'fjgivetbtfe Books

0

>Y^LH*¥M¥IElJ£S2irYe ILKIBIRiftlSy

DIVINITY SCHOOL
TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY

THE

Epistle to the Hebrews;

With Notes,

CRITICAL, EXPLANATORY AND PRACTICAL,

Designed for both Pastors and People.

REV. HENRY COWLE3, D. D.

''Cnderstandest thou what tbou readest? And he said, How can I except some man
should guide me?"— Acts viii: 30, 31.

NEW YORK:
D. APPLETON & COMPANY,
549 AND 551 BROADWAY.
1878.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1878, by
REV. HENRY COWLES,
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C.

PREFACE.

The paramount interest in this epistle lies in its revelations of
the character and work of Jesus Christ. It presents our divine-
human Redeemer in those highest functions of his incarnation — ¦
a mediating High Priest and an atoning sacrifice. Originally
addressed and therefore adapted to Hebrew readers, the writer
naturally had the whole Mosaic system constantly in his eye,
and could legitimately avail himself of its ample resources of
illustration. Incidentally he gives us the key to the significance
of that system as looking toward Christ, and shaping its symbols
to illustrate his mediation, sufferings and death. No Christian
themes can possibly surpass these in profound interest and im
portance. Appended to the exposition of the epistle will be found special
essays on the following subjects:
I. The Relation op thb Divine to the Human in the Person
of Christ ;
II. Apostasy and Saints' Perseverance;
III. The Premillennial Advent op Christ;
IV. The Atonement;
V. The Christian "Higher Life."
Oberlin, Ohio, May, 1878

(iii)

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.

INTRODUCTION.
In the study of this book, as indeed of all the other
books of the Bible, it will aid toward both a true under
standing and a just moral impression if we place ourselves
back so far as we may into the circumstances of the writer
and of his first readers. Surrounding circumstances serve
to supply both light and force. Let us therefore invite
their aid in our present study of this choice portion of the
sacred word; inquiring —
L To whom it was addressed; wlien, and under what cir
cumstances ;
II. By whom U was written ;
HI. Its seope and moral purpose ;
IV. Its points of special value in our own times.
I. The question, To whom addressed, if put in its mosf
general form — Were they Jews or were they Gentiles? —
admits really of no doubt. It is only when passing beyond
the general question, we ask for the particular details, in
quiring whether the church and Christian community spe
cially addressed were great or small ; in high esteem among
their Jewish brethren or low; in personal safety or under
persecution ; on what grounds held in general odium if such
were the fact; that the question, Who they were and how
situated, comes to have special importance and to present
points that require particular attention.
That they were by nationality and by education in the
broad sense Hebrews, is plain enough. The letter is
addressed "To the Hebrews." In every chapter we meet
quotations from their own Old Testament scriptures, or ref
erences to them of a sort which imply their recognized au
di

Z INTRODUCTION.
thority. The whole argumentation of the book adapts itself
to Jewish thought and Jewish belief. Every-where the
writer assumes that his readers are familiar not only with
the Old Testament scriptures generally, but in particular
with the institutions of Moses, the system of sacrifices, the
priesthood, and the glorious record left by the sainted heroes
of their earlier times. On the general question, therefore,
of their Hebrew origin and relationships, there can remain
no manner of doubt. On the more specific questions, how
ever, whether the whole body of Hebrew believers were
contemplated, or only some isolated group, some one church
or perhaps a small cluster of churches, sustaining special
relations to the writer of the epistle, there is room for
inquiry. This point deserves special examination.
The date of the epistle is involved in this inquiry, and
* should be settled at least proximately, here.
The entire current of the epistle throughout chap. 5:
1-6 and chaps. 7-10 inclusive, assumes that the temple was
then standing, and that the priesthood and the whole sacri
ficial system were then in their normal operation. But the
passage 8: 13 shows that they were then "waxing old and
ready to vanish away ; " i. e. , the destruction of the temple
and the consequent cessation of the Mosaic sacrifices was
very near at hand. Moreover, the love of those long-
cherished institutions was still in its strength in the souls of
Jewish converts, and hence was a grave temptation to re
lapse back from Christ into Judaism. The epistle labors to
withstand this special temptation.
Yet again : The epistle was certainly written from Italy ;
probably written and sent, not from Rome itself, but from
some point not far distant. If from Rome, some definite
salutation would probably have indicated it.  The epis
tle alludes to Timothy's recent release from imprisonment.
Have we any other intimation of this fact, and of the date
of his release? Some critics have assumed such indications
in Phil. 2: 19, 23, 24 — an assumption strengthened by
Paul's using the same language of Timothy as of himself:
(" I trust in the Lord to send Timothy shortly unto you; "
" I trust in the Lord that I also myself shall come
shortly"); but weakened by the doubt whether Timothy
was detained by his own imprisonment or by Paid's, inas
much as Paul says — " I hope to send him so soon as I shall
see how it will go wWv me." It is not safe, therefore, on
this authority to date Timothy's imprisonment and release

INTRODUCTION. 3
from the writing of this epistle to Philippi (A. D. 62),
though it may have occurred then. It is generally con
ceded that it occurred either in A. D. 62 or 64. If Timo
thy was imprisoned and released but once, it would carry
with it the precise date of our Epistle to the Hebrews.
With high probability we may fix its date not later than
A. D. 64. Judaism and its temple were then nearing their
final fall, as this epistle assumes.
Recurring now to the question of its definite address—
whether to the whole Jewish church, or to some one special
group, small compared with the whole body — let it be
considered :
1. That the nominally converted Jews were an ancient
body, dating from the great Pentecost (Acts 2).
2. That they were very numerous, for on the first day
we meet the number "three thousand" (Acts 2: 41), and*
not many days after " five thousand" (Acts 4: 4), of whom
some indeed were residents in remote countries, yet many
were Jews of Jerusalem or Judea. Onward we read (Acta
6: 7) that "the word of God increased, and the number
of disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly, and a great
company of the priests were obedient to the faith."
Another historic notice appears in Acts 9: 31; viz., that
" throughout all Judea, Galilee and Samaria, the churches
had rest, were edified . . . and multiplied."  Passing
some other historic notices, we find another, of date only
just prior to Paul's hearing before Felix (Acts 21 : 20) :
"Thou seest, brother" (said James to Paul) "how many
thousands of Jews there are who believe" (in the Greek
how many myriads — how many ten thousands there are) ;
"and they are all zealots of the law." This indicates an
immense body.
3. This last-named passage suggests that they were not
only numerous but intensely bigoted and bitterly hostile
toward Paul. They were in the class of persecutors and not
a class of men persecuted.
Holding these several points in mind, let us study the
allusions in this Epistle to the Hebrew Christians who are
specially addressed.
1. Throughout the epistle they are thought of, not as in
the class of persecutors, but of men persecuted. Thus (10 :
32-34) : " Call to remembrance the former days in which,
after ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight of
afflictions; partly while ye were made a gazing-stock both

4 INTRODUCTION.
by reproaches and afflictions, and partly while ye became
companions of them that were so used."
2. More definitely still, they were not the men who
hunted Paul's life at Jerusalem and bound themselves by
oath not to eat or drink till they had killed him; but (says
the writer in the amended text of 10: 34) "ye had com
passion on the prisoners." The spirit of the Christians ad
dressed in this epistle is certainly in total contrast with
that of the thousands of believing Jews who are before us
in Acts 21 : 22 and onwards.
3. The writer of the epistle seems to have been the pas
tor if not even the spiritual father of the Hebrew Chris
tians whom he addresses. At least, his relations to them
had been peculiarly tender and endearing. With great
fidelity he speaks of them as ' ' dull of hearing " and slow
of apprehension (5: 11, 12); but expresses great confidence
in their sound conversion (6: 9, 10). He asks their
prayers — "Pray for us;" and adds, "I beseech you the
rather to do this that I may be restored to you the sooner "
(13: 18, 19). Is it credible that the man who wrote these
words was that very Paul whom we saw in Acts 21, and
that he now writes to the same thousands of Jewish Chris
tians who were then gnashing their teeth upon him and vow
ing to take his life? Has he faith now that through their
prayers he "may be restored to them the sooner"?  Pos
sibly this may be the same Paul ; but it is by no means sup-
posable that he is writing to the same rabid, blood-thirsty
zealots for their prayers to hasten his restoration to their
endearments !
Is it replied to this that the Christian spirit is forgiving —
even to the point of forgetting — and that Paul's heart soon
came back into genuine gospel love towards the men who
so savagely sought his life?  The proper answer is that
between Paul and those bigoted Jews, there was a grand
issue which called for other treatment than simply forgive
ness on Paul's part. They verily thought they were doing
God service; Paul must needs show them that they were
mistaken, for he himself had been called by a voice from
heaven, and had been moving ever since in obedience to
God alone. The defense which he made in the face of his
persecutors before Felix, Festus and Agrippa, discloses per
fectly the great issue pending between himself and them,
and also the way he met it. That very issue must have been
still pending when this epistle ivas written. If Paul wrote this

INTRODUCTION. 5
epistle to the great, entire Jerusalem church, it should have been
built vpon tJiis great issue, and should by no means have ignored
it altogether, as this epistle in fact does. Does this epistle
defend Paul for preaching Christ to the Gentiles? Not a
word of it. Does it fall back upon his meeting with Jesus
of Nazareth on his way to Damascus, as the starting-point
in his gospel missionary life? Not a word of this. Does it
define and justify his position in regard to the non-circum
cision of Gentile converts ? Nothing of the sort. Is it then
in any wise supposable that this epistle gives us Paul open
ing a correspondence with the many ten thousand Hebrew
believers whom we saw in Jerusalem (Acts 21 : — ) at the his
toric-point of Paul's appeal to Csesar?  1 judge we must
reject this supposition as simply incredible.
4. The allusions in Heb. 5: 11-14 bear on our main
question in two points; showing (a) that they had been
long enough in the school of Christ to have become teach
ers, yet were still but imperfectly developed pupils; and
(6) that they were not so numerous as to forbid a high
degree of unity in their characteristic developments. For
such remarks could not be made safely of a body that num
bered thousands and tens of thousands : "When for the time
ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you
again the first principles of the oracles of God."
. Such words might fitly apply to converts of from two to
four years of Christian life, but not to those of twenty years
to thirty; — might apply also to the unity of character pos
sible in a single church or a small group of believers; but
not naturally to a body numbering many thousands.
5. Converts to the Christian faith from Pharisees or men
imbued with Pharisaic ideas would naturally drift toward
righteousness by deeds of law, as we see very manifestly in
those converts from among Jews whom Paul addressed by
letter at Rome. But noticeably there is not a word in this
epistle which even suggests this very peculiar type of
thought among these Hebrew Christians. It is therefore
very safe to say, they were never Pharisees, nor men imbued
with Pharisaic doctrines. They had been real Jews; they
had the national reverence for their priesthood and a long
cherished admiration for the temple and its ritual of sacrifices^
and worship. Hence they were m danger of being fascinated
with the external display made in this ancient ritual. Con- '
sequently the writer of this epistle laid out his great strength
to show that Christ was above Moses; his priesthood infinitely

0 INTRODUCTION.
better than Aaron's ; his blood' more availing than that of
bulls and goats ; his intercessions higher and mightier, even
as the heavens whither he has gone are higher than the
earth. But labored argument against the righteousness
which Pharisees in the church sought through deeds of
law — such as we find in the Epistle to the Romans — we
find not in this Epistle to the Hebrews.
These considerations avail to show that this epistle "to the
Hebrews" contemplates, not the great and ancient Jewish .
church or churches, numbering "many ten thousands," but
some isolated group of Jewish converts, perhaps gathered
at Csesarea while Paul lay there under guard awaiting the
issue of his appeal to Csesar. Luke was obviously with him
there, and so far as appears, not restrained of his personal
liberty. Other fellow-laborers with Paul may have been
there also — perhaps the whole group named in Acts 20: 4,
and especially Timothy. Under these labors this Hebrew
church may have been gathered. This supposition accounts
readily for the historic allusions which appear in the epistle.
More of the Pharisaic element should be expected in a
Hebrew church gathered at Jerusalem.
6. On the point of charitable distribution and supply as
between one class of churches and another, the Hebrews, ad
dressed in this epistle had been givers and not receivers. The
writer says to them — "Ye have ministered to the saints, and
do minister" (Heb. 6: 10). But in all the recorded cases, the
Jewish Christians at Jerusalem had been receivers and not
givers. Paul wrote to the Romans (15: 25, 26): "I go to
Jerusalem to minister to the saints. For it hath pleased
them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribu
tion for the poor saints who are at Jerusalem." So his
letter to Corinth, names Jerusalem as receiving, not as giving
(1 Cor. 16 : 3).  At a yet earlier period, relief was sent
to the brethren in Judea, and to "the elders" — i. e., to
Jerusalem (Acts 11: 29, 30). Hence it is by no means
probable that the giving church of the Hebrews, addressed
in this epistle, was that of Jerusalem.
7. The Jews at Jerusalem had a strong partiality for the
Hebrew tongue, as appears in the account of Paul's defense
before them (Acts 22: 2). But this epistle is not only
* Greek, but Greek of remarkable purity, less affected by the
Hebrew dialect then current than any other epistle in the
New Testament.  In the same line lies yet another fact —
viz., that the quotations from the Septuagint are made in

INTRODUCTION. 7
this epistle with the greatest precision and accuracy — a
fact which indicates not only that the writer was familiar
with the Greek tongue, but that his contemplated readers
were also. Such accuracy in quotations from the Septua
gint, if his letter had been addressed to the Jews at Jeru
salem, would have damaged rather than recommended it.
It is probable, almost certain, that the people specially
addressed were accustomed to the Greek tongue and to the
use of the Septuagint in its purity. According to Josephus
this was the case with the residents at Csesarea. It was not
with those at Jerusalem.
Compactly put, the main points are :
The writer has been pastor and probably spiritual father
of those whom he addresses, and therefore greatly desires
to see them again (13: 18, 19); he has suffered persecution
with them and they with him, so that the strongest mutual
sympathy obtains between them (10 : 32-34). There is not
a word in the whole epistle which even hints that the
Hebrews addressed were the same who had vowed to kill
him — the same who had made up a grand issue of life-and-
death antagonism against Paul because he preached the
gospel to Gentiles, dishonored circumcision, or permitted
Gentile converts to set foot in their holy temple.  Again,
the Christian body addressed is so small that he can safely
speak of them as having almost entire unity of character
and circumstances. All are young converts yet not developed
as rapidly as they should (5 : 11-14) ; but of whom he has
strong confidence in their sound conversion and ultimate
salvation (6: 9). The absence of all allusion to the Phari
saic element forbids the supposition that the writer addresses
any large body of Hebrew believers, and least of all — at
Jerusalem.  That in the matter of inter-church benefac
tions, they had been givers and not receivers, goes strongly
against their being "the poor saints at Jerusalem;" while
the finished classic Greek and the accurate quotations from
the Septuagint which characterize this epistle compel us to
think of it as adjusted to some secluded and quite local
body of Hebrew converts, whose opportunities for Greek
culture had been altogether peculiar. — : — All these points
combined prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Hebrews
addressed were a. small body of comparatively young con
verts, and probably one gathered under the labors of Paul
and his associates while he was confined at Csesarea.
At this point the question springs itself upon us whether

8 INTRODUCTION.
the responsible authorship of this epistle lies with one man,
or is to be shared between two or more.
Bearing on this point, let us notice the writer's use of the
words, "we" and " us ; " and also "I" and " me."
Omitting as not in point the somewhat numerous cases in
which the word "we" associates the writer with his read
ers, e. g., 2: 1, 3: 8, 9 and 3: 14, 19, etc., there remain
several cases in which the prospective readers are not
counted in under the word " we," but its use indicates more
than one mind in the utterance — an association of two or
more in the real authorship; e. g., in 5: 11: "Of whom
we have many things to say and hard to be uttered," etc. ;
and 6: 9: " But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of
you, and things that accompany salvation," etc.; and 6: 11:
"We desire that every one of you do show the same dili
gence," etc. ; but especially in matters altogether personal,
as in 13 : 18 : " Pray for us; for we trust we have a good
conscience," etc.
On the. other hand, note also the indications of but one
author in the words " I " or " me." In 7 : 9 : " And as I
may so say, Levi paid tithes in Abraham." More strongly
personal is 13 : 19, where after the request " Pray for us," we
read : " But I beseech you the rather to do this that I may
be restored to you the sooner." Also 13 : 22, 23 : " And I
beseech you, brethren, suffer the word of exhortation; for
I have written a letter unto you in few words." " With
Timothy if he come shortly, I will see you."
The only supposition which accounts naturally for this
various usage is this — that while there was some one man
whose hand wrote and whose mind gave form to the
thought, there were also others, one or more, who were
very intimately associated with him, sharing with him we
know not how much responsibility for the sentiments — the
general points of the argument and the subject-matter of
the epistle. It is not material to this argument whether
these other parties (one or more) were in any way made
known to the prospective readers. They may have been,
or may not; yet probably they were. The author who
writes " I " was obviously known to them, not by his own
name in the epistle, but by other means. Unquestionably
his known relations to them served to identify him suffi
ciently. Some may ask whether this plural pronoun may not be
the editorial "we," common enough in our times to cover tho

INTRODUCTION. 9
distinct personality of an editor; or the imperial "we"
heard in the magniloquent utterances from earthly thrones.
The latter, at least, is not to be thought of, nor do I see any
reason to accept the former. The editorial profession is far
too modern to have affected the usage of letter-writers in
the age of our epistle.  Moreover, it should be noted that
the writer uses sometimes "we" and sometimes " I," indi
cating that in some respects he wrote as an individual, and
in other respects represents one or more besides himself.
Let it also be borne in mind that in the epistles known to
be Paul's, he never disguises his own personality — never
shrinks from saying "I" and "me" when he has occasion
to speak of himself.  This usage is uniform in all the
epistles of the New Testament, unless this to the Hebrews
be an exception.
H. We come now to the specific question of authorship:
Who wrote this Epistle to the Hebrews?
On this single point able critics have written volumes.
Within the space which my plan allows me, I can not re
peat or even review all that has been written. I have a
strong conviction that too much importance has been
attached to this question, since many have assumed that its
inspiration hinges on this one point of authorship. They
have virtually said : If we can prove that Paul wrote it, we
prove its inspiration; if we fail, then its inspired authority
fails. I dissent entirely from this position. If it shall appear
probable that Paul was not in the strict sense the author and
that Luke was, its inspired authority is as high as that of
Luke's " Gospel " or his "Acts." Or if the evidence should
strongly favor Apollos, yet the indications of Paul's pres
ence, of his eye, and of his concurrent mind and supervision
will supply all the inspired authority we have reason to
ask. Let it be carefully considered that we have already
brought the question of author within quite narrow limits.
We have seen that the allusions in the book itself, compared
with what is well known as to the numbers, the age, the
doctrinal sentiments, and the bigoted spirit of the nominally
Jewish church, show conclusively that the epistle was never
addressed to the entire body of professedly believing Jews,
but was written to a very small group of converts, young
in the Christian life, and bearing most intimate relations to
the writer and to his particular associates at the time of his

10 INTRODUCTION.
writing. We know with reasonable certainty that the
epistle was written at or near Rome, and either by Paul
himself, or by one or more of his very intimate^ associates
and fellow-laborers. Knowing so much, there is not the
least occasion for any solicitude as to its inspired authority.
Nor indeed can it be a question of very great importance
whether the original handwriting and the literary style
shall be ascribed to Paul, to Luke, or to Apollos. In either
case the two great points of chief importance are well es
tablished; viz., its inspired authority; and such knowledge
of the writer and of his contemplated readers as we need
for our aid in its just interpretation.
Some space should, however, be accorded to this question
of authorship.
1. All the reliable authorities for the original text give
the heading thus: "To the Hebrews;" this, and this only.
The words which stand in King James' version — "The
Epistle of Paul the Apostle" — have no textual author
ity. 2. It was Paul's habit to place his name at the beginning
of his epistles. Of the thirteen ascribed to him, every one
begins with his name "Paul." Most of them give his title — ¦
"an apostle of Jesus Christ;" the latter with some vari
ations. Remarkably, this Epistle to the Hebrews is the only
epistle in our accepted canon which appears without the
name of the writer.
Much has been written on the point whether Paul could
have had good reason for omitting his name in this epistle,
reasons so valid that the omission of his name here ought not
to prejudice his authorship. If the epistle had been ad
dressed to the many ten thousands of Jewish believers
whose spirit toward Paul had been so bigoted and so savage,
and if, moreover, throughout the epistle the writer had kept
himself dark, refraining from any allusion which might
disclose his personality, then Paul's impersonality might be
plausible. But unfortunately for this argument, it appears
plain that the epistle was not addressed to those myriads
(Acts 21: 20), and moreover it also appears that the writer
did not labor .to conceal his personality from his readers.
His allusions to himself and to his relations to his readers
could not have left them in any doubt who he was. I con*
elude, therefore, that if Paul wrote it he did not omit his
name for the sake of concealing his personality.
The way being now cleared for the direct discussion of the

INTRODUCTION. 11
question, Who was Hie autlior? let us arrange the testimony
under two general heads:
I. Internal — such as we gather from the book itself;
H. External, or historical — the testimony of the early
Christian fathers.
I. In our further treatment of the internal testimony, it
may facilitate our progress to suggest a theory, it being
carefully understood that framing a theory is not of itself
making proof, but is used only to show more clearly the
force and bearing of our points of argument.  1 propose
this theory of the case : — That the Hebrew church addressed
was located at Cpesarea; was gathered there chiefly under
the labors of Paul's friends and associates while he was
under guard, restrained of his personal liberty, awaiting the
result of his appeal to Csesar. Prominent among these fel
low-helpers of Paul were Luke and Timothy, both of whom
it appears were there; — Luke certainly as the historian of
Paul's labors during this period, and Timothy as appears
from Acts 20 : 4 and Heb. 13 : 23. — : — Hence the theory is
plausible that Luke was mainly the responsible author of
this epistle in the sense that the style is his, and to some
extent, the course of argument and the prominence given to
points of doctrine, as well as also the personal allusions;
while yet he may have written under the eye of Paul, with
his most entire concurrence and indorsement, and with per
haps large aid from Paul's suggestions.
It is supposable that Paul put Luke forward to the writ
ing of this epistle for the two following reasons, and perhaps
others :
(a) The personal relations of Luke to the church and com
munity addressed — he having been largely if not even
chiefly instrumental in their conversion, so that the warmest
mutual interest and love existed between himself and them.
(6) The people of Csesarea being specially familiar with
the Greek language and proficient in Greek culture, it was
appropriate that Luke rather than Paul should write this
epistle, he having command of a pure Greek style built
upon a higher Greek culture.
It is now in place to adduce various points which strongly
favor Luke, rather than Paul, as the writer.
1. The personal allusions made in the epistle.
Most important here is that one which is most prominent
(13: 19): "I beseech you the rather to do this ('pray for
us') that I may be restored to you the sooner." "Restored to

12 INTRODUCTION.
you" implies that he had belonged to them before, and
greatly desired to return and resume, in some measure at
least, his former relations as their spiritual teacher. If we
admit a high probability that Luke was one of the leading
laborers in gathering the Hebrew church at Csesarea, that
same measure of probability will support the theory that the
"I" of this passage is Luke.  Again, if we assume, as
suggested above, that Luke and Timothy were prominent
among the Christian laborers who gathered this little church,
then the allusion (13: 23) to "our brother Timothy" is
beautifully pertinent.
The personal allusion (10: 34), as it stands in the com
mon version — "Ye had compassion of me in my bonds" — -
would call for special attention as making strongly for Paul,
if this reading of the passage were fully sustained. But the
now approved reading — "Ye had compassion with the pris
oners" — leaves the passage equally pertinent from the pen
of either Luke, Paul, or any one of his fellow-laborers.
. Furthermore, the writer (or writers) does not class him
self with those earliest disciples who personally heard the
gospel from the lips of Jesus (2: 3). But this applies
equally to Paul, Luke, Timothy and Apollos. Noticeably,
this hearing of the original gospel facts at second hand,
corresponds perfectly with what Luke says of himself in his
introduction to his gospel (1: 2).
2. The style of Greek in this epistle is cultured, almost
classic; not tinged with Aramaisms, as is the case with
those New Testament writers (Paul included) who were
originally Jews, and whose vernacular was the Aramean.
Luke was not a Jew, and manifestly had an early training
in Greek culture.* The finish and elegance of the Greek
* Of Luke's personal ' history only a few points are certainly
known. His name is Greek (not Hebrew). Paul (Col. 4: 11, 14)
omits his name from his list of Jews — "those of the circumcision"
— leaving us to assume therefore that he was a Gentile. In this pas
sage he calls him " the beloved physician." Other references to him
by name appear in 2 Tim. 4: 11 and Phil. 24. Both speak of him
only as a fellow-laborer with Paul.  Eusebius (His. Ec. iii. 4)
says he was born at Antioeh in Syria. Probably he was among
¦those early converts who were the first to bear the name "Christian."
 He appears first, in the historical line of Paul's travels, at
Troas (Acts 16: 8, 10-13) where his presence is implied by the word
"we." This proof of his companionship with Paul in travel disap
pears Acts 17: 1, but appears again Acts 20: 5, and from that point
continues onward through his history of Paul in the Acts. He was

INTRODUCTION. 13
in this epistle is one of its very striking features. In com
paring it with Luke's gospel, on the point of classic style,
the reader should make special account of his introduction
(1 : 1-4) rather than of the historic portions — inasmuch as
Luke may have copied these entire from earlier documents
written by Jews. Much of the book of Acts we may attri
bute to his pen.
3. Coupled with this and heightening this argument is the
remarkable accuracy of the quotations from the Septuagint.
Whereas, other New Testament writers, and especially Paul,
quote from the Septuagint loosely (we may say), sometimes
apparently from memory and for substance of the thought;
and moreover, sometimes from the Hebrew rather than the
Greek Septuagint, yet throughout this epistle the Septuagint
is quoted verbatim. This indicates great familiarity with
the Septuagint, and apparently no use at all of the Hebrew.
4. Under the general head of style, considered in those
aspects of it which pertain primarily to modes of thought,
and secondarily to forms of speech, we may note three very
decisive characteristics of Paul, viz. : (1) Sentences irregu
lar, broken, incomplete; (2) Interjected doxologies; (3)
A frequent use of the bold, rhetorical interrogative.
(1) Throughout this epistle the sentences are constructed
with great regularity; never broken off unfinished, as we
often find them in the known epistles of Paul. In the
argumentative passages, the logic is faultless; no impetuos
ity of feeling sweeps the mind along, leaving some of its
points but partially developed; no association of ideas is
allowed to throw the mind off its track of thought into side
issues.  On the contrary every careful reader of Paul is
struck with these features in his style of thought and speech.
For example, when (Rom. 8: 3) he would say that what
the law could not do for its weakness through the flesh,
God accomplished by means of his Son, he leaves the second
part in this unfinished shape: "God sending his own _ Son
in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in
the flesh: that the righteousness of the law might be ful
filled in us," etc. He thus fails to say explicitly that God
effected through his Son what the law could not; but
leaves us to infer it. His mind is borne along by its in-
with Paul therefore at Csesarea and also during his journey by land
and sea to Rome, and during his stay there, apparently down to the
writing of this Epistle to the Hebrews.

14 INTRODUCTION.
tense interest in God's scheme of incarnation, and he seems
to forget how he began his sentence and how it ought reg
ularly to close. Sentences of this sort never occur in the
Epistle to the Hebrews.
Another striking example appears in Eph. 3 — the whole
chapter being a digression, a long parenthesis — in which
his full soul ranges on and on, over thoughts so fascinating
to him that it is long ere he can check himself and return
(as in 4 : 1) to the point of starting. This characteristic in
Paul's style is very prominent. It is scarcely credible that
no trace of it should appear in this Epistle to the Hebrews
if indeed Paul were its real and sole author.
(2) A second characteristic of Paul is his habit of inter
spersing doxologies. It may suffice here to refer to Rom.
9: 5: "Who is over all, God blessed forever;"- — and (11:
33) O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and
knowledge of God ! how unsearchable are his judgments
and his ways past finding out ! " (1 Cor. 15 : 57) " Thanks
be to God, who giveth us the victory through our Lord
Jesus Christ." (Eph. 1: 3) "Blessed be the God and
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ," etc. (1 Tim. 1: 17)
¦"Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only
wise God, be honor and glory forever and ever ; Amen : " —
(2 Tim. 4: 18) " Will preserve me unto his heavenly king
dom, to whom be glory forever and ever; Amen."  It is
thus apparent that this is a habit of Paul's mind and pen.
A very few similar cases appear in the Revelation of John ;
these excepted, nowhere else in the epistles of the New
Testament. We miss them entirely in the Hebrews; al
though the themes are no less adapted to inspire devout
doxologies than those which do inspire them in Paul to the
Romans and to Timothy.
(3) A third no less striking feature in Paul's style is his
bold, rhetorical interrogatvves — of this sort: "If our unright
eousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we
say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak
as a man) ; God forbid ! for then how shall God judge the
world? (Rom. 3: 5, 6). "O wretched man that I am!
who shall deliver me from the body of this death?"
(Rom. 7 : 24). " What shall we then say to these things?
If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared
not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how
shall He not with him freely give us all things? Who
shall lay any thing' to the charge of God's elect? It is

INTRODUCTION. 15
God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is
Christ that died," etc. " Who shall separate us from the
love of Christ? shall tribulation," etc., (Rom. 8: 31-35).
The attentive reader of Paul will mark this as one of
the most salient points of his style. Those who have never
given it attention may fitly be reminded that it occurs in
Rom. 3, seventeen times, and in the first eleven chapters
of Romans seventy-eight. No other sacred writer begins to
approach Paul in the point of abundant use of this rhetori
cal interrogative. It represents his way of thinking and
his way of putting the strong thoughts that burn in his
soul. It would seem that he never waxes warm with his
great themes but he pours forth these mighty questions !
Over against this, the Epistle to the Hebrews has a few
analogous cases — yet very few compared with the known
epistle of Paul. Of interjected doxologies there are none —
for that in 13 : 21, is the fitting close — except the post
script. Yet there is as much occasion for either or both
these forms of impassioned speech in this epistle as in that
to the Romans. Here are the same stirring gospel themes;
the same occasion to press them ; for aught we can see, the
same demand for these modes of expressing deep and strong
emotion which exist in Paul's letter to the Romans. But
the -writer to the Hebrews abstains for the most part from
these Pauline methods of mighty appeal and overflowing
emotion. The only reasonable explanation of this difference
is that the writer to the Hebrews is not Paul.
5. Under the head of style we must include the writer's
choice and usage of words and phrases. Comparing this
epistle with the thirteen which bear Paul's name we might
make up a large list in this of other words for the same
idea — a list which should include verbs, nouns, and not
least, those particles which indicate the relation between
one clause and another. Greek scholars would readily
notice and appreciate the force of this argument. To the
merely English reader it can not be readily presented in its
full strength. Origen of Alexandria, whose mother-tongue
was Greek, made special note of this diversity and inferred
that the style of this epistle could not be Paul's.  One or
two cases for illustration must suffice — taken from the usage
of names for the Savior.  The phrase, "in Christ"
occurs in the known epistles of Paul seventy-eight times,
but not once in this Epistle to the Hebrews. The phrase
—"Our Lord Jesus Christ," or "Jesus Christ our Lord"

16 INTRODUCTION.
is found (according to Tholuck) eighty-six times in the
Epistle to the Romans and twenty-six times in 1 Corinth
ians; but not once in "Hebrews." — Such diversity goes
very far to prove another writer.
6. Appeal is naturally made to the prominence given to
special points of the gospel scheme. Many cases of striking
analogy in this respect will appear in comparing this epistle
with Luke's Gospel and Acts ; perhaps even more in com
paring it with the known epistles of Paul. In this line of
argument I do not find very much evidence for the author
ship of either Luke or Paul to the exclusion of the other.
You might prove rather that they both wrote it. Those two
men manifestly had a common gospel history and held a
common system of theological doctrine. If Paul suggested
freely and Luke wrote both his own thought and Paul's,
the result would be as we see — some of Paul's favorite ideas
and views of the gospel scheme, and also some of Luke's.
 It should not surprise us, therefore, to find strong
analogies with Luke's known writings — thus :
(a) In his frequent reference to the ministry of angels.
On the one hand in this epistle — 1 : 4-14 and 2 : 2, 5-9,
16 and 12: 22, 23 and- 13: 2.  On the other hand in
Luke's gospel, throughout his history of the Savior's birth,
also in 12: 8, 9 : "The Son of man shall confess or deny
— before tlie angels of God; and 15: 10: "Joy in the pres
ence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth ; "
and 20: 36: "They are equal to the angels;" and 22:
43 : " There appeared an angel unto him from heaven
strengthening him ; " and in 24 : 4-7 the two men in shin
ing garments are angels. So also in Acts 10 : 3, 22 and
12: 7-11.
(6) In the prominence given to the incarnation — the
doctrine of Christ's humanity.
We shall see in this epistle more prominently than in
any other, the development of Christ's human nature, the
reason why he was "made in all things like his brethren,"
and the result of this incarnation in his perfect priesthood,
his tender sympathy with his tempted, suffering people, and
his one offering of himself as the Great Atoning Sacrifice.
 Over against this, Luke in his gospel is pre-eminently
the historian of the incarnation, lingering long upon its
various incidents and antecedents. In his history of the
last sufferings of Jesus, he alone has preserved to us those
specially touching facts — the bloody sweat in the garden

INTRODUCTION. 17
(22 : 44) ; the kind words to the penitent thief (23 : 43) ;
and the words of tender sympathy to the weeping "daugh
ters of Jerusalem" (23 : 28). Of like sort is that model of
tenderness (19: 41); — "And when he was come near he
beheld the city and wept over it," etc.
(c) In regard to the Holy Ghost as embodying the pmvers
of the gospel age and as one who can not be dishonored
with impunity. We see this in the epistle (6 : 4-6 and 10 :
29). In the gospel the Spirit is promised under the word
power (24 : 49) : " Ye shall be endued with power from on
high." So also in Acts 1 : 8. The work of the Spirit as
the grand development of spiritual power is the great theme
of the early chapters of the " Acts." The case of Ana
nias and Sapphira and also of Simon Magus are on record as
warnings against dishonoring his name.
Thus we find points of striking analogy between Luke's
known writings and this epistle.
So we may find the favorite points of Paul's theological
system reproduced in this epistle ; e. g. , in both the thirteen
epistles that bear his name, and in this God is the efficient
and final Cause of all things. " It became him for whom
are all things and by whom are all things," etc. (Heb. 2:
10). Correspondingly, "Of him and through him and to
him are all things" (Rom. 11 : 36).
As to the person of Christ: In Hebrews (1: 3) we read —
"The express image of his person;" and in Col. 1: 15 —
" Who is the image of the invisible God; " and essentially
the same in 2 Cor. 4 : 4.
That Christ is the instrumental agent of God in creation
is the doctrine of this epistle (1: 3): "By whom he made
the worlds"; while Paul writes (Eph. 3:9): "Hid in God
who created all things by Jesus Christ."
That Christ suffered " once for all" is a prominent thought
in this epistle; e. g., in 9: 26 and 10: 10: "Now once in
the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by
the sacrifice of himself," etc. ; and correspondingly in Rom.
6: 10 — " He died unto sin once."
That he vanquished death is a salient point here:
"Through death, he destroys him that has the power of
death" (2: 14); a fact which Paul delights to repeat:
"Death is swallowed up in victory" (1 Cor. 15: 54);
" Hath abolished death" (2 Tim. 1: 10).
That Christ is exalted on account of his sufferings is taught
in the epistle (2: 9): "Crowned with glory and honor on

1 8 INTRODUCTION.
account of his sufferings even to death; " and the same doc
trine is strongly put (Phil. 2:9): " Because he became obe
dient unto death, even the death of the cross, therefore
hath God highly exalted him."
That he is permanent Intercessor for his people, is made
a strong point in the epistle (e. g.,7: 25): "Ever liveth to
make intercession for them ;" which also appears in Paul to
the Romans (8 : 34) : " Who also maketh intercession for us."
Also, he awaits supreme dominion — shown in this epistle
(10: 12, 13): "From henceforth expecting [waiting] till
his enemies be made his footstool ; " but no less strongly in
1 Cor. 15: 25 — "He must reign till he hath put all ene
mies under his feet."
In form and structure, as a whole, this epistle corresponds
with that to the Romans — the first part devoted to doctrine
and its argument; the second to the practical application — ¦
exhortation to outgrowing duties.
Even in so nice a point as the imagery and figures used,
we might trace analogies — for here in "Hebrews" God's
word is a sword, even sharper than any sword of double
edge (4: 12); while in Eph. 6 : 17 the "word of God is the
sword of the Spirit." And yet again : Young, inexperienced
converts are thought of as " babes " to be fed on milk — not
meat. In this epistle (5: 12, 13): "Ye are become such
as have need of milk," etc.; and in Rom. 2: 20, by the
same figure, "A teacher of babes;" and in 1 Cor. 3: 1, 2:
" I speak unto you as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you
with milk and not with meat, for hitherto ye were not able
to bear it," etc.
As suggested above, no conclusive inference can be drawn
from the fact that these points of Christian doctrine are
found in common both in this epistle on the one hand, and
in both Paul and Luke on the other. Men who lived and
labored so long together, preaching the same gospel, using
the same scriptures, drinking at the same fountains of
truth, experience and divine inspiration, might be expected
to use in general though not perhaps in detail the same
phraseology, and to make prominent the same great points
of gospel doctrine. Our analysis of this general fact in its
details goes as far to prove that they both were concerned in
preparing this epistle as that either of them rather than the
other was its sole author.
The conclusions, therefore, to which I am led by the in
ternal evidence may be put briefly thus:

INTRODUCTION. 19
1. The style can not be Paul's. The salient points of in
compatibility with Paul are entirely too many in number
and too strong in character to admit the supposition of his
sole authorship.
2. There is nothing to forbid but very much to favor the
theory that Luke wrote this epistle. The fact that his other
books are historical, while this is not, limits our range of
comparison between those and this, and may perhaps account
for the non-appearance in this epistle of some words and
phrases which are in his histories. Moreover, portions of
his gospel history may have been copied verbatim from some
earlier historian — some eye-witness of the scenes — so that
the style may not be his. The introduction to Luke
(1 : 1-4) and the body of the Acts must stand to his account
as author.
3. The points of doctrine made prominent in this epistle,
as also the forms of their expression, accord best with the
theory that the mind of Paul and the mind of Luke are
both here.
4. All this is in harmony with the indications in this
epistle of a dual or triple authorship, such as the writer's
varying usage alternating between "J" and "we." The
reader may compare the word "we" in 5 : 11 and 6: 9, 11
and 8: 1 and 13: 18, with the use of "I" in 7: 9 and
10: 34 and 13: 19, 22, 23. Thus much as to Paul and
Luke. In the list of possible or supposable authors for this epistle,
the name of Apottos has found favor with some excellent
critics (e. g., Luther, Tholuck, Alford).
It bears in his favor that he was an eloquent [or learned]
man, mighty in the Scriptures, a man instructed in the way
of the Lord ; fervent in spirit, diligently teaching the things
of the Lord even when he had known only the baptism of
John (Acts 18 : 24, 25) ; that after " the way of God had been
expounded to him more perfectly by Aquila and Priscilla,
he helped them much who had believed through grace, and
mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, showing by
the Scriptures that Jesus was Christ." It is plain, moreover,
that his labors at Corinth made a strong impression and
drew after him a very considerable following of men who
put him above even Paul.
But good man and great as he doubtless was, the evidence
of his having written this epistle must forever be lame,
partly because we have not a line known to be from his pen

20 INTRODUCTION.
with which we can compare the style of this epistle; but
more still, because there is not the least proof that he was
ever at or near Rome where this epistle was written, or that
he had labored in Judea, or more particularly at Casarea
with that group of Jewish converts who were specially
addressed.  On the other hand, our New Testament rec
ords fix the locality of his gospel labors at Ephesus, Achaia
and Corinth. Beyond these, we know that Paul wroteto
Titus to bring Apollos to Nicopolis where he was proposing
to spend the winter. For traces of his presence or labors
at other localities, we look in vain. It is therefore a very
doubtful assumption which would make him the spiritual
father and pastor of the group of Hebrew Christians (proba
bly at Csesarea) addressed in this epistle, and which would
locate him at or near Rome at the date of this epistle.
I see nothing therefore in the claims of Apollos to shake
my preference for the theory that Luke wrote this epistle.
II. It remains to consider the external, i. e., the historical
testimony. Manifestly this epistle was written in the bosom of the
Western churches (i. e., at or near Rome), and addressed to
a group of converted Jews in the East. In the Western
churches, the early historians are found in Rome, Gaul and
Africa; in the Eastern, the earliest at Alexandria (Egypt);
later, in Syria and Palestine.
It is probable (not certain) that the writing of this epistle
would be known in Rome and its vicinity at its date. It is
quite certain that it would be known to the group of its
contemplated readers to Avhom it was sent — supposably at
Csesarea, or at least, at some point in Judea. Outward from
these two points — the place of its writer and the place of its
first readers — the knowledge of this epistle and its author
[or authors] must have spread abroad.
Our examination of the internal features of the epistle
has suggested as possible a broad distinction between the
man whose pen and culture gave the epistle its style, and
the man whose supervision and indorsement gave it inspired
sanction. Will the historic testimonies reveal any trace of
this distinction, looking toward a sort of dual authorship?
By far the earliest quotations from this epistle are found
in Clement of Rome, supposed to be the same Clement
of whom Paul writes (Phil. 4:3). He wrote about thirty
years after the probable date of this epistle. His quotations
count up (as supposed) to twenty-five in number, yet he

INTRODUCTION. 21
makes no allusion to the author. He manifestly had the
epistle before him and recognized its authority, for the
Christians of his and later times quoted in this way only
from documents assumed to be inspired. If Paul had writ
ten the epistle, Clement must have known the fact, and
could scarcely have failed to refer to Paul as the author.
A tradition to this effect could not drop out from the cur
rent thought and belief of the Western churches. Yet for
two centuries onward from its date it was not recognized in
the Western churches as written by Paul. Is it not at least
supposable that his personal modesty induced the author to
withhold his own name, and that respect for his modesty
caused his friends who knew, to forbear to give it pub
licity ?
Irenseus, Bishop of Lyons (Gaul), from A. D. 178 to
A. D. 202, makes frequent use of Paul's known epistles,
but never of this. Photius, an honored patriarch and his
torian (A. D. 800) quotes Stephen Gobar (of the sixth cen
tury) as recording this: — Irenseus says, "Paul's Epistle to the
Hebrews is not his."  Hyppolytus (beginning of the third
century) said — " The Epistle to the Hebrews is not Paul's." —
The Roman presbyter Caius (first part of third century)
mentions only thirteen epistles of Paul, " not reckoning that
to the Hebrews with the rest."  Tertullian of Northern
Africa (A. D. 220-240) refers to this epistle very explicitly
as written by Barnabas.  Cyprian (of Northern Africa)
down to A. D. 258, never mentions this epistle, but twice
speaks of Paul as having written to seven churches, as Christ
did in the apocalypse. The seven are made up without
including this to the Hebrews.  After Jerome of Pales
tine (A. D. 360-420) and Augustme of Northern Africa
(A. D. 387-430) the Western churches generally accepted the
epistle as from Paul, though both of them seem to have been
personally doubtful whether the pen and style were his.*
Both these fathers yielded to the authority of the Eastern
churches and induced the Western churches to do the same.
Turning to the Eastern churches, we find the earliest wit
nesses in the great theological school at Alexandria (Egypt).
Pantamus, at the head of this school (A. D. 150) is sup
posed to have held that Paul was the author, inasmuch as he
ascribes the omission of his name to modesty: "Jesus him-
*See Bibliotheca Sacra, 1867, page 710— an elaborate and thor
oughly candid presentation of this entire question of authorship—
by Prof. J. H. Thayer.
2

22 INTRODUCTION.
self being the apostle to the Hebrews, Paul forbore to as
sume to himself this honor, and therefore omitted his name
and his usual title of dignity as an apostle." The case suf
fices to show that the omission of the author's name had
attracted attention and was an anomaly to be accounted for.
Clement, his pupil and successor (to A. D. 220), ascribed
it to Paul, but noticeably accounts for its unpauline style
on the theory that Paul wrote it in Hebrew, and Luke
translated it into Greek ; and for Paul's omission of his name
because he wished to evade the known prejudice of many
Hebrews against him.
The views of Origen, pupil and successor of Clement (to
A. D. 254), the greatest scholar of his age, may best be
put in his own words, thus: "The style of the epistle to
the Hebrews has not the negligence in diction of the apostle
who confesses himself to be rude in speech, i. e., phraseol
ogy. But the epistle is written in pure Greek, as every
one must confess who is able to discern differences of style."
 Again, he says: " The thoughts in this epistle are ad
mirable and not inferior to the acknowledged writings of
the apostle. This every one will grant who is familiar with
his productions."  Afterwards he adds: "I should say
that my belief is that the sentiments are the apostle's, but
that the phraseology and diction belong to some one who
expressed in words the thoughts of the apostle, and, as it
were, commented on the words of his master. If, however,
any church receives this epistle as Paul's, let it even receive
commendation for this; for not without reason have the
ancients handed it down as Paul's. Who penned this
epistle, none but God knows with certainty, but a report
has come to us from certain ones who say that Clement,
bishop of Rome, or Luke, the author of Acts, wrote this
epistle." From his time onward the current opinion of the Eastern
churches ascribed the epistle to Paul; yet the earlier testi
monies indicate doubt whether the style was his. Ulti
mately, with full consent, the East ascribes it to Paul so
far forth as to give it the sanction of his name and inspired
authority. The Western churches seem at length to have
accepted it on the authority of the Eastern.
In view of all the testimony, internal and external, my
conclusion is that Paul, in large measure, furnished the
mind; some one else (probably Luke) the hand and tho
shaping of the thought; that the moving spirit was Paul's.

INTRODUCTION. 23
and also the responsibility for the argument made and the
truths presented; while yet the making up of the epistle,
including whatever pertains to style, is due to another.
The hypothesis that the converts addressed were in Csesarea,
brought to Christ under the labors of Paul's associates dur
ing his imprisonment there ; subjected therefore to persecu
tion and spoiling of goods, but not as yet up to the point
of blood, meets the known conditions of the epistle — meets
all its historic personal allusions so fully and so naturally as
to leave, in my view, no considerable doubt as to its gen
eral historic verity. In a case of this sort, where direct
historic testimony is impossible, the utmost we can do is
to adopt the hypothesis which most naturally accounts for
all the known facts of the case. We then hold it, not as
perfectly established truth, but as the best result of accum
ulated probabilities; the best solution of all difficulties.
HI. The moral purpose and scope of this epistle next invite
our attention.
Our data must be found, partly in the known Hebrew
character and history of that age, but in larger part, in the
epistle itself.
Plainly the people addressed were recent converts from
Judaism. By life-long education imbued with love and rev
erence for the temple and its rituals— its sacrifices, priest
hood and worship— they were exposed to strong temptations
to apostatize from Christ to Judaism. It is not easy for us
to estimate the full strength of those attractions backward
from Christ to Moses — from the simplicity of the Christian
worship, to the imposing ceremonies and gorgeous splendor
of the temple and its associations. Their peril was the
greater because they were yet in the infancy of their Chris
tian life and thought— babes in Christ; still to be fed with
milk, and not matured up to the point of digesting the solid
food of the higher Christian truth. Hence the strongest
motives of the gospel could not reach them. The author
can not suppress his anxiety lest their very imperfect knowl
edge of the fundamental things of the gospel should expose
them dangerously to apostasy from the faith. Hence the
vital importance of developing to their easy apprehension
the great elements of the gospel scheme.
It is plain, moreover, that they were subjected 10 great
reproach for Christ, verging toward, though not as yet quite
unto, bloody persecution. Their goods had been in some
cases confiscated ["spoiled"], and to their praise, they had

24 INTRODUCTION.
" taken this joyfully." Would they stand the shock of yet
sterner trial to their faith?
It is to be supposed that the reproach cast on them for
Christ was much the same as had been cast on him by
the Jews — contempt for his low birth; scorn for a pre
tended Messiah who sprang, not from some princely family
of their proud city, but from the despised outlands of
Galilee; not rich but very poor; a man who found small
favor with the learned and great of their nation, on whom
few Pharisees had ever believed; who was, in short, "de
spised and rejected of- men." The verdict which the voice
of a whole people is supposed to pronounce has naturally
prodigious power. When great men, and men not so great,
combined to extol Abraham and Moses and David, but to
disown and to revile Jesus of Nazareth, it must not sur
prise us that Jewish converts to Christianity should need
to be fortified and braced against the ever present and ever
strong temptations to relapse into the ancient faith of their
fathers. From this stand-point of their case we can see the per
tinence of the grand argument of this epistle. It was vital
to bring out the real dignity and pre-eminent glory of Jesus
Christ. It was in place to set him before those Hebrew
eyes as the very image of the Infinite God, the glorious
Creator and Lord of all ; as high above the highest of cre
ated angels. It was directly to the point of their case to
warn them not to neglect so great a salvation which the
Lord from heaven himself began to teach ; which came to
men through lips more pure and sacred than angels; and
though Jesus was made a little lower than the angels, it
was only for a little time, and so long, only that he might
suffer and die for men, and then, having died, be crowned
with glory far higher than theirs. It was a marvelously
telling fact that many of the best elements of the gospel
scheme were the fruits of the incarnation of the Son of
God. A virgin mother must needs give birth to one whose
name should be Jesus, because he saves his people from
their sins; who should be "made in all things like his
brethren that he might be a merciful and faithful High
Priest;" whose suffering life and yet more suffering death
should make him more than a brother to his believing
people — even their Ransom and their Lamb of Sacrifice.
 How could they think lightly of such a Savior? How
could they afford to dishonor one who had laid aside the

INTRODUCTION. 25
honors of heaven and humbled himself so low that he might
the better sympathize with their sorrows, and bear their
sins, and wash- them out in his own blood!
Did they revere Moses ? This man was worthy of more
glory than Moses, as he who builds a house should have
more glory than the house. Did they honor the priests of
Aaron's line, who alone might enter into the Most Holy
place to appear before the visible glory? Here was a far
greater High Priest whose office never passed into other
hands, who had gone up to a more glorious temple, who
with his own blood had entered into the heavenly sanctuary,
and who henceforth lives forever to make reconciliation
for us. Were they impressed with the solemn offering of
the blood of animals, flowing in rivers and sprinkled around
upon the gathered thousands without and upon the mercy-
seat within? Here was the "one offering," of richer blood
than theirs, perfectmg forever the souls upon whom it
should fall.
So on through all its details the author draws the antith
esis between the Mosaic system and the Christian, showing in
every point how Moses culminates in Christ; how the old
scheme reached its lofty and perfect consummation in the
new, and finds in it all its really worthy significance inso
much that it was valueless save as it served to reveal and set
forth the real sacrifice — the true atonement — and the one
only way of pardon and redemption. These are the really
great points in the grand argument of this epistle.
Subsidiary points are subjoined to swell the tide of in
fluences toward a brave and steadfast Christian life.  Not
least among these is that magnificent grouping of moral
heroes whose faith and life shine out as stars of the first
magnitude on the sky of Hebrew history — men "of whom
the world was not worthy; " to whom no trial was too stern,
no torture too terrible, to be endured "as seeing Him who
is invisible." To lift men from weak faith up to strong,
from a faltering to a steadfast life, was the high and noble
aim of the closing exhortations in this epistle.
IV. The points of special value for our times — may fitly
close this Introduction.
For all time this epistle must have supreme value because
it so richly reveals Jesus Christ. To some it may seem too
obvious to need formal statement, but it never can be
understood too clearly or felt too deeply that Jesus Christ
is the center of the gospel scheme — the only possible source

26 INTRODUCTION.
of all salvation. The scheme begins and ends with Christ.
Its great truths are truths pertaining to Christ; its vital
power to save from sin dwells forever in him, and comes
forth to human souls only as he gives it. If there be for
giveness of sin, it comes through his blood; if there be
victory over sin, it is by faith in his name ; if there be any
comfort of love, if any consolation and peace to souls other
wise troubled, it is of his giving: if there be energy for
labor and patience for enduring to the end, it is of his
grace adjusted to our need. All this has been true through
all the ages of the past and must be through all the
future. Our own times may be supposed to differ from the
average of all past time in the point of peculiar specula
tions upon some fundamental elements of the gospel scheme.
Men have been speculating more or less profoundly upon
these questions: — What is the atonement? What, if any,
are its relations to the government of God? Does forgive
ness require any other antecedent condition on God's part
except forgiving love? What part is borne in the atone
ment by Jesus Christ as distinct from the Father and the
Spirit?  This group of questions may suffice to indicate
the drift of inquiry and speculation to which I refer. This
introduction is not the place for the elaborate discussion of
these points. They are brought to view here only to
suggest that our epistle will have something to say on these
great questions, and that it becomes us to open our ears to
its testimony and our hearts to all the impressions, intel
lectual and spiritual, which it may legitimately make.
Human speculation on these momentous themes is entirely
out of place when it soars above or beyond what God has
written. The great questions upon the atonement, and
indeed, the whole work of Christ in saving men, belong,
not to the province of reason but of revelation, and must
therefore be legitimately determined by the laws of inter
pretation. They come within the domain of human reason
only in so far as rational beings must use reason and
common sense in ascertaining the meaning of God's word.
Therefore, "to the law and to the testimony:" if men
speak not according to these, there is no light of truth in
them ; there can be none for them, and none to come forth
from them.

EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.

CHAPTER I.

That tne Son is supremely exalted — in dominion received from
the Father : in his relations as Creator of all ; in his intrinsic na
ture ; in his present exaltation since his atoning death — are points
made first (vs. 1-3) to enforee the authority of the spoken revela
tion which has been made through him. His supreme exaltation
is then set forth more fully by an extended contrast between him
self as the Son, and created angels (4-14) — the points of testimony
being all taken from the Old Testament prophets.
1. God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake
in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2. Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son,
whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also
he made the worlds ;
3. Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express
image of his person, and upholding all things by the word
of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat
down on the right hand of the Majesty on high ;
4. Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath
by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
"At sundry times" — through the thousand or more years from
Moses to Malachi: "in divers manners," as by dreams, visions,
heavenly voices — ways widely various in which God might open
the human ear and give truth to the human mind ; — so God had
spoken in the past to his holy prophets.  "In the last of these
days" (Greek), or "in these latter days" (for the form of this
phrase varies), God had spoken through his Son. The phrase
comes from the prophets themselves, through whom God had
promised to send his Son the Messiah " in the latter days." (See
Mic. 4: 1.) (27)

28 HEBREWS. — CHAP. I.
These opening verses will impress us with their full fitness
and force only as we hold in mind the facts brought to view in
our Introduction as to the people written to — viz., converts from
Judaism, strongly tempted both from without and from within to
apostatize from their new faith under the influence of the re
proach cast by their countrymen upon the name of Christ. Prob
ably it would not tempt us toward apostasy to hear Jesus spoken
of as "the carpenter's son;" as one "come out of Galilee; ' as a
man whom no Pharisee had believed in, etc. : but we may forget
the force of a prejudice thoroughly national, of a current sentiment
firmly held by the men in highest esteem.  With these facts
of their case in our mind, we may note that the writer does not
begin with explanations in defense of the humble origin of Jesus;
does not apologize for his being called a Nazarene or a Galilean ; —
but at once strikes out grandly upon the high plane of his far
nobler divine antecedents; tells them how the same God whom
they recognized as having spoken through the prophets, had in
these last days spoken to mankind and (not least) to the men of
their nation, through his own Son. They believed the old proph
ets through whom God's word came to their honored fathers.
That was common ground to the writer and his readers ; and he
at once makes it the fulcrum of his lever — even as Paul would
fain have done before Agrippa. "King Asrippa, believest thou
the prophets? I know that thou believest.' (Acts 26: 27.) 
We shall often have occasion in this epistle to notice the perti
nence and power with which the writer wields his quotations
from those ancient and highly honored prophets.
But first, in the foreground of his argument, in few and brief
words, he presents the surpassing dignity of the Infinite Son.
God had appointed [constituted] him " heir of all things" — this
pivotal word " heir," its sense coming from Hebrew usage, signi
fied that he was ordained to succeed his Father in the inherit
ance, possession and control of the universe I Earthly fathers
must pass away, and, under this stern decree of human mortal
ity, are wont to transmit their powers and prerogatives to their
first-born, or to some most worthy son. Hence the word " heir " —
heir "of all" — became the fitting term to stand foremost in this
group of descriptive points setting forth the ineffable exaltation
of the Son of God.
"By whom also he made the worlds." This plural "worlds"
is manifestly used here and in Heb. 11 : 3, for the singular, re
ferring to our earth only. This assigns to the Son the sublime
functions of Creator. That mysterious personal distinction be
tween Father and Son which is apparently involved in this state
ment — God made the world by Jesus Christ his Son — we shall
labor in vain to comprehend till we can bring to it higher powers
and have more adequate data than are as yet at our command.
Fortunately its mystery need not abate from its fitness and force
in the argument as made here to show the surpassing dignity
and glory of the Son.

HEBREWS. — CHAP. I. 29
It may not be amiss to notice that the Scriptures answer the
question — Who made the world? — in three different ways: 
(1) God; ag in Gen. 1: 1— "God created the heavens and the
earth." So also Kev. 4: 11, and 10: 6, etc.  (2) Jesus Christ;
e.g., John 1 : 3 — "All things were made by him [the Logos], and
without him was not any thing made that was made; and
Col. 1 : 16 — " By him were all things created," etc.  (3) God
made the world by Jesus Christ— as here ; and also Eph. 3 : 9—
"God who created all things by Jesus Christ;" and also 1 Cor.
8 : 6.  It is not wise for us to assume any incongruity or want
of harmony in these diverse forms of statement. Precisely how
to harmonize them would require a deeper knowledge of the
mutual relations of the Father and the Logos than we have yet
reached. " The brightness of his glory and the express image of his per
son" — two distinct figures, drawn from material objects to rep
resent what the Logos is as to the Father. — "Brightness" might
be well put by effulgence, as of light from a luminous body (the
sun, for example), whose rays reveal its nature. So Christ is the
radiance of God to men, the very light which brings God down to
human eyes, as light from the sun in these lower heavens brings
that great luminary to human view.  "Express image of his
person," borrows its figure from the signet which leaves its own
exact impress upon the wax or upon whatever is adapted to take
a perfect impression. As the signet leaves the stamp of itself,
to remain forever as the revelation of its form in minutest per
fection, so the Son reveals the Father— is the exact impress of
his nature and character. The essential idea must be that the
Son is the very image of the Father. His character reveals to
us truthfully and perfectly the character of God. As himself
said, — " He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." No ele
ment in Christ's character misrepresents the Father; no word
from his lips or deed of his hand ever gave a false impression
of God.
" Upholding all things by the word of his power," is naturally
connected with his Supreme Creatorship. As his word spake
all worlds into being ["He spake and it was done"], so his pow
erful word is put here as sustaining, upholding, the whole frame
work of nature, causing created worlds to wheel in their orbits,
and all the agencies of motion, life, nature, to move on under the
uniform law which his hand has impressed into their constitu
tion and their mutual relations. We are wont to call these pow
ers "the laws of nature" or the agencies of Providence. The
more simple and grand conception is here — The Son upholding
all things by his mighty Word. The divine hand working and
energizing all, is the only true philosophy of universal nature.
"When he had by himself purged our sins" — a passage from
which the better textual authorities omit both the word "our"
and the phrase "by himself;" leaving the passage in this very
simple form — Having made purification of sins. Then he took

30 HEBREWS. — CHAP. I.
his seat on the right hand of the Supreme Majesty on high. 
'urification of sins " is perhaps the briefest possible phrase to

"Purification of sins" is perhaps
express the great work he became incarnate to accomplish, look
ing specially to the provisions for pardon made through his death,
and to the influences that save human souls from sinning, which
influences flow mightily from the same love-breathing sacrifice.
" Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by
inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they" — closes
this pregnant introduction to the whole epistle by suggesting the
vast superiority of the Son above angelB — a fact which he ex
pands through the remaining part of the chapter, proving it from
the Old Testament prophets.  " The more excellent name " is
shown to be that of "Son" — the very Son of God. This name,
never given to any of the angels, is used exclusively of the Lord
Jesus — the nation's promised Messiah. That he has this name
"by inheritance"- — has inherited it (Greek) looks towards the
original words above, translated — " appointed heir of all things."
5. For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou
art my Son, this day have I begotten thee ? And again, I
will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
Angels, as created beings, might in a general way be called
Sons of God, yet never had one of them been specially accosted
by the Most High — Thou art my Son. In this distinctive, pecul
iar, emphatic sense, the name Son had never been given to any
one of them.  But it had been given to the nation's Messiah,
Jesus Christ. The author quotes Ps. 2 : 7, upon which the reader
is referred to my Notes on "Psalms."  The word "begotten"
should not be pressed to its low human sense — generation — since
it manifestly signifies only, constituted, appointed, — This day
have I constituted, proved thee to be my Son. According to
Paul (Acts 13 : 33) the reference is to his resurrection and con
sequent ascension and exaltation at the Father's right hand in
the highest heavens. It was this resurrection and the consequent
exaltation that proved his Sonship. "We declare unto you glad
tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,
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."  The
second prophecy quoted — " I will be to him a Father," etc. — is
from 2 Sam. 7: 14. The reader will find in my "Hebrew His
tory," pp. 187-193, an extended exposition of this germinal prom
ise of the Messiah as made specially to David.
6. And again, when he bringeth in the first-begotten into
the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship
him. The questions of interpretation involved in this verse are (a)
The precise time referred to: "When he bringeth," etc. — (&)

HEBREWS. — CHAP. I. 31
The scripture quoted : "And let all the angels," etc. — (c) Is this
scripture quoted as a special prophecy of the Messiah's birth, or
only as a general statement embodying the principle which ap
plies in this case ?
(a) There seems no reason to doubt that the time referred to
is^ that of the Savior s human birth. The words naturally sig
nify this, and Luke's own narrative of that event gives very par
ticularly the fact and the very song of their worship : " Sud
denly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host,
praising God and saying, Glory to God in the Highest, and on
earth, peace, good will towards men" (Luke 2 : 13, 14).
(6) It has been common to find in Psalm 97: 7 the 0. T. pas
sage quoted here. Against this lie the following objections :
(1) The passage is not precisely the same in the epistle as in the
Psalm — the epistle having " and," which the Psalm has not; the
epistle having the third person, the Psalm the second; the epis
tle having it, " All the angels of God," but the Psalm, " All his
angels."  (2) Worse still, the original Hebrew of the Psalm
refers, without doubt not to angels but to idol gods — " Confounded
be all they that serve graven images, that boast themselves of
idols ; worship him, all ye gods," i. e., all ye idol gods. Proba
bly the translators of the Septuagint thought it incongruous to
call upon mere nonentities to worship the living God, and there
fore put it — " Worship him, all his angels."
In Deut. 32 : 43 (in the Septuagint translation, but not in the
Hebrew) we have precisely the words which appear in the verse
before us: " And let all the angels of God worship him." This
passage in Moses may without violence contemplate the consum
mation of God's dominion over this world and especially over
his enemies, wrought by the Great Messiah. It was most fitting
to summon the angel hosts to celebrate this consummation. 
By anticipation they appear at the point of his human birth and
render him their joyous worship. In no other way could they
so forcibly recognize his infinite superiority to themselves — -the
point which the writer to the Hebrews is here maintaining.
7. And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels
spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
This quotation is from Psalm 104: 4. (In the Septuagint
Psalm 103: 4). The sense I take to be that God employs his
angels in supernatural ministries upon the winds and lightnings
at his pleasure. See my notes upon the passage as in the Psalm.
8. But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for
ever and ever : a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of
thy kingdom.
9. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity;
therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the
oil of gladness above thy fellows.

32 HEBREWS. —CHAP. I.
This quotation is from Psalm 45: 6, 7, made as usual with
great accuracy from the Septuagint. In verse 9, the more accurate
translation is: " Therefore, O God, hath thy God anointed thee,"
etc. In both verses the Messiah is addressed as God.
10. And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the
foundation of the earth : and the heavens are the works of
thine hands.
11. They shall perish; but thou remainest: and they all
shall wax old as doth a garment ;
12. And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they
shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years
shall not fail.
This quotation from Psalm 102 : 25-27 (in the Septuagint,
Psalm 101) is exact from the Septuagint save in the order of the
first few words.  The main question exegetically is, how the
passage as it stands in the Psalm can be supposed to refer to
the Messiah ? The New Testament plainly holds the doctrine
that the Son of God is universal Creator; but was this doctrine
already known at the date of this Psalm ? May we suppose
that Jehovah, the covenant God of the Hebrews, was even then
recognized as the Son ?  That the God of the covenant should
be honored as the immutable, the unchangeable, is obviously
pertinent. The writer of this epistle holds this sentiment as
applied to the Messiah — " Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, to
day and forever " (13 : 8).  May we (perhaps) assume that the
author of this epistle, in putting his construction upon the words
of this Psalm, considered what was true and what the Spirit of
inspiration might be supposed to signify, rather than how far the
current thought of the age of the Psalmist had advanced in the
progress of doctrine respecting the world's creatorship and the
revealed covenant God of ancient Israel?  [See my notes on
the passage in Psalm 102.]
13. But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit
on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool ?
Psalm 110: 1, quoted here, refers legitimately and beyond
question to the Messiah. Language like this was never ad
dressed to any created angel. It exalts the Son to a rank and
dignity coequal to that of the Father himself.
14. Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to
minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation ?
This bold, emphatic question assumes the fact to be universally
known and conceded. If the writer had deemed it needful to
argue the point with his Hebrew readers, he would (or might)
have cited numerous instances from their own scriptures in
proof. All through that glorious history angels are seen coming

HEBREWS. — CHAP. I. 33
down on ministries of service — to Abraham, to Jacob, to Moses,
to Gideon. So many cases of their visible manifestation justify
the assumption that their invisible agencies may meet God's
people on every hand, to succor them in peril, to shield them
from danger, to suggest consolation in their depression — acting,
we know not how, upon the human mind and its sensibilities ;
wielding physical agencies when such are called for, as upon the
great stone at the door of the sepulcher, or the chainB on Peter's
hands (Acts 12 : 7). Who can say but those events which seem
to answer prayer by agencies superhuman, or at least aside from
the obvious laws of nature, may be due to interposed angelic
powers?  But it concerns us here not so much to identify
their hand or to measure its resources or define its laws of oper
ation, as to accept and thankfully rest in the glorious truth.
They all are our elder brethren, beings of some unfallen race,
sent to minister to a race fearfully fallen ; God's servants for any
service in our behalf which we may need ; rendering this serv
ice with most loving heart and gentle hand, with sympathy for
our weakness, such as we but feebly apprehend, and all with
quick response to the call of their Infinite Master, all service for
whom is their unbounded joy.  The inquiry has interest and
may not be impertinent: Is this service performed miscellane
ously and without method ; by each one for his own ward, or by
many, and with changes that follow no law ; or is service of one
kind done by some one class, having special adaptations for it;
or kas each converted human soul its own guardian angel ? 
Two passages of scripture apparently favor the latter supposi
tion; viz., the words of Jesus (Matt. 18: 10): "Take heed that
ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you that in
heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father;"
and Acts 12: 15 — "Then said they, It is his angel."
Moreover, it seems quite safe to say that the nature of the case
favors this supposition, since we must assume that the angels,
though they " excel in strength" (Psalm 103 : 20) are yet finite ;
are not omniscient ; have therefore many things to learn contin
ually, and consequently can fulfill their ministering service to far
better purpose by becoming personally acquainted each with his
own special ward. We shall learn more about this when we
shall have passed "beyond the river," and shall "see as we are
seen and know even as we are known."
It is well to notice the striking contrast between the Son and
all angels as put in these contiguous verses (13 and 14) — the Son
on the right hand of God — the very position indicating supreme
dominion, ineffable dignity and glory: but angels, only "minis
tering spirits," evermore doing service, yea, service to an order
of beings borne down with frailties, " crushed before the moth"!
A most fitting close to the author's gTand argument for the exalted
dignity of the Son as compared with the noblest ang"1"
heavenly spheres.

34 HEBREWS. — CHAP. II.

CHAPTEB II.
Returning to the point which opens the first chapter — the
special sacredness and the surpassing claims of that word which
God spake through his Son, he urges more diligent attention
(v. 1); if the law through Moses, spoken by angels, could not be
neglected with impunity, how much more must ruin befall the
men who neglect the gospel, spoken at first by Jesus and con
firmed by witnesses indorsed of God (v. 2-4) ? Next he shows
under whose control the gospel age is put; how their own
scriptures had indicated that this honor was conferred upon
man — to be realized however only in the divine man Jesus,
whose humiliation unto death paved the way for his supreme
glory (v. 5-9) ; it being in the highest sense fitting that, since
the sons must reach their blessedness through much suffering,
so should their Chief Captain as their Great Leader (v. 10) ; for
they are recognized in the scriptures as his brethren, and he
honors this relation (vs. 11-13). These children ("sons" in v.
13) being mortal, he must needs become so, and the reasons
why (v. 14, 15) ; that he had undertaken to save, not the race of
angels but the race of man (v. 16) ; and hence must be made in
all things like man for the more perfect sympathy of a Mediator,
and for the more effective succor of his tempted people.
1. Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to
the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should
let them slip.
"Therefore" looks back to the point affirmed above (1: 1),
viz., that God has spoken to us through his own glorious Son.
Let us therefore give the more earnest heed to all we hear
through Him.  " Let them slip" represents fairly the general
sense of the one Greek word used here. Its more precise sense
however is — -Lest we badly, wrongly, slip over them, away from
them. It conceives of men as drifted by a dangerous current, in
which they flow on past the truth and the salvation they should
seize upon for their life !
2. For if the word spoken by angels was steadfast, and
every transgression and disobedience received a just recom
pense of reward;
3. How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation ;
which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was
confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
4. God also bearing them witness, both with signs and
wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy
Ghost, according to his own will?

HEBREWS. — CHAP. II. 35
" The word spoken by angels " is doubtless the law given
through Moses. Both Stephen (Acts 7 : 38, 53) and Paul (Gal.
3 : 19) speak of the agency of angels in giving that law. (See the
passages). _ The words so spoken were sacred; the law impera
tive and binding. The most stringent and fearful penalties were
denounced against him who " sinned presumptuously," i. e.,
against full knowledge of law and duty, and in reckless defiance
ot penalty. "The soul that doeth aught presumptuously . . .
shall be cut off from among his people. Because he hath de
spised the word of the Lord and hath broken "his command
ments, that soul shall be utterly cut off; his iniquity shall be
upon him " (Num. 15 : 30, 31). " The man that shall do pre
sumptuously and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth
to minister there before the Lord thy God, or unto the judge,
even that man shall die ; and thou shalt put away the evil from
Israel. And all the people shall hear and fear, and shall do no
more presumptuously" (Deut. 17 • 12, 13).  If that law given
through angels had such sanctions and would not spare the
guilty transgressor, how shall we escape if we neglect so great
salvation ?  The force of this comparison between contemning
the law and neglecting the gospel turns partly on the greatness
of this salvation — made too costly to be ever repeated; its bless
ings too rich to be offered again when once despised ; delivering
from such a hell ; brought to us through such lips ; but, it would
seem, partly also upon a silent yet just and momentous antithesis
between law and salvation. It is bad to despise law ; it is in
effably worse to scorn salvation. It is abusive toward God to dis
regard his law; it far more grievously offends and grieves him to
despise his gospel ! So the author of this epistle holds : " Of
how much sorer punishment shall he be thought worthy who
hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the
blood of the covenant that sanctifies an unholy thing, and hath
done despite to the Spirit of grace"? (10: 29).  Those who
flatter themselves it is no sin to spurn a favor because it is a
proferred gift have much (O how much I) yet to learn.
This gospel " word " lacks no element of perfect confirmation,
coming first through the lips of Jesus himself, and then handed
down by those who sat at his feet and listened to his blessed
words— J&od bearing witness to them as his messengers, and as
men speaking under his authority and in his behalf. Such was
the import and purpose of those manifold miracles and gifts of
the Holy Ghost. They were God's own indorsement of the men
who brought down to the ages that came after the ratified truths
of gospel salvation.
5. For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the
world to come, whereof we speak.
6. But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is
man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man,
that thou visitest him?

36 HEBREWS. — CHAP. II.
7. Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou
crownedst him with glory and honor, and didst set him over
the works of thy hands :
8. Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet.
The first clause of verse 8 — " Thou hast put all things in sub
jection under his feet," being part of the passage quoted, should
have been attached to verse 7.  Verse 5 is closely connected
logically with, the preceding verses of this chapter, confirming
what was there assumed, viz., that the gospel age (the " world to
come,"* as the Jews called it) was not operated by angelic agen
cies ("put in subjection under them,") but was worked by the
direct agency of the Son of God and by his divine Spirit.
In proof of his point the author quotes a passage, not saying by
whom written or where found, butquite indefinitely as said by some
one somewhere — yet really from Psalm 8, the words being a solil
oquy of David as in a night-scene he was surveying the glorious
heavens — the moon and the stars God had fixed in the sky. What
is man, thought of in contrast or even in connection with those mag
nificent orbs in the heavens I Yet small as he seems to be, thou hast
made him only a little lower than the angels ; hast crowned him
with glory and honor, and set him over the works of thy hands.
 For the full exposition of Psalm 8 as related to man as a
race, fallen or unfallen, and to our common humanity as reach
ing its perfect consummation in the incarnate Son of God, see my
Notes on the Psalm. It must suffice here to say that our author
assumes that the passage is fulfilled in Jesus, whom on the one
hand God made a little lower than the angels, yet had ultimately
crowned with glory and honor and had subjected all things under
his feet. This subjecting of all things under him is the leading
thought in these verses. The original Greek keeps the same verb
before the mind throughout: "Subjected the world to come"
( v. 5) ; " Subjected all things under his feet " (v. 8) ; "In subject
ing all things under him, he left nothing not subjected " (v. 8).
The other two clauses of the passage from David — the " making
him lower than the angels," and " crowning him with glory and
honor," are also found applicable to Jesus — as he proceeds to
show. 8. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left
nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet
all things put under him.
* That by the phrase " the world to come '' the Jews meant the
age after their Messiah, may be seen in Paul (1 Cor. 10 : 11) :
" These things were written for the admonition of us upon whom
the ends of the ages (or worlds) have met," (i. e.) the last end of the
first age and the first end of the second. The coming of the
Messiah formed the dividing point between the first and the second
— the past and the coming world or age.

HEBREWS. — CHAP. II. 37
9. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than
the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory
and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death
for every man.
He begins with saying that this "putting of all things under
his feet" is unqualified — with no exception whatever. He would
emphasize the "all things." We have not seen this fulfilled in
Jesus yet, while he lived in his humiliation in the flesh. This
was a point to be specially considered. Those Hebrew converts
needed an explanation of this being made lower than the angels
and subjected to poverty, contempt and all dishonor. It was
needful to show them that a divine purpose of mercy lay under
these things, otherwise to human view dark and misleading. In
verse 9, therefore, the author begins his explanation.  But
here a vital question of grammatical construction must be settled.
Does the author say — "Made lower than the angels in order that
he might suffer death?" or, "Crowned with glory and honor
because he had suffered death?" That is, shall we connect
"For the suffering of death" with the clause before or the
clause after; with his being lower, or with his being crowned ? 
The latter and not the former must certainly be accepted as the
true construction. The collocation of the clauses (in Greek)
demands it^ so also does the usage of thi§ Greek preposition
when (as here) it governs an accusative — translated "for the
suffering," etc. This can not bear the sense — In order that he
might suffer; but must mean — Because he had suffered; on
account of his sufferings unto death. And yet further : The
former construction, made lower for the sake of suffering, makes
the last clause of the verse, "That he might taste death, ' etc., a
mere repetition.  For all these grammatical reasons we must
decide against the sense given in our English version.  The
sentiment expressed by the true construction is amply sustained
by other scriptures; e. g., Phil. 2: 8-11: "Wherefore," i. e.,
" because Jesus became obedient unto death, even the death of
the cross, therefore God hath highly exalted him and given him
a name which is above every name," etc.
The last clause of verse 9, involves a question as to the correct
text. Instead of the word for " grace " [^apw t] some authorities
have [#wpm] which would mean apart from God, or perhaps —
excepting God. Tischendorf and most other first class critics sus
tain the word for "grace." No pertinent sense can be made of
the other reading — in the sense — apart from, or except. For it
seems very incongruous to say — in order that Christ's death
might be for all except God, or that he tasted death apart from
God, meaning by this — with no help from him. For reasons of
textual authority therefore as well as of inept sense, I reject the
new reading and retain that which our received version follows —
" grace." The sense then will be — Because Jesus had suffered
unto death, God crowned him with glory and honor, to the end

38 HEBREWS. — CHAP. II.
that [or with the result that] by the rich grace of God, his tasting
of death should bless the universe— should avail for good in some
way to all. It is not well to translate — " for every man," there
being no word for " man " in the Greek. The clause looks to the
wide diffusion of the blessings accruing from his death — so wide
that it could be said to be for all — all races of intelligent beings;
all the vast kingdoms of God's obedient children. It need not
be forced so as to include those of our race who "neglect this
great salvation ; " who wickedly, basely, and of deliberate pur
pose, exclude themselves from these blessings; but it may and
must include all. others. The good it brings to the redeemed,
saved by means of it, is but a part — perhaps in the great whole, the
smallest part of its good results. Its moral power, its wonderful
manifestation of divine love and compassion, will be forever a
fountain of grandest blessings to every race of God's dutiful creat
ures. 10. For it became him, for whom are all things, and by
whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to
make the captain of their salvation perfect through suffer
ings. The great thoughts, put forcibly and compactly in this verse,
may be made more clear by a paraphrase — of this sort:  There
is infinite fitness in the gospel scheme framed by Him for whose
sake and by whose agency all things — all the created universe —
exist, viz., in this — that when he would lead up many sons of our
fallen race unto the glory of heavenly purity and blessedness, he
should conduct their Head Leader (Jesus) upward unto his per
fect exaltation and blessedness through a life and death of suffer
ing.  The leading upward of many sons unto glory being the
object to be gained, their Great Captain, going before them as
their file Leader and Great Exemplar, must needs himself rise
through much suffering to his ultimate perfection in glory and
blessedness.  This making perfect, as said of Christ, can not
mean purifying from sin, for he never had sin to be taken away.
But the word as used here, and repeatedly in this epistle, looks to
the perfection of his glory in the heavenly world. Other cases of
like usage of the word in this epistle appear (5: 9), "And being
made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation," etc.,
where " made perfect" can not mean made sinless, but must mean,
exalted to supreme dominion and glory in heaven ; also (7 : 28) :
" The law maketh men high priests who have infirmity, but the
word of the oath which was since the law maketh the Son who is
consecrated (Greek, perfected) for evermore" — in the sense exalted
to the perfection of his heavenly power and glory.  Again, it
is used of ancient saints (II : 40): "That they without us, should
not be made perfect" — which again does not mean made sinless,
but should not reach the full consummation of the gospel scheme
inasmuch as they had only the promise of the Messiah, not the

HEBREWS.— CHAP. II. 39
Messiah himself. The writer's argument is that those old heroes
of faith lacked one thing which we (" us ") enjoy, viz., a Messiah
really come.  Also (12: 23) "And to the spirits of just men
made perfect," which obviously means, not definitely cleansed from
sin, but glorified in heaven.  Other cases, less important, are
omitted. These must suffice.
Returning to the starting point of this verse — the natural
fitness of suffering in the Messiah, let us note that at this stage
of his argument the writer does not attempt to exhaust his
subject and state all the ends to be gained by Christ's sufferings ;
for at a later stage he speaks very fully of other ends to be
attained by his suffering and bloody death on the cross. Here
he thinks of Jesus, only as the Head Leader of his brethren,
made an example of suffering to minister to their comfort and
patience.  And again, let us recall the author's special purpose
in making the fitness of Christ's sufferings so very prominent
in this epistle. Those recent converts from Judaism were in
danger of being repelled from Jesus because he was a Nazarene
— because he lived a suffering life, in poverty and dishonor.
Therefore let them be shown the glorious reasons for so much
humiliation — for such a suffering life !
11. For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sancti
fied, are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to
call them brethren,
12. Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren,
in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.
13. And again, I will put my trust in him. And again,
Behold, I and the children which God hath given me.
The word " for " [yap] implies a logical connection of these
verses with the one preceding. The writer would justify him
self for calling the redeemed ones " many sons," and therefore
arrests his main flow of thought in order to show from their
own scriptures that Christ and the men he saves are brethren ;
that he has not been ashamed to call them by this endearing
name, and has even ranked himself among them in acts of
worship ["praise"] and in the exercise of trust.  He begins
with affirming that the Sanctifier and the sanctified — Jesus and
his cleansed, saved people — are all of one Father. Jesus recog
nized this relation, and therefore, with no sense of shame — no
consciousness of dishonor to his true dignity, he freely called
them "brethren." The gospel history records this fact; e. g.,
(Matt. 28 : 10) " Go, tell my brethren that they go into Galilee,"
etc. Also (John 20 : 17) words tenderly kind, and perfectly to our
author's point : " Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend
unto my Father and your Father ; to my God and your God."
He who is my Father is also your Father ; both my God and your
God ; we being " all of one." Thus according to Paul (Bom. 8:
29) " he is the first-born among many brethren."

40 HEBREWS. — CHAP. II.
That he is " not ashamed to own them as brethren" is the more
pertinent to be said because he has so much reason to be
ashamed of creatures so low in their tastes, so base in character,
so lost to moral purity, so ineffably below himself as they were
at the point where he began his uplifting labor upon them. Did
the author purposely suggest that it would be the basest possible
ingratitude and meanness for Hebrew converts to be ashamed of
a lowly, suffering Messiah, even though their unbelieving coun
trymen should scandalize him as "Galilean" and "Nazarene"?
V. 12, 13 find in the Old Testament prophets the same fraternal
relation between the Messiah and his people. Two questions
meet us: (a) Where are these prophecies found? (6) In the
connection where they stand, are they to be taken as prophetic
of the Messiah ?
V. 12 is manifestly taken from Psalm 22 : 22, quoted in the
main verbatim from the Septuagint, and from a Psalm which is
unquestionably Messianic throughout. See my notes on the
Psalm. The first clause in v. 13 — "I will put my trust in him" — some
critics have supposed to be from Psalm 18 : 2 or from its parallel
2 Sam. 22 : 3. But the words (Greek) are not the same in the
Psalm, although they are in 2 Sam. It is a very strong objection
to these passages that they can not be regarded as referring to the
Messiah. Such reference is vital to the validity of the apostle's
argument; therefore we must reject these passages and look else
where.  The identical Greek words appear in Isa. 12 : 2, but
here the speaker is naturally taken to be the prophet himself, or
the church speaking through his lips. Only the stress of neces
sity can justify us in supposing the Messiah to be the speaker.
In this case no such necessity exists, for the identical words
appear again (Isa. 8: 17) where our English version has it: "I
will look for him ; " but the Septuagint Greek is identical with
our passage. That this is the passage quoted is made much more
probable by the fact that the next words (v. 18) are certainly the
same which follow in our epistle: "Behold I and the children
whom the Lord hath given me ; " and because the entire passage
is from the lips of the Messiah. Note in proof, v. 16 : " Seal the
law among my disciples." See my notes on the passage Isa. 8 :
16-18. 14. Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh
and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same ;
that through death he might destroy him that had the
power of death, that is, the devil ;
15. And deliver them, who through fear of death were
all their life-time subject to bondage.
The English reader may need to be cautioned against suppos
ing that " partakers of flesh and blood " means that they have a
little only but not much of these elements; and yet more against

HEBREWS. — CHAP. II. 41
a similar misapprehension of the next clause — "took part of the
same " — which means, not that he took a small part, or a part as
distinct from the whole, but that he assumed the whole of their
nature, all that makes up man's being as created of God, includ
ing both body and soul. Body is certainly included, since Jesus
assumes " flesh and blood " in order that by his own death he
might destroy him who has the power of death — the devil. The
original word translated "took part of," means that he shared it
in common with them — to which the qualifying word rendered
" likewise," meaning in like manner even as they, gives yet greater
definiteness and strength.
In support of the broad, comprehensive sense of the phrase,
"flesh and blood," compare Matt. 16: 17: "Flesh and blood"
[mortal man] "hath not revealed it unto thee" [Peter] "but
my Father," etc. Eph. 6: 12: "We wrestle not against flesh
and blood" [any merely human foe], " but against principalities
and powers," etc.; superhuman beings. And Gal. 1:6: "Im
mediately I conferred not with flesh and blood " [earthly friends
or personal interests]. The phrase naturally and usually con
templates man as frail, mortal, yet can not ordinarily be restricted
to the material body as distinct from the soul.
"Destroying him that had the power of death" is not annihi
lating him from existence, but means so far counteracting and
quenching his power to hurt or to alarm as to deliver those who
might otherwise be all their life-time subject to bondage under the
fear of death. The death of Jesus before our eyes, followed by
his glorious resurrection, may fitly quell all fear of death in the
hearts of his people, and even lift them into glorious exultation and
triumph, to sing — " O death ! where is thy sting? O grave I where
is thy victory "? Why should they fear to follow where such a
Leader has gone on before ?
16. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels;
but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
The English reader should notice that the words — " him the
nature of - — are in Italics, indicating that the translators found
no corresponding words in the Greek text. There are no such
words, nor are they to be assumed as necessary to the sense of
the passage. The verb for "took" does not mean to_ take [or
assume] as one's own, but to take hold of to save. This sense is
legitimate for the verb and is perfectly in harmony with the
course of thought. Jesus did not take hold of the race of fallen
angels to save them; but did "take hold of the seed of Abra
ham" — the writer specifying Abraham's posterity because this
would bring the fact more forcibly and sweetly home to the
hearts of his readers. But the Gentiles of our race are not
thereby excluded.  The translators of our version were prob
ably misled in part by this reference to the seed of Abraham to
suppose an allusion here* to the line of the Messiah's human

42 HEBREWS.  CHAP. II.
ancestry. For reasons given above, this view must Joe rejected,
and also for this additional reason, viz., that the logical connec
tion of the next verse would be nullified ; for there is no logic in
saying : He assumed the nature of Abraham's seed, and there
fore it behooved him to be made like them. Assuming their
nature is being made like them.  But if, on the contrary you
read v. 16 : He did not try to save lost angels, but did try to save
the race of man, then the logic is pertinent and strong : —
" Wherefore it behooved him to be made in all things like
them," etc.
17. Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made
like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and
faithful high priest, in things pertaining to God, to make
reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18. For in that he himself hath suffered, being tempted,
he is able to succour them that are tempted.
To the Hebrew mind the natural illustration of all the points
made here would lie in the Aaronie priesthood with which every
Hebrew was entirely familiar. He could feel the pertinence of
having a priest to mediate between himself and God, who, like
himself, was encompassed with infirmities; who knew in his
conscious experience how a sufferer and even a sinner must feel
before the Great and Holy God, and who therefore would have a
tender sympathy with his suffering or sinning brethren. 
Omitting the sin, but including all that pertains to suffering — all
that lies in the broad field of temptation and trial, Jesus, being
made in all things like his brethren, was fully prepared to
sympathize with those who came to God through him.
In these surpassingly rich and precious verses, the only points
that seem to require special exposition are these: — (a) Whether
we need to put any limitation upon the phrase — " made in all
things like his brethren." Does this include all that pertains to
our real human nature as created of God, body and soul, flesh
and spirit ? Obviously, the words in their legitimate sense are
all-comprehensive, and should mean all without exception.- 
(6) Whether the "making reconciliation" looks specially to the
mediation and intercession of the High Priest; or whether it
includes the whole work of Christ — his atoning death as well as
his ever-living intercession ?  Apparently the drift of the argu
ment throughout this passage contemplates specially intercession
and mediation, and not definitely the atoning sacrifice. His hav
ing a common nature with his people ; his consequent natural
sympathy with their trials and wants; and his being able to suc
cor the tempted, are the salient points. The atonement by blood
is treated fully at a later stage of the epistle. Yet it should be
borne in mind that the " making reconciliation for sin " could
never be without atoning blood. Tne priest of Aaron's line

HEBREWS. — CHAP. II. 43
never came before God in behalf of the Hebrew worshiper save
with the blood of sacrifice. His mediation was never to be
thought of as availing and accepted before God on the ground of
his own personal sacredness, or moral worth, or official dignity.
No; he was heard of God, and his intercessions were accepted
solely on the ground of the propitiation for sin which the shed
ding of blood foreshadowed.  So the high priesthood of Jesus
always presupposed his entering into the heavenly sanctuary
with his own ever availing blood. Yet in this part of the epistle
the writer's thought is specially upon the complete human nature
of Jesus as giving him a conscious experience of frailty, temp
tation, and suffering, and thereby preparing him to enter per
fectly into the sympathies of his human brethren.  (c) Over
the first words of verse 18, the grammatical question arises
whether the precise meaning be — in so far as he has suffered, or
inasmuch. The latter seems to me far more in harmony with the
argument and with the closely parallel "passage (4: 15, 16). The
idea is not that so far as he has suffered— to the extent of his
own personal sufferings — he can sympathize and succor; but
this — that because he has suffered and been tempted in all points
as we are; inasmuch as this is made certain; therefore he is able
to save his tempted and needy people.
It has been said (not without reason) that the two elements of
character requisite to the helpful friend, are sympathy and power
— a sympathy that shall put his ability to befriend you at your
service in your need ; and power sufficient to make his good in
tentions avail to the positive help which your case may require.
A heart to love and an arm to save, combined in one, make that
one the friend you need.
In the chapter before us the writer's mind is mainly engrossed
with the sympathy of Jesus for his people. The human side of
his being is chiefly under consideration. Yet it is a striking
fact — specially apparent to one who shall catch the nicer shades
of the original Greek — that in saying " is able to succor," he has
chosen the word which, more than any other in the language
suggests dynamic force ("dunatai"); — as if, out of his deep
sufferings and terrible temptations, there came forth that very
power in which he proves himself so gloriously "mighty to save. '
Does he assume a reserved force in his divine nature which
needs only the sympathy begotten of the human to call it forth
and place it at the quick disposal of every call for help which
comes up to his pitying, sympathetic soul?
No Christian heart will need the suggestion that this chapter,
and especially these concluding verses, are full of the bread of
life for hungry souls. They have precious adaptations to the
deepest Christian experience. They reveal Jesus on his human
side and help us to realize — what we are strangely slow to learn
— that he can be and is in very deed a brother — has been a fellow-
sufferer; has trodden the same thorny, weary road of human in
firmity — through nervous exhaustion, through the trials of toil

44 HEBREWS. — CHAP. III.
amid weaknesses manifold ; the trials of having one's most self-
sacrificing labors little appreciated; trials from friends failing
and forsaking in his deepest need; — and all those unreportable
conflicts with the powers of darkness that leave behind a sense
of horror which no language can fully represent. Oh ! what did
not Jesus suffer during the years of his earthly life ! And this —
that he might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things
pertaining to God, qualified in every point to succor his tempted,
suffering brethren whenever it shall fall to their lot to travel the
same road, under like infirmities, battling the same foes and put
to the same stern endurance.
It will be one happy result of our study of this chapter and of
our meditations upon the suffering, sympathetic human nature of
our Lord if they shall inspire us to believe in his love to his
brethren. Somehow we strangely need line upon line to make
it seem real to us that One so far away as Heaven is thought to
be, and who has so little reason (so it seems to our selfish souls!)
to have any true sympathy with our weaknesses, or pity over
our sins, should yet love us tenderly and delight to minister to
our relief at the points of our deepest need. But when we see
him breasting the same surges of temptation which have almost
swallowed us up, and think how he spreads out his suffering life
before us; calls our attention to it; would have us remember and
weigh it well ; and when we really take in the idea that he loves
to have us believe in his sympathy and kindness ; — then it
grieves us that our unbelief should ever have added tb the grief
and the trial of his compassionate heart, and we fall before him
in sorrow and shame, and would fain pledge our souls anew to
a faith that shall never falter again and to such gratitude as
would requite his love if our poor thanks may be acceptable
before him. t
A more extended discussion of certain points in the subject of
Chapters I. and II. may be seen in Appendix A, " On the rela
tion of the human to the divine in the person of Christ."

o^o

CHAPTER III.
Chapters HI. and IV. might fitly have been united in onr,
the same staple_ exhortation to steadfast confidence in Christ and
the same historic example of national unbelief to enforce it run
ning through them both.  In verses 1-6 of Chapter III.
the writer presents Jesus as a model of fidelity in the building
and care of the great house of which he has charge, and compares
him in this respect to Moses; and then proceeds (vs. 7-19) to
exhort his readers to a cordial faith in Christ and a steadfast
adherence to his name, enforcing his exhortation by the sad case

HEBREWS.— CHAP. III. 45
of unbelief which lay in the history of the generation that lost
Canaan and perished in the wilderness for their provocation of
God's wrath.
1. Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly
calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our pro
fession, Christ Jesus;
2. Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also
Moses was faithful in all his house.
"Holy brethren"— but not "holy" in the sense of being already
sinless, but of being called and professedly consecrated to a holy
life. So the next clause implies — "partakers of a call from
heaven" — ye men who have heard the voice of God calling you into
his kingdom.  " Consider," study diligently, that Great Apostle
and High Priest whom ye have professed to love and to follow —
Jesus Christ.  In what sense called an " apostle ? " The most
obvious answer is — as one sent of God — even as himself said
(John 20 : 21 and 17 : 18) : " As my Father hath sent me, even so
send I you." He was therefore the original apostle; his chosen
twelve were called and trained to succeed him.  The special
point in the example of Jesus, here commended to their con
sideration, is his fidelity. He was true to his responsibilities,
faithful in the service assigned him, even as Moses in his mission
and charge.  " In all his house." Shall we take " house " here
in its now more common sense — the building; or in the less
usual sense — the household, the family? Manifestly the latter,
for that was not a palace or mansion of which Moses had charge,
but a national household; for in this sense, the writer proceeds
to Bay (v. 6): "Whose house are we" — meaning by "house"
the Christian Church, " the houshold of faith."
3. For this man was counted worthy of more glory than
Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath
more honor than the house.
4. For every house is builded by some man; but he that
built all things is God.
This one, Christ Jesus, must be deemed more honorable than
Moses, inasmuch as the builder of a house should have more
honor than the house he builds. In the builder lie the genius,
the skill, the producing power, the real mind — all the qualities
that conspire to make the house what it is. The great Jewish
Church [" house "] of which Moses was put in charge was Christ's
building — his own handiwork through the agencies of his provi
dence and Spirit. That this should be ascribed to Jesus Christ is
fullv in accord with the ancient Scriptures. See particularly Ex.
23 :"20-23 :. " Behold, I send an angel before thee to keep thee in
the way and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared.
lieware of him, and obey his voice; provoke him not; for he will
3

46 HEBREWS — CHAP. III.
not pardon your transgressions; for my name is in him," etc.
Compare also Josh. 5 : 13-15.  The builder of all things can be
no other than the Creator of all, and our author has already said
of Jesus Christ — " By whom God made the worlds" (1 : 2).
5. And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a
servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be
spoken after;
G. But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house
are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of
the hope firm unto the end.
A servant may be very faithful as a servant; yet a more pro
found interest — a deeper sympathy and a truer devotion may be
expected of one who cares for the house as a son; who is heir,
owner and Lord of all. This antithesis gives us yet another
point in which Christ is superior to Moses. Moses was com-
mendably faithful as a servant to testify truly — to announce and
record faithfully — the revelation made to him on the mount, to be
spoken subsequently to the people ["things to be spoken after"].
But Christ with tenderest love and most watchful care provided in
all things for this house — the church of the living God — as his
own. "Whose house are we" — the church, and indeed the indi
vidual Christian heart, being often spoken of as the house or
temple of God. " Know ye not that ye are the temple of God,
and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" (1 Cor. 3: 16).
See also 2 Cor. 6: 16; Eph. 2: 21, 22; 1 Tim. 3: 15; and 1 Peter
2: 5.  But observe the conditions on our own part: "If we hold
our confident and even exultant hope, firmly to the end." The
sort of hope recommended here is not the trembling, flickering,
half dubious feeling which some forms of Christian experience
make account of; but its features are confidence and joyfulness
which, according to the word here used, is akin to glorying, exulta
tion. Such a hope has in it the moral stamina which will breast
trial and persecution for the name of Jesus, and falter not.
7. Wherefore as the Holy Ghost saith, To-day if ye will
hear his voice,
8. Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the
day of temptation in the wilderness:
9. When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw
my works forty years.
The remaining part of this chapter is an exhortation against
unbelief, based on the fearful example of the Hebrew people in
the wilderness when, upon the report of the unbelieving spies,
they also in guilty unbelief would not go up boldly to possess the
land, and for this were doomed to wander fruitlessly in the wilder
ness forty years, and leave their bones on those desert sands. The
history of those scenes is in Num. 13 and 14. An exhortation

HEBREWS.— CHAP. III. 47
against such unbelief stands in Ps. 95: 8-11, from which our
author makes his quotation.  -"As the Holy Ghost saith" — a
form of introducing his quotation from the Psalm which most
emphatically indorses its inspiration. He regards those as the
very words of the Holy Ghost.
" Your fathers tempted and proved me,'' and consequently, they
"saw my works" of retribution forty years, visiting upon them
life-long chastisement and many a sore plague and judgment — till
that whole generation were consumed.
10. Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and
said, They do always err in their heart; and they have not
known my ways.
11. So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into
my rest.
" Grieved " — the word, however, expressing indignation — in
tense dissatisfaction.  " They always err in their heart " — not
in their judgment merely or mainly ; but their error came from the
heart. Sensual and self-seeking; void of true faith in God and of
real love to his name, they consequently rebel against his authority
and swerve from his ways.  " Have not known my ways " —
where not knowing has not the sense of unavoidable ignorance,
but of disapproval; they did not love God's ways; would not
approve and walk in them.  "They shall not enter," etc., — the
Greek (following the Hebrew idiom) puts this in the strong form —
" If they shall enter " — it will be because I am not God ! My
solemn oath stands against it !
12. Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an
evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.
13. But exhort one another daily, while it is called To
day ; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness
of sin.
"An evil heart" — i. e., an unbelieving one — a heart shown to
be evil by its spirjt of unbelief; by its naturally departing from
God.  The " living God " as opposed to idols who are but dead
gods, is equivalent to the true and only God.  "Exhort one
another every day," enjoins a vigilant but kind, mutual watchful
ness and supervision — each feeling his responsibility for all, and
every one bearing his part to sustain the faith of every other one.
 "While it is called To-day; " while ye can still say "To-day; "
while earthly time lasts; while yet we are travelers onward, a
little farther, in this world of time.
This mode of speaking indicates that all earthly time is short, and
that this watchfulness will be demanded but a little longer. 
" Hardened through most deceitful sin," for it is sin that hardens
men's hearts — sin being in this phrase characterized as intensely
deceitful.

48 HEBREWS. — CHAP. IV.
14. For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the
beginning of our confidence steadfast unto the end;
15. While it is said, To-day if ye will hear his voice,
harden not your hearts, as in the provocation.
For we become partakers of Christ if we hold fast our first
confidence firmly to the end. It is only on this condition — that
of holding fast the confidence we had when we first espoused his
name and cause. This was of all points most vital to be im
pressed upon those tempted and perhaps wavering converts whom'
the writer specially addresses.  V. 15 begins thus : In its be
ing said [the Greek idiom] i. e., according to the words of the
quoted Psalm (95) : " To-day if ye will hear his voice," etc.
So long as there is occasion for this admonition ; so long as it can
be said this day, probation still runs, trial and temptation are in
their strength ; be watchful, therefore, for the life of your souls.
16. For some, when they had heard, did provoke : how-
beit, not all that came out of Egypt by Moses.
17. But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it
not with them that had sinned, whose carcasses fell in the
wilderness? 18. And to whom sware he that they should not enter
into his rest, but to them that believed not?
19. So we see that they could not enter in because of
unbelief. The original Greek of v. 16 requires the interrogative form, as
in vs. 17, 18, thus: What persons, hearing [God's words], did
provoke [him] ? Did not all who came out from Egypt under
Moses? For excepting Caleb and Joshua, the whole nation
seems to have gone en masse into this unbelief and rebellion
against God.  So in the verses that follow: " With whom was
he grieved," i. e., indignant and exasperated — forty years?
Was it not with those great sinners who fell dead under plague
after plague in that wilderness, smitten under that fearful oath
of God — " They shall never enter into my rest?" Who save those
that would not believe ? Inference : Like unbelief to-day will
provoke the same God to shut you in like manner out of his
kingdom of eternal rest.

CHAPTER IV.
As already suggested, this chapter continues and completes the
line of argument and appeal which began with Chap. IH. taking
in, however, some collateral points. A promise of the heavenly

HEBREWS.— CHAP. IV. 49
rest, the blissful immortality of all true believers in Cnrist, leads
the course of thought. The writer exhorts his readers to a salu
tary fear of failure through unbelief (v. 1) ; for others have had
this great promise and have failed lamentably through lack of
faith (v. 2) ; all true believers do enter into this rest, as may be
known from the fact that God's solemn affirmation forever ex
cludes the unbelieving (v. 3). Such a rest for his believing peo
ple has been in God's thought ever since his own seventh day
rest from creative work (Gen. 2 : 2, 3), and was illustrated again
by the promise of Canaan which the unbelief of the generation
under Moses so sadly forfeited; these two eases furnishing the
writer with his arguments and illustrations (v. 4, 5). The gospel
promise reached on beyond the scenes at Kadesh and beyond the
entrance into Canaan, as the writer infers from the time-dates in
Psalm 95 ; and therefore he infers that the promise must be in
force still (v. 6-9). This rest finds one analogy in God's rest
from creative work (v. 10). Such a promise has a signally heart-
searching power, revealing the depths of man's moral nature
(v. 11-13). A high priest so glorious should inspire his people to
most steadfast fidelity (v. 14), especially when we consider his
tender sympathy and his real experience in all our temptations
(v. 15), from which springs naturally the exhortation to come to
him with all freedom of utterance to ask every needed and help
ful blessing (v. 16).
1. Let us therefore fear, lest a promise being left us of
entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short
of it.
"Seem to come short" is the literal rendering of the original;
and yet the nature of the case forbids our putting such emphasis
on the word " seem " as would imply that the appearance and not
the reality is the thing to be guarded against. The real coming
short and not the appearance of it is the fearful thing.  This
turn of thought is perhaps supposable ; viz., Fear ye, lest, having
the promise, ye should even appear likely to come short— should
incur even the least danger of a failure so fatal. Or if this be
unsatisfactory, we may say that the writer aimed to suggest his
point gently, and in a way to avoid offense.
2. For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto
them : but the word preached did not profit them, not being
mixed with faith in them that heard it.
The word " gospel " here has the general sense of good tidings,
with special reference to the promise of the eternal heavenly rest
to all who will believe. The Hebrews in the wilderness had this
promise under the type of Canaan, but even to them heaven
itself was the reality. They sadly missed both the earthly
Canaan and the heavenly because their hearing of the promise
had no faith mixed with it. They did not honestly believe and

50 HEBREWS. — CHAP. IV.
heartily accept the promise. The " word" heard not mixed with
faith in the hearer, is most expressive, embodying a mournful
human experience. Men hear enough to save them eternally,
but the hearing is worse than lost to them, because their intelli
gence will not grasp the truth ; next, and yet more, because their
hearts do not welcome, accept and obey it.
3. For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he
said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into
my rest : although the works were finished from the founda
tion of the world.
4. For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on
this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his
works. 5. And in this place again, If they shall enter into my
rest. The argument in these verses I understand to be of this sort :
A rest for some of our race to enjoy is certainly provided ; else
it could not be promised. It is promised in order to induce
some — as many as possible — to receive and enjoy it. But God
has declared most solemnly that the unbelieving shall not enter
upon and enjoy it; therefore it must be for the believing. 
In vs. 3, 5 the reader should .be careful to give the word " if"
the strongly emphatic sense explained in my notes on 3: 11.
The translators have there given the sense truly : " They shall
not enter," etc. There is no good reason why the same words
should not be translated in the same way here : "As I have
sworn in my wrath — never shall they enter into my rest" (v. 3);
and in the same way in v. 5.  The reference to God's finish
ing his works from the foundation of the world brings forward
the other type of the heavenly rest, viz., God's resting from cre
ative work on the seventh day. Analogous to this is the rest
he promises his saints in heaven itself.
The point of chief difficulty in this v. 3 is the precise shade
of thought indicated by the word " although." May it not be
this ?  " We who have believed do enter into rest;" the door
is open; the promise is before us, in full present force, all along
down the ages since God's rest on the seventh day gave to the
race that precious symbol of the saints' rest in heaven.  "As
he said " (for the writer must needs sustain his position by Old
Testament authority) "as he said" Psalm 95 — (1) Never shall
those unbelieving men enter my rest — which is quoted here partly
to show that the promise of such rest was then hanging out from
the sky above, and partly to signify that since unbelief excludes,
faith admits, men to its enjoyments — - — Then (2) another proof
text is alluded to in the words: "Although the works were
finished," etc., underlying which is the assumption that God's
rest from creative work began at Eden ; that therefore the
saints' rest, of which that is the symbol, has been held before

HEBREWS. — CHAP. IV. 51
men in glorious promise ever since that birth-hour of man.
Consequently the word " although " may involve this relation of
thought: Never shall the unbelieving enter that rest, although
the door of promise has been symbolically open before them
since the creative rest of the seventh day. Then vs. 4, 5 quote
more in detail the two passages before the author's mind, viz.,
Gen. 2 : 2, 3 and Psalm 95 : 11.
6. Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter
therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not
in because of unbelief:
7. (Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David,
To-day, after so long a time; as it is said, To-day, if ye
will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.
8. For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not
afterward have spoken of another day.
9. There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
In this passage, vs. 7, 8 are a parenthesis, interposed between
vs. 6 and 9, these two being logically connected thus : Inasmuch
as some must enter into that rest, and those Hebrews in the
wilderness who had the promise of the Canaan rest (a lively
type of heaven) so freshly in their eye, yet failed of it through
unbelief, there must still remain a rest — a real Sabbatism (Greek)
for God's people.  Then the parenthetic verses (7, 8) make
David's words "To-day" specially emphatic, showing that the
promise continued in its full strength after the loss of Canaan
by that generation through their unbelief and despite of that
loss. For if Joshua (not Jesus*) had given them all the rest
that God had promised, the Psalmist could not have spoken of
the promise as yet in force some hundreds of years later.
10. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath
ceased from his own works, as God did from his.)
This illustrates the analogy between the rest of God from his
creative work, and the rest of his people from the toils and
temptations of their earthly life. The glorified saint rests from
his own work, considered as toilsome — a weary burden to flesh
and spirit. We need not press this to the extreme of implying
that heaven is void of service for God — void of mental labor and
even of earnest thought, profound emotion, ever advancing
knowledge and ever-growing power for yet more.
Some have interpreted vs. 3-10 as speaking particularly of the
believer's rest from sin in this life through the victories of faith.
* The original Greek letters for these two names, Joshua and
Jesus, are the same. The translation Jesus is specially unfortunate
here because so misleading. The history absolutely requires us to
read "Joshua"

52 HEBREWS. — CHAP. IV.
In support of this view special stress has been put upon the
present tense of the verb (v. 3) — " do enter into rest." The care
ful reader of my Notes above will have seen that I interpret
this present tense to affirm the present force of the great prom
ise of heavenly rest, running ever since Eden ; in force, there
fore, both before and after the unbelieving Hebrews at Kadesh
brought upon themselves the fearful oath of God — -" Never shall
they enter my rest." The writer's argument is so plainly built
on this idea of a present and ever-standing promise of the heav
enly rest that it seems to be forcing his words out of their logi
cal connection and significance, to apply them to the rest which
faith gives the Christian here and now. If any choose to say
that God's rest from creative labor and Israel's rest in Canaan
from her Egyptian bondage and wilderness toil are good illus
trations not only of heavenly rest but of the rest which the
Christian finds even here through faith, very well. That may be.
It is quite another thing to show that' the writer in this passage
speaks of this rest on earth and not of the saints' rest in heaven.
What things God has used as types should be held to the sense
in which he so uses them. So far they are to us the teachings
of God. But beyond his use and application of them, they are
only human imaginations — perhaps truthful, perhaps not.
11. Let us labor therefore to enter into that rest, lest any
man fall after the same example of unbelief.
12. For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and
sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the
dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and
marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of
the heart.
13. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in
his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the
eyes of him with whom we have to do.
_" Let us labor to enter," putting forth our utmost endeavor.
with perpetual diligence, the object in view being infinitely
worthy of such seeking.  "Into that rest," so long set before
your fathers in sublime promise. The demand for diligent and
watchful endeavor is immensely heightened by the danger of
failure. Ye see how many of our fathers in the old historic
times, came short, and so perished through their unbelief.
The additional consideration, suggested^by "for" (v. 12, 13)
should be studied with care.  What is the point of its appli
cation?  This must turn mainly on the sense of the phrase —
"The word of God." _ Is this phrase used here in its general
and most comprehensive sense — meaning any and every utter
ance of God's thought to men ? and does" the writer mean to say
that by its intrinsic force and bearing, every such utterance of
God takes hold mightily upon the heart of man?  No doubt

HEBREWS. — CHAP. IV. 53
this ought to be the case; but is it so in fact? And if so, is
this a fact pertinent to the writer's argument just here? If all
words of God spoken to man are so trenchant, sharp, cutting,
so full of innate energy, how could the old Jews have been so
callous, so impenetrable to its force ? And why should this fact
of its native power be adduced here as one of the strong reasons
for the utmost endeavor lest God's word should not take hold
of their souls ?  This sense of the phrase and such a use of
it involve serious logical difficulties. A better sense may be
suggested, viz., that "the word of God" here is his word of
promise — the same which has been prominently before the
writer's mind throughout this and the previous chapter, viz.,
the promise of the heavenly rest, including all the blessings of
gospel salvation. This word of promise is sharp, cutting, pierc
ing in the sense which is here emphatic, viz., heart-revealing.
It goes to the depth of a man's soul and lays open his very
heart. Is his heart thoroughly gross, sensual, worldly? Such
a promise tests it to the quick; it lays open his very soul as a
double-edged sword would lay open his flesh and bones. The
meaning is not precisely that it stirs his conscience and puts
a keen and quick moral sense into him, or that it finds such
moral sense already there ; but rather that it cuts through all
disguises; pierces through all heart-coverings; exposes the inner
depths of a man's moral being. If he is honest before God, if
the spirit of filial fear and reverence be there, how surely it
brings such qualities to light I For such a heart springs up
spontaneously to welcome God's promise of gospel blessings. 
This great moral fact is specially pertinent to be adduced in
this connection, partly because it carries with it such fearful
responsibilities ; and partly because it is so generally ignored.
It is a current popular notion that God's threatenings are more
or less serious, and may carry with them grave consequences;
but as to his promises — who should concern himself as to any
danger from neglecting them ? If one does not choose to receive
the promised favor, it is only to excuse himself or let it go by
default; and it simply amounts to nothing; it will be all the
same as if no promise had ever reached his ear.-  Not so, but
far otherwise is God's thought of this! In his view the gospel
promise lays bare the very heart of man. Beyond possible mis
take it shows whether that sinful heart has any, even the least
respect for God left ; whether it can be touched by the pres
ence and pressure of God's infinite love; whether upon after
and second thought it will entertain at all the spirit of repent
ance and will consent to consider its ways and think of return
ing to obedience. Every renewal of God's promise is his motion
put to the sinner for reconsideration ; and every such refusal
of the sinner to entertain this motion is a fresh insult offered
to his loving Father ! Oh, how does it lay bare his proud, un
believing heart!  This I take to be the sentiment of the verse
before us.

54 HEBREWS. — CHAP. IV.
The significance of the particular words and phrases is not
difficult.  " The word of God is quick." This almost obsolete
Saxon word retains (as is usual) its old sense in certain set
phrases : e. g., " cut to the quick " means cut into the live flesh.
The Greek is simply living — all alive with vital energy.  The
word for "powerful" is the Greek for energetic, instinct with
force.  A "double-edged sword" is one brought to an edge on
both sides of the blade.  " Dividing asunder the animal life
from the spiritual," and so causing death. " Severing joints and
marrow " involves dismembering the body and cutting through
the solid bones to the central marrow within. These words carry
out the figure of the double-edged sword, to which the word of
God is compared.  The word "discerner" carries the thought
rather to God than to his word. Throughout verse 13 the writer
speaks definitely of God — -"his sight" ; " him with whom we have
to do." No created being can be hidden from God's searching
eye. "All things" — all deepest thoughts and purposes of creat
ures made of God lie naked and opened to his eyes, before whom
is our account, to whom we are supremely responsible, and before
whom we must speak — as the Greek word implies — render up
orally our account when he shall summon us to his bar.  The
Greek word for "opened" is neck-exposed, as when the head of
an animal is forced back to lay the neck open for the bloody
knife. Returning from particular words and phrases to the general
doctrine of the passage, viz., that the promise of gospel blessings
is intensely (not to say fearfully) heart-revealing, let us notice
one very striking analogous passage — the words of the aged
Simeon (Luke 2: 34, 35) when. the Holy Spirit was upon him,
and he came by the Spirit into the temple just at the moment
when his parents brought in the child Jesus. Then and there
Simeon said to Mary: "Behold, this child is set for the fall and
the rising of many in Israel, and for a sign [a most distinguished
personage] who shall be spoken against; yea, a sword shall
pierce through thine own soul also — that the thoughts of many
hearts may be revealed." Laying these words of Simeon along
side of the verse now before us, we have the same general sub
ject — a promised Savior brought in gospel promise before men ;
the same ultimate result — a deeper fall into ruin to some, and a
glorious rising to life of others ; the same incidental results also —
that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed ; and even the
same imagery — the sword piercing the very soul through and
through. Even the blessed mother does not escape the searching
ordeal of her faith and of her very heart.  That this striking
analogy to our passage should appear in the Gospel of Luke may
be considered as one of the incidental coincidences which sus
tain our theory that Luke is also the author of our epistle. The
entire line of thought is so peculiar and the coincidences so
nearly perfect, it is not easy to resist the conclusion that both
passages came from the same author.

HEBREWS.  CHAP. IV. 55
14. Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is
passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold
fast our profession.
Admonitions against unbelief and consequent apostasy have
been reiterated and expanded from chapter 3 : 7 to this point,
constituting a sort of digression from the main theme — the priest
hood of Jesus Christ. Here the author resumes that discussion
and presentation.
Notice the cumulative epithets which set forth the surpassing
qualities of our Christian High Priest; — "Great" — none can be
greater ; the noblest men of Aaron's line are not to be once
named in the comparison. " Passed into the heavens " ought to
have been translated, " passed through the heavens ; " ascending
through and past all the lower heavens to the very throne of the
infinite God. So Paul (Eph. 4: 10) speaks of Christ as " ascend
ing up far above all the heavens that he might fill all things."
And our author (7 : 26) expresses the same fact in the words,
"made" (or become) "higher than the heavens."  "Jesus the
Son of God " are terms which reach the very climax of ineffable
greatness and glory — a Savior who is indeed the infinite, eternal
Son of God, heir and Lord of all. Even he becomes our high
priest to mediate for us before the Majesty on high.  So much
for the divine side of his character, in which there is lacking no
element of infinite dignity, influence, or power.
15. For we have not a high priest which can not be
touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all
points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
"For" might perhaps be better put yet; yet, great and exalted
as our high priest is, he is not lifted above sympathy with mor
tals of our race.  The form of expression with the double nega
tive — "We have not an high priest who can not be touched' —
the reader will notice as somewhat peculiar, but it is not adopted
without a reason — a reason which we need not go far to seek.
Sometimes perhaps, even in Aaron's line, there might be high
priests who would feel their personal dignity in a way which
would crush out all natural sympathy with the lowly. Hebrews
who had had experience with such high priests would perhaps
recoil from one who came recommended for his superlative great
ness, dignity and glory. Alas! for us, would they say, for what if
he should be too great to have felt such weakness as ours— too
high to have any possible sympathy with sufferers so lowly and
so frail as we ! Anticipating and forestalling this fear, the
author would say : True, there might be a high priest who could
not be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, but we have not
such an one. You need never fear that Jesus will be unfeeling,
unsympathizing. It never can be true that his heart will be un-

56 HEBREWS. — CHAP. IV.
touched with our infirmities ; ye may dismiss all such apprehen
sions forever! For he was tempted in all points as we are.
Like us, he has been wearied with toil, faint from hunger, chilled
by the winter's cold, oppressed with the summer's heat, having
not where to lay his head ; and, passing from these to other ills
harder by far to.be borne — he met the contradiction of sinners
against himself — slanders upon a spotless life ; cavils against the
kindest appeals and the strongest arguments ; persistent repulsion
alike to his most faithful rebukes and to his most tearful entreat
ies. " He came to his own, and his own received him not."
Moreover, all ther.e can be of darkness and horror in the fiercest
temptations of Satan he passed through once and again — we can
not know how often ; all that human weakness which makes
angelic ministration so precious, he certainly felt and had occa
sion to welcome its sweet comfort and consolation. Oh, does not
He know the very depth of human woe, the bitterness of its sor
rows, the strain brought upon worn and wasted nerve-power, the
sinking under burdens too crushing for frail human frames ! 
We may therefore fitly think of him as the world's great Sufferer
— as one " who bore our griefs and carried our sorrows;" who
" was bruised for our iniquities," but never for his own.  For
in his case, suffering never involved or implied personal sinning.
All this suffering which he bore in its almost infinite variety and
in its terrible intensity, did not come at all of his own sinning,
nor did it sweep him on into sin. All was without sin. There
may be the extremest temptation without the least sin whatever.
Let his people see to it that they never count their great tempta
tions to be the least apology for sinning !
16. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of
grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in
time of need.
Here is the conclusion or inference ("therefore"): "Let us
come boldly" — but this can not mean, with impudence, nor with
rash or heedless spirit. This "boldness" is not the opposite of
modesty and reverence, but rather, of that timidity and shrink
ing away which prevents some from coming at all. This Greek
noun translated " boldness " is used in the New Testament
thirty-one times, so that we have abundant cases of usage to
show its meaning. Often it is translated openly, as in Mark 8 :
32 and John 7: 13, 26 and 10: 24; or plainly, as in John 11:
14. For the grammatical construction we have an exact parallel
in Acts 2 : 29 : " Let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch
David," i. e., speak with the utmost freedom of utterance, without
the least restraint. Much the same is Acts 4: 13, 29: "When
they saw the boldness of Peter and John," i. e., how fearlessly
they spake and how free from all constraint or restraint. So
Paul "preached the gospel at Rome (Acts 28: 31) with all bold
ness " (confidence), " no man forbidding him." Paul himself

HEBREWS. — CHAP. V. 57
uses this word in the same sense as our author (Eph. 3 : 12) —
"In whom we have boldness and access with confidence," etc.,
and similarly (2 Cor; 3: 12)— "We use great plainness of
speech."  The meaning is thus made entirely clear by usage.
We are exhorted to come to the throne of grace with free utter
ance, without restraint, feeling that we are most kindly and
tenderly invited ; that the loving voice of Jesus calls us to his
own throne of love. Therefore if we have a sorrow, let us go
and tell Jesus ; if we have a burden, let us bring it to his ear ;
if a longing desire, let us speak of it most freely. If our heart
would fain cry out for help, let its cry go forth to him uncon
strained, whether through speech or through groanings which
can not be uttered. Not least, if we want help in some time of
need, that is the very time to come, and such the very succor
he loves to grant. Help to conquer in the conflict, help to do
in the best way possible the duty of the hour, help what time
our own strength fails us and we feel all unequal to the effort
required; then his grace is near and ready, and we can not ask
in vain.

CHAPTER V.
The priesthood of Christ is resumed; is compared with that
of Aaron, in which were men of manifold infirmities, who
therefore could sympathize with the people (vs. 1, 2) ; and who
must needs offer sacrifices as well for themselves as for others
(v. 3), and must be appointed of God — not self-appointed (v. 4).
So also Christ never assumed the office of himself, but received
it from God as the scriptures show (vs. 5, 6). In his earthly
life Jesus suffered, prayed, conquered, and learned obedience
through suffering (vs. 7, 8). Having reached consummate
blessedness, he became able to save to the uttermost — a High
Priest forever (vg. 9, 10). The writer fears that his readers,
being dull of apprehension and babes in Christian knowledge,
will not understand the many things he has to say of Christ (vs.
11-14). 1. For every high priest taken from among men is or
dained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may
offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins :
2. Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on
them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is
compassed with infirmity.
3. And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so
also for himself, to offer for sins.

58 HEBREWS. — CHAP. V.
This antithesis- between the Hebrew priests chosen from
among men to officiate in behalf of their brethren, on the one
hand, and Jesus Christ on the other, makes these obvious points:
That their service is in behalf of their fellow-men in matters
that relate to God; that it includes both thank-offerings and
sin-offerings, these constituting mainly their service ; that nat
urally they would have compassion for the ignorant and the
erring because themselves were subject to infirmity; and that
they needed to make the sin-offering not only for the people but
for themselves.  On the point of fellow-feeling between the
priest and those for whom he officiated, our author compares
Jesus with the high priest of Aaron's line, but applies to Jesus
the Greek word which signifies precisely sympathy (sumpatheo)
— a compassion that comes of a common suffering; while for the
Hebrew priest he uses not the same but a kindred word (met-
riopatheo) which signifies being gentle and indulgent as opposed
to being irascible or even stringent. It is perhaps not certain
yet is probable that the author meant to make a special point
by the choice of a different word.
4. And no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he
that is called of God, as was Aaron.
5. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made a high
priest ; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to-day
have I begotten thee.
6. As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for
ever after the order of Melchisedec.
Inasmuch as acceptance before God is supremely vital to the
value of any mediatorship between man and God, none could
ever assume this function of his own motion. He must be called
to it of God. So Aaron was ; so also was Jesus, as the author
proves by quoting two prophecies, viz., from the second Psalm
and from the one hundred and tenth. Psalm 2 has been under
consideration above (on 1:5); Psalm 110 appears here for the
first time. But see below (5: 10 and 6: 20 and 7: 1-28). The
full discussion of the priesthood of Melchisedec may better be
postponed till we reach Chapter VII. Suffice it to say here that its
main point is duration. His " order " was that of a priesthood
which had but one priest, and he a priest forever — all unlike that
of Aaron in this point, since in the latter one man died and an
other took his place.
7. Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up
prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto
him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in
that he feared ;
8. Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the
things which he suffered ;

HEBREWS.— CHAP. V. 59
9. And being made perfect, he became the author of eter
nal salvation unto all them that obey him ;
10. Called of God a high priest after the order of Melchis
edec. That Jesus, our Great High Priest, had suffered as man suffers,
and therefore was able to sympathize with his suffering people,
has been affirmed in a general way already in 2: 18 and in 4: 15.
The point is too vital to be passed with only general statements.
Here, therefore, the author refers to a particular instance — the
same, doubtless, which stands forth so prominently in each one
of the four gospel histories, viz., his fearful agony in the garden
of Gethsemane. There Jesus offered up prayers and supplica
tions with strong crying and tears unto him who was able to save
him from death. A death of dreadful agony was then immediately
before him. A horror as of great darkness came over him there ;
the cup brought to his lips to be drank seemed to him unutter
ably dreadful, and he cried: "Father, if it be possible, let this
cup pass from me 1 "  We are not told definitely what ingredi
ents of pain and woe were indicated by the word " cup." If that
"cup" meant only death — death in the simple significance of sun
dering soul from body — he was not saved from it; and yet it is
plainly implied here that his prayer was answered, at least in its
main and most vital points. It seems therefore, by far, more prob
able that the fearful horrors of that hour of woe were due to the
conflicts of his soul with the Prince of darkness, coupled, it may
be, with the fear of sinking under his crushing burden. The
being "heard in that he feared" may have brought him relief
from that fear and help in his conflict with Satan. "An angel
from heaven strengthening him" (Luke 22: 43) may be signifi
cant of such relief. (The reader is referred to my Notes in "The
Gospel of John," pp. 261-266.)
In the last clause of verse 7, the received version is ambiguous
and obscure, since it may mean — Was heard as to the definite
thing he feared ; or, was heard because of his fear. The original
Greek is difficult. The two rival constructions are — (a) What
grammarians call "the constructio pregnans," viz., a construction
which implies another verb interposed, thus : " heard [and deliv
ered from] the thing he feared.  (6) His prayer heard by
reason of his piety — the sense piety being given to the word trans
lated "fear" [eulabeias].  The latter should be preferred — (1)
Because it avoids the necessity of a " constructio pregnans," and
this should never be chosen if a more simple one is admissible. 
(2) Because the usage of this Greek word for "fear" demands it.
Nowhere in the New Testament does this Greek noun, or its cor
responding verb or adjective, take the sense — an object of dread —
some great danger to be afraid of. These words always have the
Old Testament sense — reverence; the fear of God; real piety.
This consideration ought to be deemed decisive.  (3) It may
still be added that this construction of the clause virtually im-

60 HEBREWS. — CHAP. V.
plies all we gain by the first above named. If he was heard be
cause of his piety, he was doubtless saved from the special object
of his dread — from his agony of anticipation.
As bearing on the great subject of answers to prayer, this case
teaches one priceless lesson, viz., that prayer may be answered as
to its spirit, and yet not as to its letter. Here the letter seems
to have been — Save me from such a death; the spirit — Save me
from sinking beneath this awful load ; and then, Let thy will be
done. He was saved from sinking; God's will was done; but the
death was really endured, and, behold, infinite good came of it!
"Though he were a Son," and might therefore seem to have
had a filial claim for the most tender regard, amounting, it might
be supposed, to exemption from such a death, yet he " learned
obedience by the things he suffered." He sweetly bowed his will
to the Father's, and the Father's will was done. The spirit of fil
ial obedience ripened into glorious moral perfection, and stands
forth a most sublime example for the everlasting ages I
Now "being made perfect" (not precisely in the moral sense,
but in the sense of having reached the sublime consummation
of most exalted dignity and blessedness at the right hand of the
Father), he becomes competent to secure eternal salvation to all
who obey him as he obeyed the Father.  On the word " eter
nal" the question has been raised whether it should qualify
"salvation ' or "author"- — i. e., whether the sense be, a salvation
eternal in its results, or an author eternally mighty to save. The
more direct application should be to the salvation which he gives,
eternal in its results ; but this, it will be seen, implies that Jesus
saves eternally; that he must live forever, with never-waning
power to save his people.
11. Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be
uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.
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 ; and are become such as have need of
milk, and not of strong meat.
"Of whom" — the pronoun "whom" referring not so much to
Melchisedec, as to the Great High Priest of whom Melchisedec
was but a type.  "Things hard to be uttered" — not difficult
to pronounce audibly, but difficult to be explained to dull minds.
Difficult of interpretation is the precise sense of the Greek word;
yet plainly the difficulty thought of in this case lay rather in the
mind to be taught than in the truth itself.  " Since ye have
become dull of hearing" — the dullness being not in the ear, but
in the mind, lying back and to be reached through the ear.
Their mental perceptions had become dull.*  In view of the
time since their conversion they ought now to be well taught,
*The Greek word signifies lack of energy, activity.

HEBREWS. — CHAP. V. 61
even competent to teach others. But, far from this, they needed
to be taught again the first elements of the oracles of God. The
accepted version — "which be the first principles," etc. — is too
vague. Our translators use "which" so indefinitely, we can not
be sure what they meant. They often use "which" for "who"
and "what" — but may use it as a partitive — which one out of
several. The Greek word here can not be a partitive — meaning
which one out of many. Besides, this would be a point of com
paratively small importance. The sense is — Ye need to be taught
the elementary things of revealed religion; its first principles
are fading from your minds.  In consequence of this dullness
and this lapsing back into ignorance of Christian truth, they had
come to need milk, and not solid food.
In the Introduction (p. 3), notice was taken of the points put
here as indicating — (1) Unity of character — a state of knowledge
and of mental activity common to the whole community addressed;
(2) Consequently, a community not very large, but rather small,
for such qualities could not safely be affirmed of any very large
body of professedly Christian people ; and (3) A body of converts
brought into the Christian communion nearly at the same time,
and not long before the date of this epistle. They were young
converts, and yet were old enough to know more than they did.
It is not even supposable that some of them were converted as
far back as the day of Pentecost — more than thirty years in the
past — where the great Hebrew Church began. From all which
it seems legitimate to infer that this epistle was not specially
addressed to the whole body of professed Jewish believers, but
only to some local and relatively small body of rather recent
converts. 13. For every one that useth milk is unskillful in the word
of righteousness : for he is a babe.
14. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full
age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exer
cised to discern both good and evil.
These verses explain the figure he has used — milk for Christian
babes; solid food for adults. One who uses milk, i.e., because
he can take nothing stronger, being still in the infancy or baby
hood of Christian thought, lacks discrimination and skill as to
the doctrine of righteousness — which may probably mean the
great doctrine of justification by faith in Christ. Solid food is
for the well matured who by exercise ("use") have their per
ceptive faculties developed (as by gymnastics, the Greek word
implies) unto the discrimination of good from evil, so that they
are experts in making this discrimination.  In this connection
the author should mean truth and error, rather than moral good
ness as a quality of actions, and its opposite — moral badness.
All gospel truth is good, and all error evil; and we might say,
the really Christian heart takes the sense of gospel truth as good

62 HEBREWS.— CHAP. VI.
and of error as bad, even as the clear intellect takes the sense
of it as true and of its opposite as false.

o^Ko

CHAPTER VI.
Stagnation of the life-forces in the stage of spiritual babyhood
being fearfully perilous, the author exhorts them to move on be
yond these first elements to the perfect understanding of the sys
tem, recoiling with utmost dread from such apostasy as would re
quire the laying again of the very foundations of the gospel
scheme, the points of which he expands (v. 1, 2); and affection
ately urges them onward thus by the help of God (v. 3) ; enforc
ing it by the fearful fact that apostasy, after having had the full
light and the rich blessings of that primitive gospel age, must be
fatal to all hope of future repentance (v. 4-6) — a truth confirmed
by the illustration of fertilizing rains which enrich good soil and
promote all useful growths, but fall in vain on barren soils and
worse than in vain on growths that are only noxious (v. 7, 8) — yet
the author does not expect such apostasy in his Hebrew converts
and why not (v. 9, 10). He exhorts them to follow the faith of
their honored fathers (v. 11, 12), to whom their faithful God gave
the strongest promises, confirmed by his oath (v. 13-15) for as
men confirm their word by the solemn oath, so had the Almighty
God, that his people "might have strong consolation" (16-18);
this hope being as an anchor which had taken hold of the mercy-
seat in the most holy place, whither their forerunner Jesus had
already gone to abide — their own High Priest forever (v. 19, 20).
1. Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of
Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the
foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith
towards God,
2. Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of
hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judg
ment. 3. And this will we do, if God permit.
" Leaving the principles," etc., is by no means in the sense of
discarding, but of going on beyond, to new and higher lessons in
gospel science and in the Christian life.  " Unto perfection " —
the state of adult Christian life as compared with puny infancy,
the word being suggested by that in 5 : 14 (teleios) which our
version translates " of full age."  " Laying again the foundation
of repentance from dead works " must mean making it necessary
to begin again at the starting point in the Christian life by re-

HEBREWS. — CHAP. VI. 63
pentance from dead works, turning from works deadly to the soul.
Sinful men, entering upon a Christian life, began necessarily with
the element named here — repentance from a life that would
surely land them in eternal death ; also, with faith toward God ;
baptism; imposition of hands to impart the Holy Ghost; the
resurrection of the dead, and a final judgment. With these great
and fundamental truths all converts began their Christian life.
It is thoroughly vital to a just conception of this passage to
note how the author associates in his mind theoretical knowledge
of gospel truth with practical Christian life, and how he shades
off imperceptibly from the former into the latter. Manifestly
the closing verses of the previous chapter bear primarily upon
knowledge, gospel truth apprehended by the intelligence ; yet even
there he thinks of the discrimination between truth and error as
a "discerning of good and evil." Still more as he opens this
chapter does his thought embrace the real life, the peril of an
actual apostasy, the making it necessary to go back to the very
starting point and repent as at first from works naturally damn
ing to the soul. In his view gospel truth is the natural suste
nance of the Christian life. To lose the truth, or even the vital
sense of it, is to starve the soul — must be fatal to its spiritual
life. In the case of those Hebrew converts, to lose the great
elements of gospel doctrine and let them drop out of their mind,
was to apostatize from Christ to the ruin of the soul. Does not
our author's reasoning rest on this assumption 2
As to the meaning of these special phrases: "Repentance"
must be that which is. unto life, the turning from works that are
death-bearing.  "Faith toward God" is naturally fundamental
(so our author holds) : " He that cometh to God must " (by the
natural necessity of the case) "believe that he is, and is a re-
warder of those who seek him diligently'' (11: 6). There
never can be any going forth of human souls to God in obedi
ence, trust, love, until there be a real faith in his existence and
in his goodness — his kindness toward ourselves — a rewarder if
we seek him with all the heart. Thus faith comes in as a nat
ural necessity to real conversion.  As to the " doctrine of bap
tisms," the point calling for special notice is the plural — " bap
tisms." Some critics (e. g., Stuart) would make no account of
this plural as signifying any thing more or other than the singu
lar. It is doubtless true that cases may be found in Greek as in
English in which no distinctive sense attaches to the plural.
But under common law the plural means two or more. The
author of this epistle uses his words with remarkable precision,
never loosely, and never a form of a word even without a
reason. What then are the " baptisms," not less than two, to which he
refers ? Many critics have answered — That of John and that of
Christ. A sufficient objection to this is that John's was of tran
sient duration, and at the date of this epistle already gone past
and known only in history.  A better answer is — The baptism

64 HEBREWS. — CHAP. VI.
by water, and the baptism of the Spirit. If Luke wrote this
epistle, it is another of the striking coincidences that he pre
cisely is the gospel writer who has given prominence to the bap
tism of the Spirit. In his gospel he has the thing though not
the phrase in full : " Behold, I send the promise of my Father "
("promise" meaning the blessing promised — the Holy Ghost);
"but tarry ye in Jerusalem until ye be endued with power from
on high" (Luke 24: 49). In his Acts Luke gives us the same
phrase, and most significantly puts the second baptism in antith
esis with the first: Jesus "commanded them not to depart from
Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father which ye have
heard of me ; for John truly baptized with water : but ye shall
be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence " (Acts 1 :
4, 5).  Yet further, in his history of Peter's experience at
Csesarea, Luke shows how the two baptisms lay in his mind : The
Holy Ghost fell on Peter's hearers, whereupon he said : " Can any
man forbid water that these should not be baptized who have re
ceived the Holy Ghost (i. e., the baptism of the Holy Ghost)?
(Acts 10: 47). When Peter came to report this scene to his
brethren he put it thus : " The Holy Ghost fell on them as on us
at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord,
how that he said : John indeed baptized with water ; but ye shall
be baptized with the Holy Ghost" (Acts 11: 15-17). Plainly
then the two baptisms that stand together as first and second in
the mind of Luke are that by water and that by the Holy Ghost.
" Laying on of hands " was the outward sign in connection
with which and through which the Holy Ghost was imparted to
believers. " The resurrection from the dead" was accounted one of the
fundamental doctrines of the Christian scheme — the more so be
cause the fact of Christ's resurrection was one of the vital proofs
of his Messiahship. So also was "the eternal judgment,' that
final and universal judgment whose consequences were really
eternal, inasmuch as from it the wicked must "go away into
eternal punishment; the righteous, into eternal life" (Matt.
25: 46).
" If God permit" (v. 3) should not suggest even the possibility
that God could forbid the duty he enjoined. The sense seems
to be — With God's help, with his favoring providence and his
helpful Spirit.
4. For it is impossible for those who were once enlight
ened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made
partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5. And have tasted the good word of God, and the
powers of the world to come,
6. If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto re
pentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God
afresh, and put him to an open shame.

HEBREWS. — CHAP. VI. 65
_ This much controverted passage calls for thorough examina
tion. In the first place, the author's course of thought in this
context, the logic of his point — "for it is impossible," etc., is
not obscure, yet should be carefully noticed. His object is to
enforce his exhortation to go on unto adult Christian life ("per
fection"), learning more of the gospel and living better, and by
all means avoiding the necessity of'laying over again the foun
dations of their personal religion as they would do by apostasy
from the Christian faith and life. It was an argument of pro
digious force in sustaining his exhortation that it was impossi
ble, after certain experiences which he fully describes, to renew
men again to repentance. This is the fact here adduced.
Note, first, that he affirms this impossibility in the strongest
words known to the Greek tongue. Our author's own usage is his
best interpreter — " impossible for God to lie " (6 : 18) ; " impos
sible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sin " (10 : 4) ;
" without faith, impossible to please God" (11: 6).  Next, the
thing which he says is impossible, viz., " to renew them again to
repentance," seems to be put in terms entirely explicit and too
clear to admit any mistake. It may be observed also that the
writer gives the reason why such persons can not be renewed
again to repentance, viz., because they " crucify to themselves
the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." When
a writer affirms a thing to be absolutely impossible, and then
supports his affirmation by giving his reasons why, we must
suppose that he sees his points clearly and holds them strongly.
 How these reasons operate, whether on the apostate to fore
stall his repenting again ; or upon the divine or the human
agencies that would fain bring him to repentance, shutting off
their influence altogether, or rendering it powerless, may be a
question for our future consideration.
The two great questions on this passage which have interested
theologians most deeply are :
I. Is the case put here that of a real conversion; or the case
of one greatly enlightened, yet falling short of being born again ?
II. Supposing it to be a case of real conversion, does the
writer assume that such cases actually occur; or does he put it
only hypothetically ; — If it should occur, such apostasy would be
fatal ?
I. Does the writer intend to describe a case of real conver
sion ?
The affirmative seems to be fully sustained by the following
considerations :
1. The previous context demands it. This shows (v. 1) that the
writer's thought is upon " laying again the foundation of repent
ance from dead works" — i. e., taking a course which would neces
sitate a second real repentance — a second turning from death-
bearing sin to a state of salvation. To dissuade men from risking
such perils, he says : It is impossible if ye have once really re
pented and then apostatized, to go back, lay the foundation over

66 HEBREWS. — CHAP. VI.
again, and repent a second time unto salvation. This makes an
argument of most telling force.  But if you interpret his
description to mean only — It is impossible for one who becomes
almost yet not altogether a Christian, to repent afterwards unto
salvation, this does not fully meet the point of laying agftin the
foundation of repentance from dead works. He has not as yet
repented the first time. And moreover, it would be a fearfully
appalling doctrine (if true) that a sinner, once brought to the
point of being almost yet not altogether persuaded and relapsing
from that point, could never thereafter be renewed by repentance.
2. Of equal if not even greater force in the argument is the
point here affirmed to be impossible, viz., to renew again to repent
ance. It is idle to talk of renewing a man again to repentance
who has not yet been renewed even once. There could be no
"again" in the case. Renewing one again certainly presupposes
that he has been renewed once, and in the truly Christian sense,
i. e., unto repentance, unto a real and radical change of mind
(metanoia). 3. The descriptive points put here, when construed fairly, seem
to me to describe a case of real conversion. I am aware that this
position has been warmly contested.
The five special points which make up this entire description
were all intended obviously to bear upon the case, making the
argument cumulative, and showing that the man contemplated
had passed through all the characteristic experiences of converts
in that early Christian age. Therefore the front look of the case
favors, not to say sustains, the supposition of a real conversion.
A reader who saw no special reason in his theological system for
thinking otherwise would naturally understand the passage to
speak of a true convert.
Let us next look at the several points.  (a) "Were once
enlightened." Here is a question of usage, and observe, of New
Testament usage. And the facts seem to be that the moral or
spiritual state represented by this word "enlightened" is always
that of the real Christian. The usage of the same writer is always
most valuable. We have it in 10 : 32 : " Call to remembrance the
former days in which after ye were illuminated" (the same Greek
word "enlightened"), "ye endured," etc. So Paul to the Ephe-
sians (1 : 18) — prays that "God may give them the spirit of wis
dom and revelation in the knowledge of him, the eyes of your
understanding being enlightened that ye may know what is the hope
of his calling, ' etc., all showing that those men enlightened were
assumed to be truly converted men.
(6) "Tasted the heavenly gift." This word for "gift" is used
of Christ by himself (John 4: 10): "If thou knewest the gift of
God, and who it is that saith unto thee," etc., but in many more
cases it is used of the Holy Ghost, as may be seen Acts 8 : 20 and
11: 17: "If God has given them the same gift as unto us," etc.
Also Eph. 3: 7.  The word " tasted" may perhaps suggest to
some the idea of sipping, merely touching to the tongue ; but this

HEBREWS. — CHAP. VI. 67
would greatly misconceive the usage of the New Testament.
Notice some of the cases: "Taste of death," Luke 9: 27, or in
our author 2 : 9, or in John 8 : 52. See also the usage of Peter
(1 Ep. 2: 3): "If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious,"
which surely can not mean — to take the least possible sip — only
a touch to the mouth. The word must be taken in the sense of a
deep and thorough experience, and therefore must imply a gospel
reception of Christ or of the Holy Ghost.  (c) " Were made par
takers of the Holy Ghost" should imply more than being merely
convicted of sin. By the usage of this writer, it can not mean
less than being a hearty and thorough recipient — one who shares —
has a substantial part in or of that of which he is said to be a
partaker. See Heb. 3: 1, 14: "Holy brethren, partakers of the
heavenly calling." " We become partakers of Christ if we hold
the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end." Also 12:8:
"Of chastisement all are partakers."  (d) "Have tasted the
good word of God " — will be sufficiently clear after the showing
above of the New Testament usage of taste. It must imply a deep
experience of the spiritual and transforming power of the word
of God.  (e) "The powers of the world to come." In the New
Testament this word for "power" is often used for miracles, and
in Luke specially for the superhuman energy of the Holy Ghost,
perhaps usually with reference to his miraculous ageneies. See
Luke 24: 49 and Acts 1 : 8. Its current use in the sense of
miracles may be seen Acts 2: 22.  (f) "The world to come,"
as we have seen in Heb. 2 : 5, refers to the gospel age which for
long centuries stood before the ancient prophets as the age [or
world] to come. The same Greek word as here appears and in
the same sense, in 1 Cor. 10: 11 and in Eph. 2 : 7 — the gospel age
and not the future life.
How vitally the conscious possession of these miraculous powers
bore upon Christian character, it is not possible for us to know.
Of this we may be very certain. It could have left no room
whatever for rational doubt as to a divine revelation, and a verita
ble mission of the Sou of God.
Thus these descriptive terms and phrases, when interpreted by
New Testament usage, seem to define a truly Christian experi
ence. "If they shall fall away ; '' — the Greek, however, is a partici
ple.* They falling away; being supposed to fall away — "it is
impossible to renew them again," etc.  The sense of this
participle (falling away) admits of no dispute. The usual Greek
word for fall has a special sense given it by the preposition
[para] compounded with it, which by usage gives a large class
of words a bad moral sense ; e. g. , paranomia — transgression of
law; parabasis — sin, i. e., overstepping the rule; paraptoma, a
moral fall; transgression. Beyond question, therefore, this word
'Whether this participle be a future or an aorist is a point of
no exegetical importance.

68 HEBREWS.— CHAP. VI.
for falling away signifies a fatal moral fall, a real apostasy from
truth and from God.
4. My fourth point in this line of argument to prove that the
case put here is intended to be that of a true convert, has not
in my view received the attention it deserves. To introduce it,
I admit that in theory it is possible for one to be very much
enlightened in gospel truth without being converted. He may
know more truth than he obeys and loves. He may be almost
and yet not altogether persuaded. But the point I make is, that
our author in this entire passage (from 5 : 11 and onward) does
not seem to think of such a possibility. He associates knowing
the truth with accepting, loving and obeying it. His Hebrew
converts are only babeB in Christian knowledge, and therefore,
for this reason, he is greatly afraid they will apostatize fatally
from Christ. He begs them to go on in the school of Christian
truth, learning more and more of its advanced principles, for
he assumes that this will make them stronger Christians. It is
not in his mind at all that they may possibly know God and yet
not love and obey him. He assumes that gospel truth really
learned and known, is saving; and equally, that error or ignor
ance is damning. — —Now with these views vividly in his mind,
it becomes essentially certain that in his descriptive points put
in vs. 4-6, he must be thinking of a real convert, and not of one
who was quite fully enlightened, yet without being born again.
This group of considerations seems to show conclusively that
the case here described is that of a real convert to Christ.
II. We have a second question, properly theological rather
than exegetical in its relations; viz., thus: Supposing this to be
a case of real conversion, does the writer assume that such
cases do actually occur; or does he put it only hypothetically,
— if it should occur, then such apostasy would be fatal?
i. It is very obvious that the writer does not think of real
actual apostasies of this fatal sort among his Hebrew converts.
Observe what he says below (v. 9): "But, beloved, we are per
suaded better things of you, and things that accompany salva
tion," (literally things having salvation, involving, ensuring it)
"though we thus speak." Do not understand us to imply that
any such cases are occurring or will occur among you. As if
aware that his manner of speaking might he understood to
assume that such cases were actually occurring, he very distinctly
and very carefully forestalls that assumption.  It is therefore
certain that in the writer's view it might be very proper to throw
out this fearful warning against apostasy, although such a case of
real apostasy was not thought of as actually occurring.
2. We may go still farther and say that in the nature of things,
such warnings against apostasy do not necessarily conflict with
the revealed certainty which Jesus puts in these words: "My
sheep hear my voice; I know them and they follow me; I give
them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any
pluck them out of my hand," etc., (John 10: 27, 28). Such a

HEBREWS.  CHAP. VI. 69
warning as this by our author is one of God's appointed means
and influences to forestall fatal apostasy. The case for illustra-
tion, often appealed to, is always in point — that of Paul and his
fellow sea-farers. The word of God to Paul was — "There shall
be no loss of any man's life among you, but of the ship," (Acts
27: 22). Paul believed this and committed himself before them
all to this effect: " I believe God that it shall be even as it was
told me," (v. 25). But when " the shipmen were about to flee
out of the ship, Paul said to the centurion and to the soldiers :
"Except these abide in the ship, ye can not be saved." What is
that (they might have said) ; did you not tell us there should be
no loss of any man's life ? Indeed I did ; that is what the Lord
told me ; but he did not say we should be saved without the help
of the sailors. Stop those sailors, as you value your lives I
This is all reasonable. The Lord proposed to use the help of
the sailors and never thought of saving all the souls on board in
any other way than with their help. So Christ does not propose
to save all his sheep without many a solemn warning against
apostasy. For apostasy must in its nature be fatal, and Chris
tians must therefore fear it, shun it, shrink away from it with
fearful dread, as they would be saved at last.
[Note. — A more extended discussion of the theological points
of this passage is placed in Appendix B, " On Apostasy and
Saints' Perseverance."^
It remains to consider the reasons assigned: "Seeing they
crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh and put him to an
open shame."  Here a question arises of most vital interest : —
What is the thing which it is impossible to do ? and wherein lies
the impossibility, or, in other words, what makes it impossible?
Observe, the writer does not say — It is impossible for that man
who has fallen away to repent ; does not deny that he might on
nis part repent if only he would; but the thing he affirms is: "It
is impossible to renew him again unto repentance ; " which must
mean, impossible for those agencies — other than his own — ¦
which are legitimately active in bringing men to repentance, to
bring him. These agencies are those of God by his Spirit and
truth, and also those of his servants, working together with him.
Turning our attention to the assigned reasons why it is impos
sible, we observe it is neither said nor implied that God opposes
their repentance, has taken such offense that he no longer de
sires it ; but the reason given carries the mind to the shocking de
pravity, the awful moral hardihood, of these apostates. So far
from being moved to repentance by the agonies of Jesus dying
on the cross for their sins, they would crucify him over again I
So far from being moved by such unutterable condescension and
pity for their souls, they would pour fresh contempt upon the
Great Sufferer — "put him to an open shame 1 " This means that
the best and mightiest influences toward repentance in human
souls have become worse than powerless ; for they seem to serve
only to fire up the sinner's depravity to intenser heat and to de-
4

70 HEBREWS. — CHAP. VI.
base all his better impulses into more fiendish wickedness [ 
This is the trouble ; it is this which makes it impossible to bring
him again to repentance. The richest manifestations of God's
compassion and love serve only to harden his soul ; to inspire
his depraved impulses into more desperate energy ; and to make
him more and more a fiend in human form. How can any thing
more be done to bring him to repentance when the spectacle of
Jesus on the cross only excites him to cry out — Crucify him
again ? When the Son of God, disrobing himself of infinite dig
nity, that he might suffer as a malefactor for the guiltiest of
men, only prompts this apostate to put him to yet more open
shame ! When the most powerful influences for good work on
his soul only toward evil, how vain to hope that any influence
can bring him again to repentance !  This is manifestly the
reason, as it lay in the mind of our author, why it is impossible
to renew them again to repentance — as we shall see yet more
clearly in the illustration which he proceeds to give.
7. For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh
oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by
whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God :
8. But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected,
and is nigh unto cursing ; whose end is to be burned.
Those soils that are congenial to useful growths, and which,
after drinking in God's precious rain, bear fruits that reward
man's industry and sustain his life, receive God's blessing; but
those soils that produce nothing useful for man but only thorns
and briers, are nigh to being cursed of God. Their end must be
— ought to be — burning. The same rain that blesses the one
avails only to curse the other. The products of the best possible
rains and suns and culture are only thorns and briers. Why,
then, should God give them his rain and sunshine any longer ?
This illustration serves to interpret the reason why it is im
possible to bring apostates back to Christ again— apostates once
so fully enlightened; borne through all the precious experiences
of the Holy Ghost and of the good word of God ; and who have
known the truth of the gospel with such certainty as the con
sciousness of miraculous power must have produced. If we can
suppose one so enlightened and so richly blessed in his Chris
tian experience, to go back again to sin (and we can at least
suppose this) it ought not to surprise us that his re-conversion
should be declared utterly impossible.
9. But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you,
and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.
10. For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and
labor of love, which ye have showed towards his name, in
that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.

HEBREWS. — CHAP. VI. 71
The sense and bearing of verse 9 have been anticipated above.
In verse 10 the best textual authorities omit the word for
" labor," reading it — to " forget your work and the love which ye
have shown," etc. God will surely remember you tenderly for
your work and your love in behalf of his suffering saints. He
can not be so unkind, so unjust, as to forget you. This assures
the writer that God will minister to their Christian graces and
save them from fatal apostasy.
11. And we desire that every one of you do show the
same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end :
12. That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who
through faith and patience inherit the promises.
But we desire— very strongly (his word implies) that every one
of you — every individual soul, each on his own personal responsi
bility — should manifest the same diligence — the same hereafter
as heretofore — unto a fully assured faith, by no means stopping
short of a confident assurance, and sustaining it to the very end
of life.  " That ye be not slothful," our translators have it
here; but in 5: 11, they put the same Greek word "dull" — void
of thought, void of hearty interest in the things of God. Rather,
be ye followers of those holy men of old, whom ye venerate so
highly, who through faith and patience inherited the promised
blessings — i. e., Canaan ; a numerous posterity ; and a promised
Messiah. 13. For when God made promise to Abraham, because he
could swear by no greater, he swear by himself,
14. Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multi
plying I will multiply thee.
15. And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained
the promise.
"For" — the logic being this ; those promises were put in the
strongest possible form. He who gave them meant to make them
firm as the everlasting mountains. There being none greater
than himself to swear by, he sware by himself.  It may not
strike the reader who is unfamiliar with Hebrew idioms that
verse 14 does quote the ancient form of the solemn oath; but
such is the fact. Drawn out fully and literally, it would be thus :
"If I do not exceedingly bless thee and exceedingly multiply
thee" (it will be because I am not God !). The strong emphasis
on "if" carried with it the implied swearing by himself, which I
indicate in the paranthetic clause.  So when Abraham had
waited twenty-five years for his son of promise, lo ! he obtained
this promised blessing!

72 HEBREWS. — CHAP. VI.
16. For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for
confirmation is to them an end of all strife.
17. Wherein God, willing more abundantly to show unto
the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, con
firmed it by an oath :
18. That by two immutable things, in which it was impos
sible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation,
who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set
before us.
Men use the solemn oath, making appeal to one infinitely
greater than themselves, to pledge their veracity and honor and
put an end to all doubt and debate.  The translation " wherein"
(verse 1 7) is not very clear. The sense is — On the same principle,
God, wishing (better than "willing") to show the heirs of his
promise more conclusively the immutability of his counsel, inter
posed with his oath (interposed being the literal sense of the
Greek) ; i. e., he superadded the form of the solemn oath. The
" two immutable things" can be none other than his immutable
counsel [boule] and his superadded oath. No other things lie
in this field of thought. These two, and these only, are before the
mind at all. To make his revealed counsel the more decisive, he
added the oath, thus making two things, either without the other,
immutable ; both doubly strong ; designed to minister to his peo
ple " strong consolation. '  "Fled for refuge" looks historically
to the Hebrew cities of refuge whither the man-slayer fled for his
life to lay hold of the protection pledged to him there. So Chris
tians are represented as fleeing to Christ as to their city of refuge
— the hope set before them of salvation.*
19. Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both
sure and steadfast, and which entereth into that within the
vail; 20. Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus,
made a high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
Changing the figure, or rather adding another, this hope is
thought of as an anchor to the soul. As the huge and heavy iron
anchor goes down into the great deep and fastens its flukes upon
the moveless rocks, holding the ship " sure and steadfast, so
the Christian anchor [" hope "] goes up into the heavenly sanctu
ary (the place within the vail), for there our Jesus dwells; our
forerunner, gone on before, sits there enthroned forever, our
great High Priest; and upon him our immortal hope fastens itself
and we are held safely forever, " sure and steadfast."
*The cities of refuge are spoken of Ex. 21: 13 and Num. 35; and
Deut. 19 and Josh. 20. The subject is treated fully in my " Penta
teuch," pp. 282, 283.

HEBREWS.  CHAP. VII. 73

CHAPTER VII.

This chapter treats of one subject, and one only — the priest
hood of Jesus Christ. This is presented in the light of a run
ning contrast with the priesthood of Aaron. The argument ad
justs itself throughout to the Hebrew mind. Nothing else is
wanting to give us the full force of the argument but to conceive
ourselves to be Hebrew Christians, with strong national devotion
to the Mosaic system of the fathers, yet beginning to open both
eye and heart to the richer glories of the Christian high priest
hood, as shown in the person and work of Jesus.
Taking Melchisedec for his starting point, he shows in what
respects he represents the Son of God typically (verse 1-3) ;
how by receiving tithes of Abraham, he placed himself at once
in higher honor than the sons of Levi (4-10); that the imperfec
tion of the Levitical priesthood demanded a better system (11,
12), and a priest from another tribe (13, 14); and one whose
office should continue indefinitely (15-17) ; the old system being
superseded as radically defective (18, 19). This better high
priest came in under the solemnities of the divine oath (20-22),
and, unlike the dying priests of Aaron's line, he never dies (23,
24), and hence is mighty to save for evermore all those who
come to God by him (25). His perfect qualifications are then
grouped comprehensively (26-28).
1. For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most
high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter
of the kings, and blessed him ;
2. To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all ; first
being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that
also King of Salem, which is, King of peace ;
3. Without father, without mother, without descent, hav
ing neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made
like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
The writer has brought Melchisedec to view before repeatedly
(in 5: 6, 10 and 6: 20). Here he brings up his history for a
more full development. That history stands in Gen. 14: 18-20.
As a case that well illustrated the priesthood of Christ, it ap
peared also in ancient Messianic prophecy (Ps. 110: 4), to which
our author has already referred.
There has been abundant speculation, some of it not very sen
sible, over the question, Who was Melchisedec ? and especially —
How could he have been " without father and without mother " ?
 The history as given in Gen. 14, is clear enough — a good
man, at once a king, i. e., of Salem, and a priest of the true God.
He met Abraham on his return from the slaughter of kings and

74 HEBREWS. — CHAP. VII.
gave him his patriarchal and official blessing. To him Abraham
gave a tenth of all his spoils.  The remarkable thing in the
case is that every feature in his history is utilized into service to
make him an illustrative type of Christ. His name, Melchisedec,
means king of righteousness ; his royal city, Salem, signifies
peace. He received tithes from Abraham, which fact signified
his decided superiority not to Abraham only, but much more to
all Abraham's posterity. This would include the whole tribe of
Levi, even Aaron and all his sons.  Moreover (and this is a spe
cial point), he had no genealogy on the Hebrew records. In those
records, you have Abraham, Isaac and Jacob ; Levi, Aaron and
all his sons. But you look there in vain for any father or mother
of this Melchisedec, or for any sons or daughters of his line. He
has no genealogy. No notice appears of his birth or of his death.
He stands there without beginning of days or end of life — a priest,
and this only; a priest forever, for there is no hint that he ever
ceased to be a priest. So far, therefore, as the Hebrew records
go, he is made like the Son of God and abides a priest forever.
— —The real clue to the sense of this whole case of Melchisedec
is this : We must take him as he stands in Hebrew history, and
on the old genealogies of their nation. We are to know nothing
more; to ask nothing further. Taking him as he stands there,
he is fatherless, motherless; never born, never dying; » priest
only, therefore, and a priest forever; greater than Abraham, and
consequently greater than Levi, than Aaron, than any or all of
Aaron s line. All these points are turned to account as illustrat
ing the priesthood of Jesus.
It may cost any of us some effort to put ourselves back into
the ideas of the ancient Hebrew people and experience with them
their remarkable fondness for types and readiness to find and ac
cept them ; to realize, also, how striking to them must have been
that ancient figure in their history which stood, as Melchisedec
did, alone in sublime, isolated grandeur, towering above their old
est patriarch, Abraham, and standing loftily apart from the long
line of their national genealogies. But with these ideas somewhat
developed, we shall find little difficulty in the interpretation here
put upon the case of Melchisedec. We shall at least feel relieved
from the necessity of supposing another human family exempt
from the incidents of mortality, of whom we have no other speci
men save this immortal Melchisedec.
4. Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even
the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.
5. And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who re
ceive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to
take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of
their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abra
ham :
6. But he whose descent is not counted from them re-

HEBREWS. — CHAP. VII. 75
ceived tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the
promises. 7. And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the
better. 8. And here men that die receive tithes ; but there he re-
ceivetii them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.
9. And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes,
paid tithes in Abraham.
10. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Mel
chisedec met him.
The right to demand tithes, and to receive them legitimately,
implied a higher dignity. This placed the sons of Levi, in this
respect, above their brethren of the other tribes. The same prin
ciple placed Melchisedec above Abraham, and consequently above
all of Abraham's descendants, even including Aaron.  So, also,
the patriarchal blessing was conferred by one of greater age and
higher dignity; was received by the younger and the lees hon
ored. "The less is blessed by the better."  Moreover, a higher
honor attaches to Melchisedec as compared with the priests of
Aaron's line, because the latter die, but the former stands on the
records of their nation — both the historical and the prophetical —
as simply living, nothing whatever being said of his death. In
these points the Great High Priest who follows Melchisedec, in
his qualities and characteristics, must rank high above Aaron.
That Levi (so to speak) paid tithes in Abraham, being his yet
unborn son, it would be proper for the writer to assume, in this
argument with his Hebrew readers, on the ground of their Ori
ental ideas of the high honor always accorded to ancestors. With
them the fathers, the patriarchs of the nation, stood always above
their sons. At least, Levi could not be higher in dignity than his
great father, Abraham.
11. If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priest
hood, (for under it the people received the law,) what fur
ther need was there that another priest should rise after the
order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of
Aaron ?
12. For the priesthood being changed, there is made of
necessity a change also of the law.
If the Levitical priesthood and the law associated with it had
been perfect in its influence and results, fully answering all the
moral and spiritual ends which God sought, especially a sense of
being no longer under condemnation, a, conscious joy and peace
in believing, coupled with love and gratitude, drawing the soul
unto God, what need had there been for the Messianic promise
of another priest (as in Ps. 110: 4) after the order of Melchise-

76 HEBREWS.  CHAP. VII.
dec? This plainly assumes that the Levitical priesthood had
proved itself defective, inefficient — a fact sadly palpable in the
history of those times. From the point where New Testament
history opens down to the fall of Jerusalem, the corruption and
the vices of the Jewish priesthood were unutterably revolting.
The influence of priests upon people was fearfully depraving. 
"Under it the people received the law," says our author; but in
what sense of the word "law" ? Which law? Was it the moral
law of ten commandments, or the ceremonial and ritual? Ob
viously, the latter; for this, and this only, was "changed" (as in
v. 12); this was the law under which men "gave attendance at
the altar" (v. 13); this only could be called "the law of a carnal
commandment" (v. 16), only this was "disannulled" (v. 18) "on
account of its weakness and unprofitableness."  The priesthood
being changed (by bringing in a Great High Priest of the order
of Melchisedec), there was necessarily a change (v. 12) in the
fundamental law or charter — i. e., in the general system itself.
13. For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth
to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the
altar. 14. For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda ;
of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
One feature of the change in the fundamental law was this:
that the new priest came not from the tribe of Levi, but from
another tribe, viz., Judah. From this tribe no one had been
permitted to attend upon the ancient altar — a fact which showed
an entire revolution in the ritual of service.  The better sus
tained text puts the last clause of verse 14 thus: "As to which
tribe, Moses said nothing about priests" (rather than priest
hood"). 15. And it is yet far more evident: for that after the
similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
16. Who is made, not after the law of a carnal command
ment, but after the power of an endless life.
17. For he testifieth, Thou art a priest forever after the
order of Melchisedec.
The point which he says (v. 14) is evident prima facie (pro-
delon) on the face of it, and (in v. 15) is yet more abundantly
self-evident (katadelon), is a necessary change in the charter
or fundamental law (v. 12). Certainly there must be a radical
change in this if another priest is to arise after the similitude
of Melchisedec, and who is constituted a priest, not under the
charter of a temporary ordinance (carnal, i. e., fleshly, in the
sense of being frail, short-lived), but with the power of an indis-

HEBREWS. — CHAP. VII. 77
Boluble life. The purposed perpetuity was a new, grand, and
most distinctive feature. For this he appeals again to the stand
ard authority — Ps. 110: 4.
18. For there is verily a disannulling of the command
ment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness
thereof. 19. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing
in of a better hope did ; by the which we draw nigh unto
God. This most vital point he deems it desirable to reaffirm and sus
tain yet more fully. There must surely be a repeal of the pre
vious ordinance because of its weakness and inefficiency, for that
ritual law (nomos) " made nothing perfect, but the introduction
of abetter hope did" — "hope" being used here in the very com
prehensive sense — the Glorious Author of our gospel hopes —
the gospel scheme being considered as providing in Christ an
assured hope for those who embrace him. By Him we are really
brought nigh to God — than which, what can be more expressive!
Than this reality, what can be better or more glorious I
20. And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made
priest :
21. (For those priests were made without an oath ; but
this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord
sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest forever after
the order of Melchisedec :)
22. By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better
testament. Comparing Jesus with the priests of Aaron's line, he ranks
entirely above them, he having been constituted under the sol
emn oath of God, but they without any such solemnity whatever.
 The translation (v. 20) "Inasmuch," applied to the oath-
sealed priesthood of Jesus, fails to give the full strength of the
original; for this suggests not merely the fact of an oath in his
consecration, but the greatness and importance of this fact;
thus — According to the measure of dignity conferred by this
oath, by so much (v. 22) was Jesus made the Sponsor of a bet
ter covenant.  "Covenant," rather than "testament," is the
usual term, except where there is a tacit reference to " the last
will and testament" of one deceased. The Greek has but one
word for these two English words, not two; and the choice be
tween "covenant" and "testament," to translate that one (dia-
theke), is made on the principle above suggested — i. «., covenant
in all cases save where it refers to a last will in our sense of the.
word testament.

78 HEBREWS. — CHAP. VII.
23. And they truly were many priests, because they were ,
not suffered to continue by reason of death :
24. But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an
unchangeable priesthood.
The contrast put here between the many and the one turns on
their relation to death. On the side of the Aaronic priests, they
were of necessity many because shut off from permanence by
death. On the side of Jesus, because he lives forever, he has a
Eriesthood which never need pass — never shall pass — into other
ands. Closely in the sense of the compound Greek word, his
priesthood is non-transferable. It never can pass over to another.
25. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the utter
most that come unto God by him, seeing he ever hveth to
make intercession for them.
For this reason, on the strength of this grand fact — he is able to
save to the uttermost — always ready, always there, always com
petent to save all who accept his mediation and come to God
through him, since he ever liveth to intercede for them. The
best men in Aaron's line must die; the office might be tem
porarily vacant and sometimes very poorly filled; but no con
tingencies of such sort can ever impair the glorious perfection of
this perpetual priesthood.
26. For such a high priest became us, who is holy, harm
less, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than
the heavens:
27. 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 he did once, when he offered up himself.
28. For the law maketh men high priests which have
infirmity ; but the word of the oath, which was since the law,
maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.
This forcible grouping of tho grand points in the priesthood
of Jesus brings the long argument in this chapter to its consum
mation. Such a Great High Priest every way befits us ; is adapted
to our case and to all our wants.  Noticeably, words are accu
mulated to set forth his perfect moral purity. The Mosaic ritual
made the utmost account of the symbols of purity in the priest
hood ; but alas I how could mere ritualities secure the purity
itself? The purest of water might wash them; the whitest of
linen might array them ; the utmost exemption from defilement
might shield them round about; but who can tell what foulness
might hide itself within ?  But Jesus was the embodiment of
purity itself. Exalted, moreover, higher than the heavens ; gono

HEBREWS. — CHAP. VIII. 79
up into the upper sanctuary, at the very center of influence,
before the throne of the Infinite Father, at the summit of dignity
and glory, having no need, like those priests, to offer daily for
his own sins ere he could offer for the people. Indeed, offerings
for his own sins were forever precluded by his immaculate purity.
And, daily offerings for his people were superseded by his offer
ing of himself once for all. Finally, to fill out this magnificent
contrast to its utmost strength and glory, the old Mosaic law
ordained for its priests men full of all infirmities ; but the decree
of the solemn oath which succeeded and supplanted that law
ordained the very Son of God who is forever infinitely perfect.
The word in our English version — "consecrated" is too weak to
express the full force of the Greek which means perfected (teleio-
menon), holding the full consummation of all the glorious qualities
of an High Priest before God.

oi<Ko

CHAPTER VIII.
This chapter bears closely upon the grand theme of the whole
epistle, running an antithesis between the old economy and the
new to show the vast superiority of the latter; here, however, not
going over the special details of Christ's superior priesthood (as
in chap. 7), but coming to the chief point — the great result of his
superior work.  He is a High Priest, not below but above, even
at the right hand of the Infinite God, and serving in God's own
upper tabernacle (1, 2). The great function of the priest being
to offer gifts and sacrifices, Jesus — to be a priest at all — must do this
(v. 3). If he were on earth, there could be no occasion for his
doing this service — there being already priests of God's appoint
ment to do it on earth — as to whom you will notice carefully
that all their work was definitely prescribed with the design to
adumbrate — set forth in symbol— things in heaven (4, 5). But
Christ has a better service, resting on a better covenant with
better promises (v. 6). If the former had fully answered all the
important ends sought, no second would have been called for
(v. 7) ; but it failed, and therefore, long ago, God promised a
better system, not on the plan of the former (v. 8, 9). The new
one is outlined in the prophetic words of Jeremiah (v. 10-12).
The old one was ready to pass away, and, of course, the new to
be fully inaugurated (v. 13).
1. Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum :
We have such a high priest, who "is set on the right hand
of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
2. A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true taber
nacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.

80 HEBREWS. — CHAP. VIII.
The word " sum " naturally misleads the English reader, for it
suggests a recapitulation for the purpose of compression — a more
condensed statement — a summing up of the points previously
made. In fact, however, he does not do this by any means (it
having been already done substantially at the close of chap. 7),
nor does his word (kephaleion) — the head thing — imply this.
Rather, it means the chief thing; the point of chief importance.
 This he proceeds to state, viz. : Such a High Priest as I have
already described in detail, seated at the right hand of the
infinitely glorious throne above, officiating in the true Holy
Place, the real sacred tent which not man but God himself has
pitched. The word " pitched" looks to the pitching of a material
tent — the name currently given to the place where God dwelt of
old in symbol, and received the worship and the offerings of his
people. 3. For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and
sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have
somewhat also to offer.
This is definitely the function of the priest. He is set apart
from other men for this service and for this only. Aside from
this he is nothing. — - — Consequently, this one (Jesus) must needs
have some thing which he may offer. The writer has already
shown (7: 27) what this was. "This he did once for all when
he offered up himself."
4. For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest,
seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the
law: 5. Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly
things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about
to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make
all things according to the pattern showed to thee in the
mount. If he were now on earth (instead of being in heaven) he would
have no occasion to serve in the Jewish temple, there being
already priests in full supply there, acting moreover under God's
own appointment. But, you will observe, all their service was
divinely shaped and adjusted so that it set forth in symbol that
higher, nobler mediation which transpires in the upper, the
true tabernacle. Even in the construction of the original tent in
the wilderness, Moses was specially enjoined to make every thing
in its minutest detail according to the pattern God had shown
him. The whole system was thus framed to be a symbol on
earth of what takes place in its only vital reality in heaven.
6. But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry,

HEBREWS.— CHAP. VIII. 81 .
by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant,
which was established upon better promises.
Now hath he (the High Priest of whom I spake, v. 4) obtained
a more excellent ministry, one which reaches farther and secures
far better results, surpassing (the word signifies) all else that
preceded. And so much better as the plan (" covenant") itself is
better, and rests, according to the fundamental law, on richer
promises. This last is the thoroughly vital point, and he will
expand it more fully.
The word " covenant " appears here a second time (the first
being in 7: 22), and frequently henceforward. As used of God in
his relations to men, it means a scheme or plan of his moral
administration, often spoken of as an "economy" or "dispensa
tion " — really a special method of his own, devised for revealing
himself to his people and drawing to him their hearts.  When
used of man with man, this word covenant contemplates the
parties as in general equal, with equal rights of proposing, modi
fying, accepting its terms ; but as applied to God toward man, God
and he only proposes and fixes terms; man accedeB, or guiltily
refuses ; but may never dictate or even modify the terms. 
The word "covenant" becomes specially appropriate in view of
the solemn assent and consent with which man accepts God's
proposal, involved in his scheme or plan.  In this context the
" old covenant " is the scheme revealed to Israel under Moses :
the "new" is the gospel scheme involving the gift and work of
both the Son and the Spirit of God.
7. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should
no place have been sought for the second.
If the first covenant — that of which the whole Mosaic system,
the ritual, the priesthood and the sacrifices were the component
parts, had been faultless ; if it had done its work with entire
success, leaving nothing more to be desired, then no place would
have been sought for a second ; there would have been no occa
sion to think of it, much less to provide it. But ages of experi
ment had shown the deficiencies of the first covenant. It had
failed to regenerate Israel. Its priests and spiritual guides had
become woefully corrupt ; the people were fearfully far from God
and righteousness — as their reception of Jesus in the flesh most
conclusively proved. A better scheme was demanded.
Is it asked — Why did the Lord ever frame a system so defect
ive? It may be answered (1) The fault was rather in the people
than in the system. It was the people and not God who brake
the covenant. (2) For aught that appears, the plan (the Mosaic
system) was good for its time; good for the stage of knowledge
and culture then extant. That law was as good a schoolmaster,
teaching and leading on to Christ, as that people could bear or the

82' HEBREWS.— CHAP. VIII.
state of the world would admit. The best system for the days
of Moses was that which best met the wants of such a people and
of the world in that age.
8. For, finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the
days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new cove
nant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah :
9. Not according to the covenant that I made with their
fathers, in the day when I took them by the hand to lead
them out of the land of Egypt ; because they continued not
in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
" Finding fault with them." But the antecedent of " them " is
not clearly indicated in the grammatical construction. The sense
seems to require a reference to the covenant and its promises or
provisions — all which had proved inadequate, inefficient. There
fore the Lord through Jeremiah (31 : 31-34) promised a better
covenant with better promises, which are here recited. The fail
ure in that covenant as here put was that they — the people — did
not continue in it; they did not meet and fulfill its condi
tions. The final clause of v. 9 : "I regarded them not" is taken with
out change from the Septuagint, the sense of it being apparently,
I ceased to care for them ; they had forsaken me, and I gave them
upas hopeless of reform.  The original Hebrew in this passage
of Jeremiah suggests as its obvious sense — " Though I was an
husband to them." The attempt to harmonize the Hebrew and
the Septuagint has exercised critical scholars severely. It may
perhaps be safely said that no solution yet proposed seems alto
gether free from objection. Fortunately, the question affects no
vital points of the passage as a whole.  It is discussed some
what more fully in my notes on the passage in Jeremiah (31 :
31-34).  The reader should not fail to note the exquisite
beauty and pertinence of the words — " In the day when / took
them by the hand to lead them forth from the land of Egypt."
Moses stood between God and the people, and it was through
him that God took hold of the hand of that people to bring them
forth with his strong and uplifted arm.
10. For this is the covenant that I will make with the
house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put
my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts :
and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a
people :
11. And they shall not teach every man his neighbor,
and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord : for all
shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
12. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and
their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

HEBREWS. — CHAP. VIII. 83
The things promised in this most precious New Covenant are
expressed with the utmost clearness and force: "I will put my
laws into their mind (really giving them a lodgment in their
intelligence), and I will engrave them upon their heart [in tacit
antithesis with the old law engraved only on stone] ; and 1 will
be to them all that a God can be to his creatures, and they shall
be to me all that creatures should be to their Maker and their
God. I will fulfill my functions toward them as their God, and
they shall theirs toward me as my people."  " They shall
not teach" must not be taken to forbid all teaching, nor indeed
to assume that no teaching of God can be longer needful, as
(e. g.) of those in infancy and childhood ; but it does imply that
the knowledge of God shall be substantially universal. "They
shall not need to teach every man his fellow-citizen " (the Greek
has it) "and every man his brother."  This "knowledge,"
moreover, is not mere speculation ; is more than theories in the
head, foreign all from the heart ; but is right and true knowl
edge of God, made effective morally and spiritually through the
Holy Ghost — the same knowledge of which Jesus said : " This
is life eternal, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and
Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent" (John 17: 3). Beyond all
question the agency of the Holy Ghost is assumed under this
covenant as the " Spirit of truth," the supreme and most vital
Teacher of this true knowledge of God. For the covenant taken
in the large sense of a system of agencies is definitely and cer
tainly the gospel age as distinguished from the Mosaic ; and of
this gospel age or dispensation, the gift of the Holy Ghost to
teach, impress, and enforce the true knowledge of God, is the
center and the soul, even as Jesus is the center and soui of the
Christian economy considered as " the propitiation for our sins"
and our Great High Priest before the throne of God. The
results as given here come of his teaching and of no other. It
was therefore not necessary that he should be distinctly named
as the Teacher contemplated here: the work done, the fruits
wrought, certify to his presence and power. Yet it can not be
amiss to refer to a strikingly parallel passage in Paul to the
Corinthians (2 Cor. 3: 13-18), which draws a similar antithesis
between the old covenant and the new, bearing specially on the
same point, viz., the dimness of spiritual knowledge under the
old, against the clear vision of it under the new. Men read the
old covenant [diatheke] and saw God in it with a vail over their
face; but this vail is done away in Christ. More fully still is
the iatter expressed in v. 18 : " We all with unvailed face, be
holding as in a glass [mirror] the glory of the Lord [Jesus] are
changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the
Spirit of the Lord." The Spirit as the great Revealer of Jesus
to his people transforms them into his own perfect moral image.
This gives us the same results from the Now Covenant which we
have in our passage with this further point of explanation — that

84 HEBREWS. — CHAP. VIII.
it ascribes these results to their real cause, the Holy Spirit
teaching Jesus to his people.
Such moral transformation always presupposes full and free
forgiveness — the blotting out of all transgression, as we have it
here: "For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness," i. e.,
toward them as having been sinners ; for I will so perfectly for
give their sins that it may properly be said: "I will remember
them no more."
Recalling to mind the main purpose of this epistle as ad
dressed to certain Hebrew converts tempted to apostatize from
Christ into Judaism, viz., to show them the real and immense
superiority of the Christian scheme above the Mosaic, we pause
here with the impression that the argument is complete. Who
does not exclaim — Enough has been said! What more can be
necessary? Essentially the same may and should be said to those who
represent the present gospel age as inefficient, incomplete; as
only a waiting, not a working age, and as intended of God for
nothing better and higher; who perpetually tell us to look and
hope and pray and wait for the better dispensation that is soon
to open with the personal coming of Christ. Will that dispen
sation bring us any thing bettor than this "New Covenant"?
any thing better than " all men knowing the Lord from the least
to the greatest"; any thing better than — "I will be to them a
God, and they shall be to me a people"; any thing better than
so " beholding the glory of Jesus as to be changed into the same
image from glory to glory as by the Spirit of the Lord "?
The style of teaching and exposition to which I refer avowedly
exalts the visible presence of Jesus above the invisible presence
of the Spirit. It honors the former ; it disparages the latter.
It looks for a third covenant which shall altogether eclipse this
second.  This doctrine can not be discussed here in full; but
it may be admissible to ask: On what authority is the second
covenant overruled and set aside, superseded by something as
sumed to be better ? From what source comes the spiritual
teaching which disparages the mission and work of God's
Spirit? Is it even supposable that this writer to the Hebrews
could have held this doctrine or even any part of it ? Did Jesus
himself hold or at all favor this new doctrine when he said :
"It is expedient for you that I go away and the Comforter
come?"* 13. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the
first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is
ready to vanish away.
The very name given to this covenant — a "new" one — con
ceives of the first as waxing old and destined soon to pass away.
*A more extended exposition and refutation of this pre-millennial
scheme is reserved for a special essay (C) in the Appendix.

HEBREWS.  CHAP. IX. 85
The writer indeed declares that this change — the passing away
of the old and the coming in of the new — was even then at hand.
The old system with all its ritualities and machinery was about
to vanish away forever. The new had really opened already.

o*Ko

CHAPTER IX.
In this chapter the old covenant and the new are laid side by
side for comparison and contrast, to show that the former was
designed to illustrate the latter, the former being the symbol and
the latter the thing symbolized ; the former being of little value
in itself and useful mainly as throwing light in advance upon
the great purposes aud work of the latter.
Consequently, we have the salient points of the ancient taber
nacle and. its apparatus for worship (vs. 1-5) ; the method of that
worship (6, 7) ; the things indicated, foreshadowed thereby
(8-10) ; then, in antithesis with that, what Jesus has done is
shown (11, 12) ; which must be far more efficacious (13, 14) ; how
that covenant has analogies with a last will or testament (15-17),
for under the old system blood and death were the conditions
precedent of blessings (18-22). The symbols of things in the
heavens correspond with the heavenly things themselves (23);
the analogy is drawn between Jesus and the Jewish high priest
(24-26) ; also between man dying once and then passing on to
the judgment; and Christ coming once to die, and again for the
final judgment (27, 28).
1. Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of
divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.
2. For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein
was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread;
which is called the sanctuary.
3. And after the second veil, the tabernacle, which is
called the Holiest of all ;
4. Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the cove
nant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the
golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded,
and the tables of the covenant;
5. And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the
mercy-seat; of which we can not now speak particularly.
Using the facilities afforded by the Greek tongue to express the
most delicate relations of thought, the author puts the old system

86 HEBREWS. — CHAP. IX.
in slight contrast with the new by the particle ("men") at the
beginning of verse 1, and a corresponding one ("de") in verse
11, thus giving this sense: On the one hand the old system had
these elements ; on the other, " Christ, having appeared as a high
priest of the good things coming," etc. (v. 11).  The sacred
tent -(" tabernacle") and its more permanent successor, the
temple, had these bold, outstanding points in their construction
and furniture for worship : A sanctuary, " worldly " in the sense
of being of this earth as contrasted with that of the gospel system,
which is located in heaven itself — into which our great high
priest has entered once for all.  In verses 2, 3, the writer re
peats the word for " tent" (skene) as if there were two — a first
and a second. It is more common to speak of two apartments in
the same structure. We might paraphrase these verses, thus : —
For a tent was constructed with a first apartment, in which were
the candlestick, the table, and the bread set forth — which apart-
ment is called "holy" ('agia) ; but beyond the second vail is the
apartment called the Most Holy (by Hebraism, the Holy of Holies) .
 Critics have noticed as a grave difficulty that our author
classes the golden censer with the furniture of the most holy
apartment ; while the Pentateuch places the altar of incense in
the first apartment. (See Ex. 30: 6 and 40: 5, 26.) This has
been thought to indicate a lack of exact information. But per
haps it does not ; for the golden censer, used for bearing the
burning incense, was borne by the high priest into the most holy
place, and consequently was one of the sacred things which were
legitimate and in place in that most sacred apartment, and there
fore was properly enumerated with the ark and its contents and
the cherubim of glory as the only things that could be admitted
there. Possibly it was kept there during the intervals between
the annual great days of atonement. This instrument may have
been sacred for use on that one day only. For other services of
incense another censer may have been provided.
6. Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests
went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the
service of God.
7. But into the second went the high priest alone once
every year, not without blood, wliich he offered for himself,
and for the errors of the people:
"These things having been thus prepared or fitted up — this
being the sense rather than "ordained" — a word liable to mis
lead the reader. The same word is translated " made " in verse
27.  The priests, all without exception, went continually into
the first apartment in the performance of their official duties ;
but into the second apartment the high priest only might enter,
and he only on one day in the year, viz., the great day of atone
ment — the tenth of the seventh month. The writer calls special

HEBREWS.— CHAP. IX. 87
attention to the point that the high priest never entered that most
hallowed place without blood, which he offered for himself — (a
thing for which Jesus had no occasion) and for the errors of the
people. Not for their "presumptuous sins" — sins against knowl
edge; sins that involved intentional rebellion against God. For
such sins the Mosaic system provided no remission. All such
sins were distinctly precluded. He who sinned presumptuously,
with manifest rebellion against God in his heart, must " bear his
iniquity." The Mosaic system provided nothing that could in
any wise lift the burden of such guilt from his soul.  Hence
this word " error " marks a vital distinction, indicating a class of
offenses which fell within the range of the pardon that was
granted in type or symbol under this foreshadowing system. 
It was vital to the well-working of any system that should attempt
even to foreshadow the forgiveness of sin under the moral govern
ment of God, that it be jealously shielded so far as possible
against being abused. One of these precautionary provisions was
this — of shutting off absolutely all hope of relief for the man who
had sinned presumptuously. He must not be allowed to suppose
that the blood of an innocent lamb could take away his sin.
Another provision, of somewhat analogous sort, was this ever
present fact of the system, that the death of some innocent victim
must take the place of his own deserved death. Pardon must not
be cheapened ; a sense of the dreadful guilt of sin must not be
toned down by these foreshadowing symbols of the great atoning
sacrifice. 8. The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the
hohest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first
tabernacle was yet standing:
9. Which was a figure for the time then present, in
which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not
make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the
conscience ;
The exclusion from the most holy place on pain of death, of all
save the high priest, and the admission of him on but one day in
the long year, and then with incense significant of prayer, and
with blood significant of an atoning death — all these points in
the ancient system were salient, strong, full of significance.
They testified that the way into the most holy place, where the
visible glory sat enthroned upon the mercy-seat, was not laid
open so long as the first tabernacle stood and the covenant (or
scheme) which it represented was in force. All that was a
figure (v. 9) — a foreshadowing symbol and type — not " for the
time then present" (our translation here being very defective),
but a symbol looking down unto the time now present (the time
of the writer) i. e., a symbol of what was to be under the gospel.
The Greek words (eis ton kainon ton estekota) should manifestly

88 HEBREWS. — CHAP. IX.
be construed thus — toward and unto the time now standing
upon us. Then the next clause should be — not, "in which
[times] were offered both gifts and sacrifices," etc. — but under
which figure or symbol. The improved text for the word
"which" gives us the feminine, referring to the word for figure,
instead of the masculine, which (if it were genuine) would refer
to the word for time.
" Gifts and sacrifices powerless to perfect the worshiper as to
his conscience" (last clause of v. 9). They sufficed to relieve
him from the ritual disabilities growing out of ceremonial defile
ment ; they gave him his place among the recognized people of
God ; but the deep and dreadful sense of guilt they could not
allay; the burden of sin that would lie heavy on his soul, they
could in nowise remove. The blood of a thousand spotless
lambs might flow in sacrifice (as at Solomon's dedication of the
temple) but even that could never authorize the true prophet of
God to say and to sing : There is now no condemnation to them
for whom so much blood of lambs has been shed. The apostle
Paul might have stood in the presence of that ocean of innocent
blood, yet he would not have said there : " Being justified by
such and so much blood, we have peace with God.' Rather the
voice of inspiration even then proclaimed : " Thou delightest not
in sacrifice ; else would I give it ; thou hast no pleasure in burnt
offerings ; but the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit," etc. It
should never be overlooked that the truth-speaking convictions
of man's moral nature, if unperverted, if suffered to bear their
testimony to human guilt in the still chamber of the sinner's own
soul, will forever witness for God and against sin, and will
surely testify that no mere ritualities of service, no forms and
ceremonies of worship, not even the blood of innocent victims
in never so vast amount, can ever restore peace to the soul.
There will be a deep sense of unrelieved want, which no such
appliances can ever reach. Offerings and sacrifices like those,
how great soever their amount, can never make the sinner per
fect as pertaining to his conscience.
10. Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers
washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on tliem until the
time of reformation.
Grammatically considered, this verse has difficulties ; for we
have an ellipsis which our translators have filled with the words
" which stood," and which must be filled in some way — the
grammatical question being how ? Fortunately the ultimate
sense of the passage is but slightly affected by the choice be
tween the various methods which critics have proposed. There
can be no doubt that in this verse the author is expounding more
fully the general statement of the verse preceding; i. e., he would
tell us more in detail what those " gifts and sacrifices " are of
which he is speaking, and would say of them still further that

HEBREWS. — CHAP. IX. 89
they were fleshly [" carnal "], pertaining to things external rather
than spiritual, and not designed to be permanent,vbut rather were
imposed only up to the time of setting things right — until the
great adjustment which would take place when the Messiah
came. " The time of reformation " (as our version has it) is the
contemplated hour for introducing the perfect system — that of the
gospel age — in which the great and real Sacrifice for sin should
himself appear.
Recurring again to the ellipsis at the beginning of the verse, it
strikes me that the most rational way of supplying it is that
which follows the general law of ellipses, viz., bring forward the
next preceding verb or clause, thus : Unable to make perfect the
conscience of the worshiper save only in respect to meats,
dnnks a7id divers baptisms — all these carnal ordinances," etc.
So far as relates to these ritualities of external service, they
might satisfy his conscience. He might do in these points all the
law required, and therefore, so far, he might feel at rest. 
Other methods have been proposed ; but it would afford little
profit or interest to the general reader to recite them.
11. But Christ being come an high priest of good things
to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made
with hands, that is to say, not of this building ;
12. Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his
own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having
obtained eternal redemption for us.
These verses have but one main purpose, viz., To put the
Christian High Priest, Jesus Christ, in contrast with the Jewish
- — Jesus entering the real Most Holy place above : the Jewish,
entering the Holy of Holies below. The particular points of su
periority in Christ are — that he comes as the High Priest of all
the promised good things to come, laden with all the blessings of
God s ancient promises ; that, instead of passing through the vail
of a temple built by human hands, he passed through a greater,
more perfect tent, never built by the hands of men, not even be
longing to this lower, created world, but that of heaven itself;
that he entered there, not bearing the blood of goats and calves
but his own blood ; entered, not many times in succession as if to
signify that never an offering was complete and satisfactory, but
once for all — this one sacrifice being infinitely perfect, having
provided an eternal redemption.  Literally, the last participle
means, having found eternal redemption. He had wrought it out ;
had done and suffered all that was requisite. Not another deed
was needful to be wrought; not another pain was requisite to be
borne ; the redemption was perfect forever. The central point in
the contrast is that the blood which he bore into the Most Holy
place above was not that of animals, however stainless or inno
cent; but was his own. That a redemption of such sort, so pro
vided, is and must be perfect in quality and efficacious for ever-

90 HEBREWS. — CHAP. IX.
more, is the main point put here and sustained by argument in
the two verses next following.
13. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes
of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purify
ing of the flesh :
14. How much more shall the blood of Christ, who
through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to
God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the
living God?
The argument is that if the blood of animals, sprinkling defiled
men, made them clean from their ceremonial defilement; how
much more shall the blood of Christ who, by [or with] an eternal
Spirit, offered himself spotless to God, purify your conscience
from dead works, unto service for the living God?  Of the
points in these verses that call for explanation, the really great
one is in the clause translated "through the eternal Spirit."
Lesser ones arise upon the words in the last clause — " con
science ;" " dead works," etc.
Taking the lesser points first in order, the word " conscience "
should be construed in its broadest sense for the heart or moral
nature, especially considered as conscious of moral wrong, the
sense being therefore : Purify your souls from all conscious sin,
all the sin which you are conscious of.  " Dead works," works
that are deadly, or death-bearing; sinful works that deserve and
procure death. The writer aims to put in sharp antithesis these
two ideas; death-bearing works, and the life-giving God. He
would exhort his readers to turn utterly away from the former,
unto most whole-hearted service for the latter. As life is better
than death, so is service for the life-giving God better than the
sin whose wages is nothing but death.
The clause of chief difficulty and also of supreme importance
is put in our version: "Who through the Eternal Spirit offered
himself without spot unto God." What is meant by his offering
himself " through the Eternal Spirit'"?
The careful expositor will of course begin with the original text.
Here he will notice — (a) The absence of the article. The text
is not " the Eternal Spirit," but simply Eternal Spirit to express
which we must say an Eternal Spirit. (6) A few textual author
ities have it "Holy Spirit" ['agion], these few indicating either
that some critics have thought it ought to be holy, or that some
copyist put in this word from memory— this being perhaps every
where else the adjective qualifying "Spirit" when used of the
Divine Agent. There is no doubt that the genuine text is eternal.
We pass now to the interpretation. Many excellent critics un
derstand the phrase to designate the Holy Spirit and take the
passage to mean that He either moved Jesus to his great suffer
ings, or sustained him under them, or both. In their view it

HEBREWS. — CHAP. IX. 91
recognizes the presence and agency of the Holy Ghost in and
with Jesus in his atoning death.
Against this view lie the following objections — (1) The phrase
is not the Holy Spirit, the usual designation of the Divine Spirit,
i. e., the " Comforter." If the writer meant the Comforter, can
any reason be given why he did not use his almost universal
name? The Comforter is never elsewhere called "Eternal
Spirit." (2) The scriptures nowhere else allude to the presence
or aid of the Comforter with Jesus in the dread scenes of his
sufferings and death. There is nothing in the record which in
dicates any special manifestation of his presence and aid in those
scenes. His impassioned cry : " My God, my God, why hast thou
forsaken me ? " seems to imply rather the special absence than the
peculiar presence of the Comforter. (3) This construction
makes no point of antithesis with the Mosaic animal sacrifices.
In a passage where nearly all if not indeed absolutely all the im
portant points are antithetic, drawing a contrast between the old
system and the new, this lack is an objection.  Some of these
points, if alone, would not be insuperable; yet combined, they
should be allowed to have no inconsiderable weight.
Another construction merits attention, viz., that which gives the
word " eternal" its precisely normal sense, and supposes it to be in
sharp contrast with the perishing spirits of the animals (bulls, goats,
the heifer) whose blood stands on the other side of the contrast.
The Hebrew conception as to the soul or spirit of the beast, we
may assume to be truly put by Solomon (Eccl. 3: 21): "The
spirit of man goeth upward ; the spirit of the beast goeth down
ward to the earth." Their spirit was the very opposite of " eter
nal." Their life-blood was shed in sacrifice ; that was the end of
them ; no surviving spirit perpetuated the sense of a costly sacrifice :
no soul lived on to witness to the worth of that sacrificial blood.
 Not so on the other side of the contrast. The blood of the
other sacrifice — Jesus — was virtually made immortal by his eter
nal spirit. He rose and passed into the highest heavens; hut to
all practical purposes he bore the blood of his sacrifice with him
as he rose. The scriptures reveal him there to even human view
in heavenly vision " as a Lamb that had been slain" (Rev. 5: 6,
8, 9, 12). We hear the words of the everlasting song : "Worthy
is the Lamb that was slain."  This sacrifice of the cross, there
fore, this blood of sprinkling is virtually made immortal because
Jesus offered himself unto God through an eternal spirit, and not
like the animals of Jewish sacrifice who had no surviving spirit —
whose whole being collapsed at their death. Comparing these
two contrasted sacrifices, the weakness and inefficaoy of the Jew
ish lay in the perishing nature of the victims ; the glorious, im
mortal efficacy of the Christian lay in the eternal spirit through
which Jesus offered himself unto God. It bears toward the sup
port of this construction that it makes a sharp, clear-cut point of
contrast — a matter of no inconsiderable value in a passage whose
whole aim is contrast and whose other points are all put in this

92 HEBREWS. — CHAP. IX.
form. Also, that it does in fact present with great force the very
point in which the superior and supreme efficacy of Christ's
blood lies.  Also, still further : the point is one that is mani
festly vivid aud strong in the mind of the writer since it appears
in numerous forms and with great frequency; e. g., "Entered
into the Most Holy place with his own blood"; " ever liveth to
make intercession for us."  These considerations seem to me to
give this proposed construction the preference over every other.
15. And for this cause he is the mediator of the new
testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of
the transgressions that were under the first testament, they
which are called might receive the promise of eternal
inheritance. 16. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity
be the death of the testator.
17. For a testament is of force after men are dead:
otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
The nicer shades of thought in these verses may be presented
best by a paraphrase, thus:  On this account, viz., because the
death of Christ is so thoroughly and permanently efficacious
toward the pardon of sin, he became a fit mediator of " the new
covenant," which you will remember, undertakes to do indefi
nitely more for sinners than the old, so that, having suffered
death for the pardon of real sins (not merely ceremonial defile
ments or errors of judgment) that occurred under the first
covenant, the called people might receive the promised inherit
ance. The eternal efficacy of his atoning death takes effect to
secure for his chosen people blessings far better and more
enduring than Canaan with its corn and wine, or the utmost
blessings of a merely earthly nature. Now, that the death of one
party to a covenant sometimes brings it into force, you may see
in that special form of covenant which men call a " last will or
testament" — a case which bears an analogy to the death of
Christ so striking that you will allow me to allude to it.  In
the case of a last will or testament (v. 16), the death of the testa
tor must necessarily be involved, for (v. 17) this last will goes
into effect, assumes its vital force, in the case of the dead,
inasmuch as it can not take effect, has no force, so long as the
testator lives.  In the light of this analogy you will see how
the called people of God come by Christ's death into possession
of the promised eternal inheritance, (as I said v. 15).
It need not surprise us that in v. 15 the writer speaks of death,
(of course the death of Christ) as having taken place unto (or
for) redemption from the sins committed under the first covenant.
He does not intend to restrict the atonement to those sins only;
but it was to his purpose to speak of those sins specially. Paul
to the Romans (3: 25, 26) does. the very same: "To declare his

HEBREWS. — CHAP. IX. 93
righteousness for the remission of sins that are past," (he does
not say — for the remission of all sin) "through the forbearance
of God." Our author seems to have in mind the very ineffectual
provision for the pardon of real sins set forth under the old
economy, and wishes to say that the death of Christ threw back
upon that age of the world and upon those ritually burdened
people an efficacy which availed to the pardon of their foulest
sins, and to the making of them real partakers of his eternal
inheritance. 18. Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated
without blood.
19. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the
people according to the law, he took the blood of calves
and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and
sprinkled both the book and all the people,
20. Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God
hath enjoined unto you.
21. Moreover he sprinkled likewise with blood both the
tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
22. And almost all things are by the law purged with
blood ; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
The case of a last will or testament becoming valid only by the
death of the testator seems still before the mind, affording an
illustration of the validity given both to the old covenant and to
the new by the shedding of blood. In the first place, he remarks
that the first covenant, that of Sinai, was not ratified otherwise
than by blood. After Moses had rehearsed all its precepts in the
ears of the whole people (as we may read Ex. 24: 6-8) he
sprinkled both the book and all the people with blood ; indeed,
the tabernacle itself and its vessels, and almost every thing that
entered in any wise into the ancient worship, so that it became
a universal law, covering the whole field of man's relations as a
sinner to the government of God ; — " Without the shedding of
blood, no remission for sin." This all-comprehensive principle
or law underlies all the known facts of the case ; appears in them
all ; and is therefore legitimately deducible from the universality
of those facts.
23. 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.
A system of worship for sinners, adjusted to meet their case,
and designed to foreshadow and illustrate on earth the real
transaction of pardon and acceptance before God's throne in the
heavens, must needs express purification from sin by such
symbols as these of the ancient Mosaic economy; "but tho
5

94 HEBREWS. — CHAP. IX.
heavenly things themselves" (the real grounds for pardon which
must needs appear before the hierarchies of heaven) must be
shown to be of a far higher character and of infinitely greater
efficacy than these.
24. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made
with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into
heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us :
25. Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the
high priest entereth into the holy place every year with
blood of others ;
26. For then must he often have suffered since the
foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the
world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of
himself. This is effected by the entrance of Jesus himself into that
upper sanctuary, the very heaven itself; — not into the old Jewish
sanctuary of either tent or temple ; but high above, into the very
presence of God himself. Moreover, he is not to make his
entrance there often, year after year, as the Jewish high priest
did into his sanctuary, but once for all, and then to remain there
forever. Nor, again, does he enter as those priests did, with the
blood of others, but with his own. All these points are vital in
the broad contrast between the Mosaic high priests and the
Christian.  In v. 26 he still further expands the fact that the
Mosaic system, applied in all its details to Jesus, would require
him to die often, indeed, every year since the world began;
whereas under the immensely improved Christian system, he
dies but once, and this, at the point of junction of the two worlds
or ages of time — i. e., where the first ended and the second
began. See 1 Cor. 10: 11 and notes above on Heb. 2: 5, p. 36.
27. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but
after this the judgment :
28. So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many;
and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second
time without sin unto salvation.
One more analogy completes this chapter of his argument. It
falls to men to die once ; after this, to go to the judgment. So it
falls to Christ to die once for the sin of many, and to come a
second time, for the final judgment. The more particular pur
pose of his second coming, as put here has respect to the grand
consummation of his redemptive work in behalf of his people.
He appears for the final and complete salvation of those whose
faith looks humbly to him for such salvation.  This statement
does not attempt to exhaust the objects and results of that great
final judgment. It simply designates those particular results

HEBREWS. — CHAP. IX. 95
which were in point then for the consolation of his Christian
readers. So far our exposition follows the definite line of the analogy
between the Mosaic high priest and Jesus, the Great High Priest
under the gospel dispensation. But this exceedingly rich and
pregnant passage presents other points incidental to the main
theme, yet too valuable to be overlooked.  1. It is quite wor
thy of notice that the writer obviously indicates a specal relation
ship between his Greek word for "offer" ("was once offered")
and his word for " bear " (" bear the sins of many"). Both Greek
words are from the same root. We may suggest their relationship
by this translation: Christ was once borne forward (i. e., before
the world and the universe) that he might bear away the sins of
many. He was brought forward to most public view before all
heaven and earth (so the word signifies) that he might visibly,
publicly, bear away the sins of many, to be remembered no more.
The prepositions in the composition of the two verbs [pros in
the former instance and ana in the latter] make all the differ
ence that exists between the two verbs — save that in the former
the passive form gives the sense, being borne out before the eyes
of the universe; while in the latter we have the sense of taking
up to bear in his own body the sins of a lost race whom he died
to redeem. The bearing away of sins, aB put here, may be com
pared with Peter's word (1 Pet. 2: 24) — "Who his own self
bare our sins in his own body on the tree ; " or with Gal. 3 : 13 —
" Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made
a curse for us : for it is written. Cursed is every one that hang-
eth on a tree." So far as concerns the vital element of vicari-
ousness in his sufferings, we may refer to the entire strain of
Isaiah 53.  All these points bear fundamentally upon the great
question of atonement, and are deferred for a more full discus
sion to a special excursus ( D ) in the Appendix.
2. The words "without sin" call for special consideration. At
his great second coming, for the final judgment, he will appear
"without sin." What can this mean? or, more definitely, What
does it imply $  The tone of contrast between his first coming
and his second is strong and controlling, and must compel us to
admit that his first coming was not, in the sense of the words
here, without sin. In some important sense he came with sin
the first time, and will, in the*same sense, come without sin the
second time. In what sense was his first coming with sin ?
Taking the answer from the immediate context, we must say :
In his first coming he was seen bearing upon himself the sins
of many. Whatever that precise sense be in which he bore the
sins of many while here in the flesh, in that sense he will appear
the second time without sin — no longer bearing the sins of men.
If his bearing the sins of men on his first appearing signified
only that he bore them in the sympathy of his compassionate,
loving heart, then this passage denies such sympathy and com
passion to him when be shall come the second time. If that

96 HEBREWS. — CHAP. X.
compassionate benevolence was in him then as God, manifesting
the pure love of his divine soul, what shall we say of the declared
absence of that compassion when he shall appear the second
time — not bearing the sins of men (i. e., without sin) — coming
only for judgment? Does this consist with his being "the same,
yesterday, to-day, and forever" ? Is it supposable that Jesus bore
men's sins on his compassionate soul at his first coming, but not
at his second ?
But over against this theory as to the sense in which he bore
the sins of many, if we admit that he was set forth before the
moral universe in his first advent, bearing the sins of many as
their great atoning Sacrifice, then it becomes entirely pertinent to
say that he shall appear the second time without sin — not being
in any sense a Great Sacrifice for sin. This theory therefore
explains most satisfactorily the antithesis put here, and is also
in full harmony with the current representations of scripture in
regard to the sacrificial character of his death.
3. It remains to suggest that our passage is entirely explicit
as to the nature, aim, and results of Christ's next personal com
ing. It will not be to set up another — an improved kingdom
upon this earth; it will not be to open another and better gos
pel dispensation ; but it will be for the final judgment which all
those who die are awaiting — for that final judgment which, coupled
with the resurrection, is destined to consummate the blessedness
of Christ's saved people.  This whole subject, bearing vitally
upon the modern premillennial theories, merits and will receive a
more extended examination in a special essay in the Appendix.

<?*;»

CHAPTER X.
The writer resumes his great theme — the comparison of the
old covenant with the new — the sacrifices under the law of Moses
with the one great sacrifice of Christ — and brings it to its close
and its practical application.— — -The Mosaic sacrifices continu
ally repeated themselves because" they never brought relief to the
conscience, and could never take away sin (vs. 1-4) ; wherefore,
according to ancient prophecy, Christ came to meet God's will
in the offering of his own body, superseding the old economy
by introducing the new (vs. 5-10) ; in which we have the strong
contrast between the ancient priests offering their unavailing
sacrifices every day, and Jesus offering himself once for all, and
then taking his seat at God's right hand, awaiting the subjuga
tion of his foes (11-14); to all which the promise respecting
the new covenant before adduced bears witness, inasmuch as it
testifies to the full pardon of sin (15-18). Hence, having open

HEBREWS. — CHAP. X. 97
and free access to God through Jesus, they are exhorted to come
with assured faith (19-22), and to sustain each other by mutual
watchfulness and social worship (23-25); and the more so be
cause sinning against full gospel light brings fearful, fatal apos
tasy, and richly deserved ruin (26-29), for the threatenings of
God against his enemies are terrible (30, 31). Reminding them
of their former sufferings under persecution (32-34), he exhorts
to unfaltering confidence in God, that they may insure their ulti
mate reward (35-39).
1. For the law having a shadow of good things to come,
and not the very image of the things, can never with those
sacrifices, which they offered year by year continually, make
the comers thereunto perfect.
2. For then would they not have ceased to be offered?
because that the worshipers once purged should have had
no more conscience of sins.
3. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again
made of sins every year.
4. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of
goats should take away sins.
The "law" here spoken of is the ritual and ceremonial, not
the moral. The "good things to come" are the gospel bless
ings — forgiveness of sin and the renewing of the soul unto holi
ness. The Mosaic system of sacrifices was only a shadow, and
not the fully defined image and representation of these bless
ings.  The question may perhaps arise — Why should the writer
put "shadow' and "image ' in contrast with each other? Are
they not essentially the same? Why did he not say — The old
Mosaic law had only a shadow; but the gospel, the very thing
foreshadowed?  The answer I take to be this: that "image
[eikon] means, not an imperfect, but a perfect representation of
the very things — spiritual things, of course — which the sinner
needs from his Savior, Like the impress which the wax takes
from the seal, or which, by the dauguerrean art, the sun is made
to paint on the prepared and sensitive plate, it tells, not the par
tial, but the whole truth. It does all that material illustration
can do to represent spiritual things to the human mind.  " The
comers thereunto" — the worshipers under the ancient system —
those who resort to the temple sacrifices for relief to the con
science.  "Make perfect" is here in the same sense as in 9: 9,
the notes on which may be consulted here.  If coming once
brought entire peace of conscience — a sense of full forgiveness
before God — why should more sacrifices be wanted? Why not
cease there ? For the worshipers, if really forgiven, and having
the witness of the Spirit of God to this fact in their hearts, would
have no more sense of unpardoned sin ; in Scripture phrase, " be
ing justified by faith, they would have peace with God through

98 HEBREWS. — CHAP. X.
the Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom. 5: 1). The writer manifestly as
sumes here that true gospel faith in Christ brings peace of con
science, rest of soul, relief from the sense of unpardoned sin and
present condemnation. Where real pardon has been granted,
Jesus bears witness to the fact, virtually saying to the penitent —
" Son, thy sins are forgiven thee ; be at peace." But the Mosaic
system brought no such sense of permanent justification. On
the contrary, it brought a fresh reminder of sins every year.
Referring to the great day of atonement, he sees in it that the
same Hebrew worshiper needs (and feels that he needs) the same
sacrifice, the same bearing of smoking incense and fresh blood
into the inner sanctuary, this year as the last, and every year
through all his life.  The reason of this has such force as to
justify its being put in the strongest, most universal form — Such
blood of bulls and goats can never by any possibility take away
sin. It can never cancel the penalty for transgression, and thus
actually remove the real condemnation passed upon the sinner
under the government of God. Therefore it can never relieve a
right-acting conscience from the sense of unpardoned sin. God
will never bear witness to his soul that his sins are forgiven on
the basis of such sacrificial blood.
5. Wherefore, when he cometh into the world, he saith,
Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast
thou prepared me:
6. In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had
no pleasure.
7. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it
is written of me) to do thy will, O God.
8. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt
offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst
pleasure therein ; which are offered by the law ;
9. Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, 0 God. He
taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10. By the which will we are sanctified through the offer
ing of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Even under the old economy, the doctrine was revealed fully
and put strongly that the Mosaic sacrifices were imperfect ; left
very much more to be supplied ; could never compare in moral
value with obedience to the will of God ; and indeed in the line
of bloody sacrifices, could by no means meet the moral demands
of the violated law, but simply foreshadowed that which would.
Ancient prophecy went so far as to foreshow that the Messiah
to come was to meet this further demand. Such is clearly the
import of this remarkable prophecy (from Ps. 40: 6-8). [For
the argument in proof that this prophecy refers to the Messiah,
see my Notes on the Psalm.]  Very noticeable are the words

HEBREWS. — CHAP. X. 99
of our author (v. 5): "When he cometh into the world, he
saith," etc., as if these were his own first words, declaring
definitely and emphatically the solemn purpose of his mission
to our world and of his incarnation. We must accept this as
the author's comment on the clause — "Lo, I come, in the volume
of the book it is written of me," etc. The Messiah was, for
long ages, currently known as the coming One; "He that should
come.' See Mat. 11: 3: "Art thou he that should come; or
look we for another?" And John 6: 14: "This is of a truth
that prophet that should come into the world."  This phrase
should be compared with such prophecies as Gen. 49 : 10 : " The
scepter shall not depart from Judah . . until Shiloh come" —
this being supposably the very passage in the eye of the
Psalmist as written of the speaker "I" in the volume of the
book — the Pentateuch being the only known sacred book con
taining prophecy, then already brought into the form of a volume
or roll.
The last clause of verse 5 — "A body hast thou prepared me,"
should have very special notice. It is quoted closely from the
Septuagint, but differs remarkably from the Hebrew, which has
simply — "Mine ear hast thou opened" — [bored]. This opening
of the ear should naturally signify, giving the spirit of true
obedience. The phrase finds its exposition in such parallel pas
sages as Isa. 50: 4, 5: "He wakeneth mine ear morning by
morning; he wakeneth mine ear to hear as disciples do. The
Lord God hath opened mine ear, and I was not rebellious,'' etc.
 So far as we can know, the translators of the Septuagint
had the same Hebrew words before them which we find in the
Hebrew text to-day. They never could have supposed that their
words were an exact equivalent of the Hebrew words in their
primary, literal sense. The only satisfactory explanation of
their rendering is this : They thought the Hebrew words obscure,
and therefore gave their view of the ultimate meaning by a
very liberal paraphrase instead of a literal translation. They
interpreted the passage to mean — The Mosaic sacrifices thou
dost not require of me, but thou dost require me to become a
higher, nobler lamb of sacrifice, and therefore hast prepared
for me a body, adapted for suffering and death. We may sup
pose them to have been familiar with Isa. 53, and kindred
prophecies, and that consequently they interpreted this prophecy
(Ps. 40 : 6-8) in harmony with those.
On the face of this quoted prophecy, a strong antithesis ap
pears between the Mosaic sacrifices and offerings on the one
hand, and obedience to God's will on the other. It is said
with strong reiteration — The former thou wouldest not; thou hast
no pleasure in them; therefore I come to do the latter — to do
thy will, O God.  The really great question which is sprung
upon us by this antithesis is — whether this "doing the will of
God" looks simply to the spirit of obedience, or whether it.
looks also and specially beyond this spirit to a suffering and

100 HEBREWS.  CHAP. X.
atoning death. For it is supposable that Jesus thought only of
filling out a life of toil for human well-being to end in the
death of a martyr — a death having only the significance of a
steadfast testimony — like that of every martyr ; and it is also sup
posable that he thought of obedience to the Father's will as in
his case involving a death of extremest suffering as a sacrifice
and for the ends of atonement. In the latter alternative, obedi
ence unto death was particularly in his mind — the death being
the vital thing.  It will be readily seen that the practical
bearing of this passage on the true theory of the atonement
must be great.  In investigating this question, we naturally
turn to those very emphatic expressions from the lips of Jesus,
which indicate his own sense of his great life-work. A few of
these seem to have no Bpecial reference to his last sufferings
and death: e. g., "My meat is to do the will of him that sent
me, and to finish his work" (John 4: 34); "I came down from
heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent
me. And this is the will of him that sent me, that of all which
he hath given me, I should lose nothing," etc. (John 6 : 38-40).
If we take into consideration John 17: 4 — "I have finished the
work which thou gavest me to do," we must at least interpret
it by the outcry of his latest breath — "It is finished!" — when
"he bowed his head and gave up the ghost" (John 19: 30).
But there is another class of expressions which are of the very
strongest character, indicating the utmost intensity of feeling and
the deepest sense of the vital interest and the surpassing relative
importance of that to which they refer — as these : " I have a bap
tism to be baptized with, and how am I straitened till it be ac
complished! " (Luke 12: 50). "Are ye able to drink the cup that I
drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized
with ? " (Matt. 20 : 22). As the fearful hour drew near, we have
these words : " Now is my soul troubled ; and what shall I say ?
Father, save me from this hour ? But for this oause came I unto
this hour. Father, glorify thy name" (John 12: 27, 28). "Omy
Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me : nevertheless
not as I will, but as thou wilt."  And the second time — " O my
Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it,
thy will be done " (Matt. 26 : 39, 42).  Here belong also those
utterances which indicate the surpassing significance of his
sufferings and death: — (a) before the event — as Matt. 20: 17-19,
28 ; Jesus took the twelve disciples apart in the way and said to
them: " Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of man shall
be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they
shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles
to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him." "The Son of man
came ... to give his life a ransom for many."  Again (6)
after the event: "Ought not Christ to have suffered these things,
and to enter into this glory? And beginning at Moses and all
the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the
things concerning himself." " Thus it is written, and thus it be-

HEBREWS. — CHAP. X. 101
hooved Christ to suffer'' (Luke 24: 25-27, 44-46).  Such utter
ances show unmistakably the great thought that lay on his mind
as to what was for him pre-eminently implied and involved in
doing the toill of God. He both knew and felt the full force of
the great fact that the cup pressed to his lips meant more than an
upright, unsinning, laborious life — meant, above all, a suffering
and terrible death.  But the final and decisive answer to our
great question appears here in the decision given by our author
himself. Having put these two things in sharp contrast with
each other, viz.: The Mosaic sacrifices on the one hand, and the
doing of the Father's will, with all it involved, on the other, he
says (vs. 9, 10): "He taketh away the first that he may establish
the second." What in his view does the second involve? "By
the which trill we are sanctified through the offering of the body
of Jesus Christ once for all."  This is his inference or conclu
sion from the prophecy which he has under consideration. It is
his view of the meaning of this prophecy. It interprets to us his
sense of the phrase — "A body hast thou prepared me" (v. 5).
Consequently it shows, beyond possible mistake, what he thought
to be specially involved in the Messiah's coming to do the will of
God. It meant more than to "fulfill all righteousness" in the
ordinary routine of obedience to the whole law of God. It con
templated him as destined in the eternal scheme of the Father to
become incarnate, that he might be made a lamb of sacrifice by
the offering of his body unto a bloody death.  This last point
he proceeds to put yet more definitely by once more drawing the
antithesis between the Jewish priest, offering oftentimes the same
sacrifices that could never take away sin ; and this man — this
great prophetic personage, for whom " a body was prepared "—
who offered one sacrifice for sin, even that very body of his, and
then forever sat down on the right hand of God.
11. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offer
ing oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take
away sins:
12. But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for
sins, for ever sat down on the right hand of God;
13. From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made
his footstool.
14. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them
that are sanctified.
This antithesis between the many priests under the old economy,
and this one man under the new; the former standing daily m
their place and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, and the
latter never offering but one : the former soon passing away indi
vidually by death, and the whole system itself ultimately vanish
ing away, but the latter, after offering his one sacrifice for sin,
taking his seat for evermore at God's right hand, awaiting the sub-

102 HEBREWS. — CHAP. X.
jugation of all his foes : this antithesis, beautifully and strongly
drawn, fully justifies the conclusion — "By one offering he hath
perfected forever them that are sanctified.' They are "perfected"
in the sense already explained (on Heb. 9: 9 and 10: 1), i. e., they
realize a free and full forgiveness; they lie no longer under a
sense of condemnation. " Being justified by faith, they have
peace with God." They are really accepted before the Infinite
throne as redeemed and saved children of God. More than merely
forgiven, they are renewed in heart to love and obedience ; born
of God unto a new and heavenly life of soul. The work of salva
tion is for them made perfect. It becomes complete, leaving noth
ing more to be even desired. The provisions as made of God are
without defect; the heart-experience of those who thoroughly accept
them is peacefully satisfying; in a blessed sense they are "per
fected forever."
15. Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us; for
after that he had said before,
16. This is the covenant that I will make with them after
those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their
hearts, and in their minds will I write them ;
17. And their sins and iniquities will I remember no
more. 18. Now where remission of these is, there is no more
offering for sin.
These points, so grand and glorious, the author considers proved
by the witness of the Holy Ghost, viz., in the passage quoted and
commented on in chap. 8 : 8-12 above. There, after having un
folded the first great promise of the new covenant, viz., "putting
my law into their heart," to be apprehended, held fast, loved and
obeyed, he adds: "And their sins and iniquities will I remember
no more." Pardon so full, so absolute that even God himself
speaks as if he could never recall their sins to mind again — should
forget them thenceforth forever 1 This surely implies such a
remission of sin as would call for no more offering of sacrifice.
Sacrifice for sin has done its work — done it perfectly.
19. Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the
holiest by the blood of Jesus,
20. By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated
for us, through the vail, that is to say, his flesh;
21. And having a high priest over the house of God;
22. Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance
of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience,
and our bodies washed with pure water.
Having perfect facilities for free access to God through the
blood of Jesus, and he himself being for evermore our High

HEBREWS. — CHAP. X. 103
Priest there, let us go in with most honest soul, with faith fully
assured and a heart sprinkled from all evil. Such is the general
tone of this most inspiring exhortation.  " Boldness " is the
same word which came under notice in 4: 16. We must exclude
from it every shading of rashness, impudence, and retain only
the sense of free access and the unrestrained expression of all real
wants.  "The holiest" looks by its figure back to the ancient
Holy of Holies; but it is in fact the very heavenly sanctuary,
before the throne of the Infinite God, whither our heart may go
up and our prayer find access and hearing.  This access is laid
open to us in and by means of the blood and body of Jesus. Keep
ing up the analogy with the Mosaic symbols, we are admitted
into the Most Holy Place because we bear with us the sacrificial
blood of our Great High Priest himself. He has opened for us and
to us the new and the life-giving way. The vail which under
the ancient system hung dark and heavily, barring off all wor
shipers save the high priest only, and even him on all days
save one each year — this vail finds a certain analogy in the flesh —
the body of Jesus — through which we are passed into the inner
sanctuary above. Does the writer conceive of his risen body as
actually there, witnessing to his ever-living mediation, and intro
ducing every believing heart to the mercy-seat above?  "With
true heart," sincere and honest before God ; in most assured faith
that shuts off all doubt and fear ; our hearts cleansed from all con
scious evil, all sins of which our moral sense takes cognizance,
and our life washed to purity as the priest under the old economy
must eschew all external impurity — so let us come to God.
23. Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without
wavering ; for he is faithful that promised ;
24. And let us consider one another to provoke unto love
and to good works:
25. Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as
the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so
much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
"The profession oi out faith," but the Greek has the usual word
for hope ["elpis"] and not faith. The sense, however, is not
essentially different. They had professed to hope for salvation
through the gospel. The writer exhorts them to hold that hope
fast and not apostatize to Judaism, and to hold it fast because he
who had promised salvation through Christ was infinitely faithful
to his promises. They need never fear that his words of promise
might fail. Such fearing even were an insult to God — a grievous
sin !  Let us have our minds upon each other in mutual affec
tionate watchfulness.  " To provoke one another," but we must
take this word "provoke" in its good sense only — that of encour
aging, stimulating, and not of exasperating.  And remember
well the social power of your Christian assemblies, your meetings

104 HEBREWS. — CHAP. X.
for prayer, praise and Christian communion; forsake not thosSv
meetings as some have done, perhaps through indolence, or N
through fear of incurring the odium or peril of professing Christ
before his enemies.  Exhort one another the more as ye see
the day drawing near.  But what "day," and why should its
near approach call for special exhortation and increased mutual
watchfulness ?  The reader can not fail to notice that the
words — " the day " — are to us entirely indefinite. To a stranger
they give no clew in themselves to the day intended. And yet
none can doubt that these two words — "the day" were entirely
definite to those Hebrew converts. They knew what day was
meant. It was to them a well known day. They had heard about
it before. They knew that some remarkable event was expected;
had been talked about till there was not the least occasion to
define it further than to call it " the day."  The reader will
readily recall the current Old Testament usage of the phrases —
" The day of the Lord; " " The great day of his wrath," etc., to
signify some signal judgment from the Almighty. Compare Joel
1 : 15 — " Alas, for the day ! for the day of the Lord is at hand,
and as a destruction from the Almighty shall it come." And Isa.
2: 12 — "For the day of the Lord of Hosts shall be upon every
proud one, and he shall be brought low," etc. Amos 5: 18 — ¦
" The day of the Lord is darkness and not light."  Next, let it
be remembered that Jesus had plainly foretold the fearful destruc
tion of Jerusalem, and indeed had fixed its date within that gen
eration. When this epistle was written (near A. D. 65), the
average life-time of a human generation had nearly passed.
Thoughtful Christians therefore may be supposed to have been at
that time in constant expectation of its near approach. They
could see its foreshadowings. They saw the day approaching.
In the dread issues of that day, all Hebrew Christians must have
felt a thrilling interest. It behooved them to have their spiritual
loins girt about; their lamps trimmed and burning — to be in peace
with the great and fearful God whose vials of wrath were so soon
to be poured forth upon their beloved city and people. How fear
ful if the breaking upon them of that dread day were to find
them apostate from God, or so recreant in duty and so estranged
in heart as to fall beneath the stroke of the Almighty.
26. For if we sin willfully after that we have received
the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacri
fice for sins,
27. But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and
fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
The word " willfully " is perhaps not ill chosen, yet it should
not be taken to mean passionately, in a pet of foolish self-will.
The sense is rather deliberately ; of set purpose ; after definite
knowledge of duty. A similar distinction as to the nature of
Bins was sharply draw n under the Mosaic law between sins of ig-

HEBREWS. — CHAP. X. 105
norance or inadvertence on the one hand, and presumptuous sins
on the other. The latter implied a clear knowledge of duty and
a recklessness of obligation — a set purpose to please one's self
and not God.
The converts to whom this epistle was sent were apparently
under temptation more or less strong to disown Jesus after hav
ing once espoused his name and cause. Therefore the writer
here tells them that such deliberate, willful sin, such spurning
from themselves of salvation through Jesus would leave them
without any Savior at all. There could be for them no other sac-
rifice_ for sins — no other Jesus to die for their guilty souls.
Nothing could remain for them but a fearful dread of fiery judg
ment, a keen sense of having deserved damnation, and a certain
premonition in their dark souls of its swift and terrible coming !
28. He that despised Moses' law, died without mercy
under two or three witnesses :
29. Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he
be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son
of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, where
with he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done de
spite unto the Spirit of grace?
They knew the penalties of the law of Moses (as seen Num.
15 : 30, 31). With their Jewish training, it may be presumed
they held that law in honor, and in their souls respected its au
thority and sustained its penalties. They knew that the man who
dishonored that law and recklessly spurned its authority to the
extent of violating it by crimes punishable with death, died with
out mercy provided his crime was duly proved against him. On
the basis of this admission let them judge how much sorer pun
ishment that sinner deserved who had scornfully trodden under
foot the very Son of God (of far higher dignity than Moses) ;
who had counted the blood of the covenant wherewith real sanc
tification is wrought, a merely common thing like all blood, of no
sanctity, and worthy of no respect ; and who had treated con
temptuously the Spirit of grace ! All these descriptive points of
his crime carry the sense of scornfully repelling the gospel
scheme and deliberately despising the Son and the Spirit of God
and the precious salvation from sin which the gospel scheme so
mercifully provided.  The translation — " wherewith he was
sanctified " — unfortunately suggests that this outrageous sinner
had himself been sanctified (!) than which nothing can be more
absurd! The sense (as given above) is the blood by which real
sanctification (as distinct from a merely ceremonial cleansing) is
wrought for'those who avail themselves of its agency.
This passage carries on its face the appalling certainty that
men to a reasonable extent enlightened in the gospel may yet re
pel its offered salvation so deliberately and so scornfully as to

106 HEBREWS. — CHAP. X.
seal their eternal doom, even before they die! They make their
eternal damnation sure ! They, at least, must die without
mercy.  The writer appeals to the good sense of his readers to
judge how much sorer punishment than a death without mercy
under Hebrew law, such sinners are worthy to receive!
And will it now be said that there is to be another world of
mercy beyond this and another probation there for those who
have despised all gospel blessings here ? On what authority do
such hopes (or as the case may be) such beliefs rest ? Who
has promised another gospel for the men here described ?
Again : Will the same Son of God, whom they have trodden un
der foot here, be in power in that other world, and is it presumed
that he will make himself another " sacrifice for sins "? And
will the same Spirit of grace to whom they have done despite
here, renew his promises of gracious help and subject himself
again to their " despite," as if all their contempt of Jesus'
blood and insult to the Spirit's grace were of no account under
the government of a righteous God ?
Every sensible reader will mark the tone of insulted dignity
that appears in these descriptive terms and phrases, and will
wisely infer that the writer meant to say : Beware how ye abuse
the Son of God and dishonor the Spirit of grace! For such
abuse, deliberately done, with distinct knowledge of what the
gospel is, there can be no more redemption 1
30. For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth
unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again,
The Lord shall judge his people.
31. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the liv
ing God.
The God revealed in the gospel system is not to be insulted
with impunity ! Let it not be forgotten that He asserts his right
to vengeance ! He does not disown this prerogative, but dis
tinctly claims it as his own ! None need fear lest he abuse it !
Many, alas! have but too much cause to fear that he will use it.
Let no sinner dream in his folly that God's goodness and love pre
clude all danger of retribution from his hands. No sinner could
make a more egregious mistake. It were well that he should
rectify his mistake and adjust himself to the true God while yet
he may I It is a fearful thing to fall into the avenging hands of
the ever-living God I
32. But call to remembrance the former days, in which,
after ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight of
afflictions ;
33. Partly, while ye were made a gazing-stock both by
reproaches and afflictions; and partly, whilst ye became
companions of them that were so used.

HEBREWS.  CHAP. X. 107
It should be inspiring to them to remember the energy of their
former faith and first love, how it bore them grandly through a
fearful struggle with affliction — affliction coming in two lines of
attack — the public insults heaped on themselves ; and the sym
pathy they felt with their insulted and abused brethren. 
" After ye were illuminated " indicates that this was soon after
they embraced the gospel.  The original word for "fight" does
not imply a battle with deadly weapons, but rather a struggle, a
conflict, analogous to that of wrestlers in ancient games. 
"Made a gazing stock" translates a word which suggests persons
made a spectacle in the national shows when the vast amphi
theater was packed with gazing thousands making sport of the
suffering few at their feet. These strong terms signify a very
intense feeling of scorn and reproach on the part of their coun
trymen who still hated Jesus of Nazareth.
34. 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.
The best critical authorities make the text "The prisoners "
[tois desmiois] instead of " me in my bonds," so that the verse
reads : "For ye sympathized with " [had compassion upon] "the
prisoners, and accepted with joy the confiscation of your estates,
knowing that yourselves have possessions better and more endur
ing." The words for " in heaven" are omitted from the improved
text. They are not necessary. The word " substance " is
scarcely in current use in its old sense. The meaning here is
wealth, possessions of solid value. — — We should read — not,
" knowing in yourselves," as if by some intuition, but " knowing
that ye yourselves have," etc.; yourselves, in distinction from your
persecutors. They have nothing of such value, nothing that will
endure; ye have, and to your joy ye may know it.
The "prisoners" referred to we may suppose to have been
Paul, and perhaps others with him, held in confinement under
Felix and Festus, awaiting the issue of his appeal to Caesar.
This reference favors the supposition that the Hebrew converts
addressed in this epistle were the little church gathered at
Caesarea during this imprisonment of Paul by the labors of his
associates, especially Luke and Timothy.
35. Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath
great recompense of reward.
36. For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have
done the will of God, ye might receive the promise.
37. For yet a little while, and he that shall come will
come, and will not tarry.
38. Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man
draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.

108 HEBREWS. — CHAP. XI.
39. But we are not of them who draw back unto
perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the
soul .
In the clause — "your confidence," we have the same word
which was translated "boldness" in v. 19. Beware that ye lose
not this boldness of gospel faith — which seems to imply both a
substantial, self-sustaining faith and a fearlessness in publicly
professing it. Manfully stand up for Jesus : such boldness
brings great reward. Ye have need of patience, that, having
done the will of God, ye may endure to the end, and thus receive
the promised blessings — not the mere "promise" itself, but the
good things themselves that are promised.  The time is indeed
very short, this time of your trial; for when, under the sweep of
terrific judgments, the proud city Jerusalem shall fall, all perse
cution from bigoted Jews will cease. Even now the signs suffice
to show that her day of judgment is near, and can not tarry long.
The greater part of v. 37 and all of v. 38 are quoted from the
Septuagint (Hab. 2: 3, 4), with only the change of reversing the
order of the two clauses in v. 38. The Septuagint reads — ¦
" Because the Coming One will come, and will by no means delay
long. If any one draw back, my soul has no pleasure in him ;
but the just man shall live by faith in me." The approved text
in our epistle gives it — "faith of me" — yet with the sense "faith
in me." This citation from the old prophet signifies that the
same fearful strain upon the faith of God's people which shortly
preceded the fall of Jerusalem before the Chaldean power, was
reproduced when the same holy city was about to fall before the
Roman. This fact makes his quotation specially pertinent. 
Yet here as in 6 : 9, after the most stringent warnings against
apostasy, the writer expresses the strong and cheery confidence
of his heart that his converts will stand up true to their Master,
and not apostatize to their everlasting ruin.  He has yet more
to say to stimulate their heroic faith, as we shall see in the
ensuing chapter.

CHAPTER XI.
This magnificent grouping of examples of faith was specially in
point for his Hebrew readers. Those heroes and martyrs were
the men their nation delighted to honor — the pride and the glory
of every son and daughter of Abraham. How did those very
names thrill the souls of the Hebrew people all down the ages I
To turn all this admiration to account, the writer had only to
show that their heroism was the outcome of their faith — the very

HEBREWS. — CHAP. XI. 109
same faith essentially which he was exhorting them to cherish and
hold fast. Now is your time, he would say, for heroic doing and
daring. If you revere the glorious old fathers of your nation for
their noble lives and their brave endurance, it behooves you not
only to glorify their names and gild their sepulchers, but to
follow in their footsteps, and live over again their heroic faith,
their unflinching endurance, and their stedfast obedience to the
call of God.
Yet let it be said, this chapter is good, not for Hebrew readers
alone, but for Gentile as well; and not for that age of stern trial
only, but for all the ages to the end of time. Walking and work
ing by faith are the staple of the Christian life and are to be so
long as earthly life is a pilgrimage and a warfare. Therefore let
us open our souls to the grand inspirations of these heroic
examples !
1. Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the
evidence of things not seen.
At first view this verse may seem to be a metaphysical analysis
of faith. But it is rather an attempt to define faith by giving its
results. It says rather what faith does than what it is. It does
this; — It gives the sense of reality to the objects of our Christian
hope ; it acts as proof does for the unseen things which it takes
hold of. This is what faith is good for. This is what we need of
faith in a world where material objects are evermore forcing
themselves upon the mind through the senses and crowding
spiritual truth out of thought. In such a world faith comes to
our help to give substance — a sense of solid reality — to what we
hope for in the realm of the spiritual life, and to act as proof does
on the mind, with the effect of certainly as to things unseen.
This definition the writer will proceed to illustrate and verify
by living examples.
It scarcely need be said that faith as here contemplated is
generic rather than specific. It is faith in its most comprehen
sive and general sense, and not in that definite Christian sense
which accepts Jesus as Savior. The latter includes both the
intellectual "belief of the truth as to Jesus, and the reception of
Jesus himself as thus made known and believed.
2. For by it the elders obtained a good report.
It was by their faith that the honored fathers of our people
obtained their celebrity; won their renown. Only their faith
made them truly great. The glorious witness of history to their
deeds shows that faith was the inspiration of their heroism.
3. Through faith we understand that the worlds were
framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen
were not made of things which do appear.

110 HEBREWS. — CHAP. XI.
"We understand" — our minds accept the fact as true — "that
the worlds" — not this earth only, but all the visible bodies in the
heavens.  "Were framed" — the Greek word signifying rather
set in order (adjusted in perfect symmetry and beauty) than
brought into being from no pre-existent matter. This latter idea
may perhaps be implied in the first verb [katartizomenon] ; but
it is apparently affirmed in the last clause.  "By the word of
God" — follows the conception under which the Old Testament
writers think of God's creative agency and set it forth: "God
said, Let light be — and light was" (Gen. 1:3): "He spake, and
it was ; he commanded, and it stood " (Ps. 33 : 9).  So, then,
visible things did not come out of things apparent. This denies
that theory of creation which explains it to be only a recasting of
previously existing visible matter. If the scientists should reply
that the original material was too tenuous to be visible, and
therefore is not precluded by the words, " not made of things
which do appear, ' perhaps the answer should be : The reply is
rather sharp than sensible; indeed, is too nice in its distinctions
to comport with the popular, unscientific language of the Bible.
It seems obvious that the writer meant to deny that the creation
was a mere recasting of old matter. Things apparent [phain-
omena] in his thought include all forms of matter.  By faith
we accept the truth that, under God's creative fiat, all the worlds
were brought into existence, yet not in the sense of being simply
worked over from pre-existing material.
4. By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacri
fice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was
righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being
dead yet speaketh.
In what respect was Abel's sacrifice better than Cain's, has
been often asked ; also, how God signified his approval of Abel's
rather than Cain's. The latter point is relatively of small conse
quence. Suffice it that the method was sufficiently manifest to be
unmistakable. Obviously it was apparent to Cain as well as to
Abel ; and hence must "have been made to the senses, and not
merely to the consciousness — the spiritual perception.  To the
former question — Why was Abel's better than Cain's? — our
author virtually answers, Because of his faith. Abel had faith
in God, such faith as implies obedience and trust. Obedience
suggests something to be done in pursuance of a divine command,
and this leads on to the yet further inquiry whether it is not
clearly indicated in the history given of this case by Moses (Gen.
4: 2-5) compared with this allusion to it, that God had revealed
to Adam's sons (and naturally to Adam himself as well) the
essential idea of bloody sacrifices. This question is so vital to a
fair understanding of this verse, and- so closely related to the
great question of propitiatory sacrifice — the very marrow and

HEBREWS.  CHAP. XI. Ill
soul of this epistle — that I transfer some paragraphs on the sub
ject from my work on the "Pentateuch" (pp. 93-95):
"AbeJ kept sheep; Cain tilled the ground. 'Cain brought of
the fruits of the ground' — an unbloody offering; Abel 'brought
of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat.' This reference to
their 'fat' proves that these animals, lambs of the fold, were
slain in sacrifice.  God looked with favor upon Abel's offering,
but not upon Cain's. Why was this approval of Abel's sacrifice ?
"We have some rays of light on this point from the writer to
the Hebrews, who says : 'By faith Abel offered unto God a more
excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that
he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts.' Now the simplest
idea of faith, the one element always present in it, is bowing to
God's authority with implicit confidence in his word. But in
this case bowing to God's authority implies that God had given
some word in reference to bloody sacrifices — the offering of a
lamb by shedding its blood upon the altar. And if God had
given any such word of command, it is certainly to be presumed
that he had also given at least this general idea,- that the blood of
the innocent lamb took, in some sense, the place of the blood of
the guilty offerer, so that the sacrifice would imply the confession
of guilt, and also faith in a bloody substitute of the Lord's own
providing.  Prosecuting our investigations we find this broad
fact of history bearing on the case, viz., that Noah, Abraham and
Isaac built altars wherever they were sojourning, and offered
bloody sacrifices thereon. Further, God directed Noah to pre
serve in the ark clean animals by sevens, but animals not clean
only in pairs — two of a species — a fact which can not be reason
ably accounted for save with reference to their customary use in
sacrifice. We have then before us the well-established fact of
the early custom of bloody animal sacrifices.
"How came this custom into existence?
" It did not originate with men — certainly not with good men.
Apart from divine suggestion, they could not have supposed that
the slaughter of an innocent animal would be pleasing to God.
The presumption would be utterly against this. They could not
have thought out the divine idea of atonement for sin by the
death of Christ, God's own incarnate Son : the very supposition
is absurd, for it supposes that men were able to sound the
infinite depths of God's wisdom and of his love, and to grasp the
relations and bearings of his vast moral government with a
reach of thought, not human but divine. Yet further; it is not
supposable that, having excogitated and discovered the grand
idea of atonement, they could have devised the plan of prefigur
ing this atonement by the bloody sacrifice of the most innocent,
harmless and lovely of the animal races.-  And further, if they
could have thought out this miracle of God's wisdom and love —
both the divine idea of atonement, and the expediency of illus
trating it for ages by a foreshadowing system of bloody sacrifices
— it would still have been the height of presumption in them to

112 HEBREWS. — CHAP. XI.
have started this system of sacrifices without God's special and
sanctioning appointment.
"We are therefore shut up to this alternative: Either the whole
system of altars and bloody sacrifices, as practiced by Abel,
Noah, Abraham and Isaac, was an unmeaning farce — a thing of
no significance, a mere amusement or fancy, meaning nothing
and good for nothing; or, God himself originated the system and
enjoined it, and these good men were observing it in obedience
to special revelation from God.  Here it will be readily seen
that the first side of this alternative is perfectly precluded by
the fact that God approved their sacrifices. God ' had respect to
the offerings of Abel.' He ' smelled a sweet savor' in the sacri
fices offered by Noah (Gen. 8: 20, 21). The other alternative
therefore, viz., that bloody sacrifices originated in a direct reve
lation from God — is the only supposition left us. We must
adopt it.
"It can not be necessary to draw out an argument to prove
that in instituting this system of bloody sacrifices God gave his
people some notion of its significance. The whole record shows
that he was on most familiar terms with them, and therefore can
not be supposed to have left a point of so much importance
utterly blank. It is not too much to say that unless some light
were thrown by the Lord himself upon the meaning and purpose
of these bloody offerings, the command to make them would re
quire some apology; for apart from their expiatory significance,
they are most revolting to even human benevolence — most foreign
to all just notions of what is due treatment of innocent lambs,
bullocks and doves from our hand. It should also be considered
that their moral value depends on their significance. All these
bloody sacrifices must have been practically valueless unless
their expiatory significance was in some good degree understood.
That God ordained them for the sake of their moral value, who
can for a moment doubt?  The conclusion, therefore, seems
inevitable that God not only enjoined these bloody sacrifices,
but gave his people to understand in general their significance
to the extent of fulfilling that unconscious prophecy of Abraham
(Gen. 22 : 8) : ' My son, God will provide for himself » lamb
for a burnt-offering.'
" These views, if just, are of vast historic value as showing how
much God taught his people at that earliest day, pertaining to his
great thoughts of redemption for a lost race."
"By it he, being dead, yet speaketh" — " it" having for its ante
cedent, not the word "gifts" ["dorois"] nor yet the word for
"sacrifice" ["thusia"] but fait h. It was his faith that sent
its witnessing voice down the ages, even to the days of our
epistle — nay more, even to our own.
5. By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see
death ; and was not found, because God had translated him :

HEBREWS.— CHAP. XI. 113
for before his translation he had this testimony, that he
pleased God.
6. But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he
that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a
rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
The story of Enoch is given by Moses in few but most preg
nant words. "Enoch walked with God, and he was not; for
God took him." Beyond this we are told that he was taken at
the age of three hundred and sixty-five ; less than half the aver
age life-time of the antediluvian patriarchs. He was one of
those of whom "the world was not worthy." Jude is our
authority for a tradition that he preached to that godless gen
eration a fearful judgment to come. Coupling that tradition
with the words before us — " was not found, because God trans
lated him " — we may infer that his fearless and pungent rebukes
of sin exasperated those guilty, hardened men, that they sought
his blood; and that God took him away in his chariot of fire
by translation to heaven. What special testimony God had pre
viously given to show that Enoch had "pleased" him is not re
vealed ; yet we know that a life so true to God, a life of such
communion and fellowship as is expressed by " walking with
God" is evermore in all ages pleasing to our divine Father.
This life Enoch lived by faith. He believed in God most
thoroughly — in a present, not a far distant God; in one who
comes down to walk with men and to take men into tender
fellowship with himself.  This case reveals the necessity and
value of faith so admirably that our author arrests his descrip
tion to state the universal principle or law of faith as related
to God: Whosoever comes to God, approaching him with wor
ship and with prayer for blessings, must by the very necessity
of the case — absolutely must believe that he exists, and that he
becomes the rewarder of those who seek him earnestly.  The
Greek does not, like our accepted version, repeat the same verb,
God is and is the rewarder, etc. ; but has two verbs — the first
to designate his existence — God is ["estin"]; and the next,
what he becomes ["ginetai"] to his true worshipers.-  In this
statement the essential points of an acceptable creed are re
duced to the minimum. They can not be made less. This creed
has nothing superfluous ; not a doctrine however minute that can
be spared. Many creeds embrace more than this. In the nature
of the case none can possibly have less, and yet lay any founda
tion for a faith that pleases God and that can save human souls.
 Unless you believe that God is — really exists — you can not
come to him for blessings. Unless you believe that he rewards
those who seek him earnestly, you will not come. The basis
for acting at all lies in the first article of the creed; the motive,
in the second. Hence the necessity for such and so much faith,
in all those who truly " come to God."

114 HEBREWS. — CHAP. XI.
7. By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen
as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of
his house; by the which he condemned the world, and be
came heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
"Being warned of God" — how we are not told, nor need we be.
It was so done that Noah understood it. The Greek word sug
gests a business transaction — one in which it is perfectly vital
that both parties should understand each other. The communi
cation made must be intelligible. When a man " means busi
ness," he takes care, first of all, to be well understood.  "In
respect to things not yet seen ; " for when the Lord forewarned
Noah of the coming flood there were no foretokens of it in
earth or sky. There had been no precedents known to that
generation of like floods which might make this one probable.
All the evidence lay in God's word. This impressed Noah only
through his faith in God's veracity.  "Moved with fear" — but
the Greek, most closely construed, means — under the influence
of piety, i. e., being a God-fearing man. The word is a participle
and strictly signifies only that he was a godly, pious man, hav
ing faith in God and the fear of God before his eyes. It does
not mean precisely that he was afraid of the flood, but that he
had a reverential fear of God. This led him to prepare an
ark which was unto the salvation of his house ; it resulted in
salvation to his family, as household faith naturally results in
saving the household.  "Uy which" — i. e., by which faith, he
condemned the world. Not another man in all that generation
had such faith. His example condemned them all. Thus Noah
became an heir of that righteousness which is through faith.
Righteousness is essentially a state of Tightness before God,
which he accepts, and to which the term justification is often
applied. The immediate blessings consequent upon this justifi
cation were the salvation of his family from the flood.
8. By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into
a place which he should after receive for an inheritance,
obeyed ; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
9. By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a
strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and
Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise :
10. For he looked for a city wliich hath foundations,
whose builder and maker is God.
The history of Abraham comprises several distinct points
which illustrate his faith. Four are brought to view in this
group ; viz., his obedience to his original call to leave his coun
try; his sojourning patiently in Canaan, then to him a strange
country, held by alien races ; his confident expectation of a son

HEBREWS. — CHAP. XI. 115
in his extreme old age ; and his obedience to the call to offer his
son Isaac in sacrifice.
The original home of Abraham was Mesopotamia, between the
Euphrates and the Tigris, near the old cradle of the human race.
The reasons on God's part for calling him out of that land seem
to have been the growing prevalence of impiety even to the extent
of idol-worship there ("they served other gods" Josh. 24: 2);
the wisdom of detaching some one man (the best material, we
may presume, at command) from his ungodly surroundings, to
place him under a special system of worship, of promise, and of
discipline, in order to lay the foundation for a people of his own;
and, not least, the testing, nurture and development of faith in
this great model man, that he might be the father of all men of
faith through the future ages.
This first call began the visible trial o*f his faith. How he
knew this call came from God, we are not told, nor was it neces
sary the world should know. It was enough that Abraham knew
for himself, and of this fact there can be no doubt. With this
certainty of a call from God came the question of obedience.
Doubtless Abraham had there a pleasant home ; certainly a fruit
ful land ; friends of his childhood and kindred of his family ;
the graves of an honored ancestry. As he looked away toward
that unknown country, there lay between a vast desert region —
and beyond that he knew not what I All the repulsiveness of a
country unknown and of a people probably hostile, certainly
strange, was to be overcome. His faith in God triumphed ; de
manded and inspired obedience ; and he made the sacrifice.
Next, he continued to sojourn in that land of promise, not
holding it as his own, but recognizing the prior right of the
Canaanite and the Perizzite, then in the land (Gen. 12: 6 and
13 : 7) ; buying of them for money the piece of ground at
Machpelah which covered the grave of his Sarah (Gen. 23).
There he lived only in tents, moving on from place to place to
get out of other men's way, or to find subsistence for his cattle,
but himself and family holding this land only in the faith of a
promise from God, of which there was no visible sign that it
should ever be fulfilled. So for more than two centuries, himself,
his son and his grandson, made this the land of their sojourn-
ings with no title to it save that of God's promise. The real city
of their abode which they evermore looked for, and held in the
clear eye of their faith, was that one of which God only is the
maker and builder. City of abode other than this they had

11. Through faith also Sarah herself received strength to
conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was
past age, because she judged him faithful who had prom
ised. 12. Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good

116 HEBREWS.— CHAP. XI.
as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and
as the sand which is by the sea-shore innumerable.
In this point both Abraham and Sarah appear as alike exam
ples of faith in the divine promise. God had spoken; and
although at their age a son was against the laws of nature and
the experiences of human life, yet they believed God's word. It
was this faith that God rewarded so magnificently with a poster
ity like the stars of the sky in number and as the sand on the
sea-shore for multitude. The wonderful agencies of providence
which have preserved this onflowing stream of Hebrew popula
tion from intermingling with other races and families have
availed to keep this testimony to God's approval of their faith
fresh before the eyes of mankind for now four thousand years.
13. These all died in faith, not having received the
promises, but having seen them afar off, and were per
suaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they
were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
14. For they that say such things declare plainly that
they seek a country.
15. And truly, if they had been mindful of that country
from whence they came out, they might have had oppor
tunity to have returned.
16. But now they desire a better country, that is, an heav
enly : wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God :
for he hath prepared for them a city.
These patriarchs held fast their faith to the hour of their
death. They did not receive the blessing promised (which is
here the sense of the word promise) but the real promise in its
strict sense of a pledge of future blessings they did receive and
believe in. They saw the promised blessings from afar and
hailed them as one hails a distant friend. So they recognized
themselves as strangers and pilgrims on the earth. By such a
life of faith they showed plainly that they were seeking another
and better country. At any point they might have abandoned all
hope of ever holding Canaan as their own and might have gone
back to the land of the great rivers ; but Canaan linked itself in
their thought with the better land of promise beyond and higher,
and so their faith held on. Of men so true and trustful God
was not ashamed. He was free to call himself their God, and
them his own people, and to prepare for them a city of everlast
ing foundations.
17. By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up
Isaac : and he that had received the promises offered up his
only-begotten son,

HEBREWS. — CHAP. XI. 117
18. Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed
be called:
19. Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even
from the dead; from whence also he received him in a fig
ure. The sense of these several words is not obscure. Abraham
when tried "offered up Isaac" — not in the external act, but in
the thought and purpose of his heart. He did it as seen of God,
for God looks on the heart. For all practical purposes as related
to faith and obedience, he really made the offering. God so re
garded it, and on this basis gave him his reward.  =The very
same Isaac, through whom his seed were to be called, was the son
whom at God's command Abraham virtually sacrificed. How did
he suppose that after he had slain his Isaac, God could fulfill his
promise ? Our author seems to have this secret. Abraham
thought the Lord Omnipotent was mighty to raise him from the
dead. So far as appears, however, he raised no question on this
point ; did not even ask what God proposed to do as to his prom
ise ; exacted no pledge as to the resurrection of his son. But,
figuratively speaking, Isaac was, as to Abraham's thought, raised
from the dead and given back to a joyous father's arms.  A
somewhat more expanded view of this case may be appropriate
here — transferred from the sketch of Abraham in my volume on
the Pentateuch (pages 120-122). [The call out of his own country
and the long delay of Isaac's birth have been considered.]
" High above either of these cases, in point of the fierceness of
the trial and the wonderful spirit of calm and steadfast faith and
endurance, stands the case of God's command and his consent to
sacrifice his son Isaac (Gen. 22). The record puts this case in
the foreground as to trial : ' God did tempt Abraham ' — not in
the sinful sense — tempting to make him sin ; but in a sense ap
propriate to God — subject him to a terribly searching trial.
First, God called him by name, 'Abraham'! Then said — ¦
'Take now thy son, thine only son' — that son of promise in
whom all thy hopes and all thy heart's affections have been so
long concentrated — that son 'whom thou lovest' — take him and
go far away three days' journey to a mountain which I will point
out, and there ' offer him up for a burnt-offering'!
" Was Abraham shocked? Did he stagger under this stunning
blow? Did he pause to debate the matter with God? Did he
beg that the awful agony might be at least delayed till he could
collect himself and prepare for a trial so unexpected, so sudden,
so terrible to bear ? The record gives no hint of any thing of
the sort. Abraham had heard God's voice many times before
and could not have had the first doubt as to its identity. If the
least doubt had crossed his mind he surely would have said :
'Lord, this seems so unlike Thee: Is it not Satan, thine enemy?
I can not move one step until I know of a certainty that this is
6

118 HEBREWS.  CHAP. XI.
thine own voice.'  But there was no relief in this direction.
Yet we almost instinctively ask — Did not Abraham expostulate ?
Did he not say — O my Lord, this Isaac is the son of thine own
promise, my only hope for that great and long promised poster
ity ; and what wilt thou do for thy truth1? Besides, the deed is
so shocking, so revolting to a father's heart ! Moreover, hast thou
not said : ' Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood
be shed'? And what an example this will be before all the
tribes of the earth ! How it will encourage them on to murder
their children in sacrifice to their gods !
"We can readily make up what may seem to us very strong ar
guments against obedience to such a command ; but it does not
appear that Abraham whispered in his heart the first one of them.
The only hint we have of his deep thoughts in the case comes
through the writer to the Hebrew Christians — ' Accounting that
God was able to raise him up even from the dead.' Plainly the
Lord meant to show that his command when made known un
questionably is to be obeyed without debate — with no misgivings,
no faltering, no fear. So Abraham moved firmly on, saying not
«¦ word to Sarah, keeping his counsel even from his two chosen
servants and from his son ; holding the strange secret in his sol
itary — shall we say, sad bosom?  No; for there is not the
first note of sadness throughout this wonderful transaction.
Look at those three days of on-going journey. Ah, was not this
a long time to think over the strange deed! And those inter
vening nights — was there any sleep to his eyes while this terri
ble suspense lay still between the command and its execution ?
 So far as appears Abraham moved on with unshaken forti
tude and undisturbed calmness. Certain it is that he never lost
his self-possession, for he continued to plan carefully and even
sharply against disturbing influences. He could not trust his
servants to stand by ; so he halted them at a distance back from
the scene. He kept the awful secret from his son Isaac until he
had him bound and laid on the altar and the uplifted blade was
ready to fall!
"This was the obedience of faith l The wonderful illustration
stands out before all the ages with God's seal of approbation
broadly stamped upon it.  When the trial had fully reached its
culminating point and no room remained for doubt that Abraham
would obey God at every cost, fearless of consequences, or rather
committing all consequences to his God, then God's angel inter
posed ! A ram was provided for the sacrifice, and the son of
promise went back to a more happy home with a more happy
father, doubly blessed in the renewed approbation of his cove
nant-keeping God. No wonder that God proceeded then to
make that covenant stronger and broader and richer than ever
before I No wonder Abraham stamped into the very name of
this ever-memorable lacality one of the grand moral lessons of
the scene — ' Jehovah Jireh ' — In the mount of the Lord, himself
will provide t When you come to the mount of last and utmost

HEBREWS.  CHAP. XI. 119
emergency, the Lord will have salvation ready ! His angel will
appear ; the ram of sacrifice will be there ; and Isaac may go in
peace!" 20. By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning
things to come.
The faith in this case turned upon his conviction and his esti
mate of the wealth of blessings embraced in the " birthright " —
that legacy of promise which passed down from father to son in
the line of Abraham. This he was induced to entail upon
Jacob, and consequently could not give it to Esau.
21. By faith Jacob, when he was a dying, blessed both
the sons of Joseph; and worshiped, leaning upon the top
of his staff.
The two events of Jacob's life referred to here — his blessing
upon the two sons of Joseph, and his act of worship, bowing
upon his staff, may be seen — the former in Gen. 48: 5, 15, 16, 20,
and the latter in Gen. 47: 31.  It is not quite accurate .to say
" when he was dying," for the latter was even before his last sick
ness, and the former was some little time before his death. Both
things were done in the prospect of a death not far remote. 
The act of worship was elicited by the visit of Joseph at his re
quest, and the sworn promise which the patriarch exacted of his
son to take his body at death to the land of Canaan for burial.
Having obtained this solemn promise, he "bowed himself" (our
English version of Genesis has it) "upon the bed's head." The
Hebrew word admits of two different punctuations, one of which
gives the sense of bed ; the other, of staff. The Septuagint
gives it staff — which this epistle (as usual) follows closely. In
asmuch as the oriental bed — a mere divan or couch— had no head-
post over which an invalid might lean, the reading "staff" is
much preferable.
There was sublime faith in this disposal of his own bones — a
faith which looked down the vista of the otherwise unknown
future, illumined to his dying eye by the light of God's glori
ous promise, and saw his posterity in Canaan, reposing under the
wing of their covenant-keeping God. He was thankful and joy
ful that his bones might rest there.
The blessings on the two sons of Joseph was prophetic, but
those prophetic visions rested on his faith in God. How much
his grateful joy over the prosperity and piety of his beloved
Joseph may have inspired these blessings upon his sons, we are
unable to say; but obviously his heart was deeply in those patri
archal benedictions. " I had not thought to see thy face ; and lo !
God hath showed me also thy seed." " These sons are mine ; as
Reuben and Simeon they shall be mine." " The angel who re
deemed me from all evil bless the lads, and let my name be named

120 HEBREWS. — CHAP. XI.
on them and the names of my fathers, Abraham and Isaac, and
let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the land."
23. By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three
months of his parents, because they saw he was a proper
child; and they were not afraid of the king's command
ment. This, it will be seen, was the faith, not of Moses, but of his
parents — a faith suggested, quickened, stimulated perhaps, by
his personal beauty. Applied to an infant, the word " proper '
means more than free from blemish, more than fully formed. It
rather indicates a specially fine personnelle and organism ; one
full of promise for his future.  Egypt's king, dreading the rapid
increase of the Hebrew population, issued his cruel edict that
every male child should be slain. The faith of these godly par
ents bore them above the fear of this " king's commandment. '
The question, how faith wrought in the bosoms of this father
and this mother, opens an interesting field of study. Faith often
times "works by love" and with love, and is enkindled to a deeper
intensity under the power of love. We need not be told that God
has made the love of their offspring strong and deep in the hearts
of fathers and mothers, nor that this love not infrequently opens
their eyes to see germs of promise in their sweet babes — gives
(shall we say?) some inspirations of a half-prophetic sort — hopeful
forecastings of what this babe may live to become and to achieve.
But in the case before us it is perhaps supposable that a some
what special and peculiar faith inspired their souls. They may
have remembered the wealth of promise that had come down in
their godly ancestry from Abraham and Jacob. They may have
felt that the time must be drawing nigh for God to appear in behalf
of his people as the Great "/ am, the God of the everlasting
covenant, the Changeless and the Faithful One who could never
utter a promise in vain.-  That such faith should work in har
mony with parental love, is no new thing in the history of our
race, nor that it should be suggested and quickened by the prom
ise of beauty and strength which their quick eye saw in their
infant child.
Now it may sometimes happen that this profound interest in
a babe of apparently rare promise shall run in a very low and
selfish channel, suggesting how much he may do to comfort their
own hearts, or to build up the glory of their house or of their
name ; — but when by a heavenly faith it takes hold of useful work
for God, when it prompts to a special consecration of all the pos
sibilities of his future to the kingdom of Christ, it is morally
sublime. Such seems to have been the faith of the parents of
the child Moses.  How their faith prompted ingenious meth
ods of concealment; how it wrought in harmony with God's wise
providence, not only to preserve the life of this consecrated child,
but to give him a place in the heart of Pharaoh's daughter, and

HEBREWS.  CHAP. XI. 121
thus open to his growing mind all the wealth of Egypt's culture
and wisdom, we may learn somewhat from the story which his
own pen has preserved to us in the early chapters of Exodus.
God's ways are never wanting in wisdom of adjustment, adapta
tion and efficiency, and (as our passage suggests) his grand ways
of providence are very likely to work in harmony with the faith
of his children. A character so finished and a life so beneficent
to the world as that of Moses had their roots in the faith and
prayers of his godly parents.
24. By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused
to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter ;
25. Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people
of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season ;
26. Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than
the treasures in Egypt : for he had respect unto the recom
pense of the reward.
"When he was come to years" translates Greek words which
mean simply when fully grown — when he had reached maturity.
God's people, he knew well, were then under affliction, a cruelly-
oppressed race, with not the least prospect to his human eye of
emerging from their national bondage. The whole policy of the
Egyptian throne lay clearly before him. He knew the spirit of
that policy, and could measure the power that sustained it. The
marshaled hosts of her armies, the strength of her civilization,
the overmastering power with which she could crush out the first
uprising of resistance, the first whisper of rebellion, or the least
movement that looked toward escape from such a servitude — all
these things no man could know better than Moses. And yet he
chose this affliction with the people of God, before the transient
enjoyment of sin. Even " reproach for Christ was in his view
greater riches than all the treasures of Egypt."  But how hap
pens it that the name "Christ" is here? What did Egypt know
about Christ that they should reproach their Hebrew slaves or
Moses for bearing the name of Christ, or for being in any sense
the friends of Christ or believers in his name ? Shall it be said
that our author took a large, perhaps a scarcely warranted, lib
erty in giving this name to the reproach cast upon the people
of God, because he wished to intimate an analogy between their
ease and that of his readers? This supposition might perhaps
be admissible if it were a last resort — not otherwise. The more
obvious sense deserves consideration.  " Christ " is the Greek
word corresponding to the Hebrew "Messiah." If now we in
quire wisely whether the Hebrews in the age of Moses knew of '
a promised Messiah, we shall be compelled to answer in the
affirmative. Indeed it may be assumed and defended that they
knew far more than the current opinion of this nineteenth cen
tury gives them credit for. To Abraham, God gave new forms

122 HEBREWS. — CHAP. XI.
of Messianic promise. The lips of the dying Jacob made yet
another fresh addition under the name " Shiloh," who should
"come" (Gen. 49: 10). We have seen that a wealth of promise
lay garnered in the birthright of the sons in Abraham's line. A
promised Messiah was no inconsiderable element of that wealth.
 At this late hour of the Christian centuries men are begin
ning to learn that "all the wisdom of Egypt" had a larger sig
nificance than had been dreamed of for ages, and that it behooves
us to be more reserved in fixing limitations upon the extent of
their knowledge. It is not altogether safe to deny to them all
knowledge of the world's promised Messiah. The idea of a di
vine incarnation — some form of God, taking upon himself human
flesh — has been current ever since the world began, wherever
human thought has reached any considerable culture; and it
seems more philosophical to find the origin of this idea in the
fact of revealed promise than in the fancy of uninspired minds.
If we are justified in assuming that this nation of bondmen
were wont to solace the bitterness of their lot with these cher
ished hopes of a Messiah in their own nation's line, to become
the Redeemer of his people, we shall see at a glance the perti
nence and force of every word which the writer of this epistle
has put into this showing of the faith of Moses. While such
Messianic hopes would minister richly to the faith and joy of
their pious fathers and mothers, they would also naturally be
the butt of scorn and reproach from their heartless Egyptian
oppressors. When did slave-masters ever enjoy prophetic songs
of freedom sung by their bondmen ?  Well, the faith of Moses
brought him to accept this scorn as a greater treasure than all
the wealth of Egypt, for he looked away to the glorious "rec
ompense of reward." His spiritual eye saw a future which Egyp
tian eyes saw not; — a reward in the ever-living God, with which
all Egypt's treasures could not begin to compare.
It can scarcely be necessary to suggest that this case of Moses —
a name so cherished and revered by every Hebrew heart — brought
home by such close analogies to their own condition and surround
ings, must have been powerfully effective upon the readers of this
epistle. 27. By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of
the king : for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible.
28. Through faith he kept the passover, and the sprink
ling of blood, lest he that destroyed the first-born should
touch them.
29. By faith they passed through the Bed Sea as by dry
land: which the Egyptians essaying to do were drowned.
"Forsook Egypt" — but "forsook" is not quite the perfect word
for the sense of the Greek, which can not here imply any disre
gard of obligation, as when a husband forsakes his wife, or a

HEBREWS.  CHAP. XI. 123
boy his home. Moses and his people simply left Egypt, as they
had a glorious right to do ; nor did they burst through any re
straint of righteous obligation in that mighty uprising and march
ing forth of their hosts. Faith in the God of their fathers — the
Almighty One, their Defender, Refuge, and Portion — sustained
Moses in this otherwise perilous movement, and made the wrath
of Egypt's king seem to him but a puny and weak thing.  The
setting forth of this fearlessness of Moses, begotten of his faith,
is wonderfully rich and expressive ; profoundly logical, and yet
appealing most vividly to the imagination: "For he endured as
seeing Him who is invisible." He marched out in the face of
Egypt's proud squadrons, fearless of their rage, defying their
pursuit, as if he actually saw the invisible God dropping down
the shield of his protection between his unarmed crowd and
their prancing steeds and their chariots of war. The pillar of
cloud which shut down behind his people was, in his eye, the
awful God in his majesty ! What then to him was all the wrath
of Egypt's king!  Thu3 evermore, in our sternest straits and
thickest darkness, it is only needful that our eye should see God
present to our faith, though invisible to sense. For then we be
come " strong in the Lord and in the power of his might." The
prayer of Elisha for his dim-eyed servant is often in point : "Lord,
open his eyes, that he may see. And the Lord opened the eyes
of the young man, and he saw; and, behold, the mountain was
full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha" (2 Kings
6: 16, 17). So it is — "They that be with us are more than they
that be with them."
That first Passover evening was another illustration of faith.- 
Noticeably, the writer speaks of both the leaving of Egypt and the
keeping of the Passover as illustrating the faith of Moses rather
than of the whole people of Israel. " By faith he (Moses) forsook
Egypt;" "by faith he (Moses again) kept the Passover." Moses
knew better than they the mighty issues that were pending; the
fearful peril they were escaping. The mighty faith of these
transactions was his rather than theirs.
But of that eventful Passover night, does it occur to us often
what a contrast lay there side by side between the homes of
Israel and the dwellings of Egypt — the Angel of God's mercy
presiding at the tables of the one, but the Angel of Death burst
ing open every door and singling out every first-born in the other;
the quiet repose of faith smiling over the domestic scenes of the
one, but the agonies of death and the wails of smitten hearts
desolating the other! That was, indeed a lesson in faith, wit
nessing to the potency of the blood of sprinkling, signifying that
under its wing there was pardoning mercy, and " the peace of
God that passeth all understanding."
The march of Israel's host through the vacated bed of the Red
Sea called for some exercise of faith in the masses of the people.
How could they know how soon those piled up waters might
assert their rights to their ancient bed, and come rushing back?

124 HEBREWS. — CHAP. XI.
How could they know that this now empty bed might not be their
own sepulcher ? They needed then and there the rest and repose
of faith. The writer assumes that they had it. It was thus a
grand discipline for the faith of the whole people, and furnished
a telling illustration for the age and times of those Hebrew
Christians.* 30. By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were
compassed about seven days.
31. By faith the harlot Bahab perished not with them that
believed not, when she had received the spies with peace.
The faith before which the walls of Jericho fell down wrought
in two distinct lines; (1) It prompted obedience to their march
ing orders ; (2) It became the condition precedent to the putting
forth of miraculous divine power. The marching did not help to
undermine or batter down the walls, but it did afford some dis
cipline to the invisible faith of their souls. Hopefully it afforded
scope and suggestive impulse, as it certainly did time, for prayer
to the Almighty. ' And it would seem that the men of Canaan
might have received some impressions of the power of an invisi
ble God, working through the faith of this new and strange
people. How it came to pass that the heart of the harlot Rahab was
opened to learn of Israel's God and to believe in his name, we
have no definite means of knowing. The fact stands before us.
God's hand was doubtless in it.
32. And what shall I more say? for the time. would fail
me to tell of Gideon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of
Jephthah; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets:
33. Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought right
eousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions,
34. Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of
the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed vahant
in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.
Historic sketches in detail must give place to comprehensive
general statements; for the men and women of faith, in their
glorious national history, were a host.  "Subdued kingdoms"
applied specially to David ; somewhat to Joshua and to the old
judges here named. "Wrought righteousness" had also its most
striking illustration in David.  "Obtained promises" is said
here probably in the sense most common in this epistle — obtained
®The Scripture record of these events (Ex. 12 and 14 and 15) may
fitly be studied in this connection. The author's work on the
Pentateuch (pp. 205-216) will furnish additional suggestions.

HEBREWS.— CHAP. XI. 125
the blessings promised to faith and holy living.  " Stopped the
mouths of lions " meets the case of Daniel (Dan. 6 : 19-23), and
less signally of David (1 Sam. 17: 34-36), and of Samson (Judges
14: 5, 6). The allusions in v. 34 apparently include the achieve
ments in the heroic age of the Maccabees.
35. Women received their dead raised to life again: and
others were tortured, not accepting dehverance; that they
might obtain a better resurrection:
36. And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings,
yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment :
37. They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were
tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about
in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tor
mented ;
38. (Of whom the world was not worthy :) they wandered
in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the
earth. " Women receiving their dead raised to life meets the case of
Elijah and the woman of Zarephath (1 Kings 17: 17-24); also of
Elisha and the woman of Shunem (2Kings 4: 18-37.)  "A better
resurrection " is apparently one better than this, followed by
results grander and far more enduring.  The other allusions in
these verses, to bloody persecution, torture and exile, are mainly
to events not on record in our Old Testament Scriptures. Some of
them probably belong to the Maccabean age with which the first
readers of this epistle were doubtless familiar. A grand record
of steadfast endurance and conquering faith in God, it surely is,
and it might well brace the courage and inspire the souls of Hebrew
Christians, then for a short season subjected to reproach, perhaps
in more rare instances to confiscation of goods and to personal
violence. 39. And these all, having obtained a good report through
faith, received not the promise:
40. God having provided some better thing for us, that
they without us should not be made perfect.
" Received not the promises " — where the ambiguity of the
word "promises" should be noticed. For. the promise, in its
first sense — the one common in our times — they did receive. The
things promised — which is the sense most frequent in our author —
they did not receive. This refers to the personal Messiah then
actually come. This was the main point of difference between
them and us (he would say); they had thepromise of a Messiah
to come but not the Messiah himself. We have had the very
Christ in person ; some of us now living have seen him with our

126 HEBREWS. — CHAP. XII.
eyes, and our own hands have " handled the Word of life " (1 John
1:1). This better thing God has provided for us, that they, apart
from us, should not reach the complete consummation of their
hopes.  The argument here is: If those fathers and mothers in
Zion, having only the promise, not the reality, of an incarnate
Messiah visible to their eye of sense, yet walked by faith, leaving
such a record of moral heroism as we see, how much more should
we, with the living Messiah still fresh in the recollection of many,
maintain an unfaltering faith and stand firm against the fiercest
shocks of persecution !

«XK°

CHAPTER XII.
The author exhorts to run the Christian race with the eye on
Jesus as the perfect Example and the Mighty Helper (1-3);
shows them that such chastening as they experienced came of
parental love, proved their sonship (4-8), and had for its end to
make them more holy and more fruitful in righteousness (9-11);
wherefore they should encourage the feeble and guide the
wayward (12, 13) and exercise great mutual watchfulness lest any
should apostatize (14-17). Then in an extended and sublime
antithesic he puts the case of those ancient Hebrews who stood
before Mount Sinai to receive the law (v. 18-21), over against the
case of those who stand before Mount Sion under the gospel
(22-24) ; whereupon he exhorts them to regard and obey Him
who speaks to them from heaven (25); who has set aside the
Mosaic system — made to be transient — to introduce a better
which can never be shaken (26, 27); which kingdom, made to
stand till the world's end, they should hail with gladness, and
seek grace under it to serve God with reverence and fear,
because his displeasure is terrible (28, 29).
1. Wherefore, seeing we also are compassed about with so
great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and
the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with
patience the race that is set before us,
2. Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our
faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the
cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right
hand of the throne of God.
Using for illustration the ancient Greek and Roman games,
especially the foot-races in wliich the competitors ran in the
presence of thousands on thousands filling the vast amphitheater,
tie represents his Hebrew converts as in like manner surrounded

HEBREWS.  CHAP. XII. 127
by myriads of those old heroes and martyrs of faith whose case
he has brought before them, and as running the Christian race
under their inspiring eye. Hence he exhorts them to imitate
the runners in those foot-races in laying aside every incumbrance,
carrying no superfluous weight; and if any form of sin had
special attraction to them and involved them in peculiar danger,
by all means_ to lay that aside with double care and jealousy.
If we may judge from the general tone of the appeals and
admonitions throughout this epistle, we should infer that the
author had in mind their Hebrew prejudices in favor of Moses
and the temple services, and their sensitiveness to the contempt
cast on the name and people of Christ — as their most besetting
temptations. To withstand these seductions which pressed so
constantly upon their worldly eye, they needed the impulses that
came through faith in the glorious realities of Christ's kingdom.
Examples of such moral heroism through faith ought to be
inspiring. Let them think of those myriad eyes looking forth
from their heavenly home and down upon these combatants
pressing on in the race for the prize of their high calling.- 
Need we pause to ask whether this conception of the sainted
dead, witnessing from heaven the conflicts and trials of their
earthly brethren, is a thing of fact or of imagination only? — It
is supposable that in his thought, their eyes saw in essentially
the same sense in which Abel's faith spake ["by it, he, being
dead, yet speaketh"], but this is not the more obvious construc
tion, and therefore not the most probable. There is nothing in
the laws of being, known to us, which can forbid the obvious and
natural meaning, viz., that departed saints are really and truly
witnesses of such of the scenes of earth as most deeply interest
them. Angels must have such powers, else it were impossible
for them to be "ministering spirits sent down to minister to the
heirs of salvation." If this be true of holy angels, why not of
sainted men whose laws of being in that other world our Savior
indicates by calling them the " equals of angels " [isangeloi]
(Luke 20 : 36). It is in support of this opinion that it gives a
sense of reality to the figure which underlies this description.
'¦ A crowd of witnesses around
Hold thee in full survey " —
so that the case of him who runs with all diligence, and also of
him who halts or turns aside from his right way ; of him who
casts aside every weight, and of him who loads himself with more
than he can well carry — may be far more fully present to their
view than we are wont to suppose. At least it will not damage
our inspirations to Christian endeavor to think of them as look
ing on — oh how earnestly and with what throbbing heart, to
watch the issues, to mourn the failures or to hail the triumphs
of each child of God !
"Looking to Jesus.'' The foot-racer had the goal at the end
of his course fully in his eye. That, he evermore said to him-

128 HEBREWS. — CHAP. XII.
self, is the point I am to make ; once there, my race is run. In
a sense yet more comprehensive, the Christian competitor in his
race "looks unto Jesus," that he may run with Jesus evermore
in his eye as both Author and Finisher to his faith.  The Greek
word for "author" [arkegos] may be used in the sense of origi
nator, or in the sense of chief leader. We find it four times
in our New Testament; twice in Acts; twice in this epistle; in
Acts 3: 15: "Ye killed the Prince of life;" in Acts 5: 31:
" Him hath God exalted to be a Prince and a Savior, to give
repentance," etc. In Heb. 2: 10, we have it in this connection:
"For it became Him, for whom are all things, etc., in bringing
many sons unto glory, to make the Captain of their salvation
perfect through suffering." Studying these passages thoroughly,
we shall see that the word may be used in either of these senses
[Originator or Chief Leader], and indeed, nothing forbids that it
may involve both; sometimes making one the more prominent
and again, the other. "Exalted as a Prince, to give repentance,"
makes prominent his function as the Originator; while the
words brought together in Heb. 2: 10 — "in leading many sons
unto glory to make their Head-Leader perfect through suffering,"
looks more especially to the sense of supreme director — the
chief Captain of their marching host. It should be said, however,
that in our passage the obvious antithesis between originating
faith and completing it, fully sustains the sense of our English
version : He whose grace began and whose grace carries on to
perfection the faith of every true child of God. Consequently
the exhortation means : Looking unto Jesus as being both the
author and the finisher of your faith. Praise him for the first
beginnings — trust him for the last finishing touches — of your
Christian faith.  Furthermore, the sense of Head-Leader (as in
2 : 10) is also plainly present in the writer's thought, for he
proceeds to speak of Jesus as an inspiring example, as having
trodden before us the very path in which we are to follow after.
" Who for the joy set before him endured the cross, despising
the shame " — for he also had a cross to bear, more cruelly severe
than can ever fall to your lot, and shame to disregard more
unreasonable and more outrageous than can ever tempt and try
his most despised children. He bore his cross and despised all
the shame of his lot through faith in the glorious future — through
" the joy set before him" as his final reward. Ye too (he would
say) have a like joy set before you ; therefore let your faith make
it real to your thought, and lift up your souls into moral strength,
that ye may endure the cross, shrinking never from its pains, and
may despise its shame because the honor that comes from God is
infinitely more than the disgrace that comes from man. Jesus,
your Great Leader, has taken his seat on the right hand of the
throne of God, and ye may hear him say — " Whosoever shall
confess me before men, him shall the Son of man confess before
the angels of God" (Luke 12: 8).

HEBREWS.— CHAP. XII. 129
3. For consider him that endured such contradiction of
sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your
minds. Here the Greek verb for "consider" ["analogisasthe"] sug
gests drawing the analogy between his case and your own. Car
rying out an analogy is indeed the precise idea of the word, our
English term analogy being taken from this Greek.  Study
how he endured the foul speeches, slanders, vituperations of sin
ners, cruelly aimed against him, lest your spirits faint under sim
ilar abuse. Consider that if the Master did not escape their
scorn, the servant should expect nothing better. Also, that if He
endured all with meekness and patience, not less but even more
should ye. He never gave them any just occasion; it maybe
that ye have.
4. Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against
sin. 5. And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh
unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the
chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of
him: 6. For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourg-
eth every son whom he receiveth.
To his Greek readers the words here would suggest that the
race [agon] had taken on the form of a mighty conflict against
sin — themselves bearing np against a fearful array of resistance
in the form of persecution, under which, however, they had not
yet been brought to blood. They had suffered confiscation of
goods (10: 34) and had "taken it joyfully," as if it were a dear
pledge of better and more enduring possessions. It is plain,
moreover, that they had fallen under public reproach for Christ's
sake, which it was trying to their souls to bear. It would much
relieve this trial if they would think of it as coming upon them
in the permissive agencies of God's providence as chastisement
from his kind hand. To this point therefore the writer calls
their special attention. Ye seem, said he, to have forgotten that
precious exhortation (found Prov. 3: 11, 12) which speaks to
you as to sons [Greek], using even this very word, dear above
all other possible words in such connection : " My son, do not
regard as a light thing this chastening of the Lord, nor faint
under his rebuke ; for the Lord chastens those whom he loves
and scourges every son whom he receives." Truly he knows
they need such discipline, and he is too good and too wise to
withhold it. Oh, how he loves to see his sons growing up into
purity and meekness and patience, drawing off their old affections
from earthliness and self-seeking; and therefore, though the re-

130 HEBREWS. — CHAP. XII.
fining process may be sharp and keen, and may seem to cut to
the quick, yet old ulcers must be probed, dead flesh cut away,
and the vital forces helped to do better and more wholesome
work. Therefore let them not forget that love moves their wise
and kind Father to send such chastisement upon his dear sons
and daughters.
7. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as
with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth
not? 8. But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are
partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
In the first words of verse 7 the text of Tischendorf, sustained
by the Sinaitic and Alexandrian manuscripts, omits the word for
"if" [ei], giving only this: "Ye endure unto chastisement."
Yet this emendation leaves the sense scarcely changed, for it as
sumes the fact of their suffering, while it makes the beneficial
results somewhat more prominent.
When ye are chastened for such results, God bears himself
toward you as toward sons ; for what sort of son is he whom his
father chastens not ?  The point of this question is not : What
would he become without chastisement? nor is it precisely this —
Where do you find a son who is never chastened by his father?
but more definitely this: What sonship can that be which
does not involve discipline and correction from a father's hand?
What sorwelation is that into which there enters nothing of this
precious element — a father's higher wisdom and purer love, put
in constant exercise to train his son up into more nobleness and
purity of character ? For if ye were to pass through this form
ing, refining period without discipline toward a better life, such
as all children need so greatly, then were ye bastards — illegiti
mate, uncared-for offspring — and not recognized sons.
9. Furthermore, we have had fathers of our flesh which
corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not
much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and
live? 10. For they verily for a few days chastened us after
their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be
partakers of his holiness.
11. Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joy
ous, but grievous: nevertheless, afterward it yieldeth the
peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exer
cised thereby.
Every reader will notice the antithesis between the "many
fathers of our flesh" on the one hand, and the one Great Father

HEBREWS. — CHAP. XII. 131
of our spirits on the other ; the former giving us correction and
receiving our respect and honor for it. To the latter, then, shall
we not much rather bow in docile subjection, inasmuch as we
get from his correction the best results of life — the only real
living which deserves the name ?  They were in the habit of
chastening us during the brief days of childhood as it seemed best
to them — i. e., not precisely according to their caprice, as the re
ceived version might be understood to mean, but according to
their judgment ; and not merely to gratify their impulses, but to
meet their responsibilities wisely as they might be able, though
imperfectly. But on the other hand the Great Father chastenB
only for our profit — with never a mistake of judgment, and never
the least deviation from this most benevolent purpose — our high
est spiritual profit — that we may share his own perfect holiness.
Would he not train all his sons into purity and the utmost noble
ness of character, even like his own ?  Now the present sense
of all chastisement is not joy but pain ; this is always the feeling
at the time ; yet afterward, in the grand outcome and result, it
yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who come under
its discipline. "Peaceable fruit" is none other than peaceful —
peace-bearing, that which brings the deep, rich peace of a sub
dued, penitent, humbled, chastened soul. This is the fruit of
righteousness in the sense of Tightness — the spirit that is right
before God.  Therefore let the chastened sons of God bear
meekly every stroke of their good Father's rod. Let them never
lose sight of the love which his rod always signifies, nor of the
precious fruits which it always aims to secure. Such fruits — the
becoming partakers of God's own holiness — oh, how should our
souls long for them with aspirations unutterable! How tame and
even mean is every other attainment if once compared with this I
 Let us then never forget that this is the supreme end and aim
of our divine Father in all the chastisements he suffers to fall
upon his children. His way of procedure toward us severally
may be indefinitely various, so that we can never infer from his
way with one child what course he may take with the second —
with any other one, with our personal self; and, moreover, his
ways may seem to us quite inexplicable, dark, perhaps very much
as if he had lost sight of the good object spoken of here ; yet let
us be very docile, very patient, and withal very trustful in his
wisdom as well as in his love; for will he not in the end bring
every thing out in clearness and beauty and glory ?
12. Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down, and
the feeble knees ;
13. And make straight paths for your feet, lest that
which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather
be healed.
It should not escape our notice that the author, having reached
the point of special exhortation, does not say — Let every man

132 HEBREWS. — CHAP. XII.
take care of himself; but rather this : Let every man help take
oare of the weak, the faltering — those who are in special danger
of falling. Wherefore, straighten up the pendant hands and the
palsied knees, and make straight paths for your feet, lest the lame
be turned out of the right course, off the track ; and so that they
may rather be healed. A mutual care for each other, and a very
special care for those who need it most — these are the points that
are put foremost in this exhortation.
14. Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without
which no man shall see the Lord:
15. Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of
God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you,
and thereby many be defiled;
16. Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as
Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.
17. For ye know how that afterward, when he would
have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found
no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with
tears. In verse 14 are two exhortations, each strictly personal, pressed
upon every individual soul. " Follow peace with all men." Ex
posed as ye are to persecution, environed with hostile men — be
inoffensive ; neither say or do any thing to give offense cause
lessly ; study to live in peace toward those who hate and even re
vile you.  More than this, " follow after holiness," real purity
of heart as in the eye of God; let your heart be right, loving,
kind, unselfish; for "without this holiness no man shall see the
Lord." That holy heaven where he dwells and reveals his face
to the pure in heart, is forever barred against the unholy. 
Next follow exhortations bearing socially upon our responsibili
ties to our fellow-men. "Looking diligently," translates the
usual Greek word for the duties of the bishop. The sense is —
Exercise the watchfulness and care of the bishop over each other
— for the exhortation addresses all alike. In this sense all are to
be bishops over all ; every man to look with thoughtful, loving
care upon the case of every one in the fraternity; carefully watch
ful lest any one come short of the grace of God by standing aloof
from it (his word indicates) and lest there be any root of bitter
ness springing up into a fruitage of mischief, trouble and general
defilement.  We must assume that the writer borrowed the
phrase " root of bitterness " from Deut. 29: 18, where the Septua
gint has both these words. The whole verse will suggest the
sense of our passage. " Lest there be nraon» you man or woman,
or family or tribe, whose heart turneth away this day from the
Lord our God to go and serve the gods of these nations; lest
there should.be among you a root that beareth gall and worm
wood" [bitterness].— This "root of bitterness" then is, some

HEBREWS. — CHAP. XII. 133
man or group of men having dangerous social power, whose
heart turns away from God, and whose influence throws poison
and moral peril into your communion. Beware of such men.
Ye can never know how widely their poison may diffuse itself;
nor how many may be fatally "defiled thereby."  The mis
chief thrown upon society by such apostate men may be esti
mated by the ruin that befalls every individual apostate, of
which the case of Esau is given as an example. Obviously this
case stands here not as that of a man seducing others, but of
one self-seduced to his hopeless loss.  In this description of
Esau, he is called "a fornicator," not in the literal sense of
violating the seventh commandment, but in the spiritual sense
of adultery toward the nation's covenant-keeping God. He did
not care to abide under that covenant and be an heir to its
blessings. This spirit is commonly spoken of in the Old Testa
ment as adulterous, the spirit of whoredom.  He was " pro
fane" in the sense of having no just appreciation of things
sacred. His sensual soul sought nothing beyond savory food,
the gratification of its low, sensual appetites. His sin lay in
measuring this sensual indulgence against the blessings of the
covenant of God with his fathers, and choosing the former before
the latter. Afterward, when he saw what he had lost, he sought
tearfully but in vain to reverse his doom. There was " no place
for repentance " — which means that he could not change his
father's decision. The blessing of the birthright which he had so
sensually and sinfully despised, Isaac had given to Jacob, and he
would not — could not — recall and reverse it. It is not meant that
Esau found no place to repent himself — in the sense of bitter sor
row and perhaps self-torturing shame for his foolish, fatal choice.
He had tears to shed, but they fell in vain — a fearful lesson to
sinners in any and every age who sell their birthright of salva
tion for a mess of pottage.  The Greek for " one morsel of
meat" more precisely means — one meal of food ; what he con
sumed at one eating. But this was a miserably small considerar
tion when set over against the blessings of God's covenant and
its glorious wealth of promise and of salvation.
18. For ye are not come unto the mount that might be
touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and
darkness, and tempest,
19. And the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words;
which voice they that heard entreated that the word should
not be spoken to them any more :
20. (For they could not endure that which was com
manded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it
shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart :
21. And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I ex
ceedingly fear and quake :)

134 HEBREWS. — CHAP. XII.
The considerations in these verses [18-24] enforce the exhor
tation in vs. 12-15 ; strengthen the flagging hands and the totter
ing knees ; follow peace with all men and holiness also ; watch
jealously against all seducing influences — "for " (v. 18) your
case is not like that of ancient Israel before Mt. Sinai, but like
that of the gospel Israel before Mt. Sion. The passage puts
these two cases in bold and vigorous contrast. Ye are not in the
first but in the second. Ye are not where the fathers were —
come to Mt. Sinai, and standing before that awful mount to re
ceive the law from the lips of the Almighty ; but ye have come
to another mount, even Sion, around which there clusters another
group of objects far more attractive, far more glorious.  This
contrast between the giving of the law and the offers of the gos
pel; between the surroundings of the former and the grander
elements that group themselves around the latter, is put here
with marvelous vividness and force. Let us study it and drink
in its spirit.
" The mount that might be touched" is not named as its con
tra A mount (v. 22) is, but is described, and to those Hebrews
was' perfectly well known from its description. It could not pos
sibly be any other than Mt. Sinai.  In the phrase " might be
touched," the word "might" is ambiguous. It signifies here
not permission but possibility ; not a mountain which they were
permitted to touch, but one which it was possible to touch,
which was tangible, material, and not like the Mt. Sion here in
contrast with it, which was ideal, spiritual, and therefore one
upon which no man could lay his hand nor beast his foot. 
In that momentous day when all Israel were come to it, mar
shaled in the great plain of Er Rahah, which stretched away to
the north from its base,* and stood there in front of its vast
wall of rugged rock and frowning precipice, it burned with fire
enwrapped in blackness and darkness and tempest — as if a
thousand thunder-clouds were condensed into one, and that one
begirt this awful mountain in its folds — the terrible blackness
broken only by the flashes of lightning; and the perpetual roar
of the tempest only by the more terrific trumpet-blast and the
more awful voice of the Almighty, pronouncing the words of his
* Dr. E. Robinson, standing on the spot, wrote : " Here lay the
plain where the whole congregation might be assembled ; here was
the mount that could be approached and touched, if not forbidden ;
and here the mountain brow, where alone the lightnings and the
thick cloud would be visible and the thunders and the voice of the
trump be heard, when the Lord came down in the sight of all the
people upon Mt. Sinai." ..." I know not when I have felt a thrill
of stronger emotion, than when in first crossing the plain, the dark
precipices of Horeb rising in solemn grandeur before us, we became
aware of the entire adaptedness of the scene to the purposes for
which it was chosen." — Robinson's Biblical Researches, Vol. I:
158, 176.

HEBREWS.— CHAP. XII. 135
fiery law. The men who stood there, appalled by that voice
never so heard by mortal ears before, besought that they might
not hear it more. Let the Lord (said they) speak to Moses and
Moses to us ; but let not that voice, so appalling, fall on our
ears again. For they could not endure the command which
doomed to death the beast that might touch the mountain; and
even Moses — the man who had heard Jehovah's voice out of the
burning bush, and who had become familiar with its gentler
tones, cried out: " I exceedingly fear and quake." These words,
however, as from Moses, are not on record in the scriptural nar
rative of the scenes at Sinai. We may suppose them to have
come down by tradition. That they truthfully represent his
mind under the impressions of that fearful scene, there can be
no doubt.  It is quite in place to recall here the description
which he himself has given of these scenes :
" There Israel camped before the mount. . . . And it came to pass
on the third day in the morning, that there were thunders and
lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice r<yt|he
trumpet exceeding loud; so that all the people that was in tlit, _ Jinp
trembled. And Moses brought forth the people out of the camp' to
meet with God: and they stood at the nether part of the mount.
And mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because the Lord de
scended upon it in fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as the
smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly. And
when the voice of the trumpet sounded long, and waxed louder and
louder, Moses spake, and God answered him by a voice. And the
Lord came down upon mount Sinai, on the top of the mount : and the
Lord called Moses up to the top of the mount ; and Moses went up.
And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and
the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the
people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off. And they said unto
Moses, Speak thou with us and we will hear ; but let not God speak
with us, lest we die. And Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for
God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your
faces, that ye sin not. And the people stood afar off, and Moses
drew near unto the thick darkness where God was. Specially the
day that thou stoodest before the Lord thy God in Horeb, when the
Lord said unto me, Gather me the people together, and I will
make them hear my words, that they may learn to fear me all the
days that they shall live upon the earth, and thai they may teach
their children. And ye came near and stood under the mountain ;
and the mountain burned with fire unto the midst of heaven, with
darkness, clouds, and thick darkness. And the Lord spake unto
you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words,
but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice." — Ex. 19: 2, 16-20
and 20: 18-21 and Deut. 4: 10-12.
Thus every feature of this stupendous scene combined to im
press a sense of awe and profoundest reverence. Manifestly it
was designed to implant deep in the heart of the people a
wholesome fear of the Great and Holy God, and to associate this

136 HEBREWS. — CHAP. XII.
fear with the law which was then rehearsed in their ears by his
awful voice.  Such was Sinai; and such was the case of the
Hebrew fathers who came up to that august mountain scene.
22. But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city
of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innu
merable company of angels,
23. To the general assembly and church of the first-born,
which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all,
and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
24. And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and
to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than
that of Abel.
All unlike theirs is your present case. Ye are come up be
fore a far different mount, even Mount Sion, the glorious city of
the living God, the new and heavenly Jerusalem; and to
myriads of angels, the universal convocation, and to the church
of the first-born, enrolled in the heavens.  These three suc
cessive clauses ; myriads of angels ; the universal convocation ;
the enrolled church of the first-born — I would apply to the un-
fallen orders of intelligent beings whose dwelling-place is in the
heavenly city. The descriptive points set forth their immense
number ; their common home and their common relation to God
as his first-born sons, whose names are written forever before
him. To the writer of this epistle, this glorious hierarchy of
angelic hosts was a sublime spectacle — a grand and most inspir
ing fact of the spiritual world. He would fain bring it vividly
before the minds and impressively upon the souls of his Hebrew
readers. The heavenly world which the gospel spread out before
them was not an empty solitude; it was a stupendous city; it
was peopled with myriads of God's first-born sons — a vast assem
bly. Nothing could be more fitting for God's tempted, perse
cuted people here than to make the acquaintance of those elder
brethren beforehand ere they should ascend — to enjoy their fel
lowship of praise and love. Let them even now bring distinctly
within view as their future associates those elder brethren of
their Father's great family who have already sung paeans of joy
over every converted sinner, and have long ere this put their
harps in tune for the great, common, universal song to the praise
of "Him who hath redeemed us to God with his blood."
This stupendous grouping of objects put before the spiritual
eye of those Hebrew converts comprised yet other things. God,
the Great and Glorious God, was there — even he whose feet once
stood on Mt. Sinai ; but here, not as Lawgiver, but as Universal
Judge — "God the Judge of all."  Next are the spirits of the
righteous dead, now perfected in bliss and glory before the eter
nal throne ; the sainted patriarchs and prophets of their nation's
history; all "the pure in heart" whose blessedness it is to "soe

HEBREWS.— CHAP. XII. 137
God.1' The fact that departed saints are so distinctly described
here makes it quite clear that they are not included in the de
scription above as " the General Assembly and church of the
firstborn." Those are angels; these the saints gathered from
earth.  Next, and by no means least, we come to Jesus the
Mediator of the New Covenant, under which the law is written
on men's hearts and makes them know the Lord. We come also
to "the blood of sprinkling" which cries, not like Abel's, for
vengeance on the murderer, but (as is peculiar to the blood of
Jesus) for mercy to every guilty and truly penitent soul.
Such is the wonderful group of embodied truths, set in living
array before the Hebrew converts as making up the outline of
their condition, standing before the spiritual Sion. This mount
ain was not, like Sinai, enshrouded in darkness. Rather, it
was all bathed in mild but glorious light. It was not a desolation
but a " city " — not rocking with the tempest, not rent and riven
with lightnings; but peopled with angels — the home of all the
sainted dead; where ye may see Jesus your Mediator, your fast,
beloved and perfect Friend ; whose blood of sprinkling perpetu
ally speaks of loving-kindness and forgiving mercy ! Oh, what a
world is this — the heavenly city ! Do ye think, as ye might, of
the wealth of privilege and the height of glory vouchsafed to
you, compared with the case of your fathers before Mt. Sinai?
25. See that ye refuse not him that speaketh : for if they
escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much
more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that
speaketh from heaven:
26. Whose voice then shook the earth : but now he hath
promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth
only, but also heaven.
27. And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the remov
ing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are
made, that those things which can not be shaken may
remain. "See that ye refuse not Him that speaketh" — speaketh now,
and to you, out of this spiritual Mt. Sion. The writer still holds
in mind the antithesis between Mt. Sinai and Mt. Sion ; between
the Great God speaking from the former Mount, and the Media
tor of the New Covenant whose voice comes down to us from the
latter. The merely English reader would scarcely suspect (what
is the fact) that the word "refuse" twice occurring in v. 25:
"Refuse not Him that speaketh;" "Who refused Him that
spake on earth " — is identically the same which the writer uses
in v. 19, there translated " entreated that the word be not
spoken," etc. The people refused to hear the voice of God
there. They begged to be excused from hearing it. It is per
haps used there m a slightly modified sense for the word refuse;

138 HEBREWS.  CHAP. XII.
but the Greek word is the same. The writer would warn his
readers against the sin and peril of turning away from hearing
the voice that now speaks to them out of heaven. If they
escaped not who refused to hear God's voice from Sinai, how
much more surely shall there be no escape for those who refuse
him who speaks from this Mt. Sion. The antithesis is still car
ried forward — His voice then shook Mt. Sinai to its very base :
according to the prophetic words of Haggai (2: 6-9) his own
voice now shakes both earth and heaven. In the prophet's
words :
" Thus saith the Lord of hosts : Yet once, it is a little while, and
I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry
land : And I will shake all nations, and the Desire of all nations
shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the Lord of
hosts. The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, saith the Lord of
hosts. The glory of this latter house shall he greater than of the
former, saith the Lord of hosts : and in this place will I give peace,
saith the Lord of hosts."
The great point made in this prophecy is the stupendous change
to be wrought at the coming of the Messiah when the former earth
and heavens should be shaken ; when the temple made with hands
should have the presence of a real Immanuel; and so the glory
of the latter house should grandly eclipse the utmost glory of
Solomon's temple. With his eye on this prophecy of Haggai, the
writer comments on the words, "Yet once more" as signifying
that this is the last great change of dispensation, involving the
final passing away of the Mosaic system and the inauguration of
the gospel scheme, never to be superseded by any better or other.
This second will be a method of divine manifestation (" dispensa
tion" we are wont to call it), destined to remain till all earthly
things shall reach their consummation. The permanence of this
new and gospel kingdom is thought of here as heightening its
grandeur and glory, and as making it sternly imperative upon
Hebrew Christians to honor it supremely, and to listen with pro-
foundest regard to the voice of their risen, glorified Messiah whose
voice now drops down upon them from heaven.
28. Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which can not be
moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God accept
ably with reverence and godly fear :
29. For our God is a consuming fire.
"Having received" is more exact than "receiving," the parti
ciple being the past tense and not the present. He implies that
the gospel age was already opened; this new kingdom already
inaugurated, and its king already enthroned high above all princi
palities and powers in the heavens (Eph. 1 : 20-22 and 1 Peter 3 :
22). The old Mosaic system had run its course, done its work,

HEBREWS.  CHAP. XIII. 139
and with a mighty shaking in the spiritual realm, had passed
away — to give place to a kingdom upon which no similar change
should ever come. The gospel kingdom already opened is never
to give place to any other dispensation but must stand to the end
of time. Therefore he exhorts them to seek and find grace to
serve God reverently, with genuine, godly fear. Let them not
assume that because Mount Sion has no appalling darkness and
lightning and storm and trumpet-voice and words of terror from
the Almighty, that therefore there is no longer any occasion for
reverential fear. Let them not deceive themselves into such
delusion and folly. Let them never suppose that the voice which
now comes down from heaven in blended tones of authority and
mercy can be safely disregarded. No mistake could be more fatal,
for our God is still (as ever) " a consuming fire " to all who dis
own his authority and discard his mercy.  These words — " a
consuming fire"— are apparently taken from Moses (Deut. 4: 24)
where they stand in connection with his recital of the scenes of
Sinai: "For the Lord thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous
God." The Septuagint gives the same words as our author here.
He means to declare most emphatically that God remains forever
the same in his abhorrence of sin ; the same in his attitude toward
the incorrigible sinner; the same in his consuming vengeance
toward those who despise his gospel as toward those who disown
his law. That outrageous abuse of revealed gospel mercy which
abstracts from the God of the New Testament every element of
character that sinners need fear, and would fain assume that every
thing terribie to the sinner was only put on for a temporary pur
pose under the old economy, but has no place under the gospel,
is unutterable folly; it is even madness! Our author is sensitively
careful to give no occasion for a mistake so surely and so terribly
fatal to human souls. The antithesis which he had drawn here
between Sinai and Sion puts the elements of fearfulness in the
foreground of the former, but gives them no special prominence
in the latter. Left in just that way, his presentation might be
slightly open to this dangerous mistake of assuming that there is
little or nothing now for sinners to fear. Hence the wisdom of
guarding his presentation of the case against this misconception
so surely fatal to men's souls.

CHAPTER XIII.
Naturally this closing chapter is miscellaneous, a series of
exhortations on various points of special interest and importance
to the Hebrews addressed.
1. Let brotherly love continue.
2. Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby
some have entertained angels unawares.

140 HEBREWS. — CHAP. XIII.
Love to the brethren — always to be enjoined and always cher
ished, because, always the great social duty of believers — had
special importance to the household of faith in scenes of persecu
tion and peril. Then the first indications of spiritual danger
would be the loosening of the social bond, and a tendency to disin
tegration. If brethren when persecuted and imperiled as to lib
erty, estate, or life, began to draw apart and not together, they
would soon fall under the power of Satan and leave the fold.
More than once in this epistle we have had occasion to notice the
stress laid upon mutual watchfulness — the duty of caring ear
nestly for each other's welfare in real love to the brethren. "Let
us consider one another, to provoke unto love and good works "
(10: 24). "Lift up the hands that hang down and the feeble
knees ; looking diligently, lest any man fail of the grace of God,"
etc. (12: 12, 15). So here, let your brotherly love be kept strong
and ardent, never suffered to flag. It is one of the elements of
your strength.
Hospitality to strangers, always a cardinal virtue in the social
life of the orientals, was earnestly inculcated in the primitive
churches. Here it is beautifully recommended by the well known
example of Abraham (Gen. 18: 1-8) who from his tent door at
noon saw three men, and hastened to offer them his warm hos
pitality, and lo ! they proved to be angels ! The case of Gideon
(Judges 6: 11-24) is of the same sort. The moral is: Ye can
never know what unthought of blessings may come to your souls
and to your households from entertaining strangers. " Cast thy
bread upon the waters; " thou shall find it again .sooner than
thy thought, and in richer measure.
3. Remember them that are in bonds, as bound with
them ; and them which suffer adversity, as being yourselves
also in the body.
The law of loving sympathy with the suffering was never better
expressed. Remember the bound as a fellow-bondman; the
afflicted as being yourselves in a frail body, subject at any
moment to like sufferings. Let a common human nature bind
our souls into a common sympathy with suffering. Whether the
evil come in the form of captivity from war ; the bonds of slavery ;
persecution for Christ's sake ; or any other of the thousand ills
that human flesh is heir to — the law rules all the same. Remem
ber your fellow-sufferer; it may be but a day ere ye may suffer as
he does and may need others' sympathy no less than he does
now.  But it should be said : This liability to like evil is not
the only or even the chief reason for the rule. The higher reason
is our common relationship as children of one and the same
great, loving Father, for whose sake we should remember all the
sons and daughters of the great family ; else we dishonor our par
entage and bring on ourselves the displeasure of our Father.
Does not he delight to see his creatures care lovingly for their

HEBREWS. — CHAP. XIII. 141
fellows, because they are all his own dear children? And is it
not at once noble and blessed to please Him ?
4. Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled:
but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
Whether there were any special reasons for this one brief,
comprehensive verse, we know not, but we do know that wherever
human nature is, there it can never be out of place to declare
and enforce the great law of marriage. And if it is to be set
forth, it would not be easy to put it in words more brief, more
terse, more clear, or more just than these. They testify to us
that God holds the race to the sacred responsibilities of obedience
to the law of marriage and to its intended purpose, and has judg
ments in store for its reckless violation. It is well to remember
that these judgments wait not altogether for another world, but
follow close and swift on the footsteps of crime, as if impatient
of the slow and too distant retributions of eternity. God means
to have the most reckless believe his words of terrible warning
against such violators of his holy law !
5. Let your conversation be without covetousness ; and be
content with such things as ye have : for he hath said, I
will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.
6. So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper,
and I will not fear what man shall do unto me.
The reader may need to be reminded that in our English Bible
" conversation " is not talk ; is never used in the sense common
now of colloquial discourse ; but commonly in the much broader
sense of one's way of life, behavior, including the ruling spirit
that governs our activities.*
The meaning of this admonition is — Let your life be free from
the money-loving spirit; keep your heart out of that snare of
human souls. On the contrary, be content with what ye have,
falling back upon the promise of Him who hath often said, " I
will never leave nor forsake thee."  It is interesting to inquire
who hath said these words, and when?  Qf course their au
thority and their author lead our thoughts up to God, for when
spoken by his servants, under his inspiration, they are but the
echo of his thought and heart.  We hear them from the lips
* The word " conversation," as used in King James' version, illus
trates the instabilities of language. Those translators seem to have
had a special partiality for this word, using it once (in this verse)
for the Greek tropos; thirteen times for the Greek atiastrophe ; (twice
in Philippians) for polls or its compounds. They did not foresee
that within two and a half centuries it would have lost every one
of those meanings, and have settled down into a sense quite remote
from any one of them.

142 HEBREWS. — CHAP. XIII.
of Moses, addressed first to all Israel, and then to Joshua (Deut.
31 : 6, 8) ; from the Lord himself to Joshua (Josh. 1:5); from
David, dying, to his son Solomon (1 Chron. 28 : 20). How deeply
they must have been inwrought into the souls of those ancient
heroes of faith ! God will never abandon his trustful children I
How can He? Therefore we may say with the utmost confidence
(as is said in Ps. 118: 6), "The Lord is my helper; I will not
fear: what shall man do to me?"  This punctuation in the
interrogative form is more true to the original, and, being more
forcible, as well as more true, should certainly be adopted. Hav
ing the Lord, the Infinite and ever-faithful Jehovah, on our side,
what have we to fear? How powerless are men to harm when
he is pledged to help!
7. Bemember them which have the rule over you, who
have spoken unto you the word of God : whose faith follow,
considering the end of their conversation :
8. Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to-day, and for
ever. The punctuation of our English version, which connects verses
7 and 8 by a colon, assumes that the words "Jesus Christ" stand
in apposition with the word "end" — "the end of their conversa
tion." A full pause, involving no such apposition, is better. The
" end of their conversation " means simply the death they die, as
the close of the godly life they live, probably with special refer
ence to such deaths as that of Stephen (Acts 7) and of James
(Acts 12). Then verse 8 affirms its own truth independently:
Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, to-day, and forever. All he
ever was, he always is, and ever will be; all he was in loving
sympathy while in his human flesh on efcth, he is, and ever will
be, in the love of his heart for his people through all the eternal
ages. Returning to the first clause of verse 7, let us note that " those
who have the rule over you" — three times referred to in this
closing chapter (vs. 7, 17, 24) — were obviously their religious
teachers, since they are defined here as "those who have spoken
unto you the word of God." The same considerations which sug
gested the importance of mutual watchfulness and warm broth
erly love, urged also the highest respect and regard for their
recognized religious teachers, viz., the danger lest the bonds of
Christian and Church fellowship be weakened, or even broken,
under the strain of their peculiar trials. It was vital that every
social bond be kept up to its full force, love for each other and
regard for their religious teachers especially. Imitate their faith,
and remember how nobly they have died. Ye have for your Sav
ior the same blessed Jesus in whom they trusted and rejoiced;
for whom they suffered ; in whom they triumphantly died.
9. Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines :

HEBREWS.  CHAP. XIII. 143
for it is a good thing that the heart be established with
grace ; not with meats, which have not profited them that
have been occupied therein.
Be not borne away * (dangerously, in a bad sense) by various
and foreign doctrines — doctrines unknown to " the faith once de
livered to the saints." For it is good that the heart be confirmed
— made strong—" by grace, and not by meats," in which those
who walk have not found profit. This antithesis between grace
and meats must strike our ears as very peculiar. What (we are
ready to ask) — what can "meats" have to do with building up
Christians in holiness? Who could ever think of comparing
"meats" with "grace" as agencies and powers unto real sancti
fication?  But for young converts from Judaism — a system
which made great account of meats clean or unclean, and for
ever stood upon its precise ritualities — the caution was far from
being impertinent and needless. Let them consider that meats
and grace have absolutely nothing in common as related to the
spiritual life of the soul. The grace that feeds the spiritual
life, and meats that feed only the body — let them have and
fulfill their own office ; but do not expect to build up your heart
in love or in holiness by either eating or not eating things clean
or unclean.
10. We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat
which serve the tabernacle.
11. For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought
into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned
without the camp.
12. Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the peo
ple with his own blood, suffered without the gate.
It was thoroughly to the point of the writer's great argument to
show that if Jewish priests and people had certain much-valued
prerogatives, so and much more had Christians. The choice pre
rogatives were not all on one side — least of all, on the side of Jew
ish ritualism. Let it be admitted that the priests had some special
prerogatives, such as that of eating the best portions of certain
sacrifices; yet let me say to you — We Christians have an altar
from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat.
Those who persistently adhere to Jewish rites after having known
the gospel as it is in Christ, and who so adhere as to involve the
* As to the true text of the verb " carried about," the received Greek
text has peri in composition ; but the best authorities have para, which,
in composition, has often a bad sense. Moreover, peri may have been
suggested by its appearance in the verb for walking (last word of v. 9),
rendered " been occupied therein." Para is probably right, and gives
a bad sense : Be not borne away badly, foolishly, ruinously, etc.

144 HEBREWS. — CHAP. XIII.
rejection of Christ as their atoning sacrifice, can have no privi
leges at our Christian altar.  He then proceeds to show that
these really Christian privileges belong to those only who follow
Christ in his endurance of reproach and persecution. This point
he proceeds to illustrate by an analogy which obtained between
certain animal sacrifices under the Mosaic law, and the crucified
body of Christ. The analogy was this : In the case of the goat
for a sin-offering on the great day of atonement (Lev. 16 : 27),
and also of the bullock offered for a sin-offering in behalf of sins
of ignorance (Lev. 4: 12, 21), while the blood was sprinkled be
fore the Lord, and poured out at the bottom of the altar, it was
specially provided that the bodies should be burned outside the
camp. Corresponding to this, the body of Jesus was taken out
side the city for crucifixion. He "suffered without the gate."
His suffering there rather than within the city, was, in purpose
and in fact, to his reproach. His murderers held him to be too
mean and vile to die within the holy city. But dying thus out
side the city, he more thoroughly filled out the analogy with the
animal sacrifices for the great day of atonement — more fully an
swered the significance of that grand type of his atoning death,
whereby his sprinkled blood made expiation for the sins of his
people. 13. Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp,
bearing his reproach.
14. For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one
to come.
Here let it be carefully noticed that the writer's argument and
exhortation assume for their underlying principle, that if we
would live with Christ, we must first suffer with him ; that if we
would aspire to his honors, we must first bear his shame; that if
we hope for his favor, we must first follow him wherever he goes.
If reproach bears him without the gate, for his cruel, disgrace
ful death, let us, too, go forth without the gate, bearing reproach
for his name. The glorious city of our blest abode with him is
not here, but far away; is not now, but hereafter. Our present
earthly good is of small account; we live and rejoice only in
waiting expectation. Our home-city is yet to come.  All this
is a plea for patient endurance of suffering and shame for Jesus,
if such be the ordering of his providence. Let his people expect
it, and, if it come, meet it joyfully.
15. By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise
to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving
thanks to his name.
16. But to do good and to communicate forget not: for
with such sacrifices God is well pleased.

HEBREWS. — CHAP. XIII. 145
"By him" involves tho precious idea of his high-priesthood —
he ministering in our behalf as the high priest did for the an
cient Hebrew worshiper, bearing the incense of our praise-offering
into the Most Holy place before the mercy-seat. This sacrifice
of praise let us offer to God — not at rare and long intervals only,
not on the great feast-days merely, but "continually." Then, to
explain his meaning more definitely, the writer subjoins — "The
fruit of our lips, which render praise to his name."  Fruits, as
well as flesh, were among the prescribed offerings to God, under
the Mosaic system. The phrase imitates — not to say, quotes —
Hosea 14: 2, where both the Hebrew and our English version
have it: "So will we render the calves of our lips;" but the Sep
tuagint, aiming to give the sense of the figure, puts it in the words
quoted here, " the fruit of our lips." Nor is praise the only sac
rifice that pleases God, for in the same class we must put well
doing and the fellowship which gives sympathy and substantial
good to our fellows — services never to be forgotten, for with these
God is well pleased. He accepts them all as fragrant sacrifices
to his honor.
17. Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit
yourselves : for they watch for your souls, as they that must
give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with
grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
"Those who have the rule over you" (here as in v. 7) are not
so much governors as religious teachers, placed over them as
their pastors, for purposes of religious instruction and spiritual
training. As in verse 7 they are defined, " Those who have spoken
to you the word of God," so here : " They watch for your souls as
they who must give account" — i. e., to God for their fidelity in
this charge. This phrase, " watch for your souls," seems to fol
low the usage of Ezekiel (3: 17-21 and 33: 1-9): "Son of man,
I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel; there
fore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from
me." In Chapter 33: 1-9, the figure is more fully expanded:
the watchman is a military sentinel, set to discern the stealthy
approaches of the hostile sword upon the land; to blow the
trumpet-signal of danger, and, so doing, wash his skirts from
blood-guiltiness.  So the Christian pastor watches for souls as
one who must give account of his trust to God. Obey their ad
monitions, says the writer; place yourselves under their spirit
ual direction, so that they may perform their service and render
their final account with joy, and not with groans of grief (Greek)
— for to subject them to such grief would be far from profitable
to yourselves. Your well-being and their joy in their work are
knit together, and can not be sundered.
18. Pray for us : for we trust we have a good conscience,
in all things willing to live honestly.

146 HEBREWS.  CHAP. XIII.
19. But I beseech you the rather to do this, that I may
be restored to you the sooner.
"Pray for us," for we are worthy of your Christian confidence.
If it were otherwise we could not in good faith ask your prayers.
" We trust that we have a good conscience," enlightened as to our
duty and responsibility, keenly sensitive to our true obligations,
for such are the qualities of a good conscience, and such the
life of those who follow its dictates.  " Willing in all things
to live honestly" — but here "willing" is not a bare consent, a
yielding of the will under strong persuasion; but rather, the
willing of an earnest and intense purpose. We will to live
such a life — will it with the utmost will-power of the soul. 
"To live honestly" — but "honest" here (as usually in the New
Testament) is far more than integrity in business. It rather
covers the whole field of discharging honorably all the responsi
bilities of the Christian life ; in this case of the Christian pastor.
 Then personally to myself, the writer would say — I the
more earnestly entreat your prayers for me that I may be the
sooner restored to you again.  In the Introduction (p. 3) this
allusion was considered in the light of its bearing upon the
previous relations of the writer to his readers as their father in
the gospel. It certainly assumes that the most tender relations
had existed between them, and that they had such spiritual
claims upon him as children have upon their parents, and con
verts, upon those who have been under God the instruments in
their conversion. The writer will rejoice if through their
prayers for him he may be restored to them again to minister
to them in the word of God.  It is a very obvious inference
from these tender allusions that this writer is not Paul himself,
writing to those many ten thousand Jewish believers who mobbed
him at Jerusalem and bound themselves with a fearful curse to
take his life.
20. Now the God of peace, that brought again from the
dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep,
through the blood of the everlasting covenant,
21. Make you perfect in every good work to do his will,
working in you that which is well-pleasing in his sight,
through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory forever and ever.
Amen.
It is noticeable that in the other passage which speaks of the
Father as " the God of peace," he is addressed as the Supreme
Sanctifier — i. e., as energizing the whole scheme of salvation for
the ends and purposes of making his people holy. There (1
Thess. 5 : 23), " May the very God of peace sanctify you wholly."
Here, "May the God of peace make you perfect in every thing
good unto the doing of his will, working in you what is well

HEBREWS. — CHAP. XIII. 147
pleasing before him through Jesus Christ." This is the highest
possible object of prayer in behalf of any and all real converts.
There can be nothing higher, nothing beyond to be prayed for.
Notice also what the God of peace, in such a connection as
this, is said to have done — of course bearing upon this supreme
and all-glorious result: "Who brought up from the dead our
Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, and raised him
thus through the blood of the everlasting covenant" — with the
avails of that blood and in conformity with the promise and
pledge of that everlasting covenant. Guided by our author's pre
vious allusions to this covenant (8: 6-13 and 9: 15-20), we must
interpret it of the great gospel scheme in which the eternal God
committed himself to new promises under the gospel scheme,
even to write his law in human hearts, " make himself their God
and them his people," and to "remember their sin no more."
The dying blood of the great Shepherd sealed this covenant, and
in the execution of it the God of peace brought him up from the
dead and enthroned him in spiritual power for the ultimate end
of lifting his people up into a purer life and the doing of all his
will. Let such a God, for such blessings, have all glory and
honor forever and everl
22. And I beseech you, brethren, suffer the word of
exhortation: for I have written a letter unto you in few
words. 23. Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty;
with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you.
24. Salute all them that have the rule over you, and all
the saints. They of Italy salute you.
25. Grace be with you all. Amen.
^[ Written to the Hebrews from Italy by Timothy.
I entreat you, bear without offense this brief word of exhorta
tion. Our brother Timothy has been released from his impris
onment at Rome. [Ye will remember him as having been my
faithful fellow-laborer in those years when ye turned to the Lord.
— See remarks in the General Introduction, p. 2, 3]. If he come to
us soon I will take him as my companion in travel, and we will
come to you. [Ye will notice that I write from Italy, some
distance from Rome.*] Ye will of course be happy to see him
*It may be reasonably assumed that Timothy's imprisonment was
in the great city; that his "coming" to the place of the writer sup
poses this place to be at some distance more or less from the city.
That the writer sends the salutations of those of Italy sustains the
same conclusion. Why the writer was there he has not told us —
perhaps as being more quiet for this work of writing; perhaps be
cause more removed from the annoyances of hostile authorities at
Rome.

148 HEBREWS.  CHAP. XIII.
as well as myself, and refresh your recollections of the scenes of
your conversion.
Give our salutations to all your spiritual pastors, and indeed to
all the saints. They of Italy send you their warm Christian
greetings. Ye will see that we are here in the midst of them.
And thus, with the warmest reciprocal greetings of Christian
love and fellowship, this brief but marvelously rich and blessed
letter comes to its close.

APPENDIX A.

ON THE RELATION OF THE HUMAN TO THE DIVINE
IN THE PERSON OF CHRIST.
The twofold nature of Christ — the divine in Chapter I.
and the human in Chapter II. — are brought before the
reader in close proximity, side by side, we might say ; but
we may notice that each is here in its practical relations
only, with not the least attempt to set forth the essential
elements of the union of these distinct natures in the one
person of Christ. With that admirable wisdom which
every-where shines forth in the Scriptures, we are taught
only what we need to know for the best practical results — ¦
that is to say, for our spiritual good ; and are not required
or even invited to study the mysteries which in their
profoundest relations must remain through time unfathomed
by human thought. So this great "mystery of godliness,
God manifest in human flesh," is not made one of the
lessons enjoined for our exhaustive study.
Yet there are reasons for a certain sort and extent of
inquiry into the nature of this mysterious union of the
divine with the human in Christ. Some things about it
may be known, and false conceptions of it may be elimi
nated. Whatever can be known may be of great value —
certainly can not fail of profound interest; while, on the
other hand, it is of the utmost importance to expose and
reject whatever notions of it are manifestly false. For,
false and unreasonable notions of it subject the whole Chris
tian scheme to obloquy, and often to perilous skepticism.
All truth is precious; all error, especially on a subject
naturally so vital, must be pernicious.
The following points may be regarded as reliably certain,
being manifestly inferrible from the scriptures and from the
nature of the case :
1. The human nature of Jesus is both entire and perfect:
— Entire in the sense of being complete, having all the
(1491

150 RELATION OF THE HUMAN TO THE DIVINE
essential elements of man: and perfect, inasmuch as all these
elements are without defect or blemish. "It behooved him
to be made in all things like his brethren."
2. Compared with other members of the human family
in the one point of the origination of his human being, he
was one with them in being born of a human mother ; but
not one with them in that he had no father other than God.
Hence it was by no uncertain figure of speech but according
to the facts of the case that " the holy thing born of Mary
was truly called the Son of God" (Luke 1 : 35).
3. This union of the divine nature with the human in the
one person, Christ, became possible by virtue of man's
original creation "in the image of God." These words
(Gen. 1: 26, 27) — "God created man in his own image"
— emphatically reaffirmed as a vital fact which raises man
high above all other orders of animal being, peopling our
earth — can not mean less than that man was by creation
endowed with the faculties requisite to intelligent and
morally responsible action ; made capable of the conscious
sense of duty — of learning what duty is, and of intelligently
and voluntarily choosing obedience to its high and God-like
behests. In these sublime and momentous elements of his
created constitution he was made like God, in God's own
image. Endowed with such capacities, it became possible
that his body should be the temple of the Holy Ghost ;
that he should be filled with the Spirit of God ; should be
taught of God, comforted of God, replenished of the Spirit
unto all holy affections, purposes, activities. So much, both
scripture and human experience combine to prove as to the
essential affinities of the human soul to the divine. Man
as towards God is inspirable — capable of being inspired with
the very thoughts of God, molded morally by spiritual
impulses coming forth from " the Father of our spirits."
Moreover, through the agencies of the divine Spirit upon
the human soul, man is brought to act in full sympathy with
God. " Filled with the Spirit," he may truly say : 0 God, my
heart is with thee ; all its deep, irrepressible desires are
towards and after thee ; all center upon pleasing thee and do
ing thy will most perfectly.  Now it is certainly supposa
ble that these elements in man's constitution lay a founda
tion for an essential union of being between man and God,
so that we only advance a step further in the same direction
when we say that man, thus made in God's image, is capa
ble of a real union of being with his Maker. His intellect-

IN THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 151
ual and moral nature is made in the image of God in such
a sense as to render the union of human with divine as seen
in Christ naturally possible.  With beings of a lower
grade of intellectual and moral faculties, such a union would
be naturally impossible. But in the case of beings endowed
as man is, there is no natural incompatibility which forbids
such union.
To eliminate possible errors, it will not be amiss to say
negatively: 1. That this union of divine with human in Christ does
not imply or involve any such mixture or blending of the
previously distinct natures that each loses somewhat of its
original elements, the resulting compound becoming differ
ent from either as it was prior to the union.  Illustrations
of this may be drawn from the realm of matter. Certain
liquids brought in contact naturally form a mixture in some
respects yet not in all, unlike either. Some metals in a
state of fusion readily form a compound — a third substance
— much as in the case of fluids. Again, some substances,
e. g., acids and alkalies, have such chemical affinities that
they combine to form a substance very unlike either of the
originals.  These cases are adduced here, not as being
analogous, but as being not analogous to the union of the
human with the divine in Christ. It seems to be assumed
by some that this mysterious union must be a mixture, a
blending, a coming together of such sort as we have in the
realm of matter. This notion should be utterly rejected.
The union of the divine with the human in Christ does not
destroy or even vitiate or essentially modify the constituent
elements of either. The human is not made thereby either
less human or more than human ; nor is the divine made
less than divine. Jesus did not cease to be a man ; nor did
the L°g°s cease to be God because the Logos " became flesh
and dwelt among us." The human remained human still,
and was not lifted into a higher plane of nature and being
so as to lose more or less of what belongs by created consti
tution to man. Nor on the other hand was the divine
dragged down, in essential nature and being, below the per
fection of the Infinite God.
2. The union of the divine with the human was not such
as thenceforward to forbid the distinct activities of either
the human or the divine. As the human did not cease to
be human, so neither did it lose its capacity of acting as
human because of this union with the divine. On the other

152 RELATION OF THE HUMAN TO THE DIVINE
hand, as the divine did not cease to be divine by reason of
this union, so neither did it lose its capacity of acting as
divine. We may say this on the basis of the inspired his
tory of Christ's words and activities — as will be shown more
fully in the sequel. Passing negative statements and ad
vancing to positive, we may say :
1. The law of growth in the human qualities of Jesus re
mained in its full, normal activity, notwithstanding his
union with the Logos. For it is definitely said (Luke 2 :
52) that "Jesus increased in wisdom and stature" — wisdom
being a development of mind, as stature of body. No
reason is apparent why the man Jesus, in his human nature,
and human capacities, shall not advance in growth and de
velopment forever. This is the normal law of the human
mind : why should the human mind of Jesus form an ex
ception ?
2. The law of this union of the human with the divine
seems obviously to provide for separate and distinct activi
ties and relations. It was such that Jesus could be tempted
by Satan as other men can be by virtue of their nature and
relations. "God can not be tempted with evil" but man
can be. Jesus continued to be in so full a sense human that
he too could be tempted by Satan.
Jesus, being human, naturally gave himself to prayer ;
manifestly prayed naturally, and not for mere form's sake ;
not for mere example's sake. We can not safely assume
that there was in his case no inherent pertinence, no con
sciously felt want in his soul moving him to prayer.
Jesus, being human, could feel the need of the sympathiz
ing prayer and moral support of his disciples: "What!
could ye not watch with me one hour"?
Being human, he could "learn obedience by the things
which he suffered" — a discipline in virtue which surely con
templates what was human in his nature, not what was
divine. Being human, he could be sorely burdened by the very
anticipation of dreadful suffering — a fact which we can not
conceive to exist with reference to his divine nature.
Now, one of the blessed results of all these thoroughly
normal activities of his human soul is that he can have a
perfect sympathy wilh his people as one tempted in all
points as they are. Temptations acting upon a human soul
that has no frailties, no human weaknesses, no accessible
points (inlets, shall we call them?), points of exposure —

IN THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 153
become virtually no temptations at all. We are not to
think of Jesus as lifted above the normal force of tempta
tion by his mysterious union with the divine. Whatever
this was during his earthly life, it certainly did not make
him less human than his people are.
3. Over against this law of the human stands analogously
the law of the divine ; for under it the Logos was not the
less divine because of the union with the man Jesus. As
divine "he needed not that any should testify of man, for he
knew what was in man" (John 2: 25). As divine he
wrought miracles, not in another's name but in his own ;
not by calling in some other divine power, but by exercising
that which was legitimately and personally his own.
4. In accordance with this doctrine the spoken words of
Christ might be, and indeed seem actually to have been,
sometimes those of his human mind only, and sometimes
those of his divine only; while in some cases there are no
decisive indications of the sole action of either.  To the
divine side of his being, we must naturally ascribe these
sayings: "I and my Father are one" (John 10: 30);
" Before Abraham was I am " (John 8 : 58) ; " He that
hath seen me hath seen the Father " (John 14 : 9) ;
" Glorify thou me with the glory which I had with thee
before the world was" (John 17: 5).  To the human side
we may in general attribute his prayers and those expres
sions which indicate trouble, anguish, foreboding anticipa
tion : e. g., "Now is my soul troubled, and what shall I
say? Father, save me from this hour?" (John 12: 27).
"My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death" (Matt.
26: 38). Here, too, belong apparently the words — "Of
that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels that
are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father" (Mark
13: 32).
As to the essential nature of this union of the divine with
the human, what shall we say ? The wisest thing to say is
to confess our absolute ignorance. When we have thoroughly
fathomed the great problems of life; when we have learned
every thing pertaining to the union of our own body and
soul (a matter lying so close to our own consciousness that
it would seem we might know it perfectly) ; when we have
taken some of these first lessons in this general subject, we
may, with the more propriety, assume that we ought to
comprehend the union of the divine with the human in the
person of Christ.  It is very manifest that we have no

154 RELATION OF THE HUMAN TO THE DIVINE
powers of intuition with which to penetrate to the inner
depths of this subject. Equally is it plain that we have no
helpful analogies to furnish illustrations, and so give us some
approximations toward this reality. Apparently the near
est analogue — the case which comes nearest to being an
analogy — is the relation of the Holy Ghost to the human
soul when he dwells within it in his fullness. This imper
fect analogy may serve to illustrate the morally uplifting
power upon the human soul of such a union. It may also
show that this union need not in anywise supersede the moral
activities of the human nature, but may leave them to their
fullest normal action and responsibility. • So far this analogy
may aid us ; but it can not be assumed to exhaust the
union involved in the incarnation. True, the Holy Spirit
was given to Jesus without measure (John 3 : 34) but the
Logos made flesh and dwelling among us, means more, and
involves a more vital, fixed, all-pervading relation than this.
From the points thus far made it is pertinent to infer :
1. That the presence of mystery in the incarnation is no
proof whatever against the fact itself. To such beings as
we are the incarnation ougM to be a mystery and should be
presumed to be. If true, the elements of its nature must,
by the very necessities of the case, be a great deep, which
our short line can by no means fathom.
2. In a case of this sort, mystery is utterly far from be
ing absurdity. Before you can reasonably affirm a uuion
between the divine Logos and the man Jesus to be an ab
surdity, you must comprehend all the possibilities of be
ing and of essential union between one being and another,
and so be able to declare rationally that this case comes
not within those possibilities.  But this supposes that
your knowledge as to what is possible in the mutual rela
tions of being is absolutely infinite. In other words, before
you can affirm this union — the incarnation — to be absurd,
your knowledge must be equal to God's. To comprehend
all the possibilities of essential union between two beings,
and to comprehend also all the incompatibilities, you must
know all that God knows. For if there should be a sphere
of possibilities which your little mind has not perfectly
mastered so as to know it all, then in that sphere there may
be this particular union of the divine with the human which
we call the incarnation, and you can not know but it is
there actually and legitimately.
Years ago, in argument with an atheist, some one said —

IN THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 155
You will need to be yourself as wise and as all-knowing as
God before you can safely affirm that there is no God. For
if your knowledge does not compass and comprehend the en
tire universe, then in the part you have never searched out,
there may be God. If you have not fathomed all the
depths of the agencies and powers which have created and
upheld the universe of matter and of mind, then beyond
your depth of search, there may be the great and mighty
God !  So of this mysterious union of the divine with the
human in the incarnation. You must needs have compre
hended all the possibilities and also all the incompatibilities
of being before you "are competent to affirm the incarnation
to be an absurdity. None but God can know that this
union is impossible.  In the light of reason, therefore,
there is not the least occasion to deny or repudiate the in
carnation. It is supreme folly to object against it that Jesus
offers prayer, or is tempted, or has human sensibilities, or
speaks of himself as not knowing the day of the final judg
ment. On the other hand, there is no rational ground of
objection against those words of his in which we recognize a
voice divine, a consciousness of being equal with God. It
is sheer folly which claims that these unlike voices, coming
through the same human lips, are self-contradictory. Until
we are capable of disproving the possibility of a real incar
nation of God in human flesh, it is vain for us to object, be
cause at one time that voice speaks for the divine and at
another for the human, in the one mysterious person of
Jesus Christ.
Over against such folly, let us rather discard the fallacies
and presumptions of human pride, and take our place
humbly at the feet of infinite wisdom and love, for so shall
we find ample occasion to glory in the incarnation as giving
us a perfect Bedeemer — a Redeemer, on the one hand,
"mighty to save" — "able to save to the uttermost all that
come to God through him ; " and on the other, a Redeemer
equally exhaustless in his sympathies; one who naturally
careth for us because he is no stranger to our infirmities —
no stranger to our temptations, to our toils and trials ; a
stranger to none of the ills flesh is heir to — to none of the
burdens his people have to bear. It is our privilege to
glory in the Great Incarnate One as our elder brother, who
will never disown his human relationships ; will never rise
too high in the exaltation of heavenly glory to recognize his
human brethren ; will never cease to own them, to love

156 RELATION OF THE HUMAN TO THE DIVINE.
them, to make them welcome to his own mansions ; to intro
duce them into the glorious hierarchies of the heavenly
world whose honors lie at his feet; will never weary of lead
ing them up the ascending paths of everlasting progress iii
knowledge, purity, love and service. Oh, to have such a
divine-human Redeemer; to know him as our own, and to
be known of him as his ! With what words shall we set forth
the wisdom and the love which gave birth to this wonderful
incarnation ! How do its great and deep mysteries open out
into a realm of ineffable, unfathomable glories !

APPENDIX B.

ON APOSTASY AND SAINTS' PERSEVERANCE:
Treating of the apparent contrariety between the warnings of
Scripture against apostasy as fatal, and the promises that
guarantee the final salvation of all true converts.
The delicate discrimination and careful statements requisite
for the proper adjustment of these two gospel truths, and
the diversity of views that have been held respecting them,
seem to justify a more extended discussion than the limits
of the commentary proper (on Heb. 6 : 1-9) could allow.
The doctrine held in my notes and assumed to be taught
in the Scriptures presupposes that there is no real contra
riety, no absolute incompatibility between these two posi
tions; on the one hand, warnings against apostasy as fatal
to the soul ; on the other, the final salvation of all the really
converted, made certain by divine promise.
1. Expanding more fully the teaching of Scripture on
these two points, we may take as specimen passages, teach
ing the final perseverance of all true converts — the one
already quoted in the notes from John 10: 27-29: "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 one pluck them out of my hand. My
Father, who gave them to me, is greater than all ; and none
is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand."  Also,
"This is the Father's will who hath sent me, that of all
whom he hath given me, I should lose nothing, but should
raise it up again at the last day." "And this is the will
of him that sent me, that every one that seeth the Son, and
believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise
him up at the last day" (John 6: 39, 40).  It is well to
bear in mind that these words come to us from the highest
possible authority — that of Jesus Christ himself. It must
certainly be assumed that he knows; and equally, that he can
(157}

158 ON APOSTASY AND SAINTS' PERSEVERANCE.
not mislead his people.  Moreover, the statements are
entirely explicit. No declarations could be framed in lan
guage more definite, positive, unmistakable.
Next the testimony of Paul: " Whom he did foreknow,
he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of
his Son; whom he did predestinate, them he also called;
whom he called, them he also justified; whom he justified,
them he also glorified" (Rom. 8: 29, 30). "Who shall
separate us from the love of Christ? . . . For I am
persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels, nor princi
palities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
. . shall be able to separate us from the love of God,
which is in Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom. 8 : 35-39).  Also
(Phil. 1 : 6) — " Being confident of this very thing, that he
who hath begun a good work in you, will perform it until
the day of Jesus Christ." This shows where his confidence
as to the perseverance of the saints lay.  Note also John's
testimony : " They went out from us, but they were not of
us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with
us : but they went out, that they might be manifest that they
were not all of us" (1 John 2 : 19). This is John's explana
tion of those cases of apparent apostasy which seem to mili
tate against the perseverance of all the saints.  We have
this also from John (1 John 3 : 9) : " Whosoever is born of
God doth not commit sin ; for his seed (the germ of the new
birth) remaineth in him: and he can not sin, because he is
born of God ; " which must be construed to mean at the very
least — can not sin fatally, unto final perdition. This pas
sage must be interpreted in harmony with the declaration
made in this context: "Whosoever sinneth hath not seen
him, neither known him" (v. 6). This of course must mean
such sin as is with the whole heart — sin of such sort as deter
mines a man's character.
We also read from Jude (v. 24) : " Now unto him wlu> is
able to Iceep you from falling, and to present you faultless
before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy," etc.
Paul has the same word "able" in a like connection (Rom.
16: 25). It is certainly significant that apostles held so
manifestly and with such positive assurance that Jesus is
able to keep his saints from falling fatally, for the ability is in the
ultimate result, the test point. His willingness, his real love,
and his interest in keeping them, it were cruel and unpar
donable to doubt.  Peter speaks of Christians as being.
"kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation,

ON APOSTASY AND SAINTS' PERSEVERANCE. 159
ready to be revealed in the last time" (1 Peter 1: 5).

Thus all the apostolic writers concur in the same sentiments
and essentially in the same phraseology on this point. 
Pertinent are the words of our Lord (Matt. 24 : 24) : " There
shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show
great signs and wonders, insomuch that, if it were possible,
they shall deceive the very elect." Does not this assume
that deceiving the very elect, at least to an extent that
would be fatal, is not possible f
Over against these passages and seeming to indicate that
felling away is contingent and possible — not to say, actual —
are (Ezek. 3 : 20) : ' ' When a righteous man doth turn from
his righteousness, and commit iniquity, he shall die : because
thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sins,
and his righteousness which he hath done shall be no more
remembered." To the same purport is Ezek. 18: 24, 26:
"When the righteous turneth away from his righteousness,
and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the
abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live ? All
his righteousness that he hath done shall not be remem
bered : in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin
that he hath sinned, in them shall he die."  "When a
righteous man turneth away from his righteousness and com
mitteth iniquity, and dieth in them, for his iniquity that he
hath done shall he die."  The same may be seen Ezek.
33: 12, 13, 18.  The reader will notice that all these
passages are hypothetic; "If a righteous man should turn,"
or when the righteous doth turn — which means: Jf he should.
None of them directly affirm that a truly righteous man
does in fact turn back to utter sinning. They do squarely
affirm that, if he should, he would die in his sins. So in our
passage (Heb. 6 : 4-6) : "If they shall fall away," all is over
with them ; it is impossible to renew them again. Yet this
falls short of affirming that any one does apostatize utterly
from the true Christian state.
Again (2 Peter 2 : 20-22) : "For if after they have escaped
the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord
and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein
and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the
beginning. For it had been better for them not to have
known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known
it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
But it is happened to them according to the old proverb,
The dog has turned to his vomit again, and, The sow that was

160 ON APOSTASY AND SAINTS' PERSEVERANCE.
washed to her wallowing in the mire."  This also is hypo
thetical: "if they are again entangled therein and over
come."  Again, Paul writing to Timothy (2 Ep. 2: 18,
19) says of certain false teachers: "They overthrow the
faith of some." But this may mean only their theoretical
faith — their faith considered as an opinion — e. g., their belief
in a resurrection ; for he adds : " Nevertheless, the founda
tion of God standeth sure, having this seal : the Lord know
eth them that are his ; " and, " Let every one that nameth
the name of Christ depart from iniquity."  Here are two
points named : (1) That the Lord knoweth his own, and
therefore will have them in his care: (2) On the other hand,
let those who have taken his name be sure they depart from
all iniquity, shunning sin as fatal, damning, and. putting
their own most earnest and watchful vigilance into the same
line with the watchful care of God over them.
Passages that give warnings against apostasy and urge
unto watchfulness and prayer appear in abundance, and
show plainly that the personal endeavor of the Christian is
vital to his ultimate salvation, but they are by no means
inconsistent with the fact that God by his Spirit, word, and
providence will quicken, sustain and maintain this personal
endeavor so that it shall result in every real Christian's being
"kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation."
The above cited passages are grouped here to present the
general testimony of scripture on both sides of this question —
to show on the one hand how the promises of God, and on the
other hand the warnings of God are made to bear in a prac
tical way toward the salvation of his people.
It can not escape the notice of the careful reader that —
as bearing upon the direct question, Will all true saints be
finally saved f — -the affirmative testimony is positive, explicit,
and unqualified; while the negative testimony is hypothet
ical, inferential; — to this effect: If they do not watch, and
pray, and trust, they will not be saved; If they fall away
they are lost. But this is not the same as to say that any
one of them will fall away, and so will be lost. On the
other hand, the affirmative statements do not qualify them
selves by saying, All the saints will be finally saved if God
should prove himself able to accomplish it ; if he should suc
ceed in securing the necessary watchfulness, faith, prayer ;
but they put their affirmation in the most unqualified form.
Now, putting these two very different forms of statement
one over against the other, there would seem to be no room

ON APOSTASY AND SAINTS' PERSEVERANCE. 161
for doubt as to the question of ultimate fact.  But our
present discussion proposes to bear mainly upon obviating
the difficulties and unfolding the true philosophy of the
teachings of Scripture on this subject. Hence I proceed to
remark —
2. The difficulties experienced in defining the theory of
this subject hinge around the following points: Warnings
against any sin whatever assume that sin to be possible,
not only in theory, but in fact; The moral force of warn
ings against apostasy is broken if it be held that, after true
conversion, no convert will be left to sin unto fatal apos
tasy ; The Scriptures contain numerous warnings which im
ply real danger, and seem to assume that the sin of fatal
apostasy is really contingent— is one that may be committed,
and the consequent ruin, one that may be incurred.  These
things are held to be incompatible with a moral certainty
of the final salvation of all who have once been truly born
again. 3. In many minds these difficulties will be obviated (per
haps they ought to be in all minds) by due regard to the
following considerations :
(1.) According to the Scriptures, the final salvation of
all Christ's real children becomes certain, not by virtue of
any thing in the nature of regeneration — i. e„, not by means
of any thing inherent in the essence of conversion ; not by
virtue of the convert's own moral strength, considered apart
from God's strength and help granted to him; not by the
force of his own will; not by the power of gospel motive,
in itself considered — but, ultimately and only, through the
help promised and given of God : ' ' Kept by the power of
God, through faith, unto salvation;'' "None shall be able
to pluck them out of my hand."
(2.) Here we have just two questions that are really vital,
and, it would seem, should be decisive — viz. : (a) Has Jesus
promised to sustain, keep, and finally save all truly con
verted souls?  (6) If so, is he able to fulfill this promise
without violence to the freedom of human agents ? Are his
resources of power, through his truth, his providence, but,
most of all, through his Spirit, equal to this undertaking,
adequate to all possible emergencies?  These are entirely
vital points. Around these the whole question hinges. If
the Scriptures answer these points affirmatively, the whole
question is settled.
On the first of these points — viz. , the fact of divine prom-

162 ON APOSTASY AND SAINTS' PERSEVERANCE.
ise — it would seem there can be no room for doubt. The
declarations, as we have seen, are entirely definite, explicit,
positive, and could not be made more so. If they do not
involve the final salvation of the class described, no state
ments can be made that would.
On the second, we reach the very gist of the subject when
we thoroughly comprehend this fact — viz., that the work
of the Divine Spirit never interferes with human freedom, and
yet has divine power — a power always equal to the work it
undertakes to do.  It may be admitted that we could not
know by any intuition that in every actual case of a true
convert the resources of the Spirit are equal to these results
if God's promise had not been put in such form as must imply
it. But since it has been given in such form as imphes it,
we are fully authorized to assume that his power is equal to
any demand upon it for this result. And we surely know,
from consciousness and from the Scriptures, that the action
of the Divine Spirit on human souls is in harmony, and
never in conflict, with free agency and with man's free ac
countability. 3. It is not strange that God should act upon the souls
of his converted children in these two lines of influence —
viz. : (a) Upon their hopes, through rich promise ; (b) Upon
their fears, through warnings against apostasy. Upon their
hopes, for they often sadly need this assurance of his love
and of his gracious help ; upon their fears, for their own
utmost vigilance must be secured and kept in exercise, their
own constant endeavors, their own watchfulness, prayer,
and faith in God.  Doubtless the interworking of these
two lines of influence — appeals to hope and appeals to fear —
are delicate and critical, and require a careful adjustment of
promise and warning; but this should not militate against
the fact that both these influences are provided for in the
plan of God, and are both brought in the Scriptures to bear
on the Christian heart. Both are involved in the ministra
tion of one and the same Divine Spirit. He uses each and
both as means for securing the perseverance of the saints.
It may be well to consider that warnings against danger
are one of the necessary and natural means of protecting
moral agents against that danger, and so are among the
necessary means of fulfilling the promise of their ultimate
salvation. To omit warnings against danger because divine
promise has pledged final victory, would be extremest folly.
For us to ask it would be equivalent to proposing to the

ON APOSTASY AND SAIKTS' PERSEVERANCE. 163
Almighty — not to say, demanding of him — that he save his
people without any activities or agencies of their own —
without their own prayer, or faith, or watchfulness. Let
us remember that God's plan contemplates dealing with
free moral agents, and proposes to save them only as such
agents — i. e. , by keeping alive their faith and prayer and
watchful endeavor. So that the gist of our problem is
simply this : Is it in the power of the Infinite God to keep
alive this faith, prayer, and watchfulness of his people to
such a degree as will insure their ultimate salvation? Can
He apply this power of his Spirit behind and back of the
appropriate Christian effort, so as to keep alive those holy
impulses, and thus preserve truly converted souls from fall
ing fatally?  On this point we must say: His promises
plainly indicate that, in his view, he can. He would not
nave promised if he had foreseen that he could not per
form. 4. The Scriptures speak to us usually in popular rather
than in strictly metaphysical language and style. The rea
son of this we probably find in the fact that the masses are
best reached and influenced by popular rather than by met
aphysical address. Hence it comes to pass that the Script
ures warn Christians against falling, as if there were real
danger; while, on the other hand, they promise God's pro
tecting power, as if all dangers were to be certainly overcome
in the end. This is the popular way of putting warnings,
and also of presenting promises.  But when we put on
our metaphysical spectacles we see that, in one point of
view, there is real danger, and, in another point of view,
there is no danger at all. There is danger, if you look
only at the great power of temptation, the arts of Satan,
the moral weakness, the unsanctified appetites, loves, im
pulses, mental associations of the feeble convert.  But,
over against this, there is no danger, if you look at the
pledged help of Almighty God, the wonderful resources of
his Spirit, coupled with the exhaustless appliances of his
providence — no danger, when you ask if he will certainly
fulfill his promises; if he is surely able to keep his saints
from falling; if you may be confident that "he who hath
begun a good work will perform it unto the day of Christ
Jesus."  Or putting it in yet other phrase: On the side
of man there is real freedom, and consequently there will
be just what we fitly call contingency — that play of activi
ties and that possibility of varying results which come of

164 ON APOSTASY AND SAINTS' PERSEVERANCE.
free moral action. And yet, on the side of God there is
certainty as to the final result, else he could not promise ;
for there is moral certainty that he is able to save to the
uttermost all whom he has promised to save, and there is
also a moral certainty that he is willing to save ; or to put
the whole case more comprehensively: There is no lack of
moral power on God's part to work upon the free moral
activities, so as to secure in the end that moral result which
he has purposed and promised to secure.  The outcome
of this interworking of divine with human agencies is that
God is able to determine, and therefore can fitly promise, a
given result — this result involving the free moral agencies
of man, yet without infringing upon man's moral responsi
bility, without overriding it, or in any wise dishonoring
it. Else it were in vain for God to foretell future events
in prophecy, and at the same time depend upon the free
moral action of men to bring those events to pass. " The
Son of man goeth as it was determined; but woe to that
man by whom the Son of man is betrayed ! It had been
good for that man if he had never been born." For the
fact that his deed was foreknown and fore-indicated of God
could neither abate from his freedom nor lessen his guilt !
5. The warnings of Scripture against apostasy are made
the more effective by the solemn affirmation in our passage
(Heb. 6 : 4-6) that it is impossible to reclaim one who faDs
away after having been fully enlightened and really con
verted. Such a warning ought to have tremendous power !
Oh, how it ought to thrill through and through the souls
of men who are tempted to apostatize after having seen and
known the glorious things of the gospel !
6. This subject ought not to be dismissed without the re
mark that the doctrine of saints' perseverance is capable of
being abused. It may be used wisely aud well ; but doubt
less also it has sometimes been abused, and may be again.
When a professed Christian says to himself — " Once a Chris
tian, always a Christian;" I made my salvation forever sure
when I was converted, and I can go in the strength of that
assurance the rest of my days — without watchfulness, with
out fear of falling, without much, if any, prayer ; with lit
tle, if any, real endeavor to live and labor for Christ — he is
manifestly on the high road to perdition. Who has guaran
teed the soundness of his conversion? How does he know
that he is one of Christ's sheep? The test given by the
Good Shepherd himself is — " My sheep hear my voice, and

ON APOSTASY AND SAINTS' PERSEVERANCE. 165
I know them, and they follow me;" but this man does nei
ther.  Jesus said, " He that keepeth my commandments,
he it is that loveth me ; " and one of his first commandments
is — " Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation."
"Abide in me, and I in you."  The professed Christian
who thinks he honors the promise of final salvation by rest
ing upon it, without in any true sense fulfilling the condi
tions of prayer, watchfulness, obedience to Christ — abiding
in him, and living a hfe of unceasing trust in him — abuses
the divine promise ; misconstrues and misapplies it, and has
nothing better to expect, in his way of living, than final
ruin. Jesus will be compelled at the last to declare to him
the awful truth — "I never knew you I"

APPENDIX C.

THE PREMILLENNIAL ADVENT DOCTRINE.
[This doctrine is discussed here, partly to bring out more fully the
bearing of our epistle (8: 6-13 and 12: 26-28) upon it, and partly
because the doctrine is rife, aggressive and therefore challenges dis
cussion ; also, because it is believed to be unscriptural, false and
pernicious.] The millennium is the thousand year-period (of Eev. 20 :
1-6) in which Christ is supposed to conquer the world and
hold it under his sway — the era of his supreme reign upon
the earth and of fulfilled prophecy as to the world's conver
sion. " Premillennial Advent" means simply that Christ comes
in visible person for a visible reign with his risen saints at
tlie beginning of this thousand years ; not at or after its
close ; and moreover, not to find the world converted, but to
convert it — at least, that portion which he does not destroy
in the glorious brightness of his coming.
Hence " Premillennia] Advent " carries with itself these
collateral points of belief : viz., the gospel dispensation in
augurated by the gift of the Holy Ghost and under Christ's
command to evangelize the nations, will not convert the world,
and Christ never expected it would. It has failed hitherto ;
must fail to the end : was never any thing but a waiting
(not a working) dispensation, its one supreme Christian duty
being to pray and wait for Christ's visible coming to evan
gelize the nations. Also, that this coming will develop new
agencies and powers, specially in the line of desolating
judgments upon the wicked ; of appalling majesty and
splendor ; and of the co-operative work of the risen, immor
tal saints, ruling and reigning with Christ. These are the
cardinal points of the system ; to these I propose to restrict
the present discussion.
There are many minor points, held variously and vaguely,

THE PREMILLENNIAL ADVENT DOCTRINE. 167
too vaguely to justify the waste of time inevitable to their
discussion ; e. g. , as to the wicked on the earth at Christ's
coming — how many and who are to be destroyed, and who
are to survive to be subsequently converted : as to the raised
saints, whether all the sainted dead, or only a part, and
what part. As to the new converts — whether to be made
at once immortal like the raised saints, or left (as now) in
their mortality ; as to the incompatibility of adjusting this
one planet to the natures and wants of both mortals and
immortals — how this incompatibility is to be obviated ; how
the laws of the heavenly world are to be mixed up with the
laws of this earthly world.  All these questions it were
vain to ask, for a scheme born of fiction and baseless of fact
should not be expected to concern itself with either defin
ing or proving such points. Sober-thinking men have in
deed a right to demand definite answers to these questions,
for if the premillennial scheme be true, all these questions
must be met. It must be very reasonable to withhold con
fidence from a scheme which encounters not only such
shadowy indefiniteness, but such obstinate incompatibilities.
Passing, however, all these minor points, we come to the
main points as above presented — viz.:
Christ's next coming is to be before the millennium ; for
the purpose of converting the world; bringing with him
some (or all) of the righteous dead, raised to life immortal
and to wield evangelistic forces with success never known
before. Against this scheme, I maintain :
I. It is extra-scriptural, and therefore necessarily built on
misinterpretation and perversion of scripture, and upon
human fancy. By " extra-scriptural" I mean that it lacks
scriptural authority at every point where, if true, it ought
to have it.
To make this statement definite and to verify it, I spec
ify three general heads :
1. It lacks authority in the only passage which speaks
of the millennium and gives us the scenes at its opening.
2. It lacks authority in Old Testament prophecy.
3. It lacks authority in the teachings of Christ.
1. It lacks authority in the only passage which speaks
of the millennium and gives the events at its opening, viz. ,
Rev. 20 : 1-6.  Let it be well considered that if the sys
tem is taught in the scriptures it should be here, this being
the only passage which even names the millennium or gives

168 THE PREMILLENNIAL ADVENT DOCTRINE.
its opening events. Here ought to be (if true) the glori
ous coming of the Son of God, breaking through the
heavens ; here, the risen bodies of saints, seen bursting open
their graves ; here, the evangelistic work which they are to
do with such surpassing power.
This is the passage:
" And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of
the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold
on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and
bound him a thousand years, and cast him into the bottomless pit,
and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the
nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and
after that he must be loosed a little season. And I saw thrones, and
they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them : and 1 saw
the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and
for the word of God, and which had not worshiped the beast,
neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their fore
heads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a
thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the
thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed
and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the
second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of
Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years." — Rev. 20 : 1-6.
Now since these six verses have to bear the weight of
this whole premillennial system, they ought to be strong;
ought to be explicit, outspoken, unambiguous, unmistaka
ble. What are the facts?
(1) Christ's visible, personal coming is not here — not a
word of it. The revelator saw no such coming at the
opening of the millennial period. He tells us what he did
see, viz., a mighty angel coming down from heaven with a
great chain in his hand; also the old serpent; but not a
hint that he saw the glorious Son of God bursting through
the heavens.
Here my argument is that if such a visible coming at
this precise point were to become a fact, it was entirely too
great and vital to be omitted in this foreshowing of the
fact. Is it credible that John should see the mighty angel
and the old serpent, and yet not see the Son of God him
self — beyond all comparison the most august spectacle of
the entire scene — the most august indeed in its nature
which the world was ever to see?  After the thousand
years had passed — after observe; not before — John did "sec
a great white throne and Him that sat on it, whose pres
ence he dare not attempt to describe save by its effects — ¦

THE PREMILLENNIAL ADVENT DOCTRINE. 169
so majestic that "from his face the earth and the heavens
fled away, and there was found no place for them."
Plainly it is a capital lack in the scripture testimony
that the only passage which speaks of the things to be seen
at the opening of the millennium says not a word of
Christ's visible coming then.
(2) Next, what does this standard passage say of the
raised bodies of the sainted dead ?  It must be a very easy
thing to show in vision the risen bodies of the martyrs. Of
course, as compared with souls, bodies are very visible objects
— very prominent, and one would suppose quite unmistak
able. Did John see any risen bodies? Not at all. He
says he "saw the souls" of the martyrs — a fact which vir
tually excludes the idea of seeing risen bodies. How could
he have seen their souls if those souls had been imprisoned
in material bodies? Moreover, when the real resurrection
was reached — after the millennium, John did see rising bod
ies: " The sea gave up the dead which were in it" (v. 13).
 On this point, therefore, the testimony is more than
merely wanting. It is squarely hostile — not to say fatal.
(3) But perhaps the third point of the system — doing
evangelistic work in the millennial world — will be better
sustained.  Did the revelator see them going all abroad
every- where, preaching the gospel; pushing evangelistic
work to the ends of the earth? He says no such thing.
He says only that " they lived and reigned with Christ a
thousand years." This is very far from saying definitely
that they were fulfilling the great commission : " Go ye into
all the world and preach the gospel to every creature." In
fact, the statement looks more like rest than like labor;
more like repose after victory than the struggle and conflict
of battle.
Thus we see that on each and every fundamental point
of this system, this standard passage — the only one which
speaks of the millennium by name — altogether breaks down.
Where we ought to find statements, clear, definite, decisive
— we find absolutely nothing of the sort. It would have
been exceedingly easy for John to have said: "I saw the
glorious Son of God coming in the clouds of heaven" — if
it had been so; "I saw the risen bodies of the martyred
dead" — if this had been the fact; "I saw those risen saints
sallying forth, going all abroad with the gospel to evangelize
the nations ; " but he does not say this at all.
Now it is perhaps barely possible that the outlines of the

170 THE PREMILLENNIAL ADVENT DOCTRINE.
great gospel dispensation — the grand scheme of God which
is to be the consummation of the world's redemption — might
be compressed within six verses ; but I think we may de
mand that, if so, those verses should give the salient points of
the system; should at least say the things claimed to be the
chief and distinctive elements of the scheme, and state them
intelligibly and somewhat explicitly, so that the passage,
fairly interpreted, shall not break down on absolutely every
distinctive and important point.
2. It lacks authority in Old Testament Prophecy.  Let
it be remembered carefully, that the premillennial scheme
makes these points vital and distinctive; viz., Two gospel
dispensations instead of one; these two entirely, not to say
totally, diverse in character and distinct in time, separated
indeed by an event too stupendous and momentous to be
omitted in prophecy; viz., the visible coming of the Lord
down from the upper heavens.  Now my argument here
is : This particular scheme is extra-scriptural in that it lacks
authority in Old Testament prophecy. This large body of
prophecy gives not a hint of two gospel dispensations. It very
minutely describes one, worked by the power of truth and
the presence of the Holy Spirit — the gospel preached by
Jesus and by his people. Before his Jewish persecutors
Paul vindicated himself for preaching the gospel to Gentiles
by appealing to their own prophets as foretelling the very
thing he was doing. [See Acts 26: 17-23 and Rom. 15:
8-12J. But Hebrew prophecy, having set forth this one
gospel dispensation, is silent as to any other. Especially it
gives not a hint of this premillennial coming of the Son of
God from the heavens to open a new gospel age; not a hint
of risen saints, made immortal, to become its instrumental
forces. On all these vital points of the system, its pages are
silent as the grave.
That the old prophets should describe the gospel scheme
so fully and minutely, devoting to it scores of chapters, and
yet should pass unnoticed its most striking, salient, dis
tinctive features, is incredible. That they tell us so emphat
ically that the flrst gospel age, worked by God's truth and
Spirit, is to be absolutely, gloriously successful (when
according to the premillennial scheme it is not) is a fact to
be specially noticed.
3. The scheme lacks authority in the teachings of Christ.
Let it be well kept in mind that, if this premillennial
gospel scheme be true, it should appear very distinctly in

THE PREMILLENNIAL ADVENT DOCTRINE. 171
Christ's teachings. We reasonably depend on him to give
us the great elements of the gospel scheme.
But notice — as to the time of opening his gospel reign,
Christ never taught that (instead of being then " near at
hand," "the time fulfilled" Mark 1: 15) it was at least
eighteen hundred years in the remote future. This the
premillennarian scheme affirms ; Christ did not. He said no
word that can possibly admit such a delay in the setting up
of his gospel kingdom.
As to its character; Christ never taught that it would
come "with observation" (Luke 17: 20, 21) — with such
astounding splendor that men on every side would shout —
" Lo ! here," or " Lo ! there." Christ never taught that his
kingdom should be in these respects "of this world" (John
18 : 36) like other human kingdoms, resting upon its
visible display and imposing external magnificence.
As to its agencies and working forces, Christ never spake
disparagingly of gospel truth ; never hinted that witnessing
to the truth was not likely to prove availmg and was not
among his special objects (John 18: 37).  And particu
larly, he never taught that the Holy Ghost would be
inadequate to reprove the world of sin, of righteousness and
of judgment (John 16 : 8-11), nor that it would be "expe
dient" for himself to return to the world bodily (John 16:
7) for a visible reign, to supersede the invisible Spirit, the
latter having been proved quite insufficient to convert the
world. Christ never told his disciples that the dispensation of the
Spirit was to be merely provisional, preliminary to another
mightier and better, and therefore transient (John 14 : 16).
 Christ never hinted that his promised presence by his
Spirit with his missionary disciples to the end of the world
(Matt. 28 : 20) would be unsatisfactory, insufficient for their
spiritual support and for their glorious success in preaching
the gospel to every creature. He never intimated that
their going forth into all the world at his command to
preach his gospel to every creature was only a tentative
experiment, never on his part designed or expected to be
successful, but to be superseded by a totally different plan
of operation and by entirely new working forces.  He
never taught that they would need for their complete
success to have this gospel treasure, not in earthly but in
heavenly vessels (2 Cor. 4 : 7) ; — never hinted that it was
a mistake to suppose (as Paul did) that the Lord was

172 THE PREMILLENNIAL ADVENT DOCTRINE.
pleased with weak human vessels because the excellency of
his own power shone through them the more brightly. 
Yet again: Christ never taught that sinners, refusing to
hear Moses and the prophets, would be readily persuaded
when men should rise from the dead to preach to them the
gospel (Luke 16: 31).  Comprehensively put: Christ
never said or suggested that the gospel dispensation, inaug
urated then, was to be not for working but for waiting; not
for evangelizing the world by any means, but rather to
reveal its own impotence and so prepare the way for his
own visible reign in all subduing majesty.
Now obviously, Christ might have said all these things
(which he did not say), and so might have taught all the
vital points of the premillennial scheme — if he had really
believed in them — that is — if this had been his scheme. It
is unfortunate for this scheme that it should lack precisely
the support which, if it had been Christ's, he should and
would have given it. It ought to be with all sensible men
a grave question, how this scheme can support itself, miss
ing as it does the decisive testimony which Jesus Christ
only is supremely competent to give.
II. The premillennial scheme is not only extra-scriptural,
(as above shown) ; it is also anti-scriptural, and therefore can
not possibly be true.  To justify this statement I make
the following points :
1. It squarely confronts and overrides the teachings of Jesus
Christ. 2. It misinterprets Old Testament prophecy.
3. It is in direct collision with the doctrine of the Epistle to
the Hebrews.
1. As to the teachings of Jesus. It confronts and over
rides them in these several respects :
(1) The nature of his kingdom. Jesus said : " My king
dom is not of this world." The premillennial doctrine as
sumes that it is — is even to the extent of absorbing all
civil power.
Jesus said: "The kingdom of God cometh not with ob
servation:" the premillennial doctrine makes utmost account
of its coming witli observation — as truly external as earthly
kingdom can be ; gloriously visible ; filling the mortal eye
and impressing men with its outward splendor and majesty.
Jesus taught that the chief working forces of his king
dom are truth and the divine Spirit. The premillennial
brethren insist that these forces are inadequate to convert

THE PREMILLENNIAL ADVENT DOCTRINE. 173
the world; have proved themselves to be so for 1800 years;
that the coming dispensation will bring in new and far
greater forces — in the glorious majesty and appalling
splendors of Christ's visible person and royal state — coupled
with overwhelming judgments.
(2) It contravenes and even squarely reverses what Jesus
said as to the relative efficiency of his own visible presence
on the one hand, and of the Spirit's invisible presence on
the other. Jesus said : " It is expedient for you that I go
away and the Comforter come." The premillennial doctrine
proclaims: It is expedient that Christ should return to
the earth and manifest himself again in his visible person.
 Jesus said : " Greater works than these which I have
done shall ye do, because I go to the Father " (John 14 :
12) and send down the Spirit; but the premillennial
brethren say: "The greater works" are to be done, not
by the Spirit in the personal absence of Christ, but by
Christ in his personal presence.  In this point the pre
millennial doctrine makes a square issue with Jesus Christ,
denying what he affirms, and affirming what he denies —
and this, be it observed, on a point which bears vitally
upon the honor due to the Spirit of God by virtue of his
efficiency and power.
Such dishonor done to the Spirit of God is unutterably
revolting, and ought of itself to seal the condemnation of
this system of doctrine forever.  1 do not say that all
the advocates of this system mean this or even see it ; I
hope they do not. But the system means it — implies it ; we
might even say — must mean this, and make it fundamental.
The very animus of the system is : The present gospel dis
pensation, a failure ; a better one demanded ; the higher,
the all-conquering forces of this better one lie in the visible
Christ instead of the invisible Spirit.  Allow me here to
introduce a noteworthy sentence from Rev. J. C. Ryle
("Expository Thoughts }1 on Matt. 24) : "Let us learn to
moderate our expectations from any existing machinery in the
church of Christ, and we shall be spared much disappoint
ment." If the words "existing machinery" represent truth
fully* the ground of expectation for spiritual fruits in the
case of the^evangelical church, they mean the truth and the
Spirit of^God. If this be not their meaning, they slander
every true gospel laborer. Mr. Ryle will thank us for re
jecting the interpretation which makes them a slander.
But what shall we say of the doctrine that the great moral

174 THE PREMILLENNIAL ADVENT DOCTRINE.
forces of the New Testament are not to be relied on to
convert the world ?
(3) Yet again : Jesus taught his disciples that the Spirit
would be the revealer of Christ to their souls : " He shall
glorify me ; for he shall receive of mine and shall show it
unto you " (John 16 : 14). Jesus even went so far as to
call this revealing of himself by the Spirit, a coming of
himself and of the Father, to abide in the Christian soul
(John 14 : 21, 23).
Now the tendency of the premillennial doctrine — not to
say its inevitable result — is to ignore this invisible coming
of Jesus into human souls by his Spirit, and to exalt into
its place of spiritual power his visible manifestation through
a personal appearing.
(4) Jesus taught that this dispensation of the Spirit is
to be — not temporary — not simply a preparatory, John-
Baptist arrangement, to be superseded soon by the far more
effective and glorious visible appearing ; but that the Spirit
should abide with them forever (John 14: 16). "I will pray
the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that
he may abide with you forever." Beyond all question it was
only in and by the Spirit, revealing Jesus to the soul, that
he said : " Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of
the world." He said this just as he was personally going
away for at least eighteen hundred years. He therefore did
not mean — could not mean — I am with you bodily, visibly
to your eyes of flesh — to the end of the world.  All these
facts, taught by Jesus, are ignored and ruled out of the
gospel system in this premillennial doctrine.
(5) Jesus " preached the gospel of the kingdom saying,
The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand "
(Mark 1 : 14, 15). And his apostles, immediately after
his ascension, said he was already " by the right hand of
God exalted ; " " raised up to sit on his throne ; " " made
both Lord and Christ " (Acts 2 : 30, 33, 36) ; " exalted
to be a Prince and a Savior" (Acts 5: 31); "raised from
the dead and set at God's right hand in heaven, far above
all principalities," etc. (Eph. 1: 20-22); "gone into heaven
and is on the right hand of God, angels and authorities
and powers being made subject unto him " (1 Pet. 3 : 22).
Squarely in opposition to this, the premillennial doctrine
holds that Jesus has not opened his gospel reign yet, and
will not, till he shall come again in the clouds of heaven.
In the apostolic teaching, the throne of his gospel kingdom

THE PREMILLENNIAL ADVENT DOCTRINE. 175
is now long since established, being located in the heavens.
In the premillennial teaching it is to be located on this
earth (at Jerusalem they say), but is not set up yet!
Which doctrine shall we believe ? Which rests on the best
authority ?
(6) Yet once more : When Jesus was among men, the
Jewish doctors held the modern premillennial notions as
to the Messiah's kingdom. They would have it visible;
"of this world;" including and wielding all civil power.
They would fain " take Jesus by force and make him such
a king." They interpreted Old Testament prophecy to
mean a kingdom like that of David, save that its bounds
were to be the ends of the earth.  These notions were
perpetually cropping out among the disciples ; but observe,
Jesus never taught or even tolerated them. And now,
shall we be asked to go back to Pharisaic Judaism, to
take up and enthrone in power the very scheme which
worldly Jews admired and maintained ; which Christ's dis
ciples found so ensnaring and damaging ; and which Jesus
opposed persistently, strenuously, and to the uttermost ?
If the scheme is good now, why did Jesus condemn it
as unqualifiedly bad then?
2. This scheme misinterprets and therefore misrepresents
Old Testament prophecy.
The subject is uncomfortably large and hard to compress.
In addition to what has been said to show the scheme to
be extra-scriptural, I make but two points :
(1) The scheme repeats the grand mistake of the Phar
isaic Jews in the Savior's day, viz., taking the mere cos
tume and drapery of the old prophets for the reality, and
ignoring the reality itself. The costume and drapery were
drawn from the theocratic kingdom as seen under David
and Solomon. This stood before the ancient Jews as the
symbol, the model, type — the drapery and costume we
might call it — which sets forth the kingdom of their
Messiah. The Jews of Christ's time held on to the
drapery, but dropped out the sense ; they carefully saved
the husk, but threw the grain away ; they kept the ex
ternal, but lost the inwardness — the real meaning of the
old prophets. The premillennial advent interpreters do
the very same thing. By this means they think to find
in those prophets the visible reign of Christ on the earth —
the central element in their scheme. They find it only by
totally misinterpreting, prophecy.

176 THE PREMILLENNIAXi ADVENT DOCTRINE.
(2) My second point relates to the permanent, all-con
quering moral forces of the gospel. The premillennial
scheme holds that these forces are embosomed in Chrisfs
personal presence and visible reign, and consist fundament
ally in consuming judgments and overawing majesty and
glory, coupled with the co-operation of the risen, immortal
saints. Over against this, the potent, all-conquering forces, as
given in prophecy, are :
(a) Truth taught — God's " word that goeth forth and
shall not return void" (Isa. 55: 11); " Many nations "
(say Micah in 4: 1-4 and Isaiah in 2: 2-4) "shall say,
Come and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord ; He
shall teach us of his ways," etc.  " He shall not fail nor
be discouraged till he have set judgment" (the right knowl
edge of God) " in the earth ; and the isles shall wait for
his law" (Isa 42 : 4). " Shall be a light to the Gentiles "—
is one of the standard phrases.
(6) Coupled with light, truth, the correlated and all-con
quering force is the Spirit of God. We find this made
prominent in most of the great prophecies of the gospel
age: e. g., Isa. 11: 2: "The Spirit of the Lord shall rest
upon him," etc. ; Isa. 42 : 1 : " Behold my servant, I have
put my Spirit upon him," etc. ; and the never-to-be-forgot
ten Isa. 60, which runs: "Arise, shine, for thy light is
come ; " " Violence shall no more be heard in thy land ; "
" Thou shalt call thy walls salvation ; " " Thy people shall
be all righteous." This wonderful, towering prophecy is
embosomed on each side, before and after— -flanked we might
say — with promises of the Spirit. Immediately before it
we read — "This is my covenant with them, saith the Lord;
My Spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have
put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor
out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy
seed's seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and forever."
Then opens chapter 60, with an implied and most em
phatic therefore: Therefore, "Arise, shine, for thy light is
come ; and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee," etc.
 At the other end of this majestic prophecy we read :
"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because the Lord
hath anointed me to preach good things to the meek," etc.
— of which you will remember that Jesus said at Capernaum
(Luke 4: 17-22): "This day is this scripture fulfilled in
your ears."

THE PREMILLENNIAL ADVENT DOCTRINE. 177
The Spirit of God upon Jesus and upon his people, their
crowning glory, the high tower of their strength — such is
the strain of Old Testament prophecy.
I need not pause to say how thoroughly this harmonizes
with Christ's own teaching and with the whole genius of
the gospel age ; nor how utterly it refuses to harmonize
with the distinctive points of the premillennial scheme* ¦
3. The premillennial scheme is peremptorily negatived
and exploded by two passages in the Epistle to the He
brews, viz., 8: 7-13 and 12: 18-29.
(1) In the first passage (8 : 7-13) God's whole redemp
tive work for man is put into two great dispensations — two
only, observe — called "covenants," then spoken of as the
"first" and the "second." In the first God wrote his law
on tables of stone ; in the second, on fables of human hearts :
" I will put my laws into their mind and write them in
their hearts . . . and all shall know me from the least to the
greatest." Observe that this repeats a prophecy given
through Jeremiah (31 : 31-34) ; that it puts in contrast
the Mflsaic and the gospel dispensations ; that it manifestly
excludes every other sort of dispensation — premillennial or
whatsoever ; for this gospel one is a perfect consummation —
does a perfect work and leaves nothing more to be done;
beyond it is no more want; beyond it there can be nothing
better nor can there be occasion for any other. " This is
life eternal — to know thee, the only true God and Jesus
Christ whom thou hast sent." There is no premillennial
advent here and no demand for it thereafter. Truth and
the Spirit — the Spirit being indicated here by the finger of
God writing his law in the heart — do all the enlightening,
sanctifying work, and beyond all question, do it well.
Let me notice in passing that Paul in a letter to Corinth
(viz., 2 Cor. 4: 13-18) puts a similar antithesis between
the Mosaic and the Christian dispensations, the specially
contrasted points being that under the former things were
seen dimly as if with a vail over the face, but in the
latter: "We all, with unvailed face, beholding as in a
mirror the glory of the Lord [Jesus] are changed into the
same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of
the Lord."
We notice that this passage, compared with Heb. 8, is at
once parallel and explanatory ; equally with that, it makes
the efficiency of the gospel dispensation perfect, leaving
nothing beyond it to be even desired; the spiritual renova-

178 THE PREMILLENNIAL ADVENT DOCTRINE.
tion achieved is wrought by visions of Jesus — but not at all
by visions of his body (not the premillennial scheme), but by
visions revealed through the Spirit, thus giving due and
supreme honor to his mission as the great revealer of Jesus.
It explains to us how God writes his law in human hearts,
his finger tracing this holy law in letters of light and fire
being only and precisely his Holy Spirit.
(2) The second passage which unfolds the doctrine of
this Epistle to the Hebrews is 12 : 18-29. Like the for
mer, this puts in contrast the Mosaic system and the Chris
tian. The former placed men before Mt. Sinai; the latter
before Mt. Sion. The motive forces of the former were
great; those of the latter, far greater. The awful voice on
Sinai then shook the earth; but now hath he promised
(i. e., in Haggai 2: 6-9): "Yet once more I shake not
the earth only, but also heaven." Here mark the comment
of the writer to the Hebrews on this prophecy of Haggai :
"And this word 'yet once more' signifieth the removing of
those things that are shaken as of things that are made"
[rnade in the sense of being gotten up for temporary use like
an oriental tent or a temple built by human hands] " that
those things which can not be shaken may remain. Where
fore we, having received a kingdom which can not be moved, let
us have grace whereby we may serve God acceptably with
reverence and godly fear."
Here the things shaken are the Sinai dispensation; the
things which remain and can never be shaken are the Mt.
Zion dispensation — the real kingdom of Messiah which, let
it be carefully noted, the Hebrew Christians had already re
ceived. The first system had even then waxed old and was
vanishing away; the second already begun — "received" is
his word — could, not pass away, was " a kingdom that can not
be moved."
According to the premillennial doctrine the kingdom
which the Hebrew Christians had then received — common
to them and to us to-day — has not the least stability. It
may come down with a crash any moment. It was never
made to stand; was not constituted with the forces requisite
for the conversion of the world to Christ. His people there
fore on this theory can find nothing better to do than to
pray that he would come in the clouds of heaven; brush
away this imperfect preparatory structure and set up a king
dom that really can not be shaken. Very manifestly the
writer to the Hebrews was not a premillennarian in "doc-

THE PREMILLENNIAL ADVENT DOCTRINE. 179
trine, for he held that the kingdom never to be shaken was
already received by believing souls. This all premillennial
men must and do deny, and therefore teach us to wait and
pray for it as soon to come.
My conclusion therefore is that this premillennial scheme
is not only out of harmony with the scriptures of truth, but
in all its vital points stands to the Bible in relations of irrec
oncilable antagonism.
To some minds this premillennial scheme has attractions
and even fascinations, especially to men weary of hard work
and impatient of slow progress. To such it is sweet to an
ticipate easier work and quicker fruitage. The men who
seem gifted to see all the bad and only the bad in our world,
and so persuade themselves that all is growing worse and the
devil at this rate is sure to conquer, may almost be excused
for their impatient longing for a better system. But chiefly
the fascination of this scheme lies in bringing down to earth
the better things of heaven and mixing them together with
gospel labor on this earth — e. g. , the visible presence of the
glorified Jesus; exemption from frail mortal flesh; the im
mortal vigor of the resurrection state.
It may seem hard and heartless to break such bubbles of
pleasing fancy — may seem cruel to call them unscriptural
vagaries and baseless dreams ; but truth is better than
fiction, yielding always better results in the end.
For truth's sake, these notions are to be reprobated be
cause they misconceive the agencies provided by Christ for
converting the world; because, hence, they disparage the
power of gospel truth preached by mortal lips ; because they
rule out the best and most wholesome of all human agencies
— the social, the sympathetic, the witnessing power of en
treaties, compassions, tears — as of him who was with men
" in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling " (1 Cor.
2 : 3), " warning men night and day with tears" (Acts
20: 31), yet whose words and tears were mighty through
God to the pulling down of strongholds (2 Cor. 10 : 4).
Most of all, let this scheme be discarded because it dishonors
the Holy Ghost, building itself upon the assumption of his
virtual inefficiency and inability to '' reprove the world of
sin, righteousness and judgment" unto the conversion and
salvation of the nations.
It is with utmost reason we say that if Christians are to
help in the gospel as instruments of God, they must work
within and under his system, not outside of and against it;

1 80 THE PREMILLENNIAL ADVENT DOCTRINE.
must honor his appointed agencies and powers (truth and
the divine Spirit), and not disparage and disown them ; must
work with confidence in the powers God provides and pre
sents to their faith and their prayers ; and must consent to
forego the open visions of heaven and exemption from mor
tal frailties till their earthly work has been honestly done.
And let them beware of putting forth their hand to smite
down the faith and hope of the great missionary host,
moving forward under the marching orders of their risen
Lord ! Let them not attempt to foist into God's scheme for
evangelizing the nations, new elements and forces of which
Jesus never spake and for which the scriptures, legitimately
interpreted, give no warrant, but stand in total, irreconcila
ble antagonism.

APPENDIX D.

EXCURSUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
In point of intrinsic importance the atonement ranks
among the most fundamental doctrines of the Christian sys
tem. This intrinsic importance is still heightened by mod
ern discussions and theories which bear forcibly, not to say
vitally, upon its substantial significance, and also upon its
practical moral power. No apology therefore need be made
for an extended discussion of this doctrine as taught in the
scriptures. Fully aware that much of the controversy on this subject
is logomachy, a mere war of words, fostered if not caused
by vagueness and diversity in the use of terms, I begin
with definitions. I use the word atonement to signify, the
provision made of God through the sufferings and death of
Christ to render the pardon of penitent sinners morally safe
and also wise under his moral government. A secondary
aim in this scheme is to promote the repentance of sinners
and their subsequent obedience.  1 do not (with some)
use the word in the sense of at-one-ment — a reconciliation
between God and sinners, effected simply by their repent
ance. As I use the word " atonement," it lies back of this
reconciliation, as a provision antecedent, contemplating the
exigencies of God's moral government, and providing for the
honor and support of law in the case of pardon.
"Pardon" in this discussion will mean the same as for
giveness, and essentially the same as justification, inasmuch
as to those who are pardoned in Christ ' ' there is no more
condemnation."  Guilt (with me) is ill-desert, blame
worthiness, and is not strictly identical with being held
under law to punishment. So used, forgiveness does not
extinguish guilt. The ill-desert of sin is intrinsic and there
fore eternal. No mercy, no pardon, can make sin less
blameworthy. (181)

182 EXCURSUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
Points antecedent to atonement.
Hoping thus to make my argument more surely and fully
understood, I first call special attention to some antecedent
facts and considerations bearing upon the nature and neces
sity of the atonement. If some of these points should seem
in themselves too obvious to need mention, yet in their
bearings on our subject they may be too vital to be left
out. 1. The atonement contemplates a sinning race; is made
for sinners, and not the unsinning. Remotely as revealing
God, it may affect unsinning races; but directly, its provis
ions are only for sinners.
2. It presupposes a moral law, enjoined by God and
broken by men ; for, sin is nothing more or less than the
transgression of such moral law. Hence the atonement,
having to do with sin and its forgiveness, must have to do
with this broken law, and consequently must have govern
mental bearings and relations. It could be nothing if there
were no moral government of God, and therefore it must be,
in a thoroughly vital sense, a governmental scheme. The
objection sometimes brought against recognizing any govern
mental idea or element in the scheme of atonement is, there
fore, baseless, because it rests on a total misconception of
things entirely fundamental to the atonement.
3. Moral beings (like man), made for responsible moral
action, have, in their very nature and relations to God, un
measured capabilities for self-wrought blessedness or self-
wrought ruin. Coupling together such innate moral pow
ers with such relations to their infinite Maker and Lord,
they must inevitably work out an eternal destiny of either
bliss or woe.  Now God has assumed the immense re
sponsibility of giving existence to such beings. This carries
with it the responsibility of doing the utmost he wisely can
to promote their right-doing and its resulting blessedness ;
to shield them against temptations to wrong-doing ; to re
claim the fallen ones if, safely and wisely, he can ; and in
general to govern all moral races for the interests of each,
and each in the interests of all.
These facts and considerations set forth the functions of
moral law — its place and work in a system of moral govern
ment. God could by no means do justice to himself if he
should fail to enact, impose and sustain a moral law over
his intelligent moral subjects. Their well-being is so
thoroughly in his keeping, his responsibilities for it are so

EXCURSUS ON THE ATONEMENT. 183
great, that he is morally bound to make known to them
the path to life, and to press them with the highest possi
ble motive to right-doing and its consequent blessedness.
 For this end it is requisite that he not only reveal to
them a perfect law, but that he sustain and enforce it with
the most impressive sanctions possible. Law is valueless
without sanctions. The force of its sanctions is the measure
of its potency and of its wisdom. Law without sanctions is
not law at all. It would be at the utmost only advice.
Considering the responsibilities God has assumed in giving
existence to moral agents, and the momentous issues in
volved in their right action, his intelligent children could
scarcely respect him if he had given them only advice.
Issues so fearful, so momentous, demand the strongest ex
pressions of his will and his utmost influence. He there
fore holds himself sacredly bound to give his law the moral
force of infinite sanctions.
At this point the question arises : Is it both wise and
kind in the Supreme Ruler to make the penalties of his law
so severe ? Many men do ask : Why should He depend
so much on threatened suffering rather than on promised
reward ?
Let us meet this question. Consider that both human
law and divine have to deal with the same depraved human
nature. What is wise, therefore, in human law should be
presumed to be not less so in the divine.  As to human
law, the great Blackstone puts most common sense into
fewest words in this way: "Human legislators have for
the most part chosen to make the sanctions of their laws
rather vindicatory than remunerative; i. e., to consist rather
in punishments than in rewards " . . . " because the
dread of evil is a much more forcible principle of human
action than the prospect of good." " Of all the parts of a
law, the most effectual is the vindicatory." For it is but
lost labor to say, " do this," or " avoid that," unless we also
declare : " This shall be the consequence of your non-com
pliance." " Rewards in their nature can only persuade and
allure ; nothing is compulsory but punishment."
Blackstone's doctrine might be fortified by this well-
known law of moral natures : that sin is itself fearfully
depraving. It perpetually works toward worse depravity,
weakening the power of reason and conscience, intensifying
the power of passion and lust. As men descend into this
realm of deeper depravity, they become sadly obtuse to re-

184 EXCURSUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
wards. The sensibiUty to suffering remains almost the only
point of effective appeal for law, human or divine.
This, it will be seen, involves not only the amount and
force of penalty, but also the exercise of pardon. Human
experience proves that the pardoning power may be so used
as to break down the moral influence of law and penalty.
It is thus proved before our eyes that a sense of certainty
as to the execution of penalty is vital to its moral force.
It would be idle for us to assume that God does not know
this as well as we do — know it be true of divine law as we
do of human — and see the wisdom of providing against this
possible weakness in the administration of law.  It must
be assumed, therefore, that God can not deal lightly with
the question of pardon. We can conceive of no question
more critical than this in its bearings upon law and penalty.
This is one standpoint of view from which to study the
atonement if we would comprehend its nature and necessity.
It can not be amiss to say somewhat more distinctly that
the bearings and issues of God's moral government over our
world reach out into other worlds ; onward to the final judg
ment ; and beyond that into the eternal future of his uni
versal kingdom. God's government of the moral universe
is a unit, with no isolated parts, with no movements in any
one sphere or world which shall never send forth their in
fluence beyond " their original home." " We are a specta
cle to angels," and are yet to be still more, at and after the
final judgment. Consequently, the entire administration of
God's law, including both penalty and pardon — the whole
kingdom of grace — every thing involved in the salvation of
sinners under the gospel — must be exemplary, i. e. , freighted
with moral lessons for the entire intelligent universe. Who,
then, can adequately measure the vital issues of the great
question of atonement ? Who can appreciate the extreme
delicacy of the provisions that contemplate the safe pardon
of sin, and consequently involve the majesty and sustained
moral power of law ?
At this point it would be unpardonable not to call atten
tion to a style of sentiment that seems to be growing upon
our age, which disparages law and especially its penalty, and
which, in its developed stage, seems scarcely willing to for
give the Almighty for having enacted any moral law at all.
The doctrine, pushed forward more or less boldly, is that
love is over against law — a vitally different principle, far more
worthy of God ; and, as is claimed, less repulsive to sin-

EXCURSUS ON THE ATONEMENT. 185
ners and better adapted to reach their hearts. It would, in
their view, be easy for one who is Almighty to manage his
creatures, even the fallen, by the might of his love, if He
could only persuade himself to omit the rigors of law and
penalty! By such a course, He would (say they) exoner
ate himself from all suspicion of tyranny and severity, an
undue regard to his own good, and an under-valuation of
the good of his creatures.
This sentiment is wont to manifest itself in disrespect for
the Old Testament as not worthy to be compared with the
New, the Old belonging to the reign of law ; the New to
the reign of love. At best it seems to them a mistake — a
case of unwisdom (if indeed the Old Testament be from
God at all) — that he should think it necessary or wise or
kind to treat his creatures to such a dispensation of law and
exemplary retribution.
For every reason this style of sentiment deserves unquali
fied reprobation. It is utterly false in its assumptions, vi
cious in its principles, abusive to God, ruinous to sinful men.
It misconceives both love and law ; puts them in an unreal
antagonism ; and reasons on this whole subject as reckless
outlaws reason against the best human governments. For,
wholesome law and effective penalty are among the very
highest manifestations of real love — of love in its only legiti
mate sense — a wise and benevolent regard for the best inter
ests of sentient moral beings. Sin being what it is, a strong
government is no mistake, no blunder ; and never need to
apologize for its own existence. It is simply amazing that
men, otherwise sensible, should disparage, not to say tra
duce, God's law and its penalty, and yet seem not aware
that they reason on principles which would ruin any human
government. All these considerations are in place to show that since
moral agency involves the liability to sin, it involves also
the natural necessity for law and penalty. They serve con
sequently to show that pardon, if ever granted, must not ex
pose the Lawgiver to any misapprehension as to his hatred
of sin, and his inflexible purpose to restrain it to the utmost
of his power.
Two great historic facts in God's administration of his
moral realm bear with force upon the points now in hand,
viz. :
1. That the first falling race met their natural doom under
law and its penalty. No scheme of atonement was ventured

186 EXCURSUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
upon in their case, and no pardon was offered. As to them
the revealed testimony runs : " The angels who kept not
their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath
reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judg
ment of the great day" (Jude 6); "If God spared not the
angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered
them into chains of darkness to be reserved unto judgment;"
" The Lord knoweth how to reserve the unjust unto the day
of judgment to be punished" (2 Peter 2: 4, 9). This record
has not a whisper of mercy, not a hint of any atonement
providing for the safe exercise of pardon. It is therefore
legitimate for us to infer that God provided no atonement
for them and offered no pardon, because he saw it to be
morally impracticable, that is to say, unsafe, unwise, and
therefore not to be attempted. For surely no other reason
for passing by falling angels without an atonement is even
supposable. God was no less benevolent then than now;
was as kindly and even mercifully disposed toward fallen
angels as toward fallen men ; so that no reason can be as
signed for the fact of no mercy, no atonement, no offered
pardon in their case, except that he foresaw it would He
dangerously open to abuse — saw therefore the necessity of
first making an unmistakable demonstration of his eternal
abhorrence of sin before he could wisely venture upon a
scheme for pardon.
2. A second analogous fact our own world presents in the
long ages of delay ere the Son of God became incarnate —
ages of delay largely filled with demonstrations of God's
justice in such scenes as the flood ; the destruction of Sodom ;
retributions upon wicked nations. Thus four thousand years
were filled with retributions upon the guilty, all manifestly
designed to evince that God is just and knows how to punish
transgression.  My argument need not assume an age of
pure and perfect retribution. It suffices that the full mani
festation of mercy through the incarnation was long delayed,
to give scope for revelations of his justice. It was not until
"the fullness of time" that Jesus became incarnate, and the
scheme of redemption was fully unfolded. This " fullness of
time " was not a question of chronology, but was a question
of moral government and its exigencies in a moral world.
The waiting was not that a certain number of centuries — so
many and no more — might first elapse. It was rather that
certain manifestations of justice and retribution might first
be made, and might work their legitimate results, so that

EXCURSUS ON THE ATONEMENT. 187
mercy and pardon might be more safe and less liable to
abuse. This long delay before the full revelation of mercy
in Christ — this delay so manifestly utilized for revelations
of God's justice, we must interpret as witnessing to his sense
of the delicacy, not to say the peril, of revealing his mercy
until he had first revealed his justice, and evinced (so far as
a world of probation should allow it) his sacred regard for
his law.
As to the nature of the atonement, three distinct theories
invite attention. Having named them, I propose to adduce
the scriptural testimony upon the subject, and then apply it
to these several theories.
I. The first theory takes the word "atonement" in the
sense of at-one-ment, makes it essentially synonymous with
reconciliation, and locates its virtue in the manifestation it
makes of the sympathy of God for sinful men. Jesus bore
these sins of men in the sense of taking their sinful, wretched
state upon his heart, and so bearing its burden. Manifested
love subdues rebellious men; reconciliation to God is the
result. H. A second theory assumes that the sufferings and death
of Christ were strictly substitutional — an exact and full sub
stitute for the sufferings and death of sinners, he having suf
fered in their stead the full penalty of the law fchey had
broken. The standard phrase which defines this theory is :
"Christ suffered the penalty of the law for sinners," and not
some substitute for that penalty.
IH. A third theory is that Christ's sufferings and death
were in fact vicarious, inasmuch as they obviate the moral
necessity for the eternal death of sinners (they being penitent
and believing), and thus take the place of their death. 
Negatively, the theory does not account those sufferings to
have been in their nature penal in the sense of punishment
for sin, and by no means supposes them to have been the
same in kind or in degree which the redeemed must else
have suffered.
Under this theory, Christ's sufferings and death on the
one hand honored the divine law by powerfully suggesting
and indorsing its righteous penalty, and on the other by sig
nally illustrating the spirit of self-sacrificing obedience; in
both directions giving the law such moral support as made
it safe and wise to pardon the penitent and believing, and to
give the Holy Sufferer myriads of redeemed souls as his
reward.

188 EXCURSUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
These three theories may be defined and distinguished by
the views they severally take : (a) Of the nature of Christ's
sufferings ; (6) Of the moral attitude of the Father toward his
dying Son.
1. As to the nature of Christ's sufferings : The first theory
holds them to be those of sympathy — having regard to the
sinner's ruin rather than his guilt, and taking' his lostness
upon the heart to bear it in the tenderness of divine com
passion. The second supposes those sufferings to be precisely penal —
the very penalty threatened against the sinner in God's
law. The third regards them as pertaining to his human nature
rather than his divine, as in some points deeply mysterious
to us, but manifestly aggravated exceedingly by a sense of
fearful darkness and desolation, of bearing his agonies alone,
and of being in some sense forsaken of God, and all this
coupled with the utmost assaults of satanic power.
(6) Placing these theories side by side to be distinguished
from each other by their respective conceptions of the moral
attitude of the Father toward his dying Son, —
The first assumes his attitude to be that of profoundest
sympathy and favor.
In so far as the second theory rests on the assumption
that the ethical nature of God demands that Christ should
suffer the full penalty of the law, there is no reason appar
ent why the execution of this penalty must not assume the
same moral attitude in the Father toward his suffering Son
as toward the sinners for whom he suffered.
As to the third : it is plain from the scriptures that the
death of Jesus under the severest sufferings was definitely in
the plan and purpose of God ; that he was delivered up of
God to this death (Acts 2 : 23 and Rom. 8 : 32) ; and left
at least temporarily to a sense of being forsaken of God.
While on the one hand it can not be doubted that the
Father approved the obedient, benevolent, self-sacrificing
spirit of his dying Son ; on the other, it would seem from
the recorded facts that tokens of such approbation were for
the time withheld, so that the sense of desolation, the un
utterable agony of being consciously forsaken of God, inten
sified his sufferings beyond what we can possibly conceive,
and made his death a real and great sacrifice for the sins of
men. These theories show that very diverse opinions have been

EXCURSUS ON THE ATONEMENT. 189
held in regard to the essential nature of the atonement, and
the relation of the Father to his suffering Son.
Our great inquiry is to be — What is truth? What have
the scriptures taught on this great subject? And which of
these theories is best sustained by its teachings?
The scriptures present their testimony on this subject in
historical order. Consequently our method should be the
historic, following the successive steps by which God has
unfolded the subject to our race, thus :
I. The Pre-Mosaic testimony — that which appears before
the time of Moses ;
H. The Mosaic testimony — appearing during his life,
mainly in the institutions established by divine direction
through his agency ;
IH. The testimony of Messianic prophecy;
IV. The testimony which appears in the New Testament;
comprising, 1. The sacrificial terms and phrases brought forward from
the Old Testament ;
(a) Those used by Jesus of himself;
(b) Those used by John the Baptist of Jesus ;
(c) Those used by Peter ;
(d) Those by the apostle John ;
(e) Those by Paul;
(/) Those by the writer to the Hebrews.
2. The collateral testimony coming in from the history of
Chrisfs sufferings which will include : (1) His definite and
strong anticipation of a violent death ; (2) His utterances
revealing a sense of struggle, straitness in anticipation of his
sufferings ; (3) His sense of their imperative necessity as a
most important and vital part of his appointed wofk ; (4)
Intimations of the terrible presence and power of Satan
upon him ; (5) The great agony of Gethsemane ; (6) The
one utterance which indicates a sense of being forsaken of
God. When the points of this testimony are before us, we shall
be prepared to weigh their bearings upon the several theo
ries above defined. We now turn to the testimony.
I. In the age before Moses.
Let it be borne in mind that all real knowledge as to the
atonement must come from God. Otherwise than from him
we never could know that in his view mercy for lost men
under his government is possible. Much less could it be
known what antecedent provision would be requisite to
9

190 EXCURSUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
make its exercise safe. What this provision should consist
in; how it should be made; what must be the successive
steps of its development before the hierarchies of heaven
and before the eyes of men; e. g., that it should involve the
incarnation of the Son of God in human flesh; the manifes
tation of God's pity and love through his example, his teach
ings, his final sufferings and death.  How can it be possi
ble that human ingenuity should evolve this scheme, or that
it should ever become known to man save through inspira
tion from God?
So far as we can learn from the scriptures, the first clear
intimations of divine mercy for our race, and of provisions
for it by means of an atonement, came in connection with
animal sacrifices.
Here will open before us two lines of inquiry : (a) The
points of natural fitness in animal sacrifice for purposes of
illustration ; (b) The historical facts showing that this was
the starting point in God's revelation of an atonement.
(a) Natural fitness appears in these points, viz., the nat
ural penalty for the violation of law is inflicted suffering ;
not merely the suffering that follows sinning by natural con
sequence, and leaves the thought and hand of the lawgiver
out of sight and wholly in doubt ; but such inflicted suffer
ing as testifies to the lawgiver's displeasure and to his pur
pose to punish transgression.  Extreme penalties call for
extreme suffering, of which blood and death are natural
symbols. Now animal sacrifices are merely symbols, types — this,
and nothing else. Their only value lies in their suggestive
power. They are good, not for what is in and of them
selves, but for what they suggest as to something else. Their
blood and death did not itself atone, but it did suggest — in
deed, was doubly suggestive; (1) That the offerer was a sin
ner and ought himself to die; (2) That "mercy ruled the
hour," sparing the sinner and providing a lamb of sacrifice
to die in his stead. Thus this doubly significant blood and
death spake to the offerer first of his sin ; secondly, of his
salvation. First, its suggestions enforced conviction ; sec
ondly, they inspired hope and ministered to faith and love.
 To direct this suggestive thought and also to heighten
its power, human hands were solemnly laid upon the victim's
head and sins confessed — signifying that the offerer is a con
sciously guilty sinner, and that the victim is to take his
place and die in his stead. We can think of no other

EXCURSUS ON THE ATONEMENT. 191
method of impressing these moral convictions at once so
simple, so unmistakable, and so impressive.  It admits of
being heightened by the selection of animals which embody
our highest ideal of innocence and purity. Still other ele
ments come in if they are our property, and if they are ob
jects of special attachment. The shepherd's tender lambs
were, in endearment, next to his children. Must he give
them up in sacrifice, look upon their dying agonies, and re
ceive upon himself their sprinkled blood as a symbol of
something analogous that atones for his sin? The scenes
are full of significance, and every way adapted to pungent
and instructive impression.  Instructive, do we say, and
making truthful impressions ? Doubtless ; and it aids us to
meet the question often arising : Is it even supposable that
God can find any pleasure in the shedding of innocent
blood, and that He would shape religious institutions to
bring such revolting scenes, day after day, for long ages, be
fore the eyes and into the sensibilities of his covenant people
who are under his moral training unto purity and righteous
ness? No other answer can be given to these questions than
this : No pleasure in the suffering itself ; no pleasure in any
suffering for its own sake ; no pleasure at all except that
which righteous and paternal government finds in the sup
port of law and in wholesome moral impression upon dan
gerously tempted subjects. To charge cruelty against the
necessary execution of righteous penalty upon law-breakers
is simply horrible ! Such execution is one of the highest,
noblest manifestations of faithful love.  On this ground
we justify the Infinite Lawgiver for enacting daily scenes
of blood and death before the eyes of sinful men, to signify
that rebellion against his righteous government is a fearful
crime — "that abominable thing which he hates."  That
animals most suggestive of innocence and purity should be de
voted in these sacrifices only indicates that they die, not for
their own sins but for another's — the idea of vicarious suffer
ing being thus entirely fundamental in the scheme.
(6) We are to note the historical facts showing that the
earliest revelations of mercy came from God to man in con
nection with the requirement of animal sacrifices. The first
recorded case of animal sacrifice is that by Abel. What (if
any thing) had been revealed to Adam previously, we can
not know. But it is quite obvious that the postponement
of any definite intimation in scripture as to sacrifice until

192 EXCURSUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
there were two brothers of age to present their respective
offerings side by side furnished an opportunity to put two
sorts of offering in comparison (not to say contrast) with
each other, and thus in the very outset give prominence to
the most distinctive ideas of sacrifice, as we shall see. 
The record is in few words, but words full of significance
and very plain (be it considered) to the Hebrew readers of
Moses: "Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offer
ing unto the Lord. And Abel, he also brought of the first
lings of his flock, and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had
respect unto Abel and to his offering ; but unto Cain and to
his offering he had not respect" (Gen. 4: 3-5). The
writer to the Hebrews (Heb. 11:4) adds yet another his
toric fact in the words: "By faith Abel offered unto God a
more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained
witness .that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts."
In the case of Abel's offering, the allusion to "the fat of
them " shows that it involved the sacrifice of the firstlings of
his flock upon the altar. It was a bloody sacrifice. That
of Cain was not. His was bloodless. It may have indi
cated thanksgiving to God, a recognition of God as the
Giver of his corn and wine ; but it had no confession of sin,
and no recognition of sacrifice for sin. God accepted the
bloody sacrifice of Abel ; He did not accept the bloodless
offering of Cain. This served to put in clearest light the
really vital point in offerings made to God.  The further
statement (Heb. 11 : 4) serves both to illustrate and to con
firm. It sets forth that Abel's faith made his offering ac
ceptable to God, and implies that Cain's lack of faith was
the ground of his rejection.  Of this faith of Abel we
may say that at the very least it must mean that Abel be
lieved God's word requiring sacrifice and specifying (we must
suppose) what it should be. His sacrifice was an act of
obedience to God — the obedience of faith — and for this reason
was acceptable. This view is intrinsically reasonable.
Nothing is pleasing to God save obedience; nothing dis
pleasing, morally, save disobedience. Besides, an act in
itself so cruel, so revolting, as the shedding of innocent
blood — the blood of the most gentle, harmless, of all the
lower animals — could by no means be acceptable to God un
less for some very special reason. Such a reason we find in the
supposition of its being a symbol of atoning sacrifice for sin,
and we find it nowhere else. Apart from this theory, it is
simply and utterly incredible that God could find pleasure

EXCURSUS ON THE ATONEMENT. 193
in the slaughter of innocent lambs.  Thus we reach the
conclusion that Abel's faith involved obedience to God in
the offering of a bloody sacrifice which God required. So
much at the very least. At the most, in the deeper sense
of faith, it may perhaps have been the fully developed faith
of the gospel, at least so far forth as to include God's pro
viding for himself a Lamb for sacrifice, upon whom the sin
ner may trust for the actual pardon of sin and for accept
ance before God. We need not deem it impossible that
God should have signified to him that his lamb was only a
type, foreshadowing the better Lamb for sacrifice yet to
come, and that Abel's faith rested there.
Here, then, in the very family of Adam, we take our first
historic lesson as to mercy offered to lost men and an atone
ment for its provision antecedent. We learn that the
elementary idea of acceptable offering is not gratitude for
favors, but is a propitiatory sacrifice; is not any form of
unbloody offering; but is a bloody offering, significant of the
sacrifice of life as the antecedent provision for the safe
pardon of sin.
II. The revelations as to the atonement, made through
Moses, take the form, mostly, of established institutions.
Of these the earliest in time was the Passover, of which the
central element was the paschal lamb, one for each house
hold, solemnly slain in sacrifice, and its blood sprinkled on
and over the door of the house — this sprinkled blood being
made to signify most impressively that the angel of death
passed over that household when, on his dread mission, he
smote every first-born in all the houses of Egypt. Here
was the blood of an innocent lamb, made essentially vica
rious as to those upon whose doors it was sprinkled, inasmuch
as the life-blood of this slain lamb took the place of the life
of their first-born, otherwise to be slain, and singled them
out for mercy as compared with Egypt's first-born, sheltered
under no symbol of sprinkled blood.  The purposed
significance and fitness of this illustrative scene were too
precious to be lost. The historic scene itself must not be
suffered to die out of the mind of Israel. To utilize it to
the utmost, it was ordained that it be reproduced with all
its original accompaniments every year on the memorable
fourteenth day of the first month. Thus year after year,
through all the history of the covenant people, this Passover
scene was kept before their mind and fresh upon their
heart, until the Lord's great Lamb of sacrifice appeared to

194 EXCURSUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
take away sin by his own blood. That inspired men of the
New Testament age saw Christ foreshadowed in this paschal
lamb is shown in the words of Paul (1 Cor. 5 : 7) : " For
even Christ, our Paschal Lamb (Greek) is sacrificed for
us." After Sinai, a large and various group of sacrifices and
offerings were specifically described and enjoined ; some not
bloody, but the greater part bloody ; some fixed as to time ;
others contingent upon special circumstances as they might
occur. My present purpose does not call for an exhaustive
analysis and description of these offerings and sacrifices.
Let it suffice to say that the so-called "whole burnt-offering"
was not specially expiatory in the sense of signifying atone
ment for sin ; but rather signified entire consecration to God,
and was to be in its spirit joyful (not to say jubilant)
rather than penitential, and accompanied with confession of
sin. After the service of song, developed under David, had
adjusted itself to the Mosaic ritual institutions, we find in the
history of Hezekiah's great passover (2 Chron. 29 : 27, 28)
that when " the burnt- offering began, the song of the Lord
began also, with the trumpets and with the instruments
ordained by David. And all the congregation worshiped,
and the singers sang, and the trumpeters sounded ; and all
this continued until the burnt-offering was finished." "And
they sang praises with gladness." "And Hezekiah said,
Now have ye consecrated yourselves unto the Lord ; come
near and bring sacrifices and thank-offerings into the house
of the Lord ; and as many as were of free heart brought in
burnt-offerings."  In striking antithesis to this spirit of
joyous and grateful song stood the spirit required in the
services of " the great day of atonement." In the latter it
was solemnly enjoined": "Ye shall afflict your souls,"
i. e., with fasting; and "Aaron shall lay both his hands
upon the head of the live goat and confess over him all the
iniquities of the children of Israel," etc. (Lev. 16 : 29, 30,
31).  Paul struck the key-note of the burnt-offering in
the words (Rom. 12: 1): "I beseech you, by the mercies
of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy,
acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service." 
Moreover it indicates special and just discrimination that
(unlike the sin-offerings and those of the great day of atone
ment) this is never said to "make atonement for the sins"
of the offerer.
The services most distinctively propitiatory were the sin

EXCURSUS ON THE ATONEMENT. 195
and trespass offerings, and those of "the great day of
atonement." It will be seen in Lev. (chapters 4-7) that the sin and
trespass-offerings applied to sins of ignorance and inadver
tence in the ritual service ; also to moral offenses of which
the offender subsequently became convicted and penitent.
Then, under this law, the offerer having brought the
required animal sacrifice, laid his hands upon the head of the
animal and himself killed it; after which, the priest
sprinkled the blood, and so (as is said emphatically) "the
priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven
them."  But over against this atonement, it was distinctly
declared: "The soul that doeth aught presumptuously, the
same reproacheth the Lord ; and that soul shall be cut off
from among his people. Because he hath despised the word
of the Lord and hath broken his commandment, that soul
shall be utterly cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him (Num.
15: 30, 31). (See also Deut. 17: 12, 13). The reader
should notice that this is constantly affirmed to be a sacri
fice which made atonement for sin, that it was to be accom
panied with an open confession of the sin for which expiation
was to be made : also that the sinner, laying his hand upon
the head of the victim, symbolically transferred his own sins
to that animal ; that in the result, his sins were forgiven
him; and finally, that there were certain sins, viz., those
" committed presumptuously," involving contempt of God's
authority and the very spirit of rebellion, which coidd not
be forgiven ; and for these, no sacrifices might be offered, and
no atonement indicated. "His iniquity shall be upon
him ;" " that soul shall be utterly cut off" (Num. 15 : 31) ;
"that man shall die" (Deut. 17: 12).  Yet further, it
should be distinctly noticed that while in the case of burnt-
offerings and also the thank-offerings, no limit was set to
the number of animal victims ; on the contrary, for the sin-
offering never but one was slain — as if it was made purposely
significant of the great gospel fact that by the one offering
of God's own Son, he should perfect forever them for whose
sins he made expiation.
The significance of the Mosaic system, in reference to ex
piation for sin and essential atonement, culminated in what
is known as "the great day of atonement" — the tenth of the
seventh month. Of this day and its services the salient
points were, stringent fasting of the whole people for the
entire day, on pain of death ; the high priest entering alone

196 EXCURSUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
into the Most Holy place before the very mercy-seat, on this
day only of all the year; the first time bearing with him
both burning incense and the blood of the bullock offered
for his own sins, and sprinkling it upon the mercy-seat.
Then of two goats, one is chosen by lot, slain for a sin-offering
for all the people, and its blood in like manner borne by the
high priest into the Most Holy place; and then upon the
head of the other goat, the high priest, in behalf of the
people, "laid both his hands and confessed over him all the
iniquities of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their
sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and then sent him
away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness," and
" the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities into a
land not inhabited." Thus in these two goats the symbol
of taking away sins was duplicated, the first being slain and
its blood sprinkled before the Lord in manner not unlike
the usual sin-offering, save the greater solemnity and more
impressive significance of bearing this blood into the most
sacred holy of holies, and sprinkling it upon the very mercy-
seat; but in case of the second, the sins of the whole people
were solemnly confessed and symbolically transferred to the
animal, and then he was led far away into the desert wilder
ness to return no more. Thus he was made in symbol to
bear the sins of the people and take them away, to be remem
bered no more as lying upon their own souls, and before the
God they worshiped.
The word "atonement," the central, pivotal word in the
sacrificial system, should be carefully studied. It does not
(as some are understood to hold) signify primarily at-one-
ment, the reconciliation of God to the sinner, and of the sinner
to God ; but its primary sense is a covering, a hiding from
view, from a word signifying to cover [kauphar]. Its essen
tial idea is that which every troubled conscience so intensely
craves — the hiding of its conscious guilt from the awful eye
of God. It is one of several expressions used for the same
essential idea — the forgiving and blotting out of sin ; God's
" passing by transgressions ; " " retaining not his anger forever,
because he delighteth in mercy;" "remembering their sins
no more;" "casting all their sins into the depths of the sea."
It will be seen that this idea is but reiterated under new
forms when, in the sin-offering, the priest " makes atonement
for the sins of the offerer, and it shall be forgiven him"
(Lev. 4: 20, 26, 35 and Num. 15: 25, 28), or when he lays
his hand upon the head of the scape-goat, and confesses the

EXCURSUS ON THE ATONEMENT. 197
sins of the whole people, and then causes him to be driven
with all his sin-burden away into the unknown wilderness.
 Thus the atonement illustrated in this sacrificial system
had for its central idea the pardon of sin and the taking it
away, to be remembered no more. On these points the state
ments are too decisive to admit of doubt ; the numerous illus
trations are too clear, too significant in character, to be mis
apprehended. If this be not their meaning, they are fear
fully misleading. No other plausible significance ever has
been suggested, or ever can be.
IH The atonement as shown in Old Testament Prophecy.
Omitting certain brief allusions to a suffering Messiah in
Dan. 9: 24-27 and in Ps. 16 and 22 and 40; it will suffice to
bring under consideration Isa. 53. Nothing more full than
this appears or need appear within the whole range of Old
Testament prophecy.
The brevity of this essay must excuse me from digressing
to prove that this chapter refers to the nation's promised
Messiah.* Assuming this, the prophecy represents that as first seen
on the earth, his visage was marred, worn and wasted ; him
self was despised and rejected of men ; he seemed as one out
cast from God as well as from men. But a closer and better
view startled them with the discovery that he was bearing
others' sins and not his own; that he was bruised for others'
iniquities, himself altogether sinless toward both God and
man. Reproached and slandered, he bore all meekly ; led
as a lamb to the slaughter, not a whisper of complaint es
caped his lips. Most surprising of all, the prophet sees
that in some sense "it pleased tlie Lord to bruise him," and
that " the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all." These
sufferings culminate in death ; he is cut off out of the land
of the living ; his soul (life itself) is made an offering for
sin.  But glorious to behold ! out of this death of scorn
and agony, come fruits of magnificent reward; the knowl
edge of him avails to justify many because he has borne
their iniquities. He sees of the travail of his soul, and is
satisfied. He shares the spoils of this great battle-field of
time with his mighty adversary, and comes off more than
conqueror; the salvation of a great multitude that no man
can number is his everlasting glory !
* In the author's Commentary on Isaiah, the Messianic reference
of this passage is discussed, and also its bearings on the atonement.

198 EXCURSUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
Bearing upon the nature of the atonement, the great
points made in this prophecy are :
(a) The emphatic prominence given to the vicarwus ele
ment, it being reiterated over and over — " was wounded for
our transgressions;" "bruised for our iniquities;" "the
chastisement that brought peace to us fell on him;" "the
stripes on him were to us healing ; " " the Lord laid on him
the iniquity of us all; " " for the transgression of my people
was he stricken ; " " he justifies many because he bears their
iniquities; " "he bare the sins of many." To rule out from
these phrases the idea of vicarious suffering and sacrifice is
to wrench out of them their whole significance. Nothing
short of the utmost violence and unreason can achieve such
a result. The words mean this, or they mean nothing. 
Besides, let it be carefully considered, the prophet himself
and his first readers for whom he adapted his words and
phrases, were Israelites, with a life-long training under the
Mosaic institutions of sacrifice. Every day of their lives
they had seen innocent lambs borne to the slaughter, meek
and uncomplaining — the uplifted knife drawing their blood,
and that blood sprinkled upon the people and upon God's
holy altar, because they were made to bear the sins of the
people. In the presence of these bloody sacrifices it is simply
impossible that Isaiah or his readers could have thought of
any thing else in this language except an analogous sacri
fice of their nation's Messiah. It is simply amazing, and
on any rational ground unaccountable, that professed inter
preters of scripture should find some other sense here and
not this.
(6) A second point, deserving special notice, is the allu
sion to " the pleasure of the Lord" in these sufferings: "It
pleased the Lord to bruise him."  Old Testament usage in
speaking of God's agency authorizes us to take this as simply
permissive — done by others and not directly by himself. But
so much as this the words must mean : God was pleased to
permit this bruising.  Yet there is not the least occasion
to suppose that this pleasure was vindictive, or that it im
plied in the slightest degree any pleasure in the suffering
for its own sake, or the least lack of love for his suffering
Son. All such notions are ruled out at once both by the
known character of God, and by the -explanatory clause
subjoined here, viz. : "The pleasure of the Lord shall pros
per in his hands." This shows that God's pleasure in the
suffering turned on the results. Here were results that noth-

EXCURSUS ON THE ATONEMENT. 199
ing less, nothing else, could secure. Under his violated law
a sinning race was justly doomed to perdition. Some expres
sion must needs go forth to sustain the sacredness and maj
esty of that law, so that pardon could be offered and given
with no peril to his moral kingdom. Hence results of un
surpassed worth and glory made the sacrifice on Calvary
tolerable, not to say a pleasure, to the Infinite Father. As
we shall see, and as we might expect, the New Testament
writers and speakers, including Jesus himself, take up these
terms and phrases and use them continually, and even ex
clusively, to express the great facts of Christ's atoning death.
IV. We come now to the testimony which appears in the
New Testament. I will adduce in their order the testimony
of Jesus; of John the Baptist; of Peter; of John the apos
tle ; of Paul, and of the writer to the Hebrews.
(a) Of Jesus. His testimony comes naturally under two
heads, viz. : (1) WThat he said of the objects and results of
his death: (2) What he said and manifested in immediate
anticipation of his own death and under the suffering itself.
The latter will come up for special consideration hereafter;
the former is in place here.
Note, then, that Jesus evinced the deepest sense of the
absolute necessity of his death, and that it must be in manner
and purpose as indicated "in the law, the prophets, and
the Psalms" (Luke 24: 25-27, 44-47). "Oh, slow of heart
to believe all that the prophets have spoken. Ought not
Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his
glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he
expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things con
cerning himself." The same views were in substance re
peated to the whole body of the disciples (in vs. 44-47) — the
imperative necessity that Christ should suffer, so that repent
ance and remission of sins might be preached in his name,
and that all should be done as had been written in the Scrip
tures. This (it will be seen) thoroughly indorses the Old
Testament teachings as to the purposes, the objects and the
results of his sufferings and death.
The earliest announcement to his disciples of his suffer
ings and death we find (Matt. 20 : 28 and Mark 10 : 45) in
the words : " The Son of man came to give his life a ransom
for many." The central word ransom (lutron) means that
which is paid for another, which buys him off, redeems.
We have nearly the same Greek word and in the same
sense in 1 Tim. 2:6: " Who gave himself a ransom for

200 EXCURSUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
all " [antilutron] ; also a kindred noun in Luke 2 : 38:
" Waiting for redemption" [lutrosis] " in Jerusalem." The
analogous verb appears often; e. g., "Ye are redeemed with
the precious blood of Christ as of a Lamb," etc., (1 Peter
1 : 18, 19) ; also in Luke 24: 21. The essential idea in
this class of words (" ransom," " redeem,") requires that
something analogous to what is due be paid, and something
accepted as equivalent in value, but not necessarily the same
in kind or in amount. It suffices if it be equivalent in value
and be accepted as such.  Of kindred meaning are
Christ's words (John 10 : 15) : " I lay down my life for the
sheep." This, it will be noticed, is the great idea of vica
rious sacrifice, life for life, one life given for another ; the
sacrifice of one for the salvation of another.
The same idea underlies the institution of the supper
which Jesus ordained for a perpetual memorial of the ele
ments most vital in his death: "This is my blood of the
New Testament which is shed for many for the remission of
sins" (Matt. 26 : 28). "Remission" is the release, the put
ting away, the forgiveness and removal of the curse of vio
lated law. For this end his blood availed ; for this it was
shed ; and this supreme fact pertaining to his death must be
held upon the heart of his redeemed church forever! Let
it be enshrined in a great memorial service, and a strong,
deep impression of it be kept fresh in their souls, all down
the ages, from generation to generation, till the end shall
come. (6) The words of John the Baptist are few but weighty.
His divine mission being to point out the coming Messiah to
his countrymen and indicate his great work, when he saw
him approaching, he cried : " Behold the Lamb of God who
taketh away the sin of the world!" (John 1 : 29). "The
Lamb," the well known, the long-predicted Lamb, provided
and sent of God, looks back to Isaiah's great prophecy
(53 : 7) : " He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter," " to
bear the sins of many "; and back of this, to the sacrificial
offerings of the Mosaic law which pre-indicated the taking
away of sin.  Observe, John does not say : Behold the
Great Teacher of Israel ! nor, Behold the model man whose
pure example will regenerate society! nor, Behold the
martyr-hero whose testimon)' for truth and righteousness is
to witness sublimely for virtue, and so uphold the law and
kingdom of Jehovah ; but instead of any or all of these
supposable things, he simply said : " Behold the Lamb of

EXCURSUS ON THE ATONEMENT. 201
God who takes away the sin of the world "! He may do
other things than this, but this is first and chief, paramount,
high above all else.
(c) The words of Peter also are few but pregnant with
meaning: "Ye know that ye were redeemed with the
precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and
without spot " (1 Pet. 1 : 18, 19). " Who his own self bare
our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sin,
should live unto righteousness; by whose stripes ye were
healed " (1 Pet. 2 : 24). We note here the same standard words
and figures — "redeemed," "with blood," " of a lamb, with
out blemish or spot," which are thoroughly Levitical; " the
bearing of our sins," and most definitely — not in the sympa
thy of the heart merely, but "in his own body on the tree"
[cross]; and finally, that by the stripes upon him there came
healing to us — borrowed verbatim from Isa. 53 : 5.
(d) The staple passages from John are : " The blood of
Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin" (1 John 1:7); "He
is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but for
the whole world" (1 John 2 : 2) ; "He sent his Son to be
the propitiation for our sins" (1 John 4 : 10).  Peculiar to
John is the conception of the blood of Christ as "cleansing,"
washing unto whiteness — the latter appearing twice in his
Revelation: " Washed us from our sins in his own blood";
" Have washed their robes, and made them white in the
blood of the Lamb" (Rev. 1: 5 and 7: 14).  It is
peculiar to John that his mind makes broad, comprehensive
generalizations, grasping in one word total results, as here.
Moral cleansing holds in itself both the penitence and the
pardon — both the turning of the sinner's heart from sin, and
the blotting out of all his past transgressions by free and
full forgiveness. The work of Christ for his salvation
really includes both ; and John comprehends both under
this conception of making the soul white by washing in the
blood of the Lamb. The apparent incongruity of washing
unto whiteness in blood only makes the figure more impress
ive, and serves to show the vital bearings upon the sinner's
salvation sustained in his view of it by the blood of Jesus
the Lamb of God.
In John's Revelation we have also the conception of Jesus
as "the Lamb," and as "redeeming by his blood." When
heaven was opened to his vision, " there stood a Lamb as it
had been slain," and he heard the new song: "For thou
wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood." 

202 EXCURSUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
All this shows how thoroughly the sacrificial idea, coming
from the Mosaic sacrifices through the prophets, had molded
the language and the thought also of this evangelist.
In connection with the other words of John, there comes
in appropriately the unconscious prophecy of Caiaphas the
high priest (John 11: 50-52) which only John has put on
record. A debate sprung up in the Jewish council on the
political question — what to do with Jesus. Annoyed by his
holy teachings, it occurred to them to turn against him the
words which had dropped from his lips as to his " kingdom."
Could they not bring an indictment against him before the
Roman authorities for plotting insurrection ? Suddenly the
high priest comes to the front : " Ye know nothing at all,
nor consider that it is expedient for us that one man should
die for the nation and that the whole nation perish not."
In these words, his only thought was the wisdom of sacrific
ing one man's life to save the nation from Roman vengeance.
But in the view of John (an inspired man) Caiaphas shaped
this speech, not of himself, but all unconsciously, being
High Priest, God spake through his official lips, and so his
words were a prophecy that Jesus should die for that nation,
and not for that nation only, but to gather into one grand
church of the redeemed all the scattered people of God in
the Gentile world as well.  To " die for that nation " had
a definite sense in the mind of Caiaphas. His words had an
analogous sense when taken as an unconscious prophecy of
which the Spirit of God was the author. A death in some
vital sense vicarious — one man dying that the many might
not perish but live — must be its significance. How this death
of the one availed to save the many is the great question of
the atonement. On one side of the analogy stands the vio
lent death of a supposed traitor; on the other, there is
certainly a death by violence, from which there results sal
vation to myriads. How does that death by violence avail
to this wonderful salvation ?
(e) The testimony from Paul shows that (in common with
his Master) he appreciated the necessity, the need be
("'edei") of that suffering death, for he preached to the
Jews, " reasoning with them out of their scriptures, opening
and alleging that Christ must needs have suffered (Acts
17: 3).  Paul also says: "Christ gave himself for us"
(Titus 2: 14); "Gave himself a ransom for all" (1 Tim.
2: 6); that "in him we have redemption through his
blood, the forgiveness of sins," etc., (Eph. 1 : 7).

EXCURSUS ON THE ATONEMENT. 203
But the special additions made by Paul to the Apostolic
testimony lie in two passages (2 Cor. 5 : 21 and Rom. 3 :
24-26). To the Corinthians he said of Christ: "He (God)
hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin ; that we
might be made the righteousness of God in him."  Here
the chief problem to be settled by the laws of exegesis is,
the sense in which God made him (Jesus) to be sin for us.
 The laws of exegesis specially applicable here are the
known facts of the case ; the analogy of kindred passages ;
and the antithesis between his being made sin for us and our
being made the righteousness of God in him.  Does the
passage mean that God made him to be a sinner for our ben
efit? That would contradict the known facts of the case,
and the whole nature of the case, and is therefore simply
insupposable ; impossible.  Does it mean, Suffered him
to be treated as a sinner; i. e., as put by Peter (Acts 2 : 23),
" delivered him up" in pursuance of his determinate counsel,
so that he was seized by wicked Jewish hands, crucified and
slain as a vile malefactor ? This corresponds to the facts of
the case. It also provides for the antithesis between his be
ing made sin and our becoming righteousness ; i. e. , between
his being treated as a sinner and our being treated as right
eous before God. He died as if he were a malefactor ; we
are forgiven and made to stand before God as righteous
men against whom "there is now no more condemnation."
This construction is thus sustained by the legitimate rules
of interpretation.
But there remains still a further question, viz., whether it
is by the wicked Jews, or by God, that he is supposed to be
treated as a sinner ? Is the thing in mind — the deed of the
Jews who slew him, or the deed of God, treating him as a
sin-offering for the world?  This brings us to one of the
most vital points of the whole subject. In favor of the for
mer alternative it may be said that it corresponds with the
thought of Peter quoted above (Acts 2: 23), "delivered by
God's counsel," but by wicked hands (i. e.) of Jews, cruci
fied ; also, that it may (perhaps) exhaust the meaning of the
passage. The words in themselves do not seem to demand
a reference to God, treating Jesus as a sinner, for their
meaning may be satisfied by referring them to the wicked
Jews, taking his life.  But on the other hand, the sacri
ficial language, abounding in both the Old Testament and
the New, represents Jesus as bearing the sins of men, as
suffering in their stead, and consequently in some sense as a

204 EXCURSUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
sinner; a3 being a Lamb of sacrifice, etc., etc.; and this,
coupled with all we can learn of Christ's sufferings in his an
ticipation of death, and in the death itself, seems to favor the
view that Jesus was for the time, in some sense, and to a
certain extent, treated by the Father as standing in the place
of sinners.  To this should be added that the full breadth
and force of the antithesis between his being made sin for us
and our becoming righteousness through him demand that
the former as well as the latter should refer to God. The
latter certainly does ; it is before God and not before the
murderous Jews that we become righteous through Christ ;
therefore it should be as toward God and not as toward
those Jews that Jesus was made sin for us; i. e., was for the
moment treated as sin — in the sense, as a sinner.
The other important passage in Paul is Rom. 3 : 25, 26 :
" Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through
faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the re
mission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of
God ; to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness : that
he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth
in Jesus."
The thought here is that sins had been remitted during
the ages then past and nothing had been done to set forth
God's righteousness in such remission. It was vital to his
glory — to the moral support of his throne — that He should
show good cause for such remission. Was it morally right
for Him to remit those sins ?  It was to meet this ques
tion that ("the fullness of time" having come) God set
forth his Son Jesus as such a propitiation. It became
availing through faith in his blood, and subserved the grand
moral purpose of showing that God was entirely just — just
to all the vital interests of his kingdom — while yet He jus
tified freely those who believed.  Here is manifestly a
play upon the word "just." Through the propitiation
[atonement] made by Christ, God can justify believers con
sistently -with justice to his government. He can treat them
as if all right, with no infringement upon the rights of his
throne. He has so protected these rights that he can safely
remit the sins of the penitent believer.  Hence the value
of this passage for its bearings upon the aims and results of
Christ's atoning work. Until the propitiation made through
his blood became known, it would seem that God could not
remit sin in justice to his kingdom. After he had set forth
this great propitiation before the moral universe, this lia-

EXCURSUS ON THE ATONEMENT. 205
bility to be thought unjust to his throne was fully obvi
ated. The point in this passage most disputed is the sense and
relations of the word "just." "That God might he just" —
in what sense and to what interests?  "Just" (say some)
to every sinner, visiting upon him, or upon some substitute,
the full and precise penalty of the law. They call this
" distributive justice."  Say others : just to the interests
of his moral kingdom, sacredly shielding them against all
the perils incident to pardon. This is called " general
justice."  This latter construction — general justice — has
for its support : (a) That this is what God's benevolence de
mands, and all it demands. (6) That the form of the state
ment — " that God may be just " — is general, not specific ;
broad, not restricted ; and therefore should be interpreted
broadly, not narrowly — as related to the general interests
of his kingdom and not to the particular demands of the
law on each sinner, (c) The second clause is closely lim
ited ; the first might have been, but is not. The second
says : justify every believing one ; and the first might have
said : deal out precise justice to every sinning one — to fall
either on himself or his substitute ; but it does not say this.
I conclude therefore that this strict construction- — making
the passage mean — just as to every individual sinner — is
forced into the passage — not found already in it by fair
interpretation. (/) The testimony from the Epistle to the Hebrews js
thoroughly vital to this question.- [It has been so fully
brought out in the commentary, that only a mere synopsis
need be given here.]
The author never forgets that he is writing to men famil
iar with the Mosaic system, and never fails to avail himself
of that system to illustrate the Christian scheme. What
the high priest (Aaron) did in symbol, the greater High
Priest, Jesus, does in fact. If Aaron went once a year into
the Most Holy place to sprinkle the mercy-seat with blood,
so does Jesus enter once for all into the heavenly sanctuary
with his own blood. Indeed, the earthly sanctuary was con
structed precisely from a model of the heavenly, shown to
Moses in the Mount. In every part it was framed to illus
trate the great things of the upper temple, about the very
throne of God. If the blood of bulls and goats below
availed to atone for the lesser offenses of ignorance and
ceremonial defilement, how much more shall the blood of

206 EXCURSUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
Jesus, offering himself to God through an eternal Spirit,
avail to purge the conscience and restore peace to sin-smitten
souls? As under the Mosaic system, all cleansing, all atone
ment, all acceptance before God, was indicated and fore
shown by the shedding and sprinkling of innocent blood, so
under the gospel scheme all atonement and all remission
come through the blood of Christ. If this epistle does not
teach this, it teaches nothing. Whoever should eliminate
this doctrine from the epistle would find nothing left. 
We must conclude therefore that the essential features of
the atonement were purposely foreshown in the Mosaic sys
tem. Any theory of the atonement which ignores the great
elements of the sacrificial .system and finds in it no analogies
to the work of Christ must be fundamentally defective.
Precisely what those points of analogy are will be an open
question ; but palpable analogies there must be. We can
by no means meet the demands of the great illustrative sys
tem ordained of God through Moses unless we concede that
in some way the blood and death of Jesus are fundamental
in the atonement.
Taking a general view of this testimony from the New
Testament, we note two features standing out most clearly :
(a) The same words, the same phrases, the same central
ideas, pervade all these writings. No discordant note is
heard ; no considerable diversity appears. What one says,
all are ready to say. One theory of the atonement, and one
only, obtains throughout the New Testament. (6) With
equal unanimity they take their phraseology and their
thought from the Old Testament, i. e. , from the Mosaic sac
rificial system and from the interpretation put upon that
system by the prophets. What is called " the altar-lan
guage" rules throughout, first the Old Testament and then
the New. An atonement taught outside of this "altar-lan
guage," in other phrase, other terms, and other conceptions
than these, it must be exceedingly difficult to make up
from the scriptures.
(2) It remains to consider a second body of testimony
from Jesus himself, viz., in what he said and manifested
in the near anticipation of death and under the suffering
itself. That he had a constant and keen sense of the necessity
("edei") that he should die by violence has been noticed
already (as in Luke 24 : 25-27, 44-47). This sense of its
certainty and of its vital relations to his great mission ap-

EXCURSUS ON THE ATONEMENT. 207
pears vividly in his first announcement of the fact to his
disciples (Matt. 16 : 21-23) ; but especially in his reply to
Peter's rebuke. Peter, it is said, "took him, and began to
rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord : this shall
not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter,
Get thee behind me, Satan : thou art an offense unto me :
for thou savorest not the things that be of God, but those
that be of men." This reply would seem sharp unless it
be specially significant — i. e., unless we see underneath it
a deep sense that a dread temptation lay in the line of
Peter's words, which must not be permitted even to ap
proach his soul. It was (unconsciously to Peter) in har
mony with Satan's temptations,, and would be an offense
[skandalon], a fatal stumbling-block, which must be re
pelled utterly. That death lay before him as indeed a
dread event, yet a death from which it were far more
dreadful to shrink.  The same conviction that this death,
however fearful, must be met and borne, lies in his words
(Matt. 26 : 53) spoken also to Peter : " Put up thy sword :
thinkest thou that I can not now pray to my Father, and
he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of
angels ? But how then shall the scripture be fulfilled, that
thus it must be ? " With a full consciousness of having
adequate power at command to avert this death, he knew
it was fundamental to the redemptive work which his in
carnation contemplated, and therefore there could be no
evading it; it must be!
Not less clear and strong than this sense of its necessity
was his foreknowledge of its dreadful sufferings, and his
sense of constraint and straitness until it should be accom
plished. "Are ye" (said he to his disciples) "able to drink
the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the
baptism that I am baptized with ? " (Matt. 20 : 22) ; and
in the same line of thought : "I have a baptism to be
baptized with, and how am I straitened till it be accom
plished!" (Luke 12: 50). The fearful strain was upon his
soul ; the dread anticipation pressed him sore. How could
he wait for the hour to come and be past !  We must
accept these utterances as deeply significant of the large
place which that fearful death held in his anticipations.
Was there not far more in that death than the physical
pains of crucifixion ?— By the side of these utterances,
place those of Paul: "lamina strait" — the same word
which Christ used ; [sunekomai] — " betwixt two, having a

208 EXCURSUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
desire to depart and to be with Christ, which is far better;
but to abide in the flesh is more needful for you" (Phil.
1 : 23, 24). We notice, however, that Paul's sense of strait
ness was by no means a dread of painful death— although
he too had (probably) a death on the cross before him ;
yet of that he only said calmly: "I am ready to be
offered." Why should the calm composure of Paul, in view
of the cross, be so unlike the straitness and the agony that
lay so heavily upon the soul of his Master ?
A special element of this death-scene is indicated in Christ's
words (Luke 22: 53): "This is your hour and the power
of darkness." Your moment of advantage and apparent
victory over me has come ; the powers of hell are out upon
me in their strength and madness ; the hot and dreadful con
flict is at hand !
Proceeding to yet other words of bitter anticipation, we
read (John 12: 27) : " Now is my soul troubled" (this word
in the sense of agitated, deeply anxious, pressed with bur
dens almost insupportable), "and what shall I say? Shall
I say, Father, save me from this hour? Nay, because for
this very purpose came I unto this hour. Rather let me say,
Father, glorify thy name."  Of entirely kindred character
to this were his struggle and passion in Gethsemane. Nearer
and still nearer the final hour draws on ; Judas will soon be
there with his posse ; there is but a step to the arrest, and
then the mock trial, and the death scene !  Here his
words and manifestations are fearfully expressive : " He
began to be sorrowful and very heavy" ["began" may per
haps indicate a new experience, and if new, then human, not
divine]. He said : "My soul is exceeding sorrowful even unto
death ; tarry ye here and watch with me." "He fell on his
face and prayed, O, my Father! if it be possible, let this cup
pass from me;" and a second time: "0, my Father! if this
cup may not pass from me, except I drink it, thy will be
done!" (Matt. 26: 36-42).  To this scene we must refer
the allusion (Heb. 5:7): "When he had offered up prayers
and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that
was able to save him from death."  Luke adds two other
facts, viz., that under his great agony "his sweat was as it
were great drops of blood, falling to the ground," and that
" an angel came from heaven to strengthen him."
We will not forget that scenes of great and crushing grief
are sacred ; therefore our questionings into the causes and
elements of this great sorrow should be reverent. Yet we

EXCURSUS ON THE ATONEMENT. 209
have a momentous interest in the inquiry, and it can not be
obtrusive if we ask humbly, what did that fearful agony
indicate? How can it be accounted for? Was there not
something in it far more deep and dreadful than the mere
pains of the cross near at hand? Did the " cup" which he
prayed might pass from him contain only the tortures of torn
flesh and lingering death — these precisely and nothing more?
His prayer to one able to save him from death was in some
vital sense heard, yet the agonies of crucifixion were borne
to the bitter end.  Moreover, other martyrs have faced
the cruel cross and the tortures of death by fire, with no such
dread agony of anticipation, and no such impassioned cry
that the cup might pass.  We are pressed therefore still to
ask again, must we not assume both the anticipation and the
presence of some great agony of soul, compared with which
the pains of crucifixion are not to be named?
One outcry from the cross carries with it a dread signifi
cance, especially as coming from the lips of one who, up to
this awful hour, seems never to have suffered the slightest
interruption of his communion with the Father. Yet here
he cried: "My God! my God! why hast thou forsaken me?"
 Shall we allow our prejudgments to question the fitness
of these words ? Shall we labor to break their force by our
assumptions as to the paternal relations and feelings of the
Father toward his Son ? By what right shall we wrest out
of them their legitimate sense? How shall we dare assume
that they have no deep and pertinent meaning? Instead of
forcing them to conform themselves to our theories of Christ's
atoning death, is it not rather incumbent on us to accept
them as one of the great facts of that death, and shape our
theories so as at least not to come in conflict with their un
questionable significance? What are theories of the atone
ment good for save as they adjust themselves to all the
known facts?
The supernatural darkness during the three hours of his
agony on the cross stands an historic fact, with no explana
tory word to indicate its purpose or its effect upon the Great
Sufferer. Did it signify and suggest the hiding of his Father's
face ? Did it bring a deeper gloom over his own soul ? 
Or was it only a recoil of nature, as if for the moment morally
conscious and horrified at such human guilt? Shall we class
it with the earthquake and the rending of the rocks asunder,
or, on the other hand, with the cry, "Why hast thou forsaken

210 EXCURSUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
me? "  1 doubt if we have the data for its certain interpre
tation. A comprehensive view of the testimony found in the
recorded words and acts of Jesus relating to his death must
impress the conviction that no other such death stands on the
page of human history. It is remarkable that so many words
respecting it, and words so expressive, are on record. It is
wonderful that this death should have held so large a place
in his thought and so deep a place in his heart.  Luke
(and he only) has given this as the subject of the conversa
tion held with Moses and Elias on the mount of transfigura
tion. "They spake of his decease ("exodus") which he
should fulfill (" pleroun ") at Jerusalem " — a pregnant sense
lying under this word fulfill. That death was full of pecul
iar, momentous significance. All heaven (may we not say ?)
was looking toward it with thrilling emotion !
Certainly this death was fraught with elements and results
of unsurpassed significance. It was more than a martyr's
death — far more and other than the dying of even the Prince
of Christian martyrs.  It fell to Stephen and to Paul to
die a martyr's death ; but they met it with no recoil of dread
anticipation ; with no imploring prayer that " the cup might
pass ; " with no impassioned cry: " Why hast thou forsaken
me ? "  If the death of Jesus had no other purpose and no
deeper significance than that of a Christian martyr, to be
the supreme example of Christian heroism, and of sustaining
grace in such an hour, why was not his soul flooded with the
light of God, lifted above the sense of physical torture, ex
ultant in the visible glories of the open heavens?
This outline of Scripture testimony we may now apply to
the several theories of the atonement above named.
I. That which finds the central idea of the atonement in
its manifestation of God's sympathy with our sinning, suffer
ing race. Under this theory Jesus bore our griefs and sor
rows in the sense of taking them upon his heart in sympathy
and pitying love. He became incarnate that he might the
more surely feel and the more clearly manifest this loving
sympathy. In these manifestations lies the great moral
power of the atonement, for by these are human hearts
broken down in penitence, and thus lifted up into a morally
transforming faith in God.
Under this theory atonement is simply and only at-one-
ment, the reconciliation of the sinner to God ; not at all, the
propitiation of God by removing the obstacles lying in a

EXCURSUS ON THE ATONEMENT. 211
broken law, and in the impugned authority of the lawgiver.
It holds that the atonement looks not at all beyond the moral
recovery of the sinner ; that God's law has no penalty for sin
except the natural consequences of that sin upon the sinner ;
that these are of course removed when he repents and in so
far as he becomes holy ; that consequently, God has no occa
sion to protect the honor of his law by an atonement (in the
usual sense of this word) as a condition precedent to safe
pardon. The one comprehensive objection to this theory is, that it
lacks bottom. Its fundamental assumptions are fallacious.
The Scriptures every-where assume (all reason concurring
therein) that God governs moral agents under a law which
is enforced by positive penalties of his own infliction. Hence,
"condemnation" and "forgiveness" are not empty words,
but solemn realities. Consequently forgiveness must have
another antecedent condition besides repentance, viz., some
provision to sustain the honor and moral force of the law
which sin has broken.
Any theory of the atonement which forgets that sin is
transgression of God's law; that law has penalities which
transgression incurs, and that incurred penalty can not be
ignored on God's part without damage, dishonor, and even
moral ruin to his government — must be superficial and falla
cious, simply because it does not recognize the vital facts of
the case. This, therefore, is my first objection (fatal, of
course) to the theory of atonement which makes sympathy
its central element. This alone should suffice to refute it.
Yet it may not be amiss to show that in many points it
conflicts fatally with the testimony of Scripture as to the
atonement — e. g. :
(1) In that it makes void the entire sacrificial system.
It finds in that system no illustrative, typical character.
In fact there is nothing there which even suggests sympa
thy. What sympathy with human suffering can there be in
killing innocent animals, in holding up before God in wor
ship the tortures, the death-agonies, the sprinkled blood, of
bullocks and lambs ? Whose sympathy do such sacrifices
illustrate ? Not those of the offerer, nor of the priest, nor
of God. In no point of view does it seem less than absurd
to look for the least typical exhibition of sympathy in ani
mal sacrifices.  Thus this theory contravenes the testi
mony of scripture inasmuch as it nullifies at one stroke all
the significance of the sacrificial system ; and, be it noticed,

212 EXCURSUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
all the significance, therefore, of " the altar-language " —
the sacrificial terms and phrases which, throughout the Old
Testament and the New, describe to us the redemptive work
of Christ in his sufferings and death.  (2) Worse still,
this theory, as applied to the sacrificial system, not merely
lacks adaptation ; is not merely negative in that it fails to
meet the demands of that system ; but it contravenes it ;
runs counter to it ; has not a feature in harmony with it.
For, sympathy is in its nature gentle, mild, tender, loving.
If you propose to illustrate it typically, the spirit of your
types should whisper gently and breathe tenderly. But
the spirit and tone of death-sacrifice is stern and awful.
The shedding of innocent blood suggests penalty, indigna
tion, displeasure against sin. It witnesses to human guilt ;
and has no voice, no word that looks toward the tenderness
of sympathy with suffering. Scenes of blood and torture
may, under some circumstances, be morally wholesome, as
when outraged justice cries for retribution. But such scenes
are no manifestation of sympathy with the guilty; their
tone and spirit are of entirely another character. Therefore
I maintain that the theory which finds the whole spirit and
the essential significance of the atonement in God's sympa
thy with sinners runs counter to the spirit of the sacrificial sys
tem. It would demand a totally different style of symbolical
representation ; it stands in fatal antagonism to this. 
(3) Every theory of the atonement should justify itself by
meeting in a satisfactory way all the material facts of the
case. The most material, vital facts of this case are the
dreadful sufferings of Gethsemane and Calvary — sufferings,
be it considered, whose severest element was not physical
torture, but mental anguish. What was this mental anguish?
On the theory now in question, it was the feeling of sym
pathy with sinners. But such sympathy is benevolence ; in a
spotless soul, pure, perfect benevolence, and therefore can
not, hi its ultimate outcome, be agonizing. Is it then even
supposable that Jesus recoiled and shrunk back from bearing
the burdens of benevolent sympathy with suffering sinners ?
Was the " cup," which he so impassionately besought the
Father to let pass from him, filled with nothing more dreadful
than sympathy with sinners ? What reason can be given why
a benevolent soul should shrink in awful agony from drinking
such a cup ? What should we think of an angel, or even
of a Christian brother or sister, who should manifest such
shrinking and recoil from bearing the heart-burdens of sym-

EXCURSUS ON THE ATONEMENT. 213
pathy with suffering sinners ?  So far as we can see, if
this sympathy with sinners, in view of their sufferings, was
really the " cup " of the Savior's woe, it shocks our moral
sentiments to think that he recoiled from it with strong cry
ing and tears, and implored that it might pass from him and
he not drink it !  Yet again : How can we account for
the outcry : " My God ! my God ! why hast thou forsaken
me ? " Was this a mere hallucination ? Is it conceivable
that Jesus could so strangely misapprehend the moral atti
tude of the Father toward him? How could he suppose the
Father to be so displeased with his sympathy for sinners as
to forsake him in the dread hour of dying in their behalf?
In fine, the following objections to this theory are insuper
able : (1) It utterly ignores the testimony of the Mosaic sac
rificial system, and of the " altar-language," under which
the atonement is taught by prophets, evangelists and by
Jesus Christ himself.  (2) It contravenes all that testi
mony ; breathes a totally different spirit ; demands a funda
mentally opposite body of illustrative types and symbols ;
and bears no other relation to the Mosaic system and to the
language and figures built upon it than that of irreconcilable
antagonism.  (3) Asa theory which proposes to explain
the mystery of Christ's utterances and agonies in the garden
and on the cross, it not only explains nothing, but its results
are unutterably revolting and logically impossible.  (4)
The strain of argument by which this theory has been advo
cated is logically fallacious and morally revolting in this one
leading feature, viz., that it exalts all the self-sacrificing
labors and sufferings of good beings into " vicarious sacri
fice," and thus tones down and disparages the " vicarious
sacrifice" of Christ as in fact nothing special, nothing in any
wise peculiar, nothing of consequence beyond what all kind
mothers do for their sick children, and all good people for
their suffering neighbors. The reader will notice that the
Scriptures never illustrate the "vicarious sacrifice" of Christ
by such analogies — -never put it on the same plane as to its
nature with the self-sacrifices made by good men and
women for the suffering classes.
II. The second theory regards the sufferings and death of
Christ as strictly and precisely substitutional — an exact sub
stitute, on the principle of distributive justice, for all that the
redeemed must else have suffered, he having endured the
very penalty of the law they had broken. The standard
phrase which defines this theory is : "Christ suffered ilie pen-
10

214 EXCURSUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
alty of the law for sinners," and not merely a substitute for
that penalty.
My quotations setting forth this theory will be from
standard authors, living or recent. In such authorities I
read : " The precise thing Christ did was to suffer the pen
alty of the law as the substitute of his people. His direct
intention was to satisfy justice in their behalf, and thus se
cure, on legal terms, their salvation " (Prof. A. A. Hodge,
Atonement, pp. 27, 28). "God's immutable nature demands
the punishment of sin ; and therefore Christ, when made to
occupy the place of sinners, suffered that punishment " (lb.
p. 44). Atonement is the " satisfaction which Christ ren
dered to the justice of God in vicariously bearing the penalty
due to our sins " (lb. p. 34).  Another author, thus":
" The only possible way whereby a transgressor can escape
the penalty of the law is for a substitute to endure it for
him" (Prof. Shedd in "Bib. Sacra.," October, 1859, p. 740).
•  "God is so strictly and immutably just that he would
not spare his. beloved Son when he took upon him the guilt
of man's sin and was substituted in the room of sinners. He
would not abate him the least mite of that debt which
justice demanded" (quoted from Edwards' works, vol. 4,
p. 146).
In examining this theory it is well to consider, in the out
set, that its standard phrase — " The penalty of the law which
sinners have broken," — is very definite. Penalty is synony
mous with threatened suffering. Sufferings of some sort
make up all there is in penalty. It could be no penalty
without suffering; it is suffering only, unmixed with good.
And to say, " The penalty affixed to the law sin has broken,"
makes it as definite as it can be put in our English tongue.
 Now if we ask, What are the elements of suffering
which constitute this penalty, there will be a general if not
universal agreement in these points : Banishment from God ;
all manifestations of his favor withheld ; a conscious sense
of his infinite displeasure; such inflictions of suffering as
will manifest to the universe his abhorrence of sin — all this
to be eternal. Of what sort the inflicted suffering will be ;
whether at all physical, and if so what, it is not essential
here to know. It is however quite safe to say that the sin
ner's doom in the awful future, if physical, will not be ever
lasting crucifixion.  Nor need we debate the question
whether the sinner's remorse of conscience should be counted
as a part of God's inflictions, or as a necessary result of the

EXCURSUS ON THE ATONEMENT. 215
sinner's moral nature. We must at least admit that the
agonies of remorse come indirectly from God as the author
of man's moral constitution : and that he may quicken them
to fearful intensity by his providential agencies.
Now these elements which come within " the penalty of
the law," show what Christ must needs have suffered if in
fact he bore that whole penalty.
Did he suffer all that penalty? We recoil from the supposi
tion. We know he was not banished from God; was not
made to feel an abiding sense of his wrath ; was not tortured
by remorse. It contravenes our most reliable conceptions of
God to suppose that he intended by inflicted suffering to
manifest before the universe displeasure toward his Son. No
body can think that Christ's sufferings were, as the sinner's
would have been, eternal. It is therefore certain that Christ
did not (in the only just sense of the phrase) suffer the pen
alty of the law. That they should have been the same in
kind is utterly insupposable.
Moreover, that his sufferings were equivalent in amount
as suffering to all that the redeemed must else have suffered,
is possible only on the supposition that his divine nature suf
fered. But to the supposition that his divine nature suffered
directly (i. e., otherwise than through sympathy with the
human) there are exceedingly strong objections. To the
theory that his divine sufferings were infinite, the objections
are insuperable.  Thus, against the theory that the divine
nature suffered, he (1) the historic facts, which indicate to us
what those sufferings were — such as these : The pains of
crucifixion and death were human, not divine ; to suffer
acutely from the near anticipation of suffering (as in Geth-
semane) is human, not divine; to suffer under the assaults
of Satan is human, not divine ; to " learn obedience by the
things he suffered" is certainly human, not divine; to pray
that, if possible, the cup might pass from him is human, not
divine ; to have temporarily a sense of being forsaken by
God, as that outcry on the cross seems to indicate that he
had, is human, not divine. Thus every known element of
his sufferings, so far as revealed in the history, is thoroughly
human, and not at all, in any direct sense, divine.
(2) The agonies of Gethsemane were of mind, not of
body. So far as appears, they were peculiar to that hour ;
he then " began to be sorrowful "; these sorrows had not lain
upon his soul for months and years preceding as they came
upon him then. This fact seems to justify the inference

216 EXCURSUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
that the thoughts and mental states of that hour which
brought on him those agonies were of the human nature, not
of the divine. For in Christ's divine mind there could have
been no new peculiar views at that particular time. To his
divine mind all things must appear forever in their true
nature, relations and results. Therefore those thoughts and
views in which lay the agony of that hour (if they were
those of his divine mind) must have been from all eternity
the same as then. But this conflicts with the facts of the
case, and therefore seems to show that those agonies were
not of his divine thought but of his human.
Against the theory that by means of Christ's suffering in
his divine nature, those sufferings became infinite in amount
and so a full equivalent (considered simply as suffering) to
all which the redeemed must else have suffered, lie these in
superable objections :
1. Benevolence gains nothing by it. The universal good
of being is not promoted thereby ; therefore the love of
God could never give birth to such a scheme.
2. Its results would be on the whole more evil than good,
and therefore benevolence must forbid such a sacrifice. For
if the sufferings are to be the same in amount, it is better
the guilty should bear them than the innocent in their stead.
3. If it be said that justice in God is an attribute distinct
from benevolence and of a higher, nobler, more imperative
nature, overruling benevolence, the proper answer is a
square denial. That justice in God should be supposed to
override, rule out, and sacrifice the highest good of univer
sal being, and do what love could not do but must condemn,
is simply impossible; would be unendurably revolting to
reason, and not less repugnant to scripture than to reason,
for scripture declares unqualifiedly that God is love, but
never that God is justice in any such sense as overrules love.
These considerations and reasonings bring us to the con
clusion that Christ did not, in any proper sense, suffer the
penalty of the law. His sufferings were neither the same in
kind nor equal in amount to the sum total which all the re
deemed must else have suffered.
It would be turning aside unprofitably from this course of
argument to quote from those who insist that Christ suffered
the penalty of the law, and show that having made this the
test and standard of orthodoxy, many if not most of them
then proceed to explain it almost utterly away, and to say
(e. g.) on one page : "God demanded from Christ the very

EXCURSUS ON THE ATONEMENT. 217
same punishment as to kind of punishment, though not as
to the degree or as to the nature of the suffering, which the
law denounced upon us "; and on another, (two pages after) :
" We say that Christ suffered the very penalty of the law,
not because he suffered in the least the same kind, much less
the same degree of suffering as was penally due those for
whom he acted" (Prof. A. A. Hodge, pp. 36, 38). This cer
tainly appears to be a case of holding on tenaciously to the
words of a favorite definition while rejecting the legitimate
sense of it. The latter is a concession to truth and evi
dence ; the former is not so easily explained. However, it
is in most respects gratifying to find that those who begin
with the definition : " Christ suffered the very penalty of
the law for sinners," proceed to modify it by eliminating its
essential ideas, toning it down usually to this general and un
objectionable statement : Christ suffered in behalf of sinners
all that God's justice and holiness demanded for the ends of
an adequate atonement.
This theory must be rejected, not because (like that pre
viously considered) it signifies too little to fulfill the script
ural testimony, but because it signifies too much. In respect
to both the nature and amount of Christ's sufferings, it de
mands more than the historic record requires or admits ; and
more than the nature of the case demands or even allows.
If it be said that the altar-language, e. g., "bearing our
sins"; " gave himself a ransom for all"; " made a curse for
us," etc., admits this theory, and naturally expresses it, I
answer : Even if that be granted, it does not demand it.
Another view, exempt from the insuperable difficulties of
this, suffices to fill out the necessary and indeed the natural
sense of this altar-language, and should, therefore, be ac
cepted.  There is not the least occasion to press this altar-
language to signify that Christ suffered the same in kind and
amount as the redeemed must else have suffered ; or that his
death was the same thing as the sinner's eternal death would
else have been ; for a less suffering might suffice and a very
different death might avail. An analogy doubtless exists be
tween what Christ suffered and what is due to the sinner ; but
analogies call only for certain resemblances and not for iden
tities. This is the point where this theory makes its capital
mistake. It pushes these analogies unreasonably far. It
puts into them more than the terms and figures demand, and
more than the nature of the case can possibly admit.
Special notice should be taken of Gal. 3 : 13, much relied

218 EXCURSUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
oh as proof that Christ suffered the whole curse of the law
for us. Here Paul says : " Christ hath redeemed us from
the curse of the law, being made a curse for us, for it is
written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree." But
observe that this passage, for the purposes of the theory
under consideration, is made to read virtually thus : Christ
hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made to
suffer the curse of the law for us. This is a large interpolation.
Very important words are put into the passage, in addition to
what Paul put in, which therefore are not there by his au
thority. This adding to words inspired of God is by no
means admissible unless it appears from the context or from
other legitimate authority that Paul must have meant what
these added words express. But Paul's context shows that
he is thinking, not of Christ's being made the very curse of
the law which sinners had broken, but only of his being ac
counted — considered to be — accursed in the sense in which
any and every man hung on a tree was in Jewish sentiment
held to be accursed ; for in support of his view he quotes
Deut. 21 : 23, which is a special statute against leaving the
malefactor's body on the tree over night. Paul's meaning
therefore is that suspending Christ on the tree was in the pop
ular view an extreme reproach because it was supposed to
imply the execration of God. But this is a very different
thing from Christ's suffering the eternal death to which the
law doomed every transgressor.
As commonly held, this theory of the work of Christ for
sinners is in two quite distinct parts, viz. : (1) Christ bear
ing for sinners the full penalty of the law. (2) His perfect
obedience to the law, which, upon the condition of faith, is
imputed, i. e., transferred in law to the believer and ac
counted as his own.  On this theory it would seem that
the sinner is justified twice ; in each case on entirely distinct
and independent grounds; viz., first, because Christ has
suffered the full penalty of the law in his stead, so that
nothing in law stands against him ; second, because Christ
has obeyed the law perfectly for him, and this is accounted
to be his own obedience, as if he had rendered it himself.
Of course, on either of these grounds it would seem he
should be fully justified.
This theory is obnoxious to the following insuperable ob
jections :
1. Obedience and disobedience are, in their essential
nature, personal and non-transferable. Every moral agent

EXCURSUS ON THE ATONEMENT. 219
must obey or disobey on his own sole responsibility. The
law says to him, do this, do not that, and holds him to his own
duty. No law binding on me permits another moral agent
to do my duty for me, and then reckons his act as being
really my act, and so releases me from my personal re
sponsibility. Neither can it permit another moral agent to
disobey for me, and then account his disobedience as mine.
The supposition of a transfer from one moral being to
another, of personal obligation and of consequent merit
or demerit, is simply absurd. Law knows nothing of the
sort. 2. If there be two distinct provisions for justification, each
in itself all-sufficient, then one or the other must be super
fluous. If either is a fact, it supersedes the other. There
is not the least occasion for the sinner to be justified twice
over; i. e., on two entirely distinct and independent
grounds. No such superfluous provision can be consistent
with God's wisdom.
3. This supposed transfer of Christ's righteousness to the
believer is not the scriptural doetrine of mercy and forgive
ness ; nor is it taught in the scriptures by any right inter
pretation of their words. The sense of it is not there.
For, according to the Scriptures, sinners become right be
fore God (1) by their repentance ; (2) by their faith in
Christ — upon the basis of which faith their sins are, through
Christ's atonement, forgiven. Once renewed in heart and
forgiven of their sin, they are accepted before God. Noth
ing more can possibly be requisite.
4. If Christ's righteousness were really transferred to the
believer, there would be no more room for the exercise of
mercy in his forgiveness, since he would be righteous even
as Christ himself is. Nor does it appear how he could need
grace for future hffly living, having the perfect holiness of
Jesus Christ for his own.
5. In its practical bearings, this doctrine tends danger
ously to antinomianism, inasmuch as, if really believed, it
naturally quenches the sense of personal responsibility for
obedience ; supersedes watchfulness, prayer and perpetual
endeavor to do all the will of God. For why should not
the believer say in his heart, This imputed righteousness
of Christ is all I need to make me right before God ? It
is infinitely better than any obedience of my own, and it
really makes mine of the least possible consequence. Why
should I concern myself over my own doings, as if they had

220 EXCURSUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
any bearing upon my standing before God, or as if He
would ever look at them ?
Does any sensible man receive such impressions from the
thoughtful, prayerful reading of the Scriptures ?
III. The third theory holds that Christ's sufferings and
death were in fact vicarious, inasmuch as they obviate the
necessity for the eternal death of sinners, become penitent
and believing, and so take the place of such death.
Negatively, this theory does not hold Christ's sufferings
to have been penal in the sense of punishment for sin ; and
by no means supposes them to have been the same in kind
or equal in amount to all which the redeemed must else
have suffered.
Positively, on this theory, Christ's sufferings and death,
on the one hand, honored the divine law by forcibly sug
gesting and endorsing its righteous penalty; and, on the
other, by signally illustrating the spirit of self-sacrificing
obedience ; in both directions giving the law such moral
support as made it safe and wise to pardon the penitent and
believing, and to give the Holy Sufferer myriads of re
deemed souls as his reward.
This theory will justify itself as true if it shall appear :
1. That it is in harmony with the revealed facts of the
history of Christ's sufferings.
2. That it meets the demands of the " altar-language," i. e.,
the fair significance of the Mosaic sacrificial system, the
legitimate sense of its analogies and of the terms and
phrases drawn from them and used by prophets, apostles
and our Lord himself.
3. That it meets the exigencies of God's moral govern
ment by adequately suggesting and sustaining its righteous
penalties ; by signally honoring Christ's spirit of self-sacri
ficing obedience ; and also by evolving the highest conceiv
able moral power unto the repentance of sinners and unto
their subsequent new life of love to Christ.
1. It harmonizes with the historic facts as shown in the
scriptures. Here the important points are — that Christ's sufferings
were apparently (as already shown) those of his human
nature only; that his physical sufferings were the utmost
that human flesh could endure, so that he truly died of
suffering — his mortal life went out in and by means of tor
ture; that his mental sufferings were not less extreme, in
volving the severest trial to his feelings under his treatment

EXCURSUS ON THE ATONEMENT. 221
from his professed friends — betrayed by one; denied by
another ; bereft of the much desired sympathy and sustain
ing prayer of his most trusted and beloved three; at the
point of his arrest, forsaken by all.  Coupled with this
were the cruelest abuse and scorn from those he was dying
to save. To all this we must add an almost crushing sense
of the magnitude of the interests pending upon steadfast en
durance to the end and upon holding his heart true to God,
true to his momentous mission, patient under extremest trial
and suffering, sweetly obedient, loving, forgiving.  So far
as we can judge the sorest element in his cup of woe was the
conscious sense of being forsaken of God, left without those
spiritual consolations which had never failed him before ;
left in this most trying hour alone to put his virtue and obe
dience to the sternest possible test.  Thus this theory ac
counts for the emphasis every-where laid upon his sufferings
as immense; upon his sacrifice as being inconceivably great;
and upon his sense of the stern and fearful necessity for
such a death, and the consequent straitness, recoil, and the
almost insupportable burdens of soul, borne in the dread an
ticipation apparent in Gethsemane.
2. This theory meets adequately the demands of the
"altar-language" which has grown out of the ancient sacri
ficial system, and which appears in the prophets and through
out the New Testament.-  For here, as there, are blood
and death, together signifying an atonement wliich both
prepares the way for pardon and carries in itself most potent
agencies for moral cleansing. Here is death, analogous to
the death of the animal victims under the sacrificial system,
and suggesting (as did their death) the deserved death of the
sinners whom Jesus died to save. This blood and this death
are no less prominent under this theory than in that fore
shadowing typical system ; no less powerfully suggestive on
the one hand of righteous penalty, and on the other of the
divine love manifested by the Father in sparing not his own
well-beloved Son, and by the Son in bearing such a death
for the souls of men.— — Here was " vicarious sacrifice " of
" the just for the unjust," to bring us near to God. Here
was " propitiation " as toward God, since such a death for
sinners made it safe and honorable for Him, on this basis, to
forgive the penitent. Here also was what availed to recon
cile the sinner to God, because such manifestations of divine
love and sacrifice in his behalf brought the mightiest moral
power upon him to break his heart in contrition and to in-

222 EXCURSUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
spire hope of mercy — evolving thus the very agencies best
adapted to secure repentance and a holy life.  Here was
blood shed for the remission of sin, bearing which (after the
manner of the ancient high priests) Jesus, our Great High
Priest, entered once for all into the heavenly sanctuary to
mediate and intercede to the end of time for his redeemed.
Moreover, the case did not require that the Father should
with his own hand slay the Lamb of sacrifice. It sufficed that
He should " deliver him up to be taken by wicked hands
and crucified." Nor yet was it required that the Father
should manifest wrath against the Great Sufferer, or even,
in any proper sense, displeasure against him, since it
sufficed that He should leave the Son without the usual con
solations of his manifested presence to the end that his
virtue and obedience unto death might be put to the sever
est strain, the sacrifice be thus made more precious, the
meritorious obedience more sublime and more worthy of
infinite reward. Nor let it be thought incredible that suffer
ing should come permissively from God upon the good in
this world and yet not signify displeasure toward the sufferer.
The great sufferings of Job came upon him, not because he
was worse than other men, but because he was better — a
man of model, most exemplary piety. The Lord had uses
for suffering in his case — uses among which the showing of
displeasure was not one. Often among his earthly saints it
is whom he loves that he afflicts. It is rare that human
thought fathoms to the bottom this great problem — the uses
of suffering from the hand of God upon tlie good.
Further, his death by wicked hands not only made an
awful manifestation of 'human depravity before the universe,
but gave that death the greater morally suggestive power to
every sinner through all time", since it reminds him forcibly
that sin crucified the Son of God — my own sin virtually,
scarcely less than that of proud and hardened scribe and
Pharisee. If they disowned and dishonored the Son of God,
so in heart have I ! In the spirit of the deed, my proud
soul, no less than theirs, stands guilty before God of his
murder !
Thus in various and quite diverse lines of influence did
the death of Christ work toward the great moral purposes
of the atonement. This setting forth before the universe the
appalling guilt of sin as shown in the murder of the Son of
God evolved a mighty moral power. It is brought home
upon guilty souls to their personal conviction, inasmuch as

EXCURSUS ON THE ATONEMENT. 223
the manner of his death suggests that every sinner who sets
Christ at nought virtually "crucifies him afresh and puts
him to an open shame."  These moral influences work in
other lines than the strictly penal. Nothing impresses one
who studies deeply this great scheme of redemption more
than its marvelous economy of moral forces; the glorious
depths of the riches both of the wisdom and the love of
God ! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways
past finding out !
3. Under this theory, the atonement meets the exigencies of
God's moral government. For,
(1) It brings infinite honor to the injured law by forcibly
suggesting and fully sustaining its righteous penalty — a sacri
fice no less than the life and blood of the incarnate Son be
ing the price paid for the sinner's ransom. What could set
forth more perfectly God's infinite regard for his law ? Who
thenceforth could doubt that the Great Lawgiver held his
law sacred, and would sustain its dignity, authority, and
honor, to the uttermost?
(2) It bore the testimony of divine approval to Christ's
spirit of sublime obedience unto death. Think of the honor
God was thus enabled to put upon self-sacrificing benevo
lence ! What a revelation of God's glorious character
' shone out in this whole scheme ! Especially it evinced
God's supreme regard to his great law of love, and lent such
moral force to its support as availed to make it safe to par
don the penitent. It availed also as an adequate reason
before the moral universe for rewarding Christ's obedience
and self-sacrifice with the gift of myriads of human souls re
deemed and saved to his glory.
(3) On this theory the atonement manifested the love of God
in forms at once sublimely grand, and fraught with highest
moral power unto holiness, both upon our fallen world and
upon all the hierarchies of heaven. The simple story — that
"God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten
Son," and that this Son so loved the world that he shrunk
not from severest torture and a most terrible death, can
never lose its power to thrill the moral universe and witness
to the fathomless depths of God's infinite love.
(4) The scheme commends itself as divinely wise in that it
works both towards the moral transformation of the sinner
and also towards and unto the eternal honor of God's law
and throne.
Wisdom and love are both made to shine forth in glorious

224 EXCURSUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
fullness and splendor in the wonderful adjustment of means
to ends, and in the marvelous economy of forces whereby
sufferings really finite avail to results of good that are truly
infinite. It is by no means an offset of one evil against
another equivalent evil — so much suffering borne, to be set
against an equal amount of suffering saved. This would
have been no ground for admiration to the wise, or for joy
to the benevolent. But here are the sufferings of Christ's
human nature (finite, of course) made infinitely potent for
all the purposes of atonement by his real divinity and son-
ship to the Father. It was every thing to the moral value
of those sufferings that, though endured in his human flesh
and human soul, they were lifted to the sphere of infinite
dignity and worth by his mysterious union with divinity and
by his relation to God as his only Father.  Moreover, this
divinity brought to those sufferings and to that death not
only infinite dignity but also infinite power. They came
thereby to represent an infinite weight of character — the very
moral force that evermore sustains law, commands the rej
spect and homage of intelligent moral beings, and exalts to
highest honor and authority the throne of the infinite God.
Such a scheme — at once an infinite gain to the universe of
sentient beings on the score of suffering, and an infinite ac
cession of moral power unto holiness, must be a fountain of
inexhaustible satisfaction to God's benevolence, and of sim
ilar joy to all his benevolent children. All the great inter
ests of God's universal kingdom perfectly and even glori
ously subserved ; his personal character as one supremely de
voted to the highest good of his moral creatures sublimely
manifested ; new moral forces of untold value brought into
action. As these grand revelations are unrolled onward and
still onward eternally, in the view of those "morning stars"
that " sang together " over our new-born earth and of all
their younger and yet unborn brethren, how will the anthem
of grateful and adoring praises swell out upon the great ex
panse of all intelligent worlds in honor of this wonderful re
demption !

APPENDIX E.

THE CHRISTIAN "HIGHER LIFE."
[This essay, published in the Congregationalist (September 13—
October 18, 1876), is put here in permanently accessible form by re
quest of friends, aud in the hope that it will promote the highest and
best attainments in the Christian life.]
The phrase, " The Higher Life," used as a form of Chris-
tain experience, I take to be of somewhat modern origin. I
shall aim to use it in its modern sense. It does not come in
form from the Scriptures; consequently, it is an open ques
tion whether its accepted meaning is in all points in harmony
with God's word. It may be, or it may not. The phrase
itself has no divine authority.
That there is a higher life, possible to Christian experi
ence — a life higher than the average attainment — admits of
no question. Indeed, I have no hesitation in saying that
the possibihties of Christian attainment rise continually
higher and higher, above any supposable point he may have
reached. So long as his mental faculties retain their normal
activity, and he has God's word before him, God's provi
dences all around, about and upon him, and God's Spirit
within him, there will be yet "Alps on Alps" rising ever
before him, up which he may be continually ascending. A
higher life, in what I deem its scriptural sense, I not only
admit but maintain. But observe; there may be various
shades of difference between a higher life and "the higher
life." There are certain elements in the latter (as used by
some, if not most, of those who have brought the phrase into
use) which call for careful and special consideration.
The "higher" stands contra-distinguished from the lower
sort, or form, of Christian life. The phrase assumes, pre
supposes, two sorts of Christian life — two sorts, moreover, not
shading off imperceptibly into each other along the separat
ing line, but quite broadly distinct from each other, both in
(225)

226 THE CHRISTIAN "HIGHER LIFE."
their inception, and in their characteristic elements. The
lower life begins with a first conversion ; the higher, with a
second conversion, analogous to the first, yet quite unlike it.
The lower commences with regeneration; the higher with a
special form and peculiar measure of sanctification. The
lower begins with faith in Christ for pardon; -the higher
makes utmost account of its one commencing act of " faith
for the blessing " of a cleansed heart. Indeed, what is pecu
liar in "the higher life" is largely to be found in this first
great act of faith, being its normal outgrowth and result.
For its mastery of sin is not so much by many lesser victories,
as by this one great victory ; its rise in Christian attainment
is not by lesser stages of progress continually repeated, but
by one great uplifting in which the soul is borne high up
ward and set down upon the lofty table-land of promise and
of rest. Consequently, it must be of the first importance to
study the special features of this peculiar faith, by one act
of which the soul is lifted into this higher life.
The advocates of " the higher life" are wont to speak of
"believing for the blessing" of a cleansed heart. In the
least exceptional form of this faith, the soul must believe
that Jesus can give the blessing at once, and will give it on
the conditions of consecration to him, and especially of faitli
for the blessing. A more exceptionable notion of this sancti
fying faith is, that you must believe that you have it as the
condition of receiving it ; and by natural consequence, that
to doubt is to lose it; while, on the other hand, to "profess"
is to confirm; to "testify" is to make the soul strong in
this higher life. Some (in number relatively few) are un
derstood to hold that in this one momentous act of faith, the
man transfers himself, soul and body — all his moral respon
sibilities and activities — into the hand of Christ, so that
thenceforward Christ bears his moral responsibilities ; does
all for him ; works all in him ; himself is nothing ; Clirist is
all in all; himself nothing (observe), not merely in the sense
of being without merit, but of being without moral activity,
and even without responsibility. Under this system, the
gospel is supposed to rule out the law, and constant en
deavors to learn and to obey the whole will of God give
place to gospel rest. All required obedience was swallowed
up in that one great act of obedience, surrender to Christ.
The height of attainment is passive repose — every faculty of
the soul being supposed to be transferred to the responsible
control of the indwelling Savior.

THE CHRISTIAN "HIGHER LIFE." 227
These various views of the one act of faith which opens
into "the higher life" will call for distinct consideration in
their place. In general, the evidences of having passed, by
means of this second conversion, into this higher life, are:
That you have had faith for it, and may therefore assume
that you have it; that you have a sense of being cleansed
from sin ; that you have a consciousness of being united to
Christ; that you have a divine witness in the soul to this
spiritual cleansing ; and that you have no longer any convic
tion, or consciousness, of present sin.
So much it seemed necessary to say in the outset by way
of carefully defining the doctrines and experiences of "the
higher life " as somewhat variously held, to prepare the way
for the more intelligent discussion of the subject. It is pro
posed in this discussion to consider : whether this doctrine of
two distinct sorts of Christian life is scriptural; whether this
doctrine of a second conversion has divine warrant ; what the
Scripture teaches as to the nature and the possibilities of
Christian attainment; and also to notice certain errors in
doctrine, and some possible dangers in practice, and abuses
of vital truth, which are deemed sufficiently grave to justify
a friendly notice.
This "higher life" is not merely the more advanced
stages of a growing Christian experience, but the special
Christian life already described, claimed to be known by its
distinctive vital elements. It is such elements only, and not
minor shades of difference, that can justify this distinct
classification. Do the Scriptures sustain this doctrine of two distinct sorts of
Christian life?
If they do, it must be done by giving the important ele
ments which define the one and the other; by describing
first the one and then the other, each with its distinctive
marks, or by giving special names, to each class its own.
Does our Bible meet these conditions ?
We must answer : The Bible represents Christian char
acter to be, in its staple elements, a unit — one thing, and
not two. It represents these elements under various phrases
or terms ; but every-where, to have them is to be a Chris
tian ; not to have them is to be yet ungodly. Thus Jesus
said : " Except a man deny himself and follow me, he can
not be my disciple." This is one decisive condition. The
Christian of the lower life must do all this ; he of the higher
life can not in this matter do more. As put here, therefore,

228 THE CHRISTIAN " HIGHER LIFE."
there is but one class of Christians. All must deny them
selves and follow Christ. So, " if any man have not the
spirit of Christ, he is none of his." He must have Christ's
spirit to be in the lower Christian life ; he must have this,
and none other or better, to be in the higher. The test con
templates one class of Christians, and not two. The distinct
and vital elements which make the real Christian are not
assigned to one of two classes and denied to the other ; but
they equally define both and all. So, " he that hath my
commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth
me." Meeting this condition, you are his loving child ;
not meeting it, you are not such. So of numerous other

The fatal difficulty in bringing these test passages into
harmony with the notion of two radically diverse sorts of
Christian life is this : They do not give two sets of tests —
one to describe the " lower life," and the other to define the
" higher " — but they set forth all the tests to define the true
Christian. Every real Christian must have them all. Or
thus : To be a Christian of the lower life, one must repent
and forsake his sins. He of the higher life also does all
this, and, in this particular, this only. He of the lower life
must be born again ; he of the higher has this same regen
eration ; none other. The man of the lower life does not
even enter that state without entire, unqualified, unreserved
consecration to God, up to the full extent of all perceived
duty ; and in this vital thing the Scriptures do not represent
him of the higher life as doing either more or other than
this. This definite test is made common to any and every
form of real Christian life. The lowest can not be accepted
upon less ; and in this definite point the highest can have
no more. The man of higher attainment may have more
knowledge as to what this consecration implies and calls for,
so that in this respect his consecration may cover more
ground than that of his less informed brother. Also he may
be more persistent in carrying his consecration into his con
tinuous life. To differences of this sort we need not now
refer. Again : According to the Scriptures, the Christian life
begins with faith in Christ, the Savior, and advances with
and by a similar faith ; all which must apply to the lower
Christian life as really as to the higher. The one may seek
and find more spiritual strength in Christ than the other ;
but the Scriptures do not account this difference so funda-

THE CHRISTIAN "HIGHER LIFE." 229
mental as to be made the basis for two distinct classes of
Christians. Does some one say : What is the harm of raising a very
high standard of attainment, to be called the " higher life ? "
What if the sacred writers had no occasion for this in their
day, and therefore did not do it ? Since we need it now,
why not have it ?
I answer : (1) It is usually dangerous to get above or be
yond what is written. (2) One of its mischiefs is likely to
come from toning down the lower Christian life danger
ously, leaving out of it almost entirely the element of a con
secrated, cleansed heart ; almost denying to it the presence
and the power of the Holy Ghost and the abiding in Christ.
It is perilous to encourage men to suppose that a life with
out these elements is Christian at all. (3) Human nature
being what it is, the advocates of this twofold classification
will be tempted to justify it by putting more and other ele
ments into the higher life than the Scriptures provide for.
Of the second conversion : Do the Scriptures sanction this
idea, and support this usage of its name ? To open the sub
ject, let us inquire : In what passage is it taught ? In
what words is it expressed ? By what marks is the second
distinguished from the first ? If no satisfactory answer can
be given to these questions, the Scripture authority sought
must be wanting. We shall look for their supporting
answer in vain. I admit that great crises may occur in the
Christian life. A new and juster view of Christ's power to
lift the soul into victory through faith may bring a great
and sudden change into one's experience, memorable, per
haps enduring. Such great advances in the spiritual life I
not only admit, but joyfully maintain. Yet, is it well to
call this a " second conversion ? " Is it in any measure
fundamental, transforming to character, like the first con
version coupled with the genuine new 'birth ? And if it be
not, shall we not mislead men if, by using the same term,
we assume that it is ?
I am aware that the Lord said to Peter: "When thou
art converted, strengthen thy brethren ; " but this is a very
special usage, meaning only, when thou shalt be brought
back from thy sin by penitence and pardon. If this case
justifies the usage now in question, then there may be not
only a second conversion, but the hundredth — as many as
there may be great sins into which a Christian may fall and
yet be restored.

230 THE CHRISTIAN "HIGHER LIFE."
Again : Authority for the doctrine of a second conversion
will be sought in the great pentecostal baptism of the Holy
Ghost. I reply to this : (1) There were special reasons for
making this first great effusion of the Spirit very signal and
demonstrative ; yet even as to the original " one hundred
and twenty," the change was not called a second conversion,
and could not have been so called with propriety. (2) Their
first converts (the "three thousand ")• were told that upon
their repentance and baptism they should receive the Holy
Ghost. Hence their first conversion and their second were
not distinguishable. They had no lower Christian life be
fore they entered upon the higher. That is to say, this
distinction is not elementary, fundamental. (3) Their ex
perience gives the possibihties of every convert from that
day to this. If properly taught, he may receive the Holy
Ghost in precious baptisms at the first, and may retain
them from the first, even till his death. His first conver
sion and his second would thus become one and the same.
The nature of the case creates no necessity for a first con
version which shall lack the baptism of the Spirit, and a
second at some subsequent day which shall bring it. He
may have them both at once. Nothing in the nature,
either of the human soul or of the Spirit's functions, forbids
this and requires a first conversion without this baptism,
and a second with it.
THE POSSIBILITIES OF CHRISTIAN ATTAINMENT.
Sympathizing with every honest endeavor toward real
holiness of heart and life, I can not consent to limit this
discussion to words of caution against the mistakes, or even
the abuses and evils, incident to well meant effort. There
is a positive side to the subject. Some words are due here
to show what Christian attainment is, and its possibilities in
the present life.
Wliat it is can scarcely be stated better than_ in the lan
guage of Scripture: "A new creation; old things passed
away; all things become new;" the promise fulfilled, "I
will put my Spirit within you, aud cause you to walk in
my statutes;" "abiding in Christ," in the sense of branches
in the vine, living upon its life-currents; "loving Christ
and keeping his commandments," and thereby enjoying his
manifested presence, love and communion ; " walking not
after the flesh, but after the spirit;" gaining the "victory
over the world through faith," etc.

THE CHRISTIAN " HIGHER LIFE." 231
This new life begins with repentance and the purposed
forsaking of all sin ; with accepting Jesus as the only ground
of pardon, and moreover as the promised source of spiritual
strength for holy living ; and with a free consecration of
all to God — a consecration absolute, unlimited, to be car
ried out and applied to the utmost extent of perceived duty.
The term sanctification may fitly be used in a sense some
what broader than the term consecration — the latter being
usually, perhaps naturally, limited to an act of the will ;
while sanctification may (perhaps commonly does) include
the adjustment of the sensibilities — every appetite, passion,
impulse, whether of body or mind, to this new law of the
spiritual life. So understood, sanctification involves progress
in at least these three respects : (a) Progressive knowledge
of God and of duty; (6) Progressive adjustment of the sens
ibilities, i. e., the impulses, propensities, and also the habi
tudes of mind and body, to the better understood law of
Christ, and to the demands of the spirit, of full consecra
tion ; (c) A growing confirmation of these habitudes of the
whole being, resulting in new accessions of strength ; in
greater safety against lapsing, and, in general, in a growing
experience in his new life unto God.
Next, I must speak of the possibilities of Christian attain
ment. (1) Let us begin the argument with the divine com
mand. This command forbids all sin; requires sinless obe
dience. Of this fact, and of the degree of obedience re
quired, there can not be the least question. (2) The point
next in order is the provisions of gracious help toward
obeying this supreme command. These provisions, lying
specially in the promised gift of the Spirit, but not exclud
ing God's word and his providential agencies, are adapted,
and were designed of God, for spiritual help in obeying
this law which requires a sinless life.
We come therefore to this simple but momentous ques
tion : Are these provisions adequate — sufficient for their pur
posed object ? If so, they surely bring within the range of
possibility the very obedience which God requires. Argu
ing the question, I must hold :
(1) That on the face of it the probability is great that
if God attempts to provide for, undertakes, promises a cer
tain result, he will not fall below his mark— will not pro
vide for a necessary failure. It is not His way to fail.
(2) The argument gathers immense force from the known
character of God— His love of human well-being; His de-

232 THE CHRISTIAN
sire for the real holiness of his children. We must be
safe in assuming that He loves to give them His true
bread of life ; loves to help toward holy endeavor, and also,
in and through all holy endeavors, unto the utmost success.
(3) The argument passes from an inferential to a posi
tive form when we study God's promises, of which I can
now indicate only specimens ; e. g., "I will put my Spirit
within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes," etc. " If
ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your
children, how much more shall your Heavenly Father
give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him ? " in which
(be it observed) the figure is bread for the life and com
fort of a child — all the child needs. The spiritual gift
lying under the figure is sustenance unto real spiritual life;
fit in quality, full in quantity for the utmost wants of
God's little children. The argument, " how much more,"
shuts off— was designed to shut off — all doubt and fear
either as to the fact or the fullness of the supply. "Faith
ful is he that calleth you, who also will do it." Will do
what? "Sanctify you wholly;" "preserve your whole
spirit and soul and body blameless unto Christ's coming."
This does not fall below the point of meeting the utmost
human need. "God is faithful, who will not suffer you to
be tempted above that ye are able ; but will, with every
temptation, also make a way to escape, that ye may be
able to bear it " (1 Cor. 10 : 13) ; which imphes that God
understands the world we live in and its tempting forces ;
and has therefore provided help for us, not alone through
His Spirit, but through manifold agencies of His providence.
These specimens must suffice.
(4) Inspired men seem to have believed in tliese promises,
taken in the broad and full sense here advocated. Paul
said : " I can do all things through Christ who strength-
eneth me " (Phil. 4 : 13). He sought help, and the Lord
answered him: "My grace is sufficient for thee." He had
infirmities; but under this promise he testified: "I rather
glory in them, that the power of Christ may rest upon me."
(5) The entire argument is yet further enforced by this
consideration : that if the provisions of God's grace and
providence were really and inevitably insufficient — always
falling (though but a little) short of our need, every Chris
tian who strives to attain a wholly blameless life would
find it out, and the result upon him must be a growing
unbelief. The perpetual failure of his best endeavors must

THE CHRISTIAN "HIGHER LIFE." 233
stagger his faith and agonize his spirit. On the other
hand, if he actually finds the grace of God sufficient every
time, his experience begets a richer, broader, stronger faith.
Now the question is this: Has God constructed the gos
pel scheme to be a perpetual failure, or to be a real suc
cess? — that is to say — to beget a growing unbelief, or a
growing faith ? to. lose its moral force when his children
would prove His promises most thoroughly, or to augment
its force more and more as their faith and endeavor be
come high, earnest and persistent? The argument, it seems
to me, may be rested here. Such possibilities of Christian
attainment open the way and provide the needful direction
and impulse for persistent and successful endeavor. So far,
the light of the divine word is full and clear. • The ques
tion of actual attainment, if we were to grapple with it,
we should find not only more complicated and difficult,
but far less useful and less fully witnessed unto in the
sacred word.
ON CERTAIN THEORIES DEEMED ERRONEOUS, AND THEREFORE
DANGEROUS.
1. That a state of perfect sanctification may be attained
by one act of faith. This is understood to be held by some,
at least, of the advocates of " the Higher Life." The ques
tion here pertains not to the purity or perfection of single
acts which God accepts — a discussion which would involve
the grounds on which God accepts single acts of faith —
whether because they are in themselves sincere and full-
hearted, or because of his great mercy, despite of their im
perfection ; but it is rather this — whether one act of faith in
troduces the soul into full sanctification, and guarantees its
continuance, either permanently or for an indefinite time.
Against this doctrine, I maintain:
(1) No one moral act can determine with absolute cer
tainty all subsequent moral acts — in other words, can abso
lutely and unalterably establish a moral state from which
there shall be no deviation. All human experience in this
earthly life proves this.
(2) As heretofore defined, sanctification involves elements
of progress in knowledge, in adjustment of the sensibilities, in
the accumulation of moral strength by continued obedience —
all which demand time, and can not be rushed into perfection
by any single act.

234 THE CHRISTIAN "HIGHER LIFE."
(3) It is unscriptural, and therefore dangerous, to sub
stitute one act of faith for a whole life of faith ; one great
act of prayer for a life of prayer; one effort of the will, how
ever intense, however mighty, however momentous, for a
whole life of effort. For the Scriptures represent this Chris-
tain life to be the running of a race ; the striving for a prize ;
the warfare of a life; the following after, "forgetting those
things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those
things which are before." If the doctrine be that this one
act of faith lifts the soul into a sanctification not only entire
but permanent, its dangerous tendencies become yet much
more pernicious. Some of these dangers must be consid
ered hereafter. Suffice it now to suggest the Savior's admo
nition : " If the light that is in thee be darkness, how great
is that darkness ! " If the theory itself on which the whole
structure of permanent sanctification rests is unscriptural and
baseless, who can measure its possible, nay more, its natural,
mischiefs ?
2. I must class among errors in theory the notion that, to
obtain this blessing, one must believe that he has it as the
condition of obtaining it. The doctrine is not, you must be
lieve that you will have it if you do truly believe for it; but
you must believe that you have it now already, as a condi
tion precedent to obtaining; that is, you must believe what
is not at the time true, as the means of obtaining infinite
blessings from the God of truth! — the absurdity of which
ought to be its full and perpetual refutation!
Yet this theory of faith is thought to be sustained by the
words of Christ (Mark 11: 22-24) : "Whatsoever things ye
desire, when ye pray, beheve that ye receive them, and ye
shall have them ; " words which, as the connection shows,
refer to faith for removing mountains by miracle. But
miracles come under, not the general law of prayer, but a
special law ; for those who wrought real miracles must first
have been endowed with the miracle-working power; and
next, must be moved by God's special impulse to prayer in
the particular case. The power did not come of their own
motion. Unless they had this foregoing pre-intimation, and
could believe in their heart that God would sustain them in
commanding the mountain to go into the sea, it would not
go. Now it must be a great mistake to apply the law of
prayer for a miracle to any and all other forms of prayer.
3. Worse yet, if possible, is the doctrine that to doubt
whether you have the blessing of entire sanetifi cation, is to

THE CHRISTIAN " HIGHER LIFE." 235
lose it. Really, it would seem that this notion must have
come from beneath, not from above; must have been shaped
to blind the eye, not to open it to the real truth ; to perpet
uate a delusion, and not to dispel it. Shall it be deemed
perilous to examine one's self? Can it possibly be the way
of holiness to shut off all doubt and fear as to sinning ? If
so, what does Christian watchfulness mean? What is the
use or significance of prayer against temptation ? If I am to
admit no fear of sinning, or of present imperfection, lest I
lose my hold on perfection, how can even the Lord himself
keep me from falling ?
4. That perfect sanctification is reached by a second con
version analogous to the first. That this notion is unscrip
tural I have already aimed to show. Its mischievous influ
ence appears often in fruitless endeavors to reach an ideal
state through a process of aimless striving, or better, per
haps, of striving in a way, and for a special result, not known
to the Word of God.
5. That under the gospel, faith takes the place of obedi
ence to the law of God, and therefore supersedes the obliga
tion to study, learn and obey the expressed will of God as
to our duty. Nothing can be more false ; nothing more per
nicious. So far from annulling the law, or even lessening its
obligations upon us, the gospel scheme provides the aid for
us to obey it the more perfectly. Jesus made no other test
of love to himself so prominent and so decisive as this: "He
that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is
that loveth me;" he and none other.
6. That a man avails himself of the gospel most perfectly
when he transfers to Christ all his own moral responsibili
ties, so that Christ shall thenceforward do all for him, work
all in him, and himself be simply passive and non-responsible.
It would seem scarcely necessary to say that this is at once an
absurdity and an impossibility — utterly unscriptural and irra
tional. One word from the Scripture should explode it for
ever: "Work out your own salvation with fear and trem
bling ; for it is God who worketh in you both to will and to
do of his good pleasure" (Phil. 2: 12, 13). All the more
should we work, because God works in us. Of his good will
and great mercy his Spirit comes to teach, to move, to inspire,
unto holy work, unto prayer, and watching, and care for our
own salvation ; but never to vacate our responsibilities, or to
supersede our efforts. The notion may be good Buddhism —
looking toward the. absorption of created minds back into the

236
infinite mind of the Creator, or into the bosom of Nirvana —
the great realm of nonentity; but it is no part of Christianity,
or of reason.
ON THE DANGERS INCIDENT TO A POSITIVE ASSURANCE OF
BEING SINLESS, AND TO THE PUBLIC PROFESSION OF SUCH
ASSURANCE. 1. The danger of resting this assurance on insufficient
grounds. The supposed grounds should certainly be scruti
nized with the utmost care, and with whatever aid the
scriptures can afford. For example:
(1) The ground that you have " believed for the bless
ing," and therefore it must be that you have it, and that to
doubt whether you have it involves unbelief in the promise.
But is it safe to assume that your believing for the bless
ing was certainly all that it should be — a perfect fulfilling
of the conditions of the promise? Sometimes men "ask,
and receive not, because they ask amiss, to consume it upon
their lusts." Their motives do not please God. Again, one
part of faith is intellectual, the mind's perception of certain
truths to be believed. Now in this first essential of true
faith, viz. , that you believe the right things, you may be in
error. Therefore, it can not be well to build the assurance
of having attained perfection upon the assumption that you
have believed (to perfection) for the blessing. Yet again,
the scriptures never put the case in this way. They never
propose or suggest that we look for evidences of a pure heart
in the supposed fact that we have " believed for the bless
ing." Rather this is the way they put it: " By their fruits
ye shall know." "Now the fruits of the Spirit are love,
joy, peace," etc. '' He that hath my commandments, and
keepeth them, he it is that loveth me," etc. John (1 Ep.)
gives many tests by which we may "know" our spiritual
state ; but the one here under review is not among them.
(2) The ground that you have a sense of being cleansed
from sin. I would not exclude this entirely from the list of
legitimate evidences ; for Christians may, doubtless, be con
scious of more or less victory over sin; e. g., of the presence
of love in place of ill-feeling or hate. But I have these
things to say of it : (a) It may fall quite short of reaching
to all sin — all imperfection. This inward " sense" may not
be omniscient. (6) While the testimony of this " sense " is
doubtless legitimate so far as it comes from the witness of

THE CHRISTIAN "HIGHER LIFE." 237
God's Spirit within you, and is in harmony with this inward
voice of God, yet it may have its counterfeit — a merely
emotional state, in which God's Spirit has had no agency, so
that you may not be altogether free from liability to be de
ceived in it. (c) The scriptures abstain from reliance upon
this sort of evidence, and therefore it seems to me wise for
us to take it (if at all) with very great caution.
(3) The ground that you are not conscious of sinning, and
recollect no sin for a given time. But consciousness of sin
involves an exercise of judgment as to what is sin, in which
judgment there may be imperfection. You may not judge
as to what is sin so perfectly as God does. Moreover, as to
recollection of past sin, is your memory perfect? May not
some things have either escaped your mind's notice at the
time, or if noticed have slipped from your memory ? Thus
there may be weak points in this sort of evidence, and it
should be taken with caution, not to say abatement.
Sometimes the argument takes this form : I know I con
secrated myself to God for a life of perfect obedience. I
am not conscious of having reversed that act of consecra
tion ; I have not taken myself back from God, and therefore
I may count myself sinlessly His. To which the answer is,
that a Christian once consecrated most heartily to God may
fall into grievous sin without having consciously reversed
his consecration. Such conscious reversal could scarcely be
less than utter and fatal apostasy. There may be a fearful
amount of sinning, yet short of consciously reversing your
purpose to be the Lord's. Omitting to speak of the philos
ophy of this, I appeal to the facts. Sin in human souls is a
strangely insidious thing.
(4) There is danger in assuming yourself sinless on the
ground that you think you live fully up to all the light you
have. May it not be your sin that you have not sought
more light, as you should have done?
This scrutiny into your supposed proofs of a sinless state
may seem severe; but is it not just? Is there any danger
on the side of being too cautious and too searching ? Is it
an evil to have the question of personal sinlessness lie open
— not absolutely settled in the affirmative ? Your Christian
life may be thoroughly earnest, faithful, useful — with this
question still lying open and your soul watchful, prayerful,
and trustful in constant grace to help, none the less.
2. Indulge me now to speak, in all plainness and fidelity
11

238 THE CHRISTIAN
of the dangers incident to admitting an assurance of being sin
less, and to the public profession of such assurance.
(1) Lest it blind the mind to subsequent imperfections
and sins; lest it make you slow and averse to admit evi
dence of sin. It is simply in, and of, human nature that
this assurance and its profession should, have such an influ
ence. You will be brought under strong inducements to
assume that all is right. Will this be a safe assumption ?
(2) This assurance, and the profession of it, will natu
rally lessen your Christian watchfulness against temptation
and sin. You have less sense of danger. You naturally
assume that your danger is actually much less, even if there
remain any danger at all. But Jesus and his apostles ad
monish all Christians to " watch," making no exception in
favor of those most fully sanctified. They never hint that
high attainments obviate the necessity of Christian watch
fulness. (3) There is danger of spiritual pride ; of estimating one's
self more highly than he ought. What others shall think
of him may be a snare to his soul. That man has very
much yet to learn who has never seen this danger, nor
learned to fear it. Christian humility is a priceless gem,
never to be tarnished or even exposed to stain.
(4) If great account is made of the public profession of
this attainment — "testifying for Christ" it may be called —
and its converts are counted, organized, associated into
separate bands and meetings, there will be more or less
danger of a clannish, sectarian spirit. Insensibly to them
selves, this class may become dissociated from other Chris
tians, and withdrawn from their sympathies. Perhaps they
will find themselves pursuing quite other lines of Christian
effort, and not working with other Christians for the salva
tion of souls.
Can this be spiritually wholesome? Will it tend to
brotherly love, and to the highest Christian efficiency of
the churches? Will it subserve even the high ends of
Christian sanctification, causing the leaven to permeate the
whole mass of the brotherhood? One more question: Do
the "Acts of the Apostles," or their "Epistles," show that
the most fully sanctified ones divorced themselves in the
least from their brethren of supposed less spiritual attain
ment? If they had done so, would Paul and John have
given them their "God-speed?"
(5) Dangers may arise from making too much account of

THE CHRISTIAN "HIGHER LIFE." 239
publicly professing a sinless state. It can not be denied
that a very strong social pressure is sometimes brought upon
Christians to make this public profession. It seems to be
held that the bearing of this testimony is a sacred, para
mount duty, neglect of which may forfeit the blessing.
This "testifying" is put perhaps as the first and chief cross
to be taken up and borne for Christ.
Now, in the utmost kindness to my Christian brethren,
let me ask: Is this wise? Is it wholesome? Is it free from
great perils? Do the Scriptures give us examples of it, of
the sort which imply it to be a Christian duty ; or even sug
gest it as expedient? Will not this very urgent call for
testimony tend to beget the assurance, before the evidences
on which it should rest are carefully examined and weighed?
And will not the too hastily accepted assurance stand dan
gerously in the way of subsequent self-examination, and of
the care, caution, and self-imposed scrutiny which the case
demands? It is sufficiently difficult to deal honestly with
one's own soul, and with one's own sins, when the outside
world know nothing of our self-scrutiny ; how greatly is the
difficulty aggravated when I have been pushed to a com
mittal of myself before men as having passed into a sinless
state ? These dangers are somewhat hke those which some
really honest minds have met with in writing out a diary
of personal religious experience, viz : (a) the temptation to
select the better points for record and to omit the worse ;
and (b) the very great difficulty of divesting one's self of
the sense that somebody else will see this, and will judge of
me by what I put here. These dangers I have reason to
know have dissuaded many judicious persons from journal
izing their own religious experience. But the dangers from
publicly professing full sanctification, while the same in
kind, must be very considerably greater in degree.
In regard to speaking of the deep things of one's own ex
perience with God, he has himself given us a delicate
sense of propriety which should rather be cultivated than
violated. I do not say that it should forbid any and all
disclosure of our inner spiritual life ; but certainly this sense
of propriety should be honored and not overslaughed, nor
should it be crushed out as if it were a sin. Such public
testimony can become a duty only as it promises real good.
(6) There is danger of becoming indifferent and negligent
as to future growth in grace. The man who thinks he has
gained the very summit by one great effort, is not likely to

240 THE CHRISTIAN
be girding himself for any higher ascent. If his theory be
that, after running the "Christian race" awhile, with every
muscle put to utmost tension, he is caught up into the
Lord's chariot to be carried the rest of his course with no
effort of his own, he puts a new construction upon Paul's
figure of the Christian life, and will be very likely to con
form himself to his own notion rather than to Paul's. Now
"grow" means continuous, persistent endeavor. It implies
care and Christian culture. As in the plant or the animal
the figure suggests feeding, watering ; so in the spiritual life
corresponding to this figure, there will be conditions to be
diligently fulfilled. The danger I now refer to is that the
notion of having reached the very height of attainment by
one act, may rule out the true sense of growth.
(7) There is a like danger of negligence as to growth in
the knowledge of God and of duty. This danger is im
mensely heightened if a man assumes himself to be specially
inspired — taught of God — otherwise than by and through
his written word. When men get beyond the sacred Script
ures, or (which amounts to the same thing) above searching
the Scriptures to obtain their true meaning by applying the
principles and laws that determine the meaning of all lan
guage, they are at sea, and it were idle to predict where
they will land. For what purpose has God given us his
word at all, if not to be searched, studied, and used for a
light to our feet in the way of holiness ?
Growing in the knowledge of God through his word, is
one of the first conditions of progress in the Christian life.
You need to get the heavenly impulses of more truth seen,
or of truth seen in new aspects, with clearer light, in fresh
applications to human conduct.
(8) There is danger from excessive introspection, to the
neglect of an obedient life and of benevolent labor for others.
Sensible physiologists tell us it is not good for a man to feel
his pulse and look at his tongue too much; it works to the
real injury of his health. Wholesome exercise is better ;
and even for an invalid, the outgoing of his thought from
himself is quite essential to the best action of his life-
powers. Not unlike these are the laws of the spiritual life.
Men need to give most of their thought and labor to bless
others, if they would reach the highest attainments in real
benevolence. Some thought should doubtless be given to
our own heart, some notice should be taken of our own
motives, purposes, impulses, moral attitudes; but if the

THE CHRISTIAN "HIGHER LIFE." 241
mind's chief attention be turned inward upon itself, we in
jure our spiritual health, defeat the best results of Christian
culture, and fail to reach the highest possible attainments in
holiness. (9) There is danger of too much reliance upon instanta
neous results, to be wrought in moments of intense excite
ment. When it is assumed that the best and highest attain
ments in holiness are to be reached only in this way, and
every thing is made to bend toward such an experience, the
results are, at best, somewhat questionable. This remark
does not by any means disparage earnest prayer, nor an in
telligent, sincere, vigorous exercise of faith for spiritual
help. But such help does not always come in the way of
quick, but transient, impulses and instantaneous effects.
Some at least of God's methods of making us "partakers
of his holiness " are not instantaneous, but, on the contrary,
move slowly — as we see in his discipline through chastise
ment and affliction ; also in the application of growing
knowledge to growth into a purer and better life.
(10) Overmuch regard to frames of feeling, and to the
inner life, sometimes runs itself into mysticism, and does not
permit the development of Christian activity outward into
beneficence. Of this, the history of the church has brought
out more than a few monitory examples. We must not
allow ourselves to forget that holiness is benevolence, and
works unto a living beneficence, and that therefore the
normal life of Christians should be one of labor, sympathy,
and prayer for the salvation of souls and for the progress
of Christ's kingdom.
(11) My space permits me only to name, as the last
danger, that of building upon a false system of mental phi
losophy, or of abusing a true one.
CONCLUSION.
This discussion may perhaps be made more clear by using
the scriptural figures of the Christian life — of which the
three following may suffice, viz. : (a) Christians, branches
in Christ the vine — the main point of this figure being a
healthful, vigorous life, ensuring growth and fruit-bearing ;
(b) a warfare, which contemplates specially the subduing of
enemies; (c) a race to be run, to reach the goal and win the
prize. 1. In the case of the vine and its branches, the connection

242 THE CHRISTIAN " HIGHER LIFE."
aims at sustained life and healthful growth and fruitage,
with no disease, no withering. Applied to the Christian
life, are these results possible ? Yes. Is Christ's power in
them ? Doubtless. Are human activity and responsibihty
here ? Beyond question. Is the human wholly or chiefly
compressed into one great act of faith; or is it rather made
up of continual, countless acts of faith, drawing life-power
as it were by continual suction from the vine? The latter.
2. In the warfare the points are — that the enemies are not
one only, but many; some from without, more from within;
some from the realm of matter; more and worse perhaps
from the realms of darkness — wicked spirits in places of
power. Hence the campaign is not of one battle, but of
many; not closed with one decisive victory, but made up
of many victories, indefinite it may be in number and end
ing only at the grave.
What are the Christian possibilities of this warfare ? I
answer — continued victories, with no defeats. Is Jesus in
his soldiers, all of them and all the time? Most certainly —
if so they will. Do His presence and power exempt them
from fighting ? Never. Is it safe and well for the soldier
to assume that his last foe is dead ? The question suggests
its own answer.
3. In the race, what are the duties? To "lay aside
every weight" — incumbrance; to " run with patience," and
not think to finish it by one mighty leap ; to " look unto
Jesus " for impulse and invigoration ; never to look back,
even to measure the ground gone over; never to be too sure
of the prize till it be won.
What are the possibilities of this race ? To run without
stumbling; to run forward, and not backward; with the eye
ever on Jesus and the goal; to run without fainting or even
discouragement ; to run until you obtain. Is the power of
Jesus in this Christian runner? Yea, verily. Does Jesus
do the running himself, or does he rather inspire and sus
tain those who run, looking to him evermore? The answer
is obvious.
In the light of these scriptural figures we may answer
intelligently and satisfactorily our main practical question :
What are the most wholesome beliefs or convictions, bearing to
ward an effective, successful Christian life? We must answer:
1. Belief in the possibilities of success — not ultimate only,
but continual ; not merely at the final end of the struggle,
but in all the steps to that end.

THE CHRISTIAN " HIGHER LIFE." 243
2. The conviction that success must come through the
union, i. e. , combination, of two main elements : (a) per
sonal endeavor ; (6) such faith as brings perpetual strength
from Christ; neither excluding the other; both working
evermore in harmony.
3. The belief that there is yet more to be achieved ; or,
putting it in the negative form, withholding the mind from
the too early, or ill-considered, assurance of having already
reached perfection. In any warfare, in any race, it can
scarcely fail to be disastrous to admit this assurance.
In bringing these discussions to their close, I can not for
bear to express my strong conviction that the narrow way
of life in and unto real holiness lies along the hue where
these standard truths and beliefs have a well-balanced and
unimpeded sway. Let your«faith in the possibility of suc
cess be unfaltering. Banish the notion that there must be
military blunders or defeats in the Christian warfare; stumb
lings, haltings or backward turnings in the race ; stagnation
or leakage in the life-currents that send growth and fruitful-
ness from the parent vine through all the intervening
branches. Believe in the wise adaptation and sure efficacy
of all God's agencies for reclaiming sinners back to holiness.
That is to say, Believe that you "can do all things through
Christ strengthening you," which means, not that Christ
will do all without your own effort, and certainly not this —
that you can do all without Christ's strength ; but, as the
Scriptures put it, I do all through being made strong by Christ.
" They that wait on the Lord shall renew their strength,"
so as " to run and not be weary ; to walk and not faint."
This is good doctrine from the Old Testament (Isa. 40: 31);
just the same comes from the New.
But some one may say: Is there not another whole side
to this subject well put in the phrase, " the rest of faith ? "
Is there not a state of high Christian life fitly called, " the
gospel rest of faith?" I answer: That phrase is too vague
to be used safely in this discussion, until defined. Does it
mean rest through faith in Christ for pardon? There is such
rest, real rest; for you have no labor or care toward making
up an atonement, or toward any offset or consideration, in
the legal sense, for favors received. You have simply to
rest in God's scheme of pardon. Does it mean rest from
labor in the realms above ? That is outside of our present
subject. Applying it to the Christian warfare or race, does
it mean rest as opposed to labor, endeavor; rest in the sense

244 THE CHRISTIAN "HIGHER LIFE."
that Jesus does the fighting, and we only look on ; Jesus
the running, while we only rest? With this sense of "rest,"
the scriptural illustrations of the Christian life can not be
brought into harmony.
I can understand how one who had long struggled on in
his own strength would experience a marvelous change in
his conscious experience when he should first receive the
spiritual strength of Jesus that comes through faith for such
strength. It might even seem to him that (comparatively)
he runs now without effort — almost as if borne upon eagles'
wings ; but let not this blessed help be misunderstood and
abused. Let it not be held to supersede Christian endeavor,
while, in fact, it comes only to aid and inspire endeavor.
The real truth is too precious to be sacrificed ; or even
damaged by abuse. #
If the words "the rest of faith" refer to the. repose of
submission, and trust in God's providences, and even his
chastisements, well ; if to the feeling of repose when God
signifies to us that he has heard, and will answer, our
prayer, that is a precious reality; if to the intervals of rela
tive rest, after mighty struggles, and exhausting conflict,
no one can object. These applications of the phrase are
aside from the scope of our main question.
This phrase — "the rest of faith" — is of human origin
not divine ; comes from the writings of uninspired men, not
from men inspired. Hence, the more danger that it may
mislead ; and hence, the need of caution to define it, and to
accept only such meaning in it as may be in full harmony
with the Scriptures of truth.

COWLES'S NOTES ON THE OLD TESTAMENT.

J. THE MINOR PROPHETS.
1 vol., 12mo. $2,00.

II. EZEKIEL ANI> DANIEL.
1 vol., 12mo. $2.25.

III. ISAIAH.
1 vol., 12mo. $2.25.

IV. PROVERBS, ECCLESIASTES, AND
THE SONG OF SOLOMON.
1 vol., 12mo. $2.00.

V. NOTES ON JEREMIAH.
1 vol., 12mo. $2.25.

By Rev. HENRY COWLES, D.D.
From The Christian Intelligencer* N. Y
"These works are designed for both pastor and people. They embody the re
sults of much research, and elucidate the text of sacred Scripture with admirable
force and simplicity. The learned professor, having devoted many years to the
close and devout study of the Bible, seems to have become thoroughly furnished
with all needful materials to produce a useful and trustworthy commentary."
From Dr. Leonard Bacon, of Yale College.
"There is, within my knowledge, no other work on the same portions of the
Bible, combining so much Of the results of accurate scholarship with so much
common-sense and so much of a practical and devotional spirit."
From Mev. Dr. 8. Wolcott, of Cleveland, Ohio.
" The author, who ranks as a scholar with the most eminent graduates of Yale
College, has devoted years to the study of the Sacred Scriptures in the original
tongues, and the fruits of careful and independent research appear in this work.
With sound scholarship the writer combines the unction of deep religious expe
rience, and earnest love of the truth, with a remarkable freedom from all fanciful
speculation, a candid judgment, and the faculty of expressing his thoughts clearly
and forcibly." From President E. B. Fairfield, of Hillsdale College.
"I am very much pleased with your Commentary. It meets a want which
has long been felt. For various reasons, the writings of the prophets have con
stituted a sealed book to a large part of the ministry as well as most of the com
mon people. They are not sufficiently understood to make them appreciated.
Tour brief notes relieve them of all their want of interest to common readers-
I think you have said just enough/1

COWLES' NOTES— Continued.

VI. THE REVELATION OF JOHN.
1 Vol., 12mo. 81.50.
" We do not know where else ' both pastors and people ' can find so
much judicious comment on the Apocalypse within so brief a space." —
Bibliolheca Sacra.

VII. THE PSALMS.
1 Vol., 12mo. $2.25.
" The sweet singers oi Israel have found in Dr. Cowles as congenial
and fit a commentator as ever in any language or country undertook
that useful service."— Congregalionalist.

VIII. THE PENTATEUCH.
1 Vol., 12mo. S2.00.
" For actually meeting the wants of most readers of the Pentateuch,
we know of no book better than this." — The Churchman.

IX. HEBREW HISTORY.
(From Joshua to Esther Inclusive.)
1 Vol., 12mo. $2.00.
" Another welcome volume from an author who has done more than
any man of his generation to attract attention to the study of the Old
Testament. A book of absorbing and often of fascinating interest. Dr.
C. is destined to be read for many generations to come." — Interior.

X. THE GOSPEL AND EPISTLES OF JOHN.
1 Vol., 12mo. $2.00.
"One may feel safe in purchasing any commentary from the pen of
Dr. Cowles. No student of the Scriptures should be without Dr. C.'s
commentaries ; they are so concise, judicious, and spiritual." — Nashville
Christian Advocate.

XI. THE BOOK OF JOB.
1 Vol., 12mo. $1.50.
This volume (1878) completes the Old Testament.

RELIGIOUS WORKS

PUBLISHED BY

3D- APPLETON <fe C03VCP>-A.lSr_S-,
549 <&= 551 Broadway, New York.

The Good Report? Morning and Eyening Lessons for Lent.
By Alice B. Haven. 1 vol., 12mo, 818 pages. Cloth, $1.26.
Thoughts on Personal Religion: Being a Treatise on the Chris
tian Life in its Two Chief Elements — Devotion and Practice. With
two new chapters not in previous editions. By Edward Metrick
Goulburn, D. D. Fourth American edition, enlarged. With a.
Prefatory Note by George H. Houghton, D. D., Rector of the
Church of the Transfiguration in the City of New York. 1 vol.,
12mo. Cloth, $1.00.
Office of the Holy Commnnion in the Book of Common
Prayer. A Series of Lectures delivered in the Church of St.
John the Evangelist. By Edward Metrics Goulburn, D. D.
Adapted by the author for the Episcopal Service in the United
States. 1 vol., 12mo. Cloth, $1.00.
Sermons preached on Various Occasions during the Last
Twenty Tears. By Edward Metrics Goulburn, D. D. 1vol.,
12mo. Cloth, $1.00.
The Idle Word : Short Religious Essays on the Gift of Speech and
its Employment in Conversation. By Edward Metrick Goul
burn, D. D. 1 vol, 12mo. Cloth, 15 cents.
An Introduction to the Devotional Study of the Holy Script
ures. By Edward Metrick Goulburn, D. D. First American
from the seventh London edition. 1 vol., 12mo. Cloth, $1.00.

Either of the above sent free by mail on receipt of the price.

D. Appleton & Co.'s New Publications.

THE
BIBLE READERS' COMMENTARY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT,
In Two Volumes.
Vol. I. Thb Fourfold Gospel :
A Consolidation of the Pour Gospels in one Chronological Narrative; with the
text arranged in sections ; with brief Readings and complete Annotations,
selected from " The Choice and Best Observations" of more than two
hundred eminent Christian thinkers of the past and present.
With Illustrations, Maps, and Diagrams.
Prepared by J. GLENTWORTH BUTLER, D. D.
[nearly beady.]

HOMILETICAL INDEX:
A Hand-Book of Texts, Themes, and Authors, for the Use of Preachers
and Bible Soholars generally.
Embracing Twenty Thousand Citations of Scripture Texts, and
of Discourses founded thereon, under a Twofold
Arrangement :
1. Textual. n. Topical.
In which all the Principal Texts of In which Bible Themes, with refer.
Scripture, together with the various ence to Texts and Authors, are classified
Themes they have suggested, are quoted and arranged in Alphabetical Order,
and set forth in the order of the Sacred forming at once a Key to Homiletical
Canon, from Genesis to Revelation _; to Literature in general, aDd a complete
which is added a list of Passages cited Topical Index of the Scriptures on a
from the Old Testament in the New. New Plan. With valuable Appendices.
By J. H. PETTINGELL, A. M.
With an Introduction by GEORGE E. DAT, D.D., Professor of Biblical
Theology, TaM College.
lvol., 8vo  $3.00.
The Homiletical Index is undenominational, citing and referring to the pub
lished discourses and writings of the best preachers and commentators of all ages
and of every name.
It is a work of great research, unique in its character, and so admirably ar
ranged as to bring within the compass of 320 octavo pages the cream of hundreds
of volumes, and to transform every Biblical scholar's library, and our larger pub
lic libraries, into one complete Homiletical Commentary, that can be easily han
dled, while it refers him, at once, to what any one of some thousands of leading
divines has said or written upon any particular passage of Scripture.
Its object and plan are very heartily commended by many of our representa
tive men of different denominations who have had the opportunity of inspecting,
in advance, specimen pages. Fonr Appendices, containing much valuable mat
ter, have since been added, and it is believed that the whole volume, now com
plete, will fully justify their favorable anticipation.
D. APPLETON & CO., 549 & 651 Broadway, New York.