PART FIRSTThe elevation of the New Testament Mediator as Son above all other mediators of Revelation and Redemption _________ FIRST OF JESUS CHRIST ABOVE THE AND ABOVE THE ANGELS, THE OF THE OLD ______ I The final Revelation of God has been made in the Son, the perfect Mediator, elevated above all, and exalted over all, whose preλminence above the Angels is indicated even in their respective names. Hebrews 1:1-41 God who at sundry times [in many parts] and in divers manners [many ways] spake in time past [of old, πάλαι] unto the fathers by [in, ἐν] the prophets, 2hath in these last days spoken [spake in the closing period of these days] unto us by [in] his Son, whom 3 he hath [om. hath] appointed heir of all things, by whom also he [he also] made the worlds; who, being the brightness of his glory, and the express image [impression] of his person [substance], and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our [after making a cleansing of] sins, sat down on the4 right hand of the Majesty on high; being made [becoming] so much better than [κρείττων, mightier than, superior to] the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained [hath inherited] a more excellent name than they. AND Heb_1:1. In many parts, and in many ways.—Although the rich and full-sounding words [πολυμερῶςκαὶπολυτρόπως] which open the Epistle, form an evidently intended and favorite assonance, they are by no means to be regarded (as by Chrys. and Thol.) as a mere rhetorical expansion of one and the same thought. We must rather recognize in them the characteristic peculiarities of the Old Testament revelations. For πολυμερῶς (in many parts) points not merely to the external, manifold diversity of the revelation at different times and in different persons (Bl.), or to its quantitative succession (Del.), but to the fact that by none of the many prophets, whether appearing in succession or contemporaneously, was the counsel of God revealed perfectly and in undivided fulness, but only fragmentarily and in a manifold diversity of parts. The entire prophetic function of humanity bears the characteristic “in part” (ἐκμέρους, 1 Corinthians 13:9). From this is to be distinguished a multiplicity of modes (τρόποι), the diversity in the forms and methods of the revelation made to the fathers. In view of this connection, we are not to refer the term to the different forms of divine communication made to the prophets themselves, as “by dreams, visions from mouth to mouth” (Numbers 12:6 ff.); but partly to the distinction of law and prophecy, doctrine and exhortation, warning and consolation, threatening and promise in the prophetic discourses; partly to the diversity—conditioned by personal individuality—in the modes of teaching of an Isaiah and an Ezekiel, a Moses and a David. Both adverbs awaken at once in the reader the thought that a Revelation of such character cannot be final and perfect, but needs supplementing and completion. Kluge finds also in the words, the painstaking solicitude of the Divine instructions. In time past.—Πάλαι points to the fact that the Old Testament revelation has long since past, having come with Malachi to its canonical conclusion; so that nothing was henceforth to be expected but the coming of him who was predicted by that prophet, the “messenger of the covenant” who immediately preceded the coming of the Lord Himself. The ‘Fathers’ to whom the prophetic words were addressed, are the forefathers of the Jews. Sir. xliv.; Acts iii. 22; Rom. ix. 5. In the Prophets.—The contrasted ἐνυἱῷ forbids our referring this to the prophetic writings (Fr. Schmidt, Stein). Further, we are neither to supply ὤν, being, nor to take ἐν instrumentally (Chrys., Luth., Calv., Grot., Thol., Ebr., Del.). This construction is commonly taken as an Hebraism: so Del. compares 1 Samuel 28:6, 2 Samuel 23:2 : γִּ ?αֵּ ?ψαְּ. Others, as Thol., point to a similar use of ἐν in the classics (Bern hardy’s Synt. 210). But ἐν, according to Kόhner, § 600, 3, admits instrumentality only in connection with things, and neither our author’s style nor the sense form here a deviation from the customary import of ἐν. For He who speaks is God. The prophets are the organs of His revelation, completely controlled by Him, and in whom His own utterances are heard. This presupposes a transient indeed and indirect, but still real union of God with the prophets. But this union is not an essential, and as it were, metaphysical entrance into human nature, nor a settled, peaceful indwelling of God in the prophets wrought through the Spirit; but a divine activity in the prophets, coinciding and blending itself with the prophetic utterance. Precisely for this reason the prophets could never become to the fathers a proper manifestation of God, could never become a Theophany. They were, as shown by the λαλήσας (spoke), the tongues of God, and even the form of the prophetic utterances is the result of God’s purpose and agency, and must not be regarded as something barely human and separable from its divine subject-matter. Precisely for this reason could Paul argue (Galatians 3:16,) from the form as such. Finally, the word prophet is here used in the broader sense, which extends the name to Abraham (Genesis 20:7), and the patriarchs generally (Psalms 105:15); as also to Moses (Deuteronomy 34:10). At the end of these days.—The expression ἐπἐσχάτουτῶνἡμερῶυτούτων, at the end of these days is rightly to be understood only as a terminus technicus in connection with the Hebrew αְּ ?ΰַ ?ηֲ ?ψִ ?ιϊδַ ?ιָּ ?ξִ ?ιν (at the end of the days). These words, which originally pointed only to the future, became, on account of their frequent connection with Messianic prophecies, a standing designation for the Messianic time, which brings to an end the ςεֹ ?μָ ?νδַ ?ζֶּ ?δαἰὼνοὖτος and introduces the coming age ςεֹ ?μָ ?νδַ ?αָּ ?ΰαἰὼνμέλλων as the period, commencing with the resurrection, of the glorious manifestation of the kingdom of God. In the Jewish conception this period coincided with the appearance of the Messiah. Since this was looked for in the “time of the end,” Daniel 8:17-19, or “at the end of time,” Daniel 12:13, to the Christian conception this divides itself into two sections of which the first commences with the appearance of Jesus Christ in the flesh, the second with the reappearance of Him who has been exalted at the right hand of God. The two divisions stood in the contemplation and hope of the early church, in close proximity, and were essentially identical: for the latter contains only the complete manifestation of what was essentially and substantively commenced in the former: Colossians 3:3-4. The expression ‘last days’ (ἔσχαταιἡμέραι) James 5:3, comprehends therefore the whole time from the birth of Jesus Christ to His second coming, which takes place in the καιρὸςἔσχατος 1 Peter 1:5 after the accomplishment, ‘in the last times,’ ἐνὑστέροιςκαιροῖς (1 Timothy 4:1), of the signs preceding His second coming. Then all promises receive their final fulfilment, Hebrews 11:40; Hebrews 12:28; and for believers their entrance into rest (κατάπαυσις Hebrews 4:4; Hebrews 4:11), and into the Sabbatism (σαββατισμός Hebrews 4:10) is accomplished at the same time with their emancipation into the glorious freedom of the children of God, Romans 8:21. Thus the first coming of Jesus Christ falls “at the end of the times” (ἐπ’ ἐσχάτουτῶνχρόνων), 1 Peter 1:20, when the “fulness of time” (πλήρωματῶνχρόνων) had come, Galatians 4:4. Precisely for this reason does Peter recognize in the miracle of the Pentecost (Acts 2:17), the fulfilment of a prophecy in regard to that which was to happen “in the last days” (ἐνταῖςἐσχάταιςἡμέραις); as elsewhere the appearance of certain heretical teachers recalls prophecies in regard to the ‘end of time’ (Judges 18), or ‘of the days’ (2 Peter 3:3). The οἱκουμένημέλλουσα (coming world) which is subjected not to angels, but to the Lord, (Hebrews 2:5) or the new order of things, (the season of rectification, καιρὸςδιορθώσεως), Hebrews 9:10, commences, therefore, with the founding of the Christian church; and believers have since their conversion tasted along with the word of God, the “powers of the world to come,” Hebrews 6:5. For Christ appeared for the doing away of sins by the sacrifice of Himself, “at the consummation of the ages” (ἐπὶσυντελείᾳαἰώνων, Hebrews 9:26.) There is, thus, now nothing to be looked for but the second coming, 1 Thessalonians 4:15. Already has the “last time” (ἐσχάτηὥρα) begun, 1 John 2:18. The expression has not a chronological, but a doctrinal and moral import. When, therefore, it is said that God has spoken in the Son, ἐπ̓ἐσχάτουἡμερῶντούτων, the expression cannot, viewed with reference either to the language or to the fact, mean “at last in these days” (Vulg., Luth., Dav. Schulz). The ἡμέραιαὖται, these days, are not the days in which the readers and the author live, but they correspond to the αἰὼνοὖτος this age or time, and ἐπ̓ἐσχάτου is to be taken as neuter, indicating the close of the ante-Messianic time. The demonstrative points not to a chronological, but to a doctrinal conception. So also ἡμῖν denotes, in contrast with the ‘fathers,’ the author with his readers as belonging to the Christian period. In the Son.—The absence of the article before υἱῷ has its ground not in the fact that υἱός can be used of Christ after the manner of a proper name, and thus be determined in itself (Bφhme, Bloomf., Del., Riehm), which none can doubt, but in the fact that it is here not the individual, whom the author would signalize, but the character, or relation. In distinction from the well-known prophets, the organ of God’s utterances at the close of the ages is one who stands to God in the relation of Son. Thus we have no longer to do with a continuance of God’s prophetic oracles; but with a form of divine revelation specifically different from all that preceded it, yet maintaining its organic connection with them by the fact of its proceeding from the same God who spoke to the Fathers. Hebrews 1:2. Appointed.—It were possible (with Bengel, Bleek, Lφnemann) to understand this of an appointment in the divine purpose and counsel. But the connection of the clauses is not such as to indicate an enumeration of the several stages from the ante-temporal act of destining the pre-existing Son to be the inheritor of all things, to the actual fulfilment of this purpose in the redemption wrought by the Incarnated Word. The question evidently is rather of the historical Mediator of the Divine Revelation, who stands in the relation of Son. The import of this term it is now the special purpose of the writer to unfold, and this the more, in that, on the one hand, the term ‘Son of God’ has in the Old Testament itself a different signification; and, on the other, that he has hitherto spoken of that prophetic revelation of God which expresses itself in the word. For this reason he adds two clauses by way of specially defining the term Son, each of which expresses in its own peculiar manner this Son’s uniqueness of nature and infinite elevation. He is the Ruler who being worshipped as Lord (κύριος), has been by right of inheritance, and thus legitimately and by virtue of His divine Sonship, exalted to this dignity. And this exaltation is no apotheosis: no elevation of a man (as Socinianism would have it) to a divine position and dignity; it corresponds to the relation which this personage sustained to God before the ages. The Mediator of God’s final revelation in His word, is also the Mediator of the exercise of His power in creation. Thus through the relative (ὅς, who) the discourse passes over from God, the subject of the preceding clauses, to this mediator as subject of the following. In these the term ἐκάθισεν points to the joint agency of Christ in the act of His exaltation: while the participial clauses preceding bring out the indispensable and vital points of the Son’s having taken His place at the right hand of God only after accomplishing the work of redemption, and under what essential attributes of His person and agency (what being and what doing) all this has been accomplished. The participial clause ποιησάμενος (after making, etc.) gives the work which in perfect freedom the Son has accomplished before His exaltation; the participial clause γενόμενος (becoming so much greater, etc.) describes the position and recognition awarded to Him in consequence of that work; while the two participial clauses ὤν and φέρων (being, etc., and ‘bearing’ or ‘upholding,’ etc.) indicated by the closely connecting particle τε as standing in intimate relationship, and designedly placed before the others, express the unoriginated and unchangeable, and thus eternal and identical being and agency of the Mediator of Redemption and Creation. We must not deny (with Lόn.) that also these latter clauses have to do with the manifested Messiah. But from this it follows neither that, as descriptive of the personal qualities of Christ, they assign the internal ground of His exaltation (de Wette), nor that they characterize the Son in the inmost and essential ground of His absolute personality (Del.), nor that referring to Him presumably merely as the exalted one, they point to merely economical relations in the accomplishment of redemption (V. Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, 2d ed. 1. p. 140 ff.). They point us rather to the unchangeable essence, the ever uniform and invariable activity of the Mediator of the New Covenant. They contain “a characteristic of the Son, as designating that nature which belongs peculiarly to Christ in each and all of His various modes of existence.” (Riehm, I. 278). For the Pres. Part. marks not in itself any independent time but simply co-ordinates the action with that of the principal verb. But if, as here, the principal verb is past, the contemporaneous action in the subordinate clause is expressed not by the Pres. but by the Imperf. The Present characterizes by pointing to permanent features and essential attributes. The worlds.—As no trace of controversy with Gnostic notions of Ζons and Angels, held by Jews, is found elsewhere in our epistle, we must, were it even for this reason, decline to refer the αἰῶνες here to angels (as earlier expositors with Wolf). The passage Hebrews 11:3 proves also that αἰῶνες cannot signify secular periods (Chrys.), still less the two cardinal epochs of the world’s history, the Mosaic and the Christian (Bolten, Paulus, Stolz, Stein), but only the world as existing and moving in time. Its parallel is found in the Old Testament δָ ?ςεֹ ?μָ ?ξִ ?ιν which (from ςָ ?μַ ?ν, to veil, hide,) signifies originally only successive periods of time lying beyond the vision, but in the writings of the Rabbins, the worlds as the hidden, unfathomable, concrete product and expression of the hidden, unfathomable ages of time. The transition in signification is found Ecclesiastes 3:11. As, however, αἰών never signifies time or eternity in the abstract, but both only under the category of progress and movement in which spiritual forces are active, so with the relation of this word to the idea of the world. It denotes the world not as the mere aggregate of all things, the universe, (τὰπάντα), not as the manifold variety of things wrought into an organic unity and harmony (κόσμος); nor again the world in its materiality, perishableness, and vanity; but as a system of spiritual relations and powers in whose phenomena we may discern the νοούμενα, Romans 1:20. These invisible, spiritual and permanent potencies of the phenomenal world are no individual Angels and Ζons, no powers independently fashioning the world, and no world of Ideas after whose model God was constrained to fashion and to build the world of phenomena. Rather God has formed these through His Son, and according to Hebrews 11:3, arranged and reduced them to order by His creative word. It is these αἰῶνες which, amidst all phenomenal vicissitudes and fluctuations, and the ceaseless passing away of individual existences, remain permanent in the world. But Jehovah is ὁθεὸςτῶναἰώνων, Sir 36:19; ὁβασιλεὺςτῶναἰώνων (Tob 13:6; Tob 13:10; 1 Timothy 1:17). The emphasis in our passage lies not on the fact that God through the Son has made also (=even) the Ζons, but that in connexion with the fact that He constituted or appointed the Son heir of the worlds, we are also to look at the fact that through Him He made (ἐποίησεν) the world. Hebrews 1:3. Beaming image.—Ἀπαὑγασμα is by Bleek following previous interpreters (as Clarius, Schlichting, Capellus, Gerhard, Calov., Bφhme), explained as effulgence, beaming or shining forth; but the form of the word would lead us to take it passively. We might hence (with Erasm., Calv., Bez., Grot., etc.) refer it to the image, the form received and reflected in a mirror. More exactly, however, it denotes the distinct, concrete result of the beaming or shining forth (Lob., Paralip. 396, Krόger, Gr. Gram. 191); so that according to Lόn. it involves a threefold idea: 1. that of independent existence; 2. that of origin or descent; 3. that of likeness. Δόξα denotes the resplendent glory of God’s majesty as the means by which He makes a revelation of Himself, and claims the adoring recognition of His creatures. In Christ this glory is received and concentrated in an individual, personal image, rayed or beamed forth, as it were, from the Deity, and itself, therefore, beaming forth its brightness in turn. This beaming image is thus no mere mirrored reflection, no fleeting phenomenon produced merely for a specific and definite purpose. It has expressed in it the essential being of God, just as the figure or image is contained in the die. The numerous significations of ὑπόστασις may be reduced to four fundamental ones: 1. underplacing, underlaying, hence, foundation, basis, substruction, support, even sediment; 2. the fact of putting one’s self under a thing, taking it upon one’s self; hence, firmness, steadfastness, confidence of spirit, enterprise, determination; 3. that which lies at the basis as the proper object, or subject matter of a discourse or narrative; 4. real being in contrast with fancy and illusion; hence, essence, substance. Since now every real being has a special mode of existence corresponding to its essence, the term ὑπόστασις could become a doctrinal terminus ecclesiasticus for the trinitarian distinction in the existence of God=πρόσωπον, persona, and so many interpreters explain it here, even Calvin, Beza, Gerhard, Calov., Thom. Aquinas, Bellarmine, and Corn. a Lapide. This signification of the word, however, belongs demonstrably to a later ecclesiastical usage. We must refer the term, therefore, to the essential being of God, as Philo employs it as a synonym of οὐσία, and the Vulgate translates figura substantiζ ejus, or still better Origen de Princip. iHebrews Hebrews 1:2; Hebrews 1:8, figura expressa substantiζ. For the etymology of χαραλτήρ points at all events to a means by which a thing is made recognizable or even valid in exchange, and that by stamped or engraved marks. The word, however, never denotes the stamped figure or impression itself, but only the means for it. It may thus denote partly the features or marks which in general are the means of recognition, and partly may indicate the stamp itself; but this not merely as the external instrument, or tool for stamping, but as bearing in itself the form to be impressed, and having the destination and capacity by means of this of making the impression. In this sense Philo (ed. Mangey I. p. 332) calls the rational soul a genuine coin which has obtained its οὐσία and its τύπος from that seal of God whose χαρακτήρ is the eternal Logos. Bearing.—The character of the discourse will not allow our transforming the idea of φέρειν, bearing, into that of maintaining and governing. And, moreover, not merely do the later Jews frequently make use of this language, that God bears the worlds with His power and with the arm of His strength, but also Paul expresses a kindred idea thus: “all things consist (συνέστηκεν) in him,” Colossians 1:17. On the other hand this φέρειν must not be conceived as a mere passive bearing (portare); for the Son sustains no merely external relation to the world, nor in His action upon it merely puts forth His power in a manner like that ascribed to those who bore the heavens and the structure of the universe in the old mythologies; He acts through the word of His power. The ‘Word’ is not here that of the Gospel (Socin.) although his (αὐτοῦ) refers not to God (Cyril, Grot., etc.) but to the Son. It is the word in which the power essential to the Son utters itself, with which power it is itself fraught. The utterance of the Son, by which the world is upheld in its unity, and carried forward to the accomplishment of its purposes, is parallel to the creative word of God in the account of creation. The idea of bearing thus passes over into the active conception of gerere (carrying forward), of a sustaining movement and guidance which works upon and within it by an overmastering, spiritual agency. In this sense the prophets are said (2 Peter 2:4) to be φερόμενοιὐπὸπνεύματοςἁγίου, and the Sept. thus uses φέρειν, Numbers 11:14; Deuteronomy 1:9. Purification.—The expression, “making a purification of sins,” refers not to an altered condition of the world wrought through the ministry of Christ, nor to a moral renovation of the human race effected in consequence of that ministry, but to the accomplished work of redemption in removing the hinderances created by sin to our intercourse with God. The form of expression is drawn from that Levitical worship in which only pure Israelites were permitted to take part. God, that is to say, has separated His people for His service, Leviticus 20:7; Numbers 16:5; that they may be His sanctified ones, His Saints, Psalms 16:3; Proverbs 30:3. But the Saints are to be not merely corporeally pure, Exodus 19:20; Deuteronomy 23:12-14; 1 Samuel 16:5, but also Levitically pure, Leviticus 11:44, since it is the business of those whom God has set apart from the nations as His possession, to observe the distinctions between the “clean” and the “unclean,” which He Himself has established, Leviticus 20:24-26. Even though in all these arrangements we may not be able specially to refer back to death and corruption, as permanent tokens and memorials of sin (as Sommer has with great acuteness attempted (Bibl. Treatises, Bonn, 1846, p. 183–367), still to the ceremonially defiled, equally as to the sinner, participation in the service was allowed only in consequence of priestly mediation on the ground of sacrifice, and thus alone access to God and appearance in His presence were rendered possible. To this our text refers, which, by the addition of τῶνἁμαρτιῶν, of sins (gen. obj. Exodus 30:10; Job 7:21; comp. Matthew 8:3), points specially to the purification from all sins, Leviticus 16:30, which was made on the great day of atonement, and thus brings as definitely before the reader the high-priestly work of Christ as the words immediately following exhibit His kingly office. The Mid. form, ποιησάμενος, intimates a close and immediate relation of the action to the acting subject (Kόhner Gr. § 250, (d), Hadley Gr. Gr., § 689). The act of purification is thus designated as the special and peculiar act of the Son. The reading δἰἑαυτοῦ designates, at the same time, directly the person of Jesus Christ as the means of purification, and we must refer in our minds specially to the identity of the priest and of the expiatory sacrifice (Hebrews 7:27; Hebrews 10:10), as the ideas of purification and expiation stand in so close relation that λִּ ?τֻּ ?ψִ ?ιν, Exodus 29:36, is translated ἡμέρατοῦκαθαρισμοῦ, day of purification, and 2Ma 2:16, the feast of atonement is called καθαρισμός. Moreover, Grimm (Stud. und Krit., 1839, p. 751) regards as conjectural root of the Gothic sauns (ransom, λύτρον), the word sinna, saun=to be pure. Kφstlin’s assertion [Joh. Lehrbegr., p. 534) that the doctrine of our passage differs essentially from that of Paul, who makes atonement vicarious, is unfounded. The καθαρισμός wrought by the death of Christ is mentioned, Ephesians 5:26; Titus 2:14, while again substitution appears, Hebrews 9:14; Hebrews 10:10. Purification involves as its necessary condition, cleansing; as its consequence, sanctification, in the sense of consecration, Hebrews 9:14; Hebrews 9:22 f.; Hebrews 10:2. Took his seat.—Καθίζειν, in older classical use, is ordinarily transitive, but Hellenistic usage makes it generally intransitive, as elsewhere also constantly in our Epistle (Hebrews 8:1; Hebrews 10:12; Hebrews 12:2); while with Paul again, except 2 Thessalonians 2:4, it is uniformly transitive. Ἐνὑψηλοῖς (corresponding to αַּ ?ξָּ ?ψεֹ ?ν, Psalms 93:4; as ἐνὑψίστοις, Luke 2:14; Luke 19:38; to αַּ ?ξְּ ?ψεֹ ?ξִ ?ιν Job 16:19) is grammatically to be referred to ἐκάθισεν, inasmuch as μεγαλωσύνη, majesty, (comp. Hebrews 8:1), like ἡμεγαλοπρεπὴςδόξα, 2 Peter 1:17, and δύναμις, Matthew 26:64, is a designation of God in the respect that no greatness, power and majesty can reach to Him, compare itself with Him, or of itself attain to Him. The term “Majesty” has no need to be specialized by a defining clause like ἐνὑψηλοῖς, a construction which (Beza, Bleek) would require the article (μεγαλωσύνηςτῆςἑνὑψηλοῖς). But the phrase ἐνὑψηλοῖς is important as added to ἐκάθισεν, describing more definitely Christ’s exaltation after and by means of His ascension. We must not, however, with Ebrard, in the Reformed interest, maintain that ἐνὑψ. contains a manifest local relation, while the καθίζεινἐνδεξιᾷ is a figurative expression, embracing purely the idea of participation in the Divine dominion and majesty, and utterly void of any local import. Inasmuch as the local relations are concrete and real, but yet can neither be sensibly beheld, nor are developed in the form of distinct conceptions in the Scriptures, but are revealed only in a general way to Christian apprehension, the figurative mode of expression and the local conceptions are neither to be dispensed with nor limited to a single isolated point. Such erroneous localization and possible misconceptions are in Scripture in part expressly and formally corrected, as John 4:21; John 4:50 ff.; Jeremiah 23:23; 1 Kings 8:27; partly set aside by counter statements, as at Hebrews 4:14 Christ is said to have “passed through the heavens” (comp. Ephesians 1:21; Ephesians 4:10, “who ascended above all heavens”); Hebrews 7:14, to have become “higher than the heavens,” and finally Acts 7:55, Stephen sees Jesus standing at the right hand of God. Finally the original and primary conception involved in the phrase, “sitting at the right hand of God,” is not that of participation in the fulness of the Divine power and honor, or in the exercise of universal dominion; but of being taken into protection under the sheltering presence of Jehovah from the assaults of enemies, Psalms 11:1; Matthew 22:44; Revelation 12:5. Only as a consequence of this follows participation in Divine honor, omnipotence and sovereignty; and this, in that the language is applied not to the theocratic kings in general, but to the Messiah, and, in its application to Jesus, presupposes, as its condition, His theanthropic exaltation. This sitting of the exalted Christ at the right hand of Majesty, which is to continue without interruption until His Second Coming, must be conceived, therefore, not as a state of repose, or of mere security, as of one rescued from his enemies, but of Messianic activity in the accomplishment of redemption. This activity may assume the most varied forms (Acts 2:23; Romans 8:34; Hebrews 8:1); among them especially that of asserting the Divine dominion over all hostile assaults, and over all ungodly persons, Ephesians 1:20; 1 Corinthians 15:25; Hebrews 2:8; Hebrews 10:12; 1 Peter 3:22. Hebrews 1:4. Becoming.—The participial clause, which at once forms the close of the period and introduces the capital thought of the immediately following discussion, gives, in contrast with what Christ, in His essential nature and under all circumstances, is and does, the change in position and dignity which He has experienced in His actual historical career. The word γενόμενος is neither to be taken separately nor unduly pressed. It stands in close connection with κρείττων (becoming mightier, superior); ideo que non ad essentiζ ortum, sed ad conditionem pertinet (Matth. Polus, Synops. Crit.). It is an error, however, to deduce from it the meaning factus=declaratus; and not less erroneous, on the other hand, is the rendering existens (Faber Stapul.), or the reference of the word, as with many older interpreters, to an eterna generatio. Nor does the term apply (as with Thom. Aquin., Cajet.) to the act of incarnation, or to Christ’s investiture with the office of Mediator, “quo pacto non uno modo factus dici potest” (H. B. Stark, Not. Sel., p. 4); but it refers to the exaltation of Him who had become incarnate (Theodoret, �cumen.). Applied to Christ, it involves the idea of a change in the mode of His being and manifestation, but by no means in His nature, Romans 1:3; Galatians 4:4; Philippians 2:7. It implies no apotheosis or exaltation of a man to Deity, but an actual exaltation of the Incarnate One as such into the place of Deity in the progress of a series of historical events. Κρείττων (=κρατύτερος) denotes not of itself Divinity (Cyrill), although the Greeks familiarly designated supernatural beings as οἱκρείττονες. In its frequent use by our author it always denotes a preλminence, whose exact character is determined by the context. (See Hebrews 9:19; Hebrews 9:22; Hebrews 8:6; Hebrews 9:23; Hebrews 10:34; Hebrews 11:16; Hebrews 11:35; Hebrews 11:40; Hebrews 12:24). Clem. Rom. (1 Cor. 36.) in citing our passage, puts instead of it, μείζων. The formula τοσούτῳ ?—ὅσῳ, occurring in Philo and in our Epistle here, as also at Hebrews 7:20-22; Hebrews 8:6; Hebrews 10:25, is never used by Paul; nor is παρά after a comparative though frequent in our Epistle, as Hebrews 3:3; Hebrews 9:23; Hebrews 11:4; Hebrews 12:24, and occurring Luke 3:13; 3 Esdras 4:35. The comparative διαφορώτερον, found elsewhere in the New Testament only at Hebrews 8:6, enhances the idea of dignity which is already contained in the positive. Name.—The term ‘name’ (ὄνομα) is referred by Bez. and Calov, etc., to the dignity and glory attained by Christ; by Akersloot to his extraordinary appellatives as high-priest, Lord; and by Del. to the aggregate heavenly name of the Exalted One, His ωֵׁ ?ξδַ ?ξְּ ?τֹ ?ψָ ?ωׁ, nomen explicitum, which has entered no human mind on earth, and can be pronounced by no human tongue, ὄνομαὄοὐδεὶςοἶδενεἰμὴαὐτός, Revelation 19:12. The majority, however, refer the name to υἱός, Son. This view is sustained by the immediately following citations from the Old Testament, in proof that the name Son, used of an individual person, as such belongs exclusively to the Messiah; by the fact that while the name of ‘Angel’ points to the idea of servant and messenger, the name of Son, on the contrary, involves that of essential equality with the Father, of dominion and of heirship; and, finally, by the choice of the word ‘inherited’ (κεκληρονόμηκεν) which clearly refers back to the clause, “whom He constituted heir of all,” while the perf. has inherited, shows that it relates not to an act parallel to, and simultaneous with, the ἔθηκε, after the resurrection, by which Christ obtained in His humanity, what in His divine nature He already possessed from eternity (Theodoret, �cumen., Theophyl.), but to a complete and final taking possession of that which, as His befitting allotment, corresponding with His essential character, the Messiah has received once for all in permanent possession. The term refers not then to absolute Sonship, as a relation which Jesus may be supposed to have obtained on account of His merits, as His special allotment; but rather to that name of Son, challenging universal recognition (Philippians 2:9), which Christ received, neither after His ascension nor at His conception (Sebast. Schmidt), Luke 1:35; but bears even in the Old Testament. Camero appropriately remarks: “He is not said to have inherited the thing which belonged to Him by nature, but the name of the thing, that, viz., by which it was known to angels and men that He Himself was the Son of God.” Angels.—The subsequent citations show that by ἄγγελοι we are to understand not the servants of God under the old covenant (Frenzel in Augusti’s Theol. Blδtter, No. 25. Haberfeld: Angeli e primo et secundo cap. ep. ad Hebr. Exulantes. Isenac. 1808), but the heavenly angels. The mention of them is not introduced casually, as if suggested by the mention of the Throne of God, and scarcely either for an independent polemical purpose, in opposition to Jewish Gnostic conceptions of the Messiah as an intermediate spirit and angel (Thol.) Ideas of this kind found, indeed, utterance among the Jews of this period, and had in part penetrated into the Christian church (Hellwag in the Theol. Jahrb. Tόbingen, 1848. But no trace of an allusion to them is found in our Epistle whose purpose is to portray the infinite elevation of the new covenant, and of its perfect Founder above the old covenant, and its manifold and imperfect mediators. But to these intermediate agencies of the Old Testament belong essentially Angelophanies, which are expressly mentioned (Hebrews 2:2), in connection with the giving of the Law. Nor can any appeal be made to the Fourth Book of Esdras, and this, whether with Lawrence, Lόcke and Hilgenfeld, we carry back the date of this book as early as the first century, B. C., or with Volkmar and Ewald (the Fourth Book of Esdras, etc., 1863), bring it down to the first century after Christ, and with Dillman regard it as the work of a Hellenistic Jew, belonging to the last quarter of the first post-Christian century, exhibiting a Judaism which, after its rejection of Christianity, and after the Roman conquest of Palestine, is now in rapid progress toward its state of Talmudic ossification. For the Angels Uriel and Jeremiel are, indeed, in a certain sense, mediators of the revelations of God; they explain to Esra the visions which he has received, and answer the questions when and by whom God will introduce the judgment and the end of things, and others of like nature. But the Messiah is designated not as an angel, but as the Son of God (4 Esdras 7:28, 29) and beheld under the figure of the Lion from Judah, who annihilates the eagle, the symbol of the Roman Empire (4 Esdras 11). In some features the apocalyptic representations assume a wild and monstrous character; while in the Book of Enoch, in the Jubilees, in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the contents taments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the contents of the revelation are at least recited from heavenly are given to Esra to be drunk in from a pitcher (4 Esdr. 14:40). Also in the Book of Enoch, (translated and explained by Dillman, Leipz., 1853) we find, indeed, an uncertain and inconsistent enumeration of angels, who are called in brief ‘the white ones’ (Enoch 87:2; 90:21, 31) or ‘those who do not sleep’ (Enoch 39:12; 61:12; 71:7), and equally with the heroes (Enoch 43:3; 46:7) are often styled ‘stars,’ (Enoch 21:3, 6; 86:3; 87:4; 88:1, 3; 90:21). There are also of these, different orders and proper names. At the head of the Satane stands Satan (Enoch 40:7) who (Enoch 54:5, 6; 55:4) is also called Azazel, alongside of whom in the section Enoch 6:16 and 79:2 appears Semjβzβ. Avenging angels are mentioned Enoch 53:3; 54:3; 56:1; 62:11; 63:1; 79:28. Among the good angels by the throne of God are found three principal and highest leaders, Cherubim, Seraphim and Ophanim; Enoch 61:10; 71:7, and four supreme angels, Michael, Raphael, Gabriel, Phanuel, Enoch 40:4, 10; 54:6; 71:8, 13. In the sections that treat of Noah, Zuriel, (φεּ ?ψִ ?ιΰֵ ?μ) takes the place of Phanuel. At Enoch 21:5, Uriel, and Enoch 23:4, Raguel are named as conductors of Enoch through heaven, while elsewhere also Michael Enoch 24:6, and Raphael, Enoch 23:3, 6; 32:6, perform this service; though the proper calling of Raphael and Gabriel is healing and purifying, Enoch 10:4; 10:10; 40:9. The Messiah nowhere appears here as an angelic being, but as Son of a woman (Enoch62:5), as Son of a man (Enoch 69:29), and Son of Man who has righteousness (Enoch46:1), who will be a staff to the righteous and holy, and the light of the nations; (Enoch 48:4), whom also the angels praise (Enoch40:5), and who, with the Lord of Spirits and the head of days, as the anointed one (Enoch 48:10; 52:4), who bears in Himself the fulness of the Divine Spirit (Enoch49:2, 4), was chosen out and concealed before the world was created, Enoch 48:6. On the one hand the attributes which distinguish the members of the true church, are in the highest sense applied to the Messiah. He is hence called absolutely the Chosen One, Enoch 40:5; 45:3; 48:2; 51:3, 5; 52:6, 9; 53:6; 55:4; 51:5, 8, 10; 62:1, and the ‘root’ or the ‘branch of righteousness,’ Enoch 10:16; 93:2, and as such, or as the righteous one, Enoch 38:2; 92:2, 10, is distinguished from the Messianic people, who, in like manner, are conceived as plants of the eternal seed, Enoch 84:6, and is designated as the aggregate of the chosen, righteous and holy ones, Enoch 38:2; 40:2; 45:5; 51:5; 61:12, and hence also can collectively be called the righteous one, Enoch 91:10. On the other hand the Messiah is called absolutely the Word, Enoch 90:38; the Word of God, Enoch 14:24; 102:1, and the Son of God, Enoch 105:2, who will bear the sword of righteousness, and will appear in the eighth week of the world, Enoch 91:12. God, who is often called the “Ancient of Days,” Enoch 46:1; 47:3; 58:2; 71:10, 13, (after Daniel 7:13) swears before Michael, Enoch 69:15 ff. that the salvation beheld by Enoch shall be eternal, and that the Messiah, as king of the kingdom of heaven, will establish on the earth an imperishable kingdom. Moreover, at Enoch 39:5; 49:1; 62:2, there is promised the outpouring of the Spirit of wisdom and righteousness. (Comp. Ewald: Treatise on the Origin, Import and Construction of the Ζthiopic Book of Enoch, Gφtt., 1854, and Dillmann, who, in Herzog’s Real-Encycl. XII., places the composition of Enoch 37–71, after taking out the Noachian fragment—in the first decennium of the Hasmonean princes, that of the remaining sections in the time of the rule of John Hyrcanus, and that of the books of Noah in the first Christian century. Among these latest portions, in which, however, the Romans still do not appear as a secular power, dangerous to the Jews, he reckons Enoch 54:7–55:2; Enoch 60; 65:1–69:25; Enoch 106, and the greatest part of Enoch 6–16. The hypothesis defended by Hilgenfeld (The Jewish Apocalyptic in its Historical development, Jena, 1857) of a Christian origin of Enoch 37–71 stands connected with other opinions of this scholar, and is refuted by Dillmann. This whole subject, however, is not yet thoroughly cleared up. AND ETHICAL1. The character of the historical revelation of God, made to the fathers through the lips of prophets, and brought to perfection in the Son, is essentially different from that general manifestation of God in respect of His eternal power and Godhead (Romans 1:20), which is made by means of His works and the rational nature of man. By its element of human speech it is immeasurably exalted above that Symbolical language of nature which stands in need of a special interpretation. It avails itself indeed, in like manner, of imagery for the expression of ideas that lie beyond the sphere of sense. But this imagery belongs to human speech as such, and God avails Himself of it for the purpose of direct address to certain men, in setting home positive communications which He makes in the way of direct personal approach and appeal. This revelation in language presupposes the religious vitality of man, and aims at its development, purification and perfection. As containing the word of God, this revelation actually solves the problem of His relation to the world, of its creation, preservation and redemption: it unveils to us His counsels and procedure in respect to salvation; shows us the destination of the world, and the Divine arrangements for its recovery, government, and ultimate blessedness; and thus sheds light alike on the true nature of God, and on the history of our race. 2. The fragmentary character of this revelation produces in it no error; for God is He who speaks to us in the prophets, and all the utterances of revelation are oracles of God (λόγιατοῦθεοῦ). The great variety of its forms best bears testimony to the goodness of God in graciously condescending to human necessities, and demonstrates at once the sincerity and earnestness with which He draws near to us, and the depth of His condescension. For God did not use the prophets as merely passive instruments, nor speak through them as through a speaking trumpet; nor did He merely “exercise His power in them, and inspire in their mind and heart what, when and how they were to speak,” 2 Peter 1 (Starke). He deposited His own thoughts in the prophetic modes and forms of thought, and clothed His own word in the peculiarities of speech which belonged to the prophet and to his time. It is precisely for this reason that in the prophetic writings of the Old Testament the discourse frequently passes from the third person to the first, and conversely, and that without indication of any change in the person of the speaker. 3. The fact that the same God has spoken to us at an earlier period in the prophets, and, at the close of the Ante-Messianic period, in the Son, assures to us the unity, amidst its manifold variety, of the historical revelation; while it teaches us that the individual utterances mutually illustrate each other, and yet derive their full light only from the actual central point of all revelation, Jesus Christ. For which reason also the Old Testament is rightly understood only from the stand-point of the New, and the entire body of Scripture is to be regarded in the light of a revelation of God for the salvation of the world, whose parts stand related to each other as preparation and fulfilment. 4. The successive stages of Revelation (Rosenm., Treatise on the successive stages of Divine Rev., 1784) point to a divine plan of salvation, which, ordained from eternity, has in its execution in time, given birth to a completely adjusted economy of salvation, and discloses a wisdom into whose mysteries Angels desire to look, 1 Peter 1:12, and to whom it is made known in the church of Jesus Christ, Ephesians 3:10, as also to us to whom the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, has given the spirit of wisdom and revelation for the knowledge of Himself, Ephesians 1:17. The answer of Cyrill (adv. Julian, I 1:126) to the inquiry of the emperor Julian regarding the reason of the lateness of Christ’s appearance, viz., that “Revelation advances with advancing culture, and its perfection could be reached only in connection with a corresponding culture of the race,” is an answer at once erroneous and puerile. More to the purpose remarks Heubner: “Christianity completes the circle of Revelation; it is its perfection, and stands good for the highest reach of culture which man can attain on earth.” 5. The designation of God’s revelation in the Son as the final one, while decidedly repelling the idea that any grade of human culture can transcend, and leave behind it Christianity as a thing antiquated and effete, remands to the realm of dreams every anticipation of a new revelation in behalf of some religion of the future. And the declaration—that Christ, only after accomplishing a purification of sin, took his seat at the right hand of the Majesty on high, reminds us that there can be no degree of human need which should require another religion. “If God has finally spoken to us by Christ and His Apostles, we must not turn away to the next doctrine that may arise, be it Mohammedanism or Popery; but abide by that which we heard from the beginning from Christ and His Apostles; and so abiding we shall abide with the Father and the Son.” (Starke). 6. In the fact that through the Son, in whom God has spoken to us in the fulness of times, He originally made the worlds, is involved the possibility of a perfect harmony in natural and historical revelation. But the apostasy and its consequences have changed their original relation. The realization of this harmony must be brought about by a complete triumph over sin, and an accomplished elimination of evil from the world, and will be effected not by any heightened development on the part of nature, but by the special acts of God in a series of historical revelations. 7. While Jesus Christ is placed on a level with the prophets in that—according to the rule, Amos 3:7 : “Jehovah does nothing without revealing His counsel to His servants, the prophets,”—He is a personal organ for genuine oracles of God, He stands essentially distinguished from them not exclusively in the fact of His being the perfect Mediator of the final revelation, of whom all earlier prophets have prophesied. For in this case He might possibly have been conceived merely as the most perfect teacher and the most distinguished prophet. The specific distinction lies in the three following points: 1. Christ is become king at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven, while the prophets have been and remain simply servants of Jehovah. 2. Christ is Saviour and Redeemer of the world, which presupposes His personal purity from every sin; the prophets, on the contrary, were at all times sinful men. who stood in need of redemption. 3. The exaltation of Jesus Christ to divine Majesty after accomplishing on earth the work of redemption, corresponds to His ante-mundane condition and life, to His eternal relation as Son to the Father, and to his supra-mundane character and work; so that in His personal appearance on earth He is to be designated as God-man (θεάνθρωπος), while the prophets, as men of God, who have spoken under the impulse of the Holy Ghost, maintained and attested their created and finite character. 8. That the historical Mediator of the final revelation of God is the ante-mundane Mediator of the creation of the world, imparts to Him a special majesty and dignity beyond that of all created mediators. The comparison of Him with the Angels shows that He is not, in this relation, conceived as an unconscious intermediate cause, but has exercised this mediating agency in a personal existence. And the declaration that He is the beaming image of God’s glory and the impress of His substance, shows that the Mediator who is distinguished above all beings, and even above the Angels, by the name of “Son,” does not bear His filial name in a conventional and theocratic sense. “The Son is the mediating essence of the whole spiritual world, in whom the Deity presents Himself in that world, mirrored in all His perfections, in power, wisdom, holiness, love. Such is the external relation of the Son; for the world, for us, He is the being from whom beams forth the divine δόξα. The ground of this is that on Him is impressed and stamped the divine essence; that He is Himself participant of the divine nature. This language expresses the Son’s internal character and relation.” (Heubner). Hence, Ignatius (ad Magnes. 5) strikingly styles the renewing of the Christian into the image of God a recoining by virtue of a new stamp which God applies through Jesus Christ; and Origen, (ad Romans 4:2) remarks that in this transformation is explained the fact that the world does not know the true disciples of Jesus. The Son appears not as a revealer unequal to the Father, and hence an inadequate revealer of some part or a single side of His nature; but He is here designated as the perfect co-equal revealer of the Father (v. Gerlach), in whom the ‘form of God’ (μορφὴθεοῦ) permanently dwells, Philippians 2:6, and whom Paul designates (Colossians 1:15) the “first-born of the whole creation (πρωτότοκοςπάσηςκτίσεως) and the image (εἰκών) of the invisible God;” since the essential form of God is that εἶδοςθεοῦ (John 5:37) which the Son essentially possessed in His pre-incarnate glory, John 17:5. The declaration then, that He, as Son, has issued from the Father, and is dependent on Him, implies not a temporal but an eternal relation, involving no succession in time, no subordination in power or rank, no lowering of the divine attributes. As light of light He is not a mere ray of the divine Majesty, but sun from sun, because God from God, a personal subsistence of the divine substance. 9. In the ascription to the Son of the essential attribute that he bears (sustains, moves, and guides) all things with the word of His power, believers may find an ample consolation. The Lord of the Church is the Lord over the world; the mediator of revelation and salvation is also the mediator of the maintenance and government of the world; the Saviour of sinners is the controller of the history and the destinies of all men and things. The Roman Clement styles Him (1 Corinthians 16.) “the outstretched sceptre of the divine majesty,” and Paul says Colossians 1:17, that in Him all things are, as consisting and held together in Him. Without His mediating agency the world would fall asunder alike in its elements, and its moving forces. But as it is, neither nature nor the course of events can hinder the victory of the Church of Christ, the triumph of believers, the accomplishment of all things according to the divine plan. 10. In the word ‘heir’ lies a relation not merely to the name of Son, or to the fact that the Son has received, according to Matthew 28:18, universal dominion, but at the same time, and chiefly to the Messianic fulfilment of the promises given Romans 4:13 to the seed of Abraham, on which foundation rests the promise that we are to be heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ, Romans 8:17. The expression reminds us not so much that Jesus Christ is the second Adam (Calv.), as rather that He is ὁἐρχόμενος, He that cometh. “What belongs to God belongs to Christ. Only, therefore, as we have part in Christ can we claim a share in the riches of God.” (Fricke.) 11. Having descended by His incarnation into a lower position than that held by the Angels, in so far as these are spirits and dwellers in heaven, (Hebrews 2:7; Hebrews 2:9) the Messiah, after accomplishing His redemptive work, has, by an actual historical change in the circumstances of His life, passed into a position as much transcending that of Angels in majesty and power, as His characteristic name is nobler and loftier than theirs. “Non naturam sed personam Christi hic confert cum Angelis respectu dignitatis, officii, potentiζ, et gloriζ.” (Matt. Polus, Synops. crit., IHebrews 1:1125, ed. Francf.). As in Christ the personal union of the divine and human natures is in the most perfect manner accomplished, while yet the two natures are in no way confounded, the two thus remain always distinguishable, yet are never to be conceived as actually separated. We must regard, therefore, as erroneous the language of so many earlier writers who limit the exaltation exclusively to the human nature of Christ. It applies rather, as already remarked by �cumenius (II. 320), to the person of the God-man. 12. “Although Christ with His body has ascended above all heavens, yet in relation to His ubiquity we are to distinguish the two kinds of His actual presence, according as this presence belongs merely to His bodily nature, or to His personality. Under the former relation He is, in His present condition, in a certain ποῦ (where), not indeed circumscribed within strictly local limits, but such as, while transcending time and place, still belong to a finite essence, and subject it, therefore, to like conditions with all the glorified bodies of the blessed. In the other relation, Christ, by virtue of His personal unity, and of that divine majesty and glory which He shares, is no less present every where to all creatures than the Logos itself.” (Oetinger, Idea vitζ, § 119). “The words that speak of His departure and re-appearing do not exclude His bodily presence, of which He indeed gives express assurance, Matthew 28:18, but distinguish merely the dissimilar modes of His presence—bearing one form before His passion, another at the final judgment, and still another during the intervening period.” (Sim. Musζus, Sermon on the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, 1561.). Whatever be the special explanations, the emphasis laid by the Lutheran church on the personal presence, ministry, and self-communication of Christ, and that too of the whole and undivided Christ in His Church, is but a thoroughly authorized and justifiable practical application of the Scripture teaching regarding the sitting of the God-man at the right hand of Majesty in the highest heavens. AND . The unity of Revelation amidst the variety of its manifestations: 1. as unity of the author, God; 2. as unity of the means, the word of God; 3. as unity of its purpose, the salvation of the world.—Whereby does the one revelation of the true God present itself so variously that only the believer can comprehend its unity? 1. By the diversity of the times of which God regards the necessities; 2. by the different character of the persons in whom God has spoken to men; 3. by the peculiar and various modes of intercourse and expression which God has made use of.—Christ the sole and single, because perfect mediator, 1. of the existence of the world in respect to a. its creation, b. its preservation, c. its government; 2. of the revelation of God to the world in respect to a. His power, b. His will, c. His essence; 3. of the saving of the world in a. its redemption, b. its sanctification, c. its final perfection as the kingdom of God.—Wherein we Christians are at once like and unlike the Israelites? 1. In our possession of the word of true Revelation 2. in our faith in the coming of the Messiah; 3. in our hope of salvation by purification from sin.—The antitheses in Jesus Christ: 1. in His person as God and man; 2. in His history, as one of humiliation and exaltation.—The threefold office of Jesus Christ: 1. as that of the perfect prophet in whom the revelation through the word has found its completion and close; 2. as that of the true high-priest who offered Himself for purification from sin; 3. as that of eternal king who, elevated above all created existence, bears and rules over all things.—The dominion of Jesus Christ: 1. in its character, a. by the word of revelation, b. by the word of His power, c. by the word of His grace; 2. in its establishment, a. by His nature, b. by His works, c. by His place at the right hand of Majesty on high; 3. in its extent, a. in time, b. in space, c. in respect to its objects.—The Lord always governs His church, 1. by virtue of His personal life with the Father in glory, 2. by virtue of the accomplishment of the work of redemption committed to Him, 3. by means of the word in which His Spirit bears sway and His power works.—The threefold relation of Jesus Christ to God: 1. as servant, 2. as Song of Solomon , 3. as joint-ruler.—The peculiar and unique relation of Jesus Christ, our Saviour, 1. to men, 2. to God, 3. to the entire universe.—The completed and perfected life of our Lord Jesus Christ Isaiah 1. the pledge of our deliverance, 2. the type of our glorification, 3. the means of our union with God.—The significance of the elevation of Jesus Christ to the right hand of Majesty on high, 1. for the personal life of the Lord, 2. for the faith of His disciples, 3. for the progress of His work, 4. for the destiny of the world, 5. for the completion of the revelation of God.—What abides to us amidst the vicissitudes of times and the change of all things? 1. The word of God which a. in manifold ways, b. by virtue of divine constitution and arrangement, c. reveals to us eternal truth; 2. the Son of God who a. as image of His substance, b. after accomplishing His mission on earth, c. sits at the right hand of the Majesty on high; 3. the salvation of God, which in Christ is a. destined for us from eternity, b. obtained for us in time, c. and for all eternity imparted to believers.—Whither do all our Sabbaths and religious services summon us? 1. Into the church whose a. Founder, b. Saviour, and c. Head is the Son of God; 2. to devotional contemplation a. of His word, b. of His ways, c. of His works; 3. to believing appropriation a. of revealed truth, b. of the proffered cleansing from sin, c. of the opened access to the Majesty of God.—The homage which we owe to Christ: 1. in its origin and procurement a. by His divine sonship, b. by His mediatorial office, c. by His position at the right hand of God; 2. in its expression a. in acknowledgment of that which we receive from Him, b. in the use of that which we have through Him, c. in the striving after that which we hope from Him.—For what shall the name which distinguishes Christ above all other beings, serve us? 1. To remind us of that image of God for which we are created; 2. to assure us of the Sonship for which we are redeemed; 3. to aid us on our way to the glory to which we are called.—Whither does the preaching of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, direct our eyes? 1. To the eternity a. from which He came, b. of which He bore witness, c. to which He is gone; 2. to the ways of God, a. in upholding, b. in enlightening, c. in purifying the world; 3. to our personal position a. in respect to the word, b. to the people, c. to the Son of God. Berlenburger, Bible: We must not fancy, now that we have the Scripture, that we need not the teaching of Christ, and that He therefore may remain dumb. Rather must we reverse the position and say: precisely because we have the Scripture, Christ must speak and explain it to us. This is Christ’s proper office and work; this the Father has assigned to Him; this He will not allow to be taken from Him, and of so rich a blessing the believing Christian must not allow himself to be deprived.—The Holy Scripture of the Old Testament is the morning dawn and day-break, which thence advances to meridian day.—Articles of faith are not like other things, learned out, as it were, and rendered antiquated. Rather might the Hebrews now well profit by their former teachings and lessons. Among these stands conspicuous the course of God’s providential dealings, up to the time of Him who was to come.—The Jews of our time close up their door, and shove to this bolt, and say: We adhere to Moses! They are not fond of reading the prophets. But the Christian religion is no falling away from the Fathers, but a fulfilment of that which God spoke to them.—People often convert into a stumbling-block that which they should have employed as a help.—We must not narrow up the time of Christ to the years of His flesh, but regard Him as being of eternity, who is styled God of the whole world, Isaiah 54:5.—Redemption belongs to the kingdom of grace; but the being who was to redeem us was required of necessity to be mighty. Grace and power mutually aid and sustain each other.—Steinhofer: The Lord would fain receive honor from his inheritance, and that inheritance are we. We are the work of His hands, and are indebted to Him for life and being. We are a fruit of His painful toil, and have through Him our salvation. We are His peculiar heritage, presented to Him by the Father for an ornament and a delight. His purpose shall succeed; the work of His hand shall not be in vain; His honor shall be secured to Him by His grace in us, His own inheritance.—Ders: Jesus is able to make known and execute the whole purpose of God. For this great and glorious work, for which He was destined from Eternity, He was 1. not too mean or insignificant, since He is the splendor of God’s majesty and the image of His substance. Nor was He for this 2. too weak and impotent: for He it is who bears all things with the Word of His power. 3. He evinced himself to be the Son appointed to the inheritance, in that He left not the obstacles to be removed by a stranger; but became Himself the sacrifice, and made through Himself a purification of our sins.—The course of the Son of God from the bosom of the Father to His throne.—He has made by Himself the purification of our sins: 1. Without this mission and message all the attestations to His glory would be to us matter rather of terror than of joy; 2. but with the Word of His grace the recognition of His majesty becomes matter of at once weighty and delightful import: 3. The experience of the forgiveness of sins in His blood draws our hearts so that we delight to adore Him. Starke: God always reserves the best unto the last. Although He may not give thee speedily what thou desirest, at last all will turn out good, Psalms 37:37; Habakkuk 2:3.—Christ obtains the inheritance for all those who adhere to Him. We are through Christ all children, and heirs of God. Are we then not sufficiently rich? I have but little in the world, and have but a small inheritance to leave behind me; yet I am not therefore sad. Though poor here I shall be abundantly rich in heaven, Romans 8:17.—Though the one only God has spoken formerly through the prophets to the fathers, and at last to us by His Son; yet, as there is only one God, has there been also but one religion, one faith, one worship, and one way to eternal bliss from the beginning of the world until now, Acts 15:11.—I adhere to Christ; He has all power. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ II Scripture proof of the elevation of Jesus Christ as Son of God, and being above the Angels Hebrews 1:5-14.5For to which of the angels said he at any time: Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again: I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a 6 Son? And again: When he bringeth in [and when he shall a second time have introduced ὅτανδὲπάλινεἰσαγάγῃ, 2 Aor. Subj.=Perf. Fut.] the First-begotten into the 7 world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. And of [in respect, indeed, to] the angels he saith, who maketh his angels spirits [winds] and his ministers 8 a flame of fire; but unto [in respect to] the Son he saith: Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a [And1: a] sceptre of righteousness [rectitude εὐθύτητος] is the sceptre of thy kingdom. 9Thou hast loved [lovedst ἠγάπησας] righteousness, and hast hated [hatedst ἐμίσησας] iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, [O God, thy God] hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. 10And, thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid [didst lay] the foundations of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thy hands: 11they shall perish, but thou remainest, and they all shall wax old as doth a garment, 12and as a vesture shalt thou fold [roll] them up, and they shall be changed. But thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail. 13 But to [and in respect to] which of the angels said he at any time [hath he ever said εἴρηκένποτε], sit on my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool? 14Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation [for ministration for the sake of those (διὰτούς) who are to inherit salvation?] [Hebrews 1:6.—And when he shall have again introduced, etc. Both the position of πάλιν, and the connection of the thought, point decidedly to this construction. The reference is (de W., Lόn., Ebr., Del., Alf., Moll.) to the re-introduction of Christ into the inhabited world (ἡοἰκουμένη) at His second coming. It may be rendered again, a second time, or back; both ideas being in fact included. Hebrews 1:7.—In respect indeed to=while in respect to. The force of the part, μέν, making Hebrews 1:7 preparatory to Hebrews 1:8 is lost in Eng. ver., as in many other passages in the Epistle. In Hebrews 1:8 πρός with τὸνυἱόν should be rendered as in Hebrews 1:7. In respect to the Son. So also I think it should be (with Moll) at Hebrews 1:13, and so I think (as against Moll, and nearly all the Intpp.) at Hebrews 11:13, πρὸςὃνἐλαλήθη—τνεύματα clearly here winds, not spirits, as demanded by the connection. Hebrews 1:9.—[“O God, thy God,” ὁθεός, ὁθεόςσον. Even Del. is doubtful whether in Hebrews 1:9 the first ὁθεός should be rendered, as in Hebrews 1:8, as Voc. ‘O God’, or, as in apposition with the following: ‘God, thy God.’ With Lόn., Moll, etc., I think we are clearly to prefer the former construction. Hebrews 1:14.—Εἱςδιακονίαν for service or ministration, not to men, but to God. Their ministration or service is to God; but in His service they are sent forth on account of, for the sake of (διά) men.—K.] AND To which of the angels said he at any time.—The position of the words τίνιγὰρεἷπένποτετῶνἀγγέλων shows that the emphasis is to be laid immediately upon τίνι and τῶνἀγγέλων, and that ποτέ does not belong to τίνι as a strengthening particle, to whom I pray? Cui tandem? (Chr. F. Schmid, Kuinoel, etc.), but is a particle of time. The subject is God. This, however, is not so much to be drawn from Hebrews 1:1, as to be supplied from the connection of the thought according to usage in citing from the Old Testament. It cannot be urged in refutation of the author’s reasoning, that in the Old Testament alike men and angels are sometimes called Sons of God. Schlicht., Michael., and Bφhme have pointed out the difference between a collective appellative, and the name applied to an individual. This, however, does not meet the case, although the τίνι would seem to favor it. Bleek’s explanation that the LXX. cited exclusively by our author, read in the Cod. Alex. Genesis 6:2; Genesis 6:4; Job 1:6; Job 2:1; Job 38:7; Daniel 3:25, not Sons (υἱοί) but Angels (ἄγγελοι) of God, is insufficient from the fact that in the Psalms 29:1; Psalms 89:7, we find the expression “Sons of God,” and we are not at liberty to suppose that the author forgot or left out of the account these passages. The remark, too, of Primasius that, as applied to other beings, the name stands only abusively, only in a subordinate sense, explains not the real relations of the case (since the real connecting links of the thought remain unmentioned), and evades the objection, as does also the remark of Tholuck that the author presupposes that his readers would take the appellation given specially to an individual in a more exalted sense=πρωτότοκος. More relevant to the context is the explanation of Braun that men and angels bore the name not as a rightful inheritance entailed upon them in accordance with their nature, but as received only by adoption; yet even this is partly erroneous, partly imperfect. The decisive consideration is suggested by Ebr. and Del. There is, at the outset, an essential distinction between the dwelling of heavenly, yet still created beings, with Elohim, and being begotten by Jehovah. This latter form of expression which never occurs in reference to angels, indicates the relation in question as resting not on a natural, but on a theocratic basis. Precisely for this reason Jehovah can say, “My Son, my first-born is Israel” (Exodus 4:22), and: “My Father, shall ye call to me,” Jeremiah 3:14; Jeremiah 3:19; Jeremiah 31:20; Isaiah 1:3; Deuteronomy 14:1. Israel’s exodus was the day of His birth (Hosea 2:5); and the days up to the formation of the covenant on Sinai, those “days of old,” and of the “years of many generations” (Deuteronomy 32:7; Isaiah 51:9), constitute the youthful period of the Church (Hosea 11:1), in which Jehovah bore the Israelites as the father the son; in which He led them, and “taught them to go,” as a mother does her child (Hosea 11:3; Amos 2:10); in which He delivered the people from the house of bondage, and brought them to His own house that they might be closely united with Him forever, Exodus 3:7; Exodus 20:2. This is the time of bridal tenderness and of youthful love, when Israel became the Lord’s possession and His first-fruit, Jeremiah 2:2-3; Ezekiel 16:8; since Jehovah has Himself brought His people to Himself, and borne them on eagles’ wings (Exodus 19:6; Deuteronomy 32:12), so that they became at once an independent nation and a church of the Lord, Exodus 19:3; Ezekiel 16:4; Ezekiel 20:5. Granting that thus not merely pious servants of Jehovah in general (Deuteronomy 14:1; Psalms 73:15; Proverbs 14:26), but pre-eminently theocratic rulers (Psalms 89:27), and specially those springing from the seed of David (2 Samuel 7:14) are called Sons of God, (nay, that even heathen Princes (Psalms 82:6), over whom God exercises judgment, are, in their official position, called “Gods” and “Sons of the Most High”), it follows, on the one hand, that, in the theocratic sense, the name in question has never been given to an angel; and it is clear, on the other, that on this theocratic basis the specific relation of Christ to God might disclose itself as a fact of revelation, and that a Christological interpretation of the Old Testament is possible without disturbing the historical foundation of the Messianic passages. My Son—shall be to me a Son.—Through the two passages Psalms 2. and 2 Samuel 7. cited by him with like application, the author goes back to the germ of the Messianic prophecy in the narrower and stricter sense. When David designed the building of a temple on Mount Zion in fulfilment of Exo 15:17; Deuteronomy 12:5, he received, through the prophet Nathan, the divine declaration that not he, but his son, after him, was to build a temple to Jehovah; nay, that for this seed God would, on His part, build a house, and establish His throne forever; that Jehovah would be to him a father, and he should be to Him a son, 2 Samuel 7:14. In a prayer of David accompanying this prophetic assurance, David expresses the conviction that the complete fulfilment of this prophecy is reserved to the remote future. The following words, however (2 Samuel 7:19), mean not: “and this in a man who shall be the Lord Jehovah Himself” (Ebr. and the older interpreters), but: “And this (hast Thou, spoken) after the manner of man (or as man speaks with man), Thou who art God the Lord.” In this condescension of God so fully does David recognize a prerogative bestowed upon him that in the parallel passage (1 Chronicles 17:17) he says: “Thou hast regarded me as a man of very high degree.” Thus a filial relation is described as that which the posterity of David will sustain to God, and this posterity conceived not merely in its aggregate or collective character, but individually. We hence refer the language immediately to Solomon who, with express reference to this prophecy, undertakes the building of the temple (1 Kings 8:17 ff.), and regards himself as this promised Son (1 Kings 5:5; 2 Chronicles 6:9), as does also David, 1 Chronicles 22:9 ff; 1 Chronicles 29:19. But through this seed the royal dominion is to be established forever to the house of David, 2 Samuel 7:16. And Solomon immediately declares (1 Kings 8:26-27) that this temple reared by him is not a house in which God may properly dwell, Men must of necessity, therefore, while David slept with his fathers, direct their eye farther into the future; as in of fact David himself, 1 Chronicles 17:17, beholds the promised seed in a long and blessed succession, and there is here no mention, as 2 Samuel 7:14 of transgressions, which God will visit with a paternal chastisement. For the question is not of the form, as such, of the kingdom, however glorious it might be, in fulfilment of the prediction Numbers 24:17 : “A star shall arise out of Jacob, and a sceptre shall arise out of Israel, and will dash in pieces the corners of Moab, and will destroy all the children of pride;” nor is mere descent from David sufficient to ensure the receiving of the everlasting kingdom, Psalms 61:7 ff., which God has confirmed to David with an oath, Ps. 18:51; Psalms 89:50 ff.; Psalms 132:11 ff. We have here rather to do with a theocratic kingdom under a theocratic ruler, who goes forth to battle amidst the offerings and prayers of his people (Psalms 20.), and who, with God as auxiliary, will annihilate all his enemies, but will righteously administer the princely gifts and prerogatives with which he has been entrusted, Psalms 21. Of this ruler David stands as a type, and he himself, at the close of his life, makes the declaration, 2 Samuel 23:4; “A righteous ruler in the fear of God is as the light of the sun which arises in a morning without clouds, like the tender grass which after the rain springs forth from the earth.” For this reason God builds again the fallen tabernacle of David as in the ancient times, Amos 9:1, after Israel has been sifted out as one sifts out grain, Hebrews 1:9. And the ruler through whom the dominion returns back to the “tower of the flock” of David, and to the “strong hold” of Zion, Micah 4:8, will not merely have his historical descent from the house of David, Micah 5:1, but as “the branch,” the “shoot,” “the stem from the root of Jesse,” Isaiah 11:1; Isaiah 11:10, the righteous branch (Isaiah 4:2; Jeremiah 23:5; Jeremiah 33:15; Zechariah 3:8; Zechariah 6:12), whom God will raise up to David (Jeremiah 30:9; Ezekiel 34:23; Ezekiel 37:24), is called even by the name of David, Jeremiah 30:9; Ezekiel 37:24-25; comp. Hosea 3:5; and “the sure mercies of David,” Isaiah 55:3, are a designation of the Messianic salvation. As now this Majestic one, who issues from the nation itself, as a ruler from its midst, is to draw near unto Jehovah Himself, Jeremiah 30:21, nay, is to bear the name “Jehovah our Righteousness” (Jeremiah 23:6; Jeremiah 33:16), it is clear that in the view of prophecy the Messianic salvation is linked to a son of David who is an “Anointed One” not merely in the sense in which even foreign kings as Cyrus, Isaiah 45:1, and Hazael, 1 Kings 19:15, receive this name as being instruments of Jehovah, and in which the theocratic kings in general bear it, 1 Samuel 2:10; Psalms 20:7; Psalms 132:10, etc., but in a special sense which includes, besides the kingly, also the prophetic, Isaiah 61:1, and the priestly anointing, so that Zechariah (Hebrews 6:12-13) may say: “Behold a man, Branch is his name, who will spring up in his place and build the temple of Jehovah,—he will bear kingly adornment, and will sit and rule upon his throne, and will be priest upon his throne, and there will be harmony between the two.” When, now, this Messiah is regarded as standing to God in the relation of Son to the Father, we can see in this only the full perfection of the Theocratic relation. The designating of the stock of Ephraim, Jeremiah 31:9, as the dear son and confidential child of God, shows that this language points to an intimate relation of communion and love. But that the term referred primarily not to subjective excellence, but to an objective relation, appears from Zechariah 13:7, where the wicked Pekah is styled by God “the man that is my fellow;” and while Exodus 4:22 shows that at the same time the origin of the nation in this, its peculiar relation to God, is, in the expression, “First-born Son,” referred back to God Himself, so Psalms 89:27-28 brings out with special clearness at once the dignity of the relation, involving the manifold prerogatives of the first-born, and also the traits of trustful devotion and hope, in the language: “He (David) will cry unto me, Thou art my Father, my strength, and the rock of my salvation. And I will make him my First-Born, supreme above the kings of the earth.” In the application of these expressions to the Messiah, their form, indeed allows the possibility of a deeper conception of His origin and of His issuing forth from God. But this deeper conception, which finds expression in the New Testament, we are not directly to transfer to the words of the Old. We find nowhere in the Old Testament a clearly developed and conscious apprehension of the eternal and immanent relation of the Son to the Father. Even Micah 5:1 scarcely declares definitely the preλxistence of the Messiah, or His eternal destination in the purpose of God; but from the completely humbled condition of the house of David, it simply assures us that beyond any known and historical record of the life and lineage of the Deliverer, who is to be born in the humble Bethlehem, we must go indefinitely back for His issuing forth, or origin, which is from ancient times, from “the days of old.” In a manner equally indefinite as to chronology, but significant and fraught with ominous import as to the facts, is in that passage indicated the time of His coming. For it is immediately added that Jehovah will give over the Israelites until the time when she who is with child shall bear her offspring. Among the attributes of the Messiah, too, is found, Isaiah 9:5, the title, ‘Father of eternity,’ but not the ‘Son of eternity.’ The ‘Son,’ Isaiah 9:8, stands parallel to the ‘child’ whose birth is to be looked for. Yet, on the other hand, the profounder New Testament conception has not merely the formal right of an external connection with the Old Testament form of expression, but the higher and essential right of an unfolding of those germs which the veil of the Old Testament only so conceals, that in their intrinsic nature they at the same time point beyond themselves and those present circumstances in which they had their origin. This is shown particularly in Psalms 2, here cited, which presupposes as an historical fact the prediction of Nathan, and displays its early acknowledged Messianic character in the fact that it speaks of a world-subduing power of the King whom Jehovah Himself has established upon Zion (erroneously translated by earlier scholars: ‘anointed at Zion’) and placed in the relation of Son to Jehovah—the King whom the author of the Psalms, Hebrews 1:12, styles “the Son”—and that this Son appeals for this relation, on which the futile endeavors of Princes and nations that rise up against Jehovah and His Anointed (Hebrews 1:2) will dash themselves to ruin, to an inviolable decree (ηֹ ?χ), Hebrews 1:7 : “Thou art my Son: I have to-day begotten Thee.” Whether David (Acts 4:25), or some other prophetic bard, be the author of this anonymous Psalm, at all events the author distinguishes himself from the Anointed One of Jehovah, and makes the latter come forward personally and speak in the full consciousness of his relation (Hebrews 1:7-9), just as previously do the raging insurgents (Hebrews 1:3), and the Lord enthroned in heaven, who, kindling in wrath, will thunder down upon them the voice of His indignation (Hebrews 1:6). We may not, therefore (with Hupfeld), regard the Psalm, “whether originating in some definite historical event (as perhaps a triumphant military expedition), or, (as an independent product of the general spirit of the Theocracy), as a poetical glorification of the Israelitish kingdom in its peculiar Theocratic character, and with all the proud hopes which the national feeling associated with it,”—and appeal in support of our view to the Lyrico-dramatic character of the Psalm. In the view of the Psalmist the several speakers have the significance of real personalities. They express ideas, but are not personifications of ideas. Inasmuch, now, as the prophecy of Nathan, which was given to David before Solomon was begotten (2 Samuel 12:24), is no fabricated declaration of God, but an actual fact of His historical revelation, and as the Anointed One in Psalms 2 appeals to an inviolable ordinance or decree of Jehovah, we are naturally led to look back to that prophecy, and to refer the ‘to-day’ in its historical import to that day in which that ‘seed’ was promised to David, who was to stand to God in the relation of Son, and who then on that day received his procreation, or, still better, his birth (ιָ ?μַ ?γ, rarely meaning ‘beget,’ but generally, ‘to be born’) as the Son of Jehovah. This destined seed of David is the “Anointed One” of the Psalmist, and expresses the consciousness of having been in the actual course of events introduced by Jehovah into this relation. It would not be a whit more unnatural to suppose that we have here a mere personified Messianic ideal employed in celebrating its own Divine origin, than to regard the “to-day” as a mere poetic element of figurative speech, or an expression indicating the certainty and reality of the Messianic idea. But neither does the “to-day” point to the day of the coronation of an Israelitish Prince, either Solomon (Bl.) or the Maccabean Alexander Jannζus (Hitzig), appealing in these words to the Divine right of the Theocratic dominion claimed by him. It points originally to the day of the introduction of the Messiah as the Theocratic ruler from the seed of David into the knowledge and recognition of God’s people through His word of revelation. From this historical connection we may understand how Paul, Acts 13:33, could apply this passage to the resurrection of Jesus Christ, especially if we compare Romans 1:4, τοῦὁρισθέντοςυἱοῦθεοῦἐνδυνάμεικατὰπνεῦμαἁγιωσύνηςἐξἀναστάσεωςτῶννεκρῶν (“who was constituted Son of God in power,” etc.); and with this remember, on the one hand, that the anointing as Theocratic king presupposes the bestowment of the Holy Spirit (1 Samuel 10:6; 1 Samuel 10:10; 1 Samuel 16:13), and that on the influence of the Spirit of God rests the Sonship, and, on the other, that Revelation 1:12 conceives the issuing forth of Christ for the conquest of the kingdoms of the world, as a birth from the church in which he has his abode. From this, now, it is clear that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews is justified in citing this passage to prove a special Sonship of the Messiah such as has been attributed to no angel. This is here the specially important point with the author. To refer the “to-day” to an eternal and “metaphysical” generation of the Son on the part of God (Orig., Athan., Basil, Theoph., August., Primas., the older Lutheran Intpp. generally, Stein, Lόn.), or to the day of the conception of Jesus with a reference to Luke 1:31 ff. (Chrys., Theod., �c., Kuin., Bφhm., Hofm.), or to the entrance of Jesus Christ into His kingly life of super-terrestrial glory, whether by His resurrection or by His ascension (Hil., Ambr., Calv., Grot., Schlicht., Calm., von Gerl., Del.), is partly an interpretative application, partly a deduction which the author himself, however, has not here made. [And yet, when we consider that in the application of the Psalm in question to our Lord, it applies to no event in His career so naturally as to His glorification after His resurrection, in fact applies, properly speaking, to no other period; and that Paul so applies it, Acts 13:33, as above noticed; and that the author, in the verse immediately preceding refers definitely to Christ’s taking His seat at the right hand of God after His resurrection, as in that immediately following he refers definitely to His second coming, it seems by no means improbable that he had in his mind that definite period in which the exalted and glorified Christ was proclaimed, and, as it were, constituted Son of God in power.—K.]. Hebrews 1:6. And when he shall again have introduced the first-born into the world, he saith.—The usage of our Epistle does not allow us to transpose πάλιν and make it the introduction of a citation, as even Bleek (recently followed by Reuss, L’ιpξtre aux Hebr., p. 199 ff.) maintained after Carpz., overlooking at the same time the correspondence of the Aor. Subj. with ὅταν to the Lat. perf. Fut. (Winer Gr., 6 Ed., p. 275 ff. [Hadley Gr. Gr., 747 a]). The language refers to the second introduction—yet in the future—of the First-born into the world (Lόn.). The οἰκουμένη (world) is the inhabited earth on which the Son has already previously lived and labored. As the author has already spoken of this sojourn, and, at the same time, expressly testified of the preλxistence of the Son, the mode of expression is perfectly clear and unobjectionable. Even Greg. Nyss. (Contr. Eunom. Orat. III., p. 541) recognized the reference of the passage to the Second Coming, while Grot., Schlicht, Wetst., &c., refer it to a public and formal presentation of Christ after the Ascension; Bleek [Stuart] and Reuss to some otherwise unrecorded and like presentation previously to the incarnation; Chrys., Primas., Calv., Calov, Beng., to one accompanying the incarnation. The term πρωτότοκος is not identical in meaning with μονογονής (Primas., �cum.). The latter epithet represents this as an exclusive relation which no being sustains to God, except the Messiah. The former specially signalizes His preλminence in the relations belonging essentially to the Messiah, whether to the creation (Colossians 1:15) or to the Theocratic children of God (Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:18; Revelation 1:5; Hebrews 2:10), partly in respect to the mode and time of His entrance on the stage of being, partly in respect to position, dignity and power. As the word stands here with no limiting epithet, it is to be taken without any special reference as a terminus technicus, founded on Psalms 89:28. To this Messianic King and Son of God, the angels, by Divine command, are to render adoring homage. Presupposing the certainty of the Second Coming, and referring exclusively to this, the author announces what God then ordains (λέγει, he saith). The Pres. tense brings before the eye as present that which is actually future, and springs from the conviction of its certainty. In the Parousia the author sees the final fulfilment of the prophecy, Deuteronomy 32:43, in which Jehovah, after a long withdrawal and concealment, when at length the power of the ungrateful people has utterly disappeared, revealing Himself in His compassion for their deliverance, is, at the same time, depicted as the God who brings fearful judgment on the heathen. To the words of the Heb. text, “Praise, ye heathen, His people; for He avenges the blood of His servants, and repays vengeance to His enemies, and brings expiation to His land, His people,” there is subjoined in all the MSS. of the LXX. a clause made up from Isaiah 44:23; Psalms 97:7, and Psalms 29:1 (springing probably from the liturgical use of the Song of Moses, Del.) in which the words here cited are found strictly after the Cod. Vat. and the Collection of the Old Testament Cantica appended to the Psalter in the Cod. Alex. (which in the text of Deut. has υἱοί instead of ἄγγ.)—for that the words are here given as a citation appears undeniably from the retention of the particle καί (‘And, Let all the angels, &c.’). The reference of the αὐτῷ to the Messiah, springs not from the fact that Jehovah Himself appears previously as the Speaker (Lόn.); nor is it to be explained from the fact that Israel, who has previously been mentioned as the object of the praise of the heathen, bears elsewhere the designation of First-born, and thus what applies to Israel might, with abundant ease, be transferred to its Messianic King. It has its ground rather in the view, common to all the New Testament writers, that we are to apply to Christ as Sovereign of the Kingdom of God, all that in the Old Testament is in this relation declared of Jehovah. Προσκυνεῖν, with Dat. only in the later classical writers: earlier with Acc. (Bernh. Synt., p. 113, 266). Hebrews 1:7. And in respect to the angels, indeed, he saith.—In contrast with the Messiah (μέν—δέ) the subordinate position of the angels is brought out by a declaration of God in the Scripture, in a twofold relation: 1, in that they are servants; 2, in that they are changeable and perishable (Lόn.). Πρός, in reference, in relation to; so frequently (Win. Gram., § 49 h. [It is one of the most familiar usages of πρός with the Acc.; see Dem. 1 Ol. 4.—K.]. The connection in Psalms 104:4 seems to warrant our understanding it as affirming that winds and lightnings, like nature in general, are merely servants of God. As, however, ςָ ?ωָׂ ?δ with double Acc. usually signifies not making into something (ςָ ?ωָׂ ?δμְ), but, making out of something, it were properly translated, “making His messengers out of winds, and His servants out of flaming fire.” Still we can hardly suppose that the Psalmist meant in this to express the idea that “God, in accomplishing the work which is wrought in the world through angelic agencies, gives to the angels the elemental wind and fire as the material in which they are, as it were, to embody themselves and assume a visible form,” Del.). It can, however, also be translated: “making winds out of His messengers, and flaming fire out of His ministers.” This reading is adopted in the Sept., which, by placing the Art. before άγγέλ. and λειτ., shows that it thus regards the angels; and our author, who, perhaps, with reference to Exodus 3:2, writes πυρὸςφλόγα, instead of the πῦρφλέγον of the Sept. (the πυρὸςφλόγα of the Cod. Alex. is probably a later correction from our Epistle), evidently regards the passage as teaching that the angels have so little of substantive existence that they are obliged sometimes to clothe themselves in the changing garment of natural phenomena for the execution of the Divine commands, and, under the form of elemental agencies, to act with dynamical efficiency. Substantially parallel are Psalms 34:8; John 5:4. Also the Rabbins call the angels λּ ?εֹ ?ηεֹ ?ϊ=δυνάμεις, and the Targum at Psalms 104:4 paraphrases “who maketh His messengers swift as winds, His ministers strong as flaming fire.” Hebrews 1:8. But in respect to the Son, etc.—The Son is not directly addressed (Bengel), but the πρός is to be taken as in the verse preceding. And as matter of fact the words, Psalms 45:7, are not spoken to the Messiah, but were simply at an early period, as shown by the admission of the Psalm into the temple liturgy (μַ ?ξְ ?πַ ?φֵּ ?ηַ), referred to Him. The Psalm designated in the inscription as a song of love, and celebrating the marriage of Solomon or Joram with a foreign princess, is presented by an Israelite to the king (Psalms 45:2), who is addressed in Psalms 45:3-10, while in Psalms 45:11 ff. the discourse changes to the bride. The minstrel conceives the king, in his Theocratic position and function, as commissioner and vicegerent of Jehovah, who, by righteous and wise government, is to effect the destined coming of the Kingdom of God. Inasmuch as by the king in question this was but partially or not at all effected, the Psalm early past over as a mystical bridal song, to the marriage of the Messiah with His Church. The Messianic references also appear in the Psalm itself, in that it is said (Psalms 45:7) that His throne is Elohim=Divine forever and ever, or better, that His Divine throne is forever and ever: [or, better still, I think, even in the original Heb.: “Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever.” This is certainly the most natural construction of the sentence, and need not be shrunk from, as it is in perfect keeping with the context; and as, at all events, the idea is substantially contained in the context—K.]; in that it is said further that God (Psalms 45:17) will render His posterity princes over the whole earth, so that they should eclipse the splendor of their ancestors, and all nations should praise the King on account of His glory; and finally, in that some characteristic expressions of this Psalm are used in Isaiah 9:5; Isaiah 61:3, directly of the Messiah as the Servant of Jehovah—a fact the more important, as ΰֵ ?μβִּ ?αּ ?εֹ ?ψ, mighty God, is elsewhere a customary designation of God Himself, e.g., Deuteronomy 10:17; Jeremiah 32:18; Nehemiah 9:32; Psalms 24:8. Since, therefore, the Theocratic King “sat on the throne of Jehovah” (1 Chronicles 29:23)—and the throne of God is eternal, Lamentations 5:19,—and Zech. prophesies (Hebrews 12:8) that the house of David shall yet be at the head of the nation, as Elohim, as a messenger of Jehovah (ιְ ?δεָֹ ?δλֵּ ?ξַ ?μְ ?ΰַ ?κְ ,λֵּ ?ΰμδִ ?ιν), the author of our Epistle is entirely justified in interpreting the Psalm not as typically or indirectly, but as prophetically and directly Messianic, and in finding a proof of the Godhead of the Messiah in the fact that He who as King was, for His love of righteousness, exalted above all His fellows, received the appellation of Elohim. For while, indeed, the Kingly government, as representative of God ruling in majesty, is sometimes named Elohim (Exodus 21:6; Exodus 22:7; Psalms 82.) the individual person never elsewhere receives this name. And he would all the more naturally infer the Godhead of the Messiah, inasmuch as love of righteousness and hatred of iniquity are special characteristics of the holiness of God, Psalms 5:5; Isaiah 61:8. Διὰτοῦτο many erroneously explain (with August. and Thom. Aquin.) of the purpose and result of the anointing, referring it to the anointing of the Holy Spirit made in order that the anointed one might love righteousness. In the Heb. text it is a quality of the King that He loves righteousness; and this forms the ground for that fulness of joy which, as an anointing, has been poured over Him in richer measure than over His companions or fellows, i.e., the other kings of the earth. As this love of righteousness is to be conceived not as a state of passive repose, but as an active attribute, the Sept. employs the Aor. ἠγάπησας, ἐμίσησας (didst love, etc.), and from this it is still more clear that διὰτοῦτο points back to this as the ground of the anointing, which also our author understands not of the crowning of Jesus, after His accomplished earthly career, as Heavenly King, and His exaltation thus above the angelic dwellers in heaven (Peirce, Olsh., Bl., Ebr., Alf., Lόn.), but, in accordance with the original text, of the fulness of bliss which He, long since anointed as King of the Kingdom of God, has above His fellows. ‘Fellows’ Klee erroneously refers to “all creatures;” Chrys., Theoph., �c., Beng., to “all men.” The ‘fellows’ (μέτοχοι) of the Messiah must certainly be anointed ones. Thus they are either Christians (Theodor., Calv., Camero, Schlicht.), or the prophets, high-priests and kings, anointed as types of Christ (Wittich, Braun, Cranm.), or, which seems best suited to the connection, Princes in general (Kuin., Ebr., Del.). The author does not develop the individual features of the passage in their possible application, but lays the whole emphasis on the repeatedly recurring term, “God,” which, in an equally exclusive manner with the term “Son,” is given in the Divine word of Scripture to the Messiah. Hebrews 1:10. And: Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay, etc.—The καί introduces in the closest connection of thought with the preceding, a citation from Psalms 102:26-28 illustrating the point that all aid to the people of God must come, not through any creature instrumentality, but through God the Creator. The Psalm is a lamentation, written at a late period of the exile, in which the poet, profoundly penetrated by the wretchedness of his people, expects and entreats deliverance and preservation from God, who, as the eternal one, even amidst that change and revolution of things over which He presides, still approves Himself as unchangeably the same, as δεּ ?ΰ, αύτός. The Psalmist is hence so sure of deliverance that he declares that it “will be told to coming generations,” how God looked down from heaven, and heard the groaning of the captives (Psalms 102:19 ff.). In the fact that help comes only from the eternal and unchangeable God, while even the heavens, as they were originally formed by Him, are also transformed by Him, lies our author’s warrant for referring the cited words to the Son by whom God hath made the worlds. The author is not merely expressing in scriptural phraseology what, in his own belief, and, in the presumed belief of his readers, may be justly said of Jesus (Hofm., Schriftb., I. 150). There would then be wanting the connecting link which, according to the tenor of Scripture, warrants his statement. We are not at liberty to transfer to the Son all the attributes ascribed to the Father. Hence we do not say with Theod. of Mops. (ed. Fritzsche, p. 162) that the Old Test. Scripture when it speaks of God, always speaks of the Father without exclusion of the Son. Equally unsatisfactory is the explanation that the interpolated κύριε of the Sept. (wanting in the Heb.) has, as being the customary designation of Jesus in apostolic times, seduced the author into his interpretation (Bφhm., Lόn.); for Hebrews 8:8 ff; Hebrews 12:6 ff. forbid our charging the author with any such ignorance. The link of connection is found rather (as in all the other citations), in the fact that the original Psalm itself expressed a positive hope in that earnestly longed for revelation of the salvation of Jehovah which was to be accomplished only in the Messiah. (Similarly Hofm., “Prophecy and Fulfilment,” II. p. 33, Del.). Κατ̓ἀρχάς, Ps. 119, 152 is not=ἐνἀρχῇ, but corresponds to ἀπ̓ἀρχῆς, and expresses also in the classics extension downwards in time (Kόhn., § 605, 1. Jelf, II. § 629, 2). In Heb. we have the more general μְ ?τָ ?πִ ?ιν=formerly. Διαμένειν indicates the abiding in one condition through all the vicissitudes of time, Psalms 119:90; 2 Peter 3:4. περιβόλαιον denotes anything thrown around (1 Corinthians 12:15, probably a veil), commonly the garment thrown around like a mantle. Storr finds in ἀλλαγήσονται the idea that the heavens, which are works of God’s hands or fingers (Psalms 8:4), will be exchanged like a garment, in that God will make a new heaven and a new earth. This form of conception is certainly made prominent Isaiah 65:17; Isaiah 66:22; 2 Peter 3:13; Revelation 21:1; for the Scripture, while indeed it teaches a τέλος of the world, Matthew 24:14, a change of its present σχῆμα, 1 Corinthians 7:31, a passing away of heaven and earth, Matthew 5:18; Luke 21:33; 1 John 2:17; Revelation 20:11, a dissolving of the elements, 2 Peter 3:12, yet by no means teaches an annihilation of its existence, but rather a regeneration, a new birth of the world, with the transformation naturally attending it. Yet here the other form of conception seems the preponderating one, which makes heaven an apparent tent-cloth spread out over the earth, Isaiah 40:22; Psalms 104:2, without, however, requiring us with Heinrichs to resolve the ἔργα into the products of the loom. Here their transformation consists in their becoming antiquated, Psalms 102:27. The reading ἑλίξεις, then, involves the thought that they are rolled up, and laid aside. This rolling up, Isaiah 34:4; Revelation 6:14, is compared with that of a book; and Isaiah 34:4 it is said of the heavenly hosts that they fall off as the leaves of the vine, and as the withering of the fig-tree; while in like manner in Isaiah 51:6 they are said to pass away like smoke. But the Lord is unchangeable in His being, and absolutely imperishable. In the Hebrew we have: “And Thy years have no completion,” i.e., their end never comes. In the Greek: “Thy years shall never fail,” i.e., they shall never cease or discontinue. Ἐκλείπειν is used as intransitive also in the classics. Hebrews 1:13. Sit on may right hand, etc.—Εἶπε (Hebrews 1:5) used of the declaration made absolutely, and once for all, (he said), and λέγει (Hebrews 1:6) of the declaration which is now or continuously being made (he saith, he is saying), are here exchanged for εἴρηκε of the declaration which stands before us as fixed in Scripture (he hath said). Del. The metabatic δέ which stands in the third place after a preposition with its case (Hartung, Partikellehre I. p. 190) introduces as the last proof—challenging in its interrogative form the assured assent of the reader—the elevation of the Messiah to a joint sovereignty with God in absolute triumph over His foes, in contrast with angels who, though spiritual beings, have but the place and destination of servants. True, the angels, as inhabitants of heaven, also enjoy the immediate presence of God, and the proverbial expressions, “he is good as an angel of God,” 1 Samuel 29:9; “he judges righteously as an angel of God,” 2 Samuel 14:17; “he is wise as an angel of God,” 2 Samuel 14:20; 2 Samuel 19:27, point to their extraordinary intellectual and moral endowments. But organized as an heavenly host, 1 Kings 22:19; 2 Chronicles 18:18,—whence we are told of an encampment of angels (Genesis 32:1-2), and find chariots and horses assigned to them (2 Kings 6:17),—they encompass the throne of Jehovah—partly in the form of an advisory assemblage (Job 1:6; Job 2:1; Psalms 89:8); partly praising God and His works in holy joy, Psalms 29:1; Psalms 103:20; partly as servants standing ready to execute His commands, Job 4:18; Job 15:15, as heroes of strength, Psalms 103:20; Psalms 148:2, and as Jehovah’s (Joshua 5:14) “host of the high ones,” Isaiah 24:21. But to the Messiah is ascribed not merely sitting beside or in presence of the all-ruling God, but sitting at His right hand. The former expression would have designated Him only as theocratic ruler; as David, after the removal of the ark of the covenant to Mount Zion, had his throne in immediate proximity to the throne of Jehovah. But the latter elevates Him above every species of principality and dominion to participation in the divine majesty itself. The historical incidents in which this typical Psalm had birth, stand connected apparently (Hebrews 1:5 ff.) with the victory of David over the Syrians and Ammonites. But the promise of the elevation spoken of (Hebrews 1:1) appears as an oracular or prophetic utterance (πְ ?ΰֻ ?ν) of Jehovah, whose fulfilment is still in the future (Hebrews 1:4), and is directed to the Lord of the minstrel (ΰֲ ?γֹ ?πִ ?ι, my Lord); we are, therefore, entirely justified in assuming a widening of the prophetic view beyond the historical and typical incidents, and in finding in the “Lord” not the David sung by the people (Ewald), but the Messiah whom David recognized as at once his Lord and his Son (Matthew 22:41 ff.); especially as this king, whom the people, born like dew from the womb of the morning, clad in sacred garments, are to follow into the conflict (Hebrews 1:3), is not merely to conquer His enemies upon the whole earth (Hebrews 1:6), but as priestly king (Hebrews 1:4), is to stand in a relation (to be hereafter more fully considered), such as could be predicated of no historical ruler of Israel. The custom of setting the foot on the neck of a conquered enemy, belongs to earlier Israel, Joshua 10:24; 1 Kings 5:17. To later Greek belongs ὑποπόδιον, and the frequent Hellenistic formula ἐκδεξιῶν which implies the rising conspicuously above that which is on the right hand. Hebrews 1:14. Are they not all ministering spirits, etc.—In this summing up of the series of thoughts developed from Hebrews 1:4, the emphasis lies partly on πάντες, all, which includes even the angelic leaders, partly on λειτουργικά, which designates these spirits as standing in sacred service. For the term points, not in a general way, to service obligatory by virtue of public office, but specially to that connected with the public Levitical worship, Exodus 31:10; Numbers 4:12; Numbers 7:5; 2 Chronicles 24:14. Hence also the Rabbins frequently designate certain angels as νַ ?μְ ?ΰֲ ?λֵ ?ιδַ ?ωָּׁ ?ψֵ ?ϊ. No allusion to the heavenly sanctuary can be inferred from the choice of the expression: it simply refers back to Hebrews 1:7. The Pros. Part. ἀποστελλόμενοι habitually sent forth, commissioned, brings out the proper characteristic of the angels, or that habitus, that habitual form of action, which springs from their nature, and corresponds to their destination. The term διακονία refers not directly to their rendering service to men; (for, apart from the fact that the angels are not placed in subordination to men, the construction would require the Dat. τοῖςμέλλουσι (Acts 11:29; 1 Corinthians 16:15), but to the ministerial relation in which they stand to God, and in which God employs them for the good of those who are to inherit the salvation procured by His Son. This special signification of σωτηρία (though without the article) is implied alike in the context, and in the verb κληρονομεῖν, inherit. It implies neither deliverance from danger in general (Michael., Schleusn., Bφhm., Kuin.); nor again the actual conferring of eternal salvation upon its inheritors through the ministrations assigned by God to the angels (Lόn.); but simply the proper office of the angels, as those whom God sends forth for the benefit of godly men. The term σωτηρία, employed in designating this salvation, presupposes a deliverance from ruin wrought by “the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.” Titus 2:13. AND ETHICAL1. God has not merely communicated His word to the prophets in the manifold forms of His revelations of Himself: nor has He merely in the prophets and by their mouth spoken formerly to the fathers. He also speaks to us in Holy Scripture. The development of the precise doctrine of inspiration is yet a problem for theology; but the church has to confess that in the Holy Scripture she hears God Himself speak, and that she feels herself bound, in all that respects salvation, to adhere implicitly to the Word of God as uttered in the Scripture. 2. The old canon of Scripture interpretation: Novum Testamentum in vetere latet; Vetus Testamentum in novo patet, springs from a correct apprehension of the true essential relation of the two parts of the economy of salvation. The sacred writers constantly emphasize the divine purpose, as that which determines the events of history; yet this not formally as mere purpose, which might seek its end irrespective of the course of things; but as that divine determination, which of itself, in a concrete manner, brings about its result. When this determination is prophetically uttered, this prophetic word is an expression of the divine counsel, thought and will, which is already stamped with the impress of human history, but primarily as but a form, which awaits in the future its ultimate fulfilment, and reaches this by an actual carrying out in history of the divine purpose. The historical facts which gradually lead to this final and proper fulfilment of prophecy, bear, for this reason, a typico-prophetic character. They represent typically, and for precisely this reason, but partially and defectively, the idea that is to be realized; yet they must be regarded as evidences of its truth, and of its infallible and already incipient realization. They are interwoven with historical conditions which as yet contain no adequate realization of the divine thought. It might hence be half suspected that nothing but the caprice or the unwarranted fancies of a later time had discovered this relation of purely historical facts, or of earlier oracular utterances, to those later events which they typify and predict. Unquestionably, too, we are warranted in insisting on the historical foundations of prophecy, and on its direct reference to immediate events, as against an unhistorical and, as it were, soothsaying prophecy. But the exaggeration of this feature leads to a mode of dealing with events which knows no prophecy, to a history with no positive divine guidance and control, with no real ideas, with no true future of redemption. The New Testament writers, on the other hand, see bursting through these enveloping folds of history the germs and tendencies of divine ideas, and, in their illustrative citations, mainly exhibit the symbolical facts, in a direct and immediate application to the fulfilment already effected through Christ. Hence they, on the one hand, neither take the facts and statements of the Old Testament, in their original import as referring to immediate events, nor on the other, put upon them an allegorical and mystical interpretation, which rests upon no sure basis; but so interpret them that they appear as members of that system of divine ideas and acts, by which, in the progress of revelation, the original Gospel which announced “the seed of the woman,” is gradually, step by step, announcing and accomplishing itself until its final and complete fulfilment in the coming of the Son of God in the flesh. The occasional use of Rabbinical forms of citation and modes of interpretation in no way destroys this essential relation, but stands connected with the national position and special culture of the respective writers: compare (from earlier times) Andr. Kesler de dictorum V. T. in N. allegatione 1627; also in Hackspan dispp. theol. et phil. syllogζ, p. 563 sq.: Oporinus, demonstratio N. T. ex. V. T. p. 60 sq., and Surenhusius, Βίβλοςκαταλλαγῆς, in quo, secundum veterum theol. Hebr. formulas allegandi et modos interpretandi, conciliantur loca V. in N. T. allegata, Amst. 1713. 3. The true and perfect deity of Jesus Christ is to be proved a. from the name “Son of God,” bestowed on Him in an exclusive sense, and as designating a specific relation, which, along with essential unity, points to a hypostatical distinction of persons, for which reason He is also directly called “God:” b. from His works of creating, upholding, redeeming, governing, and renovating the world: c. from the perfection of the metaphysical, intellectual and moral attributes involved in that specific relation to God, and attesting themselves in all these several spheres of action: d. from the adoring worship which belongs to Him, and is rendered Him even by the Princes among the heavenly angels, a fact which, within the sphere of the monotheistic faith, is of the utmost significance. 4. The doctrine of the eternity of the world is equally to be repudiated with that of its future annihilation. Its transformation into a new and nobler form of existence is effected by means of the same Lord through whom it was created, and that according to divine purpose and will, so that its destruction also is to be referred to no exhaustion of originally supplied powers, wrought by age and the natural decay of years, nor to any regularly recurring cycles of revolution, by which, at definite intervals and according to unchangeable laws, creation is resolved into its elements, and again remoulded into new forms and combinations for other destinies. 5. The anticipated reintroduction of the First-born into the inhabited world forms the goal of the ways of God in history, and promises a revelation of glory to which, in hope and faith, we are to look; which, in the patience of the saints, we are humbly to await, and for which, in the sanctification of our persons, as children of God born anew to be brethren in Jesus Christ, and called to be fellow-heirs with Him, we are earnestly to prepare, that we may join the adoring worship of the angels. 6. The invocation of angels, as ministers to our need and mediators of salvation, is no less irrational and absurd, than the denial of their existence and of their employment in the service of God for the benefit of the heirs of salvation, is unscriptural. The position here assigned to them excludes any rendering to them of worship, and, on the other hand, their spiritual nature remits to the province of imagination and art all sensible representations of their form; while yet their employment in the service of God renders possible their transient appearance and agency on earth in the most various forms. 7. The means which God employs for the protection and support of the pious in this wicked world, are numerous in proportion as He is unfathomable in wisdom, unlimited in power, and inexhaustible in love. Besides the forces, creatures, and instrumentalities, which belong to the sphere of earth and human action, He has equally at command, for the exigencies of even our temporal life, heavenly and angelic agencies, and that in unmeasured abundance and untold variety. 8. The establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth in the form of a kingdom of grace under the regal dominion of the Messiah, who, after accomplishing the mission assigned to Him below, is now forever exalted above all powers to the throne of God, is, on the one hand, a fulfilment of the Messianic prophecies; on the other, a preparation for the consummated dominion of God over all the world, and itself again a prophecy of the kingdom of glory. The Christocracy is the fully unfolded, world-embracing form of the Theocracy; and in His consummated glory the Exalted One becomes, for all eternity, the medium of that communion with God which, as the Humiliated One, He originally procured. “The language, ‘Sit at my right hand,’ means, in a word: exalted highly and placed as glorious King—not over the towers of Jerusalem, nor over the empire of Babylon, Rome, Constantinople, or the entire earth—which were indeed a great power;—nay, not over heaven, stars, and all that our eyes can behold, but exalted to a power far higher and wider. Seat thyself—such is His language—beside me on the lofty seat where I sit, and be equal to me. For by sitting beside Him, he means not, sitting at His feet, but at His right hand, in the same majesty and power with Himself, which is nothing less than a Divine power” (Luth. at Psalms 110.). AND The consolation of the Church of God in troublous times is: 1, God’s words of encouragement in the Holy Scripture; 2, the Government of Jesus Christ on the throne of God; 3, the inheritance of blessedness to which it is destined.—The right which Jesus Christ has to us as, a. our Creator; b. our Saviour; c. our Ruler.—The worship which we owe to Jesus Christ: 1, on the ground of the Divine command in the Holy Scriptures; 2, after the example of the heavenly spirits; 3, as citizens of the Kingdom of God.—What summons us Christians ceaselessly to living gratitude to God? 1, the destination to bliss, which God’s word vouchsafes to us; 2, the protection which He bestows upon us by powers and servants sent forth from heaven; 3, the gracious aid which He renders to us in the Church of His Son.—The dominion which Jesus Christ exercises: 1, in its character, a. as a Divine dominion; b. for the conquest of the world; c. by employing the powers and resources of the heavenly realm; 2, in its establishment by His peculiar relation, a. to God, as Son; b. to the world, as Lord of all things: c. to the Church, as Saviour.—The high dignity which we Christians have: 1, as children of God, who are ransomed from the perishable nature of this world; 2, as brethren of Christ, who, as First-born, sits upon the throne of God; 3, as heirs of blessedness, for whose good angels are sent forth in the service of God. Von Bogatzky:—As God has anointed Christ for His threefold office, so are we also anointed by Christ with His Spirit: 1, that as priests of God, we may offer up ourselves, and pray for one another; 2, that as kings, we may conquer all our enemies; 3, that in the fellowship of the prophetic office of Christ we may teach and admonish one another.—Laurentius:—Eternal life is an inheritance, and is thus not obtained by works.—If the holy angels minister to believers, how shall not one believer much more minister to his fellow?—Hiller:—The Church with which the Lord would betroth Himself in faith, had, in the word, the plighted vow of His eternal love and truth; in His Spirit the bridal pledge, and in the shadowy rites, the image and portrait of its King.—The Sacred Scripture is God’s testimony of His Son, a. who will come into the world; b. who has come into the world; c. to bless and save sinners.—This testimony of Scripture must be believed, a. because it is a testimony; b. because it is God’s testimony; c. because it is such a testimony of the Son of God. Rieger:—The more righteously a kingdom is administered, the greater is its permanency.—He whose heart God inclines to righteousness, and whom He inspires with a disposition to hate unrighteousness, even though it may find a lurking place, as it will, in his own members, is by the one rendered fit for the inheritance of God’s Kingdom, and by the latter gains enlarged space for the Spirit and its glad anointing.—As from the beginning of the ways of God in the creation, so also from the goal and end in which all will issue in the ultimate deliverance and renewal of the creation, we can derive much that appertains to the glory of the Son of God. Starke:—As we mortals have a changeful nature, not only material, but immaterial, which latter, in the waste and repair of sense, must experience daily an ever increasing change, we should strive all the more industriously after the true unchangeableness which Christ has brought to light by His Gospel, 2 Timothy 1:10.—God changes neither in His being nor in His words; hence we can securely commit ourselves to Him.—Christ, the Son of Man, is truly exalted upon the throne of God. If thou wilt not believe this, thou wilt hereafter see and experience it to thine eternal sorrow, Psalms 2:12.—Are the holy angels servants whom God sends out for our service? How, then, should we stand in fear of them, thank God for their protection, and in genuine holiness of heart render ourselves worthy of it?—High honor of believers that they are ministered to by Thrones, Principalities and Powers! Praise God; grieve not the angels; lead an angelic life, and thou wilt be borne by the angels where thou wishest eternally to be, Luke 15:10; Luke 20:36. Spener:—From the Sonship of God and regeneration comes all the blessedness which we receive as an inheritance, Romans 8:16; Galatians 4:7; Acts 20:32; Acts 26:18. Heubner:—Christ is the most blessed King. The earthly prosperity of worldly rulers bears no comparison with the heavenly delight which Christ, as the exalted Son of God, enjoys. He enjoys the bliss of being in most intimate communion with God, and of being loved and adored by hosts of ransomed souls, by all spirits.—The whole spirit world is a realm of servants of God. A ruler without subjects possesses no kingdom.—The pious are protegιs of heaven, of the angels. Both are one under Christ. Stier:—Where remain the thrones of all kings on earth amidst the revolution of things, at the end of the days? They are swept away and removed; but the Divine throne of the One Anointed above all anointed ones continues and stands unto eternity. Where in the hands of sinful men is there a sceptre of sovereignty whose honor has not been in some way stained with unrighteousness and error? But the gracious and peaceful sceptre of the One Righteous and Blessed is truly a sceptre of rectitude.—The Son rules on the eternal throne of God, Himself God and Lord: the spirits and personal powers of heaven serve as creatures. The Son has taken His seat in the reassumption of His original Divine power; the angels are sent forth from His and the Father’s seat. They are those who perform priestly ministration in all their allotted activity and service. He is and remains without end of years, the Lord whom they adoringly serve. [Owen:—“Whatever our changes may he, inward or outward, yet Christ, changing not, our eternal condition is secured, and relief provided against all present troubles and miseries. The immutability and eternity of Christ are the spring of our consolation and security in every condition. Such is the frailty of the nature of man, and such the perishing condition of all created things, that none can ever obtain the least stable consolation but what ariseth from an interest in the omnipotency, sovereignty, and eternity of Jesus Christ”]. Footnotes:Hebrews 1:8. Καί introducing the second portion of the passage from the Psalm is found in Sin, A. B. D. E. M. 17. Itala according to Cod. Clarom. and Vulg. according to Cod. Amiat. In the following words the lect. Rec. should be retained. Hebrews 1:9.—Sin. reads with the Cod. Alex. of the LXX. ἀδικίαν. The remaining MSS. except some minusc, read with the Cod. Vat. of the LXX. ἀνομίαν [ἀδικίαν was perhaps written in accidental conformity to the preceding δικαιοσύνη.—K.] Hebrews 1:11.—Instead of the pres. διαμένεις Bleek, following Itala., Vulg. etc., accents διαμενεῖς as future. Hebrews 1:12.—Sin. A. B. D.* E. have further the clause ὡςἱμάτιον after αὐτούς. Hebrews 1:12.—The ἀλλάξεις of the original is found also in Sin. D.* 43. The remaining Codd. read ἑλίξεις, perhaps with an indistinct reference to Isaiah 34:4. III Warning exhortation to give heed to the revelation that has been brought to us through so extraordinary a mediation Hebrews 2:1-4.1Therefore [For this reason, διὰτοῦτο] we ought [it is necessary, δεῖ ?] to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard [to the things which were heard, τοῖςἀκουσθεῖσι], lest at any time [lest haply, lest perchance, μήποτε] we let them slip [flow by or drift away from them]. 2For if the word spoken by [through, διά] angels was [became, proved, ἐγένετο] steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward; 3How shall we escape, if we neglect [after neglecting, ἀμελήσαντες] so great [a] salvation; which at the first began to be [was originally] spoken by [through, διά] the Lord, and was confirmed unto [for] us by them that heard4 him; God also [jointly] bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles [acts of power, δυνάμεις], and gifts [distributions] of the Holy Ghost, according to his own [his αὐτοῦ ?] will? AND Heb_2:1. For this reason it is necessary.—For the term Gospel (εὐαγγέλιον) our author employs here, after the periphrastic style of Luke (who employs the term εὐαγγέλιον only Acts 15:7; Acts 20:24), the term τὰἀκουσθέντα, the things which were heard, as referring not so immediately to the subject-matter of the Gospel, as to that special form of announcement which stands distinguished above all other methods of revelation. The Gospel would demand and deserve attention in whatever manner it might have found utterance in words, and addressed itself to our ears. The transcendent preλminence, however, of the mode of its historical introduction, creates a necessity lying in the very nature of the case, and whose observance is imperatively binding upon us, to direct and yield up to it our persons, Acts 16:14 (προσέχεινἡμᾶς, with a correspondingly heightened devotion (περισσοτέρως), frequent with Paul, and not, as affirmed by Bleek, unknown to the classics, but found [Del.] Diod. Sic. XIII. p. 108; Athen., V., p. 192 f.). For the διὰτοῦτο, on this account, so points back to the preceding exhibition of the glory of the Mediator of the New Testament revelation, as to furnish a basis for that warning admonition to fidelity of faith, to which the author’s anxiety for his readers leads him at this early stage of the Epistle. If the required heed and devotion are withheld, then must follow the fearful consequences, which, as shown by the μήποτε, the author would fain avert from his readers.—lest we be swept, or drift by (παραῤῥυῶμεν, Lachm., Tisch., Isaiah 2 Aor. Subj. Pass.). Drift by what? Not by the sure harbor of eternal blessedness—which were only properly a consequence—but by that which is heard. Here again, however, it is not to be understood of forgetting the mere words, which would be a meaning quite inadequate to the gravity of the passage; nor of drifting by the salvation contained in the Gospel, which is correct, indeed, as to the substance of the thought, but overlooks the specific demands of the context. It is rather that firm hold or holding-point, proffered in the Gospel, and which conditions our attainment of salvation. This those lose who do not yield themselves up personally to that which is brought to their hearing, and are then carried away from the Gospel, and as it were swept by the salvation which is in it not merely announced, but actually held out and communicated to believers, and are thus without stay or anchor, borne on by the stream, “as a ship before her landing shoots away into destruction.” (Gloss of Luther). Hebrews 2:2. For if the word which was spoken through angels.—The supposition, which the author shares with his readers, and which he makes the basis of his reasoning, a minori ad majus, is the two-fold one, 1. that the Mosaic law is a word established by Divine authority, and which hence is not only obligatory, but also in earlier history vindicated its validity against every objective transgression (παράβασις), and subjective neglect (παρακοή, refusal to hear), by corresponding retribution; 2. that it was given through the intervention not of the Divine Messiah or Son, but only of angels. This angelic agency, however, finds no mention at Exodus 19. in connection with the legislation of Sinai, and also at Hebrews 12:19, only a Divine φωνὴῥημάτων, voice of words is mentioned in distinction from the accompanying natural phenomena. For this reason Dorsch, Calov, Schφttgen, Carpzov and Semler, have referred the passage to such revelations as Genesis 19:26, in which angelic agency is actually mentioned, exclusively of the law; while again D. Heinsius and G. Olearius, seeing that λόγος here must refer to the Mosaic law, have regarded the ἄγγελοι as referring to human messengers. But for the existence of the belief that the law of God was given to Moses by the mediation of angels, we have as testimonies Joseph. Antiq. Jud., XV., 5, 3, and Carmina Samarit., Ed. Gesen. III. 8; IV—8, 11, and particularly Acts 7:53, and Galatians 3:19. The tradition itself seems to have its biblical origin in the obscure words of the Song of Moses, Deuteronomy 33:2 : “And thou from holy multitudes,” scil. didst come forth, where the LXX. make express mention of angels; as also in Psalms 68 composed in the time of Solomon, in which at Hebrews 2:18 the entrance of Jehovah into Zion in the midst of the myriad chariots of His angels, is compared to His descent upon Sinai. We must guard, however, against restricting this angelic agency to the Angel of the covenant, who acted as Mediator of the most distinguished revelations of God in the Old Testament; for here the word is plural (δἰἀγγέλων). The classical ἔνδικος is found elsewhere in the New Testament only at Romans 3:8. For the simple μισθός wages, or the classical μισθοδοσία, giving of wages, stands here the more full-sounding [indeed more intrinsically emphatic] form μισθαποδοσία rendering, or paying of wages; here the term is used in a bad sense, while at Hebrews 10:35; Hebrews 11:26, the requital is not that of punishment, but of approving reward. Hebrews 2:3. How shall we escape—salvation?—The future ἐκφευξόμεθα stands in reference to the final judgment: we need not, however, (with Heinrichs, Steng., Ebr.) supply anything from Hebrews 2:2; but simply take the expression as at Hebrews 12:25; 1 Thessalonians 5:3, technically and absolutely. The Aor. Part. ἀμελήσαντες specifies the act which must have preceded and determined the impossibility of escape. This utter and complete impossibility (πῶς) of escape lies in the fact that precisely we (ἡμεῖς), who live in the time of salvation, have to do with a salvation of such transcendent excellence (τηλικαύτηςσωτηρίας)=talis tantζque salutis, as that now under consideration. Which being originally spoken through the Lord, etc.—The clause commencing with ἥτις (quippe quζ) is not designed to show that which grows out of the nature of “so great a salvation,” (Thol.); nor to exhibit the greatness of this salvation in the exalted character of its Mediator (Del.); but to illustrate the sentiment of the entire passage. The contrast between the mediation accomplished by the Lord, and that effected by angels, forms but a part of the Gospel claim to attention. A second contrast is found in the fact that it is not merely commands (Theod. Mops., Lόn., Del.)—we must add that it is not merely promises—which constitute the subject matter of the announcement, but salvation itself. Still we are not therefore authorized in saying (Ebr.) that the law was barely a word: the Gospel, on the contrary, is a deliverance, a redemption, an act. The emphasis lies here, not as at Titus 2:11, on the fact that “the grace of God which bringeth salvation” has been manifested in the world, but that the salvation, after having had its proclamation commenced and inaugurated by the intervention of the Lord the Saviour Himself, has, through immediate ear-witnesses, taking a sure place in history, been transmitted to us. The link between σωτηρία, salvation, and the βεβαιωθῆναιεἰςἡμᾶς, established for us, is found in the Word of Salvation (Acts 13:26, ὁλόγοςτῆςσωτηρίαςταύτης), whose historical carrying forward and perpetuation was no less marvellous than its origin. Lφnemann declines here to find a contrast between a more remote and a more immediate Word of God, on the ground that God himself is the ultimate and supreme author, as well of the Mosaic law as of the Gospel, and that the latter, as having originated διὰτοῦκυρίου is, in like manner, an intermediate one; while Ebrard and Delitzsch maintain such a contrast on the ground of the divine nature and equality of the Son. Both are equally wide of the mark. For while διὰτοῦκυρίου stands indeed parallel to δἰἀγγέλων, the relation of intermediateness expressed equally in both cases by διά, refers in this context not to the intrinsic relation of God Himself to men in His revelation, as being more direct through the Son, more indirect through angels, but contrasts the historical beginnings of the two Testaments, as being inaugurated the one through angels, and the other through the Lord Himself. The author’s eye is directed not to the transcendental, but to the historical mediation, as shown by the participial clause ἀρχὴνλαβοῦσαλαλεῖσθαιδιὰτοῦκυρίου, which also is no mere objective apposition to ἐβεβαιώθη (Ebr.)—as if the province of the ear-witnesses was to vouch to later readers for the fact that the Gospel had come from the Lord Himself—but declares rather how the σωτηρία has become matter of evangelical proclamation, in which form it has had, through the ministry of those who heard it, its sure transmission to us. Hebrews 2:4. God also jointly bearing them witness, etc.—The “confirmation” (βεβαίωσις) implied in the verb is all the more decisive and absolute from the fact that to the testimony of the Apostolic word is added the accompanying and authenticating testimony of God, John 5:31; Mark 16:20. This testimony comes in acts which, as tokens of an invisible and spiritual agency, are called σημεῖα, signs; as elevated above ordinary and natural laws, and thus exciting wonder and astonishment, τέρατα, prodigies, wonders. Their close connection, expressed by τεκαί, both, and, corresponds to the Hebrew ΰεֹ ?ϊεֹ ?ϊεּ ?ξεֹ ?τְ ?ϊιν, Exodus 7:3. The mentiontion of these in this connection furnishes an irrefragable historical proof for the fact that not merely in Corinth, but also elsewhere within the sphere of Christianity, phenomena had appeared, which could not be regarded as a mere heightening of natural powers, and that the proclamation of the Gospel in Apostolic times was accompanied by miracles. As a special kind of charismata appear the δυνάμεις also at 1 Corinthians 12:10, which at once direct attention to the divine agency required and imparted for the working of miracles, and keep their divine purpose alive in the Christian consciousness. The position of the words shows that πνεύματοςἁγίου is not Gen. Subj. (Camero, etc.), but Gen. Obj.: that κατὰτὴναὐτοῦθέλησιν is to be referred only to μερισμοῖς (De Wette), and neither (with Abresch, Bφhme) to the whole clause, nor (with Bleek) to ποικιλοιςμερισμοῖς; and that αὐτοῦ belongs not to πν. ἁγίου (�cumen. Carpz.) but to θεοῦ. God communicates the Holy Spirit to believers, yet to no individual one of these His entire fulness, and the distribution takes place in each special appropriation, according to His will and purpose. The Hellenistic θέλησις, Pollux 2:165 calls ιδιωτικόν. AND ETHICAL1. With the dignity of the New Testament Mediator, and with the greatness of the salvation which is proffered by Him in the Gospel, stand in corresponding relation the heaviness of the responsibility of the hearers of the Gospel, and the certainty of the condemnation of its despisers. “The child owes a deeper debt than the servant.” (Stein.) “Strictness and rigor of judgment must stand in relation to infinite grace: the higher the grace, the heavier the punishment. Disobedience to Christ is the thrusting away of our own salvation.” (Heubner.) The reason lies in the fact that Christ came not to do away with and abolish the law, but to fulfil it, Matthew 5:17. “With heedlessness, disregard and delay commences that which may end in the most fearful plunge into unbelief, disobedience, and their attendant judgment. Heedfulness, on the other hand, is the stepping-stone to faith, obedience, and the bringing forth of fruit in patience. What is more easily neglected, heeded lightly and thrown behind us, than a word which one hears? And yet how is, at the same time, the seed snatched from the heart, from which might grow faith and blessedness! But how frequently also does this word of patience again make its appeal to the heart!” (Rieger.) 2. The Gospel is not merely in its subject matter, but also in its form, the most perfect revelation of God. Salvation has not merely appeared, and been introduced into the world by means of the person of the Son of God and Lord of all things—exalted as He is infinitely above the angels—but has also, through the Lord Himself actually found utterance, and received, through His holy and truthful lips, its initiatory proclamation upon earth. “The strictness and rigor of the Old Testament are but a shadow beside the severity of the New.” (Quesnel.) 3. Not merely the establishment of Christianity, but also its maintenance and propagation in the world, are the work of the Lord. They stand not merely under divine supervision and guidance, but under divine agency, in which the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, take their respective share. But we are called not merely to a participation in the blessedness of salvation, but also to coφperation in this work of God, in aid of its actual extension and carrying forward in the world. 4. Christianity has not merely to do with the knowledge and recognition of the truth, but also preλminently with the procuring of salvation. But how this is to be accomplished is, under the arrangements of God, announced to us in His word. Precisely for this reason the Gospel of God has been supplied with the most efficient powers, and with the strongest testimonies, and demands of us personal devotion, alike in its appropriation to ourselves, and in its propagation. 5. The distribution of the gifts and influences of the Holy Spirit in the Church is made neither accidentally nor arbitrarily, but in accordance with the will of God. So also the authentication of our testimony by accompanying signs. We must, therefore, neither contemn the lesser and more sparing gifts and signs, nor allow the great, splendid and numerous tokens of such Divine coφperation, to minister to envy, self-exaltation and strife; but mindful of their origin and design, strive to be found in their possession and use, thankful, humble, industrious and faithful. 6. Taking into account the character of the recipients of our Epistle, this passage contains an irrefutable testimony to the actual working of miracles on the part of Jesus and the Apostles. In his appeal to this as a well known and unquestioned fact, the author would have rendered but the slenderest service to his cause, had its reality been open to the slightest shadow of doubt and questioning. Facts like these send to a common grave the mythological hypothesis regarding the history of Jesus, the naturalistic explanation of the miracles, the denial of the agency of the Holy Spirit, and the restricting to purely historical factors the explanation of the origin of Christianity. AND The obligation resting on us to give earnest heed to the Gospel which has come to us through Divine coφperation. 1. How it is demonstrated: a. by the greatness of the proffered salvation; b. by the excellence of its original Bearer and Proclaimer; c. by our being placed in the Church of Jesus Christ. 2. How it finds a hinderance: a. in the skeptical spirit of our age; b. in the perversity of our own nature; c. in the temptations to apostasy from the Church. 3. How God aids to its performance: a. by the impressiveness of His judgments; b. by confirming the truth and power of the Gospel in history; c. by the imparting of His Spirit in His operations and gifts.—In the Gospel alone we are to find a sure means of resistance to the tide which would sweep us to perdition; for these means are: 1, originated by Christ; 2, confirmed of God; 3, made efficacious to our salvation by the Spirit.—With what have we, as preachers, most to do in the proclamation of the Gospel: 1, to see that we preach Christ as the Mediator of salvation to all believers; 2, that our preaching of salvation be found in harmony with that of the Apostles; 3, that the testimony of God in manifold tokens and proofs accompany and confirm our testimony.—To what are we especially to give heed in the hearing of the Gospel? 1, that we learn from it the counsel of God for our eternal blessedness; 2, that we accept it as, in accordance with the will of God, it has been brought to us by a special economy of salvation; 3, that we supplicate the assistance of God for our personal attainment of the salvation that is proffered to us.—It is the earnest will of the Lord that His Gospel be: 1, reverently heard; 2, conscientiously obeyed; 3, powerfully and efficiently spread abroad.—By what we recognize the true miracles of God in history: 1, they serve as signs which accompany the word of His revelation, and direct our attention to the sovereign sway of God in the world; 2, they present themselves as the witnesses of God’s pleasure in the proclamation of His word; 3, they evince themselves to be effects of Divine power by their connection with the gifts of the Holy Spirit.—We have no other means of escaping the coming destruction than by giving earnest heed to the Gospel: for 1, the Gospel is not an abrogation, but a confirmation of the Law; hence it, a. requires not merely to be heard, but believed and obeyed; and b. prophesies of the coming destruction of its contemners; but 2, the Gospel is not a repetion, but a fulfilment of the law; hence it, a. preaches in a sure way salvation in Christ; and b. is accompanied by God’s actual attestations to its truth and power. Starke:—To whom much is given, of him will also much be required. In the New Testament the light of revelation is much clearer and more glorious than it was amidst the promises and the types of the Old Testament. Bethink thyself, thou who livest in the last time, to what this pledges thee, Luke 12:48; 2 Corinthians 6:1.—Thou reader of the Holy Scripture, mark well what thou readest, and give heed to the Divine truths which therein are set before thee, since it is God who speaks with thee; for otherwise thy heedlessness will be sorely punished, Matthew 24:15.—The word of the Law has proved steadfast, in respect of the powerful proofs of Divinity, to wit, the numerous signs and wonders, which accompanied the giving of the Law; 2, in respect of the obligation which it involved to faith and obedience to all the words, commands and prohibitions of the Law; 3, in respect of the promises which the Law communicated to him who was obedient in faith, of which promises not one ever fell to the ground; 4, in respect of the threatenings with which the law is throughout enforced and confirmed.—God’s word, alike Law and Gospel, is unconquerable; it may, perhaps, be assailed, but cannot be overpowered, Luke 16:17.—Ah, what blessedness is it that we have the word from the mouth of God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ Himself, confirmed by so many signs and wonders! But precisely according to the greatness of this blessedness is the guilt and punishableness of the unbelief which, notwithstanding this great certainty, still doubts, John 5:38.—The Gospel leads us, indeed, also to our duties, which we have to practise toward God, our neighbor, and ourselves; but the Gospel itself consists in pure blessedness, in the recommending and actual proffering of all the treasures which accompany salvation, Acts 13:26.—Although we, perchance, may not have heard the Son of God preach in person, still this will in no way impair our salvation. For even the author of this Epistle (whoever he is), according to his own acknowledgment, had himself not heard the Son of God, but been converted by the Apostles who had heard Him, Luke 10:18.—The Gospel is a doctrine of whose Divine truths we may be convinced even antecedently to, and without miracles; yet God, in accommodation to the weakness of men, has ex abundanti added miracles, partly to awaken the needed attention, partly to strengthen the faith already kindled, John 20:30-31.—The miracles that have confirmed the Gospel, God has held under His own control in respect of time, place, persons, number, and kind and manner, Psalms 72:18. Berlenburger Bible:—God uses means for our sakes, but we must ascend through the means to their author, and observe the hand of God, so that we may be able to conclude that this and that is the work of God, and not of man, Under the testimony of men, God’s procedure and joint testimony are to be recognized, and not to be disjoined from it.—Down to our own day, it is still a characteristic of ordinary conversions, that God, the Lord, who gives richly, does it still in measure, that man may recognize it as grace. Laurentius:—What in spiritual and Divine things we have experienced, seen, and heard, we must also announce to others, that in the hearts of others the same may also be established. Rambach:—The contemners of the Gospel will be more sorely punished than the transgressors of the law, as they have less excuse for their unbelief.—He who has done evil, seeks to escape judgment, but from the judgment of God there is no escape.—Miracles are 1. no mere matters of accident, but spring from the eternal counsel and purpose of God, to glorify His Son and His Gospel, John 9:3. 2. They are wrought of God’s free will, according as on special occasions it has seemed to Him good. 1 Corinthians 12:11. Steinhofer:—Attention to the preached word is most powerfully urged upon us by the importance 1. of the person who has spoken to us of such things; 2. of the subject-matter which is thus revealed and tendered to us.—The proofs which formerly confirmed this word, have, in the lapse of time, lost none of their power.—We desire no other Gospel—as, in fact, there is no other—than that which we have heard from Him, and have believed. Phil. Matth. Hahn:—Reasons for attention to the Gospel: 1. The Lord has spoken; 2. the word speaks of pure salvation; 3. it has been sealed by Divine testimony. Rieger:—To refuse to give heed to the counsel of God for our salvation in the Gospel, is a heavier crime than to violate His law. In the case of the law, it is a cannot, of the Gospel, a will not. Heubner:—Disobedience to Christ is a thrusting away of our own salvation. Kluge:—The nobler the hope, the more earnest the sanctification. Fricke:—As a kernel in the shell lies our whole salvation in the words of Christ. They are all fraught with meaning; here is salvation: hear and embrace!—The additions to the word, which salvation furnishes to us, God gives neither according to reckoning, nor according to desert, but according to His will.—What takes place in the kingdom of Christ, will always bear Christ’s impress upon it. [Owen:—Diligent attendance unto the word of the Gospel, is indispensably necessary unto perseverance in the profession of it.—The profession of most of the world is a mere non-renunciation of the Gospel in words, while in their hearts and lives they deny the power of it every day.—If the ministration of the Gospel be not looked on as that which is full of glory, it will never be attended unto.—The word heard is not lost without the great sin, as well as the inevitable ruin, of the souls of men.—It is meet that the Gospel should be armed with threatenings as well as promises.—A sceptre in a kingdom, without a sword—a crown without a rod of iron, will quickly be trampled on.—The threatenings of future penalties on the disobedient, are far more clear and express in the Gospel than in the Law]. Footnotes: Hebrews 2:1.—[δεῖ, not moral necessity, we ought; but logical, we must, it is necessary.—τοῖςἀκουσθεῖσιν, historically, to the things which were heard when God ἐλάλησεν spoke in his Son.—μήποτε not, lest at any time (as Moll: nicht jemals), but, lest perchance, lest haply as Hebrews 4:1; Matthew 4:6; Matthew 6:25. So Del. and De Wette, nicht etwa; so Alf. and Bib. Un. haply. Wordsworth both here and Hebrews 4:1 neglects it in his rendering.—παραῤῥυῶμεν 2 Aor. Subj. Pass. might be rendered figuratively to slip away from, but not possibly “to let slip, as if causative. Here better to flow by, or, aside from, to drift by, or, away from. Alt.: “to flow past or aside,” “deflect from a course,” and hence “be diverted.” Moll, with many others, vorbeigestrφmt werden, to be drifted or swept by. Hebrews 2:2.—διὰἀγγέλων not by angels as agents as if ὑπὀἀγγ.; but through, by means of angels, as instruments (διά).—ἐγένετὁ, became proved itself; not was, as Eng. Ver. Hebrews 2:3.—So also διὰκυρίου, through the Lord, God the Father being conceived as the supreme agent.—διὰτῶνἀκουσάντων, through them that heard him, with still the idea of intermediate agency.—αὐτοῦ, his, not the reflexive αὑτοῦ ?=ἑαυτοῦ, his own, viz., will (θέλησιν).—K.]. IV The exaltation of Jesus’ above the Angels, is not disparaged by His earthly life, which rather effects the elevation of humanity Hebrews 2:5-13.5For unto the angels hath he not [For not unto the angels did he] put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak [are speaking]. 6But one in a certain place testified, saying, What Isaiah 2 [a] man, that thou art mindful of him? or the [a] son of man, that thou visitest him? 7Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honor, and didst set him over the works of thy hands 8 [om. and didst set him over the works of thy hands]Hebrews 3 : Thou hast [didst] put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put [in subjection] under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. 9But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels [but him who has for some little been made lower than the angels, Jesus, we see] for the [on account of his] suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should [might] taste death for every man. 10For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing [as one who brought] many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. 11For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of [from] one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, 12Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church [congregation] will I sing praise unto thee. 13And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me [that God gave to me]. [Hebrews 2:5.—οὐγὰρἀγγέλοις, for not unto angels=it is not to angels that he subjected, etc. Ἀγγέλοις without the Art., as marking not the individuals, but the class, and emphatic in its position.—ὑπέταξεν, he subjected, Aor.; not, hath subjected.—τήνοἰκουμένην. There are three words commonly rendered, world: 1. Κόσμος properly the world as a harmoniously adjusted and orderly system of things; this is never used in the phrase, the “world to come;” 2. αἰών, age, duration of time, and hence the world as constituting a particular period of time, or age; so commonly ὁαἰὼνοὗτος, this age, this world, and αἰὼνὁμέλλων, the coming or future age or world; 3. ἡοἰκουμένη (γῆ), the world as a locality and as inhabited; the world in a more concrete character than is expressed by αἰών. Hebrews 2:6.—τίἔστινἄνθρωπος. De Wette, Del., Alf. render as=ὁἄνθρωπος, man, collectively, as Eng. Ver.: Moll and Lόn. a man, individually, which accords better with the absence of the article. Hebrews 2:7.—βραχύτι, some little, in the Hebr. text, and in the citation, Hebrews 2:7, in relation to man, is “a paululum of degree;” in its application by the author to Jesus, Hebrews 2:9, it becomes a “paululum of time,” Del., contrasting his temporary humiliation with his permanent exaltation. Hebrews 2:9.—διὰτὸπάθηματοῦθανάτου, on account of his suffering of death, referring forward to ἐστεφ, crowned. The Eng. ver. “for the suffering,” etc., suggests an erroneous reference, or is at least ambiguous.—For the general construction of Heb 2:9 see exegetical notes.—K.]. AND Heb_2:5. For not unto angels did He put in subjection the coming world of which we are speaking.—The γάρ refers not back to Hebrews 1:13 (de W.), nor in form to the preceding exhortation, while, in fact, introducing an entirely new thought, parallel to the preceding, viz., that in the Son humanity is exalted above the angels (Ebr.). Nor does it introduce the ground on which the author has assigned to the revelation made through the Son a so much loftier position (Thol.), but rather the ground for the earnest exhortation to personal devotion to the system of salvation revealed through the Son. Jewish conceptions assigned to the angels a share, not merely in the giving of the Law, but also in the government of the world, and especially in influencing the events of history. It is uncertain whether Psalms 82 has such a reference; but the LXX., in rendering the obscure words, Deuteronomy 32:8 (that God, when He fixed the heritage of the nations and separated the children of men from one another, fixed the limits of the nations according to the number of the sons of Israel), makes the division to take place according to the number of the angels of God. In the following verse it is then said that the people of Israel are the portion of Jehovah Himself. The same idea is found, Sir 17:17, and with many Rabbins, who, on the ground of the list of nations, Genesis 10., assume for the seventy nations seventy angelic heads and rulers, while Israel, excepted from the number, is the special and privileged people of the Supreme God. At Daniel 10:13; Daniel 10:20; Dan. 21:12, however, we find the representation that the Jews also have such an angelic prince, who takes in charge this people as against the guardian angels at other nations; and at Tob 12:15, the seven archangels are regarded as the angelic protectors of the covenant people; and at Daniel 4:14, the fate announced to Nebuchadnezzar is indicated as the decision of the “Watchers,” and the decree of the “Holy Ones.” From these passages is explained the mode of expression here employed, in regard to which we may also recollect that the LXX. render the designation of the Messiah, Isaiah 9:6, (ΰֲ ?αִ ?ιΞςַ ?γ), according to the Cod. Alex, by πατὴρτοῦμέλλοντοςαἰῶνος, Father of the coming age. For it is not a mere absolute futurity which is meant (Theodoret, �c, Grot., Schulz), but the Messianic world (Calv.). And the order of the words, too, shows that the contrast is not between the future and the preceding world (Camero, Bl.), but, as indicated also by the absence of the Art. with ἀγγ., between angelic existences and man, to which latter class the Messianic King sustains a relation entirely unlike that which he bears to the former. Hebrews 2:6. But some one testified in a certain place.—Here is not the commencement of a new section (Heinr.), but the adversative δέ subjoins a contrast to the idea referred to and denied in the preceding clause, and over against that idea presents in a contrast indicated by its Scriptural citation, the real nature of the case. The indefiniteness of the form of citation (πού, somewhere), occurring also with Philo, (Carpz.), and with many Rabbins (Schφttg.), implies not that, as against the inscription which refers the Psalm to David, the author would ascribe it to some unknown person (Grot.), which would imply a critical habit not at this time existing; nor that, quoting from memory, he did not know the precise locality of the passage (Koppe, Schulz),—a supposition negatived partly by the verbal exactness of the citation, partly by the like mode of citing a passage entirely familiar, Hebrews 4:4 (Lόn.); nor that, regarding God or the Holy Spirit as the proper Author of the passage, he was indifferent to its human writer (Bl.), in which case τὶς would hardly have been employed; but is probably a usage purely rhetorical (so the majority after Chrys.). For that God Himself is addressed in this well known passage (Ebr.) is a matter on which no stress need be laid, since the author either might have made the Scripture the subject, or employed a passive construction. What is a man—all things under his feet.—The connection of the words in Psalms 8:5-7 shows that man, as ΰֱ ?πεֹ ?ωׁ, in contrast with heaven and the shining stars which God has ordained, is conceived immediately in his frailty and earthly lowliness, and it is purely arbitrary to introduce here,—whether into the original text, or the conception of our author (Kuin., Heinr., Bφhm., Bl., Stein, Lόn.),—the idea of the glory and dignity of man. We find rather the preceding words of the Psalm expressing the idea that God is not stumbled, so to speak, by this natural inferiority of man, but displays His own glory in selecting from such an humble sphere His instruments of victory for the confusion of His enemies. After reminding us, Hebrews 2:2, that God, whose majesty is extolled above the heavens, has also a mighty name upon the earth, the Psalmist declares in Hebrews 2:3 that out of the mouth of children and sucklings He has prepared to Himself a power against His adversaries, to subdue the enemy, the seeker of vengeance. On this follows (Hebrews 2:4) the wondering gaze at the heavens, the work of the fingers of God, and then, Hebrews 2:5, the contrasted reference to the twofold nature of man, appearing, on the one hand, frail and impotent, as a mortal dweller on the earth, as a creature of dust, and, on the other, not merely an object of loving care, but an instrument, preferred before all creatures, for the execution of the will of God. The subsequent delineations of the Psalm show that the reference is to that position of sovereignty which, according to the account of creation, man has received by virtue of his possession of the Divine image. Precisely for this reason it is added: “Thou hast made him to fall short but little of Deity.” Elohim without the Art. expresses abstractly the Divine in its super-terrestrial character,—nay, 1 Samuel 28:13; Zech. 12:19, the super-terrestrial in general, such as appertains to spirits. The Psalmist thus says, not that man is made almost equal to Jehovah, but that he has received almost a supra-terrestrial nature and position. Hence the LXX. in place of Elohim put παῤἀγγέλους. But the words of the text do not justify Calov, Vitr., Stier, Ebr., in taking not merely the βραχύτι of the Sept., but even the Heb. ξְ ?ςַ ?θ, not, of degree, but, of time, in the sense, “Thou hast for a season let him fall short of Elohim, i.e, of the intercourse and presence of the world-ruling Deity in His glory, which the angels, as inhabitants of heaven, always enjoy.” Equally unwarranted is the assumption that this glory of man is a glory as yet merely promised by God, and that the hope of the Psalmist looks to its speedy realization. For the “falling short” or “lacking” is not transferred back to the past, nor the ‘crowning’ carried forward to the future; but the two are represented as contemporaneous, and the description refers to man, not after the Fall, but in his primitive and normal condition. Precisely for these reasons can the words be applied to the Messiah, and the application made by our author, Hebrews 2:9, is facilitated by the expression, “Son of Man.” But it finds in this expression, neither its occasion nor its substantial reason, and the nature of the argument rather requires us here to regard the author as applying the parallel terms, ‘man’ and “Son of man,” to mankind in general (Bez., Storr, Ebr., Del.), than to assume in the original a direct reference of these words to Christ (Bl., Lόn.), and thus interpolate here the quite differently applied train of thought which is found at 1 Corinthians 15:25 ff.Hebrews 2:8. For in subjecting to him all things he has left nothing.—The author proceeds to draw from the words of the Psalmist a conclusion which introduces the proof of the position laid down in Hebrews 2:5. The subject of the verb is not the Psalmist, but God (Hebrews 3:15; Hebrews 8:13), and αὐτῷ refers not to the Son of man, either as appealing in Christ as a historical person (Calv., Gerh., Calov, Seb. Schmidt, Lόn., etc.), or simply as ideally conceived, but to man as such, as immediate object of Psalms 8 (Bez., Grot., Schlicht, Ebr., Del.). But neither is it his purpose to make good and justify the declaration of the Psalmist (Hofm.). This rests on the statement of Gen 1:28. It is rather to justify the declaration of the author that God has not subjected to angels the future world of which we speak. This is done by an appeal to the infallible word of Scripture that God has subjected every thing to man: this declaration admits no exception. It cannot be objected to the legitimacy of this conclusion, that the Psalmist is speaking of the present, and our author of the future world, and that he is thus unwarranted in including the οἰκουμ. μέλλ. in the category of the “all things.” With partial correctness, Del. remarks, after Hofm.: The world, as collective aggregate of what is created, coincides with the generic term, “all things,” and the present and future world are not two different things, comprehended under the τὰπάντα, but they are the τὰπάντα—the all things themselves, only in two distinct and successive forms. Still I would rather lay the emphasis on the fact that in οἰκ. μέλλ. denotes the Messianic world as that in which alone the Divine destination of man to dominion over all things can have its accomplishment. By this, attention is at once directed partly to the present position of the human race, not yet corresponding with its destiny, and partly to that fulfilment of the Divine declaration which, through Jesus the Messianic King, has been already commenced, and is pledged to an absolute completion. But now we see not as yet all things subjected to him.—The νῦνδέ is not logical,=but as the case stands, in fact, but directs our eyes to the earthly present, which shows the universe as yet not in a condition answering to its destination. By this the certain fulfilment of the divine declaration, is indeed held out in prospect for a more perfect future. But this aspect of the subject the author is not now unfolding. To assume (with Lόn), a contrast between that which we now see and that which we shall yet see, disturbs the connection, and is inconsistent with the following verse. The purpose of the author is to prove that the future or Messianic world—the world of redemption—that world which forms the proper subject of communication between him and his readers—is as far as the original world, which began with creation, from being subjected to angelic beings. Hence he institutes a double contrast of that which we now do not see: primarily a contrast with the declaration immediately preceding [viz. the inferential statement that God subjecting to man all things, has left nothing unsubjected to him]; and, secondly, a contrast with that which we now already see [viz., Jesus glorified in advance, and for the sake of, humanity.] Even the δέ in our passage should have awakened a suspicion against the common assumption that we have here an objection to the declaration of the Psalm, or a limitation of our author’s previous position inferentially derived from it. [Νῦν has here, with nearly all interpreters, the temporal signification. While entirely coinciding with the author’s general exposition, which cites the passage from the Psalm in its primary literal acceptation, and then draws out from it, by legitimate reasoning, its proper Messianic application, I yet incline strongly to the logical explanation of νῦν. The closing clause of Heb 2:8 : “For in subjecting to Him all things, etc.,” is purely logical. It seems more natural that the next should commence with a logical particle, and it is precisely because the author (as Moll maintains above) is not yet contrasting the present with the future; but an actual condition with an ideal condition, that I prefer to take νῦν in the purely logical sense, which is not inconsistent with the not yet, (or possibly not at all) of the οὔπω. I would thus render, “But as it is, in no way,” or, “But as it is, not yet do we see,” etc. Still, if we forbear to press the νῦν, its temporal acceptation harmonizes nearly as well with the reasoning as the logical. I wish to add that the passage, rightly expounded, is a beautiful specimen of the author’s skilful and profound manner of dealing with Scripture; or, perhaps we should rather say, it is a striking example of a commentary by the Spirit of inspiration on a passage which the Spirit had indited.—K.]. Hebrews 2:9. But him who has been for a little humbled below the angels, Jesus, we behold—honor. The position and import of the word ‘Jesus,’ standing in close connection with the finite verb βλέπομεν, and between the two Perf. Part. ἠλαττ. and ἐστεφ., of which the former has the Art. the latter not, present to us the historical Saviour as the person in whom the language of the Psalm has its fulfilment. The object is not a direct contrast between as yet unexalted humanity, and the already exalted Jesus, nor between the humiliation and exaltation of the Messiah; but simply this, to declare that that Jesus who was once, for a little, humbled below the angels, is well known as a person crowned on account of His suffering of death with glory and honor, and that to Him must be referred the words of the Psalm, because also now, i.e, in the period of redemption and the time of the Messiah, these infallible words of the Psalm can apply to no other “man” and “Son of man” than Jesus. While Hofmann formerly (Weiss. II. 28) regarded τὸνἠλαττ. as predicate, I̓ησοῦν as obj. and ἐστεφ. as its apposition, he now more correctly regards (Schriftb. I. 187) τὸνἠλαττ. as object., Ἰησ. as in apposition with it, and ἐστεφ. as predicate. This construction is, on grammatical grounds, preferable to that adopted by Ebr. and Del., which makes Ἰησ. the proper object of βγέπ., and ἠλαττ. its apposition, placed before it on purely rhetorical grounds. True, Lόn. goes too far in maintaining that Ἰησ. is wholly unemphatic, and could even be dispensed with. But the emphasis lies certainly on the predicates formed from the words of the Psalm, which describe the two contrasted conditions of the Lord, and hence inclose as it were between them the historical name of His person. The subjection of the world under man we as yet see not; but we see the man really characterized by the Psalm, viz: Jesus, in whose history we at the same time recognize the deeper significance of its words, and learn to give to the words, “lowered a little below the angels” a new and profounder import. The Messianic application of Psalms 8 is made in a different way by Jesus Himself at Matthew 21:16, and again in still another way by Paul 1 Corinthians 15:27. In both cases, however, Jesus is regarded as the ‘Lord,’ equal to God; and as such is also the doctrine of our author, we need not, by our anxiety to retain the historical sense of the βραχύτι, be misled into the rendering of Hofm., “Him who was well-nigh equal to the angels.” The transition of the βραχύτι of degree into the βραχύτι of time is all the more easy, from the fact that on the one hand the meaning of the phrase is in clasical Greek more commonly temporal, and that, on the other, the actual state of the case, man’s inferiority to angels, having its ground in his corporeal and mortal nature, is but transient, and limited to his earthly life; while for Jesus, this period of His life, being already completely finished, belongs now to the past. We are, in like manner, to reject Hofmann’s reference of the words: “crowned with glory and honor,” to the furnishing out and endowing of Jesus at His entrance into the world, or to His designation and appointment as Saviour; also his idea that the “suffering of death” refers to that suffering of death to which man, instead of enjoying his destined sovereignty, is subjected, and which, consequently, becomes thus the occasioning cause of the appointment of Jesus as Saviour. For Christ’s appointment as Saviour is indicated in the words, “lowered for some little below the angels,” while His “crowning” is constantly referred in the New Testament to His heavenly reward, obtained after His successful and victorious life-conflict of suffering and of faith; while again, His suffering of death appears as the ground and procuring cause of His glorification, (Hebrews 5:10; Philippians 2:9). Precisely for this reason also we are to refer the διὰτὸπάθτοῦθαν., not (with Orig., Chrys., Theod., Aug., Bez., Calov, etc.,) to ἡλαττ. but to ἐστεφ. as is also indicated by its position in the sentence. That by the grace of God, on behalf of every man, he might taste of death.—The clause commencing with ὅπως [in order that=ἴνα] and thence introducing not a mere result (Eras., Kuin., etc.) but purpose, cannot, from the nature of the thought, be connected directly with ἐστεφ. [“crowned in order that”], nor from the structure of the sentence with ἠλαττ., but must be regarded either as a pregnant exponent of πάθηματοῦθανάτου, (Thol., Lόn.), or as belonging to the entire participial predicative clause—[i.e., “crowned on account,” etc.]—(Del.) and thus assigning the reason why Jesus was exalted, not without the suffering of death, and even on account of it; or, according to my view, as final object of the two-fold declaration respecting Christ’s transfer into His two successive states of humiliation and glorification. With this explanation accords best the reasoning of the following verse; and in the present final clause itself, the author’s main point is not to explain why Jesus has gone through suffering to glory (with which understanding Grot., Carpz., Storr, Bleek, etc., supply, from the preceding πάθημα, an explanatory ὃἔπαθεν) but to declare the object to be subserved alike by the incarnation of the First Born, and the exaltation of the Crucified One in the inseparable unity of the theanthropic person Jesus, viz.: the fulfilment of the divine purpose, that Jesus should, by the grace of God, for the benefit of every one, taste of death. There is no reason for laying the entire stress on ὑπὲρπαντός, although the masc. sing is employed with a designed emphasis. The weight of the thought is rather distributed nearly equally between the impressive closing words γεύσηταιθανάτου, taste of death, the ὑπὲρπαντός, which declares the universality of the purpose and merit of His death, accomplished by His entrance into glory, and the χάριτιθεοῦ which refers back the whole, for its efficient and originating cause, to the grace of God. (We add, in passing, that the γεύσηταιθανάτου taste of death refers neither to brevity of duration—simply “tasting,” (as Chrys., Primas., Braun, etc.,) nor to the bitterness of the death (Calov), nor to its reality (Beza, Bengel), but presupposes Jesus’ personal experience of the suffering of death and his incarnation). Even the reading χωρὶςθεοῦ would not necessarily require more than a secondary stress to be laid upon ὑπὲρπαντός. This would be the most natural, as also would the neuter rendering of παντός (every thing), only in case we take the thought to be that Jesus suffered death for all existences, with the single exception of God (Orig., Theodor., Ebr.), contrary to Hebrews 2:16; or, in order, with the exception of God, to gain and subjugate every thing to Himself (Beng., Chrys., Fr. Schmidt); the thought in this case being parallel to that Ephesians 1:10, and the form of expression to 1 Corinthians 15:27. Other interpreters take the words χωρὶςθεοῦ as an independent characterization, either of the subject of the clause [Christ separately from God], or of the verb [taste of death apart from God]. The former is advocated by Theod. Mops. and his pupil Nestorius, by Ambros., Fulgent., and Colomesius, (Obb. sacr. 603), who thus made Christ to have died in His humanity, without participation of His divinity: the latter, with a reference to Matthew 27:46, by Paul., and Baumgart., (Sach. I. 359, and in the Sermon: “How the sight of Jesus, amidst the woes of life, suffices for our blessedness, Brunsw. 1856). Hofm., who formerly explained thus (Weiss. I. 92): “Jesus has tasted death, χωρὶςθεοῦ, by surrendering to death a life (commencing in time), separated from God,” has abandoned both the interpretation and the reading on which it was based. The dispute regarding its genuineness is ancient. For while Orig. (at John 1:1) declares that he had found the reading χάριτι only ἔντισιἀντιγράφοις, Jerome (ad Galatians 1:2) has, in like manner, found absque Deo only in quibusdam exemplaribus. Hebrews 2:10. For it became him—perfect through sufferings,—it seems, at first view, more natural to find the stress of the thought in διὰπαθημάτων (Lόn., Del.) than in τελειῶσαι (Thol.), by which διὰπαθημάτων is reduced to a mere secondary and incidental place. In the former case, the way so offensive to the Jews, which leads the Messiah to glory through suffering and death, is here justified as entirely worthy of God. In the other case, we should have the thought expressed that it was indispensable that He should be glorified Himself, who became to others the author of salvation. But the connection demands an equal emphasis upon both points, to which also corresponds the two-fold description of God as the Being by whom and for whom are all things. God—not Christ, as (Prim., Hunn., Dorsch., Cram., etc.)—is designated as the final cause (for whom), and the instrumental cause (by or through whom) of all, in order, at the same time, to remind the reader that alike the τελίωσις, perfecting, which is the end, and the παθήματα, sufferings, which are the means, stand respectively in corresponding relation to those respective aspects of God’s being and agency. The perfecting (τελειοῦν) embraces at once the outward and the inward, the formal and the spiritual elements of perfecting, Hebrews 9:9, the bringing the person to the goal by the complete realization and fulfilment of his entire destiny (Thol.), so that the reaching of the highest outward goal is the consequence of internal moral perfection (Camero, de W.). For the perfect (τέλειον) stands in contrast alike with the incipient, the imperfect, and the unrealized (Kφstl.). Lόn. takes the idea too restrictedly as identical with δόξ. καὶτιμ. ἐστεφ. As leading many sons—perfect through sufferings.—We might be inclined to refer the participial clause, “leading many sons,” etc., to Jesus, as in apposition with “Leader of their salvation,” (ἀρχηγὸντῆςσωτηρίας), but placed emphatically before it as in Hebrews 2:9 (so Primas., Erasm., Este, Ebr., Win.). And to this neither the absence of the Art. before ἀγαγόντα (Bφhm., Bl.), nor the expression υἱούς, sons (Lόn.), constitutes any objection. For as to the former, the participial clause is only made by the failure of the Art., subordinate to its noun [the Leader, as one who led] instead of being coφrdinated with it as in case of the employment of the Art. [the Leader who led]; and as to the latter we might say that while those brought to glory are indeed brethren of Christ, yet here they are mentioned not, in their relation to Him, as brethren, but in their relation to God as sons, especially as God is the subject of the entire sentence. But the word ἀρχηγός. (Hebrews 12:2; Acts 3:15; Acts 5:31) needs no explanatory apposition (Lόn.). It is an abridged form of ἁρχεγέτης, with which, Philo designates the first Adam, and it denotes him who, at the head of a company, goes in advance of them, and leads them to a like goal; it thus passes over into the sense of author, originator, and becomes=αἴτιος (Bl. II. 1, p. 302). The goal is here ‘salvation’ (σωτηρία), to which ‘glory’ (δόξα) in the participial clause is entirely equivalent. We refer, therefore (with Chrys., Luth., Calov, and most intpp.), this participial clause more fittingly to God, of whom then the same is said, as the expression, “Leader of their salvation,” declares in reference to Christ. He is author of salvation for a great number of children, who are styled ‘many,’ not in the sense of ‘all,’ (Seb. Schmidt), and not in antithesis to all, but in contrast to ‘few,’ and in relation to ‘the One’ (Del.). The irregular Acc. ἀγαγόντα (for Dat. ἀγαγόντι) cannot be urged (as by Carpz., Mich., etc.) against this construction; for the Accus. is the natural case for the subject of the Inf., whence also transitions into it are frequent in spite of a preceding Dat. (Kόhn., Gr. II., 346; Bernh. Synt., 367; Buttm. Gr. N. Test., 1859, p. 262). The Aor. Part. (ἀγαγόντα) was formerly commonly taken in the sense of the Pluperf., and was applied, if it was referred to God as subject, to the saints of the Old Test., as Hofm. even still says (II., 1, 39): “The God who has led many sons to glory, a Moses to the prophetic, an Aaron to the high-priestly, a David to the royal dignity, must render this Son, to whom He had given as His distinguishing vocation, the realization of that destiny of humanity which is set forth in Psalms 8, perfect through suffering.” If, on the contrary, the Part. were referred to Christ, then they were applied (as still by Win. Gr. Ed. 6) to the men already saved through the personal instructions of Jesus. But it is alike inadmissible to weaken the idea of δόξα, glory, hitherto used of Christ’s heavenly glorification, into the lower conception of an earthly, prophetic, priestly, or kingly dignity, and to make the teachings of Jesus, exclusively of His glorious exaltation acquired by sufferings, the cause of salvation. All more recent investigations, however, show that the restricting of the Aor. Part, to the past—a restriction already previously abandoned in reference to the Infin.—is inadmissible. The future signification which many expositors, as even Grotius and Bleek, following Erasmus, give to the participle, is certainly unwarrantable. And to refer it again (with Grot., Limb., Schlicht.), to the eternal purpose and decree of God, though justified by Kuinoel on the ground of an utterly erroneous canon of the earlier Rhetoricians, that the Aor. can be used de conatu, is, of course, to be rejected. “Customary” action may, indeed, be denoted by the Aor., but we are forbidden to assume such a use here, by the fact that we are required by the term ἀρχηγός to restrict the “Sons” spoken of to the New Testament times, excluding those of the Old. [I would add, that there is no such use of the Aor. Participle to denote customary action, as would, in any case, justify the construction here supposed.—K.]. This difficulty is evaded by Tholuck’s assumption, that, here, without respect to relations of time, the Part. expresses the simple way and manner of the perfection, claiming that the Aor. connected with the finite verb, may express that which is contemporaneous with the finite verb, whether mention of this be present or future. To this Lόn. objects, that while the Aor. Infin. may be thus used irrespectively of time, this usage does not extend to the Part., and that ἀγαγόντα cannot express the way and manner of the τελειῶσαι—the perfecting—inasmuch as the personal objects of the two verbs are different, ἀγαγόντα having for its object υἱούς, sons, and τελειῶσαι, the Captain, τὸνἀρχηγόν. The former remark, however, does not touch the examples adduced by Tholuck; and the latter appears to rest on a misapprehension. For the “perfecting” of Jesus, as ‘Leader of salvation,’ has been historically accomplished in His person in no other way and manner than by having had personally His career and course of life in a communion and fellowship of men believing on Him, and transformed by Him into children of God, who, after His manner and type, were led to glory—(a manner and type which Jac., Cappell. and Grot. restrict too exclusively to sufferings). To this also comes substantially the explanation of Lόn. himself, viz., that from the stand-point of the writer, the participial clause stands in causal relation to the main proposition, and that the Aor. Part. is justified by the fact that in reality God, from the moment Christ came upon earth as Redeemer, and found faith existing, led to glory, that is, put upon the way to glory, those who had become believers in Him. [The knot of the difficulty of the Aor. Part. ἀγαγόντι is scarcely yet untied. That it may grammatically be equally well referred either to God, or to the ‘Leader of salvation,’ Christ, seems unquestionable; and in either construction it makes nearly equally good sense, and is liable substantially to the same difficulties. Granting it, however (as with most, I, on the whole, prefer), to be connected with God (to which, as Moll justly remarks, and for the reason which he assigns, the Acc. case of the Part. constitutes no objection), it still remains a question why, and in precisely what sense, the Aor. Part. is used. That, like the Inf., it can be used without specific reference to past time, and that, in a certain sense, it takes its time from its accompanying finite verb, is unquestionable. It usually thus either denotes an act actually, or ideally and logically separable from that expressed by the finite verb, and conceived as logically prior to it, or, as remarked by Thol., expresses its way and manner. Thus to give examples of its several uses: 1. Of its frequent use as applied to past time: “God, after speaking (λαλήσας) to the Fathers, spoke to us,” etc. “Opening (ἀνοίξαντες) their treasures, they presented.” They opened their treasures and presented. 2. Of contemporaneous action actually distinct: “On seeing (ἰδόντες) the star, they rejoiced.” They saw the star before they could rejoice, and yet they rejoiced as soon as they saw the star. Logically, the seeing preceded the rejoicing: chronologically they were simultaneous. 3. A still stronger case of the merely logical separation: “Answering (ἀποκριθείς) he said=he answered and said. The ‘answering’ and ‘saying’ are absolutely and completely one and the same act, but the mind views it under two distinct aspects, and of these the ‘answering’ is logically anterior to the ‘saying.’ So “Jesus crying with a loud voice, said, Father,” etc., here, as in the preceding, the distinction of time is purely logical, the ‘crying’ and ‘saying’ being two aspects of the same act. 4. These latter examples often run into way and manner: “Answering, he said”=“he answered and said,” or nearly=he said in the way of answering. Πιὼνφάρμακονἀπέθανεν, ‘he drank poison and died,’ or here more exactly, “he died of drinking poison.” Plato does not mean to say (Phζd. I.) “after drinking poison he died,” but “he drank poison and died,” or better, “he died by drinking poison.” Hence the Aor. Part. sometimes denotes almost or quite purely, ‘way and manner.’ 5. We may remark, that the Aor. Part. may be employed to denote an idea that is strictly subordinate to that of the accompanying verb, or really coφrdinate with it, and of equal, or even superior importance. Thus, ‘He directed me coming (ἐλθόντα) to inform him,’ might be either, ‘he directed me after coming, to inform him,’ or ‘to come and inform him;’ and only the connection can show whether the act expressed by the Part. is included in the command, or only presupposed by it. Thus “He commanded him, arising, (ἐγερθέντα) to take the child and flee,” might be either “on or after arising, to take the child and flee,” or to arise and take, etc. The connection only can positively determine. In view of the above, the natural renderings of the Aor. Part. here would be: 1. (with Hofm.). It became him, etc., “after leading many sons to glory,” which, however, is nearly impossible as to the thought, even after rejecting Hofmann’s absurd reference of it to Christ’s Old Testament predecessors, and referring it, as we might possibly do, to all the righteous whom God had formerly led to glory. One grand objection to this is, that the Old Testament saints had not as yet been led to glory (Hebrews 11:39-40). Or 2. It became him “by leading many sons to glory,” with Thol. making the Part. express the way and manner. To this, however, Lφnemann’s objection is valid, that then the Part. and the verb ought to have the same personal object, as it seems difficult to see how God could perfect Jesus, one being, by leading many sons, other beings, to glory, unless we reply with Moll that the career of our Lord was so intimately blended with the life of His people, that His perfection was really accomplished in the process—not exclusively of suffering—by which they were brought to glory. This answer is ingenious, but hardly satisfactory. Or 3. Taking the Part. not as expressing a subordinate, but a coφrdinate or principal idea: It became him to lead many sons, etc., and to make: which, however, it must be confessed, hardly seems to be the writer’s idea. To render the Part. as future, being about to lead, or for the purpose of leading (ἄξοντα or ὡςἄξοντα), or as present while leading (ἄγοντα), is out of the question. It is, indeed, possible to render it ‘as leading’ absolutely,=‘as one who led;’ and this perhaps, all things considered, is the best mode of constructing it. But this is harsh, and I know of no strictly parallel examples in Greek prose. Exceptional constructions in the poets are hardly worth the citing, even if they can be found. Were there even any slight external authority for ἄγοντα or ἄξοντα, on internal grounds I should hardly hesitate to adopt it. The rendering of the Eng. vers., ‘in bringing many sons,’ etc., would naturally require ἐντῶἅγειν, or at the least, the Pres. Part., ἄγοντα.—K.]. Hebrews 2:11. For both he that sanctifieth and they—are all from one.—Having designated Jesus as the ‘Son of God,’ the author now justifies his application of the same term to those who believe in Him. Not barely the One, but also the others (τε—καί); not merely the Sanctified (Peirce, Beng.), but they together with the Sanctifier, i.e., with Jesus Christ (Hebrews 9:13; Hebrews 13:12), are from One. “From one” (ἐξἑνός) expresses not likeness of nature and character (ejusdem naturζ et conditionis spiritualis, Calv., Camero), but simply community of origin; and this not ex communi massa (J. Cappell, Akersloot); not “from one seed, or blood, or stock,” (ἐξἑνός scil. σπέρματος, or αἵματος, or γένους, as Carpz., Abresch, etc.); nor from Adam (Erasm., Bez., Este, etc.), but from God. For the language relates not to that relationship subsequently adverted to Hebrews 2:14, by joint participation in humanity, but to spiritual brotherhood with Christ, a brotherhood founded in that translation from the darkness of a life estranged from God into a union with Him as the perfectly pure and absolute and essential light, which Christ, as the Sanctifier, has wrought for us as the sanctified. This is effected, as is subsequently shown, by the high-priestly work, which Jesus Christ, as eternal Priestly King, accomplishes in heaven. For by ἁγιάζειν our Epistle denotes the accomplishment of the actual commencement of the true fellowship of individuals with God, in the Covenant relation which God Himself has instituted, on the basis of the expiation wrought by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and in virtue of the purification obtained through the blood of Jesus Christ, under the point of view of dedication to a Divine relationship, Hebrews 9:13 f.; Hebrews 10:10; Hebrews 10:14; Hebrews 10:29; Hebrews 13:12. This expression also has its origin in the terminology of the Old Testament, but has within the sphere of New Testament fulfilment and realization, a more than merely nominal and ritual significance. The Pres. Part. may stand without reference to distinction of time, in the sense of substantives (Winer), [that is, any Participle may, with the Article, be employed in the sense of a concrete substantive, as the Infinitive with the Art. is employed in the sense of the abstract (τὸἁγιάζεσθαι, the being sanctified: ὁἡγιασμένος, he who has been sanctified), while the Pres. tense denotes, according to the nature of the case, that which is going on at the time specified by the principal verb, or that which from time to time or habitually takes place. Thus οἱἁγιαζόμενοι may denote “those who are being sanctified, or are in process of sanctification,” or, “those who, from time to time, are sanctified,” i.e., the successive classes of the sanctified.—K.]. It is a characteristic of Christ to exercise this ministry: of us to receive its influence and efficient power. Thus we are ‘from God’ (John 8:47; 1 John 4:6), and the language can be applied to Jesus, as here the subject is the Saviour’s earthly and historical relation to God. Hence we need not find the ‘Father’ in Abraham (Drus., Peirce, Beng.), nor again refer to God as creative (Chrys. and the Fathers), but as spiritual Father (Grot., Limb., etc.). And thus, under this connection, we need not take the words as denoting a properly universal relation (Hofm.) restricted in its application to Christ and Christians by a reference to the O. T. priesthood (Schlicht., Gerh., etc.). They refer directly to Christ and Christians. For which reason he is not ashamed to call them brethren.—In accordance with the character of the Epistle, the author appeals not to the words of Jesus Himself regarding this his fraternal relation, but regards it as belonging essentially to the fulfilment of the Messiah’s vocation; and hence, as so typified in the O. Test., that alike David the Theocratic Ruler, and Isaiah the prophetic Servant of Jehovah, recognize, feel, and express this their relation in the Church, and embrace in a unity with themselves those who otherwise are subordinated to them, and dependent upon them. In subjoining, therefore, his proof passages, the writer adds: “for which cause he is not ashamed,” an expression which points on the one hand to the distinction between Christ’s Sonship and that of believers (Chrys., Theod.); and on the other, to his sincere and hearty condescension to this fellowship, in proof of which are now given three citations from the Scripture. Hebrews 2:12. Saying, I will declare, etc.—The first passage is from Psalms 22:23, according to the LXX, except that ἀπαγγελῶ is substituted for διηγήσομαι. David, amidst the sore distress of his flight from before Saul, reposes in faith, as one whom Samuel had anointed, upon the promise made to him of the throne, and declares, in the midst of affliction, not merely this assurance of deliverance and exaltation, but also his determination to declare on this account to his brethren in the congregation, to the seed of Jacob, to them that fear Jehovah, the name, the grace, the help of the Lord, and summon them to join him in praising God. We need assume neither that Christ speaks in David, nor that the Psalmist has transferred himself into the person of Christ. Nor need we interpose the ideal or abstract righteous person (Heng.) in order to justify the Messianic application of this Psalm. We can conceive it as purely typical (Hofm.), or, regarding the prophecy of history as here united with verbal prophecy, we may regard it as typico-prophetical (Del.). The second passage is found three times in the form πεποιθὼςἔσομαιἐπ’ αὐτῶ ?—I will put my trust in him,—so that the author has merely reversed the order of the first two words, and prefixed an emphatic ἐγώ. The passage Isaiah 12:2, cannot possibly be referred to; while that 2 Samuel 22:3 is intrinsically suitable. Still we are not necessarily forced to this from the fact that a καίπάλιν separates it from the third (Isaiah 8:17) as well as from the first (Ebr.). Rather we may more naturally refer it to Isaiah 8:17, because the immediately following verse in Isaiah is employed as the third citation, and the separation of the two verses springs not from the author’s wish to accumulate proofs (Lόn.), but from the two passages presenting the relation in question under two different aspects (Del.); first, that the speaker associates himself with his brethren in a common attitude of spirit toward God, viz., that of confidential trust, which belongs properly to all the children of God; secondly, that he embraces in one himself and the children that God has given him. Of course these two passages refer but typically to Jesus; but this typical view is entirely legitimate. For Isaiah, whose very name points to the Saviour, not merely prophesies with prophetic words, but has also begotten children who are partly pledges for the salvation of Jehovah, which is to come after affliction and through judgment, and partly, like him, point by their names symbolically to this relation, and by their position prefigure it. It is hence needless to assume (as Bl., Lόn.) that the author has been led by the καὶἐρεῖ, introduced by the LXX. before Isaiah 8:17, to suppose that the Messiah is the speaker, in that these words appeared to point to another subject than the prophet, who, in the whole section, has spoken in the first person, and also to another subject than God, since the latter is in the ἐπ’ αὐτῶ named as He in whom the speaker puts his trust. AND ETHICAL1. Angels may, indeed, sometimes be conceived as guardian spirits of individual men, and as heads of entire nations, and are also designated in Scripture as dominions, principalities, and powers, which in themselves, again, have distinctions of position, of power, and of rank. But a dominion over the world is never ascribed to them, neither over the world of creation, nor over that of redemption. It is, for this reason, folly to invoke them as helpers of our need, or to expect from them any saving intercession. 2. The destination of man to the dominion of the world, has the possibility of its realization in his possession of the divine image. Hence, under the dominion of sin, the actual condition of man cannot correspond to his Divine destination. But on account of man’s susceptibility of redemption, and in reference to his future redemption, the attainment of this destination becomes the goal of history, and is an essential part of the Divine promises. 3. The attainment of this destination of our race, can be reached by individuals only on the ground of redemption, and that, too, in that new world, which, in its hidden ground and germ, is already present; but in its glorified form of manifestation, is still in the future. It is linked completely, and in all respects, with the mediation of Christ as the Redeemer. But those who, through Him, have become children of God, will, by virtue of their birthright, enter into the possession of the promised land (Matthew 5:6), and of the world (Romans 4:13), and sitting with Him upon the throne of His glory (Matthew 19:28), and on the seat of His Father (Revelation 3:21; Revelation 5:10) will reign with Him as priestly kings (Romans 5:17; 2 Timothy 2:12), and as His saints will judge the world (1 Corinthians 6:2), and the angels (Hebrews 2:3). 4. That which for humanity is still in the future, we see in the person of Jesus Christ already realized. In Him the destiny of man is attained, so that in Him, idea and realization are united. An ancient voice from the synagogue (with Del., p. 59, from Biesenthal’s Rabb. Comm., 1857, p. 1) says: “The mystery of Adam is the mystery of the Messiah; Adam is the anagram of ΰ֯ ?γν, γ֯ ?εψ, ξ֯ ?ωׁ ?ιη. And the midrash at Psalms 104:1 : “God lent to Moses δεγ, and to Joshua δγψ in that he purposed yet, in accordance with Psalms 21:6, to lend both to King Messiah.” 5. But precisely for this reason has also the history of Jesus an inestimable value. We have in it no mythological presentation of religious ideas, no symbolical expression of general relations, no moral portraiture of the ideal man, as a postulate of reason and of conscience; but, however wide-reaching may be this history, and flexible and various in its applications, it is yet in its being matter of fact that it has its true significance and importance. For the peculiarity of the Christian faith is not the idea of communion with God, and the idea of a salvation furnished by the theanthropic personalities and arrangements. This is rather a characteristic of all religious faith. The distinguishing feature of the Christian faith is the certainty of the realization of salvation, for eternal ages and for all believers, a realization accomplished in a single historical subject, in Jesus of Nazareth, and by the acts of His life. 6. Although men, by the fact that they live in a body of flesh and blood, hold for the time being a position subordinated to angels, as heavenly spirits, yet it is precisely in this relationship with earthly creatures, above whom men are again, by their spiritual natures, specifically exalted, that there exists the possibility of man’s central position and of his history in his fall and redemption within the sphere of the universe. He is the creaturely, as Christ is the uncreated, head of the creation. 7. The glorification of the body in the future world, whose type and pledge we behold, in the Son of man, crowned with glory and honor at the right hand of the Father, and the participation of the whole thus glorified man, in the glory of the Lord, elevates him completely and forever above the angels. His subordination to these, is but “for a little,” in respect alike of degree and time. 8. Patient endurance in our present position, in which we as yet see not the fulfilment of our destiny, and of the promises relating to it, is rendered difficult to us by our sufferings, but is rendered easy by the participation and example of Christ. Sufferings have been for Him no hinderance, but rather the ground and means of His glorification; hence we are not to be displeased at the sufferings which we ourselves experience, and are to take no offence at the sufferings of Jesus Christ, but in order rightly to understand and profit by them, are to have regard to their cause and their purpose. 9. A remembrance of that crowning of Christ which has been achieved by sufferings, and the declaration of the gracious purpose of God, in the death of Christ, viz., that Christ tasted death for us, should, on the one hand, awaken our consciousness of guilt, on the other, strengthen our faith in the redemption already secured, and our hope of the glorification yet to be attained: for alike Christ’s suffering and His coronation have sprung neither from accident, nor from any natural necessity, nor from caprice, nor from outward compulsion; but have taken place in free love, in willing obedience, according to God’s gracious purpose for the accomplishment of the true end and destination of the world. 10. The final object of the world, is to reflect back the glory of God. It can fulfil this object only under the dominion of man who corresponds with his destination, i.e., who mirrors in himself the glory of God. In the attainment of this, his destination, man has been hindered by sin, but sin does not merely hinder his reaching the goal; it brings him into positive destruction. Thus for the accomplishment of the world’s destiny, a deliverer of the race becomes indispensable, who has been Himself incorporated into it, as a member, yet whose life is of such a nature, that He can work vicariously, and by His own progress through suffering to glory, can become the author, pioneer, and captain of salvation, for the children whom God leads to glory. 11. The birth and introduction of this indispensable Deliverer, is no result of mere natural development or product of the natural course of human affairs, but a work of Divine freedom and love, corresponding to the holy nature of the Eternal and Omnipotent One, who from everlasting to everlasting has, as to Himself and as to all things, absolute knowledge and control, and has Himself placed Himself, not merely in His glory, as the end, for the sake of which, but in His goodness and might as the cause by means of which, all beings are and exist. The means by which we, as redeemed ones are led to glory, correspond, therefore, alike to the ultimate end and the nature of Him who has both ordained the end, and arranged the means. 12. The fellowship which Christ has with those who are led to glory, rests, in its ultimate ground, on their common origin from one and the same Father. They are all children of God, by virtue of their birth from God. But this fellowship includes an essential diversity. Christ is the eternal Son of God, of like nature with the Father, and hence even in His state of humiliation, needs no regeneration of His nature from the corruption of sin, but only, by virtue of His true humanity, was susceptible and participant of perfection in the pathway of suffering. As the proper and peculiar (ἴδιος, Romans 8:32) Son of the Father He is in Himself ἅγιος (holy). But by virtue of the perfection of His life in the flesh, He, as ἁγιάζων, sanctifier, imparts, by taking away sin and communicating His holy obedience (Hebrews 9:13-14; Hebrews 10:10; Hebrews 10:14; Hebrews 10:29; Hebrews 13:12) this quality to those who by adoption and regeneration receive the Divine Sonship, and acknowledges expressly the common brotherhood which He has with them preλminently on the spiritual side. AND To what shall we adhere, amidst the contradictions of our earthly life, and amidst the strifes and turmoil of the world? 1. To the word of God, which announces to us the truth; 2. to the grace of God, which works our salvation; 3. to the Son of God, who has become our brother.—Wherewith shall we comfort and sustain ourselves amidst the sufferings of time? 1. With hope of the glory of the future world. 2. With faith in the certainty of our redemption in Christ Jesus. 3. With the love of the children of God.—We shall triumph victoriously over all dangers which threaten us, if we—1, keep in our eye our destination to that dominion over the world which God has given us; 2, tread the path to perfection which God has ordained and pointed out to us; 3, allow ourselves to be led with all the children of God in following Jesus as the Captain of our salvation.—The greatness and power of the wondrous grace of God is most clearly discoverable by us: 1, in the preλminence to which in the creation He destined us above all creatures; 2, in the accomplishment of our redemption by the giving of His Son for us; 3, in leading the redeemed to sanctification, and to a perfected life in glory.—The Sonship which we possess with God is: 1, a work of grace which binds us to grateful acknowledgment of our unworthiness, and the Divine compassion; 2, a state of salvation which summons us to abiding trust in the Lord; 3, a common brotherhood which stimulates to mutual love in our following after Christ.—Why it is needful and good in all cases to put confidence in God the Lord: 1, because He is the God through whom, as the Almighty, all things are: 2, in like manner, the God for whose sake all things are, for the manifestation of His glory; 3, and further, the God who, as the absolutely truthful One, certainly executes the utterances of His lips; 4, who, as the compassionate One, stoops to His creatures in their necessities; 5, and as the Holy, Ever-living, Unchangeable God, in the only fitting way brings His purposes to accomplishment.—The way through suffering to glory is ordained for us of God: 1, on account of our sins, which hinder us in the promised attainment of our destiny: 2, by the grace of God, which will lead many children to glory; 3, after the pattern of Jesus Christ, who, as Captain of our salvation, was made perfect through sufferings.—From temporal sufferings spring eternal joys if they bring us: 1, under the guidance of God; 2, into the following of Christ; 3, into eternal glory. Starke:—Everything is subject to Christ, not only in this world, but also in the future. O that in true obedience of faith we may henceforth subject ourselves to Him, that we may not be obliged to bow to His chastisement as Judge!—Of the majesty and glory of Christ we must judge not according to our reason or sense, but solely according to the word of God; otherwise we shall go widely astray, 1 Corinthians 2:9.—The character of Christ’s Kingdom is not worldly, but invisible and spiritual. What wonder, then, that we cannot comprehend with our senses the character of His majestic Presence and Dominion? John 18:36; Luke 17:20-21.—As one portion of the prophecy regarding Christ is already fulfilled, viz., that He should be crowned with glory and honor, we need not doubt that the rest will also be fulfilled, and that all things will be brought perfectly beneath His feet.—The grace, love and compassion of God are the source of our entire salvation; but the love of the Father was also the love of the Son, Galatians 2:20. Observe that the expiatory death of Christ is to be for the benefit of all men, without exception, and is to be applied to them under the condition of faith, 1 Timothy 2:6.—Precious word! The Lord Christ has tasted death for us, that we might live before Him, Romans 5:10; Colossians 1:22.—If God has taken this method with His Son, that He should be exalted by suffering, then must we also, through many tribulations, enter into eternal life, Acts 14:22; Christ is our “breaker,” Micah 2:13.—Christ, the Captain of thy salvation, has been made perfect by sufferings; why, then, thou cross-shunner, wilt thou not go a like way? 1 Peter 4:13.—Believers are indeed brethren of Christ, on account of His human nature, but actually to bear the title and that from love is a work of the grace which they do not deserve. For He, the Brother and Head, is of far greater glory than His members.—The haughtiness of man must be put to shame before the condescension of Christ, who acknowledges us as His brethren. How unreasonable in us not to bear the shame of the poverty, or sinfulness, or impurity of our nearest friends, when Christ bears the shame of our sins!—Behold how men are honored even yet above the angels! Holy and glorious as are these latter, they are not brethren of the Son of God. Should it not arouse us to an humble, indeed, but still joyful praise of God, that we not only have Christ our Brother on the throne of the Divine Majesty, but are also ourselves with Him to be raised to the like royal dignity?—Believers are brethren of Jesus and Sons of God. What a consolation! How is it possible that they should ever be sorrowful? Romans 8:17.—All men are delivered over to Christ for the attainment of salvation; but happy are they who also deliver up themselves in the appropriation of it by the influence of the Holy Spirit, John 6:44.—If Christ the Lord of Heaven and Earth is not ashamed to acknowledge us as His brethren, we also should be mindful with all diligence to maintain brotherly love among ourselves, and to evince it by words and deeds.—The exclamation, “Behold, I,” expresses: 1, that the Messiah exhibits Himself as present, and, as with the finger, points to Himself: Behold, here am I! Isaiah 40:5; Isaiah 40:9; Isaiah 52:6-7; Isaiah 2, that His appearance in the flesh would be wondrous and remarkable, Isaiah 7:14; Isaiah 9:5; 1 Timothy 3:16; 1 Timothy 3, His readiness and perfect willingness to speak, to do, and to suffer, that which had been laid upon Him, Is. L. 4, 5; Psalms 41:7-9; Psalms 4, that it was He to whom the eyes of all Israel were to look, nay, also the heathen, Isaiah 45:22.—If it is said of Christ that He reposes His confidence in God, He is not regarded in His character as God, but as having become man, and as executing His assumed work of redemption. And this confidence involves in itself: 1, that the Messiah would exhibit Himself in a lowly, poor and unprotected condition; 2, that He would be in much suffering and danger from enemies; 3, that He would not at all times make use of His Divine power, but would surrender His life to the power of His Father; 4, that He would have abiding assurance of the Divine willingness to aid him.—It was in accordance with Divine: 1, love, that it should discover so effectual a means for the restoration of our lost bliss; 2, righteousness, that it should be such a means as should render satisfaction to righteousness itself; 3, wisdom, that the love and righteousness of God should, through this means, unitedly and in equal measure, distinguish themselves; 4, truth, in order that that which God in the Old Testament had promised at so great cost, and had prefigured in so many types, should be fulfilled, and the Head should stand, in respect to suffering, in close communion with the members; 5, honor, that this might thereby be most gloriously promoted.—God has done every thing which He has done for the manifestation and glorifying of His name, and this with the most entire propriety; otherwise He who possesses perfectly in Himself all glory, would have, as it were, denied Himself. Thus must the honor of God be placed as the object in all things, Psalms 115:1; Ephesians 1:5-6.—Believers under the Old Testament were equally with those in the New Testament, brethren of the Lord Jesus, Matthew 12:50. Berlenburger Bible:—Future things we must hold fast by means of the past and present. But men spring away from them and submit to no struggle. While they grasp after that which glitters, and despise the unostentatious, they wage absolutely no conflict. Many would have only glory, and would only become Lords with their Messiah; therefore they have utterly lost Christ. They would have a king in Christ, but not a bleeding priest.—What to our corrupt eyes appears abominable, is “becoming” in the eyes of God. This becomingness we should always study; all other decorum, all that otherwise belongs to well being, or is reckoned as such, our art may well let pass.—Since we have lost our case by evil doing, it must be recovered by suffering. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ V The incarnation renders the Son of God susceptible of suffering and death, and thus fitted to become a high-priest with God, for the redemption of mankind Hebrews 2:14-1814 Forasmuch then as the children are [joint] partakers of flesh and blood [of blood and flesh], he also himself likewise [in a similar manner, παραπλησίως] took part of [in] the same; that through death he might destroy [bring to naught, render impotent, καταργήση] him that had [hath] the power of death, that is, the devil; 15And deliver them, who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 16For verily he took not on him the nature of angels [For it is not assuredly (οὐγὰρδήπου) angels whom he rescueth (ἐπιλαμβάνεται)]; but he took on him [he rescueth] 17 the seed of Abraham. Wherefore [whence, ὅθεν] in all things it behooved him to be made like [to be assimilated, δμοιωθῆναι] unto his brethren, that he might be [become γένηται] a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, [in order] to make reconciliation [propitiation] for the sins of the people. 18For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted [or, hath suffered by being himself tempted], he is able to succor them that are tempted. [Hebrews 2:14—ἐπεὶοὖν, since, inasmuch, then.—κεκοινώκηκεν, have participated, and still participate, the perfect marking the permanent condition, in contrast with the Aor. μετέσχεν, took part in, participated in, as a historical act.—παραπλησίως, similarly, in like manner.—τὸντὸκράτοςἕχοντα, the one having=him who was having, who had, or, him who is having, who has. It is better here to take the participle as describing a general and abiding attribute of the devil, him who has, etc., the Potentate of Death. Hebrews 2:15.—τούτουςὅσοι. Eng. ver., them that. This rendering does not quite adequately represent the original, which is=these, these persons, as many as, describing mortals who, as a class, are victims of death.—τοῦζῆν=τοῦβίου, but used here, doubtless, in sharper antithesis to θάνατος.—ἔνοχοιδουλείας, held under, obnoxious to, bondage. Matthew 5:22, ἔνοχοςτῆκρίσει, held under, obnoxious, liable to the judgment, scarcely adequately rendered by in danger of. Matthew 26:66, ἔνοχοςτοῦθανάτου, liable to death; Eng. ver. guilty of death. Hebrews 2:16.—οὐγὰρδήπου, for not you see doubtless, πού, I suppose, perhaps, softening δή—ἀγγέλων without art, as a class, and emphatic in its position before the verb=for not, indeed, is it angels whom he rescues, etc.—ἐπιλαμβάνεται, not as Eng. ver., “to take on him the nature,” but “to lay hold upon for succor, to rescue.” The former; once the prevailing rendering but it is now generally rejected. See Moll’s note. Ἐπί has reference not to the subject of the verb, but to its object, “to lay hold upon.” Hebrews 2:17.—ὁμοιόω, to make like, to assimilate; ὁμοιωθῆναι, to be made like, to be assimilated.—ἴναγένηται, that he might (strictly, may) become, not be, as so often in Eng. ver. Hebrews 2:18.—May be very variously rendered, as “for being himself tempted in that wherein he hath suffered;” or, “being tempted in that wherein he hath himself suffered,” etc. Moll renders, “For in how far he hath suffered as one that was himself tempted.” The rendering of the Eng. ver. is, perhaps, as good as any. See note below.—K.]. AND Heb_2:14. Since, therefore, the children have common share in flesh and blood.—Share, i.e., not with their ancestors (Volkmar), but with one another. The children (παιδία) are those mentioned in the verse preceding, who possess not merely a common spiritual nature from a like divine source, but, as real men, have a common earthly nature, which, as is customary, is designated by its two leading sensuous constituents—flesh and blood; the blood, however, being first mentioned with a half latent reference, probably, to the subsequently-mentioned atoning death of the Redeemer. The connectives, ἐπεὶοὖν, however, show that the link of connection is by no means the mere word “children” (Hofm.); while, on the other hand, there is no ground for Lφnemann’s assertion, springing from the false idea that Hebrews 2:11-13 are merely incidental, and that Hebrews 2:14 returns to the main thought in Hebrews 2:10—that οὖν, while grammatically belonging to the protasis, “since the children,” etc., belongs, logically, to the apodosis, “he himself took part,” etc. The clause with ἐπεί, rather, keeping before our eye the constant principle of natural relationship (partaker of flesh and blood) carries us over from the typical relation, by no means incidentally touched, to the relation which exists in Christ; the οὖν, showing that the thought is regarded as inferential, inasmuch as it is a fact (the author would say), that the “children”—not children generally, but the children in question—are not ideal forms, but actual men, it follows that the incarnation of the Son of God, which renders Him susceptible of suffering, is the appropriate and essential means for attaining the divine purpose of transferring, by means of redemption, men, become subjects of bondage, into a true filial relation to God. 2. He also himself, in like manner, took part in the same.—The aor., μετέσχεν, points to the assuming of human nature as a thing belonging absolutely to the past, while the perf. κεκοινώνηκεν indicates the permanent condition springing from the act of κοινωνεῖν (here having its regular classical construction with the Gen.) Παραπλησίως is certainly not a weakened ὁμοίως; for the author says, Hebrews 2:17, κατὰπάντα (Hofm., Del.); and he holds to no mere analogy of the life of Jesus to a real human life, or a general similarity in some individual points, generating a quasi kindred relation. His object is rather to assert the true and complete humanity of the Son of God. But the adv. is not, therefore, with de Wette, to be rendered “in like manner,” nor with Bleek, “in equal measure;” but expresses at once the actual approximation, and yet the never-to-be-forgotten or overleaped distinction of Jesus Christ, from all other men, as at Romans 8:3; Philippians 2:7. Ὁλόγοςοἱονεὶσὰρξγίνεται. Orig. c. Cels., IV., 15. That by means of death he might destroy him, etc.—The doing away of death in the kingdom of the Messiah, is matter of prophecy, Isaiah 25:8; Hosea 13:14; Daniel 12:2-3. Κράτοςτοῦθανάτου is not the power of putting to death, which belongs to God alone. Nor is κράτος to be taken absolutely, nor τοῦθανάτου as Gen. Subj. (Ebr.) with the too artificial and far-fetched thought that the phrase refers to the tyrannical dominion of death (1 Corinthians 15:5-6), which, by means of original sin, the devil has obtained and perpetually exercises, Wis 2:24; Romans 5:12. “He holds this dominion not as a Lord, but as an executioner” (Quenstδdt). The expression may, perhaps, with Thol., be explained from the author’s blending the idea of Death and of Hades, both together personified as Rulers (Revelation 1:8; Revelation 1:6; Revelation 8:20, 14), and representing the devil at the same time as Lord of Hades, of whose keys the Redeemer has obtained possession (Revelation 1:18). At all events the “devil” is not here identical with the angel of death (who is not in Jewish Angelology confounded with Sammael), but he is the murderer of men, ἀνθρωποκτόνος, from the beginning (John 8:44), whose dominion stands in essential and causative connection with all death (Del.). “The will of Satan is always unjust, his power never! for his will he has from himself, his power from God.” (Greg. Magn at Job I. 11). Καταργεῖν with the classics=to render impotent, is employed by Paul for the complete putting down of hostile powers (1 Corinthians 15:24), and specially of death (1 Corinthians 15:26; 2 Timothy 1:10). The word occurs with Paul twenty-eight times, elsewhere in the New Testament only here and Luke 13:7. It stands Ezra 4:21; Ezra 4:23; Ezra 5:5; Ezra 6:8, as rendering of the Aramζan αַּ ?θֵּ ?μ. Substantial parallels in thought, are found Genesis 3:15; Isaiah 25:8; 1 John 3:8. Θανάτου is not to be specialized by supplying αὐτοῦ, his death. This would mar the thought which is correctly given by Primasius: “Arma quζ fuerunt illi quondam fortia adversus mundum, hoc est mors, per earn Christus illum percussit, sicut David, abstracto gladio Goliζ, in eo caput illius amputavit, in quo quondam victor ille solebat fieri.” “It is death itself, and as such, which Jesus has made the means of annihilating the ruler of death. In the person of Jesus there has commenced a life of humanity, which triumphs over the deadly power of Satan, after this power had brought that life (a life of blood and flesh similar to ours), in which Jesus becomes subjected to it, into a death which has rather proved the death of death” (Hofm., Schriftb., II., 1, p. 274). Hebrews 2:15. And deliver these who—were subject to bondage.—The discussion proceeds now to designate the subjects of the incarnation and death of Christ. These great acts have reference not to beings exempt from death, but to beings who are held under bondage to the fear of death (Del.). It is mankind, as a class, strikingly characterized by this language, as distinguished from angels or demons, that are the objects of redemption. The limitation is expressed by the prefixed τούτους, these, while the subjoined ὅσοι, as many as, whosoever, intimates that within the sphere of this limitation, the totality of the members of the class are included. Grammatically δουλείας might be constructed with ἀπαλλάξη, and φόβῳ with ἔνοχοι, as by Bφhme and Abresch, inasmuch as ἔνοχος may be equally well constructed with the Dat. as with the Gen. But the position of the words is adverse to this construction. [The rendering then would be, “and deliver those as many as, through their whole life, were held under the fear of death, from bondage.” This gives to ἀπαλλάξη such a Gen. as might very naturally follow it, instead of leaving it to stand absolutely; but on the other hand, Alf. following Bleek, remarks that ἔνοχοι with the Gen. has rather the force of a noun the subjects of; with the Dat. that of a participle, liable to, and therefore would here be better conjoined with the δουλείας, “subjects of bondage,” than with the φόβῳθαν.—On the whole, the ordinary construction seems preferable.—K. ]. “Φόβος and δοῦλος are interchangeable ideas (Romans 8:15), as fear of death, and consciousness of guilt; when the latter is removed, comes in childlike boldness (παῤῥησία), and the state of bondage has disappeared.” (Thol.). Hebrews 2:16. For it is not assuredly angels whom he, etc.—The correct interpretation of ἐπιλαμβ. τινος (=to lay hold of one in order to secure him for oneself, here, to lay hold of in aid, to succor), was, according to Thol., first expressed by Castellio in his translation, 1551, and stigmatized by Beza as execranda audacia. The whole ancient Church, followed by Erasm. and the Reformers, in the 17 cent, the Reformed Moresius and the Luth. Scherzer, Calov, Seb. Schmidt and Chr. Wolf, explained it erroneously of the assumption of human nature; Camero defended the correct rendering in the most thorough manner; the Socinians (except Socinus himself) immediately accepted it; the Catholic Ribera (1606) chose rather to confess that he did not understand Paul than reject the interpretation of so many Fathers, and even Rich. Simon censured the admission of the change into the version of the Port Royal. Ebrard also overlooks the Pres. tense, and the δήπου (=‘I think,’ ‘I should suppose;’ or, ‘surely perhaps,’ ‘surely I suppose,’ Hart, Partikellehre, I., p. 285), and thinks (as did formerly Hofm.) that the author appeals to the well-known fact that God entered not with angels into a gracious covenant relation, but with the seed of Abraham. But the train of thought by no means suggests (as που in Hebrews 2:6) any special passage of the Old Testament, although the erroneous nusquam of the Vulgate has been followed by Luther and many early expositors. Nor is the Present to be understood as pointing to an ever ready help of a general character, but to the aid which Christ renders in redemption, and which is as such perpetually existing. Bleek, de Wette and Lόn. assume a discrepancy between this passage and Colossians 1:20; but with no good reason. For the special and exclusive objects of redemption are men of flesh and blood, not purely spiritual beings; while among them the angels have no need, and the devil is incapable of redemption. The absence of the article shows that not individuals are spoken of, but classes. The expression ‘seed of Abraham,’ however, neither, on the one hand, contradicts Paul’s wider statement of the purpose of the Gospel (although, as de Wette justly remarks, Paul would not have thus expressed himself, and hence the language is not to be explained purely from the nationality of the reader), nor, on the other, as we look at the terms τοῦλαοῦ, of the people, Hebrews 2:17, and τὸνλαόν, the people, Hebrews 13:12, are we at liberty to take the expression for a designation of mankind in its spiritual relation (as believers are called “the seed of Abraham”) as is maintained by Bengel, Bφhme, Klee, Stier, Wieseler. The term rather proceeds upon and suggests the view, so familiar to the Hebrews, that the whole redemptive and religious history of humanity has its central point in the seed of Abraham. “As in the purpose of God respecting the sending of Christ, so in His purpose respecting salvation in Christ, and in respect of their relation to other nations, the Israelites have a certain priority, not to say, superiority. It is only because the moral conditions have remained unfulfilled by them, that salvation has been taken from them. But the compassion of God, which embraces all, will, therefore, yet again extend itself to them.” (Kluge). Fricke gives too narrow an application of the words, when he explains them of the “Believers of all nations.” To make with Dav. Schulz, death, (ὁθάνατος) subject of the verb: “for death lays not hold of angels,” makes an entirely different construction, grammatically, indeed, admissible, but logically untenable, since Hebrews 2:17 stands closely connected with Hebrews 2:16, and Christ is the natural subject of Heb 2:17, as well as of Heb 2:14-15 (Lόn.). To this view, moreover, the term ‘seed of Abraham,’ is in no way adapted. Ebrard rightly remarks that Hebrews 2:17 so repeats the thought already expressed, that at the same time a new perspective opens, viz., a glance at the thought that Christ is not merely the most perfect organ of God’s revelation to man, not merely a messenger of God elevated above all messengers and angels, even above the angel of Jehovah, but that he is at the same time the perfect high-priestly representative of humanity in its relation to God. Hebrews 2:17. Whence it behooved him in all things to be assimilated to his brethren.—The un-Pauline ὅθεν (but frequent in our Epistle, and found also in Acts 26:19), deduces from the purpose of Christ’s incarnation given Hebrews 2:16, the obligation which that purpose involved: for ὤφειλεν denotes the obligation springing from the object which was undertaken, as ἔδει would have shown the necessity as matter of purpose and decree (Luke 24:26), and ἔπρεπεν as matter of intrinsic fitness and propriety (Hebrews 2:10). Ὁμοιωθῆναι in a kindred sense, Acts 14:11. The idea of likeness is emphasized by Lφnemann. That he might become a merciful and faithful high-priest in things pertaining to God.—The order of the words seems to favor the rendering of Luth.: “that he might become compassionate and a faithful high-priest,” etc., favored also by Grot., Bφhm., Bl., de W., Stein, Thol., Lόn. But the ἵναγένηται, that he might become, declares assuredly what Jesus, when thus assimilated to humanity, was to become, and in this connection the declaration that He was to become compassionate, might suggest the idea that He previously was not so. [Yet to this it might be replied that γίγνομαι implies frequently, not absolutely to become, but to prove ones-self, as Romans 3:4.—K.]. True, the author has hitherto emphasized rather the arrangement of God in the work of salvation, than the self-devotion of the Saviour; yet from the preceding it is still clear enough that the incarnation originated in compassion toward men exercised equally on the part of Him who submitted himself to it (Del.). On the contrary, the thought is entirely pertinent that the Incarnate One is, as such, to become a high-priest, in whom the two characteristics essential to this calling, expressing His proper relation alike to man (‘compassionate’) and to God (‘faithful’) come forth into view in the actual conduct and experiences of His life. Bengel followed by Cram., Storr, Ebr., Hofm., Del., remarks, in regard to the inversion of the words, that ἐλεήμων (the compassionate element having received sufficient prominence) recedes into the background, while the faithful high-priest (πιστ. ἀρχιερ.), with its two-fold conception, yet to be unfolded, takes the foreground of the picture. The adverbial phrase τὰπρὸςτὸνθεόν, in things pertaining to God, belongs not merely to πιστός (Klee), or ἀρχιερεύς (Bl.), but qualifies the entire statement. Nor does πιστός denote reliableness, but, as shown Hebrews 3:2, fidelity in the work He has undertaken. And utterly without ground is the statement of de Wette, that the idea of ἀρχιερεύς comes in abruptly, with nothing preceding to pave the way for it. For the mention of purification from sin (Hebrews 1:3), of sanctification (Hebrews 2:11), of saving mediation (Hebrews 2:16), of the death of Christ as a death on behalf of men (Hebrews 2:9), is a sufficient preparation, apart from the immediately following account of the functions to which he was appointed. To make expiation for the sins of the people.—In the classics ἱλάσκεσθαίτινα appears only in the sense of propitiating some one, of which propitiation Deity or even men may be objects, but never inanimate things. But neither the LXX. nor the N. T. use the term of any process of rendering Jehovah graciously disposed; but employ it either of the independent gracious determination of God in which the Pass. and Mid. signification run into each other, or, disregarding its reflex middle force, they apply it to one who performs an act, the object of which is sin, and the effect of which is that sin shall cease to awaken God’s wrath toward men. The LXX. construct ἱλάσκεσθαι with the Dat. of the person or thing for which propitiation is sought=propitium fieri; ἐξιλάσκ., on the contrary, frequently with the Acc., or, with περί of the person to be atoned for=expiare. It is true that in regard to man’s relation to man we find ἐξιλάσκεσθαιτὸπρόσωπόντινος, Genesis 33:20, and θυμόν, Proverbs 16:4. But no where, not even 2 Samuel 21:3, does God or His wrath appear as object of ἐξιλ., but sin, 1 Samuel 3:14. Expiation interposes between wrath and sin, so that the latter is covered over, Numbers 17:11 ff. Christ, then, is a propitiation for our sins (ἱλασμὸςπερὶτ. ἁμ. ἡμῶν, 1 John 2:2; 1 John 4:10), and appointed by God as our ἱλαστήριον, Romans 3:25. As this expiation refers objectively to the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2), τοῦλαοῦ is employed under the point of view before designated. Del. misconceives the reference of the term in explaining: “He officiates now as high-priest amidst a ransomed Church, which, in the O. T., is called the People, i.e., the people of God; and what, as propitiating high-priest, He accomplishes, is designed to prevent the sin still adhering to His Church from marring the loving and gracious relation which has been once for all established.” Hebrews 2:18. For in that he himself hath suffered, etc.—The language alludes not to the efficacy of the sufferings of Christ as rendering satisfaction to the Divine law, and thus as the meritorious ground of His Priesthood (Hofm.), but (with Del.), to the moral fitness which these sufferings gave Him for the office. And it is not barely in the circumstance that Christ has suffered, but in the relation of these sufferings to His personal character, as one who has been subjected to actual temptations, that we recognize His capacity to aid all who are from time to time exposed to temptations. (Observe the force of the Present Participle). The rendering, “Wherein,” or, “in the sphere in which” (Luth., Bl., Ebr., and others), restricts His power to the too narrow sphere of like circumstances, of suffering and temptation (Lόn.). Ἐνᾦ is to be resolved into ἐντούτῳο͂τι, in this thing that, on the ground that, in so far as, or, since (Bernh. Synt., p. 211). [It may be doubted if ἐνῳ ever means strictly and in itself since, or because, but it undoubtedly may have the force of in this that=in the fact that, hence nearly=on the ground that. Thus it may be resolved either into wherein (in the sphere in which), or in that (on the ground that). There is, in fact, here, I think, but little difference; for the rendering “wherein, in the sphere in which,” is in reality only apparently more restricted than the other. Because if the personal suffering of Christ is a necessary condition of His sympathizing succor, then the extent of His temptations and sufferings must be really the measure of His ability to render sympathy and succor; so that to say, “wherein He hath suffered He is able,” and “in that He hath suffered He is able,” amount practically to the same thing. If He could not sympathize and succor only in that He had suffered, then He can sympathize and succor only wherein He has suffered. Aside from this, the passage may be variously rendered. It may be resolved in several different ways, according as we take ἐνω as in that, or wherein, and according as we connect αὐτός with πέπονθεν, or πειραθείς. The principal are these:— 1. “In that (because) He hath Himself suffered, being tempted, He is able,” etc. 2. “Wherein He hath Himself suffered, being tempted, He is able,” etc. 3. “In that He hath suffered, being Himself tempted.” 4. “Wherein He hath suffered, being Himself tempted.” 5. “Being tempted in that He hath Himself suffered.” 6. “Being tempted wherein He hath Himself suffered.” 7. “Being Himself tempted in that He hath suffered.” 8. “Being Himself tempted wherein He hath suffered.” Of these the English Ver. and Bib. Union adopt the first; Delitzsch adopts substantially the seventh; Alford, substantially, with Ebrard, the eighth (having been Himself tempted in that which He hath suffered); Moll substantially the third. Fortunately it makes little difference as to the main sense which construction we adopt, and among them all I prefer the first or second as the more obvious and simple, although the construction adopted by Alford is nearly or quite unobjectionable.—K.]. AND ETHICAL1. “The children of God, allied in their dispositions to the Son of God, have become in need of succor (ἐπιλαμβάνεσθαι), of assistance (βοήθεια). This redemption, however, is the result of no determination formed in time, after the occurrence of the Fall, but an eternal purpose of God simultaneous with His purpose to create man (Ephesians 1:4; 2 Timothy 1:9; Romans 16:25; 1 Peter 1:20). The idea of the perfect God-man had thus of necessity to actualize itself, for the salvation of the children of God who were to be led to their goal.—The Redeemer was of necessity to become a member in the diseased organism of humanity, to assume humanity with its susceptibility to suffering, only without sin, Hebrews 4:15. The end and goal was the overcoming of death” (Thol.). 2. That Divine help which has been bestowed in Christ, and is being continually bestowed, relates, not to the removal of outward sufferings as such, but relates directly to human sufferings in so far as they are either judicial consequences of sin, as wall of that of the race as of that of the person, or in so far as they have a character which tempts to sin. The aid, therefore, rendered to humanity has as well an ethical as a soteriological significance. 3. In order to become for us the true, all-sufficient and actual Saviour, the eternal Son of God has entered not merely into a fellowship with us of internal and spiritual life, but into a participation alike in respect of nature and of race, in our outward and historic life. As, however, He has not, by this entrance into the fraternal relation, impaired His Divinity, there remains to be acknowledged a distinction never to be done away between His and our nature—a distinction having its ultimate ground partly in our creatureliness, partly in our sinfulness. Under the restrictions imposed by this distinction, human nature has, in its full extent, been made historically His nature, and an actual nearness to God, in a living and personal form, has been thereby imparted to the race. 4. The actual human nature of Jesus Christ renders possible His susceptibility of suffering and death, and this again conditions that perfect carrying out of His high-priestly calling, which is the means of accomplishing that salvation, for the sake of which the eternal Son of God has become man. “On account of the love which He bare to us, Jesus Christ our Lord has shed His blood for us according to the will of God, and given His flesh for our flesh, and His soul for our soul” (Clem. Rom. 1 Cor. 49). 5. Death and sin spring from one common root. Both involve in their essence a separation, a rupture, so to speak, in contravention of the Divine purpose, and have their origin in a sundering of the creature’s fellowship with God. But death is the revelation or laying bare of this state of things in the form of punishment, and as a consequence of God’s previously threatened judgment. Sin, on the contrary, is the voluntary and willing movement of man in the relation of estrangement from God. Precisely for this reason can the fear of death be predicated of sinners, and the power of death be predicated of Satan; and from both of these Christ alone is able to redeem us, in that He identifies Himself with humanity in its nature, its sufferings, its temptations, yet without sin, and offers up His holy life as an expiation for sin. It is at the same time clear from this how God, as Creator and Judge of the world, can directly and positively take part in the death of man, but not in his sinfulness; while the devil is at the same time the author of sin, and the tempter and the murderer of man. 6. Death, which, under the influences of sin, is the essential means of our enslavement by Satan, became in Christ the essential means of our deliverance. “The devil, as he who had the power of death, delighted in death; and that in which he delighted, the Lord held out to him. Thus His cross became a snare for the devil” (Augustine Sermons, 263). “The Scripture has announced this, viz., that one death devoured the other (1 Corinthians 15:54): death has been turned into derision. Hallelujah!” (Luth. Easter Hymn of year 1524). Dominus itaque noster ad humani generis redemptionem veniens velut quemdam de se in necem diaboli hamum fecit. Hujus hami linea illa est per evangelium antiquorum patrum propago memorata—in cujus extremo incarnatus Dominus id est hamus ista ligaretur—Hamus hic raptoris fauces tenuit et se mordentem momordit.—Ibi quippe inerat humanitas, quζ ad se devoratorem adduceret; Ibi divinitas, quζ perforaret; ibi aperta infirmitas, quζ provocaret; ibi occulta virtus quζ raptoris faucem transfigeret” (Gregor. Magn. ad Job 40:19).7. The death of the God-man, who despoiled Satan of his power, is neither a merely passive enduring of hostile assaults of man or of Satan, nor a merely active surrendering of Himself to the conflict. It is neither a bare punishment of sin, called forth by the wrath of God, nor an exclusive attestation of Christ’s moral power of will, under the aspects of trust in God, fidelity to His calling, and fulfilment of His obligation. It unites inseparably in itself moral and religious features; presents the active and the passive elements which enter into it, as perfectly and mutually interpenetrating each other, and can be rightly understood only as belonging to a historically developed scheme of salvation. Being in its import a sacrificial death for the expiation of sin, it presupposes the perfecting of the life of the God-man by active obedience; has the reconciliation of the world with God as its consequence; and is in its nature vicarious, or substitutionary, by means of suffering obedience. 8. Deliverance from the fear of death is wrought not by a new doctrine of immortality, which changes our conceptions of the future world, but by our transition into a new relation, in which the sting of death, the wounding, rankling consciousness of guilt is removed, (1 Corinthians 15:17; 1 Corinthians 15:55). Christ is the Prince of Life (Acts 3:15), who conquers death and Hades, and secures for us both the knowledge and possession of life, (2 Timothy 1:10; John 5:24; John 11:25; John 14:19), who not only holds in his hands the keys of Death and of Hades, (Revelation 1:18; Revelation 20:14; Revelation 21:4); but by His resurrection has begotten believers by a lively hope, (1 Peter 1:3-4); produces in them the certainty of a glorious resurrection and eternal life, Romans 5:21; Romans 6:23; and Himself brings this life at His glorious appearing, John 17:10; Colossians 3:3; Philippians 3:21, in that His Spirit creates in believers, first a spiritual and then a bodily renovation, Romans 8:11. “The death of Christ has become, as it were, a root of life, an annihilation of corruption, a doing away of sin, and an end of wrath. We were laden with a curse, and in Adam had been brought under the sentence of death. But since the Word that knew no sin, made Himself to be called a Son of Adam, and the debts incurred by the first transgression have been cancelled by Him, human nature has in Christ been manifestly restored to soundness, and this His sinlessness has delivered the dwellers upon the earth.”—(Cyrill. Alex.). 9. There is an old controversy whether the author makes the high-priestly office of Christ commence with His return to the Father, (Schlicht., Griesb., Schultz, Bl.) so that, as maintained by the Socinians, His High-priesthood coincides in origin essentially with His sovereignty, and His death on the cross corresponds not to the offering, but only to the slaughtering of the victim; or whether in our epistle Christ’s offering of Himself on the cross is regarded as the proper High-priestly act (Winzer de Sacerdotis officio quod Christo tribuitur, comm. I. 1825, and nearly all recent writers). In favor of the latter view we may urge that the author places the voluntary offering of Jesus Christ, and His entrance with His own blood, into the heavenly sanctuary, regarded as two inseparable parts of the same transaction, on a parallel with the well-known Jewish rite, and that the expiation of the sins of men is referred to the sacrificial death of Christ, Hebrews 2:14; Hebrews 7:27; Hebrews 9:11-14; Hebrews 9:26; Hebrews 9:28; Hebrews 10:10; Hebrews 12:14; Hebrews 13:12. The unquestionable emphasis laid on the heavenly character of Christ’s high-priesthood, is explained from the author’s design to set forth the higher and unconditioned excellence of the Christian high-priest, in contrast with those who exercised their priestly function on earth, in the typical sanctuary at Jerusalem. The intercession on behalf of men, which is made, in the presence of God by the transcendently exalted Redeemer, is but the continued exercise of a high-priestly office, upon which He had already entered. (Lόn.) The scene which transpired with the sin offerings in the outer court on the great day of atonement, finds its perfect counterpart and realization in Christ’s offering of Himself once for all on earth. Between the slaughter of the victim in the outer court, and the sacrifice on the altar of the outer court, took place that act of solemn significance, the carrying of the blood into the Holiest of all; and of this act the antitype and fulfilment takes place exclusively in heaven. (Del.) 10. From that moral decision which, in the grand crisis of life, determines its entire direction, and with this its collective destiny, we are to distinguish partly those moral decisions made upon the basis of this, and running through the whole life, and partly those acts of will which precede and prepare for this capital decision. So also the trials appointed by God, are not to be confounded with the temptations wrought by Satan, although both may concur in the same circumstances, and by this concurrence prove doubly dangerous. Especially do sufferings bear this two-fold character. 11. In all these relations Jesus hag been assimilated to us, and in the most various situations and forms, has subjected Himself, according to the will of God, to personal and actual temptations, only with the distinguishing trait that sin has neither potentially nor actually shown itself in Him, and hence there were to be overcome in His person no conditions of corruption, and no proper lustful impulses (James 1:14). Precisely for this reason has He become a second Adam, the founder, in the old race of sinners, of a new race of children of God. 12. The existence and the agency of the devil are, according to the tenor of the doctrine of this epistle, as well as of Scripture elsewhere, to be recognized as real, and his agency is to be conceived as consisting in temptation to sin, and in bringing sinners into bondage to death, in the Biblical sense of this word—a sense in which are united natural, spiritual and eternal death. But this agency of the devil, Christ victoriously encounters, a succorer of those who are tempted, and a deliverer from the deadly dominion of the devil. The means of achieving this result are found in His temptations and His sufferings, by which He Himself was perfected for glory. AND Christ became man 1. as to nature and quality in real assumption of our flesh and blood; 2. as to purpose, in order to become susceptible to suffering, temptation and death; 3. as to final object, in order to ransom us from the power of sin, of death, and of the devil.—The death of Jesus Christ is to be regarded 1. as the proof of His true humanity, and of His divine love; 2. as the end of His sufferings; 3. as the culminating point of His temptations; 4. as the instrument of His victory; 5. as the means of our redemption.—Our redemption is a work of God’s grace for our salvation; for it Isaiah 1. a breaking of the power a. of sin, b. of death, c. of the devil; 2. a redemption by the sinless yielding up of the Son of God into the fellowship a. of our nature, b. of our temptations, c. of our sufferings; 3. a deliverance into the fellowship, a. of divine sonship, b. of triumph over the world, c. of a perfected and glorified life.—The expiation of the sins of the people reminds us; 1. of the prevailing, a. bodily, b. spiritual corruption of our race; 2. of our pressing, a. universal, and b. personal indebtedness of guilt; 3. of God’s righteous, a. present, b. future retribution; 4. of the ever ready succor of Jesus Christ as the a. compassionate, b. faithful high-priest with God; 5. of that fellowship a. with God, b. with the children of God, which binds us to the imitation of Jesus.—Wherein, amidst all our lowliness, consists the preλminence of our race above the angels? 1. we are fallen, but not necessarily lost; 2. we can suffer, but by triumphing over sin, have precisely herein fellowship with Christ; 3. we must die, but are able in death to attain to a higher stage of life.—Whither are we to look in sufferings and temptations?—1. To the peril which threatens us, a. in the heaviness of the assault, by the union of sufferings and temptations; b. on account of the origin of our temptations, in the agency of the devil; c. in respect of the consequences of our succumbing, by which we are more ignominiously enslaved; 2. to the weakness which cleaves to us, and a. brings to light our connection with sin, b. makes us sensible of our natural helplessness, c. awakens, intensifies and guides our healthful longing after the deliverer; 3. to the succor which we can obtain in Christ, a. as the Son of God, who has become like to us men, b. who has suffered as one that was tempted, c. but by death has wrested his dominion from the devil.—In Christ Jesus is imparted to us genuine divine help: since 1. His incarnation shows that the purpose of God to render us His children, God Himself adheres to; 2. His struggle with temptation shows the possibility of a victory over sin; 3. His suffering of death, as the compassionate and faithful high priest, effects, on our behalf, the expiation of our sins, and the overthrow of the dominion of the devil.—Our Christian obligation demands, 1. that we do not fear death and the devil; 2. that we avoid sin; 3. that we take Christ as our helper in our temporal and spiritual needs.—To the greatness of our misery corresponds the greatness of our guilt, and also the greatness of the divine compassion and faithfulness in Christ.—Suffering presses heavily; more heavily temptation; most heavily guilt: but Christ assists us to bear suffering, to overcome temptation, to obliterate and wipe out guilt.—Our text places in contrast before us the worst enemy and the best friend; the greatest weakness and the mightiest strength; the bitterest misery, and the surest, nearest and sweetest aid.—Christ has become, in all respects, like us, and yet remained exalted infinitely above us, whether we look 1. at His person, or 2, at His walk, or 3, at His final withdrawal from His temporal life. Starke:—The devil has dominion and power over men in respect of natural, spiritual and eternal death. For after having plunged the human race by sin into spiritual death, he naturally so rules over it by sin, that by spiritual death he holds it captive, and by the natural death which thence results, leads it on to death eternal.—The power of death is ever-during fear, terror, distress, trembling and quivering before the stern judgment of God, by which the soul of man is tormented, so that it ever dies, and yet never dies, because it is immortal. This power the devil possesses; that is, he tortures and afflicts the conscience with hellish fear and terror, trembling and dismay. Satan is appointed by God as His executioner, His jailor, or, if one may so say, an executor of the curse of the law, who is authorized to demand man for deserved punishment, and to proceed against him before the court, by virtue of the claim of the law, so that God cannot, without infringing upon His righteousness, reject his demand, which is the demand of the law itself (Isaiah 49:24; Matthew 12:29; Revelation 12:10).—Christ is the sweet antidote to the bitterness of death.—No hero is naturally so bold that he is not terrified at death. But believers in Christ are such valiant heroes, that even death they do not fear nor even taste (John 8:51).—The law does right in disclosing to thee thy sins; but when it would condemn thee, then against law, sin, and death, appears thy Saviour, and says: I am also of flesh and blood, and they are my brethren and sisters; for what they have done I have paid the reckoning. Law, wilt thou condemn them? condemn me. Sin, wilt thou pierce and slay? pierce thou me. Death, wilt thou swallow up and devour? devour thou me. The condition of servitude is set over against that of Sonship, and is connected with a torturing fear of death, since we find ourselves so controlled by sin, and the dominion of Satan, that our own powers can never emancipate us (John 8:34); and this servitude is far heavier than that servitude of the Old Testament under the law and Levitical ordinances, which was rather analogous to a state of minority and pupilage (Galatians 4:1-6). But the redemption wrought through Christ offers a freedom of such a nature, that we emerge by it out of all bondage and slavish fear, into true Sonship, and serve God with willing and joyful spirit, in all truth and purity. For as, by the work of regeneration, it brings to the soul spiritual life, so natural death loses its terror, and is converted into a blessing, Luke 1:74-75; Romans 8:15; Galatians 5:1; 1 John 4:18.—The fallen angels have no redemption to hope for, Matthew 25:41; Matthew 25:46.—The qualities of a true high-priest are compassion and fidelity; both these Christ must possess from His likeness to us. 1. Compassion is, indeed, a Divine attribute which existed in the Son of God before He became man. But as He has taken upon Himself our nature, He has Himself an actual personal perception and sense of our wretchedness. No one knows the spirit of the poor and sick like Him who has Himself been sick and poor. 2. From compassion springs fidelity. From this arises the fact that Christ has not merely been once our high-priest and pattern, but that He is still so daily, Hebrews 7:25.—As all kinds of suffering and distress are called temptations, 2 Corinthians 10:13, and in like manner the sufferings of Christ, Luke 22:28, we can also say that Christ has been tempted of God, yet not for evil but for good, viz., 1, in order to promote the honor of God and the salvation of men; 2, to reveal the immaculate holiness and transcendent power of Christ, that he might be the hero who should bear, without sinking under it, the wrath of God; 3, to open to him, by means of this suffering, the way to glory.—The sufferings of Christ were not only real, but meritorious, and were endured for our sake. Hence they come in our place, primarily in such a way, that they are reckoned to us for righteousness; and secondarily in such a way, that in our temptations, whether from without or from within, our high-priest comes to our aid with His instruction and His strengthening power. Temptations have been to Christ a source of great suffering; since although He had no sin and could not sin, yet it was, therefore, all the deeper sorrow to Him that sin was imputed to Him. This marked Christ’s deepest humiliation.—Console thyself, thou devout bearer of the Cross, thou who art pressed and borne down by many a need; thy brother Jesus has also tasted all this; He knows how it weighs thee down; He can help thee, He will assuredly refresh thee, 2 Corinthians 4:10; 1 Peter 4:13.—After we have completely eliminated all imperfection, and all painful emotions from the compassionate sympathy of Christ in heaven, this tender human sympathy still appears in no wise incompatible with His glorified condition. And we must also know that the joy of His human nature in heaven cannot now be so great and perfect, because His mystical body is here as yet still surrounded with sorrows, and encompassed with infirmities, as it will be when, after the resurrection of the dead, all this shall have forever ceased. Spener:—Since all the power of Satan consists in sin, by which he deals with us as slaves, according to his will, redemption from this is a grand and precious feature of our blessedness, 1 John 3:8; Revelation 5:5; Colossians 2:15.—Children of God are already blessed in life, because delivered from the fear of death. They think of death with tranquil heart, and overcome in faith the fear that naturally cleaves to others, Luke 2:29; 2 Corinthians 5:8; Genesis 46:30.—The redemption of Christ attaches not to those who still continue under reigning sin and the power of Satan, and cannot belong to them until, by true conversion and translation into the kingdom of light, they allow themselves to be delivered from the snares of the devil, Colossians 1:1-13. Berlenburger Bible:—The incarnation of Christ is historically, indeed, well known to all, but in its secret mystery to but exceedingly few, both in respect of knowledge and practice.—The kingdom of death had to be overthrown in a rightful and legitimate way, by the payment of all its just demands.—The devil, through our sin, gained, a dominion by conquest; not a legitimate and rightful sway, but a usurpation with our consent. He acquired by sin, a double prerogative, that of condemning and of ruling; both are taken from him—That terror of conscience, which springs from sin, is man’s living hell upon earth, so long as he does not take deliverance from it by grace and the spirit of divine gladness. Though a man may have had the beginnings of true repentance, he is still, by no means, exempt from fear. For then, indeed, he first feels a genuine shrinking from the wrath of God. He trembles at all God’s righteous utterances and words, and finds no true refuge and deliverance from it, so long as he fails to exercise living faith.—This fruit of sin and of the apostasy is very deeply rooted, and has pervaded our entire human nature, so that to deal with it and eradicate it, is no light and easy matter. Even believing Christians have to strive daily that they may hold this enemy under the victory of faith, although he has once already been brought under its power.—Christ takes upon Himself not the seed of an evil and malignant nature, but the seed of promise. Laurentius:—To refrain from evil through fear of punishment, marks the slavish, not the filial spirit.—Only believers, the posterity of Abraham, are actually partakers of the redemption of Christ. Rambach:—The devil is here described in respect, 1, of his name, as accuser and calumniator; 2, of his power; 3, of his overthrow.—O wondrous change! We were first created after the likeness of Christ, and now he is born after our likeness.—Christ can succor those that are tempted, since He, 1, has received the right and authority; 2, possesses the power to do so. Steinhofer:—There is a wondrous war waged on the cross, and an unanticipated victory in the death of this Just and Holy One.—Compassion toward sinners, and indifference toward sin, cannot possibly coexist.—Atonement is the mighty word wherewith we would honor Jesus in His office, and continually enjoy alike His compassion and His fidelity. Hahn:—By the compassion of Jesus we must arm ourselves against impatience, since He exacts not too much from us, and we can repose confidence in Him; and His fidelity gives us consolation, and strengthens us against all unbelief.—Jesus is faithful: for He refused not to bear the worst that might befall Him; He awaited all, and shrank from nothing; He became not weary. It is only through this faithfulness that we reach the appointed goal. Rieger:—Every step in the ministry of Jesus was freely accepted by Him in the spirit of love; as, indeed, when about to be delivered into the hands of sinners, He said: Thinkest thou not that I could pray to my Father? But the command received from His Father, and His desire to leave nothing unaccomplished, lays upon Him the necessity to become in all things like unto His brethren.—Blessed is he to whom the Spirit of Christ so interprets this “in all things,” and so applies it to every thing, that now, in all which he has daily to do and suffer, he enjoys this light upon his way. For thy sake the Saviour has once for all placed Himself in like circumstances. Heubner:—So far is the suffering of Christ from impairing His dignity and power as a Saviour, that it is in fact only through this that He becomes a genuine Saviour.—God is indeed in Himself already compassionate, Exodus 34:6, but this compassion is revealed with entire clearness, and certainty only in the incarnation of the Son. Stier:—The death of Christ has its significance as a suffering of death; and His suffering again only in the fact that He was tempted in that which He suffered.—In Christ’s mediatorial office, concur all these varied and opposite elements: the power of the devil, the just claim and righteousness of God, and the exigency of man. [Owen:—Death is penal; and its being common unto all, hinders not, but that it is the punishment of every one.—According unto the means that men have to come unto the knowledge of the righteousness of God, are or ought to be their apprehensions of the evil that is in death. When bondage is complete, it lies in a tendency to future and greater evils. Such is the bondage of condemned malefactors reserved for the day of execution; such is the bondage of Satan, who is kept in chains of darkness for the judgment of the great day.—The Lord Christ out of His inexpressible love, willingly submitted Himself unto every condition of the children to be saved by Him, and to every thing in every condition of them, sin only excepted.—The first and principal end of the Lord Christ’s assuming human nature, was not to reign in it, but to suffer and die in it.—He saw the work that was prepared unto Him—how He was to be exposed unto miseries, afflictions and persecutions, and at length to make His soul an offering for sin—yet because it was all for the salvation of the children, He was contented with it and delighted in it.—All the power of Satan in the world over any of the sons of men, is founded in sin, and the guilt of death attending it. Death entered by sin; the guilt of sin brought it in.—If the guilt of death be not removed from any, the power of the devil extends unto them. A power it is, indeed, that is regulated. Were it sovereign or absolute, He would continually devour. But it is limited unto times, seasons, and degrees, by the will of God, the Judge of all.—The death of Christ, through the wise and righteous disposal of God, is victorious, all-conquering and prevalent.—Satan laid his claim unto the person of Christ, but coming to put it in execution, he met with that great and hidden power in Him which He knew not, and was utterly conquered.—Satan will fly at the sign of the cross rightly made.—The Lord Christ suffered under all His temptations, sinned in none.—Tempted sufferers not only wanted one to undertake for them, but to undertake for them with care, pity and tenderness.—Temptations cast souls into danger.—The great duty of tempted souls is to cry out unto the Lord Christ for help and relief. He is “faithful;” He is “merciful,” and that which is the effect of them both, He is “able”]. Footnotes: Hebrews 2:14.—Instead of the common σαρκόςκαὶαἵματος, flesh and blood, we are to read here, according to A. B. C. D. E. Uffenbach, Itala, Vulg. αἵματοςκαὶσαρκός, as at Ephesians 6:12. Hebrews 2:14.—The Cod. Clarom. reads ἵναδιὰτοῦθανάτουθάνατονκαταρηγήση, τὸντὸκράτοςκτλ. [But the θάνατον is an evident interpolation, probably the result of carelessness in copying.—K.]. [“And thus our Lord coming for the redemption of the human race, made, as it were, a sort of book of Himself for the, destruction of the devil. The line of this book is the succession of Ancient Fathers recorded in the Gospel …. at whose extremity this book, an incarnate God, should be fastened.…. This book held the jaws of the spoiler and consumed him who was consuming itself. Because there was a humanity which should attract to itself the devourer; there a Divinity which should pierce him; there was an open infirmity which might challenge his approach; there a concealed power which should transfix the jaws of the spoiler”]. SECOND OF JESUS CHRIST TO THE -SENT AND LEADERS OF ISRAEL, MOSES AND JOSHUA ______ I The exhortation to fidelity toward Christ, the faithful Messenger of God, rests on the preλminence of Christ, as Son ruling over the house, above Moses, the faithful servant in the house Hebrews 3:1-61 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the [a] heavenly calling, consider [κατανοήσατε, mark with attention, observe attentively] the Apostle and High Priest of our profession [δμολγίας, confession], Christ Jesus [om. Christ]; 2Who was faithful to him 3 that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house. For this man [this personage, he] was [has been] counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch [by as much] as he who hath builded [established, κατασκευάσας] the house hath more honor than the house. 4For every house is builded [established] by some man [one]; but he that built [established] all things is God. 5And Moses verily [Moses indeed] was faithful in all his house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after [to the things hereafter to be spoken, τῶνλαληθησομένων]; 6But Christ as a Son [was] over his own [his, αὐτοῦ ?] house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence [boldness, παῤῥησία] and the rejoicing [glorying, καύχημα] of the [our] hope firm unto the end.[Hebrews 3:1.—Ὅθεν, whence, wherefore, logical, as nearly, or quite always in this Epistle.—Κατανοήσατε: κατά emphatic; mark with attention, contemplate earnestly. Moll: “Richtet euren Sinn anf.’ Κατανοεῖν, of lingering, penetrating regard, a favorite word of Luke.” (Del.)—Ἀπόστολον, commissioned one, then Apostle. Moll and Del.: Gottesbote; De Wette: der Gesandte; used of Christ as God’s great commissioned one of the New Testament, as Moses was of the Old. Moses was the ἀπόστολος and Aaron the ἀρχιερεύς of the Old Covenant; Christ combines in himself both characters in the New. Hebrews 3:2.—πιστὸνὄντα, being faithful. Eng. ver. renders “was faithful;” so De Wette; Moll, following Bleek, renders is, but justly censures Bleek for pressing the force of the present ὄντα. The truth is ὄντα is not necessarily present at all, except to the time that is expressed by the finite verb, or that is present to the mind of the writer. Here I take it to be clearly that of Christ’s residence on earth, and hence follow Eng. ver. and De W., in supplying was rather than Moll and Del. in rendering is. But see exposition. Hebrews 3:3.—“This man,” Eng. ver., οὗτος is often difficult to render into Eng. ‘This one’ is inelegant English; ‘This man,’ directs an undue amount of attention to the word ‘man’ (for here the reference is almost equally to Christ’s sojourn as ‘man’ on earth, and his present heavenly exaltation): ‘this personage,’ is too formal; ‘he’ is not sufficiently emphatic. The German dieser is unexceptionable. Has been counted or deemed worthy; ἡξίωται Perf., much better than Auth. ver. “was counted worthy,” because the reference is not merely to that reward of glorification which Jesus once received, but which he still retains. Hebrews 3:4.—Founded, κατασκευάζειν, furnish out, prepare, equip; not οἰκοδομεῖν, to build, as also the noun is not οἰκία, a house proper, but οἶκον, an estate, a domestic establishment, a household. Hebrews 3:5.—“And Moses indeed,” or “while Moses.” Eng. ver. renders μέν here, as often elsewhere, “verily;” but always unfortunately. Hebrews 3:6.—Χριστὸςὡςυἱὸςἐπί, etc. The ellipsis may be supplied so as to read, “But Christ, as a Son, was faithful over His house,” or “was faithful, as a Son, over His house;” or, “as a Son was over His house,” which construction I adopt with Moll and Del. (except that they put is for was, which, perhaps, is admissible, the discussion sliding forward into the present) as the simplest, the idea of fidelity retreating, and that of authority becoming prominent. Both the best texts and the connection demand His (viz., God’s αὐτοῦ) not his own (ἑαυτοῦ).—K.]. AND Heb_3:1. Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling.—The ὅθεν, wherefore, links the exhortation of this verse with the preceding characterization of Jesus. The same holds also of the designation of the readers (“holy brethren”) who, however, are not here addressed as brethren of Christ (Michael., Carpz., etc.), nor as Jewish compatriots of the writer (Chr. Fr. Schmidt); but as consecrated members of the Christian brotherhood, who have become partakers of a call to the kingdom of God, which has come from heaven (ἐπουράνιος,=ἡἄνωκλῆσις, Philippians 3:14, comp. Hebrews 12:25), and has proved itself effectual, i.e., has secured to them an actual participation in heavenly treasures and blessings (Colossians 1:5)—designations from which the following exhortation receives, alike in form and substance, both confirmation and emphasis. The combination “holy brethren” is not found elsewhere (1 Thessalonians 5:27, the reading is doubtful), but is here a most appropriate summary of the ideas developed from Hebrews 2:11. The other epithets point still further back—to Hebrews 2:1, and even Hebrews 1:1. [ἄγιοι, as usual also with Paul, marks of course not the degree of individual holiness, but the collective, and, so to speak, official, or rather ideal character of Christians. As a community in their relation to Christ, who alone can procure sanctification, they are characteristically ἅγιοι.—K.]. Consider attentively the apostle and high-priest of our confession.—Κατανοεῖν denotes the turning of the νοῦς to an object, not, however, for the sake of theoretical recognition, but for the practical weighing of that which we have in Him—i.e., for moral and spiritual heeding. The two epithets, descriptive of Jesus, bring most impressively before the readers the substance of the preceding statements. Jesus is the highest organ of the revelation of God to man, and at the same time the true and perfect Mediator of redemption. Precisely for this reason He is not like Moses and Joshua, a mere lawgiver and leader, but with all His resemblance to these servants of God, is yet exalted infinitely above them. To avoid all misunderstanding, however, He is not called ἄγγελος, but ἀπόστολος, which word corresponds as well with the Heb. maleach, as with His essential relations, Galatians 4:4; John 3:34; John 5:36; John 6:29; John 10:36; John 20:21. Thol. and Biesenthal (after Braun, Deyling, Schφttg.) are inclined to refer the term to Rabbinical usage, in which ἀπόστολος=ωְׁ ?μִ ?ιηַ might bear the sense of Mediator. But according to Del. the priest has this name only precisely in his quality of delegate partly of God, partly of the congregation. Otto (“The Apostle and High Priest of our confession,” 1861) assumes a reference to Numbers 13, and sums up the result of his investigation in the following paraphrase: “Therefore, ye brethren who have been rescued from the world, and been endowed with the prerogative of a heavenly home and citizenship, observe that the Apostle and High-priest of our confession, i.e., He who first trod the sacred land of our inheritance with the confession, ‘Jehovah delivers,’ and now stands at our head as leader, but who at the same time is the high-priest of our confession, i.e., who brings before God our confession, ‘Jehovah delivers,’ in that He secures by His mediation our entrance into the heavenly home,—in fine that the Apostle and High priest of our confession, Jesus (as it were, our Joshua) is πιοτός to Him who has constituted Him.” We have here an interpolation of references and allusions which, indeed, a subtle ingenuity might easily enough light upon, but which are wholly alien to the context. Equally without foundation is also the remark of Kluge (p. 19): “From His κλῆσις, act of calling, the Son receives the name of ἀπόστολος, from His ἁγιάζειν, sanctifying, the name of ἀρχιερεύς.” In His two-fold character Jesus is immediately described as belonging specifically to our, i.e., the Christian confession, in order that the readers may direct their mind to Him, and consider what they have in Him. The rendering of the Itala: Constitutionis nostrζ, reminding us perhaps of the ‘Messenger of the Covenant’ (Malachi 3:1), is inadmissible, since ὁμολογία in the New Testament signifies only confession, acknowledgment, never ‘contract or covenant,’ and this along with the subject (De W.) and the object (Bl., Lόn.) of the confession, 2 Corinthians 9:13; 1 Timothy 6:12-13. The Gen. marks possession, belonging to. [The high-priest who belongs to our confession: the high-priest whom we confess, acknowledge, i.e., (as Beng.) agree with; God λέγει, man ὁμολογεῖ.] Hebrews 3:2. Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house.—According to Otto πιστός does not designate a moral quality, but “position next the heart of a higher personage” (p. 47), and should for this reason be taken in the sense of trusted, confidential, organ of trust. This by no means harmonizes with Hebrews 2:17, where assuredly a moral quality is indicated for the display of which in His high-priestly calling the Son of God became incarnate. But the faithfulness of Jesus creates an obligation of like faithfulness in His church. The mention of the former lays a foundation for demanding the latter; and this all the more in that the two historical and visible founders of the old and of the new covenant, in their exhibition of this fidelity in their respective positions, have left a pattern to their disciples, that, viz., of fidelity toward Him to whom they owed their respective historical positions. In this respect there is a close analogy between Jesus and Moses, which adds weight to the writer’s exhortation. The object of κατανοεῖν, attentively observe, is not the fact that Jesus is a πιστός (Otto), but the person of Jesus, already signalized as entirely peculiar, and whose permanently abiding quality the ὄντα renders prominent. Bleek, after Seb. Schmidt, erroneously presses the present, as if indicating that the reference is to the exalted Messiah. It is also an error (with Calv., Bl., Ebr.) to place a comma after Moses; for the following words are cited from Numbers 12:7, and apply properly only to Moses. For in respect of Jesus we are immediately reminded of His prerogative of being over the house. [I doubt if this is any adequate reason against inserting the comma with Calv., Bl., and Ebr. Because although Christ was a Son over the house, He was also a servant in the house, and the point of resemblance is that which is first adverted to: the distinction comes out later. In His double character Christ could be at once compared and contrasted with Moses. Like him and more fully than he, He proved a faithful servant in God’s house, but unlike him, He was also a Son over it. In the exceedingly elliptical language of the author some elements of the parallel are taken for granted, and hence its difficulty. Still I incline on the whole, though with hesitation, to obliterate the comma after Moses.—K.]The ποιεῖν, make, constitute, appoint, denotes the placing or putting forward of Christ on the theatre of history (De W., Del., Thol.). Bleek, Lφnemann, and Alford, with Ital., Ambros., Primas., D. Schultz, adhere to the proper signification of the word, and refer the ποιεῖν either to the incarnation of the Son, or to His eternal generation. [Alford: “The word, thus taken, however, is, of course, to be understood of that constitution of our Lord as Apostle and High-priest, in which He, being human, was made by the Father”]. They are right, in so far as they take the word absolutely; for it is quite unnecessary to supply a second accusative (as is done by the majority following Chrys.), as if the construction were “who made Him, scil., Apostle or high-priest.” But on the other hand, to refer the word to the “eternal generation”—considering that ποιεῖν is used Hebrews 1:1 for actual creation, would give the passage a strong tincture of Arianism, and resolve Christ into a creature (κτίσμα), in decided contradiction to Hebrews 1:3. And again, to refer the word to the incarnation—the commencement of the temporal and earthly life of Jesus—though done by the orthodox Fathers, is scarcely admissible; for this term would hardly have been employed to designate the assumption of human nature by the Logos in the bosom of the virgin, or the overshadowing influence of the Holy Spirit and of the “power of the Highest” (Luke 1:35). The author was, perhaps, led to the term by 1 Samuel 12:6 [ὁποιήσαςτὸνΜωυσῆνκαὶτὸνἈαρών. Heb. ςָ ?ωָׂ ?δ]. Bl. The house οἶκος designates the family of God, or the Theocratic nation (Hebrews 10:21), in which Moses had a position in which he could show fidelity. The reference of αὐτοῦ to Moses (Oec. and alt., with whom I formerly agreed) is inadmissible, since the words refer to Numbers 1:2; Numbers 1:7 : the reference to Christ (Bl., Riehm) would be anticipating. Hebrews 3:3. For of greater glory than Moses has he been deemed worthy by how much, etc.—The passage is not explaining or analyzing Hebrews 3:2 (De W.), but enforcing the exhortation κατανοήσατε. It expresses directly the elevation of Jesus above Moses, which appears all the more worthy of regard as it comes out in connection with the recognition of a like fidelity on the part of both. The relation between them is then illustrated in the relation which always exists between a house and its founder. Κατασκευ. is not barely building, but fitting out a house with furniture and servants. But from this it does not follow that we are to construct τοῦοἴκου with τιμήν, honor from the house (Wolf, Michael., Steng., etc.). The Gen. depends rather on πλείονα. The respect and admiration rendered to a house redound in a very high degree to him who has reared and established it. In the same relation stands the glory (δόξα) of Christ to that of Moses. There is here no comparison drawn between the splendor of the countenance of Moses when, having spoken with Jehovah on the mount, he was about to utter His word to Israel, and the radiance which involved the whole person of Jesus on the mount of transfiguration (Hofm., Weissag., II. 188). The reference is to the glory of their respective callings and positions. Entirely untenable is the assertion of Del., that by understanding Christ to be here referred to as the founder, we involve in confusion the entire course of argumentation. Such a view by no means necessitates the absurd conclusion that in that case Moses must be the house. For the thought may perfectly well be, that Moses, as servant, is only a member or a part of the house of which Christ is the founder. We can only say that the language does not speak directly and in terms of Christ, but has the form of a universal statement, and that there appears as yet no occasion to pass beyond the comparison immediately expressed in the text between the relation of Jesus to Moses and the relation of a founder to a house. But we involuntarily turn our thoughts upon Jesus, and are justified in applying the passage to Him, as the founder of that house of God which we Christians constitute. Hebrews 3:4. For every house is established by some one: but he who established all things is God.—This is also a general statement of unquestionable correctness, forming a link between the premise and the conclusion, but neither the conclusion itself, nor a remark merely incidental and parenthetical. If Christ is founder of the true Theocracy, it follows not from this that He has reared this house alongside of that which was established through the instrumentality of Moses. The general statement that God is the universal founder and establisher, who has placed Jesus, as He formerly did Moses, in His historical position [as founder of His New Testament house], would rather and simply suggest that the Theocracy founded by Jesus is in correspondence with the will of God. [And also, perhaps, it incidentally illustrates the way in which both Moses and Jesus could be faithful—the ground on which fidelity could be predicated of them, viz., that while each of these was a founder in his respective sphere, yet each worked under God as supreme founder, and to whom, therefore, both stood responsible.—K.]. Many older expositors have erroneously regarded (with Theodoret) θεός as predicate, and found in it a proof passage for the divinity of Jesus, whom they assumed to be the subject. So also Otto, who, by οἶκος, Hebrews 3:3, understands specially the house of God, and thus paraphrases the following (p. 87 and 96): “For every house is founded by some one (but to meet and supply all its needs is in the power of none). He who has furnished the house with every thing (as Jesus, for example, has supplied it with all that was needful for time and eternity),—such an one is all-powerful,—such an one must be Divine (θεός).” But the absence of the article involves no necessity of assuming this construction, for θεός here has nearly the force of a proper name; and the connection is opposed to it. [Alford: “Apart from the extreme harshness and forcing of the construction to bring out this meaning, the sentiment itself is entirely irrelevant here. If the writer was proving Christ to be greater than Moses, inasmuch as He is God, the founder of all things, then clearly the mere assertion of this fact would have sufficed for the proof, without entering on any other consideration; nay, after such an assertion, all minor considerations would have been not only superfluous, but preposterous. He does, however, after this, distinctly go into the consideration of Christ being faithful, not as a servant, but as a Son, so that he cannot be here speaking of his Deity as a ground of superiority”]. Πᾶςοἰ ?̄κος designates not the house in all its parts, the whole house, but according to the usage of our Epistle Hebrews 5:1; Hebrews 5:13; Hebrews 8:3 [and correct classical usage], every house. They who refer the previous clause (ὁκατασκευάσαςαὐτόν) directly to Jesus, interpolate the idea that the question is here answered how fidelity can be predicated of Jesus, at the same time that He is asserted to be the founder of the Theocracy. The solution then is this: The Theocracy stands in the same category with every household, in that it must have a [subordinate] founder; while it yet remains true that God is the causa prima of each and all (Thol., Ebr., etc.) But the question itself, raising such a query, and demanding a solution, is entirely gratuitous: inasmuch as the Messiah has been from the outset designated as Son, and in the most definite manner declared to be the Mediator of Revelation and Redemption, as well as Mediator of the creation and government of the world. In these relations then the matter of His fidelity has of course already come up and been disposed of. This point is no longer under discussion; the topic now under consideration is the relation of him who has founded a house to the house. And as God is the supreme and universal founder, the Theocracy, as well in its Christian as in its Mosaic form, must be referred back to Him. And in perfect harmony with this view is the fact that a little before God is styled in reference to the Messiah ὁποιήσαςαὐτόν, and that it is only by this view that the following verse (Hebrews 3:5) is brought into logical connection with Hebrews 3:3, as legitimately authorizing its assertion of the superior glory (δόξα) of Christ. [That is: Hebrews 3:3, Christ, the founder of the New Testament house, is declared to have been deemed worthy of higher glory than Moses, by all the difference between the founder of the house and the house itself. Then Hebrews 3:4 reminds us that the New Testament house, as well as the Old Testament Mosaic house, was also founded under the ultimate and supreme direction of God, whence Moses and Christ, both in their respective positions, sustained direct relations to God, each having been placed, constituted, viz. ποιήσας, by God in his position. Consequently we are prepared at Hebrews 3:5, to see the different relation which these two personages sustained to the house, on the one hand, and to God as the common founder, on the other; Moses being a servant, and Christ a Son; Moses being in the house and a part of it, and Christ over it. Yet I cannot see, after all, any very essential difference between the author’s view of the force of ὁδὲκατασκευάσας, and that of Ebrard and Tholuck, which he rejects. Ebrard makes it declare God the supreme founder, and thus answer the implied question, how Christ as founder could have fidelity predicated of Him. Moll says: that “as God is the universal founder, therefore, the Theocracy, in its Christian as well as in its Mosaic form, must be referred back to Him.” This comes to near the same thing as the other. Both make the passage put God as universal and supreme founder into His true relation to both Moses and Jesus in their respective spheres. But with respect to the statement of Moll, regarding the Mediatorship of the Son, he seems to me to put the Son’s mediatorship in the creation and government of the world, as eternal Logos, one and equal with the Father, too nearly on a level with His Mediatorship in His humbled and servile character as Redeemer. In the latter the question of His fidelity is indeed often raised, and is absolutely vital: in the former relation, I do not remember where the term πιστός is applied to Him, and I scarcely see how it could be without derogating from His divine dignity.—K]. Riehm’s opinion, (Lehrbegriff, I. 310) that Christ is designated as the founder of the Old Testament kingdom of God, and that Moses has held his position in it as assigned by Christ, cannot be substantiated by an appeal to the doctrine of our Epistle, that the Son is the Mediator of every form of divine agency that is directed to the world. It is here decidedly to be rejected, because the subject of discourse is here specially Jesus, the Messiah, as actually and historically manifested. [Moll’s exposition of this difficult and vexed passage seems to labor under obscurity from his having failed to do justice to the elliptical character of the passage. The first thing, it seems to me, to be settled, is whether Moses and Christ are conceived by the author, as both in one house of God, or as in two, i.e., each in that respectively to which God had assigned him. This Alford, following Delitzsch, denies, maintaining that both are in one house of God, Moses as servant, and Christ as Son, and that the force and “strictness of the comparison” requires this. It seems to me that this confounding of the houses in which Moses and Christ were, raises at once an inexplicable difficulty. The question arises, How could Moses be in a house which was not reared or founded until by Christ, many centuries after? Or, how could Jesus found or rear a house in which Moses had officiated as servant, many centuries before? For that Christ founded or reared the New Testament house of God, is certain, and Christ, on the other hand, did not rear the Old Testament house of God; for Christ, the God-man, the Mediator, Jesus, had not then an existence. And to bring in here the Logos, the Eternal Son, as founding the Old Testament economy, is entirely out of the question; for with Him as such, the passage has nothing to do. The comparison is between Moses and Jesus, and by the whole tenor and sentiment of the Epistle, it is between Moses, as the servant of God in founding the Old Testament or Jewish economy, in rearing the house of God in its Old Testament form, and Jesus, in founding the New Testament economy—in rearing the house of God in its New Testament form. The comparison is between the two historical characters in the work which each respectively had performed. And it matters not that the two houses—the house of Moses and the house of Jesus—are in their deepest significance one house—as they certainly are—both God’s house—yet for the purposes, and in the representation of the author, they are different houses—the one an earthly, transitory, typical house, the other a heavenly, spiritual, imperishable house. In these two houses, respectively stand Moses and Jesus; both raised up of God, made, constituted (see ποιήσας applied to Moses, 1 Samuel 12:6, and to Jesus, Hebrews 3:2, I have little doubt the latter suggested by the former)—each for his special work. Each was a founder, an institutor, inaugurator,—Moses of the Old Testament economy, Jesus of the New Testament economy. Each had the high honor of being appointed by God as the introducer and inaugurator of His respective system. But each was not only a founder, he was also a servant: Moses a servant (θεράπων, often so called in the Sept.); Jesus still more manifestly and deeply a servant (δοῦλος, διάκονος); yet both faithful in both relations. Moses was faithful as a founder under God, of the old economy, and as a servant in it; Christ was faithful as a founder, under God, of the new economy, and as a servant in it. Thus far the resemblance; now the contrast. Moses, while apparently a founder of the old economy, a builder of the Old Testament house, was in reality only a servant in it; his highest function was purely ministerial. Christ, while apparently, and indeed really a servant in the New Testament house, yet in reality was a Son over it; His character of servant was but secondary and temporary; His highest and trne nature was that of Son. Thus Moses, the apparent builder of the Old Testament house, yet in reality and ultimately sinks to the level of the house, and becomes a part of it. Jesus, the builder of the New Testament house, and also seemingly an humble servant in it, yet ultimately rises completely above this servile condition, and by virtue of His essential equality and identity with God, the Supreme Founder of all things, becomes precisely as much superior to Moses as the founder of the house which He truly and absolutely was, is to the house itself, to which Moses only belonged as a part. The paradox, it is perceived, is a necessary one. It grows out of the double nature of the great Head of the New Testament Church. Lower than the angels, He yet rises in position, as He was in essential nature, infinitely above them. Appearing lower than Moses—as much lower as a δοῦλος, slave, is lower than a θεράπων, voluntary attendant, He yet rises transcendently and infinitely above him, by virtue of that nature which He shared in common with the eternal Father. I should, therefore, paraphrase the exceedingly elliptical passage somewhat as follows, reminding the reader that the facts regarding the positions both of Moses and of Christ—and certainly of the former—were so well-known, that the author, in his comparison, could safely presuppose them: “Consider—Jesus, who was faithful in the New Testament house of God to Him who constituted Him as builder and servant, as also Moses was faithful in all God’s Old Testament house to Him who constituted him builder and servant in it. For Jesus has been deemed worthy of, and been advanced to, higher glory than Moses, by how much the builder of the house has more honor than the house. For every house (and of course, therefore, the Old and the New Testament houses) must be founded immediately and secondarily by some one, as was the former by Moses, and the latter by Jesus; but He who ultimately and absolutely founded all things, and therefore was ultimate and supreme founder of these, was God. And while Moses, though apparent and formal founder of the Old Testament house, was in reality in his highest nature, but in it, and strictly but a part of it, Jesus, the founder of the New Testament house, though apparently a servant in it, was, in reality, and in His highest nature, as Son, equal with and substantially identical with the absolute and Supreme Founder Himself.”—This paraphrase introduces no elements into the comparison which are not presupposed in it, and which do not lie on the very face of the historical facts. It simply says thus: Moses and Jesus, each a founder of and a servant in the Old and the New Testament Theocracy respectively; each appointed of God and each faithful; but Moses, after all, only faithful as a servant, who was thus but part of the house; but Christ faithful as a Son, who was, therefore, in spite of His servile appearance, equal with the Supreme Founder Himself. The only point on which there can be doubt, is as to the dual nature of the house of God; but I confess I do not see how there can be legitimate doubt on this point. Moll himself, who with most, denies this duality, is yet obliged to speak of the house of God “in its Old and its New Testament form,” and I suppose he could hardly deny that Moses was founder or rearer of the house in its Old Testament form, as was Jesus of the house in its New Testament form. But this comes very nearly to the same thing as affirming two houses. None can doubt that ultimately, and in their deepest meaning, they were indeed identical; i.e., both were not only from one Supreme Founder, but stood in close connection with the same great economy of salvation. But formally, and historically, and according to the whole scope and treatment of our author, they were different; as different as the Mosaic Tabernacle in which Aaron ministered, and the heavenly Tabernacle in which Christ ministered; as different as were the many animal sacrifices of the one, from the single spiritual and life-giving offering of the other. The Old Testament house of God which Moses reared, but in which he was but servant, was earthly, material, typical and transitory; the New Testament house of God which Jesus reared, apparently a servant, but in reality a Son and Lord, is heavenly, spiritual, archetypal and eternal.—K.]. Hebrews 3:5. And while Moses indeed is faithful, etc.—Moses, as well as Christ, has been raised up, set, forth by God, and designated in his fidelity, not merely for an individual service, or for a special department of action in the administration of God’s house, and his agency and fidelity stand in relation to the entire Theocracy. But (as shown by the Μωυσῆςμέν, Moses indeed, within this similar relation, which is common to Moses and Christ, we are to recognize a profound and fundamental difference in the two persons. Moses has officiated as a servant, by no means indeed as a slave (δοῦλος), or as a domestic servant, or menial, (οἰκέτης), but (Wis 10:16) as a θεράπων, a word always implying voluntary subordination, and willing and honorable service. But at the same time all this has been but typical and preparatory. The λαληθησόμενα are not the revelations which Moses was hereafter himself to receive, thus requiring the translation: “in order to render testimony to that which was then to be spoken.” Bleek, De W., Thol., Lόn., so understanding the words, refer them specially to the law; Riehm reminds us of the expression, Numbers 12:8, στόμακατὰστόμαλαλήσωαὐτῶ. These words, it is true, indicated the definite point in the life of Moses in which to him himself future revelations were promised. But the question is here no longer of the resemblance between Jesus and Moses, in fidelity to their respective vocations, but of the elevation of Christ above Moses, which, in fact, receives attestation even from the fidelity of Moses, who scrupulously held himself entirely within his prescribed sphere. The term refers therefore to those revelations to whose necessity the very ministry of Moses renders in all respects its testimony; and these, too, are not the revelations of later prophecy, nor specially, again, the declarations contained in our Epistle. They are rather those which have been disclosed in full perfection in the Son, John 5:49 (Erasm., Calv., Ebr., Hofm., Del., etc.). Precisely for this reason the name now employed is not Ἰησοῦς, but χριστός. Hebrews 3:6. Yet Christ as a Son over his house, whose house are we.—The reading, ὅς, instead of οὗ, in Hebrews 3:6, is critically unsustained, and the article is wanting before οἶκος, as frequently before θεός, νόμος, and similar familiar terms. The house is still the Theocracy in which Moses served, but at the head of which stands Christ, who, as Son of Him who appointed Him, and erected the house, receives a position of authority and preλminence, and inasmuch as He, as Son of God, is not merely Lord and Heir of all possessions, but the essential agent in originating and procuring them, has a corresponding glory. These declarations, with which the Epistle opens, could not possibly remain unregarded by the readers. But with them the representation here given stands in the most perfect harmony, and ὡςυἱός emphatically precedes, because, while even a servant of higher grade might be entrusted with the management of a household, yet this would leave the specific distinction between Christ and Moses entirely unexpressed. For this reason we are neither to refer αὐτοῦ, Hebrews 3:5, to God, and ἀυτοῦ, Hebrews 3:6, to Christ (�cum., Bl., De W., etc.), as if designing to place in contrast the fact that Moses has his special position in an alien house, but Christ in His own; nor are these genitives to be regarded as genitives of reference=in his, i.e., in the house assigned to him (Ebr., who speaks confusedly of two houses); but they both refer grammatically to God (Chrys., Theod., Calv., Lun., Del., etc.), as does also the relative οὗ, although referring as matter of fact to the Christian dispensation; for this is quite frequently called the house of God, Hebrews 10:21; 1 Corinthians 3:9; 1 Corinthians 3:16; 2 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 2:22; 1 Timothy 3:15; 1 Peter 4:17; 1 Peter 2:5; but never the house of Christ. We give most emphasis to the contrast by simply supplying ἐστίν with χριστὸςδὲ ?—αὐτοῦ (Erasm., Grot., Del., etc.), while the supplying of πιστόςἐστιν is yet undoubtedly admissible, Hebrews 10:21; Matthew 25:21 (Bez., Grot., Thol., etc.); not, however, twice (Bl., De W., Bisp.)=Christ (is faithful) as a Son over his house (is faithful). The ὡς cannot here signify quemadmodum, but simply ut. Provided that we hold fast the confidence and the glorying of our hope, etc.—Christianity, as such, bears the above assigned character of the ‘house of God;’ hence exclusion from the temple need occasion no anxiety to the Church. But whether, as a Church, we preserve this character (not whether we are permitted personally to apply to ourselves this designation, or to regard ourselves as this house), depends on the fulfilment of the requisite condition. The παῤῥησία denotes here, as Hebrews 4:16; Hebrews 10:19; Hebrews 10:35; not bold confession (Grot., etc.), but resolute confidence, and triumphant joyfulness of faith, corresponding to the πληροφορίατῆςἐλπίδος mentioned Hebrews 6:11, which gives to itself a corresponding expression, even in the most unfavorable circumstances. This expression the ὁμολογίατῆςἐλπίδος, Hebrews 10:23, is here called καύχημα, which denotes the result of the act of glorying (καύχησις), not glorying itself (Bl., etc.), and not the mere object of glorying (Lόn.). The ἐλπίς denotes, in a specifically Christian sense, the hope of the perfect consummation of the Kingdom of God, and of participation therein. For this reason μέχριτέλους refers not to the death of the individual (Schlicht., Grot., Kuin.), but to the end of the present order of things. AND ETHICAL1. The connection of Christians among one another has its peculiar character, as that of a holy association, in the fact that it, as a fellowship of the children of God, who are called to the Kingdom of Heaven, received its beginning, its progress, and perfection, alone through its living connection with the historical God-Man. It is hence charged with the duty, not merely of recognizing this relation, but also of expressing it in confession and in action, and hence, in imitation of, and likeness to Christ, of appropriating to itself His fidelity, as a principle which lies at the very basis of perfection in life. 2. In their fidelity, in their respective vocations, towards God who has given to His messengers their respective historical position, appears a striking parallel between Jesus and Moses, inasmuch as the vocation of both has special reference to the establishment of the kingdom of God among men. It is by this that Moses takes precedence above all the prophets and messengers of God in the Old Covenant. But the infinite elevation of Jesus Christ is not, in this respect, in the slightest degree disparaged; but within the limits of the parallel stands forth sharply and clearly. Moses was neither priest nor king, but within the Theocracy, to whose establishment his ministry and fidelity had reference, was a servant, and so served that the true theocracy was designated by Himself as still in the future. Christ, on the contrary, is a High-Priest and for this reason, inasmuch as redemption was accomplished through His sacrifice of Himself, He announces, at the same time, a present salvation; and again, because He is Son He appears, indeed, as a messenger of God, but is, at the same time, ruler over the kingdom of God, and not one of its servants and citizens. 3. The confession of Christians has, as its specific subject, the historical God-man, and Him, as one who in His essential agency appears as, at one and the same time, the author and the herald of salvation. This confession is the original, universal, and comprehensive confession of the primitive church. It is the fundamental, Apostolical, Scriptural testimony, which, as such, is not merely to regulate subsequent developments, but also, as an expression of the living faith of the Church, has, to direct individual souls in their impulses of thought, feeling, and will, toward the person of that Saviour, who, as Son of God, possesses an incomparable elevation, an everlasting ministry, and a Divine ubiquity. 4. The actual earthly ministry of Jesus, with its beginning in time, within local relations, and under given conditions, by no means reduces Him as a historical personage, to the level of a creature. Nor is this result produced by the fact that the life of the God-man has an actual historical commencement. For although the commencement of the life, and the ministry of Jesus may, and must, on the one hand, be regarded as determined, and at a definite point of time, originated by the will and power of God, yet, on the other, we must maintain with equal emphasis the self-determining purpose and act of the Son of God by which, in time as well as in eternity, He kept Himself in undisturbed harmony with the will of His Father. For the Holy Scripture says no less that He came—Matthew 9:13; Matthew 18:11; John 16:28; John 18:37, than that He was sent, Matthew 10:40; John 20:21, and lays no less emphasis upon His offering Himself in sacrifice (John 10:17-18; Ephesians 5:2; Hebrews 7:27), than upon His being delivered up for the expiation of the sins of the world (Romans 8:32; John 3:16; 1 John 4:10). Neither again has the man Jesus at any time received or acquired the Divine nature; nor has the preλxistent Son of God so “emptied Himself” in His incarnation, that a complete destitution of the essence of the Logos, even to the extent of an unconsciousness of the commencement of life, existed in the human embryo. But the uncreated Son of God received, at the incarnation, human nature into the personal unity of an actual theanthropic consciousness and life. If the carrying out of the doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum, led in fact to that conception of the κένωσις which we have just denied, which Gess. (The Doctrine of the Person of Christ, Basle, 1856) has most unqualifiedly developed, it were then high time to surrender this form of our doctrine for the sake of preserving its real substance. The inconsequence of the earlier Lutheran theologians, who denied the applicability of the intrinsically possible fourth kind of the communicatio idiomatum argues a higher mode of thinking, and is substantially more correct than the formal consistency of many recent divines; but still shows the necessity of a reconstruction of this doctrinal formula which, in the form it has hitherto held, is untenable. 5. In that the same God who brought forward Moses upon the stage of history, in like manner brought forward Jesus, any internal contradiction between the Mosaic and the Christian Theocracy is out of the question; while at the same time the fidelity of these two persons who are brought into comparison—a fidelity having reference to the theocracy in its collective character as a house of God—furnishes a pledge that in both cases the founding and arrangement of the house in question has been made in entire accordance with the Divine will. But the diversity of the two persons introduces a corresponding diversity of the Mosaic and the Christian Theocracy. And equally also from the diversity of the economies, which, as a matter of fact, comes first under our eyes, we may reason back to the diversity of the persons. And this diversity is not barely that relative diversity expressing itself in a merely negative way, which the synagogal Midrash expresses in the words (Jalkut on Isaiah 52:13): “the servant of Jehovah, the King Messiah, will be more venerable than Abraham, more exalted than Moses, higher than the angels of the service;” but it is the positive and absolute distinction between preparation and fulfilment on the one hand, and between a creaturely servant, and a son and lord equal with God, upon the other. 6. “Moses prophesied, not only by his vocation, and his fidelity in that vocation, but also by his testimony (John 5:47) to the Son, the Apostle of the final salvation. None the less did the Old Testament house of God, in which Moses had the employment of a servant, viz., the Old Testament Church, which had, as its central point, the ‘tabernacle of testimony’ (Acts 7:44; Revelation 15:5), with its typical furniture and administration, prophesy of the New Testament house of God, over which Christ is placed as Son, viz., the New Testament Church which has its central point in Christ, in whom God appeared incarnate, and in whom as antitype that tabernacling (σκήνωσις) of God among men which was prefigured in the Old Testament tabernacle (σκηνή), has thus been realized.” Del.7. Christ is not, indeed, ashamed to call us His brethren; and He has in reality become truly man, and by circumcision has subjected Himself to the Jewish law (Galatians 4:4), and become incorporated with the Israelite people of God. But in respect to the New Testament people of God, He is not a member, but Head and Lord. He is, indeed, “the first-born among many brethren” (Romans 8:29); and, by that completed and perfected life on which our Epistle lays special stress, holds a relationship to men who, by regeneration, become children of God, and becomes a type and pattern to all who are perfected through Him. But the expression “first-born” points to His relation to those who, after the resurrection, are perfected in the Messianic kingdom (Hebrews 1:5; Colossians 1:18; Revelation 1:5). In His essential being, He is chief of the creation (Revelation 3:14), and πρωτότοκοςπάσηςκτίσεως (Colossians 1:15). The attributes which are ascribed to the Son in the opening of our Epistle, forbid our assigning to this term, in the present section, any other signification than that He who, as Son of the Universal Founder, is elevated over the house of God, is essentially equal to Him, so that an indirect proof of the deity of Jesus Christ may be drawn from this passage. 8. While the mention of the fidelity of Jesus reminds us, indeed, of His moral perfection, and the comparison of His vocation with that of Moses, reminds us of His agency in establishing a new relation of man to God, in a new covenant and kingdom; while the mention, at the same time, of the filial nature and imperial dignity of Jesus Christ rises above and beyond the sphere of mere morality and natural religion; and the whole tenor of Scripture forbids our interpreting the language used in such a way as to favor the subordinatian and Arian heresy,—so, on the other hand, the declaration that God “made Him,” and has “founded all things,” precludes the interpretation which merges the Father in the Son, and yet lends no countenance to Monarchianism or Unitarianism. 9. “Calling” (κλῆσις) denotes not merely an invitation into the kingdom of God by means of preaching. To this conception of a “called” one (κλητός), as occurring in the parables of Jesus (Matthew 20:16; Matthew 22:14), and there without doctrinal import, but simply standing in inseparable connection with the depicting of well-known usages and customs, corresponds in our Epistle, the term εὐηγγελισμένος, Hebrews 4:2, or εὐαγγελθείς (Hebrews 4:6). The κλητός, on the contrary, is, precisely as with Paul, one in whom the gracious call has been made effectual. He is one destined for the Messianic salvation (Hebrews 1:14), for the eternal inheritance (Hebrews 9:15), which is the substance of the ἐπαγγελία, Hebrews 6:17, has His citizenship in heaven, Hebrews 12:23, and has been given by the Father to the Son, Hebrews 2:13, and by a Divine act, in which the eternal purpose of grace realizes itself in time in the case of individuals, has become, by means of the preached Word, an actual member of the Church which is destined to eternal salvation. But since the Word of God works, not magically, but spiritually, and, as a condition of its saving efficacy, requires repentance and faith (as unfolded in the passage immediately following), steadfastness in a gracious state and the attainment of perfection, are secured by our imitation of the fidelity of Jesus Christ. AND The duty of fidelity 1. in its ground and reason in our relation to God; 2. in its extent in the calling assigned to us; 3. in its patterns in the servant and in the Son of God; 4. in its blessings, in securing to us the joys of salvation; 5. in its cultivation within and by means of the Church.—Moses and Christ 1. in their resemblance, a. as sent of God; b. of unimpeached fidelity; c. in the aggregate nature of their vocation, as having reference to the establishment of the kingdom of God; 2. in their diversity, a. in position and office; b. in their nature and history; c. in their influence and the honor conferred upon them.—We are the house of God; 1. in what sense? 2. under what conditions? 3. with what obligations?—What in the confession of our faith have we principally to regard? That it be 1. true in its substance; 2. clear in its expression; 3. sure in its living power; 4. correct in its grounds; 5. adapted to its ultimate end.—If the hope of our calling is to be fulfilled in us, then 1. our calling must become effectual in us, a. in its heavenly character, b. under a gracious Divine influence, c. within the sphere of the Christian brotherhood; and 2. our hope must express, a. in its confidence, faith, b. in its glorying, a living power, c. in its steadfastness, the fidelity of the servants and children of God.—Even those who are placed highest among us should not cease to be 1. servants of the true God; 2. members of the house of God; 3. imitators of the Son of God.—Also the humblest among us must not forget 1. that God has founded and established all things, and 2. that they are partakers of a heavenly calling.—The beginning in Christianity is harder than the beginning in any earthly work; yet the beginning in Christianity is easier than steadfast perseverance to the end.—Complain not of God if thou hast no hope of salvation, but murmur 1. against thine unbelief in the heavenly calling: 2. against thine unfaithfulness in the service committed to thee; 3. against thy negligence in using the gracious means of salvation.—The blessings of Christian church-fellowship and life, correspond in the Divine arrangements 1. to the tasks which we have to fulfil; 2. to the dangers which threaten us; 3. to our essential needs.—The confession, whose obligation rests upon us, urges us 1. to a joyful faith which we are unanimously to profess; 2. to a holy love which we are fraternally to exercise; 3. to a blessed hope which we are faithfully to maintain unto the end.—We are called 1. by a heavenly calling; 2. into a holy fellowship; 3. to the inheritance of the Son of God. Berlenburger Bible:—Stability of doctrine takes the lead; to this, therefore, stability on our part must be added, not from our own powers, but from grace. We must look to it that we do not fall from our own steadfastness (2 Peter 3:17). In this we should place the glory of our religion. Starke:—That which was required to be said, and actually is said of the ways of God, demands to be heard, and received with faith. Blessed, therefore, are ye who hear and keep the word of God (Luke 11:29).—What avails it to have begun in the spirit and to end in the flesh? The end crowns the work.—It is a great dignity of believers that they are, and are called the house of God. Angels are called, indeed, thrones (Colossians 1:16), but never the house of God; but believers are so named, alike on account of the essential, and on account of the gracious presence of God, by which He dwells in them. This house, Jesus Christ as the true light, illuminates by virtue of His prophetic office; He sanctifies it by virtue of His high-priestly office, whence it is called (1 Peter 2:5) a spiritual house; He maintains and protects it by virtue of His kingly office. But as He dwells in this house so is He also its foundation upon which it is built (1 Corinthians 3:11; Ephesians 2:20; 1 Peter 2:6). Laurentius:—Believers may take courage; they are the house and temple of God.—In faith firmness is requisite. Von Bogatzky:—But believers, even the most dull-eyed, see that they cannot too much trust in our God, and cannot so much hope in Him that they do not always need to arouse themselves still more, to this confidence and this hope. For there are always many things which would fain take from us confidence, faith, and hope; therefore should we hold all fast, and in such trust and such hope, not allow even our short-comings to render us weak and unstable. Steinhofer:—Faith and the confession of faith before God and men, are the two things demanded of a Christian in the Gospel of the new covenant (Romans 10:4).—By faith we come, really to a blessed enjoyment of grace, and to an essential communion with the Father and with the Son, our Lord Jesus Christ; and by the confession of this faith, we come, at the same time, into the joint partnership of those who have received the like precious faith, and have Jesus as their Lord and Head.—From all that transpires in the house of God we may discover that the eternal Son, whom the whole creation has got to recognize as its Creator and Lord, is in especial the God and Lord of sinners.—O Thou who art faithfulness, make us faithful to Thee! Hahn:—He who has directed his look toward Christ will have ample encouragement to fidelity, and will all the more look to it that it be not found wanting in him.—The faithfulness of all the servants of Christ is but a weak and shadowy image of the faithfulness of Christ our Lord. Rieger:—As an apostle, Jesus has brought to us the testimony of God, as High-Priest; He manages our cause with God; and faith recognizes Him, or accepts Him for that for which He has been made unto us of God. Confidence, and the glorying of hope, are the bands by which this house, this divine race, are united with its head, and the call to one faith, and to one hope of their calling, unites also among one another these members of the household, provided only they hold fast to their profession.—Stier:—That house of God, wherein Moses is called faithful, was only the forecourt and the beginning of the structure which only appears entirely completed in Christ.—Fricke:—With the coming of Christ the house of God appears completed; all is ready; we need only to enter in; but if we enter in, we shall be ourselves (1 Peter 2:5) living stones in this house. [Owen:—That men be brethren, properly and strictly, it is required that they have one father, be of one family, and be equally interested in the privileges and advantages thereof. The saint’s calling is heavenly, 1. from the fountain and principal cause of it; 2. in respect of the means whereby it is wrought, which are spiritual and heavenly (the word and the Spirit, both from above); 3. of the end, which is to heaven and heavenly things, wherein lies the hope of our calling. All true and real professors of the Gospel are sanctified by the Holy Ghost, and made truly and really holy.—No man comes into a useful, saving knowledge of Jesus Christ in the Gospel, but by virtue of an effectual, heavenly calling.—The spiritual mysteries of the Gospel, especially those which concern the person and offices of Christ, require deep, diligent and attentive consideration.—Solomon’s merchants would not have gone to Ophir had there not been gold there as well as apes and peacocks.—The business of God with sinners could be no way transacted but by the negotiation and embassy of the Son. It was necessary that God’s Apostle unto sinners should, in the whole discharge of His office, be furnished with a full comprehension of the whole mind of God, as to the affair committed to Him. Now, this never any was, nor ever can be capable of, but only Jesus Christ, the Son of God.—Truths to be believed are like believers themselves; all their life, power, and order consist in their relation unto Christ; separated from Him they are dead and useless.—The builders of the New Testament church are servants; (1) they act by virtue of commission, from Him who is the only Lord and ruler of it: (2) it is required of them as servants, to observe and obey the commands of their Lord; (3) as servants they are accountable; (4) as servants they shall have their reward.—It is an eminent privilege to be the house of Christ, or a part of it; “Whose house are we.”—Although these “living stones” are continually removed, some from the lower rooms in this house in grace to the higher stories in glory, yet not one atone of it is, or shall be lost for ever.—Interest in the Gospel gives sufficient cause of confidence and rejoicing in every condition.]. Footnotes: Hebrews 3:1.—The simple Ἰησοῦν has in its favor the usage of the Epistle, and the authority of A. B. C. D. xvii. 34. [So Alf., Lόn., etc.]. Hebrews 3:2.—The ὅλῳ is sustained by the authority of Sin. A. C. D. E. K. L. M., and by the fact of its being found in the passage (Numbers 12:7), which is virtually cited by the author. Hebrews 3:4.—Instead of τὰπάντα we should read barely πάντα after Sin. A. B. C. D. E.* K. M., 17, 53. Hebrews 3:6.—Μέχριτέλουςβεβαίαν is, since Mill, regarded by some as a gloss transferred from Hebrews 3:14, and is harsh, though not without classical analogies. [It is harsh as to gender, overleaping καύχημα, and going back to the preceding παῤῥησίαν, or possibly determined by ἐλπίδος. A more serious objection is the repetition of so marked a phrase in two passages so near each other (Hebrews 10:6; Hebrews 10:14), which, as Del. well observes, is singular in so careful and practised a writer. Hence Del., with Tisch., expunges it; Bleek, De Wette, Thol., Lόn., retain it.—K.]. It is sustained by Sin. A. C. D. E. K. L. M. [Regarding the fidelity of Moses Owen speaks thus: “Moses was faithful. It is true he failed personally in his faith, and was charged of God in that he believed Him not (Numbers 20:12); but this was in respect of his own faith in one particular, and is no impeachment of his faithfulness in the special office intended. As he was the Apostle, the ambassador of God, to reveal His mind, and institute His worship, he was universally faithful: for he declared and did all things according to His will and appointment, by the testimony of God Himself, Exodus 40:16, ‘According to all that the Lord commanded him so did he.’ He withheld nothing of what God revealed or commanded, nor did he add any thing thereunto; and herein did his faithfulness consist”]. II The threatening of the Old Testament, that unbelievers shall not enter into the rest of God, is all the more to be taken to heart by the New Testament people of God Hebrews 3:7-197 Wherefore, as the Holy Spirit saith: To-day if ye will [om. will] hear his voice, 8harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness, 9 when [where οὗ ?] your fathers tempted me, proved me [by proving], and saw my works [during] forty years. 10Wherefore I was grieved [was angry] with that [this] generation, and said, They do always err [go astray] in their heart; and they have not known [but they did not know] my ways. 11So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest. 12Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart13 of unbelief, in departing [falling away, ᾶποστῆναι] from the living God. But exhort one another daily, while it is called To-day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. 14For we are made [have become] partakers of Christ, if [provided that, ἐάνπερ] we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast unto the end; 15while it is said, To-day if ye will hear [if ye hear] his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation. 16For some, when they had heard, did provoke, [for who, when they heard, provoked him?]: howbeit not all [nay, did not all they?] that came 17 out of Egypt by Moses [?]. But [And] with whom was he grieved [angry during] forty years? was it not with them that had sinned [?], whose carcases fell in the wilderness? 18 [!] And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to 19 them that believed not [disobeyed, ἀπειθήσασιν]? So [And] we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief. [Hebrews 3:7.—ὡς, as, καθώς, according as—ἐὰνἀκούσητε, not, “if ye will hear,” but, “if ye hear,” or “shall have heard,” See Del., De W., Moll. Still the precise import of the Hebrew original of the Psalm is doubtful, and it is possible that the Septuagint may intend its ἐὰνἀκούσητε as having an optative force—would that! Yet we do not seem authorized in our Epistle to depart from the natural rendering of the words. Hebrews 3:9.—οὗ, where, not when, as Eng. ver.—ἑνδοκιμασία, in proving, instead of ἐδοκίμασαν. Hebrews 3:10.—αύτοὶδὲοὐκέγνωσαναὐτοί, emphatic; “but they did not know,” etc., to be coφrdinated apparently not with πλανῶνται, but with εἶπον and δέ, adversative. So De W., Del., Moll. Hebrews 3:11.—ὡςὥμοσα, Eng. ver., so I swore as if ὡς=οὕτως. Moll, so that=ὥστε; so De Wette, Del. Bib. Union, literally, as. Hebrews 3:14.—γεγόναμεν, we have become, not are made, ἐάνπερ, precisely if=provided that: stronger than ἐάν, if. Hebrews 3:16.—τίνεςγάρ, for who? all modern scholars read τίνες, who? instead of the ancient τινές, some, indefinite, which is nearly unmeaning. Hebrews 3:17.—ὧντὰκῶλα—ἐρήμῳ. Moll rightly follows Del. in making this not a question, but a statement descriptive of the effects of the wrath. So Bib. Un. Hebrews 3:18.—Καί, Eng. ver., so, without reason. It is not an inference, but the statement of an actual fact. De Wette, Del., Moll, Bib. Union rightly and.—K.]. AND Heb_3:7. Wherefore as the Holy Ghost saith, etc.—The exhortation to take warning from the example of their ancestors against apostasy is introduced by διό, as an inference from the preceding statements, and is to be conceived as corresponding (καθώς) to the address of the Holy Spirit; Διό, however, is neither to be immediately connected with σκληρύνετε, (Schlicht., Ebr., Del., etc.), thus producing a blending of the principal with the subordinate sentence; inasmuch as God, in the citation, Hebrews 3:7-11, is speaking in the first person; nor with βλέπετε, Hebrews 3:12 (Erasm., Calv., Este, Grot., Bl., Lόn., Bisping, etc.), for this stands too remote. Nor again is the hortatory addition to be supplied (Thol., De W.); but the abrupt breaking off of the construction in the main sentence is characteristic. It gives to the reader a moment’s interval of repose, and yet, at the same time, summons him to reflection, and to a right application of the passage. With new emphasis, and starting, as it were, afresh, the exhortation is subsequently given by the author himself in Hebrews 3:12. Hebrews 3:8. To-day, if ye hear his voice, harden not your hearts.—As the Sept. often translates the Hebrew particle of desire by ἐάν, it is possible that it has so taken the words here according to the common understanding of the Hebrew text, in which ΰִ ?ν stands first for the sake of emphasis: “Would that to-day ye might hearken to His voice!” It is possible, however, that ΰִ ?ν in Heb. here simply introduces a hypothetical condition [so Delitzsch]. The citation is from Psalms 95:7; Psalms 95:11, which, by the sudden introduction of the speech of Jehovah, belongs to the class of those that bear a prophetic character. The author is thus entirely warranted in not restricting the “to-day” to the actual ‘present’ of the Psalmist (left in Heb. unnamed—in the Sept. mentioned as David); and in regarding the address itself as that of the Holy Spirit, while, at the same time, the Holy Scripture is regarded in all its parts as θεόπνευστος (2 Timothy 3:16). Del. communicates the following remarkable Messianic Haggada from bab. Sanhedrin, 98 a.: “R. Joshua Ben Levi once found Elijah (the Tishbite) standing at the entrance of the cave of R. Simeons Ben Jochei. He asked him: ‘Do I come into the future world?’ Elijah answered: If the Lord (ΰγεκ, name of the Shechina that was invisibly present with Elijah) wills it. R. Joshua stated that he saw indeed but two (himself and Elijah), but he heard the voices of three. He asked him further: When comes the Messiah? Elijah: Go and ask Him in person. Joshua: And where? Elijah: He is sitting at the gate of Rome. Joshua: And how may He be recognized? Elijah: He is sitting among poor persons laden with diseases; and while others unbind their wounds at the same time, and then bind them up, He unbinds and then again binds up one wound after another, for He thinks: Perchance I am about to be summoned (called to make my public appearance); and I do this that I may not then be detained! (as would be the case if He unbound all wounds at the same time). Then came Joshua to Him, and He cried: Peace unto thee, son of Levi! Joshua: When comest Thou, Lord? He: To-day. On returning to Elijah, Joshua was asked by him: What said He to thee? Joshua: Peace unto thee, son of Levi. Elijah: In this He has given to thee and to thy father a prospect of the future world. Joshua: But He has deceived me in that He said to me that He comes to-day. Elijah: His meaning in that was this—To-day, if ye hear His voice.” Hebrews 3:8. As in the provocation in the wilderness.—The Heb. reads: As at Meribah (Numbers 20), as at the day of Massa, in the wilderness (Exodus 17). Our author takes these proper names etymologically, as appellatives, and the words κατὰτὴνἡμέραντοῦπειρασμοῦ as added to define the time of the ἐντῷπαραπικρασμῷ. The κατά is a particle of time, the same as at Hebrews 9:9, as in the Hellenistic, and is not to be turned into a term of comparison=ὡς. Otto considers that here also Numbers 14 is alone referred to. Hebrews 3:9. Where your fathers—during forty years.—The last mentioned temptation took place in the first year of the Exodus; the first mentioned in the fortieth. But the hardness of the people always remained the same, to which Moses refers, Deuteronomy 33:8. The οὗ is a particle of place corresponding to ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ, and not, by attraction to πειρασμοῦ, Gen. for ῳ, with which (Erasm., Schmid, Beng., Peirce). The forty years in the wilderness are in the synagogue also regarded as typical. R. Elieser says: “The days of the Messiah are forty years, as it is said, Psalms 95.” (Sanh., fol. 99, 1). And to the question: How long continue the years of the Messiah? R. Akiba answered: “Forty years, corresponding to the sojourning of the Israelites in the desert” (Tanchuma, fol. 79, 4). The admonition of our Epistle must, therefore, have made a powerful impression, if this number of years since the ministry of Christ had, when this Epistle was composed, nearly elapsed. That the author has in mind this typical relation, is clear from the fact that the ‘forty years,’ which in the Heb. belong to the following clause—a construction which he himself recognizes at Hebrews 3:17—he here carries back to the preceding, and shows that he intends this construction by introducing between the dissevered parts the particle διό (so Intpp. generally since Calov). Hebrews 3:10. Wherefore I was angry with this generation.—The Hellenistic προσοχθίζειν from ὀχθή, steep, high bank, or cliff, implies violent, tempestuous excitement, which one either occasions or experiences. Usually it has the latter sense, denoting the feeling of violent displeasure awakened by opposition. The ἀεί belongs not to εἶπον (Erasm.), but to πλανῶνται. A secondary idea of contempt can hardly belong to γενεά (Heinr., Steng.), though very possibly toταύτῃ ?(Lόn.); but it is impossible that, by the latter pronoun (ταύτῃ), instead of ἐκείνῃ, the author could have intended in this connection an incidental reference to his readers (Bφhm., Bl., De W.). In this passage also the author follows the Alex. Cod. of the Sept. in reading αὐτοὶδέ, while the Vat. Cod. follows the Heb. in reading καὶαὐτοί. Hebrews 3:11. As I sware in my wrath that they shall not enter into my rest.—Possibly ὡς should be taken as=as, but it may also, corresponding to the Heb. ΰַ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ (Ewald, § 337, a.), denote result=ὥστε, so that. It then, indeed, usually takes the Infin., or the Opt. with ἄν, though sometimes also the Indic. (Win., p. 410) [Ὥστε, so that, as easily takes the Ind. as the Opt.—K.]. The εἰ in the clause containing the substance of the oath, is in imitation of the Heb. ΰִ ?ν. The formula has sprung from the suppression of the apodosis, and negatives the thought, while ΰִ ?νμֹ ?ΰֹ affirms it. The κατάπαυσις refers originally to the rest of the Promised Land, Deuteronomy 12:9-10. But the idea of the “rest of God,” proceeding from this starting point, acquired a wider scope and a deeper significance. Hebrews 3:12. Take heed that there be not—living God.—Μή, after words of seeing, in the Fut. Indic., expresses not only a warning, but, with it, anxiety in regard to a failure to give heed Hart., Part. II., 140). The enclitic ποτέ means, not ever, at any time (Beza, Eng. Ver., etc.), but perchance, and the ἔντινιὑμῶν individualizes the admonition, so as to bring it home to each person in conscientious self-examination. The Gen. ἀπιστίας indicates the relation of quality; the evil heart, then, is not to be regarded as the cause or ground (Bl., etc.), nor as the consequence of unbelief (De W., etc.). Nor, again, is ἀπιστία either faithlessness or disobedience (Schultz). The latter is the consequence of unbelief, Hebrews 3:18; Hebrews 4:6; Hebrews 4:11, which appears here as exhibiting its internal essence in apostasy from God. We are not by θεός to understand Christ (Gerh., Dorsch, Calov, Sebast. Schmidt, Schφttg., Carpz.), although the warning refers to the lapse from Christianity to Judaism. And God is here called ζῶν, living, not in contrast with dead works of law, Hebrews 6:1; Hebrews 9:14 (Bl.), and not in contrast with dead idols, as Acts 14:15; 2 Corinthians 6:16; 1 Thessalonians 1:9 (Bφhme), but as He who works with living efficiency, Hebrews 9:14; Hebrews 12:22; who executes His threats, Hebrews 10:31; but chiefly who has appointed Christ as He did Moses, and thus accomplished the fulfilment of His promises. This latter point is overlooked by most interpreters, but is involved directly both in the fundamental conception of our Epistle, and in the immediate connection of the passage. Hebrews 3:13. But exhort one another daily—sins.—With the warning stands connected a summons to παράκλησις, i.e., to language at once of consolation and of admonition, with which the hearers are to render daily aid to one another, so long as this period of gracious waiting shall continue. In classical, as well as in New Testament use (Colossians 3:16) ἑαυτούς, is frequently=ἀλλήλους. Individual self-exhortation cannot be expressed by παρακαλεῖτεἑαυτούς, which would rather demand παρακαλείτωἕκαστοςἑαυτόν. Τὸσήμερον (to-day with the def. art.) cannot denote the life-time of individuals (Theodoret, Theoph., Primas., Erasm., Este, Dorsch, etc.), but must be identical with the day of the Psalm, and thus with the interval of grace extending to the second coming of the Messiah. We might also, in this sense, translate καλεῖται, is named, (Vulg., Est., Bl., Lόn., etc.), but inasmuch as this is liable to the misconception: So long as we can yet speak of ‘to-day,’ the rendering is called=so long as the ‘to-day’ of the Psalm sounds in our ears (Calv., Thol., Bφhm., Del., etc.), would seem to deserve the preference. The Aor. Pass. σκληρυνθῇ is not to be softened down; it contains a reminder of the divine judicial hardening of those who abuse the means of grace through the deceitfulness of sin. For this reason ἐξὑμῶν is designedly placed before τὶς, not as contrasting them with their fathers in the wilderness (Bφhme, Bl.), which would almost necessarily require a καί, also, but to designate with emphasis the readers as those who are highly favored (Del.). Apostasy from Christianity is here designated as “sin,” absolutely; for the essence of sin is apostasy from God; but Christ is the Son of God, and has brought to its accomplishment the will of God on earth. The deceit, therefore, which now works upon the heart, is worse than the earlier, Genesis 3:13. Hebrews 3:14. For we have become joint partakers with Christ if we hold fast, etc.—As in the former chapter the author now again enforces the preceding exhortation by the greatness of the salvation which has been bestowed on us. The term γεγόναμεν, have become, reminds us that we do not possess this salvation by nature, and that consequently without the observance of the requisite condition, we are liable to have it withdrawn from us. This condition, again, introduced by the particle [not of mere condition εἰ with opt., but] of doubt, ἐάν, if, ἐάνπερ, precisely if, provided that (with Subj.) is presented not simply and objectively, as a mere condition, but as of questionable fulfilment, and hence enforces the need of self-examination, of watchfulness, and of fidelity. And for this reason μέτοχοιτοῦχριστοῦ cannot mean participants of Christ, i.e., having part in His person; but only participants along with Christ, associates of, or joint partakers with Christ in the possessions and blessings of the kingdom of God. Riehm, overlooking this requirement of the context, prefers, with more recent scholars, the rendering participes, sharers in, instead of associates, or sharers with, as the more comprehensive and significant. He is right, indeed, as to the matter of fact, where he says (II. 719): “Christ, the Mediator of the New Covenant, enters into such intimate personal fellowship with the believer, that it can be said of the latter that he possesses Christ; and along with Christ Himself all that Christ has obtained has also become his own; as one who has part in Christ, he has also part with Christ in the heavenly glory and blessedness.” But the context demands the limitation above given. The term must imply partners or associates of Christ, yet without its being referred back, as by Schultz, to the term “brethren” of Christ (Hebrews 2:11); and the term μέτοχοι being narrowed down to ἀδελφοί. By ἀρχὴντῆςὑπστάσεως Erasm., Schultz, Stein, etc., understand the settled elementary principles or foundations of the Christian religion. Luther renders it “the commenced or inaugurated essence”—angefangene Wesen (as translation of substantia). Vatablus, Este, Bisping make it a periphrasis for faith, in so far as faith produces our subsistence in the spiritual life, or originates the subsistence of Christ within us. Instead of either of these meanings, the context points us to a meaning of ὑπόστασις familiar to the later Greek, viz., firm confidence, as the only one which meets its exigencies. For ὑπόστασις stands here in the same connection as ἐλπίς, hope, Hebrews 3:6, and in fact denotes this hope in its relation as daughter of faith, and by virtue of its relationship remaining amidst all assaults steadfastly and confidently directed toward the goal. As such it needs perpetual fostering and culture, in order that that beginning of the Christian career, which is wont to be characterized by joyfulness, energy and strength (1 Timothy 5:12; Revelation 2:4), and which, in the case of the readers, has been so characterized (Hebrews 6:10; Hebrews 10:32; Hebrews 13:7), may have a corresponding end. The ἀρχὴτῆςὑποστάσεως is, therefore, a beginning, not in the sense of imperfection and weakness, which led Ebrard to find in the readers a set of catechumens and neophytes, but the opening or inauguration of the Church life in its full vitality and power (Camero, Grot., Bφhme, Thol., etc.). Hebrews 3:15. In its being said to-day if ye hear—harden not, etc.—The author resumes the citation, yet not for the purpose of expressing an admonition, thus making the citation proper extend only to “to-day” (v. Gerl.), or to “hear His voice” (Capell., Carpz., etc.), and the author resume his exhortation at “harden not,” etc., in the applied words of the Psalm, as the answering clause to ἐντῷλέγ. For this formula of introduction makes it necessary to take the following words as an entire citation. Nor may we again (with Beng., Michael., etc.), enclose Hebrews 3:14 in parenthesis. and connect ἐντῷλέγ. immediately with the requisition (παρακαλεῖτε, etc.), Hebrews 3:13; for the verse thus forms not merely an unnecessary and halting appendage, but unnaturally and absurdly summons the readers to mutual admonition by the previous utterance of the words of the Psalm. Nor may we (with Chrys., Grot., etc.), take Hebrews 3:16-19 parenthetically, and connect ἐντῷλέγ., with Hebrews 4:1; a construction forbidden alike by the subsequent course of thought, and the connecting particle οὖν. Nor may we attach Hebrews 3:15 directly to Hebrews 3:14; thus either assigning the mode of procedure by which steadfastness of faith is to be maintained (Vulg., Luth., Calv.), or the reason and necessity of maintaining it in order that we may be partakers with Christ (Ebr.). For ἐντῷλέγ. is not=διὸγέγει, or οὕτωςγὰρεἴρηκεν. Better, therefore, to take the words in question as protasis, or conditioning clause to Hebrews 3:16, which latter verse is then to be taken as interrogative with an interposed γάρ=for, why, (according to genuine Greek usage) to which also the ἀλλά corresponds (Seml., and most recent interpreters). [This last construction is undoubtedly possible; and I believe it preferable to either of the others, except that which would connect it with Hebrews 4:1, as held by Chrys., Grotius and others. In this case, however, it is not a case of proper parenthesis, so that Hebrews 4:1 would stand in regular construction with Hebrews 3:15. Rather as the author was about to proceed to the train of thought, Hebrews 4:1, he was led, especially by the language of the quotation itself, to restate sharply and distinctly what had been previously but implied and hinted at, the actual crime and the actual punishment of the ancient Israelites, from which so weighty admonitions were drawn. He, therefore, abruptly breaks off in the middle of his sentence, to introduce in a series of sharp interrogations and, statements these ideas: which being accomplished, he returns,—with a natural change of construction, occasioned by the long interposed passage,—to the idea which at Hebrews 3:15, he had started to develope. This obviates entirely the objection drawn from the particle οὖν, Hebrews 4:1, and the otherwise anacoluthic character of the construction, and is, in my judgment, the only solution of the problem of Heb 3:15, that is not attended by nearly insuperable difficulties. The construction, therefore, which I prefer, is decidedly that of Chrys., in a somewhat modified form.—K.]. Of course τίνες must then be taken interrogatively; and the author’s purpose is either to repel the idea, that perhaps there were only a portion who were guilty of the provocation, to wit, the people who were at the time at Meribah and Massa (Bφhme, Ebr.); in which case the author would reply that all Israel failed to enter into the Promised Land, for the reason that the whole people were guilty of the sin of unbelief and apostasy; or he designs to emphasize the fact that it was precisely Israel, the highly favored people, that had been conducted forth from Egypt to become God’s special possession, in whom all this had taken place (Del.). I see no reason for separating the two ideas. For while ἀκούσαντες points to the prerogative, which they enjoyed who heard the word of God, and the attendant obligation to obedience, the next and following interrogative sentence, ἀλλ’ οὐπάντες, brings into closest connection (in πάντες) the universality of the sin, and in ἐξελθόντες, the preceding gracious experience and privilege: [while διὰΜουσέως suggests here the same contrast between Moses, and his relation to the ancient Theocracy and Christ, as δι’ ἀγγέλων, Hebrews 1:2, between the angels and Christ.—K.]. Bisping remarks: “yet perchance not all?” but erroneously. For οὐ in interrogations=nonne, has always an affirmative force (Kόhner, II., 579; Hart., Part., II., 88). The exceptional cases of Joshua, Caleb and those of tender age, are not of a nature to detract from the truth thus broadly stated, and to require that τίνες be taken, as it generally was before Bengel, indefinitely (τινές, some, instead of τίνες, who?) thus giving the rendering (Erasm., Luth., Eng. ver., etc.), “for some, when they heard committed provocation, but not all those who came out of Egypt by Moses.” How could the 600,000 whom Moses brought out of Egypt, be called τινές? The rendering of Bengel, Schultz, Kuinoel; “Nay, only they who,” etc. “It was merely they who,” [as if denying an assertion that certain men indeed provoked God, but it was not those who came out of Egypt, etc., to which the author replies, “Nay, they were all those=they were none but those] would require the article οἱ before πάντες, in order to give clearly a predicative character to οἱἐξελθόντες. [But this οἱ would scarcely mend the matter, and Bengel’s construction would then be little less harsh than it is now]. Hebrews 3:17. With whom was he angry—wilderness.—Most recent interpreters put the second interrogative mark, or still a third one, at the close of the period, after “wilderness,” to avoid the heavy and dragging effect of the last clause—if without an interrogation. But this construction overlooks the parallelism with Hebrews 3:18-19, which, in like manner, distribute themselves into three members. For the last clause of these latter verses is not a mere continuation of the facts previously stated; but it points to the fulfilment of the Divine oath, lying before our eyes, in the exclusion of the people from Canaan through unbelief. So also in Hebrews 3:17 the last clause, “whose carcasses,” points to the manifestation of the Divine wrath, in the fact that those who had fallen away from God, dying, as it were, gradually, during their bodily life, became walking corpses (Del.). Grotius says rightly ex historia cognoscimus, while Seb. Schmidt, followed by Bl., with most later interpreters, maintains; βλέπομεν, non de lectione aut cognitione historiζ, sed de convictione animi e disputatione, seu doctrina prζmissa. [That is, Seb. Schmidt, Bl., etc., followed by Alford, regard Hebrews 3:19, “And we see that they could not,”etc., as an inference, the result of a chain of reasoning, of which, however, it is very difficult to trace any previous links; while Del. and Moll, following Grotius, make it the result stated as well known and clearly seen in the pages of the historical record, and thus brought up as a historical fact to enforce the positions of the author, and so the clause, “whose carcasses fell in the wilderness,” stands related to what precedes. It is the author’s statement, in Scripture language, of the results of the wrath of God.—K.]. The history of Israel is typical, and to this and to the state of things which follows from it, the author is referring (as shown immediately by the commencement of the following chapter), not drawing conclusions from previous premises.—Κῶλα, members, particularly hands and feet, is the term by which the LXX. render the Heb. τְּ ?βָ ?ψִ ?ιν in the sense of bodies or corpses. AND ETHICAL1. “Our being kept unto salvation, springs from the promised and vouchsafed power of God, yet only through faith, which does not waver or draw back (Hebrews 10:38-39; 1 Peter 1:5): and thus the Apostle has in these words expressed in the most definite manner the theme of his exhortation. In his purpose to carry it out still further, he again lays hold, with the skilful hand of a master, upon the word of the early Scriptures, and says what he has to say to the brethren, the partakers of the heavenly calling, in the words of the Holy Spirit, by the mouth of David. For the Epistle to the Hebrews is in so far analogous to the Revelation of John, as it brings into close union the two Testaments, and sets forth the profoundest and ultimate elements of New Testament truths, as a proper fulfilment of the types and preparatory institutions of the Old Testament, as the innermost sense and spirit of the ancient word, which was written beforehand wholly for the fulness of times” (Stier). 2. With the doctrine of predestination in all its forms, this section stands in decided antagonism; for the author speaks indeed of a hardening, which has for its result, the non-attainment of the promised rest; and in like manner of a Divine will and work which are herein accomplished. But this is by no means referred to any original wrath of God, or to His eternal counsel. Rather it is the deceitfulness of sin, by which the obduracy is produced, and against this is directed an earnest warning. The wrath of God appears as the holy fire of righteous indignation upon those who, in consequence of their evil heart of unbelief, have fallen away from the living God, and have provoked and tempted Him, before that He could prove Himself unfaithful, and fail of His own word. And it is unbelief that is emphatically declared to have been the cause of the hardening of the heart, and, as united with disobedience, to have been the ground of the destruction of those who fell in the wilderness. But that unbelief itself is not purposed or produced of God, and that the capacity to believe in the preached word is not refused by God to individual men, or taken from them previously to their own self-determination, is clear from the earnestness of the exhortation that each one should, during the gracious season of his pilgrimage, give heed to the preached word, and not allow himself to be hardened against it, but rather, by the influence of mutual admonitions within the Church, should incite himself to lay to heart the history of the Israelites, and to an unwavering maintenance of the confidence of faith. [That nothing is said here of the doctrine of predestination, proves nothing more against it than is proved by every passage of warning or exhortation in the New Testament. Few Calvinists believe that the doctrine of predestination is incompatible with the free agency and consequent accountability of man.—K.]. 3. The hardening of the heart has its gradations of carnal security, which comforts itself with the outward possession of the means of grace, and from natural indifference and insensibility to the word, proceeds on through unbelieving disparagement, faithless neglect, and reckless transgression of the word, to rejection, contempt, and denial of it, and thence to a permanent embittering of the wicked heart; to a conscious stubbornness of the wicked will; to the bold tempting of the living God Himself, until, in complete obduracy, judicial retribution begins the fulfilment of its terrible work. 4. Unbelief is, in its inmost essence, faithlessness and apostasy, and hence always manifests itself as disobedience and corruption. In outward corruption the Divine judgment brings the inward depravity, the πονηρία, to light, and, at the same time, to its due reward. For God, in contrast with the faithless and apostate, remains true to Himself and His word, and as the living God carries His judgment through all resistance of the world and the devil, to victory; bringing His threats, as well as His promises, to gradual, but sure and unchecked accomplishment. 5. It is God’s, will indeed that all men be saved, and this will is potent and mighty; yet as a gracious will, it exercises no compulsion, while, as the will of the living God, it renders possible the fulfilment of the indispensable conditions of salvation; and, as the will of the Holy God, works not magically, but by the ordinary means of grace. The decision of our destiny is thus entrusted to our own will, since God has in a reliable way made known to us our destination to salvation, and provided and proffered the sure means for its attainment. 6. The duty of self-examination, and of the conscientious use of the means of grace, we must never lose sight of; since we have not as yet entered into rest, but are merely on the way to the goal. If our gracious fellowship with Christ is completely to triumph over our natural fellowship with our fathers, it must be nurtured and promoted in the way that God has ordained. Otherwise the end will not correspond with the beginning. For previous obedience excuses not subsequent apostasy, and a faith that has been abandoned does not justify at the Divine tribunal. 7. Since the gracious will of God aims at the salvation of men; while with some His judgments only produce obduracy, as the punishment of unbelief, and in consequence of this, exclusion from salvation; and since to every individual a period of grace is allotted whose limit is unknown, we must suppose that grace has, up to this point, applied in sufficient measure all its means, ways, and resources, and that God, by virtue of His omniscience, has determined this point of time in which the work of grace ceases. But with obdurate hardness, sin passes over into a permanent condition. AND Our life is a pilgrimage, if: 1, our goal is entrance into the rest of God; 2, our companions the people of God; 3, our Leader the Spirit of God; 4, our rule the word of God; 5, our Helper the Son of God.—Believers have chiefly to guard themselves: 1, against false security in faith; 2, against arrogance and boasting of faith; 3, against wanderings and backsliding from faith.—How exceedingly important that the season of grace be not neglected: 1, we know not the moment at which our gracious reprieve is ended; 2, they who neglect, incur the sure wrath of God; 3, they who walk under the wrath of God do not come into the land of promise.—We must hearken to the voice of the Holy Spirit as it speaks to us: 1, in the Holy Scripture; 2, in our own conscience; 3, from the mouth of converted brethren.—He who does to-day what God demands, has best cared for to-morrow; and he who does this daily, in the to-day gains eternity.—In self-examination we have particularly to take heed to our heart: 1, whether it is an erring heart, or one steadfast in the faith; 2, whether it is an evil heart, or one converted to God; 3, whether it is a presumptuous heart, or one that is led in the discipline of the Holy Spirit.—Why deception through sin is the most dangerous: 1, because it most frequently occurs, and is most rarely corrected; 2, because it is most easily accomplished, and brings the heaviest losses—To sin all times and ways are alike, but grace has its ordained means, and its limited times; therefore be warned aright, and then in turn warn others.—How can any one be lost in the possession of the means of grace? 1, if he does not use the means of grace which are proffered to him; 2, if his use of the means of grace is in truth an abuse; 3, if he does not perseveringly continue the right use of the means of grace unto the end.—Let us practice the duty of mutual watching and exhortation: 1, on the basis of the word of God; 2, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit; 3, as members of the people of God in a common lowliness; 4, from the hearty compassion of genuine brotherly love; 5, for mutual furtherance in faith and obedience toward the Lord our God. Starke:—Let every one see to it that he rightly avail himself of to-day, i.e., of the present time; for this alone is ours, since the past is already gone, and the future is still uncertain. Besides, if the present is properly employed, it brings with it a blessing for the future (Galatians 6:10; Isaiah 55:6).—The examples of the wicked stand in the Holy Scripture for our improvement (1 Corinthians 10:6). There is no better means to be employed against obduracy of heart, than that by frequent self-examination and befitting fidelity, we learn to obey the convictions that have been wrought within us; for thus conscience maintains its tender sensibility, and is preserved from all hardening, 2 Corinthians 13:5.—The more proofs and testimonies men have of the guidance and care of God, the heavier becomes the sin, if they will still neither believe nor hope, Matthew 23:37-38.—God has come to the aid of human weakness, and uttered in His word many a declaration with the virtual confirmation of an oath, in that He swears by Himself and appeals to the inviolable truth of His being and life.—Divine threatenings are not an empty and dead sound, but have a mighty emphasis; they are fraught with God’s jealous zeal, and are finally put in force. Ah! that thou mightest be awakened by them to repentance! Joshua 23:15; Zechariah 1:6.—Man departs from God, and becomes involved in spiritual death, when he begins to deny the truths which bring salvation (Acts 13:46); or to live in conscious and deliberate sins, which are incompatible with union with God.—Oh! how necessary that the whole Christian body be aroused! but who thinks thereupon? We avoid speaking of spiritual things in our common intercourse; and this is a sure sign of a great backsliding.—Preachers cannot do every thing, and cannot be everywhere; therefore, the fathers of the household must be also bishops of the household; nay, one Christian must be bishop to another, and he has good authority and right to rebuke and correct in another what he sees worthy of reproof (1 Thessalonians 5:11; James 5:19).—A man can easily be hardened if he does not take knowledge and care of himself, and take to heart the admonition of others.—Sin is a powerful and deceitful thing; powerful in evil desires, by which one is very easily swept away when he does not, with the grace of God, set himself against them; but deceitful when by the plausible assurance that a thing is right, allowable, and free from peril, it ensnares the man, seduces him into sin, and, unawares, gets the mastery of him. Ah! let every one be on his guard against it (Ephesians 4:22).—Christ, with all His attributes, offices, and possessions, belongs to us; for us was He born, for us He died, for us He arose, for us He lives, and for us He intercedes. Therefore, if we have Christ, we are wanting in no good whatsoever (Psalms 34:11; Romans 8:32).—In Christianity two things are of preλminent importance—an upright character and a steadfast continuance in it. The one cannot and must not be without the other; for if we fail at the outset in uprightness of character, much more shall we fail in steadfastness. And if the latter is wanting, the beginning and the earlier progress will be in vain (Ezekiel 33:12).—One day is like another; we may always fail and fall: therefore, to-day, to-morrow, and at all times there is need of watchfulness and caution (1 Corinthians 10:12).—God is inconceivably long-suffering, and waits long before He punishes; and meanwhile He is doing good to sinners, and always alluring them to repentance (Romans 2:4).—O! how many men fail to attain that natural limit of life which God has appointed! They cut it short to themselves by wilful sin, and it is shortened to them again by the Divine wrath (Proverbs 10:27).—Wilt thou charge unrighteousness upon God, that He lets good come to one and evil to another? Look, He is so righteous that He punishes none except him who is deserving of punishment (Job 34:11; Wis 12:15).—Unbelief is the source of all sin. From unbelief sprang murmuring and all disobedience, inasmuch as by this they denied the presence, omnipotence, wisdom, and grace of God. Berlenburger Bible:—Since Christ is to rule in us as Lord in His house, we must accept the condition of hearing His voice and giving heed to it at every moment.—The people demand indeed, Christ, but when He comes without sufficient adornment and decoration, they reject Him, and are hardened.—All evil which befalls us springs from our giving no ear to the voice of God, just as our hearkening to it is followed by nothing but good.—The ways of God are entirely unknown and strange to the flesh; the heart of man always wanders about in other things; and thus, also, the dispensations of God are entirely contrary and repugnant to man’s self-will.—Tenderly as God loves a soul, He cannot treat with tenderness its corrupt disposition.—They are zealous for the Sabbath, and have no rest in their heart.—God commences His chastisement by depriving us of rest, in order that we may observe that we have lost something.—If we love others, we admonish them. Open your eyes and see!—Unbelief is a toilsome and an evil thing, which also allows no repose to others.—Now we still hear the call, “to-day;” but the gracious interval may soon close and end. Thus the boundary, with all its uncertainty, is to be kept before our eyes. But God creates this uncertainty, not in order to vex us, but in order to guard us against false security.—The present life is to be regarded merely as a day. Blessed is he who uses it for eternity!—God has appointed the period of life as the period of repentance; yet we may not say that the limit of grace reaches absolutely to the limit of nature.—Paul is obliged to give more space to warnings than to doctrines. Such admonitions are commonly disliked; one must, therefore, deal in them sparingly; yet they spring from an evangelical heart.—Whoever wilfully neglects salvation, who can help him?—In warning a person against the danger of being hardened, we do not deny his former possession of grace, but we remind him that he must not lose his previous grace. Laurentius:—The ground of the admonition is twofold: 1, Christ’s superiority to Moses; 2, the appeal of the Holy Spirit.—The greater the grace of God, so much the greater frequently is the wickedness of men.—Believers also need to be admonished.—By the false pretexts of sin man is deceived, and by the deceitfulness of sin he is hardened.—By frequent admonition, much evil can be guarded against.—Faith can be again lost.—Not the beginning, but the end, receives the crown.—Unbelief is the capital sin, and is specially punished by God; the examples of punishments inflicted on others should serve as a warning to us. Rambach:—The heart is hard even by nature, but God endeavors to soften it. If we oppose ourselves to Him, the hardness becomes obduracy.—Unbelief is the single and proper cause of damnation.—Sin has regard to the disposition. With the ungodly she uses force and not cunning, saying, Thou must do that. With believers whom she is unable to rule, she employs cunning and deception. Steinhofer:—It is the office of the Holy Spirit to testify and to warn against the sin of unbelief, and this office He constantly exercises in the preached word.—What takes place in the case of souls that come into the state of grace, and what is required in order that we may remain in this condition. Hahn:—What God has already done in us, gives us a new incentive to fidelity.—Though we ourselves find nothing in ourselves, we are still as yet not justified; but we must appeal to another that he should pronounce our justification.—We have before us a goal; therefore we should seek to preserve one another; one should kindle another’s zeal, not light the flame of his passion. Such are the obligations of Christian fellowship. Rieger:—We meet, within the barriers of the race-course of faith, not only footsteps in which to follow, but also doubtful and dangerous deviations, and connected with these, warnings of the Holy Spirit.—Every one has his fixed barriers and ordained course of faith, from his first hearing of the voice of God even to the goal.—In regard to faith, and our participation in the heavenly calling, we must neither be timid and distrustful, nor again secure and heedless as if there were no danger.—The deceitfulness of sin need only to withdraw one to-day after another, from the attention of thy heart, in order to cheat thee unobserved of thy whole gracious season of many years.—In admonitions and appeals from the word of God, lies a drawing and a calling of God, which sin cannot so much destroy as our own purposes. Von Gerlach:—As long as the Holy Spirit is still working on the heart, so long continues our respite of grace. Heubner:—The continuous office of the Holy Spirit in the Church is, to lay Christ upon the heart, to urge us to faith, to rebuke unbelief.—Even in the Old Testament we perceive the voice of the Spirit.—The Spirit urges not irresistibly.—The guilt is man’s, the merit is God’s.—The foolishness of men is a perpetual provoking and tempting of God.—The “to-day” Isaiah 1. a word reminding us of the daily never-ceasing preaching of the Divine word; 2. a word that awakens to repentance; 3. a word of warning against delay; 4. a word of consolation, for where God still calls and still makes His voice heard, the period of grace has not as yet flown by.—Without rest, without repose, wanders round the disobedient son, who hears not the voice of his father.—The weary, wandering soul must strive after the rest of God.—Who trembles not at the words, “never to attain to the rest of God; forever to be banished from the realm of peace?”—If the ultimate issues of the wicked heart are so emphatically set before us in the case of others, this should make us all the more strict and rigorous towards ourselves.—To fall away from the living God, is to fall away from true life.—Had sin no deceitful form, she would not lead astray; let him who knows her, warn the in experienced; let all be indefatigable in exhorting and in hearing.—The grace obtained through Christ remains only to the steadfast believer; it becomes punishment to him who does not hold on to faith. Stier:—Nothing is demanded of us previously to, or upon any other ground than, our having heard the word of God which brings us grace and salvation.—The successive stages of apostasy are always the same. Ahlfeld:—To-day let the voice of God warn you against being hardened. We consider 1. the course by which obduracy proceeds onward to judgment; 2. the course by which grace breaks in pieces the hard heart.—Labor with earnestness against thine own hardening. The chief points of this labor are: 1. honest self-examination; 2. hearty, mutual, fraternal admonition; 3. diligence in looking back over the grace which we have received. Von Bogatzky:—We must not only guard against rude blasphemers, and abominate them, but also take heed to our own heart, and see how this wanders, swerves, and becomes alienated from God.—Whoever holds a sin to be small and insignificant, is already deceived by sin, falls already into error, and, corrupted by his delight in error, is finally utterly hardened.—The commencement of upright and genuine faith brings us already to a complete union with Christ, and is a true foundation, receives Christ as a whole, and rests entirely in Christ as upon its reliable foundation.—Holding fast, we are to hold out unto the end.—Our heart is so unbelieving, that if we ten times experience the help of God, and find ourselves strengthened in faith, still when there comes a fresh emergency, trial and exercise of our faith, unbelief again immediately bestirs herself.—Our God is alone the living God; thus He will give us also life, and power, and full supplies, and will be Himself our life, our light and salvation, and the strength of our life. Thus we need not with our hearts turn with lustful desires to the needy creatures who assuredly without Him can give no life, no true joy and satisfaction, and thus also we need not fear, any creatures, not even the devil.—We have to pray for nothing but faith (although we have it already), in order that we may also maintain faith, and thus, believing unto the end, may save our souls. Hedinger:—God’s wrath spares not the fathers, much less the children. Why? The latter should have made the conduct and fate of the former a mirror, in which they might behold and gaze upon their own. [Owen:—The formal reason of all our obedience, consists in its relation to the voice, or authority of God.—We see many taking a great deal of pains in the performance of such duties as, being not appointed of God, are neither accepted with Him, nor will ever turn unto any good account unto their own souls.—Consideration and choice are a stable and permanent foundation of obedience.—Many previous sins make way for the great sin of finally rejecting the voice or word of God.—Old Testament examples are New Testament instructions.—Especial seasons of grace for obedience, are in an especial manner to be observed and improved.—It is a dangerous condition for children to boast of the privileges of their fathers, and to imitate their sins.—Take heed, gray hairs are sprinkled upon you, though you perceive it not. Death is at the door. Beware, lest your next provocation be your last.—When repentance upon convictions of provocations lessens or delays, it is a sad symptom of an approaching day, wherein iniquity will be completed.—Whithersoever sin can enter, punishment can follow.—Though vengeance seems to have a lame foot, yet it will hunt sin, until it overtake the sinner.—A careless profession will issue in apostasy, open or secret, or in great distress, Matthew 13:5-6.—This privative unbelief is two-fold: 1. in refusing to believe, when it is required; 2. in rejecting the faith after it hath been received.—We have but a most uncertain season for the due performance of certain duties. How long it will be called today, we know not.—Union with Christ is the principle and measure of all spiritual enjoyments and expectations.—Therefore are the graces and works of believers excellent, because they are the graces and works of them that are united unto Christ.—Constancy and steadfastness in believing, is the great touch-stone, trial and evidence of union with Christ, or a participation of Him.—God sometimes will make men who have been wickedly exemplary in sin, righteously exemplary in their punishment.—No unbeliever shall ever enter into the rest of God]. Footnotes:Hebrews 3:9.—For ἐπειρασανμεοἱπατέρεςὑμῶν, ἐδοκίμασάνμε, recent critics read after Sin. A. B. C. D.* E. M. Uff., 73, 137, Ital. Copt., ἐπείρασανοἰπατέρεςὐμῶνἑνδοκιμασία. The lect. recept. is made up from the LXX. Cod. Alex. in which the first and the Vat. in which the second με is wanting. Hebrews 3:10.—For τῇγενεᾷέκείνη, we are to read with Sin. A. B. D. M., 6, 17, τῆγενεᾷταύτῃ, [this, not that (ἐκείνη) the author, as supposed by many, changing the pronoun for the sake of a more direct application to his readers. This view, however, is rejected by Moll—K.]. Hebrews 3:13.—Instead of τὶςἐξὑμῶν, read with B. D. E. K. L., 46, 48, ἐξὑμῶντις. Sin., however, has the former reading. III The promise of entering into the rest of God not only still remains in force, but applies specially to us Christians Hebrews 4:1-101 Let us therefore fear, lest [perchance], a promise being left us [there remaining a promise] of entering into his rest, any [one] of you should [may] seem to [have] come short of it. 2For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them [For we have had the glad announcement just as did also they]: but the word preached [the word of their hearing] did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them3 [not having united itself by faith with them] that heard it. For we which [who] believe do enter into rest [according] as he [hath] said, As I have sworn [swore ὤμοσα] in my wrath, if they shall [they shall not] enter into my rest: although the 4 [his] works were finished from the foundation of the world. For he spake [hath] spoken] in a certain place [somewhere, πού] of the seventh day on this wise [thus], And God did rest [on] the seventh day from all his works. 5And in this place again, If they shall [They shall not] enter into my rest. 6Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must [for some to] enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached [who formerly received the glad promise] entered not in because of unbelief [disobedience]; 7 Again he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To-day, after so long a time; as it is said, To-day [he again fixeth a certain day, To-day, saying, through David so long a time afterward (as hath been said before), To-day] if ye will [om. will] hear his voice, harden not your hearts. 8For if Jesus [Joshua] had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken [be speaking] of another day. 9There remaineth therefore a rest [a Sabbath rest] for the people of God. 10For he that is [om. is] entered into his rest, hath [also himself] ceased [rested] from his own [om. own works] [just] as God did from his [own, ἰδίων]. [Hebrews 4:1.—φιβηθῶμενοὖν, Aor. Pass., in middle sense. Let us fear, therefore,—μήποτε, lest perchance, test haply,—καταλειπ. ἐπαγ, there remaining a promise, not ἀπολειπ, “there remaining as a logical consequence,” but “there remaining being left, as a historical fact, the promise riot having been exhausted with the ancients—as the author proceeds to develop from the Psalm. Hebrews 4:2.—καὶγὰρἐσμενεὐ., the emphasis rests on the verb, not, as in Eng. ver., on the pronoun. For we have had the glad tidings, etc. The rendering, “unto us was the Gospel preached,” is unfortunate, marring, and even obscuring the thought.—καθάπερκάκεῖνοι, just according as also they.—ὁλόγοςτῆςἀκοῆς, the word of their hearing=the word which they heard.—μὴσυγκεκ, not having mixed itself, i.e., united itself. Hebrews 4:3.—καθὼςεἴρηκεν, according as he hath said,—εἰἐλεύσονται, should be rendered, as Hebrews 3:11, “they shall not enter,” a familiar Hebraism=if they shall enter then my word will fall to the ground, or some such suppressed clause.—καίτοιτῶνἔργωνγεν.—gen. absolute, and that you see his [viz., God’s] works being accomplished=although his works were accomplished, and thus his rest established. Hebrews 4:6.—οἰπρότερονεὐαγγελισθ. they who formerly received the glad tidings, viz., the promise of the rest.—ἀπείθειαν, disobedience, not unbelief (ἀπιστίαν). Hebrews 4:7.—πάλινὁρίζει, dependent on ἐπεί, since it remains, etc., he again fixes, appoints, not as Eng. ver. beginning a new sentence—λέγωνμετὰτόνχρονον=saying so long a time after—καθὼςπροείρηται, as has been said before, viz., in the former chapter. Hebrews 4:8.—Ιησοῦς, Joshua (not Jesus),—οὐκἄν—ἐλάλει, he would not be speaking, not, “he would not have spoken.” Hebrews 4:9.—σαββατισμός, not merely a rest (as Eng. ver.), but with reference to the rest of God on the seventh day, at the close of creation, a Sabbath rest, a Sabbatism.—K.]. AND Heb_4:1. Let us fear, therefore—come short of it.—The chapter—not entirely clear in its exact line of thought—opens with a passage whose import has been matter of much controversy. Expositors, however, are now nearly unanimous in holding that the Gen. καταλειπ. ἐπαγ., cannot, in the absence of the article, depend on ὑστερηκέναι (Cramer, Ernesti), and also that καταλείπειν, while sometimes, indeed, signifying neglect, disregard (Acts 6:2; Bar 4:1), yet here, as shown partly by the absence of the article, partly by the passive form of the Participle, but chiefly by the usage of Heb 4:6; Hebrews 4:9, cannot be so rendered, but only, to be remaining. And we can hardly fail to perceive that this expression points back, on the one hand indeed, to the definite promise, but on the other, still by the absence of the article, indicates a designed indefiniteness, or a very general mode of conceiving it. This view is confirmed by the fact that the author subsequently understands the expression, τακάπανσίςμον. (Hebrews 3:11), here αὐτοῦ,—not, in the sense of the Psalm, of the rest which God has promised and designs to give, but of the rest which belongs properly to God. This rest into which believers are destined to enter, is thus still to be distinguished from the rest which God has actually given to His people by the possession of the Promised Land (Deuteronomy 12:9). Since this idea of the expression in question is not the original sense of the passage in the Psalm, but only the author’s own interpretation of it, he proceeds to give a proof of the substantial correctness of his explanation. This, therefore, is not, as yet, at this passage, to be presupposed with the readers of the Epistle. In fact, also, the author deduces from the fate of the Israelites in the desert, not that which many interpreters introduce into it, viz., that the Divine promise, because it remains unfulfilled, is yet existing. For it might have been objected, that the promise was in fact subsequently fulfilled to the descendants of those who perished in the wilderness when they entered Canaan under Joshua. The inference from that is rather that we have need to fear; to this he exhorts us, for he has shown that the reverse side of the Divine promise, the no less positively uttered and oath-sanctioned threat of God, that His people, of that time, should not enter into His rest, was fulfilled in all of them, and that in consequence of unbelief. Hic nobis commendatur timor non qui fidei certitudinem excutiat, sed tantam incutiat solicitudinem ne securi torpeamus (Calvin). Against what, therefore, are we now to be on our guard? What are we to fear? and to what are we, in true fear, to direct our anxious care, in order that that which we fear may be averted and not come upon us? We are to beware of resembling the Israelites by our unbelief in the Word of God, which is proclaimed to us. We are to fear the wrath of God, which within the sphere of even the chosen people has still displayed its judicial terrors upon all unbelievers. And our common fear should direct itself to the point (φοβηθῶμενοὗν) that, while there exists a promise of entering into His rest, no individual one among you may be found to have come too late (μήποτεδοκῇτιςἐξὑμῶνὑστερηκέναι). Δοκῇ is so conspicuous in its position, that it cannot possibly be regarded as superfluous, (Mich., Carpz., Abresch), and the gravity and earnestness of the connection, which presently calls out the most solemn exhortations, and startling pictures of the fate of apostates, demands a very cautious admission of the view which resolves it into the softening videatur (=may seem) of elegant discourse (Oec., Theoph., Thol., Lόn.). On the other hand, we can scarcely regard it as of intensifying import=lest there be even an appearance that this or that one has remained behind (Pareus, regarded approvingly by Del.). We must regard it as expressing the appearance of an actual condition, as it presents itself to the opinion and estimate of others, and must conceive the condition as that of that substantial lingering behind, which results in inevitable exclusion. It is doubtless grammatically possible to take δοκῇ as the leading term, expressing the individual’s personal opinion, and ὑστερηκέναι as denoting a too late arrival in respect of time, the whole then=may think he has arrived too late—(Schφttg., Baumg., Schultz, Wahl, Bretschn., Steng., Paul., Ebrard). But with this accords neither the moral condition of the readers, nor the connection of the passage, which, attached by φοβηθῶμενοὖν to the preceding chapter, cannot possibly be introducing a consolatory address to persons troubled by an extraordinary illusion regarding their salvation, or a warning against their indulgence of this illusion, (as if we had the comforting words μήοὖνφοβηθῶμεν, let us not then fear, instead of the words of warning, let us therefore fear lest). The passage rather opens with the admonition and summons, based on the preceding glance at the fate of ancient Israel, that they should resolutely and earnestly avoid the threatening danger that any member of the church—while God’s invitation, full of gracious promises, is addressed to him—should by guilty delay, springing from unbelief in the word of invitation, make it necessary that he be regarded as having been left behind on his way to the promised goal. The rendering of Grotius, ne cui vestrum libeat (that it may not seem best to any one, may not be the pleasure of any one of you), is inconsistent with the Inf. Perf., and with the construction, which would have required the Dat. Hebrews 4:2. For we have had the joyful message—in them that heard it. Καθάπερ (precisely according as) found elsewhere in the New Testament only with Paul, denotes, in its classical use, relations of entire equality. Εὐαγγελίζεσθαι is also used, Luke 7:22; Luke 16:16, passively, as here, of those to whom glad tidings are announced. The Subst. εὐαγγέλιον is not found in our epistle, and with Luke only Acts 15:7; Acts 20:24. The λόγοςτῆςἀκοῆς, which at Sir 41:23, denotes what is received by tradition, and at 1 Thessalonians 2:3, is applied to the New Testament preached word, is very significant for the Word of God made known by proclamation to the people of God of all times, Exodus 19:5; Isaiah 28:9; Jeremiah 49:14, and corresponds particularly to the Heb. ωְׁ ?ξεָּ ?ςδ Isaiah 52:7; Isaiah 53:1 (Romans 10:14-17)=that which is announced, news, tidings, connected sometimes with the Gen. of the subject matter, 2 Samuel 4:4, sometines with that of the bearer of the tidings, Isaiah 53:1, The Dat. τοῖςἀκούσασιν is expressly employed to indicate that the πίστις indispensable to the right and efficient influence of the word was wanting to them that had heard the word, and that for this reason it had not united itself with those for whom it was otherwise adapted, and for whom it was destined of God. This Dat. would be with the very old and well attested reading of the Acc. Plur. of συγκεκ., totally unintelligible. For to put upon ἀκούειν the sense of obey is a purely desperate make-shift, and the rendering “because they did not associate themselves by faith with those who obeyed,” viz: Joshua and Caleb (�c., Phot., Hammond, Cram., etc.), is totally alien from the use made of this history in the previous chapter. Bleek, therefore, reads ἀκοὑσμασιν after Theodoret, with whom, however, ἀκουσθεῖασιν is probably to be read, as conjectured by his teacher Theodore of Mops., on the authority of the Vulg.=“since they did not unite themselves by faith with the words which they had heard.” The Nom., as indicated by the Peshito—the oldest version of the New Testament—is thus to be preferred with Erasm., Bφhme, De W., Thol., Lun., Del. The opinion of Ebr., however, which I followed in my comment., that the passage contains no repetition of the truth previously dwelt upon, viz., that the word was proclaimed in vain to the Jews on account of their subjective unbelief, but presents rather the reverse side of the truth, viz: the impotence of the Old Testament word itself, and thus shows the word proclaimed by Moses as declaring the promise, indeed, along with the conditions of its fulfilment, yet possessing no power, like the word of the New Testament (Hebrews 4:12) to penetrate into the marrow and core of the inner life, and by such admixture identify itself thoroughly with the hearer—this assumption, I say, anticipates the following discussion, introduces a meaning into the words outside of their obvious and natural import, and depends also on Ebrard’s false interpretation of Heb 4:1. If we construct τῇπίστει with the nom. συγκεκραμένος, mixed with faith, then it were better to regard τοῖςἀκούσασιν as Dat. of reference=in respect to, as often in cases where the Gen. would be liable to misconception (Win., Lun.), than with De Wette, as Dativus commodi, or as the Dat. of the agent for ὑπό with Gen. (as by Luther until 1527)=“not being blended with faith by them (=ὑπὸτῶν) that heard it.” It accords better, however, with the actual relations of faith alike to the word and to the hearers to connect τοῖςἀκούσασιν closely with συγκεκρ. and take τῇπίστει as Dat. of means (Schlicht., Thol.,) etc. Hebrews 4:3. For we are entering into rest as they that have believed, etc.—The γάρ for stands in logical connection, not with a part, but with the entire statements of the preceding verse. It is best explained by taking εἰσερχόμεθα, not as present for a somewhat general and indeterminate future”=“we are to enter,” (Bl., De W., Thol.); or as marking that which we may with certainty anticipate (Lun.), and the Aor. Part. οἱπιστεύσαντες (with the majority) of those who have established the genuineness of their faith; but rather by explaining the Part of those simply who have believed, who have exercised faith, and of course have thus far attested it, Acts 4:32; Acts 11:21; Acts 19:2; Romans 13:11, and the verb εἰσερ. therefore, in its proper present sense of those who are actually entering into rest, (Del). We, the church of the believers, the author would say, are as such travelling on the way to the rest which God has established since the foundation of the world, but which the Israelites did not attain. Ebrard erroneously takes the ἔργα “works finished” of Hebrews 4:3, as contrasted with faith, and as denoting human performances, the works of the law, in contrast with which the true way of salvation, that of faith, was to be revealed. But the term can refer only to the works of God (Hebrews 4:4; Hebrews 4:10), which stand as accomplished since the foundation of the world, and since which, therefore, there is existing a Rest of God. Although (καίτοι) this is the case, still, according to the declaration of God, Psalms 95:11, the Israelites who were called thereto, did not enter into it. Luther, following the erroneous rendering of the Vulgate et quidem (and indeed), connected the clause commencing with καίτοι with the following εἴρηκεν, leaving the γάρ after εἴρηκεν wholly, unregarded. Schlicht., Carpz., etc., make the Gen. also depend on κατάπαυσιν=the rest of works which were accomplished, etc., a construction which would require τῶν repeated after ἔργων (τῶνἔργωντῶνἀπό, etc.). And Calv., Bez., Limb., Cram., Bφhm., Bisp., explain thus; “namely,” (or perhaps although) into a rest which followed upon the completion of the works of creation: a thought that would certainly have been expressed in different phraseology. Hebrews 4:4. For he hath said in a certain place.—And in this place again.—We are not to supply, as subject of εἴρηκεν, ἡγραφή (Bφhm., Bisp., etc.), notwithstanding that in the citation itself God is spoken of in the third person. For the same subject must be supplied to both citations, and in the latter (Hebrews 4:5) the μου shows that God must be regarded as the subject. Here also it again becomes evident that God is He who is conceived as the one who speaks in Scripture. [I doubt if Moll’s reason for rejecting ἡγραφή as subject of εἴρηκεν, drawn from the citation Hebrews 4:4, or the implied one for making God the subject, as drawn from the citation of Heb 4:5, is, either of them, decisive. They are both given as simple citations, and would both, therefore, naturally stand in precisely their present form, whether we were to conceive “The Scripture,” or “God” speaking in the Scripture, as the subject of the verb. And the application of the passage to the author’s purpose would, I conceive, be equally answered, whichever subject we assume. Still, with Moll, I prefer ὁθεός as subject.—K.].—Since the passage, Genesis 2:2, is so entirely familiar, που cannot possibly imply any uncertainty on the part of the author regarding the source of the citation; and from this we may draw a certain inference regarding the που in Hebrews 2:6. The two passages of Scripture thus quoted in connection, bring out the idea that there is from the commencement of things a Rest of God, into which men could and were to enter, but into which the Israelites have not entered; yet that by this the entrance into the Rest of God cannot be sealed and made impossible for all times and all men, since the exclusion of the Israelites was but a manifestation of the wrath of God upon the unbelieving. Hebrews 4:6. Since, therefore, it remains open that some are to enter in, etc.—The comparison of the two passages leads to the conclusion, not precisely, that the entrance is still remaining and reserved for some persons—which would have demanded καταλείπεται—but that such an entrance is left free, left over, remains open (ἀπολείπεται, Hebrews 10:26), [“not having been previously exhausted.” Alf.], and that, on account of this state of the case, God in His grace and faithfulness, after the well-known falling away of those who were called in the time of Moses, again characteristically fixes (ὁρίζει) a day, ‘to-day,’ in which, after the lapse of so long a period, He, through David, repeats the summons of invitation, which had formerly been proclaimed by Moses. As the Sept. ascribes the Psalm in question to David, and here we have not ἑντῷΔαυίδ, but ἐνΔαυίδ (taking David personally), we are not here, although the Book of Psalms may, as a whole, be regarded as belonging to David (Acts 4:25), to take the words as applying to the book. For ἐνΔαυίδ would properly, in referring to a passage of Holy Scripture, mean “in the passage of Scripture that treats of David,” as ἐν. Ἠλίᾳ, Romans 11:2.—Schlicht., Stengel, etc., connect the first σήμερον with λέγων. Others, more recently Lόn. and Del., regard it as a part of the quotation, which, commencing emphatically, for this reason, after an interposed clause, repeats the same word. The majority, with Calv., Bez., Grot., take it as in apposition with ἡμέραν.Hebrews 4:8. For if Joshua had brought them to their rest, etc.—The μετάταῦτα, corresponding to μετὰτοσοῦτονχρόνον of the preceding verse, belongs to ἐλάλει scil. ὁθεός. But the Imperf. with ἄν is not to be rendered, “He would have spoken” (Luth., Bez.), which would have required ἐλάλησενἄν, but “he would be speaking.” The fact that God, after the introduction of the people into the Promised Land, speaks of a day in which His voice summons to an entrance into His rest, proves not only that the Rest of God, which has existed since the creation, is not identical with the rest proclaimed to the people by Moses, and secured for them under Joshua, but that this entire proceeding with the Israelites is simply to be regarded as figurative, and as having its fulfilment through Christ in the New Testament economy. In the later books of Scripture, Ezra, Nehem., Chron., Joshua, instead of the earlier εְ ?δεֹ ?ωׁ ?εּ ?ςַ, is named ιֵ ?ωׁ ?εּ ?ςַ whence the writing Ἰησοῦς of the Sept., of Joseph., and the Acts 7:45.—Καταπαύειν here in its classical transitive sense to cause to rest, to bring to rest, as Exodus 33:14; Deuteronomy 3:20; Deuteronomy 5:33; Psalms 85:3; Acts 14:18. Hebrews 4:9. There remaineth therefore a Sabbath rest, etc.—The particle ἅρα (rarely commencing a, sentence in prose), now introduces the conclusion to which the preceding statements have led the way; not only is there a Rest of God existing from the close of the creation, and reaching on to eternity, and not only is a participation in this rest appointed to the people of God, but the entrance into it is actually secured to the people of God. This rest is a σαββατισμός=α Sabbath festal celebration (from σαββατίζειν, Exodus 16:30, as ἑορτασμός from ἑορτάζειν). The term (found also in Plut. de superstitione, 3) is all the more natural, inasmuch as already at Hebrews 4:4, reference is made to that rest of God after the creation of the world, which lay at the basis of the institution of the Sabbath, as the rest of humanity, and in that, apart from any Rabbinical explanations, even at 2Ma 15:1, the Sabbath is called ἡτῆςκαταπαύσεωςἡμέρα. The ὁεἰσελθών, he who entered in, is certainly not the people (Schultz), but either Christ, as indicated by the Aor., κατέπαυσευ, rested (Alting, Starck. Owen, Valck., Ebr., Alf.), or (with the majority of expositors, among them Bleek, Lόn., Del.), inasmuch as nothing in the context points immediately and personally to Christ, the person, whoever he may be, that has reached the goal. It thus assigns the reason why the rest in question is called a Sabbatism. The Aor. is then explained as a reminiscence from the citation in Hebrews 4:4. [The question is a difficult one to settle. On the one hand, the historical κατέπαυσεν, rested, more naturally points back to some single historical event, as the entrance of Christ into His rest, and the emphatic καὶαὐτός, also he himself, giving, as Alford remarks, dignity to the subject which we should scarcely expect if it refer to any individual man, would suggest the same idea, while it is certainly pertinent to introduce Christ as the great Leader and Institutor of the rest of the New Testament people of God, by finishing and resting from His own works. But, on the other hand, there does not seem, as supposed by Alford, any antithesis in this passage between Christ and Joshua; the specific object of the verse seems to be simply to explain why the writer has changed the term κατάπαυσις into σαββατισμός, and the καὶαὐτός, therefore seems entirely natural as explaining why the rest of the people of God is like the rest of God Himself, a Sabbatism; and the reference also of the subsequent ἐκείνηἡκατάπαυσις, that rest, is entirely pertinent, in view of the author’s declaration that a Sabbatic rest awaits the people of God, and equally so in whichever way we understand the present verse. And as a positive argument against Alford’s interpretation, we may urge Moll’s suggestion, that nothing in the context points directly to Christ. The passage seems simply thrown in to account for the substitution of the term σαββατισμός for κατάπαυσις; for this there is no need of any reference to Christ, and had the author intended it, it would seem almost certain that he would have made his intention more obvious. I incline to the opinion of the majority, which refers it to individual members of the Church. The Part. εἰσελθών, is then used like ἀποθανών, Romans 6:7, although for the fin. verb we should certainly here, as there, prefer the Perf. But the Aor. may be explained partly as by De Wette, as a reminiscence from Hebrews 4:4, partly, perhaps, from the preference of the Greeks for the form of the Aor., whenever they could use it, to the clumsier and less euphonious Perfect.—K.]. AND ETHICAL1. In the Holy Scripture we hear the voice of God and the language of the Holy Spirit, so that we are to gain by this, not an external knowledge of natural things and historical events, but a spiritual understanding of them, in order to a right estimate of their relation to the kingdom of God. Precisely for this reason we must acquaint ourselves rightly with the Holy Scriptures, that we may be able correctly to understand their language, to give heed to their intimations, to make use of their hints, and to make the fitting application of their statements and explanations. For the sacred Scripture not merely throws upon all things and relations the light of revelation, but also in that light interprets itself, and thus becomes profitable for the things mentioned 2 Timothy 3:16-17. 2. The Rest which God promises and gives to His people, is no other than the rest which God Himself has and enjoys. The creation and destination of man to be the image of God, contains the ground of the fact, that man can find rest only in God, and the grace of God renders possible even to fallen man the fulfilment of his destination. But the condition of entering into the rest of God, is faith; and this condition is the same for the different degrees of man’s participation in that rest which God, since the creation of the world, until the completion of the world’s history, repeatedly proffers to man, and holds open for his entrance. 3. “At every stage of the revelation of His grace to sinners, God proffers to them His whole salvation. Under every veil which He has thrown over His truth in the years of childhood, it lay entire, and even at that time believers could receive every thing from God. But since God does not perfect individuals apart from the whole, the general unbelief of those to whom He had proffered His salvation (notwithstanding that some few believed) at every successive stage, held back perfection. But no rejection of Divine grace, on the part of men, can hinder or restrain its ever increasingly glorious unfolding; but rather, as the sun from the bosom of night, so from the unbelief of men does it shine forth all the more clearly to the honor and praise of God. Thus also, of necessity, their spurning of the true rest of God, which had been proffered to the Israelites, led to the fact that they, under Joshua in Canaan, only entered into an earthly rest, in every respect unsatisfactory, perpetually interrupted, by which their longing after the true rest was rather awakened than satisfied. And thus the entrance into the rest of God, still awaits the people of the Lord; the celebration of the eternal Sabbath, after the second creation, of which that of the earthly Sabbath is but the type.” Von Gerlach. 4. The labor from which the believer is yet to rest cannot, on account of the constitution of the world, and on account of the nature of actual human life, be separated from the idea of the pain and toil of our earthly pilgrimage; yet it is by no means to be limited to this. We must rather extend our thought to the labor of the Christian vocation, since this is designated in the text as that which is peculiar to Him, standing in the relation of an image and copy to the creative activity of God. “The struggle against sin, the pursuit of holiness, the striving after perfection (τελειότης), constancy in sufferings, all vigorous endeavor in holding fast to faith and hope, even under the most adverse circumstances; all the toilsome activity of self-denying, self-sacrificing love; all the labors, connected not unfrequently with great disquiet and anxiety, for the spiritual welfare of the entire Church and of its individual members; all these are the ‘works’ (ἔργα) of believers, from which they are yet to rest in the heavenly city of God” (Riehm). 5. As an eternal and blessed Sabbath celebration, this rest cannot be a cessation of all activity. This would correspond neither to the idea involved in the rest of God, nor to the promise of a personal progressive life of the children of the resurrection in the kingdom of glory. Moreover, the perfect consciousness of blessedness in the certainty of personal perfection in no way excludes an active attestation of this consciousness. The same holds true of the participation of the blessed in the approval and pleasure with which God looks upon the world of perfection as brought into a state of perfect conformity to His will. At all events, there is such an activity of the perfected in eternity as that which Thom. Aquinas designates as videre, amare et laudare, and August. (de Civit. Dei, 20, 30) thus describes: “Ipse (Deus) finis erit desideriorum nostrorum qui sine fine videbitur, sine fastidio amabitur, sine defatigatione laudabitur.” But is God to be the sole object of this activity? and is this activity itself to be regarded as susceptible of no development and advancement for the reason that it is an activity of those who are perfected? This would by no means essentially follow from Augustine’s answer to the question, What the blessed will do in their eternal life: In sζcula sζculorum laudabunt te (in Psalms 83). For praise, if it is not to be a mere empty sound, must consist in real acts of praise, with a definite meaning and substance. But this concrete substance, if it is not to degenerate into tautology and battology, must be susceptible of a development, and appear as the product of an activity of definite persons, whose inward feelings, experiences and thoughts it expresses. And in the case of these persons, again, we can conceive of the removal neither of that creaturely element by which they stand distinguished from God, nor of that special human quality that distinguishes them from angels; nor any more of that individuality which produces those special characteristics in the actual personal life of the perfected which involve alike the continuity of consciousness, the identity of the person that had died with the person that has risen; the possibility of reunion, and the possibility of retribution. On this double foundation of the permanent creatureliness, and of the individual personality of the glorified and perfected, we may base a well-founded conviction that there is in the life of the blessed an infinitude of relations and points of contact, which, in ceaseless and reciprocal influence, enlarge and enrich their common bliss and perfection. For we may with just as little propriety assume, on the part of the glorified, an activity without result, as a round of empty and unsubstantial adoration, or a mere idle and fruitless contemplation of God. Also, Rothe, in his Ethics (II. § 474) has admirably shown how we may conceive of work without the attendant idea of labor, i.e, work accompanied by strenuous exertion; and Tholuck, in some weighty and suggestive intimations, has shown the mixture of truth and falsehood in the declaration of Lessing: “If the eternal Father held Truth in His right hand, and the search for it in His left, and I were required to choose, I would clasp His knee and say: Father, the left!” Inasmuch, however, as we have on this point no positive statements of Scripture, and are liable to transfer our human conceptions to the scenes and relations of the future world, it will be well to heed the warning of Stier (1, 85): “If thus deeply looking into eternity, we are blinded by the overpowering splendor, and turn back again to the thought that such Sabbath rest is surely not to be conceived as devoid of working and activity, we are undoubtedly right to this extent, that the rest of God is indeed at the same time an eternal life of infinite power. But we must still be on our guard against allowing our weakness to mingle the earthly with the heavenly, and even in the attained city of God itself, to open a long-extended chaussee-prospect of ‘infinite perfection;’ rather will we strive with all the power of the spirit for a presentiment of that true rest, of that perfected satisfaction and completeness which has inherited all in God, and for which nothing more remains to be attained in eternity.” This is all the more advisable as the feeling of a real satisfaction in our true rest in God must exist in the most diverse stages of creaturely development. Only we must not, with the earlier ecclesiastical teachers (e. g., John Gerhard, Loci Theol., T. XX., p. 408), allow ourselves to infer from this that that deficiency in extent of the saints’ knowledge of God, which, along with its perfection in quality, the very finiteness of their nature imposes upon the blessed, will, by the final judgment, be fixed and bound down to a definite limit, which will forever preclude all further development. For the unbounded and unrestricted activity of a creature within the limits that belong to and determine its peculiar organization—an activity that can never be conceived as without result—is something entirely different from a striving and aspiring beyond these limits. This, Dante himself, in the words cited by Tholuck (Paradiso, 3, 73 ff.), has not sufficiently regarded: “For if we yielded to our higher wish, Then should we come in conflict with that will Which destined us to this our lower sphere.” 6. It is a confused and perplexing use of language that speaks of gradations of blessedness. The idea of blessedness excludes distinctions of degree and relations of quantity. But doubtless there are degrees of participation in the rest of God. For, first, there is the peace, which the believer, as being justified, on the ground of his reconciliation with God through Jesus Christ possesses and tastes (Romans 5:1), and which includes a devotion—constant and unvexed by the vicissitudes of life—to the will of God in His dispensations, and a confident hope of future blessedness and glory. Then, from this, we are to distinguish the rest of those who, as having fallen asleep in Christ, freed from the toils and sorrows of this earthly life (Revelation 14:13; Revelation 21:4), are with Christ (Philippians 1:23); and from this again we distinguish that Sabbatic rest which commences only at the second coming of Christ, and the accompanying renovation of the world, and which is realized only when the whole people of God have entered into eternal rest in and with God, and in which all the ransomed are at home forever-more (1 Thessalonians 4:17). Within each of these three grades, however, is preserved inviolate not merely the specific quality of humanity as such, in contradistinction from the angelic nature and relation, but also the concrete individuality, previously referred to, of each person. This has been sometimes erroneously conceived as forming an intrinsic distinction in the degree of blessedness itself. The opinion of Swedenborg, that men may once have been angels, has no where the slightest support. 7. From the nature of the rest of God it follows that for the people of God, so long as they are still on their pilgrimage to the final goal, it must of necessity be in the future; for he who has entered into this, rests from his works in like manner as God did from His. In behalf of the view that a day which is entirely Sabbath will close the world’s work, Del. adduces from Sanhedrin 97 a, the following passage: “As the seventh year furnishes a festal time of a year’s duration for a period of seven years, so the world enjoys, for a period of seven thousand years, a festal season of a thousand years;” but remarks, then, that, as shown by Revelation 20:7 ff., this final temporal millennium is not as yet the final Sabbath, although it has become customary in the Church to regard this temporal season of triumph and rest to the Church as ἡἑβδόμη (the seventh day), and the blessed eternity as ἡὀγδόη (the eighth); that this octave of the blissful eternity is nothing else than the eternal duration of the final Sabbath, which realizes itself only at the point where the history of time is merged into a blissful eternity. Similarly it is said in a Rabb. treatise on Psalms 92:1 (Elijahu Rabba, c. 2): “We mean the Sabbath which puts a stop to the sin reigning in the world—the seventh day of the world, upon which, as post-Sabbatic, follows the future world, in which forever and ever there is no more death, no more sin, and no more punishment of sin; but pure delight in the wisdom and knowledge of God.” 8. Into this future Sabbath rest, however, they alone enter who believe in the word of invitation which has reached them, and livingly unite themselves with this, by faith. “Faith is, as it were, the dynamical medium by which objective truth assimilates itself to the believing man” (Thol.). “As food it must nourish, must go into the blood and unite itself with the body. If the word is to benefit, it must, like the nutritive element of food, be transformed by faith, into the spirit, sense and will of man, that the whole man may become as the word is, and requires, i.e, holy, upright, chaste and pious” (Hedinger, Ed. of the N. Test., with explanatory remarks, 1704).—“There are two sorts of words in the Scripture; the one affects me not, concerns me not; the other concerns me; and upon that which appertains to me I can boldly venture, and plant myself upon it, as on a solid rock.—Of this none may be in doubt, that to him also the Gospel is preached. Thus, then, I believe the word, i.e, that it concerns me also—that I also have a share in the Gospel, and in the New Testament, and I venture my all upon the word, even though it were to cost a hundred thousand lives” (Luther’s Sermons on the First Book of Moses, Walch, Part 3, p. 9). AND The salutary fear of believers: 1, to what it refers; 2, whence it comes; 3, what it produces. In the souls of believers, fear and hope dwell in inseparable connection; for, 1, they trust implicitly to the word of God, as well in His threatenings as in His promises; 2, they have, perpetually before their eyes the blissful goal of their calling, and the examples of those who have fallen on the way; 3, they have a living consciousness of their own frailty, and of the Divine faithfulness.—Wherein consists the blessing of true and living faith? 1, It brings us into union with the word of God; 2, it protects us from the wrath of God; 3. it leads us into the rest of God.—At what does the preaching of the wrath of God aim? It aims, 1, to awaken the secure; 2, to warn the light-minded; 3, to urge on the sluggish.—The entrance into the rest of God may be neglected, inasmuch as, 1, God earnestly invites, indeed, to this entrance, but He compels no man to walk upon the right path; 2, the entrance stands for a long time open, but the period of grace comes finally to an end; 3, the entrance is sure to the people of God, but unbelief separates again many from the people of God.—What is the best consolation amidst the troubles of our earthly pilgrimage? 1, The encouragement of the word of God; 2, the fellowship of the people of God; 3, the prospect of the rest of God.—The fault lies not in God if any one attains not an entrance into the rest of God; inasmuch as, 1, God has established such a rest since the completion of the creation of the world; 2, God has, by the word of the Gospel, given to us all a sure promise and invitation; 3, God has prepared for us, in Jesus, the reliable leader for our entrance into this rest.—To what are we laid under obligation by God’s proffers of His grace? 1, to the heeding of a season of grace; 2, to a use of the means of grace.—The faith which we profess, we have also to live: 1, what binds us to this duty? 2, what hinders us in it? 3, what aids us to victory?—How do we stand with respect to the rest of the seventh day? 1. Do we respect it as a holy ordinance? 2. Do we understand it in its salutary import? 3. Do we use it according to the Divine will and purpose?—How we must surely overcome the disquiet and danger of the world; 1, by confidence in the promises; 2, by obedience to the ordinances; 3, by submission to the leadings of God.—The right union of labor, rest, and festal gladness in the life of the Christian. Luther (Pref. to John Spangenberg’s coll. of Sermons, Walch XI 4:376):—In truth thou canst not read the Scripture too much: and what thou readest, thou canst not read too well; and what thou readest well, thou canst not too well understand; and what thou understandest well, thou canst not too well teach; and what thou teachest well, thou canst not too well live (Domestic Sermons, Walch XIII. 1336).—The preaching of faith is such a preaching as demands ever to be exercised and put in practice.—That I may come to the point of rising above every thing, of contemning sin and death, and of gladly venturing myself in all confidence upon the promise of God, I must have the Spirit and power of God, as also perpetual exercise and experience. Starke:—Away slavish fear! but filial fear must be present, that we walk therein, and so work out our salvation (Philippians 2:12).—Not only must none remain behind for himself, but each one must also see to it, so far as the grace of God shall render it possible for him, that if others remain behind, he, by hearty exhortation, and his own good example, incite them to the course, and thus take them along with him.—Pilgrim, it is high time, if thou wouldst yet enter into the rest of God. Therefore hasten, and see to it, that thou do not come short of this blessedness.—Were there on the part of God an unconditional decree of human salvation, and were men, by virtue of this decree, unable to fall from the state of grace, and incur the loss of salvation, the holy men of God would not have been so zealous to warn believers against backsliding, and to exhort them to perseverance (2 Peter 3:17).—What avails it to listen to so many hundred sermons when we believe not, and receive no benefit? Mark! the word of God which thou hearest must flow into thine inmost soul, and must there give thee the full sap and nourishment of life, if it is to avail to thee for salvation (1 Thessalonians 2:13).—The promises of God avail nothing to unbelievers. These must die without consolation, and perish eternally (Isaiah 40:1).—The Gospel is, indeed, the power of God unto salvation, but it compels none to believe; but man retains his free-will to give place or not to the grace which knocks at the door of his heart.—Thou thinkest that it is very easy to come into heaven; but believe me, nothing common or unclean can enter thither. Unless thou art cleansed by faith, and art become a new creature, thou wilt not enter therein.—The repose of believers consists in this, 1, that we find all the works of God good, and are satisfied with these in the kingdom of nature and of grace; 2, that to that which God has devoted to us for our salvation, we desire to add nothing of our own, neither works of sin, nor even works of the law.—O how often are the first last, and the last first! Lord, Thy judgments are incomprehensible, and unsearchable Thy ways.—How highly should we respect the Psalms of David, since the Spirit of God has spoken by him!—To-day, since we hear the voice of Christ, let us obediently follow it; else we deserve that He withdraw from us His grace (John 12:35).—God would at all times, have all men enter into His rest.—Nothing of all which the holy men of God have written is in vain; what we do not understand, testifies of our weakness and imperfection.—Beloved, let us not be impatient over the turmoil of sin, the assaults of the devil, the pains of our vocation, and our other burdens. For such is the character of our present life. In heaven we shall have peace from all these (Psalms 90:10; Revelation 14:13).—O how deep is our concern, not only in the eternal rest itself, but also in that constant faith and obedience, without which that rest can never be attained. Berlenburger Bible:—Promise is God’s passport, which He gives us for our journey. He who throws away the promise, robs himself of aid.—We would fain be saved without employing the means.—The seed of all errors lies by nature in every one.—Because thou doest nothing, thou doest abundance of evil, and failest to accomplish thy duty.—The word in itself depends, indeed, in its power not upon my acceptance, since it is still powerful, but outside of me it avails me nothing.—All the works of God tend toward rest. But the time which is previously to elapse must not appear too long to us; but we must be assured that as God has brought us upon this way, He will also aid us to the end.—The work of creation is an image and foreshadowing of all the ways of God, clear to the end. The long extended time shows the long-suffering of God, and is given by God that we may recognize His goodness; but men readily abuse it to the indulgence of their sloth.—If God works in thee, thou art in rest; but if thou workest thyself, and in selfishness, thou hast nothing but disquietude. Laurentius:—The life of believers is nothing but a journey into eternal rest.—We may hear much of eternal life, and still be excluded from it.—The rest of believers in this life is imperfect.—To the times which are noted in the sacred Scripture we must give special heed. Rambach:—Each person of the sacred Trinity has, as it were, his special Sabbath and day of rest. The Father rested on the seventh day from the work of creation. The Son rested in the sepulchre from the work of redemption. The Holy Spirit will rest at last from the work of sanctification, viz., then, when He shall have no more sin to do away. Steinhofer:—Glory is reserved for us until our entrance into His eternal kingdom. It beams upon us from His throne, and will become manifest to us in His coming. In the meantime if we yield ourselves to His guidance, and hasten to the goal, He will infallibly bring us thither. We look merely to His heart and His hand; we remain tranquil; we let our Leader care for us, and willingly follow Him, upon that way in which He has not only preceded us and opened the path, but on which He is now also leading us, from step to step, by His power and grace, and will continue to lead us, until, at the last step, attaining complete deliverance and salvation, we also pass into the same glory, where we shall behold the brightness of God in the face of His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and be invested with this glory. Rieger:—Every one should stand in fear and just distrust of his own heart, in order that to him the visible and eternal may not speedily sink into insignificance, the way that leads to it become disagreeable, his striving after the treasure be enfeebled, and he be tempted to turn back into Egypt. That must be and become true in my heart, which is true, and as it is true in the Word of God.—The promise on the part of God is so sincere, the faith which trusts to it is something so tenacious, that we may with these venture boldly forth for an entrance into rest.—Who is there whom God cannot, by a thousand means, make to feel that he has been driven from the place of rest?—Who is there who has yielded to the heavenly calling, that does not find himself, after his abandonment of the world, in a wilderness of temptation? In whom arises not the sigh: Lord Jesus may I soon inquire for my rest?—No man’s progress is stopped by a previously formed decree of God; but it was the unbelief that showed itself on the way, that woke the wrath of God, and led Him to swear that they should not enter into His rest.—The purpose of God extends far. All ages, all nations that are successively born, are comprehended in it. Thus it bears with patience many a generation, and lo, that which was not accomplished in the fathers is to be attained in the children. God has prepared nothing in vain. It is His will that His house be full. No period of the world but contributes to the assemblage of His elect. Von Bogatzky:—Labor, works and suffering belong to the divine arrangement, or to the way upon which we enter into rest. But it is faith alone, which lays hold of Christ, and in Him already here, and thus also yonder, finds eternal rest. Although eternal rest and blessedness are a gift of grace, they still demand all industry and diligence, power and strength, in order to our attaining them, because there are many enemies that would circumvent us of this rest, and hinder our entrance into it.—We evince our industry in entering into His rest, 1, if we studiously hear His voice, and are obedient to Him; 2, if we accompany the word with prayer; 3, if we actively prove our faith by love; 4, if we rightly employ the present time of grace, nay, the present day, the present hour; 6, if in all struggle, strife, conflict and suffering, we are always watchful and on our guard against our enemies, crucify the wicked flesh, as our most immediate enemy, and when heavier sufferings and assaults press in, do not yield to despair. Stier:—As the promise stands remaining to us, so also stands good for us, in the strictest sense, the warning against wrath.—The to-day which is appointed to faith as an accepted time and day of salvation, after all the ways of Israel, which ended at last in the blinding and hardening of the majority of the people, at last clearly manifests itself as the gracious season of the New Covenant, in which the voice of God may be heard as never before.—The word of the Sabbatic rest! an inexhaustible consolation, with which ah! how many weary pilgrims, fainting combatants, sluggish laborers, have again and again armed themselves anew with strength and courage! A word of the Spirit which breathes upon the inner man, and refreshes with the powers of the world to come! A brightly glittering star of hope, guiding out of all darkness, back upon the right path!—By how much greater and more glorious the work of the redemption and restoration of fallen man, in whose fall the world is destroyed, than the work of the first creation, by so much more glorious is the second Sabbath of God in Christ, than the first Sabbath of Paradise. Von Gerlach:—In the oath that unbelievers shall not enter in is involved for believers the promise that they by faith shall enter in. Hedinger:—Hearing must be accompanied by faith; faith must be accompanied by perseverance. Heubner:—The unconverted will doubtless wish, immediately after death, even then speedily to procure for themselves an entrance into bliss, but too late; late-comers are not waited for.—The threat as well as the promise is conditional. All earthly rest is imperfect; the true rest comes afterward.—For him who seeks his rest here, the future world will bring unrest.—The rest of God promised to the Christian consists—1, in perfect freedom from all that disturbs, oppresses, obstructs, weakens, and pains the Christian here below: a. from outward disquiet of the world, of the body, and of evil men: b. from internal disquiet on account of his corruption and weakness; 2, in the blissful and undisturbed enjoyment of the grace and love of God; his soul then rests in God, after whom it was pining; he is then united with God through Christ in vision, enjoyment and feeling; 3, in the possession and blessed enjoyment of the good which his struggles have achieved, and in the perfectly free, never wearying, never exhausting prosecution of the new work that is assigned to us.—The Rest of God, the heavenly Sabbath, is to us a pattern and a goal; reminding us that, in the week of our present life, we accomplish our daily work, in order hereafter to attain to the heavenly Sabbath. Fricke:—Every Sabbath is a beckoning to the Rest of God, and an attestation of it. [Owen:—The failing of men through their unbelief doth no way cause the promises of God to fail or cease.—Men by their unbelief may disappoint themselves of their expectation, but cannot bereave God of His faithfulness.—The promise made unto Abraham did contain the substance of the Gospel.—The Gospel is no new doctrine, no new law; it was preached unto the people of old.—The Gospel is that which was from the beginning (1 John 1:1). It is the first great original transaction of God with sinners from the foundation of the world.—God hath not appointed to save men whether they will or no; nor is the word of promise a means suited unto any such end or purpose.—The great mystery of useful and profitable believing consists in the mixing or incorporating of truth and faith in the souls or minds of believers.—It is the proper description of an unbeliever, that “he doth not receive the things of the Spirit of God,” 1 Corinthians 2:14—Faith makes the soul in love with spiritual things: love engages all their affections into their proper exercise about them, and fills the mind continually with thoughtfulness about them, and desires after them; and this mightily helps on the spiritual mixture of faith and the word.—The people of God as such have work to do, and labor incumbent on them.—Rest and labor are correlates; the one supposeth the other. Many important truths lie deep and secret in the Scripture, and stand in need of a very diligent search and hard digging in their investigation and for their finding out.—There is no true rest for the souls of men, but only in Jesus Christ by the Gospel]. Footnotes: Hebrews 4:2.—Instead of the Nom. Sing., συγκεκραμένος which is found in 5 minusc. 17, 31, 37, 41,114, the Acc, Plur., in the form συγκεκρασμένους, is found in A. B. C. D.* M. 23, 25, and in the form συγκεκεραμένους (also with double μ), in D*** E. I, K. 4, 6, 10. Moreover the Copt., Ζth., Arm., and most of the versions have the Acc. But it scarcely yields any sense. The Nom. has the authority of the Peshito, Vulg., Ital., and of the Cod. Sin. in the form συγκεκερασμένος. Hebrews 4:3.—Instead of εἰσερχώμεθαοὖν we are to read with Sin. A. C. εἰσερχόμέθαγάρ. The following οἱπιστεύσαντες is also inconsistent with the hortatory subjunctive. Hebrews 4:3.—Instead of εἴρηται, read with Sin. A. C. D. E., 17, 23, 31, προείρηται. [With a writer of a different description, Moll’s objection to this interpretation might have more weight: in the case of our author it seems to be of very questionable validity. It should be borne in mind that the very characteristic and distinguishing feature of our epistle is the utmost possible cogency of reasoning, and stern and terrible force of appeal, couched in, (we might almost say), the utmost possible smoothness and flowing grace of diction. An earnestness of thought and sentiment that never for a moment relaxes itself, moves on pari passu with a majestic stateliness, and a classic grace of style, that never for a moment forgets its urbanity, and never allows its even repose to break forth into passionate vehemence of expression. In such a style the occurrence of an elegant and even softening term like δοκῆ in the sense here given to it, could scarcely be matter of surprise or objection.—K.]. [To see the difference between the two explanations, the reader must first correct the English version, which is here exceedingly unfortunate. First, Hebrews 4:6-7 must be closely united, not more than a comma being placed after unbelief. Then the comma must be struck out after again, Hebrews 4:7, and this word connected closely with ὁρίζει he again limits or fixes. Again the phrase “as it is said,” must be corrected first by a right translation of the Perf. has been said, and then by substituting the proper critical reading, προείρηται, has been said before (referring to the previous citation, Hebrews 3 Heb 4:7-15); and finally the phrase “after so long a time” must be put in its proper construction with “saying” (λέγων). We then render either thus: “Since, then, it still remains that some, etc.—on account of disobedience, he again fixes a certain day (viz.) ‘to-day,’ saying in David so long a time after” (i.e., so long a time after the original promise=the long interval between Moses and David) “to-day if ye hear His voice.” etc., or thus: he again fixes a certain day: “to-day”—saying in David so long a time afterward—“to-day if ye hear,” etc. In the former case “to-day” is taken in apposition with ἡμέραν, “a certain day, viz., to-day.” and so Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Bleek, De Wette, Moll, Bib. Union. In the latter “to-day” emphatically and somewhat abruptly commences the quotation, and then, after an intervening clause, is emphatically repeated. So Lόnemann, Delitzsch, and decidedly Alford. The order of the words σήμερονἐνΛαυεὶδλέγων I think is in favor of the latter view. With the former the author would, I think, have more naturally written λέγωνἑνΛαυείδ.—K.]. IV The peculiar and extraordinary nature of the word of God should deter us from resisting it Hebrews 4:11-1311 Let us labor [strive zealously, σπουδάσωμεν] therefore, to enter into that rest, lest any man [any one] fall after the same example of unbelief [disobedience, ἀπειθείας]. 12For the word of God is quick [living], and powerful [effective, energetic, ἐνεργής], and sharper than any two-edged sword [and], piercing [through] even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints [of both joints] and marrow, and is a discerner of [sits in judgment on, κριτικός] the thoughts [reflections] and intents 13 [thoughts] of the heart. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened [laid bare] unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. [Hebrews 4:11.—Σπουδάσωμεν, let us strive zealously, 2 Peter 1:10, “give diligence.” Here Alf., earnestly strive; Bib. Un., endeavor, perhaps not quite strong enough. De Wette, streben; Moll, ernstlich trachten.—ἐντῷαὐτῷ ?—πεσεῖν. Eng. ver., fall after; Vulg., Luth., Del., Alf., Bib. Un., etc., fall into; Moll, fall in the like, etc.; De Wette, fall, as a like example. All but the second (Vulg. etc.) take πεσεῖν, absolutely of perishing, against which Alf., after Lόn., urges its unemphatic position, but to which we may reply, that this springs from a desire to give a special emphasis to ἀπειθείας. Grammatically, πεσεῖνἐν, for πεσεῖνεἰς, fall into, is doubtless admissible: but “fall in,” or “into an example,” is harsh, and “to fall into the same example,” harsher still. I prefer taking with Eng. ver. and Moll, πεσεῖν, absolutely, of perishing, and I believe the expression to be a pregnant one, for “experience a like fall with that of those after whose disobedience you thus pattern;” the “pattern” not looking forward to the effect of their fall on others—which seems not at all in the author’s sphere of thought—but backward to the effect of the fall of their fathers upon them.—τῆςἀπειθείας, disobedience, not unbelief, ἀπιστίας. Hebrews 4:12.—Ζῶνγάρ, for living, placed emphatically at the beginning.—ἐνεργής, working, operative, effective.—τομώτεροςὐπέρ, more cutting beyond, a double comparative.—διικνούμενος, coming through, piercing through.—ἁρμῶντεκαὶμυελῶν, both joints and marrow; with the omission of the τε after ψυχῆς, these words become naturally an explanatory apposition to ψυχῆςκαὶπνεύματος.—κριτικὸς.: Eng. ver., Bib. Un., discerner; Alf., judger, or discerner; De Wette, Richter; Lόn., zu beurtheilen oder zu richten befόhigt; Moll, richterlich.—ἐνθυμήσεωνκαὶἐννοιῶν, not, thoughts and intents, but reflections, or sentiments, emotions, affections, and ideas, thoughts, the former looking more to the moral and emotional, the latter to the intellectual nature.—K.]. AND Heb_4:11. Let us therefore strive earnestly to enter—example of disobedience.—The fact stated in Hebrews 4:1, and subsequently unfolded, that there not only is a true rest for the people of God, consisting in a participation of the rest of God Himself, but that we Christians are invited to it by a word of promise, and have in Jesus our true Leader, leads now, according to our understanding of Heb 4:1, either to the resumption of the exhortation which it contains, or to a new exhortation to earnest and zealous striving for an entrance into that rest (ἐκείνη, that, marking the specific rest just described). Whoever intermits this striving will fall on the way, and will furnish precisely such an example of disobedience, alike in his conduct and his destiny, as did the nation of Israel, in their march through the desert. Instead of παράδειγμα, in familiar use with the earlier Attic writers, but wanting in the N. Test., we have here, as at 2 Peter 2:6, ὑπόδειγυα. Both words denote, sometimes copy, sometimes pattern. The ἐν is not=per (Wolf, Strig., etc.), or propter (Carpz.), but denotes state or condition, the being in (Bl., De W., Bisp., Del.). With this coincides substantially the view of Thol. that it corresponds with the Dat. modi, indicating the way and manner in which the fact as a whole presents itself (Bernhardy, Synt. 100), i.e., fall, and in his fall present the same example of disobedience as the Fathers. Πέσῃ is thus taken absolutely, a construction which, since Chrysostom has been given to it by most interpreters, though with an unwarranted reference to the use of the word, Hebrews 3:17, they restrict it to mere perishing (exclusive of the idea of sinning). Lφnemann (followed by Alford) maintains that the position of πέση forbids our taking it here thus absolutely. But his view is untenable, and all the more so as his own explanation of the idea accords substantially with that given by us. He is right, however, in remarking that the translation of Luther, after the Vulg.: “that no one fall into the same example of unbelief,” is not, as by and since Bleek, to be rejected on grammatical grounds. For πίπτεινἐν is as good Greek as πίπτεινείς, only that it connects with the idea of falling into, that of subsequently remaining in. Del. adds still further examples from the Hellenistic, Psalms 35:8; Psalms 141:10; Ezekiel 27:27. Hebrews 4:12. For the word of God is living—two-edged sword.—Many distinguished Christian fathers, and, among recent expositors, Biesenthal even yet, regard the λόγοςτοῦθεοῦ here as the hypostatical or personal word of God; but as our Epistle nowhere else speaks of the personal Logos,—although it must certainly be supposed to have aided in preparing the way for that designation,—it is generally understood of the word of God as spoken and as recorded in the Scriptures. Under this view some (Schlicht., Mich., Abresch, Bφhm., etc.) restrict it to the threatening and heart-piercing word of the O. Test., while others (Camero, Grot., Ebr., etc.) apply it te the Gospel of the N. T. Ebrard so regards it, even with reference to the fact that the Old Testament word remained exterior, and, as it were, a thing foreign to man. There is no ground, however, for such limitations; nor is there, on the other hand, any more ground for that wide and vague generalizing of the term which, with Bez., Schultz, Bisp., etc., would include in it the whole range of the Divine threatenings and promises, and strip the passage entirely of its local coloring. It is clear from the context that the passage is designed to justify and enforce the preceding warning (Hebrews 4:1), terminating emphatically and designedly with its suggestive ἀπειθείας. To do this, the writer brings out the characteristic nature of the word of God. That which God says (Lόn.) is, as a product of the Divine activity, infinitely different from every human word. But it appears here in reference to no specific subject-matter whatever, but in reference merely to this single and peculiar feature, that it has proceeded from God, and has the form of the Logos. This is indicated by the properties which are immediately ascribed to it. As a word of God, it is living (ζῶν), Acts 7:38; 1 Peter 1:23; having life in itself, while again the like appellation is given to God, from whom it comes, Hebrews 3:12; Hebrews 10:31. Ebrard interpolates into the thought a contrast with the dead law; while Schlichting and Abresch unwarrantably restrict its import to imperishable duration, and Carpz., equally unwarrantably, to its capacity to nourish the life of the soul. But the inner life of the word reveals itself in actual operation. Hence, it is called ἐνεργής, proving itself operative and efficient; and since it lay within the scope of the author to unfold this feature of the word’s peculiar character, it is called, “sharper than any two-edged sword.” Such a sword, which, as δίστομος, or double-mouthed, ‘devours’ on both sides, issues, according to Revelation 19:15, from the mouth of the Logos. Ὑπέρ stands after a comparative, Luke 16:8; Judges 11:25, as παρά, Hebrews 1:4. In similar terms, Philo repeatedly speaks of the Logos.Hebrews 4:12. And piercing through—feelings and thoughts of the heart.—These expressions subserve the same purpose as the preceding, viz., to characterize the word of God as such. A union of the word of the Gospel, or even of the Hypostatical Logos, with the inner life of believers, is not indicated by a single feature of the picture. It simply presents to us the word of God in its proper and peculiar character, as penetrating through every outward and enveloping fold, into the inmost being of man, and thus competent to exercise judicial supervision (κριτικός not κρίτης) over those ἐνθυμήσεις and ἔννοιαι, which, as sources of human action, have their sphere of operation in the heart. The word exercises its judicial functions as well in the realm of thought, purpose and resolution, as in that of affection, inclination and passion; for it penetrates so deeply as to effect the work of separation (μερισμός) in the province of soul and spirit, and that in their natural (though not necessarily, as maintained by Del., sensuous and corporeal) life of emotion and sensibility. For ἁρμοίτεκαὶμυελοί form doubtless a figurative expression for the collective and deeper elements of man’s inner nature (as, in the same way, μυελός is found at Eurip. Hippol., 255, and Themist. Orat., 32, p. 357), and were here naturally suggested by the comparison of the “word” with a sword. And we can scarcely apply the language to the separating of the soul from the spirit, or of both from the joints and marrow of the body (Bφhme, Del.); or to the penetrating of the word clear to the most secret place where soul and spirit are separated (Schlicht., who, although ἄχρι is not repeated, does not make ἁρμῶντεκαὶμύελῶν, dependent on μερισμοῦ, but coφrdinates them with it). The separation is rather described as taking place in these designated spheres themselves, the word, like a sword, cleaving soul, cleaving spirit. Hofm. (Schriftb., I., 259) assumes a very harsh and indefensible inversion, making ψυχῆςκαὶπνεύματος depend on ἁρμῶντεκαὶμυελῶν=alike the joints and marrow of the inner life. It is a more natural construction (with Lόn., Alf., etc.), to take ἁρμῶντεκαὶμυελῶν, connected as they are by τεκαὶ into closely united parts of one whole, as subordinate to ψυχῆςκαὶπνεύματος, thus=soul and spirit, alike Joints and marrow [i.e., joints and marrow of soul and of spirit]. To assume (with Calv., Bez., etc.) a coφrdination of the two sets of words, as corresponding and similarly divided pairs, is forbidden by the absence of the τε in the first, pair; and the order of the words themselves (ψυχῆς, preceding πνεύματος) forbids our assuming, with Delitzsch, an advance from the πνεῦμα, as the primary and proper seat of gracious influences, through the more outward ψυχή to the strictly material and bodily portion of our nature. Hebrews 4:13. And there is no creature that is not manifest, etc.—At the first glance, the language looks like a continuance of the description of the λόγοςτοῦθεοῦ; and hence many expositors who do not adopt the hypostatical view regarding the word, still refer the repeated αὐτοῦ, and the ὅν to λόγος. But although John 12:48 ascribes to the word a judicial function at the final judgment, and Proverbs 3:16 ascribe hands to wisdom, yet still here alike the mention of eyes, and the Hellenistic ἐνώπιον corresponding to the Heb. μִ ?τְ ?πֵ ?ι, indicate that the subject passes over from the word to God Himself. This transition is all the more natural, in that the attributes, previously ascribed to the word, point collectively to its origin from God, and to the power of God prevailing in it. But we are particularly forced to this construction from the final clause πρὸςο͂νἡμῖνὁλόγος. This were an impotent, superfluous and purely objectless addition if it meant nothing but: “of whom we are speaking,”=περὶοὗἡυῖνὁλόγος, Hebrews 5:11 (Luth., Grot., Schlicht., Strig., etc.), whether we refer the sentence to ‘God’ or to His ‘word.’ Nor does it mean properly: “to whom we have to give an account” (Pesh., Chrys., Primas., etc.); but more exactly: “with whom we stand in relation,” i.e, of accountability (Calv., Beng., Bl., and the later intpp.). No special emphasis rests on ἡμῖν, and, at all events, none strong enough to support the interpretation which Ebrard, on the strength of it, gives to the passage. The rendering proposed in Reuter’s Rep., 1857, p. Hebrews 27: “to whom [viz., God) the word is for us,” i.e., “to whom the word is to lead us,” is far-fetched and artificial. Before God, then, there is no creature, ἀφανής, i.e., invisible and untransparent; rather (δέ for ἀλλά, as Hebrews 2:6) are all creatures, γυμνά, stript of all natural and artificial covering; and τετραχηλισμένα, with neck bent back, so as to give a full view of the face. The archζological explanations drawn from ancient usages, either in gladiatorial combats, or in the treatment of criminals, or in animal sacrifices, are either unnatural, or superfluous. The explanation of κτίσις, as opus hominis quia id est velut creatura hominis (Grot., Carpz.), is decidedly to be rejected. [τετραχηλισμένα (Hesych., πεφανερωμένα) has been explained from the usage of athletes in grasping by the neck or throat their antagonist, and prostrating him on his back, so that he lies open and prostrate; or from the practice of bending back the necks of malefactors—who would naturally bow their heads—so that all may see their shame; or, from throwing back the necks of animals in sacrifices, in order to lay them bare to the knife of the slaughterer. The first seems objectionable, as giving to τραχηλίζειν, a meaning, i.e., of laying prostrate and bare, which is merely incidental to, and inferential from its proper force, “seize by the neck, throttle.” The second, from the fact that, though a Roman custom, there is no evidence that it was expressed by the Greek word τραχηλι̇ζειν. The third, also, is liable to the objection, that, though the usage was familiar to the Greeks, there is no evidence that this word was employed to designate it. The latter view is adopted by Lόn.; the second by Bleek, De Wette, etc. Alford insists on the frequency of the occurrence of the word in Philo (especially “in a passage cast so much in Philo’s mode of rhetorical expression”), (who uses it uniformly in the sense of laying prostrate, generally metaphorically), and would thence interpret it here “as signifying entire prostration and subjugation under the eye of God.” Words worth renders: “bare and laid open to the neck, throat and back-bone;” and adds: “The metaphor is from sacrificial victims first flayed naked, and then dissected and laid open by the anatomical knife of the sacrificing Priest, so that all the inner texture, the nerves and sinews, and arteries of the body were exposed to view.”—K]. AND ETHICAL1. “The word searches out in our hearts the eternity which hitherto lay buried under a multitude of fancies and imaginations of the heart, and was too feeble to come forth of itself. It creates a spiritual understanding, which consists in true and substantial ideas. It furnishes an answer to the objections which distrust, fear, impatience, unbelief, awaken in our bosoms. It teaches us that there are within us two hostile wills; one from truth, the other from imagination; one from God, the other from ourselves. It separates the desires springing from imperfect education, from misunderstanding of the letter of the law, and those that spring from an uncleansed conscience and habitual desire, and it so judges and uncovers all deception, that nothing is hidden from it. Thus this word is a genuine auxiliary to the attainment of rest.” (Hahn, priest in Echterdingen). 2. The word is the essential means of revealing the true and living God, inasmuch as He in His essence is Spirit (John 4:24); and since speaking appears in this connection as an essential living utterance of God, its product, the word, must contain in itself, and express, the peculiarity of the divine life. Precisely for this reason, the same qualities are applied to the Word of Revelation as to the hypostatical Logos, and interpreters could easily question whether our text spoke of the former or the latter. At all events this passage belongs, as already recognized by Olshausen (Opuscula, p. 125); Kφstlin, (Joh. Lehrbegr., p. 376) Dorner, (Christology I. 100) to those Biblical declarations which explain and prepare the way for the origin of the mode of expression in the prologue of the Gospel of John. For if Christ is conceived, not merely as the mediator of the creation, the redemption, and perfection of the world, but also as mediator of the whole revelation of God; if again the word is the essential means of this revelation, and if, finally, the personal mediator muse, in such a relation, be conceived of as of like nature with God, as demanded by the expressions ἀπαὐγασματῆςδόξηςκαὶχαρακτὴρτῆςὑποστάσεωςαὐτοῦ, Hebrews 1:3, and εἰκὼντοῦθεοῦτοῦἀορατου, πρωτότοκοςπάσηςκτίσεως (Colossians 1:15), it becomes then entirely natural to characterize the Son of God, not merely as being the substance of the announced word, but as the eternal and personal Word, by the appellation of Logos. 3. Although expressions are found in Philo, regarding the cutting and penetrating sharpness of the “word,” which are similar to those used here, we are still not to go back to Philo for the explanation of our passage, but rather to conceptions and expressions of the Old Testament which Philo’s philosophical speculations not unfrequently obscure and misinterpret. The Word of God is specially compared (Isaiah 49:2) with a sharp sword, and Isaiah 11:4 speaks of the rod of His mouth, which will smite the earth, and of the breath of His lips which will slay the wicked. For this same reason similar figures are found at Ephesians 6:17; 2 Thessalonians 2:8; Revelation 1:16; Revelation 2:12; Revelation 19:15. The judicial power of the word, which is spirit and life (John 6:63; Acts 7:38); is mentioned, also John 12:48;, as at Wis 16:12, its healing, and at Sir 43:26, its all-creating and sustaining power. We might also, perhaps, be reminded of the expressions at Wis 18:15; ὁπἀντοδύναμόςσουλόγος—=ξίφοςὀξὺτὴνἀνυπόκριτονἐπιταγνσοήυφέρων. 4. Since πνεῦμα (spirit) in our passage denotes a constituent element of human nature, and is distinguished from ψυχή (soul) the trichotomical view of the nature of man is here expressed, which is found also 1 Thessalonians 5:23; while Matthew 6:25; James 2:26 point undeniably to that of a dichotomy. But this indicates no contradiction in the Holy Scriptures itself, but simply authorizes both forms of representation. Regarding the contrast of the Scriptural dichotomy with a false trichotomy and in like manner of the Scriptural trichotomy with a false dichotomy, see Del., System of Biblical Psychology, Leipz. 1855, p. 64 ff; Olshausen, Opusc. Theol. p. 152, and Lutz, Biblical Dogmatic, p. 76; Von Rudloff, The Doctrine of Man, Leipz. 1858; and G. Von Zezschwitz, Classic Greek, and the Spirit of the Biblical Language, Leipz. 1859; p. 34 ff. In the latter work it is well said p. 60 that the Scripture speaks dichotomically in respect of the parts, trichotomically, of the living reality, but maintaining everywhere the fundamental unity of the human essence. It is entirely false to refer with G. L. Hahn, (Theol. of the New Testament, 1 vol., Leipz. 1854, p. 415) the πνεῦμα in our passage to the Spirit of God. According to the view of this scholar, it would be here said, that the Word of God is not despised with impunity, inasmuch as it is able to penetrate into the inmost recesses of human nature, where the soul, the central seat of life, receives from the spirit its contributions and nourishment. Granting, then, that the word is able to separate the soul from the spirit, this means, according to him, nothing else than that the Word of God has power to procure for man the eternal death of the soul. But the Spirit is here evidently a constituent element of human nature, which, in its origin, comes immediately from God, and belongs, in its nature, to the immaterial super-sensuous world. In it is involved the continued existence of man, and his entrance after death into the invisible world. The ψυχή (soul) is in this connection the central, and as it were aggregating point of human life, which is touched immediately by bodily impressions, but which also receives into itself the influences proceeding from the πνεῦμα. (Riehm, II. 672 ff.). AND He who would attain to the desired goal must not merely give heed to the Word of God, but must strive earnestly to enter into the Rest of God.—What we hare in the Word of God, we best ascertain from its agency and its influence.—The character of the Word of God corresponds as well to its origin as to its object.—God judges in His word, 1, in order to save; 2, the whole world; 3, not merely the walk, but also the heart.—When is our striving a blessed one?—1, When it is directed to the attainment of the Rest of God;—2, when it is directed in accordance with the Word of God; 3, when it comes from a heart which has a living consciousness of its responsibility to God.—What is the nature of that God with whom we have to do?—Does the earnestness with which God desires our salvation find an answering earnestness in our striving after His approval?—To the magnitude of that which God has bestowed upon us, corresponds the weight of our responsibility, and the heaviness of His judgment. Starke:—Without rest we were the most miserable of all creatures, and it were better for us that we had never been born, than that we remained in eternal unrest. Therefore, take courage, vigorously onward, be active in the struggle, joyful in the course, that we may lay hold of the jewel of rest (1 Timothy 6:12).—The Gospel is the means which God employs for our salvation. If then, it is to make living men out of dead ones, it must itself be living.—God’s Word has God’s power.—Observest thou not how it arouses thy conscience and rebukes thee?—God evinces His power in the works of faith and of salvation, no otherwise than through His word, and it also proves itself mighty in those who will not obey the truth, since it becomes to them a savor of death unto death, (1 Corinthians 1:24; 2 Corinthians 10:4-5; Romans 1:16; Psalms 19:8.)—The law is a sharp sword, which pierces into the soul of a transgressor (Galatians 3:10); but the Gospel is still sharper in its convicting power; it is able to soften the hardest heart, and to cut it asunder through the preaching of Christ, (Acts 2:37; Acts 16:14; Acts 16:32; Acts 26:27-28).—As the word is of divine authority, it is also a perfect, clear, and sure rule of faith.—The power of the word of God evinces itself in this, that without compulsion or external power, it draws hearts to itself, brings them out of the power of the devil, of sin, and of death, into obedience, and brings them to eternal, divine freedom, righteousness and life.—Our heart has frequently been smitten, we know not how or whence. Frequently we hear a whispering, without any sensible emotion. Then again it happens that we hear the same small voice, and taste in it a power, and receive from it a wisdom, that fills us with wonder, (Acts 24:25).—Thoughts are not free from accountability; hearest thou not that they have their judge?—If thou goest about with evil trick and artifices, although they are choked down in the heart, and bear no fruit, they will still be revealed and judged to thine eternal shame, (1 Corinthians 4:5). Berlenburger Bible:—He who will not hear the voice of God cannot possibly attain to the Rest of God, and although there may be found some who have said that they enjoy rest, they have still only a transitory and self-procured rest; but not a rest in God.—Many thousands have lost their rest because they did not put forth their utmost power in entering into it, (Luke 13:24).—Where unbelief puts itself in the way of the word, there the living word proves its power, so as to disclose the condition of the man.—The living Word of God cuts so deep into the soul that the false blood of selfishness, as it were, issues forth, and of necessity, betrays itself.—None is so upright toward thee—of that be assured—as this word. Laurentius:—With the regenerate the spirit must have sway: the body must be subject to the soul, but the soul to the spirit.—From God nothing is hidden, neither the wickedness of the unconverted, nor the secret desire of believers. He knows and sees all better than we ourselves. Rambach:—Those greatly err who hold the Word of God to be a dead letter; yet the law cannot make alive, for this is an honor which belongs alone to the Gospel. Von Bogatzky:—None can have any excuse for remaining dead and inanimate, or sluggish and inactive; because the word is living and powerful.—With the sword of the Spirit must all our enemies be smitten, and not hinder us from entering into the heavenly Canaan.—We have not to do with mere men who formerly wrote the word, and who now preach it; no, we have to do with God Himself, the Judge of all flesh.—The more exalted is the person who speaks to us, the more reverently do we receive the word and obey it. Rieger:—There arises in the heart, particularly if during many years it has not remained totally estranged from, and indifferent to, the proffers of God, an incredible blending of good and evil, of truth and falsehood, of earthly-mindedness, and occasional longing after something better, of inclination to the obedience of faith, and temptation to depart from the living God. If these remain always blended with each other, then the man always remains hidden from himself, now inclined to be influenced and yield to right persuasion, and now again timid, trembling before the temptation to cast away his confidence. With this he sinks at one time into fear, without exertion, and acts as if nothing more were to be accomplished; and at another plunges into self-confident endeavors in exertion without fear, without thought of the power of unbelief, from both of which only the call and drawing of God can set us free. From such a labyrinth there would be no escape without this judicial and serving power of the divine word, which must divide asunder for us faith and unbelief in their deepest roots, and their inmost and most vital tendencies. Stier:—The unbeliever already has his judge in the heard but despised word, and his judgment in his heart and conscience.—He who in the deepest, indestructible original foundation of the fallen man, still attests by the voice of conscience His right and His truth, is the same one who now speaks by the word of His grace unto and into the conscience. Von Gerlach:—All that is here said of the word, that is, of the revelation of God generally, holds in the highest degree of the independent, personal, eternal Word which was with the Father, and has appeared among us in the flesh; every individual word of God is an emanation from the eternal Word.—The greater the compassionate grace which God bestows upon us in Christ, the mightier the power of His all-healing and restoring love, so much the more fearful is the responsibility, if we nevertheless despise His word. Heubner:—The Word penetrates even through the thickest bulwarks of prejudice, of illusion, and into the hardest and grossest hearts; it seizes upon the inmost being, the very vital principle of man.—How often has the declaration of the Bible assailed and completely penetrated the hardened and the transgressor, or a promise awakened the sluggish and the timid.—The power of the word comes from God who has created both the word and the human soul. Even the simplicity of the word strengthens its power.—God knows alike true and wavering faith. Hahn:—We cannot believe and yet remain idle.—The word will at once render us cheerful, and will help us on if we deal with it honestly and do not weaken its power.—Many would gladly go into rest, but they do not lift up a foot in the right direction. Fricke:—The goal toward which we tend is indeed rest, but the way is toil and labor. Footnotes: Hebrews 4:12.—The τε after ψυχῆς is to be expunged according to Sin. A. B. C. H. L., 3, 73. [The following passages from Philo (cited by Lόn.), are among the striking evidences that our author, while totally free from the mystical and allegorizing fancies of Philo, could yet have hardly been unacquainted or unfamiliar with his writings: Qui rerum divinarum hζres, p. 499. Εἶτ’ ἐπιλέγει · Λιεῖλεναὐτὰμέσα (Genesis 15:10) τὸτίςοὐπροσθείς, ἵνατὸνἀδίδακτονἐννοῇςθεὸντέμνοντατάςτετῶνσωμάτωνκαὶπραγμάτωνἑξῆςἁπάσαςἡρμόσθαικαὶἡνῆσθαιδοκούσαςφύσειςτῷτομεῖτῶνσυμπάντωναὐτοῦλὸγῳ · ὅς, εἰςτὴνὀξυτάτηνἀκονηθεὶςἀκμήν, διαιρῶνοὐδέποτελήγειτὰαἰσθητὰπάντα · ἐπειδὰνδὲμέχριτῶνἀτόμωνκαὶλεγομένωνάμερῶνδιέλθῇ, πάλινἀπὸτούτωντὰλόγῳθεωρητὰεἰςἀμυθήτουςκαὶάπεριγρὰφουςμοίραςἄρχεταιδιαιρεῖνοὖτοςὁτομεύς … Ἕκαστουοὖντῶντριῶνδιεῖλεμέσον, τὴνμὲνψυχὴνεἰςλογικὸνκαὶἄλογον, τὸνδὲλόγονεἰςαληθέςτεκαὶψεῦδος, τὴνδὲαἴσθησινεἰςκαταληπτικἠνφαντασίανκαὶἀκαταλήπτον. Again de Cherubim, p. 112 f. Philo finds in the φλογίνηῥομφαία, flaming sword, Genesis 3:24, a symbol of the Logos, and then remarks in reference to Abraham: οὐχὁρᾷςὅτικαὶἈβαραὰμὁσοφὸς, ἡνίκαἤρξατοκατὰθεὸνμετρείςπάντακαὶμηδὲνἀπολείπειντῷγεννητῷ, λαμβάνειτῆςφλογίνηςῥομφαίαςμίμημα, πῦρκαὶμάχαιραν (Genesis 22:6), διελεῖνκαὶκαταφλέξαιτὸθνητὸνἀφ̓ἑαυτοῦγλιχόμενος, ἵναγυμνῆτῇδιανοίᾳμετάρσιοςπρὸςτὸνθεὸυἀναπτῇ. In the first passage, Philo speaks of “God dividing (cutting) all the natures of bodies and of things in succession, which seem to have been fitted and united together, with His word, which is the divider (cutter) of all things, which being whetted to the keenest edge, never ceases dividing all things which are perceptible to sense,” etc. In the others he says that “Abraham, when he began to measure all things, according to God—takes a likeness of the flaming sword (i.e., of the Divine Logos), to wit, fire and a sword (μάχαιρα), seeking to sever and burn away the mortal part from himself, in order that with his naked intelligence he might soar and fly up to God.—K.]. THIRD Exaltation of Jesus Christ above Aaron and his high-priestly successors The exaltation of Jesus Christ, as the High-Priest who has passed through the heavens, furnishes a basis for the exhortation to the maintenance of the Christian confession Hebrews 4:14-1614 Seeing, then, that we have a great high priest, that is [has] passed into [through] the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession [confession, ὁμολογίας]. 15For we have not a high priest which [who] cannot be touched with the feeling of [sympathize with] our infirmities; but was [has been] in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin [apart from sin]. 16Let us therefore come boldly [approach with confidence] to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need [for seasonable succor]. AND Heb_4:14. Since, therefore, we have a great high priest, etc.—Delitzsch, disconnecting the οὖν from the ἔχοντεςἀρχ., and carrying it over to the κρατῶμεν, makes the ἐχον. ἄρχ. here incidental, and regards the οὖν with κρατῶμεν as deducing from the words immediately preceding the duty of steadfast perseverance [so Alf.]. But the position of οὖν between ἔχοντες and ἀρχιερέα, shows that, looking back to the entire previous discussion, in which Jesus has been not merely styled ἀρχιερεύς, Hebrews 2:17; Hebrews 3:1 (Thol., De W.), but also been set forth in His personal elevation and majesty (Lόn.), the author is drawing the conclusion that we possess in Jesus not merely a Prophet and Messenger of God, legislator, and Leader, like Moses and Joshua, but a High-priest who, precisely on account of this character, can, as άρχηγὸςτῆςσωτηρίας, conduct into the Sabbath rest (σαββατισμός). The epithet μέγας points at once to that elevation of this High-Priest above Aaron and his successors, which is unfolded in this section; for the opinion of John Cappell, Braun, Ramb., Mich., etc., that the epithet μέγας only serves to give to the combination μεγ. ἀρχ. the meaning of high-priest, is entirely without foundation. Philo had previously called the Divine Logos μέγ. ἀρχ. (I., 654 Ed. Mang.). That the author’s special point here is the majesty of this Christian High-Priest, is clear from the two appended descriptive clauses, of which the former tells us that this High-Priest has accomplished His course, in order that, exalted above all created existences (Hebrews 7:26; Ephesians 4:10), He might receive the Place belonging to Him upon the throne of the majesty of God, Hebrews 1:3; Hebrews 1:13; while the other connects immediately with His special designation as High-Priest the mention of His Divine Sonship, which explains this elevation (Hebrews 1:1; Hebrews 1:5; Hebrews 6:6; Hebrews 7:3; Hebrews 10:29). The rendering: “who has gone to heaven” (Pesh., Luth., Calv., Ernesti, etc.) is erroneous [as also that of the Eng. version, “who has passed into the heavens”]; and no less erroneous is the opinion of Wolf and Bφhme, that the appended τὸνυἱὸντοῦθεοῦ is intended to distinguish Jesus from Joshua. Hebrews 4:14. Let us hold fast our confession.—The circumstance that not merely such a High-Priest as the above exists, but that we already stand in a definite historical relation to Him, whereby He is our High-Priest, forms the ground of the exhortation to the holding fast, Hebrews 6:18; Colossians 2:19; 2 Timothy 2:15 (κρατῶμεν not to be explained as by Tittman, lay hold of), of our confession, viz., our entire Christian profession, not merely our confession of Christ as our High-Priest (Storr). Hebrews 4:15. For we have not an high priest—infirmities.—The author is not here giving the ground of the exhortation which has already found its reason in the ἔχοντεςοὖνἀρχ., but proceeds to elucidate still further the declaration of Christ’s High-Priesthood which follows from the preceding discussion, by anticipating and setting aside the thought which might arise that a Messiah who had come from God, and who had gone to God, might perhaps indeed have taken upon Himself the human mode of life, but could scarcely have assumed our entire human nature to the extent of an actual sympathy with our weaknesses and our temptations. An actual joint endurance (συμπάσχειν, Romans 8:17; 1 Corinthians 12:26) of these sufferings is here not intended. The writer simply affirms a sympathy, a fellow-feeling, (συμπαθεῖν, Hebrews 10:34); through which compassion shows itself in emotional participation, and in hearty sympathy with the condition of those into whose circumstances, perils and modes of feeling we are enabled to enter. The ἄσθένειαι are not merely sufferings (Chrys., etc.), but our outward and inward infirmities. But one who has been tempted—Without Sin.—The δέ stands hero as Hebrews 2:6; Hebrews 4:13, so that the adversative clause contains, at the same time, a heightening and a carrying forward of the thought. Καθ̓ὁμοιότητα sc. ἡμῶν is stronger than ὁμοίως, Christ’s likeness to us in respect of being tempted extends to every relation with a single, far-reaching exception,—an exception that, in fact, modifies the relation of likeness at every point, viz., apart from sin (χωρὶςἁμαρτίας). This cannot mean, “except in sin,” in all other things beside (Capp., Storr, etc.); for in that case κατὰπάντα must have been united immediately with χωρίς, and ἁμαρτίας must have had the definite article. The view of �cum., Schlicht., and Dindorf, to wit, without having stained His sufferings by sin, is unnatural. The common explanation, viz., without His temptation leading Him to sin, is too narrow. The participation of Jesus in every form of human suffering—the actual stirring of His emotions, His complete fellow-feeling with our weaknesses, the reality of His actual temptation,—all have taken place without one single sinful emotion, and without ever finding in Him, as their condition, or point of contact, a single slumbering element of sin. Every thing took place with Him “separately from sin.” The sinlessness of the Divine Logos in Philo, (Ed. Mang. I., 562 ff.). Hebrews 4:16. Let us therefore approach—of grace.—Since we possess in Jesus Christ a High-Priest who is not merely exalted, but also sympathizing and tried, and who thus has not merely the external position and power, not merely the internal inclinations and volitions, but every possible requisite form of qualification and fitness to be our Saviour, with this the previous train of thought, with its naturally accompanying exhortations, is brought to a sort of temporary, and, as it were, preliminary close. The “throne of grace” is neither Christ (Gerh., Seb. Schmidt, Carpz., etc.), nor the throne of Christ (Primas., Schlicht.), but the throne of God. The expression, however, is not intended to suggest the throne which arose upon the lid of the ark of the covenant (Bisp. after the earlier interpp.), but the throne of God in heaven, which at Hebrews 8:1 is called θρόνοςτῆςμεγαλωσύνης, and here θρόνοςτῆςχάριτος, the throne of grace, because from it there descends to us the grace which is wrought through Christ the Son, enthroned at the right hand of God. There is no occasion for interpreting it as the throne which stands upon grace, Isaiah 16:5; comp. Psalms 89:15 (Del.), but rather, as that upon which grace is enthroned. The coming or drawing near to this throne, designated by προσέρχεσθαι with an obvious reference to the approach of the Levitically clean to the sanctuary (Leviticus 22:3), or of the priest to the altar (Leviticus 21:17), is to be with the bold and joyous confidence (παῤῥησίας) which gives to itself the corresponding expression (Hebrews 3:6), and rests upon the assurance of reconciliation with God. That we may obtain mercy, etc.—The object of coming to the throne of grace, which in the Old Testament was made possible by the Levitical sacrifice, in the New, by the sacrificial death of Christ, but in both cases finds the impulse to its realization in the faith of those who stand in need of succor, is the attainment of ἔλεος (mercy) and χάρις (grace). It is equally unwarrantable (with Lόn.) to reject all distinction between these two terms, and with Bisp., to refer the ἔλεος (mercy) to forgiveness of sins and deliverance from suffering, and the χάρις (grace) on the contrary, to the communication of the higher gifts of grace. For ἔλεος (pity, mercy) always involves a more especial reference to wretchedness, which touches the heart; whether consisting in outward misfortune, suffering, punishment, or inward corruption, guilt and sin, while χάρις (grace), on the contrary, looks rather to a mere self-determined and kindly inclination toward those who have neither right nor claim to it. To restrict the words εἰςεὔκαιρονβοήθειαν to the then still existing season of grace, with a reference back to Hebrews 3:13 (Bl., De W., Lόn.), would indeed be preferable to the wholly vague and indefinite interpretation, “so often as we need help;” yet such a limitation is still less appropriate than (with Thol. and Del.) in reference to Hebrews 2:18, to refer it to our weaknesses and need of succor in temptations. AND ETHICALWe must not merely believe what is announced to us of Jesus in the Holy Scripture, but also confess what we have in this great, and in every respect perfected Mediator of salvation.—This confession presents itself, indeed, in separate acts, but the confession itself is a united and distinct whole; and the holding fast to this, as the confession of the Christian Church, presupposes in the members of the Church, a vitality, power, and fidelity of personal faith, which should ever be cherished, and by which again, our joyful access to the throne of grace is secured under the most painful trials. 2. The passing of Jesus through the heavens is not here presented as a parallel with the official and solemn passing of the Jewish High-priest through the holy place, into the Holy of holies.—Rather the return of the High-priest Jesus, who, as such, has already made His perfect sacrifice by the offering up of His life upon the cross—His actual return, as Son of man, to the Father, is, in our passage, as an extra ordinary token of His incomparable majesty, placed in parallel with His Divine Sonship; whereby the whole person of the God-man is exalted above all finite beings and localities, and freed from the limitations of time and place, has been brought into full and unrestricted participation in the Divine majesty and glory.—The Lutheran Dogmatic has for this reason drawn from our passage a capital proof of its doctrine of the ubiquity of Christ. 3. A contrast of the strongest kind appears in thus setting over against each other the exaltation of the God-man above every thing created, and His actual participation in human sufferings and fortunes. This participation is of a two-fold character; the one is a sympathizing and ever-enduring compassion, in respect to our needs, in a loving sensibility and fellow-feeling with our sufferings; the other is the sinless sharing, during his earthly life, not only of our susceptibility to suffering, but also of our liability to temptation. Both are a testimony of the perfection of Jesus, and a foundation of our confidence in His help, which we, for this reason, have to implore in our time of need. Upon this rests, in great part. the importance of the experiences obtained by Jesus in His human life, in regard to the character of human sufferings and temptations. “As former of the world, the Logos of God knew doubtless what sort of a creature we are; but, clothed with our flesh, He became acquainted with human weakness from diversified and comprehensive experience. His Divine, preexistent knowledge, came to learn that which springs from personal trial.”—In these words of Cyrill of Alexandria, cited by Del., comes out rather the importance of these experiences, for the development of the personal consciousness and life of Jesus Christ, which has been touched on elsewhere in our Epistle; the object here aimed at, is the quickening of Christian steadfastness and fidelity, by pointing to His capability, not merely to understand our condition, but by virtue of His permanent connection with our nature, in which He has Himself been once tempted, even now, in His exalted condition, to take livingly to heart our state of need and of struggle. 4. The opinion defended by Menken, Collenbusch, Irving, that Jesus Christ was exempt, indeed, from actual sin, but not, in His nature, from inherited sin, has, lying at its basis, the endeavor to bring into clear light the reality of His humanity, the historical character of His temptations, and the greatness of His moral power and dignity. But it consists in a false explanation of the phrase, “conceived of the Holy Spirit,” in which certainly the phrase, “born of the Virgin Mary,” finds its supplementary and correlated truth, and it involves a dangerous confounding of the actual nature of fallen humanity with the God-created human nature which the Son of God assumed in order to redeem and sanctify humanity. This confusion again, has its ground in an inability rightly to distinguish in the human bosom the possibility of sinning, and the reality of temptation, from the commencement of sinful emotion in the affections (compare Ullmann, The Sinlessness of Jesus, 6th Ed., p. 151 ff., and Schaff, The Person of Christ, p. 51 ff.). AND The duty of fidelity to our profession: a. in its ultimate ground; b. in its exercise; c. in its blessing.—Whence arises the joyfulness of our approach to the throne of grace? 1, from the certainly of our reconciliation with God through the great High-Priest, Jesus, the Son of God; 2, from the experience of the sympathy which Jesus has with our weaknesses, as one who has Himself been tempted; 3, from faith in the power of Jesus for timely succor, inasmuch as He has gone sinless through temptation, and victorious through the heavens.—What most powerfully consoles us in our struggles? 1, the testimony in regard to the great High-Priest, Jesus, if we can jointly confess it; 2, a survey of the temptations which Jesus has endured without sin, if we recognize therein His sympathy and His strength; 3, our sure and confident approach to the throne of grace in our need of help.—It is not enough that we hear of the great High-Priest, Jesus. We must also, 1, confess Jesus in faith as the Son of God; 2, comfort ourselves in our temptations with His example; 3, seek and find from His grace timely succor in our weaknesses. Starke:—Take heed that thou do not fall off from the confession of Christ; for He is a mighty Lord, who can easily punish this thy wickedness; but He is also compassionate and sympathizing, since thou always findest with Him grace, compassion, and succor. Wilt thou then deprive thyself of such blessedness? There are times when compassion and grace are peculiarly needful for us: in our first repentance, when we feel within ourselves nothing but sin, wrath and curse; in our conflict with spiritual foes; in all forms of trouble, and at the final judgment.—Joyfulness of heart and of conscience render prayer mighty with God. But if we are to attain such gladness we must stand in the state of faith, and of a true conversion (Romans 5:2; Ephesians 2:18; Ephesians 3:12).—Our approach to the throne of God depends upon compassion and grace; these we must take by the hand of our faith which reaches forth after them; and we must find them as a great treasure, which, indeed, has been already obtained, but must still be sought by believing prayer.—We need at all times the compassion and grace of God; for the sake of these we must seek without intermission the throne of grace; but we feel at one time more than at another, our destitution, the assaults of our enemies, the sorrows of this world; for which reasons we must at such times preλminently draw near with reverence to the throne of grace. Berlenburger Bible:—We have a great High-Priest who consecrates the internal foundation for a holy temple in the Lord, and exercises in all respects His priesthood within us, as He has also outwardly exercised it for us.—A weak faith which confesses itself to be weak, is always dearer to God than a strong faith which regards itself as strong, and is not.—Christ, in all the assaults upon us, is assaulted along with us.—Wrath and judgment are abundantly evident of themselves, and frighten the heart away from God. But grace and love are disclosed only through the Spirit of Christ, who then also works perpetually to this end, that we may learn to have a good conscience toward God, and this through the single perfect Mediator and High-Priest, who again has so won back love, that we can now find a throne of grace in the heart of God, provided only that we knock thereat, and make our supplications in the name of Christ.—Taking, finding, receiving, are all that are of value here, and not any personal work or merit. Laurentius:—Believers still have weaknesses, but Christ sympathizes with believers in respect to their weaknesses.—We must, 1, draw near, since by remaining at a distance from God, and by not being willing to draw near to Him, we could not possibly obtain succor. we must, 2, draw near to the throne of grace, since it is through grace alone that man obtains help, not through works. We must, 3, draw near with joyfulness, since to have begun to believe, and still be always inclined to doubt, is equivalent to doubting whether God is truthful, whether He is compassionate, whether He is Almighty; and he that doubteth must not think that he shall receive anything from the Lord (James 1:6-7). Rambach:—The recognition of the glory of Jesus Christ, and in particular of His High-priestly office, is the most excellent preservative against apostasy. Von Bogatzky:—Our sins must surely be great, and a great abomination, since so great an High-Priest was obliged to expiate them by the sacrifice of His own life. But man would fain make his sin insignificant and small, and is full of excuse, security, and impenitence, and he thus denies Christ as the great High-Priest, and His great propitiatory sacrifice. Steinhofer:—With a disconsolate heart, bewailing its misery, feeling nothing but corruption, one may yet summon a confident spirit to come to Jesus. The sinner may address Him. Before the throne of grace that has been sprinkled with blood, the sinner may present his cause, his whole burden of anxiety.—We may only come to the throne of grace, as we are, and of our condition present what we feel, and ask for what we need.—It is simply the result of the same pride with which Satan has poisoned us, if we refuse to throw ourselves upon mere compassion, and in this, let ourselves be looked upon precisely as we are. Rieger:—Sympathy carries us through, and obtains for us that which else a bold claim upon pity might deprive us of. Compassion reaches down the deepest into our misery, and is, as it were, the nearest thing for us to receive or lay hold of. Led by this, we always find, more and surer grace for opportune help in every time of need. Von Gerlach:—We are tempted by sin and to sin. Christ was tempted in both senses, without sin.—As His kingly office has respect to the annihilation of the dominion of sin, death and the devil, and the restoration of men to the glorious freedom of the children of God, so His priestly office has respect to the doing away of that separation of men from God, which sin has occasioned, and the reλstablishment of their intimate fellowship with Him. The former is preλminently a glorifying of God’s omnipotence; the latter preλminently a glorifying of God’s love, in the work of redemption. Stier:—For that in thee which still loves to sin, thou shalt find no comfort and no sympathy, but hostility even unto blood, even unto death. But for the new man in thee, who is a member of Christ, and feels and suffers sin with pain, it is to thee truly a great consolation, that He, thy Lord and Head, has felt and suffered it also.—In our perpetual drawing near lies the whole secret of our struggle unto certain victory; in the neglect of this, in indolent and distrustful standing aloof, lies our whole danger of destruction.—Provided that prayer persists and becomes earnest seeking, we cannot fail to find grace at the throne of grace, where nothing else is to be sought and found. Heubner:—Christ, as a son, had a right to take upon Himself the creature. As a son, He was an eternal propitiator; God looked upon Him from eternity as the ground of our salvation, and in Him loves from eternity our fallen humanity as reconciled in Him. As son, He remains propitiator through eternity; His propitiation holds good forever, because, through the Son, it is grounded in the nature of God. Were the atonement to lose its efficacy, the Son must cease to have efficacy with the Father, and this is impossible.—In Jesus Christ there is a wondrous union of loftiest elevation and condescending sympathy.—Both the temptations and the sinlessness of Jesus inspire confidence in the heart. Stein:—The freer we feel ourselves from evil, the more painfully must temptations touch us. Fricke:—Having and holding, belong together. Gerok:—The lovely paths which open themselves to the Christian from the mount of the ascension: 1. downwards toward earth; a. a field of labor for our faith; b. a place of blessing for our exalted Saviour. 2. Upwards toward heaven; a. a gate of grace for daily joyful approach; b. an opened door of heaven for future blissful entrance. Footnotes:Hebrews 4:15.—The lect. rec. πεπειρασμένον is attested by Sin. A. B. D. E., and is to be retained against the reading πεπειραμένον received by Mill, Bengel, Matthδi, and recommended by Griesbach, which would properly mean, “who has made trial of, expertus.” Hebrews 4:16.—The form ἔλεος, preferred by Lachm. and Tisch. instead of ἔλεον, has the sanction of Sin. A. B. C. D. K. 17, 71. [Hebrews 4:14.—διελήλυθότατοὺςοὐράνους, having passed through (not as in Eng. ver. into) the heavens: though of course either might be said.—τῆςὁμολογίας, our confession. Hebrews 4:15.—συμπαθ. ταῖςἀσθενείαις, to sympathize with our weaknesses.—κατὰπάντα, as to all things, in all things,—καθ’ ὀμοιότητα, according to or after our similitude,=just as we are tempted.—χωρὶςἁμαρτὶας, apart, or separately from sin; tempted in all things, just as men are tempted, but still totally free from sin. Hebrews 4:16.—μετὰπαῤῥησίας, Eng. ver. boldly: De Wette, Del., Moll, mit Freudigkeit=with joyfulness: Lόn., mit Zuversicht=with confidence, as also Del. at 3, 6, nearly, viz.: joyous, unhesitating, confidence; Alf., confidence.—εἰςεὔκαιρονβοήθειαν, for seasonable succor.—K.]. II Christ has the characteristic of a High-Priest primarily by His capacity to sympathize with human weakness. Hebrews 5:1-31 For every high priest [being] taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: 2Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way [being able to deal tenderly with the ignorant and erring]; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.3And by reason hereof [on account of it] he ought [is obliged], as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. [Hebrews 5:1.—Λαμβανόμενος, not taken=who is taken, as if applying to that particular class of high-priests that are taken from among men, in antithesis to Christ; but being taken, as a universal and indispensable attribute of high-priests, viz., that they be taken from among men, and an attribute, therefore, which must be shared by Christ.—ὑπὲρἀνθρώπωυ, on behalf of men. Hebrews 5:2.—μετριοπαθεῖν, not exactly have compassion upon, but, “deal moderately, and hence tenderly with;” Moll, das richtige Mass im Mitleiden einhalten.—τοῖςἀγνοοῦσινκαὶπλανωμένοις, on the ignorant and erring, or straying. The (Gr. Art. not repeated; hence both participles belong to the same subject. Hebrews 5:3.—ὀφείλει, ought, i. e., is bound, is under obligation.—καθώς, according as, marking equality of relations.—K.]. AND Heb_5:1. For every high priest—relating to God—The position of the words forbids our connecting the participle λαμβανόμενος immediately with the subject=every high-priest who is taken (Luth., etc.)—as if the purpose were to contrast with the heavenly, the earthly high-priest; but requires it to be taken predicatively, as expressing the first requisite of every high-priest, viz., that He, as being taken from men, be appointed as religious mediator in behalf of men. Nor is any such contrast of Christ with the human high-priest, expressed as to warrant the interpolated idea of Thol.: “While Christ, through the compassion and sympathy to which His susceptibility to temptation has given rise, becomes (according to Hebrews 2:17) a faithful high-priest (πιστὸςἀρχιερεύς), the human high-priest, by that liability to temptation which passes over into actual sin, is moved to indulgence toward his partners in guilt, and a prompt and willing exercise of his mediatorial office.” Of a contrast between the pure sympathy of Christ and the over indulgence of the earthly high-priest, there is not the slightest trace; on the contrary, the sympathy previously ascribed to Christ, was regarded as the most immediate proof of His fitness for the high-priestly office, and as such introduced with a γάρ. Καθίσταται is not middle, but passive, and τὰπρὸςτὸνθεόν is not an Accusative of the object (Calv.), but (as Hebrews 2:17) a sort of adverbial or absolute Accusative. Hebrews 5:2. That he may offer—for sins—Although δῶρα denotes, Genesis 4:4; Leviticus 1:2-3; bloody sacrifices, and θυσίαι, Genesis 4:3; Genesis 4:5; Exodus 2:1; Deuteronomy 5:15, those which are bloodless, still the combination, δῶράτεκαὶθυσίαι, points here, as Hebrews 8:3; Hebrews 9:9, to the well-known distinction between offerings made without bloodshed (expressed by δῶρα, gifts), and those which require the shedding of blood (expressed by θυσίαι, sacrifices). The words περὶἁμαρτιῶν belong neither to θυσίαι alone (Grot., Beng., etc.), nor to both nouns conjointly, but to the verb προσφέρῃ, indicating that the high-priestly offerings in question—for those of priests in general are not here referred to—in which may be included gifts, may be conceived as expiatory. The author is stating precisely the purpose of the high-priest’s religious ministry and mediation. As one who can deal gently, etc.—Μετριοπαθεῖν, is a term that past over (Diog. Laert. vit. phil. 5:31) from the School of the Peripatetics into general use, and which has a double contrast, on the one hand, with the ἀπάθεια, passionlessness, which the Stoics demanded of the wise man, and on the other, with excess of passion (πάθος) in those who were passionately excited. It is commonly understood, in too narrow a sense, of moderation in anger, and of indulgence and gentleness toward the short-coming; for it applies, in general, to the preserving of the proper mean in our emotions, and hence in the case of sufferings denotes stead fastness. This quality was specially necessary for the high-priest; for all crimes, without distinction, could not be equally expiated by sacrifices. On the one hand, therefore, he must not allow himself to be moved by false sympathy to unwarranted offerings, nor, on the other, to be provoked by the constantly recurring demands for intercession and sacrifice, to impatience and hard-heartedness. Wilful and determined transgression of the law demanded even still the infliction of the appointed punishment. For sins that were committed αִּ ?ιַ ?γψָ ?ξָ ?δ, with upraised hand, i.e, in a spirit of haughty violence and insolent defiance of the law of God, the offender was to be cut off from the congregation by death, Leviticus 4:13 ff.; Numbers 15:22 ff. Sins, on the other hand, which were committed in error (αִּ ?ωְׁ ?βָ ?βָ ?δ), so that in the moment of their commission there was but an indistinct consciousness of their nature, admitted expiation by sacrifice. The subject of expiation must then take the victim to be offered from his own possessions, and bring it to the priest who put it to death as a substitute for its owner, after previously ascertaining whether the offence in question fell under the above mentioned category. The expression, τοῖςἀγνοοῦσικαὶπλανωμένοις, is, however, by no means to be restricted to men who have committed unwitting and involuntary offences; for, on the great day of Atonement, even sins which were not committed thus in error (αִּ ?ωְׁ ?βָ ?βָ ?δ), and which admitted in the course of the year no expiatory sacrifice, could, under the condition of repentance, receive expiation. Those persons, therefore, are intended, who, in distinction from the impious mockers at the law, disregarded, in their natural and hereditary sinfulness, the Divine will, and by yielding to temptation, fell into error. Hebrews 5:3-4. Since he himself is compassed with infirmity—offerings for sin.—Ἀσθένεια is here, as at Hebrews 7:28, that native moral weakness with which man is encompassed not so much as by a garment (Lόn.), as by light, or by the skin, so that he can in no condition of earthly life be conceived as separated from it. The classical form περίκειμαίτι (found elsewhere in the New Testament only Acts 28:20), expresses admirably this condition, so entirely independent of human will. Ὀφείλει points not exclusively to the legal requisition (Bφhm., Hofm.), and not exclusively again to a moral necessity, which lies in the very nature of the case, as springing from the like state of infirmity, (Bl., Lόn.). Both are blended in the conception of the author (Del.). For not only does the law take for granted (Leviticus 4:3-12) that the high-priest may also in the course of the year find himself under a necessity of offering sin offerings for himself, but on the great festival of atonement, the high-priest, after accomplishing the customary morning sacrifices, was obliged to lay aside the so-called golden garments, and in simple priest’s clothes, yet of Pelusian linen, descend from the bathing apartment into the inner fore-court, there lay his hands on the bullock that stood as a sin offering between the court of the temple and the altar of burnt offering, and offer intercessory prayers, first for himself and his house, then for the entire priesthood, and finally for all Israel; prayers which Del. in his history of Jewish poetry, p. 184, 185, has given and explained. The first prayer of intercession ran thus: O Jehovah, I and my house have trespassed, have done wickedly, have committed sin before Thee. O, in the name of Jehovah (according to another reading, O Jehovah) expiate, I pray Thee, the trespasses and the evil deeds and the sins where-with I have trespassed, and have sinned against Thee, I and my house, as written in the law of Moses Thy servant; “For on this day will he make an atonement for you, to cleanse you: from all your sins shall ye be clean before Jehovah,” (Leviticus 16:30). It was only as having himself received expiation that the high-priest could make atonement for the priesthood and the congregation according, to the principle: Let an innocent person come and make expiation for the guilty, and not a guilty person come and make expiation for the guiltless. Προσφέρειν stands absolutely as at Luke 5:14; Numbers 7:18; comp. Reiche Comm. Crit. III. 35. AND ETHICAL1. The idea of the Priesthood is that of a religious mediation, which, culminating in the High priesthood, concentrates itself in sacrifice, and receives, according to the special character of the religion, its peculiar expression, but reaches in Christianity its adequate realization. 2. Among sacrifices, those which relate to the restoration of that fellowship of man with God, which sin has interrupted, are of the greatest importance; inasmuch as the religious life of the human race in its actual course turns upon, and as it were revolves about, the realization of the atonement, as about its central point in the mutual relations of sin and grace. 3. The institution of the priestly office therefore originates in the necessities of men who are to be reconciled to God. But for this reason again the priests themselves are taken from men, inasmuch as any genuine intercession with God requires that they know, from their own experience, the necessities of sinful men. But from this again it necessarily follows, that they are under obligation to offer expiatory sacrifices, not merely for others, but also for themselves, until the appearance of the sinless High-priest, Jesus Christ. AND Our condition summons us primarily; 1, to the humble confession of our sinfulness and weakness; 2, to a, fitting sympathy with the erring and sinful; 3, to the conscientious employment of the appointed means of grace.—True sympathy springs from a perception of our own liability to transgression, and qualifies us for a consoling ministry.—The office which is committed to us does not free us from the sin which cleaves to men generally; but it entrusts to us the means of reconciliation to be impartially applied in the conscientious exercise of our office. Starke:—An evangelical teacher, although he walks worthily of the Gospel, must still, in the proper estimate of his own weaknesses, deal with all sinners, in the midst of severity, with tender sympathy and love, by which he will find all the happier entrance into the consciences of his hearers (2 Timothy 2:24).—The priesthood is certainly to be respected, and they who are called to it are to be honored; but they are not to be too highly and sacredly regarded; for they are also encompassed with infirmity, and are obliged, in due order, to pray as well for the forgiveness of their own sins, as of those of others. (2 Corinthians 4:7). Rieger:—God has, even from ancient times, foreshadowed the blessings and the consolations which we have to enjoy in a high-priest, and in the access to God, which is obtained by means of him. It is a feature of the good and gracious counsel of God, that He takes from the midst of men those whom He deems worthy of this calling and employment. For those who are taken, it is an admonition that, apart from that which their office assigns to them, they are in like circumstances with their brethren; and, for those whom they are to serve in their ministry, it is surely encouragement that to some in their midst, freedom to draw near to God has been thus largely opened.—Such a High-priest taken from among men, had thus no ground of self-complacency to exalt Himself above others; but rather to exercise a sympathizing and gentle spirit toward all, and to be well aware of the two abiding sources of sin, viz: ignorance and error. Heubner:—The need of a priestly office manifests itself in all religions and among all nations. This should make us give attention to the genuine priest.—The office of priest is not instituted for his own sake, but for the sake of others. He is to be a leader of others to God, and his sacred service should be to him a pleasure.—A sympathizing heart, love, is the most indispensable quality of a priest. He is to know men, their weakness, their deficiency, and this should make him sympathizing and attentive; and he should reflect upon his own weakness, in order to become the more patient. Lowliness and self abasement make us sympathizing. Footnotes: Hebrews 5:1.—The lect. rec. δῶράτεκαί, has the sanction of Sin., A. C. D.* E. K. L., and all the minusc. Hebrews 5:3.—Instead of διὰταύτην, should be read with Sin. A. B. C D 7, 80, δι’ αὐτήν. [This is intrinsically better, as the unemphatic αὐτήν, it, suits better than ταύτην, this, with the incidental and parenthetical character of the verse.—K.]. Hebrews 5:3.—The lect. rec., ἑαυτοῦ, is found in Sin. A. C. D.* E. K. L., and in nearly all the minusc. Hebrews 5:3.—Instead of ὑπὲρἁμαρτιῶν, περὶἁμ. is, after Sin. A. B. C. D. 17, 31, 47, 73, 118, approved by Griesb., and received by Lach. and Tisch. III He possesses moreover this character by His being called of God to this office, and that as antitype of Melchisedec. Hebrews 5:4-10.4And no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that [in that he] is called ofGod, as [just as, καθώσπερ] was [also] Aaron. 5So also Christ glorified not himself to be made a high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to-day haveI begotten thee; 6as he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever afterthe order of Melchisedec; 7Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up [offering up] prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared [and being hearkenedto from his pious reverence]; 8though he were [was] a Son, yet learned he [om. he]obedience by [from] the things which he suffered; 9And being made perfect, he became10the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; Called [being saluted προσαγορευθείς] of God a high priest after the order of Melchisedec. [Hebrews 5:4.—καὶοὐχἑαυτῷ, and not for himself, ἑαυτῷ, emphatic in position.—ἀλλὰκαλούμενος (omitting ὁ), but being called=‘as being called,’ or, “on the ground that he is called.”—καθώσπερ.: ὡς, as καθώς according as; καθώσπερ, precisely, or, just according as. Hebrews 5:5.—ὁλαλήσας scil. ἐδόξασεναὐτόν. Hebrews 5:7.—δεήσειςτεκαὶἱκετηρίας, both entreaties and supplications.—προσενέγκας, offering up, or, by offering up; not, “when he had offered up,” nor, “having offered up”—εἰσακουσθείς, being hearkened to.—ἀπὸτῆςεὐλαβείας, from (=on account of) his reverent fear, filial fear: Moll, Frφmmigkeit, piety: others, “aus der Gottesfurcht.”—K.]. AND Heb_5:4. And none taketh upon himself—just as also Aaron.—The particle καί carries back λαμβάνει, and connects it with καθίσταται, the principal verb of the period (Hebrews 5:1), and introduces the second leading qualification demanded in the high-priest, viz., the fact of his being Divinely called,—a qualification realized at the very inauguration of the high-priesthood, in the case of Aaron. Bφhme, Bleek and Bisping assume without sufficient ground in λαμβάνει a paronomasia with λαμβανόμενος, Hebrews 5:1. The τιμή, honor, restricted by the article, refers not indefinitely to any position of honor whatever, but refers to the special honor here in question, that of the high-priesthood; and Ἀαρών again is not here a collective term for Aaron and his descendants, but Aaron, the individual person, standing as a model and example for all subsequent high-priests, by whom, in common with their head and progenitor, the office was originally held during life, the office alternating between the families of the two sons of Aaron, Eleazer and Ithamar. In a Midrash published by Schφttgen and Wetstein, Moses says to the troop of Korah: “If Aaron, my brother, had taken upon himself the priesthood, ye would be excusable for murmuring against him. But God gave it to him, and he who rebels against Aaron, rebels against God. To which Korah says in reply: ‘Think ye that I claim to take the dignity for myself? I simply demand that it pass to us all in rotation.’ ” Under the Roman dominion, appointments to and removals from the priesthood were made at pleasure, without reference to the descent of the candidate from Aaron. The text, however, gives no warrant to our imagining (with Chrys., �cum., Theoph., etc.) an allusion by the author to this state of things. Καθώσπερ, precisely according as, entirely as. Λαμβάνεινἑαυτῷ does not of necessity involve the idea of usurpation (Luke 19:12). But if a Divine call and personal choice of the position are placed in contrast, then the latter is really usurpation—a fact which Hofm. fails to perceive. Hebrews 5:5. Thus also Christ glorified not himself, etc.—Hofm. (Schriftb. II., 1, 282; 2 Ed. II., 1, 398) says: “It was no act of self-glorification by which the Royal Mediator of salvation became High-Priest; it was on the path of sorrow and suffering that He attained to that glory in which He is now a High-Priest after the order of Melchisedec.” But this contrast of δοξάζειν and παθεῖν anticipates the subsequent discussion. The same is true if we refer the passage to Christ’s royal dignity, whether we find the allusion to it in ὁχριστός or in ἐδόξασεν. The δόξα is but an equivalent to the τιμή of Hebrews 5:4 (Bl., etc.), and the term ὁχριστός is selected because Jesus Christ is regarded here not in His person, but in His character of Messiah, who, as Anointed One, is seated at the right hand of God. But he who said to him, etc., as also in another passage.—The two citations do not express the same idea; nor is the former adduced to prove that Christ is also a High-Priest (Schlicht., Grot., Steng., Ebr., etc.), but simply to call to mind the relation previously unfolded, that, viz., which the God who has bestowed this priestly dignity on Christ, sustains as Father to this Anointed One. The second citation from Psalms 110:4 proceeds to define the priestly position of Jesus, already repeatedly alluded to in a general way, by its special feature, alleging, viz., that its true type is to be found not in Aaron, but Melchisedec. The essential import of the statement is subsequently unfolded. Τάξις signifies neither order of succession (Schultz), nor rank, but position, quality, mode, or kind, for which Hebrews 7:15 has κατὰτὴνὁμοιότητα. “Him whom God, in the words, ‘My Son art Thou,’ declares to be His world-ruling Anointed One, He also, in His words, ‘Thou art a Priest,’ declares to be an eternal Priest—two closely united and kindred utterances of God’s prophetic word in the Psalms” (Del.). Hebrews 5:7. Who in the days of his flesh—suffered.—The ὅς refers back to the subject ὁχριστός, to which the Aor. ἔμαθε belongs, and of which the contemporaneous circumstances, or the way and manner of learning, are denoted by the Aor. Part. προσενέγκας and εἰσακουσθείς. The phrase, “in the days of His flesh,” i.e, of His human life on earth, is contrasted with His perfected state, mentioned Hebrews 5:9, and belongs to the main verb, ἔμαθεν. To ἔμαθεν answers ἐπαθεν, with an intended assonance. From that which (not in general: “by the fact that”) He suffered (ἀπό with μανθάνω, as Matthew 11:29 : παρά, or ἐκ, Matthew 24:32 [Matthew 24:32 has ἀπὸτῆςσυκῆς, which would be the more regular construction with things; παρά with persons, though the usage is by no means invariable—K.]) He learned His (the Art. τήν being specific) obedience. To put in parenthesis the clause, καίπερ—ὑπακοήν, and thus (with Abresch, Dind., Heinr., Steng., etc.) carry the ὄς over to ἐγένετο as its first principal verb, is totally inadmissible. For καίπερ can never be constructed with a finite verb which here would be ἔμαθε [i.e, although, as being a Son, He learned, etc., which would require εἰκαί, or some combination with εἰ ?]. But neither is the clause, καίπερὢνυἱός, to be connected, as by Chrys. and Theoph., with εἰσακουσθείς. For the particle points to some apparent inconsistency between the clause in which it stands (although being a Son) and the main declaration with which it stands connected. Yet no such inconsistency can be found between the relation of Son and the fact of His being hearkened to (rather the reverse), but it does seem inconsistent with the leading thought of the period which points to Jesus Christ’s humiliation and to His possession as Man of the first requisite of a high-priest, mentioned Hebrews 5:1-3 (just as Hebrews 5:5-6, declare His possession of that second requisite mentioned Hebrews 5:4). The “learning of obedience” is a mark of humanity; and even in this fact of the actual development of Jesus, would the actual state and condition of the Son of God, have disclosed itself But here the question is not of that actual condition, viz., of Christ’s essential likeness to and equality with humanity, by virtue of the incarnation. That matter has been previously disposed of. The question is now of His fitness for being a High-Priest, and this by virtue of His sympathy with the weaknesses of men. The emphasis, therefore, rests not on ἔμαθεν, learned (Del.), but on the whole closely connected phrase, ἔμαθενἀφ’ ὦνἔπαθεν. Hebrews 5:7. Offering up supplications—and being hearkened to, etc.—With ἱκετηρία (which at Job 40:20 is also connected with δέησις) ἔλαια or ῥάβδος [or κλάδος], is originally to be supplied, the word thus properly denoting by ellipsis the olive branch, which was borne in the hands of a suppliant who was imploring help or protection [Soph., �d. Tyr., l. 3]: whence arose then the signification of earnest entreaty=ἱκεσία, ἱκετεία. It is uncertain whether (Theophil., Bl., De W., Bisp., etc.), we are to assume, in respect to the verbal coloring of these clauses, a reference to Psalms 22, 116. There certainly is none to the loud praying of the Jewish high-priest on the annual day of atonement (Braun, Bφhme, etc.); most probably [I think certainly—K.] reference is here made to the prayer in Gethsemane, and reference in the plural nouns to its successive repetitions. The added clause, “with strong outcry” (μετὰκραυγῆςἰσχυρἄς), leads Calv., Schultz, Stein, etc., to regard the language as referring, along with these prayers, to the loud crying of Jesus on the cross; Cajetan, Este., Calov, and Strauss, refer the whole exclusively to this latter, and Klee confines it even to the loud outcry with which Jesus died. These applications of the passage are by no means (with De W.) to be regarded as unsuited to the context, they are rather very natural, inasmuch as the struggling of Jesus with that suffering of death which was inseparable from His Messianic office, and which had long been present to His thought, was not limited to His agonizing supplications in Gethsemane; and the two Aorist participles are not to be resolved by after that, viz., after that He had offered, etc., (De W., Hofm.), but in that (viz., in that He offered, or by offering). The words allude, however, preλminently, to the suffering in Gethsemane; and we have here, perhaps, given us, in close accordance with the account of Luk 22:39-46, a scene of evangelical history resting upon tradition, which has also found its way even into the text of some recensions of Luke himself. For according to Epiphanius (Ancor. 31), the mention of tears is found ἐντῷκατὰΛουκᾶνεὐαγγελίῳἐντοῖςἀδιορθώτοιςἀντιγράφοις. Moreover, Luke 19:41, and John 11:35, show the Lord weeping; while again, on the other hand, the ἀγωνία of Jesus in the garden (Luke 22:44), is not without example in the record of His life, John 12:27. We may imagine that the picture here drawn sustains a relation to the Gospel narrative like that which Hosea 12:5 sustains to the wrestling of Jacob at the Jabbok, Genesis 32:26 (Bφhme, Del.). Since elsewhere in our Epistle (Hebrews 9:14; Hebrews 11:4), as in the classics, προσφέρω is connected with the Dative, it is most natural not to make (with Lόn.) πρὸςτὸνδυνάμενονσώζειναὐτὸνἐκθανάτου dependent on the verb, but on δεήσειςτεκαὶἱκετηρίας. The mere expression σώζεινἐκθανάτου admits indifferently of being referred to deliverance from peril of death (Theod., Calv., Bengel, etc.) and to rescuing out of death itself (�c., Calov, Este., etc.); for which reason Michael., Bl., and others, unite the two. [But most assuredly erroneously. For what our Saviour prayed for, was not to be snatched from death after He had experienced it, but rescued from its impending approach. It was to be saved from “that hour”—to be delivered from “drinking that cup”—to evade the terrible scene whose black shadow was now thrown over His soul, that He prayed, and this was denied Him. Still, as His prayer was made in entire resignation to His Father’s will, He was “hearkened to,” approved and accepted in it, even though a literal compliance with it could not be accorded to Him. He “was hearkened to,” in that an angel was sent to strengthen Him; in that His death was accepted in all its atoning import, and in that He received the full reward of His suffering; that agonizing prayer being only an additional and fuller proof of the depth of His temptations, and the completeness of His resignation.—K.]. We cannot from this decide in regard to the sense of the words Jesus was heard ἀπὸτῆςεὐλαβείας. We are hardly to interpret this of His being freed from fear, (Ambros., Grot., and many, following the Itala exauditus a metu), which Calvin and Schlichting understand, of the object of the fear, viz., death. This interpretation would be allowed, indeed, by the ἀπό, and, moreover, εὐλαβεία has, in fact, the meaning of fear (Wis 17:8; 2Ma 8:16). It can, as appears from Sir 4:1; Sir 4:3, pass over into the signification of a fearful holding back, and of shuddering at the contact and infliction of the κρίμαθανάτου; whence Hofm. understands it of Jesus’ recoiling from death; and Tholuck, after Aretius, explains it of shrinking, shuddering, detrectatio, and reminds us of the εἰδυνατόν, if it is possible, of the prayer in Gethsemane. But εὐλαβεία means assuredly in general, only thoughtfulness, precaution, foresight, the right taking hold and grasping of a thing. Thus the fundamental idea points not to fear of danger, but to fear of injury, which, in the sphere of religion, is conscientiousness in dealing with our relation to God, and with the duties which spring from it. Thus this word stands at Luke 2:25; Acts 2:5; Acts 8:2; Acts 22:12 (Lachm.); and so our author uses it Hebrews 11:7; Hebrews 12:28. For this reason we should also prefer the rendering of Luther after the Vulgate, pro sua reverentia; and so with all the Greek interpreters, Bl., Lόn., Del., etc. The preposition ἀπό points not to the object, but to the ground of the hearing [i.e, not being hearkened to so as to be delivered from the thing feared: but hearkened to from=in consequence of His filial reverence]; and is used as at Luke 19:3; Luke 23:41; Acts 12:14; Acts 20:9; Acts 22:11. [I have explained above the force of εἰσακουσθεὶςἀπό correctly interpreted by the author “being hearkened to from, i.e, in consequence of his pious reverence.” He was hearkened to none the less now than when as at John 11. He said, “I know that thou hearest me always.” His prayer was couched in such a perfect spirit of resignation, that He was heard in it none the less approvingly, notwithstanding that the specific thing prayed for was not, and could not be granted. And it was only the most dreadful suffering and temptation that could have wrung out, even from the human weakness of the Saviour (and even with this all important qualification), the prayer, the granting of which would of course have nullified the entire purpose of the Saviour’s incarnation.—K.]. Hofm. regards the offering of prayers and tears as a sacrificial act, and places it, as standing connected with human weakness, in express parallel with the προσφέρεινπερὶἑαυτοῦ, which, in the case of the high-priest, must, of necessity, precede his bringing the offerings on behalf of the congregation (of course with the distinction which exists between the weakness of the sinful high-priest, and that of the sinless Saviour). But this idea, which Del. takes unnecessary pains to refute, is expressly contradicted by the passage Hebrews 7:27. Hebrews 5:9. And being perfected, etc.—The ὑπακοὴπίστεως, Acts 6:7 : Romans 1:5, is the condition of the attainment of salvation, of which Christ, in His ὑπακοή, is the author to them that obey Him. On both sides, alike in Saviour and saved, the moral character of the relation is strongly emphasized, and at the same time, the πᾶσιν, to all, brings out the universality of the design of this salvation, as the term eternal (αἱώνιος), designates its nature, Isaiah 45:17; while its realization among men demands, on the one side, the perfection of the life of Christ, and on the other, the imitation of His life. The connecting point of these ideas, lies in the fact that Christ has not otherwise been perfected, and elevated to the participation of Divine glory on the throne of the Heavenly Majesty, than by the voluntary offering of His life, morally perfected amidst temptations and sufferings. Thus He has become not merely a priestly king, but a high-priest after the order of Melchisedek, and as such He is not so much prophetically designated by God in Psalms 110:4 (where we have barely ἱερεύς), but solemnly greeted on His arriving at perfection, as shown by the Aor. Part., προσαγορευθείς, which expresses an act contemporaneous with the ἐγένετο. The author thus says that the prophecy has been fulfilled, and so fulfilled that yet a new feature, that of the High-Priesthood, is to be conceived as jointly included (Hofm.). [The reader will notice some verbal allusions and contrasts in this passage, not unworthy of attention. Christ prayed to Him who was able to save (σώζειν) Him from a momentary death,—for such a σωτηρία,—yet did not receive it, but passing through it, became the author of an eternal σωτηρία to His people. Again He submitted to this death in ὑπακοή, obedience, to His Father’s will, and thus became πᾶσιτοῖςὑπακούουσιναὐτῷ, to all who obey Him, the author, etc. Thus the saving from physical death which He prayed for, is contrasted with the eternal saving which He bestows on His people; and the obedience which led Him to submit to that death, is paralleled with the obedience which enables them to reap its fruits in eternal salvation.—K.]. AND ETHICAL1. For the legitimate exercise of an office, personal fitness, is not sufficient; there is demanded for it especially a regular call, which has its origin in God, and in times of disorder and convulsion, receives and finds in God its reλstablishment. The modes of calling may therefore be very various, and it is specially necessary to distinguish the forms, which, in times of great national convulsion, God has instituted for promoting the objects of His kingdom, from those which, in definite social relations and spheres of life, are established by virtue of human laws, on behalf of right and justice, for the attainment of specific ends. 2. That, however, under all circumstances, we are to proceed in accordance with the Scripture, and that, even in unwonted cases, God, as a God of order, proceeds according to recognized laws, and in harmony with His holy revelation, is clear from the example of Jesus Christ, and the relation of His high-priesthood to that of Aaron and Melchisedek. All three are ordained of God for definite periods and circumstances; and the Holy Scripture discloses perfectly their mutual relations, so far as they are important to the history of redemption. The Aaronic priesthood, with its legal, hereditary succession and Levitical character, is expressly designated as simply an intervening and preparatory stage. The union of the priestly and kingly offices in Melchisedec, appearing as an insulated fact, and without the precincts of the covenant people, is stripped of its apparently purely accidental character, and elevated to a type of that which, within the sphere of the covenant people, was, in the person of the Messiah, to stand forth in closest connection with the history of salvation. But Jesus, although Son of God, has still, in no self-willed and arbitrary manner, taken this dignity to Himself, but in the way which had been previously announced, has been placed in it by the Father. 3. True preparation for an office which is to subserve the honor of God and the salvation of men, is acquired not by amplitude of knowledge and of skill, but by learning of obedience, by which the whole person is prepared to be a willing and capable instrument for the Divine counsels. In this way Jesus Himself has been perfected, and for this reason draws all who believe in Him into the fellowship of His conflicts and His victories, of His sufferings and His blessedness. 4. The hardest thing to conceive is that the sufferings of the pious, and among them again those of the Son of God, lie within the sphere of the Divine counsels, and possess a healing and saving power. And the hardest thing to render is obedience, which not only abides by and accomplishes the will of God amidst sufferings, but in the sufferings themselves, shall perceive and prove the Divine will as a will of love, and to evince and maintain the harmony of our personal will with the will of God, by a free reception of the destined and allotted suffering. 5. As principal auxiliaries in this conflict of faith and suffering, we have given to us the certainty of the hearing of prayer, the consoling assurance of our ultimate personal perfection, and the power of communion with Jesus Christ. For Christ is to us, not merely an example and pattern, but to them that obey Him, He is the author of eternal salvation, after having been Himself perfected. His perfection refers, on the one hand, to His office of high-priestly Mediator; for, after that He had become obedient unto the death of the cross (Philippians 2:8), He passed into His state of exaltation in which His merits should retain an everlasting efficacy. But this perfection of His career, dependent on the fulfilment of His calling, presupposes, on the other hand, that complete unfolding of His personal character, which was dependent upon His actual humanity. Faith in the concrete unity of the life of the God-man, requires the application of the idea of development to His entire personality, after the example of Luk 2:52. But faith in His sinlessness excludes every thought of moral deficiency, and of a gradual triumph over it by the process of development. His learning of obedience, denotes not a transition from disobedience to obedience, but the practical power and depth of His personal experience of that which is connected with human life. AND Christ is High-priest by virtue of His suffering of death; He is a high-priest forever after the order of Melchisedec, by virtue of His exaltation upon the throne of God,—The priesthood of Christ is partly an office committed to Him, partly a calling obtained and won upon the path of suffering.—In accordance with a divine calling, we are to deem no service, and no sacrifice too heavy, and are in this to take Christ as our pattern and our helper.—The school of suffering, in which we learn obedience, is the longest and severest; but is productive of the richest fruits.—Our way to glory and eternal blessedness, leads through suffering which God ordains after the example, and through the help of Jesus Christ.—No period of life is secure from suffering; no rank and condition form a protection against it; no virtue and no merit are secure against it; but it serves to the children of God as a means of discipline in piety, and aids in time to the perfecting of our life for eternity.—Prayers and tears are an aid to willing obedience.—Only those sufferings which resemble Christ’s conflict of suffering, can comfort, purify and save. Starke:—Observe how deeply Christ was humiliated, how zealously He prayed, how obedient He proved Himself. Do thou also learn from Him, this zeal in prayer, this obedience in suffering.—Our prayers and thanksgivings are also offerings, yet not propitiatory; but prayer and thank-offerings, that we may evince our faith and thankfulness of heart.—Jesus, since He was the Son of God, and still took upon Himself sufferings, to which he might undoubtedly have remained superior, proves thus that He suffered not from compulsion, but with the most perfect willingness.—Christ renders those blessed who are obedient to Him. No others become partakers of His salvation.—The offering of the Lord Jesus on the tree of the cross is the grand feature of the atonement made on our behalf, and of all the glory connected therewith. Rieger:—If in our human hearts there can be wrought by the Spirit of God groanings which are not to be uttered, oh, then, what prayers must the Eternal Spirit, through whom our great High-priest offered Himself to His God, have called forth in Him: What sanctifying of God, of His name, counsel and will; what justifying of His judgments; what a piercing to the depths of His love; what appeal to His omnipotence; what subjection to His sovereign decree; what submission under all that was outwardly most painful and ignominious, and what a tenacious hold by hope on all that is most glorious, were united, together in this prayer!—For this reason was the suffering of Jesus so mighty to expiate the sins of the whole world, because, in His suffering He so justified, in the prayer of His willing spirit, the judgment of God upon sin, and yet was not to be drawn away from His trust in Him who had placed Him in this office.—Dread, fear, is the sharpest sting in suffering. This the Saviour was unable to escape particularly for the sake of needful sympathizing with us. There He experienced how weak one might be amidst entire willingness of spirit, so long as one is in the flesh; now He knows also what it is “to be heard.”—Jesus had already previously evinced so much willing, joyful obedience in His heroic course from the Father, through the world, to the Father; but now He learned what is the deepest element in all obedience, viz: that in suffering two separate wills come into conflict with each other, of which the one must be subjected to the other; the will of the flesh and the will of the spirit.—Christ now devotes just as much fidelity to the carrying out and perfecting of our salvation, as He did formerly to the obtaining of it.—Weakness of the flesh becomes sinful when it would subdue the willingness of the spirit; but if we cry to God in prayer, so that we are heard and delivered from it, it becomes the appropriate discipline under which we learn and practice obedience. Hahn:—Christ knows from experience what belongs to a happy emerging from trial and suffering. Now He most sympathizingly pleads our cause with His Father.—The will and calling of the Father are clear from the fact; 1, that the Father Himself, as it were, schooled His Son thereto in the days of His flesh; 2, that the Father Himself perfected Him and made Him the pledge and surety of our salvation. Heubner:—Tears are a sign of strong, fervent, earnest prayer, and prayer a sign of the holy nature of tears.—Christ must be to us a consolation and a source of quickening that we may not withdraw ourselves from the school of God.—Sufferings lead to perfection, and produce the most blessed fruits.—None, least of all the priest, should push himself forward into office.—He who arrogates to himself honor is not worthy of it.—The Divine call ensures an honorable office.—Because God calls, we must serve.—Christ is appointed of God; His dignity, His right, are founded upon God’s ordination.—The Divine Sonship of Christ was the first ground of His priestly dignity. To this God has borne witness in His word. Stein:—Called long since by the Father to be High-priest, the Son proves in His human lowliness that he is able worthily to fulfil such a, calling.—He who pushes himself forward prematurely is led by empty honor; an office which is administered in a Christian manner and spirit brings with it true honor. Hedinger:—Personally tried, ready to believe, willing to help; all these united thou hast in thy Saviour. PART SECONDExaltation of Christ as the single Priestly King, the antitype of Melchisedec ___ FIRST TO THIS BY MEANS OF CENSURE, WARNING, , AND I The readers are still deficient at the time in the right understanding of this typical relation Hebrews 5:11-14.11Of whom [concerning which] we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered 12[to be explained], seeing ye are [have become, γεγόνατε] dull of hearing; for when [while] for [on account of] the time ye ought to be teachers, ye [again] have need that one teach you [again om.] which be [what are] the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat [solid food]. 13For every one that useth milk is unskilful [inexperienced] in the Word [doctrine] of righteousness, for he is a babe; 14but strong meat [solid food] belongs to those that are of full age [the mature, τελείων], even those [om. even those] who by reason of use [habit, ἕξιν] have their senses exercised [disciplined] to discern [to distinguish] both good and evil. [Hebrews 5:11.—περὶοὖ, concerning whom, referring to Christ, not Melchisedek; or, better, concerning which matter, viz.: Christ’s Melchisedek priesthood.—ἡμῖνὁλόγοςπολὺςκαὶδυσερμηνευτός, our discourse is extended and hard to be clearly expounded or set forth.—γεγόνατε ye have become, not, are. The difference is important, as marking a lapse from a better spiritual state. Hebrews 5:12.—Ὀφείλοντεςεἶναι, being bound, or under obligation to be=while ye ought to be—διατὸνχρόνον, on account of the time, better than Eng. ver., viz.: “for the time,” which is awkward, if not obscure.—πάλινχρείαν, ye again have need: the πάλιν clearly belongs to ἔχετε, not to the following διδάσκειν. For τινά or τίνα, viz.: “of some one’s teaching you the first principles,” or “of our teaching you what are the first principles,” see exegetical notes.—Καὶοὐστερεᾶς, καὶ is omitted by B.2 C. 17, Vulg., Copt., Orig., and by Sin. Hebrews 5:13—ἄπειροςλόγουδικ., inexperienced, unskilled in respect of a discourse or doctrine of righteousness, so that he is unable as a νήπιος to enter into and comprehend it. Hebrews 5:14.—κιὰτὴνἔξιν, on account of habit.—γεγυμνασμένα, disciplined, trained, exercised.—αἰσθητήρια, organs of perception, senses.—διάκρισις, discrimination.—K]. AND Heb_5:11. Concerning which we have many things, etc.—The περὶοὖ is not to be referred merely to Melchisedec (Pesh., Calv., and the majority) or to Christ (�c., Primas.), but to the preceding declaration that Christ is a High-Priest after the order of Melchisedec; and the οὖ is to be taken, either with Lόn. as masc., or with Grot., etc., as neut. Erasm. and Luther translate, we might have, instead of have, contrary to the tenor of the following part of the Epistle. [Alford still refers οὖ to Melchisedec. But there is not the slightest ground for supposing that the author felt any difficulty in making clear any facts concerning Melchisedec, upon whom, indeed, he dwells very briefly, and without any seeming consciousness of any thing specially difficult to understand in the accounts concerning him. The difficulties regarding the person of Melchisedec, are the result of a gratuitous misapprehension of the strong statements of the writer. The really difficult topic is either Christ as High-Priest, or as Melchisedec-Priest, or, taking the pronoun as neuter, the topic of Christ’s Melchisedec priesthood.—K.]. Luther also overlooks the γεγόνατε, ye have become. The dulness or spiritual hardness of hearing of the readers is not designated as a natural trait, but as the result of a retrogradation which has no apology in their history and outward condition. Hence, with respect to the topic about to be treated, the author feels a difficulty in finding proper expression for the clear communication of that which, in its subject matter, is so rich and various. Hebrews 5:12-14. For when, on account of the time, ye ought, etc.—Instead of becoming capable of teaching, the readers have become in need of learning; and, indeed, to the extent that they have fallen back to that infantile age which requires milk, and have thus fallen into the danger of losing entirely their power of spiritual discrimination. In vv.13 and 14, the author expands the figurative mode of expression which he had employed at the close of Heb 5:12, and at the same time justifies its import. He has the readers in his eye, but the expressions are entirely general. The generality, however, affects only the form. As a matter of fact, the condition of the readers is directly included and characterized. Every one who receives his allotted food in the form of milk, that is, finds himself in the condition of a suckling, is inexperienced, not merely in Christianity (Lόn.), or in the specific doctrine of justification by faith (Bl., Thol., Ebr.), or in the doctrine which leads to righteousness (Riehm, De W.), or in righteous, i.e, right-teaching discourse (Del.), so that the capacity of speaking in regard to spiritual things, according to the law and pattern of truth, would be wanting, but in the λόγοςδικαιοσύνης of every kind. This has its ground in the nature of a νήπιος (Deuteronomy 4:39; Isaiah 7:16; Jonah 4:11). Solid nourishment, on the contrary, corresponds to the nature and the wants of the mature, who possess organs of perception (αἰσθητήρια) for the distinguishing of what is wholesome and what is pernicious, and these, indeed, as disciplined διὰτὴνἐξιν. Ἔξις is the habitus, holding, or state acquired by exercise, in its permanent character or result, as skill, readiness, capacity. It is doubtful whether we are to accentuate τίνα or τινά. The latter was preferred among the ancients only by �c., then by Luth. and Calv.; more recently by Bφhme, Bl., Ebr., Lόn., Bisp., Alford, etc. But the grammatical construction does not demand this reading; rather the active construction [as of διδάσκειν=that one teach you] apart from the doubtful reading, 1 Thessalonians 4:9, is frequent also in the classics (Win. p. 303, Madvig. Synt. § 148–50), and the connection rather favors the other form; for the readers are not sunk to such ignorance that somebody would be required to instruct them again, like catechumens, in the very first elements of Christianity; they have rather but an imperfect and dulled apprehension, so that they do not sufficiently distinguish what are essential and incidental matters, what is fundamental, and what is secondary and derived; and they have fallen into danger of forgetting and denying the essential distinction between Christianity and Judaism. [Alford, ingeniously enough, perhaps, but, I think, with very slight ground of probability, defends τινά, some one, as containing a sort of subtle irony, as if the readers were ignorant of that which any one was competent to explain. Moll argues against this reading on the ground that the readers had not sunk to that degree of ignorance, that they required to be instructed over again like catechumens in the elementary principles of Christianity. Delitzsch regards the τινά, thus accentuated, as simply feeble. This objection need not, indeed, be pressed, and this rendering gives us, perhaps, the easier construction. The other, viz., that preferred by Del., Moll, De Wette, is more difficult, but more forcible: “need of [one’s] teaching you what are the first principles,” etc. In this case we might expect διδάσκεσθαι, being taught, but the harshness of the form would be a sufficient reason for the author’s avoiding it, and preferring the not unallowable active. With this reading, again it is doubtful whether we are to explain τίνα as=ποῖα, of what sort, which it easily may be, or whether, with Moll, we are to regard the writer as declaring that the readers have sunk into a state of incompetency to discern between capital and incidental, between fundamental and secondary truths, and thus render it simply what, which I prefer.—K.]. The λόγΐα are not the words of the Old Testament, or of the prophets (Peirce, Steng., Dav. Schultz, etc.), but the declarations of the Christian revelation, whose fundamental elements constitute the basis of instruction, and at the same time contain its rudimentary principles. The idea of rudiments contained in τὰστοιχεῖα, is heightened by the addition of τῆςἀρχῆς (Calv., Lόn.). AND ETHICAL1. What in our condition as Christians we have learned of Christianity, we are not to keep for ourselves; but we are rather to be ready to communicate Christian knowledge and our evangelical experience, and to regard it as belonging to our calling, not merely to render an account of the ground of the hope which is in us, to him who demands it, but to make known the evangelical truth which aids our Christian life, and, so far as is in us, in every direction remove ignorance in spiritual things, and come to the aid of the weak. 2. Among these things to be communicated, there are found those which, on account of the variety of relation in which they stand, or on account of the depth of the thoughts which they express, are hard to be made clear, and can only with pains be brought within our apprehension. This difficulty is, in certain matters, heightened by the condition of the learners, and that even to the degree that the continuous development of the thoughts is obliged to be interrupted. 3. This state of things, however, does not exempt him who is called to make the communication from the duty of seeking in other ways points of contact by which he may promote their fellowship, and may act directly on those who may lag behind. In the place of doctrinal instruction, comes the anxious practical appeal, which awakens the conscience, discloses the inner ground of their sluggishness, and penetrates to the very roots of their spiritual life. The ethical element in teaching has its own intrinsic efficacy. 4. Among those who are left behind are found, along with those of feeble endowments and of imperfect spiritual development, also those who have gone back. These latter can all the less dispense with special moral and religious culture, in that their backslidings have reference not merely to knowledge, but even in this respect have their ground in a decline of spiritual life, and precisely for this reason generate and diffuse not merely defective views and fragmentary knowledge, but a confused conception and a perilous dimness of vision regarding even the fundamental principles of Christian truth. 5. For this reason there is needed by the teacher the gift of the discerning of spirits (1 Corinthians 12:10), wisdom even in withholding instruction, and the art of rightly dividing the word (1 Timothy 1:7; 2 Timothy 2:2). For this he must himself persevere in the practice and discipline of constant learning and prayer (James 1:5); that he may not only use law and Gospel seasonably and in due order, but may also understand how to furnish milk to the children and solid food to the mature (1 Corinthians 3:2). AND Failure in fidelity begets failure in our experience in spiritual life; and failure in experience produces failure in the understanding of the word of God.—The important matter is, not how long one has been a Christian, but how earnest he has been in his Christian profession.—Without exercise, there is not the needful progress either in Christian knowledge or in Christian life.—There is but one truth for those of riper age, and for the immature; but there are different modes of communicating and of apprehending it.—Inexperience in the doctrine of righteousness is the worst ignorance: a. on account of its origin; b. on account of its consequences. Starke:—In the knowledge of salvation and of Divine things, we must increase daily, each according to his capacity.—The difficulty of some things in Scripture lies not in the things themselves, but properly in the hearer or reader (2 Peter 3:16).—Preachers must sometimes address their hearers even sternly, in order that they may be aroused in their state of ignorance, and out of their sluggishness.—The peculiarity and duty of men in Christ is that they teach and advance others, not only in respect of knowledge, by words, but also in practice, by their edifying example.—Oh! how many children of God continue like children under age in the very rudiments of spiritual life.—Children, so soon as they are capable of learning, must be brought to the blessed knowledge of the Gospel; the more advanced they are in years, so much the more should they be advanced also in knowledge; otherwise their age becomes a reproach to them.—Search, and inquire: what is still wanting to me? Thou wilt find that thou art still deficient in many things. Go on; make progress during thy life in learning and discipline, 1 Thessalonians 4:1; 1 Thessalonians 4:10.—Since disciplined spiritual senses are demanded for the discrimination of good and evil, and these are found only with the regenerate, no unconverted man can make the true spiritual distinction between good and evil, although, according to his literal knowledge, he may speak very fluently regarding it. Rieger:—The more spiritual a thing is in its nature, with the more difficulty does it find an entrance, so long as the unspiritual and ungodly nature which has so deeply penetrated our being, still so greatly preponderates.—He who does not cause every thing to take effect with himself for his strengthening and growth in the inner man, but overloads himself in many things merely with fragmentary knowledge, will at last so entangle himself that he will no longer know anything as he ought to know it.—Milk itself may be gradually transformed into stronger food.—The chief confusion arises from the fact that every one so easily exaggerates that which meets his fancy, and is so sluggish toward that which is fitted to introduce him into the true middle path. Hahn:—Great truths demand also a certain spiritual age and disciplined senses.—If one does not correctly understand a thing, let him first seek the fault in himself, and administer proper self-rebuke. Heubner:—the riches of Christianity are inexhaustible; the progress of the learners frequently falls short of our expectation.—The Bible Christianity gives various spiritual nourishment. In the contemplation of Christian knowledge there are different stages of maturity, different powers and susceptibilities. We must strive for the highest reach of Christian maturity and power. Steinhofer:—If we have trodden the paths of conversion, and, from a general knowledge, have known and apprehended the salvation of Jesus for our fainting soul, and have thus been taught to hold Jesus dearer than all things else, then it becomes preλminently important for daily growth in spiritual life, for a more thorough grounding in our fellowship with Jesus, for daily food for the spirit, that we search more closely and more profoundly into the knowledge of Jesus. Fricke:—What we have apprehended in faith must be thought through, and lived through, by each one in his own way. Thus we become strong. Footnotes:Hebrews 5:4.—The Art. ὁ before καλούμενος, is to be erased after Sin. A. B. C.* D. E. K., 23, 37, 44. Hebrews 5:4.—Instead of καθάπερ, we are to read, with Sin. A. B. D.*, καθώσπερ. Hebrews 5:4.—The Art. ὁ before Ἀαρών, is to be expunged after Sin. A. B. C. D. E. K. L. Hebrews 5:9.—According to Sin. A. B. C. D. E., 17, 37, the order of the words is as follows: πᾶσιντοῖςὑπακούουσιναὐτῷ. [It seems to me (with De Wette) that a reference of the language to the sufferings and exclamations of Jesus on the cross, would here be inconsistent with the purpose of the writer. He is pointing out how our Lord had learned “obedience by prayers and supplications to Him who was able to save Him from death.” The “obedience” naturally has reference to that which was the object of His crying and supplication, and this is clearly intimated by the expression, “to Him who was able to save Him from death.” The natural implication of this language is, that He prayed to be saved from death. Yet the request was refused Him, and He exercised obedience in submitting resignedly to the will of His Father, and going in obedience to that will to the cross. Thus the prayer of Gethsemane: “If possible, let this cup pass from me,” with the accompanying submission of the whole matter to the will of His Father, and the subsequent obedience in going to the cross, are here clearly portrayed, while “the strong crying,” which is unmentioned in the Gospel, is here added as a natural, and we may add, almost necessary adjunct of the scene; for we could scarcely conceive those agonizing prayers and the bloody sweat, as unaccompanied by the loud outcry here mentioned; and altogether the prayer, the cry, the Sweat, are probably parts of the evangelical tradition regarding that critical scene in the life of our Lord. The death scene on the cross took place when the Son had substantially obeyed; the crisis was over, and Jesus had already accepted His destiny.—K.]. II Hence the summons to the readers to strive after Christian maturity and perfection Hebrews 6:1-31 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on [let us hasten on, φερώμεθα] unto perfection: not laying again the [a] foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, 2Of the doctrine of baptisms and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead and of [om. of] eternal judgment. 3And this will we [or, let us] do, if [provided that, ἐάνπερ] God permit. [Hebrews 6:1.—φερώμεθα, let us hasten onward, speed forward. Hebrews 6:3.—ἐάνπερ, precisely if=provided that.—K.]. AND Heb_6:1. Wherefore leaving the first principles, etc. (Lit. the doctrine of the beginning of Christ).—Taken grammatically, it is commonly considered that these words may with about equal propriety be regarded either as the declaration of the author respecting his purpose, leaving behind him the elementary doctrine of Christ, to advance to perfection in his teaching (Erasmus, Luth., Grot., De W., Thol., Bisp., etc.), or as a summons to the readers, himself included along with them, to strive after their subjective perfection (Chrys., Lόn., etc.).—The latter view, however, is decidedly favored by the form of the sentence, connected as it is by διό, as an immediate deduction from the preceding; by the fact that τελειότης retains thus the sense which has been just previously assigned to it; and finally the declaration in Hebrews 6:4 ff.—The contents, however, of the participial clauses (not laying again the foundation, etc.) might warrant the supposition that the plurals (καταβαλλόμενοι, etc.) have here mainly reference to the author, for which reason Del. and Riehm unite both ideas, regarding the plural of the principal verb as having unquestionably a common reference. The φέρεσθαι denotes a movement toward the goal under a rapid and impetuous guidance. The genitive τοῦχριστοῦ depends not upon ἀρχῆς, but upon λόγον, which latter word is more exactly defined by τῆςἀρχῆς. Not laying again a foundation, etc.—Those portions of doctrine are here commonly supposed to be referred to, which seem to have constituted the catechetical instructions of the early Church. Some old expositors even understand the words ἐπὶθεόν directly of Christ, in order to include the indispensable cardinal doctrine of faith in Christ, and appeal in support of their view to Romans 9:6; while others maintain that Christian faith, as such, is of course taken for granted, and needs, therefore, no special mention. There is even an American sect that regards precisely the six articles here named as the proper cardinal doctrines of Christianity. With a correct perception of the incongruity of the whole passage as thus interpreted, Ebrard proposes to go back to the original signification of καταβάλλειν, to cast down, overthrow, which is also adopted by the Itala, and to take πάλιν in a privative or reversing sense, as Galatians 4:9; Acts 18:21, explaining the absence of the article before θεμέλιον, partly from its frequent omission in our Epistle, partly from the fact that it is sufficiently explained by the accompanying Genitives. But this artificial resort to an unnatural interpretation is totally unnecessary. For here first, 1, the author is not speaking of specifically Christian doctrine, but of those which the Jews had in common with the Christians (Beng., Thol., etc.), and in which the distinctive Christian features might easily be lost sight of, if those purely elementary and fundamental principles of doctrine were held as if ultimate and final. In the second place, 2, the question is not of fundamental articles of Christian doctrine, but of such fundamental points as must be presupposed in the case of the readers. And finally, 3, the question is not exclusively of doctrine, but primarily of repentance and conversion from dead works, and of that turning to the living God which corresponds to this act. This is the basis on which the readers are so to advance that they shall not always be laying foundations anew; but on the foundation already laid be brought on their part to Christian perfection as well in character and in action (Chrys., �c., etc.) as in intellectual ripeness and maturity. The works are called dead, not because, as sinful works, they produce death (Schlicht., Lόn., Bisp., etc.), or defile like corpses (Michaelis), but because, as works of a man who stands in no right relation to the living God, they can neither express nor give life. [Perhaps, considering the character of the readers, these again may be the dead works of the Jewish law.—K.]. Hebrews 6:2. Of the doctrine of baptisms, etc.—Beng., Michael., Winer, De Wette make διδαχῆς dependent on βαπτισμῶν, and refer it to those “teaching baptisms,” which, by the instructions that were connected with them, were distinguished from the purely legal lustrations of the Jews. The mere order of the words does not decide the question; for, as Thol. has shown, there are not unfrequently found with the Greeks, for the sake, not merely of emphasis, but of euphony, precisely such inverted constructions as that here assumed by the majority of commentators, who make not merely βαπτισμῶν and ἐπιθέσεωςχειρῶν, but also ἀναστάσεως and κρίματος dependent on διδαχῆς. And this is decidedly required by the connection. Instructions in regard to such rites and doctrines as are elementary to the Christian, and, while they are found also in Judaism, have received from Christianity a specific import and character, and these must have been clear to Hebrews converted to Christianity, must not be always needed afresh by the readers (comp. Hebrews 9:10). Thus also is explained the plural βαπτισμῶν; for βαπτισμὀς is a comprehensive term, which at Hebrews 9:10; Mark 7:8, denotes the Jewish washing, and in Joseph. Jud. Antt. xviii. 5, 2 denotes the baptism of John, while the specifically Christian baptism is in the New Testament always called βάπτισμα. The interpreters who suppose the author to refer specially to this latter baptism, explain the plural either of outward and inward baptism (Grot., Bald., Braun, Reuss) or of the different acts of baptism (Calov), or of triple immersion (De W.), or of the threefold baptism, fluminis, flaminis, sanguinis (Thomas Aquinas). Some (as Bald and Brochm.) refer the laying on of hands especially to ordination; the majority to the laying on of hands immediately connected with baptism, which, after the third century, was, in connection with the chrism, elevated to the independent act of confirmation. But why should we not refer the term to setting apart or dedication in general? Alike the import and the rythmical structure of this period are opposed to the view mentioned as early as �c., that a comma is to be placed after βαπτισμῶν, διδαχῆς to be taken separately as coφrdinate with βαπτισμῶν, and, like this word, dependent on θεμέλιον; and that these we are to understand by the words catechetical instruction, which in the earliest times was frequently imparted only after baptism. And it is equally inadmissible, with Gennadius and Klee, to make even the Genitives μετανοίας and πίστεως dependent on διδαχῆς; or, with Calvin, to put in parenthesis the words βαπτισμῶν—χειρῶν. Finally, there is no reason for referring, with Est., Schlicht., and others, the ἀνάστασις exclusively to the pious, the κρίμα exclusively to the ungodly. Hebrews 6:3. And this let us do, etc.—The demonstrative τοῦτο is referred by Grot., Limb., Seml., Storr, etc. (retaining the reading ποιήσομεν as Indicative future) to θεμέλιονκαταβάλλειν, and they then take καί=also, as implying that the author will undertake this work of laying foundations so soon as God will allow him to come in person to the Hebrews. The majority, however, rightly refer it to φερώμεθα as the finite verb of the preceding sentence; yet with this difference, that according to some the author would seem to be expressing the purpose to proceed now, if permitted, to unfold the deeper meaning of the doctrine of righteousness (λόγονδικαιοσύνης), while, according to others, who take the ποιήσωμεν communicatively (i.e, as embracing the author with his readers), he is exhorting them to advance to the desired Christian perfection. This latter view accords with the connection. The conditional clause (provided that=ἐάνπερ, etc.) points to the possibility of a falling away, which would absolutely exclude the progress referred to. It is not made a matter of direct statement, whether in fact such persons are found in the Church. But it lays upon each individual the duty of self-examination. This intimation is in keeping with the rebuking and warning tone of the section which is lost sight of by Abresch and De Wette. AND ETHICAL1. The goal of Christian development is perfection. For the attainment of this goal a striving is required, which rests upon reliable foundations, and is rightly directed by the word of sound doctrine, and by the supervision and discipline of church fellowship. 2. That which lies at the basis is not the doctrine of Divine things, but a personal entrance on the way of salvation by turning away from dead works (that is, works which contain in themselves no life from God), and a turning in faith to the only true and living God of Revelation and Redemption. With this personal entrance on the path of salvation, commences not merely the preaching of John the Baptist and of Jesus Christ in the history of the Gospel (Mark 1:15; Matthew 3:2; Matthew 4:17; Acts 20:21); but also the influence of the Word of God on the hearts of men. 3. The living power and reality of such a commencement is incompatible with a simple standing still amidst the very rudiments of Christian life and knowledge, and excludes the bare repetition of those fundamental acts which inaugurate the commencement as such; but at once urges us to, and fits us for, the confirming and unfolding of the new relation to God, which that foundation has secured for us, Philippians 3:14. 4. Repentance and faith must daily testify their existence in the life of the Christian, inasmuch as he has not yet reached the goal of perfection, but is tending toward it. They have, however, a different significance, according as they are fundamental acts preceding and conditioning regeneration, and according as they belong to daily Christian Renewal. 5. The very elementary doctrine of Christ has to do with sacramental rites and eschatological facts, and, consequently, even elementary instruction in Christianity must be complete in the articles of doctrine, and leave no gap to be filled up in the capital points. But he who would restrict himself to the rudiments, and allow himself to deal only with them, not only deprives himself of deeper insight and of richer knowledge, but also puts himself into antagonism with the legitimate and fully authorized demand of progressive Christian life. AND Life and doctrine have in Christianity a very noteworthy reciprocal influence.—On the foundation which has been laid we must, so far as God allows it, proceed onward to perfection.—He who has not thoroughly turned himself to God will hardly get on well even with the elementary doctrine of Christ.—Confidence in the patience and goodness of God must not render us negligent in striving after perfection.—There is a neglect in the means of grace for the furtherance of the Christian life, which cannot be made good, but brings with it apostasy and Divine judgment. Starke:—It is a sad sign of a great decline in Christianity, that there are so few who lay a right foundation in their knowledge, and are zealous to make further progress therein.—Where God does not aid us with His grace we can accomplish nothing rightly.—They are bad Christians, or rather they are no Christians, who know not the ground of the Christian religion. Rieger:—The bold determination: We will go on to perfection! must still rejoice every one who has but a slight knowledge of what is entrusted to us in the Gospel.—We may often now still experience that we have not the same power over one portion of the treasures of the knowledge of God, as over another, and not the same power at one time as at another. Hahn:—The realm of truth is very wide. We must not, therefore, stand still, but go on to perfection. Heubner:—There is a distinction between Christian doctrines, not, however, in respect of importance, as essential and unessential—for no such doctrine have Jesus and the Apostles delivered to us—but as elementary or properly foundation doctrines, and doctrines built upon them, and of still profounder character. There is thus a distinction of order, of connection, and of comprehensibleness. Hedinger:—It is well for many to advance slowly in the knowledge of doctrine, that they may be all the richer in sincere and simple-minded action. III For it is impossible to bring back to a state of grace those who, after experiencing the gracious power of Christianity, have fallen back from it. Hebrews 6:4-84 For it is impossible for [in respect to] those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were [been] made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5and have tasted the good word of God [a precious word of God] and the powers of the world to come, 6if they shall fall away [and have fallen away, παραπεσόντας] to renew them again unto repentance, seeing they crucify [while crucifying] to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put [putting] him to an open shame. 7For the earth [land] which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them [useful herbs for those] by [for the sake of] whom it is dressed [cultivated], receiveth 8[shareth μεταλαμβάνει] blessing from God; but that which beareth [but when bearing] thorns and briers [thistles] [it] is rejected [reprobated, ἀδόχιμος] and is nigh unto cursing, whose end is to be burned. [Hebrews 6:4.—τοὺςἅπαξφωτισθέντας, those who were once for all (not at one time, or formerly) illuminated. Hebrews 6:5.—καλὸνγευσαμένουςθεοῦῥῆμα, tasted an excellent or precious utterance of God. Hebrews 6:6.—καὶπαραπεσόντας, and fell aside or fell away; παρά, nearly as Hebrews 2:1—πάλινἀνακαινίζειν, to renew back again, or over again, πάλιν, not pleonastic (as Grot.) but indicates a second renewing, which is not necessarily nor ordinarily implied in ἀνακαινίζειν, but simply renewing. (Alf. and Moll.,)—εἰςμετ. into repentance with Eng. Ver. Moll, etc.,—ἀνασταυροῦντας, while they are renailing to the cross, crucifying afresh: such the force of the ἀνά and the present Participle. Hebrews 6:7.—Γῆἡπιοῦσα, Earth or Land which drank (Aor. Part.):—ἐπ’ αὐτῆς upon it pregnant Gen. with verb of motion coming on and remaining on.—τίκτουσα, and is bearing, apparently connected back by καί so as to be coφrdinated with πιοῦσα=which drank and is producing. We might expect τίκτουσαμἐν—ἐκφέρουσαδέ (Alf.) which would be more idiomatic and elegant. Observe the life implied in πιοῦσα, τίκτουσα, μεταλαμβάνει,—δι’ οὓς, for the sake of whom, not as Eng. Ver. by whom—μεταλαμβάνει, shareth in, participateth. Rec. Ver. receiveth, misses the special force of the word (as if it were δέχεται, λαμβάνει). Hebrews 6:8.—ἐκφέρουσαδέ, but while bringing forth, joined to its noun γῆ predicatively, while τίκτουσα with ἡ is united to it attributively.—τριβόλους rendered Matthew 7:16; Genesis 3:18, thistles. So Moll: Disteln.—ἀδόκιμος again a term of life, reprobated. See Romans 1:28; Hebrews 12:17, ὰπεδοκιμάσθη, was reprobated, discarded.—K]. AND Heb_6:4. For it is impossible, etc.—The γάρ refers neither to the conditional clause immediately preceding [Abresch], nor to the clause μὴπάλινθεμέλιονκαταβαλλόμενο, Hebrews 6:1 (De Wette after the earlier interpp.), nor to both together (Schlicht.); but to the leading exhortation of Heb 6:3, τοῦτοποιήσωμεν, which looks back to the exhortation (Hebrews 6:1) to strive after perfection. To weaken down the ἀδύνατον into perdifficile (Jerome, Erasm., Zwingle, etc.) under the plea of a rhetorical exaggeration, is purely arbitrary. Neither are we to supply παρ’ ἀνθρώποις according to Matthew 19:26 (Ambrose, Limb., Beng., Heubn., etc.). The object of the author is precisely this: to set before the eyes of the readers the whole magnitude of the danger, and the fearful import and gravity of the crisis to which they have come. Once enlightened.—The patristic interpreters aimed chiefly to oppose the Montanists and Novatians, who sought by this passage to justify their refusal to readmit to the Church those who had backslidden. These patristic expositors, and after them Thom. Aquinas, Este, Corn. a Lapide, Michael., Ernesti, etc., take φωτίζειν in the sense in which it is employed by Justin Martyr (Apol. i. 62, 65), viz., of baptism. They sought, then, to show that the author is not speaking here of regeneration in the narrower sense, but of reception into the Christian community by means of baptism; and that thus only the repetition of baptism upon the readmission of those who had deeply fallen, is declared inadmissible. But the context, and the use of the word, (Hebrews 10:32), show that the word here denotes spiritual enlightenment effected through the preaching of the Gospel (comp. John 1:9; Ephesians 3:9; Psalms 36:10). The ἅπαξ stands in contrast with πάλιν, Hebrews 6:6. Men pass the turning point from darkness to light (Ephesians 5:14) only once; the change can never occur again (Del.). Have tasted the heavenly gift.—By this heavenly gift many interpreters, with Primas., understand the Lord’s Supper; others, with Chrys., justifying grace, or forgiveness of sin; some, with Grotius, the peace of mind, which it engenders; many, with Calmet, the Holy Spirit, or with Seb. Schmidt, and Bengel, the person of Jesus Christ. Abresch and Bleek understand the above-mentioned illumination or the heavenly light which produces this illumination; Morus and others, the Christian religion or the Gospel. Tholuck, however, and the more recent interpreters, declare themselves, with good reason against every special interpretation, pointing to 2 Corinthians 10:15, where salvation in Christ is called “the unspeakable gift” of grace, and laying stress, partly on the close connection of this clause with the preceding, made by the particle τε, and partly on the emphatic position of γευσαμένους at the beginning of the clause. The connection and object of the passage require that we take this latter word according to rabbinical usage, just as at Hebrews 2:9, in the sense of practical experience, by actual personal appropriation and enjoyment. The construction with the Gen. (instead of the Accus. as at Hebrews 6:5) does not warrant the interpretation made in the interests of Calvinism, of a mere tasting with the tip of the tongue. The former construction is Greek—the latter Hellenistic. Perhaps it may also be said that the choice of the former construction was dictated by the idea of an enjoyment out of the fulness of those heavenly riches of grace which were designed for, and proffered to, the collective body, while the second construction points to the idea “that the good word of God has been, as it were, the daily bread of the persons whom the language describes” (Del.). Hebrews 6:5. The precious word of God, and the powers of the world to come.—Many interpreters regard, with Chrys. and Primas., the first expression merely as a description of the Gospel generally; Calvin and Braun regard it at least as placed in contrast with the judicial rigor of the Mosaic law. The majority, however, referring to Joshua 21:43; Zechariah 1:13, and similar passages find in it a special reference to the divine promises of a blessed future, and to peaceful rest in the Land of Promise. The world to come (αἰὼνμέλλων) stands in the same sense as Hebrews 2:5, μέλλουσαοἰκουμένη and the “powers” (δυνάμεις) of that world are those mentioned Hebrews 2:4. And thus too narrow is the reference, on the one hand, to the foretaste of future glory (Primas., Bφhme, etc.), and, on the other, to the miraculous acts of the Apostles that have been witnessed by believers, or experienced in their own persons (Wittich, Braun, etc.). Hebrews 6:6. And have fallen away.—The author has not in mind particular gross or conscious sins, as Luther erroneously supposed, and hence took offence at the passage. He has rather in view apostasy from the recognized and experienced truth of salvation, as a sin closely allied to the sin against the Holy Ghost. The Aor. particip. points to the fact that this breaking off from all fellowship with Christ is a single and once for all accomplished act; while the following Present Participles express the condition which follows upon this falling away, characterizing its state alike of utter hopelessness and self-condemnation. [As to the question of the moral condition of the persons here described, I shall add but little. The question had probably hardly presented itself at this time as a distinct point of Christian doctrine, whether a regenerated person could fall away. One thing was certain, viz., that the Christian profession and the actual Christian character of the members of the church did not take them out of the category of free moral agents, who stood personally responsible for their perseverance and steadfastness in their Christian profession, and who were, therefore, to be appealed to by every consideration, which could address itself to persons who, under God, held their destiny in their own keeping. It was also equally certain that their salvation depended on their perseverance; that he, and he only, who held out to the end, would be saved, and this was equally true whether we adopt the supposition that they actually could apostatize from a state of grace, or whether their apostasy only proved that they had never been in a regenerated state. In either case the mode of spiritual treatment was the same. None could look behind the curtain into the volume of the divine decrees; and the only practical test of the reality of one’s Christianity, and the only assurance of his salvation, was his holding on to the end. As a doctrinal question, therefore, it was totally unnecessary that it should be raised and decided. Meantime another thing was equally certain, because lying in the very nature of the case. If a person who had partaken of the grace of Christ, and been born again by the power of the Holy Spirit, and sanctified by the blood of Jesus, did fall away, and turn his back completely on all these gracious agencies, and these highest and final means of salvation, his case was hopeless. There was no more sacrifice for sin. He had exhausted all the provisions of Divine love and compassion, and henceforth nothing remained to him but a fearful looking for of inevitable judgment. If, then, this and like passages in Hebrews do teach the possibility of falling from grace, they teach, in like manner, the impossibility of restoration to it. The saint who has once apostatized, has apostatized forever. Meantime, the case is only put hypothetically. There is not, so far as I am aware, a distinct declaration that such a falling away does actually occur; but only a declaration, if it should occur, what in the nature of the case must be the inevitable consequence. And I cannot forbear adding, that in my judgment, the tenor of many passages of the New Testament is decidedly against the actual possibility of such apostasy, and that the admission of the doctrine would revolutionize the whole orthodox conception of the New Testament system of salvation.—K.]. To renew them again unto repentance.—The position of πάλιν forbids our connecting it with παραπεσόντας (Heinr. etc.); nor need we with Grot, regard it as pleonastic in its connection With ἀνακαινίζειν. For ᾶνά in composition does not necessarily denote a return into a previous state, but may regard the action as commencing (with the kindred meaning of springing up). Thus ἄνακαινίζειν, ἀνακαινοῖν, particularly may denote the inauguration of a new state of things, and, referring to man’s transfer from his old state, imply his being brought up back into a higher life, Romans 12:2; 2 Corinthians 4:16;. Colossians 3:10. Repentance (μετάνοια) appears here not as the means (Chrys., Corn, a Lapide, etc.), but as the result and state of renewal. Ἀνακαινίζειν is properly to be renewing, to endeavor to renew. Some, therefore, (as Ambrose, Beng., Heubner, etc.), would find in the active voice ground for restricting the statement to the efforts of men, for the conversion of others, leaving their renewal still among the things which are possible with God (Matthew 19:26). But the fact that alike here Hebrews 6:7-8, and subsequently Hebrews 10:26 ff. special emphasis is laid on the judicial and retributive judgment of God, forbids such a limitation. Thus, undoubtedly, the active form is neither to be confounded with the Pass. (Vulg., Calv., etc.), nor to be taken reflexively=to renew oneself (Orig., Erasm., Lapide, etc). But the active is explained from a reference to the employment in the church of the ordinary means of grace. While crucifying for themselves the Son of God afresh.—With the Greeks ἀνασταυροῦν means only to nail to the cross; but even the Greek expositors find here expressed in ἀνά, the natural and appropriate idea of repetition. The ἑαυτοῖς is by many expositors erroneously rendered (with (�c. and Calv.), so far as in them lies; and by Heinrichs each for himself. Schultz takes it as Dat. of the instrument=by themselves. More natural would be the Dat. loc. (Beng., Abresch, Thol.), according to which the apostates place themselves on the same platform and level with the unbelieving Jews; but better than either, it may be taken as the Dat. commodi; not, however, in the sense of Klee, and Stengel, viz., for their own satisfaction and for the gratification of their hardened heart, but rather as the Dat. incommodi, viz., for their own destruction, (Vatabl., Bl., Lόn., Del). [With Alf. I regard this last meaning of “in perniciem” as too strong, and as carrying that which lies in the nature and necessities of the case, into the grammatical relation of the word. It is I think simply the Dat. commodi—expressing that which is done for, with reference to themselves, and the question of the consequences, whether destruction or otherwise, is not to be found in the relation itself. Wordsworth explains artificially crucifying “not to him, for he is impassable; but to themselves and to their own perdition.”—K]. Hebrews 6:7.—For the sake of whom.—Δι’ οὔς is erroneously referred by the Vulg., Erasm., Luth., Calv., etc., to those who cultivate the land [so our Eng. Ver.]. It in fact refers to the possessors, to whose benefit the cultivating is to inure. We have rendered τὸνἐπ’ ἐρχόμενον by the perfect, has come upon it; because, ἐπί with the Gen. used with verbs of motion, includes also the subsequent remaining in that state.—(Win. Gr. 6 Ed. p. 336). Hebrews 6:8.—Whose end is for burning.—The relation of the words ἧςτὸτέλοςεἰςκαῦσιν to the immediately preceding κατάρας, curse, [viz., the end of which curse] is that which most immediately forces itself upon the reader, Camerar., Abr., Heinr., Bl.), yet the majority of expositors, since Chrys. have referred the phrase back to the main subject of the clause, making it declare not the end of the curse, but the end of the land (γῆς)—a construction which is certainly possible. At all events the allusion is undoubtedly to a consuming with brimstone and salt (Deuteronomy 29:22; Isaiah 34:9) by which the land is condemned to utter sterility and uselessness. Some, in advocacy of the ἀποκατάστασις, have endeavored to draw from it the opposite doctrine, and find in the passage such a burning up of weeds and noxious vegetation as should cleanse the ground and restore its fertility (so Schlicht. etc.); but no explanation could be more totally alien from the context. AND ETHICALWe may imagine a man’s reaching a state of abandonment and moral corruption from which no deliverance is possible, and which draws after itself inevitably eternal damnation. All endeavors to banish this thought from our passage do violence to the words, and spring from theoretical prejudices against the truth which is here advanced, and which also receives Hebrews 10:26 ff. a more full elucidation. It is not, however, said that this condition has in the case of any one already taken place. The reader is only warned, but this in the most startling manner, against sinking into this state as one that threatens him. 2. This condition does not precede regeneration, but necessarily presupposes it; yet not in the broader sense in which regeneration denotes the forgiveness of sins and a transfer into the condition of the children of God, but in the narrower sense which at the same time includes subsequentem renovationem (Form. Concord. III. 19; John Gerhard, Loc. Theol., tom. VIII). 3. The possibility of such an inexcusable and consciously guilty falling off from Christ, and which involves a complete falling away from the gracious state, is presupposed by the Lord Jesus Himself, not indeed Luke 22:31 ff., yet certainly John 15:1 ff. and the sin of denial mentioned Matthew 10:38; Luke 12:9, threatened with the most fearful consequences, presumes a like condition in one who had previously professed discipleship. Moreover, John recognizes a sin unto death (ἁμαρτίαπρὸςθάνατον) 1 John 5:16, which even admits no further intercession. There is thus no contradiction in our epistle to the elsewhere recognized doctrine of the Gospel, and the Calvinistic theory of the identity of the renatus and the electus appears in this respect also as unscriptural. Compare besides on this point Romans 11:21; 1 Corinthians 10:1-13; Galatians 5:4; 1 Timothy 1:19; 1 Timothy 4:1; 1 Timothy 6:10; 1 Timothy 6:21; 2 Peter 2:20; Revelation 3:16. 4. The entire identification of the apostasy here named with the sin against the Holy Ghost (in regard to which compare the treatises of magn Fr. Roos, 1771, and of Phil. Schaff, 1841; Mόller’s Doctrine of Sin, 4 ed., 1860; and Alex. Von �ttinger, de pecato in Spir. S. qua cum eschatologia Christiana contineatur ratione, 1856), becomes questionable from the fact that the latter may be committed even by those who from the very commencement have hardened themselves against the influences of the Holy Spirit, and have thus passed on to obduracy and blasphemy, Matthew 12:31 ff.; Mark 3:28 ff.; Luke 12:10. The majority of interpreters, therefore, since Bleek regard the sin against the Holy Ghost as the broader and more comprehensive Comp. Riehm, II., 764 ff., 819 ff. 5. Neither does this statement of our author stand in contradiction with the doctrine of the power of Divine grace, or of the full authority of the Church to forgive all sins. For the grace of God operates neither magically nor violently, and the forgiveness of sins has for its condition repentance and faith. But the very characteristic of this sin of apostasy consists in the fact of rejecting the means of grace, which had been previously employed and experienced as fraught with saving power, and this in a radical hostility to their truth and saving efficacy; and thus rendering all their influence objectively impossible. There is a continued re-crucifying of the Son of God, by which He becomes exposed anew to the derision of the world. 6. The designation of this sin as apostasy is as far from excluding the fact of its gradual development in a soul, as the description of it as sinning wilfully, (ἑκουσίωςἀμαρτάνων, Hebrews 10:26) is from denying the fact of the deceptive working of sin, Hebrews 3:13. “It is the fruit of an entire series of individual, wilful, and unrepented sins; the final result of a whole series of misdeeds, and of violent repressions of the impulses of the Holy Spirit,” (Riehm). All the more necessary then are the warnings and exhortations of our epistle for those who have not yet destroyed within themselves a susceptibility to the influences of the Spirit of God, and who have not as yet made themselves incapable of faith or of repentance. 7. But in the destruction in man of the susceptibility of moral and religious renovation, there is accomplished not merely a law of psychological development, but at the same time a Divine, punitive judgment which has its ground in a condemning sentence of God. This sentence proves itself ultimately valid and decisive, not indeed in accordance with any eternal decree, but judicially, after God has proved the apostates to be utterly reprobate. But the entire carrying through of this judgment is still in the future. By this let none be deceived. “Yet we must guard ourselves alike against making the apostolic warning a source of torture and despair, and a billow of fleshly security” (Del.). Comp. Spener, Theol. Reflections, I 6:634; Latest Theol. Reflections, II. 398; Palmer, Pastoral Theology (1860); 2d ed., 1863; Valenti, Pastoral Healing, 2 parts, 1832, “On Spiritual Conflicts.” 8. “He who through moral unfaithfulness has fallen into the illusion that he has been deceived by objective truth, can no longer prove indifferent toward this, since he is unable entirely to deny it. It has, as truth, maintained itself in his inner being; there remains, therefore, within him, a sting of conscience, which urges him to self-justification, and with this to inward and outward struggles, whether in argument or in wanton railing against that truth which will no longer leave the sinner, whom it once claimed as its possession. If now we take into consideration that ever growing, ever deepening power of evil, which is expressed in the saying: “In the first step ye are free; at the second, ye are slaves,” then assuredly we can, recognize as possible, within the sphere of such a conscious though unconfessed self-deception, a degree of obduracy in which conversion is impossible” (Tholuck). AND The lapse from a state of grace: a. in its origin; b. in its characteristics; c. in its consequences.—He who has fallen from grace is worse than he who has never attained to it.—That which was written for our warning, and that which takes place for our example, whether in nature or in history, we should never allow to minister to our perverseness.—The susceptibility to the repeated influences of grace.—The way to Heaven is much easier and pleasanter than the way to Hell; those who walk in it have already, in the enjoyment of the blessings of salvation, a foretaste of heavenly powers and delights. Starke:—The impossibility of the conversion of a fallen sinner, consists not in a deficiency of the grace of God, or of the merit of Christ, or of the influence of the Holy Spirit; but in the conduct and character of the sinner who wilfully rejects Christ, and the economy of salvation.—The happy, gracious state of believers, is a glorious token of the Divine origin, truth, and excellency of the Christian religion.—All backslidings are not equally dangerous, but none is without danger.—The grace of God visits all men, but with a great difference in spiritual productiveness, according to the quality and moral condition of the heart.—We need even after conversion, perpetual accessions of the grace of God, and repeated anointings of the Divine Spirit; after these must we yearn, and eagerly receive them, like a well prepared field.—For us also it may doubtless be said: “The plough or the curse.” Rieger:—He who labors in accordance with the Divine appointment, receives what he must ascribe not to his labor, but manifestly to the blessing of God.—Hidden and secret as may be the workings of grace, we could always track them out, if we would give to them the same heed that we apply to our domestic and worldly affairs. Heubner:—The condition of men is all the more dangerous, their reformation all the more difficult, by how much the farther they have previously been, by how much the higher they have arisen.—The gifts of grace already obtained, impose a solemn obligation; and he who has already received the Spirit, has a heavy responsibility.—The falling away of advanced Christians is an insult offered to Christianity and to Christ Himself; is a declaration that Christ was justly crucified.—The heart that receives in vain the labor employed upon it, and bears no fruit, is rejected of God.—Moral desolation and reprobation are the heaviest punishments and judgments of God. Stein:—Sinners are frequently visited by Divine grace. If they produce the righteous fruits of repentance, then they may expect anew proofs of the Divine favor; while in the opposite case, they may expect no long forbearance, and least of all, when they apostatize, may they look for any new exercise of compassion. Fricke:—A fearful sin, and a frightful judgment. Hedinger:—The devil in his heart, death in his bosom, hell beneath his feet, and a curse on his posterity. Footnotes: Hebrews 6:3.—Instead of ποιήσομεν, we are to read ποιήσωμεν after A. C. D. E., 23, 31, 39. The Ind., however, is found in Sin. [in Cod. Vat., and is retained by Tisch. The meaning is good with either reading; in my opinion, equally good or better with ποιήσομεν.—K.]. [Some, however, as Owen and Delitzsch, conceive it possible to unite both meanings. To these also Alford partially attaches himself, considering “that on the one hand, θεμέλιονκαταβαλλόμενοι can hardly be properly said of any but a teacher; and on the other, Hebrews 6:4 ff., ἀδύνατονγάρ, etc., must necessarily have a general reference of warning to the readers.—The whole, then, is a συγκατάβασις of the writer to his readers. He, with his work of teaching, comes down to their level of learning, and regards that teaching and learning as all one work going on together; himself and them as bound up in one progress. Thus best may we explain the expressions which oscillate between writer and readers.” So Alford. While holding clearly that the main tenor of the passage has reference to the spiritual progress of the hearers, and that the general urbanity of the writer would be sufficient to account for the first person plur., and while also conceiving that καταβαλλόμενοιθεμέλιου, may refer not inaptly to the readers, I yet concur with Alf. in finding a little coloring in this phrase drawn from his position as teacher.—K.]. IV But the readers are still in a condition which, by the grace of God, renders possible the attainment of the goal, for which they are earnestly to strive Hebrews 6:9-129 But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, 10though we thus speak. For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labor of [om. labor of] love, which ye have [om. have] shewed toward his name, in that ye have [om. have] ministered to the saints, and do minister [are ministering]. 11And [But] we desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to [in respect to] the full assurance of hope unto the end: 12That ye be [become=prove yourselves] not slothful, but followers [imitators] of them, who through faith and patience [long-suffering] inherit the promises. [Hebrews 6:9.—τὰκρείσσονακαὶἐχ., the things which are better, and are connected with salvation. The article not repeated.—εἴκαί, if also, or even=although. Hebrews 6:11.—ἐπιθυμοῦμενδέ, But (better than and here as adversative) we desire.—τὴναὐτὴνσπουδήν, the same zeal, πρός, with reference to, in respect to, Eng. ver. inadequately simply to, and mars the sense by putting a comma after diligence. Hebrews 6:12.—ἵναμὴγένησθε, that ye may not became, or prove yourselves—μιμηταί, imitators.—μακροθυμία, long-suffering—K.]. AND Heb_6:9. But we are persuaded better things, etc.—The epithet ἀγαπητοί (beloved), so frequent with Paul, is found in our epistle only in this place, where the author, by the verb πεπείσμεθα, emphatically expresses his conviction that the terrible results which he has depicted will not be realized in the case of his readers. Τὰκρείσσονα is referred by some to a better destiny, by others to a better condition. The former, then, regard ἐχόμενασωτηρίας chiefly as a periphrasis for σωτηρία itself; while the latter refer this expression to that which tends to salvation. More exactly ἐχόμενόντινος denotes that which stands connected with an object (whether outwardly or inwardly, locally or temporally), and belongs to it. The words are thus to be taken in a comprehensive sense, and stand parallel to the κατάραςἐγγύς. Hebrews 6:10. For God is not unrighteous, etc.—This verse contains the ground on which the author bases his persuasion. That ground is not properly the judicial and retributive justice of God, nor the anticipation of the reward which God, according to the Romish doctrine de merito condigno, might bestow on such good works as man is enabled to perform by the aid of Divine grace. It is rather that consistency and uniformity in God’s dealings, inseparable from His fidelity (1 John 1:9), which would render it seemingly impossible for Him to withdraw His gracious assistance from those who in their life, walk, and conduct display the truth and power of their faith, and the genuineness and depth of their conversion. Τὸἔργον denotes the moral conduct as a whole (1 Thessalonians 1:3, Galatians 6:4), in distinction from τὰἔργα, which denotes its manifold attestations (comp. Romans 2:6 with Hebrews 2:15). Εἰςτὸὅνομα Chrysostom regards as indicating purpose = for the glorifying of His name, so that it might also be taken = διὰτὸὄνομα, for the sake of the name of God. The majority, however, with Theophyl., take it as the object of τῆςἀγάπης = love toward His name. The Aor. Inf. ἐπιλαθέσθαι expresses neither past time (Seb. Schmidt) nor future (Bisp.); but the mere action of the verb, without reference to the relation of time [thus not to have forgotten, nor to be going to forget, but simply to forget]. (Kόhn., II. § 445, 2). To the saints.—Kφstlin (Tόb. Theol. Jahrb., 1854, Heft. 3, p. 373) maintains, after Credner, that the expression τοῖςἁγίοις indicates that the “Hebrews,” to whom our epistle is directed, must be regarded as a non-Palestinian church which had rendered succor to the Christians of Palestine. But the words τῶνἐνἹερουσαλήμ, which the apostle deemed it necessary to add, Romans 15:26, to τῶνἁγίων, refutes his hypothesis, based on the opinion that the Christians of Palestine, and particularly those of Jerusalem, were regarded as ἅγιοικατ’ ἐξοχήν (saints par excellence), and passages like Romans 16:2, 1 Corinthians 6:1-2, in connection with the salutations in the epistles of Paul, show the groundlessness of the assumption that none other than the original Church could have been designated simply as οἱἄγιοι. Moreover, Del. calls attention to the fact that this manifestation of love may very well have taken place within the limits of the readers’ own country, Hebrews 10:34; Hebrews 13:24; Acts 4:32; Acts 11:29. Hebrews 6:11. The same zeal.—The author does not mean to say that all the members of the Church have a like loving zeal, nor that they must still not fail to evince the same loving zeal which they have hitherto manifested (Chrys., Grot., etc.), but rather that the like zeal which they have manifested in respect to love they must in future evince in regard to the πληροφορία of Christian hope (so the majority since Beng.). The want of a “full assurance of faith” or of an assured conviction of the truth of the specifically Christian hope, is precisely the reason of the doubtful and unstable condition of the readers, who stand in peril of a defection from Christianity. Hebrews 6:12. That ye do not prove sluggish, etc.—Here the author is speaking of growth in Christian hope, in a believing and assured hope; at Hebrews 5:11, on the contrary, he speaks of a like growth in the understanding of Christian truth. There is thus no contradiction in his using here γένησθε, may (not) become, and there γέγονατε, have become; and we need not, with Heinrichs, instead of νωθροί conjecture according to Hebrews 12:8 νόθοι. [I doubt much if the author’s consistency requires precisely such a defence, substantially that of Lόn., viz., that in the former case the author speaks of “sluggishness of Christian hearing, here of Christian practice.” It is scarcely possible that the hearers had fallen so low in spiritual understanding and brought themselves to the verge of apostasy without having become already liable to the charge of sluggishness in Christian practice. But in addressing a Christian body the author is not necessarily confined to a stereotyped style of expression. He may at one time charge them with actual backsliding, and at another, in a strain of tender exhortation, guard them against the danger of it, especially as what was true of some might not be true of all, and even of some only in a degree.—K.]. The inheriting the promises (κληρονομεῖντὰςἐπαγγελίας) is designated as a consequence of faith (πίστις) and long-suffering (μακροθυμία). It can thus not refer to receiving the words of promise (Bl.), but to the obtaining of its substance. The Pres. Part τῶνκληρονομούντων who are inheriting, implies a continuous and abiding act, so that the reference can scarcely be exclusively to the Patriarchs (Bl., De W., Thol., Bisp., etc.). It is not until the following verse that the sentiment, here stated in general terms, is illustrated for the readers by the concrete example of Abraham. AND ETHICALThe personal conviction that the members of the Church have their desires still fixed on things which lie within the sphere of salvation, and have in them their supreme interest, does not release the teacher from the duty of emphatically warning against unfaithfulness and apostasy; from laying open truthfully its causes and consequences, and so depicting the magnitude and imminence of the danger as to penetrate and affect the conscience. But, on the other hand, also, even in the case of those who hold a questionable position in the Church, he is not to forget that God himself has pleasure in remembering that which deserves recognition, and will call it forth and render it productive of blessing. Such means of influence are least of all to be overlooked in the case of those who are in conditions of assault and peril; and the manifestation of personal sympathy along with an affectionate recognition of the attestations and works of Christian feeling and conduct which they have displayed are entirely in place after they have been previously rebuked from the Word of God, and been convinced of their wrong. 2. There is found not unfrequently a zealous and enduring manifestation of love not merely in general toward those who are in need, but in particular toward their oppressed and afflicted companions in faith, shown by those Christians who are partly insecure and weak in their recognition of Christian truth; partly wavering and feeble in the assurance of their Christian hope; partly neglectful and indolent in their striving specifically after a full assurance of faith. We are in this matter to insist that the one be done without the neglect of the other; and we are carefully to avail ourselves of the encouragement which lies in the fact that living service toward the members of the Church of Jesus Christ is regarded by God as a testifying of their love toward His own nature, Matthew 25:31 ff. 3. From the holy nature of God there follows such a system of divine action as to insure that no attestation of love to Him shall remain unrewarded, but rather shall bring a blessing in return in our spiritual advancement. Under this state of the case, we may regard such a blessing also under the point of view of righteousness and of reward, as in fact the Scripture speaks even of a recompensing of the good. But we are not warranted in demanding this recompense on the basis of our claim to a reward for services rendered, nor in basing on it any alleged title to salvation; for every performance on the part of man of that which is acceptable to God, and which He has commanded, is only rendering the service which is due (Luke 17:10). Bernh. Weiss, in his stirring Treatise on Christ’s Doctrine of Reward (Deutsche Zeitsch. fόr christl. Wiss. und christl. Leben, 1853, Nr. 40–42), very significantly styles the relation of reward between God and man “an economical one, a matter of economy or arrangement, instituted by God for the realizing of His plan of salvation.” 4. The moral condition of the world and the state of the Christian Church may greatly contribute to the apparent impossibility of reaching the goal of perfection and of attaining the promised inheritance, or may at least render their attainment so difficult that many Christians become sluggish and grow cold in that zeal and fervor of faith which has approved itself in their previous walk, and which is still evinced in other spheres of action. In this case the example of those who by faith and enduring patience have reached the goal may prove greatly stimulating. 5. But it belongs essentially to the influence of examples that they be not merely held up to view, contemplated, and admired, but that they be imitated; and in this lies the difficulty and consequent rareness of genuine disciples’ life. For faith has to do with the invisible, heavenly, and future, which it is to apprehend and hold fast as the most absolutely certain and reliable of all things; and long-suffering patience, “without falling into despondency and despair, must await with cheerfulness and with equable, abiding courage, the yet lingering salvation.” AND Love must not cease to warn, to serve, and to hope.—We are not the first on the way to perfection; let us look well to it that we do not remain behind among the last.—Where there are still points of character that link us to salvation, God has long since had them in mind, and would fain make use of them.—Love seeks no reward; yet it finds it.—Services rendered to our companions in the faith are a work of faith with which God is well pleased, and a labor of love which God will reward.—The love that labors and sacrifices for the good of our neighbor is also a service rendered to God, but this only in connection with love to the name of God and with the faith of the saints.—How the striving after the anticipated inheritance of the promise is hindered in the world, but in the Church of God is at once demanded and promoted. Starke: We must hope good of every one, and not easily despair of the salvation of any; for God is wont to go forth even “about the eleventh hour.”—Rebuke thy neighbor, if there is great need, at the right time and in the right place, with compassion, without too severe words, and without the spirit of detraction. Perchance thou gainest him.—A believing Christian may be indeed certain of his own felicity, but still not without a holy solicitude for his perseverance and steadfastness in what is good.—God rewards the good works which He demands of us from grace.—It is not merely in heaven that the saints are to be sought and found: they are to prove themselves saints on earth.—Our strengthening and support come indeed from the Lord; but we must industriously employ the means which strengthen and keep us unto eternal life.—Nothing so much favors backsliding as negligence and sloth.—Faith and Christian patience belong together; the former produces the latter, and the latter is a genuine test of faith.—Blessed is he who fails not of the eternal inheritance: he may have much, little, or nothing of temporal things: to have God is to have all. Rieger: Though we may have good hope in regard to the majority, we should still give zealous attention to individuals, Acts 20:31.—One may frequently be more ready to suffer for a good cause, and to perish with it, than to persevere in the hope of a victorious issue. Hence exhortation to equal diligence in hope is very needful; for unless hope were renewed the sparks of love would be entirely extinguished.—To mark the footsteps of those that have preceded us is on the race-course of faith a great advantage.—Faith first apprehends and seizes the promise; patience and long-suffering await it to the end. Heubner: The picture of the wretchedness and ruin of apostates tends strongly to arouse the faithful and to guard them against security and remissness.—The thought of Divine aid should spur on and arouse us also to diligence, zeal, and perseverance.—So far from faith tending to check activity, it rather preserves us against sloth and gives us power for action. Footnotes: Hebrews 6:10.—The words τοῦκόπου before τῆςἀγάπης, noted by Beza, Mill, Bengel, and others, as spurious, have, since Griesbach, been properly cancelled as a gloss from 1 Thessalonians 1:3. V The example of Abraham shows that perseverance in faith leads to the attainment of the promised blessing, which is pledged by the oath of God Hebrews 6:13-1513 For when God made promise to Abraham, because be could swear by no greater, 14he sware by himself, saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee. 15And so, after be had patiently endured [patiently enduring], he obtained the promise. [Hebrews 6:13.—Ἐπαγγειλάμενος Moll renders “after making promise,” thus making the promise precede the oath in time, the promise being given at various times, as Genesis 12:7; Genesis 17:5; Genesis 18:18, while it is not until Genesis 22:16-18 that the oath is given. So, previously, De Wette and Lόnemann. Delitzsch and Alford, however, more correctly, I think, make the ἐπαγγειλ. express an act contemporaneous with the ὤμοσεν, viz., God, when He promised, swore, and refer both to Genesis 22. The Eng. ver. is, I think, correct. Hebrews 6:15.—Καὶοὕτως, and thus, i. e. under these conditions,—μακροθυμήσαςἐπέτυχεν, by patiently enduring he obtained=he patiently endured and obtained; not having patiently endured, he obtained.—K.]. AND Heb_6:13. For to Abraham—“Exemplum Abrahζ adducitur, non quia unicum sit, sed quia prζ aliis illustre.” (Calv.). God in making promise, etc.—Lόnem. rightly follows De Wette in taking ἐπαγγειλάμενος, as in time preceding the ὤμοσεν, and refers it to the promises which had been already given to Abraham, Genesis 12:7; Genesis 17:5; Genesis 18:18, which finally, at Genesis 22:16-18, were not merely repeated and confirmed by an oath, but at the same time had an incipient fulfilment. Del. refers the language only to the last named passage, in which, after the offering of Isaac, promise and oath are united. The Aor. Part, would then express an act contemporaneous with the finite verb. [God promising swore=he promised and swore.] But Abraham had previously nothing upon which he could rely but the promise. This was now, after he had long waited for the promised Son, and had then consented to the sacrifice of Him, been not merely renewed to him, but by the Divine oath attested as thoroughly to be relied on; yet at the same time alike by the oath itself, and by its own intrinsic nature, the promise was marked as one which could have only a gradual realization, and that completely only in the distant future. For this reason Abraham was even to the last remitted to the μακροθυμία, which was conditioned upon his faith, and in this relation stands as an individual and concrete example of the general truth uttered in the preceding verse, and as an instructive and stimulating pattern for his readers; precisely as also at Hebrews 11:13; Hebrews 11:29, they are reminded that the Patriarchs did not live to see the fulfilment of the promise, but only saluted it from afar. Hebrews 6:15. And thus patiently enduring, he obtained the promise.—The οὔτως, thus, is to be constructed with ἐπέτυχεν (Bl., De W., Lόn., Alf.), not with μακροθυμήσας (Stein, Thol., Bisp., Hofm.), nor to the two combined (Del.); but points back to the just previously mentioned pledge of the Divine oath confirming the Divine promise. It thus presents the objective historical condition under which Abraham obtained the promise, while μακροθυμήσας indicates his subjective condition; i.e, he, under the condition of having waited long and patiently since the promise of God was first made (Genesis 15), now (Genesis 22) received the oath which guaranteed the fulfilment of the promise. The added clause thus involves a slight progress in the discourse (even if we make τῆςἑπαγγελίας, refer only to the word of promise), inasmuch as at all events it holds up to the view of the readers, as strongly brought out in the typical history of Abraham, that μακροθυμία which is so essentially involved in the preceding exhortation. If we seek a still further advance, we shall scarcely find it in the verb (as does Otto, who, p. 103, interprets the ἐπέτυχε as an actual taking possession, or as an attainment—no longer dependent on the tried and approved fidelity of the subject—of the irrevocably pledged promise); nor in the fact that ἐπαγγελία is to be interpreted specially of the Messianic salvation (Bleek); but only by explaining the ἐπαγγελία of the subject matter of the promise, whose attainment (ἐπέτυχε) commences with the receiving back of Isaac (Hebrews 11:17; Hebrews 11:19), yet is not to be restricted (as by De W., Lόn.) to that which Abraham even on earth lived to see of the multiplication of his posterity. The promise (which here substitutes the abbreviated and concentrated form πληθυνῶσέ, for the fuller expression of the LXX., πληθυνῶτὸσπέρμασου) embraces in its fulfilment a blessing bestowed on Abraham, extending down through time and onward into eternity. [The precise relations and import of the passage just explained, are matter of some difficulty, and of a good deal of diversity of opinion. Grammatically the difficulty lies in determining whether the Aor. Participles ἐπαγγειλάμενος (Hebrews 6:13) and μακροθυμήσας (Hebrews 6:15) are, either or both of them, to be construed as expressing an action anterior to, or contemporaneous with the principal verb—either of which construction is equally consistent with the use of the Aorist. In the former case we should render: “after giving promise to Abraham, God swore,” etc.; and “and thus, after having waited patiently, he obtained,” etc. In the latter case we should render thus: “upon giving promise or when he gave promise—God swore;” and “suffering long he obtained” = “he waited patiently and obtained,” or, “by waiting patiently he obtained.” In the former case the giving of the promise precedes the swearing of the oath, and the promise (ἐπαγγειλάμ. must be supposed to refer to Genesis 12:7; Genesis 15:4-5, etc.; Genesis 17:5; Genesis 18:18, as preceding the oath given Genesis 22, at the time of the offering of Isaac. In this case also the μακροθυμήσας, having waited patiently, will refer to Abraham’s patient waiting during the time which elapsed between the promise of the birth of his son, and its fulfilment, and also perhaps to his cheerful submission to the command to offer up his son in sacrifice. So the passage is taken substantially by De Wette, Lφnemann, and Moll; and in this case the “obtaining the promise” after his long waiting, took place in part in his receiving his son back from the grave, while in part this only prefigures and commences its fulfilment, which runs on into the indefinite and endless future. In the other construction—which makes the action of the Participles contemporaneous with that of the principal verbs,—the whole action would naturally refer to the one event in which the promise and oath were both given, viz., Genesis 22, and we should render thus: “For in giving, or when He gave promise to Abraham, God, because, etc., sware by Himself, saying, Surely blessing, etc.; and so (under these conditions of promise and blessing) Abraham waited patiently and obtained (=by patiently waiting obtained) the promise.” So substantially Delitzsch. The objection to the former is that it makes an unnatural separation between the giving of the promise and the giving of the oath, (which the author seems to link closely together), and that it seems to attach a special significance to the period of the giving of the oath, which does not really belong to it, for although the promise was then repeated with a special fulness and emphasis, yet it was substantially but a repetition of the earlier promises, while Abraham’s receiving his son from threatened death, which then occurred, took place before the utterance of the oath, and could be conceived to stand in no consecutive relation to it. The objection to the second construction would seem to be, that if the reference is only to the promise and oath of Genesis 22, then all the earlier promises are apparently ignored, and therefore all Abraham’s patient waiting since they were given, could scarcely come into the account. But to this we may reply, I think, that it is not a matter of importance to the writer to distinguish the separate times and forms of the promise which was made to Abraham; but he naturally, in referring to the promise, takes that occasion in which the promise was finally, and with the greatest fulness and emphasis repeated, and ratified by an oath; while the μακροθυμήσας refers to Abraham’s entire, patient waiting for the fulfilment of the Divine promise, and the ἐπέτυχεν, as it seems to me, refers mainly not to that which Abraham experienced in his life-time, but to the reward of his faith and patience, which, commencing in his life-time, continued on into eternity. I would thus regard ἐπαγγειλάμενος as referring specially indeed to the promise of Genesis 22, where it stands connected with the oath, but to this in reality as the representative of God’s whole collective promise to Abraham; and the καὶοὔτωςμακρ. ἐπέτ. and thus waiting patiently he obtained, etc., as virtually covering Abraham’s bearing during the entire period after God had made to him His promises. I prefer, therefore, substantially Delitzsch’s construction. To make, as Alford does, ἐπαγγειλάμενος, refer to the time of the oath (when he promised, he swore) and yet refer μακροθ. ἐπέτυχεν back to Abraham’s having obtained the promise in the birth of a son in consequence of his long and patient waiting, seems specially inconsistent, and totally confuses the passage.—K.]. AND ETHICAL1. The promises of God, in so far as they are declarations of the time and words of the Almighty One, have, in themselves, the pledge and power of their accomplishment. But the Searcher of hearts condescends in His love to the needs of men, has respect to the weakness of those that are assailed, and gives to them for the strengthening of their faith special pledges and guaranties for perfect reliableness in His promises. In accordance, however, with the sacred character of the relations which are hereby to be confirmed and enhanced, these pledges are themselves of a moral and religious nature; they point to eternity, have respect to the holy nature of God, and have value and significance only for him who is already a believer. 2. Inasmuch as an oath is a form of ratifying a declaration, in which the attributes just mentioned appear not perchance as concomitant merely, but as constitutive, and since for this reason an oath forms for men the highest form of solemn assurance, and sacred affirmation, it becomes clear why precisely this sort of pledge is the most appropriate to the condescension of God, and the simplest and surest for the attainment of the proposed end. 3. From the nature and form of the oath as a solemn appeal to the omniscient Holy God for confirmation of the truth and credibility of a definite utterance, it follows that God can swear only by Himself (=so truly as I live), but that all appeal to this example of God in justification of the use of such a form of swearing among men, cannot be admissible. 4. The promises of God enter with determining power into the course of history. They are not mere words, but are germs of blessing and salvation implanted in the souls of believers, with which he who receives and awaits them grows into an increasingly vital union, and attains to the richness of the promise. AND The undeserved goodness of God toward us shows itself, specially: 1. in the promises of immeasurable blessing; 2. in giving assurance of their reliableness; 3. in the experience of their fulfilment.—Only they who wait in faith attain to what God has promised to them in His grace.—The compassion and faithfulness of God must be responded to by us with faith and steadfastness.—The sacredness of the oath through the example of God. Starke:—O happy people, for whose sake God swears an oath! and miserable they who will not trust to His oath.—Material blessing is a benefit, but spiritual blessing is a far greater. If thou hast the latter, cheerfully resign the former; but if God gives thee both, thou art doubly blessed.—To throw forward is not to throw aside; deferral is not reversal; God does every thing at its right time; wait in hope; what He has promised to thee, will be done for thee. Rieger:—God’s entire way from the beginning, has been in the path of waiting. God gave promises; to these faith had to attach itself, and make its way through all difficulties. Footnotes: Hebrews 6:14.—Instead of ἦμήν we should read, with Cod. Sin., A. B. D. E., 17, 23, εἰμήν. This is the customary form with the LXX., springing from the blending of the classical ἦμήν with the Hellenistic εἰμή, which C. and J**, read here, and which imitates the Hebrew ΰִ ?νμֹ ?ΰ. VI Exhortation to Christians to hold fast to the promise which has been in such a manner assured to them Hebrews 6:16-2016 For men verily [indeed, μέν] swear by the greater; and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife [and to them a confirmatory limit to all gainsaying is an oath]. 17Wherein God, willing [wishing] more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of [the] promise the immutability of his counsel [purpose], confirmed it by [interposed with] an oath: 18That by two immutable things, in which it was [is] impossible for God to lie, we might [may] have a strong consolation [incitement], who have fled for refuge 19to lay hold upon the hope set before us: Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which entereth into that [the part] within the vail; 20Whither [literally where, ὅπου] the forerunner is [om. is] for us [on our behalf] entered, even [om. even] Jesus, made [becoming] a high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek. [Hebrews 6:16.—Μέν rendered as often in our Ep. in Eng. ver., verily; but always improperly. It is never a particle of emphasis but of concession, or simply where the two members are equally balanced, of contrast; to be sure, it is true, indeed.—πάσηςαὐτοῖςἀντιλογίας, of all gainsaying to them=of all their gainsaying; here not, strife as between equals or rivals, but contradiction, gainsaying, as of one who questions the assertion, or doubts the promise of another.—Εἰςβεβαίωσιν belongs apparently to πέρας, not to ὃρκος=a limit for confirmation, a limit or end designed for and producing confirmation.—Ὁὃρκος, the oath—the article generic, that thing called oath. Hebrews 6:17.—Ἐνᾧ, In which matter=in which state of the case, viz., the confirmatory power of the oath; ᾦ neuter (with Bl., De W., Thol., Ebr., Lόn., Del., etc.), not masc, agreeing with ὃρκῳ ?—βουλόμενος, wishing, θέλων might be more properly rendered willing.—ἐπιδεῖξαι more than simply show (δηλόω, φανερόω) or even point out (δεῖξαι); rather exhibit, make an exhibition of. display; ἐπίδειξις, Greek rhetorical term for display, exhibition. The term thus carries with it an idea of more formality than is implied in the simple show.—ἐμεσίτευσεν, hardly confirmed; rather, came between, to wit, Himself and His promise, interposed. Hebrews 6:18.—παράκλησιν, not here consolation (which the context disfavors), but encouragement, incitement, exhortation (so Del., Moll, Ermunterung, Alf., etc.).—κρατῆσαι, to seize upon, to lay hold of, (Eng. ver., De W., Thol., Del., Alf., etc.), or with Moll, hold fast. If we render hold fast, it would seem more natural to connect it with παράκλ. ἔχωμεν (though Moll constructs it with καταφυγόντες). If lay hold of it is more naturally, with most, constructed with καταφυγ. fled for refuge to lay hold. In favor of lay hold is, as mentioned by Alf., the Aor. tense; to hold on to would seem to require the Pres. κρατῖν. On the other hand the construction παράκλ. ἔχωμενκρατ., may have strong incitement to hold on to, would make a sentiment eminently in harmony with the context. But as καταφυγ. is rather harshly left absolute, and κρατῆσαι, Aor. can hardly be rendered hold fast, I think the rendering of the Eng. ver. preferable to any other, agreeing with Moll in the construction, but not in rendering κρατῆσαι. Hebrews 6:19.—Είσερχομένην, ἀσφαλῆντεκαὶβεβαίαν. I am strongly inclined to regard all these words as agreeing with ἣν, scil., ἐλπίδα, and not with ἄγκυραν. The construction is perfectly easy and natural, and avoids the figure of the anchor entering, etc., which though we may, when it is once admitted, defend and even find beautiful, yet must be conceded to be at first view harsh and unnatural.—Εἰςτὸἐσώτερον, into the part within=within. Hebrews 6:20.—ὅπου, where, with εἰσῆλθεν, used pregnantly for ὃποι, whither=whither He entered and where He remained.—πρόδρονος, forerunner, placed emphatically at the beginning of the clause, Ἰησοῦς, emphatically at its close—ὑπὲρἡμῶν, on behalf of us.—εἰσῆλθεν, entered, historical, not (as Eng. ver.), is entered.—γενόμενος, becoming, when He entered, not being made.—K.]. AND Heb_6:16. For men, indeed, etc.—Statement of the reason why God has employed the swearing of an oath, and that in the form here described. Ἀντιλογία never has the signification of dubitatio, doubt, (Grot., Cram.) though it may have that of judicial controversy (Theophyl., Erasm., Schlicht., etc.). Here, however, the meaning of gainsaying is to be preferred with Bleek, inasmuch as the subject is the credibility of the promises of God. Hebrews 6:17. In which matter, etc.—Ενῷ refers not to the oath (Vulg., Primas.), nor to the transaction between Abraham and God (Bez., etc.), but introduces the deduction drawn from Hebrews 6:16, and is=in accordance with which relation or circumstance, viz., that the oath is the highest means of confirmation, or, on account of which. Hebrews 6:18 shows that the “heirs of the promise” cannot be merely the pious of the Old Testament (Calv., Thol., etc.), while neither are we authorized (with Lόn.) to restrict the language entirely to Christians. This latter restriction would annihilate the historical basis of the entire passage; while, in fact, the historical illustration forms the starting-point for a more expanded statement. Beza and others erroneously take περισσότερον as = “over and above,” ex abundanti. For the point of the statement is not to affirm that God’s truthful word needs in itself no confirmation by an oath, but that God, in a condescending regard to the relations and usages of men, has given His promise in a more emphatic manner than by the mere assurance. Hebrews 6:18. A strong incitement, etc.—The nature of the connection forbids our taking παράκλησις (with Luth. and most others, after the Vulg.) as = consolation. Κρατῆσαι, as Inf. Aor. marks purpose, and is not = lay hold of, seize upon (De W., Thol., etc.), but hold fast. The readers have hope; what they lack is πληροφορία. But this Infin. is not dependent on παράκλησινἔχωμεν, under which construction οἱκαταφυγόντες, they that have fled for refuge, denotes the fugitives or secured ones, and is taken absolutely (�c., Theoph., Grot., Bl., Lόn.) as an independent idea, whether εἰςθεόν, be understood or not. The: προκειμένηἐλπίς, is in that case the hope, lying, as it were, in readiness in the soul. If, on the contrary (with Primas., Erasm., Bez., Grot., De W., Ebr., Del., etc.), we make κρατῆσαι dependent on καταφυγ., then καταφυγεῖν receives the undoubtedly legitimate meaning of profugere, and the προκειμ. ἐλπίς, is the hope, objectively regarded, which belongs to and lies before Christians. If author and readers have already, as Christians, taken their refuge in the holding fast to this hope, they must receive a strong encouragement to this holding on from the sworn promises of God. In harmony also with the objective meaning of ἐλπίς, is the following clause, in which the author by uniting the two images of sea and temple, glides gracefully back to his main theme. The anchor, elsewhere unmentioned in Scripture, appears often in the classics and on ancient coins, as a symbol of hope. The several predicates—particularly the last one, “entering, etc.,”—intimate that the anchor is found not merely in the soul, but at the same time in heaven, and this too, not, as is commonly maintained, by the fact of the soul’s having thrown in thither its anchor of hope, but by the fact that Christ, as our high-priest, has preceded us thither; and the soul, although it as yet sees Him not, withdrawn as He is into the inner sanctuary, and His life hidden in God, yet in faith stands connected with Him, and by this connection attains, on the one hand, like the ship riding at anchor, to rest in this restless world, and on the other, to the possibility and the assurance of being itself drawn thither, where, holding it securely, its anchor already lies. For assuming a blending of the subjective and objective signification of ἐλπίς, there is no adequate reason; nor is προκειμ. ἐλπίς=ἐλπ. τῶνπροκειμένων (Bl., De W., Thol.). Only we must guard against taking the objective ἐλπίς, in the sense of the res sperata (the thing hoped for); but take it in the same way in which we speak specifically of Christian faith.—Ὅπου, where, instead of ὀποι, whither, implies the remaining at the attained goal, and ὑπὲρἡμῶν, is not to be connected with πρόδρομος (as Heinr., Bφhm., Thol., Ebr.), but with εἰσῆλθεν. AND ETHICAL1. The strongest assurance of our salvation as purposed by God, and the most powerful incitement to a believing maintenance of our Christian hope, lies partly in the reliableness which belongs to those sure promises which God for our establishment has confirmed by an oath; partly in the fact, that Jesus, as forerunner, has already entered into heaven on our behalf, and there mediates forever for our salvation, embodying in Himself not only the Aaronic but the Melchisedek high-priesthood, and carrying the type of that priesthood to perfection. 2. That which holds of the word of promise made to Abraham and confirmed by the oath of God, holds also of that word of promise in regard to the everlasting high-priesthood of Christ (Psalms 110:4) which in like manner was accompanied by an oath, and which to us as Christians is specially important. 3. The admissibleness of the oath of promise, as well as that of asseveration, within the Christian world, is by this passage of Scripture assured beyond doubt, which in fact derives the strength of the exhortation from the two-fold assurance of the promise by God’s word and oath, and regards the latter as the authorized form of mediatorial interposition, which by appealing to God puts an end to gainsaying with regard to the matter in question, and is followed by a consequent βεβαίωσις. “And the case stands thus; that our intention is accredited by the oath, but the oath itself is accredited by God; since so far from God’s being worthy of credit on account of His oath, the oath rather derives its credit from God.” (Philo). The idea that God may make Himself surety for man appears also in Job 17:3; Isaiah 38:14. 4. The substance of Christian hope is the inheritance of the promise; its goal is union with the exalted Christ; its foundation the word of God; its root is living faith. It forms thus, not merely an indispensable, but powerfully efficacious means for the maintenance of our connection with the unseen world, and for the attainment of the heavenly blessings which are promised to us. 5. “As the Aaronic high-priest, after he had, in the outer court, slain the heifer as a sin-offering for himself and his house, and then slain the goat as a sin-offering for the congregation, entered with the blood of the slaughtered victim into the typical holiest of all, so Jesus, after offering up Himself in sacrifice upon earth, and shedding on earth His own blood, has entered into the Heavenly holiest of all, in order thereby to accomplish, once for all, an expiation on our behalf, and there perpetually to represent us; but at the same time (Hebrews 10:19-21), in order to break the path, and to open the way, for us, who are eternally to be where He is. That He thus, in His entrance on our behalf, is at the same time our precursor, this it is which distinguishes Him from the legal high-priests of a community that was absolutely excluded from the inner sanctuary. And not only this: He is not merely high-priest, but also king; and He is a high-priest not merely for a season, but forever.” (Del.). 6. “What a firm anchoring-ground for hope is God’s eternal heaven, by which our Jesus is encompassed. Since after having suffered for us, He has also, on our behalf, been so highly exalted. We see Him not, since the place of God to which He has gone is hidden from our carnal eyes, and in so far, there is still a veil between us and Him. But the anchor of our hope, unrestrained by this limitation, reaches into those silent deeps of the spirit world into which He has withdrawn from our senses, and amidst the wild waves of life keeps our souls firm and tranquil.” (Del.). AND The unchangeableness of the purpose of God: a. to what that purpose refers itself; b. by what its unchangeableness is assured; c. to what this assurance should incite us.—Nature, object and justification of the Christian oath.—The maintenance of our Christian hope: 1. as it is rendered difficult; a. by unsteadiness of faith; b. by the condition of the world; c. by the veil before the future; 2. as it is made easy; a. by the word of promise; b. by the oath of God; c. by the entrance of Jesus into heaven.—The advantage of Jesus’ entrance into the heavenly sanctuary; a. to Him; b. to us. Starke:—Believers can, with steadfast faith, be certain of eternal life.—The purposes of God are in part without condition, and are thus surely executed; but those which belong to the economy of salvation are under a certain condition established and bound to this economy.—The first attribute of faith, is, in the feeling of our deficiency in every good, and of our extreme need, to look around after Jesus, in order to seek from Him help and counsel. Its next attribute, is to lay hold of the blessedness that has been obtained through Christ, and to hold fast with manly strength and power to the blessedness once obtained, and on account of no threat or danger, come they as they may, timidly, to cast it away.—God deals with us as with a father’s spirit, since while He knows our weakness, to wit, that as with the aged Moses, both our arms speedily sink down, and become faint and weary, so He sustains with these two strong pillars, His unchangeable truth, and His priceless oath.—Word, faith and hope must stand together; the word lays the foundation; Faith builds thereon; and Hope expectantly stretches herself forth from time into eternity. Rieger:—By keeping in view the oath of God in regard to His gracious promise, we are incited to follow on in faith and patience.—The Christian hope is a sure anchor, with which we cannot receive harm, and a firm one, as consisting entirely of God’s counsel at once firm and confirmed by an oath. Heubner:—The hope of the Christian has a limitless reach. It reaches outwardly into eternity, inwardly into the sanctuary of God.—The surety of our hope is Christ. His entrance into the sanctuary is the pledge of our own future entrance into it. Ahlfeld:—The ascension of Christ is the final pledge of our entrance into glory. 1. There is a hidden kingdom of glory. 2. Into this our hope casts its anchor. 3. Christ’s entrance therein renders this hope a certainty. Footnotes: Hebrews 6:16.—Μέν is wanting; in Sin. A. B. D*. 47, 53, [and is expunged by Lach., Bl., Lόn.; but retained by Tisch., Del., Alf., but of course before they had the testimony of Sin. It seems on the whole not unnatural, and yet as the following clause is not added with a contrasted θεὸςδέ, but rather as if filling out the thought, (ἐνᾦ), I should prefer to follow the authorities that omit it.—K.]. SECOND SECTIONThe eternal and perfect high-priesthood of Jesus Christ ______ I The person of Melchisedek has, as a type of Christ, a triple superiority to the Levitical priests Hebrews 7:1-101 For this Melchisedek, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; 2To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all;2 first being [being in the first place] by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that [in the second place] also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; 3Without father, without mother, without descent [without recorded lineage], having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like [having been assimilated] unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually [perpetually, 4in perpetuum]. Now [And] consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth part of the spoils [choicest spoils, ἀχροθινίων]. 5And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who [they, indeed, who, as being of the sons of Levi], receive the office of priest, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, [even] though they come out of the loins of Abraham; 6But he whose descent is not counted from them, received 7tithes of [hath tithed] Abraham, and [hath] blessed him that had [possessed] the promises. 8And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better [superior, κρείττονος]. And here [indeed] men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. 9And as I may so say [so to speak], Levi also, who receiveth tithes, paid tithes [hath been tithed] in Abraham. 10For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedek met him. [Hebrews 7:2.—ἐμέρισεν, apportioned, imparted.—πρῶτονμέν, in the first place.—ἔπειταδέ, and then, and in the next place. In the classics ἔπειτα without δέ, commonly answers to πρῶτονμέν. Hebrews 7:3—ἀγενεαλόγητος, ungenealogized, without recorded lineage; not as Eng. ver., without descent.—ἀφωμοιωμένος, having been assimilated, or rendered similar.—μένει, remaineth, abideth, emphatic.—εἰςτὸδιηνεκές, perpetually. Hebrews 7:4—θεωρεῖτεδε, and contemplate behold; not, “now consider.” “Now” impairs the natural flow of the sentence. Alford’s “But observe” is objectionable.—The patriarch Abraham: in the original ὁπατριάρχης, is separated from Ἀβραάμ, and thrown emphatically over to the end of the sentence.—ἐκτῶνἀκροθινίων, from the top of the heap, hence, the selectest, or choicest spoils. Hebrews 7:5.—καὶοἱμέν, and they indeed, or while they. Eng. ver., and verily, which Alf. says “is rather too strong.” It is not merely “too strong;” ‘verily,’ as a rendering of μέν is totally inappropriate.—οἱἐκτῶνυἰῶν—λαμβ. they indeed, or while they, who, of the sons of Levi (or possibly, with Del., as being of the sons of Levi) receive the priesthood; or perhaps as suggested by Alf., “they of the sons of Levi when they receive (when receiving) the priesthood.—ἀποδεκατοῦν (Sin B. D.1 ἀποδεκατοῖν, received by Alf.), to tithe.—κατὰτὸννόμον, belongs to ἐντολὴνἔχουσιν—καίπερἐξεληλυθότας, although having come out. Hebrews 7:6—δεδεκάτωκεν, hath tithed—εὐλόγηκεν, hath blessed—construction chiastic, the verb preceding in one clause, and following in the next. Hebrews 7:7.—ὑπὸτοῦκρείττο·νος, by the greater, superior, not, of the better. Hebrews 7:8.—Καὶὦδεμέν, and here indeed, or, while here, i. e., in the case of the Levitical priests. Hebrews 7:9.—ὡςἔποςεἰπεῖν, so to speak, very well rendered as to the sense, by the Eng. ver., as I may so say. Some take the phrase as=in a word, of which and the “so to speak,” Alf. says that they, “in fact both run into one,” which is incorrect. “So to speak,” always implies a certain conscious license on the part of the speaker, which in a word does not necessarily nor ordinarily imply at all. The former, so to speak, is, as in the immense majority of cases, the meaning.—δεδεκάτωται, hath been tithed=stands before our eyes or recorded as tithed: Eng. ver., was tithed, exchanges the perfect for Aor., and loses in accuracy and picturesqueness.—K.]. AND Heb_7:1. For this Melchisedec, etc.—To establish the justice with which—not merely to explain the sense in which—the author at Hebrews 6:20 has referred to Psalms 110:1, he shows primarily that Melchisedek was a higher priest than the Levitical, because in the narrative Genesis 14:18-20, he has been put forward as type of the everlasting Priest, and because in Abraham he received tithes from Levi. The Hebrews 7:1-3 form a period with the verb μένει, abideth; so that we need not, and should not, with Erasm., Luth., Calv., etc., supply ἦν with the opening verse. The author first brings together the historical traits which the Scripture narrative assigns to Melchisedek, then from πρῶτονμέν he gives his interpretation of them in which he but follows in the steps of the Psalmist. Melchisedek is not in reality, like to the Son of God, but in the Scripture representation he has according to the purpose of the Holy Spirit, that he might be a type of the Messiah, been made like or assimilated to him. Αφομοιοῦν has this signification in Plato (Rep. VII. 517, B; VIII. 564, B). Nor do ἀπάτωρἀμήτωρ involve any supernatural mode of coming into the world, but imply that his progenitors are either of humble origin, or are unknown, or are mentioned in no historical narrative, or came not into account in any legal relations (Examples in Bl.). Ἀγενεαλόγητος, also, means not (like ἀγένητος) without lineage, but Without recorded lineage, without a registered descent. Hence the following words indicate neither that he came from heaven, nor that he was snatched away into it, (Braun, Akersloot, Nagel in Stud. u. Krit., 1849, II. 332 ff.; Nickel in Reuter’s Repert., 1858, p. 102 ff., Alf., etc.). An everlasting existence is not ascribed to Melch. But neither is the language to be restricted to the beginning and termination of his priesthood (Camero, Seb. Schmidt, Limb., Kuin., Hofm.), inasmuch as personally he has been made the type of the Son of God. [Alford (after Bleek) is still inclined to find in the author’s language some marvellous and inexplicable mystery investing the person of Melchisedek, though he confesses himself totally unable to conjecture what it may be. The emphatic phrase “having neither beginning of days nor end of life,” he conceives can scarcely be conceived as applying to a mere man. The language is certainly very striking, yet I cannot conceive it more striking than the purposes which call it forth, and these seem to me abundantly sufficient to account for its striking and apparently mysterious character. The author’s purpose is to show the points in Melchisedek’s recorded life and position, which fitted him in his priesthood to be a type of the priestly Son of God. For this purpose he turns to the record of the Old Testament, and draws his reasonings alike from what is and what is not there stated; alike from the recorded facts of Melchisedek’s transient and remarkable appearance, and the silence of the sacred narrative concerning all preceding or subsequent facts appertaining to his history. Both the record and the silence are equally remarkable. In the one Melchisedek appears as a king in relations which associate him at once with Righteousness and with Peace, as priest of the Most High God in the midst of idolatrous communities, and as blessing and receiving tithes from Abraham, the spiritual heir of the world. In the other, a personage so great and so remarkable, is, contrary to all the usage of the sacred history, which is generally very studious and exact in giving the lineage of its important personages, and usually notices alike their birth and their death, passed over without a solitary intimation as to his lineage or family relations, as to his birth or his death. The reason of this silence on the part of the Spirit that dictated the narrative, cannot be doubtful. It is intended to exhibit Melchisedek under personal relations, which should fit him also to be the priestly type of the High-Priest of the New Covenant. The facts seem abundantly sufficient to account for the Old Testament silence, and for the New Testament representation. Our author looks back to the Old Testament to see what there was in the record of Melchisedek to explain the language of the Psalm regarding his peculiar Priesthood. These facts present themselves prominently to him, and he exhibits them in such a manner as to bring out most strongly and forcibly the typical character of Melchisedek. We must remember that the sacred historian is generally studious to give the lineage of all the sacred persons with whom he has to do, and almost invariably signalizes the fact of their death. Here we have a singular and marked exception. Melchisedek, evidently, by the relations in which he appears in Genesis, one of the most extraordinary men of sacred history, is yet passed over without one gleam of light shed on the darkness either of his past or his future. He thus stands on the sacred page—amidst a narrative which, in its faithful record of births and deaths, seems intended to illustrate the truth that “Death reigned from Adam to Moses,”—as one who liveth. Without wishing, therefore, to derogate in the least from the depth of our author’s meaning, or from the dignity and mystery that invest the person of Melchisedek; without wishing to reduce him to the prosaic level of ordinary humanity, I yet can see no reason for finding in him any thing superhuman, or for departing from the prevailing view of the best modern expositors, which seems to me to have judiciously and wisely discarded all the old mysteries regarding Melchisedek. The truth is, our author’s language itself receives far greater depth and significance by our making its statements regarding Melchisedek derive their peculiar character and dignity from the supernatural personage whom he represented, than from any supposed supernatural attributes of Melchisedek himself. And we must remember, too, that for all the purposes which Melchisedek was to subserve as a type, the appearance, the mere representation of these qualities in him, answers precisely the same purpose as the realities. Here the principle truly applies, “De non existentibus, et non apparentibus, eadem est ratio.”—K.]. By Salem we are probably to understand Jerusalem (which bears this shortened name also at Psalms 76:3; comp. Knobel Genesis , 2 Aufl., p. 149 ff.) although according to Judges 19:10, the older name of Jerusalem was Jebus, and we find in Jerome (Ep. 126 ad Euagrium) that later tradition makes the Salim (or Salumias) of John 3:23, lying eight Roman miles south of Sycthopolis, the residence of Melchisedek, Bleek, Tuch., Ewald, Alf., decide after Primas., Rel., Rosenm., etc., in favor of this latter place, which is also probably mentioned Jdt 4:4. The author says designedly not εἰςτὸναἰῶνα, but εἰςτὸδιηνεκές=perpetually, because the priesthood which he has in sacred history, from the beginning to the end, without interruption and without transmission to another, is his own (Hofm. Schriftb. I. 402; 2 Ed. II. 1, 550, Del., Stier, etc., after Theodor. Mops.); not because his priesthood is perpetuated in Christ, the type remaining in the antitype (Thol. after Primas., Haymo, Thom. Aquin.), nor because the name of Priest, according to Rev., is applied to all the blessed (Auberl. Stud. u. Krit., 1857, III. 497). Hebrews 7:4. And consider how great, etc.—The metabatic δέ introduces the consideration of the other side of the matter. It is more in harmony with the impassioned and elevated style of the passage, to take θεωρεῖτε as Imper. than as Indic. Πηλίκος refers ordinarily, according to the connection, to age, to size, or to moral greatness; but here to exaltedness and dignity of position. The καί is to be referred, not to Abraham (Luth., Grot., etc.), but to δεκάτην, as indicated by the order of the words. Ἀκροθίνια literally, the top of the heap, denotes commonly the first fruits of the harvest offered to the Deity; sometimes, as here, the choicest spoils of war selected out as a sacred offering. Of such select portions consisted the tithe of the entire booty, that was now presented by Abraham: the entire spoils cannot be denoted by ἀκροθίνια, as supposed by Chrys., Erasm., Luth., Calv., etc. The name of honor ὁπατριάρχης, which denotes the ancestral father and head of the Israelitish nation, is applied Acts 2:29, to David, and Acts 7:8-9, to the twelve sons of Jacob. Hebrews 7:5. And they indeed who, from the sons of Levi, etc.—In the words ἐκτῶνυἱῶνΛευΐ, Bl., De W., Lόn., etc., take ἐκ partitively; but it is better, with Hofm., Del., etc., taken causatively. For the contrast is not drawn between those who as descendants of Aaron were priests, and those who were mere Levites, but between the Levitical priests and Mel., who has tithed Abraham, although (μὴγενεαλογ. ἐξαὐτῶν) not deriving his lineage from them. [The reason is, however, hardly conclusive. For although the writer does not intend a contrast between the priests and the other sons of Levi, yet the natural method of designating the Levitical priest is precisely that which is here employed, viz., those of the sons of Levi who received the priesthood.—K.]. Ἐξαὐτῶν is by some erroneously referred to the Israelites, and by Grot, to Levi and Abraham together. A second contrast is this, that the Israelites received the tithes on the ground of a legal ordinance, while Melchisedek received it as a spontaneous offering. Add to this, that the Levites had to do with their countrymen over whom, although brethren, they were placed, and to whom they were at the same time restricted, while the relation of Melchisedec to Abraham was entirely different. The last point is the relation of him who blesses to the man who as Patriarch is the historical bearer of those promises of God which include the blessings. Ἱερατεία denotes the priestly service, and the priestly prerogative. In all other passages of our Epistle stands ἱερωσύνη=priesthood, i.e, priestly office and dignity (comp. Sir 45:7 with Sir 45:24). But even in the LXX. the meanings of the two words run into each other. Since, now, at Numbers 18:1, the term ἱερατεία is used to designate the Aaronic service, and Jehovah calls the Levites in relation to Aaron τοὺςἀδελφούςσου, Biesenthal makes (see Del., p. 278 Anm.) the sagacious conjecture that our author refers to Numbers 18:25-32, where the Levites are required to give the tenth of the tenth to the priests, and that, instead of ἀποδεκατοῦντὸνλαόν, we are to read at Hebrews 7:5, Λευΐν. This would remove the difficulty occasioned by the fact that our author ascribes to the priests what, according to Leviticus 27:30, belonged to the Levites, viz., to receive all the tithes in Israel from Jehovah, to whom all the tithes of the land belong. For we cannot along with Bl. (followed by Bisp., while most recent intpp. do not touch the difficulty in question, and Ebr. seeks to evade it by a rendering inconsistent with the order of the words) assume that in the period after the exile the priests perhaps took the whole tithes for their own subsistence, and the maintenance of the temple service, and that the remaining members of the tribe of Levi surrendered to those who were actually engaged in the temple service what was demanded for their support. The passages Nehemiah 10:38 ff; Nehemiah 12:44; Nehemiah 13:10; Tob 1:6-8, state precisely the reverse. The simplest solution is the assumption of the older comm. (Drus., Seb. Schmidt, etc.), that ἀποδεκατοῦν, is to be understood of the indirect tithing of the people by the priests, in that they received their tenth from the tenth of the Levites. [The fact that there should ever have been any trouble about the solution of this point, shows how easily difficulties are found in the Scriptures, by an unnecessary rigidness of verbal interpretation. In a detailed account of the Mosaic Institutions, we should of course expect a statement of the precise relations of the priests to the Levites, and of the Levites to the people. But in a brief reference to them made merely for the sake of illustrating a principle, it is sufficient to state the general fact that the Levitical priests tithed the people, i.e, had their subsistence by the tithing of the people, without any intimation of the mode in which it was done, whether by tithing directly or through another body.—K.]. The conjecture of Ribera that under the term λαός, the author jointly includes the Levites, and that of Thom. Aquin. that the author starts from the supposition that the Priestly class furnish the ground and purpose of all the tithing, inasmuch as they alone receive tithes without rendering them, are both to be rejected. The Infin. form ἀποδεκατοῖν adopted by Tisch. after B. D*. (which MSS. also read at Matthew 13:32, κατασκηνοῖν), appears to be of Alexandrian origin; comp. ξηλοῖν as a var. lec. in Dressel Patr. Apost. p. 322, n. 4, and στεφανοῖν, after an Inscription given by Krόger (I. 1, § 32, Anm. 7). Seb. Schmidt, Bφhme, etc., connect the κατὰτὸννόμον with τὸνλαόν, Bleek, Bisp., Lόn., with ἐντολὴνἔχουσιν, the majority with ἀποδεκατοῦν. Hebrews 7:8. Of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.—Inasmuch as the Melchisedek of history is certainly dead, while yet the author is speaking not of an office but of a person, Cappell., Heins., Storr, in entire violation of the context, take the subject to be Christ. Equally unnecessary too is it with Theod., Bl., etc., to appeal to Psalms 110., which speaks of the Antitype of Melchisedek. We need only refer for the explanation of the language to Genesis 14. (�c., Calv., Este, etc.), as we have here but a variation in the statement of Heb 7:3, that Melchisedek is “without end of life.” The person of Melchisedek is indeed treated as historical, but only in so far as he is a type of the Christian Messiah. [Alford heads his comm. on Hebrews 7:8 thus: “Second item of superiority in that Melchisedek’s is an enduring, the Levitical a transitory priesthood.” This language is not quite accurate. The author is not comparing the priesthood of Melchisedek with the Levitical priesthood, but illustrating the personal greatness of Melchisedek, which he does by showing his superiority to Abraham, and then again his superiority to the Levitical priests, in that while they receive tithes as dying men, he receives them as one of whom it is testified that he liveth. His priesthood is not primarily in question.—K.]. Hebrews 7:9. And so to speak, etc.—In itself ὡςἔποςεἰπεῖν may mean, “to say in a word (briefly),” and “so to speak” (Theophyl.). The former signification which is here adopted by Camerar., Beng., etc., is much less appropriate than the second, which with the Vulg. and Luth. is maintained by most intpp. [I doubt the classical use of the phrase in the first signification. At all events it is incomparably more common with Greek writers in the second, which is here in like manner most decidedly in accordance with the context.—K.]. The phrase implies that the author is not speaking with strict accuracy, but only with virtual or approximative truth. Δι’ Ἀβραάμ is not on account of Abraham (August., Phot.), but, through Abraham; the Gen. not the Acc. AND ETHICAL1. In the biographies of persons who in the Holy Scripture itself have received a typical significance, we are to regard not merely what is recorded of them, but also what, in regard to them, is designedly past in silence. So of the silence of the Holy Scripture regarding the origin and end of Melchisedek, who, with bread and wine in his hands, went forth from his royal city to meet and bless Abraham in the vale of Shittim, or the king’s dale, which 2 Samuel 18:18 is mentioned as the place in which Absalom erected a monument, and is sought for in the neighborhood of Jerusalem (Jos. Antt. 1, 10, 2). The conjectures of Jewish and Christian interpreters in Deyling (Observv. Sacr. II. 71 seq.) which identify Mel. with Shem, Ham, or Enoch, are as much opposed to the history, as the conjecture of Nork (Bibl. Mythol. I. 154) who here finds the Ph�nician god Sydik, i.e, φַ ?γִּ ?ιχ=Kronos, Saturn. He is simply an otherwise unknown king, whose meeting with Abraham, however, is, in the history of redemption, at once of the greatest historical and typical importance. 2. In the narrative itself lies the basis of the author’s typical interpretation. For Melchisedek is designated Genesis 14:19; Genesis 14:22 priest (λּ ?ηֵ ?ο) of the Most High God (ΰֵ ?μςֶ ?μְ ?ιεֹ ?ο). He thus not merely performed priestly acts, as did also Abraham as princely chief, and as did every father of a family. The language points to a priesthood distinct from his royal authority, and from the patriarchal character, which was united with royalty only in the person of Melchisedek. When, therefore Abraham bows before this priestly king, receives his blessing, and renders to him tithes, he recognizes not merely their relationship in modes of faith, in their common worship—a worship untainted by idolatry—of the God who created the world (while, at the same time, Abraham on his own part emphasizes, Hebrews 7:22, the specific reference of his faith to Jehovah, as the God who reveals himself in the work of human redemption), but he places himself personally in a subordinate relation in respect of office to this priestly king—a relation thus naturally and necessarily suggesting a typical explanation, and a Messianic reference. Historically, the phenomenon of his appearance is explicable in the fact that, according to Scripture itself, the worship of Jehovah, which characterized the descendants of Abraham (Genesis 28:13; Exodus 3:6) did not actually owe its origin to Abraham. Abraham is not the first professor of this faith, but only its main representative and transmitter among the children of Noah, as Seth among those of Adam. Just as at a later period, in contrast with the false particularism of the Jews, Jehovah is designated as the God who is ξֵ ?ςεֹ ?μָ ?ν, Psalms 90:2; Psalms 93:2; Psalms 103:17, or ξִ ?χֶּ ?ψֶ ?ν, Habakkuk 1:12, so the Jehovah worshipped by Abraham appears in Gen. as the Creator of the world already worshipped by primitive men on the ground of the revelation of Himself. And the agency of Abraham in maintaining the knowledge and worship of this God, is expressed in the same words as that of Seth, Genesis 4:26. In the statement, however, that men then “began to call on the name of Jehovah,” the historian cannot intend to be understood that then absolutely the name of Jehovah was first made known; for but a little before the same name had been put in the mouth of Eve. He employs the term of the religious worship of Jehovah, which also at Psalms 79:6; Psalms 116:17; Isaiah 12:4, this expression very decidedly designates. 3. The existence of a priestly king, entitled to utter a blessing and to receive tithes, and in this character acknowledged by Abraham—a personage who is indebted for his position to no lineal descent, or legal ordination, but who exercises a ministry purely personal, so that alike his origin and his end are veiled from our view, furnishes the natural ground and justification of the thought that a non-Levitical priesthood, outside indeed of the Mosaic legal enactments, yet still according to the will of God, holds an authorized relation to the descendants of Abraham; nay, that the Messiah predicted (Psalms 110) within the very sphere and by the very prophets of Judaism, as a priest after the order of Melchisedek, possesses alike in his royal priesthood and his personal character, an infinite elevation above the Levitical priests, and the Aaronic high-priests, and that to recognize this is a sacred duty of the Hebrews. 4. The typical elements which attach themselves to the Scripture account of Melchisedek are found not merely in the acts which the Scripture narrative ascribes to him, but also in the significance of his name. This designates him as a type of the Prince of Peace, Isaiah 9:5, and Branch of righteousness, Jeremiah 23:5; Jeremiah 33:15, who as a Ruler standing near to Jehovah, Jeremiah 30:21, coming forth from the midst of Israel, spreads righteousness and peace in the land, Psalms 72.; Micah 2:13; Jeremiah 23:5 ff.: establishes them according to the Divine will, Ezekiel 34:24; Ezekiel 37:25 : in that He creates peace among the nations, Zechariah 9:10, and is himself Peace, (Micah 5:5). This typical character is entirely overlooked by those who ascribe to our author the idea that Melchisedek came miraculously into life and miraculously departed from it, (Nagel, Zur Characteristik der Auffassung des A. T. im N. T., 1850); or that he is the incarnation of an angel (Orig., Didym.), or of the Holy Spirit; (The author of the Quζst. in vet. et Nov. Test. in Hilarius and the Ζgyptian Hierakas, Epiph. hζr., 67); or of a Divine power transcending even Christ in majesty (the Melchisedekites, a section of the Theodotians), or of the Son of God Himself (Molinζus, Cunζus, Hottinger, D’Outrein, Starke and others, after some orthodox Fathers in Epiphanius hζr., 55). 5. “The Melchisedek of human history has indeed died; but the Melchisedek of sacred history lives without dying, fixed for ever as one who lives by the pen of the sacred historian, and thus stamped as type of the Son, the ever-living Priest.” (Del.).—“Likened, he says, to the Son of God.” And wherein does this likeness display itself? In the fact that we know neither the end nor the beginning either of the one or the other; but of the one, because the beginning and the end are not recorded; of the other, because they have no existence.” (Chrys.).—“As man, Christ was without Father, and as God, without mother; as high-priest He was without genealogy, and as Eternal Son of God without beginning and without end of days.” (Bisp.)—“Christ, in the Divine counsels, is before all figures and types: He is the original; all others are copies. They are modeled after Him, not He after them; so also Melchisedek after Jesus Christ, not Jesus Christ after Melchisedek.”—(Heubner). AND The appearance and work of Jesus Christ have been pointed out to us in the Old Testament not only by words of prophecy, but also by types and figures alike in persons and acts.—We understand the history of the world, only as we conceive it from the point of view of sacred history, and interpret it under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.—To what should we be moved by the thought that our actions have a far-reaching and profound influence on the fortunes of our posterity?—It is those who have been already blessed who are always receiving new blessing.—Pious men render mutual service to each other for the honor of God. Starke:—To heroes and warlike men, who venture their life to protect their country and people, belong respect, refreshment and intercessory prayer.—Happy are the kings who are kings of righteousness and of peace.—The Divine Administration has many a time wrought something through the primitive fathers, not merely for their sakes, but also for the sake of their posterity. Heubner:—The priesthood of Christ, not the priesthood of the Law, is the source of all blessing.—To our Melchisedek belongs every thing in sacrifice, since we have all from Him and through Him.—Let us learn that our true nobility springs not from men but from Heaven; that we are to forget time, and think only of eternity.—The Levites take a tenth from their brethren; Melchisedek from Abraham; but Christ receives the reverence, the service of the whole world. Footnotes: Hebrews 7:1.—The Art. before ὑψίστου, is attested by Sin. A. C. D. E. K. L., 28, 44, 46, 48. Hebrews 7:2.—The καί is sustained against the authority of B. D. E. by Sin. A. C. Dm. E**. K. L. and the minusc. Hebrews 7:6.—The Art. before Abraham is erased by some, on the authority of B. C. D*. 23, 57, 109. The Sin. has it from a later hand. [It is retained by Tisch. on preponderating authority.—K.]. Hebrews 7:9.—The form Λευΐς is found in A. B. C*. Λευει in Sin., where the corrector has put Λευεις, which is received by Tisch., Ed. VII. Hebrews 7:10.—The Art. before Melch. is after Sin. B. C. D. 73, 118, to be omitted. II The Old Testament itself predicts the abrogation of the Levitical high-priesthood which rests on the basis of the Mosaic law, and the merging of it in the eternal priesthood of the Messiah Hebrews 7:11-1911 If therefore [If indeed now, If to be sure now, εἰ, μὲνοὖν] perfection were by [=through, διά] the Levitical priesthood, (for under it [on the basis of it, ἐπ’ αὐτῆς] the people [have] received the law,) what further need was there [om. was there] that another [different, ἕτερον] priest should arise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? 12For the priesthood being changed [transferred, μετατιθεμένης], there is made [becometh] of necessity a change also of the law. 13For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of [from] which no man gave [none hath 14given] attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord sprang [hath sprung] out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood [priests, ἱερέων]. 15And it is yet far more [is still more abundantly] evident, for that [if, εἰ ?] after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another [a different, ἕτερος] priest, 16Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless 17[indestructible] life. For he testified [is testified of, μαρτυρεῖται] Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. 18For there is verily [there becometh indeed, γίνεταιμέν] a disannulling of the [preceding] commandment going before [om. going before] for the [on account of its] weakness and unprofitableness thereof [om. thereof]; 19For the law made nothing perfect, but [(for the law perfected nothing), and] the bringing in of a better hope did [om. did], by which we draw nigh unto God. [Hebrews 7:11.—εἰμὲνοὖν, if to be sure now, if, indeed, therefore, οὖν, looking back and linking the proposition in a general way with the preceding; the μέν looking forward, and implying that the writer has in his mind some alternative sentiment to that which immediately follows, and which would naturally be introduced by δέ, but which may be, as here, suppressed. The words μένοὖν, do not affect in the slightest degree the construction or meaning of εἰ with its verb. Alford absurdly translates: “If again” as “the nearest English expression to εἰμὲνοὖν.” It could not well be more unfortunately rendered, unless possibly by yea if, by which Alford renders the same combination at Hebrews 8:4, while the rendering of μὲνγάρ, Hebrews 7:18 of Hebrews 7., by for moreover, is equally regardless of the meaning of the particles, and the demands of the context. In the present case the author passes (Hebrews 7:11) from a consideration of the personal greatness of Melchisedek,—a greatness guaranteeing, by implication, the greatness of the priesthood in which his should find its antitype—to the points of superiority of the Melchisedek priesthood of Christ over the Levitical priesthood.—ἐπ’ αὐτῆς, on the basis of it—νενομοθέτηται Perf. like δεδεκάτωται, Hebrews 7:9, have had their legislation, stand recorded as having received the law.—τίςἔτιχρεία, what need any longer; ἔτι, logical here, not temporal.—ἓτερονἱερέα, a different priest, not merely ἄλλον, another, numerically. Hebrews 7:12.—μετατιθεμένης,while it is undergoing a change or transfer; not simply being changed=μετατεθείσης. Hebrews 7:13.—ἐφ’ ὅν, upon, in relation to whom.—μετέσχηκεν, hath participated in, hath shared in (perf. not as Hebrews 2:14, μετέσχεν); Eng. ver., pertaineth to.—οὐδεὶςπροσέσχηκεν, none hath given attendance. Hebrews 7:14.—πρόδηλονγάρ, for it is conspicuously evident—ἀνατέταλκεν, hath sprung or risen, not sprang.—περὶἱερέων, concerning priests. Hebrews 7:15.—περισσότερονἔτικατάδηλόνἐστι, more abundantly still is it evident, κατάδηλος, intensive of δῆλος, and περισσότερον, stronger than the simple comparative of κατάδηλος.—εἰ, if=if it is the case that—and it is; Eng. ver., for that which gives the meaning.—ἀνίσταται, there ariseth. Hebrews 7:16.—γέγονεν, hath become, viz, priest; Alford, is appointed; Eng. ver., is made.—ἀκαταλύτου, not exactly as Eng. ver., endless; but not to be dissolved, indissoluble, indestructible. Hebrews 7:19.—Οὐδὲνγὰρἐτελεί., for the law brought nothing to perfection, should be in parenthesis, and ἑπεισαγωγή, a bringing in upon, or in place of, coφrdinated with ἀθέτησις as subject of γίνεται, as shown clearly both by the μέν and δέ, and the much greater clearness and elegance of the construction; “there takes place an abrogation on the one hand—and an introduction thereupon ἐπί).” Ebr. follows the Eng. ver. in its erroneous construction. Alf. constructs the sentence otherwise correctly, but (misunderstanding apparently a statement of Hart. Pertikel. II. 414) regards μέν as here used elliptically, and pointing to an understood contrast in the permanence of the ζωήἀκατάλ. just mentioned. “It is hardly possible, even with the right construction of the sentence, to regard this μέν as answering to the δέ following ἐπεισαγωγή; its connection with the γάρ will not allow this. If this had been intended we should have expected the form of the sentence to be ἀθέτησιςγὰργίνεταιτῆςμὲνπροαγούσηςἐντολῆς.” No criticism could be more incorrect. There is not the slightest reason why μέν cannot stand with γάρ, and yet be followed by its corresponding δέ, unless it is impossible for a sentence to stand in the relation indicated by γάρ to a previous sentence, and yet itself be susceptible of a distribution of its members by μὲν and δέ. We have in fact just such a construction at Hebrews 7:20-21, and it is among the most natural and familiar in the language. And the construction proposed by Alf. as required in case the μέν and δέ here were in contrast, is totally wrong. The order of words which he has given would imply a contrast not between the abrogation of the preceding commandment and the introduction of a better hope, but a contrast between the abrogation of the preceding commandment on the one hand, and of something else on the other. The construction, as it stands, brings out, regularly and elegantly, the required antithesis. It might indeed have stood γίνεταιγὰρἀθέτησιςμὲνπροαγούσης—ἐπεισαγ. δέ, and also in one or two other modes of arrangement; but no change is needed.—K.]. AND Heb_7:11. If, indeed, now perfection were, etc.—Εἰμὲνοὖνἦν is the genuine Greek construction for a hypothetical proposition which denies the reality of the case supposed. The οὖν does not refer back to Hebrews 6:20 (De Wette, Bisping). The γάρ in the parenthetical clause refers to the obvious but unexpressed thought that one might be inclined to assume that perfection was brought about through the Levitical priesthood, inasmuch as this stood in reality in organic connection with the Mosaic law. The supposition that the sentiment merely is that the people received legal ordinances regarding the priesthood (Schlicht., Grot., Bl.), is contradicted not merely by the utter superfluousness of such a remark, but chiefly by the fact that it is only with verbs of speaking that ἐπί with the Gen. stands in such a sense (Bernhady, Synt., p. 248). Many, as Seb. Schmidt, Rambach and others, have even explained it barely of rites and institutions pertaining to the τελείωσις. Clauses denoting necessity are commonly followed by the Inf. with μή (Hart. Partikellehre II. 125). When, however, the negation refers not to the entire sentence, but, as here, to an individual portion of it, οὐ also occurs (Madvig Gr. Synt., § 205; Kόhn., § 214, Anm. 2). Luther makes λέγεσθαι depend on χρεία, and all that intervenes depend on λέγεσθαι. It is more easy and natural to make the two Infinitives, ἀνίστασθαι and λέγεσθαι coφrdinate with each other, and both dependent on χρεία. Ἕτερον emphasizes the diversity in kind. Hebrews 7:12. For if the priesthood is undergoing a change, etc.—The γάρ refers not (as with Lόn.) to the parenthetical clause, but introduces the first argument in support of the main idea of Heb 7:11, viz., that the appointment of a Melchisedek priest, is incompatible with the assumption of the sufficiency and efficiency of the Levitical priesthood. Νόμος is neither to be restricted to the law of the priesthood (Bez., Grot., etc.), nor to the ceremonial law (Calv., ΰ Lapide, Carpz., etc.). For although it is true that Hebrews 7:13 merely introduces the proof of the proposition of Heb 7:12, that the change of the law, there asserted as inseparable from the change of the priesthood, appears historically in the fact that the Old Covenant itself predicts the Melchisedek priest as a non-Aaronic and Levitical priest, while Hebrews 7:14 attaches to this the historical proof of the fulfilment of this prediction in the person of Jesus, and thus far the law spoken of might be the mere law of the priesthood; yet inasmuch as it has been previously stated that the Israelitish people had received their νόμον in organic connection with the institution of the priesthood, of course the change of law here referred to can by no means be regarded as a partial one. [Moll then regards Hebrews 7:13 as still lingering back in the realm of prophecy, and simply asserting that the person of whom the language of the prediction is uttered, viz., “thou art a priest,” etc., appears in the very fact of the prediction as belonging to another tribe, where none gave attendance at the altar; for if he was a Melchisedek priest, he could not be an Aaronic and Levitical priest, and therefore could not be of the tribe of Levi; and he then regards Hebrews 7:14 as coming down into the actual historical life of our Lord, and confirming the inference from prophecy by the well known testimony of fact. The main scope of the paragraph, he thinks, is to illustrate the cardinal idea of Heb 7:11, viz., that the institution of the Melchisedek Priesthood of Christ is incompatible with the supposition of the competence of the Levitical priesthood to accomplish its intended work of perfection. This is shown, first, by the fact that the Old Testament itself, as shown by the prediction of Psalms 110., contemplated a transfer of the Levitical priesthood to another tribe—a transfer actually realized in the person of Jesus (12–14). Secondly, by the essential difference in the character of the Melchisedek Priesthood of Christ (15–17)—K.]. Ταῦτα, Hebrews 7:14, refers to the words of the Psalms 110:4. The Perfects μετέσχηκεν, προσέσχηκεν, ἀνατέταλκεν, point to the historical facts as now standing completed before the eye. Ἀφ’ ἦς denotes the springing forth from the φυλή. Προσέχειντινι=to give one’s attention, or devote one’s activity to a thing. The reading προσέστηκε in Erasmus is a Patristic gloss. The πρό in πρόδηλον is not temporal (Pierce), but strengthens the conception of a thing as lying open or conspicuous by the facts, while κατάδηλον in like manner emphasizes the reasonings of Heb 7:15. Hebrews 7:15. And it is still more abundantly evident, etc.—Ebrard entirely erroneously supposes that the thing here asserted to be evident is the fact of our Lord’s springing from Judah (Hebrews 7:14). Bisping, following Chrys. and others, supposes it to be the greatness of the difference between the Levitical and the New Testament priesthood. Klee, with Primas., Just., Rambach, etc., supposes it to be the reality of the change of the priesthood. Delitzsch, with J. Cappell. and Bengel, regards it as the inefficiency of the Levitical priesthood; while Bleek, De Wette, Thol., Lόn., find in it the statement that the change of the priesthood involves the change of the law. But this statement itself served merely as the first proof of the capital thought contained in Hebrews 7:11, viz., that the appointment of a Melchisedek priest was incompatible with the efficiency of the Levitical priesthood, and was itself again substantiated by the fact of the actual occurrence of the change. The author now advances to the second proof of the same point, a proof in which is involved alike the insufficiency of the Levitical priesthood, and the greatness of the distinction between the Levitical and the New Testament priesthood. In the previous argument the stress was laid on the circumstance that with the change of the priesthood stood actually and as matter of fact connected a change of the Mosaic law. It is now laid on the intrinsic idea and character of a Melchisedek priest. A Melchisedek priest, as such, is the subject of the clause. Had the author had in mind Jesus personally, he would have personally designated the subject, of which the predicate would then be the priest of a different character. The greater clearness of this proof, however, lies in the fact that His birth from a different Israelitish tribe does not so much constitute the Messiah a ἕτεροςἱερεύς as his “likeness” to Melchisedek. This not merely places him in another τάξις of Priests, but gives him a priesthood forever (εἰςτὸναἰῶνα), and such a priesthood can alone work τελείωσις, comp. Hebrews 7:25. [The passage Hebrews 7:11-16 is, as indicated by the great diversity of opinions regarding it, while easy enough to translate, among the most difficult in the Epistle to analyze so as to assure us that we have the precise scope and drift of the author. Some, as Lφnemann, regard Hebrews 7:12, with its ratiocinative γάρ, as simply illustrating the parenthetical clause of Heb 7:11, a view which at first glance seems probable. Others, as Bleek, De Wette, Delitzsch, regard it as paving the way for what follows, and “laying down the ground why, not, without urgent cause, the priesthood is changed” (De Wette), admitting at the same time that the parenthetical clause of Heb 7:11 has an important bearing on the illustration. Moll considers the capital thought which the whole passage is designed to illustrate, to be the incompatibility of the institution of the Melchisedek priesthood, with the idea of the sufficiency and competence of the Levitical priesthood. Equally, perhaps still more diverse, are the views regarding the reference of the κατάδηλον, Hebrews 7:15. Let us follow a little the course of thought. The author passes, at Hebrews 7:11, from illustrating the personal greatness of Melchisedek—involving by implication, the superiority of his priesthood to that of Aaron, and a fortiori the superiority of that of which his was but a type, to the Aaronic—to the consideration of the relative claims of the two priesthoods themselves, viz., the Levitical priesthood and the Melchisedek priesthood of Christ. The main ideas which he introduces, and which lie in the very nature and relations of the case, are the following: 1. That the Mosaic economy rested for its execution and effectiveness on the Levitical priesthood; the abrogation, therefore, of the latter involves an abrogation of the former. This abrogation he mildly calls a transfer. 2. That this abrogation of the priesthood and of its associated and superincumbent economy is already predicted in the Old Testament, (in the declaration of God, Thou art a priest forever, etc.), and that this prediction is actually realized in the well-known descent of Jesus Christ from the stock of Judah—a non-priestly tribe. 3. That the change of priesthood, and of course the superiority of the latter, consists even more in the internal character of the Melchisedek priesthood, as compared with the Levitical, than in the mere external fact of change. 4. That the oath which accompanied the inauguration of the Melchisedek priest marks its superiority. 5. That its superiority is also marked by its singleness, untransferableness, and perpetuity, in all which features it stands contrasted with the Levitical. These are the general ideas from Hebrews 7:11 to Hebrews 7:26, and it is only at two or three points, chiefly at Hebrews 7:12-13; Hebrews 7:15, that the difficulty is found in tracing the precise thread of connection. Without feeling over confident, I think it as nearly as follows: If, indeed, now (the now οὖν, linking it in a general way with what precedes, the μέν pointing to the suppressed affirmation, contrasted with the supposition as; if, indeed it were, but it is not) perfection were by the Levitical priesthood—and that priesthood was bound to make the law effective, for the legislation of Moses was based upon it—there were no need for another priest to be spoken of in prophecy as about to arise after the order of Melchisedek, and not after the order of Aaron. And that such a change would not take place without urgent cause is evident, for see how far-reaching it is. For when the priesthood is transferred, as in the prediction of the Psalm it is, it carries with it a transfer and an abrogation of the Law. And that such a transfer is made is clear; for he in regard to whom the language of this prediction is uttered, belongs to another tribe, of which none has ministered at the altar;—(Delitzsch considers that in this verse (Hebrews 7:13) the author has already descended from the region of prophecy to that of fulfilment. Moll regards him as still standing on the ground of the prophecy, and simply stating what the prophecy implies regarding the birth and tribal relations of the predicted priest. In favor of Moll’s view is the indefinite ἐφ’ ο͂νλέγεταιταῦτα; in favor of that of Delitzsch are the definite statements with the perfect tense of the verb, which seem to point to actual historical facts. I concur on the whole with Delitzsch; Alford scarcely touches the question).—For it is a well-known historical fact, that our Lord hath sprung from Judah, to which tribe appertains no regular priesthood. From this fact now it is evident that that change of priesthood has taken place which brings change of law, viz., the fact that the old priesthood belonged to a particular tribe, and that when it passes to another tribe, of course the Mosaic priesthood is subverted, and therefore the whole structure reared upon it falls to the ground; but it is still more abundantly evident from another fact, viz., the intrinsically different character of this new priesthood, in that this priest arises after the likeness of Melchisedek—having those properties which this likeness would presuppose—who hath been made, etc. From this point the course of thought is easy. I thus do not regard the course of thought as carried out with strict logical precision. The author shows how great consequences depend on the overthrow of the Levitical priesthood—no less consequences than the abrogation of the whole law that rests upon it—shows how this transfer is actually made in the person of Jesus, and how still more vital and deep-reaching than the mere transfer, is the change in the intrinsic character of the Melchisedek priesthood itself. Here he has, as it were, drifted into the topic of the superiority of Christ’s Melchisedek priesthood to the Aaronic, which he then farther illustrates by the matter of the oath, and the singleness and perpetuity of the Melchisedek priest as against the plurality and transitoriness of the Levitical priests.—K.]. Hebrews 7:16. Who has been made not after the law, etc.—By νόμος here Chrys., Calv., Beng., Bφhme, Thol., and others, understand the Mosaic law, whose elements are collectively designated as a fleshly institution. But the expression κατὰνόμονἐντολῆςσαρκίνης in antithesis to κατὰδύναμινζωῆςἀκαταλύτου, requires certainly that we take νόμος as at Romans 7:21; Romans 7:23 in the sense of norm. We are not, however, to infer from this that ἐντολὴσαρκίνη is the special requisition of the Mosaic law regarding the Levitical priesthood (Lόn.), and is so designated because it lays stress merely on outward, earthly things, which are liable to destruction, as on lineal descent, etc., and installs only mortal men as priests (Theod., Grot., Bl., De Wette, etc.). Still less may we appeal to the fact that in later Greek the distinction between adj. ending in ικός and ινος is done away (Winer, Thol., etc.). For no New Testament writer could characterize the Mosaic law, whether taken as a whole or in any of its ordinances, as fleshly, inasmuch as they are collectively to be referred back to the will of God, and for this reason Paul expressly emphasizes the spiritual nature alike of the νόμος and of the ἐντολή, Romans 7:12; Romans 7:14. Doubtless, indeed, the signification of perishableness, which Beng., Carpz., etc., have found in σαρκικός, is possible for σάρκινος (=made of flesh). Still I should prefer to refer the epithet to the qualities of externality, frailty and impotence, which belong to the nature of the σάρξ, and which are also at the same time predicated of the ritual and statutory character of the Mosaic law. It is this property of the law which I conceive to be expressed by ἐντολὴσαρκίνη. To this corresponds the fact that it is not placed in contrast directly with the historic Jesus but with the ἔτεροςἱερεύς, which finds its realization in Him, whose characteristic, as shown by Hebrews 7:18, is drawn from the words of the Psalm. Any reference to the capacity of Christ to impart life to others (as supposed by Cam., Dorsch., Calov, etc.), is not for a moment to be assumed. As previously κατὰτὴντάξινΜελχ. was explained by κατὰτὴνὁμοιότητα M., so here εἰςτὸναἰῶνα is explained by κατὰδύναμινζωῆςάκαταλύτου. The language then has not reference to the incarnation of Christ the Messiah, but to His appointment as Melchisedek priest in the presence of God, in the completeness and perfection of His personal life. He is also the subject of μαρτυρεῖται [so Alf.], which Bleek and others take impersonally. Ὅτι is the ὅτι of citation as Hebrews 10:8; Hebrews 11:18. Hebrews 7:18. For there becometh a doing away, etc.—The author is showing that the thought expressed in Hebrews 7:15-16 is contained in the passage of the Psalm. To this passage points the Pres. γίνεται, which belongs to the two clauses that are separated by the parenthesis. Some interpreters remove the parenthesis, erroneously and make Hebrews 7:19 an independent sentence, either making ἐπεισαγωγή a predicate to ὁνόμος, and supplying ἐστίν or ἦν (Erasm., Calv., Ebr., etc.), or making ἐπεισαγωγή subject and repeating ἐτελείωσεν (as Beza, Grot., E. Ver.). In the former case the meaning would be: “but the law is indeed, or was, an introduction to a better hope:” in the second case: “but the ἐπεισαγωγή, etc., did bring in perfection.” The latter construction would demand the article before ἐπεισαγ. as before νόμος, indicating the subject. The former is opposed alike by the fact that the μὲνγάρ without the corresponding δέ is not=namely, but only=for to be sure, for at least, (Hart. Partik. II., 414), which is here entirely out of place, and that ἐπεισαγωγή is not=εἰσαγωγή, but denotes the introduction of something either as added to an object already existing, or as a substitute for it. This object is here προάγουσαἐντολή, whose meaning is determined by the connection, for which reason the absence of the article does not require that the clause be taken as a general one (Schlicht., De Wette), while the use of ἐντολή as substantially equivalent to the Mosaic νόμος, would be adverse to it, (Primas., Chrys., Theod., Calv., Grot., etc.). The thought contained in the parenthesis (so rightly at first constructed by Luther, and erroneously changed in his later version), is weakened by changing the neut. οὐδέν into the masc. οὐδένα, (Chrys., Schlicht., Grot., Carpz., Bisp., etc.). AND ETHICALFrom this passage Chr. Ferd. Baur takes occasion (“Christianity and the Church of the three first centuries,” p. 99), to maintain that our author holds an essentially different position from Paul, saying, “To the Apostle Paul Judaism is essentially law, while in the law again appears only its negative relation to Christianity. To the author of the Hebrews, Judaism is essentially a priesthood. The priesthood is with him the primary thing, and the starting point of his entire discussion; the law is but secondary. The latter must regulate itself by the former.” It is only when torn from its connection that our passage can be so explained. It points rather to the historically known fact, that the Mosaic law, through which the Israelites in general were constituted a people, and especially a people of God, was given to them with direct reference to, and on condition of the ministry of the priesthood, which, in its establishment and functions, stood indissolubly connected with it. From this, then, could the conclusion be drawn, that the change of so essential an institution as the priesthood would include and draw after it the change of the law itself. If then, farther, as an historical fact it must be acknowledged, that in the Old Testament itself, by the divine word of prophecy, this change of the priesthood is announced as one designed by God, and with certainty to be introduced through the Messiah, there could be drawn the farther conclusion that the whole law and the legal covenant relation in general, has, in the plan of God himself, only a transitory, and as elsewhere indicated, disciplinary significance. The fact was thus demonstrated, that in the establishment of the Law, and of its institutions, God did not promise and pledge within the covenant of the law itself, and within its means of grace, the attainment of the demanded and designed perfection. Rather this perfection must and can be attained by other means of grace, which are in like manner announced by God, and have been already introduced. 2. The Law can, as the verbal expression of the Divine will, only describe perfection; it cannot exhibit it personally. It can further, as the command of God to His people, only demand from them human perfection, but not create it in them. Finally, as the law of the holy God, it cannot overlook the universal lack of perfection, nor leave those whose duty binds them to this perfection, exempt from punishment. It must rather judge the sin everywhere disclosed by it, and, since all men prove themselves to be sinners, can only condemn and not acquit. This is the imperfection and the weakness—this incapacity to produce perfection—which lies in the nature of law as such, and of course also in the law of God; comp. Romans 8:3; Galatians 4:9, where Paul calls the law τὰἀσθενῆκαίπτωχὰστοιχεῖα. 3. Should, with this condition of things, a positive covenant relation between God and His people, bound solemnly to the law, be possible, this could only take place by instituting an expiation, upon the foundation of which rests a reconciliation for the forgiveness of sin, and the introduction of the spiritual peace and blessing, which we so deeply need. But since man as a sinner is incapacitated for it, his only hope rests upon the Divine interposition in providing such an expiation. 4. This divinely originated plan is not merely promised by the word of prophecy, but was immediately, by a system of legal arrangements, by the institution of the Levitical priesthood, at once prepared for and prefigured. So far was it from lying within the divine purpose to introduce perfection by this institution, that on the one hand its typical and symbolical character was made clearly manifest, and on the other its transitory nature and import were expressly declared by the direct prediction of a priesthood of another character in the Old Testament itself, where the Messiah is purposely represented not merely as a priest-king, but also as not an Aaronic, but a Melchisedek Priest. 5. It is true that Christ is also the antitype of the high-priest Aaron; yet only in so far as His death on the cross, which wrought an eternal redemption, is compared with the annual expiatory sacrifice, which only the high-priest, after first making expiation for himself, was permitted to offer. But in respect, on the other hand, to the origin and dignity of the Son, who, forever perfected, sits enthroned at the right hand of the Father; in respect to that ministry of intercession and of blessing, which gives perpetual efficacy in heaven to the sacrifice which once for all was offered upon earth,—in respect to these He is the counterpart of the Priestly King Melchisedek. 6. In this relation Christ exercises forever His mediatorial function, because in His person He possesses an indestructible life. He is Priest, not in consequence of any commandment, or on the ground of any priestly descent, but in virtue of His personality, which renders Him the bearer of an eternal and untransferable priesthood, on the ground of His offering of Himself on the cross, and in consequence of the position which He assumes as the Risen, eternally living God-man, exalted above all heavens to the throne of God. 7. The origin of Jesus from the tribe of Judah (Revelation 5:5), through His descent from the house of David (Acts 2:30; Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:8), which is, on the one hand, like the rising of a star, Numbers 24:17, or of light from on high, Isaiah 60:1; Mal. 3:20; Luke 1:78; on the other, like the sprouting branch, Isaiah 4:2; Jeremiah 23:5; Jeremiah 33:15; Zechariah 3:8; Zechariah 6:12, shows that the priesthood of Jesus is not the Levitico-Aaronical, but the Melchisedek priesthood; that thus the change predicted in the Old Testament has already historically taken place, and with this the abrogation of the Mosaic law received its authorized beginning. In this connection the remark of the author that this birth of Jesus from Judah is a perfectly well-known fact, so that he can make of it as of an unquestionable foundation, the most decided use in addressing his readers, is of great historical importance, especially in view of the circumstance that this epistle was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. 8. In the old covenant the Levitical priests were the mediators between God and the people; they had the honorable appellation of “those who draw near to Jehovah,” Numbers 10:3. Since Christ entered on His office as the only and eternal mediator, the whole people of God have received the appellation of a royal priesthood; a free access to the Father has been opened to all believers, and the realization of a better hope has commenced, which in the Old Testament prophecy came from the Melchisedek priest to the law, and passed over, out of and beyond it. 9. Also the hope of the believers of the Old Covenant was not directed merely to earthly goods, to long life and possession of the promised land, to security from enemies, and to dominion over unbelievers. The hope of a future life was according to Hebrews 11:10; Hebrews 11:13-14 by no means wanting to the Patriarchs, and the Messianic hope gave them not only a concrete subject matter of their hope, but led also to better means for perfection than the legal institutions could furnish. 10. The idea of perfection embraces all points and elements in that state of perfectness in which the Divinely appointed goal is reached, to which Christ was led by sufferings (Hebrews 2:10), and to which man (Hebrews 10:1) can attain only through this ἀρχηγὸςτῆςσωτηρίας on the ground of the sacrifice of this New Test. high-priest (Hebrews 10:14). But this state is not with Reuss (Hist. de la Theol. II., 551) to be limited to subjective and moral perfection. It rather has only its beginning in the purification which appertains to the conscience, Hebrews 9:7; its progress in that drawing near to God (Hebrews 7:19), in which the outward objective principle of sanctification described in Hebrews 10:14, now proves itself actually efficacious; and its conclusion in eternal life, primarily in the spirits of just men made perfect, Hebrews 12:23, then after the resurrection, in their participation in glory, Hebrews 11:40. AND The likeness and unlikeness of Christ to the priests of the law.—Wherein consists the strength, and wherein the weakness of the law?—The hope, by which we draw near to God, as already foretold in the Old Testament, by means of the old covenant, however, was not to be realized.—God changes not His plan, but does change sometimes the means of its accomplishment.—The glorious harmony of prophecy and history in the person of Jesus Christ.—How do law and Gospel stand related to each other?—The hope to which we are called: a. as to its substance; b. as to its foundation; c. as to its nurture.—Christ, a priest of a different kind from all other priests whatsoever.—Christ at once God and man, Priest and King, subject to the law, and free from its statutory observance.—The mutual relation of law and priesthood. Starke:—The Old Testament, as one which in itself was much too weak, must necessarily be changed, and through the New Testament, a better hope be brought in, through the efficacious sacrifice and intercession of Jesus Christ, as the perfect high-priest, who alone gives us salvation. The Levitical Priesthood is fulfilled through the Messianic, and thereby has been done away.—The holy and wise God has in His word set forth, for the good of men, the mystery of Christ, in manifold ways, with so many reasons, of which some are at once clearer and more binding than others.—What the prophets have predicted of Christ so many hundred years ago, has been in Him so exactly fulfilled. Who sees not also in this, the divinity of the Holy Scriptures?—While all believing Christians are permitted to draw near to God in Christ, they are also all spiritual priests, whose dignity and office it is to offer themselves in sacrifice to God, (Romans 12:1; 1 Peter 2:5; 1 Peter 2:9) as those who are animated with the Spirit of Christ, and adorned with the white priestly garment of righteousness, Isaiah 61:10.—Blessed is he who from time to time draws near in faith to Christ, and in Christ unto God, and makes his whole life nothing else than, as it were, a perpetual going out from himself and the world, and going in unto God, James 4:8.—He who, while he lives on earth, draws not near to God, in faith and prayer, will not come to God after death, Hebrews 4:16; Romans 5:1-2. Hahn:—As Priest, Christ assists from within; creates an internal atmosphere, gives freedom and joy. As King, He aids also from without, and removes everything which can hinder the inner life of His people, and brings to naught the assaults of their foes. Rieger:—From the fact that another Priest was to appear, was to be inferred an entire change in the economy of God. Heubner:—The present religion of the Jews is an exceedingly defective Judaism. They admit some of its elements, while what is most important in it, they are utterly unable to carry out.—All mysteries, orders, societies, which claim equal or even superior rank to the Church of Christ, are a sin against the high-priestly dignity of Christ. Stein:—Christianity is by so much the more perfect covenant, in that the covenant of God in the Old Testament, merely introduced, prepared for, and prefigured it; in that it then removes imperfections which the former was not able to remove; and finally, in that there are also blessed prospects for the future, which indicate Christianity as the more perfect covenant. Footnotes: Hebrews 7:11.—Instead of ἐπ’ αὐτῇ, read after Sin. A. B. C. D. E. 17, 31, 46, ἐπ’ αὐτῆς; and instead of the Pluperf. νενομοθέτητο, read after Sin. A. B. C. D*., 17, 47, 73, νενομοθέτηται. Hebrews 7:14.—Instead of οὐδὲνπερὶἱερωσύνης, read after A. B. C. D. E., 17, 47, περὶἱερέωνοὐδέν. So also in Sin., excepting that there οὐδέν stood originally after Μωυσης, and has been placed before it by a later hand. Hebrews 7:16.—Instead of σαρκικῆς, read with Sin. A. B. C. D*. L., σαρκίνης. Hebrews 7:17.—Instead of μαρτυρεῖ, should be read with Sin. A. B. D*. E., 17, 31, μαρτυρεῖται. [The μὲνοὖν has nothing whatever to do with the character of the hypothetical construction. The words simply indicate, the one (οὖν) its logical relation to that which precedes, and the other (μέν) its connection with that which follows. The εἰἦν (all that belongs intrinsically to the construction) is indeed genuine Greek, for the protasis of a hypothetical proposition which denies the reality of the case supposed, but so it is equally for that of one which admits it. All turns upon the character of the apodosis. If the apodosis be an Indicative past with ἄν, the proposition denies; if any Ind. tense Without ἄν, it admits. Thus εἰἦντελείωσις, χρείαοὐκἂνἦν would be; if there were perfection, there would not be need, but there was, or is, not. Εἰτελείωσιςἦν, χρείαοὐκἦν would be: if there was perfection there was no need—and there was perfection.—K]. III The New Covenant is by so much the more excellent as Jesus Himself is its personal guarantee Hebrews 7:20-2220 And inasmuch as not without an oath [the swearing of an oath, ὁρχωμοσία] was he made priest: 21(For those priests were made [for they indeed have become priests] without an oath; but this [he] with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek:) 22By so much [also] was Jesus made [hath Jesus also become] a surety of a better testament [covenant]. [Hebrews 7:20.—ὁρκωμοσία, the swearing of an oath: so the fuller form (like μισθαποδοσία, Hebrews 2:2) had better be rendered (with Alf.), than by the simple oath (ὃρκος, as Hebrews 6:17). Hebrews 7:21.—οἰμὲνγὰρχωρὶςὃρκωμ. εἰσὶνἰερ. γεγ, for they indeed=for while they, without the swearing, etc., have become priests. It is difficult to reproduce in English the force of the periphrastic είσὶνγεγονότες, are having become, bringing out more fully the two-fold idea of becoming and continuance. We cannot, perhaps, render better than simply have become as if it were γέγονατε. Hebrews 7:22.—καὶκρείττονοςδιαθ. γεγ. ἔγγυοςἸης., also of a better covenant (not testament), hath Jesus become (not, been made) surety.—K.]. AND Heb_7:20. And inasmuch as, etc.—Luther translates erroneously, “and besides, what is much,” from a misconception of the Vulgate et quantum est. He connects also, like Chrys., Theodoret, Erasm., Calv., etc., these words with the preceding. True, the text in fact emphasizes the idea that this hope was not introduced without the swearing of an oath, but in form a protasis precedes to which the κατὰτοσοῦτο corresponds, and in which we are not to supply ἱερεὺςγέγονεν (�c., Beng., Bφhme, Lόn.), still less ἔγγυοςγέγονεν, but, γίνεταιτοῦτο (Bleek, De W., Thol., Hofm., Del.). Hebrews 7:22. Surety of a better covenant.—Luther erroneously understands here διαθήκη as testament, and translates without authority ἔγγυος, ausrichter=executor. In classic Greek διαθήκη always denotes an arrangement, in general, a disposition or settlement, of which will or testament is a special form. The Sept., however, employs the word regularly instead of συνθήκη, as a translation of αְּ ?ψִ ?ιϊ, so that it is also to be regarded in the New Testament as a terminus dogmaticus = covenant, from which signification we are to depart, only when compelled by the connection. The justification of this view of the word on the part of the LXX., and of the New Testament writers, lies in the fact that the covenant of God with men is not a compact concluded between two equally authorized and independent parties; but is essentially a Divine arrangement and disposition against sin and for human salvation, into which those who are called enter under a religious obligation, and to which God binds Himself in His truth and faithfulness. The Hebrew expression appears, on the contrary, to spring from this latter view, since for the word αָּ ?ψָ ?δ the signification “determine, constitute, establish,” assumed by Hofm., cannot be proved, but only either the signification “separate, choose out,” is admissible, 1 Samuel 17:8, or the signification “cut,” with reference to the original mode of ratifying a covenant, to which Jehovah (Genesis 15.), as matter of convenience condescends.—Ἔγγυος is not to be explained by μεσίτης, mediator, although this word (not found elsewhere in the New Testament) may have been selected with allusion to the preceding ἐγγίζειν. Moreover the strictly juristic conception of the term fidejussor, and a reference to Christ’s vicarious satisfaction (Thom. Aquin., Calov, etc.), as well as any supposed reference to Christ’s sufferings in general, as sealing the covenant (Bl., De W., Lόn.) is against the context, which in Christ, the Everlasting One, exalted at the right hand of God, recognizes the voucher and guaranty for the eternal maintenance and validity of the covenant which He mediates. AND ETHICAL1. The Levitical priests entered the priestly office by a simple command; Christ entered it by an arrangement confirmed with a Divine oath. In this lies an undoubted pledge: 1. for the fulfilment under the conduct of the Messiah, of the Divine promise; 2. for the exaltation of the New Covenant above the earlier one; 3. for its everlasting duration. 2. Jesus is the promised eternal priestly king, whose personal character, position and dignity, give to the covenant which He mediates a closely allied and corresponding preλminence. 3. In the very nature of a royal command in regard to an arrangement and institution whose perpetuity is not specially indicated, still less promised and pledged, lies already the possibility of the reversing of the command, of the annulling of the institution, of a change of the arrangement by the Ruler Himself, without His thereby of necessity becoming untruthful, unrighteous and untrustworthy, falling into contradiction with Himself, or throwing back into confusion the products of His own creative power. AND Jesus Christ, the mediator of the New Covenant, is at the same time the pledge: a. of its everlasting continuance; b. of its divinely approved character; and c. of the perpetual accomplishment of its promises.—How the preλminence of the New Covenant over the Old is assured a. by the promise and oath of its author; b. by the person of its priestly mediator.—From the Old Testament itself we might infer the exaltation of the Priest of the Promise above the priests of the law, and above their service.—The Promise connects with one another Law and Gospel, and at the same time leads over from time into eternity. Starke:—As it was conceived and determined in the counsels of the adored Trinity, so in Christ Jesus has all been carried out that in Him all should become blessed, and whatever will may become blessed. Rieger—From the swearing of the oath the Apostle justly infers the great earnestness, the weighty interest and the extraordinary pleasure with which God has entered into and sealed this His arrangement.—Elsewhere he swears who undertakes an office in order that persons may entrust to him their interests; but here He swears who confers the office in testimony of His high purposes, and of His unchangeable will. Footnotes: Hebrews 7:21.—The words κατὰτὴντάξινΜελχ., are wanting in Cod. Sin., B. C., 17, 80. In the Sin. are wanting also the preceding words εἰςτὸναἰῶνα. Hebrews 7:22.—Instead of the Rec. τοσοῦτον, we are to read τοσοῦτο according to the Sin. A. B. C. D*. In the Sin. the ν has been added by a later hand, as also previously the words εἰςτὸναἰῶνα as far as Μελχ. IV Christ lives forever, and can therefore, in His unchangeable Priesthood, forever intercede in the presence of God on behalf of the redeemed Hebrews 7:23-2523 And they truly[indeed] were many priests [have more than one been made priests], because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death[on account of their 24being hindered by death from continuing]: But this man [he], because he continueth 25forever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore [whence also] he is able also [om. also] to save to the uttermost [completely, unto perfection, εἰςτὸπανταλές] them that come unto God by him, seeing that he ever liveth to make intercession for them. [Hebrews 7:23.—Καὶοἱμέν, and they indeed=and while, they—πλείονέςεἰσιν, etc., have in larger numbers, as more than one, become priests—διὰτὸθαν. κωλεύεσθαι, on account of their being hindered by death, etc. If the finite verb is used it should be in the present, not “were not suffered.” Hebrews 7:24.—Ὁ, δέ, but he, not, but this man—ἀπαραβάτονἔχειτὴνἱερωσύνην, hath his priesthood, not to be passed by, hence superceded; or, perhaps, better (with reference to the active παραβαίνω, go aside from, transgress, violate, παράβασις, transgression, violation) not to be transgressed or transcended, inviolate. Hebrews 7:25.—Ὅθενκαί, whence also.—εἰςτὸπαντελές, unto completion, completely, πάντοτεζῶν, always living.—K.]. AND Heb_7:23. And they indeed, as more than one, etc.—The connection shows that this plurality of the priesthood is not to be conceived as simultaneous (Erasm. in Paraphr., Braun, Del. [but Del, only partially—K.]), but successive. The idea of Del. that the language points back to the act of inauguration and consecration at Exodus 28:29, where Aaron is not for himself alone chosen and consecrated, but in connection with his sons, and that it is the multiplicity of the priests that insures the continuance of the priesthood, is at once without proof, and obscures the antithesis. So also of the interpretation of παραμένειν, favored by Del. of continuance in the priesthood (�c, Grot., and others). It is not with the priests in general, but with the high-priest, that Christ is placed in contrast; and to παραμένειν corresponds the following μένειν. [But by no means necessarily in the same signification. I think Grot., Del., etc., are clearly right. To make μένειν and παραμένειν identical in meaning makes an intolerable platitude: “they are hindered by death from remaining in life!” But the change of reference is both suggested by the change in the verbs (μένειν and παραμένειν) and gives to each an appropriate and beautiful force: ‘They are hindered by death from abiding in their priesthood;’ He on account of His abiding forever in life, hath His priesthood unchangeable. The necessity of giving to both verbs the same reference is only apparent. The real contrast is against it—K.]. Hebrews 7:24. Unchangeable.—Ἀπαράβατος belongs to the later Greek, and with Theodor., �c., Theoph., Erasm., is by most taken actively=not passing over to another, whence Este and Justiniani explain that the priests of the Catholic Church are not successors, but vicarii et ministri Christi. More accordant with usage is the Passive construction, not to be passed beyond or overstepped, hence inviolable, unchangeable. Hebrews 7:25. To the uttermost, completely, to the consummation.—Εἰςτὸπαντελές is erroneously referred by the Peshito, Vulg., Chrys., Luth., Calv., Schlicht., Grot., etc., to time. Ὅθενκαί, whence also, shows that the declaration in this clause is to be regarded as the consequence, and indeed the natural consequence, of the statement of the clause just previous. [This seems hardly decisive against the reference of the adverbial clause to time; yet in the connection we can scarcely doubt that the reference is not to His saving always, or forever, but to His saving completely, those who come to God through Him. The perpetuity of His priesthood enables Him to carry through the salvation which He has commenced—K.]. AND ETHICAL1. A further prerogative of the New Covenant lies in the unchangeableness of the Priesthood, attached to one and the same person, and by Him carried out in the most perfect manner forever. The ground of this lies in the fact that Christ tasted death indeed, but has also forever overcome it; and that to both these alike, to His sufferings and His victory, as He originally undertook and accomplished them on our behalf, so also in heaven He gives on our behalf perpetual validity and efficacy. 2. The eternally unchanging, high-priestly, and royal sway of the glorified Son of Man, is the cause of our perfect salvation, in that, by means of this, we, reconciled, draw near to God, and are kept in perpetual fellowship of life with God. 3. The Priesthood of Jesus Christ does not commence with His ministry in heaven. There rather, He, the eternally Living One, as antitype of the priestly-king, Melchisedek, gives entire completeness and efficacy (Romans 8:34) to the sacrifice which, as antitype of the Aaronic high-priest, He offered in His death upon the cross, by the sacrifice of Himself. AND Salvation and blessedness are the grand aim of the Priesthood of Jesus Christ.—The Priesthood of Christ is not less efficacious than it is permanent and comprehensive.—Nearness to God is possible only through the Son, but through Him is ultimately enjoyed in blissful perfection,—Wherein lies, on the one hand, the indispensableness, on the other, the imperishableness of the Priesthood of Christ?—In what consists, on what rests, and by what means is effected, the complete deliverance of men through Jesus Christ?—Christ has in His Priesthood no successor, since He lives forever, and no substitute, because He Himself exercises His office perfectly and all-sufficiently. Starke:—The exalted Jesus prays actually before the throne of His Heavenly Father, on behalf of men, in a way that is pleasing to Him, so long as the kingdom of grace continues, since He can still bring man to salvation.—True members of Christ evince their spiritual priesthood toward others, in the fact that they pray for them zealously, although not with the meritorious supplication with which Christ pleads for us, yet still acceptably, and in a manner that is productive of blessing.—Priest, Bishop, and Prelate, all are nothing. Christ is the true Archbishop and Chief Shepherd, to whom all things minister, and through whom all are nurtured and live, physically, spiritually and eternally. Rieger:—The death of Jesus Christ was no hinderance to the continuance of His Priestly office and employment, rather was itself a part of it. That Christ lives forever, is not only a prerogative of this Living Person Himself, but is also a blessing for us. Many circumstances that contribute to my happiness may change, but this capital circumstance changes not: “He ever lives and makes intercession for us.” Who would ever reach the destined goal, were there not such a priestly office and intercession ever exercised on our behalf in the Sanctuary of God? Heubner:—Drawing near to God implies not merely coming to Him in prayer, but obtaining His grace on earth, and His heavenly kingdom hereafter.—Christ is not merely an intercessor on behalf of those who are to be made subjects of grace, but also on behalf of those already converted, in their state of moral weakness and infirmity.—All human dignities, institutions, schools, perish; the dignity and office of Christ are imperishable. Hahn:—In heaven we are more regarded and cared for than we believe, and in the heart of the Father and of the Son there is much that is taking place on our behalf. V As the sinless Son of God, Jesus Christ has once for all offered Himself in sacrifice for the sins of the world Hebrews 7:26-2826 For also [om. also] such an high priest [also] became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate [having been separated] from sinners, and made [become] higher than the heavens; 27who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once [for all], when he offered up himself. 28For the law maketh [constitutes, καθίστησιν] men high priests, which [who] have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is [hath been] consecrated [perfected] for evermore. Hebrews 7:26.—Τοιοῦτοςγάρ. The clause is constructed with exquisite rhetorical beauty. In place of τοιοῦτοςγὰρἱερεύς which would have sprung naturally from the preceding, the author, with reference to the following discussion, changes the noun to ἀρχιερεύς, and then skilfully throws this over to the end of the clause, where it takes the reader by surprise.—ἄκακος hardly harmless by which word our Eng. ver., also renders ἄκεραιος. The latter is properly guileless, the former, perhaps,=void of malice. ‘Harmless’ is certainly too negative a term.—κεχαρισμένος, having been separated, locally withdrawn, from sinners.—γενόμενος, not made, but becoming, viz: in His exaltation at God’s right hand. Hebrews 7:27.—καθ’ ἡμέραν, day by day, daily.—ἀνενέγκας, by offering up. Hebrews 7:28.—ἀνθρώπους emphatic, those who are mere men.—υἱόν him who is Son—the art. omitted as Hebrews 1:1, τετελειωμένον, having been perfected.—K.]. AND Heb_7:26. For such an high priest, also, etc.—Τοιοῦτος refers back to the high-priest described in Hebrews 7:25; γάρ finds the reason of His existence in His adaptedness to our needs; καί emphasizes the naturalness and justness of such a reference; and the following predicates holy, etc., define the special traits of our Melchisedek High-priest: Ὅσιος, with the LXX., a common translation of ηָ ?νִ ?ιγ, refers to one’s relation toward God; ἄκακος to His relations toward men; ἀμίαντος to His personal unceasing fitness for priestly service; κεχ. ἁπὸτ. ἁμαρτ. to His withdrawal from all disturbing contact with the wicked, John 7:32-36; Isaiah 53:8; not to His inward purity in His outward association with sinners during His earthly life (Ebr.); ὑψηλ.—γενομ. to that absolutely supraterrestrial, supramundane mode of existence which followed His exaltation. Hebrews 7:27.—Who hath no daily need, etc.—Καθἡμέραν, daily, day by day, cannot mean “on a definite day in the course of the year,” (Schlicht., Michael.), nor can it with διαπαντός be taken as indicating annual repetition=still ever and ever recurring, (Grot., Bφhm., De W., Ebr.). It is supposed, therefore, with Calov, and the best older interpreters, by Bl., Thol., Lόn., that the author, with his mind specially on the singleness and finality of the sacrifice of Christ, has in loose and inexact expression, blended the priestly sacrifices in general with the grand high-priestly sacrifice on the annually recurring day of atonement. They point, in support of the assumption, to the fact that the high-priest was not merely empowered to take part in the daily burnt offering as often as he chose (Mishn. Tract. Thamid VII. 3) but that he made frequent use of this privilege, particularly on Sabbaths, new moons, and festal occasions, (Joseph. Bell. Jud. Hebrews 7:5-6), and that the same is true of the daily incense offerings, to which there was ascribed an atoning significancy, Leviticus 17:11-12; Numbers 33:10, LXX. As this sacrifice would seem to have been originally offered morning and evening by Aaron in person, Exodus 30:7; and the author of our epistle goes back in various ways, to the original institutions which were intended to be binding on all the generations of Israel, Exodus 12:14; Exodus 30:8, the words ἀνάγκηνἔχει may admit this explanation all the more, as already Sir 45:14; Sir 45:16, the sacrificial service is designated generally as the service of Aaron, and also Philo (Ed. Mang. II. 321) calls the high-priest εὐχὰςκαὶθυσίαςτελῶνκαθ’ ἑκάστηνἡμέραν. Against Wieseler’s assumption that this passage attests a rite existing merely in the Egyptian temple of Onias, we have the decisive fact that also in the Jerus. Talmud, tr. Chagiga, II. 4, and in the Babyl. Talmud, tr. Pesachim, 57 a, it is said of the high-priest that he offers daily sacrifice (Del. Talmud. Studien XIII. in Rudelb. and Guer. Zeitschr. fόr die luth. Theologie und Kirche, 1860, I 7:593 ff.). In like manner we may observe that, according to Philo, I. 497, in the daily sacrifices the priests offered a meat-offering for themselves, and the sacrificial lamb for the people. In this the πρότερον and ἔπειτα standing in relation to the daily offering, may find an explanation. We shall thus be under no necessity of referring the language exclusively to the high-priestly minhha, i.e, to the vegetable meat offering, which according to Leviticus 6:13-16, the high-priest has to offer from the day of his anointing, daily, morning and evening, and this not for the people, but as a matter of daily consecration for himself; and to lay the emphasis on the fact that this meat-offering is designated Sir 45:14; Philo, I. 497, 26; II. 321, 38; Joseph. Antt. III. 10, 7, as a θυσία, and is also mentioned by Origen (Homil. IV. in Levit.): See Lundius Jόd. Heiligth, III. 9, § 19, more recently Thalhofer: ‘The bloodless sacrifices of the Mosaic Ritual,’ p. 139–156. It may, however, well be urged that our author Hebrews 5:1, designates every sacrifice including the δῶρα in the narrower sense, as a sacrifice made in its ultimate ground and purpose, ὑπὲρἁμαρτιῶν. Only we must not deny that primarily the comparison of our passage with Hebrews 5:3, points certainly to a proper expiatory offering made by the high-priest περὶἑαυτοῦ, and that the sin-offerings following in succession suit no other day so well as the annual great day of atonement. The statements above made, however, show that we need not necessarily on this account yield our assent to the view of Hofmann (Schriftb. II. 1, 287, 2 Ausg. II. 1, 404), as is done by Riehm, Alford, and Delitzsch in his commentary: “The comparison is not made between what Christ would have to do, and that which the high-priests have daily to do; but between that which the high-priests have to do, and that which Christ would have to do day by day. He would be obliged, inasmuch as ever new and perpetual expiation would be required, to do day by day that which he has now done once for all.” Delitzsch remarks that this view is favored alike by the nicely chosen position of καθ’ ἡμέραν, and by the plural expression ὤσπεροἱἀρχιερεῖς; but he has retracted his concurrence (Rudelbach, Zeitschrift, 1860, I 7:595). Hofmann refers the τοῦτοἐποίησεν to the whole expression πρότερον—λαοῦ, as also Schlicht., Grot., Hammond did, though with different special views, inasmuch as Hofmann regards as the antitype of the sin-offering presented by the High-priest περὶἑαυτοῦ, the supplication of Jesus in Gethsemane (Hebrews 5:7-8); while against all use of language, Schlichting understands by ἀμαρτίαι Christ’s infirmitates et perpessiones, Grotius understands by it the dolores assumed and submitted to by Christ as punishment for the sins of humanity, from which dolores He was only set free by death. Delitzsch, however, with the majority, refers it to the high-priestly θυσίαςἀναφέρειυὑπὲρτῶνἁμαρτιῶντοῦλαοῦ. The γάρ Hebrews 7:28 introduces the reason, as lying in the fact of the case, for the above-mentioned relation of Christ to the Mosaic priests. AND ETHICAL1. The death of Jesus Christ on the cross is in its essential significance to be conceived as a voluntary self-sacrifice, corresponding to the purpose of God, yet not barely in the sense of a moral offering for the benefit of others, but as a vicarious sacrifice, expiating the guilt of sin for collective humanity, taking away the punishment of sin, and working reconciliation with God. 2. Its fitness for such a work this death derives from the character of the person, who is at the same time priest and victim, and unites in himself, and possesses in their truth and reality, all qualities which in the Levitical service are divided between priest and victim, and which there have but a mere symbolical efficacy. 3. The nature of this self-sacrifice of Christ excludes the continuance of the symbolico-typical priesthood and sacrificial service, just as its eternal validity and efficacy admits no repetition of this perfect sacrifice, and no substitution, or the offering of any other sacrifice of like dignity and importance with the Son, who is perfected forever. 4. The weakness which inheres in mortals is partly a creaturely limitation, partly an inborn sinfulness, partly a personal guiltiness. From this springs the partial nature of the legal high-priesthood, its purely symbolical significance, and the necessity of a plurality of persons relieving one another, and of actions which repeat themselves with special mutually supplementary acts. But within the Old Testament revelation itself, the promise of God, confirmed by His oath, points to the universal character, to the reality and to the efficacy of the atonement accomplished by the eternally perfected Son. AND 1. The character of the Priesthood of Jesus Christ, in its dependence on the nature of the person of the Lord.—The sole and single high-priesthood of Jesus Christ, corresponds perfectly to the necessities of the human race, and to the revealed purpose and will of God.—The weakness of men and the eternal perfection of the Son.—Christ at the same time priest and victim.—The causes of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ are: a. the sin of the world; b. the purpose of God; c. the loving obedience of the Son.—The effects of the offering of Jesus Christ by Himself: a. on the perfection of His own person; b. on the relation of the world to God; c. on the character of the priesthood exercised by man.—Wherein consists the preλminence of the high-priesthood of Jesus Christ? Starke:—Preachers bear their treasures in earthen vessels. When they err let none be stumbled thereat; they are obliged also for themselves to bring the offering of repentance.—Christ has made an offering once for all; by this we should and must abide; and thus it is to depreciate His sacrifice, to desire still daily to offer it as Popish priests assume and undertake to do.—The sacrifice of Christ made once for all, serves us, as for the strengthening of our faith, so also for the cleansing of our walk, that we may abide therein and not draw back.—Behold the ground of the efficacy and perfection of the single and final propitiatory sacrifice of Christ; He is the Son of God whom the Father hath raised from the dead, received into His glory, and placed at the right hand of His majesty. Rieger:—The depth of our need, and the loftiness of the purposes for which God has commenced His dealings with us, demanded such a High-priest as God in this One has prepared for us.—Such a high-priest was necessary for us, who, with the purest zeal for the honor of God, could still in a becoming manner lead to Him a world full of sinners.—Jesus has shown satisfactorily that He is at once a true friend of sinners, and from the heart an enemy of sin. Heubner:—The ground of the priestly dignity of Christ lies in His innocence, righteousness and holiness.—The repetition of sacrifices was a constant reminder of the weakness and sinfulness of men. Menken:—Holiness in feeling and in conduct the Scripture ascribes to mortal men while they live in the flesh and on the earth, as it also demands of believers and righteous men, that they shall cherish in their heart, and evince in their life, holiness, not merely in the future but also in the present world. But it styles no mortal man perfect. Footnotes:Hebrews 7:23.—Instead of γεγονότεςἱεριές, we are to read with A. C. D. E., ἱερεἰςγεγονότες. Yet the Sin, has the words in the order first named. [Hebrews 7:26.—Instead of the bare ἔπρεπεν we should read with A. B. D. E. καὶἔπρεπεν, although Sin. has not the καὶ [καὶ adds force and beauty to the clause, and is undoubtedly genuine. It is as if he said, “not only do we have such an high priest, but such an one also became us.”—K]. THIRD SECTION ______ THIS CHRIST , AS KING AND OF THE NEW , A IN THE OLD I As High-priest of the true sanctuary which God reared and not man, Christ hath taken His seat at the right hand of Majesty in the heavens Hebrews 8:1-51 Now of the things which we have [are being] spoken this is the sum [chief point]: We have such a high priest, who is set [took his seat, ἐχάθισεν] on the right hand of the throne of the [om. the] Majesty in the heavens; 2A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and [om. and] not [a] man. 3For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices; wherefore it is of necessity that 4[also] this man [one] have somewhat also [om. also] to offer. For if [indeed, μέν] he were on earth, he should [would] not [even, οὐδέ] be a priest, seeing that there are priests [those] that offer gifts according to the law: 5Who serve unto the example [as those who minister to a copy] and shadow of [the] heavenly things, [according] as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make [complete, ἐπιτελεῖν] the tabernacle: for See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount. [Hebrews 8:1.—Κεφάλαιονδέ, and as a capital point, not the “sum;” for he is not summing up the preceding, but advancing to a new discussion.—ἐπὶτοῖςλεγομένοις, over, respecting the things which are being said=the points under discussion; not over the things which we have spoken (as if summing up what had been said) which would require τοῖςεἰρημένοις.—ἐκάθισεν, sat down, took his seat. Hebrews 8:2.—ἀληθινῆς, true=genuine, archetypal, not the shadow or copy. Hebrews 8:3.—εἰςτὸπροσφέρειν, for the offering, in order to offer.—ὅθενἀναγκαῖον, whence (not, wherefore) it is, or was necessary.—καὶτοῦτον, also this, scil., high-priest. Hebrews 8:4.—Εἰμὲνγὰρἦν, for if indeed he were much better, in my judgment, than the reading εἰμὲνοὖν, if, indeed, now.—οὐδ’ ἂνἦνὶερεύς, not even would he be a priest; no emphasis on ἱερεύς, as contrasted with ἀρχιερεύς, but the οὐδὲ emphasizes ἦν, not even would he be.—ὄντωντῶνπροσφερόντων, there being=inasmuch as there are, those who are offering. Hebrews 8:5.—οἵτινες, characteristic, as those who.—ὑποδείγματι, to a copy; sometimes ὑποδειγ.=pattern.Ὑπόδειγμα, a thing shown under, i.e., in subserviency to, something else whether as model or copy.—τῶνἐπουρανίων, of the heavenly, scil., πραγμάτων, things, or, as I think, better, ἁλίων, sanctuary—καθὼςκεχρημάτισται, according as Moses has been divinely instructed.—μέλλωνἐπιτελεῖν, being about to accomplish, hence, complete, carry through the construction of.—K.]. AND Heb_8:1. A capital point in respect of the things which we are saying.—As the author comes now to a point not hitherto specially treated, and proceeds to a comparison between the priests who serve in the Mosaic tabernacle, and Christ, the royal Priest who ministers in heaven as the true sanctuary, κεφάλαιον must here denote not the “sum” (Erasm., Luth., Calv., etc.), but “chief or capital point.” The appended ἐπὶτοῖςλεγομ. too, excludes the idea of a summing up or recapitulation of a previous discussion, as this would demand the form κεφ. τῶνεἰρημένων, ‘sum of what has been said.’ The present part. shows also that the author is not introducing a fresh topic additional to the preceding (Calov, etc.), but simply bringing out into fuller notice and development, with reference to the special character of his readers, the chief and central point of the existing discussion. This cardinal point is the determining of the quality of our High-Priest Christ, who, as the Messiah seated at the right hand of God, can only minister in the sanctuary of which that of Moses is to be regarded as the earthly copy. Hence, Hebrews 8:2 is, without a comma, to be united with Hebrews 8:1. It is indifferent for the sense whether the words commencing the chapter are taken as Acc. absolute, or as an anticipatory nominative apposition to the entire following clause. The explanation of Hofmann, who puts a colon after κεφ. δέ, is wholly erroneous: (in addition to those who were called high-priests we have,” etc.). Hebrews 8:2. As minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle.—The Adj. ἀληθινη̄ς is commonly, by Zeugma, referred also to ἀγίων. But we have thus either a tautology, or a difficulty in distinguishing ἁγίων and σκηνῆς, if the former word be regarded as neuter. The distinction drawn by Chr. F. Schmid, who makes τὰἄγια denote the whole temple, and σκηνή the holiest of all, is entirely arbitrary. The reverse distinction would be much more in accordance with the general usage of the author, who uniformly, except Hebrews 9:3, designates the holiest of all by the simple ἅγια. But why thus distinguish the part from the whole, if this part again is to be included in the whole? We should rather infer that the σκηνή could also designate only a part of the entire sanctuary, and of course the part separated from the ‘holiest of all,’ which Hebrews 9:2 is called σκηνὴἡπρώτη. But what application shall we make of this distinction? According to Del. τὰἄγια would seem to designate the throne of God situated above and beyond all the heavens, the eternal δόξα of God Himself, into which Christ has entered, and where He appears as mediator on our behalf; but σκηνή, the heaven of angels and of all the blessed saints, where Christ rules with mediatorial sway. This view is refuted—to say nothing of other objections—by the very language of our passage, in which Christ, as minister τῶνἁγίων, has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of Majesty in the heavens. Few, however, will be inclined, with Hofm. (Weiss. II. 189 ff.; Schriftbeweis II. 1, 405), to understand, after Beza, Gerhard, etc., by σκηνή, the glorified body of Christ, or in a broader sense, after Calov, Braun, etc., the Christian church. It were more natural to refer τὰἅγια, though not with Seb. Schmidt, Braun, Rambach, to the employments and utensils required for the priestly service, yet, with Luth. and others, to the holy and true goods and possessions. But this explanation is discountenanced alike by the word σκηνή and the word λειτουργός, which latter in this connection, instead of its original signification of a public officer acting for the good of the people, has, doubtless, in accordance with the usage of the Sept. a special relation to the position and office of priest. If now we abandon the idea of a zeugma in the construction, we shall still not be obliged, either with Hofm., to resort to the unnatural construction of ἐντοῑςοὐράνοις with τῶνἁγ. λειτουργός, nor to retain, with Primas. and �cum., the masc. construction of τῶνἀγίων, a construction illy harmonizing with the designation of Christ as λειτουργός. We need but take καί explicatively, and all difficulty vanishes. [The last sentence undoubtedly suggests the true solution of this much vexed question. The term ἅγια, holy place, sanctuary, is first naturally used with reference to the character and use of the tabernacle as consecrated to God, and a place of religious and priestly service. The word σκηνή is then added to designate the structure, and to bring it into more distinct relation to the tabernacle of Moses. The added καὶτῆςσκηνῆςἀληθ. is then a sort of loose synonyme or fuller statement of the idea conveyed by the τὰἅγια. Delitzsch’s notion, that the ἡσκηνή is the heaven of the glorified saints, and Hofmann’s that it is the glorified body of Christ, are both utterly unfounded conceits—that of Hofmann preλminently so; while the view of Alford, which undertakes to combine the two, with a preponderance in favor of Hofmann’s, labors under the double difficulty of adopting two views, both of which are alike without support in the Epistle, and without a particle of intrinsic probability, and which are also irreconcilable with each other. Every interpretation that undertakes to carry into the heaven of the New Testament the distinction between the inner and the outer sanctuary of the Mosaic tabernacle, ignores the very fundamental idea of that distinction, and leads to inextricable difficulties in interpretation, as has been illustrated in the numerous hypotheses, purely conceits, which the attempt to fix the nature of that heavenly outer tabernacle has originated. And if it be urged that the Mosaic tabernacle was itself but the copy of the heavenly tabernacle, and that, therefore, the antitype must have the same divisions as are found in the pattern, I reply that this is pressing unduly the figurative language of the author. The real actual pattern of the Mosaic tabernacle was that which God showed to Moses in Mount Sinai, an exact model after which he was to construct his earthly material tabernacle, and nothing more. Now that the author again should make a figurative application of that literal language, need not surprise, and should not mislead us. Literally that tabernacle was modelled precisely after the pattern or the direction which God had given Moses in the mount. Figuratively that tabernacle becomes a copy or type of the heavenly tabernacle or sanctuary, inasmuch as the high-priest ministering there in a symbolical expiation and removal of sin, typifies the heavenly High-priest officiating on high in a real expiation and forgiveness of sins. But that we are thence to carry all the special features of the earthly tabernacle into the figurative, heavenly New Testament tabernacle, does not follow; and is in fact impossible. For the essential characteristic of the outer tabernacle as distinguished from the inner—the very thing which it denoted was, as we shall subsequently see, separation from God. The veil of the temple, answering to the veil of the tabernacle, was rent at the death of the Son of God. The separation between outer and inner tabernacle, was done away—never to be renewed.—K.].—“Ἀληθής excludes the untrue and unreal, ἀληθινός excludes that which does not correspond to its idea. The measure of the ἀληθής is the actual, the measure of the ἀληθινός is the ideal. In ἀληθής the idea corresponds to the object, in ἀληθινός the object corresponds to the idea” (Kahnis Eucharist, p. 119). For a parallel in thought see Wis 9:8. Hebrews 8:3. For every high-priest, etc.—Many expositors take Hebrews 8:3, which Camer., Beng., etc., enclose in a parenthesis as an incidental remark, unnecessary to the connection (Michael.), or disturbing the train of thought (De W.), or introducing a train of ideas that is again crowded out by others (Thol.), or merely explanatory of the word λειτουργός (Lόn.). But the purpose of the author is not to show that Christ must be a Priest of sacrifice. Since the λειτουργεῑν or dealing in sacrifices is essential to the function of every high-priest (Lόn.); he rather proceeds to prove that the λειτουργία of Christ can be exercised only in a heavenly sanctuary, which corresponds to the idea of the sanctuary that in type and figure was presented in the Mosaic tabernacle. It was already demonstrated from Scripture, that the Messiah is appointed of God to be alike King and Priest. As High-priest He must necessarily have somewhat that he may offer. In what this consists, remains as yet unstated, and it is a purely arbitrary and embarrassing hypothesis, which limits λειτουργεῑν and προσφέρειν exclusively to offering sacrifices. We are but pointed (as already observed by Justiniani, Este., etc.) to the necessity of priestly functions and acts to be accomplished by Christ. But in the legal economy where the Levitical priests have their function, there was absolutely no place for the priesthood of Christ; He needs, consequently, for the exercise of His priestly vocation, a heavenly sanctuary, and one which fulfils the entire idea of a sanctuary. Hence we are to supply with ἀναγκαῑον not ἦν (Peshito, Bez., Beng., Bl., De W., Lόn.), but ἐστίν (Vulg., Luth., Calv., etc.), and to refer the προσφέρειν not to the sacrifice, offered once for all, of the body of Christ on the cross. The Aor. requires neither that we translate with Lόn.: “for which reason it was necessary that also this one should have something which he might offer;” nor with Hofm.: “for which reason it is necessary that he have something which he may have offered.” To read ῳ ?=where for ὅ is totally unnecessary. [I cannot but conceive that the true connection of the thought in Hebrews 8:3 has escaped nearly, or quite all the interpreters. That many of them have failed to detect it, is certain from the diversity of their explanations. Some, with Bengel, would put it in parenthesis. Michaelis regards it as entirely unessential to the connection; De Wette, as a disturbing intruder; Tholuck as turning to a thought that was again crowded out by others; Lφnemann as added to explain the import of λειτουργός; Alford, after Delitzsch, as belonging here only incidentally; while Moll regards it as simply a general statement of the high-priestly function of Christ as introductory to the proof that He is ministering in a heavenly tabernacle. In this general and wide diversity of views, all but one must be, and all may be, wrong. The following may perhaps only increase by one the number of opinions to be rejected. I think, however, that it will be found that a close analysis will sustain the view that the passage is neither parenthetical, nor irrelevant, nor incidental, but introduces the grand thought which forms the theme of discussion through this and the following chapter, and that in fact this states, and states in its proper place, what is the vital point of the whole Epistle. Christ’s Melchisedek Priesthood has been previously considered; now comes the consideration of His Aaronic high-priesthood. This is vital to the subject; for His mere Melchisedek priesthood, however intrinsically majestic and glorious, would be of no avail to sinners; He must minister in the heavenly sanctuary as the counterpart of Aaron, the Levitical high-priest, and, as such, in correspondence with this relation, He must have something to offer. What this is, is the point now to be stated, and of which the author only apparently loses sight, the point toward which he pursues a constant though somewhat indirect course from this to Hebrews 9. Hebrews 8:11. Let us follow the course of thought. So important is it that He have something to offer, that if He were on earth, He could not even be a priest, inasmuch as there there is a regularly ordained priesthood for all the offerings of the Mosaic law, and which cannot there be superceded. But in fact He has a Priesthood in the heavenly tabernacle, and a Priesthood as much superior to the Levitical as the Covenant which He guarantees is superior to that under which they served. This leads to a natural digression—a digression from the immediate point under discussion, but standing in intimate vital connection with the general theme of the Epistle—in illustrating the superiority of the New Covenant, of which Christ was High-priestly Mediator and surety, over that Old Covenant of which the Levitical priests were servants. This illustration is effected by the apposite and beautiful citation from Jeremiah, which unfolds the better promises that characterize the New Covenant. This topic finished, the author resumes with Hebrews 9. the inquiry, what the New Testament High-Priest has to offer. He recurs, therefore, to the arrangements of that Old Covenant, whose high-priestly service was typical of that of the New. He naturally goes back to the tabernacle in which that service was performed (“to the first Covenant now there belonged,” etc.), dwells somewhat minutely on its features (in order, by delineating its majesty, to enhance the glory of the Covenant which it but symbolizes), and then adds the facts to which all this description is but introductory, viz., that while the ordinary priests enter daily into the outer sanctuary, into the inner the high-priest enters but once a year, alone, and not without blood. Thus we are prepared for the statement at Hebrews 8:11, to which all this has tended, viz., that Christ must enter the heavenly tabernacle also with blood, and here the author reaches the point which he had in mind at Hebrews 8:3, and which he has not since lost sight of. If this analysis be correct, it will be seen that Moll’s general division of the Epistle, which makes Hebrews 9 commence a new capital section, is vicious, inasmuch as it cuts right in two a chain of argument whose links are most closely connected. The same is true of Ebrard’s analysis, who begins, as it were, a new and independent section with the description of the Mosaic tabernacle, and neither Delitzsch nor Alford has made any improvement on them. In fact, this description of the Mosaic tabernacle, Hebrews 9, is merely incidental, or rather a subordinate link in a chain of reasoning by which the author is showing what the New Testament High-priest has to offer. Thus Hebrews 8:3 of Hebrews 8 formally introduces the topic around which the whole discussion turns from this point to Hebrews 10:19, where, in reality, the grand argument of the Epistle terminates.—K.]. Hebrews 8:4. For if to be sure [εἰμὲνγάρ] he were on earth.—Εἰἦν cannot here mean “if he had been” (Bφhme, Kuinoel; nor is anything to be supplied, as e. g., either μόνον, Grot., etc.), or ἱερεύς (Zeger, Beng., Carpz, etc.). The οὐδέ belongs to ἦν, not to ἱερεύς. Had the author intended to say that in the case supposed Christ could not be even a priest, much less a high-priest, (Bl., Bisp., Hofm.), he would have written οὐδ’ ἱερεὺςἂνἦν. Hebrews 8:5. As those who minister to a copy and shadow of the heavenly.—Λατρεύειν stands indeed commonly with the Dat. of the person whom one serves, yet is found also with the Dat. of the thing in which (not with which) one serves, as also Hebrews 13:10. The proper signification of ὑπόδειγμα is that of an embodying, representative image; for which reason the word can be used, Hebrews 4:11, as=παράδειγμα, example, model, and here as at Hebrews 9:23, and more usually, denotes copy, with the subordinate idea of an outline simply drawn from memory. Σκιά, shadow, may stand in antithesis to σῶμα, body (as at Colossians 2:17), in which case it simply opposes the non-essential to the essence; or in antithesis to εἰκών (as Hebrews 10:1), in which case it suggests to the imagination the obscurity of the shadowy image. With τῶνοὐρανίων we need not, with Lφnemann, supply ἁγίων; for the following chapters show clearly that not heavenly localities, but heavenly relations and Divine ideas, as realized in Christ, are regarded as the archetype symbolized by the Mosaic sanctuary: [so Alford: “the things in heaven, in the heavenly sanctuary.” But the author, though treating of heavenly facts, relations, etc., yet does it under the imagery drawn from the earthly tabernacle. He has already employed that imagery, transferring to heaven the figure of the tabernacle (Hebrews 8:2), and to this he ever and anon returns (Hebrews 9:24), and in view especially of this passage just referred to, I incline to adopt Lφnemann’s view. This, of course, need not prejudice the fact that the thing essentially aimed at is ideas and relations.—K.]. So also Exodus 25:40. We need not assume an actual temple as archetype of the tabernacle which Moses from Sinai may be supposed to have beheld, standing in heaven, nor any original structure which God Himself had reared as a model upon Sinai, where, according to the later Rabbins, it was to stand forever, but a, pattern structure, which was shown to Moses in prophetic vision, and is described in the words of God, Exodus 26:26-30. This signification, model building, the word ϊַּ ?αְ ?πִ ?ιϊ (which Joshua 22:28 denotes architecture, Deuteronomy 4:17, denotes sculpture of every kind, and Psalms 144:12 points to a plastic model), will very well bear at Exodus 25:40. But it by no means accords with the prophetic survey of a model building which expresses heavenly relations, to assume, with Ebrard, a mere drawing or outline edifice, although such a drawing might in itself apply to the word in question according to 2 Chronicles 16:10, where it signifies sketch, outline, and 1 Chronicles 28:11 ff., where it signifies ground plot. The typical signification comes out strongly at Isaiah 44:13, inasmuch as there, at Isaiah 8:14, the wood is to be sought for the carrying out and realization of the pattern structure given in Hebrews 8:13. AND ETHICAL1. After Christ, as High-Priest, had given His life as an expiatory offering on the cross, and with His atoning blood had entered into the inner sanctuary of heaven, He has not returned again from heaven to earth, as the Levitical high-priest was obliged, after completing the sprinkling of blood, again to quit the inner Sanctuary. The office and function of the Levitical priests suffices not as a type of Christ’s work of reconciliation, and of His mediatorial position. Christ is a Priest of a different description, and for this has Melchisedek for His type. In this comparison, the capital point is, the recognition of the fact that Christ is a royal Priest in heaven, i.e, after His elevation to the right hand of Majesty ceases not to exercise priestly sway. 2. Since the Melchisedek priesthood is of a different order from the Levitico-Aaronical, this cannot refer to an offering of Christ in heaven, but only to a Priestly function, by which the High-Priestly sacrifice that was previously, and once for all, offered upon the cross, is rendered prevalent with God, efficacious with respect to men. Yet this priestly function in making intercession and in bestowing blessings, Christ exercises as a High-Priest who sits upon the Throne of God, i.e, on the ground of His sacrificial death upon the cross, and by virtue of His position as glorified God-man. “The blood of Christ has indeed been, in His sacrifice, poured out upon the earth, and so been separated from the sacrificial body, as was done with animals in the typical sacrifice. But still it behooved that it should not barely be sprinkled upon the earth, but be borne to the sanctuary of God to sprinkle the throne of grace. And after it has been once borne in thither, and sprinkled in a divine way, it belongs now to the office of our High-Priest whom we have in the sanctuary, to sprinkle it also upon our hearts and consciences, and this life of ours, still, indeed, having its source in blood, but not in the love of God, again to unite with the true life of Divine love.” (Steinhofer). 3. Since, according to the Scriptures, the Priesthood belongs essentially to the Messiah, He must necessarily always exercise Priestly functions of essential significance; but it thence by no means follows that He must be conceived as in an act of perpetual sacrifice, as those do who understand by the heavenly offering either the person of the glorified God-man, and thence deduce the sacrifice of mass (as still recently Thalhofer) or regard the believers of all generations as the sacrificial offering of Christ to God, (Theodor. Mops., Chrys., Cyrill. Alex.). Nor even does it follow that in the offering which He makes we need specially think of blood. (Del.). Since if we, with justice, distinguish this act from the slaying of the victim, and in a detailed comparison of Christ with the Aaronic high-priests, as chaps. 9 and 10, refer the slaying specially to the crucifixion, and the offering to the sprinkling of the throne of God with the sacrificial blood, we must still, in the case of the expiation wrought in the death of Christ, refrain from pushing too far the points of comparison; and particularly we must not forget that these acts immediately followed one another on the day of atonement, belong, in fact, inseparably together, and work in the objective sense an expiation which is essentially distinguished from the reconciliation which is to be obtained by the subject only on this ground, and in consequence of this. In this relation the offering of Christ by His sacrifice of Himself on the cross, is an offering once for all, whereby He has effected an eternal redemption. 4. But to the priestly functions there belongs also a sanctuary. The earthly sanctuary, however, built by human hands, cannot be that in which Christ has His Priesthood. There, men minister who are from a stock to which Jesus, who is Christ, does not belong. Moreover, this sanctuary in its very erection was already designated as a mere copy. There must thus be a heavenly sanctuary, to which the Messianic priestly king belongs, and in which he exercises a priestly office. All endeavors, however, to fix such a sanctuary as a separate locality in heaven, which locality is the real archetype of the Mosaic tabernacle, fail, in the fact, that “the different attributes here assigned to Christ, taken literally, exclude one another,” (Thol.), and that according to Exodus 25., not only the tabernacle but also all its utensils were to be made after the heavenly model. We must thus regard this expression as a sensible embodiment of the idea of the reconciliation and restoration of our fellowship with God, wrought through Christ, introduced by the designation of Christ’s mission as a Priestly one, for which reason also Luther, with most of the ancients, understood by the sanctuary simply the spiritual blessings belonging to the kingdom of God. AND The patterns after which we are to regulate our life and our condition, have been shown to us by God, and described in the Holy Scriptures.—It is only by His royal throne in heaven that the High-Priestly dignity, power and work of Jesus, are rendered to us truly intelligible, challenge our admiration, and reach the depth of our spiritual needs.—Whether we let the High-Priest whom we have, also influence us for our salvation?—As the people of the New Testament we belong to the heavenly sanctuary, and thereby have great prerogatives: how do we stand with reference to the corresponding duties? Starke:—Thanks be to God that we have a High-Priest who sits at the right hand of the Majesty on high, and whose sacrifice and intercession have, therefore, unlimited power.—Christ is the fosterer of His Church. He Himself communicates the holy and heavenly gift. Would that we with perfect faith might hasten to this faithful High-Priest, and from the fulness of His grace, bring forth a real treasure and amplitude of heavenly blessings.—Precisely for the reason that Christ, after His one completed sacrifice, sits at the right hand of God, He fills all in all.—Whoever offers to God only the outward and corporeal, offers a Jewish, and not a Christian sacrifice. Rieger:—We have a Priest, such as we need. The Father has prepared Him; love and obedience have drawn Him into His office; He is perfected according to all that which was written aforetime with regard to Him; He is set before us in the Gospel, and faith lays hold upon Him.—As God has prepared to Himself a seat of Majesty, a central point of His Government, and of the bestowment of His life and His glory; He has also reared a dwelling, or holy tabernacle, in which is the seat of Majesty, and in which He receives the priestly service and worship of those who draw near to Him.—The Saviour has made use of the temple, as His Father’s house, for instruction, and cleansed this house of prayer for all nations, from abuses; but on Golgotha, not at the foot of the altar, flowed His blood, shed upon the wood of His cross. Hahn:—We must follow with our gaze the dear Saviour on His course of suffering clear up into heaven. Heubner:—Were not Christ in this inconceivably close connection with God in heaven, He could not, in proper and complete authority, impart the forgiveness of sins, truly annihilate sin, and arrest its consequences.—Our service of God and priesthood should be an imitation and copy of the service of God in heaven. Footnotes: Hebrews 8:2.—Καί is to be expunged after Sin. B. D. E., 17. Hebrews 8:4.—Instead of εἰμὲνγάρ, should be read with Sin. A. B. D*., 17, 73, 80, 137, εἰμὲνοὖν. [Tisch. retains εἰμὲνγάρ, which seems to me much more accordant with the connection. The substitution of οὖν, for γάρ, though strongly supported and favored by most modern editors, I cannot but regard as the result of a misunderstanding of the connection.—K.]. Hebrews 8:4.—The words τῶνἱερέων before τῶνπροσφερόντων, are not found in Sin. A. B. D. E., 17, 73, 137, and are to be regarded as a gloss, which Grotius, Mill, and Griesbach were inclined to expunge. The Art. before νόμον is wanting in Sin. A. B., 57, 80. Hebrews 8:5.—Instead of ποιήσῃς, all the best authorities require us to read ποιήσεις. II Christ’s priestly service is by so much the more excellent, as the covenant of which He is Mediator, rests upon better promises than the old covenant, which, according to its own testimony, is destined to destruction. Hebrews 8:6-136 But now [as it is] hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was [hath been] established upon better promises. 7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should [would] no place 8have been [be] sought for the second. For [while] finding fault with them he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: 9Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day When I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not 10[disregarded them], saith the Lord. For [Because] this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord: I will put my laws into their mind, and will write [inscribe] them in [on] their hearts: and I will be to them a God, 11and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, [fellow-citizen, πολίτην], and every man his brother, saying, Know ye the Lord: for all shall [will] know me, from the least unto the greatest. 12For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. 13In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now [But] that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. [Hebrews 8:6.—νυνὶδέ, but now, as it is, as the case actually stands, contrasted with the case supposed Hebrews 8:4,—ἥτις, as one which, characteristic, νενομεθέτηται, has been enacted, instituted as matter of legislation, the word suggested by the legal character of the old covenant. Hebrews 8:7.—οὐκἂνἐζητεῖτο, would not be sought. Hebrews 8:8.—μεμφόμενος, blaming, finding fault, either with it or them, or both; here, I think, mainly the former. Hebrews 8:9.—ε͂νἡμέρᾳἐπιλαβομένουμου, in the day of my taking hold of them for succor, see Hebrews 2:16—αὐτοί and κἀγώ placed in contrast. God divides, in His tenderness, the blame between the people and himself. Hebrews 8:10.—διδούς giving either with ο͂ιαθήσομαὶ understood from the preceding verse, or irregularly connected by καί with the following finite verb.—ἐπιγράψω, I will write upon, inscribe. Hebrews 8:11.—οὐμὴδιδάξωσιν, a familiar emphatic construction: There is no fear lest they may teach=they shall by no means teach,—τὸνπολίτην=συμπολίτην, fellow-citizen.—εἰδήσω, old Ionic Fut. for εἴσομαι, which thence past over to the later Attic.—ἀπὸμικροῦἔωςμεγάλου, from small unto great of them. Hebrews 8:12.—ἵλεως, propitious, gracious.—οὑμὴμνησθῶἔτι. I will no longer make mention. Hebrews 8:13.—ἐντῷλέγεῖνκαινήν, in saying “new.”—πεπαλαίωκε, he hath rendered antiquated.—παλαιούμενονκαὶγηράσκον, becoming antiquated and growing old.—K.]. AND Heb_8:6. But now, etc.—In. contrast with the supposition made in Hebrews 8:4, Hebrews 8:7 exhibits the actual state of the case, and reminds us that the priestly service of Christ, although there is no place for it in the Mosaic sanctuary, has still not less value than the so highly revered Levitical worship; nay rather by so much surpasses it as the New Covenant of which Christ is Mediator surpasses the Old Covenant, which, though also founded on Divine promises, yet, even by these themselves is reminded of its yet imperfect nature and transitory significance. The νυνὶδέ is thus to be taken not temporally but logically, not, however, deducing, but contrasting, [as is uniformly the case in its logical use]. Hebrews 8:6. Establish.—The expression νενομοθέτηται shows that the author regards the New Covenant partly as a fact which has been historically accomplished, partly as an economy of salvation and of life established by God, and for this reason not merely of binding authority, but also working according to fixed laws, as does also Paul, Romans 3:27; Romans 8:2; Romans 9:31. Hebrews 8:7. There would no place be sought.—Bleek finds the idea expressed that God would have had no need to seek in the hearts of men for a better place for His covenant than was furnished by the tables of stone; but, although the statement that the first covenant was not faultless refers to the outward and ceremonial character of the Old Testament institutions, still the author, if Bleek’s idea had been in his mind, could hardly have omitted the words ἐνταῖςκαρδίαις. Moreover the emphasis certainly not upon τόπος but upon δευτέρας. The translation “would have been sought” (Erasm., Calv., Bez., etc.), is erroneous, as it would have demanded the pluperfect. The following passage of Scripture which contains the promise of a new covenant, would seem, according to Del., to show that God in His counsel already had a place for such a covenant, and hence sought, in the history of the world, the place for its actualization. Thol. takes the τόπονζητεῖν here as=τόπονλαμβάνειν, Acts 25:16, i.e., to take occasion. Ebr. and Lόn. assume a blending of the two clauses οὐκἄνἦντόποςδευτέρας=there would have been no place for a second, and οὐκἂνἐζητεῖτοδευτέρα=no second would be sought. Hebrews 8:8. For finding fault he saith to them.—Lachmann reads after A. D*. K., 17, 39, αὐτοῖς,. This reference to the Israelites is, however, possible even with the better attested reading αὐτοῖς, since μέμφεσθαι, is constructed alike with the Acc. and the Dat. In this construction the Peshito is followed by the Vulg., Chrys., Luth., Calv., Bisp., Del., and the majority. It is a more elegant and delicate construction, however, to leave the object of the fault-finding undetermined (De W., Ebr.), and with Faber Stapul., Piscat., Schlicht., Grot., Bl., Lόn., Reiche, etc., to connect αὐτοῖς with λέγει. We must not, however, exactly supply αὐτήν, and regard μεμφ. as corresponding directly with the preceding ἄμεμπτος. This corresponds not with the citation from Jeremiah 31:31-34, in which the positive censure falls upon the people, and strikes but indirectly the covenant which was unable to secure right conduct in the nation. The designation of it here is=not blameless (ἄμεμπτος): and it is certainly inadmissible to regard the negative expression as on a level, with a positive one. On the other hand Del. goes too far in regarding the suppression of the object of the blame, as an ambiguity. The construction rather intimates the two-fold applicability of the censure, and this is entirely consonant with the facts of the case. In the citation itself which adduces the Scripture proof of the preceding statement, the author puts συντελέσω for διαθήσομαι and ἐποίησα for διεθέμην, with the evident design of indicating even in the very words of the New Testament as on the part of God accomplished. Hebrews 8:10. I will give.—Διδούς, giving, stands not instead of δώσω, I will give (Beng., etc.), nor is either this now to be supplied (Heinr., Steng., etc.), although the Cod. Vat. of the LXX. reads διδοὺςδώσω, or εἰμί or ἔσομαι. If we supply any thing, it could be only διαθήσομαι (Del.), with which preceding word we can also with Lόn. construct the Part. (I will make a covenant, viz., in giving), unless we prefer with Winer the not unfamiliar construction which makes a transition from the Part, to the finite verb. It is grammatically possible also (with Bφhme and Paulus) to connect διδούς with the following ἐπιγράψω, in which case καί=also. Hebrews 8:13. In that he saith a new covenant, etc.—From the above cited passage our author, by emphasizing the καινή, new, draws the conclusion that the Mosaic economy is even in its very origin declared as the old covenant which appears as languishing and waxing old without hope of rejuvenation. Παλαιοῦν means originally not to render antiquated=to do away as old and useless, to abrogate, (Bez., Erasm., etc.) but, to render ancient, or old, to deliver over to the past, and to place in contrast with the new, with that which is hitherto non-existent. This transitive signification it has also, Job 9:5; Job 32:15; Lamentations 3:5; which, at Daniel 7:25, passes over into the sense of set aside as antiquated. For what is consigned to the past, naturally grows old (vetus), and this in the case of the living is called senescere. The intransitive signification, grow old is found only at Isaiah 65:22. The word belongs to later Greek, and in extra biblical literature is in use only in the Mid. or Pass. The Perf. in our passage points to the completed act. AND ETHICAL1. From the elevation of the Priest, the author at Hebrews 7:22, reasons to the elevation of the covenant guaranteed by Him in His everlasting existence; since those mortal priests who are appointed by command of the Law can sustain no comparison with the Royal Priest promised by the oath of God, potent in virtue of His indestructible life, the eternally perfected Son. There arises thus not a mere inversion of the relation, much less an argument in a circle, if here the author reasons from the superiority of the covenant founded on better promises, to the superiority of His priestly functions, who is not merely the surety, but also the Mediator, i.e., the founder, supporter, quickener of this covenant. 2. The New Covenant also has its institutions and arrangements, established by the revelation of the Divine will, whose foundations are laid in the Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament. Among them particularly stands forth in the relation here adverted to the prophecy, Jeremiah 31:31-34 (whose parallel we find in Ezekiel 36:25-27) which, within the limits of the O. Test. itself, expresses most clearly the contrast so strongly emphasized by Paul (2 Corinthians 3:6-9) between the economies of law and gospel, and the purely disciplinary and educational, and hence transitory nature of the Mosaic institutions. 3. In this prophecy there is promised a new Covenant, which Jehovah will make with Israel and with Judah, i.e., with the collective people, whose restoration and reunion on the soil of the Promised Land is also promised by the prophet, a Covenant which shall have a different fate from that which was formed after the nation’s deliverance from Egypt. The all holy God, in His righteousness, does away with the old relation to the covenant-breaking people; but in His grace will institute a system of salvation by a new Covenant, for which He already lays the foundation by better promises. 4. The superiority of these promises consists in the fact that the Divine will is no longer as a bare command to come into mere outward contact with the people, but is to live and work in its heart; that in consequence of this a living knowledge of God is to be the common blessing of all the members of the Covenant, and the distinction between prophets and non-prophets, priests and non-priests, to fall away; and that finally the ground of this will be the forgiveness of sins wrought without any human merits by the grace of God. Precisely for this reason could Jeremiah 3:16-17 even predict that the entire legal economy, nay, the very ark of the Covenant itself, would no more be an object of longing to the people. Intimations of this state of things are found, Joe 3:1 ff.; Isaiah 11:9; Isaiah 54:13; Ezekiel 11:19. 5. From the disparagement of sacrificial worship which comes out frequently and strongly within the limits of the O. Test. itself (1 Samuel 15:22 ff.; Psalms 40:7 ff; Psalms 50; Psalms 51:18 ff.; Hosea 6:6; Jeremiah 7:21-23; Proverbs 21:3), we may not, however, conclude that the idea of the death of Jesus Christ as an expiatory offering is a relapse into Judaism—a sentiment in accordance with which Holdheim (on the Ceremonial Law in the Kingdom of the Messiah, 1845) says: “The Rabbinical doctrine stands in this near relation to Christianity that they both rest on the common conviction that the principle of expiation contained in the Mosaic law is to be maintained as of perpetual truth and validity. Christianity bases on this the fact that by a single great sacrifice the work of expiation has been once for all accomplished for all who believe in it, while Rabbinical Judaism, holding the same fundamental idea, regards the sacrificial ritual as only temporarily done away, and looks forward to its restoration.” This modern Judaism is as far removed from faith in the Old Testament as from faith in the gospel, and hence is equally incapable of comprehending both the one and the other. An arbitrary, self-willed and self-seeking separation from the legal worship is sharply rebuked by those same prophets who, turning away from the external character of the legal ceremonial and its meritorious works, demand and predict the fulfilment of that Divine will which is revealed in the law. But God, in the law, gave, on the one hand, not merely moral precepts, but also such as were intended to regulate the collective social relations of His people, and on the other, ordained, in a way which was unconditionally binding on the Israelites, the means for the fulfilment of these precepts, and for expiating their transgressions of His law. To these means belonged preλminently the system of worship whose central point is the sacrificial service. But in the position which God gave to the O. Test. in the economy of salvation, all its arrangements have a partly educational or disciplinary, partly a typical and symbolical character. It is hence equally erroneous to deny, on the one hand, the reality of the idea which at this stage could be expressed only in type and figure, and in the period of fulfilment, to turn back, on the other, to the types and symbols of that earlier period, whether this be done by Rabbins, who look forward to a simple restitution of the Mosaic ritual, or by Mormons, who have recently proposed the introduction of animal sacrifices into the Christian worship. Until the arrival of the period of perfection, it is true that even Christianity itself cannot dispense with symbols, and still bears a character which represents in the temporal and earthly the eternal and the heavenly. But its symbols have no longer the appearance of any independent value, and its type is the type of the completion of revelation. 6. The circumstance is of special importance that not without, but within the Old Covenant itself, and indeed only by undoubted words of God, was declared that capital defect of the Covenant mediated by Moses, which consisted in its want of provisions for effecting a real forgiveness of sin, and genuine communion with God, and that by the promise of a new Covenant the existing Covenant was already in the time of Jeremiah stamped as an institution no longer satisfactory, and destined to pass away. To Christians, then, the mere continued outward existence of Judaism can have no such import as to engender doubts of that abrogation of the Old Covenant which has historically taken place. Decay and superannuation clear to utter extinction are the inevitable destiny of that Covenant, allotted to it by the decision of God on the ground of its intrinsic nature. AND The Old Covenant was not broken up from without, but was dissolved internally, and by God Himself given over to extinction.—The infidelity of the covenant-people might induce the judgments of God, and occasion the abrogation of the former covenant; but could not bring to naught God’s purpose of salvation.—To the New Covenant belongs a new heart and a new spirit.—Forgiveness of sin is the foundation of all renewal; and this comes from grace by means of the New Covenant.—How the promises of the Old Covenant are fulfilled by the Mediator of the New. Starke:—How blessed are we in the New Covenant! We have so great a Mediator, such glorious promises, such glorious possessions! Is it not our shame that we still remain under the dominion of sin?—The Levitical law is to be sure in itself full of Divine goodness and wisdom, yet not adequate to our happiness; but only a shadow in comparison with the substance of the Messianic priesthood and kingdom.—God adheres faithfully to His covenant and promise; men are covenant-breakers. Woe unto them!—So tender is still God’s love toward His people, that He brings them into danger and need as a father his child, then takes them by the hand and brings them into security.—On contempt of the Divine words follows the Divine punishment.—Put to thyself the question: Perceivest thou that the law of God has been traced by the pen of the Holy Spirit upon thy mind and heart? Recognizest thou also the Lord thy Saviour in living faith and obedience?—Believers, as God’s covenant-people, are a blessed people.—The forgiveness of sins is the greatest treasure; without it the rich man has nothing, and with it the poorest man has all things.—Man, take God at these His words and sigh: Lord be gracious to my transgressions!—Thou seeker after vengeance, art thou not ashamed to say, “I will remember it of him!” when God says, “I will not remember it?”—Ceremonies which are not superstitious and sinful, can perhaps be endured for a season, although they have no special utility. Rieger:—The function of a high-priest in heaven is for himself more dignified and noble, and better and more blessed for those in whom he is to execute the promises.—Those who were under the Old Testament said: We will! and did not know that they could not. Now that the grace of the New Testament has made it possible, many shield themselves under the pretext of a cannot, while yet there is a real will not. Heubner:—God most honors and distinguishes Himself when He associates and deals with us not as a constraining Lord and Ruler, but as a Father with children. How are we put to shame by that announcement and awaiting of the New Covenant, which we linger so far behind!—The Old Covenant is past. Would to God that the old spirit of slavish service were gone with it, and the new spirit of willingness and love reigned in all! Footnotes:Hebrews 8:6.—The Attic form τετύχηκε instead of the Rec. τέτευχε is found in the Minusc, 47, 72, 73, 74. The form τέτυχεν however, is best supported on the authority of A. D*. K. L., 80, 116, 117. The Sin. has τέτυχε, but a second hand has put τέτευχε. Hebrews 8:10.—A. D. E. add μου which is also found in many Codd. of the LXX. But it is wanting in the cod. Alex. of the LXX. and the Sin. Hebrews 8:11.—Instead of τὸνπλησίον, according to all authority, should be read τὸνπολίτην. Hebrews 8:11.—Αὐτῶν after ἀπὸμικροῦ is to be erased after Sin. A. B. D. E. K. 17, 31, 61, 73, 80. Hebrews 8:12.—The retaining of the words καὶτῶνάνομιῶναὐτῶν is sustained by A. D. E. K. L. The Sin., however, has them only from the later hand. In B. 17, 23, Vulg. and other versions they are wanting. PART THIRDSuperiority of the New Covenant mediated by Jesus Christ ___ FIRST NEW WITH GOD, WHICH THE OLD ONLY AND I The typical and symbolical character of the Mosaic sanctuary points in itself to but an imperfect communion with God Hebrews 9:1-101 Then verily [There belonged indeed now even to εἶχεμὲνοὖνκαί] the first covenant had also [om. had also] ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary [its sanctuary as one belonging to this world]. 2For there was a tabernacle made [κατεσκευάσθη, constructed and fitted out, Hebrews 3:4]; the first [foremost], wherein was the candlestick, and the table, 3and the shewbread; which is called the [om. the] sanctuary. And after [μετά, after =behind] the second vail, the tabernacle which is called the holiest of all; 4Which had the golden censer [a golden altar of incense, θυμιατήριον], and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant; 5And over it the cherubim of glory shadowing the mercy seat; of which [things] we cannot now speak particularly. 6Now when these things were thus ordained [And these things having been thus arranged], the priests went [enter indeed] always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God [their ministrations, λατρείας,]; 7But into the second went [enters] the high priest alone once every year [in, the year], not without blood, which he offered [offers] for himself, and for the errors of the people: 8The Holy Ghost this signifying [signifying this], that the way into the holiest of all [the sanctuary, τῶνἁγίων] was not [has not been] yet made manifest, while as [om. 9as] the first [foremost] tabernacle was [is] yet standing: Which was [is] a figure for the time then [om. then] present, in which [according to which, viz., figure] were [are] offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not [cannot] make him that did the service [him that renders the service, τὸνλατρεύοντα] perfect, as pertaining to the 10conscience; Which stood only in [standing merely in connection with] meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. [Εἶχεμὲνοὖν, had indeed, to be sure, now. Οὖν, as usual, links the coming discussion with, what precedes; the concessive μέν intimates that the prerogatives here conceded to the Old Covenant, are to find by and by their limitations, as at Hebrews 9:6, or at Hebrews 9:11. The “then verily” of the Eng. ver. has no warrant either in the original or in the context. Alford’s rendering “now accordingly,” is very little better.—τὸἅγιονκοσμικόν not, and a worldly sanctuary, but and its sanctuary, as one belonging to the world. It is difficult to take the words as=τὸἅγτὸκοσ., the, or its, worldly sanctuary. It is also hard here to take κοσμικόν as purely predicative, via., its sanctuary a worldly one=the sanctuary which it had belonged to the world. Better, perhaps, to regard it as quasi predicative, as a sort of after thought=and its sanctuary, to wit, one belonging to the world. Hebrews 9:2.—Κατεσκευάσθη, was constructed, reared, established, not exactly, made—ἅγια, holy place, sanctuary, not, the sanctuary. Hebrews 9:3.—θυμιατήριον, probably not censer, but altar of incense. (See below). Hebrews 9:6.—τούτωνδεοὕτωςκατεσ., and these things having been thus arranged,—the priests enter, etc. This construction is scarcely a solecism, as Alford calls it, but is, I think, perfectly good English, although “being thus arranged,” would here express nearly the same idea, and would give the sense with sufficient exactness.—εἰσίασιν, not went, but enter, as Hebrews 9:7.—προσφέρει, not offered, but offers, and so of other verbs in this passage. And the explanation is not that the author “conceives of the whole system and arrangement as still subsisting,” but simply employs the historical present, transporting himself back into the past, and indicating that the priestly and high-priestly entrances which he describes, followed upon the previously described arrangements. It seems extraordinary that this simple and obvious, and only natural explanation of the passage, should have been so generally lost sight of, and the author charged with ignorance and mistakes which in such a writer, to say nothing of his inspiration, are utterly inconceivable, and which are in fact purely factitious, being chargeable only on the failure of his critics to recognize a natural and elegant rhetorical usage. The idea that the author fancied that the sacred articles above described were found either in the then existing temple, or even in the temple of Solomon, is countenanced by nothing in the text. There is no good reason for supposing that his mind past beyond the Mosaic tabernacle, the original and proper symbol of the Old Covenant, whose grand leading features indeed were reproduced in the temple, of which, however, the author makes no mention. Hebrews 9:7.—ὃπροσφέρει, which he offers—ὑπὲρἑαυτοῦ, on behalf of himself. Hebrews 9:8.—πεφανερῶσθαι, has been (not “was”) made manifest, the Perf. in keeping with the Pres. εἰσίασι, and προσφέρει, and προσφέρονται (Hebrews 9:9).—τῆςπρώτηςσκηνῆς,the foremost tabernacle.—ἐχούσηςστάσιν, holding or retaining its standing, place, position. Hebrews 9:9.—ἥτις, as usual characteristic; as one which=quippe quζ.—παραβολή (έστιν, understood), is a likeness, similitude, figure: supply is, not was (ἦν), because the whole construction is in the historical present.—εἰςτὸνκαιρὸντὸνἐνεστηκότα, for the present, or existing season, viz., not that of the time of the writer (as supposed by some), but that of the Old Economy of which and for which the outer tabernacle was a παραβολή; and the Part, ἐνεστηκότα keeps up the figure of the present time, as in the verb εἰσίασιν, etc. To make this ἐνεστ. καιρόν refer to the Messianic period, even with Alford’s explanation, that it is not a figure of, but for the present time, is still to deprive it of nearly all its significance, and, when taken in connection with the following καθ’ ἣνδῶραπροσφέρονται, is inextricably to confuse the whole passage.—καθ’ ἥν, according to which, scil. παραβολήν, figure, or emblem.—προσφέρονται, are being offered in this present ante-Christian time into which the author has thrown himself back. Hebrews 9:10.—μόνονἐπί, only conditioned upon, or, as Moll, standing in connection with; hardly, with Alf. and Eng. ver., consisting in, or standing in, which could scarcely be affirmed of the gifts and sacrifices. They stood connected with them, or as it were conditioned upon them.—μέχρικαιροῦδιορθώσεως, until the season of rectification.—ἐπικείμενα, lying upon, as burdens.—K.]. AND Heb_9:1. There belonged, indeed, now also to the first, etc.—The καί, also or even, points to a parallel instituted between the Old and the New Covenant. Μἐνοὖν intimates that, in accordance with the preceding representation, this actual result is to be recognized, that the concession here made of the excellencies of the Old Covenant [εἶχεμέν, had to be sure, had, I grant] is to be followed by its limitations, which reduce these arrangements of the Old Covenant to their true value, and at Hebrews 9:6 ff. bring out the contrasted features of the New Covenant. The preterites εἶχε and κατεσκευάσθη prove not that the destruction of the temple has as yet actually taken place, but refer, the former to the covenant which God Himself has made antiquated (πεπαλαίωκεν, Hebrews 8:13), the other to that Mosaic sanctuary which stood connected with it, and was copied after the heavenly pattern. As the language has to do with arrangements for worship, the word δικαιώματα, ordinances, needs a more precise limitation. Hence we are not, with Luth., Grot., etc., to take λατρείας as Acc. plur., but as Gen. sing. The δικ. are thus characterized as ordinances of divine worship, and are, by the particle τε, closely attached to ἅγιον. This word should not, therefore, with Luth., Carpz., and others, be taken in an ethical sense; but designates the sanctuary whose constituent parts are immediately recounted. Previously, however, it is more exactly characterized by the adj. κασμικόν, which either, according to later usage, is connected with the noun without the article (Bernhardy Synt., p. 323), or, since it is common to connect ἔχειν with a definite object, and a predicative adj. without the article (Madvig § 12), and since this construction is also familiar to our author (Hebrews 5:14; Hebrews 7:23), gives predicatively the characteristic quality of the sanctuary in question. A comparison with Hebrews 9:11; Hebrews 9:24, shows that it stands in contrast with ἐπουράνιον, and hence can mean only sζculare (Vulg.), belonging to this world; not, “accessible to the whole world, and thus even to the heathen” (Chrys., Erasm., and others)—which, in fact, was true of only a part of the sanctuary, the court of the Gentiles—nor “celebrated throughout the whole world” (Kypke); nor “adorned, decorated, well-furnished and arranged” (Homberg); nor “symbolizing the universe” (as Theodor. Mops., Theodoret, Grot., and others). Hebrews 9:2. For a tabernacle, etc.—The author designates the two parts of the tabernacle, separated by a veil, the holy place, and the Holy of holies, as two tabernacles (Hebrews 9:2-3); hence ἡπρώτη, added to define the preceding general word σκηνή, is here not temporal, but local, and the neut. plur. ἅγια stands contrasted with the ἅγιαἁγίων. It is erroneously taken by Erasm., Luth., and others, as fem. sing. ἁγία. In the temple of Solomon there were ten candlesticks, 1 Kings 7:49; 2 Chronicles 4:7; in that of Herod, on the contrary (after Exodus 25:31 ff; Exodus 37:17 ff.), only one (Joseph. Bell. Jud., Hebrews 9:5; Hebrews 9:5; VII. 5, 5) of fine gold with seven branches, standing on the south side. On the north side stood the table of cedar-wood, overlaid with gold plates, two cubits long, one broad, one cubit and a-half high, with golden rings at its feet for two poles by which it was carried. On this table were the censers and the “loaves of the presence” (shew bread), i.e., twelve cakes of finest meal, each six palms long, five broad, and a finger in thickness, which lay supported on golden forks and cross-pieces, and were each week eaten by the priests. Our author appears to name, not the things themselves, but their sacred use, viz., πρόθεσιςτῶνἄρτων, the setting forth of the loaves. Since the LXX., however, use this expression, 2 Chronicles 13:11, for the translation of ξַ ?ςַ ?ψֶ ?λֶ ?ϊδַ ?μֶּ ?ηֶ ?ν, the keeping up of the bread, we need not, with Bl., De W., and Lόn., maintain against Thol., that the passive meaning is, perhaps, possible in Heb. and Lat. (strues), but not in Greek. Nor may we, with Grot., Beng., and others, assume a hypallage, nor a hendyadis with Valckenaer. Hebrews 9:3. And behind the second veil.—In this verse the author appears to commit an archζological error in transferring to the inner sanctuary the altar of incense. For Joseph. (Bell. Jud., Hebrews 9:5; Hebrews 9:5) and Philo (Ed. Mang., I. 504) place the altar of incense (two cubits high, a cubit in length, and a cubit in breadth, and overlaid with gold), consisting of acacia wood (in the temple of Solomon of cedar wood, 1 Kings 6:20), in the holy place between the candlestick and the table. The great importance of this springs from the fact that Exodus 30:10, this, as well as at Exodus 40:10, the altar of burnt offering, is designated by the name ἅγιοντῶνἁγίων, and that, on the annual great day of atonement, this was purified by the high-priest with the same blood which he bore into the Holiest of all, Leviticus 16:18. Also it is called, Exodus 40:5; Exodus 40:24; Numbers 4:11, τὸθυσιαστήριοντὸχρυσοῦν. It is hence inadmissible to suppose that our author has entirely omitted to mention this altar, and that θυμιατήριον may denote the censer (Pesh., Vulg., Theoph., Luth., Grot., Wets., Beng., Stier, Bisp., etc.). These expositors (including some profoundly versed in Heb. antiquities, as Reland, De Dieu, Braun, Deyling, J. D. Michael.) appeal, indeed, to the fact that the altar of incense is commonly called τὸθυσιαστήριονθυμιάματος, while the censer on the other hand is called (Ezekiel 8:11; 2 Chronicles 26:19; Joseph. Antt. IHebrews Hebrews 9:2; Hebrews 9:4) θυμιατήριον. From this, however, we can draw no certain inference, as we can point out no constant and uniform mode of designating these utensils. The word θυμιατήριον appears in Joseph., Philo, Clem. Alex., Orig., as the common term for the altar of incense, and is even found several times as a various reading in the Sept. Besides, the golden censer is only mentioned in the ritual of the second temple, under the name of λַּ ?σ, but not in the Law, to which alone our author refers. There is only a shovel-formed basin mentioned Leviticus 16:12, with which the high-priest brought the coals from the altar of burnt offering, and this is called ξַ ?ηְ ?ϊָּ ?δ, πυρεῖον, and is not spoken of as gold. Nor need we attach any weight to the fact that Joseph. (Bell. Jud. I. 7, 6; Antt. XIHebrews Hebrews 9:4; Hebrews 9:4), in enumerating the objects which Pompey saw in the sanctuary, mentions only the golden table and candlestick, the abundance of incense and the sacred presents, but not the altar; and (Bell. Jud., Hebrews 9:5; Hebrews 9:5) speaks only of the carrying away of the candlestick and table. For, however surprising it may be, that even on the triumphal arch of Titus are sculptured only the golden table, the candlesticks, and the vessels of incense, still all this proves nothing for our passage, in which the author is speaking of the divinely instituted arrangements of the tabernacle, not describing the later temple; for in this temple were found no longer, even in the time of Solomon (1 Kings 8:6), the here mentioned pot of manna, the budding rod of Aaron, and, after the loss of the ark of the Covenant, its place was indicated in the temple of Herod only by a stone. Bleek, Lόn., and others, therefore, assume, in explanation of the error which they charge upon our author regarding the position of the altar of incense, that, a stranger to Jerusalem, he has drawn his knowledge of the sanctuary of Israel only from the writings of the Old Testament, and has been led astray, 1, by Exodus 26:35, where only table and candlestick are mentioned as furniture of the sanctuary; 2, by the indefinite and easily misunderstood statement regarding the position of the altar, Exodus 30:6; Exodus 40:5; Exodus 40:26; Leviticus 4:7; Leviticus 16:12; Leviticus 16:18; Leviticus , 3, by the special distinguishing of the altar of incense at the great day of atonement. But it is scarcely conceivable, that in matters so generally known, and in a communication to the Hebrews so carefully elaborated, and so intrinsically important, the author should have allowed himself in so gross an error as that of placing the altar of incense behind the second veil (which was called καταπέτασμα in distinction from the first, the κατάλυμμα). Add to this that the author would then have involved himself in contradiction with another well-known fact, and even with himself. For at Hebrews 9:7 he notices the fact that the high-priest went but once a year into the holiest of all. Must he, then, not have known that on the altar of incense the incense offering was daily made as symbol of prayer (Revelation 8:3), not merely by the priests on whom the lot fell (Luke 1:9), but frequently by the high-priest himself? Most unquestionably, since Hebrews 9:6 he himself refers to this service of the priests. We are, therefore, justified in assuming that the author does not refer here to local position (for which he uses ἐν) but that the part. ἔχουσα, having, may probably denote the idea of belonging to, which in Heb. is denoted by μְ. This explanation is, in fact, adopted by many of those interpreters, who, referring it, indeed, to the censer, yet suppose that this latter had its permanent place not in the Most Holy place, but in the utensil chamber (Theophyl., Grot., Beng., Menken, Stier, etc.), since, according to Leviticus 16:13, the precise purpose of the incense was to prevent the high-priest from beholding the Capporeth, and it seemed unnatural to suppose that the high-priest had let the incense-vessel remain over the whole year in the inner sanctuary, and then on the day of atonement should have exchanged it with the one recently brought from the utensil chamber of the temple; or that the high-priest should have brought in incense and coals in a golden vessel, and shaken these upon a special incense-vessel, which had its fixed place in the inner sanctuary (Peirce). Surrendering the local sense of ἔχειν (as we certainly must, Hebrews 9:1), it is assuredly more natural to refer the term to the far more important altar of incense; and we may point in confirmation to the fact, that not only Isaiah 6:6 introduces an altar belonging to the heavenly sanctuary, but that at 1 Kings 6:22, the connection between the altar of incense and the holy of holies is expressed by the form δַ ?ξִּ ?ζְ ?αֵּ ?ηַ ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψμַ ?γְּ ?αִ ?ιψ = the altar belonging to the inner shrine, the adytum (Keil against Thenius: so also Ebr., Del., Riehm); so also according to Exodus 30:6; Deut. 40:5, it would seem to have been placed over against the ark of the Covenant, and on the day of atonement to have been, like the Capporeth, sprinkled with the blood of the sacrifice (Leviticus 16:18). The only ground of doubt would lie in the circumstance that the mention of the ark of the Covenant immediately follows (connected by καί), and that this most unquestionably had its place (Exodus 26:34) in the holiest of all. But we must not forget that though the ark of the Covenant was, indeed, brought (1 Kings 8) into the temple of Solomon, yet it perished in the destruction of that temple by the Chaldeans, so that the second temple had, in its most holy place, absolutely none of these articles, as Joseph. (Bell. Jud. Hebrews 9:5; Hebrews 9:5) expressly testifies (ἔκειτοδὲοὐδὲνὄλωςἐναὐτῷ). This also confirms our belief that the purpose of the author is not to describe the holy localities and furniture of the second temple, but that these things are mentioned only in order to exhibit that which mirrored forth the peculiar nature and dignity, and especially the symbolical and typical character, of the Mosaic sanctuary. The assumption of Wieseler, that the temple at Leontopolis had precisely the arrangement here mentioned, and possessed sacred objects and utensils, modelled after the pattern of those here enumerated, is a hypothesis quite destitute of any historical proof. In which was a golden pot, etc.—Ἐνᾗ refers not to σκηνή (Justiniani, Pyle, Peirce), but to κιβωτός, and stands in contrast with ὑπεράνω. The same idea that the pot of manna and the rod of Aaron were kept in the ark of the Covenant itself, is found with later writers, who appeal to the authority of tradition (see Wetst.); and the expressions of Scripture make rather for than against it. The locality is indeed, Exodus 16:33, left undetermined by the mere regulation that the pot shall be kept for a memorial “before Jehovah.” But it is said of it, Exodus 9:34, and, Numb. 17:25, of the rod of Aaron, that they were placed μִ ?τְ ?πֵ ?ιδָ ?ςֵ ?γεּ ?ϊ before the testimony. This term, however, never denotes the ark, but often designates the law. Besides the tables of the law, such objects might perhaps well have their most fitting place in the sacred ark, as being essentially memorials and symbols of the miraculous interpositions of Divine grace (Ebr.), and not mere contrasts to those fruits and products of the earth which were daily or weekly presented in the sanctuary. In the sojourn of the ark among the Philistines, these objects, fraught indeed with religious significance, yet not belonging to the rites of worship, might have disappeared, since we are told, 1 Kings 8:9, that on the removal of the ark into the temple of Solomon, it contained nothing but the two tables of the law. Hebrews 9:5. The cherubim of glory.—The article before δόξης, in Griesb. and Schultz, is, according to all the uncial MSS., to be expunged The Gen., however, serves here not to designate the glorious or splendid quality of the two symbolical figures, wrought massively out of fine gold, which occupied the two extremities of the cover of the ark of the Covenant, upon which, with faces turned toward each other, they looked down, and which they covered with their outspread wings. We must rather refer it to the δόξαθεοῡ, which also stands at 1 Samuel 4:22; Sir 49:8, without an article, because regarded as a proper name, and which was throned above the cherubim, 1 Samuel 4:4; 2 Samuel 6:2; 2 Kings 19:15; Isaiah 37:16. But the throne of God is called, Ezekiel 9:3; Ezekiel 10:4; Ezekiel 10:18-19, a throne of glory, λִ ?νֵּ ?ΰδַ ?λָּ ?αεֹ ?γ. But from this throne of the sacred service God was pleased also to speak to Moses, Exodus 25:22; Numbers 7:89. For the massive golden cover of the ark of the Covenant (which ark itself was overlaid within and without with plates of gold) had essentially the significance of a mediation between the ark of the Covenant and the God who was enthroned above it, 1 Chronicles 28:2; Psalms 99:5; Psalms 132:7; Isaiah 66:1; Lam. Jeremiah 2:1. Primarily it was the footstool of the throne, whose bearers or symbols are the cherubim, and which rests upon the covenant of the law. For equity and righteousness, as revealed in the law of God, form the pillars of this throne, Psalms 89:15; Psalms 97:2; whence also the sanctuary, and particularly the ark of the Covenant itself, is the throne of Jehovah, Exodus 15:17; 1 Kings 8:13. By the sprinkling of the blood of the sin-offering, however, the Capporeth becomes not so much the cover to that law which worketh the wrath of God (Hofm. after Hengst.), as a ἰλαστήριονἐπίθεμα, propitiatory covering, Exodus 25:16, and then a ἱλαστήριον in general, according to Leviticus 16:15 ff. The idea of covering has transformed itself into that of expiation, i.e., covering of sin, whence also, 1 Chronicles 28:11, the most holy place is called αֵּ ?ιϊδַ ?λַּ ?τֹּ ?ψֶ ?ϊ. While Josephus writes οἱ and αἱχερουβεῖς, and Philo always τὰχερουβίμ, the LXX. fluctuate between the ordinary form of the neut. and the rarer one of the masc. The closing syllable also varies between βείμ, βείν, βίμ, and βίν. The neut. springs from the fact of their being regarded as ζῶα, Ezekiel 10:15. The περὶὦν, concerning which things, refers not (as Ebr.) merely to the cherubim. Hebrews 9:6. Once in the year, etc.—Since the high-priest, on the tenth day of the seventh month, Tisri, the day of atonement (ιεֹ ?νδַ ?λִּ ?τֻּ ?ψִּ ?ιν), was obliged to go at least twice into the inner sanctuary, Leviticus 16:12 ff.; according to the Mishna tract., Joma Hebrews 9:1; vii. 4, four times,—ἄπαξ, once, is best understood of what took place once in a year, although consisting of several separate acts,—a sense belonging to the words at 3 Macc. 11:1; Joseph. Bell. Jud. Hebrews 9:5; Hebrews 9:7. To this view we are also led by the following verses. For with the blood of the heifer the high-priest made expiation for his own sin; with the blood of the goat expiation for the sins of the congregation; and this distinction is here made, and this rightly so, that the sins are called ἀγνοήματα; see at Hebrews 5:2. The accomplishment of this twofold expiation required, however, a twofold entrance into the inner sanctuary, both of which principal acts were preceded by an entrance with a dish of coals and a censer of incense, and followed by a fourth after the evening sacrifice for the bringing out of these utensils. In accordance with his hypothesis, Wieseler connects the words “not without blood,” etc., closely with the leading clause; which produces, however, an entirely false contrast with Hebrews 9:6. Nor are we necessarily to infer from the Perf. Part. κατεσκευασμένων—to be referred, at all events, to Hebrews 9:2—that the author regards the two grand divisions of the Mosaic sanctuary, together with their contents, as also still existing in the Jewish temple of his time (Lόn.), nor do the present tenses, εἰσίασιν and προσφερει, of themselves lead necessarily to the conclusion that the author wrote before the destruction of the temple. We need only suppose that this form of expression in its connection with the context implies that the legal worship was still in existence, and that on the basis of the old Mosaic arrangements, reaching down into the time of the author, while the preservation or loss of certain vessels or utensils of the service is a matter of as profound indifference as the replacing of the tabernacle by the temple of Solomon, and the differences in this before and after the exile. Blood which he offers, etc.—The expression, προσφέρειντὸαἶμα, Leviticus 1:5; Leviticus 7:33; Ezekiel 44:7; Ezekiel 44:15, points to the sprinkling (δַ ?ζָּ ?ΰָ ?δ), which was made once upwards, and seven times downwards, towards the Capporeth. This was followed by the πְ ?ϊִ ?ιπָ ?δ, besmearing of the horns of the altar of incense with the mingled blood of the heifer and goat, with which the altar itself was seven times sprinkled; then the (ωְׁ ?τִ ?ιλָ ?δ, Pouring out on the altar of burnt offering. The slaughter (ωְׁ ?ηִ ?ιθָ ?δ) connected with the laying on of the hand (νְ ?ξִ ?ιλִ ?δ) merely rendered possible the offering of the blood; but this, in that it was the means of expiation, rendered possible that presentation of the gift upon the altar, or offering (δַ ?χְּ ?θָ ?ψָ ?δ), which was acceptable to God. On the strength of this blood-accomplished expiation, the priests could, throughout the year, present in the sanctuary the daily and weekly offerings. The absence of the article before ἑαυτοῦ proves that this word is not (with the Vulg., Luth., Calv., Grot., and others) to be made dependent on ἀγνοημάτων. Hebrews 9:8. The Holy Spirit showing this, etc.—The τοῦτο refers to the following Acc. with Inf., and δηλοῦν is used here of prophecy by act or symbol, while at Hebrews 12:27; 1 Peter 1:11, it is used of prophetic foreshowing by word (Hebrews 9:12). The τῶνἁγίων, too, refers not to persons (Peshito, Schultz), but to the true sanctuary (Hebrews 10:19). The Gen. stands, as Jeremiah 2:18, τῇὁδῷΑἰγύπτου, and Matthew 10:5, ὁδὸςἐθνῶν, of the end or goal of the way. Πρώτη designates here not the first Jewish sanctuary—first in time (as Grot., Carpz., Beng., Bφhme, etc.), but the first or forward tabernacle, in contrast with that behind it (the second, Hebrews 9:7). Hebrews 9:9. Which is an image for the time, etc.—Erasm., Beng., etc., refer ἤτις in the sense of ὅτι to the entire preceding clause, and explain the fem. by the attraction of παραβολή: the ὁκαιρὸςὁἐνεστηκώς thus becomes the time in which the author wrote; and the circumstance that the outer and the inner sanctuary stood separated beside and distinct from each other, is regarded as an image of that time in which the yet undestroyed Theocracy of Israel forms, as it were, the outer space and locality for the Christianity which has sprung up within its bosom. The same view is shared by Boehme and Klee, yet with the difference that they connect ἥτις with παραβολή, and make it, as such, the subject of the clause=which figure or symbol applies to the present time. De W. adheres to the latter construction, but=with most intpp., explains the ὁκαιρ. ὁἐνεσ. of the antechristian period extending down into the present, thus=ὁαἰὼνὁἐνεστώς, Galatians 1:4. Granting the possibility of this meaning of the phrase (which Del. on insufficient grounds controverts), it is still more natural to refer ἥτις to σκηνή, not to στάσιν (Chr. F. Schmid), nor by any means to ὁδόν (Cramer). For if the author has previously designated the Holy of holies as παραβολή, likeness, emblem (Luth., erroneously, type), of the Christian economy, why should not he now designate the “holy place” as an emblem of the Jewish economy, especially as it is his precise purpose to state in how far Judaism, as a merely intermediate system, appeared precisely represented by the sanctuary? (Thol. against De Wette). In still closer correspondence with the mere words, indeed, we might (with Del. and Alf., after John Damasc. and Primas.) refer the καιρὸςὁἐνεστ. to the present time, as commencing with the inauguration of the New Covenant, and interpret it of the καιρὸςδιορθώσεως, and either with Carpz., Hermann and others, translate “clear down to the present time” [or, with Alf., render for, in reference to, the present time]. But this is forbidden by the context (Riehm, Reiche, Lόn.), inasmuch as the καιρὸςδιορθώσεως, Hebrews 9:10, or the time of restoration and rectification appointed of God, is here evidently the Christian period of the world’s history, and with it stands contrasted the ὁκαιρὸςὁἐνεστηκώς, whose emblem is the outer sanctuary, separated from the All-holy by a veil, and in accordance with which figure or παραβολή there exist, of course, only external and merely ceremonial institutions for securing perfection. Lφnemann less fittingly refers the καθ’ ἥν to πρώτησκηνή. [There can be no doubt that in the first place, ἡπρώτησκηνή is here, as at Hebrews 9:2, the first in place, the foremost, tabernacle, as distinguished from the second one, the Holy of holies. In the second place, ἥτις, with the author, refers properly to σκηνή, and marks the σκηνή as a proper symbol and emblem of Judaism, which it precisely was. The foremost tabernacle or sanctuary was cut off from the second by a veil, which none could pass but the high-priest alone, and he only once a year, and for but the briefest stay within. The first tabernacle, therefore, stood there confronting, and indeed formed by, that awful veil, and the dread Holy Presence behind it, as a standing reminder to priests and people of their separation from God; that the way into the most holy place was not yet made manifest, and of course that the Jewish ritual, in connection with which they stood, was utterly unable to secure true forgiveness, and bring in the needed perfection. That foremost tabernacle, then, was the emblem and figure of Judaism. In the third place, the εἰςτὸνκαιρὸντὸνἐνεστηκότα refers decidedly (as against Del. and Alf.) not to the now present time of the writer, the time of fulfilment and completion, but to the antechristian period, the era of Judaism, in reference to which and for which this outer tabernacle stood as an emblem. Nor need we, with many, and apparently Moll, suppose this time to be represented as extending down to the present, and thus explain the ἐνεστηκώς. Like all the tenses of the passage in this connection, it stands of the past conceived as present, the author throwing himself back in the whole representation into the past, although I would not deny the justice of the view that perhaps the author the more readily adopted this figure because the Jewish sacrifices had even yet a lingering existence: though I see no necessity for this. Thus this outer tabernacle is a παραβολή, an emblem of the imperfect character of Judaism for the existing time, etc.—K.]. To render perfect as to the conscience, etc.—The idea of συνείδησις (E. V., conscience), is more comprehensive on the one hand than that of conscience, on the other than that of internal consciousness. The word designates the inmost conviction of our moral self-consciousness, so that Hebrews 10:2, we can have the words συνείδησιςἁμαρτιῶν, and 1 Peter 2:19, συνείδησιςθεοῦ. The words thus refer not merely to the quieting of an accusing conscience (Theodoret, Calov, etc.), and not merely to the moral perfection of the consciousness (Schultz, Bl., De W.), but to the fact that the worshipper could not by the presentation of his offerings, attain his end in a way that met the demands of his moral and religious self-consciousness, could not, that is to say, attain to ἁγιότης. Hebrews 9:10. Purely in connection with meats, etc.—Ἐπί designates not the objects for the sake of which the offerings are to be brought (Schlicht., Limb., etc.), or in respect of which a Levitical perfection actually takes place, as an outward and provisional means of justification. For μόνονἐπί is to be connected neither with τελειῶσαι (Schlicht., Ebr.), nor with λατρευοντα (Luth., Este, etc.), but with ἐπικείμενα, which stands parallel with δυνάμεναι, and as, along with this participle, it refers to δῶράτεκαὶθυσίαι, might on account of the intervening clauses, be easily changed to the neuter. It is by no means to be referred, with the Vulg., to δικαιώμασιν, being thus taken=ἐπικειμένοις. Nor with the amended text is it either necessary or proper to take ἐπικείμενα as apposition to δικαιώματα, and refer μόνον to this latter word (Lόn.). Ἐπί can, to be sure, express the adding or accession of something to something else, or outward neighborhood or proximity. But “meats and drinks” are not—as neither are ordinances regarding food—equivalent to forbidden meats. Quite as little does the term refer to sacrificial feasts (Peirce, Storr, Heinr., etc.), or to the Paschal supper (Bl., De W.). For δικαιώματα are not means of justification, but ordinances, and precisely such, and referring to the flesh, are the δικαιώματαλατρείας of the Old Testament. Ἐπί with the dat. signifies commonly the foundation on which, and at the same time, the circumstances connected with which, any thing is done. The Gen. σαρκός may also denote that the things bear in themselves the nature of the trap σάρξ. We should here refer the term to the historical superficiality and perishableness of these legal institutions (Hebrews 7:16), but that the connection indicates the Gen. as referring here not to the quality, but to that which is the object of the ordinances, as 1 Samuel 8:9; 1 Samuel 8:11; 1 Samuel 10:25, τὸδικαίωματοῡβασιλέως denotes the Divine ordinance regarding the king. AND ETHICAL1. From the fact that God Himself has declared the Old Covenant incapable of attaining its purpose of salvation, and doomed it to abrogation, it still does not follow that its peculiar ordinances of Divine worship were therefore valueless. Nor, on the other hand, does the fact that they owe their origin to Divine revelation, and hence have an authority transcending that of any mere human arrangements, prove that they are binding upon the subjects of the New Covenant, or put them on the same level with its institutions of grace. They have rather, in accordance with the character of the Old Covenant, partly a typical and symbolical nature, partly a pedagogical and disciplinary significance, and as such possessed a high value. 2. With all the glory evinced in the furnishing of the Holy place and the Holy of holies, and with all the sacredness and majesty of the acts of religious service which transpired within them, still the entire arrangement of the vessels of the service, the separation of the outer from the inner sanctuary by the veil which concealed the latter, the distinction of people, priests and high-priests, the nature of the sacred acts which each separate class was characteristically to perform, their ritual and ceremonial character, incontrovertibly show that reconciliation with God and the dwelling of God with His people, here existed only in mere representation, promise, and symbolical expression. 3. This relation of the Old Testament sanctuary and worship as a type and emblem, to the actual communion of redeemed men with the holy God in the time of the real and actual reλstablishment of right relations, is no arbitrary one, but is prophetically announced and made known by the Holy Spirit Himself. In this lies the Scriptural ground and justification of a historical treatment which seeks the typical reference in the symbols of the Old Covenant itself. Still the principle must be judiciously and cautiously applied. AND We need no longer seek the way to the heavenly sanctuary as if it were unknown, and may not complain, as if it were closed to us; rather we can and should walk on the way which has been opened to us.—What the Holy Spirit has instituted and produced, can only through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, be rightly understood and treated.—No outward splendor of religious worship can make good the absence of true communion with God.—By its employment in the service of God even the earthly and the outward comes into relation to the eternal, and stands connected with the inner life of man.—Nature, value, and use of the means supplied by Divine worship for our spiritual well being. Starke:—No service of God can be without ceremonies; but that is the most excellent which has cast off external parade and has the most of the power of the Spirit.—If the Lord’s house on earth has been glorious, much more is that above in heaven.—If every Christian is under obligation to serve God publicly in His temple, much more must preachers be always at hand when the public worship of God is celebrated.—Heaven stands open; but the place is holy; nothing common and impure will be admitted, Revelation 21:27.—Preachers bear their treasure in earthen vessels; they too are sinners, and must, like others, seek the cleansing away of their sins.—The outward worship of God is nothing without the inward; it then becomes only sin to him who renders the service, and ministers condemnation rather than salvation.—Under the New Covenant we may, without violating the conscience, eat and drink that which contributes to our enjoyment; only with moderation and thanksgiving, Colossians 2:16; 1 Timothy 4:3.—Outward and bodily washing and cleansing stand in no proper relation to Divine worship. But as neatness and cleanliness are always becoming and attractive, it behooves us also to appear before and serve God in outward purity, 1 Timothy 2:9.—The outward chastening of the body is but a miserable service of God; but to crucify the flesh with its lusts and desires, is pleasing to God, 1 Corinthians 4:8; Galatians 5:24. Rieger:—The higher blessing bestowed on our age is to be sought not in doing away but in fulfilling the commandments. Heubner:—A survey of the institutions of the Old Testament is not without utility to the Christian; it shows him the prerogatives which he possesses, viz., no longer merely the shadow, but real, essential blessings.—The whole ancient world is crying out after a Reconciler; the modern world will not have Him.—In Christianity lies the germ of the general improvement and perfection of the entire condition of humanity.—The tranquillizing of the conscience is the end of all sacrifices. The more the conscience was awakened, the less could sacrifices appease and satisfy it. Footnotes: Hebrews 9:1.—The word σκηνή of the lect. rec. is, according to all authorities, to be stricken out, and is not, with Peirce, Wetst., Seml., to be understood. The capital thought is διαθήκη, covenant [and this as, in Eng. ver., is clearly to be supplied in thought with ἡπρώτη]. Hebrews 9:9.—For the Rec. καθ’ ὅν, we are, with Sin. A. B. D., 17, 23, 27, to read καθ’ ἥν [referring to παραβολή]. Hebrews 9:10.—For the Rec. καὶδικαιώμασισαρκός, the reading δικαιώματασαρκός was approved by Grot., Mill and Beng., recommended by Griesb., and by all recent editors is received into the text. The καί is wanting in Sin. A. D., 6, 17, 27, 31, and δικαιώματα, is found in Sin. A. B. and ten minusc., the sing. δικαίωμα in D. [So I fill out the apparently imperfect sentence of the original.—K.]. Hebrews 9:11.—Lachmann’s reading γενομἐνωνinstead of μελλόντων is not sufficiently vouched for by B. D*., although followed by Chrys., cum., Ital. Pesh. Philox. II Perfect communion with God is rendered possible by the perfect mediatorship of Jesus Christ, on the ground of a real expiation Hebrews 9:11-1511 But Christ being come [coming forward, παραγενόμενος] a high priest of [the] good things to come, by a [by means of the διὰτῆς] greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building [world, or creation, κτίσεως]; 12Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he [om. he] entered in once [for all] into the holy place, having obtained [obtaining] eternal redemption for us [om. for us]. 13For if the blood of bulls and goats [goats and bulls], and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying [in respect to the purity] of the flesh, 14How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the [an] eternal, Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your [our] conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15And for this cause he is the mediator of the [a] new testament [covenant] that by means of death [a death taking place] for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament [covenant], they which are [have been] called might [may] receive the promise of the eternal inheritance [or, those called to the eternal inheritance may receive the promise]. [Hebrews 9:11.—χριστὸςδὲπαραγενόμενος, but Christ coming forward, presenting himself, i. e., appearing upon the stage of history, Matthew 3:1, etc.—τῶνμελλόντωνἀγαθῶν, of the future good things.—διὰτῆςμείζ., by means of the greater, etc., with def. article.—οὐταύτηςτῆςκτίσεως, not of this creation, thus not κοσμικόν, belonging to the world, Hebrews 9:1. Hebrews 9:12.—οὐδεδι’ αἵματος, nor, or, and not by or through the blood: not “neither by the blood.”—εἰσῆλθεν, entered; the pron. he, of the Eng. ver., is not needed, χριστόςis the subject.—εὑράμενος, not having procured (as if εὑρημένος), but procuring; his “procuring” is represented as coincident with, and in fact conditioned upon his entering. The added for us, of the Eng. ver. (especially standing where it does), is unnecessary and enfeebling. The emphasis is on αἰωνίαν, eternal. Hebrews 9:13.—τοὺςκεκοινωμένους, those who have been defiled.—πρὸςτὴνσαρκὸςκαθαρότητα, in reference to the purity of the flesh.Hebrews 9:14.—καθαριεῖ, shall cleanse, with reference to καθαρότητα, cleanness above.—εἰςτὸλατρεύειν, into or unto our serving=in order that we may serve. Hebrews 9:15.—διαθ. καινῆς, of a (not, the) new covenant—θανάτουγενομένου, a death talking place.—οἱκεκλημένοιτῆςαἰων. κληρον. Moll constructs: “the called ones of the eternal inheritance,” as Thol., Ebr., and some older expositors. Alford objects that thus κληρονομία, which receives “the stress, as being presently taken up in the next verse, would hardly be introduced in the most insignificant place possible, as a mere adjunct to the description of the subject of the sentence.” But the stress seems not upon κληρονομίας, but rather on the eternal (as contradistinguishing the character of the New Covenant inheritance from that of the Old), and partly also upon the λάβωσιν, may receive, in order to characterize the New Covenant, as one under which, by the death of the great sacrificial victim, the called ones receive that inheritance which had before been only promised. And so in the verses following, it is not the κληρονομία, that is dwelt upon, but the connection between the death of the testator (the θανάτουγενομένου), and the obtaining of the promised inheritance. The real objection to the construction in question (adopted by Moll, Tholuck, Ebrard, Luther, the Peshito, etc.), is that, although not without examples, especially in Greek poetic diction, it has no warrant elsewhere in the usage of the author, and is rather too harsh to be assumed without necessity.—K.]. AND Heb_9:11.—But Christ coming forward, etc.—Παραγενόμενος is used with reference to a historical appearance or advent, 1Ma 4:46; Matthew 3:1; Luke 12:51. But had he had in mind the entrance of Christ upon His heavenly priesthood, he would have employed γενόμενος, Hebrews 1:4; Hebrews 6:20; Hebrews 7:26. Still the words are not to be referred to His incarnation, but to His actual appearance as matter of historical fact, in the character and function immediately designated. For the words ἀρχιερεὺςτῶνμελλόντωνἀγαθῶν, are not to be separated by a comma from παραγέν, (Beng., Griesb.) and not to be resolved into εἰςτὸεἶναιἀρχιερέα, but to be taken as predicate. But the τὰἀγαθά good things are not styled future (μελλ. to come), as being future to the believers of the Old Test., but as belonging to the οἰκουμένη Hebrews 2:5, the αἰὼνμέλλων Hebrews 6:5, the μέλλουσαπόλις Hebrews 13:14. By means of the greater and more perfect tabernacle, etc.—With Primas., Luth. and others we connect the much-vexed words διὰτῆςμείζονος—κτίσεως immediately with the preceding, which we, however, construct as in apposition to Χριστός. Hofm. extends this connection clear to αἵματος, but the majority of interpreters make both dependent on εἰσῆλθεν, and commonly refer the “greater tabernacle” to the heavens, through which Christ passed into the inner sanctury, as God’s real dwelling-place, as the earthly high-priest passed through the outer tabernacle. Undoubtedly, διά may denote in the one case the local place and way, in the other the means whereby Christ entered into the Holiest of all. Nor does the repeated declaration of Scripture that the hands of God formed and stretched out the heavens, forbid our inferring that the heavens could be here meant, on the ground that the tabernacle is here designated as “not made with hands.” For this we might appeal to Hebrews 9:24, where heaven is contrasted with the Mosaic sanctuary, and this latter is called in the contrast χειροποίητα. Nor need we again, if we adopt this view, restrict ourselves to the mere material heaven of clouds, but might refer the words to the invisible worlds, the dwelling-place of angels and of the blessed, which, as a tabernacle not made with hands, are contrasted with the hand-wrought tabernacle of Moses. In favor of this too is the emphatic heightening of the import of the term χειροποιήτου by the appended οὐταύτηςτῆςκτίσεως. For we must conceive these supramundane heavens as God’s creation and work, but not belonging to this perishable creation, with which we have immediately to do. And if we distinguish these supramundane, but still created heavens, in which are “many mansions,” John 14:2, to which thus still a locality is ascribed, from the uncreated dwelling-place of God Himself, as the heaven exalted above all relations of time and space (Stier, Del.), then we could not charge on the view under consideration the objection urged by Beza: “perabsurde diceretur per cζlum ingressus esse in cζlum.” But, after all, this interpretation furnishes no proper point of comparison between heaven and the outer tabernacle. For this tabernacle was not a mere passage-way to an interior locality; and we again see no object in so detailed and elaborate a description. This studious elaborateness is decidedly at war with Tholuck’s idea that the representation of the lower heavens is but as it were a mere foil to the conception of the heavenly holy of holies. Still less can we understand by the outer tabernacle, the world in general (Justiniani, Carpz.) in which case we should have to render “not of this mode of building,” i.e, not like the tabernacle of Moses; which false translation, with a different conception of the meaning, is given by Erasm., Luth., Beng., and others. With just as little reason finally can the words be applied (with reference to Hebrews 10:20; John 1:14) to the body of Christ, whether it be understood of His human nature (Chrys., Primas., Calv., Bez., Grot., Est., Beng. and others), or of His holy life in the flash (Ebr.), or of His glorified body (Hofm.), or of His mystical body the church militant on earth (Cajet., Calov, Braun, Ramb., etc.). We get under each explanation either an unnatural idea, or an unnatural parallel, even though we take the first διά not locally but instrumentally; or we subject the words to a sense which they will not bear. For σκηνή may indeed denote the body, but scarcely life in the body, or the sacrifice of the body, or the glorified body. To the sinlessness and holiness of Christ the phrase cannot refer; for the high-priest attained these not in the outer sanctuary, but only in the most holy place by the sprinkling of the blood of the heifer. To me the very contrast presented with the purely symbolical and typical nature of the old covenant, a nature illustrated in the character of the Mosaic tabernacle by the Holy Spirit Himself, seems utterly to exclude the carrying over of the distinction of a hither and inner tabernacle to the New Testament dispensation, and to this the figurative language here used has exclusive reference. I regard, therefore, σκηνή as a designation of the tabernacle in general, and prefer the perfectly simple explanation previously touched upon (at Hebrews 8:2), which is supported by the very arrangement of the words, and corroborated by the much more natural force thus given to οὐδέ. The manner in which Christ has become a high-priest is here not in the slightest degree in question: the author is simply setting forth the fact that, by His high-priesthood, not a symbolical, but a true and actual reconciliation with God has been effected. He is a high-priest, not of the earthly, but, as has been already shown by the author, of the heavenly tabernacle. This heavenly sanctuary which Hebrews 8:2 he called σκηνὴἀληθινή, genuine tabernacle, of which Christ is λειτουργός, he here styles the better and more perfect tabernacle, which he characterizes as that not built by hands, i.e., founded indeed, but not belonging to this world, by means of which Christ has historically appeared and exists as high-priest of the good things to come, in the same way as the Jewish high-priest, by means of the Mosaic tabernacle, became the priest of symbolical and typical blessings. In accordance with this, or as such, has He also not (οὐδέ) by means of the blood of goats entered into the holy place, which corresponds to the holiest of all, or the dwelling-place of God. Εὑράμενος is the second Aorist (formed in imitation of the first Aorist (which Alexandrine peculiarity became, by means of the Sept., an ordinary Hellenistic usage), and coincides in time with that of the finite verb [i.e., not having procured, but procuring]. The feminine formation αἰωνία is found in the New Test only here, and 2 Thessalonians 2:16. [There is no point, in my opinion, in which Moll has shown sounder judgment as an interpreter than in the clear and simple way in which he has here (as at Hebrews 8:2) brushed aside the numerous vagaries and conceits in which eminent expositors have indulged regarding the heavenly tabernacle. Christ’s holy life on earth, His sacrifice on the cross, His earthly human body, His heavenly glorified body, the lower local heavens, the heaven of the angels and glorified saints, have all been made to answer to the outer tabernacle, through which the Saviour past into the inner sanctuary. The lower local heavens, as being those through which Christ actually did pass, is the only one of these that does not at once strike one as purely arbitrary and capricious; and these heavens stand in no conceivable relation to the proper significance of the outer tabernacle. This, as Moll justly remarks, was no mere passage-way into the holiest of all, but stood with its own expressive import, and as a theatre of constant priestly service. The other meanings too are such as could only by the harshest straining of terms, be called a tabernacle, or as utterly fail of correspondence to the idea of the outer tabernacle of Moses. The language of the author at first view, indeed, seems to favor this distinction of the two tabernacles. Christ, he says, entered διὰτῆςσκηνῆς, into the sanctuary. It is natural here to interpret διά locally, and to think, therefore, of the Levitical high-priests passing through the outer into the inner tabernacle, and thus to make διὰτῆςσκηνῆς here analogous to the former. But against it there are several serious objections, as would be readily conjectured by one who considers the numerous and widely diverse and discordant opinions regarding the nature and significance of this outer tabernacle through which the heavenly high-priest passed. These objections are chiefly four: First, the outer tabernacle of Moses is not represented as a mere place for passing through, but as a place of constant priestly service; and although the high-priest must have past through it when he entered the holy of holies, yet that is a mere incident upon which no stress is laid, which the author does not even mention, and of which he does not appear to have thought. It is not supposable, therefore, that he would have selected as a prominent feature of Christ’s entrance into the heavenly Sanctuary, that which it had not even occurred to him to mention with reference to the earthly. Secondly, there is in the figurative tabernacle of the New Testament no outer sanctuary. There cannot be any. There is no place for it. The outer Sanctuary of the Mosaic tabernacle stood as the “emblem for the time then existing,” the Holy Ghost signifying, while that anterior tabernacle yet had place, that the way into the holiest of all had not been yet made manifest. There is here a most explicit and unmistakable declaration on the subject. The outer Mosaic tabernacle stood as the symbol of imperfection, of distance from God—of approach to Him only typically, but not really effected. With the rending of the veil of the temple at the death of Christ, that distinction between outer and inner tabernacle disappeared for ever. Unless, therefore, we are willing to reverse the author’s entire doctrine, and maintain that the sacrifice of Christ has not fulfilled what was before symbolized, producing a real approach to God, and converting the whole Christian body into a “royal priesthood,” we must concede that there is and can be in the New Testament arrangements nothing answering to the outer tabernacle of Moses. Thirdly, in perfect correspondence with this is the brief but emphatic and striking description which the author gives of this σκηνή, through which Christ passed into the Sanctuary on high. It is “the greater and more perfect tabernacle”—“not made with hands,” i.e., not “of this material creation.” This clearly stands in antithesis, not to a part of the tabernacle of Moses, but to the whole of it. That was typical; this is ἀληθινή, the genuine archetypal tabernacle. That was κοσμική, belonging to the world, material, made with hands: this is heavenly, spiritual, not made with hands, not of this creation. These epithets and descriptive phrases, which would have no significance as referring to the outer Mosaic tabernacle, are strikingly pertinent as referring to it as a whole, and as characterizing the archetypal, true, heavenly, greater, and more perfect tabernacle, in which the New Testament high-priest ministers in distinction from the worldly, typical, material tabernacle of the Levitical priesthood. Fourthly, with this view, and only with this, the author’s parallel becomes complete. The parallel has reference to two points, the tabernacle, in which the respective priests ministered, and the offerings which they brought. The Levitical priest ministered in the earthly, worldly, typical tabernacle, and brought into it the blood of bulls and goats; Christ ministers in the heavenly, spiritual, archetypal tabernacle, and His offering is His own blood. The διά may, in both cases, be taken instrumentally; or in the first locally, and the second instrumentally: the author having his mind on the fact, that in the tabernacle the priest did really pass through a considerable portion of it before reaching the adytum, and transferring the same imagery to the skies.—K]. Hebrews 9:13. The ashes of an heifer, etc.—Besides the expiatory offering, the author mentions the rite of purification, by which those contaminated by contact with dead bodies, i.e., persons and utensils that had become Levitically unclean, might, by means of spring water mingled with the ashes of a red, spotless heifer, burnt outside of the court, sprinkled upon them with a hyssop branch, become again Levitically clean (Numbers 19). It is better, with Erasm., Bez., etc., to connect τοὺςκεκοινωμένους with ῥαντίζουσα, which requires an object, than with ἁγίάζει (Vulg., Luth., Calv., Beng.), which may easily stand absolutely, and differs essentially from ἁγνίζει. Hebrews 9:14. By means of an eternal Spirit.—The words διὰπνεύματοςαἰωνίου belong as well to ἄμωμον as to προσήνεγκεν, which, however, belongs not to the offering of the blood poured out upon the earth in the inner sanctuary (Socin., Schlicht., Grot., Limb., Bl., in part Riehm), but, as shown by the technical expressions, to the offering on the cross. Nor is the πνεῦμααἰων. identical with the δύναμιςζωῆςἀκαταλύτου, Hebrews 7:16 (Socin., Schlicht., Grot., Limb., Carpz., Riehm, Reuss), but its cause; nor does it apply either to Christ’s glorified condition after His exaltation (Dφder., Storr), nor to the spirit of the law in contrast with its letter (Michael.), nor to the spirit of prophecy in the prophets (Planck). It is undoubtedly by design that the Holy Spirit Himself is not expressly named, and the absence of the article implies that the noun is to be taken generically (Lόn.) as Romans 1:3. But it must be still referred, as to the matter of fact, to the Holy Spirit dwelling in Christ, and not to the divine nature of Christ (Bez., Calov, Bisp., etc.), or to the Spirit of God that made Christ a living man (Hofm.), or to His divine personality (Del.). But this view, which brings into clear relief the ethical features of Christ’s sacrifice of Himself, is by Bleek, De Wette, and others, raised into undue prominence, while others, again, with Este, refer the words too exclusively to the Third Person of the Trinity. The author, on the contrary, is laying stress, on the spiritual power of the offering of Christ, as an unblemished and spotless mediator, in its attribute of eternal. In this epithet is, of course, then implied a contrast. It implies, however, not a contrast with the fire which consumed the Levitical offerings (Chrys., �c., Theophyl., etc.); nor with the perishing animal soul in the blood of the sacrificial victim (Hofm., Del.), inasmuch as it is not the offering itself that is secured by the agency of this Eternal Spirit, but the atoning efficacy of the blood, a fact which Riehm II. 527 Anmerk, appears to overlook. The words rather express a contrast with that which originates and perishes in time; and they bring the offering of Christ upon the cross into immediate dependence upon the ministry of a Spirit whose agency for this purpose at once reaches back into the eternity of the past, and carries its influence forward into the eternity of the future. Tholuck regards the words as expressing a contrast with the fleshly character of the law, taking with Fritzsche the διά to denote not so much condition as the sphere, in which the offering takes place; thus, “in a true and eternal manner” (similarly Socin. and Beng.). The ἔργανεκρά are not sinful, and hence death-bringing actions, but the works of the law which, as they have in themselves no life, so produce no life, comp. Hebrews 6:1. Hebrews 9:15. And for this reason he is mediator of a new covenant, etc.—Διὰτοῦτο is to be referred, not to what follows, merely anticipating the ὅπως (Schlicht., Bl., Ebr., etc.), but in view of the close connection with the preceding, to the whole train of thought, Hebrews 9:9-14, not specially to αἷμα (Sykes, Chr. F. Schmid). The final clause, ὅπως, etc., gives not so much the goal to which, according to the divine counsel, the New Covenant was to lead, and with this the way and means by which the attainment of this goal should be accomplished (Lόn.), as the purpose of God to bring by the way that has been described, those who have been called to the eternal inheritance into the fruition of the promise. We are certainly not to connect εἰςἀπολύτρωσιν with λάβωσιν, but, as a clause denoting object and purpose, with θανάτουγενομένου. But to connect τῆςκληρον. with ἐπαγγ. (Erasm., Luth., Calv., Bl., De W., Lόn., Hofm., Del.), though intrinsically possible, is less natural than with the immediately preceding κεκλημένοι (Pesh., Thol., Ebr., Riehm, etc.), inasmuch as the called here are not Christians as such (κλητοί) or exclusively, but also according to Hebrews 9:26 and Hebrews 11:39-40, embrace the believers of the Old Testament, and the word, therefore, seems to need a qualifying addition,. The λαβεῖντὴνἐπαγγ. occurs also, Hebrews 11:13; Acts 2:33, of the reception of the substance of the promise, as κληρονομεῖντὴνἐπαγγ. Hebrews 6:12; Hebrews 6:17; ἐπιτυχεῖντῆςἐπαγγ. Hebrews 6:15; κομίσασθαιτὴνἐπαγγ. Hebrews 10:36; Hebrews 11:39. The importance to the following discussion of the idea of that inheritance (κληρονομία), which even in the Old Testament is promised, and by the counsel of God designed for all the members of the covenant people, but into whose possession the κεκλημένοι can enter only by means of a new διαθήκη, renders it natural even here to link with the διαθήκη the idea of a testament. Since, however, this signification develops itself only from the connection of the following verses, it is more appropriate, in this introductory sentence, to, use a word which, like διαθήκη, can admit, according to the exigency, of being specialized either into covenant or testament.—Lφffler (on the Church Doctrine of Satisfaction), Bretschn. (Dogmatic II. § 155), and Reiche at Rom. (3:25) regard the idea as expressed that the reconciliation refers only to sins committed before the transition to Christianity. But Calvin says rightly: non quζ tempore Vet. Test. Commissζ, sed quζ Vet. Test vigore manebant irremissζ; and Tholuck remarks how it springs from the train of thought that only he who stands in the New Covenant, can have continually and forever the consolation of feeling the sense of guilt completely done away. AND ETHICAL1. Christ has, indeed, historically, that is to say, in time and on earth, appeared as a High-priest, but on the one hand His priesthood is not merely the fulfilment of the Aaronic, but also of the Melchisedec type; and, on the other, the sanctuary, of which He is High-priest in both relations, is not the earthly sanctuary, reared by human hands after a divinely indicated pattern, and by its typical and symbolical character destined to pass away; but the sanctuary belonging to the heavenly world, imperishable and opening the way to the fulfilment of all the promises of God. The same character is, for this reason, also borne by all the good things of which Christ, as High-priest, is mediator. 2. In the ritual of the Old Testament there lies between the means and the result no internal and essential connection. That which unites the two, is merely a divine ordination. But on account of the covenant relation, the Israelites in believing obedience to God, yielded themselves to this ordination, and in carrying out its requirements received from it a blessing. Still, the whole bore merely the stamp of externality, alike in the means and in the result, and also in the union of atonement, cleansing and sanctification. 3. In the New Covenant, also, expiation, cleansing, sanctification, are still distinguished, but are at the same time internally and essentially united. The same blood of Christ, which objectively expiates, subjectively purifies the moral consciousness, so that the consequence of this redemption is a priestly service, in which the ransomed one no longer in individual rites and under the compulsion of the law, but with his whole person, by means of the new spirit, is sanctified, and henceforth continually sanctifying himself for the living God. 4. Precisely the same remark applies to the features of the sacrifice of Christ, which latter stands not in an outward relation and one merely approved and determined by God, but in an internal and essential relation to this result as the alone sufficient, and eternally efficacious means of accomplishing the divine purpose of redemption. For Christ has offered Himself, and that as a spotless and blameless victim in the sense of the High-priestly sacrifice, and all this has been effected through the instrumentality of an Eternal Spirit. 5. There is, indeed, a ransom and a redemption, in a more general sense, as simple deliverance; but taken in connection with high-priestly arrangements, we must here adhere to the more specific sense of “ransoming” or freeing, by the payment of a ransom-price. This ransom-price is the blood of Christ as of an entirely spotless lamb, 1 Peter 1:19; Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14, and is here, as always, in Scripture, designated as a price divinely offered; so that the idea of the ransom price as paid to Satan (Origen, Basil, and others till St. Bernhard) is to be totally rejected. It can, indeed, be said that Christ has been made unto us of God redemption, 1 Corinthians 1:30. But this expression merely gives prominence to the divine agency alike in the sending of Christ into the world, and particularly in the work of redemption, and points at the same time to the acceptance on the part of God, of the ransom which has been paid. In that we have been sold under sin, Romans 7:14, we have become helpless victims of the wrath, or avenging justice of God. Against this we are, according to the Hebrew mode of expression, covered by the blood shed for us, which, as sacrificial blood, has an expiatory significance. The redemption can thus, on the one hand, be conceived as the payment of a λֹ ?τֶּ ?ψ, i.e., λύτρωσις; on the other as a λַּ ?τָּ ?ψָ ?δ, i.e., ἱλασμός. It is invariably effected by means of a substitutionary satisfaction, and by a perfectly valid expiation. 6. The efficacious element in the blood lies not in its matter or substance, but the life which moves in it, and which, by means of a special act, not connected with the course of nature, has been yielded up to death, Leviticus 17:11. Since, then, the crucifixion of Christ falls not under the category of the slaughter of an innocent person, or of the murder, for the ends of justice, of a righteous man, but under that of the surrendering up of His own person at once freely and in accordance with the purpose of God, Titus 2:14; 1 Timothy 2:5, the significance, power and efficacy of this death must correspond entirely with the peculiar nature and dignity of the person of Jesus Christ. He Himself, however, expressly indicates, Matthew 20:28, His death as the substitutionary offering of a ransom-price. On account of the nature of His person, consequently, this vicariousness must be complete, the satisfaction all sufficient, the ransom actual and eternal. As against the false and distorted interpretations of Hofmann, see Delitzsch’s Second Appendix “on the firm Scriptural basis for the Church doctrine of vicarious satisfaction” (in his Commentary, p. 708 ff.). 7. The sacrifice of Christ is also not compared with the human sacrifices of the heathen, but is brought into direct relation with the high-priestly expiatory offering ordained by God, as being the accomplishment of its type, and the realization of its symbol. In this very fact lies the certainty that the relation of God to this offering is neither that of mere passive permission, nor that of Divine wrath quenched in the blood of human sacrifices, nor that of any caprice or unrighteousness on the part of God in His acceptance of this sacrifice, and holding the substitution as valid. This becomes perfectly clear, if we regard, on the one hand, the position of Christ alike in reference to God and to mankind, and, on the other, His relation to the Spirit of God. 8. It is not enough to bring into prominence the thoroughly moral character of the sacrifice of Christ; neither is it sufficient to lay stress on the religious purity and acceptableness in the sight of God of this act, with its moving grounds and impelling causes. In this case we should merely have a sacrifice accomplished such as, in respect of conscientiousness, love of truth, zealous faith, and fidelity of compassion, all true Christians are enabled by the influences of the Holy Spirit to accomplish in a death by martyrdom. We have to do with a movement and working of the Spirit in Christ, which has its ground and beginning not within the limits of time and of humanity, and thus with a sacrifice freely determined upon in eternity, and accomplished within the limits of time in perfect unity with the eternal Spirit, who works perpetually through Christ’s whole career of life and suffering—a sacrifice which, precisely for this reason, has a world-embracing and ever-during significance, and has become the means of the establishment of a new covenant. 9. On the basis, and under the authority of the Mosaic law and worship, there was indeed a calling to the eternal inheritance of the children of God; but the promised inheritance could not be received, because the law was able only to sharpen the consciousness of guilt, and with this the sense of deserved punishment and death, while the ritual could, in its turn, produce only, as a Levitical purification, a typical redemption, a merely symbolical approach to God. It was only through the truly expiatory death of the God-man, who expiated, suffered and died, not for Himself, but vicariously, and rendered satisfaction not merely to the righteousness, but to the punitive righteousness of God, that a change was wrought in the entire relation of humanity to God, and a real taking away of man’s guilty condition and relations became possible. 10. All this mirrors itself indeed in human feelings, experiences, and testimonies, and finds in them expression; but it has its ground in no human conditions and conceptions, but in the arrangements and promises of God. The necessary consequence of the death of Jesus Christ is, therefore, a new covenant; so that this death is not merely the antitype of the High-priestly offering of atonement, but also, of the Paschal Lamb, 2 Corinthians 5:7, and, as is immediately intimated in what follows by the author of our Epistle, is the antitype of the covenant sacrifice, Exodus 24., whereby Israel, sprinkled by the blood of atonement, was dedicated as the people of God, and as a royal priesthood (LeHebrews Hebrews 9:8). 11. The death of Christ is, in its significance in sacred history, just as little to be conceived apart from the glorification of the Royal Priest enthroned at the right hand of God, which followed upon His resurrection and ascension, as from the perfected life of the Incarnate One, which was secured by His obedience and sufferings. In the passage before us, however, these intermediate and conditioning acts are merely indicated, and not brought into prominence. The emphasis lies rather on the fact that the accomplished entrance of Christ into the heavenly sanctuary accomplished once and for ever, in that it wrought eternal redemption, had its ground and efficiency in His own blood, and for this reason infinitely transcends its one-sided and shadowy type in the expiatory rites of the Old Covenant. 12. It is only by a reference to the High-priestly offering of atonement, that an emphasis is laid upon the blood (see particularly Hebrews 13:11). Elsewhere an offering of the body is also mentioned (Hebrews 10:10), but, of course, comprehending this, in that Christ is said to have offered up Himself (Hebrews 7:26; Hebrews 9:14; Hebrews 9:25; Ephesians 5:2); since we have to do with the full and undivided person of the Redeemer, alike in His earthly and His glorified state. At all events, our author is not chargeable with that sensuous mode of conception and expression employed by the Socinians, which characterizes the school of Bengel and Hφttinger, and has been followed by Stier, and, in part, by Hofmann—a mode of expression which, while unduly pressing the analogy of the earthly high-priest’s proceedings in the act of expiation, is fraught with misconceptions, false assumptions, and dangerous consequences. It assumes that the blood of sprinkling (Hebrews 10:22; Hebrews 12:24) is even in heaven a separate thing, existing beside the glorified but bloodless body of the exalted Redeemer. Quenstδdt has strikingly expressed the correct view, while Calov, on the other hand, has indulged in many sensuous representations, and in an undue admixture of merely sensuous and poetic with dogmatic elements. AND The perfection of the mediatorship of Jesus Christ consists in the perfection: 1, of the sanctuary in which He exercises His office; 2, of the office which He exercises; 3, of the sacrifice which He has offered; 4, of the covenant which He established; 5, of the blessings which He procures.—The power of the blood of Jesus Christ: a. whence it springs; b. what it accomplishes; c. how it is appropriated.—The death of Jesus Christ as a High-priestly sacrifice—The nature, the causes, and the effects of the sacrifice offered by Jesus Christ.—We are redeemed: 1, from what? 2, by what? 3, for what?—The purging of our conscience: a. in its necessity; b. in its means; c. in its consequences.—The consequences of Christ’s offering of Himself are: 1, His entrance into the heavenly sanctuary; 2, an eternal redemption; 3, the New Covenant.—What defiles and what purifies us.—Redeemed by Christ, we yet cannot do whatever we would; we are members of the New Covenant.—The New Covenant in: 1, its object; 2, its foundation; 3, its means.—The death of Christ is the most perfect offering: 1, as an offering of Himself; 2, as a sin-offering; 3, as a cleansing offering; 4, as a covenant offering; 5, as a peace-offering.—The Redemption through Jesus Christ is: 1, an eternal one; 2, a complete one.—We have in our redemption to look: 1, at the Mediator, who has procured it; 2, at the price which it has cost; 3, at the gain which it has secured; 4, at the covenant which it has established; 5, at the end which it proposes. Starke:—Saviours [healers] and redeemers [ransomers] from bodily needs are distinguishable; but Jesus is the true Saviour, who saves us even from our sins; He alone has procured an eternal redemption.—Grand redemption of the human race! The Son of God Himself has redeemed us by His own blood.—The blood of Christ is a free, public boundary fixed against sin.—How heavy, great and dreadful must our sins be in the sight of God! They are assuredly dead works, which bring not only temporal, but also eternal death.—A believer may indulge in defiance and glorying against the Devil. Out of Christ I am to and in myself a sinner; In Christ I am a sinner no longer.—The atoning sacrifice of the Lord Jesus is efficacious not only for the future, but for the past; for the believers of the Old as well as of the New Testament.—Many children of the world imagine that they are able to live well and rightly before others, when behold, their works are purely dead works, which spring from a heart spiritually dead, and lead to eternal death. Matthew 23:27; Revelation 3:1. Rieger:—Purification and propitiation comprehend God’s entire work of rescuing from sin. 1 John 2:2; Colossians 1:14; Colossians 1:22.—With the plague of an evil conscience, or with the halting movements of an unpurified conscience, there is no service acceptable to the living God. Menken:—The way into the holiest of all was no path of pleasure pursued by self-will and self-glorification; but a path of the deepest self-abasement, which, through the Eternal Spirit, offered itself unto the uttermost before God.—The New Testament is nothing but the history of the fulfilment of the Divine promise, and thus the history of the appearance of the Promised One, and along with this, the history of an accomplished, the announcement of an existing, reconciliation of the world with God. Heubner:—The infinite value of the reconciliation wrought by Christ: 1. In the way and manner in which it has been made; a. as an immediate propitiation of God in the sanctuary of God; b. by Christ’s offering of Himself. 2. In the effects of this reconciliation, since a. it purifies the conscience; b. gives power for a holy life; c. has established God’s covenant with men, so that they now have full entrance into life. Textor:—(Epistolary Sermons, 1853). The high-priestly office of Jesus Christ: 1. how this is already prefigured in the Old Testament; 2. how Jesus Christ has exercised it; 3. the benefit which it brings us. Fricke:—The blood of Jesus Christ purifies 1. the conscience; 2. from dead works; 3. to serve the living God. L. Harms:—(At Hermannsburg): The heavenly high-priesthood of our Lord Jesus on the new earth: 1. His Church; 2. the altar; 3. the congregation (1863). Footnotes: [Hebrews 9:13—τράγωνκαὶταύρων, goats and balls instead of bulls and goats, is the reading of A. B. D. Sin., etc.—K.]. Hebrews 9:14.—The reading of the Vulg. πνεύματοςἁγίου, found in D*., and in many minusc, is only an interpretation. In the Cod. Sin. it appears only as a correction. Hebrews 9:14.—Instead of the Rec. ὑμῶν, we are to read after A. D*. K., 44, 47, 67, ἡμῶν. The Rec. has, however, the sanction of the Cod. Sin. III In the concluding of this New Covenant the blood of Christ was indispensable Hebrews 9:16-2216 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be [be adduced or declared, φέρεσθαι] the death of the testator. 17For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all [since it scarcely is of any force] while the testator 18liveth. Whereupon [whence, ὅθεν] neither [not even, οὐδέ] the first testament was [has been] dedicated [inaugurated] without blood. 19For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book [itself, 20 αὐτό] and all the people, Saying, This is the blood of the testament [or, covenant] 21which God hath [om. hath] enjoined unto you. Moreover [And] he sprinkled likewise with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry [service]. 22And almost [parety nearly, or about, σχεδόν] all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is [there takes place] no remission. [Hebrews 9:16.—φέρεσθαι, not be, as E. V., but, adduced, declared, Alf., implied; Words., brought to pass; many, afferri coram judice, of establishing judicially; Moll renders “beigebracht werden.” Hebrews 9:17.—ἐπὶνεκροῖς, over the dead, in case of the dead, lit., on condition of persons as dead.—ἐπείμήποτε elegantly softening and appealing rather to the judgment of the reader; “for look whether perchance it has force;” see if it be not perhaps invalid. It is by no means intensive, as in the E. V., “it has no force at all.” Otherwise it should be taken as a question: “Since does it at all=it does not at all, does it?” Hebrews 9:18.—ὃθεν, whence, logical.—οὐδέ., not even.—ἐγκεκαίνισται, Perf., has been inaugurated, not, was dedicated. The Perf, implies that it stands before our eyes. Hebrews 9:19.—λαληθείσηςγάρ, for after every commandment was spoken, etc.—αὐτότετὸβιβλίον, both the book itself. Hebrews 9:20.—ἐνετείλατο, Aor., enjoined, not, hath enjoined. Hebrews 9:21.—καὶτὴνσκηνὴνδέ, and the tabernacle too; so καί—δέ, constantly and elegantly used in Greek. Not quite as in E. V. and Alf., and moreover. Hebrews 9:22.—καὶσχεδόν, and pretty much, pretty nearly, as one might say. It does not like our almost (Gr. ὀλίγουδεῖν) positively exclude a part, but simply declines to guarantee the exact accuracy of the statement. Almost, therefore, is never its proper rendering. Alf. renders almost, but adds parenthetically, one may say that, which is sufficiently exact.—αὶματεκχυσία, either shedding of blood in the slaughter of the victim, or pouring out of the blood of the victim when slaughtered; the former here seems more probable. Αἱματεκ., “seems to be a word coined by the sacred writer, to express his meaning.” Alf.—γίνεται, takes place.—K.]. AND Heb_9:16. For where a testament is, etc.—Attempts have been very naturally made (springing from the ὄθεν of Hebrews 9:18, and the γάρ connecting this verse with Hebrews 9:15), to take διαθήκη here in its ordinary sense of covenant (Crit. Sacr., VII. 2 p., 1067 sq., Seb. Schmidt, Michaelis, Cramer, Ebrard, etc.). They are convicted at once, however, of error, by the utter falseness of the idea that in the formation of a covenant the death of Him who framed it is indispensable to its validity, as well as by the intolerable harshness of any other mode of explaining ὁδιαθέμενος. For although ἐπὶνεκροῖς might indeed denote “over slaughtered sacrificial victims,” inasmuch as in later usage τὸνεκρόν, is frequently=τὸπτῶμα,—it is impossible that ὁδιαθέμενος can be applied either to the animal offered in sacrifice in confirmation of the covenant, or to the man regarded as replaced and represented by the victim, and thus pledging himself as it were to a moral death, or to the mediator of the covenant. If, on the other hand, in allusion to the above mentioned inheritance (κληρονομία), we evolve here out of the more general signification of διαθήκη (arrangement, dispositio) the more special one of testamentary arrangement, testament, we must beware of extending the application of the comparison made in illustration of the thought, beyond the immediate sentiment and purpose of the writer, and thus of introducing alien and incongruous elements into the passage. Such is the idea advanced by Menken, who says (Homilies on Chapters 9 and 10., p. 142) that only He who by His death has proved Himself worthy of the inheritance, could make others fellow-heirs with Him; as also that of Hofmann, who (Weissag. II., 165) appeals in proof of the necessity of the death of the ὁδιαθέμενος, to the fact that during His life He could add something to His possessions, and thus could not during His life-time make any one an heir of the whole property that He should leave behind Him. The question is not now of a setting forth of the ultimate ground of the death of Christ, a ground already assigned at Hebrews 9:15—but of an illustration of its practical necessity, in order for the delivering over of the blessings of salvation, as an inheritance. Compare as to the idea, Luke 22:29 : κἀγὼδιατίθεμαιὑμῖνκαθὼςδιέθετόμοιὁπατήρμουβασιλείαν. Among the ancient Hebrews there were, it is true, no arbitrary testamentary bequests, Deuteronomy 21:16. But among the later Jews they were by no means unknown (Michaelis, Mos. Recht. II., § 80), and the sentiment in question is conceived and expressed not from a Hebrew, but a Hellenic point of view. If we decline giving to φέρεσθαι the signification adduced (Hofm. Schriftb. II. 1, 428) or endured (referred by Wittich to the relatives), the most probable rendering will be that of sermone ferri=constare (Bretschn.). The juristic application of the word=afferri coram judice (Hammond, Elsner, and the majority, since Valckenaer) is restricted properly to the adducing of evidence in court, and applies not to the right of inheritance. The rendering esse, extare=γίγνεσθαι [be or become), which, with the ancients and up to the time of Valck., was the prevalent one, is held among later comm. only by Schultz and Bφhme, and cannot be sustained. The rendering expectari (Grot.) is totally inadmissible. Grammatically indefensible too is the making μήποτε=μήπω, not yet (Vulg., Erasm., Luth., Schlicht., Bφhme). In a strictly objective sentence we should indeed have expected οὐ; but the later writers in causal sentences with ὅτι and ἐπεί frequently confound οὐ and μή (Madvig, Synt., § 207, Anm. 2). If, with Winer, we decline ascribing to our author a negligence belonging properly to the vulgar idiom (Mullach, Gramm. der Griech. Vulgarsprache, p. 29), but give to μή its subjective force, we must then (with �c., Beng., Lachm., Hofm., Del., etc.) assume an interrogation; and this all the more, as ἐπεί, also at Hebrews 10:2; Rom. 3 6; 1 Corinthians 14:16; 1 Corinthians 15:29; introduces a proof in the form of interrogation, and μήποτε appears alike in direct (John 7:26) and indirect (Luke 3:15; 2 Timothy 2:25) interrogations. Quite unnecessarily Isidor. Pelus. (Ep. IV., 113) prefers the reading μὴτότε found only in D. Hebrews 9:18. Whence, also, neither has the first covenant, etc.—The reference of ὅθεν to Hebrews 9:15 by putting Hebrews 9:16-17, in parenthesis (Zachar., Mor., Storr, Heinr., Bisp.,) is inadmissible. The words κατὰτὸννόμον are not to be connected with πάσηςἐντολῆς=(“Every commandment as contained in the law,” (Schlicht., Calov, Beng., Bl., Bisp., etc.,) but with λαληθείσης, �c. Erasm., Calv., Bez., Grot., etc.,); not, however, in the sense of “according to the command” in reference to the injunction, Exodus 20:22, (Bez., etc.,) but, “in accordance with the law received on Sinai;” inasmuch as in concluding the covenant, an exact repetition of the divine commands was indispensable. Hebrews 9:19. He took the blood, etc.—The καί after βιβλίον which we must not (with Colomes. and Valcken.) strike out, and which cannot possibly, with Beng., be taken as corresponding to the καὶδέ of Hebrews 9:21, forbids our making αὐτὸτὸβιβ. dependent on λαβών. We are to assume here, as also in the mention of the goats which might be chosen for burnt offering, (Leviticus 1:10 f.; Leviticus 4:23 f.; Leviticus 9:2 f.; Numbers 6:10 f.; Hebrews 7:27; comp. Exodus 24:5); and were also used in the expiatory offerings mentioned in Hebrews 9:12-13, and in like manner in respect to the means of purification, (which elsewhere are found only in the case of lepers, LeHebrews Hebrews 9:14 and those defiled by dead bodies, Numbers 19.) an expression drawn from tradition, (and which, at least in respect to that which immediately follows, is also found in Joseph. Antt. III. 8, 6), of the event recorded, Exodus 24. In the citation we have τοῦτο instead of the ἰδοὐ of the Sept., ὁθεός instead of κύριος, and ἐνετείλατο instead of διέθετο. Hebrews 9:21. And the tabernacle, too.—Since the tabernacle and vessels were constructed at a later period, the author cannot refer to anything that is contemporaneous with what is hitherto mentioned. To this fact points the καὶδέ=but also, on the other hand also. The anointing is that enjoined, Exodus 40:10, which is probably identical with that which was performed, Leviticus 8:10, during the seven days of priestly consecration, an account of which, similar to that here recorded, is given by Josephus, while the original text recounts only the sprinkling with oil, as of the positive means of consecration, but mentions the purifying by the blood of atonement only in reference to the altar, Leviticus 8:15; Leviticus 8:19; Leviticus 8:24. Hebrews 9:22. And all things, as one might say, are purified with blood, etc.—Also, water and fire are a means of purification; but when the question is of forgiveness of sin, then blood is demanded, according to Leviticus 17:11. The vegetable sin-offering of the poor, Leviticus 5:11-13, forms no exception, but is a recognized substitute. Chrys., Primas., etc., erroneously refer σχεδόν to καθαρίζεται as if expressing the imperfection of this purification, neither, however, does it belong to ἐναἵματι, (Beng., Bφhm.), but to πάντα. The word αἱματεκχυσία is understood by De W., Thol., Hofm., Keil, of the pouring out of blood on the altar, and the sprinkling, while Bl., Lόn., Del., Kurtz, on the contrary, refer it to the slaughter, which is parallel to the death of Christ upon the cross. Del. recalls the language of the last Supper, Luke 22:20, as in point of symbol and of fact, furnishing the closest parallel, without yet being insensible to what, on purely archζological grounds, may be urged in favor of the former explanation (comp. Einhorn, Prinzip des Mosaismus, p. 82 ff.). AND ETHICAL1. Even in the Old Test the salvation promised by God to His people, under certain terms and conditions, appears as an inheritance. πַ ?ηֲ ?μָ ?δ. It is thus not unscriptural, and not even surprising, but merely uncommon, when Christ, who previously was regarded as the accomplisher of the revelation of God, and as royal head and leader of His people to salvation, as pledge and mediator of that new covenant which was promised and typified in the Old, is now represented as a Testator, in that, for the vivid illustration of the close connection, lying in the very nature of the case, between the death of Jesus Christ and the attainment of the inheritance of the children of God, promised to us by God, and given over as His own, to Christ, for transmission to us, this comparison opens the most appropriate and the most instructive analogies. 2. Since such is the state of the case, for this reason even in the formation of the old covenant, the application of blood, for cleansing and for expiation, was indispensable, and during the existence of that economy was always employed for such a purpose, in accordance with the express command of God. It was then, with a reference to the death of Jesus Christ, as the true and efficacious sacrifice, that this arrangement was instituted; and it is no accommodation to Jewish prejudices, and Rabbinical modes of expression, to regard Christ as a priest and an offering; rather, on the contrary, the Levitical offerings are to be conceived under the point of view of a divinely ordained type of the sacrifice determined in the eternal counsels of God, and freely undertaken by Christ, (Hebrews 10:5 ff.). Hence the ὅθεν, Hebrews 9:18. 3. In this connection becomes explicable, also, the sprinkling of the Tabernacle, and of the sacred vessels, and of the sacred records of the divine revelation and covenant, with blood, as well as the sprinkling of the people, although this belongs only to tradition. It expresses the obligation inhering in both parties for the offering of the efficient sacrifice, and the present inability to furnish it with the means existing at the time. Remittere peccata non est opus absolutζ misericordiζ, sed fit interveniente simul satisfactione eaque sufficientissima licet a misericordia divina procurata. (Seb. Schmidt). AND Obedience to the ordinances of God is not merely the duty of men, but our best auxiliary in the struggle against sin.—The law of God which makes acquainted with and condemns sin, points also the way to the forgiveness of sin.—Sin is a stain which can be removed only by blood.—On the connection of sin, expiation, and forgiveness. Starke:—Just as surely as Christ has died, so sure is the covenant of grace with God.—Divine justice demanded blood, and without this God could not be propitiated, Colossians 1:14; Colossians 1:20.—Moses, a faithful servant in the house of God. Blessed are they who are his imitators!—There is, in itself, nothing pure before God, not even the holy place, nor the teachers who enter thither to conduct the service of God, as the people who assemble there to serve God, and this even in their best acts; yet the blood of Christ purifies all.—How capital a point of faith is furnished by the blood and death of Jesus Christ! without this, all His suffering were in vain, and that even though it had been far heavier than it was. By this we are reconciled with God. Rieger:—Only through Christ, and His death, has the whole blessing of redemption, which God would apply to us miserable wretches for our salvation, amounted to a proper testament and bequest, i.e., to a gracious economy confirmed by the death of its Author. Heubner:—If everything is defiled by the impure hands of men, if the whole earth is desecrated by sin, then does everything stand in need of cleansing and consecration, Job 15:4.—In the expiatory power of the death of Jesus lies its proper significance, Isaiah 53.—Without a surrender to death there is no reconciliation. The yielding up of life an expiation for desecrated life, Exodus 17:11. Footnotes: Hebrews 9:18.—Instead of οὐδ’ A. C. D. E. L., 4, 44, 55 (but at the Sin.), write οὐδέ. Hebrews 9:19.—The article before νόμον is vouched for by A. C. D*. L., 21, 47, 71. In the Sin. it comes from a second hand. Hebrews 9:19.—The Art. before τράγων is required by Sin. A. C. D. E., 80. Hebrews 9:19.—For ἐῤῥάντισε all the Uncial MSS. have ἐράντισεν. Alford criticises the Eng. ver. “must have suffered” on the ground that the antecedent time, being already indicated by the ἔδει, need not be again expressed by παθεῖν. The criticism would be just if the ἔδει were in the English version instead of in the Greek. But in English the must, which translates the ἔδει, not having in itself the idea of past time, this idea has to be put into the accompanying Infinitive. The rendering of the common version is therefore, I think, idiomatic and unexceptionable.—K.]. IV The necessary, yet never repeated sacrificial death of Christ has introduced a perfectly satisfactory propitiation Hebrews 9:23-2823 It was therefore necessary that the patterns [copies] of the things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24For Christ is not entered [did not enter] into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures [counterparts] of the true [genuine, ἀληθινῶν]; but into heaven itself, now to appear [to be manifested, ἐμφανισθῆναι] in the presence of God 25for us: Nor yet [and not, οὐδέ] that he should [may] offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with the blood of others: 26For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now [as it is, νυνί] once in the end of the world [ages, αἰώνων] hath he appeared [been manifested, πεφανέρωται] 27to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself [by means of his sacrifice]. And as [in so much as καθ̓ὅσον] it is appointed [reserved, ἀπόκειται] unto men once to die, but after 28that the judgment: So [also] Christ was once [for all] offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. [Hebrews 9:23.—τὰμὲνὑποδείγματα, the copies indeed; or while the copies. ὑπόδειγμα something shown or exhibited under in subordination to, something else, whether as a pattern, or a copy; here clearly the latter; though perhaps it may be better to take ὑπό as lessening, lowering down, the signification, thus faint sketch, delineation, outline. Hebrews 9:24.—οὐγὰρεἰςχειροποίηταεἰσῆλ., for not into a sanctuary made with hands did Christ enter=for it was no sanctuary made with hands, into which, etc.—Τῶνἀληθινῶν, the genuine, the archetypal.—ἐμφανισθῆναι to be manifested, not simply to appear. Hebrews 9:25.—οὐδἵνα—προσφἐρῃ nor that he may (not might) offer himself. Hebrews 9:26.—ἐπεὶἔδει=ἔδειἄν, since it were, would be, necessary for him frequently to suffer; ἔδει logical as Hebrews 2:1,=he must frequently have suffered.* The meaning is not, with Del. and Alf., that His making repeated offerings now in the heavenly sanctuary, would necessitate His having previously frequently suffered on earth, inasmuch as each offering in the sanctuary presupposes a previous suffering on earth. This is a thought altogether too far-fetched for the scope of the passage. The writer argues, in my judgment, simply from the historical fact, or perhaps rather confirms his statement by a reference to the historical fact. If He were entered into the heavenly sanctuary, in order to make, as the high-priest did, repeated entrances into it, it would follow, as a logical conclusion, that there must have been a series of such acts in former ages. If, like the entrances of the Levitical high-priest, His entrance and presentation of Himself were of such a nature as to require repetition, then, of course, there should have been a series of sufferings and entrances in former times. But in contrast with that, and as showing the single and decisive character of His High-Priestly entrance, he has, in fact, (νυνὶδέ) been manifested but once, and that, once for all, at the consummation of the ages.—διὰτῆςθυσίαςαὐτοῦ, by His sacrifice=the sacrifice which He made. It was, indeed, a sacrifice of Himself, but this is not expressed in the text. Hebrews 9:27.—καθ’ ὅσον not simply as (ὡς, or καθώς) but inasmuch as, assigning a ground or reason.—ἀπόκειται, it (lies away) is reserved for, not is appointed.—εἰςσωτηρίαν for salvation is by some connected with the Part. ἀπεκδεχ. but by most better with ὀφθήσεται, will appear for salvation.—K.]. AND Heb_9:23. It was necessary now, etc.—The nature of the following verse renders it more desirable to supply ἧν (Ebr., Del.), than ἐστίν (Lόn.). The ἐπουράνια are not the heavenly blessings (Seb. Schmidt, Ramb., and others); not the Christian Church (Chrys., Theod., Este, Lapid., Calov, Heubn. etc.); but the heavenly εanctuary in contrast with its earthly copy made with hands. The plur. κρείττοσιθυσίαις points not to the sufferings, prayers, and works of love of Christians, in common with the sacrificial death of Jesus (Grot., Paul.). It is the plural of kind, or class. But to transform purification into consecration (Bl., Lόn., De W., etc.) is totally unallowable, as is also the substituting in the place of the heavenly sanctuary, the men who belong to the New Test. economy (Thom. Aqu., Beng., Menk., Thol., etc.). But neither is the cleansing in question an actual purging of heaven by the casting out of Satan, which Akersloot would refer to Luke 10:18, John 12:31; while Bleek would explain in accordance with Revelation 12:7-9. The context demands an expiatory purification, i.e., a doing away of the influence of human sin upon the heavenly sanctuary (Stier, Hofm., Del., Riehm, Alf.). Hebrews 9:24. For not into a sanctuary made with hands, etc.—The author is not assigning the ground why there is now need of better sacrifices for the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary (Hofm.), nor giving the proof that Christ has actually entered into the heavenly sanctuary, (Bl., Lόn.,) nor illustrating the contrast between the earthly and the heavenly sanctuary (Ebr.), nor is he demonstrating the necessity of better offerings for the heavenly world from the reality of the one which has been furnished and offered to God (Del.). He is confirming the declaration of the previous verse, that the purification argued as necessary, has been actually accomplished. Hofm. now concedes, that the Infin. Aor. ἐμφανισθῆναι constitutes no ground of objection (Win. § 44; Matthew 20:26; 1 Peter 4:2) to our understanding the νῦν of the permanent presence of Christ before the unveiled face of God in heaven. The position of the ὑπὲρἡμῶν at the end of the clause, throws intentional and weighty emphasis upon the soteriological significance of this ἐμφανισθῆυαι, a significance referable in its purpose to the persons of the readers. This word expresses (Acts 24:1) strikingly the reciprocal and unveiled face to face manifestation of God and Christ, and is found in no corresponding sense among the technical expressions of the old covenant. Hebrews 9:25.—May offer himself, etc.—The προσφέρεινἑαυτόν refers not to Christ’s offering Himself on earth. In that case it were virtually =παθεῖν, Hebrews 9:26, which, as Hebrews 13:12, is to be understood of the suffering of death. But the offering of the blood in the heavenly all-holy presupposes the slaying of the victim outside of the Adyton, and is brought about by the entrance of the high-priest, of whom after his entrance, was required a two-fold offering of different kinds of blood (Hebrews 9:7), as his entrance was preceded by the slaughter of two different victims. To this refer the expressions of our passage, in which to avoid a misapprehension of the plur. θυσίαις, used in Hebrews 9:23, the idea is repelled that in the heavenly all-holy, whither Christ has entered, not in alien but in His own blood, He has now to offer Himself at repeated times. Had repeated offerings of Himself been the purpose of His entrance into heaven, which assuredly is in every case to be conceived of as but a single one (Schlicht. and Bφhme, Bl., Hofm., Del.), then must also a πολλάκιςπαθεῖν have preceded, and that indeed “from the foundation of the world,” i.e., Christ would have been obliged to suffer just as many times before His entrance to God, as He now was repeatedly to offer Himself before God (Hofm., Del., Alf.). But this would contradict the fact that Christ has become man, not at the beginning, but at the end of the world. This explanation is far more probable than the common one that Christ would otherwise have been obliged every time to return into the world. [I do not see much to choose between the two explanations: viz., that which urges the singleness of Christ’s entrance and offering in the heavenly sanctuary, on the ground that otherwise He would have had repeatedly to descend and suffer, inasmuch as every προσφέρειν implied a previous παθεῖν, and that which urges the singleness of His προσφέρειν, on the ground that otherwise He must have gone through a series of sacrificial sufferings while remaining on earth, in order to accumulate, as it were, a stock of sacrificial suffering, on the strength of which He might make an equal number of priestly offerings in the heavenly sanctuary. Or rather it seems to me that the latter view, though supported by Del., Alf., and Moll, is much the harsher and more improbable of the two. For although it is undoubtedly true, as Del. urges, that the author takes his stand on the assumption of only a single presentation of Christ in heaven, yet it is equally true that this is based on the actually existing state of facts, viz., on the singleness of Christ’s sacrificial suffering on earth. For it surely is not more monstrous to assume a series of descents to earth and reλntrances into heaven after suffering death, than to assume a series of deaths continuously occurring on earth to be followed subsequently by as many successive high-priestly entrances into the heavenly sanctuary. The latter seems to me, considering the analogy of the Jewish rites, much the more unnatural of the two. In point of fact I do not believe that the writer had in mind precisely either of the above ideas, though that which he had comes much nearer to the first than the second. The question is not in his mind a question of the relation between a supposed series of priestly offerings in heaven, and a corresponding series of sufferings on earth. It is simply a logical deduction from a matter of fact. If Christ’s entrance into heaven were of the nature of the Jewish priest’s entrances into the Mosaic sanctuary, such, viz., as to involve a repetition of His entrances, and offerings from time to time, this must have led inevitably to, and manifested itself in, His repeated sufferings in the successive ages of the world. But there has been no such manifestation. He has, in fact, (νυνί) appeared and suffered but once, and that at the very close of the old period, and when the former age is about to merge into the new. This fact is in itself decisive of the nature of His priesthood. It at once grows out of, and demonstrates the fact, that His priesthood, unlike that of the Levitical priests, is one in which one act of suffering on earth, and one priestly entrance into and offering in heaven, accomplish the whole work.—K.]. The πεφανέρωται refers not to the appearance in heaven before God, (Grot., Schultz, etc.), but to the φανέρωσιςἐνσαρκί, 1 Timothy 3:16; 1 Peter 1:20; 1 Peter 5:4; 1 John 2:28; 1 John 3:5; 1 John 3:8. The expression ἐπὶσυντελείᾳτῶναἰώνων is in sense=ἐπ’ ἐσχάτουτῶνἡμερῶντούτων Hebrews 1:1; and like the Pauline (1 Corinthians 10:11) τὰτέλῃτῶναἰώνων, is a translation of the Heb. χֵ ?υδָ ?ςεֹ ?μָ ?ν. The connection of the words διὰτῆςθυσίαςαὐτοῦ with πεφανέρωται (Grot., Carpz., Bφhme, Thol. etc.), is unnatural, “since θυσία appears much rather as expressing the end of the manifestation of Christ than the means of that manifestation.” (Del.). These words are thus to be closely connected with εἰςἀθέτησιυἁμαρτίας, which gives the object of Christ’s appearance on the world’s theatre of action, viz., “the doing away, absolutely, and beyond the need of being supplemented with any second similar manifestation, of all that is sinful.” Hebrews 9:27. And inasmuch as it is reserved, etc.—Καθ̓ὅσον constitutes not, like καθώς, merely a comparison, but at the same time a reason, in this case for the fact that in Christ also, along with His death, the work of His first appearance on earth has been once for all completed, and admits no repetition; but that something corresponding to the judgment is still also in reference to Him to be looked for. This reason lies in His real assumption of human nature. The author for this reason also employs the Pass. προσενεχθείς, “being offered,” because in this comparison the sacrifice of Christ is regarded not as a voluntary offering, but as a suffering appointed to Him, as something befalling Him (Hofm.). We must therefore not, with Chrys., supply ὑφ’ ἑαυτοῦ, by Himself. Ἀνενεγκεῖν is understood by the Pesh., Chrys., �c., Theoph., Michael., of the presenting and offering up of sins in sacrifice; by Luth., Schlicht., Grot., Bl., Hofm. (Schriftb. 1 Ed.), Lόn., etc., of the taking them away=ἀφαιρεῖν, Hebrews 10:4; by Hofm. in 2 Ed. of Schriftb., in its classic sense of bearing up under, sustaining, enduring them; by Jac. Cappell., Calov, Beng., etc., of bearing them to the cross, according to 1 Peter 2:24; by August., Este, Seb. Schmidt, Bφhme, De W., Bisp., Del., Riehm, Alf., of vicarious bearing, according to Isaiah 53:12, where it is said of the Servant of Jehovah: αὐτὸςἁμαρτίαςπολλῶνἀνηνεγκε. This latter view, now also ably defended by Ebr. (Allg. Kirchenzeit., 1856, Nr. 116–127) has specially in its favor the declaration that Christ, at His second coming will appear χωρὶςἁμαρτίας. Chrys., Theod., Grot, and others refer erroneously this latter expression to the redeemed, who will then be entirely perfected. It refers to the person of Christ. Even in His first appearance His person was sinless, and sin was not in Jesus in the form of concupiscentia, as maintained by Dippel, Menken, Irving. But it partly assailed Him in the form of temptation, Hebrews 4:15, partly lay upon Him in the form of punishment, 2 Corinthians 5:21. The expression χωρὶςαμαρτίας stands in antithesis to the εἰςτὸπολλὰἀνενεγ. ἁμαρτ. Thus in the main rightly �c., Theophyl., Carpz., De W., Bisp., Hofm., Del. and others. We need not, however, for this reason take ἁμαρτία as sin-offering (J. Capp., Storr, etc.), or as punishment for sin (Klee, Thol., etc.), or (with Schultz) having to do with sin. Unauthorized alike by the language and by the fact, is the view of Theodor. Mops., Theodoret, Bl., that the phrase in question implies that there will then be no realm of evil and of sin which could require the work and agency of the reappearing Christ. A visible return is indicated by the ὀφθήσεται, and it is characterized as the second appearance, because the appearances to the disciples, which took place after the resurrection and before the ascension, belong to the period of Christ’s first coming to earth. The reading διὰπίστεως either after or before εἰςσωτηρίαν (adopted by Lachm. after A. 31, 47, but in 1850 again expunged), is a gloss. Still less are we authorized to connect εἰςσωτηρίαν with ἀπεκδεχομένοις (Primas., Camerar., Klee, Stein, etc.). It elongs to ὀφθήσεται, and points to final deliverance from all misery. AND ETHICAL1. In the death of Christ that has been really fulfilled which the sprinkling of the sacred book and of the sacred vessels of the temple with blood, symbolically represented. The sanctuary originated in reference to human guilt and sin, but has been purified from the guilt of the general corruption, by the fact that the Son of God, who, by the establishment of the covenant with sinful men, has, although from pure grace, yet assumed the obligation of their ransom, has actually and all-sufficiently offered Himself as a vicarious offering. 2. By Jesus Christ’s single and unrepeated, yet all-sufficient offering of Himself, the guilty relations of collective humanity are objectively removed, at whatever time its members may live upon the earth; so that neither does a repeated presentation of Himself take place in heaven (which would presuppose a corresponding repetition of the sufferings of Christ, since the beginning of the world), nor is the second coming of the Messiah, which is in the certain future, for the purpose of a second vicarious suffering. By virtue of the true deity of the Saviour, His single offering is for ever sufficient; by virtue of His true humanity He is incapable of rendering it more than once. 3. The “now” of the manifestation of Christ on our behalf before the face of God in heaven, so that no veiling cloud intervenes, such as was in the Mosaic sanctuary, Leviticus 16:2, is the present period of salvation, which, as the closing period, lasts until the parousia, and has, as its condition and historical commencement, the appearance of Christ in the flesh with His single and final offering. 4. Christ has not merely entered, from love and compassion, into the fellowship of human suffering, but He has taken upon Himself the burden of human sin; and this burden, under which men were in danger of utterly succumbing, He has been able to lift from them in no other way than by voluntarily enduring for them the punishment of sins which they had deserved, and by His vicarious death taking it from all the guilty—who here, as Hebrews 2:10, are called many, not in the particularistic sense of an exclusion of some from salvation merely by virtue of the electing purpose of God, nor in reference to the failure of some to fulfil the condition of a participation in salvation, but, as Matthew 20:28; Matthew 26:28; Luke 22:20; Mark 14:34, with reference to the fact that the single offering of the one God-man, is forever efficacious for humanity in all its manifold members. To the application of the doctrine of vicarious suffering to the passage before us, it cannot, with Hofm., be objected, that an expiatory bearing of sin cannot be designated as the aim and object of His offering of Himself. With entire correctness Del. replies to the objection: “Atonement for sin was not indeed the purpose of men in bringing upon Him this infliction; but might be none the less the purpose of God in subjecting Him to it, and his own in submitting to it.” 5. The earlier opinion, still held by Heubner, that for individuals judgment follows immediately upon their death, but that after the resurrection follows the manifestation of the judgment in relation to all, cannot at least be deduced from our passage. The contemporaneousness of the judgment and of the second coming of Christ, follow clearly from Hebrews 10:25; Hebrews 10:37 ff.; and the decision according to which the lot of the one class is perdition (ἀπώλεια) and that of the other περιποίησιςψυχῆς, is mentioned Hebrews 10:38 ff., as a consequence of the coming of Christ. Nevertheless, when the Judge in our Epistle is expressly designated (Hebrews 10:30 ff; Hebrews 12:23; Hebrews 12:25; Hebrews 12:29; Hebrews 13:4) not Christ, but God is named, which might stand connected with the fact (D. Schultz) that God is the being that makes the enemies of Christ His footstool. Since, however, the glory and majesty of Christ, are elsewhere strongly emphasized in our Epistle, it might at first seem surprising that the judgment is no where expressly ascribed to Christ. From this, however, we may not with Bleek, deduce the inference that that Divine judgment which destroys the adversaries, precedes the parousia. This may, with Riehm, be more simply and satisfactorily explained, from the fact that the exalted Christ stood before the author’s mind as a heavenly High-priest, and it was therefore entirely natural to regard as the object of His reappearance upon earth, merely the consummation of His high-priestly work, i.e., the complete salvation of believers, and on the other hand, to ascribe to God Himself the accompanying judgment, and the punishment of the adversaries. AND The appearance of Jesus Christ on earth terminates one, and opens another section of the history of the world.—How does the entrance of Christ into heaven stand related to the object of His appearance on earth?—The likeness and the unlikeness of the death of Jesus Christ, and of the dying of the children of men, 1, in their causes, 2, in their results.—The divine ordering in the connection of sin, death, and judgment.—How does the second appearance of Jesus Christ in the world distinguish itself from the first? 1, in respect to His person; 2, in His relation to sin; 3, in His influence on the world.—In Christ we experience that there is a contact with sin, which does not defile, but which annihilates sin.—The doing away of the hinderances to our blessedness.—The looking forward of believers to the appearance of the Lord, 1, in its authorization; 2, in its satisfaction; 3, in its obligation. Starke:—There are, indeed, many offerings made to the Lord, but the most from hypocrisy, and although such have great outward show, yet they do not please Him. The sacrifices which please God, are a broken heart and a contrite spirit, Psalms 51:19.—The appearance of Christ in the presence of God is not merely the presentation and holding forth of His person and of His propitiatory sacrifice; but extends also to a true, glorious, and powerful intercession, in the strictest sense of the word. But He prays no longer thus humbly as when He was upon earth; for His prayer belongs to His state of exaltation, and is a fruit of His sitting at the right hand of God, the Father.—Men are at no time so holy as to be absolutely beyond sinning; but since we daily sin much, and deserve punishment, we always need purification through the blood of Jesus.—The single offering of Christ upon the cross, takes away sin.—Only once has He been sacrificed, and more than once He may not be sacrificed, and therefore not in the sacred Supper.—The last judgment is as certain as death.—Observe, that upon death follows the judgment. Look to it, then, and strive with the highest industry, that thou die happy, and that thou mayest await with joy the appearance of thy Saviour for thy salvation.—To await Christ’s coming unto salvation is the prerogative of believers, who have received for this, in a living hope, the first fruits of the Spirit; who love the appearing of the Lord, and, in order that they may hold themselves in readiness for a blissful death, deny the world and say: Even so, Come Lord Jesus, Revelation 22:20.—The ungodly will not be looking for the coming of Christ at the final judgment, although He will appear unto them, whether they will or no; and this undesired appearing will to them be full of sadness (Judges 15, Revelation 1:7).—Only when Christ shall appear will believers become perfectly blessed, Colossians 3:4. Rieger:—The heavenly sanctuary which Christ has entered in His appearing before God, is also the goal to which He will bring all who come to God by Him.—Whosoever learns from the Gospel the cause and fruit of the appearance of Jesus in the flesh, and of His offering for sin, and learns it with a loving knowledge, he may look with joy for His appearance in glory, and for the consummation of His own blessedness.—What a difference between the two appearances of Jesus, in weakness and in glory! then, under the burden of our sins, with the accompaniments of shame, the cross, and death; now, in His endless life, in the power of God and His revelation in glory. Heubner:—Only in eternity shall we see from what an abyss Christ has rescued us, and into what glory He translates us.—Redemption was, in the mind of God, virtually effected from eternity, 2 Timothy 1:9. There was, then, need of no appearance in the presence of God; but that appearance of the crucified One which has taken place in time, was made to reveal the counsel of God to the world of spirits.—The duration of the world is limited to a fixed period of time. As surely as it has a beginning, so surely will it have an end.—Waiting is the Christian’s art. He waits for the appearance of Christ, whereby the truth of faith is victoriously confirmed, and Christ is manifested to be the Being whom Christians regard Him. Steinhofer:—Jesus, the founder of the new covenant, has gathered up the sin of the whole world, together with all its evil fruits, upon the cross, and has, once for all, so completely driven them away, that, under the testimony of the Gospel, we need make no further distinction in respect of many, or of great sins. Menken:—If even the earthly figures of heavenly things were desecrated and defiled by the communion which sinful men had with them, and could, therefore, remain in connection with them only on account of offered sacrifices, and only by means of certain holy expiations and purifyings, how much less could we anticipate an immediate, unconditional, unobstructed communion of dying and sinful men with heavenly things! Hahn:—The heavenly things flee before us in our impurity, and thither may no impure person come; and yet all the treasures of the suffering and death of Christ are deposited there, and thence must we obtain them. If we wish anything therefrom, we must again be reconciled with the sanctuary. But this is accomplished only through the blood of Christ.—Happy is he who has laid the foundation of his faith in the first appearing of Christ; he will behold Him with joy in the second. Footnotes:Hebrews 9:27.—καί is to be read after οὕτως, according to the united testimony of the Uncials. V The perpetually repeated expiations of the old covenant attest their impotence for any real taking away of sin Hebrews 10:1-41 For the law having a shadow of [the] good things to come, and [om. and] not the very image of the things, Song of Solomon 1 never with those [the same] sacrifices, which they offered [offer, προσφέρουσιν] year by year continually, make the comers thereunto perfect. 2For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged [having once for all been cleansed] should [would] have had no more conscience [or consciousness] of sins. 3But in those sacrifices [in them] there is a remembrance 4again made [om. made] of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sin. [Hebrews 10:1—Σκιὰνγὰρἔχων, for a shadow the law having, etc. The emphasis of the Greek order of words can hardly be reached in English.—κατ’ ἐνιαυτόν, annually, year by year, is difficult as to position. Ebr., Hofm., Del., Alf. connect with οὐδέποτεδύναται; Calv., Bl. De W., etc., with προσφέρουσιν. The former seems the easier, and, though harsh in construction, very forcible, “year by year with the same sacrifices, etc., can never.” But see below.—ἂςπροσφέρουσιν, which they offer, not as Eng. ver. offered, the figure of the present time having been kept up from the preceding chapter, and especially as the old covenant sacrifices did undoubtedly still continue. Still, that the writer’s mind is mainly on the past, is shown by the Aor. ἐπαύσαντο, for which, if he had distinct reference to the present time, the Imperf. ἐπαύοντο should be used. Hebrews 10:2.—ἐπεί, since, viz: in that case, Romans 3:6; 1 Corinthians 15:29—συνείδησιν, consciousness=moral consciousness, conscience.—ἅπαξκεκαθ., having been once for all cleansed. Hebrews 10:3.—ἐναὐταῖς, in them; the addition of the Eng. ver. is unnecessary.—ἀνάμνησις, a calling to mind, remembrance.—κατ’ ἐνιαυτόν, year by year. Hebrews 10:4.—ἀδύνατονγάρ, for it is impossible, Hebrews 6:4.—K.]. AND Heb_10:1.—Image.—Εἰκών is not the essence itself (Peshito, Luth., Grot., Justiniani, etc.); nor the primitive form of the original (Stengel) which is then explained as the substantial essence of the things; nor merely the finished picture in contrast with the slight and shadowy outline (Chrys., Theodoret, etc.); but the living historical form, in which the invisible essence finds its representation. Can never, etc.—The προσφέροντες are the priests, the προσερχόμενοι are the members of the congregation to whom the offering belongs. Κατ’ ἐνιαυτόν is connected by Ebr., Hofm., Del., Alf., with οὐδέποτεδύναται, by Calv., Bl., De W., etc., with ἂςπροσφέρ. by most intpp. with ταῖςαὐταῖςθυσίαις=the same year by year, or annual offerings. Hofm. also connects, with Paulus and Lachm., εἰςτὸδιηνεκές with τελειῶσαι, and further makes the προσερχόμενοι the subject of προσφέρ. We should thus have the statement that the individual members of the congregation, by the fact of their continuing throughout the year to bring offerings for themselves, and these of the same kind as those brought by the high-priests, viz.: animal offerings, furnished a practical proof of the insufficiency of the law, and of the expiatory offerings ordained by the law, and annually offered by the high-priest in behalf of the whole congregation, to produce any real and permanent perfection. In favor of this we may indeed be pointed to the like connection, τελειοῦνεἰςτὸδιηνεκές Hebrews 10:14, and to the sharp contrast of this idea “perfecting in perpetuum” with the οὐδέποτε; but, on the other hand, we may urge with Bleek, and others the tameness of the relative clause, ἃςπροσφέρουσιν when standing without εἰςτὸδιην., and the forcible suggestion of Tholuck, that the very combination κατ’ ἐνιαυτὸντανςαὐταῖςθυσίαιςεἰςτὸδιηνηκές, in connection with the οὐδέποτε, presents, as in a vivid picture, an endlessly recurring round of painful and unavailing ceremonies (as at Hebrews 10:11). The individual expressions will not aid in solving the problem. Εἰςτὸδιηνεκ́ς (an Ionic form for the Attic διανεκές, which found its way into familiar use) harmonizes well with the idea that the offering of sacrifices, under the dominion and in accordance with the purposes of the law, continues on indefinitely and endlessly into the future—a point unsuccessfully combated by Hofmann. Nor again does the word λατρεύειν, Hebrews 10:2, necessitate our adoption of Hofmann’s view; for though we grant, indeed, that the term here denotes no priestly function, (as Este., etc.), but refers to the service of the private members of the congregation; yet this service again does not here as at Hebrews 9:9, refer to the offering of gifts and sacrifices, but to the general religious worship of the congregation who, by means of priestly offerings, were drawing near to God. On the other hand, we must concede (comp. Hebrews 11:4; Hebrews 11:17, with Sept., at Numbers 31:50) that the statement of Del., that προσφέρειν, in our Epistle, denotes exclusively an official and priestly offering, must be accepted with limitation. The decision then of the question turns upon this. The author is assigning the ground for the declaration, made but a little before, of Christ’s having entered, once for all, with His high-priestly offering of Himself into the heavenly holy of holies. He finds this ground in the utter inefficacy of the annually recurring expiatory sacrifices of the Levitical high-priest, which were ordained by the law, and which were of ever unvarying quality, and which had, therefore, but one significance in their bearing on the establishment of the New Covenant, which was at once promised and typified in the old. The law, in consequence of its peculiar nature—a nature inseparable from its purpose and destination—has not the power, by its annually recurring and prescribed expiatory offerings, to secure for the congregation perfection, i.e., that substantial and abiding purification which brings them into relationship with God. Could such have been the effect of these offerings on the congregation, the annual sin-offerings, and with these the Old Covenant itself would have ceased, and been done away; there would have been such a removal and doing away of the sense of guilt, as could take place only on the basis of completely satisfactory, and hence final and unrepeated sacrifice. This view of Hofm. thus becomes, in every way, improbable. It is discountenanced alike by the fact that even in the New Covenant the individual members of the church may not cease to seek, on the basis of the expiation once for all accomplished by Christ, individual reconciliation and continued forgiveness of their sins, and also that even in the Old Covenant the continued service and offerings of individuals were no less studiously and explicitly enjoined than the annual sin-offering of the high-priest. Hebrews 10:2.—For otherwise would they not have ceased, etc.—If we omit the οὐκ, the sentence must be taken as an affirmation; the better reading with οὐκ makes it interrogative. The construction of παύεσθαι, with the Particip., is entirely classical. Hofm. refers ἀλλά to the main negative statement of Heb 10:1, and translates, by “sondern,” making it simply the counterpart of that negative statement (viz: cannot make perfect, but, instead of that, there is a remembrance). But it is more natural to refer it to Hebrews 10:2 as=on the contrary. Ἀνάμνησις might mean (with Vulg., Calov, and others) commemoration, or (as Schlicht. Grot., Beng., etc.) commemoratio publica, in allusion to the three penitential acknowledgments of the high-priest on the day of atonement. But the common signification in memoriam revocatio is to be preferred as the more comprehensive. Del. has given in full the three penitential prayers in his history of Heb. poesy, p. 186 ff. Συνείδησιςἁμαρτ. is not the consciousness of sin in general, but that which brings back upon the man the personal criminality, responsibility, and punishableness involved in his sins. Com. Gόder. (Stud. und Krit., 1857 II. 279 ff. Inquiry into the Scriptural Doctrine of Conscience). AND ETHICAL1. The heavenly good things are even to Christians still in the future; but because, and from the time when, Christ appeared as high-priest of those good things (Hebrews 9:11), we are brought into actual fellowship with them, and we have, as already tasting (Hebrews 6:5) the powers of the world to come, the pledge and the assurance that we shall yet, as children of God entitled to their inheritance, enter into their full possession. The Gospel renders possible not merely a clear and sharp expression of them, but also the formation of heavenly relations upon earth; the introduction and setting forth, the use and enjoyment of the heavenly good things even in the world, of which the law was able to furnish only an unsubstantial and shadowy image. “Christ stands, as it were, in the meridian light of the great day of time, and casts His shadow backwards over the whole Old Covenant. But as the shadow is seen only in the light, and comes out all the more clearly and sharply in proportion to the brightness of the light, so it is only in the light of the New Covenant that we recognize clearly the typical character of the old.” (Bisping). 2. With the certainty of an atonement actually accomplished, and truly acknowledged of God, comes a completed transformation of the moral and religious conscience and consciousness of man. No longer is this consciousness filled with sin and with the fear of righteous punishment, under the sense of unremoved guilt; but it enjoys reconciliation in consequence of the forgiveness of sin wrought through grace, and by virtue of an atonement. The subjects of this reconciliation, inasmuch as they are not yet brought to a state of perfection, need, it is true, the continuous appropriation of the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ, and of its influences; but inasmuch as they have been, once for all, brought into the new relation of salvation and peace with God, they have no need of the successive repetitions of that sacrifice. In fact, the repetition of the sin-offering shows, that it does not accomplish that which it signifies; that it is thus not the true sin-offering, as the animal sacrifices in pagan religions show indeed the need of an atonement, but are inadequate to the satisfaction of that need. 3. The idea of the sacrifice in the mass, as a bloodless repetition of the bloody sacrifice on the cross, is entirely irreconcilable with this passage of Scripture, which lays its emphasis upon the fact that the repetition of the atoning sacrifice points back to its objective insufficiency, which would thus only strengthen and deepen our longing after that perfect and effectual expiatory system which the old economy only prefigured and paved the way for. AND The actual deliverance of the conscience from the stain and burden of sin, is accomplished neither through human services, nor through legal sacrifices, but only through the blood of Jesus Christ.—The connection between the service of God, approach to God, and human perfection.—The pain and the blessing of a remembrance of sin.—The means for the purification of the conscience in our religious services. Starke:—All religious service must tend to this end, viz., the perfection of man.—The forgiveness of sin takes away all guilt and punishment, but not the root and entire stain of sin.—Conscience accuses and bears testimony that we are ever, repeatedly, sinning and needing forgiveness.—Alike the days of feasting, of fasting and of prayer, ordained by Christianity, serve for a memorial of the Divine benefits and of our sins. Rieger:—Even the shadowy outline given by the law, is to be regarded as a great benefaction on the part of God.—The purification of the conscience is an inestimable good. Menken:—So long as man does not possess the offering itself, but only a shadow of it, so long he must fail of true reconciliation. A shadow can never give that which lies only in the substance. Heubner:—How great was the veneration of the Jews for the shadow! Do Christians hold in equal veneration the truth and reality?—What the blood of animals could not, the blood of Christ could effect. Footnotes: Hebrews 10:1.—The meaningless Plur. δύνανται in Sin. A. C. D. and many minusc. is to be regarded as a clerical error. In order to explain it Lachm. put a point after πραγμάτων, and omitted in his small ed. the relative before προσφέρ. with A., 2, 7, 17, 47, while A. 31, Philox. introduce αἵ before οὐδέποτε. The Sing. is found in D. D. E. K. L. and many minusc., also Vulg. Itala. Copt. Hebrews 10:1.—Instead of ἅς Bl., Tisch., Alf., read (after Sin. D*. L. (?) N. Lat. ver. before D. and E., also minusc. 73,173) αἴς, which, however, might have easily sprung from the endings of the three immediately preceding words. Hebrews 10:2.—For ἐπεὶἄν all authorities require the reading ἐπεὶοὐκἄν. Hebrews 10:2.—The reading κεκαθαρισμένους deserves the preference, as is also indicated by the reading κεκαθερισμένους in A. and C., (whether this orthography be a mere blunder in copying, or more probably, a conformity of the spelling to a careless pronunciation.) VI Scriptural proof of the complete efficacy of the sanctification obtained on the basis of the obedience of Jesus Christ Hebrews 10:5-185 Wherefore, when he cometh [while coming, εἰσερχόμενος] into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared [didst thou form for, χατηρτίσω] me: 6In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no 7[hadst not] pleasure Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me) to do thy will, O God. 8Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering [sacrifices and offerings] and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by [according to] the law; 9Then said he [he said], Lo, I come to do thy will, O God [om. O God]. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10By the which [In which] will we are [have been] sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11And every priest [indeed, μέν] standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12But this man [one] after he had offered one sacrificefor sins, for ever sat down on the right hand of God; 13From henceforth expecting. 14[awaiting] till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected 15for ever them that are sanctified. Whereof [And, δέ] the Holy Ghost also Isaiah 16 a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days; saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, 17and in [upon] their minds [understanding] will I write [inscribe, ἐπιγράψω] them; And 18their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. Now [But] where remission of these is, there is no more [an] offering for sin. [Hebrews 10:5.—εἰσερχόμενος, while coming into, i. e., historically, not specially at his birth; but not εἰσελθών, on entering, or, after entering.—κατηρτίσω, didst thou frame, fit out, perfect. Hebrews 10:6.—περὶἁμαρτίας, offerings for sin. Hebrews 10:7.—τοῦποιῆσαι, denoting purpose, i.e., in order to do. Hebrews 10:8.—ἀνώτερονλέγων, above, further back, while saying.—αἵτινες, characteristic; such as are.—προσφέρονται, are offered, not, “were offered.” Hebrews 10:9.—εἴρηκεν, he hath said (Hebrews 1:13; Hebrews 4:3). Hebrews 10:10.—ἐνᾧθελήματι, in which will, not by which will. ἡγιασμένοιἐσμέν, we have been sanctified; a completed act. We are sanctified might be that which habitually takes place, which would require ἁγιαζόμεθα. Hebrews 10:11.—πᾶςμὲνἱερεύς, every priest indeed=while every priest. Hebrews 10:12.—οὗτοςδέ, but this one, but he. Tisch. reads αὐτὸςδέ, but he himself, but against preponderating authority, including that of Sin.—προσενέγκας, after offering. Hebrews 10:13.—τὸλοιπόν, as to the rest, in future=τοῦλοιποῦ scil. χρόνον, for the remaining time.—ἕως, with subj. τεθῶσιν., for the more classical ἕωςἂντεθῶσιν—τοὺςἁγιαζομένους, those who are being sanctified, or who are sanctified from time to time, τοὺςἥιιασμένους, would be those who have been sanctified. Hebrews 10:15.—μαρτυρεῖδὲἡμῖνκαί, and testifies for us also. Hebrews 10:16.—ἐπιγράψω, I will inscribe. Hebrews 10:17.—καὶ ?-μνησθήσομαι, Alf., dissenting from nearly all the recent comm., makes the apodosis of the citation commence here instead of with λέγεικύριος, Hebrews 10:16; but although there are objections to the latter, the difficulties of his construction, I think, are still greater; and the examples of the use of καί which he cites as justifying this construction (Hebrews 1:6; Hebrews 2:13; Hebrews 4:5) present really no analogy to it.—K.]. AND Heb_10:5. Therefore while entering into the world, etc.—The διό refers to the impossibility spoken of in Hebrews 10:4. The author is not adducing a proof of a doctrine perfectly evident and unquestioned; nor is he here—not until a little after—showing that even in the Old Covenant itself is expressed the consciousness of this state of things. He adduces, it is true, the words of Psa 40:7-9, in which David, after his anointing, but before ascending the throne, recognizes a relative fulfilment of the prophecy, that “the Prince is to spring forth from Judah,” and declares that he, in contrast with Saul, is ready, under the guidance of Samuel (1 Samuel 15:22), to accomplish the will of Jehovah, which lays stress, not on ritual sacrifices, but upon the offering of obedience, and the sacrifice of the will. But the form of the application is not that of citation; for the subject of λέγει is not David but Christ. And besides, since the present ἐρχόμενος is not=venturus (Erasm.), but is coincident in time with λέγει, the author clearly treats the words of the Psalm, not as a direct prophecy of Christ regarding himself. He rather puts into the mouth of Christ, on the basis of the typical relation of the Old and New Covenant, the words of David as his own, since they are fulfilled by him; and his special purpose is to render prominent the self-moved and voluntary act of the antitypal David in his entrance into the world for the sake of offering himself as an all-sufficient expiatory offering. As the part, is not εἰσελθών, we can refer it neither to the later entrance of Jesus on His public ministry (Bl., De W.), nor to the age of conscious choice and volition in man, indicated Isaiah 7:16 (Del.). But a body didst thou form for me.—The Heb. text has: “Ears didst thou bore for me.” This is referred by Hengst., von Gerl., and others, with the ancient intpp. (who also translate erroneously “bore through, perforate”) to the custom mentioned Exodus 21:6; Deuteronomy 15:17, of boring through the ear-lap of a servant who might become free, but preferred to remain in the voluntary and permanent service of his master. But we should rather refer the expression to our capacity of understanding by means of the ear, the expressed will of God, and thus of learning the way and means of acceptable sacrifice. Any arbitrary change of the text may not be charged upon our author. He found the reading σῶμα in the MSS. of the Sept., of which but few and inconsiderable ones have ὠτία or ὦτα, Bl., Lόn., and others, assume that σῶμα is an old corruption in the text, sprung from ἠθέλησαΣΩΤΙΑ. But neither is λָּ ?ψִ ?ιϊָ literally rendered by ὤρυξας. We must, therefore, suppose a generalizing of the thought as early as the Greek translation, and the more so as the further rendering ἐνκεφαλίδιβιβλίουγέγραπταιπερὶἐμοῦ, favored the supposition that the one who is speaking here is He of whom Moses and the prophets testified, and for whose divinely decreed coming the Old Testament had prepared the way (Del.). Κεφαλίς=little head is originally the name of the knobs at the end of the staves about which the scroll or volume was wound, and then the volume itself, with or without the addition of βιβλίον, Ezekiel 2:9; Ezekiel 3:1-3; Ezra 6:2. Luther renders the word by chiefly, pre-eminently, inasmuch as some took it as=chief part or portion. Others translate “in the beginning,” as if having reference to a definite passage. In the Hebr. text the language is: “I come with the volume of the book which is written of me,” referring to the Prince’s code, Deuteronomy 17:14 ff., which the sovereign was always to keep at hand for his guidance. In the Heb. and in the Sept., the words “to do Thy will, O God,” are followed by, it was my pleasure, ἠβουλήθην. In dropping this word, our author throws the clause ἐνκεφαλίδι—ἐμοῦ into parenthesis, and makes τοῦποιῆσαι dependent on ἥκω, which Thol. takes in its classical use as Perf., I am come, I am present Εὐδοκεῖν takes in the classics the Dat., but in Hellenistic Gr. ἐν (Hebrews 10:38) or frequently, as here, Hebrews 10:6, the Acc. Also Leviticus 7:37; Numbers 8:8, the Sept. designates the sin offering by the bare περὶἁμαρτίας, the idea of sacrifice being supplied from the connection (�c., Lόn.). Hebrews 10:10. In which will, etc—θέλημα is not the will and obedience of Christ (Calv., Justinian, Carpz., and others), but the purpose and counsel of God, which is to be regarded as a purpose of love conceived in eternity, carried out in time by means of the freewill offering of Christ, and in the Holy Scripture is to be recognized as an openly revealed plan. Ἐφάπαξ belongs not to προσφοράς (�c., Schlicht., Stein, etc.), which construction would have required a repetition of the art., but to ἡγιασμένοιἐσμέν, which expresses not one subjective sanctification, but one objective reception into true relationship to God, and into the actual fellowship of the members of the people of God as the ἅγιοι, Hebrews 6:10; Hebrews 13:24. The mediator of this relation is Christ, ὁἁγιάζων, Hebrews 2:11. Hebrews 10:11. And while every priest, indeed, standeth, etc.—The καί introduces a new antithesis—to wit: that between the never-ceasing, yet ever-ineffectual and unavailing service of the Jewish priests, and the regal repose of the Messiah, who, after accomplishing an expiation of never-failing efficacy, exalted above the need of further sacrifice, sits enthroned at the right hand of God. In the inner forecourt none was permitted to sit; it was only to those who held watch without that this privilege was accorded, while the designation of the Levitical service by the words, “and he stood before the face of Jehovah,” is to be taken in its literal sense. A like contrast is expressed Hebrews 1:13 ff. in relation to the angels. Περιελεῖν, to take away round about, from every side, refers to the sin which begirts and encompasses man, Hebrews 5:2; Hebrews 12:1. Τὸλοιπόν is the time still remaining until the Parousia. The parallelism of the clauses, and the progress of the thought, require our taking εἰςτὸδιηνεκές, Hebrews 10:12, not with the participial clause (Theophyl., Luth., Beng., Bφhme, Lachm., etc.), but with ἐκάθισεν. The ἐφάπαξ of Christ’s offering is the burden and crown of the thought, Hebrews 10:1-10; in Hebrews 10:11-14 the ever-during throne after a once forever completed sacrifice, occupies the foreground (Del.). The Perf. τετελείωκν in connection with the Pres. Part. ἀγιαζομένους, shows that here the reference is not to the subjective perfection of Christians reaching the end of life, and kept after the example of Jesus, by obedience in suffering (Hebrews 5:9; Hebrews 12:2); but to the translation of those who have become subjects of the high-priestly work of Christ, into that condition of perfection objectively and eternally valid in the sight of God, which the law, with its numerous and perpetually recurring rites and offerings, was unable to secure (Hebrews 7:19; Hebrews 9:9; Hebrews 10:1). The Scripture proof consists in a selection from the passage, Jeremiah 31:31-34, already cited Hebrews 8:8-12. AND ETHICAL1. The fact that the words of David, which, within the Old Testament itself, express not the legal, but the evangelical idea of sacrifice, are put into the mouth of Christ, as spoken on His entrance into the world, shows Christ in self-conscious pre-existence, destining Himself to be a free-will offering in perfect obedience to the will of the Father, whose will thus becomes identical with that of the Son. 2. The fact, still further, that even in the Old Testament obedience is put in place of animal sacrifices, and thus this also is declared to be a sacrifice, and, indeed, the true sacrifice, furnishes the Scripture proof of the doctrine, that Christ’s voluntary offering of Himself in perfect and loving obedience, is the genuine sacrifice, well pleasing to God, to which prophecies and types point. 3. In the fact, finally, that Christ’s offering of Himself has fulfilled the saving and loving will of God, not merely as expressed in Scripture, but as existing in His determinate counsel, the idea of sacrifice is realized; the purpose of God to institute an economy of salvation, based upon the expiation of sins by an efficacious sacrifice, is attained; and hence there is no further offering for sin, either, in the same, or any different form, as evinced also by the express testimony of the Holy Spirit in Jeremiah. 4. When God places His will—to wit: the performance, by His servants, of that which He wills, positively as a second requisition, it appears in contrast with the first, viz., the offering of external and symbolical sacrifices. But the offering of such sacrifices was itself a matter of express divine ordination; and thus a contradiction seems to emerge and an antagonism within the sphere of the divine counsels and purposes themselves. In truth, however, there is no contradiction between the two, but simply a taking away of the earlier system of the divine appointment first, and its replacement by the second. The transitory nature of the first is not merely prefigured by the symbolical character of the legal sacrifices themselves, but expressly declared within the very limits of the Old Testament revelation, partly by statements regarding the essential will of God, partly by the prediction of a new and perfect covenant. But in a merely outward offering God has never had pleasure. The fact of its being brought from the property of the worshipper, always had a reference to his personality and will. But even the voluntary offering of things stands in no equal or parallel relation to the entire person’s voluntary sacrifice of himself. Thus the Old Testament utterances are, as to the matter of fact, in no way self-contradictory. 5. Our transference into a true saving and peace-imparting fellowship with God, or our objective sanctification is brought about by the personal offering of Jesus Christ upon the cross (Ephesians 5:2); which offering is the fulfilment of the essential will and eternal saving purpose of God, and has once for all accomplished what was only shadowed forth by those typical sacrifices which year by year were offered by the priests who ministered before God, always the same, and of such quality that their impotence completely to take away sin was everywhere conspicuous. 6. The waiting of the Royal Priest, who is enthroned at the right hand of God, for the complete subjection of all His enemies, does not involve the idea of His personal inactivity until the time of His second coming, but expresses, in contrast with that activity of the earthly priests which never attains to its end, the exalted repose of the Mediator, who, in every relation, has reached the goal of perfection; who, after bringing to actual realization the ideal of propitiation which was typically announced in the Aaronic high-priesthood, now receives forever the position typically predicted in the royal priesthood of Melchisedek, a position exempted from future sacrifices, and fraught with unlimited homage, honor, and capacity for the bestowment of blessings. AND The efficient cause of our salvation is the eternal gracious will of God; the meritorious cause is Jesus Christ with His personal sacrifice.—No creature had power to reconcile the world with God; but the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ has rendered possible a perfect taking away of sin, and a perfection of the sanctified.—We have nothing to fear from any hidden purpose of God; we should rather regulate ourselves and all things according to His revealed will.—In Jesus Christ’s offering of Himself for our redemption is evinced the perfect harmony of the righteous and the gracious will of God.—The cross is the altar on which Christ has offered, once for all, His blood for atonement, and His body for sanctification.—Obedience to the will of God not merely gives value to the sacrifice we bring, but is itself the best sacrifice.—How can the offering of sacrifices work the forgiveness of sin?Starke:—Sin must be, in the eyes of God, an evil overwhelmingly great, since by no other means, whether work, obedience, or sacrifice, can it be atoned for and done away, but only by the all-holy sacrifice of Christ, 1 Peter 1:19; 1 John 1:18.—Jesus Christ is the only object revealed in the entire Scriptures to whom they can be pointed who would obtain forgiveness of sins and eternal blessedness, Acts 10:43.—The myriad sacrifices of the Old Testament could not have been, in the slightest degree, acceptable to God, except so far as they prefigured the perfect propitiatory offering of the Messiah, an offering of which He had long before smelled the sweet odor, Ephesians 5:2.—See how willingly thy Jesus suffered for thee; shouldest thou then not again somewhat willingly suffer for Him? John 18:4; 1 Peter 2:21.—No worship of God can be acceptable to God otherwise than in Christ.—The Divine service of the Old Testament was burdensome and oppressive; we cannot sufficiently thank God, that in Christ we are free from it. He who now will not serve God shall have all the less excuse, and heavier condemnation, Galatians 5:1.—We are under obligation to serve God every day, and can never serve Him sufficiently, Luke 17:10; Revelation 7:15.—He who suffers with Christ, and conquers in Christ, will, with Christ, be gloriously exalted, 2 Timothy 2:11-12; Revelation 3:21.—We may bid defiance to our enemies; in Christ shall we triumph; but they shall be overthrown and lie prostrate, Romans 8:34 ff.—Thou puttest faith in a trustworthy man; it were a shame not to believe the true God Himself, who has testified that the sacrifice of Christ alone suffices for our sins, 1 John 5:9.—To have the law of the Lord in our mouth merely, and make our boast of it, is nothing; but whoever has it written on his heart, and retains it, he is pleasing to God. Rieger.—What gave to the sacrifice of Jesus its everlasting value, is that in it all was executed according to the direction and will of God.—Sanctification comprehends all the different elements in the restoration of man, calling, justifying, glorifying.—The Holy Spirit also gladly interests and occupies himself with the gracious covenant of God on behalf of us poor sinners. He recognises with joy every forward step that we take therein.—The grace of Christ, the blessing of His single sacrifice, gives wide scope for the love of God, for His pleasure in us, the objects of His grace; and with the love of God comes a larger communion of the Holy Spirit.—The language of the Son has been, under the impulses of the Spirit of Christ, recorded in writing by holy men, and thus gradually grew up the whole Old Testament Scripture, together with the pledge and obligation therein recorded, of Him who was to come, and upon which, even on the cross, His attention was fixed, until He saw all had been accomplished. Schleiermacher (Festival Discourses):—The death of the Redeemer, the end of all sacrifices: first, because there is needed no other remembrance of sin, which otherwise must have been renewed from day to day, and from year to year; but, secondly, because sin is now really taken away, and such insufficient provisional aids are no longer needed. Heubner:—The value of our body, and of the whole sensible world, consists in their being means and instruments of the Holy Spirit.—God has had no pleasure in offerings which were made without repentance and faith; they could at best continue only till Christ; and finally, God regarded them merely as types.—The continued dominion of Christ amidst all the uprisings of His enemies, amidst all the endeavors against Him, His doctrine and His Church, is a pledge of our reconciliation, and of our ultimate completed blessedness.—Forgiveness of sins is the condition of our receiving the Holy Spirit.—Christ, with His holy suffering, love and perfect obedience is the one only thing wherein God can have infinite pleasure, and for the sake of which He can look graciously on the race of men. Menken:—The divine majesty and universal dominion to which our perfected Mediator and High-Priest attained immediately on His entrance into the heavenly all-holy, stands in glorious contrast with the momentary and fearful waiting of the Levitical high-priest before the shadowy semblance of the divine throne; but it assures us, also, that we have in our eternal High-Priest in heaven all that we need for our salvation, and most complete perfection. He is all, and possesses all. Footnotes: Hebrews 10:6.—ηὐδόκησας the form adopted (after A. C. D*.,) by Lachm. and Tisch., is to be preferred to εὐδόκησας. Hebrews 10:8.—The plur. θυσίαςκαὶπροσφοράς, is, according to Sin. A. C. D*., 17, 23, 57, to be read instead of the sing., which repeats the words, Hebrews 10:5, and in Sin. is substituted by the corrector. Hebrews 10:8.—The Art. before νόμον is wanting in Sin. A. C., 37, 46, 71, 73. Hebrews 10:8.—The reading ὁθεός after τοῦποιῆσαι is interpolated from Hebrews 10:7, and, with Sin. A. C. D. E. K., 17, 39, 46, is to be expunged. Hebrews 10:11.—The authorities vary between ἰερεύς and ἀρχιερεύς. The sense demands the former word, which is also found in Sin. Hebrews 10:12.—The authority of Sin. A. C. D*. E., 67, 80, 116, requires ον̓ ?͂τοςδέ instead of αὐτὸςδέ. Hebrews 10:16.—Instead of ἐπὶτῶνδιανοιῶν, as read by D. E. J. K., and most minusc., ἐπὶτὴνδιάν., is to be preferred with Sin. A. C. D., 17, 31, 47. Hebrews 10:17.—Instead of μνησθῶ, read with Sin. A. C. D*. E., 17, μνησθήσομαι. Sin. has the former reading as a correction. SECOND SECTION______ , AND , BY THE I A decided, steadfast and livingly attested adherence to the Christian faith in Christian fellowship is urgently enforced by a reference to the second coming Hebrews 10:19-2519 Having therefore, brethren, boldness [confidence] to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, 20By a new and living way, which he hath [om. hath] consecrated [initiated 21ἐνεκαίνισεν] for us, through the vail, that is to say, his flesh; And having a high priest [a great priest] over the house of God; 22Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having [had] our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience; and [having had] our bodies washed with pure water, 23Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; for he is faithful that promised; 24And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: 25Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. [Hebrews 10:19.—ἔχοντεςοὖν, having therefore, emphatic in position.—παῤῤησίαν, confidence, boldness.—εἰςτὴνεἴσοδοντῶνἁγίων, for our entrance into (lit., the entrance of) the sanctuary; E. Ver. “the holiest,” right as to the substantial idea, though incorrect as to expression. Hebrews 10:20.—ἣνἐνεκαίνισενἠμῖνὁδόν, which entrance he initiated for us, as away, etc. Hebrews 10:21.—ὶερέαμέγαν not a high-priest, but a great, exalted priest. Hebrews 10:22.—ρεραντισμένοι, having been sprinkled, λελυμένοι, having been washed. These not parts of the exhortation, but conditions of it. The first clause to be connected with what precedes, the second with what follows. Hebrews 10:23.—κατέχωμεν, let us hold our confession of faith unwavering; ἀκλινή without article attached predicatively to ὁμολογίαν. Hebrews 10:25.—τὴνἐπισυναγωγὴνἑαυτῶν, our own (synagogal) assemblage; the term being transferred from the synagogue to the Christian assemblies.—βλέπετε, ye behold.—K.]. AND Heb_10:19.—Confidence to enter in, etc.—The παῤῥησία, of which Christians as such find themselves in possession, is in this passage also not freedom, or a rightful claim (Erasm., Grot., etc.), but the joyful and confident spirit, which is conscious and avails itself of its right, and of its freedom in its assertion. The words ἐντῷαἵματι are not with Bl., Stier, etc., to be referred barely to εἵσοδον, but to the whole clause; for the reference is not here, as Hebrews 9:25, to the high-priestly entrance of Jesus (Heinrichs), nor to our entrance made through the blood of Jesus, but to our παῤῥησία in respect to the entrance, which παῤῥησία has its ground and origin in the blood of Jesus, Ephesians 3:12. This entrance, which forms the gate-way to the holiest of all, is, in its nature, an ὁδὸςπρόσφατοςκαὶζῶσα, and, as such, has been consecrated for our use by Jesus our πρόδρομος, Hebrews 6:20, and our ἀρχηγός, Hebrews 2:10. Ἤν is erroneously referred by Seb. Schmidt, Hammond, etc., to παῤῥησία. The epithet πρόςφατος—newly slaughtered, now points to the fact that, previously non-existent, it has been originated by the sacrificial death of Jesus (Theodoret with the most), and not to its perpetual freshness (Ebr.). The term ζῶσα, living, emphasizes its vital power and internal efficacy, (Hofm. Del.); not its end, as producing life, (De Wette), nor its imperishableness (Bl.), nor the character of those who walk upon it (Stier, Ebr., etc.). The author is speaking not of a subjective relation of Christians, but of an objective medium, which is figuratively designated, on the one hand, as an εἴισοδος, on the other as a ὁδός, but by the added qualifying term is immediately withdrawn front the limitations of the imagery contained in the names to the sphere of the moral truths which the imagery represents. To this imagery belongs also the designation of the flesh of Jesus as a veil through which the new and living way leads into the holiest of all. The connection of διὰτοῦκαταπετ. with ἐνεκαίνισεν (Schlicht., Bφhm., Hofm., Del.), would require διά to be taken instrumentally; but the veil cannot be the means of consecration, or of the possibility of treading the way into the holiest of all; but requires to be done away, or rent asunder, in order to open an entrance for the church. We must, therefore, take διά locally, and connect it with ὁδόν, understanding οὖσαν or ἄγουσαν. [So also Alford. And yet the immediate addition of σάρξ, flesh, to καταπέτασμα would seem to render it probable that the author had his mind quite as much on the instrumental use of διά as the local. We enter through the veil locally, and through the flesh, i.e., Christ’s crucified body, instrumentally.—K.]. Hebrews 10:21.—A great priest over the house of God.—Klee, Klein and others, take the words ἱερέαμέγαν together as = high-priest. But the priest whom we Christians have, is, as He who sits enthroned at the right hand of God as rex sacerdotalis, styled a great priest, exalted above every other priesthood, Hebrews 4:14. By οἶκοςτοῦθεοῦ Theophyl., Bl., De W., Lόn., Riehm and others understand heaven, or the heavenly sanctuary; Theodoret, �c., Calov, Este, Thol., Ebr. and others, the household of believers, the family of the children of God; while Del. would unite both conceptions. The former reference has in its favor the above-mentioned εἴσοδοςτῶνἁγίων and the designation of Christ as λειτουργός (Hebrews 8:2) of the heavenly sanctuary, (com. Hebrews 9:11) to whose permanent priestly function the writer makes frequent reference. [In favor of the other explanation is the writer’s use of οἶκος, Hebrews 3:2 ff., which is applied to the church founded by Moses, and to the New Testament church founded by Christ, but which is nowhere in the Epistle (unless here) applied to the Sanctuary. The latter meaning, too, is equally in harmony with the connection, and in fact more directly calculated to inspire the hope and confidence which the writer is now striving to awaken. The import of the phrase may be doubtful, but I incline to prefer the latter.—K.]. Hebrews 10:22.—Having had our hearts sprinkled, etc.—The writer has previously stated clearly the two great prerogatives enjoyed by Christians, which furnish not merely an objective possibility, but also the practical inducement and motive for approaching and drawing near to God. He now mentions first the subjective condition in which the προσέρχεσθαι can and must take place viz: that of a true heart επ’ ἀληθινῆςκαρδίας (αְּ ?μֵ ?αωָׁ ?λֵ ?ν) (Isaiah 38:3) ἐνπληροφορίᾳπίστεως, and then in a participial clause, their actual fitness for this. The sprinkling which reaches the heart, and the consequence of which is styled the doing away in us of an evil conscience —purification from guilt is, evidently sprinkling with the blood of Christ, Hebrews 9:14; Hebrews 12:24; 1 Peter 1:2, whereby the expiatory offering up of His life is appropriated to the person, and He, as freed from the stain of sins, is enabled to appear in priestly service before God; as also the priests of the Old Covenant received, at their consecration, a like sprinkling with blood (Exodus 29:21; Leviticus 8:30); nay, in the making of the Old Covenant, the whole people were sprinkled with the blood of the covenant sacrifice (Exodus 24:8). We thus refer the language, not to sanctification (Beng., Menk., Stier), but to justification on the ground of a propitiation. Hebrews 10:23.—And having had our bodies washed, etc.—Another form of Levitical cleansing and sanctifying was washing with pure water, which Aaron and his sons likewise had to submit to at their consecration (Exodus 29:4): to which also the priests, as often as they went into the Sanctuary, submitted their hands and feet, from the brazen vessel or laver, before the entrance into the holy place (Exodus 30:20 ff; Exodus 40:20 ff.); but to which the high-priest, on the annual day of atonement, submitted his whole body, Leviticus 16:4. To this rite allusion is evidently made, and as shown by the word σῶμα, we are not, with Calv. and others to take the water according to Ezekiel 36:25, as a symbol of the outpouring of the Spirit, or as indicating washing away of sins generally (Limb. Ebr., etc.), and least of all with direct reference to the blood of Christ, (Reuss). We must recognize expressly a reference to baptism, Ephesians 5:26 : Titus 3:5. For baptism forms the transition point from the objective system of salvation to its subjective appropriation through the grace which by virtue of the Divine arrangement it sacramentally imparts, and contains in itself the obligation to holiness on the part of the reconciled and justified, Romans 6:3 ff.; 1 Peter 3:21; and also actually works the washing away of sin, Acts 22:18; 1 Corinthians 6:11. Grammatically this clause forms the transition from the first to the second part of the exhortation, which would utterly lack connection, if the two participial clauses, were both of them referred either to the preceding προσερχώμεθα (Pesh., Primas., Luth., Bl., De W., Del., etc.), or to the following κατέχωμεν, (Hofm.). In favor too of this connection of καὶλελου. with κατέχωμεν (as held by Thol., Lόn., etc.) is the fact that with baptism stands connected the ὁμολογία, which may signify just as well the active confessing of the hope, as the passive profession, whose object is the Christian hope. The clause assigning the reasons for steadfastness reminds us of 1 Corinthians 1:19; 1 Corinthians 10:13; 1 Thessalonians 5:24; 2 Thessalonians 3:3. Hebrews 10:24.—And let us give heed to one another, etc.—The third part of the exhortation, similarly adjoined by καὶ, refers to the duty of love toward the members of the church, in special reference to their position at the time, while the first has to do with faith and the second with hope. The purpose of their mutual and watchful regard is a παροξυσμός, which, (while elsewhere in the New Testament, denoting stirring up and irritation in a bad sense Acts 15:39; 1 Corinthians 13:5) here as sometimes in the classics, the following Gen. shows to be employed in a good sense. Hebrews 10:25.—Not forsaking, etc.—The words apply neither to a neglect of duty toward the church (Bl.), nor to the forsaking of her when involved in peril, distress and need (Bφhm!). For ἐπισυναγωγή never signifies the Christian body (Calv., Just., Bl., etc.) but only assembly, congregation (2Ma 2:7; 2 Thessalonians 2:1), and it is only the ἑαυτῶν that restricts this to the readers, as a Christian and worshipping assembly (Chrys. and the most). The incidental clause ὡςἔθοςτισίν shows that the withdrawal from the religious assemblages had with some already begun, yet that no “formal apostasy is meant, but only a neglect, marking an abatement of zeal at no wide remove from apostasy,” (Del.). The day of Christ’s re-appearing is called here as 1 Corinthians 3:13 simply “the day” (ἡἡμέρα). The ὅσῳ is to be constructed not with ἐγγίζουσαν, but with βλέπετε=ὅσῳμᾶλλον. AND ETHICAL1. Christians find themselves in possession of two important advantages, which not merely establish the possibility, but furnish a practical living inducement to draw near to God. These advantages are: 1, the joyful and confident boldness to make use of the entrance to the formerly closed, but now opened heavenly sanctuary; 2, the Priest over the house of God, exalted above every priesthood, Jesus Christ. 2. This boldness is found only within the sphere of the influence, and in the power of the blood, of Jesus Christ. For during the life of Jesus Christ on earth, His flesh had the same influence as the veil between the outer and inner sanctuary of the Temple. Full and unobstructed communion with God had in this a barrier which must first be overcome, but which was completely removed in the sacrificial death of Christ. Thus it becomes apparent also here that it is not the doctrine and example of Jesus that render possible our communion with God, but the death of the God-man, which, in its connection with atonement and propitiation, as indicated by the train of thought through the entire Epistle, can neither be the mere figurative representation of an idea, nor have a simply moral significance. Our way to God leads always through this rent veil of the flesh of Jesus Christ, which is the henceforth unveiled and ever open gateway to heaven. 3. Since Christ has gone into heaven, in order therein to remain, and there, as in the true sanctuary, on the ground of His completed work of redemption, to appear in the presence of God for us, the exercise of His Priestly office in mediation, intercession and blessing, takes place in the most perfect manner, and without interruption. It only remains now that we, as His ransomed Church, gather ourselves thither unto Him. 4. Before we are called to appear before God in eternity, we should so avail ourselves in time of the means of access to the heavenly sanctuary, that the characteristic marks of Christians, in faith, hope and love, shall be found in us. Faith gains its fulness from the sprinkling of the heart with the blood of Jesus Christ, whereby are produced the certainty of our reconciliation with God, and the experience of our justification. Hope, which expresses itself in holding fast our confession of specifically Christian faith, finds its warrant in the appropriation of the grace of baptism, and draws its nourishment from the promises of the one only reliable and faithful God. Love, whose rights and obligations lie in the needs and blessings of communion and fellowship, finds occasion, stimulus and strength for its exercise in participation in Christian worship, and has its living connection with faith and love in awaiting and preparing for the approaching day of the Lord’s return. 5. Since the ascension of Jesus Christ, the day which ends the circling round of days and merges time into eternity, is not merely apprehended by itself as in a sort of standing and perpetual proximity, but is expected by the disciples as approaching, with the conviction that every new morning may possibly be the last; and with the feeling that those who are called and are qualified to judge the signs of the times (Matthew 24) may by no means overlook the premonitory signs, occurring in history, of the coming of this decisive day of judgment and salvation. AND The wishes, thoughts and ways of the Christian tend not merely into the earthly, but into the heavenly sanctuary.—Our drawing near to God: 1, in its basis and foundation; 2, in its means; 3, in its blessings.—The right use of the means of grace: 1, in their quality; 2, in their effects.—How we have to dispense the gifts of grace imparted to us beneficially to ourselves and to others.—Whereby we make every day a day of blessing.—We need not fear the final judgment, if we rightly improve the present time.—We must not merely expect the day of the Lord, but prepare ourselves for it.—How we overcome the perils of society by the blessings of Christian fellowship.—How we must recompense fidelity with fidelity.—The character of those who would come to God.—The connection of faith, hope and love in the life of the true Christian.—To the nature of the way opened to us into the heavenly sanctuary, should our walk in it correspond. Starke:—A Christian must conduct with great thoroughness and gentleness his admonitions to his neighbor.—Faith in Christ is the way to God.—Christ is the great High-priest in respect: 1, to His person; 2, to His office; 3, to believers, of whom He is the Head.—Whoever would be great, and have what is great, must make choice of Jesus.—If the heart has rightly apprehended the grace of God, and believes that Christ is a living, gracious, kind and sweet Saviour, it also so uses that grace, and so feels the attraction of the love of the Lord Jesus, that it penetrates even to His gracious seat.—The way to heaven can be entered by him only who has a living faith in his Saviour, holds constantly to his confession of hope, and has a zeal that provokes to love and good works.—Neither doubter nor despairer can enter into the kingdom of God.—The faithfulness of God is above all faithfulness. God is faithful to fulfil what He has promised, and to guard what He has given. Should not this furnish to our faith and hope a double basis for a joyful confession?—One Christian must be guardian of another, and rebuke with words whatever runs counter to God and virtue.—Every one must look first to himself, and seek in all respects to make a certain advancement, and keep and increase what he has: but this same well regulated self-love he must also evince for his neighbor, on the ground of a common membership in the spiritual body of Jesus Christ.—Mere external contact with the worship of God fails indeed to secure salvation; but wilful contempt of it is the way to ruin and damnation.—The diligent contemplation of the displays of God’s punitive justice in death and the final judgment, may and should serve us as a perpetual discipline in godliness. Rieger:—The pure water of baptism has drawn our body and its members into the service of the Lord, and also raised it to the dignity of a future resurrection. It is, therefore, a capital point in the hope that has been bestowed on us, and to which we must adhere, that even in our body which has wrung from us many sighs over sin and death, we shall yet be penetrated and pervaded by the salvation of God.—Love draws great quickening from hope; but by the exercise of love, hope again gains ever wider scope.—Without fervent zeal in ourselves, mutual admonition is of no account. Hahn:—He in whom is the life of Christ, has also the entrance into the sanctuary.—By faith our spirit has, even in the present life, an entrance into the sanctuary; but God has, in baptism, also appropriated to himself our body as that in which the life of Christ is to be made manifest. Heubner:—God ever vouchsafes to the believer the privilege of approach; is ever accessible, ever to be addressed.—Our hope itself, and more than this, our confession of hope also, we should ever hold fast.—How deeply have Christians to reflect on what has been bestowed on them with Christ and His death. Tholuck:—How, in our own time, are we to consider the forsaking of the Christian assemblies? a, in its causes; b, in its consequences. Menken:—That the way has been consecrated for us, indicates our right to walk in it; and also an obligation resting on us not to decline walking in it.—Not in the Spirit, not in His higher nature and dignity, not in so far as He was in the form and essential likeness of God, has the Son of God consecrated for men the living way into the holiest of all; but rather in so far as He has humbled himself to the form of a servant in our sinful flesh, and in the flesh has suffered and conquered.—From the signs of the times, from the rent veil, from the opened sanctuary, we see that the first grand division of our world’s history has past by, and in a sense and measure, such as never before, the day of the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ draws near. Gerok:—Of our sacred priestly obligations: 1, Priestly approach to the mercy seat; 2, the priestly sprinkling of our hearts; 3, the priestly holding fast to our confession of hope; 4, the priestly receiving of one another in love. Footnotes: Hebrews 10:22.—Cod. Sin. A. C. D*. write ρεραντισμένοι. II The heaviest and inevitable judgment of God falls upon apostasy from acknowledged Christian truth Hebrews 10:26-3126 For if we, sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more [a] sacrifice for sins, 27But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and [a] fiery indignation, which shall [the glowing fervor of a fire that is about to] devour the adversaries. 28He that despised [set at naught] Moses’ law died [dieth] without mercy under two or three witnesses: 29Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing [common, unhallowed, κοινόν], and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? 30For we know him that hath [om. hath] said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall [will] Judges 15 his people. 31It is a, fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. [Hebrews 10:26.—ἑκουσίωςγάρ, for voluntarily, ἑκουσ, emphatically standing before the Part.—ἁμαρτανόντωνἡμῶν, we sinning, in case of our sinning—the present Part. denoting an habitual and abiding state; but nothing seems to require us to transfer it, with Alf., to the actual day of judgment. It seems much more forcible, as well as more natural, to refer it to the condition, in the present life, of one who has completely apostatized from God.—μετὰτὸλαβεῖν, after receiving.—τὴνἐπίγνωσιν, the recognition—more than the mere γνῶσις—the knowledge to which the mind has been consciously directed, and borne, as it were, its attestation.—ἀπολείπεται, there remaineth as a logical result: καταλείπεται, there is left behind as a historical fact, see Hebrews 4:1; Hebrews 4:4. Hebrews 10:27.—Πυρὸςζῆλοςἐσθίεινμέλλοντος, an indignation, or, fervor of fire that is about to devour. Hebrews 10:28.—ἀθετήσαςτις, any one, after setting at naught. Hebrews 10:29.—ὁκαταπατήσας, who trampled on—κοινόν, common, that of a common man (De W., Del., Alf., etc.), or (as Thol., Lόn., Moll, etc.),=ἀκάθαρτον, unclean, impure.—K.]. AND Heb_10:26. For if we sin wilfully, etc.—That the reference here is not to deliberate and heinous sins in general, but to apostasy from Christianity after regeneration, is clear from the entire phraseology. Ἑκουσίως stands in contrast with ἀγνοοῦντες and πλανώμενοι, Hebrews 5:2 : the pres. ἁμαρτανόντων marks habitual in contrast with transient denial: the apostasy is preceded by the ἐπίγνωσιςτῆςἀληθείας, at once a theoretical and practical recognition of the truth, and deliberate and conscious embracing of it, and is followed by a failure of any further expiatory sacrifice, and instead of it (ἀπολείπεται, as Hebrews 4:6) an ἐκδοχή, whose fearfulness is heightened by the rhetorical τὶς. Πυρὸςζῆλος is not to be taken as a single conception=fiery zeal or jealousy (Luth., etc.), since the following Part, takes the case of πυρός, which is treated as a person, as at Hebrews 12:29 God Himself is called πῦρκαταναλίσκον. Ἐσθίειν points not to a destroying=annihilating, but to the sensible conscious suffering of the fiery infliction. The expressions remind us forcibly of Isa 26:11 in the Sept. The words in Hebrews 10:28 refer evidently to Deuteronomy 17:6, which refer in like manner not to the transgression of individual commandments, but to a breaking of the covenant, and abandonment of God for idol-worship. Hence the ground for the following parallel. Hebrews 10:29. Of how much sorer punishment think ye, etc.—Δοκεῖτε lays the decision regarding the case, about which there can be no doubt, on the judgment of the readers: ἀξιωθήσεται represents God as Him who weighs the greatness of guilt, and hence awards the τιμωρία according to the facts of the preceding (Aor. Part.) sins. The words ἐνᾧἡγιάσθη (as read uniformly except by A. and Chrys.) designate the blood of the covenant as that whose sanctifying influence—i.e., an influence which, in virtue of the atonement and purification, consecrates to a true covenant fellowship with God and His people—had been already experienced. Hence κοινόν here, doubtless, denotes impurity (Vulg., Luth., Grot., Thol., Ebr., Lόn., Riehm, etc.), not commonness (Pesh., It., �cum., Theophyl., Bez., Schlicht., Beng., Bl., De W., Bisp., Del., etc.). By πνεῦματῆςχάριτος Bl., De W., Lόn. understand the Holy Spirit as the gift of grace; but more correctly acc. to Hebrews 13:9; Hebrews 13:25 (comp. Zechariah 12:10). Bφhm., Del., Riehm, etc., understand it as the efficient principle of grace. The first citation is from Deuteronomy 32:35; the second from Deuteronomy 32:36 (repeated Psalms 135:14). In both passages the sentiment is, that Jehovah, by His judicial sway, will vindicate the rights of His people against His enemies. This meaning of the original is also here to be maintained, since τὸνλαὸναὐτοῦ denotes in the conception of the writer the church of God of the New Covenant (Del.), which is overlooked by Bl., De W., Lόn., who understand the words of a judgment upon the people, instead of for them. The first citation deviates from the Heb. text, and still more from that of the Sept.; but accords with Romans 12:19, which contains also the λέγεικύριος that is wanting in the original. Hence Bl., De W., Del., Reiche infer that the citation was taken at second hand from Romans; while Meyer (Romans 12:19; Romans 12:3 d ed.) regards the paraphrase of Onkelos, Lόn., on the contrary, a current proverbial form of the expression, as the common source of the citation both here and in Romans. AND ETHICAL1. The most immediate inducement to follow the injunctions that in their rightful claim have just been laid down, is the great danger of apostasy from Christ, and the fearfulness of its consequences. 2. The penitent sinner may indeed, with resigned spirit, choose rather to fall into the hands of God than of men, 2 Samuel 24:14; Sir 2:18. But the covenant-breaker and apostate, who has come into a hostile and radical gainsaying of the truth which he had before acknowledged, cannot be again renewed to repentance, Hebrews 6:4-8, and cannot possibly henceforth obtain forgiveness of sins. The offerings of the law bring no true propitiation; self-originated offerings have not even the character of type and of promise. If the only true atoning sacrifice, the Son of God and His blood, have in view of the earlier experience of its sanctifying power, been rejected as useless, and the Spirit of grace spurned and scorned, not only is there nothing to replace the sacrifice thus rejected and dishonored, but this itself can no longer exercise a saving influence upon him who has made wilful and wanton wreck of all the previous influences of grace. 3. The distinction of peccatum deliberatum and ignorantiζ is a less fixed and rigid one than is commonly supposed: there is in sinning a knowledge of the right, which the sinner refuses to allow to assert itself. The veil of the lying excuse which is drawn over the conscience would fain lift itself, but is held fast with convulsive power. Such a character of the inward struggle and gainsaying of truth must we particularly insist on when Christian truth, once attested by the Holy Spirit, is, in an apostasy which has grown out of lesser acts of infidelity, not only denied, but blasphemed. The conflict regarding objective truth becomes all the more fierce in proportion as there is, at the same time, a conflict against the truth which still in a measure asserts itself within the bosom of the apostate (Thol. comp. Stud. und Krit., 1836, Heft. 2). 4. Rightfully and justly after such an apostasy, nothing remains to be expected but judgment, which will be executed by God with the full living energy of His holy nature, just as inevitably as His undeceiving word has infallibly declared it; and its fearfulness will stand proportionate to the richness of the grace, and the fulness of the revelation, of the New Covenant. AND To the greatness of the grace which has been received we find standing in direct relation the guilt of apostasy, and the fearfulness of the punishment.—The hands of God reach through time and eternity, and to apostates bring no less of terror and destruction, than comfort and assistance to believers.—The judgments of God come slowly but surely; yet they are preceded by the proffer of grace and the announcement of punishment upon the despisers.—He who turns the grace of God into wantonness has nothing further to hope from His compassion.—The looking for of the Divine judgment, without faith in the expiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ, is a foretaste of damnation.—The wrath of God burns as hotly as His love, and strikes no less surely than justly. Starke:—Were there to be another sacrifice, there must also be another Messiah; and God must lay through Him an entirely new foundation for salvation; must institute an entirely different economy for attaining it; and must consequently, at the same time, Himself take away the way which has been disclosed, and the foundation which has been laid, through Christ. Inasmuch, therefore, as this is absolutely impossible, it is also equally impossible that any one should be saved out of Christ; and that any other propitiatory sacrifice should be made on his behalf.—Not only is the judgment of God terrible in itself, but terrible is also the tormenting fear and foretaste of it which the ungodly feel in themselves as a hell even upon earth.—Great sins deserve great punishments; he therefore who allows himself in their commission must not be surprised that he receive his reward (Jeremiah 2:19).—Against the apostate there are three witnesses: the Father, who hath given to him His Son; the Son, whose blood he tramples under foot; and the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of grace, to whom he does despite.—Seest thou the apostate and ungodly walking secure, believe that he will not remain unpunished; God does all precisely at the right time; he will thus speedily remember him (Nahum 1:2). Hahn:—According to the greatness of His grace, is the severity with which God visits His wrath upon the contempt of it. Rieger:—To the Lord Jesus is ascribed a long-suffering patience (Hebrews 10:13), but to believers a hopeful waiting (Hebrews 9:28): unbelievers, on the contrary, fall into a fearful apprehension, wherein many a word of God that had been heard without fear, returns with terrible power.—The unfruitful vine before every other tree is given as food to the fire (Ezekiel 15:6-7); and thus abused love and neglected grace awaken all the greater wrath.—It is a great deception of our hardened and insensible heart that the death-punishments threatened in the law, stoning, etc., affect us more than the sorer punishment which takes effect only in the realm of the future and invisible.—“He who eats my bread, tramples me with his heel,” is the just complaint of Jesus in regard to His betrayer. Heubner:—There is a more subtle and a more open apostasy.—The abandonment of the only Saviour and Propitiator takes us out of the reach of propitiation.—The apostate suffers a twofold punishment; first, in awaiting it, and then in the actual experience.—We hear in this case an earnest testimony to the guilt of careless and unprincipled changes in religion. Menken:—In that the Lord judges His people He will avenge and deliver them.—Vengeance is a prerogative of the Divine majesty. This we are not to assume, but rather to refrain from all private vengeance, and, feeling the love of Jesus Christ, are to commend to the Divine compassion those who in thought and act oppose themselves to Christianity, and who are our enemies for the Gospel’s sake; and this all the more from the fact that they who from this cause, hate, calumniate and abuse us, unless they cease from their unrighteousness, will not escape the Divine retribution. Footnotes: Hebrews 10:30.—The words λέγεικύριος are wanting, indeed, in Sin. D. 17,23, 67**, and most ancient translations, but have the authority of A. D. E. K. L. Philox., and are added by a later hand in Sin. Comp. Expos, of Hebrews 10:29, conclusion. Hebrews 10:30.—Instead of the lect. rec. κύριοςκρινεῖ, we are to read κρινεῖκύριος after Sin. A. D. E. K. 31, 73, which MSS., except Sin. and A., have also ὅτι preceding, as Sept., Deuteronomy 32:36; Psalms 135:14. In the Sin., the change has been introduced by the corrector. III A speedy entrance into blessedness awaits those who endure to the end; of which the readers inspire a hope by the steadfastness which they have already evinced Hebrews 10:32-3932 But call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight [struggle] of afflictions; 33Partly, whilst ye were made a gazing-stock both by reproaches and afflictions; and partly, whilst ye became companions of them that were so used [that so walked]. 34For ye had compassion of me in my bonds [sympathized with those in bonds, τοῖςδεσμίοις] and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that [that for yourselves] ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance. 35Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompense of reward. 36For ye have need of patience [steadfastness, ὑπομονῆς], that, after ye have done [or, by doing=ye may do—and] the will of God, ye might 37[may] receive the promise. For yet a little while [a very little], and he that shall come [he that cometh, ὁἐρχόμενος] will come, and will not tarry. 38Now the just [But my just one] shall live by faith, but if any man [and if he] draw back, my soul shall have [hath] no pleasure in him. 39But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving [procuring, preserving] of the soul [of life]. [Hebrews 10:32.—ἀναμιμνήσκεσθε, Be calling, or, keep calling to remembrance, as a habit; so Pres. tense; not Aor. ἀναμνήσθητε, call to remembrance, as a simple act.—ἄθλησιν, struggle, contest, requiring exertion; not μάχην, fight, battle.—παθημάτων, sufferings, not afflictions (θλίψεων) as in next verse. Hebrews 10:33.—τοῦτομέν, on the one hand (lit., as to this indeed):—θεατριζόμενοι, Pres. Part, being habitually made a spectacle, γενηθέντες, Aor. being made, or becoming, as a single fact.—τῶνοὕτωςἀναστερεφομένων, of them who so walk, i. e., in reproaches and afflictions., Hebrews 10:34.—τοῖςδεσμίοιςσυνεπαθήσατε, ye sympathized with the prisoners.—γινωσ. ἔχεινἑαυτοῖς, knowing that ye have for yourselves; not, as E. V., knowing in yourselves. Hebrews 10:35.—ἥτις, characteristic, as one which hath=because it hath. Hebrews 10:36.—ὑπομονῆς, of patient endurance.—ἵνατὸθελ. τοῦθεοῦποιήσαντεςκομίσησθε E. V. (In order) that after ye have done the will of God, ye may receive the promises. So Moll substantially, “after fulfilment of the will of God, ye may receive,” etc. Alford: “that ye may do the will of God and receive=that doing the will of God, ye may receive.” De Wette: durch Erfullung, by fulfilment of, by doing the will, etc. The sentence will equally well bear either of the three constructions: 1. “that, after doing the will, ye may receive;” 2. that, doing the will, ye may receive=ye may do the will and receive; 3. “that doing the will ye may receive=that, by doing the will, ye may receive.” Either, too, here makes perfectly good sense. For although Alford’s rendering, “ye may do and receive,” is entirely admissible, and may be the right one, vet his reason for rejecting the first, is scarcely decisive, viz. “No endurance, or patience would be wanted, when they had done the will of God, to receive the promise.” True, but endurance or patience would be wanted to bring about that state of things in which they, after having done the will of God, might receive the promise. For such, is the character of the sentence that the endurance might have reference exclusively to the participal clause, or to the finite verb, or to both together, and nothing but the connection could determine which. Hebrews 10:37.—μικρὸνὅσον, ὅσον, more emphatic than “a little,” as E. V.; “a little, a very little”—the repeated ὅσον being a sort of double diminutive, “aliquantillum.”—ὁἐρχόμενος, he that cometh; not, as E. V., he that shall come; nor, as often rendered in the gospels, he that should come. Hebrews 10:38.—ὁδὲδίκαιόςμου, but my righteous one (μου here being guaranteed by the best authorities).—καὶέὰνὑπυσυείληται, and if he shall have shrunk back, timidly drawn back (lit. ὑποστέλλεσθαι, lower sail, take in sail, then, shrink back from danger, as often in the classics). Eng. ver. supplies (with many) τις, if any man, contrary to the spirit of the passage, although, if the exigencies of the connection required it, it would be quite defensible grammatically. τὶς (with Middleton and Scholefield) is, I think, to be supplied at John 8:44, with λάλῃ, although the commentators generally decline to receive it. Here the reference of ὑποστείληται to the δίκαιος, is only one more among many passages of like import in this Epistle. Hebrews 10:39.—οὐκἐσμὲνὑποστολῆς, we do not belong to back-sliding.—εἰςπεριποίησινψυχῆς, for, or unto the procuring, gaining, preserving of the soul—or of our life in the sense, of Matthew 10:39, he that findeth his life (τὴνψυχήν) shall lose it. And so better, I think, with Moll, Do Wette, etc., than soul, with Luther, Stier, Alford, etc.—K.]. AND Heb_10:32. But calling to mind, etc.—Ἀναμνησθῆναι is usually constructed with the Acc. of the remembered object, the simple μνησθῆναι with the Gen. φωτισθέντες, enlightened, denotes conversion to Christianity as a translation from the power of darkness into the realm of light, so that the truth has found recognition and efficient action in the soul, and Christ is not merely believed in and praised as the Light of the world, but shines in the soul, as the Sun of Righteousness,—Excellently Chrys., in regard to the conflict of suffering; οὐκεἶπεπειρασμοὺςἀλλὰἄθλησινὅπερἐστὶνἐγκωμίουὄνομακαὶἐπαίνωνμεγίστων (“he does not say temptations, but struggle, a term of high eulogy”).—The οὖτως is by some referred to walking in ‘steadfastness’, by most to walking in ‘affliction.’ The latter only is admissible, in the subordination of the two clauses, τοῦτομέν—τοῦτοδέ to ὑπομείνατε, as exhibiting the different modes of their manifested ‘endurance.’ The οὕτως in the second division can only refer to the characteristic mentioned in the preceding. The τοῦτομέν—τοῦτοδέ, found in the New Testament only here, is thoroughly classic. Hebrews 10:36. After fulfilling the will of God.—Beng. erroneously refers the Aor. Part, ποιήσαντες to the previously mentioned Christian acts of the readers immediately after their conversion. [Grammatically considered, the passage might bear this, although I think the Perf. Part, would then be more natural. At all events, the ποιήσαντες undoubtedly refers to acts hereafter to be done under the influence of the ὑπομονή. But even then, whether the better rendering is, “after doing,” or “by doing,” or by two co-ordinate verbs, “may do and receive,” is doubtful. Substantially, they would here amount to the same thing; though in other cases of like construction, the difference might be important. But then the context would generally decide the right construction.—K.]. The will of God is here not as Hebrews 10:7 ff. God’s purpose and counsel of redemption, whose fulfilment became the great end of the life of Christ, but the will of God, as required to be fulfilled by the Saints, not, however, in its most general character, as a simple rule of life (Thol., and others); nor as restricted to the sanctification which is effected through the sacrifice of the Son (Bl.); but in special reference to steadfast endurance unto the end (Theophyl., Lόn., Del.). The promise (ἐπαγγελία) is here, as in several other places, the substance of the promise, the thing promised. Hebrews 10:37. For yet a little—how little time, etc.—The words μικρὸνὄσονὄσον=a little, how very, very little! which form one of the very few instances in which the superlative is expressed in Greek by repetition, are probably taken from Isaiah 26:20; and in their connection with ἔτι are in our passage, like ἔτιμικρόν, John 14:19, better regarded as an independent Subst. clause than as an Acc. of determinate time employed to introduce the freely cited passage, Habakkuk 2:3-4. The original text runs: “If it delays (viz., the vision) wait for it; it comes, it comes, it will not linger.” The subject is the overthrow of the Chaldean world-dominion by the judgment of Jehovah. The Sept. itself suggests the turn of the passage, so as to apply it to a person by the rendering ὅτιἐρχόμενοςἥξει, which our author makes still more concrete by adding the def. article. The original then adds: “Lo! his soul is puffed up, is not upright within him (the Chaldean);” the Sept., on the contrary; “If he timidly draws back, my soul hath no pleasure in him” (Υποστέλλειν, used originally of lowering the sail, then of timidly shrinking back). On this follows the clause: “But the righteous will live, ἐκπίστεώςμου,” (Cod. Vat.); or, “But my righteous one will live,” ἐκπίστεως (Cod. Alex.). Grot, supplies τὶς, De W. ἄνθρωπος. Calvin carries the fact that the passage aims not to be a direct and proper citation, but simply a free application of the original, to the extent of putting the concluding clause into the mouth of the author, and understanding by ἡψυχήμου the soul, not of God, or (as �c.) of Christ, but of the author. With ἐσμέν Grot., Carpz., and others supply τέκνα or υἱοί. It is better taken in the strictly classical Gr. construction of a Gen. of belonging. The allusion to ζήσεται, and the contrasted ἀπώλεια shows that περιποίησιςψυχῆς is not, with Luth., Calv., etc., to be taken of the soul; while still we are not, with Ebr., to refer it to temporal bodily life in escaping from the impending destruction of Jerusalem, but, of eternal life, corresponding to the expression, 1 Thessalonians 5:9, εἰςπεριποίησινσωτηρίας. AND ETHICAL1. A second inducement to follow the admonitions of Heb 10:19-25 lies in the encouraging remembrance of the steadfastness evinced under previous sufferings; a steadfastness which is still to be maintained in faith, and which is accompanied by great promises that will be perfectly fulfilled at the re-appearing of Jesus Christ. 2. Conversion to Christ, inasmuch as it introduces into the soul the true light of life, gives, indeed, to the believer, through the beams of this gracious luminary, the certainty of reconciliation, and, along with the acknowledgment of the truth, at the same time, an experience of salvation; whence come at once quiet to the heart, repose to the conscience, and peace to the soul. But as even the converted man still remains in the world, there arises, ere long, a great and perpetually recurring struggle amid sufferings. By insults and afflictions, endured partly in their own persons, and partly by sympathy with those companions in faith who pursue their Christian walk amidst like circumstances of suffering, the children of God are made a spectacle of derision to the world. 3. In the case of apostasy the sacrifices already offered would have been offered in vain; and the sufferings hitherto endured, would have been endured to no purpose. He, on the contrary, who remains steadfast in the appointed conflict of suffering, not merely receives an experimental testimony of the power of faith, but also acquires thereby courage and strength, and the invigoration of hope, and final victory. 4. The assurance of imperishable and inalienable possessions, not only aids us in relation to the loss of our earthly goods, but renders believers even joyful sufferers under acts of violence, and willing sharers in the sufferings of the oppressed. For suffering for the name of Jesus, and on account of a conscience that owes allegiance to God, is an honor and a favor (Acts 5:41; 1 Peter 2:20). 5. The recompense of reward comes as certainly as the Lord Himself, who is already on the way. But as the securing of life is certain to those who persevere in the faith, equally certain is the destruction of those who timidly draw back. Faith thus, in its abiding confidence in the Lord, is the essential condition of the attainment of salvation, of which the coming of the Lord is the essential means. But believers are strengthened in their conflict of suffering, and in their waiting for the fulfilment of the promises of God, particularly by the assurance and clear view, that the period of waiting for the dawning of glory is a vanishing span of time. AND The aid and comfort derived from the remembrance of conflicts and suffering that in former times have been victoriously endured in faith.—To begin in faith, but not to endure, leads to useless sacrifices, vain hopes, and fruitless sufferings.—The attainment of the promised blessings must be preceded by the fulfilment of the Divine will: but this cannot take place without a living faith, that proves itself in suffering.—The proving of one’s faith in one’s own and in others’ sufferings.—A manifold struggle of sufferings is allotted to Christians in this world; but along with this, a great promise, and a rich reward.—How the loss of earthly goods is borne, and replaced by more exalted and permanent possessions in heaven.—Why life is not gained without faith. Starke:—Christians are God’s combatants, and must be in perpetual conflict; hence, they also expect the wreath of honor which the heavenly calling holds out to them.—What is to comfort us in all trouble and persecution? The hope of eternal blessedness in heaven.—Trouble and persecution are badges of the Christian; where they do not bear these in themselves, there is something wanting in their Christianity (2 Timothy 3:12).—Christians are under obligation not merely to sympathize with the wretched, but, as far as possible, to help them.—Observe the characteristic of the kingdom, and of the members of the kingdom of Christ; which is to do good and to suffer evil. It is wonderful, but salutary; it must serve for great good (Psalms 109:5).—In disease, pain, and suffering, confidence in our gracious God is better than all medicines; it is a tried means, and must bring aid.—Mark it, soul! it is not enough to have well begun the struggle; thou must also complete it, and arm thyself accordingly with patience. For he who falters, in him the Lord hath no pleasure; nay, he draws back to his condemnation.—A Christian must not by impatience make his cross heavier than it is, but in quiet and hope will be his strength, Jeremiah 30:15.—The suffering of the present time is brief and light, 2 Corinthians 4:17; Isaiah 54:7; Psalms 30:6; we must not, therefore, allow the time under the cross to seem to us long.—The faith that brings salvation is no dead thing, but a living essence, and productive of life, Galatians 2:20.—Ah! this should be our greatest care in the world, to save our soul, and all the more, that we are in imminent peril of losing it. Rieger:—Who shall be the persons with whom we in our time hold and seek fellowship, is a point that must involve important consequences, reaching down to the day of Jesus Christ.—He who does the will of God, and awaits with patience the promise, has contentment on earth, and yonder, as the end of his faith, salvation. Ahlfeld:—The righteous will live by faith. We consider: 1, the nature and quality of faith; 2, the righteous by faith; 3, the blessing of faith. Heubner:—The longer we practice, the easier becomes the conflict.—There are secret trials, but also public sufferings; the latter are all the more bitter, inasmuch as they take place before the eyes of those who have no sympathy.—On moments hangs the blessedness of eternity.—The expectations of a faithful teacher are powerful stimulants; they inflame our zeal. Hedinger:—Impatience destroys all the fruit of the Cross. Footnotes: Hebrews 10:34.—Instead of the lect. rec. τοῖςδεσμοῖςμου, found in D. E. K. L. (but recognized even by Este as an expanded gloss on the erroneous τοῖςδεσμοῖς of Orig. Exhort, ad mart., 44) we are to read τοῖςδεσμίοις after A. D., whoso testimony is the more important, as B. and C. are here defective. Sin. however, has the lect. rec. Hebrews 10:34.—Instead of the illy attested lect. rec. ἐνἑαυτοῖς we are either with Sin. and many minusc. to read ἑαυτούς, or better, with D. E. K. L., ἑσυτοῖς: with this accords best also the circumstance that ἐνοὐρανοῖς is wanting in A. D., 17, but on the contrary is found in D. E. K. L. Hebrews 10:38.—After δίκαιος we are with Sin. A. Vulg., etc., and the Cod. Alex, of the Sept. to retain μου. In D*., the two Syriac and other ancient versions and most MSS. of the Sept., it stands after πίστεως. The Rec., without reason, omits it entirely. The failure of this pron. in the Heb. text does not decide for the Gr. text. THIRD OF THE HISTORY OF THE I Edifying examples of faith down to the time of Abraham Hebrews 11:1-71    Now [But] faith is the substance of [confidence in] things hoped for, the evidence 2[conviction] of things not seen. For by [in] it the elders obtained a good report. 3Through faith we understand [apprehend intellectually, νοοῦμεν] that the worlds were [have been] framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear [that not from the things which appear may have sprung that which is seen]. 4By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of [over] his gifts; and by it he being dead yet [after dying still] speaketh. 5By faith Enoch was translated that he should [in order that he might] not see death; and was not found, because God had [om. had] translated him; for before his [the] translation he had [hath had] this testimony, that he [has] pleased God. 6But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is [becometh] a rewarder of [to] them that diligently seek him. 7By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear [pious forethought], prepared an ark to [for] the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. [Hebrews 11:1.—ἔστινδέ,—ἔστιν not, as many, “there is faith,” but: “but faith is,” etc.; ἔστιν a copula, but, as very often in the classics, emphatically placed first,—ὑπόστασις, as occasionally in later Greek, confidence, as Hebrews 3:14. Not a rhetorical description, but a simple statement of the nature of faith. Hebrews 11:2.—ἐμαρτυρήθησαν, were attested, received attestation. Hebrews 11:3.—νοοῦμεν we perceive with the νοῦς, mind, reason, thus intellectually and rationally (Romans 1:20)—κατηρτίσθαι, have been (and so stand now) framed. Τοὺςαἰῶνας, the ages, hence the worlds, regarded as existing in time.—ῥήματιθεοῦ, by an uttered word, mandate of God (Hebrews 1:3).—εἰςτὸμέ, in order that not, the logical purpose of this intellectual perception: μέ belongs to the whole clause, but grammatically to γεγονέναι—ἐκφαινομένων, emphatically placed in the clause, thus: in order that not out of things that appear—μὴἐκφαινομένων cannot stand for ἐκμὴφαινομ.—μή—γεγονέναι, not—should have sprung, as it would have done, unless discerned to have been framed by the word of God. Hebrews 11:4.—Μαρτυροῦντοςἐπὶτοῖςδῶροις, testifying over, on condition of, his gifts: not περὶτῶνδώρων,—ἀποθανὼνἔτι, after dying, still, ἔτι, logical, under this state of things, viz., even after he was dead (see Genesis 4:10). Hebrews 11:5.—τοῦμὴἰδεῖν, in order that he might not see=experience death: the purpose of the translation, including perhaps also (Alf.) “the purport.”—πρὸτῆςμεταθέσεως previously to the translation—to the record of it, or to its occurrence as recorded.—μεμαρτύρηται, he hath received testimony, he stands attested to in the record.—εὐαρεστηκέναι, to have pleased. Hebrews 11:7.—εὐλαβηθείς, moved with pious fear or foresight; Alf., taking forethought (see εὐλαβείας, Hebrews 5:7); εἰςσωτηρίαν,for the saving.—K.]. AND Heb_11:1.—But faith is confidence in things, etc.—The position of ἔστι at the beginning of the clause by no means obliges us to the view last defended by Bφhme, which was indicated by the Lect. Rec. up to the time of Griesb. by a comma after πίστις. According to this the following words would be in apposition with πίστις, while the real existence (ἔστι=there is, there exists) of faith would be asserted with emphasis, for which, however, there is no shadow of an occasion. Rather, the copula is made to precede (and hence as the subst. verb to be accented) in order to call attention to the predicates which characterize the subject (so also Win. since Ed. 5). We are thus to look for a definition of faith, but a definition corresponding to the connection and object of the section: a definition therefore which does not restrict itself to mere Christian and Gospel faith, but presents religious faith in its broadest and most general aspects. The object of this faith is, therefore, in a manner entirely general, but still appropriately and exhaustively, designated as τὰἐλπιζόμενα and as πράγματαοὐβλεπόμενα, designations which do not mutually cover each other, but are concentric, and express the essential relation of the objects of faith to the need and condition of the believing subjects, under both their practical and theoretical aspects. Ὑπόστασις and ἔλεγχος express that which, in this relation, faith is as an affection or act of the mind. The former denotes (com. Hebrews 3:14) steadfast confidence (Luth., Grot., and most recent intppr); the latter, conviction, (particularly in the conscience) assurance, (August., Calv., Beng., etc.). The refutation of the rendering of ὑπόστασις as substance (Hebrews 1:3) as in Vulg., Ambros., August., Chrysos., Thorn. Aqu., Schlicht., Beng., Bisp., etc., or as foundation, as with Erasm., Calv., Stein, V. Gerl., etc., or as representation, as with Castal., Paul., Menk.; and of ἔλεγχος, as proof with Vulg., or as inward persuasion with Bl., De W., Lόn., Menk., will be found well worth reading in Thol. and Del. In proof of the correctness of his definition the author adduces the fact that ἐνταύτῃ, i.e., in point, or in respect of, a faith of such a nature, the ancient fathers have a good report. This meaning of μαρτυρεῖσθαι is frequent in Acts, and occurs, 3 John 1:12; 1 Timothy 5:10. In this latter passage, as here, it is constructed with ἐν, which is neither to be regarded as equivalent to διά in Hebrews 11:4; Hebrews 11:39 (Luth., Calv., Grot., Beng., and others); nor need be separated from the verb=in possession of such a faith (Win., Bl., Lόn.,), [Moll’s construction is, I think, unobjectionable; there is no difficulty in making ἐνταύτῃ directly limit the verb. They gained their attestation in this=in this point, in such a faith they gained a good report.—K.]. Hebrews 11:3. By faith we understand.—νοοῦμεν. We apprehend with the νοῦς, mind, intelligence. This verse would seem, according to Lόn., to be out of place, and in relation to Hebrews 11:4, to introduce an inharmonious element into the discussion. This unfavorable judgment springs from the erroneous supposition that Hebrews 11:3 shows merely “the necessity of faith, on our part, in relation to a fact belonging to the past, and recorded in Scripture.” To such a necessity the language has no reference; the passage treats merely of the fact that faith, as an assured conviction of things which are not seen, also evinces itself within us in our rational and spiritual perception of that relation of the creation to the Creator which forms the condition of all history, and all Revelation, while its more full unfolding belongs to the Scripture that commemorates the faith of the fathers. This faith, resting upon and guided by the Holy Scripture, is the organ within us of that perception of the invisible in and above the visible, and of their reciprocal relation, to which neither the perceptions of sense, nor the deductions of reason of necessity lead. The most natural inference for men would rather be this, that τὸβλεπόμενον, that which falls under the eye, that which meets our senses, has sprung ἐκφαινομένων viz., out of that which belongs to the world of phenomena. This idea of the causal relation of the phenomena to the τὸβλεπόμενον must be set aside, as shown by the μὴγενονέναι, which declares that the seen has not sprung from the apparent. The μή belongs (with all the best interpreters since Beza) to γεγονέναι, and not to ἐκφαινομένων With this latter, however, (=ἐκμὴφαιν.) it was constructed, after the Peshito, Vulg., Chrys., Theod., by the ancients generally, and recently by Stengel and Ebrard, and taken entirely arbitrarily as=nothing, things nonexistent, while Schlicht., Este, and others, adopting the same construction, conjecture that the author, with his mind on Genesis 1:2, ἡδὲγῆἦνἀόρατοςκαὶἀκατασκεύαστος of the Sept., refers to the visible issuing forth of the organized world from formless and blind chaos. With equal erroneousness most interpreters take the clause εἰςτὸμή as denoting result. It, in fact, implies purpose (Hofm., Lόn., Del., Riehm). It makes a recognition of the design of God in that framing and arrangement of the world (κατηρτίσθαι) which has been just before described. God, by the Word (ῥήματι), which gives authoritative expression to His will, has formed the αἰῶνας. These Ζons (αἰῶνες) are (Hebrews 1:2) the invisible, spiritual, and permanent potencies of the phenomenal world, of which, at the opening of the epistle, the author has expressly said that they owe their origin to the Son of God, and of which he here says that they were formed, arranged, or put in order by the creative mandate of God. They form the antithesis required by Del., to the ἐκφαινομένων, which antithesis he, supposing it not to be expressed, needlessly and erroneously supplies by ἐκτῶννοητῶν, as the intelligible and divine ideas, out of which the world has sprung. The entire confusion which has attended the explanation of this verse, has sprung from erroneously taking αἰῶνας, τὰφαινόμενα and τόβλεπόμενον as equivalent designations of the world. Calvin unites the two words, writing ἐκφαινομένων as a single word, and takes τὰβλεπόμενα as=κάτοπτρα, thus rendering “that they might become mirrors of invisible things.” But the construction is harsh and unnatural. [I know no good authority, and no sufficient reason for Moll’s singular explanation of αἰῶνες. The rendering worlds, either as material worlds (Del.), or as the aggregate of all things existing in time and space, seems far more natural, and meets all the necessary conditions of the passage. The antithesis to the τὰφαινόμενα,—as that out of which the τὸβλεπόμενον has really sprung,—is not the αἰῶνες as a set of spiritual and invisible potencies (as Moll), nor the τὰνοητά, as, with fully equal improbability, supposed by Delitzsch, but simply the ῥῆμαθεοῦ, the sovereign mandate of God. Our sensible perceptions, is the author’s idea, would lead us to regard all that we see as having no deeper origin than the things which are palpable to sense, material and sensuous springing out of material; but faith enables us to trace all to the unseen but omnipotent agency of God.—K.]. Hebrews 11:4. And by it he, being dead, yet speaketh.—Many, following Chrys., take this language as declaring that the history of Abel contains still a sermon challenging our imitation of him, and that though dead, he still speaks in the testimony of Scripture. Philo finds in it a proof of the immortality of the righteous, and also Del. concludes from the cry of the blood of the righteous entering into the ear of God, that after his death he was still an object of divine care, and is thus an unforgotten, undestroyed, living personage. More correctly remarks Calv. with relation to Psalms 116:15 : inde patet reputari inter Dei sanctos, quorum mors illi pretiosa est. For the passage Hebrews 12:24 shows that the author had in mind Genesis 4:10, to wit: the crying of the blood of Abel to God for vengeance. God espoused the cause of Abel on account of his faith, and avenged his murder upon Cain (Riehm). The λαλεῖ is a historical present, and ἔτι stands not as temporal, but serves to bring out the contrast to ἀποθανών: with this latter word �c. and Beng. erroneously connect δι’ αὐτῆς which the former refers to θυσία as the occasion of his death, while the other supplies πίστεως, taking διά as=ἐν or κατά. Hebrews 11:6. For he who cometh to God.—The rendering of Luth., Calov, Ramb., Wittich, Schultz, Ebr., “whoever would (or is to) come to God, as Enoch did,” distorts the words of the text, ὁπροσερχόμενοςτῷθεῷ, which refer to drawing near to God in religious worship, Hebrews 7:25; Hebrews 10:1. So also δεῖ denotes here not so much moral obligation, as intrinsic necessity. It completes the proof that Enoch’s translation was a consequence and reward of his faith. Hebrews 11:7. Moved with pious foresight.—If εὐλαβηθείς meant “in the fear of God” Luth., a Lap., etc.), τὸνθεόν could scarcely have been omitted. Nor is the meaning of “pious trembling before the divine utterance” (Carpz., Bφhme, De W., Hofm.), so appropriate as the reference to the foresight with which Noah, in faith in the received χρηματισμὸςπερὶτῶνμηδέπωβλεπομένων, proceeded to his preparations. To refer the words δι’ ἠςσωτηρίαν (Bald., etc.) is entirely inadmissible: we may refer them to κιβωτόν (Chrys., Calv., Bez., Grot., Bisp., etc.), while yet to refer them to the main subject of the discourse, πίστει (Primas., Thom. Aquin., Luth., Beng., etc.), is more in harmony with the connection. Noah is the first person in the Old Testament who received the epithet “righteous,” Genesis 7:9. It is further repeatedly applied to him, Ezekiel 14:14; Ezekiel 14:20; Sir 44:17; Wis 10:4; Wis 10:6; also 2 Peter 2:5 he is called a “preacher of righteousness.” AND ETHICALFaith, by virtue of its nature as faith, excludes uncertainty and doubt, Matthew 14:31; Matthew 21:21; Romans 14:23; James 1:6. On the contrary, it involves in principle the confidence of conviction, and the firmness of assurance. It is, however, for this reason also, an assurance of itself, Ephesians 3:12; not, indeed, as a formal strictly self-conscious, certainty, and reliableness of conviction, but as a conviction of the reality, truth, and saving power of its object. Such a conviction is, in its very nature, not an immediate perception, that excludes all formal argument, nor again a logical assumption, resting on satisfactory grounds of reason. It is a union of the soul with the object of faith, generated by moral and religious influences; and this object again is not, of course, something simply regarded as true, but it brings in the act of faith itself, the proof of its reality, and becomes a part of the living contents of the soul; while the soul is thus, in an undoubting and unwavering certainty, assured of the hoped for blessings, and has an inward conviction of the invisible. 2. It is this characteristic of faith which appears from the beginning as the invariable, indispensable, and unreplaceable condition for the attainment and maintenance of the right relation of men with God, and as such can be established by a series of examples from the Old Testament, which, on the one hand, furnish the proof of the assertion, and on the other, can, and should, serve as comforting and stimulating examples (Sir 44:21). 3. That in and above the visible, invisible powers and agencies, work and hover, can be ascertained, even outside of the historical sphere of revelation. Nature and reason are so constituted, that the former exhibits herself as an aggregation of phenomena, and the latter is qualified to perceive the noumena, which reveal themselves in the phenomena, and can, hence, attain to the recognition of the existence of God, and to the beholding of his invisible attributes (Romans 1:19-20). But that the world is not a manifestation of the divine essence, not a shooting and breaking forth of divine thoughts, not the mere materializing of a divine ideal world, but that in its origin and arrangements, as well of that which is invisible, as of that which is visible, in and upon it, it must be regarded as a work of the will of God, who dwells in eternal self-consciousness, this can be known only on the ground of a positive historical revelation. The perception of this relation of the world to God, demands a faith analogous to faith in its other exhibitions. 4. Faith, however, has not to do merely with the, Scripturally announced fact of the creation and appropriate arrangement of the world by the creating word; we also gain by faith the understanding of this fact, and especially that God’s purpose in this fact is, to make God known as the creator of all things. 5. Those offerings which are expressions of faith, made not merely to fulfil an obligation, but as a result of profound internal conviction, best please God, and receive the testimony of their accordance with the divine will. But faith, as displayed in offerings, has special reference to the divine compassion, whether rendering thanks for benefits received, or yearning after more grace and fresh attestations of favor, or expressing the need of a restoring of that fellowship with God which sin has destroyed, and of representing the fellowship which grace has reλstablished. 6. God remembers the pious not merely after their death, so as to vindicate them and their cause: He has also power to keep them before death, and to prove Himself not merely the avenger, but the deliverer of the believers. The deliverance is complete, when it effects their removal from earth to heaven. 7. Where there is religious approach to God, there at least exists faith in the existence of the invisible God, and faith in the benefits of a diligent seeking of God. This latter can plead great promises of God (Amos 5:4; Psalms 69:33), and by them faith, the condition of all divine approval, is strengthened and quickened. 8. Faith not only discerns clearly, by means of divine revelation, still future things, and is certain in respect to their coming, but also in virtue of its nature, involves obedience to the received word, and a full yielding to the arrangements which God has made, and the ordinances which He has enjoined. It is as far removed from an idle waiting for coming events, as from carnal security; and, therefore, while relying most implicitly upon the help of the Lord, fails in no degree in thoughtful foresight and appropriate activity. 9. Faith does not merely, by its confession, utter the judgment of the wicked world; but faith itself constitutes the actual condemnation of the world, which is hindered from using the existing means of deliverance only by its unbelief; while the believer, as a child of God, not only enters into the inheritance secured to him by pious ancestors, but into the inheritance of the righteousness which God imparts, and which, in all respects, corresponds to faith. AND Nature and history serve the believer for advancement in faith and for the confirmation of faith.—The faith of man determines not merely the heart of man, but also his condition and his destiny.—Faith in its nature and its effects.—The examples of faith: 1. what they teach us; 2. to what they incite us; 3. with what they comfort us.—God looks not merely at what we do, but also upon what we intend.—God not merely knows His own; He is also mindful of them, and enables them to recognize His approval of them.—God does not merely give Himself to be known; He would also be sought after, and enables every earnest seeker to find Him.—God renders help in time for eternity, yet only to those who make use of the appointed means of aid.—Faith has its labor, its offering, and its burdens; but it has also the approval of God, and the inheritance of righteousness.—Drawing near to God; 1. in its blessing; 2. in its successive stages; 3. in its means. Starke:—Away with the old and cold proverb; what our eyes see, that we believe (seeing is believing). Faith is trust and not sight.—Believers, as yet, possess not all; the most and the best they must still hope for.—Faith since it has in itself a Divine, persuasive, and convincing power, is as widely distinguished from credulity and illusive fancy as the day from the night, as a living hand from a painted one.—There is but one way to salvation, in the Old Testament as well as in the New, although this way in the New is much easier than in the Old.—Although faith is a spiritual gift of God, which has its seat in the heart, and is invisible, it still remains not unrecognizable; but along with its confession, reveals itself in works as its essential and inseparable fruits.—If a person pleases God by his faith, he pleases Him also by his works; but if, on account of unbelief, the person does not please Him, his works also fail to please Him, however holy they appear in the sight of men.—The remembrance of the righteous remains in blessing (Proverbs 10:7; Matthew 23:35).—Faith brings man into fellowship with God.—They who hasten after another, and seek not God, have from Him no reward of grace to comfort them.—The godly have, even in this life, material aid from their piety. Hahn:—In every time faith has its proper exercises and objects.—Believers enjoy the happiness of the Divine testimony alike in their own conscience and in their relation to others.—Faith looks into the whole plan of creation alike in respect to the invisible and the visible. Heubner:—An age without faith is despicable, valueless.—Just as much as man has of faith, so much is there in him of goodness.—All service of God is sanctified only by faith.—Faith in a God who is asleep, and concerns Himself not about the world, is no religion, and brings no happiness. Rieger:—The eyes of God look after faith, and, without faith, find nothing well pleasing in man.—The lack of sight must hinder none from steadfast adherence to God. Footnotes: Hebrews 11:3.—The reading μὴἐκφαινομένων is now established, and the sing, τὸβλεηόμενον deserves the preference before the plur. of the Rec. after Sin. A. D. E. 17. Hebrews 11:3.—The reading τῷθεῷ in A. D*. 17 received by Lachm. is evidently an error of the copyist. It is corrected in Sin. Hebrews 11:4.—Instead of λαλεῖται read λαλεῖ after Sin. A. 17, 23, 31, 39. Hebrews 11:5.—Αὐτοῦ of the Rec. after μεταθέσεως is, according to A. D*. 17, 67**, 80, to be expunged. In the Sin. it is added by a second hand. Hebrews 11:5.—We are to write after Sin. A. K. L., 46, 71, 73, εὐαρεστηκέναι: on the other hand, after Sin. A. D. E., 109 ηὑρίσκετο. [I of course do not mean to deny the abstract possibility of this, nor to affirm that there are not Greek constructions very nearly or possibly quite analogous to it. I simply mean to say that there is here no such necessity as would alone justify our resorting to it; while again also most of the cases cited in proof of the usage are hardly satisfactory. Thus, in the passage of Thuc. i. 5, ἡγουμένωνἀνδρῶνοὐτῶνἀδυνατωτάτων, there is not the slightest necessity for assuming a transposition of the οὐ. “Men not the most powerless leading” is identical in meaning and equally natural with “men, to wit, those not most powerless.”—K.] Hebrews 11:8.—Before καλούμενος, Lachm., after A. D. (E.?), puts the def. article, but omits it before τόπον, after A. D., and writes with Tisch. after A. D. K. ἔμελλεν, instead of ἤμελλε, as read, however, by Sin., which omits the art. before both καλ. and τόπ. II The example of Abraham and Sarah Hebrews 11:8-128 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after [was destined to] receive for an inheritance, obeyed [hearkened, ὑπήκουσεν]; and he went out, not knowing whither he went [cometh]. 9By faith he sojourned in the [a] land of promise, as in a strange [alien, ὰλλοτρίαν] country, dwelling in tabernacles 10[tents] with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: For he looked for a [was looking for the] city which hath foundations, whose builder [architect, designer, τεχνίτης] and maker [framer, fabricator, δημιουργός] is God. 11Through faith also Sarah herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child [om. was delivered, etc.] when she was past age [contrary to her time of life], because she judged him faithful who had promised. 12Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead [and that too, having become deadened], so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore, [the] innumerable. [Hebrews 11:8.—καλούμενος, being called, summoned; with Art. ὁ, as read by many, “he that is called Abraham;” but much less well.—ὑπήκουσενἐξελθεῖν, hearkened, or obeyed, to go out, i.e., so as to go out.—ἔμελλενλαμβ., was about, was destined to receive; E. V., should after receive.—ποῦἔρχεται, where, he cometh, ποῦ, pregnant=whither (ποῖ), he is coming, and where he is going to remain. Hebrews 11:9.—παρῷκησενεἰςγῆν, sojourned, dwelt as a stranger (lit., dwelt along side of) in the land; εἰς, again pregnant, “went into the land in order to sojourn in it.” So Matthew 2:23, κατώκησενεἰςπόλιν, dwelt into, i.e., came into and dwelt in.—ὡςἀλλοτρίαν, as alien, as belonging to others, though he had himself been promised the future possession of it. Hebrews 11:10.—ἐξεδέχετο, he was awaiting, looking for, Imperf.—τὴνπόλιν, the city, not, a city. τεχνίτης, artisan, architect; δημιουργός, framer, builder, i.e., of the heavenly Jerusalem, Hebrews 12:22. Hebrews 11:11.—εἰςκαταβολὴνσπέρματος, for the depositing of seed (Alf.); for the founding of a seed, an offspring (Moll); Del., fόr befruchtenden Samen; Stier, einen Samen zu grόnden; De Wette, zur Grόndung des Geschlechts.—καὶπαρὰκαιρὸνἡλικίας, even contrary to the period of her age or time of life (παρά, aside from, in inconsistency with). Hebrews 11:12.—καὶταῦτανενεκρωμένου, and that too having become dead.—καθώς, according as, equality of measure, not merely ὡς, as, of likeness.—ἡἀναρίθμητος, the=which is innumerable, agreeing with ἅμμος, not, as would seem in E. V., referring to the progeny.—K.]. AND Heb_11:8. When he was called.—The lect. rec. without the article is preferable in respect to sense, since ὁκαλούμενοςἈβραάμ can hardly mean Abraham who was called or summoned, namely, to come forth (Lόn.); but, in accordance with usage, could mean only the so-called Abraham, or, he who was called Abraham. But a reference to the change of name would here have nor elevancy, since this change took place not until twenty-five years after Abram’s departure from Haran, the event which is here spoken of. Hebrews 11:9. Sojourned—Παροικεῖν in the classics is used only of dwelling in the neighborhood, but in Hellenistic use, of sojourning as a foreigner; in connection with εἰς it includes also the idea of coming to sojourn. Hebrews 11:10. The city that hath foundations.—This is not the earthly Jerusalem (Grot., etc.), but the heavenly (Galatians 4:28), which (Hebrews 12:22) is called the city of the living God, and (Hebrews 13:14) the city that is to be, whose foundations also are mentioned (Revelation 21:14). In so far as God projected the plan of this city, He is called its τεχνίτης, and as the one who executes this plan, its δημιουργός. This latter word elsewhere only at 2Ma 4:1. [It figures largely in the Gnostic vocabulary, but in a very different sense]. Hebrews 11:11. Also Sarah herself.—The emphatic καὶαὐτή is referred by Chrys., Beng., etc., to the fact that Sarah was a mere woman; by Schlicht., Schultz, etc., to the fact that she was barren; but by the majority correctly to that of her having been at the outset unbelieving, Romans 4:19. AND ETHICAL1. Faith gives to obedience, which is its characteristic mark, also power; for it surrenders man entirely into the hands of God, while he sacrifices his individual will with his natural propensities and dearest inclinations, and merges his heart entirely in the pleasure and will of God. The Divine command determines his calling, and in the obedience of faith he goes willingly whither God calls him; in the confidence of faith he leaves it entirely to the Divine disposal to determine time, place, object, and limit of his sojourning and his wandering; and in the hope of faith he confidently waits in his pilgrimage for the final fulfilment of the Divine promise, and anticipates his entrance into the eternal mansions. 2. Faith renders us not merely strong in the conflict with the trials of our earthly pilgrimage, and not merely willing to surrender our temporal possessions for eternal good; it conquers also unbelief and doubt in the bosom of man, and qualifies him to be an instrument of God’s omnipotence and compassion, to which later generations are pointed for their edification and their admonition (Isaiah 51:1 ff.; Malachi 2:15; Ezekiel 33:24). AND The pilgrimage of Abraham a figure of the character of our earthly life.—To the believer the word of God is sufficient: 1, as a command to set out; 2, as a directory of the way; 3, as nourishment on the journey.—The leadings of God are often dark, and it is not unfrequently difficult for men to follow them; but faith which clings to God’s word and faithfulness, receives light for the one, and power for the other.—Faith triumphs over outward affliction and over inward assaults.—It is not enough to have received a call from God: we must steadfastly abide in this clear to the end.—The first steps are frequently the hardest; but they are the decisive ones.—What we find in God repays abundantly what we sacrifice in our vocation.—As we have to give heed to the word of God, so we have to trust in the power of God. Starke:—The believer follows, if God calls him from one place to another, although he sees no temporal advantage, Acts 20:22-23.—Believers acknowledge that they are here strangers and pilgrims, and are seeking a genuine habitation.—The impotence of nature yields to the power of faith.—God fulfils abundantly His promises; blessed are all they who put their trust in Him!—Abundance of population is a Divine blessing, and produces no scarcity in the land; the fault of this lies in the sins of men (Leviticus 26:9; Leviticus 26:26). Rieger:—The will of God is as an infinitely wide space which has indeed a narrow entrance; but whoever has once forced his way through the entrance, and has entirely offered up his will to God, he henceforth has abundant space in the will of God to move in accordance with His choice.—Waiting expresses exceedingly well the nature and power of faith. For in waiting, certainty of conviction springing from the promise, a loving longing and desire for the promised good, and patience in hope, flow together beautifully into one.—The word of promise is, to be sure, the only seed for faith; but to prepare the heart properly to preserve this seed often requires many other labors. Heubner:—Faith produces perseverance under heavy trials.—Faith must, with the believer, decide in regard to the choice of his residence.—God gives to the dead new life.—God is the guardian of holy wedlock. Footnotes: Hebrews 11:9.—The art. before γῆν is, according to Sin. A. D**. K. L. and many minusc., to be stricken out. Hebrews 11:11.—Ἔτεκεν of the Rec., after ἡλικίας, is, according to A. D*., 17, to be expunged. In Sin. it is from the hand of the corrector. Hebrews 11:12.—Instead of ὡσεὶἅμμος, we are to read after Sin. A. D. E. K. L., 23, 37, 46, 47, ὡςἡἅμμος, and we retain the words ἠπαρὰτὸχεῖλος, which are wanting in D. E.—Instead of ἐγεννήθησαν, write with A. E. K., 109, 219*., ἐγενήθησαν. III Renewed glance at the Patriarchs, with special emphasis laid on the act of faith performed by Abraham Hebrews 11:13-1913 These all died in faith, [as] not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off [from afar], and were persuaded of them [om. and were persuaded of them], and embraced [saluted, hailed] them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. 14For they that say such things declare [show] plainly that they seek a 15[their] country. And truly, if they had been mindful of [And if, indeed, they had had in mind] that country [om. country] from whence they came out, they might 16[would] have had opportunity to have returned [to return]. But now [as it is], they desire [are aspiring after] a better country, that is, a heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath [om. hath] prepared for them a city. 17By faith Abraham, when he was tried [hath] offered up Isaac: and he that had received 18[accepted] the promises offered up his only-begotten son, Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: 19Accounting that God was [is] able to raise him [om. him] up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him [back] in a figure. [Hebrews 11:13.—Κατὰπίστιν, in accordance with faith, emphatic.—μὴλαβόντες, as not receiving, stating the fact subjectively: οὐλαβ. would state it objectively, simply as a fact.—πόῤῥωθεναὐτὰςἰδόντες, from afar seeing and saluting them, and thus dying, κατὰπίστιν; πόρ. belongs equally to both Participles.—ἀσπασάμενοι beautifully of saluting in the distance one’s native land or shore; not embracing. Hebrews 11:14.—Ἐμφανίζουσι, make it plain, point out clearly.—πατρίδα, not χώρα, a region, territory, but a native land, an ancestral home. German, Vaterland. Alf. renders “home.” We might, perhaps, express it by the possessive Pron. “their country.”—ἐπιζητοῦσιν, are seeking after. Hebrews 11:15.—Καὶεἰμένἐμνημόνευον—εἶχενἄν, and if, indeed, they had had in mind—they would have had. Alf. remarks that the “two imperfects in this sentence present some little difficulty,” as both events “are past and gone,” while the customary construction of such imperfects is with the present time. But while the latter is, perhaps, the more frequent construction, the Imperfect, in this class of hypothetical propositions, is not unfrequently used equally of past time, provided the action expressed be habitual. Thus Xen. says of Socrates, οὐκἂνἔλεγεν—ἐνμὴἐπίστευεν, which might be rendered, “he would not be saying unless he believed,” but which in the connection can only be rendered, “he would not have (habitually) said unless he had (habitually) believed.” The construction is not uncommon enough to create any difficulty. Nor does it seem to me to involve “a harsh ellipsis” to understand ἐμνημόνευον, with Bl., De W., Del., Moll, etc. of mentioning, meaning in their utterances, rather than simply to be mindful of.—ἀνακυμψαι, to return back, to return. Hebrews 11:16.—νῦνδέ, but as it is, as the case stands.—ὀρέγονται, they are reaching out after, are aspiring to. Hebrews 11:17.—Προσενήνοχεν, hath offered up, stands recorded as having offered up, which he did virtually and in intention, “as if the work and its praise were yet enduring,” Alf.—Προσέφερεν, was offering up: proceeding to greater detail, the author makes a more exact statement of the fact by exchanging the present for the past, and then employing not the Aor., which would have implied it as done, but the Imperf., which implies that it was only commenced, not carried through.—ὁἀναδεξάμενος, he who had accepted, not, received. Hebrews 11:18.—Πρὸςὃνἐλαλήθη, In respect to whom it was said. So I decidedly prefer to render with the Eng Ver. (of whom), referring the whom to Isaac, rather than with Moll, Alf., and most modern intpp., to render it to whom, and refer the whom to Abraham. That the πρός will equally well bear either rendering, needs no argument (see Hebrews 1:7-8; Hebrews 1:13); and the citation seems to me thus more thoroughly pertinent. Hebrews 11:19.—Ὅτιἐκνεκ. δυνατὸςὸθεός, that God is (not was) able to raise, etc., a general statement (with Alf.).—For ὅθενἐκομίσατο see Exeg. notes.—K.]. AND Heb_11:13.—Inasmuch as dying is not an effect of faith, but in the case of the Patriarchs took place in a way that bore the impress of faith, we have here κατὰπίστιν, in accordance with faith, and not, as elsewhere, πίστει, by faith. And as the words are not οὐ, but μὴλαβόντες, followed by a contrasted ἀλλά (Kόhn., II. 408), the sense is not, as commonly supposed, “they died in faith, not in sight, inasmuch as they did not receive the blessings promised; and this dying in faith corresponded to their life in faith;” but the meaning is, as pointed out by Schultz, Win., and Lόn., that their dying, occurring as it did, before the anticipated fulfilment of the promises, corresponded to the character of faith; just as already, even in life, their hope was fixed not on the earthly, but, in faith, on the heavenly father-land, and they, pilgrims, were journeying towards it. The whole clause stands in the closest connection, and the emphasis lies on the words introduced by ἀλλά. With this, too, best harmonizes not merely the reason assigned, Hebrews 11:14 ff., for the patriarchal confession of Heb 11:13, and for the author’s interpretation of its import, but also the believing act (Hebrews 11:17) of Abraham in his offering of Isaac. The reference to the ‘promises,’ commencing with Abr., and to the declarations of the Patriarchs, Genesis 23:4; Genesis 47:9, does not allow us, with Primas., �c., etc., to refer οὗτοιπάντες to all the previously named, from Abel down, Enoch, of course, being in this case excepted. Hebrews 11:15. Had in mind.—Μνημονεύειν is generally, as at Hebrews 13:7; Luke 17:32; Acts 20:31; Acts 20:35, taken intransitively=be mindful of; here, however, and Hebrews 11:22, 1 Thessalonians 1:3, it is better taken by Bl., De W., Del., etc., as transitive=make mention of, soil, in the declaration just referred to. Hebrews 11:19. From whence he also received him back in a figure.—In all other passages of our epistle ὅθεν, whence, is taken logically=for which reason. Thus it has generally been taken here, and ἐνπαραβολῇ has been explained of Abraham’s taking back Isaac as symbol and type, either of the resurrection generally (Bald., Mich., Bφhm., etc.), or of the suffering and resurrection of Christ (Chrys., Prim., Erasm., Ebr., Bisp., etc.), or of both together (Theod.). Luther moreover erroneously renders ἐνπαραβ., “zum Vorbilde,” for a type, after the false reading of the Vulg. in parabolam. But so important typical references the author would scarcely have indicated to his readers in so incidental and obscure a manner, if he had had them in his mind. Yet it does not follow from this that we need depart from the customary meaning of παραβολή, parable, (found also in our epistle, Hebrews 9:9), and, with Camerar., Krebs, Raphel., Loesn., go back to a rare signification of the verb παραβάλλεσθαι, deliver up, expose, put to hazard, and, with Thol., translate, “in bold venturing,” or, with Lόn., “for which reason he even on the ground, or by means of, his yielding him up, bore him off thence as a spoil.” The term ἐκομίσατο can hardly be alleged in support of this meaning; for this word, though used, indeed, frequently of booty and spoils of conquest, is employed still more frequently of that which one previously possessed and has received back. Precisely in respect to Abraham and Isaac, Josephus (Antt. 1, 13, 4) employs this word, and Philo (II. 74, 4) makes use of it to designate the recovery of Joseph by his father. Ὅθεν easily admits of being taken locally, which meaning many able interpreters, following Calv., Bez., Schlicht., Grot., have assigned to it. We must not, however, render by way of comparison, or in some measure, or so to speak, but in a likeness or figure; and we must not, with Schultz and Steng., following Lambert Bos and Alberti, refer the language to the birth of Isaac, whom Abraham had obtained from himself, as νενεκρωμένον, but to the saving of his life. He received him from the dead in a figure in that Isaac resembled a person who had been put to death and re-awakened (Theodore Mops., Calv., etc., more recently Bl., De W., Stier, Hofm., Del.). The explanation of Paulus, by virtue of a substitute, that is in exchange for the substituted ram, is unnatural; and unnatural, also, Bengel’s supplying of ὤν with ἐνπαραβολῇ, “Abraham ipse factus parabola.” [Alford takes nearly the view of Paulus; “the true identification of the παραβολή is, I am persuaded, to be found in the figure under which Isaac was sacrificed, viz., the ram, as already hinted by Chrysostom. Abraham virtually sacrificed his son; God designated Isaac for the burnt-offering, but provided a ram in his stead. Under the figure of that ram Isaac was slain, being received back by his father in his proper person, risen from the death which he had undergone ἐνπαραβολῇ, in and under the figure of the ram. It is an obvious, though perhaps not fatal objection to this explanation that it applies ἐνπαραβολῇ, directly to the death of the ram, and only indirectly to the restoration of Isaac, to which the author directly applies it. According to Alford’s explanation, it would seem much more natural for the author to have said that Abraham sacrificed Isaac ἐνπαραβολῇ, than that he received him back ἐνπαραβολῇ.—K.]. AND ETHICAL1. If believers know that the fulfilment of God’s promises is still remote, nay, that they will never live to enjoy them personally upon the earth, this knowledge neither shakes their confidence nor troubles their joy. Time and space, uncertainty and doubt, disappear to the eye of faith. The promised blessings, faith views as the only actual and true ones, and rejoices in their future, indeed, but still certain attainment. 2. Even death changes nothing in this relation. The dying of believers bears in itself the character of faith, and on this is impressed most clearly the fact, that believers rejoice over their entrance into the heavenly home, which, during their earthly pilgrimage (Genesis 47:9), they have known indeed, but only seen and saluted from afar. 3. There are also promises of God which refer to temporal blessings and earthly goods, whose fulfilment can be attained here below, as the increase of posterity, the inheriting of the promised land, victory over hostile nations. But believers have, from early times, regarded these promises and their fulfilment only as parts and stages of the one great promise of salvation which God has destined for His people; which the fathers waited for in faith (Genesis 49:18), and which is the essential link between the old and new Covenant. 4. The wandering of the patriarchs is not a mere restless roaming, or an aimless change of dwelling-places, but under Divine guidance is a discipline of obedience, a proving of faith, and a type and example for those who seek the abiding home; and for this reason they do not turn their eyes backward to the perishable world, and what they possess, gain, and lose therein; but forward to the promised and enduring good, whose attainment is certain, because God has already prepared it for them, and is no mere transitory good, but has come into a permanent relation to them, so that God is not ashamed to be called their God (Matthew 22:31 ff.). 5. During our pilgrimage to the heavenly home, trials of our faith do not cease, nay, they may even be heightened to temptations, if there seems to arise between the Divine demands and the Divine promises, and thus, in God Himself, an antagonism, a contradiction, which threatens also to divide and rend asunder the believer. The unity, however, remains preserved on both sides, and in all respects, if the believer on his side turns to nothing but the express and clear Word of God, and confidently leaves it with God, by virtue of His omnipotence, at all times to evince Himself as the true and faithful One. AND Strangers on earth, at home in heaven, hence called to a pilgrimage.—The aspirations of believers turn not backwards, but forwards.—What believers have experienced in life, turns to their benefit in death.—The latest trials are not always easiest, but along with experience faith has also increased in power.—God acknowledges those who acknowledge Him, and leads them to the enduring city which they are seeking.—He who in the obedience of faith can give to God what God demands, in him the promises of God will find overwhelmingly their fulfilment. Starke:—They who acknowledge that their citizenship is in heaven (Philippians 3:20) will easily forget what is behind, and press forward to that which is before (Philippians 3:13).—He who has once escaped from the vanity of the world must not allow himself again to be entangled therein; even to look back is dangerous (Luke 9:62; Luke 17:32).—Where faith is there is also obedience to God.—God takes the will of man, where outward hinderances prevent the execution, for the accomplished deed.—God has free power to bless and exalt one child of a father above another.—Faith must be simple that it may not too nicely quibble and dispute over things that appear unreasonable and impossible, and may assure itself that nothing is lost of all that is offered to God (Matthew 16:25).—Faith must cling to the truth and omnipotence of God. Rieger:—Unbelief easily vexes itself in regard to death, as in regard to all the earlier humiliations of the cross; faith adheres to the word, and with this passes, as through all preceding struggles, so also through the humiliation of death.—Faith, through the word, brings near to itself the promised good, approves the entire arrangement of God in this respect, and is not vexed and discouraged by delay.—From the tranquillity of faith springs the willing confession that one is a stranger; but that in all his action and suffering he is led on by the hope of reaching his father-land.—In faith we learn to reconcile things which seem directly hostile to each other, as “dying and behold we live.”—The obedience of Abraham springs not from a capricious self-persuasion, or from the power of a heated imagination; it is the fruit of a reflection and a mature judgment, which comprehends and sums up all good in the ways of God. Hahn:—The extent of our self-denial bears witness how deeply the sense of heavenly things has its lodgment in the heart. Heubner:—Never has the pious man completely realized on earth the longing of his heart; he is always hoping for something better.—The crown of all hopes is the city of God, where God in the most glorious manner will dwell among His saints.—Faith makes us strong to offer up that which is dearest to us. Footnotes: Hebrews 11:13.—The Rec. καὶπεισθέντες is to be rejected by the unanimous testimony of MSS. except a few minusc. Hebrews 11:15.—Instead of ἐξῆλθον read, with Sin. A. D. E., 17, 73, 80, ἐξἐβησαν. In the Sin. ἐξῆλθον is added by the correct., as also ἐμνημόνευον instead of μνημονεύουσιν. Hebrews 11:19.—Instead of δυνατός Lachm. reads δύναται after A. D**. Hebrews 11:19.—The Rec. ἐγείρειν is sustained by Sin. D. E. K. L. and nearly all the minusc. The Reading ἐγεῖραι [Lachm.] by A., 17, 71. IV The example of Isaac, Jacob and Joseph Hebrews 11:20-2220 By faith [also] Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come. By faith 21Jacob, when he was a dying [while when dying], blessed both [each of] the sons of Joseph; and worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff. 22By faith Joseph, when he died [while dying], made mention of the departing of the children of Israel; and gave commandment concerning his bones. AND Heb_11:20. Also.—The position of καί forbids our regarding the present as the mere appending of a new example of faith from the history of the Patriarchs. Either faith is here designated as of a nature which displays its inward confidence by the utterance of a blessing, and this in relation to a thing in the future; in which case the act of blessing evinces an undoubting faith that the word will be followed by the actual fulfilment (Theodoret, Lόn.); or the καί, with its emphasizing force, introduces the blessing as an act of faith that even determines the future (Del.). In both cases περὶμελλ. is dependent on εὐλογ. To connect it with πίστει (Peshito, Sykes) would yield a construction elsewhere without example in the New Testament, and opposed to the absolute use of πίστει elsewhere throughout the chapter. Hebrews 11:21. Worshipped, leaning, etc.—In the Heb. text (Genesis 47:31) it is said, “he bowed himself upon the head of his couch” (Knobel), or, “he turned himself about upon his bed, turning his face to its head” (Hofm., Del.). At all events, he rendered thanks to God in this way, as the aged David did in a similar case, 1 Kings 1:47; while in his discourse with Joseph he had sat upright on his bed. In his weakness, he could neither arise nor prostrate himself. Our author here as elsewhere follows the Sept. with their pointing, δַ ?ξַּ ?θֶּ ?δ instead of δַ ?ξִּ ?θָּ ?η; and has perhaps designedly brought this passage into connection with the act of blessing recounted Genesis 48, in order to express the devout frame of mind in which this blessing was uttered (Thol.). Perhaps, too, we are to take αὐτοῦ in the sense of the reflexive αὑτοῦ, and to refer the term to the pilgrim-staff of Jacob, Genesis 32:10. The reference of this pronoun to Joseph, as well as the supplying of τῷἸωσήφ with προσεκύνησεν (Chrys., Theodor., Theoph., etc.) is discountenanced by the utter absence of any mention of a staff of honor belonging to Joseph (which indeed Thom. Aqu. regards as symbolical of the cross of Christ, and Joseph as type of the Messiah), as well as by the connection of the passage, which points to no marks of homage which Jacob, in fulfilment of Joseph’s dream, may at last have rendered to him. But the rendering of the Vulg. et adoravit fastigium virgζ ejus, followed by Primas., �c., Erasm., Calv., Bisp., Reuss, etc., who regard it as indicating the direction of his homage, and as acknowledging in act the future greatness of Ephraim, is grammatically inadmissible; for ἐπίτι nowhere occurs as expressing the object of προσκυνεῖν. AND ETHICAL1. Believers care in the best way not only for their own future, but also for that of their children and remote posterity. Therefore they bless them, and God hears their prayer. 2. The blessings pronounced by believers are not mere utterances of pious wishes, but prophecies of the future, and actions which exercise a determining power upon history. Yet they are not sorcerers’ utterances which could exercise a mastery over the will of God, and magically determine the fate of other men. They originate and exert their influence only on the ground and in the power of a human will brought into contact with the will of God. It is God Himself who fills and guides the blessing, heart, hand and lips. 3. Faith strengthens and influences even the weak and dying, so that they look only to God’s promises, wait in blessing and in prayer clear to the end, desire, after their decease, to be gathered to their fathers and brought into the land of promise, and direct toward this all their arrangements. AND They who die in faith think: 1, of the promises which they have inherited; 2, of the prayers with which they are to finish their course; 3, of the benedictions with which they can influence their posterity.—Faith renders men: 1, equally potent in life and joyful in death; 2, equally bold and humble; 3, equally reflective and forecasting.—The best kind of concern for our posterity. Starke:—As the Patriarchs with great industry transmitted the promises of Christ to their posterity, so should we be zealous to bring the Gospel of Christ to posterity.—The saints frequently do, under the direction and guidance of God, something in which they indeed have a good purpose, but in respect to which God has determined something still higher.—It matters little at the present time where we are buried, provided only that the soul comes into Abraham’s bosom; for the earth is every where the Lord’s. Psalms 24:1. Rieger:—By the early setting in order of his house, Jacob admonishes us of his daily dying, and of the renewed confession of his earthly pilgrimage. Heubner:—Even in age, and amidst the great infirmities of age, Jacob was strong in his faith in the sure purpose and counsel of God.—The desire of Joseph to have his bones buried with his forefathers, indicates faith in a perpetual communion among believers through the power of God. Footnotes: Hebrews 11:20.—Read after A. D*., 17, 23, 37, Vulg. It., πίστεικαὶπερὶτῶνμελλόντων. V The example of Moses Hebrews 11:23-2923 By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months of [by] his parents, because they saw he was a proper child [that the child was beautiful]; and they were not afraid of the king’s commandment. 24By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; 25Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season [to have a transient enjoyment from sin]; 26Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt; for he had respect [for, he was looking away] unto the recompense of the reward. 27By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king; for he endured as seeing him who is invisible. 28Through faith he kept [he has celebrated] the Passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest [in order that] he that destroyed. the first-born should [may not] touch them. 29By faith they passed through the Red Sea, as by dry land; which the Egyptians assaying to do, were drowned. [Hebrews 11:23.—γενηθείς, on being born=when he was born.—εἶδονἀστεῖοντὸπαιδίον, they saw the child (to be)fair, comely; ἀστεῖον, predicate. Hebrews 11:24.—μέγαςγενόμενος, on becoming large, on being grown up.—θυγατρὸς, of a daughter, without the Art. Hebrews 11:25.—πρόσκαιρονἁμαρτίαςἀπόλαυσιν, a temporary enjoyment from sin; ἁμαρτίας being here not the Gen. object., denoting sin as that which is enjoyed, but Gen. subject., denoting sin as conferring the enjoyment, or that from which the enjoyment comes. Here, as at Hebrews 3., the sin of apostasy. So Bl., Del., and Moll. Alf. denies, and makes it the Gen. obj.; but unnecessarily, and with much less force in the train of thought of the Epistle. Hebrews 11:26.—ἀπέβλεπεν, he was looking away, as ἀφορῶντες, “so as to be waiting for it, or by regard for it determined or strengthened in a course of action” (Bl.), Hebrews 12:2.—μισθαποδοσίαν, the rendering of the reward (Hebrews 2:2). Hebrews 11:27.—κατέλιπεν (κατά intensive), abandoned, forsook.—τὸνἀόρατον—ὁρῶν, seeing the unseen, scil., perhaps βασιλεα; a paronomasia, as Romans 1:20, τὰἀόρατα—καθορᾶται. Hebrews 11:28.—Πεποίηκεν, he has made; either instituted, or, in conformity with the common use of the word in such connections, celebrated. The Perf. indicates it as a thing standing recorded in history as done (Hebrews 11:17, προσενήνοχεν).—τὴνπρόσχυσιν, not strictly the sprinkling, but the pouring on (Angiessung) of blood. Hebrews 11:29.—ἧςπεῖρανλαβόντες, of which, scil., either γῆς or θαλάσσης. The former preferred by Kuin., Bφhm., Klee, Del.; the latter by Bl., Lόn., Alf. Moll does not decide, but apparently inclines to γῆς.—κατεπόθησαν, were drunk up, swallowed up, drowned.—K.]. AND Heb_11:23. Inasmuch as οἱπατέρες in Greek sometimes has the same signification as οἱγονεῖς (examples in Wets. and Del.), and the mother of Moses is expressly mentioned in the original, we must refer the term to Jochebed and Amram, and not (with Beng., Menk., Stier, and others,) put in place of the mother of Moses, her father, Kohath. Hebrews 11:24. Come to years (become large) μέγαςγενόμενος.—Schultz and Bretschn. refer the μέγας to worldly power and honor; but the contrast is between the child and the grown up man, who has reached the period of independent choice and decision. Hebrews 11:25. To have enjoyment from sin.—The ἁμαρτίαςἀπόλαυσις is not the enjoyment of sin (Theoph. Schlicht, Lόn., Alf., etc.), but the enjoyment to which sin opens the way; for this enjoyment, indicated as for a season, stands in the same relation to apostasy from God and from His people (as that ἁμαρτία which we are to shun mentioned, Hebrews 3:13; Hebrews 10:26), as the suffering of affliction bears to fellowship with the covenant people of God. Hebrews 11:26. The reproach of Christ.—Lόn. understands by the ὀνειδισμὸςτοῦχριστοῦ, the reproach which Christ bore; Ebr. (after the older interpp.), the reproach for the sake of Christ which Moses endured by virtue of his hope in the Messiah; Bl., Del., and others, correctly, the reproach which Christ had to endure in His own person, and has to endure in His members. The author’s warrant for ascribing to Moses a participation in this reproach is found by Hofm. in the typical connection, by virtue of which, the Old Testament people of God bear in themselves the impress of Christ, inasmuch as Christ is He whom the Old Testament history, in advance, represents, and whom the Old Testament Word promises. Stier finds this warrant in the mystical unity of Christ and His church; De W. and Thol., in the pre-existent presence of Christ as the Logos, in the Old Testament Israel (1 Corinthians 10:4; 1 Peter 1:10 ff.); Baumg., (Theol. comm. on the Pent.) citing the authority of Augustine, in that preparation for Christ’s appearance in the flesh which runs through the entire history of Israel. Delitzsch unites the various explanations, and says: “The reproach of Christ is, to our author, the reproach of the Christ who was present as Logos in His people made one with Him, and there typically announcing His incarnation which was yet to take place.” Hebrews 11:27. Forsook Egypt.—All the Greek and Latin intpp., except Nich. Lyra, refer this to the flight of Moses to Midian, Exodus 2:15; but since, in that case, the flight was occasioned by fear of the king’s wrath (Hebrews 11:14), but here, on the contrary, is ascribed to Moses’ fearlessness, very weighty interpreters since Lyra (as Calv., Schlicht., Grot., Calov, Bφhme, Bl., etc., and recently Ebr. and Bisp.) have referred it to the Exodus of Moses with the collected people. Justly, however, Zeger, Calmet, Bengel, De Wette, Tholuck, Lφnemann, Delitzsch, and others, have adhered to the earlier view. In favor of this is the succession of events here recounted; the expression κατέλιπεν, abandoned, forsook, which, indeed, might possibly be referred to the Exodus, (Joseph., Antt., II. 15, 2), but in the present connection points to something personally, and exclusively pertaining to Moses; and finally, the circumstance that the Exodus (Exodus 12:31) took place with the consent of Pharaoh. Nor is it necessary to the solution of the above mentioned contradiction, to assume, with De Wette, a decided failure of memory on the part of the author, or, with Lόn., to distinguish a fear, taken objectively, from fearlessness as a purely subjective emotion. We might ask, with Tholuck, could not the author, without forgetting the fear inspired in Moses by the first rumor of the king’s wrath, wish to express that his faith had nevertheless overcome that fear? or we can say, with Del., that he, the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, quitted Egypt without consulting the king; that he did this without fearing the heightened wrath which he incurred by this voluntary sundering of his relation to the Egyptian court. Both interpreters appeal in support of their view to the reason stated in the following clause, “he endured, etc.”—[It seems to me that this is a case in which it is equally gratuitous to suppose, with De Wette, a failure in the author’s memory; and, with Alford and others, to feel any serious difficulty in the explanation. Looking at the withdrawal of Moses from Egypt, it seems to me that one might, with nearly equal truth, say that he left “fearing,” or, “not fearing” the wrath of the king; and that which one would be likely to say would depend simply on his point of view and immediate purpose in recurring to the event. That, in his earlier withdrawal, Moses did fear the wrath of the king is certain, and this was the immediate occasion of his flight as such. But, on the other hand, that his entire course at this time, alike in the act which occasioned his flight, and his general choice and state of mind, arose above considerations of fear, and were determined by a practical defiance of the wrath of the king, is equally certain. According, therefore, as the writer had his mind on the one or the other of these facts, the passing fear that dictated the flight, or the higher courage and trust in God which prevented that fear from being controlling, and which, in fact, led him to provoke the wrath of the king, he might use one representation or the other. Here it better suits his purpose to present the spiritual fearlessness which dictated his whole course of conduct, in connection with its ground, viz: his faith in Him who is unseen. I think that βασιλέα is to be understood with τὸνἀόρατον. The author puts the unseen heavenly King, whom Moses saw with the vision of his faith, over against the seen king, at whom, without this vision, he would have trembled.—K.]. He endured.—It is grammatically unallowable to make (with Luth., Beng., Schultz, Paul., Ebr.) τὸνἀόρατον dependent on ἐκαρτέρησεν. For the transitive signification of this verb is not to adhere to something, but to endure something, e.g.: hunger and thirst. Here the intransitive signification alone is possible. Hebrews 11:28. Hath celebrated the Passover.—Since ποιεῖν uniformly appears along with φαγεῖντὸπάσχα, only of the celebration of the Passover (Exodus 9; Exodus 12:48; Numbers 9:2; Joshua 5:10; Matthew 26:18), the assumption that here the significations of founding and celebrating are united (Bφhm., Bl., Lόn.), is not merely uncertain (De W.), but false: “yet the perfect πεποίηκεν may suggest the idea that the Egyptian passover, which stands before us as an accomplished fact, has become the foundation for the celebration of the Passover in subsequent times” (Del.). Destroyer, etc.—The Heb. δַ ?ξַּ ?ωְׁ ?ηִ ?ιϊ=destruction, the Sept. translates by ὁὀλεθρεύων, and certainly (as Asaph, Psalms 78:49) conceives as an angelic minister of divine justice (comp. 1 Chronicles 21:12; 1 Chronicles 21:15; 2 Chronicles 32:21; Sir 48:21; 1 Corinthians 10:10). It is grammatically impossible to connect τὰπρωτότοκα with θίγῃ (Klee, Paul., Ebr.). This verb governs the Gen. (here αὐτῶν and τὰπρωτότοκα is dependent on ὁὀλεθρεύων. Of course, in the connection “their first-born,” is readily understood to refer to the first-born of the Israelites, though the latter are not expressly named. Hebrews 11:29. Of which the Egyptians making trial.—The relative ἧς can be equally well referred to the “dry land” immediately preceding (Bφhm., Kuin., Klee, Del.), or to the “Red Sea.” Πεῖράντινοςλαμβάνειν may mean to make trial of something, or, to make an attempt at something, as here and Hebrews 11:36. AND ETHICAL1. When we believe that God has special purposes regarding a man, we not merely hope for his preservation, but we acquire courage in cφoperating for his deliverance; and we rely on God’s assistance in deeds of daring, and amidst circumstances of peril. 2. Worldly greatness, honor, power, and pleasure, have, indeed, a splendid appearance, and exercise a power of temptation by which many are led astray; but the believer recognizes the perishable and dangerous character of these possessions and enjoyments. He looks to the future, the divine judgments, and the recompense of reward; and allows himself to be influenced neither by the allurements nor by the threats of the world; is seduced neither by the fear nor the favor of man, but remains steadfast in his vocation, having God before his eyes and in his heart. 3. The power to deliver and to destroy, lies not in outward things and events, but, on the one hand, in the favor and in the wrath of God, who employs them as means and instruments; on the other, in the faith and the unbelief of men, who use these means for salvation, or abuse them to their ruin. AND Faith looks to the purposes of God regarding the children of men, and to the means of their accomplishment.—The believer fears neither to encounter the wrath of men, nor to endure the reproach of Christ.—That which brings salvation to the believer, brings the unbeliever to destruction.—The believer looks, 1, not upon the outward appearance, but upon the inward form; 2, not upon perishable riches, but upon the eternal possessions; 3, not upon the visible world, but upon the invisible God. Starke:—The world abuses in many ways the outward form and condition of men; but God frequently employs them as a means or occasion for great good. To many a one they serve as a means of trial.—Governments are in God’s stead, and are to be honored; but when they give ungodly commands, these are to be given to the winds, Acts 5:29.—The friendship of God and the world cannot be enjoyed together (James 4:4).—The temporal afflictions of the pious are followed by eternal joy; the temporal joy of the ungodly by eternal affliction; consider well to which thou wilt devote thyself.—In sufferings and afflictions we must look to the gracious reward in heaven; this can alleviate and sweeten all (Psalms 94:19).—To be despised and persecuted for Christ’s sake, is an honor and a token of our attaining to the heavenly glory (Matthew 5:11-12).—Let the enemy continue to rage; ho cannot overpass the limits which God has fixed. When God chooses to bear with him no longer, He strikes him to the ground (Isaiah 41:10; Isaiah 43:16-17; Isaiah 51:9-10). Rieger:—O how many of our natural impulses lack that right direction which faith would give to them! how often do we yield ourselves and our children to the disposal of men, and faith should strengthen us to yield them up at the good pleasure of God!—Faith frequently receives guidance and direction from the visible; but it transforms the visible not into food for vanity, but into nourishment for its trust.—One may, even out of the delicate and beautiful, weave subtle snares for his own children, and for the innocence of others.—Faith and foolhardiness are widely separated from each other.—Faith admits the judicious employment of all means of security. Heubner:—Fellowship with the people of God leads to suffering, but apostasy brings after temporal gain eternal shame.—Faith is the spiritual eye which recognizes the nothingness of earthly treasures, and the value of the heavenly.—Faith at once foregoes and preserves. Burckhardt (Ohly, 1862, II. 2):—The believing spirit of the Christian: 1. In its nature; it regards the reproach of Christ, spurned and contemned Christianity, more highly than, a, earthly life, Hebrews 11:23; b, worldly honor, Hebrews 11:24; c, sinful pleasure, Hebrews 11:25; d, temporal riches, Hebrews 11:26. 2. In its reward: a, it brings out of Egypt, the house of bondage of sin, Hebrews 11:27; b, secures against temporal death by the blood of Christ, Hebrews 11:28; c, goes confidently through death into the heavenly Canaan, Hebrews 11:29. VI Examples from the conquest of Canaan to the time of the Maccabees Hebrews 11:30-4030 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about [for] seven days. 31By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not [disobeyed], 32when she had received [after receiving] the spies with peace. And what shall I more say [what do I say further]? for the time would [will] fail me to tell [while recounting, διηγούμενον] of Gideon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthah [of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah]; of David also, and [both of David and] Samuel, and of the prophets: 33Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, 34Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight [became mighty in war], turned to flight the armies of the aliens [foreigners]. 35Women received their dead raised to life again [or from a resurrection, ἐξἀναστάσεως]: and others were tortured [on the rack], not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection. 36And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover [and still further] of bonds and imprisonment: 37They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted [or were burnt], were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented 38[outraged]; Of whom the world was not worthy: they wandered [wandering] in deserts and in mountains, and in dens and caves [caves and holes] of the earth. 39And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: 40God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should [might] not be made perfect. [Hebrews 11:30.—ἐπὶἑπτὰἡμέρας, for seven days.Hebrews 11:31.—τοῖςἀππειθήσασιν, with them that disobeyed,) not ἀπιστήσασιν, disbelieved. Hebrews 11:32.—τίἔτιλέγω, what do I say further, διηγούμενον, recounting narration. Hebrews 11:34—ἐγενήθησανἰσχυροὶἐνπολέμῳ, became mighty in war.—ἀλλοτρίων, belonging to other lands, foreigners. Hebrews 11:35.—ἐξἀ ?̓ ?̓ναστάσεως, from or out if a resurrection.—K]. AND Heb_11:30. For seven days.—Ἐπί, of duration of time, as Luke 4:25; Acts 13:31; Acts 19:10. Πίστει is not to be connected with κυκλωθέντα (Grot.), and this latter does not mean beleaguered (Schultz and others). Harlot.—Jac. Cappell. and others, following the Chaldee paraphrase, erroneously translate ἡπόρνη, the hostess; others, with Braun, explain the word, the idolatress. It is taken from the history, Joshua 2:2; Joshua 6:17 ff. Her faith consisted in her strong practical confidence (James 2:25) in the victory of the Israelites, because their God was the omnipotent God (Joshua 2:9). His miracles had not remained unknown also to the remaining inhabitants of Jericho (Joshua 2:10), but they, making but small account of these, attempted to withstand the people of God (Joshua 6:1). Hebrews 11:32. Gideon, etc.—The order of succession is not chronological. But the author does not design such an enumeration, and he has scarcely had in mind any particular mode of grouping. Del., indeed, assumes three groups, of which the two first consisted of three persons each, and thinks that the author in the first group names Gideon as the greater hero of faith, before Barak, and in the second names Samuel after David, that he may attach to him the third group, viz., that of the prophets. But what authorizes such a triple division? And what purpose would suggest the introduction of Jephthah, who besides is placed after Samson, into the second group? Rather according to lect. rec., followed by Del., only Barak and Samson are more closely united by τεκαί, as also David and Samuel, while between Gideon and Barak there is no connective particle. In like manner there is none between Jephthah and David, but before Jephthah, as before the prophets, is placed the simple καί. Lόn. starts from the fact that David and Samuel are in all the MSS. connected by τεκαί, and concludes from this that the preceding names were originally arranged in pairs. In that case the chronological objection would disappear, inasmuch as each new pair makes a new stage of historical progress, while in the successive pairs, the naming of the later before the earlier, is justified on rhetorical grounds, as bringing together the names of those who were coincident in time. But this ingenious conjecture rests on a combination of different readings, retaining the Rec. under the two modifications of placing (with D*.) καί before Barak, and (with A., 17, Vulg., Copt., Arm., and many Fathers) striking out τεκαί before Samson. The καί before Jephthah is rejected, although found in D. E. K. L., nearly all the minusc., Chrys., Theodoret, Damasc, etc. Lachm. and Tisch., are consistent in striking out all the particles except the unquestionable τεκαί before, and καί after Samuel This has also the authority of Sin. Hebrews 11:33. Who subdued kingdoms.—The οἵ, who, refers not to the prophets, but to all the previously named persons, who, however, are merely adduced as examples, so that we are not to ask, in each individual one of the following statements, what person the author had specially in view. Many of the deeds and sufferings belong to persons who are not even particularly cited, but point us in general to the historical books of the Old Testament, from which the persons named are selected by way of example. The meaning, “obtain by conflict” (Bφhme), can scarcely be established for καταγωνίζεσθαι [rather contending down, wrestling down=subduing.—K.]. Wrought righteousness.—Ἐργαζ. δικ. is hardly used in the purely ethical sense (Theodoret, Erasm., Schlicht., Grot., etc.), but refers to the acts and influence connected with the office of Judges, Kings and Prophets, 1 Samuel 12:4; 2 Samuel 8:15; 1 Chronicles 15:14; 2 Chronicles 9:8. Obtained promises.—Beng., Bl., Ebr., etc., follow Chrys., Primas., Theodoret, in understanding God’s words of promise, and this not mainly His individual, but His Messianic promises. But the common reference of the words to the substance of the promises, better suits the connection; for if the believers failed to live to witness the promised salvation, Hebrews 11:39, yet they at least realized the fulfilment of special assurances. The plur. employed without the article, favors this view. Stopped the mouths of lions, etc.—We might refer this to Samson and David, but the language points rather to Daniel 6:18-23; as also the following example (by force of faith quenched the force of fire) is drawn from Daniel 3., or 1Ma 2:59. Perhaps the following examples point also to events belonging to the times of the Maccabees, although they have their parallel in the earlier period, e.g., 1 Kings 19.; 2 Kings 6, 20.; Judges 16:28; Psalms 18:30. The word παρεμβολή, signifying not merely an encampment, but an army in battle array, is among the favorite expressions of the First Book of Maccabees (Grimm at 1Ma 3:3). This, however, decides nothing, since the word has the same signification also, Judges 4:16; Judges 7:14, and the discourse immediately returns to 1 Kings 17, and to 2 Kings 4, by the mention of the women who received back their dead, ἐξἀναστάσεως, i.e., either by resurrection (Bφhm., Bl., Lόn., etc.) or from a resurrection=as raised again to life. These examples from the life of the woman of Sarepta and of the Shunamite, lead, however, again, immediately, to the martyrdom of Eleazer (2Ma 6:18 ff.), and of the seven brothers, along with their mother (2 Maccabees 7). The τύμπανον is regarded as an engine of torture in the form of a wheel, upon which the tortured person was stretched out like the skin of a kettle-drum, and frequently beaten to death. The better resurrection (κρείττονοςἀναστάσεως) is regarded by �c. and Theoph. (by the latter hesitatingly) as contrasted with the resurrection of the ungodly to judgment (Daniel 12:2); by Chrys., Beng., Bφhm., Bl., De W., Ebr. and others, on the contrary, as in antithesis with ἐξἀναστάσεως, standing at the beginning of the verse; while Gerh., Win., Thol., Lόn., etc., more naturally [Alford says “strangely”] place it in contrast with the previously mentioned ἀπολύτρωσις (deliverance) from their tortures, which was proffered them. Hebrews 11:36. And others experienced mockings and scourgings, etc.—Scourgings (μάστιγες) and mockings (ἐμπαιγμοί) are spoken of, the former at 2Ma 7:1, the latter at id. Hebrews 7:7; Hebrews 7:10. We may presume with certainty, therefore, that these examples of suffering are suggested by the narratives there recorded, although the ἕτεροιδέ, immediately proceeds to introduce other, though kindred examples, among which we may doubtless recognize allusions to the mockeries heaped upon Elisha and Jeremiah. For not only is the stoning immediately mentioned which slew Zachariah, 2 Chronicles 24:20, and the sawing asunder, which according to Jewish tradition, fell to the lot of Isaiah, but previously to these, bonds and imprisonment, which may be referred to Hannai (2 Chronicles 16:10), Micah and Jeremiah, which are connected back by ἔτιδέ, with the mockings and scourgings, as if rising upon and transcending them. And the slaying by the edge of the sword, if not referring especially to the prophet Uriah, who was so executed by Jehoiachim (Jeremiah 26:23), yet certainly must refer to the numerous executions of prophets in the kingdom of Israel (1 Kings 19:10).—The goat skins, commonly black, expressed still more than the usually white sheep skins, the feelings and the condition of the prophets, who (2 Kings 1:8) are called “hairy men.” Hebrews 11:39. And all these received not the promise, etc.—This sentence refers not merely to the persons mentioned from Hebrews 11:35 (Schlicht., Storr), but to the whole body collectively (alike named and unnamed) of those whose faith has procured for them the good report which they have in the Old Testament. The participial clause must be resolved by although, not by since; for, in the connection, the sense of the clause cannot be that the ancients did not receive the promise because the faith which, in its nature, appertains to the future and the invisible, did not procure for them their good report. The statement, rather, is, that, notwithstanding the glory which they derived from their faith, they still did not obtain the promise. The singular τὴνἐπαγγελίαν shows that the author is speaking not of special and individual promises, and which in fact have not remained unfulfilled, but of the fulfilment of the promise as such, i.e., the Messianic promise, which in the connection is determined still more definitely than the promise of the “eternal inheritance,” Hebrews 9:15, as that whose attainment presupposes the τελείωσις. Hebrews 11:40. God having provided something better for us.—The reason of the fact just mentioned, is God’s gracious regard for us, which has led Him to adopt such an arrangement, that the actual receiving of the promise is accorded to us, if we abide in the faith, while yet those fathers who are eulogized for their faith, are not excluded, but attain in like manner the τελείωσις, only not without us, as would have been the case if their faith had been immediately rewarded with the promised good, and no interval had come in between the faith and the attainment. Since, then, the τελείωσις still, also, awaits us, and will be attained only at the second coming of Christ, we are, on the one hand, on a level with the fathers; and, notwithstanding our faith, have, like them, to submit to a period of waiting, which also gives ample scope for Christian endurance—while thus their life of faith can furnish us a comforting and stimulating example—and on the other a better thing (κρεῖττόντι) has been provided for us. The fulfilment of the Messianic promise has, with the appearance of Jesus Christ and His entrance into the heavenly All-holy, become matter of historical fact, so that the prophecy of Jeremiah is fulfilled Hebrews 8:6 ff; Hebrews 10:15 ff. Even Abraham ἐπέτυχεντῆςἐπαγγελίας, Hebrews 6:15 ff., and the ἔσχατοντῶνἡμερῶν (Hebrews 1:1), and the συντέλειατῶναἰώνων (Hebrews 9:26), lies already behind us. We have lived to behold the final revelation of God in Jesus Christ, and hence the Lord pronounces His disciples blessed, and declares them privileged above the prophets and kings of the Old Testament, Matthew 13:17. Thus has something better been imparted to us than to them, comp. Hebrews 2:3 ff. This reference of the κρεῖττον to the nobler boon bestowed on us than was accorded to the ancients, harmonizes better with the language Hebrews 7:19; Hebrews 8:6, and with the general scope of the Epistle, than the explanation: “Something better, then, would have fallen to our lot, if they had received the final fulfilment of the promise.” The connecting thought would then be, that in such a case we should not have been born, inasmuch as the end of the world would have arrived, and with it that state of perfection in which is neither marrying nor giving in marriage, Matthew 21:30. AND ETHICAL1. The greatest and most important victories are not gained by the might of armies, nor even by mere patriotic heroism, but by the power of the Omnipotent God who, beyond their prayers and their comprehension, assists those who, in undoubting faith, adapt themselves to His arrangements, and employ the means which He points out to them. 2. Faith triumphs not merely over visible opponents and adversaries; it gives us victory also over spiritual foes, and makes those who were once sinners, associates and helpers of the servants of God, for which again God, to whom they have given honor, becomes to them a tower and shield, and bestows upon them grace unto salvation. 3. Faith, however, shows its beauty, power, and greatness, not barely in that which it accomplishes, overthrows, and attains, but also in that which it sustains, endures, and sacrifices. And in this, women are not inferior to men, but give them not unfrequently an inspiring example. 4. The life of believers in the world is a perpetual conflict with the world, whose severity evinces itself as clearly in their deportment as in their destinies. But the conflict is lightened by the fact that the inestimable worth of believers always shines forth more conspicuous and triumphant alike in their voluntary privations and sacrifices, and amidst violent oppressions and spoliations, while the world, on the contrary, by its denial, contempt, and rejection of those who, in the sight of God, are more highly esteemed than the whole world, condemns, punishes, and impoverishes itself. 5. The final goal to which God conducts believers, is perfection in Christ; and this embraces the entire person, includes thus the resurrection and glorification of the body, and pre-supposes, therefore, the second coming of Christ. It thus, therefore, equally awaits us as the members of the Old Covenant who fell asleep in faith, with whom we have in common the interval of waiting, trials of our faith, and sufferings for the sake of faith, so that they are, to us, examples and patterns in the various matters with which they have to do. For at the same time with them shall we attain this final and comprehensive perfection, and come to the common enjoyment of the same blessedness. Thus the prerogative which we have enjoyed, in that the first appearance of Christ was not, with us, a matter of expectation, but of realization, binds us to all the greater humility, thankfulness, and fidelity, by how much the more clearly we discern in this arrangement the grace of God, taking thought for our salvation. AND The like state of mind, the like goal, and the like destiny of the believers of all ages.—The relation of the believers to the world and to God.—The enemies, conflicts, and victories of faith.—Dishonored in the world, honored with God.—The transformation produced by faith.—The certain fulfilment of the promises of God: 1, in its means; 2, in its conditions; 3, in its stages. Starke:—He who dwells in heaven must assuredly laugh at those who defiantly trust to walls and ramparts.—In like manner, as at the sound of the trumpet and battle-cry of Israel, the walls of the ungodly city of Jericho fell, thus shall the trumpet voice of the Gospel overthrow the kingdom of anti-christ, Revelation 18:2.—Sin separates from God; but repentance conducts to God (Isaiah 59:2; Jeremiah 3:1).—Good works must be judged not according to the appearance, but according to their ground and internal character.—The Holy Scripture is so rich in beautiful and memorable histories and examples, that we have no need of the fabulous inventions of the monks, but enough for our right instruction in the word of God.—Oh God! how rich art Thou even in the gifts and treasures which Thou hast deposited in Thy saints!—Faith is stronger than powder and lead, than arrow, sword, and weapon of war. It can overcome even the devil himself, and quench his fiery darts (Ephesians 6:16).—Rather should we endure a violent death, than apostatize from the true religion.—The host of sacred martyrs is very comforting to all the suffering bearers of the cross; for we are no better than our fathers (1 Kings 19:4). O Thou God that hidest Thyself! Thou leavest Thy children here to suffering and oppression, that they may have life and refreshment forever (Revelation 12:12).—Much distress, trouble and misery upon earth; yet the sufferings of this present time are of no account beside the glory which shall be revealed in us (Romans 8:18).—O how are we put to shame who live under the New Covenant by the heroes of faith who lived under the Old.—Steadfastness in true religion under great affliction, is a proof of true faith in Christ. Rieger:—Unbelief is always hatching distrust. “Surely there is no remedy; in great public calamities must all fare alike.” But faith trusts God in all ways.—God, in His economy and arrangement of times, has graciously cared for all. Even to the ancients He has vouchsafed, in their time, sufficient evidence for faith. Hahn:—The world speedily forgets the deeds of its heroes, however much it may wish to perpetuate them; but God bears testimony to His own. This is genuine, and will remain.—If we can do no very great deed in our time, it is enough if we exercise victorious faith in endurance, as this is the task assigned to our time (ReHebrews Hebrews 11:13).—Even trivial acts, if they spring from faith, are highly esteemed of God. Heubner:—Faith overcomes the world.—The richness of the Holy Scripture in instructive examples. The richness of the gifts that God has deposited in the saints.—The hidden value of the righteous is manifest in the sight of God.—The Christian should be exalted above the world, but the world should learn to be worthy of the godly.—How often do innocence and truth have to conceal and withdraw themselves. He, who shall yet dwell in the eternal mansions, now often wanders without a shelter.—Many pious men fail to live to see the fulfilment of their desires; but their salvation will not fail.—Heaven unites all. Footnotes:Hebrews 11:26.—Instead of τῶνἐνΑἰγύπτῳ read after Sin. D. K. L., 31, 44, 46, τῶςΑἰγύπτου. Hebrews 11:28.—The more correct orthography is ὀλεθρεύων after A. D. E., instead of ὀλοθρεύων. Hebrews 11:29.—After ξηρᾶς we are to add γῆς after Sin. A. D*. E., 17, 31, 47. Hebrews 11:30.—ἔπεσαν is to be read, after Sin. A. D*., 17, 23, 31, instead of ἐπεσε. [Hebrews 11:32.—Moll follows Tisch. and Lachm. in omitting the καί connecting Gideon, Barak, etc., reading Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah.—K.]. Hebrews 11:34.—Instead of μαχαίρας, Lachm. and Tisch., ed. 7, read μαχαίρης after A. D., as in Hebrews 11:37 after D*. In both cases the reading is supported by Sin. So also the reading ἐδυναμώθησαν, received by Lachm and Tisch. instead of the Rec. ἐνεδυνwhich in Sin. is only from a second hand. Hebrews 11:37.—Instead of ἐπειράσθησαν=tentati sent (Vulg. Ambros.), Luth. reads 1530, ἐπάρθησαν, were pierced through. The majority, following Erasmus, conjecture, inasmuch as πειρᾷνcannot be made=torture, an old error of the copyist, and introduce a word indicating death by fire, best ἐπρήσθησαν. In the Sin. this word follows the one given above [rather in Sin. the word is ἐπρίσηιαν]. Hebrews 11:38.—The reading, ἐπἐρημίαις of Sin. A., 71, 73, 118, received by Lachm. and Tisch., ed. VII., appears to be an error of the copyist. The Rec. ἐνἐρημ. is sustained by D. E. K. L. Hebrews 11:39.—Lachm. reads the plur., τὰςἐπαγγελίας, after A. 80. FOURTH SECTION_________ A APPEAL, BASED ON THE I In possession of such examples, and looking away to Jesus Himself, the readers must maintain, with steadfastness, the struggle that awaits them Hebrews 12:1-31 Wherefore, seeing we also are [let also us, being] compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us [om. let us] lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience [steadfastness] the race [contest,ἀγῶνα] 2that is set before us, Looking [away] unto Jesus the author [Leader] and finisher [Perfecter] of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the [a] cross, despising the shame [making light of shame], and is set down [hath sat down] at the right hand of the throne of God. 3For consider him that [hath] endured such contradiction of [ὑπό, by, from] sinners against himself, lest ye [in order that ye may not] be wearied and faint [ἐκλυόμενοι, relaxing, fainting] in your minds. [Hebrews 12:1.—Τοιγαροῦν, therefore, weighty and impressive in classical Greek; τοι probably for τῷ, by this, γάρ, for, οὗν, then, now; the whole=for by this now, hence, therefore.—καὶἡμεῖς, let also us; ἡμεῖς, emphatic; in E. V., the emphasis partly given in the “we also.”—τοσοῦτον, etc., having so great a crowd of witnesses encompassing us, scil., like the spectators in the stadium, but μάρτυρες, having probably a double reference to their character as spectators, and as witnesses to the faith. The Greek word, like the English, has both meanings, and probably for the same reason, viz., that a witness must naturally have been a beholder of that to which he witnesses.—ὄγκον, bulk, weight, unnatural swelling or protuberance; and may refer primarily to unnatural bulk of the body itself; then to extraneous burdens.—εὐπερίστατον, probably easily placing itself around, easily besetting,—δἰὑπομονῆς, by means of steadfastness, through, in the midst of, steadfastness, hence taken adverbially, steadfastly, perseveringly. Hebrews 12:2.—ἀφορῶντες, looking away, ἄρχηγόν, file-leader, captain (Hebrews 2:10), τελειωτήν, perfecter.—ἀντί, over against, in return for, in exchange for, hence here, in consideration of.—ὐπέμεινενσταυρόν, endured a cross.—αἰσχύνηςκαταφρονήσας, making light of shame, not specifically, the shame of the cross, but shame taken abstractly.—κεκάθικεν, has sat down, and still holds his seat. Hebrews 12:3.—ἀναλογίσασθε, not adequately rendered by English, consider (which is used elsewhere for κατανοῶ, etc.), and difficult to express in English; think over analogously, or by way of comparison; Beng.: “comparatione instituta cogitate;” τὸνὑπομεμενηκότα, him who hath endured (Perf.); not merely suffered (πάσχειν), but stood under, abided.—ταῖςψυχ. ἐκλυόμενοι. fainting in your souls.—K.]. AND Heb_12:1. Therefore let also us.—Τοιγαροῦν (familiar in classical Greek, but in the N. T. confined to this passage and 1 Thessalonians 4:8) connects with the preceding O. T. examples the following exhortation to like conduct: the exhortation being couched in imagery, and technical expressions drawn from the Grecian games, with whose usages the Jews were sufficiently familiar. The phrase νέφοςμαρτύρων at the outset, containing an allusion to this imagery, although it is rendered distinct only by the more explicit reference which follows. The sum of the passage is this: The capital thought expressed by the verb τρέχωμεν is an exhortation to the race, while the two participial clauses with ἔχοντες and ἀποθέμενοι intimate, the former what we possess for our incitement in the enveloping cloud of witnesses, and the latter, what we must previously have done to our persons in order to facilitate our progress. Unquestionably, now, δἰὑπομονῆς attached to τρέχωμεν, as more specially characterizing the race, looks back to Hebrews 10:36, and alike the preλminence given to πίστις in Hebrews 12:2, and the τοιγαροῦν of Hebrews 12:1, show a clear reference to Hebrews 11. Yet all this does not require us, with Lόn., to explain μάρτυρες exclusively of witnesses of faith. On the one hand, we must not overlook the fact, that the persons signalized in Hebrews 11 are designated as those who, on account of their faith, have received a good report, or testimony (not as those who have borne it), Hebrews 11:2; Hebrews 11:4-5; Hebrews 11:39; and on the other, we must remember that here, at Hebrews 12:2, the eyes of those running are turned to Jesus, as ἀρχηγός and τελειωτής of faith, and this in such a way that the ἀφορῶντες standing coordinate with ἔχοντες forms a second ground of exhortation to zeal in the race, and the ὑπομονή of Jesus is evolved from His history, thus brought into relation to the imagery of the stadium. The expositor, therefore, may be justified in taking the cloud of μαρτύρων, lifted above the earth, not, indeed, exclusively (with Bleek, De Wette, Thol., Bisp., etc.), but still primarily, as witnesses, or spectators of the struggle, and treat its meaning of witnesses of faith as not, indeed, properly combining itself with the former (with Del., Riehm, Alf.), nor again as entirely merged and lost in it. For the question is not at all one of mere spectators, but of sympathizing witnesses, witnesses who have been tried in a like conflict with our own, but have already reached the goal of perfection, and whose person and history are precisely on this account, patterns and incitements to us. The διά, with the Gen., with verbs of motion, serves to designate the continuance of the movement, the permanent and habitual character of the act (Bernhardy, p. 239). So here δἰὑπομονῆς as διὰπίστεως, 2 Corinthians 5:7. That easily besets us.—The word εὐπερίστατον is as an ἅπαξλεγόμενον of doubtful signification. Carpz., Schultz, Stein explain it actively =seducing, enticing; but this sense cannot be established. The signification, easily changing= unstable, movable (Matthδi), is inappropriate. The absence of the object prevents our taking it actively; and since elsewhere all derivations from ἴστημι have either an intransitive or passive meaning, this word can scarcely constitute an exception. The passive meaning, however, easily got around, avoided, or easily encompassed=overcome (Chrys., etc.), is far-fetched, and unsuited to the context. The same is true of Ernesti’s explanation; eagerly encompassed and thronged, hence, universally prized and beloved. We must therefore go back to the middle signification, and may either, with John Gerh., Bl., De W., Lόn., Riehm, etc., refer it to sin, like a garment closely and constantly encompassing and hindering the runner; or (with Anselm, Horneius, Calv., Grot., Ebr., Del., etc.) to the fact that it everywhere easily besets us, and subtly encompasses us, so as to hinder and obstruct our way. A recurrence to the noun περίστασις for the sense, easily involving us in evil, plunging us into danger, creating hinderances (Theophyl., Beng., and others), is totally unnecessary. Calv., Chemnitz, Seb. Schmidt, and others, refer the word too restrictedly to hereditary sin, implied also in Luther’s rendering, “which ever cleaves to us.” Bugenhagen renders more correctly, “semper oppugnans;” and in part, �colamp., who, however, reduces the force of his rendering peccatum quod nos proxime circumstat, by the added clause, “sive tenaciter nobis inhζret.” The rendering of Grynζus, “ad nos circumcingendos proclive,” reaches about the exact idea.—For giving to ὄγκος the figurative meaning of self-sufficiency, high-mindedness (Beng., and others), we have no warrant from the context. Hebrews 12:2. The Leader and Perfecter of faith.—ʼ ?Αρχηγός denotes not merely the originator, who works in us the beginning of faith (Chrys., Erasm., Lόn., and the majority), but, as at Hebrews 2:10, the leader, marshaller, who, in the exhibition of patient and victorious faith, has preceded us, as a pattern and an aid, comp. Hebrews 2:13; Hebrews 3:2. “How were it possible that faith could not be predicated of Jesus? For between Him and His eternal and strictly divine life had His earthly life, having become by the power of sin and wrath a thick prison wall, placed itself as a wall of partition, which, until it was actually broken through and done away, was non-existent only to His far-reaching and transcending faith—for that faith, by virtue of which, even in the very midst of the darkness of utter desertion, He could still call God “His God!” So soon as we recognize in its terrible and deadly earnestness the self-abnegation of the eternal Son, we cannot wonder that, while that state continued, the author designates faith as the bond between Him and God” (Del.). The train of thought involves the idea that Jesus also, by enduring to the end, set forth and made manifest faith in its perfection (Riehm). It is not enough to say with Del. that Jesus, through affliction, entering into glory, has obtained for us ultimate salvation, styled, 1 Peter 1:9, to τὸτέλοςτῆςπίστεως. When faith is ascribed to Jesus Christ it must, in His person, in accordance with His uniformly developed character (Hebrews 5:8-9), bear the stamp of perfection. Thus τελειωτής receives its usual transitive signification. And the sentiment may well be that in His display of faith Jesus also in His own person brought it to perfection (Theod., Beng., Bl., De W., Thol., Ebr., Bisp., etc.), and not merely that He brings it to perfection in us (Chrys., Lόn., Del., etc.). Some, with Grot., take the idea of =τελειωτής, too narrowly, as referring to the Judge in the games (=βραβεύς). For the joy that was set before him.—The joy refers not merely to the finished work of redemption, and the blessings it brings to men (Theodoret): it is the heavenly joy, the obtaining of which was to be the reward of Jesus’ suffering on the cross (Primas. and the most). This idea of ἀντί is demanded by the connection. From a misconception of it have arisen the renderings; “instead of the heavenly glory which He had as the preλxistent and premundane Logos (Pesh., Greg. Nazianz., Beza, etc.); or: “instead of the worldly joys and pleasures which it was in His power to enjoy” (Calv., Carpz., Stein, Bisp., etc.; or: “instead of that freedom from earthly suffering which, as the sinless One, He might have secured for himself” (Chrys., Calov, etc.). Hebrews 12:3. For consider him, etc.—ʼ ?Αναλογίζεσθαι expresses a consideration that compares and weighs. The hortatory ἀφορῶντες, looking away, which “implies the concentration of the wandering gaze into a single direction,” assigns the ground or condition of the preceding admonition; and this again now itself assumes the form of an exhortation. The words ταῖςψυχαῖςὑμῶν are not (with Luth., Beng., etc.) to be connected with κάμητε, but with ἐκλυόμενοι (Bez., Bl., and the most), which would otherwise form an awkward and dragging close. AND ETHICAL1. Without steadfastness of faith the goal is not to be attained. But this steadfastness shows itself not merely as the power of unfailing patience in suffering, and as unbending firmness in trials, but also, as courageous persistency in the noblest striving, and as unyielding exertion in struggling for the highest goal. 2. Since without such exertion, the Christian’s life-race cannot be happily terminated, it becomes the duty of self-preservation to divest ourselves of every thing which obstructs these endeavors, and hinders our progress to the goal. But that which most hinders our progress is sin, which partly cleaves to us by nature, as an oppressive burden, and a dragging fetter, and partly, whithersoever we turn, encounters us, and seeks to block up our way. 3. The most powerful incitement, and the surest means against that relaxing of effort which has its ground in spiritual feebleness, is an uninterrupted looking to Jesus, the perfected hero of faith, the greatest sufferer, the perfect conqueror, the theanthropic helper. “He has preceded us in the race of faith, and has opened the way, in commencing for us the struggle of faith. But He is also at the same time the perfecter of faith, infusing by His redemption into the believing combatants the power to achieve all and to bear off the victory.” Thus Von Gerlach, not incorrectly, and yet not exhaustively, for Jesus is a, pattern and helper in our race and conflict of faith, only in so far as in His own life He has wrought out and exhibited the personal living image of this course and conflict in its entire perfection. The idea that Jesus is to be regarded merely as an object, and not also as a subject, of faith, entirely destroys, when logically carried out, alike the reality of His history and the genuineness of His moral and religious perfection, and thus comes into direct conflict, not merely with the representations of the evangelists, as, for example, respecting our Saviour’s life of prayer, but also the entire conception and scope of our Epistle. For this in the very passage before us runs a parallel between our struggle with the adversaries of the Gospel and the struggles of the Redeemer, and also in the case of Jesus it regards His continuance in the conflict as the condition of his τελείωσις, which again harmonizes entirely with the representation given at Philippians 2:9 (comp. Thol.). AND The witnesses, the enemies, and the auxiliaries of our conflict of faith.—The Christian’s course of life, a course of suffering, and a race for victory.—Jesus the archetype and prototype of believers who go through suffering to glory.—Steadfastness in faith, in its necessity, its difficulty, and its practicability.—What occasions us to faint, and what secures us against it.—The greatest sufferer is the most valiant hero. He who is most disciplined can best help others.—How they who are withdrawn from us still remain near to us. Starke:—What noble incitements have we in our conflict of faith! Christ who has preceded us in it, and supplies us with all power for it; a cloud of witnesses of faith, who have set us an example in this conflict; and the benefit of this conflict, whose fruit is eternal bliss.—Sin must be borne as a life-long companion, even by the children of God, and they have therein an enemy on which they may exercise their spiritual knighthood.—Although sin cleaves to man, it is not the essence of man; hence in heaven the elect are perfect.—God Himself arranged the knightly combat and the place of the tournament; on this every Christian must plant himself, and display his deeds of Christian prowess.—In the work of salvation every thing depends on Jesus.—The best lightening of the burden of the cross is that thou look away from it unto Jesus.—If thou hast not joy in the world, rejoice in thy cross; speedily enough thou wilt attain to true joy and glory.—It is the nature of man to shrink from the cross; hence we need to arouse and incite ourselves to the bearing of the cross that is so useful to us.—If we are assailed on account of our right doing in Christ, we should console ourselves with the example of Christ, strengthen our courage, and remember that we shall be abundantly rewarded in heaven (Matthew 5:11-12).—However much we may suffer for the name of Christ, Christ has still suffered far more for our sakes. Rieger:—Faith does not sleep, but watches and runs; yet neither does it hasten; but it waits in patience, and thus the prescribed conflict is accomplished, extremes on both sides avoided, and the way of truth preserved.—Faith looks to Jesus Christ, and is thus drawn into his footsteps. Hahn:—Presumption and timid unbelief are the two capital faults against which patience alone can aid by preserving us in true moderation, and in the middle path. Heubner:—The true use of biblical types and patterns is not idle and unfruitful contemplation, but imitation.—Sin is the heaviest burden that drags us down to earth.—Christian virtue is a free, cheerful wrestling and running after the heavenly jewel. The spirit must be deaf to a certain shame; the bearing of such shame leads to the highest honor.—That which allures and misleads in sufferings is this, that we must allow ourselves to find pleasure in those who are sinful and unworthy. Menken:—Walk like Jesus! and that thou mayest walk like Him, walk with Him; and thus-shalt thou walk to Him. Harless (IHebrews Hebrews 12:5):—Wherein lies the courage of a true Christian? Gerok:—The glorious cloud of witnesses about the throne of the Redeemer of the world: 1. their bloody wounds; 2. their glorious banner; 3. their heavenly crowns. G. von Zetzschwitz (Testimonies of the good Shepherd, 1864):—Looking to Jesus is our comfort and victory in all conflicts and sufferings. For looking to Jesus involves 1. at the commencement of the struggle, looking immediately to the victorious issue: 2. if it continues long, seeing before us the highest model of patience; 3. recognizing in suffering itself a comforting seal of our Divine sonship. Footnotes: Hebrews 12:2.—The Perf. κεκάθικεν has the sanction of all the uncials and most of the minusc., as against the Rec. ἐκάθισεν. [The Eng. ver. correctly, as to the sense, is set down]. Hebrews 12:3.—The reading εἰςἑαυτόν(instead of εἰςαὑτόν or εἰςαὑτόν, which is found in D***. K. L., and nearly all the minusc, is directly sustained by A. and the Vulg.; indirectly by the senseless plurals, εἰςἑαυτούς.in D. E., Pesh. and Sin. II Their sufferings are profitable chastisements of the paternal love of God Hebrews 12:4-134    Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin. 5And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children [sons], My son, despise not thou [make not light of] the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou are rebuked [while being probed, corrected, ἐλεγχόμενος] of [by] him; 6For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. 7If ye endure chastening [It is for chastisement that ye endure], God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he [who is a son] whom the father chasteneth not? 8But if ye be [are] without chastisement, whereof all are [have become] partakers, then 9are ye bastards, and not sons. Furthermore [εἶτα, then, then again], we have had [we had, used to have the] fathers of our flesh which [who] corrected us [as chasteners], and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits and live? 10For they verily [indeed] for [or, with reference to] a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might [may] be partakers of his holiness. 11Now no chastening for the present [in respect indeed to the present] seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless [but], afterward it yieldeth the peaceable [peaceful] fruit of righteousness unto them which are [which have been] exercised [disciplined] thereby. 12Wherefore lift up [right up again] the hands which hang down, and the feeble [relaxed] knees; 13And make straight paths for your feet, lest [that] that which is lame [may not] be turned out of the way; but let it [may] rather be healed. [Hebrews 12:4.—ἀντικατέστητε, ye resisted, Aor.; Words, lays stress on the Aor.=“as ye might have done on several occasions.” Alf., with most, makes it=perfect. With οὔπω the Aor. rendering is harsh, unless we render not in any way, not at all, and take ἀντικατ. of a specific internal conflict with the sin of disobedience and apostasy, as the Saviour’s in Gethsemane; then μέχριςαἵματος, refers to the Saviour’s sweating drops of blood. I incline with Barnes to this interpretation. Hebrews 12:5.—ἐκλέλησθε, ye have forgotten, much better than interrog., have ye forgotten? as Bl., De W., Lόn., in order to soften what otherwise seems too harsh; but this forgetting is virtually assumed below, and the interrog. would be awkward.—ὀλιγωρεῖν, make little account of, not so strong as despise.—ἐλεγχόμενος, while being probed, sifted, corrected, rather than rebuked. Hebrews 12:7.—εἰςπαιδείανὑπομένετε, so the best authorities; it is for chastening or discipline that ye are enduring. Alf. argues that ὑπομένειν can hardly have the incidental meaning which the ordinary reading requires.—τίςγάρἐστινυἰός,for who is a son?Hebrews 12:8.—μέτοχοιγεγοναμεν, we have become partakers.Hebrews 12:9.—έἶτα, then, in the next place. Unless we take έἶτα as a particle of indignant emotion, which I think better. This would indeed require, in a regular construction, οὐπολὺδὲμἀλλον (not as Bl. and Alf., καὶοὐπολὺμᾶλλον); but that the author began with this construction in his mind, is shown by the μέν after τούς, which has not its answering δέ. Hebrews 12:10.—πρὸςὀλίγαςἡμέρας, with reference to a few days, or, perhaps, with Moll, etc., during.Hebrews 12:11.—τοῖςδἰἀυτῆςγεγυμνας, to those that have been trained by means of it.—ἀποδίδωσιν, it renders back, yields.—δικαιοσυνης, emphatically placed. Hebrews 12:12.—ἀνορθώσατε, right up, bring back to erectness or straightness.—παρεινένας, slackened, unstrung.—παραλελυμένα, paralyzed, relaxed. Hebrews 12:13.—καὶτροχιὰςὀρθὰς, etc., is a regular Dactylic Hexameter: ἴναμὴτὸχωλὸνἐκτραπῆ, part of an Iambic trimeter, as in Hebrews 12:14, οὗχωρὶςοὐδεὶςὄψεταιτὸνκύριον, is a perfect Iambic verse.—K.]. AND Heb_12:4. Resisted unto blood.—The expression is hardly a figure drawn from boxing (Beng., Bl., Del.), but denotes a bloody death (Wieseler), with a reference to the death of Jesus, and implies that the readers have indeed already been subjected to acts of violence (Hebrews 10:32 ff.), but have not as yet, like earlier members of the Church (Hebrews 13:7), been persecuted unto death, but rather are in their conduct, shielding themselves from such perils, and forget the import of the sufferings which God destines for His children. A moral struggle against their own sin, and one in which they have not put forth their utmost exertions (so recently again Holtzmann in the Stud. und Krit., 1859, II.) is here not intended. [I incline to think it is, and that in this consists the rebuking character of the language.—K.]. Sin appears here as an objective worldly power, as it appears in particular in the enemies of the Gospel, and prepares the same suffering for the disciples, as for the Lord. Hebrews 12:5. And ye have forgotten, etc.—If with Calv., Beza, Bl., Lόn., etc., we take these words interrogatively, the tone of reproof is softened [and the passage enfeebled]. The citation is from Proverbs 3:11-12, where in Heb. the concluding clause runs, “and as a father to the son, He is good to him” (or, receives him kindly). instead of εּ ?λְ ?ΰָ ?α the Sept. read either ιְ ?λָ ?ΰֵ ?α or as Job 5:17, ιַ ?λְ ?ΰִ ?α, he occasions pain. The Cod. A. of the Sept. reads with fifteen other MSS. παιδεύει; the remainder have ἐλέγχει. Hebrews 12:7. For chastisement.—The lect. rec. εἰ has the parallels, Hebrews 12:8, in its favor; still this cannot decide us against the authorities, which by no means present us an unmeaning clerical error, but assign the object of the suffering, which is the first mentioned παιδεία. Εἰς, denoting purpose, is frequent in our Epistle, Hebrews 4:14; Hebrews 3:5; Hebrews 4:16; Hebrews 6:16; Hebrews 9:15; Hebrews 10:19; Hebrews 11:11. The Indic. construction corresponds better with the connection (Chrys., Del.) than the Imper. (Ebr.), especially considering the pregnant signification of ὑπομένειν and the δέ in Hebrews 12:8. Again τίς is not to be taken adjectively with υἱός (Bl., De W., Thol., Lόn.), nor as predicate=of what sort perchance is the son? (Bφhme) but as a substantive, as also υἱός and πατήρ, are without the article. Thus the sense is, according to Del., “where is there one who stands in truth in the relation of son, whom He does not chastise, who stands to Him in truth in (the relation of father?” Hebrews 12:9. Again, [in the next place].—εἶτα continues the argumentation.—To take the word as ironical, or as a question of surprise=to ita ne (Valck., Alberti, etc.) is consistent with classical usage, but is here forced, besides which also, the second member of the sentence should have commenced with καί. Father of spirits.—This is not Christ (Hammond), but God, who, however, receives this designation not as one caring for our souls (Bφhm. after Morus, and others), nor as bestower of the gifts of the Spirit (Theodoret), nor in the moral sense, as Father, in respect to the higher spiritual province of life (De W., Ebr., Lόn.); but inasmuch as all spirits are derived from Him (Thol., Del., Riehm). We must not, however, refer the “spirits” exclusively to angels (Chrys., �c., Theoph.); nor find here a one-sided and extreme statement of creatianism (Calv., Beng., Este, Carpz., etc.), but only a moderate and authorized form, as at Hebrews 7:10, of Traducianism. Hebrews 12:10. For a few days.—The πρός stands here, and Hebrews 12:11; Luke 8:13; 1 Corinthians 7:5; 2 Corinthians 7:8; 1 Thessalonians 2:17, of the duration of the chastisement. The majority of expositors, with Calvin, regard the “few days” as the days of our earthly life; and thus find a contrast expressed between the purpose of the chastisement of children by our earthly parents, as being with reference to, or for (πρός), a few days, and the eternity, which is the end and scope of the Divine chastisements. Such an interpretation, however, introduces at once a false statement into the first member of the antithesis—that, viz: which restricts the end of human training in all cases to our earthly life, and creates a contrast for which the original furnishes no basis. But neither, on the other hand, is the πρὸςὀλίγαςἡμέρας to be attached equally to both members of the antithesis, as stating the common period of time during which, for their respectively different purposes, and in their different ways, the human and the Divine training are carried forward (Bleek, etc.). The few days point to the brief period of minority, during which, as shown by the Imperfect ἐπαίδευον, the readers, as children, were the subjects of parental discipline. But neither again does the author contrast with this limited period of parental training the life-long continuance of the Divine education. Of this the text contains nothing whatever. Its phraseology shows rather that any such special contrast with πρὸςὀλίγαςἡμέρας is utterly out of the author’s mind; and, in fact, Delitzsch is obliged to extract it artificially and unnaturally from the εἰςτὸμεταλαβεῖντῆςἁγιότητοςαὑτοῦ, making πρός unite the ideas of time and purpose, and εἰς those of purpose and result, while the clause with πρός expresses the limit as to time, and that with εἰς that of aim and object. The diversity of the human and the Divine παιδεία is briefly given in their respective characteristic features, and the preλminence of the latter is urged upon the attention of the readers (who have had personal experience of the former), that they may the more willingly submit themselves to it. The abstract ἁγιότης is found elsewhere only at 2Ma 15:2. [In regard to the construction of the vexed passage above, we may, in the first place, set aside at once the idea of Wets., Storr, Kuin., Bφhm., and Bleek, that πρὸςὀλίγαςἡμέρας is to be understood of the second member of the sentence, as implying a restriction in the time of the discipline, alike of the human and the Divine, both being confined to the present life. This, however true, is clearly not expressed in the sentence; πρὸςὀλίγαςἡμέρας belongs only to the first member. But, so restricted, are we to explain it as “for, i.e., during a few days,” viz: the few days of our minority, in which we were subject to their chastisement, or, as “with reference to a few days,” viz., the days of our earthly life? The objection to this latter, hinted at by Moll, and more fully expressed by Alford, viz., that it is not true that the discipline of earthly parents always “has regard only to the present life,” seems to me without force; inasmuch as the author’s statement is simply a general one, not referring to what may be the possible scope of the training of Christian parents, but what is the natural scope of human and earthly discipline as such. Alford’s next objection (as also Moll’s), viz., that the contrast thus implied between the transitory purpose of human chastisement, and the eternal purpose of the Divine, is superinduced on the passage because “there is not one word in the latter clause expressing the eternal nature of God’s purpose,” he subsequently answers himself by placing the πρὸςὀλίγαςἡμέρας in contrast with the ἐπὶτὸσυμφέρον, in which, he says, “we have set over against one another the short time during which, the temporary reference with which their chastisement was inflicted, and the great purpose implied as eternal from its very expression, as τὸσυμφέρον for an immortal being, in which he chastises us.” The question, then, is whether, with Moll, we are to take πρὸςὀλίγαςἡμέρας as simply like our “for=during a few days,” or, with many others, to take it as= “with reference to a few days.” If the former, then the clause κατὰτὸδοκοῦναὐτοἴς, of the first member is set over against the two clauses in the second. If the latter, then we have a double antithesis, and the question arises, whether we are to take it, with Alford, in the natural order of the clauses (“for a few days” against “for our profit,” and “according to their pleasure” against “in order to participate in his holiness”) or, with Delitzsch, chiastically, the second of the one corresponding to the first of the other, and the first of the one to the second of the other. It does not follow, however, necessarily, that, even if we take πρός, with reference to, there still is any such exact antithesis intended as either of these explanations implies. I incline, on the one hand, to take πρὸςὀλίγαςἡμέρας as in reference to a few days (which seems to me to have much more point than the other), and, on the other, to doubt even then if the writer intends any exactly balanced antithesis. He puts the two grand points of earthly correction, viz., its being but for and with reference to a few days, and its possessing, even in the best, the character more or less of arbitrariness, against the one grand point of the Divine, viz., its intrinsic and essential profitableness, in which, however, a contrast to both the other characteristics is virtually implied.—K.]. Hebrews 12:11. Peaceful fruit of righteousness.—As the tree which bears the fruit is the παιδεία, δικαιοσύνης cannot be the Gen. Subj.—as even recently Klee supposes. The Gen. is Gen. of apposition (James 3:18). The adj. εἰρηνικός stands in relation to δι’ αὐτῆςγεγυμνασμένοις, so that the παιδεία is regarded under the point of view of γυμνασία=ἀγών (Thol., Del., etc.). Hebrews 12:12. Wherefore raise up again, etc.—The first clause borrows both thought and language from Isaiah 35:3; the other from Proverbs 4:26. The Pass. Signif. given by many since and with Grot. to ἐκτρέπ., to be dislocated, distorted, is unsustained by usage. The original text, the expression of the Sept. ποίεισοῖςποσί, and partially the following clause with ἵνα, lead us to take the τοῖςποσίνὑμῶν, not as Dat. instrum. (It., Vulg., Luth., Bl., De W., Thol., Lόn.), but as Dat. commodi (Bφhm., Ebr., Del., Riehm, Alf.). [We may call attention to the lofty and rythmical character of the language here. Καὶτροχιὰςὀρθάς, etc., is a perfect Dactylic hexameter; ἵναμὴτὸχωλόν, etc., is a rough and irregular Iambic trimeter, while the general cast of the expression is decidedly poetic. See textual note, and Hebrews 12:14-15.—K.]. AND ETHICAL1. Sin which reigns in the world, and is mighty in the children of unbelief, is often also skilful to employ violent measures against the professors of the true faith, and to threaten not merely their property and honor, but their life. In such cases it behooves them to be faithful and obedient even unto death. 2. Yet even where matters do not come to extremities, still there are frequently sorrows and sufferings, painful and heavy. In them we must recognize not mere violent acts of men, not mere undeserved strokes of fortune, but the hand of God, yet still, as of a father who regards our interests, and by his discipline of suffering, is bringing into clear recognition, and stamping with the seal of validity, that filial relation to which he has received us in Christ. 3. There are, thus, sufferings which stand indeed in connection with our own sinfulness, and have the significance of chastisement, yet still are not punitive sufferings, such as would give us to taste the wrath of God, but strokes inflicted by Divine love, as means of paternal chastisement for the purpose of educating us for the heavenly kingdom. 4. If we recognize this Divine purpose, and find in the painful, yet salutary chastisings, a recognition, confirmation, and development of our filial relation to God, then we shall all the more readily submit ourselves, in humility and patience, to these chastisements, which have their ultimate ground in the love of God, and their true end and aim in His desire for our salvation, the more clearly we perceive that this loving chastisement of our heavenly Father immeasurably transcends that of earthly fathers. 5. This submission is entirely authorized, obligatory and salutary: for, while our parents can only endow us with merely natural life, but cannot change our fleshly nature, and during our minority are influenced by personal, and sometimes selfish views, in the application of the means of chastisement, so that the results are often either inconsiderable or uncertain, God, as the Father of spirits, is also the author of our spiritual nature, and by the means of education which He employs, makes us partakers of His holiness, of the Divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). Thus life, in its fullest sense, is the consequence of such a subjection to the dispensations and leadings of God; and the end of this discipline of suffering, is a fruit which consists in righteousness, and the taste of which is peace. 6. “The entire falling away of the unconfirmed, wavering members of the Church, can be guarded against, and their recovery be rendered possible, only by the opening of straight paths on the part of the entire body, only by their going forward in a plain, simple, upright course of thought, confession and action, which shall exercise upon the weak such a salutary and restorative influence as straight and even paths upon lame and diseased feet” (Del.). AND If God comforts us as a father, we must allow ourselves to be chastised as children.—Points of likeness and unlikeness in human and Divine education.—That which pains, comforts, and blesses us in sufferings.—The sweetness, not only of the means, but of the mode of God’s comforting us in suffering.—Our filial relation to God teaches us not lightly to regard afflictions, not to faint in them, but to be improved by them. Starke:—The thing which is not pleasant to us, we can easily forget (Psalms 88:13); but he who often calls to mind the cross, will be less surprised by it when it comes (1 Peter 4:12).—To make an honest application to one’s self, is the most important thing in the reading of the Holy Scripture (Romans 4:23-24).—The dearer a child the sharper his discipline under the rod.—The community of sufferings which visits in the world all the brethren, is the consolation of all the children of God.—Do not vex thyself in relation to long continued sufferings; our whole life is but short.—We must regard the cross not in reference to our outward sensibilities, as being painful and afflictive to flesh and blood; but according to the salutary uses which God brings out of it (Romans 8:17).—Every cross has a bitter beginning, but a sweet termination.—In tears lies hidden the seed of all joy and glory.—Hands and feet should, in the spiritual sense, be properly employed; the former for valiant strife, the latter for nimble running.—The stumbler must not be immediately rejected, but restored and raised up with words of comfort and admonition (Psalms 73:2; Psalms 17:15). Rieger:—Those are sure steps which are made in accordance with the course and conflict which God has ordained, with our eye on the goal of joy and glory that is set before us, and in confidence in the grace of God, accompanying us at every step. Heubner:—How much less are our sufferings than the sufferings of the early Christians! Now, those who confess Christ have peace. This should shame, warn, and incite us. Fricke:—Every chastisement of God is, in His children, a seed, which subsequently produces fruit. Footnotes: Hebrews 12:7.—Instead of εἰ read εἰς, after Sin. A. D. E. K. L., and most minusc. Reiche, however, defends the Rec. Hebrews 12:9.—Οὐπολὺμᾶλλον, sanctioned by Sin. A. D*., instead of the lect. rec. οὐπολλῷμᾶλλον. Hebrews 12:15.—Instead of διὰταύτης, we should read after A., 17, 67***, 137, 238, δι’ αὐτῆς, and instead of πολλοί, read after Sin. A., 47, οἱπολλοί. III Incipient apostasy must be counteracted by striving after union and sanctification Hebrews 12:14-1714 Follow peace with all men [om. men], and holiness, without which no man [none] shall see the Lord. 15Looking diligently lest any man fail of [fall short of] the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up, trouble you, and thereby [the] many 16be defiled; Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat [one meal] sold his birthright. 17For ye know how that [that also] afterward, when he would have inherited [though wishing to inherit] the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully [earnestly] with tears. [Hebrews 12:14.—μετὰπάντων with all, not “man;” the reference is doubtless to the brethren—any further reference would here be irrelevant.— οὗχωρὶςοὐδεὶςὄψεταιτὸνκύριονἘπισκοποῦντεςμήτιςὑστερῶνἀπό. Two strictly metrical lines of Iamb. Trimeter; poetic also in diction, as οὗχωρίς for χωρὶςοὗ or ἄνευοὗ. Hebrews 12:15.—With ὑστερῶν either ἦ is understood or (with De W., Lόn., Del., Alf., we must regard it as subject of ένοχλῇ, and in the resumption of the sentence ῥίζαπικρίας, is put in its place. In favor, however, of the other construction is that of πόρνος, which also requires ᾗ. The passage is imitated from Deuteronomy 29:18, where the Sept. ἐνχολῇκαὶπικρι̇α, would almost seem, and is deemed by Del., to have originated the similarly sounding ἐνοχλῇ. Still this is, on the whole, improbable, “especially as the Alexandrine copy of the Sept., which our author constantly used, has ἐνοχλῇ ?” (Alf.).—ῥίζαπικρίας, is evidently to be taken of persons, and persons inclined and tempting to apostasy.—οἱπολλοί, not many; but the many, the mass. Hebrews 12:16.—ἀντὶβρώσεωςμιᾶς, in exchange for one meal.Hebrews 12:17.—μετανοίας—εὗρε, I should put this in parenthesis in entire accordance with the usage of the author. μετανοίας also with Del., Alf., etc. (against Moll, who, however, seems undecided), I would refer to Esau, not to Isaac, and the following αὐτήν to εὐλογίαν, Alford’s objection to the latter, that ἐκζητήσας immediately takes up εὖρε, is by no means decisive. Ἐκζητήσος is the natural word, without any reference to the preceding εὗρεν and the μετὰδακρύωνἐκζητήσαςαὐτήν exactly describes Esau’s endeavors after the blessing, as recorded in Gen.—K.]. AND Heb_12:15. Fall short of the grace, etc.—Ὑ ?̔στερῖνἀπό expresses the idea of free agency and of guilt (Bφhme, etc.). With the participle ὑστερῶν either ᾖ is to be supplied as frequently in the classics after μή (Bφhm., Thol., etc., after the ancients), or the construction is broken, and subsequently so resumed, and completed with words from Deuteronomy 29:18 after the Cod. Alex. in the Sept., that while τὶςὑστερῶν would be properly the subject of ἐνοχλῇ, yet in place of it, on the resumption of the sentence, stands ῥίζαπικρίας (Bl., Lόn., Del.). Antioch. Epiph. is called, 1Ma 1:19, ῥίζαπικρίας. Hebrews 12:17. For ye know, etc.—Luth. erroneously after the Vulg. takes ἴστε imperatively, and is seriously stumbled at the general thought of the passage, inasmuch as he refers αὐτήν to μετάνοια (with Chrys., �c., Primas., Grot., etc.), and refers μετάνοια to the change in the mind of Esau. Hence sprang grave psychological difficulties, and a seeming antagonism, with the general teachings of Scripture. To take the clause with De W. objectively, would require that αὐτόν, sc. τόπον, should have been written. If we adhere to the certainly natural reference of αὐτήν to μετάνοια, we must (with most intpp. since Zwingle, Bez., among them Thol., Ebr., Bisp., Lόn.) understand the change of mind as applying to Jacob, not to Esau. We might, however, be tempted, on account of the special sense of μετάνοια in the N. Test., and inasmuch as Isaac has not been previously named, to refer (with Theophyl., Calv., Beng., Bl., Hofm., Del., Riehm) αὐτήν to εὐλογίαν. This yields also the unobjectionable idea that the tears shed on account of the loss of the blessing remained ineffectual, inasmuch as he found in himself no place for repentance. But in that case we must, on the one hand, take this explanatory clause, “for he found,” etc., as parenthetical, which is entirely foreign to the style of the author (for Hebrews 7:11 and Hebrews 12:20, are by no means parallel;) and on the other hand, the sentiment which thus arises is, to be sure, in accordance with Hebrews 6:4-6; Hebrews 10:29, but not with the record of the life of Esau. The opinion of Del. that Esau is here presented as a type of that unpardonable sin of apostasy, which draws after it inevitable damnation, finds no support in the text itself. But the seeking with tears for the change of mind in his father, and the father’s repelling of his entreaties, are recorded Genesis 27:34-38. [To me Moll’s objections to the view which he rejects seem by no means conclusive. That the parenthesis is not opposed to the genius of our author’s style, can be shown by several examples, as Hebrews 7:11; Hebrews 7:19; Hebrews 7:20-21; Hebrews 10:7; Hebrews 10:23, in all of which a parenthesis is most naturally assumed. In the second place it seems by no means necessary to assume here that the personal character of Esau is in question, at least as to his ultimate repentance and individual salvation. But he held a position and enjoyed a prerogative of inestimable importance. As Isaac’s first-born he was his natural heir, and thus naturally the inheritor of the blessings covenanted to Abraham; naturally, in the line of Theocratic descent. That prerogative he recklessly threw away. He valued so little the privilege connected with the promise and covenant of God, that he forfeited it for the single gratification of his sensual appetite. The forfeiture was fixed and fatal. When he would have recovered it he was rejected, discarded, reprobated (ἀπεδοκιμάσθη), and no repentance was of any avail to secure the recovery of the once discarded and abandoned blessing. Thus his example is a most happy and forcible one for the author. He stands, as suggested by Del., as the type of him who wantonly turns away and rejects with carnal and sensual mind the blessings of God’s spiritual covenant. In his case, indeed, there is perhaps no necessity of supposing that the rejection was such as to shut him out from the kingdom of heaven. But he was inexorably excluded from the high position which he would have held as one of the line of God’s covenant people, and one of the ancestors of the Messiah, and his example is a most striking and pertinent one for the purpose of our author. I believe, therefore, that αὐτήν refers to εὐλογίαν, that the clause “for he found,” etc., is parenthetical, and that μετάνοια refers to the change in Esau’s own mind: repentance was impossible, i.e., any such repentance as could restore to him the once forfeited theocratic blessing, and that thus the doctrine is strikingly parallel and analogous to (though not precisely identical with) the author’s elsewhere repeatedly expressed doctrine of the hopelessness of the condition of the apostate.—K.]. AND ETHICAL1. With a steadfast constancy in our Christian profession, there must be associated a corresponding walk, an advancement in holiness. Great hinderances to this arise when, along with outward afflictions, there spring up internal divisions, and a spirit of contention becomes prevalent in the Church. This is all the more in opposition to the Lord’s will, by as much as we are not merely to seek to come into relations of peace with all the brethren, even with those of different views from our own, and to preserve and cherish these relations, but also, so far as in us lies, to live in peace with all men (Romans 12:18). 2. Fellowship with the Lord, and the certainty by means of this, of yet beholding God, should not be made dependent on external things, but we should ever bear in mind that with unspiritual modes of feeling, and with a failure in sanctification, the possession of salvation is impossible, and our claim to the inheritance is lost. To our seeing of God a fulfilment of the required conditions is indispensable, Psalms 17:15; Psalms 42:3; Matthew 5:8; 1 John 3:2; Revelation 22:3-4. 3. The Divine fulness of peace and holiness may and should serve as an example to the Church; but the appropriation of these, and reproduction in our own life, demands a zealous and continued endeavor, and a mutual brotherly, coφperation, in order that none may so withdraw himself from grace that it can no longer influence him, or be beyond his reach. 4. The roots of bitterness, those poisonous plants which, springing up, disquiet and molest a Church, as the field and vineyard of God, and bring contagion and ruin to the individuals who come in contact with them, and of whom there are but too many, are of various kinds; but preλminently dangerous is that impure and worldly feeling which, for the sake of fleeting charms of sense, and momentary enjoyments, half recklessly, half thoughtlessly, sacrifices the blessing of the promise, and a title to an inheritance in the kingdom of God. 5. As there are fruitless tears, which have no influence on the improvement and purifying of our own heart, because they stand in no connection with actual repentance, so there are also tears shed too late, and therefore in vain, which are of no avail to change the purposes of others, and have no power to modify the lot which a person has previously chosen for himself. A repentance, however, sought sincerely and earnestly, and yet in vain, is, according to the tenor of Scripture, as completely unsupposable as is a truly penitent and yet ineffectual seeking of the grace of God for the forgiveness of sin within the limits of our temporal life. AND Better seasonably preserve a good than mourn for it when too late.—They who most zealously strive for their own sanctification, care most earnestly for the salvation of others.—He who is intent on seeing God must be in earnest in securing sanctification.—From what source the pursuit of peace derives its power, and wherein it finds its limits. Starke:—It is lovely and beautiful to live in peace with all men, so far as it can be done with a good conscience. Yet if we cannot always be at peace, still we must never give occasion for quarrelling and strife (Psalms 133:1; 1 Corinthians 11:16).—Great wisdom and careful keeping of our conscience are required, that we may neither from fear of men omit in our works or suppress in our words any thing which ought to be done and spoken, and that in neither do we say any thing which may breed dissension, and which either had better been entirely omitted, or might have been done or uttered in a better manner (Proverbs 13:10).—He who will not be born anew with Christ, to him His birth is of no avail. He who will not die to sin with Christ, to him His death is of no avail. He who will not rise from sin in Christ, His resurrection is of no avail (Acts 3:26; Colossians 3:1; John 3:3; John 3:5; 1 Peter 2:24).—If hatred has sprung from wrath, and the hatred continues until the sun has repeatedly set upon it, the seated hatred roots itself in the heart, and becomes a noxious plant not easily eradicated.—A Christian should be watchful over his fellow, that he may exhort him to that which is good.—There are in the Holy Scripture bad and good examples, which prove that the devil has for a long time carried on his wickedness, and that we must not indiscriminately appeal to ancient examples (1 Corinthians 11:1).—Oh, how many brethren of Esau are abroad in the world, who sell for temporal pleasures the prerogative of their birth-right, the kingdom of heaven! Woe to those who follow after them (2 Timothy 3:4). Rieger:—We think that we are in the right, and that we are seeking nothing but the right; but we seek it in such a way that love, peace, compassion, are sacrificed in the pursuit, and we defile our spirits with many a stain, in which we also involve many others. He who cannot be induced to carefulness in regard to apparently small matters, will never be in genuine earnest. A mess of pottage could do Esau so much harm!—A cup of cold water may receive a reward.—To will while God wills, and awakens our own will, this effects good. To will, when grace and the season of grace have been neglected, and the door has been shut, will be in vain, and will prove no small part of one’s eternal shame and suffering (Matthew 7:22-23; Luke 13:25). Hahn:—A single act can work great ruin. Much is often lost in a brief space; for the sake of a small thing we often surrender that which is great. The false hope of its recovery we see in the example of Esau. Heubner:—Peace would seem not to be sinful neglect, but connected with a strict adherence to the will of God.—The reward of Christian sanctification is glorious. It is the necessary condition of blessedness.—By deferring our reformation, Divine grace is often trifled away.—It is a duty to keep the Church pure, and to guard against the influence of seducers; the whole Church is defiled, dishonored and poisoned.—How miserable is the reward bestowed by sin, and how infinitely great the loss of the sinner.—Though those who come to late repentance may obtain indeed a Seir, yet it is not Canaan. Ahlfeld:—In sanctification the Holy Spirit transforms us into the image of Christ: 1. Why should we be in earnest in regard to this sanctification? 2. Whence do we acquire the power to attain it? 3. Wherein do we perceive that we grow in it? 4. What is its goal and termination? Menken:—The grace of God and the sanctification of our own nature, peace with God and with ourselves, and the love of peace, and a peaceful tone of feeling and of conduct in our relation with others, stand in indissoluble connection, and in the degree in which we are participant in the first, will the other also be found with us. Footnotes: Hebrews 12:16.—Instead of ἀπέδοτο is found in A. C., the form ἀπέδετο, which is not an error of the copyist, but frequently occurs in the New Testament, as a specimen of forms of the later vulgar idiom. See Alex. Buttmann’s Gramm. of the New Test. Idiom, p. 41. Hebrews 12:18.—Even Tisch. has (in Edd. 11, IV., VII.) replaced in the text the indispensable ὄρει after ψηλαφ., following D. K. L. and nearly all the minusc., although it is wanting in Sin. A.C., 14, 17, and many ancient translations, and hence is suspected by Mill as a gloss, and rejected by Lachm., Tisch. I., and Alford. [With Tisch., Moll, etc., I should retain it, regarding this as a case (like Ἐχομεν, Romans 5:1) in which the internal evidence overbalances stronger external testimony on the other side.—K.]. IV We are held under obligation to this by the nature of the New Covenant Hebrews 12:18-2418 For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched [to a mountain that is handled], and that burned with fire [and to burning fire], nor [and] unto blackness, 19and darkness, and tempest, And [to] the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words, which voice [om. voice] they that heard entreated [deprecatingly begged, παρῃτήσαντο, that the word should not be spoken to them any more [that (further) speech might not be added to them]: 20(For they could not endure [endured not] that which was [om. was] commanded, And if so much as [Even if] a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart [om. or thrust through with a dart]: 21And so terrible was the sight, that [And—so fearful was the spectacle—] Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake). 22But ye are come unto Mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, 23To the general assembly and church of the first-born [and to myriads, a festal company of angels and the congregation of the first-born], which are written [who are registered] in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all [or, and as Judge, to the God of all], and to the spirits of just men made perfect, And to Jesus the mediator of the [a] new covenant, 24and to the blood of sprinkling that speaketh better things than that of [more mightily than] Abel. [Hebrews 12:18.—ψηλαφωμένω, scil., ὄρει, to a mountain that is felt of, handled, palpable to touch=material and earthly.—καὶκεκαυμένῳπυρί, and to kindled, hence, burning fire, better than burning with fire.Hebrews 12:19.—παρητήσαντο, etc., begged off against any further word being said to them; παραιτεῖσθαι, to beg off for oneself, to deprecate, not=αἰτεῖσθαιπαράτινος (as Alf.), but παρά, with force of aside from, against.Hebrews 12:20.—οὐκἔφεροντὸδιαστελλόμενον, they did not bear that which commanded=the command. Hebrews 12:21.—καί—οὕτως. So, perhaps, it is better to punctuate, carrying καί over to τὸφανταζ., as otherwise a ὅτι, or ὥς with φανταζ., could hardly be dispensed with. Hebrews 12:22-23.—μυριάσινἄγγέλ. πανηγύρεικαὶἐκκλησία. The Eng. ver., an innumerable company of angels and the general assembly and church, etc., is rendered impossible by the absence of the conjunction before πανηγ. while again to connect πανηγ. with ἐκκλησία without the καί, involves an unaccountable departure from the general structure of the passage, in which all the other principal members are connected by καί. It remains then either to take μυριάσιν as a collective term distributed into the πανήγυρις of angels, and the ἐκκλησία of the first-born, or to take μυριάσιν as belonging only to the clause ἀγγέλωνπανηγύρει in which case again it is a question whether we are to read, “to myriads, a festal company of angels,” or, “to myriads of angels, a festal company.” In regard to the first construction, μυριάσιν is justly remarked by Moll to be naturally suggestive, from Old Testament associations, of angels, and it seems better so to restrict it. Thus restricted again, if μυριάσιν governs ἀγγέλ. the noun πανηγ. comes in as a dragging and halting apposition. With Moll, I prefer, therefore, “to myriads,” via., a festal host of angels. If (with Alf., etc.) μυριάσιτ covered both πανηγ. and ἐκκλησ., so elegant a writer would hardly have omitted τε after ἀγγέλων.—πανήγυρις, not merely a general assembly, but, a festal gathering, a joyful and jubilant host.—ἐκκλησ. πρωτο., perhaps better rendered by the indefinite art., “a congregation of first-born ones,” suggested by the case of Esau, who had to lose his birthright in order that Jacob might obtain it.—ἀπογεγ. ἐνοὐρ, registered., enrolled, whose citizenship is in heaven.—καὶκριτῆθεῷπάντων, and to God the judge of all, so E. V., etc., and still Alf., while among others Be Wette, Bleek, Lόn., Del. and Moll construct: “and as judge to the God of all,” which certainly has the order of the words, and I think the sentiment in its favor. Hebrews 12:24.—διαθ. νεᾶς, of a new covenant.—κρεῖττονλαλοῦντι, speaking better, or, more mightily.—παρὰτὸνΑβελ, in comparison with Abel.—K.]. AND Heb_12:18. Which is handled.—The pres. particip. can be scarcely regarded as=the verbal adjective in τος, hence ψηφαλώμενος is not=which might be touched, as is commonly maintained, nor=touched by God, i.e., by the lightning, and therefore, smoking (Beng., Storr, and others); but it expresses that which, in its nature, is material and perceptible to the sense. The position of ὄρει is opposed to the construction which would connect κεκαυμένῳ with it, and make πυρί dat. of the instrument (Bl., De W., Thol., Lun., etc.), with reference to Deuteronomy 5:23; Deuteronomy 9:15, etc. Del. also remarks, in defence of the coφrdinate construction of these words adopted by Erasm., Calv., Beza, Grot., Beng., etc., that also at Deuteronomy 4:36; and elsewhere “the great fire” is mentioned by itself. Σαλπίγγοςἤχῳ is borrowed from Exodus 19:16; φωνῇῥημάτων from Deuteronomy 4:12; the relative clause ἦς, etc., refers to Deuteronomy 5:22; Deuteronomy 18:16; comp. Exodus 20:18 ff.; the command, Hebrews 12:20, refers to Exodus 19:12 ff. To understand τὸδιαστελλόμενον as=that which is ordained (Storr, Schultz, etc.), is contrary to the New Testament usage, which employs the verb only as a middle. Hebrews 12:21. And—so fearful, etc.—The proper punctuation originated with Beza. Previously, καὶοὕτως were always taken together. Hebrews 12:21 is a heightening of the idea of 8–20; but the καἱ is not=also, or even (Carpz., Boehm., and others). This interpretation is inconsistent with its position in the clause. The words here ascribed to Moses are not found in the Scripture account of the giving of the Law. According to Calov, the author drew from immediate inspiration. According to Erasm., Beza, Schlicht., and others, from tradition. Recent commentators more correctly refer the words to Deuteronomy 9:19, where Moses expresses his fear of the wrath of God, after the defection of the people in worshipping the golden calf, by the words καὶἔκφοβόςεἰμι. Stephen, at Acts 7:32, in recounting the appearance of God in the burning bush, represents Moses as ἔντρομοςγενόμενος, which words, also, are not found at Exodus 3:6. Hebrews 12:22. To Mount Zion, and to the city of the living God, the Heavenly Jerusalem.—With Mount Sinai, the representative of the legislation of the Old Covenant (Galatians 4:24), is contrasted Mt. Zion as the city of the fulfilled Messianic promises (Psalms 48:3; Psalms 50:2; Psalms 78:68; Psalms 110:2; Psalms 132:13; Isaiah 2:2; Micah 4:1; Joe 3:5; Obadiah 1:17; Revelation 4:1), and as the true dwelling-place of God (Micah 14:3; Isaiah 26:21; Ezekiel 3:12). So also the Heavenly Jerusalem, which (Galatians 4:26) is also mentioned as Mother of the redeemed and truly free children of God, is contrasted with the earthly Jerusalem, the city of the great King (Matthew 5:35), as the city in which the living God, who is also its Founder and Architect (Hebrews 11:10; Hebrews 11:16), has not so much His dwelling-place as His people. That the contrast of the earthly and the heavenly is here arranged according to the sacred number seven (Beng., Del., Kluge), is not indicated in the text. Myriads, etc.—By the term “myriads,” we are involuntarily reminded of angels (Deuteronomy 33:2; Daniel 7:10; Judges 14). It is therefore very natural to regard angels also here as exclusively meant, and to take the term not as a collective conception, distributing itself into the two parts of a festal assemblage of angels, and the congregation of the first-born (as with Beng., Bl., De W., Ebr., Del., etc.). It is, indeed, in my judgment, most natural to conceive the angelic hosts “as a festal company” (Son 7:1), yet, as in apposition with ‘myriads;’ to which there is then subjoined the mention of the Christian church. For inasmuch as the term “myriads” does not of necessity, under all circumstances, denote angels, Numbers 10:36, it would be almost indispensable to add some specializing clause. Should we, on the contrary, connect ἀγγέλων not with πανηγύρει (Seb. Schmidt, Griesb., Knapp, etc.), but with μυριάσιν (Bez., Calov, Storr, Thol., Lόn., etc.), we must, in that case, either take πανηγ. as in opposition with μυριάσιν, which would be dragging and heavy, or connect it with the following, giving it quite another reference. Thol. makes, alongside of the ‘myriads of angels,’ a ‘festal company’ of glorified saints, who are already celebrating the Sabbath of the people of God (Numbers 4:19), and the community of Christians still walking upon the earth. To these latter the ἐκκλησίαπρωτοτόκων certainly has reference, inasmuch as they are said to be “registered or enrolled in heaven;” because by the introduction of their names into the book of life, they are registered as citizens of the kingdom of heaven, with an assured prospect of the heavenly inheritance, (Daniel 12:1; Luke 10:20; Philippians 4:3; Revelation 3:5; Revelation 13:8; Revelation 20:15); and they are called “First-born,” not in reference to the time of their conversion, whether understood of Apostles (Primas., Grot.), or of the earliest Jewish and Gentile believers (Schlicht., Bl., Ebr., etc.), or of those who have been glorified by martyrdom (De W.); but in reference to their dignity as “first-fruits of the creatures of God” (ἀπαρχὴτῶνκτισμάτωντοῦθεοῦ), James 1:18, Revelation 14:4; 2 Thessalonians 2:13 (Bφhm., Thol., etc.). [May there not be a reference in the term πρωτότοκος, here to the case of Esau, a little above alluded to, who sold his birth-right, πρωτοτόκια, and whose selling or parting with it was indispensable to its passing over to Jacob? In earthly families and relationships there can be but one first-born; the prerogative is restricted by the nature of the case. But in the family of God they are all ‘first-born.’ The congregation of ancient Israel was made up in but a small proportion of those who held this honor; but the spiritual church of the New Testament is a “community or congregation of First-born ones”—they are all first-born. This need not exclude the reference to the import of the term as given by the author.—K.]. The term ἀπογεγρ. forbids our referring the “first-born,” either to those already dwelling in heaven, or to angels, as the oldest inhabitants of heaven (Nφss., Storr, etc.), or to the patriarchs and saints of the Old Testament (Calv., Beng., Lόn., etc.), or to the glorified first fruits of Christianity (De W.); for the sealing borne by the 144,000, as their characteristic mark on the heavenly Zion (Revelation 14:1), and which had been already impressed upon them on the earth (Hebrews 7:3), is an entirely different thing from the registering of their names in the list of the citizens of the kingdom of heaven. But it is very questionable whether we are authorized to refer πανηγ. to the festal company of the glorified, as such a reference is in no way exegetically involved in the text. It were much more natural in such a coφrdination of πανηγύρει and ἐκκλησίᾳ in reference to the πρωτότοκοι, not, indeed, to adopt the view of Lόn., that the collective community of the first-born are characterized partly as a festal and exulting assemblage (πανηγ.); partly as bound in an inward unity (ἐκκλησ), but rather that of Hofmann, who finds in it the united and kindred designations of the church, partly as a religious and worshiping, partly as a political organization. But there is absolutely no ground apparent for this double representation; on the contrary, the absence in this case of the connecting particle καί between the two principal members would be entirely inexplicable. Hebrews 12:23. As Judge, to the God of all, etc.—[So Moll with many, instead of “to God, the Judge of all”]. We need absolutely assume no inversion (with the old translators and interpreters). The subject is the prerogatives of the Christian revelation; hence in regard to the Judge before whom the first-born, who are enrolled for the kingdom of heaven, i.e., Christians, are yet to appear, the comforting declaration is made that He is the God of all; i.e., stands in a positive religious relation to all the members of this community. This explanation is suggested by the context, and is entirely satisfactory. It makes also a natural connection with what follows. To take πάντων as neuter, thus designating the Judge who protects His people by His judgment, in His omnipotence as God over all beings and things (Del.) is totally unnecessary, and, in fact, would require ἐπί with πάντων. It is equally erroneous to find in the passage a reference to the narrow and bigoted conceptions of the Jews (Bl., De W., Lόn.). Spirits of the just made perfect.—By virtue of their religious communion with God the Christians, while yet living, stand in the same political fellowship to which the departed spirits of the righteous belong, not barely those of the Old Covenant (Schlicht., Bl., De W., Ebr., etc.), nor merely those of the New (Grot., Beng., Storr, Lόn., etc.), but of both (Bφhme, Thol., Bisp., Del., Riehm, Alf.). They are called τετελειωμένοι, not because they have completed their earthly life (Calv., Limb., Bφhme, etc.), and not in the sense of τέλειοι, perfect ones (Theophyl., Luth., etc.), but because Christ has brought them to the goal of perfection. For although they have not yet experienced the resurrection, and that ultimate perfection (τελείωσις) which is common to all the believers of the Old and the New Testament, still awaits them (Hebrews 11:40), yet Christ who descended and ascended, Ephesians 4:10, has already opened to them the gates of the realm of death (Revelation 1:18). Even before the resurrection they have been permitted to enjoy the presence of the Lord (Philippians 1:23; compare John 14:2). Hebrews 12:24. Jesus, mediator of a new covenant.—The writer selects the personal historical name of the Mediator, because by the death of the Incarnate One upon the cross, that covenant was effected which (Hebrews 8:8; Hebrews 8:13; Hebrews 9:15) was called καινή, as being new in its quality (f�dus novum), but is here called νεά which Bφhme, Kuin., and others here without ground regard as identical in meaning, but which rather characterizes this covenant as recent, as new in time and fraught with youthful vigor. AND ETHICAL1. The legislation of Mount Sinai has a threatening, and even fearful character, which brings out in strong relief the majesty of the God, who, by His voice indeed reveals Himself on earth, but remains Himself invisible; and in view of it fills sinful man with terror in the feeling that he stands exposed to the avenging lightnings of this Heavenly King, and has nothing to oppose to the thunders of His speech; so that, instead of rejoicing in the presence of God, he would rather flee from the stormy terrors of His approach, unless restrained by the hand and mandate of the Almighty. This fearful shuddering before God was felt even by the Mediator of God’s revelation to the world, inasmuch as He was only a man who Himself stood in need of a reconciling mediator. Although there existed an earthly place for the revelation of God, yet God still remained Himself unapproachable, and the natural phenomena in which He announced His presence, and indicated the character of His revelation for the time being, at the same time veiled His real essence. In accordance with this, the character of God’s Old Covenant people is only that of an external holiness and union with God, which expresses, and represents that which should be, but is unable to obtain and impart it. 2. Christians, on the contrary, are the true people of God, endowed with a citizenship in heaven, and with all the means of grace on earth, so that in their pilgrimage below, they are not merely blest with heavenly goods, but are transformed into the heavenly character, (Ephesians 2:6), and have their citizenship (πολίτευμα) in heaven (Philippians 3:20), with whose inhabitants they now already, as belonging to the kingdom of God, have fellowship, and their approach to which, as members of the New Covenant, is rendered possible by the blood of its Mediator, which brings them who are sprinkled with it into a gracious relation to the Judge, and which, as the blood of the Righteous One, who, in the power of an indestructible life, stands completely and forever in our stead, powerfully surpasses the cry of Abel for vengeance, who, murdered in his innocence, is not forgotten of God (Hebrews 11:4). 3. The mention of the “spirits of the just made perfect,” argues decisively alike against the assumption of a sleep of the souls of the departed, and against the doctrine of a purgatory. AND By what means we ascertain that the Mediator of the Old Covenant revelation was not the genuine Mediator.—The diversity of the voice of God in the Law and in the Gospel.—By our entrance into the Christian Church we come into communion with a heavenly world.—That which most terrifies us, most powerfully consoles, most tenderly allures.—Our connection with heaven, prepares us on earth to triumph over the world. Starke:—The glory of the New Covenant pledges all who live in it to the greater sanctity.—The law of the Most High is no child’s play; it commands and threatens. If we are unable to fulfil it, we must still fear in holy reverence, and seek protection with Him who has fulfilled it on our behalf.—Here on earth believers are really blessed and they pass in their blessed state of grace from one degree of blessedness to another.—See, we are to be citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem, associates with Christ, with the holy angels and the elect.—By faith, Christ dwells in our hearts; we have Him and enjoy Him; but in heaven we shall properly see Him, possess Him, and be satisfied. Hahn:—We are, as it were, so loaded down with grace, that it were the greatest ingratitude and insensibility if this did not spur us on.—The fact that a part of His people are still in a distant land, and some are already at home, is matter of no account with the Lord Jesus, and occasions Him no concern; for, in His own time, He will bring us all thither.—We have, in the Spirit, perpetual access on high, and perpetual enjoyment from on high. Heubner:—The Church of Christ on earth is a nursery for the Church of Christ in heaven.—The Christian alone has the hope of a blessed communion with all saints. Tholuck:—The greater the grace which is evinced toward us, the heavier our responsibility, if we refuse to heed it. Appuhn:—The children of God on earth and the children of God in heaven, are intimately united. Hedinger:—Grace, not wrath, is to quicken our obedience.—The fairer the city, the more cheerful and glad the service of its citizens. Footnotes: Hebrews 12:18.—Instead of καὶσκότῳ read, after Sin. A. C. D., 17, 31, 39, the more rare and elegant τῷζόφῳ. The former comes from Deuteronomy 4:11; Deuteronomy 5:22, and is added in Sin. by the corrector. [Hebrews 12:20.—The clause ἤβολίδικατατοξ. of the Rec. (but inserted after καὶοὕτως, Hebrews 12:21), is as deficient in authority as it is injurious to the rhetoric of the passage, and is rejected as an interpolation by all the best editors.—K.]. Hebrews 12:24.—Instead of κρείττονα, the uncials uniformly, and the minusc. generally read κρεῖττον. V The guilt and punishableness of apostasy stand proportionate to the blessings and obligations of the New Covenant Hebrews 12:25-2925 See that ye refuse not him that speaketh: for if they escaped not who refused him that spake [was uttering his oracles, χρηματίζοντα] on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven: 26Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I 27shake not the earth only, but also heaven. And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removal of those things that are [being] shaken, as of things that are made [as having been made], that those things which cannot be shaken [which are not shaken] may remain. 28Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved [not to be shaken], let us have grace [cherish gratitude] whereby we may [let us] serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear [with devout reverence and 29fear]: For [also] our God is a consuming fire. [Hebrews 12:25.—μὴπαραιτήσησθε, lest ye beg off from, decline, refuse; a verbal correspondence with παραιτήσ, Hebrews 12:19, which it is difficult to reproduce in English.—τὸνλαλοῦντα, him who is speaking, viz., God through Christ, as anciently through Moses.—παραιτησάμενοι, after refusing, or more exactly, when they refused. The Part, is not part of the subject, but is added predicatively to ἑκεῖνοι, or subject.—τὸνχρηματίζοντα, who was uttering heavenly oracles, declaring the divine will, not speaking as if=λαλοῦντα or λέγοντα—τὸνἀπ’ οὐρανοῦ him (who speaketh) from heaven—again God, speaking through Christ. Hebrews 12:26.—νῦνδέ, seemingly temporal, and in part so, as contrasted with τότε; but in my judgment still more decidedly logical=in the present state of things, as the case actually stands.—ἔτιἄπαξ, yet once, and once only. Hebrews 12:27.—τῶνσαλευ.of the things which are being shaken.—ὡςπεποιημένων, as having been made.—Ἱνα, I connect not (with Del., Moll, etc.) with πεποιημένων, but with μετάθεσιν, and hence put a comma after πεποιη. Hebrews 12:28.—βασιλ. ἀσάλευτον, a kingdom not to be shaken—“which cannot be moved,” of E.V., destroys the paronomasia.—ἔχμενχάριν, according to Greek usage, not, let us have grace, but, “let us exercise gratitude.”—μετὰεὐλαβείαςκαὶδέους; ‘with reverent submission and fear” (Alf.). Hebrews 12:29.—καὶγὰρ, for also, not “for even,” which would require ὁμέτερος, or a more emphatic position of ἡμῶν.—K.]. AND Heb_12:25. Him who is speaking, etc.—Inasmuch as the ἐπὶγῆςχρηματίζων must be not Moses, but God; inasmuch, too, as the words τὸνἀπ̓οὐρανῶν, sc. χρηματίζοντα can in like manner, as shown by the following οὖ, denote God alone, but the words just mentioned stand parallel with τὸνλαλοῦντα in the beginning of Heb 12:25, by the “speaker” here referred to must be understood, not Christ (�c., Primas., Bφhm., Ebr., etc.), but God. The emphasis is not laid on the diversity of the persons whom God employed in founding the Old and the New Covenant, but on the diversity in the modes of revealing one and the same God. “The Sinaitic revelation, belonging to the past, and the ever present and continued revelations to the Church of Christ, are placed in contrast with each other. At that time, He who was speaking to Israel had descended to earth; but He through whom God speaks to us is He who hath ascended to heaven” (Hofm., Del., in part, Bl.). Thus vanishes the imperfect antithesis censured by De W., produced by referring the speaking on earth to the earthly ministry of Christ, and then, with Thol., laying the emphasis on the fact that Christ had descended from heaven, that is, had not appeared among mankind in the ordinary and natural way; or, with Lόn., upon the fact that God had sent to us not an earthly man, as Moses upon Sinai, but His own Son, as His interpreter. For it might then be objected that the Son of God has appeared “upon earth,” but that God upon Sinai, without descending into the midst of Israel, had spoken “from heaven” (Exodus 20:22; Deuteronomy 9:13). The true explanation preserves and renders consistent the connection of the thought with the above mentioned blood of sprinkling. Hebrews 12:26. But now hath he promised.—The subject of ἐπήγγελται is contained in the preceding οὖ, and the whole sentence has sprung grammatically from blending into one two declarations; for the νῦν.δέ refers to the time of the incipient fulfilment of that which God has announced, Haggai 2:6 ff. Ἐπήγγελται is Perf. Pass, in a middle sense, as 4:21. Hebrews 12:27. Yet once for all.—The first shaking took place at the giving of the Law (Exodus 19:18), where, however, the Sept. translates λαός instead of ὄρος, for which reason our author refers doubtless to Judges 5:4-5; comp. Psalms 68:9; Psalms 114:7. A like display of Jehovah’s power is predicted by the prophets for the closing Messianic epoch, Micah 7:15; Habakkuk 3.; Haggai 2. The author follows the defective translation of the Sept. In the original it is said, “Yet one thing; it is a small matter.” This expansion of the time from Hosea 1:4 implies, according to Hitz. and Hofm., two things; namely, that the time from the present until the final grand consummation will constitute but one epoch, and that this will be a brief one. Thus the argument from the “yet once for all” (ἔτιἅπαξ) is sound as to the matter of fact, although in form it attaches itself to a false rendering. As having been made, etc.—Alike the expression, ὡςπεποιμένων, and the final clause following that, show that the shaking refers not to any convulsion accompanying the entrance of Christianity into the world (Coccei., a Lapid., Bφhm., Klee, etc.), but to the final consummation (Theodoret, Theoph., Erasm., Bez., Bl., Thol., etc.). Even at the creation God intended and prepared for the last and now commencing transformation of the changeable into the unchangeable, of what may be shaken into what cannot be shaken (Romans 8:21), or (as is said, Hebrews 4:4-9), for the sabbatism of the world. On account of this parallel with which Colossians 1:16; Ephesians 1:10 substantially coincide, the reference of the final clause with ἵνα to μετάθεσιν (Theod., �c, Bl., De W., Lόn., etc.) is quite improbable, and all the more so in that also the new heaven and the new earth are said to be created and made, Isaiah 65:17; Isaiah 66:22. In connecting ἵνα with ὧςπεποιημένων it is better with Grot., Beng., Thol., Hofm., Del., etc., to take μένειν in its usual signification, which has the authority of Isa 66:21, than in that of waiting for something (Storr, Bφhm., etc.), which occurs Acts 20:5; Acts 20:23, and frequently in the Sept. [Alford rejects, and I think with entire correctness, the, reference of the final clause to πεποιημένων, and retains the much more rational and entirely unobjectionable view that it is to be connected with μετάθεσιν. The characterization of “the things that are shaken” as “having been made in order that the things which are not shaken may remain,” to wit, by the removal of things which are shaken, is so forced and unnatural that nothing but necessity can justify our adopting this construction. On the other hand, its construction with μετάθεσιν seems to me open to no valid objection whatever. For, in the first place, although there is no strict logical causative connection between the removal of the things that are shaken and the remaining of the things that are not shaken, yet, as a popular form of expression, it is entirely natural. The changeable and temporary is easily conceived as being taken out of the way in order to give permanent place to the immutable and abiding. In the second place, the objection to taking τῶνπεποιημένων absolutely, as denoting simply things which have been made, i.e., created, drawn from the fact that the abiding and eternal, viz., the new heavens and the new earth are also represented as having been made, rests, I think, upon an entire misconception of the author’s point of view. He says nothing about “a new heaven and a new earth,” and there is no evidence that these specific things are in his mind. It is rather the great heavenly, spiritual elements of the new dispensation, as against the worldly, material, and perishable elements of the old. It is Mt. Zion as opposed to Mt. Sinai; the heavenly Jerusalem as opposed to the literal seat of the Old Theocracy; the heavenly sanctuary as against the earthly—and in short, the whole spiritual system of the New Testament, as against the things that have been made. The term τῶνπεποιημ. is therefore, from the author’s point of view, a precise and admirable characterization of the created and therefore perishable nature of the Old Test, economy.—K.]. Hebrews 12:28. Therefore since we, etc.—Διὀ introduces the following exhortation as a logical reference from the preceding verse, the special ground of the exhortation being given in the participial clause (Daniel 7:18). The absence of the article with βασιλείαν indicates that this clause is not, with Calv., Schlicht., Beng. and others, to be included in the exhortation itself. Nor may we, with Bez., Schlicht., Grot., Bisp., etc., render, “Let us hold fast the grace.” For then the article would be indispensable with χάριν, and, instead of ἔχωμεν, κατέχωμεν would be required (as Hebrews 3:6; Hebrews 3:14; Hebrews 10:23); or κρατῶμεν, as Hebrews 4:14. Hebrews 12:29. For also our God, etc.—Were the idea intended that our God also, the God of the New Test., as well as the God of the Old, is a consuming fire (Bl., De W., Thol., Bisp.), the reading should be καὶγὰρἡμῶνὁθεός. Yet neither again do the position of the words and the connection point to the thought that God is not merely a God of grace, but also of avenging justice (Lόn.). The passage merely designs to give, with a reference to Deuteronomy 4:24, a feature of the Divine character, and is not intended merely to give prominence to one attribute in comparison with another. Under this view, καὶγάρ is = etenim, as Luke 1:66; Luke 20:37 (Del., Riehm). AND ETHICAL1. We can refuse to receive and to follow that which God says to us; but we can escape neither the responsibility for such conduct, nor the judgment of God regarding it. 2. Our responsibility is rendered all the greater by the increased elevation and fulness of grace which characterize the revelation of God in the New Testament, a revelation standing related to that of the Old Testament, as heaven to earth. 3. This Christian revelation is at the same time the final and the complete one, so that nothing farther is to be looked for but the last convulsion of all things, which, at the second coming of the Lord, shall transform heaven and earth. 4. At the very creation of the world, God looked forward to, and made arrangements for the eternally abiding and unchangeable kingdom of glory, and to the introduction of that kingdom tend all the revelations, arrangements, and providences of God in the history of the world. 5. This everlasting kingdom shall we Christians as children of God, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ (Romans 8:17), receive into possession: for this we owe a debt of gratitude to God, which should evince itself in a service well pleasing to Him, which yields for us the highest gain, and has the richest promise (Psalms 50:23.) 6. This filial relation to God must beget neither an unbecoming familiarity, nor a false security, but must inspire a guarded caution and reverence such as belongs to the nature of God in which the fire of holy love consumes all that is unholy, and kindles to a flame all that is susceptible of life. AND God speaks with us; then He seeks us in His word; afterwards He judges us.—Every revelation of God is accompanied with great convulsions, and by movements in heaven and on earth. How stands our heart in relation thereto?—We can neither plead ignorance nor inability if we fail to escape the coming wrath.—The rejection of the highest grace, draws after it the heaviest punishment.—However different is the old covenant from the new, it is one God who speaks, judges, and saves, in both.—The world, however powerful and great it may be, cannot shield us against the wrath of God, and cannot rob us of the kingdom of God; but it can bring down upon us the one, and defraud us of the other.—The kingdom of nature is destined, through the kingdom of grace, to be transformed and exalted into the kingdom of glory.—The kingdom of God is the object of the creation; revelation is the means of its accomplishment. Starke:—In the duty of serving through the grace of God, of pleasing Him with reverence and fear, lies a beautiful connection of Law and Gospel.—Believers receive the kingdom, not as mere subjects, but as partners in sovereignty, who are jointly exalted to the throne of Christ, (Revelation 1:16; Revelation 3:21; Revelation 5:9 ff.), by virtue of their royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:9).—Alas! the world sins against the commands of God as securely as if there were no avenger; nay, it even makes a mock at sin. But God is a consuming fire (Psalms 2:11-12). Rieger:—God is without end in the gift, the Lord Jesus without end in the allotment, and we without end in the reception of the immovable kingdom; and thus we mount above everything which is subject to change. Heubner:—The glory of Christianity lays us under obligation for the highest gratitude. Hedinger:—Compulsory love is not the best. But the obligation to be godly is great; of this be not forgetful. Footnotes:Hebrews 12:25.—According to the best authorities we are to read ἐξέφυγονἐπὶγῆςπαραιτησάμενοιτὸνχρηματίξοντα, πολὺμᾶλλον. So also Sin. Hebrews 12:26.—Instead of σείω read σείσω, after Sin. A. C., 6, 47, 53. Hebrews 12:28.—The lect. rec. ἔχωμεν is supported by A. C. D. L. M., etc. So also the reading λατρεύωμεν. Sin. has in both cases the Indic. Hebrews 12:28.—Instead of μετὰαἰδοῦςκαὶεὐλάβείας read μετὰεὐλαβείαςκαὶδεους, after Sin. A. C. D *., 17, 71, 73, 80, 137. OF THE EPISTLE A Moral exhortations of a more general character Hebrews 13:1-61 Let brotherly love continue. 2Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares. 3Remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them; and [om. and] them which suffer adversity, as being yourselves also in 4the body. Marriage is honourable in all [Be marriage held in honor in all things], and the [be its] bed undefiled: but [or for] whoremongers and adulterers God will Judges 5 Let your conversation [disposition, or mode of life] be without covetousness; and be [being] content with such things as ye have: for he [himself] hath said, I will never 6[by no means] leave thee, nor [will I at all] forsake thee. So that we may boldly [with confidence] say, The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me [I will not fear; what shall a man do unto me?]. [Hebrews 13:2.—τῆνφιλοξενίαν, hospitality.—διὰταύτης, by means of this.—ἔλαθονξενίσ., escaped notice entertaining=entertained unawares; the Aor. pointing back historically to the time of the event. Hebrews 13:3.—Is more forcible with the asyndeton of the original; the and is unnecessary and enfeebling.—τῶνκακουχουμένων, those in distress. Hebrews 13:4.—The Imperat. is (with Moll, Del., Alf., etc.) much better than the Ind. construction of the Eng. ver. We might hesitate to supply the Imperat. rather than the Indic., but we must do so in Hebrews 13:5, and there is no difficulty here, because the imperative idea which belongs to all the preceding clauses, would naturally be transferred to this, in the absence of the verb.—Ἐνπᾶσιν in all things; with persons παρὰπᾶσιν, would be more natural (Moll, Alf.). Hebrews 13:5.—ὁτρόπος, habit, disposition; Moll: Sinnesart; Alf.: mode of life.—ἀρκούμενοιτοῖςπαροῦσιν, being contented, with what ye have.—αὑτοςγάρ, for he himself.—οὐμήσεἀνῶ, οὐδ’ οὐμήσε, etc., much more emphatic than the construction of the Eng. ver., “I will by no means leave thee, nor will I by any means abandon thee.” Hebrews 13:6.—θαρροῦντας, with confidence.—καὶοὐφοβηθήσομαι: Sin. follows Vulg., etc., in omitting καί; Alf., Del., Moll etc., retain it. But all agree in reading the following clause, as an independent question, τίποιήσ., etc., what will a man do unto me? AND Heb_13:1. Continue.—The form of the injunction shows that the brotherly love, once so prevalent in the church, i.e., the mutual love of Christians, must, at the time of the composition of our Epistle, have still been active in it, as indicated also at Hebrews 6:10; Hebrews 10:32 ff.; while Hebrews 10:26 shows the necessity of their being exhorted to the practice of this virtue. This brotherly love φιλαδελφία) which, according to 2 Peter 1:7, constitutes a specific form of the broader virtue of ἀγάπη was designated by the Lord Himself as a special characteristic of His disciples (John 13:35. Also Tertullian paints in the liveliest colors its prevalence in the church of his time; and even the scoffer Lucian is obliged to pay an unwilling tribute to its power when he says (de morte Peregrini): “Their principal Law-giver has inspired in them the sentiment that they are all mutually brethren so soon as they had passed over, i.e., had denied the Grecian Gods, and devoted themselves to the worship of that crucified sophist, and were living in accordance with his precepts.” Moreover, Julian (epistle 49) says that “kindness toward strangers (ἡπερὶτοὺςξένουςφιλανθρωπία) had been a principal means of propagating the ἀθεότης of the Christians. Hebrews 13:2. Forget not.—Λανθάνω, with the participle, is a familiar Greek construction. The reference is to the experiences of Abraham and Lot (Genesis 18:19). Perhaps also to Matthew 25:44-45. Substantially parallel are Romans 12:13; 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:8; 1 Peter 4:9. Whether λἔαθον forms a paronomasia with ἔπιλανθάνεσθε (Lun.) is doubtful. Hebrews 13:3. As bound with them—as being yourselves also in the body.—It is neither necessary nor admissible, in order to give to ὡς the same signification in both clauses, to understand, with Bφhme, and others, the bound with them, of life and sufferings in the ecclesia pressa, [“travelling too far from the context.”—Alf.], or, with Calvin, and others, to understand the “body” of the church as the body of Christ. We may, with �c., give ὡς in the first clause, also the causal significance, which it unquestionably has in the second; but his translation, “inasmuch as we are closely connected with them,” merely involves the idea that, by virtue of our membership and communion with our imprisoned brethren, we should feel ourselves under obligation to remember them in loving sympathy. It is more advisable, therefore, to take the first ὡς as a particle of comparison. [“As being your selves also in the body,” i.e., as being yourselves in a body which exposes you to like suffering with them, and might therefore be expected to secure your sympathy for the sufferer.—K.]. Hebrews 13:4. Marriage in all.—In the New Testament γάμος means, elsewhere, the wedding and its celebration; here, as in classical Greek, wedlock. [Alf. takes it here as “wedding,” and renders it “your marriage”]. Ἐνπᾶσιν means not with all nations (Pesh., Beza, Grot., and others, who, with τίμιος, erroneously supply ὅτι); but, “in every respect, in all respects.” Were the injunction intended to be that marriage should be held honorable with all persons. (Luth., etc.), or that no unmarried person should regard it with contempt (Bφhme, Schultz, etc.), or that it should be forbidden to no man, the form would probably be παρὰπᾶσιν. Hebrews 13:5. He himself has said.—Not Christ (Bez., Bφhm., Klee), but God, in the Scripture. These words are found in full, Deuteronomy 31:6; Deuteronomy 31:8, and repeated, 1 Chronicles 28:20. But God is there spoken of in the third person. Individual elements of this consolatory address, representing God as speaking in the first person, are found, Genesis 28:15; Joshua 1:5; Isaiah 41:17. It is found, in precisely the same terms as here, in Philo, Ed. Mang., I. 430. That the author has drawn immediately from Philo, (Bl., De W.), is scarcely to be supposed. We may rather conjecture that the saying had in this form already become a proverb (Beng.), or that it originated in the liturgical and homiletical usage of the Hellenistic Synagogue from the confounding of kindred expressions with the original passage, Deuteronomy 31:6 (Del.). The double negation in the first, and the triple negation in the second member, serve for emphasis. The mention of the persecutions of the church, suggests the trustful declaration cited from Psalms 118:6. AND ETHICAL1. Brotherly love stands preλminent among the distinguishing marks of the children of God (1 John 3:1), and if genuine, never ceases (1 Corinthians 13:8). Its purity, power, and permanence, however, depend upon the nature of our relation to Christ, and with this, upon that of our faith. It can therefore, on the one hand, never dispense with nourishment, culture and discipline; and on the other cannot do without exercise. 2. The practice of hospitality may very easily prove disagreeable; one may exercise it unwillingly, sullenly, and enviously; may limit it by caprice and selfishness; may regard and treat it as a burden and a plague. We must therefore be kindly reminded of this duty, as a duty of love, and learn to give heed to the blessing it brings with it, in order that the offerings which we are required to bring, and the privations which we impose upon ourselves, may not fall too heavily or incite us to self-glorification. And this blessing transcends our knowledge and conception. We may receive into our house messengers of God; nay, may receive Christ Himself, in His humblest servants (Matthew 25:35 ff.). 3. The connection, which, in a two-fold way, we have with sufferers, viz., by spiritual and by natural ties of friendship, must make itself be recognized by compassionate and effective sympathy, in every individual case; and inasmuch as this is deficient, and often inconvenient, we are reminded, on the one hand, of the law in accordance with which, if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it (1 Corinthians 12:26); and on the other, of our own liability to suffer, a liability inseparable from our bodily life. 4. The character belonging to marriage, as an ordinance instituted and blessed of God, and the purity which, according to the will of God, befits the marriage bed, and the rites of matrimony, need special attention and care. “The terrible sentence pronounced on fornicators and adulterers is one which pays no heed to the false reasonings and cavilling interpretations, which will plead in excuse for such impurities the fierce lusts of man, the course of the world, and the difficulties of ordinary wedlock. At the judgment of God it will also be made manifest how much power and light the knowledge of God and of our Lord, Jesus Christ, have imparted to each one, by which to escape from this corruption of the world; nay, it will also become manifest that the majority have fallen, not from an irresistible power of their nature, but from lusts wilfully indulged, and nurtured and heightened by the reading of mischievous books, and by profligate intercourse; nay, that frequently they have themselves inflamed, and urged on anew the nature which had been wearied out in the service of sin, and had withdrawn from it with loathing. Then, too, it will become evident what evasions men have resorted to, in order to escape the judgments of men, and why many have so aided others, and how many a one has chosen rather to carry his lusts with him to the bar of God, than to free himself from them upon the dying-bed” (Rieger). 5. Pleasure and licentiousness lead not only to extravagance, but also to discontentment, thence to covetousness, and finally, not unfrequently to miserly niggardliness. Yet even apart from this, an insatiable and covetous habit of feeling and action stands in direct antagonism to the Christian temper and conduct (Matthew 6:19-34; Colossians 3:5; Philippians 4:11-12; 1 Timothy 6:6), and plunges one into severe temptations and great dangers (1 Timothy 6:9 ff). An effective weapon against this, as against the fear of human wickedness and violence, is the use of the word of God, by which confidence in the living God, who has promised that He will withdraw from us neither His presence, nor His help, is awakened and nourished. AND What most hinders, and what most promotes the exercise of Christian love.—We have in suffering and assaults, not merely the sympathy of the brethren, but also the comfort of the word of God, and the help of the Lord.—Faith, the mother of all virtues.—The characteristics of true Christianity.—How, while living in the world and in the flesh, we conquer world and flesh.—We are either judged or saved of God; there is no alternative. Starke:—Love is a cardinal virtue, which embraces in itself all others (Romans 13:10), and is a fruit of the Holy Spirit, in which faith becomes active (Galatians 5:6).—Brotherly love must not be love in words, but must evince itself in act, especially toward those who are, for the sake of the Gospel, imprisoned, or otherwise suffering persecution, so that we may extend to them counsel, aid and refreshment (1 John 3:18).—It is a gracious provision of God that although the ungodly would gladly see all the righteous destroyed at once, or at least oppressed, still sufferings pass but gradually from one to another, in order that those who as yet have been spared, may be able to receive and succor the oppressed (Revelation 12:12).—He who is prudent will let the consideration of the righteous judgment of God hold him back from sin (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14).—Sin, the sin of fornication and adultery, cannot be too sharply rebuked before the world. Hence God has pledged Himself to punish them.—The little which a righteous man hath, is better than the great possessions of the ungodly.—A Christian must faithfully apply to himself what he reads in the Holy Scriptures, according to the, exigencies of the case.—Human weakness fears before men, as if they could disturb its pleasant repose and satisfaction. But comfort! who shall be able to harm those whom God has taken into His protection? (Romans 8:31; 1 Peter 3:14). Rieger:—It belongs to the nature and power of faith to receive promptly and interpret for itself every word of God, but along with this to set to its seal, that God is true. He who makes God alone his goal, has in God a rich consolation.—This is the holiest feature of the book of the Psalms that in it the Divine promises are placed before us, transformed already into pure nourishment for faith, and into living power. Hahn:—A guest has frequently an invisible companion, and thus the cost of his entertainment is richly repaid.—Worldlings leave one another in the lurch; but believers all stand firm for a man.—Brotherly love has two hinderances, the unchaste flesh, and avarice.—God makes a marvellous distribution of suffering; one suffers early, another late. Thus what has no yet arrived, may still come. Hence, both in prayer and in benefactions remember the miserable.—Man is always anxious lest his supplies may fail; but God is good for all our deficiencies. Schleiermacher:—On Christian hospitality. (Sermons on the Christian household). Heubner:—The dearer to us is our faith, the dearer to us are our kinsmen in the faith.—In Christianity purity has a religious ground.—Confidence in God is the best preservative against anxious care for food, and makes us free from the fear of men. Hedinger:—Love has extraordinary impulses; the best love gladly entertains guests. Whom? Those who are unable to render any temporal recompense. Footnotes: Hebrews 13:4.—The particle δέ is found in C. D***. J. K.; on the contrary, γάρ in Sin. A. D*. M. The Pesh. follows the former reading; the It. and Vulg. the latter. [Tisch., Del., Moll retain δέ. Alf. substitutes γάρ.—K.]. B Special admonitions regarding their inclination to apostasy Hebrews 13:7—177Remember them which have the rule over you [your leaders], who [as those who] have spoken [spoke] unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the 8end of their conversation [contemplating the issue of their walk]. Jesus Christ [is] the same yesterday, to-day, and foreHebrews Hebrews 13:9 Be not carried about [aside, παραφέρεσθε] with divers [various] and strange doctrines [teachings]; for it is a good thing [is good] that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein. 10We have an altar, whereof [wherefrom] they have no right to eat which [who] serve the tabernacle. 11For the bodies of those beasts whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. 12Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. 13Let us go forth, therefore, unto him without 14the camp, bearing his reproach. For here we have no continuing city [have not here 15an abiding city], but we seek one to come [are seeking that which is to come]. By [Through] him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our [om. our] lips giving thanks [making acknowledgment] to his name. 16But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased. 17Obey them that have the rule over you [them that lead you, Hebrews 13:7], and submit yourselves: for they watch for [are watching on behalf of] your souls, as they that must give [render] account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief [sighing, στενάζοντες]; for that is unprofitable for [unto] you. [Hebrews 13:7.—τῶνἡγουμένων, those who are (or in this case, were) leading you, who, it appears from what follows, were now dead, and are to be remembered and followed in their Christian example. “Them that have the rule over you,” of the E. V., therefore, is not strictly warrantable.—οἵτινες, characteristic, of the kind who (the which, Alf.).—ἐλὰλησαν, not have spoken, but, spoke, historically—it is now over.—ἀναθεωροῦντες, surveying back, going backward in your contemplations over the entire series. Difficult to express by one word in English. “Considering,” however, which does duty here as for so many other words, is needlessly inadequate. Better with Alf, “surveying.” “Considering” which, marks a purely intellectual act, loses entirely the external imagery of ἀναθεωροῦντες. This is retained in “surveying,” partially also in “contemplating.” Moll, “hinschauend.”—πῆςἀναστροφῆς , their conduct, walk (E. V., conversation). Hebrews 13:8.—Ἰησοῦςχριστὸς, “not common with our writer; only elsewhere at Hebrews 13:21,” (Alf.).—understand εστὶν, is—εἰςτοὺςαἰῶνας, stands emphatic, “is yesterday and to-day the same—and forever.” Hebrews 13:9.—μὴπαραφέρεσθε, be not carried aside, not περιφ., “carried about”—the παραφ., much more forcible and pertinent to the author’s purpose, as not referring to Christian instability in general, but to being borne away from Christianity itself. Hebrews 13:9.—ἐνοἵς, “in which they who walked, were not profited.” Hebrews 13:10.—ἐξοὔ, from, which, wherefrom.—ἐξουσίαν, right, authority, privilege—rarely well rendered by power, as by E. V., as at John 1:13—τῆσκηνῆ, Beng. (cited by Alf.), “est aculeus quod dicil, τῆσκηνῆ non ἐντῆσκηνῆ.” Hebrews 13:11.—ω̇ ?͂νζώων, of what animals=of those animals of which.—περὶτῆςἁμαρτἰας, for sin; Moll, though marking it doubtful in his critical note, retains it in his version. Alford rejects it.—διὰτοῦἀρχιερέως, through, by means of the high, priest, regarded as acting for the people, or for God.—κατακαίεται, are burned up, consumed; E. V., are burned, not quite adequately.—τῆςπαρεμβολῆς, the encampment in the wilderness; the old tabernacle imagery carried through to the last. Hebrews 13:14.—μένουσανπόλιν, an abiding city.—τὴνμέλλουσανἐπιζητοῦμεν, we are seeking after (ἐπί, direction toward hence implies yearning after, Hebrews 9:14), that which is to be—the future abiding city. Hebrews 13:15.—ἀναφέρωμεν, let us be offering up.—καρπὸνχειλ., the fruit of lips (fruit or offering rendered by lips) making acknowledgment to his name. Hebrews 13:17.—τοῖςἡγουμ., them that lead you, your leaders.—αὐτοὶγάρ, for themselves they in turn, or on their part.—ἀγρυπνοῦσι, are sleepless, keep vigilant watch, the meaning stronger than is suggested by the simple English term watch.—ὑπὲρ, on behalf of.—ὡςἐπιδωσ., having, being destined, to render an account.—ἵνατοῦτοποιῶσιν, that they may be doing this, viz., watching.—στενάζοντες, sighing, groaning. Moll, seufzend; Alf., lamenting, viz., “over your disobedience.”—K.]. AND Heb_13:7. Your leaders.—The term ἡγούμενος which is found Acts 15:22, with the Rom. Clem. (ad Cor. 1 and 37), and in the martyr St. Ignat. § 4 points to no other than the ordinary form of church government (Dav. Schultz). Chrys. explains the word, although at this time, it already had the special signification of abbot, by ἐπίσκοποι. Of kindred nature is the designation of the heads of the Church, 1 Thessalonians 5:12, by προιστάμενοι. Issue of their walk.—Ἔκβασιςτῆςἀναστροφῆς expresses not the development, (�c., De Dieu), and not the result of the walk, in respect to others, (Braun, Cramer) or, in respect to the perfected ones themselves, in heaven (Storr, etc.), but, in the connection, their death by martyrdom. Hebrews 13:8. Jesus Christ, yesterday.—Inasmuch as the subject is the God-man, we need not extend the ἐχθές. (so read in Sin. A. C. D.) to the time before the appearance of Christ (Beng., etc.), and thus neither to the entire time of the Old Covenant, (Calv., etc.), nor at all to the preλxistence of Christ, (Ambrose, Seb. Schmidt, etc.). Luther, following the Vulg. And �c., falsely puts a stop after σήμερον. It is not the eternity (Ambrose, Cyrill. Alex., Calov., etc.), but the eternal unchangeableness of Christ on which emphasis is laid. Hence, ὁαὐτός is the predicate applicable to all the three divisions of time. The sentence thus abruptly introduced, (without the usual connection) serves undoubtedly to assign a reason for the following warning, yet nothing authorizes the supposition that it stands in an intended antithesis to the Jewish expectation of a still future Messiah (�c.). It is possible that it, at the same time, furnishes the ground for the preceding exhortation, (Bl. Ebr., etc.), or encourages to its fullfilment (Theoph., Grot., etc.). Nothing in the passage requires us to take it as explaining the substance of the faith of the ἡγούμενοι (Calov., Carpz.). Hebrews 13:9. By various and strange teachings.—The ordinances of the Old Testament itself (Wieseler, Lόn., etc.), the author would hardly have thus designated, for they are regarded by him as divinely ordained shadows and types of essential and eternal objects and relations. We must refer the term to human doctrines, which attach themselves to these ordinances, and, as shown by the connecting particle γάρ, to such as referred specially to βρώματα. These are not sacrificial meals, as after Schlichting, Bl., Lόn., and others suppose; but food, meats, (the old interpp., Bφhme, Thol., Ebr., Del., Riehm, Alf.) in which were sought ritual means of justification, Hebrews 9:10. [For the reasons (1) “that βρώματα is a word not found in the law when offerings are spoken of, but in the distinction of clean and unclean, Leviticus 11:34; 1Ma 1:63; (2) that in all New Testament places where βρω̈μα is used in a similar connection, it applies to clean and unclean meats: (3) that διδαχαῖςποικίλαις—παραφερ., must refer not to meats eaten after sacrifice, but to such doctrines in which there was variety and perplexity, as to those concerning clean and unclean.”—(Alf.)]. In the classics, also, ξένος does not always indicate something foreign, but sometimes, something strange and surprising. The antithesis in the two clauses is overlooked by Bφhme, who, following Castalio, understands χάρις of gratitude to God, and by Bisping, who refers it to the Lord’s Supper, as the Christian sacrificial meal [a “monstrous interpretation,” Alf.]. Hebrews 13:10. We have an altar, etc. θυμιαστήριον is not Christ Himself, (Bugenhagen, Biesenthal, etc.) nor the table of the Lord’s Supper (Bφhm., Ebr. Bisp., etc.), nor an expiatory arrangement in general, (Michael., Stier, Thol., Hofm., etc.), but the cross upon Golgotha (Thom. Aquin., Este, Beng., Bl., De W., Lόn., etc.), of which Christians eat, in that the atoning victim that was offered upon it, is the food of their souls (Riehm), comp. John 6:51 ff. The question is not merely of the enjoyment of the spiritual blessings resulting to believers from the sacrificial death of Christ (Bl., Lόn.), but communion with the personal Christ crucified on our behalf. The τῇσκηνῇλατρεύοντες are not Christians (Schlicht., Schultz, Hofm., etc.), but either as Hebrews 9:9; Hebrews 10:2 the Israelites (Lόn., Kluge), or, as Hebrews 8:5, the Jewish priests (Bl., De W., Del., Riehm), who, above others, had access to the typical dwelling-place of God, and had a right to partake of the food that had been consecrated to God. Hebrews 13:11. For the bodies of those animals whose blood, etc.—Of many sacrifices, the priests obtained either the entire flesh, Leviticus 5:9; Leviticus 23:20; or the breast, and shoulder, Numbers 7:34; or the whole with the exception of the fat pieces, Numbers 4:26 ff.; comp. Numbers 6:19; Numbers 6:22; Numbers 7:7. But of the sin-offerings whose blood was brought into the inner tabernacle, Leviticus 4:5-7; Leviticus 4:16-18; Leviticus 4:16. the fat pieces were brought to the altar, and all the rest was consumed by fire without the camp. This burning was only a means of getting rid of the things burned, and was called ωָׂ ?ψַ ?σ, a word never used to denote burning on the altar. The emphasis lies, therefore, not upon the burning, but on the fact that this mode of dealing with the flesh of the victims, from which the priests derived no enjoyment, took place without the camp. This is regarded by the author as typical. Lόn., following Bδhr, (Stud, und Krit., 1849, i 13:936, ff.) regards the capital point of the argument of Heb 13:10 as appearing in Hebrews 13:12, and regards Hebrews 13:11 as containing a preliminary idea that is merely auxiliary to the proof. But it is more natural to take Hebrews 13:11 as containing the proof of Heb 13:10, while again, the idea of Heb 13:12 is suggested by Hebrews 13:11, and corresponds, therefore, in substance to Hebrews 13:10 (Riehm). [The typical image is simple and forcible. Christ as a sin-offering, suffered without the gate whither the bodies of the animals that were slain as sin-offerings under the Old Covenant were carried to be burnt. As then the priests of the Old Covenant, and also the people, had no right to partake of that sacrifice, so they who now adhere to that Covenant, who minister to that tabernacle, have no right to partake of that great victim that is slain and disposed of outside of the encampment, and which is the antitype of the Old Testament sin-offering. In order to eat of this sacrifice, as Christ Himself requires, they must break away from their adherence to the system which forbade them to eat of the type, and can, therefore, of itself, give no authority to eat the antitype.—K.]. Hebrews 13:13. Wherefore let us go forth to Him, etc.—This is an exhortation based on the preceding passage. It is not, however, an exhortation to refrain from sacrificial meats (Retschl.), or from worldly pleasures (Chrys., Primas., etc.); nor to a voluntary following into the sufferings of Christ (�c., Limb., etc.);nor to a withdrawal from Jerusalem on account of its impending destruction (Clericus); but to a complete separation from Judaism, (Theod., Beng., Bl., Thol., Lόn., etc.). To a willing endurance of exclusion from the Jewish Theocracy (Schlicht., Grot., etc., and recently, Thiersch), there is not the slightest allusion; and the passage contradicts in the most decisive manner Schwegler’s position, that to our Author Christianity is still in a transition state from Judaism.—It is only, [or rarely,] except in later writers and sometimes in the Sept., that τοίνυν stands, as here, at the beginning of the sentence. Does ἔξωτῆςπαρεμβολῆς involve a reference to the speedily following destruction of Jerusalem? At all events, the following verse could not but suggest to the mind of the readers, the city whose foundations are not moved, Hebrews 11:10. [It seems, by no means, improbable that this passage does have a double reference; that while its external and obvious import is to warn its readers to a complete withdrawal from the entanglements and bondage of Judaism, another import may have lain beneath its guarded language, viz., a record by the Holy Spirit, through the inspired writer, of the warning and injunction formerly given by him to the Christians of Palestine, and especially of Jerusalem through the lips of the Lord. So interpreted, the terms have special significance. The τῆςπαρεμβολῆς persistently kept up, still harmonizes with the primary and figurative import of the passage, while the οὐμένουσανπόλιν, in contrast with the τὴνἐπιμέλλουσαν shows that the writer has clearly in mind the earthly Jerusalem.—K.]. Hebrews 13:15. The sacrifice of praise.—θυσιααἰνέσεως means, in the Old Testament, the voluntary, whether promised or freely undertaken offering of praise (thank-offering), ζֶ ?αַ ?ηϊּ ?εֹ ?γָ ?δ Numbers 7:12-15, which, however, even at Psalms 50:14; Psalms 50:23; Psalms 116:17, is a symbol of the thanksgiving of the heart and mouth, and is here explained according to Hosea 14:3; yet after the LXX., that, instead of τָּ ?ψִ ?ιν reads τְּ ?ψִ ?ι. Wetstein adduces the Rabbinical saying: “In the future all sufferings will cease; but the thank-offering ceases not;” and Philo (ed. Mangey, II. 253) styles this the best offering. According to a favorite Old Testament representation, thoughts are branches, and the words blossoms and fruits, which, taking root in the Spirit, and by him impelled through mouth and lips, sprout forth and ripen (Del., Bibl. Psychologie, p. 142). The last αὐτοῦ is not to be referred to Christ (Sykes), but to God. Hebrews 13:16. But to do good and to communicate, etc.—The Subst. εὐποιΐα is found in the New Testament only here. The verb, Mark 14:7. Κοινωνία in the same sense as here, Romans 15:26; 2 Corinthians 9:13; Philippians 1:5, of evincing our fellowship in communicating of our temporal possessions. Εὐαρεστοῦμαί=to be satisfied with any thing, is entirely classical. Theophyl., Schlicht., Beng., etc., erroneously refer ταιαύταιςγάρ to Hebrews 13:15, also. Hebrews 13:17. Unprofitable.—Either as hindering the influence of the readers (Bl.), or as rendering them dispirited and inactive (Calv., Grot.), or best, per μείωσιν (Gerh., Thol., Lόn.). The leaders must have been esteemed by the author as reliable men, and been known by him in their most favorable aspects. The first τοῦτο in Hebrews 13:17 refers to ἀγρυπνεῖν, the second to στενάζειν. AND ETHICAL1. Examples worthy of imitation are furnished specially by those leaders in the churches, and publishers of the Gospel, who, by the grace of God in Christ, were able to give such an expression to the faith which they have professed and taught, that their dying corresponded with their life, and their death proved a living voucher of their faith. The memory of these should be held in honor, and exercises a blessed influence on all who behold it. 2. Exalted above all change in fortune and in feeling, as above all personal vicissitudes, is Jesus Christ, the unchangeable and abiding Head of the Church, whether its members are already in heaven, or are still living upon the earth; and by virtue of His relation to God, He intercedes for, protects, blesses, and rules it eternally. 3. With the pure word, and the all-sufficient grace of God is given to us all that we need. To this there need, and should be added nothing drawn from other religions. Instead of producing steadfastness and satisfaction of heart, such a mixture of foreign elements, would rather disturb and weaken the purity, certainty, joy, and power of faith, and would bring with it the danger of a turning away, to unfruitful and perplexing ordinances, usages, and strifes. 4. Inasmuch as we have the only valid and efficient expiatory offering in Christ, who outside of the city of legal worship, was crucified for us, and have in him at the same time, the true Passover (1 Corinthians 6:3), we are enabled to partake of an atoning banquet which to the Levitical priests was made legally impossible. It becomes therefore the duty of Christian churches that are still entangled in Judaism, entirely to abandon the Jewish camp. 6. On the basis of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which admits no repetition, and sets aside the whole system of sacrificial worship, we are alike laid under the obligation, and endowed with the capacity of offering acceptable and permanent sacrifices of thanksgiving and of well doing, with which we praise God, who, rich in grace, glorifies himself in sinners, and we serve one another according to the will of God as good stewards of the manifold gifts of God. 7. The prosperity of the church is best promoted when its leaders, mindful of their great responsibility before God, watch on behalf of souls, and the members of the church facilitate the fulfilment of this duty by docility and obedience, and render it fruitful of benefit to themselves. AND The blessing of faithful teachers before and after their departure.—We owe to pious ancestors a grateful remembrance and faithful imitation.—How our departure from the world becomes an entrance into heaven, and a precedent for a following and imitation that is acceptable to God.—A firm heart is a precious thing and a rare treasure; but it is a work of grace and an abiding good.—What comfort lies in the fact that Jesus Christ is always the same; and in like manner, what warning and what encouragement! How the cross which separates us from the world, unites us with God and with one another.—The offerings of Christians are, 1. prayer; 2. well doing; 3. obedience.—What we have to bring to the altar, and what we have to take from it. Starke:—The teachers of the church, are leaders, conductors, guides; they must therefore so point the way to blessedness, as themselves to lead the way therein, and conduct their hearers to blessedness, not only with their doctrine, but also by their life and example (Philippians 3:17; 1 Peter 5:3).—It is one of the hidden ways of God that upright teachers of whom there are so few, and to whose preparation so much belongs, are removed by an early death. Disciples who have such teachers should follow them faithfully be times, and hold them as all the dearer and more worthy (1 Thessalonians 5:12-13; Isaiah 57:1-2).—Righteous, faithful teachers shine in life and in death. Happy they who dwell in memory, upon their holy walk, and edifying death, and thus secure their own preparation for a future blessed departure (Matthew 5:14 ff.). The world frequently forms erroneous judgments of this or that man; but his death testifies of his faith and life; so that many are obliged to wonder and acknowledge that he was a pious man (Luke 23:4; Luke 23:7).—Doctrine and grace belong together; pure doctrine, and the grace, causing by means of it, that the heart become established.—We eat Christ spiritually in faith (John 6:35), and sacramentally in the Holy Supper (Matthew 26:26).—Would we have part in Christ and be sanctified by Him, we must renounce this world and bear His reproach.—The confession and the Reproach of Christ are fellow-travellers.—Reproach is a proof whereby God tests the softness and humility of the heart.—For the sake of the truth of the gospel, we must give up land, city, house, goods, and all (Matthew 19:29).—If thy praise is to please God He must Himself produce it within thee (Philippians 1:11).—Christians also are under obligations to sacrifice, yet not a Mass, but a sacrifice of praise, and themselves (Romans 12:1). With this God in His grace, allows Himself to be well pleased.—No hour of the morning is too early, no noon too high, no evening too late, no day too hot, no night too dark, no place too solitary—thou canst always praise God (Ps. 4:2, 9; Psalms 119:55). The praise of God belongs properly to the heart; yet must at certain times, also employ the body with its members, particularly the mouth (Psalms 34:2).—Faith makes us willingly and readily serve and suffer, for the love and praise of God.—It is the mark of a righteous teacher, when he best satisfies himself in reaping the fruits of his office in the heart of his hearers. Rieger:—Jesus Christ has an honor and glory which He can share with no other. The Cross of Jesus ever frees us more and more from all that is upon earth, from all that would establish itself in the love of our hearts, and would weigh down the upward tendency of our spirit; and draws us with our love, regard and hope, away thither where Jesus has entered on our behalf.—Let no hour pass without praise and love.—One of the two things must weigh upon us, either duty now, or conscience hereafter. Heubner:—If the world were our eternal dwelling-place, and to remain among the people of the world were our everlasting destiny, it would be hard to bear reproach; but we have here but a brief sojourn.—God, Himself, must work in us, through Christ, the fruits which shall please Him.—To load ourselves with the sighs of the pious, robs us of bliss. Ahlfeld:—Confirmation is a sacred act, by which the child is to be established in its baptismal covenant. The obligations which it imposes 1. on the servants of the church, 2. on those to be confirmed, 3. on the church, in particular, the parents and god-parents of the child. Molenaar:—(New-Year’s Sermon, Ohly, 1863, III. 1). Jesus Christ, the same yesterday and today, and the same also forever. We ponder this, 1, for our consolation, and for our quiet, since also in this year Jesus is the same, a. in His Word, as our Teacher and Prophet; b. in His grace, as our Mediator and High-Priest; c. in His power, as our King and Lord; 2. for instruction and warning; a. for unbelievers; b. for believers. Hedinger;—Grace must confirm the wavering reed.—To waver is already to have half fallen; but to fall from grace is worse than never to have been therein. Footnotes: Hebrews 13:9.—Instead of περιφέρεσθε read παραφέρεσθε, after Sin. A. C. D., and the majority of minusc. Hebrews 13:9.—Instead of περιπατήσαντες, Sin. A. D*., read περιπατοῦντες. The former has been introduced into Sin. by a later hand. Hebrews 13:11.—The words περὶἁμαρτίας, are wanting in A.; they stand in Sin. D. K., before εἰςτὰἅγια.; in C*., after these words; and in 14, 47, they become περὶἁμαρτιων, for which reason they are regarded by some as an interpolated gloss. Hebrews 13:17.—The authority of A. and Vulg., is not sufficient to warrant the removal of the words ὑτὲρτῶνψυχῶνὑμῶν, and placing them after ἀποδώσοντες, where D*. again adds ὑπὲρὑμῶν. C Personal communications Hebrews 13:18-2518 Pray for us: for we trust [persuade ourselves] we have a good conscience, in all 19things willing to live honestly [wishing to conduct ourselves honorably]: But [And] I beseech you the rather [the more abundantly beseech you] to do this, that I may be 20restored to you the sooner. Now [And] the God of peace, that brought again [back] from the dead our Lord Jesus, that [the] great Shepherd of the sheep, through [in] the blood of the [an] everlasting covenant, 21Make you perfect in every good work [in order] to do his will, working in you [himself] that which is well pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen. 22And I beseech you, brethren, suffer [bear with] the word of exhortation: for I have written a letter unto you in few words. 23Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty; with whom, if he come shortly, I will [shall] see you. 24Salute all them that have the 25rule over you, and all the saints. They of Italy salute you. Grace be with you all. Amen.[Hebrews 13:18.—πειθόμεθα, we persuade ourselves; Moll, wir sind der Ueberzeugung, we are of the conviction; Alf., we are persuaded. Rec. πεποίθαμεν, we trust. Πεπείσμεθα is elsewhere rendered, we are persuaded, Hebrews 6:9.—ἀναστρέφεσθαι, to conduct ourselves.Hebrews 13:19.—περισσοτέρωςδέ, and I the more abundantly beseech you. The Eng. ver. weakly renders rather, which it seems to attach to ποιῆσαι. The Rec. ver., and Alf. both improperly render δέ adversatively but. The German aber, thrown in after several introductory words, is less objectionable. The adversative force of σέ is often, as here, too slight to admit of its being indicated in English. Hebrews 13:20.—Ὁδὲθεὸς and the God: Eng. ver., now the God; Alf., but the God.—ὁἀγαγών, who brought back; or, perhaps, as Moll, Alf., etc., who brought up. I prefer the former, and back to again.—τὸνμέγανποιμ the (not, that) great shepherd.—ἐναἵματι, in (not by) the blood, refers to ἀγαγών—διαθήκηςαἰων, of an (not the) everlasting covenant.Hebrews 13:22.—παρακαλῶδέ and I beseech, not, but I beseech.—ἀνέχεσθε, bear with.ἔγραψα, I wrote: “the epistolary A mandabam, ἔγρψα. frequently in St. Paul” (Alf.). Hebrews 13:23.—γινώσκετε, not so clearly indicated as imperative, by standing at the beginning of the sentence, as Alf., Moll, etc., deem. Its position rather determines the emphasis; and it is by no means certain that the Indic, form might not be quite as emphatic as the Imper. Bl., De W., etc., take it as Indic. We can hardly decide positively.—ἀπολελυμένον, taken predicatively, the Part, for Inf., with verbs of knowing, etc.; also undoubtedly released, not dispatched—K.]. AND Heb_13:18. Pray for us.—In the same way as Paul (Romans 15:30; Ephesians 6:19; Colossians 4:3; 1 Thessalonians 5:25; 2 Thessalonians 3:1), the author now begs the prayers of the church on his own behalf, and appeals, against the suspicion of his enemies, to the testimony of his good conscience, as Paul, 2 Corinthians 1:12. Many, as recently Feilmoser and Bisping, assume for this reason, and because in the following verses the style seems more than hitherto to resemble that of Paul, that Paul has accompanied the letter of a pupil and confidential fellow-laborer, with this brief postscript, and thus adopted as his own the entire epistle. Others regard the plural περὶἡμῶν as embracing still other persons than the “author,” either Timothy (Seb. Schmidt, etc.), or the “leaders” mentioned, Hebrews 13:17 (Carpz.), or the co-workers who with the author are announcing the Gospel in heathen countries remote from the Hebrew Christians. We persuade ourselves, etc.—The πεποίθαμεν of the lect. rec.=we have confidence, or trust, Beng., Bφhme, etc., take absolutely, and then regard ὅτι as causal (“because”). According to the true reading πειθόμεθα, the author says [and substantially the same meaning might be educed with the reading πεποίθαμεν]; We persuade ourselves, i.e., we hold it as matter of conviction that, etc. He assigns a reason for his claim to their prayers, and expresses himself modestly on account of his relation to the readers. The participial clause following, is by some connected with πειθόμεθα assigning the ground on which he rests his persuasion; by others better with ἔχομεν thus stating the thing to which his conscience bears testimony. Ἐνπἄσιν belongs not to ἔχομεν (�c. Theophyl.), and is not masc. (Chrys., Luth., Thol., etc.) Hebrews 13:19. And I the more abundantly beseech you, etc.—Περισσοτέρως is connected by Seb. Schmidt, Ramb., Beng., with ποιῆσαι; by Lόn., and the majority with παρακαλῶ; by Del. with both. Calov. and others have without reason inferred from this an imprisonment of the author. For although ἀποκαθιστάνειντινἀτινι points naturally to the removal of some serious hinderance, yet it by no means necessarily refers to the specific idea of imprisonment. Nor do the words shed any light on the specific relation which the author has previously sustained to the church in question. Hebrews 13:20. And may the God of peace, etc.—This expression which is also familiar to Paul, is referred by many with Chrys., to a discordant relation between the author and his readers, which they conceive to be indicated in Hebrews 13:18; by Grot., Bφhm., De W., Bisp., and others to dissensions among the readers, alluded to Hebrews 12:14; by Schlicht. and Riehm, to Paul’s mode of designating God as the dispenser of salvation. The words ἐναἵματιαἰωνίουδιαθήκης, and by �c, Calv., Beng., Bl., Bisp., etc., connected with ὁἀναγαγών; by Baumgart. and others with μέγαν; but better by Bez., Grot., Este, Lόn., Riehm, etc., are taken instrumentally as more exactly defining the collective clause τὸνποιμένατῶνπροβάτωντὸνμέγαν. could we refer the ἀναγαγών to the ascension (Bl., De W., Bisp.), we might easily take ἐν in the sense of accompaniment as Hebrews 9:25 (Calv., Bl., Bisp., V. Gerlach, Kahnis). But the words ἐκνεκρῶν restrict the participle to the resurrection, the distinct mention of which in our epistle is confined to this single passage. [“This is the only place where our author mentions the resurrection. Everywhere else he lifts his eyes from the depth of our Lord’s humiliation, passing over all that is intermediate, to the highest point of His exaltation. The connection here suggests to him once at least to make mention of that which lay between Golgotha and the throne of God, between the altar of the cross and the heavenly sanctuary, the resurrection of Him who died as our sin-offering,” Del., cited by Alf.]. Perhaps the author had Isaiah 63:11, or also Zechariah 9:11, floating before his mind. The Doxology is less naturally referred to the very remote ὁθεός as being the principal subject of the sentence, (Limb., Beng., Chr. F. Schmidt, Del., Alf., etc). than to the immediately preceding Ἰησοῦχριστοῦ (Calv., Grot., Bl., Thol., Lόn. and the majority). Hebrews 13:22. In few words.—The expression διὰβραχέων=δι’ ὀλίγων, 1 Peter 5:12, furnishes no reason for referring the λόγοςτῆςπαρακλήσεως barely to the exhortations interspersed through the Epistle (Dind., Kuin.), or barely to the section from Hebrews 10:19 (Grot., Calov, etc.), or exclusively to the last chapter (Semler). Theophyl. rightly places the brevity of the Epistle in contrast with the fulness of thought and emotion which swells the breast of the writer who stood in no official relation to the readers, and employs the gentlest and tenderest forms of speech when he comes to speak in his own person. Ἐπιστέλλειν=writing a letter, as Acts 15:20; Acts 21:20. Hebrews 13:23. Know that Timothy, etc.—There is no reason for taking γινώσκετε as Indic. (Vatabl., Bl., De W., etc.); and the absence of the article before ἀπολελυμένον is decisive against the rendering of Schultz=ye know our brother Timothy, the one who has been set free, as well as against the rendering of Storr, etc.: Hold in honor, or Receive kindly. The interpretation of ἀπολελυμένον, absent from, viz., the author (Este., Limb., Carpz., etc.), is forced and unnatural. The translation, sent away, viz., with the letter to the Hebrews (Theod., etc.), is possible (Acts 13:3; Acts 15:30; Acts 15:33; Acts 19:41; Acts 23:22); and to this explanation of the participle conforms the subscription of the Epistle in many minusc. and ancient versions: ἘγράφηἀπὸἸταλίαςδιὰΤιμοθέου. The old interpreters, Chrys., Theoph., �., refer it, although hesitatingly, to a being freed from imprisonment. Since Beza, this has been decidedly the prevalent view. Hebrews 13:24. Salute all, etc.—We cannot infer from this passage either that the Epistle was directed to a plurality of churches, or to mere private persons. Large churches had a number of leaders, and these must receive the salutation without exception, and so also the entire Church in all its members. May it perhaps also include all Christians with whom the receivers of the Epistle come into contact, independently of a connection with the Church? (Del). They of Italy.—Since Semler, the majority of expositors have assumed that the οἱἀπὸἸταλίας must have designated persons who had come from Italy, and were with the author outside of the limits of that country. They have been supposed in particular to be fugitives from the persecution under Nero; sometimes, however, simply, in general, Italian fellow-laborers with the author, perhaps in Corinth or Ephesus (Bl.), or in Asia Minor (Schwegler), or in a place where no Christian Church as yet existed (Lόn.), which latter supposition would explain the absence of any greeting addressed to the Church. Cod. 66 names Athens, but adds ἄλλοιδὲἀπὸἸταλίας. Special emphasis is laid upon the fact that the author, if he, while living in Italy, were conveying greetings from Italian Christians, would certainly have written οἱἐνἸταλίᾳ (1 Timothy 1:15; 1 Peter 5:13); but we might explain the expression of our Epistle from an elliptical mode of expressing relations of place according to (Matthew 24:17; Luke 11:13; Luke 16:26); as=οἱἐντῇἸταλίᾳἀπὸτῆςἸταλίας, as formerly Winer, but see, on the other hand, Alex. Butt. Gramm. of the New Test. dialect, p. 323); and not only so, but many with Thol., Wieseler, Del., maintain that ἀπό as well as ἐκ is used to express paraphrastically independent substantive ideas, so that the expression in question merely indicates that the persons sending their greetings originated from Italy, without intimating any thing with regard to their present residence. We may not, therefore, either, from this expression, deduce with i certainty that the Epistle was written in Italy (Cod. K. and other Greek MSS. and versions with Tisch., Nov. Test., ed. 7.11,596) or even that it must have been written in Rome (with Primas. and the ancients generally, as also Cod. A.)—The closing benediction is precisely identical with Titus 3:15.—It may, however, be argued for the writing of the Epistle in Southern Italy (Wetstein) that Christian churches already existed, Acts 28:13 (Thol.), and that Timothy, who apparently was in a different place from the author of our Epistle, and yet not far removed from him, could probably at this time have been imprisoned nowhere else than in Rome (Wieseler). AND ETHICAL1. From the endeavor, in all our relations, to walk in the right way, in the right manner, we are permitted to derive the assurance of a good conscience. Such an assurance we are all permitted to express, and to find in this moral condition a commendation which draws us all the nearer into the love and sympathy of Christian friends, that we may become especially valuable to them, and awaken, quicken, and strengthen the desire for closer communion, and for personal intercourse. 2. We need prayer on our behalf, not merely in weakness, and under assaults, but also for the fulfilment of our hopes and wishes in the attestations of our joy, and our gratitude for the living and powerful exhibition of our faith, of our love, of our communion in the Lord. This sense of need we must not repress, but cherish, give utterance to, and satisfy. 3. The best thing that we can wish and pray for one another is the continuance of the work of God in ourselves, in order that through Jesus Christ we may attain to perfection of life in God. AND True Christians need, demand and render mutual intercourse on behalf of each other.—The value of a good conscience in difficult situations in life.—The greatness of Jesus, as the Shepherd of the fold of God, mirrors itself 1. in the greatness of the sacrifice by which He became Shepherd of this flock; 2. in the extent of the flock which He has to gather and to feed; 3. in the exaltedness of the position to which He has been elevated.—The new covenant is an eternal covenant, because 1. it has been concluded by the eternal Mediator; 2. it is stamped with eternal validity, and 3. it imparts eternal blessings. Starke:—A good conscience is a great comfort, and gives us a good confidence before God and men; before God, to whom we are permitted filially to turn in all need and anxiety; before men, that we need not be shamefaced, but may be able to encounter with joyfulness the eyes of every man.—The standard of good works is not men’s self-will, but God’s will. This will believers must not only know, but also do.—God works both the willing and the accomplishing; therefore, we must, by all means, give ourselves up to Him for spiritual renewal.—Teachers must respect highly their fellow-laborers in the gospel of Christ, and desire for them the like blessings as for themselves.—We should, indeed, bless even our enemies, but greet preλminently those who are the friends of God, and our friends. Rieger:—From the dealings of God with His saints, we shall observe how wonderfully He brings them out of suffering, how wonderfully He conducts them into it. Heubner:—The grace of God, the highest wish for ourselves and others (Psalms 106:4). Lord, remember me according to Thy grace, which Thou hast promised to Thy people. Amen! Footnotes: Hebrews 13:18.—Instead of πεποἰθαμεν, trust, we are to read with A. C. D. D., lat., 17, 53, πείθόμεα. In Sin., also, πεποίθαμεν, is introduced as a correction. Hebrews 13:21.—The addition καὶλόγω after ἔργῳ, in A., is a gloss from 2 Thessalonians 2:17. Hebrews 13:21.—The αὐτός, self, with Lachm. ed. ster., rests only on D. lat. and 71; Wetstein also ascribes it to C., but erroneously. In his large ed. Lachm. reads αὑτῷ after A. C*., and Greg. Nyss. This reading is also found in Sin., but rejected by the corrector. Hebrews 13:21.—C*. D. and many minusc. omit τῶναἰώνων. Hebrews 13:22.—The Imperf. ἀνέχεσθε is supported by Sin. A. C. B. K., against the Infin. ἀνέχεσθαι, found in D., 46, 67, Vulg., Pesh., Arm. Hebrews 13:23.—The ἡμῶν is to be received after Sin. A. C. D*., 17, 31, 37, 39. In the Sin. it has been thrown out by the corrector. Hebrews 13:25.—Ἀμήν Is found in Sin. only as a correction.