'?^ \ (^ . I- .^ ' ' Divi';i^-ji •-^t-Xuli 1 I / Ci)e CamijritJse Biljle for ^cj^ools anti Collects, THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE HEBREWS. PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. & SOPf, AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. C|)e Cambrinse 3Mt for ^tljools antr ColUses. General Editor :-J. J. S. PEROWNE, D.D, Dean of Peterborough. THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE HEBREWS, WITH NOTES AND INTRODUCTION BY THE REV. F. W. FARRAR, D.D. CANON OF WESTMINSTER. EDITED FOR THE SYNDICS OF THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. SotttJon : C. J. CLAY, M.A. & SON, CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE, 17, Paternoster Row. 1883 [AI/ Rights reserved.} PREFACE BY THE GENERAL EDITOR. The General Editor of The Cambridge Bible for Schools thinks it right to say that he does not hold himself responsible either for the interpretation of particular passages which the Editors of the several Books have adopted, or for any opinion on points of doctrine that they may have expressed. In the New Testament more especially questions arise of the deepest theological import, on which the ablest and most conscientious interpreters have differed and always will differ. His aim has been in all such cases to leave each Contributor to the unfettered exercise of his own judgment, only taking care that mere controversy should as far as possible be avoided. He has contented himself chiefly with a careful revision of the notes, with pointing out omissions, with PREFACE. suggesting occasionally a reconsideration of some question, or a fuller treatment of difficult passages, and the like. Beyond this he has not attempted to interfere, feeling it better that each Commentary should have its own individual character, and being convinced that freshness and variety of treatment are more than a compensation for any lack of uniformity in the Series. Deanery, Peterborough. CONTENTS. PAGES I. Introduction. Chapter I. Character, Analysis, and Object of the Epistle to the Hebrews 9—25 Chapter II, Where was the Epistle written ? and to whom? 25 — 28 Chapter III. The Date 29 Chapter IV. Style and Character of the Epistle 29 — 32 Chapter V. Theolpgy of the Epistle 32 — 41 Chapter VI. The Author of the Epistle 41 —49 Chapter VII. Canonicity 49 — 50 II. Text and Notes. 51 — 194 III. Index 195 — 196 * The Text adopted in this Edition is that of Dr Scrivener's Cambridge Paragraph Bible. A few variations from the ordi- nary Text, chiefly in the spelling of certain words, and in the use of italics, will be noticed. For the principles adopted by Dr Scrivener as regards the printing of the Text see his Intro- duction to the Paragraph Bible, published by the Cambridge University Press. ^.. ? ^^- INTRODUCTION. The old line, *^ Qtiis, qtiid, ubi, quibus atixiliis, air^ quomodo, quandoV^ Who? what? where? with what helps? why? how? when? has sometimes been quoted as summing up the topics which are most necessary by way of " introduction " to the sacred books. The summary is not exhaustive nor exact, but we may be guided by it to some extent. We must, however, take the topics in a different order. Let us then begin with ^quidf and Uurf* What is the Epistle to the Hebrews ? with what object was it written ? for what readers was it designed ? Of the ' nbi?^ and ' qitando ? ' we shall find that there is little to be said ; but the answer to '■ qtioniodo .?' ' how ?' will involve a brief notice of the style and theology of the Epistle, and we may then finally con- sider the question quis f who was the writer ? CHAPTER I. CHARACTER, ANALYSIS, AND OBJECT OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. It has been sometimes said that the Epistle to the Hebrews is rather a treatise than an Epistle. The author is silent as to his own name ; he begins with no greeting; he sends no special messages or salutations to individuals. His aim is to furnish an elaborate argument in favour of one definite thesis ; and he describes what he has written as " a word of exhortation " (xiii. 22). Nevertheless it is clear that we must regard his work as 10 INTRODUCTION. an Epistle. It was evidently intended for a definite circle of readers to whom the author was personally known. The mes- sages and the appeals, though not addressed to single persons, are addressed to the members of a single community, and the tone of many hortatory passages, as well as the definiteness of the remarks in the last chapter, shew that we are not dealing with a cyclical document, but with one of the missives de- spatched by some honoured teacher to some special Church. It is probable that many such letters have perished. It was the custom of the scattered Jewish synagogues to keep up a friendly intercourse with each other by an occasional inter- change of letters sent as opportunity might serve. This custom was naturally continued among the Christian Churches, of which so many had gathered round a nucleus of Gentile proselytes or Jewish converts. If the letter was of a weighty character, it was preserved among the archives of the Church to which it had been addressed. The fact that this and the other Christian Epistles which are included in the Canon have defied the ravages of time and the accidents of change, is due to their own surpassing importance, and to the overruling Providence of God. The Epistle to the Hebrews is one of many letters which must have been addressed to the various Christian communities in the first century. Passing over for the present the ques- tion of the particular Church to whose members it was ad- dressed, we see at once that the superscription "to the He- brews " — whether it came from the hand of the writer or not — correctly describes the class of Christians by whom the whole argument was specially needed. The word * Hebrews,' like the word ' Greeks,' was used in different senses. In its wider sense it included all who were of the seed of Abraham (2 Cor. xi. 22), the whole Jewish race alike in Palestine and throughout the vast area of the Dispersion (Phil. iii. 5). But in its narrower sense it meant those Jews only who still used the vernacular Aramaic, which went by the name of 'Hebrew,' though the genuine Hebrew in which the Old Testament was written had for some time been a dead language. In a still narrower sense INTRODUCTION. ii the designation ' Hebrews ' was confined to the inhabitants of Judaea. The letter itself sufficiently shews that the Hebrews, to whom it is addressed, were Jewish converts to Christianity. Although the writer was of the school of St Paul, and adopts some of his phrases, and accords with him in his general tone of thought, yet throughout this Epistle he ignores the very existence of the Gentiles to an extent which would have been hardly possible in any work of "the Apostle of the Gentiles" (Acts xviii. 6; Gal. ii. 7^ 9; 2 Tim. i. 11), and least of all when he was handling one of his own great topics — the con- trast between Judaism and Christianity. The word Gentiles (e6vT])_ does not once occur nor are the Gentiles in any way alluded to. The writer constantly uses the expression "the people" (ii. 17; iv. 9; v. 3; vii. 5, 11, 27; viii. 10; ix. 7, 19; X. 30; xi. 25; xiii. 12), but in every instance he means "the chosen people," nor does he give the slightest indication that he is thinking of any nation but the Jews. We do not for a moment imagine that he doubted the call of the Gen- tiles. The whole tendency of his arguments, the Pauline cha- racter of many of his thoughts and expressions, even the funda- mental theme of his Epistle, that Judaism as such — Judaism in all its distinctive worship and legislation — was abrogated, are sufficient to shew that he would have held with St Paul that 'all are not Israel who are of Israel,' and that 'they who are of the faith are blessed with the faithful Abraham.' But while he undoubtedly held these truths, — for otherwise he could not have been a Christian at all, and still less a Pauline Christian, — his mind is not so full of them as was the mind of St Paul. It is inconceivable that St Paul, who regarded it as his own special Gospel to proclaim to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ (Eph. iii. 4 — 8), should have written a long Epistle in which the Gentiles do not once seem to cross the horizon of his thoughts ; and this would least of all have been possible in a letter addressed "to the Hebrews." The Jews regarded St Paul with a fury of hatred and suspicion which we find faintly reflected in his Epistles and in the Acts (Acts xxi. 21 ; I Thess. ii. 15; 2 Cor. xi. 24; Phil. iii. 2). Even the 12 INTRODUCTION. Jewish Christians looked on the most characteristic part of his teaching with a jealousy and alarm which found frequent ex- pression both in words and deeds. It would have been some- thing like unfaithfulness in St Paul, it would have been an unworthy suppression of his intensest convictions, to write to any exclusively * Hebrew' community without so much as distantly alluding to that phase of the Gospel which it had been his special mission to set forth. The case with the writer of this Epistle is very different. He was not only a Jewish V Christian, but a Jewish Christian of the Alexandrian school. We shall again and again have occasion to see that he had been deeply influenced by the thoughts of Philo. Now Philo, liberal as were his philosophical views, was a thoroughly faithful Jew. He never for a moment forgot his nationality. He was so completely entangled in Jewish particularism that he shews no capacity for understanding the universal prophecies of the Old Testament. His LOGOS, or WORD, so far as he assumes any personal distinctness, is essentially and preeminently a Jewish deliverer. Judaism formed for Philo the nearer horizon beyond which he hardly cared to look. Similarly in this Epistle the v/riter is so exclusively occupied by the relations of Judaism to Christianity, that he does not even glance aside to examine any other point of difference between the New Covenant and the Old. What he sees in Christianity is simply a perfected Ju- daism. Mankind is to him the ideal Hebrew. Even when he speaks of the Incarnation he speaks of it as *a taking hold' not *of humanity' but ' of the seed of Abraham' (ii. i6). In this Epistle then he is writing to Jewish Christians, and he deals exclusively with the topics which were most needful for the particular body of Jewish Christians which he had in view. All that we know of their circumstances is derived from the letter itself. They like the writer himself, had been converted by the preaching of Apostles, ratified ' by signs, and portents, and various powers, and distributions of the Holy Spirit' (ii. 3, 4). But some time had elapsed since their conversion (v. 12). Some of their original teachers and leaders were already dead (xiii. 7). They had meanwhile been subjected to persecutions, severe INTRODUCTION. I3 indeed (x. 32— 34), but not so severe as to have involved mar- tyrdom (xii. 4). But the afflictions to which they had been sub- jected tocrether with the delay of the Lord's Coming (x. 36, 37), had caused a relaxation of their efforts (xii. 12), a sluggishness in their spiritual intelligence (vi. 12), a dimming of the bright- ness of their early faith (x. 32), a tendency to listen to new doc- trines (xiii. 9, 17), a neglect of common worship (x. 25), and a tone of spurious independence towards their teachers (xui. 7, I7, 24), which were evidently creating the peril of apostasy. Like their ancestors of old, the Hebrew Christians were beginning to find that the pure spiritual manna palled upon their taste. In their painful journey through the wilderness of life they were begin- nino- to yearn for the pomp and boast and ease of Jewish exter- nalfsm. just as their fathers had hankered after the melons and fleshpots of their Egyptian servitude. They were casting back- ward' glances of regret towards the doomed city which they had left (xiii. 12). That the danger was imminent is clear from the awful solemnity of the appeals which again and again the writer addresses to them (ii. 1—4; iii- 7— 19; vi. 4—12; x. 26—31; xii. I5_i7), and which, although they are usually placed m juxta- position to words of hope and encouragement (iii. 6, 14; vi. 11; X. 39; xii. 18—24; &c.), must yet be reckoned among the sternest passages to be found in the whole New Testament. A closer examination of the Epistle may lead us to infer that this danger of apostasy— of gradually dragging their anchor and drifting away from the rock of Christ (ii. i)— arose from two sources; namely— (i) the influence of some one prominent member of the community whose tendency to abandon the Christian covenant (iii. 12) was due to unbelief, and whose unbe- lief had led to flagrant immorality (xii. 15, 16) ; and (2) from a tendency to listen to the boastful commemoration of the glories and privileges of Judaism, and to recoil before the taunt that Christians were traitors and renegades, who without any com- pensatory advantage had forfeited all right to participate in the benefits of the Levitic ritual and its atoning sacrifices (xiii. 10, &c.). In the communities of Jewish Christians there must have 14 INTRODUCTION. been many whose faith and zeal — not kindled by hope, not sup- ported by patience, not leavened with absolute sincerity, not maintained by a progressive sanctification — tended to wax dim and cold. And if such men chanced to meet some unconverted Jew, burning with all the patriotism of a zealot, and inflated with all the arrogance of a Pharisee, they would be liable to be shaken by the appeals and arguments of such a fellow-country- man. He would have asked them how they dared to emanci- pate themselves from a law spoken by Angels ? He would have reminded them of the heroic grandeur of Moses ; of the priestly dignity of Aaron ; of the splendour and significance of the Temple Service ; of the disgrace incurred by ceremonial pollu- tion ; of the antiquity and revealed efficacy of the Sacrifices ; of the right to partake of the sacred ofterings ; above all, of the grandeur and solemnity of the Great Day of Atonement. He would dwell much on the glorious ritual when the High Priest passed into the immediate presence of God in the Holiest Place, or when " he put on the robe of honour and was clothed with the perfection of glory, when he went up to the holy altar, and made the garment of holiness honourable," and '" the sons of Aaron shouted, and sounded the silver trumpets, and made a great noise to be heard for a remembrance before the Most High" (Ecclus. 1. 5 — 16). He would have asked them how they could bear to turn their backs on the splendid history and the splendid hopes of their nation. He would have taunted them with leaving the inspired wisdotil of Moses and the vene- rable legislation of Sinai for the teaching of a poor crucified Nazarene, whom all the Priests and Rulers and Rabbis had rejected. He would have contrasted the glorious Deliverer who should break in pieces the nations like a potter's vessel with the despised, and rejected, and accursed Sufferer— for had not Moses said " Cursed of God is every one who hangeth on a tree" ? — whom they had been so infatuated as to accept for the Promised Messiah ! We know that St Paul was charged— charged even by Christ- ians who had been converted from Judaism— with ^^ apostasy from Moses" (Acts xxi. 2i). So deep indeed was this feeling INTRODUCTION. 15 that, according to Eusebius, the Ebionites rejected all his Epi- stles' on the ground that he was " an apostate from the Law." Such taunts could not move St Paul, but they would be deeply and keenly felt by wavering converts exposed to the fierce flame of Jewish hatred and persecutioh at an epoch when there arose among their countrymen throughout the world a recrudescence of Messianic excitement and rebellious zeal. The object of this Epistle was to shew that what the Jews called "Apostasy from Moses" was demanded by faithfulness to Christ, and that apostasy from Chtist to Moses was not only an inexcusable blindness but an dll-but-unpardonable crime. If such were the dangerous influences to which the Hebrew community here addressed was exposed, it would be impossible to imagine any better method of removing their perplexities, and dissipating the mirage df false atgument by which they were being deceived, than that adopted by the writer of this Epistle. It was his object to demdnstrctte once for all the inferiority of Judaism to Christianity; but although that theme had already been handled \^ith consummate power by the Apostle of the Gentiles, alike the arguments and the method of this Epistle differ from those adopted in St Paul's Epistles to the Galatians and the Romans. The arguments of the Epistle are different. In the Epistles to the Galatians and the Romans St Paul, with the sledge-hammer force of his direct and irhpassioned dialectics, had shattered all possibility of trusting in legal prescriptions, and demonstrated that the Law was no longer obligatory upon Gentiles. He had shewn that the distinction between clean and unclean meats was to the enlightened conscience a matter of indifference ; that cir- cumcision was now nothing better than i physical mutilation ; that the Levitic system was composed of "weak and beggarly elements ;" that ceremonialism was a yoke with which the free converted Gentile had nothing to do ; that we are saved by faith and not by works ; that the Law was a dispensation of wrath and menace, introduced "for the sake of transgressions" (Gal. iii. 19; Rom. V. 20) ; that so far from being (as all the Rabbis asserted) the one thing on account of ^'hich the Univetse had been created, 1/ i6 INTRODUCTION. the Mosaic Code only possessed a transitory, subordinate, and intermediate character, coming in (as it were in a secondary way) between the Promise to Abraham and the fulfilment of that promise in the Gospel of Christ. To him therefore the whole treatment of the question was necessarily and essentially po- lemical, and in the course of these polemics he had again and again used expressions which, however unavoidable and salutary, could not fail to be otherwise than deeply wounding to the in- flamed susceptibilities of the Jews at that epoch. There was scarcely an expression which he had applied to the observance of the Mosaic law which would not sound, to a Jewish ear, depre- catory or even contemptuous. No Jew who had rejected the Lord of Glory, and wilfully closed his reason against the force of conviction, would have been able to read those Epistles of St Paul without something like a transport of fur}^ and indignation. They would declare that pushed to their logical consequences, such views could only lead (as in fact, when extravagantly per- verted, they did lead) to Antinomian Gnosticism ; and the re- action against them might tend to harden Jewish Christians in those Ebionite tendencies which found expression a century later in the Pseudo-Clementine writings. Those writings still breathe a spirit of bitter hatred against St Paul, and are "the literary memorial of a manoeuvre which had for its aim the ab- sorption of the Roman Church into Judseo-Christianity." Now the arguments of the Epistle to the Hebrews turn on another set of considerations. They were urged from a different point of view. They do not lead the writer, except in the most in- cidental and the least wounding manner, to use expressions which would have shocked the prejudices of his unconverted countrymen He does not touch on the once-burning question of Circumcision. It is only towards the close of his Epistle (xiii. 9) that he has occasion to allude, even incidentally, to the distinction of meats. His subject does not require him to enter upon the controversy as to the degree to which Gentile proselytes were obliged to ob- serve the Mosaic Law. He is nowhere compelled to break down the bristling hedge of Jewish exclusiveness. If he proves the boundless superiority of the New Covenant he does not do this at INTRODUCTION. 17 the expense of the majesty of the old. To him the richer privileges of Christianity are the developed germ of the Mosaic Dispensation, and he only contemplates them in their relation to the Jews. He was able to soothe the rankling pride of an offended Levitism by recognising Levitism as an essential hnk in an unbroken continuity. The difference between the Law and the Gospel in the controversial theology of St Paul was the dif- ference of an absolute antithesis. In this Epistle the difference is not of kind but of degree. The difference of degree was indeed transcendent, but still it represented a progress and an evolu- tion. His letter is therefore, as Baur says, " a thoroughly original attempt to establish the main results of St Paul's teaching upon new presuppositions and in an entirely independent way." All this advantage arose from the point of view at w^hich he was able to place himself. His Alexandrian training, his Jewish sympathies, the nature of his immediate argument, led him to see in Judaism not so much A LAW as a SYSTEM OF worship. The fact that the Jews who were trying to pervert his Christian con- verts had evidently contrasted the humility and the sufferings of Christ with the sacerdotal magnificence of the Jewish hierarchs, enabled him to seize on Priesthood and Sacrifice rather than on Levitic ordinances as the central point of his treatment. Hence his whole reasoning turns on a different pivot from that of St Paul. The main thing which he has to shew is that Christianity is the perfect fulfilment of a Type. It is therefore not only need- less for him to disparage the Type, but he can even extol its grandeur and beauty as a type. The antitheses of St Paul's controversy are of necessity far more sharp and hard. To him the contrast between the Law and the Gospel was a contrast between an awful menace and a free deliverance ; between the threat of inevitable death and the gift of Eternal life. To St Paul the Law was an ended servitude, a superfluous discipline, a broken fetter, a torn and cancelled bond (Rom. viii. 2 ; Gal. iii. 24, 25 ; iv. 9, 25 ; Col. ii. 14, &c.) : to this writer the Mosaic system, of which the Law was only a part, was a needless scaffolding, a superannuated symbol. To St Paul the essence of the Old Dispensation was summed up in the words HEBREWS 2 INTRODUCTION. " He that doeth them shall live by them^^ which, taken alone, in- volved the exceptionless and pitiless conclusion ^ since none have ever perfectly obeyed them, all shall perish by them' : to this writer the essence of Mosaism was the direction which bade Moses to " make all things after the pattern shewed him in the Mount'' (Heb. viii. 5). Hence the contrast between Judaism and Christianity was not, in the view of this writer, a contrast between Sin and Mercy, between Curse and Blessing, between Slavery and Freedom, but a contrast almost exclusively (so far as the direct argument was concerned) between Type and Anti- type, between outline and image, between shadow and substance, between indication and reality. Thus St Paul's argument may be described as mainly ethical, and this writer's as mainly meta- physical. The Alexandrian philosophy with which he was familiar had led him to hold that the reality and value of every material thing and of every outward system depended on the nearness with which it approximated to a Prae-existent ideal. The seen world, the world of phenomena, is but a faint adumbra- tion of the unseen world, the world of Noiimena^ the world of Ideas and of Archetypes (see infra § v. 3). From this different line of his argument rises the complete dif- ference of his method. The attitude which St Paul was forced to adopt was not, and could not be concihatory. At the beginning of the warfare between Judaism and Christianity the battle had to be internecine till the victory had declared itself on one side or the other. It was as impossible for St Paul to dwell on the grandeur and significance of the Judaic system as it would have been for Luther to write glowing descriptions of the services rendered to humanity by the Mediaeval Papacy. It was not until Luther had published his De captivitate Babylonica that Protestant writers, secure in their own position, might without danger dwell on the good as well as on the evil deeds which the Popes have done. Similarly, until St Paul had written his two great contro- versial Epistles, a Jewish Christian could hardly speak freely of the positive value and greatness of the Levitic Law. A Jew, reading for the first time the Epistle to the Hebrews, Avould be favourably impressed with the evident love and sympathy which INTRODUCTION. 19 the writer displays towards the Tabernacle, its ministers, and its ritual. He would without difficulty concede the position that •ihese were typical. He would thus be led, insensibly and with- out offence, into a consideration of the argument that these symbols found in Christ their predestined and final fulfilment (x. i). When he had been taught, by a method of Scriptural application with which he was familiar, that a transference of the Priesthood had always been contemplated, he would be prepared to consider the Melchisedek Priesthood of Christ. When he saw that a transference of the Priesthood involved of necessity a transference of the Law (vii. 11, 12), he would be less indignant when he was at last confronted with such an expression as the aiimihnetit of the Law (vii. 18). The expressions ultimately applied to the Law are as strongly depreciatory as any in St Paul. The writer speaks of its " weakness and unprofitableness" (vii. 18) ; describes it as consisting in "carnal ordinances"; and declares that its most solemn sacrifices were utterly and neces- sarily inefficacious (ix. 13 ; x. 4). But the condemnation is relative rather than absolute, and the reader is not led to this point until he has seen that the legal institutions only shrink into insignifi- cance in comparison with the finality and transcendent supre- macy of the dispensation of which they were (after all) the appointed type. The method adopted added therefore greatly to the inherent effectiveness of the line of controversy. It involved an Irony of the most finished kind, and in the original sense of the word. There was nothing biting and malicious in the irony, but it re- sembled the method often adopted by Socrates. Socrates was accustomed to put forward the argument of an opponent, to treat it with the profoundest deference, to discuss it with the most respectful seriousness, and all the while to rob it step by step of all its apparent validity, until it was left to collapse under the weight of inferences which it undeniably involved. In this Epistle, though with none of the dialectical devices of the great Athenian, we are led by a somewhat similar method to a very similar result. We see all the antiquity and glory of Mosaism. The Tabernacle rises before us in its splendour and beauty. We 2 — 2 INTRODUCTION. see the Ark and the Cherubim, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the golden pot of manna, and the wreaths of fragrant in- cense. We see the Levites in their white ephods busy with the sacrificial victims. We watch the High Priest as he passes with the blood of bulls and goats through the sanctuary into the Holiest Place. We see him come forth in his " golden apparel" and stand before the people with the jewelled Urim on his breast. And while the whole process of the solemn and gorgeous ritual is indicated with loving sympathy, suddenly, as with one wave of the wand, the Tabernacle, its Sacrifices, its Ritual, and its Priesthood seem to have been reduced to a shadow and a nullity, and we recognise the Lord Jesus Christ far above all Mediators and all Priests, and the sole means of perfect, confi- dent, and universal access to the Inmost Sanctuary of God's Presence ! We have, all the while, been led to recognise that, by faith in Christ, the Christian, not the Jew, stands forth as the true representative of the old traditions, the child of the glorious forefathers, the predestined heir of the Eternal Realities. And thus the Epistle was equally effective both for Jews and Christians. The Jew, without one violent wrench of his prejudices, without one rude shock to his lifelong convictions, was drawn along gently, considerately, skilfully, as by a golden chain of fine rhetoric and irresistible reasoning, to see that the New Dispensa- tion was but the glorious fulfilment, not the ruinous overthrow, of the Old ; the Jewish Christian, so far from being robbed of a single privilege of Judaism, is taught that he may enjoy those privileges in their very richest significance. So far from being compelled to abandon the viaticum of good examples which had been the glory of his nation's history, he may feed upon those examples with a deeper sympathy : and so far from losing his beneficial participation in Temples and Sacrifices, he is admitted by the blood of the only perfect Sacrifice into the inmost and the eternal Sanctuary of which the Temple of his nation was but a dim and perishable sign. The Epistle falls into two divisions : — I., chiefly Didactic (i. — X. i8) ; II., chiefly Hortative (x. i8 — xiii. 25). The general analysis of the Epistle is as follows : INTRODUCTION. It was the constant boast of the Jews that their Law was given by Angel-ministers, and on this ground, as well as on the historic grandeur of Moses, Aaron, and Joshua, they claimed for it a superiority over every other dispensation. The writer, therefore, after laying down his magnificent thesis that the \ Gospel is God's full and final Revelation to man (i. J— 4), Pro- ceeds to compare the Old and the New Covenants under the double aspect of XD their ministering agents (i.— viii.), and (IIJ their advantageous results (ix.— x. i8). - I. Christ superior to the mediators of the Old Covenant. _ a. The infinite superiority of Jesus to the Angels is first demonstrated by a method of Scriptural illustration of which the validity was fully recognised by all Jewish interpreters (i. 5—14). After a word of warning exhortation (ii. 1—4) he shewTThat this superiority is not diminished but rather en- hanced by the temporary humiliation which was the voluntary and predestined means whereby alone He could accomplish His redemptive work (ii. 5^^^). /3. And since the Jews placed their confidence in the mighty names of Moses and of Joshua, he proceeds to shew that Christ is above Moses by His very nature and office (iii. 1—6). Then aft"iranolher earnest appeal (iii. 7—19) he proves more inci- dentally that Christ was above Joshua, in that He led His people into that true, final, and Sabbatic rest of which, as he proves from Scripture, the rest of Canaan was but a poor and imper- fect type (iv. I— 10). . ^ y. But since he regards the Priesthood rather than the Law as the central point of the Mosaic dispensation, he now enters on the subject which is the most prominent in his thoughts, and to which he has already twice alluded (ii. 17; iii. I), that CHRIST IS OUR High Priest, and that His High Priesthood, "as an Eternal Priesthood after the order of Mel- chisedek, is superior to that of the Aaronic High Priests. The development of this topic occupies nearly six chapters (v. i— X- 18). ^ „. , He first lays down the two qualifications for every High Priest, (i) that he must be able to sympathise with those for INTRODUCTION. whom he ministers (v. i — 3), and (2) that he must not be self- called, but appointed by God (v. 4):'^oth of which qualifications Christ possessed (v. 5 — 10). But it is a characteristic of his style, and it furthered his main purpose, to mingle solemn passages of warning, exhortation, and encouragement with his line of demonstration. Here, therefore, he pauses on the threshold of his chief argument, to complain of their spiritual dulness and backwardness (v. 11 — 14); to urge them to more earnest endeavours after Christian progress (vi. i — 3) ; to warn them of the awful danger and hope- lessness of wilful apostasy (4 — 8) ; to encourage them by an ex- pression of hope founded on their Christian beneficence (9 — 10); and to stir them to increased zeal (11, 12) by the thought of the immutable certainty of God's oathbound promises (13 — 18), which are still further assured to us by the Melchisedek Priesthood of Christ our Forerunner within the Veil (19, 20). Reverting thus to the comparison of Christ's Priesthood with the Levitic Priesthood (to which he had already alluded in v. 6, 10), he shews that the High Priesthood of Christ, being "after the order of Melchisedek," was superior to that of Aaron, 1. Because it is eternal not transient (vii. 1 — 3). 2. Because even Abraham paid tithes to Melchisedek (4-6). 3. Because Melchisedek blessed Abraham (7). 4. Because the Levitic Priests die, while Melchisedek stands as the type of an undying Priesthood (8). 5. Because even Levi may be said to have paid tithes to Melchisedek in the person of his ancestor Abraham (9, 10). 6. Because David's reference to Melchisedek shews the contemplated transference of the Priesthood, and therefore of the Law (11, 12). This is confirmed by the fact that Christ was of the tribe of Judah, not of Levi (13, 14). The IMelchisedek Priesthood, being eternal, could not be connected with a law which, being weak and profitless, perfected nothing (15 — 19). 7. Because the Melchisedek Priesthood was founded by an oath (20 — 22). 8. Because the Levitic priests die, but Christ abideth for ever (23—25). INTRODUCTION. 23 li. Having thus compared the two orders of Priesthood, he pauses for a moment to dwell on the eternal fitness of Christ's Priesthood to fulfil the conditions which the needs of humanity require (26 — 28). Into this passage, in his usual skilful manner, Tie introduces the comparison of the two forms of sacerdotal ministry which he develops in the next three chapters (viii. i — X. 18). a. For the Tabernacle which the Levitic Priests serve is — even on their great Day of Atonement — only the shadow of an eternal reality (viii. i — 6). The eternal reality is the new Cove- nant, which had been promised by Jeremiah, in which the Law should be written on men's hearts, and in which all should know the Lord ; and the very fact that a 7iew covenant had been promised implies the annulment of the old (viii. 7 — 13). /3. The Old Tabernacle was glorious and symbolic (ix. i — 5), yet even the High Priest, on the greatest day of its ritual, could only enter once a year into its inmost shrine, and that only with the imperfect and symbolic offerings of a burdensome exter- nahsm (6 — 10). But Christ, the Eternal High Priest of the Ideal Archetype, entered into the Heavenly tabernacle (11) with His own blood, once for all ; and for ever (12, 13), offered Him- self as a voluntary and sinless offering, eternally efftcacious to purge the conscience from dead works (14) ; and so by His death became the mediator of a new and transcendent covenant, and secured for us the eternal inheritance (14, 15). For a 'Cove- nant' may also be regarded as a 'Testament,' and that in- volves the fact of a Death (16, 17). So that just as the Old Covenant was inaugurated by the sprinkling of purifying blood over its Tabernacle, its ministers, its book, its people, and the furniture of its service, in order to secure the remission of trans- gressions (18 — 22), the heavenly archetype of these things, into which Christ entered, needed also to be sprinkled with the blood of that better sacrifice (23) which has provided for us, once for all, an all-sufficient expiation (24 — 28). Then, in one grand finale, in which he gathers the scattered elements of his demon- stration into a powerful summary, he speaks of the impotence of the Levitic sacrifices to perfect those who offered them — an im- 24 INTRODUCTION, potence attested by their constant repetition (x. i — 4) — and con- trasts them with that perfect obedience whereby (as illustrated in Ps. xl. 6, 7) Christ had annulled those sacrifices (5 — 9). Christ sanctified us for ever by His offered body (10). He did not offer incessant and invalid offerings like the Levitic Priests (11), but one perfect and perfecting sacrifice, as a preliminary to His eternal exaltation (12 — 14), in accordance with the pro- phecy of Jeremiah (xxxi. 33, 34), to which the writer had already referred (15—18). III. The remainder of the Epistle (x. 19 — xiii. 17) is mainly hortatory. He has made good his opening thesis that God 'in the end of these days has spoken unto us by His Son.' This he has done by shewing Christ's superiority to Angels (i. 5 — ii. 16) and to Moses and Joshua (iii. i — iv. 16) ; His quahfications for High Priesthood (v. I — 10) ; the superiority of His Melchisedek Priesthood over that of Aaron (vii. i — 28) ; and the superiority of the ordinances of His New Covenant over those of the Old (viii. i — x. 15). He has thus set forth to the wavering Hebrew Christians, with many an interwoven appeal, incontrovertible reasons why they should not abandon the better for the worse, the complete for the im- perfect, the valid for the inefficacious, the Archetype for the copy, the Eternal for the transient. It only remains for him to apply his arguments by final exhortations. This he does by one more solemn strain of warning and encouragement (x. 19— 39 , which leads him into a magnificent historic illustration of the nature of faith as manifested by works (xi.). This served to shew the Jewish Christians, that, so far from being compelled to abandon the mighty memories of their past history, they were themselves the true heirs and the nearest representatives of that history, so that their unconverted brethren rather than themselves were aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the Covenants of promise. The Epistle closes with fervent exhortations to moral steadfastness and a holy Christian walk in spite of trial and persecution (xii. i — 14). This is followed by a warning founded on the great contrast which he has developed between the Old and New Covenants INTRODUCTION. 25 (15—29). He gives them special directions to be loving, hospi- table, sympathetic, pure, contented, and gratefully recognizant of their departed teachers (xiii. i — 9). Then with one more glance at the difference between the New and the Old Dispensations (10 — 15), he adds a few more affectionate exhortations (16 — 19), and ends with brief messages and blessings (23 — 25). We see then that the whole Epistle forms an argument a ininori ad majus. If Judaism had its own privileges, how great, a fortiori^ must be the privileges of the Gospel ! Hence the constant recurrence of such expressions as "a better hope" (vii. 19); "a better covenant" (vii. 22) ; "a more excellent ministry" (viii. 6); "a better and more perfect Tabernacle" (ix. 11), "better sacrifices" (ix. 23) ; "better promises" (viii. 6). It may almost be said that the words "by how much more" (ix. 14 ; rocrovro) Kp€iTTcov...6cra, i. 4, mO^ ocrov, vii. 20, oa(o, viii. 6, Trocro), x. 29) are the keynote of the entire treatment. It was a style of argument of which the Jews had often studied the validity ; for the first of the seven famous Middoth or 'rules of interpretation' elaborated by the great Rabbi Hill el was called "Light and Heavy" ("IDini ^p) which is nothing but the deduction of the greater from the less ; a mode of argument which our Lord Himself had used, on more than one occasion, in His controversies with the Pharisees (Matt. x. 29). We know nothing of the effects produced by the Epistle upon the particular community of Christians to which it was ad- dressed, but we feel that if they could retrograde into Judaism after meditating on these arguments their apostasy must in- deed have been of that moral and willing character for which, humanly speaking, there was little hope. CHAPTER II. WHERE WAS THE EPISTLE WRITTEN ? AND TO WHOM .? I. Ubi? Where was the letter written ? The question cannot be answered. The only possible clue to any answer lies in the words "they of Italy salute you" (xiii. 24). 26 INTRODUCTION. But this furnishes us with no real clue. "They of Italy" means simply "the Itahans." The salutation might be sent from any city in the world in which there were Jewish Christians, or even Gentile converts, whose home was or once had been in Italy. It is however a little strange that many, both in ancient and modern times, should have assumed from this passage that the letter was written in Italy. There would indeed be nothing against this in the use of the preposition dno, but if the letter were written from Rome or Italy it would be strange to say "those of Italy salute you." If I wrote from Paris or Vienna to an English friend in Russia or elsewhere I might naturally say "our English friends salute you," but hardly if I wrote from London or any town in England. Nothing in the way of rea- sonable conjecture can be deduced from a reference so absolutely vague. Nor again can we found any conclusion on the fact that Timothy was known to these Hebrew Christians. There was a constant intercourse by letters and messengers between the small and suffering communities of early Christians, and Timothy was probably known by name to every Church in Proconsular Asia, in Palestine, in Greece, in Italy, and in the islands and along the shores of the entire Mediterranean. 2. To whom was this Epistle written? We have seen that the writer evidently had some one com- munity in view. This is proved by the specific character of his messages and admonitions. Even if the last four verses were a special postscript to some particular Church we should draw the same conclusion. We must therefore reject the supposition of Euthahus and others that it was addressed 'to^//the converted Hebrews of the Circumcision' — "les Judeo-chretiens en general conside'res au point de vue theorique" (Reuss). Where then did these Hebrew Christians reside.'' To what city was the letter originally sent ? The genuine superscription gives us no help, for it is simply "To the Hebrews." a. The general tradition, originated by some of the Greek fathers (e.g. Chrysostom and Theodoret), assumes that the letter was addressed to the Palestinian Jews, and specially to the Church of Jerusalem. This was partly deduced from the erroneous INTRODUCTION. 27 notion that the members of the Mother Church were exclusively- designated by the title of "the saints." Ebrard supposes that it was written to encourage Christian neophytes at Jerusalem, who were rendered anxious by being excluded from the Temple worship and from participation in the sacrifices. No doubt this supposition would suit such expressions as those in xiii. lo, 13, and much of the Epistle would have had a deep interest for those who were daily witnesses of, and possibly even worshippers in, the services of the Temple. Yet the opinion is untenable. The Judaists of Palestine would be little likely to welcome the letter of a Hellenist, who apparently knew no Hebrew, and who only quotes the Septuagint even when it differs from the sacred text (e.g. i. 6, x. 5); nor would they feel any special interest in a half- Gentile convert like Timothy. Further, it would hardly be true of them that "they had not yet resisted unto blood" (xii. 4). Again, they were little likely to have forgotten their dead leaders (xiii. 7) ; they had received the Gospel first-hand, not second- hand ; and many of them may even have heard the Gospel from the Lord Himself (ii. 3). Nor were they in a position to minister to the saints (vi. 10), since they were themselves plunged in the deepest poverty. Least of all is it probable that an Alexandrian Hellenist, of the school of one so little acceptable to the Palestinian Judaists as that of St Paul, would have ventured not only to address them in a tone of authority, but even to reproach these Churches of the earliest Saints in words of severe rebuke for their ignorance and childishness (v. 11 — 14). j3. The Church of Corinth is perhaps excluded by ii. 3, which seems to refer to some community founded by one of the original Twelve Apostles. y. That the letter was addressed to the Church of Alexan- dria is by no means improbable. It has been supposed that there is an allusion to this Epistle in the Muratorian Canon imder the name of ^an Epistle to the Alexandrians ;' and in the Manuscript D is a reading {iv rfj TraTplbi) in Acts xviii. 25, which imphes that ApoUos, the probable writer of the Epistle, had been converted to Christianity in Alexandria. This opinion, with the modifica- 28 INTRODUCTION. tion that it was addressed to Jewish Christian ascetics in Alex- andria (Dr Plumptre), or to a section only of the Alexandrian Church (Hilgenfeld), has been widely accepted by modern critics. There are however several objections to this view, (i) The Church of Alexandria is believed to have been founded by St Mark, and not by one of the Twelve. (2) Alexandria is a Church with which neither St Paul nor Timothy had any direct connexion. (3) The Epistle is not heard of in the Alex- andrian Church till nearly a century later. (4) The authorship of the Epistle was not certainly known in the school of Alexandria, which indeed did more than any other school to originate the mistaken impression that it was written by St Paul. §. Some critics have supposed that it was addressed to the Jewish-Christian community at ROME. The suggestion suits the references in ii. 3; xiii. 7, 9; x. 32. It also suits the fact that the writer seems to have been acquainted with the Epistle to the Romans (see x. 30 ; xiii. i — 6, 9 — 20), and that the Roman Church was from the first aware that the Epistle was 7iot written by St Paul. But this view is excluded by the very probable conjecture that Timothy had been imprisoned at Rome during his last visit to St Paul (xiii. 23) ; by the silence of St Clement as to the author ; by the absence of any trace that Apollos had ever visited Rome ; by the fact that the persecutions to which allusion is made had, for some time, expended their severity (x. 32) ; as well as by the certainty that the Church of Rome, more than any other, had been deluged with the blood of martyrdom (xii. 4) ; and by the absence of all allusion to the Church of the Gentiles. e. Other isolated conjectures — as that it was addressed to Ravenna (Evvald), or Jamnia (Willib. Grimm), or Antioch (Hof- mann) — may be passed over ; but it may be worth considering whether it was not addressed to the Jewish Christians at Ephe- SUS. They must have been a numerous and important body, and both Apollos and Timothy had laboured among them. INTRODUCTION. 29 CHAPTER III. THE DATE. Quando f The date at which the Epistle was written cannot be fixed with precision. All that we can say is that it was cer- tainly written before the Fall of Jerusalem, a.d. 70. This con- clusion is not mainly founded on the use of the present tense in speaking of the Temple services (ix. 6, 7; x. i, &c.), because this might conceivably be due to the same figure of speech which accounts for the use of the present tense in speaking of the Jewish ministrations in Josephus, Clemens Romanus, Justin Martyr, and even in the Talmud. It is founded on the whole scope of the argument. No one who was capable of writing the Epistle to the Hebrews at all (there being no question oi pseud- onyinity in this instance) could possibly have foregone all men- tion of the tremendous corroboration — nay, the absolutely demon- strative force — which had been added to his arguments by the work of God in History. The destruction of Jerusalem came as a divine comment on all the truths which are here set forth. While it in no way derogates from the permanent value of the Epistle as a possession for all time, it would have rendered superfluous its iminediate aim and object. The seductions of Judaism, the temptation to apostatise to the Mosaic system, were done away with by that awful Advent which for ever closed the era of the Old Dispensation. We therefore infer that the Epistle was written when Timothy was (apparently) liberated from prison, soon after the martyrdom of St Paul, about the close of A.D. (i'] or the beginning of a.d. 68. CHAPTER IV. STYLE AND CHARACTER OF THE EPISTLE. I. The notion that the Epistle was a translation from the Hebrew is found in St Clement of Alexandria, and is repeated 30 INTRODUCTION. by Eusebius, Jerome, Theodoret, and by many others down to recent times. It seems to have originated in the attempt to account for the marked differences of style which separate it from the writings of St Paul. But this conjecture is wholly devoid of probability. St Clement couples it with the sugges- tion that it was translated by St Luke, because the style has some points of resemblance to that of the Acts of the Apostles. But St Luke (as we shall see) cannot have been the author, and the notion that it was written in Aramaic is now gene- rally abandoned. No writing of antiquity shews fewer traces of being a translation. The Greek is eminently original and eminently polished. It abounds in paronomasise (plays on words, i. i; ii. 8; v. 14; vii. 3, 19, 22, 23, 24; viii. 7, 8; ix. 28; X. 29, 34 — 38, 39; xi. 27; xiii. 14, &c.). It is full of phrases, and turns of idiom, which could scarcely be rendered in Hebrew at all, or only by the help of cumbrous periphrases. The nume- rous quotations which it contains are taken not from the He- brew but from the LXX., and the argument is sometimes built on expressions in which the LXX. differs from the original (i. 6, 7; ii. 7; x. 5). It touches in one passage (ix. 15) on the Greek meaning of the word diadr'iKr], 'a testament,' which has no equi- valent in the Hebrew Berith, 'a covenant^' The hypothesis that the Epistle was not originally written in Greek violates every canon of literary probabihty. 2. The style of the Epistle attracted notice even in the ear- liest times. It is as different as possible from the style of St Paul. " 077tnibus jwtis dissidef^ said the great scholar Erasmus. More than a thousand years ago Origen remarked that it is written in better and more periodic Greek. In its rhythm and balance it has been described as "elaborately and faultlessly rhetorical." The style of St Paul, whenever his emotions are deeply stirred, is indeed eloquent, but with a fervid, spontane- ous, impassioned eloquence, which never pauses to round a 1 Heb. ix, 16. Calvin says with his usual strong sense, "Ata^T^/c?; ambiguam apud Graecos significationem habet; bc7-itJi autem Hebraeis non x\\?Xfoedits significat; liaec una ratio sano judicii hominibus sufhciet ad probandum quod dixi, Graeco sermone scriptam fuisse epistolam." INTRODUCTION. 31 period or to select a sonorous expression. He constantly min- gles two constructions ; breaks off into personal allusions ; does not hesitate to use the roughest terms; goes off at a word; and leaves sentences unfinished. He writes like a man who thought in Aramaic while he expressed himself in Greek. The style of this writer bears the stamp of a wholly different individuahty. He writes like a man of genius who is thinking in Greek as well as writing in it. He builds up his paragraphs on a wholly different model. He delights in the most majestic amplifica- tions, in the most efTective collocation of words, in the musical euphony of compound terms (see in the original i. 3; viii. i; xii. 2, &c.). He is never ungrammatical, never irregular, never per- sonal ; he never struggles for expression ; he never loses him- self in a parenthesis ; he is never hurried into an unfinished clause. He has less of burning passion, and more of conscious literary self-control. As I have said elsewhere, the movement of this writer resembles that of an Oriental Sheykh with his robes of honour wrapped around him ; the movement of St Paul is that of an athlete girded for the race. The eloquence of this writer, even when it is at its most majestic volume, resembles the flow of a river ; the rhetoric of St Paul is like the rush of a mountain-torrent amid opposing rocks. 3. The writer quotes differently from St Paul. St Paul often reverts to the original Hebrew, and when he uses the LXX. his quotations agree, for the most part, with the Vatican Manuscript. This writer (as I have already observed) follows the LXX. even when it differs from the Hebrew, and his cita- tions usually agree with the Alexandrian Manuscript. St Paul introduces his references to the Old Testament by some such formula as " as it is written," or " the Scripture saith " (Rom. ix. 17; i. 1 7),'' whereas this writer adopts the Rabbinic and Alexan- drian expressions, "He saith" (i. 5, 6; v. 6 ; vii. 13), "He hath said" (iv. 3); "Some one somewhere testifieth" (ii. 6); "as the Holy Spirit saith," or "He testifieth" (ii. 6; iii. 7; x. 15; vii. 17) — forms which are not used by St Paul. 4. Again, he constructs his sentences differently, and com- bines them by different connecting particles (see in the original 32 INTRODUCTION. ii. i6 to iii. i6, &c.); and has at least six special peculiarities of style not found, or found but rarely, in St Paul — such as the constant use of " all ; " the verb " to sit " used intransitively (i. 3; viii. i); the phrase "even though" {eavnep) ; "whence" (o^fj/), used in the sense of " wherefore ; " "to perpetuity" in- stead of "always;" and his mode of heightening the compara- tive by a following preposition. 5. Once more, St Paul usually speaks of the Saviour as " our Lord Jesus Christ," or " Christ Jesus our Lord" — forms which occur sixty-eight times in his Epistles ; this writer, on the other hand, usually refers to Him as "Jesus," or "the Lord," or "Christ," or "our Lord" (vii. 14), or "the Lord" (ii. 3), or, once only, as "our Lord Jesus" (xiii. 20), whereas the dis- tinctive Pauline combination, "Christ Jesus," does not occur once (see note on iii. i). The explanation of this fact is that, as time went on, the title " Christ " became more and more a personal name, and the name "Jesus" (most frequently used in this Epistle, ii. 9; iii. i ; vi. 20; vii. 22 ; x. 19; xii. 2, 24; xiii. 12) became more and more connotative of such supreme reverence and exaltation as to need no further addition or description. CHAPTER V. THEOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE, The author of this Epistle, though he is writing exclusively to Jewish Christians, and though he shews himself eminently Judaic in his sympathies, is yet distinctly of the same school as the Apostle of the Gentiles. Of the four great topics which occupy so large a place in St Paul's Epistles — the relation of Judaism to Christianity, the redemptive work of Christ, justification by faith, and the call 0/ the Gentiles— the first forms the main topic of this Epistle ; the second occupies one large section of it (v. i — x. 18); and the third is involved in one entire chapter (xi.). The fourth is indeed conspicuously absent, but its absence is primarily due INTRODUCTION. 33 to the concentration of the Epistle upon the needs of those readers to whom it was addressed. He says expressly that Christ died on behalf of every man (ii. 9), and no one has ever doubted respecting his full belief in the Universality of the Gospel. As the circumstances which occasioned the composi- tion of the Epistle furnished no opportunity to dwell upon the subject, he leaves it on one side. It is probable that even in ttit most bigoted of the Jewish Christian communities the rights of the Gentiles to equal participation in the privileges of the Gospel without any obligation to obey the Levitic law had been fully established, partly by the decree of the Synod of Jerusalem (Acts xv. i — 29), and partly by the unanswerable demonstrations of St Paul. It need hardly be said that the writer of this Epistle is at one with St Paul upon all great fundamental doctrines. Both of the sacred writers speak of the heavenly exaltation of Christ (Eph. iv, 10; Heb. ix. 24) ; of His prevailing intercession (Rom. viii. 34; Heb. vii. 25); of the elementary character of the cere- monial Law (Gal. iv. 3; Heb. vii. 19); of Christ as "the end of the Law" (Rom. x. 4; Heb. x. 4 — 7); and of a multitude of other deep religious truths vyhich were the common heritage of all Christians. But while he deals with the same great topics as the Apostle of the Gentiles, he handles them in a very distinct manner, and with considerable variation of theological terminology. a. In his mode of deahng with the Old and New Covenants we have already seen that he starts from a different point of view. He does not mention the subject of circumcision, so prominent throughout the Epistle to the Galatians ; and while his proof that Christ is superior to JMoses only occupies a few verses (iii. i — 6), he devotes a large and most important part of his letter to the proof that Christ's Priesthood is superior to that of Aaron, and that it is a Priesthood after the order of Mel- chisedek — whom St Paul does not so much as name. Indeed, while in this Epistle the titles Priest and High Priest occur no less than 32 times, in accordance with their extreme prominence in the theological conceptions of the writer, it is remarkable HEBREWS :; 34 INTRODUCTION. that neither word occurs so much as once in all the 13 Epistles of St Paul. /3. In speaking of the Redemptive work of Christ he is evi- dently at one with St Paul (ix. 15, 22), but does not enter so fully upon the mysto'iotis aspect of Christ's death as an ex- piatory sacrifice. As though he could assume all which St Paul had written on that subject, he leaves (as it were) " a gap between the means and the end," asserting only again and again, but without explanation and comment, the simple fact that Christ offered Himself as a sacrifice, and that man was thereby sanctified and purified (ii. 11; ix. 13, 14; x. 2, 10, 14, 22). In his favourite conception of 'perfectionment' {teleiosis) he seems to include justification, sanctification, and glorifica- tion. His conception of Christ is less that of a Crucified and Risen Redeemer, than that of a sympathising and glorified High Priest. And the result of His work is described not as leading to a mystic oneness with Him, but as securing us a free access to Him, and through Him into the Inmost Sanctuary of God. y. Again, there is a difference between the writer and St Paul in their use of the terms Justification and Faith. In St Paul the term * Justification by Faith' succinctly describes the method by which the righteousness of God can become the justification of man — the word for 'righteousness' and 'justifi- cation ' being the same {dikaiosime). But in this Epistle the word ' righteousness ' is used in its simple and original sense of moral rectitude. The resiilt of Christ's redemptive work, which St Paul describes by his use of dikaiosiine in the sense of 'justifi- cation,' this writer indicates by other words, such as ' sanctifica- tion,' 'purification,' and ' bringing to perfection.' He does not allude to the notion of " iuiputed'^ righteousness as a condition freely bestowed by God upon man, but describes 'righteousness' as faith manifested by obedience and so earning the testimony of God (xi. 4, 5). It is regarded not as the Divine gift which man receives, but as the human condition which faith produces. The phrase "to justify," which occurs 28 times in St Paul, is not once found in this Epistle. The writer, like St Paul, INTRODUCTION. 35 quotes the famous verse of Habakkuk, " The just shall live by faith " (perhaps in the slightly different form, ''My just man shall live by faith i") but the sense in Avhich he quotes it is not the distinctive sense which it bears in St Paul — where it implies that ' the man who has been justified by that trust in Christ which ends in perfect union with Him shall enjoy eternal life,'— but rather in its simpler and more original sense that ' the up- right man shall be saved by his faithfulness.' For ' faith ' when used by St Paul in the sense peculiar to his writings, means the life in Christ, the absolute personal communion with His death and resurrection. But the central conception, " in Christ " — Christ not only for me but in me— is scarcely alluded to by the author of this Epistle. He uses the word ' faith ' in its more common sense of ' trust in the Unseen.' He regards it less as the instrument of justification than as the condition of access (iii. 14; iv. 2, 16; vi. i ; vii. 25 ; x. i, 22; xi. i, 6). h. Again, one of the characteristics of this Epistle is the recurrence of passages which breathe a spirit peculiarly severe (ii. 1—3; iv. I ; vi. 4—8; x. 26—31; xii. 15—17), such as does indeed resemble a few passages of Philo, but finds no exact parallel even in the sternest passages of St Paul. Luther speaks of one of these passages as "a hard knot which seems in its obvious import to run counter to all the Gospels and the Epistles of St Paul." Both Tertullian and Luther missed the real signi- ficance of these passages, but the very interpretation which made the Epistle dear to the Montanistic hardness of Tertul- lian made it displeasing to the larger heart of the great Re- former. e. But the most marked feature of the Epistle to the Hebrews is its Alexandrian character, and the resemblances which it con- tains to the writings of Philo, the chief Jewish philosopher of the Alexandrian school of thought : — I. Thus, it is Alexandrian in its quotations, w^hich are (i) from the Septuagint version, and (2) agree mainly with the Alexan- ^ The "my" is found in the LXX. sometimes after "just," some- times after "faith;" and is read after "just" in &5, A, N, and after "faith" in D. See note on Heb. x. 38. 3—2 36 INTRODUCTION. drian manuscript of that version, and (3) are introduced by for- mulae prevalent in the Alexandrian school (see supra IV. § 3). 2. It is Alexandrian in its unusual expressions. Many of these (e.g. *in many parts' i. i, 'effluence' i. 2, 'hypostasis' i. 3, 'servant' {therapon) iii, 5; 'place of repentance' xii. 17; 'con- firmation' vi. 16 ; 'issue' {ekbasis) xiii. 7, &c.), are common to this Epistle with the Alexandrian Book of Wisdom. So great indeed is the affinity between these books in their sonorous style, their use of compound terms, their rare phrases, and their accu- mulation of epithets that they are mentioned in juxtaposition by Irenaeus (Euseb. H. E. v, 26), and nearly so in the Muratorian Canon. The writers of both had evidently studied Philo, and it has even been supposed by some that Philo, and by others that the writer of this Epistle, also wrote the Book of Wisdom. 3. It is Alexandrian in its method of dealing with Scripture. In the important section about Melchisedek the whole structure of the argument is built on two passing and isolated allusions to Melchisedek, of which the second was written nine hundred years after the death of the Priest-king. They are the only allusions to him in the Jewish literature of more than 1500 years. Yet upon these two brief allusions — partly by the method of allegory, partly by the method of bringing different passages together (iii. 11; iv. 8, 9), partly by the significance attached to names, (vii. 2), partly by the extreme emphasis attributed to single words (viii. 13), partly by pressing the silence of Scripture as though it were pregnant with latent meanings (i. 5; ii. 16; vii. 3) — the writer builds up a theological system of unequalled grandeur. But this whole method of treatment is essentially Rabbinic and Alexandrian. That it was, however, derived by the writer from his training in the methods of Alexandrian and not of Rabbinic exegesis arises from the fact that he is ignorant of Hebrew, and that the typical resemblance of Melchisedek to the Logos or Word of God had already excited the attention of Philo, who speaks of the Logos as " shadowed forth by Melchisedek" and as " the great High Priest." {Leg. Alleg. iii. 25, 26 ; De Sovin. i. 38.) 4. It is Alexandrian in its fundamental conception of the INTRODUCTION. 37 antithesis between the world of fleeting phenomena and the world of Eternal Realities, between the copies and the Ideas, between the shadows and the substance, between the visible material world and the world of divine Prse-existent Archetypes. The school of Philo had learnt from the school of Plato that " earth Is but the shadow of heaven, and things therein Each to the other like more than on earth is thought." Hence (as I have said) the writer seizes on the passage " See that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed thee in the Mount" (viii. 5 ; ix. 23), To him the contrast between the Old and New Covenants turns on the fundamental antithesis between the Shadow and the Reality. Levitism was the shadow, Christianity is not a shadow but a substantial image ; the absohcte reality — to which Christianity is so much nearer an approximation, of which Christianity is so much closer a copy — is in the world to come. The Mosaic system, as concentrated in its Tabernacle, Priesthood, and Sacrifices is only "a copy" (viii. 5) ; "a shadow"(x. i), "a para- ble" (ix. 9) ; ' a prasfiguration' (ix. 24) ; whereas Christianity is by comparison, and by virtue of its closer participation in the Idea, ' the type,' ' the perfect,' ' the genuine' (viii. 2) 'the very image' (x. i). The visible world (xi. 3) is "this creation" (ix. 11); it is "made with hands" (ix. 11); it is capable of being touched and grasped (xii. 18); it is but a quivering, unstable, transient semblance (xii. 27) : but the invisible world is supersensuous, immaterial, immovable, eternal. It is the world of " Heavenly things" (ix. 23), the archetypal world, the true " House of God" (x. 21), "the genuine Tabernacle" (viii. 2), "the City whichhath the foundations" (xi. 10), the true "fatherland" (xi, 14), "the hea- venly Jerusalem" (xii. 22), "the kingdom unshaken" and thaf'can- not be shaken" (xii. 27, 28). And this invisible world is the world of the heirs of the Gospel. It is so now, and it will be so yet more fully. In the True Temple of Christianity the Visible and the Invisible melt into each other. The salvation is now subjec« tively enjoyed, it will hereafter be objectively reahsed (vi. 4, 5 ; xii. 28). 38 INTRODUCTION. 5. But the Alexandrianism of the Epistle appears most clearly in the constant parallels which it furnishes to the writings of Philo. We have already called attention to some of these, and they will be frequently referred to in the notes. Even in the general structure and style of the Epistle there are not only a multitude of phrases and expressions which are common to the writer with Philo, but we notice in both the same perpetual interweaving of argument with exhortation ; the same methods of referring to and dealing with the Old Testament ; the same ex- clusive prominence of the Hebrew people ; the same sternness of tone in isolated passages ; and the same general turns of phrase- ology (see Bleek's notes on i.6 ; ii. 2; v. 11 ; vi. i,Szc.). If we find in Heb. ii. 6, " someone somewhere testified'' and in iv. 4, " He hath spoken somewhere thus," we find the very same phrases in Philo (De Plant. %i\\De Ebriet. § 14, &c.). If we find in Heb. vii. 8, " being testified of that he liveth," we find also in Philo, " Moses being testified of that he was faithful in all his house" (comp. Heb. iii. 2). If in Heb. xiii. 5 we have the modified quo- tation, " I will never leave thee, nor will I ever in any wise for- sake thee," we find it in the very same form in Philo {De Con/us. Li7igu. § 33). We may here collect a few passages of marked resemblance. i. Heb. i. 3, "who being the effluence of His glory..." Philo De Opif. Mtaidi § 51. "Every man... having become an impression or fragment or effluence of the blessed nature." ii. Heb. i. 3, ^the stamp of His substance.' Philo {Quod det. pot. § 23) speaks of the spirit of man as "a type and stamp of the divine power," and {De Plant. § 5) of the soul, as " impressed by the seal of God of which the stamp is the everlasting Word." iii. Heb. i. 6, " the First-begotten." Philo {De Agricult. § 12) speaks of the Word as "the firstborn Son," and {De Coiiftts. Lingu. § 14) as * an eldest Son.' iv. Heb. i. 2. " By whom also He made the worlds" {aiotias^;. Philo DeMigr. Abraham. § i, " You will find the Word of God the instrument by which the world {kosmos) was prepared." INTRODUCTION. 39 V. Heb. xi. 3, "that the worlds {aionas) were made by the utterance of God." Philo {De Sacrif. Abel, § 18), " God in saying was at the same ^ time creating." vi. Heb. i. 3, " And bearing all things by the utterance of His power." Philo {Quis Rer. Div. Haer. § 7), " He that beareth the things that are." vii. Heb. iii. 3, "in proportion as he that buildeth the house hath more honour than the house." Philo {pe Plant. § 16), "Being so much better as the pos- sessor is better than the thing possessed, and that which made than the thing which is made." viii. Heb. iv. 12, 13, " For living is the Word of God and efficient and more cutting than any two-edged sword, and pierc- ing to the division both of soul and spirit, both of joints and marrow." Philo {Quis Rer. Div. Haer. § 28), commenting on Abraham's "dividing the sacrifices in the midst," says that "God did thus with His Word, which is the cutter of all things, which, whetted to its keenest edge, never ceases to divide all perceptible things, but when it pierces through to the atomistic and so-called indi- visible things, again this cutter begins to divide from these the things that can be contemplated in speech into unspeakable and incomprehensible portions;" and farther on he adds, that the soul is " threefold," and that " each of the parts is cut asunder," and that the Word divides "the reasonable and the unreason- able." Elsewhere {De Cherub. § 9) he compares the Word to the fiery sword. Philo is applying the metaphors philosophically, not religiously, but it is impossible to suppose that the resemblance between the passages is merely accidental. ix. Heb. iv. 12, "and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Philo {De Leg. Alleg. iii. 59), "And the Divine Word is most keen-sighted, so as to be capable of inspecting all things." 40 INTRODUCTION. X. Heb. vi. 5, "tasting that the utterance of God is excellent." Phiio {De Prof tig. § 25), "The souls, tasting (the utterance of God) as a divine y^or^ilogos) a heavenly nurture." (Comp. Z? <^ quite literally. "/« that sphere wherein He suffered by being tempted" — the sphere being the whole conditions of human life and trial (comp. vi. 17; Rom. viii, 3). But the first way seems to be the better. Tempta- tion of its own nature involves suffering, and it is too generally over- looked that though our Lord's severest temptations came in two great and solemn crises — in the wilderness and at Gethsemane — yet Scripture leads us to the view that He was always liable to temptation — though without sin, because the temptation was always repudiated with the whole force of His will throughout the whole course of His life of obe- dience. After the temptation in the wilderness the devil only left Him "for a season" (Luke iv. 13). We must remember too that the word "temptation" includes all trials. he is able to succour them that are tempted] Rather, *' that are under temptation" (lit. "that are ^as it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the 18 wilderness? And to whom sware he that they should not 19 enter into his rest, but to them that beHeved not ? So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief 4 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left 21s of en- word (elsewhere rendered " substance," to which it etymologically corresponds, i. 3, xi. i), is found only in later Greek. The expression ^'•beginning'''' does not here imply anything inchoate or imperfect, but is merely in contrast with "end." stedfast tinto the e7td'\ See note on ver. 6. 16. some, when they had hea)-d, did provoke] Rather, "Who (rtVes) when they heard, embittered (Him) " ? This is the reading of the Peshito. It would have been absurd to use the word "some" of 600,000 with only two exceptions, Num. xiv. 38; Josh. xiv. 8, 9. howbeit not a/f\ Rather, "Nay! was it not all?" (i.e. all except Caleb and Joshua). It is true that the rendering is not free from difficulty, since there seems to be no exact parallel to this use of aXK ov. But it involves less harshness than the other. 17. grieved] Rather "indignant." See ver. 10. whose carcases] To us the words read as though there were a deep and awful irony in this term (/cwXa), as though, "dying as it were gradually during their bodily life, they became walking corpses" (Delitzsch). It is doubtful, however, whether any such thought was in the mind of the writer. The word properly means "limbs" but is used by the LXX. for the Hebrew pegarim, "corpses" Num. xiv. 29. fell] Compare the use of the word in i Cor. x. 8. 18. to them that believed not] Rather, " that disobeyed.'" 19. So we see] Lit. '•'•and Ave observe." The translators of the A. V. seem by their version to regard the words as a logical inference from the previous reasoning. It is better, however, to regtird them as the statement of a fact — "we see by the argument," or ex historia cog- noscimns. Grotius. See Ps. cvi. 24 — 26. that they cotcld not enter in] They did make the attempt to enter, but failed because they lacked the power which only God could give them (Numb. xiv. 40 — 45). Ch. IV. Continued exhortation to embrace the yet open OFFER OF God's rest (i— 14). Exhortation founded on THE High Priesthood of Christ (14 — 16). , 1. Let tis therefore fear] The fear to which we are exhorted is not any uncertainty of hope, but solicitude against careless indifierence. It is a wholesome fear taught by wisdom (Phil. ii. 12). vv. 2, 3.] HEBREWS, IV. 89 tering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto 2 them : but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. For we which have 3 believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn lesi\ Lit. lest haply. being left 7es] It is better to omit the word " z/^." It means " since a promise still reniains unrealised." The promise has not been exhausted by any previous fulfilment. miy'l Rather, "any one." See note on iii. 12. of y oil] He cannot say "of us," because he proceeds to describe the case of hardened and defiant apostates. should seem to co?ne short of It] Rather, " should seem to have failed in attaining it.''^ The Greek might also mean "should think that he has come too late for it;" but the writer's object is to stimulate the negligent, not to encourage the despondent. The word "seem" is an instance of the figure called litotes, in which a milder term is designedly used to express one which is much stronger. The author of this Epistle, abounding as he does in passages of uncompromising sternness, would not be likely to use any merely euphuistic phrase. The dignity of his expressions adds to their intensity. For a similar delicate yet forcible use of "seem" see i Cor. xi. 16. The verb "to fail" or "come short" occurs in xii. 15, together with a terrible example of the thing itself in xii. 1 7. 2 For tinto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them] We should have expected rather "For unto thein, as well as unto us," if this had been the right translation. The better version however is " For indeed we too, just as they, have had a Gospel preached unto us." The "Gospel" in this instance means the glad tidings of a future rest. the word preached] Lit. "the word of hearing." The function of the hearer is no less necessary than that of the preacher, if the spoken word is to be profitable. not being mixed xvith faith in them that heard it] There is an extraordinary diversity in the MS. readings here. The best supported seems to be "because they were not united (lit. ' tempered together ') by faith with them that heard (i.e. effectually listened to) it." This would mean that the good news of rest produced no benefit to the rebellious Israelites, because they were not blended with Caleb and Joshua in their faith. They heard, but only with the ears, not with the heart. But there is probably some ancient corruption of the text. Perhaps instead of "with them that heard," the true reading may have been "with the things heard.'" The reading of our A. V. gives an excellent sense, if it were but well supported. The verb "to mingle" or "temper" occurs in i Cor. xii. 24. 3. For we which have believed do enter into rest] Rather, " For we who believed" (i.e. we who have accepted the word of hearing) "arc entering into that rest." 90 HEBREWS, IV. [w. 4—7. in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. 4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his 5 w orks. And in \^\% place again, If they shall enter into 6 my rest. Seeing therefore it remaineth that some viust enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered 7 not in because of unbelief, again he limiteth a certain day, if they shall enter] This ought to have been rendered as in iii. 11, " they shall not enter.'''' The argument of the verse is (i) God pro- mised a rest to the Israelites. (2) Many of them failed to enter in. (3) Yet this rest of God began on the first sabbath of God, and so7ne men were evidently meant to enter into it. (4) Since then the original recipients of the promise had failed to enjoy it through disbelief, the promise was renewed ages afterwards, in Ps. xcv. by the word "To-day." The immense stress of meaning laid on incidental Scriptural expressions was one of the features of Rabbinic as well as of Alexandrian exegesis. frojn the foundation of the world'\ God's rest had begun since the Creation. 4. he spake in a certain place] Rather, " He hath said sovircohere.'''' By the indefinite "He" is meant "God," a form of citation not used in the same way by St Paul, but common in Philo and the Rabbis. The "somewhere" of the original is here expressed in the A. V. by "in a certain place," see note on ii. 6. The reference is to Gen. ii. 2; Ex. XX. II, xxxi. 17. The writer always regards the Old Testament not as a dead letter, but as a living voice. 5. If they shall] i. e. " they shall not. " 6. it remai^ieth] The promise is still left open, is unexhausted. because of unbelief] Rather, "because oi disobedience'''' [apeitheian). It was not the Israelites of the wilderness, but their descendants, who came to Shiloh, and so enjoyed a sort of earthly type of the heavenly rest (Josh, xviii. i). 7.. agaiji he limiteth a certain day...] There is no reason whatever for the parenthesis in the A.V., of which the reading, rendering, and punctuation are here alike infelicitous to an extent which destroys for ordinary readers the meaning of the passage. It should be rendered (putting only a comma at the end of ver. 6), ^^ Again, he fixes a day. To- day, saying in David, so long afterwards, even as has been said before. To-day if ye will hear,'''' &c. In the stress laid upon the word "to-day" we find a resemblance to Philo, who defines "to-day" as "the infinite and interminable aeon," and says "Till to-day, that is for ever" {Leg. Allegg. III. 8; De Profug. ii). The argument is that "David" (a general name for the "Psalmist") had, nearly five centuries after the time of Moses, and three millenniums after the Creation, still spoken of God's rest as an offer open to mankind. If we regard this as a mere verbal argument, turning on the attribution of deep mystic senses to the 8.] HEBREWS, IV. 91 saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. For if Jesus had given them rest, iheji s words "rest" and "to-day," and on the trains of inference which are made to depend on these words, we must remember that such a method of dealing with Scripture phraseology was at this period universally current among the Jews. But if we stop at this point all sorts of diffi- culties arise; for if the "rest" referred to in Ps. xcv. was primarily the land of Canaan (as in Deut. i. 34 — 36, xii. 9, &c.), the oath of God, "they shall not enter into my rest" only applied to the genera- tion of the wandering, and He had said "Your little ones. ..them will I bring in, and they shall know the land which ye have despised," Num. xiv. 31. If, on the other hand, "the rest" meant heaven, it would be against all Scripture analogy to assume that all the Israelites who died in the wilderness were excluded from future happiness. And there are many other difficulties which will at once suggest themselves. The better and simpler way of looking at this, and similar trains of reasoning, is to regard them as particular modes of expressing blessed and eternal truths, and to look on the Scripture language applied to them in the light rather of illustratio7i than of Scriptural proof. Quite apart from this Alexandrian method of finding recondite and mystic senses in the history and language of the Bible, we see the deep and glorious truths that God's offer of "Rest" in the highest sense — of par- ticipation in His own rest — is left open to His people in the eternal to- day of merciful opportunity. The Scripture illustration must be re- garded as quite subordinate to the essential truth, and not the essential truth made to depend on the Scripture phraseology. When God says "They shall not enter my rest," the writer — reading as it were between the lines with the eyes of Christian enlightenment — reads the promise "but others shall enter into my rest," which was most true. saying in David'\ A common abbreviated form of quotation like "saying in Elijah" for "in the part of Scripture about Elijah" (Rom. xi. 2). The quotation may mean no more than "in the Book of Psalms. " The 95th Psalm is indeed attributed to David in the LXX; but the superscriptions of the LXX, like those of our A.V., are wholly without authority, and are in some instances entirely erroneous. The date of the Psalm is more probably the close of the Exile. We may here notice the fondness of the writer for the Psalms, of which he quotes no less than eleven in this Epistle (Ps. ii., viii., xxii., xl., xlv., xcv., cii., civ., ex., cxviii., cxxxv.). 8. yesus'\ i.e. Joshua. The needless adoption of the Greek form of the name by the A.V. is here most unfortunately perplexing to un- instructed readers, as also in Acts vii. 45. had give7i them rest'\ He did, indeed, give them a rest and, in some sense (t)eut. xii. 9), Merest partially and primarily intended (Josh.xxiii. i); but only a dim shadow of the true and final rest offered by Christ (Matt. xi. 28; 2 Thess. iii. i — 6; Rev. xiv. 13). ^^^^ HEBREWS, IV. [vv. 9-12. 9 would ^ not afterward have spoken of another day. There 10 remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his 11 own works, as God did from his. Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same ex- 12 ample of unbelief. For the word of God is quick, and pow- ihen would he not afte}-ward have spoketi] The "He" is here Je- hovah. More literally, "He would not have been speaking.'''' The phrases applied to Scripture by the writer always imply his sense of its living power and ideal continuity. The words are as though they had just been uttei-ed ("He hath said," ver. 4) or were still being uttered (as here, and throughout). There is a similar mode of argument in vii. 11, viii. 4, 7, xi. 15. 9. There remameth therefore a rest} Since the word used for "rest" is here a different word {sabbatismos) from that which has been used through the earlier part of the argument {katapausis), it is a pity that King James's translators, who indulge in so many needless variations, did not here introduce a necessary change of rendering. The word m.eans "« Sabbath rest" and supplies an important link in the argument by pointing to the fact that "the rest" which the Author has in view is God's rest, a far higher conception of rest than any of which Canaan could be an adequate type. The Sabbath, which in 2 Mace. xv. i is called "the Day of Rest" [katapausis), is a nearer type of Heaven than Canaan. Dr Kay supposes that there is an allusion to Joshua's first Sabbatic year, when "the land had rest from war" (Josh. xiv. 15), and adds that Psalms xcii — civ. have a Sabbatic character, and that Ps. xcii. is headed "a song for the sabbath day." 10. For he that is entered into his rest} This is not a special refer- ence to Christ, but to any faithful Christian who rests from his labours. The verse is merely an explanation of the newly-introduced term "Sab- bath-rest." 11. Let MS labour} Lit., "let us be zealous," or "give diligence" (2 Pet. i. 10, 11; Phil. iii. 14). lest any man} See note on iv. i. of unbelief } Rather, "of disobedience." 12. For the word of God is quick} "Quick" is an old English ex- pression for "living;" hence St Stephen speaks of Scripture as "the living oracles" (Acts vii. 38). The "word of God" is not here the personal Logos ; a phrase not distinctly and demonstrably adopted by any of the sacred writers except St John, who in the prologue to his Gospel calls Christ "the Word," and in the Apocalypse "the Word of God." The reference is to the written and spoken word of God, of the force and almost personality of which the writer shews so strong a sense. To him it is no dead utterance of the past, but a living power for ever. At the same time the expressions of this verse could hardly have been used by any one Avho was not familiar with the per- sonification of the Logos, and St Clemens of Rome applies the words V. T3.] HEBREWS, IV. 93 erful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature f/iaf is not ma- i nifest in his sight: but all thi?igs are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. "a searcher of the thoughts and desires" to God. The passage closely resembles several which are found in Philo, though it applies the expressions in a different manner (see Introduction). powerful^ Lit., effective, energetic. The vital power shews itself in acts. sharper than any twoedged sword] The same comparison is used by Isaiah (xlix. 2) and St Paul (Eph. vi. 17) and St John (Rev. ii. 16, xix. 15I. See too \Yisdom xviii. i^, 16, "Thine Almighty Word leaped down from heaven... and brought thine unfeigned commandment as a sharp sword." Philo compares the Logos to the learning sword of Eden (Gen. iii. 24) and "the fire and knife" {fxaxaipav) of Gen. xxii. 6. piercing even to the dividing asnnder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrozv] The meaning is not that the word of God divides the soul (the "natural" soul) by which we Yw^from the spirit by which we reason and apprehend; but that it pierces not only the natural soul, but even to the Divine Spirit of man, and even to the joints and marrow (i. e. to the inmost depths) of these. Thus Euripides {Hippol. 527) speaks of the "marrow of the soul." It is obvious that the writer does not mean anything very specific by each term of the enumeration, ■ which produces its effect by the rhetorical fulness of the expressions, j The •^vxi) or animal soul is the sphere of that life which makes a man \lvxiKo chain''''). "Under the gorgeous robes of office there were still the galling chains of flesh." Kay. 3. And by reason hereof^ i.e. because of this moral weakness. he ought'] He is bound not merely as a legal duty, but as a moral necessity. so also for himself] The Law assumed that this would be necessary for every High Priest (Lev. iv. 3 — 12). In the High Priest's prayer of intercession he said, " Oh do thou expiate the misdeeds, the crimes, and the sins, wherewith I have done evil, and have sinned before Thee I and my house !" Until he had tHus made atonement for himself, he was regarded as guilty, and so could not offer any atonement for others who were guilty (Lev. iv. 3, ix. 7, xvi. 6, and comp. vii. 27). to offer for sins] The word "offer" may be used absolutely for "to offer sacrifices" (Lk. v. 14); but the words "for sins" are often an equivalent for " sin-offerings" (see x. 6 ; Lev. vi. 23 ; Num. viii. 8, «S:c.). 4. this honour] i.e. this honourable office. We have here the second qualification for Priesthood. A man's own caprice must not be the Bishop which ordains him. He must be conscious of a divine call. but he that is called of God] Rather, "but on being called by God," or "when he is called by God." Great stress is laid on this point \x\ Scripture (Ex. xxviii. i). Any "stranger that cometh nigh" — i.e. that intruded unbidden into the Priesthood — ^^was to be put to death (Num. iii. 10). The fate of Korah and his company (Num. xvi. 40), and of Uzziah, king though he was (2 Chron. xxvi. 18 — 21), served as a terrible warning, and it was recorded as a special aggravation of Jeroboam's impiety that "he made priests of the lowest of the people, which were not of the sons of Levi" (i K. xii. 31). In one of the Jewish Midra- shim, Moses says to Korah "if Aaron, my brother, had taken tipon HEBREWS 7 98 HEBREWS, V. [v. 6. Christ glorified not himself to be made a high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I 6 begotten thee. As he saith also in 3.nother J>/ace, Thou ar^ a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. himself the priesthood, ye would be excusable for murmuring against him ; but God gave it to him." Some have supposed that the writer here reflects obhquely upon the High Priests of that day — ahen Saddu- cees, not descended from Aaron (Jos. Antt. xx. ic) v/ho had been introduced into the Priesthood from Babylonian families by Herod the Great, and who kept the highest office, with frequent changes, as a sort of apanage of their own families — the Boethusim, the Kantheras, the Kamhits, the Beni-Hanan. For the characteristics of these Priests, who completely degraded the dignity in the eyes of the people, see my Life of Cki'ist, II. 330, 342. In the energetic maledictions pronounced upon them in more than one passage of the Talmud, they are taunted with not being true sons of Aaron. But it is unlikely that the writer should make this oblique allusion. He wasan Alexandrian ; he was not writing to the Hebrews of Jerusalem ; and these High Priests had been in possession of the office for more than half a century. as was Aaron'] The original is more emphatic "exactly as even Aaron was" (Num. xvi. — xviii). The true Priest must be a divinely- appointed Aaron, not a self-constituted Korah. 5. So also Christ] Rather, '•^ So even the Christ^ Jesus, the Mes- siah, the true Anointed Priest, possessed both these qualifications. glorified not himself] He has already called the High Priesthood \"an honour," but of Christ's Priesthood he uses a still stronger word '^' glory" (ii. 9; John xii. 28, xiii. 31). but he that said unto hi??i] God glorified Him, and the writer again offers the admitted Messianic Prophecies of Ps. ii. 7 and ex. 4, as a ■^ sufficient illustration of this. The fact of His Sonship demonstrates that His call to the Priesthood was a call of God. "Jesus said If I honour myself, my honour is nothing ; it is my Father that honoureth me, of whom ye say that He is your God," John viii. 54. 6. in another place] Ps. ex. 4. This Psalm was so universally accepted as Messianic that the Targum of Jonathan paraphrases the first verse of it "The Lord said to His Word.'''' after the ordei'] al-dibhrathi, "according to the style of." Comp. vii. 15, "after the likeness of Melchisedek." after the order of Melchisedec] The writer here with consummate literary skill introduces the name Melchisedek, to prepare incidentally for the long argument which is to follow in chapter vii.; just as he twice introduces the idea of High-Priesthood (ii. 17, iii. 1) before directly dealing with it. The reason why the Psalmist had spoken of his ideal Theocratic king as a Priest after the order of Melchisedek, and not after the order of Aaron, lies in the words "for ever," as subsequently explained. In Zech. iv. 14, the Jews explained "the two Anointed ones {sons of oil) who stand by the Lord of the whole vv. 7, 8.] HEBREWS, V. 99 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up pray- ^ ers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; though he were a Son, yet learned he obe- 8 earth " to be Aaron and Messiah, and from Ps. ex. 4, they agreed that Messiah was the nearer to God. 7. lVh6\ i.e. the Christ. b of his fleshy The word "flesh" is here used for His Humanity j-egarded on the side of its weakness and humihation. Comp. ii. 14. when he had offered up ] Lit. " having offered up. " prayers and supplications'\ The idiosyncrasy of the writer, and perhaps his Alexandrian training, which famiUarised him with the style of Philo, made him fond of these sonorous amplifications or full expressions. The word rendered "prayers" {deeseis) is rather "suppli- cations," i.e. "special prayers" for the supply of needs; the word rendered "entreaties" (which is joined with it in Job xli. 3, comp. 2 Mace. ix. 18) properly meant olive-boughs (iKeT-qplai) held forth to entreat protection. Thus the first word refers to the suppliant, the second implies an approach {iKveo/xai) to God. The "supplications and entreaties " referred to are doubtless those in the Agony at Geth- seinane (Lk. xxii. 39 — 46), though there may be a reference to the Cross, and some have even supposed that there is an allusion to Ps. xxii. and cxvi. See Mark xiv. 36; John xii. 27 ; Matt. xxvi. 38 — 42. wi^h strong crying and tears] Though these are not directly men- tioned in the scene at Gethsemane they are implied. See John xi. 35, xii. 27 ; Matt. xxvi. 39, 42, 44, 53; Mark xiv. 36; Lk. xix. 41. and was heard] Rather, "and being heard" or "hearkened to," Luke xxii. 43; John xii. 28 (comp. Ps. xxii. 21, 24). in that he feared] Rather, ^''from his godly fear, ''^ or "because of his reverential awe." The phrase has been explained in different ways. The old Latin {Vettis Itala) renders '' '■ exatiditiis a mettc,^^ and some Latin Fathers and later interpreters explain it to mean " having been ixeed froffi the fear of death.'''' The Greek might perhaps be made to bear this sense, though the mild word used for "fear" is not in favour of it; but the rendering given above, meaning that His prayer was heard because of His awful submission {pro sua reverentid, Vulg.) is the sense in which the words are taken by all the Greek Fathers. The word rendered "from" [apo) may certainly mean "because of" as in Lk. xix. 3, "He could not because oi [apo) the crowd;" xxiv. 41, "dis- believing because of {apo) their joy " (comp. John xxi. 6 ; Acts xxii. II, &c.). The word rendered "feared" is eulabeia, which means "reverent fear," or "reasonable shrinking" as opposed to terror and cowardice. The Stoics said that the wise man could thus cautiously shrink {eidabeisthai) but never actually be afraid {phobeisthai). Other attempts to explain away the passage arise from the Apollinarian ten- dency to deny Christ's perfect manhood: but He was " perfectly man'" as well as "truly God." He was not indeed '•^s^vtd from death," because He had only prayed that " the cup might pass from Him " loo . HEBREWS, V. ' [v. 9. 9 dience by the things which he suffered; and being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all / if such were His Father's will (x. 7) ; but He was saved out of (e/c) I death" by being raised on the third day, so that "He saw no cor- ruption." For the word eulabeia., "piety" or "reverent awe" see xii. 28. 8. Though he ivere a Son^ Rather, "Son though He was," so that it might have been thought that there would be no need for the great sacrifice; no need for His learning obedience from suffering. yet learned he obedieiice\ Perhaps rather "His obedience." The stress is not on His '' lea}'nhig" (of course as a man), but the whole expression is taken together, "He learnt from the things which He suffered," in other words "He bowed to the experience of absolute submission." "The things which He suffered" refer not only to the Agony and the Cross, but to the whole of the Saviour's life. Some of the Fathers stumbled at this expression. Theodoret calls it hyperbolical; St Chrysostom is surprised at it; Theophylact goes so far as to say that here Paul (for he accepts the traditional authorship) ' ' for the benefit of his hearers used such accommodation as obviously to say some unreasonable things." All such remarks would have been obviated if these fathers had borne in mind that, as St Paul says, Christ "counted not equality with God a thing at which to grasp" (Phil. ii. 6). INIean while passages like these, of which there are several in this Epistle, are valuable as proving how completely the co-equal and co-eternal Son "emptied Himself of His glory." Against the irreverent reverence of the Apollinariau heresy (which denied^ Christ's perfect manhood) and the IMonothelite heresy (which denied His possession of a human will), this passage, and the earlier chapters of St Luke are the best bulwark. The human soul of Christ's perfect manhood "learned" just as His human body grev/ (Lk. ii. 52). On this learning of " obedience " see Is. 1. 5, "I was not rebellious." Phil. ii. 8, "Being found in fashion as a man he became obedient unto death." The paronomasia "he learnt [emnthen] from what He suffered {epathen) " is one of the commonest in Greek literature. For the use oi paranomasia in St Paul see my Life of St Patd, i. 628. 9. and being maSe perfect^ Having been brought to the goal and consummation in the glory which followed this mediatorial work. See ii. 10 and comp. Lk. xiii. 32, "the third day I shall be perfected.'' he became the author'\ Literally, "the cause." of eternal salvation^ It is remarkable that the epithet aionios is here alone applied to the substantive "salvation." salvation tmto all them that obey hint] In an author so polished and rhetorical there seems to be an intentional force and beauty in the repetition in this verse of the two leading words in the last. Christ prayed to God who was able to ''save'''' Him out of death, and He became the cause of "eternal salvation'''' from final death; Christ learnt "■obedience'''' by His life of self-sacrifice, and He became a Saviour to them that ^' obey" Him. vv. 10—12.] HEBREWS, V. id them that obey him; called of God a high priest after the lo order of Melchisedec. Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be n uttered, seemg ye are dull of hearing. For when for the 12 tmie ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that 07ie teach 10. called^ Lit., "saluted" or " addressed by God as." This is the only place in the N.T. where the verb occurs. a high priest after the order of Mclckisedecl We should here have expected the writer to enter at once on the explanation of this term. ±jut he once more pauses for a solemn exhortation and warnin^r These pauses and landmg-places (as it were) in his argument, cannot be regarded as mere digressions. There is nothing that they less resemble than bt Paul s habit of "going off at a word," nor is the writer in the least_ degree "hurried aside by the violence of his thoughts." There is in him a complete absence of all the hurry and impetuosity which characterise the style of St Paul. His movements are not in-the least like those of an eager athlete, but they rather resemble the stately walk of some Oriental Sheykh with all his robes folded around him. He is about to enter on an entirely original and far from obvious argument, which he felt would have great weight in checking the tendency to look back to the rites, the splendours and the memories of Judaism. He therefore stops with the calmest deliberation, and the m'ost wonderful skill, to pave the way for his argument by a powerful mixture of reproach and warning— which assisted the object he had in view, and • tended to stimulate the spiritual dulness of his readers. 11—14. Complaint that his readers were so slow in their SPIRITUAL progress. 11. Ofwhoni] i.e. of Melchisedek in his typical character. There is no need to render this "of which matter" or to refer it to Christ. The following argument really centres in the word ISIelchisedek, and its difficulty was the novel application of the facts of his history to Christ. hard to be tittered} Rather, " respecting whom what I have to say is long, and hard of interpretation." The word "being interpreted" {hermeftenomenos, whence comes the word "hermeneutics") occurs in vii. 2. ye arel Rather, "ye are become," as in v. 12, vi. 12. They were not so sluggish at first, but are become so from indifference and neglect. dull of hearing] Comp. Matt. xiii. 14, 15. Nothros ''dull" or "blunted ' is the antithesis to o^vs "sharp." 12. For whettfor the time ye oug/it to be teachers] That is, "though you ought, by this time, to be teachers, considering how long a time has elapsed since your conversion." The passage is important as bear- ing on the date of the Epistle. ye have need that one teach yoti again which be the first principles] Rather, "ye again have need that some one teach you the rudiments of I02 HEBREWS, V. [vv. 13, 14. you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of 13 strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in 14 the word of righteousness : for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both the beginning of the oracles of God." It is uncertain whether we should read tlvo. "that some one teach you" or rlva "that (one) teach you which areT The difference in sense is not great, but perhaps the indefinite " some one" enhances the irony of a severe remark. For the word "rudiments" see Gal. iv. 3, 9. the oracles of God'\ Here not the O.T. as in Rom. iii. 2. szich as have need of uiilkX So the young students or neophytes in the Rabbinic schools were called thiiiokoth "sucklings." Philo {De Agric, 0pp. I. 301) has this comparison of preliminary studies to milk, as well as St Paul, i Cor. iii. i, 2. strong J7ieat\ Rather, "solid food." 13. that 2iseth milk] The meaning is "who feeds on milk." unskilful] ' ' Inexperienced." for he is a babe] This is a frequent metaphor in St Paul, who also contrasts "babes" (nepioi) with the mature [ieleioi), Gal. iv. 3; i Cor. ii. 6; Eph. iv. 13, 14. We are only to be "babes" in wickedness (i Cor. xiv. 20). the word of righteousness'] i.e. the Scriptures, and especially the Gospel (see 2 Tim. iii. 16; Rom. i. 17, ^'therein is the righteousness of God revealed"). 14. belotigeth to them that are of full age] The solid food of more advanced instruction pertains to the mature or " perfect." by reason ofttse] "Because of their habit," i.e. from being habituated to it. This is the only place in the N.T. where this important word e|tj habitus occurs. their senses] Their spiritual faculties {aladr}TrjpLa. It does not occur elsewhere in the N.T.) exe?-cised] Trained, or disciplined by spiritual practice. to discern both good and evil] Lit., ^Uhe discrimination of good and evil." By "good and evil" is not meant "right and wrong" because there is no question here of moral distinctions; but excellence and inferiority in matters of instruction. To the natural man the things of the spirit are foolishness; it is only the spiritual man who can "distin- guish between things that differ"and so "discriminate the transcendent" (1 Cor. ii. 14, 15; Rom. ii. 18; Phil. i. 9, 10). The phrase "to know- good and evil" is borrowed from Hebrew (Gen. ii. 17, &c.), and is used to describe the first dawn of intelligence (Is. vii. 15, 16). Ch. VI. An exhortation to advance beyond elementary CATECHETICAL INSTRUCTIONS (l — 3). A SOLEMN WARNING against THE PERIL OF APOSTASY (4 — 8). A WORD OF EN' .] HEBREWS, VI. 103 good and evil. Therefore leaving the principles of the doc- 6 trine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith towards God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and of 2 COURAGEMENT AND HOPE ^9— 12) FOUNDED ON THE IMMUTA- BILITY OF God's promises (13—15), to which they are EXHORTED TO HOLD FAST (l6 — 2o). 1. _ leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ] Lit., "leaving the discourse of the beginning of Christ," i. e. getting beyond the earhest \ principles of Christian teaching. He does not of course mean that these first principles are to be neglected, still less forgotten, but merely that his readers ought to be so familiar with them as to be able to advance to less obvious knowledge. lei us go on] Lit., "let us be borne along," as by the current of a .stream. The question has been discussed whether the Author in saying I "let t(s" is referring to himself or to his readers. It is surely clear that he means (as in iv. 14) to imply both, although in the words "laying a foundation " teachers may have been principally in his mind. He invites his readers to advance with him to doctrines which lie beyond the range of rudimentary Christian teaching. They must come with him out of the limits of this Jewish-Christian Catechism. 7mto perfection] The "perfection" intended is the "full growth" of those who are mature in Christian knowledge (see v. 14). They ought not to be lingering among the elementary subjects of catechetical in- struction which in great measure belonged no less to Jews than to Christians. not laying agai?t\ There is no need for a foundation to be laid a second time. He is not in the least degree disparaging the importance I of the truths and doctrines which he tells them to "leave," but only I urging them to build on those deep foundations the necessary super- structure. Hence we need not understand the Greek participle in its other sense of "overthrov/ing." the foundation] Lit., "a foundation." The subjects here alluded to probably formed the basis of instruction for Christian catechumens. They were not however exclusively Christian j they belonged equally to Jews, and therefore baptised Christian converts ought to have got be- yond them. repentance from dead woj'ks] Repentance is the first lesson of the Gospel (Mk. i. 15). '■''Dead works" are such as cause defilement, and require purification (ix. 14) because they are sinful (Gal. v. 19 — 21) and because their wages is death (Rom. vi. 23) ; but " the works of the Law," as having no life in them (see our Article xiii.), may be included under the epithet. faith toiuards God] This is also one of the initial sie^s in religious knowledge. How little the writer meant any disparagement of it may be seen from xi. i, 2, 6. 2. of the doctHne of baptisms] Perhaps rather, "of ablutions" (ix. IP4 HEBREWS, VI. [v. 3. laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of 3 eternal judgment. And this will we do, if God permit. 10; Mk. vii. 3, 4), both (i) from the use of the plural (which cannot be explained either physically of "triple immersion," or spiritually of the baptisms of "water, spirit, blood") ; and (2) because baptismos is never used of Christian baptism, but only baptisma. If, as we believe, the writer of this Epistle was Apollos, he, as an original adherent " of John's baptism," might feel all the more strongly that the doctrine of "ablu- tions" belonged, even in its highest forms, to the elements of Christianity. Perhaps he, like Josephus {Anft. xviii. 5, § 2), would have used the (word baptismos, and not baptis??ia, even of John's baptism. But the word probably implies the teaching which enable Christian catechumens to discriminate beween Jewish washings and Christian baptism, of laying on of hands'] For ordination (Num. viii. 10, 11 ; Acts vi. 6, xiii. 2, 3, xix. 6, (Sic), confirmation (Acts viii. 17), healings (Mk. xvi. 18), &c. Dr Mill observes that the orde?' of doctrines here enumerated cor- responds with the system of teaching respecting them in the Acts of the Apostles — Repentance, Faith, Baptism, Confirmation, Resurrection, Judgment. and of resurrection of the dead] These topics had been severally prominent in the early Apostolic teaching (Acts ii. 38, iii. 19 — 21, xxvi. 20). Even the doctrine of the resurrection belonged to Judaism (Lk. xx. 37, 38; Dan. xii. 2; Acts xxiii. 8). and of eternal judgment] The doctrine respecting that sentence {kri>?m, "doom"), whether of the good or of the evil, which shall follow the judgm.ent {krisis) in the future life. This was also known under the Old Covenant, Dan. vii. 9, 10. — The surprise with which we first read this passage only arises from our not realising the Author's meaning, which is this, — your Christian maturity (reXet'oTT??, vi. i) demands that you should rise far above your present vacillating condition. You would have no hankering after Judaism if you understood the more ad- vanced teaching about the JNIelchisedek Priesthood — that is the Eternal Priesthood — of Christ which I am going to set before you. It is then needless that we should dwell together on the topics which form the training of neophytes and catechumens, the elements of religious teach- ing which even belonged to your old position as Jews; but let us enter upon topics which belong to the instruction of Christian manhood. The verse has its value for those who think that "Gospel" teaching consists exclusively in the iteration of threadbare shibboleths. We may observe / that of these six elements of catechetical instruction two are spiritual 1 qualities — repentance, faith; two are significant and symbolic acts — 1 washings and laying on of hands ; two are eschatological truths — resurrection and judgment. 3. this ivill we do\ We will advance towards perfection. The mss., as in nearly all similar cases, vary between "we will do " (X, B, K, L) and "let us do" (A, C, D, E). It is difficult to decide between the two, and the variations may often be due (i) to the tendency of scribes, especially in Lectionaries, to adopt the hortative lorm as being more edifying ; and V. 4.] HEBREWS, VI. 105 For // is impossible for those who were once enHghtened, 4 and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made parta- (2) to the fact that at this period of Greek the distinction in sound between TroLrjcro/uLev and iroL-qcrioixev was small. if God permit ] ^ These sincere and pious formulae became early cur- rent among Christians (i Cor. xvi. 7; Ja. iv. 15). 4—8. The awfulness of apostasy. 4. Fo7-\ An inference from the previous clauses. We must advance, I for in the Christian course stationariness means retrogression — noii pro- gredi est regredi. For it is impossible for thosel We shall see further on the meaning of the word "impossible." The sentence begins with what is called the accusative of the subject, "For as to those who were, &c., it is im- possible, &c. " We will first explain the particular expressions in these verses, and then point out the meaning of the paragraph as a whole. once^ The word, a favourite one with the writer, means ^^ once for all." It occurs more often in this Epistle than in all the rest of the N. T. It is the direct opposite of ttoKlv in ver. 6. enlightcned'\ illuminated by the Holy Spirit, John i. 9. Comp. x. 26, 32; 2 Cor. iv. 4. In the LXX. "to illuminate" means "to teach" (2 Kings xii. 2). The word in later times came to mean " to baptise," and "enlightenment," even as early as the time of Justin Martyr (a.d. 150), becomes a technical term for "baptism," regarded from the point of view of its results. The Syriac Version here renders it by "baptised." Hence arose the notion of some of the sterner schismatics — such as the Montanists and Novatians — that absolution was to be refused to all such as fell after baptism into apostasy or flagrant sin (Tertull. De Pudic. 20). This doctrine was certainly not held by St Paul (1 Cor. v. 5 ; i Tim. i. 20), and is rejected by the Church of England in her xvith Article (and see Pearson, On the Creed, Art. x.). The Fathers deduced from this passage the unlawfulness of administering Baptism a second time ; a perfectly right rule, but one vv'hich rests upon other grounds, and not upon this passage. But neither in Scripture nor in the teaching of the Church is the slightest sanction given to the views of the fanatics who assert that "after they have received the Holy Ghost they can no more sin as long as they live here." It will be remembered that Cromwell on his deathbed asked his chaplain as to the doctrine of Final Perse- verance, and on being assured that it was a certain truth, said, "Then I am happy, for I am sure that I was once in a state of grace." and have tasted of the heavenly gift...'] These clauses may be ren- dered "having both tasted of.. .and being made. ..and having tasted." It is not possible to determine which heavenly gift is precisely intended; perhaps it means remission, or regeneration, or salvation, which St Paul calls "(jod's unspeakable gift" (2 Cor. ix. i^); or, generally, "the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Acts x. 44 — 46). Calvin vainly attempts to make the clause refer only to "those who had but as it were tasted ivith their oiitzvard lips the grace of God, and been irradiated with some 136 HEBREWS, VI. [vv. 5, 6. 5 kers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of 6 God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall sparks of His Light." It is clear from i Pet. ii. 3 that such a view is not tenable. partaker's of the Holy Ghost'\ The Holy Spirit worked in many diversities of operations (i Cor. xii. 8 — 10). 5. and have tasted the good word of God'\ Rather, "that the word of God is good." The verb "taste," which in the previous verse is constructed with the genitive (as in classical Greek), is here followed by an accusative, as is more common in Hellenistic Greek. It is difficult to establish any difference in meaning between the constructions, though the latter may imply something which is more habitual — "feeding on." But possibly the accusative is only used to avoid any entanglement with the genitive "of God" which follows it. There is however no excuse for the attempt of Calvin and others, in the interests of their dogmatic bias, to make "taste of" mean only "have an inkling of" without any deep or real participation ; and to make the preciousness of the " word of God" in this place only imply its contrast to the rigour of the Mosaic Law. The metaphor means " to partake of," and "enjoy," as in Philo, who speaks of one "who has quaffed much pure wine of God's benevo- lent power, and banqueted upon sacred words and doctrines" {De proem, et poen. 0pp. I. 428). Philo also speaks of the utterance {rhema) of God, and God, and of its nourishing the soul like manna (0pp. I. 120, 564). The references to Philo are always to Mangey's edition. The names of the special tracts and chapters may be found in my Early Days of Christianity^ II. 541 — 543, d^nd passim. the powers of the world to cof/ie'\ Here again it is not easy to see what is exactly intended by "the powers of the Future Age." If the Future Age be the Ola?n habba of the Jews, i.e. the Messianic Age, then its "powers" may be as St Chrysostom said, "the earnest of the Spirit," or the powers mentioned in ii. 4 ; Gal. iii. 5. If on the other hand it mean "the world to come" its "powers" bring the foretaste of its glorious fruition. It will then be seen that we cannot attach a definitely certain or exact meaning to the separate expressions; on the other hand nothing can be clearer than the fact that, but for dogmatic prepossessions, no one would have dreamed of explaining them to mean anything less than full conversion. 6. if they shall fall azc^ay] This is one of the most erroneous trans- lations in the A.V. The words can only mean '"'' and have fallen azvay''^ (comp. ii. I, iii. 12, x. 26, 29), and the position of the participle gives it tremendous force. It was once thought that our translators had here been influenced by theological bias to give such a rendering as should least conflict with their Calvinistic belief in the "indefectibility of grace" or in "Final Perseverance" — i.e. that no converted person, no one who has ever become regenerate, and belonged to the number of "the elect" — can ever fall away. It was thought that, for this reason, they had put this clause in the form of a ftiere hypothesis. It is now 6.] HEBREWS, VI. 107 away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him known however that the mistake of our translators was derived from older sources (e.g. Tyndale and the Genevan) and was not due to bias. Calvin was himself far too good a scholar to defend this view of the clause. He attempted to get rid of it by denying that the strong expressions in vers. 4, 5 describe the regenerate. He applies them to false converts or half converts who become reprobate — a view which, as we have seen, is not tenable. The falling away means apostasy, the complete and wdlful renunciation of Christianity. Thus it is used by the LXX. to represent the Hebrew mdal which in 2 Chron. xxix. 19 they render by " apostasy^ to renew them again tmto repentance'] The verb here used {anakaini- zein) came to mean " to rebaptise." If the earlier clauses seemed to clash with the Calvinistic dogma of the *' indefectibility of grace," this expression seemed too severe for the milder theology of the Arminians. Holding — and rightly— that Scripture iiroer closes the door of forgive- ness to any repentant sinner, they argued, wrongly, that the "impos- sible" of ver. 4 could only mean "very difficult," a translation which is actually given to the word in some Latin Versions. The solution of the difficulty is not to be arrived at by tampering with plain words. What the author says is that "when those who have tasted the hea- venly gift... have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them to repent- ance." He does not say that the Hebrews have so fallen away; nor does he directly assert that any true convert can thus fall away; but he does say that when such apostasy occurs and — a point of extreme im- portance which is constantly overlooked — so lojtg as it lasts (see the next clause) a vital renewal is i?npossible. There can, he implies, be no second "Second Birth." The sternness of the passage is in exact accordance with x. 26 — 29 (comp. 2 Pet. ii. 20, 21); but "the impos- sibility lies merely within the limits of the hypothesis itself ^ See our Article xvi. seeing they crucify] Rather, " while crucifying," " crttcifyijtg as they are doing." • Thus the words imply not only an absolute, but a con- tinuous apostasy, for the participle is changed from the past into the present tense. While men continue in wdiful and willing sin they pre- clude all possibility of the action of grace. So long as they cling deli- berately to their sins, they shut against themselves the open door of grace. A drop of water will, as the Rabbis said, suffice to purify a man who has accidentally touched a creeping thing, but an ocean will not suffice for his cleansing so long as he purposely lieeps it held in his hand. There is such a thing as "doing despite unto the spirit of grace" (x. 29). to themselves] This is what is called "the dative of disadvantage" — "to their own destruction." We see then that this passage has been per\'erfed in a multitude of ways from its plain meaning, which is, that so long as wilful apostasy continues there is no visible hope for it. On the other hand the passage does not io8 HEBREWS, VI. [w. 7, 8. 7 to an open shame. For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from 8 God : but that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing ; whose end is to be burned. lend itself to the violent oppositions of old controversies. In the recog- nition that, to our human point of view, there does appear to be such a thing as Divine dereliction this passage and x. 26 — 29, xii. 15 — 17 must be compared with the passages which touch on the unpardonable sin, and the sin against the Holy Ghost (i John v. 16; Matt. xii. 31, 32; comp. Is. viii. 21). On the other hand it is as little meant to be "a rock of despair" as "a pillow of security." He is pointing out to Hebrew Christians with awful faithfulness the fatal end of deliberate and insolent apostasy. But we have no right to suppose that he has anything in view beyond the horizon of revealed possibilities. He is thinking of the teaching and ministry of the Church, not of the Omnipo- tence of God. With men it is impossible that a camel should go through the eye of a needle, but " with God all things are possible," (Matt. xix. 26; Mk. x. 20 — 27; Lk. xviii. 27). In the face of sin — above all of deliberate wretchlessness — we must remember that "God is not mocked" (Gal. vi. 7), and that our human remedies are then ex- hausted. On the other hand to close the gate of repentance against any contrite sinner is to contradict all the Gospels and all the Epistles alike, as well as the Law and the Prophets. and put him to an open shame'] Expose Him to scorn (comp. Matt. i. 19 where the simple verb is used). 7. For the earth which drinketh in} Rather, "For land which has drunk." Land of this kind, blessed and fruitful, resembles time and faithful Christians. The expression that the earth "drinks in" the rain is common (Deut. xi. 11). Comp. Virg. £c/. in. in, ^^ sat prata diderunt." For the moral significance of the comparison — namely that there is a point at which God's husbandry seems to be rendered finally useless, — see Is. v. i — 6, 24. dy 'cuhom it is dressed] Rather, "for whose sake (propter qnos. Tert.) it is also tilled" — namely for the sake of the ozvncrs of the land. blessing] Gen. xxvii. 27, "a field which the Lord hath blessed." Ps. Ixv. 10, "Thou blessest the increase of it." 8. that which beareth thorns] Rather, "if it bear thorns" (Is. v. 6; Prov. xxiv. 31). This neglected land resembles converts who have fallen away. rejected] The same word, in another metaphor, occurs in Jer. vi. 30. nigh tinto cursing] Lit., " near a curse." Doubtless there is a refer- ence to Gen. iii. 18. St Chrysostom sees in this expression a sign of mercy, because he only says ^'^ near a curse." "He who has not yet fallen into a curse, but has got near it, will also be able to get afar from if," so that we ought, he says, to cut up and burn the thorns, and then we shall be approved. And he might have added that the older "curse " 9-1 1.] HEBREWS, VI. 109 But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and 9 things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak. For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour 10 of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister. And we n of the land to which he refers, was by God's mercy over-ruled into a blessing. , . . . . . ■,, r- whose end is to he durned] Lit., ''whose end is for burning. _ Comp. Is xliv. 15, "that it may be for burning." It is probably a mistake to imacnne that there is any reference to the supposed advantage of burning the surface of the soil (Virg. Georg. I. 84 s^^.; Plmy, ^. A. xviii. 39' j'y), for we find no traces of such a procedure among the Jews. More probably the reference is to land like the Vale of Siddim, or _ Burnt Phrycria,-" or "the Solfatara,"— like that described m Gen. xix. 24; DeutTxxix. 23. Comp. Heb. X. 27. And such a land Judea itself became within a very few years of this time, because the Jews would not "break up their fallow ground," but still continued "to sow among thorns." Obviously the *'w/iose'' refers to the "land, not to the 'curse. 9 12. Words of encouragement and hope. 9. deloved] The warm expression is introduced to shew that his stern teaching is only inspired by love. • ^j ^<- n we arepasuadcd] Lit., "We have been (and are) convinced of. Comp. Rom. xv. 14. , . „ t • ^ ♦i^^f ti^« deiUT t/mii^s] Lit., "the better things." I am convinced that the better alternative holds true of you ; that your condition is, and your fate will be, better than what I have described. _ Ma/ accompany salvation] Rather, "akin to salvation, the antithesis to "near a curse." What leads to salvation is obedience (v, 9). ikoug/i we thus speak] in spite of the severe words of warning which i have just used. Comp. x.^39. thtis] As in verses 4- io. grace ThTy'^arf p^bfbi;'';'glos7from7 Thess. i. 3- The passage bears a vague general resemblance to 1 Cor. viu. 24 ; Col. 1. 4. toward his name] which name is borne by all His children. in that ye have ministered to the saints] In your past and present ministratioi to the saints, i.e. to your Christian brethren It used to be supposed that the title "the saints "applied especially to the Christians at Jerusalem (Rom. xv. 25 ; Gal. u. 10 ; r Cor. xvi. i)- Jh^s ^^ a mistake; and he saints at Jerusalem, merged in a common pover y, per- haps a Result in part of their original Communism, were hardly in a no HEBREWS, VI. [vv. 12, 13. desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to 12 the full assurance of hope unto the end: that ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and pa- 13 tience inherit the promises. For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he condition to minister to one another. They were (as is the case with most of the Jews now living at Jerusalem) dependent in large measure on the Chahika or distribution of alms sent them from without. and do minister] The continuance of their well doing proved its sincerity; but perhaps the writer hints, though with infinite delicacy, that their beneficent zeal was less active than it once had been. 11. And] Rather, "But." we desire] A strong word : "we long to see in you." that every one of yoii] Here again in the emphasis of the expression we seem to trace, as in other parts of the Epistle, some individual refer- ence. the same diligence] He desires to see as much earnestness (2 Cor. vii. 11) in the work of advancing to spiritual maturity of knowledge as they had shewn in ministering to the saints. to the full assurance] i.e. with a view to your attaining this full assurance. Comp. x. 22, iii. 14. The word also occurs in i Thess. i. 5; Col. ii. 2. unto the end] till hope becomes fruition (iii. 6, 14). 12. that ye be 7iot slothful] Rather, "that ye become not slothful" in the advance of Christian hope as you already are (v. 11) in acquiring spiritual knowledge. followers] Rather, "imitators," as in i Cor. iv. 16; Eph. v. i ; i Thess. I, 6, &c. through faith and patience inherit the pi'omises] See ver. 15, xii. i; Rom. ii. 7. The word rendered "patience" (jnakrothumid) is often applied to the "long suffering" of God, as in Rom. ii. 4; i Pet. iii. 20; but is used of men in Col. i. 11 ; 2 Cor. vi. 6, &c., and here implies the tolerance of hope deferred. It is a different word from the "endurance" of xii. I, X. 36. inherit] Partially, and by faith, here; fully and with the beatific vision in the life to come. 13. For zvhen God] The "for" implies "and you may feel absolute confidence about the promises ; for," &c. made promise to Abraham] Abraham is here only selected as "the father of the faithful" (Rom. iv. 13); and not as the sole example of persevering constancy, but as an example specially illustrious (Calvin). because he could swear by no grcatir] In the Jewish treatise Berachoth (f. 32. i) Moses is introduced as saying to God, "Hadst thou sworn by Heaven and Earth, I should have said TheyvAW perish, and therefore so may Thy oath ; but as Thou hast sworn by Thy great name, that onth shall endure for ever." Ill vv. 14— 1 7-] HEBREWS, VI. sware by himself, saying, Surely blessing I will bless 14 thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee. And so, 15 after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise. For men verily swear by the greater : and an oath for con- 16 firmation is to them an end of all strife. Wherein God, 17 willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutabihty of his counsel, confirmed // by an oath : he sware by himself^ "By myself have I sworn" (Gen. xxii. id). "God sweareth not by another," says Philo, in a passage of which this may be a reminiscence— "for nothing is superior to Himself— but by Himself, Who is best of all" {De Leg. Alleg. iii. 72). There are other passages in Philo which recall the reasoning of this clause (Opp. i. 622 "• 39). 14. blessing I will bless thee'\ The repetition represents the emphasis of the Hebrew, which expresses a superlative by repeating the word twice. I will multiply tJiee'\ In the Heb. and LXX. we have "I will multi- • ply thy seed.'''' 15. after he had patiently etidiired] Lit., "having patiently en- dured," which may mean "by patient endurance." The participles in this passage are really contemporaneous with the principal verbs. he obtained the promise'\ Gen. xv. i, xxi. 5, xxii. 17, 18, xxv. 7, &c. ; John viii. 56. There is of course no contradiction to xi. 13, 39, which refers to a farther future and a wider hope. 16. 7nen verily swear by the greater} Gen. xxi. 23, xxiv. 3, xxvi. 30—3 1 • The passage is important as shewing the lawfulness of Christian oaths (see our Article xxxix.). strife'] Rather, "for an oath is to them an end of all gainsaying" (or "controversy" as to facts) "with a view to confirmation." It is meant that when men swear in confirmation of a disputed point their word is believed. There is an exactly similar passage in Philo, Be sacr. Abel, et Cain (Opp. i. 181). 17. Wherein] Rather, "on which principle;" "in accordance with this human custom." 7uilling\ Rather, "wishing." The verb is not thelon, but boulome- nos. more abundantly] i.e. than if he had not sworn. unto the heirs of promise] Rather, " of the promise." The heirs of the promise were primarily Abraham and his seed, and then all Christians (Gal. iii. 29). the immutability of his counsel] "I am the Lord, I change not'' (Mai. iii. 6). See too Is. xlvi. 10, 11 ; Ps. xxxiii. 11 ; Ja. i. 17.) His changeless "decree" was that in Abraham's seed all the nations of the world should be blessed. On the other hand the Mosaic law was muta- ble (vii. 12, xii. 27). confirmed it by an oath] Rather, "intervened with an oath," i.e. made His oath intermediate between Himself and Abraham. Philo, with his 112 HEBREWS, VI. [vv. iS, 19. 1 3 that by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, v/ho have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before 2is: 19 which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the vail ; usual subtle refinements, observes that whereas otir word is accredited because of an oath, God's oath derives its credit because He is God. On the other hand, Rabbi Eleazer (in the second century) said, "the word Not has the force of an oath," which he deduced from a comparison of Gen. ix. 11 with Is. liv. 9; and therefore a fortiori the word "jivj" has the force of an oath (Shevuoth. f. 36. i). The word "intervened," "mediated" {emcsiteusen) occurs here only in the N. T. 18. by two immutable things] Namely, by the oath and by the word of God. The Targums for "By INIyself" have "By My Word have I sworn." in which it 7vas impossible for God to lie] St Clement of Rome says " A^othing is impossible to God, except to lie" {Ep. ad Cor. 27). "God that cannot lie" (Tit. i. 1. Comp. Num. xxiii. 19). consolation] Rather, "encouragement." tvho have fled for refuge] As into one of the refuge-cities of old. Num. XXXV. II. to lay hold upon the hope set before us] " The hope " is here (by a figure called metonymy) used for " the object of hope set before us as a prize" (comp. x. 23); "the hope which is laid up for us in heaven," Col. i. 5. 19. as an atichor of the soul] An anchor seems to have been an emblem of Hope — being something which enables us to hope for safety in danger — from very early days (Aesch. Aga/n. 488), and is even found as a symbol of Hope on coins. The notion that this metaphor adds anything to the argument in favour of the Pauline authorship of the Epistle, because St Paul too sometimes uses maritime metaphors, shews how little the most ordinary canons of literary criticism are applied to the Scriptures. St Paul never happens to use the metaphor of "an anchor," but it might have been equally well used by a person who had never seen the sea in his life. "Or if you fear Put all your trust in God: that anchor holds. '^ Tennyson, Enoch Arden. and which entereth into that within the vail] This expression is not very clear. The meaning is that the hawser which holds the anchor of our Christian hope passeth into the space which lies behind the veil, i.e. into the very sanctuaiy of Him who is "the God of Hope" (Rom. xv. 13). "The veil" is the great veil {Parochcth) which separated the Holy from the Holy of Holies (Ex. xxvi. 31 — 35 ; Heb. x. 20; Matt, xxvii. 51, &c.). The Christian's anchor of hope is not dropped into any earthly sea, but passes as it were through the depths of the aerial ocean, mooring us to the very throne of God. V. 20.] HEBREWS, VI. 113 whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made a 5 high priest for ever after the order of Alelchisedec " Oh ! life as futile then as frail ! What hope of answer or redress? — Behind the veil ! Behind the veil ! " III Memorial)!. The word kaiapetasma usually applies to this veil before the Holy of Holies, while kaliunma (as in Philo) is strictly used for the outer veil. 20. whither the foreriainer is...entcred\ Lit. " where a forerunner entered... Jesus ;" or "where, as a forerunner " (or harbinger) "Jesus entered." for us\ " on our behalf" This explains the introduction of the remark. Christ's Ascension is a pledge that our Hope will be fulfilled. He is gone to prepare a place for us (John xiv. 2, 3). His entrance into the region behind the veil proves the reality of the hidden kingdom of glory into which our Hope has cast its anchor (Ahlfeld). This is evidently a prominent thought with the writer (iv. 14, ix. 24). made] Rather, " having become," as the result of His earthly life. after the order of Melchisedec\ By repeating this quotation, as a sort of r frailly the writer once more resumes the allusion of v. 10, and brings us face to face with the argument to which he evidently attached extreme importance as the central topic of his epistle. In the dissertation which follows there is nothing which less resembles St Paul's manner of "going off at a word" (as in Eph. v. 12 — 15, he). The warning and exhortation which ends at this verse, so far from being "a sudden transition" (or "a digression") "by which he is carried from the main stream of his argument " belongs essen- tially to his whole design. The disquisition on Melchisedek — for which he has prepared the way by previous allusions and with the utmost deliberation — is prefaced by the same kind of solemn strain as those which we find in ii. 1 — 3, iii. 2, 12 — 14, xii. 15 — 17. So far from being "hurried aside by the violence of his feelings" into these appeals, they are strictly subordinated to his immediate design, and enwoven into the plan of the Epistle with consummate skill. " Hurry" and "vehemence ' may often describe the intensity and impetuosity of St Paul's fervent style which was the natural outcome of his im- passioned nature; but faultless rhetoric, sustained dignity, perfect smoothness and elaborate eloquence are the very different character- istics of the manner of this writer. for ever] The words in the Greek come emphatically at the end, and as Dr Kay says strike the keynote of the next chapter (vii. 3, 16, 17, 21, 2^, 25, 28). HEBREWS 114 HEBREWS, VII. [v. i. 7 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most Ch. VII. Christ, as an eternal High Priest after the ORDER OF MeLCHISEDEK, IS SUPERIOR TO THE LeVITIC HiGH Priest, Historic reference to IMelchisedek (i — 4). His Priesthood typically superior to that of Aaron in seven particulars, i. Because even Abraham gave him tithes (4 — 7). ii. Because he blessed Abra- ham (7). iii. Because he is the type of an undying Priest (8). iv. Because even the yet unborn Levi paid him tithes, in the person of Abraham {9, 10). v. Because the permanence of his Priesthood, continued by Christ, implied the abrogation of the whole Levitic Law (£i — 19). vi. Because it was founded on the swearing of an oath (20 — 23). vii. Because it is intrans- missible, never being vacated by death (23, 24). Summary and conclusion (25 — 28). 1. For this Mekhisedcc\ All that is historically known of Mel- chisedek is found in three verses of the book of Genesis (xiv. 18, 19, 20). In all the twenty centuries of sacred histoiy he is only mentioned once, in Ps. ex. 4. This chapter is a mystical explanation of the significance of these two brief allusions. It was not wholly new, since the Jews attached high honour to the name of Melchisedek, whom they identified with Shem, and Philo had already spoken of Melchisedek as a type of the Logos {De Leg. Allcg. in. 25, 0pp. I. 102). ki7ig of Saletii\ Salem is probably a town near Shechem. It is the same which is mentioned in Gen. xxxiii. 18 (though there the words ren- dered " to Shalem " may mean " in safety "), and in John iii. 23; andjt is the Salumias of Judith iv. 4. This is the view of Jerome, who in his Onomasticon places it eight miles south of Bethshean. The site is marked by a ruined well still called Sheikh Saliin (Robinson, Bibl. Res. III. 333). In Jerome's time the ruins of a large palace were shewn in this place as "the palace of Melchisedek;" and this agrees v/ith the Samaritan tradition that Abraham had been met by Melchisedek not at Jerusalem but at Gerizim. The same tradition is mentioned by Eupolemos (Euseb. Praep. Evang. ix. 17. See Stanley, Sin. and Pal. p. 237). The more common view has been that Salem is a shortened form of Jerusalem, but this is very improbable; for (i) only a single instance of this abbreviation has been adduced, and that only as a poetic license in a late Psalm which the LXX. describe as "A Psalm with reference to the Assyrian" (Ps. Ixxvi. 2). (2) Even this instance is very dubious, for fa) the Psalmist 7nay be intending to contrast the sanctuary of Melchisedek with that of David ; or (/3) even here the true rendering may be "His place has been made in feace " as the Vulgate renders it. (3) Jerusalem in the days of Abraham, and for centuries afterwards was only known by the name Jebus. (4) The typical character of Melchisedek would be rather impaired than enhanced by his being a king at yerusalem, for that was the holy city of the Aaronic priesthood of which he was wholly independent, V. I.] HEBREWS, VII. 115 high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter being a type of One in whose priesthood men should worship the Father in all places alike if they offered a spiritual worship. We must then regard Salem as being a different place from Jerusalem, if any place at all is intended. For though both the Targums and Josephus {Anil. I. 10 § 2) here identify Salem with Jerusalem, the Bereshith Rabba interprets the word Salem as an appellative, and says that it means "Perfect King," and that this title was given to him because he was circumcised (see Wiinsche, Bibl. Rabbinica. Beresh. Rabba, p. 198). Philo too says "king of peace, for that is the meaning of Salem" {Leg. Alleg. ill. 25, comp. Is. ix. 5; Col. i. 20). Nothing depends on the solution of the question, for in any case the fact that "Salem" means "peace" or "peaceful" is pressed into the typology. But the Salem near Sichem was itself in a neighbourhood hallowed by reminiscences scarcely less sacred than those of Jerusalem. Besides this connexion with the name of Melchisedek, it was the place where Jacob built the altar El- Elohe- Israel ; the scene of John's baptism ; and the region in which Christ first revealed Himself to the woman of Samaria as the Messiah. priest of the most high God~\ The union of Royalty and Priesthood in the same person gave him peculiar sacredness (" He shall be a Priest upon His throne" (Zech. vi. 13). "Rex Anius, rex idem hominum, Phoebique sacerdos" (Virg. Aen. III. 80 and Servius ad loc). The expression "God most high" is El Elion, and this was also a title of God among the Phoenicians. It is however certain that Moses meant that Melchisedek was a Priest of God, for though this is the earliest occurrence of the name El Elion it is afterwards combined with "Jeho- vah" in Gen. xiv. 22, and in other parts of the Pentateuch and the Psalms. There is no difficulty in supposing that the worship of the One True God was not absolutely confined to the family of Abraham. The longevity of the early Patriarchs facilitated the preservation of Monotheism at least among some tribes of mankind, and this perhaps explains the existence of the name Elion among the Phoenicians (Philo Byblius ap. Euseb. Praep. Evang. I. 10). who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the h'ngs] Amra- phel king of Shinar, with three allies, had made war on Bera king of Sodom with four allies, and had carried away plunder and captives from the Cities of the Plain. Among the captives was Lot. Abraham therefore armed his 318 servants, and with the assistance of three Canaanite chiefs, Aner, Mamre, and Eshcol, pursued Amraphel's army to the neighbourhood of Damascus, defeated them, rescued their prisoners, and recovered the spoil. The word here rendered "slaughter" {Aope from hopto "cut") may perhaps mean no more than "smiting," i.e. defeat. On his return the king of Sodom going forth to greet and thank him met him at "the valley of Shaveh, which is the king's dale," a place of which nothing is known, but which was probably somewhere in the tribe of Ephraim near mount Gerizim. This seems to have been in the little domain of Melchisedek 8—2 n6 HEBREWS, VII. [w. 2, 3. of the kings, and blessed him ; to whom also Abraham gave a tenth pari of all ; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; without father, without mother, without de- fer we are not told that "he went forth to meet" Abraham, but only that (being apparently at the place where Bera met Abraham) he humanely and hospitably brought out bread and wine for the weary victors, and blessed Abraham, and blessed God for granting him the victory. In acknowledgment of this friendly blessing, Abraham "gave him tithes of all," i.e. of all the spoils. and blessed hhtil Evidently as a priestly act. Gen. xiv. 19,20. 2. first beins[\ This seems to imply that of his two names or titles " Melchisedec," and "King of Salem," \S\q. first means "King of Righteousness" and the second "King of Peace." In a passage of mystic interpretation like this, however, the writer may intend to sug- gest that there is a direct connexion between the two titles, and that "Righteousness" is the necessary antecedent to "Peace," as is inti- mated in Ps. Ixxii. 7, Ixxxv. 10. Comp. Rom. v. i. by interpretation King of righteousness'] The name Melchisedek may mean "King of Righteousness." This is the paraphrase of the Tar- gums, perhaps with tacit reference to Is. xxxii. i, where it is said of the Messiah "Behold a king shall reign in righteousness." (Comp. Zech. ix. 9; Jer. xxiii. 5.) In the Bereshith Rabba Tzedek is explained to mean Jerusalem with reference to Is. i. 21, "Righteousness lodged in it." Josephus {Antt. I. 19, § 12; B, J. vi. 10) and Philo, however, render it "Righteous King." Later on in Jewish history (Josh. x. 3) we read of Adonizedek (" Lord of righteousness") who was a king of Jenasa- lem. Apart from any deeper meaning "Righteousness" or "Justice" was one of the most necessary qualifications of Eastern Kings who are also Judges. In the mystic sense the interpretation of the names Melchizedek and Salem made him a fit type of " the Lord our Righteousness" (Jer. xxiii, 6) and "the Prince of Peace" (Is. ix, 6) : and he was also a fit type of Christ because he was a Kingly Priest ; a Priest who blessed Abraham; a Priest who, so far as we are told, offered no animal-sacrifices; and a Priest over whom Scripture casts "the shadow of Eternity." See Bishop Wordsworth's note on this passage. King of peace] "The work of Righteousness shall be Peace, and the effect of Righteousness quietness and assurance for ever" (Is. xxxii. 17 ; Eph. ii. 14, 15, 17; Rom. v. i. Comp. Philo Leg. Alleg. ill. 25, 0pp. I, 102). 3, -cvithout father, tuithoiit mother, zuithozit descent] Rather, "with- out lineage" or "pedigree" as in ver. 6, The mistake is an ancient one, for in consequence of it Ireneeus claims Melchisedek as one who had lived a celibate life (which in any case would not follow). The simple and undoubted meaning of these words is that the father, mo- ther, and lineage of Melchisedek are not recorded, so that he becomes more naturally a type of Christ. In the Alexandrian School, to which V. 3-] HEBREWS, VII. 117 scent, haying neither beginning of days, nor end of life ; the writer of this Epistle belonged, the custom of allegorising Scripture had received an immense development, and the silence of Scripture was regarded as the suggestion of mysterious truths. The Jewish interpreters naturally looked on the passage about Melchisedek as full of deep sig- nificance because the Psalmist in the iioth Psalm, which was univer- sally accepted as a Psalm directly iNlessianic (Matt. xxii. 44) had found in Melchisedek a Priest-King, who, centuries before Aaron, had been honoured by their great ancestor, and who was therefore a most fitting type of Him who was to be "a Priest upon his Throne." The fact that he had no recorded father, mother, or lineage enhanced his dignitv because the Aaronic priesthood depended exclusively on the power to prove direct descent from Aaron which necessitated a most scrupulous care in the preservation of the priestly genealogies. (See Ezra ii. 6r, 62 ; Nehem. vii. (St,, 64, where families which could not actually produce their pedigree are excluded from the priesthood.) The idiom by which a person is said to have no father or ancestry when they are not recorded, or are otherwise quite unimportant, was common to Greek, Latin, and Hebrew. In a Greek tragedy "Ion" calls himself " wt^M^r;- less'' when he supposes that his mother is a slave (Eurip. Ion, 850). Scipio taunted the mob of the Forum as people "who had neither father nor mother''^ (Cic. De Oral. 11. 64), Horace calls himself "a man sprung from no ancestors'''' (Hor. Sat. I. 6, 10). In the Bereshith Rabba we find the rule "a Gentile has 7in father,''^ i.e. the father of a proselyte is not counted in Jewish pedigrees. Further the Jews mysti- cally applied the same sort of rule which holds in legal matters which says "that things not producible are regarded as non-existent." Hence their kabbalistic interpretation of particulars not mentioned in Scripture. From the fact that Cain's death is nowhere recorded in Genesis, Philo draws the lesson that evil never dies among the human race; and he calls Sarah "motherless" because her mother is nowhere mentioned. There is then no difficulty either as to the idiom or its interpretation. without mother'] The mention of this particular may seem to have no bearing on the type, unless a contrast be intended to the Jewish Priests who were descended from Elisheba the wife of Aaron (Ex. vi. 23). But " Christ as God, has no mother, as man no Father." The early Church neither used nor sanctioned the name Theoiokos "Mother of God" as applied to the Virgin Mary. without descent] Rather, '' without a genealogy." Melchisedek has no recorded predecessor or successor. Bishop Wordsworth quotes "Who shall declare His generation?" having neither begi^ining of days, nor end of life]. The meaning of this clause is exactly the same as that of the last — namely that neither the birth nor death of Melchisedek are recorded, which makes him all the more fit to be a type of the Son of God. Dean Alford's remark that it is "almost childish" to suppose that nothing more than this is intended, arises from imperfect familiarity with the methods of Rabbinic and Alexandrian exegesis. The notion that Melchisedek was Ii8 . HEBREWS, VII. [v. 4. but made like unto the Son of God ; abideth a priest con- the Holy Spirit (which was held by an absurd sect who called them- selves Melchisedekites); or "the Angel of the Presence;" or "God the Word, previous to Incarnation;" or "the Shechinah;" or "the Captain of the Lord's Host ; " or " an Angel ;" or " a reappearance of Enoch ;" or an '■'• ensarkosis of the Holy Ghost;" are, on all sound hermeneutical principles, not only "almost" but quite "childish." They belong to methods of interpretation v.hich turn Scripture into an enigma and neglect all the lessons which result so plainly from the laws which govern its expression, and the history of its interpretation. No Hebrew, reading these words, w^ould have been led to these idle and fantastic conclusions about the super-human dignity of the Canaanite prince. If the expressions here used had been meant literally, Melchi- sedek would not have been a man, but a Divine Being — and not the type of one — and he could not therefore have been "a Priest" at all. It would then have been not only inexplicable, but meaningless that in all Scripture he should only have been incidentally mentioned in three verses, of a perfectly simple, and straightforward narrative, and only once again alluded to in the isolated reference of a Psalm written centuries later. The fact that some of these notions about him may plead the authority of great names is no more than can be said of thousands of the most absolute and even absurd misinterpretations in the melancholy history of slowly-corrected errors which pass under the name of Scrip- ture exegesis. Less utterly groundless is the belief of the Jews that Melchisedek was the Patriarch Shem, who, as they shewed, might have survived to this time (Avodath Hakkodesh, III. 20, &c. and in two of the Targums). Yet even this view cannot be correct; for if Melchisedek had been Shem (t) there was every reason why he should be called by his own name ; and (2) Canaan was in the territory of Ham's descendants, not those of Shem; and (3) Shem was in no sense, whether mystical or literal, "w^ithout pedigree." Yet this opinion satisfied Lyra, Cajetan, Luther, Melanchthon, Lightfoot, &c. Who then was Melchisedek? Josephus and some of the most learned fathers (Hippolytus, Eusebius, &c.), and many of the ablest modern commentators, rightly hold that he was neither more nor less than what Moses tells us that he was — the Priest-King of a little Canaanite town, to whom, because he acted as a Priest of the True God, Abraham gave tithes; and whom his neighbours honoured because he was not sensual and turbulent as they were, but righteous and peaceful, not joining in their wars and raids, yet mingling with them in acts of mercy and kindness. How little the writer of this Epistle meant to exaggerate the typolog}' is shewn by the fact that he does not so much as allude to the "bread and wine" to which an unreal significance has been attached both by Jewish and Christian commentators. He does not make it in any way a type of the shewbread and libations ; or an offering character- istic of his Priesthood ; nor does he make him (as Philo does) offer any sacrifice at all. How much force would he have added to the typology if he had ventured to treat these gifts as prophecies of the Eucharist, vv. 4, 5-] HEBREWS, VII. 119 tinually. Now consider how great this man icas, unto 4 whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils. And verily they that are of the sons of Levi who 5 receive the office of the priesthood have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of as some of tlie Fathers do ! His silence on a point M'hich would have been so (germane to his purpose is decisive against such a view. wade' like unto the Son of God] Lit. "having been likened to the Son of God," i.e. having been invested with a typical resemblance to Christ. The expression explains the writer's meaning. It is a combi- nation of the passage in Genesis with the allusion in Ps. ex., shewing that the two together constitute Melchisedek a Divinely appointed type of a Priesthood received from no ancestors and transmitted to no descendants. The personal importance of Melchisedek was very small ; but he is eminently typical, because of the suddenness with which he is introduced into the sacred narrative, and the subsequent silence respecting him. He was born, and lived, and died,^nd had a father and mother) no less than any one else, but by not mentioning these facts, the Scripture, dnterpreted on mystic principles,) '• throws on him a shadow of Eternity: gives him a typical Eternity." fllie expres-N sions used of him are only literally true of Him whose type he was.j Irr himself only the Priest- prince of a little Canaanite community, his Cvenerable-^gure was seized upon, first by the Psalmist, then by the writer of this Epistle, as the type of an Eternal Priest. As far as Scripture is concerned it may be said of him, that "he lives without dying fixed for ever as one who lives by the pen of the sacred historian, and thus stamped as a type of the Son, the ever-living Priest." continiiallyi\ The Greek expression is like the Latin in ferpetuum. 4. Noiu consider] The verb means "to contemplate spiritually." how great this man was] Here begin the seven particulars of the typical superiority of Melchisedek's Priesthood over that of Aaron. First. Even Abraham gave him tithes. the patriarch Al>rahaf?i] There is great rhetoric force in the order of the original "to whom even Abraham gave a tithe out of his best spoils — he the patriarch." Here not only is the ear of the writer gratified by the sonorous conclusion of the sentence with an Joniciis a ininore patriarches; but a whole argument about the dignity of Abraham is condensed into the position of one emphatic word. The word in the N. T. occurs only here and in Acts ii. 29, vii. 8, 9. of the spoils] The word rendered "spoils" properly means that which is taken from the top of a heap (aK-pos Qli) ; hence some translate it "the best of the spoils," and Philo describes the tithe given by Abraham in similar terms. 6. who receive the office of the priesthood] The word used for "priesthood" is defined by Aristotle to mean "care concerning the gods." io iake tithes of the people according to the laiv] Indirectly, through the HEBREWS, VII. [vv. 6 their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abra- 6 ham : but he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the 7 promises. And without all contradiction the less is blessed 8 of the better. And here men that die receive tithes ; but there he receiveih them, of whom it is witnessed that he 9 liveth. And as / may so say, Levi also, who receiveth fo tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the " loins of his father, when Melchisedec m.et him. If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it agency of the Levites. Delitzsch argues that after the Exile the Priests collected the tithes themselves. It cannot however be proved that the Priests themselves tithed the people. This was done by the Levites, who gave the tithe of their tithes to the priests, Num. xviii. 12 — 26, Nehem. x. 38. There is however no real difficulty about the expression, for the Priests might tithe the people, as Jewish tradition says that they did in the days of Ezra; and [2] Qui facit per aliumfacit per se. There is therefore no need to alter "the people" [laon] into Levi {Lenin). The Priests stood alone in receiving tithes and giving none. come oitt of the loins\ A Hebrew expression, Gen. xxxv. ir. 6. and hlessed'\ lAt., and hath blessed. Second point of superior- ity. The act is regarded as permanent and still continuous in its effects, in accordance with the writer's manner of regarding Scripture as a living and present entity. 7. of the belter] i.e. the inferior is blessed by one who is {p7-o hac vice or quoad hoc) the Superior. Hence blessing was one of the recog- nised priestly functions (Num. vi. 23 — 26). 8. And here] As things now are; while the Levitic priesthood still continues. 7nen that die\ "Dying men" — men who are under liability to die (comp. verse 23), as in the lines " He preached as one who ne'er should preach again And as a dying man to dying mcn.^'' it is -witnessed that he liveth] i. e. he stands as a living man on the eternal page of Scripture, and no word is said about his death ; so far then as the letter of Scripture is concerned he stands in a perpetuity of mystic life. This is the third point of superiority. 9. as I may so sa}>\ Rather, "so to speak ;" shewing the writer's consciousness that the expression is somewhat strained, especially as even Isaac was not born till 14 years later. The phrase is classic, and is common in Philo, but occurs here only in the N.T. Levi... payed tithes] This is the fourth point of superiority. 11. If therefore pcrfectioii -were by the Levitical priesthood] At this point begins the argument which occupies the next nine \crses. " Per- fection" (compare the verb in ix. 9, x. i, 14, xi. 40) means power of perfectionment, capacity to achieve the end in view; but this was not vv. 12-14] HEB REWS, VII. P? the people received the law,) what further need ivas there that aaiotlier priest should rise after the order of Melchise- dec and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the '^ priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a chancre also of the law. For he of whom these things are n spok?n pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord m to be attained through the Levitic priesthood. The FIFTH point of superiority is that the Melchisedek Priesthood imphes the abrogation of the Levitic, and of the whole law which was based upon it. for under it\ Rather, " for on the basis of it." The writer rega ds the Priesthood rather than the Law as constituting the basis of the whole Mosaic system ; so that into this slight parenthesis he realy in- fuses the essence of his argument. The Priesthood is obviously changed. For othenvise the Theocratic King of Ps. ex. would not have been caled- a Priest after the order ./ Mclchisedec^^ but "after the order ./ laronr Clearly then " the order of Aaron" admitted of no at ainment of perfection through its means. But if the Priesthood was thus con- Semned as imperfect and inefficient, the Law -as^equally disparaged as a transitory institution. Righteousness did not 'come by the Law, if it could so have come Christ would have died m vain (Gal. 11. 21. '^Zl^^^a^ll'^dts there-\ There could be no need, since none of God's actions or dispensations are superfluous.^^ another priesi\ Rather, " a different priest. and not be called after the order of Aaron] Lit. , " and that he should not be said (viz. in Ps. ex. 4) to be after the order of Aaron I2 b^no changed] He here uses the comparatively "^^l^l^^^ fell- cate term 'M^eing %-ansferred:' When he has prepared the mind of his readers by a litUe further argument, he substitutes for "transference he much stronger word " ..../....r' (ver. 18). It is a charactens c of the writer to be thus careful not to shock the prejudices of h'^ ^ade.s more than was inevitable. His whole style ^f^'^Sument though no less effective than that of St Paul in its own sphere, ^^ ^'^^ ^^^^^^^^ tory, more deferential, less vehemently iconoclastic, fhi. relation to St Paul is like that of Melanchthon to Luther. . . • ui , of^LVsty] The Law and the Priesthood were so inextricably united that the Priesthood could not be altered without disintegrating the whole complex structure of the Law. _ ^^ 1^ ■t)i'rtaineth] Lit., " hath had part in. . "PJ^cl^Tln gave attendance L the altar] Sacerck^tal privi^e^es were exclusively assigned to the tribe of Levi (Deut. x. 8, Num 11. ,-l) The attempt of King Uzziah, who was of ^^e ^"^^^f J"r ^^v^ Lsume priestly functions, had been terribly pumshed (2 Chr. xxvi. ^' it evident] " Known to all." The word (pvdclon) occurs in I Tim. V. 24, 25. 122 HEBREWS, VII. [vv. 15—17. sprang out of Juda ; of which tribe Moses spake nothing rs concerning priesthood. And it is yet far more evident : for that after the simiUtude of Melchisedec there ariseth another 16 priest, who is made, not after the law of a carnal command- 17 ment, but after the power of an endless life. For he testi- oiir Lord'\ This is the first time that we find this expression in the N.T. standing alone as a name for Christ. It is from this passage that the designation now so familiar to Christian lips is derived. sprang] Lit., "hath sprung." The verb is used generally of the sun ;7>/;/^'-(Mal. iv. 2; Lk. xii. 54; 2 Pet. i. 19), but also of the spring- ing up of plants (Zech. iii. 8, vi. 12, &c.). Hence the LXX. choose the word Anatole which usually means sunrise, to translate the Messi- anic title of "the Branch." out of yuda\ Gen. xlix. 10; Is. xi. i; Lk. iii. 33. "The Lion of the tribe of Judah," Rev. v. 5. concerning priesthood] The better reading is " concerning priests." Uzziah, of the tribe of Judah, king though he was, had been punished by lifelong leprosy for usurping the functions of the tribe of Levi. 15. yet far more roident] The word used {katadelon) is stronger than that used in ver. 14 {prodclon) and does not occur elsewhere in the N.T. The change of the Law can be yet iiioj-e decisively inferred from the fact that Melchisedek is not only a Priest of a different tribe from Levi, but a priest constituted in a wholly different manner, and even — as he might have said — out of thelimits of the Twelve tribes altogether; and yet a Priest was to be raised after his order, not after that of Aaron. for that] Rather, "if" (as is the case), i.e. "seeing that." 16. is made] Lit., "is become." after the law of a carnal commandme}tt] Rather, "in accordance with the law of a flcshen (i.e. earthly) commandment.'''' Neither this writer, nor even St Paul, ever called or would have called the Law "carnal" {sarkikos), a term which St Paul implicitly disclaims when he says that the Law is "spiritual" (Rom. vii. 14); but to call it " fleshen " {sarhinos) is merely to say that it is hedged round with earthly limita- tions and relationships, and therefore unfit to be adapted to eternal conditions. Its ordinances indeed might be called "ordinances of the flesh" (ix. 10), because they had to do, almost exclusively, with externals. An attentive reader will see that even in the closest apparent resemblances to the language of St Paul there are differences in this Epistle. For instance his relative disparagement of the Law turns almost exclusively on the conditions of its hierarchy ; and his use of the word "flesh" and "fleshen," refers not to sensual passions but to mor- tality and transience. of an endless life] Lit., " of an indissoluble life," the life of a taber- nacle which "could not be dissolved." The word {akatalutos) is not found elsewhere in the N.T. The Priest of this new Law and Priest- hood is "the Prince of Life" (Acts iii. 15). 17. he testifieth] Rather, "he is testified of." vv. 18—21.] HEBREWS, VII. 123 lieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. For there is verily a disannulling of the 18 commandment going before for the weakness and unprofit- ableness thereof For the law made nothing perfect, but the 19 bringing in of a better hope did ; by the which we draw nigh unto God. And inasmuch as not without an oath he 20 was ?nade priest: (for those priests were made without an 21 oath ; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest 18. there is] Rather, "there occurs" or "results," in accordance with Ps. ex. 4. a disannulling] See note on ver. 12. Comp. Gal. iii. 15. of the cunimandment] Most ancient and modern commentators understand this of the Mosaic Law in general. for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof] The writer here shews how completely he is of the school of St Paul, notwithstanding the strength of his Judaic sjnnpathies. For St Paul was the first who clearly demonstrated that Christianity involved the abrogation of the Law, and thereby proved its partial, transitory, and inefficacious cha- racter as intended only to be a preparation for the Gospel (Rom. viii. 3). The law was only the '-tutor" or attendant-slave to lead men to Christ, or train their boyhood till it could attain to full Christian manhood (Gal. iii. 23. 24). It was only after the consummation of the Gospel that its disciplinary institutions became reduced to "weak and beggarly rudiments" (Gal. iv. 9). going before] Comp. i Tim. i. 18, v. 24. The "commandment" was only a temporary precursor of the final dispensation. 19. the law made nothing peifect] This is illustrated in ix. 6 — 9. but the bringijig in of a belter hope dicl] The better punctuation is "There takes place a disannulment of the preceding commandment on account of its weakness and unprofitableness — for the Law perfected nothing— but the superinduction of a better hope." The latter clause is a nommative not to "perfected," but to "there is," or rather "there takes place," in ver. 18. The "better hope" is that offered us by the Resurrection of Christ ; and the whole of the New Testament bears witness that the Gospel had the power of "perfecting," which the Law had not. Rom. iii. 21; Eph. ii. 13 — 15, &c. 20. inasmuch as not without an oath] This is the Sixth point of superiority. He has lingered at much greater length over the Fifth than over the others, from the extreme importance of the argument which it incidentally involved. The oath on which the Melchisedek Priesthood was founded is that of Ps. ex. 4. The word used for "oath" is not the common word horkos (as in vi. 17), but the more sonorous horko- mosia. 21. those priests were i7iade without an oath] Lit., "these men have been made priests without an oath." 124 HEBREWS, VII. [vv. 22—25. 22 for ever after the order of Melchisedec :) by so much 23 was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to 24 continue by reason of death : but this via7i, because he con- 25 tinueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto 22. of a bettej- testament'\ A clearer rendering would be "By so much better was the covenant of which Jesus has been made surety." The words— which might be taken as the keynote of the whole Epistle — should undoubtedly be rendered "of a better coz'cnant.'" The Greek word diathike is the rendering of the Hebrew Berith, which means a covenant. Of "testaments" the Hebrews knew nothing until they learnt the custom of "making a will" from the Romans. So completely was this the case that there is no word in Hebrew which means "a will," and when a writer in the Talmud wants to speak of a "will," he has to put the Greek word diathcke in Hebrew letters. The Hebrew berith is rendered diatlieke in the LXX., and "covenant" by our trans- lators at least 200 times. When we speak of the "Old" or the "New Testanienf we have borrowed the word from the Vulgate or Latin translation of St Jerome in 2 Cor. iii, 6. The only exception to this meaning of diatheke is in ix. 15 — 17. Of the way in which Jesus is "a pledge" of this "better covenant," see ver. 25 and viii. i, 6, ix. 15, xii. 24. The word for "pledge" [eyyvos) occurs here alone in the N. T., but is found in Ecclus. xxix. 15. 23. 7?iany priest s\ Lit., "And they truly have been constituted priests many in number." they were 7iot suffered to continue by reason of death'] The vacancies caused in their number by the ravages of death required to be constantly replenished (Num. xx. 28; Ezek. xxii. 29, 30). 24. but this vimi] Rather, ''but He.'' hath an unchangeable priesthood] Rather, "hath his priesthood un- changeable" {sempitermim^ Vulg.) or perhaps "untransmissible;" "a priesthood that doth not pass to another," as it is rendered in the margin of our Revised Version. The rendering " not to be transgressed against," or "inviolate" {intransgressibile, Aug.), is not tenable here. This is the SEVENTH particular of superiority. I think it quite needless to enter into tedious modern controversies as to the particular //w^ of Christ's ministry at which He assumed His priestly office, because I do not think that they so much as entered into the mind of the author. The one thought ^yhich was prominent in his mind was that of Christ passing as our Great High Priest with the offering of His Hnished sacrifice into the Heaven of Heavens. The minor details of Christ's Priestly work are not defined, and those of Melchisedek are passed over in complete Silence. 25. to save ihcni to the uttermost] i.e. " to the consummate end." All the Apostles teach that Christ is "able to keep us from falling and to V. 26.] HEBREWS, VII. 125 God by him,, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. For such a high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, 25 undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the present us faultless before the presence of his glory" (Jude 24 ; Rom. viii. 34; John vi. 37— 39. to save] He saves them in accordance with His name of Jesus, " the Saviour," Bengel. />y Aim] " No man cometh unto the Father but by me." to make intercession] " to appear in the presence of God for us " (Ileb. ix. -24). Philo also speaks of the Logos as a Mediator and Intercessor {Vit. Mos. III. 16). Having thus proved in seven particulars the transcendence of the Melchisedek Priesthood of Christ, as compared with the Levitic Priest- hood, he ends this part of his subject with a weighty summary, into which, with his usual literary skill, he introduces by anticipation the thoughts which he proceeds to develop in the following chapters. 26. For such a high priest became us] The "for" clinches the whole argument with a moral consideration. There was a spiritual fit- ness in this annulment of the imperfect Law and Priesthood, and the in- troduction of a better hope and covenant. So great and so sympathetic and so innocent an High Priest was suited to our necessities. There is much rhetorical beauty in the order of the Greek. He might have written it in the order of the English, but he keeps the word " Priest" by way of emphasis as the last word of the clause, and then substitutes High Priest for it. holy] towards God (Lev, xx. 26, xxi. i; Ps. xvi. 10; Acts ii. 27). He bore " holiness to the Lord " not on a golden mitre-plate, but as the inscription of all His life as "the Holy One of God" (Mk. i. 24). harmless] as regards men. undefiled] Not stained, Is. liii. 9 (and as the word implies unstain- able) with any of the defilements which belonged to the Levitic priests from their confessed sinfulness. Christ was "without sin'' (iv. 15); " without spot" (ix. 14 ; i Pet. i. 19). He "knew no sin" (2 Cor. v. 21)- separate from sinuers] Lit., "Having been separated from sinners." The writer is already beginning to introduce the subject of the Day of Atonement on which he proceeds to speak. To enable the High Priest to perform the functions of that day aright the most scrupulous pre- cautions were taken to obviate the smallest chance of ceremonial pollu- tion (Lev. xxi. 10—15) ; yet even these rigid precautions had at least once in living memory been frustrated — when the High Priest Ishmael ben Phabi had been incapacitated from his duties because in conversing with Hareth (Aretas) Emir of Arabia, a speck of the Emir's saliva had fallen upon the High Priest's beard. But Christ was free not only from ceremonial pollution, but from that far graver moral stain of which the ceremonial was a mere external figure; and had now been exalted above all contact with sin in the Heaven of Heavens (iv. 14). 126 HEBREWS, VII. [vv. 27, 28. 27 heavens ; who needeth not daily, as tJiose high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's : for this he did once, when he offered up himself 33 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity ; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore. vxade higher than the ]ieavens\ Having "ascended up far above ■ all heavens" (Eph. iv. 10). 27. dailyfX A difificulty is suggested by this word, because the High Priest did not offer sacrifices daily, but only once a year on the Day of Atonement. In any case the phrase would be a mere verbal inaccuracy, since the High Priest could be regarded as potentially ministering in tlie daily sacrifices which were offered by the inferior Priests ; or the one yearly sacrifice may be regarded as S2iviming 7ip all the daily sacrifices needed to expiate the High Priest's daily sins (so that "daily" would mean "continually"). It appears however that the High Priest might if he chose take actual part in the daily offerings (Ex. xxix. 38, 44 ; Lev. vi. 19—22; Jos. B. J. v. 5 — 7). It is true that the daily sacrifices and Mincha or "meat offering" had no recorded connexion with any expiatory sacrifices; but an expiatory significance seems to have been attached to the daily offering of incense (Lev. xvi. 12, 13, LXX.; Yoma, f. 44. i). The notion that there is any reference to the Jewish Temple built by Onias at Leontopolis is entirely baseless. Both Philo [De Spec. Legg. § 53) and the Talmud use the very same expression as the writer, who seems to have been perfectly well aware that, normally and strictly, the High Priest only offered sacri- fices on one day in the year (ix. 25, x. i, 3). The stress may be on the necessity. Those priests needed the expiation by sacrifice for daily sins; Christ did not. he did one e'] Rather, "once for all" (ix. 12, 26, 28, x. 10; Rom. vi. 10). Christ offered one sacrifice, once offered, but eternally sufficient. when he offered tip himself'\ The High Priest was also the Victim, viii. 3, ix. 12, 14, 25, x. 10, 12, 14; Eph. v. 2 (Liinemann). 28. men'X i. e. ordinary " human beings." the oath, which 7uas since the laza] Namely, in Ps. ex. 4. consecrated] Rather, '■^ zuho has been perfected.'''' The word "con- secrated " in our A.V. is a reminiscence of Lev. xxi. 10; Ex. xxix. 9. The "perfected " has the same meaning as in ii. 10, v. 9. Ch. VIII. Having compared the two Priesthoods, and shewn the inferiority of the Aaronic priesthood to that of Christ as "a High Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek," the writer now proceeds to contrast the two Covenants. After fixing the attention of his readers on Christ as the High Priest of the True Sanctuary (r — 6) he shews that God, displeased with the diso- bedience of those who were under the Old Covenant, had by the prophet Jeremiah promised a New Covenant (7 — 9) which should vv. I, 2.] HEIiREWS, VIII. 127 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum : 8 We have such a high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens ; a minister of the 2 sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord be superior to the Old in three respects, i. Because the Law of it should be written on the henrl (10). ii. Because it should be universal (n), and iii. because it should be a covenant of for- giveness (12). The decrepitude of the Old Covenant, indicated by its being called "old" is a sign of its approaching and final evanescence (13). 1. of the things which we have spoken this is the suvi] Rather, "the chief point in what we are saying is this." The worti rendered "sum" [kephalaion) may mean, in its classical sense, "chief point," and that must be the meaning here, because these verses are not a summary and they add fresh particulars to what he has been saying. Dr Field renders it "now to crown our present discourse;" Tyndale and Cranmer, "/Vj-//;." is set'X Rather, "sat" — a mark of preeminence (x. 11, 12, xii. 2). of the thi-onel This conception seems to be the origin of the Jewish word Metatron, a sort of Prince of all the Angels, near the throne {meta throfiios). of the Majesty in the ]ieavens'\ A very Alexandrian expression. See note on i. 3. 2. a ?ninister\ From this word leitourgos (derived from Xews, "people," and ^p^ov^ "work") comes our "liturgy." of the sanctuary^ This (and not " of holy things," or " of the saints") is the only tenable rendering of the word in this Epistle. and'\ The "and" does not introduce something ne\y ; it merely furnishes a more definite explanation of the previous word. of the true taberjiacle'l Rather, "of the genuine tabernacle" {ale- thincs not alethoiis). The word alethinos means '"'' genuine,^'' and in this Epistle '•'■ideal,''' ^^ archetypal,'' It is the antithesis not to what is spurious, but to what is material, secondary, and transient. The Alexandrian Jews, as well as the Christian scholars of Alexandria, had adopted from Plato the doctrine of Ideas, which they regarded as divine and eternal archetypes of which material and earthly things were but the imperfect copies. They found their chief support for this intro- duction of Platonic views into the interpretation of the Bible in Ex. xxv. 40, xxvi. 30 (quoted in ver. 5). Accordingly they regarded the Mosaic tabernacle as a mere sketch, copy, or outline of the Divine Idea or Pattern. The Idea is the perfected Reality of its material shadow. They extended this conception much farther : "What if earth Be but the shadow of heaven, and things therein Each to the other like, more than on earth is thought?" The "genuijie tabernacle" is the Heavenly Ideal (ix. 24) shewn to Moses. To interpret it of "the glorified body of Christ " by a mere 128 HEBREWS, VIII. [vv. 3—5. 3 pitched, and not man. For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices : wherefore // is of necessity that 4 this 7nan have somewhat also to offer. For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests 5 that offer gifts according to the law : who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly t/iings, as Moses was ad- verbal comparison of John ii. 19, is to adopt the all-but-universal method of perverting the meaning of Scripture by the artificial elabo- rations and inferential afterthoughts of a scholastic theology. pitched \ Lit. "fixed." and not man] Omit "and." Not a man, as Moses was. Conip. ix. II, 24. 3. is ordained'] Rather, " is appointed." gifts and sacrifices] See note on v. i. that this man] It would be better as in the R. V. to avoid intro- ducing the word " man " which is not in the original, and to say " that this High Priest." have someiohat also to offer] Namely, the Blood of His one sacrifice. The point is one of the extremest importance, and though the writer does not pause to explain what was the sacrifice which Christ offered as High Priest, he purposely introduces the subject here to prepare for his subsequent development of it in ix. 12, x. 5 — 7, 11, 12. Similarly St Paul tells us "Christ... hath given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour" (Eph. v. 2). 4. For if he were] Rather, "now if He Avere still on earth." if he were on earth] His sanctuary fjiust be a heavenly one, for in the earthly one He had no standpoint. he should not be a priest] He would not even be so much as a Priest at all ; still less a High Priest ; for He was of the Tribe of Judah (vii. 14), and the Law had distinctly ordained that "no stranger, which is not of the seed of Aaron, come near to offer incense before the Lord " (Num. xvi. 40). seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the hnu] Rather (omitting "priests" with the best MSS.), since " there are (already) those who offer their gifts according to the Law." The writer could not possibly have used these present tenses if the Epistle had been written after the Fall of Jerusalem. Jewish institutions are, indeed, spoken of in the present tense, after the fall of Jerusalem, by Barnabas and Clement of Rome ; but they are merely using an every- day figure of speech. In case of the Epistle to the Hebrews the argu- ment would have gained such indefinite force and weight in passages like this by appealing to a fact so startling as the annulment of the Mosaic system by God Himself, working by the unmistakeable demon- strations of history, that no writer similarly circumstanced could possibly have passed over such a point in silence. 5. who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things'] Namely, the priests — who arc ministering in that which is nothing but an ^. 6.] HEBREWS, VIII. 1^9 ;;;;;;i^j;^;r^7G^vl^n he was about to make the tabernacle : Sr See saith he, that thou make all things according o the 'pattern shewed to thee in the mount. Bute l>ow hath he obtained a more excellent mmistry, by how ' .i,.,i^w fv T- Col ii. 17) of the heavenly things. The Z^S:^^^^ It -onceWaMe that .he. is a shade ^of r7 Jh\'tllTSe"irUy a%k h^ ?n oumne, a ground pattern ;^"chr'o" xJvUi !■) a's it°wi;e-at the best a representauve .mage-of ^Vw^^'^/.tS' Perhaps rather "of the heavenly sanctuary" '^\:Vo:Lasai.^cniskei.A " E-n as Moses, when about to complete %^^^^ ^X r SelXfu:^. ot di ° VS^Lafons . t;::'X -^%«.-« f :f -'- r .^r;i3 by^^e iSe!^ 0° °[;Tp:^,at-:L;asTX^erfs^^^^^^^ wi.h'^his waking eyes;. -hether the pattn was o^^^^^^ an impression produced "Pon/'^ =™^" ,' . ,v„How of a shadow," &c. thus a copy or only "a ™Py °f f^^Py^^jfiLVwerrworth asking at all Such questions are otiose, because even '' '"^ey ™^ instruction, and no they do not adm t of ^-ny/^^-f^^Y^lirn Jews in their slavish literal result of the smallest value T'^^^^^'^^'^f^"!'' literal counterpart of the way said that there was " H^^^^;^'^^^ 'f ^ery Table, a fiery Candle- Mosaic Tabernacle with a faery ^"I'.-lfnr Moses to see; and that stick," &c., which descended from heaven or Moses ^o^^^ ^,^ ^^^^^^_ Gabriel, in a workman s apron, shewed J^'o^es i^o _ ^^ stick,-;n inference_ which they founded on ^ um^^^^^^^ of the candlestick" (Menachoth, f. -\ Y' „"™°ije simple statement Zlfosl^^Jk^raK^^^^^^ -tth^L^ifL^tr^.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ fortnrt^TrLrui'irtLSTorB'as a shadow of the piritual world. . . 6. Bta nozo] i.e. but, as it is. Rather, " a ministry a more excellent mimstry. ^1^,7,^^^^^^^^^ "method more excellent in proportion as He is also. inis pr p 9 HEBREWS ^ I30 HEBREWS, VIII. [vv. 7, 8. much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should 8 no place have been sought for the second. For finding of stating results runs throughout the Epistle (see i. 4, iii. 3, vii. -22). It might be said with truth that the gist of his argument turns on the word "how much more." He constantly adopts the argumentuni a tninori ad viajiis (vii. 19, 22, ix. 11, 14, 23, x. 29). For his object was to shew the Hebrews that the privileges of Judaism to which they were looking back with such longing eyes were but transitory outlines and quivering shadows of the more blessed, and more eternal privileges which they enjoyed as Christians. Judaism was but a shadow of which Christianity was the substance ; Judaism was but a copy of which Christianity was the permanent Idea, and heavenly Archetype ; it was but a scaffolding within which the genuine Temple had been built ; it was but a chrysalis from which the inward winged life had departed. the 77iediator\ ix. 15, xii. 24; i Tim. ii. 5. upon better pro77iises\ Better, because not physical but spiritual, and not temporal but heavenly and eternal. Bengel notices that the main words in the verse ai-e all Pauline. Rom. ix. 4; i Tim. ii. 5. 7 — 13. Threefold superiority of the New to the Old Covenant, as prophesied by Jeremiah ; being a proof THAT the "promises" OF THE NeW COVENANT ARE "BETTER." 7. if that fi7-st cove}ia7ii had been faultless'] Whereas it was as he has said "weak" and "unprofitable" and "earthly" (vii. 18). The difference between the writer's treatment of the relation between Christianity and Judaism and St Paul's mode of dealing with the same subject consists in this : — to St Paul the contrast between the Law and the Gospel was that between the Letter and the Spirit, between bondage and freedom, between Works and Faith, between Command and Promise, between threatening and mercy. All these polemical elements disappear almost entirely from the Epistle to the Hebrews, which regards the two dispensations as furnishing a contrast between Type and Reality. This was the more possible to Apollos because he regards Judaism not so much in the light of a Law as in the light of a Priesthood and a system of worship. Like those who had been initiated into the ancient mysteries the Christian convert from Judaism could say ^ censer kept in the Tabernacle, but only in the Temple. The incense in the days of the Tabernacle was burnt in a machettah {-Kvpeiov, "brazier," Lev. xvi. 12); nor could the censer have been kept in the Holiest Place, for then the High Priest must have gone in to fetch it before kindling the incense, which would have been contrary to all the symbolism of the ritual. But it is asserted that the writer is in any case mistaken, for that neither the censer nor the "altar of incense" were in the Holiest. But this is not certain as regards the censer. It is possible that some V. 4] HEBREWS, IX. 135 and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's f^olden censer-stand may have stood in the Holiest, on which the High Priest placed the small golden brazier {machettah, LXX./«m(7«), which he carried with him. There is indeed no doubt that the "Altar of In- cense" was tiot in the Holiest Place, but as all authorities combine in telling us, in the Holy Place. But there was a possibility of mistake about the point because in Ex. xxvi. 35 only the table and the lamp- stand are mentioned ; and Ex. xxx. 6 is a little vague. Yet the writer does not say that the altar of incense was in the Holiest. It was im- possible that any yew should have made such a mistake, unless he were, as Delitzsch says, "a monster of ignorance;" and if he had been unaware of the fact otherwise, he would have found from Philo in several places {De Victim Offer. § 4; Qtiis Rer. Div. Haer. § 46) that the Altar (which Philo also calls thtwiiaterion) was outside the Holiest. Josephus also mentions this, and it was universally notorious {B. y. v. 5, § 5). Ac- cordingly, the writer only says that the Holiest ^^had" the Altar of I ncense, in other words that the Altar in some sense belonged to it. And this is rigidly accurate ; for in i Kings vi. 22 the altar is described as "belonging to" the Oracle (lit. "the Altar which was to the Oracle," laddebir), and on the Day of Atonement the curtain was drawn, and the Altar was intimately associated with the High Priest's service in the Holiest Place. Indeed the Altar of Incense (since incense was supposed to have an atoning power, Num. xvi. 47) was itself called ■ " Holy of Holies" (A.V. "most holy," Ex. xxx. lo) and is expressly said (Ex. xxx. 6, xl. 5) to be placed '■^before the mercy-seat." In Is. vi. i — 8 a seraph flies from above the mercy-seat to the Altar. The writer then, though he is not entering into details with pedantic minuteness, has not made any mistake ; nor is there the smallest ground for the idle conjec- ture that he was thinking of the Jewish Temple at Leontopolis. The close connection of the Altar of Incense with the service of the Day of Atonement in the Holiest Place is illustrated by 2 Mace. ii. i — 8, where the Altar is mentioned in connexion with the Ark. the ark of the covenant'] This, as we have seen, applies only to the Tabernacle and to Solomon's Temple. "There was nothing whatever," as Josephus tells us, in the Holiest Place of the Temple after the Exile {B. y. V. 5. § 5). The stone on which the ark had once stood, called by the Rabbis "the stone of the Foundation," alone was visible. overlaid round about with gold] The word "round about" means literally "on all sides," i.e. "within and without" (Ex. xxv. 11). with gold] The diminutive xpyaty here used for gold seems to imply nothing distinctive. Diminutives always tend to displace the simple forms in late dialects. the golden pot that had manna...] The Palestine Targum says that it was an earthen jar, but Jewish tradition asserted that it was of gold. The LXX. inserts the word "golden" in Ex. xvi. 33 and so does Philo. It contained an "omer" of the manna, which was the daily portion for each person. The writer distinctly seems to imply that the Ark 136 HEBREWS, IX. [vv. 5, 6. 5 rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant ; and over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercy seat; of 6 which we cannot now speak particularly. Now when these contained three things — a golden jar [stauinos) containing a specimen of the manna, Aaron's rod that budded, and the Stone Tables of the Deca- logue. Here again it is asserted that he made a mistake. Certainly the Stone Tables were in the Ark, and the whole symbolism of the Ark represented the Cherubim bending in adoration over the blood-sprinkled propitiatory which covered the tables of the broken moral law. But Moses was only bidden to lay up the jar and the rod *■'' befoj-e the Testi- mony,^'' not "/« the Ark f and in i Kings viii. 9; 2 Chron. v. 10 we are somewhat emphatically informed that "there was nothing in the Ark" except these two tables, which we are told (Deut. x. 1, 5) that Moses placed there. All that can be said is that the writer is not thinking of the Temple of Solomon at all, and that there is nothing im- possible in the Jewish tradition here followed, which supposes that "before the Testimony" was interpreted to mean "in the Ark." Rabbis like Levi Ben Gershom and Abarbanel had certainly no desire to vindicate the accuracy of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and yet they say that the pot and the rod were actually at one time in the Ark, though they had been removed from it before the days of Solomon. Aaron^s rod that lmdded\ Num. xvii. 6 — 10. 5. the chertibims'] Rather, " the Cherubim," since im is the Hebrew plural termination. of glory'] Not "the glorious Cherubim" but "the Cherubim of the Shechinah" or cloud of glory. This was regarded as the symbol of God's presence, and was believed to rest between their outspread wings (see I Sam. iv. 22 ; 2 Kings xix. 15 ; Hag. ii. 7 — 9 ; Ecclus. xlix. 8). They were emblems of all that was highest and best in animated nature — the grandest products of creation combined in one living angelic symbol (Ezek. x. 4) — upholding the throne of the Eternal as on "a chariot" and bending in adoring contemplation of the moral law as the revelation of God's will. the inerry-scatl The Greek word ^^ hilaste7'ion" or "propitiatory" is the translation used by the LXX. for the Hebrew Capporeth or "covering." The word probably meant no more than "lid" or "cover;" but the LXX. understood it metaphorically of the covering of sins or expiation, because the blood of the expiatory offering was sprinkled upon it. of which 7ve cannot now speak particularly] Rather, "severally," "in detail." It was no part of the M'riter's immediate purpose to enter upon an explanation of that symbolism of the Tabernacle which has largely occupied the attention of Jewish historians and Talmudists as well as of modern writers. Had he done so he would doubtless have thrown light upon much that is now obscure. But he is pressing on to his point, which is to shew that even the most solemn and magni- ficent act of the whole Jewish ritual — the ceremony of the Day of vv. 7—9.] HEBREWS, IX. 137 things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God. But into ^ the second we7it the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people : the Holy Ghost this signifying, that 3 the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing : which was a 9 Atonement — bears upon its face the signs of complete transitoriness and inefficiency when compared with the work of Christ. 6. JVo7a w/ien these things zvere thus ordained^ Rather, " since then these things have been thus arranged." went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God] Rather, " into the outer tabernacle the priests enter continually in per- formance of their ministrations." Their ordinary ministrations were to offer sacrifice, bum incense, and light the lamps, and in the perform- ance of these they certainly entered the Holy Place twice daily, and apparently might do so as often as they saw fit. 7. But into the second] i.e. "the inner," "the Holiest." There was a graduated sanctity in the Tabernacle and in the Temple. In the Temple any one might go into the Outer Court or Court of the Gentiles; Jews into the Second Court; men only into the Third; priests only in their robes into the Holy Place; and only the High Priest into the inmost shrine (Jos. c. Apion. it. 8). once every year] i.e. only on one day of the whole year, viz. on the tenth day of the seventh month Tisri, the Day of Atonement. In the course of that day he had to enter it at least three, and possibly four times, namely (i) with the incense, (2) with the blood of the bullock offered for his own sins, (3) with the blood of the goat for the sins of the people, and perhaps (4) to remove the censer (Lev. xvi. 12 — 16; Yoma, V. 2). But these entrances were practically one. offered] The present "offers" is here used, as before. for the eri-ors of the people] Lit. "for the ignorances," but the word seems to be used in the LXX. to include sins as well as errors (v. 2, 3; Ex. xxxiv. 7; Lev. xvi. 2, ir, 34; Num. xv. 27 — 31). 8. that the way into the holiest. . seas not yet made maiiifest] Entrance into the Holiest symbolised direct access to God, and the "way" into it had not been made evident until He came who is "the way, the truth, and the life" (John xiv. 6). He is "the new and living way" (x. 19, 20). while as the first tabernacle was yet sta7iding] Rather, "while yet the outer Tabernacle is still standing," i.e, so long as there is (for the Temple, which represented the continuity of the Tabernacle and the Old Covenant, had not sunk in flames, as it did a few years later) an outer Tabernacle, through which not even a Priest was ever allowed to enter into the Holiest. Hence the deep significance of the rending of the veil of the Temple from the top to the bottom at the Crucifixion. (Matt, xxvii. 51). 138 HEBBEWS, IX. [v. 10. figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience ; which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal 9. which was a figure for the time then present'] i.e. And this outer Tabernacle is a parable for the present time. By "the present time" he means the prae-Christian epoch in which the unconverted Jews were still (practically) living. The full inauguration of the New Covenant of which Christ had prophesied as his Second Coming, began with the final annulment of the Old, which was only completed when the Temple fell, and when the observance of the Levitic system thus became (by the manifest interposition of God in history) a thing simply impossible. A Christian was already living in " the Future Aeon" {Olam habba); a Jew who had not embraced the Gospel still belonged to "the present time" {ola/?i hazzeh Kaipbs 6 ivecTTTjKus). The meaning of the verse is that the very existence of an outer Tabernacle ("the Holy Place") emphasized the fact that close access to God (of which the entrance of the High Priest into the Holiest was a symbol) was not permitted under the Old Covenant. in which...'} The true reading is not Kad' ov but Kad^ rjv, so that the "which" refers to the word "parable" or "symbol," *'in accordance v/ith which symbolism of the outer Tabernacle, both gifts and sacrifices are being offered, such as (m^?) are not able, so far as the conscience is concerned, to perfect the worshipper." He says "are offered" and "him that does the service," using the present (not as in the A.V. the past tense), because he is throwing himself into the position of the Jew who still clings to the Old Covenant. The introduction of " a clear conscience " (or moral consciousness) into the question may seem like a new thought, but it is not. The implied argument is this : only the innocent can "ascend the hill of the Lord, and stand in His Holy Place:" the High Priest was regarded as symbolically innocent by virtue of minute precautions against any ceremonial defilement, and because he carried with him the atonement for his own sins and those of the people : he therefore, but he alone, was permitted to approach God by entering the Holiest Place. The worshippers in general were so little regarded as "perfected in conscience" that only the Priests could enter even the outer "Holy" (vii. 18, 19, x. i — 4, 11). 10. which stood only in meats a^id drinks] The "which" of the A.V. refers to the "present time." The Greek is here elliptical, for the verse begins with the words "only upon." The meaning is that the " gifts and sacrifices " consist only in meats and drinks and divers washings — being ordinances of the flesh, imposed (only) till the season of reformation. meats] Ex. xii.; Lev. xi.; Num. vi. drinks] Lev. x. 8, 9; Num. vi. 2, 3; Lev. xi. 34. divers washings] Lev. viii. 6, 12; Ex. xl. 31, 32; Num. xix. and the Levitical law passim. All these things had already been disparaged by Christ as meaning nothing in themselves (Mark vii. i — 15); and vv. II, 12.] HEBREWS, IX. . 139 ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. But Christ being come a high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building, neither by the St Paul had written "Let no man judge you in meat, or in drink... which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ" (Col. ii. 16, 17). and carnal ordinances] This is a wrong reading. The "and" should be omitted, and for dikaiomasi we should read dikaiomata in the accusative case. It stands in apposition to the sentence in general, and to the "gifts and sacrifices" of the last verse; they could not assure the conscience, because they had only to do with meats, «S:c. — being only ordinances of the flesh, i.e. outward, transitory, superficial. imposed on the7)i\ There is no need for the "on them." The verb means "imposed as a burden," "lying as a yoke." Comp. Acts xv. 10, 28; Gal. v. I. until the time of reformatio?i] The season of reformation is that of which Jeremiah prophesied : it is in fact the New Covenant, see viii. 7 — 12. The "yoke of bondage," which consists of a galling and wearisome externalism, was then changed for "an easy yoke and a light burden" (Matt. xi. 29). 11 — 14. Assurance of Conscience, the condition of access TO God, was secured through Christ alone. 11. being cornel "Being come among us." a high priest of good things to come] Another and perhaps better reading is "of the good things that have come " {yevo/m-evuv B, D, not /uLeWovruv). The writer here transfers himself from the Jewish to the Christian standpoint. The "good things" of which the Law was only "the shadow" (x. i) were still future to the Jew, but to the Christian they had already come. dy a greater and moi-e perfect tabernacle] The preposition dia rendered "by" may mean either '''■through^'' — in which case "the greater and better tabernacle" means the outer heavens through which Christ (anthropomorphically speaking) passed (see ver. i\ and iv. 14) ; or '''' by 7neans of'' — in which case "the better tabernacle" is left undefined, and may here mean either the human nature in which for the time "He tabernacled" (x. 20; John i. 14, ii. 19; Col. ii. 9; 2 Cor. V. i), or as in viii. 2, the Ideal Church of the firstborn in heaven (comp. Eph. i. 3). not made with hmids] Because whatever tabernacle is specifically meant it is one which "the Lord pitched, not man." not of this biiildi)ig] The word ktisis may mean either "building " or "creation." If the latter, then the meaning is that the better tabernacle, through which Christ entered, does not belong to the material world. But since ktizo means " to build," ktisis may mean "building," and then the word "this" by a rare idiom means 143 HEBREWS, IX [v. 13. blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal re- 13 demption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth "vulgar," "ordinary' (Field, Otiiim Norvicense, iii. 142); otherwise the clause would be a mere tautology. 12. neither\ "Nor yet." by the blood of goats and calves'] ' ' by means of the blood of goats and calves," (this is the order of the words in the best mss.). It is not meant that the sacrifices of the Old Covenant were tiseless, but only that vk'hen they were regarded as meritorious in the??iselves — apart from the faith, and the grace of God, by which they could be blessed to sincere and humble worshippers — they could neither purge the conscience, nor give access to God. When the Prophets speak of sacrifices with such stern disparagement they are only denouncing the superstition which regarded the mere opus operatiim as sufficient apart from repentance and holiness (Hos. vi. 6; Is. i. 10 — 17, &c.). by his ow}t blood] His own blood was the offering by which He w^as admitted as 07ir High Priest and Eterjial Redeemer into the Holy of Holies of God's immediate presence (xiii. 20; Rev. v. 6). once] " once for all." into the holy place] i.e. into the Holiest, as in Lev. xvi. 3, q. eternal redemption^ i.e. "the forgiveness of sins" (Eph. i. 7), and ransom from sinful lives (i Pet. i. iS, 19) to the service of God (Rev. V. 9). It should always be borne in mind that the Scriptural metaphors of Ransom and Propitiation describe the Atonement by its blessed effects as regards man. All speculation as to its bearing on the counsels of God, all attempts to frame a scholastic scheme out of metaphors only intended to indicate a transcendent mystery, by its restdts for us have led to heresy and error. To ivhom was the ransom paid ? The question is idle, because "ransom" is only a metaphor of our deliver- ance from slavery. For nearly a thousand years the Church was content with the most erroneous, and almost blasphemous notion that the ransom was paid by God to the devil, which led to still more grievous aberrations. Anselm who exploded this error substituted for it another — the hard forensic notion of indispensable satisfaction. Such terms, like those of "substitution," "vicarious punishment," "reconciliation of God to us" (for "of 7cs to God"), have no sanction in Scripture, which only reveals what is necessary for man, and what man can understand, viz. that the love of God in Christ has provided for him a way of escape from ruin, and the forgiveness of sins. havijig obtained., for us] The "for us" is rightly supplied; but the viiddle voice of the verb shews that Christ in His love to us also regarded the redemption as dear to Himself. 13 . if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean] The writer has designedly chosen the two most striking sacrifices and ceremonials of the Levitical Law, namely the calf and the V. 14-] HEBREWS, IX. 141 to the purifying of the flesh : how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered him- self without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? c^oat offered for the sins of people and priest on the Day of Atonement (Lev. xvi.) and "the water of separation," or rather "of impurity," i.e. "to remove impurity'' "as a sin-offering" described in Num. xix. I — 22 (comp. Heb. vii. 26). of a heifer'\ The Jews have the interesting legend that nine such red heifers had been slain between the time of Moses and the destruction of the Temple. theuftcleait] Those that have become ceremonially defiled, especially by having touched a corpse. sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh] i.e. if these things are I adequate to restore a man to ceremonial cleanness which was a type of moral purity. So much efficacy they had; they did make the worshipper ceremonially pure before God : their further and deeper efficacy de- pended on the faith and sincerity with which they were offered, and was derived from the one offering of which they were a type. 14. hozv much mo7'e] Again we have the characteristic word — the key-note as it were — of the Epistle. the blood of Christ] which is typified by "the fountain opened for sin and for uncleanness" (Zech. xiii. i). who through the eternal Spirit] If this be the right rendering the reference must be to the fact that Christ was "quickened by the Spirit" (i Pet. iii. 18); that " God gave not the Spirit by measure unto Him " (Johniii. 34); that "the Spirit of the Lord was upon Him" (Lk. iv. 18); that He "by the Spirit of God" cast out devils (Matt. xii. 28). For this view of the meaning see Pearson on the Creed, Art. iii., and it is represented by the reading "Holy" for Eternal in some cursi\e MSS. and some versions. It may however be rendered "by an Eternal Spirit," namely by His own Spirit — by that burning love which pro- ceeded from His own Spirit — and not by a mere "ordinance of the flesh" (vers. 10). In the Levitic sacrifices involuntary victims bled; but Christ's sacrifice was offered by the will of His own Eternal Spirit. without spot] Christ had that sinless perfection which was dimly foreshadowed by the unblemished victims which could alone be offered under the Levitic law (i Pet. i. 19). fro??i dead works] See vi. i. If sinful works are meant, they are represented as affixing a stain to the conscience ; they pollute as the touching of a dead thing polluted ceremonially under the Old Law (Num. xix. II — 16). But all works are "dead" which are done without love. It is to be observed that the writer— true to the Alexandrian training which instilled an awful reverence respecting Divine things — attempts even less than St Paul to explain the modus operandi. He tells us that the Blood of Christ redeems and purifies us as the old sacrifices could not do. Sacrifices removed ceremonial defilement — they thus "purified the flesh :" but the Blood of Christ perfects and 14 142 HEBREWS, IX. [vv. 15, 16. 15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testa- ment, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal in- 16 heritance. For where a testament is, there must also of purifies the conscience (x. 12) and so admits us into the Presence of God. The ^^how can this be?" belongs to the secret things which God has not revealed ; we only know and believe that so it is. to serve the living God] Not to serve "dead woi-ks" or a mere material tabernacle, or fleshly ordinances, but to serve the Living God who can only be truly served by those who are "alive from the dead" (Rom. vi. 13). 15—28. The indispensableness and efficacy of the death OF Christ. 15. /or this cause"] i. e. on account of the grandeur of His offering. the mediator of the nnu testatnent] Rather, "a mediator of a New Covenant." Moses had been called by Philo "the Mediator" of the Old Covenant, i.e. he who came between God and Israel as the messenger of it. But Christ's intervention — His coming as One who revealed God to man — was accompanied with a sacrifice so infinitely more efficacious that it involved a New Covenant altogether. by means of death] This version renders the passage entirely un- intelligible. The true rendering and explanation seem to be as follows : " And on this account He is a Mediator of a Neiv Covenant, that — since death" [namely the death of sacrificial victims] "occurred for the redemption of the transgi-essions which took place under the first covenant — those who have been called [whether Christians, or faithful believers under the Old Dispensation] may [by virtue of Christ's death, which the death of those victims tj'pified] receive [i.e. actually enjoy the fruition of, vi. 12, 17, x. 36, xi. 13] the promise of the Eternal Inheritance." Volumes of various explanations have been written on this verse, but the explanation given above is very simple. The verse is a sort of reason why Christ's death was necessary. The ultimate, a priori, reason he does not attempt to explain, because it transcends all understanding ; but he merely says that since under the Old Cove- nant death was necessary, and victims had to be slain in order that by their blood men might be purified, and the High Priest might enter the Holiest Place, so, under the New Covenant, a better and more efficacious death was necessary, both to give to those old sacrifices the only real validity which they possessed, and to secure for all of God's elect an eternal heritage. 16. For where a testament is] In these two verses (16, 17), and these only, Diatheke is used in its Greek and Roman sense of " a will," and not in its Hebrew sense of "a covenant." The sudden and momentary change in the significance of the word explains itself, for he has just spoken of an inheritance, and of the necessity for a death. It was there- 143 vv. 17, 18.] HEBREWS, IX. necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is 17 of force after 7?ien are dead : otherwise it is of no strength at all whilst the testator liveth. Whereupon neither the .3 fore quite natural that he should be reminded of the fact that just as the Old Covenant {Diatheke) required the constant infliction of death upon the sacrificed victims, and therefore (by analogy) necessitated the death of Christ under the New, so the word Diatheke in its other sense of _" Will " or "Testament " (which was by this epoch familiar also to the Jews) involved the necessity of death, because a will assigns the inheritance of a man who is dead. This may be called "a mere play on words;" but such a play on words is perfectly admissible in itself; just as we might speak of the "New Testament" (meaning the Book) as "a testament" (meaning "a will") sealed by a Redeemer's blood. An illustration of this kind was peculiarly consonant with the deep mystic significance attached by the Alexandrian thinkers to the sounds and the significa.nce of words. Philo also avails himself of both meaninf^s of Diath?ke {De Norn. Mutat. %6; De Sacr. Abel, 0pp. I. 586. 172). The passing illustration which thus occurs to the writer does not indeed explain or attempt to explain the eternal necessity why Christ must die; he leaves that in all its awful mystery, and merely gives prominence to \\\q fact that the death was necessary, by saying that since under the Old Covenant death was required, so the New Cove- nant was inaugurated by a better death ; and since a Will supposes that some one has died, so this "Will," by which we inherit, involves the necessity that Christ must die. The Old Covenant could not be called " a Will " in any ordinary sense ; but the New Covenant was, by no remote analogy, the Will and Bequest of Christ. there must also of necessity be the death of the testator] Wherever there is a will, the supposition that the maker of the will has died is implied, or legally involved {(pepeadai, constare). 17. after men at-e dead] This rendering expresses the meaning rightly— a will is only valid "in cases of death," "in the case of men who are dead." Ex vi termini, " a testament," is the disposition which a man makes of his affairs with a view to his death. The attempt to confine the word diatheke to the sense of "covenant" which it holds throughout the rest of the Epistle has led to the most strained and im- possible distortion of these words eirl veKpoh in a way which is but too familiar in Scripture commentaries. They have been explained to mean " over dead victims," &c. ; but all such explanations fall to the ground when the special meaning of diatheke m these two verses is recognised. The author thinks it worth while to notice, in passing, that death is the condition of inheritance by testament, just as death is necessary to ratify a covenant (Gen. xv. 7 — 10; Jer. xxxiv. 18). othej-wise it is of no strength at all...] The words are better taken as a question — "Since is there any validity in it at all while the testator is aUve?" This is an appeal to the reader's own judgment. 18. Whereupon] Rather, "Wherefore;" because both "a covenant" ■ and "a testament" involve the idea of death. 144 HEBREWS, IX. [vv. 19—22. 19 first testaine7it was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled 20 both the book, and all the people, saying. This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined 21 unto you. Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the 22 tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. And almost neitherl " not even." %vas dedicated'\ Lit. "has been handselled" or "inaugurated." The word is from the same root as "Encaenia," the name given to the re-dedication of the Temple by the Maccabees (John x. 22. Comp. Deut. XX. 5 ; I Kings viii. 6i; LXX.). The perfect is used by the author, as in so many other instances. 19. and of goats'] This is not specially mentioned, but it maybe supposed that "goats" were among the burnt-offerings mentioned m Ex. xxiv. 5. •water, and scarlet zvool, and hyssop] These again are not mentioned in Ex. xxiv. 6, but are perhaps added from tradition on the analogy of Ex. xii. 22 ; Num. xix. 6 ; and Lev. xiv. 4 — 6. hyssop] the dry stalks of a plant resembling marjoram. both the book] See Ex. xxiv. 6 — 8, where however it is not specially mentioned that the Book was sprinkled. The Jewish tradition was that it lay upon the altar (see Ex. xxiv, 7). The " book " seems to have been the written record of what was uttered to Moses in Ex. xx. 22 to xxiii. 33. This is one of several instances in which the writer shews himself learned in the Jewish \zg^x\^'i{Hagadoth). 20. This is] In the Hebrew "Behold !" Some have supposed that the writer adopted the variation from a reminiscence of our Lord's words — "This is my blood of the new covenant which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Matt. xxvi. 28). But if such a reference or comparison had been at all present to his mind, he would hardly have been likely to pass it over in complete silence. which God hath enjoined unto y on] Rather, "which God commanded with regard to you," i.e. which (covenant) Jehovah commanded me to deliver to you. 21. botJi the tabernacle] This again is not mentioned in the scene to which the writer seems to be referring (Ex. xxiv. 6 — 8), which indeed preceded the building of the Tabernacle. It is nowhere recorded in .Scripture that the Taberjiacle was sprinkled, although it is perhaps zw- plicd that on a later occasion this may have been done (Ex. xl. 9, 10) ; and Josephus, closely following the same Ilagadah as the writer, says that such was the case (Jos. Antt. 111. 8. § 6). all the vessels] This again is not directly mentioned, though we are told that Aaron and his sons, and the altar, were consecrated by such a sprinkling (Lev. viii. 30), and that the "propitiatory" was so sprinkled on the Day of Atonement (Lev. xvi. 14). By these references to unre- vv. 23-25-] HEBREWS, IX. 145 all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. // was therefore neces- 23 sary that the patterns of tJmigs in the heavens should be purified with these ; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ is not entered into 24 the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true ; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us : nor yet that he should offer him- 25 self often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place corded traditions the writer shews that he had been trained in Rabbinic Schools. 22. almost all things'] There were a few exceptions (Ex. xix. 10 ; Lev. V. 1 1 — 13, XV. 5, xvi. 26, &c.) The word (xx^^ov, " almost," is only found in two other passages of the N. T. (Acts xiii. 44, xix. 26). without shedding of blood] This, and not " pouring out of blood " at the foot of the altar (Ex. xxix. 16, &c.), is undoubtedly the true render- ing. Comp. Lev. xvii. 11 ; Lk. xxii. 10. The Rabbis have a proverb, " no expiation except by blood." The writer merely mentions this as a revealedya^^; he does not attempt to construct any theory to account for the necessity. 23. patterns'] Rather, "copies," or outlines — Abbilden (not Ur- bilden), iv. 11, viii. 5. the heavenly things themselves] Not "the New Covenant," or "the Church," or "ourselves as heirs of heaven," but apparently the Ideal Tabernacle in the Heavens, which w-as itself impure before Him to whom ^^the very heavens are not clean.'" If this conception seem remote we must suppose that by the figure called Zetigma the verb "purified" passes into the sense of "handselled," "dedicated." ■with better sacrifices than these] The plural is here only used generi- cally to express a class. He is alluding to the one transcendent sacrifice. 24. For Christ is not entered] " For not into any Material Sanc- tuary did Christ enter— a (mere) imitation of the Ideal, — but into Heaven itself, now to be visibly presented before the face of God for us." The Ideal or genuine Tabernacle is the eternal uncreated Arche- type as contrasted with its antitype (or "imitation") made with hands. The Ideal in the Alexandrian philosophy, so far from being an anti- thesis of the real, meant that which alone is absolutely and eternally real ; it is the antithesis of the material which is but a perishing imitation of the Archetype. The word "to be visibly presented" {efxcpavLadTjuai) is not the same as that used in ver. 26 {we^avepuTai " He hath been manifested,") nor with that used in ver. 28 {6(pdr]a€Tat. "He shall be seen,") though all these are rendered in English by the verb " appear." 25. entereth into the holy place every year] In this entrance of the High Priest once a year, on the Day of Atonement, into the Holiest Place culminated all that was gorgeous and awe-inspiring in the Jewish ritual. The writer thereiore purposely chose it as his point of com- HEBREWS lO 146 HEBREWS, IX. ' [v. 26. 26 every year with blood of others ; for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world : but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away parison between the ministrations of the Two Covenants. For if he could shew that even the ceremonies of this day — called by the Jews '■''the Day" — were a nullity compared with the significance of the Gospel, he was well aware that no other rite would be likely to make a converted Hebrew waver in his faith. The Day of Atonement was called "the Sabbath of Sabbatism" or "perfect Sabbath." It was the one fast-day of the Jewish Calendar. The 70 bullocks offered during the Atonement-week were regarded as a propitiation for all the 70 nations of the world. On that day the very Angels were supposed to tremble. It was the only day on which perfect pardon could be assured to sins which had been repented of. On that day alone Satan had no power to accuse, which is inferred by ^^ Gematria''' from the fact that ^^ the Accuser^'' in Hebrew was numerically equivalent to 364, so that on the 365th day of the year he was forced to be silent. On the seven days before the day of Atonement the High Priest was scrupulously secluded, and was kept awake all the preceding night to avoid the chance of ceremonial defilement. Till the last 40 years before the Fall of Jerusalem it was asserted that the tongue of scarlet cloth tied round the neck of the goat "for Azazel" ("the Scape Goat") used to turn white in token of the Remission of Sins. The function of the High Priest was believed to be attended with much peril, and the people awaited his reappearance with deep anxiety. The awful im- pression made by the services of the day is shewn by the legends which grew up respecting them, and by such passages as Ecclus. 1. 5 — 16, xlv. 6 — 2-2. See an Excursus on this subject in my Early Days of Chris- tianity, II. 549—552. with blood of others^ Namely of the goat and the bullock. See ver. 11. A Rabbinic book says "Abraham was Circumcised on the Day of Atonement ; and on that Day God annually looks on the blood of the Covenant of the Circumcision as atoning for all our iniquities." 26. for then must he often have suffered'^ Since He could not have entered the Sanctuaiy of God's Hohest in the Heavens without some offering of atoning blood. once\ ' ' Once for all. " in the end of the ■world'\ This phrase does not convey the meaning of the Greek which has "at the consummation of the ages" (Matt. xiii. 39, 49, xxiv. 3, xxviii. 20), in other words "when God's full time was come for the revelation of the Gospel" (comp. i. 1 ; i Cor. x. 11). hath he appeared^ Lit., "He has been manifested" — namely, "in the flesh" at the Incarnation (i Tim. iii. 16; i Pet. i. 20, &c.). to put away sift] The word is stronger — " for the annulment of sin." Into this one word is concentrated the infinite superiority of the work of Christ. The High Priest even on the Day of Atonement could ofter no sacrifice which could put away sin (x. 4), but Christ's sacrifice was able to annul sin altogether. vv. 27, 28.] HEBREWS, IX. 147 sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto 27 men once to die, but after this the judgment: so Christ 28 was once offered to bear the sins of many ; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. by the sacrifice of himself'\ The object of which was, as St Peter tells us, "to bring us to God" (i Pet. iii. 18). 27. as\ " Inasmuch as." it is appointed^ Rather, " it is reserved ;" lit., ** it is laid up for." the judgment^ Rather, "a judgment." By this apparently is not meant "a day in the which He will judge the world in righteousness" (Acts xvii. 31), but a judgment which follows immediately after death. 28. was ojice offered^ Christ may also be said as in ver. 14 "to offe7' Himself ;' just as He is said "to be delivered for us" (Rom. iv. 25) and "to deliver up Himself" (Eph, v. 2). to bear the sins'\ The word rendered "to bear" may mean "to carry them with Him on to the Cross," as in i Pet. ii. 24; or as probably in Is. liii. 12 "to take them away.'''' of manyl "Many" is only used as an antithesis to "few." Of course the writer does not mean to contradict the lesson which runs throughout the N.T. that Christ died for all. Once for all One died for all who were " many" (see my Life of St Paul, ii. 216). without siiil Not merely "without (xt^P's)" but "apart from (arcp) sin," i.e. apart from all connexion with it, because He shall have utterly triumphed over, and annulled it (ver. 26); Dan. ix. 24, 25; Is. XXV. 7, 8). The words do not go with "the second time" for at Christ's first coming He appeared ivithout sin indeed, but not " apart from sin," seeing that "He was numbered with the transgressors" (Is. liii. 12) and was "made sin for us" (2 Cor. v. 21). unto salvation'] "It shall be said in that day, Lo, this is our God^; ...we have waited for Him, we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation" (Is. XXV. 9). It is remarkable that the Sacred Writers— unlike the Medieeval painters and moralists— almost invariably avoid the more terrible aspects of the Second Advent. "How shall He appear?" asks St Chrysostom on this passage, "As a Punisher? He did not say this, but the bright side." The parallelism of these verses is Man dies once, and is judged; Christ died once and shall return— he might have said "to be man's judge'' (Acts xvii. 31)— but he does say "He shall return... for salvation." We may sum up some of the contrasts of this previous chapter as follows. The descendants of Aaron were but priests; Christ, like Mel- chisedek, was both Priest and King. They were for a time; He is a Priest for ever. They were but Imks in a long succession, inheritmg from forefathers, transmitting to dependents; He stands alone, without lineage, without successor. They were established by a transitory ordinance, He by an eternal oath. They were sinful, He is sinless. They weak. He all-powertul. Their sacrifices were ineffectual. His 10 — 2 148 HEBREWS, X. [v. i. 10 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make was perfect. Their sacrifices were offered daily, His once for all. Theirs did but cleanse from ceremonial defilement, His purged the conscience. Their tabernacle was but a copy, and their service a shadow; His tabernacle was the Archetype, and His service the sub- stance. They died and passed away; He sits to intercede for us for ever at God's right hand. Their Covenant is doomed to abrogation; His, founded on better promises, is to endure unto the End. 'i^Jieir High Priest could but enter once and that with awful precautions, with the blood of bulls and goats, into a material shrine; He, entering with the blood of His one perfect sacrifice into the Heaven of Heavens, has thrown open to all the right of continual and fearless access to God. What a sin then was it, and what a folly, to look back with apostatising glances at the shadows of a petty Levitism while Christ the Mediator of a New, of a better, of a final Dispensation — Christ whose blood had a real and no mere symbolic efficacy had died once for all, and Alone for all, as the sinless Son of God to obtain for us an eternal redemption, and to return for our salvation as the Everlasting Victor over sin and death ! Ch. X. The first eighteen verses of this chapter are a summary, rich wuth fresh thoughts and illustrations, of the topics on which he has been dwelling ; namely (i) The one sacrifice of Christ com- pared with the many Levitic sacrifices (i — lo). (2) The perfectness of His finished work (11 — 18). The remainder of the chapter is occupied with one of the earnest exhortations (19 — 25) and solemn warnings (25 — 31), followed by fresh appeals and encouragements (32 — 39), by which the writer shews throughout that his object in writing is not speculative or theological, but essentially practical and moral. 1 — 14. The one Sacrifice and the many Sacrifices. 1. of good things to come] Of the good things which Christ had now brought into the world (ix. 11). not the very image of the things] "The Law," says St Ambrose, "had the shadow; the Gospel the image; the Reality itself is in Heaven." By the word image is meant the true historic form. The Gospel was as much closer a resemblance of the Reality as a statue is a closer resemblance than a pencilled outline. can never] This may be the right reading, though the plural " they are never able," is found in some MSS. If this latter be the true reading the sentence begins with an unfinished constniction {anakoluthon). with those sacrifices...] Rather, "with the same sacrifices, year by year, which they offer continuously, make perfect them that draw nigh," i.e. the Priests can never with their sacrifices, which are the same year by year, perfect the worshippers. Some have given a fuller sense to the vv. 2—5.] HEBREWS, X. 149 the comers theretmto perfect. For then would they not 2 have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a. remembrance again made 3 of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood 4 of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Wherefores words " the same," as though it meant that even the sacrifices of the Day of Atonement cannot make any one perfect, being as they are, after all, the same sacrifices in their inmost nature as those which are offered every morning and evening. 2. once piirged'\ having been cleansed, by these sacrifices, once for all. conscience'] Rather, "consciousness." 3. t/iere is a remembrance again made of sins'] This view of sacrifices — that they are "a calling to mind of sins yearly" — is very remarkable. It seems to be derived from Num. v. 15, where "the offering of jealousy" is called "an offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance.'''' Philo also speaks of sacrifices as providing "not an oblivion of sins, but a reminding oi them." De plant. N'oe, § 25. De Vit. Mos. in. § 10 (0pp. i. 345, 11. 246). But if the sacrifices thus called sins to remembrance, they also daily symbolised the means of their removal, so that when offered obediently with repentance and faith they became valid symbols. 4. it is not possible...] This plain statement of the nullity of sacri- fices in thetfiselves, and regarded as mere outward acts, only expresses what had been deeply felt by many a worshipper under the Old Covenant. It should be compared with the weighty utterances on this subject in the O.T., I Sam. xv. 22 ; Is. i. 11 — 17 ; Jer. vi. 20, vii. 21 — 23 ; Amos v. 21 — 24 ; Mic. vi. 6 — 8 ; Ps. xl. 6 — 8 (quoted in the next verses), and Pss. 1. and li. ; and above all Hos. vi. 6, which, being a pregnant summary of the principle involved, was a frequent quotation of our Lord. Any value which the system of sacrifices possessed was not theirs intrinsically {proprid virtnte) but relatively and typically [fer accidens). "By a rudely sensuous means," says Liinemann, "we can- not attain to a high spiritual good." Philo in one of his finest passages shews how deeply he had realised that sacrifices were value- less apart from holiness, and that no mere external acts can cleanse the soul from moral guilt. He adds that God accepts the innocent even when they offer no sacrifices, and delights in unkindled altars if the virtues dance around them [De plant. Noe). The heathen had learnt the same high truths. Horace {^Od. III. 23) sings, "Immunis aram si tetigit manus Non sumptuosa blandior hostia Mollivit aversos Penates Farre pio et saliente mica." ISO HEBREWS, X. [vv. 6. 7. when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou pre- 6 pared me: in burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin 7 thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of 5. ivhen he cometh into the ivorld, he saith'] The quotation is from Ps. xl. 6 — 8. The words of the Psalmist are ideally and typologically transferred to the Son, in accordance with the universal conception of the O.T. Messianism which was prevalent among the Jews. It made no difference to their point of view that soj?ie parts of the Psalm (e.g. in ver. 12) could only have a primary and contemporary significance. The "coming into the world" is here regarded as having been long pre- determined in the divine counsels ; it is regarded, as Delitzsch says, " not as a point but as a line." Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not] "Thou carest not for slain beast or bloodless oblation." This is in accordance with the many magnificent declarations which in the midst of legal externalism de- clared its nullity except as a means to better things (Is. i. 1 1 ; Jer. vi. 20 ; Hos. vi. 6 ; Amos v. 21 ; i Sam. xv. 22, «S:c. but a body hast thou prepared me] This is the rendering of the LXX. In the Hebrew it is " But ears hast thou digged for me." The text of the Hebrew does not admit of easy alteration, so that either (i) the reading of the Greek text in the LXX. must be a clerical error, e.g. KATHPTI2ASQMA for KATHPTISASfiTIA, or (2) the LXX. render- ing must be a sort of Targum or explanation. They regarded " a body didst Thou prepare" as equivalent to " Ears didst thou dig." The ex- planation is usually found in the Hebrew custom of boring a slave's ear if he preferred to remain in servitude (Ex. xxi. 6 ; Deut. xv. 17), so that the "bored ear" was a symbol of willing obedience. But the Hebrew verb means "to dig" rather than "to bore," and the true explana- tion seems to be "thou hast caused me to hear and obey." So in Is. xlviii. 8 we have "thine ear was not opened," and in 1. 5, " God hath opened my ear and I was not rebellious." Thus in the two first clauses of each parallelism in the four lines we have the sacrifices which God does not desire ; and in the second clause the obedience for which He does care. "The prepared body" is "the form of a servant," which Christ took upon Him in order to " open His ears" to the voice of God (Phil. ii. 7). See Rev. xviii. 13, where "bodies" means "slaves." St Paul says, " Ye are become dead to the law by the body of Christ" (Rom. vii. 4). 6. bur)it offerings] Lit., " Plolocausts." The word occurs here alone in the N.T. These "whole burnt offerings" typified absolute self-dedication ; but the holocaust without the j-<^//"-sacrifice was valueless. 7. Z, there is no more offering for sin. oftentimes] "Day by day for a continual burnt-offering" (Num. xxviii. 3; comp. vii. if). take away sins\ The word is not the same verb [aphairein) as in ver. 4, but a much stronger one {perielein) which means "at once to strip away," as though sin were some close-titting robe (see xii. i). 12. on the right hand of God'] viii. i, i. 13. 13. his footstool] Ps. ex. 1 ; i Cor. xv. 25. 14. he hath pefected] vii. 11, 25. ihcm that are sanctified] "those who are in the way of sanctification" (ii. II ; comp. Acts ii. 47). 15. Whereof] Rather, "But." the Holy Ghost] For "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Pet. i. 21). for after that he had said] There is no direct completion of this sen- tence, but the words "again He saith" are found in some editions before ver. 17, They have no manuscript authority, but were added by Dr Paris (from the Philoxenian Syriac) in the margin of the Cambridge Bible of 1762. 16. This is the covenant] Jer. xxxi. 33, 34 (comp. viii. 10 — 12). 17. will I reyncmher no more] This oblivion of sin is illustrated by many strong metaphors in Is. xliv. 22, xxxviii. 17; Jer. 1. 20; Ps. ciii. 12; Mic. vii, 19, &c. 18. there is no more offering for siii] Since the object of all sacrifices is the purging of the soul from guilt, sacrifices are no longer needed when sins have been annulled (ix. 26). Those words form the triumphant close of the argument. To revert to Judaism, to offer sacrifices, meant henceforth faithlessness as regards Christ's finished work. And if sacrifices were henceforth abolished there was obviously an end of the Aaronic Priesthood, and therewith of the whole Old Covenant. The shadow had now been superseded by the substance, the sketch by the reality. And thus the writer has at last made good his opening words, that " at this end of the days God had revealed Himself to us by His Son," and that the New Covenant thus revealed was superior to the vv. 19-23.1 HEBREWS, X. 153 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the 19 hoUest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, 20 which he hath consecrated for us, through the vail, that is to say, his flesh ; and havijig a high priest over the house 21 of God ; let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance 22 of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast 23 First, alike in its Agent (vii. i — 25), its Priesthood (vii, 25 — ix. 12), its Tabernacle, and its sacrificial ordinances (ix. 13— x. i8). 19—25. An exhortation to Christian confidence and Fel- lowship. 19. brethren^ iii. i, 12, xiii. 22. boldness to enter hito the holiest by the blood of yesus\ Rather, "con- fidence in the blood of Jesus, for our entrance into the Holiest." This right of joyful confidence in our access to God through Christ is dwelt upon in Eph. ii. 18, iii. 12. 20. by a nrdj and living way>\ The word rendered "new" is not kainos as elsewhere in this Epistle, but prosphatos, which means origin- ally '"'■ newly-slain.'''^ It may be doubted however whether the writer intended the oxymoron ''*' newly -slain yet living.^'' That the road was "new" has already been shewn in ix. 8 — 12. It is called "living" not as "life-giving" or "enduring," but because "the Lord of life" is Him- self the way (John xiv. 6; comp. Eph. iii. 12). which he hath consecrated\ The verb is the same as in ix. 18, "which He inaugurated for us." through the vail, that is to say, his flesJi] There is here a passing comparison of Christ's human body to the Parocheth or Veil (vi. 19, ix. 3) through which the High Priest passed into the Holiest, and which was rent at the crucifixion (Matt, xxvii. 51). It was through His Suffering Humanity that He passed to His gloiy. 21. a high priesiX Lit. "a great Priest" (as in Lev. xxi. 10), here meaning a Kingly Priest (Zech. vi. 11 — 13). over the house of God] See iii. 6; i Tim. iii. 15. 22. Let us draw near] We have seen throughout that the notion of free access and approach to God is prominent in the writer's mind. in full assurance of faith] See vi. 11. having our hearts sprinkled front an evil conscience] That is, having our souls — our inmost consciousness — sprinkled as it were with the blood of Christ (ix. 14, xii. 24, i Pet. i. 2) and so cleansed from the consciousness of guilt. So the Jewish priests were purified from cere- monial defilement by being sprinkled with blood (Ex. xxix. 21; Lev. viii. 30). and our bodies washed] The perfect participles in these clauses — ^'' having been sprinkled,''^ ^'having been washed'" — imply that it is to be done once and for ever. All Christians are priests to God (Rev. i. 5, 6) ; and therefore Christian Priests, before being permitted to approach to 154 HEBREWS, X. [w. 24, 25. the profession of our hope without wavering; (for he is 24 faithful that promised ;) and let us consider one an'other 25 to provoke unto love and to good works : not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is ; but exhorting one another : and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. God, must, like the Jewish Priests (Ex. xxx. 20), be sprijikled with the blood of Christ, and bathed in the water of baptism (Eph. v. 26; Tit. iii. 5; I Pet. iii. 21). with pure zuater] "I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean" (Ezek. xxxvi. 25). 23. the profession of our hope\ Rather, "the confession of our Hope." Here we have the same trilogy of Christian graces as in St Paul — Faith (ver. 22), Hope (ver. 23), and Love (ver. 24). ivithout wave7-ing] "So that it do not bend." It must be not only "secure" (iii. 6, 14), but not even liable to be shaken. for he is faithful that promised^ vi. 13, xi. 11, xii. 26. The writer felt the necessity of insisting upon this point, because the sufferings of the Hebrew converts, and the long delay (as it seemed to them) of Christ's return, had shaken their constancy. 24. to provoke unto love'] "For provocation to love." The word paroxusmos (whence our "paroxysm") is more generally used in a bad sense, like the English word "provocation" (see Acts xv. 39; Deut. xxix. 28; LXX.). And perhaps the writer here chose the word to remind them that the "provocation" at present prevailing among them was to hatred not to love. 25. the assevibling of ourselves together] i.e. " our Christian gather- ings. " Apparently the flagging zeal and waning faith of the Hebrews had led some of them to neglect the Christian assemblies for worship and Holy Communion (Acts ii. 42). The word here used {episuna- goge) only occurs in 2 Thess. ii. i, and is perhaps chosen to avoid the Jewish word "synagogue;" and the more so because the duty of attending " the synagogue" was insisted on by Jewish teachers. In the neglect of public worship the writer saw the dangerous germ of apos- tasy. as the manner of some is] This neglect of attending the Christian gatherings may have been due in some cases to fear of the Jews. It shewed a fatal tendency to waver in the direction of apostasy. exhorting one another] This implies the duty of mutual encou7'age- ment. ye see the day approaching] The Day which Christians expected was the Last Day (i Cor. iii. 13). They failed to see that the Day which our Lord had prijnai'ily in view in His great eschatological discourse (Matt, xxiv.) was the Close of the Old Dispensation in the Fall of Jeru- salem. The signs of this were already in the air, and that approaching Day of the Lord was destined to be "the bloody and fiery dawn" of the Last Great Day — " the Day of days, the Ending-day of all days, the vv. 26— 28.] HEBREWS, X. 155 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the 26 knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and 27 fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He 28 Settling-day of all days, the Day of the promotion of Time into Eter- nity, the Day which for the Church breaks through and breaks off the- night of this present world " (Delitzsch). \ 26 — 31. A SOLEMN Warning of the Peril of Wilful Apostasy. 26. For if tve sin xvilfull}>\ The word "wilfully" stands in contrast with sins of weakness, ignorance and error in v. 1. If the writer meant to say that, after the commission of wilful and heinous sins, " there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins," this would not only be the most terrible passage in Scripture, but would do away with the very object of Redemption, and the possibility of any Forgiveness of Sins. It would, as Kurz says, "be in its consequences truly subversive and destructive of the whole Christian soteriology." But the meaning rather is '■'■ If we are ■willi7ig sinners,'^ " if we are in a state of delibe- rate and voluntary defiance to the will of God." He is alluding not only to those sins which the Jews described as being committed pre- sumptuously "with uplifted hand" (Num. xv. 30; Ps. xix. 13; see vi. 4 — 8, xii. 16, 17), but to the deliberate continuity of such sins as a self -chosen law of life ; as for instance when a man has closed against ' himself the door of repentance and said "Evil be thou my good." Such a state is glanced at in 2 Pet. ii. 20, 21 ; Matt. xii. 43 — 45. after that we have received the knozuledge of the truth'] Rather, "the full knowledge of the truth." Something more is meant than mere historical knowledge. He is contemplating Christians who have made some real advance, and then have relapsed into "desperation or the wretchlessness of unclean living." there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins] Lit., "no sacrifice for sins is any longer left for them." They have rejected the work of Christ, and it cannot be done for them over again. There is one atoning sacrifice and that they have repudiated. He does not say that they have exhausted the infinite mercy of God, nor can we justly assert that he held such a conclusion ; he only says that they have, so long as they continue in such a state, put themselves out of God's covenant, and that there are no other covenanted means of grace. For they have trampled under foot the offer of mercy in Christ and there is no salva- tion in any other (Acts iv. 12). 27. htit a certain fearful looking for of judgment. . .] All that is left for willing apostates when they have turned their backs on the sole means of grace is "some fearful expectance of a judgment." They are "heaping up to themselves wrath against the day of wrath" (Rom. ii. 5). and fiery indignation] ]L,it., "and a jealousy of fire." lie is think- ing of God "as a consummg fire" (xii. 29) and of the question "Shall thy jealousy burn like fire?" Ps, Ixxix. 5 (comp. Ezek. xxxv. 5). 156 HEBREWS, X. [v. 29. that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or 29 three witnesses : of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the which shall devotir the adversaries] "Yea let fire devour thine enemies" (Is. xxvi. 11). It has so long been the custom to interpret such passages of " eternal torments" that we lose sight of the fact that such a meaning, if we may interpret Scripture historically, was in most cases not consciously present to the mind of the writers. The constant repetition of the same metaphor by the Prophets with no reference except to temporal calamities and the overthrow of cities and nations made it familiar in this sense to the N.T. writers. By "the adver- saries" here are not meant "sinners," but impenitent Jews and wilful apostates who would perish in the Day of the Lord (-2 Thess. i. 8). It is at least doubtful whether the writer meant to imply anything beyond that prophecy of doom to the heirs of the Old Covenant which was ful- filled a few years later v/hen the fire of God's wrath consumed the whole system of a Judaism which had rejected its own Messiah. The word for "adversaries" only occurs in the N.T. in Col. ii. 14. 28. He that despised Moses" law] Especially by being guilty of the sin of idolatry (Deut. xvii. 2 — 7). Literally, it is '^ atiy one, on setting at nought Moses' law." died] Lit., " dies." Here is another of the favourite Jewish exegeti- cal arguments a niinori ad majics. without viei-cy] The Mosaic law pronounced on offenders an inexorable doom. "The letter killeth " (2 Cor. iii. 6). under ttuo or three wittiesses] i.e. by the testimony of at least two (John viii. 17; 2 Cor. xiii. 1). 29. of how much sorer punishirient] The word for "punishment" in the N.T. is in every other passage kolasis, which means, in accord- ance with its definition, and in much of its demonstrable usage, ''reme- dial punishment." Here the word (though the difference is not ob- served by our A.V. which has created so many needless variations, and obliterated so many necessary distinctions) is timoria which means "vengeance" or "retribution." It need hardly be said that '■'• vindic- tive punishment" can only be attributed to God by the figure of speech known as anthropopathy, i.e. the representation of God by metaphoi'S drawn from human passions. It is also obvious that we misuse Scrip- ture when we press casual words to ^nlimited inferences. "Venge- ance" is here used because (i) the author is alluding to defiant and impenitent apostates, in language derived from the earthly analogies, and (2) because he is referring to the temporal ruin and overthrow of the Jewish polity at the fast-approaching Day of Christ's Coming. The passage which he proceeds to quote (Deut. xxxii. 35) refers directly to national and temporal punishments. The verb "to avenge" is only used twice in the N.T. (Acts xxii. 5, xxvi. 11)— both times of the per- secution of Christians by Saul. trodden under foot the Son of God] The writer could hardly use vv. 30, 31.] HEBREWS, X. 157 covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace ? For we know 3° him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. // is a fearful tJwig to fall into 31 stronger language to imply the extremity of wilful rebellion which he has in view. It scarcely applies to any except blaspheming infidels and to those Jews who have turned the very name of Jesus in Hebrew into an anagram of malediction, and in the Talmud rarely allude to Him except in words of scorn and execration. the blood of the covenani'\ He uses the same phrase in xiii, 10. an unholy thing'] Lit., "a common thing," i.e. either "unclean" or "valueless." Clearly such conduct as this must be the nearest approach we can conceive to "the sin against the Holy Ghost," "the unpardon- able sin," "the sin unto death," for which no remedy is provided in any earthly means of grace (Matt. xii. 31 ; i John v. 16). done despite unto'] Lit., "insulted;" e.g. "by blasphemy against the Holy Ghost" (Matt. xii. 31, 32). It is possible to grieve utterly that Holy Spirit (Eph, iv. 30) and so to become "reprobate." The apostates whose case is here imagined despise alike the Father (v. 5), the Son, and the Holy Spirit (vi. 4—6). They reject the very promises of their baptismal profession and abnegate the whole economy of grace. The verb for "to do despite" occurs here only in the N.T. 30. Veftgeance belongeth tinto me] The Scripture warrant adduced in support of this stern language is Deut. xxxii. 35, and a similar phrase ("O God, to whom vengeance belongeth") is used in Ps. xciv. I, 2. It is remarkable that the citation does not agree either with the Hebrew or the LXX., but is quoted in the same form as in Rom. xii. 19, where however the application is quite different, for it is there used as an argument against avenging our own wrongs. The writer of this Epistle, as a friend of St Paul and one who was of his school, may have been familiar with this form of the quotation, or may have read it in the Epistle to the Romans, with which he seems to have been familiar (comp. xiii, i — 6 with Rom. xii. i— 21); and indeed there are traces that the quotation in this form was known in the Jewish schools. Perhaps it had become proverbial. saith the Lord] The words are omitted in X, D, and most ancient versions, and may have been added from Rom. xii. 19. And again] Deut. xxxii. 36. The Lord shall judge his people] In the original passage the "judg- ment" consists in saving His people from their enemies, as also in Ps. cxxxv. 14. 31. // is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God] Fearful for the deliberate apostate and even for the penitent sinner (i Chron. xxi. 13; 1 Sam. xxiv. 14; LXX. Ecclus. ii. 18), and yet better in any case than to fall into the hands of man. of the living God] iii. \^. ISB HEBREWS, X. [w. 32— 34. 32 the hands of the living God. But call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were illuminated, ye endured 33 a great fight of afflictions ; partly, whilst ye were made a gazingstock both by reproaches and afflictions; and partly, whilst ye became companions of them that were 34 so used. For ye had compassion of 77ie in my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in your- 32—39. Words of appeal and encouragement. 32. Bzit call to remefribi'ance the former days] Rather, "keep in re- membrance." Here, as in vi. 9 — 12, he mingles appeal and encourage- ment with the sternest warnings. The "former days" are those in which they were in the first glow of their conversion. after ye were illiwiinatedl The Vfoxd photizein "to enlighten" only became a synonym for ' to baptise' at a later period. Naturally however in the early converts baptism was synchronous with the reception of the gifts of the Holy Spirit (see vi. 4). For the metaphor — that "God hath shined in our hearts" — see 2 Cor. iv. 6; i Pet. ii. 9. ye endured a great Jight of aflictions] Rather, "much wrestling of sufferings." These were doubtless due to the uncompromising hostility of the Jewish community (see i Thess. ii. 14 — 16), which generally led to persecutions from the Gentiles also. To the early Christians it was given "not only to believe on Christ, but also to suffer for His sake" (Phil. i. 29). 33. ye wej-e made a gazingstock] Lit. "being set upon a stage" [theatrizomenoi). The same metaphor is used in i Cor. iv. 9 ("We be- came a theatre,'''' comp. i Cor. xv. 32). companions] Rather, "partakers." that were so used] "Who lived in this condition of things." 34. ye had compassion of me in my bonds] This reading had more to do than anything else with the common assumption that this Epistle was written by St Paul. The true reading however undoubtedly is not TOis Seo-MOis /xoy, but ro'i'i deafi'LOis, "ye sympathised with the prisoners." The reading of our text was probably introduced from Col. iv. 18; Phil. i. 7, &c. In the first persecutions many confessors were thrown into prison (Acts xxvi. 10), and from the earliest days Christians were famed for their kindness to their brethren who were thus confined. See too xiii. 3. The verb cvfnrad€u occurs only here and in iv. 15. St Paul uses crvfiirda-x^i-i' "to suffer with" in Rom. viii. 17. took /oy fully the spoiling of your goods] Christians were liable to be thus plundered by lawless mobs. Epictetus, by whose time Stoicism had become unconsciously impregnated with Christian feeling, says, "I became poor at thy will, yea and gladly." On the supposition that the letter was addressed to Rome, "the spoiling of goods" has been referred to the edict of Claudius which expelled the Jews (and with them the Christian Jews) from Rome; or to the Neronian persecution. But the supposition is improbable. vv. 35— 3S.] HEBREWS, X. 159 selves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance. Cast not away therefore your confidence, which 35 hath great recompence of reward. For ye have need of 36 patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise. For yet a little while, and he that 37 shall come will come, and will not tarry. Now 38 the just shall live by faith: but if a7iy 7?ian draw knoiving in yourselves that ye have in heaveit] The "in heaven" is almost certainly a spurious gloss, and the "in" before "yourselves" should be unquestionably omitted. If the true reading be eavrots, the meaning is "recognising that ye hzxe for yoto-selves,'' but if we may accept eavTovs, the reading of N, we have the very beautiful and striking thought, "recognising that ye have yourselves as a better possession and an abiding." He points them to the tranquil self-possession of a holy heart (Lk. ix. 25, xxi. 19), the acquisition of our own souls, as a suffi- cient present consolation for the loss of earthly goods (Heb. xi. 26), in- dependently of the illimitable future hope (Matt. vi. 20; Rom. viii. 18; I Pet. i. 4—8). 35. yoiir coJifidence'\ iii. 6, iv. 16. which hath'\ The Greek relative implies "seeing that it has" {qiiippe quae). recompence of re7vard'] The compound misthapodosia as before for the simple viisthos (ii. 2, xi. 26; comp. xi. 6). 36. of patience^ Few graces were more needed in the terrible trials of that day (vi. 12 ; Lk. xxi. 19 ; Col. i. 11 ; Jas. i. 3, 4). after ye have done\ The meaning perhaps rather is "by doing," or "by having done the will of God ye may win the fruition of the promise." The apparently contradictory expressions, about "receiving" and "not receiving" the promise or the promises, arise in part from the fact that "promise" is used both for the z/^r^a/ promise, and for its actual fulfil- ment {ix. 15, xi. 39). 37. yet a little while'] The original has a very emphatic phrase {lj.i.Kpbv oaov oaov) to imply the nearness of Christ's return, "yet but a very very little while." The phrase occurs in the LXX. in Is. xxvi. 20. The quotations in this and the next verse are adapted from Hab. ii. 3, 4. In the original it is "the vision" which will not tarry, but the writer quotes from the LXX., only inserting the definite article before ipxafievos, and applying it to the Messiah. "The coming one" was a IVIessianic title (Matt. xi. 3; Lk. vii. 19; comp. Dan. vii. 13, &c.). In Matt, xxiv. 34 our Lord has said, " This generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled;" and by the time that this Epistle was written few still survived of the generation which had seen our Lord. Hence, Christians felt sure that Christ's coming was very near, though it is probable that they did not realise that it would consist in the close of the Old Dispensation, and not as yet in the End of the World. 38. A^ow the just shall live by faith] The true reading here (though not in the Hebrew) perhaps is, "But my righteous one shall live by faith" i6o HEBREWS, X. [v. 39. 39 back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition ; but of thejn that beheve to the saving of the soul. (as in N, A, K), and this is all the more probable because the "my" is omitted by St Paul, and therefore might be omitted here by the copyists. In D, as in some Mss. of the LXX., "my" is found after "faith." In the original Hebrew the passage seems to mean "But the righteous shall live by his fidelity." On the deeper meaning read into the verse by St Paul see my Life of St Paid, I. 369. The Rabbis said that Habakkuk had compressed into this one rule the 365 negative and 248 positive precepts of the Law. bui if any man draw back] The introduction of the words " any man'''' by the A.V. is wholly unwarrantable, and at first sight looks as if it were due to dogmatic bias and a desire to insinuate the Calvinistic doctrine of the "indefectibility of grace." But throughout this Epistle there is not a word which countenances the dogma of "final perse- verance." The true rendering is "And 'if he dfaw back My soul ap- proveth him not;'" i.e. "if my just man draw back" (comp. Ezek. xviii. 24, "when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness)." The verb implies that shrinking from a course once begun which is used of St Peter in Gal. ii. 12. It means, primarily, "to strike or shorten sail," and then to withdraw or hold back (comp. Acts xx. 20, 27). This quotation follows the LXX. in here diverging very widely from the Hebrew of Hab. ii. 4, which hns "Behold his (the Chaldean's) soul in him is puffed up, it is not humble (lit. ^ lever); but the righteous shall live by his faithfulness." All that we have seen of previous quotations shews us how free was the use made, by way of illusLration, of Scripture language. Practically the writer here applies the language of the old Prophet, not 'n its primary sense, but to express his own conceptions (Calvin). On the possible defection of "the righteous" see Article xvi. of our Church. 39. But Tve are not of them who draw bach] More tersely in the ' original, " But we are not of defection unto perdition, but of faith unto gaining of the soul." "Faith," says Delitzsch, "saves the soul by linking it to God... The unbelieving man loses his soul; for not being God's neither is he his own.''^ He does r\.ot possess himself. The word for "gaining" is found also in Eph. i. 14. In these words the writer shews that in his awful warnings against apostasy he is only putting a hypothetical case. "His readers," he says, "though some of them may have gone towards the verge, have not yet passed over the fatal line." The word Faith is here introduced with the writer's usual skill to prepare for the next great section of the Epistle. Ch. XI. The Heroes of Faith. The main task of the writer has now been performed, but the re- mainder of the Epistle had also a very important purpose. It would have been fatal to the peace of mind of a Jewish convert to feel that there was a chasm between his Christian faith and the faith of his past vv. 1, 2.] HEBREWS, XI. i6i Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the 11 evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained 2 life. The writer wishes to shew that there is no painful discontinuity in the religious convictions of Hebrew converts. They could still enjoy the viaticum of good examples set forth in their O.T. Scriptures. Their faith was identical with, though transcendently more blessed than, thatr ■ which had sustained the Patriarchs, Prophets, and Martyrs of their nation in all previous ages. The past history of the Chosen People was not discarded or discredited by the Gospel ; it was, on the contrary, com- pleted and glorified. 1. Nozvfait/i] Since he has said " we are of faith to gaining of the soul," the question might naturally arise, What then is faith? It is no- where defined in Scripture, nor is it defined here, for the writer rather describes it in its effects than in its essence ; but it is described by what it does. The chapter which illustrates "faith" is full of works; and this alone should shew how idle is any contrast or antithesis between the two. Here however the word "faith" means only "the belief which leads to faithfulness"— the hope which, apart from sight, holds the ideal to be the most real, and acts accordingly. the substance of things hoped for'] The word ''hypostasis,'' here rendered "substance," as in i. 3, may mean (i) that underlying es- sence which gives reality to a thing. Faith gives a subjective reality to the aspirations of hope. But it may be used (2) in an ordinary and not a metaphysical sense for " basis," foundation ; or (3) for ''confidence,'' as in iii. 14 (comp. 1 Cor. ix. 4, xi. 17) : and this seems to be the most probable meaning of the word here. St Jerome speaks of the passage as breathing somewhat of Philo (" Philoneum aliquid spirans "), who speaks of faith in a very similar way. ^^ the evidence of things not seen] The word rendered "evidence' means "demonstration," or "test." not seen] i. e. which are as yet invisible, because they are eternal and not temporal (2 Cor. iv. 18, v. 7). God Himself belongs to the things as yet unseen ; but Faith— in this sense of the word, which is not the dis- tinctively Pauline sense (Gal. ii. 16, iii. 26; Rom. iii. 25)— demonstrates the existence of the immaterial as though it were actual. The object of faith from the dawn of man's life had been Christ, who, even at the Fall, had been foretold as "the seed of the woman who should break the serpent's head." The difference between the Two Covenants was that in the New He was fully set forth as the effulgence of the Father's glory, whereas in the Old He had been but dimly indicated by shadows and symbols. Bishop Wordsworth quotes the sonnet of the poet Wordsworth on these lines : " For what contend the wise ? for nothing less Than that the Soul, freed from the bonds of sense, And to her God restored by evidence Of things not seen, drawn forth from their recess, Root there— and not in forms— her holiness." HEBREWS I I i62 HEBREWS, XI. [w. 3, 4. 3 a good report. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. 4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice 2. For by it the elders obtamed a good report'^ Lit., "For therein the elders had witness borne to them." Their "good report" was won in the sphere of faith. The elders — a technical Jewish term [Zeketihfi) — means the ancient fathers of the Church of Israel (i. i). 3. Through faith^ In this chapter we find fifteen special instances of the work of faith, besides the summary enumeration in the 32nd and following verses. "ive understand^ *we apprehend with the reason'. See Rom. i. 10. that the worlds were framed^ The word for " worlds " means liter- ally ages (i. 2), i. e. the world regarded from the standpoint of h uman history . The "time-world" necessarily presumes the existence of the space-world also. See i. 1. were framed^ "have been established" (xiii. 21; Ps. Ixxiv. 16; LXX.). by the word of God'\ Rather, "by the utterance {rhemati) of God," namely by His fiat, as in Gen. i. ; Ps. xxxiii. 6, 9 ; 2 Pet. iii. 5. There is no question here as to the creation of the world by the Logos, for he purposely alters the word Xo7y used by the LXX. in Ps. xxxiii. into rhemati. so that things which are seen...} The true reading and literal trans- lation are "so that not from things which appear hath that which is seen come into being," a somewhat harsh way of expressing that " the visible world did not derive its existence from anything phenomenal." In other words, the clause denies the pre-existence of matter. It says that the world was made out of nothing, not out of the primeval chaos. So in 2 Mace. vii. 28 the mother begs her son " to look upon the heaven and earth and all that is therein, and consider that God made them out 0/ things that are not'''' (e^ ovk ovtwv). If this view be correct, the writer would seem purposely to avoid Philo's way of saying that the world was made out of ra. /x?} ovra, "things conceived as non-existent," by which he meant the "formless matter" (as in Wisd. xi. 17). He says that the world did not originate from anything phenomenal. This verse, so far from being superfluous, or incongruous with what follows, strikes the keynote of faith by shewing that its first object must be a Divine and Infinite Creator. Thus like Moses in Gen. i, the verse excludes from the region of faith all Atheism, Pantheism, Polytheism, and Dualism. 4. By faith Abel} Intending, so to speak, "to pluck only the flowers which happen to come within his reach, while he leaves the whole meadow full to his readers," he begins to cull his instances from the world before the flood. His examples of faith fall into five groups. I. Antediluvian (4 — 6). 2. From Noah to Abraham (7 — 19, including some general reflexions in 13 — 16). 3. The Patriarchs (20 — 22). 4. From Moses to Rahab (23 — 31). 5. Summary reference to later heroes and martyrs down to the time of the Maccabees (32 — 40). vv. 5— 7-] HEBREWS, XI. 163 than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts : and by it he being dead yet speaketh. By faith Enoch was translated that 5 he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. But without faith 6 it is impossible to please him : for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. By faith Noah, being warned 7 of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house ; by the which he con- more excellent^. Lit., "more" or "greater." a more excellent sacrifice than Cain] This we learn from Gen. iv. 5, but we are not told the exact points in virtue of which the sacrifice was superior. We may naturally infer that Abel's was a more carefully-chosen and valuable offering, but especially that it was offered in a more sincere and humble spirit of faith and love. Ae obtained witness] By God's sign of approval (Gen. iv. 4 ; LXX.). Hence he is called "righteous" in Matt, xxiii. 35 ; i John iii. 12. The Jewish Hagadah was that God had shewn His approval by fire from heaven which consumed Abel's sacrifice. testifying of his gifts] Rather, ' ' bearing witness to his gifts. " and by it] i.e. by his faith. he being dead yet speaketh] Another reading (D, E, I, K) is "though dead, he is still being spoken of." But the allusion seems to be to "the voice of his blood" (Gen. iv. 10), as seems clear from the reference in xii. 24. No doubt it is also meant that he speaks by his exayyiple, but there seems to have been some Jewish Hagadah on the subject, for Philo says "Abel — which is most strange — has both been slain and lives " (0pp. I. 200). He deduces from Gen. iv. 10 that Abel is still unforgotten, and hence that the righteous are immortal. 5. Enoch was trafzslated] Lit., "was transferred (hence) " (Gen. v. 24; Ecclus. xliv. 16, xlix. 14; Jos. Antt. i. 3. §4. was Jiot found, because God had translated him. Gen. v. 24 (LXX. Cod. Alex.). he had this testimony] " he hath had witness bom to him ;" "Enoch walked with God," Gen. v. 24 (LXX. ''pleased God''). 6. that he is...] The object of Faith is both the existence and the Divine government of God. " We trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe" (i Tim. iv. 10). and that he is a rewarder] Rather, "and that he becomes (i.e. shews or proves Himself to be) a rewarder." 7. warned of God] The same word is used as in viii. 5, xii. 25. moved with fear] Influenced by godly caution and reverence ; the same kind of fear as that impUed in v. 7. II — 3 i64 HEBREWS, XL [w. 8—10. demned the world, and became heir of the righteousness 8 which is by faith. By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing 9 whither he went. By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with hif?i of the same ro promise : for he looked for a city which hath foundations, conde?nned the zvorld'\ His example was in condemning contrast with the unbelief of the world (Matt. xii. 41 ; Lk. xi. 31). of the righteousness xvhich is by faith^ Rather, "which is according to faith" (comp, Ezek. xiv. 14). Noah is called "righteous" in Gen. vi. 9, and Philo observes that he is the first to receive this title, and erroneously says that the name Noah means "righteous" as well as "rest." St Paul does not use the phrase "the righteousness according to faith," though he has "the righteousness of faith" (Rom. iv. 13). "Faith " however in this writer never becomes the same as mystic oneness with Christ, but means general belief in the unseen ; and " righteousness" is not "justification," but faith manifested by obedience. Throughout this chapter righteousness is the human condition which faith produces (xi. 33), not the divine gift which faith receives. Hence he says that Noah "became an heir of the righteousness which is according to faith," i. e. he entered on the inheritance of righteousness which faith had brought him. In 2 Pet.ii. 5 Noah is called "a preacher of righteousness;" and in Wisd. x. 4 "the righteous man." 8. Abrahafji] As was natural, the faith of "the father of the faith- ful " was one of the commonest topics of discussion in the Jewish Schools. Wordsworth [Eccles. Sofinets, xxvi.) speaks of ^^ Faith, which to the Patriarchs did dispense Sure guidance ere a ceremonial fence Was needful to men thirsting to transgress." when he was called'^ The Greek (if d KaXov/xevos be the right read- ing) can only mean literally either "he who is called Abraham," which would be somewhat meaningless ; or "Abraham, who was called to go out." to go out] from Ur of the Chaldees (Acts vii. 4). a place which he should after receive\ Gen. xii. 7. 9. as in a strange country] "I am a stranger and a sojourner with you" (Gen. xxiii. 3). The patriarchs are constantly called paroikui, " dwellers beside," "sojourners" (Gen. xvii. 8, xx. i, &c.). dwelling in tabernacles] i.e. in tents (Gen. xii. 8, xiii. 3, &c.). 10. a city which hath foundations] Rather, "the city which hath the foundations," namely, "the Jerusalem above" (Gal. iv. 26; Heb. xii. 1^, xiii. 14; Rev. xxi. 2, 14). The same thought is frequently found in Philo. The tents of the Patriarchs had no foundations ; the founda- tions of the City of God are of pearl and precious stone (Rev. xxi. 14, 19.) w- II— 15-] HEBREWS, XI. 165 whose builder and maker is God. Through faith also Sara i. herself received strength to conceive seed, and was de- liyeredof a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised. Therefore sprang there 12 even of one, and him as good as dead, so ina?iy as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the _ sea shore innumerable. These all died in faith, not 13 having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of tJmn, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such thi7igs declare plainly that 14 they seek a country. And truly, if they had been mindful 15 of that cou7iiry from whence they came out, they might builder and maker'\ Rather, "architect and builder." This is the only place in the N.T. where the word deviioin-gos occurs. It is found also in 2 Mace. iv. i, and plays a large part in the vocabulaiy of Gnostic heretics. But God is called the "Architect" of the Universe in Philo and in Wisd. xiii. r, "neither by considering the works did they acknowledge the workmaster." 11. also Sara herself^ Rather "even." Perhaps the "even" refers to her original weakness of faith when she laughed (Gen. xviii. 12, xxi. 2 ; comp. Rom. iv. 19). Dr Field thinks that these words may be a gloss, and that the verse refers to Abraham, since ircKtv, "was delivered," is not found in J<, A, D. to conceive seed] For technical reasons the probable meaning here is "for the founding of a family" (comp. the use of the word katabole in iv. 3, ix. 26 and "seed" in ii. 16, xi. 18). 7vho had proviised] Comp. x. 23. 12. as the stars... as the saiid] Gen. xxii. 17; Deut. i. 10. 13. in faith] Lit. "according to faith." not having received the promises] They received the promises in one sense, as promises (ver. 17), but had not yet entered upon their fruition (comp. ver. 39 and ix. 15). and were persuaded of them] These words are not found in all the best MSS. and embraced them] Rather, "saluting them" (Gen. xlix. 18). "Your father Abraham rejoiced to. see my day; and he saw it, and was glad" (John viii. 56). V^ - 'w^^ \.,.,.. . confessed that they were stratigers and pilgrims] Gen. xxiii. 4, xlvii. 9; I Chron. xxix. 15; Ps. xxxix. 12, &c. 14. that they seek a country] Rather, "that they are seeking further after a native land." Hence comes the argument of the next verse that it was not their old home in Chaldea for which they were yearning, but a heavenly native-land. i66 HEBREWS, XI. [w. 16—20. 16 have had opportunity to have returned. But now they desire a better coimtry, that is, a heavenly : wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God : for he hath prepared 17 for them a city. By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac : and he that had received the promises i8 offered up Jiis only begotten so7i^ of whom it was said, That 19 in Isaac shall thy seed be called: accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from 20 whence also he received him in a figure. By faith Isaac 15. to have reftirjied'\ But they never attempted to return to Mesopotamia, because they were home-sick not for that land but for heaven. 16. Bid no7v] "But, as the case now is." f/iey desh-e] The word means, "they are yearning for," "they stretch forth their hands towards." "" ■ ~ .s" is not ashamed to be called their God'\ Rather, "is not ashamed of them, to be called their God" (Gen. xxviii. 13; Ex. iii. 6 — 15.) he hath prepared for them a city] The "inheritance incorruptible and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for us" (i Pet. i. 4). This digression is meant to shew that the faith and hopes of the Patriarchs reached beyond mere temporal blessings. 17. By faith AbrahaiJi... offered tip Isaac] Reverting to Abraham, whose faith ( i ) in leaving his country, (2) in living as a stranger in Canaan, he has already mentioned, he now adduces the third and greatest instance of his faithful obedience in being ready to offer up Isaac. Both tenses, "hath offered up" (perf.) and "was offering up" (imperf.) are charac- teristic of the author's viev.-s of Scripture as a permanent record of events which may be still regarded as present to us. St James (ii. 21) uses the aorist. he that had received the promises] Four verbs are used with reference to "receiving" the promises, di^a8exe(T0aL (here), Xa^etu (ix. 15), iirLTvxdi/ (xi. 33), Ko/j.icra(xOaL (xi. 39). The word here used implies a joyous wel- come of special promises. The context generally shews with sufficient clearness the sense in which the Patriarchs may be said both to have "received" and "not to have received" the promises. They received and welcomed special promises, and those were fulfilled; and in those they saw the germ of richer blessings which they enjoyed by faith but not in actual fruition. 18. of luhom] Lit. " with reference to whom " (Isaac) ; or perhaps "to whom," i.e. to Abraham. in Isaac shall thy seed be called] Gen. xvii. 8, 19, xxi. 12, &c. 19. fj'oj?i luhejice'] The only place in this Epistle where 6dev has its local sense. in a figure] Lit. "in a parable," For the use of the word see ix. 9. The exact meaning is much disputed. It has been rendered "as a type " (comp. Vulg. i}i parabolajn), or "in a bold venture." or "unexpectedly." vv. 21, 22.] HEBREWS, XI. 167 blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come. By ?i faith Jacob, when he was a dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph ; and worshipped, leani?ig upon the top of his staff. By faith Joseph, when he died, made mention of the " These views are hardly tenable. But how could Abraham have re- ceived Isaac back " in afgnre'' when he received him back " in reality''? The answer is that he received him back, figuratively, frotn the dead, because Isaac was typically, or figuratively, dead— potentially sacrificed— when he received him back. Josephus in narrating the event uses the same word {Antt. i. 13. § 4). But in this instance again it is possible that the key to the expression might be found in some Jewish legend. In one Jewish writer it is said (of course untruly) that Isaac really was killed, and raised again. The restoration of Isaac laas undoubtedly a type of the resurrection of Christ, but it is hardly probable that the writer would have expressed so deep a truth in a passing and ambiguous expression. 20. By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esazi] It is true that the blessing of Esau when rightly translated, "Behold thy dwelling shall be awayfrofni\iQ. fatness of the earth and axvay from the dew of blessing" (Gen. xxvii. 39) reads more like a curse ; but the next verse (40) involves a promise of ultimate freedom, and Esau obtained the blessings of that lower and less spiritual life for which he was alone fitted by his character and tastes. concerning things to come] The true reading seems to be '^ez'en con- cerning," though it is not easy to grasp the exact force of the "even." 21. both the sons] Rather, "each of the sons." He made a marked difference between them (Gen. xlviii. 17—19). worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff] In this verse there is an allusion to two separate events. The first is the blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh (Gen. xlviii. i — ao); the other an earlier occasion (Gen. xlvii. 29 — 31). In our version it is rendered "And Israel bowed himself upon the bed's head," but in the LXX. and Peshito as here, it is "upon the top of his staff. " The reason for the variation is that having no vowel points the LXX. understood the word to be matteh, "staff," not mittah, "bed," as in Gen. xlviii. 2. If they were right in this view, the passage means that Jacob, rising from his bed to take the oath from Joseph, supported his aged limbs on the staff, which was a type of his pilgrimage (Gen. xxxii. 10), and at the end of the oath bowed his head over the staff in sign of thanks and reverence to God. The Vulgate (here follow- ing the Itald) erroneously renders it adoravit fastigiiim Z'irgae ejus, Jacob "adored the top of his (Joseph's) staff," and the verse has been quoted (e. g. by Cornelius a Lapide) in defence of image-worship. Yet in Gen. xlvii. 31 the Vulgate has "adoravit Detan, conversus ad lectuli caput." Probably all that is meant is that, being too feeble to rise and kneel or stand, Jacob "bowed himself upon the head of his couch" in an attitude of prayer, just as the aged David did on his deathbed (i Kings i. 47). i68 HEBREWS, XI. [w. 23—26. departing of the children of Israel ; and gave commandment 23 concerning his bones. By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months of his parents, because they saw he was a proper child ; and they were not afraid of the king's com- 24 mandment. By faith Moses, when he was come to years, 25 refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter ; choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to 26 enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season ; esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in 22. ivhen he died'\ The less common word for "dying" is here taken from the LXX. of Gen. 1. 26. gave conwiandmejit concerning his bones'] A sign of his perfect con- viction that God's promise would be fulfilled (Gen. 1, 24, 25; Ex, xiii. 19; comp. Acts vii. 16). 23. Moses... was hid] The "faith" is of course that of his parents, Amram and Jochebed. of his parents] This is implied in the LXX. of Ex. ii. 2, but the He- brew only says that his mother concealed him. a proper child] In Acts vii. 20 he is called "fair to God." In his marvellous beauty (see Philo, Vit. Mos.) they saw a promise of some future blessing, and braved the peril involved in breaking the king's decree. the kitig's co?nma7idmait] To drown all male children (Ex. i. 22, ii. 2). 24. reftiscd to be called the soti of Pharaoh'' s daughter] He refused the rank of an Egyptian prince. The reference is to the Jewish legends which were rich in details about the infancy and youth of Moses. See Jos. Antt. II. ix — xi. ; Philo, 0pp. ii. 82 ; Stanley, Lect. 07z Jewish Church. The only reference to the matter in Scripture is in Ex. ii. 10; Acts vii. 22 — 25. 25. with tlic people of God] iv. 9. the pleasures of sin for a season] The brnnty of sinful enjoyment is alluded to in Job xx. 5, "The triumphing of the wicked is short, and the joy of the hypocrite but for a moment." The special sin would have been the very one to which the readers were tempted — apostasy. 26. the reproach of Christ] Rather, "of the Christ" (comp. xiii. 13; 2 Cor. i. 5; Rom. xv. 3; Phil. iii. 7 — 11; Col. i. 24). There may be in the words a reminiscence of Ps. Ixxxix. 50, 51, "Remember Lord the reproach of thy servants... wherewith thine enemies have reproached the footsteps of thine ajiointcd.'^ By "the reproach of the Christ" is meant "the reproach which He had to bear in His own person, and has to bear in that of His members" (2 Cor. i. 5), It is true that in no other passage of the Epistle does the writer allude to the mystical oneness of Christ and His Church, but he must have been aware of that truth from intercourses with St Paul and knowledge of his writings. Other- w. 27—30.] HEBREWS, XI. 169 Egypt : for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward. By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath 27 of the king : for he endured, as seeing ///;;/ who is invisible. Through faith he kept the passover, and the springing of 2s blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them. By faith they passed through the Red sea as by dry 29 land: which the Egyptians assaying to do were drowned. By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were com- 30 wise we must suppose him to imply that Moses by faith realised, at least dimly, that he was suffering as Christ would hereafter suffer. he had respect zmto] Lit. "for he was looking azvay from it to.''' What Moses had in view was something wholly different from sinful pleasure. The verb is found here only in the N. T. 27. By faith he forsook Ep'pt'] This must allude to the Exodus, not to the flight of Moses into Midian. On the latter occasion, he distinctly did "fear the wrath of the king" (Ex. ii. 14, 15). It is true that for the moment Pharaoh and the Egyptians pressed the Israelites to depart, but it was only in fear and anger, and Moses foresaw the immediate pursuit. he endured, as seeing] The words have also been rendered, but less correctly, "He was stedfast towards Him who is invisible, as if seeing Him." him -who is invisible'] "The blessed and only Potentate... whom no man hath seen, nor can see" (i Tim. vi. 15, 16). Perhaps we should render it "the King Invisible," understanding the word ^aaiXea, and so emphasizing the contrast between the fear of God and the consequent fearless attitude towards Pharaoh. 28. Through faithi Rather, "by faith," as before. he kept the passover] Lit. "he hath made," or "instituted." Another of the author's characteristic tenses (see ver. 17). and the sprinklittg of blood] Ex. xii. 21 — 23. The "faith" con- sisted primarily in believing the promises and obeying the command of God, and secondarily, we may believe, in regarding the sprinkled blood as in some way typical of a better propitiation (Rom. iii. 25). The word for sprinkling is not rantis7nos, as in xii. 24, but Trpdaxvais, which is found here only ("effusion"), but is derived from the verb used in Lev. i. 5 (LXX.). he that destroyed] The term is derived from the LXX. The Hebrew (Ex. xii. 23) has mashchith "destruction." Comp. i Chr. xxi. 15; 2 Chr. xxxii. 21; i Cor. x. 10; Ecclus. xlviii. 21. 29. they] Moses and the Israelites. were drowned] Lit., "were swallowed up" (Ex. xiv. 15 — 28; Ps. cvi. 9 — 12). which the Egyptians assaying to do] The Greek words must mean " of which sea" (or " of which dry land") the Egyptians making trial. 30. the walls of y cj'icho fdl down] Josh. vi. 12 — 20. I70 HEBREWS, XL [vv. 31—34. 31 passed about seven days. By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that beUeved not, when she had received the spies with peace. 32 And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and y His faithfulness (iii. 2) he became our captain and standard-bearer on the path of faith. and finisher] He leads us to " the end of our faith," which is the sal- vation of our souls (i Pet. i. 9). of our faith] Rather, " of faith." endured the cross., despising the shame] Lit., "endured a cross, de- spising shame." is set down] Rather, "hath sat down" (i. 3, viii. i, x. 12). vv. 3— 5-] HEBREWS, XII. 175 For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners 3 against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds. Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin, 4 And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto 5 3. constdef-] Lit., "compare yourselves with." Contrast the com- parative immunity from anguish of your lot with the agony of His (John XV. 20). that endured...'] "Who hath endured at the hand of sinners such op- position. such contradiction of sinners against himself] The Greek word for "contradiction" has already occurred in vi. 16, vii. 7. Three uncials (N, D, E) read "against thefnseh'cs.'" Christ was a mark for incessant "contradiction," — "a sign which is spoken against" (Lk. ii. 34). lest ye be ivearicd and faint itt your minds] The correction of the R. v., " that ye wax not tveary, fainting ifi your souls" will be reckoned by careless and prejudiced readers among the changes which they regard as meaningless. Yet, as in hundreds of other instances, it brings out much more fully and forcibly the exact meaning of the original. ^^ That ye wax not wcary''^ is substituted for "lest ye be weary " because the Greek verb, being in the aorist, suggests a sudden or momentary break-down in endurance ; on the other hand, "fainting" is in the present, and suggests the, i^rat/z^^/ relaxation of nerve and energy which culminates in the sudden relapse. Lastly the word in the original is "souls," not "minds." Endurance was one of the most needful Christian virtues in times of waiting and of trial (Gal. vi. 9). 4—13. Fatherly chastisements should be cheerfully ENDURED. 4. Ye have not yet resisted unto blood] If this be a metaphor drawn from pugilism, as the last is from "running a race," it means that as yet they have not "had blood drawn." This would not be impossible, for St Paul adopts pugilistic metaphors (i Cor. ix. ■26, 27). More probably however the meaning is that, severe as had been the persecutions which they had undergone (x. 32, 33), they had not yet — and perhaps a shade of reproach is involved in the expression — resisted tip to the point of martyrdom (Rev. xii. 11). The Church addressed can scarcely therefore have been either the Church of Rome, which had before this time furn- ished "a great multitude" of martyrs (Tac. A7in. XV. 44; Rev. vii. 9), or the Church of Jerusalem, in which, beside the martyrdoms of St Stephen, St James the elder, and St James the Lord's brother, some had certainly been put to death in the persecution of Saul (Acts viii. i). striving against sin] "in your struggles against sin." Some from this expression give a more general meaning to the clause — "You have not yet put forth your utmost efforts in your moral warfare. " 6. And ye have forgotten] "Yet ye have utterly forgotten," or possibly the words may be intended interrogatively "Yet have ye utterly forgotten ?" 176 HEBREWS, XII. [vv. ^-lo. you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art 6 rebuked of him : for whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he re- 7 ceiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons ; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth 8 not ? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are 9 partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence : shall we not much rather be in sub- lo jection unto the Father of spirits, and Hve ? For they verily the exhorlatioit] "the encouragement," or "strengthening consola- tion." speakethl "discourseth," or "reasoneth" [dialcgctai). My son...] The quotation is from Prov. iii. ii, 12, and is taken mainly from the LXX. There is a very similar passage in Job v. 17, and Philo, de Congr. quaerend. eriidit. gr. (0pp. I. 544). despise not] "Regard not lightly." the chastening'] Rather, "the training." nor faint...] In the Hebrew it is "and loathe not His correction." rebuked] Rather, "tested," "corrected." 6. for whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth] This blessedness of being "trained by God" ("Blessed is the man whom thou chastenest O Lord, and teachest him out of thy law," Ps. xciv. 12) is found in many parts of Scripture. "As many as I love, I test (eX^^x'^) and train" {paideuo)^ Rev. iii. 19; Ps. cxix. 75; Jas. i. 12. and scourgeth every son whoju he receiveth] 'the writer follows the reading of the LXX., by a slight change in the vowel-points, for ^^ even as a father to a son He is good to him." 7. Ij ye endure chastening] The true reading is not ei, "if," but eis, "unto." "It is for training that ye endure," or better, "Endure ye, for training," i.e. "regard your trials as a part of the moral training designed for you by your Father in Heaven." luhat son is he zuhom the father chasteneth not] The thought, and its application to our relationship towards God are also found in Deut. viii. 5; 2 Sam. vii. 14; Prov. xiii. 24. 8. ivhcreof all are partakers] He speaks of God's blessed and disci- plinary chastisement as a gift in which all His sons have their share. 9. unto the Father of spirits] God might be called "the Father of the spirits," as having created Angels and Spirits; but more probably the meaning is "the Father of our spirits," as in Num. xvi. 22, "the God of the spirits of all flesh." God made our bodies and our souls, but our spirits are in a yet closer relation to Him (Job xii. 10, xxxii. 8, xxxiii. 4; Eccl. xii. 7; Zech. xii. i ; Is. xlii. 5, &c.). If it meant "the Author of spiritual gifts," the expression would be far-fetched and would be no contrast to "the father of our flesh." Here and in vii. 10 theo- vv. II— 13.] HEBREWS, XII. 177 for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure ; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his hoHness. Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, , but grievous : nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peace- able fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby. Wherefore lift up the hands which hang = down, and the feeble knees; and make straight) paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned logians have introduced the purely verbal, meaningless, and insoluble dispute about Creationism and Traducianism — i.e. as to whether God separately creates the soul of each one of us, or whether we derive it through our parents by hereditary descent from Adam. 10. after their own pleasure] Rather, "as seemed good to them." He is contrasting the brief authority of parents, and their liability to error, and even to caprice, with the pure love and eternal justice of God. 11. the peaceable frtcit of righteousness] The original is expressed in the emphatic and oratorical style of the writer, "but afterwards it yieldeth a peaceful fruit to those who have been exercised by it — (the fruit) of righteousness." He means that though the sterner aspect of training is never pleasurable for the time it results in righteousness — in moral hardihood and serene self-mastery — to all who have been trained in these gymnasia {yeyvfivaa/xevois). See Rom. v. 2 — 5. 12. Whe7-efore] The poetic style, and even the metrical form of diction in these two verses (of which ver. 13 contains a complete hexa- meter, Kol Tpoxi-o-s opOas TTOi-qaare Toh iroalv vfiuif and half an iambic, iVa fxr/ rb xa;X6»' iicrpair-^), reflect the earnestness of the writer, as he gives more and more elabora- tion to his sentences in approaching the climax of his appeal. It is most unlikely that they are quotations from Hellenistic poets, for the first agrees closely with Prov. iv. 26 (LXX.). On these accidentally metrical expressions see my Early Days of Christianity, i. 464, ii. 14. lift up the hands...] Lit. "straighten out the relaxed hands and the palsied knees." Make one effort to invigorate the flaccid muscles which should be so tense in the struggle in which you are engaged. The writer is thinking of Is. xxxv. 3 ; Ecclus. xxv. iS, and perhaps of the metaphors of the race and the fight which he has just used. 13. lest that zuhich is lame be turned out of the way] Lit. "that the lame (i.e. lameness) may not be quite out of joint, but may rather be cured." The verb eKvpavrj may mean "be turned out of the way," as in I Tim. i. 6, v. 15; 2 Tim. iv. 4; but as it is a technical term for ''spraining,'' or "dislocation," it may have that meaning here, especially as he has used two medical terms in the previous verse, and has the metaphor of "healing" in his thoughts. The writer may have met with these terms in ordinary life, or in his intercourse with St Luke, with HEBREWS 12 17^ HEBREWS, XII. [vv. 14—16. 14 out of the way ; but let it rather be healed. Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no 7;mn shall see 15 the Lord : looking diligently lest any 7;ian fail of the grace of God ; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, 16 and thereby many be defiled ; lest there /?e any fornicator, or whose language he shews himself familiar throughout the Epistle. Intercourse with the beloved physician is perhaps traceable in some of the medical terms of St Paul's later Epistles (see Dean Plumptre's papers on this subject in the Expositor, I v. 134 (first series)). let it rather be healed'] Is. Ivii. 17 — 19. 14—17. Need of earnest watchfulness. 14. Follow peace with all men} The word "men" is better omitted, for doubtless the writer is thinking mainly of peace in the bosom of the little Christian community — a peace which, even in these early days, was often disturbed by rival egotisms (Rom. xiv. 19; 2 Tim. ii. 22). ajzd holiness] Rather, "and the sanctincation " (ix. 13, x. 10, 29, xiii. 12). without which] We have here in succession two iambics : ou X'^P'5 oySets oiperat top Kvpiov iTTLCTKOTrOVVTeS IXTj TtS VaTepQv dTTO. 15. lest any matt fail of the grace of God] Lit. "whether there be any man who is falling short of,'' or possibly "falling back from the grace of God." We have already noticed that not improbably the writer has in view some one individual instance of a tendency towards apostasy, which might have a fatal influence upon other weary or wavering brethren (comp. iii. 12). lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you] The words " root of bitterness" are a reference to Deut. xxix. 18, "a root that beareth gall and wormwood," or, as in the margin, "a poisonful herb." Here the LXX. in the Vatican MS. has iv x°^V> "in gall," for evoxA^j "should trouble you." But the Alexandrian MS., which the writer habitually follows in his quotations, has evox^V' Some have supposed that there is a curious allusion to this verse, and to the reading "z« gall'' in the apparent reference to this Epistle by the Muratorian canon as "the Epistle to the Alexandrians current under the name of Paul, but forged in the interests of Marcion's heresy," which adds that ^'gall ought not to be mixed with honey." The allusion is, however, very doubtful. many be defiled] Rather, *-Uhe many." Comp. i Cor. v. 6 ("a little leaven"); i Cor. xv. 33 ("evil communications"); Gal. v. 9. 16. any fornicator] The word must be taken in a literal sense, since Esau was not "an idolator." It is true that Esau is not charged with fornication in the Book of Genesis (which only speaks of his heathen marriages, xxvi. 34, xxviii. 8), but the writer is probably alluding to the Jewish Hagadah, with which he was evidently iamiliar. There Esau is represented in the blackest colours, as a man utterly sensual, intem- V. i;.] HEBREWS, XII. 179 profane /^/-j-^;?, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. For ye know how that afterward, when he would • perate, and vile, which is also the view of Philo (see Siegfried Philo, P- 254)- or profane persoft] A man of coarse and unspiritual mind (Gen. ''xv. 33). Philo explained the word "hairy" to mean that he was sensuous and lustful. for one morsel of fneat'\ "for one meal" (Gen. xxv. 29 — 34). 17. For ye knoiv how that afteri.vard\ The verse runs literally " for ye know that even, afterwards, when he wished to inherit the blessing, he was rejected — for he found no opportunity for a change of mind — though with tears he earnestly sought for it." It is clear at once that if the writer means to say "that Esau earnestly sought to repent, but could not," then he is contradicting the whole tenor of the Scriptures, and of the Gospel teaching with which he was so familiar. This would not indeed furnish us with any excuse for distorting the meaning of his language, if that meaning be unambiguous ; and in favour of such a view of his words is the fact that he repeatedly dwells on the hopelessness — humanly speaking — of all wilful apostasy. On the other hand, "apos- tasy," when it desires to repent, ceases to be apostasy, and the very meaning of the Gospel is that the door to repentance is never closed by God, though the sinner may close it against himself. Two modes of interpreting the text would save it from clashing with this precious truth, (i) One is to say (a) that "room for repentance" means " opportunity for changing his father'' s or his brother's purpose ; " no subsequent re- morse or regret could undo the past or alter Isaac's blessing (Gen. xxvii. 33) ; or (j3) no room for changing his own mind in such a way as to recover the blessing which he had lost ; in other words, he "found no opportunity for such repentance as would restore to him the lost theocratic blessing." But in the N. T. usage the word "repentance" (/xeraj/ota) is always subjective, and has a deeper meaning than in the LXX. The same objection applies to the explanation that "he found no room to change God's purpose" to induce God "to repent" of His rejection of him, since God "is not a man that He should repent" (Num. xxiii. 19). (2) It seems simpler therefore, and quite admissible, to regard "for he found no place for repentance" as a parenthesis, and refer "it" to the lost blessing. "Though he earnestly sought the lost blessing, even with tears, when (perhaps forty years after his shameful indifference) he wished once more to inherit it, yet then he found no room for repent- ance;" or in other words his repentance, bitter as it was, could not avert the earthly consequence of his profanity, and was unavailing to regain what he had once flung away. As far as his earthly life was con- cerned, he heard the awful words "too late." The text gives no ground for pronouncing on Esau's future fate, to which the writer makes no allusion whatever. His "repentance," if it failed, could only have been a spurious repentance — remorse for earthly foolishness, not godly sorrow for sin, the dolor aviissi, not the dolor admissi. This is the sense of *' locus poenilentiae" the Latin translation of tottos fxeravoias. The i8o HEBREWS, XII. [vv. 18—20. have inherited the blessing, he was rejected : for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears. ,8 For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and 19 darkness, and tempest, and the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words ; which zwke they that heard intreated that 2c the word should not be spoken to them any more : (for they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so ?nuch as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be phrase itself occurs in Wisd. xii. 10. The abuse of this passage to sup- port the merciless severity of the Novatians was one of the reasons why the Epistle was somewhat discredited in the Western Church. with tears] " In former days he might have had it without tears ; afterwards he was rejected, however sorely he wept. Let us use the time" (Lk. xiii. 28). Bengel. 18—29. The mercy and sublimity of the New Covenant as CONTRASTED WITH THE OLD (i8 — 24) ENHANCE THE GUILT AND PERIL OF THE BACKSLIDER (25—29). 18. J^or ye are 7iot cornel At the close of his arguments and exhor- tations the writer condenses the results of his Epistle into a climax of magnificent eloquence and force, in which he shews the transcendent beauty and supremacy of the New Covenant as compared with the terrors and imperfections of the Old. unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire] Un- less we allow the textual evidence to be overruled by the other con- siderations, which are technically called " paradiplomatic evidence," the verse should be rendered " For ye have not come near to a palpable arid enkindled fne." In any case the allusion is to Ex. xix. I'S — 19 ; Deut. iv. II, and generally to " the fiery law." blackness, and darkness, and tonpest] Deut. iv. 11, v. 22. 19. the sound of a trumpet] Ex. xix. 16, 19, xx. 18. the voice of zoords] Deut. iv. 12. intreated] The verb means literally '* to beg off." that the xvord should 7u^t be spoken to them any more] Lit. "that no word more should be added to them " (Deut. v. 22 — 27, xviii. 16 ; Ex. XX. 19). 20. they could not endure that 7vhich was commanded, And if so much as a beast...] Rather, "they endured not the injunction, If even a beast..." (Ex. xix. 12, 13). This injunction seemed to them to indi- cate an awful terror and sanctity in the environment of the mountain. It filled them with alarm. The Jewish Hagadah said that at the utter- ance of each commandment the Israelites recoiled twelve miles, and were only brought forward again by the ministering angels. St Paul, in different style, contrasts " the Mount Sinai which gendereth to bond- vv. 21— 23-] HEBREWS, XII. i8i stoned, or thrust through with a dart : and so terrible n was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake ;) but ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the 22 living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly, and church of 23 age" with " the Jerusalem which is free and the mother of us all" (Gal. iv. 24 — 26). or thrust through with a dart] This clause is a gloss added from Ex. xix. 13. Any ?fmn who touched the mountain was to be stoned, any ^east to be transfixed (Ex. xix. 13) : but the quotation is here abbreviated, and the allusion is summary as in vii. 5 ; Acts vii. 16. 21. the sight] "the splendour of the spectacle" {to (pavra^ofxevov, here only in N.T.). The true punctuation of the verse is And — so fear- ful was the spectacle — Moses said... / exceedingly fear and quake] No such speech of iVIoses at Sinai is recorded in the Pentateuch. The writer is either drawing from the Jewish Hagadah or (by a mode of citation not uncommon) is compress- ing two incidents into one. For in Deut. ix. 19 Moses, after the apos- tasy of Israel in worshipping the Golden Calf, said, "I was afraid (LXX. KoX iK'ed from the blood-sprinklings of the Old Covenant (Ex. xxiv. 8), is also alluded to by St Peter (i Pet. i. 2). 26—27-] HEBREWS, XII. See that ye refuse not him that speaketh : for if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall 7iot we escape, if we turn away from liim that speaketh from heaven : whose voice then shook the earth : but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven. And this ivord^ Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those thi7igs that are shaken, as of 25. him that speakcth\ Not Moses, as Chrysostom supposed, but God. The speaker is the same under both dispensations, dif- ferent as they are. God spoke alike from Sinai and from heaven. The difference of the places whence they spoke involves the whole difference of their tone and revelations. Perhaps the writer regarded Christ as the speaker alike from Sinai as from Heaven, for even the Jews represented the Voice at Sinai as being the Voice of Michael, who was sometimes identified with "the Shechinah," or the Angel of the Presence. The verb for " speaketh" is xrv/J-'^tl^optu, as in viii. 5, xi. 7. if they escaped not'\ ii. 2, 3, iii. 17, x. 28, 29. fiiuch vwrc\ On this proportional method of statement, characteristic of the writer, as also of Philo, see i. 4, iii. 3, vii. 20, viii. 6. 26. vjhose voice then shook the earthy Ex. xix. 18; Judg. v. 4; Ps. cxiv. 7. but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once morel Rather, "again, once for all." The quotation is from Hagg. ii. 6, 7, " yet once, it is a little while" (comp. Hos. i. 4). but also heaven\ "For the powers of the heavens shall be shaken" (Lk. xxi. 26). 27. And this word. Yet once morel The argument on the phrase *^ Again, yet once for an,'' and the bringing it into connexion with the former shaking of the earth at Sinai resembles the style of argument on the word "tov rbv 'Adparov (xi. 27), rd, yap dopara avTOu...voovfX€i'a Kadoparai, Rom. i. 20), and the Material is only a perishing copy of an Eternal Archetype. The earthquake which dissolves and annihilates things sensible is i84 HEBREWS, XII. XIII. [vv. 28, 29; 1,2. things that are made,' that those things which cannot be 23 shaken may remain. Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may 29 serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear : for our God is a consuming fire. 13 Let brotherly love continue. Be not forgetful to enter- powerless against the Things Invisible. The rushing waters of the cataract only shake the shadotu of the pine. 28. Wherefo7'e\ This splendid strain of comparison and warning ends with a brief and solemn appeal. let us have grace'] Or "let us feel thankfulness, whereby, &c." with reverence and godly fear] Another well-supported reading is Aier' evXa^eias (v. 7, xi. 7) /cat deovs " with godly caution and fear." The word 5eos for "fear" does not occur elsewhere in the N.T. The same particles Kal yap " for indeed" are used in iv. 2. 29. /or our God is a consutning fire\ The reference is to Deut. iv. 24, and the special application of the description to one set of cir- cumstances shews that this is not — like "God is light" and "God is love" — a description of the whole character of God, but an anthropo- morphic way of expressing His hatred of apostasy and idolatry. Here the reference is made to shew why we ought to serve God with holy reverence and fear. Ch. XIII. Concluding Exhortations to Love (i); Hospitality (2); Kindness to Prisoners and the Suffering (3); Purity of Life (4); Contentment (5); Trustfulness (6); Submission to Pastoral Authority (7, 8) ; Steadfastness and Spirituality (9) ; The Altar, the Sacrifice, and the Sacrifices of the Christian (10 — 16) ; The Duty of Obedience to Spiritual Authority (17). Concluding Notices and Benedictions (18 — 25). We may notice that the style of the writer in this chapter offers more analogies to that of St Paul than in the rest of the Epistle ; the reason being that these exhortations are mostly of a general character, and probably formed a characteristic feature in all the Christian correspond- ence of this epoch. They are almost of the nature of theological loci communes. 1. Let brotherly love co7iti7iue\ Not only was "brotherly love" {Philadelphia) a new and hitherto almost undreamed of virtue but it was peculiarly necessary among the members of a bitterly-persecuted sect. Hence all the Apostles lay constant stress upon it (Rom. xii. 10; i Thess. iv. 9; I Pet. i. 22; I John iii. 14 — 18, &c.). It was a special form of the more universal "Love" ('A7a7r7?), and our I^ord had said that by it the world should recognise that Christians were His disciples (John xiii. 35). How entirely this prophecy was fulfilled we see alike from the fervid descriptions of Tertullian, from the mocking admissions of Lucian in his curious and interesting tract "on the death of Peregri- nus," and from the remark of the Emperor Julian {^Ep. 49), that their vv. 3, 4-] HEBREWS, XIII. 185 tain strangers : for thereby some have entertained angels unawares. Remember them that are in bonds, as bound 3 with them; and them which suffer adversity, as being your- selves also in the body. Marriage is honourable in all, and 4 "kindness towards strangers" had been a chief means of propagating their "atheism." But brotherly-love in the limits of a narrow com- munity is often imperilled by the self-satisfaction of an egotistic and dogmatic orthodoxy, shewing itself in party rivalries. This may have been the case among these Hebrews as among the Corinthians; and the neglect by some of the gatherings for Christian worship (x. 25) may have tended to deepen the sense of disunion. The disunion however was only incipient, for the writer has already borne testimony to the kindness which prevailed among them (vi. 10, x. 32, 33). 2. to entertain strangcrs\ The hospitality of Christians (what Ju- lian calls 77 Trepi t,^vov% (piXavdpwTria) was naturally exercised chiefly towards the brethren. The absence of places of public entertainment except in the larger towns, and the constant interchange of letters and messages between Christian communities — a happy practice which also prevailed among the Jewish Synagogues— made "hospitality" a very necessary and blessed practice. St Peter tells Christians to be hospi- table to one another ungrudgingly, and unmurmuringly, though it must sometimes have been burdensome (r Pet. iv. 9; comp. Rom. xii. 13; Tit. i. 8; I Tim. iii. 2). We find similar exhortations in the Talmud (Berachoth f. 6^. 2; Shabbath f. 27. i). Lucian {De Mart. Peregr. 16) and the Emperor Julian {Ep. 49) notice the unwonted kindness and hospitality of Christians. have entertained angels tinaivares\ Abraham (Gen. xviii. 2 — 22. Lot (Gen. xix. i, 2). Manoah (Judg. xiii. 2 — 14). Gideon (Judg. vi. ir — 20). Our Lord taught that we may even entertain Him — the King of Angels— unawares. "I was a stranger, and ye took Me in" (Matt. XXV. 35 — 40). There is an allusion to this " entertaining of angels" in Philo, De Ahrahamo (0pp. II. 17). 7'he classic verb rendered "unawares" {elathon) is not found elsewhere in the N.T. in this sense, and forms a happy paronomasia with "forget not." 3. Reme?nber them that are in bonds'] Comp. Col. iv. i8. as bound with them] Lit., "as having been bound with them." In the perfectness of sympathy their bonds are your bonds (i Cor. xii. 26), for you and they alike are Christ's Slaves (i Cor. vii. 22) and Christ's Captives (2 Cor. ii. 14 in the Greek). Lucian's tract (referred to in the previous note) dwells on the effusive kindness of Christians to their brethren who were imprisoned as confessors. as being yourselves also in the body] And therefore as being your- selves liable to similar maltreatment. "In the body" does not mean "in the body of the Church," but "human beings, born to suffer." You must therefore "weep with them that weep" (Rom. xii. 15). The expressions of the verse {KaKovxovix^i'wv, ws koL avrol dfres eV aiifxari read like a reminiscence of Philo (De Spec. Legg. § 30) who says a-y ^i* rots er^puv aicfxaaii' avrol KaKovfxevoi "as being yourselves also afflicted i86 HEBREWS, XIII. [v. 5. the bed undefiled : but whoremongers and adulterers God 5 will judge. Let your conversation be without covetousness ; and be content with such things as ye have : for he hatli in the bodies of otheis ;'' but if so the reminiscence is only verbal, and the application more simple. Incidentally the verse shews how much the Christians of that day were called upon to endure. 4. Mari'iage is honourable in all] More probably this is an exhor- tation, " Let marriage be held honourable among all," or rather "in all respects," as in ver. 18. Scripture never gives even the most incidental sanction to the exaltation of celibacy as a superior virtue, or to the disparagement of marriage as an inferior state. Celibacy and marriage stand on an exactly equal level of honour according as God ' has called us to the one or the other state. The medixval glorification of Monachism sprang partly from a religion of exaggerated gloom and terror, and partly from a complete misunderstanding of the sense applied by Jewish writers to the word "Virgins." Nothing can be clearer than the teaching on this subject alike of the Old (Gen. ii. 18, 24) and of the New Covenant (Matt. xix. 4 — 6; John ii. r, 2; i Cor. vii. 2). There is no " forbidding to marry" (i Tim. iv, i — 3) among Evangelists and Apostles. They shared the deep conviction which their nation had founded on Gen. i. 27, ii. 18 — 24 and which our Lord had sanctioned (Matt. xix. 4 — 6). The warning in this verse is against unchastity. If it be aimed against a tendency to disparage the married state it would shew that the writer is addressing some Hebrews who had adopted in this matter the prejudices of the Essenes (i Tim. iv. 3). In any case the truth remains ^^ Honourable is marriage in all;" it is only lawless passions which are ''passions of dishonour" (Rom. i. 26). and the bed imdefiled\ A warning to Antinomians who made light of unchastity (Acts xv. 20; i Thess. iv. 6). whoremongers] Christianity introduced a wholly new conception regarding the sin of fornication (Gal. v. 19, 21 ; i Cor. vi. 9, 10; Eph. V. 5; Col. iii. 5, 6; Rev. xxii. 15) which, especially in the depraved decadence of Heathenism under the Empire, was hardly regarded as any sin at all. Hence the necessity for constantly raising a warning voice against it (i Thess. iv. 6, &c.). God will judge] The more because they often escape altogether the judgment of man (i Sam. ii. 25; 2 Sam. iii. 39). 5. yoitr conversation] The word here used is not the one generally rendered by ''conversation" in the N.T. {anast7-ophe as in ver. 7, '•general walk" Gal. 1. 13; Eph. ii. 3, or ("citizenship" politeiuiia, as in Phil. i. 27, iii. 20), but " turn of mind" {tropos). without covetousness] Aphilarguros not merely without covetousness [pleonexia) but "without love of money." It is remarkable that "covetousness" and "uncleanness" are constantly placed in juxta- position in the N.T. (r Cor. v. 10, vi. 9; Eph. v. 3, 5; Col. iii. 5). be content]- The form of the sentence " Let your turn of mind be without love of money, being content" is the same as "Let love be without pretence, hating" in Rom. xii. 9. The few marked similarities vv. 6-8.] HEBREWS, XIII. 187 said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. So 6 that we may boldly say. The Lord is my helper, and 1 will not fear what man shall do unto me. Re- 7 member them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God : whose faith follow, con- sidering the end of their conversation. Jesus Christ the 8 between this writer and St Paul only force the radical dissimilarity between their styles into greater prominence; and as the writer had almost certainly read the Epistle to the Romans a striking syntactical peculiarity like this may well have lingered in his memory. he hath saic^ More literally " Himself hath said." The "Himself" of course refers to God, and the phrase of citation is common in the Rabbis ("IttX fc^lH). "He" and "I" are, as Delitzsch says, used by the Rabbis as mystical names of God. / will never leave thee, nor forsake thee'] These words are found (in the third person) in Deut. xxxi. 6, 8; i Chron. xxviii. 20, and sifiiilar promises, in the first person, in Gen. xxviii. 15; Josh. i. 5; Is. xli. 17. The veiy emphatic form of the citation (first with a double then with a triple negation) " I will in no wise fail, neither will I ever in any wise forsake thee" does not occur either in the Hebrew or the LXX., but it is found in the very same words in Philo {De Confus. Ling. § 32), and since we have had occasion to notice again and again the thorough familiarity of the writer with Philo's works, it is probable that he derived it frOm Philo, unless it existed in some proverbial or liturgical form among the Jews. The triple negative oi55' ov firj is found in Matt, xxiv. 21. 6. we viay boldly say] Rather, "we boldly say." The Lord is my helper] Ps. cxviii. 6. I will not fear what man...] Rather, "I will not fear. What shall man do unto me?" 7. them which have the rnle over yoti, who have spoken] Rather, "your leaders, who spoke to you;" for, as the next clause shews, these spiritual leaders were dead. At this time the ecclesiastical organisation was still unfixed. The vague term "leaders" (found also in Acts xv. 22), like the phrase "those set over you" {proistamenoi^ i Thess. v. 12) means "bishops" and "presbyters," the two terms being, in the Apo- stolic age, practically identical. In later ecclesiastical Greek this word (777ou/tt€i/ot) was used for "Abbots." whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation] In the emphatic order of the original, "and earnestly contemplating the issue of their conversation, imitate their faith." the end] Not the ordinary word for "end" (telos) but the very unusual word ekbasin, "outcome." This word in the N.T. is found only in i Cor. x. 13, where it is rendered "escape." In Wisd. ii. 17 we find, "Let us see if his words be tnie, and let us see what shall happen at his end" {'^v iK^daet). It here seems to mean death, but not necessarily a death by martyrdom. It merely means "imitate HEBREWS, XIII. [v. 9. 9 same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace ; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occu- them, by being faithful unto death." The words exodos, "departure" (Lk. ix. 31 ; 1 Pet. i. 15) and aphixis (Acts xx. 29) are similar eu- phemisms for death. 8. Jesus Christ the sai7ie\ Rather, "is the same" (comp. i. 12). The collocation "Jesus Christ" is in this Epistle only found elsewhere in ver. 21 and x. 10. He commonly says "Jesus" in the true reading (ii. 9, iii. I, vi. 20, &c.) or "Christ" (iii. 6, 14, v. 5, &c.). He also has "the Lord" (ii. 3), "our Lord" (vii. 14), and "our Lord Jesus" (xiii. ■20). "Christ Jesus," which is so common in St Paul, only occurs as a very dubious various reading in iii. i. yesterday, and to day, and for ever] See vii. 24. The order of the Greek is "yesterday and to-day the same, and to the ages." See i. 12; Mai. iii. 6; Jas. i. 17. The unchangeableness of Christ is a reason for not being swept about by winds of strange teaching. 9. Be not carried about...] Lit. " With teachings various and strange be ye not swept away." From the allusion to various kinds of food which immediately follows we infer that these "teachings" were not like the Gnostic speculations against which St Paul and St John had to raise a warning voice (Eph. iv. 14; Col. ii. 8; i John iv. i), but the minutiae of the Jewish Halachah with its endless refinements upon, and inferences from, the letter of the Law. This is the sort of teaching of which the Talmud is full, and most of it has no real connection with true Mosaism. it is a good] "a beautiful, or excellent thing" {kaloit). with grace] By the favour or mercy of God as a pledge of our real se- curity. not with meats] Not by minute and pedantic distinctions between various kinds of clean and unclean food (ix. 10). The word broniata, " kinds of food," was never applied to sacrifices. On the urgency of the question of "meats" to the Early Christians see my Life of St Pazil, 1. 264. which have not profited them that have been occtipied therein] These outward rules were of no real advantage to the Jews under the Law. As Christianity extended the Rabbis gave a more and more hostile elabora- tion and significance to the Halachoth, which decided about the degrees of uncleanness in different kinds of food, as though salvation itself de- pended on the scrupulosities and micrologics of Rabbinism. The reader will find some illustrations of these remarks in my Life of St Paul, I. 264. The importance of these or analogous questions to the early Jewish Christians may be estimated by the allusions of St Paul (Rom. xiv.; Col. ii. 16 — 23; i Tim. iv. 3, &c.). No doubt these warnings were necessary because the Jewish Christians were liable to the taunl "You are breaking the law of Moses; you are living Gentile-fashion (e^j'tvcws) not Jewish-wise ('Ioi;5oi\'a;s) ; you neglect the Kashar (rules which regu- HEBREWS, XIII. 189 pied therein. We have an altar, whereof they have no right late the slaughter of clean and unclean animals, which the Jews scrupu- lously observe to this day) ; you feed with those who are polluted by habitually eating swines' flesh.' These were appeals to "the eternal Pharisaism of the human heart," and the intensity of Jewish feeling re- specting them would have been renewed by the conversions to Christi- anity. The writer therefore reminds the Hebrews that these distinc- tions involve no real advantage (vii. 18, 19). 10—16. The One Sacrifice of the Christian, and the sacri- fices WHICH HE must OFFER. 10. JVe have an altar\ These seven verses form a little episode of argument in the midst of moral exhortations. They revert once more to the main subject of the Epistle — the contrast between the two dis- pensations. The connecting link in the thought of the writer is to be found in the Jewish boasts to which he has just referred in the word "meats." Besides trying to alarm the Christians by denunciations founded on their indifference to the Levitical Law and the oral traditions based upon it, the Jews would doubtless taunt them with their inability henceforth to share in eating the sacrifices (i Cor. ix. r3) since they were all under the Cherem — the ban of Jewish excommunication. The writer meets the taunt by pointing out (in an allusive manner) that of the most solemn sacrifices in the whole Jewish year — and of those offered on the Day of Atonement — not even the Priests, not even the High Priest himself, could partake (Lev. vi. 12, 23, 30, xvi. 27). But of our Sacrifice, which is Christ, and from (e^) our Altar, which is the Cross — on which, as on an Altar, our Lord was offered — lud may eat. The "Altar" is here understood of the Cross, not only by Bleek and De Wette, but even by St Thomas Aquinas and Estius; but the mere figure implied by the "altar" is so subordinate to that of our participation in spiritual privileges that if it be regarded as an objection that the Cross was looked on by Jews as "the accursed tree," we may adopt the alter- native view suggested by Thomas Aquinas — that the Altar means Christ Himself. To eat from it will then be "to partake of the fruit of Christ's Passion." So too Cyril says, " He is Himself the Altar. " We there- fore have loftier privileges than they who "serve the tabernacle." The other incidental expressions will be illustrated as we proceed; but, mean- while, we may observe that tne word "Altar" is altogether subordinate and (so to speak) "out of the Figure." There is no reference whatever to the material "table of the Lord, " and only a very indirect reference (if any) to the Lord's Supper. Nothing can prove more strikingly and conclusively the writer's total freedom from any conceptions resembling those of the "sacrifice of the mass" than the fact that here he speaks of our sacrifices as being "the bullocks of our lips." The Christian Priest is only a Presbyter, not a Sacrificing Priest. He is only a Sacrificing Priest in exactly the same sense as every Christian is metaphorically so called, because alike Presbyter and people offer '■'spiritual sacrifices," which I90 HEBREWS, XIII. [vv. ii— 14. 1, to eat which serve the tabernacle. For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the j2 high priest for sin, are burnt without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own ,3 blood, suffered without the gate. Let us go forth therefore 1^ unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach. For here are alone acceptable to God through Jesus Christ (i Pet. ii. 5). The main point is "we too have one great sacrifice," and we (unlike the Jews, as regards their chief sacrifice, Lev. iv. 12, vi. 30, xvi. 27) may perpetually partake of it, and live by it (John vi. 51 — 56). We live not on anything material, which profiteth nothing, but on the words of Christ, which are spirit and truth ; and w^e feed on Him — a symbol of the close communion whereby we are one with Him — only in a heavenly and spiritual manner. whej-eofl Lit. "from which." they have no right to eat] Because they utterly reject Him whose flesh is meat indeed and whose blood is drink indeed (John vi. 54, 55). Forbidden to eat of the type (see ver. 1 1 ) they could not of course, in any sense, partake of the antitype which they rejected. which serve the tabertiacle'\ See viii. 5. It is remarkable that not even here, though the participle is in the present tense, does he use the word "Temple" or "Shrine" anymore than he does throughout the whole Epistle. There may, as Bengel says, be a slight irony in the phrase "who serve the Tabernacle,'''' rather than "m the Tabernacled 11. are burnt without the camp\ Of the sin-offerings the Priests could not, as in the case of other offerings, eat the entire flesh, or the breast and shoulder, or all except the fat (Num. vi. 20; Lev. vi. 26, &c.). The word for "burn" {sarapli) means "entirely to get rid of," and is not the word used for burning upon the altar. The rule that these sin-offerings should be burned, not eaten, was stringent (Lev. vi. 30, xvi. 27). _ 12. that he might sajictify the people with his own hlood'\ Lit. "through," or "by means of His own blood." The thought is the same as that of Tit. ii. 14, "Who gave Himself for us that He might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto Himself a peculiar people." This sanctification or purifying consecration of His people by the blood of His own voluntary sacrifice corresponds to the sprinkling of the atoning blood on the Propitiatory by the High Priest. For "the people," see ii. 16. suffered without the gate\ ix. 26; Matt, xxvii. 32; John xix. 17, 18. 13. Let tis go fo7-th therefore tinto hini] Let us go forth out of the city and camp of Judaism (Rev. xi. 8) to the true and eternal Tabernacle (Ex. xxxiii. 7, 8) where He now is (xii. 2). Some have imagined thai the writer conveys a hint to the Christians in Jerusalem that it is time for them to leave the guilty city and retire to Pella ; but, as we have seen, it is by no means probable that the letter was addressed to Jerusalem. bearing his reproach'] "If ye be reproached," says St Peter, "for the vv. 15-17.] HEBREWS, XIII. 191 have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come. By 15 him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God con- tinually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name. But to do good and to communicate forget not : for 16 with such sacrifices God is well pleased. Obey them that 17 name of Christ, happy are ye " (comp. xi. •26). As He was excom- municated and insulted and made to bear His Cross of shame, so will you be, and you must follow Him out of the doomed city (Malt. xxiv. 2). It must be remembered that the Cross, an object of execration and disgust even to Gentiles, was viewed by the Jews with religious horror ^ since they regarded every ci-ucified person as "accursed of God" (Deut. xxi. 22, 23; Gal. iii. 13 ; see my Life of St Paul, ii. 17, 148). Christians shared this reproach to the fullest extent. The most polished heathen writers, men like Tacitus, Pliny, Suetonius, spoke of their faith as an "execrable," "deadly," and "malefic" superstition; Lucian alluded to Christ as "the impaled sophist;" and to many Greeks and Romans no language of scorn seemed too intense, no calumny too infamous, to de- scribe them and their mode of worship. The Jews spoke of them as "Nazarenes," "Epicureans," "heretics," "followers of the thing," and especially "apostates," "traitors," and "renegades." The notion that there is any allusion to the ceremonial uncleanness of those who burnt the bodies of the offerings of the Day of Atonement " outside the camp" is far-fetched. 14. one to corned Rather, "the city which is to be" (xi. 10, 16). Our earthly city here may be destroyed, and we may be driven from it, or leave it of our own accord; this is nothing, — for our real citizenship is in heaven (Phil. iii. 20). 15. the sacrifice of praise\ A thanksgiving (Jer. xvii. 26; Lev. vii. 12), not in the form of an offering, but something which shall "please the Lord better than a bullock which hath horns and hoofs" (Ps. Ixix. 31). continiiallyX Even the Rabbis held that the sacrifice of praise would outlast animal sacrifices and would never cease. the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his tiame'] Rather, "the fruit of lips which confess to His name." The phrase "the fruit of the lips" is borrowed by the LXX. from Is. Ivii. 19. In Hos. xiv. 1 we have "so will we render the calves of our lips," literally, "cur lips as bullocks,'' i.e. "as thank-offerings." Dr Kay notices that (besides the perhaps accidental resemblance between ""ID, pert, "fruit" and D^"13, parim, "calves") karpoma and similar words were used of burnt-offerings. 16. to commtmicatel To share your goods with others (Rom.xv. 26). The substantive from this verb is rendered "distribution" in 2 Cor. ix. 13. with such sacrifices'] The verse is meant to remind them that sacri- fices of well-doing and the free sharing ot their goods are even more necessary than verbal gratitude unaccompanied by sincerity of action (Is. xxix. 13; Ezek. xxxiii. 31). 17. them that have the rule over you] See ver. 7. The repetition 01 the injunction perhaps indicates a tendency to self-assertion and 192 HEBREWS, XIII. [vv. 18—20. have the rule over you, and submit yourselves : for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is un- i3 profitable for you. Pray for us : for we trust we have a good 19 conscience, in all things willing to live honestly. But I be- seech you the rather to do this, that I may be restored to you the sooner. 20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through spurious independence among them. "Bishops" in the modern sense did not as yet exist, but in the importance here attached to due subor- dination to ecclesiastical authority we see the gradual growth of epi- scopal powers. See i Thess. v. 12, 13; i Tim. v. 17. they watch'] Lit. "are sleepless." that 7nust give accoicnt'] See Acts xx. 26, 28. with Joy'] See i Thess. ii. 19, 20. with p'ief] Lit. "groaning." unprofitable] A litotes — i.e. a mild expression purposely used that the reader may cori-ect it by a stronger one — for " disadvantageous." 18. Fray f 07' us\ A frequent and natural request in Christian corre- spondence (i Thess. V. 25; 2 Thess. iii. i; Rom. xv. 30; Eph. vi. 18; Col. iv. 3). The "us" probably means "me and those with me," shewing that the name of the writer was well known to those addressed. we trusty Rather, "we are persuaded." we have a good conscience] The writer, being one of the Paulinists, whose freedom was so bitterly misinterpreted, finds it as necessary as St Paul had done, to add this profession of conscientious sincerity (Acts xxiii. I, xxiv. i6; i Cor. iv. 4 ; 2 Cor. i. 12). These resemblances to St Paul's method of concluding his letters are only of a general cha- racter, and we have reason to suppose that to a certain extent the be- ginnings and endings of Christian letters had assumed a recognised form. willing] i.e. "desiring," "determining." honestly] Honourably. 19. that I may be restoi'cd to yotc the sooner] So St Paul in Philem. 22. We are unable to conjecture the circumstances which for the present prevented the writer from visiting them. It is clear from the word "restored" that he must once have lived among them. 20. the God of peace. The phrase is frequent in St Paul (i Thess. V. 23: 2 Thess. iii. 16; Rom. xv. 33, xvi. 20; Phil. iv. 9). that brought again from the dead] Among many allusions to the Ascension and Glorification of Christ this is the only direct allusion in the Epistle to His Resurrection (but comp. vi. 2, xi. 35). The verb avrp/a-^^v maybe "raised again "rather than "brought up," though there maybe a reminiscence of "the shepherd" (Moses) who "brought up" his people from the sea in Is. Ixiii. 1 1. vv. 21— 23] HEBREWS, XIII. 193 the blood of the everlasting covenant, make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that ivhich is well pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. And I beseech you, brethren, suffer the word of exhortation : for I have written a letter unto you in few words. Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty ; with whom, if he come shortly, 1 through the blood of the everlasting covenant\ Rather, "by virtue of (lit. "in") the blood of an eternal covenant." The expression finds its full explanation in ix. 15 — 18. Others connect it with "the Great Shepherd." He became the Great Shepherd by means of His blood. So in Acts XX. -28 we have "to shepherd the Church of God, which He purchased for Himself by means of His own blood." A similar phrase occurs in Zech. ix. 11, "By (or "because of") the blood of thy covenant I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit." 21. make you perfcei\ Not the verb so often used to express "per- fecting" but another verb — "may He fit" or "stablish" or "equip you. " to do his will, working in you... '\ In the Greek there is a play on the words "to do His will, doing in you." There is a similar play on words in Phil. ii. 13. io whom be glory for ever and ez'er] Lit. "to whom be the glory (which is His of right) unto the ages of the ages." The same formula occurs in Gal. i. 5 ; 2 Tim. iv. i8. The doxology may be addressed to Christ as in 2 Pet. iii. iS. 22. suffer the word of exhortatio7i\ " Bear with the word of my exhortation." Comp. Acts xiii. 15. This is a courteous apology for the tone of severity and authority which he has assumed. for\ " for indeed," as in xii. 29. / have written a letter'\ This is the only place in the N. T. (except Acts XV. 20, xxi. 25) where epistello has this sense. Usually it means "I enjoin." in few xvords^ "briefly," considering the breadth and dignity of the subject, which has left him no room for lengthened apologies, and for anything but a direct and compressed appeal. Or the force of the words may be "bear with my exhortation, for 1 have not troubled you at any great length" (comp. 5i' 6\iyo)v, i Pet. v. 12). Could more meaning have been compressed into a letter which could be read aloud in less than an hour, but which was to have a very deep influence on many centuries ? 23. Aft 07a ye] Or perhaps " K- -(v/^u/," or "know." is set at liberty] The word probably means (as in Acts iii. 13, iv. «i) " has been set free from prison." It is intrinsically likely that Timothy at once obeyed the earnest and repeated entreaty of St Paul, shortly before his martyrdom, to come to him at Rome (2 Tim. iv. 9, 21), and that, arriving before the Neronian persecution had spent its force, he had been thrown into prison. His comparative youth, and the unoffend- HEBREWS 13 194 HEBREWS, XIII. [vv. 24, 25. 24 will see you. Salute all them that have the rule over you, 25 and all the saints. They of Italy salute you. Grace be with you all. Amen. IT Written to the Hebrews from Italy by Timothy. ing gentleness of his character, together with the absence of any definite charge against him, may have led to his liberation. All this however is nothing more than reasonable conjecture. The word apolelumenos may mean no more than official, or even ordinary, " sending forth " on some mission or otherwise, as in Acts xiii. 3, xv. 30, xix. 41, xxiii. 22. if he come shortly^ I will see you] Lit. "if he come sooner," i.e. earlier than I now expect (comp. koKXiop, Acts xxv. 10; ^iXriov, 2 Tim. i. 18). 24. Salute all them that have the rule over you^ This salutation to all their spiritual leaders implies the condition of Churches, which was normal at that period — namely, little communities, sometimes composed separately of Jews and Gentiles, who in default of one large central building, met for worship in each other's houses. They of Italy'\ This merely means "the Italians in the place from which I write, "just as "they of Asia" means Asiatic Jews (Acts xxi. 27. Comp. xvii. 13, vi. 9, &c.). The phrase therefore gives no clue whatever to the place from which, or the persons to whom, the Epistle was written. It merely shews that some Christians from Italy — per- haps Christians who had fled from Italy during the Neronian persecu- tion — formed a part of the writer's community; but it suggests a not unnatural inference that it was written to some Italian community from some other \.o\^Xi out 146, 189, 191 Augustine, St, 61 Barnabas, 43, 48, 128 Baur, quoted, 17 Bengel, quoted, 94, 180, 190 Beni-Hanan, the, 98 Berith, 30, 124 Bleek. 38, 51, 82, 86, 189 Boethusim, the, g8 brotherly love, 184 Cain, 182 Cajetan, Cardinal, 46, 65 Caleb, 88 Calvin, 65, 105, quoted, 30, 43 Canon of Muratori, 43 Chaluka, 110 Chokhvmh, 55 ^ o Chrysostom, St, 26, 100, 106, 147. ^«*3 Cicero, quoted, 117 Claudius, 158 Clement, St, of Alexandria, 44. 45. ^73 Clement of Rome, 43. 48, 56, 59. 92. 128 confidence, 84 conversation, 186 Corinth, Church of, 27 counted worthy, 82 Covenant, the new, 17, 21, 24, 52, 124, 131, 132, 143; the old, 21, 24, 52, 83, 124, 13^. 132, 143 Cyril, 189 David, 90 00/: Day of Atonement, 14, 23. 58, »o. 90. 125, 134, 135. 137. i44i »46, 189, 191 dead works, 142 Delitzsch, 50, 160 ;the Demiurge, the, 52 demons, 78 de Wette, 189 Dispensation, the old, 17, 18, 25, 159 new, 20, 25 divers manners, 53 Ebrard, 27 elders, 163 Elijah, 172 Ehsha, 172 Elohim, 70, 71 embitterment, 85 entreaties, 99 Epictetus, 158 Erasmus, 46, quoted, 30, 174, 182 Esau, 178, 179 Estius, 189 eternal judgment, 104 Eupolemos, 114 Euripides, 93 Eusebius, 30, 46, 118 Ezra, 52 faithful, 82 fear of death, 99 Field, Dr, quoted, 127, 165 forerunner, 113 foundation, 103 Fulgentius, 73 Gains, 43 Gematria, 83, 146 Gethsemane, 99 Gideon, 185 Grotius, 88 Halachoih, the, 18S Hebrews, sense of word, 10, 11 Hebrews, Epistle to, divisions of, 20: analysis of, 22 to 25; date of, 29; character of, 30, 31; author of, 41. 42; title of, 51 . , -, heresy, the ApoUinanan, 100; the Mono- thelite, 100 High Priest, the, 40, 96, 125, 128, 147 High Priesthood, the, 21, 96 Hilary of Poictiers, 43 Hippolytus, St, 43, 118 holocausts, 150 Holy of Holies, the, 137, 14°. ^53 Homer, quoted, 173 Horace, quoted, 117, I49 household, 83 hypostasis, 57, 161 196 INDEX. ideal archetype, the, 23, 24 incense, altar of, 135 Irenaeus, St, 43, 116 Jamnia, 28 Jehoiakim, 172 Jehovah, 81, 82, 92 Jerome, St, 73, 114, quoted, 50 Jerusalem. Church of, 26 Jewish Christians, 24, 26 Joshua, 21, 88 justification, 34 Justin Martyr, 49 Kamhits, the, 98 Kantheras, the, 98 Korah, 97 Leontopolis, 126 Logos, 36, 54, 64, 8t, 92, 114, 125 Lot, 185 Lucian, 185 Luke, St, 48, 177, 178 Liinemann, 82 Luther, 18, 35, 46, 48 Maimonides, 94 Manoah, 185 Marah, 85 Marcion, 43, 178 Mark, St, 48 Mcisak, 134 Megillah, 151, 170 Melanchthon, 46 Melchizedek, 21, 22, 36, 50, 98, loi, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 119, 121 mercy seat, the, 136 Middoth, 25 Midrash TancJmyna, 78 Mill, Dr, quoted, 104 Milton, quoted, 63 Monophysite, 73 Mosaic Law, the, 16, 150 Moses, 129, 181, 192 Muratori, Canon of, 43 near a curse, 108 Noah, 164 Noumeua, t8 Novatian, 4j oath, 123 Olam habha, 70, 106, 13" Onias, 126 Origen, 46, 51 Pantaenus, 44 Paraclete, 87 Parocheth, 1^4 Paul, St, 42 ff. 181, 187, 193 pegarim, 88 Pentateuch, the, 79 114, 130, 154, 175 180, perfectionment, 34, 72 Peripatetics, the, 96 Peter, St, 183, 185, 190 Philo, 12, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41. 47, 57. 64, 91, 96, 106, III, 125, 134, 149, 176 Plato, 37, 183 Pompey, 133 prayers, 99 Priesthood, the High, 21, 96 Primasius, 82 Priscilla, 48 prophets, 53, 54 Rabbi Hillel, 25 Ravenna, 28 Reuss, quoted, 26 Robertson Smith, quoted, 60, 78, 79 saints, 109 Salem, 114, 115 Salumias, 114 salvation, icx) Shechinah, the, 56, 95, 118, 133, 1S3 Shepherd, the Great, 193 Siddim, the Vale of, 109 Silas, 48 slave, 84 Socrates, 19 Solfatara, the, 109 sons of oil, 93 soul, 93 Spenser, quoted, 66 spoils, 120 Stanley, Dean, 114 Stoics, the, 96, 99 sundry times, 52 synagogue, 154 Tabernacle, the, 19, 20, 23 Targum, the, 64, 71, 170 tempted, 95 Tennyson, quoted, 112, 113 Terence, quoted, 95 Tertullian, 34, 184 Theodoret, 26, 30, too Theodotion, 80 Theophylact, 100 Thomas Aquinas, St, 189 Timothy, 26, 47, 193 Titus, 48 to-day, 90, 91, 183 Traducianism, 177 Uriin, 20 Uzziah, 97, 122 vail, the, 112, 134 Vatican MS., the, 31, 178 Via criicis, 72 Victorinus of Pettau, 43 Virgil, quoted, 95, 115 Wordsworth, quoted, i6r, 164 CAMBRIDGE: FRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A AND SON, AT THE UNIVEKSITY PRESS. I Date Due M- O q *40 JkA. ^ ;^4 - ^^ f^rr^^se:'- -i^-^- MY 13 '53 AG 1 5 *53 9' ^54 FACULTY :^^rr-r«fer^ PC 19'.S-L _"R- d '■:-^ BS2775 .F242 The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 1 1012 00070 1815