-^Sfs AN EXPLANATION OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS BY THE. REV. SAMUEL T. LOWRIE, D. D., PASTOR OF THE KWINO PEESBYTEEIAN CSUBCH, NEW JEBSEY. NEW YORK: EOBERT CARTER & BROTHERS, 530 Broadway. COPYRIGHT BY SAMUEL T. LOWBIB, 1884. QBANT & FAIRBB, PHTI.AnRr.PHTA. PREFACE. The explanation of the Epistle to the Hebrews, herewith offered to the public, is the fruit of eight years devoted to its study. One result of the study has been the conviction that the epistle claims the attention of Christian scholars, as a too much neglected portion of Holy Scripture. Not till the contents of the present volume were nearly written out in full was the thought of pub lishing seriously entertained. But when one's investigation of a subject of universal importance has led him to see much as it has not commonly been seen by others, the impulse to publish is natural. This may be the impulse of a prophet, who is con strained to teach as knowing what others are ignorant of, yet need to learn. Or it may be the impulse of a scholar, who feels the need of enlisting those better qualified than himself in the study of the subject that has yielded so much to him, so that it may be searched till all its riches are brought to light. The latter has been the impelling motive to the present publication. These considerations, however, though fortified by the encour agement of friends, whose judgment might justly give confidence, and whose encouragement is hereby gratefully acknowledged, could hardly have moved the writer to this publication, had he merely the results of his own investigations to offer. The inspiration to these studies was received from Dr. von Hofmann, late professor of theology in Erlangen. The writer, having begun an acquaint ance with him in his lecture-room, during a brief sojourn at that university in 1857, has continued to cultivate it since in his pub- IV PREFACE. lished works, and thus has learned to know the extraordinary merit of his exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Delitzsch, who, before his removal to Leipzig, was long asso ciated with von Hofmann in the university of Erlangen, bears the following testimony : "His contributions to the interpretation of our Epistle, especially in his Schrifibeweis {oh. i. — x.), are very com plete and comprehensive. Taken all together, they furnish the most valuable hints which have yet been given as to the purpose, plan and connection of thought in the epistle, and will be recog nized as doing so by every one who is more than a superficial inquirer " (Delitzsch, Comm. on the Hebrews, vol. I. p. 33 ; Clark's For. Theol. Lib.). What Delitzsch judged so favorably, as seen in brief form, and conveying chiefly hints, we now have in a full and mature form, adjusted to contemporary opposing criticism, in von Hofmann's work, entitled : Die heiMge Sohrift neuen Testaments zusammenhdngend urdersuckt, Nordlingen, 1873, of which part fifth, comprising 561 pp. 8vo., is a com mentary on our epistle. It would be an invaluable gift to English Christians were a suitable translation of it published. Such, however, is von Hofmann's style that, as Godet says : "its intrinsic purity does not vindicate itself till one has read a pas sage four or five times " (Comm. on Eomans, Introduction). He can only be properly translated, therefore, by scholars that are able to write books of their own, and who are unlikely to under take the drudgery of such translation. But it is possible for many, that are familiar with the German, to read von Hofmann for themselves ; and it is a grateful labor to reproduce in one's own fashion what one has so learned. This the writer has done in the composition that is hereby published. His chief encour agement to the publication is the belief, that it is rendering no small service to those who would make deeper studies in the Epistle to the Hebrews, to present to them, even in this fashion, PEEFACB. V some of the fruits of von Hofmann's investigations. These will be recognized by the references at the foot of the page, and par ticularly by extended quotations. At chapter xiii., however, the writer has given von Hofmann's exposition instead of one of his own composition. Beside the motives for this that are stated in a preface to the translation itself, the following considerations had their influence. There is an impression in English circles and elsewhere, that von Hofmann is whimsical. Godet says of his exposition of the Epistle to the Romans, that " he delights in exegetical discoveries which one can hardly be persuaded that he seriously believes in himself." The writer cannot concur in this opinion, though often unable himself to accept von Hofmann's views. As English readers may never have seen a sample of his exegetical work, the translation that concludes the present expo sition is given that they may judge for themselves. Having made the foregoing acknowledgment of indebtedness to von Hofmann, the writer deems it just to himself to say, that the present exposition is not merely a study of that author, nor a reproduction of him. It is a study of the epistle itself. By quotations from other authors, but especially by the referenqes at the foot of the page, it will appear how fully he has consulted those that have labored on the same subject. Except where the contrary distinctly appears, these references are marks of the writer's own reading and observation. It has not, indeed, been deemed necessary to consult every author of note that has written on the Hebrews. But it is important to such studies that one should consider everything of value that has been published on his subject. The writer believes that, in the sources he has con sulted, everything of this sort has at least met his eye, whether it has sufficiently arrested his attention or not. Something should be said in explanation of the references made to authors. One object, of course, is to give credit where •Vl PREFACE. \ it is due. But in most cases an author is referred to simply as a sponsor for a view that is mentioned, whether for concurrence or rejection. By this it will appear, that not merely imaginary views are handled. Moreover, the writer thereby avoids the appearance of representing as the common understanding of Christians what is not so, and also of presenting as his own what has been given by others. Beyond this no system in naming authors has been used. They will be found, on one account or other, good representatives of the views with wliich they are mentioned. No rule has been observed to choose the best. Often accident at the time of reading determined the writer's choice. By using the words " with," " against," nothing more is meant than by -pro and con. viz., merely to indicate briefly the atti tude of the author named toward the subject under consideration. Whether one or many names be cited, it is rarely with the pup- pose of supporting an opinion by the influence of a scholarly name. One must not seek to determine what shall be accepted as the meaning of revelation by taking a vote of scholars. When the labor of students is devoted to a canvass of that sort, it is a sign that knowledge has come to a stand-still. It is possible for every student of the word ultimately to know for himself whether it means what he has apprehended it to mean. Only this conviction can sustain one in the study that is demanded in order to comply with the injunction : " Search the Scriptures." The present composition was originally written out, and is now published with a view to realize the truth of this conviction. It will be noticed that this volume presents none of the matter usually treated under the head of Introduction in that form. No apology, it is supposed, is needed for this. Yet if there Were, the writer would express the opinion, that a dispropor tionate amount of labor has of late years been expended on that PEEFACB. VU department. One may, therefore, feel himself dispensed from traversing the same ground. The more so, because, in the interest of the inquiries : who wrote ? and when? and under what circumstances ? and what has been the history of controversy on these topics? the knowledge of " what is written," and the ability to answer the question : " how readest thou ? " seem in danger of perishing. The most important question belonging to Introduc tion is the Authorship. The writer believes that Paul was the Author ofthe Epistle to the Hebrews. The earliest definite tradition of the Church ascribed it to him. The epistle itself must determine whether we shall abide by that tradition or not. Notice is taken of all that seems to throw most light on this question as it occurs in the text. And that is the best place to deal with it. In regard to the genuine text of our epistle, the labor of expo sition is much facilitated by the general harmony of the latest critical editors. The viii. edition of Tischendorf and that of Westcott and Hort have been taken as the text of the present work. Where they differ, which is very rarely, and where, for reasons of his own or derived from others, a reading different from theirs is adopted, due notice is given. The instances are few. In regard to the translations of the text of the epistle that appear in this volume, it seems expedient to say, that they are not intended as an improved version. They are, indeed, intended to be correct. They may be that, however, without being the best for a version for English Christians. It is often said by those who are displeased with the Eevision of 1881, that, while it is poor as a version, it is good as a commentary. The translations of the present volume are intended to serve the purpose so expressed. Where criticism of the versions of 1611, 1881 is intended, it is done expressly. The writer has aimed at expressing himself in as lucid a style as the nature of his investigations admits of, and by adding VIU PEEFACB. translations to Greek words when used, has even hoped to enlist readers unfamiliar with the Greek. He fears, never theless, that those who may have patience to read will often feel that this mark has not been reached. The writer's chief aim, however, has been another, which may be expressed in the language of Joseph Mede in a letter to L. de Dieu : Eo enim ingenia sum {delicatulo, an marosof) ut nisi ubi interpretatio commode et absque salebris eat, nunquam mihi satisfacere soleam. (Jos. Mede ; Works, fol. Londctn, 1672, p. 569.) With this superior aim, it is likely that the other has often been overlooked. SAMUEL. T. LOWRIE. Emng Manse, near Treitdon, N. J. August, 1884. The names of authors referred to in the present work may be easily identified in any good list of commentators on the Epistle to the Hebrews. It seems expedient only to name the following as the most recent writers on the subject : Dr. Kay, in The (Speaker's) Bible Commentary. Dr. Moulton, in The (EUicott's) Handy Commentary. Dr. A. B. Davidson, in the Hand-Books for Bible Classes. Dr. Angus, in The Popular Commentary, Schaff. AN EXPLANATION OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. I. 1. God having of old time by divers portions and in divers manners spoken unto the fathers in the prophets, 2. hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in a Son whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the ages. Our epistle in the original begins very sonorously with two euphonious adverbs conjoined by: and, which, missing sadly the euphony, we translate : by divers portions and in divers manners. Being put so prominently, these adverbs emphasize the traits of the revelations so described, and thus a contrast is intimated in the revelation of which Christ was the agent, which was not given piece-meal and in many different fashions, but is a revela tion whole and complete, and uniform in manner.* This description is not merely for description's sake. It is the appro priate preface to the following discourse, wherein "the divers portions and manners " (not all, but prominent ones) are taken in detail, viz., angels, Moses, law, sacrifices, tabernaole ; and to all these is opposed the one "Jesus Christ, the same, yesterday, to-day and forever." Referring to the period of divine revela tions preceding Christ by the term : of old time, it is plain that the Apostle means the whole period. And since he designates the agents of the revelations in the plural number, by the name of the prophets, and, in accordance with the facts of all revela tion preceding, describes their revelations, as given in many paxts ' So von Hofiuann. 2 EEVELATION BEGINNING WITH THE PEOPHETS [i. 1, 2. and in a variety of ways, it is evident that he means all pre ceding revelations of the Old Testament. Moreover, by saying : of old time— to the fathers, he implies just such an extended period since last the voice of revelation was heard as our canonical scriptures show between the Old and New Testaments. Thus we have an intimation that neither the Apostle nor his readers regarded as divine revelation compositions like the Old Testament Apocrypha, which being quite or comparatively recent productions at the time of this writing, would neither be described as of old time, nor as spoken to the fathers.* With this old time of revelation and its agents the prophets, the Apostle contrasts the period of revelation by Christ and Christ the agent. Both the period, as a distinct event, and the agent, as one totally different, are emphatic. This, in the sequel, becomes plain with respect to the period, when we see the period and its revelation described as doing away with the most import ant and the distinctive characteristics of the period that precedes it. With respect to the agent, the intended contrast is so obvious as to need no remark. The Author's purpose is to show that he supersedes all the agents of revelation that appeared before him. The revelation of old time was to the fathers; that of the present is to us ; such is the Apostle's mode of expression. In this we notice the natural mode of expression in a discourse where both writer and readers are exclusively Hebrews.^ These revelations, from first to last, were to the chosen people of God, the descend ants of Abraham. The Apostle calls the present: at the end of these days. Were it simply the present that he meant, the Author would use some other phrase than : these days.* This phrase always refers to a present previously expressed in the context. The only thing of the sort represented in our context is the period of God's communicating with men by revelation. This the Author treats as one period : these days ; but distin guishes between what has been and what is now. What has ^ So Bleek. '' Not that the writer's thoughts were exclusively occupied with the Hebrews like Philo. So Farrar, Early Days of Christianity, Chap. xvi. § 1. ^ Comp. ix. 9. i. 1, 2.] ENDS WITH THE SON AS FINAL AGENT. 3 been he calls : of old ; and we must suppose that he attaches the pregnant meaning to that expression that he develops, viii. 13 : " But that which is becoming old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing away." That which is now he calls : at the end, which expresses that the course of revelation, or of these days, has come to an. end, and that what God spoke by a Son is the final revela tion of all.* This interpretation of his meaning is confirmed by all that the Apostle proceeds to say in exaltation of the last- named agent of revelation, which makes it inconceivable that another should follow Him, and by the fact that the entire epistle assumes that in Christ we have the final revelation, and does not contain a word that intimates that God will speak again to others of later date. Of both periods of revelation the Apostle says : God spoke, not " has spoken " (the aorist, not the perfect tense). What was so spoken may still speak to us. In the sequel we find the Apostle appealing to the old-time revela tion as still speaking, as well as to the final revelation. The great and distinctive fact of the revelation is, that God spoke to us by a Son whom he appoiated heir of all things. This marks the present as a special era of revelation inconceivably superior to all that had preceded, and the statement presents the truth that the Apostle proposes to set forth in all its significance, and in some of its transcendent consequences as they especially affect God's covenant people Israel. By saying: a Son, instead of using the definite article, the Author emphasizes ihe relaiion that this final agent of revelation sustains to God.^ He is a Son, and thus infinitely superior to prophets. To this he joins the expression of lohat sort of a Son He is, viz., whom he appointed heir of all things. This qualifying expression must be read, vnthcmt an intervening comma, in most intimate connection with the word Son, as an integral part of the notion intended, and not as the first of a series of things predi cated of the Son, and of co-ordinate worth with the predicates following. A Son expresses what this agent was and is in His 1 How this comprehends also, in the Apostle's view, what is communicated by the agents of Christ will be noticed at ii. 3, 4. ' So Bleek, von Hofmann, 4 WHO WAS APPOINTED HEIR OF ALL THINGS. [i. 1, 2. own nature as related to the Father, and apart from, and there fore before His being appointed heir of all things. The latter expression points to something historical, yet something historical in a transcendent and eternal sense, seeing it preceded the making of the ages, i. e., history in the common sense. If the idea arises, that the expression a Son suggests the notion of other sons than the one here referred to, the idea is excluded by the qualifying expression that completes the notion " Son." "A Son appointed heir of all things " excludes the idea of any other son like this. The complete phrase is, in fact, another expression for " an only Son." All things is to be taken as comprehensively as possible, signifying all that such " a Son " can inherit from such a Father. It can mean nothing less than it does in ver. 3, where the con text requires us to understand by "all things," all that is external to God. The : making of the ages is only a particular under this universal term ; and this particular becoming in turn a universal, the work of redemption is a particular under that. Calling this Son an "heir" expresses that what he enjoys as his own he gets, as is a son's right, by inheritance from the Father ;* and the term " appointed " is but the correlative of that notion expressed with reference to the Father, who gives the Son His proper due. Thus the Author completes the expression "a Son" by the notions necessary to the very relation of a father and son. He uses this comprehensive representation becanse, as the sequel shows, his aim is, in the way peculiar to this epistle : " to make known the mystery of God's will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Christ unto a dispensation of the fullness of the times, to sum up all things in Christ, the things in the heavens and the things upon the earth, — in whom also all are made a heritage that hope in Christ." * The expressions : whom he appointed heir of all things, and : by whom also he made the worlds, are not, as is commonly done, to be taken as co-ordinate statements meant to display the greatness of the Son. This appears not only in the way we have seen above and from the comparative importance of the things affirmed, but also ' Comp. Bleek. 2 Eph. i. 10 sqq. i. 1, 2.] WHO ALSO MADE THE AGES. 5 from the grammatical form in which the expressions are con nected. In verse 3 we see how the Author does co-ordinate such notions with this aim, by using a uniform construction. By com- . paring the xai dc ou of ii. 10, we see that in our verse the con- ' junction is emphatic, meaning " also." It conjoins a notion that the Author means shall be noticed particularly. It is, as said above, a particular under the universal term: "heir of all things ; " but it is the particular that is important to what he is going to represent.* By : the worlds or ages is of course not meant the astronomical notion which we mean by that phrase. That was an utterly unfamiliar notion to Hebrews, for which they had, therefore, no current expression such as this is that we are considering. The nearest notion that they had to our astro nomical conceptions they were wont to express in such language as we have in ver. 10. Nor does the word mean 'the same as ^ Cosmos.^ According to Jewish conceptions, reflected in pos1> Biblical Hebrew, the totality of the temporal affairs of the world comprised a multitude of ages, variously determined, which con stituted so many states of the world, and pertained to human history rather than to material things. Thus the term "world" extends to human conditions after earth's history shall be finished, as in the expression: "world without end."* These were so many " ages " or " worlds," much as we speak of the Roman world, the ancient and modern world, the world of science, etc. As distinct states of the world's history, their existence and con stitution may be ascribed to God, not in the sense of creation, but of " making the worlds," as in our verse, or of " preparing the worlds," as in xi. 3. Thus when the Apostle says, that God by the Son made the ages, he means the works of providence and not of creation. From this it appears that the statement is not something irrelevant and interjected without logical connection in the context, as some suppose.* What the Apostle here calls " the end of these days " (ver. 1), he describes, ix. 26, as " the consummation of the ages," when Christ was manifested to put 1 Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 1, 2, a similar conjoining of several expressions intro ducing matters important to the argument the writer is about to make. 2 Against Bleek. ' See Del. * e. g. Stuart in he. 6 A PERFECT REVELATION OF GOD. [i- 3. away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. By saying here that Christ made the ages, He sets him forth in that light of sovereign authority that prepares the way for one of the chief aims of the present epistle. For the Apostle is about to show, that the coming of this final agent of revelation brings in a new world or age, and supersedes the old. As the context also intimates a contrast between Christ and the prophets, the statement we are considering marks a most significant point of contrast. Having described the era and the agent of the final revelation, the Apostle points to the glorious position that agent assumed when His work on earth was done. A fiirther progress in the thought is marked by passing from the statement of what God has done to what the Son did and does. Ver. 3. Who being effulgence of his glory and impress of his substance, atso upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had made purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high. In this verse the main thought is expressed by the direct sen tence : he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. On this the three preceding participial clauses are dependent. The first two of these clauses (the first being a double clause) are in the present tense; but preceding the direct verb in the aorist they have the force of the imperfect. The third is formed with the aorist participle. The whole verse, however, is connected closely with ver. 2, and both vers. 2 and 3 are descriptive of the Son. The Author is still representing the final agent of reve lation for the purpose of showing the contrast with all that preceded Him. Our verse 3 is intended to show that all that the Son was in Himself and by appointment He still retnains. Thus what He did on earth is mentioned parenthetically : having made purification of sins. Some expression covering the period when He appeared on earth is necessary to express the idea that, in what He was before and in what He is after that revelation was made. He continues the same. If, instead of the phrase we have, the Author had resumed the expression of ver. 2, and simply said : " having spoken to us for God He sat down," etc., no one could have mistaken the parenthetical character of the clause that has i. 3.] BEING DIVINE IN GLORY AND SUBSTANCE. 7 just been pointed out. The choice of another expression does not change this character. That way, however, of referring to the appearance of Christ on earth is not without a purpose. It mentions that aspect of His ministry of revelation which the Apostle means particularly to contemplate and explain, when he comes to deal with the substance of what God made known by His Son. But, related as the expression is, in a subordinate way, to the direct predicate : " He sat down," etc., the latter becomes the first subject of discourse, and the former, viz., Christ dying, comes in later, viz., ix. 15 sqq., where compare. Proceeding, then, to characterize the Son, who is now the agent of revelation, the Apostle says : he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on. high. The preceding clauses in the present participle express His title to the position,* while that in the aorist marks when He took it. But we notice that : being the eflfiilgence of his glory and the impress of his substance, also upholding all things by the word of his power, are expressions that reiterate, by way of interpretation, the substance of the statements : " whom He made heir of all things, by whom also He made the ages" (ver. 2).^ This appears even in the very close grammatical conjunc tion* ofthe first and second clauses (which we try to reproduce in the translation by : "also upholding") which thus reflect the close connection of the two clauses of ver. 2 noted above. What is thus described, therefore, belongs in the same plane with the expressions of ver. 2, and does not, as some suppose,* express what the Son became after He had made purification. The Apostle means to express, that as a Son, and such as He is affirmed to be in ver. 2, He was what ver. 3, a, b, describes, and as such, and as thereby entitled so to do, he sat down at the right hand ofthe * Comp. Phil. ii. 6. * ' This appears from the consensus of New Testament scripture. The Author speaks dogmatically here, assuming the knowledge and agreement of his readers. Our explanation must adopt the same assumptions, agreeably to the plan of attending only to what this Epistle presents to us. We may refer, however, to Col. i. 15-17; Phil. ii. 6 ; Cor. iv. 4. ' By TE : see Winer, New Testament Gramm.. p. 434. * e. jr.,von Hof. 8 UPHOLDING ALL THINGS BY HIS WORD. [i. 3. Majesty on high.* He reposed from the work He had done, and there reposes in a station suited to His nature and dignity. But He is active in all that belongs to the place He now has. Having explained the logical relation of the contents of ver. 3, the particulars of the statements call for our notice. The first of these statements is, that the Son is the eflfiilgence of the glory of God. The brightness or effulgence of glory is the very glory itself, as we may say the brightness of the light is light. It was this understanding of the words of the text that originated the Church's watchword ; " Ught of Light," em bodied in the Nicene creed, and that justifies the inference (1), " that the Son must be constibstantial with the Father, inasmuch as what emanates from light must itself have the nature of light; and (2), that the divine generation of the Son must be at once a free and a necessary process within the Godhead — similar to the relation between sunlight and the sun." ^ The second of these statements is, that the Son is the impress of his substance. The word translated impress means the stamp that impresses the wax with an image. The statement here is, that the substance or essence of God has in the Son that stamp or imprint of itself in which it is represented so as to be plainly apprehended.* In other words, in the Son the divine substance appears, having shape and form. As to the glory and the substance of God, the former is the appearance of the being of God externally ; the latter is His being or essence itself. As the substance and glory are related, so are the effulgence and the stamp or impress. The third of these statements is, that' the Son upholds all things by the word of his power. As has been noticed, this statement is conjoined so intimately with the two that precede as to imply 1 The mention of His work of making purification of sins suggests to us the thought of Christ's state of humiliation, and the inquiry: How is the divine substance and glory and providence of the Son related to that state of humilia tion ? But this suggestion is our own. The Author's thought does not touch it. The present language is silent on this subject. The Author mentions the earthly work only to express the fact of what took place after it. °^^^- 'So von Hof. i. 3.] HE MADE PURIFICATION FOE SINS. 9 that it is a notion necessarily or logically involved in the truth that they express. Obviously, in such a connection, aU things signifies, in the most comprehensive sense, all that is not of the divine substance, or that is external to God. This : all the Son upholds, or bears, and thus to Him is ascribed the continuance of all things.* He does this by the word of his power, which expresses that the power is lEs man, and that He exerts it by the vMerance of His will, like the : " God said " of the original crea tion. For this thought must come to every Hebrew reader of these words. It is impossible to use language that would more unequivocally than these statements affirm the actual and proper divinity of the Son appointed heir of all things. The fourth of these statements is, that the Son made purifica tion of sins. As has been remarked, the Author, under this form, refers to the fact of Christ having spoken to us for God, without intending to point a contrast between the humiliation that in volved and the exaltation that is next described. Said of God, this statement would express the forgiveness of sins.^ But said of Christ, as the sequel of the epistle shows, it means the ex- piaiion of sins by blotting them, out. This, as the middle voice of the verb expresses,* He did of Himself and as His own work. This sense would be more expressly given if "by Himself " were part of the genuine text. Such, however, is not the case. Yet the presence of the words in many MSS. may be accepted as a hint from very ancient and intelligent readers, perhaps from even the first recipients of the epistle, not to let this emphatic mean ing of the verb escape our notice. As expressed here, the state ment means what is amplified elsewhere,* that what has the virtue of cleansing away sins was done, once for all, by what Christ did on earth, viz., by His death. It is to be noticed, that all these statements of fimdamental Christian truths are not only made dogmatically, i. e., without proof, but that they are introduced by indirect expressions. This implies that they were accepted truths with the readers of this | 1 Comp. Col. i. 15-17. " Comp. LXX, Job vii. 21. ' See Kiihner, Gram. II., p. 97, ? 4. * Comp. ix. 26. 10 AND SAT AT GOD'S EIGHT HAND. [i- 3. epistle. The Apostle does not treat them as matters that need to . be established, but freely states them as the groundwork of what he means to prove by an extended argument. This reflection is very important to a clear comprehension of the matter that is to follow. It throws light on the doctrinal status of those whom the Apostle is instructing. We will mistake the meaning of much that he writes if, on the one hand, we ascribe to his readers too little Christian knowledge, or, on the other hand, too much. The verse before us (ver. 3) is proof that they were familiar, at least, with no inconsiderable amount of fundamental truth, and we may infer that as much as this was included in the confession of their faith in Christ.* We must include in this reflection the fifth and final statement of our verse. The fifth and final statement (this is by the direct verb and is the chief statement) is, that the Son sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. Thus the Apostle expresses that Christ returned to heaven. He is not prompted to use the word on high in order to point a contrast with a previous state of humiliation ; for there has been no expression or suggestion of that humiliation. It is because the Apostle himself is exalting his subject as the final agent of revelation that he concludes the description with these words. There he leaves Him, seated on high, and there he contemplates Him, and turns the thoughts of his readers to Him in all the subsequent discourse. The place is at the right hand of the Majesty, which is a periphrasis for the right hand of God.^ The right hand signifies the post of confidence and execu tive authority and power. In all this representation of the Son that treats so particularly of His relation to God, the Author does not use the name Father for God. This, moreover, characterizes the entire epistle. Through out the epistle the Father (for the Author abundantly expresses the fact that He is a Father) is always called God, when the relation of the Father and the Son is involved. Only in xii. 7 9, does the Author call God Father, and that is in relation to us' His children. ' Comp. iii. 1. 'Comp. Del. i. 4.j AN AGENT OF REVELATION. 11 The Apostle's representation of the greatness of the final reve lation issues in the exaltation of the Son who is the agent of it. This he has done, without express comparison, by stating what the Son is, and simply distinguishing between former revelations and their agents, and the present revelation and its agent. But he aims to show that the present is a greater and better revela tion, and to prepare the way for showing that it supersedes the old. This involves comparison. He means to do it by com parison of the final agent with all preceding agents. What has been stated so far has been with a view to this, and he proceeds without pause to that comparison : Ver. 4. Having become by so much better than the angels as he hath inherited a more excellent name than they. The suddenness with which this subject of comparison, viz., the angels, is introduced occasions some perplexity. But in the sequel we notice that Moses (ii. 2), and Melchizedek (v. 10; vi. 20), and Levi (vii. 5), are in turn brought into comparison with as little preface. We shall also have occasion to notice in the Author a similar manner of introducing turns of thought, and obvious applications, and conclusions from state ments made. We may therefore treat this as a matter of style with him. The fitness of the present comparison is obvious enough.* The Hebrews believed that angels were the agents of revelation, and especially that they were concerned in the giving of the law by Moses.^ The Apostle refers to this belief as some thing that must of course suggest itself to the minds of his readers when the subject the agents of revelation came up. They would admit that Christ was greater than the prophets. But how about the angels ? Angels must naturally be the chief sub jects of comparison, because they have precedence of other agents, both as prior to and greater than all others, Christ alone excepted. Moreover, they too, as Christ himself, were agents that came from heaven to speak to men for God. Christ is better than angels. The Apostle says he became better. We are to understand this as expressing more than simply that Christ is better. He became 1 Comp. Alford. ' See i. 14; ii. 2 ; comp. Gal. iii. 19. 12 BETTER FOR US THAN THE ANGELS, [i- 4. better, which denotes something historical in the common sense of things that come to pass. But this becoming does not refer to the session "at the right hand of the Majesty," as if that constituted the Son better.* Nor are we to compare ^ what is said, ii. 8, 9, as if there we have expressed how Christ was for a while lower than angels, and here, as there, we have the antithesis of that.* As has been noted (at ver. 3), we have no expression or sugges tion in our context of the humiliation of Christ. Every word is in the direction of displaying His absolute greatness with compari son only of what is less great. Nor is it expressed here that He obtained this greatness through His incarnation.* Our verse itself defines the becoming better by referring it to ihe name of this better agent of revelation. The name was before the minis try of revelation. The becoming belongs in the same plane as the " appointing heir of all things " and " making the ages." As by : became better is meant something in the common historical sense, it can intimate only whai ihe Son became to us, by coming as the agent of revelation, as the angels became to us agents of revelation. The angels did not become angelic in nature and dignity and name by so coming ; nor did the Son inherit His name by what He did.° The angels were good as agents of reve lation ; the Son became to us better as such an agent. Thus the comparison expressed by : became better does not touch the differ ence between Christ and the angels in themselves considered, but as they are related to us. The Apostle expresses the superiority in question by : better. This touches the key-note of the whole epistle.' All through it we are held to this comparison by the expressions : " better hope," vii. 19; "better covenant," "better promises," viii. 6; "better sacrifices," ix. 23 ; " better possession," x. 34 ; " better resurrec tion," xi. 35. Better than what preceded, and better for us (xi. 40) than for those before us, is the notion intended by the com- 1 Against Davidson. 2 ^ ^un., Del., Alford, von Hof., etc. » See below on ii. 7. * Against Angus. ^ 6 If Phil. ii. 9, 10, be urged, let it be noticed that the name is another ; it is a given name ; it was also Christ's name before his exaltation. ^ Comp. Farrar, Chap, xviii., J 1. i. 4.] AS HIS NAME IS MORE EXCELLENT. 13 parison. For a notion so distinctive we may venture to coin a word, and shall hereafter use for this the word betterness. Wherein the betterness consists is to be a chief part of the showing of this epistle. For the present, the aim is to produce the conviction that it must be a better revelation. The method is aprioral, establishing the betterness of the agent and deducing it from that. In proof of this betterness Paul appeals to a name : He hath inherited a more excellent name than they. We may call this a characteristically Hebrew way of arguing. Hebrews attached more importance to a name than we do. With them names were things ; and among them it would never become a proverb to say : " What is there in a name?" What is more important, it is Scriptural to reason in this way ; especially of all names given by God. What God calls a thing that it is. His calling it so constitutes it such, or reveals its true nature. The latter is exemplified in the case before us. For the Apostle says, the son has inherited His name. The perfect tense refers this matter to a different plane from that to which are to be referred the events " appointed " (ver. 2) and "became " (ver. 4), expressed in the aorist. He was already a Son when the appointing and becom ing occurred. The perfect tense expresses that He received the name Son, and still has it, and by inheritance, and that without expressing when. In this is implied an unexpressed contrast with respect to the angels, who have their name otherwise, i. e., God made them what they are by giving them their names. It is in effect, however, the substance involved in these names that is contrasted, and our way of thinking compels us to think of this. The only Son of God, appointed heir of all things by God, is a better agent to speak to us for God than the angels, because He is more excellent in Himself and in His relations to God than angels. Moreover, the word Sia lao/iat -KC-Koi-Qaa kif airri), is ¦KcnoiSaa iaofiai k-ir' avr^, which occurs only twice beside Isa. viii. 17. The phrase is near enough not to require remark. The two other places are 2 Sam. xxii. 3; Isa. xii. 2, and could just as easily be turned to account and made Messianic by the same process as is applied to Ps. xxii., especially 2 Sam. xxii., which is a Psalm of David, and where, if ever, he must have spoken as a typi cal person (comp. 2 Sam. xxiii. 1, 2, where he is called Messiah, or Anointed). Also Ps. xviii. 2, is supposed by some to furnish the quotation (Parens, Owen ; comp. Wolff) Turner). But Delitzsch chooses Isa. viii. 17, because: "it alone is from a strictly Messianic passage." Yet, as the words are produced as a separate quotation, it affords a presumption against their being taken from the same place as the next quotation following. And seeing it is by these quota tions that Messianic passages in the Old Testament are detected, why not take the opportunity this fiimishes of detecting another? Surely the more we have of them the better, for the style of exegeses we are considering ! But taking Isa. viii. 17 as the source of the quotation, ver. 13 a, then we find that the original Hebrew makes Isaiah the speaker. At this point the LXX. ii. 11 6, 13.] WHEN WITH THEM ON EARTH. 63 ver. 12. This recalls the language of John. xvii. 25, 26: "O righteous Father, the world knew thee not, but I knew thee ; and I have made known unto them thy name, and will make it known." The Author's way of saying it is pointed by the ex pression my brethren ; but the next quotation shows that it is the action more than the expression my brethren, that displays what' the Author means, for there the expression is omitted. Second, he represents the Son In the same condition with those very materially differs from the Hebrew, changing both the speaker and the language he utters. It is in the LXX. that Delitzsch finds the coloring that best suits the interpretation that Messiah or Immanuel is the real speaker. But the fact just noted about the LXX. rather increases the doubt about our Author's really quoting the words as Scripture proof at all. The third of our quotations is evidently from Isa. viii. 18. But just as evi dently Isaiah is the speaker, and the children referred to are his two sons with the prophetic names. Delitzsch says: "The spirit of Jesus was already in Isaiah, and pointed, in the family of Isaiah, to the New Testament church;'' and " thus we have the deepest typical relation to justify our Author in taking the words of Isaiah as the words of Jesus." But it may be replied to this, that with such an interpretation we have a mystery as profound as Melchizedek. Our Author gives a chapter or more to the exposition of the typical signifi cance of Melchizedek. How could he expect his readers to detect the typical ground of his present reference to Isaiah without a similar elaboration? Or, if without comment they understand this reference in the way expounded by Delitzsch, why does the Author need to expound the Melchizedek? We might appeal also to Paul's reference to Ishmael and Hagar (Gal. iv.) with the same inquiry. If we take our present text, ver. 13 b, as authority for such interpretation, it puts the Old Testament in a most extraordinary light, and makes it a book that we must despair of understanding. Its best meaning is not its plain meaning, but one that lies beyond the scope of our vision ; and we cannot hope to know what we read, without an inspired interpreter. We know it only here and there by the few interpretations that we find in the New Testament. This is the sort of thing that drives one to the false position of Bishop Marsh respecting types, viz., that " the only possible source of information on this I subject," — ^viz., what are types, — "is scripture itself." (Comp. Fairbairn: Typology Bk. I., ch. 1.) For if we take such interpretations (as those that are made on the assumption that Paul, in the passage before us, and i. 5-13, is appealing to scripture as authority for what he affirms) and attempt in our tum to expound other scripture in the same fashion for ourselves, then the business will be monopolized by those that possess the most imagination. It is to be noticed that the interpretation of Delitzsch is abortive after all its labor. For it does not reach a result that makes Isa. viii. 18 (our ver. 13 6) any proof that Jesus calls the redeemed " His brethren.'' For the speaker still 64 WHEN RETURNING TO HEAVEN. [II. 11 6, 13, to whom He was sent, sustaiuing, along with them, the same rela tion to God, and saying : "I wiU put my trust in him," ver. 13 a, (from Isa. viii. 17). The fitness of this allusion appears thus : " Isaiah, through whom Jehovah spoke, was just as those whom he taught, consigned to live In hope that God would fulfill what He had promised through himself, and, putting his trust in God, to await the time when He would again tum His face to the house of Jacob. As this was true of him by whom the Old Testament word was spoken, so also was It true of Him by whom God has spoken now." * As corroborative of the Apostle's representation, we may recall John. v. 30 : "I can of myself do nothing ; I seek not mine own will, but the will of Him that sent me." (Comp. John vi. 38.) Third, he represents the Son returning with those brethren, the "many sons whom he leads to glory," saying : "Behold I and the children which God hath given me," ver. 13 6; (Isa. viii. 18). The children are so called as children of God,^ and not of Jesus, to whom they are brethren. He owns them at the threshold of glory where he once was without them, the only Son. This recalls John xvii. 22, 24 : "And the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them. Father, that which thou hast given calls attention to himself and his chUdren; which is no proof that he calls them brethren and is not ashamed of the relation. Moreover, we may notice again what was remarked above on i. 5-13 and this sort of interpretation, that whereas at i. 5-13 every effort was made to show that God was to be regarded as the speaker of the words referred to, where a Psalmist was the actual speaker, here, on the contrary, the same arts are used to show that, when a Psalmist or Prophet spoke, it was really the Messiah speaking. Such efforts tend to reduce the Old Testament to an enigma. In view of these considerations, we may be sure that the common view, viz.: that the quotations before us are an appeal to Old Testament proof, is incorrect. The view given in our explanations involves no such perplexities. It may disappoint the reader by its simplicity, and after being used to fancy so much, he may exclaim, is that all ! But one of the hardest lessons is to " learn not to despise the simplicity of the truth." When we take it in its simplicity, we begin to learn its true greatness. So it was with some Galileans after they had exclaimed concerning Christ: "Is not this the carpenter's Son?" We believe that such will be result in respect to the explanation given in this commentary of Paul's use of scriptural language in i. 5-13 ; ii. 12, 13. * von. Hof * Comp. Davidson. ii. 14 a.] THE CHILDREN BLOOD AND FLESH. 65 me, I will that, where I am, they also may be with me ; that they may behold my glory which thou hast given me ; for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world." Thus representing the tmth according to the known facts of the manifestation of the divine Saviour on earth, and doing it in this scriptural language, the Apostle sets forth the condescension and love of His behavior in a way both grand and tenderly affecting, and fitted to awake our adoration. The passage (11 6 — 13), that we have just been considering, ex plains the subjective attitude of the Son toward those whom He sanctified. He unequivocally owned his relationship to them as being "of one" Father. But this does not sound the depths of what appeared In the Son when He came to speak for God to us. The Author continues to show whai the Son did, after having shown what the Father did (vers. 9, 10), and he adds another statement. It, too. Is the logical inference from the statement, ver. 11 a, that "the Sanctifier and sanctified are all of one," and not from the statement that the Son owns them as brethren. In other words, what follows, like the act of owning His brethren. Is the consequence of the fact that they are brethren, i. e., children of one Father with Himself. Ver. 14 a. Since then the children have been sharers of blood and flesh, he also himself in like manner partook of them. The version of 1881 translates: "sharers in blood and flesh," in order to mark that a different word {xntvioviai) is used from what appears In the apodosis, viz., psrt/w, translated : partook of the same. We use the same method for like reason. Alford, with appeal to Bleek, represents the common view, that the said verbs are almost convertible, " so that a minute distinction of meaning is hardly to be sought for." It seems probable, how ever, that the use of different verbs marks a difference of meaning, which may be to mark a different object.* In the Instance before us it may mark that the object referred to In tSv abriov is different from that governed by xexoivdivrjXEv, in which case toJv abzibv * Such is the effect in the illustrative quotation repeated by Alford from Bleek, ef lam rav KivSiivuv iieraaxivreQ, ovx '5|«'"'"f '"JQ rixiC ttcoiv&VTiaav. 66 CHRIST PARTAKER WITH THEM. [II. 14 O. would refer to rd TzatSia} Then psriaxsv would be equivalent to piroxo? iyivsTo, and the correlative of what is stated ill. 14, piTo^ot rod X. yeyovapsv : " we have become companions of Christ." (Comp. vii. 13.) Taking that construction, the Apostle says : Since the children have partaken of blood and flesh he also took part equally with them, This construction, with the reference of tS>v abrSiv to rd TtacSla, makes It easy to understand why the Author selects the adverb napanX-rjffiuxs, Instead of, say, Cpoiw's. He would signify how the Son took his place alongside of His brethren on an equal footing to endure what they suffered as they endured, and on the same ground contend with and conquer death.^ This construction con- textually seems preferable to the common one that Is given In the translation above, and might be chosen here without hesitancy, were it not that It is so entirely singular. The result of It is not doctrinally different from the common rendering. For if Christ became the companion of His brethren In the respect mentioned in the present statement. It was In order that He might partake as they did of blood and flesh. But stated in the form as just con strued, the representation Is more graphic, and connects more appropriately with the graphic representations of vers. 12, 13. Moreover, so construed, pEriirxcv In the aorist, becomes natural, as it describes the historically past condition wherein Christ was such a companion. This obviates the Inquiry : why not the per fect, as xExmi/d)v^xev'i The Author says the children, meaning the same thing as " many sons," ver. 10 ; but he naturally exchanges this expres sion for that used in ver. 13, and thereby marks the identity of the subject. He says they have been sharers, and the perfect tense denotes that the situation remains the same. But the question Is raised : sharers with whom ? It Is com mon to supply " one another." ^ But xoivrnvim most commonly ' A reference not suggested by any one known to us except Alford, and ex pressly rejected by him without comment. Alford follows Bleek. ^ Comp. Lexx. Passow, Liddell and S. svih -me. ; and Herod I. 77, ayavaaifievo; ovTu irapavT^aia; Kvpo^. "Cyrus: fighting at equal advantage." " deWette, Bleek, Alford, von Hof, etc. ii. 14 6.J TO DESTROY THE POWER OP DEATH. 67 has a dative of the person * different from the subject ; and It seems quite as natural to supply " others not children." This consists with the representation of ver. 10 (see above), where " sons " marks a distinction from " man " In general, of ver. 6 sqq. And this receives further confirmation when, in ver 16, the Author so pointedly states that Christ " laid hold on a seed of Abraham to help them." By blood and flesh, of which, the chil dren partook, and Jesus with them. Is meant human nature as it is subject to death, or over which death has power, and according to which men are mortal. This is plain from the foUowing inference, which states, first of all (a), that thus Christ became subject to death equally with others, and then (b), what He effected by undergoing death. The statement of ver 14 a is the premise to a conclusion that follows Immediately : Ver. 14 6. In order that by death he might bring to nought him that has the power of death, that is the devil. The suddenness with which our Author introduces this men tion of the devil tends to confound the modern reader. (Comp. at i. 4, on the similar introduction of angels as a subject.) It must be assumed that lie assumes on the part of the first readers a familiarity with the notion presented, that requires no intro duction. We may assume that the pith of what is meant here Is familiar Christian doctrine to us; more familiar to us in the abstract form of presenting It, than In the concrete and personal form used In our text. We have in fact the same difference that we noticed at i. 14 ; ii. 2, viz., the difference between the manner of presenting a truth in this epistle and of presenting the same In Romans and Galatians. The recurrence of this use of a con crete and personal representation In preference to the abstract, denotes a deliberate and consistent purpose of the Author. That purpose seems to be to bring forward every spiritual anA. personal agency that has anything to do with religion, and confront It with Jesus Christ, and to affirm the complete superiority of the latter in every respect. In Rom. V. 12, 14, Paul says: "Sin entered into the world, and ' Buttm. Gram., p. 160, and Bleek, m he. 68 NULLIFYING THE DEVIL. [II. 14 6. death by sin;" and "death reigned." In Rom. vlli. 3, he says : " God sending his own Son In the likeness of sin ful flesh, and (as an offering) for sin, condemned sin In the flesh." In our chapter it Is said that God, In bringing many sons unto glory, made the Captain of their salvation perfect through suffering (ver. 10), and that the Son partook of blood and flesh that He might through death nullify Him that has the power of death, that Is the devU (ver. 14). And the effect of the power of death Is represented (ver. 15), as a life-long fear that operated as a bondage. " Death reigning," and " the devil having the power of death " are Itlndred notions. And so are " the Son in the likeness of sinful flesh," and " Jesus taking part equally with the children In their partaking of blood and flesh." And so, furthermore, are " the Son condemning sin In the flesh," and " Jesus through death nullifying Him that has the power of death." Comp. also 2 Tim. i. 10. We are obliged to borrow such light from sources outside of our epistle, and thus acquire some equality with the original readers. We may excuse ourselves from investigating Jewish notions relative to death and the devil's part In It.* The purely scriptural notions of the present passage are the ones important to us. We may content ourselves, for the rest, with what is plainly intimated by the Apostle's words before us. The text affirms indirectly that the devil has the power of death. " Death is sub jected to him, and must be subservient to his purposes. Not that the devil has power to kill when he will ; nor that being sub jected to death is to be ascribed to the devil. . . But, assuming these limitations, the devil has the power of death so far as he has the power to use it against men. As soon as death (in God's own time) overtakes a man, then the devil's will is fulfilled to get this man wholly in his power. Death delivers the souls of men Into his hand. For that which falls Into the power of death, falls also into his power. In the hands of the devil, death is a mighty agent In destroying the souls of men. Making power less him that has the power of death consists, accordingly, in this, that he is deprived of the ability to use death as a means of ' In these respects, consult Alford, Del., in loc, Eiehm, p. 556 sqq., 654 sqq. II. 15 ] WHAT IS THE DEVIL's POWER. 69 getting and holding men In his power. ' Through death ' Christ made powerless him that has the- power of death. The Author does not say by his death, because in the ' oxymoron ' he would emphasize that the devil was overcome ' precisely by that which Is his sphere of power,' * therefore, that Christ turned the devil's weapon against Himself, and thereby got the victory over him. But of course the death of Christ is meant." ^ The representations of this quotation should be accepted with the modification, that the nullification of the devil, according to the Apostle's present statement as qualified by vers. 10, 15, 16, extends no further than the rescue of God's many sons whom Jesus led to glory. The devil has the power of death still, {rdv rd xpdro? e^ovra) but It was nullified with respect to those mentioned. The Apostle Peter also speaks of this power in the passage cited above,^ but calls It (by implication) the power of death = Hades. He says : " It was not possible that He (Jesus) should be holden of It {xparsTffd-at bi: ahroij == held In Its power)." By implication this says, that such as David were so holden when they died. The foregoing quotation Is to be accepted with the further modifica tion, that, as far as It concerns true believers. It appKes to the situation previous to the Intervention of Jesus, described in the text. After that Intervention, viz.. His perfection and the rescue here described, the situation is for ever changed for those that obey Him. (Comp. v. 9.) Moreover, by : through death the Apostle may here (as Peter at Acts ii. 24) mean death in a local sense, and Std * is then to be taken locally. Through the con dition or domain itself where the devil has power, Jesus nullified the devil. This constmction would mark yet another parallel between our text and Rom. viii. 3, noted above. Christ in the flesh condemned sin, and through Hades destroyed the power of the devil. What this nuUIfyIng of the power of the devil was, is repre sented in the closely (paratactically) conjoined statement : Ver. 15. And might deliver those as many as by fear of death were all their life subject to bondage. 'von Hof., Schriftbew, ii., p. 274; also, his Comm. inloc Comp. Chrys. 2 Eiehm, pp. 557, 558. ^Acts ii. 24. * See Grimm's Lex., safi. wc, A. L 70 APPREHENSION OF DEATH A BONDAGE. [II. 15. That he might deliver, indirectly affirms that He did deliver. The rescue was from the power of death ; not from the bondage described In the following words, which is described as a thing of the past. Those, refers as a demonstrative pronoun, to the subjects expressed by "sons," ver. 10, "brethren," ver. 11, and " children," vers. 13, 14.* The oaot = as many as, that rarely occurs after a demonstrative pronoun, seems to Imply others that had not the fear described in the following words,^ and so to define, in an exclusive way, those that received the benefit of this rescue.^ Such a qualified statement of the extent of this rescue Is required by the representation that the devil has the power of death (ver. 14). Were all rescued that were or might come under his power, his power would be ended. Those that were delivered are described by saying : by fear of death they were aU their life subject to bondage. They were subject all their life, describes the situation as a thiQg of the past, and as characterizing the time while they Hved. It Is Implied that, when they died, what they feared respecting death became actual experience. " The life of men before the incarnation and the Lord's vic tory over death, was a perpetual fear of dying. The very Psalms, in which the saints of old lay bare their Inmost souls are proof of this.* The contemplation of death and of the dark, cheerless Hades In the background, was, even for the faithful among Israel under the Old Testament, unendurable. They sought to hide themselves from It with their faith In Jehovah, and so in the infinite bosom of love, whence one day the Conqueror of death and the prince of death should issue." * The foregoing admirable representation of the sentiment with which saints before Christ viewed death makes It probable that the Apostle means by his descriptive designation to refer only to such as the subjects of the deliverance mentioned In the text. It ' Bengel. ' Against Alford. ' Contrast Ps. Ixxiii. 4 ; x. 6. *Ps. vi. 5; xxx. 9; Ixxxviii. 11 ; cxv. 17; Isa. xxxvii. 18. ^ Delitzsch ; comp. also Riehm, in Stud. u. Krit,, 1870, p. 164 sqq., reviewing Klosterman on ; The hope of future deliverance from the state of death in Old Testa- ment saints, Ootha, 1868. ii- 16.] CHRIST HELPS MAN'S CAUSE. 71 favors this view to remember that the Psalmist says of the ungodly: "There are no bands In their death" (Ps. Ixxiii. 4), and : "There Is no fear of God before his eyes" (Ps. xxxvi. 1). This reference, beside the support it has in the subjects " sons," "brethren," "children" (vers. 10, 11, 13, 14), is confirmed by the statement of the following verse : Ver. 16. For verily not of angels doth he take hold, but he taketh hold of a seed of Abraham. The S-ij-izoo = verily, {S-. Xsy. and not found at all in the LXX.) * gives an emphasis, and even an indignant emphasis to the present denial. The verb k-Kdap^avsrai means " to lay hold of In order to help," the i-i in composition relating to the object laid hojld of, and not to the subject who lays hold. The rendering of the English Version of 1611 understood It, with the great majority of commentators, in the latter way, and translated : he took on him, and supplies the notion "nature;" and thus the second clause of our verse became erroneously a favorite proof text for the doctrine that the Son of God assumed human nature ; and It is commonly so used stlU.^ As far back as Castellio, the true rendering was asserted, and warmly combatted by Beza. It Is . of comparatively recent date that commentators have agreed on the above correct rendering. As Delitzsch remarks: "This example may be added to the proofs, that exegetical tradition is not infallible." The former misapprehension and false renderiog of our verse was due to a misapprehension of its logical connection. The mention of angels here shows that the Author has not passed from the thought stated In ver. 5. There he has affirmed that : " not to angels did God subject the world that should afterwards be." We Inferred there (see above) that the affirmative contrary of this statement is, that God did subject it to men. From ver. 5, i. e., in vers. 6-15, the Apostle has been proving and illus trating this affirmative. Proving It by appeal to what the Old Testament affirms, and by comment thereon (vers. 6-8), and by pointing to Jesus as the one in whom it Is realized (ver. 9). Illustrating it by affirming God's providence In the saving work * Alford. * Comp. Alford's full history of the text ; and see Del. 72 NOT THE CAUSE OF THE ANGELS. [II. 16. that the Son did (ver. 10), and by representing the Son's own attitude In reference to those He sanctified (vers. 11—13), and by what He did in consequence of His being, with them, of one Father (vers. 14-15). All that has been said, vers. 6-15, rep resents a human cause, viz., a world to come that was for sons of God, and Jesus as undertaking that cause for them. Our present verse affirms this expressly : he laid hold on (he helped) * a seed of Abraham. But It Is coupled with a negative contrary : he laid not hold on (he helped not) angels. Thus we see the same antithesis of ver. 5 reappear. It Is In our ver. 16 that the Author expressly states the affirmative contrary of the negative statement of ver. 5. The For of our verse, therefore, while referring Immediately to what Is stated ver. 15, extends back to the statement of ver. 5, of which statement ver. 15 Is the con vincing proof. What the Apostle affirms, then. In our verse. Is, not that Christ saves men and not angels. i-Tzdapfi, does not mean " to save." Moreover, who could entertain a notion of angels and salvation having any relation to one another ? ' How flat must be the emphatic denial of something that no one ever thought of affirm ing ! What the Apostle says is, that Christ does not help the cause of angels, but that He does help the cause of a seed of Abraham. The angels, too, had a cause, i. e., a commission, as we have seen.^ We have seen, too, that what the Son came to reveal is a salvation for men from consequences attending the charge committed to angels.* The Apostle now, after the repre sentations of vers. 6-15, affirms that Christ takes part with the latter to help them, and not with the former to help them. The occasion for the tone of indignant emphasis in saying It, is the same that calls for the statement of ver. 5 and the subsequent representations. It is the same emotion that repeatedly reveals itself in Paul, where he deals with a tendency to bring men into subjection to the law. Compare his : " Received ye the Spirit by ' Alford. ^ Except one were to think of "angels that kept not their first estate," Jude 6; comp. 2 Pet. ii. 4; which is wholly inadmiasable here. ' See above on i. 14 ; ii. 2. * See above on U. 1, 3. ii. 16.] 'EmXap^dvsaSat A SEED OP ABRAHAM. 73 the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith ? . . . He that supplieth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he It by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith," Gal. ill. 2, 5. It is much to the point here to recall the words of Christ: "Think not that I will accuse you to the Father ; there Is one that accuseth you, even Moses, on whom ye have set your hope," John v. 45. And again : " I came not to judge the world, but to save the world," John xii. 47. Our verse says he taketh hold, in the present tense, because it refers to the present help of salvation now available.* It says also : a seed of Abraham, wJiere we would expect the Apostle to say the seed of Adam, or to use some other generic term. This Is because we are more used to apprehend the truth as It would be spoken to Gentiles. But the Apostle Is here writing to Christian Jews, and it is with express fitness to them and their relation to " the word spoken by angels " (ver. 2) that he says Jesus lays hold on a seed of Abraham. Though the view of our verse given above is not at all that of von Hofmann, yet what he says on the word ijitXaplS., and the seed of Abraham Is so admirable, and so easily adapted to that view that It is but just to reproduce it. " The ii:dap^dvea&at here Is the same as that at viii. 9, where It Is the (LXX.) rendering of that same pnnn in Jer. xxxi. 32, that In Isa. xii. 9, Is Inexactly translated by dvTiXapPdvsa-O-at. In both these Instances the representation is this, that Jehovah has not left Israel to Itself, but has laid hold of it, in the one instance to take it to Himself, In the other to lead it out of Egypt. And such is the meaning In the passage before us.^ When Jesus extends His hand to lay hold. It Is to such as are Abraham's seed. That they are so called (and not men) in contrast with angels. Is to be explained by the epistle being destined for Jew ish readers ; yet only so far as so destining It Involves a con nection with what pertains to the Old Testament. Not, however, in the sense that the Author avoided reference to the Gentiles In order not to offend his readers.* He means the seed of Abraham 1 Against Davidson. ' Comp. Del. "Against Grotius, Tholuck, Bleek, de Wette, Liin., ete. 74 THE FIRST PARALLEL OF ATTACK MADE. [II. 16. not differently from Isa. xll. 8, which passage he had In mind ; viz., not directly as a designation for Christians In general,* still less for the fleshly descendants of Abraham as such,^ but, in the sense of redemptive history, as designating the Church of that promise given to Abraham.^ In the Old Testament period It had Its existence In the form of a nationality, that traced its origin to Abraham, and thus the Saviour found It, and reached out His saving hand to it.* As It Is the Apostle's purpose now to point to the present fulfillment in Christ Jesus of the Old Testament promise, he names as the subject of the redeeming act of Jesus, not a plurality of individual men, but the Church of the promise of redemptive history that descended from Abraham, which, of course, is now the Christian Church." Thus far von Hofmann. But his sagacious reference to viii. 7 sqq. gives a clue to a more precise notion of the deliverance that the Apostle has In mind In the passage before us. It Is but another aspect of that which is represented at viii. 7 sqq. as release from the conditions of the old covenant, and exchanging them for the new. Here It Is, as we found at vers. 2, 3, a salvation from the consequences ¦ of the word spoken by angels. That especially shows the fitness of the specific expression : a seed of Abraham, The law mediated by angels was imposed upon a seed of Abra ham. The hand that gave deliverance from its consequences must first of all lay hold of that seed. With the emphatic statement of this ver. 16 the Apostle finishes what he has to say about Christ and angels, and does not again recur to them in this respect. We notice that the Issue of this representation Is like that of the representations that are to follow, viz., the representations of the former priesthood yielding to the priesthood of Christ ; the law giving way to the better pro mise ; the old covenant giving place to the new. Here It Is the preceding agents of revelation ceding place to the present agent, viz., the Son of God, and the condition brought about by the angels as "ministering spirits," i. 14, yielding to a "world to come," ver. 5, that Christ inaugurates. What we have been In- ^ Against Bohme, Kuinol. ^ Comp. Del. ' Comp. Del. * Comp. e. g., Matt. i. 21. ii. 17 a.] JESUS made like his brethren. 75 vestlgating is, therefore, no Introduction to the main subject of the epistle, viz., to the purpose of showing Judaizing readers that the old dispensation is superceded. It is thai subject itself, and the passage I. 4; II. 16, Is the construction ofthe first parallel of attack on the position the Author besieges, showing first that Christ is superior to angels, I. 4-13, and then that His agency counteracts the consequences of theirs. He has established that parallel, and now he uses the advantage to press an appropriate Inference (vers. 17, 18) which, as is his wont, he follows with an earnest exhortation. The inference is as follows : Ver. 17 a. Whence it behooved him to be made like his brethren in all respects. The whence refers to the statement that Jesus "lays hold on a seed of Abraham." His doing so involved the necessity of what is now stated. For a necessity the Author affirms that It was by using the word ai^edev. But presented thus, as the consequence of that free aet by which the Son lays hold on a seed of Abraham to help them, the necessity is represented as a freely accepted one. At the same time, there Is implied the truth that by this means and no other could the Son save men. What was necessary was, that the Son should become like his brethren in all respects. The emphasis Is on xazd ndvra, which brings In more than has already been affirmed, and is not to be understood as saying for substance the same as ver. 14. Besides "partaldng of blood and flesh," the Author would here affirm that Jesus was made like His brethren in every respect, which is not necessarily Involved in the previous statement, or at least might be overlooked by the readers. That Christ partook of blood and flesh made Him mortal along with others. But to say He was mortal does not Involve that He was also subject to temptation. And without the latter He would not be made like his brethren In every respect. Hence the Importance of this additional notion now Introduced. The Apostle's statement does not In the least involve the notion that Jesus became like His brethren In the matter of sinning, and there Is no occasion here for expressly disclaiming that, as is done iv. 1 5. There Is no express mention of the particulars In which He 76 CHRIST, A MERCIFUL HIGH PRIEST, [Ii. 1 7 6. became like them, so that there Is no call to disclaim one erro neous Inference more than another. The unreasonableness of such an Inference might be repelled in a form like Paul's indig nant language elsewhere : " How could He that came to free us from sin. Himself Hve in sin ? " * The reason of this necessity of being made Uke His brethren In every respect Is now added, just as In ver. 14 the reason Is given why Jesus became like them in that partial respect (blood and flesh) mentioned there, viz. : Ver. 17 b. In order that he might become a merciful and faith ful high priest in things pertaining to God, to expiate the sin of the people. A difference appears between the purpose stated here, and that stated ver. 14 (both Introduced by ha). In ver. 14 the Son's likeness to His brethren was in order that He might nuUIfy their enemy ; in other words, deliver them by removing something external to them. In the present verse. His Ukeness is repre sented to be in order that He might remove something that is part of themselves, viz., their sins. He became partaker of blood and flesh, i. e., mortal, that He might be victorious over death.^ He became in every respect like His brethren, that, being tempted. He might become a qualified High Priest to expiate their sins. " The sting of death is sin ; and the power of sin is the law."' The Apostle says a High Priest, and not merely a priest. It is not merely to the priesthood of Christ that he now turns our attention ; but to Christ as our High Priest. Thus the priestly acts to which he refers, and the qualifications he Imputes to Christ as such, must be understood by. what the scripture repre sents of the high-priestly character and fimctions, and not by the priestly character and functions in general. The qualities here emphasized are, that He might become a merciful and faithful High Priest. Merciful is named first, and with such emphasis In the original, that faithful, i. e., " reliable, to be trusted," appears as the consequence of it. In iv. 14 ; v. 10, the Author amplifies the thought that he In troduces by these words, and we may postpone our fuller con- 1 Comp. Eom. vi. 2. = Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 50-67. » 1 Cor. xv. 56. ii. 17 6.] EXPIATES THE SIN OF THE PEOPLE. 77 sideratlon of it to that place. But In order to understand our present passage. It is Important to anticipate here that, as the later passage shows, the likeness now pointed to is one that brings the Son into perfect "sympathy" with His brethren as persons "compassed with Infinity," and enables Him to "bear gently with the Ignorant and erring," because "he hath been In all points tempted like as we are." The Son was made like his brethren In every respect in order that he might become all this as their High Priest. The Apostle says : might become. It is common to ask in this connection : when did Christ begin to be High Priest?^ Some suppose that the text signifies that it was when He was exalted to heaven where He began to minister In the true sanctuary which the Lord pitched.^ But the Apostle's representations, v. 1-3, show that the condition of being " com passed with infirmity," was essential to Christ's high-priestly character, and was antecedent to His offering the sacrifice that expiated sin, as the same was tme of every high priest (v. 1). That condition began when the Son "was made like his brethren in every respect," and that was when He became man. He be came High Priest when He was made something expressly in order to His acting as High Priest. He was so made in a most essential quality when He was made like His brethren In every respect.* He became a High Priest in things pertaining to God,* says the Apostle, thus denoting the respect In which he would have the reader contemplate this high-priestly function, viz.. In respect to God above.* What that Is, precisely, he explains In the fol lowing clause : to expiate the sins of the people. The word IXdaxsa^^ai has nowhere in Scripture the meaning common to profane Greek, as if God were made propitious toward sinners (much less toward sin Itself) by some sacrifice.^ More over, the general phrase : in things pertaining to God, {rd Tcpda riv -<%6v), seems to be used by the Author expressly to obviate such * Comp. Davidson in he. '' viii. 2 sqq. ' Comp. Davidson. * Comp. V. 1 ; Horn. xv. 17. ^ von Hof. «See Del. Comp. Eiehm. "Der Begriflf der Suhne im. A. Test. Stud. u. Krit. 1877, 1. 78 'IXdaxsm^ai. [II. 17 6. a notion here. Also the statement of ver. 10 precludes such a notion In the present connection. The context of our expression shows that both Father and Son were agents In what Is here called expiating sins. It Is the sins themselves that are dealt with. What is effected Is, that they are "put away,"* and that those who are guilty of them are cleansed^ from them. By saying that the Son expiated the sins, the Author means to ex press that it was done by a sacrifice; as also It must be;' and, having pointed to the Son as High Priest, he thus expresses that He was such for the purpose of doing what only a priest could properly do, viz., offer sacrifice. The High Priest Is said to expiate the sins of the people.* Fol lowing, as this does, the statement of ver. 16, viz., that "Jesus laid hold of a seed of Abraham," the people can only mean the covenant people of God, in the usual Old Testament sense.' Moreover, this agrees with what has been already noticed* ofthe Author's manner of addressing himself to Jewish readers, and confining the Immediate scope of his teaching to their point of view. By the sins of the people, then. Is meant not simply what would be meant by the sins of men expressed generally. It means what that expression would suggest to an Israelite when, not his sins in particular, but his sins as one of the covenant people would be referred to. In other words. It Is the same notion that would be called up by the language of Jeremiah, quoted viii. 12; x. 17. "And their sins and their Iniquities wiU I remember no more." This involves the notion of that "word" of commandments and prohibitions "spoken by angels," and the "transgression and disobedience" (ver. 2) which determined the condition of the people previous to the revelation by the Son who brings salvation. In that condition the sins of the people were the chiefest and first thing to be remembered. The work of the Saviour and of salvation must be to cause them to be remembered no more. That must be effected by an expiation of the sins; and to do that for a whole people the Saviour must be a High Priest. Again, the suddenness with which the Apostle Introduces this * ix. 26. 2 jx 14 a i^. 22. * Comp. xiii. 12. ^Comp. iv. 9; V. 3; vii. 11, 27; ix. 7. "e.g. at ii. 2, 3. ii. 18.] CHRIST, HAVING BEEN TEMPTED, 79 new subject, viz., Christ as High Priest, must Impress every reader. Some* think this Is without adequate preparation ; and In reply to this the effort is made by others^ to show that such representations as "cleansing sins" (i. 3), "sanctifying" (ii. 11), and the mediatorial " leadership" in the work of salvation (ii. 10), as priestly acts and offices, and the death of Christ for every one (ii. 9) as a sacrificial death, fairly Introduce the present theme. But the effort Is not satisfactory. It Is evident that the new subject is introduced as new, and without mediation.^ We can say, however, that death and sin are but segments of the same circle, and the mention of one calls up the notion of the other. Accounting for the removal of the one will naturally be associated with the account of the removal of the other. Hezekiah exclaims : "Thou hast in love to my soul delivered it from the pit of cor ruption ; for thou hast cast all my sins behind thy back." (Isa. xxxviii. 17.) DeUverance from death demands the removal of sins. The removal of sins demands a priest and a sacrifice. Hence the Author fittingly, without preface. Introduces Jesus, our High Priest as his next subject. Its amplification Is taken up at Iv. 14 sqq. For the present the Apostle states only one comprehensive truth involved in that high priesthood as just described. Ver. 18. For in that he has suffered being tempted himself, he is able to succour them that are tempted. For Introduces an explanation of how Jesus became "merciful," and consequently "faithful," as affirmed 17 6. It was by being tempted himself. And the notion "faithful," i. e., reliable. Is re sumed and reiterated In the expression : he is able to succour them that are tempted ; and so the clause introduced by For Is equally explanatory of that. What is meant by the "ability" and the "tempting" mentioned here must appear from the foregoing ex planatory clause. Christ "was tempted himself" (aorist parti ciple), and "has suffered" (perfect) a suffering, Indeed, as the perfect Intimates, that is a thing of the past. From the imme diately preceding reference to Christ as expiating sin (ver. 16), and the previous use of the word "to suffer," as referring to * e. g. de Wette. ^ e. g. Del. ' So von Hof. 80 CAN SUCCOUR THE TEMPTED. [ii. 18. Christ's death (Ii. 9, 10; comp. v. 8), we must understand: has suffered to refer here to the same thing. This shows that "the temptation" now mentioned relates to death, and means what those endured who apprehended death. Such "temptations" Christ himself endured before he suffered death, as the Apostle expUcItly shows at v. 7.* He does not mean that the actual dying was the temptation,^ as will appear when we come to ex-: amine v. 7, 8. So, too, the temptations of those that are tempted are from the apprehension of death, not their dying itself. It is not merely his being tempted that makes Christ able to succour the tempted. It Is the twofold fact, viz., that He was tempted by the apprehension of death, and has suffered death, that makes Him able. The emphasis, however, of the present statement rests on : being tempted, which thus involves connecting abrdt; with TzecpaiTi^sig being tempted himself.^ The evidence that such is the emphasis. Is : (a) that there would be no progress In the thought of the context. If the text affirmed that, by having suffered death, Christ is able to succour, as much having been already affirmed, vers. 10 and 14, 15 ; (6) the statement of ver. 17, with which this is logically connected, viz., that Christ became a merdful High Priest. As the Apostle shows at iv. 15; v. 1, 2, it was by undergoing temptation that Christ became sympathetic, and, In that sense, compassionate. We can now determine In what sense the Apostle here ascribes to Christ abiUty to succour. The succour Is to them that are tempted by the apprehension of death. This subject, viz., his readers as Israelites, and the point of view from which they are contemplated, remains the same as in all the previous context from ver. 1. They are those who need to escape the consequence of transgression and disobedience (ver. 2) ; who, on account of the sufferings of death have not their predestined glory and honor, or world to come, and need a Saviour, who, by suffering death, will secure for them that world-to-come (ver. 9) ; who were all their lives subject to the fear of death (ver. 15). As has been said, there is no change in the subjects of the * Comp. Luke xxii. 28., h ro'ig ¦Keipaapoli pov. ' Against Del. ' So Liin., Del., Alford. iii. 1.] OFFICES OF CHRIST CONFESSED. 81 saving grace here referred to, or In the point of view in which they are contemplated. But the Saviour Himself is represented In another aspect. As a suffering Saviour, He has been portrayed from ver. 9 onward, including the present text. But that suf fering is represented In different relations. In vers. 11-13 It Is condescension to the same lot and condition with His brethren. In ver. 14, that suffering of death nullifies the danger of those brethren ah extra, by nullifying the devil's power of death. In ver. 17, the same suffering nullifies the danger ab intra, by expiating the sins of the people, i. e., brethren. In the present verse (taken with ver. 17 6, viz., the representation of Christ as merciful and faithful), that suffering, preceded as it was by being Himself tempted, shows that Christ is able to succour as one is only able to do who has himself experienced the same trouble that now appeals to Him for help. This is called "ability" In Christ, with the same propriety that in iv. 15, It Is denied of Him that He " cannot {p.ij Sovdp.emv) sympathize ; " and affirmed of Him, V. 2, that He " can {Suvdpsvot;) bear gently with the ignorant and erring." The Apostle affirms that Jesus is able to succour them that are tempted {Sbvarat . . . Tcsipa^opivoi?, In the present tense). The con dition of temptation continues, and is the condition of those on whom the Apostle presses the Saviour. Hence, he presents Jesus as able to save now. He Is able now ; for, though His sufferings are past and He Is at the right hand of the heavenly Majesty, He Himself was tempted. Having now set forth the superiority of the Son to all other foregoing agents of revelation, expressly His superiority to angels (chap. I.), and then represented the revelation of the Son as a salvation, and set forth the greatness of it (chap, ii.), the Author now proceeds to direct attention to the person of this Son, Jesus, whom he has presented as a High Priest. III. 1. Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly call ing, consider the apostle and high priest of our confession, Jesus, Wherefore, refers to the preceding context from I. 1 to the present, as appears from the way of stating the object who is to be considered, viz., Jesus. For He Is described In terms that 6 82 APOSTLE AND HIGH PRIEST. [IH. 1, recapitulate the contents of what has been said to the present point. As Liineman explains : " When the Author says : Therefore, consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our con fession, It Is only a Greek way of saying : Therefore, because Jesus is the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, consider Him well." Jesus Is appropriately called Apostle, as being the agent sent forth to speak for God, and this title resumes the Author's representation of Him in chap. i. It Is the only Instance of His being so called in scripture. And it may be noted, that the other agents of revelation, with whom He is there compared, are all but called apostles also {d-KoazeXXdiJsva), 1. 14. And Jesus is expressly called high priest at u. 17, as the compre hensive expression of that which He does In effecting " so great salvation." The terms also In which the Author addresses his readers : holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, reflect what has been represented in chaps. I. and ii. concerning the objects of Christ's saving work. Brethren, echoes the "many sons" and "my brethren " and " children," of Ii. 10, 12, 13 ; and holy echoes the sentiment of " sanctifier " and " those that are sanctified," u. 11. Thus says Delitzsch, who also continues : " The second term of the address : partakers of a heavenly calling, carries us back to i. 1 and II. 3. The one calling, thus referred to, is the eternal Son,* through whom God has now spoken, who came from heaven, and is returned thither. And hence the calling, coming through Him and manifested on earth. Is heavenly (comp. ^ avm xXrjfftg, Phil. Hi. 14) ; that Is, a call Issuing from heaven and inviting to heaven : its contents, the place whence it proceeds, and that to which it invites, all heavenly." In Rom. Ix. 3 Paul calls the Israelites " my brethren." He did the same In the address In the synagogue of Antioch of Pisidia. And on the other hand, he " and his company " were on the same occasion addressed by the rulers of the synagogue: " Brethren, If ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on." (Acts xiii. 15.) Such was also Peter's mode of address ing his Jewish auditors on the day of Pentecost (Acts II. 29). ' But on this see below. m. IJ HOLY BRETHREN; HEAVENLY CALLING. 83 This use of the term brethren, antedates the use of it as expressive of Christian fellowship. It Is as fellow Israelites that Paul here caUs his readers brethren. He calls them holy, according to the well-known scriptural authority to which Peter appeals : " But like as he which called you is holy, be ye also holy, in all man ner of living ; because It is written, ye shall be holy, for I am holy." (1 Pet. I. 15, 16 ; comp. Lev. xi. 44, 45 ; xix. 2 ; xx. 7, 8, 26.) This, as something well understood, warranted the Author above In referring to the same objects as " them that are sanctified," and to Jesus as the "sanctifier" (II. 11), without fur ther explanation. Partakers of a heavenly calling, suggests the question : who is ihe subject thai calls f "The subject (of xaXiu> = to call), Is everywhere God; who Is also termed 6 xaXSiv, Rom. viii. 11; Gal. V. 8, 6 xaXiffag, 1 Pet. i. 15, comp. v. 10.^'* The present text is not an exception, and In this particular, the language of Delitzsch, quoted above, is misleading. It Is as members of a people called of God to be holy that the Apostle addresses his readers as " holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling." This whole descriptive title, which includes the Apostle and his readers, defines the "us" and "we" I. i. ; ii. 1, 3. Being, as it is, the proper designation for those that were the covenant people of God, it shows that our Author treats his readers as such, without regard to any distinction between Jews and Chris tians; In other words, he treats them as Peter did the same people on the day of Pentecost when lie would persuade them to receive and believe on their Messiah. The Apostle, however, addresses them here as those that act ually believed. Thus, he says : " the Apostle and High Priest of our confession." By this he designates Jesus, so described, as the one that is the contents of the confession that Christians call theirs, In the same sense that. In the mouth of a Jew, ^ ^perlpa S-prjax£ia^" our religion " (Acts xxvi. 5), Is that form of worship, that the Jew shares with his people.^ Jesus holds the place of Apostle and High Priest in our confession — where our is emphatic, 1 Cromer's Lex. suh voce ; comp. Meyer on Gal. i. 6. == So von Hof. 84 TWO HEADS OF DISCOURSE. [Hi. 1. denoting antithesis to the confession In which Moses held so high a place.* Presenting Jesus thus for consideration, as the apostle and high priest of their confession, the Apostle gives the two heads of the following discourse to chap. x. 18.^ Under the head Jesus our apostle we have ill. 2-iv. 13. Under the head Jesus, our high priest, we have iv. 14-x. 18. Considering Jesus as the confessed Apostle of his readers, Paul corn-pares Him vnth Moses. Our reason for thinking that the comparison touches only Jesus as Apostle, is that nothing per taining to His high-priestly functions comes under review ; as, indeed, there could not, seeing Moses' was no priest. Again he introduces a new subject without preface, and without pause m his sentence, just as he does the angels, I. 4, and the High Priest ii. 17. The reasons in the present case are as obvious as in the former. Jews called themselves Moses' disciples;^ and justly, for, as Paul says : their fathers were all baptized unto Moses.* This might be pressed so as to seem in conflict with being a dis ciple of Christ. It lay, then, directly In the way of our Author to show that Christ is superior to Moses.' This needed no preface. He therefore proceeds with an objective predicate par- ticipal clause that describes Jesus as : Ver. 2. Being [who is] faithful to him that made him, as also [was] Moses in all his house. A comparison of Num. xu. 7 shows that It was God's house in which Moses was faithful. The present words express no dis paragement of Moses. In one respect, they express an exact likeness between Moses and Christ. Both were faithful to God, who, by circumlocution, Is here designated as him that made him. The simplest explanation of this making (jrojcii/) Is, that God made each what he Is represented in the context to be ; Jesus an Apostle and Hight Priest ; Moses, a servant In the house of God. ' Comp. Davidson. ' So M'Lean, after Calvin, iii. 1 ; iv. 14 ; against Bleek. "Johnix. 28. *lCor.x.2. ill. 2.] CHRIST ABOVE FAITHFUL MOSES. 85 What they were when made is Inseparable from the notion of them as made.* We might suppose that the house of God Is meant as the sphere In which both Moses and Jesus displayed their faithfulness,^ were It not that the following vers. 3-6 present a contrast between the two with respect to the house of God ; and especially were it not that the notion Is precluded by the proper understanding of what Is meant by the house of God. As the word faithful shows, the comparison in this case does not refer to revelation or speaking for God, as in the comparison with angels ; but to performance. The statement of the text is, that Jesus is faithful now, as Moses was faithful. What Is tem poral in the statement must be determined by the subjects of which the text speaks. Moses belonged to the past; "the Apostle and High Priest of our profession " belongs to the pre sent. Moreover, the present Is required by the statement of ver. 3, " has been counted worthy," etc., and of ver. 6, that the Apostle and his readers are the house over which Jesus Is appointed. Jesus Is said to be faithful to him that made him, as He Is said to be a "High Priest in things pertaining to God," u. 17, viz.. In order to express, that in the direction toward God must appear the qualification and performance that Is essential to His being a perfect Apostle and High Priest for men. This emphasis in the direction of God seems Intentional, as if to mark an antithesis to II. 9-18, which represents the relation of Jesus in the direction of men and what makes Him a " faithfiil High Priest" (u. 17), with reference to them. It Is obvious, however, that If It were only the Author's in tention to emphasize that Jesus must be qualified to be our Apostle In the direction toward God, he could do this more naturally than by the singular phrase : to him that made him. This ^ So e. g., Farrar ; who, notwithstanding, brings the grave charge that our phrase, and so our whole epistle, by the erroneous interpretation of our phrase, " lent itself with so much facility to the misinterpretation of heresy, that it acted as one of the causes which delayed the general acceptance of the Epistle by the Church." So the lamb lent itself to the malice of the wolf! ^SoDeL 86 THE HOUSE OF GOD. [Iii. 2. prompts the inquiry : why does He use this expression ? The solution appears In the following verse. The Apostle Is compar ing Moses and Jesus with the Intention of affirming the superior ity of the latter, which he affirms In ver. 3, by saying. He was counted worthy of more glory than Moses. It prepares the way for that affirmation to remind the reader, that God was the Maker of both. The distinction In their official functions and difference In glory is thus referred to the sovereign will of Him who made them the fiinctlonarles they were and are : He accounted the one more glorious than the other. Such Is the Apostle's motive in saying : " He was faithful to Him that made Him," Instead of saying simply : " He was faithful to God." When he uses a circumlocution for God, as he often does, the Apostle Intends breviloquence.* For the comparison he is making. In order to affirm the super iority of Jesus, the Author mentions Moses in the most favorable light. For by the obvious reference to Num. xii. 7, he calls to mind the occasion when Moses received from God the most hon orable vindication of all his Ufe. Even Aaron and Miriam were signally rebuked for their pretension to some equality with Moses in the administration of the affairs of Israel. That event left Moses indisputably supreme, under God, in all the house of God, both on account of actual appointment and on account of being found faithful. By my house, in Num. xii. 7,^ can only be meant the same thing that Moses means when he speaks of " the house of Jeho vah." * By that is always meant the Tabernacle. The rarity of the expression In the Pentateuch shows that It did not grow to any wider meaning. After the Temple was built, it meant the Temple. Yet though, after that event, the expressions : " house of theLord;" "of God;" "Thy house;" "His house;" "My house," occur with gre^t frequency, the meaning Is never extended beyond ^ Comp. on ii. 10. ^ Comp. Lange on Num. xii. 7, in the Lange-Schaff. Bib. Work. 'Comp. Exod. xxiii. 19; Deut. xxiii. 18 (19). Inthe Pentateuch, these, with Num. xii. 7, are the only instances. Joshua vi. 24; is. 23. ill. 3.] AT god's DISPOSAL. 87 a reference to the Temple ; except as the Temple may represent the cultus of Jehovah.* In the quotation of our text, and with reference to Moses, his house means the Tabernacle. This precludes the notion entertained by many,'' that the house of God, as here mentioned, is the common sphere wherein Moses and Jesus displayed fidelity. It Is of Moses alone that It Is stated, that he was faithful to Him that made him in all his house. The aU may be supposed to have no Importance in the present context beyond being part of the language quoted. But the recurrence of " the house " in the following verse Intimates that the Author's mention here of his (God's) house, Is with a purpose. The LXX. rendering of Num. xii. 7 reads : Mwdayj? iv SXw rS> oixip poo ¦niard's ItTTi, where iv oX(o T. 01X0} poo has the emphasis, owing to its having precedence In the sentence. Here the emphasis remains the same by the omission mardv ivra, In the second clause. This calls attention to the sphere of the display of Moses' faithfulness as his (God's) house. It appears in the sequel that the Author means to press the notion of God's propriety In that house. This he does in the following verse In connection with affirming the superiority of Jesus to Moses. Ver. 3. For this person (ouro?) has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, according as he that prepared it [the house] has more honor than the house. For refers to the exhortation of ver. 1, and brings forward another reason for considering " the Apostle of our confession," In addition to the reason comprised In the reference of oy%v, "wherefore." That reason Is the greatness of Jesus as the Apostle of God compared with Moses. The Author affirms that Jesus is superior In honor to Moses. He affirms this dogmati cally, i. e., without proof. This, we observed, was his manner of affirming the superiority of the Son to angels (I. 4). But the statement here is not simply that Jesus is more glorious. It is affirmed that He was counted worthy of more glory. This manner of expression calls attention to the active subject of the predicate counted worthy, which is God, or more expressly (resuming the * e. g., Ps. Ixix. 10 ; Hos. viii. 1 ; ix. 15. ^ Del. von Hof., ete. 88 so ALSO MOSES AND JESUS, [ui. 3. language of the ver. 2), He tliat made both Jesus and, Moses. Thus the Author expressly refers the comparative greatness of Jesus and Moses, to the sovereign will of Him who made both, and to whom both were to be faithful. The perfect tense, hath been counted, denotes that the effect still remains. The glory,* means " that official * glory ' or ' honor ' In which the Lord Jesus excels Moses." ^ The following clause^ Is meant to justify that sovereign discre tion to which, by the expression : was counted worthy, the greater glory of Jesus is referred. By xa{f offov without Its correlative xard ToaouTo * Is not denoted a measure ; but as at Ix. 27, it denotes : according as. Thus the Author adds : According as he that prepareth the house has more honor than the house. The subject of prepared Is God, as the statement of ver. 5 : "He that pre pared all things Is God," requires. Moreover, we notice that irureXEiv and 7rot£iv are used for Moses' performance in the con struction of the Tabernacle (viii. 5), while as again In ix. 2, 6, xaTaaxeod^eiv Is used (as r/Siiozai here), so as to require us to under stand God as the active subject. The use of npij = honor, instead of Sd^a = glory, shows that something else is meant than comparison.* For glory would be compared with glory .^ The obvious fact that the preparer of the house has more honor than the house, justifies him that prepared It In doing with It what he pleases. The house Intended (as the article defines It), Is the iComp. 2Cor. iii. 7-11. =Del. ' The following clause does not give a measure of the comparative super iority of Jesus, as has been universally supposed. The difficulties of that view have been universally felt by all that have adopted it. To maintain it, we must explain why the Ka^' baov is not attended by the correlative Kara roaovro ; why Tipi/ is used instead of So^a ; how God's having more honor than the house He prepared, can measure the superiority of Jesus to Moses ; or (if it is assumed that the Author means that Jesus is the preparer of the house ; so Davidson), how that comports with the saying, that "God prepares all things;'' and iinally what logical force there is in the truism: "Every house is prepared by some one." In view of these difficulties, the common interpre tation of the clause in question must be regarded as hopelessly obscure. That which is proposed above is not without difficulty and obscurity. It is never theless that to which the foregoing context seems to lead up. * Comp. vii. 20. * Against Davidson. ^ Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 40, 41. iii. 4.j AND THEIR RESPECTIVE GLORY. 89 house just named. In which Moses was faithful, and which is called God's house. It is referred to as something that was pre pared (aorist participle). This, especially taken In such close connection with the perfect (has been counted worthy of more honor,) Intimates that it Is a thing of the past. And coupled as " his house " (bear in mind the expression of ownership,) Is with Moses, both are Included in the affirmation that Jesus has been counted worthy of more honor. For Moses and his glory cannot be thought of without the house In which he was faithful. We have here, let It be noted, a future theme of the Author's (viz., that the Tabernacle prepared at Sinai yields to the heav enly sanctuary In which Christ ministers), which the Author treats of viii. 5 sqq. It is Introduced not only as angels at i. 4, and the High Priest U. 17, i. e., suddenly, without preface, but also, as we shall have occasion to notice about other themes, In a way that does not immediately awake attention or suggest the importance the Author attaches to it. Ver. 4. For every house is prepared by some one, but God [Is] he that prepared [the] * aU things. The logical connection of this utterance is difficult to detect. The history of Its Interpretation ^ shows that such was the case back to the earliest specimens of exegesis that we possess from the Greek fathers. It Is true that there was considerable unani mity among the ancient expositors in regarding God as predicate and 6 izdv-ra xazaax, as a designation of Christ, thus making the passage a proof of the deity of Christ.^ But there Is quite as much unanimity among modern expositors In rejecting this Inter pretation. The latter fact, therefore, represents the prevalent opinion to be, that even the earliest Greek expositors failed to detect the logical connection and force of our ver. 4. The view taken of the foregoing verse 3 must control the Interpretation of this one. The For refers to the statement of ver. 3 6, (" according as he that prepared the house," etc.), that justifies the sovereign discre tion which counts one worthy of more glory than another. The first clause of our verse is a truism. That does not need to make ' TO. Text. Eecep. '^ See in Alford. ' Ibid. 90 GOD PREPARED THE ALL THINGS. [HI. 4. it sound flat, any more than the utterance of the dilemma : " It Is, or It is not," so often used In argument. Let a truism be well pointed and nothing Is more expressive. On the other hand. If we miss the point, nothing can sound more flat. If the utter ance of the present truism sounds flat to us, we may blame our own want of penetration, and wish the Author had written more lucidly ; but we cannot Impute dulness to him, whose work before us gives so many proofs of extraordinary acuteness. The truism of our verse seems to be adduced In support of the foregoing thought as explained above. Every house Is prepared by some one, and the house In which Moses was faithful was no exception. This expresses the notion that It Is not a thing of necessary existence, but subject to the will of him that prepared it. Thus the glory of Moses, that was Inseparably connected with the house In which he was faithful, was a prepared thing, just as the house was. We find In this a representation very necessary to be pressed on Israelites, that were used to contem plate the Mosaic economy, which centered In the Tabernacle or Temple, as something to last forever. -Nor could they be better attacked on that subject than by such a truism as that of the text. Moreover, we find in this Interpretation the preparation for the direct representation the Author will presently make, viz., that the Tabernacle, with all pertaining to It, was in prophecy, as it Is now actually In fact, treated by God as something that grew old and ready to vanish away (viii. 16). The thought thus intimated by one truism, viz., what was true of any house, just because a house. Is reinforced by another, that is still more comprehensive of the same thought, viz. : But God (is) he that prepared all things. In this sentence God Is subject.* The argument Is a fortiori. The sovereign discretion, that counts one worthy of more than another, is justified by the con sideration that God was the preparer of the house that was iden tified with the glory of Moses. But it Is still more justified by the fact that God was the preparer of all things. The all things must be understood In a universal and indefinite way. The affirmation that Jesus was counted worthy of more glory 'See Liin. ill. 5.] MOSES FAITHFUL FOR A TESTIMONY. 91 than Moses, so far as It affirms that He is more glorious, is made dogmatically, just as the Important doctrinal Items concerning the Son in i. 1-4. The doctrinal status of the readers justified this. But so far as it affirmed that God counted him worthy of more glory, the Author has supported the affirmation by consid erations that vindicate the divine discretion In this matter. He now points to a distinction between Moses and Jesus that illits- traies the superiority of the latter to the former ; not, however. In all its breadth, but In one comprehensive particular. This Is presented In vers. 5, 6, which are joined to the context by xai = and In Its simple conjunctive sense as bringing In something addi tional. First, he says of Moses : Ver. 5. And Moses, indeed, [was] faithful in all his house as a servant for a testimony of those things that shall be spoken of. The piv = indeed, to be followed by Its correlative Si - but, marks the utterance of an antithesis, which must be pointed by an emphasis on the contrasted notions in the two representations. In the present verse that emphasis falls on : in, and : as a servant ; and In the following verse on : over, and : as a son. The origi nal, as Is easily permitted by its idiom, gives no temporal expres sion to the predicate faithful as we are compelled to do in the translation by was faithful, and is faithful. Thus the notion of time is no part of the contrast. It may even be that, by elud ing a reference to time, the Author would represent both on one plane, as at Ix. 8, 9, he represents kindred notions, using the present tense ; where, after a description of the Tabernacle as it " was prepared," he says : " The Holy Spirit, this signifying " (present participle), etc., and : " Which (Is) a parable for the time now present." This might be construed as the present of the fact as It appears contemplated in the scripture.* Reiterating In this way the faithfulness of Moses, he says with emphasis, that he was faithful In the whole house of God, thus representing him, not as constituting a part of the house,^ which is incompatible with the facts relating to the Tabernacle, but as circumscribed and limited by that house, so that his functions and influence were coterminous with It ; at least so far as they * So Lun. * Against Del., Liin., ete. 92 Twv XaXij&TjiTopivajv. [Iii. 5. are described In the following clause. In accordance with that, or rather as defining what was Involved by : in the house, the Author adds : as a servant. " The LXX. purposely renders 131? here by another word than SodXo^ or Ttal? (the renderings most frequently employed), in order to exclude the notion of unfree, slavish dependence, from which ^%spd-Ku>v, in the oldest Greek, is exempt." * But though slavish dependence is excluded, dependence Is not ; and the scope of Moses' ministry, as defined by : in the whole house, is represented as limited to that sphere. This Is expressly represented by the explanatory clause that fol lows : for a testimony of those things that shaU be spoken of, Moses was minister In the Tabernacle for a testimony. As he performed no service In or about it (that being the province of the Levites and priests), the reference can only be to his agency in making it, with all Its appointments complete, and Instituting the priesthood with their services. And all this performance must be meant as furnishing the testimony referred to. That testimony Is identified by the Author with Moses as au active agent in respect to the Tabernacle. It can have no reference, then, to the promulgation of the law,^ which had no special con nection with the Tabernacle ; nor to additional and ampler reve lations to be given,^ which had as little connection with the Tabernacle. The only notion we are acquainted with that answers to the present expression, is the typical significance of the Tabernacle, with all its belongings, as unfolded by our Author in chap. viii. and onward. And such is his meaning when he says Moses ministered In the house of God for a testi mony of the things that shaU be spoken of Things to which Moses' ministry was a testimony, the Author, for the present, designates as the things that shall be spoken of, (roiv XaX-rjj^aopivwv, fut. pass, participle). No one besides Parens (and perhaps Lindsay) seems to have taken this expression In its literal rendering. It has been common, contrary to gran'imar, to take this future participle in the sense of " would be," or " were to be spoken." Parens interprets the expression as meaning " the things to be spoken by us in this epistle concerning the cere- ' Del. ' Against de Wette, Liin., etc. ' Against Stuart, Davidson. iii. 5.] TYPES AND SHADOWS. 93 monies and their meaning." And such Is the only admissable rendering. As the Author says, II. 5 : " The world to come of which we speak {XaXodpsv)," because the subject was actually a matter of discourse ; so he says here : things that shall be spoken of {rmv XaXrji'i-rjaopivwv), because he Is not at the point where he would make them a matter of discourse. He comes to that point in chap. viii. Similarly at ix. 5, he says : " of which things we cannot now speak {Xiystv) severally," because he does not purpose to speak of them in, detail at all. Understanding the text thus, we find In It corroboration of the fact noted above under ver. 3, that the Author has actually broached a topic that he intends to make a matter of particular discourse. But with this understanding of the things that shall be spoken of, we see that the clause appears In the sentence In a very unem- phatic way, as expressing that the testimony was to things of Importance, Indeed, but too complex to be expressed in this con nection. This leaves the expression: "as a servant for a testi mony," in emphatic Isolation to point the contrast with: "as a son," In the next verse. The Interpretation just given of tSjv XaXy^d-y^ffopivuiv, ought to meet with the more approval, because by a direct grammatical construction it attains the result that has been adopted by the majority of the best commentators, viz., that by : the things to be spoken the Author refers to the gospel of the New Testament, and to that exclusively,* but which result they reach, either by a leap, or by much artful reasoning.^ Moreover, entertaining this result, It Is, after all, chiefly the things of the gospel as testified to by the typical things of the Old Testament, that these com mentators understand, though they admit also direct testimony to the Messiah. When we remember, that we are indebted almost wholly to the present epistle for the knowledge of how the Tabernacle types testified to the gospel, this result Issues in the same thing as has been reached by the interpretation given above, viz., that Moses testified to the things that our Author will speak of later In his epistle. 1 Del., von Hof., Alford, Wolf, Calvin, etc. ' See e. g., Alford. 94 MOSES A SERVANT IN GOD's HOUSE. [ul. 6. Ver. 6. But Christ as a Son over his house, which house we are: It Is thus the Apostle presents Jesus in antithesis to Moses as described In the foregoing verse. In doing so he calls Him Christ (for the first time in the epistle). It Is proper to suppose that this Is done on purpose. It is the name of Jesus as the promised Messiah ; and it is as the Messiah that He has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses. We must supply the predicate "is faithful" to this mention of Christ, with no stress on the copula " Is," as has been noted under the foregoing verse. Clirist (is) faithful as a Son over his (God's) house is the present statement, with emphasis on a Son and over, as contrasted with "a minister" and "in" of the foregoing verse. The antithesis thus presented, without anything more to point it than that pre sented by the words themselves, is the same as that presented In the parable of The Wicked Husbandmen, between " servants " {SobXoo?) and " his son," and that there justify the sentiment : " They will reverence My Son," Matt. xxi. 37. There, too, the husbandmen say of the Son : " This is the heir." Our Author, in i. 12, has presented the same notions as inseparable in Christ, by calling Him " a Son whom He has made heir of all things." * This comprehensive notion of the Son Is to be retained here, and that justifies the statement that He is over the house of God and not " in " It. He is faithful over the house of God as some thing committed to His discretion like the " good and faithful servant that was faithful over a few things " {i-) dXtya ^s rUaroi), (Matt. xxv. 21). The antithesis now presented is complete in the terms: " Moses, as a minister, in the house of God," and : " Christ, as a Son, over the house of God." But as the notion of Moses as a minister, Is supplemented by defining his ministry as a testimony of the things that shall be spoken of further on in this epistle, so the notion of Christ as a Son in this antithesis, is supplemented by defining the house over which He Is. Whose house we are, adds the Apostle. We may suppose ^ that there is Intended here ' See this comment above, in loc ' With Del., who ascribes the view to Ebrard. iii. 6.] CHRIST A son over it. 95 " a latent parallel between : ' for a testimony of the things that shall be spoken of,' and : whose house we are," For the two expressions actually refer to the same notion in the mind of the Author. That Intended by the former expres.sIon has been stated above. What is meant by the latter requires particular defini tion. The house referred to In : whose house, Is God's, as in the foregoing context. Nor are we to surrender here the under standing, that by the house of God, is meant the Tabernacle, except as the Author's present statement exchanges another notion for that. What he affirms is, that now the house of God Is no longer the Tabernacle, but the body of true believers in Christ. It Is because this point has been missed, that .so much confusion and disagreement has appeared amongst commentators with reference to what is meant by the house of God in the fore going context. The obvious meaning of the present text, which affirms that believers are the house of God, has influenced all to understand that the same notion Is meant by the house of God In Num. xii. 7, as cited in ver. 2. But this Is overlooking the fact that it is peculiarly a New Testament revelation that God's people are themselves God's house. And this is not an old fact set In a new light. It is the revelation of a new fact that distinguishes the new dispensation from the old. It does not appear In the Old Testament except as a prophecy of what shall be in the New Testament dispensation. Comp. Lev. xxvi. 11, 12 ; Ezek. xxxvii. 26-28 ; and Rev. xxi. 3. Moreover, as so prophesied, it needed the inspired teachings of Christ's apostles to bring out the truth of what was foretold.* To suppose that Israelites would understand by " the house of God," the people of God, is to impute to the Apostle's present readers an understanding of the truth that would make much of what he teaches In this epistle gratuitous labor. Men whose notion of God's house had become so enlarged, would have been in little danger of thinking that true worship of God could only be rendered at the Tabernacle, or Its successor, the Temple. The novelty and unfamillarity of this New Testament fact. Is *See below on Lev. xxvi. 12 ; and 2 Cor. vi. 16. 96 WE ARE THAT HOUSE OF GOD. [III. 6. intimated in Paul's exclamation : " Know ye not that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which Is In you, which ye have from God?" 1 Cor. vi. 19. But the classic passages are Ephes. Ii. 20-22 ; 2 Cor. vi. 16. The latter passage will better serve our purpose in the present connection. There Paul says : " For we are the temple of the living God ; even as God said : I will dwell In them and walk In them ; and I will be their God and they shall be my people." He quotes the language of Lev. xxvi. 12. But it is language repeatedly quoted by the prophets, with reference to the new dispensation ; amongst others by Jer. xxxi. 1, 33. This prophecy is quoted by our Author twice in the present epistle (vni. 10 ; x. 16), as descriptive ofthe new dispen sation In contrast with the old. If Paul be (as we have assumed), the Author of our epistle, we must take it for granted that he understands the words in Jer. xxxi. 1, 33, as he does in their original place in Lev. xxvi. 12, when he applies them in 2 Cor. vl. 16. But if one should admit another author than Paul, yet an Inspired writer, the conclusion must still be the same. That meaning Is, that now true believers are what formerly the Tab ernacle was, viz., the house or Temple of God. {vad? I'^eou, " sanc tuary of God.") The foundation of this Christian conception of the Temple or house of God, and of the interpretation of the prophecies relating to It, Is such teaching of Christ as John xiv. 23. " If a man love me, he will keep my word ; and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him and make our abode with him." Comp. John xvii. 21, 23. Its development by His Inspired Apostles is found 1 Cor. Hi. 16, 17 ; vi. 19 ; 2 Cor. vi. 16 ; Eph. u. 22 ; 1 Tim. HI. 15 ; 1 Pet. u. 5 ; Iv. 17. It Is affirmed also In our text, but receives no extended development In our epistle. Yet the Author recurs again to the thought ofthe substitution of true believers for the Tabernacle In what he says chap. xin. 12. There he represents, that as, on the day of atonement, the high priest sanctified the Tabernacle even to the sanctuary with the blood of the sin-offerings, so Christ, suffering without the gate, sanctified Ms people through His own blood. Thus Christians " have an altar of sacrifice," that Is not of the Tabernacle (xiii. ui. 6.] IP WE PERSEVERE. 97 10). Thus, too. Christians, In that house of God which they constitute, by the confession of Christ as their High Priest, " offer up a sacrifice of praise to God continually, that Is, the fruit of lips which make confession to His name," xin. 15. From this It appears, that, while the Author finds the anti type of the Tabernacle and its appurtenances and their uses, in Christ Himself and In the heavenly realities where Christ has entered for us within the vail, he also represents the truth that Christians themselves are the temple of God. The latent parallel between : " for a testimony of things that will be spoken of," and : " whose house we are," mentioned above. Involves a contrast also, viz., that Moses was a minister in all God's house, to represent by typical institutions (whose meaning the Author will proceed to give) that which Is realized in the Christian dispensation. But Christ, as a Son, deals not with tjrplcal representations of the house of God, and of what concerns that house, but with the very house itself. Believers are that house of God. His blood actually cleanses and sanctifies them. But the Apostle says, we are the house of God (not, that believ ers are), adhering thus to the subject as expressed in this epistle so far, viz., himself and his Jewish Christian readers, as In ver. 1. He qualifies that subject In the present passage by adding : ill. 6 c. If we hold steadfast the boldness, and the glorying of the hope until the end. We retain the clause pixpt- riXoo's pe§a(av, firm until the end, as part of the genuine text, according to Lachman, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Westcott and Hort. The editions last named, viz., Tr., W. and H., leave it undecided, the latter enclosing iu brackets, and the former putting It In the margin. Bepaiav agreeing In gender with the remoter substantive, viz., izappriaiav, as well as the precedence of rzapprj?. makes the latter word, boldness the more Important of the conjoined notions, boldness and glorying. By the present qualifying clause that defines who are indeed the house of God, the Author confines the designation to those of his readers that with himself are true believers. As Is said : 7 98 xabyripa OF THE HOPE. [III. 7-11. " For they are not all Israel which are of Israel." Rom. Ix. 6. Those that may truly be called the house of God, have a hope set before them. By this Is not meant an inward feeUng, but the thing In prospect that causes the feeling, (vi. 18.) This hope Is only what it ought to be to those concerned when It Inspires boldness In them. This boldness is In the direction toward God (comp. Iv. 16), as the hope Is a substance treasured up with God. It must be steadfast (/Ss/Sai'av comp. ii. 2, 3), as the only fitting posture of the soul toward " a hope that Is sure and steadfast " (vi. 19). Such a hope with Its corresponding boldness must be a boast {xab-jCipa, not the same as xab-(rjv = in any one of you, which denotes, that It Is not a question of whether or not there shall be such a thing as Is here a subject of warning, but only whether or not It shall Include some of those now warned. Moreover, the Author's way of saying : lest there shall be {p^-kote earai) ex- ' So von Hof., who, while justifying this meaning,' clearly shows that ev can not here introduce a phrase epexegetical ota-iriariag. 2 See 6. g,, Luke ix. 36. ' See e. g., Matt, xiii, 25 ; Luke xvii. 11. * See Kiihner Gram. II. p. 161. ° von Hof. 104 TO-DAY, [UI. 12, 13 presses the fear or probability that the very thing he would pre vent will take place. The sudden reference, without preface, to such an event as an anticipated apostasy, we have found to be quite in our Author's style. It's justification to his readers would be In the familiarity of such a subject in their circles. To us, who are making our selves acquainted with those circles by means of the present writing, the reference must be justified by what shall further appear. If nothing shall appear to show that a definite and anticipated apostasy is in the Author's mind, then the above Interpretation of iv rip drzoiTT-ijvai must be a mistake, or at least doubtful. But we may by anticipation refer to vi. 8 ; x. 27, 39 ; xU. 25-27. The Apostle warns against an evil that he calls : falling away from the living God. He thereby Identifies Its guUt and enormiiy with the temptation In the wilderness, of which his text speaks. It would be against the same God, who ever lives, and must be treated by him in the same way, because He Is ever the same. In the following verse 13 he enjoins what will guard against the impending danger of some of them being swept away. Let them exhort one another day by day so long as it is called To-day. The point of this admonition Is in the second clause. It is eaUed To-day, means " called out^ sounded out," * To-day. The further use of this To-day In the subsequent context^ shows that the Author treats It as a proclamation. So long as. Intimates that the calling out will cease, and so the To-day will come to an end. The Author, however, appeals to this To-day proclaimed in the Ps. xcv. as still in force. Because ijb Is so, and whUe It Is so, let them exhort one another day by day. This emphatic day by day seems to Intimate that there were few days left of the period called To-day. In x. 25 this notion Is actually expressed. The subject of exhortation must be, of course, that of the original text (ver. 9) : "harden not your hearts," etc. But the Author expresses this as the effect of the exhortation : in order that none of you may be hardened by the deceit of sin. By hardened the analogy Is pressed of the old transgression In the wilderness as expressed In the ' See KaTila in Grimm's Lex. ^ ygj,_ jg . jy_ y^ iU. 12, 13.] EXHORT ONE ANOTHER. 105 Psalm, and the meaning is: "hardened as your fathers were," to put God to the test as they did, and to incur the penalty of His oath, (vers. 9-11.) By the form of expressing his thought, the Apostle represents what, In the case of his readers, would exert the hardening influence, viz., deceit, or fraud of the sin. "The sin (t?;? d/xpriai) Is here personified, comp. Rom. vii. 11. What is meant Is the sin of falling back to the old cultus, and thereby apostasy from Christianity, to which sin they were allured by the Illusive splendor ofthe old cultus.* In 2 Thess. Iii. 10, to which we appealed above, Paul speaks of the apostasy coming "with all deceit of unrighteousness for them that are perishing." We have not, therefore, such a general expression here as : "through the deceitfulness of sin, (Versions of 1611, 1881.) Yet, for present homiletlcal use, reasoning from the particular sin re ferred to here to the general Is both obvious and justifiable. What ever sin closely clings to one (xii. 1), and so Is his besetting sin, acquires Its Influence by lying deceit, just as this sin that beset the Hebrews to whom our epistle Is addressed. And the effect of that deceit Is to harden the heart, as exemplified by those that fell In the wilderness. The Author follows up the exhortation just given by considera tions added In vers. 14, 15, the emphatic points of which are that, we are become companions of Christ, and are so become when it is called To-day. Connected by : For with what precedes, the reference Is to the double aspect of the warning of vers. 12, 13. We are become companions of Christ, etc., refers to that of ver. 12, and affirms what it Is that the perfidy {dizturia), against which they are there warned, would repudiate. When it is called To-day, etc., refers to the counsel and warning of ver. 13, and justifies both Its : exhort one another so long as it is called To-day, and its warning against hardening. Such seems to be the true logical connection of vers. 14, 15, which has perplexed commentators from the earliest writings of the sort that have been presented to us. The history of this matter Is comprehensively given and the views lucidly classified in Luneman and Alford. A perusal of that history will dis- * Liineman, comp. Meyer on Eph. iv. 22. 106 WE ARE COMPANIONS OF CHRIST, [UI. 14. courage any one from attempting to classify his understanding of the passage under any of the competing views. It is but just to state, however, that the view now given differs from all repre sented In those accounts, in taking as the emphatic statement of the context the first clause of ver. 14, Instead of the second. The Author, continuing to use the Inspired scripture he has quoted for reproof and correction, (especially in the To-day of ver. 15) uses it also for teaching and Instruction, and continues so to use It in the same way In chapter I v. 1—11. Ver. 14. For we are become companions of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of the confidence steadfast unto the end ; 15. while it is said : To-day, if ye shall hear his voice, harden not your hearts as in the provocation. The logical connection has been represented above. Because of the prominence and consequent emphasis of piroxot = compan ions (for such is here the meaning of the word *), and because the first clause of ver. 14 Introduces a fresh thought, whereas the second clause has been substantially, and partly In identical words, expressed before (vers. 6), and because It is the first clause, we are called upon to take It as the prominent and emphatic thought Introduced by : For. And so taking it, it justifies the construction by the good sense It yields. By saying : we are become compan ions of Christ, the Author Institutes a parallel between his read ers (including himself) and the situation referred to in his Psalm text. This Is natural also from the point of view In vers. 1-6, that brings forward the comparison of Moses and Christ. "Those that journeyed out of Egypt were the companions of Moses ; but we are the companions of the promised Saviour, and there fore partakers of every promise finally fulfilled In him." ^ Noth ing could be more to the point than to follow up the exhortation : " Take heed lest there shall be perfidy in any one of you " (ver. 12), by the statement : For we are companions of Christ. And such Is the logical connection of our ver. 14. It confronts the apprehended perfidy with Him against whom It would be dis played. It has been shown above, that iv rip dKoirr-^vai does not define the perfidy, but the event that will reveal its existence. * Del., von Hof, De Wette, comp. i. 9. ^ von Hof., similarly Del. iu. 14.] IP WE HOLD FAST TO THE END. 107 The evident purpose of the Author to point a parallel between the Christian situation and the situation of the Israelites In the wilderness, demands our special notice, and that we bear it in mind. For the effect extends beyond the present context. It is resumed again when he recurs again to the same subject of apos tasy, vl. 1-6. This Intention of pointing such a parallel occa sions two peculiarities of our context, vers. 7-19 : (a) the liber ties the Author takes with the Old Testament scripture he uses, as noted above under vers. 7-11 ; and (b) the choice of expres sions used here to describe the conduct against which he warns his readers. In the former (a) we may observe the effort to adjust the expression of the substance of the scripture record In a way to point the parallel ; and In the latter (b) a choice of terms that are suited both to the ancient and to the Christian situation. Thus the two situations are identified as being essen tially the same ; and the solemn and tremendous truth and fact of the former are shown to be identified with the latter. This is skillful composition in the highest degree, producing the intended effect In a fashion at once terse and most irresistible. But the Author says : We are become {yeyovapev, which has here Its proper meaning) companions of Christ, with a qualifica tion. It Is the same, with some modification, as that expressed ver. 6. Here, he says : If {idvTzep) we hold fast the beginning of the confidence steadfast unto the end. " The beginning of the confidence is said, because the church of Christ Is, in thought, contrasted with the church of Moses, that had left Egypt with the assured confidence that Moses was ordained to bring them to Canaan. In this assured confidence they stood at first, but did not hold It steadfast unto the end." * . " A beginning Is meant .that shall abide, so as not to be merely a beginning without continu ance." From the present context we are able to define ftirther what the end Is that Is mentioned, vers. 6, 14. It Is not : " the final redemption of individuals and of the whole Church ;" « at least in the concrete notion of It present to mind of the Author and I yon Hof. ' See above on ver. 6. ' As Del. 108 THE PROVOCATION. [IH. 15. pressed on his readers ; nor the death of individual believers ; * " but the coming of the Lord, which Is constantly called by this name," as Alford ^ says. But this Is true in a different sense from that intended by Alford. It Is the coming of the Lord described, 2 Thess. I. 7 sqq. ; II. 3 sqq., as attending the apostasy, which, as we have seen, our Author also holds out in. prospect. That apos tasy and the consequent rejection of the Jews will end the to-day for those in their peculiar situation, whom the Author addresses. Those that hold the beginning of their confidence steadfast to that end, will not afterwards encounter the danger that evokes the present warning. As far, then, as that trial can test the matter (and they could be subjected to no greater test ; moreover, taken as a community It would be decisive), their holding fast will establish the reality of their being the house of God and companions of Christ. Perfidy and hardening will show that they never were such in fact. The text says : If we hold, etc., the idv-izep expressing, that the companionship mentioned Is so far, and only just so far, the case as the holding fast, etc.. Is the case.^ Representing, that : " We have become companions of Christ," with the Important qualification mentioned, the Author adds that this has taken place : Ver. 15. While it is said: To-day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation. This is also connected by the For (ver. 14,) with the foregoing, according to the representation of the logical connection given above. The iv rm Xiysa^ai Is to be taken temporally.* Chry sostom views the context as an Inversion of statements, and, making a parenthesis of vers. 16-19, he connects our ver. 15 with po/SijiJaJ/iSK obv p-ijTzore x. r, X. Iv. 1. He represents the logi cal connection of our iv rm Xiy^oa^at, as foUows : " For we, too, have had a gospel preached unto us, even as also they, when it is said. To-day If ye will hear His voice." While taking a differ ent view of the context, we may appeal to this construction in support of It. It Is as good sense to say : " We have become ' As Stuart. ^ Similarly Liin. ' So von Hof. * See above, on iv rf airoaTipiai, ver. 12. ul. 16.] WHO DID PROVOKE? 109 companions of Christ, when, or while It is said To-day," etc., as to say: "We have been preached to (evangelized), when it is said To-day." What Is thus represented is, that becoming Christians, while it is said: To-day . , , provocation, justifies all the points of the counsel of ver 13, viz., to exhort one another, to do it daily, to do it until the end, and to do It expressly to prevent hardening. As in the provocation, in the Author's Psalm text, presents the example that prompts the present exhortation (as It did the Psalmists), with Its counsel and warning. As an example. Illus trating the present danger, It Is very comprehensive. The warn ing not to harden their hearts, as In the provocation, is an inti mation on the part of the speaker, that the present situation threatens to be like that. The prominent characteristics of that provocation are obviously many. The Apostle proceeds In the following vers. 16—19, to point to a few of them. We must admire the skill with which he chooses. He points the applica tion with laconic and nervous vigor, that must have fallen on the hearts of his readers with bewildering Impetuosity, that nothing could ward off, and that must have been most effective with every one that was not already hardened. In doing this, he resorts to the interrogative form of self-evidential appeal, which is only the more convincing. The representations of these verses ought to have the same force with the Christian reader now. For there Is ever some form of antichrist present In the world (2 John, 7 sqq.), as formidable as that against which the present epistle contended. And under the Influence of that antichrist, tliose that are partakers of a heavenly calling are In danger of hardening their hearts, as the Israelites in the provocation. The first point that the Apostle makes prominent in the warn ing example of the provocation, is the universality of It. Ver. 16. For who, when they heard did provoke? Nay, did not all they that came out of Egypt by Moses? The universality affirmed in this second clause, had the excep tions of Caleb and Joshua, as every one knows. Because the universal statement, without mention of exceptions, seemed to con- 110. WITH WHOM WAS GOD DISPLEASED? [uI. 17. flict with the fact, this second clause was from the earliest times commonly read as not being Interrogative like the first.* Accord ingly, the Version 1611 reads as If this clause made the excep tion : " Howbeit not all that came," etc. But this Is now generally agreed to be an error. The second point that the Apostle makes Is, referring to the greatness of God's anger, to call attention to what provoked dis pleasure so great. Ver. 17. And with whom was he displeased forty-years ? Was it not with those that sinned ? Whose members fell in the wilderness. There Is no antithesis implied here with such as were not objects of divine displeasure. The point Is to make prominent that It was sinning that provoked such displeasure that lasted forty years. The Author Is evidently making a cUmax, in which the oath, with its consequences, represents more than the displeasure and Its consequences. Accordingly, his reference in the present Instance is to the event named Massah, recorded Exodus xvii. 1—7, from which, according also to Moses, Deut, vi. 16, the displeasure of God dated. The Author's text says: "As inthe provocation," (ver. 15), and here he points to the first step in that hardening, which he sufficiently Identifies by calling it sinning. The following clause : " whose members fell in the wilderness," if included In the question, would serve further to identify those that were the objects of such displeasure. But this Identlficar tion is plain enough without such addition, and moreover, has been given with precision In the foregoing verse as : " all those that came out of Egypt with Moses." It is more to the point to emphasize the displeasure that such sinning provoked. More over, seeing that in ver. 19 we have an impressive affirmation following the questions of ver. 18, It Is better ^ to put the inter rogation at sinned, and take the following clause as a direct statement. Then, we must understand the Author as uttering an Impressive reminder of the purport of that displeasure that lasted forty years, and how It actually took effect. * See, in Alford, the history of the exegesis. " With Bengel, Del., von Hof, Griesbach, Lachman, Tischend. in. 18.] DISOBEDIENCE FORFEITED THE REST. Ill The third point that the Author makes Is, to remind the read ers that God (proceeding to more than displeasure that lasted forty years) sware that they should not enter into His rest, and to bid them notice what led to that final and fatal result. It was disobedience. Ver. 18. And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that were disobedient ? The event referred to was that recorded Num. xiv. 22 sqq. The sinning was then more obstinate and aggravated than the former event from which God's displeasure dated. (Comp. Deut. i. 26 sqq.) It was actual rebellion, and the Author also means by disobedience to call it by a worse name. As such God treated It with greater severity than mere displeasure. He was wroth, and in His wrath He sware that they should not enter into His rest. Such are the points that the Apostle makes prominent in that provocation in the wilderness, that his Psalm text holds up as a warning example. On men's part the example shows the univer sality of the transgression, and how they proceeded to extreml- - ties of sin. On God's part it shows how He, too, proceeded to extremities. The Apostle has made the foregoing representations, vers. 16- 18, in support of his exhortation, ver. 12, the chief point of which Is : "Take heed {idXiizsre = see) lest there shall be in any one of you perfidy." He concludes them with the statement : Ver. 19. And we see {^Xi-nopev — di intarlav) that they were not able to enter in because of perfidy. As Ebrard expresses it, " we have in these words a kind of quod erat demonstrandum."'^ The identity of some of the words with those of the exhortation, ver. 12, shows that the Author is pursuing the same thought. What Is demonstrated Is the justice of that warning against perfidy, founded on the Psalm text, quoted before ver. 12. The Author's comments on that text in vers. 16-18, show that those concerned were excluded from God's rest. And we see that they could not, etc., Is not an affirmation In confirmation of the foregoing statement of ver. 18, as if It said : and In fact they did not enter In, as we see.^ The ' Similarly, de Wette, Liin. ' Against von Hof. 112 A PROMISE OP REST IS LEFT. [Iii. 19. emphasis is on dTziazia = perfidy. This different word is not meant as the synonym of "sinning" (ver. 17), nor of disobedience (ver. 18), nor as the comprehensive expression of both. It points to an interior quality that is the source of both, fully expressed in ver. 12 as : " an evil heart of perfidy." To this the Author, by an emphatic affirmation, ascribes all the conduct and consequence of that provocation In the wilderness. It Is a trait of our Author to go back to the ultimate sources of facts he represents. * He does so here. Our verse 19 (as the xdl = and shows), is no inference from the foregoing, but the Author's statement of the fimdamental truth that explains the facts recited. He refers all to their ajrio-Tia and says : they could not enter in. He says : We see, associating his readers with himself as he does, ver. 6 : " whose house we are," and ver. 14 : " We are become compan ions of Christ ... if we hold fast," and still continues to do aU through chap. Iv. The application ofthe Apostle's Psalm text used as a warning, in other words, the fiiU force of the similarity of the present and the ancient situation intimated by : " as in the provocation," appears when It Is seen that now, as then, there is a promise of entering Into God's rest. Without such likeness. Indeed, there would be no parallel, and consequently little point In the warn ing example. What In Christian readers could be perfidy, apostasy, or turning back, and hardening like that of the Israel ites, unless they were under the same promise of a rest ? or at least a similar promise ? And what application of that extremity of God's wrath, viz., exclusion from His rest. If now He offers no rest ? The warning example would of course apply exactly If they had still the same promise extended to them. Then, beside having the same living God to deal with, they are also related to him by the same conditions, only made plainer by His past judgments, and especially by the fact that they " are become companions of Christ." (iii. 14.) It Is, then, as pressing the point of his warning and counsel, Hi. 12-19, that the Apostle proceeds. In chap. Iv. 1—10, to show that those who are become the companions of Christ have stiU ' Comp. ii. 10. iv. 1.] DO NOT SUPPOSE YOU ARE TOO LATE. 113 the promise of rest, as well as those that came out of Egypt with Moses. Such appears to be the progress of thought in the pre sent context. And thus the Author connects what follows by the simple Illative particle {oZv). IV. 1. Let us fear, then, lest haply, a promise being left of enter ing into his rest, any one of you should suppose himself to have come too late. At iii. 12, 15, the Apostle addresses his readers only In the second person plural, and the predicates : " take ye heed lest in any one of you," and : " exhort ye lest any one of you," express action that must be exclusively their concern. In our verse, ' however, he combines the first and second persons In a noticeable way. He says : Let us fear, because it is his fear, and he would make It the fear of his readers. The thing feared, however, is their danger and not his. Therefore he says : lest any one of you. " Let us fear " means also : take care ; and the Apostle makes it his care to guard against the danger, not only by warning his readers of it, but also by providing the correction for it. By saying: a promise being left of entering into his rest, he both affirms a fact, and presents it as a matter of solicitude In the way expressed by : " lest — any of you should suppose himself to have come too late " for It. His readers can only share his fear for some of their number, when they see the fact to be as expressed, viz., a promise is left of entering God's rest. That any could suppose they were too late, was. In other words, to suppose no such promise was left and still operative. The only way to obviate this fear is to show that the promise Is left. By saying : let us fear, the Apostle intimates his purpose of obviating the apprehended danger by such a demonstration. Thus our ver. 1 proposes the subject ofthe following discourse to ver. 11. What has just been noticed may account for, and at the same time help to interpret, certain ambiguities In the present verse beside the combination of the first and second persons already remarked on.* *Thus whether Kara'^nr. . . . ahrov depends on vaTepvuhiat; or whether KaraTiem. iizaryeX is gen. absolute ; whether the latter means : apromise -neglected, or- a promise being left. These points are not to be settled, as in Lun., Alford 8 114 bazspTjxivat. [iv. 1. By saying : " a promise being left of entering Into his rest," the Author both affirms a fact and presents it as a matter of solicitude In the way expressed. He says : " let us fear." It is his fear, and he would make It the fear of his readers. But it can only become such by his representing to them the Important truth In question. It Is Important that Christians now-a-days should recognize how unique Is the subject that the Apostle here represents to his readers. His exposition of his Psalm text makes It appear how the truth In question Is found In the Old Testament. But in the New Testament, this representation of the goal of salvation as being God's rest into which believers are to enter stands quite alone. After the Apostles passed away, the Christian form of this Old Testainent truth must have been quite unfamUiar In Christian circles, except as this epistle gradually won Its way to general canonical recognition. This was long after there had ceased to be churches made up of converted Hebrews, and cir cumstanced as the original readers of this epistle were. This fact makes it possible that much of our epistle, and especiaUy this. Its most unique teaching, would be read with Gentile eyes, that Is, with habits of thought that would miss the points as they would be apprehended by primitive Jewish converts. It is the Gentile Interpretation that has been handed down to us as tradi tional. The fact now alluded to should remind us also how it is possible that, with our best efforts to put ourselves In the place of the original readers, we still may fail to see and read as intel ligently as they. Such considerations have their importance in estimating the merits of conflicting interpretation. One of the most important of these demands attention at the very threshold of our chap. iv. It has been traditional to render pij-Kore. . . . Soxrj n? I? upSiv barep-rjxivai : " lest any one of you should seem to have come short of It," or similarly ; the common notion being, that baTsp-qx. expresses " failure to reach the goal." The rendering given above: "lest any one of you should suppose himself to have been (comp. Raphelius, Annot. Philol. ex Polyb. et Arrian) by remarking on the absence of the article (comp. von Hof. in he). iv. l.J Soxiu). 115 too late" (for It), Is recommended by G. Raphel (f 1740) In his "Annot. Philol. ex Polyb. et Arrian, 1715." It Is that of Schoettgen (f 1751) In his Hor. Heb. 1733, and of J. Sleg. Baumgarten (f 1757), " Erklaerungd. Briefesa. d., Hebr. 1763." It has been adopted later by Bretscneider and Wahl, In their Lexicons,* and latest by Ebrard and von Hofmann, in their com mentaries on our epistle. ^ According as the one or the other rendering is adopted, so the view of the whole passage, vers. 1-10, will be affected. According to the traditional rendering, the aim of the Author will appear to be, to present considerations fitted to prevent his readers from falling short of the promised rest. According to the rendering now proposed, his aim will appear to be, to show his readers that they are uot too late to enjoy the benefit of the promised rest ; — and, also, not too late to be excluded from that rest In requital of an evil heart of perfidy as were those of old. We shall confine our notice to the rendering now offered.^ As a question of translation, there can be no important objec tion made to It. Such Is the use of barepiw, and the perfect barspyjxivac here can have no other sense ; and much the most common meaning of Soxiio In the New Testament, Is : " to sup pose." * Alford shows all this, and has nothing to object to the rendering but logical reasons drawn from the context. And so also Delitzsch and Davidson. But precisely such reasons sup port It. Every reader sees that, as a matter of fact, the burden of vers. 2-10 is to show, that the promise of entering God's rest Is still in force, and this constitutes the singular importance of this unique passage of scripture. On the other hand, the notion of falling short of obtaining that rest Is not again presented, except In a reference to those who of old entered not In. More over, a warning against falling short of that rest, through ignorance of there being still a promise of it. Is, as a warning, much inferior in pungency to that of Hi. 12, IS, against perfidy ' sub voce, varepea. See Alford. ' Comp. Del., Alford, who expressly combat it, and represent the traditional interpretation. * Comp. X. 29. 116 iapev ebyjYysXiapivot. [iv. 2 a. and hardness of heart, and Is, in fact, Included In the other, as the less Is included in the greater. In the foregoing prefatory remarks on our chapter, an ade quate and contextually logical motive has been shown for warn ing the readers not to suppose they are too late to have the benefit of the promised rest. And, finally, the imique and unfamiliar doctrine concerning God's rest Is itself evidence enough that the illusion referred to was common. So that It seems incomprehensible how Delitzsch can say, " It could only be entertained by a deranged man." And, seeing the Importance and preclousness of the doctrine, the need of setting It forth was very great, as the dangers of ignorance must be very serious. The Author says again :* "lest haply, any one of you," thus implying, that, ihe illusion referred to is common, and that It is only a question whether some of his readers should become the victims of it. Those that entertained the Illusion that they were too late for the promise of entering Into God's rest, were in general, such as did not believe the truth implied in Ps. xcv. 11, as the Apostle expounds it. This appears from ttj Tziarst ver. 2, and from what Is affirmed of ol niarebaavze^ ver. 3. We mean, of course, belief in the truth Involved In this Psalm, that is, the truth of the good tidings mentioned In the following verse ; not belief that the Psalmi taughi the truth now In question. The latter would not have been believed or conceived to the present day but for the exposition In the chapter before us. The Apostle begins to prove the statement, that there is left a promise of entering Into God's rest, by affirming : Ver. 2 a. For we, too, have had good tidings preached unto us, even as those also. This statement Is not to be taken as the equivalent of: "there is left a promise of entering Into his rest," expressed In other words, with the additional notion that the promise Is extended to us.^ By employing the comprehensive term iapkv sbijyysXtapivot, which he uses again ver. 6, the Author shows, that he appeals to the fact of the proclamation of God's grace in all Its length and ' Comp. iii. 12, 13 ; and xa^tj^ riveg avruv 1 Cor. x. 7, 8, 9. ' Against Davidson. iv. 2 6.] iTOvxexaptapivow}. 117 breadth ; for which, both in the Old and the New Testament, the proper expression Is to " preach good tidings." Comp. Isa. IH. 7 in the LXX. ; w? rrdSe^ sbayyeXc^opivou dxoijv elp-qvei;. The same thing Is referred to in the next clause of our verse by the term 6 Xdyog t^? dxo^^. This proclamation we * have " as well as those " others {ixeivot), by whom are meant the Israelites in the desert. By affirming this at the present point, the Author comprehends all such hearers of all times under one class. This» proclamation. In Moses' time, was a call to enter God's rest. He means to show that It Is the same now ; as. Indeed, It has always been and will be while good tidings are preached. It was so In Moses' time, because God's rest remained as something for per sons to enter. It Is so still, for the same reason. It is this the Author aims to show. The fact that those of old were not able to enter in might seem to end the proclamation {dxorj) so far as it was an offer of sharing God's rest. To show that such was not the fact, but only that, for cause, the proclamation was inoperative In their case, the Author adds the explanation of: Ver. 2 b. But the word of proclamation did not profit those not combined by faith with them that heard,* Taking the text of our ver. 2 6 as given In Westcott & Hort, we translate dxo-^ " proclamation." It means, not " the hearing," ' Emphatic ; against Davidson. ' By the rules of textual criticism, that are regarded as imperative in other cases, it is clear, that we must, accept, as the correct text, here : kiceivovg pi/ avvKeKepaapivmJg ry iridTet. toi; aicoiaamv. Only the difiiculty of making sense out of it is against it. That very fact, however, in the case of other disputed texts, is, by rule put in the balance in favor of the reading of which it is true. It ought to be allowed the same influence here. Comp. Liinemann on this point, who fairly represents the state of the question, yet decides in favor of the reading of the T. E. {anyKEKpapivoe), solely on the ground that the other reading " conflicts with the context and is nonsense." Westcott and Hort adopt the amtneimpiapevovQ. But in their "Notes on select readings," p. 129, having represented the state of the text, they say : "After much hesitation, we have marked this very difficult passage, as probably containing a primitive corruption." Alford, adopting the same reading, says : " The passage is almost a hcus de^eratus." It is this reading that has been adopted by the Revision of 1881. Tischendorf Ed. viii. takes the other reading. 118 THE WORD OF PROCLAMATION [Iv. 2 b. but the thing heard, " announcement." * " The word of proclama^ mation," says the Author (by which he means that which was the preaching of good tidings to those of old), " did not profit those not combined with them that heard." In this representa tion he designates those that were not profited, and at the same time by his descriptive designation : (" those not combined by faith with them that heard"), he points to the reason why they were not profited, aoyxepdwopi means, "to mix, commingle closely " (comp. 1 Cor. xii. 24). So describing those that the word did not profit, the Author ascribes the failure to the lack of faith in them ; and intimates, on the other hand, that others heard with profit ; that faith, had the former had It, would have com bined them with the latter in this profiting. By this Is equally implied, that faith was the profitable ingredient of the hearing of " them that heard." We have thus a very pregnant sentence, after the manner of our Author, who not seldom has recourse to such breviloquence. By this rendering, we understand the Author to distinguish two classes among those of old that had good tidings preached to them, viz., those that did not and those that did hear with profit. And we understand him to designate the latter by the simple expression : " them that heard." Both of these notions have been deemed inadmissable. The former because, as It Is supposed, iii. 16 shows that the Author allows of no such distinction;^ the second, because in such close conjunction with dxo7j irurriv rob Kvpiov . . , TvsS6^}!g=" the faith of the glory of our Lord," Jas. ii. 1, comp. Huther (Meyer's Comm.) previous to edit., 1870. He also urges that the in verted order of the words, putting the dependent ^wx- -.. nvevp. first, is due to emphasis that rests on them; and cites 6 rp'^<«'^'«f , Plato Protag. 343 B., where zav naTuuStv owes its position to the tone resting on it, (comp. Stallbaum in he). Davidson has the same rendering.^ Angus incorrectly : " Dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow. 138 EVERYTHING READY POR THE BLOW. [Iv. 13. cient and searching power of God's word, i. e., of God, It does not appear how It helps out the Idea of verse 12, or marks any progress In the thought. For that every creature Is manifest before Him and all stripped and bared to His eyes. Is Inferior In ex pression to the description, ver. 12, that the most hidden frame and structure of soul and spirit are penetrated by Him. But If vers. 12, 13, describe the punitive energy of God's word, and so amplify the notion of an example of the punishment of disobe dience, we have a natural progress of thought. For, verse 12 having represented the Irresistible and unerring efficacy of that word as a sword, our verse 13 represents every creature as mani fest to the judge of the heart and everything ready for the blow of execution, as when the condemned criminal stands stripped, and with bared neck, ready for the blow of the sword to feU. In other words, verse 12 represents how annihilating the blow will be when it falls, while verse 13 represents that things are ready for the blow to fall. The figure represented by zpaxfjXiZ^a may not admit of precise definition.* But all of the proposed explanations (whether derived from the athlete's taking his adver sary by the throat to choke him; or from the action of slaught ering a beast ; or from the Roman usage of exposing the face of one about to suffer punishment), agree In this, that the word represents a situation ready for complete overthrow or the fatal blow. It does not seem possible for such a word to do service in any way as descriptive of how everything is open and mani fest to God as a judge. And no wonder that commentators find It difficult of explanation with that view of our verse. Alford translates it, " prostrate," and owns to dissatisfaction with that. Delitzsch, waving all archaeological Ulustrations as of no account, says : " zpaxTjXlZecv, which undoubtedly means, to sieze by the throat and throw back the head, receives here Its second ary meaning from the context, and yet also without entire loss of the Image, as e.g., by taking ztzpayrtXiapiva as simply equivar lent to ¦KsriZetv is meant simply " to inform " or " give intelligence " of any thing, so that what one was Ignorant of he Is made to know,' and where he was in the dark he Is made to see as in the light. What one was made to know and see is not here expressed. But the expression Is used absolutely as at .x. 32, as though the matter of enlightenment must be understood. The logical connection of x. 26, 32 shows that Illumination in " the knowledge of the tmth " is what is meant. And the whole tenor of our epistle, as well as the pre- * Jer. Taylor : Doctrine and Practice of Eepentance ix. § 4. ^ With von Hof ' See Winer, Gramm. pp. 434, 435. * So von Hof ' Comp. Eph. iii. 9. 192 TASTING THE HEAVENLY GIFT. [vi. 4, 5. sent context and the context at x. 26, makes it plain, that the Apostle has particularly In mind the knowledge of what was the intent of Christ's sacrificial death on the cross, and the efficacy of " the blood of the covenant " there shed to sanctify believers. As has been already noted, the Apostle appropriately says : once (oTraf) enlightened, because seeing is In Its nature something that occurs once for all. What one sees Is henceforth to him a visible thing.' But by expressing the fact, the Apostle means to note that what the persons he describes do, viz., " crucifying," etc., (ver. 6 b), they do against light and knowledge, and not as ff the enlightenment were again " swallowed up by the previous darkness." ^ To the "enUghtening" the Apostle adjoins (byre — xai — xai) three other experiences that are Involved in the former as attend ants on it. The first of these is : and having tasted the heavenly gift. It Is misleading to suppose that this expresses something subsequent to the experience denoted by : " having been enlight ened." Influenced thus, expositors have named a variety of things as being Intended by the heavenly gift, such as remission of sins, joy and peace in believing, the Lord's supper, etc.* Itis not a different thing from what is referred to by : " having been enlightened," that the Apostle means. In Eph. HI. 7-9, Paul names the gospel " of which he was made a minister, according to the gift {zi-iv Sioptdv) of the grace of God which was given (t?)? Swi^eiari