, means, one of the same faith or profession, with the adjunct idea of possessing a friendly, brotherly feeling, Acts 9: 30. Lt: 29. 1 Cor. 5: 11. al. " Aytot, consecrated, devoted, i. e. to Christ, seé apart as Christians. So I understand this appellation. Holy, in the sense of possessing internal purity, the apostle did not mean to affirm that all were, whom he addressed ; for surely when the ancient prophets called the whole Jewish nation byw 4p (dycoe), or Wisp bY (Aaos wyeog), they did not mean to assert that every individual among them was spirif- ually sanctified. But to remind his brethren, (brethren in a dou- ble sense here, as they were also the writers kindred according to the flesh), that they had been consecrated to Christ, and set apart as his disciples, was altogether adapted to prepare them for the ex- hortation to fidelity which ensues. In a like sense, the ancient prophets called the whole body of the Jewish nation holy, %45p. Kinoews éxovoaviou uéroyzor, lit. partakers of the heavenly in- vitation. KaAnovg is the invitation given on the part of God and . Christ to men, to come and partake of the blessings proffered by the Christian religion. It does not appear, however, to designate the offers of the gospel, generally considered, and in reference to all men without discrimination ; for it is applied, in the New Tes- * “ 88 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 3:1. ~ tament, only to those who by profession are Christians. KA7jove, then,as the proffer of blessings to such; the invitation given to all the professed friends of the Christian religion, to accept the fa- vours which the Redeemer is ready to bestow, in case of their obedience. The epithet éovgaviov may mean, in this case, that the blessings proffered are of a celestial nature. So Wahl and oth- ers, who compare the phrase with 179 avw xArjoews, Phil. 3: 14. Thus interpreted, the implication of the passage would be, that the proffered blessings of the gospel were éxovgavee, in distinction from those offered under the law, i. e. they are of a higher, more spiritual, more sublime nature. But éacoveayviov may also mean, that the xAyjovg was given from heaven, i. e. by one from heaven, viz. Christ; comp. 12: 25 and 2:3. Understood in either way, it is apposite to the purpose of the writer, and well adapted to urge upon his readers their obligation to adhere to the Christian relig- ion. Karavonoare, observe well, consider attentively, perpendite, ad animum revocate ; and this, in order that they might not be tempt- ed to swerve from their fidelity to Christ, out of excessive regard to the Mosaic institutes; for Christ, as the writer proceeds to shew, was in all respects superior to Moses. Tov andotodov ....%ucov, the apostle and high priest of our religion. The appellation atdozodov, (whichis an anak Asyousvov as applied to Christ), has given rise to much philological and crit- ical discussion. The word itself may convey two ideas, nearly re- lated, but not identical. (1) “4m00rolo¢ is equivalent to 0 aneo- takuevog ; as Thomas Magister explains it, quoting Demosthenes as employing it in this manher. It means, then, any messenger, any person commissioned or sent to perform duties of any kind for another, and particularly to make known his will, desire, or com- mand ; in which sense it is commonly employed by the New Tes- tament writers. (2) The Jews applied the term =v, (from mbw mittere), to the minister of the synagogue, i. e. the person who pre- sided over it, and .directed all its officers and affairs, the curator of all its concerns, aedituus, negoti? aedis sacrae curator. See Buxtorf Lex. Chald. verbum mw, and Vitringa de Vet. Synag. Lib. III. p. 2. c.2. In either of these senses it may be under- stood, in the passage under consideration. Interpreted agreeably to the first sense of &ooroiog, the meaning would be, that Christ yy COMMENTARY ON HEB. 3: 1. 89
  • ¥, anoorokos, in respect to this important business. Jesus, in like manner, was sent on an errand of the like kind, but of still greater importance. He was sent by the Father for this purpose, John 3: 34, 5: 36, 37. 6: 29. 10: 36 al. Now.as the writer was just about to make a comparison between Christ and Moses, it was very natural that he should call Christ édotodoy, i. e. one sent or commissioned of God, because Moses was thus sent ; as the passages above cited prove. We might acquiesce in this explanation, as most interpreters have done, were it not that one still better may be found, in the supposition that asoorodos is here employed in the second or Jew- ish sense, explained above. ‘The apostle proceeds immediately to speak of Moses and of Christ as presiding over, and administering the affairs of, the o/xo¢, committed respectively to them (vs. 2—A4) 5 i.e. each was a “92kc7 bw, ayyshos éxxAnoias, curator aedis sacrae, anootodog in the Jewish sense. 'This certainly gives a meaning more apposite to the context, and indeed a sense which, in connexion with it, seems to be a necessary one. The general idea of being sent of God, or divinely commissioned, is retained ; in- asmuch as Moses was thus sent and commissioned, and with him the comparison is made. The meaning then is, that if the curator aedis sacrae et novae be compared with the curator aedis sacrae et antiquae, the result will be such as the sequel discloses. Kai doyssgéa, high priest. 'Two reasons may be given for this appellation ; the one, that in Ps. 110: 4, the Messiah is so named ; the other, that the writer means to compare him, in the sequel, as making atonement for men by the propitiatory sacrifice which he offered, with the high priest of the Jews who made expiation for the people. The latter, I regard as the principal reason of the appellation here. ” VOL. Il. 12 90 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 3: I, 2. Tis Omodoyiac nuov, of our profession or confession; i. e. the apostle and high priest whom we have confessed or acknowledged as ours. This they had done, when they became Christians. “Ouohoyiag is used here as an adjective or participle; and the phrase is equivalent to andorohov yumy xai aoyreoea Ouodoyoune- voy, i. e. the apostle and high priest ro aliorews juwy (as Chrys- ostom paraphrases it), in whom we have believed, or whom we have acknowledged as ours. Comp. 2 Cor. 9: 13, ry unotayy 77S Omohoyias Yur, your professed subjection ; Heb. 16; 23. 4: 14. Others take ouwodoyiag in the sense of covenant, n°72, which the word sometimes has in profane writers; see Schleus. Lex. in verbum. This sense of the word would not be inapposite here, inasmuch as it would convey the idea of an engagement or cove- nant made with Christ, by those whom the apostle is addressing. But as this use of the word is not found in the New Testament, it would hardly be proper to admit it here. The writer now proceeds to shew the reason why the Hebrews ought attentively to regard Jesus, in respect to the two great points of comparison which he had hinted at, by applying to him the epi- thets anoorohos and aoyregers. 2. Morey, faithful, i. e. he fully and truly performed the du- ties of his station. See 2: 17, where, in like manner, he is called meotos aoylegsvg. Others interpret avores, entrusted with, or, worthy of trust ; a sense, indeed, which the word sometimes has ; but it is not so apposite here. 7 xosoavee avrov, to him who constituted or appointed him, viz. emdorodov ; to him who sent him, John 10: 36; to him who made him 4°>W, curator, aedis sa- crae. So émoinoe, Mark. 3: 4. Te ¢ oinm wvrov, his house, i. e. family, meaning the Jewish na- tion, or, his worshipping people. Ocxog evidently does not mean temple here, for that was not built in the time of Moses; nor does it mean tabernacle, for over that Aaron presided, and not Moses. It means, then, the spiritual house committed to Moses, i. e. the Jewish nation who were to be guided, regulated, and instructed in spiritual things, by the revelations which he gave them. So Chrys- ostom, who substitutes Aeov as an explanation of oéxov. So in English, we use house for family, and church (otxog Oeov) for the worshippers in it. It is, moreover, only in this way, that a com- parison can be made between Moses and Christ ; as the latter was - COMMENTARY ON HEB. 3: 2, 3. 91 ee LN not the minister of any literal house, but curator aedis Dei sacrae et spritealis. Comp, | Tim. 3:15. 1 Pet. 2: 5, 01K0S TYEVMATLXOS. Eph. 2: 20—22. Heb. 3: 6. The sentiment of v. 2 is, that with regard to fidelity in dis- charging the duties of his office, as head of the new dispensation, Christ yields not in any respect to Moses, who, (as the Scripture tes- tifies, Num. 12: 7), was faithful in respect to all his duties toward the people of God, that were committed to his care. In this res- pect there is no inferiority. In another respect, however, Christ may justly claim great superiority over Moses; as the writer now goes on to shew. 3. Aoéng, honour, dignity, regard ; governed in the genitive by akimroe. “Héiwras, is worthy, deserves, is counted worthy. ’ 4év0w also means, not unfrequently, to obtain, to acquire; e€. g. Of narakwnOEevres TIS TOU mVEVMATOS yaOvtos, those who have ob- tained the grace of the Spirit, Chrysostom I. p. 730. Tig énvyvo~ GES TOU OvtOS uN xaTaELOUMEVOS, not having obtained a knowledge of what is real, Basil I. p. 515. Ina similar way, it is also used in the classics; as toy peyiotwy a&covpevos, having obtained the greatest honours, Lys. Orat. p. 10). ed. Taylor. But still, this is not the usual sense of the word; nor does it so well fit the passage under consideration, as the other and usual meaning, although many commentators have preferred it. 0£&¢ neon Mwvony, glo- ry in comparison with Moses, as in Hebrew "wi273 “25. See on 1: 4, 9, where zoe is employed in the same way. Ka® Goov may signify, in proportion as, as much as, and may have relation, here, to wAelovog in the first member of the verse. The usual Greek method of expression in such cases is, room... dom etc. But I prefer the sense given in the version, because the nature of the proposition seems to require it. So Schulz, Eng. Version, alii. IDsiove typjy x. t. 3. he who builds a house, has more honour than the house; i. e. the difference between the honour due to Mo- ses and that due to Christ, is as great as between the honour due to the founder of a house [family] and that which should be paid to the family which he founds; or, between the honour due to the architect that framed a building, and that due to the building itself. It is difficult to say in which of these senses the writer meant that the words should be taken. Either fits his purpose. Either is de- 92 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 3: 3. signed to shew that Christ, at the same time that he is the head of the new spiritual house, is also the founder of it; while Moses, who was at the head of the ancient spiritual house, was himself only one of the household. As a steward or overseer of a house, while he is curator of all in the house, is still but a servant ; so Moses, as is as- serted in v.5, was but a servant; while Christ, who was curator, was also Son, and therefore “ heir and lord of all.” The point of comparison between Moses and Christ, in which the latter appears to have a decided preference, is not the being at the head of God’s house or family, (for such an office Moses sustained) ; but it con- sists in this, viz. that while Moses was curator, he was also #soa- mwv; but while Christ was curator, he was at the same time vios, and xaraoxevacrys orxov. Karaoxevalw means, to furnish, to fit up, to make ready, i. e for use ; also, to construct, prepare, build, condere, exstruere. In some cases it seems to combine the idea of constructing and furnish- ing, both of which indeed are included under the general idea of preparing or making ready for use ; e. g. Heb. 9: 2—6. The Sev- enty sometimes used this word, in order to translate Muy, e.g. in Prov. 23:5. 2 Chron. 32:5; sometimes they employed it as corres- ponding to 843, as in Is. 40: 28. 43:7. So the book of Wisdom, 9: 2, “ By thy wisdom xareoxevaoas tov avOowmor, thou hast creat- ed [formed] man.” In our text, xaraoxevacag avror, scil. o¢xor, is equivalent to the Latin, condere domum. But as o¢zog here means, family, household, so xaraoxsvaoas must be taken in a sense that will correspond to this, viz, that of establishing, instituting, found- ing ; which is evidently the meaning of the phrase. F Others render the last clause of the verse thus; znasmuch as he who founded the household hath greater honour from the house, un- derstanding, zeu2}v oixou to be the honour which the house renders, and thus making o/xov dependent on teurjv instead of mielove. Storr translates the whole verse thus; For Christ hath a preference above Moses, the greater, in proportion as this house is more highly estimated by its founder. But these methods of rendering, (to say nothing of the improbable and forced construction which they give to the language of the verse), would constrain us to lose sight of the apodosis, which the latter part of the verse evidently contains. Christ, says the apostle, has more glory than Moses. How ? or, how much more? The answer is; ‘ As much more as is due to the COMMENTARY ON HEB. 3: 3, 4. 93 founder of a family, for, to the architect of a building], above that which is to be paid to the family itself, [or, to the edifice which is reared].’ In other words, Christ is to be honoured as the head and founder of the otxoc, which has been erected ; Moses, only as the head ; for he himself was still a part of the ovxog itself, wo Oega- stov v.5. Interpreted in any other way, the whole force of the com- parison seems to vanish. In this way it is (to say the least) intelli- gible, if not quite simple. If the reader wishes to see the endless discrepancies among critics about this and the following verse, he may consult Wolfii Curae Philol., or Dindorf’s edition of Ernest: in Ep. ad Hebraeos. 4, This verse has been a kind of offendiculum criticorum, in past ages, and has never yet, in any commentary which J have seen, been satisfactorily illustrated. The difficulty lies, not in the simple sen- timent of the verse by itself considered, (for there is none in this re- spect); nor in the words, which in themselves are not obscure ; but in discovering and explainiug the connexion in which this verse stands with the context, and how it modifies or affects it. If the verse be entirely omitted, and the third verse be immediately con- nected with the fifth, there seems to be nothing wanting, nothing omitted that is at all requisite to finish the comparison which the writer is making. Nay, on account of the difficulty which adheres to the 4th verse, the mind is greatly relieved by the omission of it ; and little is then presented, which raises doubts or scruples about the object of the writer. ‘There is no evidence, however, that the verse in question is a mere gloss; at least, none from manuscripts or versions that is of any value. We must receive it, then, as a part of the text, the integrity of which, (however difficult the pas- sage may be), cannot be made to depend on our ability to explain it. Tlag yao otzxog.... 009, I translate thus; every house must have some builder, or, is built by some one; and he who formed all things is God. But what are the all things (t@ aavra) which are formed or built? The universe? Or all o¢xoe, all dispensations, viz. both the Jewish and Christian? The context seems to demand the latter meaning. ‘The former has common usage in its favour. Is it appropriate to construe it agreeably to this usage? It is di- rectly to the writer’s purpose, if he can shew, that every dispensa- tion must of necessity have some founder, and that this founder was Christ. But how is this shewn? To say that God, simply consid- 94 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 3: 4, 5. ered, was the author of all things, would not be to shew that Christ was the founder of the Jewish and Christian o/xov. Indeed, I can see no possible connexion of this proposition, with the object which the writer has in view. Nor can I see how Christ is shewn by him to be a founder at all, unless I understand him to assert this to be the fact, because Christ is divine, or is de0¢. The argument would then stand thus ; ‘ God is the author of all things, (and, by conse- quence, of the Jewish and Christian o¢zov) ; Christ isGod ; of course he must be regarded as the original author or founder of these dis- pensations.” The fact itself that Christ is de0g, the writer surely could not hesitate to assert, after what he has said, chap. 1: 8—12. John 1: 1 asserts the same thing; as Paul also does, in Rom. 9: 5, and in other places. I must regard the expression here, as predi- cated on what the writer had said in chap. 1., respecting the Son. The amount, then, of the reasoning seems to be; ‘ Consider that Christ, as don is us- ed classically in the same sense, i. e. to announce joyful tidings, to proclaim proffered good. 'The proffered blessing, implied in the text, is the rest of which the writer had been speaking, and of which he continues to speak. "Adn ovn wgednoev 0 hoyos tHS axons, the promise or declara- tion which they heard, [or, which was proclaimed], was of no benefit to them. “O hoyos rg axons may be equivalent to 6 axovodels Aoyos, i. e. the word heard by them; or it may be like the Hebrew msi7aw 923, word of annunciation or report, i. e. word announced or reported. The sense is not materially changed, whichever of these interpretations is adopted. Svynenoamevos ... .axovoaor, not being joined with faith in them that heard it, or, not being united to faith, i. e. faith not ac- companying it, or associating with it. Svyxenoauevosg is explain- ed, by many commentators, as being tropically employed here ; and - the metaphor, they allege, is taken from food, which when digested unites with the cofporeal system, and becomes aliment to it. So here, the word, if duly recéived, would have incorporated itself, so to speak, with the internal, spiritual man ; but as it was not receiv- ed, it did not so incorporate itself. But this is not so simple and easy a mode of explanation, as that given in the above transla ion. _ Many manuscripts and editions read ovyxexouuevoug, an 1 some OuyxExeoaouevous ;~ which some critics and interpreters prefer. But it is difficult, if not impossible, to make any tolerable sense of these readings. The common one is much preferable. _ Toig exovoeor—equivalent here to the genitive ray axovoar- tov. The meaning is, that the Aoyo¢g was not associated with the faith of those who heard it. The Hebrews usually designate pos- session, by the dative with >; e. g. the Song of songs, pVa>W> WN ore Es | * i ‘ he. COMMENTARY ON HEB. 4: 2, 3. 109 which is Solomon’s. So, frequently, in Greek ; e. g. of nang his father, Pind. Olymp. 1:91. Neither do thy children (oo1 réxve) : the light, Eurip. Phoeniss. 1563. Men are one xrjpatwv roig S20 of the possessions of the gods, Plato. Phaed. See Matt. Gr. Gram. § 392. g. 1. et seq. In all such cases, there is an ellipsis of a pro- noun relating to the object possessed, and of the verb of existence, which governs the dative when it signifies possession or property ; e. g. xryuarwy [a gore] toIg Peors. rm “The sense of the whole verse is simply this ; 3 fa promise of rest is made to Christians now, as well as to God’s ancient people. But they received no advantage from it, because of unbelief;’ the im- plication is, poSyFapev, (as he had just said), wy reg doxy x. Tt. A, that is, Guard well, then, against unbelief. 3. Hiosoyouetu yao... .morevoarres, but we who believe do enter into the rest, viz. God’s rest. ag, but; for plainly eésseyo- pede yoo is put in distinction from the preceding adi” ovx wpedn- os, to which the writer subjoins, but (yay) we who do believe, are profited by it, etc. It may also be rendered, nearly to the same purpose, still, or, yet (yao), we who do believe, etc. provided the preceding adi be translated, although. 'The sentiment of the two clauses is either this; ‘ Be it that the unbelievers reaped no advan- tage from the rest proffered to them, yet we who are believers do enter into that rest ;’> which the writer then proceeds to prove: or it may be stated in another form, thus, ‘An offer of rest is made to us, as well as to them ; but (add) unbelief excluded them from - that rest ; we, then (yao), who believe shall be admitted to it.’ That is, if our character be the opposite of theirs, then will our lot be the opposite also. Eiogoyousta, in the present tense, appears to have created difficulty in the minds of some critics, who have changed it into elochevoouedo (future tense). But how needless this change is, every one conversant with the idiom of the Bible may easily judge ; in which the present tense is very often used as a wniversal tense, embracing time past, present, and future. In Hebrew, it is very common to use the present participle, for the same purposes as the ‘Latins use their future in rus. Kadwe stonuev’ *. t. 4. that is, a solemn asseveration that wn- believers should not enter into his rest, implies, of course, that be- lievers should enter into it. See on 3: 11. x 110 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 4: 3. Kaitou cov éoyor.... yevnGévrwr, namely, [rest from] the works that were done after the world was founded. Katror is a par- ticle, the meaning of which has been much controverted here. There is no doubt, that it sometimes has the meaning of although, which our English version has here given to it. But I am unable to make any sense of the passage, under consideration, if xuirou be thus translated. Nor does xaéroc seem originally to mean, although. Its principal signification is, et quidem, et sane. So Xenophon (Cy- rop. III.), xatroe, etre éxelvous wév YoBeowréoovs mocnoomer x. T. A. and truly, if we shall make them somewhat more timid, etc. Thucyd. IV. 60, xairor, yyoveae yon x.t. 4. and truly, we ought to know. A- ristoph. Plut. 1179, xaizoe tore, Ore eiyo ovdev, and indeed then, when they possessed nothing. ‘* Adhibetur,’’ says Hoogeveen, ‘‘ cum sequitur aliquid nova attentione dignum;” and again, “ Quartus usus est, s? dictum exemplo confirmatur,” (Hoog. Doctrina Part. Graec. ed Schiitz. vocab. xa/rov) ; which is the very case in ques- tion.. For here the writer gives the example of God’s rest after the creation, in order to explain what is the meaning of my rest. I have given the sense, by rendering xaizov, namely, which is equivalent in many cases to et quidem, et sane. So Devarius (de Partic. Ling. Graec.) explains xaizov; and after him Carpzoff, (Comm. in loc. nos- trum). The latter says, ‘‘ Devarius evicit, eam (xaizov) simpliciter ad exponendam aliquam sententiam poni.” The sense will be sub- stantially the same, if xairov be rendered, and truly, and indeed ; _ but the other mode of translating is more explicit, and makes the connexion more facile. Tov goywv, [rest from] 1 the works. That xatanavovy is to be understood, before goywy, is ‘clear from vs.4 and 10, where the same sentiment is repeated. The ellipsis may be either [xaranavocy] TOV EQYWY, OF, [xardnavowy amo] tv éyywr; more probably the latter, for ano is supplied after the verb xarénavoe, both in vs. 4 and 10. “4720, however, is not absolutely necessary here, as noth- ing is more common than for the genitive case, without any prepo- sition, to mean in respect to, in regard to; e.g. éyyitara avr@ é- ut, yévovg, I am very nearly allied to him, 1x REGARD TO descent ; amuis aodtvwv naldwy, childless 1N REGARD To males; see Butt- mann’s Gram. § 119. 6.1. Matthiae, § 315. "Ano narasodng xdouov yevndEevrwy, done, i.e. completed or performed, when the world was founded. "Ano xarafodns, at or COMMENTARY ON HEB. 4: 3—5. 111 after the foundation, i.e. beginning ; in a sense, like ano wgyns, at first, in Matt. 19: 4; and in Luke 13: 25, ag ov means, when. Jo- sephus uses xarafodn for beginning ; e.g. Lib. II. 17, Bell. Jud. he says, “ This was xarafodn modeuou, the beginning of the war,” viz. with the Romans. By rendering ano, after, 1 follow the more usual sense of the word. The nature of the image I take to be this. ‘lhe foundation (xoraodn) of a building is merely its commencement, a state or condition preparatory to the completion of the superstructure. So here, the xataPodn, founding of the earth, was the act described in Gen. 1: 1. The completion of the building (so to speak) followed, during the work of the six days which succeeded. These were the Zoywv ysvedevtwy Which our author mentions here, and these were the works from which God rested, after they were completed. That 0, joined with nouns designating time, may mean after, since, ev- ery lexicon will shew. 4. The writer now proceeds to cite a passage of Scripture, in order to shew that God did enjoy such a rest as he had spoken of. Evonue yoo, for [the Scripture] says, or, [the Holy Ghost] says ; the usual mode of appealing to the Old ‘Testament. Tlov, in a certain place or passage. Chapter and verse are no where cited in the New Testament; and very rarely is any partic- ular book named, unless indeed it bears the same name as its au- thor. An appeal to Scripture, by merely saying zov, shews that the writer must have supposed his readers to be familiar with the contents of the Jewish Scriptures. The passage cited may be found in Gen. 2: 2. . Korénavoev 0 G0¢. The rest here spoken of, is of course to be considered as described avPownonndws, i. e. In accommodation to the capacities of men. It surely does not imply, that God was wearied by his work of creation ; but that he simply ceased from it, and enjoyed a holy and delightful quiet, in the pleasing contempla- tion of the works which had been accomplished. Comp. Gen. 1: 4, 10, 18, 25, 31. 5. Such, then, was the rest of God, of which the Scripture speaks. To such rest, the apostle says, the writer of the 95th Psalm refers. Kal évy rovrm nah, again in this passage also, viz. in the passage which he had already quoted from Ps. 95: 11, i. e. the pas- sage which he is now going to mention, the Scripture represents 4 112 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 4: 5—7,. God as saying, my resé, i. e. such rest as I have, or, such as I enjoy. In other words, both Gen. 2: 2 and Ps. 95:11, speak of a holy, spir- itual reatysince they speak of a rest which God himself enjoys. 6. “Enei otv anodsinetas .... Ov anetOevav, since then it re- mains, that some must enter into that [rest], and [since] they to whom the promise was formerly announced, did not enter in, because of un- belief ; [it follows that believers only can enter in], comp. v. 3; or, [it follows, that a rest remains for believers], comp. v. 9. This seems to be a continuation of the subject in vy. 3. There the writer says, ‘ Believers enter into the rest of God.’ How is this proved ? ‘ Because he has sworn, that wnbelievers shall not enter into it ;) which necessarily implies that believers shall enter into it. Then after delaying a moment, in order to shew what the nature of the rest in question is, viz. that it is God’s rest, i. e. such rest as God enjoyed after the work of creation was completed (vs. 3—5), the author resumes the consideration of the proposition advanced in the first part of v.3, and avers, that, as some must enter into God’s rest, (for God could not be supposed to have provided one in vain) ; and as unbelievers cannot enter in; so it is necessarily im- plied, that believers, and they only, will enjoy the rest in question. See the illustration of the reasoning, prefixed to chap. tv. in the preceding pages. Others construe the verse in this manner ; ‘ Since, then, some must enter into his rest, and unbelievers of former days did not en- ter in; therefore he defines again (nadev) a particular day, ete ; constructing vs. 6 and 7 as one connected sentence. But this makes the sentence very much involved, and obscures the design of the writer. His object certainly is, to shew that the rest proffered in ancient times, in the 95th Psalm, still remains for the people of God ; see.vs. 9, 10. But how can this be proved, by merely shew- ing that David speaks of ‘a definite time, when he wrote the 95th Psalm, in which the offer of rest was then made? On the other hand, I understand it to be the particular object of the writer, in v. 7, seq., to exhibit further proof, that the proffered rest is of a spiritu- al nature, and therefore not to be limited by assigning to it a merely temporal sense. See the preceding illustration, referred to above. 7. Llodw tive ogifer jugoav .... xagdiag vuwv, again he spe- cifies a particular day, t0-pay, when speaking by David, so long a time afterwards; as it is said, “ To-day whilst ye hear his voice, COMMENTARY ON HEB. 4: 7—9. 113 harden not your hearts.” See above, en chap. 3: 7, 8, particularly 3:18. The reasoning stands thus; ‘In David’s time, nearly five hundred years after unbelievers in the wilderness were threatened with exclusion from the promised inheritance, the Psalmist makes use of the commination which has been quoted, in order to deter those whom he addressed from hardening their hearts as the ancient Israelites did, and so losing the rest, as they did, which God had proffered to the obedient and believing.’ This rest, then, could not be merely the land of Canaan, (as the Jews of Paul’s time under- stood it to be), for this both believers and unbelievers, living in the time of the Psalmist, already enjoyed. Consequently, the rest spo- ken of by the Psalmist was of a spiritual nature, pertaining only to believers. All this is plainly implied in verse 8. Ei yao avrous /noots .... 7uevas, now, if Joshua had giv- en them rest, i.e. the rest of God, of which the Scripture speaks, then he [David] would not have spoken of another time, viz. when rest was to be given, or to be obtained. That is, ‘ If the rest of God be only the rest of Israel in Canaan, or the quiet possession of the promised land, then the Psalmist could not have spoken of it as still proffered, in his time, after it had been in fact given to Israel by Joshua, nearly five centuries before. The other time, here spoken of, is the same which is designated by the word oyjuegov in the quotation ; which implies a time different from that, and subsequent to that, in which the Israelites obtained the rest of Canaan. That ’/yoouvg means Joshua here, there can be no doubt ; for the object of the writer is to prove, that Jesus does bestow the rest spoken of, viz. that which the ‘/joovg here named did not bestow. Katénavoe, caused to rest, exactly as the Hiphil conj. in Hebrew is used; e. g. M273 (from maz) in Deut. 12: 10, in the same sense as nxatemavoe here. 9." Aou anolsinerae ...t0v Geov, consequently, there remaineth a rest for the people of God, i. e. for believers, see v.3. Here, the object of the preceding argument is plainly developed ; so plainly, that we are not left at liberty to doubt concerning it. Here is fully expressed, what is plainly implied in v. 6, although in an elliptical manner, as has been already noticed. Such a manner is not unfre- quent with Paul. Comp. Rom. 5: 12 with 5:18, 19. See Intr. § 22. 3. SofPoarvouos, (Heb. naw, jinaw, rest, sabbatism,) holy, reli- VOL. Il. 15 114 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 4: 9—11. gious, spiritual rest. SoaBfatvonos is a mere Hebrew word with a Greek ending ; and it is here employed as equivalent to xatemav- ous, but with special reference to the Heb. expression naw> (from mi2w) in Gen. 2: 2, which there describes the rest of God. The Heb. jinay is a kind of intensive noun, formed from maw, and means, sabbath by way of eminence. Saffartouog, which stands for }inay, seems to be a word coined by the writer purposely for the occasion, and is very appropriate to his design. That believers do enter into the rest of God, i. e. a rest like his, is further shewn, by verse 10. “O yao elochOuv .... 6 03, he who enters into his [God’s] rest, he will also cease from his own labours, as God did from his. As God ceased from his work on the seventh day, and enjoyed holy delight in the contemplation of what he had done, (see on verse 4 above), so the believer, in a future world, will cease from all his toils and sufferings here, and look back with holy delight, on the struggles through which he has past, and the labours which he has performed, for the sake of the Christian cause. Or, as God enjoys a most pure and perfect rest or happiness in heaven ; so the believ- er will enjoy a similar happiness there. There surely is no more difficulty in calling that rest, which is promised to believers, the rest of G'od, than there is in saying, that man “was formed in his image ;” that Christians ‘‘are made par- takers of the divine nature ;” or that ‘‘ we shall be like him, when when we shall see him as he is.”” The rest of God, is rest like that which God enjoys. And it deserves to be noticed, that the writer, in order to illustrate the natuye of this rest, has chosen the description of it, as following the work of creation, in order to make a compari- son between it and that rest which believers will have, when all their toils'and sufferings are ended. This was well adapted to take hold of the minds of those to whom he was writing, and who were exposed to many hardships and trials. _ Having now shewn that there is‘a promise of spiritual rest to believers, implied in what the Jewish Scriptures say, the apostle repeats the caution, which lay so near his heart, against unbelief in the Saviour and the consequences of it. 11. Snovdaowmev ovv .... ausedeias, let us earnestly endea- vour, then, to enter into that rest, [the rest of God], lest any one should perish, in like manner, through unbelief. ’Ev to avrw Un0- COMMENTARY ON HEB. 4: 11, 12. 115 delypare, after the same example, after the like manner, viz. as they (the Israelites) perished. Joy is often used in this way, in an intransitive sense. “Aneietas I take to be the genitive (as grani- marians say) of means, instrument, etc. The awful nature of the commination, that unbelievers should not enter into the rest of God, the writer now describes, in order to leave a deep impression on the minds of his readers, and to guard them more effectually against unbelief and apostasy. .@ 12. Zav yoo... . éveoyns, for the declaration of God has an active and mighty power, or, is enduring and powerful, i.e. has an efficiency that never ceases. The meaning according to the latter interpretation is, that the commination, uttered in ancient days against unbelievers, (and which had been repeated above by the writer), has abated nothing from its force or efficacy, down to the present time ; it still lives; unbelievers are still subject to its power. In defence of this interpretation, it might be said that Cay is applied here to the divine word,%, e. commination, in a manner like that in whichit is applied*fo God in the phrase "7 ba, “og fav, often used in the Scripturesawhich designates him as eternal, unfailing life, in opposition to d made of perishable materi- erpetual or perennial, may immortal, never dying, endowed wi idols destitute of a living principle, als. It is evident, too, that the sense be considered as appropriate to the passége before us. But others interpret Cov as meaning, active, a sense which is common to this word, and to the Hebrew °m. I understand both terms as conveying the idea of active atdynighty energy; which is altogether appropriate to the writer’s purpode, whose object it is to persuade his hearers, that the commination utteDgd against the un- believers of former days and which is still in force, has*a dreadful power, at which they ought to shudder. Kai rouoreoos ... . diorouov, and sharper tan any two-edged sword, i. e. it has a more effective power to inflict wounds, than a sword with two edges. The efficacy of divine commination is of- ten compared to a sharp sword. KE. g. the Son of man is repre-\ | sented by John, as having, when he appeared to him in vision, a sharp two-edged sword issuing from his mouth, i. e. his words cut as it were like a sharp sword, or his reproof, commination, wound- ed deeply, Rev. 1: 16. 2: 12, 16. 19: 15, 21. Comp. also Is. 49: 2. 11: 4, in which last passage the expression is, with the rod of ~ 116 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 4: 12. his mouth, and in the parallel orizos, with the breath of his lips [with his words] shall he slay the wicked. Language then of re- proof, of severe threats or commination, or of condemnation, is by the sacred writers called the sword or rod of the mouth. So in our verse, the divine commination is represented as terribly efficacious, by resorting to the same species of imagery in order to make a comparison. Kai dvixvovmevos .... mvevpatog. The writer continues the description of the efficacy of the divine threatening, by carrying on_ still further the description of the effects produced by a sharp sword upon the natural body. Pzercing even so as to separate life and spirit. Puyn, when used as here, in distinction from TMVEVMO, means the animal soul or principle of animal life in man; as mvev- uo. in such a case means, the rational or intellectual soul, the im- material principle within man. See 1 Thess. 5: 23, where owue is added, in order to designate the merely physical or corporeal part of the human system. I: the phrase under consideration, piercing so as to divide [or separate]*life and spirit, plainly means inflicting a wound so deep as shall prove deadly; for that which separates the soul from the system endowed with animal life, is of course deadly. We may pdraphrase both expressions thus; a sharp sword that inflicts deqdly wounds. “Adour té xai uvehwv, [piercing so as to divide] joints and marrow, i.e. so as to divide the joints or limbs from the body, (which was often done in the severer kinds of punishment) ; and so as to pierce through the very bone to the marrow, or to separate the marrow from the béne, by perforating it; a tremendous image of the sharpness gf the sword and the effects it produces. The sense is, that the divine commination is of most deadly punitive efficacy. \ Kai xgerenxog ... xagdliac, he also judges [takes cognisance of ] the desires and purposes of the heart, i.e. Seog xoutexdg éore That xoerixoc, aptus ad judicandum, here applies to God, and not to doyos, seems evident. That there is a transition to @e0¢, is quite evident from v. 13, where évw@mov avrov, ogdaduois avrou, and 1g0¢ ov, one cannot well doubt, are to be applied to God. There is, then, a transition somewhere to @s0¢; and the nature of the case shews, that the appropriate place for it is at xa? xourex0s. In the preceding part of the verse, Aoyog Mov, divine commination, COMMENTARY ON HEB. 4: 12, 13. 117 a TS eT is represented (very forcibly and properly) as punitive. ‘This idea is consummated by the phrase which ends with wvedwy; and as 0g comes in as the subject of discourse, in the sequel, (at least in y. 13), I see no place so apposite for its introduction, as at nae novtexog. Indeed, there ‘can be no other, for unless it comes in here, we must carry Aoyog Geo, as the subject, through the whole paragraph ; which does not seem to me to be the design of the writer. God is here represented as one, who scans the whole of man’s internal character, and sits in judgment upon it. Consequently, as the writer intimates, no secret act or purposes of unbelief, or defection from the Christian cause, will remain unnoticed or un- punished. “Ayduunoug and évvove are nearly allied in meaning. They are both employed here, merely for the purpose of designating universality, i.e.the whole of men’s internal thoughts and purposes. 13. Koi ovx fore... . avtov, yea, nothing is concealed from the view of him [i. e. of God]. Kriowg means, any created thing ; literally act of creation, but it follows the Hebrew Ax 73. Ov xtlove means, no thing, >> Xb—ovder, or MN 72 Nd. , Tlavra .... rergaynduouevar, but all things are naked and ex- posed to the view of him, to whom we are accountable. Toaynhifo is best explained here, in the sense which the Greek classical wri- ters attach to it. It means, (1) To lay bare and bend back the neck, so as to expose the throat, in order to its being cut open or dissevered. Hence, (2) To expose, to lay open; which is the idea of the word in the phrase before us; as it is given in the transla- tion above. “Og@aluois, eyes, i.e. sight, view, cognisance ; for it is often used in this way. Tlodg Ov 7utv 6 doyos, lit. with whom, [before whom, in whose power, or at whose disposal], is owr account. 'The sense of account Aoyos often has. The common way of rendering hoyos here, is, concern, dealing, business. This sense the word will bear; but it is less in conformity to the usus loquendi, and less apposite to the design of the writer. Chrysostom understands it as I have trans- lated it. And so the preceding clause requires it to be rendered ; for this speaks of God, (or Adyog, if you please) as xgerexos, i. e. aptus ad judicandum ; the clause, now under consideration, repre- sents men as actually accountable to him, who is the omniscient judge. 118 VIEW OF THE CONTENTS OF HEB. vy—x. 18. RSENS TNT NE a CO ee Ns ee ee eee ed The writer now proceeds to the consideration of a subject, at which he had merely hinted in chap. 3: 1; where he calls Christ the ag 7tegé@ of the Christian religion. As a/10cTo/0¢g (3 jax mbw), pracfectus domo Dei, he had already compared him with Moses, 3: 2— 6; and then built upon the result of this comparison, the very solemn and affectionate warning against unbelief which follows, 3: 7—19. For the encouragement of the Hebrew Christians, he had also taken occasion, (after having spoken of unbelievers as excluded from the rest of God), to represent the promises still eld out to believers of enjoying that rest. Such was the case, under the ancient dispensation, and such he argues, is still the case; “there remains a OasSatio.cs for the people of God.” He then, as we have seen, concludes the subject, as us- ual, with an exhortation; in which he calls on them not to fail of this rest, 4: 11, nor to incur the awful penalty atiached to unbelief, 4: 11—13, Having thus completed the comparison of Christ as @7t00tToA0¢ with Moses, and drawn from the result of it those practical deductions at which our epistle every where aims; the wri- ter now proceeds to compare Christ, as @@ ytever'¢, with the Levitical order of priesthood ; which comparison, with its various subordinate parts, and the occasional warnings and com- minations that now and then are intermixed, extends to chap. 10:18; which is the end of what may be called the doctrinal part of our epistle. The mind of the writer plainly appears to have been more intensely engaged, with compar- ing Christ’s priesthood to that of Aaron and the Levites, than with any other subject in his epistle. The comparison, for example, of Christ with the angels, in chap. I., is short; the eomparison of him with Moses, in chap. III., still shorter. But the comparison of the Aaroni- eal priesthood, as to dignity, duties, offices, and utility, with that of Christ, and of their func- tions with his, makes up, in fact, the body of our epistle. It is natural to inquire, why this should be so; and the obvious answer, seems to be, ‘ Because the writer regarded this part of the Saviour’s office and work, as being, in a comparative sense, by far the most important. As a priest, he made atonement for sin, by the sacrifice of himself; in regard to which, no angel, no prophet, no teacher, no Aaronical priest, could bear a comparison with him. The most prominent part ofall his character, as a Saviour of sinners, is, that he is “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world.” Nothing could be more inappropriate, than the division of chapters made, in some cases, in our epistle. Chap. IIL. most plainly ought to be united with Chap. 4: 1—13; thus com- prising all that properly belongs to one and the same subject. Chap. IV. ought to begin at 4: 14, and to terminate with the end of chap. V., where there is a transition from doctrine to ex~ hortation. In regard to the course and method of argument, pursued through this leading portion of our epistle, (viz. from 4: 14 to 10: 18), in which a comparison between the Aaronical priest- hood and that of Christ is made, and where all that is connected with the office, and person, and duty of priests is also drawn into the comparison ; I have been able to find no satisfactory elucidation of it, in any commentator or critic whom I have perused. After attentive study of this whole passage, often repeated, it seems to me that the method of the writer is capable of being intelligibly stated ; and I shall now venture upon the experiment. The apostle introduces the topic, (to which he had adverted in 3: 1, by calling Christ the Hozyreven THE Opohoylag ir), by calling Jesus &O 7 LEvee EY AY, wid exhorting the He- brews to hold fast the profession (ojodoy tas) which they had made, 4:14. He again hints, very briefly, an encouragement to persevere, although subjected to trials and afflictions, be- cause of the sympathy that the Saviour would feel for them, as having possessed a nature like theirs exposed to trial and suffering, 4: 15,16. Butos he had already dwelt at Jarge on this topic (2: 6—18), he merely adverts to it here, and passes on to suggest the points of compari- son between the Levitical priesthood and that of Christ. (1.) Every priest is appointed in behalf of men, in order that he may superintend and di- rect the concerns which men have with God, and may present their oblations and sacrifices be- fore him, 5: 1. (2.) Every priest, being himself “compassed with infirmity,” is prepared by his own expe- rience to sympathize with others in like condition; and because of his own sins and imperfec- tions, it becomes his duty to offer expiatory sacrifices for himself as well as for them, 5: 2. 3. VIEW OF THE CONTENTS OF HEB. v—x. 18. 119 (3.) No priest appoints himself to the sacred office; his appointment is by divine direc- tion, 5: 4. In making a comparison of Christ, as high priest, with the Aaronical priests, in regard to the points here stated, the apostle inverts the order in which they are brought forward, and shews : (1.) That Christ was constituted high priest by divine appointment. This he proves, in vs. 5, 6, by quotations. from the second Psalm, and also from Ps. 110: 4. (2.) He then passes to the second topic of comparison, viz, the infirmity of the nature which Christ our great high priest possessed, and which qualified him, ina peculiar manner, to sympathize with the infirmities of his people. He represents Christ as having, during his incarnate state, uttered vehement supplications on account of his trials and distresses, and ag experiencing, like other men, deliverance from them, 5:7. Even though he was clothed with the dignity of the Son of God, he acquired a practical knowledge of what it is to obey in the midst of sufferings,5:8. Thus was he fitted weTQLomwadety Tots ayvoovol ; and having thus obeyed and suffered, in consequence thereof he was exalted to glory (TéeAevonFeic), where, as kingly high priest, after the order of Melchisedek, he isan all-sufficient Saviour to those who believe and obey him, 5:9, 10. fr As one of the proofs that Christ was exalted to be an all-sufficient Saviour, the writer has again, v. 10, produced the passage, which asserts him to be a priest forever after the order of Melchisedek, i. e. a kingly priest whose office is not of limited extent or temporary duration, But having thus introduced atopic attended with difficulty, and demanding an enlightened knowledge of the Scriptures and of the nature of Christianity in order to be rightly and fully comprehended, the apostle stops short in the prosecution of his subject, in order to admonish those whom he was addressing, with regard to the little progress which they had made, in such knowledge as would render them adequate fully to comprehend the discussion concerning the topic in question, in which he was about to engage. His reproof for their comparative ig- norance, he pursues through 5: 11—14. In 6: 1—8, he warns them against the awful danger, which would result from stopping short or turning back in their course, in order that he might thus excite them to more diligence and exertion respecting religious improvement. Notwith- atanding the seeming severity of his remarks in regard to this topic, he assures them that he has an affectionate confidence in their good estate, 6: 9; and this, because God will have re- gard to the benevolent character which they had before exhibited, 6:10. He then exhorts them to press forward in their Christian course, 6: 11; and assures them, that the promise and oath of God are pledged, that believers who persevere shall attain to salvation, 6: 13—19, After this digression, (if that may be called digression which is so directly concerned with the main object of the writer), he proceeds to descant upon the topic of Christ’s priest- hood, as instituted by God and compared with that of Melchisedek, which had been brought to view by the text of Scripture cited, in 5: 6, 10. In order to do this so as to make a strong impression, he begins by giving an account of the dignity of Melchisedek. He was king of Salem, and priest of the most high God ; his su- periority was acknowledged by Abraham, when he paid him a tithe of the spoils which he had taken, 7: 1,2. The same Melchisedek was not descended from priests, (and therefore his of- fice did not fall to him by the mere right of succession, but was the special appointment of God); he has no genealogy assigned him in the sacred writings, nor any limited term mention- ed in which his priesthood began or expired; like Christ’s priesthood, his is unlimited, 7: 3. Abraham himself, exalted as this patriarch was, acknowledged the superiority of Melchise- dek ; and the Levitical priests descended from him did as it were acknowledge the same, by their progenitor who paid this homage, and to whom they must be counted inferior, 7: 4—7. Besides, the Levitical priests, who receive tithes, hold their office only for a limited duration; while Melchisedek is a priest for an unlimited time, 7:8. Indeed, (if one may venture so to ex- press himself), the Levites themselves paid tithes to Melchisedek, through Abraham their pro- genitor, 7: 9, 10. Thus much for the superiority of Melchisedek over the Levitical priests. The conclusion, in this case, is left to be supplied by the reader’s mind, after the manner in which Paul often writes. The reasoning is thus. ‘Christ isa priest after the order of Melchisedek; Melchise- dek is superior to the Aaronical priests ; consequently, Christ as a prieat is superior to them.’ 120 VIEW OF THE CONTENTS OF HEB. v—x. 18. The writer next proceeds to another topic of great importance, and which very naturally connected itself with the consideration of Christ’s priesthood, as compared with that of Mel- chisedek. If, says he, the Levitical priesthood was adequate for all the purposes of atone- ment, and for the purification of the consciences of sinners, then what necessity that the ap- pointment of another priest should be made, as is predicted in Ps. 110: 4? 7:11. Now anoth- er order of priesthood necessarily demands a change of former institutions, 7: 12; and that another order is necessary, follows from the fact, that Christ (the priest after the new order) was to spring from the tribe of Judah, 7: 13. Still more evident must it be, that the order would be different, because the new priestly office is to be perpetual, 7: 15—17. Consequently, the old order of things gives place to a new and better one, 7: 18, 19. Besides, the new priest is appointed by the solemnity of an oath, while the Aaronical priests were not, 7: 21; consequently, we must suppose the new order of things to be superior, 7:22. This superiority appears specially in the fact, that the priesthood of Christ is perpetu- al, while that. of the Levites was constantly changing by succession, 7: 23,24. Christ there- fore is an adequate and neber- failing helper, to all who come unto God through him, 7: 25. It is thus, that the apostle illust _ ject introduced in 5: 6,10, by a quotat es, enlarges, and confirms his views respecting the sub- rom Ps. 110: 4, respecting the priesthood of Christ. The amount of the argument is, that by oath of God Christ was appointed to his priest- hood, while the Aaronical priests were appointed without such a solemnity; that the priest- hood itself, being of the order of Melchisedek, i. e. not by descent, not limited, not temporary, and of higher dignity than that of Aaron, Christ must be regarded as altogether superior to the order of Jewish priests. The inference of course is, that the Hebrews ought not to for- sake him who was a superior priest, in order to attach themselves to those who were inferior ones. - Having thus completed what he had to say, respecting the comparison of Christ and Mel- chisedek as priests, (all of which is employed to the advantage of the cause which he is advo- cating); the writer resumes the topic which he had begun in 5: 7, 8, viz. that of Christ’s sympa- thy with those “who are compassed with infirmity.” He had already suggested there, that Christ possessed all the common sympathies and innocent infirmities of our nature, in common with other priests. But not to leave it uncertain, whether in all respects Jesus was “ com- passed with such infirmities” as the Jewish priests, he now proceeds to point out one impor- tant difference, viz. that the high priest of the new dispensation is altogether superior to the priests of the old, in regard to the moral purity aud perfection of his character. He is holy, and altogether sinless, 7 : 26; and therefore needs not, like them, to offer any sacrifice on his own account, 7:27; for he has no such infirmity as renders this at all necessary, since he is priest in a state of perfection and glorious exaltation, 7: 28. Having thus shewn the superiority of Christ over the Levitical priests, in respect to the second particular, viz. the qualifications for sympathizing with erring men, the writer next proceeds to the most important topic of all, viz, the office of Christ, as a priest, in directing the concerns of men with God, and in presenting a propitiatory sacrifice for them. He begins by averring, that the principal thing (zeycAuor), in respect to the matters which he is discussing, is the priesthood of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary, 8: 1,2, He then re-introduces the topic, which he had-before stated in 5: 1. Taking for granted the truth of the sentiment there stated, he now draws the inference from it, that Christ (being a priest) must also have an offering to present; 8: 1—3. But if Christ were on earth he could not be a priest ; fer priests, whose office it is to perform duty in the earthly sanctuary, are already con- stituted by divine appointment, 8:4; and these perform their office in a temple that is merely a copy or resemblance of the heavenly one,8:5, Christ’s ministry is as much superior to theirs, as the new covenant is to the old one, 8:6; and the Scripture itself predicts, that the old covenant should be abolished, and the new one introduced in its stead, 8: 7—13. Ofcourse the new covenant must be superior; and Christ, who ministers in the heavenly temple, must be superior to those who serve merely in the earthly one, Next, the writer proceeds to consider the manner and design of the sacerdotal service, and the ends which could be accomplished by it. > The earthly temple consisted of various apartments, and contained a variety of utensils, 9:1—5. The priests performed daily service in the outer temple, 9: 6; while the high priest rv _ VIEW OF THE CONTENTS OF HEB. v—x. 18. 121 entered the inner one, (where God dwelt), only once in each year, when he presented the blood of the great atoning sacrifice, 9:7. A permission to enter only so seldom into the inner sanc- tuary, shewed that free access to God at all times and places was not yet disclosed, while the first dispensation lasted, 9:8. Indeed, these rites, with all their appurtenances, were merely a symbol of what was to be effected under the gospel, 9: 9, 10. ; Christ, on the other hand, the heavenly high priest, entered the eternal sanctuary with his own blood, procuring everlasting redemption for sinners, 9: 11,12. The blood of bulls and goats, presented by the Jewish high priest, effected nothing more than ceremonial, external purification, 9: 13; while the blood of Christ purifies the conscience and renders the worship- per truly acceptable to God, 9: 14. Such is the efficacy of the propitiatory sacrifice made by the death of Christ, that it ex- tends back to the sins of former ages ; so that all, who are called of God to partake of the blessings of the gospel, attain, through his death, toa heavenly inheritance, 9: 15. The mention of Christ’s death here, in connexion with the assurance effected by it of a heavenly inheritance for believers, affords occasion to the writer to compare the new d1a91/zn ratified by the death of Christ, with the 0ra97 za: which are ratified by the death of testators, The Greek word 1091/47 not only answers to Aa; but also means such an arrangement as is made by a man’s last will or testament, and is employed, not unfrequently, in this latter sense. Hence our author, after asserting (9: 15) that Christ’s death made, sure an inheritance to believers, falls very naturally upon comparing the dra91/y thus ratified by the death of Je- sus, with the 01a97xar ratified by the death of their respective testators. Such, says he, is the custom among men in regard to testaments, that the death of the testators must supervene, in order to give them full effect and confirmation, 9: 16,17. Eventhe first drady/xn (m “2), although it could not be so appropriately called a testament, was sanctioned in a manner not un- like that in which the new Oca@9 #1 is sanctioned ; for blood, (the emblem of death), was ap- plied to almost every thing which pertained to the ancient covenant or Stadi/zn, in order eith- er to ratify or to consecrate it, 9: 18—22, Now, since this was so extensively done, in regard to things here, which are mere resemblances or types of heavenly things, these heavenly things themselves, being of a nature so much more exalted, must be consecrated by a corresponding sacrifice, of a higher nature than any offered in the earthly temple, 9:23. For it is in the heavenly temple, that Christ discharges the functions of his priestly office, 9: 24; yet not, like the Jewish priests, repeating expiatory offerings frequently, but once for all performing this sacred rite, 9:25, 26. As men die but once, and Christ, in his human nature and by dying in it, made an expiatory offering; so he could make this but once ; therefore, when he shall make his second appearance, it will not be to repeat his sin-offering, but for the deliverance of all who wait for his coming, 9: 27, 28. Having thus compared various particulars, which have respect to the priesthood of the de- scendants of Aaron, to those which relate to the priesthood of Jesus; the writer comes, last of all, to treat more fully of the inefficacy of the Jewish sacrifices, and of the perfect and ever- lasting efficacy of that propitiatory offering, which was made by the high priest of the heav- enly sanctuary. He had, indeed, already hinted at this, several times, in the preceding parts of his epistle, e.g. 7: 11,19. 8:7,13. 9: 8—10. 9: 13, 14; but as it was the most important topic of all, and the most difficult to be urged on the minds of Jews, he reserved it until the last, in order that he might give it a more ample discussion. He begins by declaring, that the rites of the law were designed to be typical, and that the yearly sacrifices which were offered under it, never could quiet and purify the consciences of men, 10:1; otherwise, the offerings need not have been continually repeated, 10:2. The re- membrance of sin is constantly renewed by them, 10:3. Indeed, it is plainly impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sin, i. e. remove the penalty of it, or Jessen its power, 10:4. In accordance with this sentiment, the Scripture (Ps. XL.) represents the Sa- viour, when entering upon his work, as saying, that sacrifices and offerings are of no value in the sight of God, 10: 5,6. The Messiah represents himself as doing what God requires, viz. what God requires in order that he may exercise his clemency, 10:7. Of course, (so our au- thor reasons), sacrifices and offerings are rejected, in respect to making real propitiation, while the “obedience of Christ unto death” is accepted instead of them, 10:8, 9. This sacrifice is truly efficacious for moral purposes, 10: 10. The Jewish priests repeated continually their sac- VOL. I. 16 a 122 VIEW OF THE CONTENTS OF HEB. v—x. 18. e fifices; but the offering of Christ, once made, is of everlasting efficacy, 10: 11,12. Having once made this, he may expect the cause on account of which it was made to be victorious, 10: 13; for one offering, once made by Jesus, is al] sufficient; its effects are never to cease, 10:14. To such an efficacy of Christ’s offering, the Holy Spirit has testified in the Scriptures, by declaring, that under the new covenant sin should be forgiven, and iniquity no more re- membered, 10: 15,16. Consequently, offering for sin needs not to be repeated, after pardon is actually obtained, 10: 17, 18. : With this consideration, the author closes the comparison of Jesus, as a priest, with the Jewish priests under the Levitical dispensation. This comparison in all its parts, however, occupies the greater portion of his epistle, viz. from 4: 14 to 10: 18 He then proceeds to ex- hortations, warnings, and various arguments drawn from different sources, in order to urge upon his Hebrew brethren the importance of persevering in the Christian faith. The writer of our epistle has sometimes been charged with being discursive, and with hav- ing very little connexion in the series of his reasoning. If the charge of discursiveness means, that he often stops short in his course of argument, in order to warn those whom he was ad- dressing against danger, and to expostulate with them, this is certainly true, in a remarkable degree. But this is the ultimate and highest end, which the writer himself had in view. If he has practised digression, it is digression exceedingly to his purpose, and altogether conso- nant with the unconstrained nature of epistolary address. In respect to an alleged want of connexion in the author’s reasoning, the analysis already presented is the best answer which I can giveto this charge. The method of reasoning seems, in- deed, to have been too commonly overlooked, or to have been only partially discerned, in the com- mentaries to which I have had access; but I cannot help thinking that there is a connexion, which can be clearly and satisfactorily traced, throughout the whole. If I have succeeded in attempting to trace it, then the student will be aided in forming his views, with respect to the relation that one part of our epistle bears to another, in that portion of it which has now been analysed. If the question be asked, why the apostle should resort to comparisons of this nature, in order to illustrate the office of Christ, or rather, the virtue and efficacy of his mediation and re- demption; the answer plainly is, ‘ A regard to the condition and feelings of those whom he ad- dressed, led him to do so.” The Jews of that day, regarded the office of high priest as the most honorable of all offices then sustained. The authority and dignity of this office were very great, in earlier times, under the Jewish kings. But after the captivity, the offices of king and high-priest were frequently united in the same person. This of course would tend to elevate the esteem, in which the Jews held the rank of high priest. When the Romans reduced Judea to a tributary province, the civil power was transferred to the Procurator sent there by them; but the supreme ecclesiastical power still remained in the hands of the high-priest, who was supreme judge of the land; and president of the Sanhedrim. The high priest was, moreover, the only person who could enter th® most holy place, on the great day of national expiation, and make atonement for the people. On all these accounts, the Jews cherished the greatest . degree of reverence for this office. They looked upon it as their glory, and expected from the functions of it, pardon for sin and acceptance with God. How difficult it was to wean them from these Views, even those of them who had embraced Christianity, the Acts of the Apostles, and almost all the apostolic Epistles, abundantly testify. But this must necessarily be done, however difficult, if Christianity was to be fully admitted and practised by them. There can be no doubt, that the unbelieving Jews would urge with all their power, upon the new converts to Christianity, the views and feelings which the latter had once possessed in common with them, with regard to this subject. It entered into the very essence of Judaism, that such views and feelings should be cherished; and this was a trait which distinguished the Jews in a peculiar manner from other nations. The apostle, in addressing the Hebrew Christians, had to contend with such arguments as the adversaries of Christianity among the Jews would bring, in order to shake the constancy of the new converts. The splendour and the supposed importance of the Jewish high-priesthood, however, was, after all, a thing which Jewish Christians must be brought to renounce. How could they, educated as they had been, do this: To satisfy their minds on this subject, the apostle presents a comparison of this of- fice in all its various respects, with the office of high priest as sustained by Christ ; and he * D ees. Pr VIEW OF THE CONTENTS OF HEB. v—x. 18. 123 shews that instead of giving up any thing, by embracing the new religion, they would only exchange a high priest who was imperfect, who offered sacrifices that effected a purification only external and of mere temporary efficacy, who officiated in a temple made with hands—all the mere type or symbol of something that was of a spiritual and more exalted nature—all this they would exchange, by embracing and adhering to the Christian religion, for a high priest without sin, whose sacrifice “ purged the conscience from dead works,” and had an “ ev- erlasting efficacy ;’ which was offered too in atemple not made with hands, of which the Jew- ish temple with all its splendour and solemn pomp was only a mere image. Could any thing, now, be better adapted to fortify the minds of those to whom he wrote in their Christian pro- fession, and to wean them from their old prejudices? And is it not allowable, that an apos- tle should reason in a manner best adapted to the condition and feelings of those whom he ad- dresses ? I am aware that much has been said, by recent commentators, on arguing zat (a 9Qu7roy, er in a way of accommodation, in our epistle; and that all the comparisons made in it, be- tween things and persons, under the law and under the gospel, have been ranked with this class of reasoning or argument. For those, who do not acknowledge the divine origin of the Jewish religion, nor that any of its rites, sacrifices, or persons were symbolical of any thing belonging to Christianity, such a mode of explanation may be necessary. But for those who believe, with the writer of our epistle, that the Jewish religion was of God, and that the an- cient Scriptures have revealed a Messiah, very little, if any, of arguing merely in the way of ac- commodation, in our epistle, needs to be admitted. Does not the 110th Psalm eall Christ @ high priest? And did not the Jews of Paul's day admit, (as well as Paul himself), that this Psalm had respect to the Messiah? Undoubtedly they did. Where then isthe accommodation of the writer to the mere prejudices of those whom he addressed, when it is evident that both he and they entertained an opinion in common with regard to the exegesis of the 110th Psalm? Of sourse, both admitted that Christ was to be a high priest. But how? Why? Not of the or- dinary kind; for he did not descend from Aaron. Not to make expiation which should mere- ly pertain to external purification ; but to make an expiation which should purge “the con- science from dead works,” and which should procure the pardon of sin with God, and “ bring in everlasting redemption for his people.” It is not, then, merely to satisfy the Jew that he need relinquish nothing of his regard for the excellence and importance of the office of high priest by embracing Christianity, and that he has exchanged a less splendid office of priest under Judaism, for a more splendid one under Christianity, that Paul dwells so long on the virtues and dignity of Christ’s office as high priest. No doubt he had this object in his eye, as I have already stated, when he entered upon the con- sideration of this topic. But why does he dwell on it so mach longer, than he does on the comparison of Christ with Moses? Not because the Jews exalted the high priest, above Mo- ses; for this surely they did not. [t was because Christ, in the office of high priest, perform- ed that peculiar duty, which of all others made him what he was, the SAVIOUR of sinners, the REDEEMER of lost men ; because, as priest, he offered an expiatory sacrifice, which takes away the sins of the world, and makes him the propitiation for their offences. 1 am en- tirely unable to explain the copiousness of our epistle on this point, if this be not the reason of it. And ifthis be admitted, then there is reason enough, why the apostle should dwell so long upon it. I know of no part of the Scriptures, which explains the nature and object of the Jewish ritual, in a manner go spiritual, so satisfactory, so clear, so worthily of God, and so profitably to us, as chaps. V—X of the epistle to the Hebrews. As a key to the Old Testament, these chapters deserve the most attentive and thorough study of all who wish to understand the Bi- ble. As a statement and vindication of the great work of Christ, and the atonement which he made by his blood for sin, they stand in the very first rank of all the Scriptural writings. As adapted to the wants and condition of those whom the apostle addressed, they are a consum~ mate specimen of skilful argument, and of powerful persuasion and remonstrance. =~ 124 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 4: 14, 15. 14. “Eyovreg obv woyregéa wéyuv, moreover, since we have a great high priest. Sothe words, literally construed, seem to mean. But it is doubtful whether this translation conveys the exact shade of meaning, which should be attached to the original. In the apostle’s day, egyvegevs no longer designated merely one man, the single head of the whole priesthood, but it was applied also to his deputy (730); to those who had quitted the office of the high priesthood (exauctorati) ; and also to the priests, at the head of each of the twenty four classes of the priesthood. The word egyue- géu¢ of itself, then, without any adjunct, did not, in the time of Paul, designate the high priest by way of eminence, who was the only person that could enter the most holy place, and make atone- ment for sin. Hence the apostle says, not simply aoyeegevs, but woyiegeds méyag; which designates a specific individual. This corresponds exactly to the idea conveyed by the Hebrew b77a FID, which was applied only to him who was actually Pontifex “Maxi- mus. Atehnivbora rove ovgurors, passed through the heavens. Wahl and others, passed into the heavens ; interpreting duehnduddra as equivalent to ecozgyomevor, entered into. But they seem to me plainly to have mistaken the force of the writer’s expression here. According to the Hebrew idiom, God dwells above the visible firm- ament, D°72Y, ovgavot. Through this Jesus passed, when he as- cended to take his “ seat at the right hand of the majesty on high, 1:3.” There is a plain allusion, too, to the high priest of the Jews, who, once in a year, went into the most holy place, passing through the vail, which sqreened the residence of divine majesty from the view of men, 9: 7,8. So, our great high priest has passed through the heavens, into the immediate presence of God, into the “holy of holies” in the upper world. This explanation, which Bengel and Owen defend, I must think to be the right one; al- though Ernesti ventures to call it stulta animadversio. ‘{noovr tov vioy tov Gsov is added, to shew whom he means by aoyeevea. Koatausv 1799 demu let us firmly hold [tena- ciously adhere to] the religion which we have professed, viz. Chris- tianity. Agazéw takes either the accusative or genitive after it. To encourage them to follow this advice, the writer sets before them the assistance which they may expect, in their efforts so to do. 15, Ov yao .... codeveiace rjuov, for we have not a high COMMENTARY ON HEB. 4: 15. 125 priest, who is incapable of sympathizing with our weaknesses. The form of the expression is negative ; a mode of expression frequent- ly employed by the sacred writers. When the negative form is thus employed, it is of the same meaning as an affirmative asser- tion would be, i. e. it is the same in this case, as if the author had said ‘* We have a high priest, who will sympathize with our weak- nesses.”” So, ‘‘ John confessed, and denied not, but confessed,. t etc. John 1: 20.” In most cases, however, there is some intensi- ty of coloring designed to be given, when this negative form of ex- pression is chosen, in preference to simple affirmation. Tlenevoaougvoy, see on 2: 18. Kara navta, in all respects ; not to be metaphysically or mathematically taken. The meaning is, that he, like us, was subjected to trial by suffering on account of the truth; he, like us, was solicited to sin, e. g. when Satan tempted him, and often when the Scribes and Pharisees tempted him. Ko® opocornre, scil. zur, i. e. who was tempted like us; ma- oaninoiwe yuo, says Theophylact ; ouolws yjuiy, Origen. This surely does not imply, that temptations had, in all respects, the same influence upon him as upon us; but only, that he was expos- ed to be attacked by them, in like manner as we are. He _posses- sed a nature truly human, 2: 14, 17; he was therefore susceptible of being excited by the power of temptations, although he never yielded to them. So the writer ; Xwois auaotiac, without sin; i. e. although assailed by temp- tations of every kind, he never yielded, in any case, to their influ- ence. He remained sinless. But why is this here asserted ? Principally, I apprehend, to guard against any mistake, in respect to what the writer had just said. To shew the Hebrews,. that they might depend on the sympathy and compassion of their high priest (comp. 2: 17, 18) to help them, in all the trials and difficulties to which an unshaken adherence to Christianity would subject them, he declares that Jesus was himself subject to the like trials, in all respects. But when he had so said, as if fearing they might draw the conclusion, that in some cases, at least, he was (like others) overcome by them, the author immediately adds, yoors auaoriac. It may be, that the expression implies an exhortation thus, viz, ‘Je- sus when tried did not sin; Christian brethren, follow his example.” I prefer, however, the former explanation. = * 126 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 4: 16—5: 1. 16. Let us, then, approach the throne of grace wera nagonotas, with freedom of speech; i. e. since we have such a sympathizing, compassionate high priest, to offer our supplications to God and to help us, let us go to God with confidence that we shall receive the aid that we need. “ Ask and ye shall receive.” 7p Goovm rs yeoutos has reference to the mercy seat, in the temple, on which _ God is represented as sitting enthroned. There he heard the sup- plications of his people, presented by the high priest; there he ac- cepted their oblations ; and from thence he dispensed to them the blessings which they needed. Christians may now approach the mercy seat in heaven, by their high priest, and may come peta maponoias, with confidence. “Iva haSopev zieov, that we may obtain mercy, i. e. that com- passion may be exercised towards Christians, in their afflictions and trials. Kai yaouy evommev .... Bondecav, and find favour in respect to timely assistance. Xagwy does not differ much, here, from édsov, except that it is a word of a more generic nature. The sentiment is, be helped opportunely ; i. e. now, when we are perse- cuted and sorely pressed by trials, we may obtain that aid which such seasons require. This isexactly the idea conveyed by evxou- cov Bondecav, auxilium opportunum. Literally the Greek runs thus, And find grace, with respect to opportune assistance. CHAP. V. 1. LE avPownwy houBavomevos, selected, taken from men. So ho@e, in Acts 15:14. Ina similar sense, mp> is often used in Hebrew ; and dauavw, not unfrequently, in the classics. The meaning is, that priests, appointed according to the usages of the Levitical law, are appointed to have the oversight of the religious concerns of the people, specially to make their oblations and sacri- fices. ‘Tnio avdounwy xoPioracar ta n00¢ Tov Yor, is constituted for the benefit of men, in relation to their concerns with God. Kaicraras is often employed to designate an appointment to of- fice of any kind; e. g. Matt. 24: 45. Luke 12: 14. et al. So, also, it is used by heathen writers. “Yugo, for the benefit of, for the sake of, on account of ; a frequent use of the word. Zu mos tov COMMENTARY ON HEB. 5: 1, 2. $27 —— ——————— zor, for xara ta %. t. A, there being an ellipsis of the preposition, which is very common in such cases. The idea is, ‘In respect to their religious concerns ; in regard to business which they have to transact with God ;’ particularly, “Iva mooogéon .... auagriar, that he may offer [to God] both oblations and sacrifices for sin. Amoa 1 take here to mean, the various kinds of thank-offerings etc., that were to be presented to God, agreeably to the ritual established by Moses; and @voias, the various sin and trespass-offerings, that were made with slain beasts. To the act of slaying Pvolag refers, as it is derived from vw to kill. In all these, and the like concerns, the high priest was to act the part of an internuntius, a mediator, between God and men; i. e. he was to aid men in regard to their spiritual or re- ligious concerns. It should be remarked, however, that dwoe sometimes includes the idea of sacrifices, e. g. 8: 4, comp. 8: 3. Yet where both dmou and volta are employed, they are not to be regarded as synonymes. Both are employed to designate the uni- versality of the idea intended, i. e. (in this case) offerings of every kind. 2. Merovonadeiv dvvauevos, one who can crercise gentleness or moderation. 'This classic or philosophic use of the word uergco- nude may be briefly explained. The Stoics maintained that a man should be aa7¢, i.e. not subject to passions, such as anger, fear, hope, joy etc. ‘The Platonists, on the other hand, averred, that a wise man should be weroromaOns, moderate in his affections, and not audng. The leading sense, then, of the word werovona- Bev is, to be moderate in our feelings or passions. In our text, the connexion shews us, that this moderation or gentleness was to be exercised by the high priest rei¢ ayvoovoe zai mAavopevors, toward those who were ignorant and erring. In other words, he was to be lenient towards offenders, to treat them with gentleness and mod- eration, with kindness and not with severity. The comparison of Christ as a priest, in respect to this point, is presented in 5: 7—9 and 7: 26—28. * Ayvoovse xai mhavwmevorg some have construed as a Hendia- dys, and rendered the phrase thus ; those who ignorantly offend, or, who offend through ignorance. But surely the indulgence of the high priest on earth was not limited merely to this class of offen- ders, much less is the clemency of our great high priest in the 128 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 5: 2—5. heavens so limited. “Ayvoéw is repeatedly used by the Seventy, as a translation of the Hebrew MAW, 330, OWN, which signify, to err, lo commit sin, to render one’s self guilty. So Sirac. 5: 18, in a great or little thing wy ayvoet, sin not. So Polyb. V. 11. 5, 20A- Eusiv toIg ayvonoaoe, to make war on those who have been faulty. But if any should think it preferable, in our verse, to retain the common sense of ignorance, then plainly it must be construed of voluntary criminal ignorance ; and in such a case, mAaympevorg de- signates those who commit offences in consequence of such igno- rance. But I prefer the other rendering, which makes ayvoovuce “ai nhavomevorg to be an accumulation of descriptive words, in or- der to designate offenders of various kinds. This comports better too with fact, either in relation to the office of the Levitical- priest in the earthly sanctuary, or to that of Jesus in the heavenly one. “Ensi noi... . aodévevay, since he himself is compassed with in- Jjirmity, i.e. he is himself an offender, or, he is exposed by his weaknesses to commit the like sins with those, whose offerings he is called to present to God. JTegizevras, in the passive, is construed with an accusative after it: “4od¢vera means here, moral infirmi- ty or weakness ; not natural frailty of the physical system. The meaning is, that the high priest, ‘‘ haud ignarus mali, miseris suc- eurrere discit.” 3. Kal dca ravryy ... aucotemy, and on this account, [viz. be- cause he is himself a sinner], he must present sin offerings, as well for himself as for the people. IIooagegeiy, i. €. neoogogay vel Gu- olav, Hebrew may maort. IIgocgévom is the common word em- ployed to denote the presentation of an offering, gift, or sacrifice to God, and corresponds to the Hebrew 733, or rather 7>y7 in Hiph- il. See the .superiority of Christ represented, in respect to the point here suggested, in 7: 26——28. 4. Kal ovx éaurw hth e * Aaowy, moreover, no one can assume the honour [of the high pr ‘iesthood] to himself, but heis appointed by God, even as Aaron was. Kodovuevos, i. e. d&7 xahovpmevos eivac. 5. Ovrw nul... . aoyregéa, accordingly, Christ did not claim Jor himself the honour of being high priest, or, Christ did not exalt himself to the honour of being high priest. Aoéasev, to exalt, to claim honour for, John 8: 54. Rom. 11: 13. AAK O hadijoas .. . yeyevinna oe, but he who said to him, Thou art my son, this ee y have I begotten thee, [2d0Eacev autor. COMMENTARY ON HEB. 5: 5, 6. 129 exalted him.| So the ellipsis must be supplied. The meaning is, exalted him to the office of high priest; i. e. the Father bestowed this honour upon the Son, see on 1: 53 or in other words, he was divinely i ad * 6. Kwdws nai év Eréom déyeu, so, Alco: he declares in another passage [of Scripture]. The declaration is, that the Father con- stituted the Son a priest; for the writer had affirmed, in v. 4, that a priest must be divinely constituted. The quotation is from Ps. 110: 4; a Psalm which, asI have before remarked, not only the apostle and most Christian commentators, but even the Jewish Rab- bies in general agree, has relation to the Messiah. Zu isosvg .... Medyvosdex, thou art a priest forever, after the order of Melchisedek. “/sgsvg designates here a priest generically considered. The Psalmist, and after him the apostle, does not say, woytegevs, because the sequel shews that the personage referred to must be of the highest order of priests, viz. of the same order with that of Melchisedek. Kare tiv rake, Hebrew St OS) lee: ny a7 > by, for is par- agogic here. This Hebrew phrase commonly means, on account of, for the sake of; but such a meaning would be wholly inappo- site in Ps. 110: 4. ‘The sense of it, as there employed, plainly is similar to that of 7273 in Deut. 15: 9.19: 4. 1 K. 9: 15, viz, man- ner, order, arrangement, kind. So the classic sense of raécc is, order, arrangement, place, office, rank. The simple meaning is, ‘Thou art a priest, of an order or rank like that of Melchisedek.’ When in v. 10, the writer repeats the quotation here made, he uses agyeegevs, instead of isgsvg the word employed in his first quo- tation. The object of the quotation in v. 6, is simply to prove, that the office of high priest was conferred on Christ by divine ap- pointment, comp. vs. 4 and 6. The particulars of the comparison, in respect to the priesthood of Christ and Melchisedek, are not im- mediately brought into view, bat suspended until the writer has in- troduced other considerations relative to Christ as a priest, 5: 7— 9, and given vent to his feelings of concern for those whom he was addressing, by suggesting various considerations, adapted to reprove, 5: 1I—14, to warn, 6: 1—49, as well as to excite and animate them, 6: 10—20. In regard to zara tov aiwva, it is to be taken in a qualified sense here, as often elsewhere, e. g. comp. Luke 1: 33 with 1 Cor. VOL. II. 17 130 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 5: 6, 7. 15: 24—28. The priesthood of Christ will doubtless continue no longer than his mediatorial reign; for when his reign as mediator ceases, his whole work both as mediator and as priest will have been accomplished. _ In respect to the application of Ps. cx. to the Messiah, see Matt. 22: 41--45. Certain it is, from this passage, that Jesus considered and treated this Psalm as applying to himself. The three following verses I take to be a comment on 5:2; or to express my meaning more fully, a comparison of Christ, as a priest, with the Jewish priests, who, being themselves compassed with infirmity, were taught by experience peroconadery 01s ayvoou- ov xai ndavonmevors. It is, however, only the infirmities of one ex- posed to suffering, that are brought to view here. These Christ possessed in full, so that he could, like other priests, sympathize with those who.are tempted, and tried by suffering. None of his disci- ples are tried more severely than he was. The writer, however, does not complete this topic here. He breaks off, in order to pursue the course of thought to which the introduction of Melchisedek’s priesthood led him, and for the sake of inserting practical warning, reproof, and exhortation, 5: 11—6: 25; and in 6:26 he resumes the consideration of the topic thus interrupted, and shews, that as to sinful infirmities, Christ was not to be compared with the Jewish priests; for he had none of them. Thus while, like other priests, he was fitted to exercise compassion on these who are suffering and are tempted, he was altogether su- perior to them in the moral perfection of his own character. He needed no sin-offering fox himself, (comp. 5: 4); but was high priest in a state, where he was «/¢ 1ov aiwva reréehecmpevor, 7: 26 7. Os év ture jugoous ths cwox0s avrou, who, during the time of his incarnation. “fiuéyat, like the Heb. D2", means, time, sea- son. 71'j¢ oaoxog I understand, as designating the condition of the Locos incarnate, or év cuyxi; comp. John 1: 1, 14. 1 Tim. 3: 16. ‘The whole expression designates the period of the Saviour’s humiliation, when ‘“ he was tempted in all points as we are, 4: 15.” Asnoss nai inernolas....... mooceviyxus, offered up prayers and supplications. These two words are often joined, by profane writers ; e. g. ixernoiag noddag nai denoecs nocovpevot, Isoc. de Pace. Xweie dé ixernyiug xai dejoews, Philo de Cherub. p. 116. COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 7. 131 . In the Septuagint, Ps. 109: 4 [110: 4], and above, in v. 6, it is isgevg. But the Hebrew 77> means either agysegets, or iegevs ; see Lev. 4: 16, et al.; so that the apos- tle might render the original, in Ps. 110: 4, by either Greek word ; as he has done. Having thus introduced the subject of Christ’s exaltation as priest, the nature of the comparison introduced, viz. the compari- son of Christ’s priesthood with that of Melchisedek, occasions the writer to stop short, in order to comment on this, and also to give utterance, in the first place, to his emotions of concern for those whom he addressed. The difficulty and obscurity of the subject, which he is about to discuss, are, in his view, occasioned principally by the low state of religious knowledge in those whom he address- es. This he tells them very plainly, in order to reprove them for the little progress they had made in Christian knowledge, as well as to guard them against objecting to what he is about to advance. 11. TTegi ob sodug uly O Aoyos .... Aeysuv, respecting whom we have much to say. So Lysias in Panoc. nodve av ein Moe hoyos denysiobut. Dionys. Halicar. I. 23. aegi wy modvg av ein Aoyos. Kai dvocounvevtos, and difficult of explanation, from dvs and égunvevw. Critics frequently couple the word Azysey which follows, with dvozou7jvevtog ; but the example above, from Lysias, shews that it should be associated with the former clause of the verse. The grammatical construction or arrangement I take to be this: 134 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 5: 11, 12. negl ov [10] Atyecy, mohvg rjuiv [ey] 6 Aoyog; the infinitive Acyeu being used as a noun in the nominative, or as the subject of the sentence, according to a common usage. ‘Eni voooi yeyovate vais anoais, since ye are dull of appre- henstion, or, slow in understanding. Taig exoais, lit. in hearing. But exovw, to hear, means often to perceive, to understand, like the Hebrew »72w. ‘The reason why they are so dull in respect to understanding religious subjects, is next suggested by the writer; doubtless with the design of reproving those whom he addresses, for their neglect to make a suitable progress in Christian knowledge. 12. Kai yag ogethovres..... yoovor, for when ye ought to be even capable of teaching, as it respects the length of time, viz. since ye made a profession of the Christian religion. The writer, doubt- less, does not mean to say, that the whole church whom he addres- sed should actually be teachers; but that they ought to have made advances enough in the knowledge of spiritual subjects, to be able to teach in them, or, in other words, ought to have made very con- siderable acquisitions in religious knowledge, considering the length of time that had elapsed since they professed to be Christians. ee, after, so before words signifying time; e. g. Matt. 26: 61. Mark 14: 58. 2: 1. Acts 24: 17. Gal. 2: 1. Teh yostar éyeve .... 100 ov, ye have need that one should again teach you the very rudiments of divine doctrine. rocyeia, elements or rudiments of any science. Srovyera rng aoyns, the ru- diments of the beginning, is the same as Horace’s elementa prima, Serm. I. The idea is expressed by the phrase, very rudiments or Jirst elements, elementa prima. Tov hoyiay tov Geov, I should re~ fer particularly to those parts of the Old Testament, which have a respect to the Christian religion, and especially to the Messiah, were it not that in chap. VI. 1—3, the writer has shewn that he means the rudiments of Christian doctrine in its appropriate sense. Aoyioy Pov then must mean here, doctrines or communications of God, viz. which God has revealed under the gospel, i. e. divine doctrine, or doctrines of divine original. This feeble, imperfect, spiritual condition, the writer now de- scribes, by a very appropriate figure, taken from the aliment and condition of young children. Kat yeyovare yotiay .... teogns, and ye have become [like] COMMENTARY ON HEB. 5: 12—14. 135 fase RUE RENO A LEY Bk AE er those who need milk, and not solid nourishment, lit. ye have become those who need, etc. But the particle of similitude is, in such ca- ses, very often omitted in the Old Testament and in the New. The meaning is, ‘ Ye have in spiritual things become as children are in regard to food, i. e. unable to bear or to digest any thing but the most light and simple nourishment ; ye cannot understand or bear the higher and more difficult doctrines, ye cannot properly apprehend them when they are proposed to you.’ Tpogy, nourish- ment, any kind of food, not meat only. r 13. lag yoo 6 wsréyor .. .. vnmeog ag éott, now, every one who partakes of milk, is unskilled in the doctrine of salvation, for he is a child. ” Anevoos, inexpers, ineptus ad aliquam rem, i. e. one who has not that skill or experience in regard to any thing, which is requisite to a due apprehension and consideration of it. The sentiment is, ‘ As he, who must be fed with milk, is yet a child; so ye, who can bear only the lighter kinds of spiritual nourishment, are yet vyjnioe in religion.’ Adyou dexaeoovvys, doctrine of sal- vation, i. e. the gospel, or the Christian religion. The Hebrew Pp Ys and APIs are often equivalent to Hawn, statute, ordinance, rule of life. It is evident, here, that Oexouocuvys means, what the Christian religion sanctions or ordains. See Schleusner on Ove oe- osurn, no. 9. Or dexacoovyyn may be here rendered, grace, favour, i. e. the gospel which reveals grace, favour, pardon. 14. Trleiwy O€ éorey 7 otevec ro0gn, but solid food is for those of mature age. Teheiov, adult, grown up, having attained comple- tion in a physical respect. See on 2: 10. 5: 9. Tay dia viv fw .... xax0v, who possess organs of sense, ex- ercised by practice, for distinguishing between good and evil. ‘The metaphor here, as in the preceding verse, is of a mixed nature ; the latter clause being appropriate to moral t¢jevov. The meaning is, that solid food, which is an image of the more difficult part of gos- pel doctrines, is appropriate to full grown men, i. e. to Christians who have come to a maturer state, and who, by experience in mat- ters of religion and frequent reflection upon them, have made ad- vances so as to be able to distinguish what is right and what is wrong respecting them. ”4vo0nr7jove here means the internal sen- ses of Christians, their moral powers or faculties of distinguishing and judging; although the term itself, in its hteral acceptation, designates the external organs of sense. Avaxgeow nahov nol #0- 136 COMMENTARY ON BEB. 5: 14—6: 1. zou is borrowed from the Heb. >97 a3 532. See Gen. 2: 17. Deut. 1: 39, and comp. Is. 7: 15, 16. Jonah 4: 11. It is applied, by the Hebrews, to designate a more mature and advanced state of knowledge in respect to any thing, and not simply to the mere per- ceiving of a difference between the moral nature of good and evil. So in the verse before us; we cannot suppose the writer to mean, that the Hebrews were not yet rédscoz, in such a sense as to be able to discern the difference between good and evil, simply con- sidered. He evidently means, that they were in such a state, as not readily to discern what was true or false in respect to the more dif- ficult doctrines of the Christian religion ; they were not as yet ca- pable of rightly understanding and estimating them. From this state, it was their duty speedily to extricate themselves; as the writer proceeds to exhort them to do. CHAP. VI. 1. Avo agevtes .... peowmeta., wherefore, leaving the first ru- diments of Christian doctrine, let us proceed to a more advanced state [of knowledge]. co I interpret here, in the usual sense. I un- derstand the reasoning of the apostle thus ; ‘ Wherefore, i. e. since réhevou only are capable of oregea toogy, solid food, viz. of receiv- ing, digesting, and duly appropriating the higher and more difficult doctrines of Christianity, and since ye are yet but yj20¢, although ye ought to be advanced in Christian knowledge, if regard be had to the long time that ye have professed the Christian religion, 5: 12 —-14; v0, therefore, it becomes you to quit this state of immaturity, this yyacornre, and advance to a maturer state, to a redecornta.’ The reasoning is plain, when thus understood, and the connexion palpable. The word agévreg is capable of the signification given to it by this method of interpretation. “Aginue signifies, among other things, relinquo, abeo, discedo, relinquo post me, etc. and is fre- quently applied to quitting a thing, for the sake of going to some “different place, or of engaging in a different employment; e. g. Matt. 4: 20, 22. 5: 24. 18:12. 19:27. John 10:12. The meaning here I take to be this, ‘ Quitting the mere initial stage of pupilage, advance forward to a maturer state of instruction and knowledge ;’ or, ‘ Make such advances, that it shall be unnecessary to repeat e/- ementary instruction in the principles of Christianity, vs. 2, 3.’ « . COMMENTARY ON HEB. 6; 1, 137 Others (and most commentators) understand ay évreg here in the sense of omitting, and apply it to the apostle in the following way ; ‘ Omitting now to insist on the first elements of Christian doctrine, let me proceed to the consideration of the more difficult principles of religion, not discussing, at present, the subject of re- pentance, baptism, etc.; which I will do, i.e. I will discuss the higher principles, if God permit ;’ or, (as some interpret this last clause), ‘ Which [first rudiments] I shall discuss by and by, Deo volente ;’? referring xad ToUTO moe oomer to the discussion of the doc- trines just mentioned. But a difficulty in admitting this interpretation, lies in the con- text which follows. According to the method of interpretation just proposed, the reasoning would be thus; ‘ Omitting now all discus- sion respecting the first rudiments of Christian doctrine, I will pro- ceed to disclose the more abstruse principles of the same ; for zt ts impossible (advvetoyv y « @) that apostates should be again renewed to repentance.’ Is there any coherence in such reasoning? If there be, it is, at least, very difficult to see it. But does the other method proposed, relieve the difficulty? Let us see. It stands thus ; ‘ Christian brethren, who ought by this time to be qualified, by your knowledge of religion, to become teachers of it, quit the state of ignorance in which you are. Let it not be necessary any more to teach you the first rudiments of Christian doctrine. Such progress we must make, Deo volente. Stationary we cannot remain ; we must either advance or recede. But guard well, I beseech you, against receding; advvaroy yay, etc. vs. 4—8.’ Two things, at least, must be admitted. The one, that the apos- tle taxes them with negligence in regard to an enlarged acquain- tance with religious doctrine; the other, that he cautions them against the awful consequences of apostasy. Now does it not fol- low, that he considers the state of comparative ignorance in which they were, as exposing them in a peculiar manner to apostatize ; and consequently, that he connects the danger of apostasy with re- proof in regard to religious ignorance, so as to rouse them to more effort, in order to acquire a better acquaintance with the grounds and principles of Christianity 2? And is not all this founded in the nature of things, as they have always existed? Are not the igno- rant most easily led away, by impostors and heretical teachers? The men who have prohibited the use of the Scriptures by the peo- VOL. I 18 %, 135 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 6: 1. : ple at large, and who labour to suppress the diffusion of general knowledge, in order that the mass of the people may be kept in ig- norance, and so be moulded by them at their will, have well un- derstood the principle to which I have alluded. The caution of the apostle, then, I consider as amounting to this; ‘Guard well against ignorance of Christian doctrines, for lapse is easy to the ignorant, and recovery exceedingly difficult or impossible.’ I cannot, therefore, follow the usual method of ex- pounding either the verse before us, or the subsequent context. Deoupeta, the middle voice of geo, often signifies to go, to come, to travel, to move in any manner, or in any direction. Here géowmeto means, to advance, to go forward. Uy, nod Genzhiov xarafaddouevor petavoiac, not again lay- ing the foundation with respect to repentance; not again commenc- ing, (as we once have done), with the first elements of Christian doctrine, e. g. the subject of repentance, etc. Meravoias here means, the subject or doctrine of uezavore, see v. 2. The genitive Baatiouoy didayns, designates, in this case, the relation signifi- ed by in respect to; which is a very common use of the genitive ; see Buttmann’s Gram. § 119.6. 1. It is plain, that the writer does not here speak of repentance as an act, but as a doctrine or subject of consideration ; and so of the other subjects mentioned in the sequel. That repentance was inculcated as an initial doctrine and duty of Christianity, may be seen by consulting the following pas- sages, Matt. 4: 17. Mark 1: 15. Acts 2: 38. 17: 30, and others of the same kind. "Ano vexguv éoyor, from deadly works, i. e. in respect to works which cause death, misery or condemnation. Comp. 9: 14, and tov Gavarov in 2: 14. Or vexgog may be interpreted as meaning sinful, vicious ; asin Eph. 5: 14. Rom. 6: 13. 11: 15. Rev. 3: 1. It is not important which of these senses is adopted. The one im- plies the other. Kai niorews éni eov, faith in God, or, in respect to him. That this is an elementary principle of Christianity, is evident from the nature of the thing, as well as from Mark 11: 22. John 14: 1. Heb. 11: 6, and many other passages of the New Testament. Here, however, by faith in God, is to be understood, faith in the declarations which God has made to men respecting his Son, the Saviour of the world. Comp. Acts 16: 31. py & », COMMENTARY ON HEB. 6:2. 139 2. Bantiouny dwWayns, the doctrine of baptisms. Here the word didaye is supplied by the writer; and I regard it as implied, before the preceding wstavoiag and aiorews. Some interpreters, however, point the text thus, Cantiouor, dduyns, i. e. of baptisms, of [elementary] instruction ; which is too improbable to need dis- cussion. The only difficulty lies in the plural word Panriouay ; since we know of only one Christian baptism. Hence, Schleusner, and many other critics, refer @anreouos only to the ceremonial washings of the Jews, in all the cases where it occurs; and they suppose that Gaxzoue is the only appropriate term, with which the rite of Christian baptism is designated. But what has the apostle to do here with Jewish ceremonial rites, as the first elements of Christian doctrine? Plainly nothing ; so that this exegesis cannot be admitted. ; Another and better explanation is, that Sanzzouemy does not dif- fer, in any important respect, from Saariopov. So, in John 1: 13, stands the plural aivarmy ; in 1 Cor. 7: 2, rac mogveiac ; in 2 Cor. 7: 3, xagdiag; all instead of the singular, in each case. See many like cases, in Glass. Philol. Sac. I. p. 62, seq. So the plural number of verbs is often employed, when the subject is indefinite and of the singular number ; e. g. Mark 5: 35. comp. Luke 8: 49. Comp. also Heb. 9: 17, én? vexgo%s. Storr supposes Bantiouay to be used here in a kind of distributive sense, as the Hebrew plural often is; so that the sentiment is, ‘ the doctrine that every believer must be baptized.’ But however this may be, it is clear that no stress can be laid upon the use of the plural, as there are so many examples where it means no. more than the singular would do. Moreover, the Syriac Version has the singular here. In regard to the doctrine of baptism being an elementary deztrine, there can be no difficulty. The rite itself was an inifiatory one, for all who professed to be Christians. "Envdecews te yergav, imposition of hands. It is a very palpa- ble mistake, into which many Christians fall, who are not well ac- quainted with the rites of the primitive church, to suppose that im- position of hands was practised only Wethe case of ordaining per- sons to the holy ministry. It was common for the apostles to be- stow extraordinary gifts upon converts to Christianity, immediately after their baptism, by the imposition of hands. See Acts 2: 38, Ajwecde tyv Owoeay Tou ayiou avevmatos, comp. Acts 8: 14—19. he y® 140 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 6: 2—4, 19: 1—6. Hence, éavdzoems yeco@v is reckoned as one of the things, the knowledge of which was communicated at an early stage of the Christian profession. ‘ Avuoracens te vexorr, of the resurrection of the dead. Storr, and others, understand this here only of the resurrection of the pious. But I apprehend the sense is general; as in John 5: 28, 29. Comp. Matt. 22: 31. Acts 4: 2. A general resurrection of the bodies of men, is a doctrine, which, if not left undecided by the Old Testament, is at least left in obscurity. The Jews, of the apostle’s dime, were divided in their opinion respecting it. Hence, it was insisted on with great earnestness by Christian preachers, as_be- longing to the peculiar and elementary doctrines of Christianity. It was connected, by them, with the account which every man is to render of himself to God; and such an accountability is a fun- damental doctrine of the Christian religion. Kui xoiparos atwviou, and of a judgment, the consequences of which are eternal. In such a sense is Auteurs said to be alwvia, in 9: 12; and dvadyxn to be aiwvia, in 13:20. -Both the resur- rection and the yudgment, in this case, pertain to the righteous and to the wicked. It is the general doctrine of a resurrection, and of responsibility and reward at the tribunal of God, which the writer means to describe. These doctrines were among those that were first preached, when men were to be instructed in the elements of Christianity. See Acts 17: 31. 10: 42, Rom. 2: 16. Matt. 25: 31 seq. In regard to the eternal consequences of judgment, see Matt. 25: 46, John 5: 29. Dan. 11: 2. 2 Thess. 1: 9. Matt. 18: 8. Mark 9:.45, 48. * f Fi 3. Kai rovro .... 6 20g, and this will we do, if God permit ; i. e. we will advance in Christian knowledge, go on éni reAscornre, should God be’pleased to spare our lives, and afford us continued opportunity of so doing. The frequency with which the writer of this epistle uses the first person plural, (xo/vwocg), is worthy of re- mark. It gives a more delicate’ cast to his reproofs, and to his comminations. ae 4. ° Advvatoy yao, for it is impossible, i.e. we will go forward in the attainment of what belongs to Christians, and not recede ; for it is ¢mpossible, viz. that those who recede and apostatize should be recovered from their lapse; as the sequel avers. But does advve- tov here imply absolute impossibility, or only great difficulty ? The COMMENTARY ON HEB. 6: 4. 141 latter, Storr and many other critics reply. To vindicate this sen- timent, they appeal to Mark 10: 25, 27, and to the parallel passa- ges in the other evangelists. But this appeal is not satisfactory. In Matt. 19: 23, seq. Mark 10: 23, seq. and Luke 18: 24, seq. (all relating to the same occurrence), Jesus is represented as saying, * noig¢ Ovoxddwe shall a rich man enter into the kingdom of God !” He then adds, “ It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” His disciples are astonished at this, and ask, ‘ How is it possible, that any one [any rich man] can be saved, tis aga duvarae oud7- voe; Jesus replies, ‘ With men this is advyaroy; but with God all things are duvare.” Surely he does not mean merely, that this is very difficult with men, but, that it is beyond their power to accomplish it. The other examples of the use of this word in the New Testa- ment, are not at all adapted to favour the exegesis of Storr; e. g. Acts 14: 8. Rom. 8: 3. 15: 1, where the word, however, is figura- tively employed. But, if the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews is to be compared with himself, then is it quite certain, that edvva- tov will not bear the qualified sense, which Storr puts upon it. Comp. Heb. 6: 18. 10: 4. 11: 6, all clear cases of absolute wmpos- _ sibility, not of mere relative difficulty. These are all the instances in which the word is found, in the New Testament. Nor will “aresort to classic usage any better defend the interpretation of Storr. * Besides, if it could be shewn, that such a qualified sense were agreeable to the usws loquendi, in some cases, and therefore possi- ble, a comparison with Heb. 10: 26—31, would destroy all appear- ance of probability that such a sense is to be admitted here. If there “remains no more sacrifice for sin” (Heb. 10: 26), for those who have apostatized, then is there no hope of salvation for them; as is clear from Heb. 10: 28--31. Moreover, to say merely, that it is very difficult to recover the lapsed Christians of whom the apostle is going to speak, would be at variance with the imagery employed to describe them and the ane awaits them, in vs. 7, 8. For all these reasons, such an explanation of adtvaroy cannot be admitted. Tovs oxak gariodertas, those who have been once enlightened, i, é. instructed in the principles of Christianity. So garitw, in f= k es . 142 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 6: 4. John 1: 9. Eph. 3: 9. Heb. 10: 32. In all the other passages of the New Testament, where this word occurs, it is employed in the sense of shining upon, throwing light upon, disclosing. It does - not, in ‘itself considered, imply saving illumination, but illumina- tion or instruction simply, as to the principles of the Chaiction re- ligion. Tevoauevove te tio Owozas Exoveariov, and have tasted of the heavenly gift. Ievoauevovg, tasted, does not mean, eztremis la- bris leviter degustare, merely to sip, or simply te apply for once to _ the palate, so as just to perceive the taste of a thing ; but it means, the full enjoyment, perception, or experience of a thing. When the Greek writers wish to communicate the former idea, they add ysilsouy axoorg to the phrase; e.g. “They are witnesses, of uy ysilecey Gxoors yevoausvoe THS Gidocogias adda .. . . EGtsadEvtEs, who have not only tasted with the extreme part of the lips [sipped] philosophy, but . = feasted upon it, Philo. Lib. I. de Monarchia. p- 816. So Piryiaieace; axoors roils ysiheouw yevouoPat, Hom. on Johan. 5: 19. But when a full experience or perception of any thing is meant, yedouae is used simply; e. g. of yevoupevor TIS _ gat, Philo. de Abraham. oper. I. p. 14. So rou advararou & yroosms yevourFear, Clem. Rom. I. 38. > In the New Testament, @averou yevecPat is, to experience death ; e. g. Matt. 16: 28. Mark 9:1. Luke 9:27. John 8: 52. Heb. 2: 9..Comp. also Luke 14: 24. 1 Pet. 2:3. So Herod. VI. 5, yeveoPae ehev Peoiag, to experience [to enjoy] freedom. Pindar, Nem. Od. V. 596, z6var yeveodau, | to undergo toils. Soph. Trachs 1108, clhoy te woytor nvoiwy éyevoaunry, I have suffered a thousand other evils. So the Hebrew t oro, Prov. 31: 18. Ps. 34: 9. But what is the heavenly gift, which “they have enjoyed, or the benefits of which they have experienced? Some have explained it as being Christ himself, by comparing it with John 4: 10. But it is doubtful whether-daoear there means Christ. It is more pro- bable, that it means beneficium, i.e. the kindness or favour which God bestowed, in ro. an opageenty to o the Samaritan wo- man, to converse with th iour. Others have represented dwgzav, as being the extraordinary gift of the Holy Spirit to Christians, in the primitive age of Chris- tianity ; and they have compared the phrase here with mvedea Gy- rov, in Acts 8: 19, which means the special gifts of the Spirit, and 2 ¢ im ) . ph COMMENTARY ON HEB. 6: 4, 5. 143 which in 8: 20 is called ryjy dwgeay rov Geov. But the objection to this is, that the sequel of our text contains a repetition of the same idea, once at least, if not twice. For these reasons, I prefer the interpretation which makes dwoeac énovoaviou the same here, as xANGEMS énovouviov in 3: 1, i. e. the proffered blessings or privileges of the gospel. The sense is then plain and facile ; (1) They had been instructed in the ele- mentary doctrines of Christianity, gwriodévracg. (2) They had enjoyed the privileges or benefits of living under a Christian dis- pensation, i. e. the means of grace which the gospel afforded; and this is truly dwoea énovgeveos. I much prefer this mode of inter- pretation to any of the others. Kai peroyous yevnSévtas mvevuaros ayiou, and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit. I understand this of the extraordi- nary gifts and influences of the Spirit, which the primitive Chris- tians enjoyed, and which were often bestowed by the imposition of the apostles’ hands. See above, on énv@eoews te yecowv, in v. 2. TevnOevrag is a more unusual word, in such a connexion as the present, than yevouevous ; but still, there are sufficient examples to shew, that occasional custom sanctions the use of it in such ca¥es as the present. 5. Kal xadov yevoopevors Geov 6yuc, and have tasted the good word of God, i. e. enjoyed the consolations administered, or the a excited, by the divine promises which the gospel proffers. Tevoapevovs (as above) experienced, known by experience. Above, it is construed with the genitive after it; here with the accusative ; both according to Greek usage, although the former method pre- dominates. Kahov ....deov One, the divine promise, i.e. of good. So 250 723 means, in Jer. 29: 10. 33: 14; also in Joshua 21: 45. 23: 14, 15, in which last verse it is opposed to »4 725, promise of evil, commination. Kelov 6yua means, the word which respects good, i. e. the promise of blessings or favours. So Paul calls the gospel, inayyshiav Geov év Xytorm, 2 Cor. 1: 2 20. I prefer this simple method of explanation to all others. The gradation, moreover, of the discourse is more perceptible, than if é7jua be here construed as indicating merely evayyéhvov, which would make the whole clause to signify nearly, if not exactly, the same as anak gwrvoder- Fac. 7, > . 144 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 6: 5, 6. Avvemers té wthhovtog uiwvos, and the miracles of the gospel dispensation. The sense here given to duvaperg is frequent in the New Testament ; see Matt. 7: 22. 11: 20, 21, 23. 13:58. Mark 6: 5. Luke 10: 13. Acts 2: 22, al. I apprehend that the writer re- fers here to those extraordinary, miraculous occurrences, which took place in confirmation of Christianity ; viz. such as are advert- ed to in chap. 2:4. The phrase, duvauesg weddovtog aiwvos, dif- fers from the preceding petoyous .... mvevparos dyiov, in this respect, viz. that the latter relates to the special gifts and influ- ences of the Spirit, bestowed in general upon the primitive disci- ples ; while the former refers particularly to miracles of the highest order, which afforded peculiar proof that Christianity was a divine religion, and which are appealed to as such in 2: 4. In regard to pehhovros aéiwvos, see on olzoumevny uediovoay, in 2: 5. Thus interpreted, there is a regular gradation in the whole pas- sage. (1) They had been taught the principles or doctrines of Christianity. (2) They had enjoyed the privileges or means of grace, which the new religion afforded. (3) They had experienc- ed, in general, various gifts and graces bestowed by the Spirit. (4) They had cherished the hopes which the promises of the gospel inspire. (5) They had witnessed, (and perhaps he means to say, that some of them had experienced), those special miraculous pow- ers, by which the gospel was fully shewn to be a religion from — God; comp. 2:4. Thus they had the fullest evidence, internal and external, of the divine origin and nature of the Christian re- ligion. Consequently, if they apostatized from it, there remained no hope of their recovery. 6. Kai nagunsoovtas, and have fallen away, have made defec- tion from, viz. from the gospel, or from all the experience and evi- dence before mentioned ; MUVATITT OD governing the genitive. The connexion stands thus, ’_4dvvarov yao tovs anak qurdEertag.... YEVOUMEVOUS TE.... xal yEevnOErtas....ned yEevouuEevous .... nal mapanesovras. In-compound verbs, nage is often taken to denote deterioration ; e. g. mao vey, desipere ; ee at. male ratiocinart ; mopaouduicern, , deformare; so naganincew, deficere ab. The falling away or WFickions which is here meant, is a re- nunciation of Christianity, and a return to Judaism. This implies, of course, a return to a state of active enmity and hostility to the Christian religion. COMMENTARY ON HEB. 6: 6. 145 Tlehiv avaxcervifery eg ustavorav, again to be renewed by repen- tance. Tladcv belongs to avaxacvigecy, not only by common usage in respect to the position of the adverb, when placed immediately before the verb which it qualifies, but the sense here requires it. ‘The writer does not mean to say, ‘ Those who have a second time fallen away; but, that those who fall away cannot be again, or, a second time brought to repentance. Drusius, Cappell, Abresch, and others, take wvaxaevifecy here in the passive sense, as equiva- lent to avaxetviceoOaue ; and construe it, in connexion with what precedes, in this manner; ‘It is impossible for those who have been once instructed, etc. to be renewed to repentance.’ The sim- ple grammatical construction of avaxaifery, as it now stands in the active voice, is thus; ‘It is impossible again to renew by re- pentance those who have been once instructed, etc.’ If the laiter method of construing the sentence he adopted, who is the subject of the verb avaxucvigery ? i. e. who is the agent that is to produce this renovation? Is it God, i. e. the Holy Spirit, or Paul, or oth- ers? Brettschneider (Lex.) understands the word in an active sense, and supposes that Christian teachers are the agents to whom the writer refers. Storr renders it indefinitely, ‘‘Man kann unmé- glich wieder bessern,” one cannot possibly produce another amend- ment. But instead of saying one cannot, in this case, I should pre- fer understanding evexoevifecv in an impersonal sense, and render- ing it in English by our passive verb; since many verbs’ used im- personally convey a passive sense. See Heb. Gram. § 190. 2. note 1. 2. There is still another construction which may be made of the passage, and which is a very common Greek one; viz. aduy aver nauvicery rovg anak gwreodertag.... xal MKOUTEDOVTRS, advve- tov, to renew, or, the renewal of, persons once instructed... . and who have apostatized, is impossible. In this case, the infinitive avaxacvigery is used as a noun, and makes the subject of the pro- position. This would afford the same sense, as that which was last suggested above. Eig weravocav, by repentance ; so BF ysostiin, Erasmus, and others. ig, with the accusative, often signifies the instrument or means. If it be construed otherwise, (as in the version which I have ronaig the sense will be ‘To renew them so that they will repent.’ See Excursus XII. VOL. I. 19 146 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 6: 6. ‘ Avaotaveovrtas éavtoig tov viov tou Peou, since they have crucified for themselves the Son of God. Chrysostom construes av- aoraveovrtas as Meaning nad oraveovytag; and so our Eng- lish translators, and many others. But; this is not conformable to common Greek usage. “Ava, in composition, merely augments the intensity of a verb, if indeed it produces any effect upon its signification ; for oftentimes it does not, e. g. avactnteiv, avexol- ve, avadEewpeiv, avandnooety, etc. That the word in question is to be figuratively taken, is plain from the nature of the case. Ac- tual physical crucifixion is out of the question. It means, then, to treat with the greatest ignominy and contempt. But what does éauvroig mean? It is susceptible of two inter- pretations. (1) As dativus incommodi, i. e. to their own hurt, seame, etc. So Storr. See Winer’s N. T. Gram. § 24.2.6. (2) It may be construed as Hebrew pronouns in the dative frequently are,. viz. as pleonastic ; e. g. 52-42, go for thyself, i. e. go; I> 03, he has fled for himself, i.e. he has fled; Heb. Gram. § 210.3. I incline to the latter mode of explanation. Perhaps the shade of idea is, ‘ Crucifying, so far as they are concerned,’ or, ‘ Themselves being concerned in the transaction of crucifying.’ ~% Kai nagaderyuarifovras, and exposed him to public shame; comp. Matt. 1: 19. By renouncing their adherence to Christiani- ty, they would openly declare their belief that Christ was only an impostor, and of course, that he suffered justly as a malefactor. By returning again to Judaism, they would approve of what the Jews had done ; and thus they would, as it were, crucify Christ, and ex- pose him to be treated by unbelievers with scorn and contumely. Every one knows, that an apostate from a good cause gives new occasion, by the act of apostasy, for the enemies of that cause to utter all the malignity of their hearts against it. In this sense, apostates expose the Saviour to public infamy, when they renounce all regard for him, and join with those who view him as an impos- tor and a malefactor. The two participles, aveoraveovrtag.... xai magaderypart- Covras, | regard as grammatically connected with the preceding ones thus; rovs anak gwrodvrag.... xul nagamsoortus.... avacravyovrtas .... xal nayadseyparifovrasg ; the two latter words being in apposition with the preceding participles, and added for the sake of giving intensity to the whole description. On this account, xa is omitted before aveoravyodrrac. — COMMENTARY ON HEB. 6: 7. 147 7. Ty yao .... verov, now the earth which drinketh in the rain that frequently comes upon it. Ty is used for land cultivated or uncultivated. Here it designates the former; as is evident from the sequel of the sentence. The image of the earth being thirsty, and drinking in the showers, is common in many languages. Kai tixtovoe Boravyy, and produceth fruits. Tixtovoa is of- ten applied, by classical writers, to the production of fruits. Bora- yyy, like the Hebrew ainy, means, any kind of grain, any produce of vegetation, which is fitted for the service of man. But this use is Hebraistic. By classic usage, Poravy means, herbage or, vege- tation, not including bread-corn. "Evterov éneivoeg Ov ove yewoyertat, useful to those on account of whom it is cultivated. “#vGerov means, in its primary sense, well situated, well located ; e.g. it is applied to a convenient harbour for ships, etc. Useful, appropriate, etc. are secondary meanings, which the word frequently has. 4c ovs, on account of whom. That this is the usual signification of ova with the accusative, all will acknowledge ; and as the sense demands no departure here from the usual construction, it is better to retain it, than to trans- late by whom. MerohopPavec evhoyiag ano tov Peov, lit. receiveth blessings from God. But what is the meaning of this? Is it, that the earth is, when thus fruitful, contemplated with satisfaction or com- placency by its creator? Or does it mean, ‘The earth which thus produces useful fruits, is rendered still more fruitful by divine beneficence ?’ The latter seems better to accord with the Hebrew idiom. E. g. when Jacob approaches Isaac, clad in Esau’s per- fumed garments, Isaac says, The odour of my son, is like the odour of a field which God has blessed, i. e. of a fruitful field, with blos- soming herbage. So, on the contrary, the curse of the earth, in Gen 3: 17, is explained in v. 18 by adding, “ Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth unto thee.” In Mark 11: 14, our Saviour says of the barren fig tree, “ Let no one ever henceforth eat any fruit of thee ;” to which Peter afterwards alluding, says, ‘‘ Lo! the fig tree which thou didst curse, Mark 11: 21.” In 2 Cor. 9: 6, Paul says, “‘ He who soweth én svdoyiaus, bountifully, shall reap za evhoyiats, bountifully.” Agreeably to this idiom, the phrase in question might be explained, zs rendered still more fertile, or pro- ductive, by God. But although most commentators of note have 148 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 6: 7, 8. adopted such an interpretation, I hesitate to receive it; and this, because the metaphor thus explained does not seem well adapted to the object for which it is used. The image of the fruitful earth is designed to signify, ‘ Christians who bring forth fruits under divine cultivation.” Supposing, then, that such Christians are here desig- nated, (as plainly is the case), does the writer mean merely to say, in addition, that they will be rendered still more fruitful in good works? Or does he mean to say, that when they thrive under the cultivation which they enjoy, they will obtain divine approbation and complacency? I incline to the latter interpretation, as tend- ing more directly to exhibit the object which the apostle has in view. . Moreover, the antithesis in v. 8, presents the image of displeas- ure, of punishment. Consequently, the image of complacency, of reward, is presented in v. 7. I should, then, rather interpret the phrase, receiveth blessings from God, as referring to the complacen- cy or approbation with which God regards the fruitful earth. The sense is similar to that, in which he is said, in Gen. 1., to have re- garded all the works of his hands, and considered them as good. The increased fruitfulness of the earth would indeed be the conse- quence of the divine blessing; and may, by metonymy, be taken for the blessing itself. But the other method of exegesis seems more simple. I might say, perhaps, that it is rendered almost cer- tain by v. 8, where the earth, which brings forth thorns and this- tles, is considered merely as xatagaus éyyus, nigh to a curse, i. e. in danger of one. Yet, if commentators have rightly construed evhoyias, inv.7, as meanjng fruitfulness, then zetaoa in v.8 must mean barrenness. But the land is already barren, which pro- duces only thorns and briars ; consequently it is not merely nigh to barrenness as a curse to come. As then the antithesis of svioyiac (viz. zaruga), does not ‘mean barrenness, so evioyiag does not mean, fruitfulness. 8. “Exqégovou 62 [sc. 1 77] .... zyyis, but the earth, which bringeth forth thorns and briars, is useless and near to utter rejec- tion, which will end in burning. Kutaou, ersecratio, -maledictio, extrema atque dirissima devotio. * Such’ barren ground, producing nothing but thorns and briars, is not only useless to the owners, but is given up or devoted by them to be overrun with fire, and to have all its worthless productions consumed. ‘The explanation of this COMMENTARY ON HEB. 6: 8, 9. 149 phrase in our Lexicons and in most of the commentaries, seems to me plainly incongruous, as I have just hinted above. Is not the earth which produces nothing but thorns and briars, already bar- ren? How then can this earth, be merely xoraou¢ éyyvse, i. e. (as they explain it) only near to barrenness ? The method of interpre- tation above proposed, avoids this incongruity, and adopts a more easy and natural explanation. Such earth is (1) Useless, adoxiuos, deserving reprobation. (2) An object of execration, or nigh to be- ing given up to the flames, which at last will consume all its worth- less productions ; 1. e. when the owner of such barren ground has made the experiment, long enough to see what its qualities are (: ik. So in Num. 14: 28, mimt ON2 "8 ‘a; and in Deut. 32: 40, “mn BIDE DIN, i rey ever. 14. Ayo 7 wiv. ... ninduve os, saying, I will greatly bless thee, and exceedingly multiply thee, i. e. I will give thee a numerous pa offspring. In Gen. 22: 17, which is quoted here, instead of sim- ~~ ply 1AnGuvo oe, the Hebrew runs thus, FS937NN ABN 73771, I will greatly multiply thy seed; but im Ger 17: 2, it is MBN IN IN2 Te, Twill multiply thee. The apostle appears to unite both expressions, in the quotation before us. The obvious idea of both passages is, ‘1 will give thee a very numerous posterity.’ Mnyyv, certo, profecto, i. q- Ovtwe. Evioyov Evhoyyow . . _ why Ov- vov akyOvved. Such a reduplication is very common in Hebrew, where, for the most part, it denotes intensity, Heb. Gram. § 199. 2. The frequency of it, in the Hellenistic writers, is Hebraism ; but thes’ formula itself is not without many examples in the Greek writers. E. g. Lucian. Dial. Menel. sub fine, av gidov. Xen. Cyrop. V. necdov énecoe. VIII. vnaxovmr Um xOUCE. Polyb. evzouevos AvEaro oie Veoig. Herod. IV. 23, zarapevymr xaragevyn. Diod. Sic. Tom. I. p. 717, xataneuwas éxeuye. That intensity is de- signed in our text, is clear from consulting the context in Gen. —Xxu. and xv. Tn 9vve is found in what is usually called the second future circumflex. But verbs in A, u,v, @, have no other future; see Buttmann, Gram. § 86. 8 15. Kai ovr paxgoduunoas .... énayyshias, and so, having patiently waited, he obtained the promised blessing. Kai ouTw, may be construed as equivalent to xai tote, vel xai émecta, and then, and afterwards. So ourw in Acts 7:8. 20: 11. Rom. 11: 26. Thess. 4:17. Rev. 11:5. Schneider (Lex.), ovzm, folglich, sonach. Schleusner (Lex.), ovrw, séc tandem, tum demum, deinceps etiam. But I rather prefer the sense of so here, which means, in accordance with the promises just recited. “Bnevuye TNs énayyeh- ac, the noun being in the genitive : for énuruyyavw governs either the genitive or accusative; see Matt. Gr. Gram. § 363. 5. But what was the promised blessing which he obtained? The VOL. II. 20 a 154 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 6: 15—17. same, I reply, which the preceding context designates, viz. the blessing Ha posterity, which should become numerous. When Abraham was called by God out of Haran, and the promise of a numerous posterity made to him, he was seventy five years old, Gen. 12: 1—4. Twenty four years elapsed after this, while he was a sojourner in a strange land without any fixed place of abode, be- fore the manner in which this promise would be fulfilled was re- vealed to him, Gen. 17: 1—16. It was only when he was an hun- dred years old, that the promised blessing of a son, from whom should spring a great nation, was obtained, Gen. 21: 1—5. The preternatural birth of such a son, was deemed by Abraham a suffi-— cient pledge, on the part of God, that all which he had promised respecting him would be fulfilled, Gen. 22: 15—18. Heb. 11: 8— 12, 17—19. Rom. 4: 17—22. Other blessings, besides that of a numerous posterity, were connected with the birth of Isaac and the faith of Abraham, Gen. xxu. latter part of v.17 with v.18. These blessings Abraham did not obtain, indeed, by actual possession ; but by anticipation, confident hope, and unwavering faith in the promises of God ; comp. John 8: 56. In our text, however, the apostle refers to the promised blessing of a son, which after long waiting, Abraham obtained. 16." AvOoomoe uév yao... . Ouvdover, now men swear by one who is superior, i. e. men appeal to God, when taking an oath, as a witness of their sincerity, and as an avenger of falsehood and _per- jury. Kai maons avroig.... 0 dono, and the oath for confirmation makes an end of all dispute among them ; i. e. an oath, that contes- ting parties will abide by* terms of amity and concord agreed upon, puts an end to the disputes which had existed, the parties re- lying upon an engagement of a nature so solemn. An oath, then, is the highest pledge of fidelity which men ‘can give.' _duroig is the dative after avridoyiag, viz. avreduyias [yj éore] avrois. Such is the custom of men, when avriduyia, contradiction, ques- tion, calling in question, dispute, is to be quieted. God has conde- scended to act in a similar way, for our encouragement, and to confirm our belief in his promises. ; we @ mMéQvOOLTEVOY ....1HS Enayyediac, on account of which, (i. e. because an oath removes all dispute or doubt) God, desirous of shewing those to whom the promises are made. ‘Lv «, COMMENTARY ON HEB. 6: 17, 18. 155 on account of this, see Wahl on év, no. 5. TTsgvoodregov, abun- dantly, modo eximio, insigniter. °EnwWeziéoe, to demonstrate, to ex- hibit so as to prove. KaAngovomors, i.e. Christians; comp. 4: 1, 3, 9. To aperaderov trys Bovdns avrov, the immutability of his pur- pose, or, of his decree ; for the will of God is the decree of God. "Euesirevoev don, interposed by an oath. Meowtsvm means, according to classical usage, to act the part of a mediator, to be an internuntius, conciliator, between two parties. But here, this sense is impossible. God is not a mediator between himself and the heirs of the promise. The sense of interposing, then, becomes a necessary one. So the Vulgate, interposuit jusjurandum. We made a weoirny (so to speak) by an oath, interposed between him- self and the heirs of promise; i. e. he made an oath the means of removing all doubt or question, on their part, whether he would faithfully perform what he had promised. 18. “/va dua Ovo moayuarwv .... Fedv, so that by two immuta- ble things, in regard to which it is impossible that God should prove faithless ; i. e. since men’s doubts are removed by appeai to an oath, God, in condescension to their weakness, has also made con- firmation of his promises by an oath, so that there might be no pos- sible ground of doubt. But what are the two immutable things? j; “His promise and his oath, answer almost all the commentators and critics. But there is room to doubt the correctness of this inter- pretation. ‘The apostle in the preceding context has mentioned two oaths of God, which have respect to the salvation of believers. The one is in the context immediately preceding, v. 13; which in Gen. 22: 15—18, stands connected with the promise of a_ blessing to all nations (v: 18), through the seed of Abraham, i. e. through the Messiah. The other is implied in Heb. 3: 11; where the oath that unbelievers shall be excluded from the rest of God, im- plies of course an assurance of the same nature, that believers shall be admitted to it; comp. 4: 5,6. Perhaps, however, the second oath, is that, by which the Messsiati; is constituted a high priest after the order of Melchisedek, Ps. 110: 4; and which had been twice adverted to by the writer, in the secon dine part of his epistle, 5: 6, 10. This would best agree with the sequel, in 6: 20, where the writer recurs to the order of Christ’s high priesthood, and thus shews that it was, at that time, in his mind. Here, then, are the a! 156 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 6: 18. two immutable things, in which believers may confide ; viz. first, the oat et Abraham should have a Son (the Messiah), in whom all nations should be blessed, Gen. 22: 18; secondly, the oath that this Son should be high priest forever, after the order of Melchise- dek, Ps. 110; 4. These two oaths it is impossible God should dis- regard; and the salvation of believers, therefore, is adequately and surely provided for. In this opinion, I find that Storr for substance agrees. On the other hand, to represent the promise and the oath te confirm the same, as the two immutable things, seems to be inappo- site; for the writer here states, that what is sworn to, even among Men, must be regarded as fixed or established. The more surely, what God has once solemnly declared can never be annulled. The two things, then, which are immutable, are the two different oaths, viz. that in Gen. 22: 15—18, and that in Ps. 110: 4; to which the writer had repeatedly adverted. ‘Loyvoay nugaxhnow .... éhnidos, we, who have sought a re- Suge, might have strong persuasion to hold fast the hope which is set before us. That is, God has made adequate provision for the sal- vation of all, who prove faithful to the cause of Christ ; and he has secured it by oaths, made at different times, and on diverse occa- sions. The certainty, then, of obtaining the reward promised to - fidelity, constitutes a powerful motive to persevere, for all those who have sought a refuge from the power and penalty of sin, in the religion of Jesus. JIaoaxAnowy, in the sense of comfort, consola- tion, is common in the New Testament; but according to the classical use of the word, it means, excitement, exhortation, persua- sion, etc. This latter use of the word is common also to the New Testament writers; and in this sense I understand it, in the verse before us. Consolation is not so appropriate to the writer’s object here, as excitement, (Anregung, Schneider), persuasion. ‘Joyvoay means, powerful, i. e. having great force, proffering strong motives. Oi xaragvyortes, we who seek a refuge. Karopedvyw means to flee toward, to flee to, to flee under, viz. a place of refuge, an asy- lum; which latter is generally designated after the verb. But here, of xatguyovteg seems to be employed as a periphrasis, in or- der to designate Christians who are seeking a refuge from sin and sorrow. In like manner owCouevoug is employed, in Acts 2: 47. COMMENTARY ON HEB. 6: 18, 19. 157 Koornous, to hold fast, to take firm hold of, to grasp with tena- city, Hebrew pin. "Ednidog, hope, here means the objects of hope, i. e. the objects of Christian hope, for which Christians hope, or which they expect; just as émayysAia above means, the objects promised, the things promised ; and so, often, in respect to many other words of a similar nature. ITgoxecuevys, proposed, set forth, is a word which was employed in respect to the @@Aov or prize of victory, in the Grecian games. This was said syoxetodas, to be proposed or set before the competitors. So, in our text, the object of hope, viz. future happiness and glory, deliverance from sin and sorrow, is set before all Christians, who are HUTUPVYOVTES, seeking a refuge from their guilt and miseries. And the repeated oath of God assures them, that such a refuge is to be found, and also af- fords a powerful excitement to seek it. 19. “Hy we aynvoay.... BeBatar, which we have as an anchor of the soul unfailing and firmly fixed; i. e. which hope we are in possession of, £yomev, and it will prove to us, in our troubles and distresses, what an anchor of sound materials and firmly fixed will be to a ship in a tempest ; i. e. it will keep us from ‘“ making ship- wreck of the faith.” Many commentators refer yy to nagaxAnou ; but it seems to me quite contrary to the manifest object of the pas- sage. Hope is often represented under the emblem of an anchor, among the heathen writers. “/oqad7 means, that which will not fail, i. e. like an anchor of good materials, which will not give way. BeBaiay means firmly fixed, i.e. having a tenacious hold, which cannot be slipped. Kai eiceoyouevny .... xatanetaouaros, and which enters in- to that within the vail, i. e. which hope enters into the inner sanc- tuary, the sanctum sanctorum, where God dwells. Others refer eLoeoyouevny to wyzvgav. The meaning, as I explain the passage, is, that the objects of hope are in heaven, where God dwells. The apartment within the vail of the temple at Jerusalem, was that in which the ark of the covenant was placed, and also the cherubim that shadowed the mercy seat. There the glory of God appeared. This inner sanctuary was an emblem of heaven; see Heb. 9: 1— 11, 23. 10: 1. The phrase éowregov rou xataneraouaros, here designates an image of heaven. The sentiment of the writer, then, is as follows. <‘ Hold fast the objects of your Christian hope. These will keep you steady 7 958 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 6: 19. in adherence to your holy religion, and preserve you, like an an- chor, from making shipwreck of the faith. ‘These objects of hope are heavenly in their nature, 7 édnlg.... ecoegyzouevn €ig 10 éow- TEQOV TOU xatanétaouatos. Consequently, these objects are im- mutable, and so aogadeis xa BeBacor, like a good anchor.’ “Onov moodopos ....'/noous, whither Jesus our precursor has gone, on our account. IIyodgouos.... eio7AGev, I take to mean simply, that Jesus has first led the way into the heavenly sanctua- ry. So Aeschylus, Her. ad Theb. v. 217, meodgouos 7AGs, i. q. moonAde. Theodoret makes an appropriate remark on this pas- sage. ‘* The writer designs-to increase their confidence by calling Jesus nyodoouos ; for if he is their precursor, and has gone thither on their account, then ought Christians to follow after him, so as to attain the end of their course, Theod. in loc.” The expression in the latter part of v. 19, ey >X> 5733, Gen. 14:18. It’was common, among the ancients, for a king to be priest also; thus uniting the two highest honours among men, in his own person. The Jewish kings did not do thus, so long as the race of David was upon the throne; because the priesthood was confined to the tribe of Levi. But the Maccabees did it: Joseph. Antiq. XIII. 19, comp. Macc. in the Apocrypha. Among foreign nations, this was very common. In reference to this dou- ble honour, Peter calls Christians Baotdecoy isoatevuc, 1 Pet. 2: 9. and John, in Rev. 1: 6, says, that Christ has made for his follow- ers a Gaovdsiay, and constituted them iegeig rH Peo. How highly the Jews of the apostle’s day estimated the honour of priesthood, may be seen from Philo; who says, “The law of kingly office applies to priests eg oguvornta xal tyujy, in regard to dignity and honour, de Legat. ad Caium, p. 832.” In the same book, he represents the Jewish people as regarding “the high priesthood to be as much above the kingly office, as God is more exalted than men.” All this serves to shew, that the apostle, by exhibiting and proving the priesthood of Christ, not only pointed out the way in which pardon of sin had been effected, but also “f * 160 CO=MEST4EY OF EES. 7- I—>3- towards camsme the Meumb w be boooured_ m@ the 1 Helvews. > Is calles Melchisedck o priest of the mest kazh God. the Seriptare desazms te exhabat Imm 2: 2 true priest of the wae God. maker and bord of bezven znd earth. Gen Lt 19, 2 ‘oO peel... zedeyeeses ervey. whe wef Siveben r- ¢ fem; see Gen. 14 17-2 2° ze: dezergr .... ASscen, ts whem aise, Abrcken fare « tenth part of ofl via. 2 tenth exe certes res exe. of aff the spocls (see +. 4). winch be bad hem from the comieder- ate Kime: whom be bad Gocomited. Gea M: 1-16. Agee Ege 2srees wah ager understood Messen ads ignsvceineres, Sesitts dexssoncres, by ae eee a ace In feet. the semse pat apee Jesuizec drzesseeeac. im the tramsiatne. & the caly ewe thet cam be pet epee &: fo whet & a ee of rigitewesecss. mi any other seme? The phrase_ lime of 2 maton of people. ae of levimg bemes. we understand; bat whet 2 kms of a2 sisfrat e=- istence is, which belongs solely to menfal comecptma_ & woold be - @i&cak w understzad * Fiucere 42 zeit Gesuizec - - .. cigevgc. and thea ke is Enz of 3 "Azeres, exgres, harcez ucifder father mer mother, i & receded im the sacred sentalerse: =: of perhaps. wise Siber znd mother. were eet of kuesiy ramk. 9 These words were applied Ste ‘pally, by the Greeks. to seme of their gods: then fcurstirely. these whe were orphans. and w these whose pares: were obscure aadoflewece=m Tisz Lay. IV.3. < nalle patre sxtas_* respect 2 person of wmcbic deseemt. Se Horace. Sem 1 6 10, ~mel- x IS Bot mented m the seered records And m@ sack apestie appears to call Meichsedek euermg and e=t- eaplangime of these terms = tw be fend (gs coe wall casily believe), im the word cyevcelsparas. wutbrat amy Femealegy. viz_ of wise geaeaiogy no mentee E made mw Scrperre. < > COMMENTARY ON HEB. 7: 3. 161 The Arabians say, of a man who has by his own efforts procur- ed an exalted place of honour, and who is decended from ignoble parents, e) Lf U. he has no father, i. e. he is not named from his father, or derives not his titles and honours from his father. Michae- lis prefers the explanation which this idiom would afford, in respect to the passage under examination. But the other seems preferable, on account of the explanation which the writer himself has made, by adding, ayeveadoynros. See Schleusner and Wahl, on anarwe and @ujreg. Mijre coyny .... éyov, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, i. e. either, ‘ Whose time of birth or death is not relat- ed :’ or rather, ‘ Who, as high priest, has no limited time assigned for the commencement and expiration of his office :’ for so the fol- lowing clause leads us to interpret this expression. The Levitical priests were limited in their service; see Num. 4: 3, 25, 35, 43, 47, (comp. Num. 8: 24, 25). Zee, according to the latter mode of interpretation, refers to the life of Melchisedek as priest, 1. e. the time of his priesthood. Zaz is often equivalent in sense ta HELQOS Cuz, the season or time which one lives. The meaning of the writer then is, that Melchisedek’s priesthood was limited to no definite time, i. e. he was sacerdos perpetuus, a priest without limitation of office. So the Latins say, Dictator perpetuus, etc. * Aqapormpévos 62... . Oenvents, being like to the Son of God, remaineth a priest perpetually. The sacred writer, in Ps. 110: 4, says of the Messiah, that he is Dti>> jm5, Sept. iegevs eis tov aé- Ova, i. q. 6S 10 dinvexés; and then ‘adds, “ after the order of Mel- chisedek.” First, then, Christ is stated by the Psalmist to be a perpetual priest ; and next, to confirm or explain this assertion, it is added, that he is so according to the order of Melchisedek. The implication is, of course, that Melchisedek is perpetual priest; for this is a special point of the comparison. The apostle means to say, in our text, that inasmuch as Melchisedek is understood to have a perpetual priesthood, and since the priesthood of the Son of God is affirmed, in the 110th Psalm, to be like his ; so it follows, course, that the priesthood of Christ is understood to be perpetual, or that Melchisedek in regard to his priesthood, was like to, or could be compared with, the Son of God. In respect to the object of this assertion, a apprehend nothing VOL. Il. 21 162 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 7: 3. more is intended, than that the priesthood of Christ and of Mel- chisedek was not, like that of the sons of Aaron, limited to any definite period. In the absolute sense, e/g 10 dcyvexés clearly is not to be understood. Melchisedek’s priesthood terminated with his life ; so Christ’s priestly and kingly office both will cease, when the work of redemption is fully accomplished, 1 Cor. 15: 24—28. But in neither case is there any statute, which limits the specific time of accession to office, and of egress from it. Of course, the order of Christ’s priesthood, and that of Melchisedek, differed great- ly in this respect from that of the sons of Aaron, and was, as the writer goes on to declare, greatly superior to it. Dictator perpetuus among the Romans, for example, was surely a higher, or at least a more honorable office, than that of ordinary Dictator. Our English version of agouovmpevos, made like to, does not seem to give the true sense of the passage. The apostle is not labouring to shew that Melchisedek, in respect to his priesthood, was made like to Christ ; but vice versa. He is seeking to illus-— trate and establish the perpetuity of Christ’s priesthood, by compar- ing it with the well known priesthood of Melchisedek. Hence, to say that Melchisedek was made like to the Sun of God, is a vore~ gov myortegov ; for Ps. 110: 4, compares the Son of God as priest, to Melchisedek. This too is the order of nature and propriety ; for the priesthood of Melchisedek preceded that of Christ; it was some- thing with which the Hebrews were already acquainted, inasmuch as their Scriptures had repeatedly spoken of it. Of course, the apostle, in aiming to illustrate and establish the priesthood of Christ, (a priesthood that was recent and not well understood by the He- brews), would very naturally pursue the method of comparison of- fered to his view in Ps. 110: 4, i. e. a comparison of Christ’s priest- hood to that of Melchisedek. *4gonovmmevog means, then, not made like to, but like to, possibly, likened to, i. e. being compar- ed ta. j The whole passage, from 0 ovvarryjoas in v. 1, to ro view rou Peov in v. 3, is plainly a parenthetic explanation, (a very common occurrence in the writings of Paul), thrown in for the sake of sug- gesting to the reader’s mind some considerations respecting the character and dignity of Melchisedek, which would be very useful, in regard to a right understanding of the comparison that was to be made out in the sequel. Ovzrog yao 0 MedyCedex, etc. in v. 1, is COMMENTARY ON HEB. 7: 3, 4. 163 eine dniliepccaiaie ie ihn Shes ee the immediate nominative to péver iegevs 8é¢ to Ounvexes, in v. 3. The construction of the whole sentence is thus; ‘This Melchise- dek, king of Salem, priest .... (who met Abraham .... and blessed him.... whose name means, first, righteous king, and secondly, peaceful king ....of a descent no where recorded, hav- ing a priestly office not limited, and being in respect to his priest- hood like to the Son of God), is a perpetual priest.’ If it be object- ed, that the participles éouevevouevos, eyo and AP OMOLWMEVOS have not, like ovvavt7jous, the article before them, and there- fore cannot be arranged in such a construction ; the answer is, that nouns, participles, and adjectives, put in apposition, either take or omit the article, at the pleasure of the writer. E. g. v. 1, 6 Mehycoedéu—Baorkevs .... iggevg, in apposition. Then 0 ov- yavtnoas.... evhoynoas.... EQuevevomevos.... anarwe, aun- TMQ, ayEevechoyntos ... Eyav .. . apouovwmevos—all in apposition with 6 suvavrroag ; a mode of using adjectives and participles by no means unusual. See Gersdorf, Beitrage etc. Th. V. Ueber die Stellung der Adjectiven, etc. In the translation, I have, for the sake of perspicuity, broken up the involved construction of the original, and made several simple sentences. See Excursus XIII. 4. @swoeire 02... . natoraoyns, consider now how great a per sonage this must be, to whom the patriarch Abraham gave a tithe of the spoils. Oemwgeite, see, perceive, consider. IInhixoc, of what exalted rank. ° AxgoGuvtwy, in its literal sense, means, swmmitas acervi frumenti, the top part of a heap of grain. It was usual to offer the primitiae or first fruits toGod. But as offerings were made to their gods, by the Greeks, from spoils taken in war, ax00- Sivva came at last to signify, in the Greek language, any kind of spoils, from which an offering for the gods was taken. The Latins. called such offerings, manubiae. The word axgodwiwy has the general sense of spoils here, and evidently refers to the spoils which Abraham had taken from the confederate kings, Gen. 14: 16. The object of the apostle, in mentioning the circumstance here adverted to, plainly is, to exalt the dignity of Melchisedek. ‘The high reverence which the Jews had for Abraham is well known. If now it could be shewn to the Hebrews, that Melchisedek was superior to Abraham, then the superiority of Christ, who is like to Melchisedek, is also shewn. Moreover, since the patriarch or head of a nation was reckoned, in the East, as excelling in dignity ali 164 COMMENTARY ON HEB, 7: 4, 5. his descendants; so, if Melchisedek’s dignity exceeded that of Abraham, it would follow, that it exceeded that of all his descend- ants—-among whom were the Levitical priests. It is for the sake of establishing this last point, that the comparison of Melchisedek with Abraham is introduced in v. 4; as the sequel plainly shews. This being established, it would follow, that Christ’s priesthood, (which was like that of Vielchisedek), was superior to the Aaroni- cal priesthood ; which is the point that the writer designs to illus- trate and establish. 5. Kai oi wév.... hauBavortes, moreover, the sons of Levi, who obtain the office of the priesthood, i.e. who are constituted priests. Al/ the sons of Levi were not properly priests; but only the descendants of Aaron. Hence, the writer adds, ry» iegarelay AauBavorres. It was true, indeed, that the whole tribe of Levi had a right to tithes; Num. 18: 28—30. Deut. 14: 22, 27-29, But it is not material to the writer’s object here, to mention this: He is concerned merely with the priests; who, as descendants of Levi, were of course entitled to tithes. If he could shew that the — priests, the most honoured part of the Levites, who were legally entitled to receive tithes from the other descendants of Abraham, were still inferior to Melchisedek ; then would he shew that the priesthood of Christ was of an order superior to theirs. The pay- ment of tithes is an acknowledgment of superiority, in regard to the rank of the person who receives them# If Abraham, then, paid tithes to Melchisedek, he acknowledged him as superior in respect to rank. *Evroljy éyouow.... vonoy, have, by the law, a commission to tithe the people. See the passages of the law, just referred to. Evroljy, direction, mandate, a precept that gives liberty or con- fers a right to do any thing. Tovr éotr.... ASouau, that is, their own brethren, although descendants from Abraham. °Eéehnlu@oras éx tig voguos, a He- braistic mode of expression ; e. g. Gen. 35: 11, kings ax) 99X21; Gen. 46: 26, 12797 (Nx5, Ex. 1: 5, et al. The Greeks used yevyao- ae UM T1908, in such cases. The meaning of the passage is, the priests of the tribe of Levi, although descended in common with the other tribes from Abraham, yet have been elevated to a rank above them, and receive the tribute of acknowledged elevation, in the tithes which are paid them by the others. COMMENTARY ON HEB. 7: 5—7. 165 But why should the elevation of the priests above their breth- ren, be introduced here? I answer, in order to shew that the most honoured part of the sons of Levi, the most honoured tribe, were of a rank inferior to Melchisedek ; consequently, their priest- hood was of an order inferior to that of Christ. 6. ‘O 02 uy yeveadoyoumsvos 2 aura, but he whose descent is not reckoned from them; a periphrasis, by which Melchisedek is described, and, at the same time, additional intimation is given, that he was of an order of priests different from that of the Le- vites. Adexcrous .... evhoynue, tithed [received tithes from] Abra- ham, and blessed him to whom the promises were made. AOEnUTOKE is a Hellenistic word, being found only in the Septuagint and New ‘Testament. The meaning is, that Melchisedek received from Abraham a tenth of the spoils; which was the same ratio with the tithes received by the Levitical priesthood. Kai rdv Zyovra ras énayythiag evAoynxe, a periphrasis designating Abraham, to whom God had made promises of great blessings; comp. Heb. 6: 12—165. 7% Xwois 02 naong.... evdoyeirar, and beyond all controversy, the inferior was blessed by the superior. ° Avtidoyius, gainsaying, dispute, doubt, comp. 6:16: ”Hiarroy here means merely inferi- ority in point of rank, office, or station; not inferiority in regard to moral or religious character, which it is not the writer’s object to bring into view, as it is not to his present purpose. Melchisedek was both king and priest; Abraham was neither ; at least he is not called by either appellation. He was, indeed, an Emir, i.e. the head of a company of migratory shepherds (Nomades), and had a large number of dependants; as may be seen in Gen, 14: 14. Abraham is also called N33, prophet, Gen. 20: 7; but he is not called 7735, although he repeatedly offered sacrifices; nor do the Scriptures call him 757, king. Kogeitrovos is the antithesis or correlate of ¢arrov, and there- fore means, superior. Both adjectives are of the neuter gender, as is manifest from é,azroy; but this gender in adjectives is em- ployed to denote abstract quality, i. e. itvis used in the same way as abstract nouns ; which are very frequently employed, by the sa- cred writers, instead of concrete ones. E. g. Christ is the way, the truth, and life, i. e. he is the guide, the instructer, and the au- thor of life, to men. So here, the literal rendering would be, infe- 7 166 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 7: 7, 8. riority ts blessed by superiority, i. e. the inferior person is blessed by the superior one. % The apostle takes this as a position which will be granted by the Hebrews, from the simple consideration, that Abraham, by pay- ing tithes to Melchisedek, of course acknowledged his own inferi- or rank. 8. Kui ode uév ... AauSavovor, here, also, men receive tithes who die ; but there, one of whom it is testified that he lives Avery difficult verse, about which there has been no small controversy. The literal sense of the words would make nothing for the writer’s purpose. Of the natural life of men he is not speaking; but of the duration of the priestly office. "§2de means, in respect to the Levites; éxet, in regard to Melchisedek. *“Q0e and éxei may also be literally rendered, in this place, and, in that place; which gives the meaning just proposed. But what is axoSv7joxovres? Is it the natural death of the body? But, in this respect, the Levites differ- ed not from the king of Salem; both were mortals. In another world, too, they live as well as he, i.e. both are immortal also. Zr, therefore, cannot refer simply to living in another world. Nor is there any ground for supposing the apostle means to assert, that Melchisedek’s high priesthood continues in heaven; as some have imagined. There is no intimation in Scripture of any such thing, in regard to any one but Jesus. I must therefore under- stand ano@ynoxovres as being used figuratively here, in order to de- note the brief and mutable condition of the Levitical priesthood. The figurative use of O»7j6xm and anotyyoxw, in the New Testa- ment, is very common; although no instance occurs, perhaps, where it has the same shade of meaning, which it appears to have here. Schleusner, however, gives to Oyyoxw, in 1 Tim. 5: 6, the same sense; viz. qui officio suo non fungitur. But in the verse be- fore us, he construes ax0Ovynoxorres as meaning, mortales, and ¢7 as applying to Christ, not to Melchisedek ;—most plainly against the context that follows. The word ¢7 seems to me, plainly, not to mean here, either natural life, or future immortality, but an enduring, unlimited time of priesthood ; and to designate the same idea as ever iggevs e/g tO Ounvexés, inv. 3. A sense like this, viz. that of duration, perenni- tas, the word ew often has. If this be correct, then its correlate, anodvnoxovres, must of course have the sense of, short lived, or, COMMENTARY ON HEB. 7: 8—10. 167 Chen erence tee Ee nner | ey deceasing, viz. as to office, or the priesthood. In this way, and in this only, can I make out any tolerable sense of the passage, con- -sistently with the context. Nothing can be plainer, than that the object of the writer is to shew the perpetuity of Melchisedek’s priesthood, and not that of his natwral life; and by consequence, he would also make out the perpetuity of Christ’s priesthood. To eonstrue anodvyoxortes, then, as referring to physical mortality, and ¢7 as having respect to physical or natural life, is to quit the subject under the consideration of the writer, and resort to one which is altogether inapposite to his purpose. That Caw and C7, moreover, often denote perpetuity, perennitas, the reader may readi- ly see by consulting Wahl’s Lex. caw, no. 2. 8, and Cw, no. 1. y. The word anodyvjoxovtes, then, by the force of antithesis, de- notes the reverse of this; and perennity, here, is not ascribed to natural life, but to the priesthood. 9. Kai, ws énog sinsiv.... dedexarmrar, yea, even Levi, who receives tithes, was (if I may be allowed the expression) himself tithed, through Abraham. ‘S8¢ émog éinéiy is very common, in the best Greek writers. It is a weiAcyua, softening down, of an expres- sion, which a writer supposes his readers may deem to be too strong, or which may have the appearance of excess or severity. It amounts to an indirect apology, for employing an unusual or un- expected assertion or phrase. It is very happily introduced here ; as the subject itself is one which the writer did not intend to urge as capable of being scanned with metaphysical exactness, but only as bearing a popular mode of explanation. Kai, verily, truly, imo, vero, profecto; see Wahl, Lex. xaé, 2. b. 8. Brettschneider, Lex. xat. 5. 6. ee 10. "Ere yao év ty oogui.... Medyrosd&e, for he was then in the loins of his father, when Melchisedek met him. ” Ete, etiam nunc, — even now, already, or, etiam tunc, even then, then. The meaning of the writer is, that at the time then present, viz. when Melchisedek met Abraham, Levi was éy ry dogui tov mateos. Our English version, ‘‘ He was yet in the loins of his father,” gives a sense quite different from that of the writer; for the meaning of this must be, ‘ he was yet to be begotten,’ i.e. he was not yet born. But the apostle designs to say, and it is appropriate to his object to say, that even then, when Melchisedek met Abraham, Levi already (in a certain sense) existed, and, through Abraham, paid tithes to the 168 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 7: 10, 11. king of Silent i.e. acknowledged inferiority compared with him. This is the very point, which the writer is labouring to illustrate. See Excursus XIV. Il. He pév oby redzimorg .... av, further, if perfection were [attainable] by the Levitical priesthood. Mév ovbv, or mevoovr, moreover, further. Mév otv are often used as a continuative par- ticle, merely indicating that the writer is advancing to another to- pic or paragraph. Ov» is illative, in a general way; but when joined with wéy, it should not, usually, be separately translated. That a new topic is begun here, will be plain to every considerate reader. Tehsiwoug, a word very variously understood and translated. Some render it, accomplishment, viz. of the design of the priest- hood ; others, sanctification; others, consummate happiness ; oth- ers, moral rectitude or perfection. It is best explained by a refer- ence to corresponding passages in the sequel. In 9:9, it is said, that ‘the Levitical sacrifices could not redecosooe the person who offered them ;’ which (if we compare 9: 14) appears plainly to mean, ‘ to take away the burden of guilt, and to render pure or holy the minds of worshippers.’ Again, in 10: 1, it is affirmed of the sacrifices, that ‘they could not redecmoae those who approached the altar,’ i. e. those who offered them ; and by comparing 10: 2— 4 with this, it is plain the writer means to say, that ‘the sacrifices could not bestow peace of conscience—could not take away the burden of sin from the mind of the worshipper; but they left him filled with apprehensions, that the penalty of the divine law might still be executed upon him.’ Here then is plainly the redeiwoce, which the Levitical priesthood could not effect. It could neither purify the mind or soul of the worshipper, nor free him from the burden of his sins, or from the apprehension that they might be pun- ished. Christ did both ;.and this is the redsiwoug here spoken of, which he accomplished, and which the law could not accomplish. Chap. 10: 3, 14, is very direct to this purpose. The writer, then, has explained téAsiwous, by the sequel of his epistle ; and ina man- ner altogether accordant with the object of his reasoning here. ‘O aos yao ex’ avry vevouodernro, (for the people received the law in connexion with this). This circumstance is evidently to be placed in a parenthesis. Nevouoternro, were subjected to the law, were put under the law. Such aconstruction in the pas- “ COMMENTARY ON HEB. 7: 11—12. 169 a sive voice is peculiar; comp. Rom. 3:4. Zn ary, on this con- * dition, connected with this, or, under these circumstances ; comp. Wahl on éni, If. 4. b. The meaning is, that the Levitical priest- hood and the Mosaic law are closely and inseparably linked togeth- er, so that if one is changed, the other must of necessity be; as the writer proceeds to shew in the sequel. Tis ee yotia.... h&yeoOut, what need was there, any more, that another priest should arise after the order of Melchisedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron. That is, ‘if the Levitical priesthood, and the law connected with it, accomplished all, in re- spect to purification from sin and the giving of quiet to the con- science, which was needed, then why should the Psalmist speak of a priest, who was of an order different from that of Aaron, and who was yet to arise?’ This would be unnecessary, if the priesthood of Aaron were adequate to the great purposes of salvation. "£xe, any more, any longer. 12. MevariOemevys yao .... yiverat, but in case the priesthood is changed, there must necds be also a change of the law. Mera- tiOyue means, to transfer, to translate. This sense corresponds sufficiently well with the intention of the writer, whose design is to shew, that the priesthood of the ancient dispensation had been transferred to Christ, although on conditions very different from those formerly attached to it; and that Christ not only was a priest in fact, but that his priesthood, coming in the place of the other ancient priesthood, superseded it. NNouov here means, the Jewish dispensation, the Mosaic law. The change spoken of in respect to this, has reference to the fact, that all its ritual observances and its priesthood, (which were inseparably connected); must be laid aside together, under the new dispensation. As Christ’s priest- hood differed from that of the Levites, so must the law, by which it is regulated, differ from that which regulated the Aaronical priest- hood. This conclusion is in itself so obvious, that the writer does not deem it necessary to produce any formal arguments here to esta- blish it. He proceeds to shew, that the priesthood itself is chang- ed, by adducing facts and declarations recorded in the Old Tes- tament. (1) Christ sprang from the tribe of Judah, vs. 13, 14. (2) He was to be a priest of the order of Melchisedek, vs. 15—17. VOL. I. 29 a a ‘ > te” a ib sel 170 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 7: 12—16. -" Consequently, the law, which was necessarily connected with the — Levitical priesthood, must also be changed. . 13. “Ep ov yao.... Puovorngim, now he, concerning whom these things are said, belonged to a different tribe, none of whom ser- ved at the altar. Teg here connects the illustration or proof, with the proposition in v. 12. It may, however, be translated, but, with nearly the same effect. The reasoning then would stand thus, ‘If the priesthood be changed, the law must also be changed; but the priesthood is changed, [i. e. Christ, who is appointed to the priesthood, sprung from the tribe of Judah]; therefore, the law is laid aside ; comp. v. 18. and seq. TIooo¢oynxe. ITyooeyw means, to give heed, to apply the mind to, tov vour being understood ; also, to give one’s care to, to serve. 14. Tloodnhov yao .... éhadnos, for it is quite manifest, that our Lord sprang from Judah, in respect to which tribe, Moses said nothing concerning the priesthood, i. e. he gave the priest’s office to the sons of Levi, Num. 18: 6, and noi to the tribe of Judah. The reader is left to supply, at the end of the verse, the conclusion of the syllogism, (which Paul very frequently omits), viz. ustatiderae ovv H tegwovry, consequently the priesthood is changed ; i.e. since Christ is high priest, who was of the tribe of Judah, it follows, of course, that there must be a change in the priesthood; for none but Levites, under the ancient dispensation, could be priests. 15. Kai aegeooorsgor ete... . Eregog, and still more evident ts tt, [viz. that the priesthood must be changed], if another priest has arisen, like tv Melchisedek. Between dyhov, ag0dnhov, and xa- tadyor, there is no important difference of signification. The two latter seem naturally to render the word somewhat more inten- sive. “Avioraraé, is risen up, viz. the high priest in question, has already arisen or made his appearance, ?s already extant. Ka? ouoornta, according to the likeness, in the similitude, i. e. like, resembling ; ina sense like that of xara rater, ind: 6, 10. 6: 20. 7: 11, Hebrew, 7.227 22, Ps. 110: 4. Comp. ag wpormue— vos in 7: 3. ; 16. “Os ov xara vouorv .... axaradvrou, who was not made [a priest] by an ordinance of temporary obligation, but by an authority of endless duration ; i. e. he was not made a priest, under the Mo- saic law which was to be set aside, vs. 12, 18 seq.; but by the oath of God, which is immutable, comp. vs. 20—24 and 28. ae COMMENTARY ON HEB. 7: 16, 17. 171 ae Ei bit ele A en ee Saoxrxns, fleshly; hence, secondarily, frail, infirm, short lived, t. temporary, quicquid caducum. So ake Hebrew sa, Gen. 6: 3. Ps. 56: 5. 78:39. Job 10: 4. Is. 31:5; comp. also. aoveves and avgehes in v. 18. “Evrodng means here, the precept or command respecting the appointment of priests, contained in the voos, i. e. Mosaic law. “Eyvtodqjs owoxexyg is, then, preceptum caducum, a temporary command, an obligation of a temporary, perishable nature. So vs. 12 and 18 require us to interpret the passage. Advawty, authority, authoritative appointment. So Acts 4:7 év mole duvawer; by what authority? see also 1 Cor. 5: 4. Zw7e, perennitas, perpetuity; see on V. 8. above. "Axaradurov, quod destrui nequit, indissoluble, hence, immutable, imperishable, perpet- ual As it is the antithesis of cwoxex7¢, the meaning of ouoxixns must be that which is given above. _ That this interpretation of the whole verse is well grounded, follows plainly from the succeeding verse, (v. 17), which is addu- ced simply to prove the perpetutt y of Christ’s priesthood. 17. Maorvosi yao, viz. 7 yougn, OF TO mrvEvpee 70 aytov. The nominative, in such cases, would of course be supplied by the rea- ders of the epistle. In the writings of the Mishnical doctors, the usual mode of appeal to the Scriptures is, q2NzW, 1. e. quod dicitur, or, Aéyetae yag, waotugsitae. The writer makes the appeal to Scripture, in this case; to confirm and enforce what he had just asserted. The conclusion is now left, for the reader to supply. Inv. 1, the writer had said, that the Levitical priesthood, and the system of law under which the people of Israel had been placed, were con- nected together. In v. 12, he intimates that the connexion was so intimate, that whatever affected one would affect the other; and consequently, that if the priesthood be changed, the law itself must be. ‘But the priesthood is changed,’ is the next proposition which he establishes, vs. 13—17. It follows, therefore, (and this is the conclusion which the reader is now to supply), that the law is also changed. The writer proceeds to give another reason why the ancient law must be repealed, or rather be superseded. One reason just given above is, that the priesthood is changed, which demands a corresponding change of the law. Another reason now to be giv- rg 172 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 7: 17—19. en, is the inefficacy of the whole legal institution, in respect to spiritual pardon and sanctification. 18. “Adeenows wév yoo... avwgedes, There is, moreover, a setting aside of the preceding law, because it was inefficient and un- availing. Mév yao, continuative (as often), further, also, moreo- ver, besides; the transition being made to another argument, and fév yao shewing that the subject is continued, and something more added to it. “4dernoug, rejection, setting aside, abrogation; a stronger word than evaddayy. ITgouyouons, literally preceding, i.e. going before the Christian dispensation, i. q. the ancient law. *Aodevig nai avwgedres are words of nearly the same import here. " Aovevés is said of that which has not power to accomplish any particular end proposed; and aywgede¢ is said of that, which proves to be neither useful nor availing, for the purpose to which it has been applied. The meaning here is, that the ancient law, with all its ritual, had proved to be altogether incompetent to effect the reA- gimovg mentioned in v. 11th, i. e. the purification of the sinner, and that peace of conscience which is inspired by the well ground- ed hope of pardon for sin; comp. v. 19. and 9:9, 14. 10: 1--4.. The two words oo@eves and evwgyedes increase the intensity of the affirmation. ‘The epithet OwaxLnns, in v. 16, is of a similar na- ture. 19. Ovdév yao éceheimoev 0 vowos, for the law perfected noth- ing. Ouvdév, neuter gender, is used here for ovdéva masculine, i. e. no one; just as to éhurtzov, in v. 2, means the superior person, i. e. Melchisedek. 70 may and savta are respeatedly used, by John, for nag and nayreg; and soof other adjectives. *“#rele/wos means, did not effect a treheiwoug, did not purify and pacify the con- sciences and minds of sinners. We have no one English. word, which corresponds at-all with the force of the Greek original; and we must therefore content ourselves, either with a kind of literal ren- dering of it, or with a periphrasis, leaving the explanation for notes. “Enevoaywyn 0&....t@ Gem, but the introduction of a better hope [does]. °£redelwoe is implied after édnidog, by the laws of graminar. The introduction of a better hope does perfect men, i.e. it inspires them with well grounded hope.of pardon, and < purifies their consciences from dead works, so that they may serve the liv- ing God, 9: 14.” "Exsvouywyn, superinduction, is said of one thing which is introduced in the place of another ;.e. g. in this , i “ee es il COMMENTARY ON HEB. 7: 19-—21. 1738 case, of the gospel, which was superinduced upon the Mosaic law. ‘Ehnis zosittw@y means, a better source or ground of hope, viz. the gospel was a better ground of hope to the sinner than the law. uv ng, by which, by means of which, through which, i.e. in the way disclosed by the gospel, éyyiSouev rm Dem, we draw nigh to God, we have access to God. Under the ancient law, the high priest only entered the holy of holies, to procure pardon for the people. Under the gospel, the way is opened by Jesus, for all penitent sin- ners to “come boldly to the throne of grace,” 4: 16, in order to obtain the blessings which they need. “Ayyigm is frequently con- strued with the dative, in Hellenistic Greek ; see Winer’s Gram. § 24. 4. Sept. Gen. 27: 21. Ex. 19: 22. 20. Kei xad ooov ov ywois voxwmootas, further, since not without an oath, supply iegevg yéyovev /noovg from the latter part of the following phrase, which is the antithesis of this. Aa? door, in this case, refers to xara tosovroy in v. 22; and the intervening phrases are added by the writer, only by way of explanation and comparison. It is difficult, if not impossible, to give the exact features of the original here, in any copy. The argument of the writer stands thus; ‘ The gospel is a better source of hope; for, as much (xa9 Ooov) as the appointment of a priest, by an oath, ex- ceeds, in solemnity and importance, an arrangement to take the of- fice merely by descent, so much (xara rocovror, v. 22) does the new covenant, of which Jesus is the sponsor, exceed the old.’ ‘Qg- xwaoole does not differ in meaning from ooxo0g, unless it be, that the former applies rather to the act of taking an oath, being deriv- ed from Ggxog and ourupe. 21. Oi uév ... yeyovores, for they, i. e. the Levites, became priests without an oath. Mév yao, often means, indeed, in fact, verily ; but here éy is only the sign of protasis. The Levites were priests in consequence of being the descendants of Aaron; Jesus became a priest only by special appointment, sanctioned by an oath; as follows. “O 68 usta dguomooias ... Medyzitedéx, but he [Jesus, became a priest] with an oath, by him who said to him, “ The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent ; Thou art a priest Sor ever, of the order of Melchisedek, Ps. 110: 4.” Meropednonosrar signifies, to re- ? zi . gret, to alter one’s mind or purpose through regret; and simply, to change or alter one’s purpose. % ct. 174 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 7: Q99—24. 22. Kara rooouroy .... /yoovg, Jesus is the surety of a cov enant so much the better. On xara rocovtor, see above. Arad - “ny (m3) means, covenant, promise, disposition, arrangement, tes- tament; consequently, when applied to the ancient Jewish law, or to Christianity, it means dispensation, economy. Kgeitrrovos means, better than the ancient dca07xy ; i.e. the hope inspired by the new dvaO7x7 is as much better than the ancient daz could inspire, as the new dvat7jxn is superior to the old. "Eyyvog, spon- sor, pledge, surety. Many critics have supposed, that this word is chosen here, on account of its likeness to éyyiouey in the 19th verse ; so that it constitutes a kind of magovouaota with it. How- ever this may be, the word is altogether appropriate to the writer’s purpose. He had spoken of a better hope, inv. 19. It was natural to ask, What is the ground or security, that this hope would be re- alized? his is answered by the assurance, that Jesus is éyyvog for the dispensation which supports it. The writer now proceeds to add another reason, why the Le- vitical priesthood must be considered as far inferior to that of Je- sus. As men in a frail and dying state are constituted priests, un- der the Levitical law, the consequence is, that the priesthood is lia- ble to continual change, and must necessarily pass from the hands of one to another, in a short time. Not so, in the case of Christ ; who, being exalted above the heavens, and constituted high priest in the temple not made with hands, hath an immutable priesthood, subject to no succession. 23. Kai of wév mheioves .... wmagameverv, again, those priests, viz. descendants of Aaron, wre many, since by reason of death they cannot be permanent. TTisioveg refers to numbers constituted by repeated succession ; not to the number of priests existing at any one time. @dvearw is put in the dative, as signifying the means. The writer doubtless intends, that the comparison here shall be re- ferred to the high priest’s office in particular ; for he is all along considering Jesus as agyvegevs. The number of priests, in gener- al, is stated by Josephus to have been 1500. Contra Apion. I. 22. 24. “O 02, dua t0 péverv ... . iggwovrny, but he, because he con- tinues [a priest] forever, has a priesthood without succession. That pévevv here refers to priesthood, and not to simple duration of life, seems to me quite clear, from comparing vs. 3 (ad finem), 17, and ; ss COMMENTARY ON HEB. 7: 24, 25. 175 « 21. The very object of the writer is, to shew the difference be- tween the order of Christ’s priesthood and that of the Levites. To say that Christ lives forever, in the world above, is to say no more than what is equally true of the sons of Aaron, who surely are im- mortal beings. But to say that he continues a perpetual priest, and that his office is therefore subject to no transfer and succession like theirs, is saying what is altogether adapted to the writer’s pur- pose, and perfectly accords with the assertions in the verses to which a reference has just been made. The reasoning stands thus. Jehovah has, by an oath, constituted the Messiah isoea ei¢ tov atwrva; and because he is thus constituted perpetual priest, his priesthood has not, like that of Aaron, any succession in office. ’ AnaoaBaroy is altogether an appropriate word here, and more significant than adwytov or arédevtov would be. The writer had just said, ‘ The Levitical priesthood admits or demands many (mAei- ovec) priests in succession, because death is continually removing them from office.’ On the contrary, Christ being appointed to a perpetual priesthood, his office is here declared to be anagaPatos, i. e. it demands or admits no transition to another, no successor in his place. JZaoooaivw means, to pass over, to pass on; and when spoken of an office, it signifies, fo pass into the hands of an- other person. °~AnagaParos is, therefore, incapable of transition ; which is the very shade of meaning, that the writer’s argument de- mands. So Theophylact and Oecumenius; anugafator, advado- you, without succession. 25. “Oder nai owlery .... Sew, hence, also, he is able always to save those, who draw nigh to God through him, i. e. approach the throne of grace (4: 16) in his name, or on his account, trusting in him as their priest and intercessor. “Odev, whence, i. e. because he is a perpetual priest. 2wsvv, to save, means here, to deliver from condemnation and punishment. This the high priest did, in regard to God’s external government over the Jews, when he went into the most holy place, and made expiation for the sins of the people. Christ, as a priest in the heavenly world, is able to do this ; and to do it eé¢ ro mavredes, unceasingly, always, so long as there are any who need pardon, and who can obtain it. Tlaviore Sav, ever living, i. e. always abiding or continuing a priest ; comp. vs. 3,8, 17, 21,24. Zaw, to live, to endure, to be , * 176 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 7:25. perennial ; as frequently before. The mere continual existence of Christ is not at all the question here, but the perpetuity of his priesthood ; so that fa» plainly refers to his ever living or contin- uing as a priest; in which capacity évrvyyover Unée Huov, as fol- lows. Eig v0 évrvyyavew inég avror, to intercede for them, or rather to interpose in their behalf. The proper meaning of évrvyyavo is, to go to any one, to approach him, to meet him, for the sake of ac- cusing, defending, convicting, or delivering any person, or of trans- acting any business which has respect to him. Here, it is plainly in the sense of aiding, defending or delivering; as the preceding owery clearly indicates. It means here, also, to do something, or to interpose, in such a way as is appropriate to the priest’s office. But ¢o intercede, in the sense of making supplication, is not appro- priate to any part of the priests’ office under the Levitical law ; at least, not to any which the Scriptures have presented to our view. The reader will search in vain for any direction to the priests, un- der the Jewish economy, to-perform such a duty as priests ; and all the testimony we have to shew us that the priests did make inter- cession, is what Philo says of their duties, Legat. ad Caium. II. 77. p. SOL. (edit. Mangey); see on v. 27. Even the passage in Luke 1: 9, 10, seems to indicate nothing that solves the question. We must therefore understand éyrvyyaver here, in a more general sense, and refer it to any aid, which Christ as high priest extends to those who approach God, confiding in him, 4: 16. He is able owlsey avrovs, because he is a perpetual priest éyrvyyavery Unéo avtav, i.e. to interpose in their behalf, to procure for them such ad as they may need. ‘So the priests, under the Levitical dispensa- tion, were the internuntii between God and the people, and procur- ed blessings for-them, not only by presenting the offerings which they brought, but by inquiring of the Lord for them, or consulting his holy oracle, I acquiesce, therefore, in the general idea of é- ruyyavery here, viz. interposing in our behalf, assisting ; and I be- lieve, that all attempts to draw from the word any thing more than this, is substituting imagination for well grounded reasoning. , . & 7 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 7: 26. 17% The writer, having now commented on the priesthood of Christ as compared with that of Melchisedek, and having also made some deductions from the nature of Christ’s priestly office as thus exhibited, which are much to his purpose, resumes the subject which he had drop- ped at 5: 10, and which he had first proposed in5: 2,3. In 5: 7—9 he had shewn the similari- ty between Christ and the Jewish priests, in regard to the power of sympathizing with the suf- fering, inasmuch as both he and they were sufferers themselves. But he did not intend that the 2o9#veve of the Jewish priests should be predicated of Jesus, in al/ respects. To guard against this, our author again introduces the topic here, and shows how far superior the priest of the new covenant is, in a moral respect, to the priests of the old. 26. Tovovr0g yao iuiv émoenev aoylegevs, moreover, such a high priest was needful for us. Ign signifies, ordinarily, that which is becoming, proper, fit. But here égene seems plainly to be equivalent to ro avayzaiov; as in Matt. 3:15. So Luther, sollten wir haben, we must have. So Ernesti, Calovius. “Oovos, holy, not merely wisp here, but px, TEN, DN; for moral, internal holiness or purity of nature is intended. ” Ano- x0¢, harmless, qui malum non fecit, whose external conduct towards others corresponds with internal dovorys. "Auiavrog, undefiled, has reference to the ceremonial purity which was peculiarly required of the Jewish high priests. " Aulavtos has here, however, a moral sense, and expresses, summarily and with intensity, the ideas conveyed by dovog and exanos. Keywouo- név0g and THY auaorwhar, separated from sinners, i. e. removed from all that could contaminate or render impure; diverse from sinners; unlike to them. It is nearly synonymous in its meaning with @uievros, and is added, (as is usual in such cases with the sacred writers), for the sake of intensity. “Ywrdoreeos TOV ovoavury yevouevos, exalted above the heavens, j. e. seated at the right hand of the majesty on high, 1: 3. Comp. Phil. 2:9. Colos. 1: 18. Heb. 2:9. 8:1. Rev. 5:12. Matt. 25: 31. By these assertions, the writer designs to shew his Hebrew rea- ders, that Christ was, in all personal respects, exalted above the Jewish high priests. They were ‘compassed with infirmities,” but he was spotless; if they were ceremonially undefiled, he was moral- ly so; if they were placed in an exalted station, he was infinitely above them, being, like Melchisedek, king as well as priest, inas- much as he was raised to the throne of God above the heavens, 1: 3. To finish the comparison, he goes on to say, that, in conse- quence of his perfect purity, he needed no expiatory offering for himself, as the Jewish high priest did. VOL. Il. ‘) 23 e * - » 178 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 7: 27, 28. 27. "Oc oun eyet.... haov, who has not, like the high priests, . any daily necessity of offering sacrifices, first for his own sins, and then for those of the people. Many doubts have been raised by cri- tics, about the meaning of xa sugoay here, because they have supposed that the high priest officiated in person, only on the great day of atonement. But that these doubts are without any good ground, may be seen by consulting Lev. 6: 19—22. Num. 28:3, 4. Philo, who was cotemporary with the apostles, says, agyvegevs, xa- TA TOUS vOMoUS, évyas dé nai Dvoiag Tehov 209 EXKOTHY NuLouy, the high priest, agreeably to the laws, makes daily supplications and sacrifices, see on v. 25. It happens in this case, as in all others of a like nature which occur in our epistle, that the deep and accurate knowledge of the writer, in respect to every thing which concerned the Jewish dispensation, becomes apparent, just in proportion to our knowledge of the usages which really existed under that dis- pensation. Tovro yao ....avevéynas, for this he did, once for all, when he offered up himself. ° Avagege is like the Heb. m2. ITooog by modirns, in Prov. 11: 9. 24: 28. Whether, however, mAnotoyv or nodirny be adopted, the sense is not changed. The meaning of the whole phrase, is simply what the Hebrew idiom allows it to signify, viz, ‘One shall have no need to teach another.’ The re- petition of the sentiment, by tov modéryy avrou and tov adehgov avtov, belongs merely to the poetic parallelism of the original He- brew, which expresses the same thought in two different ways; as is constantly done by the synonymous parallelisms of the Old Tes- tament. "Ore novteg .... meyehou avray, for all shall know me, from the least tu the greatest, i. e. all of whatever rank or condition, high or low, rich or poor—all classes of people, shall have a knowledge of God. Mixoov and peyahou here refer to condition, rather than age. The writer does not mean that religious instruction will be al- together superseded, when the happy period arrives of which he speaks ; but that, inasmuch as the laws of God will be infixed upon the hearts of his people, and engraven upon their minds, none will be ignorant, as in former times, of his true’ character and the re- quirements of his law. The words are not to be urged to a literal explanation. The meaning of the whole plainly is, that the knowl- edge of true religion, or of God, should become universal, under the new covenant, so that no one might be found, who could properly be addressed as knowing nothing of the true God. The implica- tion, moreover, contained in this, is, that under the old covenant many had been thus ignorant; a fact highly credible, consider- ing the frequent lapses of the Jews into a state of idolatry. 12. “Ore thews Evouce .. . Exe, for Twill be merciful in respect to their iniquities, and their sins and their transgressions will I remem- her no more. “JAgws, propitious, mild, clement, governs the dative 190 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 8: 12, 13. tare aduxiass, and (like MON to which it corresponds) designates the idea of readiness to pardon, or, to deal mildly with offenders. Tov avoutmy avrov is not in the Hebrew, nor in the common Septuagint, nor Vulgate, Syr. Copt. Ethiop. The Hebrew has only OnNwM, to which ray auaorowy avra@y answers, in our text. It is difficult, or rather impossible, now to determine whether ray civouroy avrev was originally inserted by the writer of our epistle, or crept in afterwards from some edition of the Septuagint which contained it. But whether it be admitted or excluded, it makes no difference in the sentiment of the passage ; the first clause of which is the first member of a poetic parallelism, to which the second clause corresponds, echoing the same sentiment. “/Asme eivae tas. aduzwuig means, to be forgiving, ready to pardon; and ov uvnod7- val TOY avOULMY Means, to pass sins by unpunished, to treat offen- ders as though their sins were forgotten. The expression, applied to God, is altogether anthropopathic ; but so are most other expres- sions, which speak of him as acting in relation to such subjects. Thus far the quotation from Jeremiah, in order to preve that a new covenant, better than the Mosaic one, was to be made with the people of God. The writer now adds, as a comment on what he had quoted, 13. “Ey to deve... . mew@rny, in saying a new [covenant], he represents the first [covenant] as old. Of course, if a new one is to. take the place of the former one, the former is considered as. ob- solete. ITenahaiwxe, like the Hebrew Piel and Hiphil, means: to represent a thing as old, or, as superannuated ; for in no other sense, did the words just quoted make the former covenant old. Now follows the deduction of the apostle from this. Tv 62 ma- Aavovmevov ..... Aapaviouov, now that which has become old, and is advancing in age, is near to dissolution. Tlakutow is more usually applied to things, and ynoaoxw to persons. The use of two synonymous words here, serves merely to strengthen the representation, and is equivalent.to saying, ‘ That which is very old.’ " Agaviouod, lit. disappearing, vanishing. Applied to a law or dispensation, it means abolition or abrogation. The argument of the writer is thus ; * What is very old, is near dissolution; but the prophet Jeremiah has represented the former covenant as memahoc- COMMENTARY ON HEB. 8: 13.—9: 1. 191 ovuevny ; therefore it is near dissolution, or, it is about to be dis- solved or abrogated. CHAP. IX. For an illustration of the course of thought and reasoning in this chapter, see above, p. 121 seq. 1. Hiye nev ovy nui 7, mgwty.... xoouexov, moreover the first [covenant] also had ordinances of service, and a sanctuary of a worldly nature. Odv, a sign of transition here, for a new subject is introduced. The force of zai here, is not easily described. I join it with eiye thus, ‘ Besides what I have said about the first cove- nant, let me add, that sive xa, it also had ordinances, etc. All three ‘particles, uév ovv xat, might be rendered, and besides, and further, and I may add, etc.; but I prefer the manner in which I have render- ed them. As to pév, it is the mere sign of protasis ; see below, on ve Eds ‘H nowtn, i.e. dtu, comp. 8: 6, 7,13; not 7 newt oxy- vy, as some critics have supposed. Avnovwmata hargsias means, a service arranged, conducted, by rules or ordinances. Aatgeia designates the public service of the temple or tabernacle; and dcxaewpara, the rules or precepts which regulated it. “4yvov usually means, sanctuary or holy place, in a gencral sense, and so it may be taken here, viz. for the whole tem- ple. But it may also be understood, as referring to that spacious apartment of the temple, in which the various articles of sacred furniture were placed that are immediately mentioned, which, how- ever, is called by the writer, «yea, inv. 2. If it be the same as ava, it is distinguished from ayre ayiwy, in the third verse; which means the apartment behind the veil, where the ark, etc. were de- posited. Kooucxoy (from xdouos) means, pertaining to this world, of a terrestrial nature, i. e. material, the opposite of ov yergominror in 9: 11, 24, and i. q. yeeyonotntoyr ; the opposite also, of ‘/yoovocArye énoveayeos, 12: 22, comp. Rev. 21: 2. Some critics have explained xooucxov by formosum, illustre, because “x00u0¢ sometimes signifies, ornatus, elegantia. But the adjective which designates the mean- ing correspondent with these significations, is xooucos, and nat HOOMLXOS. 1 192 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 2. 2. Sunvy yao.... mourn, for an outer tabernacle was con- structed. «nv evidently means here, only one apartment of the ‘egov or sacred building ; ; comp. v. 3, where another oxyvy is de- scribed. “H mowrn means, that which first presents itself, viz. to the worshipper as he enters the outer court of the building; there- fore outer oxyvy or apartment, the most holy place being the inner one. We might expect, according to the rules laid down by gram- marians concerning the Greek article, that either oxyv7j would have the article, or sgwry would omit it. Constructions, however, of the same kind as oxnvn 7 mowrn, are frequent in the New Tes- tament; e. g. Rom. 2:9avPeum0v rod zoyasouevov; 2: 14, Zvy Ta.... un eyovta; 5:5, mvevyuaros ayiov tov dodEvtos. See Rom. 8: 33, 34. 1 Cor. 2: 7. Gal. 3: 21. 1 Thess. 1:10. 1 Tim. 6: 13. 2 Tim. 1: 8, 9, 14. Heb. 6:7, etc. See Gersdorf’s Beitrage p- 355 seq. It happens in this case, (as in regard to most of the definite rules laid down about the use of the Greek article), that in- vestigation shews the principle assumed to be by no means uni- form, and that the Greek writers were less regular in regard to this matter, than the grammarians would fain have us believe. For the dimensions, etc. of the various oxyvai, or apartments of the temple, see 1 K. v1. ‘Ev 4, 4 te huyvia .... Horwv, in which [apartment] was the candlestick, and the table, and the shew-bread. For a description of the candlestick, see Ex. 25: 31—39. 37: 17—24. The Hebrew word answering to Avyvia, is 572. The Toaneto. is described in Ex. 25: 23—29. The. design of the table was, ‘that the bread | which was consecrated tothe Lord might be placed upon it. ITo0- Inorg tov aotar, the exhibition of the bread, viz. before Jehovah, is described in Ex. 25: 30 and Lev. 24:5—9. The earlier Hebrew name was DE Oty, presence-bread. It is also called pm> Fy, and n> yar orth, the arrangement of bread, or, the bread arran- ged, in reference to the manner in which it was exhibited upon the table; see Lev. 24: 5, 6. The altar of incense is omitted in this catalogue of sacred uten- sils; as it is omitted in the draft for building the tabernacle by - Moses, in Ex. xxv. But it is mentioned in Ex. 30: 1, and 37: 25 —28. 35:15. So also the altar of burnt offering is omitted, in Ex. xxv., although it is mentioned in Ex. 35: 16. 38: 1; and many other utensils of the tabernacle also are omitted in Ex. xxv., which COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 2, 3. 193 are mentioned in Ex. xxxv. Our author expressly says (9: 5), that he shall not attempt to mention all the particulars of sacred appara- tus for the temple service. “Hews héyerae ayou, which is called «yva, i. e. UP, Bp, the holy place, the sanctuary ; a different apartment in the ‘egov or sacred enclosure, from the eyva ayiov mentioned in v. 3. “4 Ayva in our text, is plural; for the singular fem. is written ayia, (with the accent on the penult), not HY U0. The writer means to say that 9 oxnvn nowrn; the outer apartment, of the temple, was called ayze. The plural is used here in order to designate one apartment in the temple, just as it is in aye ayiwy (not ayia eyiwy),v. 3; and both are conformed to a usage that is common in Hebrew, which not unfrequently employs the plural to designate, the sanctuary. KE. g Ps. 73: 17, >S—"wWaApy, 1. e. aycoe Beov. Ps. 68: 36, PwIpn, ayoe gov. Lev. 21: 23, wip, ayia mov, etc. 3. Mera 62 to stor nxacaneraouc, and behind the second vail. A description of this vail is given, in Ex. 26: 31—33, 36: 35, 36. As the inner vail is here called devregov, the necessary im- plication is, that there was a mgmroy also; and accordingly we find it described in Ex. 26: 36, 37, and Ex. 36: 37, 38. The He- brew name of the inner vail, (which separated the most holy place from the @yva or common sanctuary), is M245, as given in Ex. 26: 31—33, and in the corresponding Ex. 36: 35, 36, also Lev. 16: 2. The Hebrew name of the outer vail, which served as a door for the tabernacle, i. e. which covered the entrance passage to the first eyvov, is FOr. The former is called xaranétaoua by the Septuagint, (as the apostle calls it in our text), in Ex. 26: 31, 33. Lev. 16: 2. Ex. 36: 35, and also by the Evangelists, Matt. 27: 58. | Mark 15: 38; The latter, both xarameraoua and énionaorteor, in the passages connected with those just cited. There was a third external covering or curtain for the tabernacle, (called my, niss4*, in Ex. 26: 1, 2 seq.), which Dindorf says was a third vail; but white manifestly, Paul does not reckon to be such; nor Mo- ses, in the passages above cited. Suny 7 heyouevyn ayra ayiov, the apartment which is called the holy of holies, i. e. the most holy place, i. q. DYWIPA WIP, a com- mon form of expression in Hebrew, in order to denote intensity. In regard to 2] Aeyouevn, after oxnrr} without the article, see on 7% owry obove. Kareoxsvaody is understood after oxyvr ; see, in VOL. Il. 25 194 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 3, 4. v. 2, where it is expressed. ‘The inner sanctuary was called most holy, because there was the ark of the covenant, the mercy seat, etc. ; and there the presence of Jehovah, (which the Jews in later times called 3°>W), was peculiarly manifested, so that this was re- garded as his particular dwelling place, 43497. 4. Xovoovy &yovou Guucatyjoror, containing the golden censer. See Excursus XVI. Kai tyv xBorov.... yovsiw, and the ark of the covenant, covered on every part with gold. KiBwtosg was a coffer or chest, made of wood, and covered with laminae of gold ; a description of which is given in Ex. 25: 10-16. 37: 1--5. It is called the ark of the covenant, because in it were deposited the two tables of the covenant, (M43, see on dvaMyxnv in 8: 8, and comp. Deut. 4: 13. 9: 9, 11) ; which tables are also called the two tables of testimony, i.e. of statutes, nIIy7 NAP 72, Ex. 31: 18. Both the terms n-73 and nasy plainly mean, laws, statutes, or precepts, in this case, and both refer principally to the ten commandments ; see 1 K. 8:9, and Deut. 10: 1-5. 2 Chron. 5: 10. 6: 11. "Ev 7 orapvos yovon éxyovoe 10 wave, in which [ark] was a golden pot containing the manna. The fact to which this alludes, is described in Ex. 16: 32—34; where the orauvog is called sim- ply n22, i.e. pot, urn, vessel for safe keeping. Nothing is said, indeed, of its being golden in the Hebrew ; but the Septuagint ren- der n2X3 by orauvoy yovoovv. Of the fact that it was so, no one will be disposed to doubt, who reads a description of the furniture of the most holy place, and finds that almost every thing within it » was either pure gold, or was overlaid with gold; e. g. the ark, Ex. 25: 11; the mercy seat, 25: 17; the cherubim 25: 18; the pillars and hooks for the vail that separated the inner sanctuary from the other, 26: 31, 32. Who now can rationally suppose, that the urn containing manna, and the censer used on the great day of atone- ment, were not also golden ? See Excursus XVII. Mavva; see on this word, Rosenm. on Ex. 16: 153; where the various derivations of the word are considered ; the various species of manna described; and the fact shewn, that the supply of this ‘food for the Israelites in the wilderness, was understood, by the writer of the narration in Exodus, to be miraculous. Kain 60860¢ “Aaguiv 7 Bhacticaoe, and the rod of Aaron COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 4, 5. 195 which budded. See Num. 17: 1—10, and what is said respecting this rod and the pot of manna, in Exc. XVII. Kai ai nhaxes r74¢ dvadynxng, the tables of the covenant, means the stone tablets on which the ten commandments were inscribed, and which were deposited in the ark, Ex. 31: 18. 32: 16. 34: 28, where the words of the covenant are expressly said to be the ten commandments ; Deut. 10: 1, 2. 1K. 8:9. 2 Chron. 5: 10. The writer asserts, therefore, that the pot of manna, the rod of Aaron, and the two stone tablets on which the ten commandments were inscribed, were all laid up originally in the x«fwzos. 5. ‘Treva dé avrys yeooupiu.... 10 ihaorngvov, and over it [the ark] were splendid Cherubim, which overshadowed the cover- ing of the ark. See the description of the Cherubim in Ex. 25: 18—20. 1 K. 8: 6, 7. 1 Chron. 28: 18. That Cherubim were symbolical images or representations, is quite plain from comparing the various descriptions given of them in different passages of Scripture; e. g. Ex. 25: 18—20. 26: 31. 1 K. 6: 23—29, 32, and Ezek. 1. and x., particularly 10: 20—22. I understand the word doéng as referring to the splendor of these symbolical figures, which “were covered with gold throughout, Ex. 25: 18--20. 1 K. 6: 28. Some understand do£fy¢ of the glory which was displayed under and around them; to which they suppose a reference to be made in Ps. 80: 1 [2]. Koaaoxiecovre refers to the outstretched wings of the Cherubim over the iAwornovov, as described in the passages above quoted. ‘JAaornovov here means, the lid or covering of the xsfwrog, which was pure gold, Ex. 25: 17,21. In Hebrew it is called n £5, which the Seventy have rendered fAaoryjovoy, in Ex. 25: 17, 21. As 352 means fo cover sin, i. e. to make atonement for it, so Mn BD may very naturally be rendered, ‘Aaor7ovoy, since it was by sprink- ling blood upon this iAaor7jocov, by the high priest, that atonement was made, Lev. 16: 14. ‘/haornocov, understood in reference to this, might be translated, the place or instrument of propitiation, or (with our English translators) mercy-seat. It was over this, that the divine glory was seen, i. e. a supernatural, excessive brightness ; and hence God was supposed to be seated on it, as his throne, and from it to dispense his mercy, when atonement was made for the sins of the people, by sprinkling it with blood. Hence our appella- tion, mercy seat. 196 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 5—7. Tlegi ov .... wéoos, respecting which things, it is not my pres- ent design to speak with particularity. Sv here refers to the va- rious articles of sacred furniture, which he had just been mention- ing. He means to say, that a particular description of these, and of all the various utensils of the sanctuary, is not what he intends to give ; i.e. he shall content himself with merely having suggest- ed those which were already named. 6. Tovtov 02 ovr xaraonevalouevor, now these things being thus prepared. Kearaozevate is also, to build or construct, But in our phrase, it means more. It designates not only the fabrication of the various utensils above named, but the adaptation of them to their respective purposes, and the arrangement of them in the or- der which the rites of the sanctuary required. Eig wév cyv now@rny .... énevedourtes, the priests, performing the services, entered continually into the outer tabernacle. Tlowrny, that which is first approached, i.e. outer, as in v. 2above. _Aarger- ac, public religious services; see onv. 1 above. Avanarros, every day, without intermission, constantly and often. This the priest did, to make the morning and evening oblations and sacrifices ; and also to present the private offerings of individuals. Mev is the usual sign of the protasis of a sentence here ; to which dg, in the apodosis, v.7, corresponds. Mv, in such a case, is incapable of a translation that corresponds with its use in the original. It is easy to see, that there is not only a correspondence between the two parts of the sentence, above mentioned, but also an antithesis “be- tween them. ‘7. Big 02 thy Osutégay.... 06 aeyregers, but into the second [viz. oxyvyy, tabernacle, apartment], the high priest only [enter- ed], once in a year; comp. Lev. 16:2. Aevréoav implies cxnv7yr. ” Anak means either simply once, as anak xai dic, once and again ; or it means once only, once for all; which is the meaning of it here, and in several other passages of this epistle. bv éveavrov is the genitive of time; the genitive being commonly used in order to designate the time when, or how often. On the great day of atone- ment, it appears that the high priest went thrice into the inner sanctuary, Lev. 16: 12, 14, 15; to which may be added once more, in order to bring out the golden censer ; which accords well with the Jewish tradition, viz. that the high priest entered the sanctuary four times, on the great day of expiation. COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 7, 8. 197 TROT 0 a err ee O8 yools aiparos, not without blood. See Lev. 16: 14, 15, by which it appears, that the blood of a young bullock, Lev. 16:3, and ofa goat, was brought into the most holy place, by the high priest, on the great day of atonement, and there sprinkled seven times upon the mercy seat and before it. “O mooopege ... . eyvonucray, which he presented for his own sins, and for those of the people. See Lev. 16: 6, 11, 14-16. Tloocqéoe: designates the act of presenting the blood before the Lord, as indicated in Lev. 16: 14—16. That the priest was to make atonement for himself, as well as for the people, is expressly declared in the verses above referred to. “4yvonuarmy Wahl ren- ders, sins of ignorance. But plainly it is not necessarily limited to this confined sense. It means, fault, error, sin, generally consider- ed. Soin Judith 5: 20. Sirach 23:2. 51:19. Tobit 3: 3. 1 Macc. 13: 39. The LXX have sometimes used it to express the Hebrew navn, from yu to err. In Lev. 4: 2, 13, 22, 27, sins MaawWs, through precipitancy, are mentioned, and atonement is directed ‘to be made for them, by sprinkling blood before the mercy seat, Lev. 4: 6,17. But this mode of making atonement, and this limitation of the kind of offences, for which it was to be made in this peculiar way, seem to have been afterwards changed, and limited in a dif ferent way, on the occasion of the death of the sons of Aaron, Lev. 10, 1,2. 16: 1,2. It would seem, from Lev. rv., as if the sins axa had a special atonement made for them, in the inner sanc- tuary, without limitation as to the number of times that the high priest might go there. But Lev. 16:2 restricted this custom; so that atonement for sin of any kind was made, before the mercy seat, only once in a year, agreeably to Ex. 30: 10. 8. Touro dnhotvvrog.... 0d0v, the Holy Spirit signifying by this, that the way to the most holy placewas not yet laid open. The holy Spirit here mentioned, is that Spirit which guided the ancient prophets ; which taught Moses what arrangements to make for the service of God ; and which signified, by these arrangements, what the apostle here affirms. ouvro I construe with dca understood, viz. by this; so Ernesti and Dindorf, his rebus; Storr, wodurch, whereby. Tv tov ayiay odov means, the way to the heavenly or upper sanctuary. Through Jesus only, Jews and Gentiles have free ac- cess, at all times, to the mercy seat of heaven; comp. Eph. 2: 18. 198 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 8, 9. Heb. 4: 16. This way was before obstructed by numerous cer- emonial rites, and limited as to times and persons, Of necessity such was the case. "Ere cng nowrns oxnvyg éyovons oracw, while the first taber- nacle had a standing ; i. e. so long as the Jewish dispensation lasted. Tlowrns oxnvie¢ is here used, in the general or unlimited sense, for the tabernacle or temple with its services. 9. "Hrs nagafoky .... tov éveornudta, which [has been] a type down to the present time. Tluguftodn means, symbol, similitude, image, i.e. symbolical representation of any thing; which is also the meaning of ruzog. But in the English language, type is used not for similitude merely, but for something, under the ancient cov- enant, which was specially destgned, on the part of God, to be a symbol of some person or event, that was to exist or take place un- der the new one. Here, the preceding verse shews that the an- cient tabernacle or temple, was designed by the Holy Spirit to be a symbol, expressive of some important truths that had relation to the New Testament dispensation. Of course, the rendering of maoufokn by type, is appropriate to express the idea intended to be conveyed by the writer. Zig rov éveornuora, down to the pres- ent time; €i¢, ad, usque ad, see Wahl on ¢ig, 2. a. Ka ov dooa....hargevovra, in which both oblations and sacrifices are presented, that cannot fully accomplish what is needed for the worshipper, in respect to his conscience. Koa® ov, in which, during which, viz. time ; see Wahl *on xara, no. 2. Awga té xai Svoiae means, offerings of every kind, which were presented to God. For redevmout, see ‘on tehelmorg, 7:11. The meaning is, ‘To render the mind of the worshipper secure of pardon for sin, and to produce that quiet which was connected with a well grounded persuasion of this, and that moral purification which must accom- pany it... We have no one word to express all this in English. 1 have come as near to it as I am able to do, in the version which I have given. : The whole verse shews very plainly, that our epistle was writ- ten while the temple rites were still practised ; consequently, be- ‘fore A. D. 70. But by the phrase, roy xasoov cov éveornxora, the writer particularly alludes to the age then present, in which the new or Christian dispensation had begun. The whole sentence is as much as to say, ‘ The Jewish ritual, from the commencement COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 9, 10. 199 of it down to the present moment, has never been, and still is not, any thing more than a type of the Christian dispensation, which has already commenced. All its oblations and sacrifices were in- effectual, as to removing the penalty due to sin in the sight of heav- en, or procuring real peace of conscience. 10. Movov éni Bowmaoe. . . éxexeiueva, the ordinances of an ex- ternal nature had respect. only to meats, and drinks, and divers ablutions, enjoined until the time of reformation. A passage very difficult in respect to its grammatical construction. Many writers have referred dixacewpata to the dwoee xai Ovolus, mentioned in the preceding verse; and then have found difficulty enough, (as well they might), in accounting for it how oblations and sacrifices could consist in meats, and drinks, and various ablutions. 'To me it seems quite evident, that v. 10 is designed to signify something additional to that which is mentioned in v. 9; although the con- struction is asyndic, i. e. xa/ is omitted before udvoy. ‘Eni Bow- aoe... . Sanreouors, I understand as a clause qualifying dexavw- para, i.e. it stands in the place of an adjective designating where- in the dvxotmmata consisted ; while ougxo0g supplies the place of another adjective, denoting to what the dvxocaara had relation, viz. to the flesh or external part of man. Meats and drinks have respect to that which was clean and unclean, under the Jewish dis- pensation ; and not (as some critics interpret the words) to the meats and drinks offered to the Lord. Most evidently, Samzcomoig refers to the ceremonial ablutions 0 the Jews, which had respect to external purification ; and Powmuaoe xai mouaoe seem plainly to respect the same kind of purity. Besides, all this agrees perfectly with the scope of the writer. He had denied that the penalty, due to sin in the sight of God, could be removed by any of the temple offerings, v.93 and in this verse, he denies that the moral expia- tion required could be effected, by any or all of the rites pertaining to external purification. Consequently, there was, according to him, nothing in the Jewish ritual, which could effect an atonement such as the sinner needed. Méyou xargov dvogGuocews énineiueva, sc. yoav. This clause, many interpreters have placed first in order, in the verse, in the translations which they have made; but this is unnecessary. It must be admitted, that the construction in this case is very diffi- cult, and far from being clear. The intention of the writer seems 200 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 10. to be the best guide ; for, interpret as you please, the grammatical difficulties are about the same. I regard the whole, in this simple light. Vs. 8 and 9 mention the tabernacle, (which of course in- cludes the temple, for the latter was only a substitute of the for- mer), and declare that the same, with all its apparatus and rites connected with it, was only a xagufody, i. e. a symbol of something real and ultimate, under the new dispensation. Two particulars, or rather, two classes of things, belonging to the ancient ritual, now seem to strike the writer’s mind. First, the dwge zai Ovoiac offer- ed to God, v. 9; and secondly, the various meats and drinks, dis- tinguished into clean and unclean, to which men under the Leviti- cal law must have respect, and the divers ablutions which they must practise. ‘‘ The ordinances pertaining to the flesh,” says he, *‘which respect only meats, and drinks, and divers ablutions, are imposed until the time of reformation,” i. e. they are all of a tem- porary nature, and therefore are plainly to be abolished. I regard the last part of this affirmation, viz. that which asserts the tempora- ry (and therefore inadequate) nature of meats and drinks and ablu- tions, as corresponding with the pj dureuevae xara ouveldnow réhevoue Tov Aargevovta of the 9th verse. Thus, both together declare the inadequacy and temporary nature of the ancient ritual, and lead the mind of the reader to expect a new one; which the writer goes on immediately to propose, in v. 11. Those who have referred duxecomoare encneiuever to won nai voila, have been greatly perplexéd in adjusting the reading of the word énvzéiueva; for in v. 9, we have dvvauevae (fem.) referring - to Ovota. They propose that we should either read duveuevar— éxoneimevat, or else Ouvaueve—éneysiveve, so as to make them agree. But all this difficulty arises from connecting dimacwuara with that to which it does not belong ; as we have seen above. Most Codices and versions read dvxocw mace, instead of dixecei- uare; but the latter is preferred by Knapp and others, and admit- ted to be of equal or nearly equal authority, by Griesbach ; and it seems to me to make better sense, and to afford a more easy con- struction, than duxaewpaoe. Kaigov dvog9woews plainly means, the time of the gospel dis- pensation, called yoovwr anoxaracracews, in Acts 3:21. Comp. Mal. 3: 1. 4: 5, 6. Is. 66: 22. 65:17. 51: 16. r COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 11. 201 Thus much for the description of the earthly tabernacle and its sacred utensils, together with an exhibition of the inefficacy of the whole in respect to meeting the wants of sinners, and also an avowal of their temporary nature. They were intended only as the introduction to a new and better dispensation. ér, in v. 1, is the sign of protasis, and is the correlate of dé in v. 10, where the apodosis begins. All that follows v. 1, on to v. 10, is only a particular description of what is mentioned in general terms in v. 1, and is subjoined for the sake of illus- tration and impression. V. 10 is plainly the sequel to v. 1, and nearly related to it. The writer now procceds to shew, that the tabernacle in which Christ officiates, is OU FYELQOTOLTOS, not %0OMLZOG, like that of the Jews. The antithesis between the old and new tabernacles, their services, and the respective efficacy of them, is carried on, by the apos- tle, through the remainder of chap. IX., and down to chap. X. 19. 11. Xocords dé nagayevousvos.... ayadav, but Christ being come, the high priest of future blessings. X@votos . . . magayevo- uévog is nominative to the verb eéo7AGe in v. 12. * Aoyregevs tov meddovtor ayabar, lit. a high priest of good things future, i. e. of future blessings. The meaning is, plainly, ‘The high priest, who procures future blessings.’ The principle of interpretation is the same that is adopted in such phrases as the following ; viz. the God of peace, i. e. who procures or bestows peace; the God of consolation, i.e. who bestows consolation ; the God of grace, i. e. who bestows grace ; w@ros 7749 Cus, i. q. HeTOS tv Swany dove, etc. Christ is here called, the high priest who pro- cures future blessings, by way of comparison with the Jewish high priest, who was peoirys (8: 6), or éyyvog (7: 22), between God and the people, and was the medium through which blessings were pro- cured from God. Ava tng meiSovosg .... tH utiosws, through a greater and more perfect temple, not made with hands, that is not of this [material] creation. Sxnvy here, as in v. 2, most probably means, the outer apartment or court only of the heavenly temple. So we must un- derstand it, if we render dva through, as the best commentators and lexicographers do, in this case. But to give it material form and shape, would be nothing less than to make it yecoomo/ntos ; al- though the writer of our epistle expressly says, ‘it is ov y@vQ0- mointos. It is unnecessary, then, to inquire precisely what there is, in the heavenly world, which constituted, materialiter, this greater and more perfect outer sanctuary,-through which Jesus pass- ed, when so7nAOev éganaé sig ra wyea, v. 12. The comparison is made with the high priest of the Jews, who passed through the ou- ter sanctuary, when he entered into the inner one, upon the great VOL, II. 26 202 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 1]. day of atonement. The probability is, that the writer compared, in his own mind, the visible heavens, (through which Jesus passed in his ascension on high, 4: 14. 6: 20. 8: 1, 2), with the vail which separated the outer sanctuary of the Jewish temple from the inner one; the clouds or sky, (which conceal the temple above from our view), being resembled to the vail of the inner temple. \ Be this as it may, he explicitly declares that he does not mean a material sanctuary, visible to the natural eye, and corresponding in this res- pect to that upon the earth; for he says, it was ov yecoonoinros. And lest this should not be sufficient to prevent misapprehension, he adds, ov ravrng 17¢ xtloews, i. e. not of the visible material cre- ation, or, not (like this creation) visible and material; which is plainly implied by ravrys. ‘The version of dva by Dr. Schulz, fake, by virtue of), I am not able to comprehend. In what sense can it be said, that Christ eondder éganak elo ra ayon, aloviay AVrewow Edoamsvos, BY VIRTUE OF @ greater and more perfect tabernacle, that was not material? which is the same as to say, ‘ He entered into the ady- tum of the tabernacle above, by virtue of the same tabernacle.’ I do not aver, that this has no meaning; but I readily confess my inability to discover what the meaning is. It would be well for Dr. Schulz, who has appended so many interrogation and exclama- tion points, to extracts made by him from Storr’s version of our _ epistle, and from his notes upon it, to defend, or at least explain, such a version as that which gives.occasion to these remarks.. There is, indeed, another construction of dv, in this case, which, if it might be applied, would give a meaning that is tolera- ble. Ave is often put before the genitive of a noun which indi- cates the manner, or the circumstances, in which any thing exists, or takes place, or is effected ; as all the lexicons will shew. In 2 Cor. 5: 10, the apostle says, ‘‘ We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, in order that every one may receive ra dv Gwuaros, [according to] the things done 1 the body.’’ But strictly consider- ed, dva does not signify place here ; for dua Gwuarog means, in a corporeal condition. Now,if we render the phrase in Heb. 9: 11 thus, in a greater and more perfect temple, we make dv indicate the place where simply. 'To render it thus, I find no sufficient authority ; for dca is used only to denote the place through which, or by which one passes. See Wahl, dua I. 1.a. And besides, the circumstances, COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 11, 12. 203 ee ee EE SS ee which attended Christ’s going into the most holy place, are noted in v. 12, so that it is hardly to be expected that they are to be found here. There, dvo is used in a way that is not at all uncommon; e. g. ‘Christ entered the eternal sanctuary, ov Ov aiuaros Toayawv xal pooxar, but dua rov idiov aiuaros. I cannot see, therefore, how dva meifovos xal rehecoregas oxnv7g can be construed in the way of indicating the circumstances in which, or the means by which, Christ entered the eternal sanctuary. Of course, dva, in the case under consideration, must, after all, be construed through ; and be understood as having reference to the passage through the RODIN OxNVN, in order to enter the deuzéga oxnvy: 12. Ovdé dv aiuaros... To ayva, not with the blood of goats and of bullocks, but with his own blood, he entered once for all into the sanctuary. The Jewish high priest, on the great day of atone- ment, carried with him into the inner sanctuary, first, the blood of a bullock, and sprinkled it upon the mercy seat, Lev. 16: 14 ; then, the blood of a goat, which he also sprinkled upon the mercy seat, Lev. 16: 15. Christ did not carry with him the blood of bullocks and goats, into the heavenly sanctuary, in order to make atone- ment; but he presented his own blood there, in order to make expiation. But this is not to be understood literally; for as the sanctuary itself was ov ravryg TIS “TiDEWS, OF OU yelgomtointos, so the Saviour’s blood, which was shed upon Calvary, was not literally taken and carried by him into the heavenly temple. All that is material, is only a figure or emblem of that which is spiritual or heavenly. That dva before aiuarog means with, cum, 2, is quite clear from the nature of the case, and from comparison with Lev. 16: 14, 15. 2 Cor. 2:4. Rom. 2:27. 14:20. 8: 25. Heb. 12: 1. Aé is adversative, but, when it follows a negative particle, as ovde is here. ‘Zganaé means here, once for all, once only. Ainviay Avrowow edgauevos, obtaining eternal redemption. Evvoauevos is not an Attic form of the I aor. middle. It seems to be an Alexandrine form, made after the analogy of the 2 aor. EVOG.; see Winer’s Gram. § 9. d. Evgioxm often means, to obtain or ac- quire any thing. Here, the act of entering the eternal sanctuary and presenting his own blood, is considered as the means, by which the eternal redemption of sinners is obtained or accomplished. Aurowsrs, in the New Testament, means, liberation or redemption ; i. e. liberation from the penalty due to sin, or redemption from the 204 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 12, 15. bondage and penalty of sin. It is called aéwviay, because the re- demption obtained is eternal in its consequences, or because it is liberation from a penalty which is eternal, and introduction to a state of endless happiness. The Avrgworg effected by Christ, needs no repetition; when once made, the consequences are eternal ; as we may see in 9: 24—28. 10: I, 2, 11—14. 13. Li yoo tO aiua.... xexowvmpevors, for if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean. The blood of bulls and of goats, as employed for the purpose of purification or expiation, is described in Lev. 16: 14, 15. It was also shed, on other occasions, as a sin offering, Lev. 1: 2—5, 10, 11. Tuvowyr, in our verse, corresponds with uooymy inv. 12. Both words mean, a bullock, or a beeve; and the Septuagint employ both Greek words to translate the Hebrew 35 and 4p. E. g. zavoos for 33% in Gen. 49: 6, and for 75 in Gen. 32: 16 {15]; moozos for 34u in Prov. 15: 17, and for 3 in Lev. 4: 3-5. Sn000¢ dapakemo x. t. 4. See an account of the manner. in which these ashes were prepared, in Num. 19: 2—9. In the last verse, the ashes are directed to be kept for a water of uncleanness, m32 725, 1. e. to be mixed with water which was to be sprinkled on the unclean, that they might be purified. It is also called, in the same verse, NNN, a sin-offering, or (as our English version has it) a purification from sin, meaning, a means of purification. So in Num. 19: 13, 20, the person who had defiled himself, and neglected to have the 32 3 sprinkled upon him, is pronotinced unclean. Storr applies davrifovee to aiua, as well as to o0d0c. . But, (setting aside the difficulty of the grammatical construction as to concord), it does not appear, that the sprinkling of blood upon the unclean was a usual part of the Levitical rites of purification. The blood was sprinkled upon the mercy seat, and on the horns of the altar, and poured out before the altar. Nor is there any need of the construction which he adopts ; for the sense is unembarass- ed, if we follow the usual grammatical construction. “Payrigovoe is indeed feminine, and ox0dd¢ masculine. But such anomalies in concord are very common in Hebrew, see Gram. § 189. 5, 6. Be- . sides, as the latter noun here (dauadewe) is feminine, it happens, as in some other cases of the like nature, that the grammatical con- cord, as to gender, is regulated by the latter of two nouns in regi- men. . COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 13, 14. 205 ‘Ayvater .... xatagornta, sanctifies in respect to external pu- rification. “Ayacer, used in respect to external rites, denoted that the person rendered aytalouevos, was clean or purified from all ritual uncleanness, i.e. that he had performed all the necessary rites of external purification, so that he could draw near to God, as a worshipper, in a regular manner. Thus much, our author avers, was accomplished by the ceremonial rites of the law. If so, then greater efficacy is to be attributed to the sacrifice made by Christ ; as he proceeds to declare. 14. Tloow wadhov .... Zo0ymv, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who, in an eternal spiritual nature, offered himself with- out spot to God, purify our consciences from dead works. In vs. 11, 12, Christ is represented as entering the heavenly sanctuary, with his own blood, in order to expiate the sins of his people, or to procure Aurgworr for them, i.e. deliverance from the penalty of the divine law. It is, then, in the heavenly world, in the tabernacle not made with hands, that the offering of our great high priest is made. There he has presented himself, in his heavenly or glorified state, in his eternal spiritual condition, or, possessed of an eternal spiritual nature, as the victim that had been slain, 10: 10—12. 1: 3. 7:27. Rev. 5: 9. Eph. 5: 2; and there his blood, that had been shed, is virtually offered to make atonement; not literally, but spiritually, i.e. in a manner congruous with the spiritual temple in which he ministers. Nearly to this purpose did Theophylact, long ago, explain this difficult passage. His words are, ‘ Ovx aytegevg tig mooonveyne TOV YOLOTOY, GAA aHUTOS EaUTOY Hai OV OLa MOOS, WES ai Domadets, Ghha Ova mVEV MATOS aiwvioD, wore Kal THY yaouY nal THY anokutowory deavmviferr, i. e. “no high priest made an offering of Christ, but he of himself; and this, not by fire, as the heifers [were offered], but by an eternal Spirit, so that he might render grace and redemption eternal.” See Excursus XVIII. ‘Euvrov mooonveyxe. The apostle seems to use ope, éavror, and ofa, as equivalent in regard to the sacrifice which Christ of- fered; see and compare Heb. 1: 3. 10: 10. 9: 12, 14. 10: 19. 9: 26. The reason of these different expressions, may be found in the nature of the Jewish ritual. When the blood of an animal was presented before God, in order to make atonement, the body was also consumed by fire, so that the shoe was’ offered in sacrifice. 206 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 14. See Lev. 4: 6—12, 17—21. The use of either of the three words Gviuo, Exvtdov, aiua, as designating the sacrifice of Christ, implies all that would be designated by employing the whole of them; i. e. when his blood was shed, his body was slain, i. e. he himself was slain. ” Awomuor, spotless, an evident allusion to the Jewish victims, which were required to be without spot or blemish. No other could be accepted of God. So Christ, who was ‘holy, harmless, unde- filed, and separate from sinners, 7: 26, was amor, i.e. a perfect victim, a lawful or acceptable one. Katagvet tiv ovveldnow yuwv ano verowv toywv, shall purify our conscience from deadly works. Kadaouei is the Attic future for xaPagicer. Svveidnow does not mean simply, the conscience as a faculty of the soul, but the mind or conscious power of man, i. €. the internal or moral man. Nexoov in such cases usually means, deadly, i.e. having a deadly, destructive, condemning power. This may be the meaning here; and so it is more usually taken, and so T have translated it. But as in v. 13, the writer had made mention of the ashes of a heifer, as one of the means of effecting external purification ; and since, in Num. 19: 11—-19, these ashes are de- scribed as particularly intended to cleanse those who had been pol- luted by the touch of dead bodies; may it not be supposed, that there is an allusion in the term vexowy here to that fact? Dead works, in this sense, would be such as pollute the soul, as dead bodies did the persons of the Jews: Dead works, then, may mean, sinful works ; for it is from the pollution of sin, that the blood of. Jesus cleanses. re Eig 10 harosvery Gen Covet, so that we may serve the living God ; another allusion to the Jewish ritual. Before persons, un- der the ancient dispensation, could present themselves in the pres- ence of the Lord acceptably, they must have been subjected to cer- emonial purification.. What this prefigured, the blood of Jesus effects. It takes away the sinner’s moral pollution, i.e. Christ re- moves the penalty to which he was obnoxious, and sanctifies, by the Spirit, the soul of the penitent sinner; and thus he may draw near to God, and offer him an acceptable service. He is clean, in a sense as much higher than the Israelite was, who had purified him- self only externally, as the efficacy of Jesus’ blood is greater than that of goats and bullocks, COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 15. 20% oe ee ee 15. Kai dud rovro dvadyxng navy .... xAngovouias, on this account also, he is the mediator of a new covenant, in order that, his death having taken place for the sins [committed] under the for- mer covenant, they who have been called might receive the promised blessing of the eternal inheritance. A passage about which much difficulty has arisen, and a variety of interpretations been proposed. Ave tovro, I understand as referring to the sentiment in v. 14, The sentiment stands thus; ‘ As Jewish sacrifices rendered the of- ferer externally clean ; so the blood of Christ purifies the moral or internal man, and removes the consequences of sin. On this ac- count (dva rov70), i. e. because the sacrifice of Christ produces an effect such as the Jewish sacrifices did not, he may be justly call- ed the mediator of a new covenant, differing greatly from the old.’ Comp. Heb. 8: 6—8, 13. 7: 15-19. AvoPyjxung nays wecirns means, the author of a new covenant, or the internuntius, 8372, who (so to speak) negotiated such a covenant between God and man. See Gal. 3: 19, where Moses is called the weoirng of the former covenant. ‘But of what avail,’ the Hebrews would very naturally inquire here ‘can this new covenant be, to all those who have lived in for- mer ages, under the Mosaic dispensation? You affirm that the ritual of the Mosaic law had no power to remove the spiritual pen- alty of guilt; do then the patriarchs, and prophets, and just men of past ages, still lie under the imputation of the sins which they committed? By no means, answers the apostle. A new and bet- ter covenant than the Mosaic one has been instituted, under which real spiritual pardon for offences is obtained, which enures to them, as well as to us at the present time. “Onwe x. t. A, so that the death of Christ having taken place, for redemption from the punishment due to transgressions committed under the ancient covenant, those who have been called might be made partakers of promised eternal blessings. Aaverov means, the death of Christ. Tav nagafasewy is governed in the genitive by force of ax in composition with Avrowocy ; and it means here, the effects of tr ansgression, i.e. punishment, penalty; just as the Hebrew non and 772 mean, not only sin, but the penalty due to it. O8 nexknuevoe (like éxAexro/) means, those who are called, invited, viz. to an actual participation of the heavenly inheritance. It is of course understood, that only those who are pious have such an in- 208 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 15, 16. heritance promised to them. Comp. zAjoews éxovgaviov uéroyor, in Heb. 3:1. Oi xexdnuévor here refers to just men, of the times which preceded the gospel dispensation or new covenant; as the antecedent member of the verse clearly shews. 779 adwviov “in- Qovoulas, as a genitive, depends on énayyshiay, not on xexAnuévor, although such a separation is somewhat unusual; see on yv. 16, Oavaroyv.... dvedeucvov. “Enayyehlay is best translated here, as in 6: 12, 15, 17. 10: 36. 11: 13. etc., promised blessings, or prof- Ffered good. The inheritance is called eternal (aéwviov), because the blessings procured by a Saviour’s blood, for those who lived under the ancient dispensation, are of a spiritual eternal nature ; see v. 12. Such blessings could not be attained by any of the rites of the old covenant ; it is only by virtue of what is done under the new, by Jesus, that the ancient worthies came to the possession of them. The sentiment which this verse contains, respecting the effica- cy of atoning blood in regard to the sins of preceding ages, has an exact parallel in Rom. 3: 25, where the blood of Christ is declared, by Paul, to have procured z7jv nageoey tay ng0yeyovotmy auaoTy- pactwy, the remission of sins committed in preceding times; as is plain from the antithesis, zw viv xacow, in the following verse. Both passages compared, form a striking coincidence of a peculiar sentiment, which is no where else so clearly and directly asserted. 16. "Onov yao dcadnun .... Otadsuevov, for where there is a testament, (i. e. where a testament hecomes fully. so, LoyvEl, is valid, the death of the testator must take place. The occasion of here introducing dvadnxn, inthe new sense of testament, is stated in the summary prefixed to chap. 4: 14, and need not be again re- peated. The whole comparison of testaments (dvaOjxav) among men, which confer a valid title to an inheritance, vs. 16, 17, most evidently springs from the mention of Christ’s death, in the preced- ing verse, and of the confirmation thereby of the believer’s title to a heavenly inheritance. It is as much as to say, ‘ Brethren, regard it not as strange, that the death of Christ should have given assur- ance of promised blessings to believers—-should have ratified the new dvadsxn, of which he is the author; other dva@jxae are rati- fied by the death of their respective testators, and only in this way.’ And then, he goes on to shew, that even the ancient covenant, though it could not be called a dva97xn, in all respects, so well as COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 16, 17. » 209 RU SE Eee the new one, still was ratified in a manner not unlike the new one, viz. by blood, the emblem of death, vs. 18-—22. As the mode of illustration or comparison, in vs. 16, 17, depends entirely on the sense of the Greek word dtvad7xn, and is not at all supported by any meaning of the Hebrew n793, it must be plain, that our epistle was originally written in Greek, and not in He- brew, as some of the ancient, and a few of the modern, critics have supposed. @oso0as, in the sense of intervening, happening, taking place, (which must necessarily be attached to it here), has no exact paral- lel, that I can find, either in classic or sacred usage. It is, as to such a meaning, a true anak Asyouevoy. If the reader finds any difficulty in admitting, in v. 15, the wide separation of éxayyehiay and zxAngovoutas, he will now per- ceive a separation of the same nature, in respect to Yavaroy and dvaPeuevou, about the relation of which no possible doubt can be rationally entertained. 17. Acodrxn yao int vexgois BePata, for a testament is valid, in respect to those who are dead. "Eni is not unfrequently employ- ed to denote after, viz. in respect to time; e.g. Acts 11: 19, emt Sreqeven, after the time of Stephen, as Wahl renders it, and so Mark 6: 52, éat rote dotows, after the loaves, i. e. the miraculous feeding of several thousands with them. So in Phil. 3: 12, ég’ @, i. e. ex quo tempore, as Brettschneider renders it. But these cases are not altogether clear. In classic authors, however, éné TOUTOIS means, postea; so éni rugl ty Aavdamide, after Dandamis be- came blind, Lucian in Tox. See Vigerus, p. 620. Matthiae, § 584. In accordance with this usage, many critics have translated the phrase under consideration thus ; @ testament is valid after men are dead, or, after death. This, no doubt, gives the general senti- ment of the passage ; but, after all, the explanation of ént VEXOGIS in this way, is somewhat forced, and I prefer that giyen in the translation, which conveys the same sense, and is not exposed to any doubts with regard to usage. "Emei... . Ovadéeuevos, since it is of no avail, while the testator is living. Minors is stronger than the simple negative 7 ; and one might well translate, since tt 2s of no avail at all. *[oyver, here first expressed, seems to be implied after dcadyxn, in v. 16. The amount of the comparison in vs. 16, 17, is, as before stat- VOL. I. 27 210 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 17, 18. ed, that as dvaG7xae among men are ratified by death, so did the death of Christ, (which the writer had just mentioned, v. 15), ratify the new dva1xy which he had made, and give a valid title to the heirs, who were to receive the inheritance. 18. “O@ev oud .... éynexourvotos, whence, neither the first [dvad7}x] was ratified without blood. "Oder, whence, i.e. seeing that a dvaOynxyn must be ratified by the death of the testator, and that the new dva07xn has been rati- fied by the death of Christ, so as to make sure the inheritance to believers, v. 15; therefore 7 mewry etc. The meaning is, that since the new testament (xotvn dvadynxn) was, like other testa- ments, to be rendered valid by the death of the testator, therefore the malar dvadrj27, JUN M2, which was the prototype and emblem of the new testament, was itself confirmed, and all the ap- paratus attached to it consecrated, by blood, the emblem of death. The writer does not mean to say, that dvaOjxn, in the sense of testament, can be appropriately used to designate the ancient cov- enant; but he means to aver, that as the xawvy dvadx7x could be appropriately enough called so, and as the death of Christ was to sanction it, therefore the ancient dcw9xxy prefigured this, by the use of consecrating blood. In other words, as almost every thing attached to the mahaca dvad1)xn was consecrated to God and ren- dered acceptable to him, by being sprinkled with blood, and the dua xn itself was ratified in the same way; so, under the xe dvatyj2zn, the blood of Christ only eonsecrates all things and: ren- ders them acceptable to God, and his death has fully ratified the | dvejxy which he made,. The resemblance between the ancient dva%1x and the new one, is plainly not entire. Moses, the weoirng of the ancient one, did not ratify it by his death; for his death is never represented by the Scriptures in such a light. But as the new dsa92)xn was, in respect to the death of its weoizys, to differ from the old one ; so, (our author means to say), the old dvadxjxn, which was in its nature typical or emblematical, did prefigure this very thing, by the use of blood; i. e. the old covenant resembled the new testament, as much as the nature of the case permitted. Tlowrn agrees with dvedjxn understood. “Fyxexatvecrac, to initiate, to consecrate, to dedicate, i. e. by appropriate rites, to de- clare a thing which is already completed to be now ready for its COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 18, 19. 211 uses, and to devote or dedicate it to those uses. The sprinkling of blood upon the book of the law, and upon the people, was the rite performed by Moses, when he consecrated the book of the law as their statute book, and them as publicly and solemnly bound to ob- serve its precepts. 19. AudynPetons yao naons .... 70 how, for when all the com- mandment, according to the law, idl been recited by Moses to all the people. The maone évtodng, to which reference is here made, are the statutes contained in Ex. xx—xxin. These Moses first recit- ed memoriter to the people, after they had been communicated to him by the Lord, at Sinai, Ex. 24: 3. He then wrote them down, Ex. 24: 4, and afterwards, on occasion of solemnly renewing the covenant on the part of the people to obedience, he again recited them from the book of the law (m4 37 pd), Ex. 24:7. Kara vouov most probably means here, according to the written law, i.e. just as they were in the book of the law. But vouoy may refer to a command which Moses received, to communicate to the people the laws given to him, although this command is only implied, but not expressed in the Scripture ; in which case the mesning would be, that agreeably to the divine command, Moses read} | the law to the assembled nation. AaBouv ro aiuae... éoéavreoe, taking the blood of bullocks and of goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, he sprinkled both the book and all the people. This passage has occasioned no small perplexity to commentators ; inasmuch as Moses, in his history of renewing the covenant of the people, in Ex. xxtv., has said noth- ing of the blood of goats ; nothing, of the water and scarlet wool and hyssop ; nothing, of sprinkling the book of the law with blood. Whence then did the writer obtain these circumstances? That they were not matters of new revelation to him, seems pretty evi- dent; for he plainly makes an appeal to circumstances, which he takes it for granted are well known to the Hebrews whom he ad- dresses, and about which, if he were to commit an error of state- ment, all his readers would be revolted. 1. The blood of goats. In Ex. 24: 5, it is said that Moses sent young men, who offered burnt offerings (n>¥), and sacrificed sacrifices, peace offerings (n2>U o°MNA1) to Jehovah, even bullocks, (0°75). Now, although goats are not mentioned here, yet it is quite probable, that the m>¥ on this occasion were goats; for >¥ 212 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 19. is a holocaust, i. e. an offering entirely consumed by fire ; while the bv3>w were mostly eaten by the offerers. That goats were used for all kinds of sacrifices, as well as bullocks, is quite evident from mere inspection of the Levitical law. E. g. goats are named as an 9>y, Lev. 1: 10. 4: 24, 28 et alibi. “It is altogether pro- bable, then, that the holocausts or m>y, mentioned in Ex. 24:5 as offered on the occasion of renewing the covenant, were goats ; and were of course understood by a Jewish reader to be such, in- asmuch as the D‘72>W only are affirmed to have been bullocks. 2. The water, scarlet wool, and hyssop. That water was used as well as blood, in order to sprinkle various things, is clearly im- plied in Lev. 14: 4—7 compared with Lev. 14: 49—52. Num. 19: 18. Ps. 51: 7. Ezek. 36: 25. The scarlet wool, (mydin 3B scar- let), was connected with a branch of hyssop (251%), in order to make a convenient instrument for receiving and sprinkling the blood and water. It is not, indeed, expressly mentioned in Ex. XXxIv.; but it is doubtless implied ; for this was the common instru- ment by which the rite of sprinkling was performed. So in Ex. 12: 7, direction is simply given to sprinkle the door posts of the Israelites with blood; and afterwards, in v. 22, it is mentioned, that this was to be done with a bunch of hyssop. So in Lev. 14: 4— 7, the nzbin "3, 1 €. Eovov xoxxevoy, and the hyssop, are mention- ed as employed in the office of sprinkling ; and again, in Lev. 14: 49—52. The hyssop is also mentioned in Num. 19: 18. Ps. 51: 7. It may well be presumed, that the reason why the writer of our epistle, and the Hebrews of his time, supposed that Moses made use of the water and hyssop and scarlet wool, in the lustra- tion of the people, when the covenant was renewed, was because these were employed in the lustrations where sprinkling was _per- formed, on other occasions. ‘The convenience of the instrument in question, and the nature of the case, would very naturally lead to such an opinion; and who can doubt that it is well grounded? 3. The book of the law. Because nothing is said, in Ex. 24: 3—8, respecting the sprinkling of the -book, many commentators, e. g. Grotius, Bengel, Koppe, Storr, and others, construe @vro té 70 BuBdiov with AaBwr 10 aiue, i.e. taking the blood .... and al- 80 the book of the law. So far as such a construction of the parti- cle zé itself is concerned, this might perhaps be allowed; for zé is sometimes employed, when it is not preceded by xed or dé, in the COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 19. 213 clause immediately antecedent ; as in Acts 2: 33. To justify the method of interpretation now in question, Storr appeals to Heb. 9: 1 and 12:2. But in the former case, r¢ is preceded by xa: ; and the latter is a-case where two verbs are connected. But in our verse, xaé follows @efAlov, and seems necessarily to connect it with mavea tov daoy. But to say of Moses, AaBov.... mavta tov ha- ov, will not be contended for. Michaelis, Heinrichs, Dindorf, Er- nesti, and others, agree with the interpretation which I have given. Indeed, zai and ré seem to be as necessarily related here, as et and que are in Latin; and, in fact, they commonly sustain the same relation to each other. As to manuscripts, only one omits xa after G.Bitov; and we are obliged, therefore, by the laws of criticism to retain it, whatever difficulties it may occasion to the interpreter. In regard to the fact itself, viz. that Moses did sprinkle the book with blood, no intimation of it is given in Ex. 24: 3--8. Yet nothing can be more probable, than that such was the fact. Aaron, and his sons, and their garments, were sprinkled with blood, when consecrated to the priests’ office, Ex. 29: 19-—-21. The blood of sacrifices was sprinkled upon the altar, Ex. 29: 16. Lev. 1: 5, 11. 3: 2, 13; also before the vail of the sanctuary, Lev. 4: 6, 17; comp. Lev. 6: 27. 7: 14. 8: 15, 19, 24, 30. 9: 12, 18, et alibi. Philo, (de Vita Mosis B. p. 675), has a passage which speaks of all the various apparatus of the tabernacle being anointed with ho- ly oil, and the vestments of the priests being sprinkled with blood. So Josephus, also, speaks of sprinkling the garments of Aaron and his sons with afuatos tay teQuuevewv, the blood of the slain beasts, and with spring water, and holy chrism. Lib. V. 6. 6. p. 334. edit. Havercamp. All this serves to shew how common this rite of sprinkling with blood was, in the Jewish ritual; so common, that the writer of our epistle seems, with those whom he addressed, to have considered it a matter of course, that when the people were sprinkled with blood, at the time of renewing their covenant to keep the precepts contained in the book of the law, Ex. 24: 8, the book itself, like all the sacred apparatus of the temple, was also sprinkled in like manner. Nothing could be more natural. The people were consecrated to observe the statutes of the book; and the book was consecrated, as containing that sacred code of laws which they were bound to obey. If however, after all, one is not satisfied that Paul drew his con- 214 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 19. a> :. nee OM os yO! ed via a en clusions from the analogies and probabilities just stated, he may easily suppose that tradition among the Jews had preserved the remembrance of the particulars described in our verse, on account of the very solemn and important nature of the transaction, with which they are connected. It would be easy to suppose, with some commentators, that these particulars were suggested in a miraculous way, by the Holy Spirit, to the mind of the writer. But this solution of the difficulty is not a probable one; because the writer evidently touches upon circumstances here, which he takes it for granted his readers will at once recognize and admit. If so, then these things must have already been matters of common opin- zon among the Hebrews ; and consequently were not now first sug- gested to the writer of our epistle, in a miraculous way. At all events, there can be no serious difficulty in the case. The fact that Ex. 24: 3--8 does not mention the particulars in question, can be no more proof that they did not take place, than the fact that the Evangelists have not recorded the words of Christ, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive,” would prove that he did not utter them. Whether Paul and the Hebrews knew these things by tra- dition, or believed them from analogical reasoning, cannot be im- portant. Enough that they were facts, and were appealed to as such by the writer, with full confidence that they would be recog- nised by his readers. To illustrate the principle, de minimis non curat lex, it may be remarked, that Paul says simply; Aa@av to aiua; Moses, that “he took half of the blood; Ex. 24: 6.” But surely, if he did the latter, he did the former. ‘Such expressions, no where either in sacred or profane writers, are to be tortured, in order to extract from them a metaphysical exactness; verba—ne resecanda ad vi- yum. In the like manner, I interpret wevre cov Aady. How, it has been asked, could he sprinkle three millions of people, with the blood of a few goats and bullocks? In such a way I would an- swer, as ‘all Judea and Jerusalem went out to John, to be baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins, Matt. 3: 5 seq.” ‘Must we now understand by this, that all the infants, the non com- potes mentis, mutes, the sick, the infirm, the aged, all females, or literally all adult males, repaired to John, to be baptized, and did all (infants and mutes with the rest) confess their sins to him? COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 19, 20. 215 If not, then there is no difficulty in construing navra TOY Aaor, in the case now under consideration. Moses sprinkled blood on the multitude of the people, I take to be the simple meaning of the wri- ter ; not that all and every individual was actually and personally sprinkled.. Some were actually sprinkled; and these, being of the multitude, were representatives of the whole. Nothing is more common than to attribute to a body of men collectively, what be- longs, strictly considered, only to certain individuals of that body. Thus what the government of this country do, the Americans are said to do. 20. Aégywr’ covr0 to aiua....0 8206, saying, This is the blood of the covenant, which God has enjoined upon you. Another instance, in which the /etter of the Old Testament is forsaken, and the sense merely retained. The original in Ex. 24: 8 is, min p22) AAMT NID WA Nap, behold, the blood of the cove- nant which God has made with 4 you. But zim means, see here, or, see this, and is equivalent to rovro used as a demonstrative. The verb m > is rendered by the Seventy, dvedexo; by our author, éverelhato. ‘The reason of this probably is, that mya in Ex. 24: 8 means, statutes, laws, as it evidently refers to the preceding statutes, in Ex. xx-—xx1i. God commanded that the people should observe these ; and with reference to this injunction, our author says, évetelhato. To aina r7¢ dvadnxns means, the blood by which the covenant, or, assent on the part of the people to the laws proposed, or rather, their promise to observe them, Ex. 24: 7, was ratified. So com- mon was it, among the Hebrews, to ratify engagements by the blood of animals slain, that the usual idiom of the language is, M72 2, fo cut a covenant, i. e. to sanction one by cutting an animal into two pieces, and passing between them. See Gen. 15: 10. 31: 54, Jer. 34: 18. Ephrem Syrus testifies, that the Chalde- ans had the same usage, Opp. I. p. 161; as also Hacourt does, in respect to the Arabians, Histoire de Madagascar, p. 98. 360. The meaning of such a transaction seems evidently to be, that the per- sons who make the engagements, by passing beeneen the dissever- ed parts of the slain animal, virtually say, ‘If we preserve not our engagement faithfully, and without violation, then let us be cut in pieces, like the animal between whose dissevered parts we now pass.’ ‘The sprinkling of blood on the people, Ex. 24:8, was a 216 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 20——22. solemnity of a similar nature. By it they were also ceremonially purified, and consecrated to God. Q1. Koi ryy oxnvyy.... éG6avrioe, the tabernacle, also, and all the vessels for service, he sprinkled in like manner with blood. Kai, although a kind of copulative here, still indicates another transaction different from that related in v.19; for when the peo- ple were sprinkled with blood, the tabernacle was not built, nei- ther were the oxevy Aecroveyias yet made. The setting up and con- secration of the tabernacle, with its vessels, is related in Ex. x1. ; yet nothing is there related of sprinkling them with blood, but only of anointing them with holy oil, Ex. 40: 9—11. In the like man- ner, the anointing only of Aaron and his sons is there spoken of, as a rite preparatory to entering upon the duties of their office in the tabernacle, Ex. 40: 12—15; while nothing is said at all of their being sprinkled with blood. But if we compare Ex. 29:20, 21 and Lev. 8: 24, 30, we shall see that it is certain, that Aaron and his sons were sprinkled with blood, as well as anointed with oil. In like manner it is probable, that the tabernacle and its furniture were sprinkled with blood, although Moses has not mentioned it in Ex. xt. Josephus says, ‘‘ Both the tabernacle and the vessels per- taining to it, [Moses sprinkled and purified] with oil prepared as I have described, and with the blood of bulls and rams that were slain, one of each kind alternately, every day, Antigq. III. 8. § 6.” This seems to indicate, that Josephus had the same view as Paul, in regard to purifying the tabernacle. The verbs in brackets, in the above translation, are drawn from the preceding clause, where we find 颢auvev agayvioas, purifying he sprinkled. They belong to the sentence here translated, by implication. In regard to the fact itself, we may observe, that it is rendered quite probable from analogy. Then as to a knowledge of it by our author, nothing more is necessary, than the supposition that tradition had conveyed the knowledge of this, as well as of many other facts, down to the time of Paul. The writer evidently ap- peals to facts, which were believed by the Hebrews in general whom he was addressing ; and facts which, although not stated in ‘ the Old Testament, are by no means improbable, and which no one surely has it in his power to contradict. 22. Kal oysdov év aiuare.... vouor, indeed, every thing is, according to the law, purified by blood. Kai, imo, vero, yea, indeed. COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 22, 23. Q17 Dyz00v navra, and not mavte absolutely and simply ; for some things were purified by water, Lev. 16: 26, 28. Num. 31:24; some by fire and water, Num. 31: 22, 23. But the exceptions were few, in which shedding of blood, or sprinkling of blood, was not requir- ed, in order to effect ceremonial purity. See on v. 19. Koi yoois aivarexyvolas ov yiverae aqeocs, and without shed- ding of blood, there is no remission [of sins]. See Lev. 4: 2—6, 13 —17, 22—25, 27—30 and 31, 35. Under the Mosaic law, not every transgression could be atoned for ; consequently, remission of the penalty which the law inflicted could not, in some cases, be obtained. See Num. 15: 30, 31. It was only he that sinned through a degree of ignorance or inadvertency, who could bring his sin and trespass-offering, Num. 15: 27, 29; for cases of a dif- ferent nature, comp. Lev. 4: 2, 13, 22, 27. The nxwn and DUN, sin and trespass, were atoned for, in a civil and ecclesiastical point of view, by appropriate sacrifices, which bore the like names. But in this case, the remission was only from a temporal penalty or ‘calamity. It was not possible that such sacrifices could atone for sin, as viewed by the righteous governor of the world. Such the nature of the case seems plainly to be; and so the writer of our epistle has expressly declared, in chap. 10: 4. God, as the king and head of the Jewish nation, granted remission of the penalty, which the Jewish Jaw inflicted in many cases, on certain conditions. But this had respect merely to the present world, and not to the accoun- tability of transgressors, before the tribunal of the universe in the world above. Even temporal forgiveness, however, could not be obtained ywoig aiuatexyvoias. It was thus, that these vmode/yuo- ta shadowed forth, to the ancient church, the necessity of atoning blood, which possessed a higher virtue than that of beasts, in order to remove the penalty against sin, that was threatened in respect to afuture world. So the writer proceeds to tell us, in the next verse. 23. “Avayxn obv.... tavras, since then the images of heaven- ly things must needs be purified by such [rites], the heavenly things themselves [must be purified] by better sacrifices than these. Meu is here the mere sign of protasis. “Ymodsiyuata, copies, effigies, images, resemblances, likenesses ; meaning the tabernacle and tem- ple, with all their sacred utensils, etc. See on 8: 5. Ty év rots ouvgavorg means, the spiritual objects of the heavenly world, of which the tabernacle, with all its apparatus and services, was only a sym- VOL. II. 28 218 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 23. bol. See on 8:5. Tovrocg designates such things, i.e. such rites and means of purification, as had been described in the preceding context. KadagileoOar refers to the ceremonial purification of the temple and its sacred utensils; e. g. of the most holy place, Lev. 16:15, 16; of the altar, Lev. 16: 18, Ex. 29: 36, 37; of the tabernacle, Lev. 16: 33, 20. This was to be done, because the Israelites, sinful and impure, profaned these sacred things by their approach, Lev. 16: 19. 15: 31. Num. 19: 19, 20. And this being done, God vouchsafed his presence in the tabernacle, and promised to dwell among the Israelites, Ex. 29: 43—46. All this was sym- bolical of the heavenly sanctuary and sacrifice. God permits sin- ners to hope for pardon and approach to him, only when they are sprinkled with the atoning blood of Jesus; and what was done on earth as a symbol, has been done in the heavenly world in reality, i, e. So as actually to procure spiritual pardon, and restoration to the divine favour. Avra Oi ta énovoavin .... tavtag. Aé is the sign of apodo- sts merely. It may be translated, therefore, then; but there is no need of rendering it, as our language does not demand like signs of protasis and apodosis with the Greek. "Zimovgareu means the oxnv7) adndivn, jv ennkev 0 xdovos, 8:2, i. q. 7) OxNYH OV yeLeonointos, 9: 11. But how could the heavenly tabernacle xadagileodac, be purified? The grammatical construction of v. 23, certainly re- quires us to supply this verb in the latter clause, since it is express- ed in the former. But the word, ofcourse, can be here used only in a figurative manner ; for the énovearee are not impure. But as God was accessible to offenders, in his sanctuary on earth, only when atoning blood had been offered; so God, in his heavenly sanctuary, is accessible to sinners, only through the blood of Jesus there offered, and there consecrating a new and living way of ac- cess to the throne of mercy. It is in this sense, that the writer means to apply xadaoitsodar, viz. that of rendering the sanctuary approachable by offenders, and affording assurance of liberty to draw near to God (4: 16), rather than that of direct purification from uncleanness ; which could not be predicated of the heavenly sanctuary. It is the effect of the purifying blood of Jesus, in re- gard to giving access to the heavenly sanctuary, which the writer means to compare with the purification of the tabernacle and its utensils ; for the most holy place of the earthly tabernacle could COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 23, 24. 219 De ag eee be properly approached by offenders, only when atonement was made. ; 24, That better sacrifices than those offered on earth by the Jewish priests, were required under the priesthood of Christ, neces- sarily results from the nature of the sanctuary in which Christ ministers. Od yao ec yevgonointa ayon .-.. ovgavoy ; for Christ entered not into a sanctuary made by hands, which is only a copy of the true one, but into heaven itself. It is the entrance of Christ, as a priest, into the heavenly sanctuary, of which the wri- ter is here speaking. That Christ performs the office of priest in the heavenly sanctuary, the writer has already intimated several times; see 9: 9, 11. 8: 1—4. ’Avtiruna copy, image, effigy, form or likeness, corresponding to the original ruos, shewn to Mo- ses in the mount, 8:5. "4An ue means, that which is real; i.e. the original or heavenly sanctuary, of which the earthly one is a mere copy. In other words, they stand related as substance and shadow or image. The reality is in heaven ; the emblem or mere similitude of it, on earth. Nov zupavPijvae .... Mov, thenceforth to appear before God, in our behalf. Nov means, from the point of time when he entered heaven as our high priest, onward indefinitely ; and it im- plies, that his office was continued while the writer was then ad- dressing his readers. “ZugawoOyjvee means, among other things, to present one’s self before a tribunal, for the sake of accusing or defending. In the former case, it is followed by xaza, e.g. Acts 94: 1. 25: 2, 15; in the latter, it takes veo after it, as in our text. The usual and full grammatical construction would be wore Zugpaviodyvar. I have been able to find no similar usage of éuga- vigw, among the Greeks. Tip mpoown tov Geov, the same as the Hebrew pToN 7B, being altogether Hebraistic. The whole comparison is taken from the custom of the Jewish high priest, who, when he entered the most holy place, was said to appear before God, or to draw near to God, because the presence of God was manifested over the mer- cy seat, in the holy of holies, and God was represented, and was conceived of by the Jews, as sitting enthroned upon the mercy seat. Now as the high priest appeared before God, in the Jewish temple, and offered the blood of beasts for expiation, on the great day of atonement, in behalf of the Jewish nation; so Christ, in the 220 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 24—26. heavenly temple, enters the most holy place with his own blood (v. 12), to procure pardon (aéwviey Avrgwouv) for us. This is what the writer means, by gugavioOjvae to mo06Wnw TOU PE0U Unéy Humor. 25. But although there is a similitude between the atoning of- fice of Christ and that of the Jewish high priest, yet there is a great difference, in some respects, between his manner of offering expiatory sacrifice, and that of the Levitical priesthood. Ovd" ive modhanes .... ahhorgio, yet not that he may frequently repeat the offering of himself, like the high priest, who, every year, enters into the sanctuary with blood not his own. ‘This refers to the entrance of the high priest into the sanctuary, on the great day of atone- ment. “Ly aiuate adhoroiw, with the blood of others, i.e. with blood not his own ; in distinction from the manner in which Christ entered the heavenly sanctuary, which was with his own blood, v. 12. ‘Two points of difference, then, are here suggested, between the Jewish offerigs and that of Christ; the one, that they were often repeated, his was made but once; the other, that the high priest presented the blood of goats and bullocks, but Jesus, his own blood. 26, “Emel 20ev. .. . xdomov, for then he must needs have often suffered, since the world began. That is, since the blood of Christ is necessary to make atonement for sin, and to procure pardon for it from the righteous and spiritual Judge of men; and since the blessings, procured by the death of Jesus, must enure as well to the benefit of the ages which preceded his coming, as to those which follow it, (see v. 15 and Rom. 3: 25, 26); it follows, that if his sacrifice had not been of a different nature and value from that of the Jewish priests, it must have been continually repeated, from the very beginning of the world, down to the time in which the writer was addressing his readers. We may of course add, that it must have continued to be repeated down to the end of the world, for the same reason. This passage serves then to shew, that when Heb. 9: 15 and Rom. 3: 25, 26, are construed as having relation to the retrospective influence of the death of Christ, no doctrine for- éign to the conceptions of our author is introduced ; for the verse under consideration is plainly built upon the ground of such a re- ‘rospective influence. Nov 02 anak... . neqaréomras, but now, at the close of the COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 26, 27. 221 -s [Jewish] dispensation, he has once for all made his appearance, in order to remove the punishment due to sin by the sacrifice of himself. Nov does not relate particularly to time here, but is a particle of opposition, in contradistinction to émei. uvteleig tov aiwvor, the close of the Mosaic economy or period. _4iwy singular, and aiwveg plural, appear to be sometimes used in the same sense, in the New Testament; like ovgavog and ovgavol, oaffurov and oa3Sare, and some other nouns. For the meaning given to awy see Wahl’s Lex. on the word. ‘Avérnous signifies, putting away, removal, abrogation, annul- ling, etc. “Auaotia I understand here, as meaning the penalty due to sin; Justas the Hebrew nun means, sim, and the punishment, con- sequences, of sin; and 719 means, iniquity, and the punishment 1. e. consequences of iniquity. It is true, indeed, that Christ came to save men from the power, as well as the penalty, of sin; but most evidently his death is here considered, by our author, as an expia- tory sacrifice, by virtue of which the consequences of sin, i.e. the punishment due to it, are removed, and the sinner treated as though he were innocent. Ave tHg Yvoius avrov, comp. 1:3. 2:14. 7: 27. 9: 12, 14, 15. 10: 5—10. The whole comparison stands thus. ‘As the expiatory sacri- fices under the law, which were annually offered, and therefore of- ten repeated, procured remission of the temporal punishment due to offences under the Mosaic dispensation ; so the sacrifice of Christ, and the blood which he presents, once for all, in the eternal or heavenly sanctuary, is effectual to procure spiritual pardon for all times and ages, past and to come.’ Nothing could exhibit the great superiority of Christ’s priesthood over that of the Jewish, in a more striking point of light than this. The latter, by its offerings and atonements, procured only a remission of temporal punishment in the present world; the former, a remission aiwyiov xodaocews (Matt. 25: 46) in the world to come. 27. Kal xa doov.... nolows, for since it is appointed unto men to die once only, and after this [cometh] the judgment. Kad OGov is sometimes equivalent to za0ws¢, since, as, in this epistle ; e. g. 7: 20, comp. v.22; and here it is plainly the same as we or zadac. 'Anoxectas, repositum est, it is laid up for, i. e. by divine appointment, 7¢ 7s reserved for, or, it awaits men, once to die, ta: 222 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 27, 28, ee The translation gives the meaning, but not with literal exactness. " Anaé is here, once for all, only once; for the object of this com- parison is to shew that as men die but once, so Christ, whe had a nature truly human, and was in all things made like unto his breth- ren (2: 17), could die but once, (and not oftentimes), in order to atone for sin. Mere 62 tovro xgisrg, i.e. men, having once died, go after that to a state of reward or punishment, to a final state, in which no more such changes as death makes can be suffered.. The clause in question is added to the former part of the verse, in order to shew that dying more than once is impossible, inasmuch as judgment immediately follows, with which is connected the immu- table state of men. The implication contained in this verse, viz. that a state of trial in a future world, like to that which is allowed to men in the present world, is not to be expected, seems to be plain. 28. Ourw xaio Xovoros.... duagrias, so Christ, also, after having once for all offered up himself, in order to bear the sins of many. ‘The writer had been labouring, in the preceding context, to shew that the offering of Christ needed not, like that of the high priest, to be often repeated. Vs. 27 and 28 are designed to shew that a repetition of the death of Jesus, (who suffered in our nature), would have been inconsistent with the nature which he sustained, and contrary to all analogy. So the author; ‘Since men die but once, so Christ died or was offered up, sooceveyPeis, but once.’ — Tooceveyteic (from ooogeow) is a part. of the 1 aor. passive, and may be rendered, offered up himself, or made an offering of himself, inasmuch as the 1 aor. pass. frequently has a middle or reflexive sense, particularly when any verb lacks the Ll aor. of the middle voice, Buttmann Gram. § 123. TIgoogéow is a very gen- eral word in respect to offerings, and designates the action of the person who brings the sacrifice, or of the priest who presents it. As the sacrifice offered to God was first slain, and then presented ; so the idea of an offering here necessarily involves the idea of the death of the victim offered. It is this implied idea of the death of the victim, that stands in comparison with the anak anoPaveiy of all men; i. e. as they die but once, so Christ died but once. ‘Tlodiov, many, i.e. all nations without distinction, Jews and ¥ Risa COMMENTARY ON HEB. 9: 28. 223 Gone fotos past and ages to come, vs. 15, 26 and Rom. 3: 25, 26. See the like representation, respecting the universality of the benefits offered through the death of Christ, in Matt. 20: 28. 26: 28. Rom. 5: 15, 19 comp. v. 18. John 6: 51. 3: 16. 1 John 2: 2, etc. “Aveveynsiy apaotias, to bear the sins, means, to bear the pun- ishment, 1. e. to suffer the penalty, due to sin. See Excursus XIX. "Ex dsutéoov .... tg owrnoiar, shall make his appearance, a second time, without a sin-offering, for the salvation of those who wait for him. °Ex dsutéoov has reference to «ag in the preced- ing clause. Christ appeared and died once for sin ; but when he appears again, éx devrégou, it will not be to repeat his sufferings, j. e. to make again an expiatory sacrifice, but for the purposes of bestowing rewards on those, who trust in him and wait for his com- ing. Xwois auaoetiag has been variously explained. But it is evi- dent, that the expression has a direct reference to the preceding clause, i.e. either to moooeveyPeic, or to aveveyneiv apmaotias. @ 4 ao In the former case, AUAOTLAS, in our clause, would mean s?n offer- ing, like nkun, DWN, because nmoooeveyOeic means, he made him- self an offering. The meaning would then be, ‘ but when Christ again appears, he will not make himself a sin-offering, i.e. his ap- pearance will be ywgi¢ auagriag. So I understand the phrase. But if we construe ywgi¢ emagtias, as referring to aveveyxety cuaotiac, then the supplement to the phrase will be ywgi¢ [zou aveveynsiv] auaotiag. The meaning of this is, ‘ Without again suf- fering the penalty due to sin.’ In either way, the sense amounts to about the same ; for either method of interpretation makes the writer say, that Christ would no more suffer on account of the sins of men, but that, by dying once, he has perfectly accomplished the redemption of those who trust in him. Toig avrov anendeyouzvore means, those who, renouncing the world, and resisting all the motives to swerve from Christian hope and faith, which the times presented, patiently wait for the rewards - which the Saviour will finally bestow upon his followers. There is a tacit admonition to the Hebrews in this; for it is as much as to Peay, ‘Those only who do thus persevere, will be rewarded.’ £i¢ swryoiay has reference to the future salvation or blessedness, which Christ will bestow upon his followers, at his second coming. 224 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: ft. —— — — SEUSS Renee The insufficiency of the Levitical sacrifices to procure spiritual pardon for sin, and the sufficiency of the sacrifice which Christ had offered, was one of the most important and inter- esting of all the points, which the writer of our epistle had to discuss. The Hebrews in gene- ral placed full confidence in the efficacy of the Levitical sacrifices to purify them from sin, at least, to remove the penalty of it. Every person, who is conscious of sin, and knows that it subjects him to the penalty of the divine law, must naturally feel a deeper interest in the ques- tion, whether and how sin can be pardoned, than in any other. It was very natural for Jews, who had been educated in the full belief of the efficacy of the sacrifices instituted by Moses, to cling to them as the foundation of their dearest and highest hopes, viz. the means of pardon, and restoration to divine favour. It was an attachment to the Jewish ritual, built upon hopes of such a nature, which rendered the Mosaic religion so attractive to the Hebrews, and endan- gered their adherence to a Christian profession. There was much, too, in the pomp and so- lemnity of their rites, which served to interest the feelings and delight the fancy of the wor- shippers. It is on account of the strong attachment, which they cherished for their system of sacrifices and purifications, that our author is so urgent, in shewing that real pardon with God could not be procured by any or all of these means. The blood of Christ only cleanses from sin, and procures acceptance for sinners with God, as their spiritual judge. Accordingly, in Chap. 1X. he declares that the tabernacle, with all its sacred utensils and services, was only an image or symbol (71¢Q@8047,) of what is real and spiritual in the heaven- ly world, a copy merely of the 0x41, OU YEtQoTLOiHTOS, 9: 9—11, or a mere VITUNELy Ma THY zy oveavotc, 9:23. The Jewish sacrifices availed for nothing more than external purification, 9: 10, 13; while the blood of Christ purified the soul or mind (Guveidyow) from the unclean- ness of sin, and rendered it capable of offering acceptable service to the living God, 9:14. Af- ter adducing various considerations to show how extensively the rites of the law, which re- | quired the exhibition and application of blood, prefigured that atoning blood which Jesus offer- ed to make expiation for sin, and that his death once for all, was sufficient for this purpose, he proceeds, in chap. X., more deeply to impress the great subject of atoning sacrifice by Christ upon the minds of his readers, knowing that very much depended on the conviction which might be attained in respect to this point. Could they be persuaded, that Jesus had himself offered the only sacrifice which made real expiation for sin; and that.this, once offered, was an all-sufficient sacrifice; then there could be no rational inducement for them to abandon their spiritual hopes, and return to their confidence in the rites of the Levitical law. The repetition of this subject, is for the purpose of suggesting some new arguments in or- der to enforce it; as may be seen in vs. 5—18. a - CHAP. X. 1. Dna yao éyov.....neayuatwy, moreover the law, which presented only an imperfect sketch of future blessings, and not a full representation of those things. Sxia and e‘zwy are related, as the Latin umbra and effigies are. 'The former is an imperfect sketch, a mere outline (as we say), a slight representation or resemblance ; the latter is a picture or image filled out or completed, and made, in all its minuter parts, to resemble the original. Not that these words are always employed with a sedulous attention to these nice shades of signification; but in the case before us they are so, for they are evidently contrasted with each other. The meaning of the writer is, ‘ The law did not even go so far, as to exhibit a full im- age of future blessings, but only a slight -adumbration. ”Eyav hav- COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: 1, 2. 225 ing, containing, possessing, affording, or (ad sensum) exhibiting, presenting, so as to accord with the nature of the image which fol- lows. Nomog means here, the sacrificial ritual law, of which he had before been speaking ; the old m°73, ‘OvaOnxn, which was to be abolished. The whole law of Moses, i.e. the moral code which it contains, is not the subject of consideration or assertion here. Meéhioviwyr ayatav, the same as in 9: 11. wv moayparoy, i.e. TOUTOY, Viz. the future biessings just before mentioned. Kar émavrov.... tehevoour, by the yearly sacrifices them- selves, which are continually offered, can never fully accomplish what is needed for those who approach [the altar]: By the xar évvavtoyv Pvoiarg, the writer means particularly to designate those which were offered on the great day of national atonement ; which were considered the most sacred and efficacious of all, inasmuch as the high priest then entered the inner sanctuary, and presented himself before the mercy seat. ITeoogéeovor, with a nominative not expressed, is equivalent to the passive voice here, as often elsewhere, agreeably to the He- brew idiom. Eig co Ounvexes, without cessation, continually, i.e. they were repeated each successive year. The word is peculiar to this epis- tle; and Schneider has omitted it in his Lexicon; but Elian, Ap- pian, Diodorus Siculus, and Symmachus, employ it. Tovs moocevyouevovg means, the worshippers who approach the altar, or the temple, or the divine presence in the temple. The sense is for substance the same, whichever of these be un- derstood. For retecmoar, see on Heb. 9: 9 and 7:11. The sentiment of the verse corresponds very exactly with that in 9: 9, 10. 2. “Enel ovx adv éxavoarto npoogeoouevat, for otherwise, i. e. if the sacrifices could have perfected those who esis them, would not the offerings have ceased? To noooqgegouevae most critics subjoin ¢¢vae understood, which would be equivalent to the infinitive meoogeveoOas, rendering the phrase thus, They (i. e. the sacrifices) had ceased to be offered.” The sense of the phrase thus explained, is the same that I have given to it. But moooge- oopevae [Ovoiae] évavoorto seems to me more facile than the oth- er construction. VOL, Il. 29 226 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: 2, 3. Ata 10 pndepiay .... nexadaguevovs, because the worship- pers once for all made clean, would have no longer been conscious of sins. Aoatgevortag designates those who brought the offerings or sacrifices, and on whose account they were presented to God, i.e. the worshippers. “42a denotes here, as in the preceding chapter, once for all; the nature of the argument demanding this sense. For if a worshipper, at one time, obtained pardon, or was made clean only in respect to past offences, (and surely expiatory sacri- _ fices were offered only with respect to the past), this would not pre- vent the dread of punishment at a future period, when new offen- ces would have been committed. To be purified once for all, then, was necessary, in order to quiet the apprehensions of such a wor- shipper. ; Kexaaguevovs, purified, atoned for.. As xodoaoiSo means, in Hebrew Greek, to make expiation for, to purify by expiatory offer- ing, to pronounce or declare one to be pure; so xexoOaouevoug of course means, those atoned for, those for whom expiation is made, those declared to be pure, or rendered pure, and consequently, restor- ed to favour. SvveiOnow means not merely, conscience, but consciousness, opinion, judgment, sentiment, apprehension. Svvetdnow apagteay is an apprehension of the consequences of sin, or, @ consciousness that one has subjected himself to them, a consciousness of guilt. “Auaorioy may mean here, (as often before), punishment of sin, consequences of sin, like the corresponding Hebrew nxwn, TiS) yD} or it may mean, sin, guilt, transgression. The writer, however, - does not mean to say, thaf the pardon of sin takes away from him, who obtains it, the consciousness that he has once been the subject of moral turpitude. ‘This the blood of Christ itself does not effect; and in heaven, the consciousness of this will forever raise high the notes of gratitude for redeeming mercy. But pardon may and does remove the apprehension of penalty for sin; or if by egeayre- ov we understand sin, guilt simply, then, to be made clean (xexa- @aouevovs) from this, so as to have no consciousness of it, is so to be purified, as not to contract the stain of it. 3. AAA év avraie.... éveautov, nay rather, by these [sacrifi- ces] yearly remembrance of sins is made. ° Akio, but rather, nay rather, quin, quinimo; or, (as | have rendered it in the version), on the contrary, but. Avraic agrees with Ovolucs implied ; see in COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: 3—5. pay! v. 1. On the day of annual atonement, the sacrifices that were offered being of an expiatory nature, and being designed as propitia- tory offerings, they were of course adapted to remind the Hebrews of the desert of sin, i. e. of the punishment or penalty due to it. As they continued to be offered yearly, so those who brought them must be reminded, through their whole lives, of new desert of punishment. The writer means, however, that a yearly remem- brance of sin in a spiritual respect, not merely in a civil or eccle- siastical one, was made; for in this sense, the yearly atonement procured pardon. In the other, it did not ; as he now proceeds to assert. 4.’ Advvaroy yao... apuaorias, itis, indeed, impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should remove the penalty due to sin. "Apasosiy cuagtiag means, to take away sin, in the sense of re- moving the penalty or consequences of sin; for this is the subject of which the writer is now treating. That the author has refer- ence to the consequences of sin in a future world, or to the punish- ment of it which God inflicts as the spiritual judge of men, is evi- dent from the whole tenor of his discussion. One so profoundly versed as he was in all the Jewish ritual law, surely was not igno- rant of the fact, that civil and ecclesiastical pardon for offences of various kinds, was every day procured by the blood of bulls and goats, and this too, agreeably to divine appointment. 5. Nothing could be more directly in opposition to Jewish pre- judices, respecting the importance and value of the Levitical sac- rifices, than the assertion just made. Hence the writer deems it prudent to make his appeal to the Scriptures, for confirmation of what he had advanced. This he does, by quoting a passage from Ps. x., which he applies to the Messiah, and to the efficacy of the sin-offering made by him. Ao ELGEQYOMEVOS ELS TOV x0GMOY, Aeyes, wherefore, entering into the world, he [Christ] says; i.e. because the blood of goats and bullocks is not efficacious, in procuring pardon for sin, Christ, when entering into the world, is represented by the Psalmist as saying, viz. in Ps. 40: 7 seq. Avoiav xa meoogogay oux EFehnous, in sacrifice and oblation thou hast no pleasure. Gvoia means, a sacrifice of some slain beast, from 9vo, to kill. So the corresponding Hebrew maz, from m3}, mactare. Ilgoogog« is any thing offered or presented; and here 228 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: 5. it means, other oblations than those of sacrifices, such as thank- offerings, libations, etc. The corresponding Hebrew min, gift, present, comes from the obsolete root 27, ta present, Arabic OR J A, the same. Ovx é0¢lnous, Hebrew nam Nd, is capable of being translated, thou hast not required, or, thou hast not desired, thou hast no pleasure in or desire for. The latter is, doubtless, the shade of meaning here. The sentiment is not, that God had ‘not at all required sacrifices and oblations, for this he had done; but that they were, in a comparative sense, of little value; they were insufficient in themselves to accomplish the higher purposes of his spiritual law, and therefore he had no pleasure in them. Sone 02 xarnotiow mot, but a body hast thou prepared for me. A very difficult and much agitated expression. . If we recur, in the first place, to the original Hebrew, we find the corresponding words there to be, "3-m°7D O721N, mine ears hast thou opened. The verb 77> (from 73) means, primarily, to dig, to hollow out, e. g. a well, Gen, 26: 25; a pit, Ps. 7: 16, or pit-fall, Ps. 57:7; a sep- ulchre or grave, Gen. 50: 5. 2 Chron. 16: 14. The verb m2 has also the meaning of purchasing or procuring, e.g. water, Deut. 2: 6; particularly of procuring a supply of food and drink, 2 K. 6: 23 ; also of other things, e. g. a wife, Hosea 3: 2, where 47 Dx has a Daghesh euphonic in the 5. These are all the meanings of this word, which the Hebrew Scriptures present. In translating D721 %, n° >, then, we may render it ejther, m/ne ears hast thou opened, which i is only a small deflection from the literal sense, (for to dig out a pit or well, is fo open one); or we may render it, ears hast — thou provided for me, in which sense the Seventy seem plainly to have understood m>>5, when they reridered it by xarnoziom. The former sense seems to be more analogical with the nature of the subject, and with the Hebrew idiom. The Hebrews speak of opening the ears, and uncovering them, in order to designate the idea of prompt obedience, of attentive listening to the commands of any one. E. g. Is. 50: 4, we have yimzd jis 1b av, he ercited my ear to hear ; and in v. 5 is an equivalent expression, is 1S HDD, he opened mine ear, which is explained in the corresponding par- ‘allelism, by a reel Ne "3281, and I was not refractory, i. e. I was obedient. So jin mb: 3 to uncover, to disclose the ear, means, to communicate any thing or reveal it to another ; e. g. 1 Sam. 20: = COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: 5, 6. 229 RO a ue i es or 2,12, 13. 22: 17. From such forms of expression, in Hebrew, with such a meaning, we may very naturally conclude that D723N m2 (in Ps. 40: 7) means, thou hast opened mine ears, i.e. thou hast made me obedient, or, I am entirely devoted to thy service. And Ps. 40: 8, 9, which exhibits the consequence of having the ears opened, leads us almost unavoidably to make such a conclu- sion, respecting the meaning of the phrase in question. If this view of the meaning be correct, then another interpreta- tion, put upon the phrase by many critics, is not well founded. They render it, mine ears hast thou bored through. _'They suppose the expression to be figurative, and to be borrowed from the He- brew usage of boring through, with an awl, the ear of a person, who became the voluntary servant of another; as described in Ex. 21: 6. Deut. 15: 17. Mine ears hast thou bored through would then mean, ‘1 am through life thy voluntary servant,’ or, ‘T will be perpetually obedient to thee.’ This sense, it will be. seen, agrees in general with that put upon the phrase by the other mode of explanation. But the source of explanation here adopted, does not seem to be admissible. In Ex. 21: 6, the verb bore through is yxq, (not 749. as in Ps, 40: 7), and the instrument by which it is done is named yx¥772, an awl, a derivate of the verb »x¥4. So in Deut. 15: 17, the instrument named is the same 4772, and the ac- tion of boring through is expressed by 421N2 5nN3, thou shalt put it through his ear, (not n°4>). That 97 ‘and. 7D indicate very distinct actions, is sufficiently plain; for to bore through any thing, and to dig or hollow out a pit, grave, or well, are surely very differ- ent actions, indicated in Hebrew by verbs, as different as the Eng- lish dig and bore through. Moreover, in Ex. 21: 6 and Deut. 15: 17, the singular 77& is used, and not as here D124, both ears. The original, then, in Ps. 40: 2,%5 m-2 DI2TN, means, mine ears has thou opened, i. e. me hast thou made. readily or attentively obedient ; at least, this seems to be the meaning, if we make Is. 50: 4, 5 our exegetical guide. See Excursus XX. 6. “Ohoxavtmpora xat....evdoxnoaus, in whole burnt offerings and [sacrifices] for sin thou hast no delight. “Ohoxavtmpara means, such offerings as were entirely consumed upon the altar ; so the cor- responding Heb. m4» signifies, Teed ¢uagriag isan elliptical ex- pression, answering to the Hebrew original NOM, and which com- pleted would be, Guolae reo? auaorias, sin-offerings. Ovx Evdony- % 230 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: 7. oac, Heb. HaNe Nd, requirest not, desirest not, demandest not, hast no pleasure in. 7. Tore einov, therefore I said, or, then I said. The first of these versions is approved by eminent critics. They suggest, that if rote (Heb. 3x) be referred to time merely, it seems very difficult to as- certain what is the precise meaning ; for at what particular time was it, that God did not delight in whole burnt offerings and sacri- fices for sin? It may however be said, that the speaker here refers to the time, when he is disclosing these views respecting sacrifices. Supposing this to be the case, rove would mean, then, i. e. imme- diately after this sentiment was declared; which would be very congruous with the context. If core be rendered, therefore, the meaning will be, ‘ because thou hadst no pleasure in sacrifices, therefore I said, etc.’ Strictly speaking, however, rdze is not illa- tive. I prefer the other rendering. “Lov yum .... eknua oov, Lo! I come, O God, to do thy will, (in the volume of the book it is written respecting me). ‘Jdov xm expresses the readiness of him who speaks, to obey the will of God. "Ev nxeqadioe BrBiiov is a much agitated expression. The He- brew is simply "pO7n53793, in the roll, or volume of the book. But how does xeqadtde BiBdiov correspond to this? Kegadig denotes the end or extremity of any thing, as being the head or summit of it. The Heb. 459, 6PAiov, was a manuscript rolled upon a cylinder of light wood, at the extremity of which were heads or knobs, for the sake of convenience to those wlfo used the manuscript. The knob or head, xeqedis, is here taken as a part, which is descriptive or emblematic of the whole. Kegadig Gi8hiov means therefore, a BrBAtov or AED with a xeqadig, i.e. a.manuscript roll; which was the form of the Jewish sacred books, and is still retained in all their synagogues. It coincides, then, with regard to signification, very exactly with the Heb. 455 5372, of which it is a translation. But what volume of manuscript-roll is here meant? Plainly the one which was already extant, when the Psalmist was writing. If the Psalmist was David himself, (as the title of the psalm seems to affirm), the only parts of the Hebrew Scriptures then extant, and of course the only part to which he could refer, must have-been the Pentateuch, and perhaps the book of Joshua. Beyond any reason- able doubt, then, the xspadig BeBiiov (72 M2472) was the Penta- teuch. - ; COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: 7. Boi But what is there written, and how, respecting the personage who speaks in the 40th Psalm? Rosenmiiller (on Ps. 40:7) translates the Hebrew "59 a9n> ( yéyouuntar nevi gov) by prescriptum est mihi, and appeals to 2 K. 22: 13, for confirmation of this version. ‘He compares, also; Gen. 2: 16. Ezra 1: 2, where dp is used after max and 4p5, verbs of commanding or enjoining. Gesenius ap- proves this version, but produces no other instances to confirm it, which are of the same kind. He appeals, indeed, to Est. 9: 23, ‘where >k is used after 2n>; and to Hos. 8: 12. 2 K. 17: 37, and Prov. 22: 20, where > is used after the same verb, in order to con- firm this interpretation. But the three last cases plainly denote nothing more, than that the matter referred to was written for the use of another, or addressed to him. Such too is the case with the other example in Est: 9: 23 as may be clearly seen by comparing Est. 9:20. With deference to the opinion of these very distinguish- ed critics, I must still doubt, therefore, whether >» 1n> means, prae- scribere alicui. At most, there is only 2 K. 22: 15, which is appo- site to establish this signification ; and even here the meaning in question is not necessary ; for 73%23 29ND may be rendered, with about equal significancy, which was written in respect to us, or con- cerning us, i.e. for our sake, or to regulate our duties. The Sev- enty, then, who translated "by aan> by yeyeunrae meg? guov, trans- lated it agreeably to the usual idiom of the Hebrew. The apos- tle, in our text, has evidently recognized the correctness of this version. The difference in meaning, between prescribed to me and written concerning me, is a considerable one, in this case. ' The first version would represent the speaker as saying, “‘ I come, O God, to do thy will, [i. e. my duty], as I am commanded in the Scriptures to do.” The second, “ I come to offer my body, or myself, in place of the legal sacrifices ; for in the Scriptures, [i. e. in the law of Moses], this is written concerning me.” Now as toa choice of versions here, it will not be doubted, that the latter version accords. with the reasoning and design of the apostle, or rather, that it is important to his purpose. The first version would not, indeed, con- tradict the design of the apostle ; for he might say, It is prescribed in the Scriptures, that the Messiah should do the will of God, i. e. make himself an offering for sin. Comp. Luke 24: 25—27, 46. Acts 17: 2, 3. 1 Pet. 1: 11, 12. But I apprehend the meaning of the writer to be, that the book of the law, which prescribes sacrifices an 232 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: 7, 8. that were merely oxcai or magaPodai of the great atoning sacrifice by Christ, did itself teach, by the use of these, that something of a higher and better nature was to be looked for than Levitical rites. In a word, it pointed to the Messiah, or, some of the contents of the written law had respect to him. So Michaelis, Storr, and oth- ers. Still, yeyoanrae neoi éuov may have respect to declarations, in the Pentateuch, of a different and more direct nature. That there are such, Jesus himself affirms, John 5: 46. So Paul, Acts 26: 22, 23. G6 al. 3: 16 seq. Construed in either way, the amount of the phrase Rpt: _under consideration is, ‘ In the law of Moses I am described as coming to do thy will,’ i. e. to offer my body as a sacrifice, comp. v. 10. That the Hebrews, to whom the apostle addressed himself, would recognize such an affirmation, and feel the force of it, seems to be nearly certain, from the fact, that the writer without any hesitation addresses it to them, in order to produce conviction in their minds with respect to the point which he is labouring to establish. Cer- tain it is, then, that both he and the Christian Hebrews to whom he wrote, believed that the Jewish ritual had respect to the sacrifice of the Messiah, and that he was virtually revealed, in the law of Mo- ses, as a suffering Saviour, making atonement for the sins of his people. Were this not so, then the’ argument in Heb. 10: 5—10 would be destitute of any real foundation, and consequently, of any force as a proof of what the writer is labouring to establish.. ‘O &s0c, Heb. aba, O my Gol. If the M essiah be consider- ed as uttering this before his incarnation, and as Logos, then would | it be an embarrassing circumstance to explain it, how in his simple divine nature he could speak of “ my God.” But if considered as a prophetic anticipation of what he would say, during his incarna- tion, (and so it clearly seems to me the writer intends it should be considered), then 0 &«0¢, or 0 @£0¢ wou, accords with the usage of .the Saviour in addressing the Father, as disclosed in the gospel, Matt. 27: 46, al. , To Oéinue cov. What this will is, see in v. 10. 8. “_Averregor héywv..... evdounous, first, he says, “ Sacrifice, and oblation, and whole burnt-offering, and [offering] for sin thou destrest not, nor hast pleasure in them.” ° Avategor, lit. above, which is equivalent here to first, or, in the first place. " Aurwes nate tov vouov mooogéeoovtat, which are presented ac- COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: S—10. 233 cording to the law. This is a parenthetic explanation, added by the writer, in order to shew that the same legal sacrifices, in which the Hebrews were in danger of placing their confidence, were those which must be superseded by the death of Christ. 9. Tore sionuev.... 10 Géednua cov, and then says, “ Lo I come to do thy will.” We might expect e¢awy here, instead of sionxev, for the regular construction of the sentence would seem to require it. But here is a sentence constructed in the Hebrew manner, which not unfrequently begins with a participle in the ; first clause, and then uses a verb in the second, when both stand — in the same relation to the sequel of the sentence, see Heb. Gram. § 212. 2. Itis evident here, that avwregov Aeyoy and tore evonne both bear the same relation to avacoet x. t. 4. the sense of which, I may add, is rendered quite obscure, by the period which most editors of the Greek Testament have put before it. Fa ‘Avaiget.... 0t7,6n, he abolishes the first, viz. the sacrifices etc. that he may establish the second, viz. the doing of the will of God, or the offering of himself as a sacrifice for sin, v. 10. That s, ‘doing the will of God, or obedience to him even unto death, or the offering up of his body, is represented by the Psalmist as a substitute for legal sacrifices, and as an arrangement which would supersede them.’ It is quite plain, that avacoet x. r. 4. is an inference, drawn from the two declarations recited in the context immediately pre- ceding; for mowzroy certainly refers to the legal sacrifices, and dedtegor to the obedience of the Messiah. But the construction of the sentence, (for clearly it is in fact but one sentence), is He- braistic, as noted above, and not according to the rules of classi- cal Greek ; and it affords a notable example, how far the style of our author is from the easy, rhetorical, flowing method, of which so much has been said by late critics, and from that EhAnvinorns, which even, Origen ascribes to him. 10. The writer proceeds to explain what is meant, in this case, by doing the wiil of God, and what is the efficacy of that obedi- ence. “Ev w @eljuate.... éganak, by which will expiation is made for us, by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ, once for all. "Ev © Gelnware means, by doing which will, i.e. by whose obedi- ence. “Hysaouéevor zoner, expiati sumus, conciliati sumus, purifi- VOL. Il. 30 i 4 or 254 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: 10, 11. cati sumus, lit. we are consecrated, viz. to God, which necessarily implies, purified, atoned for ; see on cyveda under 2: 11. The latter part of the verse leaves no doubt, that the writer meant to refer the obedience in question, or the doing of the will of God, to “ obedience unto death,’’ to the voluntary sacrifice for sin- ners which the Saviour offered upon the cross ; comp. Phil. 2: 8. The whole amount of the reasoning, in vs. 5—10, is this. ‘Ritual sacrifices for sin are not accepted by God, as sufficient to “remove the penalty due to the moral turpitude of sin. But the obedience of the Messiah unto death, the offering of his body on _ the cross, is sufficient, and fully supersedes the other sacrifices.’ If all this be true, it follows, of course, that what the apostle had affirmed in v. 3 is true, viz. that it is impossible for the blood of slain beasts to remove the penal consequences of sin, when con- sidered in the light of a spiritual offence, and as having respect to the tribunal of God. “Eqanat, once for all. The idea conveyed by this, is carefully repeated again here, because it concerns a point, in respect to which the Hebrews would be very prone to raise objections. ‘“‘ You affirm,” they would naturally say, ‘that there is a resemblance be- tween the sacrifice of Christ and the annual expiatory sacrifices by the high priest. But there is evidently a great dissimilitude ; for the expiation made by the high priest was repeated every year ; while Christ suffered on/y once.” The apostle meets this difficulty, by shewing, from various considerations, that being once slain as an expiatory offering, was altogether sufficient to satisfy the de- mands of the case. Compare Heb. 9: 9—14, 25—28. 10: 1—3, 10—14. Indeed-Christ, from the nature of the case, could die but once, 9: 27, 28. ; Il. Kai nag pév isgevg..... Ovotas, now every priest stands performing daily service, and oftentimes presenting the same sacrifi- ces. Tlac isoeve, every or any Levitical priest. “Hoznxe, stands, denoting the attitude of those who are in waiting or attendance upon another, and keep the position of standing, both as a token of respect, and as a state prepared for ready service. It is only the perfect, pluperfect, aor. 2 active, and aor. } passive, of the verb ‘or that have the intransitive meaning ¢o stand. The other ten- ses a ransitive, and mean, {o set, place, station,ete. See Butt- mann § 95, and Wahl’s Lex. on the word; and compare (for a sense of the word like that above) Rev. 7: 9, 11. 8: 2. COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: 11-—-14. 235 ag a Sn ee Tag aitag.... Ovoiag. The same daily sacrifices were re- peated, without intermission ; see Num. 28: 2—6. Aitiveg ovdénote ... . aaoriag, which can never remove the penalty due to sin; comp. vs. 1-3. That auaotiag here means, penalty due to sin, is plain; and that it may be properly so constru- ed, no one will deny, who understands the full meaning of 752, nxwn and sug. 12. Ovrog 02 wlav.... eov, but this [priest] having offered a sacrifice for sin of perpetual efficacy, sat down at the right hand of God. Inv. II, we have mag igoeus, i.e. every priest of the common order, every Levitical priest; the antithesis is 0UTOS, which refers to Christ, and which, (if the ellipsis be supplied ac- cording to the grammatical construction of sentences), must mean, ovz0¢ isgevs. Ei to dunvexeég means the same thing here, as éxa£ in 9: 26, 28, and Zganeé in 10: 10. I connect it with Svolav, and not (as Carpzoff) with éxaGvoe. A sacrifice for perpetuity, 1s a sacrifice once for all, ég¢anaé, or, it is a sacrifice of perpetual efficacy, one that needs not to be repeated. "Exaduosv év dskeg tov Pe0v, see on Heb. 1: 3. “Lxaduoe here is opposed to Zoryjxe,in the preceding verse. The. latter denotes the attitude of a servant; the former that of a master or lord. 13. 76 downey éxdeyousvos ..... nmodav avrov, thenceforth waiting until his enemies.be made his footstool. To Aounov means, for the rest, viz. of the time ; therefore the idea conveyed by dou- nov here is, afterwards, thenceforth. ’Exdsyousvos designates the attitude of waiting or expecting. The idea is, that the Messiah is seated on his throne, quietly expecting that his enemies will, in due time, be all subdued. ‘ ‘ Oi 27901 designates all those who are opposed to the charac- ter, doctrines, or reigh of Christ. To make them his footstool means, thoroughly to subjugate and humble them; comp. 2: 8. 1 Cor. 15: 27, 28. See the origin of this phrase, in the custom de- scribed in Josh. 10: 24. ; 14. Mig yao moocqgogg .... Tavs ayralouevors, by one offer- ing, then, he has forever perfected those for whom expiation 2. made. Mug gooogooe, viz. the offering of his own body, v. 10, Baek siaze, see on 9:9 and 10: 1. The meaning is, ‘He has’ torever removed the penalty due to sin, and procured for those, who were 236 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: 14——18. exposed to it, that peace og conscience whieh the law could never give ; comp. vs. !—4. ‘“Ayvacouevous, see on 2: 11. 9: 13. 10: 10. 15. Maoruosi 02 juiv .... ayvov, moreover, the Holy Spirit also testifies [this] to us. A, moreover, a continuative of the dis- course, here marking the transition to a new paragraph, in which appeal is made, by way of confirming what the writer had said. Tie Holy Spirit means, the Holy Spirit who speaks by the Scrip- tures; as the sequel shews, which is a quotation from the Scrip- tures. “//uiv, to us, means, that the sentiment which the writer had been inculcating, the truths which he had declared, are con- firmed by what the Holy Spirit says ¢o us, i.e. to us and to all, in the Scriptures of truth. Mere yeo ro noostonxévac, for after having first said, viz. first in order, or in respect to time. 16. Avrn 4 dvaPjxn x. tA. See on chap. 8: 10, where is the same quotation. It is worthy of note, however, that even here, where the same passage is appealed to, the words are not all the same. In 8: 10, we have 1 o¢xw ’/oga7jA; in 10: 16, avrovg: in the former, didovg vouous wou elo cHY OLavOoLaY avrov; in the latter, dedovg vouous wou éni xaodtag avroyr: in the for- mer, éni xugdiag avra@y éncyoawe avrous; in the latter, én? tov diavormy avrov éncygpayw avrovs. Non refert verbum, sed res ipsa. The meaning of both is the game. De minimis non curat lex. 1%. Kai tov opagriay tok. fond on 8: 12), then [he says] ‘© Their sins, etc.” Kat, then, here evidently marks the apodosis or corresponding and concluding part of the sentiment, and stands asa kind of counterpart to mod in wera yao 70 MOOELONXEVAL, V. 15; otherwise the.sentence is an example of the anacoluthon. Comp. 8: 10—12, where the distance, at which roy auaoray x, r. A. follows the first clause, justifies the translation here given to xaé; a translation which, indeed, is frequently necessary in the writings of the New Testament, in order to render the connexion of the sense plain. 18. The Writer next proceeds to shew, for what purpose this quotation is here made, i. e. to express the sentiment, that under the new covenant or gospel dispensation, absolute and Jinal pardon is to be obtained. “Osou 02 &qeorg .... aduagriag, now where there is remission of these, there is no more offering for sin. COMMENTARY OW HEB. 10: 18, 19. 237 ” Apeoug here means, spiritual pardon or remission, on the part of God as judge and ruler of the world. Zovrwy, i.e. rovtay Guaoteoy xa cvoucoy mentioned in the preceding verse. Ovxerz, i. e, offering is no more needed, is no more presented. This circumstance makes a great difference between the new covenant and the old one. Under the latter, sacrifices must be perpetually repeated ; and after all, only czvi/ and ecclescastical par- don was to be obtained by them. Under the former, one sacrifice is sufficient, and avails to procure, for all nations and all ages, spiritual pardon or remission of the penalty threatened to be in- flicted in a future world. Well might the apostle call this a new covenant. The writer having gone through a comparison of the new dispensation with the old, and having shewn, that whether Christ be compared with angels who were the mediators of the Mosaic law, or with Moses himself, or with the high priest of the Hebrews, he holds a rank far above them; having also shewn, that whether the temple in which he ministers be compared with that at Jerusalem, or the sacrifice which he offers be compared with those sacrifices pre- sented by the Jewish priests, either as to its exalted nature, its spiritual efficacy in respect to procuring pardon for sin, or the duration and extent of its effects, the Mosaic institutions are nothing more than the shadow, of which the Christian ones are the substance ; he now proceeds to the hortatory and admonitory part of his epistle. In this, various subjects are presented, which the circumstances of those whom he was addressing rendered it expedient to consider. All that was peculiarly attractive to the Jew, in the Mosai¢ ritual; all that served to allure him away from his adherence to Christianity and expose him particularly to the danger of apostasy, the the apostle has brought into view, in the preceding part of our epistle, with a design to shew, that however attractive or important these things might in themselves be, there was something still more so in the Christian religion, something of which the Jewish religion offered only a shadow or adumbration. Nothing could be more apposite, then, to the case in hand, than the argument of the apostle, in the preceding part of this epistle. The practical application, which follows, is designed to excite those whom the writer ad- dresses, to constancy and perseverance in their Christian profession, to dehort them from apos- tasy, and to warn them against its tremendous consequences. With his warnings, however, the apostle intermingles a great dea] of encouragement ‘and promise, in order to excite in them an earnest desire to obtain the rewards, which would be bestowed on all who remained faith- ful to the end of their course, He begins the hortatory. part, by an appeal to the great encouragement, which the present privileges of the Hebrew Christians afforded them, to persevere in their Christian profession. 19. "Lyovres ovv, adsdqoi.... /moov, since, then, brethren, ye have free access to the sanctuary, by the blood of Jesus. Ovdv, then, ‘238 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: 19, 20. therefore, or, since then. Tagénoia, in its first acceptation, means boldness of speech, or, the liberty of speaking without restraint. But the word is also used to designate, freedom from restraint generally considered ; which is plainly the case here. ITu@énotay eis rv etoodor, lit. freedom in respect to entrance, i. e. free access, unre- strained liberty of approach. “Ay/wv, i. e. adyOvvmy, the heavenly sanctuary, or, the presence of God, comp. 9: 24.. “Zyv 10 aiuate ‘Jnoow denotes, the means by which this access is procured, agree- ably to what has been shown in chap. vii—x. 20. "Hy évexaivioey.... Gaoar, in a new and living way which he has consecrated. ‘Odov 1 take to -be the accusative of manner, construed with xazo understood ; or it may be considered as a re- petition of ¢¢sodov, and in apposition with it. IZgoogazoy means, recent, and has reference to the way lately opened by the new cov- enant or gospel dispensation. The way is called new, however, not merely because of this, but also because those who draw nigh to God in it, have liberty of access in their own persons to the mercy seat, and there obtain pardon, by means of a sacrifice altogether different from that which was offered for worshippers by the Jewish priests. : Zacar, i. q. Cwomorovcer, i.e. eto Curvy cyovour, leading to life, conferring life or happiness. So €aw is often used in the New Testament. But it may mean, here, perennial, perpetual, (a frequent sense of aw in the Hebrew Greek) ; and this would be altogether congruous with the preceding context, which insists on the perpetuity of the sacrifice of Christ. On the whole I prefer the former sense. So Theophylact, who assigns the following reason for the epithet Caoav, viz. Ore % mewryn Od0S Yavarnyooos iy, i. e. because that any one, who entered the inner vail of the temple, was punished with death. But here, viz. under the gospel, it is the way to life. *"Kvexaivioe, consecrated, dedicated. 'To consecrate a way, is to open it for access, to dedicate it to use. So Jesus opened the way of access for sinners to the eternal sanctuary, in which, if they go, they may obtain free access to God, and pardon for all their offen- a Me vot naromEeraopatos.... cagxos avrov, through the vail, that is, his flesh. translate these words literally, because Iam not well satisfied that I understand their meaning. The opinions COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: 20. 239 of all the commentators it would be tedious, if not useless, to recite. The principal interpretation, in which the most distinguished of them unite, is, that, as the vail of the temple must be removed in order to enter the inner sanctuary, so the body of Jesus must be re- moved (by death), that we might have liberty of access to the sanc- tuary above. An exegesis which, while the facts to which it alludes are true, still presents a comparison incongruous at first view, and seemingly requires a distorted imagination to recognise it with any degree of satisfaction. I could more easily acquiesce in the idea, that there is a kind of paronomasia here, in respect to the word dua. The form of it may be thus expressed. ‘ As the most holy place in the earthly temple, could be approached only through (dec) the vail, i.e. through the aperture which the vail covered ; so the heavenly sanctuary is approached only through (duc implied) the flesh or body of Jesus.’ In this last case, dea (if employed as here supposed) would mean, by means of, because of, on account of, viz. by means of the body of Jesus sacrificed for sin, see v.10. The paronomasia would consist in using dve, in the first case, in the sense of through with respect to place; and in the last case, in the sense of through, with the sig- nification of by means of. Instances could easily be accumulated, where the same word is employed in different senses, in the same sentence. E. g. ‘ Let the dead (vezgovs) bury their dead (vezoovs),’ Luke 9: 60; where vexgovs, in the first case, means morally dead, in the second, physically dead. So 2 Cor. 5: 21, ‘ He hath made him to be a sin offering (auagtiav), who knew no sin (auagtiar).’ In like manner the apostle might say, ‘ As the Jews had access to the inner sanctuary of the temple, dva xaraneraouatos, through the vail, so Christians have access to the heavenly sanctuary, dia oug- Ge, i.e. 61a MeVGGOOaS Gagz0s /jo0v,’ comp. v. 10. And although I would not admit paronomasia, except im cases where there are urgent reasons for it, it seems to be more tolerable here, than the other method of interpretation suggested above, and is certainly in harmony with the principles of the usus loquendi of the sacred writers. But after all, the mind still seems to feel a want of definite sat- isfaction, in regard to either of the methods of interpretation above proposed, May I be allowed, in a difficulty of such a nature, to 240 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: 20. propose, at least for consideration, a third method of interpreting the expression 17¢ Gagx0¢ avrou ? In John 1: 14, it is said, ‘ The Word became flesh, oaoé ; to which the writer adds, zai éoxjrvmoev év yuiv. In 1 Tim. 3: 16, we have @<0¢ égaveow9n év ouyxi, supposing the reading to be correct, (and the evidence seems to me quite in its favour, and so Dr. Knapp has judged). In Rom. 1:4, a broad distinction is made between the nature of Christ xata@ owoxza and his nature xara mvev- pa ayemourvns ; and in Rom. 9: 5, Christ is said to have descended from the Jewish fathers zara owoxa, while he is at the same time, 6 éxi navtwy eos. In Phil. 2:6, Christ, who was év woogy Peou, éxevaoev Eautov, moegyy Oovdov daBov. In all these, and in many more passages which might easily be added, the human na- ture or body of Christ, seems to be regarded as.a kind of temporary tabernacle, or vail of the divine nature which dwelt in him. May not our author, in the verse under consideration, have had such an idea in his mind, when he wrote tov zaranereouatos, rout é0TL, rng oagzo¢g avtou? The idea would seem to be this; ‘ As the vail of the temple concealed the glory of Jehovah, in the holy of holies, from the view of men, so Christ’s flesh or body screened or concealed the higher nature from our view, (which dwelt within this vail, as God did of old within the vail of the temple).’ If, on this account, the apostle calls Christ’s flesh a vail, then we may ea- _sily make out the sense of the verse before us. It would stand thus; ‘ As God dwells behind the vail, in his earthly temple ; so God dwells behind the vail of Jesus’ body, in his spiritual temple, i. e. he can be approached only through the medium of this, or by means of this.’ So the context which precedes ; ‘ free access to the sanctuary is év aeuate /noov.’ That the writer had in his mind, a design to compare the vail of the Jewish temple, as the medium be- tween the worshipper and the visible presence of Jehovah; to the body of Christ (ao uvrov) as the medium of access to God, or what must interpose between God and him ; and this specially in re- ference to Christ’s sufferings and death; seems to be, on the whole, quite clear. “But which of the ways now proposed, will best present this general idea, or whether any of them are sufficiently grounded, to be fully admitted, is a question on which the reader must be left to judge for himself. My own apprehension, on the whole, is, that the occasion of calling Christ’s flesh a wail, or of comparing it to a COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: 20—22. 241 vail, lies in the views stated under this last explanation ; while, at the same time, the actual comparison of the vail of the temple and of Christ’s body, is confined to the single point, that each 7s a me~ dium of access to God. If you say, ‘ The comparison is, in most respects, without grounds of analogy, and the two things widely dissimilar ;? my answer is, that there is as much congruity in it, as there is in the comparison between the physical death of Christ, in Rom. vi., and the moral death of believers to sm, to which the former is there compared. Indeed, between all objects of com- parison, when God or Christ is one of these objects, there must of course be a dissimilarity that is exceedingly great in some respects, although there may be an analogy in some others. In whatever light our passage is viewed, it will be conceded, that its language is far from being in that easy flowing style, which has been so often asserted of our epistle. 21. Kal icota.... Pov, i. e. nad Eyovres izoéu x. t.2. the part. being implied, which was expressed at the beginning of v. 19. Comp. 4:14, 5: 10. 7: 17, 20, 26. 8:1. “Agee uéyar is the same as 77D by53,, high priest, a Hebraism. “nt tov oizoy tov Geov, comp. 3: 1—6. It designates here the spiritual house of God, i. e. Chris- tians. 22. Toovsozoimeda, let us draw nigh, i. e. 1 $0, which is implied. The manner of the expression is borrowed from approach to the most holy place in the temple, where God peculiarly dwelt. Mere alndivng....nistews, with a true heart, in full confi- dence. °Alknbiyyg means, sincere, faithful, true, and designates sin- _ cerity of Christian profession, faithful attachment to Christianity, in opposition to an insincere or an apostatising state of mind. ITAy- eogooia means, a full measure. Ilinoogogia niotews means, un- wavering, undoubling faith, a fulness of faith which leaves no room for apostasy or skepticism. How exactly this exhortation was adapt- ed to the state of the Hebrews, it is easy to perceive. "E@oavriopevoe .... movnoas, being purified as to our hearts from a consciousness of evil, lit. being sprinkled as to our hearts, etc. The expression is borrowed from the rites of the law, agreeably to which, very many ceremonial purifications, as we have seen, were made by the sprinkling of blood either upon persons or utensils. This was external. But when the writer says here, é@éavrvomevoe tac xagdiac, he designates spiritual, internal purification, and shews VOL. II. 3] 242 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: 22, 23. that he is not speaking of any external rites. This internal purifi- cation is effected by the blood of Jesus, with which Christians are figuratively said to be sprinkled. But the construction, ég¢avreo- Mévoe....a0..,. shews that the participle éggavzeouevos is to be taken in the secondary or metaphorical sense, i.e. purified from, cleansed from. Suvednoewe wovnoas, a consciousness of evil, or, a conscience oppressed with evil or sin. Perhaps both senses are included ; for both are characteristic of Christian sincerity and full faith, which is incompatible with a consciousness of evil designs, and which frees men from an oppressive sense of past evil, by inspiring them with the hope of pardon. 23. Kai Achounevor....xadaom, having also our bodies washed with pure water; another expression, borrowed from the frequent washings prescribed by the Levitical law, for the sake of external purification. See Ex. 29:4. 40:31, 32. Lev. 16:4. also chap. vi. xiv. xv. et alibi. It seems to me, that here is a plain allusion to the use of water in the initiatory rite of Christian baptism. This is alto- gether consonant with the method of our author, who is every where comparing Christian institutions with Jewish ones. So, in the case before us, he says, ‘ The Jews were sprinkled with blood in order that they might be purified so as to have access to God; Christians are internally sprinkled, 1. e. purified by the blood of Jesus. The Jews were washed with water, in order to be ceremonially purified so as to come before God ; Christians have been washed by the pu- rifying water of baptism.’. So Ananias exhorts Saul to be baptized — and wash away his sins, Acts 22: 16. In this latter case, and in that before us, the phrase is borrowed from the legal rite of washing for purification. In Heb. 10: 23, no particular stress is to be laid on the mere external rite of washing the body ; for: the connexion shews, that the whole is designed to point out the spiritual qualifi- cations of sincere Christians for access toGod. But the manner of expression turns wholly upon a comparison with the Jewish rites. Karéyousy rv omodhoytar ..... énayyechapevos, let us hold fast the hope which we profess ; for faithful is he who has promised. ‘O- _ pohoyiay means, profession or confession of the Christian religion, which is here called £Aridos, in reference to the hopes which it oc- casions or inspires. The idea is, ‘ Let us firmly retain our profes- sion of that religion, which fills us with hope respecting future re- wards and happiness.’ 4 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: 23—25. 243 Thovos yao 6 énayyerhamevos, i. e. let us firmly adhere to our religion, because God, the author of those promises which it holds forth, will certainly perform them; he is faithful, i. e. true to his word, and altogether worthy of confidence in respect to his promi- ses. 24. Kal xaravomper .... évymv, let us also bear in mind one another, so as to excite to love and good works. Karavoomuer, con- sider attentively, have a regard to, think upon or bear in mind. The writer means, that it is the duty of the Hebrews to cherish a mutual spirit of interest or concern for each other; and this, in such a way as would be the means of mutually exciting each other to more distinguished benevolence and good works. The perils to which they were exposed, rendered such advice very timely. 25. My EynatarelmOvtEs .... nagvaxahouvres, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, (as the custom of some is), but admonishing [one another]. “Hyxoradetnovres is in the same con- struction with xeravommey in v. 24, and consequently agrees with nets understood. “Havrovy relates to the first person plural here ; as it does elsewhere, e.g. Rom. 8: 23. 1 Cor. 11: 31. 2 Cor. 1: 9. 10: 12, 14. In like manner, nagaxaAovrres requires addnious to be mentally supplied after it; which is expressed after xaravow- uev. That aaoaxaiewm means, to admonish, any common lexicon will shew. The whole sentence is in the usual manner of the wri- ter, who very frequently employs xo/ywovg in warnings and admoni- tions. Kel rooovrm uadhov .... rjuéoav, and this [do] so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. That is, be more earnest and constant, in mutual admonition and efforts to excite each other to Christian diligence and perseverance, in proportion as the time draws near, when the judgments denounced against the Jewish na- tion, by the Saviour, will be executed. “Hyugoav, day, is doubtless an elliptical expression for zjuggay xugiov, 717 217; a very com- mon expression of the Hebrew writers, for a time of distress, of chastisement ; a time in which God executes the threats which have been uttered by his prophets. Comp. Ps. 37: 13. 1 Sam. 26: 10. Ezek. 21: 25. 13: 5. Job 18: 20. 24: 1. Amos 5: 18. Jer. 30: 7. Joel 1: 15. Is. 2: 12. Rev. 16: 14, et alibi. Now as Christ had foretold the destruction of the Jewish temple and nation, (which could not be unknown to the Hebrew Christians), what could be 244 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: 25, 26. more natural than for the apostle to say, ‘ Brethren, do every thing in your power to guard against apostasy. And this the more, be- cause a return to Judaism would now be very ill timed; the sea- son is near, when the Jewish temple and state are to be destroyed.’ All this is surely very apposite to the case in hand. But if we should suppose, (with not a few of the recent com- mentators), that the writer here alludes to the day when Christ should reappear and commence a visible reign on earth, (which they suppose the apostles to have believed, in common with many individual Christians of early times), then I could not perceive so much force in the apostle’s argument. It would run thus; ‘ Be very strenuous in using all means to guard against defection from Christianity to Judaism; and this so much the more, because, in a little time, Christ will commence his visible reign on earth. I will not deny, that the hope of reward for perseverance in Christian virtue, to be bestowed under this new order of things, might ‘be used as an argument to dissuade from apostasy ; but plainly, the argument as above stated is more cogent, and more to the writer’s purpose. How it can be proved to any one, after he has read and well considered Paul’s second epistle to the Thessalonians, that this apostle believed in the cmmediate and visible advent of Christ, is more than I am able to see. For thése reasons, I hesitate not to apply the phrase, »ueoar éyyifovouy, to the time in which the Jewish state and temple were to be brought to an end. 7 26. “Exovolme yao... . Bvola, moreover, should we voluntarily — make defection fr om our jalteions after receiving the knowledge of the truth, no more sacr ifice for sin remaineth. “Exovoiws, 1 appre- hend, is not to be construed here with metaphysical exactness, but has reference to the common and acknowledged distinction in the Jewish law between the sins of oversight or inadvertence, (m3 D), and those of presumption. For the first class, see Lev. 4: 2; 13, 22, 27. Num. 15: 27—29; for the second, Num. 15: 30, 31, where the presumptuous offender is described by the expression, WX, MI TA Mwy, who acts with a high hand. That this is the kind of offence to which the apostle alludes, is evident; for he distin- guishes it expressly from the sin of oversight or inadvertence, (33), by saying, that it is committed after being enlightened by the gospel. ‘Exovoeims means then, deliberately, with forethought, , COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: 26—29. 245 nn a UUdEttEIUEI SUES EIIUEUnEInnSSSSEddS Sn with settled intention, and not by merely sudden and violent im- pulse, or by oversight. That cuagravovrwyr, in this case, refers to the sin of apostasy, is quite plain from the context and the nature of the case, as well as from the object which the writer has in view. AAnPelac, true doctrine, i. e. the gospel, Christian instruction. Ovx éru.... Ovoia, i.e. if you make defection from Christian- ity, and renounce your hope and trust in the atoning sacrifice of Christ, no other is provided, or can be provided, for you. No oth- er makes real atonement for sin; this being renounced, therefore, your case is desperate. The sacrifice under the new covenant is never, like the Jewish offerings, to be repeated. Apostasy from your present religion, then, is final perdition. 27. Dofeoa df ug... . Unevavrious, but a kind of fearful ex- pectation of punishment, yea, of burning indignation [awaits us], which will consume the adversaries. Koioews often means, condem- nation, and sometimes the consequences of it, i.e. punishment, as here. Zilog mvgog is equivalent to the Hebrew ANIP WN, Zeph. 1: 18, which means vehement displeasure, severe punishment, fierce flames. Both xdozy and §yhog are nominatives to amodsimerae un- derstood. “Ho@isev, consume, devour, destroy, like the Hebrew >on, Deut. 32: 22. So Homer, It. xxii. 182, MaVTAS MUO éEOViEL. “Ynevavriovs designates all who oppose themselves to the character, claims, and kingdom of Christ. 28. “AGnrjous tig .... anodrvioxer, whosoever violated the law of Moses, suffered death without mercy, in case there were two or three witnesses. 'The meaning is not, that every transgression of the Mosaic law was punishable with death, but that in all the cases, which were of a capital nature, death without reprieve or pardon was inflicted, where sufficient testimony could be had. See Num. 15: 30, 31. ‘Eni dvoiv 7 revot paorvow, see Deut. 17: 6. 19: 15. The Hebrew "5 by is rendered éai by the Seventy; and well, for én denotes, in case that, on the condition that, any thing is done or happens. ‘The meaning plainly is, ‘provided two or three wit- nesses testify to a crime worthy of death.’ ” 29. IToow, doxeive .... xaranarnous, of how much sorer pun- ishment, think ye, shall he be counted worthy, who hath trodden un- der foot the Son of God. Aoxeirs implies an appeal, on the part 246 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: 29. of the writer, to the conscience and judgment of his readers, who, it is taken for granted, will decide according to his own views, in respect to the point in question. °4£cwOyoerae is applied either to desert of reward or of punishment ; just as we say, in English, ‘The man is worthy of reward,’ or, ‘ worthy of death.’ Karanatrnous signifies, to treat with contempt, to spurn at, to treat with contumely. Apostasy from the Christian religion im- plies this; and the peculiar criminality of it is here argued, from the superior claims which Christ has, on every account, to regard and fidelity. Koi 10 ainue.... %y1a00n, and hath regarded the blood of the covenant, by which he hath been consecrated, as unclean. The mode of expression is taken from the Jewish rites. When the people of Israel renewed their covenant with God, Moses sprinkled them with blood, Heb. 9: 19, 20. Ex. 24: 8. This is called the blood of the covenant. So under the new covenant, when Christians are consecrated to the service of Christ, and make an open profession of his religion, (as the people of Israel did of theirs), they are fig- uratively said to be sprinkled or cleansed with the blood of Jesus ; comp. Heb. 9: 14. 10: 22. 18: 20. -1 Cor. 11: 25. 1 John 1: 7. 1 Pet. 1: 19. Rev. 1:5. And as they enter into covenant with Christ, at such a time, pledging themselves to obedience and _ fidel- ity, so the blood with which they are said to be sprinkled, is called the blood of the covenant. The sense of the expression is plainly spiritual, but the form of it is borrowed from the Jewish ritual. Kowov nynouueros, regarding it as common or unclean, i. e. | -as blood not consecrated, but like any common blood ; therefore, as having no consecrating or cleansing power, as not having set apart those, who were sprinkled with it, for the peculiar service of God in the gospel, nor laid them under peculiar obligations to be devoted to the cause of Christ. Ey o nyLaodn, by which he has been consecrated, i. e. to Christ, set apart for his service; another expression borrowed from the Jewish rite of consecrating things to the service of God in the tem- ple, by sprinkling them with blood. See on 9: 22. Kai ro avevpa rns yaouros évuBoloas, and hath done despite to the Spirit of grace. °EvuGyioag designates the idea of treating with spite, or malignity, or contempt; and is nearly equivalent to zaranatnous above. IIvevua ry¢ yaourog means, either the gra- COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: 29, 30. Q47 cious Spirit, or the Spirit who bestows grace, i. e. religious, spiritual favours and gifts. Comp. 1 Cor. 12: 4—11. But many commen- tators interpret mvevuo HS yaorz0g, as meaning simply grace or gospel blessings. But this does not accord with the idiom of our epistle ; comp. 6: 4, where apostates are described as having been méroyous mvsvuaros ayiov. The question, however, whether nveuwo here means agent or influence, is not so easily settled ; for the sense is good and apposite, interpreted in either way. I in- cline to adopt the former meaning. 30. This awful warning the apostle follows up with a quotation from Scripture, descriptive of the tremendous nature of the punish- ment threatened. Ovdumev yoo .... xvovos, surely, we know him who hath said, To me belongeth punishment, I will inflict it. The passage is quoted from Deut. 32: 35, nbw Dp: "5, to me belong- eth punishment and retribution. ’ Exdlunors, Hike the Hebrew pa, literally means vengeance, revenge. But as this is evidently sites of God only avSownone9we, the meaning is, that God does that which is analogous to what men do when they avenge themselves, i.e. he inflicts punishment. ‘The idea is rendered intense, by the subsequent intimation, that the almighty, eternal God will inflict such punishment. Ayet xigvog are words of the apostle, not of the Hebrew Scrip- tures, and are probably added here, to shew the end of the quota- tion made, and to enforce the threatening; for in the same way, the Hebrew prophets often expressed themselves when they utter- ed comminations, adding to them mist Ons, thus saith Jehovah. Kai nod .... Aaov avrov, and again, “ The Lord will judge his people.” This quotation may be either from Deut. 32: 36, or Ps. 135: 14, both places containing the same expression. If it be from the former place, then it is on account of the clauses that in- tervene between the first quotation and this, that the writer says, xot made. If from the latter, then the reason for subjoining xac nadeyv, is still more evident. Kovwvet means here, as often, to pass sentence of condemnation, to subject to punishment, to punish. The corresponding oziyos in the Hebrew clearly shews that such is the sense of the original 71); for it runs thus, both in Deut. 32: 36 and Ps. 135: 14, by? pan? 333, and on his servants will he take vengeance. Probably the expression in Ps. 135: 14, is a mere quotation of Deut. 32: 36. # 248 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: 3]1—33. 31. Well may the writer add, gofeoov ....wvrog, it is a fearful thing, to fall into the hands of the living God. °Euneceiv sig Tag yeioas, I72 >D2, means, to be at the disposal of his vindic- tive power, i. e. of his punitive justice. It is a Hebraistic mode of expression, for the classic writers say, meoeiv Un0 tas yelous. Zaveog probably here means, ever-living, as it commonly does elsewhere, when applied to God. This idea, moreover, augments the dreadful nature of the punishment; which is altogether appo- site to the writer’s design. 32. The writer now proceeds to enforce his admonition against apostasy, by holding up to the Hebrews encouragement to perse- vere from the experience of former days, when they remained stead- fast amid many trials and sufferings. Avapyuvnouecde O& tas mgotegoy .... nadnuarwyr, call to mind, now, former days, in which, after ye were enlightened, ye en- dured a great contest with sufferings. That is, ‘ Faint not, be not discouraged, at the prospect of trials. Look back to the time, when ye patiently endured 'severer trials than ye now suffer, and still persevered. Continue to do as you have already done.’ “Huéoas, like the Hebrew p49. is often used for time, season, indefinitely. Wwreodevtes refers to the illumination which they received, when the knowledge of the Christian religion was first imparted to them. What the e&Anove naPnuarwy was, is explain- ed in the verses which follow. 33. Touro mév .... Gearorlduevor, partly because ye ‘were made.a public spectacle, both by reproaches and afflictions. Touro . wey... oUt0 Oé correspond, and when thus related bear the sense which is here given to them. ‘“Ovecdcouoig refers to the re- proachful appellations and language, addressed to Christians by their persecutors 5 #A/yieov, to the various sufferings inflicted upon them by the same. In this way, they were exposed to public view, Seatorlouevor, i.e. held up to the world as persons worthy of re- proach and ill-treatment, or made a spectacle to the world as suf- ferers of these things, and thus loaded with disgrace. Tovro 0... . yevundévtas, and partly, because ye were asso- - ciated with those who were thus treated. That is, a part of their e&PAnovg consisted in the sympathy which they were called to ex- ercise towards others, who were reproached and _ persecuted. "_dvaoteépouct I have rendered as having a passive sense here, pe. COMMENTARY ON HEB. LO: 33—36. 249 viz. who were thus treated ; and so many critics render it. Still it would be difficult to find a classical example of giving to this verb a passive sense, inasmuch as it is commonly used in the middle voice, and employed as a verb neuter deponent. I have translated _ ad sensum. “ 34. Kai yoo... . ovvenaSjoare, for ye did truly sympathize with those who were prisoners. Instead of deoutiors, prisoners, some manuscripts and editions, with several of the fathers, have deouerg wou; which is the reading of the received text, and is pre- ferred by Matthiae, Michaelis, Carpzoff, Noesselt, and others. But dzouiorg has the weight of authority in its favour; it is suffi- ciently consonant with the context; and it is, perhaps, on the whole, more natural to suppose the writer to have spoken of “ sym- pathizing with prisoners,” than ‘“ with bonds.” There is no im- portant objection, however, to the latter expression; and if Paul be the writer of our epistle, deouois wou gives a very emphatic mean- ing. : Kai ryv aonayny.... nooosdeéaode, and cheerfully endured the plundering of your own property. This was a part of the @hiweeg, which they had suffered in former times. Twaoxovees éyew.... wévovoav, knowing that ye have for yourselves, in heaven, a possession of a better and more lasting na- ture. ‘“Eovroig, dativus commodi. “ Yragéw, any thing possessed, estate, property. Kgeirtova, better than earthly possessions, i. e. spiritual, heavenly, not material and earthly. Mevovoar, enduring, permanent, not perishable, fleeting, temporary, like all earthly pos- sessions. 35. My anoBadyre .... peyedny, cast not away then your confidence, which will obtain a great reward. 'That. is, act as you formerly did, and thus gain possession of the xge(rrova xai mévou- Say viageer. 36. ‘Ynouovns yao... . émayyehtav, ye have need, no doubt, of patience, in order that when ye have done the will of God, ye may receive the promised blessing. Patience they needed, because of the many trials and temptations, to which they were still exposed. Tug, surely, truly, and (which is equivalent) it is true, no doubt. The writer means as much as to say, ‘I readily concede, that pa- tience is requisite, in your present circumstances, in order that you should persevere.’ Jo do the will of God, here, is to obey the VOL. II. 32 * 250 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: 36—38. requirement to believe and trust in Christ. “Anayyediav, thing promised, reward proffered ; for the promise itself they had already received. ‘Enayyediav here, and uio0anodoolwr inv. 35, both re- fer to the unagéwy xosirrova xai uévovoay mentioned in v. 34, and which is there represented as promised to them, in case of obedi- ence. 37. "Lire yao wingov .... yooriet, however, yet a very little while, and he who is coming will come, and will not delay. Thatis, the Messiah (0 goyouevog) will speedily come, and, by destroying the Jewish power, put an end to the sufferings which your perse- cutors inflict upon you. Comp. Matt. xxiv. “Ooov doov is an in- tensive form of expression, which is applied either to things great or small, like 4&7, 1N72. It is employed in the like way, howev- er, by the classic Greek authors, ‘The whole phrase resembles that in Hab. 2:3, “N78 N27 N2 1D for it (viz. the vision) will surely come to pass, it will not delay. If, however, it be an actual quotation, the application of the words is different from that of the original, and the writer designed merely to use the language to express his own ideas. In fact, the Septuagint version of the passage in Habakkuk, differs slightly from the words used by the apostle. It runs thus, Ore goyouevog n&er, nal ov uy yoovion. It seems quite probable, (considering the quotation from Hab. 2: 4, which follows), that the apostle had the Hebrew expression above _ quoted in his mind. But it seems equally plain, also, that he has made use of it only as the mediunt of expressing his own particular idea, and not as a designed quotation used according to the exact. - idea of the original. I have marked it as a quotation, however, in my version, because the words appear to be quoted. 38. “O dé dinavos éx niorems Cyjoeres, the just, too, shall live by faith. In Hab. 2:4, it is sm2my 1n297N2 P2sX1, which (if render- ed according to the accents) will be, The just by faith shall live, i.e. the just man who has faith shall be preserved. .The expres- sion in our verse is capable of the same translation, and Dr. Knapp has pointed it so as to be construed in this way. But I apprehend, after all, that this is not the meaning of either the Hebrew or Greek phrase. Jaith is put here as the means of preservation, in opposi- tion to apostasy or defection, in the other part of the verse, which is the means of destruction or disapprobation. ‘ A persevering confidence or belief in Christ,’ (the writer means to say), ‘ will be COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: 38. 251 the means of preservation, when the Lord shall come to execute his judgments upon the Jewish nation.’ So the Seventy understood the phrase, which they have rendered, 0 02 dizewog éx alorews wov fjosra ; as if they read °73372N3 instead of In2772N3. The mean- ing of &% miotews wou, must of course be, by faith or confidence in me, which expresses the condition of being saved, rather than the peculiar character of the person who is saved. I understand the expression, in Hebrew and in our epistle, in a similar way. If the apostle meant to quote here, it is evident that he has not adhered to the text of the Septuagint. Kai éav vnoorethnrae.... év aur, but if any one draw back, my soul hath no pleasure in him. 1 hesitate whether to translate “at here as the disjunctive but, or to consider it as an elliptical ex- pression for zai A¢yeu, i.e. nal Aéyer 0 Geog vel 7 yougn. The lat- ter resembles the usage of this epistle; see 1: 10. 10:.17. The former sense, (xai but), is quite common in. the New Testament writers. Either method of interpretation is consistent with idiom, and with the scope of the writer. I have, on the whole, preferred the antithetic form of the sentence, and rendered xai, but. "Eav vnooreiAntas x,t. 1. seems plainly to be a quotation from Hab. 2: 4. The apostle, however, has changed the order of the verse, quoting the latter part of it first, and the former part last. The original Hebrew runs thus, 32 7U53 SW. ND App 45N, behold the scornful, his mind shall not be happy + ; or (as Gesenius translates) See! he whose soul is unbelieving shall, on account of this, be unhappy. 'The Seventy, who have rendered the Hebrew in exact accordance with the words of our epistle, must have read ‘wp? here, as they did °n2272N23 in the clause. preceding. This is the more probable reading, but it cannot now be critically defend- ed. We can only say, dherefateh that the quotation of the apostle is, on general grounds, ad sensum, but not ad literam. The senti- ment of the Hebrew, is, that the scorner or unbeliever of that day should be unhappy; the sentiment of the apostle, that the unbe- liever, i. e. the apostate Christian who renounces his religion, shall incur divine disapprobation.. The same sentiment lies at the foun- dation, in both cases. Such disapprobation the last clause express- es, ovx evdoxel % Wuyn wou év avt@, where the negative form of expression is employed, (as often in sacred and also classical writ- 4 a 252 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 10: 38, 39. ings), instead of the affirmative, i.e. ‘he shall be an object of my displeasure.’ iy 39. “Husic dé ovx ....anwhevav, but we are not of those draw back to destruction. ‘Yrooroiye is the abstract noun, shrink- ing back, timidity, withdrawing ; and (as is common) the abstract is here put for the concrete, i.e. for persons who withdrew or shrink back, viz. from their Christian profession. The consequence of such withdrawing is enwisva; see vs. 26, 27. , “Alda mistews, Eig MEQUTOInOLW Wuy7s, but of those who believe, to the salvation of the soul. Isgenoinoey means lit. obtaining, ac- quiring, possessing. But as it is here placed in antithesis to a7w- Aevay, it plainly means, saving, or salvation. Iictewe, faith, belief, is an abstract noun used instead of a concrete, in the same manner as Umoorosns above. , o COMMENTARY ON HEB. 11: 1. Em _ Having mentioned faith, or belief, confidence, as a peculiar and most important character- istic of those who persevere in the Christian religion, so as to secure their salvation ; the wri- now proceeds, with great force and propriety, to make his appeal to the Old Testament ‘Scriptures, i in order to shew that faith or confidence in the divine promises has, in all ages, been the means of perseverance in true religion, and consequently of salvation. In 10: 34—39, the apostle had exhorted his readers to persevere in waiting for the rewards of a future world, Ureageww év ovoavots zQElTTova val Wevovoay .. . . meoFaTodoGiay meyeanv.... Try ayyehiav. He now goes on to shew more fully, that the very nature of faith and the character of believers demand this. All believers, in every age, have done so; and the He- brews ought to follow their example. See on the nature of the faith, brought to view in this chapter, Vol. I. p. 184. e. seq. CHAP. XI. 1. The general nature of faith is first explained. ” Hore 02 mio- rig... . Bhetouevor, now faith is confidence in respect to things ho- ped for, [and] convincing evidence of things not seen. “Ynooraces, confidence, confident expectation. Others, with Chrysostom, ‘ Faith gives reality or substance to things hoped for.’ The sense is good ; but the shade of meaning is not exactly hit. If this were the idea of vmdoraoes, we might expect the antithetic word to be cowperwr or avidwy, incorporeal or immaterial things, instead of éAneCopevov. The use of vadoracce, in the sense of confidence, etc. belongs to the later Greek, and is frequent in the New Testament. This sense is evidently appropriate here. The writer had just been ex- horting his readers not to cast away their confidence or boldness, which would ensure a great reward, 10: 35. If any one should ob- ject to this exhortation, that the objects of reward were all future and unseen ; the reply is, that ‘ the very nature of belief or faith, im- plies confidence in respect to objects of this nature. All the pa- triarchs and prophets possessed such faith.’ “ZAncCouévwy means, things future which are the objects of hope, and not of present frui- tion. The things future, are the rewards which have just been mentioned above. "Eheyyos, demonstration, proof, convincing evidence. This last idea I have expressed in the translation. The meaning is, that faith in the divine word and promises, is equivalent to, or supplies the place of, proof or demonstration, in regard to the objects of the unseen world, i. e. it satisfies the mind respecting their reality and importance, as proof or demonstration is wont to do. ~ iw. 254 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 11: 1—83. That the faith here brought to view, and adverted to through chap. x1. is not specifically what some theologians call saving faith, viz. faith in Christ, in an appropriate and limited sense, is eyident from the nature of the examples which are subjoined by the write e.g. vs. 3, 4, 5, 7,8, 11, etc. In this chapter, faith is belief or confidence generally in divine declarations, of whatever nature they may be; for it does not always have respect even to promises, or to the future; e.g. v. 3. Now the same confidence in what God declares, respecting subjects of such a nature as are brought to view in this chapter, would lead the person who exercises it, to confidence in all which God might declare respecting the Messiah, and consequently to belief in Christ. It is then called, by theolo- gians, saving faith. But it should be remembered, that this is on- ly a convenient technical phrase of modern theology ; not one em- . ployed by the sacred writers. The true and essential nature of faith, is confidence in God, belief in his declarations ; and whether this be exercised by believing in the Scripture account of the cre- ation of the world ; or, as Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, and others, exercised it, in respect to specific objects; or, by be- lieving on the Messiah; it is evidently the same disposition of mind, in all cases. It is confidence in God. It is, therefore, with perfect propriety, that our author here excites the Hebrews to persevere in their Christian faith, by various examples which exhibit the power of faith in the ancient worthies, as a principle of pious and virtuous belief and action. ; (2. Ey ravrn yoo... + mQEoBUTEQOL, on account of this, moreo- ver, the ancients were commended. Meaorvoém not unfrequently means, to applaud, praise, commend, openly signify approbation. See Wahl’s Lex. no. 2. This is evidently the sense of the word here. - 3. IMoree voowusy.... yeyovevat, by faith, we perceive that the worlds were formed by the word of God, so that the things which are scen were not made from those which appear. IItoret, confidence in the account which the Scriptures (viz. Gen. 1.) give of the creation. It is confidence in God, too; for there could be no other witness of what was then done ; at least there could be none of the human race. Noovmer, we perceive, apprehend, attain to an apprehension of. Katnoriodac, ordinare, disponere, not simply to create or bring into being, but also to fit, prepare, form, i.e. reduce to form and i) COMMENTARY ON HEB. 11: 3. 255 order. ” Avwvas, worlds, i.e. the universe, °7>49 ; see on Heb. 1: 2. That aéovac, in this case, cannot mean seculum or aevum is suf- iently plain ; for in what tolerable sense could the writer say, that seculum or aevum was not made é% gatvouevoy, 1. q. was made éx BH Garvouevory, or, out of nothing? That the assertion in the ne- gative form, is of the same import as if it were of the positive form, might be easily shewn by appeal to a multitude of the like cases of Acrorne, in the Scriptures. ‘ John confessed, and denied not, but confessed, John 1: 20;’ where ovx% 7jov7joaro plainly conveys the same idea as wuodoyyoe. As to classical usage, the commentary on the next clause may be consulted. In what sense, too, could seculum or aevum be called Plexoueva? This word means, objects visible to the sight, or, palpable to the senses, 1. e. material objects. Wau- vOueve means the same thing; there being no more difference be- tween the two words, in Greek, as characterising objects, than there is between seen and apparent, in English. The assertion of the writer then is, that ‘ visible objects, 1. e. the visible creation, did not spring from objects that were apparent,’ i. e. that the visible cre- ation was not made out of matter before existing; which is the same as to say, that the world was created, brought into existence, by the word of God simply, and was not a mere reducing to order materials that before existed ; see on the succeeding clause of the verse, in the sequel. At all events, the idea of a seculum or aevum ‘ being framed (xatnorioGar) by the word of God,’ presents an in- congruity of which no example can be found in the sacred writers. Equally incongruous would émoinoe rovs aéavas, in 1: 2, be, if aé- wv were to be rendered seculum. “Pyuate Gov, the command of God; comp. Gen. 1: 3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26. Ps. 33: 6. 2 Pet. 3: 5. Eig co wn &% pawopévor ta Bhenoueve: yeyovevat, a controvert- ed, and somewhat difficult expression. If we construe it as the text now stands, the «7; must naturally be joined with yeyoveves, and it must be rendered, so that things visible were not made of things which do appear. Accordingly, Pierce insists on this construction, and maintains that the sense is, ‘So that things visible might ap- pear not to have been made of things apparent, i. e. out of pre-ex- isting matter.’ Those who adopt a different construction of the passage main- tain, that e/¢ 70 um éx Gacvousyww may be translated, as if it were 256 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 11: 3. written e/g ro éx uy gatvouevor. That such a metathesis of the negative «7, or its equivalent ov, ovx, is allowable, or at least that it is not uncommon, they endeavour to shew by appealing to exam- ples; e. g. 2 Macc. 7: 28, dre ovn 2& Gyr wy énoinoer aura Oo 20S, which plainly means, ‘ God made them [heaven and earth] from things that do not exist,’ i. e. out of nothing. So Arrian, de exp. Alex. VII. 23, “These things I do not blame, unless that 0 v% éxi weyadors weyadwe Oveonovdatero, he was too much oceupi- ed with small matters ;’ where ovx seems to qualify ueyahous. Plu- tarch, Paedagog. IX. 15, “ I should say that promptitude of speak- ing on any matter is not to be altogether disapproved; nor, on the other hand, ravryy ovx éni akiows coxeiv, is it to be practised in respect to trifling subjects.” So the Greek ovx zy sivas, he said he would not come. Arrian, Anab. 1.5, 4 ovx én yonveae év hoyw rideoPus Avraguaras, he said that the Autariatae were not to be put into the account. Polyb. p. 1331, rove un peoxortac amolvery, saying that they were not to be absolved. If the examples where gyi is used, be abstracted from the others, there are still a sufficient number, they aver, to shew that a metathesis of the ne- gative particle 47, is not without parallels. Chrysostom also transposed «7 here, and found no difficulty in it. He paraphrases it thus, 2 ovx dvtwy ta Ovta énolnoey 0 Hos" EX TWY UY Powvouevov, Ta Povousvor ex THY wh VPEGTWTMY, TA dgpectara. So the Vulgate, Erasmus, Luther, wall and most of the later interpreters. That the metathesis of an, in this case, so as to construe it in con- nexion with macvouerwy, may be admissible, there can, indeed, be but little doubt. Yet it is, after all, unnecessary ; for the phrase plainly has the same meaning, when translated agreeably to its pres- ent arrangement, if the nature of such a Avrory¢ be well understood. There is no need of understanding the examples cited from the clas- sics, in a different way. And indeed, take them which way we will, (either by way of metathesis in respect to the ovx or m7}, or of join- ing the negative with the verb or participle that follows), the sense, _ all must admit, is plain, and is substantially one and the same. These examples, it must also be admitted, cast sufficient light upon the sense of the passage Heb. 11: 3, so as to require no hesitation about admitting a meaning so well supported by parallel examples, and which, indeed, the context seems to demand. ok 3, COMMENTARY ON HEB. 11: 3. St We may also compare phraseology of a like nature, to be found in other parts of Paul’s writings. In Rom. 4: 17, he says, ‘* God restores the dead to life, and calls ra jj dvte ws dvta,” i. e. sum- mons [to fulfil his own purposes] things that do not exist, as though they did exist. In like manner, Philo, in Lib. de creat. mundi, p. 728, says, ra yao uy Ovta éxadnoev 6 DE0g Eig tO sivas, things which existed not, God called into existence. That uy potvouevwr is equivalent to 47 dvtwy, needs not to be formally proved. So in Hebrew, N72 quod invenitur, is a customary expression for ens, or existens ; and nx Nb, for res non existens, nihilum. On the whole, then, we must regard the phrase in question as equivalent to the expression in our language, ‘ 'The visible creation was formed from nothing,’ i. e. it came into existence by the com- mand of God, and was not formed out of any pre-existing materials. Deus ex nihilo mundum fecit, conveys the same idea. Such a phrase does not mean, that nothing was the materiel, out of which the world was constructed, for there would be no sense in this ; but it merely denies that any such materiel existed. ‘This entirely agrees with the preceding clause of the text, which asserts that the command of God brought the universe into existence ; and this is altogether con- firmed by Gen. 1. Here Moses represents, in v. 1, the heavens and earth as first brought into existence by divine power, and afterwards as formed and arranged into their present order; comp. Gen. 1: 1, with Gen. 1: 2 and the sequel of the chapter. In fact, if the man- ner of assertion in our text be strictly scanned, it will be found to be more exact and philosophical, than the Latin ex nihilo Deus mundum fecit, or the English, God made the world out of nothing. Each of these phrases presents the seeming incongruity of asserting, that no- thing was the materiel out of which the world was made. But our author is more strictly conformed to philosophical propriety, when he says, ‘ Things visible were not made.out of things that are visi- ble,’ i. e. the visible creation was brought into existence by the word or command of God simply, and was not formed or fitted up out of any pre-existing materials. Exactly so do we find the assertion in 2 Mace. 7: 28, ovx 2 dvtmy énoinoey avta 0 9s0g, God did not make them [heaven and earth] out of things existing, i. e. he strict- ly created them. Well may it be suggested, that faith in the divine word was re- quisite to believe this; inasmuch as Thales, Plato, Aristotle, and VOL. Il. 33 258 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 11: 3, 4. other eminent philosophers who followed not the divine word, in- dulged in speculations about the creation of the world, which were either very visionary, or quite different from the view which Moses has given. A, Iiste: nhelova.... 10 Dew, by faith Abel offered to God a belter sacrifice than Cain. TTheiove better, more excellent ; so fre- quently, e.g. Matt. 6: 25. Luke 12: 23. Matt. 12: 41, 45. Mark 12: 33.’ Luke 11: 31. Heb. 3: 3. Rev. 2: 19. On what account the sacrifice of Abel was more acceptable, commentators have speculated much, and assigned a great variety of causes. But it may be asked, Does not our text contain a solu- tion of this question? Abel made his offering in faith; the impli- cation is, that Cain did not. Av 7g Enaorvoendn .... Peov, on account of which [faith], he was declared to be righteous, God himself commending his oblations. How this was done, is not said in Gen. 4: 4. But most probably it was by fire sent from heaven, which consumed the sacrifice ; comp. Gen. 15: 17. Lev. 9: 24. Judg. 6: 21. 1 Chron. 21: 26. 27: 1. 1K. 18: 38. The appellation dixacog is given to Abel, in Matt. 23: 35. 1 John 3: 12. Kai dv avrns anoPavay éce hadst, and by it, though dead, he continues to speak. Av aurng, viz. by his faith. Aadet and hodel- tat are both supported by good authorities. The latter is preferred by Grotius, Hammond, Schmidt, Valkenaer, Michaelis, Storr, Rosenmueller, Bengel, Griesbach, Schudz, ete; the former, by Wetstein, Matthiae, Heinrichs, Knapp, etc. and has the majority of manuscripts, versions, and editions, in its favour. Where the balance of authority is,‘on the whole, nearly equal, I cannot well hesitate to prefer AwAsi to Acdetras. ‘The sense of the latter would be equivalent to wegrugeitas, sc. laudatur, is commended. But this idea has been twice suggested before in the same verse, by {aOTU- osirae and waetugovrt0s....9eov. It is hardly probable that it would be a third time repeated. But Aadsi, I apprehend, has reference to Gen. 4: 10, where the ‘voice of Abel’s blood is said te cry to God from the ground.’ In Heb. 12: 14, also, our author represents the blood of Christ and of Abel as speaking, AaAovyte. The form of expression only, in our verse, seems to be borrowed from the thought in Gen. 4: 10; for here it is the faith of Abel which makes him speak after his death, viz. he speaks, by his faith, COMMENTARY ON HEB. 11: 4, 5. 259 to those who should come after him, exhorting and encouraging them to follow his example. In other words, his example of faith affords admonition and instruction to succeeding ages. 5. Ilisrss "Evoy.... 0 9209, by faith Enoch was translated, that he might not see death; and he was no more found, because God had translated him. Tov wy teiv is equivalent here to s/¢ 10 un idsiv, or Ova co wy idsiv. The Hebrew has nq>x ink p>, God took him, where our author uses weve nx. The original, in Gen. 5: 24, says nothing respecting the point, whether Enoch was translated alive, or after death. Kai ovy evgtoxero is the Septua- gint version of the Hebrew 232°N, he was not, sc. he was no more among men. The idea, in the Hebrew and Greek, is for substance the same ; for ovy evoioxero means, he was no more to be met with, he was no longer extant, (X71 N>) among men. But all the Tar- gumists, viz. Onkelos, Jonathan, and the author of the Jerusalem Targum, understand Enoch to have been translated without dying. So the Comment. Bereschith Rabba, parasch. 25. f. 28. So, pro- bably, the Son of Sirach, 49: 14. I may add, that this is a very natural deduction, from the brief notice of Enoch’s translation in Gen. 5: 24. Early death is commonly represented, in the Old Testament, as the punishment of sin ; and that ‘“‘ the wicked should not live out half their days,’’ was the persuasion of most good men in ancient times. If then Enoch died before translation, how could his removal to another world have been regarded-as an evidence of his extraordinary piety? The texts to which Dindorf has appealed, in his notes added to the commentary of Ernesti, are very far from supporting the position, that the ancient Jews regarded premature death, as a testimony of heaven in favour of him who was the sub- ject of it. Nor is there any need of Rosenmueller’s concession here, viz. that the apostle, in his account of Enoch’s removal, has accommodated himself to the Jewish traditionary opinions. It may indeed be, that a tradition existed among the Jews, that Enoch ‘did not see death.” But that this was founded in fact, seems to be plainly deducible from the manner of the narration in He- brew, and the state of opinion, in ancient times, respecting early death. TIoo yao tH¢....tw Gem, he is commended, also, as having _ pleased God before his translation. The Hebrew says, [2073 DVTSNAKnN ‘Pian and Enoch walked with God, which denotes a 260 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 11: 5—7. state of communion and friendship with God, and implies, of course, a complacency in the divine mind with respect to him. The apos- tle, therefore, appeals to the sense of the Scriptures, in this case, and not to the words. ‘Nor does he mean to say, that the testimo- ny respecting Enoch’s pleasing God was given before his transla- tion ; but that testimony given, viz. in the divine word, respects his having pleased God before his translation. Zvageotéw governs the dative. 6. The writer now suggests the grounds, on which he builds the conclusion, that Enoch was translated on account of his fazth ; viz, ywois dé miotews .... evageotrnoa, but without faith, it is impossible to please [him.] The truth of this he rests upon his own declaration, and the common opinion on this subject, which he trusted that all his readers entertained. Tluorevoo you Osi. ... yiverat, for he who cometh to God, must believe that he exists, and that he will reward those who seek him. TToooegyouevov to Yew designates him who worships God, Dei cultorem; see 7:25. The phraseology is probably derived from going up to the temple to worship, in the sanctuary of which God dwelt, by his peculiar presence. Some have understood the phrase as referring to an approach to God in the invisible world, in heaven; but the idea here is like that expressed by the Hebrew phrases, going to God, returning to him etc. which usually denote, ‘ approach in the present world to his spiritual presence.’ Toig éx€nrovow avzrov, comp. the Hebrew o7bx wPp2, wT p°>N, which are employed to designate the worship and prayers of those, who are piously devoted to the service of God. The two fundamental truths of all that can properly be called religion, are here adverted to. The first is, a belief that God ex- ists ; the second, that he is the moral governor of the universe, i. e. that he rewards those who are pious, and, consequently, punishes those who are not so. He who denies this, denies all that sane- tions religion, and makes it binding upon the consciences of men. 7. Iliotes.... otxov avrov, by faith Noah, being divinely ad- monished respecting the future, with reverence prepared an ark for the safety of his household. XonuarvoOsis, comp. 8: 5 and Gen. 6: 13, 14. 7: 1—5. Mydérm Piestomever, i. e. the future flood, no signs of which were as yet visible. Hud@PnOsig may be taken either in the sense of fearing, viz. the destruction which was com- COMMENTARY ON HEB. 11:7, 8. 261 g; or it may be understood of the reverence which he paid to the divine admonition. I have translated it as bearing the latter sense, since this makes most directly for the apostle’s object, which is to exhibit the faith which Noah exercised with regard to the divine warning. Lig owrngiav, for the saving, or safety. It is often applied to temporal security or deliverance, like the Hebrew yawn. Ae ng narénowe .... xAngovomos, by which [faith] “he condemn- ed the world, and tea the justification which is by faith. *He I refer to aiorewsg, as do Sykes, Heinrichs, Dindorf, and others. Koowov means, wicked men, men of a mere worldly spirit ; as often, in the New Testament. Noah condemned these, by an example of faith in the divine warnings, while the world around him remained impenitent and unbelieving. In other words, his conduct con- demned theirs. ‘Eyévero ndnooromos, i. q. éxAngovounose, i.e. obtained, acqui- red, became possessor of. So Abraham is, in like manner, said to be justified by faith or belief, in Rom. tv., viz. belief in the prom- ise of God respecting a future seed. On account of Noah’s faith, he was counted p"7%, dixacos, (comp. v. 4 above), or, he was re- garded, treated, as dixavos. From this verse, then, we may conclude, that faith may be of a justifying nature, i. e. such as is connected with the justification or pardon of the individual who exercises it, without being specifi- cally directed to Christ as its object ; for here, the object of Noah’s faith was, the divine admonitions and comminations in regard to the flood. This only serves to shew, that faith, in its generic na- ture, has been the same in every age; and that it is, essentially, a practical belief in divine declarations. * 8. IMoree xohovusvog .... xdnoovoutav, by faith Abraham obeyed, when called to go forth unto the place, which he was to re- ceive for a possession. See Gen. 12: 1—4. Kadovmevog, summon- ed, invited, bid. ° Hel Peiy, viz. from his own country and kindred, Gen. 12: 1. Tomov means, the land of Canaan, Palestine, the fu- ture possession of which was promised to him. His faith, in this case, was manifested by believing in this promise. Kai ends .... éoyerae, yea, he went forth, not knowing whither he was going. Kai 2énd%e adds intensity to the preced- ing Unnjxovoe ; and J have translated it accordingly. The mean- ing ; 262 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 11: 8—10. ing is, ‘ he even went out, ignorant of the place to which he was going ;’ which serves to give a higher idea of the strength of Abra- ham’s faith, than if we should suppose him to be well informed re- specting the land of Canaan, before he went to it. 9. Tliorec magm@xnoev .... addoroiay, by faith he sojourned in the land of promise, while it belonged to strangers. ITiorer, by faith he did this, i.e. by confidence in the promises, which God had made respecting the future possession of this land and respect- ing his offspring, he was moved to sojourn in Canaan, while it be- longed to foreigners. “S§2¢, while, when, as often; see Wahl. “Ad- Aorgiay means, that which belongs to another, quod alieni est, non sui. "Ev oxunvais narounoac .... avrg, dwelling in tents, with Isaac and Jacob, who were likewise heirs of the same promise. That is, the promise was made to Abraham and his seed. What was not fulfilled in him, was to have its accomplishment in them. Hence ovyxdnoovouwy, fellow-heirs, joint-possessors, viz. with Abraham ; the same promise being made to them as to him, res- pecting the land of Canaan, and their future posterity. 10. “Eésd¢yero yao .... 980g, for he expected a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God. @euehiovs éyovoar, firmly built, well-founded. The plural, Seuediovg, augments the idea of firmness of construction. Ayusovgyog means, originally, one who labours for the public good, from djpog publicus, ad popu- lum pertinens, and goyov opus. Hence, secondarily, it is transfer- red to designate a labourer or artificer of any kind. It is often ap- plied by the heathen writers to designate the Divinity; and by Philo, Josephus, and the Christian fathers, it is employed as an epithet of the true God. Here, however, it is used as nearly a synonyme of reyviry¢; the latter conveying the idea of a builder skilled in the rules of his art, but djuvoveyds meaning more simply, maker, builder, fabricator. The meaning of the whole verse most evidently is, that Abra- ham looked for a permanent abode in the heavenly country, i. e. his hopes and expectations were placed upon the world to come. Tt was faith in this, which was édeyyo¢ ov Blexouevoy, and which moved him to obey the commands of God, and to do and suffer whatever he required. The fact, then, that saints under the Old Testament were moved, in their conduct; by considerations that COMMENTARY ON HEB. 11: 10, 11. 268 had respect to the invisible world or an immortal state of existence, is plainly implied here, by the reasoning of the apostle. See vs. 14, 16. 11. Moree xai avrn.... hae, by faith, also, Sarah herself received the power of conception. Ilioret, by faith ; how, or when? For when God announced to Abraham, that he should have a son by Sarah (Gen. 18: 10), she seems to have been in a state of un- belief, Gen. 18: 12. But although it is true that Sarah laughed on that occasion, and it must be admitted that this was occasioned partly by her incredulily, as Gen. 18: 13—15 shews; yet the same thing is affirmed of Abraham, Gen. 17: 17. The truth is, the first annunciation that a child would spring from them, occasioned, both in hisand Sarah’s mind, a feeling of incongruity,of impossibility that the course of nature should be so reversed. Subsequent consideration brought both to a full belief, in the reality of the promised future blessing. The history of this is not expressly given in Genesis, with respect to Sarah ; but it is implied. Kai avry Sao¢u, Sarah herself also. Kat airy, in this case, refers particularly to the fact that Sarah was barren, Gen. 16: 1, and that she was far advanced in old age, Gen. 18:11. The meaning is, that faith gave even to Sarah, unpromising as her con- dition was in respect to offspring, the power of conception, i.e. by faith she obtained this blessing. vg xaraPodnjv ongouatos, words tortured to the disgust of every delicate reader, by some of the critics. Even Wahl says, “she received strength so ro d¢yeoOuu onégua xaraBePdyuevor (i.e. by Abraham) sé ryv pojroav.” Did this need any supernatural strength? I construe the phrase very differently. Karafodyn means, foundation, commencement, begin- ning. Now what is the foundation, or commencement oneguerog, of offspring or progeny? Conception. The true idea of the phrase, then, appears to be fully given by the version above. In this view of the phrase, I observe, Dr. Schulz concurs, rendering Ovvemey sg xarafodny ongouactos, by das Vermogen zur Emp- fangniss, the power of conception. Kai mage “xavoov .... énayyethauevov, and this beyond the usual time of life; inasmuch as she regarded him as faithful, who had thus promised. Kai nage xargdrv, see Gen: 18: 11, inst s0- tov x. t. 4, which shews that the apostle considered it as quite cer- tain, that Sarah, like her husband, did come to full confidence in the divine promise. 264 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 11: 12, 13. 12. Avo nai ag évog .... ndnjder, wherefore, even from one who was dead too as to these things, there sprung [a seed], like the stars of heaven for multitude. 410, on account of which faith, viz. of Sarah, or perhaps, of Abraham and Sarah. Kal ag’ evos, even from a single individual, is a designed antithesis to the multi- tude who are afterwards mentioned. Consequently it heightens the description. Kol ravra vevexowuévou means, incapable (ac- cording to the ordinary laws of nature) of procreation; zai.... VEVEKOOMEVOL, i. e. NOt Only one individual, but one dead also. See the same description, in Rom. 4:19. Tudzta is governed by xare understood: Kodmws ra aotoa x. t. 4. that is, a very great num- ber ; comp. Gen. 15: 5. 22: 17. Kai ws 7 appmos .... avagldunros, and like the sand upon the shore of the sea, which cannot be numbered, i.e. an exceedingly great multitude. Xeilog Oadaoonsg, lit. lip of the sea which means the shore. So the word is used by profane Greek writers also; as labium is by the Latin ones. So the Hebrew "pw, Gen. 22: 17; which compare. . 13. Kata niorw ....énayyshiag, these all died in faith, not having received the blessings promised. Otrot nevteg—who? Abra- ham, Isaac, Jacob, and Sarah, mentioned in vs. 8—12; for ovzoe cannot well be here extended to all who are mentioned in the pre- ceding part of the chapter, because the ‘ promised blessings” were those, which were assured to the Hebrew patriarchs. “Anayyedlas, not promises, (for these they had received), but blessings promised, according to the idiom of this epistle. What were these blessings, heavenly or earthly? ‘The sequel will answer this question. "Alla m0GOwoEVv .... yn, but seeing them afar off, and joy- fully anticipating them, they openly professed themselves to be stran- gers and sojourners -en the earth. The application of this whole verse, to the expectation of the future possession of Canaan, and of a numerous progeny, would be admissible, were it not for the se- quel (vs. 14—16), which plainly forbids such an application. In addition to the faith of Abraham, and other patriarchs, in the prom- ises of God which had respect to temporal blessings, I understand, ‘the apostle as here asserting, that those ancient worthies also ex- ercised confidence in God’s word, respecting the blessings of the invisible world; i.e. theirs was Undoraorg éAneComevmy .... Ov Sienonévey. Those things which are invisible to the corporeal €OMMENTARY ON HEB. 11: 13—16. 265 eye, they saw with the eye of faith, and seeing, hatled them with joy (aonacapevor), welcomed them, greeted them or anticipated them with gladness, as we joyfully greet or anticipate the approach of a beloved friend, or of some distinguished favour. And, look- ing forward to them as their chief source of happiness, they openly declared themselves to be only strangers and sojourners in the present world. That yng, by itself, might refer to the land of Canaan, is plain enough; but that it does so refer here, is rendered quite im- probable by the sequel. The idea is plainly more general. ITa- genidnuos means, a temporary resident among any people, i.e. a sojourner. 14. Oi yao tovadra.... émegnrovor, now they, who thus pro- Sess, shew that they are set ahelioas for a country. Tudra heyou- TéG, Viz. saying or professing that they were strangers and sojour- ners inthe earth. ITaroidu, a fixed or permanent place of resi- dence, i. q. nodw mévovoay, 13: 14, or mode Gepedious éxovoay in v. 10 above. That this wargig was not of an earthly nature, the . writer proceeds to shew. 15. Kal ei wey éxetvng .... avaxauwat, for had they cherish- ed the memory of that [country] from which they came, they had op- portunity of returning [thither]. That is, if their native country on earth (zezgis), had been an object of affectionate desire, they might have easily returned thither, and dwelt there. But this they did not ; for, 16. Nouv 02 ougyovtae .... érovgavion, but now, they were de- sirous of a better [country], that is, of a heavenly one. Nir, i. e. while they were strangers and sojourners, during the time then. present. ‘The explanation of the writer, in respect to the country which the patriarchs sought, is so plain, that nothing can add to its perspicuity. Avo ovn Enoucyivetrae .... 10duy, wherefore God is not asham- ed of them, [nor] to be called their God; for he hath prepared a city for them. Avo, because, viz. because of the faith which they reposed in the promises of God respecting future happiness, or in regard to a modev éxovgavioy or wévovoav. To be their God means, to be their protector, rewarder, benefactor; comp. Rom. 3: 29. Rev. 21: 3,7. Ex. 3:6. Zech. 8:8. Gen. 15:1. “Aroiuace yao avrorg 710A, i. e. he will reward them, for he has in fact pre- VOL. Il. 34 266 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 11: 16—19. pared a m0duy, sc. éxouganioy, for them. By ellipsis 0vx énavoxuves Tat is omitted before Seog Enunadsioat avror. 17... Tliores ngocevnvoyev .... mevoatopevos, by faith, Abra- ham, when tried, made an offering of Isaac. Toocevnjvoye, made an offering of ; for the act, on the part of Abraham, was essentially done, when he had fully resolved to do it, and was proceeding to the complete execution of it, Gen. 22: 1-10, TlesguSonevos (like the Hebrew 753) means, either to put to trial, or to tempt, 1. e. soli- cit to sin. Which of these senses the word must bear, in any par- ticular passage, must depend on the character of the agent who oc- casions the trial or temptation, and the objects which he has in view. Beyond all question, 403 in Gen. 22: 1, and mecoulouevos in our verse, are to be understood in the sense of trial; for God is the agent, and “‘ he tempts no man,” i.e. solicits none to sin, James 1: 13. ¢ Kai tov deeeyevs .... avadetauevos, yea, he who had received the promises, made an offering of his only Son. Gen. 22:2. This clause is designed to augment the force of the description of Abra- ham’s case. It was not simply, that Abraham, in circumstances common to others, i. e. surrounded by several children, and with- out any special promises, made the offering in question ; but it was Abraham, to whom God had repeatedly made promises of a numer- ous progeny ; and it was Abraham’s only son, i. e. only son of prom- ise, who was the offering which he stood ready to make. 18. TIoo¢g ov... . ongopa, unto whom’ it had been said, After Isaac shall thy seed be named, The Hebrew, in Gen. 21: 12, is Pee 72 SOR pmsra, which means, thy seed shall be named after Isaac, i. e. thy seed, viz. the seed which is promised to thee, must descend only from Isaac. Neither Ishmael, nor the sons of Abra- ham by Keturah, could be progenitors of the promised offspring, and give name to them. The Septuagint and apostle have render- ed the Hebrew preposition 2, in PA¥73, by év, which there means, according to, with reference to, after. ‘This is a third circumstance added, in order to augment the impression of the reader respecting the faith of Abraham. . This patriarch, to whom promises had been made, not only offered up his only son, born of Sarah his beloved wife, but his only son, on whom all the promises of God respecting his future progeny were suspended. 19.’ Aoyrouevos, Ore xai.... eos, counting that God was COMMENTARY ON HEB. 117: 19.- 267 able to raise him even from the dead; i. e. he believed, that, in case Isaac should be actually slain and consumed as a burnt-offering, God could and would raise him up from the dead, so that the prom- ise*made to him would be fulfilled. ‘This was indeed a signal ex- ample of the strength of faith, and it deserves the commendation which the apostle bestows upon it. There are not wanting, however, critics of the present time, who attribute this whole transaction of Abraham to his supersti- tion, or his heathenish views of sacrifice, or to a dream which he erroneously considered as a divine admonition. And in regard to the interposition from heaven, which prevented his resolution from being executed, they aver, that the accidental discovery of a ram, caught by the horns in a thicket, was interpreted by the supersti- tious patriarch, as a divine admonition to refrain from proceeding with his design. How different all this is, from the views of the author who wrote Gen. xxu., of Paul in Rom. ry., and of the wri- ter of our epistle, need not be insisted on to any one, who does not make his own conceptions about the subject of religion and mira- cles, the standard by which the sacred writers are to be tried. “OGev avrov.... éxouloaro, whence, comparatively, he obtain- ed him, or, whence, as it were, he obtained him. It would occupy much room even to glance at the variety of interpretations, which have been put on this somewhat difficult phrase. Instead of this, I will simply state the one which appears to me altogether the most probable and satisfactory. Paul, speaking of the procreation of Isaac, in Rom. tv., mentions Abraham as then vevexowmpévov, and the véxowouy rns wjroas of Sarah. In v. 12 above, the same apos- tle speaks of Abraham as vevexommeévor, and his description of Sa- rah, in v. 1], implies the same thing. Now as Isaac sprang from Abraham and Sarah, both xara ravra vevexowuevol, what is more natural than to suppose, that in our verse this fact is adverted to? The sentiment seems to be this; ‘Abraham believed that God could raise Isaac from the dead, because he had, as it were, obtain- ed him from the dead, i. e. he was born of those who xara ravta vezgot 7oav.) Then the whole presents one consistent and appo- site sentiment. Abraham believed God could raise his son from the dead. Why? He had good reason to conclude so, for God had already done what was equivalent to this, or like this; he had done this, éy maga8oAn, in a comparative manner, i. e. in a manner 268 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 11: 19——21. that would compare with raising from the dead, when he brought about his birth from those who were dead as to the power of pro- creation. Tlaoufoiy means, comparison, similitude ; év maooBodn, comparatively, in like manner, with similitude, as it were. ‘Thus all is easy, natural, and consistent. How forced the other meth- ods of construction are, which have been employed here, the rea- der may determine for himself, by consulting them. It may be made a question, whether éxouiouro refers here, to Abrahamn’s having obtained Isaac from the altar of burnt offering, where he was as it were dead; or whether the word refers to Abraham’s having originally obtained him, viz. at his birth. It may be applied to either; but the latter application is far more sig- nificant, and accords altogether with the context. The hints for this explanation I owe to Dr. Schulz, in his commentary on the epistle to the Hebrews. 20. ore: nei wehiovtrwy .... Hoav, by faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau, in respect to the future. Tegi wehdovta evioyn- oé, lit. blessed Jacob and Esau in regard to future things. The sentiment is, ‘ pronounced a blessing upon Jacob and Esau, in re- gard to their future condition ;’ which accords with the facts as re- lated in Gen. 27: 26—40. It was faith in the promises of God, which enabled the dying patriarch to do this. 21. [orev loxwB.... evdoynos, by faith, Jacob, when about to die, blessed each of Joseph’s sons. See Gen. 48: 15, 16. “Anod- vnoxwy here, like the present participle in Hebrew, has the mean- ing of the Latin future in rus. It was not in the act of dying, that Jacob blessed the sons of Joseph, as Gen. 48: 8-22 shews; but it was when on his death bed, that both they and the twelve sons of Jacob were blessed by him; see Gen. 47: 31. 48: 2. 49: 33. Kai noocexvyysey .. .. avcov, and bowed himself upon the top of his staff. This last action did not accompany the blessing of the sons of Joseph ; at least it is not related in connexion with it, but as preceding it. See Gen. 47: 31, comp. 48: 1, 15, 16. I re- gard it, therefore, as a separate transaction, JToooexvvnoe (He- brew 1MmwW) designates, as it would seem, the act of worship or “reverence, paid to God, and occasioned by the grateful emotions of the dying patriarch, on account of the promise which his son Jo- seph had just made, to bury him with his fathers. That the He- brew arm}, and the corresponding Greek zoooexvrnoe, are some- COMMENTARY ON HEB. 11: 21. 269 times employed simply and merely to designate an act of religious worship, is plain from 2 K. 5: 18. Gen. 22:5. 1 Sam. 1:3. That m1nnwr7 generally means, worship or reverence by bowing down to- ward the earth, or even to the earth, is sufficiently plain; but that, in some cases, it also designates worship simply as a religious act, without necessarily implying a particular position of body, is suffi- ciently plain from 1 K. 1: 47, where it is said of David, in extreme old age, and confined to his bed, 2>Wanm—by Joan INNw2, he worshipped upon his bed ; a phrase constructed exactly like that in Gen. 47: 31; in both of which cases, Gesenius says, the act of wor- ship is signified without bowing down. This is indeed clear, from the nature of the position, and the infirmities of Jacob and David, If the reader wants evidence of a similar meaning of moooxvreém, he may consult John 4: 20--24. 12: 20. Acts 8: 27. 24; 11, ete. The only question of difficulty that remains, is, whether the present vowel-pointing of the Hebrew, mt7253 UNA Dy, upon the head of the bed, is probably more correct than the Septuagint mode of reading the Hebrew, viz. Swarm UNA by, upon the top of his staf. I have no hesitation in preferring the latter punctuation ; for what is MWAM WN, the head of a bed, in the oriental country, when the bed itself is nothing more than a piece of soft carpeting thrown down upon the floor?’ And what can be the meaning of Jacob’s bowing himself upon the head of the bed? For (1), there is no evi- dence, that Jacob was upon the bed, when Joseph paid him the visit recorded in Gen. 47: 28—31. It was after this, that Jacob was taken sick, Gen. 48: I, and sat up on his bed, when Joseph came to visit him, 48: 2. (2) An infirm person, lying upon a bed, if he assumed a position such as to bow himself, would sit on the middle of the bed, and not upon the head of it. (3) Ia all the Scriptures, the head of a bed is not once mentioned; and for a good reason, as the oriental bed had, strictly speaking, no head. For these reasons, I must regard Jacob as leaning upon the top of his staff for support, when he conversed with his son Joseph ; than which nothing can be more natural, for a person of his very ad- vanced years. In this position he was, when Joseph sware to him, that he would comply with the request which he had made in res- pect to his burial. This was so grateful to his feelings, that he spontaneously offered up his thanks to God for such a favour, q. d. he worshipped upon the top of his staff, i. e. leaning upon the top of 270 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 11: 21]—23. his staff, he offered homage or thanks to God ; just as David “ wor- shipped upon his bed,” i. e. did homage, or paid reverence to God, while on his bed, 1 K. 1: 47. That the present vowel-points of the Hebrew do not, in every case, give the most probable sense of the original, will not appear strange to any one, who reflects that they were introduced after the fifth century of our present era. All enlightened critics, of the present day, disclaim the idea that they are authoritative. The apostle says, that by faith Jacob worshipped. I understand this of that confidence in God which he entertained, and which led him to trust, that all which Joseph had promised him would be ac- complished. (22. More: mony ....évereiharo, by faith Joseph, at the close of life, made mention of the departure of the children of Israel [from Egypt], and gave commandment respecting his own bones. See Gen. 50: 24—26. Josh. 24:32. Trdevroy, see on anodrvijoxwr in v. QI. *Everétloto, i. e. he commanded that his bones should be carried up, out of Egypt, to the land of Canaan, when the Israelites remov- ed thither. It was by faith in the promises of God, that Joseph spoke thus confidently respecting the future exodus of the Israel- ites, and gave directions respecting his bones, which could be exe- cuted only in case this exodus took place. 23. Iiores Mwione....avrov, by faith Moses, after his birth, was concealed for three months by his parents. See Ex. 2:2. What is attributed by our author to the parents of Moses, is there said to have been done by his mother. But doubtless it was with her hus- band’s knowledge and concurrence; and even if it were not, there are many cases in Scripture, where what is done by one of any class or company of men, is attributed generally to the class or company ; e. g. one evangelist says that the thieves on the cross reviled Jesus ; but another informs us that one of them did this. ‘That zareveg ap- plies to both father and mother is well known, it being equivalent to our word parents. Avore eidov.... Baotheng, because they saw that he was a good- ly child, and did not fear the king’s commandment. °Asteiov, Heb. a0, goodly, fair, beautiful. Avarayno tov Paordews, viz. the command of Pharaoh, to destroy all the male children, Ex. 1: 16, 22. It was faith or confidence in divine protection, which led them to perform such a hazardous duty. COMMENTARY ON HEB. 11: 24—27. 271 24. [Mores Movong.... Dagaw, by faith Moses, when arrived at mature age, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter. Méyes YEVOMEVOS means, become full grown, become adult, having attained the stature of a man. °Hovnoaro, refused, etc.; no ex- press act of this kind is related in the sacred history; but the whole account of Moses’ conduct shews that he had, at this pe- riod, fully resolved upon leaving the court of Pharaoh, and embark- ing in the cause of the oppressed Israelites. 25. Maddov éhouevos....anodavorv, choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season. Aum rov Mov, i.e. the Israelites, to whom. this name is often given. I] gdoxagov auagrias anodavowr, viz. the pleasures of living at the court of Pharaoh, in princely magnificence. 26. Meilova nhovtov....Xovorov, counting reproach, like that which Christ suffered, as greater riches than all the treasures of E- gypt. That ovedcouov tov Xgcorov has the meaning here assign- ed to it, seems quite evident, if we consider, that the comparison between the reproach which Christ himself suffered, and the trea- sures of Egypt, would be inapposite here. The simple senti- ment is, ‘ Moses renounced pleasure and wealth, and endured suffering and reproach, because he believed in the promises which God had made of future good, and that he would deliver his people from the bondage of Egypt. So Christ, ‘* though rich, for our sakes became poor,” in order to redeem us from a bondage worse than that of Egypt. That Moses, then, counted reproach like that which Christ suffered, as preferable to the pleasure and wealth which he might have enjoyed at the Egyptian court, is plainly the meaning of the writer. Compare 2a0zjuara Xgorou, sufferings like those of Christ, in 2 Cor. 1: 5. Such a use of the genitive case is by no means unfrequent. ‘ AnéBhene yao eg tiv wvoPanodociay, because he had respect to the retribution. “AnéBlexe means, to look away from present things, and to have respect to, or look forward to, future ones. The retribution of the invisible world is doubtless meant, here, by puco- Sanodooiav. Compare vs. 13—16, and v. 27. By faith in the proffered happiness of a future state, Moses was led to the acts of self denial here adverted to. 27. ITItorse xarehiney .... Baoehiwes, by faith he left Egypt, not fearing the indignation of the king. It has been dis- 972 COMMENTARY ON HEB, 11: 27—29. puted, whether it was the first or second time that Moses left Egypt, to which the writer here adverts. The first is related in Ex. 1, and was when he fled to Jethro in Midian. But as he fled, in this case, to save his life, which Pharaoh sought to destroy, Ex. 2: 14, 15, this cannot be the leaving Egypt to which the apostle refers ; although Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, and some of the modern critics, have understood it to be so. It must be the occurrences related in Ex. x—xtv., to which our author re- fers. Tov Ovuor tov Baotdews, see Ex. 10: 28, 29. Tov yao “dvatov wo domv éxagrtéonos, for he persevered, as one who sees him that is invisible. “Exuoréonos, perduravit, for- titer vel patienter duravit, if it relate to perseverance in a time of trial and suffering, as here. It does not of itself indicate endu- rance of suffering, but holding out, persevering, in any state or con- dition, keeping up good courage and fortitude perseveringly y or con- stantly. °Adgatov, i.e. him whom “no eye hath seen,” viz. the invisible God ; an appellation frequently given to the Deity; e. g. 1 Tim. 1: 17. comp. Rom. 1: 20. Col. 1: 15, 16. In other words, a regard to that world, which is seen only by the eye of faith, led Moses to quit Egypt, in defiance of Pharaoh’s injunctions. 28. ITiores menotnze .... avtov, by faith, he observed the pass- over, and the sprinkling of the blood, so that he who destroyed the first born might not touch them. Tlenoinxe to MeOH, Hebrew moO niiwy, which the Seventy translate moveiy 10 naoya. This means, (as we say), to keep or celebrate the passover. The Hebrew moe comes from mds, to pass.over, to pass by. The Greek form maoya comes from sh Aramaean Hebrew word, xn 1B, which was the Jewish method of pronouncing mo5 in later times, and to which the Greek word exactly corresponds. The account of the event to which the word maoye relates, may be seen in Ex. x1t.; for the et- ymology, see vs. 11, 13. ‘O oodvevwy ra mowroroxa, see Ex. 12: 12. My Fiyn avrwy, Ex. 12: 133; avrwy, in the genitive, is governed by yy, as verbs of sense (touch) govern the genitive. All this was done by faith, i.e. because Moses fully believed, that what God had foretold would come to pass; in other words, “it was through confidence in the divine declarations. 29. ITiores dueBnouv . ... Enoas, by faith, they passed through the Red Sea, as on dry land. The nominative to dveSnoar is oi ‘Jooandirar, which the writer leaves his readers to supply from the COMMENTARY ON HEB. 11: 29—31. 273 tenor of the narration. Instances of the like kind are not unfre- quent, both in the writings of the Old Testament and of the New. See the history of the event, in Ex. x1v. “He nsiouy ... . xatenoOnoar, which the Egyptians assaying to do, were drowned. * Hg néeigay hoovtes is an expression of pe- culiar construction. “He meigav means the attempt of which, viz. of passing through the Red sea; so that 7¢ mstgav AaBovres is equivalent to, 7¢ dudPaow mevgacovtes, attempting the passage of which. Karenodnoav from xatanivw, to swallow up, to engulf, to overwhelm, and hence, to drown. See Ex. 14: 27, 28. It was on account of confidence in the promise of God, to bring the Israelites safely through the Red sea, that they ventured to cross an arm of it, looking to him for protection from its waters. It is not to be supposed, that every individual of the Israelites pos- sessed such a confidence as is here described; but their leaders had it, and (as in other cases of a similar nature) it is predicated of the nation. 30. lore: te telyn .... juoas, by faith, the walls of Jericho fell down, after they had been compassed about, for seven days. See Josh. 6: 12—20. It was in consequence of the promise made by God to Joshua, that Jericho should be taken, after the Israelites had marched around it for seven days in succession, that these cir- cuits were performed. It was confidence, then, in the divine word, which led to the event in question. Avzidwd in Piel. But no example of a transitive sense of 3x2, in Kal, is to be found ; it means only, to be afflicted, to feel pain. Of the Piel form of this verb, no instance is found in the Hebrew Scriptures. Still, the Seventy BAY have read 3N35, and pain, viz. 3p" shall overtake the son, etc. ; which gives the same sense (for pe a aS MaOTLyYOL VIOP. ts whatever way they read the Hebrew, in order to make their version, as the version now is, and as the apostle has quoted it, it preserves the spirit, though not the /etter, of the original Hebrew. ‘That . quotations are often made by the New Testament writers from the Old Tes- tament, in a general way, ad sensum and not ad literam, I have had frequent occasion to remark before, in commenting on our epistle. No one, who attentively siudies the New Testament, can doubt this. 7. Et nmasiav.... 6 Be60, af ye endure chastisement, God . dealeth with you as children. “Ynouevere has the sense here of enduring, undergoing, suffering ; and not that of supporting, bear- ing up under, persevering. Ilooogégerae (mid. voice) means trac- tare aliquem. So the classical writers also employ it. See Schnei- der and Schleusner on the word. Tis yao gore .... marno; for what son is there, whom his fa- ther does not chasten? ‘That is, How can ye expect, although ye are children, not to receive any chastisement ? 8. Li dé ywols gore... . viol, but if ye are without chastise- ment, (of which all chide en are made partakers), then are ye spuri- ous and not [legitimate] children. Nodoe means, illegitimate children. Yiot, which is here the antithesis, of course means, COMMENTARY ON HEB. 12: 8S—10. 285 legitimate offspring. ‘The meaning is, ‘ If ye are not dealt with as all legitimate children are, it would follow, that ye are considered as not belonging to them.’ That is, if ye receive no chastening, then God does not acknowledge you as his spiritual children. The design of the writer, in thus applying this text of Scrip- ture, is plain. He means to tell the Hebrews, that so far from be- ing disheartened by their trials and afflictions, on account of their Christian profession, they ought to regard it as matter of encour- agement, and as an evidence, that God is acknowledging by these their filial relation to him. 9. Eira cous wév .... évetoenduedear, furthermore, we have had fathers of our flesh, who have chastised us, and we have yielded them reverence. Tyo ouyx0s juov naréoas, fathers of our flesh, i. e. of our natural bodies. The idea is, ‘the fathers of our physical nature, in distinction from our spiritual one.’ Ou nokia wadhov....tnoousy; shall we not much rather yield subjection to the Father of [our] spirits, that wemay live? That is, when God chastens us, for our good, in order that he may promote our final happiness, when he has so important an end in view; shall we not bow to his will, with cheerful subjection? TTaroi ray avevpatoy, an antithesis of 77g oagxos ajumv matéoas, and there- fore, plainly, yu@y is implied after mvevuatwy. Num. 16: 22, mips bob nimann wbx, the God of the spirits of all flesh, isa parallel expression. Zijoouev has the sense here, as often. else- where, of being happy; like the Latin vivere, in dum vivimus viv- amus. 10. Oi pév yao... . énaidevor, they, indeed, chastened us for a little while, according to their own pleasure. TIpo¢ odtyas 7ue- gas, i. e. during our childhood, our minority ; which seems to me a much more natural sense, than to say with Heinrichs and Din- dorf, “‘ the fruit of their chastisement was only temporary.” Kara 10 doxouv aurots, according to their own pleasure, intimates that they sometimes erred in their chastisement, or that it was some- times arbitrary ; but it is not so, with that which God inflicts. “O 08 éni r0 Ouupegoy ... . autov, but he, for our good, in or- der that we might be made partakers of his holiness. That is, God never chastises arbitrarily, but always to promote the real good of his children, to make them more holy, and so more like himself. Comp. 2 Pet. 1: 4. Lev. 11: 44. 19: 2. 20: 7, 26. 286 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 12: 11—13. 11. Taou 02 madela.... Aunns, now all chastisement, for the present, seemeth not to be matter of joy but of grief. TIo0¢ weév v0 naoov, during the present, i.e. while it continues. Mey here cor- responds to d¢ after voregoy in the next clause, i.e. there is prota- sis and apodosis. . "Yoregov 02... . Otxacoovvns, but afterwards, it yields the hap- py fruit of righteousness, to those who are exercised thereby. Kao- mov éionvexov is a peculiar expression. Some resemblance to it may be found in James 3: 18. Is. 32: 17. Gen. 37: 4. The mean- ing of s¢onvtxov is to be gathered, by a comparison of it with the Hebrew 052, which means, good, happiness, welfare. Eionvixos, then, is that which bestows happiness, or produces it. This corres- ponds with the writer’s design ; who means to say, that afflictions rightly improved, will be productive of fruzt that will confer happi- ness, such fruit as righteousness always produces. So remote a position of dvzacocuyns from zaonov, seems almost to indicate the necessity of repeating this word before it. 12. Avo rae TUOELMEVAS Nia avoodwoare, wherefore strength- en the weak hands, and the feeble knees. °Avogdwoure is often em- ployed by the Seventy, in order to translate the Hebrew 44>, which means to establish, to make firm, to strengthen. Tugewuévas (from naginuc) means, relaxed, let down, consequently, weak, enfcebled. One might, (as many interpreters have done), translate evog?w- Care navemévas ysioas, by lift up ethe hands that. hang dewn. _ But since the same verb applies to magadehuucva yovara, it is bet- ter so to render it, as-to make the application to both congruous ; which may be done without transgressing Hellenistic usage. The quotation is from Is. 35: 3, where the Septuagint has ¢oyvoare in- stead of avooPwoace. The meaning of the verse is, ‘Since all your afflictions are dis- pensed by fatherly kindness, be of good courage, do not indulge any despondency, but persevere in the course which you have be- gun.’ 13. Kai reozeas i alg . tuo, and make plain the paths for your feet. In Hebrew, 5539 daz ze, make even or level the path of thy feet ; Septuagint oobag rouyeas molee Gog moot, Prov. 3: 26. Ifthe apostle has quoted here, it is ad sensum, not ad ver- bum. The meaning is, ‘ Remove all obstacles, or, disregard all obstagles, to your progress in the Christian course.’ COMMENTARY ON HEB. 12: 13, 14. 287 “Iva un 10 ywhdv....maddov, that what is lame may not be sprained, but rather be healed. To ywdov is a neuter adjective, us- ed for the abstract noun, lameness, and therefore of a generic signi- fication, designating that which ts lame, or the members which are lamed. °Hatoann means, to turn aside; which applied to the lame, is to dislocate, distort, sprain, wrench, the limbs which are lamed. "/a0n 02 paddor, i.e. it is better to make the paths smooth and plain, so that those who are lamed may walk with ease and safety, than to let them be rough and uneven, so as to endanger an in- crease of their malady. The whole is a figurative expression, used by our author to convey the idea, that to go straight forward in their Christian course, regardless of any afflictions to which this may subject them, is the only way of safety, for those who are in danger of halting. The writer now leaves the subject, on which he had insisted so long and with such earn- estness, and proceeds to remind the Hebrews of various duties to which their Christian profes- sion, and the times in which they lived, rendered it necessary that they should pay a particular regard. 14. Eionvyy dvoxete.... ayraonuor, studiously cultivate peace with all men, and holiness. Eionvny means here, a state of con- cord and amity, the opposite of contention and broils. To conten- tions the Hebrew Christians must have been much exposed, at this time, in consequence of the frequent injuries inflicted upon them by their persecutors. . Avoxere, pursue with zeal or engagedness. ‘Aytaowor, holiness, i. e. a pious upright life, or, a life of consecra- tion to God. Ob yuwois.... xvovov, without which no one shall see the Lord. "Onteodas tov xvovor, to see the Lord, denotes, to come before him, to enjoy his presence, to be admitted to his favour. Comp. Matt. 5: 8, and Wahl on omrouce, 2. b. See also 1 Thess. 4: 17. 2 Cor. 5: 8. Phil. 1: 23. John 14: 3, 4. 17: 24. 288 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 12: 15. 15. “Encoxonovvtes un Tug... . Sou, see to it, that no one fail of the favour of God. °Envozonovrres lit. seeing; but the sense is the same, and the translation more perspicuous, if a new sen- tence be made here by adopting, as I have done, the imperative form of the verb to see. Mn 70g, i. e. uj tug 7, the verb of exis- tence being implied. ‘Yoregmy is differently rendered, by differ- ent interpreters. ‘Yorsegéw means, to come late, to arrive after the proper or favourable time, and is so rendered here by some. But vorsoay ano... is hardly capable of such a meaning, and plainly should be rendered, be wanting in respect to, fail of, come short of, lack. But what is yaouros ? Some answer, the Christian religion ; and construe the whole phrase thus, ‘Guard well against the apos- tasy of any one from Christianity.’ But this warning has been so often repeated, and in terms so awful; and specially, as the writer appears, in v. 14, to make a transition from his great subject, to the consideration of other things of particular importance to the Hebrew Christians; it may well be doubted whether yaovros has the sense thus put upon it. The writer had just said, that holiness was indispensable to that happiness which God bestows.’ I under- stand him as now saying, ‘See well to it, that no one fail of obtain- ing that divine favour, which is the result of holiness ;’ and so con- nect it, as a hortatory adjunct, with the preceding sentiment. My ws 6ifa.... évoyhn; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, i.e. see to it, lest.any person of vicious life and ex- ample should rise up among you. Many commentators refer’ this to apostates. ‘They are the more inclined to this, because a simi- _ Jar expression is found’in Deut. 29: 17, which there characterises those, who turn from the worship of the true God to that of idols. But, as it is far from being certain that our author designs to make a direct quotation in the present case, I should not consider this reason, as in itself, of any considerable weight.. Even if the form of expression be quoted, the application of it must depend, of course, upon the context. This respects not apostasy in particular, (as we have already seen), but other sins to which the Hebrews might be particularly exposed. No doubt the expression 6/a mxolag comes from the Hebrew, 2252 WN AAS WW Opa V2 7p, lest there be among you any root springing up, [which is] poison and wormwood, Deut. 29: 17. The expression there used to describe an idolater, viz: root of poison and wormwood, is here applied to any person of an unholy life and deleterious example, who is called @6i¢e mexoiac. COMMENTARY ON HEB. 12:16. 289 The consequence is next described. Kal dva ravrys wravdo- ov m0Adol, and by this many be polluted. That is, the bad example of some, will have a pernicious, polluting influence on many. Guard well against it ; for énvoxonovrzes is implied before wy rg Oita xz. A. My tg mOQVOS .... avrou, let there be no fornicator nor pro- Sane person, like Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birth- right. Ildgvog is explained as meaning apostate, one making de- Section from the true religion to a false one, by those who construe the whole of our context as relating only to apostasy. God often taxes his ancient people with adultery and fornication, in conse- quence of their having turned to the worship of idols. ‘The mean- ing thus given to mogveg may, no doubt, be philologically support- ed ; i. e. the word is capable of such an explanation. But as I in- terpret the context in a different way, it appears to be more con- sonant with it, to take mo@vog as designating, any person who in- dulges in gross and sensual pleasures, or, who is of an abandoned character. So our Saviour often speaks of the Jews as a wicked and adulterous generation; not literally adulterous, (although doubtless this was true of some), but adulterous in the figurative sense of the word, viz. sensual, vicious, abandoned, profligate. BéBniog is one, who scoffs at religion or sacred things, who dis- regards what is sacred in the view of heaven. The appellations mogvos and ¢8ylog may both be applied to Esau here, and pro- bably are so. As to the application of mogvog, see Gen. 26: 34, 35 and Gen. 36: 2. In regard to G¢eydog, see Gen. 25: 29—34. His birthright was not, indeed, a thing of religion; but it was, in those days, a matter of great personal importance and advantage. The argument is from analogy. ‘Let no one give up himself to the gratification of his lusts, as did Esau, to the great grief of his father, Gen. 26: 35; let no one despise the distinguished privileges which Christianity confers upon him, like Esau who despised the privileges of his birthright, and parted with them for a mere morsel of food.’ In the case of Esau, folly and unbelief were very con- spicuous ; for the land of Canaan, as he well knew, had been prom- ised to his ancestors for a possession ; and as the first born son, he must, according to the custom of those days, have a peculiar title to it. So those who reject the proffer of the heavenly inheritance, VOL. II, 37 Sin, % 7 290 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 12: 16—18. and renounce their duty-ad’Ghvietiane, may, with more propriety still, be called Bé@nhow. 17. Those, who conduct i such a manner, will hereafter weep with bitter lamentations, when it is beyond their power to recover what has been lost. Thus was it with Esau. "/ore yoo. ... ome- doxacdy, for ye know, that when he was afterwards desirous to obtain the blessing, it was refused. See Gen. 27: 34—40. Evioyi- av, viz. the blessing of his father Isaac. Meravoias yao .... avtyjv, yea, he found no place for a change of mind [in his father], although he sought for it with tears. See Gen. 27: 35, 38, 40. Meravoiag here refers to a change of mind in Isaac, who had given the blessing (appropriate to primogeniture) to Jacob. The writer evidently does not mean to say, that Esau found no place for repentance in himself. _4urny, sc. petavovar. The sentiment of the whole is, ‘Guard well against indulging any fleshly appetites ; above all, against slighting the blessings and privileges which Christianity proffers ; lest, having done this, you come at last, when it is forever too late, bitterly to mourn over your folly and wickedness.’ Such watchfulness the Hebrews had the more reason to observe, since under the new dispensation every thing was of a milder aspect, and of a more inviting, encouraging nature, than under the old. The comparison between the two dispensations is continued through vs. 18—24, -The writer begins with describing the nature of the ancient one. The whole passage has reepect to Ex. XX. XXI. etc. and Deut. IV. V. 18. Ov yoo moooeAnlvGute . . . Ooet, moreover, ye are not come to the mount which could be touched. He means mount Sinai, which was an object palpable to the senses. Yylagamevw, contrectabile, quod tangendum sit, i. q. atoOnrov, quicquid sensu percipitur. So . Tacitus, Ann. IIT. 12, oculis contrectare ; and Cicero, Tusc. III. 15, mente contrectare. ‘The idea of de coelo tactus, thunder-struck, is here assigned by some respectable expositors to wylagauerm ; but without any good philological support. The Greeks use @/yeey and COMMENTARY ON HEB. 12: 18, 19. 291 Suyyavevy to denote, the striking of thunder. The Hebrews em- ploy »32, which the Seventy translate by aateoGae. But ynlaqaw answers to the Hebrew wWyj; and waz. Particularly in Talmudic and Rabbinic Hebrew, is NYw72 and wW7372 used to designate, quod contrectabile est, quidquid sensu ‘cognoscitur. But, philology apart, the object of the writer in the antithesis between Sinai and Sion, plainly shews, that he means to designate the former as corporeal, matertal; the latter as spiritual, invisible, the object of faith, but not of the senses. Chrysostom has well drawn the comparison, when he says of Sinai, navra roré avoOyto, nai Owels, Kal Pwval ; of Sion, navra vonra xai aooata vuy. If the reader has any dif ficulty about the above explanation of wyAagwueryw, a comparison of Ex. 19: 12, 13 with it, will hardly leave any doubt as to the meaning of our author, who seems plainly to have had in his mind the strict injunction then made, not to touch the mountain. Kai nexaupévn nugi .... Gvéddn, and to flaming fire, and thick clouds, and darkness, and tempest. As to the particulars of the appearance at Sinai here mentioned, see Ex. 19: 16—18. 20: 18. Deut. 5: 22—26. Kexovuévo nvgi means not simply, fire, but the burning of it, i.e. flame; see Deut. 5: 23, 25. It may also be translated in con- nexion with dgez, sc. the mount that burned with fire. But probably it was not the design of the writer, that it should be so taken ; for, as he has arranged wrdagapévw before dese, while it qualifies it, in like manner he has arranged xexauuévm before avei, which it also qualifies. Ivogo, is probably the Aeolic form of véqos, i-g. vepédn, for which the Aeolians use y6qo¢ or yvogos. The Seventy use it’ to translate 73¥, in Deut. 4: 11, et alibi. It is doubtless used by the Seventy, and by the writer of our epistle, to designate the thick dark cloud that surrounded mount Sinai, when God appeared there. The word often means, tenebrae. Here it means, the cause of dark- ness, 1. e. thick black clouds. Sxotw, Hebrew Jw or Spa, the darkness or gloom itself, occasioned by the cloud upon Sinai and around it. Qveddy is de- signed, perhaps, to correspond to the Hebrew p>. If not, it is descriptive of the tempest that accompanied the dark cloud, the thunder and lightning of Sinai, Ex. 19: 16, 18. 20: 18. 19. Kot oadneyyos iyo, and to the sound of the trumpet. See 292 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 12: 19—21. Ex. 19: 16, 19. Probably the meaning is, a voice like that of a trumpet, i.e. very loud. In Deut. 5: 22, it is called a great voice; in Deut. 4: 12, it is called, the voice of words, 1. e. articulate sounds ; and in Deut. 4: 33, the voice of God. From comparing all these passages together it seems evident, that the meaning is, ‘ an articu- late voice, loud like that of a trumpet.’ Koi povy 6nucrwy ....doyov, and the voice of commands, the hearers of which refused that another word should be added to them. Comp. Ex. 19: 16, 19 and 20: 18, 19. ‘Pnuarov, things uttered or said. But it applies to any sort of speech, and, among other specific significations, it has that of com- mand; see Luke 3: 2. Acts 10:2. 11: 14. Heb. 1: 3. 11:3. So 323 in Hebrew, e.g. Est. 1: 19. Josh. 1: 13. 1 Sam. 17: 29. Is. 8: 10. Ex. 34: 28. So also “ax, to command, Est. 1:17. 4: Le. 9: 14, 1 Chron. 21: 7. See Wahl, on 6juc. He oi axovourres. x,t. k. The exact shade of the writer’s meaning is, ‘The hearers of which [voice] refused that a word should be added to them, viz. avrois éjuaot, to those commands.’ In other words, the exceedingly loud sound of the voice inspired them with such terror, that they declined having any more com- mands addressed to them in this manner. 20. Ov épegoy yao.... AcOeBodoOnoeras, for they could not endure the admonition, ‘ Even if a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned.” See Ex. 19: 13. The vulgate edition of the New Testament adds to this clause, 7} @odids xararokevdyjoerac. Bui no manuscript of any authority exhibits this phrase; nor any an- cient version ; nor any of. the ecclesiastic.] Greek writers, Oecu- menius excepted. [t,i8, beyond all doubt, an addition of later times, taken from the Septuagint of Ex. 19: 13. “@ux éqeoov, they could not endure, means, ‘they were greatly affected with the severity of this command, viz. so that they could not bear it without awe and terror.’ + 21. Kai—ovrw gofsoor .... évraou0g, and—so terrible was the sight——even Moses said, “ I fear and tremble.” Ovrw gofegor 7v 10 ~avtalouevoy seems to me, plainly, an expression thrown in by the writer, in order to augment the description of the scene, which interrupts the regular narration, and is therefore to be con- strued as if included in a parenthesis. But as the whole of ys. 20, 21, is evidently a parenthesis, I have avoided the insertion of the COMMENTARY ON HEB. 12: 21, 22. 293 ee el! LLL parenthetic marks a second time, and noted the words included within the inner parenthesis, by a dash at each extremity. Kat, which introduces the last clause here, zai. ... Mmvors, has the force of, and even. But where is the history of Moses’ trembling? No where, in the Old Testament, is it expressly mentioned. It is implied, how- ever, in Ex. 19: 16, where it is said, that ‘all the people in the camp trembled ;”” and Moses was with them, comp. v. 14. ‘The fear, mentioned Deut. 9: 19, was on a different occasion, though this passage has often been adduced as supporting the affirmation now in question. The particular history, to which our author here alludes, was doubtless a matter of tradition among the Jews of his day ; marks of which are still extant, in the Rabbinical writings. See Wetstein, on Gal. 3: 19. L. Cappell, on Hebr. 12: 21. “Zx- poBog etus xai évrgouog means, I am greatly afraid. To pavvaéouevov, (the neuter participle being used like a neu- ter adjective), is to be construed as an abstract noun, sc. species, appearance, sight. This idiom is very common in the writings of Paul. 22. Next follows the antithesis to all this scene of terror, which accompanied the introduction of the ancient law. Worshippers, under the new dispensation, approach a scene of a very different nature. “Adha moooedniidate Svov, but ye are come to mount Zion. Not the literal mount Zion, but the figurative, i.e. heaven- ly one. This is made plain, by the additional description which follows. Kal modev Geov Cavros, “/ngovoadiju énovgavi, and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. The epithet éxovoavia here determines, of course, that a spiritual Jerusalem, a heavenly city is meant. Comp. Heb. 11: 14—16. 12: 28. 13: 14. Gal. 4: 26. Rev. 3: 12. 21: 2, 10. Kai uvgiaow, ayyzhov nmavynyvoer, and to myriads, the joyful company of angels. So beyond all reasonable doubt, this clause is to be pointed, and translated; for nayyjyugeg is not to be join- ed, (as some later critics have joined it), with éxxAnjole x. tr. 2. The structure of the whole paragraph demonstrates this; for each separate clause of it, (in vs. 18, 19, 22—24) is commenced by zaé, and continued (where any addition is made to it) by nouns in ap- position, without any conjunctive particle before them. E. g. xué moder... . Sngovoadnu énovoavicr—xal xoiry, Ger marta, ete. 294 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 12: 22--23, The same construction, beyond all reasonable doubt, is to be adopt- ed in the clause under examination. Dr. Knapp has arranged it in this manner, in his able dissertation on Heb. 12: 18—24, in his Scripta varii Argumenti. Muoveor, lit. myriads, i. e. ten thousands, used by the Greeks to signify a great and indefinite number. In respect to the number of angels, compare Rev. 5: 11. Matt. 26: 53. Luke 2: 13. Dan. 7: 10. TTavyyveus, among the Greeks, meant an assembly of men convened on a joyous and solemn occasion ; e. g. on the occasions of their public feasts, etc. The mention of such an assembly of angels, shews that the writer intends to describe the objects of the invisible world, as seen with the eye of faith; not things palpable, not the objects of sense. He has, moreover, a design to contrast this joyful solemn assembly of the angels with that awful one, who were present at the giving of the law upon Sinai. In respect to the presence of angels on that occasion, compare Ps. 68: 17 [18]. Deut. 33: 2 (Septuagint). Joseph. Antiq. XV. 3,5. Gal. 3: 19. Acts 7: 53. Heb. 2: 2, with the note upon it. Our English version joins uugeaoe with ayyéhoy and renders, “to an innumerable company of angels.” It also joins mavnyvges with éxxAnolg, and renders, ‘to the general assembly and church etc.” But the latter is not permitted, on account of the manner in which the author has constructed the whole of his enumeration of particulars, in vs. 18, 19, 22, 23, which, as I have already observed, are each separated from the preceding one, by xai. If it be said, that ‘ revnyvger, in order to be constructed with ayyzkwv, ought to precede it,’ the answer is, that in v. 19, oalmiyyos nyo is construct- ed in the same manner as ayyzhwv mavnyvgee here ; as is also dva- nung weciry in v. 24. The Greek admits no other correct gram- matical mode of construction, but that which is given in the trans- lation. 23. Kai éxxinola... . év ovgavoig, and to the assembly of the first-born, enrolled in heaven. *Exxinota, conventus, a concourse or assembly of people. It is not a mere ecclesiastical word, but desig- nates, by usage, any kind of assembly, sacred or civil. Here it de- signates the sacred assembly of the upper world. Tlowroroxmy must not be literally understood here, but figuratively. Among the Hebrews, primogeniture conferred distinguished rights and privile- ses. Hence, figuratively taken, mewrordxog means, any one who COMMENTARY ON HEB. 12: 23. 295 enjoys distinguished rights and privileges, whether he is first-born in a literal respect, or not. Thus Israel, as beloved of God and highly valued, is called his first-born, Ex. 4: 22. In like manner Ephraim is named, Jer. 31: 9. So the Son of Sirach (36: 12) calls Israel. The same appellation of endearment is given to the pre- dicted Messiah, in Ps. 89: 27. In a similar sense amaoy7j is used, in James 1:18. I understand it here of those who had been most distinguished for piety and usefulness; such as patriarchs, proph- ets, apostles, martyrs, etc. Storr understands it as referring to the angels, and as descriptive of them; but without any good support from the usus loquendi of Scripture. Anoyeyouupéverv, enrolled, a word employed by the Greeks to signify the inscribing of a person’s name in a record, as a citizen, as a free man entitled to all the rights of citizenship. It marks, here, citizenship in the New Jerusalem or the heavenly Zion. The éxxAnola of such, is that éxxAnola with which Christians are to mingle, in the full and final enjoyment of their privileges. In a sense somewhat different from this, saints, while on earth, are spoken of as having their names written (ysyoaupéva, éyougy, not anoyeyooupeva) in the book of life; e. g. Luke 10: 20. Phil. 4: 3. Rey. 3: 5. 13: 8.17: 8. 20:15. 21: 27. 22:19. Dr. Knapp in- terprets our text, as speaking of the saints on earth. But he ap- pears not to have noticed the difference of the phraseology employ- ed in reference to such; and certain it is, that the whole tenor of our passage has respect only to the heavenly city and assembly. To be enrolled in heaven, is to be entitled to all the privileges of a member of the heavenly city. Kai xoitn, Gem ~neavrwyr, and to the judge, the God of all. Kory designates him before whose tribunal all must appear, that enter a future world. But to Christians he is a merciful, not a con- demning judge. So means the phrase God of all, viz. of all an- gels, and of all mo wtord%x wy just mentioned, and (by implica- tion) of all saints. To say, ‘he is their God,’ means to affirm, that he acknowledges them with favour and approbation. Comp. Eph. 4: 6. Rom. 3: 29. Heb. 8: 10. 11:16. Acts 7: 32. Ex. 3:6. Zech. © 8: 8. Rev. 21: 37. In the same sense, I apprehend, is dew nav- tay to be understood in our verse ; and then all difficulty ceases. In entering a future world, Christians must, indeed, present them- selves before the tribunal of the eternal judge; but he is not a 296 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 12: 23, 24. judge severe and rigid; he is in an appropriate sense, their God ; he will regard them with favour, he will treat them with kindness. Thus all is inviting, with respect to the heavenly Zion. The transposition made by our English version, to God the judge of all, is against the arrangement of the text, and fails to give the appro- priate sense of the words. The meaning of 0 éai navtwy 20s, Rom. 9: 5, is different from d<0¢ mavtwy here, the former being ““ supreme God.” Kai nvevuaor dtxaiwy revehecoperor, and to the spirits of the just made perfect, i.e. exalted to a state of final reward. This dif- fers from éxxAnola mowrotoxmy anoyeyouppévoy év ovgavorg, in that this latter phrase designates the more conspicuous and exalted part of the church invisible, (xeororozwy), such as patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, etc.; while nvsuuaoe dvxaiwy embraces all saints, ‘‘ of every kindred and tongue and people and nation.” See a like distinction in the heavenly world, adverted to in Rev. 4: 4. That the elders, mentioned in Rev. 4: 4, were of those re- deemed from among men, is proved by Rev. 5: 8,9. Then fol- lows the nvevparta dixaioy rerehecwmpeéva, in Rev. 5:13. The pas- sage in our verse, understood in view of this, is intelligible, and needs none of the varying and endless conjectures which have been made respecting it, nor emendations of the text that have been proposed. Tetelevopevov, i.e. having completed their probation, and ar- rived at their mature state, viz. a final state of glory. See on Heb. 2: 10. — 24. Kai dvadnuns .. +." Inoow, and to the mediator of the new covenant, Jesus. See on 8: 6. 7: 22, where the same idea is ex- hibited. wa, Kai aiuace... .” ABeh, and to the blood of sprinkling, which speaketh better [things] than [the blood of] Abel. Respecting the blood of Christ offered in the eternal sanctuary, see Heb. 9: 11— 14, 23. In respect to sprinkling, see 9:13, 19. Figuratively or spiritually, no doubt, this is to be understood. Sprinkled with Je- sus’s blood, the worshippers in the sanctuary above may approach the presence of God, i.e. the inner sanctuary, confident of a gra- cious reception. Koeirrov AoAovvre, instead of xoeirrova Aahovrte, for the weight of authority is beyond all doubt on the side of xosizzoy. Literally COMMENTARY ON HEB. 12: 24, 25. 297 rendered xgeirrov would be something better. But this is less grateful to the English ear, than the form of expression in the ver- sion. The meaning of the phrase seems to me quite simple and easy. The blood of Christ proclaims pardon and peace ; the blood of Abel cried to God from the ground (Gen. 4: 10), for the inflic- tion of punishment upon his murderer. IIaga tov (not ro) ” 48m, is an elliptical expression, for maga 70 aiue tov "Afni. That the verb Audet is understood, in order to complete the grammatical sense of the phrase, is quite plain. The form of the sentence, how- ever, must be varied in order to express this verb. It would be thus, 9) ro aiua tov ” AByd hadsi. Such is the contrast between the former and latter dispensation. There, all is awful, terrible, and threatening ; here, all is alluring, gracious, and animating. Who, now, can adhere to the former, and renounce the latter? Such is the nature of the argument pre- sented by the writer. He next proceeds to warn the Hebrews in the most solemn and affectionate manner, against a renunciation of their Christian faith. 25. Bhenete, un .... dadovvra, take heed, that ye turn not away from him who addresses you. ITwouttéouae means, to depre- cate, to decline, to endeavour to avoid, aversari, respuere, repudiare. But who is tov Achodvra 2? ~The sequel of the verse clearly shews that Christ is meant, who came from heaven to instruct men and warn them of their danger, or rather (with reference to the pre- ceding verse) ‘ who speaks to men by his blood.’ To give efficacy to this warning, he adds an example. Ez yao éxéivoe.. . yonuatilovta, for if they did not escape [punishment], who rejected him that warned them upon earth. That after éguyoy, either dvx7v, am0decav, or some such word is to be supplied, by the mind of the reader, is plain from the nature of the subject, and of the context. But who is zov yonuarifovea? Moses, 1 answer. The two dispensations are here compared, in respect to the penal- ty to be inflicted on the contemptuous and refractory. The legis- lator, or head of each dispensation, is introduced, as the person who addresses the laws or warnings of God to men. See the same sentiment, in Heb. 10: 28, 29. TlohA waddov .. ... anoorgeqgomeros, much more shall we [not escape], if we turn away from him [who warns us] from heaven. See a similar commination, in 2: 1—3. 10; 28,29. That yonuati- VOL, If. 38 298 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 12: 25, 26. Corre is implied after ror, results from common grammatical usage. ‘4x’ evgarayr is meant to represent, either that Christ from heaven and warned them, or that being in heaven he now warns them, viz. by his messengers. It is possible, howerer, that God is here meant by the writer, as he who warns them. But the antithe- sis between the head of the old dispensation and the new, in the passage, hardly admits of this construction. The ellipsis of ov gevtoueGa after gees, is sufficiently plain from the nature of the sentence. 26. OF | qeery; . . . . rere, whose veice then shook the earth: viz. when, as with the sound of a mighty trumpet, waxing louder and louder, he spake on mount Sinai, so that the earth trembled : see on vs. 19 seq. Nr é2 . . . . ovgeror, but now, he has promised, saying, “* Yei ence more, will I shake not only the earth, but heaven also” ~Exi G@auet corresponds te the Hebrew Dra OMN Ws, wet ence, after a little time, Hag. 2.6. The citation is from the Septuagint, but OU wGror is an addition by the writer of our epistle, and is design- ed to give emphasis te the declaration. That the passage has re- spect to the changes, which would be introduced by the coming of the Messiah, and the new dispensation which he would commence. is evident from Hag. 2:7—9. Such figurative language is fre- quent in the Scriptures, and denotes great changes which are to take place. Se the apostle expluss & bere, im the wesy svat youne- Comp. Is. 13: 13. Hag. = 21, 2 22. Joel 3: 16. 2: 10, 31. Matt. 24: / 22-31 comp. v. 3H. - Te dé, Fri axe . . . . Gaizveuera, mow this “ Yet once more.” signifies a remeving of the things which, wre shaken, as ef created thines, in order that the things which are not shaken, may continue. The manner in Which the writer understood the figurative expres _ sion im question, viz. the shaking of the heavens and the earth, is here plainly declared. It denotes a great change, a meradesus, removal, ot abelitien, of the things changed, i. e. of the Jewish di: pensation. The language which had been hterally applied to the quaking of Sinai, when the law was given, is now figuratively ap- plied, in the usual Scriptural way, in order to denote a great change of a moral nature. “Re xexownutrer is a locus veratissimus. It would be of little aE On ew epectenniaen ts most of which seem to COMMENTARY ON HEB. 12: 27, 28. 299 have sprung from a misapprehension of the meaning of the para- graph, in which it stands. Even Michaelis and Storr interpret the passage as referring to changes in the natural world, at the end of time ;. most evidently, against the meaning of the writer. T understand zemocnuevey to designate simply things made or creat- ed, yetoonoinra, caduca, mutabilia; ideas necessarily implied, by a term which designates things of a corporeal and created nature, as here. The writer means to say, that the ancient order of things, viz. the Jewish dispensation, will be changed, removed, abolished, in like manner as the objects of the natural creation. In other words, like them, it is caduca, mutabilis, evanida; and like them, it will undergo achange. It really seems, that more difficulty has been made about the phrase in question, than was necessary. All this change or abolition of the old dispensation was to take place, in order that a new one might be introduced, which mim, Jehovah is for me. 'The verse is divided by the accents in Hebrew, as the translation above divides it. The apostle has given the sense ex- actly; wore Dagdovvtas nuas sc. eivac, which is implied after wore. The meaning of the verse is, ‘Under whatever trials and difficulties we may be placed, we need not be filled with terror or painful apprehension ; for God will help us.’ 7. Monuovevete .... 9800, remember your leaders, who have spoken unto you the word of God. “Hyovpevor, duces, praesides, leaders, guides, directors, which here means, teachers, as the ex- planatory clause that follows clearly shews. oyov rov Dou, the gospel. P ‘ *Qv avaPewoovvtes .... mlorev, and attentively considering the end of their manner of life, imitate their faith. 'Thatis, calling to mind the peaceful and happy death of those religious teachers among you, who gave you instruction respecting the word of life, imitate their faith, i.e. persevere in your Christian profession, as they did, to the very-end of life. Storr and others refer éx@aouy ro dvacrpoone to the sequel or reward that ensued, in consequence of the manner of life which these teachers had led. But I cannot find reason enough to be- lieve, that éx@aovv may be properly understood in such a sense. It is not improbable, that the writer refers here to the triumphant death of Stephen, Acts vir., and of James, Acts xu. He exhorts his readers to follow the example of those faithful Christian teach- ers, who had died a peaceful and happy death, although, perhaps, a premature one. COMMENTARY ON HEB. 13: 8, 9. 308 8. “Inoovs Xguorog.... aiwvas, Jesus Christ is the same, yes- terday, to day, and forever. That is, Christ is always the same, always ready and willing to aid you in all your trials; comp. 7: 3, 15—17, 21, 25, 28; also 5:6,9. 2:18. 9:24. 10: 12—14, 23. “O arog corresponds with ov 6 euros ei, Ps. 102: 28 [Sept. 101: 27], in Hebrew 8175 Tnx, which there designates immutability or eternity ; for the parallel distich is, Thy years shall not come to an end. The absolute eternity of Christ, (a parte ante, et a parte post), is not here directly asserted; but the simple object of the writer is, to shew that ‘he ever liveth to aid his disciples.’ To re- fer the expression to Christian doctrine, and unite this verse with the one which follows, seems to me plainly a deserting of the obvious intention of the writer. Dr. Schulz construes the passage as I have done. Xe, xai orjueoor, nai ic tovS avmvac, is a Hebra- ism, used to express the past, the present, and the future; and o avtOG, joined with these, denotes immutability. 9. Adayaic novnihawg .... magagéoeode, be not carried hith- er and thither, by diverse and strange doctrines. Tlouxthousg nat Egvacg designates doctrines different, diverse, from true Christian doctrine, and foreign (strangers) to it. Such were the doctrines of the Judaizing teachers, respecting many of their ceremonial ob- servances, and traditionary rites; and to these the writer here ad- verts, as appears by the sequel. For nagagéosoGs, some manu- scripts and editions have asoupegeo%e, which Ernesti and some other critics prefer ; but it is not supported by equal authority. Kaloy yoo yooure .... msgemaryoavres, for it is good that the heart should be confirmed by grace, not by meats, by which those have not been profited, who have been occupied therewith. A diffi- cult expression, about which there has been a great variety of opin- ion and conjecture. Xagere seems to me plainly to refer here to the gracious truth or doctrine of the Christian religion. The wri- ter had just said ; ‘‘ Be not tossed to and fro by doctrines diverse and alien from Christianity.” Next follows the assertion, “It is good to be established, [settled, confirmed], in the gracious doctrines of the gospel, rather than to put confidence in meats, etc, Con- strued in this way, all is plain and congruous. Bowueor indicates the various kinds of meats, which were distinguished by the Juda- izing Christians into clean and unclean; the first of which might be safely and properly eaten ; but the second must be avoided, on 304 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 13: 9—I11. peril of losing one’s character for piety, and incurring the displeas- ure of God. All attention to this subject the writer regards as useless, and avers, that those who have been sedulously attentive to it, have reaped no spiritual profit from it. Jlegunaryoartes, like the Hebrew J>-1n=, means, to be concerned with, to be occupi- ed with, to bestow one’s attention upon. In regard to the unprofita- bleness of such an attention to meats, comp. Heb. 7: 18. 10. "Lyouev ... . Aargevovtes, we have an altar, of which those have no right to eat, who render their service to the tabernacle. A figurative expression, borrowed from the Jewish ritual, and accom- modated to express the privileges of Christians. According to the usages of sacrifice, in most cases, some part or parts of the victims offered were reserved for the use of the priests, and, in some cases, were to be eaten also by the offerer; see Lev. 6: 26. Num. 18: 9, 10. Lev. 7: 33, 34. Num. 6: 19. Lev. 7: 15. 19: 6. But the mb4y was a holocaust, i.e. an offering which was to be entirely consum- ed by fire; particularly, the n4>¥ offered on the great day of atone- ment, Lev. 16: 14—16, 27. Lev. 4: 3--12. The reference, in our text, is to those sacrifices, a part of which were eaten by the priests and the offerers, in so far as the writer alludes to partaking of them. But when he says, that ‘Christians have a sacrifice, of which those who pay their service to the altar have no right to par- take,’ he means, that the benefits, procured by the atoning sacri- fice of Christ, do not belong, or will not be granted, to such as rest their hopes of salvation on the ritual sacyifices of the Jewish law, i.e. to such as continue to be disciples of Judaism, or turn back from Christianity to Judaism, and thus renounce the blessings pro- cured for believers by-the death of Christ. 11. “Qy yao sispégerar . .. . nageuBodns, moreover, the bodies of those animals, whose blood was carried into the sanctuary as a sin offering, by the high priest, were burned without the camp. See Lev. 16: 11, 14--16, 27. The construction of the verse is pecu- liar, and literally translated would run thus, “ The blood of which animals was brought into the sanctuary .... the bodies of the same were burned, etc.” ‘To make the verse plain, the arrange- ment has been altered, in the translation. “Auoeriag sin-offering, “or mgQ &uagtias, [offering] on account of sin, which conveys the same idea. The object, in offering the blood of goats and bullocks in the most holy place, was to make atonement for sin. JIageu- COMMENTARY ON HEB. 13: 11—13. 305 Bodne, camp, refers to the time when the Israelites were in the wil- derness, and all lived in encampments. 12. Aco xat /noods.... Eade, wherefore, Jesus also, in or- der that he might make expiation for the people by his own blood, suffered without the gate. “Aywuon, might make expiation; see on 2:11. Ava rov idiov aiuatos, comp. 9: 12, 14, 25, 26. 10: 19. Acts 20: 28. Eph. 1: 7. 1 Pet. 1: 19. Rev. 1:5. 5:9. “Zéw rng nvin¢, viz. the gate of Jerusalem ; for he was crucified on Calvary, which was then without the walls of the city, although it is now within them. Vs. 11, 12, are designed as a comparison, between the sacrifice on the great day of atonement, and the expiatory sacrifice of Christ. The blood of the former was presented before God, in the most ho- ly place ; the blood of the latter, in the eternal sanctuary above, 9: 12, 23, 24. The bodies of the beasts, used for the former, were consumed or destroyed without the camp; the body of Jesus was sacrificed or destroyed, without the gate of Jerusalem. The atoning sacrifice of Christians is analogous, then, to that of the Jews; but of infinitely higher efficacy; comp. 9: 13, 14. 10: 4, 12. The particular object, however, of vs. 11, 12, is to introduce Christ as an example of suffering, in order to impress upon the He- brews the necessity of perseverance in their Christian profession, amidst all their trials and difficulties. But the manner of intro- ducing this example, is altogether in unison with the analogies, which are so often repeated in other parts of our epistle. 13. Toivuy e€eoymueda... .. geoovres, let us, then, go forth to him without the camp, bearing reproach like his. That is, * since Jesus suffered persecution, ignominy, and distress, let us fol- low him, even if we endure reproaches like those which he endur- ed. Let us leave the camp, i. e. the dwellings of the Jews, or, the profession of Judaism, and go over to the place where Christians dwell, although it be without the city.” In other words, Let us ad- here to the profession of Christianity, although ‘it be counted as ignominious and worthy of reproach. In respect to suffering with Christ, comp. Rom. 8: 17. 2 Tim. 2: 10, 11. 1 Pet. 4: 13. 2 Cor. 4:10. Rev. 1:9. That ovecdcouoy avrov means, reproach such as _ Christ suffered, is plain from the object of the writer. Comp. Col. 1: 24, which is exactly in point ; and see on Heb. 11: 26. VOL, Il. 39 306 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 13: 14—16. 14. Ov yao éyouey. ... éncSnrodmer, for here we have no per- manent city, but we seek for one yet future. In 11: 14, the writer calls the heavenly inheritance which the patriarchs sought, aargi- Oa; and afterwards (v. 16), nodev. Here the appellation mode is used, because the writer had just been alluding to Christians being thrust out or going out of the city, viz. of Jerusalem, as Christ did, to suffer ignominy. The design of our verse is, to shew the Hebrews, that it cannot be of any great importance, should they be exiled from their dwelling places, and the habitations of their Jew- ish kindred ; for in this world, no habitation, no placé of abode, can be wévovoa, permanent, lasting. By profession, Christians, like the patriarchs, were seeking mutgidu énovgereov, and conse- quently mod pediovoay, an abode yet future, a residence in the world to come. 15. Av ovrov ovr... 920), by him, therefore, let us continually present to God the sacrifice of praise. Av auvtov, viz. by Christ, i.e. let us present such an offering, by him who is our great high priest ; not a sacrifice of goats or bullocks, but a sacrifice of praise. In other words, ‘ Let us, as Christians, offer praises to God, for the blessings of the gospel vouchsafed to us.’ Totr éort, x0oTOV.... Ovouate avrov, that is, the fruit of our lips ascribing igre to him. The expression, sacrifice of praise, 371n Mt, is found in Lev. 7:12. A phrase similar to Sruit of the hips, is used by Hosea 14: 3 Hebrew p45 F72>W3 72°n2wv, where Septuagint xaonoy yevdey. The meaning of our phrase i is, what the lips utter, viz. when they ascribe praise (0u0A0- yovverwy) to God. So Prey. 18: 20 7» 798; the fruit of the lips, i. €. what a man says, his words. “Opohoyotvrwy, like the Hebrew Svat means, to praise, cele- brate, publicly acknowledge. ’Ovouere is here, as commonly, a periphrasis for the agent to whom the name belongs, viz. God ; so that the sense is the same as rw dev). What follows rovr gorz, is added by the writer, in order to guard against the apprehension of any one, that he was exhorting them to offer the ritual sacrifices prescribed by the law. 16. 779 2 evmotiag .... O0¢, moreover, forget not kindness and liberality; for with such sacrifices God is well pleased. ° Ext- AavPavw governs the genitive sUouiag and xorvwriac. The same strain of language, as before, is continued in this verse. Benefi- COMMENTARY ON HEB. 13: 16, 17. 307 cence or kindness toward the suffering, and Liberality toward the - ‘needy, are called acceptable sacrifices, or such as God is pleased _ with, The sentiment is, ‘duties like these, Christianity requires ; not the blood of bullocks and goats.’ 17. eidtsoe.... UmEInETE, obey your leaders, and be sub- ject to them. “Hyovmévorg, inv. 7 above, is clearly used in the sense of teachers, who were in fact the guides or leaders of the Christian community. If there be any difference between me/deo- Oe in this case, and vmelxsre, the first has reference to positive obedience, in regard to any directions given them; the second pro- hibits any opposition to the teachers, in the measures which they might adopt to promote the improvement and the order of their re- ligious community. Avroi yoo ayounvovow .... aodwoovres, for they watch over your souls, as those who must render an account. ° Ayounvovot, watch ; the image seems to be taken from the practice of shep- herds, who watch with solicitude over their flocks, in order that they may preserve them from the ravages of wild beasts. See the like imagery employed, respecting the prophet Ezekiel, Ezek. 3: 17. ‘Tréo cov woyov vuov, i.e. for you, DI*wEId. “Rg Aoyow anodwoovres, viz. to God, to whom ‘‘every one must give an ac- count of himself;’’ particularly, every one put in a place of trust with regard to spiritual duties. "Ive mera yaous ....vovz0, [so obey] that they may do this with joy, and not with grief ; for this would be unprofitable to you. “fva x.t.4,1 cannot but connect with Aoyoy anodwoortes. The sentiment is, ‘That they may render their account with joy, because of the obedience which has been paid to their admonitions, and of the safety in which their ‘flock are placed thereby.’ An ac- count of successful labours will indeed be a joyful account, to the ministers of the divine word. In respect to grammatical construc- tion, iva seems to be connected with the verbs in the first part of the verse, viz. me(Oeote.... Unelnete ... iva méTa YaouS x.T.A.; but rovro movmoe necessarily refers to something already mention- ed, which the teachers must do; and what is this but Aoyor a0- dwoswv 7 I have been constrained, therefore, to supply the ellipse in the Greek here from the preceding context, and to translate, So obey, etc. 308 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 13: 17—20. My, orevagortes, lit. not groaning, i.e. not grieving, the effect being put for the cause. It is only a negative form of, expression here, designed to repeat the same idea as is conveyed by wera ya- ous, and to render it more intense. “Advorredég yao, another neg- ative expression, which means as much as to say, ‘ This would be very hurtful or noxious to you ;’ i.e. should their Christian teach- ers he compelled to give an account of unbelief and want of sub- jection in them, the consequences would be distressing. 18. IooosvyeoGe negi juov.... avacreepecDut, pray for us; for we trust that we have a good conscience, being desirous in all things to conduct ourselves uprightly. The request of the writer, that he may have an interest in their prayers, shews the friendly feelings and confidence which-he entertained respecting them. He appeals to the sincerity and uprightness of his Christian deport- ment, as an evidence that he might claim a Christian sympathy for himself. Ziv’ aoe x.r.4. augments, or renders intensive, the idea contained in the preceding clause. 19. T[sovocoréows 0... . piv, and I request this the more earnestly, in order that I may speedily be restored to you. This seems plainly to imply, that the writer was detained from paying those a visit whom he addressed, by some adverse circumstances, ‘viz. either by imprisonment, sickness, or some like cause. It also implies, that he is known to them, and they to him; for it indi- cates that he had formerly been among them. 20. “O 02 Beog .... moovr, now, may the God of peace, that raised from the dead our Lord Jesus, who, by the blood of an ever- lasting covenant, has become the great Shepherd of the sheep. “O Os og tg etonvns, God-who bestows happiness, auctor salutis. The Greek e/onvy, in the New Testament, like the Hebrew pidw, means, every kind of blessing or happiness. ‘O avayayav, who brought up, raised up, restored. Tov nowésva .... TOV péyar; comp. John 10: 11, 14—18. ‘Ev aiuare dvwOjuns aéwviov some join with aveyoywr. But what can be the sense of, raising Christ from the dead by the blood of the everlasting covenant? Almighty power raised him from the dead ; not the blood of the covenant. Beyond all reasonable doubt, then, év aiware x. r. 1. characterises the great Shepherd, who “ laid down his life for the sheep, John 10: 15;” and who sanctioned a new testament or covenant by his blood, Heb. 9: 15—23. Matt. COMMENTARY ON HEB. 13: 20—22. 309 26: 28. The meaning is, that ‘the great Shepherd is provided with, or (so to speak) carries along with him, blood sanctioning a covenant which is of perpetual force.’ So, in Heb. 9: 25, the high priest is said to have entered yearly into the most holy place, éy wddorol@ aiuare, i. e. carrying with him the blood of bullocks and goats. See also Wahl’s Lex. éy, no.2. The phrase is plainly an allusion to the preceding discussion, in chap. rx. I have render- ed it so as to prevent a mistake, in regard to its true meaning. 21. Karaorioas vuas év navi goyw ayat, fit you for every good work, i.e. prepare you in all respects to act worthily of the Christian name, enable you in all respects as Christians to dis- charge your duties. Zig ro moejoas to GeAyua avrov, so that you may do his will, i.e. perform all which he requires. This is of the same import as the dative with éy, in the preceding clause. Tlovay év vuiv . ... Xgeorov, working in you that which is pleasing to him, thraugh Jesus Christ. That is, enabling you to periorm all your | Christian duties, which will be acceptable, EUAQEO- rov évwmvov avrov, pleasing in his sight, 99325 250, pleasing to him. Ava’ Inoov Xovorod, i. e. may he do this, for Christ's sake, through Christ, or, perhaps, by the influence of the Christian reli- gion. "Run doka....°Aunyv, to whom be glory for ever and ever, Amen. ‘The nearest antecedent to «, is £ Xocvorov; and to him, it seems to me, the doxology plainly belongs. Other examples of a similar nature, may be easily shewn; e. g. Rev. 1: 6. 1 Pet. 4: 11. 2 Pet. 3: 18. Doxologies introduced feito the midst of a letter, in this way, are characteristic of the writings of Paul. 22. Tlaoaxahn 02 vuas .... nagaxdnoews, moreover, T beseech you, brethren, to bear with this word of exhortation; for I have written briefly to you. *“Avéyw means, to bear patiently with, to receive or permit with kind feelings, to put up with. Aoyov nmago- zdjoews is simply, exhortation. Some refer this only to the last part of the epistle ; but the whole is intermixed with hortatory ad- monitions. The writer, after speaking so plainly, and giving warnings so awful, endeavours to win those whom he addresses, to a patient toleration of his plain dealing. Ae Goayewr, an usual Greek expression, for briefly, within a short compass. ‘But how,” it is asked, «“ could Paul say this, when this epistle is longer than any one of his, that to the Romans, 310 COMMENTARY ON HEB. 13: 22—25. - 7 and the first to the Corinthians, excepted?” But is it to be suppos- ed, that those, whom the apostle now addressed, were acquainted with all of his other epistles; and that they would estimate the force of due Boayéwy, by a comparison of our epistle with them? It is much more reasonable to suppose, that the writer means to say, that he had written briefly, considering the importance and dif- ficulty of the subjects of which he had treated. And who will de- ny this? 23. Tivwoxuete .... anodehupévor, know ye that [our] brother Timothy is sent away. See on the meaning of this, Introduction, Vol. I. § 19. pp. 132 seq. Me¥ ob... . Uma, with whom, tf he speedily return, I shall visit you. Me® ov, in company with whom. ° Eav raytov éoynroe implies, that Timothy was then absent. Of course, anodeduuevor cannot well mean, set at liberty. But if the meaning be, as I have rendered it, then is the reason plain why Paul should say, gay go- yntat. If Timothy was imprisoned at Rome, and set at liberty there, why should the writer (at Rome) speak of his coming to him? If in some other place, how should he know of his liberation, soon- er than those whom he addressed ? 24. “Aonaoacts navrag.... aytovs, salute all your leaders, and all the saints. °Aonacaode means, Present them with my kind wishes, and my regard for their welfare. ‘Ayiovs, those who are consecrated to Christ, professing Christians, saints. *Aonatovrat...."/rakias, they of Italy salute you; viz. the _ Italians, see Introduc. I. § 19. pp. 139 seq. ‘This shews that the writer was in Italy ; from which country, he sends the kind greet- ing of Christians there. 25. “H yaou pera navrmv vuov "Aw, grace be with 5 you all, Amen; a frequent form of benediction in the apostolic epistles. Xages means, divine favour or blessing. The subscription to this epistle runs thus; ZTgo¢ “ZPoaious éyougn and tS Sradlas due Tiwod tov. Like most of the other subscriptions to the epistles, it is of no authority. It is demonstra- bly erroneous here ; for how could Timothy write this epistle, when the author says, at its very close, that Timothy was then absent ? The author of this subscription, one is tempted to think, had either read the epistle with very little care, or with very little understand- ing of its contents. . ' EXCURSUS f. > Xa AQ ~ Heb. 1: 2. 4 ov xai tovs atoveas eOinoé. There still remains a difficulty in this passage, (in common with Eph. 3: 9), as to the form of expression, or rather, as to the ob- ject of the assertion. In John 1: 3, it is said, nevra dv’ avrovd [Aoyou] éyévero ; in 1 Cor: 8: 6, dv’ od ['/joov Xovorov] ra mevte; in Col. 1: 15, év at- ro [Xovorw] éxcio9y ra navta; in Col. 1: 16, ra aavra dc av- rov [X@eorov] ... . éxrvorae ; and in Heb. 1: 10—12, ov xar’ ag- yas .... tv yyy EDsushinoas, xal Zoya tTwY yErouy Gov éioly oi oveavol. In all these passages, the creation of all things is simply ascribed to Christ ; just in the same manner as in Gen. I: 1, God is said to have created the heavens and the earth. * The reader is desired specially to mark the mode of expression, in the passages above quoted ; as it is important for him to have a distinct cognisance of it, in order that he may perceive the difficul- ty which [ am about to state. Ifthe Scriptures had no where as- cribed the creation to any other than the Logos or Christ, and had employed, in ascribing it to him, only such language as that just quoted above, I cannot perceive, that any interpreter of the sacred writings would have ever thought of ascribing creation to any other than to the Logos simply; I mean, that so far as the Scriptures are concerned, he never would have thought of ascrib- ing any sentiment to them, in respect to this subject, but that which assigns creatorship simply and solely to Christ or the Logos. There is, plainly, no difference in the mode of expression in the Bi- ble, which asserts creatorship of God, or which asserts it of Christ. I must be understood, of course, to affirm this here, only of that class of texts which has just been quoted above. 312 Excursus I. Hes. 1: 2. But there is another view of this subject, which presents difhi- culties that cannot be surmounted without some effort. The Scriptures do indeed ascribe creatorship to the Logos ; as we have seen. But do the sacred writers mean to ascribe it to him absolute- ly, in the highest sense, as his sole and independent act? Or, do they represent him as creating by direction of the supreme God, and under his superintendence ?_ In other words, Was the Logos the original author of the universe ; or, was he only the instrument by which the original author brought it into being ? Questions easily asked; but answered with somewhat more difficulty, than unreflecting minds may at first imagine. All is to be resolved, by what the Scriptures have taught us. So one and all, who profess any sacred regard for the Scriptures, must con- cede. What then say the Scriptures on this point of all points, in respect to the great question of the real nature of Christ? Is he Creator by virtue of his ozwn, or by virtue of a delegated power ? One thing it appears somewhat important to consider, before we advance any farther in the investigation of this subject. If Christ were only the instrument, employed by the supreme God to bring the creation into existence, and to arrange it in its present order, the sacred writers might assert, and might truly assert, that mavra Ov avrov éyévero, or, év autw éxtiodn ta mavra. It may be said, with equal truth, that the church of St. Paul’s in London was built by Christopher Wren, and that it was built by the monarch who was the procuring cause or author of the structure, and by whose direction and at whose expense it was reared.» Every day, men ' familiarly employ language in this manner, ascribing the building of a structure, either to the owner, or to the architect, just as the nature of the case may require. Do the Scriptures ascribe creation then to Christ, as architect merely ; or, as original author and deviser of the whole? In oth- er words, Is that class of texts, which ascribe creation to Christ, to be modified by admitting the idea, that creating by delegated power, i. e. (so to speak) as architect only, is meant ; or, are these texts to be understood in their Hees sense, viz. in the sense of ascribing to Christ or the Logos original authorship, creating in the highest sense? To prepare the way for an answer to this question, we must make inquiry respecting a second class of texts, such as those which I shall now subjoin. Excursus I. Hep. 1: 2. 313 In Heb. 1: 2, the writer asserts, that Gop made all things By uIs Son ; and in Eph. 3:9, r@ [@ew] ra navre xtiourte dia yoou Xovorov, Gov created all things sy Jesus Curist. The latter clause, dva /. Xovorov, is indeed wanting in some Codices of good estimation, and is rejected by Griesbach from the text. But Knapp and Tittmann have inserted it, and the weight of authority seems to favour the admission of it. That the sentiment is not without a parallel, is clear from Heb. 1: 2. In we two cases, then, the assertion of the apostle is, that Gop made all things BY his Son, or, py Jesus Christ. Are these expressions, now, to be interpreted in such a way, as to qualify all the first class of expressions ascribing creatorship to Christ, so that they must be understood as asserting nothing more, than that he performed an instrumental or ministerial work only, and did not act as original author in bringing the universe into be- ing? This is the simple question before us, divested of all extraneous constructions put upon either class of texts by opinions previously formed, or views adopted in consequence of reasoning @ priorz. Whatever may be the answer to this question, it is evident, that nothing of importance can depend, either in respect to Heb. 1: 2, or Eph. 3: 9, on the word dva. It has often been asserted, that this preposition is employed before the genitive case, only to de- signate a secondary or instrumental cause. But this is altogether incorrect, both in respect to sacred and classical usage; as even the common Lexicons of the New Testament will shew. The cause, whether principal or instrumental, may be, and often is, de- signated ley Ova before the genitive. Av ov, then, might designate, (by itself considered), the prin- cipal cause or original author of the worlds. This expression, however, does not involve the nodus of the difficulty, in the case before us. ‘The assertion is not here, that ad/ things were made BY the Son, but that GOD made all things BY him. In what manner, now, ought we to interpret this ? How the most noted commentators of the Greek church under- stood this difficult passage, is worth a serious inquiry. Chrysostom in explaining it says, “ As the Father judgeth no one, but is said to judge by his Son, because he hath begotten him who is judge ; so also he is said dyucoveyeiy de auvrov Ore Onucoveyor auroy éyev~ VOL. II. 40 314 Excursus I. Hen. 1: 2. vnos, to create by him, because he hath begotten him who is the Cre- ator.” He then proceeds, “ Ei yao avzovu aitiog 0 nano, nokAm paddoy tay Ov avrov yeyevynuevor, for if the Father is the cause of him, much more of the things made by him.’ Hom. I. in Epist. ad Heb. p. 15. Vol. XII. Ed. Montfaucon. To the same purpose Theophylact, * éwewé 02 aitiog 0 matr@ Tov Viov, EtxOTMS Kal TOY Um auvrov yevouevar, seeing the Father is the cause of the Son, he must surely be of the things made by him.”” Comm. in Heb. Tom. II. p- 650. edit. Venet. 1755. Here, also, the generation of the divine substance of the Son is asserted, and the appeal is made to this doctrine as solving the difficulty of our text. But as the idea of self existence, existence uncaused, and independence, enters essen- tially into all our conceptions respecting a nature truly divine, and is a sine qua non in all our apprehensions of a Creator, it is diffi- cult for us to concede that the Father can be the cause (aiérzog) of the Son in his divine nature, without of course admitting that the Son, as divine, must be a dependent being, a devteoog eos only, as many have called him. The explanation of these fathers, (who accord with most of the ancient ecclesiastical writers), seéms then only to remove one difficulty, by bringing forward another still greater. This explanation also is forced upon the text. The wri-_ ter of our epistle does not say, nor intimate, that ‘ God created all things by his Son, inasmuch as he is the cause, (aérvos, doyn, as Chrysostom calls him), of the Son.’ Can it be proper to force on the sacred writer a mode of metaphysical explanation, drawn from - the philosophy of later. ages, and foreign to the simplicity of the Scriptures ? : In modern times, the mode of explaining our text is founded on what the systems of theology denominate, ‘* subordination in respect to the persons of the Godhead.” ‘Thus Owen, on Heb. 1: 2, says, ‘‘ [he joint-working of the Father and Son doth not infer any other subordination but that of subsistence and order ;” he means the hypostatical subordination of persons, or order of their existence in the Godhead. The amount of the explanation, adopt- ed by him and many others, is, if I rightly understand it, that God the Father, in the order of subsistence (not of time) preceding the Son, did, by the Son, create the worlds. But whether this ex- planation renders the text any more intelligible, may perhaps be well doubted. Especially so, as Owen, on the same passage, says, ? - Excoursus I. Hen. 1: 2. 315 “The same individual creating act, is the work of the Father and the Son ; whose power and wisdom being one and the same undivided, so also are the works which proceed outwardly from them.” But if the power and wisdom of the Father and Son are not only one, but the saME UNDIVIDED ; on what, it may be asked, is founded the evidence, that a suBorDINATION of subsistence and order exists in the Godhead? If the attributes of the Godhead are one and the SAME undivided, how can we come at the evidence of a physical or metaphysical sunorDINATION of subsistence, or hypothesis? Can such a subordination of subsistence be in any way known to us, ex- cept through the medium of the divine attributes? But these are affirmed to be one and the same undivided. Are we able, then, to shew what the distinction in divine essence is; or to define the mode in which the metaphysical essence of the uncreated Being ex- ists? Where is the passage of Scripture which does this? I am aware that an appeal is here made to those texts which mention Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in connexion ; and particularly to the order in which they are mentioned. But of these texts there are only three. The first is in Matt. 28: 19, where the order just pre- sented is observed. The second is in 2 Cor. 13: 13, where the Lord Jesus Christ is placed first. The third is in 1 John 5:7; a text, which if not proved to be spurious, is at least thrown into a state so doubtful, that no considerate inquirer would at present think of appealing to it as authority. Is then, we may well ask, the order of subsistence or hypostasis, (which is so much insisted on and so often appealed to by the schoolmen), a doctrine taught by the sacred writers? Or rather, is it not one of the inventions of metaphysical philosophy, in order to remove apparent difficulties in the sacred text? Can any one point out the text of Scripture, in which God is presented in a physical or metaphysical manner, so that his essence or mode of subsistence, in itself considered, is offered to our consideration 2 If not; and if God, only in his relations to us and the creation around us, God as developed by his attributes, and not as he is in himself or considered in respect to his internal essence, be revealed to us in the bible ; why not be contented with what the Scriptures have taught, without forcing sentiments upon the sacred writers, which have been excogitated only by metaphysicians of later days ? Owen himself, after going through a protracted consideration 316 Excursus I. Hep. 1: 2. of our text, with that good sense and humility for which he was so conspicuous, adds, “ It is not for us to inquire much into or after the reason of this economy and dispensation. We cannot by search- ing find ont God, we cannot find out the Almighty unto perfec- tion.” He means, ‘ We cannot find out the economy of God’s cre- ating the worlds by his Son, and the doctrine of subordination which is implicated in this.’ Happy would it have been for the in- terest of humble and candid inquirers, had this sentiment produc- ed its proper influence.over all the writings of Owen himself, and of many other eminent and excellent men! : Will not most sober and intelligent inquirers, of the present day, agree in saying, that the nature and modus of the. distinction in the Godhead is not an object of revelation, and that it is BEYOND the boundaries of human knowledge? Let those, now, who write or teach respecting this momentous and awful subject, act consis- tently with such an avowal, and very much of the perplexity, which is still occasioned by incautious assertions in regard to it, will be saved. The ground which Owen and so many others have taken, to explain the phrase in Heb. 1: 2, is not satisfactory, because it is built on the assumption, that we know that which is beyond the boundaries of human knowledge, and which, after much exam- ination, Iam compelled to believe is not revealed-in the Scrip- tures. The difficulty of our text, then, still femains. It would be pre- sumption in me, to promise a solution of it that will be satisfactory. But as the subject is so deeply interesting, to all sincere and hum- ble inquirers after the simple meaning of the sacred writers, I will venture to suggest a few considerations for reflection. Words are the signs of ideas. Words are human, i. e. they be- lone to men ; they are employed by them; and employed to desig- nate, of course, the ideas which men have in their own minds. All these ideas are derived from sensation, reflection, or conscious- ness. ‘The perceptible objects without us, and the mental pheno- mena within us, are all the objects from which we can derive ideas through the medium of observation. Reflection, or reasoning upon the knowledge derived from these, may Jead us to many new ideas ; all of which, however, have their basis in the perceptions of objects external or internal. Excoursus I. Hes. 1: 2. 317 As words are merely arbitrary signs of ideas, so when employ- ed in their original sense, they can never signify more than the things for which they stand. But words may be employed figura- tively. When we come, by reasoning or reflection, to the knowl- edge and belief that there exists a Being who created the world ; who is himself uncreated, eternal, and immutable ; who is not the object of perception by any of our senses ; and for the description of whom, nene of the words of our language were originally form- ed: we are then obliged to apply to the description of this Being, words already in existence. But these words, it is plain, must in such a case be used nearly always in a sense more or less qualified, and differing, from. their original and literal sense. Even in ex- pressing our ideas of the moral attributes of the Supreme Being, where there is a particular resemblance between him and man formed in his image, we do not apply to the Divinity the most com- mon words, in exactly the same sense as we do to men. When we say, he is wise, we do not mean that he acquired his wisdom, or possesses it, or exercises it, just in the manner thatmen do. We mean that there is, in his wisdom, something analogous to wisdom in men; something which selects the best ends, and chooses the best means of accomplishing them. But we do not mean to imply, that the acts of selecting and choosing in the Divinity, are, in all respects, analogous to our own. We say, God is omnipresent. But we do not mean that he is present every where, in the same manner as human beings are present at any particular place. We do not mean that actual phys- ical presence of body, or of substance, is necessary to his being present ; in other words, we do not mean, that he is physically dif- fused through the Universe. We mean, that at the same instant, he can act, and does act, any where, or every where. Here is some analogy between him and us. We must be physically pre- sent in order to act ; and we say, therefore, that where he acts, he is present. This istrue in some sense ; but as to manner, how ex- ceedingly different is his being present from our own ! We say, Godis mighty. But when we speak of might in him we do not associate with it the idea of firm sinew, of vigorous mus- cle, of robust body, of mature age, of perfect health ; all of which enter into our apprehensions of consummate strength in man. We content ourselves with one simple point of analogy. God has pow- 318 Excursus I. Hes. 1: 2. er to do whatever he desires to do; or, he is almighty. In this respect his might or strength is like that in men ; it is power to ac- complish the objects which strength or might is adapted to accom- plish. But the might of the Deity infinitely excels that of men in degree. Here is one point of dissimilarity. It depends, too, on very different causes for its exercise. Here is another. But still, we speak of power in God, as frequently as we do of power in men. The imperfection of language obliges us to make use of words, in this way. But who that has any reflection will say, that the words which we apply to God are used entirely in the same sense, which belongs to them when they are applied to men ? In the same manner we might proceed, in the consideration of every one of the divine attributes, whether natural or moral. In regard to them all, we should find that there is only some one point of analogy on which our assertion rests, when we apply human language to the description of God; and that the manner in which he possesses or exercises any of his attributes, physically consider- ed, is utterly beyond the boundaries of human knowledge; and in- deed that it was never meant to be an object of assertion, by any intelligent man who makes assertions in regard to the Supreme Be- ing. If all this is well understood, we are now prepared to advance a step farther, and see our way clear. Nothing can be more evi- dent, (I might say, self-evident), than that the eternal, uncreated, uncaused, independent, infinite, and self-existent God, must, as to his mode of essence and existence, be unlike to temporary, created, caused, dependent, finite beings, with a derived existence. The very fact that God is as he has been just described, and man as he has been represented, necessarily forces this conviction upon us. Nothing can be plainer, then, than that all human language, form- ed at first merely to express human conceptions of finite and creat- ed objects, must in itself be altogether incompetent fully to describe the Divinity. Nor could any language be formed by created be- ings adequate to this purpose ; for the plain reason, that no finite being could ever have a full conception of the infinite and uncre- ated Being. All our language, then, when used to describe God, must be considered rather as analogical only, than as capable of being sim- ply applied to him in its usual sense. Any description made by it, Excursus [. Hes. 1: 2. 319 is only an approximation towards a full description of what is di- vine. This has been shewn above. And could this be remember- ed and rightly applied, in all our discussions respecting the nature of the Supreme Being, it would save much of the difficulty and darkness, which now embarrass this great subject. No assertion, indeed, can be made respecting God, which, if its language be understood and applied altogether in the same sense in which it is understood and applied when made of man, will not lead to contradiction or absurdity. This is evident from such plain eases as those already presented ; viz. God is wise; God is omni- present; God is mighty. If there is still any doubt here, take another case. God has knowledge. This is certainly true. But with us, knowledge can be possessed only through the medium of corporeal organs of sensation ; it is acquired successively ; in time ; within a limited space; by the aid of memory, of comparison, of reasoning, of imagination; and when needed for use, it is sum- moned by recollection. When we say, ‘A man has knowledge,’ we imply all these things by the use of these words. But if we say, ‘God has knowledge,’ do we mean to assert that he has cor- poreal organs of sense; that he gradually acquires ideas; that, limited by time and space, he does this; that he makes the effort of charging the memory with it; the effort of comparing, of reason- ing, of imagination, of recollection, in any manner like ours? Who- ever says this is an anthropomorphite indeed ; such an one, too, as is not to be often met with, (I would fondly hope), in these days of better illumination respecting the exalted and spiritual nature of the Divinity. From these obvious considerations, we may now proceed to ex- amine the language of the sacred writers, in regard to the difficult point which suggested the subject of this Excursus. Two things seem to be equally the object of assertion, in the holy Scriptures. The first, that there is but one God; the second, that the Logos or higher nature which dwelt in Christ, is truly divine, or is truly God. Of the first, it would be superfluous to produce proofs here. The Old Testament is full of them; and the New as distinctly re- cognizes the same doctrine; see John 17:3. 1 Cor. 8: 4,6. 1 John 5: 20. Luke 18: 19. Matt. 19:17. A formal proof of the second point would be out of place, in an exegesis designed only for the explanation of a particular phrase. It must suffice merely 320 Excursus I. Hes. 1: 2. to advert to John 1: 1. Rom. 9: 5. Titus 2: 13. 1 John 5: 20; the two former instances of which are so express, that no critical in- genuity can avoid the application of the term God to Christ; the third, when examined by the principles of grammar and of the usus loquendi of the New Testament, is scarcely less certain; and the fourth has ‘never, yet, been satisfactorily explained away. But how can the Logos be truly God, and yet be with God, and be the agent ny wuicu God made the worlds? Here lies, it must be confessed, the very essence of all the difficulty, which embarras- ses so many minds; and on this point we must now venture to dwell with some particularity. In the first place, our minds are embarrassed with the difficulty which such a statement respecting the Logos makes, in regard to the divine unity. Let us see if the source of this embarrassment cannot be distinctly pointed out. Trinitarians have been accustomed; for many centuries, to characterize the distinction in the Godhead, by the word person. Whether this word was well or ill chosen, it is not my present ob- ject to inquire. Thus much is certain; many, perhaps even the greater part of men in Christian lands, have incautiously attached to this word, when used in respect to the Godhead, a sense nearly (if not quite) the same, as they attach to it in common usage. Not a few theologians and critics have, indeed, protested against such an application of the word; and some of those, who have been most eminent for their steadfast adherence to the belief that the Saviour possesses a nature truly divine, have raised their voice, high against such an application of it; but unfortunately for the cause of truth, this voice has been listened to only by some of those who were friendly to a belief in the doctrine of the Trinity. Oth- ers, with different views, have commonly thought proper to pay no attention to such a protest; but to take advantage, in their efforts to oppose the doctrine of the Trinity, of the arguments which might be put into their possession, by taking the word person in its usual acceptation. If now we speak of the Logos as a person; and of God the Fa- ther as a person; and attach to the word person the sense that is usual in common parlance ; then it is certain, indeed, that the dif- ficulty which lies in the way of supposing the Logos to be truly God, and yet consistently maintaining the divine unity, is altogeth- ~ Excoursus I. Hes. 1: 2. $21 er insurmountable. ‘‘ Person is an intelligent substance ;” (if I may use the language of philosophy for the sake of definition). " Substance,” as defined by Baumgarten, a divine of the old school, of high orthodoxy, and of great metaphysical acuteness, ‘is that which can exist by itself, or unassociated with another thing ;” Substantia est id, quod potest existere ita, ut ponatur extra alterum, Metaphys. 191. 36. 231—233. As defined by another logician and philosopher, famous for nice distinctions of definition, ‘* Sub- stance is that which exists, or may be supposed to exist, although it is connected with nothing else ;”’ Substantia est id quod est, aut esse posse putatur, etaimsi nulli alit sit junctum, Ulrichs’ Inst. Log. et Metaphys. § 316. To apply the word person, then, in the sense which such definitions necessarily afford, to the distinctions in the Godhead, inevitably leads to Tritheism, and of course to a virtual re- jection of the divine unity. We may say, in words, that we believe God is one, although we assert that there are three persons in the Godhead as just defined ; but nothing is plainer, than that in such a case we believe merely in a specific unity, not in a numerical one. Specific unity, however, might admit three thousand or three mill- ion divine beings, and yet consistently maintain that there is but one God ; that is, it might do so, provided we allow the advocates of it that there is a yevo¢g Ostov, genus divinum, or genus of divini- ties. Human nature, for example is one; there is but one nature of man; yet the individuals of this genus are without number. That such is not the unity which the Scriptures assert of the God- head, I need not stop to prove. He who consistently holds the numerical unity of the Godhead, must, beyond all doubt, protest against the application of the word person to designate the distinctions of the divine nature, if that word is to be taken in its dogical or metaphysical sense. For however one may hold to words and forms of expression, it is plain, that while he makes such an application of the word person to the Godhead, he in fact admits Tritheism, although he may be. far from any design or any consciousness of doing so. The views which have now been presented, may serve to ex- plain the reason why many find it so difficult, or (as they think it) impossible, to admit the true divinity of the Logos. “How can he,” say they, ‘ be the second person in the Godhead, and yet be VOL. II. 4] Med 322 Excursus I. Hep. 1: 2. one with the first? How can he be with God, and yet be God himself ? And truly, it must be confessed, that this cannot be, provided the words in question are to be construed altogether more humano, i.e. in their logical, common, usual acceptation. But is it analos gous, is it proper, to construe them thus? Does it develope a spirit of candid and fair inquiry, to insist that these terms shall be construed altogether according to their common acceptation, when there is not, as we have seen above, a single term significant of a divine attribute, which we ever construe in such a manner 2 If this be correct, (and I may venture to say it cannot be reas- onably disputed), thenyI see no very urgent reason why the use of the word person, in order to designate a distinction in the God- head, should be rejected. It is true, itis not a word which is ap- plied by the Scriptures to the Godhead, (for uxdoraoug in Heb. 1: 3 does not mean, person) ; it is also true, that many well meaning individuals have been misled by it in regard to their conceptions respecting the Deity, and that those who reject the doctrine of the Trinity, have made great use of this word in order to render the sentiments of Trinitarians obnoxious: so that one might almost wish the word had never been introduced into ecclesiastical usage. But when the matter is examined to the bottom, it will be found that objections of a similar nature might be urged against the ap- plication of any anthropopathic expressions to God. The simple and the untaught may be easily misied by them; and often are so. How many, for example, believe that God is really angry, repents; etc. more humano, because such expressions are found in the Scrip- tures? Shall all such expressions be laid aside, because they are misunderstood or perverted ?. And if so, where shall we stop? for we have seen, that all Janguage which is used in order to describe God, must be taken, of course and by necessity, ina qualified sense. The abuse of a thing is no valid argument against the wse of it. Those then, who believe in the existence of a real distinction in the Godhead, in case they are careful to protest against the literal application of the word person to designate this, may still continue to employ the word if they think best ; for it is exceedingly difficult, (as all will confess who have thoroughly studied this subject), to exchange it for a better one, or for one that will so well correspond with the representations of the Bible in regard to such a distinc- ‘sa Excursus I. Hep. 1: 2. 323 tion. Certainly no term can be substituted for it, which will not, in like manner, be obnoxious to more or less objections. If those who reject all distinction in the Godhead, will perse- vere still in maintaining, that to say there are three persons in the Godhead, necessarily involves the doctrine of Tvritheism; and if they will thus continue, at all events, to explain the word person according to its literal and common meaning, and to charge upon those who believe in the doctrine of the Trinity the absurd conse- quences derivable from this; then they may indeed display their strength of attachment to their own views, and perhaps their skill in logomachy ; but where is that candour and fairness toward those who differ from them, which becomes all who are seeking in earn- est to know the simple doctrines of the Scriptures ? Suppose now, when one says, God possesses knowledge, he should be asked in the tone of reproof, ‘What! Do you mean to assert that God has physical organs of perception ; that he studies; that he charges his memory with ideas ; that he compares; that he de- duces conclusions ; that he summons them up by the effort of re- collection when he needs them? Men do all this, who have knowl- edge; but can all this be predicated of God?’ Would any con- siderate man think these questions very reasonable ones ; or feel himself-compelled by them to abandon his assertion, ‘ that God has knowledge ?’ Apply, now,:the principle concerned in this case, to the idiom in question. The apostle John says, that the Logos was with God; was with him in the beginning ; and repeats this asseveration, John 1: 1,2. Christ says of himself, that he was with the Father, and partook of his glory, before the world had an existence, John 17: 5. In another place, John asserts that the Son was with the Fa- ther, 1 John 1: 2; and the Saviour speaks of the Father, as loving him before the foundation of the world, John 17: 24. He declares, that he came out from the Father, when he came into the world, John 16: 28. In accordance with this idiom, Paul says, that God created all things by Jesus Christ, Eph. 3: 9; and that he made the worlds by his Son, Heb. 1: 2. Now if such texts are to be consid- ered as altogether insulated, and the principles of analogy in other cases are not to be applied to the language which they exhibit, then the conclusion, that Christ or the Logos is a being wholly distinct from God the Father, is clear and inevitable. But are these texts 324 Excursus I. Hes. 1:2. ference at all to others, which relate to the same connexion be- tween Father and Son? Certainly not, if we follow the analogy of exegesis in all other cases. When John says that the Logos was with God, he tells us, at the very same time, as if to guard us against erroneously concluding that he is a distinct and separate and different substance, that he was God. When the Saviour spake of the glory which he had with the Father before the world was, he had just been addressing the Father as the only true God, John 17: 5, 3; so that no one could rationally suppose him to assert the existence of more than one true God. If Paul tells us that God created all things by Jesus Christ, and that he-made the worlds by his Son, he also tells us, that Christ is God over all and blessed for- ever, Rom. 9:53; and that he is the eternal and immutable creator of the heavens and the earth, Heb. 1: 10—12. Christ tells us that he who hath seen him hath seen the Father, John 14:9; that he is in the Father, and the Father in him, 14: 105. and that all which the Father hath is his, 16: 15. Now whatever diversity between the Father and Son the first class of texts above quoted may seem to imply, it is plain that it is not of such a nature as to destroy the unity of the Godhead. Whatever the distinction in the Godhead may be, it is noé that which makes plurality ; it is not that which makes personality in a logical or merely human sense. But can we say what it is? Plainly not. ~ HS VILOOTQAOEDS AUTOV. What can be plainer, than that the description, in Heb. 1: 3, necessarily applies to the zncarnate Logos, to the Son of God as disclosing, in our nature, the Father to the world of mankind? A multitude of analogous texts might easily be appealed to; but those quoted in the commentary are sufficient. It is plainly the mani- festation of God which the Son makes, that occasions the Son’s be- ing described as anavyacua and yaoaxtyg ; both of which imply, of course, what is visible and perceptible. But the Logos before the incarnation, while simply divine, was neither visible nor per- ceptible. Nor can we, with any propriety of language, speak of him in that state, in which he was simply the invisible God, as_be- ing only the image of God, or only the radiance of his splendour, or merely the likeness of his substance. ‘Ynooraorg avrov, his sub- stance, I regard as equivalent to him, himself as he really is; for this would seem to be the meaning of subsfance, in the case before us, and not the designation of the physical or metaphysical nature of the divine substance, which neither Christ nor any of the sacred writers have represented to us, and of which, the Logos, is not an image, since he is ONE with the Father. Others understand aai'yaoue in the sense of image, exact re- semblance, and dvg« as meaning, divine majesty; thus making anavycouc OvENS and yaouxtng Hg UmoOraoEMg avTOU synony- mous. ‘They appeal, by way of supporting this, to an expression in Philo, who calls the sanctuary of the temple ovov anariyaoua TOV ayloy “al Miunuc TOU HozyErumoV, an image (as they translate it) of the [heavenly] sanctuary, and a resemblance of the archetype. But here enavyaoua may well be rendered radiance, i.e. light Excorsus III. Hes. 1: 3. 335 emanated from the heavenly sanctuary, in reference to the heaven- ly splendour which appeared in the most holy place. Philo de Plantat. Noe, L. II: p. 221. edit. Francofurt. The book of Wis- dom calls wisdom, anavyuoug gwros aidiov, ual sixove tng aya- Bornros avrov, the radiance of eternal light, and the image of [God’s] goodness ; which, although cited by them, is still less to the purpose of defending their opinion. Ancient and modern commentators, who have constru ed these phrases as having respect to the divine nature and condition of the Son, have understood them as asserting an exact likeness between the Father and the Son, first in regard to attributes (doa), and then in regard to substance or essence (umooraocs). I must, how- ever, regard the phrase in question, as of the same nature, in res- pect to meaning, with the texts to which they have been compared in the commentary ; and we may surely find, in the analogy of the Scripture and in the nature of the imagery, reason to justify this view of them. But as the explanation referred to has been so long insisted on, and so often repeated, it deserves at least some particu- lar attention.- Theodoret ‘has best exhibited the mode of argument, which is used to defend the sentiment in question. ‘“ Splendour (omatyao- fa),” says he, “comes from fire. It has fire as its cause, but is inseparable from the fire; for fire and splendour proceed from the same source. If now it is possible, in respect to objects of sense, that one thing should be derived from another, and yet co-exist with that from which it is derived, you cannot doubt that God the Logos, the only begotten Son of God, is begotten as a Son, and yet that he co-exists with him who begat him as Logos, which [Logos] is anavyaoua dofysg. For the glory and the splendour have one common source. But the glory aleays existed ; consequently the splendour. Fire and splendour are of the same nature; then the Son is of the same nature with the Father. Moreover, since the image of splendour abundantly shews the co-eternal and co-essen- tial nature [of the Son with the Father], it has afforded occasion for the blasphemies of those who labour under the disease of Sa- bellius and Photinus. By another image, therefore, he [the apostle] refutes this blasphemy, since splendour does not exist in and of it- self; for he adds, yaguxrno 1g UnoGtacEWs aro, x.t.4.” The- od. Comm. on Heb. 1: 3. : @ 336 Excursus III. Hes. 1: 3. In a similar manner, Chrysostom and Theophylact argue, call- ing the Son gwe & gwrog. So the Nicene Fathers say, ‘the Son is pos é* purros, xai Yeog é*x Yeov. All these plainly borrow their phraseology from the expression, anatyaouc tug dokng avrou, which is referred by them to the divine nature of Christ. But how incompetent any material objects are, to afford just analogies of the modus existendi of a divine and uncreated Nature, need not be again insisted on in this place. We might well ask, Is not the sun the cause of light? * And does not the cause exist before the effect? Again; Is light in all respects homoousian with the source of light, the luminary from which it springs? Is the radiance of the sun, the same thing as the sun itself ? Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Gregory Nyssen, moreover, as- sert, that the expression, yagaxrng 17$ UmoGTaOEWS avTOU, NeCces- sarily implies an entire resemblance, in all respects, of the Son to the Father, with the exception of separate hypostasis ; and this they maintain must be so, because the impression made by a stamp or die is exactly like the stamp or die itself. But it may be asked, first, Whether the writer himself of our epistle makes, as these commentators do, the exception of hypostasts from the complete- ness of the resemblance asserted? Next, whether an impression is indeed, in all respects, like the die which made it? For exam- ple ; is the impression solid, or of the same material with the stamp ; or does it possess the same physical attributes; or is it coeval with it? Such assertions, therefore, though they may be oratori- cal enough, and please the fancy of hearers*or readers, vanish away * before the tribunal of examination, and serve only to show the in- competence of any earthly analogies to give a true representation of the modus existendi, or of the physical substance of the Godhead. ‘They also shew the imprudence, nay, the. danger, of employing such figures, in regard to a subject of so awful a nature. There can be no doubt in the mind of any man who carefully examines, that the Nicene fathers and the Greek commentators, one and all, held that Christ, as to his divine nature, was derived from the Father. So the Nicene creed, @z0¢ é« You, pas éx gu- zog. So Chrysostom, commenting on the phrase in Heb. 1: 13, norvou éx Oe&tay mov, afirms, that “the apostle says this for no other reason, than that you may not suppose the Son to be evagyov “ai aveittoy,” i.e. sine principio et sine causd; most evidently in . cod Excursus IV. Hep. 1: 3. 334% ‘h very spirit of the Nicene creed. Yet we may ask the question, ‘ve cannot help asking it, Is then the Son, who is God over all and blessed forever—is he, in his pivine nature, derived and dependent ? Has he, as very God, an airia and an aoyi? And is it possible for us, to make the idea of true and proper divinity harmonize with that of derivation, and consequent dependence? No; it is not. The spiritual views of the nature of God, which are now generally entertained by enlightened men, forbid this; in fact, they render it absolutely impossible. But not so, in the days of the Nicene council, and of the Greek commentators. That they believed in the divine nature of Christ, I consider as altogether certain; but that their views of what is necessary to constitute a rational and defensible idea of a nature truly divine, were correct, is what no one, I think, who has read their writings and judged for himself, will now venture to maintain. Their views of the divine nature, were built on the metaphysical philosophy of their day : but we are not bound to admit this philosophy as correct ; nor is it indeed possible, now, for our minds to admit it. EXCURSUS IV. Heb. 1: 3. “Exaduev éy desk me meyadoovrns. To sit at the right hand of one on a throne, appears to have two meanings, both in profane and sacred usage. 1. It denotes honour, friendship, peculiar approbation, a reward bestowed on any one. Thus Solomon, when on his throne, direct- ed Bathsheba his mother to sit at his right hand, 1 K. 2: 19. Thus, in Ps. 45: 9, the queen is represented as taking her place at the right hand of the king her husband. The mother of James and John requests of Jesus, that her two sons may sit, one on his right hand and the other on his left, during his reign, (éy 7H Bao gig. cov, Matt. 20: 20—23, comp. Mark 10: 35--40), i. e. that they may occupy the highest places of honour under him as king. In VOL. II. 43 R 338 Excursus IV. Hes. 1: 3. . other passages, Christ promises his disciples that they shall have thrones, in the world of glory, Matt. 19:28; nay, that they shall _ sit down with him, on his throne, even as he sits down with his Father on his throne, Rev. 3; 21. So Christians are said to have a kingdom given to them, Rey. 1: 6; they are a kingly priesthood, 1 Pet. 2: 9; they reign with Christ, or in life, 2 Tim. 2: 12. Rom, 5: 17. James 2: 5. Matt. 25: 34. Rev. 5: 10. In all these and the like cases, honour, reward, an exalted state of happiness or glory, is represented by such expressions; but not actual participation in the supreme government of the universe. 2. To sit at the right hand of one enthroned, or to sit on a throne with one, also denotes participation of command, authority, or dignity. So the heathen often employed the phrase; e. g. Pin- dar represents Minerva as dsEcay xura yecoa tov nargog xusbo- uévyy, sitting at the right hand of her father [Jove]; which Ho- race explains by her occupying proximos Jovi honores. Pind. Fragm. p- 55. ed, Schneider. Hor. Od. [. 12, 19. So Callimachus says of Apollo, that ‘“ he will honour the choir who shall sing what is pleas- ant to him; since he is able to do this, émet Aut’ dsév0¢ Hora, be- cause he sits at the right hand of Jove, Hymn. in Apoll. v. 28. 29.” ‘The Greeks called him, who participated with another in his kingly authority, ovvedgos, magedgos, ovvPgovog; although they also applied these terms to any member of a council, or of a deliberative judicial assembly. In the New Testament, when Christ is represented as sitting at the right hand of divine. majesty Heb. 1: 3, or at the right hand of God Heb. 10: 12, or at the right, of the throne of God Heb. 12: 2, participation in supreme domin- ion is most clearly meant, | Comp Acts 2: 32—36. 1 Pet. 3: 22. Rom. 8: 34.. Mark 16:19. Phil. 2: 6—11. Eph. 1: 20—23. At the same time, the comparison of these passages will shew most clearly, that Christ’s exaltation to the right hand of God, means, his being seated on thé mediatorial throne, as the result and reward of his sufferings, (see particularly Phil. 2: 6--11, and comp. Heb. 12: 2) ; and that the phrase in question never means, the original dominion which Christ as Logos or ‘God possesses. The sacred writers never speak respecting the Logos, considered simply in his divine nature, as being seated at the right hand of God; but only of the Logos incarnate, or the Mediator, as being seated there. So in our text, it is after the expiation made by the Son of God, la ‘ Excursus V. Hes. 1: 5. 339 that he is represented as seating himself at the right hand of the divine majesty. And that | apie dominion, is not to be _ considered simply as the dominion of the divine nature of Christ as such, is plain from the fact, that when the mediatorial office is fulfilled, the kingdom of the mediator as such is to cease; 1 Cor. 15: 23—28. Moreover, that the phrase, to sit at the right hand of God, or of the throne of God, does not of itself mean, original di- vine dominion, is clear, from the fact, that Christ assures his faithful disciples they shall sit down with him on his throne, even as he has sat down with the Father on his throne, Rev. 3: 2%. It is exaltation, then, in consequence of obedience and sufferings, which is designated by the phrase in question. See an excellent dissertation De Jesu Christi ad dextram Dei sedente, by the venerable Dr. Knapp of Halle, (wvv év ayiovg), in Knappii Scripta varii Argu- menti. Hal. 1824. EXCURSUS V. > \ , > ~ > ‘ , Heb. 1: 5. Eyo &ouce avi ec naréoa, xal autos éo- > / TaL Moe eg VOY. Veg A difficulty still remains, in regard to the application of 2 Sam. 7: 14 to Christ. In the very same verse, which contains the quo- tation made by the apostle, is contained the following expression ; “Tf he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men ;’’ i. e. I will inflict such punishment, as men receive on account of transgression. Can it well be said respecting the Son of God, “If he commit iniquity, etc. ?”’ Where can any analogy in Scripture be found, of such lan- guage applied to him? The answer must be, No where. But by a nearer inspection of the whole prophecy, and by comparing it with other predictions of a similar nature, perhaps the difficulty presented may be diminished, if not removed. What hinders, that 340 Excursus V, Hes. 1: 5. ® God should promise both temporal and spiritual blessings to David, in consideration of his piety? See 2 Sam. 7: 1—13. Why could he not promise him, that he should have successors on the throne, who should, like other men, fall into sin, and be chastened for it ? And yet, that among those kings who should descend from him, there should be one, who was the Son of God in a peculiar sense, who was destined to a dignity—to a throne——of a most exalted na- ture? Such at least seems to be the exposition by the author of the eighty ninth Psalm, vs. 29—37. Compare this now with the promises made to Abraham, Gen. 12; 1—8. 15: 1—6. 17: 1—8. These passages certainly contain assurances, that Abraham should have a literal, numerous off- spring, and that they should inherit the land of Canaan; see Gen. 15: 7--18. Yet they also contain assurances of a seed, in whom all nations should be blessed, Gal. 3: 14—17; and of a seed who should be the heirs of Abraham’s faith, i. e. resemble him in regard to faith or belief, Gal. 3: 6—8. It may be difficult for us to ascer- tain, in some cases, where the temporal promise ends, and the spiritual one begins ; and so vice versd; because both are couched, as usual, in similar language. But this does not shew that there is any absurdity, or any improbability, in the supposition that God may have promised, and that he has promised, blessings both spir- itual and temporal, at the same time. Did he not engage that.Da- vid should have successors on his earthly throne ; and also that he should have a Son who would sit on a spiritual throne, and have a kingdom of which David’s own was but a mere type? Luke 1:32,. 33. Rom. 1: 3, 4. Admitting this, our difficulty is diminished, if not removed. The “ iniquity committed” is predicated of that part of David’s seed, who might commit it, i. e. his successors on the national throne ; while the more exalted condition, predicated of his successor, belongs to him to whom was given a kingdom over all. ‘ If you say, ‘ Thus interpreted, the prophecy seems to be in a great measure general, and difficult to be definitely interpreted ;’ the answer is, So it was designed to be: The general idea only was intended to be communicated, of some future most distinguish- ed progeny of David. Very much of our difficulty in interpreting most of the prophecies of the Old Testament, arises from aiming to make them more specific and definite, than they were originally in- v Excursus VI. Hes. 1: 6. 341 tended to be. When we shall have thoroughly learned, that “the Law made nothing perfect,” we shall find less difficulty in the in- terpretation both of the Old and New Testament. EXCURSUS VI. La > ~ r ” Heb. 1: 6. Kal ngoozvyncaimsay avia neévies eyyedor eov. As nearly all the commentators on our epistle have admitted, that the one or the other of these passages is actually quoted by the apostle, the difficulties to which such a supposition is exposed, should be stated. In Deut. 32: 43 [Sept.], the very words are found, which ap- pear in our text. But (1) They are found only in the Septuagint version ; the Hebrew, and all the ancient versions, omitting them. (2) The copies of the Septuagint itself are not agreed respecting them. The Codex Alex. reads viol Mov instead of ayyehoe Oeov, and one Codex at Oxford omits the whole clause. (3) The subject connected with this command to the angels, (if we admit the clause in the Septuagint to be a part of the sacred text), has no relation to the Messiah. The context celebrates the victory over the ene- mies of Israel, which God will achieve. After saying, that “ his ar- rows should be drunk with blood, and that his sword should devour flesh, with the blood of the slain and of captives, from the time when he begins to take vengeance on the enemy ;”” the Septuagint (not the Hebrew) immediately inserts, EVPOaVONRTE OVEAVOL cue. AUTO, nai MEDKUYNOATwWOAY avrM aavtes c&yyshoe Beod. This, in the place where it stands, must needs mean, ‘ Let the inhabitants of the heavenly world rejoice in the victory of God over the ene- emies of his people, and let them pay their adoration to him.’ But the Messiah does not seem to be at all alluded to, any where in the context ; much less described as being introduced into the world. I should therefore think it very improbable, if the apostle meant to quote Scripture, that he meant to quote ¢his Scripture, on the pres- 342 Excursus VI. Hes. 1: 6. 4 ent occasion ; for we have no knowledge, (unless it be implied in our text), that the Jews of his time were wont to apply this passage ~ to the Messiah. Still, it is a possible case that he quoted the words of Deut. 32: 43, merely as fitted to express the idea which he in- tended to convey ; just as we now borrow Scripture language, eve- ry day, to convey our own ideas, without feeling it to be at all ne- cessary to prove, in every case, that the same meaning was origi- nally conveyed by the words which we employ, as we attach to them in our discourse. Such a use, it is well known, is not unfre- quently made of passages from the Old ‘Testament by the writers of the New; and such an one, Storr maintains, is here made by the apostle, of the words of the Septuagint in Deut. 32: 43. The probability, however, all things considered, is in favour of a quotation, (if it be necessary to suppose a quotation), from Ps. 97: 7 (Sept. 96: 7); where the Sept. has, moooxuryjoare avr mavtEs ayyéhou avrov, as a translation of the Heb. p> poN—b>D IS“aINNwNA, worship him all ye Elohim. _ Here avzod, in the Septuagint, stands after &yyzhou, but in Heb. I: 6 it is Geov, and zai in our quotation is wanting in the Sept. But any one who has compared the quota- tions of the N. Test. from the Old, either with the Hebrew or Sep- tuagint, must have seen that very few of them are verbatim. The variation here of the quotation from the original, is so small, and so entirely unconcerned with the sense of the passage, that the discre- pancy will not be any hindrance at all to the supposition, that Ps. 97: 7 may have been quoted. Yet the subject of this Psalm does not, at first view, seem to be the Messiah..-The universal reign of Jehovah, his victory over his enemies, the manifestation of his glo- ry ‘to all nations, and the confusion of idolaters, are celebrated in the context. The verse from which our quotation is made runs thus ; “* Confounded be all they that serve graven images, that boast themselves of their idols, rgooxuvjoare avt@ navres Hyyshot Seov, DASN~ED;” i.e. ‘let all created things, which are the ob- jects of worship, instead of receiving adoration, pay it to Jehovah. Jehovah alone is the proper object of religious homage.’ Yet it is certainly a possible case, that this very Psalm celebrates the coming and empire of Christ, who was, as Simeon says, Luke 2:32, gag fg anoxaduwory 29vov, zal dokav Aaov Joana, (comp. Ps. 97: 6) ; and whose coming was to destroy idolatry, and fill the ’ hearts of the righteous with gladness, Ps. 97: 11, 12. _ It must be : Excursus VI. Hes. 1: 6. “343 admitted, however, that if the 97th Psalm was designed to be appli- ed to the Messiah, it is one of those which are much less definite and plain in regard to such an application, than several others. The Jews, as Kimchi asserts, were wont to apply all the Psalms, from Ps. xcr. to Ps. cr., to the Messiah. If such an explanation was current in the time of Paul, it would give additional force to_ the appeal here made. And even if Paul himself did not regard Ps. xcvit. as originally designed to be applied to the Messiah, he might still use the words of it as descriptive of a fact which took place, at the time of the Saviour’s birth. The Jewish Christians, whom he addressed, could not have been ignorant of what happen- ed in regard to the angels, at the time of this birth. Supposing, then, that the original Hebrew of the 97th Psalm only means, ‘ Wor- ship him all ye who are worshipped, [os>N-b>] ;’ and that the Seventy translated this as it now appears in their version ; why could not Paul make use of their words, to describe facts which happened in later times? If you say, ‘ This would be only to fos- ter an erroneous translation of the Hebrew by the Seventy, and an erroneous application of it by the Jews ;’ the answer is, The fact itself is not an error, viz. that the angels worshipped the Saviour. The words of Ps. 97: 7, thus applied, designate what is really true. If the Jews to whom they were originally addressed, were accus- tomed to apply them to the Messiah, then the use which the apostle makes of them would be the more impressive ; and impressive of an idea founded in reality, viz. that the Son of God was the object of angelic worship. That the apostle, however, designed any thing more, than mere- ly to use a phrase well known to the readers of the Septuagint ver- sion, borrowed from Ps. 97:7, and accommodated to express his own ideas, need not be supposed; and cannot, indeed, well be proved. But if any are not content with this, (which I should my- self prefer, provided we allow it to be an actual quotation) ; then it is certainly very possible to suppose, that the 97th Psalm relates to the coming and kingdom of the Messiah, and that the appeal to it for a proof passage relative to him, is strictly proper, and not dif- ficult to be understood. In either way, the difficulty which offers itself to the mind, on the first examination of the text, is greatly di- minished, if not wholly removed, so far as appeal by way of quota- tion is concerned. ° . 344 Excursvus VI. Hes. 1: 6. t For my own part, Ido not regard it as necessary to suppose that the phrase in question is quoted at all.. Surely it is not improbable, — that the writer means only to say, ‘ The Father, who introduced the Son into the world, said, sgooxuynoarwoar x.t.4. The Christian Jews, who cannot be supposed to be ignorant of what had happen- ed at the time of the Saviour’s birth, could hardly doubt of the writer’s meaning. ‘Thus the difficulty of the text would be remov- ed. But if a quotation be insisted on; then, with Storr, I am in- clined, as before suggested, to regard it as simply using a Septua- gint phrase, in order to convey the apostle’s own ideas. Yet the exposition, which is founded on the application of the 97th Psalm to the Messiah, and which explains our text as the quotation of an ac- tual prophecy, is not impossible ; and perhaps not even improbable. One question, however, still remains. How could the Seventy, and Paul after them, translate p\7>N by angels? It is admitted, that the great body of lexicographers and critics, in modern times, reject the sense of the word here given. But usage, after all, pleads in favour of it. The Septuagint render bx (God) by ayyedos, in Job 20: 15; and on by ayyedos, in Ps. 8: 6. 97: (96:) 7. 137: 1. Paul follows them, by quoting Ps. 8: 6 in Heb. 2: 7; and also by quoting Ps. 97: 7, in the verse before us, i. e. supposing that he does actually quote it. Is not this sufficient evidence that there was a usus loquendi among the Jews, which applied the word D> occasionally to designate angels? It is admitted, that kings and magistrates are called Elohim, because of their rank or dignity. Is there any thing improbable in the supposition, that angels may be also called p°4>N , who at present are elefated above men, Heb. 2: 71° Facts, and not suppositions, are evidences of the usus loquen- di of the Jewish writers. ~ , or Excursus VII. Hes. 1:11, 12. 345 EXCURSUS VII. Heb. 1:11,12. 2v xar aoxec, xvece, my yay &euedto- oac, xal éoya tov yeroov cou oly of ovgavol. Avtol anodooviae, ov Oe Ovamevers: wal navies wg iuoov nahowmdnocovic, nol woel negesodaaioy éiEecs autoVvs, nal addorynooviae ou dé 0 avis ei, xal ta &tH GOV oUx ExdAeiwover In regard to the body of the Psalm (Ps. cr.), from which this whole quotation is taken, the majority of late critics agree in the opinion, that it does not primarily relate to the Messiah, but to Je- hovah absolutely considered. It is, no doubt, one of those Psalms, the internal evidence of which does not so clearly and definitely de- termine the application of the whole composition, as does that of many others. Thus much, also, seems to be clear; there is nothing in the Psalm, which forbids the application of it to the Messiah. Nay, there are several passages in it, which apply to him in a more ap- posite way, than to any other personage. If we suppose the com- plaint (vs. 1—11) to be that of the church, previously to the ap- pearance of its Redeemer, then does the sequel well agree with the promised redemption. In particular, verses 15, 18, 20, 22, describe the propagation and prosperity of true religion among the heathen. But when was such a diffusion of the true knowledge and worship of God to take place? Under the Jewish dispensation, or under the Christian? Surely, under the latter only. Comp. too v. 20 with Isaiah 61: 1, which the Saviour applies to himself, Luke 4: 17 —21. Verses 23, 24 of Ps. cm., renew the complaint of the church; and vs. 25—28 contain the answer, viz. that the Redeemer is the Creator and immutable, and that the church shall be continued, and a godly seed be permanent. So I am inclined to explain the whole Psalm ; and so, at any rate, the writer of our epistle seems to have understood it. Certainly there is nothing that forbids such an ex- planation, when it is once admitted that the Messiah was at all the subject of prediction, in ancient times, and that some of the Psalms do actually contain such predictions. VOL. Il. 44 346 Excursus VII. Hes. 1: 11, 12. But if any one prefers construing Psalm cm. as applicable merely to Jehovah, absolutely considered, then there is no serious difficulty with respect to our quotation. The application of the same words to the Son of God, which were originally spoken re- specting Jehovah, is equivalent to saying, ‘ What was affirmed by the Psalmist of Jehovah, may be as truly affirmed of the Son.’ As the writer applies the words in this manner, it shews that he con- sidered those whom he addressed as being accustomed to make such an application of them, and that they were willing to admit it; otherwise he could not have expected the argument to be ac- knowledged by them as a forcible one. Admitting now that the apostle has correctly applied this pas- sage to the Son, it follows that the Son possesses a nature truly di- vine. The act of creation is the highest evidence of such a nature, that is offered, or can be offered, to our minds; and the sacred writers appeal to itas such. See Rom. 1: 20. Ps. 19: 1. Acts 14: 15. Is. 40: 25, 26. 42: 5—8. 43: 15. 44:24. 45:18. 46:9. 48: 12, 13. The force of the proof in question is not altered, whether vou suppose the 102d Psalm originally to relate to the Messiah, or not. If it originally related to him, then the application is clear and unembarrassed. If it originally related to Jehovah, simply consid- ered, then the apostle asserts here, that what was said of Jehovah may also be applied, in the same manner, to the Son. Of course, the weight of the argument is the same in either case, as it respects the divine nature of Christ. Either would shew the opinion of the writer to be, that the Son is eternal, and the Creator of the uni- verse ; of course, that he is exalted beyon@ all measure above the angels, and is truly divine. For as the same writer says, He whe made all things, is God, Heb. 3: 4. We may observe, too, that this last argument is the climax of the whole, and completes the proof which the apostle adduces to shew the exalted dignity of the Son. He had intimated the same sentiment, at the commencement of his epistle, v. 2; but here he brings out into full light, the nature of his. views respecting this subject. Whatever then may be the economy, according to which God made all things by his Son, it is not of such a nature as to ex- clude supreme creatorship and eternal existence, as belonging to the Son; both of which are asserted to belong to him by the pas- sage before us. ; Excursvus VIII. Hes. 2: 2. 347 — EXCURSUS VIII. Heb. 2:2. Ev yao o de ayyéhov Aadntels Aoyos. There are two methods of explaining this. (1) The apostle here speaks merely in the way of accommodation to the Jewish mode of representing this subject. ‘The Jews attributed the giving of the law to angels, as mediators or internuncii between Jehovah and them; and they were accustomed to make high claims, in respect to the dignity and superior excellency of their law, on this account. The apostle here adverts to their views of this subject ; and what he says amounts to this, ‘ If every transgression of the law, which you regard as given by the mediation of angels, was punished, etc.’ In like manner, the same apostle says to the Galatians, ‘* Who hath bewitched you?” without intending to teach us that he believed in the power of witchcraft. And so our Saviour speaks to the Jews, of ‘the unclean spirit that goes out of a man, and walks through dry [de- sert] places, seeking rest and finding none, but afterwards it returns with seven other spirits, and repossesses the same man, Matt. 12: 43.’ Now as this is not intended to teach us, that impure spirits actually wander about in deserts, etc., so we are not obliged to un- derstand the apostle as meaning any dliaal more by the expression in question, than a reference to the Jewish mode of speaking and thinking relative to the subject of angels. But (2) Another mode of explanation is, that the phrase contains a concession, on the part of the writer, of what was viewed by him to be matter of fact. This view I feel constrained to adopt, by a com- parison of similar passages. In Acts 7: 53, Stephen says to the Jews, “ye have received the law e¢ dvarayas ayyéhwv, by the disposition [order, arrangement] of angels ;” and Paul, speaking of the law, in Gal. 3: 19, says, that it was dvatayeis Ov ayyzhwv, ar- ranged [disposed, proposed] by angels. But here a difficulty is urged. God himself proclaimed the law to the Israelites,, Ex. 20: 1, 19, 22. Deut. 5: 4. How then can the law be said to be Aadn dels Ov ayyehwy? Different ways of avoid- ing and of answering this difficulty, have been adopted. Some have denied that 0 Adyog here means the law; and they interpret it 348 Excursus VIII. Hes. 2: 2. as referring to the different messages, which in the Old Testament are said to have been delivered by angels. Others have made a distinction between what was said directly to Moses, by God him- self, and what was promulgated [dvaraysic, ei dvatayag], as they say, to the people at large, by angels. That the law of Moses, however, is meant, is plain from a comparison of Heb, 10: 28, 29 and 12:25; as well as from the nature of the comparison here pro- posed, between the old dispensation and the new one. And that the tenuious distinction made, in the second case, is unnecessary, every one who reflects well on the usus loquendi of Scripture will concede. God is very often said to do that, which instruments un- der his direction, or under the general arrangements of his provi- dence accomplish. This idiom proceeds so far, that even evil is ascribed to him in this way by one phrase, which another passage shews to have been perpetrated by an inferior agent, E. g. 2 Sam. 24: 7, it is said of Jehovah, no27 he moved [or excited] David to go and number Israel; which crime was followed by tremendous punishment. Yet in Chron. 21: 1, it is said of Satan, nox, he moved David to go and number Israel. So it is repeatedly said of Pharaoh, that he hardened his own heart, and that the Lord harden- ed his heart, in Ex. v—x. So, according to the prophet, Jehovah smites the confederate Syrians and Israelites, Is. vii—1x ; so in other passages, Jehovah is represented as smiting the nations of Judah, of Assyria, of Babylonia, of Egypt, of Tyre, of Moab, ete. Yet, in all these cases, instruments were employed. Solomon built the temple ; but he did not hew and Jay*the stones with his own’ hands, nor carve the goodly architecture. Nothing can be more erroneous, then, in most cases, than to draw the conclusion, that be- cause the Scripture asserts some particular thing to have been done by God, therefore he did it immediately, and no instruments were employed by him. How much difficulty and contradiction, as well in theology as in interpretation, has such a mode of reasoning pro- duced! In interpreting the principles of human laws, we say, Qui facit per alium, facit per se. Does not common sense approve of this, as applied to the language of the Scriptures? Nothing can be more evident, than that the sacred writers have expressed them- selves, in a manner which recognizes this principle. If then we are pressed with the Literal explanation of 6 dv oy- yéhov Aoyos, and any one insists, that this can mean no less than Excursvs VIII. Hes. 2: 2. 349 that angels uttered audible sounds, when the law was given; all this may be conceded, and still no contradiction be found in the representations of Scripture, when its usus loquendi is well under- stood. God did what the angels performed by his direction. Yet such a /iteral interpretation of this passage, is hardly to be insisted on. Stephen, in Acts 7: 53, and Paul in Gal. 3: 19; as- sert only that the law was diarayeig dv ayyéhwv ; which well ex- presses the general sense to be attached to an expression of this na- ture, viz. ‘ the angels were ministering spirits, or assisted at the giving of the law.’ Such was the Jewish tradition, in the apostolic age. . Josephus says, “‘ Our best maxims and most excellent laws we have learned of God, de ayyédwv, Archaeol. XV. 9.” Philo, (Lib. de Decalogo), states, that ‘‘ there were present, at the giving of the law, visible sounds, animated and splendid, flames of fire, avevmata, trumpets, and divine men running hither and thither, to publish the law.” Yet in another, place he states, that ‘‘ God only spake the law to Moses ;” which, however, as we have seen above, is not inconsistent with the former representation. In addition to all this, there is a passage in Deut. 33: 2, respect- ing the legislation at Sinai, which seems to refer to the fact design- ed to be stated in our text. ‘‘ The Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them [the children of Israel]; he shined from mount Paran, and he came with holy myriads, (u7p naa47).” By the holy myriads here mentioned, must be meant the angels; so that the Old and New Testament agree, in representing the angels as present when the law was given, and as being ministering spirits on the occasion. That the Jews, and a multitude of Christians after them, have carried speculation to a repulsive length, on the subject of angelic ministration at the giving of the law, does not disprove the fact it- self; much less are their extravagances to be imputed to the writer of our epistle. While some have maintained, that the angels made circuits round the camp of the Hebrews ; others, that they excited the thunders, and lightnings, and tempest; some that they blew the trumpets ; others that they caused the quaking of the earth; some that they delivered the tables of the law to Moses ; others that they uttered audibly the words of the Law; and others still that they were mere spectators of the awful scene; we may stand aloof from being thus wise above what is written, and content ourselves 350 Excursus IX. Hes. 2: 6—8. simply with what our author teaches us, and what the Scriptures confirm, viz. that angels did assist at the giving of the law, or were in some way employed by Jehovah, on the occasion of its being promulgated. This is all the text can be well interpreted as mean- ing, and all that is requisite for the argument of the apostle. EXCURSUS IX. Heb. 2: 6—8. Aeucgtveato dé nov tic, A€yov, Th 20- Ty avikow@nos, Ow Meuvynony auroy 3 AMiactooag av- TOV Boayy u nag ayyéhous: dokEn xal Tuy eorepava— cas avioy, (xal xaréotnoas avioy eal ta éoya tov YElowy Gov)’ mavie vagtakas Vnoxatw toy nodav av— TOU. Thus far the quotation from Ps. vir. But how, it is asked, can this apply to Christ in particular, when the author of this Psalm evidently speaks of human nature, or man in general? Many of the later commentators reply to this question, by conceding that the apostle uses the words of the Psalm only in an accommodated sense, in order to express his own viewse of the superiority of Christ’s human nature. But this answer does not meet all the de- mands of the case. It is evident, that the writer appeals to Scrip- ture authority here, in support of the proposition whieh he had ad- vanced, viz. that the human nature of Christ is superior to that of the angels. If now the passage contains nothing more than an as- sertion of that dignity, which is common to all men, how would this tend to convince those to whom he wrote, that the human na- ture of Christ is superior to that of the angels ? It is difficult, then, to avoid the supposition, that the 8th Psalm was referred to the Messiah, by those whom the apostle addressed. Was it rightly referred to him as being prophetic of him, or not ? Many commentators answer in the negative. But is there not ‘some reason here, to adhere to the more ancient method of inter- Excursus IX. Hep. 2: 6—8. 351 pretation? Let the reader, now, peruse 2 Sam. vit. through, and then direct his attention to vs. 17-29, in particular to vs. 18, 19, 26, 29, compared with the prophetic declarations of Nathan in vs. 12—16. Does not the frame of mind, in which David appears to have been on this occasion, correspond well with that described in Ps. 8:5% Suppose now that David, in surveying the works of cre- ation, is, in the first place, deeply impressed with his own insignifi- cance, in a comparative point of view ; and then, in the next place, revolves in his mind the promises made to him, as recorded in 2 Sam. vu. His mind is naturally led to dwell on the distinguished goodness of God, in exalting a creature so insignificant as himself, to honour so great as the prophet had promised to him. Among his posterity was to be one, who should be the Son of God, and on whom universal empire should be conferred, 2 Sam. 7: 12—16, compared with vs. 8--I1. In view of such honours, how natural would be the expressions in Ps. 8: 6-—-10. In the person of this illustrious descendant, whom Nathan had promised to him, he could see, with a prophetic eye, that the human nature would be exalted to universal dominion. No created thing was to be except- ed from this dominion. As to the particulars enumerated in Ps. 8: 8, 9, they are plainly borrowed from Gen. 1: 26 seq. and indi- cate nothing more than universality of dominion. They amount to saying, ‘ The dominion originally assigned to man over the cre- ation around him, and abridged by his fall, is to be actually con- ferred on human nature; and this too in a still higher sense, inas- much as all things are to be subjected to the Messiah.’ In other words, not only is man to have such dominion as by his original creation he was designed to have, viz. over beasts and fowls and fishes, but nothing, in this case, is to be excepted. With such views as these, might not the royal Psalmist well add, ‘‘ How ex- cellent is thy name in all the earth !” Who now that admits the spirit of prophecy to have at all exist- ed, can deny that David might have had such a view of his future Son? Nay, considering the use which the apostle has made of the passage in question, is not this explanation of the Psalm a_pro- bable one? I am disposed, then, to believe that the course of thought, in David’s mind, was something like the following. ‘Lord, how in- significant am J, compared with the glorious works which the heay- 352 Excursvus IX. Hes. 2: 6—8. ens display! Yet thou hast magnified thy goodness toward me, in a wonderful manner. Thou hast not only formed me in thine im- age, and bestowed many blessings upon me, but promised me a Son, on whom distinguished glory, and universal empire shall be conferred. Can it be, that human nature will be thus exalted ? Adored be thy name through all the earth !’ What is there, now, in all this, which is any more improbable, than any other prophetic declaration respecting a future Saviour and Lord of the world ? But if any one refuses to admit these views, there is still a sense, in which all the saints are, through Christ, to be exalted above angels, and to have a participation in the dominion of the world. They are, as being united with the Messiah, as being his brethren (Heb. 2: 11), to judge, i.e. rule [vw wi, xg/vecy] the world, 1 Cor. 6: 2; to rule over the angels, 1 Cor. 6:3; to have power over the nations, and rule them, Rev. 2: 26, 27; to sit with the Redeemer on his throne, Rev. 3: 21; they are made kings and priests unto God, and reign over the earth, Rev. 5: 10. All this, however, is plainly spoken in a qualified sense; and such privile- ges are bestowed upon them only by virtue of their union with Christ, to whom supreme dominion belongs. In like manner we say, ‘The Romans held the empire of the world;’ attributing to the nation what properly belonged to their prince. Human nature, then, in the persons of the saints; in a special manner, of course, in the person of their head or leader ; is exalted to a state of precedence above the angels, to a state of universal dominion. Consequently, that Christ possessed a nature which was human, did not make him inferior to the angels, but (since this nature was to be thus. exalted) superior to them. And thus the Psalmist declared it should be. : If the whole passage be understood as limited principally to Christ, or as extending to the saints also, the point which the apostle aims to prove is established. But it is only by understanding the pas- sage according to the first method of interpreting it, that we can well apply, in its full force, the sequel of the apostle’s remarks. Indeed, what can be more evident, than that since the fall of our first par- ents, universal dominion, even over all the animal creation, has never been actually possessed by man? Christ only has it, in its full sense; and in him only have the words of Ps. vis. had a 7A7- Excursus X. Hes. 2: 13. 3538 ewovs in all the extent of their meaning. When we once admit that prophetic anticipations of Christ were possible, and matters of fact, is there any thing which creates a serious difficulty, in sup- posing them to have been actually entertained by David in respect to Christ, and to have been uttered in the Psalm just mentioned ? EXCURSUS X. ro rf 2 Nw ‘ > > ~ Heb. 2: 13. Kal nada, Eyo écouce nenowdos én avian: , > \ \ \ ‘ o wet c , nai nah, Idov éyo, xai va naw~la a@ moe edmuev 0 He08. But how does the passage quoted relate to the Messiah? In Is. 8: 17, 18, the subject spoken of is the prophet himself, who de- clares that he will keep himself in the attitude of constant waiting, i, €. In expectation that the prophecies which he had just been ut- tering would be fulfilled ; and he appeals to the children, to which had been given symbolical names, and which God had given to him, as pledges that these prophecies would be fulfilled. It would seem, then, at first view, that our author had accommodated this passage, merely for the purpose of expressing his views of the sub- ject before him. There can be but little doubt, however, that when our epistle was written, the Jews in general construed a part of the chapter of Isaiah in question, as having respect to the Messi- ah. Thus Paul, in Rom. 9: 32, 33, seems plainly to refer to Is. 8: 14, as the source of a part of his quotation; and this passage he treats as applicable to Christ. In a similar way, also, the passage under consideration, with the clause that follows, appears to be treated. Indeed, unless the persons to whom Paul wrote, would readily refer the passage quoted to the Messiah, it is difficult to perceive how the quotation, in the shape with which it is here in- troduced, would present any argument to them in favour of the position, that men are the brethren of the Messiah. But still, the mode of reasoning, it must be owned, seems to be argumentum ad hominem, or argumentum ex concessis, rather than from the real na- VOL. Il. 45 354 Excursus X. Hes. 2: 13. ture of things, considered independently of the opinions of those to whom our author wrote. Critics, in modern times, have felt a difficulty in considering this species of argument as admissible by a sacred writer. 'The Christian fathers, however, had no difficul- ties of this sort; most of them freely admitted it. The majority of Protestant critics have considered the passage of Isaiah now in question, as actually spoken in the person of the Messiah. ‘This they have done, in order to avoid the necessity of admitting an argumentum ex concessis ; which has been regarded by them, as incongruous with the character of an inspired writer. But in avoiding one difficulty, they have fallen upon another equally great; for all the laws of exegesis, which bid us to connect text with context, and to interpret a writer so as to make him speak connectedly and directly to his purpose, are put at defiance, when we interpret the words of Is. 8: 17, 18, as originally having been spoken with direct and primary reference to the Messiah, or in his person. To admit such a violation, would be a more serious evil than to concede, with nearly all antiquity, that the apostles did sometimes employ the argumentum ex concessis, as in the case above stated. One may liken this case to that of a missionary in Hindoostan, who, designing to shew the possibility and probability that God might manifest himself in the flesh, should appeal, in the course of his argument, for the sake of silencing objectors, to the Shasters, which inculcate the doctrine that Vishnu became incarnate. Would such an appeal be morally wrong ?, And if not, might not, the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews make use of the views of those whom he addressed, respecting a particular passage of Scrip- ture, (although those views might not have been exegetically well grounded), in order to confirm them in the belief of a truth that was well-grounded, and which he knew to be certain, by revela- tion, or by other Scriptures which had a direct bearing upon it? However one might decide the case by reasoning @ priori, most men practically admit such methods of persuasion, and, in other things, are very ready to justify them. “Whether we are willing, however, or unwilling to admit the fact presented before us, can surely never alter the fact itself. Thus much we may truly say, viz. that those modes of explanation, which, in order to get rid of difficulty, set afloat all the fixed principles and fundamental laws Excursvus X. Hes. 2: 18. 355 of interpretation, cannot be admitted without the greatest possible danger to the Scriptures; yet, without the admission of such prin- ciples, the words of the passages in question, do not appear suscep- tible of being construed as originally and primarily having had a direct reference to the Messiah. After all, this view of the subject applies merely to the simple interpretation of the original words of Is. viit., but not to the typi- cal design which may have been attached to the things or facts there related. We know that in the preceding chapter, the birth of a child to be called Emmanuel, who was to spring from a virgin, is predicted (7: 14) ; which birth was to be a proof to Ahaz, that within some three years (comp. vs. 14 with 15, 16), the land of — Judah should be delivered from the confederated kings of Israel and Syria, who had invaded it. Originally and literally, this seems applicable only to the birth of a child within that period of three years; for how could the birth of Jesus, which happened seven hundred and forty two years afterwards, be a sign (mix) to Ahaz, that within three years his kingdom was to be freed from his enemies? Such a child, it would seem, was born at that period ; for in chapter 8: 8, 10, he is twice referred to as if then present, or at least then living. In v.10, our English version has translat- ed the proper name xnza¥, and thus obscured the form of the original Hebrew. Yet in Matt. 1: 23, the passage in Is. 7: 14 ap- pears to be cited, as containing a prophecy relative to the Saviour’s being conceived in the womb of the virgin Mary. In what way then must we explain this? How was it a mAjomors of Is. 7: 14? To these questions, two answers may be given. (1) It may have been a Argmovg, in the same sense as Christ’s being called out of Egypt (Matt. 2: 15), wasa nhnowaes of Hosea 11: 1; i.e. the event, which happened in later times, bore a strong resemblance to the one which happened in earlier times; the later event too was of such a nature, that the words of Scripture, applied to characterize the early event, might be applied with a mAyowors, 1. e. with more completeness, with more force, more propriety, more energy, to the la- ter event, than to the earlier one. Just so the application of a pas- sage in the Old Testament, is made to the slaughter of the infants at Bethlehem, in Matt. 2: 17, 18, comp. Jer. 31: 15. In the same manner, many other passages of the New Testament are to be con- strued, which refer in a similar way to the Old Testament. 356 Excursus X. Hes. 2: 13. But if this answer be unsatisfactory, it may be added, (2) That some of the extraordinary events themselves, related in Is. vi. and vir., may have been designed by God, and probably were designed by him, to be typical or symbolical of a future spiritual salvation and Saviour. Why is this any more impossible or improbable, than that there were other types and symbols, under the ancient dis- pensation, of things which were to exist under the new one? The Immanuel then born, in an extraordinary way, and then by his birth and name a pledge of temporal deliverance to Judah from their enemies, might well be a symbol of him who was to save his people from all their spiritual enemies, to bring in everlasting re- demption; whose name, also, was truly, in a much higher sense, dynoax, Gop wir us. Ifso, then the prophet, with his symboli- cal children (Is. 8: 18), giving assurance of temporal deliverance, may have acted a part that was symbolical of a future prophet, who would proclaim spiritual deliverance. In all this, there certainly is nothing impossible. The laws of exegesis are not infringed by such a supposition. The words of the prophet have but one sim- ple original meaning. They apply directly to the transactions with Ahaz. But the whole of these transactions may have been, (may I not add, seem actually to have been 7) designed to prefigure a greater prophet, and a greater deliverance. Unless we deny the possibility of prophetic symbol, we must admit the possibility of this. Its probability is deducible from the use which the New Testament writers make of these facts. They seem to consider them as hav- ing a relation to Christ. I grant the possibility of the exegesis, - which explains the whole as argumentum ad hominem. It might be justified by numerous appeals to the New ‘Testament ; and he who wholly denies this principle, only shews that he decides upon the subject by reasoning a priori; for the examination of facts can- not fail to convince any one who will patiently and thoroughly make it. But still, it does seem to me more probable, taking the appeal in Matt. 1: 23 to Is. 7: 14, and the appeal in our text and context to Is. 8: 17, 18, that the prophet and Immanuel here act parts, which may be regarded in the light of symbols. The extra- ordinary birth of the child Immanuel, at that time, is the symbol of the future birth of a spiritual Saviour; and the prophet with his children announcing deliverance from the confederated enemies of Israel, is a symbol of him who was to “ preach liberty to the cap- Excursus X. Hes. 2: 13. 357 tives,” and whose spiritual children were to be the pledge, that all his promises of good should be fulfilled. Is there any thing unna- tural or strange in all this ? If now this be admitted, then the words of our text may not un- aptly be applied to. Christ. For as the type put his confidence in God, so did the antitype. As the type had children who were pledges for the deliverance of Judah, so has the antitype “many sons and daughters,” the pledges of his powerful grace, and sure- ties that his promises in regard to future blessings will be accom- plished. As the type confided in God, because he possessed a na- ture that was dependent and human, so the antitype must have a like nature in order to use the same language; and as the type bore the relation of parent to children that were pledges of future blessings, and therefore possessed a like nature with them, so the antitype had a community of nature with those who were his spirit- ual children, and who were pledges that all his promises should be performed. Comp. 2 Cor. 1: 22. 5: 5. Thus understood, the whole quotation may be regarded not on- ly as justified, but as apposite, Still, if any refuse to consider it in this light, because, as they aver, they are unable to see how the words of Isaiah can be considered in the light of prediction ; this reason cannot be regarded as in itself sufficiently valid. ‘The words employed in Is. vi. and vir. have, in themselves, I freely concede, no direct reference to the Messiah; but to things and events, con- nected with the affairs of Ahaz and his people. Neither have the words a double sense; which can never be conceded without des- troying the very basis of all stable interpretation. Yet the events themselves, events connected with the temporal deliverance of God’s people then, may be symbols of a subsequent and spiritual deliver- ance and deliverer. But if any one refuses to admit even thus much, it will be diffi- cult for him to shew, that the writer of this epistle might not use argumentum ex concessis here, (i. e. appeal to those views of Scrip- ture, which they whom he addressed entertained), in order to con- firm in them a belief of what he certainly knew to be true; as well as the Saviour could appeal to the Jewish belief, respecting the wan- dering of unclean spirits in desert places, and many of them taking possession of a man at one and the same time, Matt. 12: 43 seq. ; or as well as the Saviour could say to the Jews, “IfI by Beelze- 358 Excursus X. Hep. 2: 13. bul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? Luke 11: 19.” The difficulty is, in fact, no greater with the quotation under examination, than with many others in the New Testament. Understood in any of the ways that have been proposed, it forms no important objection against the sacred writings, or their divine authority ; although considered in the light of accommodation simply, it would interfere with some of the modern theories of in- spiration. But, as has already been stated, the ancient churches, high as their views were on the subject of inspiration, had no hesi- tancy, in general, to admit the principle, that the New Testament writers have, not unfrequently, applied the Old Testament Scrip- tures merely by way of accommodation. While then, for myself, I must believe there is something more than accommodation, in the passage under consideration, yet I should not feel it to be a just cause for want of charity towards another, who should adopt a dif- ferent mode of explanation, and regard the passages cited to be merely an argumentum ex concessis. It is a strong ground of confirmation, with respect to the symbol- ical exegesis which has been above proposed, that the prophecy in Isaiah, (which begins with the 8th chapter and ends with chap. 9: 7), contains, at the close of it, most indubitable proofs, that the birth of the Messiah, and the “ coming of his kingdom’”’ was, on this occasion, distinctly before the mind of the prophet; see Is. 9: 1— 7. The whole together, taken in connexion with what appears ev- idently to be the views of the New Testament writers, seems to leave but little doubt, that such as at all acknowledge the existence of prophecy and symbol, in respéct to a Messiah who was to come, may recognise them both inthe case before us. Excursus XI]. Hes. 5: 7. 359 -EXCURSUS XI. ae , ~ c ~ ‘\ c . ‘ Heb. 5: 7. “Os ey taic nugears ms caoxos avtov, dey— \ \ ‘ , ie > Dy cee té xed Exernolas EOS TOY OUYaMEVOY C@lEeY aUTOY r ‘ ~ os en 1 ' éx PUVAIOV, META XOQUYNS LoZVOaS xaL DaxQVEeY 1Q06- eveyxac, nal EcoaxovodeEls ano ms evdaBecas. But what was that which Christ feared? And how can it be said, that he was delivered from it? Questions which commenta- tors, for the most part have passed by, even without any serious at- tempt to answer them. If now we turn to Luke 12: 50, we shall see that a view of suf- ferings then future, produced in the mind of Jesus an oppressive anticipation, a sensation of distress and dread, As the scene of crucifixion approached nearer, these sensations were evidently in- creased, until they became almost overwhelming ; as we may see by consulting Matt. 26: 36—39. Luke 22: 40-44. Mark 14: 34—- 36. What the agonies of the cross which Jesus endured, actually were, we can never fully know; but we may draw the conclusion that they were very dreadful, if we read the account of the com- plaint which they forced from him, as it is recorded in Matt. 27: 46. Mark 15: 34. It is indeed unaccountable, that a character such as that of Jesus, pure, spotless, firm, unmoved by opposition and con- tumely and persecution, and unawed by threaténings and danger, during the whole course of his public ministry, should exhibit such a despondency, such an oppressive, overwhelming sense of pain and distress: I mean, it is unaccountable by any of the ordinary princi- ples which apply to virtuous sufferers, who possess fortitude of soul. That Jesus possessed this quality, in a most distinguished manner, we know certainly from the whole tenor of his life as pourtrayed by the evangelists. How then could he exhibit such an oppressive, overwhelming sense of dread, at the prospect of crucifixion? Thou- sands of men, nay thousands of the more delicate sex, in prospect of like sufferings or apparently greater ones, (such as the rack, the wheel, or flames occasion), have been perfectly calm, collected, and even triumphant. 'The very thieves, on the cross at the same time 360 Excursus XI. Hes. 5: 7. with Jesus, exhibit no such signs of despondency and oppression. Thousands and millions of common men, without God and without hope in the world, have undergone sufferings greater than those of simple crucifixion, without even uttering a groan. Yet Jesus was not only supported by a consciousness of spotless innocence, but had before him the certain prospect of a speedy resurrection from the dead, of exaltation to the right hand of God, and of being a king and high priest forever, unto all his people. Still, he was in such an agony at the prospect of the cross, as to sweat as it were drops of blood, Luke 22: 44. And when actually enduring the suffering which he had anticipated, his exclamation, Matt. 27: 46, shews that he had not over-estimated the dreadful hour. ! If Jesus died as a common virtuous sufferer, and merely as a martyr to the truth, without any vicarious suffering laid upon him, then is his death a most unaccountable event, in respect to the manner of his behaviour while suffering it; and it must be admit- ted, that multitudes of humble, sinful, weak, and very imperfect disciples of Christianity, have surpassed their Master, in the forti- tude, and collected firmness, and calm complacency, which are re- quisite to triumph over the pangs of a dying hour. But who can well believe this? Or who can regard Jesus as a simple sufferer in the ordinary way, upon the cross, and explain the mysteries of his dreadful horror, before and during the hours of crucifixion ? Such then was the eviaPeva, NI, object of dread, to which our text adverts. But how was Jesus séoaxovodsis, delivered from it? Pierce, in his commentary, says, that he was delivered by be-. ing raised from the dead and advanced to glory. But this would make the object of fear or dread to be, that he should remain in the state of the dead- ‘This fear we can hardly suppose Jesus to have entertained, inasmuch as ke had often-foretold, to his disci- ples, not only his death, but his resurrection and exaltation to glo- ry. Nor could it be the sufferings of the cross that he was deliver- ed from, for he endured them to a dreadful degree. What then was it, in respect to which he was e/oaxovodsic, heard, or deliver- ed? The context necessarily limits the hearing or deliverance, to something in his petitions which appertained to suffering, which was an object of dread. What could it be, but the dread of sinking under the agony of being deserted by his Father? Matt. 27: 46. Great as his agony was, he never refused to bear it; nor did he Excursus XII. Hes. 6: 4—6. 361 shrink from tasting the bitter cup, Luke 22: 42. Matt. 26:39. And “does not Luke 22: 43 explain our stoaxovotsis ano evdaBelas ? ‘There appeared unto him an angel from heaven strengthening him, éoyiwv avrov.”” This was the only kind of deliverance he sought for, or on the whole desired; Luke 22: 42, sAqjy un to Oe Anuc wou ade 10 ov yevéodo. The dread in question was, like all his other sufferings, incident to his human nature; and fact shews, that he suffered under it to a high degree ; but he did not shrink from it, and so he was heard or delivered in respect to the object of his petition in regard to it. In the explanation of a passage so difficult, confidence would be unbecoming. I can only say, If this be not the right interpretation of it, I am ignorant of its true meaning, and will most thankfully receive from any one a more probable interpretation. EXCURSUS XII. Heb. 6: 4—6. “Advvatoy yao rovg anak porotérras, YEVONMEVOUS TE HS dwpens énoveaviou xi METOZOUS yevniev vas nvevmcros ayiou, “al xahov YEevoamevous eou Onuc, Ovva mes te péddovtos GL@VOS, xOL MAE ‘ r > %, > f MEGOVIAS, nahw avaxawiley &S méetTavolay, But does the whole paragraph pertain to real Christians, or to those who are such only by profession? To the former, beyond all reasonable doubt. For how could the apostle so solemnly warn those who were mere professors of Christianity, against defection, and apostasy? Defection from what? From a graceless condi- tion, and from a state of hypocrisy. Such must be the answer, if mere professors, and not possessors, of Christianity be addressed. But mere professors, instead of being cautioned against defection from the state in which they are, are every where denounced in lan- guage of the severest reprobation. See Rev. 3: 15, 16, and the de- nunciations of the Saviour against the Pharisees. VOL. II. 46 362 Excursus XII. Hes. 6: 4—6. Moreover the language employed to describe the condition of the persons in question, shews that the writer is addressing those whom he takes to be real Christians. E. g. wetoyous.... mvevjertos aylov, xchov ysvounevous Yeov Oyuc. Above all, modw dvanae- vitsey Eig wetavotay ; for how could he speak of being aGain re- newed by repentance, if he did not address them as once having been renewed by it ? The nature of the crime, too, and the awful denunciation with which it is threatened, shews that something peculiar is attached to the case which the writer is describing. ‘Sinners, who have been taught the doctrines of religion, and yet renounce their ezternal re- spect for it, are manifestly not without the pale of God’s mercy ; at least, they are not so considered in the Scriptures generally, and fact shews that they are not. It is a peculiar and aggravated case, then, which is here stated ; and what other case can it be, than that of apostasy from a state of saving knowledge of Christ and his gos- pel? Nor is such a case at all without a parallel in the Scriptures. Manifestly such an one is stated in Heb. 10: 26—32; also in 2 Pet. 2: 20—22; in Ezek. 18: 24. 33: 12, 13. 3: 20, and in many other passages of the Bible. It is implied in every warning, and in every commination addressed to the righteous; and surely the Bible is filled with both of these, from the beginning to the end. What is implied, when our Saviour, in his Sermon on the mount, urges up- on his disciples, 1. e. the apostles as well as other disciples (see Luke 6: 12—20), the duty of cutting off a right hand, and of pluck- ing out a right eye that offends ; and this, on penalty of being cast , into hell ? Matt. 25: 29, 30. Is this penalty really threatened ; or is it only a pretence of threatening, something spoken merely in ter- rorem? Can we hesitate, as to the answer which must be given to this question ? : But if we admit the penalty to be really threatened, then the implication is the same as in the passage before us, viz. that Chris- tians are addressed as exposed to incur the penalty of the divine law by sinning. In our text, they are surely addressed as exposed to fall into a state, in which there is no hope of a renewal by repen- tance. Whatever may be true, in the divine purposes, as to the final salvation of all those who are once truly regenerated, (and this doctrine I feel constrained to admit), yet nothing can be plainer, than that the sacred writers have every where addressed saints in Excursus XIII. Hes. 7: 3. 363 the same manner as they would address those, whom they consid- ered as constantly exposed to fall away, and to perish forever. It cannot be denied, that all the warnings and awful comminations, (directed against cases of defection), are addressed to Christians, in the New Testament, which could be addressed to them, suppos- ing them to be liable, every hour, to sin beyond the hope of being renewed by repentance. Whatever theory may be adopted, in ex- planation of this subject, as a matter of fact there can be no doubt, that Christians are to be solemnly and earnestly warned against the danger of apostasy and consequent final perdition. What else is the object of the whole epistle to the Hebrews, except a warning against apostasy ? In this all agree. But this involves all the dif- ficulties that can be raised by metaphysical reasonings, in regard to the perseverance of the saints. For why should the apostle warn true Christians, (and such he surely believed there were among the Hebrews, 6:9), against defection and perdition? My answer would be, Because God treats Christians as free agents, as rational beings; because he guards them against defection, not by mere physical power, but by moral means adapted to their natures, as free and ra- tional agents. Let every man speculate as he pleases on this sub- ject, when he addresses Christians by way of warning, he will in- evitably fall into the same modes of address. And plainly he ought so to do; for thus have all the sacred writers done, and thus did the Saviour himself. EXCURSUS XIII. Heb. 7: 3. “Anarwe, untae, ayevecdoyntos, unre aOZnY Hugooy unre Cons téhog éyav, egououmpévos 0é 19 vio 10U Seou, méver isgevs erg 10 OupvEexés. The description of Melchisedek, in v. 3, has been interpreted in a variety of ways, so as to give rise to many diverse opinions, re- specting the person introduced here by this name. I shall very briefly exhibit some of them, without delaying to examine them. 364 Excursus XIII. Hes. 7: 3. (1) The Hieracitae, (so called from Hierax, Epiphan. Haeres. LXVII.), held Melchisedek to be the Holy Spirit. Jerome under- takes to confute them, Epist. ad Evagrium. (2) The Melchisedeciani, (the author of which sect was Theo- dotus, or Thomas), held Melchisedek to be one of the duvemece of God, emanated from him, superior to Christ, and after the model of which Christ was formed. (3) It is an ancient opinion, (as Epiph. Haeres. LX VII. testi- fies), that Melchisedek was the Son of God, i. e. the Logos ; the same who appeared to Abraham, and to the patriarchs, etc. This opinion was held by Ambrose ; and it has been defended in recent times, by Molinaeus, Cunaeus, Gaillard, Outre, Hottinger, Stark, _ Petersen, and others. (4) Origen, and after him Didymus, held Melchisedek to be an angel. . (5) Others have held that Melchisedek was a man formed be- fore the creation, out of spiritual and not of earthly matter. (6) Melchisedek was Enoch, sent again to live on earth, after the flood. So Hen. Hulsius. (7) Melchisedek was Shem, the son of Noah. So Targum Jon. and Jerus.; so also Lyranus, Tostatus, Eugubinus, Cajetan, Ge- nebrard, Torniello, Villalpandus, of the Catholic Church; and among Pretestants, Peucer, Pelargus, Brughton, Melancthon, Run- gius, and others. (8) Melchisedek was Job. So G. Kohlreis. (9) It is unknown who he was. So Lyser, Gesner, Baldwin, Crenius, Buddaeus, and others. _ (10) Melchisedek was a righteous and peaceful king, a worship- per and priest of the most high God, in the land of Canaan; a friend of Abraham, and of a rank elevated above him. This last opinion lies upon the face of the sacred record, in Gen. xiv., and in Heb. vir. ; and itisthe only one which can be defended on any tolerable grounds of interpretation. What can be more im- probable, than all the opinions above mentioned, with the exception of this? The most popular opinion among them all, viz. that Mel- chisedek was Christ, would of course force us to adopt this interpre- tation, viz. that ‘ Christ is like unto himself ;’ or, that a comparison is formally instituted by our author, between Christ and himself ;— ‘¢ cujus mentio est refutatio.” Excursus XIV. Hep. 7: 9, 10. 365 EXCURSUS XIV. Heb. 7:9, 10. Kel, ao &io¢g etnety, dca “ABoaam xai < , Ul \ Y Lf ” ‘ Aevi, o dsexaras dauBavay, dedexatarae ete yao ev ws ae ~ \ 7 ’ 2 ee he A Th Oopul tov WateOS HY, Oe oUYHYInoEY aut@ Oo Mes— [wEden. For a Hebrew, this assertion would less need an we é20¢ ecmety, than for us, whose modes of thinking and reasoning in regard to genealogies, descent, and rank, are so very different from those of the oriental nations. Since Abraham was deemed, by his posteri- ty, to be the patriarch and head of all his descendants, in such a sense as to hold a pre-eminence in rank above them, a proof that he acknowledged his inferiority to Melchisedek, by paying tithes to him, was a proof that his descendants must of course be inferior to Melchisedek. The statement in vs. 9 and 10, is built upon the oriental modes of estimating descent and rank. Since Levi, who was of the posterity of Abraham, might be reckoned as then vir- tually in the patriarch ; and, since he descended from him, and therefore could not be regarded as of a rank above him; it would follow, according to the Jewish mode of reasoning, that the priest- hood of Melchisedek was of a rank superior to that of Levi. If it be said, ‘‘ We do not need such considerations as these, to establish the superior priesthood of Christ ; neither do we, in this manner, count upon genealogy, and descent, and rank ;” I freely assent. But then I am not able to see, why this should at all de- tract from the propriety or the weight of the epistle to the Hebrews, viz. that the writer has fully met the exigencies of the case, which called forth the epistle itself; and met them in just such a way as was adapted to the condition of his readers, and the modes of rea- soning to which they were accustomed. If they attached high im- portance and dignity to the Levitical priesthood, because the Le- vites descended from Abraham, (as they surely did), and this opin- ion served to fill their minds with difficulty in regard to :Admitting, that the priesthood of Christ could supersede that of Aaron; then 366 Excursus XIV. Hes. 7:9,10. — was it directly to the writer’s purpose, to remove this prejudice, and to shew them, that according to their own grounds of argu- ment and computation, Melchisedek must be superior to the Levit- ical priests, and to Abraham himself. If now in doing this, (which all must admit was necessary and proper to be done), the writer has met their prejudices with arguments specially adapted to this purpose, and the force of which they must acknowledge, if true to their own principles ; and, at the same time, he has averred noth- ing which is adapted to inculcate error, or to mislead others who were educated in a different manner from the Hebrews; then has he done what every wise and prudent man ought to do, under cir- cumstances like his. And if several of his arguments are not now needed by us, and cannot well be employed by us, at the present time, with any particular efficacy, this makes nothing against his discretion, or against the validity of his reasoning. We all enjoy the light which has been shed around us by the whole of the New Testament. Of this the Hebrews had little or nothing. We are educated with views and feelings entirely different, in many res- pects, from those in which they were brought up. We do not, therefore, need to be addressed and reasoned with, in all respects just as they did. Many of their prejudices, we have not; many of their doubts with respect to the superiority of Christianity over the Mosaic religion, we never entertained. Many things, then, which were said with great force and propriety to them, by our author, cannot be addressed to us with the same pertinency, nor felt with the same power. * Let the reasoning in the epistle to the Hebrews be judged of equitably, by taking into view such considerations as these, and all difficulties of any serious import, will, as I am inclined to believe, be removed from the mind of a serious, candid, and intelligent rea- der. Such considerations, too, might have saved the many znuen- dos, (with which we meet, in not a few of the recent commentaries on our epistle), that the writer has built nearly all his arguments upon allegory and accommodation; an accommodation which al- lows the whole force of all the erroneous methods of Jewish reason- ing, and conforms to it, merely in order to prevent the apostasy of professed Christians. I cannot acquiesce in the latitude of this opinion ; ior can I well admit, that a sacred writer would make use of an argument, which in its nature he knows to be wholly er- Excursus XV. Hes. 8: 5. 367 roneous and destitute of force, for the sake of persuading men to embrace Christianity, or to continue in the profession of it. Would not this be “ doing evil, that good might come” But I feel no ob- jection to admitting, that argumentum ad hominem may be employ- ed, for the sake of confuting errorists, and exposing their inconsis- tency. The Saviour himself plainly resorts to this, in some cases ; see Matt. 12:27. Luke 11: 19. So in our epistle, it cannot be deemed irrelevant or improper, if the writer shews the Jews, that from their own modes of counting descent, and reckoning prece- dence in regard to rank, Melchisedek, (and consequently Jesus), was as a priest of an order superior to the Levites. For substance this is done, in the chapter under examination. Yet there is noth-_ ing conceded here, which can in any way endanger the principles of truth. At the same time, after the explanations that have been made, it is hazarding nothing to say, that we now have more con- vincing arguments than those here used, to establish the superiori- ty of Christ’s priesthood. But, let it be remembered, we owe them to the New Testament which we have in our hands, and which the Hebrews had not. Many things, therefore, needed by them in their condition, and with the greatest propriety urged upon them, are less applicable and less important to us, merely because our cir- cumstances differ so much from theirs. If the reader wants confirmation, in regard to the statement above made, of the Jewish views respecting the precedency of Abraham, let him peruse Matt. 3: 9. John 8: 52—58. Luke {6: 22—25. EXCURSUS XV. oid ‘ ’ f ‘ Heb. 8: 5. “Oga yag, gyol, nomons navta xata tov ri my ~~ nov tov dezdéevta Got év 16 Oger. It has been asked, In what way was this tuUno¢ exhibited to Moses? Was it by ocular vision ; or by suggestion to the mind; or by words communicated to Moses, descriptive of the form in 368 Excursus XV. Hes. 8: 5. which the tabernacle should be constructed? The answer to all such questions is very easy; viz. that the subject is beyond the boundaries of human knowledge, so that we can know nothing more respecting it, than what Moses himself has told us. But this _ is merely an assertion of the fact, that the zUn0g was exhibited to him. He says nothing at all, of the manner in which it was exhib- ited. Consequently, the fact is all that we can know; and surely it is all that we need to know ; for of what importance to us can the manner be, in which this revelation was made? The passage in Acts 7: 44, which speaks of the tvzov that Moses éwoaxer, de- termines nothing, as it is not said whether he saw in a bodily or mental manner; and the word éogaxee is plainly applicable to ei- ther. In 1 Chron. 28: 19, David, after having drawn a plan for the temple says, Adi, which is in the writing from the hand of the Lord, i.e. made by divine assistance ; b*>wm, he taught me, even all the work mz1n7, tumo0v, i.e. of the plan. Yet here was no ocular disclosure. Consequently, the words used in our text will not de- termine the manner of the communication to Moses; and therefore we are not to consider it as capable of being definitely determined. It follows, of course, that the exhibition of a visible temple in heaven, to the view of Moses, of a temple having form and locality, cannot be assumed; unless we build upon that which has no foun- dation to support it. The most that we can know of this subject is, that on mount Sinai, the Lord revealed to Moses the tumoy of the tabernacle which he was to build; and that this is merely a unodsvyua and oxea of the heavenly one. Is it a vnodsuypa then. in a material sense, or in a spiritual, moral one? In the latter, without any reasonable doubt ; for so the whole nature of the argu- ment leads us to conclude. The apostle is not comparing one material tabernacle on earth, with another more magnificent one of the same kind in heaven; but a material earthly one, with one which the Lord made, which is ov yecoomolnros, and ov ravryg tng “ticews, 9: 11, i.e. which is spiritual and heavenly in its na- ture. ‘The whole representation, then, comes to this; ‘ ln heaven are truly and really all those things, which the Jewish tabernacle and temple, with all their rites and offerings, only adumbrated. What is there, is reality in the highest and noblest sense ; what is here, is comparatively only shadow and effigy. Christ does really there, what the high-priest has been accustomed to do figuratively Excursus XV. Hes. 8: 5. 369 and symbolically here. The temple here faintly represents, (is um0- devyuc and oxve of), real spiritual existences and occurrences there.’ fa The very nature of the heavenly world, and of the apostle’s ar- gument, is sufficient to shew, that this is all which can be rationally deduced from the language which he employs. It would be just as rational to maintain, that God has a local habitation, and a cor- poreal form visible to the eye, because the Scriptures speak of his Jized dwelling place in heaven (34372), and of his hands and eyes and face and heart, as it would be to suppose that the temple above, in which Christ ministers, possesses form, and is composed of ma- terial substance, like that which was built by the Jews.. This was merely oxa; that is adyndeva, UnooTaoss, i.e. of heavenly, spi- | ritual, divine Uz0etaovg, not earthly, visible, local matter. How to build the earthly tabernacle, Moses was instructed on the mount. But whether a form of the same was presented to his vision, bodily or mental; or whether he was taught by words, what the ruzog should be, does not, (as we have seen), appear from Scripture; nor is it important for us to know. Enough to know, that the earthly tabernacle is related to the heavenly one, only as shadow to substance ; and consequently that our great high priest above, is exalted to a rank unspeakably higher than that of the Jew- ish high priest. All which Moses and the people of Israel saw upon mount Si- nai, the darkness and smoke, the fire, the cloud, and the light- nings ; the voice of the trumpet which they heard, and the quaking of the earth which they felt, (Ex. 19: 17—20 20: 18—21. 24: 1, 2,9, 10, 15—18. Heb. 12: 18—21); were manifestly symbols merely of the divine presence, adapted to inspire the people with reverence and awe. In the same manner, the man or tunoc of the tabernacle to be built, was a symbol of what is heavenly or di- vine. It may just as well be argued from the clouds, and dark- ness, and fire, and lightning, and thunder, and earthquake of Sinai, that all these belong materially and formally to the heavenly world, as that the rusrog exhibited to Moses, was an actually visible, mate- rial part of heaven. If now the tabernacle built by Moses, the greatest of all the Jewish prophets, Heb. 3: 2, was nothing more than an aytirunog of that in heaven, Heb. 9: 23, 24, a mere oxce of it, 8:5; then the VOL. Il. 47 Me 370 Excursus XVI. Hen. 9: 4. temple built by Solomon, which was only an imitation of this, 1 K. 8: 10--19. 1 Chron. 28: 19; and that in aftertimes, built by Ze- robabel, Ez. 5: 1 seq., and which was less magnificent, Ez. 3: 12, 13; must also be merely ayrizumos and oxcai of that temple, of which Jesus is the priest. Consequently, the greater dignity of his priestly office may be obviously inferred, from this comparison. EXCURSUS XVI. . Heb. 9: 4. Xeuoovy éyouca Iumcarmouoy. There is great difficulty and much perplexity among commen- tators, in regard to the @vuceryjovoy here mentioned. Moses makes no mention of such a sacred utensil, as appertaining to the most holy place ; neither does the description of Solomon’s temple, (modelled after the tabernacle), contain any information respecting it. Ouvucarnavov, in its general sense, indicates any thing which contains duudeua or incense; so that it may be applied either to an altar of incense, or to any pot or vessel, adapted for offering in- cense by burning it. Josephus applies Ovusarynovoy to the altar of incense, Antiq. II]. 6,8; and so some have applied the word,. in the phrase under consideration. But it isa strong, if not con- clusive objection to this, that the altar of incense was before the vail of the most holy place, and not within it, Ex. 30: 1—6. 40: 5, 26. Moreover this altar is called, in Hebrew, n> 1oRa 3472, Ex. 37: 25. 2 Chron. 26: 19, 16; nePe mai, Ex. 40: 53 or, mat nN OP opr, Ex. 30: 1. In Greek, it is named Pvoveornjocor, and Siaiedbioceigitoy Svurcouatos. On this altar, moreover, daily offer- ings of incense were to be made, both morning and evening, Ex. 30: 1—8. The horns of it, once in each year, were to be sprink- led with blood, viz. on the great day of atonement, Ex. 30:10. But I am unable to find any place, which declares that this altar was carried within the vail, on the day just named, by the priest who offered incense before the Lord. On the contrary, the incense of- Excursus XVI. Hep. 9: 4. 371 fered on that day, was strewed on a vessel of burning coals, or a censer, i. e. pan or fire pan, which the priest held in his hand, and carried with him into the most holy place, Lev. 16: 12-14. The name of the vessel was smn, Lev. 16: 12. Ex, 27: 3. 38: 3. 1K. 7:50. 2 Chron. 4:22. In 2 Chron. 26: 19, this vessel is named nm OP, and again in Ezek. 8: 11; in both which places the Sep- tuagint have @uucarnovoy. Now nothing can be plainer, than that the mpm and n7Gp7 were different from the altar of incense, MN epa mai. Upon this, on the morning and evening of every day, offerings of incense were made; and-this altar stood before the vail, Ex. 30: 6-—-8. On the day of atonement, also, the horns of it were to be sprinkled with blood, Ex. 30: 10. 40: 5, 26. B the incense before the Lord, which was to be offered in the inner sanctuary, was offered upon a mma, pan of burning coals, Lev. 16: 12. Uzziah was about to burn incense in this manner, when the priests withstood him, 2 Chron. 26. 16--19. Comp. also the case of Nadab and Abihu, Lev. 10: 1. That the incense altar was stationary, is plain from the dimen- sions assigned to itin Ex. 30: 1, 2, viz. a cubit (i. e. 1,8, foot) long and broad, and two cubits in height. The removal of cee by the high priest, into the most holy place, is out of question, when we consider that it was made of solid materials, probably metal of some kind. But the censers (fire pans) were hand-utensils, constructed for the very purpose of taking coals from the altar of burnt offering, (where the fire was never suffered to become extinguished), for the various uses of the temple, Lev. 16: 12. The whole difficulty then, in our verse, amounts to this, viz. whether the yougouy du- putatyovoy, here mentioned, was laid up or deposited in the most holy place. That there were several Ouucaryjoce or MmM, is cer- tain from Ex. 27:3. 38:3. That the nm or Suurarnovor, which was employed by the high priest, was yovoour i.e. gilded, or (if you will) golden, is highly probable ; indeed, one would sup- pose quite certain, seeing that the altar of incense, (which was de- signed only for the every day’s offering of incense), was to be over- laid with pure gold, Ex. 30: 3. Much more, may we well suppose, that the censer, (carried by the high priest into the aysa ayiwy, on the most solemn of all days, viz. the day of atonement for the whole nation), was covered with gold, i.e. was yovoovr, as the apostle calls it. Moses, indeed, has not given us any particular descrip- 72 Excursus XVI. Hes. 9: 4. tion of such a censer ; nor is it mentioned particularly in the des- cription of Solomon’s temple ; nor is it any where said in the Old ‘Testament, that such a censer was Jaid up in the most holy place. But as nothing can be more probable, than that the censer was yovoouv ; so nothing can be more probable than that it was depos- ited in the inner sanctuary. That acenser used for the most sa- cred of all the temple rites, on a day the most solemn of all the Jewish festival days, should be used for the common and every day occasions of temple service, is highly improbable ; especially when we consider that every thing pertaining to the service of the inner sanctuary, was regarded in a light that corresponded with the de- _ signation of that place, viz. ayia ayia, or DWP WIP. Besides, the writer of our epistle, so intimately acquainted with every thing that pertained to the temple, to its rites, and in- deed to the whole Jewish economy, cannot be reasonably supposed to have mistaken the fact, relative to the materials of which the censer used on the great day of expiation was made, or to the place where it was deposited. How easily would those whom he addres- sed have detected his error, and been led, of course, to think light- ly of his accuracy, when matters so obvious escaped his notice! In short, all the objection against the account of our author is, that the Old Testament is silent in regard to the two particulars about the censer which he mentions, viz. that it was yovoouy, and that it was deposited in the ayva ayiwy. But surely silence, in such a case, is no contradiction ; and the nature of the whole case is such, there can be no rational doubt, that our author has made a correct . statemeni. ‘The want of correctness here would have argued an ignorance on his part, which would have destroyed all his credit with those whom he addressed. If an apology be needed for dwelling so long on this subject, any one may find it by consulting the commentators, and learning the difficulties which have been made about it, and the charges of inaccuracy, or failure of memory, which have been made against the writer of our epistle, on account of the clause yevoouy éyouvoa Suprarnovov. : Excursus XVII. Hes. 9: 4. 373 EXCURSUS XVII. Heb. 9: 4. ’Ey 9, stapros yovon &yovoe to warvve, nai 9 @aB8d05 “Aagwr y BAaomouca, xai ai nhaxes HS Sead nxyS. But there is another difficulty, in regard to the phrase under consideration. It is said, 1 K. 8:9 and 2 Chron. 5: 10, that “ there — was nothing in the ark, save the two tables which Moses put there- in at Horeb.” This, no doubt, is true; but our author is speaking, in Heb. 9: 4, of the tabernacle as constructed and furnished by Moses, and not of the temple built some five hundred years afterwards ; still less, of the second temple, which, after the burning of the first by Nebuchadnezzar, must have lacked even the tables of the testi- mony or law. These were probably destroyed, at the time when the first temple was consumed ; since we have no authentic intelli- gence respecting them afterwards. It is probable, too, that the first temple lacked both the pot of manna, and the rod of Aaron ; at least we have no account of their being deposited in it. The probability is, that the ark, during its many removals by the Israel- ites after it was constructed, and in particular during its captivity by the Philistines, 1 Sam. 4: 11. 5: 1. 6: 1, 21, was deprived of these sacred deposits; for we hear no more concerning them. Be this as it may, our author is fully justified, when, in describing the tab- ernacle, he attributes to it what the Pentateuch does ; and that the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod were laid up in the most holy place, and in the ark of the covenant, may be seen in Ex. 16: 32—84. Num. 17: 10 (17: 25). In both these passages, the Hebrew runs thus; Laid up niszr 7295, before the testimony, i. e. either before the ark containing the testimony; or (which is altogether more probable), before the testimony itself, i.e. the two tables which were in the ark. Consequently, they were laid up with the testimony, i.e. the two tables ; and the account given by our author is strictly correct. It will be recollected, too, that it is the tabernacle made by Mo- ‘ses, that he is describing throughout. As this was patterned after wy 374 Excursus XVIII. Hes. 9: 14. that which Moses “ had seen upon the mount,” and was built by workmen who had particular divine assistance Ex. 36: 1, it was, of course, regarded by the Jews as the most perfect structure of all that had been erected for the worship of God. Perfect as it was, however, the apostle labours to shew, that it was a mere shadow or image of the heavenly tabernacle, in which Jesus ministers. EXCURSUS XVIII. "nN \ r > x r Heb. 9:14. “Oc dca mvevatos avoviou éavtoy ngosyvey— uv ~ ~ nev AM@MOY Ta Hen. Ave MVEVMATOS awviov is a difficult phrase, about the meaning of which a great variety of opinions have been formed. Some un- derstand it of the Holy Spirit ; and some manuscripts and versions ~ read eyiov instead of wiwviov. But in what respect the Holy Spi- rit rendered the offering of Christ perfect (#ummov), it would be difficult to shew from other parts of the Scriptures ; which contain, so far as I have been able to discover, no assertions of a doctrine analogous to this. Others, as Ernesti, Capell, Outrein, Wolf, Cra- mer, Carpzoff, etc., understand it of the divine nature of Christ. But although the offering of Christ might be rendered of the highest value, on account of the dignity of his person, in consequence of the higher nature which dwelt in him; yet the sacred writers re- present him as having made atonement in his human nature, not in his divine. Heb. 2: 14, 17, 18. Col. 1: 21, 22. Phil. 2: 6—8. Heb. 10: 5, 10. 1 Pet. 2:24. But, independently of this consideration, instances are wanting satisfactorily to prove, that mvevua ayvov or aioveov, when applied to Christ, designates simply his divine nature, as such. Others consider aveiue aioveoy as designating the idea of a victim, the sacrifice of which had perpetual efficacy to procure the pardon of sin; which is the ground of the epithet, adw»cov. Thus Noesselt, in his essay on this passage contained in his Opuscula. But in this case, no wsus loquendi can be alleged, to justify such an interpretation. — is Excursus XVIII. Hes. 9: 14. Bye _ Others, as Heinrichs, Schleusner, Rosenmiiller, Koppe, Jaspis, etc. consider mvevue. aioveoy as endless or immortal life, comparing it with 7: 16. They place this in antithesis to the perishable nature of the beasts that were slain in sacrifice, and which are mentioned in the preceding verse. The antithesis would then be thus ; ‘ If mere perishable brutes, slain in sacrifice, effected external sanctification ; how much more shall the offering of Christ, endow- ed-with eternal life, or, with an immortal spirit, purify the con- science, etc.’ To this view of the subject I was myself inclined, before I made a special investigation of the word mvevma, as appli- ed to Christ. In doing this, I found, beside the present instance, two other cases, in which it is pretty evidently applied to designate his glorified state, in the world of spirits, in distinction from his | state of incarnation and humiliation. Thus Rom. 1: 3, i, KOTO avevua ayrwovrns designates a state of distinction from xara ee the human nature of Christ, that was descended from David ; ongouatos AaBid, xara oaoxa....viou Deo ev Ovvapel, % O- ra nvevpa. Kara vero ayewovrns here designates the con- dition, in which Christ was the exalted and powerful Son of God, viov Seov év dvvauet, comp. Phil. 2: 8, 9. Heb. 2: 9, 10; 1. e. it is descriptive of that spiritual majesty, ayewourn, 347, 19, or exalta- tion, which belongs to the Saviour, in the heavenly world. So 1 Pet. 3: 18, Davarwieig [Xovords] wey cagul, Cwononeis O8 mvEv- part, i.e. in his incarnate nature, subjected to sufferings and death ; in his spiritual [heavenly] nature or condition, enjoying happiness and glory. So in | Cor. 15: 45, the last Adam, i. e. Christ, is call- ed avevuc Cwoxocovr, in distinction from the woyn Sooo attributed to the first Adam. This could not be because Christ had an z- mortal soul, and Adam had only a living animal soul; for Adam too was immortal. It would seem, here, that mvevue and Wwuyn both designate a spiritual or immortal nature ; but mvevua here desig- nates such a nature of a higher order ; and the antithesis is more fully made by Gwonovovy and (wor, lifegiving and hving. With these texts, I am now inclined to believe the one in our verse is to be classed; and that the sense is to be given to it, which I have just expressed, viz. in his eternal state or condition, i. e. his heavenly one, Christ presented his offering, etc. As to dva, there is no difficulty in making such a translation of it. It is frequently used with the genitive in order to denote the quality, condition, cir- + 376 Excursus XIX. Hes. 9: 28. cumstances, or means, that have relation to any thing or person ; e. g. 2 Cor. 3: 11, dra dokns, i. g. év doky in the other clause of the verse and in vs. 8,9, and equivalent plainly to évdoé0g. So Rom. 2: 27, due youuparos, with the Scripture, i.e. having the Scripture, dua megerouns, with circumcision, i. e. circumcised; Rom. 4: 11, dc axgoSvotius, uncircumcised; Phil. 1: 20, u c 10 nohdwy aveveyxely apmagitas. The importance of the phrase, and the many constructions put upon it that are inconsistent with the wsus loquendi of the sacred writers, render it desirable accurately to determine its meaning. To bear sin, then, is to suffer the punishment due to it, i.e. to take wt Excursus XIX. —— 9:28. 377 upon one’s self the consequences of sin, or to baebicet one’s self to its consequences. The phrase is sometimes used for exposure to the consequences of sin; e. g. Lev. 5: 17, 1, comp. vs. 3—5. 7: 18. To bear iniquity, (7>2 NY2) means also, to be cut off from the con- gregation of God’s people, Lev. 20: 17. Num. 9: 13; it means, to die or perish, Num. 18: 22, 32. Ex. 23: 43. Lev. 24: 15, 16. So it is sometimes employed as a general expression, to designate any kind of sufferings borne or inflicted in consequence of sin; as in Num. 14: 33, 34, where in the 33d verse, Ye shall bear your whore- doms means, Ye shall bear the consequences of them 3 just as in v. 34, Ve shall bear your iniquities means, Ye shall bear or endure the consequences of them. Thus is the phrase employed, where the subject in question is one’s own sins. But 2. To bear the sins of others, is to bear or endure the suffering or penalty due to them. So in Heb. 9: 26, auagz/as means the consequences of sin or penalty due to it. In Lam. 5: 7, Jeremiah represents the afflicted people of Israel as saying, ‘‘ Our fathers have sinned, and are no more, and we have borne their iniquities, DANY 92220. So in Ezek. 18: 19, 20, to bear the iniquity of another means, to die or perish on his account, v. 20, comp. v. 17. Is. 53: 4, he bore our distresses, Nivi 27>, he carried [or bore] our sor- rows, 520 13°IN212 is explained in v. 5 by, he was wounded for our transgressions, 3 qa"y WEN pom; he was smitten on account of our transgressions, qs NDI7. So nw2 means, to suffer, Prov. 19: 19. Micah 7:9; as does ‘the corresponding Greek word Saore- fo in Gal. 5: 10, and gzgw in Heb. 13: 13. “dAvagégo has the same sense as g¢ow and @aorafw, when used in such a connexion, and corresponds to the Hebrew N'v2 and 520. So Peter says of Jesus, avnveyne—tas auaotiag ypov, in his own body, on the cross, 1 Pet. 2: 24; to explain which he adds, by whose stripes ye are healed; i. e. Jesus suffered the penalty due to our sins, in his own body, on the cross; and by his sufferings, our obligation to the pe- nalty ceases. The passage is quoted from Is. 53: 4, 5, which has the same meaning as 53: 11, 12; and here we have, He bore their sins, S30) DMA» , he bore [or carried] the sins of many, D°2I-NOM niv?. A comparison of all these instances, (more might be adduc- ed), will serve to shew how plain and uniform the Scripture idiom is, in respect to the sense attached to the phrase bearing the sin ei- ther of one’s self or of others. It always means, either ‘ actual suf- VOL. II. 48 zi ¥, 378 Excursus XX. Hes. 10: 5. fering of the consequences due to sin,’ or, ‘ exposure to suffer them, obligation to suffer them.’ That auaortiacs, Heb. 9:28, may mean, and does mean, the con- sequences of sin, or penalty of it, is plain, (1) From the impossibility, that the passage here can have any other sense. ‘ The moral turpi- tude of our sins Jesus did not take upon himself; nor remove it, {as it is in itself considered) ; but the consequences of them he pre- vented, by his own sufferings. (2) The corresponding Hebrew words, NNWN, Fy, and sw, all mean, punishment or penalty of sin, as well as, sin, or iniquity itself. The sentiment of the clause, then, clearly is, that Jesus, by his death, (which could take place but once), endured the penalty that our sins deserved, or bore the sorrows due tous. But this general expression is not to be understood, as if the writer meant to say, with philosophical precision, that the sufferings of Jesus were in all respects, and considered in every point of view, an exact and speci- fic quid pro quo, as it regards the penalty threatened against sin. A guilty conscience the Saviour had not; eternal punishment he did not suffer ; despair of deliverance he did not entertain. It is altogether unnecessary to suppose, that the writer meant to be un- derstood here, with metaphysical exactness. But, that vicarious suffering is here designated, seems to be an unavoidable conclusion, as well from the usws loquendi of the Scriptures, as from the nature of the argument through the whole of chapters 1x. and x. EXCURSUS XX. Heb. 10: 5. Sauce dé xatnoticw wor. Ps. 40: 7. DIN "5 n°), 1. e. mine ears hast thou opened. But how could the Seventy render the Hebrew expression here, by sama xatnotiow wor? And how could the apostle follow them in this rendering ; and even build an argument on such a transla- tion, in order to establish the proposition, that the blood of goats and bullocks could not avail to take away sin? Questions which Excursus XX. Hes. 10: 5. 379 = have exceedingly perplexed commentators, and over which most of them have chosen to pass in silence. It is, indeed, much better to be silent, than to speak that which is erroneous, or will mislead the unwary. Still, the ingenuous inquirer, who wishes to see every difficulty fairly met, is offended with silence on a subject of such a nature, and cannot well resist a secret inclination to attribute it more to want of knowledge, or to want of candour, than to real prudence and discretion. At least, we ought freely to confess our ignorance, where we feel it, and not affect to be profoundly wise about things of which we may not venture to speak, or are not able to speak, either to our own satisfaction, or to that of others. Cappell, Ernesti, and some other critics strive to maintain the probability, that the Septuagint reading in Ps. 40:7, was formerly eitiov xatnotiow uot, which by some accident has been changed, and the text of the apostle, in the New Testament, adapted to it. But of this there is no proof. Indeed, there is manifest proof that the apostle originally wrote owe in v. 5, by a comparison with it of his expression in v. 10. The difficulty cannot be met, then, by a change of the text; much less by such a change, when it is not authorised by any of the laws of sound criticism, and is against the context. Were it not that the Septuagint contains the expression oma xatnotiow mov, I should be inclined to believe, that it was merely a parenthetic circumstance, thrown in by our author, in order to explain the object of his quotation. In sacrifice and offering thou hast no delight, says the personage who is speaking. But what is to take their place? is the natural inquiry. What shall be substitut- ed for them? Saua xarnotiow mor, is the answer, i. e. my body, which I am to offer as a sacrifice, is to come in their place ; this wil] be a sacrifice acceptable, efficacious. In short, if the Septua- gint did not contain the expression, we might conclude that the writer of the epistle added it, in order to convey the sentiment of the whole passage in some such manner as the following: “ In sa- crifice and oblation I have no pleasure ;’’ my body hast thou adapt- ed, viz. for oblation, i. e. as if the writer had said, “‘ The speaker means, that his own body was to take the place of sacrifice and ob- lation.” But as the Septuagint text now is, we are compelled to believe, that the apostle has guoted it, and applied it to his purpose. Has 380 Excursus XX. Hes. 10: 5. he then made any substantial part of his argument to depend on the clause in question? An important inquiry, which may go some way towards removing the difficulties that the clause presents. In vs. 8, 9, the writer presents the argument deduced from his quotation, in the following manner. ‘ First, he says, sacrifice, and offering, and holocausts, and sin offerings, thou has no delight in, neither dost thou desire ; (which are offered agreeably to the re- quirements of the law); next, he says, Lo I come to do thy will! He abolishes the first, then, in order to establish the second.” That is, he sets aside the efficacy of ritual sacrifices and offerings, and establishes the efficacy of a Saviour’s obedience unto death; comp. Phil. 2: 8. Now in this conclusion, there is nothing dependent on the clause coun xaryotiow wor. The antithesis of legal offerings, is, doing the will of God, v. 9, viz. the obedience of the Saviour in offering up his body, v. 20. This last verse describes, indeed, the manner in which the obedience in question was rendered. But the argu- ment, as expressed in the 8th and 9th verses, is not made to depend on the manner of the obedience ; for the object of the writer here, is to shew the nullity of the Levitical sacrifices for spiritual purpos- es, and the fact that the Old Testament discloses this, and intimates their abolition. I must regard, then, the use of owue xarnotiow mov by the apostle, as rather an incidental circumstance, than as an essential one. He found it, in the text of the Septuagint which he used. | It was well adapted for the particular purpose he had in view; as it turned the mind of the reader to Christ, as the true expiatory vic- tin, ‘rather than to the sacrifices prescribed by the law. It was al- together accordant with the general tenor of the passage which he was citing, and the conclusion which he was to adduce from it. But he does not make, (as we have seen), the force of his argument to depend upon it. Were this the fact, and were we to suppose, (and we have no critical evidence for believing the contrary,) that the Hebrew text stood, in his day, as it now stands; it would be a case in point, to prove the extent to which the sacred writers have deemed it proper to employ the argumentum ad hominem, and adapt their reasonings to the modes of explaining the Scriptures practised by their readers. As it now is, I do not feel that much dependance can be placed on it, to establish a proposition of this nature ; for on Excursus XX. Hes. 10: 5. 381 the whole, I must view the employment of the phrase, as found in the Septuagint, rather incidental, than essential to the writer’s pur- pose. Still, thus much is clearly decided by the case before us, viz. that the apostles did not feel under obligation in all respects to ad- here to a literal use of the sacred text, but quoted ad sensum rather than ad literam. Even ooe xarnertiom wou may be brought with- in the general limits of an ad senswm quotation, as Storr has re- marked; for preparing a body, in this case, is preparing it for an offering,—to be devoted to the service of God. Now this is a spe- cies of obedience of the highest nature. If a body were given to the Saviour, which he voluntarily devoted to death, Phil. 2: 8, then were his ears indeed opened, or, he was truly obedient. The impli- cation of the phrase oma xernotiow uot, in the connexion where it stands, is, that this body was to be a victim, instead of the legal sacrifices ; of course, a devotedness of the highest nature is implied. Ad sensum, then, in a general point of view, the text may be regard- ed as cited; and this, oftentimes, is all at which the New Testa- ment writers aim. One more difficulty, however, remains. It is alleged, that Ps. XL. cannot well be applied to the Messiah. It rather belongs to David himself. How then could the writer of our epistle appeal to it, for a proof that the obedience unto death, of the Messiah, was to accomplish what the Jewish sacrifices could not, viz. a removal of the penalty due to sin ? That there are difficulties, in the way of interpreting this Psalm as originally having had direct respect to the Messiah, every intel- ligent and candid reader must allow. For it may be asked, (1) What was the deliverance from impending destruction, which Ps. 40: 2—3 [1, 2] describes? On what occasion was the song of gratitude for deliverance uttered? vs. 4—6 [3--5]. (2) How could the inzquities of him, ‘‘ who knew no sin,” take hold of him? v. 13 [12]. (3) How could the Messiah anticipate such troubles, as are alluded to in vs. 12—-14 [11-13]; and particularly, how can he, who when suspended on the cross prayed that his enemies might be forgiven, be supposed to have uttered such imprecations as are contained in vs. 15, 16 [14, 15]? To avoid the difficulties to which these questions advert, some have supposed, that the first and last parts of the Psalm in question relate to David, while vs. 7-9 [6--8] contain a prediction respect- 382 Excursus XX. Hes. 10: 5. ing the Messiah; at least, that they are spoken concerning him. But it is not easy to conceive, how more than one person can be spoken of throughout the Psalm, it being all of the same tenor, and throughout appearing to be made up of words spoken by a suf- fering person, who had indeed been delivered from some evils, but was still exposed to many more. Others have maintained, that the whole Psalm relates only to David ; and that, consequently, the writer of our epistle accommo- dates his argument to the Jewish allegorical explanation of it, pro- bably current at the time when he wrote. Among these are some, whose general views of theology are far from coinciding with those of the neological class of critics. But there is a difficulty in regard to this, which must be felt by every reflecting and sober minded man. How could the apostle employ as sound and Scriptural ar- gument, adapted to prove the insufficiency of the Jewish sacrifices, an interpretation of Scripture not only allegorical, but without any solid foundation? And how could he appeal to it, as exhibiting the words of the Saviour himself, when David was the only person whom it concerned? Ifthe Old Testament has no other relation to the Messiah, than what is built upon interpretations that are the offspring of fancy and ingenious allegory ; then how can we shew, that the proof of a Messiah deduced from it is any thing more than fanciful or allegorical? And was it consistent with sound integri- ty, with sincere and upright regard to truth, to press the Hebrews with an argument, which the writer himself knew to have no solid basis? Or if he did not know this, then ia what light are we to- regard him, as.an interpreter of Scripture, and a teacher of Chris- tian principles ? ; Considerations such as these questions suggest, render it diffi- cult to admit the opinion under examination, without abandoning some of the fundamental principles, on which our confidence 1 in the real verity of the word of God rests. Nor does that scheme of interpretation, which admits a double sense of Scripture, relieve our difficulties. This scheme explains so much of the Psalm, as will most conveniently apply to David, as having a /iteral application to him; and so much of it as will con- veniently apply to the Messiah, it refers to him. Truly a great saving of labour in investigation, and of perplexity and difficulty, might apparently be made, if we could adopt such an expedient! Excursus XX. Hes. 10:5. 383 But the consequences of admitting such a principle should be well weighed. What book on earth has a double sense, unless it is a book of designed enitgmas! And even this has but one real mean- ing. The heathen oracles indeed could say, Aio te, Pyrrhe, Ro- manos posse vincere ; but can such an equivoque be admissible into the oracles of the living God? And if a literal sense, and an occult sense can, at one and the same time, and by the same words, be conveyed ; who that is uninspired shall tell us what the occult sense is? By what laws of interpretation is it to be judged? By none that belong to human language ; for other books than the Bible, have not a double sense attached to them. For these and such like reasons, the scheme of attaching a dou- ble sense to the Scriptures is inadmissible. It sets afloat all the fundamental principles of interpretation, by which we arrive at es- tablished conviction and certainty, and casts us upon the boundless ocean of imagination and conjecture, without rudder or compass. If it be said, that the author of our epistle was inspired, and therefore he was able correctly to give the occult sense of Ps. 40: 7--9 [6—8]; the answer is obvious. The writer in deducing his argument from these verses, plainly appeals to an interpretation of them which his readers would recognize, and to which, he took vit for granted, they would probably consent. Otherwise the argu- ment could have contained nothing in it of a convincing nature to them; as the whole of it must have rested, in their minds, upon the bare assertion and imagination of the writer. May not the whole quotation, then, be merely in the way of ac- commodating the language of the Old Testament, in order to ex- press the writer’s own views? Such cases are indeed frequent in the New Testament. God says, by the prophet Hosea, ‘‘ When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my Son out of Egypt, 11: 1.” Now this is not prediction, but narration. But when Matthew describes the flight of Joseph and Mary, with the infant Jesus, to Egypt, he says, ‘ This took place, so that this pas- sage of Scripture [in Hosea] had an accomplishment, iva ninowdy x.t.4. Now here is, evidently, nothing more than a similarity of events ; so that what is said of Israel, God’s son in ancient times, might be affirmed of his Son Jesus, in later times, in a still higher sense, and in a similar manner. May not the writer of our epistle have accommodated the language of Ps. xu., in a similar way? 384 Excursus XX. Hen. 10: 5. May he not have merely expressed his own views in language bor- rowed from the Old Testament, without intending to aver, that (as it stands in the original Scriptures) it has the same meaning which he now gives to it? This would indeed relieve, in a great measure, the difficulties under which the passage labours, if it could be admitted. But the nature of the writer’s argument seems to forbid the admission of it. He had asserted, (which was entirely opposed to the feelings and belief of most Jewish readers), that ‘ the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin.” What was the proof of this? His own authority ; or that of the Jewish Scriptures? Clearly he makes an appeal to the latter ; and argues, that, by plain implication, they teach the inefficacy of Jewish sacrifices, and the future rejection of them. Consequently, we cannot admit here a mere expression of the wri- ter’s own sentiments, in language borrowed from the Old 'Testa- ment. Another supposition, however, remains to be examined, in re- gard to the subject under consideration ; which is, that Ps. x1. re- lates throughout to the Messiah. This is certainly a posszble case. T mean that there is no part of this Psalm, which may not be inter- preted so as to render its relation to the Messiah possible, without doing violence to the laws of language and interpretation. ‘To ad- vert to the objections suggested on page 381; it may be replied to the first, that the enemies of the Saviour very often plotted against his life and endeavoured to destroy it, and that he, as often, escaped out of their hands, until he voluntarilyegave up himself to death. The thanksgivings, in the first part of Ps. xu., may relate to some or all of these escapes. If it be replied, that the writer of our epis- tle represents the Psalm as spoken, when the Messiah was «/oevyo- mévos £9 TOV xOOMOY, coming [i. e. about to come] into the world, and therefore before his birth; the answer is, that the phrase by no means implies, of necessity, that the Messiah uttered the sentiments here ascribed to him, before his incarnation, but during it. Zoeg- yousvos, entering, being entered, or, when he had entered into the world, he said, @vove z.7.4. That the Saviour prayed to God, gave thanks, made supplications and deprecations, as men do, need ‘not be proved to any reader of the Evangelists, On what particu- lar occasion in the Messiah’s life, the words in Ps. 40: 7—9 were uttered, it is needless to inquire. Indeed, that they were ever for- Excursus XX. Hes. 10:5. 385 mally and ad literam uttered, it is quite needless to shew ; inasmuch as all which the Psalmist intends by the expression of them, is, that they should be descriptive of his true character; which would be such, that we might well suppose him to utter them, or, that they would be appropriate to him. Ina word, the Psalmist represents the Messiah as uttering them, merely in order to exhibit the true nature of the Messiah’s character. The second objection appears, at first view, more formidable. How could the szz/ess Messiah be represented as suffering for his own iniquities ? Plainly, I answer, he could not be. The iniquities of others might be laid upon him; as the Scriptures plainly testify that they were, | Pet.2: 24. Heb. 9: 28. Is. 53: 4,5, 12; 1. e. he might suffer on account of the sins of others, or in their stead ; but as to sins of his own, he had none to answer for. ‘The whole strength of the objection, however, lies in the version of the word .niiz (Ps. 40: 13), which the objector translates my iniquities, sins, transgres- sions. But who, that is well acquainted with the Hebrew idiom, does not know, that 742 means, punishment, calamity, misfortune, as well as iniquity, etc.? David, when he was chased away from Je- rusalem by his rebel son, calls his calamity his jy. Perhaps the Lord, says he, will look favourably 2422, on my calamity, 2 Sam. 16: 12; for his stn it was not, in this case. Comp. Ps. 31: 11. Is. 5: 18.