th 
 ἣ ΜΗ 
 
 it 
 a 
 ᾿ ᾿ 
 
 Sioees 
 
 or 
 
 FEES 
 
 ere 
 
 = 
 
 i 
 al 
 
 δὴ 
 ἴῃ 
 
 Sa 
 ἢ 
 
 2S 
 p= ~~ an 
 ee Sa Ss SS e ee 
 SSeS = 
 
 pes 
 
 ‘\ 
 
 <r 
 
 ὶ 
 
 . 
 ΠΝ 
 ANIL 
 
 i] Utes ὃ 
 
 " 
 Aen 
 Ni ᾿ Hit Ai 
 Sh 
 δ ἘΝῚ i Ns 
 Hy ii 
 
 “5:2: 
 
 " 
 
 ἣν 
 
 = 
 as 
 
 RNID SHIA isch 
 SiN phn 
 Wi 
 
 cee 
 
 = 
 
 δ 
 
 ἬΜΗΝ ᾿ ht 
 DUNN ty 
 sith tes } ah 
 
 Ss 
 
 = 
 
 i ἣν 
 ΗΝ 
 ἧς ΗΝ 
 NG SR iy 
 j 
 15: γ᾽ 
 
 yr Reivuennt: 
 GRASPS 
 
 hint 
 
 ty 
 
 PAB 
 KY 
 
 ; 
 ri 
 \ 
 
 Ἢ 
 
 SSS 
 
 = = 
 
 = 
 — ποτ ττ 
 SSS 
 
 SS 
 
 we 
 oP, 
 
 SSeS 
 
 taterot 
 
 
 
Library of The Theological Seminary 
 
 PRINCETON - NEW JERSEY 
 
 DIKE 
 
 PRESENTED BY 
 
 Robert L. Stuart 
 from the 
 Addison Alexander Library 
 1860 
 
 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2009 with funding from 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 https://archive.org/details/criticalcommenta00Osamp 
 

 
A CRITICAL COMMENTARY 
 
 ON THE 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 

 
 
 Μὴ. ἡ ’ ᾿ νι . ere 
 re he Ab 
 »; ἀν δ᾿ "Ὁ ἵ , ia 
 kL ia Γ ᾿ ΓΝ 
 Pi i. eat ve 
 ᾿ i ἡ, ¥ . { ; 
 ‘ ao.” ψ ΟΝ ἱ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ry " ὶ iy 
 Pier | | ν 
 ᾿ ‘i 
 
 
 
 Py RM ae of ADFT iy ὁ 
 τὰ " ν Puree wees r 
 Bia eee ye 4 ὼ i as ὝΨΗ ae 
 ΓΝ ath way OL Wate 
 a sh pee a ‘ δὺν es 
 Haken agate | 
 Ket σύν κα ἥν. ἅν edt a @ δ ὦ 
 ψφῳ Ἦν J 
 i A a ‘sedahc igh ib © tig icra 
 
 e™ 
 
CRITICAL COMMENTARY 
 
 ON THE 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 BY 
 
 FRANCIS sY SAMPSON, Ἰ) 
 
 PROFESSOR OF ORIENTAL LITERATURE IN THE UNION THEOLOGICAL 
 SEMINARY, PRINCE EDWARD, VA. 
 
 EDITED FROM THE MANUSCRIPT NOTES OF THE AUTHOR, 
 
 BY 
 
 ROBERT L. DABNEY, D.D. 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 ROBERT CARTER & BROTHERS, 
 BROADWAY. 
 
 M.DCCO.LYVI. 
 oe 
 
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1856, 
 By ROBERT CARTER & BROTHERS, 
 
 In the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of the United States for the Southern 
 District of New York. 
 
 JOHN F. TROW, 
 PRINTER AND STEREOTYPER, 
 Nos. 877 & 879 Broadway. 
 
EDITOR’S PREFACE. 
 
 My colleague, Dr. Sampson, at his lamented death, left 
 in manuscript a Commentary on the Greek text of the Epis- 
 tle to the Hebrews, the fruit of many years’ careful study. 
 It was prepared at first as notes for his lectures to his classes, 
 in the routine of his duties as a professor. Having received 
 the successive additions of his studies and reviews for twelve 
 or fifteen years, and having been for the third time re-written 
 with unusual care and accuracy by his own hand, it had 
 reached such size and completeness that it was his purpose 
 to prepare it for the press and commit it to the public the 
 summer of the year in which he died. Many things con- 
 curred to make the friends of his reputation and of Zion 
 unwilling that this, the only fruit of his eminent talents, 
 industry, and learning, which was mature enough for the 
 press, should die with him. It was known that he had ex- 
 pended his critical abilities and industry peculiarly on this 
 Epistle. The second time he re-wrote his notes, thirty hours 
 of research and study were expended on each of the short 
 
 portions (of twelve to twenty verses), which he gave his 
 
vi EDITOR’S PREFACE. 
 
 class for a lesson. But the copy which was left at his death 
 was the still more perfect result of a third review. The uni- 
 form testimony of his pupils has been, that these notes, as ex- 
 plained by him orally, formed a more judicious and instruc- 
 tive commentary on ‘the Hebrews’ than any which were 
 accessible to them; and they have concurred in urgently 
 requesting their-publication. While several able and learned 
 commentaries on this Epistle exist in the Latin and German, 
 and even in the English languages, it is the.common remark 
 that there is no one which meets the views and wants of 
 Presbyterian scholars, in its orthodoxy, critical ability, learn- 
 ing, and good judgment. Moved by these reasons, I have 
 yielded to the requests of Dr. Sampson’s friends and of many 
 others, and have undertaken to prepare for publication the 
 materials which he left. 
 
 Justice to the reader, to Dr. Sampson’s memory, and to 
 myself, requires that I shall state with entire candour the 
 condition of those materials, and the nature of my agency in 
 their publication. The notes left by the author are in part 
 a fully written commentary, and in part a full and accurate 
 syllabus, together occupying two hundred and forty-five 
 manuscript pages. The whole Jntroduction, all the Analy- 
 ses of sections, and many of the more interesting and impor- 
 tant discussions of the Commentary itself, such as that on 
 chap. 6: 4-6, were written out fully. All of these I have 
 copied verbatim ; so that the reader is certain of possessing, 
 in those parts, the author’s meaning in his own words. The 
 remainder, which bears rather the character of a full syllabus 
 than of a regular composition, I have expanded in my own 
 
 words, but always with the ruling purpose of simply unfold- 
 
EDITOR’S PREFACE. Vil 
 
 ing the intent of the author as he designed it to be appre-’ 
 hended. Not only are the notes which indicate the train of 
 
 thoughts faithfully followed, but the references given by 
 Dr. Sampson along with those notes, are employed in the 
 manner indicated by him. So that in those passages where 
 the words are my own, the discussion is strictly the author’s. 
 In addition to this, I have endeavoured to conform all such 
 passages in style, and in spirit and temper, to his. Any thing 
 which has seemed to me an omission, I have not presumed to 
 supply, any farther than to give so much of amplification to 
 the meaning which I found distinctly indicated in the notes 
 and references, as was necessary to make it intelligible to 
 the reader. This is an assurance which the critical scholar 
 will perhaps feel more conducive to his satisfaction in read- 
 ing the work, than any other which I could give him. If 
 
 any one should desire any other warrant that he is truly 
 reading Dr. Sampson’s work and not mine, I can only give 
 it by saying, that I feel sure I have, in every case, appre- 
 hended and stated the author’s meaning, not indeed as well, 
 but substantially such as he would have unfolded it, had he 
 lived to edit his own book. The grounds of this assurance 
 are, first, the fulness, excellence, accuracy, and perspicuity 
 of his notes, even in their briefest and minutest passages and 
 citations, and the steady guidance derived from the Analyses, 
 which, as I have said, are all wholly of his own composition; 
 and next, my long and intimate acquaintance with the be- 
 loved author, and with his modes of thought and exegetical 
 opinions; the opportunity which I enjoyed, as his pupil, of 
 
 hearing these notes expounded by him orally with the great- 
 
 est fulness, in a course of critical lectures on the Epistle, 
 
viii EDITOR’S PREFACE. 
 
 and my habitude of using similar notes as the guides to my 
 own lectures. With this assurance as to the substance of the 
 discussions, the reader must judge for himself how far the 
 value of the work has been diminished by the style I have 
 used in those parts which were not sufficiently unfolded by 
 the author. 
 
 But whatever may be the injury which this work has 
 sustained from the premature death of its author, it gains 
 this small advantage, that I am permitted to assert his emi- 
 nent fitness for such a task, in terms which his modesty 
 would forbid to himself and friends, if he were yet alive. 
 His general education at the University of Virginia was ex- 
 tensive, long continued, and thorough; and was pursued 
 with admirable diligence and method in study. It is the 
 concurrent testimony of those who knew him at the Univer- 
 sity and elsewhere, that there was no better educated man in 
 our commonwealth. The last sixteen years of his life were 
 devoted with equal zeal and perseverance to the study of the 
 various departments of Biblical literature ; and during nearly 
 the whole of this time he studied and expounded the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews, along with other parts of the Old and New 
 Testaments. His knowledge of both the Greek and Hebrew 
 languages was accurate and profound, had been extended by 
 study in Europe, and had set him in the front rank of in- 
 structors in these departments. The extensive research and 
 laborious study which he expended for many years on the 
 Epistle explained in the present work, have been already 
 indicated. His Commentary has had a longer suppression, 
 and more frequent revisals, than were enjoined by Horace 
 
 on his brother poets, in his well-known rules. Not only his 
 
EDITOR’S PREFACE. ix 
 
 learning and diligence, but the qualities of his mind, emi- 
 nently qualified him to be a profound and reliable expositor 
 of Scripture. “Dr. Sampson could not be called a genius. 
 He was what is far better, a man of high talent. His mind 
 presented nothing that was salient or astonishing. But this 
 was not so much because there was not power, as because it 
 was power symmetrically developed. His was just one of 
 those excellent minds which grow most and longest by good 
 cultivation. In wide and adventurous range, his speculative 
 powers were not equal to those of some other men; but in 
 power of correct analysis, in soundness of judgment and 
 logical perspicuity, he was superior to all we have ever 
 known except a very few. Indeed, when a speculative sub- 
 ject was fully spread out before his mind for consideration, 
 his conclusions seemed to be guided by a penetration and 
 justness of thought almost infallible. This consideration 
 was deliberate, and his decision was very rarely expressed 
 with haste, or even with promptitude. Hence, his writings 
 and conversation never exhibited any of that paradox, or 
 that bold novelty and dangerous originality, which are too 
 often mistaken for greatness. His talents, if they had less 
 to awaken empty astonishment, were more reliable and more 
 useful. It was hard for any thing sophistical or unsatisfac- 
 tory to escape detection under his steady gaze. He was 
 particularly free from that common fault of many minds of 
 large grasp; the adopting of major propositions so large that 
 they will contain the conclusion which the reasoner desires 
 to derive from them ; but at the same time so shadowy, that 
 they contain he knows not how much more. In his powers 
 
 of arrangement he was superior to any man I have ever 
 
x EDITOR’S PREFACE. 
 
 known. In his mind, the elements of thought seemed to 
 group themselves always, and spontaneously, into the most 
 philosophical order possible, with a regularity like that of 
 the atoms of limpid water, when they crystallize into trans- 
 parent ice.” 
 
 Several peculiarities in the following work demand a 
 word of remark. The first of these which will strike the 
 learned reader, is the brevity and simplicity of the Jntroduc- 
 tion. It has become fashionable with modern critical com- 
 mentators to begin their labours by submitting the inspired 
 author of whom they propose to treat, to a process of learned 
 torture which fills, in some cases, a large part of their vol- 
 umes. Dr. Sampson has, in his Introduction, gathered for 
 his readers all the best fruits of wide research and mature 
 deliberation, on those points which are necessary to be un- 
 derstood in order to approach intelligently the study of the 
 Epistle, and has expressed them without parade of learning. 
 His opinion was, that when an intelligent view of those 
 points was gained, for the rest, the best introduction to the 
 Epistle would be the study of the Epistle itself. The relia- 
 ble data for the settlement of the questions usually discussed 
 in these compositions are to be chiefly found in the inspired 
 text itself; so that their discussion in advance often involves 
 both an inconvenient anticipation and repetition. 
 
 It may be remarked concerning the whole work, that the 
 design, both of the author and editor, has been to give the 
 results, rather than the processes, of learned inquiry. The 
 page will be found encumbered with comparatively few 
 learned names. The opinions advocated or opposed are not 
 
 usually accompanied by a long array of supporters from 
 
EDITOR’S PREFACE. xi 
 
 among previous commentators. The conclusions reached are 
 often stated with little argument, because it is supposed that 
 they will be seen to be just in their own light, or that the 
 obvious reasons for their stpport will suggest themselves 
 to the thoughtful reader. The design has been to save 
 words, and to study directness, simplicity, and a suggestive 
 brevity. 
 
 The Analyses of the sections have been the result of 
 careful, protracted, and intense consideration on the part of 
 the author. Every thing pertaining to the order and con- 
 nexion of the ideas in them, every word used to express 
 them, is intentional, and has been maturely weighed. The 
 reader who would correctly apprehend the author’s meaning 
 should study them intently; and to such a one they will 
 prove by themselves a valuable commentary, when coupled 
 with a careful consideration of the text. 
 
 It was a peculiarity of the author’s teaching in the Scrip- 
 tures, that he always attached great importance to those 
 logical connectives, or conjunctions, which the Apostle Paul 
 especially uses so frequently. Dr. Sampson endeavoured 
 continually to induce his pupils to weigh and appreciate 
 their meaning, as indicating the connexion and dependence 
 of the thoughts in the mind of the inspired writer, instead of 
 regarding them, with many, as but little more than aimless 
 expletives, or interpreting them upon loose and fickle gram- 
 matical principles. In his view, the only honest and sensi- 
 ble theory for the expositor was to assume that the inspired 
 writer meant something by all that he said; and that it is 
 our business to endeavour to understand the whole of that 
 
 meaning. If these connectives had not been intended to 
 
xii 3 EDITOR’S PREFACE. 
 
 convey a valuable meaning, they would not have been intro- 
 duced. The reader will find, therefore, that they receive 
 great attention throughout this Epistle. The successful study 
 of their meaning has contributed not a little to the luminous 
 view which the author has given of the Apostle’s discussion. 
 Dr. Sampson’s criticism is throughout characterized by this, 
 that it is founded on an accurate and honest application 
 of grammatical principles. Tis effort is to arrive at the 
 author’s meaning by a faithful but enlightened observance 
 of those principles ; and when it is thus reached, to accept it 
 submissively, and to seek to understand it just as the lan- 
 guage of the sacred author gives it. It is this spirit which 
 has made Winer his favourite among all the modern critics 
 of the language of the New Testament, together with his 
 high estimate of the learning and accuracy of that scholar’s 
 work on the New Testament Idioms. The rigid grammatical 
 principles, the honest and Saxon good sense, and critical 
 fidelity of this learned German, commended themselves ex- 
 actly to his tastes and mental habitudes. The reader will 
 consequently find that Winer is referred to more frequently 
 than any other authority. The edition of his Idioms of the 
 New Testament used in this work, is the English transla- 
 tion of Agnew and Ebbeke, published by Robert Carter 
 and Brothers, New York. But the references are so given, 
 as to be available for any edition. 
 
 Ihave judged it an improvement to introduce into the 
 Commentary the Greek text of the Epistle, in the manner in 
 which Calvin inserts his Latin translation. The edition fol- 
 lowed is that of Vater, the one always used by Dr. Sampson, 
 and made by him the basis of this Commentary. The addi- 
 
EDITOR’S PREFACE. ΧΙ 
 
 tion thus made to the size, and consequently to the expense 
 of the book, is trivial; and 1 am convinced that every reader 
 will be pleased to gain, at so small a cost, the advantage of 
 having the text under discussion in convenient proximity to 
 the Commentary, and of dispensing with the labour of hand- 
 ling several books constantly in connexion with the reading 
 of one. It may be here stated, that I have not attempted to 
 give a new translation of the text into English, as is common 
 in modern critical commentaries. Dr. Sampson has given 
 no continuous version in his notes; and although I might 
 have attempted to construct one in strict conformity to his 
 exposition, it would not have been so truly his, as to possess 
 any value in the reader’s eyes, when he, as well as I, had 
 that exposition in his hands. 
 
 I have also usually inserted the passages cited for illus- 
 tration, so fully as to enable the reader to understand their 
 bearing and use, without the fatigue of hunting them up. 
 Such fatigue is often evaded by many readers, to the injury 
 of their apprehension of the subject. The bulk of the vol- 
 ume is somewhat swelled by this means; but Iam persuaded 
 that the pleasure with which it will be read is more than 
 proportionably increased. 
 
 I need scarcely remark, that as I have not taken the lib- 
 erty to modify or to add to the views which Dr. Sampson 
 has expressed in his notes, I am not willing, and am not 
 justly liable, to be held responsible for all of his opinions, 
 nor for his omissions. While I candidly prefer these notes 
 to any other commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, for 
 their accuracy, sound judgment, taste, orthodoxy, and pro- 
 
 found insight into the mind of the sacred writer, my agency 
 
xiv EDITOR’S PREFACE. ἡ 
 
 about them should not be understood as indicating whether 
 I do or do not assert their completeness and the accuracy of 
 their views in every particular. 
 
 Had their lamented author published them himself, it is 
 possible that, notwithstanding the maturity and completeness 
 to which he had brought his work, he would have supplied 
 much which is left wanting, and would have reconsidered 
 some views. Doubtless he would have given to the work 
 a perfection of detail, and, in many respects, a value, which 
 it cannot receive from others. It is not asserted that the 
 work is as good as if it had gone to the press from his hand. 
 It is frankly confessed that, in the loss of his editorial super- 
 vision, there has been a subtraction from its value which 
 is irreparable. But it is made as perfect as my utmost 
 fidelity and most diligent care could make it, under the 
 circumstances. 
 
 My labours in this undertaking have been attended with 
 the consciousness that whatever of merit this work may be 
 found to possess, will be attributed, as it should be, to its 
 author ; while whatever blemishes may be found in the 
 mode of its execution, will be imputed to me. If this be so, 
 I shall not complain. 
 
 No one could have a friend more worthy to receive such 
 disinterested and self-sacrificing service from those who loved 
 him, than the dear brother whose posthumous work I have 
 given to the world. And no one can be more magnani- 
 mous than he would have been, to render similar labours 
 joyfully in behalf of his friend. My laborious agency upon 
 this work cannot win for me from the public any other re- 
 
 ward than that of seeing my friend known and appreciated 
 
 \ 
 
EDITOR’S PREFACE. XV 
 
 ‘by the Church more as he deserved to be, and, above all, of 
 
 making a contribution, which would otherwise have been 
 lost, to the means of understanding and loving the word of 
 God, and the theory of redemption. If these objects are 
 
 secured, it will be enough. 
 
 Union TueEotocicaL Seminary, PRINCE 
 Epwarp, Va., January, 1856. 
 
; oti i av “ 
 
 >. Ι Δ ᾿ 
 nad pant de ti Ma ΚΩ͂Ν , ab hater 
 
 Ts fins MAb ΔῸΣ in Sete ὑόν 
 πον Ν εἰδὴ lita bo si iets wah 
 
 | waists wi Lang eh REN ini Bn 
 
 4 ΠῚ ΓΝ Ὧν ie ὁ enh bait ee δ. 
 ᾿ ᾿ ‘iyi Ἢ Mp ἐν ὃ * 17 Le ἧδε να αὐ | ᾿ ν ἃ 
 \ Bharat a Se 
 
 ee ΨΥ ἡμὴ : (ore 
 . νι νῶν arnt ΑΚ δ » 
 prea las i ah ines Υ- lilac ee 
 ak shake denen a sai ged 
 a stay i Py ee dpa nah 
 : est a es stn νὰ va 
 i ee Aka A » te 
 apie bien he 4X siaceeed 5 eects 5 
 | oer meas ac _ 
 
 7; le 
 
 OA ahh My _ 
 
 
 
LN Pe. OD ΟΙΟΥ HSS AY 
 
 ON THE 
 
 PROPER QUALIFICATIONS OF THE CRITICAL INTERPRETER OF THE 
 SACRED SCRIPTURES. 
 
 THE great enemy of truth, of Christ, and of souls, has long 
 been at work. His hate and his skill have only increased 
 with his age and experience. 
 
 ᾿ς When Christianity was first set up, Satan held the world 
 fast bound in paganism. It had been so for many long ages 
 of darkness,—ages of ignorance, and superstition, and sin. 
 To this huge system, the great facts and the simple and sub- 
 lime doctrines of Revelation, too deep for the discoveries of 
 natural reason, had to be opposed. With the Bible in hand 
 and a sound reason at command, aided by the mighty power 
 of the Holy Ghost, it devolved upon the Christian Philoso- 
 pher to sustain the conflict for the interests of souls, and of 
 Christ’s kingdom. Satan was unequal to the contest ; pagan- 
 ism fell, and Christianity triumphed. 
 
 The great enemy next entered the Christian camp. Un- 
 able to oppose paganism to Christianity, he determined to 
 baptize it with Christian baptism. He endeavored to smother 
 the Church with idolatry, and brought in formality like a 
 flood. Under the guise of piety, he set up in the Church, in 
 
 1 
 
2 INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. 
 + 
 
 the name of Jesus Christ, a vicar for himself, and found a 
 human and formal substitute for every divine doctrine and for 
 every Christian virtue. He took away from the people the 
 word of God, and gave, in its place, the decrees of councils 
 and of popes ; he destroyed the spirit and simplicity of Chris- 
 tian worship, and substituted the more imposing but lifeless 
 ceremonies of man’s invention in their stead. He seemed to 
 have gained the victory. But the reformers, like good sol- 
 diers of Jesus Christ, with the word of God, which is the 
 sword of the Spirit, burst his bands, gave him battle, and 
 broke his power. True, spiritual Christianity, almost dead, 
 revived and flourished. 
 
 Satan saw himself foiled, and again resolved to marshal 
 his forces from without. Free from the shackles of blind 
 devotion and ignorant superstition, it was easy to run men 
 into the opposite extreme of infidelity. ‘The wily skeptic 
 and bold blasphemer thought to reason or shame religion from 
 the earth. The God of retributive justice was mocked. His 
 word a forgery ; His ministers deceivers; and His people 
 hypocrites. Revelation was a dream, and reason was God. 
 Christian logicians, mighty men of God, and. mighty in the 
 Scriptures, joined issue, and the enemy was defeated. Infi- 
 delity ran mad, and Christianity prevailed. 
 
 But the arch enemy, though cast down, was not destroyed, 
 His next stratagem was a master-stroke. In the dark ages, 
 paganism had served his purpose well: in an age of light, he 
 saw the need of something more subtile. Paganism had fallen 
 when opposed to the Church, but had well nigh prevailed, 
 when embraced in her bosom ; so infidelity, though defeated 
 without, yet when intrenched within her pale, might prove her 
 ruin. He baptized paganism then ; now he resolves to bap- 
 tize infidelity. The great agents by whom he would vex and 
 destroy the Church, are infidel theologians and commentators 
 
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. 3 
 
 on the Scriptures. In the former case he took away the 
 Word of God: now he would mangle and pervert it. The 
 worst enemies of the truth and of the church, are professed 
 friends within her own pale ;—theological professors and 
 preachers, at heart infidels, doing what they can to under- 
 mine the foundations of faith,—to unsettle the canon of 
 Scripture and the interpretation thereof. The critical inter- 
 preter of the Scriptures, therefore, under the great Head of 
 the Church, who has always given the victory, must sustain 
 the brunt of the present conflict. 
 
 I have deemed it not unsuitable to discuss briefly here the 
 proper qualifications of the critical interpreters of the Sacred 
 Scriptures. In pursuance of this subject,— 
 
 I. The first qualification which I shall mention is, that 
 he have a thorough conviction that the Scriptures are indeed 
 the Word of God: in other words, that he be a firm believer 
 in the plenary inspiration of the Sacred Scriptures. 
 
 By this I do not mean that it is to be maintained that 
 every word of the text is now just what it was, as the text 
 came from the hands of inspired prophets and apostles; but 
 that the text, as it came from them originally, contained the 
 very matter, and in the very words which God designed to 
 constitute the Revelation, and rule of our faith and duty. 
 We may, indeed, admit different kinds or degrees of in- 
 spiration ; but, impossible as it is to determine, in any par- 
 ticular case, what degree of supernatural aid and control 
 may have been needed to lead the writer to record just what 
 he did, and in the very words that he did, and to guard him 
 against all error, either of doctrine or of fact, we must hold 
 firmly to the result that, in every case, such supernatural aid 
 and control was vouchsafed, as was requisite to secure against 
 error, and to make the Revelation, both as to matter and 
 form, just what God designed it to be; and that, since its 
 
4 INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. 
 
 completion, no such corruption has crept into the text, as to 
 invalidate its claim to be an authentic and, of course, author- 
 itative revelation of God’s will to man. 
 
 We know, indeed, that since the sacred Scriptures were 
 written, through the unavoidable casualties of transmission by 
 frequent transcription, manifold trifling variations and dis- 
 crepancies are to be found in the documents which furnish us 
 the text. But, making full allowance for these, no man ac- 
 quainted with the subject will, at this day, dare affirm, that 
 the text has by this means so far lost its original purity as to 
 invalidate, in the slightest degree, the authority which origi- 
 nally pertained to its teachings. ΤῸ question the original in- 
 tegrity of the text, would be to suppose that God would give 
 to man a rule of faith and practice, originally imperfect and 
 faulty ; that here there was a departure from what was true 
 in regard to all else that came from his hands,—“ Behold it 
 was very good!” It is, indeed, sometimes said, that since 
 God has not seen fit, by a perpetual miracle, to preserve the 
 original text free from all corruption, accidental or designed, 
 we cannot assert, that in its original composition he preserved 
 the writers of the sacred Scriptures absolutely free from all 
 error. But, to say nothing of the claims of the sacred writers 
 themselves, it violates our natural ideas of the perfections of 
 God to say, that he would inspire men at all to write a reve- 
 lation, and yet leave them liable to write down errors or 
 untruths for our instruction. It is consistent with the per- 
 fections of God to form the fair fabric of the world, and 
 create perfect moral creatures to occupy and enjoy it ; and 
 yet, to allow these rational and moral creatures to sin, and 
 incapacitate themselves for such occupation and enjoyment. 
 But it would be utterly inconsistent with his perfections, to 
 create a world originally marred with deformities and dis- 
 orders, and still more to people it with rational and moral 
 
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. 5 
 
 creatures, corrupt and perverted in their rational and moral 
 natures. If God create a moral being at all, he must, by the 
 very necessity or law of his own holy, wise, and beneficent 
 character, create him a holy and happy being, free from all 
 taint or corruption, perfect in his kind. And so in regard to 
 a revelation. He may devolve on man the responsibility of 
 its preservation, or he may withhold one altogether. But if, 
 in divine compassion, he condescend to give one to man for 
 his instruction and guidance, he must give him one com- 
 porting, in all respects, with the perfections of its glorious 
 Author, and adapted to meet the wants, and command the 
 confidence, of him for whom it was intended. 
 
 These conditions are by no means fulfilled, if we hold 
 merely to the substance of the Scriptures as inspired of God, 
 while we admit that the words, either through lack of original 
 inspiration, or through careless and irreverent transmission, 
 are without authority. The substance of the Scriptures is 
 contained in their words ; except by the latter we had not 
 known the former ; and we receive the substance because we 
 believe the words which contain it came from God. Destroy 
 reverence for the authority of the text, and you soon destroy 
 all due regard for the authority of the matter. Admit that 
 the text was originally mixed with error; that the writers 
 were sometimes so far left to themselves that they recorded 
 what was not true ; or that, sinc the Scriptures were written, 
 corruption has come in to such an extent as to affect the doc- 
 trines and duties inculcated, or to invalidate the proper 
 integrity of the text ; and we not only admit a derogation 
 from the Scriptures, which is incapable of proof, and opposed 
 by many valid arguments, but we at once allow a liberty 
 which man has never yet known how to use. Where inspi- 
 ration stands, and where inspiration fails; in other words, 
 where we have the teaching of God, and where the teaching 
 
6 INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. 
 
 of man; or, stronger still, where we have truth, and where 
 we have falsehood, we can have no certain means of ascertain- 
 ing. Every man must be allowed to separate for himself ; 
 and the prevailing rule will be, to receive that as from God 
 which is agreeable to human philosophy and caprice, and 
 to reject all which conflicts with them. Nothing short of in- 
 spiration itself could make the proper separation. 
 
 It may not be said that, inasmuch as the text, as we now 
 have it, is, by admission, in manifold, though generally exceed- 
 ingly trivial instances, corrupt, therefore the very liberty 
 which we fear to allow has to be continually exercised. 
 There is a wide difference between the stand-point of the 
 mind which holds, in any particular case of various readings, 
 the surrounding text to be all firm, and, from amongst the 
 various readings, endeavors to select that which, like it, pro- 
 ceeded from the pen of inspiration, and that of the mind 
 which is altogether at sea as to the metes and bounds of sur- 
 rounding inspiration, and which feels at liberty to question 
 the inspiration of the whole. In the one case, we are en- 
 deavoring to restore to inspiration what the want of it has 
 lost or taken away ; in the other, we question whether there 
 be any inspiration, and, if there be, where it is. In the one 
 case, we hold to the body, and seek to restore a lost or 
 wounded member, however small ; in the other, we not only 
 question which is the proper member, but we doubt if there 
 be any body at all. 
 
 The belief of the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, 
 in the sense which I have defined, is necessary, to inspire the 
 interpreter with a proper regard for the word of God as such ; 
 to restrain him from handling it deceitfully, or with presump- 
 tion and lightness ; to stimulate to due diligence and care, 
 and dependence on God in eliciting the true meaning of its 
 
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. "4 
 
 words, and to induce a ready submission to its authorita- 
 tive teachings. 
 
 On this important subject, the history of Biblical inter- 
 pretation in modern Germany furnishes most instructive 
 lessons. Here we have the disastrous effects of the rejection 
 of the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures exhibited on a 
 scale which is appalling to the devout mind. We know, 
 indeed, that the great apostacy in Germany began in the 
 heart. The long barren discussions which succeeded the re- 
 formation terminated, in the eighteenth century, in the utter 
 prostration of vital piety. But the first outward demonstra- 
 tions were against the authority of the sacred Scriptures, 
 against the canon and the text. The discussions of the 
 previous century had disclosed the fact, that the Scripture 
 text had been subjected to the same casualties of transmission 
 as the text of other books. But when further investigation 
 had demonstrated that the changes which had crept in from 
 this source could never invalidate its claims as an authentic 
 text, it only remained to question the authority of its 
 teachings ; and this could be done only by denying its plenary 
 inspiration. This done, and philosophy had full sweep, and 
 boldly asserted her assumed prerogatives. Miracles and pro- 
 phecies were pronounced to be impossible things; and of 
 course full liberty was felt to explain away the account of 
 them in the Seriptures. The former were put on the same 
 level as Grecian and Roman myths ; the latter were mere 
 shrewd conjectures of near events, or histories post eventum, or 
 dim and uncertain visions of the remote future. The wildest 
 and most forced interpretations were put upon words, in order 
 to sustain foregone conclusions of philosophy and science, 
 falsely so called ; and when the plain grammatical interpre- 
 tation forced out the true meaning, that meaning ceased to 
 be binding, because not inspired of God, and not equal to the 
 
8 INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. 
 
 present advanced state of human thought and human in- 
 quiry. 
 
 It need scarcely be added, that the ground occupied by 
 such interpreters is essentially infidel. From them we are 
 not to expect fair dealing with the text, or reverential exposi- 
 tions of its meaning. And yet it seems not to be understood 
 by some, that there is no firm middle ground between the 
 opinions of those who regard the very words of the Scriptures 
 as originally sanctioned, where not dictated by the Spirit, and 
 consequently free from all errors, and of those who regard the 
 whole as of human origin, and consequently from the begin- 
 ning more or less mixed with error. The Bible is of God, or 
 of man ; all of God, or all of man ; consequently all authori- 
 tative as from God, or none demonstrably so. A mixed 
 revelation (so to call it) would, as we have already intimated, 
 require another purely divine one to enable us to determine 
 what in the former was from God, and what from man. 
 
 II. The next essential qualification of the interpreter of 
 the sacred Scriptures which I shall mention is, that he be truly 
 enlightened and regenerated by the Spirit which gave them. 
 
 The necessity for this qualification lies in the deep-rooted 
 
 be pravity of the human heart, ‘and its consequent natural in- 
 sensibility and aversion to the spiritual truths of the sacred 
 Scriptures. All history testifies to this enmity of the heart to 
 the truth of God. Unsanctified minds seldom treat of the 
 word of God, except to pervert or to ridicule it. “ The 
 natural man,” say the Scriptures themselves, “‘ receiveth not 
 the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto 
 him ; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually 
 discerned.” 
 
 It is not to be expected, or believed, that a man, who is 
 prejudiced at heart against any system of truths, shall be able 
 fully to understand them, or fairly to expound them. Still 
 
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. 9 
 
 less can this be expected in the present case, where the truths 
 are of such a character as to aim directly at the correction of 
 the whole man. Pride of intellect, as well as of heart, must 
 be subdued ; wicked passions must be restrained and mor- 
 tified ; and the whole current of feeling, and thought, and 
 action, run in a direction which has no congeniality with the 
 selfish and carnal desires of the natural heart. Where such is 
 the conflict between the interpreter and the sacred writings 
 which he undertakes to expound, there must often be gross 
 misconceptions, as well as gross perversions, of their meaning. 
 The temptations to this may even be all the stronger, accord- 
 ing to the respect which the interpreter has for the binding 
 authority of the Scriptures. The necessity of an adjustment 
 of the Wenflict is felt to be the more urgent ; and it is far 
 easier for corrupt and blinded man to relinquish and pervert 
 the truth, than it is for him to give up his own views, and 
 principles, and practices. In such a case, error has greatly 
 the advantage over the truth. The whole strength of our 
 natural opposition to the truth is enlisted on its side ; and 
 precisely because the Scriptures are acknowledged to be an 
 authoritative rule, the desire is felt so to expound the rule as 
 to make it easy and acceptable to unhumbled reason and 
 unsanctified affections. Where lower views are entertained 
 of the binding authority of the Scriptures, the interpreter may 
 feel no such strong temptation wilfully to pervert their 
 meaning. He may feel free to exhibit the doctrines, and 
 duties, and facts of the Scriptures, and yet be equally free to 
 maintain his own views and practices. Still, in either case, 
 the interpreter’s subjective incapacity for the truth, his 
 natural want of spiritual apprehension of it as light and life to 
 the soul, must often exclude correct and luminous views, and 
 spread darkness over the sacred page. 
 
 The exposition of the Scriptures, therefore, is safe and 
 
10 INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. 
 
 edifying only in the hands of him who, to a profound rever- 
 ence for their divine authority, unites a heart and understand- 
 ing in unison, by virtue of the operations of the Spirit, with the 
 spiritual truths which they inculcate. In him only is found 
 the spiritual discernment and love for the truth which places 
 the mind in the proper attitude for the right apprehension 
 and exhibition of it. 
 
 Here again Germany furnishes instructive lessons for our 
 admonition. It was the decline of piety, as we have already 
 stated, which prepared the way for those loose views of the 
 authority of the sacred Scriptures which have, in that country, 
 been so destructive of a correct and reverential treatment of 
 them. The men there, and their followers in other countries, 
 who deny the possibility of miracles and prophecies, and who 
 treat the word of God scarcely as they would the word of 
 man, ave not the men, whatever may be their private amia- 
 bility and worth, who set the highest value on the power of 
 inward godliness and outward piety, and who do the most to 
 promote them ; and when this power of an inward life, gene- 
 rated by the Spirit of God, has taken possession of the heart, 
 it has been followed generally by a more or less total renun- 
 ciation of former philosophical difficulties. We have, indeed, 
 in entire accordance with what we have already said, some 
 quite remarkable instances of expositorial tact in minds of 
 skeptical views and of doubtful piety. But even the best of 
 such commentators do much to unsettle the foundations, and 
 do little for the advancement, of true religion. Happily the 
 course of theological controversy and scriptural exposition in 
 that distracted country, gives us much hope that the victory 
 will ultimately decide for those who have hid the word of 
 God most deeply in their hearts, and who bow with most rey- 
 erence and obedience to its authoritative teachings. 
 
 Ill. The third qualification, which I mention as essential 
 
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. 11 
 
 to the critical interpreter of the Scriptures, is ὦ thorough 
 knowledge of the original languages in which they are written, 
 as well as a good knowledge, at least, of their cognates, 
 
 It is well known that the original languages of the Scriptures 
 are the Hebrew, Chaldee, and Greek; and that these are 
 properly now all dead languages. The immediate cognates 
 of these, a knowledge of which may be regarded as indispen- 
 sable to the accomplished interpreter of the Scriptures, are 
 Arabic, Syriac, and Ethiopic for the first two, and the Latin 
 for the last. 
 
 That a thorough knowledge of the original languages of 
 the sacred Scriptures is absolutely necessary to the interpreter, 
 will hardly be denied at the present day, by any one who is 
 competent to judge. All allow that our best translations are 
 imperfect ; and were these as perfect as they could be made, 
 it would, in a multitude of cases, be impossible for the student 
 of these merely to investigate the possible interpretations of 
 the original, or to ascertain the full meaning of the true one. 
 The truth is, that whilst the great doctrines and duties 
 taught in the Scriptures are taught in a variety of form and 
 connection, which ought to Jeave no dispute as to what they 
 are ; yet, in respect to the doctrines, at least, saving a few— 
 happily the most fundamental—there is, amongst Christian 
 interpreters and theologians, a wide diversity ; and in the 
 minuter details of interpretation, particularly, there is a di- 
 versity, and often a contrariety, which is to be ascribed, not 
 merely do dogmatic prejudices and to deficient knowledge in 
 general, but especially to a defective knowledge of the original 
 languages of the Scriptures. Whoever considers the ease 
 and certainty with which we understand those who speak and 
 write our own vernacular tongue, must be sensible of what we 
 lose in the interpretation of the Scriptures, by the want of a 
 thorough acquaintance with the languages in which they are 
 
19 INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. 
 
 written. We make full allowance for the influence of dog- 
 matic prejudices, where these may operate, for the embarrass- 
 ments of an imperfect knowledge of antiquity generally, and 
 for the imperfection and ambiguity of language, even when 
 best known and correctly written: and yet we hesitate not. 
 to say, that the diversities that we meet with in the minutiz 
 of interpretation are such and so numerous, as to prove incon- 
 testably that the prolific source from which they spring is the 
 want of a thorough acquaintance with the original languages 
 themselves ; such an acquaintance as those who thought and 
 spake in them possessed. It is the want of easy familiarity 
 with the original languages of the Scriptures, indeed, which 
 has always constituted the greatest difficulty in the way of 
 interpreters, and has most powerfully tempted to the easier 
 and more seductive methods of allegorizing, so common with 
 the fathers, and catenating and compiling, so much practised 
 by their successors down to the present day. 
 
 In order to this thorough acquaintance with the original 
 languages of the Scriptures, so indispensable, it is all-impor- 
 tant to the interpreter, that he be well acquainted with their 
 nearer cognates. In these he finds the usages which so often 
 fail him, by reason of insufficient remains, in the case of the 
 Hebrew especially ; and the most useful helps for the inter- 
 pretation of both the Old Testament and the New. Itis only 
 by the diligent study of all these, both the original and the 
 cognate languages of the Scriptures, that the interpreter can 
 so appropriate and appreciate the forms of thought, the idiom, 
 force, and spirit of the sacred writers, as to feel independent 
 und at home in his work. I may be allowed to introduce 
 here, the testimony of a veteran in Oriental literature, taken 
 from the preface of the latest edition of his famous Hebrew 
 grammar. ‘There are two ways,” says he, “to pursue the 
 Hebrew. The one is to consult the Hebrew grammars and 
 
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. 13 
 
 Lexicons that are at hand ; by way of supererogation to spell 
 a little Arabic and Syriac ; to take in hand some other helps 
 that lie in a couple of bye-ways; to compare a half ora 
 whole dozen of commentaries ; and then believe that one 
 understands Hebrew, and can, as a learned man, expose the 
 true sense of the Old Testament. This attractive way have 
 thousands marched, and never will it cease to be the most 
 admired ; but upon what sandbanks and cliffs it conducts, we 
 should at last universally perceive. 'The other is first to lay 
 the Hebrew entirely aside, and, with true toil and devotion, 
 appropriate a hundred talents, in regions which lie quite far 
 from the Old Testament, and which, in Germany, yield no 
 bread ; for example, become in all Shemitic literature first 
 perfectly at home, and then perhaps return again to the old 
 Hebrew, in order to recall it for ourselves, piece by piece, from 
 death to life, and so apprehend what it really says to us and 
 teaches us.” This extract, certainly savours of Germany ; 
 more than is here meant is indispensable to the devont and 
 successful interpreter : but what piety and a sacred regard for 
 the authority of the text can do, and will do, without the 
 knowledge of the original languages of the Scriptures, we 
 may learn from the almost universal allegorizing of the fath- 
 ers and dogmatism of the dark ages, and from the many com- 
 mentators of later times, who have done little more than 
 collect and digest the statements and criticisms of others who 
 have preceded them, and sometimes have done this in a very 
 superficial and unscholarlike way. 
 
 The qualification of which I am speaking is so obvious and 
 so generally admitted, that I deem it unnecessary to enlarge. 
 I must add, however, before dismissing it, that the church 
 has need at the present day of Scripture interpreters, who 
 possess this knowledge of the original languages, and of the 
 helps to the right understanding of them, in a very high 
 
14 INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. 
 
 degree. Never was this department of sacred literature more 
 sedulously and more successfully cultivated ; and never were 
 the fruits of lingual investigations applied with more zeal to 
 the unsettling of the canon and perverting the meaning of the 
 Scriptures. Their authority is attacked with an array of 
 erudition and learned authority, that must confound the 
 simple; and to be maintained, they call for men of at least 
 equal and less sophisticated lore. 
 
 IV. But not only is a thorough knowledge of the original 
 and cognate languages of the Scriptures necessary to the inter- 
 preter ; he has need, in the fourth place, of a very extensive 
 and often minute acquaintance with various collateral know- 
 ledge. 
 
 There is no department of real knowledge that does not 
 help to the better understanding and illustration of the 
 Scriptures. There are expressions in them which have for 
 ages been misunderstood, or correctly apprehended only since 
 the clear discoveries of modern science. It is, to give a simple 
 example, familiar to every reader of the Scriptures that the 
 rising and setting of the sun, so frequently mentioned in them 
 are, as in our own language, only a conformity to the ordinary 
 usages of language to express an ordinary phenomenon as it 
 appears in nature, without teaching any thing as to the real 
 manner of its occurrence, although they may at first have 
 originated in conceptions of a mode conformed to the appear- 
 ance. 
 
 But far more important than all modern science, strictly 
 so called, to the right interpretation of the Scriptures, is 
 a good knowledge of history, and an intimate and correct 
 knowledge of antiquity. The Scriptures contain a long suc- 
 cession of revelations and records, made originally for the 
 benefit of a particular chosen people, but intended ultimately 
 for the benefit of all the nations of the earth. They contain 
 
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. 15 
 
 ζ΄ 
 
 throughout innumerable allusions to the geographical, histor- 
 ical, political, social, moral, philosophical, and religious rela- 
 tions of the chosen people, and the country which they inhab- 
 ited, as well as of all the surrounding nations and countries 
 with which they were in various ways connected. Here a 
 wide field is thrown open for the biblical student ; and many 
 rich results have been afforded by the diligent researches of 
 modern inquirers. The more our knowledge advances of 
 Jewish, Roman, Grecian, Egyptian,—indeed, ancient and 
 oriental antiquities generally, the more thoroughly are the 
 Scriptures understood in all their varied and multiplied allu- 
 sions ; and their coincidence with ancient facts and relations, 
 thus ascertained from other sources, constitutes an increasingly 
 powerful and conclusive argument for their genuineness and 
 authenticity. Difficulties, indeed, which, in some cases, 
 seemed to be glaring discrepancies, and constituted for the 
 infidel strong objections to the credibility, and of course to 
 the genuineness and inspiration of the Scriptures, or of par- 
 ticular parts thereof, have been completely solved, and added 
 to the general mass of archzeological coincidences which serve 
 so triumphantly to maintain and verify the inspired record. 
 
 We are far from believing that this source of knowledge 
 for the confirmation and better understanding of the Scrip- 
 tures is completely exhausted. We believe, on the contrary, 
 that the most valuable results are to flow from the persevering 
 and thorough investigation of the original languages of the 
 Scriptures, and the antiquities with which they stand con- 
 nected. The facilities and inducements to such investigations 
 were never greater than at the present time, nor the promise 
 greater to religion and science. 
 
 The Bible challenges investigation. It professes to give 
 knowledge which shall make men wise unto salvation, and 
 
10 INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. 
 
 demands to be studied and understood. It courts the light, 
 and never avoids it. It stimulates to mental activity, and 
 never stifles lawful inquiry. It shines brightest in the midst 
 of surrounding light, and has always gained by every advance 
 in real knowledge. It claims science as its handmaid, and 
 wages eternal war upon all darkness.in the soul. We doubt 
 not that, in the end, all real knowledge and all true science 
 will pay it due homage and render it good service. It is a 
 striking and significant fact, that while the boasted theories 
 and alleged discoveries of modern science are boldly set up as 
 conflicting with the Scriptures, the facts of antiquity that are 
 almost daily brought to light are clearly demonstrating their 
 truth, and illustrating their meaning. It is precisely the 
 newest of the sciences which, like untutored children, show 
 the most undevout hostility to the Scriptures ; the more 
 established our knowledge, the more it accords with and con- 
 firms them. The whole past history of the progress of true 
 science authorizes the unwavering belief, that the more thor- 
 ough and accurate our knowledge is of all things, ancient and 
 modern, the more clearly will the truth of the sacred Scrip- 
 tures appear, and the more accurately and thoroughly will they 
 be understood and appreciated. At a day like this, when 
 infidels in disguise are doing all to subvert and pervert the 
 Scriptures, the critical interpreter may not neglect any of 
 their defences, but should give diligent heed to them all, 
 
 V. The next requisite to the interpreter of the sacred 
 Scriptures which I shall mention is, a thorough and compre- 
 hensive acquaintance with the Scriptures themselves. 
 
 Scripture truths are not given systematically. They were 
 not written by one man in one age, but by many men during 
 along succession of ages. The facts, doctrines, and duties 
 which they contain are taught in almost every variety of form 
 and connection. But the writers, however diverse or widely 
 
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. 17 
 
 separated in time and space, were animated ‘and directed by 
 one and the same unerring Spirit. They were the inspired 
 religious teachers and rulers of the ages in which they lived, 
 who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, and taught 
 the truth in the measure and forms in which it was commu- 
 nicated to them. The revelation at any given period of its 
 progress, though not yet finished, possessed a certain com- 
 pleteness, At every period it might be said, “‘ The law of 
 the Lord is perfect, converting (or restoring) the soul.” The 
 seeds of the whole system, so to speak, were there ; the first 
 and great germs of saving truth were clearly discernible ; and 
 in every age the humble believer knew enough for the life of 
 his soul. The word as it then existed was suited to his wants. 
 The very first part, that which Moses wrote, contained the 
 history of facts which were fundamental in their character, 
 and above all the philosophy of the ancients ; and, besides the 
 moral law, numerous significant types which shadowed forth 
 good things to come, and many exceeding great and. precious 
 promises and prophecies, which addressed themselves to the 
 faith, and attracted the study and meditation, of all the devout 
 worshippers of Jehovah. It was precisely because this perfec- 
 tion characterized the Scriptures at every period, that, far up 
 on the stream of revelation, we hear their praises chanted in 
 the most enraptured strains: and Old Testament saints, in 
 respect to zeal and love for the word of God, lose nothing by 
 comparison with the New. 
 
 It follows from these remarks that the Scriptures, as we 
 have them, constitute a complete and finished whole; and 
 that every part, as it derives light from all the remaining 
 parts, in its turn sheds light upon them. There is throughout 
 a harmony and unity of design which can only be discerned 
 and felt by him who thoroughly studies the whole; which 
 unity and harmony undiscerned and unfelt by the interpreter, 
 
18 INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. 
 
 he can scarcely fail not only to misunderstand, but to do vio- 
 lence to, holy writ. What sad havoc has been made, in 
 modern Germany, of the Old Testament types and prophecies, 
 by severing the two grand divisions of the Scriptures, and in- 
 terpreting them separately, as though they were not indited 
 and composed by one and the same Spirit, is known to all 
 who have attended at all to the course of scripture interpre- 
 tation. Like disastrous results attend the separation of one 
 book from another, and interpreting each part as though it 
 sustained no common relation to all the rest. This mischiev- 
 ous error is most injurious in the hands of those who, like 
 too many interpreters of the present day, entertain low views 
 of the inspiration of the sacred writers. To them, indeed, it 
 ought to be confined. Those who regard the Scriptures as 
 proceeding from men who spake as they were moved by the 
 Holy Ghost, must, if they will be consistent, interpret every 
 part of the whole volume by the light of all the rest. So we 
 interpret the product of any other, though it be but a man’s 
 spirit: how much more, when we believe that we are inter- 
 preting words given or sanctioned by the infallible Spirit of 
 God, the spirit of light and the spirit of truth ? 
 
 The truth is, that the Old and New Testaments are the 
 counterparts and complements of each other. We may com- 
 pare them to the morning dawn and to the splendor of mid- 
 day. The morning dawns and the mid-day shines, only be- 
 cause of the approach and presence of the great monarch of 
 light. And as we would catch his earliest rays, if we would 
 bear the heat and brightness of his meridian glory ; so if we 
 would fully comprehend the sublime and saving light of the 
 New Testament, we should come to it through the obscure 
 dawn of the Old. Either shines at all only because of the 
 approach or the presence of the great Sun of Righteousness. 
 The light which they shed is one and the same, only differ- 
 
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. 19 
 
 ing in degree. ‘They come from the same source, and they 
 direct to the same end. It is ever the same Spirit speaking 
 in them ; and whether the subject-matter be history, or type, 
 or precept, or promise, or prophecy, whatever it be, the great 
 object of the Spirit speaking in the Old Testament is, to 
 meet the spiritual necessities of that generation of the cove- 
 nant people of God, and chiefly by pointing them to, and pre- 
 paring them for, the coming and redemption of the great Son 
 of God and man, so clearly set forth in the New Testament. 
 The necessities of God’s people in every age are essentially the 
 same ; the great remedial system the same ; the experience 
 of his people and the principles of his providential dealings 
 with them the same. Where such is the unity of design and 
 harmony in the subject-matter of revelation, it must needs be 
 that all the parts stand intimately and mutually related, and 
 confirm and illustrate one another. He best understands the 
 Old Testament, who has learned the New aright ; and he 
 best interprets the New, who has most thoroughly studied the 
 institutions and weighed the very expressions of the Old. So 
 true is this, that we may say, had the New Testament never 
 existed, the Old had remained an unintelligible enigma ; and 
 had the Old Testament never existed, the world had scarcely 
 furnished the language that could have accurately and cer- 
 tainly conveyed the glorious revelations of the New. The 
 interpreter therefore needs not only an acquaintance with the 
 general scope of the Sacred Volume, but a minute acquaint- 
 ance with the whole Scriptures ; so that in the consideration 
 of any passage or phrase that needs elucidation, he may be 
 able at once to collect the light that streams from various other 
 parts of the harmonious whole. 
 
 VI. The last qualification of the interpreter of the sa- 
 cred Scriptures which I shall mention, is, that he possess cor- 
 
 rect principles of interpretation, and have the skill and judg- 
 ment to apply them. 
 
90 INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. 
 
 The proper object of all language is to express the opera- 
 tions of the mind. Whether used by God or man, it is in- 
 tended to communicate to others his thoughts, and feelings, 
 and will ; and of course is properly designed to be understood. 
 For this end it is obviously necessary, that, as far as possible, 
 it be used in the ordinary acceptation of its words and phrases. 
 No system of interpretation therefore can, in general, be just, 
 which does not aim to get at the meaning which the words 
 fairly and legitimately convey, when construed according to 
 the ordinary usages of language. 
 
 These general remarks apply in full force to the Scriptures. 
 They are professedly a revelation of the will of God to man. 
 As such, they were intended not only for the learned ; but 
 for the common people. They demand no recondite system 
 of rules, known only to the initiated, in order to be under- 
 stood ; their object is to make men, learned and unlearned, 
 wise unto salvation, by communicating the saving truths of 
 God, so that all who will may understand. For the accom- 
 plishment of this object, they must conform to the ordi- 
 nary and legitimate usages of language. A revelation in unin- 
 telligible language is, in this regard, no revelation at all ; and 
 language is never surer to be misunderstood, or not understood 
 at all, than when it is employed contrary to its established 
 meaning and laws. Such a revelation, to be understood, 
 must carefully reveal the method of its right interpretation. 
 
 The Scriptures contain for themselves no such peculiar or 
 special method of interpretation. They demand to be 
 searched ; but by the help of no special light, save that of 
 the Great Spirit of truth. They do, indeed, teach us that 
 there are types, and parables, and prophecies, and, as I be- 
 lieve, cases of double sense ; but we contend, that here there 
 is no violation of the nature or the legitimate use of lan- 
 guage, so long as we follow the sure guidance of Revelation 
 
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. val 
 
 itself, and proceed not arbitrarily in the interpretation. We 
 have already contended that the Scriptures are a complete 
 whole, and that one part is to be interpreted by the help of 
 the rest ; this common-sense rule we apply in the interpreta- 
 tion of all other instruments. What we further contend for 
 here is, that allowing whatever may be fairly due to the 
 nature of inspiration, and to the nature of the subject of the 
 revelation, we must adhere to the principle, that the lan- 
 guage employed teaches us, respecting that subject, whether 
 past, present, or future, whether common or miraculous, 
 above us or below us, and whether in figurative, typical, 
 parabolic, or allegorical form, what, when interpreted by the 
 ordinary laws and usages of language, it naturally and 
 plainly means. It is in this sense that I would understand 
 the famous maxim of the judicious Hooker:—‘“T hold for a 
 most infallible rule in expositions of the sacred Scriptures, 
 that where a literal construction will stand, the furthest from 
 the letter is commonly the worst.” 
 
 What is commonly known, therefore, as the historico- 
 grammatical system of interpretation is, we believe, the only 
 just system, always allowing what the very nature of a 
 revelation from God and the subject of which it speaks may 
 fairly demand. In this last qualification, we only allow 
 what, in strict accordance with the true nature of lan- 
 guage, is allowed to all writings—that they be interpreted 
 according to themselves and according to the nature of the 
 subjects of which they treat. 
 
 Every period of the church has furnished abundant illus- 
 trations of the prime importance of the possession of correct 
 principles of interpretation, by those who undertake to ex- 
 pound the Scriptures. Before the reformation, first the al- 
 legorical, and then the dogmatical, prevailed. Since that 
 period, a purer and more fruitful method of investigation 
 
22 INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. 
 
 has been vigorously prosecuted; but often upon principles 
 contrary to all sound and rational criticism, however pre- 
 tending to both characteristics, and, of course, derogatory to 
 the true dignity of the Scriptures as a revelation from God, 
 and subversive of their true meaning. It is a common fault 
 of all these systems, that they exalt the human and depress 
 the divine. The dogmas of the church, the prolific fancies 
 of exuberant minds, the prejudgments of human reason, 
 the dicta of human philosophy, the analogies of false re- 
 ligions and heathen mythologies, and the pretensions of 
 modern science, have all prevailed to pervert the Scriptures, 
 and to add to and abstract from them. It is thus, that 
 even in protestant churches, since the reformation, we have 
 had interpreters, who could expound the sacred Scriptures, 
 manifestly controlled by the church symbols which they had 
 embraced ; who could sce in the historiés and prophecies of 
 the Scriptures types and adumbrations of all the great po- 
 litical and ecclesiastical events of subsequent times ; who could 
 treat as trivial all that was not, in the judgment of reason, 
 directly conducive to the moral amendment of mankind ; who 
 could add to the sacred narratives, or take from them, so 
 much as was necessary to make them credible to their phi- 
 losophy or conformable with it ; who could explain the doc- 
 trines of Christ and His Apostles as mere accommodations 
 to Jewish prejudices and the opinions of the age in which 
 they lived ; who could find in all that was miraculous and 
 prophetical absolute impossibilities, except so far as sheer 
 jugglery or shrewd conjecture might attain; who could 
 resolve plain and sober history into sublime poetical and my- 
 thical epics; in fine, who could every where subject the 
 supra-natural to the natural or the rational, thus reducing 
 the whole of Revelation and of religion into the powerless 
 abstractions of deism and pantheism: and where this could 
 
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. 23 
 
 not be done, could groundlessly impugn the integrity of the 
 text, or flatly deny the truth of the record. 
 
 These astounding results we ascribe in part to the systems 
 of interpretation adopted, because, though in general they have 
 proceeded from the subjective views and feelings of their 
 authors, they have been adopted by acknowledged teachers 
 of theology and expounders of the Scriptures in different 
 churches and universities of the world, but especially of 
 Germany, and have been the guiding principles in the ap- 
 plication of the critical apparatus employed to explain away 
 what was offensive and to elicit what was desired. It is 
 gratifying to know, that there is a gradual return from these 
 monstrous excesses to more sober and correct views of the 
 office of the interpreter of the sacred Scriptures. Whilst 
 some still run mad in their license, others, who have done 
 large havoc to the Scriptures, have had their eyes opened in 
 a measure to the reckless and ruinous results of their prin- 
 ciples ; and the necessity is beginning to be felt of coming 
 back to a devout application of those common-sense princi- 
 ples of interpretation, which men ordinarly employ to ascer- 
 tain the meaning of written language. Where these have 
 been combined with learning and tact at exposition, we have 
 had valuable contributions to the right interpretation of the 
 Scriptures, even from men whose philosophic views allowed 
 them to reject or oppose the doctrines which they inculcate. 
 
 The time is fully come when the church of Christ has 
 need of men in this department, who thoroughly understand 
 their business. The great enemy was never wider awake nor 
 harder at work. Vast erudition is arrayed against her very 
 foundations and surest bulwarks. The great champions of 
 damning delusions at the present day are in the church, and 
 hold high places and occupy strong holds. Error has on its 
 side all the corruptions of man and all the powers of hell. 
 
94 INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. 
 
 Already we hear, from different quarters, some stifled sounds 
 of jubilation. But on the side of truth is He that is greater 
 than all. The Spirit of the Lord has set up His standard 
 against them ; and if we will not be recreant to His cause, 
 we will prepare ourselves for the conflict. The heat of the 
 battle has called forth even in Germany noble champions for 
 the truth, who contend with mighty skill for the faith of the 
 saints. We have already said that there we see some signs 
 of giving way in the ranks of the enemy. America, the 
 refuge of all nations and the protector of- all creeds, may yet 
 be the scene of a heavier conflict. The truth will doubtless 
 prevail, The time will come when philosophy and science 
 shall act their parts as the handmaids of religion, and not her 
 mistresses. But let it be remembered, that her triumphs will 
 not be achieved by the power of ignorance and supineness. 
 
 \ 
 
COMMENTARY 
 
 ON THE 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Srx questions present themselves preliminary to 
 the exposition of this Epistle. 
 
 1. To whom was it addressed ? 
 
 2. By whom was it written ? 
 
 3. In what language ? 
 
 4. When was it written ? 
 
 5. To what danger were the Christians peculiarly 
 exposed, who are here addressed; and why ? 
 
 6. What then was the author’s design; and how 
 does he aim to accomplish it? 
 
 The introductory matter will then be concluded by 
 giving, in the 7th place, a General Analysis of the 
 Epistle. 
 
 I. Various opinions have been entertained as to the 
 
90 INTRODUOTION. 
 
 persons addressed in this Epistle. Its epistolary char- 
 acter has even been doubted; but this point will be 
 fully established by the passages which we adduce to 
 show its particular destination. It does not need, there- 
 fore, a separate investigation. 
 
 The Epistle was manifestly addressed originally to 
 Jewish Christians. So all ancient testimony, and the 
 whole scope of the Epistle prove. For particular pas- 
 sages, the reader may consult chap. 2: 1, which, with 
 its context, shows that the persons addressed were 
 Christians, and implies that they were also Jews. In 
 3:1, they are addressed as “holy brethren, partakers 
 of the heavenly calling ;” by which words their Chris- 
 tian profession is plainly described, And the invita- 
 tion to “consider the Apostle and High Priest of our 
 profession, Christ Jesus, who was faithful to him that 
 appointed him, as also Moses was faithful im all his 
 house ;” implies in them a familiarity with Mosaic insti- 
 tutions. In 3: 6, the writer says: “But Christ as a 
 son over his own house; whose house are we,” &e. 
 They were, therefore, members of the Christian family. 
 In 8: 12, the writer calls them “ brethren.” In 5: 12, 
 it is said: “When for the time ye ought to be 
 teachers, ye have need that one teach you again 
 which be the first principles of the oracles of God ;” 
 where the time which had elapsed since their profession 
 of Christianity, is plainly intended. The whole of the 
 well known passage in 6: 1-10, evidently applies 
 to Christians by profession. In 10:19, it is said: 
 “Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into 
 
ἘΞ 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 27 
 
 the holiest by the blood of Jesus,” &c. Here believers 
 in Christ only can be described. And in 10: 23, “ Let 
 us hold fast the profession of our faith without waver- 
 ing.” The evidence that Jewish Christians are address- 
 ed rather than Gentile, is to be further sought in all 
 those numerous places, where a familiar acquaintance 
 with, and attachment to Mosaic institutions, are pre- 
 sumed in them by the author. Instances need not be 
 cited. | 
 
 But to what Jewish Christians was the Epistle writ- 
 ten? Some say, to Jewish Christians in general. But 
 this is refuted by sundry passages, which cannot be 
 understood of Jewish Christians in general. Chap. 5: 
 12, “For, when for the time ye ought to be teachers, 
 ye have need that one teach you again which be the first 
 principles of the oracles of God.” 10: 32 to 34, “ But 
 call to remembrance the former days, in which, after 
 ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight of afjlic- 
 tions ; partly whilst ye were made a gazing stock, both 
 by reproaches and afflictions ; and partly whilst ye e- 
 came companions of them that were so used. For ye 
 had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully 
 the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that 
 ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance.” 
 13: 18, 19, “ Pray for us: for we trust, &. ... But ] 
 beseech you the rather to do this, that I may be restored 
 to you the sooner.” 18: 23, “Know ye that our broth- 
 er Timothy is set at liberty, with whom, if he come 
 shortly, J will see you.” 
 
 Hence most critics assign a locality to the persons 
 
ο8 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 addressed; and Asia Minor, Galatia, Corinth, Thessa- 
 lonica, Spain, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Palestine, 
 . have been designated by different writers. 
 
 Of these, the most ancient and the most generally 
 received opinion ts that they lived in Palestine. Tnter- 
 nal evidence favours this opinion. Only Jewish Chris- 
 tians are addressed. No allusion is made to their being 
 in contact with, or in danger from heathenism; but 
 they are addressed as in great danger from Judaism, and 
 as intimately acquainted with the Jewish ritual. These 
 circumstances are more particularly applicable to Jew- 
 ish Christians residing in Palestine. The reference too, 
 in chap. 10: 25 and 37, to the destruction of the Jew- 
 ish polity (for which the reader may consult the com- 
 ment on those passages), is the most applicable to 
 them: “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 ap- 
 proaching.” “For yet a little while, and he that shall 
 come will come, and will not tarry.” From chap. 6: 10 
 (“For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and 
 labour of love, in that ye have ministered to the saints, 
 and do minister”), it appears that they were able to 
 do works of charity ; and from 12: 4 (“Ye have not 
 yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin”), that they 
 had not suffered fatal persecution. It has been hence 
 inferred that not Jerusalem Christians, but those in 
 Cesarea Palestina, are primarily addressed. But this 
 is a very doubtful inference, as will appear from the 
 commentary on the passage. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 29 
 
 _ II. The authorship of the Epistle has been much 
 disputed. Some refer it to Aarnabas, as Tertullian. 
 Some attribute it, in part at least, to Luke, as Clement 
 of Alexandria; who thinks Paw/ the author and Luke 
 the translator. Some ascribe it to Clement of Lome 
 (Origen refers the matter to Paul, but mentions that 
 some ascribed the writing of it to Luke, and some to 
 Clement of Rome). Some refer it to Sylvanus, as a 
 few moderns; others to Apollos, among whom are 
 Luther’ and others. Zhe most ancient and generally 
 received opinion ascribed it to Paul, at least in its 
 matter. 
 
 It was certainly received as Paul's, for substance, 
 by the celebrated Alexandrian school. First, Pante- 
 nus seems to be clearly indicated as stating so much, 
 by Clement of Alexandria, as quoted by Eusebius 
 (Eccles. Hist. B. VI. c. 14): “A little after this he 
 (Clement) observes: ‘But now, as the blessed Presby- 
 ter used to say: since the Lord, who was the Apostle 
 of the Almighty, was sent to the Hebrews, Paw, by 
 reason of his inferiority, as if sent to the Gentiles, 
 did not subscribe himself an apostle of the Hebrews ; 
 both out of reverence for the Lord, and because he 
 wrote of his abundance to the Hebrews, as a herald 
 and Apostle of the Gentiles.” After him, Clement of 
 Alexandria thought that Paul wrote it in Hebrew to 
 the Hebrews, and that Luke translated it into Greek. 
 (See Euseb. Eccles. Hist. B. VI. c.14.) After him 
 Origen, the next master of this school, says, Ez rig οὖν 
 
 2 ΄ ” r \ > f c if ” 
 ἐχκλησία ἔχει ταύτην τὴν ἐπεστόλὴν ὡς Παύλου, αὐτὴ 
 
90 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 εὐδοκεμεέτω καὶ ἐπὶ τούτῳ. Οὐ γὰρ εἴχῃ οἱ ἀρχαῖοι 
 ἀνδρὲς ὡς Παύλου avrny παραδεδώκασι. This testi- 
 mony runs back very near to apostolic times. He also 
 habitually quotes it as Paul’s, and includes it in his 
 catalogue of Paul’s fourteen Epistles. (See Euseb. Ee- 
 cles. Hist. B. VI. c. 25.) Similar testimony is borne 
 by their successors. 
 
 The Eastern Church universally received the Epis- 
 tle as Paul’s. No reputable author has been cited to 
 the contrary. Justin Martyr and Ephrem Sy His re- 
 ceived it as Paul’s. Eusebius ascribes fourteen epistles 
 to Paul (Eccles. Hist. B. III. ¢. 8, Tod δὲ Παύλου 
 πρόδηλοε καὶ σαφεῖς αὐ δεκατέσσαρες ἐπιστόλαε, #.T.A.) 
 and places this Epistle to the Hebrews among the 
 ὁμολογοῦμενοε, ἴῃ. common with the Epistles of Paul 
 (see Eccles. Hist. B. III. ο. 25; compare B. VI. ο. 13), 
 although he says that some, after the example of the 
 Romans, rejected Hebrews, ἀντὴν ἀντελέγεσθϑαε φήσαν- 
 τες. He also habitually quotes it as Paul’s, in his Com- 
 mentaries and other writings. 
 
 In the Latin Church, it was generally received till 
 the close of the second century, as appears from the 
 extensive quotations of Clement of Rome, and from its 
 having a place in the old Latin versions. Clement, 
 however, after his usual manner, never mentions the 
 author when he quotes it. Its canonical authority was 
 doubted from the time of Tertullian and Caius, A. 1), 
 200, to that of Jerome and Augustine. But all the 
 Latins did not concur in these doubts, as appears from 
 the statements of Jerome. After his time it was again 
 
INTRODUCTION. 31 
 
 universally received. Its rejection during this period 
 is ascribed to the use which the Montanists and Nova- 
 tians made of chap. 6: 4 to 8, and chap. 10: 26 to 31, 
 to justify their severe and unpopular rules as to the 
 perpetual exclusion of certain classes of backsliders 
 from the church. Thus the Revelation was rejected 
 by some through opposition to the Chiliasts, who per- 
 verted its concluding chapters to their support. 
 
 It deserves also to be noted, that in some of the 
 catalogues and most ancient MSS. (as the Codex Alex- 
 andrin. Vatican, Ephremi. Coislinian, &c.), this Epis- 
 tle occurs immediately after 2d Thessalonians, in the 
 very midst of the Pauline Epistles. Such is the state 
 of the external evidence. 
 
 Different critics estimate very differently the inter- 
 nal evidences of a Pauline original. Origen says: Ὃ 
 Ζαρακτὴρ τῆς λέξεως τῆς πρὸς Ἑ ϑραίους ἐπεγεγραμμέ- 
 νης ἐπεστολὴς οὐκ ἔχεε τὸ ἐν λόγῳ ἰδεωτεχὸν τοῦ axo- 
 στόλου; κιτιῦ. ᾿Αλλὰ ἐστὴν ἡ ἐπεστολὴ σύνϑετεε τῆς 
 λέξεως “Ελληνεκώτερα, παρ᾽ ὃ ἐπεστώμενος κρενεῖν φρα- 
 σέων διαφορὰς OmohoyncELav...... εἰποεμ ὧν ὅτε τὰ 
 μὲν νοήματα τοῦ ἀποστόλου ἐστίν ; 4 δὲ Pocus καὶ 
 ἡ σύνϑεσεις ἀπομνημονεύσαντος τενὸς τὰ ἀποστόλεχα, 
 καὶ ὡσπερεὶ σχολεογραφήσαντος τὰ εἰρημένα ὑπὸ τοῦ 
 διδασκάλου. “The character of the diction of the 
 Epistle written to the Hebrews, does not possess the 
 verbal peculiarity of the Apostle,” &e. “But the 
 Epistle is too Greek in the composition of its diction. 
 Every one who knows how to distinguish styles, would 
 acknowledge the differences .... I would say that the 
 
32 INTRODUOTION. 
 
 thoughts are the Apostle’s; but the style and composi- 
 tion are the work of some one who has narrated from 
 recollection apostolic (doctrines); and, as it were, has 
 written scholia upon what was told him by his teach- 
 er.” (See Euseb. Eccles. Hist. B. VI. c. 25.) Imita- 
 ting him, the most part admit that the style is more 
 easy, flowing, and rhetorical, and even classical, than 
 that of Paul generally; though some profess to find a. 
 resemblance to it in his speeches before Felix, Festus, 
 and Agrippa. (These, however, are reported by Luke.) 
 It is also said that Paul’s mode of thinking and reason- 
 ing are absent from the Epistle. But good critics 
 have ventured to question the accuracy and taste of 
 Origen in the Greek style and idiom. Bloomfield says: 
 “The feeling of my own mind as to the composition 
 now in question, after repeated and most attentive ex- 
 aminations of its contents, is, that none but St. Paul 
 could have written it, and consequently, that none but 
 St. Paul did write it. In it, in short, we have all the 
 peculiar and prominent features of St. Paul’s style and 
 manner,” ἄς. The labours of Stuart in answer to Ber- 
 tholdt, Schultz, Seyffarth, De Wette, Boehm, and Bliik, 
 go far to show that, if we settle this question by an 
 appeal to the axak λεγομέγνα, the ἅπαξ εἰρημένα, and 
 the ἅπαξ λογεζομένα which may be found in it, to the 
 hebraizing or classical expressions which it contains, or 
 to such like arguments, we shall do it upon grounds 
 which some of the objectors themselves have relin- 
 quished, and which will either determine that this is a 
 production of Paul, or that there are none such in the 
 
 
 
INTRODUCTION. aa 
 
 sacred Canon. It may be remarked, too, that such is 
 the Pauline cast, that if we may infer any thing from 
 the signal failures of many early attempts at imitation 
 of this and other apostles, we may believe with Origen, 
 “that not without reason did the ancients hand it 
 down as Paul’s.” One thing is certain; that so many 
 are the circumstances which serve to modify style and 
 thought, that nothing in the present case can be in- 
 ferred from this source, against the positive external 
 testimony which has been adduced. Let it be remem- 
 bered in this connexion, that the Apostle was inspired, 
 that the subject was unique, that this was among the 
 last of his Epistles, that he was writing to his own 
 countrymen, that he was subject to like passions with 
 ourselves. All these circumstances might well modify 
 here his diction and modes of thought. 
 
 III. All to the original language of the Epistle, two 
 opinions have been entertained: first, that it was writ- 
 ten or dictated in Hebrew and translated into the 
 Greek; and second, that it was originally written in 
 the Greek as we have it. The ancients inclined to the 
 former opinion ; the later commentators adopt the lat- 
 ter. Though addressed to Hebrews, it was best adapt- 
 ed to common use in Greek; as the Apostle manifestly 
 judged in the case of the Epistle to the Romans, which 
 was addressed to Latins. It has the air of an original, 
 and nothing of the stiffness of a translation. It quotes 
 from the Septuagint: a thing very unlikely, if it had 
 been written in Hebrew; and it translates Hebrew 
 
 3 
 
84 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 words; (though here we should judge cautiously.) 
 There is no evidence that a Hebrew original was ever 
 in existence; but one has only been inferred to account 
 for supposed departures from Paul’s style in other 
 epistles. And in conclusion, the Greek Epistle was in 
 early and universal circulation. 
 
 IV. The Epistle was written before the destruction 
 of Jerusalem; for the Apostle did not live so long. 
 And it appears from chap. 9: 9, and 13: 10, not to say 
 from the whole scope of the Epistle, that the temple 
 was still standing, and its worship maintained. (jze¢ 
 παραβολὴ εἰς τὸν καιρὸν TOY ἐνεστηκότω, HAP ὃν δῶρά 
 τε καὶ ϑυσέίαε προσφέρονταε, κιτιῆλ., which should be 
 translated: “ Which zs a figure for the approaching 
 time, for which both gifts and sacrifices ae offered.” And 
 Ἔχομεν ϑυσεαεστήρεον, ἐξ οὗ φαγεῖν οὐκ ἔχουσεν ἐξου- 
 σέαν οἱ τῇ σκηνῇ λατρεύοντες.) But it could not have 
 been written very many years before that destruction, 
 since we learn from a passage already quoted (chap. 5: 
 12), that they had long been Christians. The words 
 of chap. 18: 7, “Remember them which have the rule 
 over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God; 
 whose faith follow, considering the end (ἔκϑασεν) of 
 their conversation,” seem to show that their first teachers 
 were already dead. A comparison of chap. 10: 25 with 
 10: 87, will also discover an allusion to the near approach 
 of the catastrophe: “ Not forsaking the assembling of 
 ourselves together, as the manner of some is, but ex- 
 horting one another, and so much the more as ye see the 
 
INTRODUCTION. 95 
 
 day approaching.” ‘“¥or yet a little while, and he 
 that shall come will come, and will not tarry.” 
 
 After all that has been said, the canonical authority 
 of the Epistle cannot be doubted; and there can be 
 little doubt that Paul was the author. It is found in 
 the old Syriac or Peschito version, in the old Latin ver- 
 sions, and in twelve out of the fourteen ancient cata- 
 logues; and is quoted, as we have seen, by the Fathers 
 generally. 
 
 V. The Jewish Christians addressed, were peculiarly 
 exposed to apostacy from Christianity to Judaism, for 
 several reasons. 1. From old prejudices and early 
 education ; Judaism had been the religion of their fath- 
 ers from immemorial generations. 2. From the splen- 
 dour of the Temple and temple-service, which appealed 
 continually to their senses, and which would be asserted 
 by their enemies to stand in splendid contrast with the 
 bald simplicity of the Christian worship. 3. From the , 
 influence of social relationships; their relatives, neigh- 
 bours, friends, countrymen, were Jews. 4. From the 
 odium attached to the cross, than which there was, to 
 a Jew, no greater stumbling block. 5. From persecu- 
 tions, which, though not yet unto death, were severe. 
 
 VI. The author aimed, therefore, first and mainly, to 
 confirm them in the Christian faith against apostacy to 
 Judaism. To this design the first twelve chapters are 
 devoted. In chapter thirteen he exhorts them to va- 
 rious Christian duties. He seems, however, never to 
 
96 INTRODUOTION. 
 
 lose sight of his great design, while, of course, other col- 
 lateral ends are subserved. 
 
 VII. To comprehend the analysis of the Apostle’s 
 argument, it should be noted, that the claims of the 
 Jewish system were rested on these grounds: 1. Its 
 introduction by the ministry of Angels. 2. Its having 
 Moses, the greatest of Prophets, for its divinely appoint- 
 ed Head. 3. Its divinely instituted Ritual and Priest- 
 hood. The author therefore argues : 
 
 I. Christ’s superiority to Angels, chaps. 1 and 2, 
 proving Him to be divine in chap. 1, and explaining the 
 reasons of his becoming man in chap. 2, ν. 5 to end. 
 
 If. His superiority to Moses, chap. 3, v. 1-6. 
 
 II. The superiority of his Priesthood to the Leviti- 
 eal, in all respects, chap. 5, v. 1-10, and 7-10: 18. 
 
 Each of these arguments is followed or interrupted 
 by exhortations, the scope of which is generally against 
 apostacy ; as in chap. 2: 1-4; 3:7 through 4: 5: 11-6. 
 10: 19 through 12. 
 
 The biblical student is referred for fuller details on 
 the Introduction, to Horne’s Introduction, Vol. 11, pp. 
 849-857. Stuart’s Commentary on Hebrews, Vol. I. 
 Bloomfield on the Epistle, in his New Test. Lardner, 
 Hug, Kuinoel, Micheelis, &c., and to Whitby’s preface 
 to the Epistle in his Commentary. 
 
 For Commentaries, the following may be consulted. 
 Stuart, Bloomfield (in his Recensio Synoptica, or Crit- 
 
INTRODUCTION. 37 
 
 ical Digest, and New Test.), Jas. Pierce, Hammond, 
 Owen, Whitby, McKnight, Clark, Barnes. 
 
 Calvin, Kuinoel, Rosenmiiller, Matheei, Poli Synop- 
 sis, Wetstein, I. A. Ernesti (Lectiones in Ep. ad He- 
 breos). 
 
 From these sources the materials of this work have 
 
 been chiefly drawn. 
 
CAAPTER I, 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 Tue author commences with a comparison of the 
 revelation made to the Fathers, and that made to them- 
 selves, inv. 1. He does this with an evident view to 
 the application of his argument in chap. 2: 1-4. He 
 then appropriately introduces his subject by declaring 
 the exalted character of Christ, vv. 2, 3, concluding 
 with the assertion of his superiority to angels, v. 4. 
 This is the first proposition to be proved, as at once 
 laying a solid foundation for his own argument, and 
 undermining a pillar in the Jewish faith. This superi- 
 ority he argues, 7 
 
 1. From the ttle bestowed on him. He is called 
 Son in a sense in which that term is never bestowed 
 on angels, v. 5. 
 
 2. The angels are commanded to worship him, v. 6. 
 
 8. The angels are represented as servants, like the 
 winds and lightning, v. 7, but the Son is addressed as 
 God, seated on an everlasting throne, swaying a sceptre 
 of righteousness, the Founder of the earth, and Maker 
 of the heavens, who, after creation itself had waxed old 
 and changed, should remain forever and unchangeably 
 the same, vv. 8-12. The whole argument is, of course, 
 from the Jewish Scriptures. 
 
ANWALYWSIS. 39 
 
 A supplement to this last argument, establishing 
 the main proposition, adduces a passage which repre- 
 sents Christ as exalted till all enemies are subdued; 
 whereas the angels are sent forth to minister to his 
 people. vv. 13, 14. 
 
 Title of the Epistle: ‘H πρὸς ‘E@oaious’Excoroay. 
 These words are possibly not Paul’s. They are not in 
 the Apostle’s manner, nor like the introductions of his 
 epistles generally, as will be seen by a reference to 
 their commencements. But it may be urged, on the 
 other hand, that an epistle would hardly be sent with- 
 out any direction or address; and as the Apostle has 
 omitted the usual introductory address, for some un- 
 known reason, he may have prefixed this direction. 
 Eusebius (in his Eccles. Hist. Pie 14), quotes 
 Clement of Alexandria as saying: “It is probable the 
 title, ‘Paul the Apostle, was not prefixed to it. For 
 as he wrote to the Hebrews, who had imbibed preju- 
 dices against him and suspected him, he wisely guards 
 against diverting them from the perusal, by giving his 
 name.” He also represents Clement as saying after 
 ‘Panteenus, that the omission of an introduction as 
 ‘ Apostle of the Hebrews, was out of reverence to our 
 Lord, and because, being the Apostle of the Gentiles, 
 he wrote out of his abundance to the Hebrews. It 15 
 easier for us to account for Paul’s prefixing such a title, 
 than for his dispensing with the usual introduction. 
 
40 ANALYSIS. 
 
 The title is certainly very ancient; it is found in all the 
 MSS. which contain the Epistle (with some variations, 
 which may be seen in Scholz’ New Test.) ; it is found in 
 the Syriac, and the Latin versions before Jerome; and 
 the Fathers of the second and third centuries constant- 
 ly refer to the Epistle as that to the Hebrews. Exam- 
 ples may be seen in Eusebius’ Eccles. Hist. B. ΠῚ. ¢. 38. 
 VI. c. 14. 25. 
 
 But who are particularly defined by the term 
 Ἑβραϊοεῖ We find it in the New Test. only in Acts 
 6:1. 2 Cor. 11: 22. Philip. 3:5. In the first of 
 these we read: ἐγένετο γογγυσμὸς τῶν Ἑλληνεστῶν 
 πρὸς τοὺς Leuiov;. Here Ἑλληνεστῶν and Ἑ βραίους 
 are manifestly opposed; and whatever difference of 
 opinion may exist as to the former, the critics almost 
 all agree that the latter, in this passage at least, means 
 
 ‘Hebrews residing in Palestine proper, and speaking 
 
 the vernacular langtage of that country. Thus say the 
 Lexicons, as Bretschneider, Wahl, Robinson; and the 
 commentators on that passage of Acts. In the second 
 place cited we read: “E@ocioi εἰσε; xeyo* Ἰσραηλῖ- 
 ταί εἰσε; κάγω" Grégua’AGouau εἰσε; xayo* κτλ. 
 And in the third: περετομῇ ὀκταήμερος. ἐκ γένους 
 Ἰσραήλ, φυλὴς Βενεωμέν, Ἕβραῖος ἐξ Ἑβραίων, κιτ.λ. 
 In each place it is plain that the Apostle means to 
 affirm himself a Hebrew, or an Israelite in the strong- 
 est sense of that term. Yet we see, from his case, that 
 an actual birth in Palestine was not required for this 
 distinction. Further, the words Ἑ ϑραϊκοῖς, in Luke 23: 
 38, Ἑβραΐδε in Acts 21: 40, 22: 2, and 26: 14, and 
 
ANALYSIS. 41 
 
 Efoaiort,in John 5:2, 19:13, 17: 20, and Rev. 9: 
 11, 16: 16, all denote the Hebrew-Aramzan or Syro- 
 Chaldaic, which was the proper tongue of the Jews in 
 Palestine at that time. In Josephus, Bell. Judaic. B. 
 VI. ὁ. 2. §1, Ἑβραΐζων means ‘speaking in Hebrew,’ 
 i.e. in Syro-Chaldaic. Many of the Fathers, under- 
 standing this Epistle, and also Matthew’s Gospel, to 
 have been written to Jews in Palestine, designate in 
 the same way both them, and the language in which 
 they suppose that the Apostle wrote. The persons in- 
 tended by this title seem plainly, therefore, to be He- 
 brews then residing in Palestine, or, if foreigners by 
 birth, educated in Palestine in the religion and customs 
 of their fathers, and speaking their vernacular tongue. 
 And if so, the title, if Paul’s, certainly determines the 
 persons addressed ; or if early prefixed by other hands, 
 it shows the opinion of the early church on this point. 
 See Stuart’s Com. on Hebr. 2nd ed. pp. 35-38. 
 
42 HEBREWS, OHAP. I.’ Vv. 1. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 1 Πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως πάλαε ὃ Θεὸς λαλήσας 
 τοῖς πατράσεν ἐν τοῖς προφήταις, ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτου τῶν 
 
 2 ἡμερῶν τούτων ἐλάλησεν ἡ μῖν ἐν ὑεῷ, ὃν ἔϑηκε κλην 
 ρονόμον πάντων, δὲ οὗ καὶ τοὺς αἰῶνας ἐποίησεν, 
 
 ὃ ὃς ὧν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς 
 ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ, φέρων TE τὰ πώντα τῷ ῥήματε 
 τῆς δυνάμεως αὑτοῦ, δὲ ἑαυτοῦ καϑαρεσμὸν ποιῆ- 
 σάμενος τῶν ἁμαρτεῶν ἡμῶν, ἐκάϑεσεν ev δεξεᾷ 
 
 4 τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς" τοσούτῳ κρείττων 
 γενόμενος τῶν ἀγγέλων, ὅσῳ διαφορώτερον παρ᾽ 
 αὐτοὺς κεκληρονόμηκεν ὄνομα. 
 
 V.1. Ππολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως, means literally: 
 “In many parts, and in many ways:” referring to the 
 various revelations at different times, and the various 
 modes in which they were given. So, in substance, are 
 the words rendered by Calvin, Stuart, and Whitby. 
 De Wette renders them, “ Vor zeiten vielfittig und 
 auf vielerlei Weise.” Others regard them as mere 
 euphonic synonymes, to denote the variety of doctrines 
 and matters revealed through the prophets. So Gro- 
 tius, Kuinoél, Dindorf, Bloomfield, understand them. 
 But where then is the antithesis between these revela- 
 tions, and those of “these last times?” If, with the 
 New Test. Lexicons, we translate, “in diverse manners” 
 (in multis modis) merely, whence do we rightfully 
 derive such a sense for πολυμερῶς ? μέρος has properly 
 
PERE π 8, OR AP a τον τος. ὃ. 43 
 
 no such meaning. The ancient interpreters were in 
 like manner divided. Both words occur in the New 
 Test. only here. It seems to us best, therefore, to ad- 
 here to the meaning first announced. 
 
 προφήταις literally means in Greek, “a foretel- 
 ler.” In the Septuagint and New Test. it is used not 
 in its etymological sense, but in that of the Hebrew 
 8°22; one who speaks under divine authority and in- 
 spiration, it might be to exhort, instruct, or rebuke, as 
 well as foretell. Here the reader may compare Gen. 
 20:7, where God informs Abimelech, king of Gerar, 
 that Abraham is a prophet, i.e. an inspired man; 
 Exod. 7: 1, where Moses, when sent on his mission to 
 Egypt, is told that he “shall be as a God to Pharaoh, 
 and Aaron his brother shall be his prophet,” i. e. his 
 messenger; and Psalm 105: 15, in which the Israelites 
 are called God’s prophets, in the sense of his anointed, 
 holy, and chosen people. See also Alexander on Isaiah, 
 Introduce. pp. 1x—xu. 
 
 V. 2. ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου (Textus Receptus gives various 
 reading, ἐσχάτων) τῶν ἡμερῶν. Hither reading gives 
 the same sense. Both occur in the Septuagint for 
 pad moins. Literally, it denoted the future, and for 
 the most part, the remote future; as in Gen. 49: 1 
 (where Jacob foretells his sons what shall befall their 
 descendants “in the last days”), Numbers 24: 14, and 
 Dan. 10: 14. But the phrase came technically to des- 
 ignate messianic times as opposed to ancient times 
 (πάλαι). In this sense Isaiah (2:2) says: “It shall 
 come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the 
 
4-4 HEBREWS, CHAP. I. Vv. 2. 
 
 Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the 
 mountains,” &c. Hosea (3: 5), distinctly describing a 
 time after the end of the ceremonial dispensation, says: 
 “The children of Israel . . . shall fear the Lord and his 
 goodness in the latter days.” Micah (4: 1) repeats the 
 words of Isaiah, and in the same sense. In the New 
 Test. the phrase is frequent under different forms of 
 equivalent meaning, in all.of them designating messi- 
 anic times, but referring more particularly to different 
 periods of it. Thus, in Acts 2: 17, Hebr. 1: 1, and 
 1 Peter 1: 20, it refers to apostolic times; and in 2 
 Tim. 3:1, James 5: 3, 2 Peter ὃ: 3, to later times 
 near Christ’s second coming. See Robinson’s Lexicon 
 of New Test. 
 
 ἕν vio. The article is omitted before this word, as 
 also in 5:8 and 7:28 below. This is not unusual 
 with proper names. It is worthy of remark that the 
 name Xgcoros is almost uniformly preceded by the 
 article in the Gospels, and is most usually without it in 
 Paul’s and Peter’s Epistles. So Kvecog often wants the 
 article, especially after prepositions. (See Winer’s 
 Idioms New Test. 817. 8, p. 98. 811. 4.) 
 
 The manifest antithesis between the several mem- 
 bers of this verse should be noticed. But we are not 
 to strain it so far as to infer that Christ was not the 
 Divine Person manifested “to the fathers.” For we 
 see in John 12: 41, that Isaiah “saw his glory, and 
 spake of him.” Compare Isaiah 6: 1, 10; and 1 Cor. 
 10: 4, 9, assures us that the old Israelites “drank of 
 that spiritual Rock which followed them, and that Rock 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. I. V. 2. 45 
 
 was Christ ;” and forewarns us, “ Neither let us tempt 
 Christ, as some of them also tempted.” 
 
 zAnoovouoy. Christ is thus called because he is a 
 Son, exalted by his Yather to the mediatorial throne, 
 with all the power and judgment in his hands, and the 
 promise of universal dominion as his inheritance. The 
 meaning is well illustrated by the 2nd Psalm, through- 
 out, but especially by vv. 6-9. It is worthy of note 
 that the Latins used herus in the sense of dominus. 
 An illustration of the author's idea may also be found 
 in Gal. 4:1, Ἐφ᾽ ὅσον χρόνον ὁ κληρονόμος νήπεός 
 ἔστεν, OVOEY δεαχφέρεε δούλου, #UQLOS πάντων wy. The 
 word πάντων, annexed in the text, certainly gives to 
 κληρονόμος the meaning of universal dominion. In 
 the same sense, doubtless, Acts 2: 36 says: “God hath 
 made that same Jesus ... both Lord and Christ.” 
 Acts 10: 36 asserts that “He is Lord of all” (zvgcog 
 πάντων). And Eph. 1: 22 says that God “gave 
 (ἔδωκε) him to be Head over all things to the Church.” 
 
 δὲ ov. Grotius renders these words (which in our 
 version are translated, “dy whom also he made the 
 worlds”) “on account of whom.” This is contrary to 
 the general usage of the preposition διὰ with the geni- 
 tive (see Winer’s Idioms New Test. 851, i; p. 304. 
 Compare $53, 6; p. 308); and it is peculiarly contrary 
 to its usage in this Epistle. Let the reader turn, for 
 instance, to the examples nearest at hand; vv. 3, 9, 14 
 of the first, and 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 14, &c., of the second 
 chapters, and he will see that dv@ is uniformly employ- 
 ed with the accusative to mean “on account of,” and 
 
40 HEBREWS, OHAP. I. Vv. 38. 
 
 that when placed before the genitive, it signifies instru- 
 mentality or agency. The sense given by Grotius is 
 equally opposed to the parallel sentiments of 1 Cor. 8: 
 6, “One Lord Jesus Christ, δὲ ov τὰ πάντα ;" of Col. 
 1:16, ἐν αὐτῷ ἐχτίσϑη τὰ πάντα, #.0...... τὰ πάντα 
 δὲ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔχκτεσταε; and of John 1: 8, 
 πάντα δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο. The meaning therefore is 
 plain ; that the Son was the agent in this work. 
 
 rove αἰῶνας. This word here signifies “the world,” 
 “the universe.” This is the sense in which it is used in 
 chap. 11:3 infra, andin 1 Tim. 1:17. Its usage may 
 be illustrated by that of n>%> in Chaldee and in the 
 later Hebrew. This word is often used in the singular, 
 respecting both the present world (FIM Ὡρὴν, ὁ αἰῶν 
 οὗτος), and the future (835 Dn, ὁ αἰῶν μέλλων vel 
 ἐρχόμενος). Instances of such use may be seen in Matt. 
 12: 32; Mark 10: 30; Luke 18: 30; Wisdom 4: 2; 
 Matt. 13: 22, 40,49; 28:20; Eph. 1: 21. Its uses 
 may also be compared in 1 Cor. 10:11; Eph. 2: 7; 
 Hebr. 9: 26, and perhaps 6: 5. These passages plainly 
 reveal two senses as attaching to the words aay, aid- 
 vec in New Test. usage. In the one class of citations, 
 it is “the universe,” in the other, the later dispensation 
 as contrasted with a previous. The former sense is 
 most appropriate to this text. It is worthy of notice 
 that Hebr. 2: 5, when speaking of our world as not 
 put in subjection to the angels, employs the word oé- 
 κουμένην, the word usually employed to describe the 
 habitable globe. 
 
 ” > , ~ fu > ~ 
 V. 3. ὃς ὧν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ. “The 
 
᾿ 
 
 HEBREWS, CHAP. I. Vv. 8. 41 
 
 shining forth of his glory.” De Wette renders these 
 words, Ein abglanz seiner Herrlichkeit: “A reflection 
 of his glory.” The glory of God here can only mean 
 the divine perfections, and not his declarative glory 
 merely ; as is sufficiently evident from the connected 
 and parallel clause, which is translated by the English 
 version, “the express image of his person.” For if it 
 is only meant by the former clause, that Christ or his 
 work manifest the declarative glory of God, it may be 
 answered, so does the humblest saint; yea, sinners 
 and devils. There would be a glaring incoherency be- 
 tween the poverty of the first, and the strength of the 
 latter clause. And we have illustrative usages of this 
 word in other places. In Romans 1: 28, the heathen 
 changed “the glory of the incorruptible God (τὴν δό- 
 kav τοῦ ἀφϑάρτου Osov) into an image made like to 
 corruptible man,” &¢. Acts 7: 2, “The God of glory 
 (ὁ Θεὸς τῆς δόξης) appeared to our father Abraham.” 
 Eph. 1: 17, “ That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 the Father of glory (ὁ πατὴρ τῆς δόξης), May give 
 unto you the spirit of wisdom,” &c. In the first of 
 these passages the meaning evidently is, “the divine 
 perfections or attributes ;” in the second and third it 
 is, “the God, the Father, who is possessed of divine 
 perfections.” The text then asserts that Christ was a 
 bright exhibition to men of the divine perfections. In 
 2 Cor. 4: 4, he is called εὐκῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ. In Col. 1: 
 15, εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀοράτου. In Isaiah 63:9, 122 3872, 
 ‘the Angel of his (God’s) presence.’ In John 1: 1, he 
 is ὁ Adyos, at the same time Θεός, and in v. 14 it is 
 
. 
 
 48 HEBREWS, OHAP. I. V. 38. 
 
 said σὰρξ ἐγένετο; and then, v.18, “No man hath 
 seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, he hath 
 revealed him, ὁ ὧν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός." John 
 12:45, Christ says of himself, “He that seeth me 
 seeth Him that sent me;” and in 14: 9, “ He that hath 
 seen me hath seen the Father.” The assertion, especially 
 when taken in its connexion, is exceedingly strong, as 
 will be seen by reading from vy. 8-11. Hence in 2 Cor. 
 4:6 we read: “Oz (sc. Θεὸς) ἔλαμψεν év ταῖς καρδέαες 
 ἡμῶν, πρὸς φωτισμὸν τῆς γνώσεως τῆς δόξης τοῦ 
 Θεοῦ ἐν προσώπῳ Inoov Χρεστοῦ. All these 
 scripture parallelisms abundantly prove that this pas- 
 sage designates Christ as, in his own person and nature, 
 the splendid representation to men of divine perfec- 
 tions. The attempts made by those of the Fathers 
 tinctured with Neo-Platonism, to find in this expression 
 a proof for their doctrine of emanation, will need no an- 
 swer after the illustrations of its meaning given above. 
 
 καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστώσεως αὐτοῦ. These words 
 we may translate, “The image, or impression of his being, 
 or substance.” De Wette translates, “ Abdruck seines 
 Wesens—the impression of his being.” χαρακτήρ, 
 which occurs only here in the New Test. must have 
 here the secondary sense given to it, for its first sense of 
 mark is inapplicable ; and the parallelism requires it. 
 The other word ὑποστάσεως only occurs in four places 
 besides this; in 2 Cor. 9: 4, 11: 17, and Hebr. 3: 14, 
 11: 1, in all which it may mean confidence. (But for 
 the last two the reader is referred to the commentary 
 on the passages.) Here it can only have the meaning 
 
ἘΠΕ ν S,: OBA Poo Bi Be. 3x 49 
 
 of “being,” “substance,” in which all the Lexicons 
 agree, as do the old Syriac and Vulgate versions. The 
 former of these writes it +2623), and the latter, ‘figura 
 substantie 605. The meaning “person” it cannot 
 bear; as it does not occur in this sense till the fourth 
 century, when Athanasius used it in distinction from 
 οὐσία ; affirming of the Trinity one οὐσέα, three ὑπο- 
 στάσεις. The phrase then teaches that Christ was the 
 representation of very God, so to speak; and finds its 
 best parallel and illustration in Col. 1: 15, which has 
 been already adduced, εὐχὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου. 
 
 φέρων τε τὰ πάντα, κιτ.Δ.ι The original significa- 
 tion of the participle here is that of “ bearing ;” indeed, 
 we see in the English word the cognate consonants b, r, 
 showing its kindred. From this sense φέρων naturally 
 comes to mean “upholding and governing,” both which 
 ideas are included here. ‘“God’s works of providence 
 are, his most holy, wise and powerful preserving and 
 governing all his creatures, and all their actions.” 
 (Shorter Cat.) In Numb. 11: 14, and Deut. 1: 9, the 
 Septuagint translates sv? by φέρω, in both which 
 places, Moses’ whole work, as the ruler and guardian 
 of Israel, is meant by it: “Iam not able to dear this 
 people alone.” In later Greek writers it occurs in the 
 sense of ‘to govern or rule’ Thus, Plutarch’s Lucul. 6, 
 Κέϑηγον avdovra τῇ δόξῃ τότε, καὶ φέροντα τὴν πό- 
 λὲν. So say Wahl and Robinson, following Passow. 
 The reader may also compare Col. 1: 17, τὰ πάντα ἐν 
 αὐτῷ συνέστηκε. 
 
 τῷ ῥήματε τῆς δυνάμεως αὑτοῦ we will render: 
 
 + 
 
δ0 HEBREWS, OHAP. I. Vv. 8. 
 
 “by his omnipotent word.” So that the rendering of 
 the English version, “ upholding all things by the word 
 of his power,” may be adopted as entirely good, if we 
 give to upholding the ideas of sustaining and governing. 
 
 καθαρισμὸν... τῶν ἁμαρτεῶν ἡμῶν. This expresses 
 the “purification,” not only of the moral pollution, but 
 also of the guilt of sin. This double work is every where 
 through this Epistle ascribed to Christ, and the under- 
 standing of it is the key to the meaning of many pas- 
 sages. Chap. 9:14, “The blood of Christ ... shall 
 purge your conscience from dead works to serve the liv- 
 ing God.” ν. 26, “He hath appeared to put away sin 
 by the sacrifice of himself.” 10: 10, “ By the which will 
 we are sanctified by the offermg of the body of Jesus 
 Christ once for all.” v.14, “For by one offering he hath 
 perfected forever them that are sanctified.” All these 
 and many more passages are made luminous by the 
 idea that the author has ever before his mind the dou- 
 ble consequence of Christ’s sacrifice, pardon of guilt, 
 and deliverance from the power of sin. That the word 
 καϑαρεσμὸς Will bear the sense of “ atonement,” is man- 
 ifest from the Septuagint use of it as a translation for 
 mya2n in Exodus 29: 36 and 30:10. And in Job 7; 
 91, "259 MX TaD) wwe NwnoNd M99 is translated dere 
 οὐκ ἐποιήσω τῆς νομέας μοῦ Anny, “αὶ «αϑαωρισμὸν 
 τῆς ἁμαρτίας μοῦ; The propriety of the same transla- 
 tion is also proved by the use of the verb καϑαρέζω im 
 this sense in 1 John 1: 7, καὶ τὸ aiud Ἰησοῦ Χρεστοῦ 
 τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ καϑαρίζεε ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ πάσης ἁμαρτίας, 
 “¢leanseth us from all sin.” See also a similar use of 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. I. v. 38. 51 
 
 the verb in Hebr. 9: 22, 23, καὶ σχεδὸν ἐν αἵματε tar- 
 ra καϑαρέζεταε κατὰ τὸν νόμον... -Avayxn οὖν τὰ 
 μὲν ὑποδείγματα τῶν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, τούτοις καϑα- 
 ρίζεσθαε, αὐτὰ δὲ ἐπουράώνεω κρείττωσε ϑυσίαες παρὰ 
 ταύτας : where the purifications alluded to are the well 
 known sprinklings and sacrifices of atonement so fully 
 described in the Levitical law. That a true, vicarious 
 expiation of guilt is the leading idea in the text under 
 discussion, is plain from the adjunct δὲ ἑαυτοῦ; which 
 is abundantly shown to be equivalent to “ by the sac- 
 rifice of himself,” from a comparison with the parallel 
 expressions in Hebr. 9: 12, 14, and 26. Thus, v. 12, 
 “Not by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own 
 blood (dca δὲ τοῦ ἰδέου αἵματος, blood offered in a sac- 
 rificial sense corresponding to that of its types), he en- 
 tered in once into the holy place, having obtained 
 eternal redemption for us;” v. 13, 14, “For if the 
 blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer 
 sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying 
 (χσαϑαρότηταλ) of the flesh ; how much more shall the 
 blood of Christ .". . purge your conscience” (καϑιαρεεῖ), 
 &ec.; v. 26, “But now once in the end of the world, 
 hath he appeared to put away sin, by the sacrifice of 
 himself” (διὰ τῆς ϑυσίας αὑτοῦ). This putting away 
 of sin is the χαϑαρεσμὸς of the text, and the διὰ τῆς 
 ϑυσίας αὑτοῦ is but a fuller expression of its phrase 
 δὲ ἑαυτοῦ. The meaning may also be illustrated by 
 1 Peter 2: 24, ὃς τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν αὐτὸς ἀνήνεγκεν 
 ἐν τῷ σώματε αὑτοῦ ἐπὶ τὸ ζύλον, ἵνα ταῖς ὡμαρτέαες 
 
 ? Υ̓ Ὧν r r 
 αἀπογενομίενοι, TH δικαιοσύνῃ ζήσωμεν. Here we have 
 
δ2 HEBREWS, OHAP. I. Vv. 8. 
 
 the clearest possible expression of the idea of a vicari- 
 ous atonement (“He bare away our sins, in his own 
 body on the tree”); and at the same time, a clear τοῖς 
 erence to the second part of Christ’s double work, de- 
 liverance from the power of sin. That we are correct 
 in rendering καϑαρεσμὸν by atonement (in its true 
 Vicarious sense), is also evident from the fundamental 
 nature of this work, as it is described in all the Serip- 
 tures, and especially in this Epistle. The passages 
 above referred to, are sufficient specimens of this, and 
 especially the last cited. In accordance with this are 
 the best Biblical Lexicons. Wahl’s Clavis gives to the 
 word under discussion, as its fourth leading sense, Hx- 
 piatio, and cites 2 Peter 1:9, Hebr. 1:3. Bretsch- 
 ~neider’s Lex. Manuale, N. T. gives: De purgatione a 
 peccato, et liberatione ab ejus culpa per sanguinem facta, 
 and cites in support the same texts. We sum up this 
 discussion, then, by saying: we claim the meaning of ὦ 
 proper atonement for κωϑαρισμόν, and its kindred 
 words, on the ground, first, of its clear Septuagint 
 usage in this sense; second, of the force given to it by 
 its adjuncts and contexts in the passages cited; third, 
 of the fundamental nature of the work, which is thus 
 defined by the whole tenour of Scripture ; and fourth, 
 of the testimony of the Lexicons. We have thus care- 
 fully settled the proper meaning of this, which is a 
 leading word throughout this Epistle, at this its first 
 occurrence, in order that we may be able to assume 
 our conclusion without further discussion, whenever it 
 recurs. In conclusion, the author manifestly uses it 
 
ἘΣ ΕΣ ΒΕ τ 6. ΘΟ AP. HW. Ὁ. 53 
 
 here, in the comprehensive introduction of his treatise, 
 as embodying the sum and substance of Christ’s re- 
 demption. It includes all that work, which, when 
 finished, left him nothing more to do, but to “sit down 
 at the right hand of the majesty on high.” 
 
 In the words ἐν δεξιῷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης, &e., we 
 have an instance of the frequent substitution of the 
 abstract for the concrete. Nearly the same words oc- 
 cur in chap. 8:1, “He hath set down on the right 
 _ hand of Him who is majestic.” To ilustrate the pro- 
 per force of this expression we may cite Ps. 110: 1, 
 “Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies 
 thy footstool;” Hebr. 10: 12, “ But this man, after he 
 had offered one sacrifice for sins, forever sat down on Ἵ 
 the right hand of God, from henceforth expecting till 
 his enemies be made his footstool;” and Hebr. 12: 2, 
 “Ts set down at the right hand of the throne of God.” 
 To sit on the right hand of a throne denotes, in Bible 
 usage, honour, approbation, and reward, conferred by 
 the monarch. Thus Bathsheba was seated by her son 
 king Solomon; and in this sense the saints are elevated 
 to Christ’s throne. But in a higher sense it signifies 
 participation in authority and dignity. This is its 
 meaning here. It should be borne in mind, that the 
 Scriptures always attribute this exaltation to Christ in- 
 carnate, the Mediator, never to the Adyog, in his original 
 nature. It is not his original divine authority; but a 
 conferred exaltation and authority, the reward of his 
 humiliation. (See Stuart on Hebr. Excursus 4.) In 
 his divine nature simply considered, the Son cannot be 
 
δά HEBREWS, OHAP. 1. Vv. 4. 
 
 exalted. He was already infinite in majesty. And had 
 our Mediator been a mere creature, he could not have 
 shared thus in the divine glory and government. If’ 
 further confirmation is desired, of the meaning claimed, 
 the reader may consult Acts 2: 33, 86, Eph. 1: 20, 22, 
 Phil. 2: 6-11, 1 Peter 8: 22. He is made head over 
 all things; and all powers, principalities, authorities, 
 are subject to him. These places settle the meaning in 
 others, where the context is not so-strong. 
 
 V. 4. κρείττων may be best rendered “superior.” - 
 This superiority of Christ over angels is both in nature 
 and dignity; as appears from the Apostle’s previous 
 words, and subsequent arguments. He has already 
 declared Christ to be the bright manifestation of very 
 God, the heir, creator, upholder, and governor of all 
 things ; and the son of God. He is about to prove him 
 superior to angels, not only in his nature but his fune- 
 tions. The translation of zge(rr@y by “ superior” may 
 be justified by a reference to Hebr. 7: 7, “ Beyond all 
 contradiction the less (τὸ ἔλαττον) is blessed of the 
 better” (χρεέττονος), where the sense, and the antith- 
 esis to ἔλαττον plainly require it to be translated “ the 
 superior.” 9: 28, “It was therefore necessary that 
 the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified 
 with these; but the heavenly things themselves with 
 better sacrifices than these” (xgs(rroce ϑυσίαις παρὰ 
 ravras)—* superior sacrifices.” 10: 34, “ Knowing 
 that ye have in heaven a better (xgs¢rrova, superior) 
 and an enduring substance.” 
 
 γενόμενος. “ Being superior in his mediatorial 
 
HEBREWS, OHAP. I. v. 4. 55 
 
 character ;” for in this He is considered throughout this 
 Epistle, and the passages which the author now pro- 
 ceeds to quote, were all applied originally to Him as 
 Mediator. The divine nature, however, is not excluded 
 from consideration, for it is at the foundation of his 
 mediatorial work, and of all these passages. 
 
 Here, then, is the first point to be proved: Christ's 
 supertority to angels in his mediatorial work. 'The 
 first argument for this proposition is, that he has in- 
 herited or received a more excellent name than they. 
 
 παρὰ 15 often used with the accusative in the sense 
 of comparison, as in this clause. Similar examples may 
 be seen in v. 9, chap. 2: 7, 9, 9: 28, 11: 4,12: 24, and 
 in Luke ὃ: 18, 13: 2, Rom. 1: 25,14:5. The usage 
 is fully recognised both by classic and New Test. gram- 
 marians. (Winer’s Idioms New Test. $53, z. p. 321.) 
 
 zexhnoovounzey we will simply translate “re- 
 ceived;” for so the application of the name, in the pas- 
 sages which the author cites, requires us to understand 
 it. Yet we conceive there is a reference in the term to 
 the relationship existing between the Father and the 
 Son. This relationship is recognised in Ps. 2: 7, as 
 the basis, so to speak, of the formal deed or covenant 
 announced in the succeeding verse. Since he is God’s 
 Son, he will give him ‘the heathen for his inheritance, 
 and the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession.’ 
 The verb zezAnoovounxey seems to be used here in 
 allusion to κληρονόμον in v. 2, and may receive a simi- 
 lar illustration. And the first citation of the author, 
 which is from Ps. 2: 7, confirms our correctness in ex- 
 
δ0 HEBREWS, CHAP. 1. v. 5. 
 
 plaining from that passage the reception of the superior 
 name by Christ. 
 
 The word ovoue is by some rendered “title ;” and 
 by some, “dignity.” The former is the more correct ; 
 for the argument is plainly from the title to the dignity. 
 The title conferred shows the dignity imparted. But 
 yet the latter is implied, of course; for the Apostle 
 would not argue from an empty title. It isa dcagoga 
 τερὸν Ovouc; different in its nature and excellence. 
 Compare Hebr. 8: 6. 
 
 , Ἁ ᾽ ῇ - 9 f ὴ ’ τ." , 
 5 Tin γὰρ εἰπέ ποτὲ τῶν ἀγγέλων" “ Υἱὸς μοῦ εἰ σὺ, 
 os tN 4 f f Taare Ἀ ῇ Ἢ ἔς 7, Ν 
 ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκα σὲε;" καὶ παλεν Eya 
 » J ~ ST r > ‘ » 
 
 ἔσομαε αὐτῷ εἰς πατέρα, καὶ αὐτὸς ἔστωε moe εἰς 
 
 cf 4) c Ἀ “2 ἘΠῚ Γ \ f 
 6 viov;” Ὅταν δὲ πάλεν sisayayn τὸν πρωτότο- 
 ae \ 3 fy λέ = { K. x μὴ 
 xov εἰς τὴν οἰχουμένην, λέγει al προς- 
 
 -ὦ 
 
 ΕΣ > ἘΠ ak - γι ἃ 
 κυνησάτωσαν «αὐτῷ πᾶντὲς ἀγγέλοε ϑεοῦ. αὲ 
 \ r Ἂ ‘ "ἢ ? eA τ y) / εἰ cee ~ 
 πρὸς μὲν τοὺς ἀγγέλους déeyse O ποιῶν 
 
 r ~ 4 \ 
 τοὺς ἀγγέλους αὑτοῦ πνεύματα, καὶ τοὺς λεε- 
 8 γνοὺς τοῦ "οὺς φλόγα" 2 δὲ τὸ 
 τουργοὺς αὑτοῦ πυρὸς φλόγα πρὸς δὲ τὸν 
 ᾿ ς “4 \ ~ 
 υἱόν ““O ϑροόγος cov, ὃ sos, εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα 
 - >~ aes ee 4 95 a ? 9. ἐν = eo 8 ὃ - ~ 
 TOV GLWVOS θαβὸος suvUTHTOS  VaLOOS τῆς 
 , Ps > ᾿ ld Ἢ Ἢ ΄ 
 9 βασιλείας σου. “Hyannous δικαιοσύνην, καὶ ἐμέ- 
 , \ ~ » f c la c 
 σησας ἀνομίαν" διὰ τοῦτο ἔχρισέ σε, ὁ ϑεός, ὁ 
 , » > a \ Ἢ , 
 sos σου ἔλχεον ἀγαλλεάσεως παρ TOUS μέετο- 
 ΄Ζ ’ \ , ’ \ 
 10 yous cov. Kai: “Sv xar “OZaS, xUQLE, τὴν 
 γῆν ἐϑεμελίωσας, καὶ ἔργα τῶν χειρῶν Gov εἰσὲν 
 , > > ~ \ /, 
 11 οἱ οὐρανοί. Αὐτοὶ ἀπολοῦνται, σὺ δὲ δεωμένεες " 
 / f ’ 
 καὶ mavreg ὡς tuariov achawwdnoorvra, καὶ 
 Ud ’ } “ ) “ 
 12 ὡσεὶ περεβοόλαιον ἑλέξεις αὐτοὺς, καὶ ahhaynoor- 
 Ν y Ἁ > 
 rac’ ov δὲ ὃ αὐτὸς εἰ, καὶ τὰ ἔτη Gov οὐκ 
 
7). 
 
 HEBREWS, CHAP. I. Vv. 5. On 
 
 13 ἐχλεέψουσι." Πρὸς τίνα δὲ τῶν ἀγγέλων εἰρηκέ 
 more’ “Κάϑου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου, ἕως av ϑῶ τοὺς 
 
 14 ἐχϑρούς σου ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν σου;" Οὐχὲ 
 πάντες εἰσὲ λειτουργικὰ πνεύματα, εἰς διακονέων 
 ἀποστελλόμενα διὰ τοὺς μέλλοντας κληρονομεῖν 
 σωτηρίαν; 
 
 V. 5. The first quotation by which the writer sus- 
 tains his position is from Ps. 2:7. The Father there 
 acknowledges the relationship between himself and the 
 Son, and accordingly deeds to him an inheritance, the 
 authority over all nations and all things. The transac- 
 tion was one αὖ eterno; and therefore the relation is as 
 eternal. It was not first constituted by his incarnation ; 
 nor by his subsequent exaltation. Not by the former, 
 for his mediatorial power conferred in virtue of his son- 
 ship began to be exercised long before his incarnation. 
 The voice from heaven, saying, “This is my beloved 
 Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matt. 3: 17), was 
 but an acknowledgment before men of the Son, now 
 incarnate, and thus visibly manifested to them as the 
 Son of God by the miraculous conception of his human 
 nature by the power of the Holy Ghost. And this 
 meaning we may properly give to Luke 1: 35, “The 
 Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the 
 Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy 
 thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the 
 Son of God.” The miraculous birth of his human part 
 did not constitute him the Son of God, but evinced him 
 to be such. Nor was the sonship constituted by his 
 exaltation; for the apostles conjointly apply the cir- 
 
58 HEBREWS, OHAP. I. Vv. 5. 
 
 cumstances of this Psalm to the persecutions which 
 Christ suffered prior to his resurrection (and therefore 
 to his exaltation), beginning with the attempts of He- 
 rod the Great to destroy him, and ending with his suf- 
 ferings under Pilate. See Acts 4: 24-28. Nor may 
 any thing be inferred to the contrary from the use 
 which Paul makes of this passage from the second 
 Psalm in Acts18: 83, “God hath fulfilled the same unto 
 us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again ; 
 as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou art 
 my Son, this day have I begotten thee;” for a care- 
 ful examination of the Apostle’s speech on that occasion, 
 will show that he used the passage to prove the fulfil- 
 ment of the promise made to the fathers. Compare 
 vv. 23 and 32. And this was a promise not of Christ’s 
 resurrection; but that he should be raised up as a 
 saviour to Israel. Our translators have there rendered 
 ἀναστήσας = “raised up again,” gratuitously ; for the 
 meaning of the promise is, that God would rear a 
 saviour for Israel. In proof of this, the Apostle after- 
 wards proceeds, in v. 34, to raise his resurrection as a 
 separate point (“Ore δὲ ἀνέστησεν αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν, 
 κ.τ.}.), and to support it, quotes a passage altogether 
 different, but appropriate. When thus explained, Paul 
 makes the same primary and special application of the 
 second Psalm, in Acts 13: 33, which the other apostles 
 do in Acts 4: 24—28, viz.: to the period of the Son’s in- 
 carnation ; and the passage quoted proves the sonship 
 of Christ not only in, but previous to his incarnation. 
 
 The phrase σήμερον γεγέννηκ os, confirms that 
 
HEBREWS, OHAP. I. τ 5. 59 
 
 interpretation which understands here an allusion to, 
 the eternal sonship of Christ. The explanation: “'This 
 day I have constituted thee king,” is inadmissible, be- 
 cause, first, it is by no means established that the kings, 
 even Jewish ones, are ever as such, called “sons of God.” 
 Certainly there is no instance where one is addressed 
 as “son of God.” Gesenius refers us to Ps. 2: 7, which 
 we have already repeated; to Ps. 82: 6, “I have said, 
 ye are gods, and all of you children of the Most High ;” 
 to Ps. 89: 27, “ Also I will make him my first-born, 
 higher than the kings of the earth;” and to 2 Sam. 7: 
 14, “1 will be his father, and he shall be my son,” &e. 
 See the places in their context. The first and last of 
 these passages are here applied to Christ, by our Epis- 
 tle; and this excludes them from the argument. In 
 1 Chron. 28: 6, the last sentence quoted by Gesenius 
 is indeed applied to Solomon: “Solomon thy son, he 
 shall build my house and my courts; for I have chosen 
 him to be my son, and I will be his father;” but it is 
 in a different sense from that in which the Apostle here 
 applies it to Christ, or his argument is vain. And as 
 applied to Solomon, it does not mean, “I will make 
 ~ him king,” but, “when he is king, I will be his patron.” 
 The passage in Ps. 82: 6, is addressed to the theocra- 
 tic judges collectively, not individually. And Ps. 89: 
 27, 15. manifestly, from the context, to be referred to 
 Dayid’s greater Antitype, the Messiah. Let the read- 
 er consult vv. 28, 29, 36, 87. Second: the phrase, “I 
 have begotten thee,” is nowhere else applied by God 
 to any king, in any sense, certainly not in the sense of 
 
00 HEBREWS, CHAP. I. V. ὅ. 
 
 » making him a king; and such language as God’s beget- 
 ting, wherever employed in the Scriptures, means more 
 than a mere moral relationship between the persons 
 concerned. In Jer. 2: 27, “They, their kings, their 
 princes, and their priests and their prophets, say to a 
 stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast 
 brought me forth.” But this is only an idolatrous 
 ascription of creative attributes to a stock or a stone; 
 and is made equally by idolatrous Jews of royal and 
 of lower rank. In 1 Cor. 4: 15, the Apostle professes 
 himself instrumentally the author of the spiritual exist- 
 ence of the Corinthian Christians: Ἐν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ 
 Ova τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ἐγὼ ὑμᾶς ἐγέννησα ; that is, Christ 
 had, through the Gospel, spiritually regenerated them, 
 by his instrumentality. The phrase expresses a rela- 
 tionship much more than moral between them and 
 Christ; and this the Apostle designs to express, as the 
 means of magnifying his own claims upon them, as the 
 instrument of bringing it about. Third: if the lan- 
 guage, “This day have I begotten thee,” expresses only 
 the making of the person referred to a king, why the 
 boundless inheritance promised? “I will give thee the 
 heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts 
 of the earth for thy possession.” ‘This question applies 
 with especial force to those who understand only a tem- 
 poral monarchy to be meant. If all this effort to lower 
 the sense of the passage is designed to make it applica- 
 ble to a David or a Solomon, then they are but tem- 
 poral, local monarchs; and the application of the next 
 clause becomes impracticable. 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. I. πὲ 5. 61 
 
 Tine yao εἶπέ nore τῶν ἀγγέλων. No angel was 
 ever thus called, “the Son of God,” “the begotten of 
 God.” They are called “sons of God,” as in Job 
 1:0, 2:1, 88:7. With these may be compared Ps. 
 29:1, and 89: 7, in the original (O28 33). But so is 
 Adam called in Luke 3: 88, “ Which was the son of 
 God,” and in the same sense. And God’s people are 
 often called “sons or children of God.” Gen. 6: 2, 
 “The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they 
 were fair.” 1 John 3:1, “Behold what manner of love 
 the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be 
 called the sons of God!” And the passage has already 
 been cited from 1 Cor. 4: 15, where the Apostle rep- 
 resents his converts as the spiritual progeny of God, 
 through his instrumentality. While the title of sons 
 has thus been given to angels, our first father, and 
 saints, the argument of this fifth verse compels us to 
 conclude that it is in a sense entirely distinct from that 
 in which it is given to Christ. They are God’s offspring, 
 as they are his creatures, or regenerated by him; Christ, 
 as he is only-begotten, and of the same nature. 
 
 καὶ naluv’ Ἐγὼ ἔσομαι αὐτῷ εἰς πατέρα, 2.7.1. 
 This quotation is from 2 Sam. 7:14. (The reader is 
 requested to consider carefully the context from vv. 
 12-16.) The promises there made were to the seed of 
 David, viewed as a unit: hence the singular number is 
 used. V. 12, “I will set up thy seed after thee... 
 and I will establish Azs kingdom. /e shall build a 
 house for my name,” &c. This collective promise was 
 to be fulfilled partly in one, and partly in another of 
 
62 HEBREWS, OHAP. I. V. δὲ 
 
 his posterity. Some parts, as the Apostle’s quotation 
 now under discussion, were designed to apply, in an in- 
 ferior sense, to Solomon as the type. “ΗΔ shall build 
 a house for my name,” was directly true of Solomon. 
 A reference to the parallel passage in 1 Chron. 28: 6, 
 7, makes this equally manifest. But even these parts 
 apply in a fuller and higher sense to Christ as the An- 
 titype. So we find David, in 1 Chron. 22: 9, 10, reci- 
 ting this promise, and in v. 11, applying it to Solomon. 
 And Solomon also is seen, in 1 Kings 5: 5, and 8: 19, 
 applying it to himself. But while a part of the pro- 
 mise can be applied in a lower sense to Solomon, vv. 
 18, 14 (first clause), and also 16, evidently look much 
 farther than to him: “T will establish the throne of 
 his kingdom forever.” “I will be his father, and he 
 shall be my son.” “And thy house and thy kingdom 
 shall be established forever before thee: thy throne shall 
 be established forever.” David manifestly understood 
 that a part of the promise was to be extended much 
 farther; for he says in v. 19, “But thou (Jehovah) 
 hast spoken also of thy servant’s house for a great while 
 to come.” Nor can the expressions of duration here, 
 piv 7, &e., be degraded, as Grotius does, to mean 
 only acomparatively long duration. For their meaning 
 is fixed by the parallel passages in Ps. 89, where the 
 promise is repeated, and the expression is explained, v. 
 30, by nv 27> and 572; and in Ps. 72, where there 
 is a reference to these promises, and in v. 17, the dura- 
 tion of the kingdom of this seed of David is said to be 
 tad 22. It is very frequently the case that in pro- 
 
BEEBE EW 8s) OMAP. Dy Ver 6. 63 
 
 phecies a whole family or race is viewed as an individ- 
 ual; and then whatever belongs to the different mem- 
 bers is ascribed to him. Examples may be seen in the 
 promise to Abraham’s seed, as explained by Gal. ὃ: 16, 
 and the blessing of Jacob, Gen. 49. 
 
 If, therefore, the Apostle seems to any to have mis- 
 applied this quotation to the Messiah, it is only because 
 he had a deeper and truer insight into the messianic 
 meaning of the passage than superficial readers. While 
 there are parts of the prophecy which terminate on 
 Solomon, or other human descendants of David, there 
 are others which can only have their proper applica- 
 tion to his Divine seed, the “root and offspring of 
 David.” Among these is the passage quoted. In the 
 light of the seventy-second Psalm, whose pious raptures 
 seem to have been inspired by these very promises, it 
 becomes most manifest that the throne, kingdom, and 
 sonship are, in their full sense, only those of Christ ; and 
 to him were the praises of the Psalmist directed by the 
 Holy Ghost, perhaps unconsciously to himself. “A 
 _ greater than Solomon was there.” 
 
 V. 6. “Oray δὲ πάλεν, 2.0.2. πάώλεν may here mean 
 “alio tempore,” “on another occasion.” So Bretsch- 
 neider (whom Stuart follows), supporting his defini- 
 tion by reference to John 1: 35, “ Again the next day 
 after John stood,” &e. (1 ἐπαύριον πάλεν); John 8: 
 12, “Then spake Jesus again unto them,” &e. (Tahu 
 οὖν ὃ Ἰησοῦς αὐτοῖς ἐλάλησε), &e. Or, more probably, 
 it may mean “again,” not as qualifying the verb εἰσ- 
 αγάγῃ, but as connecting what the writer proceeds to 
 
 
 
64 HEBREWS, OHAP. I. Y. 6. 
 
 add relating to the same subject: “ Again, I would add 
 another consideration, viz.” &c. Thus it is used in 
 Matt. 13: 44, 18: 19, Luke 13: 20, to introduce addi- 
 tional illustration by parable: “ Again, the kingdom 
 of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field;” Πχάλεν 
 ὁμοία ἐστίν, κιτ.λ., &e., &e. In like manner it is used 
 in Hebr. 2: 13, 10: 30, to add farther quotations. And 
 accordingly, it may be used to introduce an additional 
 argument (for the ratio usts is the same), which is 
 its sense here. De Wette renders, “Und abermal, 
 werm er,” &c. 
 
 εἰσαγάγῃ 18 2 aor. subjunctive. The aorists subjunc- 
 tive are currently used with ἂν in the New Test. for a 
 simple future. See Mark 8: 88, ὅταν ἔλϑῃ, “ when he 
 shall come.” Rom. 11: 27, ὅταν ἀφέλωμαι, “when I 
 shall take away their sins.” So Winer, §43, 5. But it 
 must be confessed that some indefiniteness of time is 
 expressed in all these instances. Here we are compel- 
 led to translate the phrase as substantially indicative ; 
 and to confess that, as such, it is not strictly classic. 
 The nominative to be supplied is Θεός. 
 
 But the question now arises: What introduction of 
 Christ is here intended? Whitby, Grotius, Wetstein, 
 Tholuck, answer: “ His re-introduction at his resurrec- 
 tion and exaltation.” Stuart urges against this view, 
 that no first introduction had been spoken of before; 
 an objection which is not in itself decisive, because the 
 text does not lay the stress upon the fact that this was 
 a second introduction, even if understood as Whitby, 
 &e., do. But there lies the further objection, that such a 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. I. v. 6. 65 
 
 phrase is a very unique and unnatural mode of express- 
 ing the fact of Christ’s resurrection and exaltation. And 
 this is an event very often mentioned by the sacred 
 writers, and especially by Paul, but always in different 
 phraseology. Others, as Calvin and Kuinoél, say, the 
 words signify Christ’s introduction at his birth ; and to 
 support this, refer to the chorus of angels (Luke 1: 
 28-85, 2: 8-14) which celebrated that event. But 
 there is no evidence that the injunction to worship the 
 first-begotten, was given on that occasion. And fur- 
 thermore, the conditions of the argument in Hebrews 
 require the apostle to argue only from Old Test. Scrip- 
 tures, as he does in all the rest of his citations. The 
 common interpretation regards these words as a refer- 
 ence to some passage in the Old Test. which represents 
 the succeeding command to worship the Messiah as ad- 
 dressed to the angels, on his introduction into the world. 
 And such a reference may receive some illustration 
 from the fact that it is a current usage of the Old Test. 
 to represent the prophet as doing that which he only 
 predicts. See Isaiah 6:10, Jer. 1:10, Micah 2: 12. 
 So the introduction of Christ here may be taken, possi- 
 bly, to mean the prediction of his introduction. But, 
 merely saying that the common interpretation looks 
 in the right direction, we will proceed to explain the 
 next word, before undertaking the more definite settle- 
 ment of the reference. 
 
 τὸν πρωτότοχον is a title of honour, obviously des- 
 ignating Christ (and bestowed, perhaps, not without 
 reference to his being the only-begotten Son of his 
 
 δ 
 
00 HEBREWS, CHAP. I. Ὑ 756: 
 
 Father). It is given to him also Col. 1: 15, as before, 
 and at the head of, all creation: πρωτότοκος πάσης 
 κτίσεως; V. 16, ὅτε ἐν αὐτῷ ἐχτίσϑη τὰ πάντα, #.T.d. 
 δὲ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτεσται. The meaning is 
 fully defined by v. 17, “ And he is before all things; 
 and by him all things consist.” Not that Christ was 
 produced in time, as creatures were; only he was the 
 first production. But the phrase asserts his simple and 
 absolute preéxistence. In like sense he is called, Rev. 
 3:14, ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ, “the chief,” &e. 
 In Rom. 8: 29 he is called πρωτότοκον ἐν πολλοῖς 
 ἀδελφοῖς. It is true, that in Hebr. 12: 23 the same 
 distinction is extended to his believing and glorified 
 people, ἐκκλησίᾳ πρωτοτόχων. Th Col. 1: 18, and 
 Rev. 1: 5, Christ receives this title, as the first to rise 
 from the dead, πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν. By weigh- 
 ing all these instances, we shall be convinced that the 
 priority expressed in the πρῶτος is as much one of 
 dignity in the nature of his birth, as of time of its 
 occurrence. Not only is he the first of God’s offspring 
 in time, but the chief, the-preéminent one, of God’s be- 
 gotten, in the dignity of the relation. Used absolutely, 
 as in this passage, it must be so understood. In Ps. 
 89: 27, it is applied to the Messiah, and is the transla- 
 tion for the Hebr. term 122. The Rabbins, according 
 to Micheelis, called God himself “the first-born of the 
 world.” 
 
 But whence has the Apostle taken his quotation ? 
 The Septuagint translation of Deut. 32:43 gives the 
 very words. But all the copies of the Septuagint do 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. I. v. 6. 67 
 
 not concur in this, for a few omit, and one varies the 
 reading. It is also wanting in the Hebrew, and all the 
 ancient versions. Nor does it suit the context. And 
 if it is properly a part of the text, it refers not to the 
 Messiah, but to God; and there is no reference to any 
 introduction of the object of the worship at that time. 
 In Ps. 97: 7 weread moy-b2 SS-nmtn, which the Sep- 
 tuagint renders Προσχυνήσατε αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι 
 αὐτοῦ. Thence it is now generally conceded the Apos- 
 tle quoted; and the differences between this transla- 
 tion, and the words as they stand in our text, καὶ προς- 
 κυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι Θεοῦ, are not too 
 great to admit the probability of such a quotation, 
 when we remember that the New Test. writers often 
 do not quote the Septuagint verbatim. Kimchi says 
 that the Rabbins expounded this Psalm, as well as all 
 from Ps. 93-101, of what should come to pass in the 
 days of the Messiah. Although there may not be 
 enough in the Psalm to compel us by internal evidence 
 to regard it as messianic, certainly there is nothing to 
 forbid it. We may refer it, as it seems probable the 
 Jews of Paul’s day did, to the regal inauguration of the 
 Messiah in the world; and then the citation is appro- 
 priate. And whatever the critics may say, the trans- 
 lation of D8 by ἄγγελοι, here made by the Septua- 
 gint and Paul, can be abundantly sustained by the ex- 
 amples of Ps. 8: 5 and 138: 1. 
 
 The Apostle’s argument then is, that Christ is supe- 
 rior to angels, because God has ordained that they shall 
 be worshippers, He the object of their worship. 
 
68 HEBREWS, OHAP. 1. V. 7. 
 
 V. 7 contains an antithesis, indicated by its πρὸς 
 μέν, to the πρὸς δὲ of v. 8. The preposition may here 
 be best rendered, “concerning” the angels; λέγει, 
 “saith,” i. e. the Scripture, or rather, God speaking in 
 them. The following words, ‘O ποιῶν τοὺς ἀγγέλους 
 αὑτοῦ πνεύματα, #.r.d., are evidently from the Ps. 104: 
 4, o> δ PNW Ninn ἬΝ ney. The sentiment evi- 
 dently is, “He maketh the angels as the winds (viz. 
 his servants), and his ministers as the flaming fire,” i. e. 
 the lightnings. So the Apostle’s argument requires. 
 This meaning the parallelism favours; and such is the 
 natural meaning of the Hebrew, as may be evinced by 
 a comparison with the words 12°25 ἘΠ Ds in v. 3: 
 “who maketh the clouds as his chariot.” Nor is there 
 any thing in the context to forbid this meaning. It is 
 indeed objected, by Hengstenberg and Alexander, that 
 since the context refers wholly to inanimate objects, it 
 forbids the introduction here of the spiritual or intelli- 
 gent. But referring to Ps. 18: 10 (in the Hebr. 11), 
 we read, in a similar connexion with the inanimate ele- 
 ments, “ He rode upon a cherub and did fly; yea, he 
 did fly upon the wings of the wind.” And in Ps. 148: 
 1, 2, 3, &e., all the angels and hosts of God are associa- 
 ted with sun and moon, stars, heavens, waters, dragons, 
 deeps, &c., &e., in the duty of praising God. Besides, 
 the interpretation, “ He maketh the winds his messen- 
 gers, and the flaming fires his ministers,” makes the first 
 clause of this verse substantially a repetition of the last 
 clause of the preceding one, “who walketh upon the 
 wings of the wind.” As to the idea which has been 
 
ἨΕΘ, OH APS Evy. 8; ὃ. 69 
 
 urged, that the sense we have above given would be 
 inapposite to the Apostle’s argument, it is founded on a 
 misapprehension of his scope. He does not intend a 
 comparison of angels and Christ, in respect to their 
 faithfulness, but a contrast between the manner in 
 which they are spoken of (viz, as being God’s servile 
 ministers, like the winds and lightnings), and that in 
 which He is addressed as a divine monarch, seated on 
 an eternal throne. When the Apostle’s argument is 
 properly apprehended, it is seen at once that our sense 
 is by far the more apposite. 
 
 Vv. 8, 9, present a quotation from Ps. 45: 7%, 8. 
 The first ὁ Θεὸς in ν. 9, is in the vocative, as is DOAN, 
 in the original. So it is rendered by all the ancient 
 versions. The reader may here consult with advantage, 
 Hengstenberg’s Christol. p. 91, on Ps. 45, to which he 
 is referred for a solid proof of the messianic character 
 of this Psalm. His argument here leaves no doubt as 
 to the Apostle’s understanding of the original: 4x02 
 Sz) ὈΡῚΡ owes, &e. De Wette, who in the Psalms 
 translates, Dein Thron Gottes stehet immer und ewig, 
 &c., darum salbte dich Gott, dein Gott mit Freuden- 
 del, &c., in his commentary on the Epistle translates: 
 Dein Thron ο Gott stehet, &e. &c., darum hat dich, o 
 Gott, dein Gott, d&e. &e. Here we see operating the 
 strongest dogmatism. 
 
 In the passage, the Messiah is addressed as a divine 
 being, in his mediatorial capacity—God manifest in the 
 flesh, elevated to the highest dignity above all princi- 
 pality and power. The proper and full description of 
 
70 HEBREWS, CHAP. I. vv. 8, 9. 
 
 this dignity may be seen in Eph. 1: 20, 21, “And set 
 him at his own right hand in heavenly places, far above 
 all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, 
 and every name that is named, ov μόνον ἕν τῷ αἰῶνε 
 τούτῳ, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι." “ He is superior to, 
 and has authority over, all in the lower creation, and 
 in heaven.” Stuart needlessly concedes that, in these 
 passages, the term Θεὸς is applied to Christ in his kingly, 
 not in his divine nature. (See Stuart 77 /oco.) Indeed, 
 this is a concession ruinous to the argument for Christ’s 
 divinity, if his difficulties be carried out. For these 
 difficulties would apply to almost all, if not every pas- 
 sage which affirms divinity of Christ. They are all 
 removed by the obvious remark, that the two natures 
 were united in one person; so that in the same context, 
 or even the same clause, the attributes of both may be 
 mentioned. Thus are the attributes of the divine and 
 human mentioned in the same breath, in Zech. 13: 7, 
 “ Awake, O sword, against my shepherd; and against 
 the man that is my fellow.” See also Isaiah 9: 6. We 
 could not have expected otherwise, unless, in his media- 
 torial character, he had been only human or only divine. 
 In Isaiah 7: 14, he is born of a virgin; and at the same 
 time he is properly named “God with us.” In Isaiah 
 9: 6, 7, he is a “child born,” a “son given,” “upon the 
 throne of David;” but at the same time he is the 
 “mighty God, the everlasting Father.” Zech. 13: 7, 
 he is “a man,” God’s “shepherd,” and yet, his “ fellow.” 
 In John 1: 1, 14, he is God made flesh, and dwelling 
 among us. In Rom. 9: 5, he is “of the fathers, as con- 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. I. Vv. 9-12. {ΠῚ 
 
 cerning the flesh;” and at the same time, “he is over 
 all, God blessed forever.” See also Rom. 1: ὃ, 4. 
 
 V. 9. ἔλαιον ἀγαλλεάώσεως. The quotation is still 
 continued from Ps. 45: 8. These words are a transla- 
 tion of Ὁ pad. This is not an anoimting of conse- 
 cration to kingly office, as is supposed by Stuart. For 
 it is the consequence of the righteousness and benevo- 
 lence of his rule, not the introduction to that rule; and 
 the scope of the Psalm shows that the occasion of it is 
 rather a nuptial than a coronation solemnity. The 
 anointing is, therefore, one of festive honour and enjoy- 
 ment. Such anointings with medicated oil were a spe- 
 cial part of Israelitish hospitalities and honours. Thus 
 David, Ps. 23: 5, representing himself as God’s guest, 
 says: “Thou preparest a table before me in the pre- 
 sence of mine enemies; thou anointest my head with 
 oil.” In Luke 7: 46, our Saviour says, “ My head with 
 oil thou didst not anoint; but this woman hath anoint- 
 ed my feet with ointment.” Consult Jahn’s Archeol. 
 §148. Asareward for his mediatorial work, Christ 
 has been endued by his Father with spiritual honours 
 and joys above his fellows. 
 
 παρὰ τοὺς μετόχους cov. Literally, “ Beyond thy 
 sharers.” Perhaps the best comment on these words is 
 that. which we have already seen in Eph. 1: 20, 21, or 
 that which we may find in Rev. 19: 16, “ And he hath 
 on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, Kine 
 or Kings, anp Lorp or Lorps.” 
 
 Vy. 10-12, are obviously quoted from Ps. 102: 
 26-28. With a slight difference in order, they are an 
 
72 HEBREWS, CHAP. I. Vv. 10-12. 
 
 exact quotation of the Septuagint. Since the Apostle 
 here so clearly applies the words to Christ, we must. sup- 
 pose the Psalm to be messianic, or run into infidelity. 
 Having established the inspiration of the writers of the 
 New Testament, we are absolutely bound by their in- 
 terpretations of the Old Test. Scriptures; and we can- 
 not stop to discuss with German infidels the character 
 of a Psalm which they apply to Christ. The Spirit 
 speaking by the apostles has a right to be his own in- 
 terpreter of what he has said by the prophets. But 
 laying this aside, it would be a position not a little 
 arrogant for us to assume, to say that a passage cannot 
 with propriety admit of an application to Christ, be- 
 cause it seems to us to contain no decisive reference to 
 him, while at the same time it contains nothing incom- 
 patible with such a reference; when Jews, with all 
 their superior knowledge of Jewish modes of thought 
 and language, and current interpretations, so apply it. 
 But let the reader of the Bible study thoroughly those 
 passages of the Old Test. whose application to the Mes- 
 siah is easily demonstrable from their own internal evi- 
 dences, irrespective of the inspired expositions of the 
 New Test. Let him thus learn how familiar messianic 
 ideas were to the writers. Let him then pass on to those 
 passages where the internal evidence of a messianic 
 meaning is less, though still satisfactory. And let him 
 thus see the manner in which Jewish Christians intro- 
 duced and expressed those ideas. He will then have 
 no difficulty in believing that those ideas are to be found 
 in passages where the marks are not sufficiently strong 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. I. vv. 10-12. 73 
 
 to enable us certainly to prove, or even to discern them, 
 without the guidance of New Test. inspiration. That 
 guidance we must implicitly follow. But we may pro- 
 perly claim that there are at least plausible internal evi- 
 dences in the Psalm 102, of its messianic character. It 
 is not unnatural to suppose that the complaint of vv. 
 1-11, is addressed to the mercy seat, through that “ Days- 
 man,” with whose offices and divinity Old Test. saints 
 are known to have been familiar. And if we also sup- 
 pose that the prayer and hope of the petitioner looked 
 forward particularly to that era and work, in the fulness 
 of time, which are the source of all the help and re- 
 demption of God’s people, we shall easily believe that 
 “the set time to favour Zion,” v. 18, is the era of the 
 Messiah’s ministry. The Jehovah who would then 
 arise, and have mercy on her, would therefore be Je- 
 hovah Christ. And to this well agree the predictions 
 of the conversion of the Gentiles, in vv. 15, 18, 22. 
 When was this glorious access of heathens expected 
 by the prophets to occur? Indisputably, after the 
 coming of Christ. And the close resemblance, if not 
 intentional allusion of Isaiah 61:1, 2, &e., to vv. 19, 
 20, gives a still stronger argument. For Christ, in 
 Luke 4: 21, expressly ascribes that passage to himself. 
 We cannot make, with Stuart, the admission that the 
 Apostle’s use of the passage is appropriate, even though 
 all messianic meaning be denied to the Psalm. 
 
 The words and phrases of the quotation need little 
 explanation. ἐλέξεις αὐτούς, καὶ ἀλλαγήσονταε are the 
 Septuagint translations for the verbs 97>nm and 72>, 
 
74 HEBREWS, OHAP. I. τ. 18. 
 
 the one Hiphil and the other Kal from 5% — ‘to pass 
 away.’ The Apostle simply follows the Septuagint. The 
 translation of the former verb conveys a stronger figure 
 than is fairly expressed in the original (to roll togeth- 
 er, like a garment which is to be henceforth disused, 
 instead of simply to change). But the general sense is 
 the same. The whole quotation clearly asserts for its 
 subjects, the work of creation of both heavens and earth, 
 and the attributes of immutability and immortality. 
 And since the Apostle applies them to the Son, he must 
 be truly dive. The work of creation, particularly, is 
 the highest evidence of divinity which the Scriptures 
 can present. See Hebr. 3:4, “But he that built all 
 things is God.” Here, then, the Apostle offers the cli- 
 max of his arguments, and asserts for Christ that infi- 
 nite exaltation which he had briefly intimated in v. 2. 
 
 V. 13. The quotation of this verse is from Ps. 110: 
 1. The rendering of the Septuagint is exactly followed. 
 That the Messiah is the subject of this Psalm, is clearly 
 demonstrated by Hengstenberg, Christology (pp. 107- 
 117, Keith’s transl.), and the critical reader is referred 
 to his discussion. While it is unnecessary to consume 
 space by reciting his arguments, we will add, for the 
 benefit of those who may not have access to such works, 
 that there is no Psalm whose messianic character is so 
 abundantly proved by the New Test. In Matt. 22: 
 41-46, Christ expressly applies it (and indeed applies 
 the verse here quoted) to the Messiah ; and the Phari- 
 sees do not dare to dispute the application. In the 
 parallel place of Mark (12: 36), we find the same 
 
HEBREWS, OHAP. I. v. 14. 15 
 
 statement, with the addition that David then spoke by 
 the Holy Ghost. Peter, in Acts 2: 35, 36, applies it to 
 Christ; and Paul, in 1 Cor. 15: 25, 28. The Apostle’s 
 argument here is elliptical: “To which of the angels 
 hath God ever said this? But he hath said it to Christ ; 
 witness Ps.110:1. Therefore, Christ is superior to 
 angels.” 
 
 V. 14. Οὐχὲ πώντες siol λειτουργωχὰ πνεύματα, 
 zt.A. This does not seem to be a direct quotation, but 
 the foundation for the assertion is laid in many Scrip- 
 tures of the Old Test. Ps. 91: 11, for instance, may be 
 cited (“For he shall give his angels charge over thee, 
 to keep thee in all thy ways”), and Ps. 103: 21 
 (“Bless the Lord, all ye his hosts; ye ministers of his 
 that do his pleasure”). In the Sept. As¢roveyoe αὐτοῦ, 
 ποιοῦντες, &e. It is to this passage that the Apostle 
 most probably alludes. The terms sufficiently prove 
 the correctness of our interpretation of v. 7 above. 
 
 “ Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to a 
 service,” δεὰ τοὺς μέλλοντας, x.t.4.? This we render, 
 in accordance with the regular usage, “on account of 
 those who are to inherit salvation.” Christians, in vir- 
 tue of their union with Christ, are sons of God, and 
 joint-heirs with Jesus Christ. See Rom. 8: 17, Gal. 4: 
 7. This verse carries on the Apostle’s demonstration. 
 While Christ is a triumphant king, and the saints not 
 only his subjects, but his Father’s heirs, sharers of his 
 glory, and assessors on his throne, angels are minis- 
 ters to the welfare of those saints. How inferior are 
 they then to Him? This truth also gives a most con- 
 
76 HEBREWS, CHAP. I. v. 14. 
 
 soling and awakening view of the privileges of believers 
 as enjoying the unseen protection of these pure, loving, 
 and powerful spirits. 
 
 The Apostle thus triumphantly demonstrates his 
 point. But he also gives us an irresistible argument for 
 the proper divinity of Christ. If he whom the Serip- 
 tures represent as being in Himself a bright exhibition 
 of divine perfections, and the exact image of very (and 
 invisible) God, whom they call Son of God in a sense 
 proving him higher than the angels; if He whom they 
 further represent as worshipped by angels, and as (pro- 
 perly) called God, who sitteth upon an everlasting — 
 throne, swaying a sceptre of righteousness, creating, up- 
 holding, governing all, and subsisting amidst all the 
 revolutions of nature unchangeably and forever the 
 same; if He is not the true God, whom then can they 
 teach to be such ? 
 
CHAPTER Tf. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 Tue Apostle interrupts his argument for a moment, 
 in order to apply the truth he has now established, to 
 the confirmation of his readers, vv. 1-4;gand then re- 
 suming the argument, after briefly showing that Christ’s 
 humanity argued no inferiority, vv. 5-9, he exhibits 
 the reasons of his becoming man, vv. 10-18. 
 
 To be more particular: on account of what he had 
 said and proven (Δ εὰ rovro), they ought more care- 
 fully to attend to the things which they had heard of 
 Christ, ν. 1. For if transgressors of a covenant minis- 
 tered by angels were certainly and justly punished, 
 those who neglected the dispensation of Christ, which 
 effected so great a salvation, and was wonderfully con- 
 firmed by divine seals, could not escape, vv. 2—4. 
 
 The resumption of his argument is logical. How 
 shall we escape the punishment due to such neglect? 
 For (γὰρ) not to the angels has God committed this 
 dispensation, v. 5, but to one whom David foresaw and 
 foretold, as human it is true (vv. 6-8), but in terms 
 which teach his infinite exaltation (vv. 6-8); an exal- 
 tation, of course, above angels. For (γὰρ) universal 
 subjection is promised, the fulfilment of which is seen 
 only in Christ. (Of course, more than the supremacy 
 of man merely over the lower creatures in this world 
 
"8 CHAP. II.—ANALYSIS. 
 
 is meant, v. 8, for we see, in process of fulfilment, a 
 higher and more literal accomplishment in Christ.) He 
 having been made a little lower than the angels on ac- 
 count of the suffering of death, has been crowned with 
 glory, that he may extend the benefits of his death to 
 all his people, v. 9. 
 
 The rationale (γὰρ) of all this ensues. It became 
 God, in saving his people, to perfect the author of 
 their salvatioh, i. 6. to bring him to his glorious end 
 (rehecaocc) through sufferings; for in the nature of the 
 case, the Redeemer and the redeemed are (or must be) 
 in all proper respects one: hence he condescends to call 
 them brethren; like them he puts his trust in God, 
 and he claims them as the children whom God had 
 given him, vv. 10-13. Since, then, the children par- 
 took of flesh and blood, He took part of the same: 
 first, that by his own death he might frustrate and des- 
 troy the power of Satan, whose captives they were by 
 nature, and deliver those who, in fear of deserved death, 
 were all their lives in bondage, vv. 14,15. For (γὰρ) 
 He did not undertake for the angels (then, indeed 
 [δήπου], he might have appeared in a different nature 
 or form), but for the seed of Abraham (i. e. in the 
 faith), who were flesh and blood: wherefore, second, 
 He must, in all proper respects, be like them, in order 
 that He may be a compassionate and faithful High- 
 Priest for them in matters pertaining to God, to make 
 propitiation of their sins. (Such a High-Priest he is;) Ὁ 
 for having been tried to the extreme, he can succour 
 those that are tempted, vv. 16-18. 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. II. v. 1. fic 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 1 Διὰ τοῦτο Osi περεσσοτέρως ἡμᾶς προςφέχεεν τοῖς 
 2 ἀκουσϑεῖσε, μήποτε παραῤθῥνῶμεν. Ei γὰρ ὁ δὲ 
 
 ἀγγέλων λαληϑεὶς λόγος ἐγένετο βέβαιος, καὶ 
 πᾶσα παράβασις καὶ παραχοὴ ἔλαβεν ἔνδωκον με- 
 
 8 σϑαποδοσίαν᾽ πῶς ἡμεῖς ἐκφευξόμεϑα τηλικαύ- 
 της ἀμελήσαντες σωτηρίας; ἥτις ἀρχὴν λαβοῦσα 
 hahsiotac διὰ τοῦ κυρίου, ὑπὸ τῶν ἀκουσώντων 
 
 4 εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐθεβαεώϑη, συνεπεμαρτυροῦντος τοῦ ϑεοῦ 
 σημείοις τε καὶ τέρασε καὶ ποικίλαις δυνάμεσε 
 καὶ πνεύματος ἁγίου μερισμοῖς, κατὰ τὴν αὑτοῦ 
 ϑέλησεν. 
 
 V. 1. Ζειὰ τοῦτο looks back to chap. 1: v. 1, and 
 the argument which follows. “Seeing that God hath 
 spoken to us by so exalted an Internuntius,” we ought 
 to give the more earnest heed to the things which have 
 been heard. Τοῖς ἀκουσϑεῖσε represents all that the 
 Christians of Palestine had heard, whether from the 
 Lord at first hand, or from the eye-witnesses of his min- 
 istry, concerning Christ and his kingdom, his nature, 
 work, offices, and doctrine. The obligation drawn from 
 the majesty of this divine messenger does not limit 
 itself to those who were personal spectators and objects 
 of his ministry, but embraces all who have sufficient 
 evidence that such a Prophet has spoken to them. 
 
 παραῤῥυῶμεν has been interpreted in three differ- 
 ent ways: 1. Chrysostom and Theophylact render it 
 by ἀπολώμεϑα, ἐκπέσωμεν, and appeal in justification 
 
80 HEBREWS, ὍΣΑ Ὁ. It Vv. l. 
 
 to Prov. 8: 21, which the Septuagint renders, vis, μὴ 
 παραῤῥυῆς ; our version, “ My son, let them not depart 
 from thine eyes.” Consult Wolfii curse Philolog. This 
 sense of the verb wants the confirmation of sufficient 
 usage. 2. From the primary sense of the verb, “to 
 flow by,” Stuart (as also Robinson in his Lexicon), 
 gets the meaning, “to pass by,” “to neglect,” “to 
 transgress,” and appeals also to Prov. 3:21. But the 
 Hebr. there is Mara, Awan Tk? WPA Wey a. Ge 
 senius gives for the verb, ™>, the meanings, “to turn 
 away,” “to depart.” The Septuagint have omitted 
 ΤΣ, but by rendering παραρῥνῆς, “to let pass,” 
 “depart,” or “slp,” as our translators have done in the 
 passage before us, the sense of the original is pretty 
 well expressed. Besides, many critics suppose the 
 true reading of the Sept. is παραῤῥνη; so that this 
 passage hardly proves the sense of Stuart rather than 
 that of our translators. (The translation which Sym- 
 machus gives of Proy. 3: 21, ΠΡΟΣ 332 ON, μὴ παρα- 
 θῥυσάτωσαν ἐξ ὀφρϑαλμῶν σου, is certainly not more 
 favourable to Stuart’s interpretation.) The word under 
 discussion does not elsewhere occur in the Septuagint 
 or the New Test. ὃ. The verb is often used to ex- 
 press the passing of things out of the mind, and by a 
 natural transition, it may mean “to let pass out.” Thus, 
 for illustration, we find Terence saying: “ Plenus rima- 
 rum sum, hac et illac perfluo:” a mode of speaking 
 common to all languages. Wahl translates the word, 
 “ preterlabi, vel elabi patior.” Bretschneider: “ne 
 preeterferamur, ne in oblivionem demus promissa.” Cal- 
 
HEHRREW 9S) ΟΡ τς αν. 2. 81 
 
 vin well remarks, “ Potius consideranda est antithesis 
 inter attentionem et profusionem. Nam attenta mens 
 similis est vasi bene obstructo: vaga autem et lgnava, 
 perforato.” The following context furnishes little help, 
 as a ready antithesis is found for either of the senses. 
 The one last stated seems to us preferable. 
 
 V.2. ὁ δὲ ἀγγέλων λαληϑεὶς λόγος. What word 
 was this? Jn Acts 7: 58, Stephen says: οἵτενες ἐλά- 
 Gere τὸν νόμον sic διαταγὰς ἀγγέλων. In Gal. 8: 
 19, Paul says: 6 νόμος ... προςετέϑη ... διαταγεὶς 
 δὲ ἀγγέλων, ἐν χειρὶ μεσέτουν. In Psalm 68:18 we 
 read: ΡΞ "7 D2 ἜΣ Pd "He ὈΠΩΞῚ oA 25. 
 Rosenmiiller may be consulted 7 loco. In Deut 33: 2, 
 ... MIP naaya nny) ... NBD Tint, on which the 
 same commentator may be consulted. Jewish tradi- 
 tion uniformly asserts the presence of the angels at the 
 giving of the law from Sinai. Thus Josephus, Jewish 
 Antiquities, B. xv. ¢ v. ὃ, Τῶν μὲν “Ἑλλήνων ἑεροὺς 
 καὶ ἀσύλους εἶναε τοὺς κήρυκας φαμενῶν, ἡμῶν δὲ 
 τὰ καλλιστα τῶν δογμάτων, καὶ τὰ ὁσιώτατα τῶν 
 ὃν τοῖς νομοῖς δὲ ἀγγέλων παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ μαϑόντων. 
 The ministry exercised by the angels in this case is not 
 understood, nor is their presence at Sinai mentioned in 
 the accounts of the giving of the law in Exodus ch. 
 19 and 20. But these traditions and testimonies make 
 it certain that they were present, and were in some 
 sense the assistants or instruments of the revelations 
 given there to Moses, and that his system was the 
 λόγος δὲ ἀγγέλων λαληϑείς. These institutions of 
 Moses were firm, inexorable; and their violation was 
 
 6 
 
82 HEBREWS, OHAP. II. Vv. 8. 
 
 visited with certain fixed and inevitable temporal 
 penalties. 
 V. 8. ryhexaurns ... σωτηρίας. Here seems to 
 
 be a metonymy of the effect for the cause: not intro-_ 
 
 duced, however, without design; but to express the 
 greater guilt of refusing a system which was so fruitful 
 of good to themselves. To reject Christ, or neglect 
 what had been preached concerning Him, was to add 
 ingratitude to rebellion, and insensibility to insult. 
 The particular sense in which the Apostle uses the 
 word σωτηρίαν may be illustrated by Acts 13: 26, 
 ὑμῖν ὁ λόγος τῆς σωτηρίας ταύτης ἀπεστάλη. One of 
 the elements of superior authority in this gospel sys- 
 tem is, that it began (under the new dispensation) to 
 be spoken by the Lord in person. 
 
 ὑπὸ τῶν ἀκουσάντων εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐθεβαιώϑη. Many 
 have hence argued that Paul was not the author of this 
 Epistle, by comparing it with Gal. 1: 12, Οὐδὲ γὰρ 
 ἐγὼ παρὰ ἀνϑρώπου παρέλαβον αὐτὸ οὔτε ἐδεδώχϑην, 
 ἀλλὰ δὲ ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. But it might 
 with just as much fairness be argued that the expres- 
 sion of Hebr. 1: 1, ἐλώλησεν ἡμεῖν ἐν υἱῷ, is in contra- 
 diction to this text, as that Paul could not consistently 
 be the author both of this text and of Gal. 1: 12. 
 And it might be argued also that ch. 1: 1 proves that 
 both the author of the Epistle and the persons ad- 
 dressed, had been eye-witnesses of Christ’s ministry. 
 But in truth, there is nothing here but a common 
 κοινῶσες; and the Apostle is not necessarily included 
 among his hearers. Thus, Eph. 4:14, ἵνα μηκέτε ὦμεν 
 
 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. II. Vv. 4. 83 
 
 νήπιοι. Does the Apostle imply that he also was still 
 but a spiritual infant? 1 Thess. 4:17, ἔπεετα nusic of 
 ζῶντες οἱ περελειπόμενοε, ἅμα σὺν αὐτοῖς ἁρπαγησό- 
 eta ἐν νεφέλαες εἰς ἀπάντησεν τοῦ Κυρίου. Does 
 the Apostle here signify that he expects to be himself 
 living on the earth at the final resurrection? Or did 
 he expect that any of his immediate readers would be? 
 This none but infidels will believe. In the passage be- 
 fore us there is the less difficulty, because in the whole 
 context the first person plural is used. 
 
 V. 4. συνεπεμαρτυροῦντος τοῦ ϑεοῦ σημείοις τὲ 
 καὶ τέρασε καὶ ποικίλαις δυνάμεσι. These last three 
 terms are often employed to.denote the various mira- 
 cles and wonderful signs wrought for the confirmation 
 of religion. All three are used in Acts 2: 22, in refer- 
 ence to the proofs of the Saviour’s mission: ἄνδρα ἀπὸ 
 τοῦ ϑεοῦ ἀποδεδειγμένον εἰς ὑμᾶς δυνάμεσε καὶ τέ- 
 ρασε καὶ σημείοις, οἷς ἐποίησε δὲ αὐτοῦ ὃ ϑεός. In 
 2 Cor. 12: 12 the same words are used to describe the 
 similar proofs of Paul’s apostleship: Τὰ μὲν σημεῖα 
 τοῦ ἀποστόλου κατειργάσϑη ἐν ὑμῖν ἐν πάσῃ vx0- 
 μονῇ, ἕν σημείοις καὶ τέρασε καὶ δυνώμεσε. They are 
 used in 2 Thess. 2: 9 of the lying proofs offered by the 
 Man of Sin for his pretensions: οὗ ἐστεν ἢ παρουσία, 
 κατ᾽ ἐνέργειαν τοῦ arava, ἐν πάσῃ δυνάμεε καὶ 
 σημείοις καὶ τέρασε τνεύδους, &c. In the two passages 
 from Acts 2: 22 and 2 Cor. 12: 12, the parallel words 
 seem to be accumulated in order to construct a more 
 comprehensive expression. But in our text, as perhaps 
 in the case of πάσῃ with the singular in the third 
 
84 HEBREWS, CHAP. II. Vv. 4. 
 
 citation, the use and position of ποιεκίλαες militates 
 against such a construction ; because, in itself, it gives 
 sufficient extent to the meaning. It would seem, there- 
 fore, that the words σημεεέοες καὶ τέρασε fulfil this pur- 
 pose of amplification (as in John 4: 48, Acts 6: 8, 
 7: 36, and in the Septuagint for minpia nins). Then 
 δυνώμεσε TAay Mean “miraculous powers,” as in Rom. 
 15:19, “ Christ wrought by me... ἐν δυνώμεε σημείων 
 καὶ τεράτων, ἐν δυνώμεε πνεύματος (cov); Acts 10: 
 38, ἔχρεσεν αὐτὸν (Ἰησοῦν) ὃ ϑεὸς πνεύματε ayia καὶ 
 δυνώμεε; 1 Cor. 3: 4, 6 λόγος μου ... (ἐγένετο) ἐν 
 ἀποδείξεε πνεύματος καὶ δυνώμεως. And, in connex- 
 ion with πνεύματος ἁγίου μερεσμοῖς, it may designate 
 the powers connected with the various distributions or 
 gifts of the Spirit—a connexion sanctioned by the pas- 
 sages just quoted. We find the verb μερέζω used for 
 the different distributing or apportioning of spiritual 
 gifts in Rom. 12:3; compare Hebr. 7:2. An illus- 
 tration of what the Apostle means by these “ varieties” 
 and “dividings” of gifts may be seen in 1 Cor. 12: 
 4-11. It should be noted, however, that in this sense 
 of miraculous power, the singular only is used (δυνά- 
 ust, δυνώμεως) in the passages cited; and the plural 
 is frequently used for miraculous acts, though in Mark 
 9: 39 the singular is used in this sense. 
 
 
 
 5 Οὐ yao ἀγγέλοις ὑπέταξε τὴν οἰκουμένην τὴν μέλ- 
 6 λουσαν, περὶ ἧς λαλοῦμεν. “εμαωρτύρατο δέ που 
 τίς, λέγων" “Ti ἐστεν ὥνθρωπος, ὅτε μεμνήσκῃ 
 αὐτοῦ" ἢ υἱὸς ἀνϑρώπου, ὅτε ἐπισκέπτῃ αὐτόν; 
 
 
 
HEBREWS, OCOHAP. II. γι 5. 85 
 
  Ἠλάττωσας αὐτὸν βραχύ te παρ᾽ ἀγγέλους" δόξῃ 
 καὶ Teun ἐστεφάνωσας αὐτὸν [καὶ κατέστησας av- 
 
 8 τὸν ἐπὶ τὰ ἔργα τῶν χειρῶν σου ]" πώντα ὑπέταξας 
 ὑποχάτω τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ." ᾿Εν γὰρ τῷ ὑποτάξαε 
 αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα, οὐδὲν ἀφῆκεν αὐτῷ ἀνυπότακτον. 
 Noy δὲ οὕπω ὁρῶμεν αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα ὑποτετα- 
 
 9 γμένα᾽ τὸν δὲ βραχύ te παρ᾽ ἀγγέλους ἡλαττωμέ- 
 γον βλέπομεν Ἰησοῦν, dia τὸ πάϑημα τοῦ ϑανάτου 
 δόξῃ καὶ τεμῇ ἐστεφανωμένον, ὅπως χάρετε ϑεοῦ 
 ὑπὲρ παντὸς γεύσηται ϑανάτου. 
 
 V. 5. The practical exhortation: being concluded, 
 the Apostle now resumes his argument. As was stated 
 in the Analysis, this resumption not only carries us 
 back into the main line of his discussion (to prove the 
 superiority of Christ as a mediator), but aims particu- 
 larly to refute just here a possible objection from his 
 humanity. The logical connexion of the γὰρ is there- 
 fore with vv. 2, 8, and not with ἡτες ἀρχὴν λαβοῦσα, 
 z.v.4., a8 Kuinoél supposes. “If the word spoken by 
 angels was steadfast, how much more this new word ἢ 
 For (γὰρ) not to angels has God committed this dis- 
 pensation” (but to one greater than angels). ΑΒ 
 above, in ch. 1: 4, 5, the γὰρ introduces the ground of 
 the proposition to which it refers. And throughout 
 the Epistle we shall observe the same, in passing from 
 argument to exhortation, and from exhortation to 
 argument. 
 
 τὴν οἰκουμένην τὴν μέλλουσαν. The classic usage 
 of οἰχουμένην gives it the sense of “the inhabited 
 earth,” especially as settled by Greeks. By people of 
 
. 86 HEBREWS, OHAP. II. v. 6. 
 
 the Roman empire, it was currently used to express 
 that empire (as in Luke 2:1, ἀπογράφεσθαι πᾶσαν 
 τὴν οἰχου μένην), by asort of arrogant exaggeration, 
 as though the empire embraced the whole world. In 
 later usage we find the word meaning “the world,” in 
 the sense of all the inhabitants of the world (as in 
 Acts 17: 81, κρίνειν τὴν οἰκουμένην ἐν δωκαεοσύνῃ). 
 And hence, it is used tropdlogically as equivalent to 
 aioy. Buxtorf’s Lexicon Chald. Talmud, Rabbin. 
 1620, says: “ Mundum futurum, sive 835 D257; qui- 
 dam intelligunt mundum qui futurus est post destruc- 
 tum hunc mundum inferiorem, et post resurrectionem 
 hominum mortuorum, quando anime cum corporibus 
 suis rursum conjungentur. Quidam per 820 5>‘9 intel- 
 ligunt man ΤΣ. dies Messia, quibus scil. venturus 
 Messias, quem Jude adhue expectant, quod in hac 
 mundo temporaliter regnaturus sit.” It is very evi- 
 dent that the words τὴν οἰκουμένην τὴν μέλλουσαν 
 are here used in the latter sense, as equivalent to αἰῶνα 
 μέλλοντει, and mean “the gospel dispensation.” The 
 succeeding words, περὶ ἧς λαλοῦμεν, compel us to this 
 opinion; for what else except the Christian or new 
 dispensation can be understood as the subject of the 
 Apostle’s discourse? The reader may compare ra 
 τέλη τῶν «αἰώνων (1 Cor. 10: 11), meaning gospel times, 
 μέλλοντος αἰῶνος (Hebr. 6:5), and ouvrshslac τῶν 
 αἰώνων (9: 26). 
 
 V. 6. The particle δὲ is here plainly adversative. 
 “Not to the angels, but to Christ.” The Psalmist 
 (“ But one in a certain place testified”) had taught 
 
ΒΟ BAP Tin gWovn TZ, 8. 87 
 
 that it was to a greater man, this world was put in 
 subjection. The periphrastic mode of expressing the 
 antithesis by this quotation suggested the difficulty 
 which seemed to arise against the Apostle’s argument 
 from the humanity and humiliation of Christ; but it 
 at the same time furnished the means of obviating it. 
 For the quotation represents human nature, which at 
 first, as exhibited in Adam unfallen and afterwards in 
 Christ, was little inferior to angels, exalted in Him to 
 infinite dignity. The quotation, extending from v. 6 
 through the first sentence of v. 8, is from Psalm 8: 5-7. 
 
 V. 1. παρ᾽ ἀγγέλους. “In comparison of angels.” 
 Compare this usage of παρὰ with 1: 4 supra. That 
 the original ΘΙ will bear this translation of angels, 
 is clear from the Septuagint rendering of the passage, 
 and of Ps. 97: 7, quoted above in 1: 6. It is also clear 
 from the use which the Apostle makes of the passages. 
 The Chaldee Targum also so renders it in Ps. 8: 6. 
 The Septuagint so translates it in Ps. 138: 1, and in 
 Job 20: 15 gives the same rendering to 5x. 
 
 V.8. γὰρ here introduces the reason for the im- 
 plied application of the passage to the man Christ 
 Jesus; or perhaps the ‘connexion of thought may be 
 more accurately stated thus: yao adduces this fact, 
 that the passage quoted ascribes to the subject of it 
 universal dominion, as the ground of the declaration 
 that this dispensation was not committed to the an- 
 gels: “This later dispensation whereof we speak, was 
 not put in subjection to the angels; for, in that he put 
 all in subjection under Him (this man infinitely ex- 
 
 \ 
 
88 HEBREWS, OHAP. II. V. 9. 
 
 alted), he left nothing that is not put under him.” 
 But if all is under Him, without exception, a part 
 cannot be under the angels. Consult Winer’s Idioms 
 N. Test. p. 352. 
 
 We have passed over this quotation without more 
 exposition than is necessary to show its adaptation to 
 the Apostle’s purpose in this place. It requires but 
 little stretch of faith to believe that a passage which 
 so easily admits of the application here made, is so 
 applied, not by accommodation merely, but in consis- 
 tency with its proper original meaning. 
 
 Nov δέ. Here δὲ is again adversative. “Such was 
 
 the declaration of universal dominion. But now we 
 see not yet all things put under him,” The fulfilment 
 of this promise is not seen as yet, except in its lowest 
 and most imperfect form, in the dominion of man over 
 the lower creatures in this world; a thing which by 
 no means satisfies the high and universal terms of the 
 passage. But its fulfilment will be seen in the crown- 
 ing of Jesus with glory and honour. 
 
 αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα ... ὑποτεταγ μένα, scil. to Him 
 who is the ὥνϑρωπος of the quotation. 
 
 V.9. τὸν δὲ βραχύ τε παρ ἀγγέλους ἡλαττωμέ- 
 νον. The Hebrew for ϑραχύ reis 022. Both words 
 admit of the rendering, “a little while.” The original 
 most naturally requires the meaning given in our Eng- 
 lish version, “a little lower,” “somewhat lower;” and 
 nothing in the context forbids it. Christ incarnate on 
 the earth was a perfect man (as Adam was made by 
 his Creator), and therefore, in his human nature, little 
 
 
 
 
 
ἘΠΙΒΗ ΝΒ, CHAP. IT. Vv. Ὁ.. 89 
 
 inferior to angels; but yet he was in condition some- 
 what inferior. This is proved by the fact that they 
 ministered to his necessities, Matt. 4: 11, and in the 
 garden of Gethsemane strengthened him in his anguish. 
 
 διὰ τὸ πάϑημα τοῦ ϑανάτου. It is very difficult 
 to determine whether these words were intended by 
 the author to depend on ἠλαττω μένον, or ἐστεφανωμέ- 
 γον below. The position of the words would admit 
 either construction, but perhaps rather favours the lat- 
 ter, and the sentiment on either construction is com- 
 mon in the Scriptures: Christ condescended into the 
 human condition in order to suffer death for man. See 
 this sentiment expressed below, vv. 14,17. And again, 
 Christ’s exaltation has been bestowed on him on ac- 
 count of the sufferings and humiliation he freely under- 
 went. This is fully expressed in Phil. 2: 8-11; be- 
 cause “he humbled himself, and became obedient unto 
 death ... God also hath highly exalted him.” Τῷ 
 must be said that the latter construction gives to the 
 preposition (dz) a sense somewhat more accurately 
 consonant to its usage with the accusative ;* and it is 
 also favoured by the preceding context, which is still 
 evidently in the thought of the author. The exalta- 
 
 * The usual force of διὰ with accus. is to express grownd or reason 
 (ratio); seldom, if ever, design. Winer (Id. N. Test. $53. c. p. 318) says 
 never. But see John 12: 27, διὰ τοῦτο ἦλϑον εἰς τὴν ὥραν ταύτην. ΤῸ 
 see how closely the two senses border on each other, compare John 1: 
 31, 1 Cor. 7: 2,1 Tim. 1: 16, Hebr.9: 15. Upon the other construction, 
 
 too, even for the purposes of emphasis, the more natural position of, 
 
 ᾿Ιησοῦν would be after διὰ τὸ πάϑημα. 
 
90 ° -BEBREW ΒΒ, πΑΡι στ Vand. 
 
 tion of the God-man foretold in the Psalm, is still his 
 topic; and this somewhat favours the opinion that the 
 dependent clause is in his mind connected with this. 
 But the succeeding context strongly favours its con- 
 nexion with ἠλαττωμένον; for the “fitness” referred 
 to in the next verse seems to reproduce a kindred idea 
 to that, which would be thus obtained: ἔπρεπε γὰρ ... 
 “Tt was fit to make the captain of our salvation per- 
 fect through sufferings.” The matter may perhaps be 
 best summed up by saying that either sense is admis- 
 sible and good. 
 
 ὅπως must have the sense “ that,’ “in order that.” 
 It cannot be properly translated “ when,” as Stuart. 
 And we may make ὅπως depend on ἠλαττωμένον, put- 
 ting the middle clause into a parenthesis, as is prefer- 
 red by Carpzow, Beehm, Cramer. Or, dispensing with 
 the parenthesis, we may more naturally connect ὅπως 
 with ἐστεφανωμένον. The sense which the passage 
 would bear, with the former construction, is obvious: 
 “We see Jesus made a little lower than the angels... 
 in order that he might, by the grace of God, taste 
 death for every man.” With the latter construction, 
 the meaning would be: “ We see Him exalted, that 
 he may secure for all his people the benefits of his 
 death.” We are unable to sympathize with the diffi- 
 culty which Stuart experiences in this interpretation. 
 It finds its illustration in Phil. 2: 9-11. For the sense 
 of ὅπως, see Winer’s Idioms New Test. $57 end. 
 
 ὑπὲρ παντός. “That He may taste death for every 
 man.” Inall such expressions, and they are numerous, 
 
PUB RWS, σία». 12.4% 9. 91 
 
 we must fix limitations by other passages which serve 
 to define them. Thus we ascertain the persons thus 
 indicated to be ‘all of every age and nation who should 
 believe on him.’ Compare the use of πώντες, 3: 16 
 below. 
 
 γεύσηταε ϑανάτου. This figure may be illustrated 
 by the Rabbin. expression sn’ oD. In Matt. 16: 28, 
 Mark 9: 1, Luke 9:27, John 8: 52, the phrase is used 
 to mean simply dying—“ may die for all.” The evi- 
 dence for the vicarious nature of Christ’s death, which 
 is contained in the force of the preposition ὑπὲρ (“in 
 the room of,” equivalent to ¢yri), should not be over- 
 looked. See Winer’s Id. New Test. 851. 9, p. 294. 
 
 10 Ἔπρεπε γὰρ αὐτῷ, δὲ ὃν τὰ πάντα καὶ δὲ οὗ τὰ 
 πάντα, πολλοὺς υἱοὺς εἰς δόξαν ἀγαγόντα, τὸν 
 ἀρχηγὸν τῆς σωτηρίας αὐτῶν διὰ παϑημάτων 
 
 11 τελεεῶσωαι. Ὅ, τε γὰρ ἀἁγεάζων καὶ of ἀγεαζόμε- 
 vot ἕξ ἑνὸς πάντες" δὲ ἣν αἰτίαν οὐκ ἐπαισχύνεταε 
 
 19 ἀδελφοὺς αὐτοὺς καλεῖν, λέγων" ““᾿Δπαγγελῶ τὸ 
 ὄνομά σου τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς μου, ἐν μέσῳ ἐχκλησίας 
 
 18 ὑμνήσω os.” Καὶ nahi: “Ἐγὼ ἔσομαε πεποεϑὼς 
 
 ᾿ x r Ξ A > T \ 
 Kai nahi: ““Ἰδοὺ ἐγω, καὶ τὰ παεδία, 
 
 ) 
 
 et αὐτῷ. 
 14 « mor ἔδωκεν ὁ sos.” Ἐπεὶ οὖν τὰ παιδία xExot- 
 γώνηχε σαρχὸς καὶ αἵματος, καὶ αὐτὸς παραπλη- 
 σίως μετέσχε τῶν αὐτῶν, ἵνα διὰ τοῦ ϑανάτου 
 καταργήσῃ τὸν τὸ κράτος ἔχοντα τοῦ ϑανάτου, 
 15 τοῦτ᾽ ἔστε τὸν διάβολον, καὶ ἀπαλλάξῃ τούτους, 
 ὅσοε φόβῳ ϑανάτου διὰ παντὸς τοῦ ζὴν ἔνοχοι 
 16 ἦσαν δουλείας. Οὐ γὰρ δήπου ἀγγέλων ἐπελαμιβά- 
 γέται, ἀλλὰ σπέρματος “ASoaau ἐπελαμβάνεταε. 
 
92 HEBREWS, CHAP. II. v. 10. 
 
 11 Ὅϑεν ὥφειλε κατὰ πώντα τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς δμοιωϑῆς- 
 val, ἵνα ἐλεήμων γένηταε καὶ πιστὸς ἀρχεερεὺς τὰ 
 πρὸς τὸν ϑεόν, εἰς τὸ ἱλάσκεσθαι τὰς ἁμαρτέας 
 
 18 τοῦ λαοῦ. ἢν ᾧ γὰρ πέπονϑεν αὐτὸς πειρασϑείς, 
 δύναταε τοῖς πειρκζομένοις βοηϑῆσαε. 
 
 V.10. Ἔπρεπε γὰρ αὐτῷ, x.r.2.__These words are 
 thus paraphrased by Stuart: “As all men are, by the 
 universal arrangement of a wise and overruling Provi- 
 dence, subjected to trial, so it was proper or becoming 
 in God, that Jesus should be subjected to trial in our 
 nature, before he was advanced to glory in it.” This 
 seems to us to give a sense too superficial. The Apos- 
 tle looks deeper. It was a transaction which concerned 
 Him “on account of whom, and by whom, are all 
 things.” In it the glory and majesty of God were in- 
 volved. The “fitness” which must be consulted in the 
 mode of redeeming rebellious men, was that which 
 concerned His attributes, rights, and honour. This 
 the author afterwards developes. 
 
 γὰρ introduces, the ground or reason of what he 
 had just said concerning Christ. He received this 
 humiliation and this exaltation, because God’s own 
 nature and rights required Him to make the captain 
 of his people’s salvation perfect through sufferings. 
 
 ἀγαγόντα is by many construed with ἀρχηγόν. 
 But evidently the sense is far better, not to say neces- 
 sary, which refers it to αὐτῷ (God), and construes it 
 as the accusative before τελεεῶσαε. Stuart unreason- 
 ably objects that such anacolutha of the participle (as 
 
 EE νον. “νον νδμννμν. ὦ. 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. II. v. 10. 93 
 
 he considers this would be) are not to be found, all 
 the cases of such irregularities which are produced by 
 the critics being in the nominative ; and this nicety he 
 thinks Kuinoél, who agrees with us, has overlooked. 
 But the case is hardly to be considered as an anacolu- 
 thon. It is a construction that frequently occurs. See 
 Kihner, $307. 1. 2, especially Rem. 2. ὃ, pp. 458, 454, 
 where just such constructions as we have supposed this 
 to be, are declared to be very frequent; and among 
 others the following instances of it are given. Herod. 
 3. 86, ἐνετείλατο τοῖσε ϑεραποῦσε λαβόντας μὲν ἀπο- 
 κτείνας. Xenoph. Anab. 1.2.1, Feria ixecy παρήγ- 
 yeths λαβόντα τοῦς ἄνδρας. In the New Test., Luke 
 1:74, τοῦ δοῦναε ἡμῖν ... ἐκ χειρὸς τῶν ἐχϑρῶν 
 ἡμῶν ῥυσθϑέντας, λατρεύεεν αὐτῷ, 2.7.2. Acts 15: 22, 
 Τότε ἔδοξε τοῖς ἀποστόλοις καὶ τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις ... 
 ἐχλεξαμένους ἄνδρας ἐξ αὐτῶν πέμιψαε εἰς ᾿Αντεό- 
 χειῶν, κιτιλ. Consult also v. 25. Acts 26: 20, τοῖς 
 ἐν Δαμασχῷ ... καὶ Ἱεροσολύμοις ... καὶ τοῖς ἔϑνε- 
 σεν ἀπήγγελλον μετανοεῖν zal ἐπεστρέφεεν ἐπὲὶ τὸν 
 Θεόν, ἄξια τῆς μετανοίας ἔργα πράσσοντας. 1 Peter 
 4: 8, Aoxeros γὰρ ἡμῖν ὃ παραλελυϑὼς χρόνος τοῦ 
 βίου τὸ ϑέλημα τῶν ἐϑνῶν κατεργάσασϑαε, πεπορευ- 
 μένους ἐν ἀσελγείαες, κιτ.2. Compare also Kihner’s 
 Gr. Gram. 8810. ὃ, Rem. 2, p. 460. Winer’s Id. New 
 Test. $63. 3 (Ὁ), p. 396. Weare therefore abundantly 
 justified in construing ἀγαγόντα with the subject of 
 τελεεῶσαε (God). The fitness to be consulted was 
 then what became God in the great work of ‘ bringing 
 many sons to glory.’ 
 
94 HEBREWS, OHAP. II. v. 10. 
 
 ἀρχηγὸν is used here, and in 12: 2 below (τὸν τῆς 
 πέστεως ἀρχηγόν), and most probably in Acts 3:15 
 (τὸν δὲ ὠρχηγὸν τῆς ζωῆς ἀπεκτείνατε), in the sense of 
 author. In Acts 5:81, τοῦτον 6 ϑεὸς ἀρχηγὸν καὶ 
 σωτῆρα ὕψωσε τῇ δεξιᾷ αὑτοῦ, and perhaps in the 
 passage quoted from Acts 3: 15, it means prince. But 
 even there the sense is included, that he is one who 
 dispenses the benefits of his redemption. Thus, in 
 Acts 5: 31, it is added, vwaoe... δοῦναε μετάνοιαν 
 τῷ Ἰσραήλ, καὶ ἄφεσεν ὡμαρτεῶν. And so in our pas- 
 sage it may not be amiss to attribute to the word the 
 combined sense of leader and dispenser: Christ leads 
 our way; he protects, he governs, he originates our 
 graces, and bestows justification. 
 
 τελειῶσαε is used frequently in this Epistle, and 
 throughout, it bears the original sense of “ bringing to 
 a full end, perfecting,” though modified in different 
 connexions to suit the subject. It is used of the work 
 of the law (denying its ability to give perfection) in 
 Hebr. 7:19, οὐδὲν yao ἐτελείωσεν ὃ νόμος; 9:9, 
 δῶρά re καὶ ϑυσίαε, μὴ δυνώμεναε κατὰ συνείδησεν 
 τελειῶσωε τὸν λατρεύοντα; 10:1, ὃ νόμος ... οὐδέ- 
 ποτε δύναταε τοὺς προσερχομένους τελεεῶσαε. It Is 
 used aflirmatively of the work of Christ in 10: 14, 
 Mia γὰρ προσφορᾷ τετελείωκεν εἰς τὸ δεηνεκὲς τοὺς 
 ἁγεαζομένους. The noun τελεέωσες 15 used ἴῃ a similar 
 sense in 7: 11, Εἰ μὲν οὖν τελείωσις δεὰ τῆς “ευϊτεκῆς 
 ἑερωσύνης ἣν. The verb is used of Christ as exalted 
 and glorified, in the passive voice, 5: 9, καὶ τελεεωϑεὶς 
 
 , ~ ~ Ld > ~ ” , 
 ἐγένετο NACL τοῖς ὑπακούουσεν αὐτῷ αἴτεος σωτηρίας 
 
BEEBE ws, CHAP. Tis WF TY. 95 
 
 αἰωνίου ; and 7:28, ὁ λόγος δὲ τῆς ὁρκωμοσίας τῆς 
 μετὰ τὸν νόμον (χαϑίέστησεν ἀρχεερέα) ὑεὸν εἰς τὸν 
 αἰῶνα τετελεεωμένον. Once more it is used, ἴῃ the 
 passive, of the saints glorified and perfected in heaven, 
 in 11: 40, ἵνα μὴ χωρὶς ἡμῶν rehecaP ace, and 12: 28, 
 πνεύμασε δωεαέων τετελεεωμένων. The idea in all 
 these cases is evidently that of something which ἐδ 
 brought to the completeness of its proposed condition ; 
 whether a condition of complete justification, as in the 
 eases of the Levitical and New Test. sacrifices, or of 
 complete sanctification, as in the case of the saints, or 
 complete glory and exaltation, as in Christ’s. The 
 meaning here, therefore, may be safely taken as this: 
 “to complete the mediatorial work and glorification of 
 the captain of our salvation, through sufferings.” 
 V.11. γὰρ introduces the ground or reason of the 
 fitness asserted in ἔπρεπε above. It should not be 
 made to refer to v. 5, as Stuart does; for the Apostle’s 
 scope is not to show that “Christ had a human instead 
 of an angelic nature.” The objection already answered 
 supposed this, as the answer also concedes it. The 
 Apostle does not argue in the 5th verse that “ this dis- 
 pensation was committed not to angels, but to man.” 
 But he argues that “it was committed to one who, 
 though the Son of Man, was above all, angels included.” 
 It gives to the Apostle’s scope an exceeding triviality 
 to suppose that he is thus formally reasoning out what 
 needed no proof, because it was fully conceded and un- 
 derstood on all hands. “There was a fitness arising 
 out of the nature of God, which required that our Re- 
 
 
 
 
 
 } 
 
 -- τ 5 eg ics 
 
90 HEBREWS, CHAP. II. Vv. 11. 
 
 deemer should receive his complete mediatorial fune- 
 tions and glory through sufferings. For (the ground 
 of that proposition is:) there is a necessary oneness 
 between redeemer and redeemed.” 
 
 ὡγεώζω, ἀἁγεαζόμενοι, We will translate redeemer 
 and redeemed. On the proper rendering of this word, 
 which is so frequent and important throughout this 
 Epistle, the reader is referred to what was said in the 
 Commentary on 1:8, under the term χκαϑαριεσμόν. 
 The sense we have given to ὠγεώζω is fully sustained 
 by its use in 10: 10, 14, and 13: 12 below, Ἐν ᾧ de- 
 λήματε ἡγεασμένοε ἐσμὲν διὰ τῆς προσφορᾶς τοῦ 
 σώματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐφώπαξ. Mie γὰρ προσ- 
 φορᾷ τετελείωκεν εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς τοὺς ὡγεαζομένους. 
 Aw καὶ Ἰησοῦς, ἵνα ἁγεώσῃ διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος 
 τὸν λαόν, ἔξω τῆς πύλης ἔπαϑεν. In these places the 
 adjuncts προσφορᾶς τοῦ σώματος Ἰησοῦ, and διὰ τοῦ 
 idiov αἵματος, plainly determine that the work ex- 
 pressed by ὡγεώζω was one of redemption. Its other 
 current sense, that of sanctification, is here out of place, 
 according to the uniform sense of Scripture. The Holy 
 Spirit sanctifies ; the sufferings of Christ atone, and thus 
 redeem. Wahl thus defines the word (@), “Purum 
 reddo a culpa peccati, 1. e. expio, Deum propitium 
 reddo alicui; and farther refers to 1 Cor. 1: 2, 6: 11, 
 Eph. 5: 26, Jude 1. But in these passages this sense 
 is less manifest. The word is also used in the Septua- 
 gint as the translation of 752, where it has the sense 
 of expiating. The context here further demands this 
 sense. The two ideas, of atonement and sanctification 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. 11. v. 11. 97 
 
 or consecration, are so closely associated, that it is nat- 
 ural that words which primarily denoted one or the 
 other, should come to be used of either, or to carry a 
 sense combined of both. To the mind of a Hebrew, 
 the two ideas of redemption from condemnation, and 
 sanctification, would be associated with peculiar near- 
 ness; because in the 037, the thing consecrated to de- 
 struction, the loathsomeness and uncleanness, both 
 moral and ceremonial, were as prominent as the con- 
 demnation. Its dedication to destruction was a dedi- 
 cation to a use unclean and abhorrent: hence, its re- 
 demption from that condemnation was a true setting 
 apart to a sacred use. In order to bring many sons to 
 glory, God must both secure their justification and 
 sanctification. “ By the one offering he hath perfected ” 
 this work “forever.” (Hebr. 10:14.) And this, we 
 conceive, is the ἀγεοσύγνη of the Epistle to the Hebrews 
 —complete redemption. 
 
 The ellipsis after ἐξ ἑνὸς has been variously sup- 
 plied by different critics, so as to read ἐς ἑνὸς σπέρμα- 
 TOS, αἵματος, YEVOUS, PUGEMS, πατρός, &e, scil. Adam, 
 Abraham, God, &e. But the objection to all these 
 suppositions is that they supply, and thus make defi- 
 nite, what the Apostle purposely left general. His 
 object was to include all the respects in which it be- 
 hooved that the Redeemer should be one with his peo- 
 ple. Perfectly consistent with this is all the following 
 context. The Apostle there proceeds to show that it 
 was ἃ oneness not only in race, but in sufferings, and 
 temptations, and sympathies: “on account of which 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 
 
98 HEBREWS, CHAP. II. vv. 12, 18. 
 
 oneness, he is not ashamed to call the’ redeemed his 
 brethren.” The Apostle then proceeds, in 
 
 Υ. 12, to support this, by a quotation from the Ps. 
 22: 22 (in Hebr. and Septuagint v. 23). The words 
 of the Septuagint are used, except that the Apostle 
 substitutes ἀπαγγελῶ for δεηγήσομαε. For the messi- 
 anic character of this Psalm, see Hengstenberg’s Chris- 
 tol. vol. 1. pp. 180-148, where it is clearly proved 
 that the Messiah is the speaker in the passage quoted, 
 and throughout the Psalm; and therefore the Apos- 
 tle’s application of it is legitimate, and so distinct as 
 to need no exposition. For the reader of less research, 
 it may be sufficient to point out, that Christ on the 
 cross used the very words with which this Psalm be- 
 gins: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken 
 me!” (Matt. 27:46.) Verses 7, 8 of the Psalm were 
 accurately verified in the conduct of the Jewish nobles 
 towards the dying Messiah, Matt. 27: 41-48. V. 16, 
 “They pierced my hands and my feet,” a mode of tor- 
 ture unknown among Hebrews before, was wonder- 
 fully fulfilled in Christ. See Luke 24:39. And 
 above all, v. 18 is by the Evangelist John (19: 24) 
 expressly applied to Christ. So that we have abun- 
 dant inspired exposition, independent of the text un- 
 der consideration, to prove that the speaker in this 
 Psalm is the Redeemer. 
 
 V. 13 contains two quotations. The first, Ἐγὼ 
 ἔσομαε πεποεϑὼς ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ, 18 doubtless taken from 
 Isaiah 8: 17, where ἢ ")"2?) is translated by the Sep- 
 tuagint into these very words, as the same phrase is 
 
 
 
HEBREWS, OHAP. II. v. 18. 99 
 
 also in 2 Sam. 22:3. Some have attempted to find 
 the quotation in Ps. 18: 8, ἐλπεῶ αὐτῷ, or in 2 Sam. 
 22:38, but incorrectly. The second quotation, Ἰδοὺ 
 ἐγώ, καὶ τὰ παιδία & μοε ἔδωκεν ὃ ϑεός, 15 from Isaiah 
 8: 18, where these words occur exactly in the Septua- 
 gint, and unlike the Engl. version, have a full stop after 
 soc, making the sentence end there, as the Apostle 
 does in our passage. In this reference the critics gen- 
 erally agree. It is nothing to the contrary that the 
 words χαὶ πάλεν intervene. They do not necessarily 
 imply that the Apostle was citing a different place. 
 Compare the quotations from Deut. 32:35, 36, in 
 Hebr. 10: 30 below, and from Habak. 2: 3, 4, in Hebr. 
 10: 88, where the Commentary may be consulted for 
 explanation. 
 
 To see proofs that the whole context from which 
 these quotations are taken, has a reference to the Mes- 
 siah, the reader may read Hengstenberg’s Christol. 
 (vol. 1. particularly p. 848, compared with pp. 319, 
 320); Stuart’s Excursus X, and Alexander on Isaiah, 
 ch. 8. vv. 16-18. (The last, like many others, under- 
 stands the Messiah to be the speaker, and thus avoids 
 an unnecessary double sense. The strongest marks 
 that there is a messianic reference in the whole passage, 
 are undoubtedly to be found in the two passages of 
 the context, 9: 1, 2, and 9: 6, the former of which is 
 explicitly applied to the Messiah in Matt. 4:15, 16, 
 and the latter is restricted to him by many indisputa- 
 ble signs. If we do not adopt the higher interpreta- 
 tion, with Alexander, we will not, with Stuart, suppose 
 
 
 
100 HEBREWS, CHAP. II. v. 14. 
 
 here an argumentum ad hominem or an argumentum 
 ἃ concessis (as in Luke 11:19). The author of the 
 Epistle evidently uses the words, as in some proper 
 sense the words of the Messiah. Isaiah and his sons, 
 whose names were significant, were signs of deliverance 
 for Israel from their enemies; and represented, in a 
 typical manner, the Redeemer and his children. 
 
 * The two quotations are evidently designed to illus- 
 trate, and consequently confirm from the Old Test. 
 Scriptures, the assertion made in the former part of 
 y. 11, as expressing a great truth necessarily belonging 
 to the divine scheme for the redemption of the race. 
 Hence the Apostle had already intimated, in v. 10, 
 that the redeemed were viove, sons. The oneness of 
 condition between Christ and his people is now further 
 indicated in this: that He, like them, professes trust 
 in his heavenly Father. (So Calvin, Stuart.) Trust 
 implies dependence, and this again a nature inferior to 
 God; for the Infinite is sufficient to himself. So that 
 the glorious Messiah of the Old Test. is found using 
 the π᾿ of humiliation. Again, having called his 
 redeemed, brethren, he now, in accordance with the 
 figure of Isaiah 53:10, calls them children. God hath 
 given them to him. (See John 6: 37, 89, 10: 29.) 
 The father and the son share a common nature—a one- 
 ness is implied in the relationship. 
 
 V.14. ᾿Επεὶ οὖν introduces an illation from the 
 “preceding statements and facts: ‘it was necessary for 
 the Redeemer to suffer; He must be one with his re- 
 deemed people. This He acknowledges in the Old 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. It. v. 14. 101 
 
 Test. calling them brethren and children, and acknow- 
 ledging in himself a dependence on God similar to 
 theirs. Since, then, they were flesh and blood, He 
 must appear in the same nature.” The object of his 
 assumption of them is now stated. 
 
 iva καταργήσῃ τὸν τὸ κράτος ἔχοντα, κιτ.. The 
 verb καταργήσῃ 1s seldom used in the classics, but often 
 in the New Test. It finds its best Ulustration here, or 
 in Rom. 6: 6, “Our old man is crucified with Christ, 
 ἵνα καταργήσῃ TO σῶμα τῆς ἁμαρτίας, TOU μηκέτε 
 δουλεύεεν ἡμᾶς τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ," or in 1 Cor. 15: 24, 
 speaking of Christ’s winding up his mediatorial reign, 
 the author says, ὅτων καταργήσῃ πᾶσαν ἐρχήν, καὶ 
 πᾶσαν ἐξουσίαν καὶ δύναμιεν, κιτ.λ.; ΟΥ in 2 Tim. 1: 
 10, “Our Saviour Jesus Christ, xerueyyjoarros μὲν τὸν 
 ϑένατον, φωτίσαντος δὲ ζωὴν καὶ apitagotay,” z.t.h. 
 Hence we infer for this place the meaning, “to make 
 of no effect,” “to nullify,” “to subdue, or destroy.” 
 
 τὸ κράτος ἔχοντα τοῦ ϑανάτου, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστε, τὸν 
 διάβολον. In John 8: 44 Satan is called the father 
 of unbelievers (ὑμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν, x.t.).), 
 whose will they do. He is “a murderer from the be- 
 ginning ;” an expression which may be explained by 
 Gen. ch. 8, where we read that he was the procurer of 
 spiritual and bodily death to our race, from its origin. 
 In John 12: 81 he is called 6 ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τού- 
 rou, where it is also said, νῦν ἐκ,βληϑήσεταε ἔξω. Thus 
 also, in Luke 10: 19, he is called “the enemy,” scil. of 
 Christ’s cause and Church. In John 14: 30 he is “the 
 prince of this world,” and in 2 Cor. 4: 4 “the god of 
 
102 HEBREWS, OHAP. 11. v. 15. 
 
 this world,” who blinds the minds of them that believe 
 not (ὁ ϑεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου). In Eph. 2: 2 he is 
 called “τὸν ἄρχοντα τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ ἀέρος, Who now 
 worketh in the children of disobedience.’ Compare 
 also Eph. 6:12, Οὐκ ἔστιν ἡμῖν ἡ πάλη πρὸς αἷμα 
 καὶ σάρκα, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὰς ἀρχάς, πρὸς τὰς ἐξουσίας, 
 πρὸς τοὺς κοσμοκράτορας τοῦ σκότους τούτου, #.T.A. 
 In 2 Tim. 2: 26 the impenitent are said to be in the 
 snares of the devil, ἐζωγρηκμένοε ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ ἐχεί- 
 vou ϑέλημα. Τὰ 1 Peter 5: 8 he 15 represented as one 
 who περεπατεῖ, Syrov tive καταπίῃ. Hence there is 
 a parallel to our passage in 1 John 3: 8, 6 ποιῶν τὴν 
 ἁμαρτίαν, é τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστίν, κιτ.λ. εἰς τοῦτο 
 ἐφανερώϑη ὃ υἱὸς τοῦ ϑεοῦ, ἵνα λύσῃ τὰ ἔργα τοῦ 
 διαβόλου. Compare with this John 12: 31, which has 
 been already cited. In Acts 26:18, Paul was called 
 into the work of the ministry τοῦ ἐπεστρέψαε ἀπὸ ... 
 τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ Σατανᾶ ἐπὶ τὸν ϑεόν. .From a com- 
 parison of these passages, we learn that Satan is ‘the 
 prince of darkness and spiritual death,’ wielding im- 
 mense and destructive power over the ungodly, who 
 are his children and servants. The clause under dis- 
 cussion simply asserts that Christ, by his death, struck 
 the deadly blow at his power. He became man in 
 order that he might die, and thus lay the foundation 
 for the destruction of Satan’s power and kingdom. 
 Here, again, the full benefits of redemption are in- 
 _ cluded in the Apostle’s meaning. 
 _ V. 15. καὶ ἀπαλλάξῃ τούτους. This verb evi- 
 dently expresses a deliverance from bondage—a bond- 
 
HEBREWS, OHAP. τὰ. v: 1d. 108 
 
 age to Satan, sin, and guilt. This is shown by what 
 precedes and what follows. For illustration, compare 
 John 8: 31-36, πῶς ὃ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν δοῦλός ἔστε 
 τῆς ἁμαρτίας ... ᾿Εὰν οὖν ὁ υἱὸς ὑμᾶς ἐλευϑερώσῃ, 
 ὄντως ἐλεύϑεροε ἔσεσϑε. 
 
 ὅσοι φόβῳ ϑανάτου. Here ϑανάτου must denote, 
 as so often in the Scriptures, ‘the penalty due to sin,’ 
 including of course temporal death, and every other 
 penal evil. As instances in which the word must have 
 this general meaning, see Genesis 2: 17, “ In the day 
 that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.” That 
 which occurred on the day of Adam’s transgression 
 was not actual bodily death, but his spiritual death, 
 with his subjection to bodily death, and all the sorrows 
 of life. In Ezek. 18: 4 it is said, “The soul that sin- 
 neth, it shall 416.) In Rom. 5: 12, dca τῆς ὡμαρτέας 
 ὁ ϑάνατος; 6: 38, Τὰ γὰρ ὀψώνια τῆς ἁμαρτίας, 
 ϑώνατος. In this passage it is set in antithesis to Can 
 αἰώνεος, which “is the gift of God by Jesus Christ.” 
 The fear of death, therefore, from which believers are 
 delivered through Christ’s death, is something much 
 more extensive than the mere animal fear of the disso- 
 lution of the body. It includes that sense of guilt, 
 and dread of divine wrath, which the natural con- 
 science inspires in all, and which spiritual convictions 
 produce, in the most pungent degree, in those who are 
 brought to Christ. 
 
 ἔνοχοε δουλείας. This construction is common 
 either with the genitive or dative. The bondage may 
 be, as Calvin and others say, to guilty and dreadful 
 
104 HEBREWS, CHAP. II. v. 16. 
 
 fears. But if we understand it thus, there is a repeti- 
 tion of sense which we cannot impute to the Apostle: 
 ‘Those who, through fear of the consequences of guilt, 
 are all their lifetime subject to the bondage of guilty 
 fears’ Such would be the tautology. The words 
 seem rather to mean the bondage in which sinners are 
 held by Satan, which is a bondage of sin, and conse- 
 quently of just exposure to punishment by God. So 
 the antithesis of the members of the sentence seems to 
 demand. Fearful and guilty anticipations are a strong 
 element in the bondage of the sinner; and this is ex- 
 pressed by the words φόϑῳ ϑανάτου. 
 
 The verse then strongly expresses the full benefits 
 of redemption; the undoing of Satan’s kingdom and 
 power, and the doing away of guilt, with the dreadful 
 sense of it. According to prophecy, it is a redemption 
 from captivity. 
 
 V.16. The verb ἐπελαμι βάνεταε would most nat- 
 urally mean, ‘to take hold of? for any purpose. In 
 Matt. 14: 31 (Εὐϑέως δὲ 0 Ἰησοῦς ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα, 
 ἐπελώβετο avrov), it means to take hold of, in order 
 to help. In Luke 14:4 (καὶ ἐπελαβόμενος ἰάσατο 
 αὐτόν, καὶ ἀπέλυσεν, It signifies to take hold of, to 
 heal. These passages sufficiently illustrate the mean- 
 ing here: “For he does not take hold of angels (for 
 the purpose of redemption), but he takes hold of the 
 seed of Abraham.” Calvin is not here to be imitated 
 in his rendering, ‘ Nusquam enim Angelos assumit.’ 
 The present here can hardly be rendered for the 
 preterite tense; it is rather to be understood as an 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. 11. v. 16. 105 
 
 instance of the narrative present for the past; a usage 
 so common in Greek. Wimner’s Id. $41. 2. ¢. 
 
 yao. The reference of this particle in the 16th 
 verse may be compared to that which it has in the 
 5th. (There, its force, as was explained, is this: “How 
 shall we escape if we neglect this salvation, spoken by 
 one greater than angels; (γὰρ) for, not unto angels 
 did he subject the coming dispensation of which we 
 speak.” Here its force is, “ He partook with the chil- 
 dren of flesh and blood (v. 14), (γὰρ) for, he does not 
 take hold of the angels, but of the seed of Abraham.” 
 At the same time, the 16th verse is prospective in its 
 connexion, and prepares the way for the next reason, 
 v.17. Hence that verse is introduced by the illative 
 particle oer. 
 
 σπέρματος ‘AGoaau must signify Abraham’s spir- 
 itual seed, believers; for Christ’s help was not con- 
 fined to his lineal descendants, the Jews, nor did all 
 of them share it. This use of the expression is most 
 distinctly established by the definitions of the Apostle 
 himself. See Gal. 8: 7-9, Γινωσχετε aoa, Ore οἱ ἐκ 
 alorews, οὗτοί εἰσεν υἱοὶ “ASoacu, κιτ.ιΔ. Rom. 4:11, 
 καὶ σημεῖον ἔλαβε περιτομῆς . .. εἰς τὸ εἶναε αὐτὸν 
 πατέρα πάντων τῶν πιστευόντων δὲ ἀκροβυστίας... 
 Moh? χαὶ πατέρα περιτομῆς, τοῖς οὐκ EX περετομῆς 
 μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς στοιχοῦσε τοῖς ἔχνεσε τῆς ἕν 
 ἀκροβυστίᾳ πίστεως τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν ASoaau. Rom. 
 9:6, ἴ, Οὐ γὰρ πάντες of ἐξ Ἰσραήλ, οὗτοε Ἰσραήλ᾽ 
 ὀυδ᾽ ὅτε εἰσὶ σπέρμα ᾿Αβραώμ, πάντες τέκνα, ἀλλά, 
 
 κιτιλ. Still, while the words indicate Abraham’s spir- 
 
106 HEBREWS, OHAP. 11. v. 1%. 
 
 itual children, the argument shows that the idea of 
 their humanity, of their -participation σαρκὸς καὶ 
 αἵματος (Vv. 14), is prominent. 
 
 V.17. ὅϑεν may be rendered “ wherefore.” Since 
 he undertook for the seed of Abraham, it became him 
 to be made, in all (suitable) respects, like them. We 
 now have a more definite amplification of that one- 
 ness between Him and His people which was asserted 
 in v. 11. 
 
 iva expresses the purpose for which He must be- 
 come like his people, i. 6. must become a man, under 
 law, and liable to all human temptations and suffer- 
 ings: in order to be a suitable priest. 
 
 ἐλεήμων καὶ πεστὸς ἀρχεερεύς. A high-priest 
 fully fitted for his work, able to sympathize, and 
 faithful to mediate in behalf of his people. Such he 
 could not be, without becoming man. While we must 
 believe that the divine omniscience, without an incar- 
 nation of the Son in human nature, would see and 
 fully appreciate all the trials of the saints, and while 
 we must believe that the divine mercy and pity are 
 not less tender than those of a perfect man, since the 
 divine is the source and pattern of the human; yet 
 every believer feels how much more familiar and con- 
 soling is the sympathy of a Redeemer who is both 
 God and our brother. The Daysman lays his hands 
 upon Loth parties. He must be not only adapted to 
 reconcile a justly offended God to man, but to allure 
 man, full of guilty fears and doubts, to God. And in 
 the atoning part of his priesthood it was equally neces- 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. II. v. 17. 107 
 
 sary that Christ should partake of human nature, both 
 in order to suffer, and in order to ground a proper im- 
 putation by which his sufferings might avail for us. 
 
 εἰς τὸ thacxeowace expresses the purpose for which 
 Christ became ἐλεήμων καὶ πεστὸς ἀρχιερεύς. This 
 is a well known and frequent usage of this preposition 
 with the infinitive. See the Lexicons. Winer’s Id. 
 New Test. $45. 6, p. 259. Examples of the same use 
 of εἰς with infin. may be seen in 1 Cor. 10: 6, Ταῦτα 
 δὲ τύποε ἡμῶν ἐγενήϑησαν, εἰς TO μὴ εἶναε ἡμᾶς ἐπε- 
 ϑυμητὰς κακῶν, καϑὼς κἀκεῖνοι. 2 Cor.'7: 8, προεί- 
 onxa yuo, ὅτε ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡμῶν ἔστε εἰς τὸ 
 συναποϑανεῖν καὶ συζῆν. In 2 Cor. 8:5 we have 
 an instance of the same construction, carrying the 
 sense of result; one kindred to the former, ἀλλ᾽ 
 ἑαυτοὺς ἔδωκαν πρῶτον τῷ “χυρίῳ καὶ ἡμῖν διὰ ϑὲ- 
 λήματος ϑεοῦ" εἰς τὸ παραχαλέσαε ἡμᾶς Tiror, 
 χκιτ.λ., “Insomuch that we urged Titus,” &e. ἡλάσκε- 
 otuc is in the middle voice, and may be translated 
 
 “to appease,” “ 
 
 propitiate.” Itis used in this sense, 
 connected with τοῦ ϑεοῦ, in Josephus, Antiquities, 
 6. 6. 5, and Xenophon, Oec. 5. 20 (τοὺς ϑεούς). 
 Thence it naturally obtained the meaning, “ propiti- 
 ate,” as to sin; that is, “to make propitiation for 
 sins,” because in Scripture view the divine anger is 
 only caused by sins. In Psalm 65: 4, D752p Ans "LTE 
 is rendered in the Septuagint, τὰς ἀσεβεῖας ἡμῶν σὺ 
 ἱλάσῃ: “Our transgressions, thou shalt purge them 
 away,” i.e. forgive them. The compound verb used 
 by the Septuagint in 1 Sam. 8: 14 is far better adapt- 
 
108 HEBREWS, CHAP. Il. v. 18. . 
 
 ed to express the exact sense of our passage: ὥμοσα 
 τῷ οἴκῳ Hhi, εἰ ἐξελασϑήσεταε ἀδικία οἰκοῦ “Hii, ἐν 
 ϑυμειώματε, καὶ ἐν ϑυσίαις, ἕως αἰῶνος; where the 
 Hebrew is, 9 ma fiz "pon? ox, &e. Both the sense 
 and construction of the text are well illustrated by 
 Dan. 9: 24, a part of the well known prophecy of 
 seventy weeks, in which the atoning work of Christ is 
 foretold: “Seventy weeks are determined upon,” &c.: 
 τοῦ ἐξιλάσασίϑαε ἀδικίας ; in the Hebrew, 2 72>. 
 
 V.18. Ἐν 6. Hebrew, 1tx2; English, “Zn that.” 
 A similar use of the phrase may be seen in 1 Peter 2: 
 12 and Rom. 2:1, 8:3. γὰρ gives the ground or 
 reason for the propriety asserted in the 17th verse, 
 suggesting at the same time the rationale of the mat- 
 ter. The same idea is illustrated more fully in 4: 15, 
 16. It is true that almighty power and infinite wis- 
 dom would be, in themselves considered, adequate to 
 our succour, without an incarnation; but the adapta- 
 tion of Christ to our help depended, in the economy 
 of God’s government, on his partaking in our suffer- 
 ings and temptations. ; 
 
 Thus the Apostle shows that the ἱηῤανα 86 and 
 humiliation of Christ, which the Jews used as an argu- 
 ment of his inferiority, were foretold in their own 
 Scriptures, and were the necessary grounds of his re- 
 deeming functions, and of our comfort in believing. 
 
CHAP FER LLL. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 From the views of Christ just presented, the author 
 takes occasion again to commend Him to the diligent 
 attention of the Hebrew Christians, v. 1; claiming for 
 Him the faithfulness in his commission, which he con- 
 cedes to Moses in the station he occupied, v. 2; and 
 thus he introduces a comparison between the two 
 (which is the second main topic of the Epistle), vv. 
 2-6. In this comparison, with a view to sustain his 
 exhortation (γάρ), and to secure the great object of 
 his writing the Epistle, he demonstrates the superior- 
 ity of Christ over Moses; declaring, 1st, that the com- 
 parative honour due to Moses was to that due to Christ, 
 as the honour due a house is to the builder or founder 
 of it; for (γὰρ) Christ was the divine Disposer of all 
 things (see, in proof of this, ch. 1), including the cere- 
 monial dispensation in which Moses was a minister (ἐν 
 ὅλῳ τῷ οἴκῳ αὐτοῦ), VV. 3,4; and declaring, 2nd, that 
 Moses was merely a steward, or minister (ϑεράπων) 
 in the economy (ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ οἴκῳ) to which he be- 
 longed, while Christ was a Son (vos) over (ἐπί), or at 
 the head of His dispensation, vv. 5, 6; in which dis- 
 pensation both the author and his readers had saving 
 interest, if they held firm to the end, v. 6. 
 
 (4.0.) Hence he again exhorts them against apos- 
 tacy, vv. 7-19; reminding them, by a quotation from 
 
110 CHAP. III.—ANALYSIS. 
 
 the 95th Psalm, of the conduct and end of their fathers, 
 when in the wilderness they tried the goodness and 
 forbearance of God, by disaffection and distrust, till 
 they provoked the curse of exclusion from his rest, 
 vy. 7-11; he admonishes them against like unbelief 
 and apostacy, and to exhort one another daily against 
 a like hardening by the deceitful workings of sin; 
 telling them again, for their incitement (γάρ), that 
 perseverance in the faith was the proof of an interest 
 in Christ ; and urging them by no means to tread in 
 the footsteps of their fathers, vv. 12-15; for (γὰρ) 
 they all, with few exceptions, grieved God, and per- 
 ished in the wilderness, and thus were cut off from the 
 promised rest, by sin and unbelief, vv. 16-19. 
 
 ~ 
 
 —— = _-_ ” =” * _ or ὐδω «δπνιν. μὩ. “κ... 
 
HEBREWS, ‘OHAP. 111. v. 1. 1: 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 1 “Oder, ἀδελφοὶ ἅγεοει, κλήσεως ἐπουρανίου μέτοχοε, 
 κατανοήσατε τὸν ἀπόστολον καὶ ἀρχιερέα τῆς ὅμο- 
 λογίας ἡμῶν, [ Χριστὸν] Ἰησοῦν" πιστὸν ὄντα τῷ 
 
 2 ποιήσαντε αὐτόν, ὡς καὶ Μωῦσῆς ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ οἴκῳ 
 
 8 αὐτοῦ. Πλείονος γὰρ δόξης οὗτος παρὰ Μωῦσῆν 
 ἠξίωταε, xaF ὅσον πλείονα τεμὴν ἔχεε τοῦ οἴκου ὁ 
 
 4 κατασκενάσας αὐτόν. (Πᾶς γὰρ οἶκος κατασχευά- 
 Cera ὑπὸ τινός" ὃ δὲ τὰ πάντα κατασκενάσας, 
 
 ὅ ϑεός) Kat Matos μὲν πιστὸς ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ οἰκῷ 
 αὐτοῦ, ὡς ϑεράπων, εἰς μαρτύριον τῶν λαληϑησο- 
 
 6 μένων" Χριστὸς δέ, ὡς υἱὸς ἐπὶ τὸν οἶχον αὐτοῦ" 
 οὗ οἶκός ἐσμεν ἡμεῖς, ἐάνπερ τὴν παῤῥησίαν καὶ 
 τὸ χαύχημα τῆς ἐλπέδος μέχρε τέλους βεβαίαν 
 κατάσχωμεν. 
 
 V.1. The introductory particle, σϑεν, evidently 
 refers to the scope of the previous chapter, especially 
 of its conclusion; in which Christ is represented as 
 having come in our nature, in order to make atone- 
 ment for our sins, and sympathizing with us in all our 
 trials, to deliver us from bondage, and bring us back 
 to God. 
 
 ἀδελφοὶ ayto. The use of the word ἀδελφοὶ to 
 denote church members, or fellow professors of Chris- 
 tianity, by the primitive Christians, is too well known 
 to need remark. The Apostle applies the term cycoz 
 to them, Ist, as consecrated, or set apart to the service 
 of God. In this sense it is common in the Old Test. 
 
112 $$$$HEBREWS, OHAP. τοῦ; Vv. 1. 
 
 (Hebr. tisp, translated by the Septuagint ὥγεος) as 
 well as in the New Test.; and is applied to persons 
 (not spiritually holy), places, days, and material and 
 inanimate things. Instances in great numbers will 
 suggest themselves to every diligent Bible reader; 
 and any of the New Test. Lexicons will give a suffi- 
 ciently accurate definition of this sense. An interest- 
 ing example may be seen in 1 Cor. 7: 14, where the 
 children, either of whose parents is a believer, are said 
 to be holy, i. e. consecrated to God, as subjects of his 
 visible kingdom. But, 2nd, the term is applied to 
 Christians as sanctified by the Holy Spirit, of which 
 they are made partakers. In this sense of moral holi- 
 ness, it is more commonly to be understood, when we 
 find it in the New Test. applied to persons. In Mark 
 6:20, John is called ἄνδρα δώκωεον καὶ ἅγεον. A 
 good definition of these senses may be seen in Hodge 
 on Rom. 11:16. Of course, when such terms are 
 applied generally to a class of persons, by a sacred 
 writer, they do not assert moral purity of each indi- 
 vidual. They are to be taken as proving no more on 
 this point, than that such holiness ought to be the 
 usual trait of Christians. Neither does the application 
 of the term determine the degree of sanctification; all 
 are ἅγεοι, in whom the Holy Spirit works savingly, 
 though they be but babes in Christ. 
 
 κλήσεως ἐπουρανίου μέτοχοι. κλήσες in the New 
 Test. always means the Christian call (except perhaps 
 in 1 Cor. 7: 20); often the effectual call by the Spirit; 
 sometimes merely the outward by the word (see Matt. 
 
 —— eee eee ne eee 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. Ill. Vv. 1. 113 
 
 20:16, πολλοὶ yao εἰσε κλητοί, ὀλίγοε δὲ éxhe- 
 zrot). Compare with the passage under discussion, 
 Eph. 4: 1, “ Walk worthy of the vocation wherewith 
 ye are called” (ἄξεοε τῆς κλήσεως). It is called “λή- 
 σεως ἐπουρανίου, both because it is a call that comes 
 from heaven, and because it summons us heavenward. 
 Kindred is the expression of Paul in Phil. 3: 14, to 
 this latter idea, “I press towards the mark for the 
 prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus” (ἐπὲ 
 τὸ βραβεῖον τῆς ἄνω κλήσεως τοῦ ϑεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ 
 ᾿Ιησοῦ, “the call upward”). And these ideas recur 
 twice in our Epistle below. Thus 11: 14 and 16, Οἱ 
 γὰρ τοιαῦτα λέγοντες ἐμφανίζουσεν, Ore πατρέδα ἐπε- 
 ζητοῦσε... νυνὶ δὲ κρείττονος (πατρεδὸς) ὀρέγονταε, 
 τοῦτ᾽ ἔστεν, ἐπουρανίου. And 12 : 25, He who claims 
 the service of Christians is one λαλῶν ax οὐρανῶν. 
 The idea of separation from the world and consecra- 
 tion to God is prominent in the New Test. κλῆσες. 
 The called are called out from the world; hence ἐκ- 
 zhnota. Hence also the Apostle twice (Rom. 1: 7, 
 1 Cor. 1: 2) connects with it the word @yzog, “λητοῖς 
 ayiore, Which the Engl. version renders, ‘called to be 
 saints.’ 
 
 ἀπόστολον. In the great majority of cases, this 
 word is used definitely to describe “the Twelve.” In 
 Acts 14: 14 itis used of Paul and Barnabas, on the 
 occasion of the proposed idolatrous sacrifice to them 
 by the people of Lystra: ᾿“χούσαντες δὲ οἱ ἀπόστολοι 
 Βαρνώβας zai Παῦλος, 2.r.2., where two interpreta- 
 tions present themselves; either to render it ‘missiona- 
 
 8 
 
114 HEBREWS, OHAP. III. Vv. l. 
 
 ries’ (sent by the Antiocheian Church, Acts 13: 3, 4), 
 or to regard it as applied in its proper official sense to 
 Barnabas, making him equal with the Twelve. When 
 found connected with adjuncts other than the names 
 of our Lord (as of τῶν ἐχκλησίων ἀπόστολοε), it means 
 simply the “ messengers,” conveyers of the alms of the 
 Churches. This is undoubtedly the sense in Phil. 2: 
 25, where it is applied to Ἐπαφρόδετον --- ἡ μῶν δὲ 
 ἀπόστολον, and 2 Cor. 8:23, ἀπόστολοι ἐκκλησεῶν. 
 The passage in Rom. 16: 7 (οἵτενές εἰσεν ἐπίσημοε ἐν 
 τοῖς ἀποστόλοις), Is most probably not to be under- 
 stood as saying that Andronicus and Junia (the latter 
 most likely a woman) were ἀπόστολοι in any sense ; 
 but as meaning that they were highly esteemed by the 
 apostles. See Hodge im loco. The expression in John 
 13: 16 is instructive, as showing the transition from 
 the general to the particular signification: Remember 
 that the persons here addressed are the Twelve, ‘ ovx 
 ἔστε δοῦλος μείζων τοῦ κυρίου αὑτοῦ, οὐδὲ ἀπόστολος 
 μείζων τοῦ πέμψαντος αὐτόν The passage under 
 discussion presents the only instance where it is used 
 of Christ, although the references are very frequent to 
 that ‘mission’ by the Father, which is the ground of 
 the application of this term to Him. John 30: 21, 
 χαϑὼς ἀπέσταλκέ μὲ ὃ πατήρ, κἀγὼ ὑμᾶς, ἄς. In 
 John 3:34 He is ὃν ἀπέστειλεν 6 ϑεός. John 10: 86, 
 ὃν ὃ πατὴρ ἡγίασε, καὶ ἀπέστειλεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον. 
 As here applied to Christ, the term ἀπόστολος seems 
 to have reference to the comparison with Moses which 
 immediately ensues, and is grounded upon the fore- 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. III. v. 1. 115 
 
 _going exhibition of Christ, as the one to whom was 
 ‘committed the second dispensation (see 2:5), who 
 first preached the gospel to us (2: 3), who took our 
 nature (2: 10-18), who died for our sins (2:9, 14, 
 17), and who was exalted over all to extend the bene- 
 fits of his redemption to all believers (2: 9,18). The 
 use of the word ἀπόστολος for Christ, hints, therefore, 
 at the same reference which is contained in the intro- 
 ductory word of the sentence, o%sy. Stuart illustrates 
 it by regarding it as an imitation of the Taxm md of 
 the Jewish synagogues; but this seems to us unnatu- 
 ral and not plausible. Moses was the ἀπόστολος of 
 the first dispensation (see how often his “ mission” 
 is spoken of in Exod. 3:10 seqq.); Christ of the 
 second. 
 
 aoxteosa seems in like manner to be introduced by 
 the author, to connect the foregoing context with the 
 other great view of Christ (scil. as a Priest) which 
 remained to be taken, from ch. 4:14 to 10:18. In 
 calling Christ a priest, there is a manifest reference to 
 2:17, 18, where his priestly character and atoning 
 work had been stated. And the prominent statement 
 of this function here, is no doubt intended to suggest 
 that comparison which is run in the subsequent con- 
 text, between Christ and the Aaronic priesthood. 
 And thus, as the author had passed easily and natu- 
 rally from argument to exhortation, he now slides, 
 in like manner, from exhortation back to argument. 
 The character of Christ which is here properly intro- 
 duced in the exhortation, as that of ἀπόστολος καὶ 
 
116 HEBREWS, CHAP. III. vy. l. 
 
 ἀρχεερεύς combined, is not again stated in the ensuing 
 
 comparison. Calvin well observes, on the 2nd verse, — 
 
 “ Omissa paulisper sacerdotii mentione, de Apostolatu 
 hic disserit.”. The foundation for the statement of 
 both these in the exhortation is laid in the previous 
 chapter. In the ensuing argument, they are properly 
 treated separately. 
 
 ὁμολογίας occurs thrice in the New Test. out of 
 the Epistle to Hebrews, and thrice in it. In 2 Cor. 
 9:13 we have, ἐπὶ τῇ ὑποταγῇ τῆς ὁμολογίας ὑμῶν 
 εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλεον τοῦ Χριστοῦ, Engl. version, “ For 
 your professed subjection to the Gospel of Christ.” 
 1 Tim. 6:12, ὡμολόγησας τὴν καλὴν ὁμολογίαν, 
 “ Having professed a good profession;” and 1 Tim. 
 
 6:18, Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ μαρτυρήσαντος ἐπὶ Iov- | 
 
 τίου Πιλάτου τὴν καλὴν ὁμολογίαν, “ Witnessed a 
 good confession.” In Hebrews, it occurs in the verse 
 under consideration, in 4: 14, and 10: 23; χρατῶμεν 
 τῆς ὁμολογίας, “Let us hold fast our profession,” and 
 κατέχωμεν τὴν ὁμολογίαν τῆς ἐλπίδος, “Let us hold 
 fast the profession of our faith.” The verb ὁμολογῶ 
 often occurs in the sense of confessing Christ (though 
 sometimes applied to other things), as may be seen by 
 consulting the common New Test. Lexicons. This 
 sense of “confession” or “profession” of something 
 evidently suits all the passages cited; and applying it 
 here, directly and literally, we have about this mean- 
 ing: ‘The Apostle and High-Priest whom we have 
 professed.’ This is nearest the exact usage of the 
 word in 4:14 below. Or else, if we suppose a 
 
 —eE—eeeEeEEEEOeEeEEEEEeEeEeEEeEeE—e ν, 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. III. v. 2. 117 
 
 very natural metonymy, substituting for the profes- 
 sion the thing professed, we have the meaning, ‘The 
 Apostle and High-Priest of Christianity, or the new 
 dispensation. 
 
 We may therefore represent the Apostle’s mean- 
 ing in this introductory verse as substantially this: 
 “Such, holy brethren, being the character and func- 
 tions of the Messiah (as in ch. 2), let us farther con- 
 template Him; and since the proselyting boast of the 
 Jews is in the dignity of Moses, the God-appointed 
 apostle of their economy, and the venerable sanctity 
 of the Aaronic priesthood, the officers of its sacrifices, 
 let us especially consider Jesus Christ in the same 
 aspects, as the Apostle and High-Priest of owr econ- 
 omy; in the first character superior to Moses, and in 
 the second, to the Aaronic family.” 
 
 ΟΝ ὃς... τῷ xocyouvre. This must be rendered here, 
 “To Him that appointed him” (Engl. version). A 
 similar use of the verb may be found most clearly in 
 Mark 3: 14, καὶ ἐποίησε δώδεκα, “ And he appointed 
 twelve” (apostles), οι Compare also 1 Sam. 12: 6, 
 ΤΌ ΤΣ AA Ww Fin? (m5), which the Septuagint ren- 
 ders, “The Lord (is witness) 6 ποιήσας τὸν Mavony 
 καὶ tov ‘Aagwy ;” Engl. version, “ Who advanced Mo- 
 ses and Aaron,” i. e. to their offices. The correspond- 
 ing word is used in the sense of appointing in all 
 languages. Thus we say, one is “made” a judge, 
 a general, &e. 
 
 ὡς καὶ Μωῦὺσῆς ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ οἴχῳ αὐτοῦ. The ori- 
 gin of this expression is to be found in Numb. 12: 4, 
 
118 HEBREWS, CHAP. III. Vv. 2. 
 
 nin fox? oma7b2a Mt ay jo-Nk>. In this passage, as 
 in our Epistle, the word “house” is used figuratively 
 for the dispensation or economy of the Church of God 
 committed to Moses, as in v. 6 below the new was 
 committed to Christ. Calvin connects ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ οἴκῳ, 
 not with Moses, but Christ. But to do this is to over- 
 look the distinction of the Apostle in vv. 5, 6, where 
 Christ’s “house” is most clearly set in antithesis to 
 Moses’ house. Besides, the position of the words 
 favours the ordinary construction. While the com- 
 mission of the first dispensation to Moses is so spoken 
 of, in v. 2, as to point the reader forward to the com- 
 mission of the second to Christ, in v. 6, the figure is 
 extended by anticipation as it were, in v. 4, in virtue 
 of the force of the argument, to embrace “all things,” 
 τὰ πάντα; for such is the true extent of Christ’s stew- 
 ardship. Still, there is special reference to the dispen- 
 sations, as will be seen below, on v. 4—To return: 
 the word οἶκος is often used elsewhere in the Serip- 
 tures, for the Church, without reference to different 
 dispensations. 1 Tim. 3:15, ἐν οἴκῳ ϑεοῦ. .. ἥτες 
 éorly ἐχκλησία ϑεοῦ ζῶντος. Thus, Eph. 2: 19, 20, 
 22, believers are spoken of as οὐχεῖοε τοῦ ϑεοῦ, “and 
 built on the foundation of the apostles,” &c. ἐποιίσο- 
 δομηϑέντες. 2 Tim. 2:20, 21, the Church is com- 
 pared to “a great house,” μεγάλῃ ofzxi~; and in 1 Pet. 
 2: 5, to a spiritual building, οἶκος avsvucerixos. Cal- 
 vin, losing sight of the foundation for the usage here, 
 which is to be seen in Numb. 12: 7, and in the con- 
 text, understands by o/x in our text, simply “the 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. Ill. v. 3. 119 
 
 Church of God.” Stuart renders it, “ family,” “ house- 
 hold.” As to the sense, we may render it “ house” or 
 “household,” for either is figurative. If we take the 
 former, the latter must be included, as is clear from 
 vy. 5, 6, for, of course, the little community inhabiting 
 the house, and not the building, is the subject of its 
 master’s instruction and government. For this sense 
 of “household,” compare Luke 10: 5, εἰρήνη τῷ οἴκῳ 
 τούτῳ (Engl. version, “ house”), and Acts 10:2, 11: 
 $4,016.25; 1 Cor. 1:16, 2 Tim. 4:19. The word is 
 used figuratively for the Church, in 1 Tim. ὃ: 15, 
 1 Peter 4:17, Hebr. 10: 21, in addition to the pas- 
 sages cited above. But in our context two houses are 
 spoken of, Moses’ and Christ’s. God has had but one 
 Church. Hence, and out of regard to Numb. 12: 4, 
 we here clearly prefer to render the word as signifying 
 the “two economies.” 
 
 The comparison between the apostles of the two 
 economies is quietly introduced in v. 2, in a form the 
 least odious to Jewish prejudices, by conceding to 
 Moses fidelity to his stewardship, while it is directly 
 asserted for Christ also. But in the next point of com- 
 parison, Christ rises infinitely superior. 
 
 V. 3. γὰρ cannot be well referred to the proposi- 
 tion immediately before it. It rather refers to the 
 exhortation of v. 1, κατανοήσατε, κιτ. “He is 
 worthy of consideration in comparison of his type, 
 Moses, (γὰρ) for he is more glorious than Moses.” 
 The sense of the passage extending from v. ὃ. to 
 6 is well conceived by Calvin: “Admonet quanto 
 
120 HEBREWS, OHAP. Ill. VV. 8, 4. 
 
 (Christus) sit (Mose) excellentior: idque duobus argu- 
 mentis probat: Quia Moses sic preefuit Ecclesia, ut 
 tamen pars ejus et membrum esset: Christus verd 
 architectus est, toto sdificio superior. Ie, alios re- 
 gendo, simul regebatur, quia. servus: hic tamen, quia 
 Filius est, principatum obtinet.” 
 
 It should be observed, on the rendering of this 
 passage, that οἶκος primarily means “house,” “ dwell- 
 ing ;” that the terms of the original (e. g. κατασκευώ- 
 σας, ν. 4) are throughout selected with reference to this 
 primary sense; and that, therefore, whether we under- 
 stand the conception to be of a house, or a household, 
 we should, as faithful translators, render by the former. 
 In like manner our Engl. version uses “ house” for 
 “household.” Acts 10:1, 2, “Cornelius ... feared 
 God with all his house.” Acts 11: 14, “ words where- 
 by thou and all thy house shall be saved.” 
 
 Vv. 8, 4. From the context, κατασχενάσας may 
 be most naturally taken in the sense of building, of 
 course figuratively. In Hebr. 9:2 the same verb is 
 used in a literal sense of constructing the tabernacle, 
 in 11: 7 of constructing the ark, and in 1 Peter 3: 20 
 of the same subject. In ν. 4 the idea of the verb is 
 enlarged naturally, and the figure extended to the uni- 
 verse; and here the act of constructing is less a figura- 
 tive one than in v. 3. 
 
 In these verses, as in the two following, the Apos 
 tle is evidently setting forth the superiority of Christ 
 to Moses. Here we have the first argument, or we 
 would rather say, statement, to this effect. (For the 
 
HEBREWS, OHAP. I11. vv. 38, 4. 121 
 
 apostles were inspired, and could teach authoritatively, 
 although there might be nothing in Scriptures previ- 
 ously given, which would evince to our view the truth 
 of their teachings; and commentators sometimes give 
 themselves causeless trouble, by leaving this out of 
 view, and hunting for arguments where the apostles 
 only meant to give authoritative assertions.) “He is 
 more honourable than Moses, as the builder is than 
 the house; for (γὰρ) every house is built by some 
 one: but he who built all things, 1. 6. Christ, is‘God ; 
 of course, infinitely above Moses.” It is here assumed 
 by the Apostle, as is proved by the Old Test. Scrip- 
 tures, cited in ch. 1, that Christ created all things ; 
 and he virtually affirms that Christ and Moses were 
 related as creator and creature. The comparison of 
 v. 3 illustrates this idea, and it is logically developed 
 inv. 4. The author does not here aim to prove at all 
 that Christ made all things, or that He established 
 both dispensations, or that He was God. All these 
 are directly asserted or implied in what he says, and 
 are designed to illustrate what he does aim to teach, 
 viz. that Christ is more honourable than Moses, as the 
 builder is than the house (vy. 3). The very mode of 
 statement in v.2 (Mwiojs ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ οἴχῳ αὐτοῦ) 
 had put Moses 7m the house, and of course under the 
 κύρεος or son of it. And it was natural, in clearing 
 up or expounding the statement of v. 3, to add that of 
 v. 4: “ Every house is built by some one; the dispen- 
 sation to which Moses belonged (in what capacity the 
 author will show directly) had a χύρεος who estab- 
 
122 HEBREWS, OHAP. III. V. 5. 
 
 lished it ; He, i. 6. Christ, who established all things,* 
 the old and new economies as well, and all the other 
 arrangements of the universe, is God.” If any thing 
 is assumed, it is this postulate of what had already 
 been shown in ch. 1, that “Christ is the framer and 
 disposer of all things.” And if to any the argument 
 seems flat, we would remind them that it was suited to 
 the obtuseness which exalted Moses above Christ; not 
 to say that it is virtually the one which is employed 
 in ch. 1 to show Christ’s superiority to the angels. 
 But this difference must be admitted, that there, as we 
 have already intimated, the author really argues from 
 Old Test. Scriptures, while here he rather seems author- 
 itatively to teach. 
 
 V. 5. χαὶ introduces the second argument. We 
 find it thus used, in the. additive sense (“ again,” “in 
 addition”), in ch. 1: 7 and 10, and 10: 38. 
 
 ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ οἴκῳ. The preposition ἐν is manifestly 
 antithetical to ἐπὶ in v. 6. Moses belonged to the 
 house, though the subordinate ruler of it. 
 
 αὐτοῦ. It is difficult here, as well as in v. 6 and 
 v. 2, to settle the particular personal reference of this 
 pronoun. The manuscripts vary greatly (as is com- 
 mon in such cases) as to the breathing. According to 
 
 * If any one should prefer to understand τὰ πάντα of the two dispen- 
 sations impliedly referred to, we should have no contention with him, 
 Instances are not wanting where the word πᾶς is used in a sense not uni- 
 versal, but to be limited by the context; so as to mean “ the whole” of 
 the matters in hand, See 1 Cor. 12: 6, Phil. 3: 7, 8, Col. 3: 8. 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. III. v. 5. 123 
 
 the stricter usage of the pronouns, the reflexive pro- 
 noun αὑτοῦ would signify, im v. 5, Moses’ house, and 
 in v. 6, Christ’s. The pronoun with the smooth ac- 
 cent, αὐτοῦ, as it is in the text, would indicate, in v. 5, 
 the house of some one else than Moses, and in v. 6, of 
 some one else than Christ. But this usage is not 
 authoritative; for, consulting Kiihner’s Gr. Gram. 
 8802. 5, and Winer’s Id. New Test. $22. 5, the reader 
 will discover that αὐτὸς is often used in place of the 
 réflexive pronoun ἑαυτοῦ (contracted avrov); and 
 always where the member of the sentence containing 
 the pronoun is regarded as proceeding from the mind 
 of the speaker or author, and not from that of the 
 subject. So that even if we were certain that the 
 Apostle, in his protograph, wrote αὐτοῦ (with the 
 smooth breathing), we should still be at sea as to its 
 reference. Nor will Numb. 12:7 enable us to decide, 
 though God there says, “ /y house ;” since the author, 
 inasmuch as he is not directly quoting, but only allud- 
 ing to the passage, might still refer, by αὐτοῦ, to the 
 immediate subjects, Mavois, Χριστός. The argument 
 is not materially affected by either reading. We have 
 above employed the one last indicated, as entirely ad- 
 -missible, not as evident. 
 
 ϑεράπων. Thus the Septuagint render 29, in 
 Numb. 12: 7; and this is the word usually employed 
 by them for Moses, when he is called mim Say, and 
 for the ministers of Pharaoh, in Exod. 7: 10, 20, 8: 29, 
 31, &e. The ϑερώπων is not δοῦλος, for he might be, 
 and generally was, ἐλευϑερός. The word is in the 
 
194 HEBREWS, CHAP. IIL v. 6. 
 
 Old Test. opposed to κύριος, βασιλεύς, as here to υἱός, 
 who is also, in v. 6, κύρεος. Compare chs. 1, 2. The 
 Engl. version here renders well by “servant,” 1. 6, 
 minister, and not by “slave,” which is every where the 
 proper rendering of δοῦλος. | 
 
 εἰς μαρτύρεον τῶν λαληϑησομένων. ‘These words 
 may be best understood as expressing the object of 
 Moses’ being a ϑεράπων, 1. 6. to make known what 
 God should declare to the people. Others, with less 
 judgment, explain τῶν λαληϑησομένων of the future 
 things of the second Riepaigiese | 
 
 V.6. Xgcoros δέ, ὡς viog ἐπέ; #.1.). This clause 
 is evidently opposed to ϑερώπων ἐν, of v. 5. In this 
 light, the argument of these two verses is plain: Mo- 
 ses, whatever his dignity and fidelity as an ἀπόστολος, 
 was but a servant ¢ his house, a part himself of the 
 subject body. Christ is Lord over his economy. (See 
 Analysis. ) 
 
 οὗ οἶκός ἐσμεν ἡμεῖς, only expresses, suitably to 
 the prevailing figure, the sentiment that they, the 
 author and his readers, had an interest in this gospel 
 economy, if they held it fast unto the end. The car- 
 rying out of the figure.in this manner is not unusual 
 to the New Test. writers. Thus, Paul says to the 
 Corinthians, 1 Cor. 3: 9, sod γεώργιον, ϑεοῦ οἰκοδο- 
 μή ἔστε; and the idea is strikingly amplified in the 
 succeeding verses. 1 Pet. 2:5, καὶ αὐτοὶ (ὑμεῖς) ὡς 
 λίϑοι ζῶντες οἰκοδομεῖσϑε, οἶκος πνευματικός, κιτ.λ. 
 
 παῤῥησίαν is from πας-ρῆσες, Meaning, most liter- 
 ally, “free-spokenness,” and hence “boldness ;” and 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. III. v. 6. 125 
 
 hence again, “ confidence.” The word occurs thrice in 
 our Epistle besides here. In 4:16 we have, 77ρος- 
 ἐρχώμεϑα οὖν μετὰ παῤῥησίας ta ϑρόνῳ τῆς χάρει- 
 τος, κ.τ.λ.) “ Let us come boldly.” In 10: 19, Ἔχοντες 
 οὖν, ἀδελφοί, παῤῥησίαν εἰς τὴν εἰσοδον τῶν ἁγίων 
 ἐν τῷ αἵματε Ἰησοῦ, κ.τ.λ.; and in 10: 8ὅ, Μὴ ἀπο- 
 βάλητε οὖν τὴν παῤῥησίαν ὑμῶν, κιτ.. These in- 
 stances sufficiently show that the word is used sub- 
 stantially in the meaning of the Jeliever’s confidence, 
 founded on his faith in Christ. | 
 ἐλπέδος seems to depend both on παῤῥησίαν and 
 καύχημα; and the meaning, “confidence and exulta- 
 tion of hope,” is equivalent to “confident and exulting 
 hope.” Or it may, without violence, be made to de- 
 pend on καύχημα only, and the meaning would then 
 be, “ Our confidence and exulting hope.” The three 
 ideas of confidence, joy, and hope, are here intimately 
 associated: of the several possible internal relation- 
 ships between them, we cannot certainly determine 
 which the Apostle designed. But the meaning 18 
 obvious, and is little varied on either supposition. We 
 now return to the conditional particle which intro- 
 duces the phrase, ἐάνπερ, “If indeed we hold firm,” 
 ἄς. Perseverance in faith and hope unto the end 
 is the test of a true membership in the “house” of 
 Christ. Compare v. 14 below, μέγοχος γὰρ γεγόνα- 
 μὲν τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἐάνπερ THY ἀρχὴν τῆς ὑποστάσεως 
 μέχρε τέλους βεβαίαν κατάσχωμεν; and more espe- 
 cially, 1 John 2:19, “They went out from us,” &e. 
 
 ) \ >i Vue c ~ ᾽ν Ψ ΜῈ ~ 
 “εἰ γάρ nouv ἐξ ἡμῶν, μεμενήκεισαν av ue ἡμῶν, 
 
126 HEBREWS, OHAP. III. Vv. 6. 
 
 z.t.4, A future of continued perseverance in faith is 
 the necessary test of our present interest in Christ. 
 Notice that the primary tenses are used: οὗ οἶκος 
 
 ἔσμεν, “Whose house we (now) are, provided we 
 hold firm,” &¢.; μέτοχοι γὰρ γεγόναμεν, “We have 
 become sharers, provided we hold fast unto the end,” 
 
 &e. 
 
 If this root of infallible future perseverance is 
 
 not in us, then we are not now members of Christ. 
 Such is the plain inference from the Apostle’s state- 
 ments. It may be objected, if a future of perseverance 
 is the evidence of a present interest in Christ, then the 
 believer can never enjoy a present assurance of hope; 
 for he cannot foreknow. The answer is, that his pres- 
 ent assurance of hope is not founded on his foreknow- 
 
 τ ledge of his own stability (if it were, it-would be an 
 assurance of apostacy), but on his confidence in the 
 faithful and omnipotent grace of God, covenanted to 
 him. 
 
 11 
 12 
 
 ' \ r \ ~ eg éci er 
 
 Aw, καϑὼς λέγεε τὸ πνεῦμα TO ayLoY, “ σημέρον, 
 > ~ ~ 9 ~ > | εἶ ‘ 
 ἐὰν τῆς φωνῆς αὐτοῦ ἀκούσητε, μὴ σκληρύνητε TAS 
 ’ c ~ c Ὕ ~ ~ p 
 καρδίας ὑμῶν, ὡς EV τῷ παραπεκρασμῷ, HATH 
 - ἕω ὦ Δ, τὰν ἂν, δ. 29 ΄ 
 
 τὴν ἡμέραν τοῦ πειρασμοῦ EV τῇ ἐρημῳ, OV ἕπει- 
 Ud ~ > , ΟΝ Ν 
 
 ρασών μὲ οἱ πατέρες ὑμῶν" ἐδοκέμασων με, καὶ 
 
 Zz » DF μ », A ‘ 
 εἶδον Ta ἔργα μου, τεσσαράκοντα ἔτη " OLO προς- 
 - - > , ᾿ 4 ) 
 
 ὠχϑισα τῇ γενεᾷ ἐχείνῃ, καὶ εἰπον" ast πλα- 
 ν > : ἐν ; : 2 ; 
 yavruc τῇ καρδίᾳ" αὐτοὶ δὲ οὐκ ἔγνωσαν τας 
 ” > Se ~ . 5 ee , 
 
 ὁδούς μου" ὡς ὥμοσα ἕν τῇ ὀργῇ μου" εἰ εἰφελεύ- 
 > ‘ e , vw. ΘΛ “ δ A 
 
 σονται εἰς τὴν κατάπαυσίν μου βλέπετε, aOEA- 
 > » ~ , ‘ 
 got, μήποτε ἔσταε ἔν reve ὑμῶν καρδία πονηρὰ 
 > ~ > ~ » \ Oo ~ ~ 2 
 
 ἀπιστίας, ἐν τῷ ἀποστῆναε ἀπὸ ϑεοῦ ζῶντος 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. III. v. 7. 127 
 
 ~ c ‘ ἢ c 7 
 18 ἀλλὰ παρακαλεῖτε ἑαυτοὺς xa ἑκάστην ἡμέραν, 
 γ τ , Ὁ ’ Ὰ 5 ~ 
 ἄχρες οὗ τὸ σήμερον καλεῖταε, ἵνα μὴ σκληρυνϑῇ 
 due ~ 4 ~ , 
 τες ἐξ ὑμῶν ἀπάτῃ τῆς ἁμαρτίας. 
 
 ν.1. With this verse the Apostle again passes 
 from argument to exhortation. 420, “In view of 
 which truths,” “Wherefore.” The exhortation is drawn, 
 as usual, from the doctrine, “Since Christ is such, and. 
 we partake of his benefits only by persevering, there- 
 fore... (v. 12), see to it, brethren, lest there be in 
 any of you an evil heart of unbelief,” &e. According 
 to the view of one class of interpreters, among whom 
 is Bloomfield, the Apostle adopts the exhortation of 
 the Psalmist as his own (v. 8, μὴ σκληρύνητε), and 
 dco then connects with this verb. But there is a 
 strong objection to this: the Apostle introduces the 
 passage with a formality unusual for him (καϑὼς 2é- 
 yet TO πνεῦμα TO ἅγεον), as not his own words, but 
 those of the Old Test. inspiration. He obviously sus- 
 pends, by the zac, the sense which he was about to 
 introduce by the ozo. And since v. 8 is as mucha 
 part of the quotation as v. 7, it is a violent construc- 
 tion to suppose that he makes its words δύ. own in 
 any different sense from the whole quotation. It 
 seems every way fair and natural to suppose that the 
 suspension of sense made by the parenthesis (zadas 
 λέγεε τὸ πνεῦμα, x.v.A.) continues during the whole 
 quotation introduced by that parenthesis. The Apos- 
 tle’s own exhortation, therefore, is resumed where the 
 quotation ends, at v.12. He quotes for confirmation 
 and admonition. 
 
128 HEBREWS, OHAP. III. v. 8. 
 
 The words (v. 7-11) extracted, are evidently from 
 Psalm 95: 7-11, whence they are taken, in the exact 
 phrase of the Septuagint (Ps. 74: vv. 8-11), with 
 a few trivial exceptions. The Holy Ghost, by the 
 Psalmist, solemnly admonished that generation not to 
 harden their hearts after the example of their fathers 
 in the wilderness, who perished by their obduracy and 
 unbelief. The Apostle now brings this admonition to 
 apply again to God’s people of his day ; just as its ex- 
 ample applies to every age of the Church, because 
 God is the same, in his forbearance, mercy, justice, 
 and jealousy, in his government of the Church in all 
 ages, 
 
 V.8. παραπιχρασμῷ is the Septuagint translation 
 for mar. The word is not found in-classic Greek, 
 We are, more than in usual cases, therefore, justified 
 in passing wholly over into the Hebrew, to seek for 
 the proper sense in which the Apostle understood it 
 here. This sense is obviously that of “ strife,” “ con- 
 tention” (verbal), not unaptly rendered in the Engl, 
 version, “provocation.” The remark may -be made 
 here, as also applicable to all the other quotations of 
 our author from the Scriptures of the Old Test., that 
 his manner of referring to them implies a tribute to 
 the familiar knowledge of the word of God possessed 
 by the Jews, which we would do well to emulate. 
 He seems to assume that it is unnecessary to refer to 
 chapter and verse; but wherever he introduces Old 
 Test. words, with any indicative phrase, as “It is writ- 
 ten,” his readers will recognise them without dispute, 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. III. v. 9. 129 
 
 and will be able to refer to them. It is worthy of 
 remark that the same method prevails throughout 
 the New Testament. 
 
 - Some introduce a colon after éo7~«, the end of the 
 Sth verse in the Hebrew. Others, with more reason, 
 place it after of πατέρες ὑμῶν, corresponding with 
 ponias in the Hebrew. “The trial in the wilderness” 
 (τοῦ πειρασμοῦ ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ), 15 clearly defined by the 
 succeeding clause (ov ἐπείρασάν μὲ) to mean, the trial 
 made of God’s patience by the unbelief of Israel. 
 
 V.9. κχαὶ εἶδον τὰ ἔργα μου. (“They tested 
 me), although they saw my works.” The conjunction 
 corresponds with the Hebr. ἘΔ (see Gesenius, Hebr. 
 Lex. sub voce 84). From the simple additive sense 
 “and,” grow other related senses; as an addition of a 
 consequence, or inference. Thus, in v. 19 below, καὶ 
 βλέπομεν, x.t.4., “And so, we see, they could not 
 enter in because of unbelief.” In this place it signifies 
 an addition of contrast and aggravation: “ And yet, 
 they saw my works.” 
 
 τεσσαράκοντα ἔτη are joined in the Hebr. with 
 what follows (aps). (Note that the particle dco, im- 
 mediately following, is not in the Septuagint, nor is 
 there any word in the Hebrew corresponding to it.) 
 And when the Apostle quotes the same clause again, 
 im y. 17, he connects the forty years with the succeed- 
 ing verb likewise (ΤΊσε δὲ προςώχϑεσε τεσσαράκοντα 
 ἔτη ;). So they are connected in the Septuagint. The 
 
 colon introduced in our Greek text after ἔτη, should 
 therefore be removed. 
 
130 HEBREWS, OHAP. 111. vv. 10, 11. 
 
 V. 10. πλανῶνται τῇ καρδίᾳ (Hebr. 333 Yh). 
 “A people that turn away their hearts’ from God. 
 This is not ill expressed by the Greek: they ‘rove, 
 ‘wander deviously’ in their heart. 
 
 οὐκ ἔγνωσαν τὰς ὁδούς μου. They disliked his 
 dealings—considered them not with that reverential 
 approbation proper for God’s people. 
 
 V.11. ὡς duoca. “So that I swore.” The parti- 
 cle here has the sense of result and not of likeness, or 
 comparison. See Winer’s Id. New Test. $57. 6, p. 359. 
 
 εἰ siceAsvoovrae presents us with the abridged form 
 of the Hebrew oath, the imprecation being omitted ; 
 which gives to the condition of it the sense of a strong 
 negation. “If they shall enter,” is then equivalent to 
 “They shall not enter.” The full form of the oath 
 may be seen in 1 Sam. 3:17, or 2 Sam. 3: 35, or 
 2 Kings 6: 31, U8. ἼΣΩΝ FO AS) moe (Snipe 
 vues. Gesenius, Hebr. Lex. may be consulted, art. 
 ἘΝ, 6. 1. This usage of the text may be illustrated by 
 Mark 8: 12, “μὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, εἰ δοϑήσεταε τῇ γενεᾷ 
 ταύτῃ σημεῖον, and by the Latin form, “dloriar, δὲ 
 habeo.” 
 
 τὴν xacanavoly μουν. “'They shall not enter into 
 my rest,” 1. 6. God’s. This is a higher and spiritual 
 rest, of which the rest in Canaan was but a type, as 
 will appear more fully in our examination of ch. 4. 
 But by the language here, we learn that the curse 
 which excluded the unbelieving Hebrews in the wil- 
 derness from Canaan, also excluded them from God’s 
 true rest. The dark and stubborn state of heart which 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. III. v. 12. 181 
 
 unfitted them for the lower, much more disqualified 
 them for the higher rest. But yet, we would fain 
 hope that while this sentence was passed upon their 
 unbelief, and was inexorable as to the earthly penalty, 
 the gate of repentance, which is ever open, was not 
 shut against their souls. It is evident that the transac- 
 tion referred to in all this quotation was that recorded 
 in Ex. 1: 1. The same names, "02 and 729, recur. 
 V.12. Here the Apostle, having strengthened his 
 grounds by this solemn admonition, begins his own 
 direct exhortation: 420... βλέπετε, ἀδελφοί, μήποτε 
 ἔσταε ἔν TIVE ὑμῶν καρδία πονηρὰ ἀπιστίας. Winer 
 (in his Idioms New Test. 890. 4, p. 157) renders these 
 words, “a heart wicked (in respect to) unbelief,” or 
 “of unbelief.” ‘Their meaning seems to be about this: 
 “a wicked, viz. unbelieving heart.” The truth is most 
 manifest in the words, that unbelief is a guilty state 
 of the heart. “Man is responsible for his belief.” 
 ϑεοῦ ζῶντος. God 15 often so called, in both Old 
 and New Testaments, as in our Epistle, 9: 14, 10: 381, 
 12: 22, to distinguish him from dead idols. In Acts 
 14: 15, which contains the remonstrance of Paul and 
 Barnabas against the superstition of the Lystrans, this 
 opposition is distinctly expressed: “that ye should 
 turn from these vanities (ματαίων) to serve the living 
 God.” The phrase also doubtless contains a reference 
 to God’s self-existence and eternity. Some suppose 
 that in this place it refers specifically to Christ. Some 
 countenance for such an application may be found in 
 John 5: 21, 26, “For as the Father raiseth up the 
 
182 HEBREWS, OHAP. III. v. 18. 
 
 dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son quicken- 
 eth whom he will.” And again, “For as the Father 
 hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to 
 have life in himself.” If this sense were adopted here, 
 it would seem somewhat more apt to the Apostle’s ob- 
 ject, which is, to prevent apostacy from Christianity. 
 But if God commissioned Christ, and sanctioned the 
 new dispensation, apostacy from it is desertion of God. 
 Such an apostacy would be an exhibition of a wicked, 
 unbelieving heart, similar to that exhibited by the 
 ancient Israelites ; because God had given to believers 
 of gospel times evidences of Christ’s mission more 
 illustrious than those given by Moses. 
 
 V.13. ἵνα μὴ σκληρυνϑῇ rig ἐξ ὑμῶν ἀπάτῃ τῆς 
 ἁμαρτίας. This refers not merely to seductions from 
 Judaism, but to sin working within and without. 
 There is an evident allusion to the exhortation of the 
 Psalmist, “‘'To-day if ye will hear his voice, harden not 
 your hearts;” and the words of the Apostle are an 
 unfolding of the sense of the Psalm. That from which 
 God’s voice recalls us, is sin. If we refuse his voice, 
 and indulge in the sin, its deceitfulness will harden 
 our hearts. It is to the perverted understanding that 
 the treacherousness of sin addresses itself, steeling the 
 heart against the impressions of right, through the 
 instrumentality of erroneous opinion. And thus mind 
 and heart, when apostate from the fear of God, act 
 and react to their mutual depravation. This passage 
 is full of matter for the practical expounder of the 
 Scriptures. 
 
ἨΒΒΕΒΕΒ, OMAP. 1111. τ. 14. 188 
 
 he \ r ~ ~ tg 
 14 (μέτοχοε γὰρ γεγόναμεν τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἐάνπερ 
 - r la , , 
 τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς ὑποστάσεως μέχρε τέλους βεβαίαν 
 Ὕ ~ f G mes 
 15 χαταάσχωμεν,) ἐν τῷ λέγεσθαι" “Gnusooy, ἐὰν 
 - - - Lf \ r \ 
 τῆς φωνῆς αὐτοῦ ἀκούσητε, μὴ σκληρύνητε τὰς 
 10 δίας ὑμῶν, ὡς EV τῷ πεκρασμῷ." Τίνες 
 καρδίας ὑμῶν, ὡς EV τῷ παραπεχρασμῷ. ἐγνὲς 
 fi , 2 2 } / 
 yao ἀκούσαντες παρεπέχρανων; AAh ov πάντες 
 de ? 5) \ Do a , 
 17 of ἐξελϑόντες ἐξ Αἰγύπτου διὰ Μωῦύσέως ; Troe 
 Γ r » 2 x ~ 
 δὲ προςωχϑέσε τεσσαράχοντα ἔτη; Οὐχὶ τοῖς 
 Το - » 2) ~ Ύ I! 
 ἁμαρτήσασειν; ὧν τὰ κῶλα ἔπεσεν ὃν τῇ ἐρήμῳ. 
 ” / x f 
 18 Tice δὲ ὥμωσε μὴ εἰφςελεύσεσθαε εἰς τὴν κατά- 
 ~ ΕΣ Γ Ἵ r 
 19 παυσὸών αὑτοῦ, εἰ μὴ τοῖς ἀπειϑησασε; Καὶ βλέ- 
 ca ) 3 4 Ἴ « ~ By 2 
 πομεν, ὅτε οὐκ ἡδυνήϑησαν εἰφςελϑεῖν δὲ ἀπεστέαν. 
 
 V.14. μέτοχοε γάρ, #.t.4. The reference of the 
 conjunction γὰρ is in this place to the admonition of 
 v. 12: “Guard against apostacy ; for perseverance in 
 the Christian profession is the condition of our interest 
 in Christ.” The proposition introduced by γὰρ is 
 here evidently intended to support the exhortation, as 
 in v. 6 the same truth was designed to prepare the 
 way more effectually for it. The whole sentiment, in 
 its connexion, is this: “ We are interested savingly 
 in Christ, if we persevere in our first faith even to the 
 end; otherwise, we are, of course, excluded from all 
 saving interest. Let us, then, not be seduced from 
 Christ ; for (γὰρ) He profits us nothing, we have no 
 saving interest in Him, unless we hold to our faith.” 
 Calvin well states the connexion of thought thus: 
 ‘Verum si fide possidetur (Christus), in ea perstan- 
 dum est, ut nobis perpetua maneat possessio. Ergo 
 hac lege se nobis fruendum dedit Christus, ut eadem, 
 
134 HEBREWS, OHAP. III. v. 15. 
 
 qua in ejus participationem admissi sumus, fide tantum 
 bonum conservemus usque ad mortem.’ 
 
 μέτοχοι τοῦ Χριστοῦ means literally, “sharers of 
 Christ.” It expresses such union with Christ as se- 
 cures to us the benefits of His redemption. Believers 
 are often said to be “in Christ.” Rom. 8:1, Οὐδὲν 
 ἄρα νῦν κατάκρεμα τοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. 2 Cor. 5: 
 17, εἴ τες ἐν Χριστῷ, καινὴ κτίσες. In John 17: 21, 22, 
 believers are said to be one in Him, and He in them. 
 There is here a metonymy of Christ for His benefits. 
 
 τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς ὑποστάσεως. “The beginning of 
 our confidence,” for “our first confidence.” The phrase 
 may be compared with τὴν πρώτην πίστεν, in 1 Tim. 
 5:12. We here give the meaning of “ confidence, 
 well-founded trust,” to ὑπόστασις, as that which is 
 our sustaining foundation (vgiornuc, to ~place under, 
 sustain). This sense it has also in 2 Cor. 9: 4, καται- 
 σχυνϑῶμεν ἡμεῖς ... ἐν τῇ Unooracse ταύτῃ, and, 
 if the marginal rendering of our English version be 
 adopted, in the well known passage, Heb. 11: 1, πέστες 
 ἐλπεζομένων ὑπόστασις. Giving to it this sense of 
 ‘confidence’ in the text under discussion, wé find a 
 parallel expression below in 10: 85, where the same 
 grace is called παῤῥησίαν. 
 
 V. 15. ἐν τῷ λέγεσθαι, σήμερον, #74. ἐν ἰδ 
 often found with the infinitive as a dative, in a tempo- 
 ral sense, “ while.” Thus, in Luke 2: 6, we read, ev 
 τῷ εἶναε αὐτοὺς ἐκεῖ, “ whilst they were there.” The 
 same construction may be found in Luke 5: 1, 17: 11, 
 and Matt. 18:25. In Luke 24:51 it seems to be 
 
 —_— 
 

 
 HEBREWS; OHAP. IIl..v. 15. 135 
 
 used in a temporal sense, looking somewhat towards 
 the completion of the time and action expressed by 
 the dependent verb: Kai ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ εὐλογεῖν 
 αὐτὸν αὐτούς, διέστη ax αὐτῶν, καὶ ἀνεφέρετο εἷς 
 τὸν οὐρανόν, “ When he blessed them,” &c. In Luke 
 1: 21 the same construction is expressive not only of 
 the time in which, but the ground for which, an 
 action occurs: “ And the people waited for Zacharias, 
 καὶ ἐθαύμαζον ἐν τῷ χρονίζειν αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ ναῷ." 
 They wondered while he tarried, and they wondered 
 én that he tarried, in the temple. So here, ἐν τῷ λέγε- 
 otue may be rendered, “while it is said, or as it is 
 said.” Bloomfield interposes a period or a colon at 
 the end of v. 14, βεβαίαν xaracyouev* and he, as 
 well as Stuart, Kuinoél, and others, limit the quotation 
 to the following words, σήμερον, ἐὰν τῆς φωνῆς αὐτοῦ 
 ἀκούσητε, and understand the remainder, μὴ oxAnov- 
 VATE τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν, ὡς ἐν TO παραπιχρασμῷ, tO 
 be an exhortation of the author in the words of the 
 Psalmist. An analogous instance of the curtailment of 
 a longer passage previously quoted, into the mention 
 of its initial words, is supposed to be found in Hebr. 
 8:18, Ἐν τῷ héivyery καένήν, πεπαλαίωχε τὴν πρώτην. 
 But this severance is certainly harsh; and it seems 
 wholly unwarrantable to decide that all the words 
 quoted, after a certain word, are adopted by the author 
 in a sense different from that in which he adopts the 
 previous words, when there is nothing in the passage 
 itself to indicate such a “break.” If, with Theophy- 
 lact, we could feel authorized to translate ἐν τῷ λέγε- 
 
136 HEBREWS, CHAP. III. v. 16. 
 
 σϑαε as equivalent to κατὰ τὸ λεγόμενον, then the’ 
 whole of the quotation might be taken as the accom- 
 modated words of the Apostle, who availed himself of 
 the Psalmist’s language to repeat the ground of his 
 exhortation. Calvin remarks on the phrase, Ἐν τῷ 
 λέγεσϑιαε, “perinde valet acsi dixisset: Quandoquidem 
 loquendi finem nunquam Deus facit, non satis fuerit 
 promptos animo fuisse amplexus ejus doctrinam, nisi 
 eadem docilitate cras et perendie illi nos obsequentes 
 prebeamus.” Bretschneider (in his Lexicon, sub voce, 2, 
 which the reader may consult) adopts a connexion not 
 unlike that of Calvin, referring the words ἐν τῷ λέγε- 
 Gia to μέχρε τέλους INV. 14: “...if we hold our 
 first confidence steadfast unto the end, whilst it is 
 said” (i. 6. while the exhortation still repeats, as it will 
 repeat to all, to the end of their course), “To-day if 
 ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts,” &e. 
 This seems to us, upon the whole, the best construe- 
 tion, and most natural sense to place upon the passage. 
 
 V.16. γὰρ connects what follows with the pre- 
 ceding exhortation, as an additional ground or reason. 
 For this purpose the attention of the reader is called 
 to the mournful extent of the destruction in the wil- 
 derness, and its cause. The pronoun is not the indefi- 
 nite Tvvéc, but the interrogative Tives. So say Chry- 
 gostom and the Syriac version. The clause then will 
 be rendered, as an interrogation, “For who (how 
 many), when they heard, provoked God?” The con- 
 junction Ad’, then, is equivalent to the Latin imo, 
 vero, “nay.” SoStuart construes and translates. But 
 
HEBREWS, OHAP. III. v. 16. 137 
 
 if, like the English version, we read the first two 
 clauses without interrogation, then ἀλλὰ will have its 
 common adversative and corrective meaning of ‘ but, 
 ‘yet.’ “Some, when they heard provoked, yet, not 
 all,” ἄς. But the sense is more animated, as well as 
 more suitable to the context, and to the facts of the 
 history, with the interrogative meaning, And even 
 adopting this interrogative form, the common and 
 proper adversative meaning may be retained in ὠλλά; 
 for still there is at bottom an antithesis, corrective of 
 an imagined erroneous answer to the question of the 
 first clause, “ Who provoked? (a few only?) But was 
 it not all that came out of Egypt?” A similar use of 
 ἀλλὰ may be seen in Luke 17: 8, “ Which of you havy- 
 ing aservant ploughing, or feeding cattle, will say unto 
 him by and by, when he is come from the field, ‘Go 
 and sit dewn to meat?’ ἀλλ᾽ οὐχὶ ἐρεῖ αὐτῷ ἑτοίμα- 
 Gov ti δειπνήσω, and will not rather say, make ready 
 that I may sup,” &c. See Winer’s Id. N. T. $57, Ὁ. 346. 
 
 πάντες. This word we are not obliged to translate 
 as absolutely universal. We may except Caleb and 
 Joshua. Let the reader compare John 3: 26, πάντες 
 ἔρχονταε πρὸς αὐτὸν (Ἰησοῦν). John 12: 82, ravrac 
 ἑλχύσω πρὸς ἐμαυτόν. Matt. 2: ὃ, πᾶσα Ἱεροσόλυμα 
 μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐταράχϑη. Matt. 8: ὅ, πᾶσα ἡ Ἰουδαία, 
 καὶ πᾶσα ἡ περίχορος τοῦ ᾿Ιορδάνου (ἐβαπτίζοντο). 
 In none of these places can universality be understood. 
 This use of the word may be seen well illustrated by 
 Hodge on Romans 5:18. Examples were also cited 
 by us above, on ch. 2:9. The passage in Exod. 17: 7, 
 
138 HEBREWS, OHAP. III. v. 16. 
 
 to which the 95th Psalm seems to refer, contains no 
 statement that God then swore none of the murmurers 
 should enter Canaan. ‘That terrible sentence is first 
 recorded at a subsequent provocation, when the peo- 
 ple at Kadesh-Barnea refused to go up and conquer 
 their inheritance, in obedience to the divine command. 
 See Numb. 14: 23. But the Holy Ghost, in the 95th 
 Psalm, begins by referring to the first noted instance 
 of their rebellions, and then points to the doom in 
 which their course of provocations ended. The actual 
 extent of this doom may be seen by referring to 
 Numb. 14: 24, 80, 26: 65, 82: 11, 12, and Joshua 14: 
 6-8. Caleb and Joshua are there alone excepted. 
 And here we see how unnaturally feeble is the read- 
 ing which would put the indefinite Ζενές, “some” 
 (“for some, when they had heard, did provoke,” Engl. 
 version), for the whole of a nation of severak millions 
 except two individuals. Calvin, on v. 17, remarks as 
 follows: “ Porro queeritur an Moses et Aaron ac similes 
 in hoc numero comprehendantur. Respondeo ; Apos- 
 tolum de universo magis corpore, quam de singulis 
 membris loqui. Certum est, complures fuisse pios, qui 
 vel communi impietate non fuerunt impliciti, vel mox 
 resipuerunt. Mosis quidem semel tantum concussa fuit 
 fides, idque ad momentum. Quare in verbis Apostoli 
 est synecdoche, cujus satis frequens est usus, quoties de 
 aliqua multitudine aut corpore populi habeter sermo.” 
 We present this as, upon the whole, the obvious 
 connexion of thought in this v.16. In the preceding 
 context, the general idea is, “ Beware, brethren, of 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. Ill. vv. 17, 18. 1389 
 
 apostacy, in view of the dreadful doom of the ancient 
 rebels in the wilderness. (And (v. 16) the extent of 
 that doom makes this admonition more startling ;) for 
 (γάρ), who were they, who, when they heard God, 
 provoked him? nay, was it not all that came out of 
 Egypt through the instrumentality of Moses? If un- 
 belief and disobedience wrought so wide a ruin then, 
 beware of them now.” 
 
 Vv. 17, 18. In these two verses we have the two 
 expressions, Οὐχὲ τοῖς ἁμαρτήσασε, and τοῖς ἀπεεϑή- 
 Gaoz, used as parallel. The latter word is currently 
 used in the New Test. in the sense of wnbelievers. Its 
 primary sense, indeed, is “to be unpersuadable,” and 
 hence “disobedient;” but hence it derives the sense 
 of unbelief, which it doubtless bears here. Though 
 aucornoaoe and ἀπεεϑήσασε are not synonymous, the 
 one being general, and the other specific, the reason- 
 ing implies that unbelief was the essence of all their 
 sin. We have here another instance of the teaching 
 of the Scriptures concerning the wickedness of unbe- 
 hef. Compare ν. 12. 
 
 κῶλα. Whose “limbs” fell in the desert. This is 
 the translation given by the Septuagint for "38, “car- 
 cass,” in Numb. 14: 29, 32; an instance of a common 
 synecdoche. 
 
 κατάπαυσεν αὑτοῦ. When we refer to the his- 
 tory of this divine oath, for instance in Numb. 14: 23 
 and Deut. 1: 35, we find mention made only of the 
 promised land, as that from which Israel excluded 
 himself by unbelief: “Surely they shall not see the 
 
140 HEBREWS, CHAP. III. Vv. 19. 
 
 land which I sware unto their fathers.” “The Lord 
 was wroth, and sware, saying, Surely there shall not 
 one of these men of this evil generation see that good 
 land, which I sware to give unto your fathers, save 
 Caleb the son of Jephunneh.” But upon adding to 
 these passages the inspired construction of them in Ps. 
 95:11, and considering the view developed by the 
 Apostle in ch. 4 below (to the Commentary on which 
 the reader is referred), we gather that the heavenly as 
 well as the earthly rest was included in the promise 
 and in the curse. 
 
 V. 19 contains the Apostle’s closing deduction from 
 the narrative: Καὶ βλέπομεν, “ And so, we see, that, 
 on account of their unbelief, they could not enter in.” 
 Καὶ is, in almost all its usages, parallel-to the Hebr. ἢ, 
 and in its primary sense is strictly copulative. But 
 thence other senses arise, out of the nature of the con- 
 nected clauses; hence, in this place, the idea of con- 
 nected result, “ And so.” Consult Winer’s Id. New 
 Test. $57. 1, 2. Analogous uses of the word may be 
 seen in Acts 7: 48, Rom. 11: 35, Hebr. 12:9, and (if 
 the reading were genuine) in 1 Cor. 5:13. In these 
 places the logical dependence of the added clauses is 
 easily seen. 
 
ΟΠΑ Τα LV 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 (1—13.) 
 
 Tue author exhorts his readers against like failure 
 of the rest, v. 1, which he proves is promised to be- 
 lievers of every age—a true spiritual rest, vv. 2-10; 
 and then resumes the exhortation, vv. 11-13. More 
 particularly : 
 
 In view of the example of our fathers (ovv), we 
 should fear lest we come short of the promised rest, 
 v. 1; for (yee), the promise is to us as well as to 
 them, though from want of faith they were not profit- 
 ed, for (yao), believers do enter into rest (that is, God’s 
 spiritual rest promised also to the fathers, who came 
 short of it as they did of the type). This is manifest, 
 1st, from the oath as expressed through David, Psalm 
 95:11 (compared with Numb. 32:11, 12, Deut. 1: 
 85), in which God declares that wnbelievers are ex- 
 cluded, calls the rest from which he had excluded their 
 unbelieving fathers Hs rest, and speaks for the in- 
 struction of that (David’s) generation, to whom by im- 
 plication the promise was still held forth, and to whom 
 it was of course only a spiritual promise, since they 
 were already in possession of the types, vv. 2, 3. 
 These points, which are clear from the terms and cir- 
 cumstances of the oath, are elucidated in the following 
 verses. This oath we have (as announced through 
 
149 CHAP. IV.—ANALYSIS. 
 
 David, still holding out God’s rest to believers), 
 although His works (#c«/roc) were finished from the 
 foundation of the world ; for (γάρ), we read concern- 
 ing the seventh day (Gen. 2: 2,) that on it God rested 
 from all his works; and then here, in the oath, we 
 have God’s rest represented as forfeited by the fathers 
 through unbelief, and still offered to believers through 
 David. God’s rest, therefore, after the creation, was 
 not one which had no relationship to men, but one 
 into which God intended to admit believers, vy. 8-5. 
 And thus we see the explanation of the exhortation 
 by David. (Compare Numb, 32: 11, 12, Deut. 1: 35.) 
 
 The leading truth of the passage is manifest, 2nd, 
 from the following view. Hence (ovyv), seeing that 
 (ἐπεὶ) some must enjoy God’s rest, and~ they to whom 
 it was first offered, did not, through unbelief; again, a 
 long time after, speaking by David to a generation 
 then enjoying the type, He straightly charges them 
 ‘to-day to hear his voice, and not to harden their 
 hearts’ as their fathers did, and thus exclude them- 
 selves from it; which plainly supposes a spiritual rest 
 still remaining for believers, vv. 6, 7. For if (Ez γὰρ) 
 the earthly Canaan of which Joshua had instrumen- 
 tally given them possession, had been all the rest that 
 was promised, God would not, after that, have given 
 an exhortation which implied a rest not yet possessed, 
 and liable still to be forfeited, v. 8. There remains, 
 therefore (ἄρα), for the people of God a rest, of which 
 the earthly are but types, a true spiritual rest with 
 God; for (γὰρ) he that hath entered upon it hath 
 
CHAP. IV.—ANALYSIS. 148 
 
 ceased from his labours, as God did from his, vv. 9, 10. 
 Hence (οὖν), he continues his exhortation to zealous 
 endeavours te enter into this rest, lest (iva μὴ) we 
 perish after the example of the unbelieving in the wil- 
 derness ; for (γὰρ) the word of God by which we are 
 to be tried is living, powerful truth, probing the very 
 heart, searching out its sins, analyzing its thoughts, 
 and motives, and desires; nor is there any thing 
 concealed from the view of Him to whom we must 
 account, vv. 11-13. 
 
 As a@ summary. There are two steps in the 
 argument. 1. From the oath, v. 3, confirmed and 
 illustrated in vy. 3-5. 2. From the accompanying 
 admonition, vv. 6, 7, confirmed in v. 8. Conclusion, 
 v. 9, further illustrated, v.10. The particular inter- 
 nal logical connexion of the thoughts must be sought 
 in the particles. 
 
144 HEBREWS, CHAP. Iv. Vv. 1. 
 
 COMMENTARY. , 
 ~ by ' , Ὕ 
 1 φοβηθῶμεν οὖν, μήποτε, καταλειπομένης ἕπαγγε- 
 > ~ ‘ é 5) ~ ~ 
 λέας εἰφςελϑεῖν sig τὴν κατάπαυσεν «ὐτοῦ, δοκῇ res 
 Ὕ ~ r , > , 
 2 ἐξ ὑμῶν vorsonxeva. Kai yag ἔσμεν sunyyshe- 
 , / , ~ A > 5] ’ Ε] / [ 
 σμένοι, καϑάπερ xaxsivoe’ (ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ὠφέλησεν ὃ 
 ‘ ~ ) ~ > ‘ f ~ 
 λόγος τῆς ἀκοῆς ἐκείνους, μὴ GUYHEXOAMEVOS TH 
 , Ἢ > ΄ . ͵ \ 5 A 
 3 πίστει τοῖς ἀκούσασεν ") siseoyousda yao εἰς τὴν 
 [2 ὡς 
 ” , ~ > ~ = ] ᾿ς ΘΕ a P > ‘ 
 ὥμοσα Ev τῇ ὀργῇ μου" εἰ ElGEhEVGOYTiLE εἰς THY 
 
 Γ , A ” 
 κατάπαυσεν OL πιστευσαντὲς, καϑὼς ELONHEY * 
 
 κατάπαυσέν μου" καίτοι TOY ἔργων ἀπὸ κατα- 
 4 βολῆς κόσμου γενηθϑέντων " εἴρηκε yao ποὺ περὲ 
 τῆς ἑβδόμης οὕτω" “καὶ κατέπαυσεν ὃ ϑεὸς ἐν 
 τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ ἑβδόμῃ ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν ἔργων αὖ- 
 
 - , (i: Γ ΄ 
 τοῦ" καὶ ἕν τούτῳ παλεν" “sé εἰξελεύσονταε εἰς 
 
 Or 
 
 7 XN 
 
 6 τὴν κατάπαυσίν μου" ἐπεὶ οὖν ἀπολείπεταε τε- 
 vac εἰςελϑεῖν εἰς αὐτήν, καὶ οἱ πρότερον εὐαγγελε- 
 
 T σϑέντες οὐκ εἰςῆλϑον δὲ ἀπείϑειων" πάώλεν tive 
 c ly Se Hee 2a ” > ‘Nj ἢ \ 
 ὁρίζεε ἡμέραν, “ σήμερον," ἐν Aavid λέγων μετὰ 
 τοσοῦτον χρόνον (καϑϑὼς προείρηται) “ σήμερον, 
 ἐὰν τῆς φωνῆς αὐτοῦ ἀκούσητε, μὴ σκληρύνητε 
 
 8 τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν. Εἰ γὰρ αὐτοὺς Ἰησοῦς κατέ- 
 παυσεν" οὐκ av περὶ ἄλλης ἐλάλεε μετὰ ταῦτα 
 
 9 ἡμέρας" ἄρα ἀπολείπεταε σαββατισμὸς τῷ λαῷ 
 
 10 τοῦ Yeov. Ὁ γὰρ εἰφςελϑὼν εἰς τὴν κατάπαυσεν 
 αὐτοῦ, καὶ αὐτὸς κατέπαυσεν ἀπὸ τῶν ἔργων αὖ- 
 τοῦ. ὥςπερ ὠπὸ τῶν ἰδίων ὁ HsOs. 
 
 Vil. Φοβηϑῶμεν. On this word Calvin re- 
 marks: “ Hic nobis commendatur timor, non qui fidei 
 certitudinem excutiat, sed tantam incutiat sollicitudi- 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. Iv. Vv. 1. 145 
 
 nem ne securi torpeamus.” It is ever the teaching of 
 the Scriptures, that while we exercise an implicit and 
 triumphing confidence in the fidelity of God, we should 
 exercise a jealous watch over the treachery of our own 
 hearts. These ideas are here also by implication: 
 “The promise abides (firm),” καταλειπομένης ἐπαγγε- 
 dias; 1t is we who may “seem to come short.” 
 
 οὖν. The illation expressed by this particle, as 
 was stated in the Analysis, is from the example of 
 their fathers’ unbelief, ch. 3:19, οὐκ ἠδυνηϑησαν 
 sicehidsiv δὲ antoriav. Calvin remarks: “ Illativa 
 particula significat aliorum lJapsu nos ad humilitatem 
 et vigilantiam erudiri: quemadmodum et Paulus loqui- 
 tur Rom. 11: 20, ‘Isti per mcredulitatem corruerunt: 
 tu ergo noli superbire, sed time.’ ” 
 
 καταλειπομένης. Some translate this participle, 
 “neelected,” which is nearly the sense of Calvin, who 
 renders it by ‘derelicta” The sense of the verse would 
 then be, “ Let us therefore fear lest any of you seem 
 to come short, because the promise of entering into 
 his rest 15 neglected.” It is allowable to attach such a 
 meaning to a participial construction; but the whole 
 following context requires for zaradectouévns the 
 other sense, “being left,” or “remaining” to us. In- 
 deed, vv. 2, 6, 7, 9, below, assert distinctly such a re- 
 maining or abiding of the promise, and make it the 
 leading idea. The author would imply that the 
 earthly Canaan was not all the promised rest. 
 
 δοκῇ some represent as pleonastic; and they cite, 
 in illustration, Mark 10: 42, ὅτε of δοκοῦντες ἄρχειν 
 
 10 
 
146 HEBREWS, OHAP. Iv. v. 1. 
 
 τῶν ἐθνῶν κατακυρειύουσεν αὐτῶν; Luke 22: 24, 
 Ἐγένετο δὲ καὶ φιλονεικία ἐν αὐτοῖς, τό, τίς αὐτῶν 
 δοκεῖ sivac μείζων; 1 Cor. 11: 16, Εἰ δέ reg δοκεῖ 
 φελόνεικος εἶναι. But Winer (in his Id. New Test. 
 Append. $67. 4. ο. p. 451), rightly repudiates the idea 
 of the regular pleonastic use of any class of verbs, and 
 shows that, in all the supposed cases, there is a real 
 addition to the accuracy and fulness of the sense, which 
 we may see if we look with sufficient care. Thus, in 
 the passage first cited, the meaning is, ‘ Those who are 
 regarded, or admitted to be masters of the gentiles, 
 exercise lordship,” &c. In the second, “There was 
 dispute which of them is acknowledged to be great- 
 est.” In the third, “If any person has the reputation 
 of being disputatious,” &e. Most commentators say 
 that δοκῇ is used here, in a sense adopted in some 
 passages by Robinson (in his Lexicon New Test. sud 
 voce, Ὁ), to soften the assertion, in conformity with the 
 urbanity of the Greek manner. They refer for illus- 
 tration to 1 Cor. 7: 40, δοκῶ δὲ χαγὼ πνεῦμεω ϑεοῦ 
 ἔχειν. But it seems to us more proper to take it as 
 expressing a constituent part of the Apostle’s idea, 
 ‘lest any of you be judged to have come short, i. 6. in 
 the verdict of God. Compare, for instance, the ques- 
 tion of Christ to the lawyer, at the close of the parable 
 of the wounded man and Samaritan: Τίς οὖν τούτων 
 τῶν τρεῶν δοκεῖ Got πλησίον γεγονέναε TOU ἐμπεσον- 
 τος εἰς τοὺς λῃστάς; Here the sense is obviously that 
 of a deliberate judgment: “Which of these three do 
 you conclude was a neighbour,” &e.? Luke 10: 36. 
 
 i, 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. IV. V. 2. 147 
 
 ὑστερηκέναε is translated by Bretschneider and 
 Wahl, “to have come too late;” with reference to σή- 
 μερον of the previous exhortation. But the word is 
 found with this sense nowhere else in the New Test. 
 It is better to give it its customary tropical signification, 
 “to have come short,” “to have failed.” We can hardly 
 believe that the sense is not substantially the same 
 with that of iva μὴ rig πέσῃ; in y. 11, where the same 
 admonition is repeated. The verb ὑστερέω occurs in 
 our Epistle in 11: 87, “the saints wandered about in 
 sheepskins,” ὅσο. ... ὑστερούμενοι, ϑλεβόμενοι, κα- 
 κουχούμενοε, “ destitute,” &e.; and in 12: 15, ἐπεσκο- 
 MOUVTES μή TLS ὑστερῶν ἀπὸ τῆς yaoeros τοῦ ϑεοῦ, 
 “looking diligently, lest there be any one who comes 
 short of the grace of God.” In the former place the 
 meaning is, “ to be behindhand,” in the sense of “ lack- 
 ing;” and in the latter, “to come short of.” In the 
 text it is, very obviously, to have come short (scil. of 
 the offered rest). 
 
 V.2. yao here evidently refers to the proposition 
 implied in καταλειπομένης ἐπαγγελίας, and presents 
 the ground of confirmation for that assertion. And 
 here we find additional evidence for the correctness of 
 the meaning which we gave to these words, on v. 1; 
 for if we rendered them “because the promise was 
 neglected,” the connexion of the propositions would 
 by no means be so lucid and natural. 
 
 εὐηγγελεσ μένοι is here used in its general and also 
 classical sense, of “having good tidings preached,” 
 though there is doubtless an allusion to the gospel. 
 
148 HEBREWS, CHAP. IV. V. 2. 
 
 Theologically considered, every promise comes through 
 Christ ; and especially this one of a share in the spirit- 
 ual rest of God. In Matt. 11: 5, and the parallel pas- 
 sage in Luke 7: 22, we read, πεωχοὲ εὐαγγελέζονταε, 
 “The poor have the gospel preached to them.” In 
 the active voice, it is construed with the dative or ac- 
 cusative of the persons who are the objects of the 
 good news. See, for instance, Rev. 14:6. In Rev. 
 10: 7 the various readings give both the dative and 
 accusative. The meaning of the sentence is now obvi- 
 ous: “God’s gracious promise of a spiritual rest is 
 extended to believers now, as well as to them” (be- 
 lievers of Moses’ and David’s time). 
 
 6 λόγος τῆς ἀκοῆς may be best translated, “the 
 word heard.” The genitive often serves as the quali- 
 fying or defining adjunct. This was seen in the expo- 
 sition offered, on 3:1 above, of the words ὠρχεερέα 
 τῆς ὁμολογίας ἡμῶν. 
 
 συγκεκρα μένος presents a various réading. Some, 
 as Vater, prefer ovyzexoauévous, in the accus. plural, 
 and there is some Ms. authority for its support. It 
 must then be construed with ἐκείνους ; and the words 
 τοῖς ἀκούσασεν must be taken in the sense of ὑπαχού- 
 cao, which they are asserted sometimes to bear. 
 The sense of the sentence would then be, “ But the 
 word heard did not profit them, inasmuch as they 
 were not mingled (associated) by faith with the obe- 
 dient.” The accus. plural is certainly the more diffi- 
 cult reading, and has therefore the support of that 
 canon of the critics which enacts, that, when we are 
 
 i τα τοι 
 
HEBREWS, OHAP. Iv. v. ὃ. 149 
 
 compelled to choose between two readings, we must 
 conclude that the one which is more plausible and nat- 
 ural was invented or introduced by transcribers. But, 
 by taking the reading of the Textus Receptus, the 
 nominative, the sense is better and more natural. An 
 analogous use of the verb may be found in Isaiah 19: 
 14, which is rendered by the Septuagint, χύρεος yao 
 ἐχέρασεν αὐτοῖς πνεῦμα πλανήσεως. Calvin renders 
 our text thus: “Non cum fide conjunctus in iis qui 
 audierant ;” a rendering which we adopt. 
 
 V. 8. The author now proceeds to offer the 
 ground of his last assertion: “Unbelief prevented 
 the offer of God’s rest from profiting them ; for (γάρ), 
 it is we who believed that enter into the rest.” And 
 this assertion, again, is plainly implied in the language 
 of God. 
 
 καϑὼς εἴρηκεν, “ According as He (God) said,” 
 &e, Calvin correctly apprehends the nature of this 
 inferential argument: “ Argumentum est a contrariis. 
 Sola incredulitas arcet; ergo fide patet ingressus.” 
 The oath excluding unbelievers implies the free ad- 
 mission of believers. The circumstances and terms of 
 the oath, indeed, prove all that is contained in the 
 proposition : ‘ A spiritual rest remains to believers of all 
 ages.’ ‘The rest is called, for instance, God’s rest. The 
 offer of it is renewed to believers of David’s day, who 
 were already in possession of the earthly rest. It was 
 that spiritual rest, "τὴν xaraxavow, the rest, into 
 which God entered after the six days’ work of crea- 
 tion, and which he offered first to the fathers, then to 
 
160 HEBREWS, OHAP. Iv. Vv. 3. 
 
 believers of a later day, and, consequently, to believ- 
 ers of every age. But the true nature of the Apostle’s 
 point is determined by v. 9; for there he states it ex- 
 plicitly in the form of a conclusion, at the end of this 
 branch of his discussion: “There remaineth therefore 
 a rest to the people of God.” This therefore is what 
 he purposes to argue. 
 
 καίτοι is translated by Stuart, Bloomfield, Kuinoél, 
 and others, ‘nempe,’ ‘to wit;’ and this meaning would 
 seein possible from a consideration of the elements of 
 the word, though the examples given by Stuart after 
 the authority of Hoogeveen do not prove it. The 
 sense derived by such a translation would also be 
 easier. The word occurs only here in the New Test. ; 
 but with ye annexed (καέτοιγε), which only increases 
 its force, it occurs in John 4: 2, Acts 14: 17, and Acts 
 17: 27, and in all of the three places it manifestly has 
 the sense of “although,” “though in fact.” This is un- 
 doubtedly its common signification; to which we ad- 
 here in the passage before us. For, according to the 
 rareness of a given sense is the strength of the improb- 
 ability that the writer has departed from the common 
 one, unless the context manifestly compels us to sup- 
 pose such a departure. Such is not the context here. 
 καίτοε limits, or qualifies by a concession, the forego- 
 ing sentiment, καϑὼς εἰρηκεν, x.r.A. (which is the 
 force of the word in the other examples cited), and is 
 here designed to call attention to a fact which makes 
 the proof contained in the oath, for the spiritual and 
 perpetual nature of the rest, more manifest. Calvin 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. Iv. vv. 4, 5. 151 
 
 remarks thus on the sentence: “ Zametst operibus, &e. 
 Ut definiat qualis sit nostra requies, revocat nos ad id 
 quod refert Moses, Deum statim a creatione mundi 
 requievisse ab operibus suis.” The Apostle’s drift is 
 this: to direct our close attention to the fact that God 
 uses in his oath the very significant language, “if they 
 shall enter into my rest.” And the significance of the 
 words appears the more in this, that God thus speaks 
 of believers sharing His rest, although (καίτοι) His 
 was a rest from works finished from the foundation of 
 the world. Of course, then, it was a rest different 
 from that of Canaan, enjoyed by God before Canaan 
 was ever selected and promised to the patriarchs as 
 the holy land, and therefore still held out to believers 
 after Canaan was possessed, as well as to the fathers 
 journeying to Canaan. A (spiritual) rest remains 
 therefore for believers. 
 
 Vv. 4, ὅ. εἰρηχε yao nov περὶ τῆς ἑβδόμης, 4.7.2. 
 These verses are designed to illustrate and confirm 
 what was just stated: “ And this is so; that God did 
 rest on the seventh day, and offers this rest long after 
 to believers, impliedly, in the oath excluding unbe- 
 fevers.” Calvin thus explains: “Hoe probat quia 
 Deus, qui requievisse dicitur, longo post tempore in- 
 eredulis requiem suam negat, quod frustra faceret, nisi 
 exemplo suo fideles vellet quiescere. Ideo dicit, rel- 
 quum fieri ut quidam ingrediantur. Nam si non 
 intrare poena est incredulitatis, ut jam dictum est, cre- 
 dentibus ingressus patet.” The comparison of the two 
 quotations, which the Apostle wishes his readers to 
 
152 HEBREWS, CHAP. Iv. v. 6. 
 
 view side by side, evinces this fact, that God’s rest 
 (concerning which the implied offer is made through 
 David to believers), is the same with the rest of the 
 seventh day, which immediately succeeded creation ; 
 and from this fact it is plain that the rest offered to 
 believers is like that which God enjoyed—perpetual 
 and spiritual. 
 
 V. ὁ. ἐπεὲ οὖν makes an illation from what goes 
 before (ov), together with what is now to be added 
 (ἐπεί) ; this addition itself being generally involved in 
 what preceded. <A similar arrangement of proposi- 
 tions and use of particles may be seen in 2: 14 above, 
 where also the apodosis is first in the sentence. The 
 illation here is, πάλεν τενὰ ὁρίζεε ἡμέρων, 2.1.4. The 
 ellipsis here made by Stuart seems to us very harsh, 
 making the illation an implied one; viz. “Since there- 
 fore it remains, &c....1t follows that a rest remains 
 for believers.” It would be hard to conceive how a 
 writer could seem to express his own illation more 
 
 certainly than the Apostle does here; and if the sup- 
 
 posed exigencies of the sense and context authorize us 
 here to understand an ellipsis, where there is nothing 
 in the arrangement of the words to indicate it, we 
 do not see where an interpreter may not intrude an 
 ellipsis. 
 
 ἀπολείπεται, #.t.4. “It remains that some enter 
 into it:” because the oath making unbelief the ground 
 of exclusion, revealed his will that some should enjoy 
 his rest. The reasoning is well unfolded by Calvyin’s 
 exposition of vv. 4, 5, already cited. 
 
 —— τ “- 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. Iv. vv. 7, 8. 153 
 
 V.%. πάλεν τενὰ δρέζεε ἡμέραν. Again He him- 
 iteth a certain day, i. 6. in the exhortation addressed. to 
 believers through David, when he said, “ 70-day if ye 
 will hear his voice,” &c. The Apostle, by this partic- 
 ularity, directs attention to the strictness of the divine 
 admonition, which showed that God’s mercies might 
 not be forever abused, and his promises rejected with 
 impunity. It was also designed to prepare the way 
 for the explanatory argument in v. 8, οὐκ ἂν περὲ 
 ἄλλης ἐλάλει μετὰ ταῦτα ἡμέρας. 
 
 We are now prepared to understand the full scope 
 and meaning of vv. 6,7. It having been shown, in 
 vv. 3-5, that believers are admitted into God’s spirit- 
 ual rest, the design of these verses is, by means of the 
 exhortation which accompanies the oath, still further 
 to confirm what had been argued from the oath itself; 
 that there was a spiritual rest for believers in every 
 age. This appears from v. 8, where the deduction is 
 strengthened, and further grounded. Thus Calvin: 
 “Si nobis nihil promitteretur, an locum haberet 
 haec admonitio? ‘videte ne vobis idem quod patribus 
 contingat.’ ” 
 
 V. 8. γάρ, as has been already indicated, here in- 
 troduces what strengthens and illustrates the argument 
 in vv. 6, 7. That argument is, “Since some must en- 
 ter God’s rest, and those to whom the offer was first 
 made did not, a long time after we find Him by David | 
 
 offering it to others; a spiritual rest, therefore, and 
 not the earthly Canaan: for (γάρ), if Joshua had 
 given them (the Israelites first evangelized) the rest, 
 
154 HEBREWS, OHAP. IV. Vv. 9. 
 
 God would not have spoken concerning another day 
 after these transactions.” If the rest promised had 
 been Canaan and nothing more, then, under Joshua 
 the promise would have been fulfilled, and the whole 
 transaction would have been a completed one; but in- 
 asmuch as the Holy Ghost speaks of the promise as 
 still open, and the transaction still suspended, to the 
 believers of a later day, there is something more than 
 Canaan implied in it. The rest of Canaan was not in- 
 deed excluded; as Calvin well remarks, “ Non vult 
 negare quin per requiem David terram Canaan intelli- 
 gat, in quem Joshua populum induxit; sed hane fuisse 
 ultimam requiem negat, ad quam aspirant fideles, quae 
 illius etiam saeculi fidelibus nobiscum fuit communis.” 
 The translation we have given above is in strict accord- 
 ance with the usage for past tenses of the indicative in 
 conditional sentences. The ἄλλης ἡμέρας is obviously 
 the σήμερον of David. 
 
 V.9. σαββατισμός. This word only occurs here 
 in the New Test., and the only instance of its use in 
 classic Greek which has been noticed, is in- Plutarch 
 de Super. V.c. 3. It evidently means here “a sabba- 
 tizing,” a “keeping of rest or sabbath.” Perhaps, as 
 Stuart suggests, the word was coined by the author, 
 for this place, from the Hebrew word nav, with a 
 Greek termination. It contains an evident allusion to 
 God’s rest, Gen. 2: 2, to a participation in which the 
 Apostle’s whole argument proves that the faithful 
 are invited. This reference to God’s rest is distinetly 
 avowed in v. 10: “ He that is entered into his rest, he 
 
 oreo 
 
HEBREWS, OHAP. Iv. v. 10. 154 
 
 also hath ceased from his own works, as God from 
 his ;” and alluded to in vv. 8-5. V. 9 obviously con- 
 cludes the argument, and states its result. But the 
 conclusion, after it is drawn, yet receives in v. 10 one 
 more touch from the author’s hand, in the form of an 
 additional confirmation and illustration. 
 
 V. 10. γὰρ introduces this confirmation: ‘ He 
 who hath entered into His (God’s) rest, hath ceased 
 from his own works, as God also ceased from His,’ 
 when, at the end of the six days’ creation, he reposed 
 in divine and holy complacency, in the contemplation 
 of the perfect world which he had built. The “ works” 
 from which the glorified believer rests, are those la- 
 bours and sufferings which make up the toils of his 
 militant state; including, doubtless, the great labour 
 of self-denial, or mortification of self, and self-righteous- 
 ness, but not limited to it, as Calvin indicates: for 
 such a sense would suit much better to a description 
 of the believer’s regeneration, than to his glorification. 
 When he embraces Christ, then he ceases from the 
 labour of self-righteousness. There is peculiar appro- 
 priateness in the verse, as we have explained it, to 
 the persecuted condition of the Hebrew Christians. 
 Doubtless the prospect of such a repose would be most 
 soothing to the true Christian of that day, oppressed 
 with constant dangers and exertions in the mainte- 
 nance of a good confession. The believer’s rest is 
 ‘God’s rest, in that it is like God’s. Glorious as is the 
 exaltation, in comparison with the believer’s person 
 and deserts, he need not fear to embrace and triumph 
 
 é 
 
———— ΓΙ τΡυυΥΥΕἘΥΒΓΡΕῦ͵͵ὺ ΓΙτυτυῖ υὑτετασσστσσπαπταοστσσστατπΠᾳ«ΦΠΦἔᾳρο΄-τ πππΠ.-ππ-ππ π΄ 
 
 156 HEBREWS, CHAP. Iv. v. 10. 
 
 in its vastness. In like manner he is said to share the 
 peace of God (Phil. 4: 7), or of Christ (John 14: 2%, 
 “My peace I give unto you”). 
 
 Some readers may perhaps feel that they need the 
 solution of one more question, in order to a satisfae- 
 tory apprehension of the Apostle’s scope in this dis- 
 cussion. Why does he here so labour a point which 
 all Hebrews, except Sadducees, might be supposed to 
 admit most fully and unhesitatingly? What is the 
 relevancy of so laborious a discussion of this point, to 
 the great object of his Epistle, which was to prevent 
 apostacy from Christianity to Judaism? The answer 
 is to be found in the peculiar and exclusive construc- 
 tion which the Jew put upon God’s national covenant 
 with Israel. The more scriptural and intelligent Jew, 
 the Pharisee, for instance, by no means limited the 
 privileges of his nation to temporal things. He ex- 
 pected a future state of spiritual blessedness and im- 
 mortality in heaven: but he tied the type, which was 
 Canaan, too strictly to the antitype, heaven. He 
 taught that the only way to enter the spiritual cove- 
 nant, was to become a member of the national cove- 
 nant; that none but the Jews, heirs of the earthly 
 Canaan, were to share the heavenly; and therefore 
 the only path to salvation was to become a proselyte 
 to Judaism. Against this exclusive view, the Apos- 
 tle’s discussion seems tacitly directed: “ We which 
 have believed do enter into rest” (v. 8), not we who 
 are Jews. It is unbelief which excludes from the 
 spiritual rest (3:19), not uncireumcision. A whole 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. Iv. v. 11. 157 
 
 generation of circumcised people failed of it, because 
 of the single obstacle of unbelief. Another whole 
 generation of circumcised people (in David’s reign), 
 who were in the actual possession of the earthly rest, 
 and whose membership in the national covenant was 
 most prosperous and indisputable, are addressed as 
 being in danger of coming short of the spiritual rest, 
 through similar unbelief. It is to the people of God, 
 therefore, that the divine sabbatism remains (v. 9), 
 not to Jews; for the Apostle had long and clearly 
 taught that all are not Israel who are of Israel; and 
 that they who have Abraham’s faith, though uncir- 
 cumcised, are the seed of Abraham. 
 
 11 Σπουδάσωμεν οὖν εἰςελϑεῖν εἰς ἐχείνην τὴν κατέ- 
 παυσεν, ἵνα μὴ ὃν τῷ αὐτῷ τις ὑποδείγματε πέσῃ 
 
 12 τῆς ἀπειϑείας. Ζῶν γὰρ 6 λόγος τοῦ ϑεοῦ, καὶ 
 ἐνεργής, καὶ τομώτερος ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν μάχαεραν δί- 
 στόμιον, καὶ δεϊκνούμεγος ἄχρε μερισμοῦ ψυχῆς 
 [τε] καὶ πνεύματος, ἁρμῶν τὲ καὶ μυελῶν, καὶ 
 
 13 HOLT LOS ἐνϑυμήσεων καὶ ἐννοεῶν καρδίας " καὶ 
 οὐκ ἔστε κτίσες ἀφανὴς ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ, πάντα δὲ 
 γυμνὰ καὶ τετραχηλεσμένα τοῖς ὀφϑαλμοῖς αὐ- 
 τοῦ, πρὸς ὃν ἡμεῖν ὃ λόγος. 
 
 V. 11. Σπουδάσωμεν οὖν, κιτ.ιΔ. The exhorta- 
 tion, as usual, is logically resumed: “Since there is 
 such a prize before us, and that prize may be forfeited 
 by unbelief, let us labour to enter in.” Both hope 
 and fear are enlisted. 
 
158 HEBREWS, OHAP. Iv. v. 12. 
 
 iva un... πέσῃ, “Lest any fall,” in the sense of 
 “perish.” Thus, in Rom. 11: 11, we read the follow- 
 ing question: My ἔπταισαν iva πέσωσε; “ Have they 
 stumbled that they should fall?” where the sense is, 
 obviously, a final fall—a perdition. Calvin, referring 
 to the words τῷ αὐτῷ ὑποδείγματε, says, ‘Ergo, ca- 
 dere pro perire accipitur, vel, ut clarius dicam, non pro 
 peccato sed pro peena.’ 
 
 ἀπεεϑείας is obviously dependent on ὑποδείγματε: 
 “Lest any one perish by the same pattern of unbelief,” 
 or, “perish by unbelief of the same pattern.” The 
 separation of the genitive from its governing word, by 
 an interposed word or phrase, is by no means unusual 
 in the New Test. Examples exactly similar to this 
 may be seen in Phil. 2:10, 1 Tim. 8:6, Hebr. 8: 5. 
 
 V.12. ὃ λόγος τοῦ ϑεοῦ is here understood, by 
 most of the recent commentators, of only the minatory 
 portions of God’s word. But there is, to say the least, 
 no necessity for such limitation. The word of God 
 promising and threatening (as in the preceding con- 
 text), the law and gospel, may well be thus described, 
 and be held up én terrorem to apostatizers, or to guard 
 against apostacy. God’s word, the rule of our life and 
 future trial, may not be contemned. It brings every 
 thing into judgment, and in that day promises no 
 less than threats will aggravate the condemnation of - 
 unbelievers. 
 
 V. 12. Ζῶν γὰρ ὁ λόγος. This attribute is 
 ascribed to ἐλπέδα, 1 Pet. 1: 38; it is ascribed to ϑυ- 
 σέων, Rom. 12: 1, and to λέϑον, 1 Pet. 2: 4. In these 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. Iv. v. 12. 159 
 
 places, “living” must be understood from the subject 
 and context. Peter, by a “living hope,” evidently 
 means an enduring hope, one that does not pass away. 
 In the other two places, the participle has its proper 
 sense, “possessing animate, intelligent life.” In John 
 6:51 we have ἄρτος 6 ζῶν, in the sense of “ life-giving 
 bread.” In 1 Pet. 1: 28, believers are “born of an 
 incorruptible seed, dca λόγου ζῶντος ϑεοῦ καὶ μένον- 
 toc,” where, if we construe ζῶντος with λόγου, after 
 the example of our Engl. version, it will have the 
 sense of abiding, or “ enduring word,” that which does 
 not cease its efficacy. This is probably the sense in 
 our text: “For the word of God is enduring, and 
 effective; and trenchant above every double-mouthed 
 sword (rouwregoc). The word of God is often com- 
 pared to a sword, as in Eph. 6: 17, τὴν μάχαιραν τοῦ 
 πνεύματος, ὃ ἔστε ῥῆμα ϑεοῦ. 
 
 ινυχῆς καὶ πνεύματος. The distinction made 
 by these two words is not to be pressed. Compare 
 1 Thess. 5: 28, “I pray God your whole spirit and 
 soul and body be preserved,” &c. The words are 
 obviously used, in accordance with the usual classifi- 
 cation of the day, to express the whole man. Here 
 they seem related to each other more as anima and 
 animus. The Pythagorean and Platonic philosophy 
 distinguished between the animal and the rational 
 soul, the wuy7 and the νοῦς, with which latter the 
 πνεῦμα IS by many supposed to be the same. The 
 former embraced the senses, appetites, desires, &c., the 
 latter, the higher and intellectual faculties which dis- 
 
160 HEBREWS, CHAP. Ivy. Vv. 12. 
 
 tinguish man from the brutes. The Scripture philo- 
 sophy puts all these in the one soul, avsvua, ψυχῆ, 
 or animus. And if here there is an allusion to the 
 heathen philosophy, it is only popularly, in order to 
 express the scrutinizing power of the Word after sin. 
 Among the numerous instances in which wuy7 is used 
 obviously in the general sense of “soul,” man’s spiritual 
 part, the reader may consult Hebr. 6: 19, 10: 39, and 
 13:17, “Hope... τὴν ἄγχυραν τῆς ψυχῆς; “We 
 are of them that believe, εἰς περιεποίησεν ψυχῆς; 
 Church officers “watch for souls, ὠγρυπνοῦσεν ὑπὲρ 
 τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν, as they that must give account.” 
 In these places the sense of the Platonic ψυχῆ, the 
 animal life, as distinguished from the rational spirit, 
 would be preposterous. Both ψυχὴ and πνεῦμ are 
 often used of the animus and anima, as well as in 
 other senses. In the text under discussion it seems 
 necessary to distinguish them. Calvin well remarks: 
 “Nomen anime sepe idem valet quod spiritus, sed 
 quum simul junguntur, prius comprehendit sub se, 
 affectus omnes: posterius facultatem quam vocant in- 
 tellectualem significat. Ita Paulus: 1 Thess. 5: 23, 
 nihil aliud sibi vult, quam ut intellectu et voluntati 
 externisque actionibus, puri et casti maneant.” Calvin 
 then cites Isaiah 26: 9, “ With my soul (082) have I 
 desired thee in the night; yea, with my spirit within 
 me (777) will I seek thee early;” and adds, “Scio 
 alios secus interpretari: sed mihi facile omnes sani, ut 
 spero, assentientur.” 
 
 xoerexos. ‘This adjective is connected, by the reg- 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. Iv. v. 18. 161 
 
 ular structure of the sentence, with λόγος. The first 
 natural breach or change of structure is at the words 
 “καὶ οὐκ ἔστε, &e. of v.13. The reference to God in 
 the words ἐνώπεον αὐτοῦ, v. 13, can scarcely necessi- 
 tate the supposition of a change of structure, in order 
 to introduce God as the subject (as Stuart argues), 
 when we have God named expressly atthe beginning 
 of the sentence, In connexion with its leading subject, 
 ὃ λόγος τοῦ ϑεοῦ, and that subject continues the prom- 
 inent one before the reader’s mind to the close of the 
 construction at καρδίας. What structure can be more 
 fair and easy than this? “ God’s word is enduring, 
 and effective, and trenchant, ... and piercing, ... and 
 discriminative of the passions and thoughts; and in 
 his (God’s) sight there is no creature that is not mani- 
 fest.” The classes of mental states distinguished by 
 ἐνϑυμήσεων καὶ ἐννοεῶν, refer obviously to the ϑυμὸς 
 (emotive principle) and vove (rational power), 1. e. the 
 passions and purposes, or intents. 
 
 V.18. ἐνώπεον αὐτοῦ. The reference is to God, 
 as is evident from the sentiment, “ Ad] things are na- 
 ked and opened,” and from the phrase, ὀφϑαλμοῖς av- 
 TOU. τετραχηλεσμένα contains the idea, “laid bare,” 
 like the neck of the sacrifice for the knife. 
 
 πρὸς ὃν ἡμῖν ὃ λόγος. The simplest rendering is, 
 “To whom is our account,” “reckoning.” In Luke 
 16: 2 we have, ὠπόδος τὸν λόγον τῆς olxovoulas σου, 
 “Give the account, reckoning, of thy stewardship.” 
 Rom. 14:12, ἕκαστος ἡμῶν περὶ ἑαυτοῦ λόγον δώσει 
 τῷ ϑεῷ. 1 Pet. 4: 5, οἱ ἀποδώσουσε λόγον τῷ ἑτοίμως 
 
 11 
 
162 HEBREWS, CHAP. Iv. Vv. 13. 
 
 ἔχοντε κρῖναε ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς. And 13: 17 be- 
 low, “They watch for your souls, as they that must 
 give account” (ὡς λόγον ἀποδώσοντες). Others have 
 translated the word, ‘negotium, or “commercium,” 
 quoting in support the Septuagint translation of 
 Judges 18:7, waxedy stot (the people of Laish or 
 Dan) Σεδωνεῶν καὶ λόγον οὐκ ἔχουσε πρὸς ἄνϑρωπον. 
 And again, v. 28, καὶ λόγος οὐκ ἔστε αὐτοῖς μετὰ 
 ἄνϑρωπον. Here the Hebrew is DINO? ὈΠΡΤ ΣΝ 737), 
 Engl. “They have no business with any man.” De 
 Wette says, “nichts zu thun.” To this translation the 
 English version seems to lean, in the text under con- 
 sideration, “ Him with whom we have to do.” De 
 Wette renders, “mit dem zu thun haben.” Either 
 sense is allowable, and consistent with the context. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 14—V. 10. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 Tue Apostle here takes occasion to exhort his 
 hearers to a persevering and confiding adherence to 
 Christ as our great High-Priest, vv. 14-16, thus intro- 
 ducing the third leading topic of the Epistle, viz. His 
 priesthood in comparison with that of the Old Testa- 
 ment dispensation; upon the discussion of which he 
 now enters, 5: 1-10; which discussion he continues, 
 with a single appropriate interruption (from 5: 11 to 
 6:), to 10:18. Or, more particularly, he proceeds 
 thus: 
 
 Having then (οὖν) a most exalted High-Priest, 
 Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast, for (γὰρ) He 
 can sympathize with us in our infirmities, having been 
 tried as we are, but without sin. Let us therefore 
 (ovv) come with holy boldness to God through Him 
 for mercy and seasonable grace, 4: 14-16. 
 
 These exhortations he sustains (γὰρ) by the devel- 
 opment of Christ’s priestly character which he pro- 
 ceeds to make. He commences by laying down the 
 leading characteristics of the high-priest of the old 
 dispensation: 1st, He was appointed to minister be- 
 tween God and man, at the altar, to offer gifts and 
 sacrifices for sin, v. 1; 2d, He is able, by reason of 
 his own infirmities, to compassionate those of the peo- 
 ple; and for the same reason, must offer sacrifices for 
 
.1604 OHAPS. IV, V.—ANALYSIS. 
 
 himself as well as for them, vv. 2, 3; 3d, He receives 
 his appointment from God, as Aaron did, v. 4. Com- 
 paring Christ, in the inverse order, the author shows, 
 1st, That He assumed not the office to himself, but re- 
 ceived his appointment from the Father, vy. 5, 6; 
 2d, That, by reason of the frailties and trials to 
 which His human nature exposed Him while on earth, — 
 He had learned by experience the sufferings incident 
 to obedience, though he was the Son of God, vv. 7, 8; 
 and 3d, That, having been perfected in heaven, He 
 became the author of salvation to all who obey him, 
 being, by the appointment of God, a High-Priest after 
 the order of Melchizedek, vv. 9, 10. 
 
 This third and last statement involved several im- 
 portant points: as the dignity of the-priest and the 
 priesthood, the sanctuary in which he officiates, the 
 nature and efficacy of his services, which the Apostle 
 purposes more fully to unfold; but he here stops, to 
 reprove the dulness of his readers, and to exhort them 
 to higher attainments. This exhortation occupies 5: 
 11-14 and 6: 1-20. 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. Iv. V. 14. 165 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 14 Ἔχοντες οὖν ἀρχεερέα μέγαν, διεληλυϑότα τοὺς 
 οὐρανούς, Ἰησοῦν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ϑεοῦ, κρατῶμεν 
 
 15 τῆς ὁμολογίας. Οὐ γὰρ ἔχομεν ἀρχεερρέα μὴ 
 δυνώμενον συμπαϑῆσαε ταῖς ἀσϑενείαις ἡ μῶν, 
 πεπειρασμένον δὲ κατὰ πάντα καϑ' ὁμοιότητα, 
 
 16 χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας. Προςερχώμεϑα οὖν μετὰ παρ- 
 ῥησίας τῷ ϑρόνῳ τῆς χάρετος, ἵνα λάβωμεν ἔλεον, 
 καὶ yao εὕρωμεν, εἰς εὔκαιρον βοήϑεεαν. 
 
 V.14. Ἔχοντες οὖν, κιτ.Δ. While this sentence 
 introduces a new topic, the priesthood of Christ, it is 
 yet of the nature of a conclusion from the general 
 scope of what has been said. Hence the writer intro- 
 duces it by οὖν. He has led his readers, now, over 
 the following train of thoughts: Christ is higher than 
 angels (ch. 1.); He became man in order to sympa- 
 thize with and suffer for us, as our High-Priest (ch. IL 
 compared with ch. II]. 1); He is greater than Moses, 
 even when the latter is viewed as the internuntius of 
 God (ch. III.), while God by Him still offers a glori- 
 ous rest to believers (chs. III. and IV.); and He will 
 hold us to a strict and heartsearching account for the 
 improvement we make of his offers. “Let us therefore 
 (οὖν) hold fast of our profession” (zearausy τῆς ὅμο- 
 λογέας). Such seems to us the best and most natural 
 view of the connexion, making the conjunction deduct- 
 ive from the general sum of what has been established 
 
166 HEBREWS, CHAP. Iv. ν. 14. 
 
 in all the previous discussion, and also from the point 
 last established. This view gives to οὖν its most 
 customary sense, and presents a consistent meaning. 
 Others regard ovy here as a mere particle of transi- 
 tion, indicating merely a passage from one topic to 
 another. Others, as Stuart, consider it as a particle of 
 resumption (“as we were saying,” “accordingly”), 
 pointing back to ch. II. 1. Better perhaps than 
 these is the sense here attributed to it by Hoogeveen, 
 as an inceptive particle (“now then”), indicating 
 merely the taking up of a distinct topic. But the 
 proper illative sense, first indicated, is best. 
 
 ὠρχεερέα μέγαν. The Apostle evidently calls the 
 High-Priest of the new dispensation “ great,” in view 
 of what he had said, and was about to-say, of his com- 
 parative glory and dignity. There is a reference to 
 the same heads of thought, from which the particle 
 ovy draws its deduction. The idea that the author 
 was compelled to qualify ὠρχεερέα by μέγαν, merely 
 to signify that he meant a high-priest proper, and not 
 one of the chief priests, because at that time the word 
 ἀρχεερεὺς Was used among the Jews for any ex-high- 
 priest or head of a course, most unnecessarily emascu- 
 lates his meaning. Would not that meaning be sufli- 
 ciently indicated by using the word, as it is here used, 
 in the singular number? This was judged sufliciently 
 discriminative by Matthew (26: 57), Mark (14: 53), 
 Luke (22: 54), and John (18: 13). 
 
 διεληλυϑότα τοὺς οὐρανούς, “ Who hath passed 
 through the heavens.” This expression seems founded 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. Iv. v. 14. 167 
 
 on the dignity of Christ, who, in his mediatorial and 
 priestly character, is gone to minister for us in the 
 presence of God within the heavenly sanctuary. The 
 use of οὐρανοὺς in the plural is doubtless in imitation 
 of the Hebrew ὉΠ; and, like the Hebrew word, it is 
 used to describe sometimes the lower, or visible, some- 
 times the higher heaven, where God holds his spiritual 
 court. In the latter sense we find it in 2 Cor. 12: 2, 
 ἁρπαγέντα... ἕως τρέτου οὐρανοῦ, and in Hebr. 9: 
 24, εἰσῆλθεν 0 Χριστὸς... εἰς αὐτὸν τὸν οὐρανὸν 
 (not into the holy places made with hands, ὠντέτυπα 
 τῶν ἀληϑενῶν). Butin Eph. 4: 10 we have an ex- 
 ample of the former meaning, ὁ καταβάς, αὐτός ἔστε 
 καὶ ὃ ἀναβὲς ὑπεράνω πάντων τῶν οὐρανῶν, ἵνω πλη- 
 ρώσῃ τὰ πάντα. And in Hebr. 7: 26, Christ is ὕψη- 
 λότερος τῶν οὐρανῶν γενόμενος. When, therefore, we 
 interpret the Apostle as referring to Christ’s ascension 
 through the visible heavens, to reach the upper sanctu- 
 ary (as Owen, Kuinoél, and others), we are in strict 
 accordance with the idea repeatedly developed in sub- 
 sequent parts of the Epistle. 
 
 ὁμολογέας, “The confession, or profession,” viz. of 
 our faith in this High-Priest. The usage and proper 
 translation of this word in our Epistle was sufficiently 
 illustrated on ch. 3:1 above. There seems to be in 
 this verse a very noticeable reference to the phrase- 
 ology and ideas of that passage. Christ is there called 
 the “ Apostle and High-Priest of our profession.” Here, 
 we are told, “Since we have this great High-Priest, let 
 us hold fast our profession.” 
 
168 HiBREWS, CHAP. Iv. vv. 15, 16. 
 
 V.15. χαϑ' ὁμοιότητα, “Tempted (tried) as to 
 all things after a similitude” (i. 6. to us, his believing 
 people). But the nature of these trials is guarded 
 and defined by the additional words, χωρὲς ὡμαρτέας. 
 They were all such trials as implied nothing sinful in 
 their source, and resulted in no sin in the manner in 
 which they were borne. We may correctly translate 
 xa ὁμοιότητα, ‘similarly’ Thus, in 9: 5 below, we 
 have κατὰ μέρος, meaning ‘particularly’ (περὶ ὧν οὐκ 
 ἔστε νῦν λέγειν κατὰ μέρος, “of which we cannot now 
 speak particularly”). The ὠσϑενείαε with which 
 Christ is here said to sympathize, are sufficiently de- 
 fined, by the connected idea, to signify not merely the 
 natural, external sufferings of our humanity, as cold, 
 heat, hunger, pain, but in addition, the trials and sor- 
 rows of the mind. Christ bore similar ὠσϑενεέως, yet 
 without sin. They are therefore those painful affec- 
 tions which are usually accompanied with sin, in our 
 fallen nature. How the divine Son could be better 
 adapted for this work of sympathy, by his incarnation, 
 has been explained above on ch. 2:17. Calvin re 
 marks, “Non quia opus talibus rudimentis habuerit 
 Filius Dei, sed quia nos aliter, quam de salute nostra 
 curam gerit mente, apprehendere non possumus.” The 
 connexion of thought between this verse and the pre- 
 vious one is not difficult: “We have a great High- 
 Priest, such a one that we should hold fast our profes- 
 sion of faith in Him; and we can thus prove His value, 
 because (γὰρ) He is a sympathizing High-Priest.” 
 
 V.16. Προςερχωμεϑα οὖν, “ Let us come there 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. Iv. v. 16. 169 
 
 fore” (because He is a sympathizing, and at the same 
 time a great High-Priest), μετὰ παῤῥησίας: “with 
 holy confidence or boldness,” “with confiding free- 
 dom.” The proper sense of this word has been suffi- 
 ciently explained above, in ch. 3: 6. 
 
 τῷ ϑρόνῳ τῆς χάρετος expresses God’s throne, con- 
 verted by Christ from a throne of judgment against 
 sinners, to one of mercy and grace, to which believers 
 have boldness and freedom of access. It is every way 
 probable that the author here has in his mind a refer- 
 ence to the mercy-seat in the old tabernacle, over 
 which the glorious symbol of the divine presence sat, 
 and to the intercession of the Jewish high-priest, which 
 he so fully discusses below. Perhaps he would here 
 suggest the contrast between our throne of grace, and 
 the old mercy-seat; for, to the latter none dared come 
 but the high-priest, and he but once a year (an idea 
 which the Apostle explains in 9: 7, 8 below), while to 
 our mercy-seat every believer may come with holy 
 freedom, at all times. The Apostle gives a similar ex- 
 hortation also at the close of this argument, 10: 19-22. 
 
 iva λάβωμεν ἔλεον, κιτ.λ., “That we may receive 
 mercy, and find grace.” Since sin stands between us 
 and every communication of the divine favour, the 
 bestowal of any grace or help implies an exercise of 
 mercy, of compassion and forgiveness towards our 
 guilt. "Whenever we seek for help, therefore, and not 
 only when we seek the pardon of sin, we tax the di- 
 vine mercy. Hence the next clause, εἰς εὔκαερον βοή- 
 decay, defines the end of both the preceding verbs. 
 
170 HEBREWS, CHAP. v. Vv. 1. 
 
 The preposition here expresses the end of the actions 
 preceding, and should be translated “for,” or “in or- 
 der to;” not with Stuart, “with respect to.” “That 
 we may receive mercy, and find grace for timely 
 
 assistance.” 
 
 V. 1 Πῶς yao coyuosds ἐξ ἀνθρώπων λαμβα- 
 νόμενος, ὑπὲρ ἀνϑρώπων καϑίσταταε τὰ πρὸς τὸν 
 ϑεόν, ἵνα προςφέρῃ δῶρώ τὲ καὶ ϑυσίας ὑπὲρ 
 
 2 ὡμαρτεῶν, μετρεοπαϑεῖν δυνώμενος τοῖς ἀγνοδῦσε 
 καὶ πλανωμένοις, ἐπεὶ καὶ αὐτὸς περίκειται ἀσϑέ- 
 3 γειων" καὶ διὰ ταύτην ὀφείλει, καϑὼς περὶ τοῦ 
 λαοῦ, οὕτω καὶ περὶ ἑαυτοῦ προςφέρεεν ὑπὲρ 
 4 ἁμαρτεῶν. Καὶ οὐχ ἑαυτῷ τὶς λαμβάνεε τὴν τε- 
 μήν, ἀλλὰ [ὁ] καλούμενος ὑπὸ τοῦ ϑεοῦ, καϑά- 
 ας 
 περ καὶ [Ὁ] ‘Aaoor. 
 
 V.1. γὰρ has here its usual causal force, which is 
 easliy perceived. As was stated in the Analysis, the 
 author, having drawn an exhortation from the preced- 
 ing topics, sustains it further by the subsequent devel- 
 opment of Christ’s priestly character, which he pre- 
 sents: “The previous exhortation is reasonable; for 
 Christ has the following characteristics as a High- 
 Priest.” Such seems to be the force of the connective 
 in this place. 
 
 Πᾶς ἀρχεερεύς. These words plainly intend Le- 
 vitical high-priests, as is evident from the defining 
 phrase, ἐξ ἀνϑρώπων λωμβανόμενος, and also from 
 the description of vv. 2, 3, 4. He is one who καὶ au- 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. v. v. 1. 171 
 
 τὸς megexeirac ἀσϑενείαν: he is under obligation to 
 bring a sin-offering for himself, as well as for the peo- 
 ple; and he does not take the honour to himself, but 
 receives it from God, like Aaron. “4oycegeis is often, 
 in the Gospels, employed to designate the heads or 
 chiefs of the twenty-four classes into which the Aaronic 
 priests were distributed. Thus in Matt. 2: 4, “ Herod 
 ... gathering together πώντας τοὺς ἀρχεερεῖς καὶ 
 γραμματεῖς τοῦ λαοῦ, inquired of them where Christ 
 should be born.” Matt. 26:38, Tore συνήχϑησαν οἱ 
 ἀρχιερεῖς, καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς, καὶ of πρεσβύτεροι TOU 
 λαοῦ. Mark 14:1, Καὶ ἐζήτουν of ἀρχεερεῖς καὶ of 
 γραμματεῖς, πῶς αὐτὸν ἐν δόλῳ χρατησαντὲς UNO#TEI- 
 γωσεν. And in Mark 14: 53, above quoted, we have 
 the word used in the singular of the high-priest, and 
 in the plural of the chiefs of courses. Sometimes 
 also it is used of those who had held the office of 
 high-priests, but, in consequence of the anarchy of the 
 times, had ceased to exercise it; or of such as were 
 substitutes. Such was Annas, possibly both an ex- 
 high-priest and a substitute, at times, for his son-in- 
 law, Caiaphas. In Luke 3:2, we find that John 
 began to preach “when Annas and Caiaphas were 
 high-priests” (ἐπὶ ἀρχεερέως “Avva καὶ Καϊάφα). In 
 John 18: 18, Caiaphas is said to be the high-priest for 
 that year; and Annas is his father-in-law. In Acts 
 4:6, Annas is called high-priest (in the same year), on 
 an occasion when Caiaphas was present. But properly 
 it denotes, as here, the head of the whole Aaronic min- 
 istry, “30 yan. This officer “is constituted in the 
 
172 HEBREWS, CHAP. v. v. 1. 
 
 stead of, or on behalf of, men (ὑπὲρ avitoanwy), for 
 those things that relate to God,” τὰ πρὸς τὸν ϑεόν. 
 iva προσφέρῃ δῶρώ te καὶ ϑυσίας ὑπὲρ ὡμαρτεῶν. 
 iva here points out the purpose of the high-priest’s 
 appointment. The two words δῶρά re καὶ ϑυσέίαε 
 embrace all kinds of offerings. The former, as distin- 
 guished from the latter, denotes unbloody offerings ; 
 such as the first fruits, the dough of the first reaped 
 corn, &e. In this place, of course, as the other word 
 is expressly added, δῶρα has its more limited and defi- 
 nite sense. But it is often general in its signification, 
 including all “ offerings,” as in ch.8: 4 below. θΘυσέαε 
 (from va) properly denotes bloody sacrifices, and is 
 generally so used when its sense is not figurative. For 
 instance, Luke 2: 24, the mother and reputed father 
 of Jesus brought him up to Jerusalem to offer a sacri- 
 fice, according to that which is said in the law of the 
 Lord (dodvac ϑυσίαν). In Hebr. 18: 15, 16, we have 
 an instance of its figurative use, where we are directed 
 to “offer through Christ the sacrifice of praise to God 
 continually, even the fruit of our lips;” and doing 
 good and communicating are called “sacrifices well- 
 pleasing to God.” But sometimes, also, ϑυσέαε ex- 
 presses generally all kinds of offerings, as in Mark 9: 
 49, πᾶσα ϑυσία ahi ἁλεσϑήσεται. Referring to Levi- 
 ticus 2: 13, we learn that such is its meaning in this 
 passage of Mark; and that the Septuagint have used 
 it in that place, as the translation of the Hebr. "Aya. 
 The words ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτεῶν, in the verse we are dis- 
 cussing, must be understood of course as depending on 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. v. V. 2. 173 
 
 ϑυσίωε alone: inasmuch as δῶρα here signifies those 
 gifts which were not proper “ sin-offerings.” 
 
 V. ὃ. μετριοπαϑεῖν δυνάμενος. This verb, ac- 
 cording to the classic usage, signifies “to moderate 
 one’s passions,” and designates the Platonic ὠπαϑῆς, as 
 distinguished from the Stoic. This verse is the only 
 one in the New Test. in which it occurs. In Josephus, 
 Jewish Antiq. lib. 12, ¢. ὃ, $2, it occurs in describing 
 the privileges offered to the Jews, after their rebellions 
 began: “ One may well be astonished at the generos- 
 ity of Vespasian and Titus, that, after so great wars 
 and contests which they had from us, they should use 
 such moderation.” The meaning in the place under 
 discussion seems to be, “to be kind or compassionate.” 
 Calvin says, “idem valere puto, acsi dictum est, accom- 
 modare se ad συμπαϑεῖαν." 
 
 τοῖς ἀγνοδῦσε καὶ πλανωμένοις. The former of 
 these participles is used by the Septuagint for 530 in 
 Levit. 5: 18, and in Levit. 4:13 for "30. The latter, 
 πλανωμένοις, is used by them chiefly for 77m. The 
 two words, as used here, seem designed to carry a 
 sense more comprehensive, like our modern phrase, 
 “spiritually blind and erring.” Man by nature is 
 darkened and depraved; and hence he needs an in- 
 tereessor who can be kindly to him in these defects of 
 his nature. 
 
 ἐπεὶ καὶ avros περίχειταε ἀσϑένειαν. 'The verb is 
 here used in a passive sense, “is surrounded,” and the 
 accusative expresses the remoter object affected by its 
 action. Verbs which in the active take two objects, 
 
114 HEBREWS, OHAP. V. Vv. 38. 
 
 one more direct and immediate, of the person affected, 
 in the accusative or dative, and another of the thing, 
 in the passive retain the latter. See Winer’s Id. New 
 Test. 882. ὅ, p. 179. Kiihner’s Gr. Gram. 8281. A 
 similar instance of this construction occurs in Acts 28; 
 20, τὴν ἅλυσεν ταύτην περέκεεμαε, “1 am encompassed 
 as respects this chain.” (In the active sense it would 
 be written, τὴν ἅλυσεν ταύτην περέκειταί με, “ He puts 
 around me this chain.” A like construction of the 
 accus. with a passive participle, may be seen in Hebr. 
 10:22, ἐῤρῥαντεσμένοε τὰς καρδίας ἀπὸ συνειδήσεως 
 πονηρῶς, “sprinkled, as respects our hearts, from an 
 evil conscience.” 
 
 Υ. 8. χαὶ διὰ ταύτην ὀφείλει, 4.0.2. ταύτην eVi- 
 dently points out ἀσϑενείων, which is to be supplied 
 to it; and the succeeding part of the verse as clearly 
 defines this ¢o’svecay to be moral infirmity, or sin; 
 for, on account of it, there was necessity for sin-offer- 
 ings: περὶ τοῦ λαοῦ... καὶ περὲ ἑαυτοῦ, “As on be 
 half of the people, so also on behalf of himself.” The 
 force of this preposition here is equivalent to that of 
 ὑπὲρ in similar constructions. From its primary sense 
 of “around,” easily comes the tropical sense, which it 
 has almost every where in Greek prose, of “about,” 
 i. e. the object about which as its causal point, or cen- 
 tre, the action concerns itself; and hence the nearly 
 allied senses of “on account of,” “on behalf of” Let 
 the reader consult John 11: 19, ive παραμυϑήσωνταε 
 ᾿αὐτὰς περὲ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτῶν, “that they might 
 console them about their brother.” Rom. 8: ὃ, “ God 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. v. v. 4. 175 
 
 sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and 
 for sin (καὶ πὲρὲ ἁμαρτίας), condemned sin in the 
 flesh.” 1 Pet. 8: 18, περὲ ducorias ἔπαϑε (Χριστός). 
 Acts 8:15, προσηύξαντο περὶ αὐτῶν, “who (the apos- 
 tles) prayed on their behalf” (i. e. of the Samaritan 
 converts). See Winer’s Id. New Test. $51. e & 1. 
 The account of these offerings for the high-priest’s own 
 sins may be seen in Levit. ch. 8, and ch. 16: 6, 11, 17. 
 The greatest care is not superfluous in fixing the sense 
 which Scripture usage gives to these prepositions, be- 
 cause it is by them that the ideas of substitution and 
 atonement are taught, in many important passages. 
 
 V.4. Kai οὐχ ἑαυτῷ τὶς haw Save, κιτιΔ. The 
 author has in mind the requisitions of the Jaw. No 
 one lawfully assumes the honour to himself. The 
 Apostle has not in mind those cases, so frequent in 
 the later days of the Jewish commonwealth, when 
 priests illegally intruded into the sacred office. They 
 are tacitly set aside, as being of course no priests in 
 the eyes of any intelligent and consistent Jew. There 
 is, therefore, no need to attribute to AauPavec here, a 
 subjunctive sense, as does Kuinoé]. The law appoint- 
 ing to the priesthood may be seen in Exod. 28: 1. 
 
 ὃ καλούμενος ... ὁ ‘Aagwy. . In many critical edi- 
 tions of the New Test. the articles are expunged before 
 these two words, on the authority of many Mss. ‘The 
 sense is little affected by their retention or rejection. 
 The doctrine is that every high-priest must, like Aaron, 
 receive his appointment from God. The Levitical in- 
 stitution derived all its authority from Him. 
 
176 ΒΕ ΒΕ Ws, OMAP. V. v. 5. 
 
 co ε ‘ © 2 ue 
 5 Οὕτω καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς οὐχ ἑαυτὸν ἐδόξασε γενὴ- 
 ~ , Ud » , c / , 
 ὅῆναε ὠρχεερέω, GAN ὃ λαλήσας πρὸς αὐτὸν" 
 ¢ ε 4 OF , \ ὩΣ , , 
 νέος μου εἰ σύ, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκα GE” * 
 
 o> 
 
 9. \ . ’ © , / ‘ (a4 \ « \ > ‘ 
 
 καϑὼς καὶ ἕν ἑτέρῳ λέγεε συ ἑερεὺυς εἰς TOY 
 
 Ἵ >~ \ \ iy . δέ ἥν ἘΝ γ - 
 «ἰῶνα xara τὴν ταξεν δῖΊελχεσεδὲκ Oc ὃν ταῖς 
 
 ε Δ - Ἁ « - , 
 
 ἡμέρωις τῆς σαρχὸς αὑτοῦ, δεησεις τὲ καὶ txETN- 
 , " ‘ ‘J ’ La > ‘ Ἴ , 
 
 ρίας πρὸς τὸν Ovvausvoy σωζεεν αὐτὸν ἐκ ϑανά- 
 
 Ἀ ~ ~ r 
 
 του, μετὰ κραυγῆς ἰσχυρᾶς καὶ δακρύων προς- 
 Ui ‘ > ων δ ἃ νὸς ~ 5) , ᾿ 
 
 ἐνέγκας, καὶ εἰρακουσϑεὶς απὸ τῆς εὐλαβείας 
 
 [9] 
 
 ' »” «" » ϑι-. κ. ἣ ” ‘ c 
 
 καίπερ ὧν vios, ἔμαϑεν ag ov ἔπαϑϑε τὴν ὑπα- 
 r ΕῚ 4 - , 
 
 9 κοὴν, καὶ τελειωθεὶς ἐγένετο τοῖς ὑπακουουσεν 
 > ~ ~ » ᾿ , > , 
 
 10 αὐτῷ πᾶσεν atrios σωτηρίας αἰωνέου,. προςαγο- 
 A c \ ~ ~ 3 Ἁ x Ἁ ΄ 
 
 ρευϑεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ ϑεοῦ ἀρχεερεὺς κατὰ τὴν ταξεν 
 
 Μελχεσεδέκ. 
 
 Υ. 5. γενηϑῆναε, “to be,” “to become,” in the 
 
 ? which is a most familiar 
 
 sense of “to be appointed ;’ 
 usage in many languages. Thus: Col. 1: 28, svayye 
 Riou... ow ἐγενόμην ἐγὼ Παῦλος δεάκονος, and y. 25, 
 (ἐκκλησίαν ἧς ἐγενόμην ἐγὼ δεώκονος. 
 
 GAR 6 λαλήσας πρὸς αὐτόν" υἱός μου, κιτ.2. The 
 quotation of this verse is from Ps. 2: 7. Some, as Cal- 
 vin, understand it as a proof here, of Christ’s appoint- 
 ment by God to his high-priesthood. But this seems 
 not to be the design of the author, nor fairly contained 
 in the quotation. (Indeed, the subject of the whole 
 second Psalm is rather Christ’s kingly office than his 
 priesthood.) The quotation is rather a periphrasis, to 
 express, rhetorically, Him who did appoint Christ, i. 6. 
 God. A similar periphrasis may be seen in vy. 7, πρὸς 
 τὸν δννώμενον σώζειν αὐτόν, z.r.A. In such a case 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. v. V. 6. 177 
 
 there is always some appropriateness in the attribute 
 or work, which is periphrastically put for the subject, 
 with respect to the matter the speaker has in hand. 
 Thus, upon these words (v. 7), Calvin remarks: “ His 
 verbis significat rite eum orasse, quia ad unum Deum 
 Liberatorem confugerit.” And so, in the verse under 
 discussion, the author uses the circumlocution with de- 
 sign to call attention to the fitness of the thing, in that 
 it was the Father who conferred this honour upon the 
 Son. The construction should be thus completed: 
 “Christ did not glorify himself to be made a high- 
 priest, but He glorified him (with this appointment) 
 who said unto him, Thou art my Son, to-day have I 
 begotten thee.” The proof that God did confer this 
 appointment is presented in the following verse. 
 
 V.6. χαϑὼς καὶ ἐν ἑτέρῳ, x.7.4. The author 
 now proceeds to establish his point, by this citation 
 from Ps. 110: 4. He uses the very words of the Sep- 
 tuagint. The reader will not be detained with any 
 discussion of the propriety of a messianic application 
 of this Psalm, which is most indisputably referable to 
 Christ, of all the Psalms. Hengstenberg may be con- 
 sulted upon it. The Apostle’s use of the two citations 
 is as though he had said, “ἢ who had first acknow- 
 ledged Christ as his Son, conferred on him the priest- 
 hood; of which last point here is the proof: that he 
 hath accordingly said to him, in another place, ‘Thou 
 art a Priest forever, after the order of Melchisedek.’” 
 
 κατὰ τὴν raéiv Μελχισεδέκ. The sense of this 
 peculiar expression will not here be insisted on, inas- 
 
 12 
 
178 HEBREWS, OHAP. Vv. Vv. 7. 
 
 much as the Apostle both explains and urges it below 
 in the seventh chapter. It is a translation of the He- 
 brew "1723752. Thus the third trait of a high-priest 
 is proved of Christ. 
 
 V.7. ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς σαρκὸς αὑτοῦ. These 
 words evidently express the days of his incarnation 
 and humiliation on earth. ‘The whole connexion 
 evinces this. 
 
 δεήσεις τὲ καὶ ἐκετηρίας way be most safely ex- 
 plained as synonymes, used thus to give the intensive 
 sense of most urgent prayers. Thus in v. 2 we saw 
 the two words ὠγνοῦῦσε καὶ πλανωμένοις used In a 
 similar way, and here χραυγῆς ἰσχυρᾶς καὶ δακρύων. 
 The agonizing supplications here instanced by the 
 Apostle, were doubtless those which~are related in 
 Matt. 26: 38, 39, 42, 44, and Luke 22: 42, 44, when 
 the Saviour prayed repeatedly, “O my Father, if it be 
 possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not 
 as I will, but as thou wilt ;” and perhaps we may also 
 include that recorded in Matt. 27: 46, “My God, my 
 God, why hast thou forsaken me ?” - 
 
 καὶ sicaxovotsic ἀπὸ τῆς εὐλαβείας. Some com- 
 mentators translate these words, “And was heard on 
 account of His reverence (or piety).” It must be con- 
 ceded that these critics have countenance in assigning 
 such a sense to ὠπό. We find it used to express the 
 reason (why or wherefore) of an action in Luke 19: 3, 
 Καὶ ἐζήτεε ἰδεῖν Ἰησοῦν τίς ἐστε καὶ οὐκ ἠδύνατο 
 ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄχλου, “and was not able because of the 
 crowd.” In John 21: 0, Ἔβϑαλον οὖν, καὶ οὐκέτε αὐτὸ 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. v. v. 7%. 119 
 
 ἑλκῦσαε ἰσχυσαν ἀπὸ τοῦ πλήϑους τῶν ἐχϑύων, 
 “They were not strong enough to draw it, because of 
 the quantity of fishes ;” and in Acts 22:11, Ὡς δὲ οὐκ 
 ἐνέβλεπον ἀπὸ τῆς δόξης τοῦ φωτὸς éxsivov, “ When I 
 saw not, because of the glory of that light,” &. And 
 the Vulgate renders the phrase under discussion, pro 
 sua reverentia. εὐλαβείας also has the sense of rever- 
 ence or pious fear in Hebr. 12: 28 below, which is the 
 only other place in the New Test. where it occurs. 
 And this sense is not unusual in classic Greek. The 
 verb εὐλαβέομαε is used only in Acts 23: 10, Πολλῆς 
 δὲ γενομένης στάσεως, εὐλαβηϑεὶς ὃ χελέαρχος, and in 
 Hebr. 11: 1, Νῶε... εὐλαβηϑεὶς κατεσκεύασε χεβω- 
 τόν, ἄτα., in the former of which places, certainly, and 
 in the latter most probably, it has the sense of mere 
 natural fear. On the other hand, the adjective εὐλα- 
 βὴς occurs in Luke 2: 25 of the venerable Simeon, in 
 Acts 2:5 of the devout Jews, and 8: 2 of the pious 
 persons who buried Stephen; in each place evidently 
 in the sense of “devout,” “God-fearing:” so that this 
 rendering could be sufficiently sustained by the usage 
 and syntax of the New Test. Greek, and is not in itself 
 inappropriate. 
 
 The larger number of interpreters, among whom 
 are Stuart, Bloomfield, and Calvin, interpret sésazov- 
 σϑεὶς as a ‘constructio pregnans, in the sense of 
 “was delivered,” and εὐλα, θείας as natural fear, put by 
 metonymy for ‘the thing feared” This sense of the 
 participle is illustrated by reference to Ps. 22: 22 (in 
 Engl. vers. v. 21), “Save me from the lion’s mouth ; 
 
180 HEBREWS, CHAP. Vv. V. 7. 
 
 for thou hast heard me from the horns of the uni- 
 corns,” where the verb "22°0in is placed to express 
 the parallelism to "2722 5%) "pa. Calvin remarks, 
 “Primum, simpliciter εὐλαβείωαν ponit; non suam: 
 Deinde, est ὠπὸ non ὑπέρ, aut aliquid simile, quod 
 causam designet.” (This reason, however, is hardly 
 valid, as may be seen by the places cited where eo 
 expresses “why or wherefore.”) “Quum igitur εὐλα- 
 βεία Grecis plerumque sit metus aut sollicitudo, non 
 dubito quin significet Apostolus, exauditum fuisse 
 Christum ex eo quod timebat, ne scilicet, malis obrutus 
 succumberet, vel morte absorberetur.” In this sense 
 of natural fear, εὐλαβεία 18 often employed in the 
 Septuagint and later classics; and such a metonymy 
 as is proposed, is not impossible. This, perhaps, is one 
 of the cases in which either of the senses proposed is 
 so consistent with the context and with usage, that it 
 is both unnecessary and difficult for the critical stu- 
 dent to decide between them. Stuart (in his Exeursus 
 XI.) remarks that the true point of difficulty is in the 
 question, “ What was it, which was the object of Christ’s 
 fear at this time, and from which he was delivered in 
 answer to his prayer?” He was not delivered from the 
 pangs of the vicarious death he expected, either bodily 
 or spiritual; for he bore them to the full. And this 
 difficulty, he adds, has been met by few or none of 
 the interpreters. The answer he gives, in accordance 
 with the rendering adopted by him, Calvin, and many 
 others, is, that the subject of Christ’s petitions here 
 was his fear lest the weakness of human nature should 
 
HEBREWS, OHAP. Vv. Vv. 1%. 181 
 
 sink under his agonies, before his crucifixion was ac- 
 complished, and so the plan preordained for his death 
 should be disappointed ; that he besought deliverance 
 from this premature failure of his human powers of 
 endurance, and that the answer is to be seen in the 
 fact noted Luke 22:48, “ And there appeared an 
 angel unto Him from heaven, strengthening Him.” 
 In a similar strain Calvin remarks, “Sed quomodo ex- 
 auditus fuit Christus e suo metu, quum mortem quam 
 horrebat, subierit? Respondeo; finem timoris spec- 
 tandum esse. Cur enim mortem refugiebat, nisi quod 
 in ea cernebat maledictionem Dei, quod cum scelerum 
 omnium reatu, ipsisque inferis luctandum erat? Hine 
 trepidatio et anxietas, quod Dei judicium plus quam 
 formidabile est. Ergo, quod volebat obtinuit, ut e 
 mortis doloribus victor emergeret, ut salvifica Patris 
 manu sustineretuy, ut post hoc certamen de Satano, 
 peccato et inferis gloriosum triumphum ageret.” 
 
 It may here be remarked, that we are not compel- 
 led to find some particular in which the prayer of the 
 Redeemer was distinctly answered, in order to satisfy 
 the meaning of the Apostle: for, first, to one who can- 
 didly reads the passages above cited from the Gospels, 
 and here evidently referred to, we think it will seem 
 much the more natural sense, that Christ’s human 
 nature shrank from the dreadful task he had piously 
 undertaken, and that he prayed, yet submissively, 
 that, if there were any proper way to evade it, he 
 might be permitted to do so. Of his human nature it 
 was true, as he remarked of his disciples, though true 
 
182 HEBREWS, OHAP. v. V. 7. 
 
 of him in a higher and sinless sense, that, “ while the 
 spirit was willing, the flesh was weak.” Second, if we 
 adopt the first interpretation above explained, ‘He 
 was heard because of his pious reverence,’ we are not 
 compelled to suppose that his prayer was answered at 
 all. The prayer of the pious man is often “heard,” 
 and accepted, but never directly answered, when the 
 objects of his desire are temporal, and such as may or 
 may not be agreeable to the better will and wisdom of 
 God. Many a follower of Christ has prayed, like his 
 divine Master, for deliverance from calamity (see 2 Cor. 
 12:7, 8), and God has affectionately received his 
 prayer, because it was offered in faith, love, and sub- 
 mission ; and yet has not directly answered it, but has 
 given instead the better gift of grace to endure the 
 calamity. It was from the overlooking of this truth, 
 that the supposed necessity arose, which these com- 
 mentators endeavour to meet. The question might 
 plausibly be asked, whether such submission in Christ, 
 to the enduring of a death which he had besought 
 leave to evade, was not the ὑπακοὴν which we are 
 told, in v. 8, ‘he learned from what he suffered’ “ He, 
 in the days of his incarnation, offered supplications and 
 prayers, with strong crying and tears, to Him who was 
 able to save him from death (the object of his fear, 
 and the thing from which he prayed to be saved), and 
 while he was heard on account of his reverential piety, 
 yet, though Son of God, he was taught submission 
 from the things which he suffered.” Such, we would 
 offer, with diffidence, as the fairest and most natural 
 

 
 HEBREWS, CHAP. v. V. 8. 183 
 
 paraphrase of this vexed passage. It has the advan- 
 tage, at least, of retaining for the prayers of Gethse- 
 mane, that sense which has usually been accepted as 
 the obvious one, by God’s people, in their un-critical 
 reading of the passage by the light of common sense. 
 
 Υ. 8. viocis here used without the article, as in 
 1: 1 above. His sonship to God is here obviously in- 
 tended, for God is the person addressed by his prayers. 
 
 ᾿ἔμαϑεν should be construed with ὃς in v. 7, as its 
 nominative. To press such a phrase to the refinements 
 of its meaning, would be uncritical. We are to take 
 it in the light of the Apostle’s scope. We are by 
 no means to understand him as teaching that Christ 
 learned submission by his sufferings, in the sense that 
 he was wrsubmissive before; and yet, we are author- 
 ized by Luke 2: 52 (‘Jesus increased in wisdom and 
 stature, and iz favour with God and man’), to believe 
 that, though the human nature of the Redeemer was 
 entirely holy from its beginning, there was a progress 
 and growth in its knowledge, and in the strength and 
 beauty of its graces; even as there is in “the spirits 
 of just men made perfect.” The Apostle’s intent may 
 be seen by referring to v. 2 above. The priest among 
 men is one who can have compassion on the ignorant, 
 and on them that are out of the way, for that he him- 
 self also is compassed with infirmity. And now, in 
 developing the resemblance of Christ to his type, he 
 should be simply and popularly understood as declar- 
 ing, that Christ, though he was νέός, condescended to 
 suffer, to submit his human will to God’s, and thus to 
 
184 HEBREWS, CHAP. ν᾿ Vv. 9, 10. 
 
 know from experience what were the trials of obe- 
 dience to which his people were subjected. The 
 Apostle, proceeding to take up the points of analogy 
 between the Jewish high-priest and Christ, in the in- 
 verse order to that of their first statement, thus estab- 
 lishes the second. (See Analysis above.) In vs. 9, 
 10, he now proceeds to the third point, which was the 
 first in his description of the human priest. ‘This point 
 is, that the priest from among men is one whose func- 
 tion is to minister between God and man at the altar, 
 to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. In the light of 
 this fact, the succeeding verses will be easily understood. 
 
 V. 9. τελεεωϑεὶς 18 translated by Calvin (who 
 perhaps looks at this whole passage too practically), 
 sanctificatus. Its proper force is, “perfected, or glori- 
 fied in heaven,” having finished his work on earth. 
 Referring to the remarks on τελεεῶσαε in 2: 10 above, 
 the reader will remember that the general idea found 
 in this verb was this: the bringing of an object to a 
 state of completeness appropriate to its proposed con- 
 dition, whatever that might be. The context there is 
 exactly similar to that of the text now under discus- 
 sion. There, the Captain of our salvation was_per- 
 fected through sufferings; here, it is by learning obe- 
 dience from what he suffered. 
 
 Vv. 9,10. These verses declare that Christ, now 
 glorified in heaven, procures salvation for all his peo- 
 ple, acting, by the appointment of God, as a High- 
 Priest forever after the order of Melchisedek. This 
 third and last statement involves so many important 
 
 γῶν EE νυνυ δον ψ θὰ 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. v. v. 10. 185 
 
 points of resemblance or contrast to the Levitical 
 priesthood, that the author occupies from ch. VII. to 
 X. 18, in developing them. They include the dig- 
 nity of the priest and the priesthood, the sanctuary in 
 which he officiates, and the nature and efficacy of his 
 services. 
 
 V. 10. προςζαγορευϑείς. There seems to be in 
 this word an allusion to Ps. 110: 4, which has been 
 already quoted by the author in proof of his position. 
 We understand it in the sense “appointed ;” since, in 
 the nature of the case, for God to call him High-Priest, 
 or salute him as such, is to appoint him to that. office. 
 
ΓΤ Vi. Lea W 1. ἀν 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 Tue author delays the discussion by stopping to 
 reprove the dulness of those whom he addressed, 
 5: 11-14, and to incite them to make higher attain- 
 ments, 6: 1-12. 
 
 Concerning Christ as a Priest he had much to say, 
 and difficult on account of their dulness; for (γὰρ) 
 whereas they ought to be teachers, they needed to be 
 taught the very elements of the oracles of God, and 
 to be fed on milk, not strong food, vy. 11, 19, Thus 
 were they dull; for (γάρ), (to make-an appeal to a 
 general truth, which confirmed his complaint in their 
 particular case), those that fed on milk were unskilled 
 in the word, for (γὰρ) they were babes; but strong 
 food was for the mature, who had senses trained by 
 habit to discern good and evil, vv. 13, 14. 
 
 Hence (4.0) he exhorts them to leave the ele- 
 ments, and go on to higher attainments, not always 
 working at the foundation only, ch. 6:1, 2. And 
 (in order to point them to their dependence on God 
 as the source of all grace, and prepare the way for the 
 first incitement which he offers), he adds: “This will 
 we do if God permit.” For (γάρ), Ist, there are 
 spiritual advantages and privileges, from which if men 
 apostatize, it is utterly impossible (in the economy of 
 the grace of God, who has thus ordained), to bring 
 
 — Ee 
 
CHAPS. V., VI.—ANALYSIS. 187 
 
 them again to repent; for (yao), speaking figuratively, 
 the well-watered and fruitful ground is blessed of God; 
 but that which, in spite of good culture and watering, 
 bears only thorns and briers, is rejected of Him, to be 
 cursed and burnt, vv. 3-6, 7, 8. But 2d (δέ), for 
 their encouragement, though he thus spake, he was 
 persuaded of better and saving things concerning 
 them. For God would not forget their. love shown 
 unto His name in both past and present services, vv. 
 9, 10. But yet (δὲ) he adds, he would have them 
 show this same zeal to be fully assured of their hope 
 unto.the end; that they might be, not sluggards in 
 the faith, but imitators of those who through faith and 
 patience inherit the promises, vv. 11, 12. 
 
 This last idea he proceeds, 3d, to illustrate and en- 
 force, in the remainder of the chapter. 
 
188 HEBREWS, CHAP. Ὁ. Vv. ll. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 11 Περὶ οὗ πολὺς ἡμῖν 6 λόγος καὶ δυςερμήνευτος 
 
 12 λέγειν, ἐπεὶ νωϑροὶ γεγόνατε ταῖς ἀκοαῖς. Καὶ 
 γὰρ ὀφείλοντες εἶναε διδάσκαλοι διὰ τὸν χρόνον, 
 πάλεν χρείαν ἔχετε τοῦ διδάσκειν ὑμᾶς, τίνα τὰ 
 στοιχεῖα τῆς ἀρχῆς τῶν λογίων τοῦ ὥεοῦ" καὶ 
 γεγόνατε χρείαν ἔχοντες γάλακτος, καὶ οὐ στερεᾶς 
 
 18 τροφῆς. Πᾶς γὰρ ὃ μετέχων γάλακτος, ἄπεερος 
 
 14 λόγου δικαιοσύνης " νήπεος γάρ ἐστε. Τελείων δέ 
 ἔστεν ἡ στερεὼ τροφή, τῶν διὰ τὴν ἕξεν τὰ αἰσϑη- 
 τήρεα γεγυμνασμένα ἐχόντων πρὸς δεώκρεσεν κα- 
 λοῦ τε καὶ κακοῦ. 
 
 V.11. Περὶ ov. This relative refers not to Mel- 
 chisedek, the nearest noun preceding it, but to Christ, 
 the ἀρχεερεὺς mentioned just before, who has been all 
 along the leading subject of discourse. This is shown 
 by all the following argument in chapters 7 to 10: 18. 
 
 δυςερμήνευτος means here, “hard to -expound.” 
 This difficulty arose not from the intrinsic nature of 
 the discourse the Apostle was about to hold, but from 
 their dulness of spiritual apprehension, as is distinctly 
 indicated by the Apostle in the next clause. 
 
 λέγειν is by some made to depend on λόγος, as 
 Stuart. They suppose an instance of ‘trajection’ of 
 words similar to some of those explained by Winer 
 (Id. New Test. $65). Others make it depend on dus- 
 ἐρμήνευτος, as Calvin, who translates, “ difficilis expli- 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. Vv. Vv. 12. 189 
 
 catu.” The latter construction is certainly to be pre- 
 ferred, for the reason that we are never to impute to 
 a writer any difficulty or irregularity of construction, 
 where the more natural and easy one will stand. A 
 trajection is certainly such an anomaly, though not un- 
 grammatical. Our construction makes the phrase a 
 somewhat redundant one, though not more so than the 
 other. It is favoured not only by the position of the 
 words, but by the reason closely conjoined, ἐπεί, &e. 
 
 vadoot. The meaning of this adjective and its de- 
 fining words, is sufficiently indicated in the following 
 context. They who should have been teachers, had 
 need to be taught the rudiments of Christianity. 
 ἀκοαῖς is evidently put for “perceptions,” for it is by 
 the hearmg we get our perceptions. The sense is, 
 “dull of perception.” In ch. 6:12 below, we have 
 the word νωϑροὶ used in the somewhat different sense, 
 of dulness as to Christian activities and the exercise of 
 gracious affections. 
 
 V. 12. εἶναε διδάσκαλοι διὰ τὸν χρόνον. duce 
 here indicates the ground or reason, just as it does in 
 v.14, διὰ ἕξεν. “Yea; for you, who, on account of 
 the time (you have been professing Christianity), 
 ought to be teachers, have again need of some one’s 
 teaching you,” &c. 
 
 τὰ στοιχεῖα τῆς ἀρχῆς Mean “first elements.” The 
 usage of orocyeic in this sense is frequent. (See Gal. 
 4:3, 9.) What these elements or rudiments were, 
 may be seen in 6: 1-3 below; namely, repentance 
 from dead works; faith upon God, the doctrine of bap- 
 
190 HEBREWS, OHAP. v. Vv. 138. 
 
 tisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the 
 dead, and eternal judgment. We have rendered ὠρχῆς 
 as equivalent to an adjective. According to this 
 Hebraizing usage, the property or quality of a noun 
 which would usually be expressed by an adjective, is 
 often in the New Test. expressed by a genitive. Thus, 
 in Luke 16: 8, we have οἰκονόμον τῆς ἀδικίας, for wn- 
 righteous steward. We have seen two similar exam- 
 ples also in our Epistle. In 3:1 we had ὠρχεερέα τῆς 
 ὁμολογίας ἡμῶν, for “high-priest professed by us;” 
 and in 4: 2, ὃ λόγος τῆς ἀκοῆς, for “the word heard.” 
 So στοιχεῖα ἀρχῆς for “first rudiments.” See Winer’s 
 Id. New Test. 884, 2. 
 
 τῶν λογίων τοῦ ϑεοῦ. These words (the oracles 
 of God), are used in Acts 7:88 (ὅς ἐδέξατο hoya 
 ζῶντα δοῦναε ἡμῖν), and in Rom. 3: 2 (Ἰουδαῖοε ἐπε- 
 στεύϑησαν ta hoyta τοῦ Hsov), to express the Serip- 
 tures of the Old Test.; and here, and in 1 Pet. 4: 11 
 (Ei reg λαλεῖ, ὡς λόγεα Hsov), they indicate the Serip- 
 tures in general, including the New Test. 
 
 V.13. Πᾶς γάρ. This verse is designed to en- 
 force and confirm the statements of v. 12, in which the 
 Apostle had argued the justice of the reproach he had 
 brought against them in verse 11, as being νωϑροί. 
 The charge was, “Ye are dull of perception.” The 
 proof of this charge (introduced by γὰρ) in v. 12 was, 
 ‘that when they were old enough Christians to be 
 teachers, they still needed to be taught the elements, 
 and were in a condition like that of infants, which can- 
 not eat strong food, but must still be nourished with 
 
HEBREWS, OHAP. v. v. 13. 191 
 
 milk. And such a state of things does prove the jus- 
 tice of the reproach of v. 11; for, says v. 13, (γὰρ) all 
 persons whose spiritual condition is thus like the bodily 
 condition of little infants, nursed at the breast, are 
 ἄπειρος λόγον δικαιοσύνης : they are spiritually γή- 
 aeoe. Ignorance is the characteristic of infants, to- 
 gether with feebleness of perception for what is not 
 simple” V. 13 therefore contains the major of the 
 syllogism. In such cases the illustrative force of γὰρ 
 is so prominent (where the argument is carried on by 
 an illustrative figure), that it may be well translated 
 by our particle ‘now, assumptive of a premise admit- 
 ted. This comparison of an immature Christian to an 
 infant, and of elementary truths to milk, may be found 
 alswtim Iu@ors 3°: 14-2, and’ 1 Pet: 2’ 2: 
 
 λόγου dwxacoovvyg. Many commentators (as 
 Abresch, Wahl, Ernesti, Kuinoél) understand these 
 words as intended to form an antithesis to re στοιχεῖα 
 τῆς ἀρχῆς, &e., and give them the same force with the 
 phrase τὴν τελειότητα, 6:1, which is contrasted. with 
 τὸν τῆς ἀρχῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ λόγον. So Calvin reads it: 
 “ Justitiz sermonem, justitie nomine perfectionem in- 
 telligens.” Again: “ Accipit hoe nomen pro integri- 
 tate cognitionis, que nos ad perfectionem ducit.” 
 This seems to us an incorrect refinement, if pushed too 
 far. No antithesis is necessary to preserve the consis- 
 tency of the sense; for even if we should so exclude 
 all antitheses, and so lower the sense of λόγου δεκαεοσύ- 
 yng, as to make it the same in sense with τὰ στοιχεῖα 
 τῆς aoxNs, π.τ.λ., the Apostle might still say of them 
 
192 HEBREWS, OHAP. Vv. Vv. 14. 
 
 that they were unskilled (ézecgoc) in it. Had he not 
 already said that ‘they again needed to be taught the 
 rudiments?’ The phrase, “ word of God,” often has 
 similar adjuncts. In Eph. 1: 13 it is called τὸν λόγον 
 τῆς ἀληϑεέας, as Well as in ὃ Tim. 2:15. In Phil. 2: 
 16 it is called λόγον ζωῆς. In Acts 20: 82 it is τῷ 
 λόγῳ τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ, as also in Acts 14: 8. This 
 last sense some commentators give to δωκαεοσύνης 
 here. In these cases, we decidedly prefer to regard 
 the genitive as objective, so that the force of the ex- 
 pressions is, “ Zhe word revealing truth, life, grace ;” 
 and here, “ Zhe word revealing righteousness.” And 
 in this sense, righteousness may be taken in its widest 
 meaning. Or if any prefer to consider these geni- 
 tives as simply attributive, the sense obtained will be 
 “yvighteous word,” like our modern phrase ‘holy word, 
 “holy scriptures,” denoting its perfect, excellent, and 
 truthful character. Thus a sense would be reached, 
 not very different from that of Calvin. 
 
 νήπιος. The sense here intended is sufficiently de- 
 fined by the context. It is here manifestly opposed to 
 Τελείων in v. 14, and is illustrative of ἄπεερος λόγον 
 δωκαιοσύνη. It may be illustrated by a reference to 
 1 Cor. 8:1, Kai ἐγώ, ἀδελφοί, οὐκ ἠδυνήϑην λαλῆσαε 
 ὑμῖν ὡς πνευματεκοὶς, GAN ὡς σαρκεκοῖς, ὡς νηπίοες 
 ἐν Χριστῷ, and to Eph. 4: 14, ive μηκέτε ὦμεν γνήπεοε, 
 κλυδωνεζόμενοιε καὶ περιφερόμενος παντὶ ἀνέμῳ τῆς 
 διδασκαλίας. The Hebrew Christians were ‘as an 
 infant in spiritual strength and knowledge.’ 
 
 V.14. Τελεέίων, as was remarked, is the antithe- 
 
 ee ee νὺΝ 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. v. v. 14. 193 
 
 sis of νήπεος, and is defined in the same verse to mean 
 ‘those who, by reason of use, have their senses exer- 
 cised to discern both good and evil’ The student 
 may compare 1 Cor. 2:6, Σωφέαν δὲ λαλοῦμεν ἐν 
 τοῖς τελείοις. 14:20, μὴ παιδία γίνεσθε ταῖς φρεσίν" 
 ἀλλὰ τῇ κακίᾳ νηπεάζετε, ταῖς δὲ φρεσὶ τέλεεοε γένε- 
 ods. Eph. 4:18, καταντήσωμεν of πάντες... εἰς 
 ἄνδρω τέλειον, and Phil. ὃ : 1ὅ, Ὅσοε οὖν τέλειοι, τοῦτο 
 φρονῶμεν. A comparison of all these places will show 
 that it refers to the knowledge of the Christian rather 
 than to his moral state, and that it signifies, not abso- 
 lute perfection, but Christian maturity. 
 
 διὰ τὴν ἕξεν, ‘On account of habit,’ ‘habitual use.’ 
 This noun is formed with this sense from ἔχω, just as 
 the Latin ‘habit’ is from habeo. The force of the pre- 
 position dzz here, has already been illustrated on the 
 words διὰ τὸν χρόνον, ν. 12. 
 
 αἰσϑητήρεα. This word has primarily the mean- 
 ing of ‘sensorium,’ and thence, ‘the faculty of percep- 
 tion.” Calvin remarks upon it, ‘Nec contentus men- 
 tem uno verbo dicere, sensus omnes ponit, ut ostendat 
 nunquam cessandum esse, donee undique verbo Dei 
 instructi armatique ad pugnandum simus, ne qua suis 
 fallacitis Sathan obrepat.’ The word is here used in the 
 plural, as we say “senses,” for the perceptive powers. 
 
 γεγυμνασμένα Is well rendered, in our English 
 version, “exercised.” Thus we find it used in Hebr. 
 12: 11, ‘No chastening for the present seemeth to be 
 joyous, but grievous; nevertheless, afterward it yield- 
 
 eth the peaceable fruits of righteousness, τοῖς δὲ αὐτῆς 
 13 
 
194 HEBREWS, CHAP. Υ. v. 14. 
 
 γεγυμνασμένοις. 1 Tim, 4:7, “ But refuse profane 
 and old wives’ fables, and exercise thyself rather unto 
 godliness,” Γύμναζε δὲ σεαυτὸν πρὸς εὐσέβειαν. 2 Pet. 
 2:14, καρδίαν γεγυμνασμένην πλεονεξίας ἔχοντες. 
 The reference is to the training of the γυμνασία. 
 
 πρὸς διώχρεσιν καλοῦ te καὶ κακοῦ, “to the dis- 
 crimination of the good and the evil,” i. 6. of moral good 
 and evil. ‘This phrase is evidently intended to express 
 a high degree of spiritual discrimination. This must 
 embrace a perception both of that which is evil and 
 of that which is good. Calvin well remarks: ‘ Neque 
 enim aliter in veritate rite edocti sumus, quam si ejus 
 preesidio muniamur adversus Satanze mendacia’ There 
 is a striking resemblance between this phrase and the 
 one in Gen. 3:5, by which Satan described the enviable 
 state which he falsely promised to Eve, on her eating 
 the forbidden fruit: ‘Ye shall be as gods, 79) 338 πο. 
 
 ‘ a] “l \ ~ > ~ ~ ~ 
 VI. 1. 400 ἀφέντες τὸν τῆς ἀρχῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ 
 ἌΝ, 
 
 lf Ud ’ / 
 λόγον, ἐπὶ τὴν réhscornta φερωμεϑα μὴ πάλεν 
 ld ~ 
 ϑεμέλεον κατωβαλλόμενοε μετανοίας ἀπὸ νεκρῶν 
 
 to 
 
 , ? “4 ~ ~ 
 ἔργων, καὶ πίστεως ἐπὶ Hsov, βαπτιεσμῶν δεδαχῆς, 
 > r ’ ~ γ , - x 
 ἐπεϑέσεως TE χειρῶν, ἀναστάσεως TE νεκρῶν, καὲ 
 
 eo 
 
 ? , σν» - “ 3 7 
 κρίματος αἰωνίου. Καὶ τοῦτο ποιήσομεν, ἐάνπερ 
 > og c Ud > ͵ Γ ‘ c ae 
 4 ἐπετρέπῃ ὁ soc. ᾿Αδύνατον yao, τοὺς «παξ φωτε- 
 , ͵ nj ΡΨ - ες 
 σϑέντας, γευσαμένους TE τῆς δωρεῶς τῆς ἐπουρα- 
 ᾿ , r / 
 viov, καὶ μετόχους γενηϑέντας πνεύματος ἁγίου, 
 ‘ ld ~ ~ 4 
 5 καὶ καλὸν yevoausvous sov ῥῆμα, δυνάμεις τὲ 
 4 >~ f ͵ 
 6 μέλλοντος αἰῶνος, καὶ παραπεσόντας Aah ava- 
 > ἢ : ~ ~ 
 xawivey sig μετάνοιαν, ἀνασταυροῦντας ἑαυτοῖς 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. Vv. 1. 195 
 
 ἢ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ϑεοῦ καὶ παραδειγματίζοντας. Γὴ 
 γὰρ ἡ πιοῦσα τὸν éx αὐτῆς πολλάκες ἐρχόμενον 
 ὑετόν, καὶ τίκτουσα βοτάνην εὔϑετον ἐχείγνοες, δὲ 
 οὖς καὶ γεωργεῖταε, μεταλαμβάνει εὐλογίας ἀπὸ 
 
 8 τοῦ ϑεοῦ" ἐκφέρουσα δὲ ἀκάνθας καὶ τριβόλους, 
 ἀδόκεμος καὶ κατάρας ἐγγύς, ἧς τὸ τέλος εἰς 
 καῦσεν. 
 
 Ch. VI.v. 1. Ζ4ωώ, ‘ Wherefore.” The exhortation 
 to go on unto perfection is in view of their νωϑρότης, 
 and consequent νηπεότης, which disqualified them for 
 the ready discernment of the στερεὰ τροφὴ with which 
 the author wished to instruct them, and kept them 
 back from the state of reAscoryg to which he wished 
 them to attain. 
 
 ἀφέντες. Many commentators render this, “ omit- 
 ting,” “passing by,” understanding the author to 
 propose to proceed to the discussion of higher doc- 
 trines than the elementary ones mentioned, which he 
 accordingly does. This is the opinion of Kuinoél and 
 Bloomfield, the latter of whom then makes the sen- 
 tence, ᾿δύνατον yao, &e. v. 4, depend on μὴ πάλεν 
 ϑεμέλεον βαλλόμενοι, x.r.4. As though the Apostle 
 reasoned, ‘Let us not lay again the foundation of re- 
 pentance, &c. because it is impossible to renew to re- 
 pentance those that fall away after,” &c.! Bloomfield 
 further says ἀφέντες can only mean “ pretermittentes,” 
 “passing over” (for the present); an assertion which 
 seems very strange, since, besides this sense, it means 
 “leaving,” not only often in the physical sense, but not 
 
190 HEBREWS, OHAP. VI. Vv. l. 
 
 unfrequently in any of the metaphorical senses of our 
 English verb, ‘to leave.’ A reference to any of the 
 Lexicons will establish this. Thus, as examples of the 
 primary and physical sense, see Matt. 8:15, καὶ ὠφῆ- 
 κὲν αὐτὴν ὃ πυρετός. (So in Mark 1:31, Luke 4: 39, 
 John 4:52.) Matt. 5:24, ἄφες ἐχεῖ τὸ δῶρόν σου. 
 John 4:3, ἀφῆκε τὴν Ἰουδαίαν. Matt. 4: 11, Tore 
 ἀφίησεν αὐτὸν ὃ δεώβολος. ν. 30, ἀφέντες τὰ δίκτυα. 
 As examples of the meaning to quit, or leave, in a 
 metaphorical sense, see Rom. 1:27, ἀφέντες τὴν 
 φυσικὴν χρῆσιν τῆς ϑηλείας. Matt. 28 : 98, it is used 
 in the sense of “neglecting:” “Ye tithe mint,” &e. 
 ...#al ἀφήχατε ta βαρύτερα tot νόμον. In Rey. 
 2:4, it is used in the sense of relinquishing: τὴν ὠγώ- 
 anv Gov τὴν πρώτην ἀφῆκας. This simple sense of 
 leaving we think more suitable to the context here, 
 which seems to require the hortatory interpretation of 
 the passage: “Leaving first principles, let us go on- | 
 ward to higher attainments.” It should be remem- 
 bered, however, that it is through the truth we are 
 sanctified ; through the Scriptures we are made wise 
 unto salvation. The exhortation is to a higher know- 
 ledge as a means of more grace. The two go in- 
 separably connected ; and this is the true idea of the 
 τελειότητα Which the author recommends below. Cal- 
 vin remarks here: “Jubet autem omitti ejusmodi rudi- 
 menta, non quod eorum oblivisci unquam debeant 
 fideles, sed quia in illis minime est herendum... 
 Nam in extruenda domo nunquam a fundamento disce- 
 dere oportet; in eo tamen jaciendo semper laborare 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. vI. v. 1. 197 
 
 ridiculum,... Similis est Christianismi ratio; nam 
 in rudimentis quasi fundamen; sed continuo post sequi 
 debet altior doctrina, que sedificium perficiat.”. We 
 do not conceive that the Apostle’s meaning could be 
 more accurately expressed, or made plain by a more 
 apt illustration. 
 
 This exhortation to leave first principles, not so as | 
 
 to forget them, but to go on to add to them higher 
 attainments, was suited to the state of the Hebrew 
 Christians, and the occasion; and is enforced by the 
 considerations presented in the following verses, 4-12. 
 
 The unsuitableness of these considerations to the other | 
 
 interpretation is not obviated by referring ’40vvaroy 
 yao (v. 4) to μὴ πάλεν ϑεμέλεον, κ-τ.λ. (V. 1), which, 
 with v. 8 intervening, is certainly very unnatural. 
 The obvious reference of the sentence δύνατον γάρ, 
 z.t.4. is to the purpose announced v. ὃ, τοῦτο ποιήσο- 
 μεν. And it is equally obvious that the thing which 
 the Apostle engages here that he and his readers will 
 do, is expressed by ἐπὶ τὴν redecoryra peqousda, ἴῃ 
 v.1. The exposition of vv. 3, 4, below, will further 
 evince this. 
 
 τὸν τῆς ἀρχῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ λόγον. These words 
 mean, substantially, ‘the first elements of Christ.’ Cal- 
 
 vin renders them ‘prima tirocinia.”’ They may be com- | 
 pared with τὰ στοιχεῖω τῆς ἀρχῆς, “first elements,” in | 
 
 5: 12, as they are obviously intended to express the 
 same idea. λόγον τοῦ Χρεστοῦ is, ‘ discourse about, or 
 doctrine of Christ, and ὠρχῆς is a genitive attributive, 
 giving the sense ‘initial doctrine.’ 
 
 — 
 
198 HEBREWS, OHAP. VI. Vv. l. 
 
 τελειότητα is the state of the τελεῖοιε in 5: 14; sig- 
 nifying an advanced state of spiritual knowledge, the 
 ultimatum of which is, of course, perfection in know- 
 ledge, and in the holiness which the truth produces. 
 
 geoousia is to be regarded as in the middle voice. 
 The Apostle exhorts, ‘Let us bear ourselves on;’ in 
 substance, “go on,” unto completeness. 
 
 μὴ addy ϑεμέλεον καταβαλλόμενοι, κιτ.Δ. The 
 sense in which the Apostle would not have them lay 
 again this foundation, has been already stated in the 
 remarks of Calvin, quoted on the preceding pages. 
 The Apostle evidently designs to offer the specifica- 
 tions which follow, as specimens of those στορχεῖα τῆς 
 ἀρχῆς, and of that τὸν τῆς ἀρχῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ λόγον, 
 which he has mentioned above. It>deserves to be 
 noted that the specimens are in pairs; and some pecu- 
 liar relationship will be seen to exist between the 
 members of each couplet. Repentance and faith, bap- 
 tism and imposition of hands, the resurrection and the 
 judgment, are kindred topics. The commentators 
 generally remark of these specifications, that the doc- 
 trines concerned in the acts mentioned, and not the 
 acts themselves, are intended by the Apostle. This 
 certainly applies to the last four, with all of which 
 διδαχῆς may be construed. In the first two there 
 seems to be something more actual. ‘The spiritual dis- 
 cernment described in 5: 14, implies a high degree of 
 grace as well as knowledge. Spiritual knowledge 
 and grace are inseparably connected (“ Whosoever be- 
 lieveth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God,” 1 John 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. V. 2. 199 
 
 5:1). They are both included in τελεεότητα, though 
 knowledge is more prominent. And in the following 
 context, the idea of the evercise of the actual graces or 
 their opposites, certainly prevails, rather than that of 
 a mere comprehension of their doctrine. 
 
 μετανοέας ἀπὸ νεκρῶν ἔργων, καί, x.t.4. The re 
 pentance and faith, therefore, are to be exercised, as 
 well as understood, in order to their becoming a part 
 of the ϑεμέλεον. The words here indisputably de- 
 scribe saving faith, and evangelical repentance. Two 
 meanings are assigned by the different commentators 
 to vexoay ἔργων ; that the acts of the impenitent man 
 are so called because they proceed from the spiritually 
 dead, or because they terminate in death. Either or 
 both of these ideas may be adopted. 
 
 V.2. Saaxreoporv. This word only occurs here, 
 and in Mark 7: 4, 8 and Hebr. 9:10. In the last 
 three places it describes the Jewish baptisms or wash- 
 ings of vessels, &c. In Josephus’ Jewish Antigq. L. 18. 
 6. 5. $2, it is used of John’s baptism. (The usual word 
 in the New Test. is βάπτισμα, βαπτεσμάώτων.) But 
 this is no sufficient reason for denying its applicability 
 here to Christian baptism, as is done by Schleusner. 
 For the context here almost demands this meaning; 
 since, as Stuart well observes, it would be hard to see 
 what Jewish ablutions have to do with the rudiments 
 of Christian character. And against this meaning 
 there is nothing in the word itself. While a reference 
 to Christian baptism cannot be excluded, the Jewish 
 and John’s baptisms are most probably to be also in- 
 
200 HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. V. 2. 
 
 cluded; for the discrimination of the two latter is 
 necessary to the understanding of the former. Hence, 
 most probably, the plural is used, and the apposite 
 adjunct, δεδαχῆς : the rationale of these different bap- 
 tisms being, as we may readily suppose, elementary in 
 the primitive Church. Others explain the use of the 
 plural here, as one of the frequent instances of the 
 plural for the singular. Thus, in Hebrew, we have 
 ὩΣ, ov; and in John 1:13, of οὐκ ἐξ aiuaror... 
 ἐγεννήϑησαν. See Winer’s Id. New Test. $27. 2. ὃ. 
 δεδαχὴς belongs doubtless to βϑαπείσμεων. Some 
 interpreters separate it, and translate it “elementary 
 instruction,” so as to read thus: “ Not laying again 
 the foundation ... of baptisms, doctrine, and imposi- 
 tion of hands,” ἄς. But the word thus explained is 
 too general to suit the design of the author in this 
 place; which is, to specify particularly the first rudi- 
 ments of Christianity which he wished his readers to 
 have mastered, so as to pass on to others. The three, 
 baptism, instruction, and laying on of hands, may how- 
 ever be taken separately, thus forming a triplet, which 
 would correspond with the other pairs of specifications. 
 But, for the reason given, the first construction is pre- 
 ferable. This subject of Christian baptism, like the 
 graces of faith and repentance, must be understood, 
 and the duty involved performed by the intelligent 
 convert, at the outset of his Christian life. It is there- 
 - fore called properly one of the ‘ first elements.’ 
 ἐπεϑέσεώς τὲ χειρῶν. This form had long been 
 known among the Jews, in pronouncing blessings 
 
HEBREWS, OHAP. VI. Vv. 8. 201 
 
 (Gen. 48: 14), and was still practised with this mean- 
 ing in New Testament times. (See Matt.19:13). It 
 was also the form in ordinations, as may be seen in 
 many familiar instances: and the apostles, at or after 
 baptism, frequently, though not uniformly, imposed 
 hands to communicate supernatural gifts. This is most 
 probably the thing intended here; and it was sup- 
 posed that the disciples would early become familiar 
 with it, because some Christians usually received these 
 supernatural gifts, at the first planting of the churches 
 by the apostles. 
 
 zolucaros αἰωνίου. 'These words doubtless refer to 
 the general judgment; and it is called eternal, because 
 it is held in that world, and its results are everlasting. 
 The doctrine of the resurrection of the body is here too 
 plainly indicated by ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν, to need any 
 remark. We have in these two verses an interesting 
 indication of the topics which formed the first instruc- 
 tions of the primitive preachers. A change of cir- 
 cumstances has doubtless rendered some of them less 
 important as first elements than they then were. “ 
 
 V. ὃ. τοῦτο ποιήσομεν. The Apostle speaks in 
 the first person, by a courteous χοεγνωσές: in order 
 both to convey an encouraging assurance of his confi- 
 dence in his readers’ future improvement, and to ex- 
 press a gentle exhortation. τοῦτο refers to what was 
 enjoined in the first verse: “We will go on to reAsco- 
 tyra. Upon the foundation of faith and repentance, 
 and the other great, elementary doctrines and duties 
 mentioned, we will go on to build complete Christian 
 
202 HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. V. 4. 
 
 character, ‘perfecting knowledge and grace, in the 
 fear of the Lord.” Hence the relevaney of— 
 
 ἑώνπερ ἐπετρέπῃ ὃ ϑεός. Tt was well to connect 
 with the expression of such a purpose, an acknowledg- 
 ment of dependence on divine help; both to remind 
 them of the necessity of seeking it, and to introduce 
 the awful truth by which the purpose is enforced. 
 Calvin well says, “Ita fulminat Apostolus, ne Judeei, 
 dum sibi nimium indulgent in sua oscitantia, Dei 
 gratia illudant: acsi diceret; non esse hice procrasti- 
 nandum, quia non semper futura sit propediendi oppor- 
 tunitas. Neque enim hoc in manu hominis positum, ut 
 quoties libuerit, a carceribus ad metam transiliat; sed 
 singulare esse Dei donum cursus nostri confectionem.” 
 
 V. 4. ᾿Αδύνατον yao. We have here the first 
 reason (introduced by γὰρ) for compliance with the 
 exhortation just addressed to his readers. The con- 
 junctive particle points back to τοῦτο ποιήσομεν. 
 (See Analysis.) 
 
 ᾿Αδύνατον is used in verse 18th of this chapter (ἐν 
 οἷς ἀδύνατον ψεύσασίϑαε ϑεόνν, i 10: 4 below C4dv- 
 γαάτον yao “ima ταύρων καὶ τράγων ἀφαιρεῖν auce- 
 τέως), and in 11:6 (χωρὶς δὲ πίστεως ἀδύνατον 
 εὐαρεστῆσαι), in the sense of absolute impossibility. 
 It has the same sense in Matt. 19: 26 (Παρὰ ἀνϑρώ- 
 now τοῦτο ἀδύνατόν ἐστιν, and in the parallel pas- 
 sages, Mark 10:27 and Luke 18:27. A similar 
 instance of its use may be found in Rom. 8: 3. In all 
 these cases it is neuter, and predicative; and is em- 
 ployed in an impersonal phrase. When used as a 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. V. 4. 203 
 
 qualificative adjective, it denotes impotency, physical 
 or spiritual, and assumes, like any other adjective, the 
 ‘accidents’ of its noun. Thus in Acts 14: 8 we read, 
 Καί τις ἀνὴρ ἐν Avoreos ἀδύνατος τοῖς ποσὶν éxa- 
 ϑητο. In Rom. 15: 1, we find it used im the sense of 
 spiritual weakness, Ὀφεέλομεν δὲ ἡμεῖς οἱ δυνατοὶ τὰ 
 ἀσϑενήματα τῶν ἀδυνάτων βαστάζειν. ‘There is no 
 reason for departing, in the place under discussion, 
 from the usage first stated. The reason of the impos- 
 sibility must always be sought in the nature of the 
 ease. Here it is found, not in any natural contradic- 
 tion and impossibility, such as that ‘a part cannot be 
 equal to its whole, but in the unchangeable ordination 
 of God as to the dispensation of His grace. He can re- 
 store from any apostacy, or subdue any obstinacy ; but 
 the Apostle teaches us that there are defections which 
 God will not heal, but leave to terminate in merited 
 perdition. The truth here taught is similar to that 
 more generally stated in the following passages: Gen. 
 6: 3, “ And the Lord said, My Spirit shall not always 
 strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days 
 shall be a hundred and twenty years.” Prov. 29:1, 
 “He that being often reproved, hardeneth his neck, 
 shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without rem- 
 edy.” Matt. 12: 81, “Wherefore I say unto you, All 
 manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto 
 men; but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall 
 not be forgiven unto men.” 1 John 5: 16, “ There is 
 asin unto death; Ido not say that he (the sinner’s 
 Christian brother) shall pray for it.”. And Hebr. 10: 
 
204 HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. V. 4. 
 
 26, 27, “For if we sin wilfully after that we have re- 
 ceived the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no 
 more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for 
 of judgment, which shall devour the adversaries.” A 
 long and peculiarly stubborn resistance of known duty, 
 may cause God to fix a righteous limit to his forbear- 
 ance, beyond which no saving influence of his grace 
 will come to the sinner; and though his life be still 
 continued beyond it, he is only awaiting a sure and 
 sudden destruction, either in a state of fatal indiffer- 
 ence, or of guilty but obdurate dread. And while a 
 peculiarly stubborn perseverance in the customary 
 sins of partially convinced unbelievers may bring 
 men, some sooner, others later, to this fatal limit, 
 there is one sin (Matt. 12: 31, 1 John 5:16), which 
 at once, whenever it is committed, places the sinner 
 beyond it. 
 
 φωτεσϑέντας, “Enlightened.” This word is used, 
 in the New Testament, of moral and spiritual illumi- 
 nation. In some cases it seems to intend a saving illu- 
 mination ; but in some it does not. Of the former we 
 have examples probably in Hebr. 10: 32 (τὰς πρότε- 
 gov ἡμέρας, ἐν ais φωτεσϑέντες πολλὴν ἄϑλησεν ὕπε- 
 μείνατε πεϑημάτωνν, and Eph. 1:18 (πεφωτεσμένους 
 τοὺς ὀφϑαλμοὺς τῆς καρδίας ὑμῶν, κιτ.λ.).. Of an 
 illumination not saving, expressed by this word, we 
 have examples in John 1: 9 (Ἣν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληϑενόν, 
 ὃ φωτίζεε πάντα ἄνϑρωπον, ἐρχόμενον sig τὸν κό- 
 σμονν, and Eph. ὃ : 9 (“To me, who am less than the 
 least of all saints, was this grace given, to preach, &e. 
 
HEBREWS, OHAP. VI. V. 4: 205 
 
 11. HAL φωτίσαε πάντας, τίς ἡ οἰκονομία τοῦ μυστη- 
 etou,” #.7..). 
 
 γευσωμένους, “ Experienced.” The same verb is 
 used 2: 9 above, where it is said that Christ “tasted 
 death for every man.” There, as here, it is construed 
 with the genitive; in John 2: 9 with the accusative: 
 ἐγεύσατο ὁ ἀρχειτρίκλενος TO ὕδωρ οἶνον γεγενημένον. 
 The two constructions seem to offer no difference in 
 sense. 
 
 τῆς δωρεῶς τῆς ἐπουρανίου. Some commentators 
 think that this heavenly gift is Christ, and cite his 
 words to the Samaritan woman, John 4: 10, Ed 70sec 
 τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ϑεοῦ, καὶ τίς ἐστεν ὁ λέγων Cot, x... 
 Others interpret it as meaning the Holy Spirit, espe- 
 cially in his extraordinary or miraculous influences ; 
 and cite the words of Peter to Simon Magus, Acts 8: 
 20, “Thy money perish with thee, ore τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ 
 ϑεοῦ ἐνόμεσας δεὰ χρημάτων “τασϑαωι. Stuart in- 
 terprets the phrase as meaning “the blessings or privi- 
 leges of the gospel,” “the privileges or means of grace 
 which the new religion afforded ;” and compares, as a 
 similar expression, the words κλήσεως ἐπουρανίου μέ- 
 rozot, in 3:1 above. Calvin interprets it as ‘Evan- 
 geli cognitionem,’ which is, probably, nearly correct. 
 
 μετόχους γενηθέντας πνεύματος ἁγίου. The in- 
 troduction of these words would seem to refute the 
 second of the interpretations offered above for δωρεῶς 
 τῆς ἐπουρανίου. The manifold operations of the Holy 
 Spirit are most probably here meant, ordinary (so to 
 speak) and miraculous. Stuart limits the meaning to 
 
200 HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. V. 5. 
 
 the last. These influences, whether we suppose the 
 ordinary or extraordinary, are not necessarily saving. 
 We have already seen, from Gen. 6: 3, that the Holy 
 Spirit strove with the condemned generation which 
 was destroyed by the flood; Balaam was a truly in- 
 spired prophet; Christ represents some as saying to 
 him, in the judgment, “ Lord, Lord, have we not pro- 
 phesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out 
 devils ? and in thy name done many wonderful works ? 
 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you; 
 depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” Matt. 7: 22, 
 23. One may “speak with the tongues of men and 
 of angels, and not have charity.” 1 Cor. 13: 1. 
 
 V. ὅ. καλὸν γευσαμένους ϑεοῦ ῥῆμα. Stuart, 
 Bloomfield, and others, understand by-the good word 
 of God here, especially the promises; but there seems 
 to be no sufficient reason for such a limitation. The 
 figure of tasting the word of God is not uncommon in 
 the Scriptures, to represent the reception of it. Matt. 
 4: 4 (quoted from Deut. 8: 3), contains a similar ex- 
 pression: “ Man shall not live by bread alone, but by 
 every word which proceedeth out of the mouth of 
 God.” Here, again, we have not a necessarily saving 
 trait. Many are spoken of in the Scriptures, as 7eceiv- 
 ing God’s word, who were no true saints. Matt. 18: 
 20, 21, “ But he that received the seed into stony 
 places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon 
 with joy receiveth it, yet hath he not root in himself,” 
 &e. The same expression is found, in substance, in 
 the parallel passage, Mark 4: 16, 17; and in Luke 4: 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. v. 6. 207 
 
 22 we read that when Christ expounded, in Nazareth, 
 Isaiah’s prophecy concerning Him, “all bare him wit- 
 ness, and wondered at the gracious words that pro- 
 ceeded out of his mouth.” 
 
 δυνώμεις μέλλοντος αἰῶνος. Some interpret this 
 expression (‘the powers of the world to come’) of 
 ‘miracles, and miraculous powers. Others, among 
 whom are Kuinoél and Bretschneider, of ‘the riches 
 or consolations of the gospel dispensation.’ Stuart ex- 
 plains it, taking μέλλοντος aiwyiov In its sense of ‘the 
 later dispensation,’ as including all gracious gospel in- 
 fluences which are not set down in the foregoing par- 
 ticulars. Bloomfield, Scott, and others, take it for the 
 powerful motives and supports drawn from a future 
 state. The first interpretation is the one most accord- 
 ant with the common use of δυνάμεις, and of the 
 phrase μέλλοντος αἰῶνος. The reader is referred, for 
 proof of this, to what is said on 2: 4,5 above, and 
 9:26 below. Itis there shown that δυνώμες, in the 
 singular, must usually be taken to mean miraculous 
 power, and in the plural miracles; and that αἰῶν ὁ 
 μέλλων, and kindred phrases, must most probably be 
 taken as equivalent to the Jewish expression for the 
 coming messianic economy 837 O3y. 
 
 V.6. zat. This connective seems here to have 
 the force of “and yet.” In the remarks on 8: 19 
 above, it was pointed out that xc, in addition to its 
 simple copulative force, often carries an additional 
 meaning, derived from the connexion of thought. 
 
 παραπεσόντας, ‘Falling away. This word is used 
 
208 HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. Vv. 6. 
 
 only here in the New Test. The Septuagint use it for 
 229, in Ezek 18: 24, which is rendered in our English 
 version, “But when the righteous turneth away from 
 his righteousness, and committeth iniquity,” &e. In 
 the passage under discussion, it denotes apostatizing 
 from the Christian faith and walk. The correspond- 
 ing expression in that passage, 10: 26-29 below, which 
 is so analogous to this, is, “If we sin wilfully after we 
 have received the knowledge of the truth,” &e. Cal- 
 vin remarks, “ Atque ut hoe melius intelligatur, sub- 
 audienda est antithesis inter Dei gratias quas recensuit, 
 et hunc lapsum. Labitur enim qui deficit a verbo 
 Domini, qui lucem ejus extinguit, qui se gustu doni 
 ccelestis privat, qui participationem Spiritus deserit. 
 Hoe autem est in totum Deo renuntiare. Nune vide- 
 mus quosnam a spe venize excludat, nempe Apostolas 
 qui se a Christi Evangelio quod prius amplexi erant, et 
 a Dei gratia alienirunt; quod nemini contingit, quin 
 peccet in Spiritum Sanctum.” 
 
 πάλεν qualifies ὠναχαινέζεεν. The primary and 
 local meaning is “back.” The derived, temporal 
 meaning is “again.” It here properly implies resto- 
 ration to a former state, and may be rendered by a 
 combination of the two meanings, “ back again.” 
 
 avaxaviley presents the meaning “renew,” or 
 ‘restore, with the idea of upward motion tropically 
 implied by ἀνώ, because a backsliding or apostacy is, 
 by a very natural figure, conceived of as a sinking 
 downward, and the restoration from it as a raising up. 
 This is the only place where the verb occurs in the 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. ΟὟ. 6. 209 
 
 New Test. The Septuagint employ it as a translation 
 for tn in Ps. 104: 30 (‘Thou (God) renewest the 
 face of the earth’), and for tynnm in Ps. 103: 5 (‘so 
 that thy youth is renewed like the eagle’s’). This in- 
 finitive here is properly governed by “40vvaroy as its 
 subject (not object; see Kihner’s Gr. Gram. $306. 
 1. c.), “To renew unto repentance those who, &.... 
 is impossible.” 
 
 εἰς with the accusative is properly used of the state 
 into which any thing passes; the meaning assigned it 
 in this place by Winer, Id. New Test. $53. a. (4). p. 
 317. It is used tropically of any object or aim. Here 
 it means, ‘into a state of repentance.’ 
 
 μετάνοιαν rust be here understood of genwine 
 gospa repentance, according to its uniform usage in 
 the New Test. This usage is more fully explored in 
 the comment on 12: 17 below, to which the reader is 
 referred. 
 
 ἀνασταυροῦντας 1s used only here in the New 
 Test. The common word in the Scriptures, for cru- 
 cify, is σταυρόω. Hence many commentators trans- 
 late the compound verb here, ‘to crucify again, afresh,’ 
 as our Engl. version ; taking @yc in the sense of repe- 
 tation, which it often carries in compounds. But in 
 classic Greek, ὠνασεαυρόω is the common word for 
 ‘crucify, and oreveow is used for driving stakes or 
 pales. Hence many translate ὠνασταυρόω here, sim- 
 ply ‘to crucify, attributing to ἄνα (as in this verb 
 among the classics) the idea of the lifting up which ae- 
 companied crucifixion. The first sense is preferable on 
 
 14 
 
210 HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. V. 6. 
 
 the ground of New Test. usage (though ἄνα certainly 
 does not always denote repetition in composition, by 
 any means), and it coheres best with the sense. The 
 Apostle’s meaning is not, as Bretschneider represents, 
 “that they make it necessary, in order to the atone- 
 ment of their sins, that Christ should be recrucified ;” 
 but they virtually incur the guilt which would attach 
 to his crucifixion a second time; since they act under 
 the same feelings as those who first did it—unbelief, re- 
 jection, contempt, and enmity to his righteous author- 
 ity and holiness. Hence the pronoun ἑαυτοῖς is intro- 
 duced. We prefer to take this as a dative incommodi ; 
 a construction which is explained in Winer’s Id. New 
 Test. $31: 1. A strong example of this construction 
 may be seen in Matt. 23: 81, στε μαρτυρεῖτε ἑαυτοῖς 
 (ye witness against yourselves), Ore viol ἔστε τῶν 
 φονευσάντων τοὺς προφήτας, “They crucify again, to 
 their own condemnation, the Son of God.” Calvin 
 with less accuracy says, ‘Quantum in se est.’ 
 παραδεεγματίζοντας means first ‘to make an ex- 
 ample of, and then, ‘to expose to ignominy.’ In the 
 New Test. it is used only here and in Matt. 1: 19, 
 where it is said that Joseph, being a just man, was not 
 willing to make Mary a public example (aagadseyua- 
 ricac) for her seeming infidelity. The Septuagint 
 employ it as a translation for 2>p'5 in Numb. 25: 4. 
 After the sin of the people with the daughters of 
 Moab, “The Lord said unto Moses, Take all the heads 
 (leaders) of the people, and hang them up before the 
 Lord against the sun.” It is used also in Jer. 13: 22 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. v. 6. 211 
 
 and Ezek. 28: 17, in the sense of ‘exposure to shame.’ 
 This is undoubtedly its meaning here. The Apostle 
 expresses intensely the implied meaning of the act the 
 Hebrew Christians would commit in deserting Christ. 
 It would imply that they had found him an impostor, 
 and now left him, as such, to all the popular scorn 
 which so vast and impious a cheat deserved. 
 
 The Apostle here incites his readers to onward 
 progress in the divine life, by admonishing them of 
 the ordination of God in the sovereign dispensation of 
 His grace, by which He leaves those who apostatize 
 from certain distinguished privileges and influences, to 
 perish in their sins. On this Calvin remarks: “Ta- 
 metsi durum hoe videtur, non est tamen cur Deum 
 insimulet crudelitatis quisquis talem dat defectionis 
 sue penam. Neque hoc pugnat cum aliis locis Scrip- 
 ture, ubi Dei miseracordia peccatoribus offertur simul- 
 atque ingemuerint. (Ezek. 18:27.) Ihc enim requi- 
 ritur pcenitentia, qua nunquam vere tangitur qui 
 Evangelio prorsus semel defecit. Tales enim Dei 
 Spiritu privati, ut mereatur, conjiciuntur in sensum 
 reprobum ut Diabolo mancipati ruere in suum exitium 
 pergant. ... Denique admonet Apostolus, pcenitentiam 
 non esse in hominis arbitrio, sed iis a Deo solis dari, 
 qui non prorsus exciderint a fide.... Rursum erucifi- 
 gentes sibi. Hoe quoque addit, ut Dei severitatem 
 vindicet ab hominum calumniis. Est enim indignum 
 ut Deus ignoscendo defectoribus Filium suum ludibris 
 exponat.” The degree of these spiritual advantages 1s 
 not determined; God only knows, as He has the right 
 
212 HEBREWS, OHAP. VI. V. 6. 
 
 to judge, how to apply the rule. We are persuaded 
 that those expositors who endeavour to fix and clear 
 up the exact meaning of all the conditions specified in 
 vy. 4-6, misapprehend the design of the Holy Spirit. 
 He has not intended to define exactly the line beyond 
 which we may not go without finally transgressing 
 His forbearance, in order that the uncertainty may 
 produce a more salutary fear; while he has given us 
 abundant warning of such a danger, and of the direc- 
 tion in which it lies. The general scope of the in- 
 struction here is this: “Go on unto perfection, lest 
 God, provoked by your sloth, leave you, justly, to fall 
 away and perish.” To professors, not yet fully assured 
 of their hope, it ought, as the Apostle designed it, to 
 be peculiarly stimulating. That such-was the exact 
 condition prevalent among the persons addressed, is 
 implied in v. 11: “ We desire that every one of you 
 do show the same diligence to the full assurance of 
 hope unto the end.” The following verses, 7, 8, serve 
 to illustrate the warning. 
 
 Many infer, from vv. 4—6, that true Christians may 
 fall from the grace of God, and perish in their sins. 
 On this we submit the following observations. 
 
 I. Conceede that true Christians are meant, and 
 that the passage does teach that they may fall away 
 and perish; it is much more certainly taught, then, 
 that they cannot be brought again to repentance. To 
 
 
 
 render ‘4dvveroy “very difficult,” is to violate usage, 
 and dilute the sense too much for the context. The 
 qualifying phrase of v. 3, ‘If God permit,’ supposes a 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. V. 6. 213 
 
 contingency in which God would withdraw His grace, 
 and further_ spiritual progress become consequently 
 impossible. ‘The illustrations in vv. 1, 8, are of the 
 same import. It would follow then, on this interpre- 
 tation, that such are the methods of God’s grace, that 
 lapsed Christians cannot be restored. This doctrine is 
 more t than the Arminian i is willing to believe. It can 
 only nly be Ὁ avoided, by supposing that the spiritual ad- 
 vantages mentioned were peculiar, perhaps even to the 
 apostolic age; and then by drawing the infer ence 
 that if such might fi ill, muc much_more might ordinary 
 Christians now, to ) whom, it might be said, the impos- 
 sibility of restoration would not at least necessarily 
 apply, on that supposition. We deny that this suppo- 
 sition is capable of proof from the terms employed. 
 There is amongst the commentators, both Arminian 
 and Calvinistic, the greatest diversity of opinion as to 
 their real import, when severally considered. 
 
 II. Allowing to this supposition, however, all 
 that it can justly claim, and still conceding that true 
 Christians are described in the passage, we deny 
 that the admonition which it contains necessarily 
 supposes that true Christians could in fact finally fall 
 away. 
 
 1. It is not credible, in the first place, that the 
 Apostle would teach contrary to the doctrine of the 
 Saviour, of the other inspired writers, and of himself; 
 of himself even in this Epistle. The well-known words 
 of the Saviour in John 10: 27-29, we hold can never 
 be tortured into any other sense, than that His true 
 
 
 
 i 
 ! 
 q 
 ἢ 
 | 
 ' 
 
 «πων ον, 
 
214 HEBREWS, OHAP. VI. V. 6. 
 
 sheep are infallibly preserved from total and final 
 apostacy: “My sheep hear my voice, and I know 
 them, and they follow me: And I give unto them 
 eternal life ; and they shall never perish, neither shall 
 any pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which 
 gave them me, is greater than all; and none is able to 
 pluck them out of my Father’s hand.” It is the doce- 
 trine also of the other inspired writers, in both dispen- 
 sations. (Ps. 37: 28, 24), “The steps of the good man 
 are ordered by the Lord, and he delighteth in his way. 
 Though he fall, he shall not be utterly cast down ; for 
 the Lord upholdeth him with his hand.” (1 John 2: 
 19), “They went out from us, but they were not of 
 us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt 
 have continued with us; but they went out that they 
 might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” 
 It is the doctrine of Paul himself (Rom. 14: 4), “ Yea, 
 he shall be holden up; for God is able to make him 
 stand.” See also the well-known passage in Rom. 8: 
 35-389. It is Paul’s doctrine even in this Epistle: 3: 6, 
 “Whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence,” 
 &e.; where it is implied that perseverance to the end 
 is the test which decides whether. we were. true.mem- 
 bers of the household of faith. ‘The same idea is re- 
 peated in 3: 14, and implied in 10: 39. 
 
 2. The affirmation that if they fell away, they 
 could not be renewed unto repentance, does not neces- 
 sarily teach that they could fall away. It is the doe- 
 trine of both the Old and New Testaments, that if a 
 man keep the law, he shall live by it. (Levit. 18: 5, 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. v. 6. 215 
 
 Gal. 3:12.) It is equally the doctrine of both, that 
 no man can or will keep it and live. 
 
 3. God’s purposes embrace the means of their 
 accomplishment, and establish the efficiency of those 
 means. And though both purposes and means are, in 
 the divine arrangement, certain, they are in themselves 
 (so to speak) contingent; and the end is, by the ap- 
 pointment of God, dependent on the means. Language 
 may properly be used of them in accordance with this 
 mutual dependence of means and end. For example: 
 in Paul’s voyage to Rome, it was revealed to him that 
 the lives of all the men in the ship should be saved, 
 but the ship lost. The result was certain in the divine 
 purpose and foreknowledge; the means to effect this 
 result were equally determined in the divine mind ; 
 yet when the crew were about to flee out of the ship, 
 Paul said to the centurion and the soldiers, “ Except 
 these abide in the ship, ye cannot be saved.” In them- 
 selves, humanly considered, the crew might flee out, 
 and consequently, the centurion, soldiers, and prison- 
 ers be lost; but as a matter of fact, it was certain, in 
 the ordination of God, that they would remain; as 
 much so as that the whole company would conse- 
 quently be saved. Surely Paul, by his contingent ex- 
 hortation, meant to teach nothing to the contrary; 
 and if not there, why does he necessarily imply any 
 thing here contrary to the certain perseverance of true 
 believers? This object is secured by God, in part at 
 least, through the means of motives. Believers are 
 not kept in a state of grace by irrational constraint, 
 
216 HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. Vv. 6. 
 
 as a wild beast is chained to a post, or confined ina 
 cage; but God makes use of hope and fear, a sense 
 of self-interest, and conscience of duty, with them, as 
 rational beings, to continue freely and spontaneously 
 in his service. Now the addressing of this hope and 
 fear to their minds implies, of course, that God shall 
 speak to a true Christian as though there were danger 
 of Ais apostatizing, and falling into perdition. Yet it 
 is the purpose of God to employ the fear of that dan- 
 ger (which, in the nature of things, and apart from 
 the divine determination, is actual), certainly to cause 
 his continuance in well doing. God’s addressing warn- 
 ings of apostacy to believers, as though they might 
 fall, does not therefore imply that any such actually 
 will fall. Now, the persons here addressed by the 
 Apostle were professors of a Christian hope. They 
 entertained at least some hope of their own gracious 
 state; many of them, in the judgment of charity, 
 might be presumed to be true saints. It was 
 proper, therefore, that when spoken to collectively, 
 they should be addressed as believers. Yet, if any 
 among them were self-deceived, as was every way 
 probable, it was possible (both according to human 
 nature and the divine ordinations), that they might 
 apostatize and be lost; and therefore it was reason- 
 able to warn them of this danger, upon the principles 
 of the Calvinist. 
 
 ΠῚ. But it is not only incapable of proof that true 
 Christians are here contemplated as actually capable 
 of falling (though we admit that all classes are em- 
 
 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. Vv. 6. 217 
 
 braced in the admonition), but there are strong reasons 
 to the contrary. 
 
 1. There is nothing said of their being regener- 
 ated, justified, sanctified. The terms employed are of 
 general and undefined import, implying high privi- 
 leges, it is true, but nothing necessarily or certainly 
 that is saving. The only phrase apparently to the 
 contrary is, ‘to renew them again to repentance. As 
 the repentance here named is indisputably true, evan- 
 gelical repentance, the πώλεν seems to some to imply 
 that persons in a truly penitent state are here intend- 
 ed. But the phrase ‘to renew them again’ finds a 
 sufficient explanation in their former profession and 
 acknowledged standing; while the latter clause, ‘to 
 renew them’ “wnto repentance,” designates a limit to 
 which their renewal cannot reach; but it does not 
 assert that they had ever attained to that limit. 
 
 2. The illustrations of vv. 7, 8, seem to distinguish 
 very clearly between those who, being in a gracious 
 state, enjoy the favour and blessing of God, and those 
 who, being spiritually destitute and barren, are cast 
 off and destroyed. The unfruitful ground there cer- 
 tainly represents and corresponds to the apostatizers 
 here, against whom the admonition is directed. But 
 they are strange Christians, who bring forth only 
 “thorns and briers!” 
 
 3. The persuasion which the Apostle expresses 
 concerning the Christian state of his readers, in con- 
 nexion with the grounds of it, bears strongly the same 
 way. “ Better things” distinguished them in his esti- 
 
218 HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. Vv. 6. 
 
 mation, ‘even things belonging unto salvation.” The 
 grounds of this good opinion are past and present good 
 works, which God would remember, vv. 9, 10. 
 
 It may not be said that, if the persons in ques- 
 tion were only formalists and hypocrites, they ought 
 to fall away; the Apostle exhorts them all, profes- 
 sors of Christ as they were, to hold on and press 
 forward. 
 
 To conclude: We have only to consider the pres- 
 ent actual state of things in any of the churches, to see 
 the propriety of the exhortation before us. Many are 
 deceived, few are assured; all have partially corrupt 
 hearts, and are surrounded on every side by spiritual 
 enemies and adverse influences. Such was the state 
 of the Hebrew Christians. (See Introduction, p. 5, 
 and compare v.11, below.) Well then may the Apos- 
 tle exhort them collectively to lay off sloth, and go on 
 to perfect knowledge and holiness in the fear of the 
 Lord; admonishing them of this fearful principle in 
 the administration of His grace, by which apostacy © 
 from certain distinguished privileges seals the destiny 
 of the soul forever. Many, like Calvin, think that this 
 danger is only imminent over those who commit the 
 sin against the Holy Ghost; and this sin many con- 
 fine to the apostolic age. But we profess not to know 
 certainly what the sin against the Holy Ghost is, any 
 more than we can define the precise degree of spiritual 
 illumination, gifts, and influences, from which a man 
 may not apostatize without fixing his eternal doom. 
 Besides: the apostle John speaks (1 John 5: 16) of 
 
HEBREWS, ΘΈΑ Ῥ. Ἄς: v. 7. 219 
 
 ‘a sin unto death, which is no more understood; and 
 every sinner who perseveres in impenitence, fills up his 
 measure by death, if indeed many do not long before 
 reach the point where God says of them, ‘ My spirit 
 shall not always strive ;’ ‘Ephraim is joined to idols, 
 let him alone.” From a comparison of these passages 
 with Prov. 29: 1, “He that being often reproved, hard- 
 eneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that 
 without remedy,” it seems that there are other ways 
 of coming into a state of eternal, inexorable condemna- 
 tion, this side of death, besides that of ‘sinning against 
 the Holy Ghost.’ We can therefore only say, in the 
 spirit of the Apostle’s admonition, ‘ Let us not be slug- 
 gards, but fear.’ We may pass the fatal limit before 
 we or any one isaware. Let us improve our privileges 
 of grace, lest God withhold his aid, and leave us to 
 perdition. 
 
 V.%. Γῆ yao ἡ πιοῦσα, κιτ.λ. To resume the 
 Commentary: the verses 7, 8 are intended to illus- 
 trate, and thereby confirm the solemn admonition 
 which we have considered. Hence γὰρ introduces 
 them, with the sense of “for,” or “for instance.” Here 
 the fruitful ground represents those hearers who re- 
 ceive the word into good hearts; hearts made good, 
 of course, by the grace of God. Upon these his grace 
 and blessing abide. The unfruitful ground represents 
 the class against whose sin and doom the Apostle is 
 admonishing his readers, viz. those who, however fair 
 their professions, and however highly favoured with 
 privileges, bring forth nothing but dead works, and, 
 
220 HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. v. 7. 
 
 being rejected of God, are overtaken with a destruc- 
 tion swift and terrible, like that of fire. 
 
 βοτώνην is used here only in the New Testament. 
 But the sense of the verse sufficiently defines it to be 
 any kind of vegetation εὔϑετον γεώργοις. The He- 
 brew word, 22, exhibits a similar use. In classic 
 Greek usage of the word, ‘bread grains’ are excluded ; 
 and it expresses plants other than the ‘cereals,’ 
 
 δὲ οὖς is rendered in the English version, ‘ by 
 whom ;’ which is an unwarrantable departure from 
 the regular usage of διὰ with the accusative. We 
 render it, ‘on whose account, ‘for whom, it is tilled. 
 The sense is more natural and easy, especially when 
 we remember that, in the author’s day, the farm-labour 
 was generally done by other hands than those of the 
 proprietor himself, for whom the crops were reared ; 
 and when so fair a sense is obtained, we are not author- 
 ized to obtain a different one, by departing from the 
 usual force of the construction. 
 
 μεταλαμβάνεε εὐλογίας, z.1.4., ‘Participates in 
 blessing from God. ‘The figure must not be too liter- 
 ally pressed. Good ground, under God’s providential 
 favours, yields abundantly ; it is cherished by the hus- 
 bandman, and the smiles of God seem to rest upon it. 
 Here is sufficient ground for the figurative application, 
 in the mind of a pious Hebrew, which was both agri- 
 cultural, and devout, in all its turns of thought. With 
 the diversified and artificial occupations by which hu- 
 man sustenance is now earned, and the less reverential 
 and simple spirit which characterizes the civilized races 
 
 ας δ οὖν. 
 
HEBREWS, OHAP. VI. Ve 8. 221 
 
 of men, we at our day can scarcely appreciate that 
 affectionate and direct sense of the divine hand in his 
 harvests, which was felt by the ancient Hebrew farmer. 
 The Apostle’s allusion here is doubtless to this simple 
 and devout feeling of the fathers, as it is expressed, for 
 instance, by Isaac, Gen. 27: 27, “See; the smell of 
 my son is as the smell of a field which the Lord hath 
 blessed.” 
 
 V. 8. ἐχφέρουσα δὲ ἀκάώνϑας καὶ τριβόλους, 
 ‘Thorns and {Π|50165.5 These are fit emblems, as con- 
 trasted with valuable and edible plants, of the dead 
 works of souls still spiritually dead. The blossoms 
 may be fair, and even the fruit may seem attractive 
 externally ; but they are, so to speak, God’s curse: 
 upon the earth for man’s sin. Thus (Gen. 3: 18) we 
 read that a part of the curse pronounced upon the 
 ground for Adam’s sake, was, ‘Thorns also, and this- 
 tles, shall it bring forth to thee.” So apostates bring 
 forth, in the sight of God, only evil fruit: the ‘tree is . 
 evil.” In this illustration which the author gives of 
 his intent, we have strong evidence that the character 
 above described was not that of a truly regenerate 
 man. While the character opposite to it yields good 
 fruit, this produces just that spurious fruit which the 
 Saviour had used to illustrate the works of the self- 
 deceiver or hypocrite: ‘Men do not gather grapes of 
 thorns, or figs of thistles. How strange is such fruit 
 from a tree at one time good! 
 
 ἀδόκεμος is applied in the classics to coin assayed 
 and rejected. Its accurate meaning seems to be, “ that 
 
222 HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. V. 8. 
 
 cannot bear the test,” “that fails of passing muster,” 
 and hence, “ rejected.” This seems to be the sense in 
 all the passages of the New Test. except, perhaps, Titus 
 1:16 (zal πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαϑὸν ἀδόκιμοι). Refer 
 to Rom. 1: 28, 1 Coy. 9: 97, 2 Cor. 13: 5, 6, 2 Tim. 
 3:8. The expression, ‘nigh unto cursing, is the con- 
 trast to that in the parallel part of the illustration, 
 ‘receiveth blessing from God’ 
 
 ἧς τὸ τέλος εἰς καῦσεν. This expression is gener- 
 ally explained as a Hebraism, like the phrase "92> 775, 
 which we find for instance in Is. 44: 15, translated by 
 the Septuagint, 7 εἰς καῦσεν. Here, again, we must 
 not press the figure unnaturally. The ground must 
 be taken for the vegetation which grows upon it. 
 Unfruitful, thorny ground, which, in- spite of good 
 seed, careful cultivation, and seasonable showers, bears 
 only noxious weeds, is cast out of tillage, and burned 
 over, in order to destroy the pests it has produced. 
 Thus it seems not to have the blessing of Providence 
 or the favour of man attached to it. Thus will God 
 treat those men, who, after enjoying abundant privi- 
 leges, and showing at first plausible but delusive ap- 
 pearances of holiness, finally yield the fruits of a sinful 
 life. They are given up to sin, and finally, at some 
 unexpected hour, utterly destroyed; in order that their 
 evil fruits may not be propagated farther. 
 
 
 
 , ~ << ~ > , ‘ , 
 9 Texsiousda δὲ περὶ ὑμῶν, ἀγαπητοί, τὰ κρείττο- 
 > U , > co ~ 
 va καὶ ἐχόμενα σωτηρίας, εἰ καὶ οὕτω λαλοῦμεν. 
 ‘ oO Ll , s - 
 10 Οὐ γὰρ adixos ὃ ϑεός, ἐπελαϑέσϑαε. τοῦ ἔργου 
 
HEBREWS, OHAP. VI. Vv. 9. 223 
 
 ~ ~ U ~ 3 r re > Te 
 ὑμῶν καὶ [τοῦ κόπου] τῆς ἀγάπης, ys ἐνεδείξασϑε 
 ” ~ r a , 
 
 εἰς TO ὄνομ αὐτοῦ, δεακονησαντὲς τοῖς ἁγίοις καὶ 
 ~ 5) ~ , “ ἐδ ~ 
 11 διακονοῦντες. Κπεϑυμοῦμεν δέ, ἕκαστον ὑμῶν 
 
 a γ ? \ \ \ 
 τὴν αὐτὴν ἐνδείκνυσϑαε σπουδὴν πρὸς τὴν πληρο- 
 12 φορίαν τῆς ἐλπίδος ἄχρε τέλους " ἵνα μὴ νωϑροὶ 
 φορίαν τῆς ἐλπίδος ἄχρε τέλους" ἵνα μὴ νωϑροὶ 
 
 ~ \ , 
 γένησϑε, μεμηταὶ δὲ τῶν δεὰ πίστεως καὶ μακρο- 
 , Li \ > , 
 ϑυμίας κληρονομουντων τὰς émayyEhias. 
 
 V.9. Ππεπείσμεθα δέ, κιτ.λ., “We persuade our- 
 selves.” This phrase, as with us, often expresses the 
 surest conviction. Thus, in Rom. 8: 88, “For I am 
 persuaded (πέπεεσμαε yao) that neither death nor life, 
 &e. shall be able to separate us from the love of God, 
 which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Rom. 14: 14, 
 “JT know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus (Οἶδα, 
 καὶ πέπεεσμεκε), that there is nothing unclean of itself.” 
 2 Tim. 1: 12, “ For I know whom I have believed, and 
 am persuaded (καὶ πέπεεσμαε) that he is able to keep 
 that,” &e. In other cases, the verb imports only a 
 conciliatory persuasion or confidence, based on good 
 grounds, as in this instance, for the encouragement of 
 those respecting whom it is expressed. This seems to 
 be the meaning in Rom. 15: 14 (“For I myself also 
 am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye also are 
 full of goodness,” &e.), 2 Tim. 1:5 (“the unfeigned 
 faith ... which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, 
 and thy mother Eunice, and I am persuaded that in 
 thee also”), and in this place. We are, then, to under- 
 stand here not an infallible conviction, but a strong 
 persuasion, based on good reasons given in v.10. And 
 
224 HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. v. 10. 
 
 the Apostle should most probably be understood as 
 expressing this persuasion of the body, and not of 
 particular individuals. 
 
 κρείττονα, ‘Better things. That is, better things 
 than such an apostacy and such an end. This is de- 
 fined to be the meaning, by the explanatory words 
 added, καὶ ἐχόμενα σωτηρίας, which is very properly 
 rendered by the lexicons generally, “things that (hold 
 of ) pertain to: salvation.” Things having a certain 
 connexion with the salvation of the soul are obviously 
 intended. : 
 
 εἰ καὶ would literally mean, ‘if also ;’ 
 
 hence 
 ‘although’ This sense attaches similarly to our Eng- 
 lish expression, ‘and if? Thus: “And if J do speak 
 thus, still Iam persuaded better things of you,” &e.; 
 where the sense is, ‘although I speak thus.’ 
 
 V. 10. Ov ἄδιχος ὁ ϑεός. Some interpreters 
 translate this adjective, “God is not unkind,” and re- 
 fer, for support, to such a supposed meaning in the 
 Hebrew px, and in δέκαιος, Matt. 1:19 (Ἰωσὴφ δὲ 
 ὁ ἀνὴρ αὐτῆς, δέκαεος ὧν καὶ μὴ ϑέλων «ὐτὴν maga- 
 decyuarioac), md 1 John 1: 9 (Ἐὰν ὁμολογῶμεν τὰς 
 ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν" πιστός ἔστε καὶ δίκαιος, ἵνα Ugh 
 ἡμῖν τὰς ἁμαρτίας, &e.). But it may be doubted 
 whether it has the sense of “unkind,” in either of the 
 passages quoted. In the latter it is connected with 
 πιστὸς (a connexion which compels us to give it its 
 proper meaning of ‘just’), and the sentiment is the 
 antithesis of the one before us. As God’s fidelity and 
 justice are concerned, and not his mercy only, in the 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. vi. v. 10. 225 
 
 pardon of sin, since pardon has been promised on cer- 
 tain conditions, and purchased by the work of Christ, 
 which is imputed to us; so here, his justice, as well as 
 his goodness, prompt him not to forget the affectionate 
 and sincere services of his children. As sinners, we 
 deserve nothing from God but wrath; but. He is faith- 
 ful and righteous to fulfil His covenant with His people 
 in Christ. The act of a benefactor in entering into 
 engagements with his beneficiary may be wholly gra- 
 tuitous; and yet, out of that act, rights may grow up 
 to the beneficiary. The advantages thus acquired are 
 not the less gracious, because they have become rights ; 
 for they originated in free grace. Yea, the free grace 
 is enhanced by this very trait, that it does not merely 
 make the beneficiary a tenant by sufferance, but gen- 
 erously gives a perfect right to the advantages confer- 
 red. Here it is asserted of God that he τον not do the 
 injustice which would be implied in the breach of his 
 gracious covenant with his people. 
 
 τοῦ κόπου. ‘These words are wanting in several 
 ancient Mss. and most of the ancient versions of the 
 New Test. Critics who reject the words account for 
 their presence in the other numerous Mss. by suppo- 
 sing that they were interpolated by some early copyist, 
 from 1 Thess. 1: ὃ (ὑμῶν τοῦ ἔργου τῆς πίστεως, καὶ 
 τοῦ κόπου τῆς ἀγάπης, &e.). But it is more easy and 
 natural to suppose that the various reading has arisen 
 from the liberty which has been taken in transcription 
 to prune a supposed pleonasm, than from such an in- 
 terpolation from a passage which has no particular 
 
 15 
 
226 HEBREWS, CHAP. vi. v. ll. 
 
 resemblance likely to be suggested by this place, ex- 
 cept in these words alone. We therefore retain the 
 words, as in the Zertus Feceptus, and render them as 
 equivalent to ‘affectionate labour, in accordance with 
 the use of the genitive attributive frequently seen. 
 True, Christian, and not natural affection, is of course 
 intended; the e@yaay of 1 Cor. 13; as is proved by the 
 succeeding words, ἧς ἐνεδεέξασϑε εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ. 
 Their good works were done out of ἃ love to God in 
 his people. 
 
 διακονήσαντες καὶ διακονοῦντες. These partici- 
 ples, the one past and the other present, are correctly 
 translated in our Engl. version, ‘in that ye have minis- 
 tered to the saints and do minister” Good works in 
 past time, still persevered in, were the visible ground 
 of the Apostle’s good persuasion concerning them. 
 They might possibly be deceptive in some cases ; but 
 he was judging by the Master’s rule: “ By their fruits 
 ye shall know them.” (See Matt. 7: 15-20.) 
 
 V.11. Ἐπεϑυμοῦμεν δέ. The Apostle here far- 
 ther asserts his zeal for their Christian perseverance 
 and final salvation, and adds, as a more grave stimulus 
 to the encouraging opinion which he had just ex- 
 pressed of them, the implied truth that these promis- 
 ing labours of Christian benevolence must be continued 
 to the end of life, with persevering industry, in order 
 to inherit the promised reward. It is as though he 
 had said, “ While I thus console you under a necessary 
 rebuke, and cheer you on, by admitting the encour- 
 aging promise of your Christian character in this re- 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. v. 12. 227 
 
 spect, let me not be understood as though you might 
 now relax your zeal and repose on your rewards; 
 for it is only by persevering and growing in sim- 
 ilar labours to the end, that an assured hope is 
 properly sustamed, and the reward finally secured. 
 This is now the object of my Christian anxiety for 
 you.” 
 τὴν αὐτὴν σπουδήν, ‘Exhibit the same zeal,’ which 
 they had shown in the labours of Christian benevo- 
 lence referred to. Calvin remarks on these words, 
 ““Sedulo, ne déessent hominibus vestra officia, laboras- 
 tis: sed non minore studio Incumbere vos decet ad 
 fidei perfectionem, ut firmam plenamque ejus certitudi- 
 nem approbetis Deo.” 
 
 πρὸς τὴν πληροφορίαν τῆς ἐλπίδος. We here 
 
 ᾿) . . . . 
 indicating the design, 
 
 translate πρός, “respecting ;’ 
 or end to which the will is directed. This is the sense 
 assioned it in this place by Winer, Id. New Test. 
 $53. ἢ. (Ὁ), ‘Exhibit the same zeal towards the fudl 
 assurance of hope, ἄορ. The noun πληροφορίαν occurs 
 below in 10: 22, and in 1 Thess. 1: 5, Col. 2: 2, in 
 the same sense. It is not found in the classic Greek 
 writers. 
 
 ἄχρε τέλους is dependent on évdstzvvaitat, ‘ Ex- 
 hibit unto the end’ (scil. of your life, or Christian 
 probation). It thus makes the verb more emphatic. 
 
 V.12. νωϑροὶ conveys prominently the idea of 
 being ‘slow,’ ‘sluggard’ The Apostle would have 
 them set full assurance before them, as a point sedu- 
 lously to be striven after, ‘in order that (iva) they 
 
228 HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. v. 12. 
 
 might not be slow, dull Christians, but imitators of 
 those who inherit the promises dca πίστεως καὶ μα- 
 xoodumias. 
 
 τὰς ἐπαγγελίας is put by metonymy for ‘the thing 
 promised ;’ the heavenly rest. 
 
CHAPTER VI. 18—VII. 10. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 Tue Apostle, in his exhortation to higher advances 
 in the divine life, had just held up for imitation, “those 
 who, through faith and patience, inherit the promises” 
 (v.12). To illustrate and enforce this (vag), he se- 
 lects the example of Abraham, who received the prom- 
 ise confirmed by an oath (vv. 13, 14), and accordingly 
 (ovrw), after patient expectation amidst trials and dis- 
 couragements, obtained the fulfilment (v. 15). He 
 thus, in the selection of his example, brings to view at 
 the same time the certainty of the promise, as an addi- 
 tional incentive to his readers. This he confirms by 
 unfolding the rationale (γὰρ) (v. 16) of the divine 
 transaction in the matter: Men swear by Him that is 
 greater, and the oath establishes the point; wherefore 
 (Ἐν ᾧ) God, in order to show to the heirs of the prom- 
 ise the immutability of His will, interposed with an 
 oath, that by a double assurance, in which it was im- 
 possible for God to lie, we might have strong consola- 
 tion, who have fled for refuge to the hope which He 
 holds out (vv. 16-18) ; a hope, he adds, which we have 
 as an anchor to our souls, and which embraces heay- 
 enly things in the sanctuary above, whither Jesus has 
 gone before us, and for us, being a High-Priest forever 
 after the order of Melchisedek (vv. 19, 20). And thus 
 he is brought back to his argument, at the point where 
 
230 CHAPS. VI, VII.—ANALYSIS. 
 
 he left it (compare on 5: 9,10), and in terms which 
 prepare the way (γὰρ) for the logical assumption of it. 
 
 The statement (6:20) that Christ was, after the 
 order of Melchisedek, a High-Priest forever, claims 
 for Him a priesthood superior to the Levitical. This 
 superiority he proceeds to illustrate and establish in 
 ch. 7, first, by explaining Melchisedek’s typical priest- 
 hood, and comparing it with that of Aaron (vv. 1-10). 
 The connexion may perhaps be better exhibited thus: 
 “Jesus is High-Priest forever after the order of Mel- 
 chisedek (6: 20); for this Melchisedek, king of Salem, 
 a priest of the most high God (who met Abraham re- 
 turning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed 
 him, and whose name being interpreted is king of 
 righteousness, and king of peace), being without father, 
 mother, beginning of days or end of life, because a 
 type of Christ, abideth a priest forever.” (7: 1-38). 
 The Apostle therefore commences by detailing the 
 historic circumstances of the type, explaining the name 
 of Melchisedek, and his being king of Salem, as, in im- 
 portant senses, typical; and by declaring that his 
 standing, in the historical account of him, without 
 genealogy, without origin or end, but made like (i. e. 
 a type of ) the Son of God, was designed to constitute 
 him (though only in a typical sense, of course,) a 
 priest forever (vv. 1-3). He then directs attention 
 more fully to the type, in view of other historical cir- ° 
 cumstances, and in comparison with the Levitical 
 priesthood, and shows his superiority (vv. 4-10). 
 1. (a) How great was he to whom Abraham, the 
 
CHAPS. VI, ΥΙΙ.---ΑΝ ΑΤΎΒΙΒ. 231 
 
 patriarch, paid tithes? The Levitical priests indeed, 
 in virtue of ther office, receive tithes of their brethren, 
 although descended equally with themselves from the 
 loins of Abraham; but here, one that had no gene- 
 alogy (to boast), tithed Abraham himself, and further- 
 more, (@) blessed him who had the promises: and 
 without controversy, the less is blessed of the greater 
 (vv. 4-7). 2. Inthe one case, men that die receive 
 tithes, but in the other, he who, according to the ac- 
 count, still liveth (v. 8); and 3. We may say that 
 through Abraham, even Levi, who receives tithes, was 
 tithed, for he was yet in his father’s loims when Mel- 
 chisedek met him (vv. 9, 10). 
 
232 HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. Vv. 138. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 ~ \ , , ’ 
 13 Τῷ yao ‘ASoaau ἐπαγγειλάμενος ὃ ϑεός, ἐπεὶ 
 2 , Age ” 
 κατ᾽ οὐδενὸς εἶχε μείζονος ὀμόσαε; ὥμοσε καϑ' 
 ~ Γ > ‘ ~ ΄ 
 14 ἑαυτοῦ, λέγων" “Ἢ μὴν εὐλογῶν εὐλογήσω σε, 
 ‘ / Ld ~ 4 
 15 καὶ πληϑύνων πληϑυνῶ os.” Kai οὕτω paxgo- 
 “ > ~ ἢ , 
 ϑυμήσας ἐπέτυχε τῆς ἐπαγγελίας. 
 
 V. 13. yee. The force of this connective in this 
 place has been indicated in the Analysis. It may be 
 regarded as related to évdsixvvotac or to μὴ vad oot 
 γένησθε μεμηταὶ δὲ of vy. 11, 12; for they both ex- 
 press nearly the same proposition, the one affirma- 
 tively, and the other negatively. And the conjunction 
 now introduces the illustrative reason for persevering 
 in zeal, which is found in the history of Abraham: 
 ‘I desire each one of you to be persevering, faithful, 
 and patient; for (γάρ), it was by such a course that 
 Abraham obtained the promise confirmed to him by 
 the oath of God’ | : 
 
 εἶχε... ὀμόσαι. The former of these verbs here 
 expresses an external, or objective ability: ‘Since he 
 had not to swear, in the sense of ‘could not swear, 
 It is equivalent to ἐπεὲ οὔδενα μείζονα εἶχε xa οὗ 
 ὀμόσεεε, for which it may be considered as an ellipsis. 
 The reader may compare Matt. 18: 25, My ἔχοντος δὲ 
 «αὐτοῦ ἐποδοῦναε, ‘But he not being able to pay, 
 John 8: 6, ive ἔχωσε κατηγορεῖν «αὐτοῦ. 2 Pet. 1: 15, 
 
 « - » \ .8 Υ̓͂ — 9. ‘ h 
 ὑμᾶς ἔχεεν τὴν τούτων μνημη» ποιεῖσθαε, ‘that you 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP:' VI. 16. 399 
 
 may be able to recollect these things’ In all the 
 instances of this construction, ἔχω is followed by the 
 infinitive. The usage is a classic as well as a biblical 
 one. 
 
 καϑ' ἑαυτοῦ. In this construction the force of 
 xara is usually ‘down upon,’ and hence simply ‘ upon,’ 
 as in Mark 14: ὃ, καὶ συντρίψασα τὸ ἀλάβαστρον, 
 κατέχεεν αὐτοῦ κατὰ τῆς κεφαλῆς. So in Josephus, 
 B. J., B. 2. ¢. 3, 89. In Isaiah 45:23 and 2 Chron. 
 36: 13, the same construction is used for ‘swearing by 
 God,’ as a translation for "my? "2. 
 
 V.14. ἢ μὴν is often used in the classics, in seri- 
 ous, emphatic affirmation. 
 
 εὐλογῶν εὐλογήσω (‘ Blessing, I will bless thee’). 
 This construction is of course Hebraistic here, as it is a 
 quotation from Gen. 22: 17, where the Septuagint, as 
 in many other places, has imitated the use of the He- 
 brew infinitive absolute. But it was also not uncom- 
 mon in the classic Greek writers, as in Herod. B. 5. 
 $95, φεύγων ἔχφευγεε. The participle undoubtedly 
 expresses, in most cases, an additional emphasis: ‘I 
 will richly bless thee, and greatly multiply thee’ See 
 Winer’s Id. New Test. $46. 8, p. 277. 
 
 V.15. Kai οὕτω refers to the faithfulness of the 
 promise, as confirmed by the oath: ‘In accordance 
 with this promise and oath, Abraham obtained the 
 thing promised.’ 
 
 μακροϑυμήσας expresses, ‘to be long-suffering,’ 
 and thence ‘to be patient,’ or, ‘patiently to wait for.’ 
 This sense we see in James 5:7, 8, Μαχροϑυμήσατε 
 
284 HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. v. 16. 
 
 οὖν, ἀδελφοί, ἕως τῆς παρουσίας τοῦ HUQLOV.» « μακρο- 
 ϑυμήσατε καὶ ὑμεῖς, στηρέίξατε τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν, &e. 
 “And thus, when (or because) he waited patiently, 
 he obtained,” &e. 
 
 τῆς ἐπαγγελίας. This is used by metonymy for 
 the fulfilment, or the thing promised; viz. a seed 
 (Isaac) in whose posterity the promise was fulfilled. 
 
 16 νϑρωποε μὲν γὰρ κατὰ τοῦ μείζονος ὀμνύουσι, 
 καὶ πάσης αὐτοῖς ἀντελογίας πέρας εἰς βεβαίωσεν 
 
 17 ὁ ὅρκος. Ἐν ᾧ περισσότερον βουλόμενος 6 ϑεὸς 
 ἐπιδεῖξαι τοῖς κληρονόμοις τῆς ἐπαγγελίας τὸ με- 
 
 18 τάϑετον τῆς βουλῆς αὑτοῦ, ἐμεσίτευσεν ὅρκῳ, ἵνα 
 διὰ δύο πραγμάτων ὠἀμεταϑέτων, ἐν οἷς ἀδύνατον 
 wsvoaota ϑεόν, ἰσχυρὰν παράκλησεν ἔχωμεν ot 
 καταφυγόντες κρατῆσαε τῆς προκεεμένης ἐλπίδος" 
 
 19 ἣν ὡς ἄγκυραν ἔχομεν τῆς ψυχῆς ἀσφαλὴ τὲ καὶ 
 βεβαίων, καὶ εἰφξερχομένην εἰς τὸ ἐσώτερον τοῦ 
 
 20 καταπετάσματος, ὅπου πρόδρομος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν εἰς- 
 ἤλϑεν Ἰησοῦς, κατὰ τὴν τάξεν Μελχεσεδὲκ ἀρχεε- 
 ρεὺς γενόμενος εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. : 
 
 V. 16. «¢ βεβαίωσιν. These words should be 
 construed as dependent upon ὠντελογίας πέρας, rather 
 than ὅρκος, as our English translation renders it. Had 
 the latter been the construction which the writer in- 
 tended, the arrangement of the words would have 
 been, according to general usage, ὁ εἰς βεβαίωσεν 
 ὅρκος. By adopting the former construction, also, the 
 proper force of the article before ὅρκος is more easily 
 
τ ναι We, CRAP. τ ας απ wht 235 
 
 preserved: “ Zhe oath is the end of all controversy 
 unto confirmation.” εἰς here expresses the end or issue. 
 The connectives μὲν γὰρ introducing this verse, refer 
 to ὥμοσε καϑ' ἑαυτοῦ in the previous ; for the scope 
 of the verse is to give an explanatory confirmation 
 how it was that God ‘ swore upon himself” It was be- 
 cause an oath among men gives certainty to the point 
 sworn to; and God wished to give the heirs of the 
 promise the comfort of a similar, and even greater 
 certainty. 
 
 V.1%. Ἐν o. Bretschneider’s Lex. and Winer’s 
 Id. New Test. ($52. 3, p. 811) translate these words 
 literally, ‘gua in re, Calvin, ‘7m quo?’ Robinson’s Lex- 
 icon renders them “wherefore.” Kiihner, in his Gr. 
 Gram. $289. 1. (8.) (¢.), gives some countenance to 
 such a sense, by saying that ἐν is used ‘to denote con- 
 formity ;’ a sense which would give here about this 
 rendering: ‘In accordance with which fact’ (the effect 
 of an oath among men), ‘ God interposed with an oath,’ 
 &e. But it is abundantly established by the gram- 
 matical authorities that ἐν is not unfrequently used of 
 the ground, occasion, motive, &c. So here, Ἐν ᾧ, ‘In 
 regard of which,’ ‘wherefore. With such a render- 
 ing, it is easy to comprehend to what the relative re- 
 fers, viz. to the fact stated in v.16. But with the 
 sense of Bretschneider, &c., it would not be easy to 
 give it a natural reference to any thing in the context. 
 
 ἐμεσίτευσεν. This word carries primarily the sim- 
 ple sense of ‘mediated, whence, without straining, it 
 derives the sense ‘intervened, or ‘interposed, with an 
 
236 HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. v. 18. 
 
 oath. In illustration of the word Bretschneider com- 
 pares Josephus, Antiq. Jud. B. 4. ¢ 6. $7, ταῦτα 
 ὀμνόντες, ἔλεγον καὶ ϑεὸν μεσίτην ὧν ὑπισχνοῦντο 
 ποιουμένοι. The translation of the common English 
 version, ‘and called God for the arbitrator of what 
 they promised,’ is only ad sensum. According to this 
 example from Josephus, the phrase under discussion 
 would seem to mean, ‘He made some one a mediator, 
 by the oath” As God is the Saviour, of course he can 
 bring in no higher, and accordingly he must interpose 
 Himself as a mediator. So that, at any rate, an in- 
 transitive sense is acquired to the verb. The English 
 version can scarcely be justified; and the sense first 
 assigned is undoubtedly the preferable one. 
 
 V.18. διὰ δύω πραγμάτων. What are these two 
 transactions? Almost all the critics answer, correctly 
 as we think, they are the promise and the oath. These 
 are both ‘unchangeable, ‘incapable of being changed,’ 
 or ‘set aside’ Stuart very unnaturally makes one of 
 the two things the promise of v. 14, ‘ Blessing I will 
 bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee,’ and 
 the other, the promise of 5:6 above, “Thou art a 
 priest forever, after the order of Melchisedek,” or even 
 that of 8:11, “So I sware in my wrath, They shall 
 not enter into my rest.” The opinion of Storr must be 
 considered equally unnatural, if indeed he coneurs in 
 this interpretation. The references to chapters 5: 6, 
 and 3:11, may justly be said to introduce a far-fetched 
 idea, both literally and tropically. But Stuart argues 
 that the ordinary interpretation is inapposite. “For — 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. vI. v. 18. 937 
 
 the writer here states, that what is sworn to, even 
 among men, must be regarded as fixed and established. 
 More surely, what God has once solemnly declared, can 
 never be annulled.” His drift seems to be that the 
 Apostle could not mean to represent the promise as 
 one immutable thing, and the oath confirming that 
 same promise as another immutable thing, because the 
 promise, when once declared, by the God of truth, was 
 already as certain as it could be made. But this is 
 shown to be wholly irrelevant by the matter of fact, 
 that God did, in condescension to our weakness, not 
 only promise, but confirm it with an oath; and that 
 the author, in the immediate context, represents the 
 oath as superadded to the promise, in conformity to 
 the usages of men. That the promise without the oath, 
 would have been as. immutable as the oath could make 
 it, surely does not disqualify it for being one of the two 
 immutable things ! 
 
 παράκλησιν. This word is translated by Stuart, 
 ‘persuasion or inducement,’ and is so taken as to make 
 “ρατῆσαι depend on it: ‘That we, who have sought a 
 refuge, might have strong persuasion to hold fast the 
 hope which is set before us.’ But this is forbidden by 
 the arrangement of the words, which obviously makes 
 zeatnoac dependent on xeruguvyorrec. And the 
 thing is more conclusive, especially because the natu- 
 ral order makes so good a sense. There can be no 
 objection to giving παράκλησεν the meaning of ‘com- 
 . fort, or ‘consolation, which is so common in the New 
 Test. It is not found, perhaps, in the classic use of 
 
238 HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. v. 18. 
 
 the word ; but is nearly allied to the sense of ‘ encour- 
 agement,’ which is one of its current meanings. Bret- 
 schneider even gives the meaning ‘comfort, below in 
 12:5, καὶ ἐχλέλησϑε τῆς παρακλήσεως (rendered in 
 the English version, ‘exhortation’). A sense similar to 
 this is found in the word, in ch. 13: 22, where also it 
 is rendered in our version, ‘exhortation:’ ἀγέχεσϑε 
 τοῦ λόγου τῆς παρακλήσεως. 
 
 ἐλπίδος. ‘This indicates the hope held out in the 
 promises. It seems scarcely necessary to suppose a 
 metonymy in this word, taking it, as Calvin does, for 
 the promise on which hope rests (the effect for the 
 cause), or, with Kuinoél, Bloomfield, Stuart, for the 
 thing hoped for. The reason of this remark will be 
 seen anon. But yet, it is certain that -the mention of 
 the hope, refers to the promise on which that hope de- 
 pends. If we adopt the natural view of the author’s 
 words, the promise here referred to is the one to Abra- 
 ham, mentioned in the 14th verse above. The hope 
 of the author, and other New Test. believers, is forti- 
 fied by two immutable things, the promise and oath. 
 But it is in this transaction with Abraham, that the 
 two are found to concur. We learn, therefore, that 
 the promise to Abraham was not a Jewish and na- 
 tional, but a Gospel covenant, and that not only Abra- 
 ham, but all believers may trust init. The blessing 
 covenanted was not only the Holy Land, and a multi- 
 tudinous posterity, but redemption through that divine 
 Seed, who was to come of Abraham according to the 
 flesh. These truths the Apostle here assumes; he had 
 
HEBREWS, OHAP. VI. v. 19. 239 
 
 explicitly stated and argued them in Rom. 4: 9-17, 
 and Gal. 3: 8, 9, 14,15, 16, 17. The understanding 
 of them is necessary, to perceive fully the coherency 
 of the ideas in the passage under remark. 
 
 V.19. ἥν, scilicet ἐλπέδος. Here all the com- 
 mentators concur in the conclusion that there is no 
 metonymy ; for it is evidently more natural and appro- 
 priate to represent the mental affection, hope, as an 
 anchor to the soul, than the promise, or the thing 
 promised. If we should say that the promise of God, 
 or the thing promised by God, is an anchor to the 
 soul, the meaning would be less direct and literal than 
 when we say the hope which rests on the promise, and 
 looks to the object, is our anchor. It is through the 
 affection of hope that the promise and the object affect 
 our souls. But if there is no metonymy in the rela- 
 tive, why suppose one in its antecedent? That which 
 we represent as the anchor of the soul, may, with equal 
 propriety and directness, be represented as laid hold 
 of by the soul. It should be noted that in both these 
 propositions, there is ὦ metaphor, not in the subjects, 
 but the predicates. The participle εἰξερχομένην 1s 
 obviously to be construed with ἥν. 
 
 τὸ ἐσώτερον τοῦ καταπετάσματος. ‘These words 
 denote, in a figure drawn from the Jewish tabernacle, 
 the heavenly sanctuary; that is, heaven itself. In 
 the tabernacle, the part within the veil was the holy 
 of holies, into which none but the high-priest entered ; 
 and that on the day of atonement alone. In the true 
 tabernacle, of which the Levitical was the copy, our 
 
240 MEBREWS, CHAP. VI. Vv. 20. 
 
 divine High-Priest has gone into the highest heaven, 
 before the immediate presence of God; and there is 
 our anchor fastened. That is, our hope embraces ob- 
 jects in heaven itself, and therefore glorious, holy, im- 
 movable. ‘The hope therefore partakes of the nature 
 of its object, and is “ ὠσφαλῆς re καὶ βεβαία." 
 
 V. 20. ὅπου ὁ πρόδρομος, “The forerunner.” 
 As has been well pointed out by Bloomfield, this word 
 in the New Test. generally, if not always, expresses 
 not only the idea of precedency in time, but of a pre- 
 paration made by the πρόδρομος for those who are to 
 follow. The latter is more fully expressed by the 
 addition, ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, ‘on our behalf? Both these ideas 
 concur in Christ. He went before us, “and became 
 the first-fruits of them that slept.” (1 Cor. 15: 20.) 
 And he went “to prepare a place for us,” John 14: 2. 
 The terms and phraseology employed in this conclu- 
 sion, are all seemingly selected with a view to a natu- 
 ral return to the author’s immediate subject. He had 
 approached it, as was above stated, and had propound- 
 ed it in ch. 5: 5-10; but had digressed at the threshold 
 of his discussion, to rebuke and stimulate his readers. 
 He now passes from his admonition to his discussion, 
 by a most skilful transition. The example of Abra- 
 ham, cited for confirmation of the command to perse- 
 vere and progress, suggests the promise on which he 
 and later believers alike trusted. This suggested the 
 hope, of which that promise, oath-confirmed, was the 
 object, this again the heavenly home on which that 
 hope fixed itself, and this the Mediator, who has gone 
 
HEBREWS, OMAP. VIT..v. 4. 241 
 
 before and now reigns, on our behalf, in that upper 
 sanctuary. Christ the Priest being thus again pro- 
 pounded, the Apostle repeats the proposition which is 
 next to be considered: ‘That He is appointed a High- 
 Priest forever, after the order of Melchisedek. Let 
 the reader observe, also, how each added idea, while it 
 leads the mind forward to the desired transition, also 
 points backward, giving a topic of confirmation to the 
 exhortation. 
 
 VI. 1 Οὗτος yao ὃ Μελχισεδέκ, βασιλεὺς Tadny, 
 ~ ~ ~ c , c f 2 
 
 ἑερεὺς τοῦ ϑεοῦ [τοῦ] ὑψίστου ὃ συναντήσας ‘AGoa- 
 
 ἂμ ὑποστρέφοντε ἀπὸ τῆς κοπῆς τῶν βασελέων καὶ 
 
 bo 
 
 2 ’ > ΄ ra \ ’ > A t > ’ 
 εὐλογήσας αὐτὸν, ᾧ καὶ δεκάτην ἀπὸ πάντων ἐμέ- 
 2 , ~ / 
 ρεσεν Αβρααμ, πρῶτον μὲν ἑρμηνευνόμεγνος βασε- 
 \ , » \ Ud 
 λεὺς δωχαεοσυνης, éxecta δὲ καὶ βασελεὺς Lady, 
 8 ao > > ἢ ica > / ἧς 2 Γ } Γ > : 
 (6 ἐστε, βασελεὺς εἰρήνης,) ἀπάτωρ, ἀμήτωρ, ἀγε- 
 Γ΄ , δ. \ c ~ ͵ ~ / 
 γεαλογητος, μητὲ ἀρχὴν ἡμερῶν μὴητε ζωῆς τέλος 
 γ By if ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 
 ἔχων, ἀφωμοιωμένος δὲ τῷ υἱῷ τοῦ ϑεοῦ, μένει 
 \ \ ἤ 
 LEQEUS εἰς τὸ OLNVEHES. 
 
 V.1. yao. We here also assign to this connective 
 its proper logical relation between the proposition pre- 
 ceding it, and the one introduced by it. Stuart very 
 lightly dismisses the connexion of thought by re- 
 marking only: ‘yao is here the sign of resuming a 
 topic which had been suspended.’ We incline, with 
 Winer (Idioms of New Test. $57. 4. & 6, pp. 348, 352), 
 to reject, m all cases, all such suppositions of anoma- 
 lous and feeble senses for the word, and to seek for it 
 
 16 
 
242 HEBREWS, OHAP. VII. Vv. 1. 
 
 its proper force. It is always most safe and honest, to 
 assume that the author means what he says; and not 
 to measure his meaning arrogantly, by our ability to 
 perceive it. Ifwe are unable, as yet, to see distinctly 
 that logical connexion of ideas, which the writer's 
 words indicate he intended, our business as interpre- 
 ters is rather to confess our ignorance, and to seek a 
 more thorough insight into the author’s intent, and 
 into the true bearings of his thought, than to elude a 
 difficulty, by inventing unusual and unnatural senses 
 for leading words. 
 
 An attentive consideration will leave little diffi- 
 culty here, in assigning to the connective its usual 
 force. Let us premise that Οὗτος ὁ Medyiosdéx is to 
 be construed as the subject of μένεε ἱερεύς, in v. 8, all 
 that intervenes bemg parenthetic. (Thus it is con- 
 strued by the Engl. version, Stuart, Winer, and most 
 critics.) Calvin introduces the substantive-verb after 
 οὗτος, translating ‘Hie enim erat Melchizedek, rex 
 Salem.” γὰρ then introduces the proposition: ‘This 
 Melchisedek ... remaineth a priest forever, as con- 
 firmatory and illustrative of the preceding statement ; 
 ‘Christ (was) appointed a High-Priest forever, after 
 the order of Melchisedek’ (ch. 6: 20). A connexion 
 of thought precisely similar, even as to the expressing 
 of the precedent proposition by a participle, is made 
 by γὰρ between 1: 4 and 1: 5, above. See Commen- 
 tary, p. 15. From the connexion of the first proposi- 
 tion of the 7th chapter with the last of the 6th, the 
 author so introduces his statement of the type, as to 
 
BORREWS, OMAP. Mite oN: yd. 248 
 
 make it serve as an argument for the eternity of the 
 priesthood of Christ. 
 
 Various opinions have been held of Melchisedek. 
 The Hieracitz believed him to be the Holy Spirit; 
 the Melchisedeciani, a Gnostic sect, to be one of the ᾿ 
 duvaecc, who emanated from God ; some of the Chris- 
 tian Fathers, the Son of God, the Logos; Origen held 
 him to be an angel; Hulsius believed that he was 
 Enoch raised from the dead; the Targums, Jonath. 
 and Jerus. that he was Shem, the son of Noah; and 
 some moderns have attempted to identify him with 
 Job. We know of him nothing more than is con- 
 tained in the narrative of Gen. 14: 18-20. The only 
 rational sense to put upon that simple and natural 
 statement is, that Melchisedek was a righteous and 
 peaceful king, a worshipper and priest of the Most 
 High God, in the land of Canaan, a friend of Abra- 
 ham, but elevated above him in rank, and illustrious 
 for his piety amidst surrounding corruptions and 
 idolatry. 
 
 βασελεὺς Zahn. 'The reference here can only be 
 to n2v, in the narrative of Melchisedek, Gen. 14: 18. 
 To make any thing else of the phrase, than a natural 
 and simple recitation of the historical fact so explicitly 
 stated (n> 729) seems to us in the highest degree fan- 
 ciful. (Yet the providence of God had a typical de- 
 sign in the name of the locality where he reigned, as 
 is explained in the second verse.) Stuart and others 
 have supposed that Σιαλὴμε is not the name of a local- 
 ity, but descriptive only. Other commentators haye 
 
944 HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. Vv. 2. 
 
 almost universally taken this Salem as the same with 
 Jerusalem, on the authority of Josephus, Jewish Antiq. 
 B. 1. ς. 10. 89. Strong confirmation is found for this 
 in Psalm 76: 2 (in Hebrew, v. 3), “In Salem also is 
 ' his tabernacle, and his dwelling-place in Zion.” 
 
 V.2. The Apostle, in interpreting the names of 
 Melchisedek and of the seat of his kingdom, plainly 
 from the context assigns to them a spiritual and typical 
 import. It would be strange, indeed, if these character- 
 istics were designed to teach merely that Melchisedek 
 was a ‘righteous and peaceful king” The history, the 
 analogy between the type and antitype, and the sig- 
 nificant import of names and circumstances in patri- 
 archal times, justify the opinion that, in his personal 
 character, he was such a king. But then, as is inti- 
 mated in this concession, the type would thus only 
 be the more complete, the better adapted to the de- 
 sign of foreshadowing the antitype. In the latter we 
 must seek suitable characteristics, and when the terms 
 are applied to Him, we must understand them in the 
 largest sense. Thus, of the characteristics of the Mes- 
 siah as foretold in Isaiah 9:6, 7, among the most 
 prominent are these: that his name should be called 
 ‘The Prince of Peace, that he should ‘establish his 
 kingdom with justice and judgment,’ and that it should 
 be ‘from henceforth even forever.’ 
 
 ἑρμηνευόμενος. The features of the type here ex- 
 hibited, set forth the kingly character of the antitype. 
 He is the king of righteousness and peace, in the 
 truest and highest sense. It lies on the very surface 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. v. 3. 245 
 
 here, that the author meant to have his readers re- 
 ceivé the impression (as they will do, unless there is a 
 positive effort made to avoid it), that, as the type 
 united the priestly and regal character, so did the 
 antitype; and it is equally evident that this was de- 
 signed to show, in part, the higher order of this priest- 
 hood. It is done as it were, en passant, but must not 
 therefore be overlooked ; while the great distinguish- 
 ing feature is more prominently stated in v. 3, viz. the 
 eternity of the dignities. 
 
 V. 3. ἀπάτωρ, ἀμήτωρ, ἀγενεαλόγητος. The last 
 of these three words should be understood as explica- 
 tive of the two former; so that we have here a gene- 
 ral, after a particular, affirmation. Calvin, we appre- 
 hend, has best exhibited the sense: “ Sine patre. ‘Ita 
 malo, quam ¢gnoti (vel non sacerdotalis, he might have 
 added) patris. Expressius enim quiddam voluit dicere 
 apostolus quam genus Melchizedek obscurum fuisse vel 
 ignotum.... Eximit ergo ipsum Melchizedek a com- 
 muni nascendi lege, quo significat eternum fuisse, ut 
 recens ejus origo in hominibus queerenda non sit. Cer- 
 tum quidem est, a parentibus fuisse progenitum; sed 
 hic de eo tanquam privato homine Apostolus non dis- 
 putat; quin potius illum induit persona Christi. Ita- 
 que nihil aliud sibi in eo intueri permittit, quem quod 
 Scriptura docet. Nam in omnibus que ad Christum 
 pertinent tractandis, ea adhibenda est religio, ut nihil 
 sapiamus nisi ex verbo Domini. Nunc, cum Spiritus 
 Regem sui temporis preestantissimum inducens, de ortu 
 ejus taceat, nec postea mentionem ullam faciat mortis, 
 
240 HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. V. 38. 
 
 nonne hoc perinde valet acsi accommodata esset ejus 
 eeternitas ? Quod autem in Melchizedek fuit adumbra- 
 tum vere in Christo exhibitum est. Ergo, hac medio- 
 critate contentos esse nos decet, quod, dum Scriptura 
 Melchizedek talem nobis proponit, quasi qui nunquam 
 vel natus sit vel mortuus, velut in pictura demonstrat 
 nullum Christo esse nec principium nec finem.... 
 Atqui Melchizedek non hic in privata (ut aiunt) quali- 
 tate, sed quatenus sacer est Christi typus, consideratur. 
 Nec vero fortuito, vel per incogitantiam id videri 
 omissum debet, quod nulla ili cognatio tribuitur, nul- 
 lus habetur de morte sermo; verum id potius consulto 
 fecit Spiritus, ut nos supra vulgarem hominum ordinem 
 attolleret.” 
 
 ἀφωμοιωμένος. This word is used- only here in 
 the New Test. The Lexicons generally translate it, 
 ‘likened to, ‘made like’ With this meaning, the 
 clause contains obvious confirmation of Calvin’s inter- 
 pretation above given. The antithesis indicated by dé 
 following ἀφωμοεω μένος is not to be neglected. The 
 sense runs thus: “ Melchisedek ... without father, 
 without mother, that is to say, having no genealogy 
 as a priest, having (in his priestly capacity) no fixed 
 termini to the duration of his office; ὁμέ (unlike the 
 Aaronic priests) assimilated to the Son of God (in 
 these respects), remaineth a perpetual priest.” Calvin 
 here remarks: “ Assimilatus. Nempe quoad ferebat 
 significandi ratio; semper enim analogia inter rem et 
 -signum tenenda est.” Stuart gives to ὠφωμοεωμένος a 
 weaker sense, ‘like to, or ‘being compared to,’ and 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. v. ὃ. 247 
 
 supposes that if the sense adopted by us, by Calvin, 
 and the English version, were adopted, we should be 
 compelled to admit a ὕστερον πρότερον. He urges 
 that, in this view, it was Christ who was made like to 
 Melchisedek (Ps. 110: 4, “'Thou art a priest forever, 
 after the order of Melchisedek”), and not the latter 
 that was made like to Christ. It is true that “the 
 Apostle is not here labouring to show that Melchise- 
 dek was made like to Christ,” but he is expounding 
 the type; and he here declares that the particulars 
 just mentioned, were true of Melchisedek, because he 
 was made like to Christ; in other words, because he 
 was a type of him. It was an expedient to represent, 
 by a mortal type, the eternity of the antitype. It is 
 true that the royal priest of Salem preceded Christ in 
 time ; but Christ was first in the divine design. The 
 reason why the divine Providence gave to Melchise- 
 dek, in his name, residence, character, and the peculiar 
 historical record left of him, these particular character- 
 istics, was, that he might be jit for a type to represent 
 the Saviour to come. So that it is literally true, Mel- 
 chisedek was made like that divine King and Priest, 
 whose official character had been, from eternity, shaped 
 out in the divine intention, although it was not actu- 
 ally exhibited in the flesh till many generations after 
 Melchisedek. 
 
 εἰς τὸ Ocnvexec. On these words remarks Kiittneri 
 Hypomn. New Test.: ‘ Nusquam sacerdotium amississe 
 fertur; plus in typo exprimi non potuit.’ The word 
 is only found in the Hebrews, of al] the books in the 
 
248 HEBREWS, OHAP. VII. V. 3. 
 
 New Test., viz. 10:1, below: κατ᾽ ἐνεαυτὸν ταὶς av- 
 ταῖς ϑυσίαις, as προςφέρουσεν εἰς τὸ δεηνεκὲς (here it 
 should be rendered ‘ perpetually,’ and does not signify 
 an actual eternity); 10:12, αὐτὸς δὲ μέαν ὑπὲρ amae- 
 τεῶν προςενέγκας ϑυσίαν εἰς τὸ δωηνεκές, ἐκάϑεσεν ἐν 
 deka τοῦ ϑεοῦ (where it signifies clearly an actual 
 eternity); and 10:14, Mcé yao προσφορᾷ τετελείω- 
 κέν εἰς τό διηνεκὲς τοὺς ἀγεαζομένους. In this last 
 passage, also, a duration positively unending may be 
 understood. It is properly remarked, therefore, by 
 Stuart, that δεηνεκὲς in our text does not, in the abso- 
 lute sense, assert eternity of the priesthood of Melchis- 
 edek, but only signifies that it was not, like Aaron’s, 
 limited to a definite period. There is a sense in which 
 Christ’s mediatorial functions also will end. See 1 Cor. 
 15: 24-28. δεηνεχὲς is used by Symmachus, in Ps. 48: 
 15, as a translation for 32) D242. 
 
 ~ ’ r = Ui > 
 4 Θεωρεῖτε δέ, πηλέκος οὗτος, ᾧ καὶ δεκάτην ‘AGo«- 
 » ’ ~ Γ 
 au ἔδωκεν ἐκ τῶν ἀκροϑενίων, ὁ πατριάρχης 1 
 > ~ ~ “. \ U 
 5 Καὶ of μὲν ἐκ τῶν υἱῶν Asvi τὴν ἑερατείαν hau- 
 » ~ Ἁ a 
 βάνοντες, ἐντολὴν ἔχουσεν ἀποδεκατοῦν τὸν λαὸν 
 \ , - » \ ‘J \ 
 κατὰ τὸν νόμον, TOUT ἔστε, τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς uv- 
 ~ ’ Ve ΄ > ~ ἘΞ μ » 
 τῶν, καίπερ ἐξεληλυϑότας ἐκ τῆς OOPUOS βρα- 
 a ‘ La dhe ~ ΄ 
 6 μ᾽ ὃ δὲ μὴ γενεαλογούμενος ἐξ αὐτῶν, δεδεκα- 
 \ 3 Ω ’ Ἀ \ » \ > , 
 τωκὲ τὸν ASoauau, καὶ τὸν ἔχοντα τὰς ἐπαγγελέας 
 r ’ > ’ ΔΝ 
 1 εὐλόγηκε. Χωρὶς δὲ πάσης avrihoyias, τὸ ἔλατ- 
 ἍΜ - « > ~ mare i ie z ‘ 
 8 τον ὑπὸ τοῦ xesirrovos εὐλογεῖται. Καὶ wds μὲν 
 4 ͵ ” r 
 δεκάτας ἀποϑνήσκοντες ἀνϑρωποι λαμιβανουσεν, 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. v. 4. 249 
 
 9 ἐχεῖ δὲ μαρτυρούμενος ore ζῇ. Kat, ὡς ἔπος 
 
 εἰπεῖν, Ota ᾿βραὰμι καὶ Asvi ὃ δεκάτας λαμβά- 
 
 10 νων δεδεκατωταε" ἔτε γὰρ ἐν τῇ ὀσφύϊ τοῦ πατρὸς 
 ἣν, ὅτε συνήντησεν αὐτῷ ὃ Μελχεσεδέκ. 
 
 V.4. ἀκχροϑενίων. This word is from ἄκρον and 
 div, Mec, a heap. In classic Greek writers it is used 
 to express the top of the heap of spoils (thrown to- 
 gether in order to division), which was devoted to the - 
 gods, and placed in the hands of the priests. It was 
 also used by them of the first fruits of the earth, which 
 received the same destination. This is the word used, 
 by Philo and Josephus, of the spodls taken by Abra- 
 ham from the five kings. The reader may consult, 
 for these items, Bretschneider’s and Walhl’s Lexicons. 
 Hence some critics render the word in this place spoils 
 (a part being taken for the whole, the peak of the 
 heap for the heap itself), and others, the best of the 
 spoils. The former is the more probable, because it is 
 almost certain that Abraham gave the tenth of the 
 whole, and not a tenth of a small picked portion (ver. 6, 
 δεδεκάτωκε τὸν ASoadu). The argument of this verse 
 needs little illustration. It is plain that the recipient 
 is greater in rank than the payer of tithes; and in 
 oriental tribes the rank of the patriarch is superior to 
 that of any branch or individual descended from him, 
 because he is considered as representing the collective 
 dignity of the whole nation proceeding from him. 
 Melchisedek, therefore, is greater than Levi. 
 
 c / . . . 
 ὁ πατρεάρχης. This noun, accordingly, receives 
 
250 HEBREWS, OHAP. VII. VV. 5, 6. 
 
 an article and a position intended to make it emi- 
 nently emphatic. This emphatic position doubtless 
 has reference to the argument, as it is unfolded be- 
 low: ‘to whom Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils; 
 yes, the patriarch!’ Winer’s Id. New Test. may be 
 consulted, $65. 3, p. 416. 
 
 Vs. 5, 6, are designed to strengthen the argument 
 from the consideration just presented in v. 4. In these 
 three verses (with the 7th as a summary appendix), 
 we have presented the first of the three arguments by 
 which, as was stated in the Analysis, the superiority 
 of the order of Melchisedek to the Levitical priest- 
 hood is proved. This first argument subdivides itself 
 into two kindred ones: (@) that Melchisedek tithed 
 Abraham; (() that he blessed him;~both of which 
 imply superiority. These verses are designed at the 
 same time to obviate any counter argument that might 
 be drawn from the fact that the Levitical priests re- 
 ceived tithes of their brethren. The scope of this 
 part of the Apostle’s language is: ‘The priesthood 
 gave the Levites this pre-eminence over their brethren 
 descended equally with them from the loins of Abra- 
 ham: a greater priesthood must his be, who, though 
 having no genealogy from them (in fact, having no 
 genealogy whatever to confer distinction on him), 
 tithed and blessed Abraham their father, and the re- 
 ceiver of the promises.’ Calvin thus unfolds the scope: 
 “Quum Leuitis Deus consessit jus exigendi a populo 
 decimas, ita Israelitis omnibus eos preefecit, tametsi in 
 eodem parente essent omnes simul progeniti; atqui 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. vv. 5, 6. 251 
 
 Abraham, qui omnium pater est, sacerdoti aliegenz 
 solvit decimas. Ergo huic sacerdoti omnes posteri 
 Abrahe subjecti sunt.” 
 
 In judging of this argument, we must remember 
 the pre-eminence given by God to Abraham, in that 
 he made him the father of the faithful. We must re- 
 member, too, that the receiving of tithes, or pronoun- 
 cing of blessings, belonged to official or natural supe- 
 riors. The superiority of the Levites over their 
 brethren, in virtue of which they tithed and blessed 
 them, was only official. Melchisedek boasted no such 
 technical and official superiority derived from mere 
 recularity of genealogy, and yet he tithed and blessed 
 the patriarch who was both the natural and official 
 superior, both of Levi and all his equal brethren. "10 
 may even be suggested with plausibility, that there is 
 this meaning in the periphrasis for the Aaronic priest- 
 hood, of μὲν τὴν ἑερατείαν λαμβάνοντες, ‘they that 
 recewed the priest’s office ;’ and in the statement, ἐντο- 
 Any ἔχουσεν ἀποδεκατοῦν τὸν λαὸν κατὰ TOY νόμον, 
 ‘they have ὦ command to tithe the people according 
 to the law ;’ together with the antithetic statement, 
 6 δὲ μὴ γενεαλογούμενος ἐξ «αὐτῶν, δεδεχκάτωκχε TOY 
 ᾿βραώμ. These may possibly warrant the idea that 
 the Levitical priesthood was wholly derived in its 
 functions and immunities, while Melchisedek’s, without 
 genealogy, and under no law, combining the regal and 
 priestly character, exhibits a priesthood of a higher 
 order, and typifyig that of Christ, who, in virtue οὔ 
 his divine nature, has authority in himself to tithe and 
 
252 HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. v. .%. 
 
 bless. But here we may be referred to 5: 5, 6 above; 
 for in that place it is stated that Christ was like the 
 Aaronic priesthood in this very particular, that he re- 
 ceived his office by appointment, and ‘did not glorify 
 himself to be made a priest.’ This is true; but yet 
 Christ did not derive his priesthood from a genealogi- 
 cal descent, and exercise its powers, as one of a class, 
 in virtue of aregular institution. And it should be 
 remembered, also, that Christ was not only man, but 
 God, independent, and assuming his mediatorial fune- 
 tions of his own good pleasure. 
 
 un γενεαλογούμενος. This word occurs only here 
 in the New Test. But it is evident that it should be 
 rendered, ‘not being reckoned of them, i. 6. not beg 
 of their genealogy. The use of the indirect negative 
 μὴ with this participle, should also be noticed. It 
 does not here express a negation less complete than ov, 
 but shows that the truth expressed by this clause is 
 not before the mind of the writer directly as a subject 
 of narration, but indirectly, as a conception of the 
 mind bearing on the narration: “ But this man, though 
 not reckoned genealogically of them, tithed Abraham.” 
 
 ἐπαγγελέας. The promises made to Abraham are 
 here named in the plural, as being repeated on differ- 
 ent occasions, and really containing different items, not 
 one only. We do not recognize the necessity for in- 
 troducing here a Hebraizing pluralis excellentia, as is 
 done by some, inasmuch as there is a fair and natural 
 sense, fitted to the shape of the expression, without it. 
 
 - \ ow» δὶ 2k ~ , > > 
 V.7. τὸ ἔλαττον ὑπὸ τοῦ κρείττονος εὐλογεῖτε. 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. v. 7. 253 
 
 Some critics say that ro ἔλαττον presents an instance 
 of the use of the neuter for the masculine. John 6: 
 37 may be compared, dy, ὃ δίδωσί wor ὁ πατήρ, πρὸς 
 ἐμὲ ἥξει, and 1 Cor. 6:11, Kai ταῦτα τενὲς ἢτε (i. 6. 
 κλέπται, πλεονέκται, &.). We would prefer to say 
 that the author here uses the abstract for the concrete. 
 It is well known that the Greek neuter sometimes car- 
 ries this sense (compare Winer’s Id. New Test. $27. 4, 
 p- 146). The author announces a general proposition, 
 containing a principle certainly fit in itself, and strictly 
 accordant with facts under the patriarchal and Mosaic 
 economies. A similar instance of the neuter in gen- 
 eral statements may be seen in 8:18 below. Speak- 
 ing of the διαϑήκαε, the Apostle says, τὸ δὲ παλαεού- 
 μενον καὶ ynouoxoy, ἐγγὺς agavicuov. In support 
 of the fact that blessing is the act of a superior, Calvin 
 very justly points out that there are two kinds of 
 blessing: the one mutual, where God’s people invoke 
 his favour on each other reciprocally, where no supe- 
 riority is implied; the other official, where the agent 
 speaks as God’s minister and legate. Here the reci- 
 procity is out of the question. Such was the blessing 
 given by Isaac to Jacob, Gen. 27: 27; by Jacob to 
 the sons of Joseph, Gen. 48:15; that which the 
 priests were authorized to confer on the people, Numb. 
 6:23; and the blessnmg of the apostles by Christ, 
 Luke 24:50. In such cases, it is God’s blessing which 
 is pronounced; it is by authority, and is efficacious. 
 In all these cases the superiority of him who pro- 
 nounces it 1s manifest. 
 
254 HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. vv. 8, 9. 
 
 V.8. ἀποϑνήσκοντεςς ‘Men who die’ here re- 
 ceive tithes: consequently their office is temporary. 
 The same point of contrast is taken up and more fully ~ 
 unfolded in vy. 23, 24 below. 
 
 μαρτυρούμενος ὅτε Sj. The subject of this clause 
 is to be construed with the verb to be supplied, viz. 
 “received tithes:” “ But there, he who is certified to 
 that he liveth (received tithes).” Calvin here says 
 well: “Silentium de morte... pro vite testimonio 
 accipit. Non valeret hoc quidem in aliis, sed in Mel- 
 chizedek, quatenus imago est Christi, merito valere 
 debet. Nam quia hic agitur de spirituali Christi regno 
 et sacerdotio, nihil loci humanis conjecturis relinqui- 
 tur; nec scire aliud fas est, quam quod scripturis pro- 
 ditum legimus.” That is to say, The type is described 
 as having no end; the order of priesthood which it 
 represents, is therefore eternal. 
 
 V.9. ws ἔπος εἰπεῖν, ‘ Ut ita dicam, ‘so to speak,’ 
 a qualifying or softening formula, common in the 
 Greek writers. There are but two cases in the New 
 Test. where this epexegetical infinitive is introduced 
 with ὡς, this passage, and Acts 20:24, where it is 
 manifestly equivalent to ὥστε. The construction with 
 wore is more frequent. In all cases, the relation of 
 these infinitives to the leading verbs of the sentence is 
 very lax; and here it seems to stand wholly without 
 regimen. Some critics have translated it, “ Ut breviter 
 dicam.’ De Wette translates it, ‘so zu sagen.’ Kreb- 
 sius translates thus: ‘Qe ἔπος (ἐν) εἰπεῖν, Ut verbum 
 tantum unum dicam—ut breviter dicam,.’ Fischer and 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. Vv. 9. 255 
 
 Kypke render: Ut ita dicam, dixerim fere. Kiittneri 
 Hypomnem., Ut dicam quod res est. 
 
 It is not easy to see how Levi's being in the loins 
 of Abraham at the time of this transaction, proved the 
 Aaronic priesthood, instituted long after, to be sub- 
 ordinate or inferior to that of Melchisedek. Hence 
 some understand the argument as addressed particu- 
 larly to the Jews, whose views of Abraham as their 
 progenitor and covenant-head would make them feel 
 its force. Such an argumentum ad hominem might be 
 admitted ina context requiring it. We find an in- 
 stance of a similar one used by our Saviour himself, in 
 Matt. 12: 27, “And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, 
 by whom do your children cast them out? therefore 
 they shall be your judges;” where Christ argues upon 
 a supposition which he did not mean to affirm, and 
 argues fairly, because it was affirmed by his opponents. 
 But it is by no means clear that here ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν 50 
 dilutes or modifies the argument; on the contrary, 
 admitting the qualifying force of the phrase, the argu- 
 ment is still propounded in such a way, as to lead us 
 to believe that the Apostle meant to ascribe to it 
 some force upon other principles than those of mere 
 Jewish bigotry and mistaken pride. This ground of 
 argument we may perhaps find in the fact that Abra- 
 ham was truly the covenant-head of his posterity in 
 the line of Isaac and Jacob, in whose descendants the 
 promises made to him were fulfilled. It was in virtue 
 of this covenant with Abraham, that the Jews inher- 
 ited their distinguished privileges as a nation. It was 
 
256 HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. Vv. 9. 
 
 the transaction with Abraham which brought them 
 into the relation of a “peculiar people” to Jehovah ; 
 and hence, in his patriarchal character and acts, he 
 stood forth as the representative or federal head of 
 the sacerdotal nation, so far as all the promises, privi- 
 leges, and institutions of that Judaical covenant were 
 concerned. He was thus both their natural progeni- 
 tor and their covenant-head, by the appointment of 
 God. We must remember that He was concerned, 
 through His providence and promises, in all this busi- 
 ness. Therefore, when Abraham paid tithes to Mel- 
 chisedek as priest of the Most High God, and received 
 a blessing from him, it was a historical fact intention- 
 ally introduced by God’s providence, with a view to 
 its becoming a feature of the type (so to speak) which 
 Melchisedek, in his history and functions, was fore- 
 ordained to present, of the supreme and eternal High- 
 Priest. This providential incident prefigured and 
 represented, by the divine intention, the supremacy 
 of the antitype; and in it Abraham acknowledged the 
 official superiority of the type, not only over himself, 
 but over his posterity then in his loins, represented by 
 and acting in him; and this though he was a patri- 
 arch, and inheritor of the promises. See vv. 4—7. 
 
 The objection obviously arises to the Apostle’s 
 argument: ‘If this transaction proves the inferiority 
 of Levi to Melchisedek, why does it not equally prove 
 it of Judah, of the line of David, and of Christ?’ The 
 answer presented by Calvin (Commentary 7m Joco) is 
 conclusive: Christ’s divine nature and extraordinary 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. vit. v. 10. 257 
 
 generation exempt him from the comparison: he was 
 not in the loins of Abraham, at the time of the trans- 
 action, in the sense in which Levi was. We may 
 apply here the solution which is implied for our Sa- 
 viour’s question in Matt. 22: 45, “If David then call 
 him Zord, how is he his son?” There was a sense in 
 which he was David’s Lord, far higher, more endu- 
 ring and important, than that in which he was his son. 
 And besides, the fact that Melchisedek was designed 
 to stand, in this transaction, as the type of Christ, of 
 itself renders such a logical opposition an absurdity. 
 It places the antitype at once on a higher grade. 
 “ Quod subordinatur non pugnat.” | 
 V.10. ἔτε yao ἐν τῇ ὀσφύϊ, #74. ere is trans- 
 lated by Bretschneider, Schon, Robinson, by ‘ even,’ 
 ‘already.’ They refer, for illustration of this meaning, 
 to Luke 1:15, καὶ πνεύματος ἁγίου πλησϑήσεταε ἔτε 
 é# κοιλίας μητρὸς αὑτοῦ, where, Bloomfield remarks, 
 re might be correctly replaced by ἤδη. Stuart trans- 
 
 ? ‘ a]- 
 
 lates by ‘etiam nunc,’ ‘etiam tune,’ ‘even then, 
 ready.” The rendering of the English version, ‘ yet,’ 
 ‘still, seems, at first view, not to be accordant with 
 the Apostle’s scope in the passage, although it is far 
 the easiest and most defensible on grounds of usage 
 and etymology. It would make the author say, ‘Levi 
 
 ” whereas the exigencies of the 
 
 was as yet unbegotten ; 
 argument seem to require the statement that Levi was 
 already (in a certain sense) in existence, i. e. in his 
 progenitor’s loins. This is the sense preferred by Stu- 
 art. But it may still be questioned whether the Eng- 
 
 17 
 
258 HEBREWS, OHAP. VII. v. 10. 
 
 lish version would not appear strictly accordant with 
 the author’s scope, if we looked at it from a point of 
 view more strictly Jewish. The Apostle does not 
 wish to establish the assertion that descendants as yet 
 unborn were representatively in existence in their 
 patriarchal and covenant-head. That any Jew would 
 dispute this, was not the danger; it was an idea too 
 congenial to Jewish modes of thought. On the con- 
 trary, the point the author would set forth is this: 
 that Levi as yet had no other than a representative 
 existence ; his personal existence had not yet begun ; 
 and therefore he cannot be exempted from the condi- 
 tion of inferiority which the act of his representative 
 implied. Let the reader ponder the natural connexion 
 and scope of the passage with an eye cleared of pre- 
 conceptions. It needs scarcely to be remarked, in con- 
 clusion, that the author does not intend to assert the 
 existence of Levi, in his ancestor, in a physiological 
 sense, but only to teach that Levi and his descendants 
 were affected in their ceremonial rights and dignities 
 by all these federal transactions, as though they had 
 been present; and this on account of the representa- 
 tive nature of Abraham’s acts. 
 
CHAPTER VII. 11—28. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 Havine argued the superiority of Christ’s priest- 
 hood to the Aaronic, from the superior order of the 
 type, vv. 1-10, the author continues the same argu- 
 ment, by a more direct comparison, to the end of the 
 chapter, vv. 11-28. 
 
 1. The raising up of a priest after the order of 
 Melchisedek, different from that of Aaron, which was 
 the basis of the old dispensation, showed that perfec- 
 tion (τελεέωσες, see Commentary) was unattainable by 
 the Levitical priesthood ; and the more, since a change 
 of this priesthood inferred a change of the whole econ- 
 omy, vv. 11,12. There has been such a change; for 
 (γάρ), First, He, i. e. Christ, of whom these things 
 were said (as in Ps. 110: 4), was of ὦ tribe that had 
 nothing to do at the altar, which was manifest (v. 14, 
 yao) from the notorious fact that our Saviour was 
 sprung from Judah, to whose tribe Moses gave no 
 priestly functions, vv. 18, 14. Second, it is yet further 
 manifest that there has been such a change of the 
 priesthood, and consequently of the economy, if a 
 priest of ὦ different order has been raised up, not ac- 
 cording to a carnal institute, but by virtue of a life 
 that is indissoluble, which is plain from the oath of in- 
 stitution (γάρ), vv. 15-17. For (yee, v. 18), there is 
 thus the abrogation of the first ordinance on account 
 
260 OHAP. VII.—ANALYSIS. 
 
 of its weakness and inefficiency (for the law brought 
 nothing to perfection); and by the substitute, there is 
 the introduction of a better hope, even one by which 
 we are brought near to God, vv. 18, 19. 
 
 2. The institution of Christ’s priesthood with the 
 solemnity of an oath, which was wanting at the ap- 
 pointment of the Aaronic, argues Him a sponsor of a 
 better dispensation (compare v. 11), vv. 20-22. 
 
 ὃ. In the one case there are many successive 
 priests, because they die; but Christ, who continues 
 forever the same, holds the priesthood without succes- 
 sion, and therefore can save to the uttermost, since He 
 lives always to intercede for His people, vv. 23-25. 
 
 4, For (γὰρ) such a High-Priest became (was 
 needful for) us, who finally was spotlessly pure and 
 exalted to heaven; who thus had no need, as the Levit- 
 ical high-priests have daily, to offer sacrifices first for 
 their own sins, then for those of the people; for He 
 hath offered himself once only for the people, vv. 26, 
 27: the rationale of all which is, (γὰρ) that the law 
 makes weak and sinful men priests, but the oath suc- 
 ceeding the law, and superseding it, appoints to the 
 priesthood the Son, glorified forever, v. 28. 
 
ὯΝ 
 
 12 
 
 18 
 
 14 
 
 15 
 
 16 
 17 
 
 18 
 
 19 
 
 HEBREWS, OHAP. Vil. v. 11. 261 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 mE \ ~ ae ~ Li 
 Ei μὲν οὖν τελεέωσες διὰ τῆς “ευϊτεκῆς ἑερωσύνης 
 5 (ὁ ἢ Nips Χ pee Mees re 3) ’ », 
 ἢν, (0 λαὸς yao π᾿ αὐτῇ νενομοϑετητο ") τίς ἔτε 
 ’ \ \ ery 9 2 , 
 χρεία, κατὰ τὴν ταξεν Μελχεσεδὲχκ ἕτερον ἀνίστα- 
 r \ \ / 2 . ἢ r 
 σϑαε ἑερέα, καὶ ov “xura τὴν τάξεν Aagav” λέ- 
 I δ - ἘΝ Tels Ie 
 γεσϑαε; Μετατεϑεμένης yao τῆς ἑερωσύνης, ἐξ 
 > (4 , / [4] 
 ἀνάγκης καὶ νόμου μετάϑεσες γένεται. “Eg ὃν 
 \ lé ~ ~ Υ͂ fe 3 3 
 yao λέγεται ταῦτα, φυλῆς ETEQUS METECYNHEV, ἀφ 
 x ) r ~ , ζ 
 ἧς οὐδεὶς προςέσχηκε τῷ ϑυσιαστηρίῳ" πρόδηλον 
 A [4 due la r c r ~ Ω 
 yao, ὅτε ἐξ Ἰούδα ἀνατέταλκεν ὃ κύριος ἡμῶν, εἰς 
 εὶ Χ Γ ee ~ > ld 
 ἣν φυλὴν οὐδὲν περὶ ἑερωσύνης Mavons ἐλάλησε. 
 πιὰ aes ” ’ 4 ? > ‘ 
 Kai περισσότερον ἔτε κατάδηλον ἔστεν, εἰ κατὰ 
 \ lA , \ 9 
 τὴν ὁμοιότητα Μελχισεδὲκ ἀνίσταταε ἑερεὺς ἕτε- 
 «ει } \ r 2 ~ ~ Γ 
 00S, 03 οὐ κατὰ νόμον ἕντολῆς σαρκικῆς γέγονεν, 
 2 \ \ NS ~ f ~ 
 ἀλλὰ κατὰ δύνώμεν ζωῆς axuradvrov. Meorvesi 
 r cr \ \ τ τι \ \ 
 yao’ “ Ore ou ἑερεὺς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα xata τὴν 
 fu ᾿ ae LE ” 7) I? A , 
 tagiv Mehyiosdsx.” ᾿Αϑέτησες μὲν yao γένεται 
 4 γ - \ ‘ ~ 2 
 προαγουσὴης ἐντολῆς, διὰ τὸ αὐτῆς ἀσϑενὲς καὶ 
 2 Γ a] δὴ \ > , Ὁ ls . > 
 ἀνωφελές, (οὐδὲν yao ἐτελείωσεν ὁ νόμος ) ἐπεες- 
 \ Ἴ 3. τ 5) ~ 
 αγωγὴ δὲ χρείττονος ἐλπίδος, δὲ ἧς ἐγγέζομεν τῷ 
 ϑεῷ. 
 
 V.11. Ee μὲν οὖν, κιτιλ' The particles μὲν οὖν 
 
 here, as often elsewhere, carry little more meaning 
 than that of transition; introducing a continuation of 
 the discussion. Calvin renders them by Porro. Sucha 
 sense must be assigned to them in Hebr. 9:1, Εὖχε μὲν 
 οὖν καὶ ἡ πρώτη διχαεώματα λατρείας, TO τὲ ἅγεον 
 χκοσμεκόν, and in Acts 96: 4, where Paul, after com- 
 
202 HEBREWS, OHAP. VII. Vv. 11]. 
 
 pleting the exordium of his ci eb before Agrippa 
 with the words, “ Wherefore I pray thee of thy clem- 
 ency to hear me,” passes on to his direct discussion, by 
 saying, Τὴν μὲν οὖν βίωσίν μου τὴν ἐκ νεότητος, #.T-d. 
 (See Winer’s Id. New Test. $57. 4, p. 347.) Our 
 English illative then, which in its stronger use is equiv- 
 alent to therefore, affords us an apt illustration of this 
 use of ovy. In passing to a further topic of discourse, 
 we would most naturally say, ‘And then’ (to add 
 another ground of argument), ‘if perfection had been 
 by the Levitical priesthood,’ &e. 
 
 τελείωσες. ‘The general idea eee by this 
 word and its kindred verb, has been before explained 
 to be, throughout this Epistle, the bringing of a thing 
 to the completeness of the condition proposed for it. 
 If we would see its exact meaning here, we must con- 
 sider what was the object proposed to be attained by 
 a ἑερωσύνης, for its worshippers. It is redemption 
 from the consequences of sin. A στελεέωσες then, ἴῃ 
 this connexion, would be a perfect redemption (not per- 
 fection of moral character only), including ‘ justifica- 
 tion and sanctification, a fitting for and raising to glory 
 in heaven” This will be evident from a comparison 
 of v. 19 below, οὐδὲν γὰρ ἐτελείωσεν ὃ νόμος : of 9:9, 
 ϑυσίαε μὴ δυνώμεναε κατὰ συνείδησεν τελεεῶσαε τὸν 
 λατρεύοντα: οἵ 10:1, ὁ vouog... οὐδέποτε δύναται 
 τοὺς προζςερχομένους τελεεῶσαε: and especially of 10: 
 14, where the meaning of the word, in connexion with 
 priestly offerings, is most clearly exhibited, Mia γὰρ 
 
 προςφορᾷ τετελείωκεν εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς τοὺς ἀἁγεαζομεέ- 
 
HEBBEWS, CHAP. VII. v. ll. 263 
 
 vous. This perfecting, then, is that thing which is 
 procured for the aycalouévous, the redeemed, by the 
 one perfect sacrifice of Christ, i. 6. a complete redemp- 
 tion. We are, in this connexion, enabled to under- 
 stand the meaning of the phrase of 12: 23 below, 
 δωκαέίων τετελεεωμένων. It signifies justified souls who 
 are already in the fruition of a complete redemption. 
 The reader may profitably refer to. the Commentary 
 on 2: 10 above. 
 
 éx αὐτῇ (scilicet ἑερωσύνης) νενομοϑέτητο, “Upon 
 it the people received the law.” Here it is evident 
 that the νόμος received in νενομοϑέτητο, must be ex- 
 plained as the same with the νόμου of v.12. And 
 this must be understood as the Mosaic economy, 1. e. 
 the whole ceremonial institution of Moses. The same 
 thing is named in v. 18 below, προαγούση ἐντολὴ, and 
 is said to be ἀσϑενῆς καὶ ἀνωφελῆς. The clause under 
 discussion is parenthetic, and is designed to add force 
 to the argument implied in the interrogatory. This 
 seems to be the Apostle’s scope: ‘The establishing of 
 a priesthood of a new order implies the inferiority and 
 imperfection of the old. (For if the old were com- 
 pletely efficient, why abrogate it?) And this is the 
 more evident, because the abrogation of the priest- 
 hood carries along with it the abrogation of the whole 
 ceremonial economy based upon it. Hence, the abro- 
 gation of the priesthood shows also the inefficiency of 
 the economy which came in with it.’ The passing 
 away of the economy along with its priesthood is 
 rather hinted in the parenthesis, than asserted; but in 
 
264 HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. Vv. 12. 
 
 v. 12, what was before intimated is more fully brought 
 out. The implication is, that the Mosaic institution 
 was based on the Aaronic priesthood. Calvin re- 
 marks, “tenendum est axioma, nullum fcedus inter 
 Deum et Homines firmum ratumque esse, nisi sacer-. 
 dotio fulciatur.” He translates ἐπ αὐτῇ by “sub eo.” 
 Others, in substantially the same sense, render it “sub 
 conditione ea.” We would not depart materially from 
 this, preferring to render it, “in dependence on this.” 
 The γὰρ may be best referred to the emphasis given 
 to the preceding words, Asvirixjs ἑερωσύνης, “ΤῈ a 
 perfect redemption had been through the Levitical 
 priesthood (through the priesthood, 1 say; for on this 
 were based all the ceremonial institutions which the 
 people received), what need was there still?’ d&e. 
 When the Levitical priesthood was proved imperfect 
 by its being supplanted by another, the whole Leviti- 
 cal economy was proved similarly imperfect, for (γὰρ) 
 it was based on that priesthood. 
 
 γ.19. Μετατειϑεμένης yao, #7... This conjune- 
 tion is regarded by Stuart as ἃ "γὰρ confirmantis,’ in- 
 troducing a ground which sustains something before 
 said ; and he refers it to the assertion, ov xara τὴν 
 τάξεν ᾿“«ρών, z.t.2. The sense he attributes to the 
 author would therefore be substantially this: ‘The 
 new priest who arose was not after the order of Aaron, 
 for (γὰρ) when the priesthood was changed, there is 
 also of necessity a change of the law of succession.’ 
 This is a misapprehension of the connexion of thought. 
 It affixes to νόμου too narrow a meaning for the scope 
 
HEBREWS, OHAP. VII. v. 12. 265 
 
 of the whole passage. It supposes that the difference 
 of order between Christ’s priesthood and Aaron’s, was 
 a thing to be proved; when in truth it was a datum, 
 disputed by no one, and used by the Apostle to prove 
 something else. It reduces v. 12 to a tautology; for 
 a change of the priesthood (in the sense of the whole 
 passage), is nothing else than a change of the rule of 
 succession. The conjunction yg, therefore, is to be 
 understood as referring to the proposition implied in 
 the interrogation of v. 11, and strengthened in the 
 parenthesis. The Apostle’s scope is to be thus appre- 
 hended: ‘ Does not the substitution of a new and dif- 
 ferent priesthood imply the imperfection of the old, 
 and of the whole of the old sacerdotal economy (for that 
 old economy was based on that old priesthood)? Yes; 
 it does. For (v. 12, yee), when the priesthood was 
 changed, there is made necessarily a change of the 
 economy (νόμου) As has been indicated above, 
 Stuart says, “Νόμου here means specially ... the 
 statute which determined that the priests must all be 
 of the descendants of Aaron and of the tribe of Levi.” 
 The incorrectness of this is manifest from the intention 
 of the whole passage, as unfolded above. It becomes 
 still more evident when this verse is compared with 
 10: 1 below, where the author re-states with great 
 clearness the leading idea of the former passage: “ For 
 the law, having a shadow of good things to come, not 
 the very image of the things, can never with those 
 sacrifices which they offered year by year continually, 
 make the comers thereunto perfect (reAecdoac).” 
 
266 HEBREWS, OHAP. VII. vv. 18, 14. 
 
 What law is this?) That one which had a shadow of 
 good things to come, which had continual sacrifices— 
 the ceremonial law of Moses. The νόμος of v. 12 is 
 the same. Calvin says, “Summa est, non minus tem- 
 porale fuisse Mosis quam Aaronis ministerium ; ideoque 
 abrogari Christi adventu utrumque oportuisse, quia 
 alterum sine altero stare non potuerit. Zegis nomine 
 intelligimus quod proprie ad Mosen spectabat. Lex 
 enim et regulam bene vivendi, et gratuitum vite foedus 
 continet, illicque passim occurrant multe insignes sen- 
 tentix, quibus tum ad fidem, tum ad timorem Dei in- 
 stituimur. Horum nihil abolitum fuit ἃ Christo, sed 
 tantum pars illa que cum veteri sacerdotio implicita 
 erat.” 
 
 V.13. γώρ. The Apostle now proceeds to the 
 proofs of that change of priesthood which was the 
 basis of his argument in vv. 11,12. The first proof, 
 contained in vy. 13, 14, is drawn from the ¢rzbe out of 
 which the new priest came. The conjunction γὰρ re+ 
 fers obviously to MerarePsuévng τῆς ἑερωσύνης i ν. 
 12: ‘(The priesthood was changed ;) for He concern- 
 ing whom these things are said (scilicet, the promises 
 of Ps. 110: 4, &.), pertained to another tribe (than 
 Levi’s), of which no member had to do with the altar,’ 
 This statement needs no remark. 
 
 V.14. πρόδηλον γάρ. This verse is an appeal to 
 the well-known fact of our Saviour’s origin from Ju- 
 dah, confirming v.13. The use of the verb (ὠνατέ- 
 taidxev) which expresses his arising, is worthy of 
 remark. It is used most frequently of the rising of 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. v. 15. 267 
 
 heavenly bodies or the light ; and then, of the spring- 
 ing up of plants. Its application to the arising of the 
 Messiah out of Judah, is probably in imitation of this 
 sense. Thus, Zech. 8: 8, “For behoid, I will bring 
 forth my servant the branch,” in the Septuagint is 
 rendered, δεότε ἔδου ἔγω ἄγω τὸν δοῦλον μον ἀνατο- 
 λήν. And the words of Jeremiah, 23: 5, “I will raise 
 unto David a righteous Branch,” are written, ἀναστήσω 
 τῷ Δαυὶδ ἀνατολὴν δωκαίαν. 
 
 V. 15. Καὶ περισσότερον ἔτε χατάδηλόν ἐστιν, 
 κιτι. This is the second argument by which the 
 author establishes the abrogation of the old priest- 
 hood by the new, vv. 15-17. The proof is drawn 
 from the new and superior order of the latter. Calvin 
 remarks, “Alio argumento probat abolitam esse Le 
 gem. Prius a sacerdotis persona rationatus est: nune 
 ἃ natura sacerdotii, et ἃ ratione qua institutum fuit.” 
 The thing which is here declared to be “yet more 
 abundantly manifest,” 1s undoubtedly the statement 
 made in v. 12; that the old priesthood (and with it 
 the economy) was changed. The structure of the sen- 
 tences and the verbal allusion would seem to indicate 
 that the πρόδηλον of v. 14, and the κατάδηλον of v. 
 15, have the same subject. But this would make the 
 Apostle argue, in v. 15, that it 15 yet more manifest 
 that Christ is of the tribe of Judah, because he is a 
 priest after the order of Melchisedek! It is therefore 
 uncritical to infer an allusion too certainly from such a 
 resemblance in the verbal forms. χατάδηλον is the 
 predicate, not of the same subject with its cognate ad- 
 
268 HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. v. 16. 
 
 jective above, but of the leading proposition to which 
 that is subordinate. 
 
 εἰ xara τὴν ὁμοιότητα, iS rendered by our Eng- 
 lish version, “for that after the similitude of,” &e.; a 
 translation for which no sufficient reason can be seen. 
 No clear instance can be shown in which the particle 
 εἰ has this meaning. ‘There is no reason why we 
 should not give it the conditional sense which it 
 usually has with the indicative, implying that if the 
 condition is true, that which results from it is to be 
 regarded as real and certain. (Robinson’s. Lex. New 
 Test. sub voce, I. §2.) The sense is, ‘And it is 
 yet more abundantly manifest (that the priesthood 
 hath been changed), if another priest ariseth after 
 the likeness of Melchisedek: (But such a one has 
 arisen. )’ 
 
 V.16. xara νόμον ἐντολῆς σαρχεκῆς. Both vo- 
 μος and ἐντολὴ are capable of a general and a specific 
 sense; as is stated in the common Lexicons. Here, 
 one must be general, and the other specific; and since 
 ἐντολῆς stands in the construction of a defining noun, 
 it is most reasonable to give to it the general sense. 
 It matters little, as to sense, whether we render the 
 words, ‘ according to a law (νόμεον general) of a carnal 
 commandment,’ or, ‘according to a statute of a carnal 
 law or dispensation’ (ἐντολῆς general). The former 
 sense is more difficult, the latter much easier. We find 
 ἐντολὴ used in a collective sense, for God’s command- 
 ments, in Mark 7: 8, 9, where Christ is rebuking the 
 traditions by which the Pharisees evaded duties: 
 
HEBREWS, OHAP. VII. v. 16. 269 
 
 ‘Apévres yao τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ ϑεοῦ, κρατεῖτε τὴν πα- 
 ράδοσεν τῶν ἀνϑρώπων. Καλῶς ἀϑετεῖτε τὴν ἐντο- 
 Any τοῦ ϑεοῦ, κιτ.λ. In like manner, we find the word 
 δικαεώματα used, in Rom. 2: 26, for the precepts of 
 the moral law in general (Ἐὰν οὖν ἡ ἀχροβυστία τὰ 
 δικαιώματα τοῦ νόμου φυλάσσῃ), and yet applied to 
 ceremonial precepts in the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
 The Apostle here means by νόμον ἐντολῆς, the law or 
 statute instituting the Aaronic priesthood with carnal 
 ordinances, as anointing, clothing with peculiar vest- 
 ments, sprinkling with blood, and such like, and in- 
 vesting that priesthood with power to remove temporal 
 sanctions and ceremonial uncleannesses by various out- 
 ward rites. ‘These rites are called in Hebr. 9: 10, 11, 
 δωκαεώμασε (in the various reading dcxzucauara) σαρ- 
 κός. ‘The comparison of the sense in which the two 
 words ἐντολὴ and dcxacoua are used, without σαρκός, 
 in the places above cited, and of the meaning which 
 δικαεώμασε has here, when thus defined, throws much 
 light on the meaning of the phrase éyrodje σαρκεκῆς. 
 The ἐντολὴ or Otxacouc above, was the moral law, 
 reaching the soul; but the carnal commandment is the 
 code of external, merely ceremonial precepts, affecting 
 the outward demeanour and ritual acts. The word 
 σαρκεκῆς also intimates the temporary and inefficient 
 nature of the priesthood. Thus, in 2 Cor. 10: 4, it is 
 sald, τὰ γὰρ ὅπλα τῆς στρατείας ἡμῶν οὐ σαρκικά, 
 ἀλλὰ δυνατὰ τῷ ϑεῷ: where the opposition is be- 
 tween the carnal and the powerful. That which is 
 carnal is feeble; that which is spiritual is mighty. 
 
210 HEBREWS, OHAP. VII. v. 17. 
 
 This meaning is also intimated by the phrase which 
 is set in contrast with ἐντολῆς σαρχκεκῆς, in this pas- 
 sage; viz. 
 
 κατὰ δύναμεν ζωῆς ἀκαταλύτου. That priesthood 
 instituted under a carnal system of rites, is in contrast 
 with the one which was according to the power of an 
 indissoluble life. In the latter there is efficiency: this 
 implies that the former is feeble. In this description 
 of the nature of Christ’s priesthood, there is evident 
 allusion to the terms in which the type is represented 
 in vv. 3 and 8 above, as “ having neither beginning of 
 days nor end of life,” and as one “of whom it was 
 witnessed that he liveth;” unlike the mortal priests 
 who, under Moses’ law, tithed the Jews. The allusion 
 is also manifest to the terms of the oatlrin Ps. 110: 4, 
 which is quoted immediately after: ov ἑερεὺς εἰς τὸν 
 αἰῶνα. ‘The Apostle then thus expresses the superior 
 nature of Christ’s priesthood, as being according to a 
 type of perpetuity, and comporting with the exalted 
 nature of the incumbent, which is also set forth in the 
 type. Calvin remarks here, “Non Moses, homo mor- 
 talis ipsum consecravit, sed Spiritus Sanctus; id que 
 non oleo, nec sanguine hircorum, nec externa vestium 
 pompa, sed ccelesti virtute, quam hic Apostolus infir- 
 mis elementis opponit.” 
 
 V.17. Μαρτυρεῖ γάρ, “For God witnesseth (to 
 Christ): Thou art a Priest forever after the order of 
 Melchisedek.” The conjunction γὰρ relates to the pro- 
 position ὠνέσταταε ἑερεὺς ἕτερος, and offers the ground 
 of evidence for that assertion. ‘The quotation intro- 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. v. 18. 271 
 
 duced by it is the proof on which rests the argument 
 of vv. 15, 16. 
 
 V.18. “Adérnorg μὲν is the antithesis of ἐπεες- 
 ἀγωγὴ δὲ κρείττονος ἐλπέδος, In Vv. 19. This our 
 English version seems to have overlooked ; for it im- 
 properly closes the sentence at ὠγωφελές, and makes 
 ἐπειςαγωγὴ the opposite of ὁ νόμος. “The law made 
 nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope 
 did” (perfect something). This translation misses the 
 author’s true intent. It is true that the Christian 
 priesthood did perfect the redemption of believers, 
 which the ceremonial law never did; but this is not 
 the point before the Apostle’s mind just here. His 
 ‘main object here is to assert the annulling of the one 
 priesthood, and the introduction of another in its 
 place, as an evidence that the one introduced is more 
 excellent. 
 
 γὰρ seems here to have a conclusive sense, and is 
 best understood as connecting vv. 18, 19 with vv. 15- 
 17: ‘If such a High-Priest has been ordained, of a 
 different order, tribe, efficiency, and perpetuity, as is 
 plain from the quotation of v.17, then a change of 
 priesthood is further manifest; for there is made an 
 abrogation of the preceding institute, on account of its 
 weakness and unprofitableness, but an introduction of 
 a better hope’ 
 
 προαγούσης ἐντολῆς. These words are understood 
 by some, as Kuinoél and Bloomfield, as meaning the 
 former dispensation. They seem rather to denote the 
 Aaronic institute (on which indeed that dispensation 
 
212 HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. v. 18. 
 . 
 
 was founded). It is certainly far better to retain for 
 ἐντολῆς just the sense which we assigned it in v. 16, 
 than to introduce a variant one so close to the former. 
 That the whole Mosaic economy, so far as it was tem- 
 porary, was abrogated, when the institution of the 
 human priesthood in the Aaronic family was repealed, 
 is very true. The latter act is the one of which the 
 author is here speaking. ᾿ 
 
 Ova τὸ αὐτῆς ἀσϑενὲς καὶ avagedéc. Here is the 
 reason of the ἀϑέτησις. The institute was weak and 
 unavailing to accomplish the τελεέωσες of a believer. 
 This reason for its abrogation is intimated in the 
 question of v.11 above; and it strongly argues the 
 inferiority of the Levitical priesthood. Calvin here 
 remarks, “Nam ut ad Christum referebantur figure 
 omnes, ita ab eo mutuabantur vim suam et effectum : 
 imo per se nihil poterant vel agebant, sed tota vis ἃ 
 Christo uno pendebat.” A similar expression in Gal. 
 4:9 may be compared: πῶς ἐπεστρέφετε πάλεν ἐπὶ τὰ 
 ἀσϑενὴ καὶ πτωχὰ στοιχεῖα, κιτ.λ. It may be asked, 
 perhaps, ‘If the Aaronic institute was thus feeble and 
 unavailing, why was it given to the Jews at all, and 
 why perpetuated for so many centuries?’ As a type 
 of the Messiah, to which it pointed, it had its use. 
 To that use it was not worthless and unavailing, but 
 wisely adapted and efficient. But that typical charac- 
 ter implied its ultimate cessation when the Antitype 
 came, and it implied that its efficiency in bringing the 
 believer to τελεέωσες, or perfect redemption, depended 
 on its being used to lead his faith forward to Christ. 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. v. 19. 273 
 
 When depended on zm ztself, as a final and sufficient 
 system (which was the view of the bigoted Jew), the 
 Aaronic institute lost its significancy, and became 
 worthless. We may say that it was worthless only 
 through the perversion of its errmg advocates, as the 
 Apostle, in Rom. 8: 3, says that “the law was weak 
 through the flesh,” to give justification to men. 
 
 V. 19. οὐδὲν γὰρ ἐτελείωσεν ὁ νόμος. These 
 words are a parenthesis, thrown in both to illustrate 
 and confirm (as γὰρ indicates) the statement that the 
 ἐντολὴ Was ἀσϑενῆς καὶ ἀνωφελῆς. The sentence as- 
 serts substantially of the whole Mosaic dispensation 
 (ὁ νόμος), what had just been said of that priesthood 
 upon which it was based. The relation between the 
 two was indicated by the Apostle in vv. 11, 12, where 
 the giving of the dispensation is said to depend on the 
 Levitical ἑερωσύνη, and the change of the dispensation 
 accompanied its change. This parenthesis explains to 
 us in what sense the dispensation was unavailing. In 
 itself it secured perfect redemption to none; it pointed 
 to a better hope to come. 
 
 ἐπεεςαγωγὴ δέ, κιτ.λ. To this nominative γένεται 
 is to be supplied from the protasis in v. 18, according 
 to the exposition there given. 
 
 κρείττονος ἐλπίδος. This “hope” stands in anti- 
 thesis to the προαγούσης ἐντολῆς of v. 18. The 
 “better hope” is put by metonymy for that which 
 produced it, viz. the institution of Christ’s priesthood, 
 whose power and efficacy are thus exhibited in con- 
 trast with the ὠσϑενὲς καὶ ἀνωφελὲς of the Levitical 
 
 18 
 
274 HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. vv. 20-22. 
 
 priesthood. And this contrast is further exhibited in 
 the concluding words of the verse, δὲ ἧς ἐγγέζομεν τῷ 
 deo. By the Messiah’s priestly work, believers truly 
 and spiritually approach God; they are reconciled to 
 him, their prayers are accepted, and his Spirit is 
 communicated as a medium of communion. By the 
 Aaronic priesthood, the believer was only brought to 
 the material tabernacle and mercy-seat, the symbols 
 of the true. 
 
 > 
 a] a 2 Ἁ 
 20 Kai καϑ' ὅσον οὐ χωρὶς ὁρκωμοσίας, (οἱ μὲν γὰρ 
 x , a ~ 4 
 21 χωρὶς ὁρκωμοσίας εἰσὶν ἱερεῖς γεγονότες " ὁ δὲ 
 \ \ ~ f \ Ms 
 μετὰ ὁρκωμοσίας, Ota TOU λέγοντος πρὸς αὐτὸν" 
 ” / Ἀ a] / ‘ 
 “@uoos κύριος, καὶ οὐ μεταμεληϑησεταε σὺ 
 3 7~ \ if 
 ἑερεὺς εἰς tov alave κατὰ τὴν taki Μελχεσε- 
 9 “4 Wie \ ~ , r lA 
 22 δέκ᾽.) xara τοσοῦτον κρείττονος διαϑήκης yé- 
 23 yovey ἔγγυος Ἰησοῦς. Καὶ of μὲν πλείονές stot 
 4 ~ \ \ r r 
 γεγονότες ἱερεῖς, διὰ τὸ ϑανάτῳ κωλυεσϑαε παρώ- 
 r ὰ c ͵ \ \ r tt 3 ‘ a 
 24 μέγνεεν " ὁ δέ, διὰ TO μένεεν αὐτὸν εἰς TOY αἰῶνα, 
 25 ΕΣ qt »” \ © “4 + ow κ 74 
 ἀπαράβατον ἔχει τὴν ἑερωσύνην" ὅϑεν καὶ σώζειν 
 5 ᾿ r uP 2 
 sig τὸ παντελὲς δύναταε τοὺς προςερχομένους δὲ 
 ~ ~ ~ Γ ~ ‘ > / 
 αὐτοῦ τῷ ϑεῷ, πάντοτε ζῶν εἰς τὸ évruyzavew 
 ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν. 
 
 Vv. 20-22. These verses contain the author's 
 second distinct head of argument, to show the supe- 
 riority of Christ’s dispensation. The institution of his 
 priesthood with the solemnity of an oath, which was 
 wanting to the appointment of the Aaronic, shows 
 that his was a more important appointment, and there- 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. vv. 20—92: 275 
 
 fore, that his was a better testament. Human beings 
 attach the solemnity of oaths to the more important 
 of their transactions. God’s word is of itself as infal- 
 lible and immutable as any oath can make it. But 
 God accommodates himself, to a certain extent, in his 
 dealings with his Church, to the more infirm and 
 human modes of thought to which our imperfection 
 confines us. Hence, we understand that God intended 
 to intimate the supremacy of the Messiah over all 
 other priests, when he announced his appointment 
 with these solemn words. The fact that the Apostle, 
 an infallible expositor, draws this argument from this 
 circumstance, favours the highest theory of the inspi- 
 ration of the Scriptures. It seems to indicate that we 
 are to consider every trait of the sacred language, 
 every phrase, every word, as placed on record by a 
 divine intention, and as having its meaning. 
 
 Καὶ καϑ' ὅσον οὐ χωρὶς δρκωμοσίας. 'These 
 words form an elliptical member of the period. We 
 must supply from the correlative member of the sen- 
 tence, γέγονεν ἔγγνος Ἰησοῦς, ‘And in so far as Jesus 
 hath been made sponsor not without an oath-taking, 
 ...80 far hath he been made sponsor of a better cove- 
 nant. All which comes between this protasis and 
 apodosis is parenthetic, and is introduced to confirm 
 the assertion of the first member, that Christ, in his 
 appointment, was honoured with the peculiar formal- 
 ity of an oath. 
 
 οὗ μὲν γὰρ is the antithesis of 6 δέ, “For they 
 (Aaronic priests) were made priests without swearing, 
 
276 HEBREWS, OHAP. VII. vv. 20--22, 
 
 but He (Jesus) with swearing.” And this is again 
 confirmed by the same quotation from Ps, 110: 4. 
 This quotation has before been used by the author to 
 prove that Christ’s priestly office possessed the pecu- 
 liarity of Melchisedek’s: it is now used to show the 
 other point. 
 
 éyyvos. This word occurs only here in the New 
 Test. and is of rare occurrence in the classics. Its 
 etymology is obscure (some deriving it from ἐν yvior, 
 and some supposing an affinity to the adj. ἔγγυς), but 
 its usage, and still more, the usage of its kindred 
 words, ἐγγύη, ἐγγύησες, ἐγγνάω, &e. fix its meaning as 
 “a surety.” <A surety is one who engages for another, 
 so as to secure the performance of that for which he 
 is bound, with the understanding that he shall per- 
 form for him, where he fails. Christ is our surety to 
 God, to pay the debt both of obedience and suffering 
 which we owe. To any covenant there are two par- 
 ties; and when the sponsor or surety of that covenant 
 is spoken of, the question arises, for which of the par- 
 ties he engages, or whether for both. Thus (if the 
 unworthiness of the illustration may be pardoned), in 
 a bet, the stakeholder is alike surety to both parties 
 in the covenant. It has been discussed whether Christ 
 is also a surety for God to his people, to secure to 
 them the promises. It must be answered that, in the 
 sense of making good to Christians God’s deficiences, 
 he is not. For God’s faithfulness, grace, and mercy, 
 are entire in themselves, and cannot fail, or be made 
 more secure. But the Scriptures do clearly hold forth 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. v. 238. 277 
 
 the idea that Christ is a pledge to His people of God’s 
 faithfulness to fulfil his promises in all their amplitude. 
 Rom. 8: 82, “He that spared not his own Son, but de- 
 livered him up for us all, how shall he not with him 
 also freely give us all things?” 2 Cor. 1: 20, “ For 
 all the promises of God in Him are yea, and in Him 
 amen, unto the glory of God by us.” The context 
 here shows that the first is the proper sense of the 
 word in this place. Christ is here called our surety, 
 to pay our debt to God. The author is here magnify- 
 ing the priestly office of Christ, of which, sacrifice for 
 the people, and intercession based thereon, are the 
 essential parts. The meaning of δεαϑήκη, “ dispensa- 
 tion,” may be seen well explained in the usual Lexicons. 
 
 V. 23. This verse introduces the Apostle’s third 
 consideration showing the superiority of Christ’s priest- 
 hood; the perpetuity and eternity of it, and the con- 
 sequent advantage his people derive from it. Here 
 again we have an antithesis between of μὲν (the 
 Aaronic priests) on the one hand, and ὁ δὲ (Christ) 
 on the other hand. Calvin’s translation of of μεὲν 
 πλείονές εἰσε γεγονότες ἱερεῖς, is preferable to Stuart's. 
 The former renders, “ Et ili quidem plures facti fue- 
 runt sacerdotes;” the latter, “Those priests, also, are 
 many.” ‘The position of words in the original indi- 
 cates that the author’s meaning is substantially this: 
 ‘ Again, these, ὦ number of them, were made priests on 
 account of their being prevented by death from con- 
 tinuing.” The succession of Aaronic priests is here in- 
 tended, and not the number of cotemporary priests at 
 
218 HEBREWS, OHAP. VII. v. 24. 
 
 any one time. This is manifest from the reason as- 
 signed for their number, dca τὸ ϑανάτῳ κωλύεσθαι 
 παραμένειν. There were many priests cotemporary 
 with each other; and it is also true that the whole 
 A\aronic institute is embraced in the mind of the Apos- 
 tle, when he contrasts the Jewish priesthood with the 
 Christian ; for as a whole it all prefigured Christ. But 
 yet, the Jewish high-priest was more specially the 
 type of the Messiah, and is here more particularly in 
 the view of the Apostle. It is the long and numerous 
 succession of these priests, a succession the result and 
 evidence of their mortality, and therefore of their 
 feebleness, which he contrasts with the glorious per- 
 manence of a priesthood in which the incumbent is 
 eternal and indefectible. - 
 
 V. 24. ὁ δέ, Ove τὸ μένειν, κιτ.λ. These words we 
 regard, with Kuinoél, Bloomfield, and others, as indi- 
 cating the perpetuity of Christ’s life simply, and not 
 his priesthood. The latter idea is a true one, and it is 
 expressed in the subsequent clause; which would cre- 
 ate a tautology if we supposed it also expressed in the 
 first. And the language of the 25th verse, where the 
 idea of the 24th is amplified, clearly shows that the 
 reference of μέγνεεν αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα is to Christ’s 
 existence simply. There, his ability to save unto the 
 uttermost is said to arise from the fact that he is πών»- 
 τοτὲ ζῶν. Nor is it necessary to suppose a reference 
 to the perpetuity of Christ’s priesthood in the former 
 clause, in order to carry out more fully the antithesis 
 with ν. 23, as is urged by Stuart; for we are not at all 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. v. 25. 279 
 
 obliged to understand the clause dca τὸ ϑανάτῳ κω- 
 λύεσθαε παραμένειν, as meaning that the Jewish 
 priests were prevented by death from continuing 
 priests. The meaning of that verse is, that this 
 priesthood exhibited a numerous succession, because 
 death forbade individuals to remain (in existence). 
 
 ἀπαράβατον ἔχεε τὴν ἑερωσύνην. Christ, on ac- 
 count of his eternity, “holds the priesthood untrans- 
 mitted.” tis a priesthood which does not pass down 
 through successive hands. Theophylact explains it by 
 ἀδιαδόχον, Calvin by tmmutabile, and the English ver- 
 sion by ‘unchangeable’? The meaning first given is 
 the correct one. The Apostle’s argument here for the 
 superiority of Christ, is substantially the same with 
 that by which he proved the superiority of His type, 
 Melchisedek, in v. 8. There, it was argued that the 
 Jewish tithe-receivers were mortal; but of this royal 
 and peculiar one it ‘was testified that he liveth.’ Here 
 the same contrast in Christ’s favour is expanded. 
 
 V. 25. odev. The author now carries the argu- 
 ment farther than it could have been extended in the 
 case of the type, for he has dropped the type and ex- 
 pressly introduced the substance, Christ. He shows 
 that this unfailing existence and perpetual priesthood 
 of Christ, imply the all-sufficiency of his offices for his 
 people. This is the crowning stone to the structure 
 of the third argument for His superiority. 
 
 εἰς τὸ παντελὲς is by some made to qualify owfeer 
 (“He is able to save completely”), as Calvin, Stuart, 
 and the English version. Others, as Kuinoél, regard 
 
280 HEBREWS, OHAP. VII. v. 25. 
 
 it as qualifying δύναταε, deriving thus the sense, ‘He 
 is forever able to save” ‘The classic usage of the 
 phrase εἰς τὸ παντελὲς (as well as that of the New 
 Test. which is limited to this verse, and Luke 18: 11), 
 favours the sense of completeness as to degree (‘com- 
 pletely, ‘entirely’), rather than that of unending du- 
 ration. Bloomfield refers the phrase as a qualificative 
 to both the verbs, to σώζεεν in the sense of ‘ entirely, 
 ‘completely, and also to dvvcrez in the sense of ‘for- 
 ever. To us, it seems more natural to attach it to the 
 former, and in its usual sense of ‘ completely, or in 
 that almost identical sense of the English version, “ to 
 the uttermost ;” which is, etymologically, an apt and 
 correct representation of εἰς πῶν τέλος. But adopting 
 this sense, we by no means lose the implied truth that 
 Christ ministers a never-ending salvation. A complete 
 salvation for an immortal being, is of course unending. 
 Its completeness implies this. 
 
 τοὺς προφερχομένους τῷ sa. This phrase ex- 
 presses the believing on Christ as our surety and medi- 
 ator with God. Its sense is abundantly illustrated by 
 such passages as John 5:40, ov ϑέλετε ἐλϑεῖν πρὸς 
 Me, ἵνα ζωὴν ἔχητε. 
 
 πάντοτε ζῶν. These words are correctly rendered 
 by the English version (“ seeing He ever liveth”), asa 
 ease of that Greek idiom which expresses by the par- 
 ticiple, construed with the noun of the leading propo- 
 sition, the dependent proposition which states the 
 ground or reason of the former. 
 
 évruyzyavey. The simple and primary meaning 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. V. 25. 281 
 
 of this verb is ‘to meet.’ Thence it has the sense of 
 ‘meeting to supplicate one.’ In some instances of the 
 New Test. usage of the verb, this supplication is for 
 the third person, viz. Rom. 8: 26, “The Spirit itself 
 maketh intercessions for us (ὑπερεντυγχάνεε ὑπὲρ 
 ἡμῶν) with groanings,” &e.; 8:27, “He maketh inter- 
 cession for the saints” (ἐντυγχάνει ὑπὲρ ἁγίων); 8: 
 34, “Christ ... who also maketh intercession for us.” 
 In other instances, the supplication is against the per- 
 son who is the object of it; as Acts 25: 24, “ Ye see 
 this man (Paul) about whom all the multitude of the 
 Jews have dealt with me (ἐνέτυχόν joc), both at Je- 
 rusalem and here;” Rom. 11: 2, “ Wot ye not what 
 the Scripture saith of Elias, how he maketh interces- 
 sion to God against Israel?” (ὡς ἐντυγχάνει τῷ ϑεῷ 
 κατὰ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ.) ence the verb came to mean 
 specifically, ‘to intercede for,’ ‘to act as advocate for 
 one. This office is ascribed to Christ here, in 9: 24 
 below, in Rom. 8: 84, in John 14: 16, and by implica- 
 tion in 1 John 2:1. The office is applied to the Holy 
 Spirit in John 14: 16, 15: 26, 16: 7 (6 παράκλητορ), 
 and in Rom. 8: 26,27. The reader may, if he pleases, 
 consult Hodge on the passage last cited; Knapp’s 
 Scripta Varii Argumenti, and Biblical Repertory, vol. 
 i. pp. 237-264. 
 
 26 Τοιοῦτος yao ἡμῖν & ἐν GOZLEQEUS, ὅσιος 
 VEO ἡμῖν ἑπρέὲπὲεν AOYLEQEVS, οσέος, 
 27 2 la Ἂς Ὁ 
 ακάᾶκος, ἀμίαντος, “ἐχωρεσμένος ἀπὸ τῶν ἀμαρ- 
 ~ x c [4 me ~ Ϊ 2 
 τωλῶν, καὶ ὑψηλότερος τῶν οὐρανῶν γενομεγος " 
 
282 HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. V. 26. 
 
 ye [4] >] » ϑ' c 4 > F , cr , is > 
 ὃς οὐκ ἔχεε καϑ' ἡμέραν ἀνάγκην, ὥςπερ OL ἄρχεε- 
 esis, πρότερον ὑπὲρ τῶν ἰδίων ὡμαρτεῶν ϑυσίας 
 4 » ~ ~ ~ ~ > 
 ἀναφέρειν, ἔπειτα τῶν τοῦ λαοῦ" τοῦτο γὰρ 
 Ὕ ’ , © \ ? , c uf 
 28 ἐποίησεν ἐφάπαξ, ἑαυτὸν avevéyxas. Ὁ vouos 
 \ , > ~ 
 yao ἀνϑρώπους xadiornow ἀρχεερεῖς, ἔχοντας 
 ld / ~ U ~ \ 
 ἀσϑένεεαν" ὁ λόγος δὲ τῆς ὁρκωμοσίας τῆς μετὰ 
 ‘ ͵ ‘ ᾿ \ he ΄ 
 τὸν νόμον, υἱὸν εἰς TOY LOVE τετελεεω μένον. 
 
 V. 26. Τοιοῦτος γάρ. Both the pronoun and the 
 conjunction point to v. 25, and afford a graceful and 
 easy transition to the Apostle’s fourth argument, drawn 
 from the sinlessness of Christ. γὰρ introduces a 
 ground or reason for the character asserted of Christ 
 in the previous verse: ‘ He was thus (better than the 
 Aaronic hierarchy) an ever-living and complete Sa- 
 viour, for such a High-Priest became_us.’ But the 
 author, while he points back to the traits of Christ’s 
 character by τοιοῦτος, proceeds to add other traits, 
 even in the same sentence, which are new grounds of 
 proof for his pre-eminence. 
 
 ᾿ἔπρεπεν. This verb here signifies a moral fitness 
 and necessity. We have already seen, in ch. 2: 10 
 above, an instance of its similar use: “It became 
 Him... in bringing many sons unto glory,” &e. The 
 Apostle here intimates, for purposes hortatory as well 
 as argumentative, that Christ was perfectly adapted to 
 the exigencies of our condition, adding, as other requi- 
 sites in which He differed toto calo from the Aaronic 
 priests, that He was without taint or sin, removed 
 from sinners in his purity (but not in his intercourse 
 or sympathies), exalted above the heavens, needing no 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. v. 26. 283 
 
 sacrifice for himself like Aaron and his sons, but offer- 
 ing one perfect and sufficient for his people. 
 
 χεχωρισμένος ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν. The prece- 
 ding words, ὅσεος, ἄκακος, ἐμέαντος, state the partic- 
 ulars in which Christ was separated from our sinful 
 race. The latter phrase is inclusive of the former: 
 “He is holy, harmless, undefiled, distinguished (in 
 these respects) from those for whom he intercedes.” 
 Calvin here remarks: “Membrum istud, ‘segregatus a 
 peccatoribus,’ reliqua comprehendit. Fuit enim aliqua 
 Aaronis sanctitas, et innocentia, et puritas, sed nonnisi 
 ad exiguum duntaxat modulum; multis enim maculis 
 foedate erant. Christus autem, qui exemptus est 6 
 vulgo hominum, solus est a peccato immunis. Ideo 
 vera sanctitas et innocentia in eo solo reperientur. 
 Neque enim segregatus a nobis dicitur, quod nos a 
 societate sua repellat: sed quia hoc habet pre nobis 
 eximium, ut vacuus sit omni immunditia.” 
 
 ὑψηλότερος τῶν οὐρανῶν γενόμενος. This phrase 
 seems to imply not merely exaltation above all crea- 
 tures, for this is argued throughout the whole of ch. 1, 
 and in ch. 2: 6-9; but it seems to have special refer- 
 ence to the fact, that while the Aaronic high-priest 
 ministered on earth, Christ has gone on our behalf 
 into the heavenly sanctuary. This idea is in many 
 places made prominent in this Epistle. In ch. 4:14 it 
 is said, “ We have a great High-Priest, that is passed 
 into the heavens.” In 8:1, 2, “ 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 sanctu- 
 
284 HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. v. 27. 
 
 ary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched 
 and not man.” In 8:4, “If he were on earth, he 
 should not be a priest.” In 9:11, “Christ... is a 
 High-Priest of good things to come, by a greater and 
 more perfect tabernacle,” &e. And in 9: 24, “ Christ 
 is not entered into the holy places made with hands, 
 which are the figures of the true, but into heaven 
 itself.” It seems therefore more reasonable to under- 
 stand these words in the same sense. And this is 
 especially confirmed by the language of 8: 1, 2, “ Now 
 of the things which we have spoken, this is the sum,” 
 &e. Christ’s being at the right hand of the throne of 
 the majesty in the heavens, in the true tabernacle 
 which the Lord pitched and not man, is one of the 
 points taught in the preceding chapters. What words 
 in any chapter before the eighth, more naturally ex- 
 press this idea than the words under remark ? 
 
 V. 27. xa? ἡμέραν. Some understand these 
 words in a loose and popular sense, as not meaning 
 literally every day, but only ‘repeatedly,’ ‘with con- 
 siderable frequency ;’ and they refer to Mark 14: 49, 
 and Acts 16: 5, as similar instances: “I was daily 
 with you in the temple, teaching, and ye took me not” 
 (xa? ἡμέραν); “And so were the churches estab- 
 lished in the faith, and increased in number daily.” 
 This is the sense adopted by Kuinoél. But some 
 others, among whom is Stuart, adopt this view: that 
 daily sacrifices were offered, not by the high-priest 7m 
 propria persona, but by his subordinate agents, for 
 the sins of the whole people, among whom the high- 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. v. 27. 285 
 
 priest himself was included, and that this is the sense 
 in which there was a sacrifice for his imperfections 
 every day. But the phraseology evidently excludes 
 this idea, refers to the ritual of the great day of 
 atonement (see Levit. 16: 3-34), and implies that it 
 was the personal act of the high-priest himself, which 
 is here described: ‘He offers sacrifices, first for his 
 own sin (τῶν ἐδίων ὡμαρτεῶν), then for those of the 
 people.’ Philo is cited as saying, ἀρχεερεὺς xara τοὺς 
 vouous, suyas δὲ καὶ ϑυσίας τέλων καϑ' ἐκάστην ἡ μέ- 
 ραν. We incline strongly to regard this as one of the 
 frequent instances of historical license, indulged by the 
 Jewish writers of Philo’s age. The law, which he says 
 commanded this (κατὼ τοὺς νόμους), is certainly silent 
 concerning it, so far as we now can see. Hebr. 9: 6,7 
 seems to imply that the common priests performed all 
 the offices of common days, and the high-priest only 
 sacrificed in person on the day of atonement. We 
 would therefore give to xc?’ ἡμέραν a sense somewhat 
 different from both those proposed above. It signifies 
 the stated recurrence of an act on és recurring day. 
 This does not signify that that is every day. After 
 we have said that the high-priest performed these rites 
 ‘day by day,’ it still remains to be settled which days 
 and how many were appropriated periodically to them. 
 The sense is that of a periodical repetition simply. It 
 may be illustrated by Matt. 27:15, Kara δὲ ἑορτὴν 
 εἰώϑεε ὁ ἡγεμὼν ἀπολύειν ἕνα τῷ ὄχλῳ δέσμιον, κ-τ.λ. 
 “ Now at that feast the governor was wont (annually) 
 to release unto the people a prisoner.” We might 
 
286 HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. Vv. 28. 
 
 with propriety translate this, “ Hom feast to feast the 
 governor was wont,” &c. And yet it is not every 
 feast which is intended. 
 
 V. 28. Ὁ νόμος γάρ, x.r.4. The νόμος here 
 intended is the general law instituting the Mosaic 
 economy, the same which is intended in v. 18 above. 
 The particle γὰρ introduces this statement as the 
 ground or reason of the assertions of v. 27: ‘ Aaronic 
 high-priests were thus compelled to offer sacrifices for 
 themselves, before offering for the people, because the 
 law constituted dmperfect beings high-priests; but 
 Christ had no such necessity, because the word of the 
 oath-swearing (Ps. 110: 4), which was after the 
 (Mosaic) law, constituted the Son High-Priest, who 
 hath been perfected forever.’ - 
 
 τῆς μετὰ τὸν νόμον. Christ’s appointment was 
 announced with solemn oath, after the Mosaic institu- 
 tions, as to time. The author seems here to intimate, 
 that this fact contained a proof that Christ’s priest- 
 hood was designed to supersede the Levitical. ‘Thus, 
 as was indicated in the commentary on vy. 11 above, 
 the introduction of a new and different priesthood 
 argues the inefficiency of the previous one. And this 
 is still more distinctly urged in vv. 15-19, where the 
 abrogation of the Aaronic institute on account of its. 
 weakness and unprofitableness is clearly asserted, and 
 its replacing by a better hope, that of Christ. The 
 words μετὰ τὸν νόμον are therefore introduced here 
 to make an intimation of this fact in passing. 
 
 τετελειωμένον. This word is rendered by the 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. v. 28. 287 
 
 English version, “consecrated” (“who is consecrated 
 forevermore”). In the Analysis we have rendered it 
 “olorified.” We shall apply here the general sense 
 fixed for this word in the comment on ch. 2: 10, and 
 so often cited, in that phase of its meaning which 
 this context requires. Christ is here declared to be 
 brought to the completeness of that condition which 
 was proposed in this case. The matter in hand is his 
 priesthood. His ‘perfecting’ is, therefore, his receiv- 
 ing all those powers and graces which are proper toa . 
 perfectly efficient high-priest, and that forever—his 
 eternal glorification as a complete High-Priest. 
 
SBAPTER. VI. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 Havrne given many reasons for the superior order 
 of Christ’s priesthood, and his superior qualifications 
 for the office, the Apostle proceeds further to show 
 the superior excellence of this priesthood in view of 
 the higher sanctuary in which it is exercised, vv. 1-5, 
 with functions corresponding to the better. dispensa- 
 tion with which it is connected, vv. 6-13. 
 
 Of the matter in hand, the chief thing is, that we 
 have so excellent a High-Priest, who is seated at the 
 right hand of God, a minister in the sanctuary of the 
 true, even the heavenly tabernacle, vv.1, 2. A minister 
 or officiator, for (yae, v. 3) every high-priest is ap- 
 pointed to make offerings ; in the heavenly sanctuary, 
 for (γάρ, v. 4) He could not exercise the office upon 
 earth, since there were priests (to whose tribe and 
 order he did not belong) appointed by the-law, who 
 served in the tabernacle which was but a type of the 
 heavenly, as we learn from the charge to Moses when 
 about to build it, vv. 8-5. But (δὲ) now, instead 
 of officiating upon earth, in the type which Moses 
 caused to be built (compare μέν, v. 4), He hath 
 obtained a more excellent ministry, corresponding to 
 the superior dispensation of which He is the mediator, 
 y. 6. The superiority of this dispensation he proves, 
 (γὰρ) by the fact that, the first being faulty, a place 
 
CHAP. VIII.—ANALYSIS. 289 
 
 was sought for a second, v. 7. This he shows by a 
 quotation from Jer. 31: 31-84, in which the first dis- 
 pensation is repudiated because the people did not 
 keep it, and God was displeased with them; in other 
 words, under it they continued rebellious and God’s 
 anger still burned; while a second is promised, which 
 shall have the effect to write the law of God on their 
 hearts, and to unite them and Him in the closest οου- 
 enant; under which the knowledge of God shall be 
 universal, and sins shall be wholly remitted, vv. 8-12. 
 Upon this quotation the author remarks: In calling 
 this dispensation new, he represents the first as old, 
 and therefore (by general analogy) near its dissolution, 
 v. 13. 
 19 
 
290 HEBREWS, CHAP. VIII. Vv. l. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 ' pet ~ ld ~ 
 
 ΝΠ]. 1 Κεφάλαιον δὲ ἐπὶ τοῖς λεγομένοις " τοιοῦ- 
 La ‘ , f Ὕ ~ ~ 
 τον ἔχομεν ἀρχεερέα, ὃς ἐκάϑεσεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ 
 
 Γ - ‘ Ἴ ~ ~ ~ 
 2 ϑρονου τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, τῶν 
 c , Ul ~ ~ ~ ? ~ a 
 aytov hecrovoyos, καὶ τῆς σκηνῆς τῆς ἀληϑεγῆς, ἣν 
 » - c Γ΄ Ἀ » ” ~ ‘ 
 3 ἔπηξεν ὁ κύριος, καὶ οὐκ ἄνϑρωπος. (Πᾶς yae 
 ‘ I ~ / 
 ἀρχεερεὺς εἰς TO προςφέρεεν δῶρα TE καὶ ϑυσίας 
 , ca ~ » ~ 
 
 καϑίσταται, ὃϑεν ἀναγκαῖον ἔχεεν ti καὶ τοῦτον, 
 4 [4] ἀξ ΤᾺΝ ) EF AN \ ee De ᾿ a "δ᾽ Ε}} ΟΥ̓ 
 ὃ προςφενέγκῃ.) Et μὲν γὰρ ἣν ἐπὶ γῆς, οὐδ᾽ av Hy 
 
 7, ” ~ f ~ / ‘ 
 ἑερεύς, ὄντων τῶν ἑερέων TOY προςφερόντων HATE 
 
 Or 
 
 Ἂν, / A ~ ’ 4 , ~ 
 
 τὸν νόμον τὰ δῶρα, οἵτενες ὑποδείγματε καὶ σκεᾷ 
 Lf ~ γ \ , 
 
 λατρευουσε τῶν ἐπουρανίων, zatas κεχρημαάτεσταε 
 Μηωῦσῆς, μέλλων ἐπιτελεῖν τὴν σκηνήν" “ὅρα ya 
 
 Ἰωύσῆς, μέλλων ἕπετελεῖν τὴν σκηνὴν " “ opu yag, 
 
 , , ’ \ ‘\ hi ~ \ if 
 
 φησί, ποεησῃς MaVTE κατὰ τὸν τύπον τὸν δειχϑέντα 
 GOL ἕν τῷ OQEL.” 
 
 V.1. Κεφάλαιον. This word we will ποὺ trans- 
 late ‘recapitulation’ or ‘summary,’ for there is none in 
 this chapter. Calvin seems to take the word in the 
 sense of ‘sum, ‘substance.’ “ Pergit quidem,in eodem 
 argumento; sed quia variis rationibus pugnat, ideo 
 hance admonitionem inseruit, ut intentos ad scopum lec- 
 tores teneret.” But the most and best of the commen- 
 tators, ancient (as Suidas, Theophylact, Theodoret), 
 and modern (as Stuart, Michaelis, Storr, &c.), trans- 
 late the word, ‘the chief, or principal point. This 
 
 is better sustained by the context, for the point here 
 introduced has not before been insisted on in this Epis- 
 tle, though glanced at in several places. Such passing 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VIII. v. 1. 291 
 
 allusions may be seen in 4: 14 (“A great High-Priest . 
 that is passed into the heavens”), 6: 20 (Christ “the 
 forerunner is for us entered within the vail”), and at 
 the conclusion of the preceding chapter. The adjunct, 
 ἐπὶ τοῖς λεγο μένοες, also requires the meaning assigned 
 above to κεφάλαιον, for it does not bring the idea of 
 something before stated and now to be recounted, but 
 of something additional. Virgil (Atneid I. 341, 2), 
 uses summa in this sense. most obviously ; for it is at 
 the beginning of the recital. A recapitulation must 
 be at the end: 
 
 Longa est injuria; longx 
 Ambages; sed summa sequar fastigia rerum. 
 
 ἐπὶ τοῖς λεγομένοις. éat seems here not only to 
 denote ‘addition’ (in the sense of preter, which is 
 assioned to it by the Lexicons), but to refer to the 
 superior importance of the point now introduced for 
 discussion, over and above the rest. Hence the matter 
 so added is termed χεφάλαεον. τοῖς λεγομένοες may 
 be understood as referring to the whole previous dis- 
 cussion from chap. 5 onward; or possibly the words 
 may be understood more specifically as meaning the 
 points laid down in 5: 1-4; viz. the qualifications of a 
 priest in general. But the fact that the participle is 
 in the present tense is less favourable to the latter 
 view, for the author thus indicates that he intends 
 matters of present discussion by the phrase. The 
 sense first stated is therefore the easier and more ap- 
 
292 HEBREWS, CHAP. VIII. Vv. 2. 
 
 propriate one: ‘Over and above the matters we are 
 speaking of, this is the chief thing, that we have such 
 a High-Priest,’ &e. 
 
 τοιοῦτον ὠρχεερέα. Some refer rocovroy to what 
 precedes: ‘We have such a High-Priest as has been 
 described in ch. 7, one of a different order from Levi, 
 and superior even to Levi’s great progenitor, Abra- 
 ham; one consecrated with the solemnity of an oath ; 
 one who is eternal and without cessation or succession 
 in his functions; and one who is personally spotless 
 and needs no personal atonement.’ But this exposi- 
 tion would give to κεφάλαιον substantially the mean- 
 ing of a recapitulation, which, as we have seen, is not 
 its proper sense. It is better to understand the demon- 
 strative pronoun as pointing to what follows: ‘We 
 have such a High-Priest, viz. one who hath set down 
 at the right hand,’ &e. 
 
 τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἕν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. We have here 
 the abstract for the concrete, ‘the majesty’ for ‘Him 
 who is majestic.’ The whole phrase is identical with 
 that in ch. 1: 3, to which the reader is referred for 
 exposition of it. 
 
 V.2. ἁγίων. This word undoubtedly signifies 
 ‘the most holy place;’ a sense equivalent to ‘sanctu- 
 ary,’ which is the English version. Its usage in other 
 parts of the Epistle settles this. In 9: 8 it can have 
 no other sense consistently with the context, μήπω 
 πεφανερῶσϑαι τὴν τῶν ἁγέων ὁδόν, for the reference is 
 to the fact that none but the high-priest, and he but 
 once yearly, could enter within the vail. In 10:19 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VIII. v. 9. 293 
 
 we read, Ἔχοντες οὖν, ἀδελφοί, παῤῥησίαν εἰς τὴν 
 εἰξοδον τῶν ἁγίων ἐν τῷ αἵματε Ἰησοῦ. In 18: 11 it 
 is said, εἰςφέρεταε.... τὸ aia περὶ ἁμαρτίας εἰς τὰ 
 ἅγεα διὰ τοῦ ἀρχεερέως. In 9:3 it is called eye 
 «ἁγίων. It is used, as appears from the places cited, 
 sometimes for the type, and sometimes for the anti- 
 type; in this place for the latter. 
 
 καὶ τῆς σκηνῆς τῆς ἀληϑενῆς. These words may 
 be understood as only explicative of the preceding: 
 ‘A minister of the holy place, even of the true taber- 
 nacle.” Or else we may, with more propriety, explain 
 them as truly additional, giving zai its usual additive 
 meaning, so that the expression will constitute a hen- 
 diadis. The adjective ὠληϑενῆς may then be con- 
 ceived as qualifying both σκηνῆς and ἁγέων, the former 
 more immediately, but the latter also more remotely. 
 The defining clause, ἣν ἔπηξεν ὃ χύρεος, καὶ οὐκ ἄν- 
 ϑρωπος, is evidently constructed with reference to the 
 structure of the lower and typical sanctuary. This 
 was ὦ tent pitched, or set up. Hence God, the creator 
 of the highest heaven, is said to have pitched it also, 
 only in allusion to the former. 
 
 V.3. Πᾶς yao. The most obvious and natural 
 connection of thought here, is that which regards γὰρ 
 as referring to Ascroveyos, as is indicated in the Anal- 
 ysis. The Apostle proves that Christ does actually 
 perform the functions of a priest at the spiritual altar : 
 ‘Christ has a sacerdotal ministry; for every high- 
 priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices’ The 
 whole of v. 3 may with propriety be treated as a 
 
294 HEBREWS, OHAP. VIII. v. 4. 
 
 parenthesis, as is done in Vater’s edition, which is in- 
 troduced in this Commentary. 
 
 V.4. Ei μὲν yao. Here γὰρ evidently intro- 
 duces the proof of the other branch of the Apostle’s 
 statement in vy. 2, as to the place in which Christ’s 
 sacerdotal ministry is exercised : ‘It is in the true, heavy- 
 enly sanctuary ; for if he were on earth, he should not 
 be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts 
 according to the law.’ Such is evidently the Apostle’s 
 drift. This is, so to speak, the main line of thought, 
 and hence the propriety of making ν. 3 parenthetical, 
 inasmuch as it is only subordinate in the present con- 
 text. Vy. 9 and 10 exhibit a parailel use of the par- 
 ticle ὅτε. In vv. 8, 9, two points are presented in the 
 author’s statement concerning a change of covenant 
 between God and his church, as foretold by Jeremi- 
 ah: first, that the old covenant was adjudged faulty, 
 and second, that a new and different one was substi- 
 tuted. The ground of the first statement is introduced 
 by ὅτε (v. 9, last clauses, Ore αὐτοὶ οὐκ ἐνέμειναν ἕν τῇ 
 διωϑήκῃ μου, #.t-A.), and that of the second is also in- 
 troduced by the same particle, in v. 10: ὅτε αὕτη ἡ 
 διαϑήκη ἣν διαϑήσομαε, 2.7.2. Such a connexion of 
 sentences can only be made easy by placing the first 
 ground, which stands between the second point and 
 its ground, in a parenthetic position. 
 
 ὄντων τῶν ἑερέων, x.r.4. The words τῶν ἑερέων 
 are wanting in some important ancient manuscripts, 
 the Vulgate, and other versions. The sense is not made 
 worse or less distinct by its omission. The scope is 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VIII. Vv. 5. 295 
 
 obvious: ‘If Christ were on the earth (if this were the 
 scene of his ministerial functions), he had not been a 
 priest, since there are (persons) who offer gifts accord- 
 ing to the law. This mere, earthly, typical, inferior 
 priesthood has been already provided for, its rules are 
 fixed, and the order of men defined who fill its func- 
 tions ; and according to those rules, Christ Jesus could 
 not be one of them, not being of the right tribe. The 
 fact, therefore, that he has priestly functions, a fact be- 
 fore proved, shows that his priesthood is in a different 
 sanctuary. 
 
 V. 5. οἵτενες Unodstypare, κιτ.Δ. While the 
 Apostle excludes Christ from the earthly tabernacle, 
 he asserts and proves that this is only a type and 
 shadow of the heavenly. 
 
 vxodelyace. This word is used in Hebr. 4: 11, 
 and 2 Pet. 2: 6, in the sense of ‘example’ (“after the 
 same example of unbelief”—“ making Sodom and Go- 
 morrah an example unto those that after should live 
 ungodly”). In the verse under remark, and in 9: 28, 
 it has the meaning of type; and in 9: 24, the succeed- 
 ing verse, the word eyriruxa is used as its synonyme. 
 Aquila’s version of the Old Test. employs it as a trans- 
 lation of ΤΏ, τὼ Deut. 4:17, “the likeness of any 
 beast that’is on the earth.” 
 
 καὶ oxig. By this word is intended ‘a shadow, 
 an ‘adumbration.’ In Col. 2: 17 it is contrasted with 
 σῶμα, “ Holy days, new moons, sabbath-days ... are a 
 shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.” 
 In Hebr. 10: 1 it is opposed to εἰἴχων, “For the law 
 
290 HEBREWS, OHAP. VIII. Vv. ὅ. 
 
 having a shadow of good things to come, and not the 
 very image of the things,” &e. 
 
 ἐπιτελεῖν. This verb includes both the ideas of 
 ‘finishing,’ ‘making,’ and ‘performing.’ In 9:6 below 
 it is used in the sense of ‘ performing, without the idea 
 of completion prominently presented: of ἑερεῖς τὰς 
 λατρείας ἐπιτελοῦντες. The same phase of meaning is 
 seen in Luke 18: 82, ἐάσεις ἐπετελῶ. But in Phil. 1: 
 6 the idea of completion is the prominent one: 6 évag- 
 ξώμενος . «. ἐπετελέσεε ἄχρες ἡμέρας Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. 
 The meaning in this passage is nearest akin to the first 
 two. 
 
 κατὰ τὸν τύπον, κιτ.2. This language does not de- 
 termine the modus of the exhibition which was made 
 to Moses, of the shapes and arrangements to be adopt- 
 ed in the tabernacle and its furniture, when he was 
 forty days in Mount Sinai. It only assures us that 
 such an exhibition was then distinctly made. It may 
 have been by direct inspiration, by verbal description, 
 or by figure. ‘The latter is certainly the most natural 
 import of the words. The Hebrew word rendered 
 τύπον in Exod. 25:40 (whence the Apostle here 
 quotes), is M22m (from 722). Stephen, in his discourse, 
 Acts 7:44, employs language equivalent to that of 
 Exodus: “That he should make it according to the 
 fashion (τύπον) that he had seen.” In 1 Chron. 28: 
 12, 19, it is said that David gave Solomon “ the pat- 
 tern of all that he had by the Spirit;” and that Da- 
 vid said, “ All this the Lord made me understand in 
 writing by his hand upon me, even all the works of 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VIII. v. 5. 29% 
 
 this pattern.” The mode of exhibition here indicated 
 was probably different. But this is an inquiry more 
 curious than useful. The words of the Apostle and of 
 Exodus by no means imply that the heavenly sanctu- 
 ary is material; they only teach that the forms which 
 were exhibited to Moses, after which he built the tab- 
 ernacle, were a type of the heavenly. 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 8 
 
 9 
 
 10 
 
 11 
 
 12 
 
 ig , , a 
 Nuvi δὲ διαφορωτέρας τέτευχε λειτουργίας, σῷ 
 r le ? Ud , cr > 
 καὶ xositrovos ἔστε διαϑηήκης μεσέτης, ἥτες Ent 
 , >) , r \e 
 κρείττοσεν ἐπαγγελέαες νενομοϑέτηταε. Εἰ yee ἡ 
 ὁ ? U a v > ph ly γ 
 πρωτὴ EXELYN ἢν ἄμεμπτος, οὐκ ἂν δευτέρας ἐζη- 
 ma id If \ ) - f 
 teito τόπος. Meugopuevos yao αὐτοῖς λέγει" 
 46? δ - c r A ‘4 Ld Ἀ 
 Ἰδοῦ, nusoat ἔρχονταε, λέγεε χύρεος, καὶ συντε- 
 r 9», tt \ oT 2 \ ah aN \ τ 2 , 
 λέσω ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον ᾿Ισραὴλ καὶ ἐπὲ τὸν οἶκον Ἰούδα 
 ῇ I ? \ ὟΝ t \ 
 Ocadnxny xawyy* οὐ κατὰ τὴν διαϑήκην, ἣν 
 ? , τς ~ κι 2 ~ ? > 
 ἑποίησα τοῖς πατράσεν αὐτῶν ἕν ἡμέρᾳ ἐπελαβο- 
 In ~ ‘ } ~ due ~ 2 \ ? 
 feevou μου τῆς χεερὸς αὐτῶν ἐξαγαγεῖν αὐτοὺς &# 
 - ) Γ cr 2 κ ἌΡ > ~ 
 γῆς Αἰγύπτου, OTe αὐτοὶ οὐδέ ἐνέμεεναν EV TH δια- 
 a , \ 2 yA 2 - , fy 
 ϑηχὴ μου, κάγω ἡμέλησα αὐτῶν, λέγεε κύρεος " 
 cr a c i κι Γ - vv 
 ore αὕτη ἡ διαϑήκη, ἣν διωϑήσομαε τῷ οἴκῳ 
 > Χ ᾿ \ fee Py > r r / 
 Ἰσραὴλ μετὰ τὰς ἡμέρας ἐκείνας, λέγεε χύρεος, 
 \ r 2 \ r ~ 
 δεδοὺς νόμους μου εἰς τὴν διώνοιαν αὐτῶν, καὶ 
 > , 7 ~ > / la » 
 ἐπὶ καρδίας «αὐτῶν ἐπειγράψω αὐτούς" καὶ ἔσομαι 
 2 - } » 4 7 
 αὐτοῖς εἰς peor, καὶ αὐτοὶ ἔσονταί woe εἰς λαόν. 
 ve } \ l we Go \ , 
 Kai ov μὴ διδάξωσιν ἕκαστος τὸν [πολίτην] 
 c ~ 9 \ \ ~ fe 
 αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἕκαστος, TOY ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ, λέγων" 
 - \ 4 a r Γ a dap 
 γνῶϑε τὸν κύριον" ὅτε πάντες εἰδήσουσέ με, ἀπὸ 
 ~ Ἢ Δ es Ψ r Da es ΄ ra “ἢ 
 μεχροῦ [αὐτῶν] ἕως μεγάλου αὐτῶν. Ὅτε ἵλεως 
 » ~ > ~ ~ c ~ 
 ἔσομαε ταῖς ἀδεκέκες «κὐτῶν, καὶ TOY ἁμαρτιῶν 
 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ 
 αὐτῶν καὶ τῶν ἀνομεῶν αὐτῶν οὐ μὴ μνησϑῶ 
 
298 HEBREWS, OHAP. VIII. Vv. 6. 
 
 ”’ > ~ ’ U4 4 
 18 és.” Ev τῷ λέγεεν καένην, πεπαλαίωκε τὴν πρώ- 
 \ / , , 
 τὴν" TO δὲ παλαεούμενον καὶ γηραόσκον, ἐγγὺς 
 ἀφανεσμοῦ. 
 
 V.6. Nuvi δέ, “But now,” i.e. in Christ’s pres- 
 ent exalted state. The particle δὲ here introduces the 
 antithesis to μεὲν in v. 4: ‘If, on the one hand, he had 
 been upon earth, he had not been a priest; but now, 
 on the other hand, he hath had allotted to him a more 
 excellent ministry,’ &c., viz. one in the heavenly sane- 
 tuary. We give to δεαφορωτέρας its derived sense of 
 ‘better, ‘superior, asin 1:4 above, where it is said 
 of Christ, διαφορώτερον κεκληρονόμησεν ὄνομα. hee 
 τουργέας 15 genitive, according to the customary usage 
 of τυγχάνω. The object of comparison is the priestly 
 ministry in the earthly sanctuary. 
 
 κρείττονος dceedyjxns. The dispensation of Christ 
 is called better, as having “better promises.” The 
 former dispensation, by its carnal ordinances, removed 
 certain civil penalties and legal impurities, but did not 
 reach the penalties of the divine law and the corrup- 
 tions of the heart. Its services had no avail to avert 
 the wrath of God as final Judge, nor to sanctify the 
 sinful nature of man. For these purposes, it was in 
 itself ἀσϑενῆς καὶ ἀνωφελῆς, as was asserted in 7: 18. 
 
 μεσέτης. ‘This important word is by some etymo- 
 logists derived from μέσος -- siz, ‘a go-between,’ and 
 by others from μέσος alone, the syllables ery being 
 regarded as merely the nominal termination. Whether 
 the active idea of ‘going’ is in the word or not, little 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VIII. V. 6. 299 
 
 affects its primary sense, which is obviously that of 
 ‘one who stands between parties to act for both,’ ‘a 
 mediator. The sense in which it is here used is suffi- 
 ciently manifest from its use in other places, and from 
 the context. In Gal. 3:19, 20, Moses is called the 
 μεσίτης between God and the people under the cere- 
 monial law, in the sense of énternuntius. In the pas- 
 sage under remark, in Hebr. 9: 15, 12: 24, and 1 Tim. 
 2: 5, it is applied to the Lord Jesus Christ, and most 
 manifestly in each case with the special sense of a sacer- 
 dotal mediator, intervening with sacrifice and interces- 
 sion, for the reconciliation of God and sinners. In 
 9:15 we read, “ And for this cause he is the mediator 
 of the new testament (δεαϑήκης καενῆς μεσίτης); 
 (viz.) ὅπως, ϑανάτου γενομένου εἰς ἀπολύτρωσεν τῶν 
 ἐπὶ τῇ πρώτῃ δικιϑήκῃ παραβάσεων, τὴν ἐπαγγελέαν 
 λάβωσεν of κεκλημένοι τῆς αἰωνίον πληρονομίας." 
 His priestly work is here stated as the very purpose 
 of his mediation. In the passage next cited it is said, 
 “Ye are come to Jesus, the mediator of the new cove- 
 nant, and to the blood of sprinkling,” &c.; where his 
 sacrifice is again made prominent in connexion with 
 his mediation. And in the last, “There is one God, 
 and one mediator between God and men, the man 
 Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all.” The 
 meaning of the phrase under remark may also be illus- 
 trated by the parallel expression of 7 : 22 above, κρεέτ- 
 rovos διαϑήκης éyyvog. As was there seen, the ἔγγνος 
 is one who pays the liabilities of those for whom he 
 stands. In the case of Christ’s people, a part of these 
 
900 HEBREWS, CHAP. VIII. Vv. 6. 
 
 liabilities is sacrifice for sin. The sacerdotal charac- 
 ter of Christ’s mediation is clear. 
 
 ἐπὶ xosirroow ἐπαγγελίαις. The nature of this ἡ 
 superiority has been explained above, in the remarks 
 on χρεέττονος διαϑήκης. The preposition here em- 
 ployed shows the fundamental nature of these promi- 
 ses, upon which the better dispensation “hath been 
 instituted.” There is here a parallelism of expression 
 to 7:11 above. There, it was said that the people 
 had received its institutions ἐπ᾿ αὐτῇ (viz. δεὰ Asvire- 
 κῆς ἑερωσύνης). That priesthood was the basis on 
 which rested the enjoyment of whatever carnal and 
 external benefits the people derived from Mosaic insti- 
 tutions. In Hebr. 10: 28 it is said, “ He that despised 
 Moses’ law, died without mercy, ἐπὶ δυδὲν ἢ reset μιάρ- 
 τυσεν. The sentence rested on the testimony, as its 
 basis. So, the new dispensation is founded on these 
 better promises. What the promises are, may be dis- 
 covered in vy. 10-12 below, viz. that God will put his 
 laws into our minds and write them in our hearts, will 
 enter into the covenant relation of a Father to us, and 
 mercifully forgive our sins. They are summed up in 
 justification and sanctification ; and, more briefly, in 
 redemption. These are the blessings which the new 
 dispensation was designed to secure. 
 
 γενομοϑέτηται. In the New Test. this word oe- 
 curs only here and in 7:11 above. The difference of 
 subjects gives the verb in the two places a slightly 
 different phase of meaning. In 7: 11 the nominative 
 is λαύς, ‘the people were instituted, in the sense of: 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VIII. v. Τὶ 301 
 
 ‘being provided with a set of institutions. Here, the 
 nominative is δεαϑήκη, ‘the dispensation hath been 
 instituted,’ in the sense of ‘laying down as law,’ ‘ giv- 
 ing law. Hence we should not object to render it, 
 with Calvin, ‘promulgatum, or with others, ‘estab- 
 lished,’ ‘sanctioned.’ The idea of the passage seems to 
 be, ‘that the new dispensation was established upon 
 the basis of better promises :’ these were the end to be 
 accomplished, the reason of its institution, the ground 
 of its establishment, without which it would never 
 have been given, and with which it is essentially supe- 
 rior to the old dispensation, which had no efficacy in 
 itself (see 7: 18), and was chiefly valuable as adum- 
 brating this. 
 
 V.%. Ei yao. The conjunction γὰρ here intro- 
 duces the proof of the inferiority of the first dispensa- 
 tion, which is implied im v. 6: “He (Christ) hath 
 obtained a better ministry, and is mediator of a better 
 dispensation, founded on better promises.” That is, 
 the Aaronic was worse; ‘for (yao), if it had not been, 
 it would not have been substituted by a second,’ 
 
 ἄμεμπτος. The Apostle intends by this word, 
 ‘blameless,’ being ‘ without defect for the great object 
 or aim of securing redemption.’ In this sense, the one 
 in which bigoted and perverse Jews persisted in sup- 
 porting it, it was not blameless: it was chargeable with 
 defect. But we are not to understand the Apostle as 
 saying that God had instituted a dispensation which 
 was faulty for the purposes He had in view. For those 
 purposes, which were typical, it was well adapted. 
 
802 HEBREWS, OHAP. VIII. v. 8. 
 
 ἐζητεῖτο τόπος. The phrase is pregnant, and im- 
 plies that room was made for the second, by the abro- 
 gation of the first, on account of the superiority of the 
 former to the latter. 
 
 V.8. Μεμφόμενος γάρ. Here follows the proof 
 that the first dispensation was not ἄμεμπτος. The 
 force of the connective, as introducing this proof, is 
 easily seen. The evidence is a gospel prophecy from 
 Jer. 31: 31-34. It also contains the proof that room 
 was sought for a second and better covenant. 
 
 αὐτοῖς. ‘This pronoun belongs more properly to 
 λέγεε than to weuqousvoc, with which it is construed 
 by the English version, and Calvin. Meugouevog is 
 used in evident allusion to ἄμεμπτος, and therefore 
 finds its object, by a natural ellipsis, in αὐτῇ, to be 
 supplied by the reader, and referring to διαϑήκη, 
 which is obviously the subject to ἄμεμπτος. The 
 meaning therefore is, ‘Charging defect upon that first 
 dispensation, God saith to them’ (the Israelites of Jer- 
 emiah’s day), &e. 
 
 διαϑήκην καενήν. In this passage we clearly see 
 the use of δεαϑήκη to express those arrangements of 
 God with his people, which we call the old and new 
 testaments or dispensations. In v. 10 we have the 
 sense of the word very clearly manifested, as it flows 
 from its etymology, δεαϑϑήκην ἣν δεαϑήσομαε (‘the in- 
 stitution which I shall institute’). Compare Aristoph. 
 Om. 439. The proof which this quotation presents 
 that the former dispensation was charged with defect 
 by God, is in the fact that a new one is to be intro- 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VIII. Vv. 9. 303 
 
 duced, unlike the old, and that the old did not secure 
 the obedience of the people to God, nor the favour of 
 God to them. 
 
 V.9. ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐπελαβομένου μον, 2.7.4. These 
 words are a translation of 0772 "pn oa in the He- 
 brew; and are the same with which this clause is 
 rendered in the Septuagint. The whole quotation 
 contains several unimportant variations from the Sep- 
 tuagint rendering (which is to be sought in the 38th 
 chapter of that version), ‘In the day of my taking 
 their hand, &c. The construction should rather be 
 accounted a Hebraism, than an anacoluthon; for it is 
 a strict imitation of the original. See Winer’s Id. $64, 
 p- 406. The word ἡμέρᾳ is to be understood in the 
 general sense of ‘time,’ ‘juncture, ‘era.’ If we’should 
 give it its literal sense, the only institution whose com- 
 mencement could be plausibly fixed on the very day 
 the people left Egypt would be the passover. But 
 the whole of the Aaronic dispensation is intended, of 
 which we may say, with general accuracy, that it was 
 instituted at the exodus. 
 
 ὅτε. This conjunction is here not demonstrative, 
 but causal. It introduces the reason for God’s making 
 a ‘new arrangement,’ not like the old: οὐ κατὰ τὴν 
 δειαϑήκην, ἣν ἐποίησα τοῖς πατράσι. 
 
 οὐκ ἐνέμειναν. The Hebrew is, 25 5am 7K, 
 ‘because they broke,’ ‘ violated, my arrangement.’ The 
 Septuagint employs the same translation for this verb. 
 
 “ἀγὼ ἠμέλησα «αὐτῶν. This also is the Septuagint 
 rendering for B32 °m>ya "2387. It is worthy of note 
 
304 HEBREWS, CHAP. VIII. v. 10. 
 
 that the Syriac version gives the same sense. Our 
 English version of Jeremiah improperly translates, 
 “which my covenant they brake, although I was a 
 husband to them.” Gesenius, in his Hebr. Lex. very 
 accurately states the meanings of 253 to be, 1. ‘To be 
 Lord, 2.‘To become a husband,’ ὃ. “Τὸ look down 
 upon ;’ and hence, ‘to disdain, contemn or reject.’ 
 The last sense is nearly that given by the Septuagint 
 and our Epistle. Others translate this passage, “I was 
 their Lord.” Gesenius also translates the passage in 
 Jer. 8: 14, p22 "nya "25x 1D, “For I rejected you,” 
 which the English version renders, “Turn, oh back- 
 shding children, saith the Lord; for Iam married to 
 you.” ‘The sense we have given to the citation above, 
 is certainly more accordant with the scope of the 
 author. 
 
 V.10. ὅτε is here rather illustrative than causal. 
 The ‘new dispensation’ had been promised in vy. 8; 
 and its nature is here explained. This explanation 
 does indeed present somewhat of support or ground 
 for the assertion that it was new, and unlike the pre- 
 vious one; but yet the force of the connective is rather 
 illustrative than logical. 
 
 διδούς, κιτ.Δ. This participle presents a peculiar- 
 ity of construction, which has been very variously ex- 
 plained. The Hebrew of which it is a translation is 
 ΩΣ, This the Septuagint renders δεδοὺς δώσω. It 
 has been supposed by some, though without sufficient 
 evidence, that it may be explained as a Hebraism, in 
 imitation of that Hebrew construction of the infinitive 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VIII. v. 10. 305 
 
 with a finite tense, where the latter has been left un- 
 derstood, so that the former stands alone to express a 
 finite meaning. ‘This construction may be seen in its 
 full form in Gen. 22: 17, where God says to Abraham, 
 “Tn blessing I will bless thee,” &ec. 7738 73 72; and 
 in Heb. 6: 14 it is imitated without ellipsis, im the 
 Greek thus: εὐλογῶν εὐλογήσω σε, κιτιΔ. But it 
 seems doubtful whether the phrase under discussion 
 can be a shortened form of this construction, especially 
 as the Hebrew of which it is a translation is different. 
 Stuart and others consider dzdove as here used for the 
 finite verb δώσω: and there seems, at the first glance, 
 to be countenance for this supposition in such passages 
 as John 5: 44, Πῶς δύνασθε ὑμεῖς πεστεῦσαε, δόξαν 
 παρ᾿ ἀλλήλων λαμβάνοντες, καὶ τὴν δόξαν τὴν παρὰ 
 τοῦ μόνου ϑεοῦ οὐ ζητεῖτε: and Eph. 1: 20, ἐγεέρας 
 αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν, καὶ ἐχάϑεσεν ὃν δέξεχ αὑτοῦ, κ.τ.λ. 
 where λαμβάνοντες and ἐγείρας seem to fill the place 
 of finite verbs. But these are rather anacolutha. The 
 idea that one part of a paradigm is explicitly used for 
 another, is always unreasonable, and in the teeth of 
 the very notion of regular forms in language. What 
 do we mean by calling δεδοὺς a participle, and δώσω a 
 jinite tense? We mean that a certain termination, in 
 this case -ovs, is conventionally agreed upon for the 
 sole purpose of indicating a certain phase of meaning, 
 which is different from another phase conventionally 
 indicated by -σω. How arbitrary is it to say that the 
 termination -ovg is sometimes used to express a finite- 
 tense action, when the only purpose of its invention 
 20 
 
306 HEBREWS, OHAP. VIII. v. 10. 
 
 and use was, to show that the sense expressed was dif- 
 ferent from that of a finite tense? Kuinoél and 
 Bloomfield supply «éue or ἔσομαε: an explanation 
 which receives some countenance from Kiihner, $313. 
 Rem. 1. But the most rational and natural view 15 
 that suggested by Winer, Idioms of the New Test. 
 $64. 2. b. (p. 408), that δεδοὺς presents only an in- 
 stance of ἀνακολούϑον, prompted by a desire to give 
 prominence to the second thought, which is expressed 
 by the subsequent clause, zai... ἐπεγράινψω, κιτ.λ.: 
 διδοὺς then is simply a participle, construed with the 
 subject of διαϑήσομαι, and if the construction had 
 been regular, we should have had ἐπεγραφὼν in the 
 same construction: “This is the arrangement which I 
 will institute with them, placing my laws in their 
 mind, and writing them upon their hearts.” But the 
 emphasis desired to be thrown on the idea of ‘ writing 
 them on the heart, changed the second participle, in 
 the process of the sentence, into a more definite form, 
 the future. 
 
 εἰς Heov... εἰς λαόν. This is a construction ex- 
 actly similar to that of Hebr. 1: 5, and both passages 
 are in close imitation of the Hebrew. In the present 
 instance it is D>Nd ... 95, “1 will be to them in the 
 relation of a God, and they shall be to me in the rela- 
 tion of a people ;’ 1. e. my peculiar people. 
 
 The exact meaning of this important verse is now 
 apparent. ‘These are the characteristics of the new 
 dispensation ; that it will secure to its objects that en- 
 lightening of the mind in the spiritual knowledge of 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VIII. v. 11. 307 
 
 God’s word, and that renewal of the heart, which con- 
 stitute a true, spiritual regeneration; and it will insti- 
 tute between God and his people the unchangeable 
 covenant relation of gracious ruler and protector on 
 his part, and affectionate, obedient subjects on theirs. 
 
 V.11. πλήσεον. Some ancient and many more 
 recent manuscripts read here πολέτην, instead of πλή- 
 ocov. Several versions and Fathers, among the former 
 of which is the Septuagint, give the same reading. 
 The Hebrew is "477 ὩΣ ws. The general sense is not 
 affected, as it is only a substitute of the word ‘fellow- 
 citizen’ for ‘neighbour.’ 
 
 Ore πάντες εἰδήσουσέ με, 4.7.4. Ore here is causal, 
 and introduces the reason why one should not, under 
 this new dispensation, teach another to know the Lord, 
 viz, because all, of every grade and condition, would 
 already do this. Τὸ “know the Lord” here, is to rec- 
 ognize, own, and practically obey Him as God. The 
 promise does not therefore mean that, in the maturity 
 of the new dispensation, religious instruction by human 
 means will wholly cease; for fulness of instruction is 
 one of the glories of this dispensation, and revealed 
 truth will always be the instrument of sanctification ; 
 but that there will no longer be any occasion to per- 
 form the work of reclaiming our fellow-men from 
 idolatry, or from a life of practical irreligion. None 
 of the subjects of that dispensation will then remain 
 in these extreme conditions of ignorance and sin, in 
 which so many Jews continued, under the Mosaic 
 dispensation. 
 
908 HEBREWS, CHAP. VIII. Vv. 12. 
 
 V.12. Ὅτε ἵλεως ἔσομαε, x.r.4. The conjunction 
 here also is causal, though the connexion of thought is 
 not so immediately obvious. “Orc introduces the great 
 and fundamental blessing of the new dispensation, 
 complete and free forgiveness, not only as completing 
 the enumeration of those blessings, but as showing the 
 cause or ground for the bestowal of those before men- 
 tioned. It is as though it were said, ‘I will bestow, 
 under this new dispensation, spiritual enlightening, re- 
 generation, a covenant-union to myself by adoption, 
 the universal knowledge and fear of God; and these 
 because (orc) I will bestow one thing more, the merci- 
 ful forgiveness of sins.’ It is because we are justified 
 in Christ, that we are adopted, renewed, sanctified, 
 and glorified. If the guilt of our sins remained upon 
 us, it would forever bar the bestowal of these gifts by 
 a just God. It is of course implied in this passage 
 that the old dispensation did not, by its inherent 
 power, bring these blessings to the people. It only 
 had power to foreshadow them. 
 
 ov μὴ μνησϑῶ. 'This construction is the same with 
 ov μὴ διδώξωσεν in ν. 11, and we have therefore post- 
 poned remark upon it till now. Many critics (as 
 Kiihner, 8918. 7) resolve it into some such ellipsis as 
 this: ov φόβος ἔστε μὴ μνησίλῶ, ‘It is not to be feared 
 that I will remember, &c. Winer (Id. New Test. 
 $60. 8, pp. 888, 389) seems to favour a similar reso- 
 lution; remarking, that “the intensive ov μεὴ is used 
 of that which in no way is, or can happen;” as though 
 the full construction were something such as this: 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. VIII. v. 18. 309 
 
 ov κίνδυνος μὴ μνησϑῶ. It throws doubt over these 
 explanations, that while the expression is very fre- 
 quent, no instance of its supposed full form is cited. 
 It is perhaps sufficient for us to remark that the con- 
 struction is equivalent to the most emphatic and direct 
 negative. A few instances occur in which the verb 
 following μεὴ is in the future indicative, and one even 
 in which it is in the present tense of that mood. But 
 the most frequent tense employed is the aorist sub- 
 junctive, as the force of the moods would lead us to 
 expect. Grammarians have endeavoured to discrimi- 
 nate between the meanings of those cases where the 
 future indicative and those where the aorist subjunc- 
 tive is used; but wholly without success. The usage, 
 at least in the New Test. is not guided by a settled 
 principle of syntax. The particle ἔτε gives to this 
 precious promise peculiar value; it shows that the for- 
 giveness is complete and final. Compare Micah 7: 19, 
 last clause; Ps. 103: 12. 
 
 V.18. πεπαλαέωχκε, ‘He hath made old, in the 
 sense of ‘representing as old’ It may be illustrated 
 by the Latin expression, antiquare legem. 'The perfect 
 tense is employed, because the act, though past, is re- 
 ferred to a present time, and in effect was still contin- 
 uing at the time of writing. See Winer’s Id. New 
 Test. 841. 4, pp. 218-216. God’s calling the second 
 dispensation new, implied that the first was old. 
 
 τὸ δὲ παλαιούμενον καὶ γηράσκον, κ.τ.2., ‘But; 
 that which is antiquated and is growing old, is near its 
 disappearance.’ The Apostle here employs an infer- 
 
910 HEBREWS, CHAP. VIII. v. 138. 
 
 ence drawn from analogy. As old age, in all plants 
 and animals, announces the approach of dissolution, so 
 in this institution. The gracious promise of the pro- 
 phet implied that the approach of the new dispensa- 
 tion would antiquate the old. Hence there was 
 ground to expect that the full establishment of the 
 new would destroy the old. 
 
CHAPTER IX. 1—14 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 Havrye shown the superior order of Christ’s priest- 
 hood and priestly character, ch. VII. the superior sanc- 
 tuary in which it was exercised, that is, the heavenly, 
 and its superior functions, comporting with the supe- 
 rior dispensation to which it belonged, ch. VIII. the 
 author now enters upon a more particular considera- 
 tion and comparison of the nature and value of the 
 services of the two priesthoods; exhibiting the typical 
 and temporal character of those performed by the 
 Levitical priests, and the efficacious and _all-sufficient 
 character of those rendered by Christ, chs. [X.—X. 18. 
 
 He begins by reciting the leading arrangements of 
 the ancient tabernacle, and the disposition of its fur- 
 niture, ch. [X. vv. 1-5, and the principal daily and 
 yearly services that were performed in it, vv. 6, 7. 
 This perpetual exclusion of all but the high-priest from 
 the holy of holies, and even of him except on a single 
 day in the year, and his entrance on that day with 
 special sacrifices for himself and the people, the author 
 declares, imported that, while the former tabernacle 
 stood, the way was not yet opened for free access to 
 God. ‘That is, the Aaronic sanctuary had no power, 
 by its services, to procure such access: it was a mere 
 type until the time then present. Its offerings and 
 sacrifices, still presented, could not perfect the con- 
 
919 CHAP. IX.—ANALYSIS. 
 
 science of the server, and were only imposed, with 
 other carnal ordinances, till the new dispensation 
 should take effect, vv. 8-10. On the other hand (δὲ 
 being opposed, in v. 11, to μὲν in v. 1), Christ, the 
 High-Priest of the good things to come, had done a 
 more excellent and efficacious work; (@) He had en- 
 tered through the tabernacle that was better and more 
 perfect, (@) not with the blood of goats and calves, 
 but His own, (v) once for all into the heavenly sanctu- 
 ary, (δ) having effected a true redemption, vv. 11, 12. 
 This last crowning result he argues (γάρ), from the 
 superior nature of the sacrifice: if the blood of bulls, 
 goats, ὅσο. removed certain temporary, penal liabilities 
 under the theocracy, how much more would the blood 
 of Christ, who with an eternal spirit offered Himself 
 without spot to God, free us from the pollution and 
 condemnation of dead works, unto the service of the 
 living God? vv. 18, 14. 
 
HEBREWS CHAP. Ix. v. l. 313 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 IX. 1 Eive μὲν οὖν καὶ ὴ πρῶτη [σκηνὴ] διωκαιεώ- 
 2 froeeee λατρείας, τό, τὲ ἅγιον κοσμεεκόν. Σχηνὴ 
 γὰρ κατεσχευάσϑη ἡ πρώτη, ἕν ἡ TE λυχνία καὶ 
 ἡ τράπεζα καὶ ἡ πρόϑεσις τῶν ἄρτων, ἥτες λέγεται 
 ἅγια. Μετὰ δὲ τὸ δεύτερον καταπέτασμα σκηνὴ 
 ἢ Asyou éyn ἅγεω ἁγέων, χρυσοῦν ἔχουσα ϑυμεα- 
 THOLOY, καὶ τὴν κεβωτὸν τῆς διαϑηκης περεκεκα- 
 λυμμένην. πάντοϑεν χρυσίῳ, ὃν ἢ στώμενος χουσὴ 
 ἔχουσα τὸ μάννα, καὶ ἡ ῥάβδος ‘Aagay ἡ βλαστή- 
 5 cacu, καὶ αἱ πλάχες τῆς διαϑήχκης ὑπεράνω δὲ 
 
 αὐτῆς Χερουβὶμ τῆς δόξης, κατασκιάζοντα τὸ tha- 
 
 στήρεον᾽" περὶ ὧν οὐκ ἔστε νῦν λέγεεν κατὰ μέρος. 
 
 5 9 
 
 V.1. Εἶχε μὲν οὖν. μὲν mntroduces the protasis, 
 whose apodosis is introduced by δὲ of ν. 11. οὖν we 
 will render “now.” De Wette renders it by nun 
 freilich. As was remarked on its occurrence in 7: 11 
 above, it carries here little more force than that of a 
 particle of transition. 
 
 καί. This conjunction here manifestly has the 
 force of ‘also,’ and qualifies 7 πρώτη. It seems to have 
 been employed by the author, because of the silent 
 comparison which still existed in his mind between 
 the first and second dispensations. 
 
 7 πρώτη. This word should have supplied to it 
 διαϑήκη. This is plain from the context, in several 
 parts of the last chapter. Thus, v. 7, we have ἡ πρώτη 
 
314 HEBREWS, CHAP. Ix. ¥. 1. 
 
 ἐκείνη, where the pronoun evidently points to δεαϑή- 
 κῆης inv. 6. The Textus Receptus supplies σκηνή. 
 This is wanting in many manuscripts, among which are 
 some of the most ancient, in the Syriac, Vulgate, and 
 other versions, and in the quotations of many Fathers. 
 Some manuscripts supply ἐκείνη (probably in imitation 
 of 8: 7), and some δεαϑήκη. The reading of the text 
 we follow is most probably the accurate one. 
 δωοκαεώματα λατρείας. δικαεώμεα signifies, first, a 
 righteous act, and second, the precept or ordinance 
 enjoining such an act, λατρεέας here, though in the 
 genitive, is truly the objective word of the sentence, 
 and we might express the meaning of the two words 
 by ‘prescribed worship. With this may be compared 
 1 Tim. 6:17, μηδὲ ἠλπεκένωε ἐπὶ πλούτου ἀδηλότητε" 
 “nor trust in uncertain riches.” This usage of the 
 genitive is explained by Winer (Idioms of New Test. 
 $34. 2, p. 184) as a Hebraism, arising from the scarcity 
 of adjectives, and the emphatic use of nouns in their 
 stead, in the language imitated. Although the Greek 
 would have furnished an appropriate adjective or par- 
 ticiple, which might have been used to qualify Aa 
 τρεέας, while that noun might have assumed the case 
 proper to the object of the sentence, a Hebrew writer 
 would prefer to use the genitive construction, both in 
 imitation of the older language, and in order to give 
 to the idea expressed by dcxacewuce more prominence 
 than an adjective would have done. Or else, we may 
 consider this generally as an instance of the wider de- 
 fining relationship of the genitive, and give to the 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. Ix. v. 1. 315 
 
 words the sense ‘ worship-ordinances. ‘The first dis- 
 pensation, too, had on the one hand its precepts, viz. 
 of that particular class which pertain to forms of wor- 
 ship.’ Similar instances of the use of the genitive may 
 be seen in v. 10 below (Ocxacwpuara σαρκὸς, ‘carnal 
 precepts’), and Rom. 2: 26 (δωχαεώματα τοῦ νόμου, 
 ‘legal precepts’). 
 
 τὸ ἅγεον κοσμεκόν. There has been great dispute 
 which of these two words is the object, and which the 
 attributive. Those who are curious of such debates 
 may see more abundant details in Bloomfield. The 
 context certainly favours that construction which 
 makes ἅγεον the noun and object, and χοσμεκὸν the 
 attributive. The latter is an adjective; of rare occur- 
 rence, indeed. ‘To show that it may be a substantive, 
 cases have been produced where τὸ χοσμεκὸν is so em- 
 ployed. It is urged, that, for ἅγεον to be the noun 
 and object, the order should be τὸ κοσμικὸν ἅγεον, OY 
 τὸ ἅγεον τὸ κοσμεκόν. But it might be also, ἅγεον 
 τὸ zoopuxoy. Hither of these orders, according to 
 Kiuhner, indicate an implied comparison in the attri- 
 butive between its object and others of the same gene- 
 ral class. It is most indisputable, that. where such an 
 implied contrast is not intended, but the intention of 
 the adjective or other qualifying phrase is simply to 
 attribute to its object a particular quality, the usages 
 of the language permit a different order, such as that 
 in the text. We have instances of the same order in 
 1 Cor. 10: 8, zat πάντες τὸ αὐτὸ βρῶμα πνευματεκὸν 
 
 ἔφαγον, #.t.4. Gal. 1: 4, τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος «αἰῶνος movy- 
 
316 HEBREWS, CHAP. Ix. v. 1. 
 
 gov. 1 John 5: 20, ἡ ζωὴ αἰώνεος (although it must 
 be admitted that, in the last instance, some copies omit 
 the article). Classic Greek exhibits similar instances, 
 In Philostrat. Apoll. 7:16, we find ἐν τῷ νήσῳ ἀνύδρῳ. 
 Kiihner cites from Xenophon’s Memorab. 4: 7. 7, Οἱ 
 ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου καταλαμπόμενοι τὰ χρώματα μελαν- 
 τέρα ἔχουσεν. Thucyd. 1. 49, says, Ἐνέπρησαν τὲ τὰς 
 σκηνὰς ἐρήμους, καὶ τὰ χρήματα διήρπασαν. Other 
 passages might easily be accumulated. Winer ob- 
 serves, on 1 John 1: 20, that later writers began, in 
 such cases, to omit the article. See his Id. New Test. 
 819. (a), p. 118; Kiihner’s Gr. Gram. $245. 3. (a) (Ὁ), 
 pp. 316-318. It is evident that an argument from 
 the mere order of the words cannot be pressed. Greek 
 writers did not conform themselves with-regularity to 
 so trivial a rule of composition as this ; and criticisms 
 founded upon it are too minute to be reliable. We 
 therefore unhesitatingly regard τὸ ἅγεον as the noun 
 and object; meaning in this place, not the holy of ho- 
 lies particularly, but the whole Levitical tabernacle. 
 xoouexov iS defined by Robinson’s Lex. as the oppo- 
 site of ἐπουρανέου, ‘ terrestrial,’ as opposed to celestial. 
 It here evidently describes the Jewish sanctuary as 
 opposed to that heavenly one of v. 11, which is οὐ 
 χειροποιήτου, ov ταύτης κτίσεως. The distinction 
 may be illustrated by vv. 23, 24 below, where the 
 parts of the one are said to be τὰ μὲν ὑποδείγματα 
 τῶν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, but the other, αὐτὰ τὰ éxovea- 
 vec, the one χεεροποίητα ἅγεω, the other αὐτὸν τὸν 
 
 ᾽ ld 
 ovgeavor. 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. Ix. v. 2. 317 
 
 V. 2. Σκηνὴ yao κατεσκενάσϑε ἡ πρώτη. The 
 conjunction γὰρ introduces the confirmation of the 
 statement in the first verse. The idea of the writer 
 seems to be, ‘For a tabernacle was constructed, (1 
 mean) the first ; in which was the lamp, &c. This is 
 the outer half of the sacred tent; called here first, not 
 as distinguished from the heavenly into which Christ 
 afterwards entered, but from the hinder half. It was 
 first (foremost) in position. ‘The author here gives 
 only a cursory glance at the tabernacle and its furni- 
 ture, for this was all his purpose required; and we 
 need not, therefore, wonder that he omits some things, 
 as the altar of incense. 
 
 καὶ ἡ πρόϑεσις τῶν ἄρτων. Some explain this ex- 
 pression in the manner indicated in our ‘remarks on 
 διχαεώματα λατρεία. I vy. 1, as the genitive of the 
 object. If thus understood, it would be equivalent to 
 οἱ ἄρτοι τῆς προϑέσεως, Which is the form of the ex- 
 pression for ‘shew-bread’ in Matt. 12:4. And a par- 
 allel expression might be found in Exod. 40: 23, where 
 nm? 772 (‘the ordering of the bread’) exhibits the lead- 
 ing word in regimen to that which seems properly its 
 qualificative. But there is, nevertheless, good ground 
 to doubt whether such a view fully expresses the 
 meaning of the author. It is safer and more consistent 
 with sound principles of criticism, to seek a meaning 
 more strictly accordant with the particular arrange- 
 ment of the words here, and to believe that the author 
 meant something by that arrangement. We will 
 rather hold, then, that if the Apostle had meant only 
 
318 HEBREWS, OHAP. IX. V. 38. 
 
 oi ἄρτος προϑέντες, he would have said so; and that 
 as he has used the form ἡ πρόϑεσις τῶν ὥρτων, he in- 
 tended to make prominent the πρόϑεσες, as the subject 
 of thought. See Winer’s Id. New Test. 884. 2, p. 184. 
 
 ἥτες λέγεταε ayia. This outer, or front (πρώτη) 
 part, is what was called the holy place. That is, when 
 accuracy of language was intended, the phrase holy was 
 restricted to the outer, and holy of holies to the inner 
 tent. But in a looser sense, the whole tent was called 
 holy, or the sanctuary, and sometimes no higher phrase 
 was employed to express the holiest of all. 
 
 V.3. Mere δὲ τὸ δεύτερον καταπέτασμα, ‘ Behind 
 the second vail (or after passing the second vail) was 
 the tent called holy of holies’ 'The first vail was that 
 which closed the front of the outer tabernacle, a de- 
 scription of which is given in Exod. 26:36. A de- 
 scription of the whole tabernacle may be seen at large 
 in that place. 
 
 aye ἁγίων. ‘The plural form of this expression is 
 worthy, of note. If we supposed σχηγνὴ were properly 
 to be supplied to ἅγεα, making the latter feminine and 
 singular, the form would be easily intelligible. And 
 this would seem to receive some countenance from the 
 occurrence of the feminine immediately before, ἥτες 
 λέγεταε ἅγεα. But it can scarcely be doubted that the 
 phrase is imitated from the Septuagint, where it is 
 always neuter. In Exod. 26:33 the outer sanctuary 
 is called in the Hebrew t73?, and in the Septuagint 
 τοῦ ayiov, While the inner (ΘΠ VIP) is called τοῦ 
 ἁγίου τῶν ayiav. In 1 Kings (Sept. ὃ Kings) 8: 6, 
 
HEBREWS, OHAP. IX. v. 4. 319 
 
 the latter is rendered τὰ ὥγεα τῶν ἁγέων, the words 
 in Hebrew being the same as above; and in Hebr. 9: 
 8, 25, 18: 11, the inner sanctuary 1s called τὰ ayia. 
 We must therefore explain the neuter plural which 
 occurs in the most of these cases (τὰ ἄγε), as an in- 
 stance of the collective sense which that form often 
 expresses. The reader will remember that it is so 
 prominent that the neuter plural always takes a verb 
 singular. The attaching of the genitive ἁγέων to it, 
 gives a superlative force, according to a usage preva- 
 lent in both the Hebrew and older Greek. See Wi- 
 ner’s Id. New Test. §37. 2, p. 195. 
 
 V.4. χρυσοῦν ἔχουσα ϑυμεατήρεον. Some com- 
 mentators, among whom is De Wette, will have this 
 to be the altar of incense. They argue, in proof of 
 this, that Josephus, in his Jewish Antiq. L. IIL. ch. 6, 
 88, as well as Philo, calls the altar of incense Pupeec- 
 τήρεον: that the altar is omitted in the enumeration 
 of the furniture of the outer tabernacle which is given 
 above; and that if we render the word ‘censer,’ we 
 then meet the difficulty that Moses says nothing of 
 such a censer belonging to the holy of holies. It is 
 asked, moreover, ‘If it was deposited there, how was 
 it gotten for use on the day of atonement?’ To ac- 
 count for the fact that the Apostle here says that the 
 altar of incense was in the most holy place, while Exod. 
 30: 6, 7 clearly put it without, they either assume his 
 ignorance, or suppose that the altar was carried into 
 the most holy place on the day of atonement. 
 
 But while Josephus calls the incense-altar Pupce- 
 
920 HEBREWS, OHAP. IX. V. 4. 
 
 τήρεον, he expressly places it, as Exod. 80: 6, 40:5, 
 26, between the candlestick and the table of shew- 
 bread, in the outer tabernacle. And although Moses 
 makes no mention of a special censer for the inner 
 sanctuary, we know that there were several nnna, by 
 a reference to Exod. 27:3 and 88:3. And it is in 
 itself probable that there was one which belonged to 
 the service of the inner sanctuary, and that it was 
 golden. This is confirmed by the fact that Solomon 
 (1 Kings 7: 50) caused golden censers to be made for 
 the sanctuary, and that the angel who offers incense 
 before the altar, in Rev. 8:3, used one of the same 
 material. The symbolical vision doubtless took its 
 shape from the usages of the Jewish sanctuary. If 
 kept in the holy of holies, which it is not necessary to 
 suppose, it may have been taken out by the high- 
 priest, who entered several times on the day of atone- 
 ment, as will appear by a reference to the observations 
 on v.27 below. Or, the fire may have been carried 
 to the most holy place in another vessel. De Wette 
 says, ‘It is not likely that the altar would be passed 
 by, and the censer mentioned. But that such an omis- 
 sion is not incredible, is shown by the fact that it is 
 made in Exod. 26, as he himself notices, in the whole 
 of which chapter there is no description of the altar, 
 though the enumeration of the objects in the taberna- 
 cle is otherwise minute. It is not till the 30th chapter 
 that the altar is described. It is incredible that the 
 author of Hebrews should have misplaced the altar of 
 incense from ignorance—and this aside from his inspi- 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. IX. v. 4. 921 
 
 ration; for no intelligent Jew could fail to know these 
 details concerning a sanctuary and a worship so prized 
 by him. It has no little weight, also, that the Septua- 
 gint use the word ϑυσεαστήρεον for the altar of in- 
 cense, not ϑυμεατήρεον, and employ the latter for the 
 Hebrew 0p, ‘censer,’ in two passages, 2 Chron. 26: 
 19, Ezek. 8:11. ΑΒ is well observed by Stuart, in 
 his Excursus XVI. the silence of the Pentateuch con- 
 cerning this golden censer is not a contradiction of the 
 Apostle. Until it is proved that the priests may not 
 have had one among the several censers, which was 
 kept in the holy of holies, and used only for its ser- 
 vices on the day of atonement, surely Paul’s learning, 
 minute acquaintance with religious affairs, and inspira- 
 tion, are sufficient to secure credit to his assertion on 
 this point. 
 
 ἐν ἡ στάμνος, x.t.A. The pot of manna and the 
 rod of Aarori were laid up zm the chest, and not by, or 
 beside it. In 1 Kings 8: 9, and 2 Chron. 5: 10, it is 
 stated very explicitly that there was nothing in the 
 ark at Solomon’s day, except the two tables of stone. 
 But the Apostle is now describing the tabernacle as it 
 was arranged by Moses, in its perfect order and con- 
 formity to the divine pattern, and not in any subse- 
 quent state. In Ex. 16: 34, it is stated that the pot 
 of manna was laid up before the Lord, and in Numb. 
 17: 10, that the rod was laid up ‘before the testi- 
 mony,’ 1. 6. the tables of the law. These were in the 
 ark; and it is far most reasonable to suppose that the 
 others were also within it, especially when we re- 
 
 21 
 
322 HEBREWS, OHAP. IX. Vv. 5. 
 
 member the frequent removals of the tabernacle and 
 its contents. The oreuvog is not said to be golden, 
 by Moses, but it is so rendered by the Septuagint, 
 Exod. 16: 33; and it is every way probable in itself, 
 inasmuch as all else pertaining to the ark was of that 
 metal. 
 
 V. 5. Χερουβὶμ δόξης. Stuart renders these 
 words the splendid cherubim; and supposes that the 
 reference is to the brilliance of the gold, of which 
 they were made. It is far more natural to regard 
 them as so called because of the divine glory which 
 shone between them. It was here that the divine 
 presence made its visible manifestation to Moses, as we 
 learn from a comparison of Exod. 25: 22 and Numb. 
 7: 89, “There will I meet with thee, and I will com- 
 mune with thee from above the mercy-seat, from be- 
 tween the two cherubims,” &c. “Moses heard the 
 voice of one speaking unto him from off the mercy- 
 seat that was upon the ark of testimony, from between 
 the two cherubims.” It is in allusion to this that Ps. 
 80: 1 says, “ Thou that dwellest between the cherubim, 
 shine forth.” 
 
 τὸ ἑλαστήρεον. This is the word adopted by the 
 Septuagint for the rendering of M752, which is the 
 name given to the covering or lid of the ark, in Exod. 
 25: 17-22, and often elsewhere. ‘The name is derived 
 originally from "22, ‘to cover, whence 52, to cover 
 sin, or make atonement, expiation. The name of 
 ‘mercy-seat,’ or place of expiation, was given to the 
 lid of the ark, because here the blood of atonement 
 
HEBREWS; OMAP. Px! Vo 5% 323 
 
 was annually sprinkled by the high-priest on the great 
 day. See Levit. 16:14, 15. The word ἑλαστήρεον 
 also occurs in Rom. 3: 25, in the sense of ‘ propitiatory 
 sacrifice,’ as is manifest from the demands of the con- 
 text. But that it is here used in the Septuagint sense 
 of mercy-seat, is obvious. 
 
 κατὰ μέρος. ‘The meaning of these words may be 
 well represented by ‘particularly. Upon comparing 
 such phrases as xa? ἕνα, xara δύω, κατ᾽ ἐνεχυτόν, 
 xak ἡμέραν, &c. ‘one by one, ‘two by two,’ &. the 
 distributive force of this preposition is manifest. κατὰ 
 μέρος accordingly is, ‘part by part. See Winer’s Id. 
 New Test. $53. (d), p. 319. The Apostle here de- 
 clines entering upon a minute exhibition of the uses 
 and symbolical import of the furniture and arrange- 
 ments of the tabernacle. The general views which he 
 proceeds to give answer his purposes. 
 
 , a , \ 
 6 Τούτων δὲ οὕτω xarecxsvacmévay, εἰς μὲν THY 
 ͵ \ \ > = A 
 πρώτην σκηνὴν διαπαντὸς εἰςέασεν οἱ ἑερεῖς τὰς 
 , ? ~ é ΕἾ Ἂ Ἃ ͵ cr 
 1 λατρείας énerehovyres* εἰς δὲ τὴν δευτέραν ἅπαξ 
 ~ Ὁ - Γ c ? c 
 τοῦ EVLAUTOU μονος ὁ ἀρχιερεύς, οὐ χωρὶς αἵματος, 
 ra , c = Ἴ = ~ mY 
 O προςφέρεε ὑπὲρ ἑαυτοῦ καὶ τῶν τοῦ λαοῦ ἀγνοη- 
 la ~ ~ ~ td ~ 
 8 μάτων" τοῦτο δηλοῦντος τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ 
 Gro / ~ \ ~ οι ἢ cQ/ 
 ἁγίου, μήπω πεφανερῶσϑαε τὴν τῶν ἁγέων ὁδόν, 
 » - Lf ~ Ἴ r r co 
 9 ἐτε τῆς πρωτῆς σκηνῆς ἐχούσης στάσεν " ἥτες παρα- 
 \ 3 ‘\ > I > «a ~ ta 
 βολὴ εἰς τὸν καιρὸν τὸν ἐνεστηκότω, καϑ' ὃν δῶρα 
 x \ 
 τὸ καὶ ϑυσίαε προςφέρονταε μὴ Ouvamsvuc κατὰ 
 
824. HEBREWS, CHAP. Ix. Vv. 6, 7. 
 
 10 cuveidnow τελεεῶσαι τὸν λατρεύοντα " μόνον ἐπὶ 
 βρώμασε καὶ πόμασε, καὶ διαφόροις βαπτιεσμοῖς 
 [καὶ] δικαεώμασε σαρκὸς μέχρε καιροῦ διορϑώ- 
 σεως ἐπεκείμενα. 
 
 V. 6. διαπαντός, ‘At all times.” This may be 
 continuously, ‘always,’ in the sense of that which is 
 without interval, or at stated and frequently-recurring 
 times. The latter is the meaning here. Examples of 
 this meaning may also be seen in Luke 24: 53, “ And 
 were continually (δεαπαντὸς) in the temple, praising 
 and blessing God;” Acts 10: 2, where it is said Cor- 
 nelius “prayed to God always” (δεαπαντός), and 
 Hebr. 13: 15, “ Let us offer the sacrifice of praise unto 
 God continually” (δεαπαντός). 
 
 V.%. anak τοῦ émavrov. These ὥριο we should 
 render not ‘once during the year, but, ‘on one occa- 
 sion during the year.’ The opposition of the term is 
 to διαπαντός. “Speak to Aaron thy brother that he 
 come not at all times into the holy place within the 
 vail.” Levit. 16:2. From Levit. 16: 12-15, it ap- 
 pears that on the great day of atonement, the high- 
 priest made several entries; first, to burn incense; 
 second, to sprinkle the blood of the bullock, unless 
 this was done at the first entry; third, to carry in the 
 blood of the goat, just killed by him. Jewish testi- 
 mony on the subject is contradictory. A tradition 
 has been stated, on the authority of Philo, that if the 
 high-priest went in oftener than twice, he was put to 
 death; but doubt exists whether this author is cor- 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. Ix. V. 8. 325 
 
 rectly represented as asserting this. A tradition in the 
 Talmud says that the high-priest went in four times. 
 
 ov χωρὶς αἵματος. The passage just cited from 
 the 16th chapter of Leviticus, and especially v. 12, 
 shows that this is not to be pressed too literally. The 
 high-priest must carry sacrificial blood, not each time 
 he went in, but on each annual occasion. 
 
 ἀγνοημάτων. This word occurs only here in the 
 New Test. The participle ὠγνοδῦσε is used, in a sense 
 which serves to illustrate this, in Hebr. 5:2. It is 
 used as the rendering for 73%, “oversight,” in Gen. 
 43:12, by the Septuagint. But here it must be un- 
 derstood to embrace all sins, and not only those of in- 
 advertence and ignorance; for, in Levit. 16: 16-22, we 
 are most distinctly informed that the sacrifices of the 
 great day of atonement had reference to all the sins of 
 the whole nation, including the priests. He who dis- 
 obeys, though it is a law well known, fails to retain in 
 his mind the cognizance of it: he ‘ignores’ it. 
 
 Υ. 8. τοῦτο, scilicet μήπω πεφανερῶσϑαε τὴν τῶν 
 ἁγέων ὅδόν. This then is the object οἵ δηλοῦντος. 
 The Holy Spirit indicated this fact (‘that the way 
 into the holy places was not yet manifested while the 
 former tabernacle was standing’), by instructing Mo- 
 ses to perpetuate this symbolical ritual. It is the 
 teaching of the Holy Ghost, because He taught Moses 
 the ritual. And all this part of the Levitical ceremo- 
 nial showed the impotency of its offerings and services 
 to secure free access to God. It pointed to the better 
 sacrifice and services which would secure this result, 
 
326 HEBREWS, OHAP. IX. V. 9. 
 
 but it showed that the Aaronic dispensation did not 
 furnish the effectual offering. It pointed to Christ, 
 who had not yet died. 
 
 τῶν ἁγίων. This word here undoubtedly means 
 the heavenly sanctuary where God truly dwells, adum- 
 brated by the earthly holy of holies, in which his visi- 
 ble presence was manifested. To this there was no 
 access but by the high-priest—that once a year, and 
 then with special sacrifices. 
 
 ἔτε τῆς πρώτης σκηνῆς, κιτιΔ. The meaning here 
 is, ‘while yet the first tabernacle stood by the divine 
 appointment.’ For surely the access to the true sane- 
 tuary through Christ was not to be closed, as long as 
 the perverse bigotry of the Jews chose to perpetuate 
 the tabernacle worship, contrary to God’s will. There 
 is a clear implication in these words, that when once 
 the way into the true holy place, heaven, had been 
 opened by the divine High-Priest, the first sanctuary 
 would no longer stand: ‘the way into the holy place 
 was not manifested while yet the first tabernacle stood.’ 
 Therefore, when the true sanctuary is opened up by 
 Christ, we expect the first to fall. And its fall implies 
 the cessation of the whole ceremonial economy con- 
 nected with it. 
 
 V.9. ἥτις παραβολή. This noun means literally, 
 ‘a placing side by side, and hence generally, in the 
 gospels, ‘a parable” ‘The meaning here is, ‘a symbol,’ 
 ‘a type” There is a parallelism between the type 
 and antitype, as there is between the parable and the 
 truth embodied in it. 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. IX. v. 9. 327 
 
 εἰς τὸν καιρὸν τὸν ἐνεστηκότα. The English ver- 
 sion, “for the time then present,” does not represent 
 the proper sense of these words. The particle ‘then’ 
 is improperly introduced. Itis best to give εἰς the 
 most primary sense which it usually has with the ac- 
 cusative, that of terminus ad quem. Ἐνεστηκώς, or 
 éveoras, occurs in Rom. 8: 38, Gal. 1:4, 1 Cor. ὃ: 
 22, and elsewhere; and always with the evident 
 sense of ‘instant, ‘present’ (‘that which hath come 
 upon us’). The phrase means, ‘until the time pres- 
 ent,’ i.e. the incoming of the new dispensation. Until 
 that juncture, the tabernacle subserved its symbolical 
 use. 
 
 καϑ' ὃν δῶρώ τε καὶ ϑυσίαε moocpégovra. Here, 
 also, the English version unwarrantably renders the 
 verb as a past tense, misapprehending the Apostle’s 
 idea. χαϑ' ov should be rendered, ‘during which’ 
 (time, i. 6. this season of the new dispensation). Let 
 the reader consult Robinson’s Lex. New Test. sub voce, 
 II. 2. The tabernacle ‘was a symbol until the time 
 that has now come (New Testament times), during 
 which both gifts and sacrifices are (still) offered, which 
 are not able (or, though they are not able) to make 
 the worshipper perfect with regard to his conscience.’ 
 That the temple and Levitical service still continued at 
 the time this Epistle was written, is clear from the 
 allusions in 8:13, “Now that which decayeth and 
 waxeth old is ready to vanish away” (has not yet van- 
 ished); 10: 25, “ Exhorting one another, and so much 
 the more as ye see the day approaching ;” and 18: 10, 
 
828 HEBREWS, OHAP. IX. v. 10. 
 
 “We have an altar whereof they have no right to eat, 
 which serve the tabernacle.” 
 
 μὴ δυνώμεναι. The participle is here made femi- 
 nine, as agreeing with ϑυσίαε, the nearer and more 
 important noun, and the one uppermost in the writer’s 
 mind. Winer’s Id. New Test. $35. 2, p. 188, or 
 Kiihner’s Greek Gram. $242. 1, may be consulted for 
 confirmation. 
 
 κατὰ συνείδησεν τελεεῶσαε, “Το perfect the offerer 
 in his conscience.’ These sacrifices were not able to 
 bring those who offered them to a complete peace of 
 conscience, nor fully meet its demands for pardon and 
 sanctification. They could secure ultimate exemption 
 from neither guilt nor pollution. We have a similar 
 assertion in nearly the same form in 10: 1, οὐδέποτε 
 Ovvara τοὺς MOOSEQZOMEVOUS τελεεώσει. 
 
 V.10. This verse contains great difficulties of con- 
 struction, and, in addition, a much contested various 
 reading. We will proceed to unfold that construction 
 which appears on the whole most reasonable, without 
 dwelling on all the grounds which support it; trust- 
 ing that its consistency with itself and the context 
 will be the best proof of its truth. We regard the 
 adverb μόνον as qualifying the concluding phrase of 
 the sentence, μέχρε καιροῦ δεορϑώσεως ETLHELMEVE. 
 éat should be rendered, not “in,” as the Engl. version, 
 but “in addition to,” “besides.” This additive mean- 
 ing proceeds very naturally from its primary meaning 
 of “upon,” for what is added is naturally conceived of 
 as superposed, as in the material process of raising a 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. 1x. v. 10. 329 
 
 heap or pile of any solid substance; and it is a very 
 frequent meaning. See Winer’s Id. New Test. $52. ¢, 
 Ῥ. 314. Instances may be seen in Matt. 25: 20, 99, 
 Luke 3: 20, 16: 26, “I have gained besides them (én 
 αὐτοῖς) five talents more.” “Behold, I have gained 
 two other talents besides them” (ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῖς). “ Herod 
 added yet this above all (exit πᾶσε), that he shut up 
 John in prison.” “And desides all this (καὶ ἐπὶ nace 
 rouroic), between us and you there is a great gulf 
 fixed,” ce. 
 
 βρώμασε καὶ πόμασε, ‘ Katings and drinkings,’ i. 6. 
 ‘meats and drinks.” ‘These words refer to the ceremo- 
 nial distinctions between meats clean and unclean, and 
 the regulations pointing out what might be eaten and 
 drunk by the priests and their families only, and what 
 by the worshippers. The διαφόροις Sanrio ois refer 
 to the various ablutions required of priests, and per- 
 sons who had become ceremonially unclean. The same 
 word is used here and in Hebr. 6: 2, where the doc- 
 trine of baptisms is mentioned as one of the “principles 
 of the doctrine of Christ.”. The Bible reader needs 
 scarcely to be reminded that these δεαφόροι Sanrio puoi 
 of the Levitical law were chiefly by affusion. 
 
 δικαιώμασε. 'The conjunction standing before this 
 noun in the Textus Receptus is wanting in several an- 
 cient and some more recent manuscripts, the Syriac, 
 Coptic, Sahidic, and other versions; and is expunged 
 in the editions of Griesbach, Scholz, Vater, and Hahn. 
 The weight of authority is in favour of its rejection: 
 διωκαεώμασε is then left in apposition with  βρώμασι, 
 
330 HEBREWS, OHAP. IX. v. 10. 
 
 πώμασε, καὶ διαφόροις βαπτεσμοῖς. If the conjune- 
 tion is retained, we must give it the explicative sense 
 ‘even;’ ‘meats, drinks, divers baptisms, even carnal 
 ordinances,’ &e. Some manuscripts of high authority 
 write dvxccwuara (nominative), and this reading is 
 adopted by Scholz and Hahn. This noun would then 
 be in apposition with δῶρά re καὶ ϑυσίαε of the prece- 
 ding verse, yet embracing the whole of the ceremonials 
 named, in its general sense. But great difficulty is 
 then thrown in the way of any fair construction of the 
 whole sentence; for the position of the words would 
 then render it extremely harsh to regard μόγον as the 
 qualificative of exxsiusva μέχρε καιροῦ διορϑώσεως 
 below: whereas, if we read δωχαεώμασε, in apposition 
 with βρώμασε, ἄτα. the whole forms one- qualificative 
 clause to ἐπεκεέμενα, το. and as such, may be with 
 entire propriety interposed between μόνον and the 
 phrase qualified by it. The reading of the English 
 version, “gifts and sacrifices... which stood only in 
 meats and drinks,” &e. is inadmissible, because it does 
 not appear how sacrifices consisted in meats clean and 
 unclean. In the ambiguity of the manuscript author- 
 ity, we will therefore retain the dative, which is the 
 reading of the Textus Receptus and Vater. 
 
 σαρκός. This word has here its primary or mate- 
 rial meaning, and not its derived sense of ‘ carnality.’ 
 It defines the nature of these ordinances. They pre- 
 scribed outward observances, which were concerned 
 not with the soul and its guilt and depravity (except 
 as symbols), but with material substances and the 
 
 τῶ, δ 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. Ix. v. 10. 331 
 
 bodies of the worshippers, and which removed only 
 temporary and carnal liabilities. Thus, in 7: 16, they 
 are said to be “after the law of a carnal command- 
 ment ;” and in 9: 13, “the blood of bulls and of goats 
 ... Sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh.” These 
 ordinances of the flesh also are temporary because of 
 their inefficiency, as has been indicated in the obser- 
 vations on 7:19, and as it is afterwards stated in 10: 
 4-9, 
 
 μέχρε καιροῦ δεορίϑώσεως, ‘Until the time of re- 
 formation,’ 1. e. the removing of the old and the set- 
 ting up of the new dispensation. Up.to that juncture, 
 these gifts and sacrifices were truly incumbent (exczxee- 
 μενα) duties of God’s people; but only (μόνον) up 
 to that time. The Apostle teaches, therefore, that, 
 though still offered, these carnal ordinances were des- 
 tined to cease upon the establishment of the better 
 thing which they shadowed forth. 
 
 ἐπεκείμενα. We have already indicated that we 
 regard this participle as belonging to δῶρα re καὶ 
 ϑυσίαε above. Its gender (neuter) has been supposed 
 by some critics to present a reason for retaining the 
 reading δωχαεώματα in the nominative, because ϑυσέαε, 
 the nearer of the two nouns to which we attach it, is 
 feminine. The general principle was pointed to, that 
 where an adjective or participle is attached to two con- 
 nected nouns, it follows the feminine rather than the 
 neuter. But consulting Kiihner’s Greek Gram. $242. 
 1, we see that this rule only holds strictly of proper 
 nouns; and that with common nouns, the qualifying 
 
332 HEBREWS, CHAP. IX. v. 10. 
 
 adjective is often neuter, without respect to the gender 
 of its subjects. See, for example, Herod. 8, 57, ἣν ἡ 
 ἀγορὰ καὶ τὸ πρυτανήϊον Hagia MPa ἠσκήμενα. 
 Xenoph. Mem. 8. 1. 7, λέϑοε τὲ καὶ πλένϑοε καὶ ξυλὰ 
 καὶ κέραμος ἀτακτὼς ἐῤῥεμένα οὐδὲν χρήσεμα ἐστέν. 
 The same usage prevails in other good writers. 
 
 The meaning which we conceive the Apostle to ex- 
 press is therefore this: ‘Gifts and sacrifices are (still) 
 offered, (though) not able to give complete peace and 
 purity of conscience to the worshipper, which are only 
 incumbent, in addition to distinctions of clean and un- 
 clean meats, and drinks, and divers ablutions, ordi- 
 nances (merely) carnal, until the time of reformation 
 (of the typical dispensation.’) 
 
 ; \ ' > \ ~ 
 11 Χριστὸς δὲ παραγενόμενος, ἀρχεερεὺς τῶν jush- 
 ΄ - \ ~ ‘ 4 
 λόντων ἀγαϑῶν, dia τῆς μείζονος καὶ τελεεοτέρας 
 ~ > Γ ci Dia ae > , 
 σκηνῆς, οὐ χειροποιήτου, (τοῦτ᾽ ἔστεν, οὐ-ταύτης 
 ~ , IQy ? ec “4 Υ a 
 12 τῆς κτίσεως,) οὐδὲ δὲ αἵματος τράγων καὶ μὸ- 
 - > 2 ' ~ > | , 
 σχων, δεὰ δὲ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος, εἰρῆλϑεν ἐφαπαὲ 
 > ' > ’ c \ 
 13 εἰς τὰ ayia, atoviay λύτρωσεν svgousvos. Ei γὰρ 
 αὶ , x 4 ‘ , 
 τὸ αἷμα ταύρων καὶ τράγων, καὶ σποδὸς δαμά- 
 I he Ἂ ’ ς l we \ 
 hews ῥαντέζουσω τοὺς κεκοινωμένους, ἁγεώζεε πρὸς 
 ‘ ~ \ és , ~ / 
 14 τὴν τὴς σαρκὸς xadagornra’ ποσῳ μᾶλλον τὸ 
 z - ἂν \ \ ’ 
 αἷμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὃς διὰ πνεύματος αἰωνίου 
 7 ” ~ ~ ~ 
 ἑαυτὸν προζηνεγκὲν ἄμωμον τῷ ted, καϑαρεεὶ 
 ~ \ ~ ‘ 
 τὴν συνείδησεν ὑμῶν ἀπὸ νεκρῶν ἔργων, εἰς TO 
 
 λατρεύειν ϑεῷ ζῶντε 
 ἐ 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. Ix. v. 11. 999 
 
 V. 11. Χριστὸς δές The adversative particle ἡ 
 here introduces the apodosis to ν. 1. There is here an 
 antithesis between the tabernacle and services of the 
 ancient dispensation, introduced by the words ἡ πρώτη 
 ... μὲν of v. 1, and the sanctuary and offering of the 
 new, which is here introduced by Χρεστὸς δὲ παραγε- 
 VOMEVOS. 
 
 ἀρχεερεὺς τῶν μελλόντων ayador. The same 
 phrase occurs in 10:1, σχκεῶν yao ἔχων ὃ νόμος τῶν 
 μελλόντων ἀγαϑῶν. The participle, according to the 
 sense illustrated in the remarks on 2: 5 above, refers 
 to the second dispensation, which had so long been 
 spoken of as the future one, that a Jew would natu- 
 rally call it ‘the one to come, even after its introduc- 
 tion had begun. The good things (ἀγαϑϑῶν) are the 
 benefits of redemption, secured and ministered by 
 Christ (the ἀρχεερεύς), but only typified, not obtained 
 (σκεᾶν τῶν μελλόντων), by the Levitical institutions. 
 Christ is the priest of the new dispensation with its 
 benefits. From 11: 18, 89, 40, below, we learn that 
 these benefits, though future as yet, and only pre- 
 figured, were apprehended by the faith of Old Testa- 
 ment believers. 
 
 διὰ τῆς μείζονος καὶ τελειοτέρας σκηνῆς. Oia 15 
 here employed in its original sense of ‘through. The 
 arrangements of the typical sanctuary lead the writer 
 to conceive of Christ as making a sacrifice of himself 
 in the court, as it were, on earth, and then passing 
 through the heavens as the vail separating the outer 
 from the inner sanctuary of this better tabernacle, to 
 
334 HEBREWS, OHAP. Ix. v. ll. 
 
 sprinkle his own blood on the mercy-seat in heaven. 
 The whole clause is therefore to be regarded as quali- 
 ficative of εἰῆλϑεν εἰς τὰ ἅγεα in the succeeding verse. 
 This interpretation is sustained by 4: 14 above, where 
 Christ is called a great High-Priest who hath passed 
 through (dceAnAvdora) the heavens. In 6: 19, 20, it 
 is said that Christ our forerunner has entered for us 
 within the vail, &c.; the vail (the lower heavens) 
 must be penetrated, to reach a position within it; 
 7: 26, He is “made higher than the heavens;” and in 
 vy. 24-26 below, He is said to have gone into heaven 
 itself, or very heaven, to appear before God on our 
 behalf. 
 
 ov χειροποιήτου. ‘These words express briefly the 
 same idea contained in 8:2, “The true tabernacle 
 which the Lord pitched and not man.” The parallel- 
 ism of the sentiment is obvious. It does not seem 
 necessary, therefore, to extend the meaning of ov χέερο- 
 ποιήτου to the sense of ‘immaterial and uncreated,’ 
 The Apostle does not say, in the next clause (ov rav- 
 της τῆς κτίσεως), that it was not created at all; but 
 that it was not a part of this creation. It was not un- 
 created; it is only asserted that it was not, like Moses’ 
 tabernacle, the work of human hands. The place 
 where the triune God unfolded his glories, and held 
 communion with holy angels before the creation and 
 blight of owr world, the place where the human part 
 of Christ glorified, and angels and redeemed souls, 
 now abide, is undoubtedly intended. About its po- 
 sition, direction, or nature, we know nothing; ex- 
 
BEBE, OMAR. Dox. ver ΤΣ 335 
 
 cept that Christ, to reach it, penetrated our visible 
 heavens. 
 
 V.12. διὰ αἵματος ... δεὰ δὲ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος. 
 διὰ here may be best explained as expressing the 
 equipments, or attendant circumstances and relations, 
 under which the act is done; a meaning assigned to 
 this preposition by Winer, Id. New Test. $51. (4), p. 
 806. Its derivation from the primary local meaning 
 of ‘through, is obvious: first, ‘through,’ second, 
 ‘means through which a result is effected,’ because the 
 efficiency is conceived as passing from the agent to its 
 object through the instrumental means; and _ third, 
 ‘surrounding circumstances attending the action,’ for 
 here also the act is conceived of in a looser sense as 
 put forth through (i. e. surrounded by) those circum- 
 stances. Clear examples of δεὼ in this sense may be 
 found in Rom. 2: 27, where the author calls the Jew 
 τὸν διὰ γράμματος καὶ περετομῆς παραβάτην νόμου, 
 ‘one whose transgressions 816» attended with ἃ know- 
 ledge of the written word of God, and the practice of 
 circumcision ;’ in Rom. 14: 20, where eating meats 
 offered to idols is said to be xaxdv τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ τῷ 
 Ova προςκόμεματος ἐσϑέοντε, ‘sinful to that man whose 
 eating is attended with offence to his brethren;’ and 
 in 1 John 5: 6, Οὑτός ἐστεν ὁ ἐλϑὼν δὲ ὕδατος καὶ 
 avuatos, “'This is he who came with water and blood.” 
 This sense is certainly more consistent with the scope 
 than that of ‘the instrument, which is given to dca by 
 our English version, “neither by the blood of bulls 
 and goats, but by his own blood.” Christ can hardly 
 
336 HEBREWS, CHAP. Ix. v. 138. 
 
 be said to have procured admission for himself to 
 heaven by his blood, for he always had access to it in 
 his own right; and the position of the words compels 
 us to regard this clause as qualifying εἰρῆλϑεν. His 
 blood was, rather, the instrument for “obtaining eter- 
 nal redemption for us.” 
 
 λύτρωσεν. This word occurs in the New Test. only 
 here, and in Luke 1: 68, 2:38. In the last two 
 places it is applied by Zacharias and Anna to Christ’s 
 work on earth. Its meaning is ‘redemption’ from 
 some obligation, such as that to a creditor, master, 
 captor, or to law, by the payment of a ransom (Av- 
 zoov).  Bretschneider renders it, /edemptio soluto 
 pretio. The gospel redemption is from the bondage’ 
 of moral corruption, and the obligation to punishment 
 for sin. The price (λύτρον) paid by Christ is his 
 blood. 
 
 εὑρόμενος. This is a later Alexandrine form of 
 the 1 aorist middle, occurring not seldom in Josephus, 
 the Septuagint, and other writers of that school. Its 
 full form is εὑρησώμενος. Here, as often in the New 
 Test. it means simply ‘to obtain, without the idea of 
 accidental and unexpected acquirement. Thus, Hebr. 
 4: 16, “ Let us come boldly to the throne of grace... 
 that we may find grace” (vague εὕρωμεν), &e. ; Hebr. 
 12: 17, Esau “found no place for repentance” (τόπον 
 οὐχ εὗρε). We employ our verb ‘find’ in the same 
 sense when we say, ‘the labourer has found the re- 
 ward of his labours, &c. - 
 
 V. 18. σποδὸς δαμάλεως. Much difficulty has 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. IX. v. 18. 337 
 
 been experienced by commentators on account of the 
 supposed masculine gender of σποδός. Bretschneider, 
 Wahl, Robinson, Grove, Jones, and Stuart in his Com- 
 mentary, make it masculine. I was formerly inclined 
 to account for the feminine gender of the participle 
 (davrifovca), by supposing that the subject was 
 conceived of as a sort of compound feminine, ‘ heifer- 
 ashes,’ the gender of the animal prevailing over that 
 of σποδός. But the true explanation is most probably 
 to be found in the fact that σποδὸς is both masculine 
 and feminine. Passow, Liddell and Scott, and Don- 
 negan, make it feminine. We find it of this gender in 
 the Septuagint translation of Numb. 19: 9, τὴν σποδὸν 
 τῆς δαμάλεως, in Homer’s Od. 9. 375, ὑπὸ σποδοῦ πολ- 
 λῆς, and in Herod. IV. 172, τῆς χάμαϑεν σποδοῦ. 
 The ceremonial here alluded to is described in Numb. 
 19: 2-9. The use of χεχκοενω μένους to describe those 
 ceremonially defiled, needs no remark. 
 
 ἁγεώζεε πρὸς THY τῆς σαρκὸς καϑαρότητα. The 
 verb, by a customary rule, is made to agree in number 
 with the nearer subject, σποδός. But eiuc is also its 
 subject, not sprinkled like the ashes and water on the 
 offerer, but poured out at the altar for his behalf. 
 These ‘removed legal or ritual uncleanness.”’ They 
 also atoned, so far as the secular penalty was con- 
 cerned, for certain offences against the secular laws of 
 Moses. Their purifying efficacy was only external, 
 corporeal, temporary. The Apostle now employs an 
 argument ‘a minort ad majus” ‘Tf this comparatively 
 worthless sacrifice had so much efficacy, much more 
 
 22 
 
338 HEBREWS, OHAP. Ix. v. 14. 
 
 will the infinitely precious sacrifice of Christ’s blood 
 cleanse the conscience from sin.’ 
 
 V.14. διὰ πνεύματος aiwviov. This is a vexed 
 passage among critics, who understand variously the 
 πνεῦμα αἰώνεον. First, some interpret it as meaning 
 ‘His divine spiritual nature’ Second, some under- 
 stand it as the Holy Spirit dwelling in him and ma- 
 king him ἄμωμον, and refer for confirmation to such 
 passages as Isaiah 42:1, “I have put my Spirit upon 
 Him; He shall bring forth judgment to the Gen- 
 tiles;” Matt. 3: 16, “The heavens were opened unto 
 Him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a 
 dove, and lighting upon Him;” and John 8: 34, “For 
 God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto Him.” 
 Third, some understand by it “the eternal nature or 
 principle developed in 7: 16.” And fourth, others ex- 
 plain it as meaning his ‘eternal glorified state’ See 
 Stuart’s Excursus XVIII. 
 
 The commentators are mostly divided between the 
 first two opinions. Of these, the first seems to me 
 preferable on the following grounds. First, the supe- 
 riority of the sacrifice of Christ, so suitable to the 
 scope and argument, is more obvious and more di- 
 rectly in contrast with the nature of the Levitical vic- 
 tims. ‘They were irrational, perishing brutes; He, a 
 divine and eternal being of infinite glory. Second, it 
 was, in fact, the divine nature which gave dignity and 
 efficacy to the sacrifice of Christ. Third, the Holy 
 Spirit, though mentioned in such a multitude of places, 
 is nowhere else thus designated, πνεῦμα αἰώνεον. And 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. Ix. v. 14. 339 
 
 this would be the more remarkable, if the author in- 
 tended the Holy Spirit here, because the common 
 epithet applied to Him, ἅγεον, would be more expres- 
 sive for that interpretation. Fourth, this mode of 
 designating Christ’s divine nature corresponds well 
 with that employed in Rom. 1: 4, πνεῦμα ἀγεωσύνης, 
 as opposed to xara σάρκα of v. 8, where Christ’s di- 
 vine nature is obviously intended. (See Hodge on 
 Romans, 7m loco.) And the same word, πνεῦμα, 18 em- 
 ployed in 1 Tim. 3: 16, and 1 Peter 3: 18, to express 
 Christ’s divine nature when contrasted with his corpo- 
 real: ϑεὸς ἐφανερωϑη ἕν σαρκί, ἐδωκαεώϑη ἐν πνεύ- 
 Mace. Χριστὸς ... ϑανατωϑθεὶς ἐν σαρκί, ζωοποεη- 
 ϑεὶς δὲ πνεύματι. Fifth, either of the above senses 
 weakens the contrast between Christ’s blood and that 
 of bulls and goats, unless the third of the interpreta- 
 tions enumerated be meant to embrace the divine na- 
 ture. Sixth, Christ is often, in this Epistle, referred 
 to in His exalted, glorified state, but nowhere in such 
 terms as these. Let the reader consult Hebr. 1: 3, 4, 
 9:9, 4:14) 5:9, 7226-28, 8:1, where He is de 
 scribed as the brightness of the Father’s glory and ex- 
 press image of his person, sitting on the right hand of 
 his majesty, crowned with glory and honour, passed. 
 into the heavens, author of eternal salvation to the 
 obedient, holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sin- 
 ners, and made higher than the heavens. The prepo- 
 sition dz will have here, if the first interpretation be 
 adopted, the same sense which was given to it in the 
 phrase δὲ αἵματος, v.12. This, then, is the argument: 
 
340 HEBREWS, CHAP. Ix. v. 14. 
 
 The sacrifice of the shedding of Christ’s blood was ac- 
 companied with an eternal divine nature. Since the 
 offering of the blood and life of a brute beast had 
 some outward and temporary efficiency, much more 
 shall this blood and life of infinite worth have a true 
 spiritual efficiency. 
 
 καϑαριεεῖ τὴν συνείδησεν, κιτιΔ. The phrase ve- 
 κρῶν ἔργων has been already illustrated in the re- 
 marks on 6:1 above, as meaning works proceeding 
 from a heart spiritually dead, and deserving the pen- 
 alty of the second death. The ‘conscience’ is that 
 faculty of the soul which takes cognizance of its own 
 merit or demerit. The sense of the whole phrase is, 
 therefore, ‘to remove pollution and guilt from the 
 soul’ The contrast is to be observed with the words 
 ἁγεάζει πρὸς THY τῆς σαρκὸς καϑαρότητα. The one 
 purification is outward, the other inward; the one car- 
 nal, the other spiritual. 
 
 εἰς τὸ λατρεύειν, x.r.4. This is the result to be 
 attained by putting away our pollution and guilt from 
 the sight of God. Atonement and justification result 
 in sanctification, and both are necessary before we can 
 be admitted into His presence and service in heaven. 
 
 Ψ 
 
CHAPTER IX. 15—28. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 Tur Apostle continues his exhibition of the rela- 
 
 tive value of the offerings and services of the two 
 priesthoods. 
 On account of the superior nature and efficacy of 
 the offerings of Christ (διὰ τοῦτο, v. 14), He was 
 made mediator of a new dispensation, that He might, 
 by means of His own death, availing even to the re-. 
 mission of sins under the first, secure to all who are 
 called, the everlasting inheritance, v. 15; for, after 
 the law of testaments generally, to which this transac- 
 tion bears some strong points of resemblance, it was 
 His death which gave it all its validity, vv. 16-18. 
 Wherefore, the first dispensation, that it might as a 
 type set forth this great, fundamental fact, was not 
 ratified without blood; for Moses sprinkled with it 
 the book, the people, the tabernacle, &c.; and under 
 the law almost every thing was purified by blood, and 
 without the shedding of blood there was no remission, 
 vv. 19-22. ! 
 
 It was then necessary,—befitting the nature of the 
 two dispensations and the ends in view,—that the 
 types be purified by such means as these, but that the 
 heavenly and true be purified with better; for (as has 
 been already shown, 8: 4-6), Christ hath entered, 
 (1), not into the sanctuary built by hands and type of 
 
942 OCHAP, IX.—ANALYSIS. 
 
 the true (where indeed such sacrifices would have an- 
 swered), but into heaven itself, to appear now before 
 God in our behalf; (2), not to offer himself often, as 
 the high-priest entered the inner sanctuary every year 
 with the blood of victims; for then, in the first place, 
 contrary to notorious facts and the meaning of the 
 type as already given in vy. 8, must He often have 
 died since the foundation of the world; but now once 
 for all, at the end of the world hath He appeared to 
 put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself; and in the 
 second place, as it is appointed to men once to die, and 
 then is the judgment fixing the destinies of all, so 
 Christ having once been offered up to bear the sins of 
 His people, shall appear again, not to bear iniquity, 
 but for salvation to those who look for Him, vv. 
 23-28. 
 
 After the consideration of the type, then, vv. 1-10, 
 the superiority of Christ’s sacrifice, as developed in this 
 chapter, appears, Ist, in its nature and efficacy, vv. 13, 
 14; 2d, in its fundamental relationship to the new and 
 better dispensation of which the first was but- typical, 
 vy. 15-22; 84, in that His blood, so to speak, was 
 sprinkled in the heavenly sanctuary, vv. 28, 24; and 
 4th, in that it was offered only once for all, vy. 25-28. 
 
18 
 
 10 
 17 
 
 18 
 19 
 
 20 
 
 22 
 
 HEBREWS, CHAP. Ix. v. 15. 343 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 Kai διὰ τοῦτο διαϑήκης καινῆς μεσίτης éoriy, 
 
 , , Ἴ ᾽ ‘A ~ 
 Ὅπως, ϑανάτου γενομένου εἰς ἀπολύτρωσεν τῶν 
 
 οὐδ ~ 4 / ’ ‘ > 
 ἐπὶ τῇ πρώτῃ διαϑήκῃ παραβάσεων, THY ἐπαγγε- 
 τῷ ͵ τ᾿ 
 λέαν λαβωσεν ot κεχλημένοε τῆς αἰωνίου κληρο- 
 , rl \ at r aay 
 voutac. Ὅπου yao διαϑήχκη, ϑάνατον avayzn 
 ~ f Ls \ > 
 φέρεσθαε τοῦ διωϑεμένου" διαϑήκη yao ἐπὶ νε- 
 ~ > te f ca ~ Γ 
 κροῖς βεβαία, ἐπεὲ μήποτε ἰσχύεε, ὅτε ζῇ ὃ διαϑέ- 
 , λυ κα 4 Cad > 
 μενος ὅϑεν οὐδ᾽ ἡ πρώτη χωρὶς αἵματος éyxsxat- 
 ἴω , \ / > ~ 
 viotat.» “«ληϑείσης yao πασης ἐντολῆς κατὰ 
 ε \ ast, x ~ ~ \ \ c= 
 vouoy ὑπο Mavoews παντὶ τῷ haw, λαβὼν τὸ aiua 
 - U \ “ NEIGH > 
 τῶν μοσχῶν καὶ τράγων, μετὰ ὕδατος καὶ ἐρίου 
 , Pa. Ὦ r ad \ , x 
 xOxHLVOU καὶ ὕσσωπον, αὐτὸ TE TO βιβλίον, καὶ 
 f \ \ ey “ r ~ 
 πάντα tov λαὸν ἐῤρῥαντεσε, λέγων" “τοῦτο τὸ 
 τ - r T > Te \ ~ 
 αἷμα τῆς διαθήκης, ἧς ἐντείλατο πρὸς ὑμᾶς ὃ 
 f X ν f \ My 
 eos” καὶ τὴν σκηνὴν δὲ καὶ πάντα τὰ σκεύη 
 - - cr , 77 4 
 τῆς λειτουργίας τῷ αἵματε ὁμοίως ἐῤῥάντεσε" 
 \ ? a , Ἢ 
 (χαὶ σχεδὸν ἐν αἵματε πάντα καϑϑαρίζεταε κατὰ 
 A la ’ , 
 τὸν νόμον, καὶ χωρὶς αἑματεκχυσίας οὐ γένεταε 
 ἄφεσις *) 
 
 V. 15. δεὼ τοῦτο. τοῦτο refers to the superior 
 
 nature and efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ, which was 
 stated in v.14. dza@ with the accusative expresses the 
 ground or reason; and this is strictly according to 
 ‘the analogy of faith’ here. Christ was appointed the 
 mediator of the new covenant, out of a (prospective) 
 regard to the virtue of the sacrifice and mediation he 
 was to make. 
 
344 HEBREWS, CHAP. Ix. v. 15. 
 
 διαϑήκης καινῆς, ‘New arrangement,’ ‘ dispensation.’ 
 The adjective καενῆς here is emphatic; and hence the 
 article is omitted. In this whole phrase it is strongly 
 implied that the old dispensation was set aside for its 
 unprofitableness: ‘ Because He was provided with a 
 sacrifice which was spiritually efficacious, He is made 
 the mediator of a new dispensation; the old therefore 
 is no longer useful, and is no longer retained.’ 
 
 μεσίτης. The derivation, usage, and meaning of 
 this word have been already illustrated, in the remarks 
 on 8: 6 above. The word, in its original meaning of 
 ‘oo-between,’ is general ; signifying sometimes a mere 
 internuntius, which is the sense in which Moses is 
 called a mediator in Gal. 3:19, 20; sometimes an um- 
 pire, as in Job 9: 38, where the Septuagint use it as 
 the translation of m2 (Engl. “daysman”). The use 
 of the verb ἐμεσέτευσεν, in Hebr. 6: 17, may also be 
 compared: ‘God interposed with an oath. It is here 
 applied to Christ in its more special sense, as media- 
 ting between God and man, and particularly as effect- 
 ing reconciliation by his own death. Ξ 
 
 ὅπως. This particle here expresses the end or 
 object, ‘that,’ or ‘in order that.’ See Winer’s Id. 
 New Test. §57. 5, p. 849. The object introduced by 
 it is λώβωσεν of xexAnuévor, κιτ.Δ. But the subordi- 
 nate ϑανάτου γενομένου is not excluded. The ulti- 
 mate end of Christ’s becoming mediator was the re- 
 demption of the called; the mediate end was the 
 making of the sacrifice of his blood, which was in 
 order to the other object: ‘In order that, His death 
 
 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. 1x. v. 15. 345 
 
 having occurred (or more accurately, ‘by the occur- 
 rence of His death’) for the redemption, &c. the called 
 might receive the promise of the eternal inheritance’ 
 
 ἀπολύτρωσεν. This word first and properly signi- 
 fies ‘redemption by a ransom,’ which in this case is the 
 death of Christ. It is also used to express the simple 
 idea of ‘deliverance, without reference to the means 
 of effecting it. ‘This is obviously its meaning in Hebr. 
 11: 35, “Others were tortured, not accepting deliver- 
 ance” (ov προςδεξάμενοε τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν). Luke 
 21:28, “For your redemption” (deliverance) “ draw- 
 eth nigh.” But whenever it is applied to the work of 
 Christ, in effecting deliverance from sin and its conse- 
 quences (as in Rom. 3: 24, “ Being justified freely by 
 his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ 
 Jesus”), it has its proper meaning of ‘redemption by 
 payment of a ransom. ‘That this is its meaning here 
 is obvious from the preceding words, ϑανάτου γένομέ- 
 vou, ‘His death took place for, i order to redemption 
 of transgressions.’ And we may remark, in general, 
 that wherever it is used of Christ’s work for us, con- 
 nected words prove that it is not a deliverance effected 
 by power or wisdom only, but by a ransom. In addi- 
 tion to the passage from Romans, consult, in evidence, 
 Eph. 1: 7, Col. 1: 14. 
 
 τῶν ἐπὶ τῇ πρώτῃ διαϑήχῃ παραβάσεων, ‘The 
 transgressions under the first dispensation.’ ἐπὲ here 
 has the meaning of conjunction or concurrence of time 
 (see Winer’s Id. New Test. $52. 3.¢, p. 314), as though 
 it expressed sins occurring cotemporarily with the 
 
940 HEBREWS, OHAP. Ix. v. 15. 
 
 first dispensation. It is in several places taught that 
 the true and spiritual redemption of the believers un- 
 der the Aaronic dispensation was effected by Christ’s 
 sacrifice. Thus, in Rom. 8:25, “God set forth (his 
 Son)... to declare his righteousness for the remission 
 of sins that are past” (διὰ τὴν πάρεσεν τῶν προγεγο- 
 γότων ὡμαρτημάτων). Sins committed before God 
 set forth his Son are intended. The same retrospect- 
 ive operation of His sacrifice is implied in y. 26 below, 
 ἐπεὶ ἔδεε «αὐτὸν πολλώκες παϑεῖν ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κό- 
 σμου. The implication is, that if the one sacrifice of 
 Christ had not been of perpetual efficacy, it would 
 have been necessary to repeat it constantly ever since 
 the foundation of the world, in order to redeem be- 
 lievers of the earliest ages of the world ; for that was 
 a part of its design. The same truth is also taught in 
 Acts 18: 38, 39, “By Him all that believe are justified 
 from all things from which ye could not be justified 
 by the law of Moses;” all those who lived under the 
 law of Moses, as well as subsequent believers. But 
 this passage does not except the redemption of more 
 recent believers from the object of Christ’s sacrifice ; 
 for it gives us grounds of an argument ὦ fortiori: If 
 the transgressions committed under a former dispensa- 
 tion were atoned for by this Priest of the new, much 
 more will He cover the sins of his people under his 
 own dispensation. 
 
 of κεκλημένοι. ‘Two kinds of calling are signified 
 by this family of words, καλέω, κλήσες, κλητός, in the 
 New Test.; one outward, the other inward and effect- 
 
HEBREWS, OHAP. IX. vv. 16, 17. 347 
 
 ual. Of the former, we have examples in Matt. 20: 
 16, 22:14, πολλοὶ κλητοί, ohiyoe ἐχλεχτοί. Of the 
 latter calling, we had an obvious example in Hebr. 
 8:1 (χλήσεως ἐπουρανίου). Others equally obvious 
 may be found in Rom. 8: 80, Ovs πρδώρισε. .. καὶ 
 ἐκάλεσε... καὶ ἐδικαίωσεν... καὶ ἐδόξασε, and in 
 1 Cor. 1:9, 24. xexAnuévoe here evidently signi- 
 fies the effectually called; the whole tenour of Scrip- 
 ture and the passages quoted (as Matt. 20: 16) prove 
 that none but those who experience the spiritual and 
 regenerating call of the Spirit, do “obtain the promise 
 of eternal inheritance,” justification, adoption, and a 
 home in heaven. 
 
 Vv. 16,17. Ὅπου γὰρ διαϑήκη. γὰρ introduces 
 the ground of the statement, that it was the mediate 
 intention of Christ’s mediatorship that his death should 
 take place, and through that, the redemption of his 
 people: ‘He was made mediator in order to die, and 
 by his death to redeem; 70), where there is a tes- 
 tament, the death of the testator must precede, to 
 give it validity.’ In this passage commentators are 
 greatly divided as to the meaning of δεαϑήκη, some 
 translating it ‘covenant’ and some ‘testament. Its 
 proper meaning (from dzarityuc) is ‘ an arrangement,’ 
 ‘a disposition,’ of some affair. Hence it is used among 
 the classics, for the most part, in the specific sense of 
 ‘will, ‘testament,” which is embraced in the Latin 
 ‘dispositio. In the Septuagint, διακιϑήκη is often used 
 as the translation of m2, meaning covenants between 
 man and man, as for instance that between David and 
 
348 HEBREWS, CHAP. ΙΧ. vv. 16, 17. 
 
 Jonathan, 1 Sam. 18:3. In Gen. 15, 18 it is used to 
 signify the Abrahamic covenant, and in Exod. 24: 6-8, 
 to express the Mosaic covenant, which sense it also has 
 in Hebr. 9: 20 (which is a quotation of the passage 
 from Exodus to which we have just referred), and in 
 Deut. 5:2. It is used to express the new covenant 
 promised under the Messiah, in Jer. 31: 31-34, already 
 cited in 8: 8-12 above. There is one instance, at least, 
 found among the classics (Aristoph. ornithes. 439), 
 where it seems to mean ‘covenant, ἤν μὴ δεαϑῶνται 
 γ᾽ οἷδε Ocadyxny ἐμοί. In the cases last quoted from 
 the Scriptures, we have only different forms or dispen- 
 sations of the same covenant; and in the cases of the 
 Mosaic and Christian, perhaps it would be better gen- 
 erally to translate the word ‘dispensation’ instead of 
 ‘covenant.’ The former rendering is still more to be 
 approved than ‘testament,’ the one which our trans- 
 lators have used. This use of διαϑήχη to express, as 
 is done habitually in this Epistle, the Mosaic and 
 Christian economies, comes near the original import 
 of the word; the adjuncts severally used, πρώτη, dev- 
 τέρα, νέα, καίνη, κρείττων, αἰώνεος (as in 13: 20), 
 serving, with the context, to define what economy is 
 meant. In Gal. 4:24 we have both dispensations 
 spoken of at once, δύο διαϑῆκαε. 
 
 Under the first economy, which was typical, teach- 
 ing the substance under shadows, Christ could not, from 
 the appointment of God and the nature of the case, 
 make the offering of himself. ‘This is evident from a 
 comparison of Hebr. 8: 4, 5, and 9: 8-10. The pres- 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. IX. vv. 16, 17. 349 
 
 ence of the type implies the absence of the antitype, 
 because the very nature of a type is to symbolize visi- 
 bly an absent and unseen reality. When the time was 
 come for Christ’s offermg of himself to take place, the 
 former dispensation must give way to a new economy 
 possessing the substance. So, the author asserts in vy. 
 15 that, on account of the superior nature of Christ’s 
 sacrifice, inferring a superior efficacy which never be- 
 longed to the blood of bulls and goats, He was made 
 a mediator of a new dispensation, that He might by 
 dying secure to His people, living under both econe- 
 
 mies, the everlasting inheritance. 
 
 The διαϑήκη (dispensation or economy) of Christ, 
 thus conceived and expressed (as to its means, ϑανά- 
 του (τοῦ Χριστοῦ), and its ends, τῆς «αἰωνίου xAnoovo- 
 fetcec), resembles, in some of its general and important 
 features, a testament among men; by which I under- 
 stand the Apostle to illustrate the subject im the verses 
 before us. The foundation of this comparison is laid 
 in v. 15, where the new διαϑήκη is made to derive its 
 efficacy from the death of the wsecirns, to whom it 
 belonged; and through this death it confers, on all 
 who are called, a title to an everlasting inheritance. 
 And the transition was more natural, because of the 
 common usage of δεαϊϑήκη to denote a testament. 
 
 The signification of “ covenant,” however consonant 
 to Septuagint and New Test. usage, is philologically 
 incapable of being carried through vy. 16, 17, even 
 though we admitted that the context would limit the 
 statement im v. 16 to such covenants as were ratified 
 
350 HEBREWS, CHAP, Ix. vv. 16, 17. 
 
 by slain victims; a supposition by which some attempt 
 to sustain that rendering. First: if διαϑήκη means 
 covenant, δεαϑεμένου, by the most natural correspond- 
 ence of terms, would mean covenanter. (Let the reader 
 compare the construction in 9: 16, with that of the 
 citation from Aristophanes, on a previous page.) But 
 the ὁ δεαϑέμενος did not die; for He was God the 
 Father. This difficulty becomes insurmountable when 
 we remember that δεαϑέμενος is used of testators, but 
 never of victims slain to ratify covenants. Second: 
 the word vexgog (in the masculine, v. 17) is ‘often used 
 ᾿ οὗ dead men, but never, except as a qualifying adjec- 
 tive, of dead animals. In this adjective sense, it is 
 applied to the works of unregenerate men, in a meta- 
 phorical sense ; νέχρα ἔργα, in Hebr. 6:1, 9: 14; to 
 «ἁμαρτία in Rom. 7: 8; and to πέστες in James 2: 17, 
 20, 26. Even of its application as an adjective to 
 beasts, I can find but one example, Eccles. 9 : 4, ὁ κύων 
 ὃ ζῶν αὐτὸς ὠἀγαϑὸς ὑπὲρ τὸν heovra τὸν νέχκρον 
 (Septuagint). The interpretation, therefore, however 
 it may ease the sense, violates common usages of the 
 language, and assumes a usage for itself without sup- 
 port from examples. Third: even admitting that the 
 context naturally suggests covenants which are ratified 
 by the slaying of victims, still the language of these 
 verses seems too general for limitation to such special 
 covenants, and the law is too generally laid down for 
 the known usages in ratifying covenants. And if it be 
 said that the context limits us to the conception of cov- 
 enants ratified by the blood of victims, it may be said 
 
ὦ... 
 
 HEBREWS, CHAP. IX. v. 16. 351 
 
 with equal plausibility, on the other side, that it limits 
 us to the conception of dispensations or dispositions 
 that take their force from the death of the disposer. 
 But what kind of dispositions are these among men? 
 Obviously, testaments. The only difficulty in the 
 way of the view which we have given, is this: that 
 it may seem unwarrantable to suppose the author 
 using the same word in two unlike significations in so 
 near a proximity. This does not appear insuperable; 
 for nothing is more certain than that a multitude of 
 words do bear different senses in different contexts ; 
 and where the context changes, even though it be in 
 the compass of two sentences, it is not impossible that 
 a change of sense may take place in the leading term, 
 even as it does when the two differing contexts are far 
 asunder. No one seems to have made the obvious re- 
 flection, that the aspect of the διαϑήκη must needs 
 change, as the point of view is changed from which it 
 isseen. In v. 15 (διαϑήκης καινῆς μεσίτης), it is con- 
 templated as the dispensation of the Father ; in v. 16, 
 it is viewed as the Son’s. Now as it is God the 
 Father’s, it is ‘a dispensation ;’ but as it is the trans- 
 action of the dying Mediator, it is a ‘last will and tes- 
 tament.’ In vv. 15 and 16 the Apostle passes from the 
 one to the other point of view. 
 
 V.16. φέρεσθαι. This phrase is translated by 
 Wahl, necesse afferri testimonium de morte, &c. taking 
 death (ϑάνατον) in the sense of ‘news of his death.’ 
 Bretschneider translates it ferrt sermone (‘that his 
 death be related’), 1. 6. constare oportet; and thence 
 
352 HEBREWS, OHAP. Ix. vv. 17, 18. 
 
 he would derive the sense ‘be brought forward, ‘ad- 
 duced, ‘shown.’ Kuinoél translates pégsoaz, insequt, 
 ‘to ensue.’ The sense given by Bretschneider corres- 
 ponds best with the context and the usage of the 
 verb. Let the student consider the derivation of the 
 English verb ‘relate’ (in the sense of recount) from 
 the Latin. 
 
 V.17. ἐπὶ νεκροῖς, ‘A testament is of force over 
 the dead’ The force of ἐπὲ here may be illustrated 
 by a comparison with ὁ λαὸς γὰρ ἐπ᾿ αὐτῇ vevouodé- 
 tyro (7:11). Consult also Winer’s Id. New Test. 
 $52. c, p. 815. The sense seems to be nearly that of 
 ‘ sub conditione. ‘A testament is of force on condition 
 of the death of the testator,’ 
 
 ἐπεὶ μήποτε, x.r.A. The use of μήποτε, instead of 
 the direct negative ov, seems here to require some 
 explanation. The latter is certainly the negative 
 commonly used after ἐπεί, See Hebr. 10:2. Bohme 
 conceives that μὴ is here employed to give to ἐσχύεε a 
 stronger and more general negation than ov would 
 convey. Itis more probable that it is employed be- 
 cause the writer considered the case generally and 
 hypothetically, and not individually. See Winer’s Id. 
 New Test. $59. 5, pp. 875, 876. The words may at 
 any rate be translated with great certainty, ‘Since it 
 (a testament) is never binding whilst the testator 
 lives.’ 
 
 V.18. ὅϑεν. The illation expressed by this word 
 was clearly stated in the Analysis, to which the reader 
 should recur. The testamentary nature of Christ’s re- 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. Ix. v. 19. 353 
 
 deeming covenant was so prevalent, as to imply neces- 
 sarily the death of Him, its mediator, in order to the 
 valid enjoyment of its benefits by his heirs. Therefore 
 it was that the first dispensation was not sanctioned or 
 instituted without blood. The force of this inference 
 is in the fact that the first dispensation was typical of 
 the second; and therefore ought to bear an accurate 
 resemblance to it. The blood, by the shedding of 
 which Aaronic institutions were sanctioned, is under- 
 stood as implying, of course, the death of the typical 
 victims. The blood-shedding was a shedding of the 
 life. “The blood is the life thereof.” 
 
 ἐγκεκαένεσται. ‘This verb is found in the Septua- 
 gint in three senses. First, it is employed in 2 Chron. 
 15: 8, for 3n, ‘to repair,’ scilicet the altar; second, it 
 is used to translate 729, ‘to dedicate or consecrate’ a 
 house, as in Deut. 20: 5; third, it is used in the sense 
 of ‘ratifying, ‘sanctioning, as in 1 Sam. 11: 14, for 
 win: “Let us go to Gilgal, and ratify (Engl. version 
 writes ‘renew’) the kingdom there.” Wahl translates 
 the verb, éastituo, sancio. This third meaning is to be 
 preferred in this place. In Hebr. 10: 20, ἣν évexaive 
 σεν ἡμῖν ὁδὸν πρόςφατον καὶ ζῶσαν, we are almost 
 compelled to adopt the sense of “consecrating ;” and 
 it is therefore best.to adopt it in the text under dis- 
 cussion also. The reference of the Apostle here is 
 therefore particularly to the sacrifices by which, as we 
 read in the 8th chapter of Leviticus, Aaron, his sons, 
 and the tabernacle, were set apart. 
 
 V.19. χατὰ νόμον. The ‘law’ here mentioned 
 
 23 
 
354 HEBREWS, CHAP. IX. Vv. 20, 22. 
 
 is, doubtless, a command enjoining upon Moses this re- 
 cital of the precepts of the moral and ritual law to the 
 people. Such a command is nowhere recorded, but it 
 was no doubt given; for we find in Exod. 24: 3, 7, that 
 such a recital was made. The events to which refer- 
 ence is here made by the Apostle, were undoubtedly 
 those related in Exod. 24: 4-8. In this passage there 
 is no mention of the blood of goats specifically (but 
 only of burnt-offerings, and peace-offerings of oxen), 
 nor of the water, nor of the scarlet wool and hyssop, 
 nor of the sprinkling of the book. So likewise, in the 
 40th chapter of Exodus, where the pitching of the 
 tabernacle is related, there is no account of the sprink- 
 ling of it and its furniture, which is stated in v. 21. 
 None of these things are improbable in themselves. 
 The last is mentioned by Josephus, Antiq. Jud. 3. 8. 6. 
 Moses’ narratives are not all full in their details. The 
 account of these circumstances had probably been 
 handed down by tradition; and, as Jude could judge 
 with regard to the tradition of Enoch’s prophecy, and 
 Michael’s contest for the body of Moses, the Apostle 
 here was enabled to decide infallibly concerning the 
 accuracy of these particulars. Moses’ silence is no 
 proof that these circumstances did not occur; the 
 Apostle’s assertion is authoritative that they did. 
 
 V.20. τοῦτο τὸ αἷμα, x.t.4. These words are 
 evidently intended as a free quotation of Exod. 24: 8, 
 to which they agree in all substantial respects. 
 
 VY. 22. ‘This verse is improperly placed in paren- 
 thesis by Vater. It is properly additional to the fore- 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. Ix. v. 22. 355 
 
 going ; indeed, it is but a general summing up of pre- 
 ceding particulars, and a statement of the induction 
 from them. In its connexion it is important, as show- 
 ing the typical and spiritual import of the Levitical 
 purifications and sacrifices. Because in the true, spirit- 
 ual, and efficacious dispensation of the antitype, all de- 
 pended on His death, so in the foreshadowing dispen- 
 sation of types, almost every rite was attended with a 
 sacrificial death or blood-shedding. And especially 
 was this true of a// those parts of the typical dispensa- 
 tion, where release from ceremonial guilt was bestowed. 
 In every case such ceremonial atonement was only pro- 
 cured through blood-shedding; the Holy Ghost fore- 
 shadowing thereby this great truth, that there can be 
 no pardon of sin in the perfect and absolute govern- 
 ment of God, without an adequate atonement by the 
 death of the sinner or his substitute. The 22d verse 
 is therefore to be regarded as a part, yea, the main 
 part, the sum, of the illation introduced by ὅϑεν in 
 v.18. Thus, all the bloody sacrifices of the Levitical 
 rites go to prove the necessity of an atoning or sacrifi- 
 cial death by Christ. 
 
 2 r = Ν ΄ ~ τὶ ~ 
 23 avayxn οὖν ta μὲν ὑποδείγματα τῶν ὃν τοῖς 
 > ~ ’ r > Ἁ Ἁ Ἁ 
 oveavois, τούτοις καϑαρίέζεσθαε: αὐτὰ δὲ τὰ 
 Ἴ Fe : 
 24 ἐπουράνεα κρείττοσε ϑυσέαες παρὰ ταύτας. Ov 
 \ cr ~ I / 
 yao εἰς χειροποίητα ayia εἰρῆλθεν ὁ Χριστός, 
 7} ~ 2 ~ 3 2 Ε a aS \ 3 
 αντέτυπα τῶν αληϑενῶν, ἀλλ᾽ εἰς αὐτὸν τὸν οὐρα- 
 Ul ~ ? ~ ~ if ~ ~ 
 γον, νῦν ἐμφανισϑῆναε τῷ xe0osan@ τοῦ ϑεοῦ 
 
356 HEBREWS, OHAP. IX. V. 23. 
 
 ΑΒΓ « ~ > fa ld r c ‘4 
 25 ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν" οὐδ᾽, iva πολλάκις προςφέρη éavror, 
 ’ , 3 
 ὥςπερ ὁ ἀρχεερεὺς εἰξέρχεταιε εἰς τὰ ἅγιε κατ 
 > > c » , , ‘ ‘ 
 26 ἐνεαυτὸν ἐν αἵματε ἀλλοτρίῳ, (ἐπεὶ ἔδεε αὐτὸν 
 A ~ > Ἁ ~ , δ ~ 
 πολλάκις παϑεῖν ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου") νῦν 
 ΄ Ἴ , - = Pe 
 δὲ ἅπαξ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων, εἰς addérnow 
 ἁμαρτίας, διὰ τῆς ϑυσίας αὑτοῦ πεφανέρωταε. 
 ‘ U ΄ ~ > / ca 
 27 Καὶ xa ὅσον anoxetac τοῖς ἀνϑρώποις ἅπαξ 
 28 > ¢ ~ \ \ ~ / ὶ cr ᾿ ε 
 28 ἀποϑανεῖν, μετὰ δὲ τοῦτο κρίσες " οὕτω [καὶ] ὁ 
 Χριστὸς ἅπαξ προςενεχϑεὶς εἰς τὸ πολλῶν ave- 
 γεγκεῖν ἁμαρτίας, ἐκ δευτέρου χωρὶς ἁμαρ- 
 τίας ὀφϑήσεταε, τοῖς «αὐτὸν ἔαρος τους εἰς 
 σωτηρίαν. 
 
 V. 238. ἀνάγκη οὖν, #.r.4. For the meaning and 
 connexion of thought, see the Analysis. The logical 
 inference of ovy is from the relationship-just developed 
 between the two dispensations. Because the first is 
 typical of the second, and the second is one which 
 necessarily implies the sacrificial death of its surety, 
 they both required their respective sacrifices ; the fore- 
 shadowing dispensation its typical sacrifices, and the 
 true dispensation its better victim. : 
 
 ὑποδείγματα, ‘Patterns. The same word is used 
 for nearly the same idea in 8: 5 above, and needs no 
 more illustration here. It embraces also the τὰ σκεύη 
 of v. 21. 
 
 καϑαρέζεσϑαι. This verb belongs both to the 
 types, ὑποδείγματα, and to the antitypes, αὐτὼ τὰ éxov- 
 gavea: but it must be understood suitably to their 
 respective natures. The human priest, being sinful, 
 needed to have his person and his official acts cleansed 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. Ix. v. 24. 357 
 
 from guilt by a ceremonial atonement. The very tab- 
 ernacle in which, and utensils with which, he minis- 
 tered, being the work of sinful, human hands, and 
 their materials the gift of sinful men, needed, in a 
 sense, a similar purification. And every worshipper 
 who came into this tabernacle, through this priest, ob- 
 tained remission, was cleansed from guilt, only through 
 blood. So, in a manner not exactly similar, but analo- 
 gous, Christ was cleansed, not from personal, but im- 
 puted guilt, by the sacrifice of his human part. He 
 has now carried the virtues, so to speak, of this atoning 
 sacrifice, into the heavenly sanctuary in our behalf, 
 and has thus prepared the way for our peaceable ap- 
 proach to God. We have thus “a new and living 
 way, which he hath consecrated for us through the 
 vail, that is to say, his flesh.” Hebr. 10: 20. 
 
 V. 24. γάρ. The connexion of thought here indi- 
 cated by this conjunction, seems not to be a proof that 
 the heavenly sanctuary needed better sacrifices, from 
 the fact that Christ has entered it with his blood. It 
 is rather a proof that, inasmuch as Christ ministers 
 in the true sanctuary to make atonement for sins be- 
 fore God, therefore he must have a better sacrifice ; 
 since the case requires it. In other words, we must 
 conceive the γὰρ as relating rather to χρεέττοσε (ϑυ- 
 σέαες) than to ἀνάγκη. The ὠνάγκη is inferred by 
 οὖν (v. 23) from the foregoing; in χρείττοσε ϑυσίαες 
 is an assertion of the superiority of the sacrifices for 
 the heavenly sanctuary, implying the superiority of 
 Christ’s sacrifice who had entered into it. So that γὰρ 
 
358 HEBREWS, OHAP. Ix. vv. 25, 26. 
 
 clears up the implication: ‘Therefore Christ’s sacrifice 
 is better, for he did not enter into a sanctuary made 
 with hands, the types of the true, but into heaven 
 itself’ This best comports with the whole scope of 
 the context. 
 
 ἐμφανεσϑῆναι. This is a forensic term, signifying 
 ‘to appear in court,’ as a plaintiff or advocate. In the 
 former of these senses, it is used for the appearance of 
 the chief-priests, elders, and Tertullus against Paul, in 
 Acts 24:1 and 25:2,15. In the latter sense it is 
 used here. Christ appears before the bar of God, 
 ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, ‘on our behalf, 
 
 τῷ προφςώπῳ τοῦ ϑεοῦ. So the Septuagint trans- 
 late D> °2B in Ps. 42: ὃ, and "28 of Ps. 95:2. The 
 divine presence intended by the Psalmist in such 
 expressions is that of Jehovah manifested in the tem- 
 ple or tabernacle. Christ has presented himself be- 
 fore God in that highest sense, of which this is but a 
 shadow. 
 
 Vv. 25, 26. . οὐδ᾽, ἵνα πολλάκις προςφέρῃ ἑαυτὸν 
 
 ., ἐπεὶ ἔδεε αὐτὸν πολλάκις παϑεῖν, κιτιΔ. The 
 
 reasoning here is easy and obvious: it is less easy to 
 account for the syntax of the sentence. The words 
 ἐπεὶ ἔδεε, x.7.A. are evidently an appeal to fact in proof 
 of the negative assertion, οὐδ᾽, iva πολλάώκες, κιτ.λ.: 
 ‘Had the sacrifice of Christ been such as required repe- 
 tition, like the yearly offerings of the Jewish high- 
 priest, then must Christ have suffered many times 
 already since the origin of the human race. But we 
 know that this has not been so; on the contrary (νῦν 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. Ix. vv. 25, 26. 359 
 
 δὲ ἅπαξ, x.r.4.), the fact is, that Christ has been mani- 
 fested recently, and that but once, to put away sin by 
 offering himself’ It would seem that ἔδεε expresses 
 the latter clause or apodosis of a conditional sentence 
 of which the protasis is left to be supplied, and in 
 which the condition is implied to be already definitely 
 decided. In such a construction, the past tenses of the 
 indicative would be regularly used, but the conditional 
 meaning would usually be marked by ἄν, which is not 
 here present. Ifthe ellipsis were supplied, the sen- 
 tence would stand thus: és, εἰ πολλάκες προσέφερεν 
 ἑαυτόν, ἔδεε av αὐτὸν πολλάχες παϑεῖν ἀπὸ καταβὸο- 
 λῆς κόσμου. But referring to Kiihner, $260. 2. Rem. 
 3, p. 354, we learn that it is not unusual to find ὧν 
 omitted, especially with a class of verbs of which ἔδεε 
 is one, in such elliptical, conditional expressions. 
 συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων. ‘This phrase, with the dif- 
 ference that the genitive singular, κέῶνος, 1s used, oc- 
 eurs in Matt. 13:39, ὁ δὲ ϑερεσμός, ouvvréhecee τοῦ 
 αἰῶνός éorev; 13: 40, 49, οὕτως ἔσταε ἐν τῇ συντελείᾳ 
 τοῦ αἰῶνος ; 24:3, τί τὸ σημεῖον τῆς σῆς παρουσίας, 
 καὶ τῆς συντελείας τοῦ κόσμου; and 28: 20, καὶ ἐδού, 
 ἐγὼ pew? ὑμῶν εἰμε πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας, ἕως τῆς συντε- 
 λείας τοῦ αἰῶνος. Perhaps in all these cases the mean- 
 ing is the end of the world, or of the present state of 
 things. But the phrase is here plural; and as the 
 Jews were accustomed to distinguish the old and new 
 dispensations, the Mosaic and the Messianic, 7 D249 
 and 823 D217, some understand by the expression here, 
 the juncture of the two dispensations, equivalent to, 
 
360 HEBREWS, OHAP. Ix. v. 28. 
 
 ‘in media mundi etate) ‘in confinio veteris et novi 
 Test., ‘in confinio seculorum. Thus Kiittneri Hypom. 
 Others translate the, phrase, ‘in the last of the dispen- 
 sations,’ that is, in the last of the ages of the world. 
 Compare Winer’s Id. New Test. $52. ¢, p. 814: ‘ sub 
 Jinem mundi? Others, among whom are Stuart and 
 Bloomfield, render it, ‘at the close of the Mosaic econ- 
 omy. The expression may be illustrated by 1 Cor. 
 10: 11, ἡμῶν, εἰς οὖς τὰ τέλη TOY «ἰώνων κατήντησεν. 
 The second is the more probable sense, both on ac- 
 count of the plural form of the phrase, and the consid- 
 eration that the Jews regarded the messianic not only 
 as the last dispensation, but as the completion of all 
 the previous ones. 
 
 διὰ τῆς ϑυσίας. Some translate this preposition 
 here, ‘with ;’ giving it a sense similar to that which 
 we attributed to it in vv. 12; 14, οὐδὲ δὲ αἵματος tea- 
 γων .... ὃς διὰ πνεύματος αἰωνίον ἑαντὸν προσήνεγκεν, 
 as signifying one’s ‘equipments, or the circumstances 
 and relations under which he does something. But it 
 is far better to give it its customary force with the 
 genitive, that of instrument or means, and refer it to 
 ἀϑέτησεν : ‘He was manifested for (with a view to) 
 the putting away of sin dy the sacrifice of himself? 
 
 V.28. πολλῶν. The proper force of this adjec- 
 tive has been sufficiently explained in the remarks on 
 2: 10 above, to which the reader is referred. 
 
 ἀνενεγκεῖν ἁμαρτίας. This passage clearly proves 
 the substitutionary character of Christ’s death. εἰς τὸ 
 ἀνενεγκεῖν is undoubtedly the infinitive of the object: 
 
HEBREWS, OMAP. Ix. v. 28. 361 
 
 ‘Christ was once presented a order to bear away, 
 ‘with a view to bearing away the sins of many.” To 
 bear the sins of any one is to sustain the guilt and the 
 punishment of it. Let thé-reader compare the lan- 
 guage of 1 Pet. ὃ: 24, ὃς τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν αὐτὸς 
 ἀνήνεγκεν ἐν τῷ σώματε αὑτοῦ ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον" and of 
 Isaiah 53: 12, 8@) ὈΞΎ ΝΏΤΙ δ, which the Septuagint 
 render, χαὶ αὐτὸς ἁμαρτίας πολλῶν ἀνήνεγκεν. Stu- 
 art’s XI Xth Excursus may be consulted. 
 
 χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας. This is the antithesis of προς- 
 ἐνεχϑεὶς εἰς τὸ πολλῶν ἀνενεγκεῖν Guaortias. Some 
 understand by it that Christ shall come the second 
 time ‘ without sin-offering ;’ giving to it the sense of 
 the Hebrew pes and myen. But the sense is better 
 understood by comparing the phrase with 2 Cor, 5: 21, 
 Τὸν yao μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν, ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν 
 ἐποίησεν, ἵνα ἡμεῖς γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη ϑεοῦ ὃν 
 αὐτῷ. The freedom from sin at his second coming is 
 the contrast of his sin-bearmg at his first. In both 
 cases it is imputed sin which is intended. At his sec- 
 ond coming he will bear no imputed guilt; for, agree- 
 ably to the analogy of man’s one death and judgment, 
 He hath by one sacrifice cleansed all imputed guilt 
 away. 
 
 εἰς σωτηρίαν. These words depend on ὀφιϑήσεται. 
 As v. 26 assumed that in past time Christ had not often 
 suffered, so vv. 27, 28 seem designed to show that, ac- 
 cording to the established constitution of things, He 
 cannot die again in future. When He comes again it 
 will be to the judgment, and to award salvation. 
 
CHAPTER X. 1—18. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 Tue author finishes the comparison of the sacrifices 
 under the two dispensations, showing the insufficiency 
 of the former, and the efficacy of the latter, and thus, 
 the necessity or reason of the offering of Christ. More 
 particularly : 
 
 As was prefigured by the types, Christ had made 
 an offering of Himself more excellent than they (ch. 9), 
 for (γὰρ) the offermgs under the law, being but shad- 
 ows of future good things, were wholly unavailing to 
 perfect those who presented them. Otherwise, 1st, 
 would they not have ceased to be offered, having ac- 
 complished the work of purifying the worshippers ? 
 vv. 1, 2; 2d, instead of this, however, there was a rec- 
 ognition of sins by them year after year, v. 3; for, 3d, 
 it was not possible for the blood of bulls and goats to 
 take away sins, v.4. Hence, 4th, the Old Test. pre- 
 dicting the coming of Christ into the world, represents 
 Him as declaring that these sacrifices could not satisfy 
 God, and that He himself was come to render that sat- 
 isfaction, vv. 5-7, thus abolishing them as ineffectual, 
 and substituting Himself as all-sufficient; by which 
 will of God setting them aside, and substituting Him, 
 we have been redeemed by the once offering of Christ, 
 vy. 8-10; 5th, moreover the Levitical priests all stood 
 day after day offering their unavailing sacrifices; but 
 
CHAP. X.—ANALYSIS. 363 
 
 Christ having offered His sacrifice once, had forever 
 set down on the right hand of God, awaiting the con- 
 summation in due time of the glorious results. For by 
 one offering He has forever secured the perfection of 
 all the redeemed, vv. 11-14; 6th, thus the Holy Spirit 
 witnesseth in the Old Test. Scriptures; for, to the an- 
 nouncement of a new dispensation the Lord annexes a 
 promise to rectify the hearts and forgive the sins of 
 His people; thus plainly implying the perfection of 
 the offering, vv. 15-18. 
 
 This closes the third and last great topic in the 
 general argument: the rest of the Epistle is chiefly 
 practical and hortatory. 
 
364 HEBREWS, CHAP. X. V. l. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 X. 1 Σκεὰν γὰρ ἔχων ὃ νόμος τῶν μελλόντων aya- 
 ϑῶν, οὐκ αὐτὴν τὴν εἰκόνα τῶν πραγμάτων, κατ᾽ 
 ἐνεαυτὸν ταῖς αὐταῖς ϑυσίαες, as προςφέρουσεν εἰς 
 τὸ δεηνεκές, οὐδέποτε δύναταε τοὺς προςερχομένους 
 
 2 τελεεῶσαε᾽ ἐπεὶ [οὐκ] ἂν ἐπαύσαντο προςφερόμε- 
 vat, διὰ τὸ μηδεμέαν ἔχεεν ἔτε συνείδησεν ἅμαρ- 
 τιῶν τοὺς λατρεύοντας, ἅπαξ, κχκεχαϑαρμένους ; 
 
 3 (ALN ἐν αὐταῖς ἀνώμνησες ὡμαρτεῶν κατ᾽ ἐνεαυτόν. 
 
 4 ᾿Αδύνατον γὰρ aiua ταύρων καὶ τράγων ἀφαιρεῖν 
 ἁμαρτίας. 
 
 V.1. Xxiav γάρ. To perceive the force of γὰρ 
 as a connective here, we must bear in mind the con- 
 trast between the old δεαϑϑήκη and the new, between 
 the offerings of the old and those of the new, which 
 runs throughout the latter part of the last chapter. 
 See, for instance, 9: 15, 18, 23, 24, 26 (νῦν ἐπὶ συντε- 
 λείᾳ τῶν «ἰώνων), and 28. The idea of ‘the two dis- 
 pensations with their respective offerings’ is still prom- 
 inent in the writer’s mind, as it continues to be to the 
 end of the discussion. Thus, in 10:1, we have ὁ νόμος, 
 implying a contrast with the gospel; in v. 5 we find 
 εἰξερχόμενος εἰς τὸν κόσμον, Where the newly incar- 
 nate Redeemer is tacitly contrasted with the ceremo- 
 nial system which had been so long in possession of 
 the Church. In v. 9 we have προςφορών, x.1.2. aire 
 veg κατὰ TOY νόμον προςφέρονταε, Offset against the 
 
HEBREWS; CHAP: x.°v.° 1. 365 
 
 offering of Christ which supersedes them. In v. 9 
 also, τὸ πρῶτον is explicitly set against τὸ δεύτερον. 
 In vy. 16 it is said with emphasis, αὕτη 7 διαϑήκη 
 (‘this is the covenant’), as distinguished from the 
 previous one. The conjunction γὰρ therefore intro- 
 duces the assertion of the shadowy and ineffectual 
 character of the Old Test. offerings, as the ground or 
 reason for that inferiority to Christ’s offering which 
 was the general idea running through the previous 
 passage. It is only in respect of these that the com- 
 parison is made: ‘The old dispensation by its offer- 
 ings, which were merely typical, accomplished nothing 
 towards satisfying the claims (the ϑέλημα of vv. 7, 9, 
 10) of infinite justice and mercy; Christ, having come 
 into the world, effects the perfect work by offering 
 himself” Such is the general statement introduced by 
 γάρ, as the ground of that assertion which constitutes 
 the scope of the 9th chapter. 
 
 Σκιὰν.... οὐκ αὐτὴν τὴν εἰκόνα. These words 
 indicate a shadow or outline, an imperfect representa- 
 tion, and not ‘the very image’ Wahl, in his defini- 
 tions of εἰκών, says, it is effigies expressa et solida. 
 In Col. 2:17, σκεὰ is contrasted with σώμα, shadow 
 with substance; & (viz. σαββάτων, νουμηνίας, ἕορ- 
 τῆς; #.0-A.) ἐστεν σκεὰ τῶν μελλόντων, TO δὲ GALL TOU 
 Χριστοῦ. This may assist us in understanding the 
 meaning in the passage before us. 
 
 τῶν μελλόντων ἀγαϑῶν. These words have al- 
 ready been seen, occurring in 9:11 above; and were 
 there interpreted as meaning the benefits of redemp- 
 
366 HEBREWS, CHAP. X. V. 2. 
 
 tion, secured by Christ, and called ‘future’ (μελλόν- 
 tay), because they were typified and not secured by 
 the Levitical institutions. Thus, in Hebr. 11: 18, 39, 
 40, these good things, still future to the saints of the 
 Mosaic dispensation, are called ἐπαγγελέας, which they 
 saw afar off, embraced by faith, and hoped for. These 
 blessings and benefits of the gospel dispensation in- 
 clude, of course, the means by which they were se- 
 cured, the work of Christ. 
 
 τελειῶσαι. As was stated when this word first 
 met us in 2:10 above, and as has been indicated fre- 
 quently since, the completing or perfecting has refer- 
 ence to the proposed condition to which the subject in 
 hand is to be brought. Here it evidently describes 
 the complete work of justification and_ sanctification, 
 the complete redemption, which the προςερχόμενοε are 
 presumed to seek through their offerings. As has 
 been well said by another, it signifies “to supply them 
 with all they need, and advance them to all of which 
 they are capable.” The meaning is the same in v. 14 
 below. : 
 
 V. 2. οὐκ. In most of the ancient Mss. and many 
 others, some Fathers, some Mss. of the Vulgate, Cop- 
 tic, Armenian, and other translations, and almost all 
 the early editions, this word is found. Those critics 
 therefore who omit it do so against the current of 
 authority. If it is omitted, the sentence must be read 
 without an interrogation; and a sense is thus reached 
 substantially the same. 
 
 ἅπαξ κεκαϑαρεσμένους. In this verse we see how 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. X. Vv. 2. 367 
 
 fundamental and complete the atonement of Christ 
 was, as securing the sanctification of all who should be 
 justified; putting away sins not only from the sight 
 of God, but from the heart. The worshippers are rep- 
 resented as so cleansed, when once the effectual offer- 
 ing is made, that they have no more conscience of sins. 
 There could not be a good conscience (μηδεμίαν συνεί- 
 δησεν ὡμαρτεῶν), 80 long as the heart remained cor- 
 rupt. A corrupt nature was an essential part of the 
 original curse for sim. This whole curse is removed 
 by the atonement of Christ ; the guilt by the merit of 
 his blood, and the corruption by that spiritual influ- 
 ence which He purchases for us. It is instructive to 
 notice how directly this double purgation is traced up 
 to the blood of Christ as its means, in many places of 
 this Epistle. In 8:1 we read of Christ’s purgation of 
 sins (χαϑαρεσμὸν ὡμαρτεῶν), as made by himself (δὲ 
 ἑαυτοῦ). In 9:14 it is said, “The blood of Christ 
 shall purge our conscience from dead works to serve 
 the living God;” where the result of the purgation, 
 our serving the living God, plainly shows that it is 
 sanctifying as well as justifying. In 10: 1, 2 this pur- 
 gation is the gospel τελεέωσες, a work which, we have 
 abundantly proved, is a complete redemption: and in 
 10: 14 we read that “by one offermg He hath per- 
 fected forever those that are redeemed” (τοὺς ἀγεαζο- 
 μένους). All of redemption, therefore, justification, 
 sanctification, is secured in the offering of Christ ; for 
 this offering meets and remedies the whole of the curse 
 of the fall. 
 
908 HEBREWS, CHAP. X. Vv. 3, 4. 
 
 V.3. (AAW ἐν αὐταῖς ἀνώμνησες, #.r.2. These 
 words present an idea opposed to οὐκ ay ἐπαύσαντο 
 προςφερόμενωι. As in 9:8 above, the author teaches 
 that while the Levitical sacrifices typified that of 
 Christ, in due time to be offered, they showed, by 
 their continued repetition, their own inadequacy to 
 make the requisite atonement. For typical purposes, 
 they were allowed to remove certain temporal penal- 
 ties; but they could not satisfy eternal justice. This 
 is explicitly declared in the following verse. 
 
 V.4. ἀδύνατον γάρ. Let the reader compare 
 7:18 above, where it is declared that there was 
 “a disannulling of the commandment going before, 
 for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.” The 
 Apostle seems now, in v. 4, to make a simple appeal 
 to the natural judgment of his readers, and the princi- 
 ples of religion, to settle this point. It is not possible 
 that the blood of irrational animals can truly atone for 
 the sins of rational souls. This truth is obvious in its 
 own light. There is, in the nature of things, no rele- 
 vancy or adaptation of the means to the end. But the 
 Apostle proceeds to show that this assertion is agree- 
 able to the tenour of the Old Test. Scriptures. 
 
 > “ > \ t ᾿ ί , 
 Aw εἰςερχόμενος εἰς τὸν κόσμον, λέγεε" “ Θυσέαν 
 
 σι 
 
 ‘ , γὴ oe Ἀ ᾿ 
 καὶ προςφορὰν οὐκ ἠϑέλησας, σῶμα δὲ κατηρτίσω 
 « ’ , > > ‘ 
 “ot, Ohoxavrouata καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτέας οὐκ εὐδό- 
 U4 3 > Qs ot " , ᾿, 
 xnoas* τότε εἶπον" ἐδοὺ ἥκω, (ἐν κεφαλέδε βιβλέον 
 ’ ~ ~ ~ c ΄ \ ΄ 
 γέγραπταε περὶ ἐμοῦ,) τοῦ ποιῆσαε, ὃ ϑεὸς, τὸ ϑὲ- 
 
 “1 o 
 
HEBREWS, OHAP. X. vy. 5. 369 
 
 f ? Ld f 
 8 Anuca σου." ‘Avaregoy λέγων" “ore ϑυσίαν καὶ 
 X L X U 
 προςφορὰν καὶ ὁλοκαυτώματα καὶ περὲ ἁμαρτίας 
 οὐκ ἡϑέλησας, οὐδὲ εὐδοκησας" (αἵτενες κατὰ τὸν 
 , ’ , ” > , 
 9 νόμον προςερέρονται,) τότε εἰρηκεν" “ἰδοὺ ἥκω 
 - - c A \ r la 6 7 ~ 
 τοῦ ποιῆσωε [ὃ ϑεὸς] τὸ ϑέλημα oov”* ἀναιρεῖ 
 \ ~ a \ i Γ Ἂ > ik ΄ 
 10 τὸ πρῶτον, ἵνα τὸ δεύτερον στήσῃ ὃν ᾧ ϑελήματε 
 ε γ λ ~ ~ ~ if 
 ἡγεασμένοε ἐσμὲν διὰ τῆς προςφορᾶς τοῦ σώματος 
 en ~ an δον A be 
 [τοῦ] Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐφαπαξ. 
 
 V.5. Ae εἰςερχόμενος, κιτ.. deo may be re 
 garded as referring to v. 4, “The blood of bulls and 
 of goats cannot take away sin: wherefore Christ, com- 
 ing into the world, saith,” &e. Or we may, with per- 
 haps greater propriety, refer it to the whole scope of 
 vv. 1-4, which is, that the ceremonial law, being 
 shadowy and prefigurative, not substantially effica- 
 cious, could not by its offerings perfect the worship- 
 pers. For this reason, Christ comes and substitutes a 
 more efficacious offering, His ‘obedience unto death,’ 
 
 The reference of vv. 5-7 is to Psalm 40: 6-8. 
 This passage presents one of the most vexed questions 
 among interpreters, both as to the propriety of the 
 Apostle’s reference of this Psalm to the Messiah, and 
 as to his adoption of the obviously erroneous translation 
 of the Septuagint, σῶμα κατηρτίσω jot, for Ἢ OID DTS 
 (amine ears hast thou opened [or bored ]) in v. 7 of the 
 Psalm. It may be remarked, in advance, that the 
 author strictly follows the Septuagint in his whole 
 quotation, except in the substitution of εὐδόκησας for 
 γτησας at the end of ν. 6, and in connecting τοῦ zoz7- 
 oac with ἥκω, mn v. 7% A fuller discussion of the 
 
 24 
 
370 HEBREWS, OHAP. X. V. 5. 
 
 proper messianic character of this Psalm than would 
 be appropriate here, may be seen in Hengstenberg’s 
 Christol. Vol. I. and in Stuart’s Excursus XX. To the 
 reverent believer in inspiration (and we would repeat, 
 that it is only in this character we are willing to ap- 
 proach the exposition of Scripture at all), the sufficient 
 proof is that an inspired author has here ascribed the 
 words of the Psalm to Christ. All that the onus pro- 
 bandi demands of us, therefore, is to show that such 
 an application of the Psalm to the Messiah is possible, 
 yea probable, by removing the objections which skep- 
 tical interpreters have urged to this interpretation, 
 from the contents of the Psalm itself. It has been ob- 
 jected that this application is a mere blunder of the 
 Apostle, arising out of his following the_mistranslation 
 of the Septuagint above mentioned. But the words so 
 mistranslated are not the ones essential to the messi- 
 anic application, nor does the Apostle lay the stress 
 upon them, as will be shown; and while the exact 
 meaning is not preserved by the Septuagint, the scope 
 of the sense is retained with sufficient accuracy. It is 
 objected, again, that there is no station in the Mes- 
 siah’s life where all the language of the Psalm can be 
 made appropriate to him; for if we suppose it uttered 
 at his incarnation (eicsgyousvos εἰς τὸν κόσμον), it is 
 inconsistent in speaking of deliverances and triumphs 
 as past, Ps. 40: 2-5, which were not yet experienced; 
 and if after his resurrection, it is equally inconsistent 
 in referring, in vv. 11, 18, to troubles still to come. 
 The answer is twofold. The objection overlooks the 
 
HEBEEWS; OWAP. XK) Ὁ δὲ 371 
 
 well-known dramatic structure of messianic prophecies 
 (so obvious, for instance, in Ps. 2 and Is. 53), by which 
 the speakers or their stations are changed during the 
 progress of the discourse. And it is an unwarrantable 
 restriction to confine the era indicated by the words 
 εἰξερχόμενος, x.v.A. to the point of Christ’s incarnation. 
 It may as well mean His introduction to his public 
 ministry, and it may indicate any part of that minis- 
 try; some point in it, for instance, when many snares 
 and sufferings had already been surmounted, and yet 
 the final struggles remained to be endured. Again, it 
 is urged, a sinless being could not use the words of Ps. 
 40: 12, “Mine iniquities have taken hold upon me.” 
 But it is well known that 5) may mean ‘the punish- 
 ments of iniquities,’ ‘calamities,’ ‘sufferings ;’ scilicet, 
 in this case, the vicarious sufferings of Christ for the 
 sins of others. Let the reader see, for instance, 2 Sam. 
 16:12. And last, it is objected that the imprecations 
 of vv. 14,15 of the Psalm are inconsistent with the 
 spirit of forgiveness shown by the Saviour on the 
 cross. But why, we ask, are they more incompatible 
 with the Saviour’s forgiveness, than the woes de- 
 nounced in Luke 11 against the Pharisees, scribes, and 
 lawyers, or the doom, “ depart accursed,” which Christ 
 the Judge will pronounce on all his enemies, or the 
 “wrath of the Lamb” from which the unbelievers will 
 seek to hide themselves under falling rocks and moun- 
 tains? The holy denunciations of Scripture are not 
 vindictive; and there is no inconsistency between 
 them, as uttered against incorrigible offenders, and the 
 
372 HEBREWS, CHAP. X. V. 5. 
 
 tender mercy of Christ towards sinners who are invited 
 to repent. . 
 
 σῶμα δὲ κατηρτίσω μοι. These words, though not 
 a literal translation of the Hebrew, are sufficiently ac- 
 curate as a translation ad senswm, and do no violence 
 to the scope or sense of the passage: on the contrary, 
 the meaning they give harmonizes well with it. The 
 exact sense of the Hebrew is, “ Mine ears hast thou 
 dug out,” i. e. “opened ;” which can only mean, ‘Thou 
 hast made me obedient.’ Let the reader compare the 
 similar expressions in Isaiah 50:5, jJ8 "> mnp (the 
 Lord God) “hath opened mine ear,” which is parallel 
 to the succeeding words, "1°72 > 7238), “and I was 
 not rebellious;” and Job 36: 10, 10725 ots Dan, “He 
 openeth also their ear to discipline.” When these 
 words are understood of the Messiah, the incarnation 
 is even implied; and we might elicit the meaning, 
 ‘Thou hast given me the form and the spirit of a ser- 
 vant. The Septuagint translation admits of the same 
 sense. It is plain, however, from vv. 8, 9, that the 
 Apostle lays no stress upon this clause; for when he 
 proceeds there to apply the evidence which he pur- 
 poses to derive from his quotation, he expressly omits 
 these words, and reasons from the general scope of the 
 passage. His argument would be valid though this 
 clause were altogether omitted. He does not attempt 
 to prove his point (which is, that the Aaronic offerings 
 were inefficient, and Christ’s, a truly efficient one, is 
 substituted for them), by citing the prediction of His 
 incarnation. But he proves it by citing the prophetic 
 
HEBREWS, OHAP. xX. Vv. 5. 373 
 
 language where the Messiah announces his coming and 
 obedience, in accordance with the Scriptures, as a more 
 acceptable thing to God than offerings, whole burnt- 
 offerings, and sin-offermgs. Nor may it be inferred 
 that the Apostle here intended to make the idea of 
 the incarnation the prominent and essential one in his 
 argument, from the fact that σώματος occurs in his 
 summing up inv. 10. This may have originated in 
 the fact of Christ’s having suffered in the body, and 
 would naturally have occurred in this place, though 
 the author had used a literal translation of the clause 
 in question. Christ’s offermg was made in a body; 
 and hence it is very natural, that wherever it is allu- 
 ded to, this feature of it should be alluded to, though 
 not necessary to the point in hand. As instances of 
 this, see Rom. 7: 4 and 1 Pet. 2: 24, “ Wherefore, my 
 brethren, ye also are become dead to the law through 
 the body of Christ.” “Who his own self bare our sins 
 in his own body on the tree.” And yet, we may ad- 
 mit that the introduction of σώματος, in v. 10, origi- 
 nated in the author’s having just before employed the 
 peculiar rendering of the Septuagint, without in the 
 least affecting the validity of the argument from the 
 passage. It would not be necessary to alter a single 
 word in the argument, though the disputed clause had 
 been wholly omitted. And now, inasmuch as the 
 Apostle quotes from that common version of the Old 
 Test. which was currently used by his readers, and 
 from which he and all the other New Test. writers 
 commonly quoted, as well known and sufliciently accu- 
 
814 HEBREWS, OHAP. xX. vv. 6, 7. 
 
 rate, and inasmuch as he does not particularly endorse 
 this inaccurate translation by arguing specially from 
 its words, or attaching any importance to them in his 
 argument, it was not to be expected that he should 
 turn aside to correct the translation. His readers 
 knew perfectly well whence the translation came, and 
 how much authority the Apostle regarded it as hay- 
 ing; and he was justified in using it for what it was 
 worth, inasmuch as it was correct enough for his pur- 
 pose in its general scope. He does not, on the one 
 hand, pause to make an unnecessary and irrelevant 
 correction in it, nor on the other does he endorse any 
 minor inaccuracy in the version quoted. 
 
 V.6. καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτίας. This is the Septuagint 
 rendering for "8071. The expression is of course ellip- 
 tical, implying some such word as προσφόραε, ϑυσία, 
 περὲ ἁμαρτίας. 
 
 V.7. τότε, Heb. τὸ. This is properly a particle 
 of time. But as introductory to something accompa- 
 nying, and consequent upon something else, it may be 
 translated ‘thereupon.’ : 
 
 γέγραπταε περὶ ἐμοῦ. The Hebrew here is "29 ΞΘ, 
 which is capable either of the rendering prescriptum 
 est mihi, or of that given to it by the Septuagint and 
 our author. A clear instance of the former meaning 
 may be seen in 2 Kings 22:13. Either rendering, 
 however, might be made to suit the Apostle’s argu- 
 ment. The one adopted by him is most agreeable to 
 the analogy of other New Testament passages, as John 
 5:39, 46, “Search the Scriptures; for in them ye 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. X. V. 9. 375 
 
 think ye have eternal life; and they are they which 
 testify of me.” “For had ye believed Moses, ye would 
 have believed me, for he wrote of me.” 
 
 In joining τοῦ ποιῆσωε with ἥκω, the author fol- 
 lows neither the Septuagint nor the original ; but the 
 scope of the passage remains substantially the same. 
 As it is fully expressed, it is, “I come; (in the volume 
 of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will I de- 
 light, oh my God.” Arrest the quotation where the 
 Apostle does, and ‘I come ... to do thy will’ expresses 
 likewise a hearty acquiescence in that will. 
 
 τὸ ϑέλημωώ cov. The special will of God here, is 
 that by which He desires the salvation of His people 
 through an adequate satisfaction to the divine law. 
 Upon this condition alone can He will their salvation. 
 Hence He rejects the offerigs of bulls and goats, and 
 demands that of Christ, as alone sufficient to the exi- 
 gencies of the case. Hence, in v. 10, God’s will is said 
 to secure the redemption of His people by the offering 
 of the body of Christ. 
 
 V.9. τὸ πρῶτον... τὸ δεύτερον. The context 
 evidently compels us to refer these two adjectives im- 
 mediately to the sacrifices of the two dispensations, the 
 old and the new. But by implication these dispensa- 
 tions may be meant, as embracing their respective 
 offerings.. The dispensation is for the offering. 'The 
 offering is the git, or essence of it, for the presenting 
 of which the dispensation is maintained. And there- 
 fore, as was indicated under ν. 1, we would not here 
 exclude the idea of the contrast of the two dispensa- 
 
376 HEBREWS, CHAP. xX. v. 10. 
 
 tions, which runs through the whole passage. The 
 employment of the neuter gender here, when neither 
 δεαϑήκη NOY προςφορὼ is neuter, is to be explained in 
 the same manner as its occurrence in 7: 7 and 8: 18 
 above. In the former of these passages, the writer, 
 speaking of Abraham and Melchisedek, says, τὸ ἔλατ- 
 τον ὑπὸ τοῦ χρείττονος εὐλογεῖται. In the latter, 
 speaking of the two διεκεϑήκαε, he says: τὸ δὲ πα- 
 Aawvusvoy καὶ ynoaoxor, ἐγγὺς ἀφανεσμοῦ. The 
 neuter is employed because the general and abstract 
 is asserted. | 
 
 V. 10. ἐν ᾧ ϑελήματε. What this will is has 
 been already stated, under ν. 7. The present verse 
 explicitly confirms the correctness of the explanation 
 there given; for it directly asserts that it is that will 
 by which we have been redeemed by the once offering 
 of the body of Christ. 
 
 yytaousvoe ἐσμέν. This verb we have rendered 
 ‘redeemed. The reasons for doing so were stated in 
 our remarks on 2: 11 above, and need not be now re- 
 peated. In 13:12 below, an exactly similar use of 
 the verb occurs: δεὸ καὶ Ἰησοῦς, iva ayiaon διὰ τοῦ 
 ἰδίου αἵματος τὸν λαόν, x.r.2. Here, as in the passage 
 last cited, the adjuncts determine the sense, and show 
 the justice of the remarks which were made on ἅπαξ 
 κεκαϑαρμένους a ν. ὃ. The work described by 
 ἡγιασμένοε ἐσμέν, is that work which is wrought ‘ by 
 the offering of the body of Christ. It includes, then, 
 the result of the atonement, that is, deliverance from 
 guilt and condemnation. But at the same time, the 
 
 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. x. v. 11. 377 
 
 very employment of a verb which so necessarily carries 
 the sense of sanctification, shows that it includes also 
 deliverance from the power of sin. The use which the 
 popular expositor should make of this phrase, wherever 
 it occurs in our Epistle, is to show his charge how inti- 
 mately, yea inseparably, justification and sanctification 
 go together; and thus how far the grace of God is 
 from encouraging licentiousness. 
 
 11 Kai πᾶς μὲν ἱερεὺς ἕστηκε xa ἡμέραν Ascrovo- 
 γῶν, καὶ τὰς αὐτὰς πολλάκες προςφέρων ϑυσίας, 
 αἵτενες οὐδέποτε δυνανταε περεελεῖν ἁμαρτίας " 
 
 12 αὐτὸς δὲ μέαν ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτεῶν προςενέγκας ϑυσίαν 
 
 13 εἰς τὸ δεηνεκές, ἐχάϑεσεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ ϑεοῦ, τὸ 
 λοιπὸν ἐχδεχόμενος, ἕως τεϑῶσεν οἱ ἐχϑροὶ αὐτοῦ 
 
 14 ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ. Mig γὰρ προςφορᾷ 
 τετελείωχεν εἰς τό διηνεκὲς τοὺς ἁγεαζομένους. 
 
 15 Μαρτυρεῖ δὲ ἡμῖν καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγεον" μετὰ 
 
 16 γὰρ τὸ [προ]εερηκέναε “αὕτη ἡ διαϑήκη, ἣν δέεα- 
 ϑηήσομαε πρὸς αὐτοὺς μετὰ TES ἡμέρας ἐχείνας ἢ 
 λέγεε κύριος" “διδοὺς νόμους μον ἐπὲ καρδίας 
 αὐτῶν, καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν διανοιῶν αὐτῶν ἐπιγράψω 
 
 17 αὐτούς, καὶ τῶν ὡμαρτεῶν «αὐτῶν καὶ τῶν ὠνο- 
 
 18 μμῶν αὐτῶν οὐ μὴ μνησϑῶ ἔτι." Ὅπου δὲ ἄφεσις 
 τούτων, οὐκέτε προςφορὰ TEL ἁμαρτίας. 
 
 V.11. Καὶ πᾶς μὲν ἑερεὺς ἕστηκε, κ.τ.5.:. Here ἃ 
 new argument is introduced, showing the ‘weakness 
 and unprofitableness’ of the old offerings, and the effi- 
 
378 HEBREWS, OHAP. Χ. v. 14. 
 
 ciency of the new. The former are never able to take 
 away sins (οὐδέποτε δύνωνται), however often re- 
 peated, or however multiplied. One presentation of 
 Christ’s offering was all sufficient ; as is shown by the 
 fact that after it was once made, He sat down forever 
 at the right hand of God, having no more sufferings to 
 bear, or sacrificial work to perform, but awaiting, in a 
 glorified state, the completion of the triumphs which 
 were to reward his priestly functions. The contrast, 
 showing the weakness of the Jewish and the efficiency 
 of the Christian sacrifice, seems to lie mainly in the 
 fact, that the priests in the former case stood minister- 
 ing every day, by the perpetual repetition of their 
 offices confessing that they had not accomplished the 
 atoning result ; but Christ, having made his one offer- 
 ing, was done; thus showing the perfection of its re- 
 sult. The Apostle’s argument here is thus from the 
 results, and is not a repetition of his reasoning in 9: 
 25, 26. Yet the proof here is but an amplification 
 and completion of that which is suggested there. 
 The reasoning is then confirmed in the following 
 verses. j 
 
 V.14. τετελείωχεν. The force of this verb has 
 been so fully illustrated under 2:10 and 10: 1, that 
 no further remark is needed. This verse, and its logical 
 connexion (by veg), fully substantiate the view which 
 we have just given of the Apostle’s argument, as one 
 from the results of the two offerings. The conjunction 
 may be regarded as referring specially to ἐχώϑεσεν 
 above; and as introducing the reason why, after the 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. X. vv. 15, 18. 879 
 
 one offering, Christ passed at once into a state of glori- 
 fied rest. But it refers also generally to the main scope 
 of the passage, which is to assert the superior effi- 
 ciency of Christ’s sacrifice in its result. We of course 
 give to ἁγεαζομένους the same meaning, ‘the redeem- 
 ed,’ which we have so often asserted for it. This verse 
 contains the materials of an entire refutation of all 
 those doctrines of purgatory, justification by works, 
 and sacramental merit and grace, with which papists 
 and prelatists have disgraced Christ’s plan of redemp- 
 tion. Their application is too obvious to need further 
 ulustration for the learned reader. 
 
 V. 15. Μαρτυρεῖ... τὸ πνεῦμα. This quota- 
 tion (from Jer. 31:33) has already been seen in 8: 8 
 above. ‘There it was used to prove the superiority of 
 the new dispensation ; but here, from the same effects, 
 to show the superiority of Christ’s sacrifice. And thus 
 it appears that all the excellency of the new dispen 
 sation depends upon the offering of Christ. It is to 
 be noted that these words are said to be the witness- 
 ing of the Holy Spirit; but immediately after, in v. 
 16, it is ‘the Lord, χύρεος (in Jer. 81: 33, I>) who 
 utters them. The Holy Spirit is therefore Lord and 
 Jehovah. 
 
 V. 18. οὐκέτε προςφορώ, ‘There is no more an 
 offering to be made for sin, this offering of Christ hav- 
 Ing accomplished the needed work. What is that 
 work? The quotation from Jeremiah tells us that it 
 is the writing of God’s law upon the heart, and the re- 
 mission of the sins of His people. And thus we see 
 
380 HEBREWS, CHAP. x. v. 18. 
 
 again the fundamental relationship of the death of 
 Christ to the dispensation which secures these bless- 
 ings. Thus also we are justified in haying said that 
 these two results compose the καϑαρεσμός, the ἁγεο- 
 σύνη, Which are so often stated in this Epistle as the 
 consequence of Christ’s offering. 
 
CHAPTER Χ. 19---89. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 Havrine finished the argument, the author pro- 
 ceeds to exhortation ; the scope and aim of which is a 
 faithful, persevering, and patient adherence to the pro- 
 fession and practice of the gospel: to enforce which 
 he suggests a variety of considerations. These are, 
 1st, the nature and excellency of the offering and the 
 priest, securing freedom of access to God, vv. 19-22 ; 
 2d, the faithfulness of Him that hath promised the 
 gospel blessings, v. 23; 3d, the near approach of the 
 day of trial, vv. 24, 25; 4th, the awful condition and 
 prospects of those who reject Christ, vv. 26, 27; 5th, 
 the divine vengeance on those who contemn Him and 
 His blood, and insult the Spirit of Grace, vv. 28-31 ; 
 6th, their former patience under afflictions and trials 
 for the sake of the gospel, vv. 32-34; 7th, the great 
 reward of persevering to the end, vv. 35, 36; which 
 reward, finally, Christ would speedily come to adjudge 
 to the faithful, while he visited his displeasure on apos- 
 tates, vv. 87, 38. And in this connexion, and for the 
 same end, the Apostle expresses again his goodly per- 
 suasion concerning them, v. 39. 
 
382 HEBREWS, CHAP. X. V. 19. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 19 Ἔχοντες οὖν, ἀδελφοί, παῤῥησίαν εἰς τὴν sigodov 
 
 20 τῶν ἀγίων ἕν τῷ αἵματε Ἰησοῦ, ἣν ἐνεκαένεσεν 
 ἡμῖν ὁδὸν πρόςφατον καὶ ζῶσαν, διὰ τοῦ κατα- 
 
 21 πετάσματος, (τοῦτ᾽ ἔστε, τῆς σαρκὸς αὑτοῦ,) καὶ 
 
 22 ἑερέα μέγαν ἐπὶ τὸν οἶχον τοῦ ϑεοῦ" προςερχώ- 
 sta μετὰ ἀληϑενῆς καρδίας ἕν πληροφορίᾳ 
 πίστεως, ἐῤρῥαντεσμένοι τὰς καρδίας ἀπὸ συνεεδή- 
 
 23 σεως πονηρᾶς, καὶ λελουμένοε τὸ σῶμα ὕδατε 
 καϑαρῷ, κατέχωμεν τὴν ὁμολογίαν τῆς ἐλπέδος 
 ἀκλενῆ (πιστὸς γὰρ ὃ ἐπαγγειλάμενος *) 
 
 V.19. παῤῥησίαν. ‘This word has been already 
 remarked as it occurs in 3: 6 and 4: 16 above: it will 
 also be met again in v. 35 below. As was remarked, 
 its literal meaning (from as, ρησες) would be, ‘ entire 
 freedom of utterance.’ Hence the meaning of ‘bold- 
 ness,’ ‘confidence, which it has in all the four places 
 cited. It is a confidence founded on the complete effi- 
 cacy of the offering made for us by our mediator, who 
 hath entered in ‘for us,’ coupled of course with the 
 free and faithful gospel offer of the benefits of that 
 sacrifice to all believers. The conjunction ovy intro- 
 duces the statement that we have a right to such con- 
 fidence, and may come with a true heart in the full 
 assurance of faith, as an inference from what precedes. 
 The illation may be conceived as drawn from y. 18, or 
 from the whole scope of the previous passage as it is 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. X. ‘Vi 90. 383 
 
 summed up in v. 14, “By one offermg He hath per- 
 fected forever the redeemed.” 
 
 τῶν aytov. ‘The commentators usually interpret 
 these words as meaning the heavenly sanctuary, in ac- 
 cordance with their meaning in 9:12, 24. But when 
 do believers enter into that sanctuary? After death 
 only. Yet we can scarcely believe that the Apostle 
 in this place only intends to exhort us to exercise this 
 believing confidence in view of the one occasion of 
 our passage into the spiritual world after death. He 
 doubtless has in view our daily approaches to the 
 throne of grace, as is evident from the exhortation 
 TOOSEO YE usta, κ.τ.λ. in v. 22. We must then under- 
 stand this <isodov τῶν ayiwy, as a figurative approach, 
 made by faith only, to the presence of God in heaven. 
 Or, more probably, as the universe is God’s temple, 
 and He is every where present, we may understand 
 simply our daily approach into His presence in the 
 acts of worship. 
 
 V. 20. ἥν. This pronoun very clearly refers to 
 eigodor, and is in apposition with ὁδὸν agosparoy χαὶ 
 ζῶσαν: ‘This access or entrance Christ hath ratified 
 for us, viz. a new and living way,’ 
 
 évexaiviosy. This verb has been already explained, 
 “under 9: 18 above, as receiving from the Septuagint 
 usage the sense of ‘consecrate,’ ‘ratify, or ‘sanction.’ 
 Either of these is appropriate here. Chrysostom has 
 well given the sense by the words, ἣν κατεσκεύασε καὶ 
 ἧς ἤρξατο. 
 
 πρόςφατον. This word (from προ- spaw, σφαζω) 
 
384 HEBREWS, OHAP. X. V. 20. 
 
 would mean ‘recently killed’ ‘There is therefore a 
 transference of idea from the sacrifice newly slain, to 
 the way of access opened up by that sacrifice. Thus 
 we derive the meaning ‘newly opened,’ ‘fresh, ‘new.’ 
 
 ζῶσαν. ‘The use of this participle here may be 
 compared with that in 4: 12, ζῶν γὰρ ὃ λόγος. Some 
 render it here, ‘a life-giving way;’ others, an ‘endu- 
 ring, or perpetual way.’ We prefer to explain it as 
 meaning ‘a way that leads to life.’ Spiritual life is of 
 course intended. While, in other Scriptures, Christ is 
 said to be himself the way, such is not the exact figure 
 here; for He is said to ratify or consecrate the way. 
 And in this aspect, we cannot say that the way which 
 He thus opens up is life-giving, for it is He himself 
 who is life-giving. This way leads us to the life which 
 He gives us through it; and in this sense it is ‘a living 
 way, ‘the way of life.’ 
 
 καταπετάσματος, ... τῆς σαρκὸς αὑτοῦ. The au- 
 thor here compares Christ slain upon the cross to the 
 vail in the temple. The vail was the door of entrance 
 into the earthly holy of holies ; Christ’s body crucified 
 for sin, is the door into the heavenly. Thus in John 
 10: 7, 9, He says, Ἐγω sive ἡ ϑύρα. In 14: 6, Ἐγώ 
 siz ἡ ὁδός. The author is only carrying out the figure 
 with which he had set out, and the commentators make 
 needless difficulty concerning the seeming irregularity 
 and anomaly of the view. In prosecuting the figure 
 which he had adopted, the author is led to assign to 
 Christ’s flesh or body a position or point of view vary- 
 ing from that assigned to it elsewhere, or even in other 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. X. Vv. 21, 22. 385 
 
 parts of the same passage. In this there is nothing 
 which need be represented as unintelligible, or as con- 
 trary to usage. 
 
 V.21. ἑερέα μέγαν. By these words, most inter- 
 preters, among whom are the authors of our English 
 version, seem to understand simply “ chief-priest,” that 
 is, ‘high-priest, ὠρχεερέα. It is indisputable that the 
 Septuagint use 6 ἑερεὺς ὃ μέγας for the Hebrew 772A 
 235. But ἑερεύς, like 75, is generic, and is used in 
 the Septuagint and elsewhere, without any attributive, 
 for the high-priest. In Acts 5: 24 we find it even used 
 in contradistinction to ὠρχεερεῖς, so that the simple 
 ἑερεὺς signifies the high-priest, and ὠρχεερεῖς only the 
 chief-priests or heads of courses. In this Epistle ἑερεὺς 
 is frequently used without attributive for Christ and 
 Melchisedek, and Jewish high-priests. Let the reader 
 refer especially to 5:6 above, as compared with 5: 
 1, 5, where, in the words of Ps. 110: 4, it is said of 
 Christ, previously called ἀρχεέρεύς, ov ἑερεὺς εἰς τὸν 
 αἰῶνα, x.r.4.; ‘7:8, where Melchisedek is called simply 
 ἑερεὺς εἰς τὸ δεήνεκες ; and 8: 4, where Christ is de- 
 nominated by the same word: while*‘in 6: 20, and 8: 
 1, 8, the same persons are called ἀρχεερεῖς. In 4: 14 
 we find the phrase ὠρχεερέω μέγαν applied to Christ. 
 It seems therefore much more reasonable to under- 
 stand the adjective μέγαν here, as not merely an epi- 
 thet to distinguish Him as High-Priest, but as more 
 emphatic: He is ‘a great High-Priest, as in 4: 14, 
 great in comparison of human high-priests. 
 
 V. 22. ἐῤῥαντεσμένοι . .. λελουμένοι. These are 
 
 25 
 
386 HEBREWS, CHAP. X. V. 23. 
 
 two figurative expressions borrowed from the Levitical 
 dispensation, to represent spiritual truths under the 
 new. ‘The first represents mainly atonement by the 
 sprinkling of the blood of Jesus. As the sacrificial 
 blood, signifying remission of guilt, was sprinkled on 
 the person of the offerer, so here, the symbol repre- 
 sents the application of the true atonement, relieving 
 the believer's heart of the consciousness of guilt. The 
 second expression, borrowed from the purifications of 
 the priests at the lavers of the temple-court, represents 
 sanctification by the Holy Spirit. Nothing is taught 
 here, as to the mode of Christian baptism, which is re- 
 motely, if at all, alluded to. 
 
 V. 23. ὁμολογίαν. ‘This word has been already 
 sufficiently explained under 3:1, 4:14 above, as 
 meaning ‘ confession,’ ‘ profession.’ 
 
 πιστὸς yao ὃ ἐπαγγεελώμενος. Here we havea 
 reason for our perseverance in a sincere and steady pro- 
 fession of Christianity: ‘He who hath made the prom- 
 ises on which we hope, is faithful’ The obvious scope 
 of the context shows that πεστὸς here signifies God’s 
 fidelity to his engagements. In 1 Thess. 5: 24 we read, 
 ΤΠ στὸς ὁ καλῶν vas, ὃς καὶ ποιήσει. In those words 
 the meaning of πεστὸς is defined by what follows. It 
 signifies that God is one who will do what he engages. 
 
 
 
 ~ ’ Ud > , 
 24 καὶ κατανοῶμεν ἀλλήλους εἰς παροξυσμὸν ἀγάπης 
 25 καὶ καλῶν ἔργων, μὴ ἐγκαταλείποντες τὴν ἐπεσυν- 
 c ~ » U 2 Ἁ 
 αγωγὴν ἑαυτῶν, καϑὼς ἔϑος τεσίν, ἀλλὰ maga- 
 καλοῦντες" καὶ τοσούτῳ μᾶλλον, ὅσῳ βλέπετε 
 
HEBREWS, ΒΑΡ. xX. v. 95. 387 
 
 26 ἐγγέζουσαν τὴν ἡμέραν. “Exovolos γὰρ ἁμαρτα- 
 γόντων ἡμῶν μετὰ τὸ λαβεῖν τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν τῆς 
 ἀληϑείας, οὐκέτε MEQL ἁμαρτεῶν ἀπολείπεταε ϑυ- 
 
 27 σία" φοβερὰ δὲ τις ἐχδοχὴ κρίσεως καὶ πυρὸς 
 ζῆλος ἐσϑέεεν μέλλοντος τοὺς ὑπεναντίους. 
 
 V. 256. τὴν ἐπεισυναγωγήν. This word occurs in 
 the New Test. only here, and in 2 Thess. 2: 1, where 
 it signifies our gathering together unto Christ at his 
 coming. In the apocryphal books of the Old Test. it 
 is employed of the assemblies or congregations of the 
 Israelites. In this place it must be understood not of 
 the ‘Christian body,’ or Church, as though the Apostle 
 here exhorted his readers not to apostatize from the 
 Church; but of the act of assembling together, namely, 
 for social worship. To this sense agree the expres- 
 sions, which immediately follow, χαϑὼς ἔϑος τισίν, 
 and παρακαλοῦντες. For this apostacy from the 
 Church is an act which could not be habitual, as the 
 neglect of meeting the brethren in worship might be. 
 And the exhortation here enjoined obviously implies 
 such meetings. 
 
 βλέπετε ἐγγέζουσαν τὴν ἡμέραν. ‘This day is, most 
 probably, primarily that of Christ’s coming for the de- 
 struction of the Jewish commonwealth, which, He had 
 himself foretold, should take place in that generation. 
 This is distinctly stated in Matt. 24: 34 and Luke 21: 
 32. All who were overtaken by this destruction 
 would thereby be hurried to the judgment; and this 
 seems to be referred to in the following verses. ‘The 
 apostles knew not when the day of jimal judgment 
 
388 HEBREWS, OHAP. X.V. 25. 
 
 would come. In Matt. 24:36 and Mark 18: 32, they 
 were told by our Saviour, “ But of that day and hour 
 knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my 
 Father only.” But they nowhere teach that this day 
 of final accounts was just at hand: the apostle Paul, 
 in 2 Thess, 2:2 and seqq. expressly repels this asser- 
 tion, warning his readers not to be “shaken in mind, 
 or troubled, neither by spirit nor by word, nor by 
 letter as from him, as that the day of Christ was at 
 hand,” and assurmg them, “that day shall not come, 
 except there come a falling away first, and that man 
 of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.” The apostles 
 do, however, not unfrequently refer to the coming of 
 our Saviour for the destruction of Jerusalem, or to 
 take us hence to our account by death. And this 
 coming, it should be noted, would in effect be the 
 same, to all concerned, as the hurrying forward of the 
 day of final judgment. Thus we find our Saviour, in 
 Matt. 24: 36-51 and Mark 13 : 32-37, when foretelling 
 the great catastrophe in language which included both 
 the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the world, 
 representing them as events in the uncertainty of 
 which his hearers had a personal concern: “ Watch, 
 therefore,” He says, “for ye know not what hour your 
 Lord doth come.” “Therefore be ye also ready ; for 
 in such an hour as ye think not, the Son of Man com- 
 eth.” “Take ye heed; watch and pray, for ye know 
 not when the time is.” None of those hearers were 
 destined to see the end of the world: few of them the 
 overthrow of Jewry which was then nearly forty years 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. X. v. 26. 389 
 
 distant. There must have been therefore a “coming 
 of the Son of Man,” an end, personal to each of them; 
 and this was their death. In v. 37 below it is said, 
 “For yet a little while, and He that shall come will 
 come, and will not tarry.” In 1 Thess. 5:2-4 we 
 read that warning, which was so misinterpreted by the 
 Thessalonians into a prediction of the approaching end 
 of the world, as to demand the Apostle’s correction in 
 his second Epistle: “For yourselves know perfectly 
 that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the 
 night.... But ye, brethren, are not in darkness that 
 that day should overtake you as a thief.” That ‘day 
 of the Lord’ was therefore, to the Thessalonian Chris- 
 tians, the day of their death. Many other similar pas- 
 sages might be cited, as 1 Pet. 4:7, 2 Pet. 3:10. It 
 has been a favourite assertion with the enemies of in- 
 spiration, that the apostles were labouring under a 
 mistake in this thing, and have in these places de- 
 clared their expectation of an immediate end of the 
 world, which has now been contradicted by nearly 
 eighteen centuries. The comparison of passages which 
 we have made shows that they made no such predic- 
 tions; but that, while they spoke of the world as hav- 
 ing now passed into its last dispensation, and, in that 
 sense, as approaching its end, they profess an entire 
 ignorance of the date of that end, but urge upon every 
 man the nearness and uncertainty of that other event, 
 his own death, which would carry, to his soul, all the 
 results of the final consummation. 
 
 V. 26. Ἑκουσίως γὰρ ἁμαρτανόντων, ‘If we de- 
 
390 HEBREWS, CHAP. X. Vv. 27. 
 
 liberately evr, or sin, in departing from the truth as it 
 pertains to Christ and His sacrifice’ We have pre- 
 sented two senses of ὠκαρτάνω, either of which 
 amounts to nearly the same: the last is the stronger 
 and more common. An instance occurs in Josephus, 
 where the verb means to err in word: οὐδ ὧν auag- 
 τοῖμε εἴπων. Many interpreters understand it as sig- 
 nifying an error in faith, in the following places, 1 Cor. 
 15:34, and Titus 3:11, Ἐκνήψατε δικαίως, καὶ μὴ 
 ἀμαρτάνετε " ἀγνωσίαν γὰρ ϑεοῦ τενὲς ἔχουσεν. Ἐξέ- 
 στραπταε ὁ τοιοῦτος (Algsrix0s ἄνϑρωπος) καὶ ἁὡμαρ- 
 rave. But most commonly in the New Test. it signi- 
 fies to err in deed, ‘to sin, which is its predominant 
 sense. The context clearly shows that the sin here 
 indicated is that of apostacy from Christianity. It is 
 asin against that ἐπέγνωσεν τῆς dd Oeita which the 
 apostate has received in his understanding and pro- 
 fessed to embrace with his heart. 
 
 οὐκέτε... ϑυσία. The types having been done 
 away, and the true and only availing sacrifice, that of 
 Christ, rejected, there is none left to help the apostate 
 sinner. The warning of 6: 4-6 may be compared with 
 this. There, such a deserter of Christianity is said to 
 crucify to himself the Son of God afresh, and put him 
 to an open shame. 
 
 V. 2%. πυρὸς ζῆλος. The nominative here de- 
 pends on ἀπολεέπεταιε, which is to be supplied from 
 y. 26. The phrase means literally, “an indignation 
 of fire,” i.e. ‘a fiery indignation” The genitive here 
 is qualificative, like an adjective. 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. Χ. V. 28. 391 
 
 28 ᾿ϑετήσας τὶς νόμον Μωῦσέως, χωρὶς οἰκτιρμῶν 
 
 29 ἐπὶ δυσὶν ἢ τρεσὲ μάρτυσεν ἀποϑνήσκεε᾽ πόσῳ, 
 δοκεῖτε, χείρονος ἀξεωϑήσετωε τεμωρίας ὁ τὸν υἱὸν 
 τοῦ ϑεοῦ καταπατήσας, καὶ τὸ αἷμα τῆς διαϑήκης 
 κοινὸν ἡγησάμενος, ἐν ᾧ ἡγεάσϑη, καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα 
 
 80 τῆς χάρετος ἐνυβρίσας  Οἰδαμεν γὰρ τὸν εἰπόν- 
 τα “Ἐμοὶ ἐχδίκησες, ἐγὼ ἀνταποδώσω [λέλεε 
 κύρεος] xai nahi: “ Κύριος χρενεῖ τὸν λαὸν 
 
 81 αὑτοῦ ΦΦοβερὸν τὸ ἐμπεσεῖν εἰς χεῖρας ϑεοῦ 
 ζῶντος ! 
 
 V.28. ᾿“ϑετήσας. This participle means prima- 
 rily ‘to put away,’ ‘cast off? as in 1 Tim. 5:12, τὴν 
 πρώτην πίέστεν ndirnoav. Hence the meaning ‘to 
 make void, ‘annul,’ which we find in Mark 7: 9, Ke- 
 λῶς ἀϑετεῖτε τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ ϑεοῦ. In Luke 10: 16, 
 and John 12: 48, we find a third meaning, to ‘ reject,’ 
 or ‘despise, ὁ ἀϑετῶν ὑμᾶς ἐμὲ ἀϑετεῖ. Ὁ ἀϑετῶν 
 ἐμὲ... ἔχεε τὸν κρίνοντα αὐτόν. The second sense is 
 evidently the one to be adopted here: ‘ He that made 
 void Moses’ law’ (by neglecting obedience to it). 
 
 νόμον Mwicéas. Bloomfield understands by this 
 ‘the ceremonial law.’ It seems to us preferable to re- 
 gard it either as referring to the whole law of Moses, 
 requiring in general the service and fear of the true 
 God as opposed to all false religion and wickedness, 
 the penalty of the contumacious and treasonable viola- 
 tion of which was death. (Thus, in Deut. 13: 6-10, 
 we read that the punishment of apostacy from the 
 Mosaic institutions into idolatry was death; and in 
 Deut. 17:12, that the presumptuous disobedience of 
 
392 HEBREWS, CHAP. xX. V. 29. 
 
 the priest and judge was punished with the same pen- 
 alty.) Or else we might, with equal propriety, regard 
 the law of Moses here, as meaning any specific statute 
 whose penalty was death; as that against murder, 
 adultery, or manstealing. He that made void one of 
 these laws dies (ἀποϑνήσκεε) by the testimony of two 
 or three witnesses. The author uses the present tense, 
 because his readers were familiar with Mosaic institu- 
 tions as still existing. 
 
 V. 29. xzocvoy. The Jewish understanding of this 
 word will be familiar to every intelligent reader of the 
 Scriptures. We would render it here, ‘common, 1. 6. as 
 having no efficacy or consecration to the work of atone- 
 ment more than common blood, or more than the blood 
 of any dymg human being; the touch of which by the 
 Levitical law rather suggested guilt and moral contam- 
 ination, than atonement and sanctification, by render- 
 ing him who touched it ceremonially unclean. There 
 is here an implied reference to the views of the apos- 
 tate returning to Judaism; for he professes himself to 
 prefer the blood of beasts as prescribed by the law, 
 and therefore clean, while he rejects that of Christ as 
 the defiling blood of a dying sinner, unclean and abom- 
 inable. The phrase τὸ ciuc τῆς δεαϑήκης m this con- 
 nexion bears an obvious meaning. It is the blood of 
 Christ, sealing the new covenant. The apostate is also 
 represented, figuratively, as trampling on the Son of 
 God (καταπατήσας), by which ‘the dishonour, rejec- 
 tion, and contumely, with which the Jewish rulers 
 treated him at his death, are aptly signified. He who 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. xX. Vv. 29. 393 
 
 deliberately (éovotae) rejects Christ and Christianity, 
 concurs in that contumelious rejection and condemna- 
 tion, endorses its justice, and becomes partaker in it; 
 for he thereby professes that Christ was an impostor. 
 The explicitness of His claims to messiahship leaves no 
 middle ground. 
 
 ἐν ᾧ ἡγεώσϑη. ‘Three explanations of these words 
 have been offered by different interpreters. Some re- 
 fer the subject of ἡγεάσϑη to vioyv τοῦ ϑεοῦ, and un- 
 derstand the expression of Him; supposing in it an 
 allusion to the consecration of the Levitical priests by 
 the blood of victims. The words would then imply 
 that the atoning blood which the sinner rejects in his 
 unbelief was also applied to Christ, to consecrate or set 
 Him apart to His priestly office. This is not natural ; 
 for not only is there an entire absence of analogous 
 language concerning Christ in the Scriptures, but there 
 is language which bears against it. Of merely human 
 priests, Hebr. 5:2, 3 says that they themselves also 
 “are compassed with infirmity. And by reason here- 
 of, they ought, as for the people, so also for themselves, 
 to offer for sins.” But (Hebr. 7: 26-28) our High- 
 Priest is “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sin- 
 ners, and made higher than the heavens ; who needeth 
 not daily, as those high-priests, to offer up sacrifice first 
 for his own sins, and then for the people’s; for this” 
 (obviously ‘this latter’) “He did once when He 
 offered up himself. 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 
 
394 HEBREWS, CHAP. X. V. 29. 
 
 consecrated forever more.” To say that Christ, the sin- 
 less, perfect, and holy from eternity, was consecrated 
 to the priestly office by sacrificial blood, and that His 
 own, at the same offering when He shed it for the sins 
 of others, is certainly anomalous, if not positively erro- 
 neous, according to all the analogy of Scripture truth. 
 
 Others refer the subject of the verb to the apos- 
 tate, the subject of the sentence; and render ἡγεώσέδη, 
 ‘was consecrated’ or ‘set apart to God’ by public pro- 
 fession. They thus understand the language as a figu- 
 rative allusion to the sprinkling of the people referred 
 to in 9:19 above, at the setting up of the first dispen- 
 sation. That sprinkling is recorded in Exodus 24: 8; 
 and the interpretation just given receives some plausi- 
 bility from the words which Moses there uses, “ Be- 
 hold the blood of the covenant,” &e. It may be sup- 
 posed that the words τὸ aiuc τῆς διαϑήκης, in ν. 29, 
 contain an allusion to this. But here again the objec- 
 tion arises, that the Scriptures nowhere represent men 
 as being brought into visible church membership by 
 the sprinkling of Christ’s blood in any sense. Baptism 
 is the rite by which, under the new testament, men 
 are brought into this relationship. 
 
 The third interpretation, which seems to us clearly 
 the most natural, refers the nominative to the supposed 
 apostate person, and gives to ἡγεώσύίλη its regular mean- 
 ing, ‘wherewith he’ (the rejecter in question) ‘was 
 redeemed.’ Such is plainly the signification of the 
 verb in 10:10 and 13:12; and it is always a strong 
 reason for a given rendering, that the word bears that 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. X. Vv. 29. 395 
 
 sense in the same book and in similar contexts. The 
 obvious objection which will present itself to this view 
 is, that it implies that Christ died for, and that his 
 blood was actually applied in its redeeming virtue to, 
 some, who still were finally lost. But popularly un- 
 derstood, this language means no more than ‘to despise 
 the blood shed for our redemption,’ and by no means 
 teaches that the sins of the person in question were 
 ever actually forgiven in view of the atonement. So, 
 Christ is said to de for all; and the most rigid Calvin- 
 ists continually use parallel language in their writings 
 and speaking. If we adopt the sense we have here 
 recommended, the words under discussion will present 
 no more difficulty than those of Rom. 14: 15, “ Destroy 
 not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.” The 
 true key to all the supposed Arminian difficulties of 
 this class of passages is that which has been already 
 given in this Commentary (pp. 215, 216), in the re- 
 marks on 6: 4—6. 
 
 Among those truths and motives which, applied 
 by the Holy Spirit, are the efficient means of retain- 
 ing the believer securely in his gracious state, are the 
 dangers and evils of apostacy. And therefore it is 
 consistent that God should address to believers these 
 warnings of the danger and misery of falling away; 
 and in so warning them, He does not imply that He 
 intends to permit them to realize those dangers, and 
 experience that ruin. The warning, the prospect and 
 fear of the danger, are the means He will use to ensure 
 that they shall not fall. It must be borne in mind 
 
396 HEBREWS, CHAP. X. V. +29. 
 
 that the apostacy of one already justified and sancti- 
 fied, is not impossible or improbable in the nature of 
 things, so far as the believer's own free-agency is con- 
 cerned. Adam, when more perfect than any of us, 
 found it not unnatural to fall. The certainty that 
 none of the redeemed will truly and finally perish is 
 in the purpose of God’s grace towards them, and the 
 communications of strength certainly resulting from 
 that purpose. Hence, as it was not inconsistent for 
 Paul to warn the Romans against acts which might 
 seduce their weak brethren into destructive sin, as 
 though a true, though weak believer could be de- 
 stroyed; it is not inconsistent for the author here, 
 speaking generally and popularly, to describe to a be- 
 liever, what would be the peculiar malignity of the sin 
 of apostatizing from the Saviour who had redeemed 
 him with His blood, as though such a believer could 
 so apostatize. 
 
 ἐνυβρίσας. This word occurs here only in the 
 New Test.; but there is no uncertainty in assigning it 
 the meaning of ‘insult. There is no good reason for 
 understanding τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς χάρετος, with some com- 
 mentators, as simply grace, or gospel blessings. ‘This is 
 certainly an unnatural and unwarrantable interpreta- 
 tion. It means ‘the Spirit of grace,’ or the Holy 
 Spirit who is gracious. He is so called as being, like 
 the Father and the Son, most generously gratuitous in 
 what he does for sinners, and more especially, as being 
 the agent for communicating grace. The sin of desert- 
 ing the service of Christ insults that Divine Being; 
 
HEBREWS;SOHAPS (x. σιν 80:81. 397 
 
 because it contemptuously disregards His teachings 
 prompting us to the contrary. 
 
 V. 80. Οἰδαμεν γάρ. The writer now introduces, 
 in two quotations, a ground or reason for his assertion 
 that the apostate from Christianity will be adjudged 
 worthy of a far sorer punishment. 
 
 Ἐμοὶ ἐχδίκησες, κιτι. This citation is from Deut. 
 32:85, ὈΡ ΡΟ >. The passage is thus quoted also 
 in Rom. 12:19; im neither case in the very words of 
 the Septuagint. 
 
 Κύριος κρινεῖ τὸν λαὸν αὑτοῦ. ‘This quotation 
 may be taken either from Deut. 32 : 36, or Ps. 188 : 14. 
 The verb χρενεῖ must here bear the sense of the ori- 
 ginal 1515, which means in general ‘to judge, then ‘to 
 maintain one’s righteous cause,’ and thence ‘to avenge.’ 
 Thus, in both these passages, God is declared to be the 
 righteous judge, and the avenger of His people, who 
 are injured and dishonoured by wicked deserters and 
 opposers. The appositeness of the quotation is not 
 obscure. If retributive justice is one of God’s essential 
 attributes, yea, fis alone, except where He delegates 
 it, and He is pledged to repay their full deserts to all 
 evil deeds, and to vindicate all the wrongs of his peo- 
 ple, there can be no escape for the backsliders above 
 described. Ifthe elements of guilt which the Apostle 
 imputes are in them, the punishment will be upon 
 them, in due time. 
 
 V. 31. φοβερὸν τὸ ἐμπεσεῖν εἰς χεῖρας, x.t.h. 
 The meaning of these words may be aptly illustrated 
 by the language of David, when the alternative was 
 
898 HEBREWS, CHAP. X. v. 82. 
 
 offered to him between war, famine, or pestilence, as 
 his punishment, 2 Sam. 24:14, “Let us fall now into 
 the hand of the Lorn,” 47-372 82 42p>. At all times, 
 “our breath is in his hand,” Dan. 5:23. But the 
 language here means falling into God’s hands for retri- 
 bution. This is a fearful thing, because He is God, 
 almighty, infinite, &c., and because He is ever living: 
 His wrath never ceases. 
 
 32 ᾿ἀναμεμνήσκεσϑε δὲ τὰς πρότερον ἡμέρας, ἐν αἷς 
 φωτισϑέντες πολλὴν ἄϑλησεν ὑπεμείνατε παϑη- 
 
 33 μάτων" τοῦτο μέν, ὀνειδισμοῖς τε καὶ ϑλέψεσε 
 τϑεατριζόμενοε᾽ τοῦτο δέ, κοινωνοὶ τῶν οὕτως 
 
 84 ἀναστρεφομένων γενηϑέντες. Καὶ γὰρ τοῖς δε- 
 σμοῖς μοῦ συνεπαϑήσατε, καὶ τὴν ὡρπαγὴν τῶν 
 ὑπαρχόντων ὑμῶν μετὰ χαρᾶς προςεδέξασϑε, 
 γενώσκοντες ἔχεεν [ἐν] ἑαυτοῖς κρείττονα ὕπαρξεν 
 ἐν οὐρανοῖς καὶ μένουσαν. 
 
 V. 88. Τοῦτο μὲν... τοῦτο δέ, “ Partly while ye 
 were made a gazing stock both by reproaches and afilic- 
 tions, and partly while ye became companions of them 
 that were so used.” This meaning of these phrases is 
 asserted in Matthix’s Greek Gram. $288, obs. 2. 
 
 ϑεατρεζόμενοι. The allusion here, as well as in the 
 words πολλὴν ἄϑλησεν of ν. 82, is to the Roman and 
 Grecian theatrical shows: ‘Ye were made a spectacle 
 of’ A similar allusion occurs in 1 Cor. 4:9, “For I 
 think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it 
 were appointed to death; for we are made a spectacle 
 
HEBREWS,’ CHAP. X. v. 84. 399 
 
 (ϑέατρον ἐγενήϑηκεν) unto the world, and to angels, 
 and to men.” Itis supposed that the custom 1s here 
 alluded to, of reserving those gladiators to the end of 
 the show, who were appointed, because they were per- 
 haps condemned malefactors, to fight to mutual exter- 
 mination without reprieve. Thus, the barbarous pa- 
 gans gave a piquancy and excitement to the close of 
 entertainments, which might otherwise pall upon the 
 appetite. Such a part of the show did the apostles 
 compose, destined to minister to the pleasure of their 
 persecutors by sufferings more merciless and deadly 
 than private Christians. How the Hebrew Christians 
 were made spectacles, is declared by the words ὀγεεδὲ- 
 σμοῖς τὲ καὶ Phiweot. The reproaches and _ tribula- 
 tions which they suffered for Christ, had made them 
 conspicuous to a sinful world and to angels. 
 
 κοινωνοί, ‘Partly while ye became sharers of the 
 lot of those who were so exercised.” They became 
 sharers by their sympathies and charitable ministra- 
 tions to the sufferers. The word χοενωνέας, in 13:16 
 below, has a similar meaning, as will appear from the 
 context. A part of these Hebrew Christians suffered 
 in person for Christianity, and at times. Another 
 part sympathized with and relieved the sufferings of 
 their brethren, and thus, in a sense, partook with 
 them, though at that time personally exempt from 
 persecutions. 
 
 V. 84. τοῖς δεσμοῖς μοῦ. This is the reading in 
 the Textus Receptus, and almost all the manuscripts of 
 the Greek Test. τοῖς δεσμοῖς (ye sympathized with 
 
400 HEBREWS, CHAP. X. Vv. 35, 36. 
 
 the captives) is found in some manuscripts, the Syriac, 
 Coptic, Armenian, and Vulgate versions, and in some 
 Fathers. Some editors of modern date, among whom 
 is Hahn, have therefore inserted it. They have also 
 urged as a reason for preferring this reading, that, ac- 
 cording to correct Greek usage, the verb συμπάσζχω is 
 only used with persons and never with things. But 
 this is certainly incorrect. We have an obvious in- 
 stance of the contrary in 4:15 above, συμπαΐϑῆσαε 
 ταῖς aodsveiaes ἡμῶν. Bp. Jebb has also adduced 
 a similar example from Isocrates.. The received read- 
 ing is clearly to be preferred; and we learn that the 
 persons to whom this Epistle was addressed had sym- 
 pathized with its author while suffering bondage for 
 Christ. Is it not most probable that this event was 
 the long captivity of Paul at Cxsarea, which is related 
 in Acts 24:27 ? 
 
 35 Μὴ ἀποβάλητε οὖν τὴν magonoiay ὑμῶν, Ares ἔχεε 
 
 36 μεσϑαποδοσίωαν μεγάλην. Ὑπομονῆς γὰρ ἔχετε 
 χρείαν, iva τὸ ϑέλημα τοῦ ϑεοῦ ποιήσαντες κομέ- 
 
 37 σησϑὲε τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν. “Ἔτε γὰρ μεκρὸν ὅσον 
 
 38 ὅσον, ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἥξεε καὶ οὐ χρονεεῖ. Ὁ δὲ δέ- 
 χαιος ἐκ πίστεως, ζήσετε" καὶ ἐὰν ὑποστείληταε, 
 
 39 οὐκ εὐδοκεὶ ἡ ψυχὴ μουν ἐν «αὐτῷ. Ἡμεῖς δὲ οὐκ 
 ἐσμὲν ὑποστολῆς, εἰς ἀπώλειαν" ἀλλὰ πίστεως, εἰς 
 περιποίησεν WUY Ns. 
 
 Vv. 35, 36. These words scarcely need any ex- 
 planation farther than is given them in the Analysis, 
 to which the reader is referred. 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. X. Vv. 87: 401 
 
 V. 37. μικρὸν ὅσον ὅσον. ‘This phrase is inten- 
 sive, like the Hebrew 189 “89: “For yet a very little 
 (time), He that cometh will come,” &c. For confirma- 
 tion of this rendering, see Matthie’s Gr. Gram. $486. 
 obs. 1, and Viger’s Greek Idioms, 8. v. c. III. 89. The 
 latter cites Arr. Ind. s. 29, as using the same phrase: 
 σπείρουσεν ὅσον ὅσον τῆς χώρας. 
 
 ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἥξει, κιτ.2. The quotation is from 
 Hab. 2:3, 4. The Hebrew is 2: ἼΠΙΝῚ 82 8a ΕΞ 
 mon inpyaxa pz) ia iwesmodesk> moey; of which the 
 following may be proposed as a correct translation : 
 ‘For it (the vision) shall surely come; it shall not 
 tarry: lo; his soul is proud, it is not right within 
 him; but the righteous by his faith shall live’ The 
 Septuagint translate it, ὅτε ἐρχόμενος ἥξει, καὶ ov μὴ 
 χρονεσή᾽ ἐὰν ὑποστείληταε οὐκ εὐδοκεῖ ἡ ψύχη μου 
 ἐν aura’ ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως μου ζήσεται. The 
 English rendering of this would be, ‘ For he will come 
 and will not tarry. If he (any one) draw back, my 
 soul taketh no pleasure in him; but the just by faith 
 in me shall live’ It would seem that there must have 
 been some variation in the reading which was before 
 the Seventy, from that which we now possess. Their 
 rendering evidently expresses the general sense of the 
 passage. In the last verse our author inverts the order 
 of the clauses, and couples them by καί. Otherwise, 
 he follows in the main the translation of the Septua- 
 gint, quoting the passage not as a prophecy of the 
 matter in hand (in the view of Habakkuk, the ap- 
 proaching doom of the oppressors of Israel), but as 
 
 26 
 
402 HEBREWS, OHAP. X. Vv. 387. 
 
 setting forth principles applicable to the argument of 
 this part of the Epistle. But why the inversion of the 
 clauses in the fourth verse? Bloomfield, and others 
 who desire to give an Arminian sense to the passage, 
 say that the Apostle inverts the clauses in order to 
 manifest the relation which he would have δώκαεος 
 bear as the subject of ὑποστείληταε: or at least, that 
 in the sentence of the Apostle as inverted, 6 d/xazog is 
 the proper subject. Even if this construction were 
 admitted, the remarks which we have offered above on 
 ν. 29 would apply and show that the Arminian infer- 
 ence, that any justified person does ever ‘draw back’ 
 finally and totally, does not necessarily follow. But it 
 is a more natural account of the inversion, to suppose 
 that the Apostle viewed the two clauses which he 
 quotes as separated, and as containing two separate 
 principles, both of which he wished to apply to his 
 exhortation, and that thus, the order in which he men- 
 tions them is unimportant and accidental. The con- 
 junction καὶ is then to be regarded as the mere addi- 
 tive word of transition, by which the second quotation 
 is introduced after the first; and is equivalent to καὶ 
 πάλεν, in 2:13 and 10:30 above. In both the places 
 just cited, the clauses of the quotation are thus sepa- 
 rated, although they are, in each case, taken from the 
 same passage of the Old Test. In 11:2 below, our 
 author cites the two incidents of Jacob’s blessing each 
 of the sons of Joseph, and leaning upon the head of his 
 staff to worship, but in an inverted order. The latter 
 is first recorded in Gen. 47:31, and the former after- 
 
HEBREWS, OHAP. xX. v. 39. 403 
 
 wards, in Gen. 48:14. Many instances occur, also, 
 which justify us in regarding καί, as here used, in the 
 sense of καὶ πάλεν, to introduce an additional and sep- 
 arate fact or citation. Thus, in 1 Tim. 5:18, Βοῦν 
 ἀλοῶντα ov φεμώσεις " καί" (an additional quotation 
 from a different place) ὥξεος 6 ἐργάτης τοῦ μεσϑοῦ 
 avrov. A similar instance occurs in Hebr. 1:10, and 
 it frequently occurs in passing from one argument to 
 another. See Hebr. 1:7, 7:8, 9, 20, 28, &c. » Then 
 ὑποστείληταε Will have the same subject as in the Sep- 
 tuagint and the original. It is in favour of this ex- 
 planation that upon the other, Bloomfield’s supposition, 
 the antithesis between the two clauses would seem to 
 require ἐὰν δὲ ὑποστείληταε, instead of καὶ ἐάν. But 
 admitting ὁ d/xacos to be the subject οὗ ὑποστείληταε, 
 it can only be a general designation of one professedly 
 acknowledged as a righteous man; for the first clause 
 asserts ὁ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται, and this distinc- 
 tion is kept up in the following verse. The remarks 
 made on 6: 4 above, apply here. 
 
 V. 39. οὐκ ἐσμὲν ὑποστολῆς. .. ἀλλὰ πίστεως. 
 Here the abstract words are used for the concrete, to 
 designate the two classes of backsliders and believers. 
 
 εἰς περεποίησεν. This word obviously means the 
 opposite of ἀπώλειαν, and hence ‘salvation. The kin- 
 dred verb is used in Acts 20:28, and 1 Tim. 3: 18, 
 τὴν ἐχχλησίων ... ἣν περεεποιήσατο (ὁ ϑεὸς) διὰ τοῦ 
 αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου, “which He purchased with His own 
 blood;” o¢ καλῶς Otaxovncavres, βαϑιμὸν ἑαυτοῖς 
 καλὸν περιποιοῦνταιε, “purchase to themselves (or 
 
404 HEBREWS, CHAP. X. V. 39. 
 
 acquire) a good degree.” In Xen. Cyropaid. IV. IV. 
 10, we find τὰς ψυχὰς περεεποεήσασίε. In 1 Thess. 
 5:9, the noun occurs in connexion with σωτηρίας, ἴῃ 
 2 Thess. 2: 14, in the sense of ‘ acquisition’ (the act of 
 acquiring), and in Eph. 1:14 and 1 Pet. 2:9, in the 
 sense of ‘acquisition’ or ‘possession’ (the thing ac- 
 quired). In 2 Chron. 14:12 (in Sept. 13), the Sep- 
 tuagint use it as the translation for 7%, ἔπεσον 
 Αἰϑέωπες ὥστε μὴ εἶναε ἐν αὐτοῖς περεποέησεν. Amidst 
 these differing senses there is sufficient usage for the 
 meaning of ‘salvation’ which the scope and context in 
 this place demand. 
 
CHAPTER ΧΙ. 1—81. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 Tue great object of this Epistle is to enforce faith 
 in Jesus Christ as the mediator of the new dispensa- 
 tion, and to guard against apostacy from that faith, 
 especially back to Judaism. Having shown Christ’s 
 pre-eminence and excellence, and that in Him was the 
 foundation of all the benefits of redemption, the author 
 has just exhorted his readers to perseverance and pa- 
 tience in their profession, that they may inherit the 
 promises and receive the salvation of their souls. Suit- 
 ably to the scope of the whole Epistle, and of the im- 
 mediate context in particular, the Apostle, for the 
 further establishment of his readers (compare 12:1 
 and seq.), after a general and practical definition of 
 faith, proceeds to show that the fathers had, by per- 
 severance and patience inits exercise, regulated their 
 lives and received their reward. This is proved by 
 the example of Abel, ν. 4; of Enoch, vv. 5, 6; of 
 Noah, v. 7; of Abraham, vv. 8-19; of Isaac, v. 20; 
 of Jacob, v. 21; of Joseph, v. 22; of Moses, or his 
 parents, vv. 23-28; of the Israelites in their exodus, 
 vv. 29, 30; and of Rahab, v. 31. 
 
 To sum up, Christ and the completeness of His 
 redemption are the main subjects of the Epistle. The 
 
406 OHAP. XI.—ANALYSBIS. 
 
 exercise of soul by which we embrace Him, and secure 
 His redemption, is faith. Perseverance in this grace 
 is inculcated on the Hebrew Christians, by showing 
 that it was the principle which governed the admired 
 conduct of the models of Jewish piety. 
 
BERBERS, OMAP. ΣῈ. wes 7. 407 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 2 > Ls 
 ΧΙ. 1 ἜἜστε δὲ πίστες, ἐλπεζομένων ὑπόστασις, πρα- 
 ’ £ » %Q 
 9 , Ae > βλεπομένων. CE j . 
 2 yuarav ἔλεγχος οὐ βλεπομένων. ν ταύτῃ γὰρ 
 ? Ul « t , ~ 
 3 ἐμαρτυρηϑησαν of πρεςβυτέρο. 1ΠΠἰστεε νοοῦμεν 
 , “~~ Γ ~ > 
 κατηρτέσϑαε tous aiovas ῥήματε ϑεοῦ, εἰς TO μὴ 
 Ύ 4 f 
 4 ἐκ φαινομένων τὰ βλεπομενα γεγονένα. Πίστει 
 πλείονα ϑυσίαν "AGeh παρὰ Καὶν προςήνεγχε τῷ 
 ϑεῷ, δὲ ἧς ἐμαρτυρήϑη ἑέναε δίκαιος, μωρτυροῦν- 
 τος ἐπὶ τοῖς δώροις αὐτοῦ τοῦ ϑεοῦ, καὶ δὲ αὐτῆς 
 ἀποϑανὼν ἔτε λαλεΐταε. 
 
 V.1. ὑπόστασες. Some interpreters, among whom 
 are the authors of our English version, render this 
 word ‘substance;’ others render it ‘firm persuasion.’ 
 Both the senses are good, and accord with the uses of 
 the word, as may be ascertained by reference to the 
 common New Test. Lexicons. As was remarked un- 
 der 1:3 above, in that place it must have the sense of 
 ‘substance,’ while in the other places in which it occurs 
 in the New Test. (2 Cor. 9:4, 11:17, and Hebr. ὃ: 
 14), it may have the sense of ‘confidence.’ In the 
 Septuagint it is used as a translation for Monin, ‘ex- 
 pectation,’ or ‘ hope,’ in Ps. 39: 8, and for mpm, ‘ hope,’ 
 in Ruth 1:12. But yet the sense of ‘substance’ is to 
 be preferred in the text under remark. It corresponds 
 better, in the strength and fulness of its meaning, with 
 such expressions as the following: 2 Cor. 5:7, dva 
 πίστεως γὰρ᾽ περεπατοῦμεν, οὐ διὰ sidous; 2 Cor. 4: 
 
408 HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. αὶ 1. 
 
 18, μὴ σκοπούντων ἡμῶν τὰ βλεπόμενα, ἀλλὰ τὰ μὴ 
 βλεπόμενα, κιτ.λ.; ν. 18 below, πόρῥωϑεν auras ἰδόν- 
 τὲς καὶ ἀσπασώμενοε, and V. 27, τὸν ἀόρατον ὡς δρῶν. 
 The representation of faith contained in all these ex- 
 pressions is, that it gives the soul a substantial reality 
 upon which its actings may go forth, and its spiritual 
 senses may fix themselves. Nor is the consideration 
 valid, which is urged by Stuart in favour of rendering 
 the word ‘confidence,’ that if the other meaning were 
 adopted, we would more naturally expect it to be fol- 
 lowed by some such word as σωμάτων, or ἀνώλων, ἴῃ 
 order to carry out an antithesis more properly. The 
 word ἐλπεζο μένων, as expressing things future and un- 
 possessed, the objects of our anticipations, makes an 
 antithesis entirely natural. It is not only true of faith 
 that it is a ‘firm persuasion’ of the existence of such 
 things, but that it gives them, so to speak, ‘present 
 subsistence. It gives them the force of present reali- 
 ties. This sense therefore includes the other, and is 
 for this reason preferable, that, while it expresses all 
 that is expressed by the other, it gives more fulness 
 and strength to the Apostle’s words. i 
 ἔλεγχος. This word occurs in Homer in the sense 
 of ‘reproach,’ ‘shame,’ and is of the neuter gender. In 
 the later writers it also means ‘ proof, ‘ demonstration,’ 
 ‘refutation.’ It occurs in the Septuagint as a transla- 
 tion for mm2in, ‘arguments,’ ‘ reasonings,’ in Job 13:6 
 and 23:4, and for mmm, ‘rebuke,’ in Hosea 5:9. 
 From the meaning ‘demonstration,’ some interpreters 
 have by metonymy derived the sense of * conviction.’ 
 
HEBREWS, OHAP. xT. ow. VD. 409 
 
 Thus Wahl and Kuinoél render it ‘persuasio firma? 
 But there is no usage to authorize this meaning. A 
 better rendering is ‘ proof,’ ‘demonstration,’ or that of 
 the English version, ‘evidence,’ if the latter be taken 
 in the sense of Theophylact, quoted by Bretschneider’s 
 Lex. δείξεν, φανέρωσεν ἀδήλων πραγμάτων. The 
 sense here maintained for ἔλεγχος confirms that given 
 above to ὑπόστασις. As faith realizes things hoped 
 for, so it rings to view things unseen. The expressions 
 already quoted from vv. 18, 27 below, confirm the pro- 
 priety of this meaning. The kindred verb occurs fre- 
 quently in the New Test. but the noun is only found 
 in this place and in 2 Tim. 3:16, where it is translated 
 ‘reproof’ In John 3:20, the verb ἐλέγχω is used as 
 an antithesis for φανερόω, thus defining its sense in 
 that place to be similar: Πᾶς ὃ φαῦλα πράσσων... 
 οὐκ ἔρχεταε πρὸς TO φῶς, ἵνα μὴ ἐλεγχϑὴ τὰ ἔργα av- 
 τοῦ ὁ δὲ ποιῶν τὴν ἀλήϑειαν, ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸ φῶς, 
 iva φανερωϑῇ αὐτοῦ τὰ ἔργα, #.t.4. The sense here 
 is evidently that of ‘evincing, ‘evidencing the charac- 
 ter of,’ the respective works. 
 
 The faith here defined, and then illustrated through- 
 out the chapter, is Christian faith in its generic nature, 
 receiving every word of God, and including justifying 
 faith; which is, so to speak, but one exercise of the 
 general principle of faith, by which Christ is received 
 as the Saviour. It is faith as a perfect Christian grace 
 that is defined, not indeed perfect in the examples 
 given, but strong; not feeble and sickly, as is too com- 
 mon among. Christians. 
 
40 HEBREWS, OHAP. XI. VV. 2, 3. 
 
 V.2. Ἐν ταύτῃ γὰρ ἐμαρτυρήϑησαν, x.r.d., ‘For 
 by this were the fathers testified unto’ (as being true 
 men of God). Such is the faith which governed the 
 fathers, which we see illustrated in their lives, and 
 which was the means of their winning that approval, 
 divine and human, which makes them undoubted, un- 
 disputed examples of the true follower of God. It is 
 an appeal to them to show the practical nature of the 
 faith just defined. The explanation we have given re- 
 gards the particle γὰρ as introducing illustrative con- 
 firmation of the proposition of v. 1, that faith is of 
 such a nature. Winer, in the Id. New Test. $7. 2. (£), 
 p. 55, does indeed give to this place a different connex- 
 ion of thought, adopted from Griesbach and Knapp: 
 ‘There is a faith, a confidence, etc.; for by it the elders 
 obtained a good report. But this is fanciful and un- 
 authorized ; and his assertion that, with our sense, γὰρ 
 would be wholly superfluous, is shown to be untrue 
 by the fact that we have assigned it an intelligible 
 force, strictly accordant with one of its usages: ‘The 
 nature of faith is such (as is stated); for by just this 
 principle the elders obtained a good report’ 
 
 V.3. μή. This particle properly qualifies ysyo- 
 γέναι, and its effect is to negative the whole phrase 
 ἐκ φαινομένων ta βλεπόμενα γεγονέναι. See this 
 well stated in Winer, Id. of New Test. $64. 4, p. 418. 
 The doctrine of the verse clearly is, that created things 
 had no previous existence ; a doctrine asserted, though 
 less definitely, in Genesis, ch. 1 throughout, John 1:3, 
 and Hebr. 1:2. This was contrary to the received 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. v. 4. 411 
 
 philosophy of the day, which held that the matter of 
 all created things, as well as the Creator, was from 
 eternity. It is a doctrine against which reason now 
 sometimes rebels. It is by a simple, implicit reception 
 of the inspired statement on this point, that we learn 
 its truth. 
 
 V.4. πλείονα ϑυσίαν. These words are correctly 
 translated by the English version, ‘a better sacrifice.’ 
 Thus, in Matt. 6:25, we have ἡ wuyn πλεῖόν ἔστε τῆς 
 τροφῆς. 12:41, 42, ᾿Ανδρες Nevevirac ... μετενόησαν 
 εἰς τὸ κήρυγμα lava’ καὶ ἐδού, πλεῖον Ἰωνᾶ ads... . 
 πλεῖον Σολομῶνος ὧδε. Other examples may be found 
 in the Lexicons. From the idea of superiority in di- 
 mension, or quantity in the words ‘more,’ ‘ greater,’ we 
 easily pass to that of a general superiority. But in 
 what was Abel’s sacrifice better than Cain’s? Be- 
 cause it was offered by faith on Christ, the seed of the 
 woman, promised in Gen. 3:15. Here, then, was a 
 justifying faith ; and hence the writer proceeds to add, 
 δὲ ἧς (scilicet πέστεως) ἐμαρτυρήϑη εἶναε δίκαεος, in 
 allusion to the form of his expression in v. ὃ. Rom. 
 1:17 and Hebr. 10:38 have taught us, in the words 
 of Habakkuk, that faith is the instrument by which 
 man is placed in a state of justification. Here the 
 Apostle says that by faith he received the testimony 
 of his being in that state. The latter is a consequence 
 of the former. Since faith always implies a warrant, 
 and the acceptableness of Abel’s sacrifice arose in part 
 from its being a bloody offering, we have here a very 
 strong indication that bloody sacrifices had been en- 
 
412 HEBREWS, OHAP. XI. V. 4. 
 
 joined to Adam’s family from their expulsion out of 
 Eden. ' 
 
 μαρτυροῦντος... ϑεοῦ. How God signified his 
 acceptance of Abel’s offering we are not told; the fact 
 is plainly declared in Gen. 4:4, “And the Lord had 
 respect unto Abel and to his offering.” 
 
 λαλεῖται. There is here a doubtful reading. The 
 majority of manuscripts give λαλεῖταε, but many man- 
 uscripts, the Syriac, Arabic, Coptic, Armenian, Slavo- 
 nic, and Vulgate versions, and many of the Fathers, 
 give the active, λαλεῖ. This reading is also adopted 
 by the majority of the critical editors of the New Test. 
 as Bengel, Griesbach, Knapp, Scholz, and Hahn. It 
 certainly gives a sense much to be preferred: ‘ By it . 
 (his faith) Abel though dead yet teacheth, i. 6. the 
 example of his faith is still a lesson to us. But if the 
 _ passive voice is adopted, we must give a sense far less 
 apposite and natural: By means of (or through) his 
 faith Abel is spoken of, though now dead. With the 
 amount of testimony from Mss. and versions in favour 
 of λαλεῖ, we would venture to prefer it as the true 
 reading. 
 
 Ud ~ \ ~ ld 
 5 Πίστει Ἐνὼχ μετετέϑη, τοῦ μὴ ἰδεῖν ϑάνατον" καὶ 
 ᾽ on 7 4 ‘ yeh ε΄ £ , ‘ 
 οὐχ εὑρίσκετο, διότε μετέϑηκεν αὐτὸν ὁ isos. ITeo 
 ~ ᾽ ~ ‘ 
 γὰρ τῆς μεταϑέσεως αὐτοῦ μεμαρτύρηταε εὐηρεὲ- 
 ~ ~ , > Lf 
 6 στηκέναε τῷ ϑεῷ" χωρὶς δὲ πίστεως ἀδύνατον 
 "ὦ -Ψ ‘ a , 
 
 εὐαρεστῆσαι. Πιστεῦσαε γὰρ δεῖ τὸν προςερχόμε- 
 
 ~ ~ , , ~ > ~ ‘ 
 γον τῷ ϑεῷ, Ore ἐστί" καὶ τοῖς ἐκζητοῦσεν αὐτὸν 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. vv. 5, 6. 413 
 
 7 μισϑαποδότης γένεται. Πίστει, χρηματισϑεὶς Νῶε 
 περὶ τῶν μηδέπω βλεπομένων, εὐλαβηϑεὶς κατε- 
 σκεύασε κεβωτὸν εἰς σωτηρίαν τοῦ οἴχου αὑτοῦ" δὲ 
 ἧς κατέχρενε τὸν χόσμον, καὶ τῆς κατὰ πίστιν 
 δικαιοσύνης ἐγένετο χληρονόμος. 
 
 V.5. Ἐνὼχ μετετέϑη. That this verb is correctly 
 rendered ‘ was translated,’ or removed to heaven with- 
 out dying, is proved by the words immediately suc- 
 ceeding, τοῦ μὴ ἰδεῖν Pavaroyv. So the Septuagint 
 render the words of Gen. 5: 24, Sis MP2 "2, ὅτε μετέ- 
 Inxev αὐτὸν ὁ ϑεός, and so they are understood by 
 Josephus, Philo, Onkelos, Jonathan, and the other 
 ‘ Jewish translators. The same verb is employed con- 
 cerning the translation of Elijah in the Hebrew of 
 2 Kings 2:9, 10, and is rendered by the Septuagint, 
 ἀναλαμβάνω. ᾿ 
 
 “Ὗ. 6. χωρὶς δὲ πίστεως ... πεστεῦσαε γὰρ δεῖ τὸν 
 προςζερχόμενον, #.t.2. Here are developed two funda- 
 mental objects of faith: 1, that God is; 2, that He re- 
 wards those who seek after Him, and, by implication, 
 punishes those who reject Him. The connexion of 
 thought is this: Enoch obtained the glorious privilege 
 of translation by his faith. This appears from the fact 
 that the connexion in which his acceptableness to God 
 is mentioned in Gen. 5:24 (And Enoch walked with 
 God), evidently shows that this was the cause of his 
 translation. He was translated because he so walked 
 as to please God. But without faith it is impossible 
 to please God. His faith therefore procured his trans- 
 
414 HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. v. 1%. 
 
 lation. And then, to sustain the general assertion that 
 without faith it is impossible to please Him, the author 
 introduces (by γὰρ) the considerations drawn from 
 the nature of his service. The very profession of his 
 service implies a profession of a belief in his existence, — 
 and in the certainty of his promises and threatenings. 
 If these are not believed, why serve Him at all? But 
 the sincere, practical, and operative belief of these is 
 faith. 
 
 ἐκζητοῦσεν. According to a familiar Old Test. 
 usage, to seek after God is to seek after his law in or- 
 der to obey it, to know, love, and serve Him. Thus, 
 in Ps. 14:2, we have ΤΣ ΝΣ O75, “any that sought 
 God.” 
 
 V.%. Nae... εὐλαβηϑείς. This verb occurs also 
 in Acts 23:10, with the sense of mere natural fear, 
 implying nothing pious: εὐλαβηϑεὶς ὁ χιλίαρχος, μὴ 
 διασπασϑῇ ὁ Παῦλος, κιτ.λ. As was remarked under 
 5:7 above, to which place the reader is referred, the 
 adjective εὐλαβῆς occurs several times in the New 
 Test. and always in the sense of ‘pious fear.’ The 
 noun εὐλαβεία has the same sense in a part, at least, 
 of the places where it occurs. We would therefore 
 interpret the word here, ‘moved with fear, a reveren- 
 tial, pious fear, arising from his firm belief of the di- 
 vine declaration. The first word of the sentence, 
 πίστει, is to be regarded as dependent on εὐλωβηϑεὶς 
 xareoxevaos, rather than on χρηματεσϑείς. We see 
 here how exactly the principle that moved Noah cor- 
 responds to the definition of v. 1. The things he 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. v. 7. 415 
 
 sought to avoid by his obedience were not seen (τῶν 
 μηδέπω βλεπομένων). Reason and sense gave no in- 
 dication of them; he had no evidence of their reality 
 but the mere dictum of God ( γρηματεσϑείςγ; but he 
 acted just as he would have done in view of their im- 
 mediate and visible presence. This ts faith. 
 
 δὲ ἧς. Some refer this pronoun to πέστεε, some to 
 κεβωτόν. The first reference much better suits the 
 scope of the passage. As, in v. 4, Abel though dead 
 yet teaches by his faith, so here, Noah by Azs faith im- 
 pliedly condemned the unbelief of his hearers. The 
 example of his obedient faith aggravated the inexcusa- 
 bleness of their skepticism. 
 
 τῆς χατὰ πίστεν δωεαεοσύνης “ληρονόμος. The 
 righteousness here intended is, according to all usage 
 and analogy of faith in the New Test. and especially 
 in the writings of Paul, ‘justifying righteousness (i. e. 
 that of the God-man, Christ) dmputed through faith 
 To be convinced of this, let the reader weigh the force 
 of the inspired language in Rom. 1:17, 9:30, 10:3, 
 4, 5, 6, Phil. 3:9, compared with 3:6, 1 Cor. 1:80, 
 consulting also Hodge’s Com. on Romans, on the pas- 
 sages cited from that epistle. Without turning aside 
 to a discussion of the usage of these words inappropri- 
 ate to this work, we would only pause to indicate one 
 obvious and overwhelming objection to all other inter- 
 pretations than the one we have given, and especially 
 to that founded on Rom. 4: 5, the believer’s “faith is 
 counted to him for righteousness,” which asserts that 
 the merits of the act of faith are graciously accepted 
 
416 HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. V. 7. 
 
 by God as the ground of justification. This is indeed 
 the only one of the erroneous interpretations which 
 possesses even any degree of exegetical plausibility. 
 Now it is most distinctly indicated in these passages, 
 that the righteousness which is the ground of justifica- 
 tion is God’s, and not man’s, consisting in what God 
 has done, and not in what man has done in obedience 
 to divine injunction; a truth which is consistent with 
 no other definition of the righteousness of faith than 
 that we have given. “The righteousness of God is re- 
 vealed from faith to faith.” “They being ignorant of 
 God's righteousness, and going about to establish their 
 own righteousness,” &e. “For Christ is the end of the 
 law for righteousness, to every one who believeth.” 
 “The righteousness which is of the law is, ... the man 
 which porma...shall live. But the righteousness 
 which is of faith speaketh on this wise ... if thou shalt 
 confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt be- 
 lieve in thy heart that God hath raised Him from the 
 dead, thou shalt be saved.” It is the opposite of 
 ‘doing? “Jesus Christ is made of God unto us right- 
 
 eousness ; ” 
 
 not our own faith. “That I may be found 
 in Him” (Christ), “not having mine own righteous- 
 ness, which is of the law, but that which is through” 
 (only instrumentally) “the faith of Christ, the right- 
 cousness which is of Gov by faith.” 
 
 Because Noah is said in this connexion to have 
 been justified by his faith, some say that the ark must 
 -be understood as a type of Christ, and this particular 
 
 act of Noah’s faith, as parallel to that of Abel in v. 4. 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. v. 8. 417 
 
 But what is here affirmed of his faith is not necessarily 
 referred to the particular exercise of it stated in the 
 preceding clause. In the exercise of the same grace 
 he prepared the ark to the condemnation of the world, 
 and trusted in the promised seed to the saving of his 
 soul. It was the same principle, acting with reference 
 to different exigencies, and different truths coming 
 from the same holy God, who cannot lie. 
 
 8 Πίστεε καλούμενος ᾿βραὰμ ὑπήκουσεν ἐξελϑεῖν 
 εἰς τὸν τόπον, ὃν ἤμελλε λαμβάνειν εἰς χκληρονο- 
 μίαν καὶ ἐξῆλϑε, μὴ ἐπεστάμενος, ποῦ ἔρχεταε. 
 
 9 Πίστεε παρῴκησεν εἰς [τὴν] yay τῆς ἐπαγγελέας 
 ὡς ἀλλοτρίαν, ἐν σκηναῖς κατοικήσας, μετὰ Ἰσαὰκ 
 καὶ Ἰαχὼβ τῶν συγαληρονόμων τῆς ἐπαγγελέας 
 
 10 τῆς αὐτῆς ἐξεδέχετο γὰρ τὴν τοὺς ϑεμελέους 
 ἔχουσαν πόλεν, ἧς τεχνίτης καὶ δημμουργὸς ὃ ϑεός. 
 
 11 Πίστει καὶ αὐτὴ Lagoa δύναμιν εἰς κατωβϑολὴν 
 σπέρματος ἔλαβε, καὶ παρὰ καιρὸν ἡλικίας | ἔτε- 
 κέν), ἐπεὶ πιστὸν ἡγήσατο τὸν ἐπαγγειλάμενον. 
 
 12 4.0 καὶ ἀφ᾽ ἑνὸς ἐγεννήϑησαν, καὶ ταῦτα νενε- 
 «ρωμένου, καϑὼς τὰ ἄστρα τοῦ οὐρανοῦ τῷ πλή- 
 Pet, καὶ ὡς ἡ ἄμμος ἡ παρὰ τὸ χεῖλος τῆς ϑαλάσ- 
 σης ἡ ἀναρέϑιμητος. 
 
 V.8. ποῦ teyerac. The use of the present tense 
 here instead of the past exhibits an instance of the 
 mingling of the oratio obliqua and recta, which is com- 
 mon. Another similar instance occurs in v. 13, ore 
 ξένοι καὶ παρεπέδημοέ εἰσεν. The usage is explained 
 by Winer, Id. New Test. 841. 2. (c), p. 211. 
 
 27 
 
418 HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. vv. 9-12. 
 
 V. 9. μετὰ Ἰσαώκ. The preposition here, as 
 usually before the genitive, signifies merely accom- 
 paniment, or participation in a common lot. 
 
 V.11. Πίστει καὶ αὐτὴ Σάῤῥα. Though inered- 
 ulous at first, as we learn from Gen. 18: 12-15, Sarah 
 afterwards came under the influence of a prevalent 
 faith, as was shown by the event. Abraham himself 
 seems at first (Gen. 17:17) to have yielded to a simi- 
 lar doubt, unless his laughter be referred to joy. 
 
 εἰς καταβολὴν σπέρματος. This has been well 
 rendered by the English version, “to conceive seed.” 
 This is supposed by some to have been a technical ex- 
 pression for conception. Kuinoél and others render it 
 ‘strength for founding a family, comparing with za- 
 ταβολὴ τοῦ κόσμου in so many places. De Wette 
 seems to incline to this sense, and it may perhaps be 
 admitted as preferable. 
 
 The Textus Receptus here inserts ἔτεκεν after 7Ac 
 κίας. It is inserted in almost all the manuscripts, 
 but is wanting in the Mss. a.p. 17, and in the Coptic, 
 Sahidic, Aithiopic, and Vulgate versions. On their 
 authority it is expunged by Griesbach, Vater, Scholz, 
 and Hahn. If it be retained, the sense will be as in 
 the English version, “Sarah received strength to con- 
 ceive seed (or found a family), and was delivered of a 
 child when she was past age.” If it be expunged, the 
 sense will be, ‘Sarah received strength to conceive 
 seed (or found a family) even after the time of her 
 prime.’ 
 
 V. 12. καὶ ταῦτα. This construction is aptly 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. v. 12. 419 
 
 imitated in the English, ‘and that as good as dead’ 
 We have here, says Winer, Id. New Test. $23. 4, pp. 
 135, 136, an instance of the use of the plural pronoun 
 for the singular, so that it might be correctly substi- 
 tuted by τοῦτο. As to its construction, it must be re- 
 garded asa kind of accusative absolute, approaching 
 very nearly to a pronominal adverb. Cases of the 
 use of the plural for the singular may also be seen in 
 Luke 12:4, “Be not afraid of them who kill the body, 
 and after that (μετὰ ταῦτα) have no more that they 
 ean do;” John 15:17, Ταῦτα ἐντέλλομαι ὑμῖν, ive 
 ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους ; and 8 John 4, ‘I have no greater 
 joy than this (Meclorégav τούτων χαράν), to hear 
 that my children walk in truth.” Matthiz’s Gr. Gram. 
 II. $470. 6, p. 774, may also be consulted. 
 
 γενεκρω μένου, ‘ He was dead for purposes of procre- 
 ation. Compare Rom. 4:19, οὐ κατενόησε τὸ ἑαυτοῦ 
 
 σῶμα ἤδη VEVEXOWMEVOY. 
 
 \ , 2 Me τ Α 
 18 Κατὰ πίστεν ἀπέϑανον οὗτοι πάντες, μὴ λαβόντες 
 \ ? ’ 2 \ δὺς 5 A ᾽ Γ 
 τὰς énuyyshias, ἀλλὰ πόῤῥωϑεν αὐτὰς ἰδόντες 
 Υ͂ x I 
 [χαὶ πεεισϑέντες] καὶ ἀσπασάμενοι, καὶ ὁμολογή- 
 ca r , Ὕ ~ 
 σαντὲς, ore ἕενος καὶ παρεπίδημοί stow éat τῆς 
 - € \ ~ fi ? r 
 14 γῆς. Ot γὰρ τοιαῦτα λέγοντες ἐμφανέζουσεν, ὅτε 
 ᾳ ? ~ . 3 > > ῇ 
 15 πατρίδα ἐπεζητοῦσε. Καὶ εἰ μὲν ἐκείνης ἐμνημό- 
 a, ee τ Ie~ 3) nN A 2 
 vevov ap ἧς ἐξῆλθον" siyov ἂν καιρὸν ava- 
 la Ὁ 2 Υ͂ ~ 7 
 10 χαμψαε vuvi δὲ χρείττονος ὀρέγονταε, τοῦτ 
 yw ? , \ > ᾿ 2 A 
 EOTLY, ἑπουρανίου. ALO οὐκ ἐπαισχύνεταε αὐτοὺς 
 ε oe ΑΞ Aus ? ~ 2 ~ c , \ 
 ὁ ϑέος, ϑεὸς ἐπεκαλεῖσθαε «ὑὐτῶν ἡτοίμασε γὰρ 
 
490 HEBREWS, OHAP. XI. vv. 138, 16. 
 
 17 αὐτοῖς πόλεν. Πίστει προςενήνοχεν ‘ASoucu τὸν 
 Ἰσαὰκ πεεραζόμενος, καὶ τὸν μονογενῆ προςέφερεν, 
 
 18 ὁ τὰς ἐπαγγελίας ἀναδεξάμενος, πρὸς ὃν ἐλα- 
 λήϑη" “Ὅτε ἐν Ἰσαὰκ κληϑηήσεταί oor σπέρμα" 
 
 19 λογεσώμενος, ὅτε καὶ ἐκ νεκρῶν ἐγείρεεν δυνατὸς ὃ 
 ϑεός" ὅϑεν αὐτὸν καὶ ἐν παραβολῇ ἐκομίσατο. 
 
 V.13. μὴ λαβόντες τὰς ἐπαγγελίας. We have 
 here ἃ clear metonymy of ‘ promises’ for ‘ things prom- 
 ised.’ Literally speaking, they had received the prom- 
 ises, for they were the basis of their faith. What those 
 things promised were, appears from vy. 10, 14-16, ‘a 
 city having foundations,’ scilicet heaven, and a heavenly 
 inheritance. 
 
 Between ἐδόντες and ἀσπασώμενοει, the Textus Re- 
 ceptus inserts καὶ πειεσϑέντες. These words are want- 
 ing in most of the manuscripts, versions, early editions, 
 and Fathers. They are accordingly usually cancelled 
 by the critical editors. 
 
 ξένοι καὶ παρεπέδημιοι. These words contain an 
 obvious reference to the language of Abraham to the 
 children of Heth, “I am a stranger and a sojourner 
 with you;” of Isaac to Jacob, Gen. 28:4, “that thou 
 mayest inherit the land wherein thou art a stranger, 
 which God gave unto Abraham;” and of Jacob to 
 Pharaoh, Gen. 47:9, “the days of the years of my pil- 
 grimage are a hundred and thirty years.” But ina 
 true and proper sense, all believers are strangers and 
 sojourners in the world. | 
 
 V.16. ϑεὸς ἐπικαλεῖσϑαε αὐτῶν. These words 
 are explanatory of οὐκ ἐπαισχύνεταε αὐτούς, ‘ Where- 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. vv. 17-19. 421 
 
 fore God is not ashamed of them, (viz. ashamed) ‘to 
 be called thezr God? To insert ovds, as does Stuart 
 (‘nor to be called their God’), obscures, instead of as- 
 sisting the sense. 
 
 V.17. χαὶ τὸν μονογενῆ. καὶ here may be best 
 translated ‘yea,’ authority for which may be seen in 
 Winer’s Id. New Test. $57. 2, p. 344. The meaning 
 ‘and’ would not here be inapposite, but the former is 
 preferable. 
 
 V.18. ἐν Ἰσαὰκ κληϑήσεταί oot σπέρμα. The 
 verb here does not express a mere esse. ‘in Isaac shall 
 be thy seed’ The Hebrew, Gen. 21:12, whence these 
 words are extracted, is 8229. To make it merely equal 
 to the verb of existence most unwarrantably emascu- 
 lates the meaning. On the contrary, where the verb 
 καλοῦμαι signifies ‘is denominated,’ it carries a sense 
 even. opposed to «¢vae. ‘The meaning here and in Gen- 
 esis is, ‘The descendants through Isaac are those who 
 have been pronounced by me the seed,in the cove- 
 nanted sense.’ 
 
 V.19. ἐν παραβολῇ. Some consider this phrase 
 as equivalent to παρωβολῶς, ‘inopinato, ‘unexpect- 
 edly.’ This seems to us the least probable view. Many 
 of the commentators, ancient and modern, render the 
 words, ‘in a figure,’ i. e. typically, of Christ’s sacrifice 
 and resurrection. In 9:9 above, παραϑολὴ undoubt- 
 edly has this sense. The most recent commentators 
 understand the words in the sense of ‘in comparison,’ 
 i. 6. ‘ simili modo :’ ‘He received him, as it were, from 
 the dead’ The sense thus given to παραβολὴ would 
 
422 HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. Vv. 19. 
 
 correspond well with its composition and primary mean- 
 ing; but examples of such a usage in the New Test. 
 are wanting. 
 
 ὅϑεν ... ἐχομίσατο. Odsy may relate to ἐκ ve- 
 “ρῶν. Some refer this language to Abraham’s recep- 
 tion of his son from God at his first conception; and 
 point, in illustration, to the words of v. 12, καὶ ταῦτα 
 γενεχρωμένου. ‘This sense seems to us preferable. 
 Others understand it as meaning that Abraham re- 
 ceived his son back from the altar, Isaac being, as it 
 were, dead in his father’s opinion and his own. In 
 support of this view, Bloomfield says, κομέζω never 
 means simply to obtain, but to receive back, either in 
 the way of recovering what is lost, or in return for 
 something given. But to confine ourselves to this 
 Epistle, let the reader consult 10:36, 11:39, in both 
 of which that sense is obviously found, and compare 
 them with 11: 18, λαβόντες. The Lexicons also assert 
 the same, though they translate by ‘to receive back’ 
 in this place. We may then render ὅϑεν, ‘ wherefore,’ 
 and make it relate to Abraham’s faith. 
 
 20 Πίστεε περὲὸ μελλόντων εὐλόγησεν ἸΙσκὼκ τὸν 
 21 Ἰακὼβ καὶ τὸν Ἠσαῦ. Πίστεε Ἰακὼ ἀποϑνή- 
 cxav ἕκαστον τῶν υἱῶν Ἰωσὴφ εὐλόγησε" καὶ 
 προςφεκύνησεν ext τὸ ὥκρον τῆς ῥάβδου αὑτοῦ. 
 22 Πίστει Ἰωσὴφ τελευτῶν περὶ τῆς ἐξόδου τῶν υἱῶν 
 Ἰσραὴλ ἐμνημόνευσε, καὶ περὶ τῶν ὀστέων αὑτοῦ 
 
HEBREWS, OHAP. XI. Vv. 20, 21. 423 
 
 23 ἐνετείλατο. {Πίστει Mavane γεννηθεὶς ἐκρύβη 
 τρέμηνον ὑπὸ τῶν πατέ ἕρων αὑτοῦ, διότε εἶδον 
 ἀστεῖον τὸ παιδίον" καὶ οὐκ ἐφοβήϑησαν τὸ διεώ- 
 rayua τοῦ βασελέως. 
 
 Vv. 20, 21. These words reveal to us the nature 
 of the patriarchal blessings. They were prophetic and 
 inspired. But it may be asked how it was that Isaac 
 blessed his heir ‘by faith of things to come,’ when he 
 mistook Jacob for Esau? We answer, he pronounced 
 the blessing in the faith that God would bring it to 
 pass on the subject of it; and though he thought the 
 subject was Esau, when he discovered his mistake, he 
 recognised in it the overruling providence of God, and 
 could not and did not reverse it. He assures Esau, in 
 the midst of his grief, ‘Yea, and he (Jacob) shall be 
 blessed.’ 
 
 ἀποϑνήσκων. We have here the present partici- 
 ple, which we will not, with some interpreters, regard 
 as used for a future, ‘about to die.’ The present prop- 
 erly expresses that action which is already commenced, 
 though its completion is still future. Jacob was then 
 dying ; not indeed in ‘the article of death ;’ but popu- 
 larly, the closing scene of his life had begun. See 
 Winer’s Id. New Test. 846. 5, p. 274. 
 
 προφςεκύνησεν. ‘This is the word used by the Sep- 
 tuagint for mt, Gen. 47:31, where the English ver- 
 sion renders it “bowed himself.” But the word is 
 properly rendered here as there, ‘ worshipped, ‘This 
 act of worship did not take place at the time of the 
 
424 HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. V. 23. 
 
 blessing which is referred to in the first clause of v. 21; 
 for that blessing really occurred afterwards. This is 
 evident from Gen. 48:1, 15, 16; but it is evident from 
 the whole narrative that the events were nearly con- 
 tiguous. The inversion of the incidents has been al- 
 ready noticed in 10: 38 above. 
 
 τῆς ῥάβδου. The Hebrew word is 72, which the 
 Masorites point 72, and so read all the ancient ver 
 sions except the Septuagint. These translators have 
 evidently read the word as if pointed ma, ῥώβδος: 
 and they are followed by cur author. This is doubt- 
 less the true reading; though Bloomfield, following 
 Rosenmiiller, Gesenius, Kuinoél, prefers the former. 
 To say nothing of the form of oriental beds in general, 
 inspiration could not sanction such an error of fact, 
 and one so causeless and inexplicable, as the substitu- 
 tion of Jacob’s bed-head for his staff. 
 
 V. 23. τῶν πατέρων. This word is here properly 
 translated, ‘his parents.’ Thus, in Eph. 6:1, we have 
 the precept, ‘ Children, obey your parents, τοῖς γονεῦσε, 
 which is explained in v. 2 by Τίμα τὸν πατέρα σου 
 καὶ τὴν μητέρα, and in vy. 4 these parties are addressed 
 concerning their correlative duties to their children as 
 οἱ πατέρες. A comparison of Col. 3:20, 21, gives a 
 similar instance. A few examples of the same usage 
 are adduced from the classics. 
 
 
 
 , “. - 4 , ΄ , 
 94 Iiorsee Mations μέγας γενόμενος ἠρνήσατο Aéys- 
 « ~ « 4 
 25 σϑαε υἱὸς ϑυγατρὸς Pagaw, μᾶλλον ἑλόμενος 
 x ~ ~ ~ os \ , 
 συγκακουχεῖσθϑαε τῷ λαῷ τοῦ ϑεοῦ, ἢ πρόςκαερον 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. v. 26. 425 
 
 “i ~ 
 26 ἔχειν ἁμαρτίας ἀπολαυσεν, μείζονα πλοῦτον ἡγη- 
 - γ , ~ 
 σώμενος τῶν ἕν Αἰγύπτῳ ϑησαυρῶν τὸν ὀνεεδε- 
 Ἁ ~ ~~. 2 if \ > \ 
 σμὸν τοῦ Χριστοῦ" ἀπέβλεπε yao εἰς τὴν μεσϑα- 
 27 ποδοσίαν. Πίστεε κατέλεπεν Αἴγυπτον, μὴ φοβη- 
 QO rn \ \ ~ ta Ν" \ \ ΩΝ 
 tele τὸν ϑυμὸν τοῦ βασελεως " τὸν γὰρ aogarov 
 ~ > r , ff 
 28 ὡς ὁρῶν ἐκαρτέρησε. “ΠῚ ίστεε πεποίηκε τὸ πάσχα 
 ΄ ~ r cr \ c > 
 καὶ THY πρόςχυσεν TOU αἵματος, iva μὴ ὁ Oho- 
 [4 ~ , iy 
 29 ϑρεύων τὰ πρωτότοκα, ϑίγῃ αὐτῶν. Worse δεέ- 
 > \ ᾿ \ le ~ ΓΖ 
 βησαν τὴν ἐρυϑρὰν ϑάλασσαν ὡς διὰ ξηρᾶς" ἣς 
 ~ “ ΙΔ lf 
 30 πεῖραν λαβόντες ot Αἰγύπτεοε xarenod your. Πό-: 
 , » > Χ 
 στεε τὰ τείχη Ἱερεχὼ ἔπεσε, χνυκλωϑέντα ἐπὶ ἑπτὰ 
 [2 r 
 31 ἡμέρας. Πίστεε Ῥαὰβ i πόρνη ov συναπωλετο 
 - 5] Ld 4 ‘ “ 
 τοῖς ἀπεεϑήσασε, δεξαμένη TOUS κατασκόπους μετ᾽ 
 3 / 
 εἰρήνης. 
 
 V. 206. ὀνειδισμὸν τοῦ Χριστοῦ. Stuart and 
 others regard these words as signifying that Moses 
 bore reproach ‘like that of Christ, or ‘after his exam- 
 ple’ It is better to interpret them as meaning ‘the 
 reproach which falls on His followers for His sake,’ or 
 with Bloomfield, Kuinoél, and others, ‘the reproach in- 
 eurred by their professed expectations and hopes of a 
 Messiah.” In 1 Cor. 10:4, a passage which throws 
 much light on the object of the faith of Old Test, 
 saints at this time, it is said, “They drank of that 
 spiritual Rock that followed them; and that Rock 
 was Christ;” and in 10:9 it is said, “Neither let us 
 tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted.” Christ 
 was the Angel who led them through the wilderness 
 (see Hengstenberg’s Christology, Vol. I); so that 
 
 there is a more literal and direct relation between 
 
496 HEBREWS, OHAP. XI. vv. 27-81. 
 
 Him and the faith and obedience of the Hebrews, 
 than at first sight would appear. 
 
 V.27. xearéhiney Αἴγυπτον. This does not refer 
 to Moses’ flight to Midian, recorded in Ex. 2: 14, 
 but to the exode of him and the nation forty years 
 afterwards. 
 
 V. 28. πεποίηκε τὸ πάσχα. This verb, like the 
 Hebrew “wv? in similar connexions, may either mean, 
 ‘he prepared the passover, ‘observed it,’ procuring, 
 sacrificing and cooking the lamb, ete. ; or it may mean, 
 ‘he instituted it. | 
 
 τὸ πάσχα. This word is an imitation, in Greek let- 
 ters, of the Hebrew word of later origin, 870, which 
 was used for 7&2, from MOB, ‘to pass over.’ The origin 
 of the rite and the name as explained in Exod. 12:7, 
 18, is familiar to all. ᾿ 
 
 ὃ ὀλοϑρεύων. ‘This is the rendering of the Septua- 
 gint for mnt, in Ex. 12: 23. 
 
 V. 80. χυκλωϑέντα. Some German critics under- 
 stand this word as describing circumvallations, drawn 
 by Joshua around the walls of Jericho. To refute this 
 rendering, it is sufficient to refer to the narrative in 
 Josh. 6:1-21. The walls were “encircled” by the 
 sacred and military procession. 
 
 V. 31. ἡ πόρνη. The Septuagint have rightly 
 used this word for 771, Josh. 2:1. James 2:25 gives 
 to Rahab the same title. The Hebrew word is the 
 feminine participle of 7:3, ‘to commit whoredom ;’ 
 and should not be derived from 771, ‘to feed, or ‘nour- 
 ish.” No such use of πόργη for ‘ hostess’ can be found ; 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. ΧΙ. v. 81]. 497 
 
 and the apostles would not have endorsed a slanderous 
 translation. Still, Rahab may have also exercised the 
 functions of a hostess. 
 
 On all these instances of old believers, it is suffi- 
 cient to make the one remark, that their conduct all 
 iulustrates the same generic principle: an undoubting 
 acceptance of the mere divine word as true, an acting 
 upon it as though the things it revealed or promised 
 were already visible realities, evident to natural reason 
 and sense. 
 
CHAPTER ΧΙ. 32—XII. 11. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 Tue author, to save time, briefly refers to other ex- 
 amples of the ancient worthies, 11: 382-38, declaring 
 in conclusion, that, though they all obtained a good 
 testimony through faith, yet in the divine arrangement 
 they enjoyed not the advantages of the Christian dis- 
 pensation; God having reserved this glorious privilege 
 for us, who thus receive what they saw by faith, and 
 what alone secures to them and us the perfection which 
 we need, vy. 39, 40. 
 
 The Apostle then resumes his exhortation to his 
 readers, to patient and persevering adherence to their 
 profession, notwithstanding all the trials to which it 
 subjected them, 12: 1-13. First, in view of the bright 
 examples which have been just referred to, v. 1. Sec- 
 ond, above all, the efficient help of Christ, to whom 
 they must ever look, and the glorious example which 
 He has set, which they must attentively consider, vv. 
 2,3. Third, the comparative lightness of their trials ; 
 they had not yet reached the extreme, v. 4. Fourth, 
 the proofs of God’s love in them, declared in a quota- 
 tion which represents them as chastisements upon His 
 children, vv. 5, 6; upon which the Apostle remarks, 
 a) that the proof of their sonship depended upon their 
 patient endurance, and ὦ) that to be without trials 
 argued desertion by God, as though they were not true 
 
CHAP. ΧΙ, XII.—ANALYSIS. 429 
 
 children, vv. 7, 8. Fifth, we reverenced our earthly 
 parents, who, subject to all the infirmities of humanity, 
 chastened us as appeared good to them: much more 
 should we cheerfully submit to the chastisements of 
 our spiritual Father, who by them seeks to promote 
 our sanctification and salvation, vv. 9,10. Sixth, this 
 gracious end, though the means were grievous for the 
 present, would certainly follow, v. 11. 
 
430 HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. Vv. 82, 88. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 82 Καὶ τί ἔτε λέγω; Ἐπελείψειε yao μὲ διηγούμενον ὃ 
 ’ ‘ , / Ὕ “ ‘ 
 χρόνος περὲ Γεδεῶν, Sagi τε καὶ Dauwor, καὶ 
 Ἰεφϑάε, Aavid re καὶ Σαμουήλ, καὶ τῶν προφη- 
 88 τῶν " ot διὰ πίστεως κατηγωνίσαντο βασελείας, 
 4 
 εἰργάσαντο δικαιοσύνην, ἐπέτυχον ἐπαγγελεῶν, 
 , Α » 
 34 ἔφραξαν orouara λεόντων, ἔσβεσαν δύναμεν πυ- 
 , » U4 ? 
 00s, ἔφυγον στόματα μαχαέρας, ἐνεδυναμωώϑθησαν 
 ΕἸ \ > Ud Ἴ (i 3 x 7 (4 
 ano ἀσϑενείας, ἐγενηϑησαν ἰσχυροὶ ἐν πολέμῳ, 
 85 παρεμβολὰς ἔκλεναν ἀλλοτρίων " ἔλαβον γυναῖ- 
 γὼ ? r ~ ” 
 κες ἐξ ἀναστάσεως TOUS νεκροὺς αὑτῶν" ἄλλοε δὲ 
 ἐτυμπανίσϑησων, οὐ προςδεξάμενοε τὴν ἀπολύτρω- 
 a a ’ 
 σεν, ἵνα κρείττονος ἀναστάσεως τύχωσιν * 
 
 Va eee λεγω; The verb here may be either 
 subjunctive, or indicative present. If the former, τέ 
 will mean what? giving the sense,‘ What can I say 
 more?’ In the latter case, we must render τέ why? 
 giving the sense, ‘Why doI say more?’ The latter 
 is to be preferred. 
 
 In the following enumeration, the names do not 
 occur in chronological order; nor do the names and 
 deeds correspond each to each, in the order in which 
 they stand. Indeed, several of the acts may be refer- 
 red to the same person, as, on the other hand, it may 
 be meant that several of the persons have performed 
 the same deed of faith. 
 
 V. 33. εἰργάσαντο Otxavoovyny. There is no suf- 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. vv. 34, 35. 481 
 
 ficient reason for limiting these acts of righteousness 
 to the public administration of justice, as is done by 
 some. The general meaning given to the word in 
 the New Test. Lexicons is sufficient evidence of this. 
 In Acts 10:35, Peter says concerning Cornelius’ 
 good deeds, and especially his prayers and alms, “ [ἢ 
 every nation he that feareth God and worketh right- 
 eousness (ἐργαζόμενος dexacoovyny) 15 accepted with 
 him.” 
 
 V. 34. ἀσϑενείας. This word has in like manner 
 been unnecessarily limited to bodily sickness. It is 
 not only illustrated by the sickness of Hezekiah, Is. 
 88:9, but by the cases of Joshua, Barak, Samson, 
 David, and others, of whom no bodily infirmity is 
 related. 
 
 V. 35. ἐξ ἀναστάσεως. 'The preposition ἐκ is 
 used of any source or cause, as is stated in Winer’s Id. 
 New Test. $51. a, p. 297. Its force here is to signify 
 the source from which some believing women, of whom 
 the Shunammite woman in 2 Kings 4:35 is an exam- 
 ple, received their dead again. 
 
 ἐτυμπανέσϑησαν. English version, “were tor- 
 tured.” It is usually supposed that the instances be- 
 fore the Apostle’s mind were those of 2 Maccabees 6: 
 19. What the exact punishment was, it is not easy to 
 ascertain. Most writers suppose that it consisted in 
 stretching the victim on a rack or drum, and beating 
 him to death.. This seems the most probable explana- 
 tion, upon comparing the terms employed by Josephus 
 and Maccabees. The mode of torment may be illus- 
 
482 HEBREWS, OHAP. XI. Vv. 35. 
 
 trated by the modern punishments of the bastinado 
 and breaking on the wheel. 
 
 ov προςδεξάώμενοι τὴν ἀπολύτρωσεν. They would 
 not receive deliverance on the terms proposed to them, 
 viz. recantation or renunciation of their faith. 
 
 κρείττονος ἀναστάσεως. There are three interpre- 
 tations of these words, each giving a different object 
 of comparison. The first is, ‘They preferred martyr- 
 dom to recantation, in order that they might attain a 
 better resurrection than that of apostates and other 
 sinners, the glorious resurrection of saints instead of 
 the fearful one of the lost. According to the second, 
 the object of comparison is the resurrection mentioned 
 in the former part of the verse, that which restored 
 the son of the Shunammite, for instance, to a tempo- 
 rary enjoyment of life in this imperfect world. If this 
 interpretation is adopted, and it seems to us the most 
 probable, we are to understand that it is the author 
 and not the martyrs, who makes the comparison be- 
 tween this boon, and the resurrection to undying bliss 
 to which they aspired. They sought a resurrection, in 
 his opinion, better; they were probably not thinking 
 of any such comparison. The third explanation sup- 
 poses that the present life was the thing contrasted 
 with the resurrection. On this understanding, the 
 contrast is made in the minds of the martyrs them- 
 selves. The two alternatives given them were resto- 
 ration (ἀπολύτρωσεν) to life on condition of apostacy ; 
 or death, with the prospect of a glorious resurrection, 
 They preferred the latter as better than life. 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. vv. 37-40. 483 
 
 36 ἕτεροε δὲ ἐμπαιγμῶν καὶ μαστίγων πεῖραν ἔλα- 
 
 37 Gov, ἔτε δὲ δεσμῶν καὶ φυλακῆς ἐλεϑαάσϑησαν, 
 ἐπρίσϑησαν, ἐπεεράσϑησαν, ἐν φόνῳ μαχαίρας 
 ἀπέϑανον" περιῆλθον ὃν μηλωταῖς, ἐν αἰγείοις 
 δέρμωσεν, ὑστερούμενοι, ϑλεβόμενοι, κακουχού- 
 
 38 μενοι, (ὧν οὐκ ἣν ἄξιος ὃ κόσμος,) ἕν ἐρημίαις 
 πλανώμενος καὶ ὄρεσε, καὶ σπηλαίοις καὶ ταῖς 
 
 39 ὀπαῖς τῆς γῆς. Καὶ οὗτοι πάντες μαρτυρηϑέντες 
 διὰ τῆς πίστεως, οὐκ δχομίσαντο τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν, 
 
 40 τοῦ ϑεοῦ περὸ ἡμῶν κρεῖττόν τε προβϑλεψαμένου, 
 ive μὴ χωρὶς ἡμῶν τελεεωϑῶσε. 
 
 V. 81. ἐπειράσϑησαν. There seems to be a diffi- 
 culty in the presence of a general word like this, in the 
 midst of specific terms. Various readings have been 
 suggested, but all unsustained. Several manuscripts, 
 the Syriac and AXthiopic versions, and two or three 
 of the Fathers, omit it; but this is not sufficient to 
 authorize its omission from the text. Most probably 
 it refers to the severe trials of the faith of the old 
 saints in the various tortures and sufferings which 
 they underwent. 
 
 V. 89. τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν. The clause here is the 
 same as in 10:36 above, and presents an instance of 
 metonymy equally clear. The promise is set for the 
 thing promised. The latter they did not possess, 
 during their mortal life, but only looked for it with a 
 prospective faith. 
 
 V. 40. χρεῖττόν τε. There is much dispute what 
 this better thing is. That the fathers under the old 
 dispensation did receive the temporal blessings prom- 
 
 28 
 
484 HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. v. 40. 
 
 ised, history and the Apostle himself declare. Besides, 
 the ‘ better thing’ was something which they all alike 
 failed to possess (οὗτοι πάντες οὐκ ἐχομίσαντο), and 
 some at least, as Gideon, Samuel, David, enjoyed a full 
 share of these temporal blessings. That the old saints 
 received the eternal rewards of their piety, both his- 
 tory and the Apostle teach. To see this we need only 
 refer to ch. 4, where God’s rest is proposed to them as 
 tous. The ‘better something’ then can only be the 
 promised Messiah (ἐπαγγελέαν), the object of their 
 faith and intense desire, and the sole ground of the 
 perfect blessings of redemption to believers of every 
 age. In 9:15 above, we learn that the transgressions 
 under the first testament were redeemed by Him. 
 The privilege of seeing Christ, of knowing that the 
 work of atonement was complete, of having a spiritual 
 instead of a typical dispensation, were provided for us, 
 in preference to Old Testament believers. The pas- 
 sage may be illustrated by Matt. 13:16, 17. By re- 
 ferring to this superior privilege, the author would 
 arouse in his readers a grateful emulation, and thus 
 prepare them for the exhortation which follows in 
 #2: 1. 
 
 xin. Τοιγαροῦν καὶ ἡμεῖς, τοσοῦτον ἔχοντες πε- 
 ρεπείμενον ἡμῖν νέφος μαρτύρων, ὄγκον ἀποϑέμε- 
 yo. πώντα, καὶ τὴν εὐπερίστατον ἁμαρτίαν, δὲ 
 ὑπομονῆς τρέχωμεν τὸν προκείμενον ἡμῖν ἀγῶνα" 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. XII. Vv. 1. 435 
 
 2 ἀφορῶντες εἰς τὸν τῆς πίστεως ἀρχηγὸν καὶ τελεεω- 
 τὴν Ἰησοῦν, ὃς ἀντὶ τῆς προχεεμένης αὑτῷ χαρᾶς, 
 ὑπέμεινε σταυρόν, αἰσχύνης καταφρονήσας, ἐν δεξεᾷ 
 
 8 re τοῦ ϑρόνου τοῦ ϑεοῦ xexadixev. ‘Avahoyt- 
 σασϑε γὰρ τὸν τοιαύτην ὑπομεμενηκότα ὑπὸ τῶν 
 ἁμαρτωλῶν εἰς αὑτὸν ἀντελογίαν, ἵνα μὴ κάμητε 
 
 4 ταῖς ψυχαῖς ὑμῶν, ἐχλυόμενο. Οὔπω μέχρις 
 αἵματος ἀντικατέστητε πρὸς τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἄντα- 
 γωνεζόμενοε" 
 
 V.1. μαρτύρων. The original sense of this word 
 is, ‘witnesses.’ Often it means witnesses forensically, 
 but oftener it is used generally of any one testifying 
 what he has seen, heard, or had revealed. In the last 
 sense, even Christ is called 6 μάρτυς 6 πεστός, Rev. 1: 
 5, 3:14. With this may be compared the symbolical 
 witnesses of Rey. 11:3. ‘This witnessing, in the com- 
 mon uses of the word, is by mouth. In Acts 22:20, 
 Rev. 2:18, 17:6, Stephen, Antipas, and the martyrs 
 of Jesus, witnessed also by their death; whence the 
 word passed to the ecclesiastical writers in the sense 
 of ‘martyrs,’ ‘ confessors,’ 1. 6. those who die or suffer 
 for the truth; a sense not found in the classics. The 
 idea of testemony seems therefore in all cases prominent 
 in the word. Hence Wahl says here, it is used ‘de 
 personis exemplo suo testantibus aliquid.’ Bretschnei- 
 der renders, ‘ testis qui suo exemplo testatur, confirmat 
 aliquid” Both cite Jos. contra Apion. 1.7. No ex- 
 ample has been adduced where the word is used in the 
 sense of ‘spectator’ simply. We therefore adhere to 
 the sense of ‘ witnesses,’ here, i. 6. those who by the 
 
436 HEBREWS, OHAP. XII. V. l. 
 
 examples of their faith have testified to God and his 
 promises, and his service. The possession of such a 
 cloud of glorious examples is a powerful stimulus to 
 perseverance. 
 
 ὄγκον. This noun in general means ‘a burden,’ 
 ‘incumbrance.’ The English version has well rendered 
 it ‘weight,’ having in view the idea of a race. 
 
 εὐπερίστατον ἁμαρτίαν. This adjective occurs 
 nowhere else in the New Test. It is evidently from 
 περεΐστημε, Whence we have the noun περέστασες, 
 meaning ‘circumstance,’ ‘condition,’ and then ‘peril, 
 ‘trouble, the adjective ὠπερέστατος meaning ‘free 
 from danger or trouble, and (according to Liddell & 
 Scott) also, ‘helpless, ‘defenceless;’ and therefore 
 εὐπερίστατος would mean ‘full of danger, &c. Thus 
 many render it. Others, taking it actively from περε- 
 iornut, render it ‘besetting on every hand.’ This is 
 the interpretation of Chrysostom, ἡ εὐκόλως περεῖστά- 
 uwvn ἡμᾶς. These two senses amount to the same, and 
 are the best. Some, deriving from περίστατος, ‘ sur- 
 rounded by,’ &ec. understand εὐπερίστατον here as 
 ‘well surrounded,’ i. 6. ‘popular’ Others render it 
 ‘well wound around us,’ like a garment; a sense which 
 presents a slight resemblance to περέκεεταε ἀσϑένεεαν, 
 in 5:2 above. So substantially translate Kuinoél and 
 Bloomfield. Upon any interpretation, καὶ must be 
 rendered ‘even’ or ‘especially. Compare Winer’s Id. 
 New Test. $57. 2.(d), p. 844. The question still re- 
 mains, whether the Apostle intends by éuaeriay some 
 peculiar besetting sin, or sin in general, as that which 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. XII. Vv. 2. 437 
 
 besets us on every hand. On this it may be suflicient 
 to say, that neither of these senses can be shown to be 
 inappropriate. 
 
 ἀγῶνα. This word denotes generally ‘any con- 
 test’ in the games. Hence those who strove were 
 ἀγωνίσταε. ‘The contest here is that of a race, a figure 
 used by the Apostle Paul in Acts 20:24, 1 Cor. 9: 
 94-96, Gal. 5:7, 2 Tim. 4:7; a slight argument for 
 his authorship of this Epistle. 
 
 V.2. ἀφορῶντες. Christians must run ‘looking 
 off’ from every thing else to Jesus. 
 
 ἀρχηγὸν καὶ τελεεωτήν. Properly these words 
 signify ‘author and finisher” It is proper to regard 
 them as referring to the race in which Christians are 
 engaged. But they convey a deeper meaning than 
 the word ἀγωνοϑέτης, or βραβευτής, by which some 
 have proposed to explain them. The Apostle, in di- 
 recting us to look to Christ in the race of our faith, 
 proposes him as more than the ‘director’ and ‘um- 
 pire’ of the games. We prefer to give to τελεεωτῆς 
 here, the same meaning which was first indicated in 
 the remarks on 2:10 above. The author teaches us 
 that Christ engages us in this race at first, that it 
 is His help and strength which bring us to the goal, 
 and that itis He who crowns us with glory at the 
 last. 
 
 σταυρὸν... αἰσχύνης. The omission of the article 
 before these words is noticeable. It would be better 
 to suppose that it was intentional, and that the writer 
 intended by it to give a general sense to the phrase, 
 
438 HEBREWS, OHAP. XII. vv. 8, 4. 
 
 than to supply them arbitrarily as is done by the 
 English version. 
 
 ἐχάϑεσεν. The best manuscripts and the early 
 critical editions read here the perfect indicative active, 
 κεκάϑεκεν. 
 
 V. 8. ἀντελογίαν. This noun occurs in the New 
 Test. only here, in 6:16, and 7:7 above, and in Jude 
 11. In this place it seems to denote, not merely con- 
 tradiction by words, as in the two places above, but 
 also by deed. Such is its sense in Jude 11, ὠντελογέᾳ 
 τοῦ Κορέ, ‘the gainsaying of Corah, in the English 
 version. His opposition to Moses was not limited to 
 verbal contradiction. 
 
 ταῖς ψυχαῖς may be construed either with zaunre 
 or ἐχλυόμενοι. Both the words seem to_be borrowed 
 from the palestra, the figure of which is still prevalent 
 in the writer’s mind. 
 
 V.4. ἁμαρτίαν. Many explain this as an ab- 
 stract used for a concrete, ‘striving against sinners.’ 
 Others more properly understand it as a personifica- 
 tion, and suppose an allusion to the παγκράτεον. 
 Their contest was with sin in all its opposing forms 
 within and without. 
 
 5 καὶ ἐκλέλησϑε τῆς παρακλήσεως, ἥτες ὑμῖν ὡς υἱοῖς 
 δεαλέγεταε" “υἱέ μου, μὴ ὀλεγώρεε παιδείας κυ- 
 6 ρέου, μηδὲ ἐχλύου Um αὐτοῦ ἐλεγχόμενος " ὃν γὰρ 
 ἀγαπᾷ κύριος, παεδεύεε" μαστεγοῖ δὲ πάντα υἱὸν 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. XII. Vv. 5, 6. 489 
 
 ra) f 9” 2 , ε f ε cs 
 7 ov παραδέχεται." Ei παιδείαν ὑπομένετε, ὡς υἱοῖς 
 ~ U4 , Uf > lA 
 
 ὑμῖν moospégerace ὃ ϑεός" τίς γάρ ἔστεν υἱός, ὃν OV 
 
 is ΓΙ ΕἸ 3 ct f 
 
 8 παιδεύεε πατήρ; Ei δὲ χωρίς ἐστε παιδείας, ἧς μέ- 
 
 ie te ” , > τὴ 
 
 royoe γεγόνασε πάντες" ἄρα νοϑὸοε ἐστέ, καὶ οὐχ 
 € ἐς 
 viol. 
 
 V.5. παρακλήσεως. Some translate this ‘ conso- 
 lation;’ others with more judgment, ‘exhortation.’ 
 The quotation is from Prov. 8:11, 12, and follows the 
 Septuagint in the main, except that our author writes 
 vié μου (according to the Hebrew 333), while the Sept. 
 omit μου, and that he employs zacdevec in place of 
 ἐλέγχεε, which the Seventy use. 
 
 παιδείας. The Hebrew here is 70%. Its sense is 
 clearly indicated by its employment in Prov. 22:15, 
 where “ΟΣ 030 is ‘the rod of correction,’ and in Prov. 
 28: 18, ‘ Withhold not correction from a child’ (79%). 
 We must therefore give to παεδεέας here, the transla- 
 tion ‘correction,’ ‘chastisement ;’ a sense which it does 
 not bear in classic Greek. 
 
 V. 6. παεδεύεε will of course receive here the 
 same meaning with its kindred noun above. 
 
 μαστιγοῖ δὲ πάντα υἱόν, κιτ.Δ. The Hebrew here 
 is, MEI ἸΞΓῸΝ asi, ‘and as ἃ father the son (whom) 
 he loveth. It would seem as though the Septuagint, 
 whom the writer here follows, had derived the word 
 ax>" by attributing to it a different pointing, from the 
 verb 282 (in the Hiphil meaning ‘to cause pain’), in- 
 stead of the noun 28. But they give the sense of the 
 original with substantial accuracy. 
 
440 HEBREWS, OHAP. XII. vv. 7, 9. 
 
 V.%. Ei παεδείαν. Some respectable manuscripts, 
 and the Syriac, Vulgate, Coptic, Aithiopic, and Arabie 
 versions read εἰς here in place of εἰ The general scope 
 remains the same, whichever of these readings is adopt- 
 ed. If weread εἰς παιδείαν, the verb ὑπομένετε is 
 imperative and intransitive, and we have the sense, 
 ‘Be patient to the correction; God dealeth with you 
 as children’ (Of this sense in ὑπομένω we haye an 
 example, Matt. 10: 22, ὁ δὲ ὑπομείνας εἰς τέλος.) But 
 if we read εὐ, we obtain the rendering given in the 
 English version: “If ye endure chastening, God deal- 
 eth with you as with sons.” The latter is most prob- 
 ably correct; for the correlative expression at the 
 beginning of ν. 8, Ed δὲ χωρές, #.r.A. requires it. 
 
 9 Eira τοὺς μὲν τῆς σαρχὸς ἡμῶν πατέρας εἴχομεν 
 παιδευτώς, καὶ ἐνετρεπόμείδα οὐ πολλῷ μᾶλλον 
 ὑποταγησόμεϑα τῷ πατρὶ τῶν πνευμάτων, καὶ 
 
 10 ζήσομεν; Of μὲν γὰρ πρὸς ὀλίγας ἡμέρας, κατὰ 
 τὸ δοκοῦν αὐτοῖς, ἐπαίδενον " ὃ δὲ ἐπὶ τὸ συμι- 
 φέρον, εἰς τὸ μεταλαβεῖν τῆς ἀἁγεότητος αὐτοῦ. 
 
 11 Ldoa δὲ παιδεία πρὸς μὲν τὸ παρὸν οὐ δοκεὶ χα- 
 ρῶς sivat, ἀλλὰ λύπης ὕστερον δὲ καρπὸν εἰρη- 
 vexov τοῖς δὲ αὐτῆς γεγυμνασμένοις ἀποδίδωσε 
 δικαιοσύνης. 
 
 V. 9. τοὺς μὲν τῆς σαρχὸς ἡμῶν πατέρας... 
 τῷ πατρὶ τῶν πνευμάτων. It is very manifest that 
 these expressions indicate our human parents and God. 
 They are evidently antithetic, and the interpretation 
 
ἘΠΕ ον ΗΠ (OHAP.. χα θέ VOD 441 
 
 of the one must influence that of the other. ἡμῶν, 
 however, is not necessarily to be understood in the 
 second. The fact of its omission 15 an argument against 
 supplying it, if the sense is good and natural without 
 it. If, with many interpreters, we understand the 
 second phrase to designate God as ‘the Creator of 
 souls, then the first must mean, ‘the fathers of our 
 bodies.’ This antithesis, besides that it does not so 
 well suit the context, would rather require σωμάτων 
 for σαρκὸς in the first member. But if that first mem- 
 ber means, as the best commentators agree, ‘our natu- 
 ral (earthly, fathers, flesh and blood, frail and corrupt 
 like ourselves, then the latter, τῷ πατρὶ τῶν πνευμά- 
 των, designates God as the exalted ‘ Father of spirits, 
 i.e. a spirit (not flesh) above all others, and a father 
 to our parents and us alike. (This view of the sense is 
 illustrated and confirmed by Rom. 9:8, ov τὰ τέκνα 
 τῆς σαρκός, ταῦτα τέκνα τοῦ ϑεοῦ" ἀλλὰ τὰ τέκνα 
 τῆς ἐπαγγελίας λογίέζεταε εἰς σπέρμα.) This makes 
 an easy antithesis; or, we may supply ἡμεῶν, as many 
 do, and then interpret ‘the Father of owr spirits,’ with 
 reference to our regeneration and adoption, whence 
 we are called, in John 1:12, τέκνα ϑεοῦ. But the 
 former view is preferable. 
 
 The passage then, rightly interpreted, furnishes no 
 proof against ‘the propagation of souls’ (ex traduce), 
 none in favour of the creation of them. It only desig- 
 nates the exalted Father of spirits, in contradistinction 
 to our earthly parents as weak and liable to err. The 
 advocates of the theory of the immediate creation of 
 
442 HEBREWS, CHAP. XII. Vv. 9. 
 
 souls, in opposing their propagation, cite Numb. 16: 
 22, 27:16, “O God (the Lord) the God of the spirits 
 of all flesh.” Zech. 12:1, “The Lord which stretcheth 
 forth the heavens, &c. and formeth the spirit of man 
 within him.” Is. 57:16, “I will not contend, &e. for 
 the spirit should fail before me, and the souls which I 
 have made.” Eccl. 12:7, “Then shall the dust return 
 to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return unto 
 God who gave it.” But let it be remembered that 
 the soul was more honourable in its creation than the 
 body, and is so in its nature, as the sentient, moral, 
 immortal principle in man. It is therefore. often taken 
 for the whole man, as in Is. 57:16. So the heart is 
 sometimes taken. Compare Ps. 38:15, “He fashion- 
 eth their hearts alike” (Heb. 772. Rosenmiiller ob- 
 serves, ‘ pariter, nullo excepto’). The original creation 
 of the soul is furthermore often included in enumera- 
 tions of the mighty works of God, designed to heighten 
 our ideas of his majesty, and introductory to some 
 solemn communication. Thus the passage cited from 
 Zech. 12:1 is to be explained. Compare with it Ps. 
 94:9, “He that planted the ear, shall not he hear? 
 He that formed the eye, shall not he see?” ἄρ. Is. 
 42:5, “Thus saith God the Lord, He that created the 
 heavens... He that spread forth the earth... He 
 that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit 
 to them that walk therein,” &e. And since the same 
 divine power which created, is ever active to preserve 
 being, and keep natural laws in force, we see such pas- 
 sages as those from Numb. 16:22, 27:16. (Zech. 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. XII. Vv. 10, 11. 4438 
 
 12:11is more probably a historic present.) In Jer. 
 32:27 God says, “ Behold, I am the Lord, the God of 
 all flesh ; is any thing too hard for me?” &. 1:5, 
 “ Before I formed thee im the belly 1 knew thee.” As 
 to Eccl. 12:7, the terms plainly refer to the original 
 creation; and if the passage teaches that every spirit 
 is directly from God, it equally teaches that every 
 body is taken directly from the ground. Gen. 2:1, 2 
 hardly proves any thing against the theory of creation. 
 The genus man, like others, was then made, and the 
 law of reproductive succession established: what that 
 law is, is the question. Of more weight is Gen. 5: ὃ, 
 Adam ‘begat (a son) in his own likeness after his 
 image.’ This image can hardly be confined to the 
 physical man, but must embrace the mental and 
 moral. But moral corruption can be affirmed only 
 of the soul. Those who wish to pursue this subject 
 farther, are referred to Turretin. Instit. Theolog. 
 Elenck Vol. 1. Locus Quintus, Quest. XII. Vu- 
 ginia Literary and Evang. Magazine, Vol. IV. pp. 
 285-292. 
 
 καὶ ζήσομεν; Here καὶ connects a consequence: 
 ‘Shall we not much rather be in subjection to the 
 Father of spirits so as to live?” See Winer’s Id. New 
 Test. §57. 2. (ὁ), p. 848. 
 
 V. 10. κατὰ τὸ δοκοῦν, ‘According to their 
 judging” It is implied that this was with imperfec- 
 tion, sometimes with passion and injustice. 
 
 V.11. Μᾶσα δὲ παιδεία... οὐ δοκεῖ. This is a 
 Hebraism for οὐδεμέα παιδεία δοκεῖ. οὐ πᾶσα, κ-τ.λ. 
 
444 HEBREWS, CHAP. XII. Vv. ἅς 
 
 would signify a different thing: ‘ Not every correction 
 seemeth joyful ;’ implying that some corrections did. 
 
 καρπὸν εἰρηνεκόν. We may with equal propriety 
 render this phrase, ‘healthful, ‘salutary fruit, or 
 ‘happy,’ ‘blessed’ The» phrase is eminently appropri- 
 ate, for afflictions are agitating and affect the soul as 
 a storm; while their sanctified results are marked by 
 acalm and sweetness in pleasing contrast with the 
 confusion. \ 
 
 καρπὸν δωεαεοσύνης. This may be explained as a 
 genitive of apposition, or of explication. In the one 
 case, the peaceable fruit is righteousness ; in the other, 
 it is of an upright character. See Winer’s Id. New 
 Test. 848. 2, p. 284. 
 
CHAPTER XII. 12—29. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 Tue Apostle takes occasion, from the considera- 
 tions just advanced, to encourage his readers in their 
 Christian life, vv. 12, 18, adding several appropriate 
 exhortations and cautions, vv. 14-17. He still has in 
 view the confirmation of his readers, and enforces 
 (γὰρ) his exhortations by an animated and sublime 
 contrast of the awful terrors of the old dispensation 
 on the one hand, betokening its own insufliciency to 
 clothe in garments of grace the God of justice, vv. 18— 
 21; and on the other, the glorious and merciful char- 
 acter of the new, uniting in one family believers on 
 earth to the angels and saints in heaven, to a recon- 
 ciled God and to Jesus, whose mediation and atoning 
 blood secured this wonderful triumph of grace, vy. 
 22-24. He again exhorts them not to reject Christ, 
 admonishing them of the far greater destruction which 
 awaited those who did so, than overtook those who re- 
 fused to hear Moses of old; and reminding them that 
 He whose voice caused the earth to tremble at the set- 
 ting up of the old dispensation, would, according to 
 the prophet, set up another, better and enduring for- 
 ever, a8 intimated by the terms and imagery of the 
 prediction, vv. 25-27. He concludes by calling upon 
 
446 CHAP. XII.—ANALYSIS. 
 
 them therefore again, as they lived under such a 
 dispensation, to have grace by which to serve God 
 acceptably ; for God was still, to his enemies, a con- 
 suming fire, vv. 28, 29. 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. XII. v. 12. 447 
 
 4 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 12 Ζεωὸ τὰς παρειμένας χεῖρας καὶ τὰ παραλελυμένα 
 
 18 γόνατα ἀνορϑωσατε. καὶ τροχεὰς ὀρϑὰς ποιή- 
 σατε τοῖς ποσὶν ὑμῶν, ἵνα μὴ τὸ χωλὸν ἐχτραπῇ, 
 
 14 ἐαϑὴ δὲ μᾶλλον. Εἰρήνην διώκετε μετὰ πάντων, 
 καὶ τὸν ἁγεασμόν, οὗ χωρὶς οὐδεὶς ὄψεταε τὸν κύ- 
 
 15 ρέον᾿ ἐπισκοποῦντες, μή τες ὑστερῶν ἀπὸ τῆς χά- 
 ρέτος τοῦ ϑεοῦ" μή τες ῥίζα πεκρέας ἄνω φύουσα 
 
 16 ἐνοχλῇ, καὶ Ove ταύτης μεανϑῶσε πολλοί" μή τες 
 πόρνος, ἢ βέβηλος ὡς Ἠσαῦ, ὃς ἀντὲ βρώσεως μεᾶς 
 
 17 ἀπέδοτο τὰ πρωτοτόχεα αὑτοῦ" ἴστε γάρ, ὅτε 
 καὶ μετέπειτα ϑέλων κληρονομῆσαι τὴν εὐλογίαν, 
 ἀπεδοκεμάσϑη" μετανοίας γὰρ τόπον οὐχ εὗρε, 
 καίπερ μετὰ δακρύων ἐκζητήσας αὐτήν. 
 
 V.12. ἀνορϑώσατε. The literal meaning of this 
 verb is ‘straighten up.’ The English version renders 
 it “lift up;” asense which applies better to its first 
 object, ‘hands,’ than its second, ‘knees.’ The words 
 of the Apostle seem to contain an evident allusion to 
 Is. 35: 3, “Strengthen ye the weak hands, and confirm 
 the feeble knees,” of which the Hebrew is 0°) ὙΠ 
 maAX Niwa oan mip}, and the Septuagint version, 
 ἰσχύσατε χεῖρες ἀνεέμεναε, καὶ γονατὰ παραλελυμένα. 
 The Septuagint also use ὠνορϑόω for 72 and for spr. 
 Its meaning here is, ‘to strengthen, ‘confirm.’ The 
 sense of God’s favour sustains us when sinking under 
 discouragements and trials. 420, ‘therefore’ (viz. be- 
 
448 HEBREWS, OHAP. XII. v. 18. 
 
 cause those trials yield afterwards the peaceable fruit 
 of righteousness), ‘strengthen the relaxed hands and 
 the paralyzed knees.” ‘The toils of the palestra are 
 still in view. 
 
 V. 13. τροχεὰς ὀρϑάς. This expressive figure 
 may have been borrowed from Prov. 4: 26, &c., ὀρθὰς - 
 τροχεὰς ποιεῖ σοῖς MOOL... τὰς ὅδους κατεύϑυνε" μὴ 
 ἐχκλενῆς εἰς τὰ δέξεα μηδὲ εἰς τὰ ὠρεστέρα, ἀπόστρε- 
 wov δὲ σὸν πόδα ἀπὸ ὅδου κακῆς. Calvin remarks on 
 these words of our Epistle, “Nunc secundum adjungit, 
 nempe ut prudenter ambulemus, ac teneamus rectum 
 cursum.” ‘The Apostle’s meaning evidently is, ‘ Pursue 
 the path of duty without swerving through fear, love 
 of ease, worldly gain, or any other cause.’ 
 
 χωλόν. The sense of the Apostle is manifestly, 
 from the context, this: ‘Lest the maimed member 
 (whether knee or any other) be turned aside from 
 that straight road of duty; and thus, becoming en- 
 tangled in inextricable difficulties in devious paths, be- 
 come hopelessly crippled. On the contrary, the effort 
 should be to secure its restoration by diligently follow- 
 ing the healthful road of rectitude.’ Stripped of the 
 figure, this teaches that the spiritual weakness which 
 yields to trial is increased into a hopeless impotence 
 by so yielding, but is healed by a hearty and manful 
 resistance to temptation. The form of the expression 
 in 1 Kings 18:21 may illustrate the Apostle’s lan- 
 guage here: “How long halt ye between two opin- 
 ions?” This the Septuagint have rendered, ἕως πότε 
 
 ~ ~ > f ~ / ‘ 
 ὑμεῖς yodurveire ἐπὶ ὠμφοτέραες ταῖς ἰγνύαες : appa 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. XII. vv. 14, 15. 449 
 
 rently mistaking 08907 for ‘limbs’ instead of ‘ partes, 
 ‘ alternatives.’ : 
 
 ἐκτραπῇ. Some translate this ‘be strained, dislo- 
 cated,’ but without the authority of usage, and without 
 necessity. The spiritually halting ‘turn aside’ when 
 others make for them rough and crooked ways; the 
 fearless and faithful course of others confirms and saves 
 them. 
 
 V. 14. χαὶ τὸν ἁγιασμόν. This word every 
 where in the New Test. signifies ‘sanctification,’ ‘ holi- 
 ness. In 1 Cor 1:30 it is used by metonymy for the 
 author of sanctification. 
 
 V.15. ὑστερῶν. To this clause, τὴς ὑστερῶν, as 
 well as the two similar following ones, μή τὲς 6/c and 
 μή τίς πόρνος, the substantive verb ἢ must be Sup- 
 pled. It should be rendered, ‘lest any one fail of, 
 ‘come short of ;’ a sense which was seen in 4: 1 above. 
 Some render it to ‘fail from,’ ‘apostatize from.’ But 
 this is ‘a rare and doubtful sense of the word, of which 
 no instance occurs in the New Test. although one is 
 found in the Septuagint, Ecclus. 7:34, μὴ ὑστερεῖ ἀπὸ 
 κλαιόντων, καὶ μετὰ πενϑοῦντων πένϑησον, “ Desert 
 not those that weep,” &e. 
 
 ἀπὸ τῆς χάρετος, κιτ.ι}. Some understand by this, 
 ‘the Christian religion or dispensation” If the sense 
 of ‘deserting’ were given to ὑστερῶν, this meaning 
 would be intelligible ; but we would scarcely speak of 
 one’s coming short of the Christian dispensation, in 
 such a connexion as this. It is better to understand 
 by it ‘the grace of God,’ sanctifying and saving the 
 
 29 
 
450 HEBREWS, OHAP. XII. v. 16. 
 
 soul. Of attaining unto, or coming short of, that 
 grace, one would naturally speak. 
 
 τες ῥίζα πεκρέας. This phrase seems to be intend- 
 ed to describe generally ‘any evil-doer” and worker 
 of mischief. But there is a manifest allusion to Deut. 
 29:17, ped) Ok Mb Dy 22 τὸ 15; Septuagint 29: 
 18, μή τες ἐστὴὲν ἐν ὑμῖν bila ἄνω φύουσα ἐν χόλῃ καὶ 
 atxoia. ‘These words most probably describe the idol- 
 aters just spoken of; and therefore the Apostle may 
 here principally mean men who, destitute of the grace 
 of God, apostatize from the faith, and corrupt others. 
 
 ἐνοχλῇ. Some critics conjecture, against the au- 
 thority ‘of the manuscripts and versions, that this 
 should be read ἐν yody. The original and the Sept. 
 version just quoted may be compared. But even in 
 this quotation seven manuscripts of the Septuagint, in- 
 cluding the Alexandrine, read ἐγοχλῇ instead of ἐν 
 χόλῃ. But the Apostle does not quote the Septuagint, 
 and therefore its reading does not determine ours here. 
 There need be no reluctance to admit ἐγοχλῇ as a 
 verb, signifying ‘to involve in tumult,’ ‘to trouble,’ for 
 though it does not occur elsewhere in the New Test. 
 there is both Septuagint and classic usage for it. 
 
 V.16. πόρνος. Many understand by this word, 
 the spiritual fornication of idolatry, regarding it as an — 
 imitation of the Hebrew usage. While that figurative 
 sense is indisputable in the Hebrew (consult Gesen. 
 Heb. Lex. art. 727), the words πόρνος, πόρνη, nowhere 
 have this sense in the New Test. In Revelation, after 
 the manner of the prophets, πόρνη and πορνεία are 80 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. στ, Ve 17. 451 
 
 used. Other interpreters render πόρνος here more 
 generally, but still figuratively, * profligates,’ ‘wicked 
 sensualists. For this sense there seems to be some 
 countenance in the use of Moyot καὶ μοιχαλέδες, in 
 James 4:4, and less in Tevece πονηρὰ καὶ μοεχαλές, m 
 Matt. 12:39, 16:4, Mark 8:38. But there seems to 
 be no objection to understanding it literally, as it must 
 be undoubtedly understood in 18:4 below. There is 
 every reason to suppose, from Gen. 26:34, 35, and 28: 
 8, 9, that this, as well as profane unbelief, was among 
 the sins of Esau; or else, there is no valid objection to 
 reading the passage, μή τές πόρνος, ἢ βέβηλος ac 
 Ἠσαῦ, so as to make the words we Ἡσαῦ attributive 
 only to the latter. 
 
 βέβηλος is opposed in the Sept. to ἅγεος for the 
 Hebrew ὅπ. Here, as the context defines, it signifies 
 a profane person who lightly esteems sacred things, 
 and prefers earthly to spiritual blessings. Esau’s sin 
 is detailed in the well-known narrative of Gen. 25: 
 32-384. 
 
 βρώσεως. This word means literally, the ‘act of 
 eating,’ and thence, ‘a meal.’ Thus, in Gen. 25: 34, 
 we read that Esau, for a single meal of bread and pot- 
 tage, exchanged his birthright. <A little delay and 
 patience might have satisfied his hunger innocently at 
 his mother’s tent; so that, however keen it might 
 have been, his impatient act indicated an exceedingly 
 contemptuous estimate of these privileges. 
 
 V.17. μετανοίας τόπον. This passage has been 
 supposed to involve peculiar difficulty, because it seems, 
 
452 HEBREWS, OHAP. XII. v. 17. 
 
 at the first glance, to contradict all the precious prom- 
 ises of certain pardon to the true penitent, by present- 
 ing one case in which such repentance was rejected. 
 The difficulty is increased, it is supposed, by the em- 
 ployment of μετανοίας, the word which uniformly 
 means ‘true, saving repentance’ in the New Test.; 
 and not μεταμέλεεας, the common word for ‘carnal 
 regret. Many and the best modern commentators 
 take μετανοίας here in the primitive and classic sense 
 of ‘a change of mind,’ and suppose the words to apply 
 to Isaac. It was Isaac’s change of mind (as to the 
 blessing) for which Esau could find no place. This 
 view is strongly favoured by the history of the case. 
 These commentators understand αὐτὴν as referring to 
 μετανοίας: compare Gen. 27: 30-40, and especially 
 vy. 38-88. It is there seen that, in fact, the thing 
 sought by Esau with tears was a change of purpose in 
 Isaac, as to the patriarchal blessing pronounced on Ja- 
 cob. The Apostle refers to the fact as notorious, Tore 
 γάρ. But there is nowhere any indication that Esau 
 sought to repair the siz of his own contemptuous and 
 impious act by evangelical repentance. Other com- 
 mentators, among whom is Calvin, refer μετανοίας 
 τόπον to Esau, and αὐτὴν to εὐλογίαν; a view which 
 avoids the difficulty stated in the outset; for Esan is 
 not represented as seeking a true repentance and being 
 rejected, but only as seeking a selfish advantage; and 
 it is implied that the reason he found no place for 
 repentance was, that he did not truly seek it. But 
 both these interpretations take μετανοίας out of the 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. xIt. v. 17 453 
 
 sense which, we believe, both it and the verb wercevoé 
 every where sustain in the New Test. even in Luke 17: 
 ὃ, 4, viz. ‘true repentance unto life’ But it does not 
 seem to us impossible to give this sense to wercvolac, 
 whether we adopt the interpretation first mentioned, 
 or that of Calvin. If we refer μετανοίας to Isaac, it 
 is not unreasonable to suppose that the Apostle used 
 it in its New Test. sense; for Isaac being a true man 
 of God, the only condition on which he would reverse 
 his action in the matter would be such an apprehen- 
 sion of his error, as would be accompanied with some 
 degree of godly sorrow in his pious mind. But that 
 could not be; because Isaac felt that he had done 
 right (Gen. 27:33), being guided by inspiration. But 
 if we refer μετανοίας to Esau, in the sense of true re- - 
 pentance, it would not teach that Esau truly repented 
 of his error. It would only state that he found re- 
 pentance was too late, and therefore had no place, or 
 was of no avail. So do they, who say too late, “ Lord, 
 Lord, open unto us.” Compare Hebr. 6: 4-6. The 
 modern interpretation is preferable. 
 
 18 Οὐ yao προςεληλύϑατε ψηλαφωμένῳ Oost, καὶ 
 κεκαυμένῳ πυρέ, καὶ γνόφῳ καὶ σκότῳ καὶ ϑυέλ- 
 19 Ay, xut σάλπιγγος ἤχῳ καὶ φωνῇ ῥημάτων, ἧς Ob 
 ἀκούσαντες παρῃτήσαντο, μὴ προςτεϑῆναε αὐτοῖς 
 20 λόγον" (οὐκ ἔφερον γὰρ τὸ διαστελλόμενον “κἀν 
 ϑηρίον ϑίγῃ τοῦ ὄρους, λεϑοβοληϑήσεται" [ἢ βο- 
 
454 HEBREWS, CHAP. XII. Vv. 18, 19. 
 
 / . 3 
 21 Aide xararogsvInosrac| καὶ --- οὕτω φοβερὸν ἦν 
 Ἂ , 902k “ὦ τ ἐς Ὁ ΄ > 
 τὸ φανταζόμενον — Mavons simey “ ἔκφοβος shut 
 x » lf ” 
 22 καὶ évreouos*”) ἀλλὰ προςεληλύϑατε Σεὼν ὄρεε, 
 Ἀ f 4 ~ ~ .« Ὕ 
 καὶ mohse ϑεοῦ ζῶντος, Ἱερουσαλὴκε ἐπουρανέῳ, 
 ‘ / > , 
 23 καὶ μυρεώσεν, ἀγγέλων πανηγύρει, καὶ ἐκκλησίᾳ 
 ΄ ’ ’ ~ > 
 TOWTOTOXMY ἕν οὐρανοῖς ἀπογεγραμμένων, καὶ 
 ~ ~ , 
 κριτῇ, ϑεῷ πάντων, καὶ πνεύμασε δικαίων TETE- 
 Γ \ a Ud , > ~ κ 
 24 λεεωμένων, καὶ διωϑήκης νέας μεσίτῃ, Ἰησοῦ, καὶ 
 αἵματε ῥαντισμοῦ, κρείττονα λαλοῦντε παρὰ τὸν 
 
 “4Δ8ελ. 
 
 V. 18. ψηλαφωμένῳ. This is the word of the 
 Sept. for wa, while they use ¢arouae for 539. In 
 Exod. 19:12, 13, it is said that the mountain must 
 not be touched. The Apostle here would describe it 
 as a tangible (material) mountain, opposed_to Mount 
 Zion invisible, called in ν. 22, ἐπουρανίου. Others ren- 
 der it ‘tacto a Deo? See Bretschneider’s Lex. New Test. 
 
 χκεκαυ μένῳ. Some construe this participle with ogec 
 (‘the mountain tangible and burning with fire,’ &c.). 
 Compare Exod. 19: 18, Deut. 4:11, 22“ ΝΞ 73 957} 
 SEND) PY Tn ovaw; Sept. (καὶ προςῆλϑετε καὶ ἔστητε 
 ὑπό TO ὄρος) καὶ τὸ ὄρος ἐκαίετο πυρὶ ἕως τοῦ οὐρα- 
 vou, σκότος, γνόφος, ϑυέλλα. Others construe xsxav- 
 μένῳ with πυρὶ (‘ye have not come to the tangible 
 mountain, and to the fire that burned, &c.). The 
 structure of the sentence strongly favours the latter 
 construction. 
 
 V.19. παρῃτήσαντο. This may be rendered cor- 
 rectly, though inelegantly, ‘they begged off from.’ 
 The fact alluded to is stated in Exod. 20:19. 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. XII. Vv. 20-22. 455 
 
 V. 20. The words 7 βολέδε κατατοξευϑήσεταε are 
 wanting in nearly all the manuscripts, and in all those 
 of best authority, as well as in most of the old versions 
 and early editions. They are consequently expunged 
 by all the critical editors. They seem to have been 
 introduced in imitation of Exod. 19: 13. 
 
 V.21. Moavone εἶπεν ἔχφοβός sius, xc... In 
 the history in Exod. ch. 19, it is not explicitly stated 
 that Moses uttered these words, or that he trembled. 
 In 19:19 it is said, “ Moses spake,” and his words are 
 not recorded ; and as it was just at this juncture that 
 the people were all trembling at the displays of divine 
 majesty, it is every way probable that these were the 
 words he uttered. But be this as it may, ‘all the peo- 
 ple in the camp trembled;’ it is natural that Moses 
 should, and the Apostle asserts, as his readers believed, 
 that he did. There is no ground to suppose the con- 
 trary. In Deut. 9:19 we find him expressing a simi- 
 lar fear of the divine wrath, on the occasion of Israel’s 
 sin with the calf. 
 
 V. 22. Σιὼν ogee. This is the spiritual Mount 
 Zion, the heavenly Jerusalem, where God is king of 
 grace. We understand this spiritual Zion, in this 
 place, to signify heaven, the abode of Christ and the 
 redeemed, as well as in the various passages, Hebr. 11: 
 10, 14-16, 18:14, Gal. 4:24 to end, Rev. 3:12, 21: 
 2, 10, where ‘a city that hath foundations, ‘a contin- 
 uing city, ‘Jerusalem which is above,’ ‘new Jerusa- 
 lem, ‘holy Jerusalem,’ is spoken of. But in what 
 sense have we, believers on earth, come to this city of 
 
456 HEBREWS, CHAP. XII. Vv. 28. 
 
 the living God as yet? The new dispensation, often 
 called a kingdom, either of God, of heaven, or of 
 Christ, is here viewed as extending through time into 
 eternity, and embracing saints on earth and angels and 
 saints in heaven, in one common family, under one 
 common head. (See v. 28 below, and the Lexicons of 
 the New Test. on the word ϑασελεῖα.) Becoming 
 members of Christ’s church, we are united to that 
 blessed family whose home and seat are in heaven. 
 The old dispensation is represented throughout the 
 . Epistle as having no such efficacy. This is a part of 
 that inferiority asserted of it in 11: 40. 
 
 V. 23. πανηγύρει. Almost all interpreters put 
 this word in apposition with μυρεώσεν, and in regimen 
 with ἀγγέλων. This is strongly favoured by the reg- 
 ular structure of the sentence. This is the word em- 
 ployed in the Septuagint for 471 and 73x27. It is sup- 
 posed to be derived from πᾶς and ὠγορώ, Mol. ἀγυρίς. 
 
 πρωτοτόχων. ‘This is most probably a figurative 
 designation of ancient and eminent saints, patriarchs, 
 prophets, and possibly apostles. While they seem to 
 be included in πνεύμασε δικαίων τετελεεω μένων, they 
 are also distinguished from them as more excellent. 
 
 ἀπογεγραμμένων ἐν οὐρανοῖς. The meaning of 
 the participle is clear from its use in Luke 2:1, 3, 5, 
 as being of ‘those enrolled, ‘written in a list’ The 
 origin of the phrase is perhaps to be sought in Ps. 69: 
 28, “Let them be blotted out of the book of the liv- 
 ing, and not be written with the righteous,” 0° 759. 
 Similar expressions may be found in Luke 10 : 20, Phil. 
 
 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. XII. v. 24. 457 
 
 4:8, Rev. 3:5, 13:8. They evidently signify those 
 who are recognized by God as among his redeemed ones, 
 
 καὶ κριτῇ ϑεῷ πάντων. Some place a comma after 
 κρετῇ, construing πάντων with ϑεῷ; but the sense is 
 harder, and the structure of the sentence does not re- 
 quire it. 
 
 V. 24. κρείττονα. Most manuscripts, versions, 
 early editions, and some Fathers, read κρεῖττον, which 
 is consequently preferred by many critics. The differ- 
 ence in sense is unimportant, merely changing the plu- 
 ral for the singular. 
 
 τὸν "AGed. A few authorities give ro “4@ed, a 
 reading which would require us to supply aiua. But 
 the correction is not sufficiently authorized. Literally, 
 the passage means, ‘the blood of sprinkling that speak- 
 eth better things than Abel’ It seems somewhat 
 doubtful whether Abel is to be understood as speaking 
 by the blood of the victims which he offered, or by his 
 own. Most commentators understand the latter, and 
 suppose a reference to Gen. 4:10. According to their 
 view, the Apostle contrasts the blood of Christ which 
 procures pardon, with that of Abel which cried from 
 the ground for vengeance. Some degree of support is 
 given to this interpretation by the expression λαλοῦντε, 
 which would be very naturally explained as an allu- 
 sion to the words ‘crieth from the ground,’ applied to 
 Abel’s blood in Gen. 4:10, but would seem more con- 
 strained when applied to the truth represented by his 
 bloody sacrifices. But in favour of the former inter- 
 pretation is the whole scope of the Epistle, which is a 
 
458 HEBREWS, CHAP. XII. v. 24. 
 
 great contrast between the efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice 
 and mediation, and that of the animal sacrifices of 
 times before Christ. Let the reader recall such pas- 
 sages as 9:13, 14, 10:1-10, and 11:4, above. The 
 scope of the passage in which this sentence occurs 
 argues the same; for it obviously compares the two 
 dispensations, the sacrifice and dispensation of Christ, 
 with the typical ones that preceded it, and not with 
 the guilty bloodshed of a murder. And finally, when 
 the Apostle has so distinctly referred in 11:4 to 
 Abel’s sacrifices, it is far most natural to understand 
 an allusion here to what was said of him there. There 
 is, indeed, no other plausible way to account for the 
 introduction of his name just here. Abel’s bloody 
 offering of animals, the first distinctly stated instance 
 of a typical sacrifice in sacred history, is mentioned in 
 11:4, and alluded to here, as the general representa- 
 tive of all such sacrifices offered by believers from 
 Abel to Christ. The meaning of the sentence, then, 
 is this: New Test. believers have come to a blood 
 that declares better results than the typical blood of 
 Old Test. sacrifices. Christ’s blood declares a complete 
 redemption ; the latter only foreshadowed it as future. 
 Christ’s takes away all guilt; the latter only made the 
 comers thereunto ceremonially clean. 
 
 r 4 ‘ - 
 25 Βλέπετε, μὴ παρεμτησησϑὲ τὸν λαλοῦντα. Ei 
 . Ὕ - 2 » \ , ~ ~ 
 yao ἐχεῖνοι οὐκ ἔφυγον, τὸν ἐπὶ [τῆς] γῆς παραε- 
 ld , ~ ~F ~ 
 τησώμενοι χρηματίζοντα, πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἡμεῖς οἱ 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. XII. vv. 25, 26. 488 
 
 26 τὸν ax οὐρανῶν ἀποστρεφόμενοι. Ov ἡ φωνὴ 
 τὴν γῆν ἐσάλευσε tore’ νῦν δὲ ἐπήγγελταε, λέ- 
 you: “ἔτε ἅπαξ ἐγὼ σεέω οὐ μόνον τὴν γῆν, ἀλλὰ 
 
 27 καὶ τὸν οὐρανόν." Τὸ δὲ “ ἔτε ἅπαξ" δηλοῖ τῶν 
 σαλενομένων τὴν μετάϑεσεν, ὡς πεποιημένων, ἵνα 
 
 28 μείνῃ ta μὴ σαλευόμενα. Ato βασιλείαν ἀσά- 
 λευτον παραλαμβάνοντες, ἔχωμεν χάριν, δὲ ἧς 
 λατρεύωμεν εὐαρέστως τῷ ϑεῷ μετὰ αἰδοῦς καὶ 
 
 29 εὐλαβείας. Καὶ γὰρ ὁ ϑεὸς ἡμῶν πῦρ κατανα- 
 λέσκον. 
 
 V.25. τὸν λαλοῦντα. This is Christ, as the im- 
 mediate context both before and after shows, though 
 many interpreters make it God the Father. The con- 
 trast is evidently between Moses and Christ, the two 
 internuntit, vonuariloyras, of the two dispensations. 
 Thus in v. 24, ‘ we have come to δεχϑήκης νέας μεσέτῃ, 
 Ἰησοῦ; whose blood speaks, or rather, who speaks by 
 ‘his blood. It is Moses who is upon and of the earth 
 (τὸν ἐπὶ γῆς χρηματίζοντα); Christ is from heaven, 
 and divine, and speaks from heaven (τὸν ἀπ᾽ οὐρανῶν). 
 Our version does not well express the precise antithe- 
 sis of the original. See the contrast between the di- 
 vine prophet and earthly ones stated in John 3: 31. 
 
 V. 26. ‘Ov ἡ φονή. The interpretation which we 
 have given of the preceding verse requires us to refer 
 ov to Christ, τὸν ax οὐρανῶν. 
 
 τότε, νῦν δὲ ἐπήγγελταε, x.r.A. There seems to be 
 here a reference to Haggai 2:6. The Sept. well ren- 
 der it, ἔτε ἅπαξ ἐγὼ σείσω τὸν οὐρανόν, καὶ τὴν γῆν, 
 
 καὶ τὴν ϑάλασσαν καὶ τὴν ξηρών, κιτ.. By τότε, the 
 
460 HEBREWS, CHAP. XII. Vv. 21. 
 
 author refers to the setting up of the old dispensation’ 
 through the ministry of Moses. The shaking of the 
 earth caused by the divine voice was undoubtedly 
 that recorded in Exod. 19:18, “and the whole mount 
 quaked greatly.” We learn, thus, that the second 
 person of the Trinity, the Angel of the covenant, was 
 the agent in this awful revelation of the law. The 
 Apostle, by using the perfect tense, νῦν δὲ ἐπήγγελταε, 
 applies this prophecy of Haggai to the setting up of 
 the new dispensation ; and so the whole context from 
 which it is quoted shows it was meant. Haggai 2: 7, 
 “The desire of all nations shall come.” V.9, “The 
 glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the 
 former, saith the Lord of hosts, and in this place will 
 I give peace.” The Apostle quotes the sense, not the 
 terms literally, so arranging words and adding οὐ 
 μόνον... ἀλλώ, as to point out distinctly the greater 
 shaking predicted. 
 
 V.2%. Τὸ δέ, ἔτε ἅπαξ, x.r.4. He now proceeds 
 to interpret the prophecy: “The expression, ‘ yet once 
 again,’ &e. (these words standing for the whole sen- 
 tence of which they are the beginning), signifies the 
 change of the things shaken,” &c. The Apostle un- 
 derstands the imagery as borrowed from the circum- 
 stances which attended the setting up of the first dis- 
 pensation. As the Saviour then shook the sacred 
 mountain Sinai literally, so He would figuratively 
 shake or convulse the religious and civil state of the 
 whole world, in setting up the new dispensation. The 
 fact that He would come ‘once again’ to set up 
 
 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. XII. v. 97. 461 
 
 another, was, from the nature of the case, an indication 
 of the abrogation of the first. The amplification in 
 the terms describing his second coming, shows that a 
 greater dispensation was intended. That He comes 
 but once more, indicates that this greater dispensation 
 is the last, and will endure (ἵνα μείνῃ τὰ μὴ σαλευό- 
 wevee) till the consummation of all earthly things. 
 
 τῶν ocdsvousvay. These words, on our interpre- 
 tation, must be restricted to the institutions of the old 
 dispensation, which are opposed to τὼ μὴ σαλευόμενα, 
 the permanent institutions of the new. 
 ὡς πεποιημένων. But were the Mosaic institutions 
 ‘made, ‘created, im any sense in which those of the 
 New Test. were not? There are three interpretations 
 allowable, either one of which explains this phrase 
 consistently with our view. We may take it as synony- 
 mous with yvecgoroinra, in the sense of ‘ caduca, ‘ evan- 
 escent’ (because, usually, what man makes perishes 
 like him). And this is confirmed by Hebr. 8:2, 9: 
 11, 28, 24, where the “σκηνὴ ἀληϑενή, which the 
 Lord pitched and not man,” ov χειροποίητος (the οὐ 
 Ketoonointa aya), are contrasted with the earthly 
 one of human construction, and the heavenly antitypes 
 with shadows. Or we may understand our author as 
 saying that the prophecy indicates a change of the 
 Mosaic institutions similar to the passing away of cre- 
 ated things; thus not construing πεποιημένων with 
 τῶν σαλευομένων, but comparing with the final catas- 
 trophe. Or we may construe μείνῃ actively, and re- 
 move the comma before it, so as to read thus: ‘as 
 
462 HEBREWS, OHAP. XII. v. 28. 
 
 made in order to await those (institutions) that are 
 not shaken.’ Compare 9:9, 10 above, “He taketh 
 away the first that he may establish the second.” 
 
 V.28. βασιλείαν. This ‘kingdom’ is evidently 
 the dispensation of Christ. This is the sense given by 
 the best New Test. Lexicons, to the phrase βασελεῖα 
 τοῦ ϑεοῦ, Χριστοῦ, οὐρανῶν, and its propriety here is 
 indicated by the adjective ἀσάλευτον, and the whole 
 context. If our interpretation of the two preceding 
 verses was correct, that thing contrasted with the 
 evanescent Mosaic institutions, that thing which ‘is 
 not to be moved,’ must be the New Test. dispensation. 
 The encouraging exhortation introduced by 420 un- 
 doubtedly proceeds upon all the facts stated from v. 
 22 onward. The sum of these is, that the believer 
 now approaches, unites himself to, the Church of the 
 new dispensation, with its divine Mediator, and its 
 universal membership of saints on earth and in heaven. 
 This then is the kingdom, the reception of which is 
 the ground of the encouragement. 
 
 ἔχωμεν χάρεν. ‘This phrase, when accompanied 
 with the dative of the person, is often used like the 
 Latin habere gratias, in the sense of ‘ giving thanks to’ 
 any one. This is its sense, for instance, in 1 Tim. 1: 
 12, yao ἔχω τῷ ἐνδυναμωσαντέ μὲ Χριστῷ, and in 
 Luke 17:9, 2 Tim.1:38. But here the dative is want- 
 ing, and the context demands that we shall give it its 
 literal sense, ‘Let us have grace.’ Examples are not 
 wanting to authorize this. See 2 Cor. 1:15, and espe- 
 cially Acts 2:47, Hebr. 4:16. 
 
 
 
Cra Cia XT: 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 Tue Apostle urges various practical exhortations, 
 vv. 1-19, concluding with a prayer for the perfection 
 of his readers, and a doxology, vv. 20, 21. He then 
 entreats a favourable reception for his Epistle, promises 
 conditionally a visit, sends salutations, and closes with 
 the usual benediction, vv. 22-25. 
 
 Some of the exhortations have a very intimate con- 
 nexion with the object of the Epistle. So vy. 7-15. 
 Compare also the prayer and doxology. 
 
464 HEBREWS, CHAP. XIII. VV. 2, 8. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 XU. 1,2. Ἡ φιλαδελφία μενέτω. Τῆς φελοξενίας 
 μὴ ἐπελανϑάνεσίε" διὰ ταύτης γὰρ ἔλαϑόν τενες 
 
 3 ξενέσαντες ἀγγέλους. Μεμνήσκχεσϑε τῶν δεσμέων, 
 ὡς συνδεδεμένοι" τῶν κακουχου μένων, ὡς καὶ αὐ- 
 
 4 τοὶ ὄντες ὃν σώματε. Τέμεος ὁ γώμος ἐν πᾶσε, καὶ 
 ἡ κοίτη ὠμέαντος" πόρνους δὲ καὶ μοιχοὺς κρινεῖ ὃ 
 
 5 ϑεός. ᾿Αφιλώργυρος ὃ τρόπος᾽ ἀρκούμενοι τοῖς 
 παροῦσεν. Αὐτὸς γὰρ εἰρηκεν" “Οὐ μή σε avo, 
 
 6 οὐδ᾽ οὐ μή σε ἐγκαταλέπω"" ὥςτε ϑαῤῥοῦντας 
 ἡμᾶς λέγε, “ Κύρεος ἐμοὶ βοηϑός, καὶ οὐ φοβη- 
 ϑησομαε" τί ποιήσεε μος ἄνϑρωπος ;” 
 
 V.2. ξενίσαντες ἀγγέλους. The allusion here is 
 doubtless to Gen 18:2, &. and 19:1, where Abra- 
 ham and Lot were rewarded by the presence of heay- 
 enly visitors for their pious hospitality, given, as they 
 at first supposed, to wayfarers. Are Christians to ex- 
 pect a similar honour now, for their practice of hospi- 
 tality? By no means; but we have a true motive for 
 the duty in the fact that God did once honour it in so 
 glorious a way. 
 
 V. 3. ὡς συνδεδεμένοι. This is a forcible descrip- 
 tion of sympathy. We are to feel the pains of those 
 who are bound for Christ, as though we shared their 
 bonds. We are to place ourselves, by a lively sympa- 
 thy, in their condition. 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. XIII. v. 4. 465 
 
 ὡς καὶ αὐτοὶ ὄντες ἐν σώματε. We must remem- 
 ber that, being still mortal, we are liable to every 
 hardship our brethren suffer. It is natural that our 
 sympathy should be made more lively by our sense of 
 exposure to the same ills. 
 
 V.4. Tiucoc 6 γάμος. Some supply here ἔστε, 
 as our English version; and some, as the Popish ex- 
 positors, who wish to evade the evidence against their 
 doctrine of celibacy, understand éorw. The fact that 
 the previous and subsequent sentences are exhorta- 
 tions, in the imperative mode, favours the latter ; but 
 the succeeding clause (xgcvez) favours the former. 
 Calvin well says, “ Ego vero potius sentio, Apostolum 
 hie conjugium scortationi, tanquam remedium morbo, 
 opponere:” ‘Fornicators and adulterers God will 
 judge ; but there is no excuse for these crimes, for He 
 hath allowed to all men an honourable, lawful enjoy- 
 ment of marriage.’ But if the clause be read as a 
 command, ‘let marriage be honourable (chaste) in all,’ 
 it is in truth equally unfavourable to him who asserts 
 the superior sanctity of celibacy. For it is still im- 
 plied that marriage may be honourable in all; and 
 there is no reason for affixing a limitation to the ad- 
 jective ‘all, contrary to the scope of the passage, and 
 the general strain of the Scriptures. Calvin: “Quum 
 dicit in omnibus, intelligo nullum esse ordinem qui a 
 conjugio prohibeatur.”. We have no need to depend 
 on this place alone. In 1 Tim. 4:3 it is expressly said 
 that one of the errors of the great apostacy would be 
 ‘forbidding to marry,’ 
 
 30 
 
466 HEBREWS, CHAP. XIII. vv. 5-1. 
 
 V.5. «Αὐτὸς γὰρ εἴρηκεν. THe (God) hath said, 
 The same quotation is made by Philo as a λόγεον τοῦ 
 ϑεοῦ. The words do not exactly occur in the Old 
 Test. but seem to be taken from such passages as 
 Deut. 31:6, “ He will not fail thee nor forsake thee ;” 
 Josh. 1:5, 1 Chron. 28:20, Ps. 37: 25, 28, Isaiah 41: 
 10, &e. Notice the similarity of the Apostle’s reason- 
 ing here with that of our Saviour, Matt. 6 : 31-33. 
 
 V. 6. τά The whole of this verse is an exact 
 quotation of the Sept. rendering for Ps. 118:6 (in the 
 Sept. Ps. 117:6). It may be read so as to make the 
 pronoun either interrogative or indefinite (either τέ or 
 z?), and the same is true of the original of the Psalm ; 
 although the Masorets have pointed it interrogatively : 
 ‘T will not fear what man shall do unto me;’ or, ‘I 
 will not fear ; what will man do unto me?’ Compare 
 Rom. 8:31, “If God be for us, who can be against 
 us 2” 
 
 ' ~ « c ~ ef > ΄ 
 7 Μνημονεύετε τῶν ἡγουμένων ὑμῶν, οἵτενες ἐλαλη- 
 ~ \ , - - ἃ ~ 
 σαν ὑμῖν τὸν λόγον τοῦ ϑεοῦ ὧν ἀναϑεωροῦντες 
 » ~ » ~ ~ \ , 
 THY ἔκ βασεν τῆς αναστροφῆςΣ, μεμεῖσύε THY πιστεν. 
 
 oo 
 
 ) - ταῖς Ἢ ΗΜ , c " 7 x > 
 
 Inoovs Χριστὸς χϑὲς καὶ σημέρον ὁ αὐτὸς, καὶ εἰς 
 me ~ U εν οὔ ‘ 
 
 9 rove αἰῶνας. AwWayaig ποεκίλεες καὶ Ssvucs μὴ 
 
 Ul « ‘ \ \ ‘2 ay 2 ~ \ 
 παραφέρεσϑε" καλὸν yao yagere βεβαιοῦσϑθαε τὴν 
 f > ra > , is 
 
 καρδίαν, ov βρώμασεν, ἐν οἷς οὐκ ὠφεληϑησαν ot 
 Υ͂ 
 
 MEQLTATHOAVTES. 
 
 V.%. τῶν ἡγουμένων. This means ‘spiritual lead- 
 ers, here ‘teachers,’ in v. 17 below ‘rulers, and in v. 
 
 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. XIII. Vv. 8. 467 
 
 24, both. Here dead teachers are intended; as ap- 
 pears from-the word Mryuorvevere, from the past tense 
 of ἐλάλησαν, and especially from the following part of 
 the sentence. Calvin well remarks on the remainder 
 of the chapter, “Que sequuntur non tam ad mores 
 quam ad doctrinam pertinent.” 
 
 éx(aorv means literally ‘a going out, then ‘ exit, 
 ‘death.’ Or else, we may understand it as ‘issue,’ ‘ re- 
 sult,’ i.e. in glory. It only occurs in the New Test. 
 here and in 1 Cor. 10:13. God “ will with the temp- 
 tation also make ὦ way to escape” (ἔκβασιν). The 
 meaning first mentioned is best; and the reference 
 seems to be to those holy preachers of the gospel, like 
 Stephen and James, Acts 7:59, 60, 12:1, who died 
 for Christ : ‘ Remember them and consider their deaths, 
 in order to imitate their steadfastness in the faith.’ 
 ἀναστροφῆς occurs in 1 Pet. 1:15, where it is cor- 
 rectly rendered, as here, ‘conversation, ‘course of 
 living.’ 
 
 V.8. Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, x... Here ἔστε is to be 
 supplied. The English version would seem to regard 
 these words as in apposition with ἔκβϑασεν, making 
 Christ “the end of their conversation.” This is not a 
 possible construction, both because the words are in 
 different cases, and because é ϑασες cannot be rendered 
 ‘end,’ in the sense of ‘object or aim. The verse is an 
 independent proposition, plainly asserting the eternity 
 and immutability of Christ. Compare Hebr. 1:12, 
 Ps. 102 : 28, ‘Thou art the same.’ The verse seems to 
 sustain a logical relationship to v. 7 and v. 9; furnish- 
 
408 HEBREWS, OHAP. XIII. V. 9. 
 
 ing at once a reason for imitating the faith of those 
 who, in previous generations, trusted in Him, and for 
 future stability in doctrine. 
 
 V.9. Adayais ποικίλαις καὶ ξέναις. Doctrines 
 ‘many and diverse among themselves, and foreign to 
 the Christian system,’ are here intended. 
 
 teoepéoeos, ‘Be not carried about. <A better 
 sustained reading is παραφέρεσϑε, ‘be not carried 
 aside.’ In its favour are manuscripts A, B, C, D, and 
 many others, the Syriac, Coptic, and Vulgate versions, 
 and some Fathers. 
 
 καλὸν γάρ, ‘It is good’ So the word is rendered, 
 and properly, in 1 Cor. 7:1, 26, 9:15. It is opposed 
 here to οὐκ ὠφελήϑησαν. The sentiment is, ‘It is 
 good (profitable) to be confirmed in the grace of the 
 new dispensation, and unprofitable to be entangled 
 again with the meats and drinks of the old’ χάρετε is 
 opposed to βρώμασεν, which are among the ddazais 
 
 Sevaic. 
 
 10 Ἔχομεν ϑυσιαστήριον, ἐξ ov φαγεῖν οὐκ ἔχουσεν 
 11 ἐξουσίαν οἱ τῇ σκηνῇ λατρεύοντες. Ὧν γὰρ εἰςφέ- 
 ρέταε ζώων τὸ αἷμα περὶ ἁμαρτίας εἰς τὰ ἅγεα 
 διὰ τοῦ ἀρχεερέως, τούτων τὰ σώματα κατακαίε- 
 12 τας ἔξω τῆς παρεμβολῆς" διὸ καὶ Ἰησοῦς, ἵνα 
 ὡγεώσῃ διὰ τοῦ idiov «ἵματος τὸν λαόν, ἔξω τῆς 
 18 πύλης ἔπαϑε. τοίνυν ἐξερχωμεϑα πρὸς αὐτὸν 
 ἔξω τῆς παρεμβολῆς, τὸν ὀνειδισμὸν «τοῦ φέρον- 
 14 τες, (οὐ γὰρ ἔχομεν ὧδε μένουσαν πόλεν, ἀλλὰ 
 
 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. ΧΊΙΙ: vv. 10, 11. 469 
 
 15 τὴν μέλλουσαν ἐπεζητοῦμεν ) δὲ αὐτοῦ οὖν ava- 
 φέρωμεν ϑυσίων αἰνέσεως διαπαντὸς τῷ ϑεῷ, TOUT 
 ἔστε, καρπὸν χειλέων ὁμολογούντων τῷ ὀνόματε 
 αὐτοῦ. 
 
 V. 10. ϑυσιαστήρεον. Most commentators call 
 this a metonymy for ϑυσέαν, but incorrectly, as may 
 be proved from the succeeding words ἐξ ov φαγεῖν. 
 ov obviously refers to ϑυσεαστήρεον, and if this meant 
 ‘victim,’ and in conformity with that meaning the fol- 
 lowing words meant ‘ to eat of the victim, the preposi- 
 tion would not be used ; because such a verb as φαγεῖν 
 would govern the genitive in this sense without a pre- 
 position. See Winer’s Id. New Test. $30. 5, p. 160. 
 The meaning is, ‘We have an altar’ (as well as the 
 Jews), in a figurative sense, of course; viz. that on 
 which Christ offered up himself a true and efficacious 
 sacrifice. This verse, then, is explicative or confirma- 
 tory of the preceding: ‘It is better to participate in 
 Christian grace, than meats of Jewish sacrifices. Our 
 exclusion from the latter is no evil in comparison to 
 that exclusion from the former (the results and pur- 
 chase of the divine sacrifice) which Jews bring upon 
 themselves by their Jewish exclusiveness. For the 
 adherents of the old ritual have no interest in the 
 benefits of the new dispensation. This having been 
 set up, that is abolished and dead.’ 
 
 V.11. Ὧν γάρ, x.r.4. This verse and the follow- 
 ing give the reason of vy. 9,10. The former sacrifices 
 were mere types: agreeably to their import (4:0, ν. 
 
470 HEBREWS, CHAP. XIII. vy. 13-15. 
 
 12), Christ had made the true expiation for sin by his 
 blood without the gate. The Levitical regulations 
 here indicated, may be read in Levit. 4: 12, 21, 6: 30, 
 16:27. The bodies of the animals to which sin was 
 typically imputed were ceremonially polluted, and 
 were therefore destroyed in an unclean place without 
 the camp. Golgotha was a polluted place without 
 the circuit of the city walls, and thither the Jews led 
 Christ for crucifixion as an unclean person. 
 
 V. 18. τοίνυν. The Apostle designedly gave 
 prominence to this fact set forth in the type, that 
 Christ suffered without the gate, to prepare the way 
 for his exhortation: ‘If Christ our Lord was willing 
 to die for us this shameful death, at a polluted place, 
 excluded as an unclean thing from the city; surely 
 we should be willing to follow lfim in that exclusion 
 (ἐξερχώμεϑα πρὸς αὐτὸν ἔξω τῆς παρεμβολῆς), and 
 to bear his reproach,’ 
 
 τὸν ὀνεεδισμὸν «αὐτοῦ. Compare the same words 
 in 11:26 above. The words may mean, ‘ whatever 
 reproach His service may bring upon us,’ or more prob- 
 ably, according to Winer (Id. New Test. $30. 2. (b), 
 note, p. 153), ‘the reproach which He suffered, i. 6. 
 the same kind of reproach. The practical truth here 
 stated may be well illustrated by Matt. 10:38, 16: 
 24, Καὶ ὃς ov λαμβάνει τὸν σταυρὸν αὑτοῦ, καὶ ἀκο- 
 λουϑεῖ ὀπίσω μου, οὐκ ἔστε μου ἄξεος. 
 
 V.15. dé αὐτοῦ οὖν. The conjunction refers to 
 the scope of the whole passage from vy. 9 to 14. The 
 sacrifice of praise and profession of service and fidelity, 
 
τριάντα ἃ νιν HAP. XEN Sy να lilies 411 
 
 the only offering under the New Test. after Christ’s 
 perfect. sacrifice, js to be offered through His media- 
 tion. All that has been said of the value of an inter- 
 est in His sacrifice, and of His condescension and love 
 in making it, should prompt us to this thank-offering : 
 ‘Let us therefore offer to God perpetually the sacrifice 
 of praise through Him, that is, the fruit of lips that 
 confess to (make a thankful and honourable avowal 
 of ) His name.’ 
 
 16 Τῆς δὲ εὐποείας καὶ κοενωνίας μὴ ἐπελανϑανεσϑε; 
 
 AT τοιαύταις γὰρ ϑυσέαες εὐαρεστεῖταε ὃ ϑεός. Πεί- 
 ϑεσϑε τοῖς ἡγουμένοις ὑμῶν, καὶ ὑπείκετε" αὐτοὶ 
 γὰρ ἀγρυπνοῦσεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν, ὡς λό- 
 γον ἀποδώσοντες" ἵνα μετὰ χαρῶς τοῦτο ποεῶσε, 
 καὶ μὴ στενώζοντες " ἀλυσιτελὲς γὰρ ὑμῖν τοῦτο. 
 
 18 Προςεύχεσϑε περὶ ἡμῶν" πεποίϑαμεν yao, ore 
 καλὴν συνείδησεν ἔχομεν, ἐν πᾶσε καλὼς ϑέλοντες 
 
 19 ἀναστρέφεσϑαε" περισσοτέρως δὲ παρακαλῶ τοῦτο 
 ποιῆσαε, ἵνα τάχεον ἀποχατασταϑῶ ὑμῖν. 
 
 V.1%. τοῖς ἡγουμένοις. With the general sense 
 of ‘spiritual leaders,’ this phrase means here, ‘Church 
 rulers.’ 
 
 αὐτοὶ yao ayoumvovely ... ἵνα μετὰ χαρᾶς τοῦτο 
 ποιῶσε... ἀλυσετελὲς γάρ. The logical dependence 
 of these clauses is variously exhibited by different in- 
 terpreters. It is simplest and best to understand all 
 that follows the injunction as reason for it: ‘Obey your 
 spiritual rulers, for they watch over your souls, &e. 
 
472 HEBREWS, CHAP. XIII. v. 19. 
 
 (Again, obey your spiritual rulers) in order that they 
 may give their account of you with joy, and not groan- 
 ing; (and obey your spiritual rulers) for such a sor- 
 rowful reckoning for your souls were unprofitable for 
 you.’ 
 
 V.19. ἀποκατασταϑῶ. The verb does not de- 
 termine the cause of the detention, whether imprison- 
 ment, sickness, &e.; for its usage would allow of either 
 of them. It is most reasonable to suppose that the 
 cause was the first, and that this Epistle was written 
 by Paul from his captivity in Rome. The words of 
 v. 22 favour this; for they seem to imply that the 
 author was then at the same place with Timothy. 
 And the subsequent words, “ They of Italy salute you,” 
 show that place was somewhere in Italy, most proba- 
 bly in Rome, where Christianity first and most pre- 
 vailed in that region. The clear references to Paul’s 
 captivity in Rome, made in Phil. 1: 18-19, 26, and in 
 Philem. 1, 22, give great plausibility to the statement 
 that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written by the 
 same author, about the same time, and from the same 
 captivity, with these. The probability is greatly in- 
 creased by the fact that when Paul wrote the Epistle 
 to Philemon, Timothy was with him. 
 
 20 Ὁ δὲ ϑεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης, ὁ ἀναγαγὼν ἐκ νεκρῶν TOY 
 ποιμένα τῶν προβάτων τὸν μέγαν ἕν aiuare δεα- 
 91 ϑήκης αἰωνίου, τὸν κύρεον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν, καταρ- 
 τίσαε ὑμᾶς ἐν παντὲ ἔργῳ ayado, εἰς τὸ ποεῆσαε 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. XIII. vv. 20-22. 473 
 
 A , 2 ~~) © ~ ? GC ln iS a7 
 τὸ ϑέλημα αὐτοῦ" ποιῶν ἐν ὑμῖν τὸ εὐάρεστον 
 Ἴ [2 c ~ <a ~ z ~ ΠΡ: Iu > 
 évantov αὑτοῦ δεὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ" ᾧ ἡ δόξα εἰς 
 \ ~ = Ξ ἢ Γ 
 τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν aiwvey! ‘Auny. 
 
 ν. 20. ἐν αἵματι. This preposition signifies here 
 that with which He was provided or attended. It 
 comes therefore very near to the sense of δεὼ in 9:12 
 above (δεὰ τοῦ idiov αἵματος), which we interpreted 
 as signifying with in the sense of ‘equipment.’ Com- 
 pare Winer’s Id. New Test. $52. (a), p. 809, with 851. 
 (i), p. 806. 
 
 V.21. ᾧὴ δόξα. The relative here is most natu- 
 rally referred to Χρεστοῦ, as the immediate antecedent. 
 Others, with a Socinian intent, refer it to d&sd¢ as 
 the principal subject. A similar difference of opinion 
 may exist as to the similar clauses in 1 Pet. 4:11, 
 2. Pet. 3:18. 
 
 22 Παρακαλῶ δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, ἀνέχεσθε τοῦ λόγου 
 τῆς παρακλήσεως" καὶ γὰρ διὰ βραχέων ἐπέστειλα 
 23 ὑμῖν. Τενωσκεέτε, τὸν OE ελφὸν Τεμόϑε ον ἀπολε- 
 λυμένον, μεϑ οὗ, ἐὰν τάχιον ἔρχηται, ὄιψομαε 
 24 ὑμᾶς. ᾿σπάσασϑε πάντας τοὺς ἡγουμένους ὑμῶν, 
 καὶ πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους. ᾿Ασπάξζονταε ὑμᾶς οἱ 
 25 ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰταλίας. “H χάρις μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν. 
 μην. 
 
 V.22. διὰ βραχέων. To this most supply λόγων 
 (with brief words). That is, his Epistle is brief, con- 
 sidering the greatness of its topics and occasion. A 
 
414 HEBREWS, CHAP. XIII. vv. 28-25. 
 
 similar phrase is used by Peter, 1 Pet. 5:12. Itis 
 perhaps still better to supply χρόνων, so as to make 
 the author’s meaning, ‘I have sent it to you with brief 
 time,’ 1. 6. ‘hurriedly. Of this we have two examples 
 in Dio. Cass. Hist. Rom. 86: διὰ βράχεος, and ἐν 
 βραχυτάτῳ. 
 
 V. 98. Τεμόϑεον ἀπολελυμένον. This is com- 
 monly interpreted, ‘set at liberty;’ and so the word 
 often means. But on the whole, it seems most reason- 
 able to render it ‘sent away’ (a sense which the word 
 has in Acts 13:3, 15:30, 23:22, &.), and to sup- 
 pose that Paul wrote the Epistle during his confine- 
 ment at Rome, whence Timothy had been recently 
 sent on some short journey, which was not expected 
 to occupy much time. The reasons are, that we have 
 no other mention of such imprisonment of Timothy 
 (though of itself this is not decisive); that Timothy 
 was with Paul during his first imprisonment at Rome, 
 as we learn from Phil. 1:1, Col. 1:1; that we learn 
 from Phil. 2:19, 23, 24, Paul intended soon to send 
 Timothy over into Greece; and that he certainly 
 expected to be himself set at liberty and visit the 
 churches in the east. (See Phil. 1:25, 26, 2:24, 
 Philem. 22.) The reader is referred to Stuart’s Intro- 
 duction to the Epistle to the Hebrews, $19. 
 
 V.25. of ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰταλέας May mean either ‘ per- 
 sons from Italy, present at the time with the writer 
 wherever he may have been, or it may mean ‘ persons 
 of Italy, and at the time in Italy. The latter con- 
 struction is favoured by the examples of John 11:1, 
 
HEBREWS, CHAP. XIII. v. 25. 418 
 
 “Ἕάξαρος ἀπὸ Βηϑανίας, and Acts 17:18, of ἀπὸ τῆς 
 Θεσσαλονίκης Ἰουδαῖοι. The phrase is very common 
 to designate persons of any place, country, party, &e. 
 without reference to their locality at the time. The 
 preposition ἀπὸ most certainly (from the examples 
 just given) does not signify in this phrase, that the 
 persons were absent from the place from which they 
 received their denomination, any more than the prepo- 
 sition of, in our parallel phrase, ‘men of Italy” For 
 the reasons just given, on v. 23, the second of the 
 senses mentioned above is most probably the one to 
 be adopted here. See more fully Stuart’s Introduc- 
 tion, §19, p. 127 seq. Winer’s Id. New Test. $63. (4), 
 p. 397. As to the objection, that scattered Italians 
 out of their own land could hardly send such Christian 
 salutations, we cannot attribute to it any force; as we 
 find such an instance in 1 Cor. 16:19, written from 
 Kphesus. The construction of the sentence is illus- 
 trated by Phil. 4:22, of ἐκ τῆς Καίσαρος otxias. 
 
 THE END. 
 

 
 a vito “ aay 1 
 WE Corie ihe | core Saghe bere: Ny 
 πο eee ιν tie νος pie. 
 rie δε rity: Oe hen We ne 
 eo aMiritece ὕ ἐν ΩΝ αὐλδεραϑφα τν oa ee 
 
 ‘a ee” ΡΝ Ty ὍΝ πο ToS cle φῆ we 
 ἃ was Tr fobey, λ ὑ δῷ 4 λα μὰ fe ie YE τὲ 
 . ἂψ ti ih} i ively Ph angel Ue ts emia 
 
 . fi, ci 4 τὰ ‘ 
 5 ANGE Pade Cio aah he: aetna 
 
 , v 
 7 ‘ ¢ Ἢ 
 
 . “Ἐ}} ΟΣ ΤΣ Eden IVE mh: dix, Cpe eee + a: "ἢ 
 ἐμ  οὴ ΝΣ Mu " vate er bee wi ἦν “an Lt ie 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ith 
 
 δ κ Wag Be Ney ae ae 
 +, PROT Biers FT ihe 
 
 > 4 r " uf 
 Νὰ ὙΠ Piss’? yr) 
 1 
 
 Ἢ 
 iy 4 oe ὦ oan er. a ΡΝ 
 ᾿ ῃ bf Mee, ἈΝ ΜΝ ol Os. OA bP oes, Sen eat Pas 
 ale “ὦ pipet . tj εὖ rt : " : ὰς ote αι ὩΣ " 
 
 vie ἢ sil 1 j pag pe “1 νι: 
 i 
 
 ᾿ ¢ 
 ΜΝ ἱ ( iW SiS veegany ἘᾺΝ 
 ͵ & ’ 
 
 ᾿ ν᾽ Δ An δή οἱ ᾿ ht Ἢ ο δὶ i ‘a © 
 ΣΙ } ΜῚ ᾿ ᾿ C ἡ ας 5 i) mad ΕῚ ἡ 8 φ 
 
 4 ιῬ 
 i 5 j 
 ‘ i 
 τ - ὴ ῳ 
 - 
 ‘ : t ~~ ' 
 ς 
 i . 
 τ: (ἢ, 
 ' PA “ἰδῇ 
 : wert 
 : vr ᾽ν 
 ΄ 5 f ᾿ 
 ‘ é 
 ? (th ane 
 ἜΝ 
 , Pa Υ 
 ΓῚ ‘i Δ 
 ἂ, ι Our 7 
 ΐ τῇ a > 1 
 i gir Ἂ 
 7 a 
 ry ' 
 rn ’ ’ ν 4 ¥ Noy ΓΙ 
 ΓῈ ι } 
 " 
 4 ΟΣ = 
 ’ ‘ 
 nab * 
 be 
 ‘ 
 
Θ᾽ 
 
 κλκν .λλλλλλλλλλλλλλαλλλλλλλαλαααλλλαλλλλλλλσσ. 
 
 πε υννυυννον............... Vw www wor >" 
 
 
 
 CATALOGUE OF BOOKS 
 
 PUBLISHED BY 
 
 ROBERT CARTER & BROTHERS, 
 
 285 BROADWAY, NEW YORK. 
 
 
 
 Abercrombie’s Contest and the Armor, 
 Adam’s Three Divine Sisters, . δ 
 Advice to Young Christians, . 5 
 Alexander’s Counsels to the Yeung, 
 Alleine’s Gospel Promises, . ὃ 
 Life and Letters, . : 
 Ancient History, 4 vols., . 5 
 
 
 
 Anderson’s Annals of the English Bible, 
 
 
 
 Family Book, . . 
 
 Anley’s (Miss C.) Earlswood, a Tale, 
 Australia, Loss of the Brig, -. ° 
 Bagster’s Genuineness and Authen. 
 Baxter’s Saint’s Rest, 3 Fees 
 Call to Unconverted, . - 
 Choice Works, . 
 
 Bible Companion, with Introd. by Dr. 
 Bible Expositor, = 3 ἂ 
 Bickersteth on Prayer, . - . 
 On Lord’s Supper, . - - 
 Waters from Well Spring, . 
 Blossoms of Childhood, . Ξ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Blunt’s Coincidences and Paley’s Hore Pau- 
 
 line, . ᾿ ‘ . 
 Bogatsky’s Golden τ πσπτι 2 ° 
 Bolton’s Call to the Lamb’s, . . 
 Bonar on Leviticus, . aig oot We 
 Bible Hymn Book, ° 
 Man, his Religion and his World, 
 Night of Weeping, . . 
 Morning of Joy, . 5 We 
 Story of Grace, - - . 
 Truth and Error, . . - 
 Bonnet’s Family of Bethany, . - 
 Meditations on Lord’s Prayer, 
 Booth’s Reign of Grace, 
 
 Borrow’s Bible and Gypsies of Spain, 
 Boston’s Four-fold State, . - = 
 Crook in Lot, . δ . 
 Brett’s Indian Tribes of Gzizma, . 
 Bridgeman’s Daughters of China, . 
 Bridges on the Christian Ministry, . 
 On the cx1x Psalm, . . 
 —— on Proverbs, . = δ 
 Memoir of Mary J. Geanems: 
 Works, 3 vols... . ° 
 Broken Bud, (The) ὦ 
 Brown’s Concordance, plain, 20; gilt, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Sufferings and Glorixs of Messiah 
 On Peter, . - . ‘ 
 Galatians, . - . δ 
 Explication, . otis . 
 Explication, 18mo., δ δ 
 On Second Advent οὐ ie, 
 Buchanan’s Comfort in Affliction, . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 of Bible, . 
 
 on the Discourses and Sayings of Christ 
 
 ? 
 
 Φ 91 
 
 . 
 
 ιμ ὶθ μα μὰ 
 
 0 
 1 
 2 
 22 
 
 50 
 30 
 31 
 
 
 
 Buchanan on the Holy Spirit, . « . 
 Bunbury’s Glory, Glory, &c. 
 Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, 12mo, . 
 
 Do do 12mo.,, gilt, . 
 
 Do do 18mo., . 
 Greatness of Soul, . 
 Jerusalem Sinner Saved, 
 Burns’ Christian Fragments, 
 Parables and Miracles, 
 Butler’s Works, 5 
 Sermons, C δ . . 
 ἜΤΙ, : 
 Analogy with Wilson’ 8 Criticisms, 
 Calvin’s Life and Times, 
 Cameron’s Farmer’s elas 
 Cecil’s Works, 
 Original Thoughts, 
 Remains and Miscellanies, 
 Sermons, 5 . 
 Memoir of Mrs. Hawkes, 
 Chalmers’ Sermons, 
 Romans, . 
 Miscellanies, . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Evidences, . ° 5 δ 
 Natural Theology, . : δ 
 Moral Philosophy, . 
 
 Commercial Discourses, - 
 Astronomical do 
 
 Charnock on the Attributes. 
 
 Choice Works ς 
 Cheever’s Lectures on Pilgrim’s Progress, 
 Powers of the World to Come, 
 Child’s Own Story Book, . - 
 Christian Experience, 5 ‘ . δ 
 Retirement, . : δ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Clara Stanley, Illustrated, . Ξ od 
 
 Clark’s Walk about Zion, . : 
 Pastor’s Testimony, - : ς 
 
 -—— Awake Thou Sleeper, . . δ 
 Young Disciple, . ὲ δ . 
 
 
 
 Gathered Fragments, . “ δ 
 Clarke’s Scripture Promises, . : : 
 Claremont Tales, (The) . . : . 
 Collier’s Tale, : = 
 Colquhoun’s World’s Religions. . = 
 Commandment with Promise, . 
 
 Select Works, containing the above, 
 
 
 
 Companion for Afflicted, Ist and 2d Part, each, 
 
 Cowper’s Poetical Works, 2 vols, . . 
 Cummings’ Christ Receiving Sinners, . 
 —— Message from God, ᾿ 
 Cunningham’s World without Souls, δ 
 Cuyler’s Stray Arrows, . . . . 
 Daily Commentary, 8yo., . . . δ 
 Dale’s Golden Psalm, ὃ . δ . 
 
 
 
 S 
 Φ 
 
 SSSSSSSSR 
 
Φ 
 
 ἣν λλαλλλεφιαδοοδρδοννδνοννσσνδρ λον 
 
 PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 το 
 
 D’Aubigné’s Reformation, 5 vols., cloth . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CARTERS’ 
 
 $2 
 
 τι 
 o 
 
 ; 
 ‘ Do do fine edition, . .3 50 
 ¢ Do do 8vo., 5 vols. in one, 1 50 
 ¢ Do do yol. 5, separate clo., 00 
 ¢ Authority of God,. . eee 25 
 ζ Life of Cromwell, . . ὅ0 
 m4 Germany, England, “end ‘Scotland, ; ae 
 € Luther and Calving . . es 99 
 5 Davies’ Sermons, 3 vols., - . . . 9 00 
 ) Davidson’s Connexions, new edition, 12mo. . 1 00 
 ° David’s Psalms, 12mo.,_ . Η » 75 
 δὴ Do do ἀο gilt edges, . Ξ 1 00 
 ὁ Do do do Turkey morocco, . 2 00 
 ¢ Do do  18mo., plain sheep, e «i eo 
 S Do do 48mo., sheep, - : 5 20 
 Do do do morocco, . . 95 
 Do do do gilt edges, . 31 
 Do do εν. tucks, . ἃ 50 
 Do do —_ Brown’s Notes, sheep, 50 
 ὸ Do do do do morocco, 1 00 
 6 Dick’s Lectures on Acts, .—- jan ce OO 
 ὸ Theology, 1 γ0].. - . 4 . . 2 50 
 ὁ Dickinson’s Responses, . . . . 1 00 
 ¢ Scenes from Sacred History, vec - 100 
 ¢ Dill’s (Rey. Dr.) Ireland’s Miseries, « 75 
 2 Doddridge’s Rise and Progress, . 40 
 Py Life Col. Gardiner, . weaned 
 δ Duncan’s (H,) Philos. of the Seasons, 4 vols. gad 00 
 ¢ Life, ᾿ P . ‘ ° . 7 
 ᾿ Cottave Fireside, S095 5) i) a )« 40 
 > Tales of Scottish Peasantry, . ° - 36 
 2 (Mrs.) Memoir of M. L. Duncan, - 75 
 ¢ Memoir of G. A.Lundie, . . « 90 
 5 —— America, As I Found It, ae 1 00 
 ) Children of the Manse, . ᾷ . 50 
 ὸ Memoir of George B. Phillips, « 25 
 ὸ (M. L.) Rhymes for my Children,. . 35 
 ¢ Edgar’s Variations of Popery,. - + «100 
 Edwards’ Charity and its Fruits, 18mo., . 50 
 ¢ English Pulpit (The, . . + + +1350 
 ¢ Erskine’s Gospel Sonnets, Ξ “ον 
 Evidences of Christianity, University of Va, . 250 
 ; Family Worship, Prayers for Every Day, - 3 00 
 Panny andher Mamma, . . ο . 50 
 ¢ Far Off illustrated, . . 5. τι 9 50 
 First Day of Week, Ismo., " 5 ‘ 25 
 Fisk’s Holy Land, 12mo., . ᾿ " Ἢ 1 00 
 Orphan Tales, Ε . . 25 
 Fleury’s Life of David, . Ξ Ἂ ᾿ς (80 
 Ford’s Decapolis, ee: 
 Foster’s Essays on Decision of Character ee) 
 ὁ ——— Popular Ignorance, τὸ 
 Fox’s (Rey. Henry Watson) Life of, 1 00 
 Frank Harrison, . . ὁ Ἂ ae) 
 Netherton, 6 2 Ἂ ‘ 40 
 Fry, The Listener, itlustrated, . 1 00 
 —— Christ our Example, . . 7 
 -- Do. Law, .- . . . ὁνδθ 
 —— Sabbath Musings, . 40 
 Scripture Reader's Guide, = 400 
 ς Gaussen’s Parables of Spring, - - 40 
 Geological Cosmogony, - . 30 
 Gilfillan’s Martyrs, τρὶς and Bards ‘ 60 
 Godinthe Storm, . ° . η... 35 
 Goode’s Better Covenant, . « -4teabe 60 
 Graham’s Test of Faith . . ‘ 30 
 
 Gray’s Poems, illust., 8vo., gilt, $1 50; plain, $1 00 
 
 Griffith’s Live while you Live, 
 
 Haldane’s (Robert and James) Lives of, ϑνο,, . 200 
 
 
 
 Exposition of Romans, , 
 Hall’s Select Works, . » . 
 Hamilton’s Life in Earnest, . 
 Mount of Olives, . P 
 Harp on Willows,. 
 — Thankfulness, ‘ ° 
 — Life of Hall, . . 
 Happy Home, ° 
 
 Life of Lady Colquloun, 
 Royal Preacher, . 
 Lamp and the Lantern, 
 Life of Williams, . 
 Hawker’s Morning Portion, . 
 Evening do. ᾿ 
 —— Zion’s Pilgrim, . . 
 Hengstenberg on the Apocalypse, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Henry’s Commentary, fine edition, half calf, 
 
 
 
 Do. plain do, 
 Method for Prayer, . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Daily Walk with God, . 
 
 
 
 
 
 Choice Works, 
 (Philip) Life and Times, 
 Hervey’s Meditations, 
 
 
 
 sheep, 
 
 Communicant’s Companion, . 
 
 Pleasantness of a Religious Life, . 
 
 . 50 
 
 3 
 16 
 0 
 
 SRaASSSsss 
 
 SSSSSSSSSsesss 
 
 Hetherington’s Hist. of the Chara of Scotland, 1 50 
 
 
 
 Hewitson’s Life, : . . 
 Hill’s Divinity, . δ δ Νὰ 
 (Rowland) Life, . a 
 Historic Doubts, by Whately, . 
 
 
 
 History of Puritans and Pilgrim Fathers, 
 
 
 
 of Reformation in Europe, 
 Hooker’s Uses of Adversity, 
 Philosophy of Unbehef, 
 Horne’s Introduction, . . 
 on Psalms, 
 
 
 
 
 
 Howard and the Prison World of Europe, 
 
 Howe’s Redeemer’s idee Ε 
 Howell’s Life, . . . 
 Howie’s Scots Worthies, Ὁ . 
 Huss (John) Life of, . ° Ξ 
 Infant’s Progress, . . - 
 Jacobus on Matthew, ° . 
 Questions on Matthew, . 
 on Mark and Lule, 
 
 on John and Acts, . 
 James’ Anxious Inquirer, . 
 Christian Progress, 
 
 True Christian 
 
 .—— Widow Directed, 
 
 Young Man from Home, 
 —— Course of Faith, . ° 
 Young Woman’s Friend, 
 —— Christian Professor, 
 —— Christian Duty, . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 —— Christian Father's sidities 
 
 Jamie Gordon, 18mo., 
 Janeway’s Heaven upon Earth, 
 Token for Children, . 
 Jay’s Morning Exercises, . ὃ 
 Evening do . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 History of the Westminster Divines, . 
 
 τὸ 
 
 . 2 00 
 
 Morning and Evening do. i. fine edition, 
 
 LP SOLIS IOI I Eo ee NER Se PAYPAL IIIS 
 
 1 
 
 75 
 
 RanaRssssssassss 
 
 ῳ 
 
 30 
 75 
 75 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CARTERS’ PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 Jay’s Christian Contemplated,. . . § 40] Morning and Night Watches, . . . $ 60 
 Jubilee Memorial, . τ Ν ‘ . 30] Murphey’s Bible and Geology, . - - - 100 
 Jerram’s Tribute to an only Daughter, . . 930 My School Boy Days, 4 Boe ον οὖ 
 Johnson’s (Dr. Samuel) Rasselas, a Tale, . ou | My Youthful Companions, : : δ AE 
 (Rev. W. A.B.) Lifeof, .  . . 100) Near Home, illustrated, . eet OD 
 Kennedy’s Profession is not Principle, . - 30] New Cobwebs to Catch Little Flies, 5 - 50 
 Jessy Allan, . . «© - + ~ « 25 |Newton’s (Rev. John) Works,. . . .200 
 Anna Ross, . CP ENS τς See ey ee Memoir of M.M. Jasper, . Σ ΤΗΝ 
 Father Clement, . . . « ~~ 30] Noel’s Infant Piety, . 3 oye WD 
 Decision, = . . . 25 | Old Humphrey’s Works, 12 vols. each, 5 - 40 
 Key to (the Assembly’s) Chtechizmn, ~. . 90] Old White Meeting House, ᾿ . πο 40 
 King’s Geology and Religion, . a A . 75 | Olmsted’s Counsels for Impenitent, . Ξ ‘ . 50 
 on the Eldership, - - . 50|OpieonLying,. . oh eM owe aU 
 Kitto’s Daily Bible Illustrations, Morning Ser. 4 00 | Osberne’s World of Waters, - le ἐκ τ 
 Do. do. Evening do. 4 00 | Owen’s Works, 16 vols., . Ξ ᾿ 7 20 00 
 sostiSensesc 7 τ οὐ wt”) 11 on Spiritual Mindedness, . . . 60 
 Krummaclier’s Martyr Lamb, . - +  « 40] Paley’s Hore Pauline, . 5 oS μὴ ον ἴα 
 Pi abS νὸς - «+ . 40} Pascal’s Provincial Letters, . . tee 1000 
 
 Last Days of Elisha, δὶ a ἢ Memoir of Jaqueline Pascal, 5 ° 
 Last Day of Week, . - 5 τ 5 25 | Pastor’s Daughter, . Ὰ ᾿ 5 Ξ . 40 
 Law and the Testimony, - : > 5 3 00 | Paterson on Catechism, . - 9 A - 350 
 
 Leyburn’s Soldier of Cross, . < . 1 00 Pearson on Infidelity, 8vo., : - δ 
 Life in New York, . 3 5 5 4 40 | Peep of Day, . τ - fb 5 oo 
 Life of Vagrant, 5 . . 30] Phillip’s Devotional Guides. Ὁ 1 50 
 
 Lighted Valley, Memoir of Miss Bolton, 2) aD Marys, Marthas, Lydias, Hannah and 
 Line upon Line, - 5 . . 80 Love of the Spirit, each, . ὁ . 40 
 Little Annie, Ist and 2d Books, eS ates aus Young Man’s Closet Tabrary, eee 
 Little Lessons for Little Learners, . . . ὅ0 ΡΙΚο᾿Β True Happiness, . A . 5 . 30 
 Living to Christ, τ . τ § A « FeO Divine Origin, 5 ᾿ ξ 30 
 Lowrie’siMetters, 35. ml ςς 25 | Pollok’s Course of Time, 16mo., Ss te ave) pp erAMOU 
 India, . hd ee δ . τὸ Do. ὍοΣ Ιδιποῦ ᾿ς. : - 40 
 Luther on Galatians, . - 5 ‘ ἃ . 1 50 | —— Life, by Scott, 2 2 fn : «100 
 Mackay’s Wyckliffites, . “ 5 7® | ——— Tales of Covenanters, 16mo., 6 cee 
 Magie’s Spring Time of Life, 50 Helen of Glen, δ .- . ° . 95 
 Mamma?’s Bible Stories, . - : . 50 Persecuted Family, = . . . 5 
 Sequel to do. - . 30 Ralph Gemmel,_. . Ξ . oa 
 Marshall, (Mrs.) My Friend’s ernie : . 85. Poole’s Annotations, cloth, d . . 10 00 
 (Rey. Walter) on Sanctification, . 50 Do. half calf, . . 12 00 
 Martin (Sarah) Life of, . . ᾿ 30 | Porteus on Matthew, δ - 0 3 . τ: 
 Martyn (Henry) Life of, 60 | Powerscourt’s Letters, . . ὃ . . 75 
 Martyrs and Covenanters of Scotland, ἢ 40 | Precept upon Precept, . . - . . 390 
 McCheyne’s Life, Letters, and Remains, . 159 | Psalms in Hebrew, . : 5 : ‘ - 50 
 
 Sermons, separate, . - 5 . 2 U0 | Proudfil’s Counsels to Young, . . . δ 
 Familiar Letters, . 3 ᾿ . 50) Retrospect, The, : ὃ - 5 . 40 
 Complete Works, . : 3 . 3. 00] Richmond’s Annals of Poor, 5 - : - 40 
 McCosh on the Divine Government, : . 2.00 | ——— Domestic Portraiture, . δ . . 6 
 McCrindell’s Convent, a Tale, . 6 ξ - 0 Rogers’ Folded Lamb, . . Ξ . . 40 
 School Girl in France, . 50 Jacob’s Well, : s . ὦ 40 
 McFarlane’s Mountains of the Bible, . 75 | Romaine on Faith, . ° ᾿ ὃ . ὃς 609 
 McGhee on the Ephesians, 5 : τ 2. 20 Letters, . : c ‘ a . 60 
 McGilvray’s Peace in Believing, . 5 | Rowland’s Common I Maxima; 5 Ξ Ἐ oe 1 
 McLelland on the Canon and Interpretation, . 75 | Rutherford’s Letters, ὃ : . 1 50 
 McLeod’s True Godliness, : - 5 . 60 | Ryle’sLiving or Dead, . . Ξ: - ye 
 Meikle’s Solitude Sweetened, : 66 Startling Questions, 5 5 - οἴ ho 
 Menteath’s Lays of Kirk and am 6 75 | ——— Wheat or Chaff, . . ΗΝ ἐγ" 
 Michael Kemp, . i 40 oung Man’s Christian Year, F «15 
 Miller’s Geology of the Haas Rock, 75 | Saphir, Philipp, Life of, . : . Ὁ 
 Miller Roger, Life of, : ° - 30 | Schmid’s One Hundred Tales, itlustrated, -, 350 
 Missions, Origin and History of, 2 : + ae Scotts-Hoxrce of Truth. τι mc Πρ τον 
 
 Missionary of Kilmany, . Ξ ξ : 69 | Scotia’s Bards, 8vo., illustrated, . 2 . 
 Moffat’s Southern Africa, . 75 | Scougal’s Works, . ° . en .. 40 
 Monod’s Lucilla, 40 | Scripture Promises, . “ - Ξ ἃ « εὐ 
 More (H.), Private Devotion, προς es 50 Truths, . : τ εἰ ge) 
 Do. do. 32mo., 20 Facts, 32mo., illustrated, τι 
 Morell’s Modern Philosophy, . . . 3 00 | Select Christian Authors,. . . . .200 
 } Morning of Life, 5 4. ς iy οὐ νος 520 Works of James, Venn, ὅθ. . .1 50 
 
 RA ARR DDD ΑΜ YOO 
 
 
 
 wee rs eo ee 
 
 OOOO ODO Os OO NG ee AE a NS Seeger 
 
LPL PLL PLP PLN PIF FSP PA FANRARAARAAARAAAN 
 
 PE. LRAAAAALDAADAANLAANANY EAADADAYA 
 
 - ~~ 
 
 oe ) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ON PSNI NI as 
 > CARTERS’ PUBLICATIONS. 
 Serle’s Christian Remembrancer, . . ϑ 50] Taylor’s (Jane) Hymns for Infant Minds, $ 40 
 Sherwood’s Clever Stories, a ᾿ . . 56 Limed Twigs to Catch vias ΠΝ =. pO 
 Duty isSafety, . . ««* » a ὦ Rhymes for nee . - 80 
 Jack the Sailor Boy, . ᾿ p . 25} Tennent’s Life, . - 5 πο": 
 Think before you Act. . + +  « 5}! Theological Sketch Book, " 5 3. 00 
 Short Prayers, . ͵ . . ᾽ + 15 Tholuck’s Circle Human Life, . ὃ “ὦ 30 
 Sick Room (The), . Ξ . - 15] Three Months under the Snow, A 30 
 an 8 (Mrs. L. M.) Water Drops, . . 15 Tucker’s Rainbow in North, . Α ee 
 Girl Book, foo) ss ate ΟΣ gn 1 40 Abeokuta, or Sunrise in the Tropics, . 75 
 Boys’ Book, . ᾿ a 4 - . 40) Turnbull’s Genius of Scotland, 4 . 100 
 —— Child’s Book, ‘ 5 ἃ ‘ . 935 Pulpit Orators of France, &c., . 100 
 — Faded Hope, . τ 7 ‘ Ὰ . 50 Turretine’s Works, . 10 00 
 —— Letters to Pupils, . . . “ . 175] Tyng’s Law and Gospel, - 150 
 —— Olive Leaves, A eee 75 Christ is All, ἡ ὃ0 
 Memoir of Mrs, Ceok, . 3 Ε “ΠΝ Israel of God, > - ὃ . 150 
 Simeon’s Life, . 2 00 | ——— Recollections of England, . - 100 
 Sinclair’s Modern Accomplishments, se Christian Titles, PE ocr cage pelt ys τ: 
 Modern Society, oy. «eC DD Lamb from Flock, - . 35 
 — Charlie Seymour, . F Ξ Ξ . 80] Very Little Tales for Very Little Children, ας, 
 ---- Hill and Valley, 4 75 | Wardlaw on Miracles, : ς ΖΦ 
 Holiday House, illustrated, 75 | Waterbury’s Book for Sabbath, 5 4 . 40 
 Sinner’s Friend, “ . 95] Watt’s Divine Songs, “ : . 40 
 Smith’s Green Pastures for the Lord’s Flock, - 100 | Waugh’s Life. . . Ὁ .. Ν Σ - 100 
 Smyth’s Bereaved Parents Consoled, 75| Week,The, . . Oe ΡΝ 
 Songs in the House of My Pilgrimage, 75 | Whately’s Kingdom of Christ, ‘ . sie 
 Sorrowing yet Rejoicing, 32mo., . ᾿ . 80 White’s Meditations on ἘΠΕῚ ὃ . . 40 
 Spring’s Memoir of H. L. Murray, . A - 150 Believer, 3 δ . e ς΄ ἊΝ 
 Stevenson’s Christ on Cross, 75 Second Advent, . : Ε Ρ ΕΝ 
 Lord our Shepherd, . τ , - 60 (H. K.) Works, . - 150 
 Stories on Lord’s Prayer, . A 5 . « 80 Whitecross’ Anecdotes on the Catechism, 30 
 Stuckley’s Gospel Glass, 5 ᾿ 75 | Wilberforce’s Practical View, . . . . 1 00 
 Sumner on Matthew and Mark, . . . 175/| Williams’ Life. ©. . §. = . .100 
 Symington on the Atonement, 5 . 75] Willison onSacrament, . < . 50 
 Taylor’s (Isaac) Loyola, . = A . 1 00 | Wilson’s Lights and Shadows, . “ 75 
 Natural History of Enthusiasm, : 75 | Wine and Milk, . 25 
 (Jeremy) Sermons, : A . 1 50 | Winer’s Idioms, ᾿ 4 A 2 50 
 (Jane) Life and Correspondence, r 40 | Winslow on Declension, . - ᾿ ~ 60 
 Contributions of Q. Q., 2 3 . 100 Midnight Harmonies, . ᾿ 5 a 
 Display, a Tale, . ᾿ ὸ . . 30 γνοοάτγι 5 Shades of Character, . . 150 
 Mother and Daughter, . : τ . 30. Wylie’s Journey over Prophecy, . ᾿ δας. 
 Essays in Rhyme, . ᾿ - Ἀ 30 | Young’s Night Thoughts, J6mo.,_. . - 100 
 Original Poems, Δ 40 Do. 18mo, ς Ὁ. . 40 
 rr p> = 
 
 
 
 ADDENDA. 
 
 Africa and America Described. By the author 
 
 of the “ Peep of Day.” 16mo 73 
 Ballantyne (R. H.) Mabel Grant; a Highland 
 
 story. I8mo. 50 
 Bonar (Rey. Horatius) The Eternal Day. 18mo. 50 
 
 Brown (Dr. John) Exposition of the Discourses 
 and Sayings of Christ. New edition, 2 vols. 
 8vo. . . ᾿ . 400 
 
 Charles Roussel ; 3 of, "Honestey and Industry. 
 By the author of “ Three Months Under the 
 Snow.” 18mo. . 
 
 Cheever (Dr.) The Right ‘of the Bible in the 
 Common Schools. 16mo. 
 
 Family Prayer. By the author of the “ Moraing 
 and Night Watches.” 16mo. . τὸ 
 
 Jay (Rev. Wm.) Female Scripture Characters. 
 Royal l2mo. . . 
 
 Berri oOOOOOOO™—""” ΑΝ ΑΝ Δ 
 
 Jay (Rev. Wm.) Morning and Evening Exer- 
 cises. New ed., on large type, 4 vols. 12mo. $4 
 
 Kitto. Daily Bible Illustrations; Now com- 
 pleted. 8 vols, 12mo. . ° Ὁ 
 
 Quarles’ Emblems, Divine and Moral. 16m0. 
 Illustrated. . 
 
 Scott (Rev. W. A., D. 'D.) Daniel a Model see 
 Young Men. Bro. Ἶ 
 
 Self Explanatory Bible, with the References 
 printed out at length, Half calf $4.50, Mor- 
 occo $6.00, Morocco gilt $6.50. 
 
 Vara; or the Child of Adoption, An original 
 tale of great beauty and interest. 12mo,  . 1 00 
 
 Woodcutter of Lebanon, and Exiles of Lu- 
 
 00 
 00 
 
 cerna, By the author of “ Morning and 
 Night Watches.” 18mo. ° ° ee a 
 . L 00 |Words of Jesus. By the same author. 16mo. 40 
 
 
 
 | 
 : 
 
 | 
 
 ; 
 : 
 

 
 —— ΝΞ 
 Ἴ 
 
 ᾿ 
 ᾿ 
 τοι. 
 
 
 
MAA 
 
 1 101 
 
 DATE DUE 
 
 
 
 φ» 
 τ» 
 
 - Γῳ 
 - ᾿ 
 Ξ 
 
 
 

 
τς 
 
 aoe 
 
 =— 
 
 Soe 
 
 ee 
 
 a 
 
 Se 
 
 Sei 
 
 2 
 
 =