a oy a ; S AEE } be fo Wyre: ¥ y mri eg in : ay 5 i Mah wtnete x , i ISG GS URE Ss da aes aaa 1 1 vA A) , Bete sh Hane i , AW tbeehett %) BRIE) 8 tos f , arias onecleet "wd 4 uf ‘ a a My a 4 Mehibons eek. H f me Atha os Ht yo Dif: Soles Praai :. i) fi ni NY Gehan thy Pe BC wa eur Wass vi BAT f eh Tit meta de 4 uN; Py ¥ 4A de doee ¥ 4 0 LEW deg, yh eA SOS rT Mh f ei th | pry if rei) ajehen MND Mik 71 Sea 8} MI MH He Fuss oa pay dear gh } witb ie Bh pce » eto Lek ot. " ret, aay #) A , , a SH Uh at ali t til. WO Wet Hy uy rye WoT, Maygey py ee Dye Digits 9) PE gk Fata a5 rhe at | Wty hat ag ULM Ea aan M 20400 4 syeeibe F yee, peer Were rid pete tN avd MH H vay jade Hasan PM lesion gli Lint are nA Y N le “4 NOt Seed agay (fi bis ert ete mee : Fe eag MIEN oLAeMeaRt uel cuabelente te 4) Node t) b5) veh a j # pid de ge * ae in Wi nh vi chp has eal Mada oy 4 Wi) te uh wor itaineibah tele tog i “4, ire ie kan) rat ' ies Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2009 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library https://archive.org/details/epistletohebrewsOOmcca oe: :* = ae » THE pee EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS, PARAPHRASTIC COMMENTARY, WITH ILLUSTRATIONS PHILO, THE TARGUMS, THE MISHNA AND GEMARA, THE LATER RABBINICAL WRITERS, _ “TAND CHRISTIAN ANNOTATORS, ETC., ETC. j2 stip yr ye T =e) “That he may run that readeth it.’’"—Hab. ii BY Sue Fag sia es wnt | @ ity! ee CH THE REV. JOSEPH B. MCA eas HONORARY CANON OF ROCHESTER CATHEDRAL ; RECTOR OF ST. MICHAEL BASSISHAW, LONDON ; CHAPLAIN TO THE LATE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTER ; AND SOMETIME DIVINITY LECTURER AND CENSOR ; IN KING’S COLLEGE, LONDON ; AvutHor oF “Bishop Oolenso’s Criticism Criticised ;” “The Abbé Migne and the Bibliotheque Universelle du Clergé;” “ The Ten Commandments the Christian’s Spiritual Instructor.” LONDON: LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO., PATERNOSTER-ROW, 1871. Go the Bishops and Clergy | OF THE Sister Churches of England and Areland, SEVERED, BUT STILL UNITED IN FAITH, HOPE, AND LOVE, THESE FEW PAGES ARE RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED BY THEIR HUMBLE SERVANT, THE AUTHOR. Saint Micuart BasstsHaw, Lonpon, E.C., June, 1871. Ov yap eixh of apyaior avdpes ws Ilavdov avtiy Tupaved@Kact.— Origen. PREFACE. Tue present work is the result of many happy hours devoted to the instruction of Candidates for Holy Orders. My in- variable practice was to commence our Greek Testament reading by the study of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Whereas the other epistles are addressed to separate Churches or individuals, and are devoted to special or locally interesting topics, the Epistle to the Hebrews pre- sents us with no meagre epitome of those arguments and facts, drawn from the Old Testament Scriptures, upon which the superstructure of Christianity was laid. The first Chris- tian Church at Jerusalem was built up of Jewish materials. In Acts vi. 7 we read, odds Te dxAOS THY lepéwy U7TiKOVOY 7) TioTe, “ And a great company of the priests were obedi- “ent to the faith.’ In the Epistle to the Hebrews we listen again to the arguments which, by the converting power of God’s Holy Spirit, were so potent to convince the very same men who rejected Jesus of Nazareth, and condemned Him to death, that they had been guilty of a grievous injustice, and that that same Jesus, whom the house of Israel crucified, God the Father “hath made both Lord and Christ.”? (Acts i. 36.) We understand how St. Paul and his companions “ reasoned ’’ (dveAeyéto) with the Jews, and how it is written concerning Apollos, evtovws tots “Iovdatous duaxatnréyyeTo Snpocia, ériderxvds Ova TaV ypadaov, eivar tov Xpiotov *Incodv. “For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that “ publicly, showing By THE ScripTuREs that Jesus was the “ Christ (7.2, mown, the Messiah). The expression Curtsr, or Mzss1Aun, is a phrase strictly Jewish, and the attempt to convince Jews that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah whom v1 PREFACE. they expected, implies that the reasoners, and the reasoned with, had much in common. In other words, that the Professors of Christianity claimed to expound the well- grounded hopes of the Jewish people (as held out in the Old Testament Scriptures), according to their only legiti- mate interpretation and fulfilment. It was the custom with Voltaire and his imitators, English and foreign, to endea- vour to bring Christianity into contemptuous disrepute by representing it to be the illegitimate offspring of Judaism. The Jews are caricatured by the “Philosopher of Verney ”’ and his copyists, as being a nation utterly revolting and dis- gusting in their ethical antecedents, and their sacred books are scoffed at, as being a tissue of misstatements, of credulous inhumanity, of supernatural impossibilities, and of indecent puerilities. (See Voltaire’s DicrionNarrE PHILOSOPHIQUE, Tom. V., Article Jurrs, pp. 349—357, “Assassinats juifs. Les “ Juifs ont ils été anthropophages? ... Les peres et meres “ ont-ils immolé leurs enfans? Et de quelques autres belles “ actions du peuple de Dieu.’’ Amsterdam Edition, 1789, 12mo.) Modern propriety recoils, with conventional deli- cacy, from any glaring outrage upon the “religious per- suasion ’’ of any denomination or sect whatever. All history teaches that it has been an amiable and excusable foible of the human mind to believe in some system or other of religious belief. So definitely marked and universally preva- lent (although utterly mistaken) a propensity is to be honoured with a kind of contemptuous respect. From the Moloch worship of the Canaanites up to the latest developments of Anglican ritualistic symbolism, all religions are viewed alike, viz., as the outcomingss of an ineradicable tendency of the human mind towards superstition. This belief in super- naturalism is the idol to be overthrown. But the incredulity of to-day is well aware that to be listened to, she must be cautiously decent; yet she is as hostile, as ever were the Encyclopedists, to all definite creeds. She, therefore, spares no opportunity of sneering at credulity in general, and at PREFACE. vil the authenticity of the sacred writings in detail. Her patronising toleration is far more insidiously dangerous to ill-informed but well-disposed minds, than was the open and vulgar hostility of the professed Atheist and Deist of the last century. She has endeavoured to persuade men that belief and reverence for God’s Word is synonymous with vulgarity and ignorance. Hence has arisen the modern figment of a “Higher Criticism.’’ The professors of this boastful system of destructive theology have unfortunately succeeded in producing a vague but very widespread per- suasion of the historical untrustworthiness of the Bible. The calumny has been reiterated with such loud and consistent pertinacity that a general sense of insecurity has been at last produced upon the minds of teachers and students alike. We see an unhappy tendency to a timid handling of the Word of God manifesting itself in the English theo- logical literature of the present day. Men are afraid to speak with decision, lest they should be decried as unscholarly. The real cause of this unnecessary hesitation, I regret to believe, is to be found in the superficial standard of theo- logical attainments, not only expected of candidates for the ministry of our Church, but accepted with complaisance by the reading public from those who profess to be teachers. Nearly all, if not all, the modern objections against, and supposed discrepancies in, the Holy Scriptures have been repeatedly and amply disposed of by the early Jewish writers, and also by Christian Divines of the last three centuries. To any one fairly acquainted with sacred lite- rature, these pretended new discoveries present no novelty whatever. The bustling self-importance with which they are nowadays propounded, as the results of a new and “ Higher Criticism,’’ would provoke a smile, were not the results, already produced, so disastrous in unsettling the faith of many earnest and simpleminded inquirers after God’s truth. Utterly excusable are such words of vague and indefinite mistrust as we find Dean Alford presenting _~) Vill PREFACE. to the mind of the young student (although he gives no illustrations of his real meaning) in his Prolegomena (sect. i., 191) to the Epistle to the Hebrews. They read very like a preliminary apology for any orthodox sentiments which may unavoidably or unintentionally be found in his treatment of the Epistle: “And he (the student) will bear in mind, that “the day is happily passmg away with Biblical writers and “students, when the strong language of those, who were “safe in the shelter of a long-prescribed and approved “opinion, could deter any from humble and faithful re- “search into the various phenomena of God’s Word itself : “when the confession of having found insoluble difficulties “was supposed (!) to indicate unsoundness of faith, and the “recognition of discrepancies (!) was regarded as affecting “ the belict of Divine inspiration. CW e ha at last in this “ country (began) to learn that Holy Scripture shrinks not “ from any “tests, however severe, and requires not any “artificial defences, however apparently expedient.”? First of all, it is contrary to fact that “ the confession of having “found insoluble difficulties’? 1 Gov’s Worp, was ever “ supposed’”’ by theologians, whose opinion was worth having, “to indicate unsoundness of faith.’ In a volume of such venerable antiquity as the Bible such difficulties must be expected to occur. The self-confident assumption that such difficulties are necessarily mistakes, is what all reverent minds have regarded with pain and indignation, as indicative of presumption, and not of scholarship, far less of faith. Secondly, wherever Dean Alford exemplifies what he is pleased to proclaim as a “ discrepancy,” the fault lies with the would-be expounder, and not with the sacred writer. Dean Alford has attempted in his exegesis, something far beyond his powers of discrimination, and, I might add, far beyond his reading. He (and his collaborateurs) deserve all praise for their industrious compilation and laborious collations, but in other respects this Greek Testament pro- duces a feeling of profound disappointment. Dean Alford PREFACE. 1x is, apparently, very partially acquainted with the Hebrew text of the Old Testament Scriptures. He is equally un- familiar with Jewish habit of thought and expression, and the opinions of the Rabbinical authorities. And yet he professes to expound the writings of Jewish Apostles and Evangelists, not to mention our Blessed Lord Himself, who was also a Jew, and ministered exclusively to Jews, in a satisfactory manner for Christian readers! Can it be any matter for surprise if a Commentator on the Epistle to the Hebrews, furnished with such credentials of his preliminary fitness for his work, should perchance find “insoluble diffi- culties” and “ discrepancies’”’ in the course of his labours ? The acceptance, by any number of the clergy of our Church, of such works as Dean Alford’s Greek Testa- ment, Dean Stanley’s Lectures on the Jewish Church, of Bishop Colenso’s inconceivably silly book on the Pen- tateuch, and of many (no¢ all) of the articles in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, as being representative specimens of the Anglican theological attainments of the present day, must have produced but a sorry impression on the Continent respecting the present state of Scriptural learning in that branch of Christ’s Church, which in former days produced its Usshers, Waltons, Warburtons, Kidders, Lightfoots, Louths, Kennicotts, Blayneys, Hodys, &c., &c., not to mention a layman like Selden, the wonderful erudition of whose writings is unsurpassed by the writers of any country or any age. Verily, the advocates of the ancient and orthodox systems of interpretation have only to wait with patience, and Time, that most impartial trier of the value of all things, will avenge them of their adversaries. Meanwhile, I would earnestly exhort all students of Holy Writ not to be ashamed of being considered over-orthodox. It is not too “much learning ’’ that has inspired the recent attacks upon God’s Word. The accusations of ignorance come with an ill grace from the professors of the modern and diffident school of theology, whose special qualification, as a rule, is a contented x PREFACE. unacquaintance with the Old Testament Scriptures, even in the English and Greek, not to speak of the Hebrew ver- nacular. The following trenchant words of the illustrious Heinrich Ewald * of Gottingen are too important in their appreciation of the modern style of German theological criticism, which has unfortunately come recently so much into vogue in England, not to be given in their integrity :—Ich habe “schon lange die Erfahrung gemacht dass, wie heute das “ Christenthum von den Gelehrten und Geistlichen unter “uns meist verstanden und angewandt wird, die Biicher “des N. T.’s vorherrschend noch weit oberflichlicher und “ oewissenloser behandelt werden als die des A. T.’s; was “sonderbar, und auf den ersten Blick, nicht wohl moglch “scheint, und doch nur zu wahr ist. Denn das A. T. wird “* zwar auf der einen Seite von den Liebhabern alter Irrthiimer, “auf der andern von den iibeln Neuerern ebenfals noch “immer so oft in genug eiteler Weise gelesen erkliirt und “augewandt: allein zum Theil entschuldigt sich das, wegen “der grésseren Schwierigkeiten seines geniigenden Verstiind- “ nisses leichter, zum Theil kann dies nicht so offen und so “ schiidlich betrieben werden. . . . Die seit 1866 neu auf- “ oeblasene . . . Berlinische Zerstérung aller wahren Religion “erkiihnt sich zwar in neuer Weise auch iiber das A. T. “ihren Selbstdiinkel, und ihre Finsterniss zu ergiessen: “allein das hat bis jezt wenig zu sagen, und ist nur eine “ einzelne der vielen Windblasen: dieser an sich sebst vollko- “menen hohlen neuester Nationalliberalen Windhose. Die “ Biicher des N. T.’s aber scheinen zu naheliegend, zu leicht “ verstiindlich, und zugleich zu unmittelbar nothwendig, und “ zu unbeweisbar von wichtigster und entscheidenster Bedeu- “tung zu seyn, als das nicht jeder Windbeutel unserer Tage * Das Sendschreiben a.d. Hebréer und Jakobos’ Rundschreiben iibersetzt und erklirt von H. Ewald. (Vorwort, p. iv., &e.) Gottingen, 1870, 8vo. Dr. Ewald’s book only came into my hands after a con- siderable portion of the present work was in type. PREFACE. X1 “mit ihnen alles zu versuchen, und alles in ihnen zu finden, “sich ganz aufgeleet und wohlgemuth, vor allem auch nach “den heutigen Staatsgesezen, ganz straflos fiihlen sollte. “ Diese Spielereien mégen nun auch wol ertriiglich scheinen “so lange sie bloss auf dem fliichtig vergiinglichen Papiere “bleiben, und sich am liebsten nur in den herumschwirren- “den Tagesbliittern jedem anbieten der an ihnen seinen “Vergniigen findet: allein hat man nun wenigstens seit “£1866 erkannt welches entsezliche Verderben hinter ihnen “Jauert ? Ist es nicht endlich Zeit dass gerade de N. Tlichen “ Biicher iiberall am schiirfsten und zugleich am richtigsten “erkannt, und in dem Sinne angewandt werden der ihr “eigener ist. Denn dieser braucht von uns nur so wie er “urspriinglch und ewig derselbe ist sicher wiedererkannt “zu werden, um uns jenem gesunden kriiftigen Heilmittel “zu dienen, welches wir nicht entbehren kénnen, wenn nicht “die allgemeine Zerstorung in Deutschland welche schon “begonnen, ihr Werk vollenden soll. Zu diesem Zwecke “bedarf es emer zwar vollig erschépfenden, aber in sich “oanz klaren und sich mit sich selbst begniigenden zuver- “lissigen keuschen, vor allem auch leicht tibersichtlichen “Erklirung jedes einzelnen Buches. Bei dem Trosse der “ Erklirer unserer Zeit herrscht, soweit sie nicht etwa bloss “ erbaulich erklaren, und diesen ganz einseitigen, aber fiir die “meisten dennoch zu hohen Zweck verfolgen wollen, nur die “Sucht vor andern Erklarern moglichst viele, sei es philolo- “oische oder dogmatische Fehler vorzuwerfen, und damit “entweder dicke Bande zu fiillen, oder bei allem engern “Raum den man etwa buchhindlerische Vortheile wegen “einhalten will, dennoch nach allen Seiten hin mit dem “Hacken auszuschlagen. Man hat diese Dinge allmilig “immer mehr zu emer Art moéglichst beliebter Kunst “gemacht, und so herrschen sie jezt, haben aber deutlich “nicht wenig zu dem héchst geringen Nuzen beigetragen wel- “ chen die Erklarung des N. T.’s bis jezt in der Kirche und im “ Volke gestiftet hat. Wie mir nun diese Art zu erkliren X11 PREFACE. “ von jeher widerstanden hat, so habe ich mich auch hier um “ sie nicht bekiimmert, und nicht ein dickes, oder ein diistres “ Buch schreiben wollen. Aber ich hoffe dass auch die hier “ behandelten zwei Biicher des N. T.’s durch diese ihre Erkla- “yung so wenig irgend etwas verloren haben dass ihre einge- “borne Herrlichkeit aus ihr nur desto heller und unverkenn- “barer hervorleuchtet. Kein einzelnes Biblisches Buch auch “des N. T.’s soll uns zwar fiir sich allein geniigen; es will “dieses auch gar nicht, und weist uns immer auf etwas “ zuriick was noch weit tiber ihm steht. . . . Die genauere “ Erklérung lasst uns dazu auf vieles einzelne scheinbar “kleinere, und doch zulezt héchst bedeutsame richtig mer- “ken, was, ausser ihr immer rathselhafter und unsicherer “bleibt, als nothig ist. Hinter allen N. Tlichen Bichern “sehen wir alsdann zwar eine Menge Schriften stehen “welche die Schriftsteller auch noch ausser den jezt im “A. T. erhaltenen benuzten: was sich nirgends so im “ Grossen und Ganzen entdecken lasst, als bei dem Hebraer- “briefe, wenn man diesen richtig zu verstehen weiss. Aber “unsere beiden Biicher geben uns alsdann auch die sicher- “sten Zeugnisse dass als sie geschrieben wurden, schon “Janest ein hoéchst thitiges neues Christliches Schriftthum “von Evangelien und von Briefen gegriindet war. Die zu “ Leipzig, bei Fues, in diesem Jahre herausgekommenen “ Evangelien des Ziirischer Theologen Volkmar fallen schon * dadurch zu Boden; und miissen in Deutschland zu Boden “ fallen, wenn man tiberhaupt unter uns noch ernstlich das “ Christenthum will. Was wollen nun dagegen alle die “neueren und neuesten Faseleien welche noch immer den “ Ursprung der Evangelien weit spiter herabzusezen sich “bemtihen! Méchte man doch, auch dieser entfernteren “ Folgerungen wegen, in unseren Zeiten endlich sorgsamer “werden, um nicht die Beute solcher faselnden Theologer “und roher Philologen zu werden ’’! So much, then, for the modern figment of a “ Higher Criticism,’ according to the opinion of one of the pro- “4 - PREFACE. Xi foundest thinkers, and most learned scholars of Germany, at the present moment. But in addition to the empirical pratings and crude guesses of a hybrid Anglo-German neology, we are threatened with an influx of unbelief from a very different quarter. According to the latest phase of the Anglo-French school of Antichristianism, Christianity, as we see it, is a somewhat recent outgrowth from the teaching of an illiterate Jewish peasant, half impostor, half enthusiast, who propounded a scheme of universal and philanthropic benevolence, but which, apart from its intrinsic excellence, has no substantial basis of authority whatever to rest upon. According to these newest lights, Christianity gradually came into vogue on account of the agreeable and comprehensive principles of humanitarianism which it incul- cated. All its sharply defined dogmas, all its pretensions to be God’s one way of salvation, all its appeals to genuineness, on account of its being the fulfilment of prophecy, are later interpolations, foisted by theologians upon the simple scheme of universal brotherhood which Jesus preached with a fervid simplicity, approaching to fanaticism. The propounders of such a theory must either be very uncandid or very illiterate. To notice it would seem super- fluous, were it not for the persistent endeavours made at the present moment to inculcate it, in a diluted, and less alarming form, from the pulpit and the press, by members of our own Communion. Any one who has read even a few pages of Philo, or Josephus, or of the Targums, or of the earlier Rabbinical writers, must be well aware that an elaborated system of theology, very nearly akin to Christianity, in some respects identical with it, even to its very phraseology, and absolutely depending for its existence upon the historical and prophetical genuineness of the Old Testament writings, was in existence at the very time that Jesus and his Apostles first promulgated his claims to be the Messiah of God. Let any one read, for example, the following passage of Philo, and, remembering the language professedly held by Christ i - X1V PREFACE. and his Apostles, as recorded in the Gospels and Epistles, pronounce judgment upon the validity of the theory that Christianity is a new religion—let him say whether they spoke a new and unintelligible jargon, or whether they adopted and sanctioned a manner of expression accepted and perfectly understood by that larger portion of the Jewish Church and nation which rejected the claims of Jesus to be the Son of God :—Oidtas ovy 7 Wyn yavobetoa, TmoddNaKLS EltrEety OvK éyel, TE TO Yyav@oav avtnv éate SiddoxeTat 5é bTO TOU c , \ , 85 , a ’ ra @ Tr > e tepopavtov Kat tpopytov Mwiceéws, 05 pet, ovTos eaTW O ” id \ sé 7 e aN fal a J apTos, ) Tpopy hv edwxev 6 Ocds TH Wuyi wpocevéyKacbat, TO EAUTOU Pua, KA TOV EavTOU AOYoV' OUTOS yap O apTos OV dédmxev tiv hayety, TOUT TO phua Aéyes dé kal év Aevtepo- VoMIM, Kal ExdKwoé oe, Kal EAwayYOVATE cE, Kal Erapicé Ge TO pavva, 0 ovK HOeLcav of TaTépes cov, wa avayyeldy 4 ’ > \ ” , , DA > es, \ \ g0l, OTL OVK ETL ApTH move CyceTat aVOpwTros, GAN él TavTt pypate exmropevowéevm Sia atowatos Ocod ... . Ilepuroret 5 ipiv cal AUpov, ovK apeThs, adXa TOV ex TaOoUS Kai KaKias cuvlaTapmevov’ Texuyptov de Siatpéper yap Nuas TO yevixw- TaT@ aUTOD AOyO. Tod yap parva éEppnveveTat TL, TODTO €oTL TO YEVLKOTATOV TOV BvTwV" Kal 6 D.oyos 5é TOV Ocod UTrepavw mavTos éoTt TOD Kocpov, Kal mpecBUTaTos Kal yeviKwTATOS Tov boa yéyove. Todtov tov NOyov ovK OELcaV ob TaTépes. 3 / Ss € \ ie) fal vA > > eet. ae A wee es Avayyerreto ody 0 Ocos TH Wuy7,,oTt ovK eT apT@ tal , co, ’ ’ “4 Ss ry \ \ ey pove CiceTat 6 avOpwros KaT ElKOVa, AX ETL TavTL pnuate TO ExTropevopev@ Ova oTOMaTOs Oeod’ Tovtéote Kat Oia TaVTOS TOD Noyou TpadyjceTat, Kal Sua pépous avTod. Tod pév yap Uy VA an / \ Nein / > a / atopa cbmPorov Tov Adyou, TO dé pha pépos adTod. Tpéderat be n \ Xr / 5 m3 \ On fal XO ‘ > ne € TOV pev TEAELOTEpwY 1) ux?) CAM TO OYO’ ayaTHTALMEV S dv iets, ef kal wépec tpapeinuev avtov. ‘So also the soul, “‘ when it rejoices, is oftentimes unable to describe the cause “of its joy. But it is explained by Moses, the priest and “ prophet, who says: This is the bread, the food which God “ has given to the soul to appropriate to itself, viz., his own “ utterances and his own Worp. For this is the bread which “ We has given to us to eat, viz., his utterances. For he PREFACE. XV “ says in Deuteronomy, He afflicted thee, and suffered thee “to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thy fathers “knew not, in order that He might inform thee that man “ does not live by bread only, but by every word that pro- “ ceedeth out of the mouth of God...... He brings “ hunger upon us, not of virtue, but that which arises from “ our passions and eyil dispositions. The proof of this is, “ that He nourishes us with his most general Worp. For the “manna is interpreted What is it ? That is, the most general “ of all things that exist. And the Worn of God is above “ the whole universe, and the eldest and most general of all * things created whatsoever. This Worp our fathers did not PMO is.) Pa Let God therefore inform the soul, that * man, who was created in his image, does not live by bread “ only, but by every word (or utterance) that proceedeth out “ of the mouth of God. That is to say, he shall be nourished “ by the whole Worp, and by his parts also. For the expres- * sion ‘mouth’ is symbolical of the Worp, but the utterance “ (pnua) is a part of it. The soul, then, of the more perfect * sort of men is nourished by the whole Worp, but we should “ be desirous to be fed even with a part thereof.’’ (Philo, SS. Leg. Alleg., lib. ui., Works, Mangey’s Edit., tom. i., pp. 121, 122.) What a train of reflections does the perusal of a passage like the above awaken! On first reading it, we might suppose that it proceeded from a Christian source, and that it contained repeated allusions to the very words of our Saviour himself. But it is not so. These are the words of an Alexandrian Jew, who, about A.p. 40, was sent on an embassy from his nation to Caligula at Rome, and who probably never heard the name of his Judean compatriot and contemporary Jesus mentioned. How comes it, then, that the phraseology and teaching of Philo the Alexandrian, the accomplished and Greek-speaking Jew, and of Jesus the lowly-born prophet of Nazareth, are so striking in their resemblance to each other? But one answer can be given to the question. Their systems of Theology were in the main identical. Jesus Xvi ; PREFACE. taught no new religion. He taught the old one with Divine authority. He enforced it, He illustrated it, He adorned it with the authority and sanction of his spotless example and lifegiving doctrine. This, then, has been one main object which I have kept steadily before me in writing the present commentary, viz., to show that our Faith, as we profess it, is as ancient as the patriarcbs; that it is the “one faith” of which the Apostle speaks; that our Lord Jesus Christ pro- pounded no new religion, as is so often foolishly asserted ; but that He and his followers claimed to rest upon the old foundation, and put no novel interpretations upon either the prophetical, or historical, or doctrinal writings of the Old Testament. Our Lord came not to innovate, but to restore. He came not to destroy, but to fulfil. I have, therefore, endeavoured in this little work to point the student to the now sadly neglected and forgotten sources of the earliest Christian interpretations. J hope that I have succeeded in getting together a tolerable number of curious and conclusive proofs that, upon many, if not most religious topics, the Hebrew-speaking and the Greek-speaking branches of the early Jewish Church were at one with ourselves, in the first ages of Christianity. If this can be satisfactorily established, as I feel persuaded it can be, then all the mischievous and illiterate insinuations of the present day, respecting the gradual development of Christianity and her creeds, from such a source as I have described on p. vi., collapse at once.—Meanwhile we occupy this vantage-ground in reference to our controversy with our unbaptized and unbelieving Jewish brethren—we can say to them, “It is we “who hold the doctrines entertained by the Pharisees and “ their disciples respecting the nature and Divinity of the “ Messiah. It is you who, in order to neutralize the pre- “tensions of Jesus of Nazareth, have departed from the “ancient Jewish Canon of Interpretation held by such * Doctors of the Law as Gamaliel and his contemporaries, “and which are preserved to us in the Targums, in the book PREFACE. XVil “Sohar, in the Mishna, in the Talmuds, and in a vast “ number of other ancient Hebrew writings.”’ One word in conclusion. I have, in various portions of this work, stated my conviction that the Epistle to the Hebrews is the work of St. Paul. The alleged discrepancies of style in this Epistle, and the style of the acknowledged writings of the great Apostle, present no insuperable diffi- culty tomy mind. The difference of subject, the difference of handling, above all, the nature of the treatise itself, are quite sufficient to account for any dissimilarity of style. The composition of such an Epistle as the present would be to St. Paul indeed a labour of love. Upon it he would expend all the resources of his mighty and versatile genius. He who could write (Rom. ix. 1—5), “ I say the truth in Christ, “T lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the “ Holy Ghost, that I have great heaviness and continual “sorrow in my heart. For I could wish myself accursed “ (avd0eua) from Christ, for my brethren, my kinsmen “ according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom per- “ taineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and “ the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the “ promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom, as con- “cerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God, “blessed for ever. Amen.’’—He, I say, who could thus write, would spare no pains to lay before his kinsmen a treatise as persuasively attractive in style, as well as con- vincing in argument, as he was capable of producing. If he thus mourned over his brethren, who were yet strangers to Christ, doubly near to his heart would it be to reconvince the wavering, and, if possible, to reclaim the apostates. I cannot help believing that the Epistle was originally written in Greek, although Dean Alford’s assertion that the author’s citations are from the LXX. version, “ even where no corre- “ sponding terms are found in the Hebrew text,’’ conveys an erroneous impression. First of all, the Writer does not slavishly copy from the LX.X.; secondly, the “ corresponding c XVill PREFACE. “ terms,”’ although not the eract words, are always found in the Hebrew text. I cannot believe, with Dean Alford, that the Writer was “not a pure Jew, speaking and quoting Hebrew, but a “ Hellenist ; a Jew brought up in Greek habits of thought, “and in the constant use of the LXX. version.’? A one- sided and partial, if not a second-hand acquaintance with the writings of Philo, without even a corresponding know- ledge of the theological writings of the earlier Rabbinical authorities, has led to the elaboration of a baseless theory that the Hellenistic Jews differed widely from their Hebrew- speaking brethren in their religious opinions and modes of expression. Not only the Epistle to the Hebrews, but the other writings of the New Testament, exhibit a marked correspondence with (not, as I take it) the sentiments of Philo, but with the universal Jewish habit of thought which is to be found exemplified in Philo’s writings. The Jews of Palestine, in our Lord’s day, were not ignorant of the fact that the LXX. version proceeded from an unimpeachably Jewish source. The familiar use that is made of it by the New Testament writers would be unaccountable, if it were then held in such disrepute amongst the Hebrew-speaking Jews, as some would have us to believe. May it not have occupied, by toleration, if not by acceptance, in Palestine, the position of a Greek Tarcum of the original Scriptures? When, however, the Messianic controversy between Jews and Christians brought out into prominent relief a limited number of interpretations, which were authoritatively adopted from the LX.X. by the Apostles, as giving the true mind of the Holy Ghost, ¢.e., the inspired signification of the Hebrew text, then the L.XX. version would be gradually disowned by the Rabbinical Jews. On p. 141 I have given an illustra- tion from the Chizzuk Emunah, in which R. Isaac ignorantly accuses St. Paul of altering the text of Ps. xl., in Hebrews x. 8, tosuit his own views, whereas he only accepted the inter- pretation of the Greek-speaking branch of the Jewish Church. PREFACE. x1x That the Jews of Jerusalem were not unaccustomed to the familiar and conversational use of the Greek language is plain from Acts xxii. 2. The populace of the Holy City expected that St. Paul was about to address them in Greek, but “ when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue “ to them, they kept the more silence.”’ As to the Writer to the Hebrews having imported the doctrine of the Logos into his Epistle from Philo, I have disposed of so unfounded an assertion in note 2, on pp. 174,175. Furthermore, this doctrine of the Logos (myn 727) was not borrowed from the Greek Philosophy by the Jews, but was derived, doubtless, from the Jewish Scriptures and the Jewish Theology by the heathen searchers after truth. When we consider that the seed of Abraham were, in turn, brought into contact with all the civilized and imperial nations of the old world, and that God, by supERNATURAL interposition (I am one of the old-fashioned that believe in miracles), repeatedly stamped their religion with his authoritative sanction, it is not difficult to perceive that their theological tenets and sacred books must have awakened a respectful curiosity in the philosophers of all times. (See Prideaux’s Connevion, vol. i1., pp. 28, 29. Tege’s edition, 1845, 8vo.) Aristobulus, an Alexandrian Jew, and a Peripatetic philosopher (B.c. 125), asserts that the Scriptures had been, for the most part, translated into Greek before the times of Alexander and the Persian monarchy. He also states, what is indubitably true, “that Pythagoras, * Plato, and other Grecians, had taken most of their philo- “ sophy from the Hebrew Scriptures.’’? Be it also observed that Josephus, who wasa priest, and originally a Pharisee (Antig. xi. 2, 6), casts no slur on the LXX. version of the Scriptures, but-relates as authentic the story that it was made by men, selected by Eleazar the high priest at Jerusalem, who were sent by him, with a copy of the law, to Egypt, for the purpose of translating it into Greek. On p. 201 (and passim) I have also called attention to the correspond- ence between the opinions of Philo (quoted on p. 179 and xX PREFACE. elsewhere) and those of the earlier Talmudical and Rabbinical writers.—'The Writer, then, of this Epistle, was a Hebrew of the Hebrews, writing to his Hebrew compatriots in Palestine. He was well versed in all the Pharisaic glosses upon the Sacred Text, as well as in the Alexandrian refine- ments upon the sentiments of their, perhaps, less polished and more downright Hebrew kinsmen. There is, moreover, apparent, in every line of the Epistle, that distinctive gravity and authoritative weight which distinguishes the Apostolic writings from all mere human compositions. Place it side by side with any portion of Holy Writ, either of the Old Testament or the New, and it will amply support its just claim to be considered a portion of the inspired Worp oF Gop. It speaks in no hesitating tones. It appeals not for corroboration to any human tribunal of opinion. In the master-tones of Divine authority, it claims reverential obedi- ence, and whenever the distinctively human element comes out into prominent notice, the characteristic attributes of St. Paul are evermore apparent. But, whilst giving to the natural phenomena of any Scriptural composition their due weight, I would urge upon my readers, in this unbelieving age of cavils, and “ philosophy falsely so called,’ not to forget that it is the teaching of the Church of England (whose Articles I have subscribed), that all Holy Scripture is written by inspiration of God. Holy men wrote, of old time, as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Here, then, to BELIEVERS, is a sufficient explanation of the exceptional phenomena of any separate portion of God’s Word. Such an assertion will, doubtless, excite a derisive smile in those who are prudent in their own eyes, and learned in their own sight. But I am not ashamed of any ridicule which such an unphilosophic proposition may awaken. I look upon the Word of God as differing from all merely human compositions. Other books have been written, according to the caprice or limited information of their authors. With the Bible, if it be the Word of the Gon or TruTH, it is not so. To assert PREFACE. XX1 that there are “discrepancies? in the words dictated by the Sprrit oF TRurTH, is nothing short of blasphemy. It is either a hypocritical assumption of reverential respect for writings which we believe to be erroneous, thus to speak of them as “the Word of God,’ or else it indicates a miserable concep- tion of God’s infallible knowledge. Would to God that the clergy of the Church of England would at last awake to a perception of the “heavenly treasure’? committed to their custody! We are not expounders of a book (however vener- able) replete with the peculiarities of human infirmity. We have in our hands the “ OracLes oF Gop,’’ which have stood the test, and survived the hostile ingenuity of centuries of pretended “ criticism.’ That “ criticism,’ upon being brought to the test of real scholarship, resolves itself into the individual opinion of experimenters, more or less qualified for the task which they have undertaken. Nothing has ever been adduced in modern times, of sufficient authority to reverse the testimony of nearly nineteen centuries of fiery trial and patient investigation. The charge of ignorance against the old school of interpretation is singularly unsuit- able in the mouths of pretended professors of a “ HIGHER “ crITIcIsM,’’ especially in England. They are ignorant not only of the elementary features of the Sacred Text of the Original Scriptures, but they demonstrate their unacquaint- ance with the fact that there exists a vast and profoundly learned literature in Hebrew, Latin, and English, in which all the real and supposed difficulties, which they complacently proclaim as recent discoveries, are treated of, and calmly discussed, with the dignified propriety of a real erudition, that is evermore distinguished by its MODESTY. POSTSCRIPT TO THE PREFACE. As it is important that it should be understood, how far the charge of Platonism, alleged against Philo, affects his belief in the Divine authority and inspiration of the Scriptures, I have thought it desirable to allow him to speak for himself, upon a matter of such paramount interest. The reader will see that he delivers his opinion in no faltering tones, as to the supernatural guidance, and prompting influences, under which the prophets of old discharged their embassage from God. He writes as follows (Quis Rerwn Divinarum Heres, Works, Mangey, tom.i., pp. 510, 511) :— “The fourth form (of prophetic ecstasy) is exemplified in the passage “ which we are now examining (Gen. xv. 12), And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep (€xatacts) fell upon Abraham, i.e., the condition of ‘one who is in a prophetic trance and under the Divine influence “(€yOovaravros kat Oeoopyrov rd mdOos). It is not, however, this cir- “ cumstance alone that proves him to have been a prophet, but it is so “written concerning him, in express terms, in the sacred books. For *‘ when one attempted to separate his natural virtue (7.e¢., Sarah) from “him (as if it were not the natural possession of a wise man alone, and “could belong to every pretender to prudence), it is said (Gen. xx. 7), “ Restore the man his wife, for he is a prophet, and he shall pray for thee, “and thou shalt live. Moreover, the Sacred Word ascribes prophecy “to every good (dorei») man.* For a prophet enunciates nothing of “his own (idiov pev ovdev dnopbéyyera), but entirely the things of “another, who suggests them to him. But it is not in accordance with “the eternal fitness of things that a wicked man should be one of God’s “interpreters ; wherefore no bad man can be said to be Divinely “inspired. Such an expression is applicable to none but a wise man. * Philo’s meaning, from the context, appears to be that Scripture restricts the gift of prophecy to good men. POSTSCRIPT TO THE PREFACE. Xxill “ For he is only an instrument that emits the voice of God (épyavoy “ Ge0d éotw 7yxodv), being invisibly touched and played upon by Him. ‘« All, therefore, whom He has enrolled amongst the ‘just’ (érdcous “ dveypaye Sixaiovs) are instanced as inspired and prophesying (karexo- “« uévous kai mpodytevortas eionyaye). Noah was a ‘just’ man, and was “he not also a prophet? Or did he pronounce the blessings and the “curses which he uttered respecting future generations, and which “were verified by the events, without inspiration ? What of Isaac and “ of Jacob ? - They are admitted to have prophesied, for many reasons, “but especially on account of their predictions concerning their pos- “terity. For those words (Gen. xlix. 2), Gather yourselves together, “that I may tell you that which shall befall you in the last days, “were the words of one that was inspired (évOovo.dytos jv), for the “perception of futurity is no natural attribute of aman. What again “of Moses? Is he not celebrated everywhere as a prophet? For it is “ said (Aéyes yap— Numb. xii. 5), If there be a prophet of the Lord among “ you, I will make myself known unto him in a vision: but to Moses I “will speak, apparently, and not in dark speeches (ev cider kai ov dv “ aimypdarov). And again (Deut. xxxiv. 10), There arose not a prophet “ like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face. Excellently well, there- “fore, He signifies that (Abraham) was under the prophetic afilatus, “‘ when he says (Gen. xv. 12), When the sun was going down a deep sleep “ (&koraous) fell upon him. Under the figure of the sun, he symbolises “the human mind (rdv jpérepov vodv). For our reasoning powers answer “ to the sun in the universe, inasmuch as they both are luminaries; the “one emitting perceptible light to every one, the other giving us that “illumination which is mentally discerned. As long, therefore, as our “‘ mind (voids) shines forth, and sheds abroad a light like the noonday sun “through our whole soul, we remain master of our faculties, and are “not inspired (év éavrois dvres, od karexdueba). But when sunset “‘ approaches, as might be expected, the Divine ecstasy and the pro- “ phetical furor ensue. For when the Divine light shines in its bright- “ness, the human light sets; but when the former wanes, the latter “revives and rises again, But this is what is wont to happen to the ‘“‘race of the prophets. For our own reasoning faculty (vovs) departs “from us when the Divine Spirit comes in, and when the latter takes “its leave, the former resumes its indwelling. For it would be contrary “to eternal fitness, that that which is mortal should dwell together with “the immortal. Therefore the sunset of the reasoning faculty (rod “ Xoy:opod) and the accompanying darkness produced (in Abraham) the “ condition of ecstacy and Divine furor (@eofépyrov paviay). But the “consequence is intimated in the Scripture, inasmuch as it states, It XXIV POSTSCRIPT TO THE PREFACE. “was said to Abraham. For assuredly the prophet, when he apparently “speaks, in reality keeps silence; for another (ze, God’s Spirit) ‘appropriates to his own use his vocal organs, his mouth and tongue, “to signify whatsoever it pleases Him. He strikes them, as it were, “ with invisible and musical skill, and produces results replete with a “tuneful and harmonious symphony.” Consult also p. 483, and De Migr. Abrahami, ibid., p. 442, and also tom. ii., pp. 124, 222, 348, 417. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE TO CHAP. II. 6—9. In John vy. 26, 27, our Lord says, “For as the Father “hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have “life in himself; and hath given him authority to execute “judgment also, because he is the Son or MAN.”’ It appears to me, that the Writer’s application of the words of Ps. viii. 4—6, to the Lord Jesus Christ, gives the real clue to this difficult expression, “ What is man that thou art mindful of “him, and the Son of man that thou visitest him. : “ Thou hast put all things under his feet,”? &&. Our Lord’s words would then indicate, ‘“ Because he is the representative “Son or man” spoken of by David in the 8th Psalm. Compare also, Dan. vii. 13. t THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. Tur Epistle to the Hebrews, or more correctly according to the title, “the Epistle to Hebrews” er Jews, partakes of a twofold character. It is an epistola consolatoria and also an epistola commoni- toria. It is addressed to Jewish converts. They were evidently suffering from the persecution of their unbelieving brethren, who also twitted them with having abandoned the religion of their ances- tors, and, by so doing, voluntarily excluded them- selves from participation in the consolations of the prophetic writings, in the glorious temple worship, the sacrifices, the Aaronic priesthood, and the covenanted privileges secured for ever to the chil- dren of Abraham. From the construction of the Epistle, it is plain that the Jewish polity had not yet come to an end. The writer speaks of the temple as still standing, of the priests as still per- forming their sacrificial functions, of the Mosaic law as being éyyis agavicpod, i.e., near to disappear- ance, or “ready to vanish away.’ Had the case been otherwise, the arguments adduced would have B 2 been drawn from the fact of the ancient régime having been abolished. There would have been no occasion for the elaborate deductions drawn from the Scriptures to indicate the impending changes. But then, also, in all probability, the Christian controversialist would have been deprived of one of the most conclusive and subtle pieces of argumenta- tion against Jewish cavils that ever was penned. The Epistle to the Hebrews is at the present moment a handbook, based upon ancient Rabbinic interpretation, of the points at issue between the believers in the claims of Jesus of Nazareth and those who suppose that the Mosaic dispensation is only temporarily suspended on account of the sins of the Jewish nation, and will yet be restored to its primitive splendour, with its august apparatus of sacrifice and temple-worship. The object of the writer is to show that the Christian Israelites had made no mistake ; that they had gained everything, instead of losing by their acceptance of Jesus ; that the Mosaic dispensation was only the type and prelude to the Christian. That it had had its day, and is now superseded by the “thing signified” with its “far more exceeding weight of glory.” From the allusions to apostacy in the course of the Epistle, it is plain that the faith of some of the converts had not been proof against the arguments and entreaties and persecutions of their unbelieving kinsmen. ‘To any one acquainted with the intensity of bitterness exhibited by the adherents of Judaism towards those who have embraced Christianity, this will awaken but little surprise. No sacrifices are ' =a deemed too costly to induce the “ destroyed ones,” for so the converts are termed, to abjure their new faith. If they continue steadfast, they are regarded by their relatives as socially dead. The mention of their names is forbidden in the family circle; per- sonal violence is not unfrequently resorted to. Their very lives are in jeopardy from the bigoted and fanatical abhorrence wherewith they are re- garded by their nearest kinsmen.* Against such fiery trial the faith of certain of those mentioned in this Epistle had proved too weak. Many of those that remained unpersuaded, but not unmoved, were in a wavering and despond- ing frame of mind. The odium and obloquy which they daily endured had produced a most depressing 1 The implacable persecutions which the celebrated Uriel Dacosta met with, and the disgraceful treatment which he experienced on the occasion of his public abjuration of Christianity in the synagogue at Amsterdam, so preyed upon his mind that he committed suicide by blowing out his brains with a pistol. The narrative of his sufferings and recantation is related in G. B. de Rossi’s Dizionario storico degli autori Ebret e delle loro opere (Vol. 1, p. 37. Parma, 1802. 8vo.) After undergoing a thousand indescribable insults and cruel injuries, and enduring two several excommunications, the second of which lasted for a period of seven years, he was finally persuaded to read a recanta- tion in the synagogue. On the day appointed he presented himself, attired in mourning, with a lighted taper in his hand, and ascended the pulpit to read his renunciation of Christianity. This done, he was taken in a corner and stripped of his garments, all but his girdle, and tied to a pillar, when he was savagely scourged. He was then com- pelled to lie down in the doorway whilst the entire congregation passed over his body, trampling him under foot and spitting upon him. Stung to the quick by such unexpectedly barbarous and outrageous treatment, and the public infamy to which he had been subjected, he shortly after terminated his career by his own hand, as above described, in the mouth of April, 1647. 4 effect. The entreaties of parents and relatives, the scornful demeanour of their former acquaintances, the exclusions from the family circle, the perpetual annoyances and spiteful persecutions by which they were surrounded, rendered a letter such as the present Hpistle particularly seasonable. Exception has been taken against its Pauline authorship, from the omission of St. Paul’s habitual statement of his apostleship. This circumstance, to my own mind, is a conclusive demonstration that the writer, whoever he may have been, knew per- fectly how to adapt himself to the frame of mind and the peculiar position of those to whom he wrote. The question at issue was not whether the writer was an Apostle of Jesus Christ, but whether Jesus Christ had any claim to be heard as the Messiah of God. The very statement of such a commission, unless preliminarily enforced by the most valid and irrefragable proofs, drawn from accepted Hebrew expositions of the Old Testament writings, would be a fatal objection to the Jewish mind. The dis- ciple of Rabbinism would take his stand upon the express injunctions of Moses contained in Deut. xiii. 1—5 :—“If there arise among you a prophet, or a “dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a ‘“‘ wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass, “whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go ‘after other gods, which thou hast not known, and “ let us serve them; thou shalt not hearken unto “the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of “dreams: for the Lord your God proveth you, to ‘* know whether ye love the Lord your God with all 5 “ your heart and with all your soul. Ye shall walk “ after the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep “his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye ** shall serve him, and cleave unto him. And that ‘* prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put ‘to death; because he hath spoken to turn you “away from the Lord your God, which brought “you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of “the way which the Lord thy God commanded thee “to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from “ the midst of thee.” Now this was no mere ideal obstacle in the way of the Gospel of Christ. It exists to this very day, in all its original force and intensity, amongst the unbelieving Israelites. And this was what our Lord Himself referred to when He assured the disciples that the time should come in which those that killed them should think that they were doing God a ser- vice. St. Paul himself (Rom. x. 2) bears his Jewish kinsmen record that they “ have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.’' Such deep-seated and apparently well-founded prejudices could na . ‘6 ' Viewed from a Rabbinic point of view (by the light of Deut. xiii.) the judicial murder of Stephen and of Christ and St. Paul’s persecuting zeal against his converted brethren and sisters, were not only justifiable but meritorious ; and on the authority of the above chapter of Deut. the Vizzachon Vetus, an ancient Jewish handbook of the points at issue between Jews and Christians, glories in the Saviour’s crucifixion. YOR WON JD OT YT MDM MI WY MOY ax NID NWT OD PT Ww WRX PR 7Ny yea wT yoy pV TIAN ANT dD POR yown XO ANN Nd TWD ** Now not only did Jesus say that he was a prophet, but he also “made himself God, and seduced his brethren. Therefore Moses spake 6 only be met and removed by arguments drawn from the Scriptures themselves to which the Jews appealed in vindication of their unbelief. To in- quire into the religion of Jesus was considered a violation of the commandments of Moses. To hint that any portion of the ceremonial law would ever cease to be obligatory was not only high treason against God, but a grave insult to the national institution, upon the minute observance of which their political existence depended. The statement of his apostleship by the writer would, therefore, have been to place a preliminary obstacle in the way of obtaining a hearing. It would have been, so to speak, a petitio principu. To commence witha statement of the personal claims of Jesus of Naza- reth would have been scarcely less objectionable. The controversy at issue rested upon a far broader basis, viz., the testimony of the Scriptures to the fact that the old dispensation would run its course, be superseded by a new and a better one, and thus altogether fall into abeyance. Before obtaining a hearing at all, therefore, the writer knew that he must distinctly establish Scriptural and prophetic declarations, and these according to accepted Rab- binic interpretations, of the coming transition from the covenant of Moses to the better covenant of Christ. The question was not, are the claims of Jesus to be the Messiah plausible? but, are they “concerning him (Deut. xiii. 8), Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor “hearken unto him, but shalt surely kill him. And this also they did, “hanging him upon a tree.”—WVizzachon Vetus, p. 50, Wagenseil, Tela Ignea Satanae. ~y ‘ contained in, and proved by, the Old Testament Scriptures, whose inspired authority is, to Chris- tians as well as Jews, an end of all controversy ? In the first verse, therefore, in his opening words, he strikes the key-note of the strain that runs throughout the entire Epistle. He disposes of the question of authority.* * The tone and mode of our Lord’s teaching was totally different from that of the Scribes. He taught as one efouciay ¢xav, having authority ; e.g., “ Verily, verily, I say unto you,” and not ‘Rabbi , ‘So and So’ says,” or “our elders have taught.” This decisive and | infallible authority our Lord imparted to his Apostles. With us Christians their dicta ought to be the end of all controversy, as express- ing the mind of the Holy Ghost; but with the unbelieving Jews, the case is altogether different. They must first be convinced that we are “not following cunningly devised fables,” and that Jesus of Nazareth | was neither an enthusiast, nor an impostor, but the Christ of God, the Divine Messiah, spoken of “by the mouth of all the holy Prophets, since the world began.” CHAPTER I. Verses 1, 2.—In manifold apportionments, and in a variety of ways,’ in the olden time (7dAac), God having spoken to the fathers by (év)? the prophets, in these last days* hath spoken to us by (€v vid) his Son, whom He hath appointed heir of all things (Ps. ii. 7, 8) ; by whom, also, he made the werlds.‘ 1 TloAupepas cal modutpdras, AMultipliciter e Multis Modis. J. C. Wolfius. Cure Phil et Crit. Tom. iv. p. 596. The Writer contrasts the delegated authority with which the prophets spoke, as (and at what time) they were moved by the Holy Ghost, with the completeness and integrity of Christ’s power to speak in his Father’s name. They delivered their message as ambassadors when the Divine afflatus came upon them, and when the message was put into their mouths. In Christ, however, dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. He spoke as one having authority, and to whom ail power in heaven and earth was committed. J. C. Wolfius observes, ibid., p. 597, “ 76 “ godurpémes vero, varios revelationis divine modos infert. Horum “ quinque nonulli appellant, nempe ANIMA in visione, DYNA in somnis, “arm in enigmate, cum aliud apparet, aliud innuitur, nna in figura, “ cum rerum imagines apparent, ac denique 151 sive allocutione divina.” Schoettgen divides the tpézous of prophecy as follows. The first the Patriarchal, supplemented later, by the Covenant of Circumcision, Secondly, that commencing at the Exodus, in which God spake by the additional medium of symbols and rites, ¢g., the Paschal Lamb, &e., to which, in the time of the Judges, a “ zépos quoddam ” was added, viz., in the Schools of the Prophets. This rpdéros, he says, lasted, with intervals, up to the time of the Babylonish Captivity ; but certain pépy were withdrawn, ¢.g., the Shechinah, the Urim and Thum- mim, as well as the gift of prophecy. Then followed the completed volume of the Old Testament Scriptures, after the gift of prophecy had ceased, to which, when needful, was added the Bath Kol (yp na daughter CHAP, I, 1; 2: 9 of a voice), 2.e., a voice from heaven, and which was sent, not to pro- pound new doctrines, but to admonish the Jews as to what to do upon occasions of urgent emergency. * ev rots mpopyrais, O'N’223, including the ministration of angels, Those were days of prediction, these are days of fulfilment. * er eoxaTov Tov juepov TovTav. Some MSS. read, én éoyxdrov, k..d. These words are equivalent to the Hebrew expression, D7 nNNa, Le., “the latter days,” or, the closing days of this earthly dispensation. As Nachmanides observes on Genesis xlix. 1, ma DOT MNN2 597 MIT 1D ot mwot— For by universal consent, i the last days, are the days of “Messiah.” So, also, Kimchi and Abarbanel. (See further in J. Rhen- Jerdij Dissertat. 1, de Seculo Futuro. Meuschen, XW. Test. ex Talmude alustr., p. 1122, &e.) The Targum of Onkelos translates Gen. xlix. 10, “until Shiloh come,” by “ until Messiah come.” So also the Targum of Jonathan, “ until the king Messiah come,” adding, “ How beauteous “*is the king, the Messiah, who will arise from the house of Judah!” * Ae of kat Tovs ai@vas eroincev, and so the Jewish writers speak of God as oY NI, and OMY NVI. See Schoettgen, Hore Hebraice, tom. i., p- 911 ; Wolfius, tom. iv., p. 601, 602. Philo again and again asserts that the world was made by the Word of God, e.g., Adyos 5€ éorw eikoyv Ocod bu’ ob cvprras 6 Kdopos ednurovpyetro— But the Word is the ‘image of God, by whom the whole world was framed,” —De Monarchia, Works, Mangey’s edit., vol. ii., p. 225. Again, in reference to Gen. ii. 4, he observes (S. S. Legum Allegor., lib. i. ; Works, vol. i., p. 47), TO yap mepupavertdt@ Kat tydavyeotdt@ éavtéu Ady, pyyate 6 O€os aupdrepa mrovet—* For by his most illustrious and splendid Word, by a word, God created both,” (se. ideam intel- lectiis, which he compares to heaven, and ideam sensés, which he likens to earth). Again, ibid., p. 106, ox. Ccod dé 6 Adyos aitod eoTW, @ kabdrep opyava mporxnodpuevos, ekooporroie.—“ But the shadow of God “is his Word, by which, having used it as an instrument, He made the “world.” Again (De Cherubim, ibid., p. 162), ebpnoes...... OPyQvov....+ Adyov Geod, bv ov KateckevacOn’ THs Se Karackevis airiay, thy ayabdtnTa TOU Snprovpyou—* But thou wilt find...... the instrument by which it was ‘* planned to be the Word of God, but the cause of its plan, the benevo- “ lence of the Founder.” So also (de Migratione Abrahami, ibid., p. 437), Tis dy ody etn, TARY 6 NOyos 6 mpecBitepos Ta yeverw eiAnPdtar, ob KaBdreEp olakos éveiAnupevos 6 TOV Odov KYBEepynTns mNdSadLoOVXEL TA GUTavTa, Kai Ore ékoopormAdorel, xpnoapevos dpyave ToUT@ Tpos THY avuTraitLoy THY aTroTEA- ovpévev avatacw—“ What else can it therefore be except the Word, *‘ which is the eldest of things that received a being, of which He who “ steers all things, having taken hold of, pilots all the universes, as with Cc 10 CHAP» Te a4. ‘a helm? And when He framed the worlds, Tle made use of this “ instrument to put together and complete his faultless work.” Again, the Jerusalem Targum reads in Gen. i. 27, ‘ And the Word “of the Lord created man in his likeness, in the likeness of the “* presence of the Lord He created him.” So, also, in Gen. iii. 8, the Targum of Jonathan or Palestine has, ‘‘ And they heard the voice of “the Word of the Lord walking,” &¢. Whilst the Jerusalem Targum has, in verse 7, ‘‘ And the Word of the Lord God called,” &c. Again, in Gen. iii. 22, the Jerusalem Targum paraphrases, ‘‘ And the Word of “ the Lord God said, Behold, Adam whom I have created,” &c. Verses 3, 4.—Who being the brightness of his glory’ and the express image” of his person, and upholding ® all things by the Word (7@ prac) of his power, having by himself made purification of our sins, sat down (Ps. cx. 1) on the right hand of the majesty on high.* Being made so much better than the angels, in proportion as he has obtained, by inheritance, a more excellent name than they. ’ aravyacpa tis Séns. Schoettgen rightly refers this expression to the glory of the Shechinah, whereby the Second person of the ever Blessed Trinity manifested Himself on the mercy seat. (See Heb. ix. 5.) He says that the Hebrews have three modes of expression, which exactly answer to the above, viz., sp’ 1 splendor glorie, used in the Targum of Onkelos (Exod. xxxiv. 29, and Deut. xxxiv. 7) of the glory of Moses’ face. Secondly, prpsx 1 splendor imaginis sive facie’, quod convenit cum voce dmdvyacpua, It occurs in Lereshith Rabba in reference to Gen. xxi. 2. YANN YH payr vs mw Wn, We learn that he (Isaac) was the splendor of his (Abraham’s) face, and that he was like him. Thirdly, mo.» rno>p written also yD, similitudo cum splendore conjuncta, ex unius facie in alterius faciem derivata, e.g., HYIw bw DW INDIp, amavyacpa Schechine. (Midrasch Echa in Sohar Chadash, fol. 71, 4, &c.) Schoettgen observes that dravyacwa means, “ splendorem ex alia quadam luce derivatum, “ qui tamen ejusdem cum illa est essentiz,” and shows how pregnant in meaning these four words of the writer to the Hebrews are respecting the divinity of Christ. First, as asserting that He emanated from the essence of the Father. 2. That Christ having been begotten of the essence of the Father, is of the same essence. 3. That He is a person distinct from the Father. 4, That He is coeternal with the Father. (Hore Hebraice, tom, iii., pp. 911—919.) See also J. C. Wolfius, Cure Phil., tom. iv., pp. 608, 604. CHAP. I., 3, 4. 11 ® yapakryp tis Uroordcews airév' Philo uses very similar language in reference to the Eternal Word, ¢.g., “‘O S irepdvw rovray Adyos Oeios eis Opariy ovk HAOev iSéav, dre pydevi Tay Kar’ aicbnow epepis ov, add’ adtos eikav indpyov Ocdv, Tov vontdv dragardvtev 6 mpecBiraros, 6 éyyuTdta, pndevds dvros peOopiov SuaatHpatos, TOD pdvou 6 eat a\yevdds, apidpupevos. “ But he who is above these, viz., the Divine Word, never comes into “visible shape ; since he is comparable to nothing perceptible with the “ senses. But he is the image of God, the eldest of all things soever “ which can be mentally discerned. The closest copy of Him who “ alone truly is, since there is no separating interval between him.”— De Profugis, Mang. Works, tom. i., p. 561. See also De Mundi opificio, ibid., pp. 6, 7. Deterius potiori insidiatur, ibid., p. 207. °O 8€ O} peyas Moiiojs oder ray yeyovdrav tis oytkijs Wuxijs TO €idos Spolas dvépacev, GAN ecirev adtny rou Oeiov Kal dopdrou beod ékeivou «ikdva, SdKyov etvar vopioas is ctwOe Kai ruT@bey odpayida Geod, Hs 6 Xapakthp €oTw 6 aidtos Adyos. ‘* Moses the Great has not, in like manner, “ noticed the likeness of the reasonable soul to any one of created things. “On the contrary, he said that it was the image of the Divine and “Invisible God, accounting it a proof and impression struck by the “¢ customary seal of God, the engraving whereof is the Eternal Word.”— De Mundo, Works, vol. ii., pp. 605, 606. See also in the Fragments from Eusebius, ibid, p. 625, where a passage from Philo is quoted in which he says that man was not, and could not, be “ made in the image” of the Father of all things, but that this expression means that he was made like ‘to the Second God, “ which is his Word” (aAXG mpos tov Sevtepov Gedy, bs Eat exeivou Adyos). 8 dépov te, k.7.A. Schoettgen gives the following illustrations from the Rabbinical writers. In Bereshith Rabba, sect. 22, fol. 23, 2, Cain is represented as addressing God thus—5n0 Ans on) Dwi? “ Thou ‘‘ ypholdest things above and beneath.” Schemoth Rabba, sect. 19, fol. 118, 3, ynm2 5D Nw “This is He “ who upholds his creatures.” Ibid., sect. 36, fol. 133, 4, yon bap ma/pn “ The Holy One, Blessed be “ He, upholds his world.” Again in the D5y27 win, in the Sohar Chadash, fol. 9,1, “The Holy “One, Blessed be He, 121 nya 53 520 upholds all the worlds by his “ strength.” —Schoettgen, ibid., p. 919. The doctrine that the universes are upheld and governed by the Word of God is asserted again and again by Philo, e.g., 6 mydadwodyos kai kuBepyntns T6u mavTos Adyos Oeios. “The helmsman and pilot of all “things, viz. the Divine Word.’—Philo de Cherubim, Works, vol. i., p. 145, 12 CHAP. L., 3, 4. Again, when speaking of the rise and fall of nations, he attributes the administration of the world to God’s Word. xopever yap ev Kiko Aéyos 6 Oeios, dy of woAAOL THY avOparev dvopdfovar tvxnv. “The Divine * Word makes circuits (of the universes), whom the majority of men “ designate Fortune.’—Quod Deus sit immutabilis, ibid., p. 298. Further, on Gen. xxxi. 13, “I am the God of Bethel, where thou “ anointedst the pillar,’ &c. Philo writes, ro & éemiypappa eunvedver, ore povos €otnka eyo, Kal Thy Tavr@yv pvow idpycdpny, thy ara€iay Kal dkoopiay eis raéw Kal Kdopoy ayayoy, kal TO may brepeioas iva ornptxOn BeBaiws TO kpata® kat trdpx@ pov Ady. The inscription signified, “J stand alone, “and have founded the entire course of nature, reducing confusion and *¢ disorder into order and harmony, and have supported the whole, in order “ that it may be firmly secure, upon my powerful and representative Word.” — Quod a Deo Mittantur Somnia, rbid., p. 656. The Divine Word is also described as God’s tapyos or representative Lieutenant (De Agricultura, ibid., p. 308), by whom the universes are administered. In commenting upon the words of Ps. xxiii. 1, Philo Suys, mpooTnadpevos Tov dpOdy avTov Adyoy, TpwTdyovoy Vioy, Os THY EmteeLay ris iepas Tavtns dyéAns, ola Tis peyddou Baciéws Urapyxos Suade-erar, “ He “has set over it his upright Word, his first begotten Son, who under- “takes the oversight of this sacred flock, as the lieutenant of some “ creat king.”—De Agricultura, ibid., p. 308. Again, vépos dé 6 didios Ocdu Tov aiwviov, T6 6xvp@rarov Kat BeBatdratov pera Tov ddwy €oriv. Obvros dnd Tay peor ent Ta Tépara, kai and TOY dkpov ent Ta peoa Tabeis, Sodcxever Tov THs HioEws Spdpov anrrnTov, Tvvdywv ra wépyn mavra kal opiyyav’ Seopov yap dutoy Gppynkroy Tov ravtos 6 yernoas eroiet matnp. “ But the eternal law (Word) of the everlasting God is the “most irrefragable and sure prop (stay) of all things. He pervades “from the centre to the extremest limits, and from the highest point to “the centre. He permeates the untiring course of nature, and thus “unites and draws together its several component parts, inasmuch as “the Father who begat Him has constituted Him the indissoluble bond “of all things.’—De Plantatione Noe, ibid., pp. 330, 331. The very same words are to be found.—De Mundo, ibid., vol. ii., p. 604. Further, Xadva yap ra re Gda e& Eavray, ei S€ mou kal muKv@bey em, Aoyo ohlyyera Gcig. Koda yap ears kat Seopods obtos, ra mavra Tis évalas exrenAnpoxos. For all things are constitutionally liable to go to pieces, but if they have any solidity they are held together by his Divine Word. For He is the principle of cohesion and the band, which supplements all things that subsist.— Quis rerum Divin- arum Heres, ibid., tom. i., p 499. (Compare Eph. i. 23, iii, 19, iv. 10.) ~ of ~ “"O, re yap tov "Ovros Adyoc, Seopds dv Tay dmdyt@y, ws eEipynrat, Kat CHAP. I., 3, 4. 13 “gupexes TA pepn Tavra, Kal odiyyer, Kal KoAvVer alta SiadverOar Kal “‘Staprac@a. For the Word of the Self-existent, as we have already “asserted, upholdeth each several part, and knits them together, and “prevents them from going to pieces and being disintegrated.”— De Profugis, ibid., p. 562. * Ps. lxviiil. 18 (Heb. 19) ove) my, “Thou hast ascended on high,” &e. For the interpretation of this Psalm see The Messiahship of Jesus, by Alex. M‘Caul, D.D., p. 164, and also The Psalms in Hebrew, with Commentary by G. Phillips, D.D., vol. ii., pp. 79—108. Schoettgen, Hore Hebr., tom. i., pp. 772—775. Surenhus. BiBd, Karadd, p. 584, &e. Here, then, at one rapid and masterly stroke, in the short compass of four verses, the writer sketches out the Divine superiority of the Messianic dispen- sation over the Patriarchal as well as the Mosaic. He reminds his readers that when Christ speaks of the things of God, He speaks of his own; for that He is God’s eternal Son—that the Father has designated Him heir of all things. (Ps. ii. 7,8.) That He has omnipotent authority to demand our obedience, as well as power to enforce it. That in Him the pro- phecies which predicted his vicarious sufferings have been accomplished ; and that now, inasmuch as his expiatory sacrifice is completed and his redeeming career of humiliation accomplished, He has ascended on high in fulfilment also of the prophetic declara- tion of Ps. ex. 1, and lxviii. 18, when he sits at the right hand of God expecting until his enemies be made his footstool. No prominent feature of the Mes- siah’s character, as expected by the ancient Jewish Church, is left unnoticed. He is God because He is the Creator of the worlds, and upholds the uni- verses. He is the legitimate exponent of the Divine will because He is of the same substance and essence with the Father. He has, by his sacrifice of him- 14 GHAP. I-34, self once offered, abrogated the necessity for the Mosaic sacrifices, having by himself purged away our sins (as foretold by Isaiah liii.),' and now, at the right hand of God, He waits for the further and final accomplishment of the predicted reward, when his enemies shall have been made his foot- stool. -Thus all the leading objections against the Messiahship and religion of Jesus are met and dis- posed of at the outset. The comparison of Christ’s dignity with that of the angels, seems to be designed to meet the objection that in former ages the will of God was, from time to time, made known to the fathers by the ministry and embassage of the heavenly host. If Jesus were a mere human teacher, He would be inferior to them and without authority to repeal that which was by them delivered. But if He be “the Christ of God,” #.e., his Divine and Eternal Son,’ then He is of necessity superior to them by the inheritance of his glorious name, as ' The most celebrated ancient Jewish interpreters, with one consent, have applied Isaiah li, to the Messiah, e.g., the Sohar, Targum of Jonathan, Babylonian Talmud, Yalkut Shimoni, R. Alshech, ec. See the late Dr. M‘Caul’s Doctrine and Interpretation of Isaiah hit., pp- 16—21, who observes that, “ Aben Ezra and Abarbanel both begin “their commentaries by mentioning the Christian exposition, and with “a confession that they depart from the ancient Jewish exposition.” See also the learned Dr. Margoliouth’s Penitential Hymn of Judah and Israel after the Spirit. An Exposition of Isaiah litt, Second Edition. 1856. 8vo. ? Schoettgen (ore Hebraice, tom. i., p. 905) supposes that St. Paul (whom he, in common with many of the other giants of theological erudition of former days, holds to be the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews) had in mind the ancient Jewish tradition, which declared that Messiah should be greater than Abraham and Moses, and the Patriarchs, and the Ministering Angels. “Nullam vel Spiritui Sancto, hance epistolam inspiranti, vel etiam CHAP. I., 3, 4. 15 well as being their Creator, which idea is included in the assertion, “By whom He also made the worlds,” for it is written in Gen. i. 1, “In (the) beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” The creation of the heavens in remote ages, before our world was prepared for man’s habitation, in- cluded the creation of the angels or heavenly host. The citation from Psalm ex. 1, ‘“‘ Jehovah said unto “my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,’ &c., in verse 3, is especially noteworthy. It is the identical passage wherewith Jesus put the Pharisees (Mark xii. 85) to silence. The Scribes apparently inter- preted the text, of Messiah the Son of David, even in our Lord’s day, “ And Jesus answered and said... ‘* How say the Scribes that Christ (¢.e., Messiah) is “the Son of David, for David himself said by the “ Holy Ghost, The Lord said unto my Lord “(Goinb min ox, Jehovah said unto my Lord), Sit “ thou on my right hand till I make thine enemies ** Apostolo injuriam facio, si dicam, Apostolum in mente habuisse “priscam hane traditionem, qu exstat in Zanchuma, citante Julkut “ Simeont, part 2, fol. 53, 3, ad verba Jes. lii. 13. Ecce sapienter aget “servis meus: Mont pom. Intelligitur Rex Messias. Extolletur et “elavabitur valde. L£2xtolletur ultra Abrahamum, et elevabitur ultra * Mosen, et sublimis erit MDT IND pre Angelis Ministerialibus. Aliter “ exprimitur in Jalkut Chadash, fol. 144, 2. mwn yO) MaN7 yo da wn “maw 2x20 yo. Dessias major est Patriarchis, Mose, et Angelis minis- “ terialibus.” R. Simeon ben Lakish in the Babylonian Gemara (Sanhedrin, col. 974, Ugolin. Thes., vol. xxv.) expresses the subordination and inferiority of the ministering angels as follows. When commenting on Isaiah Ixiii. 4, The day of vengeance is in my heart, he says, °72 NP MWA NID? vA 1259, “ T have revealed it to my own heart, to “the ministering angels I have not revealed it.’ This Rabbinical interpretation has a remarkable correspondence with the words of our Lord (Matt. xxiv. 36), “ But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, “not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.” 16 CHAP. L,, 5. “ thy footstool. David therefore calleth him Lord, “and whence is he his Son?” So also a little later the Targum renders the same passage, “‘ Jehovah said “in,” or, ‘“ unto his Word.” The writer moves, there- fore, in an atmosphere of ancient Jewish’ interpre- tation in his application of the Old Testament prophecies to the Messiah. And now he follows up his advantage, and shows conclusively that the words of Ps. ii. 7, 8, “I will declare the decree: “ the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; ‘ this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I ‘ shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, ‘and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy pos- “ session,’ cannot apply to any angelic being. Nor yet the words of 2 Sam. vu. 14. * s a Verse 5.—For to which of the angels did He ever say, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee? (Ps. ii. 7.) And again (2 Sam. vu. 14), I will be to him (for) a Father (eis rarépa), and he shall be to me (for) a Son (eis viov, 72994 TTD SIT) BND ID TYTN §DN) ? True, that in Job i. 6, ii. 1, xxxvii. 7, the angels are called “ sons of God” (ans %22, as also in Dan. iii. 25), the angelic being who appeared to Nebuchad- nezzar in the furnace, was said by him to be “ like ason of God” (pnbs 724, vi@ Ocod. LXX.) But these are only sons by creation and obedience. The pas- sage does not exist in which Jehovah condescends to address any angelic servant of his, as His Son by generation, and thus to designate him as a partaker 1 For an excellent account of the Rabbinic interpretations of Ps cx., see J. Jacobi Schudt Comment. Philol. in Psalmum cx. Frankfort, 1718. 8vo. Eas Ly G37) V7 of his Divine essence and nature; to proclaim his kinsmanship, and to invite him to share his throne and Eternal Sovereignty. This honour is reserved for the Messiah, whom Jehovah distinguishes as “the man who is my fellow.” (ny 22, avdpa roditynv wou, LXX.) The Christian interpretation of these words of Zech. xiii. 7 was well known to the Rabbies.' * See R. David Kimchi’s Commentary on Zechariah, translated with Notes and Observations on the Passages relating to the Messiah, by the late Dr. M‘Caul, pp. 167—177. Verses 6, 7.—But, when He bringeth in again the First- begotten" into the world, he saith, “ Let all the angels of God worship Him.”’? (Ps. xevii. 7.) And yet, in reference to the angels (Kal pos yeév Tods ayyéXous), he saith (A€yer, sc. ) ypad?, Ps. civ. 4), “ Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers (wnrwy, AeEcTovpyous) a flame of fire.” ' rov mpartéroxoy. Schoettgen quotes from R. Bechai to show that this appellation is in no way derogatory to Christ’s divinity, inasmuch as the Jews were accustomed to call God the Father ‘the Firstborn of all the “ whole world,” ony so mrixwswe. Also, from the Shkemoth Rabba, sect. 19, fol. 118, 4. ‘ R. Nathan said, The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses, ds J have made Jacob my firstborn (Exod. iv. 22), so also will I make King Messiah my firstborn (Ps. 1xxxix. 28).”—LHore Hebr., tom. i., p. 992. Philo repeatedly calls the divine Word of God the firstbegotten (mpwrdyovos) and eldest son (xpeaBuraros vids) of God, For a very re- markable example of this, see De Confusione Linguarum (Works, vol. i., p. 414), where, in reference to the LXX. version of Zech. vi. 12, "10d avjp, AvatoA} bvopa ait@ (W2W NOS wrx m1 Behold a man whose name is the Brancu), Philo observes that "Avarody, Oriens, sunrising, was a very unusual designation for a mortal man ; but, if applied to the incorporeal image of God, it would be most suitable in every respect. Toirov pev yap mpeaBvraroy vidy 6 Tey Gvtwy aveTreie TaTNp, bv Erépwbt mpwrdyovoy ardpace, kal 6 yevynOeis pévToe puysovpevos Tas Tov matpos ddovs, mpos mapadelypata apxétura ekeivou Brer@v, eudphov éidn. “Wim the Father of all things caused to arise as his eldest Son, whom D { / j 18 CHAPS E67. “he also called his Firstbegotten: and after he was begotten, he “ presently imitated his Father’s ways, and after the archetypal patterns “‘ which he saw of His, he also formed other species.” See also De Confusione Linguarum, ibid., p. 427 ; De Profugis, ibid , 563. So also” De Agricultura, where Philo describes God the Father as regulating the universes as a Shepherd and King, according to justice and equity, over which He has set his upright Word, his firstbegotten Son, tov édp6dv avrov Aoyor, mpardyovoy viov, who takes the oversight of the sacred flock as the lieutenant of a great king, Again, Quod a Deo mittantur Somnia, ibid., p. 653. Avo yap, ws okey, iepa Oeod, ev pév Ode 6 Kdapos, ev @ kal apxtepevs, 6 mpwrdyovos av’rod Ocios Néyos. “ There are, methinks, two “temples of God. The one is this world, whose High priest is his “ Firstbegotten Divine Word.” See also J. Wesselius’ three very learned and elaborate dissertations, De Christo Primogenito, De Secunda Primogeniti in Mundum Inductione, De Primogeniti Adoratione Angelis Imperata (Dissertationes Academice, Lugd. Bat., 1734, 4to., pp. 501- 567). Wesselitts handles the phrase éray S€ maw elcay’ in a masterly style. Schoettgen says, without, however, adducing any Old Testament examples, in reference to érav eicayayy k.t.d., “ Phrasis est hebraica * pina x2 venit in mundum, i.e., natus est... ... In Hiphil ova wan “est, facere ut quis nascatur. Et sic verba hee sensum satis com- “modum habebant: eo vero tempore quo Deus Pater filium suum “‘ Messiam ex virgine natum in hune mundum produxit, eumque inter “homines quasi introduxit, hee verba Psalmistze de eo impleta sunt : “* Adorent ipsum omnes Angeli Dei.” He sees the accomplishment in the Angels’ Hymn at the Nativity.—Hore Hebr., tom. i., p. 921. * Kat mpook. «7.4. This quotation seems to be taken from Ps, xevil. 7, and not from Deut. xxxii. 43, in which latter passage the words mpookuynodrocay ait rravtes ityyehou Ocod are found in the LXX., but not in the Hebrew, although St. Paul (Romans xv. 10) declares the words immediately following, “ Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people,” to be a prophetic invitation, addressed by Moses to the Gentiles, to come in and participate in the spiritual blessings of Israel. The real clue to the quotation is found in the words érav S¢ mddw eicaydyn Tov mparorokoy eis Tv oikovpevnv. The subject in hand is the superiority of Christ’s dispensation over the Mosaic. By his eternal Son God made the world. When He bringeth Him in the second time (érav dé mad) _ into the world, to set up his kingdom on earth, He calls upon his angels to worship Him. Psalm xevii. is descriptive of Christ’s king- dom, and commences, “ Jehovah reigneth ; let the earth rejoice, let the * multitude of the isles be glad thereof.” The “isles” denote the remote Gentile nations. This thankful exultation of the nations is in exact accordance with the promise to Abraham (Gen, xxii, 18; xxvi. 4), CHAP. I., 8—14. 19 where the Hebrew signifies “ shall account themselves blessed.” The THithpael, or reflective conjugation of the verb 772 is here used, instead of the Niphal, or passive, as in Gen. xil. 3; xviii. 18; xxviii. 14, Prof. Moses Stuart observes that, in Deut. xxxii. 43, ‘‘ The Codex Alex. “reads, viol Gcod, instead of dyyedor Ocod, and one Codex at Oxford * omits the whole clause.’ The Hebrew in Ps. xevii. 7 (Heb. 6) has Dx 52. Tne (worship Him all ye gods; Ps. viii. 5, exxxviii. 1, LXX., angels). .The writer to the Hebrews adduces the passage as showing that the angels, although sometimes, honoris causd, as were the Judges of Israel (Exod. xxi. 6—13; xxii. 8, 9, 28; Ps. lxxxii. 1—6 ; 1 Sam. ii. 25), called “‘ gods” and “ sons of God,” are yet required to render to the “ only begotten Son,” the Messiah, the worship that is alone due to Jehovah the Lord of Hosts. The LXX. read dyyedou avrov, instead of Geod, in Ps. xcvii. 7. (xcvi. 7 in the Greek.) Verses 8—14.— But to the Son he saith (Ps. xlv. 6,7), “Thy throne, O God (a»mbx 6 Ocds, vocative), is for ever and ever ; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom." Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity; there- fore God, even thy God, hath anointed’ thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” * And again, in Ps. cii. 25, 27, when the perpetuity of Messiah’s kingdom is celebrated in consoling contrast to the brevity of human life :— Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thine hands.‘ They shall perish, but thou remainest, and they all shall wax old, as doth a garment ;° and as a vesture shalt thou fold them® up, and they shall be changed; but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail. But to which of the angels said He at any time (as in Ps. ex. 1) Sit on my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool? Are they not all ministering spirits,’ sent forth to minister (els Suaxoviav on an errand of service) for (dia on behalf of ) them who shall be heirs of salvation ? The writer appeals to his readers’ acquaintance with Old Testament history, which relates number- 20 CHAP. I, 8—14. less instances of theanission of angels on behalf of God’s people. They always appear in the subordi- nate capacity of messengers, as, indeed, the word Nom ayyedos signifies. To be an assessor of the Lord Jehovah upon his throne is a dignity reserved for Messiah alone. He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. ? This Psalm cii. looks forward to the time when the “ heathen shall “ fear the name of Jehovah, and all the kings of the earth” his glory (verse 15). And also, “‘When the peoples (xr plur.) are gathered “ together, and the kingdoms, to serve the Lord” (verse 22), In other words, it is Messianic in its consolatory exhortations. The application lof verses 25—27 to the Divine Messiah is no forced interpretation. Jacob had foretold that to Him should “the gathering of the nations \“be.” The Targums of Onkelos, Jonathan, and Jerusalem, with one con- sent, interpret Jacob’s propheey concerning Suixo, of the Messiah; as also the Babylonian Gemara, Sanhedrim, col. 970 (Ugolin. Thes., vol. 25), where a variety of opinions are given as to Messiah’s name, TW NPD IY WNW wo XW MOR Nw 717 “ The disciples of R. Sila “ said, Shiloh is his name, for it ts said, ‘until Shiloh come.” See also The Messiaship of Jesus, by Alexander M‘Caul, D.D., pp. 142—145. 2"Expice. The word mun, Messiah, means anointed one. The allu- sion to the Messiah is self-evident. The Targum applies this Psalm xlv. to the Messiah, as in verse 2, nMwo NID PEW thy beauty, O king Messiah, is more than that of the sons of men. The Spirit of Prophecy is given to thy lips. And to the Messiah, Aben Ezra says, it is most fitly applicable. R. Joseph Ben Moshe also, in Tn 1n3, fol. 36, 4, men Wn 3232 DMI Tx Opn “ These verses speak of King Messiah.” See Schoettgen ; Hore Hebr., p.924; also, J. Wesselius’ Six Disserta- tions on Ps. xlv., contained in his Diss. Acad., published at Leyden 1734, pp. 177—319. * Tapa rods peroxovs cov. Schoettgen well observes that, if Christ were God only, He would have no fellows or associates. Since, there- fore, his fellows are spoken of, He must be either man or angel. But He is not an angel, because He took the seed of Abraham ; and He is the son of David, and therefore human as well as divine. The super- abundant unction of the Messiah is in reference to the special manner in which the High-priest was anointed with the holy oil. It was poured upon his head (Exod. xxix. 7; Levit. viii. 12; comp. Ps. cxxxiii. 2), and ran down upon his beard, even to the skirts of his garments, CHAP. I., 8—14. | 21 whilst the ordinary priests were only anointed by sprinkling. Thomas Goodwin says, “ Secundani Sacerdotes tantum adspergebantur oleo isto “unctionis admixto sanguine qui erat super altari (Levit. viii. 30). “ Hine Sacerdos Summus in fonte legitur Sacerdos unctus (Levit. iv. 5). « Jonathan habet ; Sacerdos magnus vel summus. Disserte Aben-Ezra ; ** Sacerdos magnus ipse est Sacerdos unctus. Lyranus adhue clarius ; “ Sacerdos unctus est Sacerdos magnus, quia inferiores Sacerdotes non “ ungebantur. Per hoc denotata fuit unctio nostri Salvatoris, wneti oleo “ alacritatis supra consortes suos Ps. xlv. 8. Unctus fuit supra con- ‘““sortes suos extensive et intensive. Extensive, nam etsi Aaron fuerit ** Sacerdos unctus, Saul Rex unctus, Elisa propheta unctus, Melchizedek “et Rex et Sacerdos, Moses Sacerdos et propheta, David Rex et ** Propheta ; nemo tamen nisi solus Christus Xpiords, Moo simul et Rex, “et Sacerdos et Propheta fuit. Jntensive ; Ipse est unctus, nos ad- “ spersi; ipse plenus gratia et veritate, nos ex ipsius plenitudine * accipimus gratiam pro gratia, xdapw dvri xapiros ; Joh. i. 14—16. Et “omnes Christiani, preeprimis ministri, sunt Xpictod éevadia TH Oc@ “ fragrantia Christi Deo; 2 Cor. ii. 15. (Moses et Aaron, pp. 77, 78. “ Francofurti ad Moenum, 1710, 8vo.)” See also Reland's Antig. Sacr. vet. Hebr. (Traject. Bat., 1712), 8vo., pp. 140, 141 ; Cuneus de Rep. Hebr, (Lugd. Bat., 1632, 12mo.), lib. ii., cap. 7, pp. 206—209; also, J. Selden, De Successionibus ad leges Ebreorum (De Success. in Ponti- ficat., lib. ii., cap. 9), pp. 508—522. Lugd. Bat., 1638, 12mo. ; and J. Wesselius’ Diss. de justitia Messie vicaria, causa unctionis ejus supra consortes suos. (Dissertationes Academic. Lugd. Bat., 1734, 4to., pp. 226—253 ) * Kal 30 kar’ dpxas, «7.4. A citation by the Psalmist from Gen. i. 1. The creation of the heavens included the heavenly hosts, 7.e., the angels. Tn this summing up of creation (Gen. ii 1) ‘all the host of them’ is “ mentioned to include angels .... to teach that they were not inde- “pendent beings, but creatures of God.”— Dr. M‘Caul’s Essay, Mosaic Record of Creation, § 9; Aids to Faith, p. 206. See also Philo, De Mundi Opificio, Works, Mangey’s edit., vol. i., col. 6. The Divine pre-eminence of Jesus over prophets and angels has now been established. If He be the Messiah, then his authority to speak in his own and in his Father’s name is unquestionable. It is no departure from the ancient creed, nor infringement of the strictest letter of the Law of Moses, to give heed to his teaching. The converts to whom the Epistle is addressed had already convinced themselves that in Him the predictions of the prophets were minutely fulfilled. Un- hesitating obedience, unswerving faith is therefore justly his due. To no purpose do the unbelieving Jews rest the immutability of the old 22 GAP: Fe B14) dispensation upon “ the disposition of angels.” Messiah is Lord of the angels. It is his prerogative to limit and define the things already spoken, and also give such additional revelation as He pleases. God in these latter times speaks to us by bis Son. He can revoke his own institutions when they have accomplished the ends for which He gave them. 5 Evdvera & 6 pev mpesBitatos tév dvTas Adyos ws EobjTa TOY KOopOP. “ The eldest Word of the Self-Existent is clothed with the universe as “with a garment.” (Philo, De Profugis, Works, Mangey’s edition, vol. i., p. 562.) The passage will repay examination. ° Kat cei wepiBddaoy éi€ers adtovs. Ludovicus Cappellus writes on ° these words, ‘‘ In Hebreeo est DmYnn, 7mmutabis eos, sed videntur LX X. “ scripsisse a\Ad&ers, nam sequitur a\Aaynoovra, sed a sciolo aliquo “ mutatum est adAdfes in éAtEes”’ (Crit. Sacr., p. 62). And again (ibid., p. 66), ‘* Et in ipsa trav LXX. translatione videtur aliquando “esse lapsus etiam librarii, ut Heb. i. 16, aoet mepiBddaoy édikexs *‘ avrouvs, ubi jam supra notavimus lapsu librarii AéEes scriptum videri “* pro ad\AdEes, nam in Hebrzo est oD %Nn h.e. dAAd£ets adrovs, Immutabis “eos; deinde sequitur immediate kal a\Aaynoovra, et immutabuntur, ut *omnino videantur LX X. sic ex Hebrzo reddidisse verbatim cet “ repiBdAaov addagers avtovs, Kat adAaynoovra.” Gesenius, however, seems to give the real clue to the adoption of édifers by the LX X., and by the writer to the Hebrews, ‘‘ mpm, plur. f., a rad. 4>n, Pi. et Hiph. “ mutavit, hineque plexuit, capillorim plexus, Haarflechten, Zoépfe. “ Jud. xvi. 13—19.” . (Lex. Man., Lips., 1847, p. 514.) Be it further observed that the LX X. (in Is. xxxiv. 4) render the Hebrew mnwen D2 2n, “ And the heavens shall be rolled together as “a scroll,” by kal éXvynoerat 6 odpavds @s BiBXiov. Surenhusius (BiB. KaraAX.), p. 602, writes on Hebr. i. 12, “Sed observanda hic est varia “ lectio in textu Graco, etenim quedam exemplaria legunt a\\dges “ commutabis, queedam vero éAiéers convolves, sed utraque bona est, et ita quidem ut Judeorum oculi hac lectione offendi nequeant, cum utraque sit biblica ; que legunt a\Ad&ers, ea expressa sunt secundum illud cpynn, quod in Psalmo extat; que vero exemplaria legunt édiéers convolves, complicabis, ea expressa sunt secundum illud Jes “ xxxiv. 4, D»wA EDI an ef complicati instar libri coels isti, jam vero “ veteribus Hebraeorum doctoribus in more positum est textui allegato interdum verba quiedam ex alio loco adjungere, in quo de eodem subjecto agitur, quemadmodum constat ex thesi nostra V. de Modis “ interpretandi Scripturas sacras. Preeterea Raschi ad D5%nn w1I9) notat, “se rem habere veluti cum eo we) WrId.JEWT gui convertit indumentum suum ad exuendum illud.” (73 ‘ n ‘ ‘ ns ¢ n ‘ n s CHAP. I., 8—14. 23 A very curious example of the Japsus librarii occurs in the LXX. of Jer. xxiii. 6 :— Kal rovdro 7d dvopa aitod, 6 kadéoer adtov Kiptos, lwaedex “ey rois mpodyras.” This verse in the Hebrew ends with vp72 AT ; but the 9th verse of the Hebrew commences, °29 120) O'x225, ‘* My heart “is broken because of the prophets”; whilst, in the LX X., the 9th verse begins, cuverpi3y 7 Kapdia pov ev enol, and the 7th and 8th verses of the Hebrew are left out. 7 Aevroupytka mvevpara. The following quotations from Philo will serve to show the opinion of the Hellenistic portion of the ancient Jewish Church respecting the nature and ministrations of angels :— “Ayyedou yap otpards clot Ocov, dowparor kai edvdaipoves uxai—“ For “‘ the angels are the host of God, incorporeal and happy souls.” Again, de Saerificiis Abelis et Caint, Works, Mangey’s Edit, vol. i., p. 164. So also ibid, p. 296, Quod Deus sit immutabilis, Ovde cy obv €k aKKov miot, @ didworv 6 Oeds Tas dxpdtov peOicpatos mécets, TOTE pev Sia TWos Umnpetodvtos Tav dyyéAav, Ov oivoyoew HElwae, TéTe dé Kal Oi EavTov, pydeva tov diddvros Kal trod AapBavortos perakd tiHeis. “ That man will never “ drink from a cistern, to whom God supplies draughts of unmixed “ wine, at one time by the hand of some ministering angel, whom He *‘ hath appointed to pour it out, and at another time doing it Himself, * interposing no one between the giver and the receiver.” Again, tbid., p. 468, De migratione Abrahamit, 6 8€ émépevos Ged, Kata dvayKaiov cuvodoinspots xpirat Tots dkoAovOots adTov Adyots, ods dvopacerw eos ayyédovs. “ He who follows God is necessarily accompanied by his words that “follow Him, which it is customary to call angels.” Jbid, p. 577. De Profugis, Ayyedou & oixérar Ocod. “ Angels are the servants (fumu/t) “ of God.” Ibid, p. 642. Quod a Deo mittantur somnia. AdMDa & etoly Ka@apwrara Kal ciprotar, pertdvar pporvnudtav Kai Oevorépwy emdra- xodoa, pndevds pev Tav Teptycioy Tore dpexOeiaat Tomaparay, Urapxot Oe Tov mavyyendvos, doTep peyddov Baciéas dPOadpot Kal ora, apopocat mavra kal akovovca. Tatras daipovas pev of adXAot Pirtdaopa, 6 d€ iepos Adyos dyyous eLwOE Kaew, Tpoodveatep@ xpopevos dvdpatt. Kat yap tas Tov TaTpos emixedevoets Tois eyydvols, Kal Tas TOY exydvav xpelas TO TaTpl SiayyeAXovor, “ There are besides other most pure and excellent beings, “who partake of higher and diviner intelligences, and never in the “smallest degree are swayed by earthborn instincts. But they are “ lieutenants of Him who is ruler of all things, and, as it were, the eyes “and ears of a mighty King, seeing and hearing all things. Philo- “sophers are wont to call them genz?, but the Sacred Word usually “ styles them angels, employing a designation more agreeable to their “nature. They announce the behests of their Father to his children, 24 CHAP. I., 8—14. “and also the necessities of his children to their Father.” Again, p. 643, ovyKataBaivovtes id giravOpwriay Kat eeov Tod yevous Hpar, emtkoupias evexa kal ovpjtaxias, iva Kal rHy ere Somep ev TOTALS, TO Toate, popouperny Wuxny, Ta TwoTHpia avaTveovtes, dvacaowot. “ Descending out “ of kindness and pity for our race, in order that they may render us “succour and assistance, they rescue the soul when it is borne along in “the body, as by a river, breathing into it things that accompany salva- “tion.” On p. 642, Philo speaks of the angels as ‘‘ mediators and inter- cessors.” (See Coloss. ii. 18.) Schoettgen, Hore Hebraice, tom. i., p. 906, cites the opinion of Joseph Ben Albo, that a qualified adoration of angels, in their capacity of ambassadors of God, was permissible, and redounded to the honour of their King, bat for their own sakes, and in considera- tion of their inherent dignity as celestial beings, they might not be adored. Philo, de Gigantibus (ibid., p. 263), declares that the angels _ spoken of by Moses are called by the philosophers gent? (Saiyovas). He adds that they are “souls flying in the air,” Wuxal & eici kara Tov dépa metopevat, ‘The passage is well worth perusal from its striking resem- blance, in many respects, to the intimations of St. Paul in his Epistles, and of the other New Testament writers. On p. 264, ¢bid., Philo says, Umnpérect Kai dtaxdvots 6 Sypwovpyos etwbe xpyoOar mpds TH Tav OvnTrav exiataow. “The Creator is wont to employ them as ministers and “ servants in superintending the affairs of mortals.” And again, ¢bid., he draws the distinction between these holy and happy ministering angels, and others who are undeserving of the name of good, confirming his opinion by the words of Psalm Ixxviii. 49. Further, pp. 122, 409, he says that the angels are called Adya, ¢.e., Words of God. Again, de Abrahmo, vol. ii. 17, tmodidkovor Kat Urapxot Tod mpw@rouv Cecod, “ ministers and lieutenants of the supreme God.” De Humanitate, p. 387, he speaks of men and ministering angels (@Opwmoi tre Kal ayyehoe Aevroupyol) listening to Moses’ Hymn. De Mundo, p. 604, he describes them as mpeoBevopevas Kai diayyehAovoas Ta Te Tapa Tod IyepLdvos ToIs Unnkdots ayaa, Kal T@ Baordei, Oy eiow irHKoor xpeion, “ acting as God’s “‘ ambassadors, and announcing good tidings to his subjects, and also ** bringing word to their King what things his subjects have need of.” On p. 605, he again speaks of the evil angels mentioned in Ps. xxviii. 49, In the fragment De Kesurrectione Terribili, tom. ii., p. 656, Philo says that the nature of angels is spiritual, but that they often assume human shape. De Cherubim, vol. i., p. 139, he asserts that Hagar was brought back by travtiaavros dyyédovu, bs eore O€tos Adyos, ‘an angel that met “her, which is the Divine Word.” So also, De Cherubim, ibid., pp. 144, 145, he says that the sword of the cherubim, and also the angel that met Balaam, was the Word of God. Again, De Confusione Linguarum, Cop aga. 7 25 ibid., p. 427, Kav pydér@ pévroe tvyxavy tis d&tdxpews dy duds Ocod mpoca- yopevecOa, orovdatérm KoopeioOar Kata Tov TpwTdyovoy auTOv hdyov, TOY dyyehov mpecBuratov, as apxayyedov ToAVaVYUpoY UmdpxoYTAa, Kal yap apxn, Kal dvoua Ocod, kai Adyos, Kat 6 Kar’ eixdva dvOpwros, kal dpav “Iopand mpocayopevera. “ But if any one be not yet worthy to be designated “* (see Heb. v. 10) a son of God, let him give diligence to be adorned “like his Firstbegotten Word, who is the oldest angel, being, so to “* speak, an archangel of many names, for he is designated ‘ Beginning,’ “ and the ‘ Name of God, and ‘the Word, and ‘ He who is Man in his “** likeness’ (Cujus homo fuctus est ad imaginem, Mangey), and ‘ He who «sees Israel”” This very striking declaration of Philo (so con- sistent with what is related in the Old Testament concerning the Angel of Jehovah, who is the Second Person in the Ever Blessed Trinity) he follows up with an explanation equally important in its significance :— Kai yap ei pyte ikavol Ocov maides vopiferOar yeyovaper, GdAda ToL Ths didiou eixdvos ad’tov, Adyou Tod iepwrdtov’ Ceovd yap eikwv Noyos 6 mpeoBu- tatos. “ For if we be not, as yet, fit to be accounted sons of God, we “ may be nevertheless of his eternal likeness (or image), viz., his Most “ Sacred Word, for the image of God is the Eldest Word.” See J. Wesselii De Rubo Mosis Diss. (Dissertationes Acad. Lugd. Bat., 1734, p. 1, &e.); J. Wesselii De Angelo Jehove ab Hagara viso Diss. (Dissertationes Sacre Leidenses. Lugd. Bat., 1721, pp. 1—54), and De Angelo fuciei Jehove, ibid, pp. 289—335 ; J. G. Surenhusii BiSdos KaradXayijs, pp. 591—595. CHAPTER II. Verses 1—4,—On this account (4ia toiro) we ought, SAYS THE WRITER, to give the more earnest heed to (wpocéyew, tenaciously adhere to) the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip,' (or, perhaps, /apse ourselves, after the example of those who have already apostatized). For if the word spoken by angels* was steadfast (éyévero BéBatos, was absolutely confirmed in every particular), and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward, how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? Which was, in the first instance, spoken by the Lord (Jesus Christ), and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him,’ E 26 CHAP. IL. 5—9. God himself accompanying it (the preaching of the Gospel) by the ratifying testimony of signs, and portents, and various miraculous exhibitions of his power, and distri- butions of the Holy Spirit, according to his own will. " wappapvdpev. “ Metaphora a navibus petita, quie per fluxum et “ yefluxum maris, vel ventos etiam prohibeantur quominus adpellant “ad portum,” &¢. See J.C. Wolfius, in loc. * Prof. Stuart understands 6 di dyyéNov Nadnbeis MSyos of the giving of the law on Mount Sinai, as he also does the words of Stephen (Acts vii. 53), and of St. Paul (Gal. iii. 19), and cites Josephus and Philo in confirmation of his opinion. To my mind, the transition to the law exclusively is, in the present instance, somewhat abrupt. Does it not rather, also, refer to the ministrations of angels vouchsafed from time to time during the whole of the earlier dispensation, and to which allusion is made in the concluding verse of the first chapter ? ° This admission, that the Gospel had been in part received from secondhand, seems to militate in some degree against St. Paul’s invari- able claim to a direct and special revelation from Christ himself. In Gal. i. 11, 12, ii. 6, he expressly disclaims any human sources of infor- mation. In 1 Cor. xi. 23 he asserts that Christ himself communicated to him the sacramental formula. The first person, which the writer employs on the present occasion, must not be too closely pressed. He probably speaks in the name of his readers. Verses 5—9.—For God hath not put in subjection unto angels the world to come’ of which we speak (chap. i., verse 6); but one, in a certain place (Ps. viii. 4—6), has explicitly asserted as follows (dvewaptipato déyor) :— “ What is man that thou art mindful of him, and the son of man that thou visitest him? *’Thou madest him a little lower (@payv te might, perhaps, be fairly rendered “for a little season,’’ @.e., until, in our resurrection glory, we shall reign with Christ) than the angels (onbs» map ayyédous). Thou crownedst (or wilt crown) him with glory and honour, and didst set (or wilt set) him over the works of thy hands. Thou hast (or wi/¢) put all things in subjection under his feet.”” But, by that phrase of “ subjecting all things to him,’’ He hath left nothing unsubjected (7.c., nothing in the universe can claim exemp- CHAP. II., 5—9. 27 tion from his authority). But now we do not yet see all things put under Him; but we do see Jesus, that was made a little (or, for a little while, Bpayv tt, wy) lower than the angels’ by the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour ; so that, by the grace of God, he might taste death for every man.* 1 Thy duxouperny thy weANovoay may fairly be understood of the super- natural world, viz., the signs and the wonders just spoken of, ¢.c., the Suvdpets peddovtos aidvos (chap. vi. 5). It refers more probably, how- ever, to the Christian dispensation hereafter, 7% tts final consummation, during the reign of Christ over a ransomed Church and a regenerated nature. No such promise has been left to the angels, but to man (the second Adam—Christ) there has been, in the prophetic assertion, ‘‘ Thou “hast put all things under his feet,” and to us also who are joint heirs with him. Stuart says that thy oik. tiv pedr. “ is equivalent to 6 aidy 6 ped\or, “?¢e., the Christian dispensation, the world as it will be in future— “6 pédAor, 2.e., the world under the reign of Christ.” Now this interpre- tation of both phrases is contrary to the almost invariable Jewish inter- pretation of the phrase x27 DD20, 2.e., the world to come, and of which the two Greek expressions are the exact equivalent. The Rabbins placed the days of Messiah in this world (m7 Dn» this present age), expecting a reign upon earth, after which the general resurrection and judgment will take place. DT none “the latter days,” were understood to be the closing days of Messiah’s reign, and of the world’s existence. Rhenferdius, in his first dissertation De Seculo Futuro, p. 1123, quotes as follows from the Gemara— Cod. Schabbat., fol. 63 (et alibi scepius), 12 AT 4 qr DTN ANN 8? PY NIT DY) Fax Mw nyo) NR WIN NP OND Ow 5D NIN 2) Jn “ R. Chija Bar Abba has said, ‘ All the prophets, without exception, *¢* have prophesied nothing except concerning the days of Messiah ; but ** concerning the “world to come” (x37 DY) dé ts written (Is. lxiv. 1), “ Eye hath not seen except Thee, O God, &c.’?” (Meuschen, N. Zest. ex Vet. illustr.) For a multitude of other early Jewish authorities, see Rhenferdius’ very learned and elaborate tract, as cited above. The same passage occurs in the treatise Sanhedrin, Gem. Babyl., col. 974 (Ugol. Thes., vol. xxv.), with some additions and slight variations. Ww? WRI AD OdN nyIw Dew Mw mn WAX IT M2 DAN On DYN) Mont ny MID /OX TTP 2 WR TR AT Poy ww 7 Ab by nn 28 CHAP. II., 5—9. 1m) WN pms? V2 yom Ty yd Sy DOW O WNW wy Ww DY Nw So opmy Ye Rae WNT WR cnyaw) Ws 09 NI 7) DD Wow wy WY m3 ‘a7 TOY OTR NNT ND PY NIT Dd dae wor ny) WwaIwM2 Nd PD D7 “R. Abimai, son of R. Abau, teaches :—The days of the Messiah of “ Tsrael are seven thousand years. For it is said (Is. xii. 5), And as a “ bridegroom rejoiceth over a bride, so will the Lord thy God rejoice over “thee. KR. Judah says; Samuel says :—The days of Messiah are as the “‘ days in which the world was created, up to the present time. For it “is said, As the days of the heaven upon the earth. (Deut. xi. 21.) R. “Nachman bar Isaac says :—As the days of Noah up to the present “time. For it is said, For this is as the waters [days] of Noah unto me, ‘as Ihave sworn. (Is. liv. 9.) R. Chijah bar Aba says ; R. Jochanan “ says:—All the prophets did not prophesy concerning the days of “ Messiah, but concerning the world to come; [as it is written] Eye “‘ hath not seen, besides Thee, O God, what He hath prepared for him “ that watteth for Him. (Is. Ixiv. 4.)” 2 Professor Stuart would read “ yet” or “‘ but” worn), 3 Professor Stuart suggests somewhat gratuitously, I would submit, that the unbelieving Jews urged “ Two objections against the superiority “‘ of Christ over angels. 1. Christ wasa man. 2. He suffered an igno- «¢ minious death.” Now Christ’s superiority over the angels is naturally introduced, not as a Jewish cavil, but in the course of the argument. The real point at issue was this, Had Christ any authority to set aside the civil and ceremonial laws given by the disposition of angels, or were his claims disposed of by his sufferings and death ? The author of the Epistle has shown that Christ the Messiah is the Lord and Creator of the angels. (See note 2,on p. 14.) That it was He who sent them, and that his temporary inferiority to the angels, z.e, his manhood, had been predicted in Psalm viii., whilst an honour belonged to Him, by heredit- ary right and Divine generation, to which no angel could advance the slightest claim, viz., that of being designated by God as his “ first- begotten Son,” z.e., his only son, and being saluted by the Father as his assessor on his throne. If, then, the revelations from time to time vouchsafed by the mediation of angels were deserving of reverent obedience, much more the revelations imparted in these latter times by the Divine Son of God. 4 This exaltation of Christ, as a reward of his voluntary sufferings, had been distinctly foretold by Isaiah lii. and liii., and was so under- stood by the ancient Rabbinical commentators. The following passage from the Yalkut Shimoni (quoted on p. 20 of the late Dr. M‘Caul’s Doctrine and Interpretation of Isaiah litt.) abundantly establishes the above assertion :—““ Behold my servant shall deal prudently. This is “the King Messiah. He shall be exalted and extolled, and be very CHAP. II., 5—9. 29 “high. He shall be more exalted than Abraham...... He shall be “extolled more than Moses...... and he shall be higher than the “ministering angels...... ‘But he was wounded for our transgressions, “*he was bruised for our iniquities : the chastisement of our peace was ““upon him, and with his stripes we are healed.’ R. Huna, in the “ name of R. Acha (says), ‘ The chastisements or afflictions were divided *** into three parts—one to David and the fathers, one to the rebellious *** generation, and one to King Messiah.’” Upon which Dr. M‘Caul remarks, “ This passage, the first part of which is a quotation from a ‘much more ancient book (see note 2, pp. 14, 15), plainly shows “that the Jews interpreted this prophecy of Messiah: it also con- “tains an important illustration of the character of the Messiah, “describing him as superior in dignity to the three patriarchs, “to Moses and the ministering angels, and yet a man of sorrows “and acquainted with grief. We would entreat our Jewish brethren “to compare this Rabbinical passage with the first two chapters of “the Hebrews. The next testimony is that of R. Moses Alshech, “who flourished about the middle of the sixteenth century, ‘ Behold, “«our Rabbies with one mouth have confirmed, and _ received “by tradition, that King Messiah is here spoken of.’” Doubtless (in Phil. ii, 6—11) St. Paul had the prophecy of Isaiah’s chapter liii. in his mind when he writes, ““ Who being in the form of God, thought “it not robbery to be equal with God, but made himself of no reputa- “tion (exéveoe), and took upon him the form of a servant, and was “ made in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion as a man, he “humbled (érareivocev) himself, and became obedient unto death, even “the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him “ (irepvyooe), and given him a name which is above every name, that at “the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of things in heaven and “things in earth and things under the earth (ézovpaviwy kai émvyelov “kal xataxOoviov), and that every tongue should confess that Jesus “‘ Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” As a parallel to the above citation from Isaiah, I would adduce the last verse of the exth Messianic Psalm, “ He (Messiah) shall drink of the brook in the way, ‘therefore He (God the Father) shall lift up his head, @.e., exalt him.” (msn ory 72 by Anw FI 5m2) To “lift up the head” signifies to pro- mote to honour and triumph, and so it is used in Ps. xxvii. 6: “ And now shall my head be lifted up above mine enemies” (wero). The exaltation is consequent upon, and antithetic to, the act of stooping to drink of the wayside stream of humiliation and death. The word ‘na brook, stream, river, flood, is used to denote persecution and affliction, in 2 Sam. xxii. 5, “the floods of ungodly men,” and its cognate 75n3 occurs in a similar sense in Ps. exxiv. 4 (3), “ the stream had gone over our 00 CHAP. II., 10—14. soul.” The author of Wizzachon Vetus, p. 184, gives the following sneering reply to the Christian application of this 7th verse of Ps. ex. to Jesus, but which singularly enough confirms the view I have taken of it. MIND) PW we MM Fax 7) WS Nw ND YP? YD wD wy ~ Ww Maw NDEI NV YD “To this I will reply, He will be on the contrary ashamed, and com- “ yelled to bow down with his face to the earth, so far from lifting it “up. He will rather have lamentation, and hang down his head, “because it is necessary for him to drink, lest he die of thirst.” (See Wagenseil, Tela ignea Satane, where the above treatise is printed at length.) Verses 10—13.— For it became Him (ézpere yap ave), for whom are all things, and by whom are all things (i.e, God the Author and Creator of all things), to make the Captain of their salvation, when bringing many sons to glory (dayayovta, «.T.d.), perfect,’ on account of (his) sufferings. For both (Christ) who sanctifieth and they who are sanctified? (by Him) are all of one (s.c., human nature, €& évos yevods, Stuart), for which cause (8i #v aitiav, which being the case) he is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying (Ps. xxu. 22), “I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the “midst of the Church (np, é««dAynola) will I sing praise “unto thee.”’* And again (Isaiah viii. 17), “I will put “my trust in him’’* (45 spp L have firmly confided in him, LXX, weoi8ws Ecomar év atto) and (Isaiah vii. 18), “ Behold I and’the children which God hath given me.”’ Having thus established from current Rabbinic interpretations of the above passages, that the Divine Messiah would claim kinsmanship with flesh and blood, the writer continues :— Verse 14.—Forasmuch then as the children were partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself hkewise (zapamAnciws is equivalent to dwolws, in the same manner, as well as, Stuart) took part of (petéoxe, participated in) the same ; CHAP. II, 14. dl that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil.’ ? Professor Stuart understands with Theophylact that “ reNe/wots here means ddéav iv edoédcbn.” He translates the verse thus, “ It became “him, also, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, to “bestow, on account of sufferings, the highest honours upon him who “is the Captain of their salvation leading many sons to glory.” Dean Alford’s objection to this arrangement seems faulty both in its premises and deductions. The Dean says, “It would be contrary to all “ Scripture analogy to represent us as sons, in relation to Christ.” How does the Dean propose to explain "Idod éy® kai ra madia (OYT) & poe édaxev 6 Geds, which words of Is. viii. 18 are applied by the writer to Jesus in verse 13? Apart from this quotation, there is no need what- ever to understand viods out of its ordinary interpretation, viz., “ Sons “of God.” Other commentators understand 61a maOnpdrev rederaoat “by the medium of sufferings to complete” the mediatorial qualifica- tions of Christ, as without these a perfect sympathy could not have existed between himself and his people. The authorised English version apparently refers dyaydvra to God the Father. * “Both he who maketh expiation and they for whom expiation is made,” so Professor Stuart translates 6 re yap dyiatwv, x.7.A. He shows how dyid¢m in the LXX (Levit. xxii. 2,3; Exod. xiii. 2, &c.) corre- sponds to the Hebrew wip and wpm to make holy, consecrate, as an offering ; also, as in Job i. 5, to expiate or make atonement, LXX exaOapi¢ev avtovs. It also corresponds (Exod. xxix. 33) to 7&3 to make atonement, to expiate. Probably the writer to the Hebrews had in his mind the words of Isaiah liii. 11, 12, “By his knowledge shall my “righteous servant justify (772° make righteous) many, for he (x7 “‘ emphat.) shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide him,” &e. 8 AnayyX@ 76 dvopa, k.7.X. The LX X translate mets by Sunynoopat. Schoettgen, in his treatise de Messia (Hore Hebr., tom. ii., pp. 232, 233), gives the following ancient Jewish interpretations of Psalm xxii. :— “ De cerva aurore. Midrasch Tehillim: De eo qui salit sicut cervus, et “ illustrat mundum tempore tenebrarum. Hierosol. Berachoth in Jalkut “Simeoni ad h.l. et Schir haschirim rabba, fol. 28, 3. R. Chija jil. “ Abba et R. Simeon fil. Chalpatha iverunt simul tempore diluculi in convalle “ad urbem Arbela, et viderunt cervam aurore, que (sic vocatur quia quasi) ducem ejus discindit. Dixit ipsi R. Chija: Dicito sic; hec est “ redemptio Israelitarum, que sensim sensimque advenit. Lespondit alter, “ Hoe ipsum est, quod Scriptura dicit Michze vii. 8. Quando sedebo in “tenebris, Dominus mihi lux est. In Sohar Exod., fol, 49, col. 295, O2 CHAP. II., 15—18. “Cerva aurore dicitur Schechina, que propter filios suos gemit, ex “qua vero fit Leo matutinus, Messias filius David. (Locus integer “exstat inferius, libro iii.)—v. 8. Ommnes videntes me subsannarunt me. “ Pesikta rabbathi in Jalkut Simeoni ii., fol. 56,4. Eo tempore, quo ‘* Messias in carcere conclusus fuit, singulis diebus dentibus frenduerunt, “ovoulis nictarunt, capitibus nutarunt et labia distenderunt, q.d. Omnes “videntes me.—v. 9. Convolvat in Dominum. Midrasch Tehillim : “ Omnes species convolutionum ego porto. Peccata tpsorum devolve in me “ et ego portabo.—v. 16. Lingua mea adheesit faucibus. Ibidem, col. 3. “ Dixit Deus S.B. O Messia, peccata illorum, qui reconditi sunt apud te, “intrudent te in jugum ferreum, et reddent te similem vitulo, cujus ocult “ caligant, comprimentque spiritum tuum jugo, et propter illorum peccata “ adherebit lingua tua palato tuo.” * Much discussion has arisen amongst critics as to whether the words eyo %copa remoibes, x.t.., are a citation from Isaiah viii. 17 or from some other passages of the Old Testament. Illustrious names are to be found on both sides of the question. Grammius, however, has to my mind, conclusively settled the question in favour of Isaiah viii. 17. See J. C. Wolfius on Hebr. ii. 13; and, on the other side, Surenhusius, BiBX. KaradA., pp. 607—609. ° Apparently a citation from Hosea xiii. 14. ‘‘ The power of the grave,” in the Hebrew, is »xz 1, from the hand of Hades, ék xeipos ddov, LXX. See also Isaiah xxv. 8. The following curious legend is quoted by Schoettgen in his treatise De Messia (Hor. Hebr., tom. ii., p. 376), “ Jesa.xxv.8. Pesikta in Jalkut Simeoni ii, fol. 56,3, Dixit “ Satanas ad Deum Sanctum Benedictum: Domine totius mundi, Lux iila, “* quam sub throno glorie tue recondisti, ad quemnam spectat ? Respondit “ Deus, ad eum ow nwyqd 7297 TWIT) Thy XitWw, qui te repressurus et “ tgnominia adfecturus est. Regessit Satanas : Domine, ostende mihi illum. “ Deus respondit: Veni et vide illum. Quum vero Satanas t/lum con- “* smiceret, YIP by bon myvw, exterritus est, et in faciem suam cecidit, dicens, “ob Seah pnyw mw mw Nn, sane hine est Messias, qui me et omnes “ gentiles in infernum precipitaturus est, g.d. Jesa. xxv. 8. Deglutiet “mortem in eternum.” For Rabbinic explanations of Hos. xiii. 14, in reference to the Messiah, see Schoettgen, zbid., pp. 209 and 564. Verses 15—18.—And set free those who, through fear of death, were during their lifetime subject (€voyou held by, bound by) to bondage. For verily (as you know) he did not (od yap Synmov, nimirum, certe, utique, profecto. Schrevel.) take upon him the nature of angels, but he CHAP. II., 15—18. 33 took upon him the seed of Abraham!’ (as it had been foretold he should do (Gen. xxii. 18), otherwise Christ could not have so perfectly sympathised with mortal nature, man being at present a little lower than the angels. This 16th verse seems to be parenthetic, and the subject is resumed in yerse 17). Wherefore (dev, whence) in all things it behoved him to (@eure, it was essential that he should) be made like unto his brethren, in order that he might be a merciful (€Aejuwv, compassionate) and reliable (actos, trustworthy)* High Priest* in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation (Ut misericors Jieret, et fidelis pontifex ad Deum ut repropitiaret. Vulg. —els TO itdoxeoOar) for the sins of the people. For in that (in eo enim, in quo passus est. Vulg.) he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.‘ ? Stuart translates od yap Sijou dyy. «.7.d., “ Besides he doth not at all help the angels, but he helpeth the seed of Abraham” ; a rendering which appears quite inconsistent with the context, however it may be warranted by the occasional use of the verb émAapBdverar. The writer is alleging an all-sufficient reason why Christ took human nature, and did not, and could not, take upon him the nature of angels. First, it would have been in direct violation of the prophetic Scriptures. Secondly, he could not then, from actual experience, have sympathised with the infirmities of flesh and blood as he does now. He would not have been a muctés apxtepeds, an high priest in whom we could confide, as we can now, seeing that he disdains not to call us brethren. ? Wolfius (in loco) writes :—“ Theodorus Dassovius in Diss. de Pontif. “ Hebr. Summi ingress. in Sanct. Sanctor., sec. 14, existimat, alludi hic “ad fidelitatem, quam, interposito jurejurando, olim polliceri debebat “ Sacerdotibus aliis, facturum se, ne Sanctum Sanctorum ingressurus “thus prunis injiceret, Sadduceorum more, sed faceret illud post “ingressum. Vide Joma, cap. i., sec. 5, et Siphra passim. Confer “Cl. Schlichteri Decimas Sacras, p. 516, sqq., cui Apostolus respicere “ potius videtur Mosen, servum Dei, qui intercessione sua Deum populo “rebelli benevolum reddiderit ac propitium, cujusque fidelitas capite ii. “integro summis laudibus extollatur, quemadmodum Philo Mosen “vocet dpistov Baoihéa, kal vomoberny, kal “Apxtepea kat mpodytny Soxu- “uorarov. Confer Hebr. iii. 1, 2.” F 34 CHAP. III.,-1—4. * In verse 11 the writer has called attention to the fact that an earthly priest, who performs sanctificatory rites for the people, is of the same human nature. The like sympathetic tie exists between Christ and the believers, so that implicit confidence can subsist between our High Priest and his flock. * An allusion to Ps. Ixxxix. 19 (20), “Then spakest thou in vision to thy holy one, and saidst, I have laid help upon one that is mighty (122 9Y My nw) ; I have exalted one chosen out of the people.” Is. lxiii. 1, “Who is this that cometh from Edom...... ? I that speak in righte- ousness, mighty to save” (»wnd x). A number of ancient Jewish interpretations of Is. Ixiii. 1 will be found in Schoettgen. Consult the Scripture index in both volumes. CHAPTER ITI. THE writer has now, whilst admitting the authority and inspiration of the prophets, established from their writings, the transcendent dignity of the Son of God. He has reminded his readers how He first purged our sins by his death and sufferings, and then, in fulfilment of the predictions of David and Isaiah, sat down at the right hand of the majesty on high. He is, by his eternal generation and by his Creatorship, Lord over the angels, who are required to render him Divine honours. If, then, the revelation given by prophets and angels de- manded implicit and reverential obedience, much more the additional revelation imparted in these latter days by God’s Son. God has “set to his seal” to the mission of Jesus, by a stupendous manifestation of miraculous credentials. These miraculous powers of the “world to come” had never been promised to angels, nor yet the ultimate sovereign Lordship over all things. They were pro- mised to the Son of man, the Messiah, who for the CHAP. IIL, 1—4. 35 time being, was to be made a little lower than the angels, on account of his manhood. Man at present is confessedly “a little lower than the angels.” The object of the taking of the manhood, instead of the nature of angels, into God, is explained. It is, that the Messiah might be capable of death, as a propitiatory sacrifice, and so the declarations of all the prophets respecting a suffering Messiah might be fulfilled, and also, that he might be able to call us “brethren,’ and sympathise with the tempta- tions and frailties incident to human nature. So it had been expressly declared by David and Isaiah. By his death and resurrection he has overcome death, and redeemed the souls of the believers from the slavish fear of death as well as from the power of the devil. The conditions of Christ’s redemption are thus presented in miniature, so to speak. ‘The irresistible inference to be drawn from all these minute fulfilments of the character of Christ the Messiah, as stipulated by the prophets from the beginning, is that Jesus is a faithful and reliable High Priest in things pertaining to God. His man- hood, sufferings, and death, instead of awakening misgivings, are the irrefragable testimonies to the validity of his claims. Having thus par- ticularly examined into the preliminary question, What sort of a Christ or Messiah do the prophets lead us to expect? the writer affectionately in- vites a more careful consideration of the personal apostleship (é.¢e., mission) and High Priesthood of Jesus Christ, the profession of faith (o#oAoy/a) in whose name his readers have adopted. The point as 36 CHAP. III., 1—4. insisted on is his exact conformity to the Divine intentions of God who appointed him (motov dvta 76 Towjcavte avtov), precisely as Moses was scrupulously exact in all his house, to carry out his instructions to the very letter. Verses 1—4.— Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Jesus Christ, that he was faithful to him who created him (a High Priest, Qud ipsum constituit, J.C. Wolfius), as Moses was in all his household (or economy). But the former (otros, Christ) has been accounted worthy of (7&iwrat, t.e., can claim as his due) a greater glory than Moses ; inasmuch as he who plans it has a greater honour than the house itself. For every house is planned by some person or other, but he who planned all things (ta 7avta, the universes, and the scheme of man’s redemption) is God. Now the writer has already shown (i. 10—12) that to Messiah is ascribed in Ps. cii. 25, &c., the glory of being the Eternal’ Creator of all things, therefore Christ being God, is as immeasurably above Moses as the infinite over the finite, the Creator over the creature. 1 Sd kar dpyds, k.7.d., t.e., 1 primal ages. In like manner Dr. M‘Caui (Mosaic Record of Creation, Aids to Faith, sec. 7) observes how Onkelos in his Targum (Gen. i. 1) interprets Mwx11 by potpa, in antigui- ties, or former times, and also how the Hebrew ought properly (standing as it does without an article) to be translated “in beginning” in Reshith, and then adds, “The sum of all that has been said is, that ‘the words ‘in the beginning’ refer to ‘ time or duration,’ not to order, “and thus, therefore, the first verse does not mean ‘ at first God created “the heaven and the earth, nor ‘in the beginning of (our) creation he “ “created the heavens and the earth,’ but ‘of old, in former duration, * «God created the heavens and the earth. How long ago is not said. * The Hebrew word is indefinite, and can include millions or milliards “of years just as easily as thousands.” CHAP. III., 5—11. 37 Verses 5—11.— Moses, moreover, was faithful over all his house,’ as a servant (he was onlya steward of the things com- mitted to him; his authority was a delegated one), to bear testimony to the things yet to be spoken (els waprupuoy TOV AaANnOncopEvov).” But Christ as a Son over his own house (and therefore with supreme authority), whose house (or household) we are, if at least (€av7ep, provided that) we hold fast the public profession and cheerful, frank avowal (tiv tappyolav Kal TO Kavynua) of our hope, un- waveringly (BeS8aiav) unto the end.’ Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, Ps. xev. 7), To-day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation (wapatixpacue@, embitterment),as in the day of temptation in the wilderness. ("p72 MOD OYD Ma as at Meri- bah, as in the day of Massah in the wilderness, where, by a rebellious want of faith in God’s appointments, they pro- voked Him to wrath.) When (or where, od, aw) your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works (Syp my work, sing.) forty years.” Wherefore I was grieved (410 rpoc@yOica, was indignant) with that gene- ration, and said,° They do always err in their heart, but they have not known my ways. So I sware in my wrath (Num. xiy. 28—30), They shall not enter into my rest. (Amy my rest, this expression is not found in Numbers xiv., where the historical event is related, but is taken from the Inspired Commentary upon it, spoken by the Holy Ghost in Psalm xev. 7—11.) 1 Oikos here means household, domestic economy, in reference to the entire Mosaic dispensation. The Hebrew m1 house, is repeatedly employed thus, e.g., Gen. xviii. 19, “his household after him” (m2, T@ olkw aitod, LXX.) Compare Num. xii. 6—8, which is here cited. * That Moses did bear this testimony appears from Deut. xviii. 15—19 :—* The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from “the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me ; unto him ye shall “hearken ; according to all that thou desiredst of the Lord thy God “in Horeb in the day of the assembly (’.e., a mediator to stand between 38 CHAP. III., 12—15. “ God and man, and to speak in God’s name), saying, Let me not hear “again the voice of the Lord my God, neither let me see this great fire ‘‘any more, that I die not. And the Lord said unto me, They have “well spoken that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a “Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and I will put *‘my words in his mouth ; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall “command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not “‘hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will “require it of him.” (nr wit 22N, eyo exducnow e& ai’tov, LX X.) The personal pronoun is emphatic in this concluding clause, which in Acts ili, 23 is paraphrased, efohoOpevOnoerat ek Tod Kaov. The verb wv he required, sought after, in Gen. ix. 5, xlii. 22, Deut. xxiii. 21 (22), Ps. ix. 12(13), Ezek. xxxili. 6, has the signification of exacting the extreme penalty, punishing to the uttermost, enforcing a claim with rigorous severity. * Any wavering, or false shame in the profession of Christianity would be next door to a denial of Christ, and but a step removed from apostasy, inasmuch as it would indicate a hesitating and halting faith. It was a time for decision, and not for compromise, even as Christ declared, “ He that is not with me is against me ; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.” (Matt. xii. 30.) * “ And he called the name of the place Massah, and Meribah, “because of the chiding of the children of Israel, and because they “tempted the Lord, saying, Is the Lord among us, or not?” (Exod. xvii. 7.) See also Num. xx. 10; Deut. vi. 16, 17. ‘The refusal to hearken to Jesus, and the questioning his Divine authority, would be a sin and provocation of a similar kind. > The Hebrew reads, “ Forty years long was I grieved,” px, or lothed ; and so also the LXX, ‘ reacapdxovra érn mpocwyxGica instead “ of Awd mpooay Oca.” ° ’Ael mAavavra, k.t.’. The above quotation differs from the Hebrew, which reads 07 125 -yn oy ‘‘a people erring in heart are they” ; it also varies slightly from the LXX, besides the important variation already noticed. Verses 12—15.—Wherefore (see 410 of verse 7) take heed, (@rézrere) brethren, (continues the writer, with such a terrible example of neglected privilege and unbelief before your eyes in the rejection of your forefathers) lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in ot sos n na “postatising (€v7@ aooTivat, sc.,as some of your number CHAP. III., 16—19. 39 have already done) from the living God. (Their fathers had asked, “Is the Lord among us, or not?’ Exod. xvi. 7.) But exhort one another daily (wapaxaXeire, so in Mal. iii. 16, “ They that feared the Lord spake often, 17273, one to another’’), while it is called “To day” (as in Ps. xev. 7) ; lest any of you be hardened by the deceit- fulness of sin (i.e., the specious sophisms and plausible reasonings of the unbelieving Jews).—For we have been made partakers of Christ (pétoyos yap yeyovapev Tod Xpiotov, i.e., of his rest), if we only hold fast the com- mencement of our profession (tiv apyiy THs UToctacews, 1g. THY TpeTnY Twiotw, Stuart) stedfast to the end—(I say, exhort one another), in respect to what has been said,’ “To pay if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation.”’ 1 €v ro héyeoOa. Formulam allegationis, ev 76 Xéyer Oar, quod attinet, ea convenit cum Hebrza 2x1, in eo quod ille dicit, nempe Scriptura, sive Seripturz auctor, qua formula veteres Hebrzorum doctores uti solent, quando sensus loci prima fronte non satis clarus est, sed majori elucida- tione indiget. Surenhus. BBA. karaAX., p. 616. The writer quotes the first words of the passage again, to make the subject of the mutual exhorta- tions which he enjoins upon them, more clearly understood. Verses 16—19.—For some,’ although they did hear, pro- voked (God). Howbeit not all (€v tots 7X elo, the majority, 1 Cor. x. 5) who came out of Egypt by Moses. But with whom was he grieved forty years?” Was it not with those who sinned (trespassed on various occasions and were de- stroyed), whose carcases fell in the wilderness?* And to whom sware he, in his wrath, that they should not enter into his rest, but to those who disbelieved (and, in consequence, refused to obey, adzeujcact). We see, then, that they could not enter in because of unbelief (8¢ amuctiay).* 40 CHAP. III., 16—19. ’ Professor Stuart, followed by Alford, proposes (with doubtful advan- tage, I would submit) to translate verse 16, rives (not rwes) yap dxovcarres, k.7.A., with Griesbach, Dindorff, Tittmann, and others, interrogatively, e.g., ““ Who now were they, that when they heard, did provoke? Nay, did “not all (a\N’od mayres, k.7.X ) who came out of Egypt unto Moses?” and then he says, “ He means to intimate by this, that the number who “embrace error cannot sanction it; nor can unanimity in unbelief ‘render it any more excusable. Consequently, that the great body of “the Jews rejected the Messiah at the time then present, and urged “the Christian converts to do the same, would be no excuse for apostasy. “TIavres is not to be taken in the strict metaphysical or mathematical “sense here any more than in multitudes of other places...... Of the “adults, only Caleb and Joshua among the Israelites are excepted, as “not having taken part in the murmurings against the Lord (Num. “xiv. 30). Of course there could be no scruples in the Apostle’s mind “ about applying the word wavres in this case, just as it is applied in a ‘multitude of others, viz., to designate great multitudes, or the great “majority.” The learned Professor, in his above quoted remarks upon mdvres, seems to supply the best reason for rejecting his own inter- pretation of the passage. Besides, although the sin of Israel in the wilderness, was so widespread as to call for a signal and national punishment, by which all the adults were excluded from Canaan, we have no reason to suppose that all, who shared in their kinsmen’s punishment, were guilty of the same offence. The majority were, and with “rots mAeloow,” St. Paul tells us, ‘God was not well pleased,” and yet the whole nation suffered. Again, “ the rest” alluded to, and to which the disobedient did not attain, was God’s spiritual rest. They were cut off in their sins; but it is altogether incredible that all the adults, or even a majority of them, were doomed to forfeiture of salva- tion, upon the occasion of their exclusion from Canaan. The passage of the Epistle to the Hebrews in question, ought to be read by the light of 1 Cor. x. 1—12, where St. Paul specifies some of the occasions upon which prompt excision feli upon the guilty, and tells how they were “overthrown in the wilderness” (kateotpoOncav yap €v th epjuo). The point upon which the writer to the Hebrews here insists is the same as that insisted on by Paul to the Corinthians, viz., that it is possible to commence by enjoying the highest privileges, and yet to fall short. Such privileges were vouchsafed to all who came out of Egypt. Some profited by them, yet others fell deservedly short, because of their fuithlessness and perverse rebellion. * Teooapdkovra érn. Surenhusius, with a fanciful elegance, ob- serves that the Apostle specifies the forty years of provocation in CHeP. Ty 1s: 41 the wilderness, because a like period had nearly elapsed since the rejec- tion and crucifixion of Christ, and did actually elapse before the destruction of Jerusalem. bid., p. 617. **Qv ra K@Xa, .7.A. Compare Num. xiv. 29, ose oe mA A, €V TH epnue tavTy meceirat Ta KOA buoy. LXX. See also verse 32. * Respicit locum Numer. xiv. 11. 12 wow xy mR IY, Quo usque non eredetis mthi.—Schoettg. in loc. CHAPTER IV. ATTENTION has now been drawn to the exact fulfil- ment by Jesus Christ of his Messianic functions, and of the requirements of the prophetic writings. Like Moses he was faithful to the letter of his Commission. He was greater than Moses, because Moses had only a delegated and ministerial autho- rity. The Rabbies taught with one voice that Messiah would be greater than Moses. (See Note 4, p. 28.) As the Church in the wilderness was Moses’s household, so true believers are Christ's. But, as many of the adults who came out of Egypt* perished in their sins, and were not permitted to * The Talmudical writers interpreted this 11th verse of Ps. xev., of the fruition of heaven, as appears from the following extract from the Treatise, Sanhedrin, col. 274. (Ugolini Thes., vol. xxv.) :— YOR TT ITI WNW «NID PNY) PRI PNY RIT DID) po AD px IT WI YI] WR WIN NV PD .NI ny? wn OW) .TIT DDI YON wn OW) NTMI ON PRI ON *DNI “The generation of the wilderness have no part in the world to come. “ For it is said (Num. xiv. 35), In this wilderness they shall be consumed, “and there shall they die. They shall be consumed, in this world: and “ there shall they die, in the world to come. And this also is meant by “ what is said (Ps. xev.11), Zo whom I sware in my wrath, if they should “enter into my rest.” Rabbi Akiba, nevertheless, following Rabbi Eliezer, qualifies this sentence of excision in favour of those saints who had made a covenant with God by sacrifice. (See Psalm 1. 5.) Others, again (cbid., col. 275), argue from Is. xxxv. 10, that God will repent of his oath. G 42 CHAP. IV, 1 3. enter God’s spiritual rest (7.e., the future blessed- ness of the Redeemed), besides being excluded from Canaan, so also there is a danger now, that through unbelief, and a rebellious rejection of the “ words of life” as spoken by Jesus, those who are nominally of his household should apostatize, and fall back into condemnation. The patient forbearance of God is not for ever. Those who do not like to retain Him in their knowledge, but hold the truth in unrighteousness, He gives over to a reprobate mind. The Hebrews are therefore urged to ad- monish one another, and to remember that all God’s offers to the sinner are for “To day.” To him who will continue in sin, that grace may | abound, there are no promises held out of ultimate | amendment. Such as these do provoke the Lord to cut them off. To the believers God will give “his rest,’ but the persistent cavillers and the unbelieving shall be shut out. We see, therefore, that unbelief was the capital sin, which revoked the offer of “rest”? in the case of the disobedient and disbelieving Israelites. Verse 1,—Let us, therefore, fear (iv. 1) lest, although the same offer has been extended to our times, viz., of entering into his rest (elcedOety els tiv Katdravow avTod), any of you should seem to fail in attaining to it. The writer shows how a restless and dissatisfied temper, a halting conviction arising out of an undisciplined and disobedient frame of mind, is the natural prelude and parent to apostasy. Verses 2, 3.—For we have received the glad tidings (of CHAP. IV., 4—10. 43 spiritual rest, éopev ednyyedtopévot, i.c., the offer of sal- vation) as well as they, but the word of hearing (6 doyos THs axons, the matter of hearing, i.e., the fact that they heard) was of no avail, not being conjoined with faith, in the hearers. But we (i.e., all of us, of muctedoavtes) who have believed do enter into the rest (7)v Katdmavow) aforesaid of God (as He has told us, “ As I sware in my wrath, that they should not enter into My REsT’’), although (xatrov)* the works (of creation) were finished (so long ago as) at the foundation of the world. (Gen. 11. 1—3.) ? Philipp. iv. 15, “ eis Adyov ddécews kat Anews.” ? Prof. Stuart renders, in his Translation, p. 251, kairor, namely, “As He says, ‘So I sware in my wrath [unbelievers] shall not enter “into my rest,’ namely, [rest from] the works which had been ‘‘ performed after the foundation of the world was laid ;” but in his Commentary, p. 339, “ The works that were done after the world was “ founded.” The Vulgate has, “ Et quidem operibus ab institutione “ mundi perfectis.” The object, however, of the writer is plainly as follows :—God’s rest commenced after the works of creation were finished, and yet, by the mouth of David, God intimates that it was still possible to enter into that primal rest. It was not the rest which Joshua gave, for, when David wrote, the people were in Canaan ; and yet David specifies a day, To pay, plainly intimating that the rest was neither past or present, but future, and heavenly. In support of his assertion that the rest offered to the believers is that ca8Saticpos which God instituted for all succeeding time, after the works of creation were finished, the writer quotes two passages. The first (Gen. ii. 2) relates the historical fact of its institution, the second (Ps. xcv. 11) declares that this was the rest, viz., Gop’s rEst, from which the rebels in the wilderness were excluded, e.g. Verses 4—10.—For He hath spoken in a certain place, concerning the seventh day, thus:—ANnp Gop RESTED ON THE SEVENTH DAY FROM ALL HIS works. And in this place again:—IFr THEY SHALL ENTER INTO MY REST. Since, therefore, it remains that some may enter into it, 44 CHAP. IV., 11—13. and those to whom the glad offer was formerly (oi rpotepov evayyedtcbévres) made did not enter in by reason of unbelief—(again He specifies (opiGer) a particular day ; that is, To pay; saying, by David, after so great an interval of time (nearly 500 years), “ Zo day, if ye will “ hear his voice, harden not your hearts’’: for if Joshua had given them rest, He (7.e., God) would not have spoken of another day afterwards)—it is plain, then, that a Sab- batic rest (ca@Batvcpos) remaineth for the people of God. For the man who enters into His (God’s) rest, has rested also from his labours, just as God did from his.’ ’ The Talmudical treatise Berachoth, fol. 17, col. 1, illustrates in a remarkable manner the nature of the Sa@Baricpds expected by the ancient Jewish Church :— oom RD TDR RD 2 PR RIT DWT mM Dw. No /anT Awa NMI DPN) DIWY OP IST AR NAN NI ANIP) AND NP JN) Nw NI TVIN NM .TYIWA YD Pa) OWN “ A frequent apothegm (Margarita—a pearl, a choice saying) was in “ the mouth of a certain Rabbi :—‘ The world to come is not like this “world, for in the latter there is neither eating nor drinking, nor “ “marriage (lit. procreation of children ; see Luke xx. 34, 1 Cor. xi. 18), “ “nor increasing, nor trafficking, nor hate, nor envy, nor heartburnings, “ «but the just shall sit with their crowns on their heads, and enjoy “the splendour of the Shechinah.’” See J. Rhenferd, Diss. 7., de Seculo Futuro, p. 1120 (Meuschen). Verses 11—18,—Let us, therefore, give all diligence (o7ov- Sdowpev) to enter into that rest, lest any one fall away after the same example of unbelief; for the Word of God is quick (ov)," and mighty in operation (évepyis) (see Isaiah xlix. 2, “ He hath made my mouth like a sharp “ sword,” lv. 10, 11; and also Ps. xxix. 4, &c.), and more trenchant® than any two-edged sword, and penetrates even to dividing of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a trier (xputixos) of the thoughts and intents of the heart, and there is no creature invisible to his regards. But all things are naked (yuyra), and exposed to the searching scrutiny*® (tetpaynduopéva Tots opOarpots) of Him with whom we have to do (or, to account, mpos ov jiv 6 AOyos). CHAP. IV., 11—13. 45 1"ISe rov avOeorata eEavavrias Oeod Aéyov evwmAuTpevov, Tap’ by Td, TE Ed Kal TO py, TvpBEBnKe TeAecovo Oa. “ Behold him that resists the armed ** Word of God, by whom what is good, or the contrary, is brought to “ pass.”—Philo, De Cherubim, ibid., Works, Mangey’s Edit., vol. i., 145. * Topwrepos. Philo uses very similar language (Quis rerum Divinarum Heres, Works, Mangey’s Edit., vol. i., p. 491) on Gen. xv. 10 :—Eir emureyet, Ateihev ata pea, TO tis ov mpocGeis, iva Tov adidakrov evvons Bedy TEUVOVTA, TAs TE TOY TopaTwv Kal Tpaypatar €Ens dmacas Npudo Oa kal Hvac Oat Soxovcas picets, TH Towel TAY TUpTaVT@Y aiTOd Ady@. Gs eis THY bévTaTHY dxonbeis axunv, Siapav ovdérore Anyer Ta aicOnra maya, emerday b€ pexpt TOV aTépov Kal heyopévov auepov SueEEAOn, TaAW amd To’T@Y, Ta Oyo Gewpnra eis auvOnrovs Kal ameprypaous poipas apxerar Siaipeiy odtos 6 Topevs, x.t.A. “He says, moreover, And he divided them through “ the midst. He does not add who did it, in order that you may under- * stand that it is the undemonstrable God, who cuts asunder the con- “ stituent parts of all bodies and objects that appear to be coherent and “united, by his Word, that penetrates all things. Which, being whetted “ to the keenest possible edge, never ceases to pierce all things that can “be appreciated by the senses. But because it reaches even to the **minutest particles, even to those that are termed indivisible, the “above mentioned penetrating Word suffices to divide things which “can be appreciated by reason alone, into untold and indescribable “ portions, &e. And again, tbid., p. 506, ‘O, re yap Oetos Aéyos, ta ev TH “ ducer Sethe, Kal Sueverpe mavta. "O, Te nuérepos voids, arr ay mapadaBy “ yont@s mpaypatd Te kal o@pata, eis amepakis ametpa Siaipet pepy, kal “ réuvov ovdérote Anyet. Tovto d€ cupBaiver, dua thy mpos Tov month Kal “ rarépa Tay hoy euepecav. For the Divine Word has pierced and divided “all things in nature. Even our own mind never ceases to divide what * objects or bodies it may have apprehended, into an infinite and un- “ appreciable number of particles. But this happens on account of the “ resemblance to the Father and Maker of all things.” So, also, Philo declares, in very kindred sentiment to that of the writer to the Hebrews, 6 Oeios Nbyos d£vdepkearés eoTw, ws TdvTa epopay civa ixavds. “The Divine Word is so sharpsighted, as to be “able to inspect all things.”—SS. Legum Alleg., lib. iii., ibid., p. 121. * kai rerpay. x.t.d.; lit., with head drawn back and face upturned. J. C. Wolfius writes, in loco (Cure Phil. et Crit., tom. iv., p. 647), ‘* Et supine exposita oculis ejus. Ita optime E. Schmidius, vel quod “idem est, resupinata, ut J. Perizonius ad Aeliani Var. Hist., xii. 58, * et cum eo Elsnerus, p. 342, reddunt. Atque hic quidem hoc loquendi “genus ab iis ait petitum, quorum capita reclinantur, ne intuentium ‘ oculos effugiant et lateant. Ita Plinius, Panegyr., cap. 37, de iis qui “hoe habitu ad supplicium ducebantur. Nihil tamen gratius, nihil “ seculo diynius, quam quod contingit, desuper intueri delutorum supina 46 CHAP. IV., 14—16. “ora retortasque cervices. Hinc Hesychius :—Terpayndiopéva, mepa- ne vepomeva, et Plutarchus, de Curiositate, p. 521. TpayndrCopevous “ kal meptayouévovs curiosos appellat, qui oculos elatos hue illuc con- “ vertunt et res circumspiciunt. Eandem sententiam adstruit J. Alberti, “ p. 422.” Here, then, the writer terminates his commoni- tory digression, which extends from chap. ii. 6 to iv.13. We must bear in mind that it is based upon the proof of the superiority of Christ’s authority to that of Moses, and is, in substance, to the following effect :—‘‘ If your fathers perished for disobeying . | “ Moses, much greater is your danger, if you refuse ** obedience to Christ.” Verses 14—16.—Having, therefore, a great High Priest, who has passed into the heavens (in accordance with Ps. cx. 1), Jesus the Son of God (he continues), let us hold fast the profession of our faith (kpat@pev THs duonroyias, z.e., of Christianity). For we have not an high priest who cannot be touched with the feeling of (sympathise with) our infirmities,’ but was tempted, in all things, similarly to ourselves, without sin.” Let us therefore draw near with boldness (aappnoias, confident assurance) to the throne of his grace (where He sits on the right hand of the Father, Ps. cx. 1), in order that we may receive compassionate pity, and find grace to help in time of need (eis evxatpov BonPeav, for a timely succour or assistance). See Schoettg., tom. 1., pp. 645, 646. 1 Danzius (De ditpw Redemptionis Humane ad 1 Pet. i. 18, 19, p. 848) observes, ‘“‘Sic etiam vocatur Messias Servus Dei, Jes. ‘* xlii. 1, ubi iterum Chaldzus, xmwn 1y NT ecce servus meus Messias, “et R. Dav. Kimchi inquit, mwnn yo wm hic est Rex Messias.”— Meuschen, WN. Zest. ex Talmude illustr. This passage of Isaiah (verses 1—4) are referred to our Lord Jesus Christ, in reference to his Divine sympathy with human infirmity, by St. Matthew xii. 15—21. 2 Xapis dpaprias. As being sinless, our High Priest has perpetual access to God. He need not wait for the Day of Atonement to come round, before he can draw near to seek relief for his people. He can CHAP V., 1—9. 47 always obtain timely succour for us, and by Him, we can always approach the throne of grace ; so superior is the Messianic dispensa- tion of substance and reality, over the Levitical one of type and shadow. “ Neque Messias Sacerdos solum est, sed et ipsum quoque sacrificium. “Tikkune Sohar, c. 18, fol. 28, 1. Prophete reliqui non potuerunt “ ascendere ad videndum Regem, nist horis et diebus notis, quemadmodum “de Aarone constat, qui tamen precipuus omnium fuit, de quo Levit. “xvi. 2, Non omni tempore veniat ad sanctum; verum v. 3. nest, “cum hoe veniat Aharon ad sanctum: quanto igitur minus reliqui. “ Tu vero, O Pastor fidelis, singulis horis et diebus, quibus voluisti, ad Regem “widendum ascendistt. Ibidem, c. 20, fol. 47,2. Schechina inferior est “ suffitus Dei S.B., sacrificium ejus, altare ejus : in illa enim Israelite cibos “ sacrificiorum, h.e. preces ad Deum S.B. instruunt, quippe que sunt instar “ sacrificiorum matutinorum et vespertinorum, et sicut frusta sacrificiorum, “que per totam noctem consumuntur. Ile qui Justus est, est OW JP “ sacrificium intra tempus matutinum, et meridianum, est sacrificium “ Sabbathorum et dierum Festorum, 3¥9 DY) niwai 72/79 NwIP NOYI IP M7, saa wbx Won enim accessus est populo sancto ad Deum S.B. nisi per ilud. “pyr. Per hoe veniet Aaron ad sancta. £¢, nemo glorietur, nisi “ny. Sohar Numer., fol. 103, col. 412. Quomodo sanatio hominum “comparata est? Resp. Ad modum vituli. (Interpretatio additur, “nescio a quo profecta : Intelliguntur passiones, quas Messias pro nobis “ sustinet.) Ste enim legitur Jesa. xxvii. 18. Ibi pascet vitulus, et ibi *cubabit. Priort commate intelligitur Messias filius Josephi, de quo “ legitur, Deuter. xxxiii. 17. Primogenitus bovis ejus gloria est ipsi. “* Postertort autem Messias filius Davidis.’ Schoettg. Hor. Hebr., tom. ii., pp. 645, 646. This fiction of the two Messiahs is found in the Targum on Song of Sol. iv. 5. CHAPTER V. Curist’s Messiahship has now been proved to be a valid one. He is, agreeably to the prophetic decla- rations, human as well as Divine. He has a right to be heard as a teacher, and to abrogate the cere- monial appointments of Muses, because he comes in his own hereditary right as a Son to speak of his own things. In Psalm ex., which proclaims his Divinity, his high priesthood is put forward as an equally prominent attribute. Here, then, one of the most formidable Jewish objections against 48 CHAP. V., 1—9. Christianity is disposed of, viz., You abrogate the Levitic priesthood, you do away with the ancient sacrifices, and give us nothing in their place; —whereas, Moses has expressly declared (Levit. xvii. 11), “It is the blood that maketh an atone- “ment for the soul,’ and has also enjoined upon us for an “everlasting statute” that the high priest shall bring the blood of the sin-offering within the veil, “to make an atonement for the children of Israel, “for all their sins, once a year.” (Levit. xvi. 15, 34.) The answer is plain and conclusive. If Jesus can properly claim to be the Divine Son of David spoken of in Ps. cx., He is also “a priest for ever, after the “ order of Melchisedek ;”’ for so, also, it is written in the same Psalm, “Jehovah hath sworn, and will “not repent, Thou art a priest for ever, after the “order of Melchisedek.” (ptz-2bm snaat by, «ata THv TaEW. K.T.A, ex) * * The Rev. G. Phillipps, D.D., in his introductory remarks on Ps. cx., writes as follows :—“ By far the greater part of the elder Rabbis “have determined that it (Ps. cx.) treats of the Messiah. Thus the ‘Midrash Tehillim in Ps. ii., on the words, J will declare the decree, “&e., saith, 0 mwnn bw my om DEN, The affairs of the Messiah are “ set forth in the Scriptures of the Law, of the Prophets, and of the ** Hagiographa. In the Law, Ex. iv. 22; in the Prophets, Is, lii. 18, “and xlii. 1; and in the Hagiographa, Ps. ex., ‘ The Lord said unto my “ Lord.’ The Editor of the Venice edition, it must be stated, has, “with a true Jewish spirit, erased the words, Monn bw omy. Again, “on Ps. xviii. 35, ‘ Thy right hand shall uphold me, the Midrash has ‘the following note :—2) x29 Thy) Nom OWI TY "rN, Labbi Joden, in “the name of k. Kama, said, that in the time to come, 7.e., in the age of “ Messiah, the Holy One (blessed be He !) will make King Messiah to “sit at his right hand, as it ts said, ‘ The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit “on my right hand. KR. Gaon, on Dan. vii. 18, ‘ He came with the “ clouds of heaven, saith, and this is wn wprs, Messiah, our Righteous- “ ness, as it is said, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, &c.” The Psalms in Hebrew, with a Commentary, vol. ii., pp. 417, 418. CHAP, V.; 1—9. 49 It being granted, then, that Messiah was to be a High Priest, the next question to be answered is, what had Jesus to offer? To this difficulty the writer adverts in the opening verse of this fifth chapter. The Talmud speaks as follows of the High Priesthood of Messiah (Zr. Avoth., cap. 34) : — Aaron and Messiah are to be understood by “ These are the two anointed ones (rT 922, sons of “ oil) that stand by the Lord of the whole earth. “ (Zech. iv. 14.) But no one knew which of them “was the dearest. Since, however, it is said (Ps. “ex. 4), Zhe Lord hath sworn, and uill not repent, « Thou art a priest for ever, thou mayest know “that king Messiah is dearer than the priest of “justice”? The Rabbinic writers assert that Michael, who is the same as the ANGEL OF THE Lorp and the ANGEL oF THE CovENANT, is the High Priest above. In the Schemoth Rabba, sect. 2, fol. 104, 3, it is said, “ Wherever Michael appeared, “ayow nap sin it was the glory of the Schechina.” He is also called “ Metatron.” Schoettgen, com- menting on the Divine appellation sw Ja wypA, Tue Hoty ONE, BLESSED BE Hk, remarks that the Jewish writers apply this designation to the Messiah, e.g., Sohar Genes., fol. 68, col. 249, smwn N>dr4 maps Nowa sapnNt “And king Messiah, who is called “ by the name of the Holy One, blessed be He.” In the same work, fol. 76, col. 301, and 77, col. 305, ‘the words of Genesis iii. 15, “ He shall bruise thy “ head,’ which are elsewhere interpreted of the Messiah, are there applied to Tue Hoty Ons, H 50 CHAP. V., 1-9. BLESSED BE Hp. Again, it is written in Bereshith Rabba, sect. 5, fol. 68, “ The voice which came to “« Moses at that time, and said to him (Deut. xxxii. 48), Come up to Mount Abarim, was that of the “ Holy One, blessed be He, the Metatron, map'n ow ymunn.”’ And again, “ The voice of the Holy One, ** blessed be He, the Metatron, came to the waters.” As it is said, Ps. xxix. 3, ‘‘ The voice of the Lord is “upon the waters.’ See Schoettg. Hore Hebr., tom. ii, p. 8; also, pp. 110, 247, 298, 354, 642; also, tom. 1, p. 1218—1220. The Jalkut Rubeni, fol. 112, 2, asserts that the High Priest Michael “ stands and offers the souls of the just, 277 “oot bw yomwes, that is the sacrifices, which are “ offered im the earthly temple, and they are the souls “ of the beasts that are offered, and are called the “* souls of the just, because they have taken away their “ sins.’ For further information on this curious and interesting subject, the reader would do well to consult J. A. Danzius’ remarkable treatise, Schechina cum piis habitans. It is printed at length on pp. 701 — 739 of Meuschen, Nov. Test. ex Talmude illustr. See also the Preterita preteritorum of B. Scheidius, ibid., p. 18. Verses 1—9.—For every High Priest taken from amongst men’ is appointed on behalf of men, in reference to their relations to God,’ for the express purpose (iva) that he may offer gifts (apa, sc., freewill offerings *) and sacrifices, * Professor Stuart, I think erroneously, suggests “ thankofferings.” Expiatory sacrifices are here the topic under consideration. Dr. Gill has, ‘“ Freewill-offerings, peace-offerings, burnt-offerings, sin and “ trespass-offerings, all kind of sacrifices.” CHAP. V., 1—9. 51 (@veias), being in a position to treat with gentle modera- tion and sympathy (wetpiorabeiy Suvdwevos) those who are ignorant and out of the way® (¢.¢., those who have erred unwittingly), inasmuch as he himself is compassed with infirmity. And on account of this (infirmity of his nature, dua tavrnv), he must needs offer expiatory sacrifices for himself, as well as for the people. Moreover, no one assumes to himself this honour (intrudes himself into the priesthood), except he be called thereto by God, as was Aaron. (See the case of Nadab and Abihu, Levit. x. 1, of Korah and his sons, Numb. xvi., of King Uzziah, 2 Chron. xxvi. 16—21.) So, also, Christ glorified not himself by assuming the Highpriestly functions, but He who said unto him (Ps. ii. 7), “ Thou art my Son: this day have I “ begotten thee.’”? As He also says in another place (Ps. ex. 4), “Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of “‘ Melchisedek.”’? * Who, in the days of his flesh, after that He had offered up prayers and intercessions, with strong cryings and tears (¢.g., at Gethsemane) to Him that was able to save him from death,® and was heard on account of his pious submission (ao Tis evNaBelas °—or perhaps better, with Stuart, from that which he feared), although He was Son, learned obedience from the things that He suffered, and, having been made complete’ (Stuart, when exalted to glory, but I think this does violence to the context), became the author (aitvos, originator) of eternal salvation to all those that obey Him. 1 Schoettgen asserts that there is an allusion to Levit. xxi. 10, yrao dy77 yA, “and the High Priest from amongst his brethren ;” a distinction which appears in the LX X., amo rév adeApar: the Vulgate, however, reads, “inter fratres suos”—‘‘ der aus den Menschen genom- “ men wird.” —Luth. 2 inép avOporav kabiorarar ta mpds tov Ocdv. Wolfius says, ie., ‘ Pro hominibus constituitur in iis, que apud Deum sunt agenda, ut “ Beza et Schmidius: h.e., wé rem divinam faciat, sacra procuret, et “ populi loco ad Deum accedat. Ita phrasin recte exponit Elsnerus, et 52 CHAP. V., 1—9. “hue commode advocat verba Jethronis ad Mosen Exod. xviii. 19, “vivov o0 TO aS Ta Tpds Tov Ocdy, Kal dvoiaets TOs Aé-yous a’TaY mpds “rov Oedv. Sic vero etiam externos scriptores loqui idem aliquot locis “‘ostendit. Inter hos est Juliani ille in Fragmento pag. 296. Sacerdotes “honorandi sunt, os Siakovodytes nuiv Ta mpos Tors Oeodrs, utpote gui rem “ divinam.administrant.” * Merproradety duvapuevos, “ Qui possit, quantum satis est, miserari vicem. “Tta Schmidius et Beza. Verbi vim ita exposuit Camerarius, ut idem “esse dicat, atque v0 émetkeias til ouprdcyxey, alterius malis affici, eo * quod non rigide et severe, sed humaniter et placide de aliis judices, tanquam “si tua ipsius res ageretur, ut qui te putes eadem conditione. Atque ita “ Hesychius, qui perpiora@y reddit pixpa macyovta, et ovyyweookovta “enuecks. Photius in Lexico M.S. perpiomabeiv, ek pépovs ta man “ KaradexerOa, cvyywookew. Stephano in Thesauro non aliud esse “videtur, quam antecedens iv. 15, ocupmabjoa, vel cupmabjoa peta “ werpiorabeias. Conf. J. C. Dieterici Antig. Bibl., vol. ii., p. 20, et Jac. “ Cappelli Observationes, qui vertit : moderate ferre. Fortasse per vocem “« werptos in verbo hoc composito respicitur eo, ut inferatur, ro cuprabeiv ‘“‘decere sacerdotem. Merpia enim Grecis passim dicuntur ra TpemovTa, “et perpios Aéeyew, apud Platonem et Thucydidem est, commode et pro “rei dignitate dicere. Vide Greevii notas ad Hesiodi Epy. v. 306, p. 33. “ Cappellus l.c. durapevos idem esse putat quod ddeidor, ut 2 Cor. xiii. 8. “ Przestat autem in consueto verbi significatu persistere, cum statim “addatur causa, unde illa facultus ad eum proficiscatur, nempe ex eo ‘quod ipse infirmitatem habeat, eamque adeo sentiat.” J.C. Wolfius, in loc. Luther translates the 15th verse, “ Denn wir haben nicht einen “ Hohenpriester, der nicht kénnte Mitleiden haben mit unserer “Schwachheit, sondern der versucht ist allenthalben, gleichwie wir, “ doch ohne Siinde.” *Schoettgen, on Matt. xxii. 44, acutely observes that nothing more clearly demonstrates that Ps. cx. treats of the Messiah than the silence of the Jews with whom our Lord was disputing, for they might have replied, “ Thou sayest what is false, and seekest to deceive us by thy “quotation, or the Psalm does not treat of the Messiah, and none of “our Doctors ever so explained it.” Schoettgen might have put his case more forcibly still, for, from Mark xii. 35, it is plain that our Lord alleged a known Rabbinic interpretation, “ How say the Scribes that “ Christ is the Son of David? For David himself said, The Lord said “to my Lord,” &. Dr. Gill, on Ps. ex. 1, remarks :—“The Targum “is, The Lord said in his Word. Galatinus says the true Targum of ‘Jonathan has it, Zhe Lord said to his Word, and produces an autho- “rity for it.” The ancient Rabbinical doctors agreed with the Chris- CHAP. V., 1—9. 53 tian interpretation, although the Vetus Mizzachon (p. 183) absurdly argues that the Psalm relates to David’s persecution by Saul. Saul is the enemy to be put under David’s feet, and the invitation addressed by Jehovah to David to sit on his throne is to be read by the light of Ps. cix. 31, “ He shall stand at the right hand of the poor!” A lamer evasion and perversion of the palpable signification of this Scripture can scarcely be imagined. Schoettgen supplies the following examples of early Jewish interpretations in accordance with the Christian render- ing of the Psalm ; Midrasch Tehillim on Ps, ex. 1 :—‘ Dixit R. Judan “nomine R. Channa fil. Chanina 199 Mmwan Jn) TFT Pwr NID ny? “Temporibus N. T. Deus 8. B. Messiam (regem) sedere jubebit ad “ dextram, et Abrahamum ad sinistram suam. Bereschith Rabba, sect. “85, fol. 83, 4, ad Genes. xxxviii. 18 Joo baculum tuum ; Intelligitur “* Rex Messias, quemadmodum de eo dicitur, Ps. cx. 3. Virgam virtutis “tuze emittet Dominus ex Sion. In Sohar Numer., fol. 99, col. 394, * paullo aliter explicant: Dixit Dominus Domino meo, @e., 2p) pte NT “poy jamwn Tile Justus (Jacobus, de quo ibi sermo est) dixit ad Messiam “ filium Joseph: Sede a dextris meis.” Hor. Hebr., tom. i., p. 192. Schoettgen (ibid., p. 949), modestly asserts (on Heb. v. 6) that he has been unable to meet with any passage in Jewish writers that alleges Melchizedek to be a type of the Messiah :—“Quantum nos Judeeorum “‘ scripta pervolvimus, nemo eorum unquam cogitavit Melchisedecum “‘typum Messiz fuisse...... Chaldeus qui alias Psalmum cx. de * Davide explicat, hic tamen eleganter sic mapappager, x29? (72ND NNT “onxt nodvd. Nam tu constitutus es Princeps seculi futuri (t.e., temporum “ N. T.) idque propter meritum tuum, quia es 27 xI790 Rex justus. Quee “ explicatio, quamvis ad textum originalem not sit satis accurata, in “ Messiam tamen nostrum bene quadrat.” And yet, on p. 645 of the second volume, Schoettgen writes, ‘ Messize Sacerdotis typus fuit Mel- “* chisedech,” and fortifies his assertion by the following examples :— “ Bereschith Rabba, sect. 43, fol. 42, 1, ad verba Genes. xiv. 18. Et ‘‘jpse erat sacerdos Dei supremi. &. Samuel filius Nachman et Rabbini “ nostri de hoc loco controverterunt. Prior dicit, innut, quod Melchisedecus “ Abrahamo statuta Sacerdotit summi exposuertt ; nam per panem intelligitur * nanes propositionis, per vinum vero libamina. Sed Rabbini nostri dixerunt, “innut, quod legem Abrahamo revelaverit, q.d. Proverb. ix. 5. Venite, “comedite panem meum, et bibite vinum quod vobis miscuiimHue “usque Rabboth typis edita. Sed Hadrianus Finus in Flagello Jude- “orum vill. 20. post recitatam sententiam R. Samuelis hee addit ; ut “hfabetur in Psal. cix. (Hebr. cx.) 4. Juravit Dominus, et non “poenitebit eum, tu es Sacerdos in eternum, secundum ordinem “ Melchisedech. Quis est iste? Iste est Rex Messias, de quo scriptum 54 CHAP. V., 1—9. “est Zachary. ix. 9. Ecce Rex tuus venit tibi mansuetus, justus et “Salvator. Et sequitur ipse Rabbi dicens: In hoc autem quod dicit: “ Proferet (foréasse, Profert) panem et vinum ; correspondet et quod “ habetur in Psalmo lxxii. 16. Erit placentula frumenti sive panis in “terra in summis montium.” It is a matter of notoriety that the Talmudical writers applied Psalm Ixxii. to the Messiah, e.g., “Seven « things were created before the world—1. The law ; 2. Repentance ; “3. The Garden of Eden; 4. Gehenna; 5. The throne of Glory ; “6. The House of the Sanctuary; and, 7. The name of Messiah ; “‘ because it is written in Ps. lxxii. 17, His name shall endure for ever, “ before the sun pr Jinnun was his name.” (Pesachim, f. 45, 1; Nedarim, f. 39, 2 ; and elsewhere.) The Talmudists render the verb 2 as a proper name of Messiah. For some excellent remarks on this verse of Ps. lxxii. 17, the reader may consult Zhe Psalms in Hebrew, with a Commentary (vol. ii, pp. 145, 146), by the Rev. G. Phillips, D.D. Dr. Phillips observes (in loc.), The Chaldee translation does not exactly correspond with the ‘“‘ present Hebrew text. It is as follows :—iTow mn yo RODD AD OT) ‘“‘ and before the sun was his name was prepared. The explanation of “ Rosenmiiller is, without doubt, the correct one. He observes that “ the Chald. verb jot is not unfrequently the rendering of the Hebrew n> (see Exod. xix. 15, xxxiv. 2) ; and, consequently, it is by no means “an improbable conjecture that the interpreter read p> in his MSS. “.,... “It is proper to mention that De Rossi discovered this “ reading in the MSS. marked by him 879.” For the convenience of readers who desire to inform themselves as to the opinion of the Talmudists on the subject of the names of the Messiah, eg., Jinnun, Shiloh, &e., &c., I would refer them to p. 30, &., of B. Scheidii Preterita preteritorum, printed at length in Meuschen, Nov. Test. ex Talmude illustr., and also to Sanhedrin, col. 969, &c., Ugol. Thes., vol. xxv. > Tt is well known that the Rabbies, perplexed by Messianic passages, in which the sufferings of the Messiah are blended together with the descriptions of his triumph and glory, invented the figment of two Messiahs—Messiah ben David, a triumphant Messiah, and Messiah ben Joseph, a suffering one. The Talmud (Succah, f. 52, 1) says, “ Our Rabbies have asserted that Messiah ben David is speedily to be “ revealed in our days, because it is said (Ps. ii. 7), I will declare the “ decree, &c. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, Ask of me, ‘and I will give thee somewhat, because it is said, in the fifth verse, “ Ask of me, and I will give, &c. But when Messiah the son of Joseph “ saw that he was to be put to death, he said, Lord of the world, I ask “ nothing of thee but life. The Lord answered him, Yea, verily, life; CHAP. V., 1—9. 55 « for before thou spakest thy father David foretold concerning thee. (Ps. “ xxi, 5.) “He asked life of thee, and thou gavest it to him.” From this quotation it will be apparent that the early Jewish Doctors applied Psalms ii. and xxi. to the Messiah, and that the New Testament writers introduced no novelty, by their interpreting the former similarly. The reader may consult, with advantage, Dr. Alexander M‘Caul's Observations (p. 156—163) on Kimchi’s Commentary on Zech. (chap. xii. 19), and also the appendix of interpretation. subjoined to Dr. M‘Caul’s volume of Warburtonian Lectures, The Messiahship of Jesus. The following passages are commented on in the appendix :—Gen. iii. 14, 15, Gen. xlix. 10 ; Deut. xviii. 15—19 ; Psalm ii., xvi., xvili., xxii. 16 (17), xl. 7, 8 (6, 7), lxviii. 19 (18), Lxix., lxxii., Ixxxix., Ps. xcill.—e., cix., cx.; Is. vii. 14, viii. 1, ix. 6, lii. 18—liii. See also Scheidius, Preterita preteritorum, pp. 11—13, and Schoettg., Hor. Hebr., tom. ii., pp. 267, 360, 505, &e. The strong crying and tears of Messiah are prophetically spoken of in Ps. xxii., and his deliverance especially in verse 21 (22), "m29 DDT (NPD) MN ED wT. (See note 4 on p. 28, and also Schoettgen, tom. i., pp. 949—950.) In further elucidation of Ps, xxii. 22 (23), Tx) ow meox, “IT will declare thy name unto my “brethren,” I would adduce the Targumic interpretation of Cantic. viii. 1, “ And in that time shall the king Messiah be revealed to the “ congregation of Israel. Then shall the children of Israel say, Come, * be thou with us for a brother.” 5 °Amd ths evAaBeias, “ Duplex potissimum vocis evAdSea notio est, “ nempe vel metus, vel reverenti@...... Priorem tamen a plerisque video “ preeferri, quamvis posterior veteribus imprimis se probarit..... Qui “ per metum vertunt, illis idem heec phrasis est, ac si diceretur, exauditus “ atque adeo liberatus a metu, sc. mortis ; qui per reverentiam, illi a “Patre aiunt exauditum Christum propter reverentiam et pietatem, ‘“‘in Patrem prestitam. Pretulerim ego metus significatum. Hune “apud rovs LX X. frequentem esse patet ex locis ubi Hebr. 72x05, i.e., “ timorem anzium, vertunt evAdBeay, v. c. Prov. xii. 25, Jos. xxii. 24, “ Ezech. iv. 16, &c., quemadmodum verbum 2x7 exponunt per etAa- “ BeicOat, nominatim Jes. lvii. 11, et Jerem. xxxvili. 19. Nec profanis _ “hee significatio insueta est. Herodianus, lib. v., p. 112, latentes ait, “ et etAaBeia novxatovras metu quiescentes. Plutarchus de defectu oracu- “ Jorum pera evAaBelas, i.e., timede, Turnebo interprete, dixit. Philo de “ vita Mosis, Mosen tyv piow evdaBn, natura timidiorem, vocat....... Tllis “‘ addidero, quod Casaubonus ad Aristoph. Equites, vers. 253, observat, ““ eiAaBeioGa eos proprie dici, qui vasa vitrea aut fragilia alia cum “magna circumspectione tangant. Verbum eiAaSeio@a, Actor. xxili. “10, idem est quod timere, vereri, qui significatus etiam commode “ admittitur Hebr. xi. 7, ubi Noa évAaBnéeis, h.e. timens ab imminente “ Dei judicio, arcam struxisse dicitur.”—J. C. Wolfius, in doe, 56 CHAP. V., 10—14. ” Tedetobeis. “ Rectius agere eos puto, qui de perfecto redemptionis “ opere interpretantur, quod ipse servator pronuntiat Joh. xix. 30, “ Teréeheora.”—J. C. Wolfius, in loc. Verses 10—14.—Being saluted’ by God “a high priest? “after the order* of Melchisedek.” Concerning whom * (adds the writer) we have much to say (roAvs piv 6 Aoyos), and difficult to be explained, since ye have become dull in comprehension (tais axoats). For though ye might well be teachers, on the account of the length of time (since your conversion), ye have need again that one should teach you what are the primary elements of the Oracles of God, and have gone back so as to require milk (7.e., rudimentary instruction of the simplest kind), and not solid food (7.e., the more abstruse articles of faith). For whoever partakes of milk is untried’ (a7recpos unskilled) in the word of righteousness, for he is an infant. But solid food belongs to fullgrown men, who, by practice, have their perceptive faculties trained so as to discern between good and evil (i.e., what to accept as salubrious, what to reject as unwhole- some). ' IIpooayopevbeis. This verb occurs here only, in the New Testa- ment. For an example of its use by Philo, see p. 25, line 1. * Avo yap, ws Corker, iepa Oeod, Ev pev Ode 6 Kécpos, ev o Kal apx.epeds, 6 mpwrdyovos aitovd Oeios Adyos, Erepov Se Aoyxy Wux}, Hs tepeds 6 mpos adjGevav avOpwros. There are two temples, methinks, of God—the one, this universe, in which his firstbegotten and Divine Word is the High Priest ; the other the rational soul, of which the truthful man is the priest. Philo, Works, vol. i, p. 653, Mangey’s Edition, 5 Kara thy tag. This translation of *m127 5» agrees with the LX X. Dr. Gill renders the phrase ‘‘ according to what is said of”; and J. D. Michaelis, who is infatuated with his theory that the Greek Epistle to the Hebrews is only a translation from the Hebrew or Chaldee original, proposes to translate *n137 9y by, over the sanctuary, assuming as he does, that the Greek translator made the original square with the LXX. The quotations, however, from the Old Testament contained in the Epistle to the Hebrews, as in the other books of the New Testament, are by no means servile reproductions of the LXX. text. Aben Ezra paraphrases ‘1219 5» by 27292, according to the manner or custom of. So also Surenhusius (8:8. KaraAX., p. 623), “ Caterum “ phrasin illam ‘m7 5y etiam venire pro, ad modum, vel, ad rationem, CHAP. VI., 1—3. 57 * sive ad usum, vel ipsis Judzorum doctoribus fatentibus constabit, ita “ut litera (*) sit paragogica euphoniz gratia adjecta, et sic M27 9 idem “sit quod mat by id est 7179, vel 2702 vel n1pH2, id est secundum ““modum, vel ritum, sive prefecturam et institutionem.” ‘ Tlepi ob. Schoettgen (x loc.) applies “ concerning whom” to Mel- chisedek. ‘ Nimirum perstringit h.1. Apostolus Hebraeorum negligen- “tiam in excutiendis typis Messi, inter quos non exiguo loco est “ Melchisedecus. Sed negligentia et inscitia Judxorum ut olim, sic “hodie quoque summa est.” I cannot, however, think that the refer- ence is exclusively to Melchisedek, but to the greater and primary subject in hand, viz., Christ, and his eternal priesthood. ° The Jews used to call the disciples of the Rabbies mpwn, sucklings, from the verb p», “he sucked.” So Philo (De Agricultura, Works, Mangey’s Edition, tom. i., p. 301). "Ezet dé vymiow ev eore yada Tpopy, TeNelos Se Ta eK TUPGV TéppaTa, Kal uyxAs yadakroders pev dy elev Tpodpat ° kara THY TaLduKny HAtKiayv, TA THs eyKUKiov povoLKys mporradevpata. “ But “since the food of infants is milk, and that of adults that which is “ compounded of corn, the soul also requires its milk diet, in its tender “age,” &e. See also De Congressu quer. erudit. gratia, ibid., pp. 521, 522, For a multitude of Rabbinical quotations in point, see Schoettgen on 1 Pet. ii. 2, in Hor. Hebr., tom. i, pp. 1036—1038. CHAPTER VI. In the preceding chapter the primary essentials of the High Priesthood have been specified, and it has been shown that these are to be found, in conso- latory fulness, in our Lord Jesus Christ. He is exactly such a High Priest as the sinner may with confidence. resort to. He has a Divine call. He has perpetual access to God. He is able to sympa- thize with mortal infirmity. Concerning the abstract topic of the mystical correspondence existing be- tween his High Priesthood and that of Melchisedek, the writer reminds his hearers, with an evidently displeasurable tinge in his phraseology, that he might well hesitate to enlarge. To such topics I 58 CHAP. VI., 1—3. they might once have listened with pleasurable attention; but they had waxed dull of hearing, voOpot tais axoais; the mysteries of the kingdom of God had lost their savour. They lagged behind and halted in their belief. The unsettled frame of mind in which they at present are, indicates a necessity for a recapitulation of the groundwork of their faith. Some of them had already apostatized; others, per- chance, were hesitating, in uncertainty whether to vo back to the synagogue and the Mosaic ritual, or not. Homely truths, and not the oteped tpogn, seemed to be most adapted to their condition. They seemed uncertain what to believe, and what to reject as worthless. The writer decides, however, upon contenting himself with the somewhat caustic reproof contained in the concluding verses. He will hope for the best, and not debar them from the more difficult instruction which he has to impart. And so he commences this sixth chapter with the reassuring invitation,— Verses 1—3,— Wherefore leaving undiscussed (4:0 agévtes) the elementary topics of the Christian faith, let us proceed to consider the advanced subjects (tv TeAeudTHTA, 8C., suited to full-grown men in Christ). What the rudimentary topics are, he now reminds his readers :— Not laying over again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and faith towards God, nor of the doctrine of baptisms (se., of John, of Christian, and Jewish'), and of laying on of hands,” and of resurrection from the dead, and of eternal judgment.’ And this course we will pursue, if God permit. (Und thun wir dieses, so Gott es zsugibt /— Ewald.) CHAP. VI., 1—3. 59 ' Barricpav Sidaxjs. Prof. Stuart asks, “ What has the apostle here “to do with Jewish rites?” The answer is plain. Lverything, when speaking to Jewish converts. We know that the unbelieving Jews took great offence because the disciples neglected the ceremonial ablutions prescribed by the Pharisees. For two very curious treatises on the subject, see J. A. Danzii Baptismus proselytorum Judaicus ad illus- trandum Baptismum Johannis, and Antiquitas Baptismi initiationis Israeli- tarum vindicata, by the same author. (Meuschen, N. Test. ex Tulmudi illustr., p. 233, &c., and p. 287, &c.) Schoettgen understands Bamr. difay. to include the idea of the Levitic lustrations. Grotius renders it, of the doctrines delivered to newly baptized persons. ? "EmOeceas te xetpav. Bp. Bancroft, at the Hampton Court Con- ference, alleged that Calvin understood this to mean confirmation. Berens, Hist. of the Prayer-book, p. 87. J.C. Wolfius exercises a sound discretion when he writes, ‘ Non crediderim cum Rev. Zeltnero “fin notis ad Versionem Lutheri Biblicam, respici hic ad impositionem “ manuum, que victimis afferendis adhiberi solebat.” $ *Avactacews Te K.T.A. The Sadducees denied both ; but not only the fact, but the time of these two fundamental truths, were much debated amongst the ancient Jews. For a variety of Talmudical opinions, see Scheidii Loca Talmudica, and J. Rhenferdii Dissertationes II., de Seculo Futuro. (Meuschen, WN. Test. ex Talmudi illustr., p. 107, &c., and p. 1116, &c) “ Intelligitur articulus de vita eterna, quam Judzi “ vocant DDT nnn, cui apponitur kpiua aidvov, damnatio eterna. Vide “ad Joann., iii. 17.” Schoettg., Hor. Hebr., tom.i., p. 953, And now the writer (verses 4—9) gives his reasons for deeming it superfluous to recapitulate the pri- mary elements of the Christian faith. His readers had thoroughly sifted them, prior to embracing Christianity. They knew them by rote, if not by heart. The mere argumentative repetition of these initial doctrines would be of no avail, either to confirm the wavering, or to reclaim the apostates. If the former, in order to escape persecution and obloquy, were no longer willing to bear the re- proach of Christ, if his love no longer constrained them to walk worthy of the Gospel, what occasion for further argumentation? In respect to the | 60 CHAP. VI., 1—3. latter, it could only increase their condemnation. They had made up their minds to choose this present world, sinning against their own convictions, against light and knowledge; and until they re- nounced their errors, and bewailed their ungrateful apostasy, to talk to them about what they had a ‘““more perfect knowledge” of, would be to “give “that which is holy to the dogs, and to cast pearls ‘before swine.’ I feel more and more convinced that no dogmatic assertion, nor theological axiom, is here intended to be laid down, viz., that the restoration of apostates is impossible. St. Peter, by his denial of Christ, at the moment of his Divine Master’s sorest trial, placed himself in a position | precisely analogous to that spoken of in the passage under Poa eeation: He had tasted of the heavenly gift ; he had been made partaker of the Holy Ghost; he had confessed that Christ had “the words of “ eternal life,” declaring, “‘ We believe and are sure “that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living “God” (John vi., 68, 69); he had wielded in his Master’s name the supernatural powers 70d é\XovTos aiaves; the very devils had been subject to him; and yet, as soon as the clouds of persecution began seriously to collect themselves, he fell away, and denied that he ever “knew the man.” What is apostacy, if Peter’s denial of Jesus was not? And yet he was restored, and made one of the twelve pillars of the Church. The grammatical construc- tion of the Greek fully bears out this most reason- able view of the passage. That the apostates were in a position of extremest peril, by their own free CHAP. VI., 4—6. 61 act, who will deny? But that they cowld never repent who will venture to assert? Every one of us shall give account for himself to God (actos jjudv Tept Eavtod Aoyov daces TO Oecd. Myxére odv addijrovs Kpwopev. Rom. xiv. 12, 13). Let us, then, proceed to examine what the writer does actually say. Verses 4—6.—For it is impossible! that those who were? once enlightened* (dwticGévras. See chap. x. 82—84), and have tasted of the heavenly gift (probably the persua- sion of eternal life, the ydpicpa tod Ocod, Rom. vi. 23), and have been made partakers of the Holy Ghost (sc. extraordinary gifts), and have tasted the good word of God (Kadov pha aH IIT, 2.¢., the fulfilment of his promises of blessing through Abraham’s seed in the Messiah. Sce Ps. ev. 42, “He remembered his holy promise wip cat, and “ Abraham his servant’’), and the powers of the world to come (duvdmers Te wéANOVTOS ai@vos, the miraculous gifts of the supernatural world‘), and have [yet] fallen away (waparecovtas, aorist), to renew them again unto repent- ance (7daduw dvaxawifew eis etavolar). *Advvarov, yap. J. C. Wolfius observes that various writers, following the ancient Latin version, have rendered the above difficile. *"Anaé. Vox amaég hic est plene, perfecte, ut Jude v. 3, 5, et Hebr. ix. 7. Confer M. Christ. Wolle dissert. de vera fictaque particularum emphasi, que Ecclesie ejus Pharisaice et Christiane subjuncta est p- 306. Ita scholia Thucydidis, lib. i., p. 78. 1O dara€ per mavted@s exponunt. J.C. Wolfius, i loc. The ordinary signification “ once” is the best. ° Per. ie., brought to a saving knowledge of Christ as the Messiah. Jesus, in virtue of his office, claimed to fulfil the requirements of Is. xlix. 6, saying (John viii. 12), "Ey eius rd pas Tod Kécpov, 6 axodovbdv €MOl OV My TEpiTaTHoE ev TH OKOTLA; GAN ker TO Has THs Cons ; and this witness the “ beloved disciple” bears to him (John i. 9), Av 7d has rd adnOwoy 6 harite ravta dvOpwrov epxépevoy eis Tov Kicpov. R. D. Kimchi admits that the person spoken of by Isaiah, in his forty-ninth chapter, is the Messiah. Compare 2 Cor., iv. 6, “ €Aapwev ev tais Kapdias nuar, mpos poticpov ths yvaoews THs SdEns TOV Ocod ev TpoTaT@ Inood Xpiorod.” In support of my view I would adduce the following very apposite 62 CHAP? VLG remarks of J. C. Wolfius :— Tobs doriabevras, Patres Greeci et Latini “permulti de baptisatis accipiunt. Locos eorum habes apud Suicerum, “voce dvaBantiots, Num. ii. 1 et verbo dvacravpéw, Num. ii. item in “ Observatt. Sacris., p. 75, quos et Fesselius noster, in Adversarits “ Sacris, tom. il., p. 108, sg. attulit. Uterque tamen eorum rectius censet “ doctrinam veritatis coelestis edoctos, significari. Hance Pauli mentem “esse patet, ex loco parallelo Hebr. x. 26, ubi poriferOa illud dicitur, “ NaBetv thy eriyvaow ths adnOeias, quemadmodum 1 Cor. iv. 4, poturpos “rod evayyeNiou ts OdEns Tod Xpiorod, appellatur. Sic oi LX X. verbum “ Hebraicum 77, ie., docuit, Jud. xiii. 8, et 2 Reg. xii. 2, horigev “reddunt. Qui de baptismo acceperunt Patres, illa etate vixerunt, qua “sacrum hoe lavacrum dericpos, speciatim appellari coeperat.”— Cure Philolog. et Crit., tom. iv., p. 662. * In further proof that 6 aiwy 6 péAX@y (x7 OY) was not understood to denote the present order of things, but of the life to come, and the spiritual, supernatural world, Rhenferd, in the tract before cited, De Seculo Futuro, p. 1124, cites R. Chasdai’s reconciliation (in Cod. Schabbat.) of the two apparently contradictory passages in Isaiah, viz., xxiv. 23 and xxx. 26, in the former of which passages it is said, the sun shall be ashamed and the moon shall be confounded, and in the latter, the light of the moon shall be like the light of the sun. The first passage, he says, relates to the days of Messiah, but the second to the world to come (xin ody). The passage is as follows :— TMT VR TIT WS PM Ind AAT Aw Aba Mem Yn) M7 NIA Na DD) FRI Pwo nD) PRI NWP NI So also Rabbi Eliezer (zbid., p. 1123) :— NIT DI) FT pow Fax pow PR Pwd Ny) AS oR 9 DAD WRX Ws pw) NI “ They say that R. Eliezer gave a different opinion, and said that they “(arms) shall not cease in the days of Messiah, but in the world to ** come.” Verse 6.—Crucifying, as they do, the Son of God over again, and putting Him to (exposing Him to) a public reproach’ (dvactaupovdytas, Tapaderypatifovtas, 7.e., whilst they continue to do so, and persevere in so scandalous a course of blaspheming opposition. Wé&hrend sic, fiir sich selbst, den Sohn Gottes neu kreuzigen und verhénen.—Ewald). The key to the writer’s meaning is contained in the change from the aorist to the present participle.* * Ewald, whose work, Das Sendschreiben an die Hebrdéer, Gottingen, 1870, 8vo., has only come into my hands after the above was in type, takes a similar view of the passage, pp. 80, 81. CHAP? “VTf.,/7,'3: 63 ’ A primary condition of return to the synagogue was the public and contumelious abjuration of the name of Jesus; and it is to this that St. Paul alludes when he says, Acts xxvi. 11, “ And I punished them “ oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme ; and being “exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange * cities.” Of the rancorous hatred and spiteful contempt in which the name of Jesus is held amongst Rabbinic Jews, the ordinary Chris- tian reader can form no conception. If the student desires to follow this subject further, he can consult the scurrilous tractate entitled, yw min 2D The book of the Generations of Jesus, and the other treatises contained in Wagenseil’s Zela ignea Satane. Verses 7, 8.—For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs (Soravny) meet for those by whom it is dressed (yewpyetraz), partakes of God’s (primal) blessing (wetaXapBaver evroyias azo TOD Ocov, shares in the implied promise of fertility given Gen. i. 11, “ Let the earth bring forth grass,” &e. Braornocdtw » yn Bordyny, x.7.r% LXX.). But that which beareth thorns and thistles, is good for nothing, and nigh to the condition of cursing (as spoken, Gen. ui. 17, 18, “ Cursed “is the ground for thy sake... Thorns and thistles it “shall bring forth to thee.” “Emixatdpatos 4 yh év Tous Epyots cou... axavOas Kai tpuBorous avatedel cor. LXX.), whose end is for burning (‘js To TéXos els Kavowr, 2.e., which is only available to make fuel from. See O. Strauss, Nahumi de Nino vaticinium, pp. 31, 32. Berolini, 1853, 8vo.) Having thus illustrated the futility of rehearsing the elements of the Gospel in such unworthy and listless hearing, the writer now, with delicate tact, changes the severity of his tone, and assures those for whom the Epistle is designed, that he is per- suaded better things of them, even things that accompany salvation, “although we thus speak.” They have already proved themselves like the fertile soil; they have not drunk in the gracious rain for 64 CHAP. VI., 9—14. naught, but have brought forth the fruits of righte- ousness. Verses 9—14.—But we are persuaded better things (the better alternative, ta xpe(ttova) concerning you, Beloved, even things that accompany salvation, although we thus speak. For God is not unjust to have forgotten your work and the labour («é7rov) of love which ye have exhibited to- wards his name (eis 70 dvowa avtod), seeing that ye have ministered, and yet minister, to the saints. But we are anxious that every one of you should exhibit the same un- flagging zeal (ezovdyv) with respect to the full realisation (7Anpofopiar) of your (heavenly) hope unto the end. So that you may not lag behind (vw@pol, remiss, see Stuart, v. 12), but be imitators of those who through faith and long- suffering (waxpoOupuias, m7 FAN slow of spirit, patient, Eccl. vii. 8) inherited («Anpovopotvtwy, realised) the promises. For when God gave Abraham the promise, since he had no greater to swear by, he sware by Himself! (Gen. xxii. 16, smynws %n), saying (Gen. xxii. 17), “Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee.’ ' @pooe kal éavrov. The Talmudical treatise Berachoth, fol. 32, 1, has the following on Exod. xxxii. 13, “ Remember Abraham, Isaac, and “* Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest (2) by thine own self.” “What does 1 denote? R. Eliezer answered: Moses spake thus to the “ Holy One, Blessed be He ; Lord of the World, if thou hadst sworn by “ the very heavens and the earth, then I should have said: As the heavens “and the earth shall perish, so also thy oath. But now Thou hast “sworn to them by thy great name, which lives and endures for ever, “so also shall thy oath endure for ever and ever more.” * °H pny evdoyav edvdoynow oe, kal TANOivev TAnbvre ce, a nearly literal and Hebraistic translation of the original, JOU ns ATS AIM JIN A». Professor Stuart, by a singular oversight, says that “in this passage “ (Gen. xxii. 17) the Hebrew runs anm Fru nx ane, I will greatly “multiply thy seed, but in Gen. xvii. 2 it is IND INDI Jos ane, LT will “ multiply thee, The Apostle appears to unite both expressions in the CHAP. VI., 15—20. 65 * quotation before us.” The real translation of the latter verse, which reads NO INDI NX THN, is, And I will multiply thee very exceedingly, whilst Gen. xxii. 17 concludes with the words, ‘‘ As the stars of heaven “and as the sand which is on the sea shore, and thy seed shall possess ‘the gate of his enemies.” Verses 15—20.—And so having patiently waited, he obtained the promise.’ Now men are in the habit of appeal- ing by oath to Him that is greater (kata tod pelfovos, or to a thing that is greater, e.g., the temple, the altar), and the oath (adduced) in confirmation (e/s BeBatwaour) is to them an end of all gainsaying (avtiAoylas, i.e., what is affirmed is thenceforward taken for granted as true”). On which account (é€v #) God, being desirous to demonstrate more abundantly to those that should inherit the promise, the immutability of his purpose, interposed by an oath *® (euecitevoev Spke, i.c., put an oath between Himself and the believers). In order that by two immutable things (God’s word‘ and God’s oath®) in which it was impossible for God to prove false (revoac@ar), we, who have fled ° to lay hold upon the hope set before us, might have a strong (icyupav) consolation, which (hope) we have as an anchor’ of the soul, sure (acgdarh, which slips not its hold) and stedfast, and which enters into that which is within the veil (z.e., the very presence of God), whither, as a forerunner, on our behalf, Jesus has gone in, being made a high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek. ? Again, oddly enough, Professor Stuart says, “In our text the Apostle “refers to the promised blessing of a Son, which after long waiting “ Abraham obtained.” I have shown (note 1, p. 64) that the above is a literal quotation from Gen. xxii. 17. The mention of the oath (verse 16) sets the matter at rest, because this circumstance is not found in Gen. xvil., although the renewal of the covenant and the institution of circumcision are therein contained. As, therefore, the writer to the Hebrews plainly cites from Gen. xxil., the émayyeNa received cannot mean the birth of Isaac. It was in consequence of Abraham's readi- ness to obey the Divine command, and to offer up Isaac his only son, that God renewed the promise of blessing, and multiplication of his K 66 CHAP. VI., 15—20. seed, together with the crowning blessing, “in thy seed shall all the “nations of the earth account themselves blessed (1273n7), because thou “hast obeyed my voice.” What, then, was the blessing which Abra- ham paxpoOvpyjocas éxérvxye? Undoubtedly the blessing to himself and all his seed by faith, viz., redemption through the Messiah, even Christ. That this is the true meaning of the writer we see from verses 17, 18. God gave the double assurance of his word and his oath, “ to demonstrate “ (rois KAnpovdpos THs emayyeNlas TO dperaberoy THs Bovdjs avTov) to those ‘who should inherit the promise, the unchangeableness of his purpose, in “ order that by two immutable things, in which it was impossible that “God should lie, we who have fled to lay hold upon the hope set before “us, might have a strong consolation.” It was a hope, then, which was to be handed on, still in suspense at the death of Abraham, a hope of blessedness and salvation which he then himself personally realised, and also in his lifetime, by the eye of faith. In respect to the personal and individual fulfilment of the promise to ourselves, we still “ walk by faith not by sight.”” To the persecuted Hebrews this allusion to Abraham’s hope and reward was full of consolatory meaning. He had forsaken all for this hope, and lived as a stranger and pilgrim upon earth. But he had gained the best of all rewards. The Jewish expres- sion, “ Abraham’s bosom,” denoted the rest of the righteous in the better world (Luke xvi. 22), in which they wait for the “ Resurrection of the Just.” ? Philo says, “ Doubtful things are decided by an oath, things uncon- . “ firmed are, by it, made sure, and incredible things receive credibility.” Ta evdoiatépeva tov mpaypatav Spx Siaxpiverat, kai Ta aBeBara BeBacov- Tal, kat Ta Gmiota AapBavee rictw. Quod a Deo mittantur Somnia, Works. Mangey’s Edit., vol. i., p. 622. 8 "Epecirevoey. A similar use of the word is found in Josephus (Antiq. xvi. 4, 3, near the end of the section): dimep éni TO ravtev Seométn Kaioape peourevovte tov mapdvta Katpov ovvtTiBepeba tavtny tiv ouvOnkny. Wherefore we will make this agreement, before Czesar the “ Lord of all, who is now a mediator between us.” * The Targums of Onkelus and Jonathan both translate *ny2w2 »2, by “ By my Word have I sworn.” 5 Philo (8. 8. Legum Allegoriarum, lib, wii.) observes (on Gen, xxii, 16) that God alone can swear by Himself, because no created being can speak definitely or certainly concerning his nature and essence, or of his works. They are, therefore, to be accounted impious who declare that they swear by God. To do this is His prerogative alone. ‘‘ Sutti- “cient is it for us if we are able to know somewhat respecting the “nature of his Name ; that is to say, of his interpreting Word. (Tod CHAP. VII, 1, 2. 67 « Epunvéws Abyov.) For he is the God of us imperfect, mortals, being the “first of all wise and perfect things. Moreover, Moses admiring the “excellency of the Unbegotten (tiv trepBodnv Oavpacas Tov ayevyntov), “says (Deut. vi. 13), Ve shall also swear by his Name, not, by (God) “ Himself. For it is sufficient to pledge ourselves by his Son, and to “obtain the testimony of the Divine Word. (Ikavoy yap ro yevvnT@ “microdcOa, Kal paprupeicba Ady Oeiy.)”—Works, Mangey’s Edit., vol. i., p. 128. And again, &yol yap, kar’ euavrod dpoca, map’ @ 6 Adyos Spkos earl, évexa rod tiv dudvovay akAwas Kal raylws ere paddov 7) mpdrepov épnpcia Oat. ‘He whose word is equivalent to an oath, declares, by myself have I “sworn, to the intent that his mind might be even more immoveably “ «nd firmly fixed in its persuasion than before.”—Zbid., De Abrahamo, vol. ii., p. 39. ° They had made shipwreck of all their earthly prospects. The hope of redemption, the ‘rest of God,” is the harbour of refuge into which they had fled for shelter, until life’s storms should be overpast. Their aggravated and harassing persecutions are again alluded to, with touching tenderness and sympathy, in chap. x. 32—34. 7 "Oc éyxupav. Dassovius understands @ykupay to mean the hook to which the veil was suspended ; but it is the hope, not the anchor, which enters within the veil. An anchor “sure and stedfast” is an apt illustration of the Christian’s hope. CHAPTER VII. Wirn admirable dexterity, the writer has now worked round to the topic originally in hand, viz., the difficult parallelism between the High Priesthood of Christ and the high priesthood of Melchisedek, and he presents it to his readers in the most endearing and engaging aspect. Their sympathies cannot fail to go with their under- standings. The tender chord of personal experience has been touched by the delicate allusion to the real hardships which at that moment pressed upon 68 CHAP. VIL, 1, 2. the Hebrew converts on every side. Jesus, in his most beautiful aspect, a “comforter of those that are cast down,” a refuge’ for the afflicted, has been held up to their view. THe is not a high priest who cannot be touched with the feeling of their infirmi- ties. His own stedfastness was sorely tried, He is therefore able to succour those that are tempted. Thus having attuned their minds to give heed to the things spoken, the writer proceeds to draw out the correspondence between Christ and Melchisedek, and to show how the greater High Priesthood was evermore designed, ultimately to supersede the Aaronic. Verses 1, 2.—Now this Melchisedek, King of Salem,’ a priest of the Most High God, he, namely, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings (Gen. xiv. 18), and blessed him; to whom also Abraham divided a tenth of all (the spoils). ' Thus had the King Messiah been described in Isaiah xxxii. 1, 2, “ Behold, a king shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule in “judgment. Andaman shall be as an hiding place from the wind, and ‘a covert from the tempest ; as rivers of water in a dry place, as the “‘ shadow of a great rock in a weary land.” So also in Isaiah xlii. 1—4, which the Targum thus paraphrases, “‘ Behold my servant the Mes- siah,” xmmwo ‘Tav xt Ke. ? Baowe’s Sadyjp. The LXX. version of Gen. xiv. 18 agrees exactly with the Hebrew, cai MeAyioedex Baoweds Sadr eEnveyxey dprovs Kat oivov, nv Sé lepeds TOV Oeod Tov wWiorov. “ And Melchizedek, King of “ Salem, brought forth bread and wine, but he was priest of the Most “High God.” The Hebrew reads, sy) on) Nz Dow J JIS DN yy oxd 2. From this it will be seen that the LXX. translators, in common with their Hebrew-speaking brethren, regarded Salem as the name of a locality. From Psalm lxxvi. 2 (3) it is evident that Salem was a designation of Jerusalem, }Y¥2 wn2YN) 12D DPw2 7M, unless perchance the Psalmist refers back to the Salem of which Melchizedek was king, CHAP. VIL., 1, 2. 69 and supposing that Salem was not identical with the holy city. The LXX. here render 130 Dow 1M) by eyernén ev cipnyy 6 Tonos aitov, and the Vulgate, ‘‘ Et factus est in pace locus ejus.” Luther translates, “ Zu Salem ist sein Gezelt.” The Targum and the Syriac version under- stand Jerusalem to be designated. In Genesis xxxiii. 18 another Salem, or Shalem, is mentioned, Dow vy Ddw rpY NT, Kal #AOev lukwB eis Sadyp, mow Sykivov, and the Samaritans lay claim to the meeting of Abraham with Melchizedek, for Mount Gerizim. The Targum of Onkelos thus paraphrases Gen, xiv. 8, “ And Malki-zedek, King of Yerushelem, “brought forth bread and wine (chemar), and he was minister (mesha- ““ mesh) before El Illaah (and he was Kohen of the Most Mighty, “* Sam. Vers.); and he blessed him, and said, *¢¢ Blessed be Abram before El Ilaah, Whose possession is heaven and earth ; And blessed be El IJIaah, Who hath delivered thine enemies into thine hand.’ * And he gave him one in ten of the whole. And the King of Sedom “said,” &e. The Targum of Palestine has, “‘ And Malka Zadika, who was Shem “bar Noah, the King of Yerushalem, came forth to meet Abram, and “brought forth to him bread and wine ; and in that time he ministered “ before Eloha Ilaha (JerusALEM Targ., ‘And Malki Zedek, King of *¢ Yerushalem, who was Shem, who was the great priest of the Most ““High’). And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the “ Lord God Most High, who for the righteous possesseth the heavens and the earth. And blessed be Eloha Ilaha, who hath made thine “‘ enemies as a shield which receiveth a blow. And he gave him one of “ten, of all which he brought back. And the King of Sedom said,” &e.—Etheridge’s Targums, in loc. From the above it is plain that the Targums give no sanction to Mr. Grove’s assertion in his article Salem, in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible :—‘ Indeed, it is not certain that “there is any connexion of time or place between Abram’s encounter “ with the King of Sodom and the appearance of Melchizedek”! Surely Mr. Grove did not wilfully set aside, as valueless, the words of the canonical writer to the Hebrews, 6 cuvavticas ABpadp trooréporte ano Ts Komns Tov Bacweoy. In Gen. xiv. 17 precisely similar language is held respecting the King of Sodom, who was certainly present at the meeting. With this latter opinion Dr. Delitzsch (see p. 71) coincides, e.g., “ Der Konig Sodoms der dabei gegenwiirtig zu denken ist.”—Die Genesis, p. 267. In verse 17 it is said, DOT NN WPT NX MWD aw ANN wp) DID Tro NB. "EL|AGE de Baciev’s Sodépwv cis cuvdvtnow alto, peta TO Urogtpear adrdy and Tis 70 CHAP. VIL, 1, 2. kom,s ToD Xoo oyomop, kal Tov Baoikéwv x.7.A. Then follows, in verses 18—20, the incident of Melchizedek’s meeting with, and blessing Abraham ; and then verse 21 resumes, 010 Jon WON, Eire 5€ Bacwdeds Soddpov «.r.A. The inference from the above is plain. Melchizedek did meet Abraham on his return from the slaughter of the kings. The King of Sodom, who had previously arrived, was present at the meeting. The blessing of Melchizedek is in special reference to the victory which Abraham had just gained (19, 20); and, lastly, the neighbourhood of Sodom makes it very probable indeed that Salem was Jerusalem, if, indeed, the epithet is not to be understood, as the Doi wi does, of the “Jerusalem above.” Josephus, Antig., i. 10, 2, arranges the events in a similar order :—Amnytynce S€ atta 6 Tav Zodopitav Baowdeds ets Témov teva by Kadodor Tediov Baciixdy' eva 6 rhs ZoAupa TOAEws Urodéxerat Bucired’s dutoy MeAyioedéxns* onpaiver d€ TodTO Baorreds Sikavos* kai nv S€ Tovovtos Suodoyoupevws, ws Sia TavTnv avTov Thy aitiay Kal iepéa yeverOat Tov Oeod* Tiy pévTor SdAvpa Vorepov Exdecav ‘Iepooddvpa: exopyynoe O€ otros 6 MeAxwoedexns To ABpdpov orpara Ena kai trodAny apOoviay tay émirndelay mapecxe, Kal Tapa THY evwyiay addy Te emawvel ApEaTo Kat Tov Ody evdoyetv UmoxeELpiovs ai’T@ Tomoavta Tovds €xOpovs. "ABpdpuou be diddvros kal ray Sexdrny ris heias adtH, mpood€éxerat tv Odow 6 d€ tev Zodopir@v Bacieds THv pev delay exew “ABpapov mapexddel, k.7.A. “ Now the King of Sodom met him at a certain place “‘ which they called the King’s Dale, where Melchisedek, King of the “city Salem, received him. That name signifies the Righteous King ; “and such he was without dispute, insomuch that, on this account, “he was made the priest of God : however, they afterwards called Salem “ Jerusalem. Now this Melchisedek supplied Abram’s army in an “hospitable manner, and gave them provisions in abundance; and as “they were feasting he began to praise him, and to bless God for “subduing his enemies under him. And when Abram gave him a “tenth of his prey, he accepted of the gift ; but the King of Sodom “ desired Abram to take the prey.” Josephus (De Bell. Judaico, vi. 10) again refers to Melchizedek as follows :—‘0 d€ mpéros xricas hv Xavavaioy Suvdorns, 6 1 matpia yAwoon Kdnbeis Baoireds Sikacos’ Av yap b) Towvros. dia rovdTo iepdcaréd te TH Oca mpatos, kal TO iepov mp@tos Setuduevos ‘lepoodAvpa thy méALv mpoanydpevce, SdAvpa Kaovpérny mpdrepov. ‘* But he who first built it (Jerusalem) “was a potent man among the Canaanites, and is in our tongue called “the Righteous King, for such he really was ; on which account he “was (there) the first priest of God, and first built a temple (there), and “called the city Jerusalem, which was formerly called Salem.” On this passage Whiston, whose translation I have followed, observes :— CHAP. VII. 1, 2. 71 “Why the great Bochart should say (De Phoenic. Colon., b. ii., ¢. iv.) ‘that there are in this clause of Josephus ‘as many mistakes as words,’ “I do by no means understand. Josephus thought Melchizedek first “built, or rather rebuilt and adorned this city, and that it was then “ called Salem, as Psal. Ixxvi. 2; that it afterwards came to be called “ Jerusalem ; and that Melchizedek, being a priest as well as king, “built to the true God therein a temple, or place for public divine “‘ worship and sacrifice ; all which things may be very true for aught ‘we know to the contrary ; and for the word iepoy, or Temple, as if it “ must needs belong to the great temple built by Solomon long after- “ ward, Josephus himself uses vaos, for the small tabernacle of Moses, “ Antig. iii., 6,4. See also Antiq. iii., 6, 1, as he here presently uses * jepoy for a large and splendid synagogue of the Jews at Antioch only, “vii, 3, 3.” (Note on Wars of the Jews, vi. 10.) Dr. Gill (on Heb. vii. 1) says, ‘‘ Aben Ezra says his name signifies “what he was, the king of a righteous place. Salem, of which he was “king, was not Shalem, a city of Shechem, in the land of Canaan, “ Gen. xxxiii. 18, afterwards called Salim, near to which John was bap- “‘tizing, John iii, 23, where is shown the palace of Melchizedek in its “ruins, which cannot be, since that city was laid to the ground and “sowed with salt by Abimelech, Judges ix. 15, but Jerusalem is the *‘ place ; which is the constant opinion of the Jews (Targ. Onk., Jon., “and Jerus., Levi ben Gersom, Aben Ezra, and Ben Melec in Gen. “ xiv. 18, Tosaphot T. Bab. Taanith, fol. 16, 1), and is called Salem in “Ps, Ixxvi. 2. The interpretation of this word is given in the next “verse ; some of the Jewish writers referred to, say that it was usual “for the kings of Jerusalem to be called Melchisedee and Adoni- ‘* zedek, as in Josh. x. 3, just as the kings of Egypt were called * Pharaoh.” Dr. Delitzsch (Die Genesis, pp. 266, 267) writes as follows :—“ Der “ Konig Sodoms zog dem riickkehrenden Sieger entgegen nach mw poy “di. dem spiiter sogenannten Kénigsthal; auch Malchizedek, der * Konig Salems fand sich da ein. Da wir iiber das Kénigsthal sonst “weiter nichts wissen, als dass Absalom sich dort ein Denkmal “errichtete, 2 Sam. xviii. 18, und aus 2 Sam. xiii. 23, nicht mit * Sicherheit geschlossen werden kann, das es in oder bei Efraim zu “ suchen sei, so ist es zweifelhaft, ob Malkizedek, wie pz 1" Jos. x. 1, “ Koniy Jerusalems ist, welches auch Ps. lxxvi. 3, now heisst, oder ob “Salem, seine Kénigsstadt, das Salem der Jordansaue, Joh. iii. 23, * Judith iv. 4, ist, das 8 rémische Meilen siidlich von Scythopolis “oelegene Salumias, wo man zu Hieronymus’ Zeit, Ruinen des “angeblichen Palastes Malkizedeks zeigte. Im ersteren Falle ist 72 CHAP. VIL, 2—5. “ Abram, wie schon Eupolemus bei Eusebius, Prep. 9, 17, annimmt, “durch Samarien auf dem Heimwege nach Hebron begriffen, indem “er gelegenen Orts die Gefangenen mit der Beute nach ihrer “ siidéstlichen Heimath zu entlassen gedenkt, im letzteren Falle folet er “dem Jordanthale nach Sodom um Gefangene und Beute selber *‘guriick zu bringen.” Those who desire to pursue the subject further may consult Wolfius, Cur. Phil., tom. iv., p. 670, &e..; Dr. Gill's Com- mentary on Gen. xiv. 18, and Hebr. vii., Bp. Wordsworth ; and the articles Sulem and Melchizedek, in Smith’s Dict. of the Bible. * Ackarny amd maytov. Dr. Gill remarks (in loc.), “Philo the Jew “(De Congressu, p. 438) renders the Hebrew phrase 520 wn (Gen. xiv. “ 20) just as the Apostle does Sexdarnv a6 raytwy, a tenth part of all, or “out of all; not of all that he brought back, as Lot’s goods, or the “King of Sodom’s, or any others; only of the spoils of the enemy.” See verse 4, Cexdrny ABpadp eOwkev ek Tov axpobivier, Verses 2—5.—First being interpreted! King of Righte- quanesss and then also King of Salem, which is King of Peace ;” without father, without mother, without pedantic having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but exactly resembling the Son of God,‘ remaineth a priest in perpetuity (e¢s to Sinvexés).? But observe how great ® this personage’ must have been, to whom Abraham, the patriarch, gave a tenth of the spoils. But those from amongst the sons of Levi who receive the priestly office are expressly directed,* according to the law, to exact tithes from the people, their own brethren, although they came forth from the loins of Abraham.? " Bacwdeds Sikatociyns. Schoettgen (in loc.) observes, “Sic in Bre- “ schith Rabba, sect. 43, fol. 42, 1, pax 2 exponitur, yawy nx pon, “* Justificans habitatores suos. Addunt tamen aliam interpretationem “sed more suo satis detortam. Quia enim Malki Zedek et Adoni Zedek “reges Hierosolyme fuerunt, concludunt exinde, nomen urbis Hieroso- “Jymitanze fuisse pis, justitia, et hue trahunt verba Jesa. i. 21, “mai pr pis, Justitia habitabit in ea.” For Josephus’ interpretation, which I have given at length, see note on p. 70. Philo (S. 8. Legum Alleg., lib. iii, Works, Mang., tom. i., p. 103) writes, Kadeirae yap Baowdeds Sikaos, k.t.r., “ He is called a Righteous King,” &e. CHAP. VII., 2—5. 73 * Bao. San. 6 ear Bac. eipnyns. From note 2, p. 68, it will have been apparent that the writer to the Hebrews assigns a definite locality, whether terrestrial or celestial, to Melchizedek as the seat of his regal jurisdiction, viz., Salem. It is in the first instance the proper name of a city. Now, however, the writer proceeds to explain the symbolical meaning of Dow 7D, as he has already done with the proper name of its king, p1s°2™. As his interpretation of the latter agrees with that given by Josephus (Ant. i. 10, 2, De Bell, Jud. vi. 10), so does his interpretation of King of Salem agree with that of Philo (SS. Leg. Alleg., lib. iii., Works, tom. i., pp. 102, 103), who calls Melchizedek Baowéa ris eipnyns, and nyendva eipnyns. Respecting the Messiah, Isaiah, ix. 6 (5), declared that one of his names should be called now ww, Prince of Peace, and to the Messiah the Targum applies the prophecy ; “Said the prophet to ‘the house of David: For to usa Son is born, to us a Son is given ; ‘‘and He shall receive the Law upon Him to keep it ; and His name is “ called from of old, Wonderful, Counsellor, Eloha the Mighty, Abiding ‘to Eternity, the Messiah, because peace shall be multiplied upon us “in his days.” See also Ewald, Das Sendschr. a.d. Hebr., p. 89. Schoettgen (tom. ii., p. 18) cites from the Prologue to the Widrasch Echa, a passage quoted by Raymond Martin, in his Pugio Fidei, ii. 9, 21, and also by Hadrian Finus, in his Flagellum Judcorum, ii. 7, iii. 18, which also applies Is. ix 6 (5) to the Messiah :—“ R. Joshua the Galilean “ said, The name of Messiah is Peace, as it is written in Is, ix. 5, Father “of the World to come (Eternity), Prince of Peace.” Schoettgen, however, declares that he could not find the passage in the printed copies to which he had access. He further (tom. i., p. 958) gives the Bereschith Rabba as the authority for the ridiculous. Jewish conceit that Melchizedek was called Dow Jom, Perfect King, because he was born circumcised, 79 )2w. Circumcised people the Rabbinists call “¢ perfect,” and justify their doing so from Gen. xvii. 1, where it is said, pon mm, “and be thou perfect,” which means (say they) “be cir- cumcised.” 3 "Amdrep, auntap, k.t.A, This passage plainly indicates Melchizedek’s Divine origin. A solution has been sought in the assertion, that the Jewish High Priests were obliged to be descended from the stock of Aaron both on the father’s and the mother’s side. To such a genealogy neither Christ nor Melchisedek laid any claim ; and could it be shown that the Jews made use of similar phraseology to designate a priest, whose genealogical title to the High Priesthood was defective on the side of either parent, the explanation might have some weight. The words would contain a very intelligible reply to the cavils of the unbelieving Jews L > 74 CHAP. VIL, 2—5. against the High Priesthood of Christ, who objected to Jesus, that he was not in any way descended from Aaron, and therefore was no priest at all. The answer would be as follows :—‘‘ Melchizedek was, as you say, ‘CAndtap, auntep, ayeveaddyntos, but it is written in Ps. cx. 4 of “Messiah, The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, thou art a priest ‘for ever after the order of Melchizedek.—Therefore, Messiah is a true “priest, ‘after the order of Melchisedek,’ and a greater High Priest “than Aaron, for Abraham your father gave Melchizedek tithes.” IT have already shown (pp. 53, 54) that the most ancient Jews regarded Melchizedek as a type of the Messiah, if not identical with him. The Dp wr asserts on Gen. xiv. 18, Melchisedek the King of Salem, Mon uw un, This ts the Jerusalem above. Schoett., tom. i., p. 1210. But unfortunately the information is missing which would enable us to interpret ’Amdrwp, «.r.d., certainly, according to Jewish tradition. Schoettgen, indeed, following Suidas, believes that Melchizedek was of the cursed race of Canaan, and endeavours to show that being a Gentile he would be termed in Jewish phraseology drdtwp. But I would ven- ture to submit that the premises upon which this theory is built are, to say the least, doubtful and hazardous, and the example which he adduces from the Bereschith Rabba, sect. 18, fol. 18, 2, is not strictly in point. The passage relates to the words, “ Wherefore a man shall leave his “father and his mother,” and is as follows :—“ A proselyte, who has “ passed over to the Jewish religion, and has married his sister, whether “she be of the same father, or the same mother, he must put her away : “so says R. Meir. But our wise men say, If she be of the same mother, “he must put her away ; but if she be of the same father, he may keep “her ; 29 ax pxw, for a Gentile has no father ;” that is, his father is of no account in the genealogies of the Jews. Even granting that dndtwp is explained by the above, the difficulty concerning dyjrep is, if anything, increased. Indeed, Schoettgen seems to feel the weakness of his own theory, for he adds :—“‘ Quod in gentilibus usu venit, idem “de reliquis statuendum, quamvis exempla de singulis adferre non “possumus. Canon enim philosophicus est ; Qui in uno tertio con- “veniunt, de illis eadem preedicari solent.” Now, granting for the sake of Schoettgen’s proposition, that Melchizedek was a Canaanite, our Lord Jesus Christ was of Jewish parents, and two genealogies of his parentage exist. How, then, can He be said to be dzdrep in this technical sense? Much more, how can He be said to be dujrep and dyeveaddynros ? In Ezra ii. 61, 62, Neh. vii. 63, 64, we find an example of priests who were disqualified from following the priestly office, in consequence of a defect in the genealogical proofs of the purity of their descent. But the real question at issue, in respect to the word dyjrep, CHAP. VII., 2—5. 75 is this, Did the Mosaic law prohibit the High Priest from marrying any virgin except one of his own immediate family connexions; or, was he permitted to marry any Israelitish maiden under the restrictions mentioned in Levit. xxi. 7, 13, 14? The entire dispute turns upon the meaning of the expression, Tox Mp Ynve Ayn, he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife. And again, yori wn dy x», Neither shall he profane his seed among his people. The Vulgate renders “ puellam de populo suo” and “ Ne commisceat stirpem generis sui vulgo gentis sui” as Selden observes (De Success. in Pontif. Ebreor., p. 407, Lugd. Bat., 1638, 12mo.), ‘ Subindicans proculdubio non solum Virginem pontifici “ducendam sed etiam ex genere seligendam sacerdotali, quod per popu- “lum suum, autor Versionis innui existimavit. Neque ille solus. *“Nam sic etiam disserte Philo, Judzus Alexandrinus, lib. ii. de “ Monarchia.”—The words of Philo are, adda kai i€pevay €& lepéwv, iva €k as olkias Kal Tpdrov Twa TOD avTou aipatos ow vupdis TE kal vipdne “* But also a priestess from amongst the priests, in order that the bride- “ sroom and bride may be of one and the same house, and in a manner “ of one and the same blood.” Selden, however, declares that he cannot find the least trace of such an interpretation, either in the Talmud or in Josephus. They both understand yarn, of his own people, of the people of Israel in general. ‘Et Aben Ezra ad dictum locum, /atio est, “inquit, in adjectione verborum illorum, de populis suis, W1w7 ANAT 1D, 15 AMON NIANAM guoniam virgo capta (é gentilibus) et Judea facta, seu “ proselyta, et interdicitur. Quam etiam nomine Zona, seu Scorti, ut “‘mox patebit, comprehendunt. (See note on vdda, Heb. xii. 8.) * Ex singulari vero vocabuli Uxoris in sacra de Pontificis nuptiis lege ‘“receptior est sententia polygamiam ei negatam esse.” (Zbrd., p. 408.) Cunzeus (De Rep. Hebr., lib. iii., Lugd. Bat., 1632, 12mo.) devotes an entire chapter to the subject of Melchizedek, which is well argued out. He believes (p. 371), as Ewald does, and I do, that Melchizedek was the second person in the Ever Blessed Trinity, the Divine angel of the Lord, who continually appeared to the fathers under the Old Testament dis- pensation. ‘ Ego sic existimo, Melchisedecum, non hominem utique ex “hominibus genitum, sed divinioris nature fuisse, majoremque homine Eee qui tanto benedixit patriarche.” And again on p. 379, “ Neque “alio pertinere mihi videtur, quod scriptum a Joanne est, Abram gestiit “ videre diem meum, et vidit et gavisus est. Id enim uni Abramo contigit, “et singulare quiddam fuit: cum de ceteris illud dicatur, Multi pro- “ phetee et justi cupiverunt videre que videtis, et non viderunt. Sed neque “hoe sententiz nostre repugnat, quod Justitie ille Pacisque Rex “ dwdrwp Kal duntep, sine patre ac sine matre fuisse dicitur. Non enim * profecto Divus Paulus mysterium illud duplicis nature spectavit, 76 CHAP. VII., 2—5. “quod ejusmodi est, uti Messize quidem divinitas Patrem, mortalitas “vero matrem, ac seorsim neutra utrumque parentem agnoscat. Per- “tinere illud ad ea tempora non potuit, cum nondum hominem induisset “humani generis Servator. Sed hoc utique sensit potius Apostolus, ‘non esse eum communi lege ex patre atque matre, neque ex libidine “aut conjunctione viri femineque satum, sed eternum eum esse, et “(quod Esaias vates in cap. liii. 8, ait) nihil posse dict de generatione ejus “ (rnv yeveay avtov tis Sinynoerat).” For further opinions as to the person and dignity of Melchizedek the reader should consult the indexes to Schoettgen’s Hor. Hebr., J. C. Wolfii Cure Phil., tom. iv. (i loc.), and the erudite article, Melchizedek, by the Rev. W. T. Bullock, in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible: although, in spite of the dicta of Suidas and Schoettgen and others, I beg emphatically to dissent from Mr. Bullock’s altogether unwarrantable assertion, that the opinion “is now generally received” (!) that “ Melchizedek was of “one blood with the children of Ham, among whom he lived, chief ‘(like the King of Sodom) of a settled Canaanitish tribe.’ How it was possible for one of that accursed race to be endowed with an inherent dignity greater than that of Abraham and of Aaron, and to be, as the canonical writer to the Hebrews describes it, a@oporwpevos T® vid Tov Oeod, I must leave to a “ higher criticism” than my own to decide. Ewald’s opinion will be given, at length, on a succeeding page. * "Adapowwpevos dé TG vid Tov Oeov. After the exact pattern, made exactly like to: adopotwpa signifies a copy or facsimile. This is doubt- less an allusion to the before cited Psalm ii. 7: “I will declare the “decree, the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son, this day have “‘T begotten thee ;” and also to Ps. xlv. 6, 7, ‘Thy throne, O God, ‘‘is for ever and ever; the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. “Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, “thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy “ fellows.” Of the inherent and hereditary Divine glory of the eternal Son the writer has already spoken (chaps. i. and ii.), The great importance of the subject may render a little more detailed examination of these passages acceptable. The authorship of Psalm ii. has been with one consent ascribed to David himself. Dr. M‘Caul remarks (The Messiahship of Jesus, pp. 150, 151), “It is certainly a Psalm of “David. Acts iv. 25 (‘who by the mouth of thy servant David hast “¢said, Why did the heathen rage,’ &c.) will satisfy on this point any “ one who believes the New Testament. Rashi and Kimchi ascribe it “to David himself ; Aben Ezra to the time of David. Even modern “criticism does not make it later than Solomon. Ewald says, ‘ This “beautiful Psalm must necessarily have proceeded from the most CHAP. VII., 2—é. 77 “glorious period of the monarchy, ...... confined to the time of David, “and the beginning of Solomon’s reign.’ Venema gives three reasons “for ascribing it to David...... This Psalm proclaims, therefore, the “hope of the devout Israelite a thousand years before the coming of “Christ.” It is worthy of further notice that St. Paul (Acts. xiii. 33) describes the Psalm as being “the second Psalm,” e.g., “as it is also “written in the second Psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I “ begotten thee.” The numerical order of the Psalm was, therefore, the same in the apostolic days that it is in our own. The Rev. G. Phillips, D.D., in his very useful commentary on the Psalms, observes (vol. i., p. 9), ‘We may remark that the high priest seems to make “allusion to the Psalm when in Matt. xxvi. 63 he asks Jesus whether “he were the Christ, the Son of God; and Nathanael also apparently “does the same when in John i. 49 he addresses this ejaculation to “ Christ, ‘Thou art the Son of God ; thou art the King of Israel.’ Again “there is ample evidence to prove that the ancient Jews regarded this ** Psalm as predicting the Messiah ; for it is quoted and so interpreted “in nearly all their writings which bear in any degree the stamp of “antiquity. The Jew in Justin Martyr thus understood the Psalm : “ The Talmud, in the treatise Succah, contains a passage in which it is “ stated to be a tradition of the Rabbis, that the 8th verse speaks of * Messiah, the Son of David. In the Zohar there is found an observa- ‘tion of the same import on the expression, Avss the Son. In the middle “ages we find Kimchi admitting that the ancient doctors of his nation “ assigned a Messianic sense to the 2d Psalm. Rashi makes the same “statement, but he adds to it a remark which, however candid it may * be thought, shows the sad state of the author’s mind. His words are— § yxy TTY MD) P22 OTT NIaVwN) wow) Mw PN oy pay ne WIT M27 “Our Rabbis have explained this Psalm with respect to King Messiah ; “ but for the sake of a literal sense, and for an answer to the Christians ** (Heretics), it is expedient to interpret i with respect to David himself. “ Tt is true that the words D7 niwn? are not found in many editions ; “but Pococke, who searched some MSS. for the purpose of investigating “‘the question, has come to the conclusion that the passage as above “quoted is genuine. Aben Ezra also confesses that the application of “it to the Messiah is preferable to any other. He says mwnn 5y om, aya any 1177 but if it be interpreted of the Messiah the matter is clearer. “The Jews of modern times do not acknowledge that Christ was ‘intended to be represented in this Psalm, and agree in applying it “entirely to David ; but in so doing they oppose themselves to the “universal voice of antiquity, and have no better reason to offer than “that which is assigned by Rashi.” J. A. Danzius, in his treatise 78 CHAP. VII., 2—5. Inauguratio Christi (p. 386, note e), printed at length in Meuschen, agrees with Luther’s explanation of Dvn, to-day, inthis Psalm. Luther writes :—“ Si ut res est loqui velimus, hodie, quotidie, et semper nascitur et natus est Filius Dei. Nam in eterno nec pret. nec fut. est, sed “perpetuum hodie. Et hodie hic accipiendum pro tempore Dei non “nostro. Non enim nobiscum loquitur Deus ; sed cum illo qui est extra “tempus apud Deum.” JDanzius, in the passage above mentioned, writes “pn” OVT x, notanter cum articulo ; qui in infinitis Scripture “locis distributive sumitur, ad universalitatem inferendam, juxta Inter- ‘pret. sect. 49, vi., cujus intuitu verteres, eyo QUOLIBET DIE fe genui, ut “Ps, xev. 7, OV QUOLIBET DIE, 2.¢., guotiescunque audiveritis vocem ejus, “ ne obduretis cor vestrum. Jud. xi. 27. Dominus judicans ov7 quolibet “ die, i.e., quotidie: quo sensu et DAY sumi Jes. xxi. 8, non tantum Ven “adjectum indicat ; sed et oppositum m7, quod vocem % additam “habet. Ut enim hoc noctes quascunque denotat ; ita illud vi opposi- “torum, dies quoscunque. Conf. etiam Gen. xxii. 14, xxxi. 48, non “tamen neglecto Jes. xliii. 13. Isto certe modo expetita omnibus “ eternitatis significatio, quam multi magno molimine non potuerunt “‘eruere, sua sponte se aperit. Ex eadem voce ov7 Deut. iv. 4, extante, “ aliter eternitatem eruit Philo de Profugis, p.m. 458 (Mangey’s Edit., “tom. i, p. 554) in fine inquiens, onpepoy early améparos kal adueéitnros “aiov, pnvav yap Kal evavtav Kat ovvdAws xpdvev rrepiodor, Sdéypara “dvOpwmev éotiv apiOpov exretyinkdtov’ To 8 ayevdes dvoua aidvos, 7H “ onpepor, v.e., Hodie est infinitum et impervium zvum. Mensium enim, “annorum, et in universum temporum circuitus ; dogmata sunt homi- “num magni facientium numeros : verum autem nomen evi est Hopix.” Phillips, however (cbid., p. 24), considers that deriving the important doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son, from ovz7 in this verse, is rather forced criticism. The Talmud, treatise Succah, fol. 52, applies this verse of the 2d Psalm to the Messiah. FNNy WIT 3 baw 3/77 1) Tow WN MT. Mand Pnyw NI yy Mw Wn SPANO DNA PMN 12 WNW PNT DVT 8 WIA PIT IN TMEDN /3w 79 “Our Rabbies have taught that Messiah ben David, who is to be “ revealed speedily in our days, the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to “him, Ask something of me, and I will give to thee. As it is said, “T will declare as to the decree, &c. I this day have begotten thee. “¢ Ask of me, and I will give the heathen as thine inheritance.” As to the interpretation of the words 12 yw Aiss the Son, Dr. M‘Caul (Zhe Messiahship of Jesus, p. 151) observes that they “ are rendered by the “LXX. dpafaode madeias; by the Chaldee, in the same sense, 1¥2p ‘xp, and by the Vulgate, ‘ Apprehendite disciplinam.’ Ewald gives “4, similar version, ‘Nehmt Rath an’ (feceive advice). Of this it is CHAP. VII., :2—5. 79 “sufficient to say that it isa commentary, but not a translation ; and “that learned men are not even agreed as to how this explanation could “have arisen from the words. The verb pw) to kiss, is not employed “metaphorically in the sense of embracing, laying hold of. 12 does not “ever signify learning. The rendering is, therefore, false. Some “modern Jews, anxious to get rid of this command to do homage to “the Son of God, render the words ‘ Arm yourselves with purity,’ but *‘the incorrectness of this is easily proved—Ist, the verb pw, in Piel, “as itis here, means only to kiss. (See Gen. xxix. 13, xxxi. 28, xxxii. 1, “xlv. 15.) Gesenius, in his Thesaurus, shows that even in Kal it does “not mean to ‘arm.’ 2dly, 12 does not mean ‘purity.’ If it be an ‘adjective, then it is ‘kiss the pure one.’ 3dly, The overwhelming “ weight of authority, Jewish and Gentile, is in favour of our English “version, ‘Kiss the Son.’ Of ancients, the Syriac version, and the “Midrash (which interprets ‘Kiss the Son’ of appeasing the Son. “y3. wrp—Jalkut Shimoni, im loc.) Aben Ezra (who refers to Prov. ‘xxx. 2), Mendelssohn, Zunz, Dr. Solomon of Hamburg, Gesenius, “De Wette, all interpret it of doing homage to the Son. The Son, “the Anointed, is mentioned before as the Being against whom the “king and nations rebel. Here they are warned against the conse- “quences. The word 12 is used instead of j2, because of }) immedi- “ ately following,” 7.e., for euphony’s sake, and to prevent two words of nearly the same sound coming together. The reader will find a number of early Jewish authorities, in favour of the Messianic and Christian interpretation, quoted by Schoettgen, Hor. Hebr., tom. ii., pp. 227, 230. And now with respect to the Messianic application of Ps. xlv. Dr. Gill observes that “the Targum in the King of Spain’s ** Bible begins the 7th verse thus, ‘ But thou, O King Messiah, because “<¢thou lovest.’” Schoettgen, tom. ii., pp. 234, 235, adduces nearly twenty passages from the Targum—the Sohar Chadash, the Bereshith Rabba, the Jalkut Shimoni, R. Joseph Ben Moshe, Aben Ezra, all of which apply the Psalm to the Messiah. Dr. Phillips has collected a goodly number of similar testimonies on p. 340, vol. i., of his Commen- tary. “The Chaldee Interpreter has given the following paraphrase of “ verses 3, 7,8. Thy beauty, O King Messiah, is more excellent than ‘that of the sons of men ; the spirit of prophecy is given into Thy lips ; “ therefore Jehovah hath blessed thee for ever. 7, The throne of Thy “ glory, O Jehovah, standeth for ever and ever, a righteous sceptre is “the sceptre of Thy kingdom. 8, Because that Thou hast loved righte- “ousness, and hated wickedness : therefore Jehovah, Thy God, hath ‘anointed Thee with the oil of gladness more abundantly than thy “fellows. In win wm (Sohar Chadash), fol. 12, 2, on the words sceptre 80 CHAP. VII., 2—5. “ of righteousness, it is remarked that this is spoken of King Messiah, “ srw N29D NT. Joseph ben Moses, in mn 1n3 fol. 36, 4, observes on “the 7th and 8th verses, that they speak concerning the King Messiah, “repo yo 722 DIN WR DYpDET. So, also, the later Jewish commen- “ tators have understood the Psalm. Thus Kimchi, at the commence- “ment of his Commentary, states that ‘this Psalm is said of the King “ Messiah.’ Again, Aben Ezra, on verse 2, remarks that ‘this Psalm “treats of David, or rather of his Son Messiah.’ Even Mendelssuhn “ heads his edition of it with this observation,—‘ This Psalm speaks of “the exaltation and greatness of the King Messiah.’” It ought to be remembered that several of the above cited Jewish opinions represent the mind of the Hebrew Church, in the age immediately succeeding that of the Apostles. It will be then apparent that the New Testament writers, in their application of the Old Testament Scriptures, employed a canon of interpretation which was current amongst their unbaptized brethren. They brought in no forced and strained adaptation of the prophetical writings, but spoke the words of “truth and soberness.” How grotesque, also, do considerations such as the foregoing make the impudent figment of a modern “ Higher Criticism” appear, viz., that the Apostles and their followers learned their reverence for any of the Old Testament writings from the Apocrypbal Book of Enoch! Before quitting the subject it may not be out of place to call attention to the LXX. version of the words of Daniel iii. 25. They render 1 a, PR 1) MOT NY by kai Gpacis rod rerdprov Spota vi Ccov. ® Mire dpx. juep., pyre Cans TéAos €xov. This is a reference back to Psalm cii. 25—27, which the writer has already adduced (chap. i. 1O—12) to prove the eternity of the Son of God, one of whose names is given in Is. ix. 6 as WIN, Father, we., Sheen of Eternity. See Dr. M' Caul, The Messiaship of Jesus, pp. "183-185, Schoettgen (Hor. Hebr., tom. ii., p. 240), commenting on Ps. lxxii. 17, His name shall endure for ever, &e., writes :—‘ Pirke R. Eliezer, c. 3, et Bereschith Rabba, sect. 1, “fol. 3, 3. Sex res (in Pesachim, fol. 54, 1; Nedarim, fol. 39, 2; “Midrasch Tehillim, fol. 35, 4; et Midrasch Mischle, fol. 53, 3, “numerantur septem) fuerunt ante mundum conditum ; et inter eas nomen “¢ Messie,q.d. Antesolem Jinnonest nomen ejus.” (Seenote4, pp. 52—54.) Now if Melchizedek was “ without beginning of days or end of life,” but “‘ abideth a priest continually,” how can it be believed of him that he was a mere mortal? Ti @powwoate Kipioy; Kal tive dpormpare @powoate ad’tév; Is. xl. 18; see also li. 12. Wolfius’ assertion seems to me utterly unsatisfactory :—“ Melchisedecus perpetuus hic dicitur **Sacerdos, eo quod nee mortis, nec successoris ejus in sacris literis *“mentio est.” Melchisedek, as the Divine Logos, existed from eternity. CHAP. VII., 2—5. 81 ® Gewpetre S€ myAixos odros, Spencer (De Legibus Hebr. Rit., tom. ii., p- 100; Hag. Com., 1686, 4to.) asserts that the heathen nations before the time of Moses were in the habit of paying tithes to their kings in virtue of a regal right or claim, and he cites the example of Abraham in support of his statement :—‘“ Moris autem hujusce fidem haud “obscuram facit exemplum Abrahami, qui Melchisedechum Salemz “regem decima donavit, in subjectionis, inferioris certe conditionis et “ dignitatis argumentum : hoe e verbis Apostoli luculenter intelligen- “dum (Heb. vii. 4). Spectate vero quantus hic fuerit, 6 kai Sexarny ‘-ABpadp eaxev, cut vel decimam spoliorum dedit Abrahamus tlle patri- “archa, Sic textum reddo, quid Apostolus, non hic tantum, sed et versu “ secundo, hunc ipsum ordinem loquendi servet, et @ kat Sexarnv’ABpaap, “non @ kai "ABpadp Sexdrnv, habeat : ut scilicet innueret, ipsam doni “ qualitatem, non minus quam donantis conditionem, Melchisedechum “Joci regii virum et Abrahamo superiorem indicdsse. Interpretes “itaque, qui sic locum reddere solent, cui Abrahamus etiam patriarcha “ decimam dedit (prout et Anglicani nostri, qui sic vertunt, unto whom “the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth); vim et aculeum argumenti “ Apostolici non satis percepisse videantur. Huic argumento simul et “assertioni mez momenti nonnihil accedat ¢ modo citatis prophete “verbis, 1 Sam. viii. 15—17. Nam ibi de rege loquens Israeli preetici- “endo ; Segetes (inquit) vestras, et vinearum reditus addecimabit, ut det “ eunuchis et servis ejus. Greges quoque addecimabit.” 7 The following eloquent passage from Prof. Delitzsch (Die Genesis, p. 267, 268) will prove no unwelcome addition to what has been already adduced upon the subject of Melchizedek’s meeting with Abraham :— “ Abram hat mit nur 318 Mann vier Kénige besiegt und fiinf Konige “ verettet—darin ist er ein Vorbild der in der Kraft des Glaubens die “ Welt iiberwindenden alttestamentlichen Volks und neutestamentlichen “ Geistesgemeinde. Er weist jeden Antheil an der Beute zuriick, denn “er bedarf der Welt nicht, der er in aufopfernder Liebe dient ; reich “durch Jehova braucht und mag er sich nicht auf Kosten Anderer “bereichern von denen nicht zu nehmen, sonderp denen zu geben er “ berufen ist. Da tritt die wunderbare Gestalt Malkizedeks so unver- “ mittelt aus verborgenem Hintergrunde hervor wie sie wieder in den- “selben verschwindet—ein Konig der nicht blos als K6nig, wie der “ Hausvater als Hausvater den priesterlichen Dienst verrichtet (in “ welchem Sinne auch Abram Fiirst, x2, und Priester zugleich ist), “sondern der in Einer Person mit der Wiirde des Kénigs das Amt “eines Priesters vereinigt und deshalb (wie Abram nie) ausdriicklich ‘772 genannt wird. Von diesem Priesterkinig, der ausserhalb der “ Linie und des Kreises der Verheissung steht, liisst Abram sich segnen, M 82 CHAP, VIL. 2—5. “der Gesegnete Jehova’s, der zum Segensmittler aller Volker der Erde “ gesetzt ist. Von diesem Priesterkénig, der keine Berechtigung durch “ Abstammung und Gesetz aufzuweisen hat, liisst sich segnen der * Ahnherr Israels, der Ahnherr Levi’s und Ahrons, der Stammvater “des Volkes wie des Priesterthums des Gesetzes. Und nicht allein “das: Abram, in welchem das Priestergeschlecht, welches den Zehnten “za empfangen hat, beschlossen ist, giebt diesem Priesterkénig den “ Zehnten der ganzen Beute. Es giebt ein aussergesetzliches kénigliches “ Priesterthum und priesterliches Konigthum—das weissagt diese “ typische Geschichte—dem auch Abram und sein Same sich beugen, “dem auch das levitische Priesterthum huldigen muss, denn gerade da, “wo Abram in unvergleichlich erhabener Vorbildlichkeit dasteht, tritt “ Malkisedek neben ihn und ragt iiber ihn hinaus. Malkizedek ist wie “die untergehende Sonne der Uroffenbarung die mit ihren letzten “ Strahlen den Patriarchen anscheint, von dem aus das wahre Licht der “ Welt im Kommen hegriffen ist. Diese Sonne geht unter um wenn “die vorbereitende Zeit Israels voriiber sein wird, in Jesu Christo “ gegenbildlich wieder aufzugehen.” ® Kal of prev ek Tov vidy Aevt iepar. Kaw. (Numb. xviii. 22, 23.) ‘I have “given the children of Levi all the tenth in Israel for an inheritance, “for their service...... of the tabernacle of the congregation. Neither “ must the children of Israel henceforth come nigh the tabernacle of the “ congregation, lest they bear sin and die. (n0> yon nxwd bear mortal “sin, NaBetv Guapriay Oavarnpdpov, LXX.) But the Levites shall do “the service of the tabernacle of the congregation, and they shall bear “their iniquity: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your genera- “tions,” &e, (ON) DY np ONY ww OM, Kal adroit Ajyovra Ta dpap- THuaTa avT@y, Kat voutuwov aidyioy eis Tas yeveas a’tav. LXX.) J. A. Danzius acutely observes upon this passage, that Jewish tradition alone might have taught the Jews that the Levitic ritual was not intended to be enduring, ¢eg., 20 WN DEN (Ww NOY NT Tw ODN ww WS 127 NIN TPwNT NM DDR °NDTN DLN. Tradition of the school of Elijah :— Zhe world is to stand six thousand years. Two thousand, confusion; two thousand, the law; two thousand, the days of Messiah. (Talmud, Sanhedr., fol. 97, col. 1. See also Dr. M‘Caul’s essay, Zhe Birth of Messiah, in “The Old Paths.’’) * « But here,’ observes Dr. Gill, “a difficulty arises how the Levites “that were priests, can be said to receive tithes from the people, when ‘“‘they received the tenth part of the tithes, or the tithe of tithes, from “the Levites (Numb. xviii. 26; Neh. x. 38) ; but it should be observed “that it was not necessary that the Levites should give these tithes to “the priests themselves ; an Israelite might do it, and so give the CHAP. VII., 6—14. 83 * Levites the less ; on which account the priests may be said to receive “from the people ; besides, Ezra in his time ordered that the first tithe should not be given to the Levites, but to the priests, because they “ would not go up with him to Jerusalem. T. Bab. Yebamot., fol. 86, “2, and Becorot, fol. 4, 1.” Reland writes (Antig. Hebr., p. 380, 381), ** Queeri hoc loco potest de sensu verborum Pauli, Hebr. vii. 5, of ék rev “‘viav Aevi thy ieparetav AapBavortes, mandatum habent accipiendarum “decimarum a populo. Ubi non Levitis sed sacerdotibus decime “videntur tribui. Dici posset respici hic ad decimas, quas Levite “ dabant Sacerdotibus, ita ut populus Sacerdotibus per Levitas decimas *solveret, quemadmodum Deus ipse primitias accipere dicitur, que * Sacerdotibus dabantur, in Gem. Sanhedrin, 39,1. At videtur potius “hic agi de Levitis ipsis, sic ut illi qui Jerem. xxxiii. 21, appellantur pan on, hic nuncupentur wi qui ex filiis Levi sunt, id est Levitz, ** quorum tribui jura Sacerdotii concessa sunt, sive ryv tepat. Aap. illi jus “habent ad decimas. Nam commate 14, tribui Levitice Sacerdotium a * Mose tributum memorat, et commate 9, Levi, scribit, decimas acci- “pere. Ita in Targ. Hieros., Gen. xxv. 31, legitur Pontificatum * Maximum datum tribui Levi, 19 xnaw) xn xno nmr, et Jos. viii. 7, Sacerdotium esse hereditatem Levitarum. Nec dubium esse “potest, quin Levite illi fuerint, quibus Deus mandaverit decimas a *populo accipere, non sacerdotes ; etiamsi, ut Judei tradunt in Gem. “ Ketuvoth, 26, 1, stante templo ii., decimas Levitis aliquando non “ dederint, vetante hoc Ezra, sed Sacerdotibus. Hic autem agit Paulus ‘“non de consuetudine, sed de mandato Dei, quo certe Levite ad deci- “mas jus acceperunt.” Verses 6—14.—But he (Melchisedek), who was not of their genealogy, took tithes of Abraham, and blessed him who had received (tov €yovra, was holder of) the promises.’ But, beyond all dispute, the less is blessed of the greater’ (z.e., Abraham, the founder of the race, and the holder of the promises, was greater than Levi, but Abraham was blessed of Melchisedek ; therefore, d fortior?, Melchisedek was greater than Levi, or any of the Aaronic priesthood).—Furthermore (there is one self-evident attri- bute of the inherent superiority in the inheritor of Melchi- sedek’s office and dignity, which requires only to be stated to receive assent, viz.,) here on earth dying men receive tithes (i.e., the sons of Aaron are mortal), but there (éxe?, 84 CHAP. VII., 6—14. Gen. xiv.), a person, who is testified of, that he is alive.’ Levi also (so to speak), who is the recipient of tithes, was tithed (vicariously) by the act (dua) of Abraham, for he was yet in his ancestral father’s loins when Melchisedek met him. Besides, if perfection‘ (Tereiwars, either perfect expiation, or the completion of the Divine purposes and plan) had been brought in by the Levitical priesthood (for the people [of Israel] received their constitution as based upon it—éz’ avtTh vevomobérnto), what further need that any other priest should arise, and be distinctively specified (Aéyeo Oar) as “after the order of Melchisedek,’’ and not after the order of Aaron? For if the priesthood be set aside, the law is, of necessity, set aside also. But He (Jesus), in reference to whom these things are spoken, belonged to (wetéoxnxev) a different tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar ;° because it is a matter of notoriety that the Lord sprung from the tribe of Judah,® to which tribe Moses spake’ nothing concerning the priesthood. ’ Toy €xovra ras erayyeXias, 2.e., he who held the promises of blessing and blessedness, received additional blessing from Melchizedek. It is worthy of note that, in Gen. xxii. 18, and xxvi. 4, the Hithpael conju- gation is used, signifying ‘‘to account oneself blessed,’ and not the Niphal, or passive, as in Gen. xii. 3, xviii. 18, xxviii. 14. The Hithpael also occurs in Ps. lxxii. 17, “ And men shall be blessed (or account themselves blessed) in Him.” See also Is. lxv. 16, and Jer. iv. 2. In Gen. xii. 2 it was promised that Abraham should “ be a blessing,” 7372, as well as (verse 3) that all families of the earth should be blessed in Him. This was the first form of the promise, which accompanied the call, “Get thee out of thy country,” &c. 2 Td €darrov td Tov Kpeirt. evhoy. The less thing is blessed by the greater. Josephus says that, during the feast, Melchizedek began “ to “praise Abraham, and to bless God,” airév re emaweiv Kal tov Oedy evAoyelv. ® Kal &be pev Sexdr. arobrvyjck, avOp. Kaw B. exet Sé, paprvpovpevos sre ¢n, a.e., “ Melchizedek received tithes, who is testified of (Ps. ex.), that “he is yet alive.’ Very lame, again, is the explanation offered by Wolfius, in common with others, viz., that we know that the Levitical high priests died off in the natural course of events, but that the CHAP. VII., 6—14. 85 Scripture says nothing of Melchizedek’s death, but speaks only of his life. Wolfius is prudently silent upon the interpretation of the latter clause of verse 16, “Os ov kara vopov evtoAns wapKikns yéyovev, ada Kata Stivapww faqs axataditov. It is a moot point whether és refers primarily to Melchizedek or to Christ. In either case the difficulty remains the same, unless we take the words in their literal signification, as I, with Cuneus and Ewald, feel compelled to do. (See note, p. 75, and note 7, p. 93.) * Ei pev ody reXelwors. Schoettgen pithily remarks (m doc.), ‘ Si aliud “quoddam sacerdotium ab Aaronitico diversum promittitur, sequitur, ‘* posterius non fuisse sufficiens, Atqui vero Deus sacerdotium eternum “secundum ord. Melch. promittit, quod clarissimum est. Sequitur “ergo, Sacerdotium Christi sec. ord. Melch. longe prestantius esse ** Aaronitico. Nemo enim vestem novam abjicit, ut veterem induat, “sed potius vice versa.” ° Ovdels mpocecynke TH Ovovacrnpio. “ De qua nullus altari presto “ fuit.’—Vulg, ‘“ Aus welchem nie Keiner des Altars gepfleget hat.” — Luth. ‘None of whom served at the altar.’”—Stuart. “‘ Ex qué nemo “ altari operam dedit.”— Wolfius, Tlpocéx is translated to give heed to in the Auth. Vers., Acts viii. 6, 10. See also 11, and xvi. 14; 1 Tim. i, 4; iv. 1. See also verse 13; Tit. i. 14; Heb. ii. 1; 2 Pet. i. 19. ® "Ore e& Iovda avaréradkev 6 Kiptos nuov. The late Dr. M‘Caul (Old Paths. London, 1846. 8vo., pp. 542, 543) says, ‘ The ancient Rabbies “do not leave us to reason upon their words ; on the contrary, they “tell us expressly that Messiah was born about the time that the temple “was destroyed. In the Jerusalem Talmud, R. Judan tells us a story “of a Jew who actually went and saw Him :— “Mp Yow) YI IT ay NO; TWN AYA NP MATT ONT? Ia TT NTH MIN POI NYA APD WI IMT NAT PPIP MW) TWN Nw ex Wow 72 x DMD TAD TD NEM NIND DY NTT PII WoP) PIN WP NT rv 7 9/4 m7 N70 NVI yO OYN NNT PT DP) fon cI*pIT O’R ANT DW AD 9x sim ond “ It happened once to a certain Jew, who was standing ploughing, that * his cow lowed before him. A certain Arab was passing, and heard its “voice. He said, O Jew, O Jew! unyoke thine ox, and loose thy plow- “ share, for the temple has been laid waste. It lowed a second time, and “he said, O Jew, O Jew! yoke thine oxen, and bind on thy plowshares, “ for King Messiah is born. The Jew said, What is his name? Mena- “chem. He asked further, What is the name of his father? The other “peplied, Hezekiah. He asked again, Whence is he? The other said, “from the Royal residence of Bethlehem of Judah. (Berachoth, fol. 5, “ col. 1.)—The story then goes on to tell us how he went and saw the “child ; but when he called the second time, the mother told him that 86 CHAP. VIL, 6—14. “the winds had carried the child away. We are quite willing to grant “that this story is a fable. We quote it......... to show that the more “ ancient Jews were so fully persuaded that the right time of Messiah’s “advent was past, that they readily believed also that He was actually “born. The Babylonian Talmud, also, evidently takes for granted “that Messiah is born, as appears from the following legend :— Mag TY JI PAW IT NMWOT NTR vOMP TT PR) TMIwR Nd Ja DOWD 4 42 NPY OST DID ND YA Yow 49 OR TT PIN AST oN 5/8 onNT NOdYD RION °ND) COITT NTR IY NPM MD Mw 5 OV mw one noOEK S/N onyDw TH POR) TT OND PR NIT WTI PDN TW PD) DRT HID MY 22 PN WD Dbw md Wx NN) on TT? Dyw mm) Wr 719 xX IMR NOT NIVIN NDT TOR PCV iM) WORX WD ONR NN? //R NPD II Poy “R. Joshua, the son of Levi, found Elijah standing at the door of the “cave of R. Simeon ben Jochai, and said to him, Shall I arrive at the “world to come? He replied, If this Lord will. R. Joshua, the son of “ Levi, said, I see two, but I hear the voice of three. He also asked, “ When will Messiah come? Elijah replied, Go, and ask himself. R. “ Joshua then said, Where does he sit? At the gate of Rome. And how “ts he to be known? He is sitting amongst the poor and sick; and they “open their wounds and bind them up again all at once; but he opens “only one, and then he opens another ; for he thinks, perhaps I may be “wanted, and then I must not be delayed. R. Joshua went to him, and “said, Peace be upon thee, my master and my Lord. He replied, Peace “be upon thee, son of Levi. The Rabbi then asked him, When will my “ Lora come? He replied, To-pay (alluding to the words of the Psalm, “To-day, if he will hear his voice).”” Dr. M‘Caul goes on to observe, “This is evidently a fiction, and a proof how little those doctors re- “garded the truth ; but it shows that he who invented it, and those “who received it, all equally believed that Messiah was born, and ‘ready waiting to come forth for the redemption of Israel.” (Sanhe- drin, fol. 98, col. 1.) See also Matt. ii. 1—6. So, also, the Rabinnic libellous legend, entitled ToLpors JEescuu, The Generations of Jesus (p. 3), bears similar testimony as to the Saviour’s birthplace. Having stated that Joseph was of the tribe of Judah, it proceeds to give the following particulars as to his place of residence, and that of Mary, his espoused wife :— NT) OD AAW) 2 A NAN AWOox Mw ANT Nad ANP) NA oN maa pw TOM] NWT NW) NW OND * He resided at Bethlehem-Judah. And a certain widow lived near “his house, and she had a daughter named Mary, and this Mary was an ‘‘adorner of female hair; of whom mention is made in the Talmud,” The tract is printed at length in Wagenseil’s Tela Jgynea Satane. CHAP. VII., 15—19. 87 _ J.C. Wolfius (in loc.) writes, “ Alludi hic ad my, Jes. xi. 1, post “alios monuit Vitringa in Commentar, ad h.l., p. 308, ubi etiam con- “‘tendit, Mariam ex tribu Levitica nonnullis ortam falso videri, cum “ alioquin Apostolus h. 1. forte non neglexisset, ortum Christi ex utraque “ tribu, J ude respectu patris, et Levi ratione matris, in usus suos vertere, “ quando e contra Christum totum tribui Jude vindicat.” The present Bishop of Bath and Wells, Lord A. C. Hervey, has treated on the genealogy of our Lord in a separate work, and also in his Lordship’s excellent article, Genealogy of Jesus Christ, in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible. 7 Els fv gud ovdev wept iepwovvns Mons éddAdnoe. “ In qua tribu “nihil de sacerdotibus Moyses locutus est.”’—Vulg. “Zu welchem “ Geschlecht Moses nichts geredet hat vom Priesterthum.”’— Luther. Verses 15—19,— And the matter becomes much more clearly apparent still, if another priest arises in the likeness (xara THY OpoLoTnta, resembling in every particular) of Melchise- dek, who was constituted not according to the law of a carnal prescription, but in virtue of (kata Sdvapuy) a life of undying perpetuity (fis axatadvtov).' For this is the testimony* (concerning Messiah), “Thou art a priest “For EVER after the order of Melchisedek.’”? Thus (we see that) there is a setting aside of the foregoing prescrip- tive commandment (mpoayovons évto\ is, viz., that limited the priesthood to the family of Levi) ; inasmuch as it was devoid of real virtue, and inefficacious (ac@evés Kal avoderés).© Because the law made nothing perfect, but it was the introduction (or initiation, érewaywy)) of a better hope,* by which we draw nigh to God. (See note 8, p- 82, on Num. xviii. 22, “Neither must the children of “Tsrael henceforth come nigh the tabernacle of the con- “ oreeation,’’ &c.) 1 Stuart renders the above passage (verse 16) thus, “ Who was not “made (a priest) by an ordinance of temporary obligation, but by an * authority of endless duration.” He seems to me, by such an interpre- tation, to miss somewhat of the real purport intended, viz., that the mortal frailty of the Levitic priesthood was a preliminary source of dissatisfaction, and that therefore Christ’s Divine priesthood, as ever- 88 CHAP. VII., 20—25. more abiding, was substituted in its place. Philo remarks as follows upon the uncertain duration of the lives of the Jewish high priests :— MakpofBimraror yap, of dé dd\vyoxpouwraror Tov apxepewy eiai’ Kal of peev véot, of Se mpecBvra Kadicrayra. “For some of the high priests are very long lived, whilst others, on “the contrary, are very short lived. Some of them are appointed “when young, and others advanced in life.” (De Profugis, Works, Mangey’s Edit., tom. i., p. 562.) * Maprupet yap, “ Scil. 103, ypadpy, Scriptura,’ Wolfius in loc. 3 Spencer, De Legibus Hebr. Rit., tom. ii., p. 13, has some very good remarks upon the subject. See also zbed., tom. i., p. 6. * Stuart understands the writer to say that “the introduction of a “better hope did make men perfect.” The sentiment is true, viz., that the fathers obtained salvation by faith in a promised and coming Redeemer, but I question whether this is the writer’s meaning on the present occasion. See Gal. ii. 23, “ But before faith (7.e., the Gospel “* dispensation) came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the “faith, which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law “became our schoolmaster (madayayos nay yeyovey eis Xpiorov) with “ reference to Christ, 7.e., to direct us to Christ.” Verses 20—25.— And from the fact (xa? dcov) that (in the case of Christ) an oath is not wanting, by this very circumstance (kata tocodtov) Jesus has been made the surety’ of a better covenant. For the other priests had no oath in confirmation of their commission, but Jesus had an oath, received from Him who said unto him (dra Tov AEeyovTos pos avTov), “Jehovah hath sworn, and will “not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek ’’ (7.e., the Levitic commission was not irre- vocably permanent and enduring, but Christ’s is. The FOR EVER of eternal perpetuity is the distinguishing feature of Melchizedek’s priesthood, and this is the “order’’ of priesthood which Christ can claim as his own). Besides, the Aaronic priests have been numerous, because death prevented their remaining. But Jesus, from the fact that he continues For EVER, holds (éyee) the (not a) priesthood which does not pass to another (amapa- Batov éxes THY tepwovvnv). On which account (é0ev) He CHAP. VII., 20—25. 89 is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through him, as He evermore liveth to make inter- cession” for them. '"Eyyvos, a surety or bail; a word only occurring once in the New Testament and three times in the Apocr. See Sirach xxix. 15, Xdpiras eyyvou py emrAdbn, edaxe yap tHv Yuxnv aitov imép cov. 16, *Ayaba eyyiouv avatpe wet duaprodds. 2 Macc. x. 28, where it has the sense of a token or pledge, oi pev eyyvov €xovtes evnuepias Kal vikns. The rainbow was the token of the covenant of Noah. (Gen. ix. 12—17.) Circumcision (Gen. xvii. 11—14) of the covenant with Abraham ; the blood of sprinkling (Exod. xxiv. 8) was the token of the covenant of Moses. Jesus the Messiah, by his atoning death, is the token of the New Covenant of Grace, and so it is promised that he should be (is. xlii. 6, xlix. 8), in both of which passages it is said that he should be given “for a covenant of the people” (O» m2) 72n8)). * The character of intercessor was one of the distinguishing attributes of Messiah. And the prophecy of Is. lix. 16, “ He wondered that there ‘‘was no intercessor,” DDD PRD DON, is referred to Messiah by R. Jochanan in the Talmud (Schabbath, fol. 139), whilst very many Rabbinical writings. including the book of Zohar (concerning which the late Dr. M‘Caul writes, ‘If not a testimony from the first century of “ Christianity, it is, to say the least, an authority of great weight amongst “the Rabbinical Jews, both in the East and in the West’’), distinctly applies Isaiah liii. to Messiah, and there it is written concerning him, yap oywen, “And he made intercession for the transgressors.” The following most remarkable passage from Philo demonstrates the belief of the ancient Greco-Jewish Church upon the subject of a Divine Mediator and Intercessor between God and man :——‘‘ But to the “ Archangel and eldest Word (mpeoBurdro d\éy@), the Father who begat “all things, has given the especial gift (Swpeay efaiperov) that standing ‘in the midst (eAdpios) he might judge the act of the doer of it. He ‘“‘ evermore intercedes (ixerns pev eore) with the Immortal on behalf of the ‘*mortal who is in a state of anxious suspense (tov @vntod knpaivortos) ; ‘and is the ambassador (mpeoBeuris) of the king to his subjects. He “rejoices, moreover, in his office, and magnifies its dignity, saying “ (Numb. xvi. 48), ‘I also stood between you and the Lord. He is “not unbegotten like God, nor begotten like ourselves, but midway “ between each extreme, acting as a hostage or go-between (d\\a peégos “rev akpov apucorepors 6unpevov) to both.’—Philo, Quis Rerum Div. Heres (Works, vol. i., Edit. Mangey, pp. 501, 502). N 90 CHAP. VII., 26—28. Verses 26—28.—For such an high priest became us (€mpetrev, was suitable, or eminently adapted to owr con- dition), viz., holy, harmless, undefiled,’ separated from sinners,’ and exalted above the heavens;* and who has no daily‘ necessity (ds od« eyes xaP nuépay avayxny), first for his own sins,> and then for the people’s, to offer up sacrifices ; for this he did once for all (égazra&), when he offered himself. For the law constitutes men high priests who have infirmity, but the word of the oath, which was subsequent to the law (Ps. cx. 4) (constitutes as high priest), the Son perfected® for evermore (eis TOV aiava TeTENEL@pEevoY, consecrated, Authorized Vers.).’ 1 "Ogwos, dkakos, duiavros. The Messiah is described as God’s Holy One, ton, thy Holy One, in Ps. xvi. 10, tov dowdy cov, LXX., and applied by St. Peter, Acts ii. 27, to our Lord Jesus Christ. For a very satisfactory vindication of the reading Jvon, instead of ren, see Phillips on the Psalms, vol. i., p. 98. In Deut. xxxili. 8 the term vor is applied to Aaron in his pontifical capacity, and in immediate connexion with the Urim and Thummim, Jron wx), 74 dvdpi 7 doi, LXX., and so it is explained in the Targums of Onkelos, Palestine, and Jerusalem. In Ps. xvi., the Messiah speaks (verses 4, 5) in his capacity asa priest. (See J. D. Michaelis and Gill.) Dr. M‘Caul, on p. 154— 156 of his Messiahship of Jesus, gives a brief exposition of the Psalm, and writes on verse 10,—‘“‘ Jr0n, singular, Thy Holy One, as the great ‘* majority of Jews and Christians, ancient and modern, testify. De Rossi “says, ‘ Lectio ipsa communis puncta habet singularis numeri, multique “ «codd. et edd., cum Hooghtiana, notant ad marg. redundat jod ; alii “ «vero complures, sive MSS., sive edd. habent Keri von, lege sanctum “tuum; paucissimi codices sistunt puncta lectionis pluralis.’ See “ Roger’s beautiful and most instructive edition of the Psalms.” In elucidation of the meaning of dkakos, the reader may, with advantage, consult Selden, de Success. in Pont. Ebreor. In chap. vi. of part 2 he treats at length de vitiis animi, que tam functioni sacerdotali quam success. in Pontificat. obstarent. Schoettgen, erroneously I think, explains the expression duiavtos, as if it were the equivalent of dyeopos of Heb. ix. 14; comp. 1 Pet. i. 19. ’Apiavros means here unsullied in soul, of which mental purity the legal precautions against ceremonial defilement were the type, whilst 4uepos signifies without “blemish ” (Om, pasos, LX X., CHAP. VII., 26—28. 91 Lev. xxi. 17, et passim in V. T.), which disqualified sacrifice as well as priest, from the service of God. See Selden, ibid., pp. 449 —470. * Keywptopevos ard tav duaprodov, The tract Joma says (¢. 1), Seven days before the day of Atonement they used to shut up or separate the High Priest from his own house (p77) nw) wad D7 YD pow) in the chamber Parhedrin). Mishna Surenh., tom. ii, p. 206. Reland (p. 100) adds, *‘ Ipsique adsederint membra queedam Synedrii P73 2 p13, “ut eum ritus festi secuturi docerent, hine apte nomen Paredrin ei ‘datum fuit.” Another separation of the High Priest took place when the Elders (77 m1 273) brought the High Priest into the temple, and took an oath of him before leaving that he would make no alteration in the things which they had taught him. 777 we xm, “ Then he sepa- “rates himself and weeps,” p22) pone ym “ And they separate them- “selves and weep.” (Joma, p. 209.) The whole tribe of Levi was separated unto the Lord, “instead of all the firstborn among the “ children of Israel,’ in commemoration of the Passover. So also it is written concerning Aaron, that he ‘ was separated (612) that he should *¢sanctify the most holy things, he and his sons for ever, to burn incense “before the Lord, to minister unto him, and to bless in his name for “ever.” (1 Chron. xxiii. 13.) Whilst in Lev. xxii. 2 it is said, ‘Speak “unto Aaron and to his sons, that they separate themselves (11) from “the holy things of the children of Israel, and that they profane not “my holy name in those things which they hallow untome.” The pre- eminent sanctity attaching to the high priestly office, in contradistinc- tion to the priestly, is apparent from the minute instructions given, Ley. xxi. 10, &e. Aaron is there called ynxo 2m 47D, 6 iepeds 6 péeyas dnd tov adekpay avrov, LXX. He was forbidden to incur ceremonial pollution from contact with a dead body, “or defile himself for his “father or his mother.” Josephus says that Moses “did not think it ‘proper for the high priest to marry even a widow of one that was “ dead, though he allowed that to the priests ; but he permitted him “only to marry a virgin, and to retain her. Whence it is, that the “high priest is not to come near to one that is dead, although the rest ‘are not prohibited from coming near to their brethren, or parents, or ‘children, when they are dead ; but they are to be unblemished in all “ respects.” —Antiq. iii. 12, 2. But not only were the high priests to be “ separated from sinners,” but it was also their especial function (Lev. x. 10) to “ put difference between holy and unholy, and between clean and “unclean,” WIT Pp KABA PI WT pp wp pa PIM), AcaoreiAa dvapécov Tov ayiav kal Tov BeBnov, kai avayéecov Tov dkabdproy kal Toy Kabapar, LXX. “Auf das ihr konnet unterscheiden, was heilig und unheilig, “ was unrein und rein ist,”—Luther. 92 CHAP. VII., 26—28. ® See Isaiah liii. 12 (and note 4 on p. 28). * T suspect that the meaning here is, no necessity for expiatory sacrifice, which was daily experienced, but was only alleviated, once a year, on the great Day of Atonement. Prof. Stuart (in loco) writes, “ 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 critics about the meaning of ka6’ jyépay 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 ground may be seen by consulting Lev. vi. 19—22, Num. xxviii. 3, 4. Philo, who was contemporary with the Apostles, says, ‘ dpxvepeds, Kata ‘rods vépous, evyas S€¢ Kal Ovoias TeAoY Ka Exdoryy nuepar, the high priest, * agreeably to the laws, makes daily supplications and sacrifices.” On the other hand, Josephus (Wars, v. 5,7) says, ‘‘ The high priest did ‘also go up with them (the priests), not always, indeed, but on the “seventh days and new moons, and if any festival belonging to our “ nation, which we celebrate every year, happened.” From Lev. vi. 22 it would appear that the high priest on ordinary occasions was repre- sented by one of his sons. I confess that I have failed to discover how Num. xxviii. 3, 4, applies to the high priest at all. It is true that a daily meat offering of flour, &¢., ‘of Aaron and his sons” (Lev. vi. 20) was offered, morning and evening, by the high priest, or tn his name. (See Reland Antig. Sacr. Vet. Hebr., p. 152, Traject. Bat., 1712, 8vo.) But the priest who was to slay the lamb for the daily sacrifice was selected by lot (see Reland, zbzd., p. 193) from amongst his brethren. The writer to the Hebrews is evidently speaking of the high priest par excellence, and not of his family. 5 Philo, in allegorising the death of the high priest, after which it should be lawful for the manslayer to return, writes,—Aé¢yomev yap, Tov apxtepéa ovK avOperor, adda Adyov Oetoy eival, mayT@V ovx €éxkovoiwv pévov, G\Ad kal akovoiwy adiKndt@y dpéToxov, K.7.A. ‘ My opinion is, “that the high priest is no (mere) man, but the Divine Word, who ‘“‘ partakes not of sins, either voluntary or involuntary.”—De Profugis, Works, Mangey’s Edit., vol. i., p. 562. And again, Avo yap, ws €oukey, iepa Oeod, Ev pev dbe 6 Kdcpos, ev @ Kal apxtepeds, 6 mpwTdyovos avTov Geios Adyos, k.7.X. ‘There are, methinks, ““two temples of God. The one is this universe, whose high priest is “his firstbegotten Divine Word,” &c.— Quod a Deo Mittantur Somnia, tbid., vol. i., p. 653. ° Stuart translates terehec@pevoy ‘exalted to glory,” whilst the authorized English version, following the LXX. of Lev. xxi. 10, translates “ consecrated,” e.g., “and he that is consecrated to put on CHAP. VIL., 26—28. 93 “the garments,” rereAecwpevou evdioacGa ta ivdtia, And so also the Vulgate, cujus manus in sacerdotio consecrate sunt; whereas Luther translates YY nx xD) (lit., and his hand filled) as if connected with the preceding words, sc., “filled with the consecrating oil.” Gesenius, however, says (in Lex. x00) “implevit Manum alic., ¢.e., sacerdotium “ei in manus tradidit. Exod. xxviii. 41, xxix. 9, Lev. xxi.10.” The Septuagint has again in Exod. xxix. 9, reAewoers, whilst in Exod. XXviil. 41 it reads kai eumAnoes airay tas xetpas. Luther, “thre Hinde Jiillen” and “* die Hande fullén.”” 1 cannot but think that if Prof. Stuart had observed the above coincidence he would have modified his opinion, as regards the present passage at least. ‘There seems to be, again, an allusion to Ps. ex., and also to the words of Psalm xlv., already quoted in Heb. i. 8, 9 ; a Psalm which the Chaldee Paraphrast, Joseph Ben Moses, Kimchi, Aben Ezra, and Mendelssohn all refer to “ King Messiah.” See ‘The Psalms in Hebrew, with a Commentary,” by the Rev. G. Phillips, D.D., vol. i., 340, 341, and also my note on p. 20. * Dr. Ewald’s remarks upon the person and identity of Melchisedek are so weighty, and of such paramount importance, as proceeding from one of the most colossal geniuses and illustrious scholars that Theolo- gical Germany ever produced, that I have taken the liberty of extracting them here, in their integrity, from pp. 86—90, of Das Sendschr. a. die Hebr. (Gottingen, 1870, 8vo.) :— Und nun erst, nachdem die Rede durch ihre hiéchst geschickte Leitung unter dem Steuerruder des “ Redners zu Malkhissedeq zuriichgekehrt ist, kann sich durch eine ‘‘nahere Vergleichung der drei Persénlichkeiten auf welche es hier “ankommt, 1) des Malkhissedeq, 2) Abraham’s, seines Nachkommens “ Levi, und des Levitischen Hohepriesterthumes, und 3), Christus’ in “aller Ruhe und Bestimmtheit beweisen wer Christus als Hohepriester “ naher betrachtet wirklich sei. So beweist sie denn dass wenn schon * Malkhissedeq verglichen mit Abraham, Levi und dem Levitischen “ Priesterthume, ein ganz anderer Hohepriester war als alle die Leviti- “ schen, unvergleichlich ewiger, erhabener, geheimnissvoller, und auch “dadurch gottlicher, dann sein mit ihm auch nach anderen hier wich- “tigen Seiten zu vergleichendes Urbild Christus als Hohepriester noch “unaussprechlich héher stehen miisse. Diese ganze Beweisfiihrung “geht von vorne an nur von den hohen und so goheimnissvoll klingen- “den Psalmenworten tiber Malkhissedeq, aus welche der Redner zuerst “v. 6, erwahnt hatte, und welche er eben vi. 20, die Rede so absichtlich “zuriickleitete, und die, nachdem alles aus ihnen zu schépfende hier “ erlaiitert ist zum guten Schlusse davon vii. 17, mit derselben Gewand- “theit als die Worte wiederholt werden welche hier den weiter zu “erlaiiternden h. Text bilden. Allein wohl fiihlt der Redner dass er 94 CHAP. VII., 26—28. “um seinen Zweck leichter zu erreichen in das Gewebe der Wortfiigung “‘ jener Psalmenstelle auch noch alles das verflechten miisse was Gen. xiv. “18—20, von Malkhissedeq erzihlt wird : diese kurze Erzihlung iiber “den unter Abraham lebenden, und mit ihm in eine engere Beriihrung “kommenden Priesterkénig klingt nun schon wie sie dort gegeben wird “nach ihrem einfachen Wortsinne vielfach ungewéhnlich und seltsam, “ {Note 1, p. 87, Woher dies komme, kann mann rein geschichtlich nach “alle dem richtig schizen was in der Gesch. d.v. Isr. Bd. 1, iiber den “ Ursprung des ganzen Stiickes Gen. c. 14, erlautert ist.] Aber schon “lange vor unserm Redner hatte der seltzam klingende Inhalt dieser ‘so iiberaus abgerissenen kurzen Erzihlung auch schon die Aufmerk- “samkeit, den Scharfsinn und die Dichtungssucht vieler Schriftgelehrten “beschiftigt. [Note 2, p. 87, Est ist fiir diese Sache sehr zu beklagen “dass gerade die Stelle des B. der Jubilien, welche uns hier aller ““ Wahrscheinlichkeit nach, die wichtigsten Aufschliisse geben kénnte, “in der Aethiopischen Ubersezung verloren ist; nach Dillmann’s “* Ausgabe, s. 54, 19, fehlt sie jezt in allen Handschriften, und fehlte ‘wol schon als das Buch in’s Aethiopische iibersetzt ward ; aber sie “erscheint hier auch nicht etwa absichtlich und fiir sich allein ausge- “ stossen, da schon von dem ihr voraufgehenden einiges fehlt. Auch “in den Bruchstiicken der Genesis Parva, welche Ceriani im ersten “Hefte der Monumenta sacra et profana veroffentlichte, findet sich “diese Stelle mit ihrer weiteren Umgebung nicht.] Wie es damals ‘‘viele gab welche mit der dussersten Neugierde und Sorgfalt alle die “so einzeln, und an sich etwas unverstandlich dastehenden Namen “der Manner und Weiber der Genesis untersuchten, deren Ankunft “und Verwandschaft erforschten und was dort zu fehlen schien durch “allerlei Mittel erganzten [Note 3, p. 87, Wie wir am deutlichsten “aus dem B. Henokh und dem Buche der Jubilaéen ersehen], so war es “vielen aufgefallen dass dieser Priesterkénig dort so ganz vereinzelt “und unvermittelt erscheint, ohne dass man auch nur erfahrt wessen “ Sohn, oder wessen Stammes und Geschlechtes, oder Volkes er war ; “und eine Menge, oft sehr ausschweifender und héchst willkiihrlicher “ Vermuthungen waren dariiber ausgesprochen, und sezten sich auch ‘in Schriften fest. [Note 4, pp. 87,88, Wie dass Malkhissedeq einerlei ‘‘mit Sem Noah’s Sohne, oder gar mit Henokh sei, was man auch “‘dadurch beweisen wollte das ja nach den Zahlen Gen. xi. und v. “‘jener, oder gar dieser noch gelebt haben kénne. Und doch sind die “‘ Bestrebungen jener Mittelalterigen Gelehrten noch sehr unschuldig “oegen die sovieler neuesten, mitten in unserer heutigen Deutschen “Wissenschaft, welche die ebenso bodenlosesten, als abscheulichsten ““Dinge in Gen. ¢. 14, hineinlegen, und dabei absichtlich das schon CHAP. VII., 26—28. 95 “sicher genug erliuterte gewisseste und beste iibersehen.—And yet, “the efforts of those medieval scholars are guiltless indeed, in comparison “ with those of the multitude of the latest (scholars) of our modern German “science, who frist the most groundless and revolting matters into the “14th chapter of Genesis, and at the same time wilfully overlook all that ‘ has been already sufficiently cleared up, and all that ts most palpably cer- “ tain and excellent | Unser Verfasser weist alle solche ganz willkiihrlich “erfundene und festgehaltene Vermuthungen iiber ibn ab (our author * rejects all such gratuitous guesses), hilt sich streng nur an eine Verglei- “chung und in einander Verarbeitung der Worte Ps. cx. 4 und Gen. “xiv. 18, 20, hilt aber aus den Worten jener Psalmenstelle desto “strenger fest dass jener uralte, seltsame, und so geheimnissvoll ‘‘abgerissen dort stehende Priesterkiénig in der engsten Beziehung ‘mit Christus stehen miisse, und leitet iibrigens nach der gelehrt- “en Sitte vieler seiner Zeitgenossen aus einer engen Zusammen- “‘stellung jener beiden Bibelstellen und Ausbeutung des miglicben ‘‘Sinnes ihrer einzelnen Worte solche Folgerungen ab, welche ihm “hieher zu gehéren scheinen, um den hochwichtigen Beweis welchen “er geben wollte, auch auf diesem Wege zu vollenden Wie Paulus “nun die héhere Nothwendigkeit und Wahrheit des Christenthumes zu ‘ beweisen bis iiber Mose hinaus in das Zeitalter Abraham’s und die “ Erzihlungen der Bibel iiber jene Urzeiten zuriickgehen musste, “ebenso kommt unserm Redner beim neugescharften Blicke in jene “ Zeiten gerade von der seite Malkhissedeq’s aus vieles entgegen was fiir “diesen dienen konnte ; und vorziiglich auf drei Einzelheiten lenkt er “hier auf die Aufmerksamkeit. Zuerst vii. 1—4, darauf wie man doch den * vesammten Inhalt jener Erzahlung mit der Psalmenstelle zusammen- *‘haltend, jenen Priesterkénig nicht fiir einen der gewohnlichen Manner “der alten Geschichte halten kénne, sondern ihm unwillkiirlich eine “ ewige Dauer und aéhnliche Erhabenheiten geheimnissvollen géttlichen “‘Sinnes zuschreiben miisse, wie man schon friiher wenigstens in einem “ entfernter ihnlichen Sinne dem Hendkh eine geheimnissvolle Unster- “)blichkeit zugeschrieben hatte. Und hier besonders zeigt sich die “ Sitte der damaligen Schriftgelehrten aus dem engen zusammenhalten, “ und in einander verarbeiten zweier an sich weit von einander liegender “ Schriftstellen den Beweis fiir etwas neues, bis dahin nicht beachtetes, “und oft sehr iiberraschendes zu ziehen. Den der Redner beginnt “zwar einfach mit den Worten Denn dieser M., wie er Gen. xiv. 18, “kurz bezeichnet wird Kénig Salem's, Priester des hichsten Gottes, der “dem nach der ganzen Erzaihlung von Gen. xiv. von der Niederlage der “ Kénige zuriickkehrenden Abraham, freundlich und theilnehmend entge- * genging und ihn segnete, dem gegen alle damalige menschliche Erwart- 96 CHAP. VII., 26—28. “ung, sogar einen Zehnten von allem was er in diesem Kriege erbeutet “hatte zutheite, kein geringerer als Abraham, weiter der wenn man “auf die Bedeutung seiner beiden Namen in der altheiligen geheimniss- “vollen Hebraischen Sprache, und auf deren Folge unter einander “‘sieht zuerst zwar (wenn dieser Name Malkhissedeq verdollmetscht wird) “ Gerechtigkeitskinig, dann aber auch Kénig Salem’s, das ist Friedens- “kénig, ist als wire jeder dieser beiden Kiénigsnamen eben im Kénig- “Jichen d.i. Messianischen Sinne so denkwiirdig, so offenbar anspielend “auf den Messias welcher zuerst Gerechtigkeit in der ganzen Welt, “dann aber eben dadurch Frieden herstellen muss, [Note 1, p. 89. “Diese Hinweisung soll hier offenbar in den Worten liegen. Aber “dhnlich sucht auch Philon in der Ubersetzung und Ausdeutung von “‘Kigennamen des Pentateuches Geheimnisse, vgl. die Geschichte des “V. Isr. vi., s. 272], welcher sieht man sich, wie er in der Bibel erscheint “noch weiter um, vaterlos, mutterlos, versteht sich ohne menschliche “ Aeltern, stammbaumlos, ohne dass er auch nur auf ein bestimmtes “ menschiches Geschlecht oder Volk zuriickgefiihrt wird, weder einen “zeitlichen Anfang noch ein Lebensende habend, ist weil weder von “diesem noch von jenem in der Bibel etwas erzihlt wird, der aber *‘vermége jener Psalmenstelle unverkennbar dem Sohne Gottes verthn- “ licht wird, sodass man vor allem hieraus jedoch in Ubereinstimmung “mit den vorigen Merkmalen sehr wohl schliessen kann wer er denn “wirklich seyn musste, bleibt Priester ohne Unterlass wiederum Kraft “jener Psalmenstelle und der iibrigen Merkmale, als wiire er Christus “oder vielmehr der Logos selbst, der sich nur damals in dieser Gestalt “‘ den Menschen sichtbar machte (as if he were Christ, or rather the Logos “himself, who for that time only, manifested himself to men in this likeness), “aber auch fiir jenen Augenblick schon eimmahl als Priester wie zur “ Vorbedeutung dessen was er jetzt noch in ganz anderer Weise alsewiger ‘‘ Hohepriester fiir die Seinigen ist. [Note 2, p. 89. Das ist n&imlich *deutlich genug der lezte Sinn aller dieser Worte, der freilich bloss “‘angedeutet wird. Aber inderthat konnte ihm unser Redner weder mit “einem Engel noch mit einem einstigen Menschen wie Henokh wirklich “‘zusammenstellen, so dass nichts weiter iibrigbleibt, als ihn fiir eine “schon in jenes friihe Alterthum hineingefallene augenblickliche “ geheimnissvoll leibliche Offenbarung des Logos zu halten.—This, “indeed, is plainly enough the real signification of all these words, a “ signification, however, which ts only hinted at. But truly the speaker “ could not compare him with an angel, nor with any mortal man that ever “lived like Enoch. Hence we have no alternative but to regard him as a “momentary and mysterious revelation of the Logos in bodily shape, that “was thus vouchsafed in those earliest ages of antiquity.|”—Schoettgen CHAP. VIII., 1—5. 97 (Hor. ITebr., tom. ii., p. 104) has the following, which is a curious illustra- tion of drdrep of Hebr. vii. 3 :—‘ Breschith Rabba ad Genes. xxxvii. “ 22, cit. Raymundo, part iii., distinct. ili., 8, 5, et Hieron, a 8. Fide I. 5, “ R. Berachias dixit, Deum S.B. divisse ad Israélitas: Vos dicitis ad me. “Thren. v. 3, 8 pRwT on. Etiam Gog (Redeemer), quem ex vobis “ excitabo, 18 1) ps non habebit patrem, q.d. Zachar. vi. 12. Ecce vir, “* Zemach nomen ejus, My yon, et de sub se germinabit. Ste quoque “ Jesa. lili, 3, Et ascendit ut virgultum coram eo. De eodem Davides “ Ps, ex. 3. Ex utero aurore tibi ros juventutis tue. Lt alibi Ps. a ** Dominus dixit ad me; Filius meus es tu.” CHAPTER VIII. Verses 1—5.—Now the sum (xedarauov, the result, the gist) of the things spoken is as follows. We have such (TovovdTov, i.e., not a whit inferior to the prophetic portraiture) an High Priest, who has sat down on the right hand of the Majesty in the heavens (Ps. ex. 1),' a minister of the most holy things’ (tev dyiwv Nevtoupyos.2 The article is emphatic. See note 2 on p. 91; 1 Chron. xxiii. 13; and Leyit. xxii. 2. The exact correspondence between Jesus and the Aaronic high priests who were “separated to “bless the most holy things,’ &c., is here drawn out). and of the true tabernacle,‘ which the Lord pitched, and not man. Every high priest, moreover, is appointed for the express purpose of offering gifts and sacrifices. Jesus, therefore, must needs have somewhat to offer. For if He were upon earth® (a mere mortal, or denizen of earth) He could not be a priest, because there are priests who offer gifts in conformity to the law; who discharge their ministry (Aatpevovet, perform their sacrificial and minis- terial functions) in a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. Even as Moses was oracularly admonished, when he was about to make the tabernacle (€vTeXeiv, to complete in detail), for “See,” saith He (Exod. xxy. 40), “that 7) 98 CHAP. VIII, 1—5. “thou make all things according to the pattern (tvzop, “msonn, an architectural projection) shewed to thee “ (Exod. xxv. 9) in the mount.” ® ? Schoettgen (Hor. Hebr., tom. ii., p. 566) adduces the following curious Rabbinical legend, respecting the exaltation of Messiah, from the Pesikta Rabbathi in Jalkut Simeoni :—“ Rabbini nostri tradunt : “spa ToD) Day nx prny, Patriarche futuro tempore stabunt mense “ Nisan, et dicent: O Messia, Justitia nostra, quamvis nos patres tui “sumus, tu tamen melior es nobis, quia peccata filiorum nostrorum ** portasti, et decreta satis dura et mala in te transierunt, qualia neque “ ante, neque post te quisquam sustinuit. Fuisti gentilibus derisui, et “ subsannationi propter Israel, sedisti in tenebris et caligine, oculi tui “non viderunt lucem, et lux tua tibi soli ahesit (7e., others were not “able to see thy Divine Majesty). Corpus tuus exaruit sicut lignum, “ oculi tui prz jejunio obscurati sunt, robur tuum exaruit sicut testa, “ et hee omnia propter peccata filiorum nostrorum. An igitur voluntas “tua est, ut filii nostri fruantur illo bono, quod Deus 8. B. Israelitis ““splendide exhibuit 7—Respondit ipsis Messias: O Patriarch, que- “cunque feci, non nisi vestri et filiorum vestrorum caussa feci, ut illo “bono fruantur, quo Deus S. B. illos illustravit. Dixerunt Patriarche : “O Messia, Justitia nostra, Placatus esto nobis, 2n»N Jap NYT nmnAw, “quia Conditorem tuum et nos reconciliasti. R. Simeon filius Passi “dixit: Eo ipso tempore Deus 8S. B. Messiam super coelos coelorum “ exaltavit, et splendorem glorie suze super ipsum expandit, ne gentiles “et Perse ipsi nocere queant. Dixerunt ipsi Patriarche: O Messia, “ Justitia nostra, judex esto in eos, et fac ipsis quodcunque voles.” So also the Sohar Chadash, fol. 41, 3, on Ps. exxxiii. 2, “ It is like the * precious Ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even “ Aaron’s beard,’ explains, xP? NI7. N22 NT, “it is the High Priest ‘ above,” N2907 NID”, “at the right hand of the King,” oy? j73, ‘a priest “for ever ;” again, zbid., fol. 42, 1, on Ps. xlv. 2 (3), od, for ever, by boy is here understood “the right hand on high,” xvy> x»n, as it is written (Ps. cx. 4), ‘‘ Zhou art a priest for ever,” rbid., fol. 63, 3, on Ps. lxiii. 1 (2). By 378 is understood xvv1 xyva, He who is at the right hand above, as (in Ps. ex.) “ Thou art a priest for ever.” ? Stuart renders, in accordance with the Authorized Version, ‘‘a *¢ minister of the sanctuary.” * Aevroupyds, a public functionary, one who discharged some special, and usually obligatory service, in the Athenian State. Demosthenes divides the Aecrovpyiac into domestic and political. Eict yap dyrov map piv at Té TOY peroikwy Netrovpyiat, Kal of wodurikai, (Dem. in Leptinem, SH AP, VIIL, 15. 99 euravit J. H. Bremius, § 15, pp. 104-6. TJwuric?, 1831. 8vo.) The most important of the regular ¢y«ixAvor Aecroupyiat were the choregia, viz., the furnishing the requisites for dramatic representations, &c. ; the gymnasi- archia, or making suitable provision for the celebration of the public games ; and the hesfiasis, or catering for the public entertainment of the tribes. This species of service occurred but seldom. Amongst the extraordinary ones were the trierarchia, i.e., furnishing ships of war to the State; the eisphora, a property tax in time of war; &c. From signifying the sacred and patriotic service of the State, the word passed over to signify religious worship and the public services of God. * Probably an allusion to the words of Amos ix. 11, “ In that day I “will raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen” (na. 7 NID, called in Is. xvi. 5 175m). Asa rule, the Mosaic tabernacle is exclusively designated by the word Sax. Respecting the various changes of abode which the Ark underwent, see Reland, Ant. Sacer. Hebr. Traject. Bat., 1712, 8vo., pp. 18—21. God’s true tabernacle is the Church of Christ ; although the ox. a\7@. may also denote the celestial pattern and original which God showed Moses in the mount. The above prophecy of Amos ix. 11 is applied by Jewish commenta- tors to Messiah. ‘‘ R. Nachman said to R. Isaac, What do you under- “stand by the phrase, ‘ When ‘3 12 Bar Nephe/e, that is, the son of “ya sD25) mm oN. 03). For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel, after those days, saith the Lord. I will put my laws into their minds (é&dvoav, under- standing) and write them upon their hearts, and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: and they shall not teach every one his neighbour, and every one his brother, saying, Know the Lord ; for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.? For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness (fAews goouat Tals ddixcats, Moos, I will condone, be lenient to), and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. By saying the word “new ’° (é€v T@ déyeww xawiv), He has antiquated (7e- manraiwxe) the first (covenant, because what is new is anti- thetic to what preceded it. The moment one can speak of a successor, whatever went before it is, so to speak, and by comparison, made old). But that which is antiquated, and growing out of date, must shortly disappear (To 6é TANALOVLEVOY Kal YnpdoKoY, éyyds apavicpod). * The Talmudical writers assign the period here mentioned, to the days of Messiah, THE Lorp our RianHrEeousnuss, spoken of in the parallel passage of the same prophet, Jer. xxiii. 6, in reference to which R. Alshech says, 71s “7 men Messiah is called the Lord our’ Righteousness. Compare Kimchi’s Commentary on Zech., translated by the late Dr. M‘Caul, p. 175—177. ? “Hpépat €pxovraz. Schoettgen (tom i., p. 968) observes that Grotius 102 CHAP. VIII., 6—13. remarks rightly “x1, sono est presens, sensu sepe futurum.” Singularly enough, the word is not 11, but DN2, in Jer. xxxi. 31. He quotes the following from the Jalkut Simeoni, pt. 1, fol. 78, 3, to prove that the ancient Jews interpreted this passage of Jeremiah, of the days of Messiah :—“ Ad verba Exod. xix. 1, mm ova, illo die venerunt in de- “sertum Sinai; Non dicitur sim ova (in that day), sed mm Dv. (in this « day), h.e., m7 DNvI, in hoe mundo (tempore scilicet veteris Testamenti) “dedi vobis legem et singuli in illa studebitis, Verum, s19 yy), tempore “ futuro (Novi Testamenti) ego illam docebo omnes Israelitas, ipsique eam “addiscent et nunguam oblivioni tradent, q.d., Jerem. xxxi. 33. Hoe “erit foedus,” &c. Schoettgen is right in his intimation that some of the Jews applied the prophecy to the “ world to come ;” but surely he has forgotten the quotation which he gives (tom. ii, p. 619) from the Midrasch in Jalkut Simeont, ii., fol. 46, 1 :—“ Deus 8. B. sedebit in “ paradiso et docebit: et omnes justi sedebunt coram ipso, omnis autem ** familia coelestis in pedibus suis stabunt: Sol et Planetze ad dextram, * Luna autem cum stellis ad sinistram ejus. Ipse autem Deus 8. B. “mp by ym) Pnyw wm mn wy zAwY “sedebit, et proponet legem novem, quam daturus est per manus “ Messize.”” The scene of the giving of the new law by the hands of Messiah, is here laid in the spiritual region of the Garden of Eden, and not, as Schoettgen would render, 829 Thy), tempore futuro (Novi Testa- menti). Jac. Rhenferdius has, as I have before noticed, conclusively proved, in his Dissertation De Seculo Futuro, that the days of Messiah are included in m7 Dvn this world :—“ Illa autem pars extrema erit “pron nom, finis dierum, vel ultima dies hujus mundi, quemadmodum “‘ quidem ipsi Judeei phrasin illam explicant mm Dy MaNENI 527-27) 19 “son munt, Nam extremum dierum consensu omnium Doctorum sunt “ Dies Messie” (p. 1122). The Talmudic writers held that in the world to come (x1) nv?) there would be no death, and wars would cease, but that in the days of Messiah both would still exist. Rhenferd’s disserta- tion will repay perusal, and is to be found at length in Meuschen. He most satisfactorily demonstrates that, in its stricter usage, 87 DoT does not mean Messiah’s days, but the supernatural, and spiritual world to come. (See also J. Rhenf., Diss. II., 2bed., p. 1138.) $ LXX. Scabpoopa, om, “TL will cut.’ The Hebrew expression, mm), ie., fo cut a covenant (a mactatione et dissectione hostiarum in foederibus pangendis consueta), is more literally rendered by ovvredéo@ than by dvabyoopat, The eroinca of verse 9 is again ™ in the Hebrew, and OveOéuny in the LX X. Aéyeu Kipuos of verse 8, 9, is pynot Kvpsos in the LX X. Acdods vdpovs is d:0ds Soo in the LX X., the former agreeing with the reading of the Hebrew nm). Again, the LX X. has kai rav CHAP. VIII., 6—13. 103 dpapriay avray ov pa pyno Oo ért, in place of kal rév dpapriay abtav Kal Tov dvomi@v K.T.A., Which latter corresponds with the Hebrew onxan pny. It is a great mistake to suppose that the New Testament writers are servile followers of the LX X. version in their quotations. * °HpeAnoa, D1 nova °228. Lud. Cappellus (Crit Sacr., p. 61 and 266) asserts, without reserve, that the LX X. translators read ‘nova, fastidiv7, instead of *n>y3, dominatus sum. Such an alteration of the text, however, is unnecessary. Pococke has shown that ya has the signification of disdaining, derived from the Arabic ; and Kimchi asserts that whenever it is used in construction with 1, it is to be taken in an ill part, and is here equivalent to *nm1, I have lothed. Compare Zech. xi. 8, DWE) On 1 mma. The original signification of the verb 22 is, to be lord over, to possess, to own, and, hence, to marry, be a husband to, and in the first sense it is used in Isaiah xxvi. 13, Jo DN Idy2, “ Other Lords have “had dominion over us besides Thee.” Another meaning, as has just been shown, is to disdain, to treat with scorn, to reject. The sense is fixed, in this particular case, for the Christian student, by the above authoritative rendering of the writer to the Hebrews. “HyéAnoa is the inspired interpretation, of what might otherwise be regarded as an open question. We do not adopt it on the authority of the LXX. version, but as the explanation of the Holy Ghost concerning his own declaration contained in Jer. xxxi. 32. In Jer. iii. 14, D22 ‘Moya Dw 1D, according to the authorized Engl. vers., “ for I am married to you,” is Oudre ey Karaxupievow tpoy in the LX X. Gesenius renders this passage, “nam ego vos rejeci,’ as he does xxxi. 32, “ egoque eos rejicerem.” Whereas, in Is, lxii. 4, mova, married, and yin, shall be married, the LXX. vers. has ofxoupévn and ovvoixnOnoerat ; and in verse 5, Wa by» > J22 Juey Ani, “as a young man marrieth a virgin shall thy sons marry “ thee,” is translated, kal as cuvorx@v veaviokos Tapbeve, oUTw@ kaToiKnoovoW K.T.A. ° py wy Dmpn, “ from the youngest to the oldest,” probably of age, and not of station. ° “En parlant dune alliance nouvelle, il déclare vielle la premicre ; “or ce qui est devenu ancien et vieux, est prés d’étre aboli.”—French Translat. The Rabbies themselves looked forward to the law ultimately falling into abeyance. R. Bechai says, ‘This passage of Scripture (Deut. “xxxi. 21) appears to me, by this passage, to denote that a time will “come in which the law will be forgotten ("MNT NInwnw yo yPv), “‘ which is the time of abolishing the ‘ evel imagination’ (p11 7. See “ Gen. vi. 5, viii. 21). That is the time of the resurrection, because the ** Law will be abolished at that time, except the feast of Purim. And 104 CHAP I, 5. “this is what is said (Deut. xxxi. 21):—‘ For the Law shall not be “< « forgotten out of the mouth of his seed, for (>) I know their imagination, “ie., ‘as long as I know their imagination.” From this it follows, by ‘inference, that when the evil imagination shall be taken away, the * Jaw also shall be forgotten (or consigned to oblivion). And so, of old “time, our Rabbies of blessed memory have spoken. The Law shall * be forgotten by Israel ; that is, in the time of the Resurrection, but “ not in the days of Messiah, &c. For our Rabbies have said that there “is no difference between this present world (717 odvm) and the days of “ Messiah, excepting the servitude of the nations. But the Law will ' “continue as a possession to us and to our posterity, for ever, all the “time of this present world, in which this present corporeal order- of “ things shall continue. But at the resurrection of the dead there shall “be a change for the better, and things will proceed in a different “manner, and then, say they (our Rabbies), the law will be forgotten “by Israel.” (Rhenferdius, De Seculo Futuro, p. 1158, Meuschen.) Maimonides, however (see Dr. M‘Caul’s “‘ Old Paths,” Feast of Purim), says, “ All the books of the prophets, and all the Hagiographa, except “the roll of Esther, will cease in the days of Messiah. But it is “ perpetual as the five books of the written law, and the constitutions “of the oral law, which shall never cease.” (Hilchoth Megillah.) CHAPTER IX. THE writer now has conclusively shown that Jesus is an Eternal High Priest, a Minister of the Most Holy things, and of the True Tabernacle. He has, moreover (viii. 3), asserted the self-evident fact that if He be a priest at all, he must have some- what to offer. The engrossing, cardinal idea of the priestly office is the offering of sacrifices. Had our Lord Jesus Christ belonged to the tribe of Levi, He would have offered according to the Mosaic ritual. But his priesthood is no earthly one, not CHAP. IX., 1—5. 105 ert yns, He is not of the tribe of Levi but of Judah, and therefore no Aaronic priest. What, then, did Jesus offer? The writer has not yet told us, nor does he until chap. ix. 11. But he has said that the entire apparatus of the Levitic ceremonial was the copy and shadow of the heavenly (vii. 5). Such being the case, Jesus has obtained a more excellent ministry. Why? Because his _priest- hood passes not away. It is not one of parabolic promise, but one of abiding and substantial efficacy. He is a priest FoR EVER, after the order of Melchi- sedek. With such a priesthood as this no fault could be found. It is not open to the objection of typicality Gf I may coin the word) and transitori- ness. It is the substance, of which the Mosaic was the shadow. Moreover, Jeremiah (xxxi. 31, &c.) had distinctly foretold the abrogation of the first covenant, with its attendant rites and ceremonies and priesthood. The first covenant was so wrapped up and interwoven with the religious worship of the tabernacle and the temple, that to invalidate a part was to abrogate the whole. Jeremiah speaks of a “new’’ covenant, and by mention of the word new he has decisively antiquated the former. Having now concluded the necessary digression (viii. 4—15), wherein the writer has shown that it is possible for a new and extra Levitic priesthood to arise, and one based upon and in connexion with a new covenant, he proceeds to enumerate the leading features of the worship and ritual of the tabernacle, which were temporal and symbolical, or parabolic, and to con- trast them with the “ good things to come,” of E 106 CHAP. IX, 155. which Christ is the high priest. The antithesis to chap. ix. 1 is verse 11, “ but Christ being come,” &c. ; the intermediate verses contain only parenthetic — details and elucidations. In verse 11, et seq., the writer shows what it is that Christ does offer in his capacity of high priest, viz., HIS OWN BLOOD, and dilates upon its supereminent expiatory efficacy. So excellent is it, that having once been offered, the repetition of the offering is for ever superfluous, supererogatory, and impossible. The writer thus resumes, ix. 1, Etye pév obv kai 9 mpaTn oxnv}, to which the antithetic Xpsords 6... dua Ths peilovos Kal TedeLvoTépas oKHVAS, OU YELpoTroLNTOU, TOUTéoTW, OV TavTns THS KTicews, is found in the eleventh verse. Verses 1—5,—The first tabernacle,’ therefore, that is to say, the terrestrial sanctuary,’ had also ordinances * of worship. For the tabernacle was arranged (xateoxevac6n) as fol- lows. The first (or outer apartment), in which were the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread (% mpoOecws Tov dptwv), which is called Hony (the Holy Place). But (secondly) behind the second veil,* the apartment called the Hoty or Ho xis, which contained the golden censer,* and the ark of the covenant (tv xiBwrov TAs StaOnKns) entirely overlaid with gold. In which were® the golden vase containing the manna, and the rod of Aaron that budded (Num. xvii. 8, Heb. 23), and the tables of the covenant. And above it (vrepdvw dé adths) the Cherubim of glory,’ overshadowing the Mercy-seat* (76 (Aacripuov, mp2, propitiatorium, Vulg.) ; concerning which it is not now my purpose to speak in detail. ' Eye peév ody kal 4) porn oxnvy. Prof. Stuart, Dindorff, and others, including the Authorized English Version, adopt the reading dvabjxn, CHAP. IX., 1—5. 107 instead of oxnvi, but by it the strong comparison and contrast is spoiled. The introduction of the covenant, viii. 6—13, is only parenthetical and explanatory. The real subject is the first old tabernacle as contrasted with the new. Ipory is here, doubtless, first in point of time, and not of arrangement as in verse 2. Wolfius, im /oco, writes,—“ oxnynv Codices “varii et Versiones quoque omittunt: nec habet Chrysostomus: qui “ potius post 7 mpern, in commentario subintelligi vult d:adj«n. Hine © Millius non dubitat oxnviv ex sequentibus irrepsisse tum ad loc. tum “in prolegomenis sec. 886, que et Braunii ad. h.]. est sententia. Recte “vero illi contriaratur Whitbius in Examine, p. 35, observans, exstare “oxnyy etiam apud Chrysostomum, de Die Natali Domini, tom. v., ‘edit. Morellian. p. 472, nec minus apud Theodoretum et Oecumenium. “Tdem quoque in Annotationibus ad h.l. Anglice editis rem amplius MS arget.s.c.. B. Gothofredus Olearius ia Analyst ita: Bene se habet “ony: nimirum detrouvpyiay prioris oxnvns excellentissimam fuisse in * precedente capite fuit monstratum ; jam igitur cum ea specialius com- ““parat thv Neroupyiay, vel, ut hic vocat, hatpeiav oxnyns KoopiKHs. Quid “quod ut mox videbimus, in sequentibus per partes oxnyyv dilineet. “Sanctum primum, et deinde Sanctum Sanctorum ob oculos ponens : * totam itaque antea nominari par erat. Addidero his, quod infra vers. 8, “itidem oxnv) ) mpwrn diserte commemoretur, quemadmodum h.l. “7 mpotm ideo dicitur, ut opponatur rH oxnri ri adnOwh, de qua cap. “viii 2, queque ita imposterum exhibenda erat vere, quemadmodum ‘* prior illa tempore, instar typi antecessit. Tenenda igitur hc lectio “est, que subintelligenda ex vers. 2 fuerat, etiamsi non diserte ex- “ pressa fuisset. Sic non desunt editiones vetuste, in quibus 7 spar “simpliciter legitur. Inter eas sunt Erasmi tres et Basileensis. Eas, ‘vel potius Vulg. qui itidem non habet, secutus est Lutherus in ver- “sione. Omisit etiam Beza, et ex nostratibus Erasmus Schmidius,” &e. * To re dytov koopixdy, Olearius rightly suggests that these words should be taken in apposition to 7 porn oxy. The entire passage would then read thus :—“ But the first tabernacle, that is to say, the “terrestrial sanctuary, had ordinances of worship.” This affords an intelligible translation of what is otherwise, to my mind, one of the most difficult passages in the whole Epistle. J. A. Danzius (FPunctio Pontif. M. in Adyto Anniversaria, p. 942, Meuschen) remarks that the court of the Gentiles was never cailed “holy,” and that St. Paul (whom he believes to be the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews) is speaking exclusively of the Mosaic Tabernacle. Danzius understands 7d re dyov koopixov in the same sense as Olearius, e.g., “ Apostolus de tabernaculo “ stricte sumto loquitur, quod in duas tantummodo partes erat divisum : 108 CHAP, IX. 1—5. “et sic quoque duo modo vela habuit. Atrii nullam facit mentionem, “ut hine ejus posses connumerare Velum. Atrium gentium nullibi ““vocatur dywoy, sed, eo ipso quod gentibus patuit, nm dicabatur, sive “profanum. Ex voce xoopixdy nihil aliud inferri potest, quam quod “illud dy sit terrenum et caducum, utpote ex materia terrena con- “structum ; in oppositione coelestis et eterni.” The translators of the London Jews’ Society’s edition of the Hebrew New Testament render TO Te dytov Koopikdy by ‘ZX WD x. They also rightly supply y2wo (cxnv7) instead of n 2 (6ca6yKn) in the first clause of the verse. Wolfius writes, v loc. :—“ Hombergius ay. coop. interpretatur Sanctum ornatum, “vel quod in ornatu consistebat, instrumentis scilicet ad tabernaculi “cultum spectantibus. Recte autem monuit Lamb. Bos., p. 246, “ koopikds significare mundanum, a kécpos mundus, et Kdopuos elegantem “a kéopos ornatus, quemadmodum Aoyikds est rationalis a dJéyos, ratio, ““Adytos autem disertus a Adyos, oratio. Idem vero mundanum ait vocari, “tanquam oppositum 77 é€rovpaviw, coelesti, que et plerorumque est ‘“sententia. Patres fere eo referunt, quod omnibus in aditum in illud “ patuerit.” ° Atkaopatra Aatpeias. The following is extracted from Wolfius, in loc. :—** Constitutos ritus eultuum, ut Erasmus Schmidius, vel, constitutos “religions ritus, ut Beza ; vel, constitutiones ad cultum pertinentes, ut “Jac. Capellus. Sic et B. Lutherus, Rechte des Gottes-Dienstes. * Respondet vox dickaoyara Hebraicis mp, nynzd, vel DMDwd, quas * scilicet of LX X., per d:cacopara reddere consueverunt. Olearii judicio “in Analysi, p. 27, ita accipi potest phrasis, ac si diceretur Aarpeia “ duxaia, quomodo pepia knpiypatos, mepioceia ths xdpitos explicari ‘“ soleat, ita ut Aatpeia dixaia sit cultus, cui sua sit integritas et perfectio, “qua se probare hominibus possit, tanquam divinitus constitutus, et “‘oloria sua conspicuus.” Wolfius sagaciously observes, ‘‘ Non dubito “eoo, prestare priorem expositionem. Hoc enim sensu vox dccaiopa “Tov Ocou, ii. 26, et. Vili. 4, 7a dikar@para Tov vdpov, nec non infra v. 10, “ Sixaropaoe oapkés. In harum phrasium nulla dcvcacoua pro adjectivo “haberi potest. Non probem etiam, qui d:cacopara et Aarpeias tanquam “ duas voces distinctas, et in accusandi casu positas considerari cupiunt. “‘Nusquam video vocem illam sine genitivo positam, et ipsa phrasis “ Sixarmpace wapkos, 1x. 20, exponit, que illa d:caropaTa Aarpelas fuerint, “nempe oapkid.”’ It is worthy of remark, as affording a curious example of the technical use of the word, that the LXX. translate mewn of Ezek. xx. 25 by dicar@para, ¢.g., mpootdypata ov Kaha, kat Sukar@para ev ois ov Cnoovtat ev avdrois. * Mera Sé 7d Sevr. xatanéracpa. It must be borne in mind that the writer is speaking strictly in reference to the Tabernacle, and not, CHAP. IX., 1—5. 109 except by implication, of the first or second temple. In the Tosaphta to Joma (Gemar. Hierosol, chap. ii. 10, col. 174) the following is found :— “The High Priest walked on through the temple until he arrived “between the two veils, which separated between the Holy Place and “the Holy of Holies ; and there was a cubit space between them. Here ‘* was the place of the Oracle which Solomon made.” PRIN OWT WHP pr wp pa Mya mE nw pry yw Jy ITI TMD :ToowW MOYwW NIM Dy Mm Aor The same passage occurs, with the exception of the last clause, in the Mishna, Joma, cap. v. 1. (Mishn. Surenh., tom. ii., p. 231.) The Tosaphta and the tract Joma are printed at length in vol. xviii. of Ugolini Thes. Professor Stuart writes, in Joc. :—“‘ As the inner veil is here “called dSevrepoy, the necessary implication is that there was a mpérov “also, and accordingly we find it described in Exod. xxvi. 36, 37, “xxxvi. 37, 38.” The learned Professor proceeds to say that the * outer veil served as a door for the Tabernacle.” If the Talmudical statement given above be a correct one as regards the Tabernacle (but this is doubtful), then the “Second Veil” was the inner one of the two, which enclosed a space of a cubit’s breadth, as a sort of lobby between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies. Reland, Antig. Sacer. Vet. Hebr., p. 119, writes of the second temple, “ Hoc (sc. Sacrum) nec *murus nec ostium a Sancto Sanctorum dividebat, sed duo vela, cubiti *‘intermedii spatio sejuncta, inter que Pontifex M. Sanctum Sanctorum “intraturus ab Austro versus Septentrionem incedebat, que putamus “ fuisse illud kararéracna quod, moriente Christo, ruptum tradit Mat- *‘theus xxvii. 51, nulli quippe usui futurum, postquam Christi mors *“ peccata vere expiasset.”” This space of a cubit’s breadth is called pop, Tarkesin, the meaning of which is held by some to be equivalent to rdpagis, because the builders of the temple were in “confusion ” or uncertainty whether the space belonged to the Holy Place or the Holy of Holies. Reland prefers to give it a Persian derivation, Porta and yop electa. He says, in conclusion :—‘f Quod autem R. Jona “ Bostrensis in Gem. Hier. Kilaim. 31, 3, et in Gem. Hier. Joma 42, 2, “tradit hance vocem significare p22 02519, intus et extra, verum est de ‘voce priore Zar vel 12, aptissima ad hujus historise memoriam con- *“servandum. Quod si quis Grecam vocis originem mavult, videat an “non a Opiyxwots vel Opryxds, quod est mepippaypa, puxpdy Teixerov “ Hesychio duci debeat.”—Tbid., p. 120. Wolfius, im /oc., unhesitatingly adopts the idea that, as in the temple so in the tabernacle, there was a twofold veil at the entrance to each apartment; “ utrumque auleum “‘tabernaculi duobus velis munitum.” He gives, however, no authority for his assertion, J. A. Danzius (Functio Pontif. M. in adyto anni- 110 CHAP, x. Tt versaria, ad Hebr. ix. 4. pp. 935, 936, Meuschen) rejects the notion that there were two veils at the entrance to the Holy of Holies, either in the tabernacle or in the first temple. He says :—“ Kataréracpa, quod “h.l. adhibetur, in N. T., Syriacide, ac Maccabeorum libris, tantum de “velo Sanctissimi usurpatur: quod nec in tabernaculo, nec templo a ** Salomone edificato, erat geminum ; sed in solo templo secundo post ‘ exilium exstructo. Ita de hoc Maimonides (Mile. Beth habbechira, “cap. iv. sec. 2) e Cod. Joma :— MIT IW PVD WORX VAY OW WPT wp pry wp pr Pad on. 7 wR maI3 wy FS OWT wip NI IW WIT NAD WA IIT MY OX DT) PEnoD Ww TON TIM PNY WN OVS wp wy Awon AoX DWwY py OwWIpPA wIp 33D TMX MID NW WY NeW MII Id WI NN DWT WIP pp wIpT p2 7A! WPOA WX JVONI MAW INIT cy I WON PPM WIT Iwo INN) OwWIpPT wp 4) DT) AYTIM WRIA 792 NAN NW NK OW ANT NI PwRI “ In templo primo paries erat intergerinus inter Sanctum ac Sanctissi- © mum, cujus densitas erat unius cubitt. Cum vero templum secundum ‘ exstruentibus dubium foret, utrum crassities istius parietis ad Sanctum “ pertineat, an vero ad mensuram Sanctissimi : ideo confecerunt Sanctum © Sanctorum vigintt cubitorum completorum ; Sanctum quoque cubitorum “ quadraginta integrorum, cubito uno inter Sanctum et Sanctissimum “vacuo relicto. Non enim exstruxerunt in templo secundo parietem “ intergerinum: sed confecerunt duo Vela, quorum alterum a parte “ Sanctissimi, alterum vero a parte Sancti: inter que cubitus erat vacuus “ correspondens crassitier parietis istius, qui fuit in templo primo. Quippe “in Sanctuario primo non fuit nisi unum tantummodo velum, quia “ dicitur (Exod. xxvi. 33), Et separet velum illud vobis inter Sanc- “tum et Sanctissimum.—Cum itaque talis Sanctissimi h.l. recordetur “ Apostolus, quod pera 7O devrepov kataméracpua, v. 3, plurimi vel hac “sola ratione ducti sunt, ut statuerent de templo secundo h.]. sermonem “fore; non de ullo alio. Quod si vero kataréracpa de aliis quoque ‘‘Velis usurpari dicas, quam que Sanctissimum dirimunt a Sancto, “ prouti in V. T. apud LX X. interpretes adhiberi certum est (vid. Exod. “ xxvi. 37, xxxv. 11, xxxviii. 18, xl. 5, 8, 20); dicendum tune potius “« Apostolo fuisset : post tertiwm velum, quam post secundum. Cum et ‘atrium tabernaculi Mosaici velo aliquo in introitu fuerit instructum. ‘« Exod, xxvii. 16.” Philo, De Sacrificantibus, uses the expression ev ddvr@ €la@ TOU mpoTépov KaTareTdoparos, as designating the position of the golden altar within the Holy Place, in opposition to the altar of stones in the court of the temple, clearly referring, in this instance, to the first veil that hung at the entrance of the Holy Place—Works, Mangey, tom. ii, pp. 253, 254.—In Exod. xxvi. 36, 37, xxxvi. 37, the veil is called Joo. The LXX. give emionacrpoy in Exod. xxvi. 36, and CHAP. IX., 1—. Lia karaméracpa in verse 37, whilst in chap. xxxvii. 3, 5 (the Hebrew and Greek texts do not correspond) xararéracpa occurs in both verses. The veil of the Holy of Holies in Exod. xxvi. 31, 33, and elsewhere, is naw from Jw separavit. 5 Xpucody éyouca Oupsarjptoy ; certainly not the altar of incense which was in the holy place, but a golden censer, which was exclusively de- voted to the use of the Holy of Holies, on the day of Atonement. Ewald renders the words “einen goldenen Rauchaltar,” but the trans- lators of the London Society’s Hebrew New Testament have more correctly adopted 3mm nnn 1 Wr in their version. I cannot help thinking that there was a permanent golden censer before the mercy- seat, in which the high priest deposited the smaller censer full of burning coals, which he brought in with him in his hand on the Day of Atone- ment. ‘And he shall take a censer full of burning coals of fire from off “ the altar before the Lord, and his hands full of sweet incense beaten “small, and bring it within the veil. And he shall put the incense upon “the fire before the Lord, that the cloud of incense may cover the mercy “ seat that is upon the testimony, that he die not.” Levit. xvi. 12, 13. This latter censer, then, must be placed, with its burning contents, in some safe receptacle, in front of the mercy seat, whilst the priest returned for the blood of sprinkling, or else sprinkled it from another vessel, brought in at the same time. The object of placing burning | incense before the mercy seat was to screen the Divine Glory or Schechinah from the priest’s gaze. The Mishna, Joma, cap. 5, 2, says that, in the second temple, the censer was placed upon a stone called the Stone of Foundation. JO TMA NAP ANT Hw) OST OND MDD DW ANT PAX PWT dowd $]MND Ty) Myase wow PNT “ Ex quo abducta est arca, lapis ibi erat & diebus priorum prophet- “arum, et lapis fundationis fuit vocatus, altus é terra tribus digitis, et “ super ipsum thuribulum collocabat.” Mishna Swrenhus., tom. ii., p. 233. In the same treatise, cap. 4, 4, the censer is particularly described which the high priest specially employed to carry the coals into the Holy of Holies on the day of atonement :— wa a am Swa An orm am ow na myn) ADI Fw nnn WT oy 53 mow wa amin 4m pap wow dw Tw. Myr pap yIW FwI ANT DY 992 D220 PIP Mew dw TNA Mya AND FOI ANT By 92 Wwe ov 4 DD WT 7 pap Tm oy $22 yp OYM WD WH DY 922 DIN WA AD pap Aww bwa AMM orm 49) DTS DVT PY Fam WT DY 922 TIN DYN Mmyp AP “Tn omni die deprompsit thuribulo argenteo, et in aureum infunde- “bat; hodie deprompsit aureo, et intrabat cum eo. In omni die “deprompsit thuribulo quod quatuor cabos continebat, et in alterum 112 CHAP. IX., 1—5. “infundebat quod tres cabos capiebat......... wo oR, Jose ait: In omni “die deprompsit thuribulo, quod Satum continebat, et in alterum *‘infundebat, quod tres cabos continebat ; hodie deprompsit thuribulo, “quod tres cabos continebat, et intrabat cum eo. In omni die grave, “‘ hodie leve ;........ in omni die aurum ejus viride erat, hodie rufum.” (Zbid., p. 229.)—In respect to this particular censer, which was employed only once a year on the day of atonement, Reland writes (Antzg. Sacr. Vet. Hebr., p. 54; Traject. Batav., 1712, 8vo.), ‘* Gvjwsarnptov “‘ quoque aureum in Sancto Sanctorum fuisse legitur, Hebr. ix. 4, quo “nomine non altare aureum suffitus, sed acerra thuris, que quotannis “in S. Sanctorum solemni die expiationis inferrebatur, et respectu usus “vas huic loco proprium dici potest, videtur debere intellegi, quum et “ Josephus, lib. 1, 5, de Bell. Ovp.arnpia oddxpvea istius modi memoret, “et Pollux, 1. 1, 28, et 10, 28. Hesychius aliique acerras vocent @vyia- “rnpta.” So also T. Goodwin (Moses et Aaron, Franc. ad Moen, 1710, 8vo., p. 326), “ Die expiationis solenni Pontifex Thuribulum aureum “huic actui appropriatum loco sacerrimo inferebat, atque per aliquot “ horas in illo relinquebat tr. xov, ¢. iii. 4, v. 1, vii. 4. Hoe est Pauli “* @upsarnpiov, Hebr. ix. 4.’ So also J. A. Danzius (Functio Pontif. M. in adyto anniversaria, p. 952; Meuschen), “Sic quidem Talmudici (Joma, “cap. 7,4; Babyl., fol. 70, &c.) docent, postquam circa initium functi- “ onum, in primordio diei, in Sanctissimum semel Pontifex introduxerat “hoe Thuribulum, suffitu accenso, id ibi relinquebat, ac alios interea “ perficiebat cultus omnes, non tantum huic diei proprios, sed ipsum “etiam sacrificium vespertinum juge; et sic circa vesperam demum, “ Sanctissimum denuo ingrediens, id ex illo efferebat.” WR WR Mp) Iv Dow ow ANTM FT Dw NSW NT pw DN Fam poo? pon? yoy mM ny mM ws2 Ow Noe Now TAD Mm 7M ANNA DDT Mp VoOpPT Ira De ON NID POL ny TM PW NNN FwA IW ANMoM MnppT PY MP xXw od nV ne Ay DADA NP Yap Op nw ny mbyiah nox nym AP My }po cw RI 2 TMvAT OD Im ooNbd 2d) IYI SAND OD) PVT PED YA OW GR MIT YI MMpoT wa ANA MK PR AM) qwaw W9 Day NW TD Tow 1) TAN WR RX) DN FIT OW DID NT PR mop wd a) Dow 72 AMD ITM NS) Now OW “ Quandoquidem, ut R. Levi f. Gerson (Comm. ad Lex. xvi., fol. 165, “col. 3, 1. 1, sqq.) loquitur, inconveniens erat, ut efferat exinde acerram “atque thuribulum, antequam suffitus ac ignis in thuribulo totaliter fuerint “ consumti: et vero certum tempus intra quod consumerentur, stabiliri non noterat, tdeo necesse habuit, ut, ad acerram ac thuribulum auferendum, “ ad vesperam expectaret usque. Atque optime conveniebat, ut fieret id eo “ tempore, quo opus habebat ingredi in tentorium conventus, ad adolendum “ sugfitum aromatum, ac accendendas Lucernas, aniequam hec duo efficiat ; CHAP. IX., 1—5. 113 “ut ne nubes sit suffimenti in tentorio pariter conventus, atque ejus intimo “simul. Nam que ex hoc doctrina elicitur, de duobus istis locis tam vicina “ sibi invicem, est, ut haberi queat pro unica, sicut interpretabimur. Atque “tdeo minime erat conveniens, ut fiat in locis istis duobus. Et quanquam “valde probabile sit, quod tune absque dubio ignis ac suffimentum sit “ eonsumtum: non tamen licitum est, ut ingrediatur illue Pontifex, nisi “ postquam claré ipsi constiterit, omnia ista esse consummata. Ne extra “ urgentem causam illuc se ingerens, reus fiat mortis per Deum inferende. “ Quze si vera sunt, prouti communi ore Ebrei statuunt : quamdiu esse “hujus Thuribuli operativum, sive usus ipsius durat, ad quem unice erat “destinatum, nulla alia templi pars td habuit, quam ipsum Sanctum “Sanctorum. Atque sic neque in hoe aliquid continet hee epistola, “quod auctoritatem ejus canonicam infringeret.” From the above it will be evident that, if there were no more massive and stationary censer in the Holy of Holies, as I believe there was, devoted to receive the incense which the priest brought in with him on the Day of Atone- ment, there was at least a censer exclusively reserved for the service of the Most Holy Place, on this great annual solemnity, and that the Writer to the Hebrews well knew what he was writing about, when he draws the attention of his coreligionists to the ypucotv @upsarnpror, ° Evy. It is expressly stated in 1 Kings viii. 9, nim) 2 Mm MI PR 371 Ww OW 7 Wr oN, lit., “ There was not in the ark, only the “two tables of stone, which Moses deposited there in Horeb.” The same statement is repeated, with a few verbal differences, in 2 Chron. v.10. Danzius (like many others) proposes to get over the difficulty by translating év 7, wna cum, together with, and refers to év alate dddo- Tpt@ in verse 25 in support of his suggestion, as well as to Luke xiv. 31, “Ev b€ka xXudow,” and a variety of other passages. Now I think that the statement of 1 Kings viii. 9, and 2 Chron. v. 10, may fairly be limited to the particular occasion of which they speak, viz., to the moment when the ark was carried into the temple. The word ordpvos implies a tall standing jar or vase, which would be liable to be shaken down by the act of removal. The venerable rod of Aaron might also suffer damage from the tables of stone. Why may we not suppose the pot of manna and the rod to have been laid up in the ark, but taken out on this occasion? Indeed Dr. Gill writes (in loc.) that “ What Levi “ben Gerson (so also others, in Laniado, Celi Yekar) writes on 1 Kings “viii. 9 is so express, as if it was designed to vindicate our Apostle. “ His remark is this :—The intention is not to deny that there were not “the things mentioned in the law, for these were 12 ovmn, left in it, as “ Aaron’s rod, and the pot of manna; only to deny, hereby, that there “was not anything of the Law, save the Decalogue.” Had an express Q 114 CHAP, 1X is, command been at first given upon the subject, which there was not, that nothing but the tables should be deposited in the ark, even then there would be no insurmountable difficulty in the statement of the writer to the Hebrews. The usual course of the sacrifices was inter- rupted in the wilderness, as also the rite of circumcision (Amos v. 25 ; Josh, v. 1—9. See my tract, Bishop Colenso’s Criticism Criticised, 3d edit., pp. 27—34) ; the Sabbatic laws were also relaxed upon cases of pressing need ; and, furthermore, we know (1 Sam. xxi. 1—6; Matt. xil. 4) that Ahimelech the priest felt himself at liberty to feed David and his hungry followers with the shewbread. The high priest, more- over, in all occasions of difficulty, could have recourse to the oracle of the Urim and Thumim, and so obtain a Divine sanction for any needful alterations in the ceremonial precepts. The material of which the pot for containing the manna was made is not mentioned in the Hebrew of Exod. xvi. 33. It is there simply called noz2x, a word that only occurs once in the Oid Testament. Gesenius derives it from pz, acutus fuit, from whence is derived m2, a thorn. May it not have resembled one of those tapering or pointed antique alabaster and earthen vessels or jars for containing wine or ointment, of which there are many specimens in the British Museum? The LXX. of Exodus xvi. 33 calls it ordpvov xpvoouv. The Palestine Targum calls it an ‘‘ earthen vase.” J. D. Michaelis, in pursuit of his pet theory that the Epistle was originally written in Hebrew, and that the “inaccuracies” which he professes to discover in some of its statements are due to the incompe- tency of the Greek translator, indulges in the following extraordinary piece of criticism :—‘‘ With respect to the last instance in particular (ix. 4), the passage, as worded in the Greek, implies that the golden “ pot of manna, and Aaron’s rod, were kept in the ark of the covenant, “ which directly contradicts what is related in the books of Moses and “of the Kings (!) Now a mistake of this kind could hardly have been “committed by the author of so excellent an Epistle as that to the ‘« Hebrews ; but it might have been made by a translator who was Jess * acquainted with Jewish customs, and it took its rise, perhaps, in the “following manner. In the place where €y 7 is used in the Greek, ‘642 wx was probably used in the Hebrew Original, which may be “ construed either with Holy of Holies (in Hebrew, Dwip7 wip), verse “3, or with ark of the covenant (in Hebrew yx), verse 4. The author ‘of the Epistle to the Hebrews intended to refer to the former (!), for “the golden pot of incense, and the rod of Aaron, were really kept in “the Holy of Holies, but not in the ark of the covenant. The trans- “lator, therefore, should have rendered the Hebrew relative by éy ois, ‘in reference to dy:a ayy ; instead of which he falsely referred it to CHAP. IX., 1—5. 115 “the ark of the covenant, which being in Greek x:Bros, he translated “it by ev 7.” (Introd. to New Testament, translated by Marsh, vol. iv., “pp. 224, 225.) Now, as I have already shown, 1 Kings viii. 9 and 2 Chronicles v. 10 do not assert that nothing “was ever kept” in the ark, except the tables of stone, but that nothing was in the ark besides the tables of stone, at the time of its removal. These are two very different matters. Secondly, the subject nominative of verse 3 is not ayia ayiav, but, oxy) 7 Aeyouévn aya dyiov. The difficulty of dealing with év7 of verse 3, in connexion with imepavw dé aitns XepouBlw «Td. of verse 5, remains untouched by the proposed “ original” reading of Michaelis. If we dared to refer év 7 to oxnvy of verse 3, then all difficulty in the passage would be at an end; but even so venturesome a critic as Michaelis might well hesitate upon so hazardous a proposal. The eminent confraternity of Christian and Hebrew-Christian scholars, who translated the New Testament into Hebrew for the London Society for Promoting Christianity amongst the Jews, have thus rendered the entire passage :— PLT PWD MWY PMN WIPO NT ANT PT wT pox pw) o2 dw WIP NPAT WO NNT ANN | wIP NPA wT ony PywM AIT 12 WR V2 WR AM mess 1 * PAD AM AYO NIT MS) ATT nn WY Wr 1 DwIpT 4a) MIT bY DID WIT IID AYN yA NM) TM WRX AN AN) yaT Michaelis’ suggestion that év 7 should be & ois, would necessitate the omission of the words oxnv) 7 eyouern, and the insertion of ra, in verse 3 of the Greek. Such a wholesale mutilation of a passage is not often to be met with, even in practised “emendators.” Nor can I perceive, with a competent Hebrew translation of the passage as the above before me, how it could be possible, by any known rules of con- struction, to refer back the relative words 11 Wwe (év 9 of verse 4, 12), vid. supr.*), as proposed by Michaelis, to DPA wIp, instead of con- struing them in reference to jx, the nearest, and only natural antecedent. Ewald (Das Sendschreiben an die Hebraer, Gottingen, 1870. 8vo., p. 40) translates as follows:—“ Nach dem zweiten “ Vorhange aber, das Zelt genannt, ‘ Allerheiligster,’ enthaltend einen “goldenen Rauchaltar, und die Bundeslade rings mit Gold bedeckt, ‘‘worin ein goldener Krug das Manna enthaltend, und Ahron’s Stab “‘ welcher sprosste, und die Bundesplatten ; iiber ihr aber, die Cheribim “von Herrlichkeit den Siihnedeckel beschattend.” The Jerusalem Gemara (Shekalim, col. 117; Ugol. Thes., vol. 18), after computing the space which the tables of stone would occupy in the ark, asserts that there were two hand-breadths left, Mn 7£D9, “for “the Bock of the Law.” The same treatise (col. 113) says :— 116 CHAP. IX. 1—5. YE) PAX dw Ypory AMAT pow MMs) po mez wy 1922 PNA WWI 22 WN 2D Tw oN? DwR ONwD WwW IN). PTPD) “« After the ark was hidden, they hid with it the pot of manna, and ‘the vase of the oil of unction, and the rod of Aaron, with its blos- “soms and almonds, and the chest which the Philistines sent as a “trespass offering to the God of Israel. Who hid it (the ark)? Josiah “hid it.” The Rabbies, therefore, connected the disappearance of the pot of manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, with the disappearance of the ark. The “ Book of the Covenant” (Exod. xxiv. 7) which Moses wrote (verse 4), containing, as it did, only chapters xx. to xxiii. of the book of Exodus, would not have been of too great bulk to be contained in the ark, but it is somewhat doubtful whether so large a roll as that of the Pentateuch, when completed, could have found room in a chest of such moderate dimensions. Nevertheless the compilers of the Jerusalem Talmud, as cited above, and who were doubtless not alto- gether simpletons, held a different opinion. To assert offhand that the Epistle to the Hebrews (as we have it, and which is, at least, the oldest form in which it has come down to us,) contains mistakes in its statements, is very near akin to presumption of a somewhat offensive description. Dr. Prideaux (The Old and New Testament Connected, London, 1845. 8vo. Vol. i, p. 138, &c.) says :—‘‘ The ark of the covenant was a “small chest (Exod. xxv. 10—27) or coffer, three feet nine inches in “‘Jeneth, and two feet three inches in breadth, and two feet three inches “in height, in which were put the two tables of the law, as well the “ broken ones (say the Rabbins) as the whole. For proof of this they “bring the second verse of the tenth chap. of Deut., which they read “thus :—‘ And I will write on the tables the words that were in the “first tables, which thou brakedest, and hast put into the ark’ ; “and it is true the word is onnw, ze, ‘thou hast put,’ in the “ preter tense; but it being with a vau (1) before it, that turns the ‘‘ preter tense into a future, and therefore it must be read, ‘thou shalt “<“pyut them,’ as in our translation, and not ‘thou hast put them,’ as “the fautors of this opinion would have it. And that there was nothing “else in it, when it was brought into Solomon’s temple, is said in two ‘places of Scriptures (1 Kings viii. 9; 2 Chron. v. 10); but the ‘“‘ Rabbins raise a controversy concerning Aaron’s rod (Numb. xvi. 10; ‘in the Heb. xvii. 25) and the pot of manna (Exod. xvi. 33), and the “ original volume of the law written by Moses’ own hand, whether they “were not also in the ark. It is said of Aaron’s rod and the pot of “manna that they were laid up before the testimony ; and it being “ woreed on all hands that by ‘ the testimony’ is meant the two tables, @HAP, 1X; 15. 117 “those who interpret these words before the testimony (nVDT 25) in the “ strictest sense, will have the said rod and pot of manna to have been “laid up immediately before the tables, within the ark ; but others ‘‘ who do not understand the words in so strict a sense, say that they ‘‘ were laid up in the Holy of Holies without the ark, in a place just “before it, thinking that in this position, without the ark, they may * be well said to be laid up before the testimony or tables of the law, ‘as if they had been placed immediately before them within the ark. “ But the holy Apostle St. Paul decides this controversy, for he posi- * tively tells us ‘that within the ark were the golden pot that had “¢manna,’ &c. (Heb. ix. 4) ; and hereto agree Abarbanel on 1 Kings, “viii. 9, and R. Levi Ben Gersom, &e.”’ Danzius, however (Functio Pontif. M., &c.), cites from R. Levi Ben Gersom the following opposite, or at least indecisive opinion :— Dw wpa xm nvv7 25, “before the testimony, which was in the ** Holy of Holies” ; whilst from Abarbanel he adduces the following :— “WIPO OO OB) 2H) AMI NVI AN AW nN PS NW nT 2b? “The expression ‘ before the testimony’ means the ark of the covenant “of the Lord, and the pot of manna was deposited in the most sacred ‘place of all.” Prideaux, who speaks so decisively in favour of the literal reading of Heb. ix. 4, observes, further, ‘‘ The ark was not of capacity enough to “hold the volume of the whole law of Moses, with the other things “placed therein.” (Ibid., p. 139.) 7 Xep. Od£ns, erroneously translated by Prof. Stuart ‘ splendid “cherubim.” The Targum of Jonathan renders Levit. xvi. 2, “The **cloud of the glory of my Shechina is revealed over the place of the * mercyseat””; and so here Ads might, with advantage, be rendered “ of the Shechina.” (See J. A. Danzii, Shechina, Meuschen, N. Test. ex Talm. illustr., p. 701.) The writer to the Hebrews is here making a skilful appeal to the consciousness of his readers, that all these majestic, and once essential, accompaniments of the tabernacle and temple worship had long since passed away. It contained an unanswer- able demonstration that the Mosaic ceremonial comprised, in itself, no inherent and sempiternal perpetuity. If these things were not indis- pensable, why should not the entire structure, based originally upon Divine appointments, be ultimately dissolved, and give place to a new and better order of things? Nearly all of the things above specified in this chapter were absent in the second temple, and yet the prophet Haggai was bidden to tell the elders, who wept over these departed excellencies, ‘‘1 will fill this house with glory, saith the Lord of Hosts Secon. ena The glory of this latter house shall be greater than that of the 118 CHAP, IX., 1—5. “former, saith the Lord of Hosts.” (Hag. ii. 7—9.) R. Akiba ex- pressly refers this passage to the days of Messiah. (See Balth. Scheidii, Preaterita preteritorum, p. 20, Meuschen.) The Rabbinical writers made no secret of these palpable deficiencies, R. Samuel bar Inja (in Joma) says :— TR DIN NN! PN FT VR IW wp.) PWR WIP. pr yw oyIT Two bx POON DVN WPT AM WI) “The following five particulars constituted the difference between “the first sanctuary and the second, to wit, the ark, the mercyseat, and “the cherubim, the [holy] fire, and the Shechinah, and the Holy Spirit “Tof prophecy], and the Urim and Thummim.” The same passage is found in the Jerus. Gemara, Taanith, cap. 2, 1, col. 711 (Ugol. Thes., vol. 18), on which Abarbanel remarks (Comment. ad Hag. 1, fol. 278, Colm) 92 9) TowWM MT O12 °D MAW No OMIT Abs 729 Rw ny MN DION AN 7S Ow par yO mwz2z) 7271 AWN MoeywW OMIT Nw) YIP) YM Pwo $°2W MII yw NI WIA) DD AMwAT yaw) “ But it is certainly proper to notice that these were not the only “things wanting there. For besides these, the candlesticks, and the “table, and all the vessels of the tabernacles, and its curtains, and “boards, and the rest of the things which Moses made in the wilder- “ness, and the pot of manna, and Aaron’s rod, and the oil of anointing, “were all of them hidden, and did not return, during the second “temple.” (See Danzii Functio Pont. M., p. 941.) ®* ‘TAaornptoy, m2, from 2, to make expiation; in its primary signifi- cation, to cover. It is first mentioned in Exod. xxv. 17, and is there called, in the LX X., thacrnpioy eridewa. It was directed to be made of pure gold, and was placed upon the ark, the top of which it exactly equalled in size, viz., 24 cubits in length, and a cubit and a half in breadth. The Targum of Jonathan (or Palestine) adds that “its depth “shall be a handbreadth ” (pusheka). It was surrounded by the cheru- bims, and Jehovah promised (Exod. xxv. 22), ‘‘ There I will meet with “thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercyseat, from “between the two cherubims, which are upon the ark of the testimony, “ of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children “of Israel” ; which passage Onkelos thus paraphrases :—“ And I will ‘appoint my Word (Memra) with thee there,” &c. ‘ Here it was,” says Prideaux, “ where the Shechinah, or Divine presence, rested, both ‘in the tabernacle and temple, and was visibly seen in the appearance “ of a cloud over it ; and from hence the Divine oracles were given out * by an audible voice (Exod. xxv. 22, and Num. vii. 89) as often as God ‘“ was consulted in the behalf of his people. And hence it is that God CHAP. IX., 6—7. 119 “is so often said to dwell between the cherubims, that is, between the “ cherubims on the mercyseat, because there was the seat or throne of “the visible appearance of his glory among them; and for this reason “the high priest appeared before the mercyseat once every year, on the “ great day of expiation, when he was to make his nearest approach to “the Divine presence to mediate and make atonement for the whole “people of Israel. And all else of that nation who served God “ according to the Levitical law, made it the centre of their worship ; “and not only in the temple when they came up thither to worship, but “everywhere else in their dispersion through the whole world, when- “ever they prayed, they turned their faces towards the place where the “ark stood, and directed all their devotions that way. And, therefore, “the author of the book Cozr? (part 2, s. 28) justly saith, that the ark, “with the mercyseat and cherubims, were the foundation, root, heart, *“ and marrow, of the whole temple, and all the Levitical worship therein “performed.” (Connexion of the Old and New Testament, vol. 1, p. 140.) Verse 6.—Such being the arrangement of the objects above specified (Tovtwy dé ottw Kkatecxevacpuévar), the priests go in and out of the first tabernacle (or apartment) con- tinually in the performance of their ministerial functions.’ * Abarbanel, defining the particular functions of the ordinary priests, as contradistinguished from those of the Levites, says, in reference to the words n315) m2) MIT WT 999, wn every matter concerning the altar and within the veil. (Numb. xviii. 7.) om ahya ma by mapa wp on nop nv npr ww’, “They ought to offer sacrifices upon the altar “of whole burnt-offering, and minister in lighting the lamps, and in “the offering of incense.” J. A. Danzius (in Funct. Pontif. Max. in Adyt. anniversaria, Meuschen, p. 915) observes that none of the priests with the exception of the Sagan (deputy high priest), and that only in case of urgent necessity, could discharge the duties of the high priest (s112 7779) on the day of. atonement. 12 NOX AVI AYR OHI OY nay 59, “< No ministration of the day of atonement is in order, or lawful, except it “be performed by him.” (Gemar. Babyl. Horajoth, cap. 3, fol. 12.) Maimonides says that the high priest might offer whenever and what- ever he pleased, like an ordinary priest. On the word Sagan, see Reland, Ant. Sacr., p. 170. Verse 7.—But into the second (once in the year, araé tod éviavTov, viz., the Day of Atonement) ' the high priest [goes in] alone (jovos), not without blood,’ which he offered on 120 CHAP. Tks 7 his own behalf (i7ép éavtod),® as well as for the sins (ayvonudtwv) * of the people. 1 "Anaé Tov eviavrov, M1 nMN, Levit. xvi. 24, ze. on one stated day in the year, viz., tenth day of Tisri, the first month of the civil year (Sept., Oct.). Maimonides (Moreh Nevochim, pt. iii., c. 45, fol. 164, edit. Sabionet.), after observing that the high priest alone might enter the Holy of Holies, and only on the day of atonement, whilst the ordinary priests might enter the holy place daily, provided always that it was at the appointed hour of service, goes on to ask how many times the high priest might enter the Holy of Holies (but only at service time) on the Day of Atonement? He answers, “ Four times; but if he enters “a fifth time, he incurs the penalty of death at the hands of God.” What these four times are, we learn from the same writer (Hilch. jom hakkippurim, c. 4, § 1) :—1, with the incense ; 2, with the blood of the bullock ; 3, with the blood of the goat ; 4, when he goes in to fetch out the spoon and the censer (see note, p. 112) ; and yet, in exact accord- ance with the form of speech used by the writer to the Hebrews, Maimonides elsewhere says, 7202 nny ova ow x2, “ He goes in there ‘but once in the year.” The following extract from the Gemara (7ract. Rosh. Hashshanah, chap. 1) will serve to show the legendary sanctity attaching to the month Tizri :— 32 DEL MAX IND WNT MIN WD WN] DNA N82) Wen] WIN Hyd 4 WN DONT ID FOY REP TWAT TRI TM) SoM Mw APP) Aw wei pry 29809 ppny “wn WRI JON OWN] wNINN WAY Aol MwA “R. Eliezer says, the world was created in Tizri, in Tizri the “ Patriarchs were born, and in Tizri they also died. On the Passover “Isaac was born ; on the first month of the year Sarah, Rachel, and ‘Hannah were visited. In the first month of the year Joseph went “forth from the prison house; in the first month of the year the “ servitude of our fathers ceased in Egypt, although in Nisan they were | “released.” According to the same Rabbi, in Tisri the Jews are also to be delivered by the Messiah. R. Joshua, however, places the con- summation of Messiah's redemption, like the release from Egyptian bondage, in the month Nisan. (See J. A. Danzius, ibid., pp. 956, 959, 961, where the whole subject is discussed at length.) The above traditional coincidences serve to illustrate the Messianic and typical characteristics attributed by the ancient Jewish teachers to the Day of Atonement. * From the following extract from Maimonides (ile. avod. jom hakkip., cap. iv., sec. 1) it will be seen that it is not improbable that CHAP. Ts. 121 the High Priest did not bring in the blood on the first occasion of his entering the Holy of Holies. Som bw oma aan by wap xbw oy NITwW 19 JN 7D SW WOT MX bapn Maan bya (sw 30) PapA yo TIT Iye wR AI ANT ANN ne Fo ya 2 TPT myop xr 09D) FO mee pasyo “yaw jan oy Ari. TW / 2D JP) WTA > TAT MH wO NIK NW Nd) Mp ND VIET NID TDN YIM PW Row 21D) DD INR WOT NW TY ANTM 721d Hd FIT PWN? YM wwryp 59 DI NIT IW ITI PAM Yow. myepA AD 2 ANT 9012 JI? PT Ww JND AT PNW Id NT IY OWIPA wip) 0222 AON NIT KX OWI wIp) TPT JAX OY AMI AT VS PT Rw DW Mya DTT Ww pr ANNA nN **Sanguinem Juvenci recipit [77 cratere aureo] ac tradit cuidam, qui “extus in quarto Templi scamno agitet, ne coaguletur. Ipse vero “accipit Thuribulum [al/atwm sibi ab aliis|, ac depromit eo ignem ab “ Altari [exteriori| ea parte, quee occidenti erat vicinior ; quia dicitur : “ ondw ona wan ny. Under the term ny, holocausts, the goats.are doubtless included. The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan’ inform us that the “young men” above mentioned were firstborn sons, whilst the latter adds, “for until that hour had the firstborn had the “worship, the tabernacle of ordinance not being made, nor the priest- CHAP. IX., 19—21. 133 “hood given unto Aaron.” Again Moses mentions neither the water, nor the scarlet wool and hyssop, nor yet the sprinkling of the book. But these were, doubtless, ordinarily employed in purificatory asper- sions, and Professor Stuart judiciously observes :—“ That water was “used as well as blood, in order to sprinkle various things, is clearly “implied in Lev. xiv. 4—7, compared with Lev. xiv. 49—52, Num. xix. 18, Ps. li. 17, Ezek. xxxvi. 25.” The scarlet wool (nyn >2~) probably tied the bunch of hyssop to a cedar wood handle (see Lev. xiv. 4, 6, 49, 51, 52, Num. xix. 6), and being the ordinary mode of applying the water and the blood, did not call for special mention in Exod. xxiv. Nor yet is it related by Moses that he sprinkled the book of the covenant (mit 72D). Dr. Gill has erroneously remarked, ‘‘ the book of the law ‘‘was sprinkled, not because of any impurity in it, but to show the “imperfection of it and its insufficiency to justify men.” According to the writer to the Hebrews the object of the sprinkling the book of the covenant with blood, was to give it the validity of a Testamentary document. Its contents are comprised in Exodus xx., xxiii. The “ Angel of the Covenant” (referred to in Mal. iii. 1) is here promised (xxiii. 20—23), and is probably so called, because he is mentioned in this ‘“‘ Book of the Covenant.’ (See note 1 on pp. 128—130.) Verses 19—21.—And all the people,' saying, “ This is the “blood of the covenant, which God enjoined? upon you.” He sprinkled (at a later period, Exod. xl.) the tabernacle*® and all the vessels of the service also, with blood in like manner. Almost all things, moreover, are purified with blood,‘ according to the law, and without shedding of blood remission is not effected (od yivetas ddpeats). 1 TIlavra Tov Aady, This expression must not be pressed too closely. Moses probably sprinkled those who stood immediately around him. In the Hebrew of Exod. xxiv. 8, oym Sy pI) DTT ne Twn APY “ And “<< Moses took the blood, and sprinkled upon the people.” Half the blood was sprinkled upon the altar (v. 6), whilst the other half was reserved in basons for the sprinkling of the people and the book, &c. Respect- ing the true signification of the word all, as used by the Sacred Hebrew writers, see my tract, Bishop Colenso’s Criticism Criticised. Thitd Edition, pp. 21—27, and pp. 55—59. * Tooro ro aipa trys SuaOynKns fs evereikato K.TrX, These words are a paraphrase of the Hebrew—: 7oxq DIT 99 DY DIY MAP ND Wx N37 OT 7 (The LXX. has, iSod ro aia rijs SuadjKns, Hs Suebero Kvpios K.7-A.) Behold 134 CHAP. IX., 19—21. the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made (cut) with you con- cerning all these words (or things). Surenhusius (in his BiB). caradX., p. 635) observes on this passage :—“ Hebraicum 727, et Chaldaicum x7 “ promiscue veniunt pro Graeco rodro, et idov. Denique notandum est, “quod Apostolus m2 wx quod scidit, dixerit elliptice, ijs évereihato quod “ precepit, nempe, M7, perinde ac si scriptum esset, m2) MY WR, guod “ precepit ad feriendum sive pangendum, vel dici etiam potest, quod m3 “et evrehNopa sint synonima, eundem sensum varie exprimentia, ut *‘ doceret Apostolus illud foederis pactum ex mandato divino factum, *“quandoquidem enim ipse ritus pangendi jam notus erat Hebreeis non “opus erat, ut Apostolus formali verbo m1 uteretur, verum eo quod rem “notam leviter attingeret...... Deinde pro m7, kipuos, recte dicit D7>x, “ Geos, quandoquidem hicce Domini stylus passim est apud Prophetas ut “foedera sua observantibus pro mittat. Dy) > yan onN) DOR) 02d WAND. “ Et ero vobis in Deum, vos autem mihi eritis in populum,” * In Exod. xl. we are only told that “ the tabernacle and all that was therein,” as well as Aaron and his son, were anointed with the holy oil, yet Philo assures us (De Mose, lib. 3, Works, Mangey’s Edition, vol. il., p 157) that not only were the High Priest and his garments and the altar and all the sacred vessels anointed with the holy oil, but the priests were anointed with the blood of a ram on the head, the hands, and the feet. Again on p. 158, Ia\au peév ody iepelov évis, 6 Mpoonyopevero TeAeLmoEws, akpdTr@ aipate Ta AexO€vta Tpla pépn KaréxprE Tov iepéwov. avlis O'ek TOD Tapa TO Bape AaBwv orep €& anavt@v Hv, Tov TE Ovopevov kal Tod AexOevtos xpioparos, 6 pupeot KatecKkevacay, avapitas TO €daloy TO aipare Tov Kpduatos, Tots iepevor kal Tais eoOyceow aitov eréppawe. ‘‘On the former occasion he anointed the three specified “parts of the priests with the unmixed blood of the one sacrifice, which “was called that of perfection. But afterwards he took of the “blood of all the victims that had been offered, from off the altar. He ‘ then took some of the chosen chrism, or anointing oil, compounded ‘“‘ by the apothecaries, and mingled the said oil with the mixed blood, “and with it sprinkled the priests and their garments.” Josephus also, “tig. ii. 8, 6,--‘*‘ And when Moses had sprinkled Aaron’s vestments, Ga velf and his sons, with the blood of the beasts that were slain, and a ‘ ‘fed them with spring water and ointment, they became God’s peace OF&he same he did to the tabernacle and the vessels thereto Se ey with oil first incensed, as I said, and with the blood goats_are doubtless _ ,, Ten ustittere toes Lev. xvii. 11,—“ For the life of the flesh is in pie a latter adds, “*5en it to you upon the altar to make an worship, the tabernacle of vs, is the blood that maketh an atone- CHAP. IX., 23—26. 135 ‘‘ment for the soul.” The antithesis here is between purification and remission. In certain cases simple washing (e.g., of clothes, Lev. xvi. 26, 28) or the passing of metal vessels through the fire (Num. xxxi. 23) were permitted to remove the ceremonial taint. But expiation, and atonement for sin could only be obtained by the shedding of blood (for *‘ the blood is the life’’), which was offered in vicarious symbolism, repre- senting at once the life of the sinner forfeited by disobedience, and the life of the Perfect Sacrifice once for all offered, when the fulness of the time came, for the sins of the whole world. The familiar proverbial saying of the Rabbies 072 xox mp2 pr, There is no expiation, except by blood alone, is illustrated by the following Talmudical comment on Lev. i. 4 (“ And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt- “ offering, and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.” W299 729919 TM Ay ws by wT yop) “What then! Does the laying ‘on of the hands make expiation? Certainly not. Expiation is made ‘* by nothing else than blood, because it is said, Lev. xvii. 11, ‘ For it is “ «the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.’”’ Zevachim, col. 105. WEI NT DWT °° FOND OT] TN TMD PR NM MIN WD D7 ASW ADI ‘ey. (Ugolini, Thes., vol. xix.) A very similar passage is found in tract Menachoth, ibid., col. 1179. See also Zevachim, in Mischna Surenhus., tom. v., p. 43, sec. 2. The Mishna (tract Joma) says :— $y Mp0 WAVON AINA OY PII ONPIT OM AND PIN CNT) OWN NOT DPT OY RPw Ivy Ayn xT nmonn by) morn NI oy) moy oy mop nivaiy 75>) “ A sin-offering and a victim make expiation for certain sins and “faults. Death and the Day of Atonement make expiation with “repentance. Repentance makes expiation for lighter sins, both “ against affirmative as well as negative precepts. It also suspends the * oraver ones until the Day of Atonement arrives and expiates them.” Mischna Sur., tom. ii., p. 257. Verses 23—26.—It was needful, therefore, that the copies (wmodeitypata) of the celestial things should be purified with the things above enumerated. But the heavenly things themselves (see note 6, p. 99) with more excellent sacrifices than these. For Christ (the Messiah) has not entered into Holy places made with hands, which latter were made in imitation (avtituma, copies) of the true, but [he has gone] into heaven itself, now to appear before the face of God (i.e., God’s unveiled presence’) on our behalf. Not, indeed, that he may frequently (ao\Adxus) offer \ 136 CHAP. IX., 23—26. himself, in like manner as the high priest enters yearly into the Holy places, with blood that is not his own (év aiwatt addotpiw). For if such were the case, He must needs have frequently suffered since the foundation of the world (émet ede. av’tov ToANaKis Tafeivy amo KataBorHs KOO MOV). That is, Christ’s death is retrospective’ in its expiatory virtue. Otherwise he must have re- peated the sacrifice of himself, in every year, since the Fall. The blood vicariously shed, and which the High Priest brought in, and, in fact, in virtue of which he was permitted to enter the Holy of Holies, spoke of his own imperfection. He dared not to enter in his own right. He must bring the blood of his own atonement in his hand. But Jesus has entered into the Heavenly Sanctuary for us, with, and in virtue of, his own blood. It testifies to the sinless perfection of his offering, and as such it requires not to be repeated. It was the sub- stance, of which all the others were the shadow and prophetical types. He is the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world. ‘ Nov euhancbjva to mpocam@ tod Oeod tiwép yuaov. The phrase ‘before the face of God” is a translation of the Hebrew obs 25). Christ appears before the Father, as the High Priest appeared on the typical day of Atonement, before the Shechinah. * The Targum of Jonathan (on Gen. iii. 15) implies the consolatory doctrine expressed above :—“ And I will put enmity between thee and “the woman, and between the seed of thy son and the seed of her sons, *‘ and it shall be when the sons of the woman keep the commandments “of the law, they will be prepared to smite thee upon thy head, but “when they forsake the commandments of the law, thou wilt be ready ““to wound them in their heel. Nevertheless, for them there shall bea _ “ medicine, but for thee there will be no medicine ; »»4 they shall make “a remedy for (or make a bruise with) the heel in the days of the King “ Meshiha,” LEtheridge’s Targums, vol. i., p. 166. CHAP. IX., 26. 137 Verse 26.—But now, once (continues the writer), at the consummation of the ages! (i.e., a¢ the appointed close of the Jewish dispensation, the time specified by Daniel, and predicted by all the Holy Prophets since the world began,) he has been manifested (refavépwrtat, revealed), for the putting away of sin by means of the sacrifice of himself.’ 1 "Eri ouvredela tay aldver. “ Et revera Christus venit, et se ipsum “immolavit ém ovvredeia Tov aiaverv, circa consummationem seculorum. “Heb. ix. 26, h.e. fine temporis prioris. Restare enim debebant ai@ves « erepxdpevor, supervenientia secula, quibus ostenderet Deus tov vmep- ‘ Ba\Xovta mAovTov THs XapiTos avrov, Eph. ii. 7. Potuisset ita in fine “ dierum Christum mittere, ut statim sequeretur resurrectio mortuorum. “ Sed voluit annum gratize, a Christi missione coeptum, Jes. lxi, 2, per “multa secula producere, ut amplitudinem divitiarum beneficientiz “suze tam longi temporis duratione illustrius mundo patefaceret.” (H. Witsii Diss. de secula hoc et futuro, p. 1181, Meuschen.) Schoettgen (in loc.) explains the passage in a manner which, to my mind, is altogether inadmissible :—“ Particula émi cum Dativo denotat, cujus “rei caussa, qua conditione Christus venerit, nimirum, ut mundus “expiaretur. uvréhea est a TeAew, purgo, initio, lustro, quod hac “notione aliquoties hac epistola occurrit.” Ewald translates, “‘ Nun “aber ist er einmahl, am Schlussende der Weltzeiten, zur Siinden- « vernichtung durch sein Selbstopfer, erschienen.” The word ovvréXeva occurs in Matt. xiii. 39, 40, 49, xxiv. 3, xxviii. 20, but always in reference to the “end of the world,” and never in the signification which Schoettgen would assign to it. Wolfius observes that, in this 26th verse of Heb. ix., emt ouvredéia Tay aiwver, is antithetic to amo kataBodjs Kéopov. He utterly rejects the explanation which Schoettgen gives, as being contrary to the usage, not only of the New Testament, but also of the LX X. writers. The translators of the London Society’s Hebrew New Testament have Dy MTS). 2 T cannot help believing that a direct citation from Dan. ix. 24, 25, is here intended. The prophet there describes the righteousness which shall be brought in, in the days of “ Messiah the Prince,” as D'D9Y pTz, lit., the righteousness of ages, or as the LXX. has it, Sicavoovyny aicovor. And in exact accordance with Is liii, Daniel also declares that “ Messiah « shall be cut off, but not for himself,” 0 px) mo ™M>, eEodobpevOjaerat Xpicpa, Kai kpiwa ovK €oTw ev a’t@, LXX. The object of his appearing is “to finish transgression (ewe7 xb2>) and to make an end of sins | « (meer pn, lit., fo seal up sins), and to make reconciliation for iniquity T 188 CHAP. 1X.) 27; 28: (pe 1291 lit., fo expiate iniquity.—See Schoettgen, tom. ii., pp. 98, 246, 655.) Tov ovvtedeoOjva dpaptiay, Kai rod odpayioa dpaptias, Kal damaheiyat Tas dOukias, Kal Tov eEtAdoad Oat adikias, LX X. It must be ever borne in mind that the Epistle is written to Jews and by a Jew. His phrase- ology is, so to speak, saturated with the spirit and language of the Old Testament writings, which his readers knew by heart, regarding these Scriptures, not only as the repository of their spiritual hopes, but as the charter and digest of their national expectations and political history. A. passing allusion, which would fall unnoticed upon a Gentile ear, would strike with living and intelligent significance upon the attuned chords of the Jewish patriot’s soul. The Scriptural element was the very atmosphere in which he lived. It comprised the entire sum of his most cherished hopes for this world as well as for the world to come. (V.B. The above quotations from the LX X. are taken from the Edition of Amsterdam, 1683. 8vo.) Verses 27, 28.—And just as it is appointed (xa@” dcov a7roxetTat) to men once to die, and after this the judgment, so also Christ having been once offered for the special object of bearing (els 76 aveveyxetv) the sins of many (Is. litt. 11), shall appear (of@yjcerar) the second time to those who wait for Him (tots avtrov amexdexopévors, expect him back again), without sin (yapis dwaptias), to announce to them their salvation (ets cwrtypiav).' 1 The writer here alludes to the anxious expectation of the people for the safe return of the high priest from the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement. It was an awful moment of suspense, and the congregation looked eagerly for the high priest’s reappearance. And so the Mishna informs us, that after he had deposited the incense before the ark, and the Holy of Holies was filled with the fumes, he came back into the outer house, and offered up a short prayer, making it very short, in order that the congregation might not be unduly apprehensive on his account. JoNo WT Nh Pst m2 Myp Aran Wenn, wD M1 FTI YW NN RY PONTW? MN MYA Now InPENI Joma, cap. iv. 7, Mishna Surenh., vol. ii., p. 231. It will be remembered that it was strictly forbidden (Levit. xvi. 17) for any one to be in the . tabernacle at the time. ‘ And there shall be no man in the tabernacle “of the congregation, when he goeth in to make an atonement in the “holy place, until he come out, and have made an atonement for him- “self, and for his household, and for all the congregation of Israel.” CHAP. IX., 27, 28. 139 Then he would appear to them, xopis dyaprias, having left their sins behind and cancelled by the blood of expiation, and assure them that the atonement had been accepted. Maimonides (Zbid., p. 232, note) observes on the above quoted passage of the Mishna, “ For if he (the “high priest) tarried long, the Israelites feared that he might have been “ overtaken by death, for many high priests died in the Holy of Holies, “‘ in consequence of their want of skill, or of making alterations in the “mode of offering incense; for so the Holy One, blessed be He, inti- «“ mated to Aaron, Levit. xvi. 2, 13.” So, also, we learn on the authority of the Mishna (dbid., p. 248), that after the whole of the solemnities had been completed, the high priest divested himself of his pontifical robes, and put on his ordinary attire, which his attendants brought him. They then accompanied him home, and he gave a banquet to his friends in honour of his having come forth in safety from the sanctuary. WHT yO OWI RWW TAYwI vaMN? Mw WT IW oY Wa TW NR yy Sheringham remarks on the words “ Dyw2 NBw WU, ie., safe and “sound. For at that season of the year, in which the cold began to be “ somewhat felt, he might easily be taken ill.” “Id est salvus et in- “ columis, e4 enim tempestate qua frigus aliquantulum rigere incepisset, “ facile poterat zgrotare,” &e. (Lbid., note 3) Christ has in like manner gone into the Most Holy Place. His people anxiously expect his return. When He comes forth again, it will be xopis Gzaprias, without a sin-offering. They will have ocular demonstration that the atonement has been accepted, in the completion of their salvation. And so it is predicted in Isaiah xxv. 7—9 :—“ And “he will destroy in this mountain the face of the covering (0197 28) cast “ over all people, and the veil (72007) that is spread over all nations. “He will swallow up death in victory, and the Lord God will wipe “ away tears from off all faces, and the rebuke of his people shall He “take away from off all the earth. For the Lord hath spoken it. And “it shall be said in that day, Lo, this is our God ; we have waited “ (wp) for Him, and He will save us: this is the Lord, we have waited (1p) for him, we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation.” The translators of the London Svciety’s Hebrew New Testament render the entire passage thus :— ' yp mopar wan D2 yD PWIA YD ANN) NNN OYE Ny.) DINT "2 5Y 22 WORD) (without a sin-offering) Deon 2 ID TRY 3 ovord) DI MNT NNW? NIT imo (For this use of nso, see Exod. xxix. 14, 36, and passim, in the Old Testament.) bb SS 140 CHAP! Ri ae CHAPTER X. Tur writer now proceeds to illustrate and apply his beautiful and delicately-worded figure of the shadow and the substance. Verses 1—4.—For the law, as having (€ywv comprising) the shadow of the good things to come, and not the exact resemblance! of the things as they really are (ov« adtiv THY eiKOVa TOV TpayuaTwv), never can make those who come to it perfect, with the same sacrifices which they offer perpetually (eis 70 Sunvexés) from year to year. For then would they not have ceased being offered (7.e., on behalf of each individual sinner, because in the expiation of every several Day of Atonement, every soul of the congregation, as well as the high priest, was included in the expiatory offering, no matter how many times previously they had participated in its purifying solemnities), because the worshippers (Tovs Aatpevovtas), when once cleansed, would no longer retain any consciousness of sins. But, on the contrary, in the aforesaid (sacrifices, aAX' év avrais) there is a repeated calling into remembrance of sins (avdpvnows awaptiov) from year to year. For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.” 1 The shadow of anything is never the exact resemblance, although it is a certain proof that the substance which casts the shadow has a real and substantial existence. It is exaggerated and distorted. Some- times it is larger in unsubstantial bulk, sometimes it is dwarfed and smaller than the reality. So, also, the Mosaic ritual, with its cumbrous paraphernalia, although it was the very shadow cast before it by God’s own plan of atonement, could only afford a conjectural criterion of the tangible benefits which the Lord’s Messiah should introduce. In this respect the ancient Patriarchal and Mosaic Church were in a position, in regard to Christ’s first coming, precisely analogous to that of the CHAP IK) 124, 141 Christian Church in reference to his second appearing. We now see, as in a metal mirror, enigmatically (BAéropev yap dpte di eadrrpov ev aiviypare, tore de mpdaaroyv mpds mpdcwmoyv), but then, face to face (1 Cor. xiii. 12). We now know partially, but then shall we know even as we are known (apte yryyaoKw ek peépous, Tote Se emiyvooopat Kabws Kai émeyvooOny). This partial knowledge did not hinder the ancient Church from enter- taining a very positive assurance that the Saviour should come, nor yet does it, at present, interfere with the certainty of our belief as to the consummation of our redemption. God will have his children in all ages to “walk by faith and not by sight.’ There has been always a unity of Hope, as well as of Faith, in this particular. Eixoy means the likeness, similitude, resemblance of anything ; and, in this, the law is the érevoaywyn Kpelrrovos édridos (Heb. vii. 19). The realization of this hope will find place in our completed redemption, at Christ’s second appearing. * The writer here states no unknown doctrine to the Hebrews. He is simply applying one, of which the more intelligent were already deeply conscious. It therefore comes home with the irresistible force of conviction. This statement is abundantly confirmed by the following remarkable statement of Philo :—‘Iepoupyiau yeuny Kal 7 rept tas Ovoias miortis, PAdoTnwa KaANCTOY, GAAa TapavaredpuKey adiT@ kakdv, Sevodatpovia* iv mply xAonoa, Avowrehes exrepetv, "Evor yap @nOnoav rd BovOureiv evoeBevay eivar, Kal e& dv ay KMepoow, 7) apyycwvrat, i) ypewkonnowow, 7) aprdcwow, i) AenaTHTwOL, polpas arovéepovat Tois Bwpois, of SveKdOaprot, TO pH Sovvar Sikny ed’ ois eEnpaprov, doy etvar vopitovtes. "AAA yap elroy’ dv adtois, ddéxaoréy eat, @ obToL, TO Oeod SikacTHpiov, ws TOS ev yropn Kexpnpevous traitio, Kav dracay nepay Exaroy Bdas avaywow, aro- atpepécba todvs & avuraitious, Kav pndev Oiaor Td Taparay, anodexéabat. Bepois yap arvpots, wept obs dperai xopevovor, yéynOev 6 Beds, GAN ov TOAAG mupt preyovew, orep ai Tay aviepav GOvtot Oiora ovvavedrcEay, bropipyjo- Kovoat Tas éxdoTt@y ayvoias te Kai Stapaptias. Kal yap eixé mov Maions, Ovoiay avapipynoKovoay apaprtiav. “ Assuredly religious rites, and the belief in sacrifices, are a most “admirable growth, but a noxious one has sprung up alongside of it; “to wit, superstition. This ought to be rooted out before it vegetate “‘further. For some have supposed that to sacrifice oxen is piety, who * lay upon the altars a portion of their thefts, of that which they have “fraudulently withholden, of that which they have cheated, or taken “by violence, or purloined ; e.g., men who will hardly find any atone- “ment, and who suppose that they can thus purchase immunity from “ paying the penalty due to their deeds. To such as these I would say, “The Tribunal of God is not to be thus bribed, but revolts from all those 142 CHAP. X., 1—5. “who have an evil conscience, although they should daily offer a “hundred oxen. But He accepts the guiltless, although they never “bring a single sacrifice. For God delights in fireless shrines, which “the virtues encircle, not in those that blaze with extensive fires, which “the profane unaccepted sacrifices of impious offerings light up, and “ which only call to mind their transgressions (dyvoias. See note 4, page ‘*122) and sins. For Moses himself has somewhere (Numb. v. 15) said, ““‘that sacrifice calls sin to remembrance.” (De Plantatione Noe, Works, Mangey’s edit., vol. 1, p. 345.) See also zbid., vol. ii., p. 151, De Mose, and p. 254, De Sacrificantibus. The same doctrine is also unequivocally propounded in the Mishna, Joma, cap. vill. sec. 9 :— DMEIT DY NOMN TINON NvwY> IPI PPEOD PR TWN) NOM ION) NOM WNT DIN PID NAY WIN ONT OY Od) DI PIwW nyway ID OI OY PR WIN DINNEM 999 AVY JI WY I WIT se War TEWwW IY WIN OIA OY pr WaT) PR WWM) OW pw nvvay 22 ONT DY ON? OT paw Nay NAN 4 1D) DNS PUTO 1 72H) ONT DINK NIPY 1 WX WaT nx AWW I DI WA Mpd WIS) ONT) OWA ON DY np Www DNTIW OPIN DINX WD 0 PONTO) NR WTO NT TN WPT AR CNOA nx MN mMpo AN 7 ow “He who says, J will sin and repent, I will sin and repent ; the means “of repentance are not ready to his hand. (If he says) I will sin, and “the Day of Atonement shall make expiation; the Day of Atonement “does not make expiation. Transgressions which are between man “and God the Day of Atonement expiates. Transgressions which are “between man and his neighbour, the Day of Atonement does not “expiate, until he has reconciled his neighbour. Rabbi Eleazar, the “son of Azariah, thus explains the words, Ye shall be clean from all “ your sins before the Lord. The transgressions which a man commits ‘‘against God the Day of Atonement expiates. The transgressions “which a man commits against his neighbour the Day of Atonement “ does not expiate, unless he has first given his neighbour satisfaction. “ Rabbi Akiba says, Blessed are ye, O Israel, before Him, before whom “ye purify yourselves! Who is He that purgeth you? Itis your Father ‘in heaven, because it is said, I well sprinkle upon you clean water, and “ye shall be clean. The Lord also says, the fountain of Israel. What “ fountain is it that purifies the defiled? Even the Holy One, Blessed ‘be He, it is that purifies Israel.” Mishna Surenh., vol. ii. 2, pp. 257, 258. Verse 5.—Wherefore He (the Messiah) on his entering . (eloepyopuevos) into the world says (Ps. xl. 6—10), Sacri- fice and offering' thou wouldest not,’ a body hast thou prepared for me. CHAP.” X., 5: 143 ' Oveiav kal mpoopopay odk nOeAnoas, NBM N} AMIN, Le, sluin beast, and bloodless oblation thou hadst no pleasure in.— Gesen. * Sépa Sé katnpriow por. The Greek of the New Testament and the LXX. differ in sound, but not in reality, from the Hebrew. Where they have capa b€ xarnpricw por, the Hebrew has m2 D'sN mine ears hast thou pierced. The verb ™) (see also Ps. xxii. 16 [17]) is here used _ for vso of Exod. xxi. 6, 4nd his master shall bore (230) his ear through with an awl (93701), and he shall serve him for ever. 'This was to be done in the case of a Hebrew servant, who refused, out of devotion to his master, to go out free at the end of the sixth year of servitude. The clue to the Greek paraphrase, I cannot help feeling justly certain, is to be found in Rey. xviii. 13, kai copdrey, ‘and slaves,” et mancipio- rum, Vulg. The Greek, I take it, is a paraphrase of the Hebrew, and is equivalent to ‘Thou hast made me thy servant” (remembering always that the piercing of the ears indicated a spontaneously chosen servitude), although, with a subtle play upon the word oéya, the writer includes the idea of Christ’s humanity. This is in strict accordance with the Jewish habit of thought. St. Paul in his Epistles not unfre- quently indulges in this assimilation of sound with sense. The above rendering of this most difficult passage obviates entirely any tampering with the Hebrew text. The verb ™1 barah is never used in the Hebrew Bible in the sense of he prepared, although Surenhusius (B/BAos kataAX., p. 636) apparently confounds it with xv bara, he created, e.g., he speaks of the Apostle as ‘pro m™) effodisti legens ma “ parastt,” And again, ibid.:—‘ Verbum sna (nof 23) notare dis- “ponere, aptare, parare, docet Paraphrastes Chaldzeus, quando id “vertit per jpn, Jos. xvii. 15. Conferantur Ezek. xxi. 19, et cap. “‘xxili. 47, ubi eadem verbi significatio occurrit.” As the question is not concerning meu, but m2, the learned critic’s remarks, I would submit, are somewhat beside the mark. But nm is not the only difficulty which the emendator of the Hebrew text has to deal with. To torture the reading O'NKN ears into ™: or 7, body, or A, as Surenhusius has it, is a miracle of emendation, commendable more for its ingenuity than for its soundness or probability. Wettstein, on Rev. xviii. 13 (although he makes very little indeed of the Passage of the Hebrews under consideration), adduces a variety of authorities in which cua is made to stand for dodAos, a slave, e.g., “ Pollux iii. 71, “ga@pata dm@s ovk dy eirois, adda copata SovAa,—Phrynichus, p. 166, “ Sapara ent trav dviwy avipanddav eiwbe xadeiv.—Aristoleles in narrat. “ mirand., avti €vds capatos Ondixod Siddévar Tois eumdpos réeooapa 7) mEvTE “gapata appeva.—Libanius D. xvii., p. 472, C. rodr otv doyifer Oat, “* od mumpdoketat ; Tis 6 BvovpEvos, TOY EwTopoy Tov GwHpatos.—Lus/athius 144 CHAP. X., 5. “in Od.a., pp. 34, 51, dvdparodoxamndos, 6 kat Copatéwropos Kal peta- “* Bodeds avdparddav.—Strabo xiv., p. 985, B. capar’ éumopeiv.—Tob. “x, 11.—Anthol i. 12, 10, capara moda rpéhew.— Demosthenes, Phil. iii., “kal gcapdtav mAnOos, 7) xpnudrav mpdcodo.—Aristoteles Rhet. 1, “ ebobévera ktnudtav Kal copdtov.mAnOos xpnudrev Kai ioxvs copdtav.” Prof. Stuart (in loco) somewhat hastily, I think, asserts “that = “and m9) indicate very distinct actions is sufficiently plain, for to “bore through anything, and to dig or hollow out a pit, grave, or well, “are surely very different actions, indicated in Hebrew by verbs as * different as the English dig and bore through.” The learned Professor is surely strangely forgetful of the twofold signification of fodio and épvoow, and also of the LX X. rendering of that vexed passage of Ps. xxii. 16, @pvEav yxeipds pov kai médas, which the Vulgate also (in accordance with the reading 82 or 2 from 8) or 2) translates “ foderunt manus meas,” &c. The verb Y¥1 occurs in Exod. xxi. 6 only. The parallel passage of Deut. xv. 17 reads 1582 ANN ys NR NAP. Even Pr. Stuart would admit that yn) has a very different signification from »=, and yet here it does duty for it, and the meaning is perfectly intelligible. The Syriac also adopts the same reading, “ they pierced.” Schoettgen (Hor. Heb., tom. i, p. 978) says,—“‘In Hebrzeo est: “oF no or, aures perforasti mihi: h.e. servum me tibi perpetuum “ fecisti ; ex more Hebreeorum, qui Exod. xxi. 6, describitur.” There is, therefore, at least respectable authority, I would submit, for under- standing ™) as a synonyme of ys1 of Exod. xxi. 6. The reason for the latter verb being employed in this last-cited passage is obvious enough. Moses specifies the instrument with which the ear is to be pierced, viz., ps an awl. It is unquestionably more convenient, as well as more elegant, to employ the very verb »z1 from which the name of the instrument is derived, than to substitute a synonyme in its stead. And in this sense of piercing, R. Isaac (in the Chizzuk Emunah, p. 369) takes the verb n73 in Ps. xl., and observes how grossly the writer to the Hebrews (x. 8) had corrupted-the passage,—an accusation as utterly unfounded as unfair,—as a glance at the LXX. version of the Psalm would have demonstrated. The writer to the Hebrews does no more than ratify the interpretation of the ancient Greek-speaking Jewish Church. The writer of the Nizzachon Vetus (pp. 162, 163), referring to Ps, xxii. 7, combats the interpretation “they pierced” (anv1, foderunt) on the ground that the Jews had no custom of piercing the hands or feet of those that were condemned to be stoned or hanged ; a silly. quibble, of which, in another form, Hengstenberg has demonstrated the futility. But it is downright dishonesty in this Jewish Contro- versialist to insinuate that the Christians altered the passage to suit their CHAP, X),.25. 145 views. (See Gill, in loc.) J.C. Wolfius writes (tom iv., p. 723, im loeo), “ Altera (sententia) est eorum qui verbum ™2 perforandi sensu acci- “piunt, et ad ritum in servis, perpetuze servituti addicendis, illisque “yerfossione auris ab hero initiandis, receptum (de quo Deuteronom. “xy. 17, et Exod. xxi. 6), a rots LX X. respectum, corpus vero, tanquam “totum, pro auribus, instar partis, positum esse, existimant. Ita cum “ Coccejo et Altingio plerique, et novissime Cl. Elsnerus, cujus ex “pag. 362, hee habe verba: Sensus Hebraict textus est: Servum me “ perpetuum, per omnem vitam constituisti. Iyitur verissime et felrciter “ sensum expresserunt LX X., c@pa katnpticw@ pot, corpus mihi formasti. “ Corporis enim indutio Christum reddebat servum, hoc 6poiwpa et “ oynpa avOparrer, est poppy Sovdov, Philipp. ii. 7, 8, filius hominis venit, “ seilicet in mundum assumto corpore, ut serviret, Matt. xx. 28, et Jes. “ xlix. 5, Unde hie notanter dicitur ; eioepxdpevos eis Tov Kdopoy, cum in «“ mundum veniret, scilicet per incarnationem ; tine dixit, capa katnpticw “ uot, corpus, atque adeo servi personam imposuisti mihi. Idem porro “monet, gopata dici mancipia, tum apud LX X. Genes. xxxiv. 29, “tum apud Scriptores,” &c. Lud. Cappellus (Critice Sacre, Paris, 1650, fol., p. 67) remarks on Heb. x. 5,—“ Sapa d€ katnpriow pot, in “ Hebreo autem est, aures perforasti mihi, hoc est, mancipasti me tibi “in perpetuum, nempe juxta legem que est Exod. xxi. 6. Videntur autem LXX. scripsisse, cdma b€ pe Katnpticw cor, h.e. mancipasti me “tibi; nam oépa Grecis interdum mancipium significat, unde illud “ gapata Toda Tpepew Kal Sopara Twoddra eyeipew.” It is a matter of surprise that Cappellus, when suggesting an emendation in the text, did not propose to read capa b€ karnpriow cot, instead of por, which would have involved the alteration of one letter only, and would have rendered the passage perfectly clear of all difficulties. Dr. Samuel Davidson (Introd. to the New Testament, vol. iii., p. 281) writes as follows :— Here we must proceed on the assumption, that the Hebrew “text (Ps. xl. 7) was as it now stands when the Greek translator “rendered it into another tongue. The Hebrew signifies, mine ears —_ “ hast thou opened ; the Greek, a body hast thou prepared for me. The | “ meaning of the former is, thow hast made me attentive or obedient to “thy will; that of the latter, thow hast provided me a body in which “that obedience may be exemplified. 'The argument turns on the sen- “tence, thou desiredst not sacrifices but the fulfilment of thy will. The “ ancient sacrifices are declared to be of no avail, and doing the will of “God is substituted for them. In the clause capa d€ katnptiocw pot, the | “manner of doing the will of God perfectly is incidentally noticed, “though not essential to the argument, since it is the thing itself which “is contrasted with the Jewish sacrifices, viz., willing obedience to God, U 146 CHAP. (Ki). “or the doing of his will. Here no essential part of the argument is “built on the clause under consideration, and the futility of Hug’s “assertion appears: ‘If the Epistle had been written in Hebrew, “ «the deduction from the quotation as to the offering of a body, and “all which is further said of the single offering that made every “other superfluous, could have had no foundation.’ The Septuagint “rendering of the clause gives the sense of the Hebrew, and the “quotation is taken from the Septuagint as more palpably apposite “to the writer’s purpose in the context.” The late Dr. M‘Caul (Zhe Messiaship of Jesus, London, 1852. 8vo., pp. 161—163) gives the following interpretation of Ps. xl. 7, 8:—“ In these verses there is an ‘apparent difficulty arising from the citation of certain words in the “ Epistle to the Hebrews. The original text has nm or, which “our translators have rendered ‘mine ears hast thou opened,’ The “ LXX. and Epistle to the Hebrews, capa b€ katnpricw po, ‘A body “hast thou prepared for me,’ a rendering which sounds very different. “The only fair way to compare them is to ascertain first the sense of ‘‘each. 1. Then, with regard to the Hebrew, the literal sense of the “words is, ‘ Ears hast thou digged or perforated for me.’ Now, what “would a Hebrew understand by digging. or perforating the ears? To ‘answer this question we have, first, similar expressions in the Bible. “Tn Isaiah 1, 5, ‘The Lord hath opened the ear for me,’ px nn, «and I was not rebellious,’ from which it appears that to open the ears “is to make obedient ; and, again, another passage of the same prophet, “ xlviii. 8, where the ear not being opened is connected with disobedience, “« Yea, thou heardest not ; yea, thou knewest not ; yea, of old thy ear “was not opened: truly I knew thou didst deal very treacherously : “ “even transgressor wast thou called, from the womb.’ 2. We have “the interpretation of the Jews. The Chaldee says, ‘ My ears, in order “to listen to thy salvation, thou hast perforated for me.’ Rashi says, “*« Mine ears hast thou perforated, saying, Hear ye my voice. Perforated “means, ye have made holes that ye might hear.’ Kimchi says, “« Kars hast thou opened for me, that I might hear thy voice’; and so “R. Isaac explains, by reference to Exod. xix. 5, Jer. vii. 22, and “] Sam. xv. 22, that the opening of the ears signifies obedience. “ According, then, to Bible usage, and the interpretation of learned “ Jews speaking and writing Hebrew, the meaning of the words, ‘ Mine ‘ears hast thou digged, or opened,’ is, ‘Thou hast rendered me ‘obedient.’ 3. To confirm this interpretation, we have the parallel-_ “isms -— * «Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire.’ *** Mine ears hast thou opened.’ - Ee CHA PY Xs. Of °C. 147 “¢ Burnt-offering and sin-offering thou didst not require.’ “<«Then I said, Lo I come... ..... to do thy will, O my God, I did “ ¢ desire,’ “The antithesis to burnt-offering and sin-offering, in the latter “clause, is obedience. The antiparallel to sacrifice and offering must be “ synonymous—i.e., perforating the ears must mean obedience. Il. Now, “then, let us examine what the Greek translators intended by capa “karnpticw pot, ‘A body hast thou prepared me,’ or ‘My body hast “thou prepared.’ It is clear that they did not mean it as a literal “translation of the Hebrew words. The idiomatic meaning of ‘digging “¢or perforating the ears’ was peculiarly Hebrew. They therefore _ “ ave what they considered as an equivalent, ‘The preparation of the “ ‘body,’ as more pleasing to God than sacrifice and offering. That by “the preparation of the body they meant obedience is to be gathered “ from the context, and from the fact that they understood the Hebrew “ phrase (to dig or perforate), as appears from the parallel passage, Is. 1. 5, “where they have 7 maiSeia Kupiov Kuplov dvolyet pou Ta Gta, €yw dé ovK -“ dre8. That the words conveyed this meaning to a person accustomed ‘to speak and write Greek is seen from the commentary of Theodorit, “who says, on the place, ‘ To these words agrees the apostolic admoni- “tion, I beseech you, therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye «present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which “‘is your reasonable service ; for instead of the sacrifices of the Law, ““*God has commanded us to consecrate our bodies.’ He understood “the words to signify obedience. The sense, therefore, of the Hebrew ‘ “and of the Greek words is substantially the same. They both signify “to render obedient.” Verses 6, 7.—Holocaust and sin-offering thou hadst no pleasure in (ov« evddxnoas, NoOsw Nd, thow didst not demand). Then I said, Lo, I am come (jjcw, spn) to do thy will, O God, in the volume" of the book (€v ceparidu BiBXiov, mDD Nowa, in der Buchrolle, Ewald) it is written concerning me (7repi €wod, oy) to do thy will, O God.’ 1 Let it be observed that the words ev cepadid: agree with the Jewish interpretation of the LX X., where they are employed as the equivalent to 7c noma. They are no mere Christian adaptation of the Hebrew, although, inasmuch as they are found in a canonical book of the New Testament, the Christian student has no alternative but to accept them as expressing the correct sense of the original Scriptures. The only question to be solved is, are these words a paraphrase, or are they a 148 CHAP: X.26, 7 literal translation of the Hebrew? ie, is xepadis ever used as a synonyme for a roll, 7522? Stuart asserts that as “the Hebrew 0, “ B:BXiov, was a manuscript rolled upon a cylinder of light wood, at “the extremity of which were heads or knobs,’ therefore, “ the knob or “ head, xepaXis, is here taken as a part, which is descriptive or emblem- “atic of the whole. Kedadis Bi8Aiov means, therefore, a BiB8diov, or “76D, with a kedanis, z.e., a manuscript roll......... It coincides, then, ‘‘ with regard to signification, very exactly with the Hebrew 750 nian, “of which it isa translation.” For my own part, although not pre- pared to contradict Prof. Stuart, as the writer to the Hebrews gives a paraphrastic citation, and not a verbal quotation, I see no necessity to find a literal conformity. The next question to be solved is this :—If David wrote Psalm xl., what are we to understand by “the roll of the “Book” ? In other words, to what portion of the Scriptures had he access ? Does he refer to the Book of Jasher, or to some other of the now extinct writings of the time? or does he allude to God’s book, mentioned in Ps. exxxix. 16, which the Targum renders “ in the book of “thy memory” ? or does the Psalmist allude to the Messianic passages of the Pentateuch, to the book of Job, or to any of his own previously written Psalms? If I may hazard a conjecture, I would suggest that the citation is referable to 1 Sam. xv. 22 :—“ And Samuel said, Hath “the Lord as great delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifices, as in “obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than “sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.” The expression y» mept euov, does not necessarily imply that the passage cited was a Messianic one, but that it was Messianic in its doctrinal application. Much, however, may be said, especially on the perusal of the Targumie explanations of the Messianic passages, as to the probable reference made to the Pentateuch. Surenhusius (BiB. Karadd., pp. 637, 638) writes: —“ Jam vero “ Christum aliquando venturum esse, ut Patris sui voluntatem faceret, “jam predictum fuisse 12D 9201 in volumine hbri, tradit Psaltes, quam “ phrasin ellypticam esse scribit ille Hebraorum Doctor Raschi, pro “aw myn wD ndban2 in volumine libri legis Mosis, sive Pentateuchi, “quoniam libri Vet. Test. in membrana conscripti, ad columnam “‘ligneam in forma cylindri convolvi solent, et cum liber Geneseos sit “ primus inter quinque libros Mosis, hine nos non multum errasse puta- “mus, si dixerimus Apostolum vel ad primam promissionem de Semine “ mulieris serpentis caput contrituro respexisse (see note 2, p. 136), etsi “ passim in Pentateucho et aliis libris sacris predictus sit Messiz adven- “tus, et illius Sacrificii efficacia, Legisque Mosaice imbecillitas, et abro- *‘oatio ; hane enim sententiam Apostolus juvare videtur, quando vertit, CHAP. X., 8—10. 149 “ev kearide BiBdiov in fronstispicio libri, etenim per vocem =D, sim- “ pliciter positam, indigitari libros sacros, abunde patet, ex cod. Misnico “ Megilla, cap. 3. (The passage of the Mishna here referred to is found “vol. ii, p. 394, of Surenhusius’ edition, at the foot of the page.) “Quare omnino explodendi sunt isti auctores, qui statuunt, epistolam “ Pauli inter libros canonicos non esse referendam, eo quod in illa male ‘‘ allegationes fiant ; quod falsissimum est, quoniam inter 7—D n>D2 et “ é€v eepanids B:BXéov nullum est discrimen.” ’Avdrepoy k.r.A. Ewald trans- lates, “ Weiter oben sagend, Opfer und Darbringungen und Siindopfer * wolltest du nicht, noch hattest ste gerne, die doch nach Gesetz dargebracht “werden, hat er dann gesagt, Siehe ich komme zu thun deinen Willen ? “‘ Er hebt das erste auf um das zweite zu bejahren.” * The Hebrew words are, ‘yn PN JAWM , oMneET AS Jaw ney, Zo do thy will (or good pleasure), O my God, I have delighted, and thy law is in the midst of my inward parts, And viewed in reference to this pro- phetic declaration of Ps. xl. 8, what a depth of meaning attaches to the testimony vouchsafed to Jesus at his baptism :—‘ And lo a voice from “heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matt. iii. 17), compared with Is. xlii. 1, ‘“ Behold my servant, whom “T uphold, mine elect iz whom my soul delighteth ; I have put my “spirit upon him,” &c. The Targum here reads xmwn av x7, behold my servant Messiah ; and R. David Kimchi says explicitly mont yom, This ts King Messiah. Thus approved, Christ the second Adam was sent forth into the wilderness, to reconquer, on the battle-field of tempta- tion, that which the first Adam in Paradise, through temptation, had lost. Verses 8—10.—Having first said (avetepov Aéywv) “ Sacri- “fice and offering and holocaust and sin-offering thou “ wouldest not, nor tookest pleasure in them” which are offered (7.c., albeit they are offered) in accordance with the law; then he said (rote elpnev, he said immediately after), Behold I am come to do thy will, O God.’ He taketh away the former order of things (7d mpétov, viz., the ceremonial law with its sacrifices) in order that he may establish (o77o7) the latter. (to Sedtepov, viz., God’s will). (And now the writer explains what is the will of God, which Christ has wrought, concerning us (1 Thess. iv. 3), even our sanctification.) By the which will we have been 150 CHAP. X., 11—18. sanctified, through the offering of tie body of Jesus Christ once for all. ' There is no real difficulty in the Messiah’s thus speaking in the present (future) tense. Isaiah (vii. 14) describes his prophetic vision as he saw it, so to speak, accomplished. ‘ Behold a virgin with child, “and bearing a son!” (2 77% ma ny mn). The author of the Nizzachon Vetus (p. 185), with a true Rabbinic contempt for women, remarks, that “the first Adam was possessed of a far higher dignity “than Jesus, because God made him come forth from pure and holy ‘earth, and that he had neither father nor mother, nor did he incur “the taint and soil of a mother’s womb.” 20 912 F JYEN=NT ONT “TON OI MD ND OND a PT RD mop) ATM ADIWe Ap Wz Our controversialist forgets that the promise of redemption was through the seed of the woman, and not of Adam (42) 817, TN p32 PH pa “T will put enmity between thy seed and her seed, he shall bruise,” &c.). And to this vantage ground of the woman St. Paul appears to allude (1 Tim. ii. 15) where he says, SwOjcerar dé dia tHs TeKvoyovias, z.e., by giving birth to the Messiah, who should repair the consequences of her fall. For the interpretation of Is. vii. 14, see Dr. M‘Caul’s Messiaship of Jesus, pp. 175—182. Dr. Gill writes, on Ps. xl. 7, ‘ In the volume of the book tt ts written of “‘me; either in the book of divine predestination, in the purposes and “decrees of God, Ps. exxxix. 16, or in the book of the Scriptures ; “ either in general, John v. 39, Luke xxiv. 27—44, or particularly in ‘the Book of the Psalms, Ps. i. 1, 2, and ii. 2, 6, 7, or rather in the ‘book of the law, the five books of Moses, since these were the only “books or volumes that were composed at the writing of this Psalm ; “and it has respect not to Deut. xviii. 15, nor ch, xvii. 18, nor Exod. “xxi. 6, but rather Gen. iii. 15.” Ewald (Das Sendschreiben an die Hebréer, pp. 114, 115) thus concludes his remarks upon chap. x. 7 :— “ Wenn aber unser Redner, in seiner Erklarung und Anwendung der “ Psalmenworte, das mittlere Glied, im der Buchrolle ist iiber mich “ geschrieben, v. 7, als eir dort bloss eingeschaltetes, nicht weiter ‘ heriicksichtigt, so folgt doch daraus nicht dass es fiir ihn keine weitere “ Bedeutung hatte: vielmehr fand er auch, in diesen Worten, ein “* Merkmal dass der Logos so geredet haben kénne, sofern é es ist, auf “welchen, schon in der Buchrolle, d.i. im Pentateuche, hingewiesen ““ werde.” Verses 11—18.— Moreover every priest stands daily minis- tering, and offers the same sacrifices repeatedly, which CHAP. X., 11—18. 151 can never remove (the guilt of) sins (epsehety dpaprtias). But He (Jesus), when He had offered one sacrifice on behalf of sins, sat down for ever on the right hand of God. (Ps. ex. 1.) Thenceforward waiting until his enemies be made the footstool under his feet. (Why?) Because by one offering He has perfected ror EVER those who have been sanctified (tovs dysafopévous, those who have been made holy, by his expiatory blood). Moreover the Holy Ghost is our witness on this point. For after having first (Jer. xxxi. 33) said, This is the covenant which I will make with them :—The Lord saith (Jer. xxxi. 33, 34), after those days’ (aya sams) L will put my laws into their hearts, and upon their understandings will I write them, and their sins and their iniquities I will remember no more (ov pn pvnc@o éTl, TY ADIN NS). Now where remission (aPeous) of these is, sacrifice (77pocgopa) for sin is no longer (requisite.) ? On the meaning of Dm 7 MRK, see note 3, p. 9. t=} ) >] Because, as Daniel had foretold (ix. 24), the time has arrived “ to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness.” The day of type and shadow is now over; the high priest needs no more to go, as the people’s repre- sentative, once a year to make symbolical atonement for them in the Holy of Holies. They require no longer a fallible representative. The sentence of exclusion is revoked. The whole congregation is holy, and can go in boldly, in their own imparted right. The day of the Mosaic priesthood is past. Their occupation is gone. Nothing remains for them to do. Christ has done perfectly, and once for all, what they were evermore setting forth in 152 CHAP: X¥ 1201, prophetic parable. The vail is rent, and the mercy seat lies FOR EVER open, to those who draw near in reliance upon the all-atoning blood of Jesus. Verses 19—21.— As we have (éyovtes ody) therefore (con- tinues the writer, in the triumphant application of his unanswerable logic), as we have therefore unrestrained access’ to the Holiest, by (€v, in virtue of) the blood of Jesus, to wit, that new (mpocdatov)* and living way which He has consecrated (€vexaivicev) for us, leading through (6a) the veil; that is to say, his flesh ; as well as a High Priest*® (to preside) over the house of God (ézt TOV oikov TOD Ocod). 1 Tlappynotav eis thy eicodov ray dyiwv €v TO aipate Inoov. The following extract from the Mishna (/oma, cap. 8, sect. 8) excellently illustrates the unsatisfactory position of the Jewish penitent, who felt himself without any ready or certain access at all times to the forgiving presence of a reconciled God :— 99 Mp9 TAN AVON DY PIN ONE OY AN PID *NT OWN) NUT NED ONIT DY NW IY ANN NT nM OY) THN NP OY) TOY by Mp nay “ Victima pro peccatis, et victima pro delictis certis expiant : “Mors et Dies Expiationis expiant cum poenitentia; et poeni- “tentia expiat peccata levia, tam contra preecepta affirmativa quam “negativa; et gravia suspendit, donec veniat Dies Expiationis et “ expiet.”” Mishn. Surenh., tom. ii., 257. How different is the invita- tion of the writer to the Hebrews (iv. 16) :—IIpocepy@peba oty pera mappnoias TH Opov@ ths xdpitos, va AaBapev Eeov, Kal xapw eUpoper eis evkaipoy Bonbevav. Ewald renders verses 19—23 as follows :— Da wir “also, ihr Briider, Freimuth zum Eintritte des Heiligen mit Jesu’s “ Blute (welchen er uns als einen frischen und lebendigen Weg durch ‘‘den Vorhang einweihete das ist durch seinen Leib), und einen grossen “ Priester tiber das Haus Gottes haben: so lasset uns mit wahrhaftem *¢ Herzen herantreten im Vollstrome von Glauben, gelautert die Herzen “vom bésen Bewusstseyn, und gewaschen den Leib mit reinem Wasser, “asset uns das Bekenntniss der Hoffnung ungebeugt festhalten, den “treu ist der verhiess.” ? IIpéc¢garoy, literally, newly slain; then, fresh, recent, new. It probably here signifies ever fresh. Wettstein, with a strange misappre- hension of the easy transition from the sublime to the irreverent, heads CHAP. X., 22. 153 (in loco) a very elaborate collection of authorities upon the meaning of this word with the following quotation from Florus, 1, 15, 3 :—“ Alter “[{Decius Mus] quasi monitu deorum, capite velato primam ante aciem “diis manibus se devoverit, ut in confertissima se hostium tela jacu- “Jatus, novum ad victoriam iter sanguinis sui semita aperiret.” * I think that Prof. Stuart rightly understands iepéa péyay as equiva- lent to 52 77), which is the ordinary Hebrew for high priest. The writer has proved how groundless were the cavils and objections of the unbelieving Jews, who asserted that the converts had surrendered all their national and covenanted privileges at their baptism. He has step by step, turned the tables upon the objectors, and demonstrated that they are clinging to the discarded, worn-out types and shadows, whilst the believers in Jesus have chosen the good part, which cannot be taken from them. He here uses icpéa péyay, in preference to dpxtepea, as having a more technical and Jewish sound. He selects, so to speak, weapons of their own armoury, and beats them out of the field. Verse 22,—Let us draw near with a sincere heart (arnOwijs Kapolas, frank sincerity of purpose), having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience (amd cuvedjcews movnpas, from a guilty reserve ?), and our bodies washed with pure water.’ * A parallelism may be here intended between the water of baptism and the injunction given to Aaron (Levit. xvi. 4) that before he put on the highpriestly garments, which were symbolical of the beautiful attire of Christ’s imputed righteousness, he should ‘‘ wash his flesh in *‘ water, and so shall he put them on.” But I think rather that there is allusion made to the fulfilment of such prophecies as Ezek. xxxvi. 25. The Mishna closes its treatise Joma ((m the Day of Atonement) with the following explanation of the mystical efficacy of this annual expiatory ceremonial :— D'NDWIW DWIN DINN Wd 1 OMX PATO) °°) Ww OPWX NIPY "1 TON DR WHY Mpo AD “7 bev Mpd Ww) OMT) OAD OY DIY “AP WN PONT NX WD NT NI WPT AN ONODT “Rabbi Akiba said, Blessed are ye, O Israel, before Him in whose ‘presence ye purify yourselves! Who cleanses you? Your Father “which is in heaven, even as it is said, I will sprinkle clean water upon “ you (Ezek. xxxvi. 25), and ye shall be clean. The Lord speaks also of “the Fountain of Israel (Jer. xiv. 8; xvii. 13). What is the fountain “that cleanses the impure? The Holy One, blessed be He, cleanses “Tsrael.” (Mishna Surenh., tom. ii., p. 258.) x 154 CHAP. Ke Q2i Schoettgen gives (Hor, Hebr., tom ii., pp. 206, 207) the following early Rabbinical and Talmudical interpretations of Ezek, xxxvi. 25 :— “Et spargam in vos aquas mundus, et mundi eritis, Targum: Et remittam “ peceata vestra, tanguam si mundati essetis aquis puris et cinere vacce, “que sacrificium est pro peccato.—Sohar Exod., fol. 107, col. 435. “ Beata est portio Israelitarum, quos Deus S.B. purificat aquis mundis “ supernis q.d. Et Spargam.—Sohar Levit., fol. 20, col. 80, ad verba “ Numer, viii. 7, Et sic facies ad mundandum eos. Quid sibi volunt hee “verba: 72), et sic? Resp, xvvo1 so9, Ad modum supernum (h.e. “‘spiritualem). Insperge ipsis aquas sacrificii pro peccato, gue sunt “reliquie roris bdellit ex Paradiso nx7 xx, ad tempus futurum, q.d. “Et Spargam.—Sohar Levit., fol. 29, col. 113: KR. Jehuda dizit: “ Beati sunt Israelite in quibus Deus S.B. beneplacitum habet, illosque ““mundare cuptt, ne peccatum in illis inveniatur, ut in palatio illius “habitent. Et de ‘x7 wx, tempore futuro seriptum est: Et spargam “ vos.—Sohar Numer., fol. 75, col. 299. Beata est portio Israehtarum, “quibus Deus S.B. consilium dedit omnis sanationis, ut digni habeantur “vita mundi futuri, et inveniantur mundi in hoe seculo. Sancti vero ‘nxt xno. De his scriptum est: Et spargam in vos.—Pesikta, fol. “25, 4, et in Jalkut Simeoni 1, fol. 235, 1. In hoe mundo Israelite “mundi et immundi pronunciati sunt per ministerium Sacerdolis: verum xa) pnd, Deus SB. ipse purificabit eos q.d. et spargam.—Tanchuma, “fol. 44,2. Deus immisit mala per ministerium Angeli: verum xx THY, “ Deus bona exhibebit per semet ipsum, g.d. Et spargam. Ibidem, fol. “51,1. Dixit Deus S.B. ad Isratlem: In hoe mundo vos equidem “mundastis, sed rursum vos polluistis: verum si ny ego purificabo vos, “mony mim, purificatione eterna, ut non pollui debeatis, gq.d. Et “spargam.—Schir haschirim rabba, fol. 5, 1. Dixerunt Israelite ad * Mosen: Utinam Deus se adhuc semel nobis revelaret, utinam oscularetur “nos osculo oris sui. Respondit ipsis Moses: Hoc nunc fieri non potest : “verum x2) nv), fiet, g.d. Et auferam cor lapideum ex carne vestra. “—Kidduschin, fol. 72,2. Zradunt Rabbini nostri: Spurii et Nethinei “mundi erunt xi) vny>; ita statuit R. Jose. R. Meir vero dirit, non esse “mundos. Sed R. Jose objecit: Annon jamdudum seriptum est; Et ** Spargam.” ; The Mishna (Joma, cap. iii. 3) says, in reference to the washing of the priests,— avo POP Morr mya won Haow w wm “ex mard muyd 022 “Iw pR Wa WO PT AMET ma Sy wIpa yd Ova 12 wp) 7a yD - “No one entered into the hall [of the priests] to perform any minis- “tration, however clean he might be, until he had washed. The high “priest made use of five washings, and ten sanctificatory washings on CHAP. X., 283—29. 155 the day of atonement, and all of them were performed in the House “ of Hupparveh, in the holy place, the first washing alone excepted,” 7.e., the one before he came into the hall, which took place in the common place above the water-gate. Mishna Surenh., vol. ii., p. 218. “ Domus Happarve locus erat in atrio, quo pelles victimarum “ saliebant...... In tecto ejus erat domus lotionis pro Sacerdote magno “in die expiationis.”—Sheringham (ibid.). The authority for this statement is to be found in the Mishna (Middoth, cap. 5, 2) :— DY. bya yd AYIA MA A AAA by) DWI NW PAV VT OW AMET Iw) DNe27 “Tn the Chamber Happarveh they used to salt the hides of the “sacrifices, and upon the roof thereof there was a lavatory for the “high priest on the day of atonement.” Jfishnah, Surenh., tom. v., p. 376. Verses 23—29.—Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering (i.e., let us be outspoken and un- hesitating in our profession of hope in Christ, unmoved by the sophistries and jeers and persecutions of the unbelieving Jews), and let us consider one another (ckatavod@mev, study one another) for the purpose of inciting one another to love and to good works. Not forsaking (éyxatanXelrovtes, intermitting, leaving off) the assembling of ourselves to- gether (doubtless for the purpose of worship and Chris- tian fellowship), as is the custom of some’ (probably “for “fear of the Jews,’ who would set spies*® to watch, and to report against them), but rather comforting (7rapaxan- odvtes, and exhorting.—See Mal. iii. 16) one another, and so much the more, as ye see the day (foretold by Christ in reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, and also previously by Daniel ix. 26, 27, as to follow closely upon the times of Messiah’s earthly ministrations and death—) approaching. For when we sin (duaptavovtar, i.e., apostatize) delibe- rately (Exovcliws, of free choice, voluntarily) after we have received the knowledge of (ueTa 70 NaBetv Tiv eriyvacw, after having accepted and acknowledged) the truth, there is no further sacrifice for sin in reserve, but (on the contrary) a certain terrible anticipation of judgment (xpicews, con- 156 CHAP. X., 23—29. demnation) and fiery indignation (7rupos &Aos),° which shall presently consume (é€o@iewv péAXovtos) the adversaries. (Mal. iv. 1—3.)* Whosoever set at naught (a0eTncas, infringed, violated ; i.e., the presumptuous rebel) the law of Moses, is doomed to death (aroOvjcxec), without mercy, upon the testimony of two or three witnesses. (Numb. xy. 30, 31, xxxv. 30; Deut. xvii. 6.) Of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be thought worthy, who has trodden under foot® (Matt. vii. 6) the Son of God, and accounted the blood of the covenant, wherewith He was sanctified, a common (xovov, profane, unclean) thing, and has outraged (évuBpicas) the Spirit of Grace? (See note 2, pp. 125—127.) * Mn eykaraXeinovtes thy emisuvaywyny éavtov, Ewald (Das Sendschreib- en an die Hebr., p. 118) writes on these words :—‘‘ Insbesondere nicht “unterlassend das, den Heiden gegeniiber, eigne Zusammentreten mit “ einander in den sontiiglichen Fristen und iibrigen christliche Feierta- “ gen, wie einige pflegen (was nun ganz nahe auf die in jener besondern “Gemeinde gemachten Erfahrungen anspielt) sondern dieses christliche “mit einander Zusammentreten aufmunternd mit allen guten Mitteln “der Rede und Ermahnung férdernd. Damit wird deutlich genug auf “die Lassigkeit in allem christlichen Eifer angespielt, welcher gerade “zu Anfange dieses ganzen Abschnittes, v. 11, schon sehr empfindlich “kurz bezeichnet war, und unten weiter zu bezeichnen seyn wird ; das “lassige besuchen der gemeinsamen Erbauung war der schlimmste ** Anfang davon.” Schoettgen (Hor. Hebr., tom. i., pp. 982, 983) gives amongst others, the following illustrations from the Jewish writers :— “ Sohar Exod., fol. 14, col. 56, ‘‘ Non necesse habet homo x20 xwenx, “pd ut se separet a congregatione multorum, quia solus non observatur, “et Satanas talem facile in coelo accusat.””—Berachoth, fol. 8, 1, R. Levi “ diwit : Quicunque habet Synagogam in urbe sua, et lam non ingreditur “ad orandum, ile vocatur incola malus g.d. Jerem. xii. 14. Sie dicit “ Dominus ad omnes incolas malos, tangentes hereditatem, quam dedi ““populo meo Israel: ecce ego evellam illos ex terra sua. Veque hoc “tantum sed etiam caussa exilii est sibi et filiis suis—Pirke Aboth, “ei, 4, Midlel dixit: wrzm yo Joxy wren dx, We separes te a congre- “ gatione.—Taanith, fol. 11, 1, Tradiderunt Rabbini nostri: quando-~ “ cunque Israelite in afflictione versantur, 72 InN wy), et unUs eorum “se abstrahit, duo Angeli ad ipsum veniunt, manusque capiti ipsius CHAP, X, 30; st: 157 “imponunt, dicentes : Hic homo, W227 }> WrEw, qui se separat a coetu “non videbit consolationem, que Ecclesie tanget.” ? When my father, the late Dr. M‘Caul, was Rector of St. James’s, Duke’s Place, which is in the heart of the Jewish quarter in London, we heard that Jewish watchers were placed at the avenues leading to the church, to exercise oversight over any Jew that might be tempted to enter the place, and to report on his conduct. ® This is a Hebraism equivalent to T»2p wr, fire of Jealousy, Ps. |xxix. 5, Ezek. xxxvi. 5 (comp. xxxviii. 19), Zeph. i. 18, ii. 8, comp. Deut. xxix. 19 (20). * There is no doubt that the Writer refers to the predicted and awful woes that were coming upon Jerusalem and Juda at the hands of the Romans. Even then the Judge was before the doors. ° An allusion to the blasphemous abjuration of an apostate to Judaism. (See note 1, p. 63.) Verses 30, 31.—For we know who it is that hath said, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay”? (Deut. xxxii. 35),' saith the Lord, and again, “The Lord will judge his people.” (Deut. xxx. 36.) “It is a fearful thing’ to fall into the hands of the living God ”’ (7.e., such a fate, so terrible a doom is impending over the impenitent, God is ready to judge them. Will you forsake your own mercies, whereby you have clean escaped the judgment of the wicked and the adversaries? God himself will presently interpose on behalf of his people—See note below—Why should you participate in the condemnation of the wicked ?). ' Oidapev yap tov eimdyta’ epot exdiknots k.7.A, DW) OP? % to me belongeth avenging and recompensing. LXX., ev npépa exdixnoews avrarod@cw. The Targum of Onkelos thus paraphrases these words in the preceding and following verses :—‘‘ Are not all their works “manifest before Me, laid up in my treasures against the day of “Judgment? Their punishment is before me, and I will repay in the “time of their dispersion from their land ; for the day of their ruin ‘‘draweth near, and that which is prepared for them maketh haste.” The Targum of Jonathan reads, “ Vengeance lies before me, and I will ‘‘recompense them at the time when their foot shall move to the cap- “tivity, for the day of their destruction is coming near, and the evil 158 CHAP. X., 30; 31. “which is prepared for them maketh haste.” Now if these Targums correctly represent the current traditional interpretation of the ancient Jewish Church, as there is no reason to doubt they do, it will be seen that the above quotation from Deut. xxxii. 35 was, by it, regarded:as a prophetic indication of national punishments coming upon the Jewish people. The verse quoted follows upon a terrible catalogue of woes denounced by Moses upon the Jews, as yet to come upon them for their, yet future, departure from God. The reason why the Writer to the Hebrews employed it upon the present occasion, becomes very apparent. He warns the converts from again, by apostacy, casting in their lot with that evil generation of men upon whom God's wrath was speedily about to come to the uttermost. Whereas, the words quoted from Deut. xxxli. 36, “ The Lord will judge his people,’ are words of reassurance to the same converts under their persecutions. The entire verse (the first two clauses of which are repeated verbatim in Ps. exxxv. 14) reads,—“ For the Lord shall judge his people, and repent himself for “his servants, when he seeth that their power (Heb., hand) is gone, ‘and that there is none shut up and left (2"») sv, 7¢e., ‘bond or free,’ “clausus et manumissus, i.e., mancipiwm et liber, sc. omnes homines, “Gesen )”” The Targum of Onkelos has on this latter verse, “‘ For the “Lord shall decide the judgment of his people, and the avengement of ‘his righteous servants shall be avenged, for it is seen before Him, “that in the time when the stroke of their enemies would prevail “against them they will be wavering, (as those who) are forsaken.” The Targums of Jonathan and Jerusalem, in like manner, both under- stand the words, “‘ He shall judge his people,” in a consolatory sense, and as equivalent to ‘‘He shall judge the cause of his people.” (See Etheridge’s Targums, in loc.) Ewald (in loc., p. 119) remarks upon this 30th verse :—* Und um alles zu schliessen wird v. 30 f. noch hinzuge- “fiigt: Denn wir wissen, aus den bekannten Worten welche in dem ** Messianischen Liede Deut. 32,34 f. nahe genug bei einander stehen, “was diese Gericht zu bedeuten habe, und wie furchtbar es set in die ** Hinde, nicht etwa menschlicher Richter, welche héchstens den Leib “ vernichten kinnen, sondern des lebendigen Crottes selbst hineinzufallen, “sin Saz welcher fiir einen Christen aus Christus’ worten selbst Matt. 10, 18, deutlich genug ist, und hier schon nach dem ganzen Zusam- ‘‘menhange der Rede, auch nach der grossen Veriinderung der Zeiten, “ eine ganz andere Bedeutung hat, als dort 2 Sam. 24. 14, vgl. Jer. 22, 25, “1 Chr. 21, 13.” Michaelis (/ntrod. to New Testament, vol. iv., tr. by Marsh, p. 256), basing his statement, doubtiess, upon the fact that the words Aéyet kvpios are not found in the Hebrew text, but which are palpably supplied by the writer in explanation of otSapey k.7.A, asserts CHAP. X., 32—34. 159 that the passage ‘differs both from the Hebrew text and the Septua- “int, and this passage is again quoted in the very same words in “ Rom. xii. 19.” With regard to the LXX. Michaelis is right, but with regard to the Hebrew, cow op: , he is guilty, to say the least, of a misrepresentation. The fact is, the Writer here, as also in Romans xii. 19, translates literally from the Hebrew, quite independently of the LXX. This coincidence, in translation, in both passages seems to point to a common authorship of both epistles, and not, as Michaelis continues, ‘‘ This agreement in a reading, which has hitherto been dis- “covered in no other place (!), might form a presumptive argument “that both quotations were made by the same person. and consequently “that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written by St. Paul. But the “argument is not decisive ; for it is very possible that in the first “century there were manuscripts of the LXX. with this reading in * Deut. xxxii. 35, from which St. Paul might have copied (!) in Rom. xii. 19, and the translator of this Epistle in Heb x. 30.” Such were the commencements of that miserable style of forced criticism to bolster up some favourite theory, with which Scriptural philology has been afflicted ever since. * poBepoy ro eumeceiv «tA. “Sohar Exod. fol. 23, col. 92, “gap wy wn xwip NmDT prRXd m1 Ve illis, quibus Rex Sanctus bellum indicit, q.d. Exod. xiv. 3. Deus est vir belli”’ (Schoettg. Hor. Heb., tom. i., p. 983.) And now the Writer appeals to the early experi- ence of his readers. When first they embraced Christianity they had made up their minds to suffer for the Gospel’s sake. They did, moreover, suffer loss of all things. He appeals to them, and asks, What reason do you now see for altering your mind, and repining at persecutions and distresses, which you then bore with unflinching fortitude and equanimity? And so he continues :— Verses 32—34,—But remember the former days, viz., those in which after ye were first enlightened (see note 3, p- 61), ye endured (vmeyetvate, ye bore up stedfastly and patiently) against a great fight (woAAjv aOAnoty, a 160 CHAP. X., 32—34. mighty struggle, see pp. 2, 3) of sufferings. Being on the one hand, made a public spectacle’ by insulting outrages (dveducpois) and afflictions (OrAipeot, vexatious and harass- ing troubles), and on the other, having become the com- panions (Kowwvol, the associates) of those who were thus treated.” Ye also sympathised with my own bonds,” a.é., in those days you had compassion to spare for me also. Sm 3s, literally, then it was begun to call upon the name of CHAP. XI, 4. 181 Jehovah. The Targum of Onkelos paraphrases these words with an exactly opposite meaning :— “Then in his days the sons of men desisted (or “ forbore) from praying in the name of the Lord;” ‘and the Targum of Palestine or Jonathan, ‘“ That “was the generation in whose days they began to “ err, and to make themselves idols, and surnamed ‘“ their idols by the name of the Word of the Lord.” Doubtless these latter interpretations arose from the well-known signification of the verb bon, ¢o profane. J. A. Danzius (Schechina, ad Joh. xiv. 23, p. 7388e) quotes from Bamidbar Rabba, “Cum ‘‘ weneratione Enosi succedente, idololatree fierent, * juxta (Gen. iv. 26) Tune profanatio introducta fuit, “ nomine Jehove alis tributo: ideo subduxit Sche- “ chinam vel cohabitationem (sc. Deus) in Expansum “tertium.’ Nevertheless, although %5n occurs only in Gen. iv. 26, in the Hophal conjugation, the Lnglishman’s Hebrew Concordance gives more than fifty examples in which it signifies fo begin, in the Hiphil. J. G. Meuschen, in his Oratio de Directoribus Scholarum Hebreorun, yp. 1200 (printed in his Nov. Test. ex Talmude illustr.), quaintly asserts, ‘“ Hoc certum est, piissimi Sethi “ optimum filium Henosum scholam, docente scrip- “tura (Gen. iv. 26), erexisse publicam; et in illa ‘““expossuisse divina oracula.”’ Luther translates, “ Zu derselbigen Zeit fing man an zu predigen von “ des Herrn Namen’”’; whilst the authorized Dutch version agrees with our English translation—* Toen “ begon men den naam des Heeren aan te roepen.” And so Delitzsch (Die Genesis, p. 163), ‘ Damals, 182 CHAP. XL, 5, 6. “in der Zeit des Enos, wurde begonnen ‘7 nwa 8775 “di. den Namen Jehova’s auzurufen..... Verg- “‘eich man xi) 8, xin, 4, xxi. 33, xyes eo “kann man tuber den Sinn dieser Worte nicht “ gweifelhaft sein: mit Enos begann die formliche “und feierliche Verehrung Jehova’s.” The Vulgate, on the other hand, has “ Iste coepit invocare nomen “ Domini.” It is but justice to Michaelis to add that he says, ‘“ It may be said, however, in answer “to this argument, that the author of the epistle “ consulted the Hebrew text, and, finding that the “ Greek differed from it, omitted the quotation.” Evidently our Gottingen Professor entertained a very poor notion of the accurate acquaintance of the canonical Jewish writers of the New Testament with their own national records, as contained in the Hebrew Scriptures. As to the notion of inspired guidance in their writings, it is not worthy to be taken into consideration ! Verses 5, 6.—By faith Enoch' was translated, so as not to see death, and he was not found, for God translated him. For, before his translation, it was testified of him that he pleased God. But without faith it is impossible to please Him. For he who cometh to God must believe that He is (i.e, in his personal and direct agency), and that He becomes a rewarder of those who seek Him out carefully’? (kal tois éxfntovow avtov prcbatrodoTns yiveTtat). 1 Tiare: "Evy perereOn x.t.’. Having now spoken of Abel the first martyr, the writer proceeds to mention Enoch, who was, to the Ante- diluvian World, what Elijah was to the Mosaic, and Christ to our own, viz., a guarantee of the reasonableness of the hope of a glorious immor- tality, even of that true life which is hid with Christ in God. Enoch and Elijah doubtless form no exception to the laws of our nature which CHAP, XI, 5, 6. 183 make it impossible for flesh and blood to see the kingdom of God. They underwent the change which St. Paul assures the Corinthians (1 Cor. xv. 51, 52) shall overtake those who are on earth at Christ’s appearing. We shall not all sleep (kowunénodueba), but we shall be changed (ev dréuw, ev purf 6pOadpod). The dead shall be raised, and “we who remain shall be changed.” This putting off corruption was instantaneously effected by the power of God in the two cases above- mentioned. Of Christ, the apostle emphatically writes (1 Cor. xv. 20), Nuvi d€ Xpiotds eyryeprar ek vexpay, amapxi TOV KeKoynpevay €yévero. It was needful, in order to show forth the exceeding greatness of his power, and the reality of his victory over death and the grave, that He should sleep among the dead. It was by his power, that these his servants, Enoch and Elijah, were translated. Although Philo (De Abrahamo, Works, Mangey’s edition, vol. ii., pp. 3, 4, and De Premiis et Penis, ibid., p. 411, and also De Nominum Mutatione, ibid., vol. i., p. 584) allegorises the translation of Enoch, and the fact that he “was “not found,” and explains it of “conversion from a worldly life and “carnal pursuits”; yet, in the last mentioned passage, he says, ’Ezecd}) kal petateOnvat Aéeyera, TO 8 eat, petaotHvat Kal perotkiay oretAag Oat Thy amo Ovytod Biov mpos tov aOavarov, ‘‘ But when he is said to have been “translated, this signifies that he migrated, and proceeded from this “ mortal life to the immortal.” In like manner Philo speaks of Abraham (De Sacr. Abelis et Caini), Kat yap ABpadp exdurov ta Ovnta mpooriberat T@ Oc0d ag, Kaprrovpevos apOapoiay, toos ayyéhos yeyovas’ cyyehou yap atpards eior Oeov, domparor kai evdaipoves uxal. ‘ Abraham also having “quitted this mortal state, is united to the people of God, being a “ partaker of incorruption, and having become equal to the angels ; for “the angels are the host of God, incorporeal and happy souls.” (Works, Mang., vol. i., p. 164.) Josephus (Antig. i., 3, 4) mentions the translation of Enoch in the following terms :— Otros (joas révre Kal e€nKovta Tpos Tots TpLakogiots, avexopnoe pos TO Ociov' GOev ovde TeNeUTHY avrov avayeypapact. “This man having lived 365 years, departed to “ the divine estate ; and this is why they have not recorded his end.” The Rabbies, and especially the Cabbalists, have indulged in a variety of wild theories respecting Enoch, eg, that he was identical with ween, Metatron, a name given to the Angel of the Covenant, or Michael, and which statement is found in the Targum of Jonathan. See Surenhusius, BiG. Kara\X., pp. 708—712, and J. Rhenferdii, Observatio ad Jude epist., v. 14, p. 1044 (Meuschen). But what is more important, is the fact that the doctors of the early Jewish Church were not ignorant of the prophetic declaration of Enoch cited by St. Jude (who calls him, after the Jewish fashion, €8dopos dé Addy, DIND -yIw), 184 CHAP. XI, 5, 6. and which declares that Christ shall come with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon all.” Here, then, we have in minia- ture, the sum of Enoch’s faith, by which he pleased God, and also the. explanation of the statement that “ he that cometh to God, must believe “that He is, and He is a peo @amodérns of all those who diligently seek ‘*Him.” Observe, that St. Jude by no means guarantees the authen- ticity of the apocryphal book of Enoch. He simply endorses as genuine, a single saying of the prophet’s. Enoch’s faith, then, consisted in a persuasion that Christ would come ; that He would come to judgment ; that He would bring his saints with Him. It was a very definite one (see Ewald, Das Sendsehr. a.d. Hebr., p. 128), being, in fact, a Premessianic Christianity. Surenhusius observes (p. 712), in reference to Jude 14, “ Eadem Phraseologia occurrit apud Mosem Deut. xxxiii. 2, “map mai ane ef veniet (Dominus) cum myriadibus sanctitatis, ubi “PD. Raschi notat per simplicem vocem wp intelligendos esse wip ‘2x0 “ angelos sanctos. Hance phrasin Apostolus Paulus etiam imitatus est in “1 Thess. iii. 13, pera mavrev trav ayiwv airov.” It is plain, however, from 1 Thess. iv. 14, that not only the angels are intended, for there it is written, ‘Them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.” In conclusion, I would observe that Enoch is cited by the writer to the Hebrews, as an example and witness to the consoling truth, that a careful walk with God, in the midst of a crooked and blaspheming generation, cannot fail to meet with the promised recompense of reward in eternal life. * Tleorevoa yap det «.7.A. Philo writes as follows (Quis rerum divin. heres.) in commendation of the excellency of an unhesitating faith in God :—Ed 6€ 76 pavat, Aoyeo Onvat Thy Tiotw eis Sikacoavyny aitd. Atkatoy yap ovUTa@s ovdev, as axpdT@ kal dpeyet TH mpos Oedv pdvoy rioTer Kexpnobat. TO d€ dikatov kal dxddovOoy TovTo ri picet, mapddoEoy evopicbn Sia tiv Tov TOANOY driotLav Hav, ods ehéyxwv 6 tepds Adyos Hyo, Gre Td eri povw TO Gyre BeBaiws kai dkdwds dppeiv, Oavpacroy pev map avIpanots, ois ayabay ddddwv Kriots ovK eat, ov Gavpacror dé rap’ adnbeia BpaBevovon, Sikatoovvns & avrd pdvov épyov. ‘It is well spoken, that faith was reckoned to him “for righteousness ; since there is nothing so just as to have a sincere ‘and unmixed faith in God alone. But this, although just and agree- “able to nature, has been accounted paradoxical, on aceount of the “unbelief of many amongst us. In reproof of whom, the Holy Scrip- “ture declares, that to lean fixedly and firmly upon Him Wuo AtonE “Ts (Jehovah), although surprising to men who do not possess unalloyed “good things, is nevertheless not so in Truth’s award, for it is the very “work of righteousness itself.” (Works, Mangey’s Zdit., vol. i., p. 486.) CHAP. XI., 56. 185 And again, tid., pp. 485, 486 :— *Avaykalos oby emdéyerat, entotevoey ABpadp T@ O€G, mpos Exawov rod memtorevkoros. Kaito. raya ay tis elmot, Toor d£vov ératvou kpivere ; ris dé ovK ay Tt €yorTt Kal Umtaxvoupéve G€G mpovéexor tov voor, Kay et mavrov ' ddtkadrates Kal doeBécraros dy Tuyxavor; mpos bv epodper, pi & yevvate, > ? a A \ > \ , > , a - , \ aveEetdotws, ) Tov aodov abédyn ta mpérovra eyk@pta, 7) Tois avaklows tiv Teel@TatHy aperav TioTW puptupnons, i) thy NMETEpav TeEpt TovTwY yroow > £ La A > ’ > - A A s > , airiacn. BaOurépay yap ei BovdnOens epevvar kat ju) opodpa eénuddaroy monoacba, capas yvoon drt Hovm Ge xwpis érépou TpoomaparnWews ov padioy meorretoat, did tip mpos TO Oynrov @ ouvefevypsOa, ovyyeverav’ Sep NeGs Kat yphyact, Kat d0€n, Kai dpyq kai dirois, vyela Té Kal pon odparos, kai @\Xows roddois dvaretOer memortevKéevat. To 6€ exvivracOa tottev €kagTov, kal dnote a yevéoes Th wavra e& éavrns ariot@, ove d€ merredoat OQ" TO kal mpods adrAecav pdva TLIT@, peydAns kal dAvyriov diavolas épyov eal, mpos ovdevds ovxére deheaopevns ray rap’ jyly. “ Of necessity therefore it is added, Abraham believed God, in praise “of him who believed. Perchance some one will say, Do you, then, “think this worthy of praise? What man is there, however depraved “and itreligious he might be, who would not render credence to God, “should He speak to him and promise him anything? To such an “ objector we would reply, Beware, good Sir, that you defraud not the “wise man of the encomiums which he has so well deserved ; nor impute } “to unworthy persons faith, that most perfect of virtues ; nor impugn “the opinion which we have expressed above. If you will only be at “the pains to investigate a little deeper, and not to act in so entirely “superficial a manner, you will clearly discover that to believe in God “only, without the aid of any other sup ort, is no easy matter, on ? ?! “ account of our close affinity with the mortal nature to which we are “so nearly yoked together. For the latter persuades us to believe in So “money, and glory, and power, and friends, and bodily health and ’ § ’ ) ’ yy “strength, and many other objects. But to purge away all these, and fo} ’ t=) 5] “to renounce entirely any confidence in the creature which is most “ unworthy of credit, and to believe only in God, who is, in very truth, “alone worthy of belief, this is the achievement of a great and celestial “mind, uncaptivated by anything such as this world affords us,” From Enoch, the writer passes on to the example of Noah, who ‘believed in God’s predictions of coming doom at a time when all things seemed to speak of the permanency of the world that then BB 186 CHAP. X1.,-°%. was, instead of its overthrow. He acted upon the admonition that he had received, and made all needful preparations, and so when the time came for God’s vengeance to awake, and to destroy an unbelieving and apostate earth, Noah realised that he had made a wise choice. He entered into the ark with his family, and was saved from the over- throw of the wicked. Verse 7.—By faith’ Noah, having been oracularly adver- tised concerning things of which there was not the smallest visible indication (wept Tov undérw Bret opéroyv), took the warning reverently to heart (evAaBnOeis) and constructed an ark for the preservation of his household, by which he condemned the world (xatéxpive tov Kdcpor), (z.e., he demonstrated -its fatuous incredulity in refusing to listen to his protracted preaching—the world derided, but he was saved), and (also) became an heir of the righteousness which is by faith (xal tis Kata tiotw dikaloavyns eyéveTo KAnpovomos, t.e., he became an heir expectant). ' Iliores xpypariobeis Noe x.7.A. Ewald translates the passage thus :— ‘In Glauben bereitete Noah, gottgewarnt iiber das noch nicht zu “schauende, in achter scheu einen Kasten zum Heile seines Hauses, ‘ihm durch den er die Welt verurtheilte,” &c, * We must not, in interpreting these signal victories of faith over temptation and the world, suffer ourselves to wander into vague gene- ralities and diffuse platitudes, but keep closely to the design which the Writer to the Hebrews has in view, in holding them up to the perse- cuted and wavering converts for imitation. Many true and excellent remarks may be made in respect to the above, but such digressions can only serve to divert our attention from the primary warning and con- solation which they are intended to convey. The real point at issue is, how did these historical events bear upon the subject which occupied the writer’s thoughts? How are the episodes related, in consolatory parallelism with the condition of those to whom, for a very definite purpose, they (6.5 Be cee Oma 187 were recited? The writer is contrasting the advantages mlorews, with the perilous drawbacks troorodjs. He is illustrating and exemplifying the declaration in Habak. ii. 4, ‘‘ His soul which is lifted up is not upright “in him, but the just shall live by his faith.” (See note 7, pp. 164—168 ) To this idea we must keep close if we would elicit the true meaning of the writer to the Hebrews. The words of Habakkuk are, so to speak, the text upon which the discourse contained in the 11th and 12th chapters of the Hebrews is based. To understand the real drift of the sermon, we must not allow the text to pass out of our recollections. To my mind, then, the resemblance between the position of Noah and the Hebrew Christians consists in the condition of isolation in which, as believers, they found themselves. Noah must have made great sacri- fices to accomplish what the world considered a mad scheme. The construction of the ark must have given occasion to many a sneer and witticism. The result proved that he was right and they were wrong. The flood came and destroyed all the infidels. So it was with the converts from Judaism. They had sacrificed their all. They had become the filth and offscouring of the world. Was, then, the loss commensurate with the expected reward? Yes verily! It was but ert pukpov 6oov doov, and then the deluge of fire and blood broke loose upon devoted Judxa. The Hebrew Church and nation, the temple, and all else that seemed so fair and substantial (Matt. xxiv. 1, 2,— Mark xiii. 1, 2,— Luke xxi. 5, 6), were swept away. But at Pella the believers had taken refuge ; they had fled from the city, as Christ bid them to do when they should see Jerusalem encompassed with armies, and not one of them perished in the overthrow of the unbelievers. Thus they also ‘‘condemned” the world, and afterwards became in- heritors of the righteousness which is by faith. I cannot help thinking the expression tis kata miotw Sikaooiyns eyévero KAjpovopos means far more than merely that Noah was put-in possession of justification by faith. It seems to me to indicate that he became a progenitor of the promised Messiah. (Luke iii. 36.) Philo (De migratione Abrahami) in commenting on the promise given to Abraham, “In thee shall all “the families of the earth be blessed,” adduces Noah as an illustration of the fact that the blessings of good men are transmitted to latest posterity, inasmuch as he became one of the ancestors of Israel: evapycotaréy dé mapddevrypa Nae 6 Sikatos, bs TO peyd@ Katak\vo pe TOV TOTO’T@Y pepav THs Wuyxis eyKatamobévTay, éppapevws emkvpaticov kal emwnxopevos, trepavw pev eotn Tov Sewav andvtov, Otacwbels dé peyddas Kal Kadds ad’ avrod pitas €Bdddero, e& ov cia dutdv 1d codias aveBAdotnoE yevos, OmEp HhepoToKHaay, Tovs TOU dpavTos ‘IoparA, TpitTous ieyke Kaprovs, ai@vos pérpa, tov "ABpaap, Tov ‘Ioadk, Tov lakoB. “ We 188 CHAP. xa 77. “have a bright example in Noah the Just, who at the great flood, “when so large a portion of human life was drowned, bravely rode out “the waves and swam aloft, and so escaped all the horrors of the dread “scene. But after his escape he put forth fair and widespread roots, “from which, like a plant, the race of Wisdom buddeth forth. This “plant with genial fecundity bore the three fruits of Israel who yet “sees it, cozval with eternity, to wit, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” (Works, Mangey’s Edit., vol. i., p. 455.) So also the same author writes again (De Abrahamo),—Mévos 6¢ eis oikos, 6 Tov hex Oevros avdpos Stxaiov kai Oeopidods, Stace Cera, dV0 AaBdvTos Tas avaTatw Sepéas, play pev, Hv eimov, TO py TaGL TOvTOLS TuVaTrohéT Oat, ErEepay Se TO Tad aiToY apxnyéeTnY tmapEa véus avOporar onopas’ nEiw@oe yap adrov 6 eds Kal TEOS TOV Tov yévous Kal dpxiy yevérOa, Téhos pevy TOY mpd TOV KaTak\vopov, TOV é€ peta Tov KaTakAvopoy, apxnv. ‘ But only one household, to wit, that “of this aforesaid just and God-beloved man, was saved; and he “yeceived the two above-mentioned gifts: first, that he should not “perish with the rest of mankind ; the second, that he should be the” ‘head and founder of a new generation of men. For God honoured “him to be, so to speak, the end and the beginning of our race. The ‘‘ last of those before the flood, and the first of those that came after it.’ (Works, Mangey’s Edit., vol ii., p. 8.)—In Ezek. xiv. 14—20, Noah is spoken of as being one of the cardinal saints of the Old Testament dispensation, and Philo (De Congress. quer. erudit. gratia, ibid. p. 533) notices that Noah is the first to be called “just ” in the Holy Scriptures, gpatos 8 otros Sikatos ev rats tepais dveppynOn ypadais. He alludes to Gen. vi. 9, vii. 1, where it is said, DTxq nx yn WT OVN PIS wR mann, and, m7 W732 3H) PIS N71 JAN 2. Here, then, we see that Noah received the same testimony that “he walked with God,’ as Enoch did. What Enoch’s faith was we have already seen. The hopes and belief cherished by Noah are apparent from Gen ix. 26, 27, which the Targum of Onkelos paraphrases thus,—‘ Blessed be the «* Lord God of Shem, and Canaan shall be servant to them. The Lord ‘shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall make his Shekinah to dwell in the “tabernacles of Shem.” The Targum of Jonathan renders the con- cluding words thus,— The Lord shall beautify the borders of Japheth, “and his sons shall be proselyted and dwell in the schools of Shem,” &c. From this it will be evident that the early Jewish doctors regarded the prophecy of Noah as predictive of the kingdom of Messiah and the conversion of the Gentiles. Great importance attaches to these Tar- gumic interpretations of Scripture, inasmuch as there is good ground for’ believing that they afford a fair index of current Jewish opinion in apostolic times, Some even assign to them an earlier date. The Oi. le i. 189 assent of our judgment may not always go with them, but in very many instances they are palpably right. Consolatory it is to see that in all ages of the Church there has been but “ one faith,’—that God from the very first appointed one and the same method of salvation, viz., faith in the atoning blood of his Blessed Son. The patriarchs and the “Seed of Wisdom” looked for a coming Saviour, whilst we who live in the “latter days” can take up the exulting words of the Beloved Disciple (1 John iv. 14) and say, “ We have seen and do testify, that “the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the World.” For an excellent sketch of the times of Noah, and of the condition of mankind immediately before the flood, the reader may, with profit, consult Dr. Delitzsch’s work Die Genesis, pp. 172—179. The examples have now been adduced of Abel the first martyr; of Enoch the Witness to the hope of Immortality and Glory; of Noah the Just, whose faithful walk, and the unshakeable credit which he ascribed to the promises of God, not only carried him safely through the wreck of an apostate world, but also made him the progenitor and heir-expectant of the Messiah. The writer now proceeds to dilate upon the self-abnegation and sacrifices which Abra- ham made by faith. He was the founder and father of the Hebrew race; the depositary of all the pro- mises, Whether to the Jewish people or to the world at large. And yet, illustrious as he was, his career was one of self-denial, of agonising suspense, of renunciation of all family ties and worldly endear- ments. He was honourable at home, and very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold (Gen. xiii. 2), yet all these advantages were to be foregone. Had he been so minded, he might have lived in affluence and respect amongst his kindred in his father’s house. But instead of this, a life of perpetual pilgrimage and vagrancy was imposed upon him. His rich 190 CHAP. XI, 8, 9. possessions were to be dependent upon the pre- carious tenure of the goodwill and forbearance of the lawless inhabitants of Canaan. Living im the world, he lived above it. The one object which he placed before him, as the solace of his renunciation of all that was dear and desirable in this life, was the certain fulfilment of the Promise, that in his seed all the families of the earth should be blessed. This was the next example set before the repining and persecuted Hebrew converts to take pattern by. Verses 8, 9.—By faith Abraham when called! (Gen. xii. 1—3) obeyed, even to going forth to the place which he was to receive as an heritage (e/s KAnpovouiav), and he did go forth, having no definite knowledge whither he was bound.” (Gen. xii. 5—7.) By faith he migrated to the land of promise, although it was not yet his own (as a2otpiav while it belonged to strangers.—Stuart), taking up his abode in tents with Isaac and Jacob, and the other joint heirs-expectant (cvveAnpovowwr) of the same promise. 1 Tlicret kadovpevos “ABpaap. Ewald renders “he who is to be called Abraham,” remarking, ‘‘ Nicht umsonst wird Abraham sogleich “von vorne v. 8, als der Abraham zu nennende vorgefiihrt, theils weil “er nach Gen. xii. damals erst Abram, noch nicht Abraham hiess, “theils und noch mehr weil dieser Name nach Gen. xvii. 4, f. mit der “ Verheissung der zahlreichsten Nachkommenschaft zusammenhingt.” (Das Sendschr, a.d. Hebr., p. 127.) And again (bid, p. 170), “Das “ Wortchen 6, vor kaXovpevos, findet sich zwar in Sin, nicht, ist aber “gewiss urspriinglich. Sollte das Wort bedeuten berufen, so miisste ‘es kAnGeis heissen und hinter "ABpady stehen.” The translators of the London Jews’ Society’s New Testament have 1772 OTN Yow ANNI. * Mi) emuordpevos mov epxerat. This was the first practical demonstra- tion of Abraham’s faith. He forsook all that was most dear and desirable, and followed the hope of the promised Messiah. He com- mitted his lifelong prospects to the custody of the promise. It was no CHAP. XI,-8,- 9. 19% rash and ill-weighed enterprise. He was at the time of his call of the mature age of 75 years, “‘ when he departed out of Haran” (Gen. xii. 4). He had counted the cost, and come to the conclusion that ‘ the suffer- “ings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the *“ glory that shall be revealed.” He obeyed, therefore, unhesitatingly when God said unto him, “ Get thee out of thy country, and from thy “kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew “thee: and I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, “and make thy name great ; and thou shalt be a blessing: and I will ‘bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee ; and in “thee (J2 12922) shall all families of the earth be blessed.” (Gen. xii. 1—3)} This last clause the Jerusalem Targum renders, “ and in thy “righteousness shall all the generations of the earth be blessed.’ The promise was a very wide one; but Abraham was contented to act upon it, and to leave the accomplishment to God. His faith was therefore in the strictest sense €Amifopevav indaracis, mpaypdtav €deyxos ov Bre- monevov. By it he exchanged immediate advantage for future blessed- ness, good things present for good things to come. ‘ Glauben war es “ hier und dort welcher ihn trieb, Glauben an Gott und seinen héheren * Segen welcher zur rechten Zeit schon kommen werde, wie es v. 6, “hiess : sowie hier v. 10 hinzugefiigt wird dass es doch inderthat nicht “dieses unruhige Zeltleben seyn konnte in welchem er die Erfiillung “aller Verheissungen zu sehen hatte, dass vielmehr schon Abraham ‘die nach Ps. lxxxvii. 1, wohlgegriindete Stadt erwartete deren Kiinstler “und Werkmeister kein geringerer als Gott ist, das himmlische oder “ Messianische Jerusalem, in dessen Bilde sich zur Zeit unseres Redners “alle Messianische Hoffnung leicht zusammen dringte, und das er hier “‘umso triffender beilaufig erwahnt, da es ja auch dem oben soviel “‘besprochenen irdische Heiligthum engegensteht.” (Ewald, Das Sendschr. a.d. Hebr., pp. 126, 127.) And so Philo writes,—dya 76 KedevOjvat petaviotato, Kat TH Wux mpd TOU GaMpatos Thy drotkiay €oreddeTo, Tov emi Tois OvnTois iwepov Tapevnpeporivtos Epwros odpariov. Ovdevos ody povticas, ov hrderay, ov Snporay, ov cuppornrdy, odx éraipov, ov Tav ad aiparos Goo mpos matpos i) pytpds joav, ov marpidos ovK dpxaiwy €av, ov avvtpodias, od cuvd.iaitioews, dv ExacTov dywyédy TE kai Svoandonagtov, oAKov Exov Sivapw, €devb€pois Kai adérors dppais Fj TaxtoTa peTaviotaTal, TO hey TpAToOv amd THs Xaddaiwv ys, évdaipovos xXepas, Kat kar ekeivoy dxuafovons toy xpdvov, eis tiv Xappaiay yi" €metta ov pakpay UaTepov, Kai ard TavTns eis Erepov TOmoy kK.T.A. * As soon as ever he (Abraham) received the command, he moved “out; but he began his removal from home in spirit before he did so ‘in person, and subordinated his affection for mortal things to the love 192 CHAP. XI, 10. “of heavenly things. He set on one side, therefore, the ties of “nationality, of people, of associations, of friends, of paternal and ‘maternal relationships, of country, of time-honoured habits, inti- “macies, and daily intercourse, each of which has a potent and attractive “influence, which cannot lightly be burst asunder or neutralized ; and, “of his pure and simple free will, he set out as quickly as he could, at “first from the land of the Chaldeans, which was at that period a “well-to-do and flourishing region, to the land of Charran. And no “Jong period afterwards, he migrated into another place,” &¢. (De Abrahamo, Works, Mangey’s Edit., vol. ii., p. 11.) And again (De Migratione Abrahami, ibid., vol. 1, p. 442, 443), Ilaparetnpnpevws S€ ov tov eveatata, adda Tov péeAdovTa TH Umocyere xpdvov mpodiwpiorat, eimov, ovy Hv Seikvupt, GAN fy cor deiEw, eis waptupiay mioTews nv eriaTevoev 1 WuxT) O€O, OUK eK TOV aTroTeegudToY emOeLKYULEYN TO é€vxdpiorov, GXN ek mpocdoxias Tov peAdAOvT@v. "AptnOeica yap Kal exkAenacbeioa eAridos xpnatis, kal dvevOolacta vopicaca Hon Tapeivat TA py mapovra, dua THY Tod UToaXopevov BeBaordrny miatw ayabby Tédevov, GOAov eUpyrat. “Very guardedly, he defines, in the promise, not the present, but “the future time; for he says, not [a land] which I do tell thee of, but, “which I will tell thereof, in testimony of the faith wherewith his soul “believed in God, and gave thanks, not for completed favours, but “ from an expectation of things yet to come. For as it hung and was *‘suspended from a good hope, and unhesitatingly esteemed things “ which were not as yet present to be present, on account of the most “assured fidelity of Him who promised, it received a perfect good “thing as its reward.” The same writer (De Abrahamo, ibid., vol. ii., p. 38) refers to Abra- ham’s faith in the following terms :—’Eot: 6€ kal dvaypantos émawos avTov, xpyopois paptupybeis, ods Mavojs eCearia@n, Oi of pnvverar dre emiatevoe TH Oecd. "“Orep NexOqvar pév Bpaxvirardy eotiv, epyw Se BeBasw- Onvar peyrorov. “* But his eulogy exists in writing, witnessed to by the “ sacred oracles which Moses, by Divine inspiration, indited. By him “ (Moses) it is intimated that he believed God. This is a thing very * easily said, but very difficult to be carried into practice.” Verse 10.—For he expected (€£edéyero, i.e., waited, kept his hopes and desires in reserve for) the city which hath the foundations, whose architect and founder is God.’ 1 Tt had been distinctly revealed to Abraham (Gen. xv. 7, 13—21) that the promise and grant of Canaan was for a remote period, and CHAP. XL, 10. 193 would not be ratified until after his death. “And He said, I am the “Tord that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees to give thee this “Jand to inherit it. And he said, Lord God, whereby shall I know “that I shall inherit it......... And He said unto Abraham, Know of a “surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, “and shall serve them, and they shall afflict them four hundred years. “ And also that nation whom they shall serve, will I judge ; and after- “ ward shall they come out with great substance. And thou shalt go to “thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age. But in “the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity “of the Amorites is not yet full......... In the same day the Lord made “a covenant with Abraham, saying, Unto thy seep have I given this “land, from the River of Egypt, unto the Great River, the river “ Euphrates.” This promise for Abraham’s seed, and not for himself, was given to him immediately after the assurance that God himself would be his “shield and exceeding great reward.” The Patriarch, upon receiving this personal promise, had complained, “ Behold to me “thou hast given no seed, and lo one born in my house is my heir.” “ And behold the word of the Lord came unto him. saying, This shall “not be thine heir (viz., Eliezer of Damascus), but he that shall come “forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. And he brought “him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the “stars, if thou be able to number them ; and He said, So shall thy seed “be. And he believed in the Lord; and He counted it to him for “righteousness.” Here, then, Abraham was left in no doubt whatever, that he should not participate in the possession of Canaan, at the same time that he was told, that his own reward should be a Divine one. He was contented to dwell in tents, to fulfil the appointed days of his sojourning, because he expected the city above that hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.—Ewald (Das Sendschr. a.d. Hebr. p. 128) observes, im loc., “ Und jedenfalls erhellt......... das die Religion “‘der Erzvater schon eine verhaltnissmassig sehr geistige von ewig “nachwirkender Bedeutung war.’ Abundant mention is made of the heavenly city of God, in the Old Testament Scriptures. It signified the eternal rest and peace, which God has provided in heaven, for all his believing servants. It is truly “the mother of us all.” (Gal. iv. 26.) And thus the Rabbies have referred, Is. xxvi. 1—2, to the world to come. (See Balth. Scheidii, Loca Talmudica, in Matt. xix. 14, Meuschen, Nov. Test. ex Talmudi illustr., p. 99.) J. Wesselius writes in his Fasciculus Dissertationum (Groningea, 1756, 4to., p. 465), “ Rabbini “frequenter loquuntur de 79»n bw DYwIY, Hierosolyma superiori, seu COELLET.. iie0.0s Videntur per Jerusalem Coelestem intelligere omne illud cc 194 CHAP. XI., 10. “gloriosum delectabile et sanctum, quod in Coelo est.” The very learned dissertations of this author on Heb xii. 18—24 may be con- sulted with great advantage, and will be found on pp. 409—519 of the above-mentioned volume. This is that “strong city” which the pir, faithful, shall inhabit (Ps. xxxi. 23.—See Wesselius, zbid., p. 464), and into which Isaiah xxvi. 3 declares DON ow PIB, (the righteous nation that keepeth truth,) shall enter. Of this heavenly city Philo in several places makes allegorical mention. Speaking of the “cities of refuge,” he says, Té pev yap Eavtod Ady 6 Ceds marpida oikeiv THY ETLaTHUNY EavTOV, ws dv aitdxOom Sedapytat, TS O ev akovoiows yevouev@ opadpaot, karapvyjy, os dOveim E€vnv, ovx @s matpida dora. “ God has “ given to His own Word the knowledge of Himself to inhabit as his “native fatherland, but to him who sins unwittingly, asa refuge offering “ hospitality to a stranger, not asa fatherland to a citizen.” (De Profugis, Works, Mangey’s Editn., vol. i., p. 557.) And again, tbid., "ANN od Con pev €or ai@vios 7) mpds TO bv Katapvy)), Oavaros S 6 ao rovTov Spacpos ; “* But “is not eternal life an escaping to the Selfexistent, and death fleeing “from Him!” And again, Myror otv 7 wey mpeoBurarn Kal oyupwtarn kat apiorn pytpoTroNts, ovK avTO pdvov TOALS, 6 Oeids eaTt Adyos, Ep bv mpaTov Karapevyew apediworaroy ; “Is not, then, the Divine Word the oldest “and strongest and best metropolis, (for it is not a city only) and to “flee to it, the most profitable of all?” (Zbid., p. 560.)—IIdyxador de kal evepkeorarar TOdeLs, akiov caecOa \uyav Toy aldva apiorai ye KaTa- gvyai, xpnotn oe kai d:AdvOpwros 7 Siatakis, ddeiar kal pooar mpos eveAmuotiav. “There are, then, passing fair and most secure cities, “ excellent places of refuge to boot, for souls that are worthy of eternal “salvation. It is verily a kind and humane institution, and well “calculated to brace a man up and strengthen him to entertain a good “hope.” (lbid.)—Ilporpéme: 5€ ody tov pey @kvOpopety ikavdy ovvteivew dm\evoTi mpos Tov dvardt@ Aédyov Oeiov, bs codias éoti mnyn, va apvodpevos Tov vapatos, avti Oavarov any aidioy GOdov evpnra. “ He intimates, there- “fore, that he who is able to run fast, should betake himself with “straight course to the Divine Word above, who is the fountain of ** wisdom, in order that, having drawn from that river, he may find “eternal life instead of death, as his reward.” (Zdid.)—The same writer (Quod a Deo mittantur Somnia, lib. iv., ibid., p. 691) declares that the “River of God” (Ps. lxv. 9) is the Divine Word, who is replete with a fountain of wisdom ; and again (zdrd.), in reference to Ps, xlvi. 5, “There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God,’ he observes that this cannot be the literal Jerusalem, because it stands remote from the sea and rivers; it must therefore signify the “ influence “ of the Divine Word, which is shed everywhere abroad, and cheers all Pita. M113: 195 “things. The city spoken of, is either the universe, or the sanctified soul “which drinks of the Divine Word.” It will be almost superfluous to remark, how wonderfully the above-cited sentiments of Philo correspond with the teaching of St. Paul, and of St. John in the Apocalypse, as well as with the statements of the Writer to the Hebrews respecting the hopes of the Fathers, and their expectation of an eternal and abiding city above. Verses 11—13,—By faith,’ Sarah herself reecived power to conceive’? (dvvauw els kataBodiy omépwatos édae, virtutem in conceptionem seminis accepit. Vulg.—Empfing auch Sara Kraft, das sie schwanger ward.—LZuth.), and gave birth after the ordinary time of life, because she believed * Him who had promised to be faithful (wiordv, as good as his word. Treu—Luth.). Wherefore there sprung from one, and him as good as dead (zwar einen abgelebten. Ewald.), like the stars of heaven in multi- tude, and as the sand which is along the seashore and cannot be numbered (4 rapa 7d XEtdos THs Oaradcons— Ov naw Sy, upon the lip of the sea—% avapiOunros. See Gen. xxii. 17). All these died‘ in faith (kata Tictw), not having received possession (ju) AaBovtes) of the promises ; but having seen them from a distance (7roppw- ev), and having been persuaded of them, and having embraced (do7acduevor) them (joyfully), and confessed (Gen. xxiii. 4) that they were strangers and sojourners (ore Eévou kal taper idnuol etgiv) upon the earth.® * In Gen. xvii. 17 we learn that the promise of a son by Sarah had been given to Abraham a whole year before Isaac was born, and also some months before the promise was repeated in Sarah’s hearing. [Comp. Gen. xvii. 15—19 with Gen. xviii. 10 and xxi. 5.] On this first occasion Abraham laughed, as Sarah did upon the second. He had apparently considered that the promise, “ He that shall come forth out “of thine own bowels, shall be thine heir,” (Gen. xv. 4) should be fulfilled in Ishmael ; and, therefore, when his name was changed from Abram to Abraham, in token that he should be a father of many nations (Gen. xvii. 5—18), and also when he was assured that Sarah herself should have a son, we find him saying unto God, “O that 196 CHAP, XT 11215. ‘‘Ishmael might live before thee!” For he “said in his heart, Shall a “child be born unto him that isan hundred years old? and shall Sarah “that is ninety years old bear?” The real fact of the case seems to be explained by St. Paul, Rom. iv. 19, when he writes pn do@evnoas TH moter [Gen. xv. 6], od Kkatevénoe TO EavTod GHpa Hn vevekpwpevoy éxarov- TaéTns Tov Umdpxov, Kal THY veKpwoow THs pHtpas Sdppas. Eis Oe Hv erayyediav Tov Geov bu OvexpiOn TH amtotia, ANN eveduvayebn TH mioreL, Sovs ddfav 7G Oecd. It was a momentary shock that both Abraham and Sarah experienced at an announcement so unexpected, and so contrary to the ordinary course of nature. But as soon as ever they realised the fact that such was God’s promise, doubt and hesitation were for ever dismissed. They were made strong in their faith. Not only did they assent to the possibility of the thing, but they firmly believed that God would keep his word. The Bible never represents flesh and blood as endowed with transcendental virtues, such as we know by experience we do not by nature inherit. God’s grace is evermore magnified, in its triumph over mortal frailty and infirmity. Instead of depicting these “elders who obtained a good report through faith” as paragons of virtue, they are represented with truthful fidelity, as subject to like weaknesses with ourselves, Thus, through patience, and comfort of the Scriptures, we have hope. We learn what we are by nature, and what we may become by grace. We look to the great cloud of witnesses, and are encouraged to trust In the same Captain of our Salvation by whom they prevailed. * Although the above translation is in accordance with a commonly accepted rendering of Svvayw eis kat. x.t.X., I cannot help feeling it to be of great weight that this is the only mstance out of the eleven in which xaraBodn occurs in the New Testament, where it seems to be used out of the ordinary signification of foundation. (See Matt. xiii. 35, xxv. 34, Luke xi. 50, John xvii. 24, Eph. i. 4, Heb. iv. 3, ix. 26, Rev. xiii. 8, xvii. 8.) A-translation more consonant to these latter passages would be, “ By faith, Sarah had strength imparted to her, in order that a “‘ nosterity might be founded.” And this rendering is in harmony with the repeated use of the word »v, omépya, in the Old Testament in reference to the posterity of Abraham, not only as regards the Hebrew nation, but as applied to the true Seed, even Christ. I cordially agree with what Professor Stuart says respecting the physiological torturing of these words, ‘‘to the disgust of every delicate reader, by some of the critics.” J. C. Wolfius (i loco), although he indulges pretty freely in comments of the nature so properly reprehended by Professor Stuart, yet candidly mentions the other opinion, saying, “ In “alia abit Gussetius in Commentariis L. Hebr., p. 234, rad. yu, Lit. B, SHAP) XT/ 113 197 “qui phrasin hane cum illa caraBod) kéopov, comparat et per fundati- “ onem sobolis interpretatur, sicut p. 846, rad. nw, lit, C, omépya hl. de “ posteritate, non autem humore genitali accipit.” * Ov podvoy aitds, GAG kal } yuvi) yeAG. A€yerar yap avdlis, eyédace SE Sappa €v éavth, héyovoa, ovrw pév por yéyovey Ews TOU viv dvev pehérys dravtopartivoy ayabdv' 6 8 troaxdpevos Kipids pov Kal mpeaBUTEpos maons yevereas eoTw, © ToTevVe avaykaiov. Not only he (Abraham) laughed, “but his wife laughed also. For it is said presently, dnd Sarah laughed “ within herself, saying, There never yet up to the present time happened “to me any spontaneous good thing without care on my part. But He ‘‘who promises is my Lord, and more ancient than the whole creation. “ T must needs therefore believe Him.”—Philo, De nominum Mutatione, Works, Mangey’s Edit., vol. i., p. 603. See also De migratione Abrahami, ibid., p. 455 :—Akovoacay yotv ev dpxi tiv yuvaika cacti yehaoat, Kal pera Tair eimdvt@v, Mi ddvvatei Tapa TH Oe@ pyya, kataderOcioav apynoacba Tov yédwra’ Tavra yap ndet Oe@ Suvata, ayeddy e&€Te omapyavev TouTt TO Odypa tpopabovoa. Tédre pot Soxet mpatov ovk €0 dpoiay Tov 6pa- pevav aBew avraciay, adda cemvorepay, 7) Tpodntay Twav i) ayyédov peraBaddért@y and Tmvevpatikns Kal Wuxoedovs ovcias eis avOpanépoppoy idéav. “ They relate that his wife also laughed, and yet after they had “said, Is anything too hard for God? she was ashamed, and denied “that she laughed. For she knew that with God all things are possible, “for she had learned this doctrine almost from her swaddling clothes. “ From that moment she seems to me to have formed quite a new idea *‘ of the men she saw before her, viz., a much more respectful one, z.e., “that they were prophets or angels, who had exchanged their spiritual “and incorporeal natures into the form and fashion of men.” (De Abrahamo, ibid., vol. ii., p. 17.) * In Gen. xv. 15 it had been promised to Abraham that he should “ go “to his fathers in peace, and be buried in a good old age.” In Gen. xxv. 8 we are told that he was ‘‘ gathered to his people.” The same is said respecting Isaac, Gen. xxxv. 29, and Jacob, Gen. xlix. 33, on which Philo remarks (de Sacr. Abelis et Caini, ibid., vol. i., p. 164), "ASpadp éxAuray Ta Ovnta, mpooriberat TH Oeod Nad, Kaprrovpevos apbapaiav, icos ayyédots yeyovas, ayyehou yap orpards eiot Oeod, dowparor Kai evdaipoves Wouyai. “ Abraham, leaving mortality behind, was added to the people of God, “entering upon the fruition of immortality, and was made equal to the “angels. Now the angels are God’s host, being incorporeal and happy “souls.” He elsewhere remarks that “to go to his fathers” could not signify a return to his relatives in Chaldeea. (Quis rerum Div. Heres., ibid., p. 513.) The expression, doubtless, signifies to be gathered to his ancestors, who had preceded him to their eternal rest above. With 198 CHAP. XI., 11—138. such repeated declarations respecting the immortality of the soul, how can we possibly deny that the doctrine was familiar to the Hebrews under Moses? Philo writes as follows respecting the death and burial of Sarah :—Maprupia 6€ rovrwy ev rais iepais BiBdows KaTdKewrat, ds ov Oguis Yevdopaprupiav ahevar’ al pnviovow ott Bpaxéa TO oopate emdaKpv- cas, Gatroy amavéotn Tod veKpov' TO TrevOeiv emt TAEOY, ws CoLKEv, GAAOTpLOV Hynodpevos codias, vd’ hs avedidayOn, Tov Oavaroy vopitew py cBeow Woxis, GAa xoptopov Kal dSidlevéw dvd caHparos, 6Oev nOev amovens, HOE de, as ev TH Kooporrovia OednA@TaL, Tapa Ocov. ‘ The evidences of these things “are contained in the sacred books, which it were impiety to accuse of “false witness; and they inform us, that having wept for a short time “ over the corpse, he quickly rose up from the dead, accounting it to be “alien from wisdom to mourn too much, for by it he was taught to “esteem death, not as extinction of the soul, but a separation and dis- “junction from the body, and that it went to the place whence it had “come forth. But it came, as we learn in the history of the creation, “from God.” (De Abrahamo, ibid., p. 137.) ° In Gen. xxiii. 3, 4 we read, “ And Abraham stood up from before “his dead and spake unto the sons of Heth, saying, I am a stranger ‘and a sojourner with you,” &c. Philo remarks that by Moses all the wise men are called sojourners, waporxodvyres, and adds, ai yap tovrer Wuxal oreddovta pev arorkiay dn mote thy e& ov'pavod . . . "Emeday ody evduatpiparat c@paot Ta aicOnta Kal Oynta dv’ aitay wdvra Karidwow, eravepxovtat ekeioe Tad, GOev wpynOncavy To mpaTov, TaTpida pev TOV ovpavioy X@pov ev @ ToduTevovTa, E€voy Se Tov Tepiyevov ev @ Tapeknaar, vouiovra’ Tois pev yap amorkiay oreayévots ayti THS pyTpoTdAEws 7 vrodeEapern On mov marpis, 1) 5 exmeuwaca péver Tois amodednunkdow, «is nv Kal rodotow enavépyerOa. Toryapoty cixdras "ABpadp eépet ois vexpopvAa&e Kat Tapiats tov OvnTav, dvaoTds amd Tov veKpov Biov kal rapov, Ildpovxos Kat mapemidnwds eiue eyo pe tpov. ‘ For their souls “are sent down from heaven to sojourn for a while. But after they “have tarried awhile in their bodies, and inspected all things perceptible “to the senses and mortal, they ascend again to the same place whence “they originally came, esteeming the heavenly place, where their “citizenship is as their country, but the terrestrial one, wherein they “ sojourn, as a foreign land. Colonists usually esteem the land of their “adoption as taking the place of their native country. But with the ‘above-mentioned, the country that sent them forth always remains ‘the same, and to it they long to return. Abraham, therefore, properly “said to the custodians of the dead and the stewards of mortality, “having himself risen from the dead life and the tomb, As for me, I “ama sojourner and a stranger amongst you.” (De Confusione Linguarum, CHAP. XI., 14—18. 199 Works, Mangey’s Edit., vol.i., pp. 416, 417.) See also De Cherubim, ibid., pp. 161, 162. Verses 14, 15.—For they who speak after this fashion (TovadTa Néyovtes) show plainly (éudaviGovew) that they are (yet) seeking a country (67 watpida érugntovar, das sie ein Vaterland suchen, Zuth.)'; and if indeed they had been mindful of that one from which they came out, they would have had opportunity (xazpov) to return back again.” * Tlapotkeiv, ob karotkeiy Oopev. TO yap dvr maca pev ux copod marpioa pev ovpavoy, E€vnv Se ynv €haxe k.t.d. “ We come hither to sojourn “and not to make our home. For in reality every wise man’s soul has “obtained heaven as his fatherland, but earth is a foreign place to “him.” (Philo, De Agricultura, Works, vol.i., p. 310.) And so David confesses, Ps. xxxix. 12 (13), “ For I am a stranger with thee, and a ‘*‘sojourner, as all my fathers were” (max D2 win Tov ‘228 11°); and again, 1 Chron. xxix. 15, “For we are strangers before Thee, and “‘sojourners, as were all our fathers.” (922 Daw) P25? ye OMA 7D J ) (mar * Philo often refers to the hardships and inconveniences which Abra- ham underwent during the days of his earthly pilgrimage,—Kairo: ris Lrg > EA >? / > \ as > ’ > , > ‘A \ > €TEPOS OUK ay nxGec6n, OU pPoVvOoY TIS OLKELAS ATTAVLOTALEVOS, adda Kat e& > / , > , > , X 4 > , , > amdons Toews eAavvdpevos eis SvaBarovs Kat SvaTopevtas avodias; ris 6 ovK dy petatpermopevos erakwopdunoer oikade, Bpaxéa pev dporticas Tov pedtrdoveav eAridav, thy d€ mapodoay amropiay omevdwv exdpvyeiv, ev7jOecav UrodaBay ddnhov xapw ayabay spodoyovpeva aipeio Oa Kaka; Mévos S’obtos rovvavtiov memovOevac daivera x.t.4. ‘But who else would not have “‘repined at being separated not only from his own native city but from every other city alike, and driven forth into rugged and in- “ accessible bye paths ? Who else would not have turned round and ‘hastened home again, making little account of future hopes, and ‘eager to escape from present pressure of necessities, esteeming it the ‘part of a simpleton to choose palpable inconveniences for the sake of “uncertain good? But this man (Abraham) alone seems to have enter- “tained a contrary opinion,” &c. (De Abrahamo, Works, vol. ii., p. 14.) Verses 16—18.—But now their aim is (dpéyovtar) a better one, that is to say a heavenly. Wherefore God is not ashamed of them, to be called their God,' for he hath 200 CHAP. XI., 16—18. prepared a city for them. (See note 1 on pp. 192—195. Con- sult also Schoettgen, De Hierosolyma celesti, in his Hore Hebr. et Talm. tom. i., p. 1205.) By faith® Abraham offered up Isaac, when he was tried (zre.pafopevos, tempted, put to the test), even he who had waited for the promises (6 Tas érayyedias avadeEduevos), and did offer up his only begotten son, with respect to whom it had been said (Gen. xxi. 12), For in Isaac shall thy seed be called. (67e €v Ioaak KrnOjoetai cot oréppa, FY SIMS PND. Dd yar—Noll der eine Same genannt werden.—Ewald.)* * Awd otk émaucxvverat adtods 6 Geds k.7.4. We must here again bear in mind that the writer is addressing Jews. He refers to the distinctive and perpetual designation by which it had pleased God to reveal himself as the God of their nation, as we read in Exod. iii. 13—16 :—* And “Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of “ Tsrael, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent “me unto you, and they shall say unto me, What is his name? What “ shall I say unto them? And God said unto Moses, I am THat I am (FAN WR TTR, eyo eis 6 ‘Ov, LXX.); and he said, Thus shalt thou “say unto the children of Israel, I am (77x, 6’Qv) hath sent me unto “you. And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto ‘the children of Israel, Jehovah, God of your fathers (0238 ‘75x 117) ‘THE Gop OF ABRAHAM, THE GOD OF ISAAC, AND THE GoD OF JACOB, ‘hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my “memorial unto all generations. (a7 1) 3 7H Ddbyd Mow TM, TovTd pov “ €or dvoma ai@voy, kal pynpdovvoy yeveav yeveais, LX X.).” Here, then, we have an incidental application of the argument employed by our Saviour against the Sadducees to prove the resurrection of the dead (Matt. xxii. 31, 32), ‘‘ But as touching the resurrection of the dead, “‘ have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I “am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob ? “ God is not the God of the dead, but of the living ;” or as Mark xii. 26, 27 has it, “And as touching the dead, that they rise, have ye not ‘read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, “saying,” &c., and Luke xx. 37, “ Now that the dead are raised Moses “ shewed at the bush, when he called the Lord the God of Abraham,” &e. B. Ugolinus (7riheresium, sive Diss. de tribus sectis Judceorum, Thes., vol. xxii. col. 72) gives the following Rabbinical illustrations of the above interesting subject :—‘‘ Zanchum, fol. 13, 3. Dicit R. Simeon “ben Jochai ; Deus Sanctus Benedictus nomen suum justis non adjungit, ee CHAP. XI., 16—18. 201 “ sicut dicitur, Sanctis qui in terra sunt, Psal. xvi. 3. Quandonam sunt “sancti? Cum in terra reponuntur; nam dum vivunt nomen suum “ Deus non adjungit ; eo quod de iis non certum habeat, malum affectum “eos non abducturum; at cum mortui sunt, nomen suum adjungit. “ Ast invenimus Deum nomen suum adjunxisse Isaaco dum viveret : “Genes xxviii. 13, Hgo sum Deus Abraham et Deus Isaac. Respondent “‘sapientes, Pulverem ejus respexit ac si collectum super altare. R. “ Berachiah dixit. Ex quo cecus factus est, fuit sicut mortuus. Vide “etiam R. Menahem in legem, fol. 621.—Gemara Hierosolymitana “ Berachot., fol. 5, 4. Justi etiam in morte dicuntur vivere, atque “impii etiam in vita dicuntur mortui. (See similar words of Philo, “note, p. 179.) Ex eo quod dicitur, nam nya pme x), Von delectatus “sum morte mortut. Num ille qui dicitur n> jam est mortuus ? Atque “unde probatur, quod justi etiam in morte sua dicantur vivi? Ex eo “quod seribitur. Hac est terra de qué juravi Abrahamo, Isaaco, et “ Jacobo, ox. Quid sibi vult vox vaxd? Dicit ei : Abi et dic patribus “ quodcunque promisi vobis preestiti filiis vestris.” ® Iiores mpocevnvoyey ABp. k.t.A. Here, then, as in James ii. 21—23, we have the inspired answer to the modern resuscitators of a very ancient blasphemy, who dare to ascribe this heroic act of Abraham’s faith to an incontrollable impulse of Moloch worship! This crude calumny is on a par with the revolting profanities which have recently been propounded as specimens of Christian interpretation, viz., that Isaac was the adulterous offspring of Eleazar and Sarah, palmed off upon unsuspecting Abraham as his own child (see Balth. Scheidij Preterita preteritorum, pp. 61, 62. Meuschen, Vov. Test. ex Talmude illustr., where a similar insinuation, viz., that Isaac was an adopted foundling, is illustrated in a quotation from the Bava Metzia, f. 87, 1) ; and that St. Peter assassinated Ananias and Sapphira in order to strike terror into the multitude! The very learned Spencer in his treatise, De lege cultum Molechi prohibente (De legibus Hebreor. ritualibus, lib. ii, p. 290, Hage-Comitum, 1686, 4to.), writes :—*“ Probé novi, “ quamplurimos alia omnia de rittis hujus nefarij fonte sentire, quasi “ ex Abrahami, filium suum offerentis, historia, corrupta et depravata, “ profluxisset. Huic autem sententiz fidem adhibere nescio, cum historia “illa, nisi plane mutilata, magna preebeat contra morem illum inhu- “manum argumenta; et verisimile sit multas gentes, liberos suos “immolare solitas, de Abrahami exemplo né vel fando quicquam “ audivisse.” Rabbi D. Kimchi, on Jer. xvi. 31, represents God as saying, ‘I have not commanded them to offer their sons as holocausts, “‘) xb dup ja. And such is the confidence expressed by St. Paul to the Romans, viii. 3883—39 :—‘‘ For I am per- “suaded that neither death, nor life,............ nor any other creature ** shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ “ Jesus our Lord.” And to this faith of Abraham, viz., that God would raise Isaac from the dead, St. Paul alludes, Rom. iv. 16—17, where Abraham is said to be “the father of us all, in the sight of “that God (karévayte of éexiorevoae Ocov xk.r.A.) whom he believed, who “raises the dead, and accounts things that are not, as if they were.” E E 210 ‘CHAP. XL, 19. And thus it was that Abraham figuratively received his son from the dead. He was dead as far as Abraham was concerned, until his hand was stayed from heaven. By the same God who imposed the trial, was Abraham ~ released from his obedience to the command. But to no inferior sum- mons would he have rendered like obedience. Dr. Alford, in discussing the meaning of exopicaro, observes well that ‘ Josephus (Antiq. i. “13, 4) uses the word of Abraham and Isaac on the very occasion in question—-oi de map’ eAmidas éavtods Kekopiopevo.” I cannot, however, congratulate the Very Reverend Dean upon the lucidity of the argument by which he proves, to his own satisfaction, that the “ true identification “‘ of the mapaBod7y is to be found in. the figure under which Isaac was “sacrificed, viz. the ram, as already hinted by St. Chrysostom.” The ram was the instrument of no figurative recovery of Isaac, but of a real one from impending death. The restoration of Isaac to his father was symbolical of the resurrection. Abraham figuratively received him ex vexpov, when he dismounted from the altar and returned to his father’s arms. The ram could not have been at once the symbol of Tsaac’s deliverance, and his actual and vicarious substitute in death. Besides, what was the object of, and instruction to be conveyed in, the parable of the ram, when a far more obvious and intelligible parable had been enacted by Isaac himself? As far as Isaac was concerned, the parable was over as soon as he was safely restored to his father’s bosom. He was delivered from death actually, but was raised from the dead ev rapaBoAy. Equally untenable is Prof. Stuart’s proposed rendering of the entire verse, “ Abraham believed that God could raise Isaac from “the dead, because he had as it were obtained him from the dead, te., ~ “he was born of those who (kara ratvra vexpol foay)......... 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 ev rapaBonj, in a ** comparative manner, i.e., in a manner that would compare with rising “ from the dead, when he brought about his birth from those who were ‘““dead as to the power of procreation. UapaSody means comparison, “ similitude ; ev mapaBodn, comparatively, in like manner, with similitude, “as it were.” Equally objectionable is Hombergius’ proposal to render év mapaory in preesentissimo periculo, i.e., in the most extreme peril of his life. The reader will find these latter suggestions ably and amply discussed in J. C. Wolfii, Cure Philologice et Critice, tom. iv., pp. 760—762. The author of the Mizzachon Vetus, whose remarks upon the subject are singularly like Philo’s, observes, “It may be asked, Was it then so “¢ great a matter that Abraham was willing to slay his son at the command CHAP. XI., 19—21. 211 “of God? Verily there does not exist a man so wicked in the world, who “af God, in his glory and personally (yazy2) 293) said to him, Slay thy “son, would not have done it, Answ.—Nevertheless it was a great “matter, because he was his only son, and was born in the time of “their old age (Gn271 ny NT WP 72D), and yet he did not shrink, nor “make objections. It may be asked further, Could not Abraham “perceive that it was for the sake of trying him that he was tempted, “seeing that God had made him trust that ‘in Isaac shall thy seed be “*ealled’; and how could He annul the former promises? Quite true; “Dut learn from this that Abraham did not hesitate in the smallest “degree. And also, it may fairly be said, that he thought in himself, “ The Holy One, blessed be He, will bring him to life again, for He “ quickens the dead” (TMM ND, WT Wap wa] aon Nw 6 Hy) ona).— Wizz. Vet., p. 22; printed at length in Wagenseil’s Tela Ignea Sutane. (For Philo’s words, see p. 185.) Wettstein (in loco) quotes from the Pirke Ehezer, 31, “ R. J. dixit: “cum appropinquaret gladius collo ejus, fugit et exiit anima Isaaci : “cum autem audiret vocem inter duos Cherubinos : noli immitere manum “tuam puero, rediit anima in corpus suum. Et solvit eum, stetit que “super pedes suos, et novit Isaacus resurrectionem mortuorum ex Lege, “quia omnes mortui resurgent: ea hora dixit, Benedictus tu, Domine, “ qui vivificas mortuos.” Tn illustration of the above, Wettstein refers to Rom. iv. 19. See also his note on Rom. iv. 17. Verses 20, 21.—By faith Isaac' blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come (7repi weAXOvT@Y, see verse 1). By faith Jacob when dying (amo@yjcKav, moriturus) blessed each* of the sons of Joseph separately (caorov tov viev ‘Iwonp) and worshipped [/eaning] upon the top of his staff (kal mpocextvncev él TO axpov Tod paBdou avrov, und neigte sich gegen seines Scepters Spitze.— Luth.)? ’ Tsaac’s blessing is a bright illustration of the definition of faith in the first verse of this chapter. Abraham had been gathered to his fathers, and rested as a stranger in a strange land. Isaac was expecting to lay his ashes far from his ancestral home in Chaldwa, and without the remotest human probability that his descendants would ever possess the land of Canaan, and yet he leaves them a legacy of prophetic bless- ing. His partialityfor his eldest son is defeated by Jacob’s stratagem. But yet the promise to Abraham is the one engrossing idea that occu- 212 CHAP. XI., 20, 21. pies his thoughts. It is the blessing promised to Abraham (Gen. xii. 3) which he proposes to transmit. As soon, however, as his eyes are opened by Esau’s return, he acquiesces in God’s overruling appointment. He gives his secondary benediction to Esau. How literally fulfilled it was is apparent from 2 Sam. viii. 14 and 2 Kings viii. 20. (See Smith’s Dict. Articles, Zsau, Edom.) * Commentators have been so eager to display their ingenuity upon the closing words of this verse, that they have reserved but little space to discuss the illustration of faith which Jacob’s particular blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh affords. Why does the writer to the Hebrews select this example of Jacob’s faith, in preference to that afforded by his wondrous prediction respecting the destinies of his own children ? The true explanation lies in the word ékacrop (é.e., individually). Jacob did not content himself with a general blessing upon Joseph. He did not bestow a collective blessing upon Joseph and his sons, but he wittingly crossed his hands, as Manasseh and Ephraim knelt before him, and laid his right hand on Ephraim the youngest. What more improbable that the posterity of young Egyptian princes, for such they were, and also, by the mother’s side, of the priestly family (Gen. xli. 45), would ever forsake Egypt their native land, and migrate into Canaan ? What more improbable that they should become each of them a separate clan or tribe, much more that the elder should be subordinated in importance to the younger, and that Ephraim’s seed should become “a fulness of the nations” (O797 x92) ? Gen. xlvili. 19. Jacob’s reca- pitulation of the original promise renewed to himself of the grant of Canaan, his formal adoption of Ephraim and Manasseh, separating them from any children that should hereafter be born to Joseph in Egypt (Gen. xlviii. 3—6), the terms, moreover, of Jacob’s blessing as recorded in the 15th and 16th verses, all show that his object was to transmit the promise made to Abraham and Isaac to Joseph’s posterity through Ephraim, the representative of the kingdom of Israel : “ And “he blessed Joseph, and said, God before whom my fathers Abraham “and Isaac did walk,-the God which fed me all my life long unto this “day. The Angel which redeemed me (nx 9x27 JNIDT, see J. Wesselii “ Dissert. Sacr. Leidens, pp. 311—313, Lugd. Bat., 1721, 4to., and “ Schoettgen, Hore Hebr., tom. ii., pp. 15, 125, 144, 333, 375, 450) from “all evil, bless the lads ; and let my name (observe it is said in verse 14, “«* And Israel stretched out his hands, &¢.) be named on them, and “the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac ; and let them grow into “a multitude in the midst of the earth.” The closing words of the blessing (Gen. xlviii. 21, 22) abundantly exhibit the firmness of Jacob’s faith in the promise of Canaan, so that he even assigns one particular CHAP. XI., 20, 21. 213 locality (viz., Shechem, Josh. xxiv. 32) to the family of Joseph ; and Jacob said unto Joseph, “ Behold, I die ; but God shall be with you, “and bring you again unto the land of your fathers. Moreover, I have ‘given to thee one portion above thy brethren, which I took out of the “hand of the Amorite with my sword and my bow.” Here, then, is a ‘signal specimen of that faith which is the ¢Amopevwv sindaraars, mpaypdrev €deyxos ov Breropevwy, And all these superlative tokens of Jacob’s implicit confidence in the promises of God amply justify the Writer to the Hebrews in holding them up to the persecuted and wavering converts for imitation. * Kat mpocextynoev emt TO axpov «.t.X. The occasion here referred to was not the one recorded in Gen. xlvii. 31, where it is said, according to the Masoretic punctuation, “‘ And Israel bowed himself upon the ‘**bed’s head’ (7227 wen by Sw ww), but “ upon the top of his staff,” according to the LXX, but the Vulgate has adoravit Israel Deum, conversus ad lectuli caput. (For an account of the J/asorites and the Masorah see Prideaux’s connexion of the Old and New Testament, vol. i. pp., 334—348. London, 1845, 8vo.) There is no such passage in Gen. xlviii., where the blessing of the sons of Joseph is related. Had the words there occurred, we should have the true reading of the word 729 decided for us, upon inspired authority. As it is, we have no certain data to go upon, but can conjecture with every degree of proba- bility that the punctuation of 7227 hammittah, the bed, in Gen. xlvii. 31, should have been 7227, hammatteh, staf One fact, however, is decided for us upon the authority of Heb. xi. 21, te., when Jacob blessed the sons of Joseph, he leaned upon the top of his staff, and worshipped. Jacob, when his end was approaching, was told, Gen. xlviii. 2, “‘ Behold, thy son Joseph cometh unto thee; and Israel “strengthened himself, and sat upon the bed.”. (7299 5Y.—For the figure of an Egyptian bedstead see Smith’s Dict., Article Bed.) That the patriarch’s feet rested upon the ground when he sat up to make this final effort, we may gather from the fact that Manasseh and Ephraim stood “ between his knees” to receive his embrace (verse 12). Most probably, then, Jacob leant upon his staff, as he conversed with Joseph, and gave his benediction to him and his children, and also to his own sons, whom he sent for (Gen. xlix. 1) to receive his parting charge ; and then, spent with the effort, we read, Gen. xlix. 33, “‘ When *« Jacob had made an end of commanding his sons, he gathered up his “feet into the bed (797 5x yon ADN) and yielded up the ghost, and “was gathered unto his people.” It is plain, therefore, that the inspired Epistle to the Hebrews furnishes an incidental detail, which is wanting in Gen. xlvili. and xlix. Surenhusius observes that the 214 CHAP. XI, 20, 21. New Testament writers not unfrequently supply omissions in the sacred narrative of the Old, and remarks that David in Ps. cv. mentions the iron fetters which Joseph wore in his prison-house, but which are not alluded to in the book of Genesis. (BéSdos xaraAX., p. 645.) The learned writer gives other specimens of similar omissions in his 27th Thesis on pp. 106, 107 of the same work. By a curious oversight Surenhusius writes, ¢bid., p. 647:—‘‘Denique notandum est quod “ Apostolus pro verbo mn egrotans, quod Gen. xlviii. 1, oceurrit “ dixerit amoOvjokwr, moriturus, quia eventus docuit, Jacobum in illa “ secritudine mortuum fuisse.” Such a supposition is rendered entirely unnecessary by Jacob’s own words as recorded in verse 21 of this same chapter, nd N27, behold, I am dying. Surenhusius rightly regards Gen, xlviii. and xlix. as describing one continuous event, which makes his assertion above quoted the more untenable.— Why, then, is mention made of Jacob’s leaning upon his staff? Probably the writer intended to contrast, as strikingly as possible, the Patriarch’s indomitable faith with his bodily prostration. His life was fast ebbing away. His earthly tabernacle was about to be taken down, his frame was bent, and his eyes dim with the gathering mists of dissolution, but his faith was erect and invincible, the eyes of his soul penetrated into the far-off ages of futurity, and saw the promise realized, and the covenanted blessings vouchsafed. Le ye, the writer would say to his discouraged readers, in like manner faithful unto death, and He will give you the crown of life! The act of leaning, indicating the dying Saint’s extreme infirmity, and not the staff itself, is the point to which attention is directed. 'The word used in Gen. xxxii. 10 (11), of Jacob’s staff, is po and not mao. I cannot think that any allusion is here intended to this staff of Jacob’s, far less to the Rabbinical fables respecting the Rod of Moses, which it is affirmed was created of a sapphire stone on the evening of the Sabbath day, and delivered to Adam in Paradise, and passed on through Enoch, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to Joseph in Egypt, where it ultimately came into the possession of Moses. Dr. Alford (i loco) well observes,—‘“ An incalculable quantity of “idolatrous nonsense has been written on these words by Roman *“ Catholic Commentators, taking as their starting-point the rendering “of the Vulgate, et adoravit fastigium virge ejus, and thence deriving “an argument for the worship of images, assuming that there was an “image or symbol of power upon Joseph’s staff, to which they apply “the words. But first it must be Jacob’s, and not Joseph’s staff which “is intended, ‘ virgee sue,’ not ejus,” &e. Fora further and very copious discussion of the subject the reader may with advantage consult J. C. Woltius, in loco, Cure Philol, et Crit., tom. iv. a 762—766, as well as Surenhusius, as above indicated. CHAP. XI., 22. 215 Verse 22.—By faith Joseph’ when dying made mention of the exodus of the children of Israel, and gave injunctions (€vere(XaTo) concerning his own bones. * The writer passes over all Joseph’s early self-denials and sufferings, and brings out into strongest relief the object and end of his whole life, viz., his unwavering devotion to the hope of the Patriarchs. He and his fathers considered themselves only as instruments to accom- plish the one great end, viz., the ratification of the blessings promised to and in Abraham. By faith they lived, and in the faith they died, passing away with the certain assurance that the Divine plan had been one step advanced to its accomplishment, that another link had been added to the golden chain which should at last bind together into one all the children of God that are scattered abroad. He had been very great in Egypt, but he asked no memorial of colossal proportions, such as the Egyptians were wont to raise, to be erected to his memory. He rather charged his posterity to carry forth his bones to the land of Promise, to which by anticipation they already belonged. There he would have them to rest in hope. In Egypt he was but a stranger and a pilgrim. He knew that at the end of the 400 years God would be as good as his word, and so, teAevr@v, mepi tov “E€ddou trav vidv "Iopajd euynpovevoe, Kal mept TeV doTéwy avTod evereiiaro. The circumstance above alluded to is narrated in Gen. 1. 24, 25,—“ And Joseph said unto “his brethren, I die: and God will surely visit you, and bring you out “of this land unto the land which he sware to Abraham, to Isaac, and “to Jacob. And Joseph took an oath of the children of Israel, saying, “God will surely visit you, and ye shall carry up my bones from hence. “So Joseph died, being an hundred and ten years old, and they em- “ balmed him, and he was put in a coffin in Egypt.” In Exod. xiii. 19 we read that “ Moses took the bones of Joseph with him,” &c. In Josh. xxiv. 32 it is written, “ And the bones of Joseph, which the “ children of Israel brought up out of Egypt, buried they in Shechem... ‘‘and it became the inheritance of the children of Joseph.” Compare Jacob’s bequest to Joseph, Gen. xlviii. 22. Philo, when speaking of Joseph’s dying injunction to his brethren, writes :—Ta & aévoprnpdvevta Tavta Hv. TO muotedoar Gre emiokeerar 6 Oeds Td dpatikdy yévos, Kal od mapadooer expt mavTds aitd dpabia, tupry Seamoivy’ 7o Staxpivae rd Te Omnra THs Wuyxijs kal ra GpOapra’ Kai ra pev dou Tepl Tas THparos Hdovas kat tas G@\Nas raGay apuerpias, Ovnta bvta, Aiyirt@ Katadimeiv. Tlepi b€ trav apOdaprav orovdny momoacba, drws peta Tov avaBawdrtay eis Tas dpetis Toes ScakopicO}, Kai Opk@ THY oTovdny euTedHoacba, “ The things “worthy to be noted are as follows: that he believed that God would 216 CHAP. XI., 23—25. “visit the Israelitish race, and would not give them over perpetually to “ jonorance as to a blind mistress. Also that he distinguished between “the mortal parts of the soul and those that are immortal. And “that he left in Egypt those that were mortal, viz., bodily enjoyments “and immoderate affections. That he alsomade a covenaut concerning “the imperishable things that they should take along with them (the “ Tsraelites) when they went up to the cities of virtue, and made this “covenant obligatory by an oath.” (De Migratione Abrahami, Works, Mangey’s Edit., vol. i., p. 439.) Verses 23—25.—By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid for three months by his parents (t@v tatépwy avTod) because they saw that the child was goodly’ (doTetov, a1, Exod. u. 2), and they did not fear (ov« époByOncav, paid no respect to) the king’s injunction.” By faith Moses when he had grown up® (péyas yevopuevos, grandis factus, Vulg. Da er gross ward, Luth.) declined (prjcaro, objected, refused) to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter. Electing rather to endure hardship with the people of God, than to have a temporary enjoy- ment * (7pocKkatpov amroravow, 1.e., shortlived, evanescent, transitory) of sin. * Teweis ody 6 mais evOvs dyruw evéednvey dorevotépay 7 Kar diary, os kal Tv TOU TUpdvYoU KnpvypdTav, ep doy oidy TE HY, TOs yoveis ddoynoaL. ** At his birth the child immediately displayed an appearance fairer “than an ordinary person’s, so that his parents disregarded, as far as ‘they could, the edicts of the king.” —Philo de Mose, Works, Mangey’s Edit., vol. ii., p. 82. * Ilicres Mons yevynfeis expvBn «.r.’. How is this an example of faith, and to what object was this faith directed ? The writer points to two actions, in illustration of his meaning. First, Moses’ conceal- ment for three months by his parents. Secondly, his parents’ courageous disregard of the king’s edict. How, then, do these two examples of faith bear directly upon the circumstances of the Hebrews for whose consolation and encouragement they are called to remembrance? The time of Moses’ birth was one of bitter persecution. The life of Israel’s greatest lawgiver hung in suspense for the first three months of his existence. His parents, undismayed by the risk they ran in disobeying the tyrant’s orders, hid him away (affectionately yearning over their CHAP. XI., 23—25. 217 beautiful babe, respecting whom St. Stephen, by a well-known Hebra- ism [see Gen. x. 9, respecting Nimrod], says, Acts vii. 20, jv doteios TO Oe), and firmly believing that God, who had promised to Abraham that his posterity should be as the stars and the sea-shore sand innumer- able, would never acquiesce in Pharaoh’s scheme for their extirpation. Upon this promise Jacob, when dying, took his stand (Gen. xlviii. 4) ; and so (¢béd., 16) he prays that Joseph’s sons may “ grow into a multi- “tude (29 17%, ie., multiply like fishes) in the midst of the earth.” Now, it was in consequence of the visible and growing fulfilment of this prophecy that Pharaoh and his people had taken alarm, and resolved to frustrate its further accomplishment. In Exod. i. 7 we read, “ And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abund- “antly (sw, swarmed, as Gesenius observes, ‘ Passim locus [terra vel * “mare] dicitur repture reptilibus, .e., iis seatere [von etwas wimmeln], “¢sq.acc., velut mare bestiis aquatilibus. Gen. i. 20, 21 ; Aegyptus “ ‘ranis, Ex. vii. 28; Ps. cv. 30’), and multiplied, and waxed exceeding “mighty, and the land was filled with them.” No secret was made of the object of the inhumanities inflicted upon the Hebrews. The avowed purpose was the extinction of the people. The King directed the Hebrew midwives (n>ar7 nn) DAZ 7D Hx’)) to destroy all the male infants. (Exod.i.15) It has been attempted to be shown, upon very inadequate grounds, that Shiphra and Puah were Egyptians, and not Jewesses, but the Hebrew text (if the construction of Exod. i. 20 be followed), the Targums, and the Jewish writers lend no sanction whatever to such a theory. The Targum of Palestine or Jonathan, and the Targum of Jerusalem, both declare that Shiphra was Jochebed, and Puah was Miriam. The Targum of Jonathan, moreover, relates that it was in consequence of a dream of Pharaoh’s, in which the birth of Moses was announced, and which was interpreted by Jannes and Jambres, that the order to kill the children was issued to the midwives. This is not unlike the narrative of Josephus. Was it probable that Egyptians, to whom it was an abomination to eat with the Hebrews (Gen. xliii. 32), and to whom shepherds were also an abomination (Gen. xlvi. 34), would have undertaken the office of midwives to the Hebrews ? Or how can we explain the religious scruples of Shiphra and Puah, if they were mere heathens? We read, Exod. i. 17, “ But “the midwives feared God, and did not as the King of Egypt com- ““manded them, but saved the men children alive.’ It was no mere excuse that the midwives alleged in explanation of their disobedience. The miraculous multiplication of the Israelites was of God; and in consequence of their humane conduct, God himself rewarded the mid- wives. (Zbid., 20, 21.) We see, therefore, that the period of Moses’ FF 218 CHAP. XI., 23—25. birth was a period of palpable conflict between the powers of darkness and the power of God. The parents of Moses (and doubtless some few others, like the midwives) held fast to the promises made to the fathers. They had implicit faith in their ultimate accomplishment, and so they concealed their infant until further secresy became impossible, and then, in the ark of bulrushes, they committed him, not to the safe keeping of chance or fortune, but to the plighted love of a covenanted God. By their example, the afflicted Hebrews of the apostolic ages, whose lives were also made bitter to them, might take comfort. The Church of God was again passing through a crisis of persecution, and the furnace of affliction, but faith should ultimately triumph, and the promised redemption should be accomplished. * Meéyas yevopevos, Alford rightly translates “ when grown up”; but he is mistaken when he asserts, in reference to Schulz’s and Bret-_ schneider’s proposed rendering “ become great,” viz., in dignity as a “citizen,” that the usage is the other way. The Hebrew expression 2791, In Exod. ii, 10, 11, doubtless signifies an increase in stature and years, but the verb 71) is very frequently employed to denote accession of dignity and importance ; eg., Gen. xxvi. 13, 2 Sam. vii. 22, Ps. civ. 1, Eccl. ii. 9, Jer. v. 27, Esth. iii. 1, v. 11, x. 2, and passim in the Old Testament. The words, as used by the Writer to the Hebrews, are equivalent to the expression employed by St. Stephen, Acts. vii. 23, as O€ emAnpodro ai’T@ Texaapakoytaeri)s xpovos. * “Hpynaaro héyer Oa x.t-A, Philo suggests (De Mose, Works, Mangey’s Edit., vol. ii., p. 86) that Moses was the heir apparent (by adoption) to the crown of Egypt, and adds, in the very sentiment of the Writer to the Hebrews, Ti cuyyekyy kal mpoyovixiy e(yrooe madelay, Ta wev TOV elomouoapevay ayaba, Kai ei Napmpdrepa Katpois, vdOa eivar bmo\aBav, Ta de rav pvoer yovewy, ef Kal mpds édlyov apavéorepa, oikeia your Kal yunota, “He emulated the training of his kindred and ancestors, esteeming the *‘ vood things of those who had adopted him, although more splendid “for a season, to be in reality spurious, but those of his natural “parents, although they might be for a while less appreciable, to be “true and genuine.” Why should this latter statement of Philo’s, so exactly in harmony with the inspired statements of the New Testament, be sneered at as “ inflated” ? That Moses was in a position to be well acquainted with the hope of the patriarchs is shown by Rawlinson (Bampton Lectures. Second Edition, 1860. 8vo., p. 39), when he observes, ‘ Adam, according to the Hebrew original, was for 243 years “contemporary with Methusaleh, who conversed for 100 years with “Shem. Shem was for 50 years contemporary with Jacob, who “ probably saw Jochebed, Moses’ mother. Thus Moses might, by mere CHAP. XI., 26—28. Z 219 “ oral tradition, have obtained the history of Abraham, and even of the “ Deluge, at third hand, and that of the temptation and the fall at “fifth hand.” The mere fact of tlie degraded condition of the great bulk of the Israelites in their Egyptian servitude, does not militate against the probability of the preservation of the true faith amongst a select few, any more than the well-known circumstance that there are hundreds of thousands of so-called Christians in England at this moment who never heard of Christ, would supply a safe argument to some antichristian writer centuries hence for asserting that, in 1871, the religion of Jesus was extinct in Great Britain. Elijah supposed (1 Kings xix.) that he was the last worshipper of the true God left in Israel, and yet, undiscernible to the eye of sense, God had reserved to Himself seven thousand devoted followers. Schoettgen, i loco, re- marks, “Nam Moses tanquam filius filize Pharaonis educatus erat. “ Exod, ti. 10; Actor. vii. 20; Tanchuma, fol. 48, 4. Moses educatus “est in domo Pharaonis, w2 }1 WD W310 7, et existimibatur, quast in “domo tpstus natus esset.” Verses 26—28.—Esteeming the reproach of Christ (vov ovevdicpov Tod Xpiotod, i.e., the obloguy, and derisive ill- will, on account of his faith in the Messiah)’ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt, for he looked away to the recompense of reward (a7éBXerre yap els Ti pucOarro- dociav). By faith, he relinquished (xaréXizrev, abandoned, quitted) Egypt, after having braved (2) doBnbeis Tov Cuvjov) the exasperation of the King.” For he persevered as if he saw the Invisible. By faith he celebrated o” prepared (wretroinke, the sacrificial rite) the passover, and the sprink- ling of the blood, in order that He who destroyed the firstborn might not touch them.’ 1 These words are very explicit, and must on no account be explained away, but ought to be read by the light of 1 Cor. x. 3, 4, Kal mdvres rd dvt0 BpSpa mvevparixoy &payov, Kai mavtes oO atrd moa mvevpariKdy mov, emwov yap ek Tvevpatixns akodovOovans métpas, Sé wérpa jv 6 Xpiotés. The faith of Moses was that of the Patriarchs. Abraham rejoiced to see Christ’s day. Enoch prophesied concerning the consum- mation of all things in and by Him. The Gentile self-esteem that would limit all true perception of “ good things to come” to the so- called Christian dispensation, would be grotesquely ridiculous, were it 220 CHAP. XI., 26—28. not too pernicious in its consequences to be smiled at. God’s revelation in every age was sufficient to save sinners. The Divinely appointed medium of salvation to the Patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations was faith in a coming Messiah. Of Himself our Lord Jesus testified that Moses spake. His mediatorial office is clearly set forth in Deut. xviii. 15—19. The spiritual nature of the believer’s life is described in Deut. viii. 3. The ingathering of the Gentiles is hailed with holy rapture (according to St. Paul’s interpretation, Rom. xv. 10) in Deut. xxxii. 43. The Resurrection is established, by the very same argument that St. Peter (2 iii. 8) employs to demonstrate the certainty of Christ’s return, in Ps. xe. 3,4; and in this latter Psalm (put into the mouth of a genera- tion, all the adults of which were to perish within the forty years’ wandering in the wilderness) the Israelites are taught to pray, ‘‘So ‘teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto “wisdom.” Bishop Warburton’s theory, copied by Davidson (Dis- courses on Prophecy, p. 124, &c. 3d Edit., 1834, 8vo.) and others, that the Israelites under Moses knew nothing of the life after death, is palpably contrary to fact. If Moses was the writer of the Book of Genesis, the history of “The tree of life,’ the translation of Enoch, the gathering of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to their fathers, &c., &c., were familiar topics to his people. Even Balaam, the heathen prophet, desired ‘to die the death of the righteous,’ and that his “last end “might be like his.” The pertinacious devotion of the Israelites to necromancy and witchcraft is decisive as to the popular belief enter- tained by them respecting the life after death. See Deut. xviii. 11, where the expression Onan Ox wy, a seeker of, or enquirer after, the dead, is rendered by the Authorized Version “necromancer.” More- over, had not the immortality of the soul been a dogma (as with Job) of their ancestral faith amongst the Israelites, they might have learned it in Egypt, where it was an article of the popular creed, and upon whose very walls the judgment-scene is depicted. (See Sharpe’s Egypt, vol. i., p. 56—59 and 66 ; see also Gesenius, Lexicon Manuale, p. 20, article x.) The recompense of reward, moreover, which Moses looked to, was doubtless that promised to Abraham (Gen. xv. 1), viz., the fruition of eternal life with God, although he was to die (15) ina good old age, without having received the temporal promise. The “reproach of Christ,” therefore, which Moses elected in preference to the treasures of Egypt, was assuredly the obloquy to which he exposed himself in setting aside the religious tenets of his protectors, and his preferring to commit his fortunes to the custody of the Divine promises, rather than to settle down in the arms of dignity and aitluence which lay open before him. In this respect, his self-denial and unhesitating CHAP. XI., 26—28. 221 ~ faith afforded a bright and a consolatory example to the persecuted readers of the Epistle to the Hebrews to copy from. The ever- increasing results of Moses’ self-denial God’s judgment-day alone will reveal. Incalculably and immeasurably great is the prcOarodocia which he shall daily receive as long as the world shall last. In Moses, as in Abraham, all the families of the earth can yet account themselves blessed. With Elias he appeared to the apostles in the “ Holy Mount,” as a partaker of Christ's transfiguration glory. Ewald (Das Sendschr. a.d. Hebr., pp. 130, 131) speaks decisively as to the faith which Moses entertained in Christ, and to which he gave expression, in the Messianic prophecies contained in the Pentateuch, of which latter he was the author. Remarking on the words rév dvedurpoy tov Xpiorod, die Schmach Christus, he says, “‘ Und hier driingt sich mit diesem kleinen Worte, “dem Redner plézlich wieder ein Gedanke und eine Redensart ein, ‘“ welche die Leser mitten in ihre eigene nichste Gegenwart versezt, die “aber vor allem aus seiner eigensten tiefsten Empfindung floss, und “die er trozdem dass sie beinahe 2000 Jahre iiberspringt, dennoch “wagen Konnte, weil ihm nach 1, 1—4, und den anderen oben “‘bemerkten Zeichen der Gedanke an den Logos, und daher an den “unzerreissbaren festen Zusammenhang aller Bestrebungen und aller “Leiden der Kinder Gottes, aufs lebendigste vorschwebte ; wozu kommt dass auch schon der Pentateuch Messianische Weissagnungen * enthalt, und dieses mit Recht, gerade bei Mose als dessen Verfasser, ** so geheimnissvoll denkwiirdig schien.” * Iliores karédurrev Atyurroy pr poBndets k.7.d. This, doubtless, partly refers to the indignation which Moses’ avowed sympathy with his suffering kinsmen excited at the court of Egypt. He was regarded as an ingrate and a traitor thwarting the scheme for ridding Egypt of a troublesome incubus, if not as a renegade. We have no reason to decide that the occasion upon which he slew the Egyptian was the first time on which he had endeavoured to mitigate the rigours of their condition. Moreover, his steady adherence to the true faith must have brought him into collision with the idolatrous court. This is probably one aspect in which we may legitimately understand the dvewdiopov rod Xpiorod. He incurred ill-will, hostility, dislike, and ridicule by his steadfastness, and yet he persevered, as if he saw the Invisible. Willing to live godly, he had to suffer persecution. He had been trained in all the wisdom and learning of the Egyptians, and yet all this pagan lore went for nothing. Like Daniel, he stood upright and immoveable, though surrounded by every inducement to forego his ancient faith. I would then propose to understand the passage thus. By faith, Moses at last took the final step that necessitated his 222 CHAP. XI., 26—28. abandoning Egypt with all his prospects, having first braved the dis- pleasure of the King. He remained steadfast (éxaprépynoe), proof alike against blandishments and threats, as if he saw the Invisible God. Some would desire to explain these words, of Moses’ heroic and in- flexible firmness in his demands upon Pharaoh to let the people go. This, however, would take the subject out of its chronological order. It seems more in harmony with the lesson of suffering faith and self- denial for the kingdom of heaven’s sake, which the writer is inculcating upon his readers, to refer the passage to Moses’ early life and renuncia- tion of all that is usually desirable in the eyes of men. His decision was justified ultimately by a reward more than commensurate with the sacrifice required of him, He stood not only amongst earthly princes, but he spake face to face with Jehovah himself, as the Mediator of his Covenant, and the type of Christ. The above notice of the persecu- tiovs which Moses endured accords with the traditions preserved by Josephus and Philo. Before dismissing the subject of Moses’ abandon- ment of Egypt, I would make one remark upon Dean Stanley’s un- scholarly and unwarranted insinuation that Moses, when he smote the Egyptian, was guilty of nothing less than a deliberate and cowardly murder. The Dean writes, “ All that remains of these traditions is “the simple and natural incident that, seeing an Israelite suffering the “ bastinado (!) from an Egyptian, and thinking that they were alone, “he slew the Egyptian (the later tradition, preserved by Clement of “ Alexandria, said ‘ with a word of his mouth’), and buried the corpse “in the sand,” &c. (Smith’s Dict.; Article, Moses.) Now, the Hebrew word which Dr. Stanley ventures to paraphrase “suffering the bastinado,” he ought to have known is 732, A cursory reference to a Hebrew Concordance would have shown him that the verb 722, the Hiphil participle of which is used in Exod. ii. 11, is ordinarily employed in the sense of smiting so as to inflict mortal injury, i.e., to kill, to smite and extirpate in battle; and, even of inanimate things, to destroy, as of the standing crops, Exod. ix. 31, 32. The Englishman’s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance gives more than six columns of references under 722, and, in the great majority of instances, the word includes the signification of killing. It is quite true that, in Exod. v. 14—16, 2» and 0°32 must be understood of corporal punishment. But a reference to the LX. X. and Vulgate versions would have shown the Dean that a distinction was to be made between Exod. ii. 11 and Exod. v. 14, 16. The LXX. has rimrorra in Exod. ii. 11, and the Vulgate percutientem, whilst in Exod. v. 14—16 the LXX. version has euaortyoOnoav and Hepaotiyevra, and the Vulgate flagellati sunt, and flagellis cedimur, respectively. St. Stephen, indeed, speaks of the outraged Hebrew, CHAP. XI., 26—28. 223 Acts vii. 24, simply as dé:covpevov, but to this it may be answered that mardéas does not necessarily or primarily mean to wound mortally, and yet we know by the sequel that Moses did kill (q») the Egyptian. Again, the Hebrew words wx pr °2 x 73) 73 yy, “and he looked this way “and that way, and saw that there was no man,” express nothing whatever as to the motive of his looking. In Isaiah lix. 16 the same expression, probably in symbolical allusion to this very passage, is used, but in the signification of ‘looking for help or assistance,” before going forth to judgment and vengeance :— WININD NT NPIS wiry) YW MIEN PR od OOTY WR PRD RY ** And he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no “intercessor ; therefore his arm brought salvation unto him, and his ‘‘yighteousness it sustained him.” Why, then, should we put the most atrocious construction upon what was really an action humane in itself, and undoubtedly necessitated by the dire exigency of the occasion ? Moses’ subsequent alarm at what had occurred, considering the ill-savour in which he already was, and the barbarous resolution of the Egyptians to extirpate their bondmen, and the utter impossibility of obtaining a fair hearing, is natural enough ; but it leaves the morality, as well as the necessity of putting the Egyptian to death exactly where it was. A reverent mind would adopt any alternative, before deliberately im- puting connivance at, and approval of assassination, to the inspired writers of the Old and New Testament, in both of which Moses’ deed is spoken of in terms of tacit approval, if not of commendation. . Adroit insinuations like the above, against the morality of God’s Word, are marvellously in the style of Voltaire, but when they come to be subjected to closer examination, they are not a whit more trustworthy than the sneering falsities of that pitiful “inventor of evil things.” One thing is quite certain, viz., that the Writer to the Hebrews dis- tinctly affirms that Moses’ abandonment of Egypt was an act of faith, compulsory, doubtless, at the last, in consequence of the exemplary vengeance inflicted upon the would-be murderer of his poor kinsman, whose life Moses saved at the peril of his own. Nor was it only an act, but the crowning act of his steadfast self-denials in Egypt, the treasures of which he had relinquished, in resolution, long before he escaped for his life from the vengeance of the King. ° The preparation of the Passover was, of its kind, an act of faith, similar to that of Noah’s preparation of the ark. Pharaoh and the Egyptians remained as obdurate as ever; in fact, the tyrant had threatened Moses with death, if he again molested him with the demand for the liberation of the Israelites. (Exod. x. 28, 29.) It was therefore a crisis in which even God’s judgments had apparently failed to bring 224 CHAP. XI., 29—81. about the desired effect. The successive plagues had left the Hebrews only in more evil case. For Moses, with the consciousness of his ill- success, to go to the Israelites and bid them to choose a lamb on the tenth day of the month, to be slain on the fourteenth, as the next step in the drama of deliverance, must have carried with it a consciousness of inadequacy, if not of absurdity, that required a strong faith indeed to propound it to his exasperated countrymen. Hitherto his efforts had only availed to set oppressor and_bondman more completely by the ears. The rigour of the oppressors had been increased instead of diminished, and now Pharaoh had refused ever to see Moses again. To convince his people, therefore, of the peremptory necessity of complying with the command to be in readiness to celebrate the Passover, was doubtless a very difficult task, but faith overcame, and the Passover was got ready, and the Exodus was accomplished. (For much interesting matter upon this subject, see the late Dr. M‘Caul’s Examination of Bishop Colenso’s Difficulties, 1863. 8vo., pp. 56—65.) So, also, with regard to the sprinkling of the blood. Doubtless many of the Hebrews were inclined to laugh at the proposal as a silly superstition. No ordinary pertinacity would be required to see the order carried out, and yet Moses’ belief in what he enjoined was so transparent and con- vincing, that the thing was done, and “he that destroyed the firstborn “did not touch them.”—Here, then, was an argument for making a bold avowal of Christ, in spite of all risks entailed by the public pro- fession of Christianity. It was a plain command, and God would take care of the results. The duty was plain; the consequences in’ the hands of God himself. The timorous convert might ask, Cannot I be saved? Cannot I serve Christ equally well without incurring the odium of baptism, and the reproach of the Cross? 'The allusion to the blood of sprinkling supplied the answer. It was the badge of distinction between the saved and the lost; the token of salvation, the mark of God’s covenanted favour and acceptance. Surenhusius writes (BiSXos kataAX., p. 654), ‘ Per roinow “ov mac xaros, Hebraice oan nvwy, intelliguntur omnia illa precepta que “‘asservationem agni a decimo die mensis ad decimum quartum, et “ deinde mactationem et sanguinis exceptionem spectant ; per spédcyuow “ov aiparos, intelligitur sanguinis aspersio ad postes et superliminaria ; “per odobpevOjy, sive ddoOpevor, intelligitur mnwn destructor, de quo “ Exod, xii, 13 et 23,” &c., Verses 29—31.—By faith,’ they (the Israelites) passed through the Red Sea (AYO ov sea of weeds, Exod. xv. 4; CHAP. XI., 29—31. 225 év épv0pa Oardoon, LXX. ibid.), which the Egyptians assayed to do, and were drowned. By faith, the walls of Jericho fell, after they had been compassed («ueAwGévta, encircled) about for seven days.” By faith, Rahab the harlot did not perish with the unbelievers (rots avevOjcace, the contumacious), having received the spies (Josh. ii.) with peace (mer elpyjyns, ina friendly manner. Stuart.) ° 1 The Israelites proved their faith by doing as they were bidden. At first « panic seized them, shut in by precipices as they were on either hand, with the armies of Egypt behind them, and with the swelling billows of the Red Sea before them. Moses’ heroic belief infused confidence into their desponding souls. At his word they went forward and accomplished the miraculous passage. To the persecuted and wavering Hebrews of apostolic times this allusion would be full of consolatory significance. They carried their lives in their hands. They seemed hedged in unto destruction, and, like their forefathers, were ready to exclaim, “‘ Because there were no graves in Egypt, hast thou “taken us away to die in the wilderness? Wherefore hast thou dealt ‘thus with us, to carry us forth out of Egypt? Js not this the word “that we did tell thee in Egypt, saying, Let us alone, that we may “serve the Egyptians? For it had been better for us to serve the ‘“‘ Keyptians than that we should die in the wilderness.” Exod. xiv. 11,12. Here, then, we see that the Israelites expected that they would be slaughtered by the Egyptians. The last thing thought of was to look to the sea as a means of escape. Similar was the case of their descendants ; but God himself, with the temptation, would make the way of escape, in order that they might be able to bear it. As St. Paul writes, 1 Cor. x. 13, "ANAA roujoes oly TH TELpacpe@ Kal THY ExBaow, Tod SvvacOat tas ineveyxelv. The Egyptians showed foolhardiness, and not faith. They were not in the path of duty, but flying in the face of God’s palpable resistance, and they perished in the waters. ? Josh. vi. Upon the above 30th verse Dean Alford somewhat pointlessly observes, “A second example of the strength of faith in “ Israel generally.” The real point at issue is, how did the Writer to the Hebrews intend the converts to apply it to their present critical position? I cannot but think it is designed as an encouragement to perseverance in personal steadfastness in the use of the appointed means of grace, and also in fervent entreaty to God that He would soften the hearts of their unbelieving brethren and persecutors. The GG 226 CHAP. XI., 29—381. ark of God was carried seven times round the walls of Jericho, and at last they fell at the blast of the trumpets. Why, then, should not the strong prejudices of the gainsayers be overcome by a gospel acted in the life, as well as preached by word of mouth? The writer, out of a multitude of examples ready to hand, contents himself with a few appropriately selected instances of faith, such as he would have his readers to follow. He does not deal in vague generalities, but in well- chosen and pertinent illustrations. $ Rahab exhibited her faith by her reception of the spies. It was a practical faith. She showed that she believed her own statements by the way she treated her guests. Betrayal would have been an easy matter, but she acted as if she believed that the Israelites would take possession of the land, and stipulated for the safety of herself and her relatives. Josh. ii. 12,13. And this is what is meant in Josh. vi. 25, « And Joshua saved Rahab the harlot alive, and her father’s household, “and all that she had; and she dwelleth in Israel even unto this day ; “ because she hid the messengers, which Joshua sent to spy out Jericho.” St. James (ii. 25) adduces her as an instance of practical faith. Her deeds answered to her professions, when she said to the spies, “ I know “that the Lord hath given you the land...... For the Lord your God, he “ig God in heaven above and in the earth beneath.” Josh. ii. 9—11. But why is the example of Rahab adduced on the present occasion ? I think the reason lies in the fact that to harbour inquirers and con- verts was a charity not unattended with danger and obloquy. The writer has already skilfully touched upon the subject (x. 33) when he reminds his readers that formerly they were associates of those who were similarly treated with themselves. The position of a Jewish inquirer into Christianity was in those days one of peculiar difficulty and distress. By his own relatives he was abhorred, and treated as a criminal who was worthy of a hundred deaths. His heathen neigh- bours despised and looked down upon him because he was a Jew, an outcast, and in disgrace with his own people. If, then, his converted brethren were too timid to offer him an asylum, and shut the doors in his face, whither was he to look for countenance and support? Such is the position of the Hebrew convert at the present day; much more in the former times when Christians were few, and Christian sym- pathy was circumscribed. And this, I take it, is why the writer admonishes the Hebrews (xiii. 1, 2), 7 PurradeAdia pevéra rijs pidokevias py emdavOdverOe, Sia travtyns yap €habdv twes Eevioavres ayyédous. The example of Rahab was therefore pregnant with instruction. She a poor heathen had acted like a true believer. What a scandal, then, if believers in Jesus should be outdone and put to shame by her faith and CHAP. XI., 29—31. 227 ready hospitality! In reference to Rahab’s former conversation the writer, as also does St. James, calls her 7 répyn. Here we have the inspired interpretation of the Hebrew words, 72 TWX, @ woman a harlot, Josh. ii. 1. (yuvatxds mépyns. LX X.) Josephus (Antiq. v. 1, 2, 7) suppresses the fact of Rahab’s vocation, and merely speaks of her as keeping an inn, and Whiston in his note (in loco) writes :—“ Observe, “that I still call this woman Rahab, an innkeeper, not a harlot ; the “ whole history, both in our copies and especially in Josephus, implying “nomore. It was indeed so frequent a thing, that women who were “innkeepers were also harlots, or maintainers of harlots, that the word “commonly used for real harlots was usually given them.” ‘The probable reason of this euphemistic designation of Rahab by Josephus lies in the fact that she married Salmon, a prince of the house of Judah, as related in Matt.i.5. The Targum calls her xmpinp, Pundakitha, wavSoxeurpia, which Buxtorf, in his Lexicon Chaldaicum, thus explains : “ Caupona, Hospita, esculenta vendens, et quoslibet hospitio excipiens © s yrmpanp xox I> Wy Et ingress’ sunt in domum mulieris cujusdam “ caupone. Hebr. am TR mI, Jos. ii, 1. ROPINE NNN yon xm Lt vidit “illic mulierem cauponam, apud quam scilicet Schimschon divertit, “ hospitandi et pernoctandi caus, cujus amore captus, et ab ea admissus “fuit, Jud. xvi. 1, xmpwp xnmx xm. Lt ise (Jephtha) erat filius “mulierts caupone, Jud. ii. 1. Hane concubinam, non cauponam “publicam, aut scortum fuisse Hebrei tradunt ; unde R. Davidis in “Comment. ad hune locum, tale monitum. Ista olim in Israel con- « suetudo fuit ne devolveretur hereditas ab una tribu ad aliam, ideo non “ Yicebat cuiquam ducere uxorem, que non esset ex sua tribu. Unde st « forte quis amasset quandam ex tribu alia, exibat ila absque hereditate, “et vulgo appellata fuit xmpie (ein Wirtin, ein Kéchinne, non Uzor) “ Hospita, curatrix, aut cibatrix, et talis fuit mater Jephte. Hee ille—- “ Plurale, yoae Po) pran TNnE p21. Tune venerunt due mulieres caupone, “ Hebraicé, mx ow, 1 Reg. iii. 16. Rabbi David ad locum Josue “seribit mentem Jonathanis esse, quod honest4 appellatione mulieris “ cauponariz intelligat etiam meretricem, quod meretrix sit instar “caupone, se cuilibet prostituens, ut caupona omnibus cibum minis- “trans.” The following extract from the Babyl. Gemara (treatise Zevachim, printed at length in Ugolini’s Thes., vol. xix.) is decisive as to the Talmudical opinion respecting Rahab’s early career. The passage is found in col. 605 :— JD DD NX TP WAT WR MX WOW I POP MD) MOK WNT IM ANY TY DY Wop Nd WONT NDT NID CNDT TY TW PT ND > WONT DNA NW ND NI NW TI TW 9D 7) JR VW WNT AT NID) WP ND 02 "NWPR WENT we YW AW DVIS AN OOD WW WWI WT DW WY M1 WX .7WT AM by PDMWH) Po ban Iwas) WD ND TWVON WAN AW Owe We 13702 ONT 228 CHAP. XI., 32. “Similiter Rachab meretrix dixit legatis Josue: Audivimus, quod “ siccaverit Dominus aquas maris Suph. Quid ibi repetit dicendo: e “non fuit in nobis spiritus? Hit cur hic repetit dicendo : Et non fuit in “tis amplius spiritus ? Licet induresceret, tamen non indurescebat. Et * Unde cognovit ? Dicit Mor : Nullus est tibi princeps, et dux, qui non ** sit congressus cum Rachab meretrice. Dixerunt : Decimum et secun- “dum annum agebat, quando egressi sunt Israelite de Aegypto, et “ scortata est quadraginta annos, in quibus fuerunt Israelitze in deserto, “ post quinquaginta annos facta est proselyta. Dicit : XIgnoscatur mihi ‘‘propter mercedem funiculi lini in fenestra.” B. Scheidius, in his Preierita preteritorum, gives a considerably broader translation of the above passage, and adds, “ Glossa: Traditur ita eam dixisse : “Domine mundi, per tria peccavi, per tria fit condonatio. Per funem “et linum et fenestram. Nam adulteri ascendebant ad eam funibus, * vid fenestrae, et descendebant, et quoque abscondebat eos in linis ligni, * et per ea ipsa tria, merita est, liberando legatos.” (Meuschen, Nov. Test. exc Talmude illustr., p. 40.) Scheidius quotes at length also a somewhat celebrated passage from the treatise Megilla, f. 14, 2, where it is asserted that Joshua married Rahab, by whom he had daughters but no sons, and in which also the following ridiculous statement occurs :—“ Tradiderunt Rabbini, Rachab, nomine suo audito, ad forni- “cationem irritavit. Glossa; Siquis commemoret nomen ejus, trahitur ‘‘libidine scortationis ; Jaél voce sua ; Abigail, memoria sui; Michael “ aspectu sui,” &e. (Ibid., pp. 40, 41.) See also Smith’s Dict., Article Rahab, and Surenhusius’ Conciliationes de Genealogia Jesu Christi. (BiBdos karaAX., pp. 121—123.) Verse 32,—And what shall I say more? (kal ti tu A€yo; or perhaps, Why should I yet run on?) For the time would fail me (when) discoursing, in detail, concerning Gideon,’ and Barak, and Samson, and Jephtha.’ 1 The writer, kindling to his subject with a glow of holy enthusiasm, surveys the mighty cloud of witnesses grouped around, as it were, in illustrious conclave. He loses himself in the contemplation of their achievements, and as his eye flashes from one end to the other of the glorious assemblage, he forgets the orderly sequence of their acts. He sees them, not singly as they severally fought and conquered upon life’s laborious arena, but with the triumphant glance of patriotic rapture he penetrates into the shining courts above, where in radiant fellowship they stand clustered, so to speak, suspensefully watching the issue of the conflict yet carried forward, by their brethren in arms who yet remain behind. In this sublime and vehement outburst of pathetic and fiery eloquence we CHAP. XT., ‘32. 229 must not limit the writer’s allusions to any particular age or crisis in the Church’s history. He culls at random a posy of historic examples of well- known and familiar deeds, and presents it to his readers in the exulting consciousness that each name that he utters, and every incident that he lightly touches, will awaken responsive echoes in their faltering hearts. Asa Jew he speaks to Jews. He reminds them of what their forefathers have done, and by the acts of sacred prowess that endear the memories of the mighty dead to the Hebrew soul, he exhorts them to lay aside all puling fears, to be strong, and play the man. To show themselves worthy descendants of such distinguished ancestry and such heroic sires, to endure unto the end, and so, faithful unto death, to win the fadeless palm and the crown of life. Now in imagination he re- awakens the battle ery of The Sword of the Lord and Gideon! He conjures back the fierce onset of the forlorn hope of Israel’s three hundred men, the wild dismay and rout of Midian’s outlandish chivalry, the shrill clangour of the trumpets and the fiery tongues of the lamps illumining the midnight sky with their vengeful glare ; anon he passes on to Barak, nerved into heroic resolution by the inspired appeals of Deborah, going forth to the overthrow of Jabin’s hosts with their nine hundred chariots of iron, and afterwards cele- brating the subjugation of Sisera in Deborah’s immortal Ze Deum. (Jud. v.) Now Jephthah’s impetuous valour rises to his lips, and his sublime self-abnegation in devoting his only child, his darling daughter, to the service of the sanctuary and a perpetual virginity, as a thank- offering to God for his country’s deliverance. Then again he sees blind Samson in Dagon’s house feeling for the pillars, pouring forth his mighty soul in prayer to the God of Israel, and then bowing himself with recovered strength until the roof collapses, burying idol and revellers, his country’s tormentors and himself, in the ruins of the temple. And now Samuel, the restorer of his country’s ruined estate, the repairer of the breaches of many generations, the inflexible judge, the blameless prophet ; and now David, the friendless shepherd lad— the vanquisher of the Giant of Gath, the founder of Judah’s sovereign house, the royal ancestor of Messiah, the sweet singer of Israel ; and, lastly, the goodly fellowship of the prophets claim to themselves their several meed of honourable mention and reverential respect. To these foremost paladins in the noble army of martyrs he points with tri- umphant exultation, contenting himself with the bare mention of the deeds and sufferings of others, equally great, whose memories are embalmed in their fellow-citizens’ love—whose epitaphs are engraved upon the hearts of their admiring children. Let it not be forgotten that every allusion recalled some sainted name, some act of super- 230 CHAP. XI., 32. human endurance, some successful resistance to the oppressors of Israel, some victory over sin and idolatrous might for the sake of Israel's good or the hope of the Fathers, and then we shall, at least partially, realise the nature of the writer’s appeal to the passionately devoted patriotism of his Hebrew brethren. Those who know by experience and personal intercourse with devout Jews, their unbounded devotion to their country and its consecrated memories, will feel no difficulty in assenting to the masterly appro- priateness of this closing address, directed as it is to the holiest senti- ments of an enthusiastic race. The despairing pertinacity displayed in the defence of Jerusalem, as related by Josephus, will serve to illustrate the patriotic self-devotion of the Jewish people, a sentiment which still survives in many a Hebrew breast. No other nation under heaven has such glorious reminiscences, hoary with the most venerable antiquity, and luminous with the splendours of Divine interpositions on its behalf, to cherish and to hug to their desolate bosoms, as the children of the Patriarchs and the Prophets. They still in the lands of their dispersion style themselves D299 122, sons of kings. ? The Rev. W. T. Bullock, in Smith’s Dictionary (Article Jephtha), writes “that the daughter of Jephtha was really offered up to God in ‘sacrifice, slain by the hand of her father, and then burned, is a “horrible conclusion, but one which it seems impossible to avoid. «This was understood to be the meaning of the text by Jonathan the “ Paraphrast and Rashi, by Josephus, Ant. v. 7, 10, and by perhaps “all the early Christian fathers...... For the first eleven centuries of “the Christian era this was the current, perhaps the universal, opinion “ of Jews and Christians.” The Rev. Author of the article mentions a considerable list of distinguished writers who are of the contrary opinion. To that list ought to be added the illustrious names of Reland, Selden, and Whiston. I would venture to suggest that Mr. Bullock arrives at his conclusions from faulty premises and a misinterpretation of Judg. xi. 29, which he finds it necessary to explain away in order to establish his theory. There it is written M7 nM mn bv AM, “ And the Spirit “of Jehovah came upon Jephtha.” On this passage he writes :—‘ Then ‘the Spirit of the Lord (.e., force of mind, for great undertakings, and “bodily strength, Zanchum: comp. Judg. iii. 10, vi. 34, ix. 29, xiv. 6, “ xy. 14) came upon Jephtha. He collected warriors throughout Gilead “and Manasseh,” &e. As a preparation for this Rabbinical gloss Mr. Bullock refers the words of verse 11, (MHY23 TT 1265 37 9D MX MND WN, “ And Jephtha uttered all his words before Jehovah in Mispeh,”) simply to the occasion of his accompanying the elders of Gilead, when he con- sented to be elected as their chief. Luther, indeed, renders—“ Und CHAP, XI., 32. 231 “ Jephtha redete solches Alles vor dem Herrn zu Mizpa,” but this is not the strict meaning of the Hebrew words, which the Vulgate cor- rectly translates Locutusque est Jephte omnes sermones suos coram Domino in Maspha. The idea of Jephtha’s acting under the Divine influences of God’s Holy Spirit militates no doubt against Mr. Bullock’s sugges- tions, that he was at the time of his call at the head of a ‘‘ company of freebooters,” and that “a Gileadite born in a lawless age, living asa “ freebooter (!) in the midst of rude and idolatrous people who prac- * tised such sacrifices, was not likely to be unusually acquainted with, “ or to pay unusual respect to, the pure and humane laws of Israel.” Now the assertion that Jephtha “lived as a freebooter” is a pure invention of the fancy. The Hebrew text simply informs us that Jephtha fled from the persecutions of his brethren, ‘‘and dwelt in the “Jand of Tob, and vain persons gathered themselves to Jephtha, and “they went out with him.” The picturesque allusion to the habits of a “ Scottish border chieftain in the middle ages,” in other words, that Jephtha lived by murder and plunder, is equally unsupported by the Word of God. The allusion to David’s manner of life at Ziklag is equally unhappy, as far as tending to show that Jephtha was a godless bandit. Surely Mr. Bullock forgets that at this period some of David’s most affecting Psalms were written. The real vocation of David at this period is evident from 1 Sam. xxv. 14—16, where it appears that he and his men acted as protectors to their countrymen against the incur- sions of foreign marauders. But the actual question at issue is, whether the gloss of Zanchwm is admissible or not. Does the phrase in Jud. xi. 11 invariably signify ‘force ef mind for great undertakings and bodily “strength” ? On the contrary, it invariably signifies an extraordinary and particular Divine afflatus, frequently accompanied with the gift of Prophecy, and discontinued as soon as the particular emergency had passed away, e.g., in the case of Eldad and Medad, Num. xi. 25 ; of Balaam, Num. xxiv. 2; of Saul, 1 Sam. x. 6—11; of David at his anointing, 1 Sam. xvi. 13, where it is also said (verse 14) ™D m7 my MP NX AIM wnpn Hew ova and the Spirit of Jehovah departed from with Saul, and an evil spirit from Jehovah troubled (or tempted) him, 2 Chron. xv. 1 ; of Azariah,—2 Chron. xxiv. 20, where it is said, “The “Spirit of God clothed (7~2) as in Judg. vi. 34) Zechariah the son of “ Jehoiadah the priest, who stood above the people, and said unto them, “Thus saith God,” &c. See also Ezek. ii. 2, iii. 12, 14, 24, viii. 3, xi. 1, 5, 24, in all of which passages Z’anchum’s interpretation is utterly inadmissible. In the next place Mr. Bullock admits that he does not exactly know where to fix the precise locality of Jephtha’s settlement. He calls it “a debateable land, probably belonging to Ammon, 2 Sam. rag ens 232 CHAP. XI., 32. “x. 6.” Possibly his conjecture may be correct, but until the point is decisively settled it is rather premature, I would submit, to assert that the inhabitants of this terra incognita (see Wells’ Geography, vol. i., 360, ii., 49) were addicted to the practice of human sacrifices. Such slipshod conjecture is not critical certainty. In 2 Kings iii. 27 we are told, indeed, that the King of Moab, when beleaguered in Kirhareseth, offered his eldest son as a burnt offering upon the city wall. But the terms of Jephtha’s twofold message to the King of Ammon (Judges xi. 14—27) affords the best index, not.only to his character for humanity and justice, but also to his religious belief. He was certainly not the ignorant and reckless desperado that he is represented in Smith’s Dic- tionary. On the contrary, any one who will carefully read Judges x. will perceive that it was God’s providential guidance which directed the men of Gilead in the choice of a leader. The expression of a per- sistent sentiment of reverential aftiance in the revelation of the ways of God to man in times of old, will doubtless awaken a derisive smile in these days of haphazard experimentalising upon God’s Word. It is, however, assuredly a more consolatory basis of trust to rest one’s faith upon the inspired assertions of the Old and New Testaments, than to drift wittingly away from the ancient landmarks, and to commit oneself as “a waif and a stray” upon the sea of conjecture, to the safe keeping of admitted guesses against the veracity, the common sense, nay, the ordinary sagacity of the sacred penman. According to the modern school of interpretation the holy men of old were either dupes, or fools, or knaves, or all three together. Jephtha’s rash vow, spoken in the enthusiasm of his indignation against the Ammonites who had twice rejected his offers for an amicable settlement of the disputed territory, affords a memorable illustration of weakness, even in the most heroic characters. But in the Bible, God’s saints are never represented as perfect. An ideal portrait of perfection would bear upon the face of it the justification for rejecting it as untrue. Here it is told of Jephtha, like Moses, that he spake ‘‘unadvisedly with his lips” ; and yet he is held up by the Writer to the Hebrews as an example of the faith that overcame. His vow was made according to zeal, but not according to knowledge. But that he was a true servant of, and believer in, Jehovah, is certain from the 11th and 12th chapters of the book ef Judges. He acted under strong religious impressions and with a holy ardour for the vindication of Jehovah’s honour. That he would offer, and God would accept, or rather would not reprobate by one word of indignant disapproval, Jephtha’s immolation of his child, is a theory altogether incredible. The literal translation of the Hebrew words in Judges xi. 39, 40 by no means necessitates the inference which the surreptitious CHAP) Xl a2: 233 introduction of the words according to, apparently sanctions in the English version. It is there said 72 WR WW) MR 7) wy, the exact sense of which is given by the LXX., kai éroincev ev auth thy edxiy avrou iv nvéaro. And then it is added by way of explanation x? xm wrx mp and she knew no husband, i.e., she remained for ever single. This explanation would be meaningless and unnecessary if her father had sacrificed her immediately on her return, after her two months’ sojourn in the mountains. She had left him a virgin, probably already betrothed to a husband, and being the only child of Jephtha, all hope of posterity was abandoned, and she was devoted by her own consent to perpetual maidenhood. Surely the advocates of the immolation theory would not insinuate that it was needful to intimate that Jephtha’s daughter suffered no violence at the executioner’s hands before she suffered death for her father’s sins. Jephtha, moreover, who “ uttered “all his words before Jehovah in Mizpeh,” would have ample oppor- tunity for ascertaining the will of the Lord during the two months of his daughter’s absence. The assertion contained in Mr. Grove’s article Mizpah, in Smith’s Dictionary, that ‘“ we can hardly doubt that “on the altar of that Sanctuary” (previously described in the same article as a Sanctuary of Jehovah) “the father’s terrible vow was con- “summated,” is simply revolting to every pious mind. For further discussion of this topic see Whiston’s Essay on the Sacrifice of Isaac before alluded to, on page 202; Selden’s treatise, De Success. in Pontif. Heb., lib. i., col. 234, and in the 12mo. edition of Leyden, 1638, pp. 228—230. The treatise is printed at length in vol. xii. of Ugolin. Zhes., see also Selden, De jure Natur. et Gent. (of which chapter ix., book iv., is devoted to the discussion of Jephtha’s vow. The treatise is found in vol. xxvii. of Ugol. Thes.).—Car. Sigonius, De Rep. Hebreor., ibid., vol. iv., col. 490, note 5, and Reland, Axntiquitates sacre veterum Hebr., pp. 387—390. (Trajecti Bat., 1712, 8vo.) The latter writer proposes to translate the words of Jephtha’s vow 7nyo wmym mm mM, erit illud Deo sacrum, Avt in holocaustum id offeram, i.e., it shall be for the Lord, or I will offer it as a burnt-offering. He cites Exod, xxi. 15 in support of his theory, although Gesenius, Levicon Manuale, p. 262, hh., stoutly denies that ) ever has the signification of aut, or, and refers to Exod. xxi. 15—17 in support of his assertion. Nevertheless, R. David Kimchi supplies the very same interpretation, based upon Exod. xxi. 15, and tells us that it was his father’s, R. Joseph Kimchi’s, view of the subject, and accords his unqualified approval to this view of the subject. R. Levi Ben Gerson is strongly in favour of the same opinion. See Selden, De Jure Nat. et Gent. (ibid., col. 1048, 1049). That virgins were sometimes offered, v.e., set apart, to the Lord for the oe 234 CHAP. XI., 32, 33. service of the Tabernacle, Reland implies from Num. xxxi. 35. He alludes to God’s utter detestation of human sacrifices as expressed in Is. lxvi. 3; and, lastly, he shrewdly remarks that the daughters of Israel are not related to have bewailed the maiden’s death, but her condition of virginity. The reader may also with great advantage con- sult the famous Abbé Guénée’s inimitable rejoinder to M. de Voltaire’s assertions that the Jewish law authorised and commanded human sacrifices in reference to the sacrifice of Isaac, Jephtha’s vow, and the dedication of the Midianitish women, &c., &c. Lettres de quelques Juifs Portugais, Allemands et Polonais & M. de Voltaire, par M. l Abbé Guénée. Tom. ii., Lettre iii. (Si les Juifs immolaient des hommes a la Divinité, et st leur loi autorisait ces sacrifices), pp. 39—61. (Paris, 3 Tom. 8vo.) From the last-mentioned writer it will be seen that the attempt to foist the sacrifice of a human being upon the altar of Jehovah, is only an insipid warming up of the ill-savoured impieties of the so-called “ Philosopher” of Verney. The audacity of pretending originality for these exploded impieties will be obvious to every moderately well- read student. Most of the objections of the modern school of “ Higher Biblical Criticism” are to be found, in some shape or other, in the writings of the French and English Atheists and Deists of the last century. Many of these silly impieties are admirably disposed of in Bishop Watson’s Apology. Verses 32, 33.—And David and Samuel and the prophets. Who, through faith, subdued kingdoms' (ckatnyovicarto, entered into successful conflict with the resources of kings and kingdoms ?), wrought righteousness’ (eipyacdvto SiKaio- avvnv), obtained (évrétuxor, realised) promises,® stopped the mouths of lions.* Dr. Gill refers the subduing of kingdoms to the conquests especially of David, who subjugated Syria, Moab, Ammon, Amalek, Edom, and the Philistines, 2 Sam. viii. 12, 14; but I cannot help thinking that reference is here made to the heroic stand and protest which the _ prophets, from Samuel and Elijah onwards, made against Royal and national apostacy, and departure from God. They strove and wrestled mightily against the encroachments of Royal libertinism upon the altar and the constitution, fearlessly pleading the cause of a Naboth against an Ahab and a Jezebel; of the forlorn and oppressed people, as Micaiah did against Ahab, and Jeremiah did against Jehoiakim; and this in spite of the persecution and neglect and despiteful treatment CHAP. XI., 34. 235 which they suffered at the hands of their ungrateful countrymen. For an excellent treatise on the subject of Elijah, see J. Wesselii, Désser- tatio de Epistola Elie Prophete, ad 2 Chron. xxi. 12 (Dissertationes Sacre Leidenses, Lugd. Bat., 1721. 4to.). Ewald translates the passage thus :—* Welche unter Glauben Kénigreiche niederkimpften, Gerech- “tiokeit vollfiihrten, Verheissungen erlangten, Lowenrachen vers- topften,” &c. * Dr. Gill paraphrases the expression “ wrought righteousness” by * exercised vindictive justice, in taking vengeance on the enemies of “God,” &e. It probably signifies “asserted the right,” “ foretold “ God’s retributive justice,’ and were instruments in its accomplish- ment. So Elijah destroyed the Baal prophets and priests, and denounced vengeance on Ahab and his posterity. So the man of God that came from Judah prophesied against the altar, and gave a sign which, many long years after, was fulfilled by Josiah. So, also, “the Lord spake by “his servants the prophets” (2 Kings xxi. 10—16) against Manasseh, because of the “very much innocent blood that he shed.” Such was the commission which Jeremiah received :—“ See, I have set thee over “the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and “to destroy, and to throw down, to build and to plant.” (Jer. i. 10.) * Such were Joshua and Caleb, Gideon (Judges vi. 13), Manoah (tbid., xiii. 24); such was David, who waited God’s time until the kingdom was given to him, without raising his finger to hasten on the crisis. Such was Hezekiah, who obtained the promised deliverance from the Assyrian invaders ; and Ezra and Nehemiah, whose faith was rewarded in beholding the return from captivity. Ewald considers the Writer to refer to the- Messianic promises successively received by the prophets, and which were confirmatory of and supplementary to the Promise made to Abraham. He writes :—“‘ Erlangten Verheissungen, ‘wie David 2 Sam. vii., und soviele Propheten, neue Verheissungen, “und doch nur zu den noch im Anfange des vorigen Abschnittes, v. 17, “erwahnten alten Messianischen hinzukommende, und ihre Gewissheit ““mehrende, aber deswegen auch hier nicht vergessene.” * Samson (Judges xiv. 5), David (1 Sam. xvii. 34), Daniel (vi. 22, 23), eppagav, shut up. The LXX. has, in Dan. vi. 22, dveppage ra otdépata k.7.A. 3 and, in verse 18, €xNewev 6 Ocds Ta oTdpata Tay edyTwY, Kal ov mapnvexAnoav r@ Aavind, which passage is not in the Chaldee. Verse 34.— Quenched the violence (dvvayuw) of fire,’ escaped the edge of the sword? (€buyov otopata payaipas, 27n %5), out of weakness* were made strong (évedvvayo- Oncav amo ac@nveias), were made valiant in war, put to 236 CHAP. XI., 35. fight the armies of the aliens (mapeuBords éxduwav adXoTpiav).* " Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the burning fiery furnace. A direct allusion to Dan. iii. 27. prowia xno wow Nd, ovK exuplevoe TO TUp TOU G@paTos a’tav. LXX., * Rahab, David, Elijah (1 Kings xvii. 3, xix. 3, 2 Kings i. 9—16) ; Elisha (2 Kings xiv. 13—20) ; the prophets hidden away by Obadiah (1 Kings xviii. 4) ; Jeremiah (Jer. xxxvi. 26) ; Baruch (cbid.); Ebed- melech (Jer, xxxix. 16—18), * David, as may be seen from many of his Psalms; Hezekiah (2 Kings xx. ; Isaiah xxxviii.) after his sickness. But I think that the writer has chiefly in his mind spiritual feebleness and depression such as Moses exhibited at his call (Exod. iv. 1—13) ; also at the ill-success of his mission (Exod. v. 22, 23) ; the men of Israel for fear before the Philistines, when Jonathan smote the garrison (1 Sam. xiii. 6 ; comp. with xiv. 1—23); again, before David slew Goliath (1 Sam. xvii.); Obadiah (1 Kings xviii. 9—16); Elijah himself (1 Kings xix. 3, 4, 8); Hezekiah, for fear of Sennacherib (2 Kings xix. 6—21; Isaiah xxxvii. 1); Isaiah at the vision of Jehovah (vi. 5—8); Jeremiah at his call. “Then said I, Ah, Lord God! behold, I cannot speak ; for I am a “child,” &e. (Jer. i. 6—10) ; Ezekiel at the vision preceding his com- mission (Ezek. i. 28, ii. 1, 2, iii, 14, 23, 24); Nehemiah (iv. 4, 5, 9, 14); Mordecai (Esther iv. 1, viii. 15, &c.). For the use of the word evdvvaudw (always in a spiritual sense), see Acts ix. 22, Rom. iv. 20, Eph, vi 10; Philipp. iv.13, 1 Tim:1. 12; 9) Pim. ay av. 17 * See Joshua and Judges, as well as the other historical books, passim. The exploits of Abraham (Gen. xiv. 15), of Shamgar (Jud. iii. 31), of Samson (xv. 15), of Jonathan with his armourbearer (1 Sam. xiv.), and David singlehanded against Goliath, are prominent instances of the discomfiture of the armies of the aliens. TapeuBodn occurs ten times in the New Testament. In Acts xxi. 34, 37, xxii. 24, xxiii. 10, 16, 32, it is translated, in the Authorized Version, “ castle.” In Heb. xiii. 11, 18, and Rev. xx. 9, it is rendered by “ camp.” Possibly allu- sion is here made to the Maccabeean exploits, but I confess that I doubt it. Verse 35.—Women received their dead to life again! (é avactacews, von der Auferstehung.—tLuth.), but others were cudgeled*® to death (€tupravic@ncav, serschlagen.— Luth.), not accepting the proffered release (i.e., on the CHAP. XI., 36—40. 237 condition of apostatizing), in order that they might attain to (t¥xwow) a resurrection that was preferable (xpelTTovos, i.e., to be chosen before a release from torment purchased by a denial of the faith).* ! Resuscitation is, in this case, a rendering more consonant with the sense than resurrection. Two of the examples recorded in the Old Testa- ment of restoration to life are found 1 Kings xvii. 17, of the son of the widow of Sarephath, and of the Shunammite (2 Kingsiv. 17). The first was restored to life by the prayer of Elijah, the other by the interces- sion of Elisha. The third instance is recorded 2 Kings xiii. 21, where the occurrence seems to have been entirely unforeseen and unexpected. The effective cause, at least in the case of the widow of Sarephath, was the faith, not of the mother, but of the prophet. See 1 Kings xvii. 18. 2 Ervpravicénoav. Probably under the persecutions of Jezebel and Manasseh. The rivpravoy seems to have been an instrument in the shape of a drum or wheel, and is mentioned 2 Macc. vi. 19—28 ; although, as the verb not unusually signities to beat to deuth, there is no absolute necessity for deciding that the above-mentioned instrument of torture is here alluded to. For a vast number of authorities upon the subject, see Wettstein, in loco, and also J. C. Woltii, Cure Philologice, &e., tom. iv., p. 768. The last-mentioned writer (ibzd., p. 769) speaks with a very qualified certainty, as to the allusion having any reference to the case of the Maccabees. Kpeirrovos should be referred to arodv- tpeow, and not to the resurrection mentioned in the commencement of the verse, nor yet to the resurrection of the just, as opposed to that of the ungodly (Dan. xii. 2). The proposal to refer it to Daniel’s prophecy is far-fetched. $ Josephus writes :—“Every good man hath his own conscience “bearing witness to himself ; and, by virtue of our legislators’ pro- “ phetic spirit, and of the firm security which God affords to such an “one, he believes that God hath made this grant to those that observe “ these laws, even though they be obliged readily to die for them, that “they shall come into being again, and, at a certain revolution of “things, receive a better life than they enjoyed before.” (Jos. against Apion, ii. 31. Whiston.) Verses 36—40.—And others were put to the test of (weipav édaBov; or else, experienced) mockings' and scourgings,’ as well as of bonds and imprisonment.* They were stoned,’ they were sawn asunder,’ they were tempted 238 CHAP. XI., 36—40. (€mretpacOnoav), they were butchered by the sword’ (ev dovm payaipas améBavov, they were beheaded ?), they went about in sheepskins and goatskins,’ destitute,’ afflicted (@AxBomevor, chafed, cruelly harassed), evil entreated (kaxovyovmevot), of whom the world was not worthy,” wandering up and down (7Aav@pevot) in desert places and mountains, and caves, and dens (d7rats, holes, cavernous retreats) of the earth." And all these aforesaid, although they obtained a good report through the faith (Kal ob7oe mavTes paptupnbévtes Sua THS mictews), did not receive (ovK éxouicavTo) THE PROMISE; God having predestined (7poBreYrapéevov, looked forward to) some far more excel- lent thing concerning us (¢.e., his whole Church and people): so that without us (that remain, and shall remain unto the coming of Christ, va wn xopis nuov) they might not attain to their final perfection (tehevwAdav).” 1 Samson (Judges xvi. 25); David by Shimei (2 Sam. xvi. 5—13. See also passim in the Psalms) ; Micaiah (1 Kings xxii, 24); Jeremiah smitten and put into the stocks by Pashur (Jer. xx. 1, 2); Jeremiah complains, “I am in derision daily, every one mocketh me” (zbid., 7) ; the Jews when rebuilding Jerusalem by Sanballat and Tobiah (Neh. iv. 1—4); the Prophets of God by the Jews (2 Chron. xxxvi. 16), where it is said, ‘‘ They mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and “misused his prophets,” &c. Kat joav puxtnpifovres rods ayyéXovs avrod, kal ée€ovbevoovres tovs Adyous av’tov, Kal eumaifovtes ev Tois mpopyras avtov.—L XX. The Hebrew oynynn is probably better rendered by épraitovres than by ‘ misused.” See the parable of the vineyard, Matt. xxi. 33, &c., Mark xii. 1, &c., Luke xx. 9, and also the Saviour’s lament over Jerusalem, Matt. xxiii. 34—37. 2 This is in exact accordance with the account given by Josephus, Antig. xii. 5, 4, of the outrages and cruelties practised by Antiochus :— “ And when the King had built an idol-altar upon God’s altar, he slew “‘ swine upon it, and so offered a sacrifice neither according to the law, nor “ the Jewish religious worship in that country. He also compelled them “ to forsake the worship which they paid their own God, and to adore “those whom he took to be gods, and made them build temples, and “raise idol-altars, in every city and village, and offer swine upon them “ every day. He also commanded them not to circumcise their sons, CHAP. XI., 36—40. 239 “and threatened to punish any that should be found to have trans- “oressed his injunction. He also appointed overseers, who should “compel them to do what he commanded. And, indeed, many Jews “there were who complied with the King’s commands, either volun- “tarily, or out of fear of the penalty that was denounced; but the “best men, and those of the noblest souls, did not regard him, but did ‘* pay agreater respect to the customs of their country than concern as * to the punishment which he threatened to the disobedient ; on which “account they every day underwent great miseries and bitter torments, “for they were whipped with rods, and their bodies were torn to “pieces, and were crucified while they were still alive and breathed : “they also strangled those women, and their sons whom they had “circumcised, as the King had appointed, hanging their sons about “their necks as they were upon the crosses. And if there were ary “sacred book of the Law found, it was destroyed, and those with “whom they were found miserably perished also.” (Whiston’s Josephus.) That the establishment of idolatry in the kingdoms of Israel and Judah was accomplished without persecution is very improbable. Under Jezebel’s bloody tyranny the outward worship of Jehovah was, for a time at least, extinct. We know from 2 Chron. xi. 14—16 that Jero- boam stripped the Levites of their possessions and property, and pro- hibited them from executing their functions. They emigrated in a body to Judah, “and after them out of all the tribes of Israel, such as “set their hearts to seek the Lord God of Israel, came to Jerusalem, “to sacrifice unto the Lord God of their fathers.” A further and numerous exodus “out of Ephraim, and Manasseh, and of Simeon” is mentioned 2 Chron. xv. 9, in the reign of Asa; whilst in 2 Chron. xxx. 10 we learn how the messengers of Hezekiah were received with scorn and mocking when they invited the Israelites to participate in the Passover at Jerusalem, although “divers of Asher and Manasseh and “of Zebulum humbled themselves, and came to Jerusalem.” Under Ahaz and Manasseh, as well as under Jehoiakim, idolatrous intolerance and persecuting malevolence made themselves severely felt. The writer of the article Manasseh, in Smith’s Dictionary, justly observes (although there are some of his other suggestions which are open, to say the least, to grave objections), “The struggle of opposing worships must have “been as fierce under Manasseh, as it was under Antiochus, or Decius, “or Diocletian, or Mary. Men must have suffered and died in that “struggle, of whom the world was not worthy.” * Joseph (Psalm cy. 18); Micaiah (1 Kings xxii. 26); Hannani the Seer, by Asa (2 Chron. xvi. 10); Jeremiah (Jer. xxxii. 2, xxxvi. 5, XXXVili. 6). 240 CHAP. XI., 36—40. * Naboth the Jezreelite was truly a martyr to his allegiance to the law of his God (1 Kings xxi). By Leviticus xxv. 23, 24, he was expressly forbidden to alienate his inheritance for ever. “The land shall not be “sold (nna) 720n xb poNm, Jit. to extinction), for the land is mine, for “ye are strangers and sojourners with me. And in all the land of your “possession ye shall grant a redemption (12nn 5x2) for the land.” And therefore he declined the King’s offer with the words, ‘‘ Jehovah forbid “it me, that I should give the inheritance of my fathers unto thee.” Let it be observed it was a total alienation that Ahab aimed at ; for he offered to give him “a better vineyard than it,” or the “worth of it in “money” (79 vim 702). Dean Stanley (Smith's Dictionary; Article, Naboth), with his usual temptation to say something striking and flippant, writes, “ Naboth, in the independent spirit of a Jewish ‘* Jandholder, refused. Perhaps the turn of his expression implies that “his objection was mingled with a religious scruple at forwarding the “ acquisitions of a half-heathen king (!). ‘Jehovah forbid it to me that “¢T should give the inheritance of my fathers unto thee.” The truth is that Dean Stanley feels not unwilling to explain away Naboth’s reply, inasmuch as it affords incontrovertible testimony to the fact that the Mosaic system of jurisprudence was in full force in the days of Ahab, and that the theocratic settlement of landed estates was so rigidly and sacredly adhered to, that even Ahab did not feel himself strong enough to encroach upon a right so ancient, and so universally acknowledged as the basis of the social system. The Dean proceeds to say, ‘‘ Naboth “ wus set on high in the public place of Samaria.” These words, “ in “ the public place of Samaria” are an ornamental addition not found in the text, but calculated to divert the attention from the fact that Jezebel herself felt compelled to observe the Mosaic constitution, at least outwardly, in her scheme to destroy Naboth, and therefore directed that he should be tried, according to the law, for blasphemy. The charge of high treason was added, according to all the best Rab- binical and philological authorities, in order that the goods of Naboth might legally revert to the crown. (See Selden, De Swuecessionibus ad leges Hebreeorum in Bona defunctorum [cap. 25, De successione Fisci, seu heredibus morte damnatorum], pp. 173—187.) A striking example of this law is afforded in the generous restitution by David of Saul’s property, which had been forfeited by the treason of Ishbosheth, to Mephibosheth, 2 Sam. ix. 7. Dean Stanley mentions that Naboth’s sons suffered with their father, correctly enough, for it is implied in Jehu’s speech (2 Kings ix. 26). He forgets, however, to remark that this extirpation of Naboth’s family was according to the precedent of Achan (Josh. vii. 25), who suffered for high treason against God when CHAP. XI., 36—40. 241 he appropriated the idolatrous spoils. The “ public place,” then, was the gate of the city, where the court was held. According to the Mosaic Law, Jezebel commits the case of Naboth to the “ elders ” and nobles of the city ; in other words, to the lesser Council or Sanhedrin (pt m2) of twenty-three members, who had power of life and death. (See Selden, ¢ded.; Cuneeus, de Rep. Hebr., p. 106, Lugd. Bat., 1632, 12mo.; Gemara Jerus., tract Sanhedrin, col. 3, &c.; Ugolin. Thes., vol. xxv.; Mishna, Surenhusius’ edition, tom. iv., p. 212, § 4— Mmoowr Oya nywe 21, “Causes of life and death [are tried] by the “three-and-twenty,” &c.; also, p. 207, § 1, p. 214, § 6, and p. 232, §5; A. Pfeiffer, Antigquitates Selecte, cap. ii., De Poenis Judeorum Sorensibus, in Ugolin. Thes., vol. iv., col, 1083.) The punishment of stoning, itself, was constitutionally according to the law of Moses, and one which a king had no power to inflict. Execution by the sword was the only form of death which he could legally impose, as Maimonides asserts, file. Sunhedr., chap. xiv. (See Coeceius’ note, Mishna, Sanhedr., ibid., p. 237, § 7.) The chattels of a criminal who was con- victed of blasphemy or idolatry, or any graver offence against the majesty of Jehovah, did not revert to his heirs. The city was destroyed, and was not to be rebuilt (Deut. xiii, 16, 17); and so Maimonides writes, PI M2 NT Wr OTDMW) wR TW on, Their goods are to be burnt, and are not to belong to their heirs, as they do belong in the case of those who suffer death by a decree of the Council. On the other hand, the Babyl. Gemara (Sanhedrin, col. 637 ; Ugolin. Thes., vol. xxv.) asserts as follows :—pww? p02) PT MI INT PN) POI MI NF, When any one suffers capital punishment on account of the kingdom, his goods belong to the King; if by the decree of the Council, they belong to his heirs. R. Levi Ben Gerson observes, }022 mao Tw AM 1709 man. “ We learn from this passage that those condemned to death for “high treason forfeited their goods to the King.” Selden justly concludes that Naboth having been arraigned under the twofold indictment, Pra) DAN NII, thou hast blasphemed God and the king, was visited by confiscation of his vineyard for his high treason, although he underwent the formality of trial by the local magistracy or pt m2. The Jerusalem Gemara, Sanhedrin, fol. 20, col. 2, asserts that anyone who cursed the Royal family of David, 11 m3 ™259, was capitally punished. The reviling of the magistracy was, however, an offence against the Mosaic Statute-book (Exod, xxii, 27) Wn 8) Java Nwn pn xd. See Ugolini Thes., vol. xxv. (Gemara Sanhedr., col. 173, &c.) The letter of Jezebel itself was as consonant with the exact letter of the Mosaic law as the indictment against Naboth, and the punishment to be inflicted for his pretended offences was in accordance with its enactments. She wrote B CaF 2 242 CHAP. XI., 36—40. that after the sentence had been established upon the testimony of “two witnesses” (Num. xxxv. 30, Deut. xvii. 6, 7, xix. 15) he was to be carried out of the city to the place of execution. This was in accordance with Levit. xxiv. 14, and therefore the Mishna says :— “When the trial is over, they lead forth the condemned to be stoned. “The place of stoning was outside the place of trial, for it is said « Sopom nx xew, carry forth the blasphemer (lit. cause to go forth). An “ official stands at the door of the court holding a handkerchief, another “on horseback places himself some distance off, so that he can keep “the other in view. Then, if any witness presents himself who can “testify to the innocence of the criminal, he waves the handkerchief, “and the mounted man gallops off and fetches the culprit back. Even “if he himself alleges proof of his own innocence he may be brought “ back four or five times, provided that what he says appears to have “some solid foundation,” Sec. (Sanhedrin, -p. 233, Mishna Surenh., vol. iv.) It is also related (p. 234, ebrd.) how, when arrived within 10 cubits of the fatal spot, the criminal was urged to confess with a view to expiate his crime. We see, therefore, that there was a humane principle involved, at least in the minds of the Talmudical writers, in the fact of the place of execution being remote from the place of trial. It afforded opportunity of reprieve and confession, See also the Jerusalem Gemara, Sanhedrin Ugolint Thes., vol. xxv., col. 129—131. Respecting the law of Blasphemy, see ¢bid., col. 174—182 ; also Gemara Babyl., ibid., col. 596, &c. The Rabbies held that every one who was stoned was afterwards hung upon a cross until the evening (ébid., col. 698, &e.). This was the opinion of R. Eliezer, but others asserted that none but blasphemers and idolaters were thus treated. (Mishna Surenhus., Sanhedrin, tom. iv., 235.) With all the above quoted helps to the right understanding of the passage, the following note appended by Dean Stanley to his article Naboth, above cited, becomes all the more extraordinary ; either the Very Reverend writer does himself great injustice, or it was a piece of inconceivable rashness for him to undertake to write an article upon a subject, of which the execution of his task appears to justify his confession of entire ignorance. The Dean writes :—*'The Hebrew word which is rendered here only “on high,’ is more accurately ‘at the head of,’ ‘or in the chiefest place “among. (1 Sam. ix. 22.) The passage is obscured by our ignorance (!) ‘of the nature of the ceremonial in which Naboth was made to take “ part ; but in default of this knowledge we may accept the explanation “ of Josephus, that an assembly (€kxAnoia) was convened, at the head of “ which Naboth, in virtue of his position, was placed, in order that the “‘ charge of blasphemy might be more telling.” The translation of the CHAP. XI., 36—40. 243 words orm wx “on high amongst the people” is, after all, no such abstruse mystery. A glance at the Englishman’s Hebrew Concordance, article ws, head, will afford almost numberless examples, which will justify the rendering—times without number it is applied to the top of a mountain, &c., &c., and would there signify an exalted position— a.e., that Naboth was set up in a conspicuous place in the midst of the Council. Or else if the Dean prefers to stand by Josephus’ version, viz., that when the Council of Elders was called together, Naboth was treacherously placed in the chief seat in order to make him a readier mark for his traducers’ false accusations, I would venture to submit for his approval the following extract from 8. F. Buchert Synedrium Magnum (printed at length, Ugol. Thes., vol. xxiii, col. 1167), “Summus hujus Curis preeses proprio nomine appellatur Nasi xw, “ princeps, ad dignitatem summum evectus aut elevatus, qua notione radix “ Hebrea xo sumitur. Supremus Dux kar’ efoyny TIwWT ww, Cuput, “ seu primarius Consessus, &e.” The exact words of 1 Kings xxi. 9 are, DYT WN m2 MX wm, and cause Naboth to sit in the head of the people. The common-sense view of the passage is that given by our version, and also by Luther, und setzet Nabot oben anim Volk. Probably the position in which he was placed was on the top of the gate itself, where he would be conspicuous to all, and would be above the heads of the people. The proclamation of the fast seems to be explained by the statement of the Mishna and Gemara that criminals guilty of heresy were executed on days of solemnity (5212), in order “‘that all the people “might hear and fear.” Deut. xvii. 13 ; Mishna Surenh. (Sanhedrin), vol. iv., p. 258; Gemara (Sanhedrin), Ugol. Thes., vol. 25, cols. 285, 286. Be this as it may, it is quite plain from the multitude of incidental allusions to the enactments of the Mosaic Statute-book con- tained in this 21st chapter of 1 Kings, that Dr. Stanley’s conjecture as given above, respecting Naboth’s refusal to sell his vineyard, is gra- tuitous and untenable. Naboth died a martyr to his constancy to God’s written law, and not owing to some confused notion that it was improper to sell a piece of land to a “ half-heathen king!” This view of the subject is at least as trustworthy as the information which Dr, Stanley unhesitatingly imports into his article from the Septuagint, that Naboth and his sons were eaten by swine as well as dogs, and that the pool or tank into which their blood ran “was the common bathing-place of the prostitutes of the city.” It is also far more trustworthy than the Dean’s attempt to show that the LX X. account of the scene of the transaction is at variance with that of the Hebrew. He writes :—‘ He “ (Naboth) was a Jezreelite and the owner of a small portion of ground, “2 Kings ix. 25, 26, that lay on the eastern slope of the hill of Jezreel. \ 244 CHAP. XI., 36—40. “ He had also a vineyard, of which the situation is not quite certain. “* According to the Hebrew text, 1 Kings xxi. 1, it was in Jezreel, but “the LXX. render the whole clause differently, omitting the words “ which were in Jezreel, and reading instead of the palace, the threshing- “floor of Ahab king of Samaria. This points to the view, certainly “most consistent with the subsequent narrative, that Naboth’s vine- “yard was on the hill of Samaria, close to the threshing-floor (the ‘word translated in the Authorized Version, ‘void place’), which “ undoubtedly existed there, hard by the gate of the city, 1 Kings xxiv. (?) “The Royal palace of Ahab was close upon the city wall at Jezreel.” The assumption that Ahab’s palace was on the city wall, may be taken for what itis worth. Josephus, Antiq. ix. 6, 4, in referring to 2 Kings ix. 30—33, speaks of ‘‘a tower,” and not ‘the palace.” But the large assertion that “ the LX X. render the whole clause differently,” is simply contrary to historic truthfulness, as a comparison of the three texts will show :— Authorized Version. LX xX. And it came to pass 1 Kings xx. 1. Mat on ane mm ~ |after these things, that Naboth the Jezreelite| Kal dymedav ets qv had a vineyard, which pa ame 9277 sx xwa| was in Jezreel, hard b x van Dew? ; the palace of Ahab king | “177 ™4P@ 77) GA@ Axaap 7PM | of Samaria. Baothéws Sapapeias. 1 Kings xxi. 1. TR YRVWT m9 WT DI , Aigo: T® NaBovéai 7@ "le(pa- Now I fearlessly appeal to the candour of critics of any shade what- ever to say whether there is any contradiction whatever expressed or implied in these three statements, To argue from mere coincidence that the LX X. speaks of Ahab’s “ threshing-floor,” and the word ;2 is used in 1 Kings xxii. 10 of the “‘void place” where the two kings sat in state, that Samaria must be intended in xx. 1 instead of Jezreel, is inconceivably childish. To answer Dr. Stanley in the spirit of his own reasoning, I might reply, that in xxii. 10 it is not said ix Ahab’s threshing-floor, but a threshing- Jjloor ; therefore the King’s threshing-floor cannot be intended! The statement of the Hebrew text is quite reconcilable with that of the LXX. Both are probably according to fact. The threshing-floor was doubtless on the Royal premises, and adjoined the vineyard of Naboth. Further, the only colour for asserting that Naboth had two pieces of ground, which are mentioned in the narrative, is contained in the Auth, Version of verse 18, where it is said, “ Arise, go down to meet “ Ahab, King of Israel, which 7s in Samaria. Behold he és in the “vineyard of Naboth, whither he is gone down to possess it.” The CHAP. XI., 36—40. 245 marginal references to 1 Kings xiii. 32, 2 Chron. xxii. 9, might have saved the Dean from this blunder, and would have shown him that “which zs i Samaria” refers to Ahab’s territorial title, and not to Naboth’s vineyard. (See also verse 1 of this chapter.) But the LX X. version speaks decisively in the notes, ’AyaaB Backes ‘Iopand rod év Zapapeia. The Vulgate is stronger still :—“ Achab regis Israel qui est “in Samaria; ecce ad Vineam Naboth descendit ut possideat eam.” Of course, if once this discrepancy can be established, the fulfilment of Elijah’s prophecy respecting Jezebel, recorded by Jehu (2 Kings ix. 36, 37, with minuter particulars, not contained in 1 Kings xxi. 23) as spoken in his hearing, would seem to have failed in its literal and minute accomplishment. But the assertion that Naboth’s vineyard was close to the city of Samaria is based upon a careless and inexcusable blunder, as shown above, whilst any description of its shape or extent, such as the Dean propounds, is purely an imaginary one. Naboth was a Jezreelite. He was tried according to the Law of Moses by the elders and nobles of his own city. After his condemnation, again according to the strict letter of the law, he was led forth from the city to the place of execution. This place of execution for state criminals, for he was tried on the double charge of blasphemy and high treason, may have been outside the city of Samaria, for we read of Ahab, 1 Kings xxii, 38, ‘‘ And one washed the chariot in the pool of Samaria; and the * dogs licked up his blood. And they washed his armour, according “unto the word of the Lord which he spake.” Or else a tank or piece of standing water, near Jezreel, went by the name of the Pool of Samaria, for Josephus distinctly asserts, ‘They took the dead body to ** Samaria, and buried it there ; but when they had washed his chariot “in the fountain of Jezreel, which was bloody with the dead body of “the King, they acknowledged that the prophecy of Elijah was true.” There is, however, no reason for pressing this suggestion respecting the nomenclature of the Pool of Jezreel, as there is nothing in the Hebrew to show that the chariot was not twice washed, or that the armour was not washed at Jezreel and the chariot at Samaria. Indeed, 1 Kings xxii. 38 seems to imply that they were washed at different times. Dr. Stanley’s note on the word “cursed,” whereby he renders “ blasphemed” of the Authorised Version of 1 Kings xxi. 10, 13, affords so novel and startling a specimen of criticism, that when I first read it I almost thought it was intended as a joke. The learned Dean writes, “ By the LXX. this is given évAdynoe, blessed ; possibly merely for the “sake of euphemism.” Surely Dr. Stanley cannot be ignorant that it is a literal rendering of the Hebrew J, he blessed; ov, in the sense of blasphemy against God, he cursed. Job i. 5, 11, ii, 5—9; Ps. x. 3 246 CHAP. XI. 3640. (Gesen.). See Selden, De Jure Nat. et Gent.; Ugolini Thes., vol. xxvii., col. 740—748; Buxtorf, Lexicon Chald., Article sx. The LXX. translators here, as in Job i. 11, ii. 5, have retained the equivalent to Ju, as being most reverently appropriate. On the subject of what constituted blasphemy, see Mishna Surenhus., Sanhedrin, vol. iv., p. 242 ; and on the subject of the mode of legal procedure amongst the Hebrews, see abid., p. 205—268 passim. Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada the priest, was stoned in the court of the house of the Lord (2 Chron. xxiv. 20—22), at the command of Joash, because he remonstrated with King and people on account of their departure from God. This is he to whom, some have asserted, our Lord referred as ‘‘ Zacharias” in Luke xi. 51, and “ Zacharias the “son of Barachias,” Matt. xxiii. 35. It has been suggested that the words Son of Barachias may have crept into the text of St. Matthew from a marginal gloss, inasmuch as in the Gospel which the Nazarenes used “the son of Jehoiada” was substituted in place of the above. Whiston, however, understands our Lord to allude to Zechariah the prophet’s death, viz., the writer of the prophetical book, whose name it bears :—‘‘ Since Zechariah was really the son of Barachiah, and “‘ grandson of Iddo (Zech. i. 1), and how he died, we have no other “account than that before us in St. Matthew.” (See Whiston’s Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 5, 4, note.) Dean Alford (Hebrews xi. 37) says positively, “ Zechariah, son of Jehoiada” (2 Chron. xxiv. 20—22), is “referred to by our Lord” (Luke xi. 51; Matt. xxiii. 35); and in his note on the last passage writes :—“‘ Yiod Bapaytov does not occur in “ Luke xi. 51, and perhaps was not uttered by the Lord himself, but “may have been inserted by mistake, as Zacharias was the son of “ Barachiah (see Zech, i. 1); a circumstance suppressed by Dr. Words- “worth in his elaborate account of the mystical reason of the patro- “ nymic being used here.” Dr. Alford’s accusation of “ suppression ” might perchance have come with a better grace if he had in any way referred to Whiston’s opinion as above cited, that there is really no mistake at all in the text of St. Matthew, but that our Lord has there informed us of the manner of that distinguished prophet’s martyrdom. The Gemara, Sanhedrin, cols. 951, 952, relates, respecting Zechariah the son of Jehoiada, that, when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the temple, Nebuzaradan beheld with astonishment the martyr’s blood trickling from the ground. Having ascertained the cause of the phenomenon, he resolved to pacify his manes. When he had slaughtered 940,000 (!) of the chief men of the Jews, he addressed the spirit thus :— WAND WP WPT PD M2 ONIDR PAIW ow mM M3, Zechariah, Zechariah, I have destroyed the goodliest of them! Is tt your pleasure that I should CHAP. XI., 36—40. 247 slay them all? Upon this, the Gemara says, the blood ceased to flow, and Nebuzaradan was struck with remorse, and became a proselyte. (Ugol. Thes., tom. xxv.)—The supposition that our Lord prophetically referred to the Zacharias the son of Baruch, who was put to the sword by the zealots in the temple, about thirty-four years after Christ’s death, is justly rejected by Whiston. Nor is the obscure tradition, that the father of John the Baptist is pointed to, worthy of serious attention. Tradition makes Jeremiah to have been stoned in Egypt. Dr. Gill well observes, ‘‘ The character of Jerusalem is, that she stoned “the prophets that were sent unto her.” Matt. xxiii. 37. ° ’ErpicOnocav, Dr. Gill writes, “to which there seems to be allusion “in Matt. xxiv. 51 (‘and shall cut him asunder,’ kat d:yorounoe: airoy). There is no instance of any good men being so used in Scripture : “perhaps reference is had to some that suffered thus in the time of “ Antiochus. The Jews have a tradition that the prophet Isaiah was “sawn asunder in the times of Manasseh, and by his order,” &c. The tradition thus alluded to by Dr. Gill is found in the Jerusalem Gemara, Sanhedrin (the tract is printed at length in Ugol. Thes., vol. 25), where it is said that Isaiah fled from the pursuit of Manasseh, and took refuge in a cedar tree, whereupon the cedar swallowed him up. The fringes of his garment, however, were visible. Whereupon they went and told Manasseh, and he commanded the cedar tree to be sawn asunder. Upon obeying the King’s orders, the prophet’s blood gushed forth. The passage is as follows :— RMN) PY Yop yO PY NM Mayen wa /yw TD mT MHI OPT 7D NTN PION PIR PI Wx NOP PWN POX MNT AYYs WM .NMW MY mood ™ mR Nd 2722 NOT COTY NTN NOD. “ Quando concitatus est * Manasse, cucurrit post Isaiam, querens eum occidere, et aufugit ab *‘ejus conspectu, aufugit in cedrum, et eum absorpsit cedrus ; vide- “bantur fimbrize pallii sui; abeuntes dixerunt coram eo; et ille iis ““dixit. Ite dissecate cedrum, et visus est ejus sanguis ex adverso. ** Et ob hane rem noluit Dominus propitiari. 2 Reg. xxiv. 4.” (Ibid., col. 255—256.) Schoettgen writes on the same subject, as follows :—“ Communis ** Judzorum, et post hos patrum Christianorum traditio est, Jesaiam “ Prophetam jussu Manassis Regis Israélitici serra dissectum esse. *€ Qu si non probabilis ex hoc loco redditur, certe constat, hoe supplicii *‘oenere quosdam olim Hebreeorum adfectos fuisse. Jevamoth, fol. “49, 2. Manasses interemit Jesaiam......... Precepit quippe, ut ligno “ cedrino interficeretur, WON NNO TAYNN, quo facto adduxerunt cedrum, “ut ipsum dissecarent. Quum ad os ejus pervenirent, animam effiavit. “Ex patribus unum tantum proferimus Gregentium Tephrensem, 248 CHAP. XI., 36—40. “disput. cum Herbano Judzo, p. 19, qui Judeis, inter alia, hoc “objicit, tov “Hoatay éenpicare,” &c. Schoettg., Hore Hebr., tom. i., p. 987. J.C. Wolfius, Cure Philog. et Crit., tom. iv., writes :— “ Receptum hoc supplicii genus olim fuisse, ostendit Gatakerus (Advers., “cap. xlv.) quem Elsnerus hic affert, Cassaubonus ad Sueton. Calig., “cap. 27, et ad Aristoph., Equites v. 767. Confer P. C. Kragelund, “ Disp. de serra martyrii instrumento, Hafnie, 1700.” He remarks further, that Whiston suspects that the fact and circumstances of Isaiah’s and Jeremiah’s martyrdom were wilfully suppressed by the Jews. ° ’Ereipac@noav. A multitude of readings have been suggested in place of this word. It is wanting in the Syriac and Ethiopic versions, and is omitted, according to J. C. Wolfius, in two codices, as well as by some of the Fathers. Luther translates it “ zerstochen” (emrdp@ycav), thrust through, whilst Alford inclines to éxpyoéncav, were burned. I cannot help feeling that Prof. Stuart is right when he says it must mean “temptations presented by persecutors to the victims of their ‘‘ torture, in order to induce them to forsake their religion, and worship “the gods of idolaters. Such was a common practice among the ‘heathen persecutors of Christians. Not only life, but wealth and “honour, were frequently proffered in the midst of torture the most “agonising to the human frame, in order to tempt the martyrs to ‘‘ forsake their religion.” Thus did Pashur seek to silence Jeremiah, when he put him in the stocks, and of which Jeremiah bitterly com- plains (Jer. xx. 1, 2, 7, 14, &c.), cursing the very day of his birth. Similar was his condition when he was thrust into the dungeon, and sank “into the mire” (Jer. xxxvill. 6). What cruelties were practised by Jezebel, and Ahaz, and Manasseh, God’s judgment-day alone will reveal. In the apostolic times, we read how Saul “compelled” the believers “to blaspheme.” The unbelieving Jews indulged a ferocious and rancorous hatred against the converts, and left no means untried to reclaim them to Judaism. The inquisitorial phrase, “to put to the “ question,” i.e., to examine by torture, affords a parallel to this signifi- cation of weipdfw. The seeming ‘‘mildness of the word” probably conveyed a deep and sinister significance to the persecuted Hebrews. What more terrible trial to constancy than to witness the agonies of beloved relatives, or to withstand the entreaties of wife, husband, parents, and children? This was indeed to “take up the cross and “ follow Christ.” 7 The Talmudical tradition, that executiort by the sword was the only punishment which the Hebrew Sovereigns could constitutionally inflict, has been already noticed. From the Jerusalem Gemara, Sanhedr. CHAP. XI., 36—40. 249 (Ugol. Thes., vol. 25, cols. 156—158), it will be seen that the Rabbies understood the expression “to slay with the sword” as equivalent to beheading. See also ibid., cols. 147—148, § 3. From the Mishna, Sanhedrin (Suren. Edit., vol. iv., p. 238), we learn that beheading with an axe was included in the form of execution :— WOW TMT 4 Mow noTw PI AOI ws nx pra yw 5 psa myo PEI PS YP) POT Oy yx ne pre NOX A NA Dy “The prescription respecting those slain with the sword ; they cut “ off his head with a sword, according to the manner of the kingdom “ (7.e., as in executions by the king’s orders). R. Judah said that this was “a disgraceful manner, but that they rested the criminal’s head on a “ block, and struck it off with an axe.” This explanation throws light upon Rev. xx. 4, “ The souls of them that were beheaded (rév memeXexio- “uevov) for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God.” It includes all the martyrs who had been unjustly sentenced to die by the sword, in mockery of justice and humanity, by the Jewish tribunals, from Ahab’s time to the days of the Apocalypse. The Writer to the Hebrews probably takes a broader view of the subject, although he seems to give the equivalent of the technical Hebrew term >, by ev dive praxaipas. (See Mishna Suren. Sanhedr., p. 237, sec. 7.) The word »7, however, as Cocceius (ibid.) observes, has a wider signification, and is applied even to stoning, as it is to the manner of Abel’s death. Of Jezebel it is said (1 Kings xviii. 4) that she “cut off” the prophets of the Lord (n~273, in causing to cut off). The manner of their death is stated in verse 13, 2172, and also xix. 10, 14, 2192 1, they have slain with the sword. Thus perished also Abimelech and his brethren (1 Sam. xxii.) at the command of Saul, by the hand of Doeg the Edomite. In verse 18_it is said no, and he put to death, but in verse 21 17. So died also, doubtless, many in the persecution of Manasseh. See also Neh. ix. 26; Ps. xliv. 22 (23). Somewhat hazardous is Dr. Alford’s decisive assertion (7 loco), “One prophet “only perished by the sword in the kingdom of Judah, viz., Urijah, “ Jer, xxvi. 23.” Of him it is said, “and they smote him with the “sword” (2772 1412). So also John the Baptist by Herod Antipas, Matt. xiv. 10, Mark vi. 16, 27 (28), Luke ix. 9, where the verb droxepadi{o is employed ; and James the brother of John, by Herod Agrippa, Acts xii, 2 (dveiNe paxaipa). 8 "Ev pnderais, ev aiyeiors Séppacw. LL. Kiisterus suggests that pyr. signifies the skin of any quadruped, and that therefore the words that follow are a gloss to designate that goat skins are meant. J. Haseus justly repudiates this very unnecessary proposition, calling attention to the fact that Elijah’s mantle is called pwr) by the LXX., 1 Kings ee 250 CHAP. XI., 86—40. xix. 13, 19. The Hebrew word nx means a capacious mantle or cloak, and must not be confounded with the y ™sx the girdle of leather, or hide, either with the fur on or without, which was girt about his loins. Probably the nv" is alluded to under the word ww, dacds, hairy, for we find ww nvr, ze, a hairy, or rough garment, or mantle, in both (LXX. cei dopa, davis) Gen. xxv. 25, and Zech. xiii. 4 (LXX. depp rprxivnv), “ Neither shall they wear a garment of hair to “ deceive,’ on which Kimchi, 7 loco, says, “ This was the custom of “the false prophets to wear sackcloth, or a garment of hair ;” in imitation, doubtless, of the self-denial of Elijah and Elisha and the other prophets of God. John the Baptist wore a garment (évdupa) of camel’s hair and a leathern girdle (€ovnv depparivny) about his loins. And to this rugged austerity our Lord alluded when he asked, ‘* What “went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? Behold, “they that wear soft clothing are in kings’ houses.” Matt. xi. 8, Luke vii. 25. F. A. Lampius suggests ‘that pyderas signify garments made of skin, whilst d€py. aiy. designate raw hides, ‘‘pelles crudas,” leaving a great part of the body uncovered, See J. C, Wolfius, Cure Philol., tom. iv., pp. 770 and 771. ® torepovpevot, David, Elijah, &e. 10 °Qv otk Hv Gé&wos 6 Kéopos. Professor Stuart writes :—“ This is a “ proverbial expression, and plainly to be included in a parenthesis, as “it is an ejaculation of the writer, interrupting the regular series of “the discourse.” The passage upon which the Professor’s assertion, doubtless, is based is found in the Babyl. Gemara, Sunhedrin, col. 385, 386, Ugol. Zhes., vol. xxv. It is here given, for what it is worth, as follows :— PP _/y AN Ow WIP MM APN] NID AMT OMAN DN Inawa “/4n ni ooy Ana wy. ANI MI MYA plod YT WN oYD dp maa pwonwn ya ORI TNT PRD NON IVI MWdI APIW YY TOMY NNT TW JR ww Dw yn np Sy ypodn Pay oT POT TT yoy NOR Mowd «PIT ONT OY nx OMIT In) 799 JND ww’ OMT yO Dp na oy ANN oP] Myla pO VT NAN OY Iw . NU PRWOWI OID NX DIT NI] 727 NI TNT PRO NW TPIW PY TWN IM IND NYwI WX NT AR 2 Fw oN PY TT TOM A yoy ON nowI) yOPA exody dy ond PPNY JN] JPY) NPI NOY NW) NIP TMIM NIM dxvnw) prow PTYW AION NIN 32 WI) WPI Nz 72 ATA 4p) “Our Rabbies say that after the later prophets died, viz., Haggai, « Zechariah, and Malachi, the Holy Spirit was withdrawn from Israel. “ Nevertheless, they made use of the ‘daughter of a voice’ (7e., an “oracular utterance from heaven, see Buxtorf. Lex. Chald. iz loco, “ col, 320, 321, and John xii. 27—30). Once upon a time a company “ were gathered together in the guest chamber of the house of Goriah CHAP. XI., 36—40. 251 “in Jericho, and the ‘daughter of a voice’ was sent to them from “heaven. ‘Is there not one here worthy that the Shechinah should “‘rest upon him, as upon Moses our Lord? But this generation “‘is not worthy of him.’ Then the wise men cast their eyes “upon Hillel the Elder. But when he died they said of him, ‘ He was “ ¢ pious, he was humble as a disciple of Ezra.’ It came to pass again “that there was an assemblage in a guest chamber at Javneh, and “there was sent to them ‘a daughter of a voice’ from heaven. ‘Is “ 5) TYIVD PYM MAW, qui longe remotus fuit *“a transgressione omnibus diebus suis, ut scribit R. Salom. in Sanhed., ‘cap. Chelek, fol. 99,1.” The Yalkut Rubent, fol. 30, 4 (See Schoettg., tom. 1, p. 996) says, “ Messias portat peccata Israelitarum op 0» “py DYID DN, nam et justi perfecti aliquas passiones pro Israelitis “sustinent.” It is certain that the Writer to the Hebrews would give no countenance to the Jewish figment that it was possible for any man to live altogether without sin, far less to make atonement for another. In Ps. exxxvili. 8, David writes, v1 wor mm, “The Lord will perfect *‘ that which concerneth me” ; and, in Philipp. iii. 3, St. Paul disclaims the notion that he was already perfect, ody dri Sn €AaBov, 7 dn TeTeAEl@pat. The word reredcrwpévar, perfected, if used in a theological sense, would refer to the operation of God’s justifying grace, and not to any human works, merits, or deservings. It would signify “ justified,’ ‘“ made “ perfect.” Alford lays stress on the word mvevipacw, as if the Writer would have written, tojust men made perfect, had they not been waiting in a disembodied state, for the final consummation of the Resurrection. But then, surely, the Writer would have said, mvetvpaow Sixaiwv rerehecopevots. The Dean adds, with a strange forgetfulness of the article of the Creed, I believe in the communion of saints, kowwvia dyiwy : “They are not sleeping, they are not unconscious, they are not absent “from us: they are perfected, lacking nothing except—and that is our “defect, because we are as yet imprisoned in an unspiritual body— “communion with us.”—Bishop Pearson on the Creed (Art., Comm. of Saints) writes, “ Zhe saints of God are in communion with all the “ saints departed out of this life and admitted to the presence of God. “ Jerusalem sometimes is taken for the Church on earth, sometimes for “that part of the Church which is in heaven, to show that, as both are “represented by one, so both are but one City of God. Wherefore thus “doth the Apostle speak to such as are called to the Christian faith, CHAP, XII.;..23. 313 * Ye are come unto Mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, “the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, “and to the general assembly and Church of the firstborn, which are “‘ written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of “just men made perfect, and to Jesus the Mediator of the New “ Covenant (Heb. xii. 22—24).—Indeed, the communion of saints, in “ the Church of Christ, with those that are departed, is demonstrated by “their communion with the saints alive. For if I have communion “ with a saint of God, as such, while he liveth here, I must still have “ communion with him when he is departed hence, because the founda- * tion of communion cannot be removed by death. The mystical union “ between Christ and his Church, the spiritual conjunction with the “members to the Head is the true foundation of that communion “which one member hath with another, all the members living and * increasing by the same influence which they receive from Him. But “death, which is nothing else but the separation of the soul from the “body, maketh no separation in the mystical union, no breach of the ‘spiritual conjunction ; and, consequently, there must be the same “communion, because there remaineth the same foundation.”—The translators of the London Jews’ Society’s Hebrew New Testament, avoiding the word on, have Dita DP ST MINN dey. Wesselius (Fase. Diss., pp. 511, 512), who strongly opposes the opinion of Schoettgen and Lightfoot, viz., that the Writer to the Hebrews uses the phrase mv. dix. rereA. as the equivalent to the Rab- binical formula oo. OFT, says :—‘‘ Verum hoc probari deberet, quod © Rabbini Justos in hac vita, etiam vocaverint Spiritus Jusrorum. “ Vel Sprrirus Justos Consummatos ; si nempe probare volunt Paulum ‘‘imitatum fuisse phrasin Rabbinorum., Sed hoe non probarunt viri “ docti. Unde, si ex illorum hypothesi, hoe dictum Paulinum, ex “antiquorum Rabbinorum phrasi, explicandum sit, certe non aliis “hominibus in hae terra existentes Justivres, qui nunquam Spiritus “ Justorum a Rabbinis dicuntur ; sed pios, vita hac jam funetos, et quoad “animas in Paradiso viventes ante resurrectionem corporum eoruwm, “intelligere heic debemus. Veteres enim Judzei Animas Piorum a ‘‘corporibus separatas, Spririrus JustoRuM appellarunt. In libro * Sapientize cap. iii, 1. Askaiwy de yuxai JusToRuUM vero ANIM& sunt “in manu Dei, ut minime eos attingant eruciatus. Et in Cuntico Greco “ Trium Juvenum, vers. 36, aut in Adjectionibus ad Danielem, cap. xii. “ 86. Benedicite Domino wvetpara kai Wuyxal dixatwv. Spiritus et anime “justorum. Similiter Talmudicos, aliosque Judseos animas piorum * separatas vocare Spiritus aut Animas Justorum, uno atque altero “exemplo comprobarunt Doct. Hasveus, |. c. § 12, et D’Outrein in cap. ss 314 CHAP. XII, 23, 24. “xii. 24 ad Hebr., p. 238. Nec pluribus testimoniis opus erit, postquam “adscripsero verba R. Meir in libro Avodath Hakkodesch, a Clar. “ Dassovio in Diatriba de Resurrectione mortuorum, p. 64; atque a Doct. “ Haseo, I. ¢. § 11, p. 110, laudata, Rabbini nostri, si mentionem facrant “animarum corporibus carentium, non memorant Justos, sed Spiritus “ Justorum, vel Animas Justorum. Quando autem loquuntur de seculo “ futuro post resurrectionem, ubi corpus et corporeitas est, Memorant “ Justos.” Verse 24.—And to Jesus, Mediator of a new covenant,’ and toa blood of sprinkling that speaketh better things than that of Abel.’ 1 Kal Suabnkys véas pecitn Inoov. If the Levitic priesthood be abolished, if it be superseded by a high priesthood belonging to one of the tribe of Judah, then of necessity the Mosaic covenant is abrogated also. The Levitic priesthood was an indispensable feature of the Mosaic covenant— ei pev ovy Terciwors Sua THs AevitiKns tepwovrns jv, (6 ads yap en’ arty vevomobernto) tis ete xpeia, Kata THY Tagw,Medyioedex erepov avioracOat iepéa, kal ov kata ty Tagw ’Aapoy déyerOa ; chap. vii. 11—the new covenant must therefore have commenced to run from the date of the abrogation of the Levitic priesthood. But why is the Mediator of the New Covenant mentioned here in connexion with the blood of sprink- ling? Are the words merely a redundant amplification of what has gone before? Or do they follow, in orderly sequence, upon what has been previously spoken? A glance at Exod. xxiv. 1, will show that they are the legitimate complement of all that has been already adduced. In Exod. xx. 19, it is related how the children of Israel besought Moses to undertake the office of mediator : “* And they said unto Moses, Speak thou “ with us, and we will hear ; but let not God speak with us lest we die.” Moses accepted the task, and received on their behalf all the injunctions which are contained in Exod. xx. 22, &c.—Exod. xxiii. These words, with the Ten Commandments, were written by Moses in a book (Exod. xxiy. 7) which was, doubtless, the ‘‘ Book of the Covenant.” After Moses had completed the above-mentioned signal discharge of his mediatorship, and had committed the words to writing and rehearsed them to the people, we read, Exod. xxiv. 1: “ And he (Jehovah) said “ unto Moses, Come up unto the Lord, thou, and Aaron, Nadab, and “ Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel ; and worship ye afar off.” . (7M OMMINWM,—Kal MavoF eizev, avdByOr mpos tov Kipioy ad Kai "Aapwr, kai NabaB kai *AB.0dd, Kai €BdopnKovta trav mpecBurépav “Iopand* Kat CHAP. XII., 24. 315 mpookxvynaovor paxpdbev TH Kupio., LXX.) And in verse 2 it is added, * And Moses alone shall come near the Lord ; but they shall not come “nigh, neither shall the people go up with him.” Here, then, we see that not only the people of Israel, but also Aaron and his sons, and also the seventy elders, were forbidden to accompany the mediator Moses into the presence of God. The latter, indeed, were favoured with the Vision of the Most High (verse 10); but it is plain from what follows, that Moses went alone to receive the Two Tables into the Mount of God. Before Moses went up “ he took the book of the ’ “covenant, and read in the audience of the people,” and then he took the blood of the sacrifices (verses 5—8) and “ sprinkled it on the people, ‘and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath ‘‘made with you concerning all these words.” We see, then, that the congregation, though actually sprinkled with the blood of the covenant, were not permitted to accompany their mediator into the presence of God. Far different is the position of the believing Hebrews to whom the Epistle is addressed. They have come to Jesus the Mediator of the New Covenant, and to “a blood of sprinkling” that gives immediate and perpetual access to God. The command is no longer, as in Exod. xix, 12, “ And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about” (p32 OYT nx nb3x7) ; Kal apopreis roy Aadv kikrA@., LX X.). But it is with them, even as St. Paul writes to the Ephesians (ii. 13, 14) :—Nuvi d€ év Xpior@ "Incod, tpeis of more Gvres paxpay, eyyvs eyernOyre, ev TO aiware Tod Xpicrov. "Avtos yap é€orw 7 eipnyn Nav, 6 Tmoujoas Ta aucdrepa Ev, Kab TO peadroLyoy Tov Ppaypod hicas. Well might the Writer to the Hebrews declare (viii. 6) Nuvi dé Ssapopwrépas rétuxe Netroupyias, 6a@ Kal Kpeirrovos €or Stabyxns pecitns, rts emi KpeitToTw emayyeNlats vevopobernTa. These “better promises” were promises of forgiveness and acceptance, as we see from verses 10—12, commencing with the words 6rc avrn 7 Si:abyxn, k.7.A., and closing with the declaration 6re thews Evopar tats adixiacs airav, kT. And now, as Moses (Deut. xviii. 15—19) expressly refers to Christ (see Ewald, Das Sendschr. a.d. Hebr., p, 131) in his Mediatorial capacity and resemblance to himself, and does so in immediate con- nexion with the request of the Israelites (Exod. xx. 19), “ Speak thou “with us, and we will hear ; but let not God speak with us lest we die,” let us briefly inquire what it was that Moses led the Israelites to expect from the Messiah, in his capacity as a Mediator. We have it on the authority of St. Peter (Acts iii. 22), not only that Moses was the author of this prophecy, but, also, that he wrote therein expressly of our Lord Jesus Christ. And again (Acts vii. 37) St. Stephen asserts, “ This is “that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall “the Lord your God raise up,” &c. In Exod. xxxiii. 11 it is said, o16 CHAP. XII., 24. “ And the Lord spake unto Moses, face to face, as a man speaketh unto “his friend.” In Numbers xii. 6—8 it is written, “‘ Hear now my words: “Tf there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known “unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him ina dream. My servant “ Moses ts not so, who is faithful (7x2, see Hebr. iii. 5) in all mine “house. With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and “not in dark speeches ; and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold.” (oY mM non) nT Nd) AND) 12 7278 7] bk aD.) Whilst the author of the closing verses of the book of Deuteronomy assures us that up to his days “‘ There arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom “the Lord knew face to face,’ &c. But Moses intimates to his people that THE Propuer shall arise at a similar juncture to that which occurred at the giving of the law at Horeb. He implies, therefore, that a new law will be published by this his Successor in the Media- torship, and that to refuse obedience will be a sin, for which the Lord will exact the extreme penalty of excision from amongst his people. (See note 2 on pp. 37, 38.) In Deut. xviii. 1—8, Moses reminds the people _ how God had provided for their religious instruction by the perpetual ministrations of the house of Levi, and had endowed them with dues for the proper maintenance of their ministry. He then prohibits them from imitating the heathen, in having recourse to the arts of divination, to witchcraft, and necromancy. The law that Moses had given them would not require to be supplemented by any such aids, the offspring of an unhallowed curiosity. The revelation already imparted would be all-sufficient, until the first covenant should have waxen old and be ready to vanish away. And then he adds, “ For these nations which “thou shalt possess, hearkened unto observers of times, and unto “ diviners, but as for thee the Lord thy God hath not suffered thee so “todo. The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the “* midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me ; unto him shall ye hearken. “ According to all that thou desiredst of the Lord thy God in Horeb in “the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of “the Lord my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I “die not. And the Lord said unto me, They have well spoken that “which they have spoken. I will raise them up a Prophet from among “ their brethren like unto thee, and I will put my words in his mouth, “and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it “shall come to pass that whosoever will not hearken unto my words “which he shall speak in my name (w2), I will require ¢¢ of him (yor wie 122x).” We see, then, that the office of the New Mediator was to stand between God and the people as Moses did, seeing God face to face (Num. xii, 6—8), and to supplement the revelation already CHAP. XII, 24. 317 given by such fresh discoveries of God’s will as the Lord Jehovah should “put into his mouth.” Now, to whom can these words be applied except to the Messiah of God, concerning whom the Almighty speaks by the mouth of his prophet? (Zech. xiii. 7.) wor 122, “ the man that “ts my fellow.” For the interpretation of this latter passage see Kimchi’s Commentary on Zechariah, translated by the late Dr. M‘Caul, pp- 169—177 —Philo (Deterius potiort insdiatur) seems to allude to the promise of the Messiah in his Mediatorial capacity of interpreter of the Divine will as predicted by Moses :—’Ekeivots 8’ éamep iarpois To tyragov Tas Wuxjs vooous te Kal knpas davadiWaxOeior pépos, emexew avayKaior, pexpis av 6 Oeds kal Tov Eppnvéa apratov KatacKkevdon, Tas TOD heyew Tyas dvopBpyoas, kai avadeiEas air@. ‘‘ It is a duty of necessity to give heed “to those who, like physicians, are instructed in healing the maladies “and misfortunes of the mind until God shall also have prepared the “ best Interpreter, having swelled high the fountains of utterance, and ‘showed them to him.” (Works, Mangey, tom.i., p. 200. See also De Monarchia, lib. i., ibid., tom. ii., pp. 221, 222, where Philo cites Deut. xviii., and explains it in connexion with the prohibition to use the occult sciences.) * Kal aiuart pavticpod Kpeirrova NaXovvte mapa Tov, or better, To ”ABedA.— Wolfius observes on the reading mapa tov "ABed, * Ita plerique codices, ** Alii habent mapa 7d “ABeX, sed duo tantum, quos recitat Millius. Et *“sic quoque editiones Aldi, Frobenii, Colin. et Er. Schmidii. Eam “ lectionem, tanquam Grecis veteribus et Syro quoque receptam, pre- “ fert Grotius, ut scilicet eo rectius ad aiva referatur, quod B. Lutherus ** quoque in versione disserte expressit. Rectius vero communior lectio “tenetur, quam etiam vindicat Jos. Hallett in Paraphrasi et Notis ad “hl. Ita supra xi. 4. Abel adhuc dicitur logui.” Now it is quite true that in chap. xi. 4 Abel is said to speak, but he is said to do so figuratively (see note 1 on pp. 175—179), Se adris dro@avar €rt Nadeira, 7.e., through his faith which led to his martyrdom. And so Ewald explains xi. 4, “und durch ihn den Glauben, wie noch einmal nachdriicklich hervorge- “ hoben wird, redet er gestorben noch.” So also Ewald renders the words of xii. 24 in accordance with the reading 16 ; “ und dem Besprengungs- “‘ blute das besseres redet als das Abel's.” (See also note 1, p. 175, &c.) Luther has “ und zu dem Blut des Besprengung, das da besser redet, denn “ Abel’s.” The translators of the London Jews’ Society’s New Testa- ment originally pointedly adopted the same reading ; 12797 As OT Oxy Sam 01 219. For my own part, [ cannot help regarding 76 as the correct reading. Abel being dead, can only speak figuratively. He does so by his faith, manifested by his bringing a vicarious sacrifice according to the Divine will. He therefore speaks, not only by the blood of his martyrdom, but also by the blood of his sacrifice, which latter obtained 318 CHAP. XIL., 24, 25. testimony from God that it was acceptable and accepted. It was then, that God openly expressed his Divine selection of blood, to the exclu- sion of all other means of ransom, for the redemption of the soul. In the term “the blood of Abel,” therefore, may be included the blood of all vicarious victims afterwards offered, in accordance with God’s appointment, until the sacrifice of the death of Christ superseded them. The blood which Moses sprinkled (Exod. xxiv. 8) would be included under the same general designation, which would thus signify “blood vicariously shed, and presented as a sin-offering to God.” It need scarcely be observed, that the blood of Jesus, the Mediator of the New Covenant, which testifies of forgiveness, speaks of better things than the blood of Abel’s sacrifice, which declares that without shedding of blood there is no remission. But Abel himself is spoken of as a martyr by our Lord Himself (Matt. xxiii. 34, 35) :—‘‘ Wherefore, behold, I send “unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye “shall kill and crucify ; and some of them shall ye scourge in your *‘ synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: that upon you may * come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of “righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye “slew between the temple and the altar.” Here, then, the blood of Abel, as the protomartyr, is represented as crying for vengeance. (See note 1, p.175.) As the Gospel according to St. Matthew was early in circulation amongst the converts from Judaism, they would be familiar with this prophetic declaration of Christ Himself, viz., that retribution fér all their persecutions was at hand. The allusion, then, to the blood of Abel would form no unfitting complement to the kpit7 Geo wavrav of verse 23. (See note 1, p.309.) The blood of Abel spoke of martyrdom and of retribution ; the blood of Jesus of forgiveness, of patient endu- rance, and of triumph. And this is the burden of the new song in heaven, Rev. v. 9, 10 :—"Aéwos ef AaBeiv 7d BiBXlov, Kat dvoiEa Tas oppayidas avtov, dtu eadayns, Kal jydpacas TO O€@ Tuas ev TO aiparti cov, €k mdaons pvdjs, kai ykooons, kat aod, kal EOvovs. Kal eroinoas pas TO Oc juay Baorrels kal tepeis’ Kat Bacievoopev emi ths yas. Verse 25.—Sce that ye refuse not (@réreTe pw) TapatTi- onole. See note 3, p. 294) Him that speaketh’ (Videte ne recusetis loguentem. Vulg.): for if they did not escape (€pvyov) who refused him that spake the Oracles of God on earth (Tov émt Ths ys wapattnodpevor ypnuatifovta),” much less shall we that turn away from Him that speaks to us from heaven (70AA@ faAXov Els Of TOV ar OVpavOv aTrooTpepopevot).” ee CHAP. XII, 25. 319 * Tov Aadotyra. Look to it that ye refuse not Him that is pleading with us by his blood, viz., Christ. By it He speaks to our gratitude. He sets before the eyes of our faith the better things (kpeirrova) assured to us in the New Testament. As though, by this voice of gentle inter- cession, He would say to the wavering Hebrew converts, “ Will ye also “oo away?” (John vi. 67.) To this “Blood of the Covenant” the Writer has already alluded in chap. x. 29. Tlda@ (Soxeire) yxetpovos akiwOnoerar Tyrwpias 6 Tov vidv TOU OEod KaTaraTHoas, Kal TO aipa Tis SiaOHxns Kody Hynoduevos ev @ HydoOn, Kal TO Tvedpa THs xdpuTos evuBpioas ; Ewald defends the reading, rapa 7d ”"ABed, in verse 24, in these words :—‘“‘ V. 24, ist fiir roy umso richtiger 7d zu lesen (obgleich “auch Stn. jenes hat), da der Leser dann desto weniger in Gefahr “kommt das folgende rov Aadovyra v. 25 misszuverstehen.” The London Jews’ Society’s New Testament renders the words thus :—yoxon 525 wt 72791, in the earlier edition. * Ei yap ekeivot ovk epuyov tov emt ths ys mapatTnodpevoe xpnparicovra, The Vulgate rendering of these words coincides with that of the authorized Angl. Version, St enim t/li non effugerunt, recusantes eum qui super terram loquebatur: “ For if they escaped not who refused Him “that spake on earth.” Luther has, “Denn so Jene nicht entflohen “sind, die sich weigerten, da er auf Erden vedete.” The London Jews’ Society's Hebrew New Testament has, DDNDT 7bx oD? Nd ON 1D ywa m2. Alford, though he translates, “ For if they did not escape, “declining as they did ._Him who spake on earth,’ yet adopts the reading, ovx« e&épuyov ent ys mapartnodpevor tov ypnpari¢ovra, and excuses his translation by saying, ‘‘ The construction is a trajection not “unusual with our Writer: cf. ch. ix. 15, 16, and ver. 11.” Ewald (Dus Sendschr. a.d. Hebr., pp. 47, 48) adopts this reading; but, with a keener perception of what it implies, translates, “ Den wenn Jene auf “ Erden nicht entrannen nachdem sie den Gottesworte Redenden sich “verbaten.” And again (¢bid., p. 145), “ Denn wenn Jene auf Erden, “noch mitten im Erdenleben, nicht entflohen.” And again, pp. 173, 174, “xii. 25, haben die besten Handschriften das rév, ganz richtig, “vor xpnuarigovra: allein desto mehr, muss man emi yjs, von der ‘‘irdischen Strafe verstehen welche jene Ungehorsamen, nach Num. ‘ce. xvi. f., erreichte, und unter tov dm’ ovpavév, nur den vom Himmel “kommenden jiingsten Richter verstehen.” To my mind, the old reading, Tov emi tis yis mapa. k.7.X., is the preferable one, although there cannot be two opinions as to whether Ewald or Alford renders ovk ekedvyov emt THs yis Tapartnodpevoe in the more scholarly manner. And now, let us inquire who is the speaker designated by rév ypnuari- ¢ovra. ‘The answer is supplied by verse 19. It was the voice of Jehovah 320 sc CETAP. Cis 25. which the Israelites declined to hear; fis of dxovoavres mapyticavto pi) maoateOnva avtois Adyov. The suggestion of Chrysostom, followed by Carpzov, that it was Moses, is contrary to the context, and inadmissible. Under rév xpnuatifovra, the same personage is spoken of as the rév az’ ovpavay of the next clause. Ewald rightly identifies the latter with Him who shall be Judge of all things, ¢.e., our Lord Jesus Christ ; although the context demonstrates that no ¢mmediate allusion is here intended to “ Judgment to come.” The Brérere py mapattnonobe Tov Nadodvra points to a present, and not to a future speaker. Jesus at present speaks in tones of mercy, by his blood. The quotation from Haggai ii. 6, con- tained in verses 26, 27, primarily refers to the first coming of Christ, as the seventh verse, which immediately follows the quotation, proves: “ For thus saith the Lord of Hosts, Yet once, it is a little while, and I will ‘“ shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry dand. And “ T will shake all nations, and the Desire of all nations shall come, and “TJ will fill this house with glory, saith the Lord of Hosts.” He then (6 dm otpavay) that speaks at present, is Jesus in his Mediatorial capacity, duaOjKns véas peoirns, to whom the Writer reminds his readers they have come. The Second Person in the Ever Blessed Trinity also it was who spake at Sinai ; the SHecHINAH; the 2» JN, the Angel of his Presence of Is. xiii. 9; man FN of Mal. iii. 1, and Exod. xxiii. 20 —23; “The angel” of Eccles. v. 6 (5); the archangel Michael (x20 Who is as God), concerning whom the Targum of Palestine (Exod. xxiv. 1) says, “And Michael, the Prince of Wisdom, said unto Moses CT apaee Come up before the Lord.”—The Shemoth Rabba, the Sohar, R. Moses bar Nachman, Rabbi Bechai, all assert that wherever Michael is mentioned there the Shechinah is intended to be expressed. (See J. A. Danzii, Schechina cum piis cohabitans, pp. 733, 734.’ Meuschen.) This is that AnceL whom St. Stephen speaks of in reference to Moses (Acts vii. 38), “‘ This is he (Moses) that was in the Church in the “ wilderness with THE ANGEL which spake unto him in the Mount Sina.” Most astounding, therefore, is the explanation of tov xpnuarifovra offered by Dean Alford in doco :—* It must be laid down as certain that “6 én yas xpnpati¢ev is God. Then if so, who is 6 dm’ ovpavérv;. or, in “other words, who is 6 Aad@y, for these are manifestly the same ? “ Clearly not Jesus (!), for by of 7 pwvn, which follows, the voice of this “same speaker shook the earth at the giving of the law: and it can by “no ingenuity be pretended that the terrors of the law proceeded from “the Son of God; especially in the face of the contrast drawn here, “and in ch. ii. 2 ff.” Surely the Dean overlooks the consequence of his own application of Hagg. ii. 6, as here quoted, to the last dread Judg- ment scene. I do not admit the suitability of the interpretation ; but, CHARS wis: 20..- - 321 on the Dean’s own showing, the far greater “terrors” of the Day of Judgment must “ proceed from the Son of God.” Even Dean Alford would hardly be expected to deny that it is Jesus Christ who shall ‘come again to judge the quick and the dead”; and yet, wonderful to relate, the Dean does, by implication, deny this cardinal doctrine of Christianity :— And it would be against all accuracy and decorum in “ Divine things, to pass from the speaking of the God of Israel to that “of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the way of climax, as is here done, with “ gov padXov, ‘much more shall not we escape.’ Add to which, that if “ Christ is to be understood as the subject of verses 26 ff, we shall “have Him uttering the prophetic words, ért drag «.r.A., whereas, both “from our Writer's habit (!) of quoting prophecy [cf. ch. i. 1, iv. 7, “vi. 13, viii. 8, xi. 11], and from the context of the prophecy itself, “they must be attributed to the Father. How, then, are these difii- “culties to be got over? Simply by taking, as above, the speaker, in “ both cases, to be God. In the first, as appealing from Mount Sinai “by his angels (!) ; in the second, as speaking from his heavenly throne, “through his exalted Son.” A more miserable jumble of criticism than the above can hardly be imagined. Dr. Alford first says 6 Nadav (rov Aadodyra), who must be Jesus (comp. verse 24), is the same as 6 emt vis xpnuati¢ev, and yet he immediately sets to work to disprove that which, by the declaration of Scripture, and the traditional consent of both Jews and Christians, is an undoubted fact. And yet, on Acts vii. 38, odros eat 6 yevopevos ev Th exxAnoia ev Th eEpjum, peTa TOU ayyedou Tov AadodvTos ATS ev TO dpet Suva, kal Tov warépwv juav, bs edeLato Adya (avra, Sodvat jpyiv, the Dean says :—“ That Moses conversed with both “the Angel of the Covenant and our fathers, implies that he was the “mediator between them; as, indeed, ds edeEar. Noy. ¢. more plainly “declares.” Either the Dean, writing on the Acts, was of a different mind to the Dean writing on the Hebrews, or else he ignored, or was unacquainted with the fact that the ANGEL oF THE CovENANT is the same as the SHEcHINAH, the Second Person in the Ever Blessed Trinity. The above miserable blundering prepares us for the following statement, if possible, more unhappy than the foregoing :—“ Thus it is true we lie “ open to one objection, viz., that the giving of the Law is ever regarded “in the Old Testament as a speaking from heaven. So Exod. xx. 22, “ iueis Ewpdkare, dri ek TOU ovpavod AehaAnka vuv : cf. Deut. iv. 36; Neh. “ix, 13. But this objection, though at first sight weighty, is by no “means decisive. The ovpavéds spoken of is surely nothing but the *“ material heaven, as apparent to the Israelites in the clouds and dark- ‘ness which rested on Sinai, and totally distinct from the ovpavds here, “the site of our Lord’s glorification, who is spoken of, ch. iy. 14, as ey es 322 CHAP. XII, 25. “ SreAnAvOas rods ovpavors.” It is to be regretted that the author of the * Queen's English” has omitted to explain how ‘the material heaven” could be “ apparent to the Israelites in the clouds and darkness which “rested on Sinai” / But if the Dean had adopted the advice which he gives to his readers, viz., to refer to Deut. iv. 36, he might have spared himself the trouble of writing such childish nonsense as he has done. There it is written, “Out of heaven he made thee to hear his voice “ (Exod. xix. 16—18), that He might instruct thee: and upon earth He “ shewed thee his great fire (¢bid., 18): and thou heardest his words “ (Exod. xx. 2) out of the midst of the fire.’ (Deut. iv. 12.—See also my note on dary pnyudrwv, verse 19 of this 12th chapter.) Here we see that “the voice” like a trumpet, which the Israelites heard from heaven, was different from, and preceded the “voice of words,” or articulate enunciation, which they heard owt of the fire. For some further patent instances of the Dean’s habitual carelessness in dealing with the facts of the Holy Scriptures, see the Rev. Josiah Forshall’s preface to his edition of the Gospel according to St. Mark, Longmans, London, 1862, 8vo. Respecting the personality of the ANGEL OF THE CovENANT, see note 1, pp. 128—130, of this Commentary. ° “Huyeis of roy am’ oipavav drootpepépevot, These words, taken apart from the context, might rightly be translated, We who turn ourselves away from Him who is from the heavers.—In this case Dean Alford is right in his rendering :—“ We who are turning away from Him (who “ \ypnuari¢er) from (the) heavens.” There is no antithesis intended here between Moses who was a mortal man, and Jesus who is Divine; nor yet between Moses speaking on earth, and the voice of God the Son, which, at the last day, shall be heard from heaven. The antithesis is between the blood of Abel, which now speaks of martyrdom, and cries for vengeance, and the blood of Jesus, which now speaks of reconciliation and of triumph. This, Jesus at present does am’ otpavay, where, in accord- ance with the prophetic invitation of Ps, ex. 1, He sits at God’s right hand expecting, until his enemies be made his footstool. Moses’ com- mission, as coming to him directly from God, who spake to him face to face, was unequivocally am’ odpavay. He spake no words of his own, but the very words of Jehovah himseif. The Writer sets the legal enact- ments of the Divine law, delivered on Stnai (evi ys) in terrible pomp, and with uncompromising rigour, over against the gentle pleadings of Christ Jrom heaven. The blood of vicarious sacrifice, similar to that of Abel (see note 1, pp. 175—179), offered only a parabolic expiation for trans- eressions against the Mosaic Code. The blood of Jesus offers a sovereign, and perfect, and ever fresh atonement for all sin. If he was accounted guilty who sinned against the Dispensation of threatening, much more CHAP. XII., 26—29. 325 is he deserving of punishment who, knowing the efficacy of Christ’s blood, and at how dear a price our redemption was purchased, yet refuses to listen to the Diviner persuasives of Almighty love. Stuart rightly says, ‘that ypyuari{ovra is implied after roy, results from com- “ mon grammatical usage.” He would have satd what was more to the purpose if he had said that it was demanded by the context.—The silly habit of taking it for granted that, because two texts have something common in sound (e.g., the passage under consideration compared with John iii. 13, 31; vi. 38, &c.), they are therefore identical in application, has led to many grievous misinterpretations of the Word of God. The safest key to the unlocking of any Scriptural enigma is to be found in the where, the when, and the to whom; in other words, in the IMMEDIATE context. Until these preliminary and indispensable helps have been used, we have no right to run up and down in search of what are popularly supposed to be “ parallel passages.” In this passage I venture to differ respectfully from so great an authority as Ewald, where he writes (p. 145) :—“ Wieviel mehr werden wir der gerechten Strafe nicht “entfliehen, wi Christen die wir also wenn wir ibm zu folgen uns “ weigern den vom Himmel zum allgemeinen Weltgerichte kommenden “ meiden (O welche Thorheit von dém sich abkehren zu wollen !), ihn “dessen Stimme damals bei der Stiftung des A. B.’s die Erde erschiit- “ terte, der aber jetzt verheissen hat, durch den viel spaiteren Propheten “ Hage. ii. 6, noch Einmahl werde ich nicht nur die Erde erschiittern *‘ sondern auch den Himmel.” The passage of Haggai, just quoted, refers unquestionably to the first coming of Christ ; and the spiritual shaking spoken of by the prophet was to be preliminary to, and synchronous with, the second temple, and the establishment of the Gospel dispensation. The Vulgate translates rightly, quz de coelis loquentem avertimus. So also Luther has “der vom Himmel redet.” Wolfius, usually so sagaciously accurate in his renderings, writes in loco :—‘‘ Tov am’ ovpavar, scilicet loguentem, quod B. Lutherus in ver- “sione expressit, et Jo. Buxtorfius, nepos, in Dissertationibus varii “argumenti p. 101, subintelligi vult. Aeque bene vero subintellexeris “rov epxdpevov, quem se appellat Dominus ipse John iii. 31, 6 &« rov ‘ ovpavod éepydpevos, emdva mavtav éeoti. Sic 1 Cor. xv. 47, 6 Kiptos && “ ovpavovd vocatur.” The alternative reading, so readily offered here by Wolfius, affords an apt illustration of the danger of taking for granted the coincidence of passages of Scripture, because they happen to have a corre- spondence, more or less remote, in sound or in doctrinal application, Verses 26—29,—Whose voice shook! the earth THEN (rote, at that time, i.e., at the giving of the law on 324 CHAP. XII, 26—-29. Sinai).—But now (viv 82, i.e. at the present crisis of transition, when the Ceremonial Law and the Jewish Polity are passing away, and there is a mighty shaking of the Gentile nations and their systems of religious belief,—) He has promised (Hagg. ii. 6), saying,’ Yet once (étt araé, nas Wy, adhue semel, Vulg., i.c., strictly once, and no more) I will shake (éy® emphat, sx), 7.e., Jehovah Himself, the 6 X\aA@y of verse 25) not only the earth, but the heavens also. But the expression YET ONCE (To 6€é, étt &ma£) indicates the setting aside (TH peTaGeow) of the things shaken (7.e., the Levitic covenant and ritual, with its paraphernalia of symbolism, and its material pomp) as being made (@s zemounpévwy ; com- pare ix. ll. Xpucrds oé Taparyevd uevos apyLEepevs TOV HeddovToY ayaberv, dua THs pweifovos Kal TeAELoTépas TKNVAS ov YeElpoTroLnTOV, ToUTéoTLY, Ov TavTNS THS KTicews; and again, verse 24, ov yap els yetpotrointa ayia eioAOev 6 Xpotos, avtituTa Tov adynOwvev) in order that the things which are not shaken may remain. Wherefore, (inasmuch as He has said yET oncE) inasmuch as we are put in pos- session of (aapadapBSdvortes) a kingdom (See Exod. xix. 6, “ Ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests’), which is unshakeable (immobile, Vulg., é.e., the Gospel kingdom which we receive, shall endure until Christ’s final Advent to Judgment. The present order of things shall not be disturbed until the end of the world), let us hold fast (the) grace (éy@pev ydpw, Gnade festhalten, Ewald) by which we may serve God acceptably, with reverence and pious submission (peta aidots Kal evdAa- Betas). For our God is a consuming fire. (Deut. iv. 24.) * Thy ynv €oddevoe. Exod. xix. 18 ; 182 WT 52 TM, “and the whole “mount quaked greatly.” —Ps. Ixviii. 8; lxxvii. 18; exiv. 7. 7 "Ere drag €y® velo (WYN IN) ov pdvoy THY yhv, GAA Kal TOv ovpavdr. We have here another example of the Writer’s custom of quoting the leading words of a passage of Scripture and trusting to the memory of his readers to carry on the quotation. Any one acquainted with the CHAP. XII., 26—29. 325 Talmudical writings will know how strictly this is in accordance with Jewish usage. The entire passage (Hagg. ii. 6, 7) reads thus in the Hebrew :—ns) DOW MX WYN 72) NT OPN ONN NY Meas AWD WRX 7 °D Mat nx condo) DT OD NTO 27 OT OD ne NWP FATT NN) DT AN) PONT MN2¥ TWP WRX NID MI—Acdre rade A€yer Kupios wavroxpatwp, ere dma eyo geiow@ Tov ovpavoy kal Ty yiv Kat tiv Oddacoay Kal tiv Enpav. Kai ovoceicw mavta Ta €Ovn, Kai HEE Ta ekAeKTA TayTav Tov €Ov@v" Kal TAHTw TOV oikoy ToiTov SdEns, heyet Kipwos mavtoxpdtop. LX X.—“ Quia “hee dicit Dominus exercituum: Adhue unum modicum est, et com- “ movebo coelum, et terram, et mare, et aridam. Et movebo omnes “ Gentes: et veniet DesipERatus cunctis Gentibus : et implebo domum “istam gloria, dicit Dominus,’ Vulg.—‘ Denn so spricht der Herr “ Zebaoth : Es ist noch ein Kleines dahin, das ich Himmel und Erde, “und das Meer und Trockene bewegen werde. Ja alle Heiden will “ich bewegen. Da soll dann Kommen aller Heiden Trost: und ich “will dies Haus voll Herrlichkeit machen, spricht der Herr Zebaoth,” Luther.—“ For thus saith the Lord of hosts, Yet once, it és a little ‘‘ while, and I will shake the heavens and the earth, and the sea, and “the dry /and. And I will shake all nations, and the Desire of all “nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the ‘Lord of hosts,” Authorised Vers.—From the above it will be plain that the prophecy was spoken, not in reference to the coming of Christ to judgment, but in reference to his first advent, also predicted by Malachi iii. 1. This is made more evident still, by the verses that follow: “ The silver 7s mine, and the gold zs mine, saith the Lord of hosts, The “clory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former, saith “the Lord of hosts, and in this place will I give peace, saith the Lord *¢ of hosts.” The verb wr in the Kal, signifies to quake, or to tremble, and in the Hiphil, to make to shake. In the above passage of Haggai is denoted, therefore, not only the abrogation of the Mosaic covenant and the Jewish polity, but also the shaking down of the long- cherished systems of Gentile idolatry and philosophy at the coming of Christ and by the preaching of Christianity. And in this sense only can it be used by the Writer to the Hebrews. He reminds his readers that they have seen the prophecy fulfilled, that the figurative declara- tion that God would shake the heavens, as well as the earth, has come ‘to pass in the decay of the Mosaic system, which is é¢yyls adaropod, ae, “ready to vanish away.” He reminds them, further, that no similar “shaking” is to occur again. God promised that He would again, ONCE only, shake ‘ the heavens,” but by implication the religious system introduced at that shaking, would endure for ever, ta peivy ra p1) cadevdpeva. To them, therefore, had been fulfilled the promise made 326 CHAP. XII., 26—29. to the fathers in Exod. xix.6. They had been put in possession of the “kingdom that cannot be shaken.” How ungrateful, therefore, and how foolish would it be to follow the example of those who had already apostatised, of tov dm otpavay amoorpepdpevar. We see, therefore, that the words of verses 25—29 still move, so to speak, in the Sinaitic atmosphere. They are words of reassurance. They are also words of warning. Fitly, therefore, does the Writer conclude his exhortation with the admonition to hold fast the grace—the promised gift of God— by which alone they can serve Him acceptably, pera aidods kai edAaBeias. Even the closing words of the chapter, Kal yap 6 Gcds jay mip Katava- Nickey, contains an allusion to Exod. xxiv. 17, ‘‘ And the sight of the “ glory of the Lord was like devouring fire (n528 wx>) on the top of the “mount, in the eyes of the children of Israel.” Compare also Heb. x. 27 with Mal. iv. 1—3, where it is predicted that the fires of the Day of Doom shall devour the adversaries, or wicked. ‘ But unto you that “‘fear my name, shall the Sun of Righteousness arise.. ... And ye shall “tread down the wicked ; for they shall be ashes under the soles of “your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the Lord of hosts.” See also Zech. ii. 4, 5 (in the Heb. iii. 8, 9), “Jerusalem shall be ‘‘ inhabited as towns without walls, for the multitude of men and cattle “therein. For I, saith the Lord, will be unto her a wall of fire round ‘about, and will be the glory in the midst of her” (1295 YID wR NOW m1 WAX). The rendering which I have given of éru drag, nnx VY, is confirmed by the testimony of the venerable book of Sohar (Sohar Genes., fol. 34, col. 133), where it is said, “ Wherefore the temple which ‘is built in this mountain by the hands of the Hoty Onr, BLESSED BE ‘He, shall be established throughout all generations, as it is said in “ Hage. ii. 9, The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the “ former.” (Schoettg., tom. ii., p. 389. See also zbid., pp. 75, 90, 113, 217, 494, 500, 964.) On p. 217 Schoettgen writes :—‘ Hage. ii. 6, “ Adhue parum est et commovebo coelum et terram. Debarim Rabba, “ sect. 1, folio 250, 1, Loguitur de redemptione que ventura est Israelitis. “ Quando? Resp. Eo tempore, quo Propheta dicit: Adhuc parum est— “ Raschi ad Sanhedrin, fol. 97, 2. R. Akiba (qui hee verba, sed sine “ expositione, adduxerat), ea intelligit de Messia.” And again, ibid., 113, ‘ Tikkune Sohar., c. 8, Eo vero tempore, quo Deus S.B. templum edificat, “ sicut antea, g.d. Psalm. exlvii. 2: Aedificans Jerusalem Dominus: “ j/lo, inquam tempore (Esa, xxiv. 23) pudore suffundetur Sol, et pudefiet “Tuna. Quando vero id fiet? Resp. Quando Rex erit Dominus Zebaoth “ (Le. Jesaiz) Aedificium enim prius factum est per manus hominum, “ propterea homines in illo potentiam suam exercere potuerunt: Nisi * Dominus edificaverit domum, frustra laborant, qui edificant eam. CHAP. XII., 26—29. 327 “ Porro quia edificium posterius per manum Dei S.B. erectum est, opm, “ firmum erit ; et propterea Scriptura dicit, Hagg. ii. 9, Major erit gloria “templi hujus posterius, quam prioris. In illo vero tempore, quo edifi- “cium per manus Det §.B. edificabitur, superius et inferius, de Shechina “ supertore et inferiore tllud implebitur, quod seriptum est Esa. xxx. 26. *“ Et erit splendor Lunz sicut splendor Solis; item c. xxiv. 23. Et “pudore suffundetur Sol, et pudefiet Luna.” It will be seen, on reference to pp. 6, 7 of Schoettgen (¢bid.), and also to Danzius’ treatise Schechina cum piis cohabitans, printed at length in Meuschen, that the name Shechinak was regarded by the most ancient Jewish authorities as an attribute of the Messiah. Schoettgen also observes, p. 964, ibid., that Raschi explains “yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake “the heavens and the earth,” by “ Messiah shall come.’ This is the interpretation also given by Rabbi Akiba, who flourished, as Dr. Hen- derson (Zhe book of the twelve Minor Prophets, p. 355) remarks, before the time of Jerome. R. Akiba’s exposition is found in the chapter entitled pot of the treatise Sanhedrin of the Babyl. Gemara. 079 jnx ma orn Mwd NP) PW) DAW WD 0227 NIN IMR ANN yA TE) ON). =“ For a “little I will give the kingdom to Israel, after our desolation; and after “the kingdom, behold, I will shake heaven and earth, and Messiah shall * come.”-—See also Carminis R. Lipmanni Confutatio, p. 619, in Wagen- seil’s Tela ignea Satane. R. Isaac, in the Chizzuk Emunah, pp. 289— 291, unhesitatingly applies the words of Haggai to the Messiah, although he asserts that they do not refer to the second temple but to a later period, “after the destruction of the fourth chariot.” He adds, “these ‘*‘ things are spoken, without doubt, of the expected Messiah, monn by “‘mpat, who will be of the seed of Zerubbabel.” It is easy, therefore, to discover whence the interpretation of the words 027 52 nto wh, and the Dx¥SIRE OF ALL NATIONS shall come, proceeded. In spite of the Bishop of St. David’s recent insinuation that it is a Christian gloss which misinterprets the passage, we see that it was the rendering of the ancient Jewish Doctors. This same interpretation is given by the Vulgate :—“‘ Et veniet “Desideratus cunctis gentibus.’” By Leo Juda:—‘‘ Et veniet qui “ desideratur ab omnibus gentibus.” By Dathe :—“ Et deinde veniet *gentibus omnibus expetendus.” And by Luther :—‘‘ Da soll dann “kommen aller Heiden Trost.’”—The LXX. has kai j&ee Tra ekdexra mavrev trav vay; but Augustine (De Civit. Dei, 18, 48) rightly observes that the LX X. gives the sense of the Hebrew :—‘‘ Tune enim veniet “ Desideratus cunctis gentibus, sicut legitur in Hebreo...... Tune etiam, * secundum Septuaginta interpretes (quia et ipse propheticus sensus est), “venient quie electa sunt Domini de cunctis gentibus.” Jerome, in his 328 CHAP Or, fi 2. letter to Paulinus about the various books of the Old and New Testa- ments, uses the same words :—‘‘ Et veniet Desideratus cunctis gentibus”; and, in his Commentary ou Haggai, “‘ Hee adhuc semel movebo: quod “ factum cernimus in adventu Domini Salvatoris.” To my own mind, the LX X. translates the Hebrew noun of multitude 770m as closely as the difficulty of finding an exact equivalent would permit. Ta ékAexra might be fairly rendered, having reference to the Hebrew word which it represents, the dearest aspirations. It is plain that the LXX. trans- lators regarded 707 as a noun of multitude, and rendered it accord- ingly, by the nearest Greek equivalent. The question is not one of grammatical construction, but of interpretation. The ancient Jewish and Christian Doctors understood the words to apply to the Messiah. There is no reason whatever, therefore, why (upon the dictum of even a more accomplished theologian than the Bishop of St. David’s) we should, in order to conciliate Jewish or Gentile objectors to the Christ- ology of our Anglican Version, alter so reasonable and venerable a rendering as the DEstiRu oF ALL Nations. Surenhusius (8i8X. karaddX., pp. 660—663) has some erudite observations on the subject of the quotation from Hagg. ii. 6, contained in Heb. xii. 26, 27. CHAPTER XIII. THe Writer having now concluded his commonitory and consolatory dissuasive from apostacy, which is contained in chaps. x. 19—39, xi., xii., proceeds to address some exhortations of a more personal nature to the Hebrew converts. He displays not only an acquaintance with their requirements from a contro- versial point of view, but a more familiar knowledge of the special circumstances of the particular com- munity to which he is writing. He speaks as a friend to friends. He solicits their intercessions on his own behalf (verse 18). He hopes soon to see CHAP? MITT, 1.°S 329 them again (verse 19). He prays that God would make them perfect in every good work (verses 20, - 21). With all the delicate courtliness and urbanity that were such distinguishing attributes of St. Paul’s letters, he craves their indulgence for having ad- dressed this word of exhortation to them, but which, considering the magnitude and importance of the subject, he had condensed into as brief a space as possible (verse 22). He speaks of Timothy in the familiar and endearing character of a mutual friend and brother (verse 23). He sends greetings to all their spiritual rulers, and to all the saints, adding a kindly message of friendly good wishes from their Italian fellow-believers (verse 24). And then, with the eloquent conciseness of a tried and venerated friend, who was sure of his ground, and felt per- suaded that his Epistle would meet with no halting welcome, he adds, by way of postscript, “H xapis peta Trdvtov ipov. "Auyv.—How completely is the futile nonsense dissipated, by a perusal of this 13th chapter, of those who assert that the Writer pur- posely concealed his name from those whom he addressed, lest perchance it should give offence, or awaken a preliminary prejudice in the minds of the readers! The readers and the Writer perfectly un- derstood each other. There could be no concealment in the matter. Circumstances are alluded to which were fresh in their mutual recollections. Doubtless, - the original draft of the Epistle was endorsed with the name of the author, (who, I cannot doubt, was St. Paul,) or else the bearer was commissioned to announce its authorship immediately upon its UG 330 CHAP, UIT) 1,72: delivery. I have already explained (p. 4) why it was that the Writer omitted the usual statement of his Apostleship at the commencement of his Epistle. To a Gentile Church it was everything to be assured that any letter addressed to it was the genuine production of an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ. Not so in the present case. The personal claims of Jesus of Nazareth to be the Divine Messiah, 2.e., the Christ of God, had to be re-asserted and re- established. Until this had been done, the state- ment of his Apostleship by the Writer would have been worse than valueless. The question at issue was not, Js Paul to be considered as a genuwime Apostle of Christ? but simply this, Had Jesus, who claimed to be the Christ or Messiah, any right to commission Apostles at all? But that the Writer and his readers were well known to, and perfectly understood each other, does not admit of the shadow of a doubt. No man, unless he were an imbecile, would flatter himself that he could write a letter containing allusions and messages, such as those contained in this 13th chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and yet that his readers would be con- tented to remain in the dark as to who wrote it. But this chapter sets the pretended intentional concealment of the author's name entirely at rest. The marvel is that any one, even in pursuit of some favourite theory, should have ever ventured to propound a statement so inconceivably silly. Verses 1, 2.—Let brotherly love continue.' Be not for- ectful of hospitality, for by it some have entertained angels unawares.” CHAP JXXIT 5, 1% 331 'H aAadeaddia pévero. Ewald translates, with forcible felicity, “ Die Bruderliebe bleibe, der Gastfreundschaft vergesset nicht !| Hatten “doch Einige durch diese, ohne es zu ahnen, Engel zu Gisten.” Luther has, ‘“‘ Bleibet fest in der briiderlichen Liebe. Gastfrei zu sein vergesset “nicht; denn durch dasselbe haben Etliche, ohne ihr Wissen, Engel “ beherberget.” The Vulgate has, ‘‘ Charitas fraternitatis maneat in “vobis. Et hospitalitatem nolite oblivisci, per hane enim latuerunt “quidam, Angelis hospitio receptis.” The London Jews’ Society's New Testament has, %y °2 1WIwN Ok OMT NOT NR os NoYN ONT Nan DIN YOR OF OAI ONIN MONI TD. A distinguishing attribute of the Jewish nation has always been brotherly love, as manifested in a sub- stantial shape towards their poorer brethren. The Rabbinical term for almsgiving is Righteousness. Buxtorf writes in his Chald. and Rabb. Lex., col. 1891, 1892, “api, Eleemosyna, Rab. apis pon nyo, Sal “divitiarum est eleemosyna. Hac si divitix salite sint, constantes “permanent, ut caro sale conservatur a corruptione : naw APIs Ada “ane2, Zam magna est eleemosyna, ut appropinquet redemptionem. Hoe “si verum est, sequitur paucas eleemosynas jam mille sexcentis annis “ Judzeos dedisse : 1929 TWO ANY Ano. APE Aww dy, Major est dans “eleemosymam im occulto, Mose doctore nostro. Vide de necessitate, “utilitate, et prestantia Fleemosyne, R. Bechai in Cad Hakkemach, “in litera T'zade, et Majemon. in lib. Jad, par. 3, in DO» mann mon, “ Sepher Musar, cap. 1. In Chagiga, fol. 5, 2, legitur de R. Janno, “ quod cum vidisset quendam eleemosynam dantem paupert Some puplice, “ dixertt et, ™) naw xdt anw, Satius fuisset tibi, ut nihil dedidi.ses et. “Convenit id aliquo modo cum doctrina Christi, Matt. vi. In Targum “ ynpis pn yay x? pS Nisi fecerit ex illis eleemosynam, Ecel. v. 9, 18, “et vii. 13, et ix. 10; Esth. ix. 22.”—@Aaded\pia in the present instance, I take it, signifies the loving offices of charity and brotherly kindness, as exhibited towards those of the same household of faith, and extending also to the indigent even of the unbelieving Jewish community, who might stand in need of relief. In those hard times, benevolence was apt to grow chill, and the fountains of compassion to be dried up. A real Christian Hebrew convert would never forget his nationality, but ought to be ready to assist even an unbelieving kinsman, did he stand in need of help. @cAadeApia would, therefore, somewhat differ from that @iAavOpwria of which the Old Testament is so full, and concerning which Philo writes (De Humanitate, mepi ditavOpwrias) in so admirable a strain, tom. i, pp. 383—405. Consult also Josephus against Apion, lib. ii. 30. Ewald (Das Sendschr. a.d. Hebr., p. 146) thus explains the expression PiAadeAdia :—“ Die thiitige Bruderliebe, * auch in Beziehung auf die Fremden, und das allgemeine Mitleid mit “ allen Leidenden ; und so heist est die Bruderliebe, die urchristliche 332 CHAP, XIII, 3, 4. “ Regung des Geistes gegen die Mitchristen,” &c. Dr. Gill, im loc., quotes the following from the Jerusalem Gemara, Berachoth, fol. 3, 3: —‘“He that dwells in this house, let him plant among you 727") mn, ‘brotherhood, and love (or brotherly love), peace and friendship.” * Ths prokevias py émravOaverbe. From brotherly love the Writer passes on to hospitality, or the entertaining of strangers. This latter manifestation of Christian courtesy and benevolence would not be unattended with danger, in those troublous days. To entertain a stranger might be equivalent to entertaining a spy. With graceful tact, therefore, the Writer reminds his readers that, in olden time, “ thereby “some have entertained angels unawares,” dia ravrns yap éAabdy tives Eevicavtes ayyedous. Gen. xviil., xix.; Judges xiii. 15. Dr. Gill writes, wm loco, “ It is an observation of a Jewish writer (R. Abraham Seba, in “ Tzeror Hammor, fol. 18, 4), ‘From hence we learn how great is the ““strength (or virtue) of the reception of travellers (or hospitality). “As the Rabbins of blessed memory say, Greater is (DTS nDI27) “* hospitality than the reception of the face of the Shekinah.’ And this is “said (T. Bab. Sabbat., fol. 127, 1) to be one of the six things which a “man enjoys the fruit of in this world, and for which there remains a ‘reward in the world to come,” Philo’s remarks, which are too long for transcription, but will well repay perusal, are to be found in his treatise De Abrahamo, Works, Mangey’s Edit., tom. ii., pp. 16—18. I will content myself with the following extract, ébid., pp. 17, 18 :— Ey 6€ ovk oida riva brepBodry eddamovias kai paxapidrynTos eivac Pa rept Thy oikiayv, ev 7 KaTaxOnvac kal Eeviwy hayeiv Urepewvay dyyeAor mpos avOpo- mous, tepal kai Oeiar vores, Urodudkovor Kal Urapxor TOD mpwTov Ocor, SC av, oia mpeoBevtay, dca av Oehnon TO yever Hav mpobermioa, Suayyéddet. “T am quite unable to say what could be wanting in felicity and ** blessedness to a house in which angels suffered themselves to be intro- “duced amongst men, and to partake of hospitality, holy and godlike “natures that they are, the ministers and lieutenants of the Most High “God, by whom, as it were, sending an embassage, He announces “ whatsoever things He wishes to acquaint our race with, before they “ come to pass.” Verses 35, 4.—Remember those that are in bonds, as being bound with them. [Remember] those who are evil entreated (tav Kaxovyoupévwr, der an Ungemach leidenden. Ewald), as being yourselves also in the body. Marriage is honourable in all men,’ and the bed undefiled, but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. CHAP. XIII, 3, 4. 333 ™ Mipvnoxea be trav Secpioy k.t.r. (See note 3, pp. 161, 162.) Ewald translates Gedenket der Gefesselten als Mitgefesselte, and rightly explains @s Kal avtol dvres ev a@patt, ‘als solche die auch selbst im Leibe sind, und ‘*schon daher wissen Kénnen, dass jeder Mensch, so lange er in dem “ hinfialligen sterblichen Leibe wallet, unzahligen Ubeln ausgesetzt ist,” z.e., “and are therefore able to know that every man, as long as he goes ‘‘ about in this frail and mortal body, is exposed to innumerable ills.” Wolfius writes, 2 /oc., “ Captivorum curam solicite habuisse Christianos “veteres, testis est Lucianus, de morte Peregrini, p. 762, observante * Elsnero.” Tipsos 6 yduos év mact, kat } Koirn duiavros k.r.A. Ewald understands these words as conveying a peremptory command :—“ Lhrenwerth die “ Hetrath in allem (vgl. xiii. 18) ! Ist jemand verheirathet so sei seine “ Heirath und Ehe durch und durch so wie es die Ehre fordert, und das “« Ehebett unbefleckt ! so dass er sich hiitet irgend etwas der keuschen “ Ehe widerstreitendes zu thun: Hurer aber und Ehebrecher wird Gott “richten, &c. Let marriage be honourable in everything (comp. xiii. “©18). Is anybody married, then let his marriage and married life be ‘thoroughly such as honour demands, and the marriage bed unstained ! “‘Let him guard himself against doing anything repugnant to a chaste “married life; but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.” Alford has, “ Let your marriage (ydayos, elsewhere in New Testament “in the sense of a wedding, here has its ordinary Greek meaning) be “ (held) in honour in all things, and your marriage bed be undetiled, ‘“‘ for fornicators and adulterers God shall judge.” The Arabic trans- lates €v mao., says Dr. Gill, “every way,” and the Ethiopic version “every where.” But the Vulgate has, ‘“ Honorabile connubium in “omnibus, et thorus immaculatus’’; whilst Luther translates, ‘“ Die * Ehe soll ehrlich gehalten werden bei Allen (¢.e., in all men), und das “Fhebett unbefleckt.” J. C. Wolfius, i Jloc., writes:—“Tapos de “conjugio dicit Arrianus Indic., viii. 6; Herod., lib. ix., p. 630; et “clarius Plutarchus, cujus sententia cum Paulina nostra egregie con- “ spirat, in Amatorio, p. 750, yapov xai advodov avdpds kal yuvatkds, js ov “ véyovev, ovd e€oTw iepwrepa katragevéts. Vide Raphelium et Bosium. “ Subintelligendum in hac sententia esse non ¢eori, quod Beza preter *alios voluit; sed potius €orw, plures monuerunt. Id poscunt impera- “‘tivi, qui in hoe capite hinc antecedunt, hine sequuntur ; tum vera res ‘ipsa, Quis enim dixerit, conjugium apud omnes eo loco haberi, quo “hie haberi vult Paulus? Lege plura in hanc sententiam apud Erasm. “ Schmidium, et Hombergium. Colomesius, p. 148. Observat. Sacra- “rum similiter verti volebat Gallice : que le mariage soit honorable entre “tous. Et sic versio Montensis: gue le mariage soit traité de tous avec “ honneteté. Hance interpretationem 4 Malleti exceptionibus tuetur 334 CHAP. XIII, 5, 6. ** Arnaldus in Nova illius Versionis defensione, p. 311 seq. adductis ex “‘ipsis Pontificiis Estio et Em. a Saa énoynpos. In versionem N. T. “ Greeco-Anglicani, que itidem 76 éeori exprimit, dywiavroy prave con- *‘ vertit, recte animadvertit L. Twells in Examine illius Critico, Pt. i, “ p. 150.” The London Jews’ Society’s translators have, 531 Dx1w27 DMP. The compilers of our Marriage Service, in the address to persons who are about to enter into the estate of matrimony, have swerved slightly from the translation of the Authorized Version, whilst they also vouch for the Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews ; e.g., ‘ And “is commended of St. Paul to be honourable among all men,” not, as in Hebr. xiii. 4, “i all.” Schoettgen, on 1 Tim. iv. 3, Forbidding to marry, &e., remarks :—“ De Pharisais non constat, eos tale quid prohi- “pbuisse, bene tamen de Essenis. R. Abraham Zacut in Sepher “ Juchasin, fol. 139, 2. Secta quedam ex ipsis non ducunt uxores liberorum “ causa, putant enim, nullam mulierem viro fidem integram servare.” Jose- phus, De Bell. Jud., lib. ii., 8, 2, writes, ‘‘ There are three philosophical “sects among the Jews. The followers of the first are the Pharisees ; “of the second, the Sadducees ; and the third sect, who pretend to a “ severer discipline, are called Essenes. These last are Jews by birth, “and seem to have a greater affection for one another than the other “sects have. These Essenes reject pleasures as an evil, but esteem “continence, and the conquest over our passions to be virtue. They “neglect wedlock, but choose out other persons’ children, while they “are pliable and fit for learning, and esteem them to be of their “kindred, and form them according to their own manners. They do “not absolutely deny the fitness of marriage, and the succession of “ mankind thereby continued,” &e. (Tov pev ydapov kat rHv €& adrod diadox7v ovx avatpovvtes, Tas Se TOV yuvatkav acedycias Pvdacodpevot, Kat pendepiay Tnpety meTEtopevoe THY mpos eva TiaTW.)—Philo’s account of the Essenes is to be found amongst the /ragments, Works, Mangey’s Edit., tom. ii., p. 632, &c., and also Liber quisquis virtuti studet (Ibid., p. 457), where he computes their number at about 4,000. Porphyry gives a fairly-drawn description of their peculiar tenets in his treatise against the use of animal food. What particular occasion gave rise to the Writer's speaking as he does, in these third and fourth verses, must ever lack complete explana- nation (see pp. 279, 280); but the warning contained in chap. xii. 16, py Tes mépvos «.7.d., taken in connexion with the verses under considera- tion, seems to point to a laxity of moral conduct in some of the converts that called for decisive animadversion. Verses 5, 6.—Let your conversation be without the greed of money! (apiArdpyvpos 6 tpomros, Nicht geldgierig die CHAP? ZHT> a, 6: 835 Lebensart, Ewald); and be satisfied* with such things as you have (apxovpevor tois mapodcw, sich begniigend mit dem Vorhandenen, Ewald; i.e., contenting yourselves with such things as are present to hand). For He himself has said, I wILL NEVER LEAVE THEE, NOR FORSAKE THEE.” So that we do boldly say (dcte Oappotvtas Huds héyeLv), The Lord is my helper, and I will not be afraid of what man will do unto me.* 1 ’Adiadapyvpos. This word occurs only twice in the New Testament, viz., here, and in 1 Tim. iii. 3, “ No striker, not greedy of filthy lucre.” 2 *Apkovpevor k.r.X. Compare 1 Tim. vi. 8. "Exovres 5€ duatpodas, kat oxerdopata, Tovtos apxecOnoopeba. J.C. Wolfius says, in loc., ‘ Mapov “ Grecis est, quod adest bonum, quodque przsens est, quamvis parvum “ et vile sit; et distinguitur ab alieno, itemque sumptuoso et magnifico. “ Tta vim vocis explicat, et locis Xenophontis ac Herodoti munit Raphe- “ius, p. 325 et 644. Xenophon., Memorab., lib. 1., p. 577, Zrparevouro 8 mérepos dv paov, 6 pr Suvdpevos dvev Tmodutedods diaityns Civ, i) @ TO “ qapov apkoin; et Conviv., p. 70, Ois padtora Ta mapdvta apkei.”—The expression, Apkovpevor Tois mapotow, seems to have been in common use amongst the Greeks. Bleek, as cited by Alford, gives the exact words, as used by Stobeus.—Surenhusius writes, i loc. (By8A. KatadX., pp. 663, 664), “Ii inter Hebreos qui fidei suze in Messiam confessionem “ ediderant, ab infidelibus suis consanguineis odio habebantur, et cum “ amissione bonorum, atque auxilii inopes exularent, alii de bonis suis “aliis quicquam largiri detrectarent, alii amissas opes deplorarent, “ paupertatem ut onus miserum et grave in se suscipere renuerunt, “monet hosce omnes Apostolus, ut preesentibus suis bonis contenti “ essent, et fiduciam suam in Deo collocarent, qui neminem derelinquit, “ sed ex rebus adversis liberat, et rem ita se habere ex aliquot Scripturze “locis confirmat, quando dicit, airds yap (nempe 6 Kupios) etpnxev, tpse “enim (nempe Dominus) dixit, Hebraice wx sym ille enim dixit, sub- “ audito nomine 7, quod Hebrei propter maximam illius sanctitatem “ exprimere solent per x20 vel Fam,” Ke | ° Ards yap cipyker, ov py oe avd, ovd’ od wn ce eyxataXizvw. Philo, De Confusione Linguarum (Works, Mangey’s Edit., tom. i., p. 430), writes :—Ilayydderov yap dxadivwrov eabjvar Wuxi, ariBarcov obcav €& €autis, hv modus Hviais per emavdtacews pagtiyev €oTl KatacxdvTa mpavvat, Audrep Méytov Tod thew Geod peatdv jpepdrntos, éAmidas xpyoTas Uroypapov rois matdelas épacrais, avipyrar towvde, OV px oe avd, oid od pH GE éyxataXizw. “It is a very pernicious thing to let the soul be unbridled, 336 CHAP. XIII., 5, 6. “being of itself impatient of restraints, and with difficulty kept in “bounds by bridles and whips. Wherefore the oracle of the merciful “God, being full of gentleness, holds out hopes serviceable to the lovers ‘of discipline, and declares, I wILL NEVER LEAVE THEE, NOR FORSAKE “THEE.” The difficulty attaching to this quotation lies in the fact that in the LXX. there is no passage possessing a verbatim correspondence with it. Mangey regards it, I think rightly, as taken from Josh. i. 5: —JUPR NW NY TOY WAS Ww oy nT qws3, “As I was with Moses, “T will be with thee, I will not fail (nor desert. See Gesen., Lex. “ Man., art. 727, Hiph.), nor forsake thee.’ The LXX. has, Ovx eyxatareia oe, ovd trepdwouai oe. It is not improbable that there existed in common use, amongst the Greek-speaking Jews, a popularized rendering of these words of promissory encouragement to Joshua, and which is used by the Writer to the Hebrews and by Philo. Their translation gives far more of the genuine ring of the Hebrew original than that of the LX X. The supposition of Bleek and Liinemann, that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews made the quotation direct from Philo, is more than improbable ; it is contrary to good taste and the reverence due to the sacred writings of the Bible. It is also utterly inconsistent with the prefatory words, airés yap etpnxev. If the quota- tion is intended from Joshua, it is easy to understand how appropriately the Writer introduces it on the present occasion. The promise was given to Joshua, just after the death of Moses, and was designed to nerve him to face the novel dangers and difficulties of leading the children of Israel into the promised land. The converts to whom this Epistle was addressed stood then in an analogous position to their fore- fathers. The Mosaic dispensation had just expired. They were entering upon a new and untried Land of Promise. How consolatory, then, to be reminded that the God of their fathers was still with them; that the promise made to Joshua still held good as regarded themselves—“ I will “never leave thee, nor forsake thee”! Delitzsch believes that the expression was taken from the Alexandrian rendering of Deut. xxxi. 6, ov pr) we avi) ov’ ov pi) we eyKatadeirn, and had become interwoven into some liturgical or homiletic portion of the services in the Hellenistic synagogue. But this latter is a mere conjecture, unsupported by any evidence. Bagster’s (Vatican) rendering of Deut. xxxi. 6 is, ’Avdpigov kat toxve, pry Poor, pnde SnArrdons, pnde wronOijs awd mpocamrov aitay, sre Kupwos 6 Oeds cou 6 mporopevdpevos pe ipdv ev byiv, ovre put) oe avy, ovTE pn oe eykaradiny (JUY Ny TEV 8»). Compare also the words of David to Solomon, 1 Chron. xxviii. 20, and Ps. xxvii. 9. Consult also Suren- husius, BBA. KaraAd., pp. 664, 665. The London Jews’ Society’s New Testament (Edit. 1867) has the exact words of Josh. i. 5, viz., CHAP XII. 5,6. SOF Jame Nh JEW. Ewald (Das Sendschr. a.d. Hebr., p. 174) writes :—“ Bei “dem A. T. lichen Worte, v. 5, ist die Schwierigkeit dass sie Deut. xxxi. “6, 8, in der dritten Person von Gott ausgesagt werden : allein Jos. ‘i. 5, stehen sie in der ersten, und obwohl die LXX. hier jezt eine “andere Ubersezung haben, so kann man doch nicht bezweifeln dass “unser Sendschreiber, ebenso wie Philon, sie von hier entlehnte, hier “also einst dieselbe Ubersezung sich gefunden haben muss.” * Kuptos euot BonOds, kat od poSnOncopa ti mouoer por dvOpwros. This verbatim quotation of the LX X. version of Ps. exviii. 6 (in the Greek, exvii. 6) furnishes us with another authoritative reading of the Hebrew text. Dean Alford decides in favour of the Masoretic reading, against the punctuation of the received Greek Text of the New Testament, and also of the LX X., which point the verse thus :—7 NYS Nd 3°) mm Dix) mw». The Dean says, “ Zhe Lord (mm in the Psalm, and ‘‘ probably used of the Father, as in other citations (!) in this Epistle, “eg. ch, vii. 21, viii. 8—11, x. 16, 30, xii.5; and, without a cita- “tion, ch. viii. 2) 7s my helper (in the Heb. only % m™) [and (not in “* Heb.) ], I will not be afraid: what shall man do unto me ? (such is the “ connexion both in Heb. and here): not, ‘I will not be afraid what “shall man do unto me,’ as in the English Prayer-book after the “Vulgate, non timebo quid faciat mihi homo.’ Now, what shall we say to pointing the Greek as follows ?—Kupuos é€uol BonOds, kai od poBnOncopar: ri momoee por avOpwmos ;—As the earliest MSS., both Hebrew and Greek, are without accents or punctuation, the sense of any given passage may entirely turn upon the opinion of the critic, provided, of course, that such opinion does not contravene any doctrinal stutement of God’s Word, or the obvious intention of the quotation. The truth is, that Dean Alford is feebly competent to decide upon any matter of the real “‘ Higher Criticism” ; and, finding that the Masoretic reading did not coincide with the New Testament punctuation, for fear that he might be considered by German experimenters upon the Word of God as unscholarly, he at once pronounces against the received reading of the Epistle to the Hebrews. In these days of superticial acquirements, to pass a slight upon any portion of the received text of the Greek Testament seems to entitle the propounder to be esteemed an advanced scholar! Dr. Alford knew, or ought to have known, that the older Hebrew MSS. are entirely without punctuation, and that very many of the discrepancies between the LXX. and the Hebrew text, turn entirely upon the difference of the points (see note 3, p. 213) and accents. In the present case, the only question for the student to decide is, Which ts the best pointing of the Hebrew and Greek Texts ? That adopted by the Textus Receptus is perfectly admissible. So also is D. Sp. ¢ 338 CHAP IDL Se7. the Masoretic reading of the Hebrew text in Ps. cxviii. 6. Both readings, after all, come to very much the same thing. The texts differ only in the insertion of cai, There is not, therefore, the shadow of a valid objection against the reading of Ps, exviii. 6 as given in the Epistle to the Hebrews and also in the LXX. The Hebrew Masoretic version points the words thus, “ The Lord is my helper (or, Jehovah is “for me % mn), I will not fear—What can man do unto me?” The New Testament and the LX X. punctuate the very same words (trans- lated from an unpointed and unaccented Hebrew MS.), The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man can do unto me. The Hebrew words 078 ) Twy 7D NYS Nd MTD, apart from the accents, which do not belong to the original text, are capable, with perfect grammatical propriety, of either construction. The Zertus Receptus of the Greek Testament and the LX X. have decided in favour of The Lord is my helper ; and I will not fear what man can do unto me. Compare Ps, Ivi. 4, 11, 12,—See also Surenhusius, Bé/BA. karaAX., pp. 665, 666, and Ewald, Das Sendschr. a.d. Hebr., p. 148. On p. 48 he translates, “ so “dass wir getrost reden, der Herr ist mein Helfer: was wird Mensch “mir thun ?” Verse 7.—Remember’ your leaders, who spake to you the word of God, whose faith imitate, considering (attentively pondering, or reviewing) the end of their conversation. " The verse reads in the received text, Mvypovetere t&v iyoupéver Upay, oitwes eddnoay ipiv tov Aéyov Tov Ccod Hv dvabewpodvres tiv €xBaow ths avactpopns, peiobe thy rictw. The Vulgate has “ Memen- “ tote preepositorum vestrorum qui vobis locuti sunt verbum Dei: quorum *“jntuentes exitum conversationis, imitamini fidem.”—The translators of the London Jews’ Society’s New Testament have Wwe o>>T22 nx NI 2 DONOR Man 199) OMIANT Kew Ne wNINN WY ONT IAT NN ODx NIT Luther translates, “‘Gedenket an eure Lehrer, die euch das Wort *“Gottes gesagt haben, welcher Ende schauet an, und folget ihrem **Glauben nach.” Ewald renders, ‘‘ Haltet in Andenken eure Vorsteher “als welche euch das Wort Gottes redeten, und ahmet zu deren Lebens- “ausgange, hinaufblickend ihre Treue nach.” Now, although Ewald and many others take tiv €kBaow ths avacrpopys to mean “ the termina- “tion of their earthly career,’ (Alford asserts off-hand, “it is plain “from what follows here, e.g., €AdAnoav and &xBaocw, that the course of “these 7yovpevor is past, and it is remembering, with a view to imitation, “that is enjoined”), I cannot help thinking that there is an immediate reference to what has just gone before, aiAdpyupos 6 tpdmos x.T.d. The converts are exhorted to remember the temporal wants of their GHWAP.XII1> 8. 33 pastors, who have devoted themselves to the ministry of the Word. (Compare Gal. ii. 10, pévoy trav mraxev iva pynpovetvoperv.) In those troublous days of halting faith, of doubt, perplexity, and persecution, who so likely to be neglected and straitened in their temporal concerns as the pastors of the flock? And as Elijah (1 Kings xvii. 13, 14) directed the widow, ‘“ Fear not, go and do as thou hast said ; but make “me thereof a little cake first, and bring it unto me, and after make “for thee and thy son. For thus saith the Lord God of Israel, The “parrel of meal shall not waste, neither shall the cruse of oil fail ;” so the Hebrew converts are invited to bear in mind that the spiritual workman is worthy of his hire ; that God has promised never to leave nor to forsake them, whatever they may spend in his service, and furthermore, that the end and object, the proposed result of all the labours (ray youpévev) of these rulers is, the salvation of the souls of their flock. Ewald’s translation of rhv riorw, thre Treue, * their fidelity,” appears scarcely in harmony with what has gone before, or with the immediate context. Again, dv dvabewpodvres THY EKBuoww THs avactpodis, pipeiobe Thy mio, is an invitation to ponder attentively the ‘‘ manner of life,” the self-sacrificing disinterestedness of these spiritual guides, and to imitate their faith. They set before themselves no earthly reward. They were marked out as the first victims, should any popular tumult or persecution arise. The &«Saows tis avactpopis, the issue of their conversation, the end of their daily walk and calling, the termination of their earthly career (jjxotcate yap tiv €uny dvaotpopyy Tore ev TO "Iovdaopno, Gal. i. 13), would be, in all human likelihood, a martyr’s crown. With such a prospect before their leaders, with such examples of holy self-abnegation before their eyes, how ignoble and unworthy must the undue caring for filthy lucre appear! I cannot, then, accept the assertion as a decisive one, that the Writer refers to those teachers who had already sealed their testimony with their blood, or that he has already referred to them in chap. ii. 3. The word &kSacvs occurs only twice in the New Testament, viz., here and in 1 Cor. x. 13, ‘‘a way to * escape.” Verse 8.—Jesus Christ (is) the same’ yesterday and to-day, and (also) for ever. (Jésu Christus gestern und heute ist derselbe, auch in die Ewigkeiten, Ewald.) 1 "Ingovs Xpuords xOes kal oipepov 6 adrds, kai eis rovs ai@vas. Here, again, we must not forget that the Writer is speaking, as a Jew, to Jews. The phrase Ijcots Xpicrds would strike a very different chord in the minds of the Hebrews, to what it does in the minds of modern Christian readers. The word “Christ” they would understand as a designation of Deity, as a proper attribute of the Divine Messiah, con- 340 CHAP. XIIL., 9. cerning whom it is written in Ps. cii., ‘I said, O my God, take me not “away in the midst of my days: thy years are throughout all genera- “tions. Of old (see Heb. i. 11, 12) hast thou laid the foundations of “the earth : and the heavens are the works of thy hands. They shall “perish, but thou shalt endure (aMyn mMnx)): yea, all of them shall wax “old as a garment ; as a vesture shalt thou change them (see note 6, “ p. 22), and they shall be changed. But thou art the same (N17 77), “ § avros et), and thy years shall have no end.” The above, then, is a citation from the already quoted (chap. i. 10—12) words of Ps. cii. The Hebrews are reminded that they stand under the protection of Almighty Omniscience, and unchanging Power and Goodness. The words contain an all-sufficient dissuasive against a niggardly small- heartedness, as well as against a faithless questioning how their daily necessities were to be supplied. They furnish an ample incentive to trustful and devout exultation in the thought that the Divine 6 Atrés is their Protector and their God, even He concerning whom Isaiah (ix. 6) wrote that his name should be called y x, Father of Eternity (see the late Dr. M‘Caul’s Iessiaship of Jesus, pp. 183—185), and con- cerning whom Moses the man of God spake in Ps. xe. 1, 2, “ Lord, thou “hast been our dwelling-place in all generations. Before the mountains “were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the “ world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.” D7 D3 Sx ANN DAY Ww dy. an) PAX Hn. WY—IIpd rod pn yevnOjnvar kat mracOnvat THY yHy Kal THY Oikovperny, Kal dmb Tod aid@vos €ws Tod ai@vos ov et, LXX. And again, verse 4, “ For a thousand years in thy sight “are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.”— Ta MWA VAY? 1D DANN OVI TRI OW Fx I—"Ore xia ern ev dOadpois gov, Os 1) TpEepa 7) Exes Ares SundOe, Kat Gvdaxy ev vuxri, LXX. It may be as well to remark that the tradition of the early Jewish Church, as represented by the LX X. and by the Targum, coincides in ascribing the 90th Psalm to the pen of Moses.—Compare also Mal. iii. 6, “I am “the Lord, I change not ; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed,” and James i. 17, wap’ @ ov« éu mapadXayy, 7) tpomas dwockiacpa. Verse 9.—Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines.. For it ts a good thing that the heart be established with grace, not with meats, in which they who walked were not profited (€v ois od« @edjOncav ot TEPLTATHTAVTES). Aaxais motkihais kat E€vas pry mepupeperbe, x.7.A.—Compare Eph. iv. 14, KAvdar{dpevor Kai mepipepdpevoe travti dvéum ris SidacKadlas.— Jude 12, i76 avepov repupepspeva.—lf Jesus Christ be the same 6 adrds, in benevolent Omniscience and oversight of his people, his Gospel is CHAP. XTIT., 9. d41 equally immutable in its teaching as to what we must do to be saved. We may neither add thereto nor diminish therefrom. It is a good and perfect gift, complete from the first, and we shall make no new dis- coveries, as to what is the will of God concerning us, in 77 dma& mapadobeion Tois ayiows mioter, “ the faith once delivered to the saints,” Jude 3. The Writer, therefore, skilfully adapts his declaration that “ Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever,’ and makes it the text, so to speak, of a brief exhortation against the mischievous teaching of those who would persuade his readers to return to a mis- taken compliance with the graceless precepts of the ceremonial law. To go back to these ordinances as touching meats and drinks, &c., after having once broken loose from them, and to attach any real virtue to them from a justificatory point of view, or as procuring acceptance from God, would be to offer a direct affront to the freedom of the Gospel. Of these the Writer has already asserted (ix. 9, 10), that they could not give the conscience of the worshipper any real satisfaction, but were only enjoined péxype karpod SiwopOocews, until the time of Reformation. In Acts xxi. 20 we learn that there were “many “thousands” of Jews that believed, and yet were zealous of the law. It was one thing to adhere from the very beginning, as Jewish patriots and citizens, to the civil and religious customs and constitution of their forefathers, and quite another, after having accepted the Gospel in its simplicity, to go back to the discarded and beggarly elements of the law, either as a means of justification, or to curry favour with their unbelieving brethren. In times of persecution there existed a very strong temptation to the baptised Hebrews to dissemble in this manner, and so St. Paul writes to the Galatians vi. 12, 13, ‘‘ As many as desire “to make a fair show in the flesh (etapocwmjca: ev capki), they con- ‘strain you to be circumcised, only lest they should suffer persecution “for the cross of Christ. For neither they themselves who are cir- “ cumcised keep the law, but desire to have you circumcised, that they “may glory in your flesh.” Ewald (Das Sendschr, a.d. Hebréer., pp. 148, 149) writes :—‘ Allein weil der Sendschreiber wohl “weiss dass die neuerdings aufgestandenen Irrlehrer auch diese “Gemeinde leicht stéren, und ihr erstes einfachstes Bekenntniss “auf Christus triiben kénnten, so kniipft er daran eine neue dem “ vesammten Inhalte des Sendschreibens vollig entsprechende Ermah- “ nung, sich durch sie nicht stéren zu lassen, und leitet diese mit dem “ Wahlspruche, v. 8, ein: Jesu Christus gestern und heute derselbe und “in die Ewigkeiten! so dass weder die wechselnden Zeiten noch die “ wechselnden Lehren ihn in seiner urspriinglichen reinen Wahrheit “verindern kénnen. Doch nun folgt sogleich die Warnung: Durch “bunte und fremde Lehren lasset euch nicht verleiten! Weil aber die 342 CELA Xn <9. “< verade jezt zu fiirchtenden Irrlehrer von dem einfachen Christenthume “ wieder zum Buchstabendienste des A. T.’s zuriicklenken wolten, so wird “zur Begriindung der Warnung gesagt, ist es doch schén dass durch “Gnade die durch Christus nach dem oben iv. 16, x. 29, xii. 15, “ vesacten den gebesserten Menschen jezt umsonst dargebotene géttliche “ Gnade das Herz fest werde, voll gottlicher Zuversicht und Heiterkeit “‘werde, nicht durch Speisen die schon ix. 10, erwihnten wie sie im “ A. 'T. gesezlich vorgeschrieben sind und damals auch von zu dngst- “lichen Christen gefordert wurden (vgl. die Gesch. des V. Isr., vi., 8. “ 505, f.), mit welchen man sich nuzlos herumtrieb, bis das Christenthum “mit seiner unvergleichlich erspriesslicheren VersGhnung und Staérkung “des Menschen erschien.” The meaning of the Writer to the Hebrews is, therefore, as follows :—‘‘ When the Gospel was first delivered to you, “no commandments respecting abstinence from meats, as a religious “duty, or distinctions in them, accompanied it. Any fresh doctrines “that may be at present obtruded upon you by would-be improvers “upon the faith, are worse than valueless. Christ's Gospel establishes “and fortifies the heart wirH GRACE, and not with meats. Those who “have all their lifelong devoted themselves to the observance of such “ ordinances, have not been one whit profited by them.” We must not forget that the vanity, the self-love, the national exclusiveness of the Pharisaic Jew were sorely wounded by being put on an equality, even in respect to meat and drink, with the Gentiles. The latter were looked down upon as an inferior caste ; and we know how long it took to wean even the Apostles (Acts x. 28, xi. 1—3) from such preconceived notions. It was actually considered, in the Hebrew Christian com- nupity at Jerusalem, to be an extraordinary exhibition of God’s mercy that He should grant unto the Gentiles “repentance unto life” ! (Acts xi. 18.) When, therefore, these false teachers appealed to the ancient prejudice and national pride of the Hebrew converts, the temptation to return to their old habits was not without strong fascinations. When their unbaptized kinsmen twitted them with placing themselves on a par with the Gentiles, even in the matter of meat and drink, the taunt fell with burning acerbity upon their lacerated souls. It reminded them that they were renegades and outcasts, ceremonially unclean, outside the pale of all former friendships and intimacies, and (as the unbelieving Jews would urge) cut off from the proud privilege of partaking of the holy things which were offered in sacrifice to the God of their fathers. With his usual subtlety of perception, however, the Writer contrives, in the tenth and following verses, to turn these taunts and sneers to good account, and to remind the perplexed Hebrew converts that, in this very particular, they stood on far higher ground than those who reviled them and persecuted them. CHAP. XITII., 10—12. 343 Verses 10—12.—We have an altar’ whereof they have no right to eat who serve the tabernacle. For the beasts? whose blood is brought in for sin (rept dwaptias) to the Holy Places (ta aya, i.c., the Holy of Holies. See ch. ix. 8, 12, 24, 25; x. 19) by the Highpriest, the bodies of the same are burned outside the camp* (tovTwv Ta capata Kataxaleras Ew Ths mapeuBorjs). Wherefore Jesus also, in order that He might sanctify the people by his own blood, suffered outside the gate. ‘"Exopev Ovovacrnpiov €& ob ayeiv otk éxovew eLovolay of tH oKnvi Aarpevovres. As observed in the preceding note, the Writer retorts upon those who insinuated that the Hebrew converts had relinquished their privileges of partaking of the sacrifices, that Christians possessed a privilege from which the Jewish hierarchy itself was debarred. They dared not to eat of the bodies of the beasts which were offered for sin on the Day of Atonement by the highpriest. These were confessedly the cardinal sacrifices of the entire year. The believer in Jesus, how- ever, can draw near and partake by faith of the true Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, of which even the sacrifices of the Day of Atonement were only the type and prophetic representation. The rejoinder is a triumphant one, and unanswerably telling. Little need it matter to the desponding Hebrews that they were shut out from participation in the consecrated meats to which their unbaptized brethren attached so paramount an importance. Those who prided themselves on the Levitic ceremonial law were still deluding themselves with what had been under the first covenant oxid tov peddAévt@y dyabav. They were hugging mere empty shadows to their bosoms, being willingly ignorant of the fact that, the Substance being come, the typical fore- shadowings of his One, perfect, and all-suflicient sacrifice, had lost even their symbolical value and sanctity. What then does the Writer intend by the expression, “an altar” ? That he cannot intend to contradict his own assertion, ix. 25—28, is superfluous to state. He has there asserted, in the most unqualified terms, that Christ does not “ offer Himself often, “as the highpriest entereth into the holy place every year, With blood “that is not his own. For then must he often have suffered, since the “ foundation of the world ; but now oncr, at the consummation of the “ages, He has been manifested for the putting away of sin by the “sacrifice of Himself. And, just as it is appointed to men once to die, “and after this the judgment (things which cannot be repeated), so, ‘also, Christ having been once offered for the special object of bearing 344 CHAP, Kim 0-19: “the sins of many, shall appear the second time to those that wait for “ Him, without sin (or sin-offering. See note 1, p. 138, &.), to announce “to them their salvation.” So also, again, in chap. x. 10—15, “ By “the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of * Jesus Christ oncE for all (e€@awa£). And every priest standeth daily “ministering, and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices (ras airas “‘godAdkis mpoopéepwy Ovoias), which can never take away sins. But ““ He, having offered onE sacrifice for sins, for ever hath sat down at the “right hand of God......... For by one offering He hath perfected ror “‘ pver, those that are sanctified.” With such a series of explicit state- ments before his eyes, he would be a bold man indeed who would venture to prove from the Epistle to the Hebrews, and from the fact that the author applies the term @vovacrnpioy to the Lord’s-table, that he thereby intimated that the sacrifice of the Lord’s death is actually and continually repeated, by the Christian Presbyter, whenever he conse- crates the memorial elements of his Saviour’s passion, Such an assump- tion is directly in the teeth of the Jeading argument of the Epistle. That the Christian altar is primarily the Cross upon which the Great Sacrifice was once offered, and, secondarily, the table upon which the sacramental symbols are placed, who will deny? But “the Body of “Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an “heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of “ Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is FAITH.” Were not this the case, what need was there for the Writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews to remind his readers of the privilege which they enjoyed above their unbelieving brethren? The “ partaking of the Altar,” of which he speaks, must needs be done after a spiritual fashion, and by a living faith. And as the faith of many amongst them had waxed cold, it was necessary to admonish and put them in mind how that they could, by faith, realise a far higher privilege than the most exalted member of the Jewish priesthood could ever aspire to. The highpriest dared not to eat of the flesh of the bullock or the goat offered by himself on the Day of Atonement. We can, by faith (but by faith alone), eat of the flesh and drink of the blood of their great antitype—even of Him whose ‘flesh is meat indeed,’ and whose “ blood is drink indeed.” Schoettgen (Hor, Hebr., tom. ii., p. 644) has the following :—‘* Midrasch “ Tehillim ad Ps. exxxiv. 2, fol. 74, 2, ad verba 2, Paral. ii. 3, oy»yn “oeqw oy net. In eternum hoc erit inter Israél. R. Giddel dixit ex “ sententia Raf: Intelligitur altare extructum, et Michael Princeps Magnus “(See p. 320) stat, et sacrificium in eodem offert.” For a very curious extract from the Schemoth Rabba, respecting the table of the shew- bread, see Schoettgen, ¢bid., p. 612. CHAP. XIII., 10—12. 345 > *Qv yap ciopeperar Cawv Td aipa wept dpaprias eis Ta dya Sua Tod dpxtepews k.t.A. Dr. Gill writes, in loc., “‘ Not the red heifer, Numb. “xix., nor the sin-offerings in general, Lev. vi. 30, nor those for the “priest and people, Lev. iv. 11, 12, and chap. xxi. 6, 7, 18, but the “bullock and goat on the Day of Atonement, Lev. xvi. 11—18, 27, “ which were typical of Christ, in the bringing of their blood into the “ Most Holy Place by the high priest for sin; and in the burning of “them without the camp: these beasts were slain, their blood was “shed, and was brought into the most holy place by the high priest, ‘and was sprinkled on the mercy-seat, and the horns of the altar of “incense ; and by it atonement was made for the priest, his house, and “all Israel: which was a type of the death of Christ,’ &e. Compare Reland’s Antig. Sacr. Vet. Hebr., Pt. iii, cap. ii.; De Holocaustis, cap. lii.; De Sacrificiis piacularibus. On pp. 328, 329, under the head “ Que comburebantur,” he writes :— Quze ex posteriori genere erant, “non in altari ut holocausta, sed extra castra, in loco cineris, vel stante “Templo, extra urbem, €v mpoacreiots, uti Josephus scribit, dissecta in “partes comburebantur. Hc erant omnia illa, quorum sanguis infere- “batur in Aedem Sacram, ubi spargebatur coram velo et ad cornua “ altaris interioris, at reliquum effundebatur ad basin altaris exterioris * Levit. iv. 3, 12, Hebr. xiii. 11, ita tamen ut Dx eorum ex corpore ** extracta in altari exteriori adolerentur. ellis ipsa non detrahebatur ‘“‘his victimis Lev. i. 17, et quum altare carnem non nancisceretur, “etiam Sacerdotes jus in pellem non habebant. Zevach. xii. 2. ““Confer Levit. x. 16, ubi Moses indignabatur hircum piacularem pro ““neceato populi combustum fuisse, quum comedendus fuisset,” &c. S”E&@ ths mapewBodryns. Reland, in his chapter, de Tabernaculo ejusque situ, writes :—“‘ Atque ita tria se quasi produnt castra. I. Dei, “se. Tabernaculum cum atrio; II. Levitarum ; III. Populi Israélitici. “ Quibuscum convenerunt, respectu sanctitatis, rerumque et personarum “ que ad illa admittebantur discrimine, stante Templo tria hee spatia. *T, Atrium magnum, quod complectebatur atrium Israélitarum et “Sacerdotum. II. Atrium mulierum, spatium antemurale et mons “Templi, III. Urbs Hierosolyma, Gem. Zevachim, 116, 2, quam “traditionem confirmat scriptor Lp. ad Hebr., xiii. 11, 12, qui extra “castra populi idem censet ac extra Hierosolyman.” Ant. Sacr. Vet. Hebr., Traject. Bat., 1712. 8vo., p. 17. Some curious matter on the subject is to be found in the Babylonian Gemara, Sanhedrin, chap. 6, col. 596—600; Ugol. Thes., tom. 25.--For the New Testament use of the word mapepBodry. See note 4, p. 236. Dr. Gill writes, i Joc., “ Suffered without the gate,” i.e., of Jerusalem. The Syriac version “reads, “ without the city,” meaning Jerusalem, which answered to ae: 346 CHAP. XIII., 10—12. “the camp of Israel in the wilderness, without which the bodies of “beasts were burnt on the Day of Atonement. For so say the Jews “(T. Bab. Zevachim, fol. 116, 2; Bamidbar Rabba, § 7, fol. 188, 3, 4; “Maimon. Leth Habbechira, «. 7, § 11)—‘ As was the camp in the ‘*¢ wilderness, so was the camp in Jerusalem ; from Jerusalem to the mountain of the house was the camp of Israel ; from the mountain “* “of the House, to the gate of Nicanor, was the camp of the Levites ; “and from thenceforward the camp of the Shechinah, or the Divine “¢ Majesty. And so Josephus (Antig., iii. 10, 3) renders the phrase “ without the camp, in Lev. xvi. 27, by év rois mpoacreious, in the suburbs, “that is of Jerusalem, where Christ suffered.” The words of Josephus are mpoodyovar Oe Svo mpos rovTots epithous, dv 6 pev (dv eis Thy UmepdpLoy coe Epnplav wépmetat, arorpomtacpos Kal mpocaitnots Tod mATOovs mavtds vréep apapTnudtrwy e€adpevos, tov & év trois mpoacteiors eis Kabapwtatoy dyovres xXoptov aité& oly abth Kalovor th Sopa, pndev dws kabdpavres. Svykatakalerat d€ ratpos ovx bd Tov Sypou mpocaxbeis, GAN ek Tov Wiwy dvadopdt@v TOD apxtepéws trapacxévtos x.T.A.—J. Rhenferdius (Lwpiatio Anniversaria Pont. Max, V. et N. Test., p. 1037, Meuschen) writes :—‘‘ Interea vero, “dum Emissarius deportabatur, Pontifex ad juvencum suum et hircum “ nopuli redibat, et intestina exemta rite imponebat altari, corpora item “‘dissecta aliis sacerdotibus tradebat efferenda et comburenda extra ““castra, Lev. xvi. 25, 27 ; Misn., cap. vi. 7...... Corporis elati mysterium ‘« Apostolus explicat : ‘Nam quorum animalium sanguis,’ etc., Heb. xiii. SG Me Sear Comburebatur autem corpus hirci extra castra loco mundo, ‘in quo reliquorum sacrificiorum cineres deponebantur. Ita igitur et “Christi passi, mortuique corpus sepulchro novo conditum est, in quo “nemo unquam jacuerat.” Joh. xix. 41.—J. C. Wolfius writes, in loc., “Pro mvAns codex unus, Barberin, legit méAews, quam vocem Tertul- ““jianus etiam adversus Judzeos cap. ultimo exprimit, et recte quidem, “quod ad sensum, judice Grotio......... Absit vero, ut auctoritate unius “Codicis adducti, quicquam mutemus, cum sensus idem ex recepta “Jectione nascatur, quem Tertullianus non tam, quod aliter legerit, “quam, quod aliud significari non possit, expressit.’”” See also Suren- husius, Bé(SAos KaradX., pp. 666—668. The Writer, with that controversial sagacity which is so distinguishing an attribute of St. Paul, whilst fortifying his readers against the arguments and the taunts of those who would reimpose upon them the observance of peculiarities in meats and CHAP. XIII., 10—12. 347 drinks, seizes the opportunity to demonstrate a further and striking correspondence between the typical sacrifices of the Day of Atonement and Jesus the Great Antitype. They were taunted with having cut themselves off from participa- tion in the sacrifices, and polluting themselves amongst the Gentiles, by eating meats that were ceremonially unclean. The answer is ready. We have an altar of which the High Priest himself has no power to eat. He dared not to partake of the flesh of the bullock and the goat whose blood he offered on the Day of Atonement. We can par- take of His body and blood who was prefigured by these sacrifices. The Christian believer, therefore, stands immeasurably above the proudest Pharisee that makes his boast in the law. The bodies of these beasts above mentioned were not eaten, but were burned without the camp. - Jesus, therefore, that he might complete the correspondence between himself and these typical representations suffered “without the gate.’ It was no accidental coinci- dence. It was a prophetic fulfilment of the Scriptures. The law of Moses prescribed that malefactors should thus suffer outside the city. (See p. 242.) Jesus was the true victim, and by the legal necessity of the Mosaic criminal law, He suffered outside the gate. Thus He proved Himself, in this minute resemblance, to be Him “ of whom ‘“* Moses in the law, and all the prophets, did write.” — The Jews thought Him a malefactor, and He was content, whilst “ fulfilling all righteousness,” to bear “the reproach.’ Those who burned the bullock 348 CHAP, XUT,, 21s. and the goat were accounted ceremonially unclean. The converts must also be content to bear the revilings of their adversaries, and to go forth to Jesus without the camp bearing his reproach ; and therefore the Writer continues :— Verse 13.—Let us therefore come forth to him without (cw Ths TmapewPBorys) bearing his reproach (tov dvevduc- pov avtov déportes). It must not be forgotten that our Lord, having been crucified, or “ hanged on a tree,” was regarded by the unbelieving Jews as being “accursed of * God-s. Deut: xxi, 22,).23,. “And if a, man, have “committed a sin worthy of death, and he be put “to death, and thou hang him on a tree, his body “shall not remain all night upon the tree, but “thou shalt in any wise bury him that day. For “he that is hanged is accursed of God (n>5p s> “sbn obs), that thy land be not defiled,” &c. This was, doubtless, the reason why the Jews were so urgent upon Pilate, that after the Saviour’s crucifixion, the bodies might be removed and buried before nightfall. Such, then, was the ‘reproach’ which Jesus bore for us. Well might the Writer appeal to the gratitude of his readers, and exhort them to bear with contented resigna- tion the reproach of their Master. But again, with his skilful and characteristic tenderness and tact, he reminds them that the reproach will not be for ever, and the trial will be brief. What if they do place themselves outside the camp? What if they are cut off from former associations, and their very CHAP. XIII. 14. 349 names are cast out as unclean by their brethren ? Have they not the words of Jesus himself (Matt. v. 10—12) to cheer them, “ Blessed are they which “are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for their’s “is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my “ sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great ‘““is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they “the prophets which were before you.’ And again (Luke vi. 20—23), “ Blessed be ye poor: for yours “is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye that ‘“‘ hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are “ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh. Blessed ‘are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they “shall separate you (dapopicwow tpas) from their “ company, and shall reproach you, and cast out “your name as evil, for the Son of man’s sake. “Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, “behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in “the lke manner did their fathers unto the “‘ prophets.” The self-sacrifice thus required would be greatly mitigated and their regrets rendered less poignantly keen, if the converts would bethink themselves of the primary condition of their pil- srimage (see verses 10—16), and so the Writer continues :— Verse 14.—For we have not here a continuing city,’ but we seek the one to come (THv méAXovcay érifntoduerv, Die zukinftige suchen wir, Luther). * OU yap Exouer Se pevoveay rdw «.t.X. The meaning of these words is doubtless, “ Jerusalem, whose gate has just been mentioned, verse 12 350 CHAP. XIII, 15. “ (albeit it is the seat of the temple worship and the Levitic sacrifices, albeit it is the Holy City, and the ‘joy of the whole earth’ in the “ Jewish patriot’s estimation), is not the cherished home of the Chris- “tian pilgrim’s desires. It is, at best, transitory, and only a resting- * place for wayfaring men who lodge in it, for a little season, on their “ way home to their city out of sight, even that Jerusalem whichis above, “ which is the Mother of us all.” (See note 1, pp. 298—302.) The suggestion of Schoettgen and Michaelis, that this verse contains a prophetic inti- mation of the approaching destruction of Jerusalem, seems to me entirely foreign to the argument. The antithesis lies between the terrestrial distinction and advantages comprised in the citizenship of the material Jerusalem, and the abiding consolations of the Jerusalem above. The words are intended, Ist, as a disswasive against undue regret on the part of the converts at being thrust out from all that they once held most honourable, sacred, and dear ; 2dly, as a consolatory admonition as to the better hopes which they professed to entertain for eternity, as their final rest and consolation, after the toils of their pilgrimage should be ended. Turning away their eyes from the fading scenes of earthly endearments, the Writer bids them to solace themselves by the contemplation of their heavenly metropolis and home. Wolfius (in loc.) wisely remarks :—‘‘ Mihi quidem wédus pédAAovea de oeconomia Novi “ Testamenti accipi non posse videtur, que tune non amplius erat “ uéd\Novoa, sed vere existebat, ita, ut qui eam instar civitatis ingressi “essent, non jam &€voe et waporxor, sed ocupmodira Tdv dyi@y Kal oiketoe ‘ov Ocod appellari possent.”—Stuart also (in loc.) well observes :— “The design of our verse is to show the Hebrews, that it cannot be of “any great importance should they be exiled from their dwelling-places, “and the habitations of their Jewish kindred ; for in this world no “habitation, no place of abode, can be pevouca, permanent, lasting. By ‘profession the Christians, like the patriarchs, were seeking marpiéa “ érovpavov, and consequently wéAw peddAovoay,” Ke. Verse 15.—Through him (Jesus) therefore’ (see verse 10, éxowev Ovoractipiov x.T.r.), let us offer up a sacrifice of praise continually (dvazravtos) to God, that is the fruit of lips’ confessing to His Name® (xevAéwy dporoyovvtay TO OvOmaTL avTOD). 1 A’ avrod oty avapépopev Ovoiav aivécews k.t.A. One of the main arguments running through the entire Epistle is this. Christ the Messiah having offered himself to God, without spot, a perfect and sufficient sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, the Levitic sacrifices CHAP. XIII. 15. 351 are superseded and must entirely cease. Daniel had intimated as much, chap. ix. 27. Schoettgen (Hor. Hebr., tom. ii., p. 612) gives the follow- ing decisive proofs that the ancient Rabbinical Jews expected the sacrifices to cease in the days of Messiah :—‘‘Sohar Exod., fol. 85, ‘*col. 346. Cum Israelite essent in terra sancta, per illos cultus et sacri- “ ficia, que fecerunt, omnes morbos et penas ex mundo sustulerunt : xnby 220 p> poo mwo anwn, nunc autem Messias tollit eas a filiis “ hominum, usque dum ex hoc mundo egrediuntur : wry Sapo), et reatum “ ejus (mundi scilicet) in se suscipit, sicut jam diximus :—Vajikra rabba, “* sect. 9, fol. 153, 1, Tanchuma, fol. 55,2. Pesikta sotarta, fol. 11, 1, “et Midrasch Tehillim ad Psalm. ec. 2, fol. 36,4. R. Pinchas nomine “ R. Levi, et R. Jochanan ex ore R. Menachem Galilei dixerunt ; $2 NR TT AP pa map 9 N29 Pny>. Temporibus Messiz omnes “ sacriticia cessabunt, sed sacrificium laudis non cessabit : (In Midrasch * Tehillim vox x2 abest,) g.d. Jerem. xvii. 26. Et adducentes laudem “in domum Domini.—Tanchuma, fol. 48, 1, Dixit Deus S.B.: In hoe “ mundo peccata hominum expiuta sunt per sacrificia: verum 817 ND>Y), “ Ego peceaia tua expio sine sucrificio (ex animantibus facto), g.d. Jesa. “ xliii, 25. Ego, ego deleo peccata tua propter me.—De vacca rufa “ (see Hebr. ix. 13, oodds Sapddews.) in specie locus pulcherrimus exstat *‘in Baal hatturim ad Numer. xix. 9, ™p 75x) 11HE NY, Non amplius “ habebunt opus cinere vacce rufe, nam deglutiet Dominus mortem in “ seternum.”’—Schoettgen adds,—“ Hee autem verba Prophet de “Messia loqui, jam aliquoties adfuit.—De panibus propositionum. “‘ Schemoth rabba, sect. 50, fol. 142, 3. Dixit Deus S.B. ad Israelitas : “ Vos fecistis mihi mensam, n2vwa yO Dare P30 ux, Lgo absolvam vos, “ut non amplius illam instruere debeatis (panibus et reliquis eo perti- ‘“‘ nentibus), et tpse instruam vobis mensam x2) PnY?, temporibus Messi.” In Levit. vii. 12 we read :—“If he offer it for a thanksgiving, then he “ shall offer with the sacrifice of thanksgiving (A177 MI, LXX. vii. 2, “ ert tis Ovaias Tis aiveréws) unleavened cakes,” &c. In 2 Chron. xxix. 31 mom.on is translated @vcias aivéoews, and Oucias kai aivéecers. So also in 2 Chron. xxxiii. 16, 7HM DW TH is rendered 6uvciav getnpiov Kai aivécews. The Rev. Dr. Phillips (The Psalms in Hebrew with Commentary, vol. ii., pp. 453, 454) writes on Ps, exvi. 13 mrvw p12 nox, I will take the cup of Salvation. ‘ This verse and the following * ‘“‘ contain an answer to the question in the preceding one 1) wx 7M. “ The cup of salvation is thought to allude to the Eucharistic offering ; ‘sq Mendelsohn observes that it is the cup of blessing, full of wine, used “in the Eucharistic sacrifice. Some persons, however, deny that there “is any allusion to those sacrifices, as Hengstenberg, who observes, “Dieser Kelch ist eine blosse Fiction ;’ this communion cup is a mere 302 CHAP, AIT A. “fiction. It is true, in the institution of the festival-offerings, there is “nothing said of the cup ; yet in the feast of the Passover, for instance, “we know from Matt. xxvi. 29, 30 that the cup of wine to drink, and “the singing of a hymn were parts of the celebration. See Lightfoot’s “ Hore Hebraice on Matt. xxvi.”’ Dr. Phillips might have made his case much stronger had he observed, that under the term used by St. Matthew, viz., duvyoavres, was probably included the singing of this very Psalm cxvi. It was included in the “ Great Hallelujah” which comprised Ps. cxiiii—exvili. These Psalms were sung at the Jewish festivals, particularly at the Feast of Tabernacles and the Passover. From all these considerations we are able to gather certainly, that it was the belief of the ancient Rabbis that in Messiah’s days all vicarious sacrifices should cease, but that the Sacrifice of Praise should never cease. What they understood by the figurative Sacrifice of Praise agrees excellently well with the definition given by the Writer to the Hebrews, rouréort kaprov xeéwy 6podoyovvtoy TH dvdpart avrov, as will be apparent from the following quotation given by Schoettgen, zm loc. (Hor. Hebr., tom. i., p. 1005) :—‘‘ Vajikra Rabba, sect. 9, fol. 153, 1, et “Tanchuma, fol. 55, 2. &. Pinchas, R. Levi, et R. Jochanan ex ore “ R. Menachem Galilei dixerunt ; 902 YR TWN JAP porwr ny23PT 93 NID Ty. “ Tempore Messie omnia sacrificia cessabunt, sed sacrificium laudis non “ cessabit. Omnes preces cessabunt, sed laudes non cessabunt, q.d. Jerem, “‘xxxiii. 1. Vox letitiz et gaudii, vox sponsi et sponsz, vox dicen- *‘tium : Laudate Deum Zebaoth, &c. Hee est confessio : et adferentium “Jandem in domum Domini: Hoe est Sacrifictum laudis. Et sie David “¢ dicit, Ps. lvi. 13. In me sunt, Domine, vota tua, solvam laudationes “tibi. Quia seribitur in plurali myn, laudationes, intelligitur confessio “et sacrificium laudis——Jalkut Rubeni, fol. 92, 2, ad verba Exod. xix. “12. Ederunt panem cum Jethro coram facie Domini: Observanda * sunt verba ox 1209, Exinde discimus, quod quicunque sacrificium “ offert 257 NnWwI1, in mente, coram ipso Deus est.” > Kaprov xer\éwv k.t.A. In the Hebrew text of Is. lvii. 19 we read, mnpw 2 xvi, Creavi fructum labiorum. Vulg. These words are not in the LX X. But in Hosea xiv. 3 the LXX. translate new om, the calves of our lips, by kaprov xev\ewv. There is no necessity for supposing that the LX X. interpreters must necessarily have had the reading "2, fruit, before them in the MSS. of Hosea from which they translated. They gave a very intelligible paraphrase of an equally intelligible Hebrew expression. Dr. Gill writes, 7m loc., ‘‘The Sacrifice of Praise “is so called, in allusion to the offering of the first-fruits under the “* Law, and to distinguish it from legal sacrifices ; and to show in what ‘manner we are to praise God, namely, with our lips. In Hosea xiv. 3, PRBAP TMT 3: 15. 303 “which is thought to be referred to here, it is the calves of our lips: “ sacrifices of praise being instead of calres: and the Apostle interprets “it in great agreement with the Jewish writers. The Chaldee para- “ phrase explains it by s2m2D 9, the words of our lips; and so Jarchi, “yynpw 37, The words ofour lips ; and Kimchi, wnaw 11%, the confession “ of our lips.” * “Opodoyouvtav TH dvdpate aitod. Through Jesus (8? adrod), the converts are exhorted to offer the Sacrifice of Praise to God the Father continually. With his usual subtlety of adaptation, the Writer con- trives to blend exhortation with his words of encouragement. The desponding Hebrews were out of conceit with the simplicity of the Gospel. They could no longer partake, with their unbaptized brethren, of the sacrifices of the temple. They looked back with regret upon the festive splendours of the Mosaic ritual, from which they had for ever cut themselves off. Some of them were ashamed of the obloquy attaching to the profession of Christ, and gave no unwilling ear to those who would teach them to avoid the reproach of the Cross, by a renewed conformity with the Levitic ceremonial Law. The Writer has reminded them (verse 10) that “we have an altar,” of which the high- priest himself has no power to eat. We can offer the Sacrifice of Praise continually to God; but the most acceptable form in which this Sacrifice can be offered is, “the fruit of lips confessing to his (Jesus’) “name.” - CHAP. XIIT., 24, 25. 363 “ Bethsaida,” ibid., 45 (46), “Jesus of (dd) Nazareth,” J ohn xi, t, “Lazarus of (amd) Bethany,” xix. 38, “Joseph of (dd) ‘Arimathea,” xxi. 2, “ Nathanael of (dd) Cana,” Acts vi. 9, Kupnvaiwy kai ’AdeEav- Spewv, kal tav amd KiXikias kat Acias, x. 38, “God anointed Jesus of “(awo) Nazareth.” But a very. decisive example is found in Acts xvii. 13, “ But when the Jews of Thessalonica (as 5€ éyyacay of ard tis “ @ercadovikns Iovdaior) had knowledge that the word of God was “ preached of Paul at Berea, they came thither also “ie., from Thessa- “‘ lonica to Berea), and stirred up the people.” I take it, however, that under the term of awd tis "Iradias were included the brethren who did not reside at Rome (see Acts xxviii. 13, 14, Sevrepatos fOopev eis TlorwAous. Ov evpdvtes adeA*ods mapexAnOnpev em adrois ereivat Huépas énra k.t.A.), but, yet being on terms of friendly intercourse with St. Paul, were for brevity’s sake designated, with the resident believers at Rome, under the general term oi dwé ths *Iradias, ze, as Wolfius says, the Italians. 2 “H xdpis pera travtov tyav. There is nothing un-Pauline in this formula. It is expressed with even greater brevity in Coloss. iv. 18, 7 xapis peO vyov, and also in 2 Tim, iv. 22, The identical words of Heb. xiii, 25 are found in Titus iii. 15. The Subscription.— Written to the Hebrews from Italy by Timothy.’ 1 [Ipds ‘EBpatous eypadpn and rhs’ Iradias d1a Tyobeov. Professor Stuart says,—‘‘ Like most of the other subscriptions to the Epistles, it is of no “ authority. It is demonstrably 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 understanding of its contents.” Without presuming to defend the authenticity of the subscription, I would venture to suggest that Timothy may have been the amanuensis of the greater portion of the Epistle, and yet have been prevented from finishing his task. The book of Deuteronomy contains in its last chapter an account of the death of Moses, and yet, in common with other credulous folks, I cannot divest myself of the antiquated notion (be it remembered, on the authority of the New Testament, Acts iii. 22, vii. 37) that Moses was the author of the book. It is not absolutely necessary to restrict the * 364 CHAP. XIII., 24, 25. meaning of é¢ypadn to the actual manual labour of writing. It may signify was dispatched. If the Epistle’ was written by St. Paul at Rome, it is within the bounds of possibility, that after all, Timothy may have been the bearer of the missive after his release. To my mind, it is always dangerous to speak, with certain assurance, either for or against any statement whatever, where there are absolutely no positive data to argue from. J.C. Wolfius writes with a more judicious cautiousness than Stuart :—“ Subscriptionem hane ab Apostolo non “esse profectam, multa sunt, que persuadeant. Primo enim a multis “Codd. abest ; deinde in aliis varie effertur,” &e. Having thus been permitted to see the completion of my task, the accomplishment of which has be- guiled many an hour, in sickness and in health, I desire to express my great obligations to the numerous subscribers who have encouraged me to persevere in my efforts to accomplish it. May the Great Master of the Church condescend to look favourably upon my endeavour to elucidate this portion of his Holy Word, accepting the sincerity of the attempt, pardoning its infirmity, and over- ruling its errors. Amen! > C. A. Mactntosu, Printer, Great New-street, London. , i 13 “i ‘ b vi y Hi SP) pret Tie Alec 4 j 2 ' . » . ? H \ y TD a / XY hay Wi way “< y ‘4 i FWA RE ay i a Lt Lane aan i Date Due &... jack Tenn