Hebrews 1:1-4 intimating in a succession of choice and pregnant phrases, the drift of the Epistle; a condensed summary of the coming argument. It briefly anticipates the views to be set forth in the sequel, of the revelation of God in Christ excelling far, and being destined to supersede, all that had preceded it, as being the ultimate Divine manifestation in the SON, according to the full meaning of the term involved in ancient prophecy;—of the eternal Divinity of him who was thus revealed in time as SON—of his accomplishing, as such, the reality signified by the ancient priesthood; and of his exaltation, as such, to his predestined glory and dominion on high. We find in the introduction to some of St. Paul’s Epistles somewhat similar adumbrations of his subject, but none so finished and rhetorical as this. And if its style affords an argument, as far as it goes, against the immediate Pauline authorship of the Epistle, still more does it appear almost conclusive against the view of its being a translation. Not merely the alliteration in πολυμερῶςκαὶπολυτρόπως, but the Greek structure of the whole with its rhythmical flow, betokens an original composition. The rolling music of the language cannot, of course, be reproduced in an English translation. Hebrews 1:1 Retaining the order of the words in the original, we may translate, In many portions, and in many modes of old God having spoken to the fathers in the prophets. Πολυμερῶςκαὶπολυτρόπως—not a mere alliterative redundancy, denoting variously:—the writer’s usual choice use of words forbids this supposition. Nor is the μερῶς of the first adverb to be taken (as in the A.V) to denote portions of time:—this is not the proper meaning of the compound. Nor (for the same reason) does it denote various degrees of prophetic inspiration, but (on etymological as well as logical grounds) the various portions of the preparatory revelation to "the fathers." It was not one utterance, but many utterances; given, in fact, at divers times, though it is to the diversity of the utterances, and not of the times, that the expression points. Then the second adverb denotes the various modes of the several former revelations—not necessarily or exclusively the rabbinical distinction between dream, vision, inspiration, voices, angels; or that between the visions and dreams of prophets and the "mouth to mouth" revelation to Moses, referred to in Numbers 12:6-9; but rather the various characters or forms of the various utterances in themselves. Some were in the way of primeval promises; some of glimpses into the Divine righteousness, as in the Law given from Mount Sinai; some of significant ritual, as in the same Law; some of typical history and typical persons, spoken of under inspiration as representing an unfulfilled ideal; some of the yearnings and aspirations, or distinct predictions, of psalmists and of prophets. But all these were but partial, fragmentary, anticipatory utterances, leading up to and adumbrating the ’one complete, all-absorbing "speaking of God to us in the SON," which is placed in contrast with there all. If the subsequent treatment in this Epistle of the Old Testament utterances is to be taken as a key for unlocking the meaning of the exordium, such ideas were in the writer’s mind when he thus wrote. "Πολυμερῶς pertinet ad materiam, πολυτρόπως ad formam" (Bengel). Of old; i.e. in the ages comprised in the Old Testament record. Though it is true that; God has revealed himself variously since the world was made to other than the saints of the Old Testament, and though he ceased not to speak in some way to his people between the times of Malachi and of Christ, yet both the expression, "to the fathers," and the instances of Divine utterances given subsequently in the Epistle, restrict us in our interpretation to the Old Testament canon. Addressing Hebrews, it is from this that the writer argues. Having spoken; a word used elsewhere to express all the ways in which God has made himself, his will, and his counsels, known (cf. Matthew 10:20; Luke 1:45, Luke 1:70; John 9:29; Acts 3:21; Acts 7:6). To the fathers; the ancestors of the Jews in respect both of race and of faith; the saints of the Old Testament. The word had a well-understood meaning (cf. Matthew 23:1-39. 30; Luke 1:55, Luke 1:72; Luke 11:47; and especially Romans 9:5). For the double sense of the term "father," thus used, see John 8:56, "your father Abraham;" but again, John 8:39, "If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham;" and also Romans 4:1-25. and Galatians 3:7. But this distinction between physical and spiritual ancestry does not come in here. In the prophets. The word "prophet" must be taken here in a general sense; not confined to the prophets distinctively so called, as in Luke 24:44, "Moses, the prophets, and the psalms." For both Moses and the psalms are quoted in the sequel, to illustrate the ancient utterances. Προφήτης means, both in classical and Hellenistic Greek (as does the Hebrew איבִןָ, of which προφήτης is the equivalent), not a foreteller, but a forth teller of the mind of God, an inspired expounder (of. ΔιὸςπροφήτηςἐστὶΛοξίαςπατρός, AEsch., ’Eum.,’ 19; and Exodus 7:1, "See I have made thee a god to Pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet"). Observe also the sense of προφητεία in St. Paul’s Epistles (especially 1 Corinthians 14:1-40). In this sense Moses, David, and all through whom God in any way spoke to man, were prophets. On the exact force of the preposition ἐν, many views have been entertained. It does not mean "in the books of the prophets,"—the corresponding "in the SON" precludes this; nor that God by his Spirit spoke within the prophets,—this idea does not come in naturally here; nor is "the SON" presented afterwards as one in whom the Godhead dwelt, so much as being himself a manifestation of God; nor may we take ἐν, as simply a Hellenism for διὰ,—the writer does not use prepositions indiscriminately. Ἐν, (as Alford explains it) differs from διὰ as denoting the element in which this speaking takes place. This use of the preposition is found also in classical Greek; cf. σημαίνεινἐνοἰωνοῖς, frequent in Xenophon; in the New Testament, of. Ἐντῷἄρχοντιτῶνδαιμονίωιἐκβάλλειτὰδαιμόνια" (Matthew 9:34). Hebrews 1:2 In these last days. The true reading being ἐπἐσχάτοντῶνἡμερῶντούτων, not ἐπἐσχάτων, as in the Textus Receptus, translate, at the end of these days’, The Received Text would, indeed, give the same meaning, the position of the article denoting’ "the lustier these days," not "these last days." The reference appears to be to the common rabbinical division of time into αἰὼνοὖτος, and αἰὼνμέλλων, or ἐρχόμενος: the former denoting the pro-Messianic, the latter the Messianic period. Thus "these days" is equivalent to αἰὼνοὓτος, "the present age," and the whole expression to ἐπὶσυντέλειᾳτῶναἰώνων, "at the end of the ages" (infra, Hebrews 9:26); cf. 1 Corinthians 10:11," for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages are come." The term, αἰὼνμέλλων, is also used in this Epistle (6. 5); of. 1 Corinthians 2:5, τὴνοἰκουμένηντὴνμέλλουσαν. For allusions elsewhere to the two periods, of. Matthew 12:32; Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30; Luke 20:35; Ephesians 1:21; Titus 2:12. Cf. also in Old Testament, Isaiah 9:6, where, for "Everlasting Father," Cod. Alex. has πατὴρτοῦμελλόντοςαἰῶνος. A subject of discussion has been the point of division between the two ages—whether the commencement of the Christian dispensation, ushered in by the exaltation of Christ, or his second advent. The conception in the Jewish mind, founded on Messianic prophecy, would, of course, be undefined. It would only be that the coming of the Messiah would inaugurate a new order of things. But how did the New Testament writers after Christ’s ascension conceive the two ages? Did they regard themselves as living at the end of the former age or at the beginning of the new one? The passage before us does not help to settle the question, nor does Hebrews 9:26; for the reference in both cases is to the historical manifestation of Christ before his ascension. But others of the passages cited above seem certainly to imply that "the coming age" was regarded as still future. It has been said, indeed, with regard to this apparent inference from some of them, that the writers were regarding their own age from the old Jewish standing-point when they spoke of it as future, or only used well-known phrases to denote the two ages, though they were no longer strictly applicable (see Alford’s note on Hebrews 2:5). But this explanation cannot well be made to apply to such passages as 1 Corinthians 10:11 and Ephesians 1:21, or to those in the Gospels. It would appear from them that it was not till the παρούσια (or, as it is designated in the pastoral Epistles, the ἐπιφάνεια) of Christ that "the coming age" of prophecy was regarded as destined to begin, ushering in "new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness" (2 Peter 3:13). Still, though "that day" was in the future, the first coming of Christ had been, as it were, its dawn, signifying its approach and preparing believers for meeting it. "The darkness was passing away; the true light was already shining" (1 John 2:8). Hence the apostolic writers sometimes speak as if already in the "coming age;" as being already citizens of heaven (Philippians 3:20); as already "made to sit with Christ in the heavenly places" (Ephesians 1:6); having already "tasted the powers of the age to come" (Hebrews 6:5). In a certain sense they felt themselves in the new order of things, though, strictly speaking, they still regarded their own age as but the end of the old one, irradiated by the light of the new. To understand fully their language on the subject, we should remember that they supposed the second advent to be more imminent than it was. St. Paul, at one time certainly, thought that it might be before his own death (2 Corinthians 5:4; 1 Thessalonians 4:15). Thus they might naturally speak of their own time as the conclusion of the former age, though regarding the second advent as the commencement of the new one. But the prolongation of" the end of these (lays," unforeseen by them, does not affect the essence of their teaching on the subject. In the Divine counsels "one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." Hath spoken unto us (more properly, spake to us) in his Son. "His" is here properly supplied to give the meaning of ἐνυἱῷ. The rendering, a SON, which seems to have the advantage of literalism, would be misleading if it suggested the idea of one among many sons, or a son in the same sense in which others are sons. For though the designation, "son of God," is undoubtedly used in subordinate senses—applied e.g. to Adam, to angels, to good men, to Christians—yet what follows in the Epistle fixes its peculiar meaning here. The entire drift of the curlier part of the Epistle is to show that the idea involved in the word "Son," as applied to the Messiah in prophecy, is that of a relation to God far above that of the angels or of Moses, and altogether unique in its character. This idea must have been in the writer’s mind when he selected the phrases of his exordium. Nor is the article required for the sense intended. Its omission, in fact, brings it out. Ἐντῷυἱῷ would have drawn especial attention to "the personage in whom God spake; ἐνυἱῷ does so rather to the mode of the speaking—it is equivalent to "in one who was SON." Son-revelation (as afterwards explained), is contrasted with previous prophetic revelations (cf. for omission of the article before υἱὸς, Hebrews 3:6; Hebrews 5:8; Hebrews 7:28). Whom he appointed (or, constituted) heir of all things; not, as in the A.V., "hath appointed." The verb is in the aorist, and here the indefinite sense of the aorist should be preserved. "Convenienter statim sub Filii nomen memoratur haereditas" (Bengel). Two questions arise. (1) Was it in respect of his eternal Divinity, or of his manifestation in time, that the Son was appointed "Heir of all things?" (2) When is God to be conceived as so appointing him? i.e. What is the time, if any, to be assigned to the indefinite aorist? In answer to question (1) the second alternative is to be preferred. For (a) his eternal pre-existence has not yet been touched upon: it is introduced, as it were parenthetically, in the next and following clauses. (b) Though the term Son is legitimately used in theology to denote the eternal relation to the Father expressed by the Λόγος of St. John, yet its application in this Epistle and in the New Testament generally (excepting, perhaps, the μονογενὴςυἱὸς peculiar to St. John, on which see Bull, ’Jud. Eccl. Cath.,’ Ecclesiastes 5:4, etc), is to the Word made flesh, to the Son as manifested in the Christ. And hence it is to him as such that we may conclude the heirship to be here assigned. (c) This is the view carried out in the sequel of the Epistle, where the SON is represented as attaining the universal dominion assigned to him after, and in consequence of, his human obedience. The conclusion of the exordium in itself expresses this; for it is not till after he had made purification of sins that he is said to have "sat down," etc; i.e. entered on his inheritance; having become (γένομενος not ὢν) "so much better," etc. This is the view of Chrysostom, Theodoret, and the Fathers generally (cf. the cognate passage, Philippians 2:9). (2) It seems best to refer the aorist ἔθηκε, not to any definite time, as that of the prophetic utterances afterwards cited, or that of the actual exaltation of Christ, but indefinitely to the eternal counsels, which were indeed declared and fulfilled in time, but were themselves ἐνἀρχῇ. A similar use of the aorist, coupled with other aorists pointing to events in time, is found in Romans 8:29, Romans 8:30. What this heirship of all things implies will appear in the sequel, By whom also he made the worlds. Interposed clause to complete tits true conception of the SON; showing who and what he was originally and essentially through whom God "spake" in time, and who, as SON, inherited. Here certainly, and in the expressions which follow, we have the same doctrine as that of the Λόγος of St. John. And the testimony of the New Testament to the pre-existence and deity of Christ is the more striking from our finding the same essential idea under different forms of expression, and in writings differing so much from each other in character and style. He who appeared in the world as Christ is, in the first place, here said (as by St. John 1:3) to have been the Agent of creation; cf. Colossians 1:15-17, where the original creative agency of "the Son of his love" is emphatically set forth, as well as his being "the Head of the body, the Church." This cognate passage is of weight against the view of interpreters who would take the one before us as referring to the initiation of the gospel ages; with respect to which view see also the quotation from Bull given below under Colossians 1:3. Here τοὺςαἰῶνας is equivalent to "the worlds," as in the A.V. For though the primary meaning of αἰών has reference to time—limited in periods, or unlimited in eternity—it is used to denote also the whole system of things called into being by the Creator in time and through which alone we are able to conceive time. "Οἱαἰῶνες, saecula, pro rerum creatarum universitate est Hebraismus" (Bull); of. Hebrews 11:3, καταρτίσθαιτοὺςαἰῶναςῥήματιΘεοῦ: also 1 Corinthians 2:7, πρὸτῶναἰώνων: and 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2, πρὸχρόνωναἰωνίων. Hebrews 1:3 Who, being, etc. The participle ᾢν—not γενόμενος, as in Hebrews 1:4—denotes (as does still more forcibly ὐπάρχων in the cognate passage, Philippians 2:6) what the Son is in himself essentially and independently of his manifestation in time. This transcendent idea is conveyed by two metaphorical expressions, differing in the metaphors used, but concurrent in meaning. The brightness of his glory. The word δόξα (translated "glory"), though net in classical Greek carrying with it the idea of light, is used in the LXX. for the Hebrew דוֹבךָּ, which denotes the splendor surrounding God; manifested on Mount Sinai, in the holy of holies, in the visions of Ezekiel, etc; and regarded as existing eternally "above the heavens" (cf. Exodus 24:15; Exodus 40:34; 1 Kings 8:11; Ezekiel 8:4; Psalms 24:7, Psalms 24:8, etc). But the full blaze of this glory, accompanying" the face" of God, even Moses was not allowed to see; for no man could see him and live. Moses was hidden in a cleft of the rock while the God’s glory passed by, and saw only its outskirts, i.e. the radiance left behind after it; had passed; hearing meanwhile a proclamation of the moral attributes of Deity, by a perception of which he might best see God (Exodus 33:18, etc). Similarly in the New Testament. There also, as on Sinai, in the tabernacle, and in prophetic vision, the glory of God is occasionally manifested under the form of an unearthly radiance; as in the vision of the shepherds (Luke 2:9), the Transfiguration (Luke 9:28, etc), the ecstasy of Stephen (Acts 7:55). But in itself, as it surrounds "the face" of God, it is still invisible and unapproachable; cf. John 1:18, "No man hath seen God at any time;" 1 John 1:5, "God is Light;" 1 Timothy 6:16, "Dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto (φῶςαπρόσιτον), whom no man hath seen nor can see." It denotes really, under the image of eternal, self-existent, unapproachable light, the ineffable Divine perfection, the essence of Deity, which is beyond human ken. "Sempiterna ejus virtus et divinitas" (Bengel). Of this glory the SON is the ἀπαύγασμα—a word not occurring elsewhere in the New Testament, but used by the Alexandrian writers. The verb ἀπαυγάζω means "to radiate," "to beam forth brightness;" and ἀπαύγασμα, according to the proper meaning of nouns so formed, should mean the brightness beamed forth—this rather than its reflection from another object, as the sun’s light is reflected from a cloud. So the noun is used in Wis. 7:26, as applied to Σοφία, which is there personified in a manner suggestive of the doctrine of the Λόγος: ἈτμὶςγὰρἐστὶτῆςτοῦΘεοῦδυνάμεωςκαὶἀπόρροιατῆςτοῦπαντοκράτοροςδόξηςεἰλικρινής … a̓παύγασμαγὰρἐστὶφωτὸςαἰδίου And Philo speaks of the breath of life breathed lute man (Genesis 2:7) as τῆςμακαρίαςκαὶτρισμακαρίαςφύσευςαπαύγασμα (’De Spec. Leg.,’ § 11). As, then, the eradiated brightness is to the source of light, so is the SON, in his eternal being, to the Father. It is, so to speak, begotten of the source, and of one substance with it, and yet distinguishable from it; being that through which its glory is made manifest, and through which it enlightens all things. The Person of the Son is thus represented, not as of one apart from God, irradiated by his glory, but as himself the sheen of his glory; cf. John 1:14, "We beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father;" also John 1:4; John 1:9. The above is the view taken by the Fathers generally, and expressed in the Church’s Creed, φῶςἐκφωτός. And express Image of his substance; not "of his person," as in the A.V. The latter rendering is due to the long-accepted theological use of the word ὑπόστασις in the sense of personal subsistence, as applied to each of the Three in One. What the Latins called persona the Greeks at length agreed to call hypostasis, while the Greek οὐσία (equivalent to essentia) and the Latin substantia (though the latter word etymologically corresponds with hypostasis) were used as equivalents in meaning. But it was long after the apostolic age that this scientific use of the word became fixed. After as well as before the Nicene Council usia was sometimes used to denote what we mean by person, and hypostasis to denote what we mean by the substance of the Godhead; and hence came misunderstandings during the Arian controversy. Bull (’Def. Fid. Nic.,’ 2.9. 11) gives a catena of instances of this uncertain usage. The definite doctrine of the Trinity, though apparent in the New Testament, had not as yet come under discussion at the time of the writing of this Epistle, or been as yet scientifically formulated; and hence we must take the word in its general and original sense, the same as that now attached to its etymological equivalent, substantia. It means literally, "a standing under," and is used (1) in a physical sense, for "foundation," as in Psalms 69:2, "I sink in deep mire where there is no standing," where the LXX. has ὑπόστασις: (2) metaphorically, for "confidence" or "certainty," as below, Hebrews 3:15 and 2 Corinthians 9:4; (3) metaphysically, for that which underlies the phenomena of things and constitutes their essential being. Of the substance, understood in the last sense, of God the Son is the χαρακτὴρ, which word expresses a similar kind of relation to the Divine substance as ἀπαύγασμα does to the Divine glory. Derived from χαράσσω (equivalent to "mark," "grave," or "stamp," with an engraven or imprinted character), its proper meaning is the perceptible image on the material so stamped or engraved, of which it thus becomes the χαρακτὴρ. Thus the "image and superscription" on a coin is its χαρακτὴρ, manifesting what the coin is. The instance of the tribute money (Matthew 22:20) at once occurs to us: our Lord pointed to the χαρακτὴρ on the coin as manifesting its ὑπόστασις, as being Caesar’s money. Thus also the lineaments of a countenance are called its χαρακτὴρ, as in Herod., 1.116, Ὁχαρακτὴρτοῦπροσώπου. A passage in Philo is illustrative of the sense intended; and it is to be observed (both with regard to the expression before us and to the preceding ἀπαύγασμα) that the Alexandrian theologians are important guides to the interpretation of phrases in this Epistle, their influence on its modes of thought and expression being perceptible. He says (’De Plant. Nee.,’ § 5) that Moses called the rational soul the image (εἰκόνα) of the Divine and Invisible, as being οὐσιωθεῖσανκαὶτυπωθεῖσανσφραγῖδιΘεοῦἥςὁχαρακτὴρἐστὶνὁἀΐδιοςλόγος. Here, be it observed, χαρακτὴρ is used for the form or lineament of the Divine seal itself, not for the copy stamped on the plastic material. And it is applied, as here, to the "Eternal Word," as being the manifestation of what the unseen Godhead is. Hence it would be wrong to understand the word, as some have done, as denoting the form impressed by one substance on another—as though the impression left on the wax were the χαρακτὴρ of the seal. This misconception would mislead (as might also ἀπαύγασμα, if rendered "reflection") in that it would seem to represent the Son as distinct from God, though stamped with his likeness and irradiated by his glory. Arian views about the SON, or even mere humanitarian views about the Christ, might thus seem countenanced. The two words ἀπαύγασμα and χαρακτὴρ, as has been said, express a similar relation to δόξα and ὑπόσρασις respectively, and convey the same general idea of the Son’s eternal relation to the Father. But both are, of course, but figures, each necessarily inadequate, of the inscrutable reality. If we may distinguish between them, it may be said that the former especially intimates the view of the operation and energy of the Godhead being through the Son, while the latter more distinctly brings out the idea of the Son being the Manifestation of what the God- head is, and especially of what it is to us. And upholding all things. We have here still the present participle, denoting the intrinsic operation of him who was revealed as Son. Though the word φέρειν, in the sense of upholding or sustaining creation, does not occur elsewhere in the, New Testament, it can hardly have any other meaning here, considering the context. We find a similar use of it in Numbers 11:14; Deuteronomy 1:9, "to bear (φέρειν) all this people alone." And in the later Greek and rabbinical writers parallels are found. Chrysostom interprets φέρων as meaning κυβερνῶντὰδιαπίπτοντασυγκρατῶν, which comes to the same thing as "upholding" or "sustaining." The meaning is that not only were "the worlds" made through him; in his Divine nature he ever "upholds" the "all things" which were made through him, and of which, as SON, he was appointed "Heir;" el. Colossians 1:17, "And in him all things consist." And this upholding operation must not be supposed to have been in abeyance during the period of his humiliation. He was still what he had been eternally, though he had "emptied himself" of the state and prerogatives of Deity (Philippians 2:7); el. (though the text is somewhat doubtful) John 3:13, "The Son of man, which is (ὢν) in heaven." By the word (ῥήματι) of his power is an expression elsewhere used of the voluntas efficax of Deity—the utterance of Divine power; cf. Hebrews 11:3, "The worlds were framed by the Word (ῥήματι) of God." The writer could hardly have used it in this connection, if speaking of a created being. As to the reference of "his" before" power," whether to the subject of the sentence or to God, there is the same ambiguity in the Greek as in the English translation. Even if αὐτοῦ be intended, and not αὑτοῦ (and the former is most likely, since the pronoun, though it be reflective, is not emphatically so), it may with grammatical propriety refer either, like the previous αὐτοῦ, to God, or to him who thus upholds all things. In either case the general meaning of the clause remains the same. Enough has been said on the whole series of phrases which is thus concluded to show the untenableness of the Socinian interpretation, which would refer them only to Christ in the flesh and to the Christian dispensation. On such interpretation of the first of them Bull remarks, "Interpretatio Socinistarum, Deum nempe dici per Filiam saecula condidisse, quod per ipsum genus humanum reformavit et restauravit, et in novum quemdam statum transtulit, prodigiosum est commentum. Sane juramento aliquis tuto affirmare possit, ex Hebraeis, ad quos scripta fuit ilia epistola, ne unum quidem fuisse, qui scriptoris verba hoc sensu intellexerit, aut vel per somnium cogitaverit, per τοὺςαἰῶνας, saeculaa, significarum fuisse tantum genus humanum, nedum ejus pattem illam, cui tunc temporis evangelii lux effulserat" (’Jud. Eccl. Cath.,’ 5.8). When he had made purification of sins. (So, according to the best-supported ’rod now generally accepted text) The aorist is now resumed, denoting an act in time—the act accomplished by him as incarnate SON, previous to and necessary for his entering on the inheritance appointed to him as such. This act, the grand purpose of the Incarnation, was atonement. There can be no doubt that the cleansing effected by atonement, and not the mere moral reformation of believers, is meant hero by purification of sins. The sequel of the Epistle, being, as aforesaid, the lull expression of the drift of the exordium, is sufficient proof of this. For in it Christ is exhibited at great length as the true High Priest of humanity, accomplishing truly what the Jewish priesthood signified; and as having "sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens," in virtue of his accomplished atonement (Hebrews 8:1; Hebrews 10:12). Nor would the Hebrew readers to whom the Epistle was addressed be likely to understand καθαρισμὸν ("purification") in any other sense than this. The verb καθαρίζειν is the LXX. equivalent for the Hebrew רהַםִ, frequent in the Old Testament for ceremonial cleansing, the result of atoning sacrifice; in which sense it is accordingly used in Hebrews 10:1-39. of this Epistle. The theory of the Jewish ceremonial law was that the whole congregation, including the priests themselves, were too much polluted by sin to approach the holy God who dwelt between the cherubim. Therefore sacrifices were ordained to make atonement for them. The word for "making atonement for" (Greek, ἰλασκέσθαι) is in Hebrew רפַךָ, which means properly "to cover;" i.e. to cover sin from the sight of God. And the result of such atonement was called "purification," or "cleansing." This appears clearly in Leviticus 16:1-34., where the ceremonies of the great Day of Atonement are detailed. After an account of the various sacrifices of atonement, for the high priest and his house, for the people, and for the holy place itself polluted by their sins, we read (Leviticus 16:19), "And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it [i.e. the altar] with his finger seven times, and cleanse it (καθαριεῖ), and hallow it from the uncleanness (τῶνἀκαθαρσιῶν) of the children of Israel." And finally (Leviticus 16:30), "For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you (καθαρίσαι), that ye may be clean from all your sins before the Lord." It is to be observed, further, that it is especially the meaning of the ceremonial of the Day of Atonement that Christ is spoken of afterwards in the Epistle as having fulfilled. For the phrase, ποιησάμενοςκαθαρισμὸνἁμαρτιὼν, cf. Job 7:21, Διατίοὐκἐποιήσωτῆςἀνομίαςλήθηνκαὶκαθαρισμὸντῆςἁμαρτίαςμου. Its meaning in the Epistle may be that Christ, by his death, brought into being and established a permanent purification of sins—"a fountain open for sin and for uncleanness" (Zechariah 13:1)—in his blood, which is regarded as now ever offered at the heavenly mercy-seat (Hebrews 9:12) and sprinkled on the redeemed below (Hebrews 9:14, Hebrews 9:22). Thus the distinction, observed above, between the atonement (ἱλασμὸς), of sacrifice and its application for cleansing (καθαρισμὸς) would be preserved (cf. 1 John 1:7 and Revelation 7:14). Sat down; i.e. entered on his inheritance of all things; not simply in the sense of resuming his pristine glory, but of obtaining the preeminence denoted in prophecy as appointed to the Son, human as well as Divine, and won by obedience and accomplished atonement. And this his supreme exaltation (as will be seen hereafter) carries with it the idea of an exaltation of humanity, of which he was the High Priest and Representative. But be it observed that there is no change in the subject; of the sentence. He who "sat down on high" after making purification is the same with him through whom the worlds were made, and whose eternal Divinity has been expressed by the present participles. This identification supports the orthodox position of there being but one personality in Christ, notwithstanding the two natures, and justifies, against Nestorian-ism, the term θεοτόκος as applied to the blessed Virgin, with other cognate expressions accepted in orthodox theology, such as, "God suffered," though in his human, not his Divine, nature; "God shed his blood" (cf. Philippians 2:9, etc). On the right hand of the Majesty on high. The expression is taken from Psalms 110:1, afterwards cited in this Epistle, and prominently referred to in like manner by St. Paul. The figure is suggested by the custom of Oriental kings, who placed at the right hand of the throne a son whom they associated with themselves in the prerogatives of royalty. Occurring as it does first in a Messianic psalm, the phrase is never applied to the Son’s original relation to the Father "before the ages," but only to his exaltation as the Christ (on which see Bleek). The same idea seems expressed by our Lord’s own words, "All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and in earth" (Matthew 28:18). But in the end, according to St. Paul (1 Corinthians 15:24, 1 Corinthians 15:28), this peculiar "kingship" of the SON will cease, the redemptive purpose being accomplished. It is to be observed that, both here and afterwards (Hebrews 8:1), a fine periphrasis is used for "right-hand of God;" "the right hand of the Majesty on high" and "the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens." This may be regarded, not only as characteristic of the eloquent style of the Epistle, but also as implying an avoidance of too local or physical a view of the session spoken of. It is apparent elsewhere how the writer sees in the figures used to denote heavenly things only signs, level to our comprehension, of corresponding realities beyond our ken. Hebrews 1:4 Having become by so much better than the angels as he hath inherited a more excellent name than they (διαφορωτέρονπαραὐτοὺς). (For the same Greek form of comparison, see Hebrews 1:9; Hebrews 3:3) "Παρα ingentem printer caeteros excellentiam denotat" (Bengel). This verse, though, in respect of grammatical construction, it is the conclusion of the exordium, serves as the thesis of the first section of the argument to follow, the drift of which is to show the SON’S superiority to the angels. The mention of the angels comes naturally after the allusion to Psalms 110:1-7., viewed and quoted as it is afterwards in connection with Psalms 8:1-9., in which "a little lower than the angels" is taken to denote the state previous to the exaltation; and it is preparatory also for the argument that follows. The more distinguished name, expressing the measure of superiority to the angels, is (as the sequel shows) the name of SON, assigned (as aforesaid) to the Messiah in prophecy, and so, with all that it implies, "inherited" by him in time according to the Divine purpose. Observe the perfect, "hath inherited," instead of the aorist as hitherto, denotes, with the usual force of the Greek tense, the continuance of the inheritance obtained. It’ we have entered into the view all along taken by the writer, we shall see no difficulty in the SON being said to have become better than the angels at the time of his exaltation, as though he had been below them before. So he had in respect of his assumed humanity, and it is to the SON denoted in prophecy to be humanly manifested in time that the whole sentence in its main purport refers. As such, having been, with us, lower than the angels, he became greater, the interposed references to his eternal personality retaining their full force notwithstanding. But why should the name of SON in itself imply superiority to the angels? Angels themselves are, in the Old Testament, called "sons of God." It has been suggested that the writer of the Epistle was not aware of the angels being so designated, since the LXX., from which he invariably quotes, renders מילִאֶ ינִףְ by ἀγγέλοι. But this is not so invariably. In Genesis 6:1; Psalms 29:1; and Psalms 89:7, we find υἱοίΘεοῦ. And, whatever be the application of the words in each of these passages, they at any rate occur in the LXX. as denoting others than the Messiah. Nor, in any case, would it be easily supposable that one so versed in biblical lore as the writer must have been had been thus misled in so important a point of his argument. The fact is that his argument, properly understood, is quite consistent with a full knowledge of the fact that others as well as the Messiah are so designated. For it is not merely the term "Son" as applied to the Messiah in prophecy, but the unique manner in which it is so applied, that is insisted on in what follows. The form of his commencement shows this. He does not say, "Whom, except the Messiah, did he ever call Son?" but, "To which of the angels did he ever speak as follows, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee?" In language generally the meaning of a word may depend very materially on the context in which it occurs and other determining circumstances. Indeed, the mere use of the title in the singular, "my Son," carries with it a different idea from its use in the plural of a class of beings. But this is not all. A series of passages from the Old Testament is adduced by way of expressly showing that the sonship assigned to the Messiah carries with it the idea of a relation to God altogether beyond any ever assigned to angels. Such is the position of the writer. We shall see in the sequel how He makes it good. Verses 1:5-3:1 Hebrews 1:5-3:1.—THE SON TO THE ANGELS. Here the argumentation of the Epistle begins, the thesis of the first section of the argument having been given, as aforesaid, in the preceding verse, that "the SON is superior to the angels." The second section begins at Hebrews 3:1, the thesis being that "the SON is superior to Moses." Through angels and Moses the Law was given: "Ordained through angels in the hand of a mediator" (Galatians 3:19), the "mediator" being Moses. To show that the Son, in the Old Testament itself, is represented as above both, is to show, what it is the main purpose of the whole Epistle to establish, that the gospel, given through the SON, is above the Law, and intended to supersede it. The conclusion is that the gospel stands in the same relation to the Law as does the Son to angels, who are but "ministering spirits," and to Moses, who was but a "servant." With regard to the agency of angels in the giving of the Law, we do not find it so evident in the Old Testament as might have been expected from the references to it in the New. The "angel of Lord," who appeared to Moses (Exodus 3:2) and went before the people (Exodus 14:19; Exodus 23:1-33. 20, etc), seems in the earlier books of the Bible to signify a certain presence and manifestation of the Lend himself, rather than a created minister of his will (see Genesis 16:7, Genesis 16:13; Genesis 22:15, Genesis 22:16; Exodus 3:2, Exodus 3:4; Exodus 23:1-33. 20, 21; of. Acts 7:31, Acts 7:35, Acts 7:38); and this has been identified by theologians with the Word, not yet incarnate, through whom all Divine communications have been made to men. It is to be observed, however, that, after the sin of the golden calf, a distinction seems to be made between the presence of the Lend with his people and that of the angel to be thenceforth sent before them (Exodus 33:2, Exodus 33:3). Ebrard sees in the "angel of the LORD" generally, though understood as signifying a Divine presence, a justification of the statement that the Law was given "through angels," on the ground that, though God did so manifest himself, it was not a direct manifestation, as in the Son, but through forms borrowed from the sphere of the angels. It was an angelophany, denoting an unseen Divine presence, not a true theophany. The only distinct allusion to "angels," in the plural, in connection with the giving of the Law, is in Deuteronomy 33:2, "He came with ten thousands of saints;" with which comp. Psalms 68:17. But there is no doubt that it came afterwards to be the accepted rabbinical view that the dispensers of the Law were angels—whether as attendants on the Divine Majesty, or as agents of the fiery phenomena on Mount Sinai (natural operations being often attributed to angels), or as the utterers of the voice that was heard. "Locutus est Deus per angeles" (Bengel). And the writers of the New Testament plainly recognize this view (see below, Hebrews 2:2; Acts 7:53; Galatians 3:19). Hence our author takes for granted that his readers will understand and recognize it, and so implies it in his argument, expressing, as it does, a true conception of the nature of the Mosaic dispensation, and especially of its relation to the gospel. To resume our view of the argument that follows. The first section (as aforesaid) is from Hebrews 1:5 to Hebrews 3:1, having for its thesis the superiority of the SON to angels. The second section is from Hebrews 3:1 to Hebrews 5:1, having for its thesis the superiority of the Son to Moses. Each section consists of two main divisions, between which in each ease an appropriate exhortation is interposed; the first division in each ease treating of what the Son is in his own person, the second of his work for man; and both sections leading separately to the conclusion that he is the High Priest of humanity. Then, in Hebrews 5:1-14., the subject of his priesthood is taken up. Ebrard happily illustrates the symmetrical plan of the argument thus: "The author, having thus been led from these two different starting-points to the idea of the ἀρχιερεύς, now proceeds to place on the two first parts, which may be viewed as the pillars of the arch, the third part, which forms the keystone." In this third part it begins to be shown, at Hebrews 5:1, how Christ fulfilled in his humanity the essential idea of priesthood. But, for reasons that will appear, the full doctrine of his eternal priesthood is not entered upon till Hebrews 7:1—10:19, which may be called the central portion of the whole Epistle. The remainder (Hebrews 10:20—end) may be distinguished from the rest as being the distinctly hortatory part (though her-ration has been frequently interposed in the argument), being mainly devoted to practical application of the doctrine that has been established. The following plan of the argument of the first two sections, showing the parallelism between them, may assist us in entering into it as it proceeds:— SECTION I. Thesis: Christ superior to the angels. Division 1 (Hebrews 1:5-2:1). The name SON, as applied to the typical theocratic kings, and in its final reference and full meaning (as you all acknowledge) pointing to the Messiah, expresses a position altogether above any assigned anywhere to angels. The Son is represented as one associated with God in his majesty, a sharer of his everlasting throne. Angels are referred to only as ministering spirits or attendant worshippers at the Son’s advent. Interposed exhortation (Hebrews 2:1-5). This being so, beware of not appreciating the revelation now given in the Son. In transgression of the Law given through angels was so severely visited, what will be the consequence of neglecting this, accredited to us as it has been? Division 2 (Hebrews 2:5-3:1). The Son also, but never angels, is denoted in prophecy as Lord of the coming age. For the eighth psalm (based on and carrying out the idea of the account in Genesis of the original creation) assigns a supremacy over all created things to man. Man, as he is now, does not fulfill the ideal of his destiny. But Christ, as Son of man, in his exaltation, does. And in him man attains his destined dignity forfeited through sin. His humiliation, suffering and death were for the purpose of thus raising man. His humiliation with this and was a design worthy of God, and in accordance with the purport of Messianic prophecy. For such prophecy intimates association and sympathy of the Messiah with his human brethren. Thus Christ, the SON, is the sympathizing High Priest of humanity. SECTION II. Thesis: Christ superior to Moses. Division 1 (Hebrews 3:1-7). Moses is represented in the Old Testament as but a servant in the house of God. The SON is lord over the house. Interposed exhortation (Hebrews 3:7-4:1). This being so, beware of hardening your hearts, like the Israelites under Moses. If they failed, through unbelief, of entering into the rest offered to them, you may similarly fail of entering into the rest intended for you. Division 2 (Hebrews 4:1-5:1). A rest, symbolized by that of the promised land, is still offered to you, and you may enter into it. The ninetieth psalm shows that the rest into which Joshua led the Israelites was not the final one intended for God’s people. The true rest is the rest of God himself (" my rest," Psalms 90:1-17), spoken of in the account of the creation—the sabbath rest of eternity. Christ, after sharing our human trials, has passed into that eternal rest, and won an entrance into it for us. Thus, again, a renewed exhortation being interposed, Christ, the SON, is again set forth as the sympathizing High Priest of humanity. Hebrews 1:5 For to which of the angels said he at any time. Observe the form of the question, which has been already noticed. It is not, "When were angels ever called sons?" but to this effect: "To which of them did he ever speak (individually) in the following remarkable terms?" The first quotation is from Psalms 2:7; the second from 2 Samuel 7:14. The second having had undoubtedly a primary reference to Solomon, and the first presumably to some king of Israel, probably to David, we may here properly pause to consider the principle of the application of such passages to Christ. It must be allowed that, not only in this Epistle, but in the New Testament generally, sayings which had a primary reference to events or personages in the past, are applied directly to Christ; and in some eases where the justness of the application may not be to all of us at first sight obvious. With regard to this usage, Bengel says, "Veri interpretes verborum divinorum sunt apostoli; etiamsi nos sine illis talem sententiam non assigneremur." But such applications are plainly not arbitrary. They rest on a principle of interpretation which it is of importance for us to understand. First, we may observe that the method was not originated by the New Testament writers; it was one received among the Jews of their time, who saw throughout the Old Testament anticipations of the Messiah. This appears both from rabbinical literature and also from the New Testament itself. For instance, the priests and scribes consulted by Herod (Matthew 2:5) referred Micah 5:2 as a matter of course to the Messiah; and the Pharisees (Matthew 22:44) never thought of disputing the application of Psa 110:1-7. to him. And not only so. The Old Testament itself suggests and exemplifies such applications. For students of the prophetic writings must be aware how utterances that had a primary fulfillment in one age are sometimes taken up in a subsequent one as though yet to be fulfilled, their scope enlarged, and their final reference often thrown forward to "that day"—the Messianic age—which alone terminates the view of the later prophets. Now, it has been said, in explanation of this mode of treatment, that prophecy often had a double meaning, referring partly to one thing and partly to another; or several meanings, with reference to several different things. But this way of putting the matter is unsatisfactory. Bacon better hit the mark, when, in a well-known passage in his ’Advancement of Learning’ (bk. 2), he spoke of "that latitude which is agreeable and familiar unto Divine prophecies, being of the nature of their Author, with whom a thousand years are but as one day, and therefore are not fulfilled punctually at once, but have springing and germinant accomplishment throughout many ages; though the height or fullness of them may refer to some one age." We may put it thus: It was of the nature of prophetic inspiration to lift the seer above and beyond his immediate subject to the contemplation of some grand ideal, which it suggested to his vision, and more or less perfectly fulfilled. He has, for instance, as the basis of his vision, a David, a Solomon, a Hezekiah, or a Zerubbabel; he has as its framework the circumstances of his own time or of the time near at hand; but we find his language, as he proceeds, rising far above Iris vision’s original scope, and applicable to those comprised within it only so far as they embody and realize the ideal which they represent to his mind. Hence the taking up of old prophecies by succeeding prophets, their enlargement and reapplication to new fulfillments; and this, too, in terms transcending the reality of these new fulfillments; as, for instance, when Isaiah, taking up the idea of Nathan’s message to David (2 Samuel 7:1-29), applies it apparently to a son and a reign to be looked for in his own age, but at length in language which can have no other than a Messianic reference (Isaiah 9:6, etc; Isaiah 11:1, etc; of. Jeremiah 33:15). Hence, lastly, the application in the New Testament of all such ancient utterances at once to Christ, as being the final and complete fulfillment of the ideal of prophecy, the true Antitype of all the types. A clear perception of this view of the drift of prophecy will remove difficulties that have been felt as to the application of many quotations from the Old Testament, in this Epistle and elsewhere, to Christ. Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee; a quotation from Psalms 2:7. This psalm is expressly quoted as David’s in Acts 4:25, and has internal evidence of being his, and of having had primary reference to his reign. For the mention of Zion (Acts 4:6) precludes an earlier date, while the circumstances of warfare alluded to do not agree with the peaceful reign of Solomon, nor the picture of undivided empire with any period after the secession of the ten tribes. Further, the rising and consequent subjugation by David of subject races, described in 2 Samuel 8:1-18., presents to us a state of things very likely to have suggested the psalm; and to this period of David’s reign it is usually referred with probability by modern commentators. But the question of date and authorship is not material to our view of the prophetic meaning of the psalm. Taking it to be David’s, we find as follows: There is a rebellious confederation of subject kings against the dominion of the King of Israel, who is spoken of as "the Anointed" of the LORD. In view of their hostile preparations, the LORD in heaven is conceived as laughing to scorn their devices against him whom he himself had enthroned on Zion. Then the king speaks, "I will declare the decree [or, ’I will tell of a decree’]; the Load said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I will give thee the nations for thine inheritance, and for thy possession the ends of the earth." Then follows an admonition to the rebels to do homage to this SON, submission to whom is submission to the Loan, and whose anger is as the LORD’S anger. Now, it is evident that the language used transcends literal application to any earthly king. Hence some commentators have been led to suppose that it had no even primary reference to one, being simply prophetic of the Messiah, though suggested by the circumstances of David’s day. Thus Ebrard, supporting his view by the assumption (which is usually made) of the message of Nathan to David (2 Samuel 7:14) being the "decree" referred to in the psalm, and the foundation of the confidence expressed in it. He argues that it was not to David, but to his posterity (ערַזֶ), that the position of sonship was assigned, and eternal dominion promised; and hence that David in this psalm (which he considers to have been certainly by him) must have been speaking, not in his own name, but in that of his seed after him, looking adoringly forward to the fulfillment of that glorious hope in the distant future (2 Samuel 7:19). Thus, he concludes, the insurrection of the Syrians forms merely the occasion, but not the object and import, of the second psalm. But, even if the message of Nathan were certainly the basis of the idea of the psalm, we find an instance of the express application of that message to David himself; as well as to his posterity, in Psalms 89:1-52. (see Psalms 89:20-28). It may be, however, that the reference in the psalm is to some Divine intimation, possibly to some prophecy or oracular utterance, delivered to David himself at the time of the inauguration of his own sovereignty, and long before Nathan’s message. In any case, it is in accordance with the genius of prophecy, as above explained, that the words should have had a primary reference to David himself, so far forth as he imperfectly fulfilled their meaning. The main thing to be observed is that they represent an ideal of sonship and unlimited sovereignty beyond any that could, as a matter of fact, be considered as fulfilled in David. And this view of its meaning, suggested by the psalm itself, is confirmed by the use made of it in later Scripture. For it is evident that this psalm, together with the passage from 2 Samuel 7:1-29. (to be cited next) is made the basis of a long series of Messianic prophecies (of. 2 Samuel 23:1-39. 1, etc; Psalms 110:1-7; Psalms 89:1-52; Psalms 132:1-18; Isaiah 7-9; Isaiah 11:1, Isaiah 11:10; Jeremiah 23:1-40. 5; Jeremiah 33:15; Micah 4:1-13.-5; Zechariah 6:12, etc). Its application to Christ in the New Testament is distinct and frequent (cf. Acts 4:25; Acts 13:33; Roy. Acts 2:27; Acts 12:5; Acts 19:15). As to the phrase, "This day have I begotten thee," there is a difference of view among both ancient and modern expositors. The word "begotten" (γεγέννηκα) naturally suggests μονογενὴς, and is hence taken by some as referring to the eternal generation of the Son; in which case it can have had no application in any conceivable sense to the human type. "This day" has also in this case to be explained as denoting the ever-present today of eternity. So Origen, in a striking passage, "It is said to him by God, to whom it is always today. For God has no evening, nor (as I deem) any morning, but the time which is coextensive with his own unbegotten and eternal life is the day in which the Son is begotten, there being thus found no beginning of his generation, as neither is there of the day." Athanasius takes the same view; also Basil, Primasius, Thomas Aquinas, and many others. The main objection to it is the inapplicability of such a meaning of the words, even in a subordinate sense, to David or any other king of Israel. Alford, indeed, urges that this meaning agrees best with the context in the Epistle, on the ground that the eternal being of the Son, having been stated in the exordium, might be expected to be referred to in the proof. But this is hardly to the point. The writer has now begun his argument from the Old Testament, and is engaged in showing the idea involved in the term Son as applied therein to the Messiah. This, therefore, and not what he has said previously, is what we have to regard in our interpretation; and the most obvious view of the phrase, as it occurs in the psalm itself, is to regard it as a figure denoting forcibly the paternity of God; of. Jeremiah 2:27, "They say to the wood, Thou art my father; to the stone, Thou hast begotten me." It expresses the idea that the "Son of God" spoken of derives his existence as such from him, and not from human ancestry. Chrysostom, among the ancients, understands the phrase as thus referring to the sonship assigned to the Messiah in time, and not to his eternal being. This view being taken, "this day," in reference to the king, may mean the day of the "decree," or that of his enthronement on Mount Zion. In reference to Christ it has been variously understood of the time of his incarnation, or resurrection, or ascension. If it be thought necessary to assign any definite time to it in its application to Christ, the view of its being the day of the resurrection is supported by such passages as Colossians 1:18, πρωτότοκοςἐκτῶννεκρῶν: and Romans 1:4, τοῦὁρισθέντοςυἱοῦΘεοῦἐνδυνάμει .. ἐξἀναστάσεωςνεκρῶν: of. Acts 2:30 and Acts 13:32, etc., "The promise that was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again: as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." This last text, be it observed, is almost conclusive against the eternal generation being understood as referred to; as is also the application of the same text infra, Hebrews 5:5, where it is quoted in proof of Christ’s appointment to the eternal priesthood. [" The title of begetting is ofttimes in sacred language to be measured, not by the scale of philosophers’ or naturalists’ dialect, but of moral or civil language or interpretation. For they that are sons by adoption only, or next heirs by reversion to a crown or dignity, are said to be begotten of those which adopt them, or of whom they be the immediate heirs or successors: and in this sense in the sacred genealogy (Matthew 1:12) Jeconiah is said to have begotten Salathiel. So that David upon his own occasions (whether upon his anointing to the crown of Judah in Hebron, or of Israel in Zion) might in the literal sense avouch these words of himself, ’I will preach the law whereof the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee.’ For David to call the day of his coronation, or of his designation to the crown of Judah, or of all Israel, his birthday, or begetting of God, by whose special power and providence he was crowned, is not so harsh as some haply would deem it that either know not or consider not that it was usual in other states or kingdoms beside Judah to celebrate two natales dies, two solemn nativities or birthdays in honor of their kings and emperors: the one they called diem natalem imperatoris, the other diem natalem imperii; the one the birthday of the emperor when he was born of his natural mother, the other the birthday of him as he was emperor, which we call the coronation day. The reason might hold more peculiar in David than in any other princes, because he was the first of all the seed of Abraham that took possession of the hill of Zion, and settled the kingdom of Judah, prophesied of by his father Jacob, upon himself and his posterity Thus Ego hodie genuite, with submission of my opinion to better judgment, is a prediction typically prophetical, which kind of prediction, as hath been observed before, is the most concludent; and this one of the highest rank in that kind; that is, an oracle truly meant of David according to the literal sense, and yet fulfilled of Christ, the Son of God, by his resurrection from the dead, both according to the most exquisite literal and the mystical and principally intended sense".] And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son (2 Samuel 7:14); from Nathan’s message to David, which has been spoken of above. The words do not in themselves express so unique a sonship as those used in the psalm; but, viewed in connection with the psalm, with their own context, and with subsequent prophecy, they suggest the same meaning. David had formed the design of building a temple; Nathan, by the word of the Loire, forbids his doing so, but tells him that his "seed" after him should build a house for the LORD’S Name, and that the Load would establish the throne of his kingdom for ever." Then comes the text," I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son;" followed by, "If he commit iniquity, I will chastise him with the rod of men .. but my mercy shall not depart away from him And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever." Now, there can be no doubt that there was a primary and partial fulfillment of this promise in Solomon, who built the temple after David’s death. He took it to himself, so far as it was applicable to him, after his completion of the temple (1 Kings 8:17, etc). But it is equally evident that its meaning could not be exhausted in him. The eternity assigned to the throne of the kingdom points to a distant as well as an immediate fulfillment, and the word translated "seed" (Hebrew, ערַזֶ), though applicable in a concrete sense to an individual offspring (of. Gem 4:25; 1 Samuel 1:11), is properly a collective noun, denoting "posterity," and thus naturally lends itself to a far-reaching application. The consideration, however, of especial weight in support of such application is that psalmists and prophets cease not to make this original promise the basis of Messianic prophecy. See, not only Psalms 2:1-12., which may or may not refer to it, but also Psalms 89:1-52, and Psalms 132:1-18., together with other passages which have been referred to in connection with the second psalm. Thus we may properly apply to this particular passage the view of the meaning of prophecy which has been set forth in general terms above, according to which we must regard Solomon, with respect to the sonship assigned to him as well as to his kingdom and the house which he was to build, as but a type and imperfect realization of a grand ideal to be in due time fulfilled. Hebrews 1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the first-begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. The most obvious translation of the Greek here seems at first sight to be, "But whenever he [i.e. God] shall again bring [or, ’bring back’] the Firstborn into the inhabited world, he saith;" ὅτανεἰσαγάῃ denoting the indefiniteness of future time, and the position of πάλιν connecting it most naturally with εἰσαγάγῃ. If such be the force of πάλιν, the reference must be to the second advent; which, however, is not suggested by the context, in which there has been no mention of a first advent, but only of the assignation to the Messiah of the name of Son. This supposed reference to a second advent may be avoided by disconnecting πάλιν in sense from εἰσαγάγῃ, and taking it (as in the verse immediately preceding, and elsewhere in the Epistle) as only introducing a new quotation. And the Greek will bear this interpretation, though the order of the words, taken by themselves, is against it. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ Hebrews 2:1-5 as explained above. Hebrews 2:1 On this account (i.e. on account of what has been seen of the SON’S superiority to the angels) we ought (or, we are bound) more abundantly to give heed to the things that we have heard (i.e. the gospel that has been preached to us in the Son), lest at any time (or, lest haply) we let them slip (rather, float past them). The word παραρρυῶμεν (aorist subjunctive from παραρρέω) denotes flowing or floating past anything. The allusion is to the danger, incidental to those to whom the Epistle was addressed, of failing to recognize the transcendent character of the gospel revelation, missing it through inadvertence, drifting away from it. Hebrews 2:2, Hebrews 2:3 For if the word that was spoken through angels (i.e. the Law) was made (or, proved) steadfast (i.e. as explained in the next clause, ratified by just visitation of every transgression and disobedience), how shall we (Christians) escape, if we neglect so great salvation? The danger of neglect must be in proportion to the dignity of the revelation. The readers are now further reminded of the manner in which the gospel had been made known to them, and been ratified in their own experience, by way of enhancing the danger of disregarding it. Which (not the simple relative pronoun ἢ, but ἥτις, which denotes always, when so used, some general idea in the antecedent, equivalent to "being such as"), having at the first begun to be spoken through the Lord (opposed to "the word spoken through angels" in the preceding verse. Its beginning was through the Lord himself, i.e. Christ the SON, not through intermediate agency. ὉΚύριος is a special designation of Christ in the New Testament; and, though not in itself proving belief in his divinity, is significant as being constantly used also as a designation of God, and substituted in the LXX. for הוהי. It has a special emphasis here as expressing the majesty of Christ), was confirmed (ἐβεβαιώθη, answering to ἐγένετοβέβαῖος in the former verse) unto us by them that heard (i.e. by the apostles and others who knew Christ in the flesh). Here the writer ranks himself among those who had not heard Christ himself; his doing which has been considered to afford a presumption against St. Paul having been the writer. For, though not an eyewitness of Christ’s ministry, he is in the habit elsewhere of insisting strongly on his having received his "knowledge of the mystery," not from men or through men, but by direct revelation from the ascended Savior (cf. Galatians 1:1, Galatians 1:12). Still, he does not deny elsewhere that for the facts of Christ’s history he was indebted to the testimony of others (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:3, etc). It was rather the meaning of the mystery that he had learnt from heaven. Hebrews 2:4 God also bearing them witness; rather, God attesting with them. The word is συνεπιμαρτυροῦντος, a double compound, meaning to attest jointly with others. The idea is that the hearers of "the Lord" testified, and God attested their testimony by the signs that accompanied their ministry. The passage is instructive as expressing the grounds of acceptance of the gospel. Its truth was already "confirmed" to believers by the testimony of unimpeachable witnesses to that which, so attested, carried with it its own evidence. But the signs attending the apostolic ministry were granted for further attestation. Thus "signs and wonders," the craving for which as a condition of belief was so condemned by our Lord, have their true evidential value assigned them. They did not furnish the original basis of belief, which rested on Christ himself, his Person. and his work, as unimpeachably attested. They came in only as suitable accompaniments of a Divine dispensation, and as additional confirmations. The apologists of the last generation were given to rest the evidence of Christianity too exclusively on miracles. The tendency of the present age is to dwell rather on its internal evidence, and, so far as it can be done, to explain away the miracles. They are not to be explained away, having been, as has been said, fitting accompaniments and confirmations of such a dispensation as the gospel was. But to us, as well as to those early believers, they are not the first or main ground of our belief. To us, as re them, Christ and his gospel, testified to as they are by" them that heard," are their own sufficient evidence. Indeed, the cogency of the "signs" in the way of evidence is less now than formerly, since they too have now passed into the category of things that rest on testimony. The evidential counterpart to them in our case is the continued attestation which God gives to the gospel in its living power on the souls of men, and its results in the world before our eyes. It is thus that our faith is strengthened in "the salvation at first spoken through the Lord, and confirmed to us by them that heard." Four expressions are used for the miraculous accompaniments of the first preaching of the gospel, denoting, apparently, not so much different classes of miracles, as different ways of regarding them. They were (1) signs (σημεῖα), attesting the truth of what was preached; (2) wonders (τέρατα), something out of the common course of things, arresting attention; (3) diverse powers (ποικίλαιδυνάμεις), varying manifestations of a Divine power at work; (4) distributions of the Holy Ghost (Πνευμάτοςἁγίουμερισμοί), gifts of the Spirit to individual Christians apportioned variously—the last expression having especial reference to the χαρίσματα of the apostolic Church, so often alluded to in St. Paul’s Epistles. The phrase, with that which follows, according to his own will, is peculiarly Pauline, and confirms the conclusion that the writer, though not necessarily St. Paul himself, was at any rate one of the circle influenced by his teaching. Hebrews 2:5 Here the second division of the first section of the argument, according to the summary given above (Hebrews 1:2), begins. But it is also connected logically with the interposed exhortation, the sequence of thought being as follows: "How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation?"—For (as an additional reason) not to angels (but to the Sou, as will be seen) did he (God) subject the world to come, whereof we speak, "The world to come (ἡοἰκουμένηἡμέλλουσα)" must be understood, in accordance with what has been said above in explanation of" the last of these days" (Hebrews 1:1), as referring to the age of the Messiah’s kingdom foretold in prophecy. The word μέλλουσαν does not in itself necessarily imply futurity from the writer’s standpoint though, according to what was said above, the complete fulfilment of the prophetic anticipation is to be looked for in the second advent, whatever earnest and foretaste of it there may be already under the gospel dispensation. The word οἰκουμένην (sub γὴν) is the same as was used (Hebrews 1:6) in reference to the Son’s advent, denoting the sphere of created things over which he should reign. And it is suitably used here with a view to the coming quotation from Psalms 8:1-9., in which the primary idea is man’s supremacy over the inhabited globe. The whole phrase may be taken to express the same idea as the "new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness" (cf. 2 Peter 3:13). Hebrews 2:6 But one in a certain place (or, somewhere) testified, saying. The phrase does not imply uncertainty as to the passage cited. It is one used by Philo when exact reference is not necessary. It is equivalent to "but we do find the following testimony with regard to man." We say to man; for the eighth psalm, from which the citation comes, evidently refers to man generally; not primarily or distinctively to the Messiah. Nor does it appear to have been ranked by the Jews among the Messianic psalms. It would be arbitrary interpretation to assign to it (as some have done) an original meaning of which it contains no signs. This being the ease, how are we to explain its application to Christ, which is not confined to this passage, but is found also in 1 Corinthians 15:27? There is no real difficulty. True, the psalm speaks of man only; but it is of man regarded according to the ideal position assigned to him in Genesis 1:1-31., as God’s vicegerent. Man as he now is (says the writer of this Epistle) does not fulfill this ideal; but Christ, the Son of man, and the Exalter of humanity, does. Therefore in him we find the complete fulfillment of the meaning of the psalm. If it be still objected that the application (in which sovereignty over all created things is inferred) transcends the meaning of the psalm, which refers to this earth only—πάντα in Genesis 1:6. of the psalm being taken in a wider sense than seems justified by the following verses, which confine the application to earthly creatures, it may be replied (1) that the idea of the psalmist is to be gathered, not only from Genesis 1:28, which he quotes, but, further, from the whole purport of Gen 1:1-31., of which the psalm is a lyrical expression, including the conception of man having been made in God’s image, and invested with a sovereignty little short of Divine; (2) that, if the application does transcend the scope of the psalm, it was open to an inspired writer of the New Testament thus to extend its meaning, as seen in the new light from Christ. Taking the latter view, we have but to put the argument thus, in order to see its force and legitimacy: In Psalms 8:1-9. (read in connection with Genesis 1:1-31., on which it is founded) a position is assigned to man which at present he does not realize; but its whole idea is fulfilled, and more than fulfilled, in Christ. It is to be observed that the original reference of the psalm to man generally is not only evident in itself, but also essential to the writer’s argument. For he is now passing from the view set forth in Hebrews 1:1-14., of what the SON is in himself, to the further view of his participation in humanity, in order to exalt humanity to the position forfeited through sin; and thus (as has been shown in the foregoing summary) to lead up to the idea of his being our great High Priest. What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? In the psalm this exclamation comes after a contemplation of the starry heavens, which had impressed the psalmist’s mind with a sense of God’s transcendent glory. In contrast with this glory, man’s insignificance and unworthiness occur to him, as they have similarly occurred to many; but, at the same time, he thought of the high position assigned to man in the account of the creation, on which position he next enlarges. He asks how it can be that man, being what he is now, can be of such high estate. Thus the Epistle carries out truly the idea of the psalm, which is that man’s appointed position in the scale of things is beyond what he seems now to realize. Hebrews 2:7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels. Here the LXX. takes Elohim (being a plural form) to mean "angels;" as also in Psalms 97:7 and Psalms 138:1. The more correct rendering of the Hebrew may be, "thou reddest him a little short of God," with reference to his having been made "in God’s image," "after God’s likeness," and having dominion over creation given him. But, if so, Elohim must be understood in its abstract sense of "Divinity" (so Genesis), rather than as denoting the Supreme Being. Otherwise, "thyself" would have been the more appropriate expression, the psalm being addressed to God. The argument is not affected by the difference of translation. Indeed, the latter rendering enhances still more the position assigned to man. Thou crownedst him with glory and worship, and didst set him over the works of thy hands. The latter clause of this sentence, which is found in the LXX., but not in the Hebrew, is omitted in several codices. It is not wanted for the purpose of the argument. Hebrews 2:8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all things in subjection under him, etc. Here the argument from the psalm begins. It is to the following effect: For the subjection of all things, in the Creator’s design, to man leaves nothing exempted from his sovereignty. But we do not see man, as he is upon earth now, occupying this implied position of complete sovereignty. Therefore the full idea of the psalm awaits fulfillment. And we Christians find its complete fulfill-meat in him who, having become a man like us, and is made with us "a little lower than the angels," is now, as man, and for man, "crowned with glory and honor," at the right hand of the Majesty on high. Or we may put it thus: In the present οἰκουμένη man is not supreme over "all things" in the sense denoted; but in the οἰκουμένη to come "of which we speak," with its far wider bearings, he is, in the Person of Christ, over "all things" thus supreme. Therefore in Christ alone does man attain his appointed destiny. We may here observe how, even without the enlightenment of Scripture, man’s own consciousness reveals to him an ideal of his position in creation which, in his present state, he does not realize. The strange apparent contradiction between man as he is and man as he feels he should be, between experience and conscience, between the facts and the ideal of humanity, has long been patent to philosophers as well as divines. Hebrews 2:9 The phrase βραχύτι, where it occurs in this verse with reference to Christ’s temporary humiliation, is by many taken to mean "for a little while," on the ground that this meaning suits best the application to Christ, though its most obvious meaning in the psalm (quoted in Hebrews 2:7) is, as in the A.V., "a little." The Greek in itself will bear either meaning; and if "a little" be, as it seems to be, the original meaning in the psalm, there is no necessity for supposing a departure from it. All that the writer need be supposed to intimate is that Christ, through his incarnation, took man’s position as represented in the psalm. For the suffering of death. So the A.V. renders, connecting the words by punctuation with the clause preceding; the idea being supposed to be that Christ was "made a little lower than the angels" with a view to the "suffering of death;" i.e. because of the "suffering of death" which he had to undergo. But the proper force of διὰ with the accusative is better preserved, and a better meaning given to the passage, by connecting διὰτὸπάθηματοῦθανάτου with the clause that follows, and translating, But we see him who has been made a little lower than the angels, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor. His crowning was the consequence of his suffering; because of his suffering he was crowned; he won, as man, and in virtue of his human obedience unto death, his position of "glory and honor." Exactly the same idea is found in Hebrews 5:7, etc., where the purpose and result of Christ’s suffering, here anticipated, are more explicitly set forth (cf. also Hebrews 12:2). This view, too, suits the drift of the passage before us, which is that human nature has been exalted in the Person of Christ. That he, by the grace of God, should taste death for every man. Two questions arise here: (1) As to the meaning of the expression, "that he should taste death," etc; (2) as to the true reading, as well as the meaning, of the phrase translated "by the grace of God." As to (1), the clause is introduced by ὅπως, followed by the subjunctive, ὅπωςγεύσηται: and the construction of the sentence evidently connects it, not with ἠλαττωμένον, but with ἐστεφανωμένον It is, "Because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, in order that for [i.e. in behalf of] all he may taste of death." Now, the fact that the actual death was previous to the crowning suggests reference, not so much to it as to its permanent efficacy: and, further, the emphatic words are ὑπὲρπαντὸς, as shown by their position in the sentence; and thus the idea seems to be, "In order that for all his tasting of death may be availing." And he may even be regarded as still tasting of death after his crowning, in the sense of knowing its taste through his human experience, and so perfectly sympathizing with mortal man (cf. Hebrews 5:1-14:15, and below in this chapter, Hebrews 5:14, 15). It is a further question whether παντὸς should be here taken as masculine, as in the A.V., or, like the preceding πάντα, as neuter, in the sense of "all creation." The latter rendering seems in itself more natural, though" all mankind" must be conceived as the main idea in the writer’s view. At the same time, it is to be remembered how the redemption is elsewhere spoken of as availing for creation generally, for the restitution of universal harmony (cf. Romans 8:19, etc; Ephesians 1:10, Ephesians 1:20, etc). A further reason for understanding παντὸς in the wider sense will appear in our examination of the phrase next to be considered. (2) As to the reading χάριτιΘεοῦ. It is found in all existing manuscripts except in one uncial of the tenth century (Codex Uffenbach, cited as M), in a scholium to Codex 67, and in a codex of the Peschito. But, on the other hand, Origen, an earlier authority than any manuscript, speaks of the prevalent reading in his time being χωρὶςΘεοῦχάριτι being found only in some copies (ἐντισινἀντιγράφοσις). Theodoret, Theodorus of Mopsuestia, and the Nestorians also read χωρὶς: and the Latin Fathers, Ambrose, Fulgentius, and others, have absque as its equivalent. Jerome also speaks of the reading absque, but as occurring only "in quibusdam exemplaribus"—thus reversing in his day what Origen had said two centuries earlier as to the comparative prevalence of the two readings. The charge made by Marius Mercator, Theophylact, and OEcumenius against the Nestorians, that they had introduced the reading χωρὶς in support of their own views, is evidently untenable, since the testimony of Origen proves its prevalence long before the Nestorian controversy. It is, on the other hand, very probable that the use made of this reading by the Nestorians was a cause of the other being clung to by the orthodox, and being retained almost exclusively in the existing codices. And this probability greatly weakens the force of the evidence of the manuscripts as to the original reading. That both were very early ones is evident; but that χωρὶς was the original one is probable for two reasons: (1) that Origen testifies to its prevalence in his early day, and accepts it as at least equally probable with the other; and (2) that transcribers were more likely to change the unusual and somewhat difficult χωρὶς into the familiar and easy χάριτι than vice versa. Theodorus of Mopsuestia thus accounts for the reading χάριτι, which he rejects very decidedly. He says that some persons, not observing the sequence of the passage, had laughably changed the true reading, because they did not understand it, into one that seemed easy to them. If χάριτι be the true reading, the meaning is plain enough; it expresses the view, often reiterated by St. Paul, of the whole work of redemption being "of grace." The objection to it, on internal grounds, is that the introduction of this view here seems flat and purposeless, as Theodorus of Mopsuestia forcibly contends in his argument against the reading. Χωρὶς, then, being adopted, the question remains whether to connect χωρὶςΘεοῦ (as Theodorus of Mopsuestia does, and as the Nestorians must have done) with γεύσηταιθανάτου, or with ὑπὲρπαντός. If taken with the former, its purpose must be to exclude the Godhead in Christ from participation in the taste of death. Some further explain by reference to the cry from the cross, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" But such reference does not suit the view above taken of the intended meaning o ὅπωςγεύσηταιθανάτου. Taken with ὑπὲρπαντός (as is rather suggested by the arrangement of the sentence, in which this is the emphatic phrase), it gives the meaning, "that for all except God he may taste of death"—this parenthetical exception of the Divine Being himself being similar to that which St. Paul sees reason for inserting in his application of the same psalm to Christ: Δῆλονὅτιἐκτὸςτοῦὑποτάζαντοςαὐτῶτὰπάντα (1 Corinthians 15:27). So Origen takes it: Εἰτεδὲ "χωρὶςΘεοῦὑπὲρπαντὸςἐγεύσατοθανάτον," οὐμόνονὑπὲρἀνθρώπωνἀπέθανενἀλλὰκαὶὑπὲρτῶνλοιπῶνλογικῶν. Also Theodoret: ΥπὲρἀπάντωντοίνυντὸσωτήριονὑπέμεινεπάθοςχωρὶςΘεοῦμόνηγὰρἡθείαφύσιςτῆςἐντεῦθενγενομένηςθεραπείαςἀνενδεής. The latter Father explains the wide sense in which it follows that ὑπὲρπαντὸς must be understood by referring to what St. Paul says (Romans 8:21) of creation itself being delivered from the bondage of corruption through Christ, and to the rejoicing of angels in the salvation of man. Hebrews 2:10 For it became him, for whom (διὰ, with accusative) are all things, and through whom (διὰ with genitive) are all things (i.e. God), in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the Captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. This refers to what was said in the preceding verse, of Christ having been crowned with glory on account of his suffering of death, and of his tasting death for all. That he should attain through human suffering even unto death to his own perfected state of glory, as being the Leader of human sons whom the one Father of all would bring to glory, was a design worthy of him for whom and through whom are all things—suitable to what we conceive of him and of his way of working. The word ἔπρεπε is used in the same sense not infrequently in the LXX. It is probably used here with some view to "the offence of the cross," which might still linger in the minds of some of the Hebrew Christians. In the argument that follows, supported still by reference to Old Testament anticipations, the writer not only meets possible objections lingering in the Hebrew mind, but also carries on and completes the view of the SON which it is his purpose to inculcate, leading up (as aforesaid) to the final position of his being the High Priest of humanity. Hebrews 2:11 For both he that sanctifieth (i.e. Christ, the ἀρχηγὸς) and they that are sanctified (i.e. the "many sons" who are brought unto glory) are all of one (ἐξἑνὸς, i.e. of God). The idea expressed here by the verb ἁγιάζω, to sanctify, may be determined by comparison with Hebrews 9:13, Hebrews 9:14; Hebrews 10:14, Hebrews 10:29; and Hebrews 13:12 (ἵναἁγιάσηδιὰτοῦἰδίουαἱμάτοςτὸνλαόν); cf. John 17:9. It is not the idea, to us most familiar, of moral sanctification through the Holy Spirit, but that of the redeemed being brought into a new relation to God, hallowed for "glory," through redemption; whence all Christians are called ἅγοι. Ἁγιάζειν is the equivalent in the LXX. of the Hebrew שׂדַקָ, which is applied to the hallowing of both the sacrifices and the people to God’s service. As an atoning sacrifice, Christ thus hallowed himself (John 17:19), that thus he might hallow the "many sons." Ἐξἑνός must certainly be taken as referring to God, not (as some take it) to Abraham or Adam. For the necessity of the SON taking part of flesh and blood in order to accomplish the redemption is not introduced till John 17:14. So far the common fatherhood spoken of has been that of him "for whom are all things and by whom are all things," who, "in bringing many sons to glory," has perfected "the Captain of their salvation." The idea is that it was meet that the Captain should be perfected through human sufferings, since both he and the "many sons" are of one Divine Father; in their relation of sonship (with whatever difference of manner and degree) they are associated together. Be it observed, however, that it is not the original relation to God of the "Sanctifier" and the "sanctified," but their relation to him in the redemption, that is denoted by ἐξἑνός. The common sonship does not consist in this, that he is Son by eternal generation and they by creation. It has been seen above that the term υἵος is net applied to Christ in this Epistle with reference to his eternal Being, but to his incarnation; and the human "sons" are not regarded as such till made so by redemption. Ὁἁγιάζων, and οἳἁγιαζομένοι rule the sense of ἐξἑνός. The view is that the one Father sent the SON into the world to be the Firstborn of many sons. The expression, frequent in the Pentateuch, "I am he that sanctifieth," may be cited in illustration of the moaning of the passage. For which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren; i.e. in the Messianic utterances of the Old Testament, to which, in accordance with the plan and purpose of the Epistle, reference is again made for proof. The point of the quotations that follow (John 17:12, John 17:13) is that the Messiah, notwithstanding the position above the angels, shown above to be assigned to him, is represented also as associating himself with men as brethren, in dependence on one heavenly Father. Hebrews 2:12 I will declare thy Name unto my brethren, in the midst of the Church (or, congregation) will I sing praise unto thee. This first citation is from Psalms 22:22, quoted, it would seem, from memory or from a text of the LXX. different from ours, διηγήσομαι being changed to ἀπαγγελῶ, but with no difference of meaning. The psalm is attributed by tradition to David, being entitled "a psalm of David." Delitzsch and Ebrard accept it as certainly his, concluding, from its position in the first book of the psalms (1-72), that it was included in the collection made by David himself (cf. 2 Chronicles 23:18 with Psalms 72:20). Others, as recently Perowne, think that the fact of the suffering and humiliation described, being beyond any experienced by David himself, points to some other unknown author. The conclusion, however, does not necessarily follow. David, writing "in Spirit," when under persecution by Saul, may be conceived as drawing a picture, with regard both to present humiliation and to expected triumph, beyond the facts of his own case, taking his own experience as typical of a higher fulfillment. And the minute details of the suffering described, answering so remarkably to the circumstances of the Crucifixion, certainly suggest the idea of a distinct prophetic vision. Still, there is no reason for concluding that the psalm was not, like other Messianic psalms, suggested by and founded on the writer’s own circumstances and experience. Detitzsch says well, "The way of sorrows by which David mounted to his earthly throne was a type of that Via Dolorosa by which Jesus, the Son of David, passed before ascending to the right hand of the Father." There is no psalm of which the ultimate Messianic reference is to Christian believers more undoubted. The first words of it were uttered by Jesus himself from the cross (Matthew 27:46); and for its fulfillment in him, recognized by the evangelists, see Matthew 27:39, Matthew 27:43; John 19:23, John 19:28. The general purport of the psalm is as follows: A persecuted sufferer, under a feeling of being forsaken by God, pours out his complaint, and prays for succor; suddenly, at the end of Joh 19:21, the tone of the psalm changes into one of confident anticipation of deliverance and triumph, when the psalmist shall praise the Lord in the congregation of his brethren, when all that fear the Lord shall join him in praise, when the "ends of the earth" shall turn to the Lord, and "all the families of the nations" shall worship with Israel. The close agreement of the latter part of the psalm with the Messianic anticipations of prophecy is obvious, and would in itself determine its Messianic import. The marked difference between this psalm and those previously quoted is that the typical psalmist appears hero as a human sufferer previously to his triumph, thus anticipating the similar view of the Messiah in prophecy, as notably in Isaiah lilt. And hence this psalm is suitably quoted here as a striking and early anticipation of a Messiah "perfected through sufferings," and associated in sympathy with human "brethren," the verse actually quoted, in which "he is not ashamed to call them brethren," being sufficient to remind the readers of the whole of this aspect of Messianic prophecy. Hebrews 2:13 And again, I will put my trust in him. There are two passages of the Old Testament from which this may be a citation 2 Samuel 22:3 and Isaiah 8:17. In either case the original is slightly altered in the citation, probably with a purpose; the emphatic ἐγὼ being prefixed, and ἔσομαι being (suitably after this addition) placed before instead of after πεποιθὼς. The purpose of this change may be to bring into prominence the thought that the Messiah himself, in his humanity, puts his trust in God as well as the "brethren" with whom he associates himself. The passage in 2 Samuel 22:3 is from the psalm of David, written "in the day when the Loan had delivered him out of the hand of all his enemies, and out of the hand of Saul." It is given also in the Book of Psalms as Psalms 18:1-50., where the LXX. reads ἐλπιῶἐπαὐτόν instead of πεποίθωςἔσομαιἐπαὐτῷ: so that, if the quotation is from the psalm, it is taken from the historical book. But is the quotation from the psalm or from Isaiah? If from the former, it serves (if Psalms 22:1-31. is also David’s) to complete the type of the same royal sufferer, showing him reliant on God along with his brethren in the day of success, as well as during previous trial. Most commentators, however, suppose the quotation to be from Isaiah, inasmuch as the following one is from him, not only coming immediately after the first in the original, but also dependent on it for its meaning. Nor is the introduction of the second quotation by καὶπάλιν conclusive against its being the continuation of the same original passage, since it introduces a new idea, to which attention may be thus drawn. Possibly the writer, familiar as he was with the Old Testament, had both passages in his view, the phrase common to both serving as a connecting link between David and Isaiah. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me. The applicability of the whole passage in Isaiah (Isaiah 8:17, Isaiah 8:18) to the writer’s argument is not at first sight obvious. It occurs in connection with the memorable message to Ahaz, on the occasion of the confederacy of Rezin and Pekah against Judah, in the course of which the prophet foretells. In the midst of general dismay and disbelief the prophet stands firm and undaunted, presenting himself as a sign as well as a messenger of the salvation which he foretells: "Behold, I and the children whom the Lord hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the Lord of hosts." The "children" thus associated with himself as signs appear to have been his two sons, with their symbolical names, Shear-jashub and Maher-shalal-hash-baz, the first of whom he had been commanded to take with him (Isaiah 7:3) on his first visit to Ahaz, and the second of whom (Isaiah 8:3) had been borne to him by the "prophetess," and named under a Divine command. His own name also may be regarded in the "sign" as symbolical, meaning "Jehovah’s salvation." If then, the words of Heb 9:17, Hebrews 9:18 are quoted as those of the prophet himself (and they are certainly his own in our Hebrew text), he is viewed as himself a sign, in the sense of type, of the Immanuel to come. And the point of the quotation is that, to complete such typical sign, it was required that "the children God had given him" should be combined with him in the representation. They represent the ἀδελφοί, the ἀγιαζομένοι, as Isaiah does the υἱὸς, the ἀγιάζων, all being together ἐξἑνός. If it be objected that the children given to Isaiah were his own offspring, and not "brethren," as in the antitype, it may be replied that it is net the human paternity of the "children," but their having been given by God to the prophet to he "signs" along with him, that is the prominent; idea in the original passage, and that, thus viewed, the words of Isaiah have their close counterpart in those of our Lord; "The men which thou gavest me out of the world; thine they were, and thou gavest them me" (John 17:6, John 17:9, John 17:11, John 17:12). Such, then, may be the ground for assigning the utterance to Christ, justified by the Messianic character of Old Testament prophecy in general, according to which "the historic sense of the utterance does not exclude the purpose of prophecy; but leaves typical references open which declare themselves historically by some corresponding Messianic fact, and hence are recognized afterwards from the point of view of historic fulfillment" (Meyer). But when we refer to the LXX. (which in the passage before us varies greatly from the Hebrew) we find a further reason. The LXX. has (Isaiah 8:16, Isaiah 8:17, Isaiah 8:18) "Then shall be manifest these that seal the Law that one should not learn it. And he will say (καὶἐρεῖ), I will wait upon God, who has turned away his hoe from the house of Israel, and I will put my trust in him. Lo I and the children which God hath given me." Here, in the absence of any preceding nominative in the singular to be the subject of ἐρεῖ, the writer of the Epistle may have understood the Messiah to be the speaker; and the Seventy also may have so intended the expression. The general drift of the passage, as interpreted in the Epistle, remains the same, though the LXX. more distinctly suggests and justifies its application to Christ. The only difference is that, according to the Hebrew, the prophet speaks and is regarded as a type; according to the LXX., the Antitype himself is introduced as speaking, and declaring the type of Isaiah to be fulfilled in himself. Hebrews 2:14, Hebrews 2:15 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of (literally, have been, made partakers of; i.e. so made as to share alike), blood and flesh (this is the order of the words, as in Ephesians 6:12, according to the great preponderance of authority; Delitzsch sees in it a reference to "the blood-shedding for the sake of which the Savior entered into the fellowship of bodily life with us"), he also himself likewise (rather, in like manner; i.e. with "the children") took part in the same; that through death he might destroy (καταργήσῃ, equivalent to "bring to nought," "render impotent as though not existing;" the word is frequent with St. Paul) him that had (or, has) the power of death, that is, the devil; and deliver (i.e. from bondage) all those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. Hero the purpose of the Incarnation is set forth as requiring the complete association of the SON with human brethren to which prophecy had pointed. But more is now declared than the prophecies so far quoted have implied; and thus is introduced (by way of anticipation, as is usual in the Epistle) the doctrine of atonement, which is to be dwelt on afterwards. For the object of Christ’s becoming one of us is now further said to be that by dying he might effect redemption. The "children" in Hebrews 2:14 are the παιδία of the type in Isaiah, fulfilled in the "many sons" to be "sanctified" and brought to glory. For understanding’ the account here given of the purpose of the Incarnation, we must remember that death, originally announced (Genesis 2:17) as the penalty of transgression, is regarded in the New Testament (notably by St. Paul) as the sign of the continual dominion of sin over the human race. Thus in Romans 5:12, Romans 5:15 the mere fact that all men "from Adam to Moses" had died is adduced as sufficient proof that all were under condemnation as sinners. Whatever further idea is implied in the word "death "—such as alienation from God in whom is life eternal, or any "blackness of darkness" thereupon ensuing in the world beyond the grave—of man’s subjection or liability to all this his natural death is regarded as the sign. It is to be remembered, too, that "the devil," through whom it was that sin first entered, and death through sin, is revealed to us generally as the representative of evil (ὁπονηρός), and, as such, the primeval manslayer (ἀνθρωποκτόνοςἀπἀρχῆς), with power given him over death, the penalty of sin, as long as man remains in his dominion, unredeemed. Till redemption east a new light upon the gloom of death, man was all his life long in fear of it; its shadow was upon him from his birth; it loomed ever before him as a passing into darkness, unrelieved by hope. We know well how the hopeless dismalness of death was a commonplace with the classical poets, and how, even now, the natural man shrinks from it as the last great evil. But Christ, human, yet sinless, died for all mankind, and, so dying, wrested from the devil his power over death, and emancipated believers from their state of "bondage" (as to which, see below). On particular expressions in this passage we may remark: (1) That, "having the power of death," which has been variously interpreted, may be taken in the usual sense of ἔχεινκράτοςτινος, viz. "having power, or dominion, over." Satan has had the dominion over death allowed him because of human sin. And it may be observed that elsewhere, not only death, but other woes that flesh is heir to—its precursors and harbingers—are attributed to Satanic agency (cf. John 1:12; John 2:6; Luke 13:16; 1 Corinthians 5:5). (2) Christ is not here said to have as yet abolished death itself; only to have rendered impotent him that had the power of it; for natural death still "reigns," though to believers it has no "sting." In the end (according to 1 Corinthians 15:26; Revelation 20:14; 21:4) death itself will be destroyed. In one passage, indeed, it is spoken of by St. Paul as already abolished (καταργήσαντοςμὲντὸνθάνατον, 2 Timothy 1:10); but this is in the way of anticipation: death is already vanquished and disarmed to believers. (3) The bondage (δουλεία) spoken of is the condition of unredeemed man, often so designated by St. Paul. See Romans 7:1-25. and 8., where man’s bondage (felt when conscience is awake) to "the law of sin in the members," and his emancipation from it through faith, are described; and especially Romans 8:15, Romans 8:16, Romans 8:17 ("For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear," etc), as elucidating (4)The word ἔνοχος, followed this passage by the genitive (δουλείας), expresses here more than "liability to;" it implies present implication, equivalent to "in hold to." The A.V., "subject to," expresses the idea adequately. Hebrews 2:16, Hebrews 2:17 For verily, etc. The A.V. (following the ancient interpreters) takes this verse as referring to the Incarnation. But (1) ἐπιλαμβάνεσθαισπέρματος and, still more, ἐπιλαμβάνεσθαιἀγγέλων, seems an awkward way of expressing "to assume the nature of." The usual sense of the verb, followed by a genitive, is "to take hold of," as ἐπιλαμβάνεσθαιχειρός; and especially in the sense of "succouring" (cf. Matthew 14:31; Hebrews 8:9; Isaiah 31:1-9:32, Ἐνἡμέραἐπιλᾶμβομένουμουτῆςχειρὸςαὐτῶν; and Ecclus. 4:11, Ἡσοφίαἐπιλαμβάνεταιτῶνζητούντωναὐτήν. (2) The present tense of the verb is inappropriate to the past act of the Incarnation, which has, moreover, been sufficiently declared in verse 14. (3) The sequence of though+, in the following verse is not easily intelligible if the Incarnation be the subject of this:" Whence it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren;"—this does not follow from his having become incarnate; we should rather say that his incarnation was the means of his being made like them. Translate, therefore, observing the position of the substantives before the verbs, For not, I ween, angels cloth he lay hold of (to succor them), but the seed of Abraham he doth lay hold of. The allusion is to its being the human "children of promise," and not angels, that are denoted in prophecy as being, and acknowledged to be, the object of the Messianic redemption. The expression, "the seed of Abraham," is, of course, not intended to exclude the Gentiles: it is appropriately used in reference to the Messianic promises of the Old Testament (cf. Genesis 23:1-20. 18; Isaiah 41:8): and the extension of its meaning to "all them that believe" would be as familiar to the first readers of the Epistle as to us (cf. Matthew 3:9; John 8:39; Romans 4:11, Romans 4:16). The conclusion of verse 17 (which repeats virtually what has been alleged before, after reason given) now naturally follows: Whence it behooved him in all things to be assimilated to his brethren; i.e. to the race which was the object of his redemptive succor. But, further, why the need of this entire assimilation, to the extent of participation in suffering unto death? That he might become a merciful (or, compassionate) high priest, in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. It was that he might be fully constituted as the High Priest of humanity. Here, according to the manner of the Epistle, the view of priesthood, to be afterwards set forth at length, is briefly hinted. It is taken up in Hebrews 5:1-14., after the conclusion that Christ is man’s High Priest has been reached by another line of argument (see preceding summary). In Hebrews 5:1-14. one of the essentials of a true high priest (whose office is to mediate for man in things pertaining to God) is set forth as being that he should be of the same race and nature with those for whom he mediates, and able in all respects to sympathize with them: and this view is here foreshadowed. Hebrews 2:18 Such power of sympathy Christ, by undergoing human sulk. ring and temptation, acquired. For in that (or, wherein) he hath suffered himself being tempted (or having been himself tempted in that wherein he hath suffered), he is able to succor them that are tempted. Hebrews 2:1-4 A solemn parenthetical warning. Out of solicitude for the spiritual well-being of his readers, the writer pauses here for a moment, to enforce upon them the necessity of’ holding fast the New Testament salvation. He does so in words which are burning with urgency. I. THE DUTY. How prone men are to "neglect the great salvation" (Hebrews 2:3)! All classes of sinners do so—the blasphemer, the infidel, the self-righteous mart, the respectable worldling, the procrastinator. Thousands of church-going people ignore the gospel, out of love of the world and secret repugnance to Christ and his cross. Even believers themselves are very prone to "drift away from" (Hebrews 2:1) their anchorage in the gospel verities. The early Hebrew Christians were strongly tempted to relapse into Judaism; our besetting danger is that we allow ourselves to glide with the multitude down the swift current of worldliness and indifference. We need, therefore, "to give the more earnest heed." Want of heedfulness on the part of professing believers is a great evil of our time. "My people doth not consider." What a blessing would dawn upon the Church, were all its members to begin to "search the Scriptures," and to make intense application of mind and heart to the spiritual study of saving truth! Only thus will Christian faith both live and grow. Only thus may one’s life be a life of real devotion to the Redeemer. Only by discharging this duty of constant watchfulness will a believer be preserved from apostasy. II. THE MOTIVES BY WHICH IT IS . "Therefore" (Hebrews 2:1); i.e. on account of all that has been said in the previous chapter. 1. The greatness of the gospel. "So great salvation (Hebrews 2:3). What an unfathomable depth of meaning underlies this little word "so"! The new revelation far transcends the old, inasmuch as in the Son we have received a visible manifestation of God, an adequate atonement for sin, an intelligible exhibition of the spirituality of religious service, a perfect expression of the dignity of man, and a clear revelation of eternal life. Especially does the new economy excel the old in the distinctness with which it exhibits "salvation" as its characteristic feature. The gospel proclaims the love of God. It offers pardon. It breathes a new life into the soul. It rescues from the despotism of sin. It promises a glorious immortality. And at what an infinite expenditure has this salvation been provided! It cost the incarnation of Christ, together with his obedience, suffering and death. It costs still the pleadings and strivings of the Spirit. 2. The dignity of its first Preacher. "At the first spoken through the Lord." (Hebrews 2:3). In Hebrews 1:1-14., the writer has unfolded and illustrated from Scripture the glory of Christ. He is greater than the prophets of the Old Testament, and. more eminent than the angels by whose ministrations the Sinaitic Law had been proclaimed. He is the Son of God—his visible manifestation and his exact counterpart. He made and sustains and possesses the universe. He is not only the Prophet of the Church; he is its atoning Priest and. its exalted King. And this first Preacher continues with the Church as its perennial Prophet. He speaks to us today and always by his Word and Spirit. 3. The attestations which it has receive& (Hebrews 1:3, Hebrews 1:4) The Church has the testimony of the apostles and early evangelists to the facts and doctrines of the gospel. These were even sealed from heaven by the miracles of Christ and. his apostles, as well as by gifts from the fullness of the Spirit distributed among the early Christians. But we have now far greater witness than these. The highest evidence of the truth is the truth itself. The history of the Church has been an ever-cumulating attestation of Christianity. Myriads of believers have certified the gospel by their experience of its power within their hearts. It has been attested from millions of death-beds. "We are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses." 4. The inevitable doom of those who neglect it. (Hebrews 1:2, Hebrews 1:3) If the Law, given by angels, could not be violated with impunity, how much more certain and dreadful must be the ruin of all who reject the message of mercy spoken by the lips of the Lord- himself (Hebrews 10:28-31)! Escape for such is plainly impossible. For did not man’s redemption cost the tears and. groans and blood of the Redeemer? Had these not been indispensably necessary, they would not have been expended. And what can any despiser of them propose to put in their place? Let professing Christians remember that they will miss salvation if they merely neglect it. As the farmer will lose his harvest by simple neglect, as the business man will become bankrupt by simple neglect, as the scholar will strip himself of his attainments by simple neglect, so the surest way by which to accomplish the irremediable ruin of the soul is just to "neglect so great salvation." In conclusion, these four motives to heedfulness are the very strongest that can be urged. The Three Persons of the Trinity all speak to us in them. They remind us at once of the unutterable love of God, and of the power of his anger. They appeal to the most sacred interests of our souls. If we are not aroused by these motives, even God himself can do no more for us. Hebrews 2:5-9 The royalty of man. The apostle, in beginning to touch upon the humiliation and death of Christ, shows that these arrangements brought him no dishonor. God had subordinated the new dispensation, not to angels, but to man (Hebrews 2:5); and human nature, restored in Christ to its imperial dignity, is destined to ultimate exaltation above angelic nature. I. MAN’S NATIVE . The writer cites, in illustration of this, the testimony of Psa 8:1-9. (Psalms 8:6-8). Here we have: 1. Man’s lofty nature. (Psalms 8:7) Humanity had a splendid origin. Though clothed meanwhile in a mortal body, our nature did not crawl up to its present position from primeval "sentient slime;" it belonged from the beginning to the same order of being as God its Maker. The first man was not a savage. He wore the crown of reason and conscience and moral freedom. In his spiritual and immortal nature he was made in the image of God. God was "mindful of him," and "visited him." 2. His kingly prerogative. "And didst set him over the works of thy hands" (Psalms 8:7). In bestowing upon man this illustrious kinship with himself, God placed in his hand the scepter of authority over all the creatures. The world was made that he might be its master, and rule over it as God’s viceroy. 3. His universal dominion. "Thou didst put all things in subjection under his feet" (Psalms 8:8). Not the inferior animals only, as Psalms 8:1-9. might lead us to conclude; but, as we learn here, as well as from 1 Corinthians 15:27, the entire visible and invisible universe. Even the world of angels is by-and-by through Christ to be subordinated to man. It is only "for a little while ’that man is to remain "lower" than they. II. HIS FAILURE TO REALIZE HIS . "But now we see not yet all things subjected to him" (1 Corinthians 15:8). 1. His nature is debased. Man’s course in the world has not been one of continuous upward development. So far from that, it has been a course of deterioration from the golden age of his original maturity. "The crown is fallen from our head." Man used his freedom to destroy his innocence. His spiritual nature is in ruins. He is the slave of his own evil passions. He feels far away from God, and he has lost all fellowship with him. 2. His authority is resisted. So soon as Adam rebelled against God, nature began to renounce allegiance to him. Having lost his purity, he forfeited the lordship, which had been his birthright. Since the Fall, man has not been able to master even the material world. Uncivilized nations live in ignorance of many of the simplest physical laws; and the most advanced rather wrestle with the forces of nature than command them. 3. His power is partial. How impotent man is in presence of earthquake and tempest! Frost and snow are mightier than he. Wild beasts defy him. Insect hordes destroy his harvests. Disease and death triumph over him. Man cannot rule his own spirit; and as for dominion over the spiritual world beyond himself, he is unable to see how such a thing can be possible at all. III. HIS RE- IN CHRIST. (1 Corinthians 15:9) The apostle’s comment upon David’s words fills them with new light and glory, by showing how their fulfillment centers in Jesus. He has become the focus of man’s destined royalty. 1. The life of Jesus exhibits the Divine ideal of man. We understand what is recant by our creation in God’s image when we "behold;" him. He has lifted our crown from the dust, and set it upon his own head. Think of his life of spotless purity and holy familiarity with God during the years in which he continued "a little lower than the angels." He was, while on earth, the Second Adam—the Son of man—the Type of imperial manhood. While in the world he exercised dominion over the creatures; and at length he was exalted to God’s right hand, where our faith now sees him. 2. His death gives man power to reach up to that ideal. Jesus voluntarily submitted to his humiliation and sufferings and death that he might put away the sin which has robbed man of crown and scepter. In tasting death he drank up the curse. His sacrifice has vindicated the righteousness and justice of God, and his blood has power to renew and sanctify the human soul. So, those who become united to him in his death are delivered from the thraldom of sin, and participate with him in his kingdom (Revelation 1:5, Revelation 1:6). 3. His glory is the pledge of man’s restored dominion. The last clause of 1 Corinthians 15:9 reminds us that seeing Jesus has himself triumphed over death, the benefits of his death have become, by virtue of his exaltation, available for all. His people, being one with him, shall partake of all the "glory and honor" with which, as the God-Man, he has been "crowned." Man’s restoration to imperial power is already being foreshadowed on earth, in the increasing triumphs of science and art among Christian nations, and in the gradual victory of what is moral and spiritual over brute force and evil passion. And in heaven the saints shall reign with Christ. They shall stand nearer the throne than the seraphim. They "shall judge angels." The whole of Christ’s vast empire shall be theirs (1 Corinthians 3:21-23). In conclusion, let us: 1. Cherish the scriptural idea of man’s dignity. 2. Remember that we can realize our destiny only in Christ. 3. Seek a saving interest in his atoning death. 4. Consecrate soul and life to his service. 5. Imitate him as the pattern Man. 6. Live in a manner befitting the great hope which we have in him. The necessity of Christ’s sufferings. The Savior’s sufferings, while he was on earth, were: 1. Numerous. They covered his whole life, and culminated in his "tasting death." 2. Various. He suffered in body and mind and heart, and at the hands of earth and hell and heaven. But his severest sorrows were spiritual—"the travail of his soul." 3. Unparalleled. His were the substitutionary sufferings of a perfectly holy human nature in most intimate identity with God. 4. Divinely inflicted. It is implied here that "it pleased the Lord to bruise him." The humiliation of Christ, so far from being incompatible with his headship, was indispensable in order thereto. He required to suffer— I. THAT HE MIGHT THE GLORY OF THE DIVINE . The glory of God himself is the ultimate reason, as his will is the law, of all things. "It became him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things;" i.e. the moral character of God rendered it needful that Jesus should taste death, if sinful man was to be saved. The necessity of the atonement did not arise only from the exigencies of God’s moral government. It was not effected merely that its power might soften the sinner’s heart into repentance. Rather, it was demanded by the perfections and character of God himself. The sufferings of Christ "became" God’s justice, which could not connive at our guilt; his truth, which necessitated the infliction of the threatened punishment; his holiness, which could have no pleasure in the friendship of degraded sinners; his mercy, which yearned for our salvation. Not only so, but the sufferings of Christ, in rendering the salvation of sinners consistent with God’s character, have at the same time been the means of gloriously illustrating the Divine attributes, of revealing them in their beautiful harmony (Psalms 85:10, Psalms 85:11), and thus of covering them with new splendor to the view of an admiring universe. II. THAT HE MIGHT OBTAIN HIS OWN GLORY AS . Christ;, "the Author of our salvation," was "made perfect through sufferings;" i.e. it was through his "obedience unto death" that he became fully qualified for his work as Savior, and was exalted to heaven for its accomplishment. He must needs suffer for the honor of God and for the good of man, before he could put on the lustrous robes of his mediatorial majesty. His glory is the recompense which his Father has given him for his sufferings. Only after making satisfaction on the cross for human sin could Jesus ascend to that immeasurable height of supreme authority upon which, as the God-Man, he now sits enthroned. III, THAT HE MIGHT THE GLORY OF GOD’S . It was the purpose of God to "bring many sons unto glory." He desired to raise our fallen humanity from the dust, and crown it anew "with glory and honor." But this could only be effected through Christ as the "Author of salvation." It is through him alone that a sinner, estranged from God, can be made spiritually a "son" of God, and exchange his career of guilt and enmity for that life of grace which shall at length be consummated in glory. The sufferings of Christ were necessary in order to the pacification of the human conscience, the restoration of man’s sonship, and the recovery of his eternal inheritance. And. they shall be effectual for these ends. Christ, God’s Servant, "shall justify many;" he shall bring to glory such multitudes of all nations, and kindreds, and peoples, and- tongues, as to entitle him to be called with fullest emphasis the Savior of men and the Redeemer of the world. Hebrews 2:11-18 Jesus our Brother. Here the writer expands the statement of Heb 2:10, and confirms it by suitable arguments. This closing paragraph of the first section of the Epistle emphasizes the fact that Jesus, the Son of God and the King of angels (Hebrews 1:1-14), is also as Mediator our brother Man. I. THE OF CHRIST. First, stated abstractly (Hebrews 2:11). Next, illustrated from Old Testament Scripture (Hebrews 2:12, Hebrews 2:13), the Messianic passages quoted being Psalms 22:22; Psalms 18:2; Isaiah 8:18. Then, verified from the facts and events of the Savior’s earthly life (Isaiah 8:14:—18). This endearing brotherhood is: 1. A brotherhood of nature. "All of one" (Isaiah 8:11); of one nature, of one race, of one Father. He "partook of flesh and blood" (Isaiah 8:14); i.e. he became man. He took his place as one of "the children" by being born. He had a human body, Subject, like ours, to pleasure and pain, to hunger and thirst, to suffering and death. And he had a human soul, which thought and felt, loved and hated, was joyful and sad, and which acknowledged its dependence upon the Father of spirits. 2. A brotherhood of condition. "In like manner" (Isaiah 8:14); i.e. in a manner almost similar. Jesus had no nimbus round his head, such as the painters give him. God sent him "in the likeness of sinful flesh;" for, though his human nature was perfectly pure, it was exposed to those infirmities and sufferings which in all other sons of Adam result from sin. 3. A brotherhood of experience. "It behooved him in all things to be made like unto his brethren" (Isaiah 8:17). So he actually passed through a complete course of pain and trial and temptation, which ended only with his death. He traveled over the entire range, and fathomed all the depths, of human suffering. "He himself hath suffered, being tempted" (Isaiah 8:18). He went through every human experience of poverty, toil, pain, disappointment, insult, persecution; through every sorrow which arises in a pure mind from constant contact with sinners; and through every form of Satanic temptation. 4. A brotherhood of love. "Not of angels doth he take hold" (Isaiah 8:16), to help and save them: then what a wonder of grace it is that he became the Redeemer of mortal man! It was from love to us that he "partook" so readily of "flesh and blood," that by this means he might raise humanity to a higher pinnacle of glory than any on which the loftiest angel can set foot. It is because of this love "beyond a brother’s" that even now he does not disdain "to call us brethren" (Isaiah 8:11). II. THE BY CHRIST’S . Some expressions in the passage state these generally. (1) "He taketh hold of the seed of Abraham" (Isaiah 8:16), to pluck them from sin and Satan. (2) "That he might be a merciful and faithful High Priest" (Isaiah 8:17): here we meet this famous title of Christ, "High Priest," for the first time—a title which strikes the key-note of the Epistle, and which is not given to him in any other book of the New Testament. (3) "He that sanctifieth" (Isaiah 8:11). Christ became incarnate that he might consecrate his people by delivering them from sin. Or, more in detail, he became our brother: 1. To expiate sins. (Isaiah 8:17) By his death in our nature he has offered to God a perfect satisfaction for the sin of the world. The perfection of his sacrifice is due to the fact that he who suffered is the same glorious personage who is described in Hebrews 1:1-14. as the Son of God, the eternal Jehovah, the Creator and Possessor of the universe. 2. To deliver/rein death and Satan. (Hebrews 1:14, 15) "The sting of death is sin;" but death is powerless to harm the new life of those who are cleansed with the atoning blood. Sin was introduced at first by the devil, and death through sin, and so death is associated with the devil’s usurpation; but Jesus has "bruised the serpent’s head," rendering him impotent in relation to "the children" who are to be brought to glory. They are emancipated by their elder Brother from death’s power and fear. 3. To enable him to sympathize with his people. (Verses 17, 18) He passed, as our Brother-Man, through every variety of trial and sorrow, that we may learn to have confidence in him, as being fully able to sustain and cheer us amid the darkest experiences of affliction (Hebrews 4:15, Hebrews 4:16). 4. To "bring many sons unto glory." (Hebrews 1:10) Jesus is our Moses and Joshua. He became our Brother that he might be our Leader through the wilderness of this world up to the heavenly Canaan. Had he not "partaken of flesh and blood," there would have been no inheritance for us. "The humanization of God is the divinization of man." LESSONS. 1. The native value of human nature, as seen in the fact that Christ has assumed it, to redeem it. 2. "Thanks be to God for his unspeakable Gift? 3. How great the madness of the man who rejects Christ’s offered brotherhood! 4. The necessity of union with Christ by faith, if we would have him claim us as his brethren. 5. The comfort of knowing, in our days of trouble, that the God-Man cherishes for us the love of a brother. 6. The duty of loving our brethren in Christ (Hebrews 13:1). BY W. JONES The superior privileges of Christians. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ THE SON TO MOSES. Here begins the second section of the argument of the first four chapters (see summary given under Hebrews 1:5). But though a new branch of the argument begins, it is linked, after the artistic manner of the Epistle, to what has gone before in a continuous chain of thought. This sequence is denoted by the initiatory. Hebrews 3:1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Jesus (Χριστὸν before Ἰησοῦν is ill supported, and to be rejected from the text). Reference to what has gone before is perceptible throughout this verse. The persons addressed are "holy," as being among the "sanctified" (Hebrews 2:11); "brethren," as being, with the writer, in this relation to Christ (Hebrews 2:11, Hebrews 2:12, Hebrews 2:13, Hebrews 2:17); their calling is a heavenly one, being from heaven (Hebrews 1:1) and to heaven (Hebrews 2:10). Jesus is their" Apostle," as having been sent into the world, as above set forth, from God; their "High Priest," as implied, though not distinctly expressed, at the end of Heb 2:1-18., which led up to the idea. "Jesus" is added at the end in apposition, so as to fix attention on him, as the bearer of these titles, who was known by that name in the flesh. On the title "Apostle," we may observe that, though it is nowhere else in the New Testament applied to Christ, yet its idea with respect to him is frequent both in flits Epistle and elsewhere (cf. Luke 4:43; Luke 9:48; Luke 10:16; John 17:3, John 17:18, etc). The word ὁμολογία (translated "confession;" in the A.V., "profession") is generally used for the Christian’s avowal of his faith before men (cf. Hebrews 4:14; Hebrews 10:23; 2 Corinthians 9:13; 1 Timothy 6:12). The genitive here depends on both the preceding substantives, its force probably being that Jesus, as Apostle and High Priest, is the object of our confession of faith. On Jesus, then, being such, the readers are called to fix earnestly their mental gaze, and in doing so take further note of his superiority to Moses, which is the subject of what follows. Hebrews 3:2 Who was faithful (or, as being faithful) to him that appointed (literally, made) him, as also Moses was in all his house. The reference is to what was said of Moses (Numbers 12:7), "My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house," and serves aptly to introduce the intended comparison of Christ with him. In respect of faithfulness to him who constituted him in his office, Christ resembles Moses; in respect to his office itself, it is to be shown that he is far above him. Observe (1) that "his house" means God’s house, as’ is plain from the text cited, i.e. the house of him who appointed him; (2) that "in all his house" has reference to Moses only, not to Christ; for the main point of what follows is that Christ is over God’s house, not in it, as Moses was. As to the verb ποιήσαντα (translated in A.V. "appointed "), it may have been suggested by 1 Samuel 12:6, where the LXX. reads ΚύριοςὁποίησαςτὸνΜωυσῆνκαὶτὸνἈαρὼν, the Hebrew verb being השׂעַ, which seems to mean in this case "constitute," not "create" (so Gesenius). The preceding words, ἀπόστολονκαὶἀρχιερέα, though it is not necessary to supply them as understood, may be taken here to rule the meaning of ποιήσαντι. Certainly not to his eternal generation (as Bleek and Lunemann); such reference is foreign to the idea of the passage; nor could the word ποιεῖν with any propriety be so used. Hebrews 3:3 For of more glory than Moses hath this man (so A.V., for οὕτος, supplying "man," though it is to be observed that the humanity of the person spoken of is not expressed in the original) been counted worthy (ἠξίωται: cf. Luke 7:7; 1 Timothy 5:17; Hebrews 10:24; 2 Thessalonians 1:11), by so much as more honor than the house hath he that built (or, established) it. Here the account of Christ’s superiority to Moses begins. On the several expressions used we remark: (1) The initiatory γὰρ connects the sentence logically with κατανοήσατε in Hebrews 3:1, and thus retains its usual sense of "for." (2) The form of comparison in the Greek, πλείονοςπαρὰ, is the same as in Hebrews 1:4, where the account of Christ’s superiority to angels began (on which see supra). (3) The "glory" (δόξα) here assigned to Christ is the" glory and honor" spoken of above as attained by him in consequence of his human obedience (of. Hebrews 2:9, "because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor"). This, rather than "the glory he had with the Father before the world was" (John 17:5), is suggested by the word ἠξίωται, as well as by the drift of the preceding chapters. We may suppose also a reference, in contrast, to the transitory "glory" on the countenance of Moses (ἡκαταργουμένη), which is contrasted (2 Corinthians 3:1-18) with the ὑπερβαλλούσηδόξα in Christ. We observe, further, that in the latter part of the verse τιμή is substituted for δόξα, as more suitable to the mundane comparison of a house and its builder. (4) Κατασκευάζειν may include the idea of fitting up and furnishing a house as well as building it. But what is the drift of the intended argument? It is usual, with the Fathers generally, to suppose that Christ (οὕτος) is intended to be denoted as the Builder or Establisher of the house in which Hoses was a servant, and that the argument is that he, as such, is necessarily greater than the servant, who was but a part of the house, or household, thus established. Οἶκος, it is to be observed, may include in its meaning the familia, as well as the house itself, as κατασκευάζειν may include the idea of constituting the whole establishment (cf. infra, "whose house we are"). Among moderns, Hofmann and Delitzsch deny this identification of ὁκατασκευάσας with οὕτος: against which there are the following reasons: (1) The SON has not been represented so far in the Epistle as the originator of the economy of redemption. Notwithstanding distinct intimations of his eternal proexistent Deity (as in Hebrews 1:1, Hebrews 1:2, Hebrews 1:10), it has been as the Messiah, the Apostle and High Priest, manifested in time, and passing through humanity to glory, that he has been regarded in the preceding argument. Nor is there any proof here adduced of his being the Builder of the "house," so as to justify the conclusion on this ground of his glory being greater than that of Moses. (2) The word ἠξίωται ("has been counted worthy of") suggests (as has been already remarked) refer once to the glory won by him, "on account of the suffering of death," rather than to his pristine glory as the Divine Builder. (3) Elsewhere in the New Testament, when the Church is referred to under the figure of a house, it is spoken of as God’s building (of. Hebrews 10:21; 1 Timothy 3:15; 1 Corinthians 3:9, 1 Corinthians 3:16; 2 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 2:22; 1 Peter 4:17; 1 Peter 2:5). It is never spoken of as Christ’s. £ (4) The wording of Heb 1:3 does not necessitate the identification of ὁκατασκευάσας with οὕτος. Καθὅσον means "so far as;" it implies only that the glory of Christ is greater than that of Moses, in proportion as the honor of the builder is greater than that of the house. (5) The identification increases the difficulty of understanding the relevance to the argument of Heb 1:4, of which more will be said presently. Taking, then, ὁκατασκευάσας to denote God the Father, we may state the argument thus: God is the Builder, or Founder, of his own house. Christ has been already shown to be his SON, associated with him in dignity and power, and, as such, Lord over his Father’s house. Moses, on the other hand, as appears from Numbers 12:7, was but a servant in God’s house. As, then, the Founder is to the house, so is the Son and Lord to a servant in it; the Son partaking of the glory of the Founder; the servant only of that of the house in which he serves. According to this view of the argument, the premises have been established, and the conclusion follows; the relation of Christ to the Builder of the house has been set forth in the preceding chapter, and may be now assumed; that of Moses is sufficiently shown by the quotation from the Pentateuch. Thus also Numbers 12:5 and Numbers 12:6 are found to carry out naturally the idea here introduced, instead of unexpectedly starting a different one. Hebrews 3:4 For every house is builded (or, established) by some one; but he that built (or, established) all things is God. Of the second clause of this verse "God" is rightly taken by modern commentators as the subject, not the predicate, though the Fathers generally take it otherwise. Thus Theodoret, regarding as a ὁπάντακατασκευάσας designation of Christ, views this clause as an assertion of his Deity on the ground of his being the Founder of all things. But this view introduces an idea out of keeping with the argument, and especially with the preceding expression, "faithful to him who appointed him," in which Christ, in his office as the Christ, is distinguished from the Creator of all who appointed him to that office. The verse seems to be interposed in elucidation of the preceding ὁκατασκευάσαςαὕτον, to make it clear that the Founder of the house spoken of is God himself, and thus to give full effect to the proportionate glory of Christ in comparison with that of Moses. Thus: the glory of Christ is greater than that of Moses by so much as the honor of the founder of a house is greater than that of the house;—of the founder, we say; for every house has some founder: but God is the original Founder of all things, and therefore of necessity the Founder of this house of his own in which Moses was a servant. The verse, thus interpreted, seems (as intimated there) to fall in with the train of thought mere naturally than it can be shown to do if Christ is ’regarded as the Builder. Possibly "all things" may be purposely used to denote the house itself over which Christ, as Son, is Lord. For, though the expression seems too wide for the limited house in which Moses was a servant, it is net so for the expanded and consummated house over which Christ in glory reigns; of. Hebrews 1:2, "Whom he appointed Heir of all things;" and Hebrews 2:8, "Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet;" the last being said in especial connection with the "glory and honor" wherewith Christ "has been counted worthy" to be crowned. It is not necessary to confine the meaning of "God’s house" to the Mosaic dispensation, or to assign to it (as some have done) two separate meanings in the eases of Moses and of Christ. It may be regarded as a comprehensive term, including in its general meaning the Law, the gospel, and the final consummation the whole dispensation of redemption, beginning with the Law, and completed at the second advent. Moses held office in its early stage, and there only as a servant; in its ultimate development it comprises "all things," and over "all things," thus comprised, Christ, as SON, has been shown to be by inheritance absolute Lord. Hebrews 3:5, Hebrews 3:6 And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were afterwards to be spoken; but Christ, as Son over his house. We have already anticipated the explanation of this passage, which, according to the view taken above, is a setting forth of the distinction between Christ and Moses intended from the first; that of one being "Son over," the other but "servant in," the house of God. The rendering of the A.V., "his own house," in Hebrews 3:6, where Christ is spoken of, is not justifiable. It is true that we have no means of knowing whether αὐτοῦ or αὑτοῦ was intended, and that even αὐτοῦ might, according to the usage of Hellenistic Greek, refer to Christ; but if the writer bad so intended it, he might easily have avoided ambiguity by writing ἑαυτοῦ, etc. He has not done so; and, therefore, it is most natural to take "his house" in the same sense throughout the passage; viz. As "God’s house," referred to in Numbers 12:7, whence the expression is taken. We observe further that "the things that were afterwards to be spoken (τῶνλαληθησομένων)" must be taken as denoting the future "speaking" of God to man "in his SON" (of. Hebrews 1:1); not, as some interpret, the speaking through Moses himself in the Law. Moses was inferior to Christ, not only in respect to his personal position as a servant, but also in respect to his work as such; which was only to testify beforehand, typically and prophetically, to a fuller revelation to come. Whose house we are. Here begins the transition to the warning intended when the "holy brethren" were first called on to "consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession," who has now been seen to be so much greater than Moses. We Christians constitute this completed "house of God," over which Christ reigns as Son; if only warned by the example of the Israelites under Moses, we forfeit not our higher calling. This condition is expressed by If we hold fast the confidence (or, our confidence) and the rejoicing (rather, boast) of the (i.e. our) hope firm unto the end. Παῤῥησιά (often rendered "boldness;" see below, Hebrews 4:16; Hebrews 10:19, Hebrews 10:35) is the confidence felt by assured believers; καύχημα is the boast thereupon ensuing. This word (as also καυχᾶσθαι) is often used by St. Paul (cf. Romans 4:2; Romans 5:2; 1 Corinthians 5:6: 1 Corinthians 9:15; 2 Corinthians 1:14; 2 Corinthians 5:12; 2 Corinthians 9:3; Galatians 6:4; Philippians 1:26; Philippians 2:16). Its proper meaning is not (as is by many supposed) the materies gloriandi, but the uttered boast itself (see note on 1 Corinthians 5:6, in the ’Speaker’s Commentary’). The con- eluding words, μέχριτέλουςβεβαίαν, are omitted in the Codex Vatican, and, notwithstanding the preponderance of authority in their favor, may have been interpolated (as is supposed by Mill, Tischendorf, Alford, and Delitzsch) from Numbers 12:14, especially as the reading is not βεβαίον, so as to agree with the substantive immediately preceding, but βεβαίαν, as in Numbers 12:14. Hebrews 3:7-11 Wherefore, as the Holy Ghost saith, Today if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. The warning, thus led up to, is now introduced by a long quotation from Psalms 95:1-11., which is cited at length, because the writer is about to dwell on its whole significance in the remainder of this and also in the succeeding chapter. The warning is connected by διὸ with the conclusion of Psa 95:6. Since our continuing to be God’s house is on the condition of our steadfastness, therefore beware of failing, as the Israelites referred to by the psalmist did. With regard to the construction of the passage, there is some difficulty in discovering the apodosis to the initiatory καθὼς ("as saith the Holy Ghost"). It seems best to suppose one understood, being suggested by "harden not your hearts," which occurs m the midst of the quotation. Sentences thus grammatically incomplete are in the style of St. Paul. Otherwise the apodosis must be found in βλέπετε (verse 12), the long intervening passage being parenthetical. It is, after all, only a question of grammatical construction; in any case the general meaning is clear. As to the successive clauses of the quotation from Psalms 95:1-11. (Psalms 95:7-11), it is to be observed that (1) "If ye will hear his voice" may probably mean in the Hebrew, "Oh that ye would hear his voice!" But the Greek of the LXX., cited in the Epistle, is capable of the same meaning. Here, again, the meaning of the particular phrase does not affect the drift of the passage. (2) "Harden not your hearts" expresses the abjuration which ensues from resistance of grace. Elsewhere such judicial hardening is attributed to God; as when he is said to have hardened Pharaoh’s heart (cf. Isaiah 6:9, etc; Matthew 13:13). The two modes of expression involve no difference of doctrine. It is God’s doing as being judicial; man’s as being due to his own perversity. As in the provocation, in the day of the temptation in the wilderness. Here κατὰτὴνἡμέραν, which is from the LXX., may mean "at the time of" (cf. Acts 16:25, κατὰτὸμεσονύκτιον), or "according to," i.e. "after the manner of." The former agrees best with the Hebrew psalm, which has "As at Meribah, as on the day of Massah in the wilderness," referring to the two places called by these names from what occurred there, when the people murmured for want of water. The first occurrence was at Rephidim, in the wilderness of Sin, at the commencement of the wandering (Exodus 17:1-8); the second was in the wilderness of Zin, near Kadesh, towards the end of the forty years (Numbers 20:1-14). Both names are assigned to the former place in Exodus 17:7; but elsewhere they are distinguished (see Deuteronomy 33:8). In the text, following the LXX., equivalents of the Hebrew names are given, Massah being rendered literally by πειρασμός: Meribah (equivalent to "strife ") by the unusual word παραπικρασμός, which occurs only here and in the psalm, though the verb παραπικραίνω is common in the LXX. The root of the word being πικρὸς ("bitter"), it may possibly have been suggested by the occurrence at Marah (equivalent to "bitterness"), where there was also a murmuring about water (Exodus 15:23), πικρία being the LXX. equivalent of Marah. (3) When (οὗ in the sense of ὅπου, as is common in the LXX. and New Testament) your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years. In place of the reading of the Textus Receptus, ἐδοκιμασάνμε ("proved me"), which agrees with the LXX., the authority of manuscripts is in favor of ἐνδοκιμασίᾳ. This again, like the ether variations of reading, is of no importance with regard to the meaning. But further, in the original Hebrew, and apparently in the LXX., "forty years" is connected with the clause that follows: "forty years long was I grieved," etc; whereas, in the text, the interposition of διὸ at the beginning of Exo 17:10, necessitates its connection with "saw my works." It is possible that the writer of the Epistle intended a reference to the corresponding forty years from the manifestation of Christ to the destruction of Jerusalem, which were drawing to their close at the time of writing, and during which the Israelites of his day were trying God by their rejection of the gospel, or, in the case of some of the believers addressed, by their wavering allegiance to it. The supposition that this idea was in the writer’s mind is supported by the fact that Jewish writers refer to the psalm as assigning forty years for the days of the Messiah (see reference in Bleek, Delitzsch, Alford, etc). That the writer had an intention in his variation from the original is the more likely from his following it correctly afterwards in verse 17. (4) As I sware in my wrath, If they shall enter into my rest. The reference here is to Numbers 14:21, etc., beginning with the Divine oath, "As truly as I live," which is again repeated in Numbers 14:28. The occasion was not the murmuring either at Massah or at Meribah, but the general rebellion of the whole congregation after the return of the spies, betokening a universal spirit of ἀπιστία (cf. Numbers 14:19). "If they shall enter (εἰεἰσελεύσονται) "is an elliptical form of oath, expressing strong negation. Hebrews 3:12 Take heed (literally, see), brethren, lest haply there should be (literally, shall be) in any one of you an evil heart of unbelief, in falling away from the living God. Here begins definitely the hortatory application of the warning of the ninety-fifth psalm. Its drift, to the end of the chapter, is: You, being called under the SON to a far higher position than your fathers under Moses were, but the retention of your position being, as theirs was, conditional on your faithfulness, see that you do not forfeit it, as some of you may be in danger of doing. That you may, if you are not careful, is shown by the very warning of the psalm, and by the example of your fathers, referred to in the psalm, all of whom, though called, failed of attainment through unbelief. It is implied all along that the "today" of the psalm includes the present day of grace, and points to a truer rest than that of Canaan, still offered to the faithful. But the full bringing out of this thought is reserved for the next chapter. On the language of Heb 3:12 we observe: (1) The same form of warning, βλέπετεμὴ, occurs infra Hebrews 12:25, but then, suitably to the context, followed by a subjunctive. Here the future indicative which follows, μήποτεἔσται, denotes a fact in the future, distinctly apprehended as possible (cf. Colossians 2:8). It had not ensued as yet, nor does the writer anticipate the probability of its being the ease with all his readers; but in the state of feeling with regard to the gospel among the Hebrew Christians which the whole Epistle was intended to counteract, he sees ground for fearing it in the ease of some. Their present wavering might result in apostasy. (2) It is not necessary to analyze the expression," an evil heart of unbelief," so as to settle whether the evil heart is regarded as the result of unbelief, or unbelief of the evil heart; the main point to be observed is that unbelief is connected with moral culpability, as is implied further in Hebrews 12:13. The unbelief so condemned in Holy Scripture is not mere intellectual incapacity; it is condemned only so far as man is responsible for it on account of his own willful perversity or carelessness. (3) The outcome of such "evil heart of unbelief," if allowed to become fixed and permanent, will be apostasy (ἀπόστηναι: cf. Luke 8:13; 1 Timothy 4:1) from "the living God," from him who is Eternal Life and the Source of all life and salvation. The thought of the momentous consequence of the falling away of Christians after light enjoyed is prominent in the Epistle (see especially Hebrews 6:4, etc; Hebrews 10:26, etc). The expression," the living God," further directs attention to the revelation of God in the Old Testament, in which he is continually so designated, and to the thought that it is the same God who has revealed himself finally in the SON. Addressing Hebrew Christians, the writer may mean to say," In apostatizing from Christ you would be cutting yourselves off from the God of your whole ancestral faith." There may be an intended allusion, too, to the oath, already referred to, of Numbers 14:21, Numbers 14:28, the form of which in the original is," As I live" (ζῶἐγὼλέγειΚύριος, LXX). Hebrews 3:13 But exhort one another (literally, yourselves, as in Colossians 3:16, the idea being that of the responsibility of the believers themselves in keeping their own faith alive; the Church must keep itself from apostasy by the mutual admonitions of its members), day by day, so long as it is called Today (i.e. while the "Today," τὸσήμερον, of the psalm is still called so, καλεῖται: while you are still living day by day within the limit of its meaning); lest any one of you be hardened (still referring to the warning of the psalm) by the deceitfulness of sin. Here again, as in Hebrews 3:12, the possible result of obdurate unbelief is distinctly traced to moral culpability. Sin is a deceiver (cf. Romans 7:11; Ephesians 4:22); it distorts the spiritual vision, causes us to take false views of things, and to lose our clear view of truth; and continued dalliance with sin may hare its result in final obduracy, which, as above remarked, is our own doing as it comes of our sin, God’s doing as it comes of his judgment. The sin contemplated in the ease of the Hebrew Christians as not unlikely to have its result in obduracy was, not only imperfect appreciation of the true character of the gospel revelation, and consequent remissness in mutual admonition and attendance at Christian worship (Hebrews 10:25), but also, as a further consequence of such remissness, failure in the moral purity of life, the active charity, the disentanglement from the world, and the endurance of persecution, required of Christians. This appears from the earnest exhortations that follow afterwards against all such shortcomings (see especially Hebrews 10:19-26, Hebrews 10:32-39; Hebrews 12:1-18; Hebrews 13:1-20). It was especially by conscientious perseverance in the religious life that they might hope to keep their religious faith steadfast and unclouded to the end; in accordance with Christ’s own saying, "If any man will do (θέληποιεῖν) his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God." Hebrews 3:14 For we are become partakers (or, partners) of Christ, if only we hold fast the beginning of our confidence firm unto the end. This is a repetition in another form of the assertion of our position as Christians, with the appended condition, in Hebrews 3:6. It is a question whether μέτοχοιΧριστοῦ means that we partake of Christ as being in communion with him, or that we are partakers with him of the glory he has won for us (cf. συγκληρονόμοιΧριστοῦ, Romans 8:17). The first is undoubtedly the ordinary sense of μέτοχος with a genitive in classical Greek, and generally in the New Testament (cf. e.g. infra, Hebrews 6:4, ΜετόχουςΠνεύματοςἁγίου), and is on this ground maintained by Bleek, Alford, and others; but in the LXX. μέτοχος, followed by a genitive, is as undoubtedly used for" partner" or "companion;" of. Psalms 119:63, Μέτοχοςἐγὼεἰμιπάντωντῶνφοβουμένωνσε: Hosea 4:17, Μέτοχοςεἰδώλων: and especially Psalms 45:7, Μέτοχουςσου, which has been already cited (Hebrews 1:9), and justifies, as it may prove suggested, the expression in this sense here. Cf. also in the New Testament, Luke 5:7, where μετόχος, though without an expressed genitive following, occurs in the sense of "partner." Further, the second sense accords better than the first with the view of our relation to Christ so far set forth in the Epistle. (2) On the word ὑπόστασις (translated "confidence"), see what was said under Hebrews 1:3. All the ancient interpreters understood it here in the same general sense as in the former passage—that of substance or subsistence, either as denoting our subsistence as members of Christ, or our faith regarded as the substance of our Christian life, or with other modifications of the general meaning. Modern commentators agree in understanding merely the sense in which the word is found to be commonly used by the Alexandrian writers—that of confidence, derived from the physical conception of a firm foundation. It thus corresponds with the παῤῥησίαν of Hebrews 1:6. (3) "The beginning" (τὴνἀρχὴν) of this confidence refers to the earlier stage of the experiences of the Hebrew Christians, before their faith had shown any signs of wavering. There is no sufficient ground for Ebrard’s inference from this expression, that the Epistle was not addressed to the Hebrew Church at large, which was the oldest of all Churches, but to "a circle of catechumens and neophytes." The phrase does not imply that the "beginning" was recent. All it need mean is, "Go on as you began." Further, we find, in Hebrews 5:12, a distinct intimation that the Church addressed is one of old standing. (4) "Unto the end "may have an individual reference to the end of life, or (the Church being addressed as a community expecting the second advent) a general one to the close of the period of grace during which "it is called Today." Hebrews 3:15 While it is said, Today, etc. Commentators have found unnecessary difficulty in determining the connection of ἐντῷλέγεσθαι. Many, taking the words as the beginning of a new sentence, have been at pains to discover the apodosis to them. Cbrysostom, Grotius, Rosenmuller, and others find it in φοβηθῶμενοὖν, Hebrews 4:1; notwithstanding the οὖν, which seems evidently to introduce a new sentence, and the long parenthesis which, on this supposition, intervenes. Others find it in μὴσκληρύνητε ("harden not your hearts"), in the middle of the citation of Heb 4:16, as if the writer of the Epistle adopted these words as his own. Delitzsch finds it in Hebrews 4:16, taken as an interrogation (τίνες, not τινὲς: see below); thus: "When it is said, Today … harden not your hearts as in the provocation,… who did provoke? Nay, did not all?" The γὰρ after τίνες he accounts for by its idiomatic use found in such passages as Acts 8:31; Acts 19:35, conveying the sense of the English, "Why, who did provoke?" But this use of γὰρ, obvious in the texts adduced as parallel, would be forced here; the structure of the sentence does not easily lend itself to it. Still, this is the view taken by Tholuck, Bleek, De Wette, Lunemann, and others, as well as Delitzsch. But, notwithstanding such weighty support, difficulties are surely best avoided by taking ἐντῷλέγεσθαι, not as commencing a new sentence, but in connection with Acts 19:14 preceding, as it seems most natural to take it in the absence of any connecting particle to mark a new proposition. In this case the translation of the A.V. gives a fully satisfactory sense: "If we hold fast the beginning of our confidence firm unto the end, while it is still being said, Today," etc; i.e. (as in Acts 19:13) "so long as it is called Today." Ebrard, Alford, and others, taking the same view of the connection of the words, prefer the translation, "In that it is said." But the other seems more in accordance with the thought pervading the passage. Hebrews 3:16-19 For who, when they heard, provoked? Nay, did net all those who came out of Egypt by Moses. That both these clauses are interrogative, and not as taken in the A.V., is now the prevalent view. The reasons for thus understanding them are (1) the analogy of the two following verses, both of which are interrogative, and in the first of which a question is similarly answered by putting another; and (2) the sense required. If the clauses were assertions, they could only be meant to express that the provocation was not universal, inasmuch as Joshua and Caleb (and it might be some few others) remained faithful. But to say this is unnecessary and irrelevant to the argument, the drift of which is to warn by "the example of unbelief;" and could τινὲς ("some") possibly be used to denote the whole congregation with the exception of so few? It is to be observed, too, that the ἀλλου) at the beginning of the second clause is a proper Greek expression (equivalent to "nay") in the case of one question being answered by another (of. Luke 17:7, Luke 17:8). This verse, then (γὰρ retaining its usual sense of "for"), begins a proof, put in the form of a series of questions, of the preceding implied proposition, viz. that the retention of Christian privilege is dependent on perseverance, and that the privilege may be forfeited. In order to show this fully, the history of Num 14:1-45., referred to in the warning of the psalm, is examined in connection with the successive expressions of the warning; and it thus appears that all who came out of Egypt by Moses (the small exception of the faithful spies being disregarded) provoked God, and so forfeited their privilege, and that the cause of their failure was sin, disobedience, and, at the root of all, unbelief. The conclusion is obvious that, as their example is held out in the psalm as a warning to us, we may, all or any of us, similarly forfeit our higher calling. That the psalm is a warning to us, the rest it points to being the rest won for us by Christ, is more fully shown in the following chapter. We observe how the leading words in Psalms 95:1-11. are taken in succession in the three successive verses—παραπικρασμός in verse 16, προσώχθισα in verse 17, ὤμοσα in verse 18—and how answers to the three questions suggested by these words are found in Numbers 14:1-45.—to the first, in Numbers 14:2, Numbers 14:10, etc., "all the children of Israel," "all the congregation;" to the second, in Numbers 14:29-34, with citation of the words used; to the third, in Numbers 14:21-24. It is to be observed, further, that it is not simply ἀπιστία, but its exhibition in actual sin and disobedience (τοῖςἀμαρτήσασιτοῖςἀπειθήσασι), that is spoken of as calling forth the Divine wrath and the Divine oath. The second of the above words implies more titan "believed not" (as in the A.V); ἀπειθεῖν differs from ἀπιστεῖν in implying disobedience or contumacy. And this view of the case of the Israelites agrees entirely with the historical record, where an actual rebellion is spoken of a refusal to go on with the work they had been called to. It suits also the application to the case of the Hebrew Christians, among whom (as has been said) it was not only wavering of faith, but, as its consequence, remissness in moral duty and in the facing of trial, of which the writer of the Epistle had perceived symptoms, and on the ground of which he warns them to take heed lest growing indifference should be hardened into apostasy. But in both instances, as faith is the root of all virtue, so want of it was the cause, and again the growing result, of moral decadence. And so the argument is summed up in the concluding verse, And we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief. Consider Jesus. The exhortation of this verse marks the transition from the first section of the treatise to those which follow. Its reference is both retrospective and prospective. Indeed, the whole Epistle says in effect, "Consider what is written herein concerning Jesus; for he is greater than the prophets, greater than the angels, greater than Moses and Joshua, greater than Aaron, and pre-eminent among the heroes of faith." I. A OF CHRIST. 1. The "Apostle" of the gospel Jesus, the Son of God (and no longer prophets or angels), is now the Divine Ambassador to men. God has sent him to us, as he sent Moses (Exodus 3:1-22) to the ancient Israelites (Hebrews 3:1-19; Hebrews 4:1-13). It is singularly appropriate that Christ, the Sent of God, should be called God’s "Apostle." 2. The "High Priest" of the Church. As our Mediator, Jesus draws near to God for us. He expiates, propitiates, reconciles, and intercedes (Hebrews 4:14; Hebrews 10:18). Through Christ, as Apostle, God holds intercourse with us; and through Christ, as High Priest, we hold intercourse with God. II. A OF CHRIST’S PEOPLE. 1. "Holy brethren." This phrase evidently looks back to Hebrews 2:11 and following verses. Believers are so styled on account of their common oneness with Christ, their Sanctifier and eider Brother. 2. "Partakers of a heavenly calling." This refers to the sovereign gift of regeneration, and of the blessings flowing from it, which all believers have received. The "calling" is "heavenly," because it has come from heaven; it creates heaven within us; and it conducts to heaven. 3. Confessors of Christ. Jesus expects his people to make an open and proud avowal of attachment to him as their Teacher and Priest. Believers confess him by connecting themselves with his Church, by sitting at his table of communion, by defending his honor, by spreading his truth, and especially by reflecting his likeness in their lives. III. A DUTY OF CHRIST’S PEOPLE TOWARDS HIM. Christianity centers in Christ; in fact, Christ himself is Christianity. Personal religion does not consist in any merely intellectual acceptance of gospel truth; it is a life of loving devotion to the living Savior. How necessary, then, that we "consider Jesus," earnestly, intensely, habitually, and make the study of him the main interest and business of life! We must" consider" him: 1. To know him. We are saved through faith in Christ; but knowledge is necessary in order to faith. If we would know the Redeemer in his Person, natures, offices, and work, we must "consider" him. 2. To love him. A Christian is one who loves Christ; but this love will fill his heart only in so far as he gazes admiringly upon the God-Man, who loved him and gave himself for him. 3. To serve him. If we truly love Christ as our Savior, this love will control and dominate our life. But, in order to know his will, our "eyes" must always "look unto the hand of our Master." 4. To become like him. Sanctification can be effected only by always "looking unto Jesus" for mercy and grace and aid, until we finally attain the prize of the heavenly calling. . This subject suggests a test of character. Do I belong to the holy brotherhood? Have I accepted the heavenly calling? Do I confess Christ with my lip and in my life? Is the contemplation of Jesus my most cherished desire? Hebrews 3:2-6 Christ greater than Moses It was a delicate thing to utter such a thought even to many of the Jews who had embraced Christianity, for the whole Hebrew nation guarded with intense jealousy the name and fame of Moses. But the writer acknowledges to the full the lofty dignity and splendid services of the ancient lawgiver, and then proceeds to show that Jesus Christ has been counted worthy of still greater honor. I. CHRIST’S TO MOSES. (Hebrews 3:2) The very fact of a comparison being instituted between Jesus and Moses reminds us of Moses’ greatness. Moses had a romantic personal history; his character was adorned with the grandest gifts of grace and genius; and he accomplished an illustrious life-work. He was a type of Christ both in character and career. The Jews venerated him almost to idolatry as their deliverer, leader, lawgiver, prophet, and advocate with God. Now, Christ was "a Prophet like unto Moses" (Deuteronomy 18:15). He is the Moses of the New Testament. Hebrews 3:2 suggests points of resemblance between the two. 1. Each introduced a new dispensation. "The Law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." The Jews were "baptized unto Moses;" Christians are "baptized into Christ." The writings of Moses are to the Old Testament Scriptures what the granite formation is to the other strata of the earth’s crust; so the written life of Christ is the foundation of New Testament Scripture. 2. Each was divinely commissioned and supported in his work. Moses, with his marvelous gifts, was raised up and trained and called by Providence to his life-task; and so was Jesus. Moses enjoyed peculiarly intimate intercourse with God, for "the Lord knew him face to face;" and so did Jesus. 3. Each was divinely recognized as "faithful." Fidelity to duty is the crown and flower of character. "My servant Moses is faithful in all mine house" (Numbers 12:7). "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him" (Matthew 17:5). II. CHRIST’S TO MOSES. (Hebrews 3:3-6) It was right that the memory of the lawgiver should be cherished with profound veneration; but, behold, a greater than Moses is here. Jesus has merited still larger honor. 1. Christ is the "Builder" of the Church; Moses was only one of the stones in it. (Hebrews 3:3, Hebrews 3:4) The Son of God, "through whom also he made the ages" (Hebrews 1:2), is the real Founder of every dispensation of religion. He redeemed the Old Testament Church, not less than the New, with his blood, and caused it to grow by his Spirit. Moses only introduced the Hebrew economy; it was God in Christ who founded it. Moses was a constituent member of the Jewish Church, i.e. a ransomed sinner, saved by grace like other men; a "living stone" built into the spiritual house by Christ the Master Builder. 2. Christ is a "Son" set "over God’s house;" Moses was only a "servant" within it. (Hebrews 3:5, Hebrews 3:6) Moses ministered in the Church as a confidential house-steward, or honored upper-servant; but Christ entered it as its Master, to preside over it by virtue of his Divine sonship. The author has already expatiated on this theme in Hebrews 1:1-14; and surely Jesus, the Apostle of Christianity, is more renowned than Moses, seeing that he is the very Image of God, and. the Lord of all the angels. 3. Christ is the incarnate "Word of God;" Moses was only his forerunner. (Hebrews 1:5) Moses bore "testimony" to "those things which were afterward to be spoken"—to the new and final revelation to be made at last, when God should speak "in his Son" (Hebrews 1:2). "Moses was the harbinger, Christ the illustrious Prince himself; the revelations of Moses were the faint twilight of the morning, those of Christ the full splendor of noonday; the institutions of Moses were the scaffolding, those of Christ the finished fabric of religious truth" (Lindsay). CLOSING . (Hebrews 1:6) If we remain perseveringly steadfast in our gospel faith, and joyful in our spiritual hope, we have therein the evidence that we ourselves belong to God’s house, the Church. Hebrews 3:7-19 Beware of unbelief. Eminent and honored though Moses had been, the generation of Hebrews whom he led out of Egypt became unbelieving and disobedient, and were in consequence overtaken by a dreadful doom. So the writer of this Epistle, realizing the strong temptations to relapse into Judaism which beset the Hebrew Christians, warns them against the still more dreadful consequences of apostasy from discipleship to Jesus Christ. I. A DANGER. It is that of losing our participation m God’s house; or, more particularly, of— 1. Present unbelief. (Verse 12) Unbelief is distrust of God, want of faith in the Divine promise and providence, and especially refusal personally to confide in the Lord Jesus as "the Apostle and High Priest of our confession." Unbelief may either presume upon God’s mercy, or despair of it, or neglect it. 2. Growing hardness of heart. (Verse 8) "With the heart man believeth unto righteousness;" and the heart also is the fountain of sin. Acts of refusal to listen to God’s voice petrify into habits, so that the heart becomes the longer the more careless impenitent, and disobedient. 3. Final apostasy. (Verse 12) As acts produce habits, so habits form character. A human heart indurated by unbelief, and confirmed in moral insensibility, will lapse either into atheism, or immorality, or settled worldliness; and, unless Divine grace interpose, will for over "fall away from the living God." This danger easily besets us all—much more easily than many professing Christians suspect. "Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall." II. A WARNING. (Verses 7-11) This the apostle introduces in words borrowed from Psalms 95:1-11, which describe the career of the Israelites of Moses’ day, in the wilderness. They had, as a people, been: 1. Highly privileged. (Psalms 95:9) As the result of the ten plagues of Egypt, and by means of their magnificent march through the Red Sea, they had been emancipated from slavery. They "saw God’s works forty years," in the falling manna, in the water from the rock that followed them, in their raiment which did not wear out, and in the cloudy pillar which accompanied them on their journeys. Yet they were: 2. Habitually faithless. (Psalms 95:8, Psalms 95:9, 16) They despised these abiding miracles, and demanded other signs as a condition of believing. They doubted and grumbled; they longed to return again to Egypt; they refused at God’s command to go up to take possession of Canaan; and at last they fell into the idolatries of the heathen around. Zin, Rephidim, Taberah, Kadesh-barnea, and Shittim are names which remind us how the ransomed Jews did "always err in their heart." They were obstinate and unanimous in their apostasy (verses 16, 17). So they were: 3. Hopelessly doomed. (Psalms 95:11, 17-19) The words of the psalm, "I sware in my wrath," reflect the intensity and depth of the Divine displeasure; and the language borrowed from the history, "whose carcasses fell in the wilderness" (Numbers 14:29, Numbers 14:32), suggests the deep misery of the retribution which fell upon that entire generation. But a ruin still more fearful shall be the portion of all who refuse or despise the gospel spoken by our Lord Jesus, the "Apostle" greater than Moses. III. AN EARNEST COUNSEL "Take heed, brethren" (verse 12). This exhortation is, in fact, the key-note of the whole Epistle; it is the chord which rules the strain. While the grace of God does not allow any real Christian to backslide irretrievably, he preserves his people from apostasy by the use of means suited to their rational and moral nature. So, here, the Holy Spirit exhorts every individual believer (verse 12) to "take heed." If we would not "fall away from the living God," we must: 1. "Hear his voice." (Psalms 95:7, 15) That voice speaks to us now in the sweet and glorious gospel, and tells us of far grander "works" than those which were wrought for ancient Israel. "God hath spoken unto us in his Son" (Hebrews 1:2). To obey his voice will at once soften and strengthen our hearts. It will make us large-hearted as well as tenderhearted. 2. "Exhort one another." (Verse 13) Christians are associated in Church fellowship that they may promote one another’s welfare. The Church is a spiritual mutual benefit society. Friendly counsel and admonition are a valuable safeguard against apostasy. Two considerations which should stimulate to this duty are mentioned: (1) the shortness of life; (2) the insidiousness of sin. 3. Continue "firm unto the end." (Verse 14) It is dangerous for a believer to rest satisfied with the consciousness of his original conversion; he ought to be constantly turning from sin to Christ. It is unwise for him to lay stress on past frames and feelings; he must cherish through life an always-fresh and. living "confidence" in the Savior—a faith which more and. more certifies itself by the ripening "fruit of the Spirit." He must remain ever on his guard against unbelief. Only by persevering steadfastness will any one who has accepted the "heavenly calling" finally enter into the heavenly "rest." BY W. JONES The sublimest contemplation. "Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling," etc. I. THE OF . 1. They are fraternal in relation. "Brethren." These Hebrew Christians were brethren in a twofold sense to the writer of the Epistle—first, as being his kindred according to the flesh; and next, as being of the same religious faith. Every Christian is a member of a glorious brotherhood. We are brothers inasmuch as we have all one Father and one elder Brother; we are animated by one Spirit; we are tending to one home, our "Father’s house." Let us endeavor to realize this relationship, and to practically express its spirit. "Love the brotherhood." 2. They are consecrated in character. "Holy brethren." By applying to them the term "holy," the writer does not affirm that all those whom he was addressing were in a state of sinless purity. The adjective conveys two ideas—consecration and transformation. Christians are holy because they have consecrated themselves to the Lord, and are being transformed into moral resemblance to him. £ 3. They are exalted in privilege. "Partakers of a heavenly calling." This calling "is the invitation given on the part of God and Christ to men, to come and partake of the blessings proffered" in the gospel. In two senses it is "a heavenly calling." (1) It is heavenly in its origin; a calling from heaven. The holy voices and gracious invitations are from above. All saving influences and impulses are from God. (2) It is heavenward in its end; a calling to heaven. Spiritual, sublime, eternal, heavenly, are the blessings to which we are called. It is "the high calling of God in Christ Jesus." The "partakers" of this calling are not those who have merely heard the call to gospel blessings, but those who have both heard and accepted that call. II. THE OF THE LORD AND SAVIOR. 1. He is "the Apostle of our confession." There is here a comparison of Jesus with Moses. Moses was "sent" of God to be the emancipator, chieftain, and ruler of the Israelites (see Exodus 3:10,Exodus 3:12, Exodus 3:14, Exodus 3:15). In this sense he was an apostle of God. Jesus Christ was the Sent of God (see John 3:34; John 5:36, John 5:37; John 6:29; John 10:36; John 17:18). He was sent on a still grander mission of redemption (see Isaiah 61:1-3). Moreover, the Jews designated the minister of the synagogue, who had the charge of its affairs and presided over them, an apostle. And in the verse following our text the writer goes on to speak of Jesus and Moses as each presiding over the affairs of a house. In this sense also our Lord is "the Apostle of our confession." He is sent, not only to emancipate, but also to rule over his Church; to be both "a Prince and a Savior." 2. He is "the High Priest of our confession." Here the comparison is with Aaron. As Aaron was high priest of the Jews, and, as such, made expiation for the sins of the people, so our Savior has made atonement for the sins of the world by the offering of himself in sacrifice. Through him we approach unto God. He maketh intercession for us. He pleads with us and in us and for us. Through him we shall rise to heaven. As the Apostle, he is the Representative of God to men; as the High Priest, he is the Representative of men with God. 3. He is Jesus. There is perhaps a reference here to Joshua, the great general of the Israelites, who led them into the promised land. "Thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins." How great, then, is our Lord and Savior! III. THE WHICH SHOULD TOWARDS THEIR LORD AND SAVIOUR. "Wherefore, holy brethren … consider the Apostle and High Priest," etc. 1. The argument. "Wherefore," i.e. because we have in Jesus such "a merciful and faithful High Priest," such a mighty and gracious Helper, we should attentively consider him. And such consideration would be likely to strengthen the Christian faith of any who were in danger of falling back into Judaism; for they would find him a greater Apostle than Moses, a greater High Priest than Aaron, a greater "Captain of salvation" than Joshua. The great principle is this, that the greatest safeguard against weariness, discouragement, and apostasy is an earnest consideration of Jesus; a believing, steadfast, looking unto him. 2. The exercise. "Consider the Apostle," etc. Contemplate him as "the Apostle of our confession." How much greater is he than Moses! Moses did not lead the people into the Promised Land, or even enter therein himself; but Jesus has entered heaven as our Forerunner, has led multitudes into its blessedness, will lead all his people there. Contemplate him as "the High Priest of our confession." How much greater is he than Aaron! Aaron’s priesthood was imperfect, typical, preparatory; but our Lord’s is gloriously perfect. By his sacrifice he has made full atonement; his intercession is divinely efficacious. Contemplate him as our Savior, "Jesus." He is "mighty to save;" "able to save to the uttermost," etc. Here is the sublimest contemplation. In weakness and weariness consider him, and you will be strengthened and animated. In darkness consider him, and the night will shine even as the day. In sin consider him, and you will seek and obtain forgiveness. In sorrow consider him, and the troubled heart will grow calm and restful. In death consider him, and his rod and staff will comfort you, and he himself will lead you through its dark portals into the joys and glories of heaven. Let this be our constant attitude—"looking unto Jesus."—W.J. Hebrews 3:6 The Church, God’s temple. "But Christ as a Son over his house; whose house are we," etc. Observe— I. THE CHURCH IS THE TEMPLE OF GOD. It is here designated "his house." And St. Paul speaks of "the house of God, which is the Church of the living God." Individual Christians are spoken of as temples of God (1 Corinthians 3:16). And the whole company of Christians are spoken of as "a holy temple" (Ephesians 2:20-22), and "a spiritual house" (1 Peter 2:5). The figure suggests several ideas; e.g.: 1. Design for its construction. The tabernacle was built and furnished by Moses in accordance with minute directions from God. "Look that thou make them after their pattern, which was showed thee in the mount" (Exodus 25:1-40). Solomon erected and furnished the temple from plans which he received from his father David, and for the making of which David was divinely instructed. "All this, said David, the Lord made me understand in writing by his hand upon me, even all the works of this pattern" (1 Chronicles 28:11-19). And of the sublime spiritual temple God himself is the great Architect. This spiritual house, from its foundation to its topstone, is being built after the Divine plan. Hence, we may infer, it will be strong and stable, sublime and beautiful, ere 2. Cohesion of its several portions. This glorious edifice is "fitly framed together." There is unity of design, unity of construction, etc. The Church of Christ is one in a unity more true and deep than that of any outward forms, or symbols, or organizations. It is one in its filial relation to the great Father, in its faith in the redeeming Son, as being inhabited by the Holy Spirit, and as consecrated to the glorious cause of Christ. In these respects all true Christians are one. 3. Inhabitation by God. God dwelt in symbol in the tabernacle of Moses and in the temple of Solomon. The sacred Shechinah was there in the holy of holies. By his Spirit he dwells in every Christian. "Ye are the temple of God, and the Spirit of God dwelleth in you." He dwells also in the Church as a whole. In Christ Jesus "ye are builded together for a habitation of God in the Spirit." II. CHRIST IS THE BUILDER OF THIS TEMPLE. In Hebrews 3:3 he is spoken of as "he that built the house." "On this rock," said he, "I will build my Church." Christians "are his workmanship;" they "are God’s building." "The Lord aided to the Church daily those that were being saved." All other laborers on the glorious edifice work under him. He allots them their respective duties, appoints them their sphere of operation, sustains them in their work, and crowns their work with success. Passing to another figure, Paul "planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase." III. CHRIST IS THE LORD OF THIS TEMPLE. Our text teaches that Christ as a Son is over this house of God. He is "Head over all things to the Church" (Ephesians 1:22). "The Church is subject to Christ" (Ephesians 5:23, Ephesians 5:24). "He is the Head of the body, the Church … that in all things he might have the pre-eminence." "One is your Master, even the Christ." His authority is supreme in the Church, higher than that of conferences or councils, synods or convocations, archbishops or lopes; and it should be recognized as such and loyally obeyed. He ordained the laws of the Church; he instituted its sacraments, etc. IV. IN THIS TEMPLE IS . "Whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence," etc. Here are two conditions: 1. The maintenance of assured Christian confidence. This confidence, or boldness, as Ebrard says, "is nothing else than the πίστις itself in its most direct and most practical expression, manifesting itself as the inward power of the peace which dwells in the heart, in circumstances of outward difficulty It denotes that joyful boldness which flows from within and is victorious over unfavorable circumstances; it is joyfulness felt in situations in which others would despair; hence it is the immediate fruit of the objective peace obtained with God through the atonement." 2. The maintenance of their exultant hope. "If we hold fast the … glorifying of our hope." Here also Ebrard’s note is excellent. "The Jews boasted of their descent from Abraham (John 8:1-59), of their temple and priesthood, of their being the chosen people of God—all palpable and manifest advantages. The poor Christians had nothing of the kind in which they could glory. Regarded by the Gentiles as a Jewish sect, by the Jews as apostates from the people of Israel, forming no state, no people, without rulers, without a head except One who was crucified, the refuse and off scouring of the people, they had nothing of which to boast but the glory which they hoped to receive." But how splendid a hope was theirs!—the hope of perfect holiness and of perfect blessedness. And such a hope is ours. Let us, then, "hold fast our confidence and the glorying of our hope firm unto the end."—W.J. Hebrews 3:7, Hebrews 3:8 On hearing God’s voice. "The Holy Ghost saith, Today if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts." Introduction. The witness of the New Testament to the Divine inspiration of the Old. "The Holy Ghost saith" (Psalms 95:7-11). We have in the text— I. A GREAT FACT IMPLIED. That God speaks to man. The "if" does not indicate uncertainty as to the Divine voice, but as to man’s attention to this voice. There is no question as to whether God will speak to man or not, but whether man will heed his communications. Notice: 1. The object for which God speaks to man. This object is that man may be saved. The Divine voice proclaims and proffers a "great salvation," and publishes redemptive truth to man. 2. The organs by which he speaks to man. (1) By the sacred Scriptures, and especially in the life and teachings of his Son, Jesus Christ, as recorded therein. "God … hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his Son." (2) By Christian ministries, especially the preaching of his gospel. "We are ambassadors on behalf of Christ, as though God were entreating by us," etc. (2 Corinthians 5:20). (3) By the voice of our conscience. In its approbation of the right and its condemnation of the wrong, God speaks to us. (4) By the events of his providence. (5) By the influences of his holy Spirit. He speaks within the soul of man. He imparts emphasis and energy to the other voices by which God addresses us. 3. The frequency with which he speaks to man. Our text implies that he speaks to us daily. And surely by some one or more of these voices, every day he addresses to us some prohibition or persuasion, some caution or encouragement, some precept or promise, some invitation or warning. Were our susceptibility to Divine influences greater, we should ever hear the utterances of the Divine voice. II. A DUTY . Our duty is to hear God’s voice. Consider: 1. The signification of hearing God’s voice. It is not mere hearing that is meant here, but earnest attention to God’s voice, hearty belief in his communications, and willing obedience to his commands. 2. The season for hearing God’s voice. "Today; i.e. now. (1) Because life is uncertain. "Ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life?" etc. (James 4:14). (2) Because procrastination is perilous. The postponement of our duty today facilitates a further postponement of it tomorrow. (3) Because it is a present duty, and to defer the performance of it is, therefore, sinful. We ought to attend to God’s voice now. The urgency of this duty is suggested in the text. In the psalm from which it is quoted, our text "is virtually the expression of a wish, ’Today if ye will but hearken to his voice! ’" or, "Oh that ye might this day hearken to his voice!" The pathos and earnestness which the Holy Ghost puts into this wish suggests the deep importance of the duty; cf. Psalms 81:13, "Oh that my people had hearkened unto me!" etc. III. A SOLEMN CAUTION GIVEN. "Harden not your hearts." The sapling is pliant; it may be bent and trained as to the direction and form of its growth. The full-grown tree is fixed in form, firm in texture, and unbending in its resistance; it is hardened. Men harden’ their hearts by disregarding the voice of God, by not recognizing the authority of their consciences, by postponing the performance of religious duties, by neglecting the great salvation, and by practically despising or resisting the Holy Spirit of God. St. Paul speaks of men who were "alienated from the life of God, because of the hardening of their heart," and "who being past feeling" had abandoned themselves to persistent and active wickedness. For such moral insensibility what hope remains? "Oh that ye might this day hearken to his voice!"—W.J. Apostasy. "Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you," etc. Our text leads us to consider— I. IN ITS NATURE. "Departing from the living God." 1. This departure is not local. In this respect separation from the Divine presence is impossible "Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?" etc. (Psalms 139:7-12). 2. This departure is not theological The corruption of a man’s creed will almost certainly be followed by deterioration of his character and conduct; yet a man may retain his hold of a true creed, and at the same time be falling away from the living God. 3. This departure is not ecclesiastical. Membership and activity in the visible Church of Christ may be fully maintained even while one is departing from God. Apostasy may exist in the heart long before it is manifested in action. 4. This departure is spiritual. It is a falling away from the living God in sympathy and in service. "They do always err in their heart" (Hebrews 3:10). It is the decline of love and loyalty to God. II. IN ITS ROOT. "An evil heart of unbelief." Confidence in God is essential to union with him or love to him. Let any one doubt God’s existence or character, that he is wise and righteous and good, and that man’s sympathy with God will speedily perish. His apostasy has already begun. Doubt of our friends will be the death of our friendship. And unbelief towards God must lead to spiritual alienation from him, and that alienation persisted in must issue in spiritual death. It is of the utmost importance that we firmly grasp the truth that this unbelief is not intellectual, but moral; it is not the doubt of the inquiring mind, but of the wandering heart. It is the faith of the heart that unites man with God. "If thou shalt believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shelf be saved; for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness," etc. It is the unbelief of the heart that separates man from God. "An evil heart of unbelief." III. IN ITS PERIL. There is the danger of: 1. Drifting further away from God. It is impossible for us to remain stationary in our relation to him. We are ever either drawing nearer to him or departing further from him. In this "failing away from the living God" the soul falls lower and lower. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ A REST STILL OFFERED TO . Hebrews 4:1 Let us fear, therefore, lest, a promise being still left of entering into his rest, any one of you should seem to have come short. This verse is a renewed warning against remissness, based (as is shown by the connecting οὖν) on the preceding argument, but introducing also, by means of the clause, καταλειπομένης, etc., a new thought, the elucidation of which is the subject of what follows. The new thought is that the true "rest of God," typified only by the rest of Canaan, remains still for the attainment of Christians. That this is the ease has not yet been shown; and hence the clause, "a promise being still left." etc., does not point to a conclusion already arrived at, but to what is coming. The new thought is taken up in Hebrews 4:2, and what has been thus intimated in Hebrews 4:1 is asserted as a conclusion after proof in Hebrews 4:9. ἄραἀπολείπεται, etc. A different view of the drift of the warning in this verse, main-rained very decidedly by Ebrard, demands attention. It rests on the interpretation of δοκῇὑστερήκεναι, which is taken to mean "should think that he has come too late," i.e. for the promise of the rest, under the idea that its meaning had been exhausted in the rest of Canaan. It may be said in support of this view that such is the most obvious meaning of the phrase; that δοκεῖν in the New Testament most commonly means "think" or "suppose;" that the primary sense of ὑστερεῖν is that of being behindhand, either in place or in time; and that the perfect ὑστερήκεναι is thus accounted for, whereas, according to the usual interpretation, the whole phrase is unsuitable: why was not ὑστερήση written, if a mere warning against remissness was intended? Further, it may be said that what immediately follows is in favor of this view of the purport of the caution in Hebrews 4:1, being an evident carrying out of its idea. Thus the verse is supposed to be not at all a continuation of the previous hortatory section, but rather serving as the thesis of the coming argumentative section, though put in the form of a caution because imperfect appreciation of the view to be now established was at the root of the danger of the Hebrew Christians. Some of them at least did not fully grasp the true character of the gospel as being the fulfill-merit of the old dispensation, the realization of its types and promises. They were inclined to rest in the Law as a revelation to which the gospel was only supplementary, and hence to regard the promised land, the offer of which was before their time, as the only rest intended; and therefore the writer, after adducing the example of the Israelites under Moses as a warning against remissness, prefaces his exposition. of the true rest of God by a warning against misapprehending it. But against this view of the meaning of δοκῇὑστερήκεναι there are the following reasons: (1) The word φοβήθωμεν suggests rather (like βλέπετε) a warning against conduct that might lead to forfeiture than a correction of an inadequate conception; and οὖν connects the warning with what has gone before, in which the view of what the true rest is has not entered. (2) Though δοκεῖν is most frequently used in the New Testament in its sense of "thinking," "seeming to one’s self," yet it has there, as in Greek generally, the sense also of "appearing," "seeming to others;" dud certainly, as far as the word itself is concerned, may have this sense here. Also the verb ὑστερεῖν, though its primary idea (as of ὕστερος) is that of "coming after," is nevertheless invariably used in the New Testament to express "deficiency," or "falling short" (cf. especially in this Epistle, Hebrews 12:15): it is never elsewhere (though capable of the meaning) used to express lateness in time. (3) The phrase, δοκῇὑστερήκεναι, in the sense of "seem to have fallen short" (rather than ὑστερήσῃ) is capable of being accounted for. One explanation of it, adopted by Alford, is indeed hardly tenable. He accounts for the past tense by supposing reference to the final judgment; taking it to mean, "lest any one of you should then appear [i.e. be found] to have fallen short." But the word δοκεῖν, which, however used, refers, not to what is made evident, but to what is thought or seems, refuses to be thus misinterpreted. It is better to take it as a softening expression. We may suppose that the writer (with a delicacy that reminds us of St. Paul) was unwilling to imply his own expectation of any failure; and so he only bids his readers beware of so living as even to present the appearance of it or suggest the thought of it to others. According to this view, the tense of ὑστερήκεναι is intelligible, the supposed deficiency spoken of being previous to its being perceived or suspected. It is not necessary to supply an understood genitive, such as "the promise," or "the rest," after ὑστερήκεναι. It may be used (as elsewhere) absolutely, to express deficiency or failure; i.e. in the conditions required for attainment. One view of its meaning is that it has reference to the idea of being behindhand in a race: but there is nothing in the context to suggest this figure. (4) It is not necessary that Hebrews 4:1 should express only the idea of the following argument; it does sufficiently express it in the clause, καταλειπομέμης, etc; and it is in the style of this Epistle to connect new trains of argument by a continuous chain of thought with what has gone before (cf. the beginning of Heb 2:1-18. and 3). Though there is uncertainty as to the sequence of thought in the several clauses of the following argument (Hebrews 4:2-11), its general drift is clear. Its leading ideas are these: The invitation to enter God’s rest contained in the psalm shows that the rest of Canaan, which, though forfeited under Moses, had long been actually attained under Joshua, was not the final rest intended. What, then, is meant by this remarkable term, "my rest," i.e. God’s own rest? Our thoughts go back to the beginning of the Bible, where a rest of God himself is spoken of; where he is said to have rested on the seventh day from all his works. Participation, then, in that heavenly rest—a true sabbath rest with God—is what the term implies. Though this rest began "from the foundation of the world," man’s destined share in if, however long delayed, was intimated by the typical history of the Israelites under Moses, and by the warning and renewed invitation of the psalm. This renewed invitation makes it plain that it is still attainable by God’s people. It has at last been made attainable by Christ. who, as our great High Priest, has himself entered it, and leads us into it if we are but faithful. Hebrews 4:2 For truly we have had good tidings (or, a gospel) preached unto us, even as also they: but the word of hearing did not profit them, not being mingled by faith with those that heard it. The meaning and purpose of the first part of this verse is plain, as is also the general intention of the second; viz. to account parenthetically for the gospel to the Israelites under Moses having failed of its purpose, and at the same time to renew the warning of their example with respect to the gospel now preached to Christians. But the passage is still one of singular difficulty, on account both of the various readings of it, and of the peculiarity of the language used whatever reading be adopted. With respect to the various readings, the main and indeed only important question is between (1) συγκεκραμένος agreeing with λόγοςἀκοῆς, and (2) συγκεκραμένους, agreeing with ἐκείνους. The variation between συγκεκραμ and συγκεκερασμ, being only different forms of the participle, does not affect the meaning. Then the readings τῶνἀκουσάντων and τοῖςἀκούσθεισιν for τοῖςἀκούσασι rest on such slight authority, and are so likely to have been substitutions (the latter to make the reading συγκεκραμένους intelligible), that they need not be considered. (1) The reading of the Textus Receptus, following the Vulgate, is μὴσυγκεκραμένοςτῇπίστειτοῖςἀλούσασιν. But (2) the great preponderance of ancient authority (including that of all the uncial manuscripts except à) supports συγκεκραμένους or συγκεκερασμένους The latter, then, must be accepted as the true reading, if authority alone is to be our guide. But then comes the difficulty of making any sense of it. The only way of doing so is to understand τοῖςἀκούσασιν ("those who heard") in the sense of "those who hearkened;" the sense of the passage being "The word of hearing did not profit them, because they were not united by faith with those who not only heard, but hearkened and obeyed." Most of the Fathers, reading συγκεκραμένους, take τοῖςἀκούσασιν to refer in this sense to Caleb and Joshua. But, if what has been said above be true as to these exceptions to the general unbelief not having been in the writer’s mind, such an allusion is highly improbable. Some (Alford, e.g) take τοῖςἀκούσασιν with no historical reference, but as denoting hearkeners generally. Alford, however, though adopting this as the best solution of an acknowledged difficulty, confesses himself not satisfied with it, as well he may. A very serious objection to either view, even apart from the strangeness of the whole expression if such be its meaning, is that, though the verb ἀκούειν is certainly used elsewhere in the sense thus assigned to it, the whole context here suggests different one. Cf. supra (Hebrews 3:16), τινὲςγὰρἀκούσαντεςπαρεπίκραναν: and especially ὁλόγοςτῆςἀκοῆς immediately preceding. Ἀκοῆς, denoting hearing only, seems to have suggested the use of the participle ἀκούσασιν, to which it would therefore be most unnatural to assign a different meaning. If, then, all devices for making sense of the best supported text prove unsatisfactory, and if the Textus Receptus gives an intelligible meaning, we might surely be justified in adopting the latter, however ill supported. Internal evidence (though great caution should be used in our estimate of it) need not yield entirely to external, nor common sense to authority, in the determination of true readings. But in this case the argument from internal probability has now been strengthened by the discovery of the reading συγκεκερασμένος in the Sinaitic Codex (à). This, then, being adopted, though the expression be peculiar, the meaning is no longer obscure, whether we take τῇπίστει or τοῖςἀκούσασιν as governed by συγκεκραμένος. It may be either that "the word of hearing did not profit them because it was not mingled with their faith to those that heard;" or "because it was not mingled by faith with those that heard it." In the latter case the idea is that of the necessity of the spoken word entering the heart, and being (so to speak) assimilated by the hearers through the instrumentality of faith, in order to profit them. Hebrews 4:3 For we do enter into the rest, we who have believed (οἱπιστεύσαντες, the historical aorist, pointing to the time when Christians became believers; with a reference also to τῇπίστει in the preceding verse: but the emphasis is on the first word in the sentence, εἰσερχόμεθα: "For we Christian believers have an entrance into the rest intended") even as he hath said, As I sware in my wrath, If they shall enter into my rest; although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. This seems to be a concise enunciation of the proof, unfolded in the verses that follow, of the true rest being one into which Christians have still an entrance. The idea is that, though God’s own rest had been from the beginning, and man had not yet entered it, yet the possibility of his doing so had not ceased to be intimated: it had continued open potentially to man. Hebrews 4:4, Hebrews 4:5 For he hath said somewhere (που cf. Hebrews 2:6) of the seventh day on this wise, And God rested the seventh day from all his works; and in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest. Here the argument is carried out. The first passage quoted shows what must be understood by the "rest of God;" the second shows that it still remains open, that "it remaineth that some should enter thereinto." This being the case— Hebrews 4:6, Hebrews 4:7 Since therefore it remains that some should enter into it, and they to whom the good tidings were before preached entered not in because of disobedience, he again defineth a certain day, saying in David, after so long a time, Today; as it hath been before said, Today, if ye will hear his voice, etc. The continued openness of the rest, and the failure of the Israelites of old to enter it, are the reasons why a further day for entering was defined in the psalm. But here the thought is suggested that the Israelites had not finally failed, for that, though those under Moses did so, the next generation under Joshua did attain the promised laud. No, it is replied; the rest of the promised land was but a type after all; it was not the true rest of God: otherwise the psalmist could not have still assigned a day for entering it so long after the arrival at Shiloh;— Hebrews 4:8, Hebrews 4:9 For if Joshua had given them rest, he would not have spoken afterward of another day. The conclusion is now drawn: There remaineth therefore a sabbath rest for the people of God; the true nature of the rest intended being beautifully denoted by the word σαββατισμὸς, which refers to the Divine rest "from the foundation of the world," while the offer of it to true believers always, and not to the Israelites only, is intimated by the phrase, "the people of God." Hebrews 4:10 For he that is entered into his rest (God’s, as before) hath himself also rested from his works, as from his own God. There are two ways of understanding this verse. Its general intention is, indeed, clear. It accounts for the use of the word σαββατισμὸς which precedes, expressing that the true meaning of "God’s rest" is not satisfied by any earthly rest, but only by one like his. The question is whether the verse is to be taken as a general proposition or as referring specifically to Christ. In favor of the latter view is the aorist κατέπαυσεν. The literal translation would be "He that entered … himself also rested." Ebrard, on this ground, strenuously defends the reference to Christ; and also on the ground of parallelism with Hebrews 2:9 in the first division of the general argument. In the first division (Hebrews 2:1-18) the course of thought was—Dominion over creation has been assigned to man: man has not attained it: Jesus has; and in Jesus man fulfils his destiny. In this second division the corresponding course of drought is—God’s rest has been offered to man: man has not attained it: Jesus has; and in Jesus man may enter it. And thus (as has been explained above) the conclusion that Jesus is the High Priest of humanity is led up to by two parallel lines of argument. But the third of the propositions of the second line of argument (corresponding to Hebrews 2:9 in the first) is not distinctly expressed unless it be in the verse before us; and therefore this verse, on this ground as well as that of the use of the aorist, is taken to refer to Christ. On the other hand, it is argued (Bleek, De Wette, Delitzsch, etc) that, if a specific reference to Christ had been intended, he would have been mentioned, so as to make the meaning clear; and secondly, that the aorist κατέπαυσε is legitimate, though the proposition be a general one. Delitzsch explains it thus: "The author might have written καταπαύει or (more classically) καταπέπαυται: but he has taken up into the main proposition the κατέπαυσεν, which properly belongs (according to Genesis 2:2) to the clause of comparison: whosoever has entered God’s rest, of him the ’κατέπαυσενἀπὸτῶνἔργωναὑτοῦ holds good in the same manner as of God." And, further, it is to be observed that the Greek aorist may sometimes be put for the present, "to express an action completely determined, every doubt as to its truth and unalterableness being removed". In this instance the idea might be—he that has entered into God’s rest rested, when he so entered, from all his works, etc. On the whole, it appears that specific reference to Christ is not apparent from the immediate context, or required by the mere language used. Still, in consideration of the general argument, we may take the writer to have meant his readers to understand that it was Christ who had so entered the rest of God, so as to lead God’s people into it. That this is so appears from Hebrews 2:14, Ἔχοντεςοὗνἀρχιερέαμέγανδιελη;υθότατοὺςοὐρανοὺς, which seems to require that preceding link of thought.—Among man’s deepest feelings is a longing for rest. Haply in the freshness and ardor of early life not deeply felt, it recurs from time to time, and grows stronger with advancing years. Nothing in life fully satisfies this longing. Labors, distresses, disappointments, anxieties, never allow the desired repose. Few there are whose hearts have not sometimes echoed the psalmist’s words, "Oh that I had wings like a dove! For then would I flee away, and be at rest!" Many since Job have felt something of his longing to be where "the wicked cease from troubling, and the weary are at rest." Is there to be no satisfaction ever of this deep human craving? Holy Scripture meets it as it meets all others. It spoke of a rest of God above creation from the beginning of time; it intimated man’s part and interest in it by the weekly sabbath which he was to keep with God. But this was, after all, but a symbol and earnest of something unattained. At length a fuller realization of the longed-for rest was held out to the chosen people, and the Promised Land was pictured beforehand in the colors of an earthly Paradise. Forfeited, when first offered, through the people’s unworthiness (representing by an historical parable the bar to man’s entrance into the eternal rest), it was attained at last. But the true rest still came not. Canaan, like the sabbath, proved but a symbol of something unattained. Yet the old longing for rest went on, and inspired men went on proclaiming it as attainable and still to come. The irrepressible craving, the suggestive symbols, the prophetic anticipations, are all fulfilled in Christ. He, when he had passed with us through this earthly scene of labor, entered, with our nature, into that eternal rest of God, to prepare a place for us, having by his atonement removed the bar to human entrance. Through our faith in him we are assured that our deep-seated craving for satisfaction unattained as yet, which we express by the term "rest," is a true inward prophecy, and that, though we find it not here, we may through him, if we are faithful, confidently expect it there, where "beyond these voices there is peace." There now follows (verses 11-14) a renewal of the warning of Heb 3:7-4:1, urged now with increased force in view of the danger of slighting such a revelation as the gospel has been shown to be; after which (Hebrews 4:14, etc) come words of encouragement, based on the view, now a second time arrived at, of Christ being our great High Priest. And thus the exposition of his priesthood, which follows in Hebrews 5:1-14., is led up to. Hebrews 4:11 Let us therefore do our diligence (σπουδάσωμεν, so translated in A.V. 2 Timothy 4:9, 2 Timothy 4:21) to enter into that rest, lest any one fall after the same example of disobedience (ἀπειθείας: not ἀπιστίας, which means "unbelief"). It is a question, though not at all affecting the general sense of the passage, whether ἐντῷαὐτῶὑποδείγματιπέσῃ should not he translated "fall into tide same example." Πίπτεινἐν has undoubtedly the sense of "to fall into," and is frequently so used in the LXX., and the subordinate position of πέσῃ in the sentence—between ὑποδείγπατι and τῆςἀπειθείας—is against its being used absolutely as the emphatic word. If so, the meaning will be "fall into the same exemplar of disobedience," i.e. the kind of disobedience of which that of the Israelites was a sample. This interpretation of the phrase, being that of the Vulgate, is supported by Alford, Davison, Lunemann; though most modern commentators (Bengel, Bleek, De Wette, Tholuck, Delitzsch, Wordsworth), with Chrysostom, take πέσῃ absolutely, as in Romans 11:11 (ruat, Bengel), and ἐντῷαὐτῶὑποδείγματι as meaning, "so as to present the same (i.e. a like) example of disobedience," the ἐν, according to Delitzsch, being the ἐν of state or condition. The warning is next enforced by a vivid representation of the penetrating and resistless power of the "Word of God." The question arises whether "the Word of God" is here to be understood in St. John’s sense of the Hypostatic Word, i.e. the Second Person of the holy Trinity, who became incarnate in Christ. It is so understood by the Fathers generally; and the fact of this Epistle being tinged generally with the thought and terminology of Philo (whoso use of the word λόγος, derived from the Platonic philosophy in combination with Jewish theology, seems to anticipate in some degree, however vaguely, the doctrine of St. John) gives some countenance to the view. But against it are the following considerations:— (1) Christ is net elsewhere in this Epistle designated as "the Wear" but as" the SON." His eternal relation to the Father, though otherwise plainly intimated, is not expressed by this term, as it was by St. John. (2) The description of the Word, as "sharper than any two-edged sword," is not suitable to the Hypostatic Word himself, but rather to the utterance of his power. Thus in Revelation 1:16, "the Son of man," and in Revelation 19:15, "he whose name is called the Word of God," has a "sharp two-edged sword proceeding out of his mouth." The sword is not himself, but that which "came forth out of his mouth." Cf. Isaiah 11:4, "He shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked;" cf. also Ephesians 6:17, "The sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God." Hence, notwithstanding the prevailing view of the Fathers, it seems best to understand the term here as meaning generally the Divine utterance, without definite reference to the Hypo-static Word. It was the Word of God, in this sense, that debarred the ancient Israelites from their rest, and doomed them in the wilderness; it is the same Word which still more, as being uttered in the Son, is so searching and resistless now. True, it is through the Hypostatic Word that the Godhead has ever operated, of old as well as now, being God’s eternal utterance of himself: the only question is whether this truth is here intended to be expressed, or, in other words, whether λόγος has here the personal sense in which St. John uses the term. It is possible that the writer passes in thought to a personal sense in the ἐνώπιοναὐτοῦ of verse 13, where αὐτοῦ may refer to ὁλόγος preceding, rather than to τοῦΘεοῦ. But certainly at the beginning of the passage this specific sense does not seem to be suggested either by the context or the language used. Verse 12.—For living is the Word of God, and powerful (or, effectual; cf. Philemon 1:6; 1 Corinthians 16:9), and sharper than any two- edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Observe how the predicates form a climax. The Word of God is, first, living, instinct with the life of the living God who utters it, itself a living power (cf. λόγιαζῶντα, Acts 7:38); then, not only so, but also operative, effective of its purpose; then, in this its operation, more keenly cutting than any sword; cutting so as to perpetrate through and through—through the whole inner being of man to its inmost depths; then, in doing so, discerning and opening to judgment all the secrets of his consciousness. This description of the power of the Word of God is given as a reason fur the warning, σπουδάσωμενα etc., "Let us give diligence," etc; for, if we slight the Word of God, we can have no escape from its irresistible operation; we shall be thoroughly exposed and inevitably judged. The view of the Word of God having a sharply cutting operation is found in Philo, from whom Bleek cites a series of passages cognate to this in the Epistle. Cf. especially one in the treatise, ’Quis Rerum Divinorum Haeres.:’ Τῷτομεῖτῶνσυμπάντωναὐτοῦλόγῳὅςεἰςτὴνὀξοτάτηςἀκονηθεὶςαὐτοῦλογῳὅςοὐδεπουςλήγειτὰαἰσθητὰπάνταἐπειδὰνδὲμέχριτῶνἀτόμωνκαὶλεγομένωνἀμερῶνδιεξέλθῃ, etc. And for the comparison to a sword, cf. (as above referred to) Ephesians 6:17; Revelations Ephesians 1:16; 19:15; and Isaiah 11:4. The true reading of the part of the sentence, "of soul and spirit," etc., is ψυχῆςκαὶπνεύματοςἁρμῶντεκαὶμυελῶν, the τε of the Textus Receptus after ψυχῆς being ill supported. The second τε, after ἁρμῶν, is therefore most naturally taken, and so as to give the best sense, in the sense of "both," not "and;" i.e. the second clause is not to be taken as denoting a further dividing—of the bodily parts as well as of the soul and spirit, but as expressing, by recurrence to the figure of a sword, the thoroughness of the division of soul and spirit. Further, the division spoken of is surely not of the soul from the spirit, as some have taken it. Delitzsch, e.g., explains to this effect—that in fallen man his πνεῦμα, which proceeded from God and carries in itself the Divine image, has become, "as it were, extinguished;" that "through the operation of grace man recalls to mind his own true nature, though shattered by sin;" "that heavenly nature or’ man reappears when Christ is formed in him;" and thus the Word of God "marks out and separates" the πνεῦμα in him from the ψυχὴ in which it had been, "as it were, extinguished." Then, taking the clause, ἁρμῶντεκαὶμυελῶν, to express a further process of dissection, he explains by saying that the Word of God "exhibits to man the fact that ungodly powers are working also in his bodily frame, which has now in every joint and chord and marrow become the seat of sin and death, and so "goes on to scrutinize" his bodily as well as his spiritual part," and "lays bare before the eyes of God and before his own the whole man thus described." But the idea of the separation, in the above sense, of the πνεῦμα from the ψυχὴ, even if tenable, is certainly far-fetched, and that of the corporeal dissection supposed is hardly intelligible. Further, the "dividing" of the bodily parts spoken of in the text (whether an illustration or a further process) does not suggest the separation of one part from another, since a sword does not divide the joints or the limbs (whichever be meant by apathy) from the marrow, though it may penetrate both. We may explain thus: It is well known that St. Paul divides man’s complex nature into body, soul, and spirit—σῶμαψυχὴπνεῦμα (1 Thessalonians 5:23). His bodily organization (σῶμα) is not apparently here under consideration, except in regard to the figure of the sword; the ψυχὴ is his animal life or soul, the seat (so to speak) of his sensations, and of his natural affections and desires; his πνεῦμα is the more Divine part of his nature, in virtue of which he has a conscience, aspires after holiness, apprehends spiritual mysteries, holds communion with God, and is influenced by the Divine Spirit. The idea, then, is that, as a very keen sword not only cuts through the joints dividing bone from bone, but also through the bones themselves into the marrow within them, so the Word of God penetrates and discloses not,, only. the ψοχὴ but the πνεῦμα too, "piercing through soul and spirit, yea [with reference to the illustration used] through both joints [or, ’limbs’] and marrow." Ebrard, taking ἁρμῶν in the sense of "limbs" (a sense in which the word is used, though that of "joints" is its proper and more usual one), regards these and the "marrow" as corresponding respectively to the ψυχὴ and the νεπῦμα: the ψυχὴ being understood as "something lying deep in man, the πνεῦμα lying still deeper." Thus as a very trenchant sword cuts through, not only the limbs, but also the marrow within them, so the Word of God penetrates, not only that part of human consciousness which is expressed by ψυχὴ, but also that deeper and more inward part which is expressed by πνεῦμα. But the general sense of the passage is plain enough without our supposing this strict analogy to have been intended. Expositors, in their analysis of the meaning of passages, may often detect more than the author thought of. On κριτικὸςἐνθυμήσεων (translated "a discerner of"), cf. 1 Corinthians 14:24, 1 Corinthians 14:25, where the effects of the Word of God, brought to bear through the gift of prophecy on one without the gift entering into a congregation of prophesying Christians, are thus described: "he is convinced of all, he is judged [rather, ’examined,’ ’scrutinized,’ ἀνακρίνεται] of all; the secrets of his heart are made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you [or, ’among you’] of a truth." So searching and judicial is the power of the Word of God, that it reaches and discloses the inmost depths of a man’s consciousness—discloses them to himself, and, though he should resist, leaves him without escape, exposed and judged. Hebrews 4:13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight; but all things are naked and laid open unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. The main difficulty in this verse is as to the meaning of the word τετραχηλισμένα (translated "laid open"). The verb τραχηλίζω (which occurs nowhere else in the New Testament or LXX., but is, with its compound ἐκτραχηλίζω, not uncommon in Philo and Josephus) has in classical Greek the sense of "seizing by the throat," or "bending back the neck," as in wrestling. And this, with the further idea of "overthrowing" or "laying prostrate," is the prevailing sense in Philo, from whom Wetstein quotes many passages in illustration. Taking, then, with most modern commentators, the sense of bending back the neck as the primary one, we have only to consider what secondary meaning is here to be attached to it. Some take the idea to be that of being thrown on the ground supine, so as to be thoroughly exposed to view. So Bengel: "Τραχηλίζω, resupino, Graece et Latine dicitur pro patefacio. Corpora quae prona jacent vix nuda censentur; nam se ipsa tegunt: resupinata, secundum partes nobilissimas quasque et distinctissimas visui patent." Many (Eisner, Wolf, Baumgarten, Kuinoel, Bretschneider, Block, De Wette, etc., following Perizonius, on AElian, ’Vat. Hist.,’ 12.58) see an allusion to the Roman custom of exposing criminals "reducto capite," "retortis cervieibus," so that all might see their faces (see Suetonius, ’Vitel.,’ 17; Pliny, ’Panegyr.,’ 34. 3). There is, however, no other known instance of the Greek verb being used with this reference, which there seems to be no necessity for assuming. The idea may be simply the general one thus expressed by Delitzsch, "that whatever shamefaced creature bows its head, and would fain withdraw and cloak itself from the eyes of God, has indeed the throat, as it were, bent back before those eyes, with no possibility of escape, exposed and naked to their view." Many of the ancients (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Ecumenius, Theophylact) saw in τετραχηλισμένα a reference to the treatment of sacrificial victims, as being smitten on the neck or hung by the neck for the purpose of being flayed kern the neck downwards, or cut open thence, so as to expose rite entrails to view. But no instance is known of such use of the word τραχηλίζω, the idea of which may have been suggested to commentators by the figure of the sword in the verse preceding; which figure, however, there is no reason to suppose continued in Hebrews 4:13, the idea of which is simply complete exposure, introduced by οὐκἀφανὴς. The ancients take the concluding expression, πρὸςὂνἡμῖνὁλόγος, as meaning "to whom our account must be given," i.e. "to whom we are responsible as our judge"—in the sense of λόγονδιδόναι. The A.V. seems better to give the general idea of relation by the apt phrase, "with whom we have to do." Of course, λόγας here has no reference to the Word of God, the recurrence of the word, in a subordinate sense, being merely accidental. Hebrews 4:14 To the interposed minatory warning of the three preceding verses now succeeds encouragement, based on the view, which has been now a second time led up to, of Christ being our great High Priest, who can both sympathize and succor. The passage answers closely in thought to the conclusion of Heb 2:1-18., and might naturally have followed there; but that, before taking up the subject of Christ’s priesthood, the writer had another line of thought to pursue, leading up (as has been explained) to the same conclusion. The οὖν at the beginning of Heb 2:14 either connects κρατῶμεν ("let us hold fast") with the verses immediately preceding in the sense, "The Word of God being so searching and resistless, let us therefore hold fast," etc.,—in which ease the participial clause ἔχοντες, etc., is a confirmation of this exhortation (so Delitzsch); or is connected logically with the participial clause as a resumption of the whole preceding argument. Certainly the idea of the participial clause is the prominent one in the writer’s mind, what follows being an expansion of it. And the position of οὖν suggests this connection. It is to be observed that, after the manner of the Epistle, this concluding exhortation serves also as a transition to the subject of the following chapters, and anticipates in some degree what is to be set forth, though all the expressions used have some ground in what has gone before. Having then a great High Priest who hath passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. The rendering of διεληλυθότατοὺςοὐρανοὺς in the A.V. ("is passed into the heavens") is evidently wrong. The idea is that Christ has passed through the intermediate heavens to the immediate presence of God—to the sphere of the eternal σαββατισμὸς. In his use of the plural, τοὺςοὐρανοὺς, the writer may have had in his mind the Jewish view of an ascending series of created heavens. Clemens Alexandrinus, e.g. speaks of seven: Επτὰοὐρανοὺςοὕςτινὲςἀρίθμουσικατἐπανάβασιν. Cf. also "the heaven and the heaven of heavens" (Deuteronomy 10:14; 2 Chronicles 6:18; Nehemiah 9:6), and "who hast set thy glory above the heavens" (Psalms 8:1), also "the third heaven," into which St. Paul was rapt (2 Corinthians 12:2). Cf. also Ephesians 4:10, Ὁἀναβὰςὑπεράνωπάντωντῶνοὐρανῶνἵναπληρώσῃτὰπάντα. The conception of the phrase is that, whatever spheres of created heavens intervene between our earth and the eternal uncreated, beyond them to it Christ has gone,—into "heaven itself (αὐτὸντὸνοὐρανὸν);" "before the face of God" (Hebrews 9:24). From this expression, together with Ephesians 4:10 (above quoted), is rightly deduced the doctrine of Christ s ubiquity even in his human nature. For, carrying that nature with him and still retaining it, he is spoken of as having passed to the region which admits no idea of limitation, and so as to "fill all things." The obvious bearing of this doctrine on that of the presence in the Eucharist may be noted in passing. (It is to be observed that "the heavens" in the plural is used (Hebrews 8:1) of the seat of the Divine majesty itself to which Christ has gone. It is the word διεληλυθότα that determines the meaning here) The designation, "Jesus the Son of God," draws attention first to the man Jesus who was known by that name in the flesh, and secondly to the "more excellent name," above expatiated on, in virtue of which he "hath passed through the heavens." The conclusion follows that it is the human Jesus, with his humanity, who, being also the Son of God, has so "passed through." There may possibly (as some think) be an intention of contrasting him with Joshua (Ιησοῦς, verse 8), who won the entrance into the typical rest. But it is not necessary to suppose this; verses 8 and 14 are at too great a distance from each other to suggest a connection of thought between them; and besides Ἰησοῦν occurred similarly at the end of Heb 3:1, before any mention of Joshua. The epithet μέγαν after ἀρχιερέα distinguishes Christ from all other high priests (cf. Hebrews 13:20, Τὸνποιμένατῶνπροβάτωντὸνμέγαν). The high priest of the Law passed through the veil to the earthly symbol of the eternal glory; the "great High Priest" has passed through the heavens to the eternal glory itself. As to ὁμολογίας, cf. on Hebrews 3:1. In consideration of having such a High Priest, who, as is expressed in what follows, can both sympathize and succor, the readers are exhorted to "hold fast," not only their inward faith, but their "confession" of it before men. A besetting danger of the Hebrew Christians was that of shrinking from a full and open confession under the influence of gainsaying or persecution. Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an High Priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but one that hath been in all things tempted like as we are, without sin. The power of sympathy (συμπαθήσαι) of our great High Priest is not adduced to distinguish him from other high priests, but to express, in this respect, his resemblance to them; community of nature and feeling with those for whom he mediates being essential to the conception of a high priest (see Hebrews 4:2). The sequence of thought is, "Let us hold fast our confession, not moved from it by the thought of the superhuman greatness of this High Priest of ours, who hath passed through the heavens; for he can still sympathize with our infirmities (ἀσθενείαις), having undergone our trials." Ἀσθένεια in the New Testament denotes both bodily infirmity, such as disease (cf. Matthew 8:17; Luke 5:15; John 5:5; John 11:4; Acts 28:9; 1 Timothy 5:23), and also the general weakness of human nature as opposed to Divine power, δύναμις (cf. Romans 8:26; 1 Corinthians 15:23; 2 Corinthians 12:5, 2 Corinthians 12:9; 2 Corinthians 13:4). St. Paul seems to have had regard to ἀσθένεια in a comprehensive sense—including chronic malady (his "thorn in the flesh"), liability to calamities, "fear and trembling," temptation to sin—when he spoke (2 Corinthians 12:5, 2 Corinthians 12:9) of glorying in his infirmities that the power of Christ might rest upon him. With all human ἀσθενείαι, of whatever kind, Christ can sympathize in virtue of his own human experience: "Himself took our infirmities (ἀσθενείας) and bare our sicknesses" (Matthew 8:17); "himself ἐσταυρώθηἐξἀσθενείας, though he now lives ἐκδυνάμεωςΘεοῦ" (2 Corinthians 13:4). The latter part of the verse corresponds in meaning with Hebrews 2:18, but with further delineation of the temptation undergone by Christ. The concluding χωρὶςἁμαρτίας (best taken in connection with καθὁμοιότητα, which it immediately follows, rather than with κατὰπάντα) is not a categorical assertion of Christ’s sinlessness, though it implies it, but an exclusion of the idea of sin from-the likeness spoken of. His temptation was after the likeness of ours, "apart from sin," or "sin except." For similar expressions, though not with definite reference to temptation, cf. Hebrews 9:28; Hebrews 7:26. But how is the exception of sin to be understood? Is it that, though, like us, tempted, he, unlike us, resisted temptation? Or is it that his sinless nature was incapable of being even solicited by sin? Now, the verb πειράζω means sometimes "to tempt to sin," as Satan or our own lusts tempt us (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:5; 1 Thessalonians 3:5; James 1:13, etc); and also "to prove.... to try," "to test faithfulness," as in 1 Corinthians 10:13; Hebrews 11:37, etc., in which sense, with reference especially to afflictive trials, the noun πειρασμὸς is commonly used (cf. Luke 8:13; Luke 22:18; Acts 20:19; Galatians 4:14; 1 Peter 4:12; James 1:12). That Christ was not only subjected to πειρασμὸς in this latter sense, but was also directly assailed by the tempter to sin (ὁπειράζων), appears from the Gospel record. But here comes in a difficulty. There can, we conceive, be no real temptation where there is no liability to the sin suggested by temptation, still less where there is no possibility of sinning. But can we imagine any such liability, or even possibility, in the case of the Divine and Sinless One? If not, wherein did the temptation consist? How could it be at all like ours, or one through his own experience of which he can sympathize with us? It was for maintaining, on the strength of such considerations, the theoretic peccability of Christ, that Irving was expelled as heretical flora the Presbyterian communion. The question has undoubtedly its serious difficulties in common with the whole subjeer of the Divine and human in Christ. The following thoughts may, however, aid solution. That Christ, in his human nature, partook of all the original affections of humanity—hope, fear, desire, joy, grief, indignation, shrinking from suffering, and the like—is apparent, not only from his life, but also from the fact that his assumption of our humanity would have otherwise been incomplete. Such affections are not in themselves sinful; they only are so when, under temptation, any of them become inordinate, and serve as motives to transgression of duty. He, in virtue of his Divine personality, could not through them be seduced into sin; but it does not follow that he could not, in his human nature, feel their power to seduce, or rather the power of the tempter to seduce through them, and thus have personal experience of man’s temptation. St. John says of one" born of God" that he "doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin, because he is born of God" (1 John 3:9). He does not mean that the regenerate Christian is not exposed to and does not feel, the power of temptation; only that, so far forth as he lives in the new life from God, he is proof against it; he gives no internal assent to the seduction of the tempter; and so "that wicked one toucheth him net" (verse 18). What is thus said of one "born of God" may be said much more, and without any qualification, of the Son of God, without denying that he too experienced the power of temptation, though altogether proof against it. Bengel says, "Quomodo autem, sine pectate tentatus, compati potest tentatis cum peceato? In intellectu multo acrius anima salvatoris percepit imagines tentantes quam nos infirmi: in voluntato tam celeriter incursum earum retudit quam ignis aquae guttulam sibi objectam. Expertus est igitur qua virtute sit opus ad tentationes vincendas. Compati potest nam et sine peccato, et tamen vere est tentatus." Hebrews 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly (literally, with boldness) unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. Hebrews 4:1-11 The gospel rest. In this passage the writer explains what is to be understood by the "rest" to which God had invited his ancient people, and urges the Hebrews of his own day to strive to attain it as the most Divine of all blessings. I. THE REST OF GOD. "His rest" (Hebrews 4:1); "my rest" (Hebrews 4:3, Hebrews 4:5). Rest belongs essentially to God, for he is all-perfect and self-harmonious. Being infinite in purity and love, in knowledge and power, he is the God of peace, and dwells in undisturbed repose. The rest of God is mirrored in the institution of the sabbath (Hebrews 4:4), which commemorates his satisfaction at the close of his world-making, when he saw that his works "answered his great idea," and were "very good." God’s own sabbath rest "is the substratum and basis of all peace and rest—the pledge of an ultimate and satisfactory purpose in creation" (Dr. Saphir). II. THE REST OF GOD TO MAN. This "promise" (Hebrews 4:1) is the result of God’s fatherly love. For man, although he has fallen from his rest, is still the child of God, beloved in spite of his sad apostasy, and pitied on account of his weary moiling in the pursuits of sin. The sabbath instituted at the creation was not this rest (Hebrews 4:3-5), but only a sign and seal of it. Neither did the possession of the promised land involve the realization of the promised rest (Hebrews 4:6-9); for Israel had never for any time a restful life in Canaan, and King David, nearly five hundred years after the Hebrew occupation, speaks of entrance into God’s rest as a blessing which was still future (Hebrews 4:7, Hebrews 4:8). However, the settlement of Israel in the land flowing with milk and honey was an adumbration of the gospel rest. And thus God himself said of Zion, "This is my rest for ever." III. THE REST OF GOD IN CHRIST. The Lord Jesus is the Joshua of our confession. He was indeed the Hope of the Jewish Church also in the time of the first Joshua, whether the people realized him to be such or not. If we follow him as our "Leader and Commander," our hearts, even in this weary, changeful world, will enter into true spiritual rest (verse 3). Christ brings us rest from guilt, rest from self-righteous striving, rest from wants, rest from fears, rest amidst life’s burdens. In his "obedience unto death" he labored and was heavy laden that he might give us rest. If we stay our minds on him, we shall be "kept in perfect peace;" if we trust in him, we shall learn to rejoice that "the lines are fallen unto us in pleasant places, and that we have a goodly heritage. IV. THE REST OF GOD IN HEAVEN. Although God has provided for us even in this world perfect rest in Christ, the limitation of our nature prevents us meanwhile from fully enjoying it; and our besetting sins may continue until the end to disturb our tranquility. But in the heavenly world the saints shall be set free forever from sin and temptation, from anxiety and sorrow. They shall enter there into the perfect sabbath-rest of God, and shall dwell in it throughout eternity (verse 9). His love shall abide upon his people, and their perfected love to him shall spring up within them unto everlasting life. In conclusion, if we would acquire and possess this inheritance, we must: 1. Cherish godly "fear" (verse 1). 2. Cultivate faith in Christ (verse 3). 3. Be "united by faith with them that hear" (verse 2)—the Calebs and the Joshuas. 4. "Give diligence to enter into" the eternal rest (verse 11) by "following the Lord fully." Hebrews 4:12, Hebrews 4:13 The power of the Divine Word. The writer urges here that if the Word of God condemned the unbelieving Jews in the Sinaitic desert, it will judge and condemn us also, should we prove unfaithful. The original reference is, of course, not to the written Word; but, in applying the passage to ourselves, we can think only of the promises and warnings of Holy Scripture. I. A OF THE WORD OF GOD. (Hebrews 4:12) The representation is very vivid and impressive. The Word is, as it were, a magistrate; it judges actions, sifts motives, pronounces sentences. As such it is: 1. Living. It is "the breath of his lips"—God-breathed; and so it is never "a dead letter," but always quick with spiritual life, and ready to quicken. What Luther said of Paul’s writings is true of all Scripture: its words "are not dead words; they are living creatures, and have hands and feet." 2. Energetic. The actual power of the Word is as great as the authority which it claims. It is, indeed, the supreme power among men. In the moral sphere it dominates the thought of the world. To the individual soul it is like "a fire "and "a hammer." It is "sharper than any two-edged sword"—two-edged, because it both punishes as a sword and heals as a surgeon’s knife. 3. Heart-dissecting. The Word pierces into the deepest recesses of man’s being. It pricks men in their hearts. It parts "soul and spirit," "joints and marrow;" i.e. it separates the animal soul from the angel-spirit in human nature. It gives sensibility and power to the heavenward side of our being; and enables us to distinguish what in us is carnal and must be subdued. It marks off to the believer’s consciousness "the works of the flesh" from "the fruit of the Spirit." 4. All-discerning. The sacred writers evince a profounder knowledge of human nature than even Shakespeare or Goethe. God’s Word is the touchstone of character. Rather it is an eye which detects the true spiritual condition of every one upon whom it gazes. That awful eye never closes. It reads the most secret thoughts and desires of the soul, and pronounces judgment upon the impenitent for doom. Even the manner in which a man treats the promises and threatenings of the Bible shows what that man is. "Eye of God’s Word! whene’er we turn, Ever upon us I Thy keen gaze Can all the depths of sin discern, Unravel every bosom’s maze. Who that has felt thy glance of dread Thrill through his heart’s remotest cells, About his path, about his bed, Can doubt what spirit in thee dwells?" (Keble) II. THE SECRET OF ITS POWER. (Hebrews 4:13) Holy Scripture is thus energetic and efficacious because it is the Word of the Omniscient. It derives from him "who knows what is in man" its subtle insight into character, and its deep hold upon the world’s life. The all-seeing Judge, "with whom we have to do," has invested his Word with its marvelous magisterial power. As the teachings of Scripture are an exact transcript of the nature and will of God, even the bare Word itself exercises as a Book transcendent moral influence over men. But, when accompanied with the supernatural energy of the Holy Spirit, upon which it depends for its efficacy as a means of grace, Holy Scripture becomes the very omnipotence of the Omnipotent, to arouse, convict, and condemn, as well as to comfort, sanctify, and save. . 1. Let ministers "preach the Word." The faithful exhibition of the truth will lay bare the hearts of those who hear, and sometimes so thoroughly that individuals will conclude that their experiences must have been reported beforehand to the preacher. And without solid spiritual instruction no Church will receive blessing or power. 2. Let all hearers of the gospel "tremble at the Word." Every human heart should submit with holy awe to its inspection, and allow its teachings to determine belief, mould character, and control conduct. Hebrews 4:14-16 Christ’s sympathy and help. This passage is one of the great signposts of the Epistle. In Hebrews 1:1-14., 2. the writer has discussed the superiority of Christ as a King to angels; and in Hebrews 3:1-19., 4. his superiority as a Prophet to Moses. He now proceeds to discourse more at length of his superiority as a Priest to Aaron. I. A TWOFOLD OF . This double statement concerns the cardinal truth of the Savior’s priesthood. 1. Its outer aspect. (Hebrews 3:14) Fallen, sinful man needs a priest to act for him before God, and the world has sought for one long and earnestly. The Jewish religion embodied an elaborate priesthood; and its types have at length been stereotyped under the Christian dispensation. Every believer is now a priest unto God; and Jesus Christ is the Arch-Priest of the Church. The author here encourages the Hebrew converts to steadfastness, by reminding them of the reality and majesty of Christ’s priesthood. He is "a great High Priest"—the Archetype and Antitype of the Jewish pontiff. His majesty appears when we consider: (1) Where he is. He "hath passed through the heavens." Aaron went once a year through the blue veil into the sanctum sanctorum of the tabernacle; but our High Priest, after offering up himself as an expiatory sacrifice in the outer court of this world, has passed through the blue curtain of the sky into the heaven of heaven. He sits officially at the right hand of God, wearing both the priestly miter and the kingly diadem. (2) Who he is. "Jesus, the Son of God." His greatness is personal, as well as official. He is a real man, bearing the human name, Jesus; but he is at the same time the true God, the possessor of a Divine and eternal sonship. 2. Its inner aspect. (Hebrews 3:15) This verse opens up before us the secret workings of the Redeemer’s heart. It speaks of his priestly sympathy. Sympathy is a great power in human life. It bulks so largely that an eminent Scottish thinker, Adam Smith, makes it the basis of his whole system of morals. Now, says the apostle, the Savior’s unparalleled greatness does not by any means render him incapable of sympathy. Although he has passed through the heavens, "heaven lies about us," and thus he is very near us. Although he left the world nineteen hundred years ago, he is yet" with us always." Although he is the Son of God, he has a human soul—a soul intensely human—which underwent a complete curriculum of trial, and graduated to its glory through suffering. Although he was "without sin," his earthly life was a life of constant temptation, as well as of constant and culminating sorrow because of sin. So he is "touched with the feeling of our infirmities"—our infirmities of health, of temper, of devotion, of resolution, of service. He knows experimentally the precise force of every evil suggestion which may try us. As the Head of the Church, he is its great Nerve-center; and he that toucheth any one of his people "toucheth the apple of his eye." II. A TWOFOLD OF DUTY. The double exhortation corresponds to the two aspects of the doctrine respectively. The apostle exhorts to: 1. Steadfast confessions. (Hebrews 3:14) The early Hebrew Christians found it very difficult openly to confess Christ; for their unbelieving countrymen treated all who did so as renegades from Israel, and apostates from Israel’s God. But fidelity to the truth was necessary then, and it is equally necessary now. Every believer is bound publicly to confess Christ. He must do so for Christ’s sake, for his own sake, and for the sake of his fellow men. 2. Constant supplication. (Hebrews 3:16) To the universe at large God’s throne is a throne of majesty; to sinners, it is a throne of judgment; to believers, the presence of Christ at God’s right hand makes it a "throne of grace." And the thought of our High Priest’s tender sympathy should fill us with holy confidence to go daily and hourly into the Divine presence for the supplies which we need. What a joy to know that we have a Friend at court, and that he is our Sovereign’s Son! As often as we look up to his open, loving face, we may use all "liberty of speech" in asking pardoning mercy for the past and helping grace for the future. BY W. JONES Fear of failing to realize the promised rest. "Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left," etc. Let us notice— I. THE GREAT PROMISE. "A promise being left of entering into his rest." Later in the chapter (Hebrews 4:6-9) the writer shows from the Old Testament that such a promise was left to Christians. The rest promised is God’s rest—"his rest;" because: 1. It corresponds with his. (1) It is not the rest of inactivity, but of harmonious activities. "My Father," said Christ, "worketh hitherto, and I work." The highest rest is not in quiescence, but in unwearying and joyful endeavors; and it is illustrated, not by the stillness and silence of the sepulcher, but by the swift and serene movements of the planets. "Absence of occupation is not rest; A mind quite vacant is a mind distrest." (Cowper) Robertson well says, "In creation the rest of God is exhibited as a sense of power which nothing wearies." (2) It is not material, but spiritual; not of the senses, but of the soul. He who has this rest will have peace in his spirit even when sorely pained in his body. Like St. Paul, he may be enabled even to glory in physical "infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon" him. (3) It is not in circumstances, but in the being. Circumstances are variable, uncertain, unreliable; no real and abiding rest can spring from them or depend upon them. But the rest which is promised in the sacred Word is not dependent upon circumstances or upon any outward things. It is a deep inward rest even amidst outward conflict. "And central peace subsisting at the heart Of endless agitation." (Wordsworth) "These things have I spoken unto you, that in me ye may have peace. In the world ye have tribulation," etc. 2. It is conferred by him. God is the Giver of this rest. He bestows it (1) through the mediation of his Son Jesus Christ. Through him he removes the hindrances to this rest; e.g. guilt, servile fear, distrust of God, etc. And he inspires the spiritual conditions and constituents of this rest; e.g. the assurance of pardon, the possession of peace, the exercise of confidence in God, etc. "Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest," etc; "Peace I leave with you; my peace I give unto you," etc. God bestows this rest (2) by the agency of his Holy Spirit. He brings the redemptive powers of the gospel into relation with the hearts of men. "He shall take of mine," said our Lord, "and shall declare it unto you." How great and gracious is this promise! II. THE GRAVE . "Lest any one of you should seem to have come short of it." The grave possibility is that when the great testing-time shall come any one should be found without a personal participation in the promised rest. The word "seem" does not indicate the apparent as distinguished from the real; but is, as Alford says, "a mild term, conveying indeed a sterner intimation behind it." But how should any one come short of the promised rest? Clearly by unbelief, even as the Israelites who left Egypt came short of the rest of Canaan. To these Hebrew Christians there was more than a possibility of the failure of their faith in Jesus Christ. His system had no imposing ceremonial, no pomp or pageantry to commend it, as Judaism had. He himself was despised and rejected by the conventionally and officially great and noble, and was condemned and crucified. The claims of Christianity upon the acceptance of men were spiritual, and could only be spiritually discerned. Hence the danger of those to whom the text was primarily addressed. And still men are in danger of coming short of the attainment of the great promise. This peril arises from the temptation to seek satisfaction in visible and material things rather than in invisible and spiritual things; or to seek for ease and happiness rather than for peace and rest; or to seek for rest in the creature rather than in the Creator. Or the danger may arise from the temptation to absorption in present pursuits without due consideration of their relation to the future and the eternal. III. THE SOLEMN . "Let us therefore fear," etc. This fear is not synonymous with dread or terror; but it indicates a humble, reverent, watchful, prayerful spirit. "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling," etc. How would this fear guard one against coming short of the promised rest? 1. This fear is the antithesis and corrective of self-will and presumption. In humility there is security. "Gird yourselves with humility; for God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble." 2. This fear will lead to wariness and watchfulness. It will incite to the exercise of caution and care. 3. This fear will lead to distrust of self and confidence in God. "In the fear of the Lord is strong confidence; and his children shall have a place of refuge." And he who puts his trust in God shall not fail to attain unto the promised rest. "Let us therefore fear, lest," etc.—W.J. Rest a present possession of the Christian believer. "For we which have believed do enter into rest." The use of the present tense here ("do enter") has caused some difficulty to some expositors. Alford explains the text thus, that they are to enter into the rest who at the time of the fulfillment of the promise shall be found to have believed. Stuart points out that in "the idiom of the Bible, the present tense is often used as a universal tense, embracing time past, present, and future." It is indisputable that the words of the text, taken alone, suggest the subject which is stated above. And if further justification of our application of the text be needed, we may adduce two facts. 1. That our Lord promises rest—and, as we understand him, present rest—to those who believe in him (Matthew 11:28-30). 2. That faith in the Lord Jesus Christ admits the soul into rest here and now is a fact of Christian consciousness. So we proceed to consider the rest which is the present privilege and possession of those who intelligently and heartily believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. I. REST FROM THE GUILT AND BURDEN OF SINS IS BY FAITH IS THE LORD JESUS CHRIST. He reveals the infinite mercy of God towards the sinner, He delivers those who trust him from the condemnation of the holy Law which they have broken (John 3:14-18; Romans 8:1). He freely and fully forgave the sinners who penitently approached unto him (Matthew 9:2; Luke 7:48-50). He imparts freedom from the bondage of sin (John 8:31-36; Romans 6:12-22). And from this forgiveness and freedom from sin there follows rest from the dread of the punishment of sin. Thus, as regards the guilt and bondage and punishment of sin, they who believe in the Savior "do enter into rest." This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ THE OF CHRIST. The purpose of the first part of this chapter (Hebrews 5:1-10) is to corroborate the position arrived at in the conclusion of Heb 4:1-16., viz. that we have in Christ a true High Priest sufficient for all our needs. This is done by analyzing the conception of a high priest, and observing that Christ in all respects fulfils it. And thus the full exposition of Christ’s heavenly priesthood above that of Aaron is prepared for. But this full exposition is still not entered on till after an exhortation (beginning at Hebrews 5:11), longer and more earnest than any former one, called for by the slowness of the Hebrew Christians to apprehend the doctrine. It is at length taken up and carried out in Hebrews 7:1-28. The intention of Heb 7:1-10 being as above explained, it is a mistake to suppose any contrast intended here between the Aaronic priesthood and that of Christ; e.g. to take Hebrews 7:1-3 as meaning, Human high priests can sympathize in virtue of their own infirmity,—otherwise Christ; or, Human high priests have need of atonement for themselves,—not so Christ. The main drift, on the contrary, is that all recognized essentials of high priesthood are found in Christ. These essentials are that, the high priest’s office being to mediate between man and God, (1) he should be of the same nature, and sympathetic with those in whose behalf he mediates; and (2) that his credentials should be Divine, i.e. that God himself should have appointed him to his office. Hebrews 5:1 For every high priest, from among men being taken, for men is constituted in the things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins. Here ἐξἀνθρώπωνλαμβανόμενος is not (as the rendering of the A.V. might suggest) a limitation of the subject of the sentence, confining it to merely human high priests; it belongs to the predicate, expressing what is true of every high priest. The phrase expresses both the necessary humanity of the high priest, and also his being set apart for his peculiar office—λαμβανόμενοςἐξ. The order, and consequent force, of the words in the Greek is retained in the translation given above. (For the expression, τὰπρὸςτὸνΘεὸν, cf. Hebrews 2:17; Romans 15:17) The purpose for which the high priest is constituted in this relation is "that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins"—a comprehensive designation of sacerdotal functions, the essential idea, expressed by ὑπὲρἁμαρτιῶν, being atonement (cf. Hebrews 2:17, Εἰςτὸἰλάσκεσθαιτὰςἁμαρτίαςτοῦλαοῦ). The difference between the words δῶρον and θυσία is that the former, denoting properly any offering regarded as a gift, is especially applied in the LXX. to the minchah ("meat offering"); the latter (from θύω) denotes properly "a bloody sacrifice," and is generally so applied. The distinction, however, is not invariably observed, δῶρον being used in this Epistle (Hebrews 11:4) for Abel’s sacrifice and (Hebrews 8:4) for all kinds of offerings, while θυσία in the LXX. denotes (Genesis 4:3) Cain’s unbloody offering and (Le Hebrews 2:1) the minchah. But here, as also in Hebrews 8:3 and Hebrews 9:9, where both are named (δῶρατεκαὶθυσίας), we may conclude a distinctive reference to be intended to the unbloody and bloody offerings of the Law (cf. Psalms 40:6, "Sacrifice and offering (θυσοίανκαὶπροσφορὰν, LXX) thou didst not desire;" Daniel 9:27, θυσίακαὶσπονδὴ: and also Jeremiah 17:26. To both ὑπὲρἁμαρτιῶν (depending, not on θυσίας, but on προσφέρῃ) applies, For, though blood-shedding (Hebrews 9:22) was essential for atonement, the unbloody minchah formed part of the ceremony of expiation, and this notably on the Day of Atonement, so specially referred to afterwards in the Epistle (see Numbers 29:7-11). Hebrews 5:2 Who can have compassion on the ignorant and erring; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity. It is not easy to find a satisfactory English equivalent for μετριοπαθεῖν, translated as above in the A.V; by Alford, "be compassionate towards;" in the margin of the A.V., "reasonably bear with;" by the recent Revisers, "bear gently with;" by Bengel, "moderate affici." The compound had its origin, doubtless, in the peripatetic school, denoting the right mean between passionateness and Stoic apathy, being the application of Aristotle’s μεσότης to the sphere of the passions. Thus Diog. Laert. says of Aristotle, Εφηδετονσοφονμηειναιμεναπαθημετριοπαθῆδὲ. In this sense Philo uses μετριοπαθὴς to express Abraham’s sober grief after the death of Sarah (2.37) and Jacob’s patience under his afflictions (2.45). The verb, followed, as here, by a dative of persons, may be taken, therefore, to denote moderation of feeling towards the persons indicated, such moderation being especially opposed in the ease before us, where the persons are the ignorant and erring, to excess of severe or indignant feeling. Moderation, indeed, in this regard seems to have been the idea generally attached to the compound. Josephus also speaks of the emperors Vespasian and Titus as μετριοπαθησάντων in their attitude towards the Jews after long hostility (’Ant.,’ 12.3 2). This, then, being the meaning of μετριοπαθεία, it is obvious how the capacity of it is essential to the idea of a high priest as being one who is resorted to as a mediator by a people laden with infirmities, to represent them and to plead for them. It is not of necessity implied that every high priest was personally νετριοπάθης: it is the ideal of his office that is spoken of. And, in the ease of human high priests, this ideal was fulfilled by their being themselves human, encompassed themselves with the infirmity of those for whom they mediated. Christ also, so far, evidently fulfils the condition. For, though he is afterwards distinguished (Hebrews 7:28) from priests having themselves infirmity, yet he had, in his human nature, experienced what it was: "He was crucified ἐξἀσθενείας" (2 Corinthians 13:4); "Himself took our infirmities (ἀσθενείας), and bare our sicknesses" (Matthew 8:17; Isaiah 53:4); the agony in the garden (whatever its mysterious import, of which more below)expressed personal experience of human ἀσθενεία. Alford denies that ἀσθενεία, in the sense supposed by him to be here intended, can be attributed to Christ, and hence that περίκειταιἀσθένειαις can apply to him (but see above on Hebrews 4:15, and below on Hebrews 4:3, Hebrews 4:7). Hebrews 5:3 And by reason hereof he ought (or, is bound, ὀφείλει), as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. This obligation is evident in the ease of the high priests of the Law. Consequently, their sin offering for themselves, in the first place, was a prominent part of the ceremonial of the Day of Atonement, which the writer may be supposed to have especially in view (Leviticus 16:1-34). But can we suppose any corresponding necessity in the case of Christ? The argument does not absolutely require that we should, since the obligation of the Levitical high priest may be adduced only in proof of his own experience of ἀσθενεία. Christ, though under no such obligation, might still fulfill the requisites of a high priest, expressed in the case of sinful high priests by the obligation to offer for themselves; and we may (as Ebrard says) leave it to the writer to show hew he does fulfill them. Whether, however, there was in Christ’s own experience anything corresponding to the high priest’s offering for himself will be considered under Hebrews 5:7, Hebrews 5:8. Hebrews 5:4 And no man taketh this honor unto himself, but being called of God (the ὁ of Textus Receptus before καλούμενος—"he that is called," as in A.V.—has very slight authority), even as was Aaron. This verse expresses the second essential of a high priest, Divine appointment, for assurance of the efficacy of his mediation. Of course Aaron’s successors derived their Divine commission from his original one (cf. Numbers 21:26; Numbers 26:10-14). Hebrews 5:5, Hebrews 5:6 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made a High Priest. Here begins the proof that Christ fulfils the two requirements, that mentioned second in the previous statement being taken first in the proof—chiastically, as is usual in this Epistle. The expression, ἑαυτὸνἐδόξασε, rather than τὴντιμὴνἔλαβε, may have reference to the glory wherewith Christ is crowned in his exalted position as Priest-King (cf. Hebrews 2:9). But he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. As he saith also in another place, Thou art a Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. These two texts (Psalms 2:7; Psalms 110:4) must be taken together for the proof required. The first (commented on under Hebrews 1:5) shows the Loire’s appointment of Christ to his kingly office as Son; the second shows that this kingly office carries with it, also by Divine appointment, an eternal priesthood. Christ’s entry into this kingly priesthood is best conceived as inaugurated by his resurrection, after accomplishment of human obedience, whereby he fitted himself for priesthood. Before this he was the destined High Priest, but not the "perfected" High Priest, "ever living to make intercession for us." It is not during his life on earth, but after his exaltation, that he is spoken of as the High Priest of mankind. In his sufferings and death he was consecrated to his eternal office. This appears from Hebrews 5:9, Hebrews 5:10, and also from Psalms 110:1-7., quoted in this verse, where the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek and the exaltation to the right hand of God are regarded together. See also what was said under Hebrews 1:5, of the application to Christ of the other text quoted, "This day have I begotten thee." The Messianic reference and general drift of Psa 110:1-7. has been considered under Hebrews 1:13. It was there seen to be more than a typical prophecy, David having in it a distinct view of One far greater than himself—of the Son to come, whom he calls his LORD. But even had it, like other Messianic psalms, a primary reference to some theocratic king, the remarkable import of Heb 1:4 would in itself point beyond one. For, though David organized and controlled the priesthood and the services of the sanctuary, though both he and Solomon took a prominent part in solemn acts of worship, yet neither they nor any other king assumed the priestly office, which, in its essential functions, was scrupulously confined to the sons of Aaron. The judgment on Uzziah (2 Chronicles 26:16-22) is a notable evidence of the importance attached to this principle. Yet the verse before us assigns a true priesthood to the future King. For Melchizedek, as he appears in Genesis, is evidently a true priest, though prior to the Aaronic priesthood, uniting in himself, according to the system of the patriarchal age, the royalty and the priesthood of his race: as a true priest, he blessed Abraham, and received tithes from him. But of him, historically and symbolically regarded, the consideration must be reserved for Hebrews 7:1-28., where the subject is taken up. Enough here to observe that in Psalms 110:1-7. a true and everlasting priesthood is assigned to the SON in union with his exalted royalty at the LORD’s right hand, and this by Divine appointment, by the "voice" or "oracle" of the Load (Psalms 110:1), confirmed by the LORD’s oath (Psalms 110:4). Hebrews 5:7, Hebrews 5:8 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up (rather, when he offered up) prayers and supplications to him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered. Here (according to the view taken above of the chiastic structure of the passage) we have the account of how Christ fulfilled the human requirements of a High Priest, referred to in Hebrews 5:2, Hebrews 5:3. This main intention of Heb 5:7, Hebrews 5:8 must be kept in mind for a proper understanding of them. Christ is in them regarded, not as executing his priestly office, but as being prepared and consecrated for it. His eternal priesthood is conceived as entered on after the human experience which is the subject of these verses (cf. καὶτελειώθειςἐγένετο (Hebrews 5:9), and what was said under Hebrews 5:5). With regard to the participial aorists, προσενέγκαςαἰσακουσθείς, it is a misapprehension of their proper force to regard them as denoting a time previous to that of ἔμαθεν in Hebrews 5:8; as if the meaning were—having in Gethsemane "offered," etc., and "been heard," he afterwards "learnt obedience" on the cross. All they express is that in offering, etc., and being heard, he learned obedience. The idea of subsequent time does not come in till Hebrews 5:9; "and being perfected," after thus learning obedience, "he became," etc. Thus the only question with regard to time in Hebrews 5:7, Hebrews 5:8 is whether they have reference to the agony in the garden only, or both to the agony and the cress. That they refer mainly, if not exclusively, to the agony is evident from the expressions used, corresponding so closely with the Gospel history. The view presented is, as in the Gospels, of some intense inward struggle, outwardly manifested, and expressing itself in repeated prayers (observe the plural, δεήσειςκαὶἱκετηρίας) aloud for deliverance. It is true that the Gospels, as we have them now, do not mention tears; but these too are quite in keeping with the bloody sweat specified by St. Luke, and Epiphanius states that the original copies of Luk 22:43, Luke 22:44 contained the verb ἔκλαυσε. Some interpreters would identify the κραυγήἰσχυρά of Luke 22:7 with the "loud voice (φωνήμεγάλη)" from the cross. But there is nothing to suggest this; the "strong crying and tears" evidently denote the manner of the "prayers and supplications;" and the thrice-repeated prayer in the garden recorded by the evangelists may be well conceived to have been thus loudly uttered, so as to be heard by the three disciples, a stone’s cast distant, before sleep overcame them. "In cruce clamasse dicitur; lachrymasse non dicitur. Utrum horum respicit locum Gethsemane" (Bengel). What, then, as seen in the light of these verses, was the meaning of the "prayer and supplications" in the garden of Gethsemane? The expression, τὸνδυνάμενονσώζειναὐτὸνἐκθανάτου, corresponding with πάνταδυνατάσοι of Mark 14:36, confirms the view that the "cup" which he prayed might pass from him, was the death before him, and that the purport of his prayer was, not to be raised from death after undergoing it, but to be saved from undergoing it. Such is the ordinary meaning of σώζεινἐκθανάτου in reference to one still alive (cf. Psalms 33:19; James 5:20). It does not indeed positively follow that, because he prayed to One who was able in this sense to save him, his prayer was that he might be in this sense saved. It is, however, the natural inference. But, if so, two difficulties present themselves. (1) How was such a prayer consistent with his distinct knowledge that death must be undergone, and his late strong rebuke to Peter for venturing to dissuade him from it? (2) How can he be said to have been heard (εἰσακουσθείς), since he was not saved from death in the sense intended? To the first of these questions the answer is that the prayer expressed, not the deliberate desire of his Divine will, but only the inevitable shrinking of the human will from such an ordeal as was before him. As man, he experienced this shrinking to the full, and as man he craved deliverance, though with entire submission to the will of the Father. His human will did not oppose itself to the Divine will: it conformed itself in the end entirely to it; but this according to the necessary conditions of humanity, through the power of prayer. Had it not been so with him, his participation in human nature would have been incomplete; he would not have been such as to be "touched with a feeling of our infirmities, being in all things tempted like as we are;" nor would he have stood forth for ever as the great Example to mankind. St. John, who so deeply enters into and interprets the mind of Christ, records an utterance before the agony which anticipates its meaning (John 12:1-50): "The hour is come" (verse 23); and then (verse 27), "Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour [cf. σώζεινἐκθανάτου]; but for this cause came I unto this hour. Father, glorify thy Name." The "hour" was that of the drinking of the cup. "Father, save me from this hour" was the human craving of the agony; but still, "Father, glorify thy Name" was the essence of the prayer; and perfect submission to the Divine will was the outcome of it, after this troubling of his human soul. The mystery surrounding the whole subject of the Divine and human in Christ remains still. What was said with regard to it about the temptation in the wilderness (Hebrews 4:15) is applicable also here. If it be further asked how it was that Christ, in his humanity, so shrank from the "cup" before him, seeing that mere men have been found to face death calmly in its most appalling forms, the answer may be found in the consideration of what this cup implied. It was more than physical death, more than physical pain, more than any sorrow that falls to the lot of man. Such expressions as Ἤρξατολυπεῖσθαικαὶἀδημονεῖν … περίλυποςἐστὶνἡψυχήμουἕωςθανάτου (Matthew 26:37, Matthew 26:38); Ἤρξατοἐκθαμβεῖσθαικαὶἀδημονεῖν (Mark 14:33); Γενόμενοςἐνἀγωυίᾳἐκτενεστερονπροσηύχετο (Luke 22:44); the bloody sweat, and the cry of "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"—convey in themselves the impression of a mysterious ordeal, beyond what we can fathom, undergone by the atoning Savior in that "hour" of the "power of darkness." Of the second difficulty mentioned above, as to how Christ was "heard," not having been saved "from death" in the apparent sense of his prayer, the solution may be that the prayer, conditioned as it was by εἰδυνατὸν, was most truly answered by the angel sent to strengthen him, and the power thenceforth given him to "endure the cross, despising the shame." "Mortem ex qua Pater cum liberare posset, ne moreretur, tamen subiit, voluntati Patris obediens: ab horrore plane liberatus est per exauditionem Exauditus est, non ut ne biberet calicem, sed ut jam sine ullo horrore biberet: unde etiam per angelum corroboratus est" (Bengel). The example to us thus becomes the more apparent. For we, too, praying legitimately for release from excessive trial, may have our prayer best answered by grace given to endure the trial, and by "a happy issue" out of it; as was the case with Christ. For his bitter passion was made the path to eternal glory; and thus in the Resurrection too his prayer was answered. The exact meaning of εἰσακουσθεὶςἀπὸτῆςεὐλαβείας is not easy to determine. It is taken by a large proportion of commentators to mean "deliverance from his fear;" εἰσακουσθεὶςἀπὸ being supposed to be a constructio praegnans in the sense of "heard so as to be delivered," and εὐλαβεία to denote the dread experienced in Gethsemane. So the old Italian Versions, and Ambrose, "exauditus a metu;" so Bengel, "ab horrore liberatus per exauditlonem." This interpretation is upheld by Beza, Grotius, Tholuck, Hofmann, Ebrard, and many others; some of whom, less tenably (as Calvin, Hammond, Jackson), understand εὐλαβεία as meaning, not the fear felt, but the thing feted: "ab eo quod timebat" (Calvin). The objections to this view are (1) the doubtfulness of the constructio praegnans (the instances adduced—ἐπήκουσέμουεἰςπλατυσμόν, Psalms 118:5; ἐρραντισμένοι … ἀπὸσυνειδήσεαςπονηρᾶς, Hebrews 10:22—are not parallel); and (2) the sense assigned to εὐλαβεία, since εὐλαβεῖσθαι and its derivatives, when used to express fear, denote usually, not a shrinking, but a wary or cautious fear, and commonly carry with them (in this Epistle and St. Luke especially) the idea of piety. Thus in Hebrews 11:7, of Noah, εὐλαβηθεὶςκατεσκεύασεκιβωτὸν: Hebrews 12:28, μετ̓αἰδοῦςκαὶεὐλαβεαίς: and in Luke 2:25; Acts 2:5; Acts 8:2; Acts 22:12, εὐλαβής is synonymous with εὐσεβής. The rendering hence preferred by many, having the authority of Chrysostom, and among moderns of Lunemann, Bleek, Delitzsch, Alford, and others, is that of the Vulgate, "exauditus pro sua reverentia." So Vigilius, "propter timorem;" the A.V.," heard in that he feared," or, as in the margin, "heard for his piety;" and in the recent revision, "for his godly fear;" which is the A.V.’s rendering of εὐλαβεία in Hebrews 12:28. The objection to the use of ἀπὸ to express the cause of his being heard is met by reference to the frequent usage of St. Luke, whose language most resembles that of our Epistle. Thus: ἀπὸτοῦὄχλου (Luke 19:3); ἀπὸτῆςχαρᾶς (Luke 24:41 and Acts 12:14); ἀπὸτοῦὕπνου (Acts 20:9); ἀπὸτῆςδόξης (Acts 22:11). The phrase, thus understood, brings out the more markedly the thoroughly human conditions to which Christ was subjected. It was not in right of his sonship that he was heard. He won his hearing by his human piety; though he was SON, and as such knew that his Father heard him always (John 11:42), he learnt humanly his lesson of obedience. In the expression, καίπερὤνυἱὸς, Son is surely meant in the peculiar sense in which it has all along been applied to Christ, expressing mere than that his relation to God was that of any son to a father, and thus we perceive the full force of καίπερ. It is true that it was not till after the Resurrection that he attained his exalted position as SON (see under Hebrews 1:5 and Hebrews 5:5); but still he was all along the Son, in virtue of his origin as well as of his destiny. Cf. ἐλάλησενἡμῖνἐνυἱῷ (Hebrews 1:9). Ὤνυἱὸς does not indeed, in itself, express that he was the Second Person of the Trinity (this application of the word υἱὸς being nowhere found in the Epistle); but it implies that, even in his state of humiliation, he was more than man; for there would be nothing very extraordinary, so as to justify καίπερ, in the case of an ordinary son learning obedience to his father through suffering. Recurring now to the question raised under verse 3, whether the high priest’s obligation to offer in the first place for himself had any counterpart in the case of Christ, we may perceive such a counterpart in the agony, as above regarded. For, although for himself Christ needed no atonement, yet the "prayers and supplications" were offered in his own behalf, being due to his own entire participation in the conditions of humanity; the whole "agony and bloody sweat" were part of his own preparation and consecration for executing the office of a High Priest for others, and, like the Aaronic priest’s offering for himself, they were the sign and evidence of his being one μετριοπαθεῖνδυνάμενος. Thus (χωρὶςἀμαρτίας being all along understood) they answered truly to the preparatory part of Aaron’s original consecration (Leviticus 8:14-9:15), or to the high priest’s own offering, before his offering for the people and entering behind the veil, on the Day of Atonement (Le Luke 14:6). It may be (though not necessarily so) that the word προσενέγκας in verse 7, corresponding with προσφέρειν in verse 3, is intended to suggest this analogy. Hebrews 5:9, Hebrews 5:10 And being made perfect, he became unto all them that obey him the Author of eternal salvation; called (or rather so addressed) of God a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek. Here τελειωθεὶς (translated "being made perfect") refers to the time of his resurrection, when the sufferings were over and the atonement complete (cf. Luke 13:32, τῇτρίτῃτελειοῦμαι). The word may be used in its general sense of perfected, i.e. "being made perfectly that which he was intended to become" (Delitzsch). In such sense St. Paul uses the word of himself, Οὐκὅτιἤδητετελείωμαι (Philippians 3:12). Or the specific sense of priestly consecration may be here, as well as in Hebrews 2:10 and Hebrews 7:28, intended. In Hebrews 7:28 the A.V. renders εἰςτὸναἰῶνατετελειωμένον by "consecrated for evermore." And this view is supported by passages in the LXX., where the word τελείωσις is used with special reference to the consecration of the high priest. Cf. ἔστιγὰρτελείωσιςαὔτη (Exodus 29:22); τοῦκριοῦτῆςτελειώσεως, ὅἐστινἈαρών, (Hebrews 7:26, Hebrews 7:27, 31); τελειῶσαιτὰςχεῖραςαὐτῶν (verses 29, 33, 35); τῆςθυσίαςτῆςτελειώσεως (verse 34) τὸνδεύτερονκριὸντῆςτελειώσεως (Leviticus 8:22, 29); ἀπὸτοῦκανοῦτῆςτελειώσεως (Hebrews 7:26); τὸὁλοκαύτωματῆςτελειώσεως (Hebrews 7:28); ἕωςἡμέραπληρωθῆ, ἡμέρατελειώσεωςὑμῶν (verse 33); also Leviticus 21:10, where the high priest—ὁἱερεὺςὁμέγαςἀπὸτῶνἀδελφῶναὐτοῦ—is described as τοῦἐπικεχυμένουἐπὶτῆνκεφαλὴντοῦἐλαίουσοῦΧριστοῦκαὶτετελειωμένουἐνδύσασθαιτὰἱμάτια. See also Gesenius on the Hebrew word מיאלֻּם. Hence, and in view of the drift of the passage before us, Jackson very decidedly regards τελειωθεὶς in Hebrews 7:9 as a verbum solenne, denoting specifically Christ’s consecration to his eternal office of High Priest. So also Hammond and Whitby. Being thus perfected, or consecrated, he became, for ever afterwards, the Author, not of mere ceremonial cleansing or temporary remission of guilt, but of eternal salvation; potentially to all mankind (cf. ὑπὲρπαντὸς, Hebrews 2:9), and effectively to "all them that obey him;" being addressed, in tiffs his consummated position (the reference being to Psalms 110:1-7) as "High Priest for ever," etc. Here again we perceive that it is not till after the Resurrection that the prophetic ideal of the SON at God’s right hand, and of the eternal High Priest, are regarded as fully realized. If it be objected that his high priesthood must have begun before the Resurrection for his death upon the cross to be a true atonement, it may be replied that his one oblation of himself upon the cross at once consummated his consecration and effected the atonement. Doubtless, as a true High Priest on earth, he thus "offered one sacrifice for sins for ever" (Hebrews 10:12); all that is meant above is that it was not till after the Resurrection that he entered on his eternal office of mediation in virtue of that one accomplished sacrifice. Verses 5:11-7:1 This is the long admonitory digression (see under Hebrews 7:1) felt by the writer to be necessary before his exposition of κατὰτὴντάξινΜελχιζεδέκ. He is entering on a new theme, higher and less level to the comprehension of his readers than any that has gone before. Even so far, we have seen how their Jewish prejudices had evoked admonitions, frequently interposed in the course of the argument. Much more so now, when it is to be shown how the priesthood of Christ not only fulfils the idea of, but also supersedes, that of the sons of Aaron, being of a different order from theirs. The region of thought to be entered now, being that of "the mystery of Christ," transcends more than any that has been so far entered the ordinary conceptions of traditional Judaism. Hence the writer’s shrinking from entering all at once on the subject for fear of not being even understood; hence his earnest warnings to his readers as to the necessity of advancing to the state of full-grown Christians who can discern spiritual things. Hebrews 6:11-20 . Hebrews 5:11 Of whom (the most obvious antecedent being Melchizedek, but with regard to his typical significance, as referred to in Psalms 110:1-7) we have many things to say (the subject itself admits a lengthy exposition) and hard of interpretation, seeing ye are become (not, as in A.V., "ye are") dull of hearing. Their dullness is the reason of the λόγος being δυσερμήνευτος. It was not that the subject was in itself inexplicable, or that the writer was incompetent to explain it; his difficulty was in adapting the interpretation to the capacity of his readers: "Non scribentis, sed vestro vitio" (Bengel). It seems from γεγόνατε ("ye are become"), in this and the following verse, that the Hebrew Christians had even retrograded in spiritual perception. This is easily conceivable. As, through the teaching of St. Paul especially, the tie between Christianity and Judaism became more and more broken, there was likely to be a certain reaction among the Hebrew Christians, who, having gone to a certain extent with the tide of thought, became conscious how far it was carrying them. They would be inclined to cling the more fondly to their old associations from the fear of losing them altogether. Such retrogressions have been observable in other times of upheaval of old ideas. Hebrews 5:12 For when, by reason of the time (i.e. the time that has elapsed since your conversion), ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that some one teach you (or, that one teach you which be) the first principles (literally, the elements of the beginning) of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, anti not of solid food. Τῆςἀρχῆς in this verse seems best taken in union with τὰστοιχεῖα, rather than with τῶνλογίων; the phrase, τὰστοιχεῖατῆςἀρχῆς, meaning "the initiatory elements"—the A, B, C of Christian teaching. The word λογία ("oracles"), is used elsewhere for the revelations of the Old Testament, as Acts 7:38; Romans 3:2. Here its meaning can hardly be taken as confined to them, since the first principles of the gospel are being spoken of. Still, a word that includes them in its meaning may be purposely used by way of intimating that the elements intended are those of Judaism as well as Christianity, or of the latter only in its first emergence out of Judaism. And accordingly, Hebrews 6:1, Hebrews 6:2, where they are enumerated, are (as will be seen) so worded as to imply no more than this; nor are the first principles there mentioned beyond what an enlightened Jew might be expected to understand readily. Be it observed that the Hebrew Church need not be supposed to have actually lost sight of these first principles, so as to require a new indoctrination into them. There may be a vein of delicate irony in what is said, after the manner of St. Paul. All that is of necessity implied is that there had been such a failure in seeing what these principles led to as to suggest the necessity of their being learnt anew. The writer does not, in fact, as he goes on, require them to be learnt anew; for he bids his readers leave them behind, as though already known, and proceed from them to perfection, though still with some misgiving as to their capability for doing so. The figure of milk for babes and solid food for full-grown men, to illustrate the teaching suitable for neophytes and for advanced Christians, is found also in 1 Corinthians 3:1, 1 Corinthians 3:2; and that of νήπιος in 1 Corinthians 14:20; Galatians 4:19; Ephesians 4:14. This correspondence, though no proof of the Pauline authorship, is among the evidences of the Pauline character of the Epistle. Hebrews 5:13 For every one that partaketh of milk is unskillful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. Reason for saying that they are such as have need of milk; for milk is the nourishment of infants, and he that is an infant in respect of spiritual growth is ἄπειροςλόγουδικαιοσύνης: not of necessity unacquainted with it altogether, but still not versed in it; he is but a tyro. "Word of righteousness" may be taken as a general term to denote what we might call religious lore; referring here especially to the gospel, which is eminently the revelation of the "righteousness of God" (Romans 1:17; cf. 2 Corinthians 3:9, ἡδιακονίατῆςδικαιοσύνης: and 2 Corinthians 11:15, διάκονοιδικαιοσύνης); but not excluding a more general conception. There is no need to suppose an exclusive reference to the more perfect doctrine in opposition to the elements, since, of the whole subject of religious knowledge, the νήπιος may be said to be ἄπειρος in the sense of being without the matured skill that experience gives. Hence, too, we are certainly not justified in finding in the phrase a specific allusion to the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith only, which is not suggested by the context or by what follows. Still less may we (with Delitzsch) so ignore the notable significance of δικαιοσύνη as to reduce the expression to a synonym for "rightly framed, that is sound and orthodox discourse." Hebrews 5:14 But solid food is for them that are of full age (τελείων, equivalent to "perfect;" but in the sense of maturity of age or growth, in contrast with νήπιοι; as in 1 Corinthians 14:20; of. 1 Corinthians 2:6; Ephesians 4:13; Philippians 3:15), those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern good and evil. Here the comparison is carried out with peculiar aptness. Τὰαἰσθητήρια in the illustration are the organs of sense. In the infant the digestive organs, in the first place, exercised in the beginning on milk, acquire through that exercise the power of assimilating more solid and more complex food, while at the same time its sensitive organs generally, also through exercise, become consciously discriminative of "good and evil" (cf. Isaiah 7:15, Isaiah 7:16, where "to know to refuse the evil and choose the good" denotes, as if proverbially, the age after early childhood). So, in the spiritual sphere, the mental faculties, exercised at first on simple truths, should acquire by practice the power of apprehending and distinguishing’ between higher and more recondite ones. It was because the Hebrew Christians had failed thus to bring out their faculties that they were open to the charge of being still in a state of infancy. Hebrews 5:1-10 Style high priesthood of Christ. In these verses the author proceeds with his discussion of the priestly character and work of the Lord Jesus, as typified by the Aaronical priesthood. I. WHAT A HIGH PRIEST IS. The office is a most honorable one; it is referred to in Hebrews 5:4 as "the honor." This will appear from a consideration of the high priest’s functions and qualifications. 1. His functions. The most important of these are indicated in Hebrews 5:1. (1) He acts for other men in things respecting their relations to God. The root-idea of the office is that, while access to God is denied to sinners on the ground of nature, he has been pleased to grant it in connection with special arrangements of grace. (2) He offers sacrifices, both free-will offerings and sin offerings. As men are guilty, this is indispensable; and thus in common speech the terms "priest" and "sacrifice" are correlatives. There can ha no priest without a sacrifice. 2. His qualifications. (1) He must be human (Hebrews 5:1)—a partaker of the nature that is to he redeemed. (2) He must be humane (Hebrews 5:2)—capable of considerate sympathy with the people for whom he mediates. How sadly opposite in character to this have the world’s priests almost always been! How dark are the thoughts suggested by the word "priestcraft"! Priests have been arrogant, cruel, tyrants over conscience, enemies of progress, patrons of ignorance and error. But the typical priest is a man of culture and refinement, who has abjured the motto, "Odi profanum vulgus et arceo," and who, realizing his own frailty, "can bear gently with the ignorant and erring." (3) He must have a sacrifice (Hebrews 5:3)—"somewhat to offer." Without a sin offering priestly mediation would be impotent, and the holy and just God would remain inaccessible. (4) He must be appointed by God. (Hebrews 5:4) It is for God to decide whether he will allow himself to be approached at all on behalf of the guilty, and it belongs to him also to select the person whose mediation will be acceptable to him. II. THE REALITY OF CHRIST’S HIGH . The apostle goes on to show—but arranging his thoughts for the most part in the reverse order—that the Lord Jesus possesses all the needful qualifications for the high priesthood, and that he actually discharges its duties (Hebrews 5:5-10). 1. He has the qualifications of a high priest. (1) He was appointed by God. (Hebrews 5:5, Hebrews 5:6) The reference to Psalms 2:1-12. suggests his perfect fitness for the office, and the quotation from Psalms 110:1-7. is a proof of his ordination by the irrevocable oath of God. (2) He is a man. (Psalms 110:7, 8) Although God said to him, "My Son," he had taken "the form of a servant," and "in the days of his flesh" bad" learned obedience." (3) He is able to sympathize. (Psalms 110:7, 8) He passed through a course of the deepest affliction and the most dreadful temptation, that he might acquire the necessary experience for his work. He "suffered," not only at Nazareth and Capernaum, and during the whole period of his public ministry, but especially by means of the unparalleled agonies of Gethsemane and Golgotha. (4) He offered himself as a sacrifice. (Psalms 110:7, 8) By his "obedience" Jesus effected complete reconciliation for sin. His trembling agony in the garden and the woe which he bore upon the tree are inexplicable on the principle that he was only a martyr, or on any other principle than that in some mysterious way he was thus bearing the wrath of God against sin. 2. He discharges the duties of a high priest. (Verse 9) The Savior’s acquisition of all the qualifications "made him perfect," i.e. officially all-accomplished as the Priest of mankind. He has procured for us everlasting salvation, and he bestows it upon all who obey him by faith. He has expiated sin. He has rendered God propitious. He gives his people access. He prays to God for them. In short, he performs all the duties of a high priest, and his priesthood has superseded every other. III. THE BETWEEN CHRIST’S AND THE . 1. Being personally holy, Jesus needed not to offer any sacrifice for himself (Psalms 110:3). 2. He is both Priest and Victim (Psalms 110:7, 8). 3. His priesthood really procures salvation (verse 9), and not merely typically. 4. It is of a higher order than Aaron’s, and was more fully represented by that of Melchizedek (verse 10); for it is (1) intransferable and everlasting; (2) a royal priesthood, Christ being King as well as Priest. LESSONS. 1. We, being guilty and sinful, can have intercourse with God only through Christ as our Priest. 2. We ought to cherish absolute confidence in his priestly power and sympathy. 3. Christian ministers are not "called of God" to be priests (Psalms 110:4), and must beware of importing sacerdotal conceptions into the idea which they entertain of their office; yet every pastor should, like the model high priest of ancient times, "bear gently with the ignorant and erring." Hebrews 5:11-14 A sharp reproof for ignorance. The apostle, having used the expression," after the order of Melchizedek," remembers that his readers will not be likely to understand it without careful explanation. So he pauses in his argument to chide them for their backwardness in religious knowledge. I. THE TRUTHS OF ARE AND FAR-. The story of God’s love in redemption may, no doubt, be called with propriety "the simple gospel;" but, while it is so, it exhibits at the same time "the manifold wisdom of God." The Bible is not merely a book; it is a literature. It does not simply contain a message of mercy; it is the record of a long and gradually developing process of redeeming grace. It may be studied profoundly from many different standpoints, as e.g. those of history, of dogmatic theology, of morals, of ecclesiology, etc. The Bible deals, too, with all the deepest and most wonderful of themes, such as the human soul, the problem of sin, God, eternity, and immortality. So there is spiritual food in Holy Scripture, at once for the shallowest and the profoundest minds. Revelation supplies not only "milk" for "babes in Christ," i.e. the alphabet and rudiments of religious knowledge, but "solid food" for "full-grown men," i.e. materials for the more recondite study of Christianity as a great and harmonious system of Divine truth. II. DIFFER IN THE DEGREE OF THEIR . They differ because: 1. Some are "babes." Believers who are young in years, and those of maturer age who have newly come to the knowledge of the truth, require to be fed with the "milk" or simplest elements of religious instruction. 2. Some are "full-grown men," who can relish and digest the "solid food" of the Word. An advanced Christian who is a diligent student of Scripture will acquire so firm a grasp of truth as to become qualified to act the part of a "teacher" in the Church (verse 12). His proficiency in knowledge will sharpen his spiritual perceptions, so that he will learn readily to distinguish between "good and evil" in doctrine (verse 14). 3. Some are invalids. The apostle chides his Hebrew readers for having become such, as the result of their disregard of the laws of spiritual health. It was now many years since they had first believed, and by this time they should have been adults in Christian knowledge—quick of apprehension in relation to the higher reaches of truth. So far, however, from being able to assimilate the "solid food" of the Word, they had degenerated into spiritual weaklings and invalids. They heard the gospel indolently (verse 11). The "solid food" which they had once enjoyed now occasioned them the miseries of dyspepsia. They could digest nothing but gospel "milk." In our own time, too, there are many such invalids. What multitudes attend church through the years, and yet never get beyond the attainments of the sabbath school! How many otherwise intelligent men are quite ignorant of the organic structure of the Bible! How many betray an utter want of living interest in the doctrines and truths of the New Testament! III. REASONS WHY THE OF MANY IS SO . The Hebrews were "dull of hearing" because they had got divided in heart between Christianity and Judaism, and because they were beset with temptations to apostatize from a faith which had involved them in much trial. Now, our temptations are substantially similar. Our hearts are prone to try to serve both God and mammon; and we are tempted to avoid very intimate acquaintance with a religion faithfulness to which demands from us very serious sacrifices. In addition to these fundamental reasons others may be indicated, as follows: 1. The want of earnest Bible study. The hurry of the age acts on the side of spiritual ignorance. Other studies and pursuits are clamorous in their claims; those e.g. of business, politics, literature, philosophy, science, art. Thus many Christians do not read the Bible systematically, or with sufficient intellectual effort. The larger part of the Old Testament is, to their minds, a kind of desert of Sahara. Perhaps they interest themselves only in isolated texts, apart from the scope of the passage in which these occur. 2. Neglect of parental instruction. Every parent is bound to sow the seeds of Divine truth in the minds and hearts of his children. Where this duty becomes generally neglected the rising generation can only continue one of spiritual infants. 3. Irregularity in attendance upon God’s house. (Hebrews 10:25) Church-going is not religion, but as it is a divinely appointed ordinance, a man need not expect to grow in grace and in Christian knowledge without it. 4. Unedifying preaching. The consecutive exposition of Scripture from the pulpit, when wisely and skillfully done, trains a people into "experience of the Word of righteousness." The congregation which receives no instruction of this kind may be expected to become "dull of hearing." 5. Misconception of what adequate religious knowledge is. Many good people judge that, having apprehended and embraced "the simple gospel," they have finished their spiritual education. They love a few pet texts which express "the rudiments of the first principles" (verse 12), and are content to leave the rest of the Bible alone. They count it a virtue to relish only "evangelistic preaching," and seem even proud of occupying always only the first form in the school of Christ. But the fruit of their neglect of the truth in its higher and deeper and broader aspects becomes apparent in the imperfection of their Christian character, and in their lack of progress towards perfection. IV. THE OF AN OF TRUTH, 1. Reverence to God requires it. He has not given any portion of his Word in vain. Intelligent Christians dishonor him when they do not "press on unto perfection" as students of the Bible in every department of its glorious design and drift and method. 2. Duty to our own souls requires it. If we would not become spiritual dwarfs, but "full-grown men," we must "search the Scriptures." If we would be truly happy and. prosperous, we must "meditate on God’s law day and night." 3. Usefulness to others requires it. Believers who have become established in knowledge and grace are expected to serve the Lord Jesus as "teachers" (verse 12). A Christian, too, should be "ready always to give answer to every man that asketh him a reason concerning the hope that is in him." BY W. JONES An essential qualification for successful ministry. "Who can have compassion on the ignorant," etc. According to our reading of the New Testament, the Christian ministry is not a priesthood except in the sense that, being Christians, ministers belong to that "holy priesthood," that "royal priesthood," of which every true Christian is g member. Yet there were certain qualifications of the Aaronic priesthood which are indispensable to the usefulness of the Christian ministry. One of these is mentioned in our text; its nature will appear as we proceed. The text suggests— I. THAT SINS DIFFER IN THE DEGREE OF THEIR GUILT. In this respect several things have to be taken into account. 1. There are differences in the sins themselves. The wickedness of sins of presumption is far greater than that of sins of ignorance (cf. Numbers 15:27-31). Sins of rebellion are far removed from sins of error. The persons mentioned in our text are not those who have sinned "with a high hand," but "the ignorant and erring"—those who have sinned by reason of moral "infirmity," or who have wandered from the way of truth and duty because of their own spiritual negligence. Such sinners are by no means guiltless, but they are much less guilty than some others. 2. There are differences in the conditions and circumstances in which sins are committed. The force of the solicitation to sin, the strength of inherited tendency to certain forms of moral evil, the quality of the moral atmosphere surrounding the sinner,—these greatly differ amongst men; and this and other considerations -must be carefully weighed before the guilt of any sin can be fairly estimated. "Two persons may commit the same identical crime, yet the guilt may be inconceivably greater in the one case than the ether. The one may have had no instruction, no benefit from parental culture, no faithful admonitions, no holy example to direct and regulate, no warning to restrain, no encouragement to animate in the path. The other may have been surrounded by all the helps and inducements to right consideration—to holy fear, to correct conduct—and therefore his sin is marked with a far higher degree of aggravation than the sin of the other; and thus, in the sight of God, the judge on the bench often may be far more guilty than the criminal at the bar." II. THE WISE AND GOOD TO SOULS WILL THESE IN THE GUILT OF SINS. Only the Omniscient can perfectly discriminate in this respect, yet the text indicates a discrimination and consideration which every one who would minister helpfully to souls will endeavor to exercise. 1. He will not harshly condemn sinners. He is μετριοπαθής. On the one hand, he is not unfeeling; on the other, he is not carried away by his feelings, but he regulates and moderates his feelings; he has control over his passions. 2. He will endeavor to discriminate sins of ignorance and error from sins of a darker hue. He will deal thoughtfully with souls, not regarding all sinners as equally guilty or all sins as equally heinous. In so doing he will be following precedents of unquestionable authority. Our Lord and his apostles thus discriminated, and made merciful allowance for the ignorance and error of sinners (see Luke 23:1-56. 34; Acts 3:17; 1 Timothy 1:13; 1 Peter 2:25). 3. He will treat the ignorant and the erring with gentleness. He will "have compassion on the ignorant," etc; margin, "reasonably bear with;" Revised Version, "who can bear gently with the ignorant and erring." How beautiful and sublime is our Savior’s example in this respect! For his crucifiers he prayed, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." III. THE OF HIS OWN MORAL SHOULD INDUCE THE TO DEAL THUS GENTLY WITH THE AND THE ERRING. "For that he himself also is compassed with infirmity." 1. His own moral infirmity qualifies him to understand the moral ignorances and errors of others. He has had to contend against sinful inclinations and Satanic temptations. He knows from his own experience how easily the soul is sometimes led astray, and he can enter into the moral wanderings and sorrowful returnings of others. 2. His own moral infirmity should lead him, to be patient and gentle with the ignorant and erring. He has himself required and received forbearance at the hands of both God and man. He will very probably need similar forbearance in time to come. How, then, can he be intolerant or harsh with others? Our own need of mercy and patience from others, and preeminently from God, should lead us to be merciful and patient with others. The chief lesson of our subject is applicable to all who would render spiritual services to their fellow-men. Let parents, and instructors of the young, and preachers of the gospel, and pastors of Churches, ever remember that if they would benefit the ignorant and erring they must be forbearing and gentle with them. Sternness and severity will repel and discourage, and probably aggravate moral infirmity into moral perversity. But patience and. charity will encourage worthy hopes in the breasts of those who have gone astray, and restore them to the path of truth and. duty, and inspire them to more earnest and patient efforts in Christian life and service. Be it ours, not to condemn the ignorant and erring, but to instruct and restore them.—W.J. The suffering Savior. "Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered," etc. Our text suggests the following observations:— I. IN THE DAYS OF HIS FLESH OUR LORD ENDURED . "The things which he suffered" induced the agonizing prayer, the "strong crying and tears." He bore the common sufferings of our humanity; e.g. hunger, thirst, weariness, etc. He suffered from the cruel ingratitude of men, from the base slanders of his enemies, and from the subtle and sinful solicitations of Satan. His sensitive and holy soul suffered keenly from his contact with so much of sin and sorrow and pain in this world. But the particular reference in the text is to his anguish in Gethsemane. How sore was his sorrow, how terrible his agony, upon that occasion! "He began to be greatly amazed and sore troubled: and he saith, My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even unto death." II. IN HIS OUR LORD SOUGHT RELIEF IN PRAYER, "He offered up prayers and supplications," etc. (Hebrews 5:7). Notice: 1. The Belong to whom he addressed his prayer. "Unto him that was able to save him from death," i.e. to the great Sovereign of both life and death; "the God in whose hand our breath is," who "giveth to all life and breath and all things,… in whom we live and move and have our being." Our Savior directed his prayer to his Father, saying, "O my Father," etc. 2. The object which he sought in his prayer. This is not mentioned here; but it is in the narrative of the conflict in Gethsemane. "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away from me." From what did the Savior recoil so shudderingly? Certainly neither from mere death, nor from "the dread of something after death." The pains of dissolution could not have affrighted him, and beyond death there was nothing to dismay or repel him. But death, with all the dread significance and terrible circumstances such as awaited him, he shrank from in intense spiritual pain. This has been forcibly expressed by Dr. Farrar: "It was something far deadlier than death. It was the burden and the mystery of the world’s sin which lay heavy on his heart; it was the tasting, in the Divine humanity of a sinless life, the bitter cup which sin had poisoned; it was the bowing of Godhead to endure a stroke to which man’s apostasy had lent such frightful possibilities. It was the sense, too, of how virulent, how frightful, must have been the force of evil in the universe of God which could render necessary so infinite a sacrifice. It was the endurance, by the perfectly guiltless, of the worst malice which human hatred could devise; it was to experience, in the bosom of perfect innocence and perfect love, all that was detestable in human ingratitude, all that was pestilent in human hypocrisy, all that was cruel in human rage. It was to brave the last triumph of Satanic spite and fury, uniting against his lonely head all the flaming arrows of Jewish falsity and heathen corruption—the concentrated wrath of the rich and respectable, the yelling fury of the blind and brutal mob. It was to feel that his own, to whom he came, loved darkness rather than light—that the race of the chosen people could be wholly absorbed in one insane repulsion against infinite goodness and purity and love. Through all this he passed in that hour which, with a recoil of sinless horror beyond our capacity to conceive, foretasted a worse bitterness than the worst bitterness of death." £ This was the cup which he prayed might pass away from him. 3. The intensity with which he urged his prayer. This is indicated (1) by the fact that two words, which are nearly synonymous, are used to express his prayer. He "offered up prayers and supplications." The conjunction of synonymous words is "a mode of expressing intensity, which is very frequent in the sacred writings." (2) By his "strong crying." The loud cries were the expression of agonized feeling and of earnest entreaty. (3) By his "tears." Great natures weep, but not for trifles. Their tears indicate deep emotion. Our Lord’s tears in Gethsemane welled up from a "soul exceeding sorrowful," and were significant of a painful fervency of supplication. "Being in an agony he prayed more earnestly," etc. (Luke 22:44). III. IN ANSWER TO HIS PRAYER OUR LORD SUPPORT IN HIS . 1. The nature of the answer to his prayer, Not exemption from the cup, but victory over the dread of it, and support in drinking it. He was fortified for his future sufferings and trials, and sustained in them. "There appeared unto him an angel from heaven, strengthening him." His personal wishes were now lost in the perfect will of his Father. His dread anxieties are gone, and he is divinely calm. His trembling fears have departed, and he is sublimely courageous. Henceforth, even unto the bitter end, he is serene in sternest sufferings, patient under the most irritating provocations, a meek yet majestic Conqueror. Such was the Father’s answer to his prayer. And every true prayer which is offered to God is answered by him, though not always by granting the specific requests (cf. 2 Corinthians 12:7-10). 2. The reason of the answer to his prayer. "And was heard in that he feared;" margin, "for his piety;" Revised Version, "Having been heard for his godly fear;" Alford, "Having been heard by reason of his reverent submission." His pious resignation to the holy will of his Father was the ground upon which his prayer was answered, and the victory was given unto him. "Nevertheless," said he, "not as I will, but as Thou wilt.... O my Father, if this cannot pass away, except I drink it, thy will be done." When we can thus say, "Thy will Be done," we have already an installment of the answer to our prayers, and the fullness of the blessing will not tarry. IV. BY HIS HIS TO THE HOLY WILL OF HIS FATHER WAS . "Though he was a Son, yet learned he obedience by," etc. His obedience as a Son was always perfect. His obedience here spoken of is obedience in suffering. As his obedience became more difficult, involving more and more of self-renunciation, and pain ever increasing in severity, he still obeyed, He willed to endure the sharpest, sternest sufferings rather than fail even in the slightest degree in his practical loyalty to the perfect will of his Father. "He became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." This obedience he learned, as he proceeded step by step along his painful path, until the lesson was finished and the obedience was consummated on the cress. All Christ’s disciples need the discipline of suffering to perfect them in the practice of the Father’s will (cf. Matthew 16:24).—W.J. Hebrews 5:9 Salvation—its Author and its recipients. "And being made perfect, he became the Author," etc. The subject of the writer in this part of his Epistle is the high priesthood of Jesus Christ. In treating this subject he dwells upon the sufferings of Christ in his priestly office, and a certain perfection which resulted from his sufferings. He was God’s only and well-beloved Son, yet he was not exempt from suffering. "He learned obedience by the things which he suffered." We must not suppose that he was not perfectly acquainted with the nature of obedience, or that he did not fully recognize the duty of it, or that he was in any way indisposed to render it, before he suffered. The meaning is that though he was so highly exalted in his relationship to the Father, yet "he was subjected to learn experimentally what it is to obey in the midst of suffering." He learned the lesson perfectly. He "became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Our text leads us to consider three things. I. THE WHICH CHRIST THROUGH . "And having been made perfect." Having assumed human nature, Christ was capable of suffering; and in that nature he did indeed suffer. His entire life upon earth was one of humiliation and sacrifice. Being sympathetic, the sufferings of men were a constant grief to him. Being holy, the sins of men constantly stung his soul with pain. At the last his sufferings deepened into awful intensity. In Gethsemane his sorrow and conflict almost brought down his human nature unto death. And on the cross his pain and woe were unutterable, and to us inconceivably severe. Of all sufferers Christ is the Sufferer. In all these sufferings he was obedient. He endured them voluntarily. Through his obedience in suffering he became perfect. The author of our salvation was made "perfect through sufferings" (Hebrews 2:10). This acquired perfection was not personal As God he is eternally perfect; as man he was perfect without suffering. The perfection of our text is relative. By suffering he Became perfect in his relation to us as our Savior, our Intercessor, our great High Priest. By suffering: 1. He made a perfect atonement for sin. 2. He became perfectly qualified to sympathize with and to succor his suffering people. (Cf. Hebrews 4:14-16) 3. He became a perfect example for his people in their sufferings. 4. He entered upon his perfect triumph and glory. (Cf. Hebrews 2:9; Hebrews 12:2; Philippians 2:5-11) II. THE GREAT END BOTH OF CHRIST’S AND OF HIS THROUGH HIS . This end was that he might Be the Author, or the great procuring cause, of a perfect salvation for men. "Being made perfect, he became the Author of eternal salvation." Here are three points. 1. The salvation. Forgiveness of sin, freedom from condemnation, deliverance from the sovereignty of sin, the awakening of a new ruling principle and power in man, conversion into a condition of holiness, peace and joy, entrance into heaven, blessed union with God. 2. The perpetuity of salvation. "Eternal salvation." No partial, incomplete, temporary Blessing; but "eternal salvation"—"the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory." Does not this, at least, suggest that there is no falling back from the hand of Christ into the power of Satan? Doubtless man always can do so, inasmuch as he is morally free; but this "eternal salvation" establishes man’s freedom, yet binds it to holiness, and leads him to cry, "I delight to do thy will, O my God." This Blessing shall continue when bonds and banks, estates and fortunes, coronets and crowns, shall have perished. Blessed Be the Lord for his "eternal salvation"! 3. The Author of salvation. Our salvation is owing to Jesus Christ. The ministry of providence, of religious ordinances, and of good men, may assist us in availing ourselves of this salvation; but they cannot save us; they are not "the cause of salvation." Our salvation originated in the infinite love of God. "God so loved the world," etc. Our salvation was effected by his Son, our Savior. He became man, taught, labored, suffered, lived, died, and ever lives to save us. He is our only Savior. The great end of his sufferings was our "eternal salvation." This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ Hebrews 6:1, Hebrews 6:2 Wherefore (since it is so incumbent on us to advance out of the state of milk-fed infants), leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us press on unto perfection (τελειότητα, continuing the image of maturity). The proper translation of τὸντῆςἀρχῆςτοῦΧριστοῦλόγον is doubtful, the question being whether τῆςαρχῆς is to be connected with λόγον as an adjective genitive (so taken, as above, in the A.V; cf. Hebrews 5:12, στοιχεῖατῆςἀρχῆς), or with τοῦΧριστοῦ, the word of the beginning of Christ, meaning discourse concerning the first principles of Christianity. "Initium Christi, scil. Apud discentes Christum, saepe quippe Christus dicitur Paulo per metonymiam conereti pro Christianismo" (Bengel). A further question is whether the writer merely expresses his own intention of proceeding at once in this Epistle to the more advanced doctrine, or whether he is exhorting his readers to make spiritual progress, using the first person plural, φερώμεθα (as in Hebrews 2:1 and Hebrews 4:1, φοβήθωμεν) out of sympathetic courtesy. The correspondence of this delicate form of exhortation with that of the earlier passages, the very words φερώμεθα, "let us be borne on," "press forward" (implying more than mere passing to a new line of thought), and τελειότητα (which expresses personal maturity, not advanced subject of discourse), as well as the earnest warnings that follow against falling back, seem to necessitate the second of the above views of the meaning of this verse. The writer has, indeed, in his mind his intention of proceeding at once to the perfect doctrine; for he hopes that what he thus exhorts them to do they will do, so as to be able to follow him; but exhortation, rather than his own intention, is surely what the verse expresses. Not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith towards God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. What was meant by τὰστοιχεῖα, etc., and τὸντῆςἀρχῆς, etc., is here specified under the new image of a foundation on which a superstructure should be raised (of. for the same figure, 1 Corinthians 3:11, a further instance of Pauline modes of thought). Of course no disparagement of the importance of this foundation is implied: it is necessary for the superstructure: it has in itself the elements of the superstructure, which rises from it in the way of growth. What is meant is, "With us this foundation has been already laid; I will not suppose any need for laying it anew: let us, then, go on to contemplate and understand the building that rests on and rises from it." The fundamentals enumerated are six—two essential principles of the religious life, and four heads of doctrine; for the word διδαχῆς rules βαπτισμῶν and the three succeeding genitives, but not μετανοίας and πίστεως which precede. These are the fundamentals, or first principles, of Christianity; but (as has been intimated) so defined as to express no more, by the language used, than what even enlightened Jews might accept and understand. Fully understood, they carry the Christian superstructure; but they are such as a "babe" in Christ might rest content with; without seeing their ultimate bearing. The principles first mentioned are repentance and faith, the requisite qualifications for baptism, the essence of John the Baptist’s teaching, and announced by Christ at the commencement of his ministry as the first steps into his kingdom: "The kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel" (Mark 1:15; cf. also Acts 20:21). By the dead works, from which repentance is to be, the Fathers generally understand simply sinful works, which may be so called because of sin being a state of spiritual death, and having death for its wages (cf. "dead in trespasses and sins," Ephesians 2:1), or as being in themselves barren and fruitless (cf. τοῖςἔργοιςτοῖςἀραρρποιςτοῦσκότους Ephesians 5:11). In an enumeration of elementary principles like this, the allusion, supposed by some commentators, to the deadness of "the works of the Law," as set forth by St. Paul, is not likely to have been intended. The faith spoken of is not faith in Christ, but simply "faith towards God," which is, of course, the foundation and necessary preliminary of Christian faith. The reason for the expression is to be found in the writer’s intention to specify only the first principles of the gospel, in which the Christian was still on common ground with the Jew (of. John 14:1, "Ye believe in God, believe also in me"). The four fundamental doctrines follow. (1) Of baptisms. Observe, the word is not βάπτισμα, invariably used elsewhere for Christian baptism, but βαπτισμὸς, and that in the plural, βαπτισμῶν. In other passages βαπτισμοὶ denotes the various lustra-tions practised by the Jews—"washings of pots and cups" (Mark 7:8); "divers washings" (Hebrews 9:10). Hence we may suppose these to be included in the general idea, and also the Jewish baptism of proselytes. On the other hand, the elementary doctrines of the gospel being hero spoken of, there can be no doubt that the doctrine of Christian baptism is in the writer’s view, but only with regard to the first simple conception of its recanting, witch it had in common with other symbolical washings, the significance of which was understood by enlightened Jews (cf. John 3:10, "Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?"). (2) The doctrine of laying on of hands. This also was a Jewish rite, understood as signifying the bestowal of blessing and of power from above, and was, as well as baptism, adopted into the Christian Church, acquiring there a new potency. The apostles practiced it for conferring the gifts of the Spirit after baptism (Acts 8:17; Acts 19:6), for ordination (Acts 6:6; Acts 13:3; 1 Timothy 4:14; 2 Timothy 1:6), and also for reconciling penitents (1 Timothy 5:22), and for healing’ (Mark 16:18; Acts 28:8). Mentioned here immediately after "the doctrine of baptisms," and in an enumeration of elements in which all Christians were concerned, we can hardly fail to understand special refer-once to the imposition of hands after baptism, i.e. to confirmation. The two remaining doctrines of (3) the resurrection of the dead, and (4) eternal judgment, were also understood and generally accepted by enlightened Jews, and at the same time are necessary to be mentioned for a complete account of the foundations of the Christian faith. These foundations are, as has been seen—repentance and faith (qualifying for admission into the Church), and then the doctrine of remission of sins (expressed and conveyed by baptism), of enabling grace (expressed and conveyed by confirmation), of the life hereafter, and of final judgment. Of these an elementary conception was level to even babes in Christ, fresh from Jewish training; fully understood, they form the basis of the whole structure of the highest Christian doctrine. It is obvious from the purport of the passage why neither the historical articles of the creed in which Christians were instructed (see 1 Corinthians 15:1-8; 1 Timothy 3:16), nor the doctrine of the Eucharist (which belonged to the more advanced teaching), are included in this enumeration of the στοιχεῖα. Hebrews 6:3 And this will we do (cf. let us do; ποιήσωμεν, A, C, D, La) if God permit; i.e. press on to perfection, as aforesaid, if only (as we firmly hope and trust, see Hebrews 6:6, etc) you are still in a state in which God will permit advance; for (as is set forth in the following verses) there may be a retrogression from which recovery is impossible. Hebrews 6:4-6 For it is impossible for those who have been once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and have been made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good Word of God, and the powers of the world to come, and have fallen away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. It is not, of course, implied that the Hebrew Christians had fallen into the condition thus described, or were near it; only that such a condition might be, and that, if they went back instead of advancing, they might arrive at it. The process intimated is that of complete apostasy from the faith after real conscious enjoyment of the gifts of grace. In such a case the hopelessness of the fall is in proportion to the privileges once enjoyed. This is the drift of the passage, though other views have been taken of its meaning, which will be noticed below. "Once enlightened" denotes the first apprehension of the light, which could be but once; when those that saw not began to see (John 5:39); when the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ shone once for all upon believers (2 Corinthians 4:4); when (according to the cognate passage, Hebrews 10:26; cf. Hebrews 10:32) they received the knowledge of the truth. The verb φωτίζω means in the LXX." to enlighten by instruction," and was in common use in the early Church to express the enlightenment that accompanied baptism; whence baptism itself was called φωτισμός. Thus Justin Martyr (’Apol.’ 1.62) says, Καλεῖταιδὲτοῦτοτὸλοῦτρονφωτισμόςὡςφωτιζομένωντὴνδιάνοιαντῶνταῦταμανθανόντων Cf. the title of Chrysostom’s ’Hem.’ 49., Πρόςτοὺςμέλλονταςφωτίζεσθαι, Since the expression was thus commonly used as early as Justin Martyr, there may probably be in the text a special reference to baptism as the occasion of the enlightenment. But, if so, more is meant by the phrase than "those who have been once baptized:" an inward spiritual illumination is plainly pointed to; and it would not have been said of Simon Magus that he had been "once enlightened" in the sense intended. And this is indeed the real meaning of φωτισμός as applied to baptism by Justin Martyr, as his explanation, above quoted, shows. So also Chrysostom, "The heretics have baptism, but not enlightenment (φωτισμα); they are baptized indeed as to the body, but in the soul they are not enlightened; as also Simon was baptized, but was not enlightened." This consideration is important in view of one misapplication of the passage before us, which will be noticed below. But, further, those whom it is impossible to renew unto repentance are supposed net only to have been enlightened, but also to have "tasted of the heavenly gift," the emphatic word here being apparently γενσαμένους: they have had experience as well as knowledge (cf. Psalms 34:8, "Oh, taste and see that the Lord is good;" and 1 Peter 2:3, "If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious"). The word "gift" (δωρεά) is elsewhere used both for that of redemption generally (Romans 5:15-17), and especially, and most frequently, for the gift of the Holy Ghost (cf. 2 Corinthians 9:15, "Thanks be to God for his unspeakable Gift"). They have become also partakers of the Holy Ghost, not merely been within the range of his influence, but actually shared it; and tasted (the same word as before, and with the same meaning, though hero followed by an accusative) what is further spoken of. The expression ῥήματα occurs, Joshua 21:45; Joshua 23:15; Zechariah 1:13, for gracious Divine utterances. The idea of the Word of God being what is "tasted" may be suggested by Deuteronomy 8:3, quoted by our Lord in Matthew 4:4, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proeeedeth out of the month of God." By the powers (δυνάμεις) are to be especially understood (as in Hebrews 2:4 and elsewhere in the New Testament) the extraordinary ones in which the gift of the Holy Ghost was manifested, the χαρίσματα of the apostolic Church. But why said here to be μέλλοντοςαἰῶνος? For the meaning of this expression, see under ἐνσχάτεντῶνἠμερῶντούτων (Hebrews 1:1), and οἰκουμένηντὴνμέλλουσαν (Hebrews 2:5). It denotes the predicted age of the Messiah’s triumph. And if (as has appeared most probable, and as μέλλοντος here seems evidently to imply) that age was regarded as still future, not properly beginning till the second advent, still the "powers" spoken of are of it, being earnests and foretastes of a new order of things (cf. Ephesians 1:14, where the "Holy Spirit of promise" is called "the earnest of our inheritance;" also 2 Corinthians 1:22; 2 Corinthians 5:5). There are other passages in which Christians are regarded as already in the dawn of the future daybreak, and irradiated by the coming glory. The falling away (παραεσόντας) after such enlightenment and such experience means (as aforesaid) total apostasy from the faith. This appears from the expressions that follow, and still more from those in the cognate passage, Hebrews 10:26-31. "Non relapses mode dicit in pristina, sed nova pernicie praeterlapsos a toto statu illo lautissimo, simulque a fide, spe, et amore" (Bengel). Such an utter apostasy was possible to Hebrews oscillating between Church and synagogue: they might be so drawn at last into the atmosphere of the latter as, with the unbelieving Jews, to reject with contumely, and so to themselves recrucify, the Son of God. The force of "to themselves" is illustrated by Galatians 6:14, where St. Paul says that he so glories in the cross of Christ that through Christ the world is crucified to him, and he to the world; i.e. all fellowship between him and the world is broken off. So here the ἑαυτοῖς implies the breaking off of all fellowship with what a man is said to crucify. "They crucify again the Son of God, repeating what their fathers had done formerly when they gave him over to the death of the cross; and this, be it observed, still more culpably., since it is after personal experience proving him to be "the Son of God." And they not only make him as one dead to themselves: they also expose him (παραδειγματίζοντας: cf. Numbers 25:4, LXX) to the reproach and mockery of the world. "Ostentantes, scil aliis" (Bengel). The above explanation is adopted from Delitzsch. Be it observed next what is said of those who do this—not that no repentance can henceforth avail them, but that even unto repentance it is impossible to renew them. Such falling away after such experience precludes the possibility of repentance. On such persons the powers of grace have been exhausted. It is not in the nature of things that they should return to Christ, or see the things that belong unto their peace any more. The correspondence between the state here described and the consequence of the "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost" suggests itself at once; our Lord’s words, in speaking of that unpardonable sin, being rightly supposed to point to obduracy in spite of experience of the Holy Spirit’s power. Especially obvious is the correspondence with St. Luke’s account of the Savior’s warning—one of the not infrequent instances of resemblance between our Epistle and the writings of that evangelist. For St. Luke records the saying as spoken, not to the Jews on the occasion of their attributing Christ’s works to Beelzebub, but to the disciples themselves, after a warning to them against "the leaven of the Pharisees," and against being moved by the fear of men, and immediately after the words, "He that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God." Compare also the "sin unto death" spoken of by St. John (1 John 5:16). Misconceptions of the drift of this passage, once prevalent, or possible, remain to be noticed. (1) It has been from early times a main support of the strict Church discipline according to which deadly sin committed after baptism precludes re-admission to Church communion. It was so cited by Tertullian as early as the second century (’De Pudicitia,’ cf. 20), and in the third used to justify the Novatians in their refusal of communion, even after penance, to the lapsi. The passage, as above explained, was really irrelevant, since it refers, not to the treatment by the Church of penitents, but to the impossibility of some persons being brought to penitence at all. (2) The Catholic Fathers, rightly rejecting the Novatian position, generally understood the text as forbidding the iteration of baptism; thus turning it against the Novatians, who rebaptized those who joined their communion. So Ambrose, Theodoret, and others. But, though their position on this subject was in itself sound, the passage, as above explained, is as irrelevant to it as to that of the Novatians. (3) This, and the other texts referred to in connection with it, have led some Christians to despair of salvation, however anxious for it, under the idea that they had themselves committed the unpardonable sin. This desperate view goes beyond that of the Novatians, who only precluded from Church communion, not of necessity from the mercies of God (Socrates, ’Hist. Eccl.,’ 4.21). But the very state of mind of those who entertain such fears is a sign that they are not of those to whom this text applies. They cannot have entirely fallen from grace, if they have the grace to repent and long for pardon. (4) Calvin’s predestinarian views compelled him and his followers to do violence to the plain meaning of the passage. Holding the doctrine of the indefectibility of grace, which involved (a) that one really regenerate cannot fall away, and (b) that consequently one who falls away cannot have been really regenerate, he had to explain away the clauses descriptive of the grace enjoyed, as meaning only a superficial experience of it. With this view he laid stress on the word γευσαμένους as meaning "summis labris gustare." Only dogmatic prejudice could have suggested such a sense of the word as intended in this place, any more than in Hebrews 2:9, where it is plainly inadmissible. Nor can an impartial reader fail to see in the whole accumulation of pregnant clauses an intention of expressing the very reverse of a mere apparent and delusive experience of saving grace. The depth of the experience is, in fact, a measure of the hopelessness of the fall. Art. XVI. of the English Church is a protest against all the erroneous conclusions above specified. Hebrews 6:7, Hebrews 6:8 For land which hath drunk in the oft-coming rain upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them for whom (not, as in A.V., "by whom") it is also tilled, receiveth blessing from God; but if it beareth thorns and thistles (not, as in A.V., "that which beareth"), it is rejected, and nigh unto cursing, whose end is to be burned (literally, for burning; cf. Isaiah 44:15, ἵναᾗἀνθρώποιςεἰςκαῦσιν). The illustration is apt and close. Observe that the "land which hath drunk," etc., is the subject in Hebrews 6:8, as well as of Heb 6:7, as is shown by the absence of an article before ἐκφέρουσα. Hence the unproductive as well as the fruitful soil is supposed to have received, and not only received but imbibed also, abundant supplies of rain. Its failure is its own fault, and it is regarded as responsible for it, and deserving of its final fate. This exactly illustrates the case of those who "fall away" after not only receiving abundantly, but also taking in so as to be filled with the "gracious rain" of the Holy Spirit. The only difference is that in their case, free-will being a constituent of their productive power, the responsibility figuratively attributed to the land is real (cf. ἐκουσίωςἁμαρτανόντων, Hebrews 10:26). For similar illustrations drawn from unproductiveness in nature in spite of culture, cf. Isaiah 5:4 and Luke 28:23. The" blessing from God" refers to the view, pervading the Old Testament, of fruitfulness being the result and sign of the Divine blessing on the land (cf. Genesis 27:27, "The smell of my son is as the smell of a field which the Lend hath blessed"). And it is further implied that incipient fruitfulness is rewarded by more abundant blessing, according to our Lord’s words, Matthew 13:12, "Whosoever hath, to him shall be given," and John 15:2, "Every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit." The "thorns and thistles," connected with a curse on the ground, seem suggested by Genesis 3:17, Genesis 3:18, Ἐπικατάρατοςἡγῆἐντοῖςἕργοιςσουἀκάνθαςκαὶτριβόλουςἀνατελεῖσοι. LXX. (cf. "Cursed shall be the fruit of thy land," Deuteronomy 28:18). It is to be observed, further, that the land, though bearing thorns instead of fruit, is not spoken of as yet under the final curse, but only nigh unto it, so as to avoid even a remote suggestion that the Hebrew Christians had actually reached the hopeless state. But, unless fruitfulness should ensue, they are warned of the inevitable end by the fate of thorns and thistles, which is, not to be garnered, but to be burnt (cf. 2 Samuel 23:1-39. 6, "The sons of Belial shall be all of them as thorns thrust away … and they shall be utterly burned with fire in the same place;" cf. also Deuteronomy 29:23, "The whole land thereof is brimstone, and salt, and burning, that it is not sown, nor beareth, nor any grass groweth thereon"—a state of final hopeless barrenness). Hebrews 6:9 But, beloved, we are persuaded, etc. Here, as in Hebrews 4:14, warning is succeeded by words of encouragement and hope. The reason for not only a hope, but even a persuasion, that God will keep them from apostasy, is given in the following verse. Hebrews 6:10 For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and the love (τοῦκόπου in the Textus Receptus is ill supported, having, perhaps, been interpolated kern 1 Thessalonians 1:3) which ye showed towards his Name, in that ye ministered to the saints, and do minister. It appears that the Hebrew Christians had formerly (some especial occasion being probably referred to) been active in their charity towards fellow-Christians in distress, and that such charity had not ceased. On this is grounded the persuasion that they will be kept steadfast in the faith. Those who had so shown their faith by their works would surely not be allowed to lose it. The very idea of the Divine justice implies that the use of grace, thus evidenced, will be rewarded by continuance of grace. Cf. Philippians 1:6, "Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perfect it (ἐπιτελέσει) until the day of Jesus Christ; "where also there is reference to deeds of charity, shown in the case of the Philippians by their sympathy with the apostle in his bonds, which charity he prays may "abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all discernment." No difficulty need be felt in this reference to God’s justice, as though it involved the doctrine of human merit, de congruo or de condigno, claiming reward as of debt. The simple and obvious view, that God, in virtue of his justice, will be most gracious to those who have used his grace, by no means contravenes the doctrine of all grace being the free gift of his bounty (cf. 1 John 1:9; Romans 2:6, etc). Observe, too, as bearing on the idea of this passage, how the will to do the will of God is said by our Lord to be followed by knowledge of the doctrine (John 7:17), and how works of charity are the very tests of the final judgment (Matthew 25:31, etc). Hebrews 6:11 But we desire (ἐπιθυμοῦμεν—expressing earnest desire—οὐκἔιπεθέλωἀλλὅπατρικῆςἤνφιλοστοργίᾳςκαὶπλέοντοῦθέλεινἐπιθυμοῦμεν, Chrysostom) that every one of you (all of you without exception) do show the same diligence unto the full assurance (or simply fullness; for the meaning of πληροφορία, of. Hebrews 10:22; 1 Thessalonians 1:5; Colossians 2:2) of hope even to the end (i.e. evince the same diligence in this regard as you have already shown in your works of charity: "eandem in spe et fide quam in amore," Bengel). Hebrews 6:12 That ye become not slothful (νωθροὶ, the same word as was used in Hebrews 5:11, νωθροὶταῖςἀκοαῖς. There, with regard to intelligence, they were accused of having already become so; here, n here a hopeful view is taken of their prospects, the writer delicately avoids implying that they were so yet in regard to their desire of making progress), but followers (i.e. following the example—surely a better English word than imitators) of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises. The present participle κληρονομούντων does not confine the sense of the expression to those who are now so inheriting. Abraham being presently adduced as an example, it refits to all who at any time so inherit, equivalent to, "the inheritors of." The drift is—Faith and patience are ever required in order that the Divine promises, however assured, may be inherited: these qualifications (in opposition to your being νωθροὶ) are what you want for securing your own inheritance. Hebrews 6:13-15 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself, saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee. And so, having patiently endured, he obtained the promise. Abraham—the ancestor of the Hebrews, the first recipient of the promises, the father of the faithful—is now appropriately adduced as an example. He (Genesis 22:16), as is the case with you (Psalms 110:1-7), was assured of his inheritance by the Divine oath; and so he obtained it, but only through "faith and patience." You have the like assurance, but attended with the like conditions. And then this Divine oath, the significance of which is set forth in Hebrews 6:16-18, is made a link of connection between the hortatory section (Hebrews 5:11-6:20) and the coming argument about Melchizedek. This is one instance of the artistic way in which, throughout the Epistle, the interposed hortatory passages are so turned as to connect the divided sections of the argument. But what is said about Abraham (Hebrews 6:13, Hebrews 6:14, Hebrews 6:15) has been variously understood. It is connected with Hebrews 6:12 thus: "Be ye followers of them who inherit the promises through faith and patience: for God, in his promise to Abraham, swore by himself in confirmation of it; and so (καὶὀὔτω) through patience he obtained the promise. Be it here observed that μακροθυμήσας in Hebrews 6:15 ("having patiently endured," A.V) corresponds with διὰμακροθυμίας in Hebrews 6:12, and expresses essentially the same idea. The aorist participle μακροθυμήσας does not in itself imply that the patience was previous to the obtaining; it expresses only that by patiently enduring he obtained. Observe also that καὶοὔτω (cf. Acts 7:8; Acts 27:44; Acts 28:14) denotes the consequence from what has been previously stated; i.e. that μακροθυμήσαςἐπέτυχε followed from the Divine oath ensuring the fulfillment of the promise. Both his eventually obtaining and his patience in awaiting fulfillment were in consequence of the assuring oath. But then how and when did Abraham himself obtain the promise? Not even the temporal fulfillment in the multiplication of his seed and the inheritance of the Promised Land, much less the spiritual fulfillment in Christ, was during his own life. Both he could but see "afar off." In respect to the latter it is expressly said (Hebrews 11:13, Hebrews 11:39) that the patriarchs did not receive the promises—μὴλαβόντεςτὰςἐπογγελίας: οὐκἐκομίσαντοτὴνἐπαγγελίαν. What, then, is meant by μακροθυμήσαςἐπέτυχε? Bleek understands the time of the oath (Genesis 22:1-24), when the promise was irrevocably assured, to have been the time of obtaining. But more than this is suggested by the phrase, ἐπέτυχετῆςἐπαγγελίας (cf. Hebrews 11:33), as well as by καὶοὔτω, viz. the actual attainment of the blessing assured to him by oath. There are two other ways of explaining: (1) to identify Abraham with his seed, in whom, though not in his own person, he may be conceived to have obtained,—of which view it may be significant that πληθυνῶτὸσπέρμασου of the LXX. (Genesis 22:17) is changed in the Epistle to πληθννῶσε: (2) to regard Abraham, still alive in the unseen world, as himself enjoying the fulfillment of the ancient promise. So Delitzsch, who, dwelling on the thought that nothing less than the blessing of Abraham extended to the whole world (cf. κληρονόμοςτοῦκόσμου, Romans 4:13) can be regarded as complete fulfill-merit, says, "God’s oath-sealed word of promise is now fulfilled in Christ, and Abraham, while living on in the unseen world, is conscious of and enjoys that fulfillment, anti so may be said to have "obtained the promise." This view derives some support from Hebrews 11:1-40, Hebrews 13:1-25 -16, where the longings of the pilgrim patriarchs is so beautifully represented as reaching to a heavenly fulfillment. On the other hand, the aorist ἐπέτυχε is against it, and hence view (1) may be accepted as a sufficient explanation of the expression (see below, or Hebrews 11:39). With regard to the general drift, it is obvious how μακροθυμία, as well as πίστις, in respect to the promise first made to him "in Charran," is strikingly displayed in Abraham’s recorded life. Hebrews 6:16-20 For men swear by the greater: and of every dispute of theirs (literally, to them), the oath is final (literally, an end) for confirmation (εἰςβεβαίωσιν being connected with πέρας, not, as in the A.V., with ὅρκος). Here begins the explanation of the meaning and purpose of the Divine oath, already cursorily touched on in Hebrews 6:13. God thus, for full assurance, condescends to the form of confirmation most binding among men when they promise to each other. They appeal to one greater than themselves to intervene between them. He, having no one greater than himself to appeal to, appeals (so to speak) to his own immutability, and thus may be said to intervene with an oath (ἐμεσίτευσενὄρκῳ ever. 17), the verb being neuter, with the sense of "mediate" or "intervene," not, as in A.V., "confirmed it". The reason is not that the Divine promise is not in itself enough, but that God, willing to show more abundantly to the heirs of the promise the immutability of his counsel, is pleased to grant them this additional confirmation; that by two immutable things (first the promise, in itself sufficient; and secondly the oath, for more abundant assurance), in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may have a strong consolation (παράκληησιν, bearing elsewhere this sense, and also that of exhortation, as in Hebrews 12:5; Hebrews 13:22; which latter sense is understood here by most commentators as uniting best the drift of the passage with the general notion of encouragement) who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us. The course of thought has now passed again from Abraham to Christians, the transition having been prepared for by the general expression, τοῖςκληρονόμοιςτῆςἐπαγγελίας in Hebrews 6:17. Indeed, the oath to him was an assurance to us also, we being the final inheritors of the promised blessing. Then finally, in the two concluding verses, the subject to be treated in Hebrews 7:1-28. is again beautifully led up to by a natural sequence of thought: Which (so. hope) we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and entering into that which is within the veil; whither as a Forerunner Jesus entered for us, become a High Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. Our hope (ἐλπίς), regarded in Hebrews 7:18 objectively, assumes here a subjective sense: it is our anchor east upwards beyond the heavens through which our Forerunner has passed (cf. Hebrews 4:14, διελελυθότατοὺςοὐρανοὺς), and, in virtue of the promise and the oath, fixed there secure and firm. "That which is within the veil" . Predestination and free-will may be to human reason theoretically irreconcilable, though reason, as well as theology, may compel us to acknowledge both. The problem may properly be left unsolved, as among the many deep things of God. But it is of importance to observe how the doctrine of-predestination is practically applied in Scripture as bearing upon human conduct. Hebrews 6:1-8 No standing still in religion. This thought underlies the whole passage. To pass into God’s kingdom means to move with it. It is impossible to maintain a halt in the Christian life; to stand still is to fall away. I. THE DUTY OF ON UNTO . (Hebrews 6:1-3) This perfection is twofold: (1) maturity in religious knowledge, as a means; (2) full development of spiritual life, as the end. It is sinful to remain only a babe in Christ, and. to have no wish to grow. Note, that to "leave the first principles" does not mean to abandon them. Rather, we are to leave them as a tree leaves its root, and yet never lets it go; as a full-grown man leaves slops for solid food, and yet does not abjure the use of milk; as a building leaves its "foundation" (Hebrews 6:1), and yet rests its whole weight upon it. When the foundation-principles are once securely laid, that work should be regarded as settled and done with; what remains is, to proceed with the superstructure. The apostle instances, in Hebrews 6:1 and Hebrews 6:2, a few of the elementary principles, connecting them together in couples. 1. Two inward experiences. (Hebrews 6:1) Repentance and faith, being indispensable to the very beginning of the life of piety, occupy a primary place among the foundation-doctrines of Christianity. 2. Two outward ceremonies. (Hebrews 6:2) Rites and forms are merely the external framework of religion. Advanced piety uses them only as means and helps to spirituality. 3. Two future eyelets. (Hebrews 6:2) The doctrines of the resurrection and of the judgment, with its eternal issues, are rudimentary doctrines; because the idea of responsibility to the Supreme is one of the simplest conceptions connected with religion. Of such elements as these six was "the simple gospel" composed in the apostolic age. If to our minds these clauses savor of "strong meat" rather than of "mill" is not that an indication that Christians in these times are troubled with weak digestion? We need grace to appreciate the apostle’s admonition (Hebrews 6:1) and to realize the hope which he expresses (Hebrews 6:3). II. THE DANGER OF BACK UNTO . (Hebrews 6:4-8) These verses drop from the apostle’s pen like live thunderbolts. There is a solemnity in them which it is impossible to exaggerate. This passage is confessedly difficult—to all, at least, who accept the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. As we believe, however, that this doctrine is very clearly taught in Scripture, both by our Lord and his apostles, the declension here referred to must be that of professed believers who were never true believers. Notice, then: 1. The lofty privileges which apostates may enjoy. (Hebrews 6:4, Hebrews 6:5) An unrenewed man may be well instructed in the doctrines of grace, may enjoy the study of saving truth, may experience the operations of the Spirit, may be filled with the happiness which the gospel brings (Matthew 13:20), and may even obtain glimpses of the eternal glory. But these attainments will avail him nothing so long as he remains unrenewed. That faith is spurious and ephemeral which is based only upon the moral evidence of the truth, and which is not connected with genuine conversion to God. 2. The aggravated wickedness which apostates may commit. (Hebrews 6:6) They may "fail away" finally and irretrievably. "By their fruits ye shall know them." Sooner or later the unfruitful field will be covered with a harvest of "thorns and thistles" (Hebrews 6:8). False professors may abandon the gospel to return to Judaism, or to plunge into atheism, or to sink into immorality, or to degenerate into worldliness. And in the bitterness of their malice against the cross in which they once professed to glory, such persons take rank with the long succession of those who in their lives repeat spiritually the dreadful crime of Calvary. 3. The fearful destruction into which apostates may fall. (Hebrews 6:6, Hebrews 6:8) Deliberate apostasy from Christ, on the part of one who has known him intimately, destroys by a natural law the very capacity for repentance and spiritual life. Confirmed impenitence extinguishes the eyes of the soul, and makes the heart "past feeling." High-handed, malicious resistance of the Holy Spirit, culminating in outspoken blasphemy of himself and his work,—that is the unpardonable sin. Those who commit such wickedness are "rejected" even here; and their final doom shall resemble that of the barren land, "whose end is to be burned." Learn, in conclusion, that—in spite of all appearances—only he is a Christian who has undergone the new birth, and who is living the new life of likeness to Christ, which flows from it. Hebrews 6:9-20 Another exhortation to steadfastness. Each stage in the argument of the Epistle is relieved by a hortatory passage intended to confirm and cheer the Hebrews in their Christian faith. Indeed, the one duty upon Which the whole book lays stress is that of believing steadfastness. I. THE . It assumes various forms. 1. "Be not sluggish." (Hebrews 6:12) The Hebrews, in the perplexity of their situation by reason of the temptations of Judaism, had begun to sink into spiritual listlessness. We, too, are extremely prone to carry our Christian profession without earnestness, and to do our Christian work without energy. 2. "Show the same diligence." (Hebrews 6:11) The Hebrews had bestirred themselves in bestowing sympathy and succor upon their afflicted brethren, and the apostle longs to see them equally energetic in other departments of Christian duty. Success in spiritual life, as in any other sphere, can only be attained in connection with diligence. 3. Seek "the full assurance of hope." (Hebrews 6:11) They must not waver between Christianity and Judaism, but cherish an unfaltering persuasion of the reality of gospel blessings, notwithstanding that the full fruition of these is reserved for the future life. II. SOME . In this paragraph the apostle does not prolong the terrific strain of the preceding verses. To continue it longer would have but depressed the hearts of his readers, and defeated his own benignant purpose towards them. So, after we have, as it were, trodden (Hebrews 6:4-8) upon the hot lava of a volcano, we now enter (Hebrews 6:9) upon a smiling and beautiful landscape, all carpeted with green and blossoming with flowers. "A bruised reed shall he not break," expresses the spirit of the passage now before us. We have here a variety of encouragements. 1. The fruit which their faith had borne already. (Hebrews 6:9, Hebrews 6:10) Brotherly love is a principal trait of the Christian character; and the Hebrews had been kind to their afflicted fellow-believers, for Jesus’ sake. God had not forgotten their liberality; and to the apostle it had seemed as an evidence of the reality of their conversion. The spiritual attainments which a believer has already reached should encourage him to perseverance. 2. The example of their sainted ancestors. (Hebrews 6:12) Imitation occupies a principal place in our life, and is an important factor in the development of character. It wields immense power in the domain of morals and religion. So, the Bible is very largely a Book of biographies; and these are given us to incite us to follow the footsteps of the good and true. We, as well as these Hebrew converts, should be "imitators" of the peerage of Old Testament heroes (Hebrews 11:1-40). And we of this century should imitate, besides, the great soul-stars of Christendom, the fathers of our own Church, the sainted men of our town, the departed of our own sanctuary, and of our own fireside. 3. God’s faithfulness to his word and oath. (Hebrews 6:13-18) Having singled out particularly the steadfastness of Abraham, and quoted God’s oath to him (Genesis 22:16-18), the author shows that this oath is still a strong encouragement to Abraham’s children who have embraced Christianity. For the Divine promise and oath to Abraham were spiritual rather than temporal; they have been continued to us; and they have been confirmed by the cross of Christ, and sealed by his resurrection and ascension (2 Corinthians 1:20). 4. The greatness of the Christian’s hope. (Hebrews 6:19, Hebrews 6:20) The Jewish temple and the institutions of the theocracy were very soon to pass away forever; so that it was unreasonable to place reliance upon them. The one sure anchorage of spiritual hope is in that heavenly sanctuary which Jesus has entered for us as our everlasting High Priest. Hebrews 6:19, Hebrews 6:20 Our anchor and anchorage. This text suggests, first of all, that the Christian life is a life of storm. It is exposed to storms of persecution, of doubt, of remorse, of inward corruption, of outward adversity, and to the last great storm of death. But, blessed be God, believers possess complete security in the midst of these storms. I. HOPE IS OUR ANCHOR. Of the three great abiding graces—faith, hope, love—hope is the one which often receives least prominence in our thoughts. Faith is the root, and love the full-blown flower, of piety; whereas hope occupies an intermediate position. Here is, in fact, just one of the first developments of faith—a sprout from the root of faith. The object of faith may be either good or bad; but the object of hope is always good. Hope in its essence is just the desire of good, with the expectation of by-and-by obtaining it. Now, hope has this blessed function—it soothes and calms and cheers the mind in the midst of storm and trouble. Even natural hope is "as an anchor of the soul." What drudgery would the world’s business be apart from hope! Where would our great statesmen, our inventors and discoverers, come from, were it not for hope? "Every gift of noble origin Is breathed upon by Hope’s perpetual breath." (Wordsworth) It was hope that buoyed up poor Columbus, and that inspired the lion-hearted Livingstone. But, as ancient seamen called the strongest anchor of their ships "the sacred anchor," and reserved it as "the last hope" for times when the vessel was in real peril; so, gospel hope is the sacred anchor of every good man. And, truly, this hope is the most influential of all hopes. It is the hope of eternal life;—the hope of looking upon Christ in his glory, of seeing the King in his beauty, Notice, also, the properties ascribed to this anchor. 1. It is sure. In substance strong and firm, and of weight proportionate to the tonnage of the vessel—in every way worthy of the greatness of our nature. No fear that it may fail: this "hope putteth not to shame." 2. It is steadfast. It takes a firm grip of the holding-ground, and will neither break nor drag. No force of wind or current will be able to tear it from its hold. How comes it that spiritual hope has these essential qualities? It is "both sure and steadfast" because it is the gift of God, and therefore good and perfect, like all other Divine gifts. It is so, also, because it is essentially connected with the cable of faith in the promise and oath of God. II. CHRIST IN HEAVEN IS OUR . The Savior has gone before us into heaven, through the blue "veil" or ocean of the sky; and our hope follows him thither. 1. Our holding-ground is in heaven. Happy are all who are convinced that there is no safe anchorage for their souls anywhere below! Each of us has had many earthly hopes that have been baffled; but the hope which finds its object in heaven is "a living hope." Its holding-ground is beyond the frontiers of change, and out of reach of the touch of death. God help us amid the storms of life to look, not so much down upon the fierce floods which are beating about our feet, but rather upward to the quiet, holy heaven, and to our great Hope that is there! 2. Our holding-ground is Christ himself in his perpetual priesthood. Even heaven is nothing at all to the believer apart from Christ. The Lord Jesus himself is "our Hope." He is the Son of God, who knows all our troubles, and has power to control and subdue them. He is the Son of man, and full, therefore, of warm, human sympathy. He is our "High Priest," ever-loving, interceding, armed with authority and overflowing with tenderness. And he is our "Forerunner," who has entered heaven in our name, and left the golden gate open behind him, because he has arranged that we are to follow (John 14:1-4). Learn, in conclusion: 1. The anchor of hope does not quell the storm; what it does is to hold fast the vessel. 2. The excellence of the anchor and the strength of the holding-ground make the believer’s security most absolute. 3. The sinner’s only safety is to cast anchor in Christ. BY W. JONES A summons to Christian progress. "Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ," etc. Our subject has two main branches. I. THE ALREADY MADE IN . Here are six first principles or elements of Christianity, with which those persons to whom this letter is addressed are supposed to be acquainted. These elementary principles may be classified in three groups of two in each group. (1) Two initial experiences of the Christian life. (2) Two Christian symbolic customs. (3) Two Christian doctrines of future events. Let us briefly notice each of these first principles. 1. "Repentance from dead works." Expositors differ as to whether these are the works of the Law, or the works of sin, which indicate spiritual death and lead on to eternal death. Probably the writer means the observances of the moral and ceremonial laws of the Jews, by which they sought to attain unto righteousness and to commend themselves unto God. And in our own times there are those who endeavor by the performance of righteous and praiseworthy actions to merit acceptance with God. Such works are dead unless they spring from a heart in vital sympathy with God. Repentance from these works is the renunciation of them as a ground of acceptance with God, and the withdrawal of our faith from them. 2. "Faith toward God." That this is the Christian faith in God is clear from the earlier clause—" the principles of the doctrine of Christ." Probably, as Alford suggests, the best exposition of this faith in God is found in the words of St. Paul: "To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, iris faith is reckoned for righteousness" (Romans 4:5). It is faith in God as revealed in Jesus Christ. And as by repentance the Christian abandons the dead works of the Law as a reason for his acceptance with God, so by this faith he enters into vital and saving relation to the living God. 3. "The teaching of baptisms," or washings. There are three, or more, interpretations of this clause. That the baptisms are (1) the baptism of John and the Christian baptism; (2) the baptism of water and that of the Holy Spirit; (3) the various washings of the ceremonial law of the Jews, and probably including the baptism of John and Christian baptism. The nature and significance of these washings in their relation to Christianity would certainly be taught to Jewish converts to the Christian faith. The chief point for us is this, that all these washings and baptisms were symbols of spiritual cleansing. The one essential baptism, which is also the fulfillment of all other baptisms, is that of the Holy Spirit. 4. "The teaching of the laying on of hands." This may mean, as Alford says, "the reference and import of all that imposition of hands, which was practiced under the Law, and found in some cases its continuance under the gospel." To us, however, it seems more probable that it indicates the impartation of spiritual gifts, and especially the gift of the Holy Ghost, of which the laying on of hands was the outward symbol, as in Acts 8:15-17; Acts 19:6; 1 Timothy 4:14; 2 Timothy 1:6. 5. "The teaching of resurrection of the dead." This doctrine was brought into clear light by the great Teacher. "The hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice," etc. (John 5:28, John 5:29). The apostles also declared it: "There shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust." Our Lord’s resurrection forcibly confirmed the doctrine. 6. "The teaching of eternal judgment." A future and general judgment is certain. Jesus Christ pictorially described it (Matthew 25:31-46). St. Paul asserted it: "God hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness," etc; "We shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ Each one of us shall give account of himself to God." This judgment is characterized as "eternal," probably because it is "part of the proceedings of eternity, and thus bearing the character and stamp of eternal." Its awards, moreover, are eternal (Matthew 25:46). Now, these six things belong to the beginning of Christian teaching and life; they are "first principles of the oracles of God." And they are to be left. How? Not in the sense of discarding them, but of advancing beyond them. Or, as in the figure employed in the text, they constitute a foundation, and are to be left behind as the foundation of a building is left as the superstructure rises towards completeness. "When we have once become settled in the first principles of our religion," says John Howe, "we need not be always exposing them to a continual extort . 3. Maturity of Christian conduct. The truth apprehended by the intellect and experienced in the heart, must be expressed in the life and practice. Growing religious faith and feeling should be manifested by words and actions of ever-increasing conformity to the holy will of God. In this respect let us imitate the example of St. Paul: "[Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect," etc. (Philippians 3:12-14).—W.J. Deo volente. "And this will we do, if God permit." We have in these words— I. AN . 1. The thing resolved upon is good. "This will we do;" i.e. leave the first principles of the doctrine of Christ, and press on unto perfection. Wishing and hoping are of little avail without resolution. 2. The form of the resolution is good. "This will we do." The writer had himself long passed beyond the elementary principles of Christianity, and had made considerable progress towards perfection; but, placing himself by the side of his readers, he says, "This will we do." It is far more inspiring to say, "Let us do," than to say, "Do ye." II. AN . "If God permit." This does not indicate any doubt on the part of the writer as to whether Christian progress was in harmony with the will of God or not. But it is a becoming acknowledgment of: 1. The absolute sovereignty of God. Our times are in his hand. "Man proposes, God disposes." The apostles frequently realized and expressed this. St. Paul: "I will return again unto you, if God will" (Acts 18:21; see also Romans 15:32; 1 Corinthians 4:19; James 4:15). 2. The uncertainty of human life and opportunities. "God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways." "Thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust." "Ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall both live, and. do this, or that." 3. Human dependence upon the Divine will and help. In the matter of Christian progress we depend upon him for many things; e.g. for the preservation of our reason, the continuance of the means of grace, the help of his Holy Spirit, etc. "Apart from me," said Christ, "ye can do nothing." Let all our plans be formed in subordination to the will of God. It is not necessary that we should frequently express this sentiment; in words, saying, "If God will," or "Please God," or "If God permit," or writing "D.V." Perhaps these expressions are most frequently used by those who but feebly realize their dependence upon him. It is to be feared that as used by many they are empty forms of speech, and that in the sight of Heaven their use is an insincerity, an irreverence, and a taking of the holy Name in vain. But in all things let us cultivate the spirit of humble and hearty dependence upon the holy will of God.—W.J. The relapse for which there is no restoration. "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened," etc. Let us honestly and earnestly endeavor to lay aside our theological prepossessions, and to apprehend and set forth the meaning of this solemn portion of sacred Scripture. We have in the text— I. AN EXALTED . "Those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift," etc. Here is a cumulative experience of gospel blessings. 1. Spiritual illumination. "Those who were once enlightened." The mind and heart of the unrenewed man are in a condition of spiritual ignorance and darkness. The wicked are "darkened in their understanding." In conversion men "turn from darkness to light." In the case described in the text man has been enlightened as to his spiritual state, his need of salvation, and. the salvation provided in Jesus Christ (cf. Ephesians 1:17, Ephesians 1:18). 2. Experience of gospel blessings. "And tasted of the heavenly gift." Tasted is not to be taken in the sense of a mere taste, but personal experience, as in Hebrews 2:9, "Taste death for every man;" and 1 Peter 2:3, "If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious." In the case before us, man, through Christ, experiences the forgiveness of sins, and peace with God, and spiritual strength. 3. Participation in the presence and influences of the Holy Spirit. "And were made partakers of the Holy Ghost." They share in his instructing, comforting, sanctifying presence and power. "The Spirit of God dwelleth in" them (1 Corinthians 3:16; Romans 8:9). 4. Experience of the excellence of God’s Word. "And tasted the good Word of God." Probably there is a special reference to the comforting, encouraging, strengthening power of the inspired Word. Or the good "word." is the word of promise, and the tasting of it is the experience of its gracious fulfillment. The use of the Hebrew equivalents supports this view (see Joshua 21:45; Joshua 23:1-16. 15; Jeremiah 29:10; Jeremiah 33:14; Zechariah 1:13). 5. Experience of the spiritual powers of the gospel age. "And tasted the powers of the world to come," or "the age to come." The expression "signifies a personal experience of the mighty energy and saving power of the gospel." Here, then, the religion of Jesus Christ is exhibited as a gracious light in the intellect, a blessed experience in the heart, and a practical redemptive power in the life. How complete and exalted is the personal Christian experience thus delineated! II. AN AWFUL . "If they shall fall away … they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." 1. Of falling from an exalted spiritual condition. We have noticed the advanced development of Christian character and the full enjoyment of Christian privileges sketched by the writer; and now he speaks of falling away from these great and gracious experiences. The higher the exaltation attained, the more terrible will be the injury sustained, if one should fall from such a height. 2. Of incurring the darkest guilt. "They crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." The crucifixion of the Lord Jesus was the blackest crime in all the dark annals of human wrong-doing. And if any one having really and richly enjoyed the blessings of the gospel of Christ should fall back into sin, renouncing Christ and Christianity, he would repeat in spirit that terrible crime. "It is often said," wrote F. W. Robertson, "’My sins nailed him to the tree’ There is a sense in which this contains a deep truth The crisis of the conflict between the kingdoms of good and evil took place in the death of Christ: the highest manifestation of good in him, the highest manifestation of evil in the persons of those who saw the divinest excellence, and called it Satanic evil. To call evil good, and good evil, to call Divine good Satanic wickedness,—there is no state lower than this. It is the rottenness of the core of the heart; it is the unpardonable because irrecoverable sin. With this evil, in its highest development, the Son of man came into collision. He died unto sin. The prince of this world came and found nothing congenial in him. He was his victim, not his subject. So far as I belong to that kingdom or fight in that warfare, it may be truly said, the Savior died by my sin ... I am a sharer in the spirit to which he fell a victim."£ But is such a fall as this really possible? To us it seems that the teaching of the Bible and the moral nature of man admit of but one reply as to this possibility. (1) The hypothesis of the text is not an idle one. It is inconceivable that the Holy Spirit of God should have inspired the writer to mention so awful a fall if it had been an utter impossibility. (2) The many warnings against apostasy which are addressed to Christians in the sacred Scriptures witness to the possibility of such apostasy. This letter to the Hebrews is one long and powerful warning, persuasion, and exhortation against falling away from Christ. (3) The constitution of our nature shows this fall to be possible. We are free either to loyally serve God or to wickedly rebel against him, and must ever remain so, or moral distinctions would no longer be applicable to us. III. AN MORAL . "It is impossible to renew them again unto repentance." This "impossible" may not be enfeebled into "very difficult," or other similar expression, as may be seen by an examination of the other passages of this Epistle in which it is found (Hebrews 6:18; Hebrews 10:4; Hebrews 11:6). The reason of this impossibility is the moral character and condition of those of whom (should there ever be any of such character) it is predicated. Having once experienced the Divine renewal, they have utterly fallen away from it, and now scornfully reject the only power by which their renewal could be effected. The mightiest spiritual influence in the universe, even the love of God in the death of Jesus Christ for the salvation of sinners, is derided by them. "They crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." "They tear him out of the recesses of their hearts where he had fixed his abode, and exhibit him to the open scoffs and reproach of the world, as something powerless and common" (cf. Hebrews 10:29). Dr. Parker forcibly inquires, "If men have insulted God, poured contempt upon his Son, counted the blood of the covenant as an unworthy thing, grieved and quenched the Holy Spirit, what can possibly remain of a remedial kind? The inquiry is one on which reason may expend its powers. What remains after God has been exhausted?" Let the Christian earnestly heed the solemn warning of our text. "Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation;" "Give diligence to make your calling and election sure; for doing these things, ye shall never fall." The surest way of guarding against this terrible fall is to aim at and seek to realize constant spiritual progress. "Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection," etc.—W.J. Ministering to the saints. "For God is not unrighteous to forget your work," etc. Our text leads us to consider the ministry to the saints in three aspects. I. IN ITS . "Ye ministered unto the saints, and still do minister." 1. The nature of this ministry. (1) Probably pecuniary aid to the poor. Saints may be in secular poverty. Lazarus the saint was an afflicted beggar; the man who was not a saint was "rich, clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day." "Did not God choose them that are poor as to the world to be rich in faith?" etc. (James 2:5). The persons addressed in our Epistle probably sent contributions of money to certain of their fellow-Christians who were in poverty (see Acts 11:29, 80; Romans 15:25, Romans 15:26; 1 Corinthians 16:1; 2 Corinthians 8:1-24., 9). (2) Sympathy with the afflicted and persecuted. "Becoming partakers with them that were so used" (i.e. reproached and persecuted). "For ye both had compassion on them that were in bonds," etc. (Hebrews 10:32-34). A worthy tribute this to most noble and beautiful conduct. Such ministering to the saints was especially becoming in the disciples of him who "bore our griefs and carried our sorrows," and who "came not to be ministered unto, but to minister," etc. 2. The continuousness of this ministry. "And still do minister." Their kind feeling did not expend itself in one effort or in one contribution. Their conduct in this respect is exemplary. We shall do well if we imitate them (cf. Romans 12:13; Galatians 6:10; Hebrews 13:16; 1 John 3:17). II. IN ITS EXALTED MOTIVE. "The love which ye showed towards his Name." They ministered to the saints because they loved God. This is the noblest of motives. Let us consider it. It involves: 1. Gratitude to God. They ministered to those who were his, because he had done so much for them. Gratitude eagerly inquires, "What shall I render unto the Lord for all his benefits toward me?" We serve him by serving his saints. 2. Devotion to God. This ministry was expressive of more than gratitude to God. The Christian’s love to God is more than gratitude to him. It includes reverent admiration of him, and willing consecration to him of the heart’s holiest feeling and the life’s best service. And ministry to his saints for the love which we have for him he accepts as ministry to himself. "Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it," etc. (Matthew 25:40, Matthew 25:45). 3. Recognition of the common relationship to God of both the givers and the receivers of this help. They showed their love toward his Name by this ministry, because they felt that they and those to whom they ministered were alike his children. They realized their common brotherhood, hence they voluntarily shared their afflictions. This is the most exalted motive for Christian service—love to God. It is most disinterested, most inspiring, most sustaining. III. IN ITS CERTAIN REWARD. "God is not unrighteous to forget your work," etc. But did this ministry to the saints give the ministers a claim upon God for reward? Would he have been unjust if he had not remembered and rewarded their works? Two facts compel us to answer, "No;" viz. (1) that all the good works of Christians are imperfect; (2) that the inspiration for every good work proceeds from him. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ THE PRIEST AFTER THE ORDER OF . The exposition of Christ’s heavenly priesthood is now at length taken up and carried out. It extends to Hebrews 10:19, forming the central part of the whole Epistle; and in the course of it is set forth also how the whole Jewish economy did in fact only prefigure and prepare for this one availing priesthood of the true High Priest of mankind. The peculiar thesis of Heb 7:1-28. is "after the order of Melchizedek," the question being—What is signified by this designation of the Messiah in the hundred and tenth psalm? The remarkable import of that psalm, in that it assigns priesthood as well as royalty to the Son, was noted under Hebrews 5:6. His being Priest at all implies a different order of royalty from that of the theocratic kings. But what further is meant by his priesthood being after the order, not of Aaron, but of Melchizedek? Is it that Melchizedek, being King of Salem as well as priest of the most high God, is therefore selected as the most suitable type of the great Priest-King to come? Yes; but there is more in it than this, as the writer goes on to show. To get at the full import of the expression in the psalm, he analyzes what we are told about Melchizedek in Genesis 14:1-24. (the only other passage from which anything is known of him), and considers what could be meant in the psalm by "a priest after his order," and that "for ever." Both the actual history and the ideal of the psalm are in his view together; and from the two combined he deduces the intended idea of "a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek." Bearing this in mind, we shall have no need to understand anything implied as to Melchizedek himself beyond what we learn from Genesis. Some commentators, on the strength of what is here said of him, have supposed him to have been some superhuman being; and many theories have been propounded as to who and what he was. All such views have arisen from a misconception of our writer’s drift; from regarding the representation of the ideal which Melchizedek typified as part of the account of what he actually was, the actual and the ideal being, in fact, somewhat blended in the exposition. That no more is implied about the man himself than what is recorded in Genesis may be concluded, not only from the purport (rightly understood) of the passage before us, but also from the analogy of the rest of the Epistle, throughout which the arguments are based on the contents of the Old Testament itself, as it was read and received by the Hebrew Christians. For example, neither David, nor Solomon, nor Isaiah are adduced as having been other than what the sacred record represents them to have been, though it is shown that what is said of them in the spirit of prophecy points to an ideal beyond them. Hebrews 7:1-3 For this Melchizedek, King of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; to whom also Abraham divided a tenth part of all (this description belongs to the subject of the sentence, being merely a recapitulation of the facts recorded in Genesis, the language of the LXX. being used; what follows belongs properly to the predicate, being of the nature of a comment on the facts recorded); first, being by interpretation King of righteousness (which is the meaning of the name Melchizedek), and then also King of Salem, which is, King of peace (the very names of himself and his kingdom are significant (cf. Psalms 85:10; Psalms 72:3; Isaiah 32:17; Romans 5:1); where righteousness and peace are the characteristics of the Messiah’s kingdom; this significance, however, is not afterwards made a point of, being merely noticed by the way); without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. It is this language especially that has been supposed to involve something more than human about the historical Melchizedek. But we have only to enter into the mind of the writer to see that it is not so. For it is the ideal of the psalm, conceived as suggested by the historical type, that gives its color to the language used. And, indeed, how strangely suggestive is that fragment about the priestly king (Genesis 14:18-21) so unexpectedly interposed in the life of Abraham! In the midst of a history in which such a point is made of the parentage and descent of the patriarchs of Israel, at a time of peculiar glory of the first and greatest of them, one suddenly appears on the scene, a priest and king, not of the peculiar race at all, his parentage and ancestry unrecorded and unknown, who blesses and receives tithes from Abraham, and then as suddenly disappears from view. We hear no more of him; as about his origin, so about his end, Scripture is silent. And so he "abides" before the mind’s eye, apart from any before or after, the type of an unchanging priesthood. For the meaning of the word ἀγενεαλόγητος (in itself denoting the absence, not of ancestors, but of a traced genealogy), cf. Hebrews 7:6, Hebrews 7:6 ὁδὴμὴγενεαλογούμενοςἐξαὐτῶν. That of ἀπάτωρ, ἀμήτωρ, is illustrated by the Latin expression, "Nullis majoribus ortus." On "made like (ὁμοιούμενος) unto the Son of God," Chrysostom says, "We know of no beginning or end in either case; in the one, because none are recorded; in the other, because they do not exist." The idea seems to be that Melchizedek is thus assimilated to Christ in the sacred record, by what it leaves untold no less than by what it tells. It is not said that he is like him (ὁμοίος), but made like (ὁμοιούμενος); i.e. represented in such wise as to resemble him. It may be here remarked that, though the term "Son of God" is used in the Epistle generally to denote the Messiah as manifested in time, his essential eternal being is here, as elsewhere, distinctly intimated; also that "the Son of God" is regarded as the archetype of the comparison: "Non dicitur Filius DEI assimilatus Melchizedeko, sed contra; nam Filius DEI est antiquior et archetypus" (Bengel). Hebrews 7:4 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom Abraham, the patriarch, even gave a tenth of the spoils. The typical significance of Melchizedek is now further seen in what passed between him and Abraham, in respect to tithe and blessing. Alford’s inference, that πηλίκοςοὕτος, referring as it does, not to the antitype, but to the man himself, implies some mysterious greatness beyond what appears in the original record, does not follow. Of one who simply blessed and received tithes from the great patriarch, the expression is not too strong. Observe the emphatic position, at the end of the Greek sentence, of ὁπαριάρχης, equivalent to "he, the patriarch." Abraham’s being this, the father and representative of the chosen race, is what is shown in what follows to give peculiar significance to the transaction. The word ἀκροθίνια (properly, "the chief spoils"), which is not in the LXX., seems introduced to enhance the picture: "Quae Abrahami proprie fuerant, ut victoris" (Bengel). Hebrews 7:5-7 And they indeed of the song of Levi who receive the office of priesthood have commandment to receive tithes of the people according to the Law, that is, of their brethren, though these have come out of the loins of Abraham: but he whose genealogy is not counted from them hath received tithes of Abraham. As much as to say, "Let it not be said that the tithing of Abraham by Melchizedek implies no higher priestly prerogative than the tithing of Abraham’s descendants by the sons of Aaron; for there is this difference: They, in virtue only of a special ordinance of the Law, not of original right, were allowed to tithe their brethren, £ though descended from the same great ancestor; he, though not of them or of the race at all, in virtue of his own inherent dignity, tithes the whole race as represented in its patriarch." (We observe how, in place of the aorist ἔδωκε, used when the mere historical incident was referred to, we have here the perfect δεδεκάτωκε (as also εὐλόγηκε in what follows, and δεδεκάτωται in Hebrews 7:9), denoting a completed act, of which the effects and significance remain; Melchizedek, who represents the priesthood after his order, being viewed in permanent relation to Abraham, who represents the chosen race) And hath blessed him that hath (i.e. the holder of) the promises. But, without all controversy, the less is blessed of the better. The superiority evidenced by bestowal of blessing no less than by receiving of tithe having been thus noticed, the contrast with the Levitical priesthood is continued in the following verses. Hebrews 7:8 And here (in the case of the Levitical priesthood) men that die (literally, dying men) receive tithes; but there (in the case of Melchizedek) one of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. The difference hero noted is between a succession of mortal priests and one perpetually living, who never loses his personal claim, which is inherent, in himself. But how so of Melchizedek? For it is to him, and not to Christ the Antitype, that the words evidently apply. Is it at length implied that he was more than mortal man? No, if only for this reason; that the witness appealed to (μαρτυρούμενος) must be that of Scripture, which nowhere bears such witness of the historical Melchizedek. The words, μαρτυρούμενοςὅτεζῇ, are, in fact, only a resumption of what was said in Hebrews 7:3: "having neither beginning of days nor end of life;" and hear the same meaning; viz. (as above explained) that he passes before our view in Genesis with no mention of either death, birth, or ancestry, and thus presented the ideal of "a priest for ever" to the inspired psalmist. The witness referred to is that of the record in Genesis, viewed in the light of the idea of the psalm. Hebrews 7:9, Hebrews 7:10 And, so to say, through Abraham even Levi, who receiveth tithes, hath paid tithes. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchizedek met him. Or, in other words, "Nay, further, Melchizedek may be said to have tithed Levi himself and his priestly tribe." For, inasmuch as the whole position of Levi and his tribe, in the old dispensation, came by inheritance from the great patriarch who received the promises, the subordination of the patriarch to one above himself involved that of all who so inherited, it is not simply the physical descent of Levi from Abraham, but the peculiar position of the latter as "the patriarch," that justifies the assertion that Levi paid tithes through him. And thus, while we remember how Abraham is elsewhere viewed in Scripture as the representative of the chosen people, and also how the lives of individual patriarchs (notably so in the case of Jacob and Esau) are so told and referred to as to prefigure the positions and fortunes of the races they represent, we may recognize in this assertion no mere rabbinical fancy, but an interpretation true to the spirit of the Old Testament. Be it further observed that the original significance of Abraham’s action as bearing upon his descendants is enhanced by the fact that, while it was after the receiving of the promise, it was before the birth of Isaac. He, and consequently his descendant Levi, was yet (ἔτι) in the loins of Abraham; on which point, "Proles e parenlis poteslate egressa in suam venit tutelain: sod quoad in parentis potestate, imo in lumbis est, illius conditionem sequitur" (Bengel). Hebrews 7:11, Hebrews 7:12 If then perfection (τελείωσις: cf. οὐδὲνγὰρἐτελείωσενὁνόμος) were through the Levitical priesthood for under it (rather, upon it, on the ground of it) the people hath received the Law, what need was there that another (rather, a different) priest should rise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron. For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the Law. Here a further thought is introduced. So far the superiority of the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek to the Aaronic has been shown. The new thought is that the very mention in the psalm of a different order of priesthood implies that the old order, and with it the whole legal dispensation which depended on it, was imperfect and to be superseded. This is the general drift of Heb 7:11, Hebrews 7:12, though the sequence of thought in their several clauses is not easy to follow. Ideas in the writer’s mind, not expressed, seem necessary to be understood. In the parenthetical clause of Heb 7:11, ἐπαὐτὴς and νενομοθέτηται are decidedly to be preferred, on the ground of authority, to ἐπαὐτῇ and νενομοθέτητο of the Textus Receptus. ’The meaning of the clause (whatever be the precise thought connecting it with the sentence in which it stands) is that the whole Law rested on the institution of the priesthood; not the priests only, but the whole people (ὁλαὸς), received their Law as grounded on it. On the same idea depends Hebrews 7:12, where it is said that a change of the priesthood involves of necessity a change of the Law. The verses next following serve to remove all doubt that there is a complete change of the priesthood; the proofs being, not only the patent fact that the Messiah is of the tribe, not of Levi, but of Judah (Hebrews 7:13, Hebrews 7:14), but also, for mere abundant evidence of the Divine purpose, that significant utterance, again adduced, about his being after the order, not of Aaron, but of Melchizedek (Hebrews 7:15, Hebrews 7:16, Hebrews 7:17). Hebrews 7:13, Hebrews 7:14 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to (μετέσχηκεν: literally, hath partaken of; cf. μετέσχε, Hebrews 2:14, with reference, as there, to Christ’s assumption of humanity) another tribe, of which no man hath (ever) given attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord hath sprung out of Judah; as to which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood (or priests; ἱερέων being a better-supported reading than the Textus Receptus ἱερωσύνης). This is spoken of as evident (i.e. plain to all, πρόδηλον), not only because of the well-known prophecies that the Messiah was to spring from David, but still more (as is shown by the perfect ἀνατέταλκεν, pointing to an accomplished fact, and by the expression, ὁΚύριοςἡμῶν) because Jesus, recognized by all Christians as the Messiah, was known to have so sprung. For it is to Christian believers, with whatever Jewish prejudices, not to unbelieving Jews, that the Epistle is addressed. It is important to observe that the Davidic descent of our Lord is spoken of as an acknowledged fact, not merely as an inference from prophecy. "We have here a most significant proof that the descent of Jesus from the tribe of Judah was a well and universally known fact before the destruction of Jerusalem" (Ebrard). "Illo igitur tempore nulla difficultate laborabat genealogia Jesu Christi: et hoc ipsum difficultatibus postea exortis abunde medetur" (Bengel). The verb ἀνατέταλκεν may have been specially suggested by the prophetic figure of the Branch from the root of Jesse (see Isaiah 11:1; and Zechariah 3:8; Zechariah 6:12, where the LXX. has ἀνατολὴ for ’Branch:’ Ἀνατολὴὄνομααὐτῶκαὶὑποκάσωθεναὐτοῦἀνατελεῖ); though the figure of the sunrise is more frequently meant by the word when applied to Christ’s appearance (el. Numbers 24:17; Isaiah 9:1; Ma Isaiah 4:2; Luke 1:78). Hebrews 7:15-17 And it is yet more abundantly evident (i.e. the proposition of Heb 7:12), if after the likeness of Melchizedek there ariseth another Priest, who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless (indissoluble) life. For it is testified (of him), Thou art a Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. This is a resumption of what has been already seen, put so as to be effective for the present stage of the argument. The old priesthood, and consequently the Law, is changed and superseded, not only because the Priest of the new order of things is of the tribe of Judah, but still more evidently because his priesthood is witnessed to as being one of a different kind, and of a kind so much higher and diviner. It is evident that the Antitype of Melchizedek, the subject of the hundred and tenth psalm, rather than Melchizedek himself, suggests here the language used. (Observe the contrasts between νομόν and δύνμινσαρκικῆς and ἀκαταλύτου, ἐντολῆς and ζωῆς. The idea of Heb 9:8-15 is in Chose few pregnant words briefly anticipated, after the manner of the Epistle) Hebrews 7:18, Hebrews 7:19 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof (for the Law made nothing perfect); but [there is on the other hand] a bringing in thereupon of a better hope, through which we draw nigh unto God. Such is certainly the construction of the sentence (not as in the A.V); οὐδενγὰρ, etc., in Hebrews 7:19 being parenthetical, and ἐπεισαγωγὴ depending on γίνεται in Hebrews 7:18. We have here the conclusion of the argument of the Hebrews 7:11-18, with a further expression of the inherent insufficiency of the Law, given as the reason of its supersession; reminding us of similar views of what the Law was worth frequent in St. Paul’s Epistles (of. Romans 8:3; Galatians 3:10, etc). The final clause, δἱἧςἐγγίζομεντῷΘεῷ, leads directly up to the main subject in the writer’s view, viz. the exposition of Christ’s eternal priesthood. But two proofs are first to be given of Christ’s priesthood being, unlike the Aaronic, thus eternally availing to bring us near to God. These proofs are to be found in the Divine oath which established it, and the expression, "forever," in Psalms 90:1-17., once more adduced. Hebrews 7:20-22 And inasmuch as not without an oath [properly, swearing of an oath, ὁρκωμοσίας] he was made priest: (for they indeed have been made priests without an oath; but he with an oath by him that saith unto him, Thou art a Priest for ever); by so much of a better covenant hath Jesus become surety. The significance of the Divine oath, in connection with the promise to Abraham, has been dwelt on above: the oath of Psa 110:1-7. is here similarly referred to, as imitating a priesthood that rests on no mere temporary ordinance, but on the immutable Divine counsels. (Observe the first occurrence here of the word διαθήκη, introducing in the way of hint (as is usual in the Epistle) an idea to be afterwards expanded, as it is in Hebrews 8:1-13; Hebrews 9:1-28. The meaning of the word will be considered below) Hebrews 7:23, Hebrews 7:24 And they indeed have been made priests many in number, because of being by death hindered from continuing. But he, because of his abiding forever, hath his priesthood unchangeable. This second point of contrast has already been twice touched on—Hebrews 7:8, with respect to the claim to tithe; and Hebrews 7:16, with respect to the order of priesthood: here it is with especial reference to the eternal personality, and hence the perpetual and complete efficiency, of our one Priest. The repetitions are not tautological, having each time different bearings. The contrast here, as before, is between mortal men who succeed each other in the office of priesthood, and One who has the office inherent in himself forever. The word ἀπαράβατον (translated "unchangeable") is taken by some in an intransitive sense, as in margin of the A.V., that doth not pass to another, equivalent to ἀδιάδοχον. This, however, is not the proper force of this late Greek word, nor does the sense of the passage of necessity require it. Hebrews 7:25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. We again observe how, at the end of successive stages of the argument, thoughts to be enlarged on afterwards are brought in. Here it is the perpetual intercession of Christ before the heavenly mercy-seat. In the view of his office thus arrived at there is, in fact, a transition to the main subject set forth in the three chapters that follow; viz. the fulfillment in Christ of the ceremonial of the Law, and especially of the high priest’s intercession on the Day of Atonement. And thus from Melchizedek the train of thought passes to the high priest. The type of the former has been sufficiently shown to be fulfilled in the higher order of Christ’s priesthood; it is now to be shown how, being of such higher order, it is the antitype of the Aaronic priesthood too, accomplishing what it signified. Hence in Hebrews 7:26 the word "high priest" (ἀρχιερεὺς) is for the first time introduced, as the key-note of what is coming. Summary of the foregoing argument. I. (Hebrews 7:1-11) What does the Melchizedek priesthood of Psa 110:1-7. signify? 1. (Hebrews 7:1-4) One not depending on human ancestry, and one forever abiding. 2. (Hebrews 7:4-11) One of a higher order than that of Aaron; for: (1) Melchizedek, being of a race apart, received tithe from Abraham the patriarch. (2) This denotes a higher position than that of the Aaronic priests, who tithed their brethren of the same race with themselves, in virtue only of a special ordinance. (3) The blessing of Abraham by Melchizedek is similarly significant. (4) The idea of an ever-living priest with a right to tithe transcends that of the temporary claims of a succession of dying men. (5) Levi himself virtually paid tithe to Melchizedek. II. (Hebrews 7:11-18) The Aaronic priesthood, and with it the whole dispensation based upon it, is thus shown to have been imperfect and transitory; for: 1. Otherwise a priesthood of another order would not have been spoken of in Psalms 110:1-7. 2. Which priesthood is evidently distinct from the Aaronic, our Lord being of the tribe, not of Levi, but of Judah. 3. What has been seen (Psalms 110:5 and 8) as to the Melchizedek priesthood being not "after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life," makes this "more abundantly evident." Conclusion (Hebrews 7:18-20). The Aaronic priesthood (being in itself unprofitable) is therefore now superseded by an availing one, "through which we draw nigh unto God." III. (Hebrews 7:20-26) Christ’s priesthood is thus availing; for: 1. The Divine oath (Psalms 110:1-7) established it, marking it as resting on the eternal Divine counsels. 2. It is (as shown by the same psalm) "unchangeable." The one Priest abides forever. Conclusion (Hebrews 7:25). We have, therefore, in him at last, a perfectly availing and eternal interceding High Priest. Hebrews 7:26 For such a High Priest became us, holy, harmless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens. Such a High Priest, it is said, for us was fitting. The same word ἔπρεπε was used in Hebrews 2:10, where the humiliation of Christ was spoken of. It was there said that to make the Captain of our salvation perfect through suffering "became" God—was befitting to what we conceive of the Divine nature. It is now said that our High Priest’s being such as is here described "became" us—was befitting to our state and needs. That he should be both human and superhuman was in all respects fitting—the one that he might be our sympathizing brother; the other that his intercession might avail. The further description of him in this verse is suggested by the qualifications of the Aaronic high priest, what they typified being realized in Christ. The high priest was by his consecration a holy person, ἅγιος (Leviticus 21:6, 8, etc); he bore on his miter "Holiness to the Lord" (Exodus 39:30); he must be without personal blemish (Leviticus 21:17, etc); he must keep himself continually from all ceremonial pollution (Leviticus 21:1-24. and 22); he must purify himself by a sacrifice for himself and by special ablutions before entering the holy of holies (Leviticus 16:1-34); when there, he was conceived as in God’s presence, apart from the world of sinners outside. Christ was not only ἅγιος, but ὅσιος, personally and inwardly holy (Christians in the New Testament are all called ἅγιος, but not all ὁσίοι: for the use of which word, el. Titus 1:8; Acts 2:27; Acts 13:34, where it is applied to Christ, τὸνὅσιονσου: and Revelation 15:4-16:5, where it is applied to God as his special attribute, ὅτιμόνοςὅσιος); Christ was actually free from evil (ἄκακος) and undefiled (ἀμίαντος). by any contact of sin; and as such he has passed to God’s actual presence (cf. διελελύθοτατοὺςοὐρανοὺς, Hebrews 4:14), separated forever from the world of sinners. Hebrews 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once for all, when he offered up himself. The expression "daily" (καθἡμέραν) is not in strictness applicable to the high priest, who did not offer the daily sacrifice. The reference throughout what follows being to the high priest’s peculiar functions on the Day of Atonement, κατἐνιαυτόν might have been expected. There are two tenable solutions: (1) that the daily offerings of the priests are regarded as made by the high priest, who represented the whole priesthood, on the principle, qui facit per altos tacit per se; (2) that καθἡμέραν (as is suggested by its position in the sentence) belongs not to οἱἀρχιερεῖς, but only to Christ: "who has no need daily, as the high priests have yearly:" for his intercession being perpetual, an offering on his part would be needed daily, if needed at all. This view is supported by the fact that the daily sacrifices are not spoken of in the Law as including a special one in the first place for the priest’s own sin. "This he did." Did what? Offer for his own sins as well as for the people’s? No; for, though it has been seen above (Hebrews 5:7) how the high priest’s offering for himself might have its counterpart in the agony, the Sinless One cannot be said to have offered for sins of his own. And, besides, he having offered himself (ἑαυτὸνἀνενέγκας), the offering could not be for himself. We must, therefore, take "this he did" as referring only to the latter part of the preceding clause, while ἐαυτὸν, προσενέγκας answers to the former part; or as implying generally, "did all that was needed for atonement." Hebrews 7:28 For the Law maketh men high priests, having infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was after the Law, maketh the Son, perfected for evermore. With men (i.e. a succession of men; cf. Hebrews 7:8) having infirmity is contrasted the one Son, for ever perfected. The absence of the article before υἱὸς does not imply the meaning "a son;" the title denotes here, as throughout the Epistle, the peculiar Son of prophecy (see under Hebrews 1:1). There is here no denial of his complete humanity, though he is plainly regarded as more than man. Nor is his participation In human ἀσθένεια, in the sense explained under Hebrews 5:1-14., denied. His implied freedom from it may mean either that he never had any inherent in himself, none due to personal imperfection, or that now, in his exalted state, he is altogether removed from it. In both these senses the implication is true; and both may be understood; but τετελειωμένον being here opposed to ἔχονταςἀσθενείαν (as υἵον to ἀνθρώπους), the latter sense may be conceived to have been especially in the writer’s mind. It is, in fact, our ever-living High Priest, interceding for us above, after passing through human experience, and after atonement completed, that is now being presented to our view. It is to be observed, lastly, that τετελειωμένον in this verse may be intended to bear, or at any rate to suggest, the special sense noted under Hebrews 5:9, and strenuously maintained by Jackson, and hence to be not incorrectly rendered by "consecrated" in the A.V; and this notwithstanding Alford’s protest against this rendering as "obliterating both sense anti analogy with Hebrews 2:10 and Hebrews 5:1." Hebrews 7:1-10 Melchizedek. The author here returns from his long digression, and enters upon the central theme of the treatise. I. WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT . (Hebrews 7:1-3) 1. As a man. (1) From Scripture statements. (Hebrews 7:1, Hebrews 7:2) All that the sacred historian records of him is contained in three verses (Genesis 14:18-20). Yet we read in these, as in the passage before us, of Melchizedek’s illustrious personality, his twofold office, his double designation, his sudden appearance, his priestly blessing, and of Abraham’s acknowledgment of his dignity. (2) From Scripture silence. (Hebrews 7:3) It is evident that the writer believed the Old Testament to be inspired, not merely in its general drift, but also in its minutest details. He is persuaded that even the omissions from the narrative had been arranged by the Holy Spirit. From this passage, therefore, we learn our duty, not only to survey the Bible in its broad landscapes of truth, and to study its general structure as the literary record of a supernatural revelation, but, alongside of that, to subject individual passages, as we have opportunity, to microscopic analysis. The omissions about Melchizedek are so important that Hebrews 7:3 reads almost like a riddle. Such omissions respecting a personage so exalted are contrary to Oriental custom. The points which the Holy Spirit has studiously concealed about Melchizedek are—his personal parentage, his priestly pedigree, and the dates of his birth and death. 2. As a type. (Hebrews 7:3) The brief notice of Melchizedek in the Book of Genesis has been framed so as to exhibit in him as striking as possible a prefiguration of Christ. Melchizedek was "made like unto the Son of God," at once in the events of his personal career, and in the shape given to the Bible narrative respecting him. The Lord Jesus Christ is both "King of righteousness" and "King of peace;" he dispenses spiritual peace upon a basis of righteousness. He is a royal Priest, wearing both the miter and the diadem. He had no predecessor in his office, and he shall have no successor. His priesthood is of older date, and of superior dignity to that of Levi. In all these respects Melchizedek was a type of Christ. II. THE OF ’S TO THE . (Verses 4-10) "Consider" this, says the apostle. Although the theme is recondite, and "hard of interpretation" (Hebrews 5:11), it deserves careful study, since it concerns the dignity and glory of the Son of God (Psalms 110:4). 1. Melchizedek is superior to Abraham, the ancestor of the Levites. (Verses 4-7) No Old Testament name is more illustrious than that of "Abraham, the patriarch;" no heraldic escutcheon could boast marks of greater honor than that which bears the arms of "the father of the faithful"—"the friend of God." Yet we see this venerated founder of the Hebrew nation humbly acknowledging the superiority of Melchizedek. (1) Abraham paid tithes to him (verses 4-6). Under the Levitical law tithes were due from the people to the priests, priests and people being brethren by race; but here we have a Gentile pontiff receiving tithes from Abraham, the patriarch offering them spontaneously. (2) Melchizedek pronounced a blessing upon Abraham (verses 6, 7). This also implied Abraham’s spiritual inferiority. The head of the chosen nation, to whom God had given "the promises," stood humbly before this Hamite priest to receive his blessing. 2. The Levitical priests were dying men; Melchizedek appears only as a living priest. (Verse 8) Aaron’s sons obtained the sacerdotal dignity by descent; they died and succeeded one another. But Melchizedek’s priesthood was inherent and underived. He is exhibited on the inspired page only as a living priest, in order that his office may the more. suitably prefigure the intransferable priesthood of Christ. 3. The Levitical priests virtually paid tithes to Melchizedek. (Verses 9, 10) All the sacred honor with which Aaron and his sons were invested was derived from Abraham, as the head of the nation; and so, when Abraham confessed the religious superiority of Melchizedek, the long line of Aaronical priests may in a sense be said to have done so also. Learn in conclusion: 1. The unparalleled majesty and glory of the Lord Jesus. Abraham was greater than Aaron; Melchizedek was greater than Abraham; but Christ is infinitely greater than Melchizedek. 2. Christ’s priestly benediction is more efficacious than that of Melchizedek. He has been sent "to bless us, in turning away every one of us from our iniquities" (Acts 3:26). 3. If Abraham gave Melchizedek a tithe of the spoils, should not we dedicate to the Lord Jesus Christ, not our tithes only, but our all? Hebrews 7:11-28 Christ greater than Aaron. This passage is really just a commentary on the Old Testament oracle contained in Psalms 110:4. There might appropriately be prefixed to it as a motto the words, "Behold, a greater than Aaron is here." I. THE OF THE . (Verses 11-19) Aaron’s mediation could not satisfy justice, or pacify conscience, or sanctify the heart. All that it could do was to exhibit a faint adumbration of the ideal priesthood. The words of Psa 110:4 suggest this insufficiency, for they contain the promise of the Messianic priesthood. 1. Jesus was of other descent. (Verses 11-14) He belonged to the tribe of Judah; and not, like Aaron’s sons, to the ecclesiastical tribe of Levi. The fact of this change in itself proves the inefficacy of the hereditary Hebrew priesthood. 2. His priesthood is of everlasting duration. (Verses 15-17) The Jewish priests one by one succumbed to death; but Jesus Christ is himself "the Life," Life resides essentially and originally in him. So his priesthood is abiding; his official dignity remains "forever." From this it follows (verses 18, 19) that the Levitical priesthood, and the entire ceremonial law which enshrined it, have been abrogated; and in their stead has come the introduction of "a better hope"—the hope of an efficient priesthood, of a dispensation both spiritual and permanent, and thus of immediate and perfect access to God. II. THE OF CHRIST’S TO THE . (Verses 20-28) Jesus is the true Priest of mankind, for whom the nations have been waiting. He is the Apostle of God to men, and the prevailing Intercessor with God for men. This passage reminds us how infinitely exalted his priesthood is above that of Aaron. 1. He was consecrated with an oath. (Verses 20-22) No Levitical priest was installed thus solemnly. The Divine oath shows the certainty and importance and immutability of the thing sworn. It reminds us that the priesthood of our Lord enters into the very substance of the everlasting covenant. 2. His priesthood is intransferable. (Verses 23-25) The Levitical priesthood had this defect, that it required to be conveyed from one man to another. But, although Christ died, his death did not "hinder him from continuing;" it did not even temporarily interrupt the exercise of his priesthood. For he died voluntarily. He laid himself as Victim upon the altar. And, by dying, he conquered death, through the power of his indissoluble life. So, his mediatorial authority is intransferable. 3. His character is holy. (Verse 26) The Levitical priests had "infirmity," and needed to offer sacrifices first for their own sins. Even the most pious men among them had been, of course, morally imperfect; and some of the high priests—such as Caiaphas—who were not godly men, had been notorious for their wickedness. But "the High Priest of our confession" has a pure nature. He lived on earth a stainless life. He was "separated from sinners;" i.e. he showed on every side of his character that he belonged to another category than that of sinners. And his spotless holiness was in the fullest harmony with our spiritual need; it was, indeed, indispensably necessary, and in every way most "becoming" and beautiful, in relation to us. 4. His sacrifice is perfect. (Verses 27, 28) The Jewish priests had to offer up sacrifices "daily"—"the same sacrifices year by year"—with laborious and wearisome iteration. But the one sacrifice of Christ is in itself all-sufficient to expiate guilt, cleanse the conscience, and purify the soul. His blood has virtue to atone, for it is the blood of God. 5. He ministers in the real sanctuary. (Verses 26, 28) Aaron’s ministry was carried on in a moving tent of curtain-work and wood-work—a tent, too, which seems to have had no pavement but the naked ground. His successors, likewise, served in what was at best a perishable "sanctuary of this world." But Jesus now ministers in "heaven itself," the most holy place of the new covenant. (The apostle emphasizes this point in Hebrews 8:1-6) In conclusion, let us reflect upon this central thought of the passage—the immortal heavenly life of our High Priest. He is a Divine person; and his Divine nature is the basis of his "endless life." Hence the perfection of his power to save. Salvation to the uttermost. The chief point in this verse is our High Priest’s ability to save, and the guarantee which his perpetual intercession affords regarding that ability. What does this continual intercession certify? Four things. I. HE HAS THE ABILITY OF MERIT. The Savior’s merit arises from what he is, from what he became, and from what he has done. His intercession is just a continual development of the exhaustless efficacy of his life-work. Our Priest is the eternal Son of God clothed in human nature. His work on earth was both active and passive: he obeyed and he suffered. He perfectly fulfilled the Law, and he fully endured the penalty due to our disobedience. Upon the union of this doing and dying the great structure of our Intercessor’s ability of merit is sustained. The infinitude of his Divine nature invests his offering with boundless value. By his "obedience unto death" he sheathed the sword of justice in the heart of mercy. And, when he had done this, he went boldly up to heaven, sprinkled the golden altar there with his blood, and took his place in the midst of the throne. The fact of his intercession as our risen and glorified Savior shows that the satisfaction which he has made for sin is perfect. II. HE HAS THE ABILITY OF RIGHT. A true priest must receive his appointment from God. So, our Lord’s session at the right hand of the Father is in itself an evidence of the validity of his intercession. We know, however, that God appointed him to his office with a solemn oath (Psalms 110:4). He said to him, on the day when he constituted him Priest-King, "Ask of me" (Psalms 2:8), thus expressly authorizing his intercession. We cannot fathom the mystery of the atonement; but it is enough to know that Christ’s sacred blood was shed for our salvation by Divine appointment; and we are persuaded that, had it not possessed merit enough for its purpose, it would never have been shed at all. Jesus sits upon his priestly throne, and does his priestly work, by Divine right. III. HE HAS THE ABILITY OF . He possesses not only merit and right, but also power. He is "a Priest upon his throne." And it was more than a mere external statute that set him there. Christ is our Intercessor in virtue of "the power of an endless life." These words are emphatic, "He ever liveth." He conducts our cause in heaven, as our Advocate, in the strength of the imperishable life which he has possessed from eternity. Enthroned in glory, he has yet power upon earth, for he has sent down to us his Holy Spirit. This gift is the direct fruit of his sacrifice and intercession. While the Savior intercedes without us, his Spirit intercedes within us. The work of the "other Paraclete" is complementary of that of the first. The Holy Ghost within our minds and hearts bestows all the communications of grace, and conducts all the preparations for glory; but he does so as the agent of the Lord Jesus, and his work is dependent upon our High Priest’s constant pleadings at the bar of God. IV. HE HAS THE ABILITY OF . Even as God, the Savior can sympathize with us; for our nature was formed in the likeness of our Maker, so that man belongs to the same order of being as God himself. But our necessities demanded more than the sympathy of God. How sweet, then, to remember that our High Priest is also a man! He is a woman’s Son, and therefore in a true sense one of ourselves. His earthly life was full of experiences substantially the same as ours; so that he knows our difficulties and sorrows and temptations. He is careful to adapt his perpetual intercessions to the currents of individual experience. Believers can approach him with confidence in the spirit of the exquisite lines— "Thou our throbbing flesh hast worn, Thou our mortal griefs hast borne, Thou hast shed the human tear: Gracious Son of Mary, hear!" (Milman) Amidst his unparalleled exaltation, the Man Christ Jesus does not forget the humblest of his people. Our High Priest has every name that is dear to him engraven upon his breastplate—written upon the imperishable tablet of his loving heart. . 1. Let us retain Jesus as our Advocate. 2. Let us tell him our whole ease, and commit it unreservedly into his hands. 3. Let us be sure of his ability successfully to plead the cause of his clients. Hebrews 7:20 Separated from sinners. This verse exhibits in a strong clear light the moral purity of our High Priest, and its becomingness in relation to the necessities of his people. I. THE OF CHRIST. He was born without; entail of birth-sin. His boyhood and youth were stainless. His manhood was one of sinless perfection. His friends regarded him as faultless. His enemies testified to his purity (Pilate, Judas, the devils whom he east out). Jesus himself claimed to be holy (John 8:46; John 14:30); and he never confessed sin, or begged forgiveness. The voice of his Father from heaven attested him, once and again, to be the Holy One of God. (Matthew 3:17; Matthew 17:5). Notice: 1. The elements of his holiness. Three adjectives are used, referring to three different departments of moral character. (1) "Holy," i.e. pious in relation to God. Jesus lived the life of ideal godliness. He perfectly obeyed "the great and first commandment"—the four "words" of the first table of the Law. (2) "Guileless," i.e. just and kind towards his fellow-men. Jesus perfectly observed the six precepts cf. the second table. He injured no one. He "went about doing good." (3) "Undefiled," i.e. personally pure; uncontaminated by his constant contact with sinful men; holy in the midst of sin, temptation, and suffering. 2. The singularity of his holiness. "Separated from sinners." This phrase sustains a relation of contrast to the three adjectives. It indicates the unique character and the matchless harmony of the Savior’s moral life. It expresses his solitariness in his holiness. If the human race be divided into two classes—the sinners and the holy—all the rest of mankind must take rank as sinners, while Jesus stands by himself as the one human being who was holy. 3. The reward of his holiness. "Made higher than the heavens." His supreme exaltation has set him more visibly apart from other men than before. It was conferred upon him as the reward of his pure, unworldly, self-sacrificing life. His mediatorial throne has been erected in the new heavens of the new covenant, and these are higher than any heavens formerly known to mankind. II. THE OF CHRIST’S IN TO OUR . "Such a High Priest became us." In Hebrews 2:10 we read of what in this connection "became" God; here, of what "became" man. The purity of the Redeemer was admirably adapted to the necessities of our condition. 1. That he might be a true manifestation of God. A priest is a mediator or middle-man between God and men; and it is indispensable that he should be in perfect sympathy with the purity of the Eternal. Holiness is the crown and flower of the Divine perfections; and it was needful that our priest should reflect that holiness in his own character. 2. That his sacrifice might be an adequate atonement for sin. He must be on the very best of terms with the God whom we have offended. His expiation must be satisfactory to Divine justice. It is impossible that Jesus could have atoned for us had he been himself morally infirm, like the Jewish high priest, tie could only purchase our reconciliation by offering himself as a Victim, without spot or blemish, upon the altar. 3. That he might leave us a perfect example. The Christian life consists in the imitation of Christ. Believers follow him in the three great departments of moral excellence in which he was so absolutely pure. We ought to copy him also in his separatedness from the world. Indeed, his people should already be in spirit, through their oneness of character with their risen Lord, "made higher than the heavens? BY W. JONES Melchizedek a type of Christ. "For this Melchizedek, King of Salem," etc. The various extraordinary conjectures as to the personality of Melchizedek "we may safely treat as fanciful and unneeded. The typology connected with Melchizedek does not require that he himself should be regarded as any superhuman person, but merely exalts the human circumstances under which he appears into symbols of superhuman things. Everything combines to show that Melchizedek was a Canaanitish king who had retained the worship of the true God and combined in his own person the offices of king and priest." £ And the statements made concerning him in the third verse of our text need not cause us any difficulty. The Levitical priests held their office by virtue of their descent from Levi and Aaron. A clear and unquestionable genealogy was of the utmost importance to them. On the return of the Jews from captivity certain persons were excluded from the priesthood because they could not produce their pedigree (Ezra 2:61-63). Now, as for Melchizedek, the names of his parents were unknown, his name was not mentioned in the Hebrew genealogies, there was no record of his birth or of his death, and no mention of the termination of his priesthood. "He comes forth from the darkness like a streak of light, only to disappear immediately in the darkness again." He is mentioned in our text as a type of Jesus Christ. I. IN HIS REGAL AND . "Melchizedek, King of Salem … by interpretation King of righteousness, and King of peace." In the reign of the Christ: 1. Righteousness is the firm basis of peace. It is true in government as in other things that "the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle." Stable peace is impossible apart from righteousness. Deep craft, subtle diplomacy, strong naval and military forces, are miserable guarantees for a nation’s peace. The peace and the perpetuity of the reign of Messiah are founded upon its truth and righteousness. The witness of Scripture to this is most clear and conclusive (see Psalms 72:1-7; Isaiah 2:4; Isaiah 11:1-9; Isaiah 32:17). 2. Righteousness is joined with peace. Both these qualities characterize his administration. Righteousness is firm, inflexible, almost stern; peace is mild, merciful, gentle. In the kingdom of our Lord "mercy and truth meet together, righteousness and peace kiss each other." II. IN HIS AND . Here are several points of analogy. 1. In the authority of his priesthood. "Melchizedek, priest of God Most High … without father, without mother," etc. He was not a priest because he was descended from priests, like the sons of Aaron. He received his priesthood direct from God. It was based upon character, not upon pedigree. It was "an independent priesthood, having its root in his own person." Even so was the priesthood of our Lord and Savior (cf. Hebrews 7:13-17; Hebrews 5:4-6). 2. In the blessings which he bestowed. Melchizedek bestowed upon Abraham a double blessing, and in each portion of it he prefigures the Christ. (1) He ministered to his physical needs. "Melchizedek met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings," and "brought forth bread and wine" unto him; bread representing the necessary food of the physical life, and wine representing the delights of life—"wine that maketh glad the heart of man." And our Lord cared for the physical needs of men. He had compassion on the hungry thousands, and fed them; he pitied the afflicted, and healed them; he sympathized with their social pleasures, and contributed to them by turning water into wine. (2) Melchizedek blessed Abraham spiritually (Genesis 14:19, Genesis 14:20). Our Lord confers the richest spiritual favors upon those who believe in him. The redemption of Jesus Christ is for the whole of man’s nature. It is noteworthy that Melchizedek blessed the greatest and best man of his age of whom we have any record. He "blessed him that hath the promises," etc. (Hebrews 7:6, Hebrews 7:7). Our Lord blesses the highest and holiest as well as the lowest and most sinful of men. None are so great or so good as to have outgrown the need of his blessing. 3. In the homage which he received. "To whom Abraham divided a tenth part of all … unto whom Abraham gave a tenth out of the chief spoils." He did this either as an act of homage to him as a king, and as placing himself under his authority and protection, or as an acknowledgment of his character and position as "priest of God Most High." To our Priest and King the mightiest and the weakest, the greatest and the smallest, high and low, rich and poor, shall pay heartiest and humblest homage (see Psalms 72:10, Psalms 72:11, Psalms 72:15, Psalms 72:17). "At the Name of Jesus every knee shall bow," etc. (Philippians 2:10, Philippians 2:11). 4. In the duration of his priesthood. "Abideth a Priest continually." This is not to be taken literally as to Melchizedek. Of him it is true in this way, there is no record of the termination of his priesthood by death or otherwise. As he did not receive it from his ancestors, it was not transmitted to his descendants: he yielded "up his priesthood to no one." But in a higher sense his great Antitype "abideth a Priest continually." He is "a Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek." "He ever liveth to make intercession for them that draw near unto God through him."—W.J. Hebrews 7:16 The constitution of our great High Priest. "Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment," etc. In this verse there is a triple antithesis; law is antithetical to power, commandment to life, and carnal to indissoluble. This suggests the following observations concerning the priesthood of Jesus Christ. He became Priest— I. NOT BY THE OF LITERAL "LAW," BUT BECAUSE OF HIS "POWER." Law in the text is the Levitical Law, with the fulfillment of which the Jewish priests had so much to do. It was a thing of the letter—a written thing; it possessed no inherent power; it could impart no spiritual power. By this law the priests of the Judaic economy were constituted. But our Lord was constituted a priest, not by this law, but because of his own spiritual energy. He was in himself perfectly fitted for the high functions of this holy office. Because he was a Divine Being, he had power to represent God to man; because he was a human being, he had power to represent man to God. Inexhaustible spiritual strength is in him for the renewal of the lost moral power of those whose High Priest he is. Because he has power to redeem, sympathize with, succor, and save men, he was made the great High Priest for men. II. NOT BY AN "," BUT BY HIS LIFE? The "commandment" is that part of the Levitical law which ordered the institution and succession of the priesthood. By this statute the descendants of Aaron were appointed priests, irrespective of their personal character and qualifications for the office. But Jesus was made a priest, not by that commandment, but contrary to it, seeing that he was not of the tribe of Levi, but of Judah. It was because of his inner life that he was constituted the High Priest of humanity. Being what he was and is, he could do no other than take up our cause, suffer for us, die for us, and appear as our Representative with the Father. This truth is forcibly expressed by Dr. Bushnell: "Vicarious sacrifice belongs to no office or undertaking outside of holy character, but to holy character itself. Such is love that it must insert itself into the conditions, burden itself with the wants, and woes, and losses, and even wrongs, of others. It waits for no atoning office, or any other kind of office. It undertakes because it is love, not because a project is raised or an office appointed. It goes into suffering and labor and painful sympathy, because its own everlasting instinct runs that way The true and simple account of Christ’s suffering is, that he had such a heart as would not suffer him to be turned away from us, and that he suffered for us even as love must willingly suffer for its enemy. The beauty and power of his sacrifice is, that he suffers morally and because of his simple excellence, and not to fill a contrived place in a scheme of legal justification. He scarcely minds how much he suffers or how, if only he can do love’s work." £ Because of his perfect purity, and infinite love and unspeakable compassion, he necessarily became the great High Priest of the human race. III. NOT AS A , BUT AS A . They who were made priests "after the law of a carnal commandment" were priests only for a time. One generation performed the duties of the office for a number of years, and then was succeeded in those duties by another generation, which in its turn would also pass away. "But after the power of an indissoluble life" our Savior was made a priest. He is "a Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." By its nature his life is perpetual; and he continues forever as our Representative with God (cf. Hebrews 7:23-25). Because of the perfection of this priesthood, human salvation in glorious fullness is attainable. Laws and ceremonies alone could not work out for us any real deliverance from sin, or work in us any true and progressive spiritual life. We need vitality and power in any system or person who would render to us effective help. And in this aspect "the priesthood of Christ," as Bushnell says, "is graduated by the wants and measures of the human soul; the endless life in which he comes matches and measures the endless life in mankind whose fall he is to restore; providing a salvation as strong as their sin, and as long or lasting as the run of their immortality. He is able thus to save unto the uttermost." His life is reproductive. His power is communicable. He imparts spiritual energy to those who by faith are one with him. Apart from him we can do nothing. We can do all things in him that strengtheneth us.—W.J. Hebrews 7:19 The inability and capability of the Law. "For the Law made nothing perfect," etc. The Law spoken of is the ceremonial Law, as we see from the preceding verse. The moral Law is not disannulled in Christianity. Its authority is maintained, its sanctions are corroborated by our Lord. But the ceremonial Law was abrogated by Christ. It found its fulfillment, and so was done away in Christianity. Notice— I. THE OF THE LAW. It was weak and unprofitable; it made nothing perfect. 1. It awakened the consciousness of guilt, but it had no power to remove that consciousness. Its sacrifices proclaimed man a sinner and needing atonement with God; but they would not ease the conscience of its sad sense of sin, or inspire the peace of forgiveness in the troubled breast. 2. It showed the necessity of mediation between God and man, but it made no satisfactory provision for theft necessity. The people had to approach the Most High through the priests; the priests alone must offer their sacrifices; the priests alone had access to the holy place of the tabernacle and the temple. The office of the priesthood exhibited the need of mediation, but it was not an adequate answer to that need. The Judaic priests were themselves sinners; they needed to offer sacrifices for themselves; they were mortal and passed away by death, even as other men. 3. It presented a true ideal of life and conduct, but it afforded no help for the attainment of that ideal. The Law condemns sin; it commands righteousness. But how shall we obey its commands? "To will is present with me, but to do that which is good is not. For the good which I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I practice." Can the Law help us in this need? Can it inspire us with strength to do the true and the good? It has no power to convert, or strengthen, or sanctity the soul. It shows us our obligation, but it affords us no help to discharge it. "What the Law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh," etc. (Romans 8:3, Romans 8:4). II. THE OF THE Law. "The Law made nothing perfect, but it was the bringing in of a better hope, by which we draw nigh unto God." We adopt the rendering of the margin of the Authorized Version, and the interpretation of Calvin, Ebrard, et al., that the Law made nothing perfect, but it prepared the way for the better hope. £ This hope is the gospel hope; the hope which has been brought in by our great High Priest. The Law led the way to this. "The Law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ." "A large picture-book," as Dr. Binney says, "was put before the scholars in the splendid objects of the Levitical institute. The series of things included in this was like a series of prints arranged in order, bound and gilded, and spread before the young, wondering eyes of a number of children. The altar with its fire and blood; the laver with its purifying contents; the sacrifice with the penitent putting upon it his sin, or lifting his eyes and his hands to heaven; the priest in the garments expressive of humiliation, or in his gorgeous robes of ’glory and beauty; ’-these things, with many others that might be specified, were all like so many significant objects, vividly portrayed on the several leaves of an immense picture-book. By familiarity with them the minds of the learners were gradually to open to the spiritual idea contained in each; or were to be prepared for apprehending it when, ’in the fullness of time,’ it should be revealed With new views of the central figure, so much the theme of prophetic song, and the object of national desire, the whole of the Levitical system undergoes a change. It comes to have an intention, to be looked at as constructed for a purpose, which gives to it a deeper and diviner significance than was at first suspected. Priest and sacrifice, altar and propitiation, cease to be realities; they are understood to be only shadows and signs of what was to be found substantially in the person and work, the acts and offices of the great High Priest of our profession." This hope, for which the Law prepared the way, was better than any which the Law could inspire. 1. It is clearer as to its object. The Christian hopes for perfection of being; for holiness of heart and life here, and for heaven hereafter. These things are brought into clearer light in this gospel age than they were under the Law. 2. It is firmer in its foundation. It rests upon Jesus Christ. He is the Rock upon which our confidence and expectation are based. He has revealed God the Father unto us. He has rendered perfect obedience to the holy Law. He offered himself a Sacrifice for sin, of infinite and perpetual efficacy. He ever liveth to represent us in heaven, whither he has entered as our Forerunner. He is "a tried Stone, a sure Foundation" for the hopes of men to rest upon. 3. It is more blessed in its influence. "Through which we draw nigh unto God." The Judaic priesthood tended to make men feel their distance from God, and to keep them at a distance. The priesthood of Jesus Christ brings men near unto him. We need not now the human priest and the bleeding victim for our acceptable approach to the Divine Father. Through the Savior we may draw nigh unto him in our penitence for sin, and obtain forgiveness; in our consecration to him, and meet with gracious acceptance; in the presentation of our needs to him, and receive suitable and abundant supplies; and in hallowed communion with him, and find in it the foretaste and earnest of heaven.—W.J. Christ’s perfect power to save. "Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost," etc. The text suggests the following observations:— I. THAT CHRIST’S SAVING POWER IS . "He is able to save them to the uttermost." Notice: 1. The nature of this salvation. It may be viewed: (1) Negatively. It is deliverance from sin; not merely from the punishment of sin, but from its guilt, its pollution, and its power. (2) Positively. It is the conference of eternal life. By eternal life we do not mean endless existence, for that may become a curse; but life—holy, harmonious, progressive, blessed, perpetual life. "He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life." "The salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory." 2. The perfection of this salvation. "Able to save to the uttermost." The word rendered "uttermost’ does not refer to the duration, but to the perfection, the completeness, of this salvation. Both by its etymology and by its place in the argument it is the exact antithesis of the first clause in Hebrews 7:19. "The Law made nothing perfect;" but "he is able to save perfectly," or to completeness, "them that come unto God by him." The perfection of his saving power authorizes the assertion that he is able to save: (1) The most wicked characters. Saul of Tarsus was "a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious;" he spake of himself as chief of sinners; yet he obtained mercy, and became a most devoted disciple and most heroic apostle of Jesus Christ. The dying robber is another example (Luke 23:42, Luke 23:43). Degraded drunkards, profane swearers, groveling misers, willful unbelievers, cruel oppressors, in countless numbers have been saved by him. None are so deeply sunk in the horrible pit of sin as to be beyond the reach of the long and strong arm of the perfect Savior. He is "mighty to save." (2) The greatest numbers. On the day of Pentecost three thousand souls were converted and added to the Christian Church. St. John in vision "beheld a great multitude, which no man could number," etc. (Revelation 7:9, Revelation 7:10). He is able to save countless millions. Were the number of sinners multiplied a thousandfold he would still be able to save them. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ THE HIGH OF CHRIST FULFILS THE OF THE AARONIC, AND IS ALONE AN ETERNAL REALITY. Christ’s heavenly priesthood, shown above to be of a higher order than that of Aaron, destined to supersede it, is in this section of the Epistle (as intimated in the concluding verses of Heb 7:1-28) set forth in full as the reality foreshadowed by it. The two priesthoods are compared with respect to (1) their spheres, (2) their functions, (3) their effects; and, in the course of the exposition, the two covenants (διαθήκαι) to which they respectively belong are explained and contrasted. Hebrews 8:1 Now the chief matter in (or, in regard to) the things which are being said is (or, to sum up what we are saying). The word κεφάλαιον in itself may mean either "summary" or "chief point." It is not "the sum of what we have spoken," as in A.V. "Caput, id est praecipuum …. dum haec omnia de archisacerdote nostro dicimus, caput totius sermonis, ordine ita postulante, commemorandum venit. Conf. ἐπὶ, Hebrews 8:6; Hebrews 9:10, Hebrews 9:15, Hebrews 9:17; Hebrews 10:28" (Bengel). We have such a High Priest (i.e. such as has been described; cf. Hebrews 7:26), who sat down on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty (or, of Majesty) in the heavens (cf. Hebrews 1:3, and what was there said). Hebrews 8:2 A minister of the sanctuary (τῶνἁγίων, neuter, as in Hebrews 9:12, equivalent to "the holy places;" cf. Hebrews 9:8; Hebrews 10:19), and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. The sphere of Christ’s priestly ministration (λειτουργὸςλειτουργεῖν, λειτουργία, being the recognized words in the LXX. and Josephus for denoting sacerdotal functions,—hence Liturgy) is thus in the first place pointed to as being a heavenly one, symbolized only by the earthly sanctuary. But what is the true tabernacle, in which Christ ministers? Are we to suppose that an actual prototype of the earthly tabernacle is regarded as existing locally beyond the sky? No; it is only implied that there are, in the suprasensuous sphere, facts and relations which are symbolized and made level to our comprehension by local imagery. Still, there may be conceived as present to the writer’s mind an ideal picture of a heavenly temple, such as was seen in vision by prophets, and served to aid their conception of realities beyond their ken. Thus in Psalms 29:1-11., where the thunderstorm is described, the LORD is conceived, in the introductory and concluding verses, as enthroned above it in his heavenly temple, sitting there a King for ever, and worshipped by the "sons of God." Thus in 1 Kings 22:19 Michaiah sees in vision "the Loud sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him, on his right hand and on his left." In Isaiah 6:1-13. this throne is seen as the distinct counterpart of the mercy-seat in the earthly temple, with the winged forms above it, and the "house" filled with the smoke of incense, and live coals upon the altar. Ezekiel’s still more remarkable visions (Hebrews 1:1-14., 10., 11) are in like manner enlargements of the idea of the Shechinah in the holy of holies (cf. also Psalms 11:4; Micah 1:2; Hebrews 2:1-18:20). Then the visions of St. John in the Revelation have the same basis; there is still seen a glorious counterpart above of the temple below; though now with new accessories, expressive of accomplished redemption. But that St. John’s visions are meant only as imagery representing the incomprehensible is evident throughout, and especially from the ideal description of the holy city in Revelation 21:1-27., in which Revelation 21:22 is peculiarly significant: "And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it." In the same way is to be understood the "true tabernacle." If, as we may suppose, the writer had before his mind the prophetic visions of such a heavenly temple, he entertains them only as imaging spiritual facts and relations in the regions of eternity. "Which the Lord pitched," etc., may have reference to Isaiah 42:5, Ὁποιήσαςτὸνοὐρανὸνκαὶπήξαςαὐτὸν, LXX. Hebrews 8:3, Hebrews 8:4 For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this one also have somewhat to offer. For (rather, nay; the reading μὲνοὗν being better supported than the Textus Receptus μὲνγὰρ) if he were on earth, he would not even be a priest, seeing there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law. These verses are in proof of the assertion of Heb 8:2, viz. that Christ has his ministry in the heavenly tabernacle. He has been shown to be a High Priest: therefore he must make some offering, this being the very purpose of a high priest’s office (cf. Hebrews 5:1). But where? Not certainly in the earthly tabernacle, this being served already, and exclusively served, by the sons of Aaron. Therefore it must be in the heavenly sphere symbolized by the earthly tabernacle. And then, in Hebrews 8:5, that there is a heavenly reality, of which the earthly tabernacle is but a shadow, is shown by what was said of the latter when it was made. (What Christ offers in the heavenly sphere is surely his own atoning sacrifice. Some commentators have found a difficulty in this conception on the ground that this his sacrifice had been completed once for all before his ascension. True; but he is regarded as carrying its efficacy with him to the mercy-seat above, and so for ever offering it; even as it is continually commemorated and pleaded in the Eucharist by the Church below. And thus, be it observed, the symbolism of the Day of Atonement is accurately fulfilled. For the high priest did not sacrifice within the tabernacle; he only carried to the holy of holies the blood, representing the atoning efficacy of the sacrifice made outside before his entrance) Hebrews 8:5 Who (i.e. being such as do so; οἵτινες) serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things (ὑπόδειγμα here, as in Hebrews 9:23, means" representation," in the way of copy, not of pattern. "Shadow" (σκιὰ) is opposed in Hebrews 10:1-39. I to εἰκὼν, which denotes the reality, and in Colossians 2:17 to σῶμα), even as Moses is admonished of God when about to make the tabernacle (literally, to complete; but net in the sense of finishing a thing begun, but of carrying out a design to entire completion); for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern that was showed thee in the mount. For the sense of κεχρημάτισται, according to Hellenistic usage, cf. Matthew 2:22, "Being warned of God in a dream (χρηματισθεὶςδὲκατὄναρ)." The reference here is to Exodus 25:40; the words which "the LORD spake unto Moses." Rabbinical writers, holding the view of an actual heavenly tabernacle, the prototype of the earthly one, have concluded from the passage in Exodus that Moses had a vision of it, or that a visible representation of it was exhibited to him on the mount. All that is necessarily implied is that he was divinely admonished to make the tabernacle after the fashion conveyed, in whatever way, to his apprehension when on the mount, so that it might be a true representation of some heavenly reality (cf. Acts 7:44). Hebrews 8:6 But now (νυνὶ in its usual logical, not temporal, sense; cf. Hebrews 11:16; also Hebrews 2:8; Hebrews 9:26; Hebrews 12:26) hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the Mediator of a better covenant, which (ἥτις, equivalent to quippequae, as usual) hath been established upon better promises. Here the idea of the new διαθήκη, introduced first in the way of anticipation at Hebrews 7:22, is brought to the front, to be carried out in what follows. There the proved superior greatness of the predicted priest was made the measure of the superior excellence of the covenant of which he has become Surety; here the superior excellence of the new covenant, which is now to be shown from prophecy, is made /he measure of that of Christ’s priestly ministry, which has just been proved to be of necessity in the sphere of heavenly realities of which the Mosaic ritual was but a copy and shadow. The word here used is not ἔγγυος ("surety"), as in Hebrews 7:22, but μεσίτης ("mediator"); on which it is to be observed that the mediator of the old covenant was not Aaron, but Moses (see Galatians 3:19): it was he that intervened between God and the congregation in the establishment of the covenant; and thus, in this respect also, the priesthood of the new covenant transcends the old one, in that (as was shown also in the earlier part of the Epistle) the type of Moses, as well as of Aaron, is fulfilled in it. The word νενομοθέτηται ("established" in A.V; "enacted" in the recent R.V) expresses the promulgation of a law—appositely in the first place to the Law of Moses, which constituted the conditions of the old covenant; but also to the description of the new covenant, which follows from Jeremiah, according to which the law remains, but to be written on the heart. The gospel is elsewhere regarded under the idea of law, though not a law of bondage, but of liberty—a law, not of the letter, but of the Spirit (see Romans 3:27; Romans 8:2; Romans 9:31; James 1:25). The "better promises" are such as the passage from Jeremiah, quoted below, notably represents. Other passages might be referred to (such as Ezekiel 36:25, etc; Ezekiel 37:24, etc), of similar significance, though not with the same marked mention of a new covenant to supersede the old one. This memorable passage (Jeremiah 31:31-35) occurs in a distinct section of Jeremiah’s prophecies (Jeremiah 30:1-24; Jeremiah 31:1-40), delivered after the commencement of the Captivity, and directed to be written in a book. The subject of the whole section is the restoration of Israel, its ultimate Messianic reference being patent to all who acknowledge any such at all in prophecy. In evidence of this there is not only the passage before us, pointing to an entirely new covenant with Israel, and the ideal tone of the whole prophecy, but also, in particular, the view of all the scattered tribes, not Judah only—the whole ideal Israel—being gathered together from all countries to Zion, and of David himself to rule over them as king. The national and local framework, which the picture has in common with other prophetic visions of the coming days, is of course no difficulty to those familiar with the style of the prophetic books. Hebrews 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for a second. "For" introduces this sentence as a reason for what has been already said; i.e. for a better covenant having been spoken of. The expression might be objected to by Hebrew readers as implying imperfection in the original Divine covenant. "Nay," says the writer, "it was imperfect, it was not faultless; for prophecy itself declares this." Should it be further objected that in the prophecy it is not the old covenant itself that is found fault with, but the people for not observing it, the answer would be that the remedy for their non-observance being the substitution of a new one that would answer its purpose better, some imperfection in the old one is implied. This is indeed the very point of this verse. If it be asked, further, how faultiness in the old covenant is compatible with the view of its Divine origin, the answer is abundantly supplied in St. Paul’s Epistles. His position constantly is that the Mosaic Law, though in itself "holy, just, and true," and adequate to its purpose, was still imperfect as a means of justification. It was but a temporary dispensation, with a purpose of its own, intervening between the original promise to Abraham and the fulfillment of that promise in Christ. Thus it is no derogation to itself or to its Author to charge it with "weakness and unprofitableness" for a purpose it was never meant to answer. Hebrews 8:8-12 For finding fault with them (i.e. the people), he saith (or, as some take it, finding fault, he saith to them), Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will accomplish upon the house of Israel and the house of Judah a new covenant: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts, and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: and they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. The passage is quoted from the LXX., with a few verbal differences which do not affect the meaning. In Hebrews 8:9 our A.V. renders the original in Jeremiah "although I was an Husband unto them," instead of "and I regarded them not (κἀγὼἠμέλησααὐτῶν)." The LXX., followed in the text, gives the more probable meaning. On the whole passage be it observed: 1. "Behold, the days come," like "in that day," is a usual prophetic phrase for denoting the age of the Messiah. 2. The failure of the old covenant is attributed in the first place to the people’s not continuing in it, and then, as a consequence, to the LORD’s withdrawal of his protection. The evidence of such withdrawal immediately before the prophet’s view may be supposed to have been the Babylonian captivity. 3. The distinguishing characteristics of the new covenant are (1) God’s laws, not imposed as an external code, but put into the mind and written on the heart; (2) the general knowledge of the Load by small as welt as great, without the former need of continual admonition; and (3) as the originating and inspiring cause of all, the forgiveness on the Loan’s part of past sins. It is important to perceive that this last characteristic of the new covenant, though coming last in order, is given as the reason for the other two; for this is a first principle of the gospel. The sense of forgiveness through Christ, of acceptance in the Beloved, is ever set forth as the inspiring principle of the obedience of Christians. "We love him, because he first loved us." And hence flow the two results denoted in the prophecy. (1) "I will put my laws," etc; i.e. there will ensue, through the inspiring Spirit, from the sense of forgiveness in Christ, a hearty service of love and loyalty; no mere mechanical observance of an external code. Then, (2) "And they shall not teach," etc; i.e. those who thus, led by the Spirit, give themselves to such hearty service, will acquire, further, an immediate, and as it were instinctive, "knowledge of the Lord," not confined to "the wise" or "the scribe," but the personal privilege of even the "little ones" of Christ (cf. Matthew 11:25, "I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes;" also John 6:45, "It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God;" also 1 Thessalonians 4:9, "But as touching brotherly love, ye need not that I write unto you; for ye yourselves are taught of God to love one another;" also 1 John 2:20, "But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things"). It is not to be inferred (as has been) from this last result that a distinct order of ministry is no essential constituent of the Christian Church for admonition of others. The fact that such a ministry was constituted from the first in all the Churches, and was in active operation when apostles wrote as above, is in itself sufficient disproof of such a view. All that is implied is that all faithful believers, small as well as great (using, of course, the means of grace and edification provided for them in the Church), should themselves have inward illumination and personal communion with God. This is indeed a peculiar glory of the Christian religion. The poorest and the simplest believer may have spiritual perceptions and spiritual experience of his own, surpassing those of his appointed guides, and remaining his own though priests and teachers be unfaithful. "I am small and despised", "yet do not I forget thy precepts." "I have more understanding than all my teachers; for thy testimonies are my meditation." Observe, lastly, the ideality of the whole view given of the effects of the new covenant. It presents to us the purpose, the potentiality, of the new dispensation, rather than results to be fully realized in this world; though still actually realized so far as the "glorious light of the gospel" illuminates the Church, and is allowed to "shine into" the human heart. This remark applies to all Messianic prophecy. Hebrews 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. But that which is becoming old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing away. "He hath made the first old" (πεπαλαίωκε) refers to the time of Jeremiah’s prophecy, not of the writing of the Epistle. The very mention of a new covenant had even then antiquated the other. It thenceforth survived only under the category of old as opposed to new; and further marked with the growing decrepitude which is the precursor of dissolution. This further idea is expressed by the present participle παλαιούμενον (elsewhere applied to garments that are wearing out; cf. Psalms 102:27; Hebrews 1:11; Isaiah 1:9; Isaiah 51:6; Luke 12:33), and also by γηράσκον, a figure taken from the advance of old age in men. When the Epistle was written, it would not have been spoken of as "waxing old," but as defunct. The temple, indeed, was still standing, with the old ritual going on; but it had become but as the stately shrine of a lifeless thing. As to the view of the antiquation having begun even in the prophetic age, we observe that the prophets themselves show a consciousness of this, in that their growing tendency is to depreciate rather than exalt the ceremonial Law, and to put mercy above sacrifice. In fact, the Old Testament itself, especially in its later parts, is replete with the principles of the new covenant, anticipated in part, though not to be fully revealed till Christ appeared. And so, when he did appear, the old dispensation had already become obsolete, and the new one prepared for; to be rejected in Israel by those only who, "in the reading of the Old Testament," had "the veil upon their heart." Hebrews 8:1-6 The chief point. This passage does not present a recapitulation of the topics already considered; it emphasizes, as the crowning topic in connection with our Lord’s priesthood, the fact that he has been "made higher than the heavens." I. THE MAJESTY OF OUR HIGH PRIEST. (Hebrews 8:1) He dwells now in heaven, his native home. He occupies there the loftiest place; for he shares the sore-reign authority and the universal dominion of the absolute God. Aaron exercised his priesthood in an earthly sanctuary made by men’s hands; Christ officiates as our High Priest in the eternal uncreated heavens. Aaron, when he entered the holy of holies once a year on the great Jewish fast-day, merely stood for a short time before the symbolic throne—his attitude one of lowly service; but Christ has "sat down" at the right hand of the Eternal—his attitude that of royal government. It is noticeable that in this treatise the doctrine of the resurrection of Jesus does not receive the prominence which is given to it in almost every Epistle of Paul. Indeed, it is only once mentioned (Hebrews 13:20). But doubtless the reason of this is to be found in the unique design of the treatise. This book alone, of all the books of Scripture, expounds the doctrine of the priesthood of Christ; and it brings into the foreground, accordingly, only those acts which he performed as the Antitype of Aaron—his sacrifice of himself in the outer court of this world, and his passing within the blue veil of heaven to sprinkle his blood upon the mercy-seat. So the writer dwells only upon the death and the ascension of the Savior. II. HIS . (Hebrews 8:2-6) The ministry of the Redeemer is not incompatible with his majesty; for he performs it as the Plenipotentiary of the Godhead, and in virtue of his session at "the right hand of the throne." The heavenly sanctuary in which Christ officiates is here contrasted with the Hebrew sanctuary. We are reminded that the Mosaic tabernacle and its ritual were nothing more than an adumbration of the realities of the true tabernacle. They were only a shadowy prophecy of the priestly ministry of the Lord Jesus. The very furniture of the sacred tent had a symbolic meaning; and every article was formed after a Divine "pattern" (Hebrews 8:5)—the snuffers and incense-spoons as well as the magnificent lamp-stand. But how different the scene of Christ’s continual intercession from the Jewish tabernacle or temple! Having offered himself as a Sacrifice upon the altar of burnt offering which had been set up on Calvary, he had to appear within the sanctuary of God with his atoning blood. Not being, however, a high priest after the order of Aaron, he could not go for this purpose into the temple at Jerusalem; so, if he was to continue to be "a Priest at all’ (Hebrews 8:4), it behooved him to seek another temple. Jesus accordingly ascended to heaven, "the true tabernacle;’ and he carries on his ministry there in "the sanctuary," i.e. in the holy of holies which belongs to that true tabernacle (Hebrews 8:2). The Levitical high priests were but typical mediators, who performed typical services in connection with a typical sanctuary. Jesus is the anti-typical High Priest, who has offered a real sacrifice for sin, and who makes prevailing intercession for his people within the true archetypal tabernacle. His ministry, therefore, is "more excellent" than Aaron’s. LESSONS. 1. For the materialist. The Mosaic tabernacle was a "copy" of the celestial sanctuary; but are not all nature and all earthly relations just an adumbration of the unseen? "What if earth Be but the shadow of heaven, and things therein Each to other like, more than on earth is thought?" (Milton) 2. For the sacerdotalist. Jesus is the one mediating Priest of the New Testament Church; and even he is no longer a sacrificing Priest. He bled and died in the outer court; and he mediates in "the sanctuary" now by intercession. 3. For the formalist. How great the guilt of the man who, while professing to be a Christian, does not make the priesthood of Christ a main theme of his thoughts, and the joy of his heart! 4. For the Christian believer. The saint should more and more rejoice in Jesus as his Priest, and constantly re-commit his soul into his hands, to be introduced to God by him. 5. For the gospel minister. While the teaching of the pulpit ought to range, as far as possible, over the wide sweep of thought which is embraced in the orbit of the Bible, the doctrine of the mediation of our glorified Redeemer must be its "chief point"—the key-stone of all its utterances, whether evangelical or ethical. Hebrews 8:6-13 The new covenant. Here we have another of the broad contrasts which everywhere meet us in this treatise. In those Epistles which are undoubtedly Paul’s, the process of reasoning resembles the movement of a file of soldiers; but in this to the Hebrews, the movement resembles rather that of soldiers in rank. The writer introduces his contrast between the covenants with the remark (Hebrews 8:6) that our Lord’s heavenly ministry as greatly excels that of Aaron as the new covenant which he administers is superior to the old. I. THE OLD WAS . "That first covenant" (Hebrews 8:7) does not refer to the covenant of works, which was made with Adam in Eden; but to the Mosaic dispensation of the economy of grace. This covenant had been solemnly inaugurated and accepted by the Jews at the foot of Mount Sinai (Exodus 24:4-8); and it had been repeatedly renewed in later times (Joshua 24:24, Joshua 24:25; 2 Chronicles 15:12; 2 Kings 11:17; 2 Chronicles 29:1-36; Nehemiah 9:1-38., 10). It was not "faultless;" that is, it was imperfect as a dispensation of grace. The Mosaic institutions were only preparatory to those of gospel times. They were legal rather than evangelical, and sensuous rather than spiritual. They were suited to the nonage of the Church; and "Israel was a child" when God "took him by the hand to lead him forth out of the land of Egypt" (Hebrews 8:9; Hosea 11:1-4). So Judaism taught spiritual truth only in faint outline. Its method was that of spectacular representation. The Law was "our tutor to bring us unto Christ" (Galatians 3:24). II. A OF THE NEW . In order to prove from the Jewish Scriptures the imperfection of the "first" covenant, and to describe the "better promises" of the "new" and final covenant, the writer quotes a most striking passage from the Book of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 31:31-34). This oracle was given when the Jews of Judah were on the brink of the Babylonish captivity, to comfort their desolate hearts with the cheering hope of Messianic times. The chosen people had not "continued" in God’s covenant; and, because they had broken it, he had "regarded them not" (verse 9), but allowed first Israel, and afterwards Judah, to be carried into exile. But Jeremiah is commissioned to announce that, notwithstanding all, God in his wonderful mercy "will make a new covenant" (verse 8), with the whole Hebrew nation. The twelve tribes shall again become one rod in his hand. And all Gentiles, who by faith belong to the true Israel, shall share the blessing. III. OF THE NEW . What are the "better promises"? Jeremiah’s oracle mentions three. 1. The Law written on the heart. (Verse 10) The child is controlled by positive external precept; the man by moral and spiritual principle. During the pupilage of the Church, the Divine laws were written "in tables of stone;" but, now that the Church has come to manhood, they are inscribed "in tables that are hearts of flesh" (2 Corinthians 3:3). The ascendancy of ritualism in any Christian Church means, therefore, a return to the" childish things" of the old covenant—a going back to the swaddling-clothes of religious babyhood. 2. The universal knowledge of God. (Verse 11) During the Jewish dispensation, the average Jew had only an exceedingly dim apprehension of religious truth, whether about God or the way to him, or about holiness or immortality. But, under the new covenant, spiritual truth shall become the longer the more clearly perceived, and the more widely diffused. For now the Holy Spirit is the great Teacher of the Church; and he does not impart esoteric instruction to some special caste, but teaches every believer "from the least to the greatest." What, then, is modern ritualism, but a return to the dim vision of the old economy? It is the use of candies—sometimes literally—in broad daylight. 3. The full forgiveness of sins. (Verse 12) This "promise," although introduced last, precedes the other two in actual bestowment. Sin must be pardoned and cleansed away before the Law can be written on the heart, or the mind flooded with spiritual light. None of the Levitical sacrifices could expiate moral guilt; but on the basis of Christ’s atonement God now imparts that forgiveness which is the precedent condition of moral renewal and of a holy life (Psalms 130:4). . God said at Sinai, in setting up the "first" covenant, "Thou shalt not" (Exodus 20:3-17); but now, in ordering the new covenant, his words are, "I will" (verses 10-12). And what does this change of language imply? "I will" really points to the effusion and diffusion of the Holy Spirit. He was poured out on the day of Pentecost, the anniversary of the giving of the Law from Mount Sinai. It is his presence within the New Testament Church that makes the new covenant so vastly superior to the old. We should ask ourselves whether our souls individually are sharing the blessings of the gospel dispensation. We must remember also that the "better promises" imply on our part definite duties and great responsibilities, And, as regards the world, we must be persuaded that only the general acceptance of the new covenant will extirpate by the roots the enormous evils which still afflict society. BY W. JONES Three better things. "But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry’s etc. In these words the writer states in brief what he at once proceeds to illustrate and establish at considerable length, from this point on to Hebrews 10:18. We may perhaps with advantage take a general glance at these three better things, leaving their particular examination until summoned to it by the development of the Epistle. I. THE BETTER . "But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry" than the high priests of the Jewish Church. The proposition of the text is that our Lord’s ministry is as much better than theirs as the new covenant is better than the old, and the new covenant is better than the old because it has been enacted upon better promises. His ministry is that of our great High Priest, or, in the word used in the text, our Mediator. Let us mention a few particulars in which this ministry of his is more excellent than that of the Jewish high priests. 1. Because it is exercised in a higher sphere. They ministered in the material tabernacle and temple, and for a brief season once a year were permitted to enter the holy of holies where God manifested his presence by a symbol; but these were only copies and shadows of the heavenly realities. Our Savior is a Minister of the heavenly" sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man." He "appears before the face of God for us." 2. Because it extends to greater numbers. The ministry of the Jewish high priests was exercised for the Jews only. It was limited to their own race, and to the proselytes to their religion. But the ministry of Jesus Christ is for all mankind. He "tasted death for every man." He is the "Mediator between God and men" of every nationality, and every race, and every age, etc. 3. Because it is enduring. The ministry of individual Jewish high priests ended at their death, if not before; and that ministry as an institution waxed old and vanished away. But the ministry of our great High Priest is of perpetual vitality and efficacy. His mediation will never be superseded, never lose its attractiveness and glory, until man is fitted to approach God without a mediator. 4. Because it secures richer results. These results, or some of them at least, are referred to in the "better promises." The results of the ministry of the Aaronic priesthood, like its functions, were to a great extent symbolic and shadowy rather than essential and real. But through the ministry of the Christ we obtain real benefits and essential blessings: e.g. reconciliation with God, forgiveness, etc. II. THE BETTER . "He is the Mediator of a better covenant." But what are we to understand by the word "covenant"? As used in human relations it denotes a compact or agreement between two or more parties, who are equal, each of whom has the right to propose alterations in the terms of the compact, and to accept or reject such terms. In this sense there can be no covenant between God and man; for there is no equality between the parties, and man cannot reject any requirement of God without committing sin. Perhaps it is for this reason that the word which strictly signifies covenant is not used in the New Testament. But as applied to God and man the "covenant" denotes his method of revealing himself to men, and his will concerning their salvation, his arrangement of agencies and means and conditions by which they may be saved. "The word ’covenant’ becomes appropriate in view of the solemn assent and consent with which man accepts God’s proposal, involved in his scheme or plan. In this context the ’old covenant’ is the scheme revealed to Israel under Moses; the ’new’ is the gospel scheme involving the gift and work of both the Son and the Spirit of God." The old covenant was good, as our text implies. It originated in the grace of God. It involved on his part condescension towards man. It was designed and fitted to benefit and bless and save man. It promised life and blessing to those who complied with its terms; and its promises were true. But the new covenant is very much better than the old. This will appear when we come to notice the "better promises." At present we mention only two aspects of its superiority. 1. It presents a more spiritual revelation of the character and will of God. Under the old covenant nearly everything was expressed by means of material forms and symbols—nearly everything appealed to the senses. Its laws, its ritual, its promised blessings, pertained largely to the visible, the sensuous, and the temporal. It was a revelation suited to the childhood and youth of our race. But the new covenant gives us a more spiritual manifestation of the Divine mind and will; it is a revelation for the manhood of our race. It proclaims the spirituality of God and of his worship. It writes the Divine law upon men’s hearts. It promises spiritual blessings. 2. It is a fuller expression of the grace of God. (Cf. John 1:14-18; Romans 3:24; Romans 5:21; Romans 6:14) The next division of our subject will show us that there is more of Divine grace manifested in the new than in the old covenant. III. THE BETTER . "A better covenant, which hath been enacted upon better promises." The promises which the writer has chiefly in view are those mentioned in Hebrews 10:10-12. Let us mention some of these better promises of the new covenant. 1. It proffers strength to comply with its own conditions. The old covenant promised blessings to the obedient; the new promises blessings to enable us to render obedience. The Holy Spirit is promised to incline our hearts to the good, to strengthen us for duty, etc. 2. Justification for the sinner on condition of faith in Jesus Christ. (Cf. Romans 3:20-26; Romans 10:5-10; Galatians 3:10-14) 3. Sanctification of the believer by the Holy Spirit. (Cf. John 14:16-18, John 14:26; John 15:26; John 16:7-15; Romans 15:13, Romans 15:16; 2 Corinthians 3:18) 4. Glorification of his people forever in the future state. (Cf. Romans 8:17, Romans 8:18, Romans 8:30; 2 Corinthians 4:17; 2 Timothy 2:10; 1 Peter 5:10) Verily, these are better promises than those of the old covenant. And the covenant to which they belong is far better than the old one. By so much, also, is our Lord’s ministry better than that of the Aaronic high priests. Let us give earnest heed to secure our personal interest in this new and "better covenant."—W.J. Hebrews 8:10 Law and love in the new covenant. "For this is the covenant that I will make," etc. The paragraph from which our text is taken is a quotation from Jeremiah 31:31-34. It is said that the Lord "will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah;" but this is spoken, not of Israel according to the flesh, but of the spiritual Israel—the spiritual seed of Abraham (cf. Romans 2:28, Romans 2:29; Romans 9:6-8; Galatians 3:7-9). Notice— I. THE OF LAW IN THE NEW . One of the great distinctions between the two covenants arises from the materiality of the old one and the spirituality of the new one. In nothing is this more manifest than in the matter of Law. Law is present in both of them. But in the old it was engraved upon tables of stone; in the new it is written upon the hearts of men. Under the old the people were led "by the hand," guided by visible symbols; under the new they are led by the heart, guided by spiritual influences. Our text sets forth certain aspects of Law in the new covenant. 1. Law present in the mind. "I will put my laws into their mind." It, the former dispensation Law was spoken to the outward ear, it was made visible to the bodily eye; and so given, it was often soon neglected and forgotten. But in the present dispensation, to those who have by faith entered into covenant relation with God, Law is given as a possession of their spiritual nature. It is not external to them, but is present within their minds as a rule of action and as a theme for meditation. 2. Law treasured in the heart. "And on their heart also will I write them." When a thing is highly esteemed by us, or when a cause has awakened our deep interest, we say with propriety that it lies near our heart. With greater emphasis and deeper significance do we say the same of one whom we love. So in the new covenant Law holds a high place; it is prized and loved. It is loved as being good in itself. "The Law is holy, and the commandment holy, and righteous, and good." It is loved, also, as being the expression of our Father’s will. There were instances under the old covenant in which the Law was loved and delighted in, but they were rare exceptions to the general rule. Under the new covenant the Law of the Lord will be increasingly prized and loved and obeyed. 3. Law embodied in the life. "Out of the heart are the issues of life." Writing the Law upon the heart is a pictorial way of expressing the inspiration of a disposition to obey Law. God will give his people courage to profess his laws, "and power to put them in practice; the whole habit and frame of their souls shall be a table and transcript of the Law of God." The Law which they love in their heart they will express in their lives. This is the highest revelation of Law. It is most effective in relation to the individual; it is most clear in relation to others, and most influential also. This revelation is the work of the Holy Spirit. It is he who illumines the mind, inspires the heart, etc. II. THE OF LOVE IN THE NEW . "And I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people." We do not mean to imply that the giving of the Law unto the minds and hearts of God’s people was not an expression of his love; for such in truth it was. But here is a brighter manifestation of his love. Notice: 1. God’s relation to the Christian. "I will be to them a God." He will be to them all that they could desire and expect to find in their God. He gives himself as the chief blessing of the new covenant. He will be to his people "as great, as wise, as powerful, as good as he is in himself." We have all things in him (1 Corinthians 3:21-23). We have his wisdom for our direction, his power for our protection, his love for our spiritual satisfaction and joy, his Spirit for our instruction, consolation, and sanctification, his heaven for our abiding and blessed home. A whole library dealing with these words could not fully express the number and preciousness of the blessings which are comprehended in them—" I will be to them a God." 2. The Christian’s relation to God. "And they shall be to me a people," This is set forth as our privilege; and a great one it is. But the privilege has its obligations. If by faith in Jesus Christ we have entered into this covenant relation with God, we have the right to expect its blessings from him, and we axe solemnly bound to fulfill its duties to him. Our duty to which the covenant binds us includes (1) supreme affection to God; (2) reverent worship of him; (3) hearty consecration to his service; (4) cheerful compliance with his will May we be enabled both to perform the duties and to enjoy the privileges of this gracious covenant.—W.J. Hebrews 8:11, Hebrews 8:12 Knowledge and mercy in the new covenant. "And they shall not teach every man his neighbor," etc. I. MAN’S , OF GOD UNDER THE NEW . "And they shall not teach every man his fellow-citizen, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord," etc. We have here: 1. The highest subject of knowledge. "The Lord: all shall know me?" This is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God," etc. This knowledge is: (1) Sublimest in its character. There is no knowledge so exalted as this. Knowledge of astronomy is a high attainment; but it is not to be compared with knowledge of him who made the stars and all worlds, and who sustains them and presides over them. (2) Widest in its extent. He is infinite, and can never be fully known by man: "The knowledge of God and of Christ," says Dr. Harris, "is the sum of all science; this is the only knowledge that can incorporate and mingle with our being; and all other knowledge is real only so far as it is symbolical of this." (3) Mightiest in its moral influence. It transforms the character of those who possess it (cf. 2 Corinthians 3:18). 2. The purest source of knowledge. The obligation of men under the old covenant to impart to each other the knowledge of God is implied in the text. This obligation is not abolished under the new covenant; but there is less need for such private instruction because of the frequent public services of qualified ministers of the gospel. Moreover, the text undoubtedly refers to the communication of knowledge by the Holy Spirit. "The agency of the Holy Ghost is assumed under this covenant as ’the Spirit of truth,’ the supreme and most vital Teacher of this true knowledge of God. For the covenant, taken in the large sense of a system of agencies, is definitely and certainly the gospel age as distinguished from the Mosaic; and of this gospel age or dispensation, the gift of the Holy Ghost, to teach, impress, and enforce the true knowledge of God, is the center and the soul, even as Jesus is the center and soul of the Christian economy considered as ’the Propitiation for our sins,’ and our great High Priest before the throne of God. The results as given here come of his teaching and of no other" (H. Cowles, D.D). This knowledge does not spring from mere human conjecture, or imagination, or investigation, or ratiocination; but from spiritual revelation. "All thy children shall be taught of the Lord." "Ye have an anointing from the Holy One, and ye know all things" (1 John 2:20, 1 John 2:27). 3. The clear apprehension of knowledge. Proceeding from so crystalline a source, the stream will be clear. If our mind and heart be free from prejudice, then the instruction concerning God which we receive from the Word and the Spirit will be clear and correct; what we know of him we shall know truly. 4. The wide diffusion of knowledge. "All shall know me, from the least to the greatest of them." Primarily the "all" refers to the "people" (Hebrews 8:10) of God: all of them shall know him. But eventually there shall be a universal diffusion of the knowledge of God. This the sacred Scriptures distinctly affirm (Matthew 24:14; Matthew 28:19; Luke 24:47; Revelation 14:6). II. GOD’S MERCY TO MAN UNDER THE NEW . "For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins," etc. Under the new covenant God manifests his rich grace in the way in which he forgives sin. We have here: 1. The source of forgiveness. "I will be merciful." Forgiveness does not spring from man’s repentance, but from God’s mercy. Repentance is a condition of forgiveness, but the grace of God is its source. Apart from his grace repentance is impossible unto us. "By grace are ye saved," etc. (cf. Ephesians 2:7-10). 2. The fullness of forgiveness. He pardons "their iniquities and their sins." He cleanses "from all unrighteousness." "The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." None are too numerous, none too aggravated, etc. (cf. Isaiah 1:18; Isaiah 4:1-6:7). 3. The irrevocableness of forgiveness. "Their sins will I remember no more." Strictly speaking, the Infinite Mind cannot forget anything. But God forgives so completely that the sins are as it were buried in deep oblivion. His forgiveness is irrevocable. This inspiring truth is repeatedly and impressively expressed in the Bible (Psalms 103:12; Isaiah 38:17; Isaiah 43:25; Isaiah 44:22; Micah 7:19). This rich, abounding mercy is the reason of man’s fuller, clear knowledge of God. There was mercy in the old covenant, but in that it was not pre-eminent as in the new one. The chief feature of that was Law; the chief feature of this is grace. Forgiveness leads to gratitude and love to the Forgiver; and love leads to the clearer, wider knowledge of him. If you would know God truly, intimately, deeply, you must love him.—W.J. Decaying and departing. "Now that which decayeth and waxeth old," etc. In these words the writer states a general principle of which the old covenant was an illustration. That covenant was relatively old, because a new one had been introduced; it was also absolutely old, and had not "in itself the strength to exist much longer." When anything arrives at that condition its end is not far off—it "is nigh unto vanishing away." Let us indicate a few of the applications of this principle. It is applicable to— I. FORMS OF . In our text it is thus applied to the Mosaic economy. Many of our present religious forms—forms of Church government and forms of worship—are of human origin. If they are vital and suit the circum- stances and conditions of this age, let them be maintained; but if they do not, and cannot be made to do so, by all means let them go. In fact, a living Church will certainly put off its dead forms by the natural expression of its life. The late A.J. Scott says wisely and beautifully, "True reverence for antiquity seeks a Church presenting the clearest image of eternity in the midst of the mutations of time. This she is to do by the inward vigor of the essential principles of her life, dropping off forms no longer useful, as the oak has done the leaves of last summer. The live oak abides the same by its vitality, while it changes form and dimensions by growth: the mass of squared timber has lost its power of assimilation, its command of resources; death enables it to remain unchanged in form, till death brings decay that changes form and substance. What is dead is changed from without; what lives changes from within." And Dr. Huntington forcibly says, "When religious forms have first been devised, a certain freshness of conviction has gone into them that has made them vital. But presently the life has refused to stand and stagnate in these cisterns, and so ebbed away and sought out new channels. The mistake has been that the forms have insisted on standing, after the life within was gone; and accordingly their figure has been that of wooden vessels shrunk and dried in the sun." Now, where the vitality has gone, let the form go also; for, as Carlyle says, "the old never dies till all the soul of good that was in it has got itself transfused into the practical new." Let the dead forms pass away— "For who would keep an ancient form? Through which the spirit breathes no more?" (Tennyson) II. FORMS OF BELIEF. Much that is said above on religious organizations is equally applicable to religious creeds. As Mr. J.A. Froude puts it, "While the essence of religion remains the same, the mode in which it is expressed changes and has changed—changes as living languages change and become dead, as institutions change, as forms of government change, as opinions on all things in heaven and earth change, as half the theories held at this time among ourselves will probably change—that is, the outward and mortal part of them." The living faith of the Church may need restatement. The language in which man’s apprehension of the great verities of the gospel was expressed in past ages may become stiff, cold, unexpressive, and obsolete as regards the apprehension of those verities in this age. Then let it go. And reverently in the living language of today, let the living faith of today be expressed. The living faith—that is the great thing. "A living doctrine never need advertise for a body, nor go carefully about to invent one, any more than a young oak needs to advertise for a trunk and branches. God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him. Get the faith, and it will shape a form of its own." III. HUMAN LIFE IN THIS WORLD. If life be so far prolonged, the time comes when the human form becomes old and waxeth aged and is nigh unto vanishing away. "The days of our years are threescore years and ten," etc. (Psalms 90:10). When the earthly house of our tabernacle is worn out we know that it will soon be dissolved. The departing vitality tells us that the body itself will soon vanish away. Its decrepitude heralds its disappearance. This is a reason: 1. Why the aged should live in readiness for their departure hence. 2. Why the aged should be treated with considerate kindness. Their age has a claim upon our respect, unless its character forbids respect, and then it should elicit our pity. Their feebleness makes its silent and touching appeal to us for support. And they will soon be beyond our sight and our services. By the help of God let us seek so to live that, when the time of our departure draws near, we may be ready to leave this world, having finished our work, and to enter upon the, to us, unknown future, having committed ourselves to the keeping of the "great God, and our Savior Jesus Christ."—W.J. BY C. NEW Hebrews 8:1-5 Heaven the place where this great High Priest ministers. Does the writer mean, "This is the summing up," or "This is the chief point"? We accept the latter, and that we have here no recapitulation, but an advance, the point to which he has been coming from the first. Christ, High Priest; Christ, High Priest greater than Aaron. So far we have come. Subject—Heaven the place where this great High Priest ministers. From this comes the truth to which he has been looking from the beginning, that in heaven, as the true holy of holies, is fulfilled what was exhibited in type in the tabernacle. I. THE THAT CHRIST IS HIS HIGH WORK IN HEAVEN. "We have a High Priest," etc. Jesus in heaven, acting as our Representative, is the crowning point of what the writer has to say about our Lord. Is not that the crowning point of all that can be said about him? Can we ever know the full blessedness of Jesus till, in our habitual thought of him, he who lived on earth, and died, and rose, is ever seen and felt to be living for us in the heavenly places? 1. The declarations of Scripture give us this assurance. That is intimated in the use made here of Psa 110:1-7., the whole of Heb 7:1-28. being based on it—the Messiah was to be a Priest at God’s right hand. The same word gives us the same assurance; but whereas to the Jew it was prediction, to us it is fulfillment. "He was received up into heaven," declare evangelists and apostles. 2. The discharge of his priestly functions necessitates this. "But [not ’now’] if he were on earth he would not be a priest at all," etc. He could not discharge his priestly duties on earth; the Law would forbid it of one not of the tribe of Levi. If, then, he is Priest, and called to what is priestly, and this cannot be on earth, it must be in heaven, for there is no other place where he could legally minister. But we Christians get the assurance that Christ in heaven is acting as High Priest, in what we find he has actually done and is ever doing. He sends his people what he promised when he should be there. Those gifts and communications come to them from heaven which they know could not come but for his mediatorial work. 3. The fulfillment of sacred types demands this. (Hebrews 7:5) A very important statement, for it occurs no less than five times in the Pentateuch—proof that the Jewish ritual was but a shadow of certain Divine realities. The ministry of the priests, therefore, must have its celestial counterpart. The high priest, after the sacrifice on the Day of Atonement, entered within the veil to present the atoning blood before the mercy-seat. That is the type; then the fulfillment must be in Christ. In the Book of Revelation the Christian sees this fulfilled in a series of visions: Christ redeeming the world, subduing his foes, completing his Church, and all this through his exaltation to the heavenly throne. II. THE EXALTED IN HEAVEN IN WHICH THIS HIGH WORK IS BEING . The Hebrews regarded the high priestly ministry with awe. How the majestic contrast drawn here must have arrested their attention, and surprised them by its claim: "We have such," etc.! 1. It implies our Lord’s equality with the Father. On the supreme throne only Jehovah can sit; he who sits with him as his co-equal must, with him, be one God. He who ascended is he also who descended. The Incarnation was the condescension of God himself. Get high thoughts of Jesus, for it will exalt our hope, and make our salvation more sure to our mind, and reveal fresh depths in the Divine mercy. 2. This also implies his fearlessness in the presence of the Father. The Jewish priest stood and trembled and adored within the veil. Jesus sat down on the throne. Why should he fear? we might ask. Because he went there as man’s Representative. The Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all, he bowed his head in death under the awful burden, he then ascended into heaven, and sat down on the Father’s throne. Then how certainly he had put away sin by the offering of himself! 3. This further implies his possession of the favor of the Father. He sat there—why? Because God said unto him, "Sit thou at my right," etc. The Father’s delight must indeed be fixed on him he asks to share his throne. But it is as our Mediator he is exalted thus. Of his own right, by his own Deity, that throne was his; the invitation to ascend it was made to him as our Representative. That gives utmost encouragement to us. The welcome given to Jesus is really a welcome to all prayers for his people. III. THE EFFECT WHICH THE OF CHRIST AS HIGH PRIEST SHOULD HAVE UPON OUR HEARTS. 1. It should lead us to inquire whether we are among God’s Israel. "We"—whom does that include? The high priest entered the holiest of all for every Israelite; every Israelite could say, "He is there for me." Christ, in like manner, appears in heaven for the true [not the typical] Israel, the true seed of Abraham, they who are of faith. Faith admits into God’s Israel, and for all these Christ is High Priest. Then, are we of these? 2. It should make us feet the sufficiency of his mediation. We can need no other priest if we have Jesus, and no other sacrifice. What can a man on earth add to that which in him we have in heaven itself! 3. It should assure us of the supply of every necessity. Jesus, who has the Father’s ear, is at the Father’s right hand; and there for us. Then we have nothing to fear.—C.N. Christ in heaven, the Mediator of the new covenant. The argument of Heb 7:1-28. has a further object than the mere proving our Lord’s superiority to Aaron. The priesthood being altered and centered in him, most important facts bearing on the spiritual position of the Hebrews grow out of it. The priesthood was the center of the dispensation; they stood and fell together. A new priesthood means a new and better dispensation. That is the purport of Heb 8:10 -18, where this idea is worked out by the writer in three particulars. (1) is in Hebrews 8:1-5. If the priesthood is raised to heaven, then heaven is the true tabernacle and the old is abolished. (2) is that in these verses; subject—Christ in heaven, the Meditator of the new covenant. We have a Mediator in heaven; but for what ends does he mediate? Not those which the former priesthood had in view, for since they were appointed for them, they may be assumed to have been sufficient for them. It must, then, be for some higher end, for purposes not possible under Aaron. The writer turns, as usual, to their Scriptures, and points them to the declaration in the Book of Jeremiah, "Behold, the days come," etc. A new and better covenant was promised six hundred years before. Behold in Christ the possibility of the fulfillment of that prediction; through him exalted are to be bestowed the larger blessings promised in the latter days. Moreover, the fact of another covenant promised proves the imperfection and temporary character of what then was. At the moment of writing, the old covenant was trembling to its fall. That generation had not passed till the venerable symbols of the old covenant had disappeared from the earth like the mist of the morning. I. GOD HAS MADE A NEW WITH MEN. A covenant is an agreement. God has undertaken, agreed, covenanted to give certain blessings to men. He is a God in covenant with the race. A testament is a will, a promise to be fulfilled after death. It is a covenant, with the additional idea that it can only be fulfilled after the death of him who makes it. In the Gospels and Epistles (though not so in Old Testament) these two words are used interchangeably as the translation of one word. The two "testaments" are God’s two covenants, which can only be fulfilled through the events of Calvary. 1. The history of the Divine covenant. The "new" covenant was only new in a certain sense; in reality it was the old—the original covenant on which the Jewish was temporarily grafted. God’s covenant was one from beginning to end. First made in Eden, we see it gradually expanding and working out, till in the Apocalypse we have its perfect consummation in a redeemed world. The covenant with Abraham was a separate and special covenant with regard to his seed alone, and in time to be absorbed in the older covenant of world-wide aspect. 2. What was the purpose of the Abrahamic covenant? Owing to the corrupt state of the world, it was necessary that a nation should be singled out, and prepared to receive the Messiah and his gospel—a nation through which the truth should spread world-wide. Hence the covenant with Israel—a covenant of Law; wonderful blessings promised on obedience. This tended to humiliation, was constantly broken and renewed, and thus carried to the heart of the people the sinfulness of sin, man’s inability to deliver himself, and. his need of redemption through another. When that was accomplished it was no more needed, and was abolished, and only the original covenant remained. II. THE OF THE NEW IS SEEN IN ITS TO THE OLD. The prophecy of Jeremiah quoted here contains three particulars of such a contrast. 1. A conscience pacified by perfect forgiveness. The twelfth verse begins with "for," and contains the ground of the preceding. Forgiveness first. In the Jewish economy the expiation of sin was imperfect and temporary, and quite unfit to perfect the conscience of the worshipper. The sacrifices provided a kind of legal pardon by which the nation was kept in special relation to Jehovah, but they could not put away moral guilt; "it was not possible that the blood," etc. But the new covenant made ample provision for all that was needed—a forgiveness free ("merciful"), comprehensive ("iniquities and sins"), irreversible ("remember no more"), a forgiveness that meant the annihilation of the record from the very memory of Heaven. 2. A mind enlightened by direct communion with God. "I will be to them," etc. The Jewish ritual made the people dependent on the priests for their knowledge of Jehovah; they might not enter the tabernacle, nor approach the symbol of the Divine presence; for the mass of Israel clouds and darkness were round about God. But through the new covenant we all have "access by one Spirit unto the Father." 3. A heart willingly consecrated to the Divine service. "My laws in their mind and heart." Even under Judaism some were able to say," Oh how I love thy Law!" but it was not so with the average Jew. To him the Law was irksome and restraining. He might conform to it outwardly, but it was by the compulsion of fear, or a slavish sense of duty; his obedience did not carry his heart with it. But under the new covenant there is a new nature in harmony with the Divine will, a disposition inclining us to obedience. "Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?" III. BY THE OF A NEW AND PERFECT , THE OLD IS . "In that he saith, A new," etc. The practical lesson for today in this is—You are living under the new covenant; see to it that you possess its blessings. 1. Remember the high character of these blessings covenanted to us. Doubtful, shadowy, partial forgiveness; the intervention of the priest for personal knowledge of God; right-doing not so much from willingness as fear;—that was the old covenant. Are not many Christians rather living under this than under the new? 2. Remember the universal possibility of these blessings. The old covenant was restrictive, national, hereditary, and belonged to Abraham’s seed only. But under the new covenant exclusiveness has vanished. God is in covenant with the race. His promises are to "every creature." The rainbow of this covenant spans the world. 3. Remember the certain permanence of these blessings secured by the mediation of Christ. As Aaron was the mediator of the old, Christ is of the new covenant; that is, its blessings are bestowed through him. We can only receive them from his pierced hands, and as the result of his priestly work. But he is ever presenting his pleading blood before the throne on his people’s behalf, therefore they shall continue for ever. Christ’s continuance is the pledge of their continuance; "an everlasting covenant, ordered in," etc.—C.N. BY J.S. BRIGHT Here we have The substance of the argument, and illustrations hitherto adduced. It was the aim of the writer to show from prophecy, and the nature of the priesthood, and sacrifices of the Mosaic Law, the unrivalled and peculiar glory of Jesus Christ, and in these few verses the truths of the preceding arguments are recapitulated. It hints at the desirableness of reviewing the course of exposition, and the advantage, well known to all teachers, of the value and necessity of repeating important truths, that the things which have been uttered may not be misunderstood or forgotten. In this summary we have— I. THE GLORY OF CHRIST IN HIS . He is seated "as a Priest upon his throne," which declares a decisive contrast to the brief and anxious standing of the high priest of old, who once a year, with anxiety and trembling, appeared in the holy of holies and performed the service of sprinkling the blood before the mercy-seat on the Day of Atonement. He prepared, as the Jews say, for this work with considerable solicitude, and returned to his own house at sunset in peace, and rejoiced that the solemn service had been legally performed. Our Lord is seated on the throne of an infinite majesty, and rejoices in the contrast between his past sorrows and his present glory. It was a blessed change for Moses to leave the tending of his flock and going after the lost and wandering sheep amid the solitudes of Sinai, and afterwards to commune with the "Father of lights," and catch the transient splendor which honored him as a servant and betokened the Divine joy of his soul in the service of Jehovah. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ The sphere of Christ’s "more excellent ministry," as the "Mediator of a better covenant," having been shown to be elsewhere than in the earthly tabernacle, the ministry itself is now contrasted with that of the superseded priesthood. With this view the latter is described, and shown to express in itself its own insufficiency and to point to a more availing one to come. Hebrews 9:1 Then verily (or, now indeed) the first covenant also (or, even the first covenant) had ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary (rather its sanctuary of this world (τὸἅγιονκοσμεκόν). The definite article points to the well-known one of the Mosaic dispensation, which, unlike the true one, was in its bearings, as well as locally and materially, of this world only). This sanctuary itself is now first described in necessary preparation for an account of priestly ministrations in it. Hebrews 9:2-5 For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbead; which is called the holy place. And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the holy of holies; having a golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid with gold, wherein was a golden pot having the manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant; and over it the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy-seat; of which things we cannot now speak particularly. The tabernacle as a whole is first spoken of; and then its two divisions, called respectively "the first ’and "the second" tabernacle. The account of them is from the Pentateuch, and describes them as they originally were. In the then existing temple there were neither ark, mercy-seat, nor cherubim, though the ceremonies were continued as though they had been still there. The ark had been removed or destroyed in the sack by the Chaldeans, and was never replaced (for the Jewish tradition on the subject, see 2 Macc. 2:1-8). Josephus says (’Bell. Jud.,’ 5.5. 5) that in the temple of his day there was nothing whatever behind the veil in the holy of holies; and Tacitus informs us (’Hist.,’ 5 9) that, when Pompey entered the temple, he found there "vacuam sedem et inania arcana." A stone basement is said by the rabbis to have occupied the ark’s place, called "lapis fundationis." In the "first tabernacle," called "the holy place" (ἅγια probably, not ἁγία: i.e. a neuter plural, equivalent to "the holies"), the table of shewbread (with its twelve loaves in two rows, changed weekly) stood on the north side, i.e. the right as one approached the veil; and opposite to it, on the left, the seven-branched golden candlestick, or lamp-stand, carrying an oil-lamp on each branch (Exodus 25:1-40; Exodus 37:1-29; Exodus 40:1-38). Between them, close to the veil stood the golden altar of incense (ibid); which, nevertheless, is not mentioned here as part of the furniture of the "first tabernacle," being associated with the "second," for reasons which will be seen. The "second veil" was that between the holy place and the holy of holies (Exodus 36:35), the curtain at the entrance of the holy place (Exodus 36:37) being regarded as the first. The inner sanctuary behind this second veil is spoken of as having (ἔχουσα) in the first place "a golden censer," as the word θυμιατήριον is translated in the A.V. (so also in the Vulgate, thuribulum). But it assuredly means the" golden altar of incense," though this stood locally outside the veil. For (1) otherwise there would be no mention at all of this altar, which was so important in the symbolism of the tabernacle, and so prominent in the Pentateuch, from which the whole description is taken. (2) The alternative view of its being a censer reserved for the use of the high priest, when he entered behind the veil on the Day of Atonement, has no support from the Pentateuch, in which no such censer is mentioned as part of the standing furniture of the tabernacle, and none of gold is spoken of at all; nor, had it been so, would it have been placed, any more than the altar of incense, within the veil, since the high priest required it before he entered. (3) Though the word itself, θυμιατήριον, certainly means" censer," and not "altar of incense," in the LXX., yet in the Hellenistic writers it is otherwise. Philo and Josephus, and also Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen, always call the altar of incense θυμιατήριονχρυσοῦν; and the language of the Epistle is Hellenistic. (4) The wording does not of necessity imply that what is spoken of was locally within the veil: it is not said (as where the actual contents of the "first tabernacle" and of the ark are spoken of) wherein (ἐνᾖ), but having (ἔχουσα), which need only mean having as belonging to it, as connected with its symbolism. It was an appendage to the holy of holies, though not actually inside it, in the same way (to use a homely illustration given by Delitzsch) as the sign-board of a shop belongs to the shop and not to the street. It is, indeed, so regarded in the Old Testament. See Exodus 40:5, "Thou shalt set the altar of gold for the incense before the ark of the testimony;" also Exodus 30:6, "Before the mercy-seat that is over the testimony;" and 1 Kings 6:22, "The altar which was by the oracle," or, "belonging to the oracle;" cf. also Isaiah 6:6 and Revelation 8:3, where, in the visions of the heavenly temple based upon the symbolism of the earthly, the altar of incense is associated with the Divine throne. And it was also so associated in the ceremonial of the tabernacle. The smoke of the incense daily offered on it was supposed to penetrate the veil to the holy of holies, representing the sweet savor of intercession before the mercy-seat itself; and on the Day of Atonement, not only was its incense taken by the high priest within the veil, bat also it, as well as the mercy-seat, was sprinkled with the atoning blood. Of the rest of the things described as belonging to the holy of holies, it is to be observed that, though none of them were in it when the Epistle was written, yet all (except the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod) were essential to its significance, as will be seen; and all, with these two exceptions, were in Solomon’s temple as well as in the original tabernacle. An objection that has been raised to the accuracy of the description, on the ground that the pot and the rod are not said in the Pentateuch to have been placed inside the ark, is groundless. They were to be laid up "before the LORD" (Exodus 16:33); "before the testimony" (Numbers 17:10); and "the testimony" elsewhere means the tables of the Law (Exodus 25:16; Exodus 31:18; Exodus 40:20, etc), which were within the ark. It was most likely that they would be kept for safe preservation in the same place with the" testimony," before which they were ever to be. Further, what is said (1 Kings 8:9 and 2 Chronicles 5:10) of there being nothing in the ark but the two tables of stone when it was moved into Solomon’s temple, is no proof that nothing else had been originally there. It seems, indeed, rather to favor the idea that there had been, as implying that something more might have been expected to be found there. The mercy-seat, as is well known, was the cover of the ark, over which the wings of the two cherubim were spread. The expression, "cherubim of glory," probably has reference to the luminous cloud, significant of the Divine presence, which, occasionally at least (there is no sufficient ground for concluding it to have been a permanent manifestation), is said to have been seen above them. The cherubim, whatever their exact significance, are represented as accompaniments of the Divine glory (cf. Isaiah 6:1-13. and Ezekiel 1:1-28. and 10). Hebrews 9:6 Now these things being thus ordained (A.V; rather, arranged or constituted; it is the same word (κατασκευάζω) as was used in Hebrews 9:2, "there was a tabernacle made;" also in Hebrews 3:3, Hebrews 3:4, of God’s "house;" on which see supra), the priests go in continually into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the services. (Observe that here, where the ministrations are described, present tenses are used; perhaps because these ministrations were still going on when the Epistle was written) The continual services in the "first tabernacle" were (1) lighting the lamps every evening, and trimming them every morning (Exodus 27:21; Exodus 30:8; Le Exodus 24:3); (2) renewing the twelve loaves of shewbread every sabbath (Leviticus 24:5, etc); (3) burning incense on the golden altar twice daily, when the lamps were trimmed and lighted (Exodus 30:7, Exodus 30:8), at the time of the morning and evening sacrifice, the people meanwhile praying outside (Luke 1:10). Hebrews 9:7, Hebrews 9:8 But into the second the high priest alone, once in the year, not without blood, which he offereth for himself and for the errors (literally, ignorances; cf. Hebrews 9:2) of the people. For the ceremonies on the Day of Atonement, see Leviticus 16:1-34. They may be summarized, in their main characteristics, thus: (1) The high priest brought to the door of the tabernacle a bullock as a sin offering for himself, and two goats as a sin offering for the people; also a ram as a burnt offering for himself, and a ram as a burnt offering for the people. (2) After washing and arraying himself in white linen garments (not the ordinary official dress), he cast lots on the two goats which were for the people’s sin offering—one lot being "for the LORD," the other "for Azazel;" that on which the former lot fell being for sacrifice, the other to be set free. (3) He sacrificed his own sin offering, entered the holy place with the blood thereof, filled a censer with burning coals from the golden altar, went with it within the veil, sprinkling incense on the coals, "that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy-seat, that he die not;" took also the blood within the veil, and sprinkled the mercy-seat therewith. (4) He returned outside the tabernacle, sacrificed the people’s sin offering, i.e. the goat that was "for the LORD," entered the holy place with its blood, and proceeded as before; sprinkling also the altar of incense, as well as the mercy-seat, with the blood of both sacrifices, to "hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel." (5) He again returned outside the tabernacle, laid his hands on the head of the goat "for Azazel," confessing over him "all the iniquities of the children of Israel, putting them on the head of the goat," and sent him away to the wilderness, where he was to be let go. (6) He again entered the tabernacle, where he put off his linen garments, and left them there, and then, after washing again, and putting on his ordinary official dress, sacrificed his own and the people’s burnt offering. (7) The bodies of the two sin offerings (the bullock and the slain goat) were taken outside the camp, and there entirely consumed by fire. The points in this ceremonial here especially noted are: (1) That the entrance within the veil was only "once in the year," i.e. on one only day in the year; for on that day the high priest entered more than once. The meaning is that ordinarily, except on that single day, approach to the innermost shrine was closed to all. (2) That even on that day the high priest alone entered; neither the people, nor even the priesthood generally, ever had approach to the holiest of all. (3) That even he could not enter "without blood;" neither the daily sacrifices nor all the ordinary ceremonial of the Law availed for his access: he must take with him the blood of special sin offerings, or he still could not enter and live. (4) This blood he offered "for himself and for the ignorances of the people;" for himself, since he too was "compassed with infirmity," and required atonement (Leviticus 16:2), and also for the people’s ignorances. There is a significance in this word. It was not the sins done with a high hand that had to be atoned for on that day; these were either visited by "cutting off," or atoned for in ways appointed for the purpose: it was the less definite and undetected sinfulness, infecting the whole community, and remaining after all ceremonial cleansing, so as to debar them from coming "boldly to the throne of grace," that was yearly kept in remembrance on the Day of Atonement. Hence before even the high priest could enter and not die, the mercy-seat over "the testimony" which was within the ark must be enveloped with the cloud of incense and sprinkled with the blood which "covereth sin" (the verb translated "make atonement for" means properly "cover"). The sin was still not taken away, only "covered" for the time; for the holy of holies after the ceremony remained closed as before, and the same rites had to be repeated at each yearly entrance. All that was expressed was an ever-recurring need of atonement, not yet effected truly, though symbolically prefigured. The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all (so the A.V., giving the idea correctly, though the expression is simply τῶνἁγίων, which might denote only the holy place, as in Leviticus 16:2, if we there read ἅγια and not ἁγία, but is used for the holy of holies in Leviticus 16:24, Leviticus 16:25, and for its heavenly antitype in Leviticus 16:13. This last, as typified in the earthly sanctuary, is what is intended here) hath not yet been made manifest, while as the first tabernacle is yet standing (or rather, has standing (ἐχούσηςστάσιν); has a place in the symbolical representation). The "first tabernacle" here spoken of certainly does not mean the earthly one as opposed to the heavenly, but what the expression denotes throughout the chapter, the holy place in distinction from the holy of holies. How, then, is the continued existence of this a sign that the way to the heavenly holy of holies has not yet been made manifest? Obviously because it intervenes between the congregation and the holy of holies of the earthly tabernacle, debarring all approach to the latter, and even hiding it from their view. This debarring intervention signifies that there is no approach for them as yet to what the holy of holies symbolizes. Further, the ordinary ministry of the priests themselves did not extend beyond this "first tabernacle:" this alone was the sphere of the services which they accomplished daily; and so the very fact of its existing for this purpose expressed that even their mediation was not availing for access to the inner mercy-seat. And that this was so is intimated with peculiar significance by the direction that, when the high priest alone entered within the veil, none even of them should be in the holy place at all, so as to see beyond it: "And there shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation when he goeth in to make an atonement in the holy place" (Le Leviticus 16:17). Hebrews 9:9 Which (ἥτις, with its usual force) is a parable for the time present (i.e. present as regarded from the standpoint of the old dispensation. The A.V., translating "then present," and using past tenses throughout, though departing from literalism, still gives, we conceive, the idea correctly); according to which (referring to "parable," if we adopt the best-supported reading, καθἥν. The Textus Receptus, followed by the A.V., has καθὅν, referring to "the time") are offered both gifts and sacrifices (cf. Hebrews 9:1), which cannot, as pertaining to the conscience, make him that doth the service (or, "the worshipper," the idea not being confined to the officiating priest; cf. Hebrews 10:2, where τοὺςλατρεύοντας is translated "the worshippers") perfect. The emphatic expression here is κατὰσυνείδησιν. The gifts and sacrifices of the Law availed in themselves only for external ceremonial purification; they did not reach, however typical, the sphere of man’s inner consciousness; they could not bring about that sense of spiritual accord with God which is spoken of in Jeremiah 31:1-40. as marking the new covenant (see below, Jeremiah 31:13, Jeremiah 31:14). Hebrews 9:10 Rendered in A.V.," Which stood only in (μόνονἐπὶ) meats and drinks and divers washings, and carnal ordinances [καὶδικαιώμασισαρκὸς, Textus Receptus], imposed on them (ἐπικείμενα) until the time of reformation." This is a satisfactory rendering of the Textus Receptus, ἐπὶ before "meats," etc., being taken in the sense of dependence, and ἐπικείμενα necessarily as agreeing with "gifts and sacrifices" (δῶρατεκαὶθυσίαι) in Hebrews 9:9. But there are other readings, though none, any more than that of the Textus Receptus, to be decidedly preferred on the mere ground of manuscript authority. The best sense seems to be given by that of δικαιώματα instead of καὶδικαιώματι, so that we may render (ἐπὶ being taken in the sense of addition), Being only (with meats and drinks and divers washings) carnal ordinances, imposed until the time of reformation. We thus have an obvious neuter plural (δικαιώματα) for ἐπικείμενα to agree with, and we avoid the assertion that the "gifts and sacrifices" of the Law "stood only" in "meats," etc. This was not so; their essential part was blood-shedding (αἱματεκχύσια Hebrews 9:22) the other things here mentioned were but accompaniments and appendages. The "meats and drinks" spoken of may refer mainly to the distinctions between clean and unclean viands, which we know were made such a point of by the Jews of the apostolic ago. The "diverse washings" (βαπτισμοῖς) may be taken to include both the ablutions of the priests before sacrifice, and those enjoined on the people in many parts of the Law after ceremonial defile-merit, which kind of washings had been further multiplied variously in the traditional law. Hebrews 9:11, Hebrews 9:12 But Christ having come (παραγενόμενος, cf. Matthew 3:1; Luke 12:51) a High Priest (or, as High Priest) of the good things to come, through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation (κτίσεως), nor yet through the blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, entered in once for all (ἐφάπαξ) into the holy place, having obtained (εὑράμενος, not necessarily antecedent to εἰσῆλθεν) eternal redemption. On the futurity expressed (here and Hebrews 10:1) by "the good things to come" (the reading μελλόντων being preferred to γενομένων), see under Hebrews 1:1 (ἐπἐσχάτουτῶνἡμερῶντούτων) and Hebrews 2:5 (τὴνοἰκουμένεντὴςμέλλουσαν). Here, certainly, the period of the earthly tabernacle having been the temporal standpoint in all the preceding verses, futurity with regard to it may, without difficulty, be understood; and hence "the good things" may still be regarded as such as have already come in Christ. On the other hand, there is no difficulty in regarding them as still future. For the full and final result of even Christ’s perfected high priesthood is not yet come. But what is "the greater and more perfect tabernacle," through which he entered the heavenly holy of holies? It seems evidently, in the first place, to be connected with εἰσῆλθεν, being regarded as the antitype of that "first tabernacle" through which the high priests on earth had passed in order to enter within the veil; διὰ having here a local, not an instrumental, sense. The instrumental sense of the same preposition in the next clause (διὰτοῦἰδίουαἵματος) is not against this view. In English, "through his own blood he entered through the tabernacle" presents no difficulty, though "through" is used in two different senses. But what is exactly meant by the tabernacle through which Christ has passed? Bearing in mind what was said under Hebrews 8:2 of the prophetic visions of a heavenly temple—corresponding to the earthly one—and that the epithet ἀχειροποίητος is applied also (verse 24) by implication to the counterpart of the holy of holies, and also the expression (Hebrews 4:14), "having passed through the heavens (διεληλυθόντατοὺςοὑρανοὺς)," we may regard it as denoting the heavenly region beyond this visible sphere of things (οὐταύτηςτῆσ̓τίσεως), intervening between the latter and the immediate presence, or "face," of God. Thus "through the greater and more perfect tabernacle" of this verse answers to "having passed through the heavens" of Hebrews 4:14; and "entered once for all into the holy place" of Hebrews 4:12 to "entered into heaven itself" (the very heaven) of verse 24. Thus also the symbolical acts of the Day of Atonement are successively, and in due order, fulfilled. As the high priest first sacrificed the sin offering outside the tabernacle, and then passed through the holy to the holy of holies, so Christ first offered himself in this mundane sphere of things, and then passed through the heavens to the heaven of heavens. Delitzsch, taking this view, offers a still more definite explanation; thus: "The former (τὰἅγια) is that eternal heaven of God himself (αὐτὸςὁοὐρανὸς) which is his own self-manifested eternal glory (John 17:5), and existed before all worlds; the latter (ἡσκηνή) is the heaven of the blessed, in which he shines upon his creatures in ’the light of love’—’the temple of the tabernacle of the testimony in heaven’ of Revelation 15:5, which the apocalyptic seer beheld filled with incense-smoke from ’the glory of God, and from his power.’" There are other views of what is meant by "the greater and more perfect tabernacle." The most notable, as being that of Chrysostom and the Fathers generally, is that it means Christ’s human nature, which he assumed before passing to the throne of the Majesty on high. This view is suggested by his having himself spoken of the temple of his body (John 2:21), and calling it, if the "false witnesses" at his trial reported him truly, ἀχειροποίητον (Mark 14:58); by the expression (John 1:14), "The Word was made flesh, and tabernacled (ἐσκήνωσεν) among us;" by St. Paul’s speaking of the human body as a tabernacle (2 Corinthians 5:1, 2 Corinthians 5:4); and by Hebrews 10:19, Hebrews 10:20, where the "veil" through which we have "a new and living way into the holy place through the blood of Jesus" is said to be his flesh. There is thus abundant ground for thinking of Christ’s body as signified by a tabernacle; and the expression in Hebrews 10:19, Hebrews 10:20 goes some way to countenance such an interpretation here. The objection to it is that it seems neither suggested by the context nor conformable to the type of the high priest on the Day of Atonement. For, if the human body of Christ assumed at his birth is meant, he entered into that before, not after, his atoning sacrifice; and if, with Hofmann, we think rather of his glorified body, in what sense in accordance with the type can it be said that he entered through it? We should rather say that he ascended with it to the right hand of God. The further points of contrast between Christ’s entrance and that of the earthly high priests are: (1) The instrumental medium was not the blood of goats and calves (specified here as having been the sin offerings on the Day of Atonement), but his own blood; he was both Priest and Victim. (2) He entered, not yearly, but once for all; there was no need of continual repetition. And the conclusion is drawn flint the redemption he thus wrought is consequently complete and eternal. The first of these contrasts is enlarged on from Hebrews 10:13 to Hebrews 10:24; the second (denoted by ἐφάπαξ) is taken up at Hebrews 10:25. On the word "redemption" (λύτρωσις: in some other passages ἀπολύτρωσις) it is to be observed that it means, according to its etymology, release obtained by payment of a ransom (λύτρον), and thus in itself involves the doctrine of atonement according to the orthodox view. It is true that in many Scripture passages it is used (as also λυτρούσθαι and λυτρωτής) in a more general sense to express deliverance only, but never where the redemption of mankind by Christ is spoken of. In such eases the λύτρον is often distinctly specified, as in Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45, "his life;" in 1 Timothy 2:6 and Titus 2:14, "himself;" in Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14; 1 Peter 1:19, "his blood;" cf. also infra, 1 Peter 1:14. As to how the availing power of the atonement is to be understood, more will be said under the verses that follow. Hebrews 9:13 For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling those that have been defiled (κεκοινωμένους, cf. Matthew 15:11, etc; Acts 21:28), sancfifieth to the purifying (literally, unto the purity, καθαρότητα) of the flesh. In addition to the sin offerings of the Day of Atonement, mention is here made of the red heifer, whose ashes were to be mixed with water for the purification of such as had been ceremonially defiled by contact with dead bodies (for account of which see Numbers 19:1-22). They are classed together because both were general sin offerings for the whole congregation, representing the idea of continual and unavoidable defilements notwithstanding all the daily sacrifices; the difference between them being that the ashes were reserved for use in known cases of constantly recurring defilement, the sin offerings on the Day of Atonement were for general sin and defilement, known or unknown. But neither, in themselves, could from their very nature avail for more than outward ceremonial cleansing—" the purity of the flesh." This, however, they did avail for; and, if so, what -must the cleansing power of Christ’s offering be? Its deeper efficacy shall appear from consideration of what it was. Hebrews 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purify your (al. our) conscience from dead works to serve the living God? As in Hebrews 9:11, Hebrews 9:12 Christ’s entrance was contrasted with that of the high priest, so here is the sacrifice itself, in virtue of which he entered, similarly contrasted. The points of contrast to which attention is drawn are these: (1) It was the blood, not of beasts that perish, but of Christ himself—the Christ, the Hope of Israel, whose Divine prerogatives have been set forth in the preceding chapters. (2) He offered himself. His offering was a voluntary self-oblation, not the blood-shedding of passive victims. (3) His offering was realty "spotless" (ἄμωμος) in the sense of sinless—the only sense that can satisfy Divine justice—symbolized only by the absence of material blemish in the ancient sacrifices. (4) And this he did "through the eternal Spirit." This expression, which comes first in order, has an important bearing on the meaning of the whole passage, and calls for especial consideration. Be it observed, first, that the words are "the eternal Spirit," not "the Holy Spirit." It is not the usual designation of the Third Person of the Holy Trinity. (The reading ἅγιου for αἰωνίου has not much authority in its favor, and is, besides, much more likely to have been substituted than the other) What, then, is meant by "the eternal Spirit," through which Christ offered himself spotless? There are three notable texts in which the Spirit in Christ is opposed to the flesh: Romans 1:3, ΤοῦγενομένουἐκσπέρματοςΔαβὶδκατὰσάρκατοῦὁρισθέντοςυἱοῦΘεοῦἐνδυνάμεικατὰΠνεῦμαἁγιωσύνηςἐξἀναστάσεωςνεκρῶν 1 Timothy 3:16, Ἐφανερώθηἐκσαρκὶἐδεκαιώωθηἐνπνεύματι: 1 Peter 3:18, Θανατωθεὶςμὲνσαρκὶζωοποιηθεὶςδὲτῷπνεύματι. In all these passages the Spirit is that Divine element of life in Christ, distinct from the human nature which he assumed of the seed of David, in virtue of which he rose from the dead. In us men, too, according to St. Paul, there is the πνεύμα, as well as σάρξ and ψυχή (sometimes πνεύμα and σάρξ alone are spoken of)—the higher principle of life within us, in virtue of which we can have communion with God and be influenced by his Holy Spirit. Any act of acceptable sell oblation that we might be capable of would be done through the spirit that is in us, to which the flesh is subdued. Corresponding to this in Christ was "the eternal Spirit"—a truly Divine spiritual Personality, conjoined with his assumed humanity. Through this he overcame death, it being impossible that he should be holden of it; through this, too he offered himself a willing sacrifice, submitting to the full penalty of human sin in obedience to the Father’s will. Thus is prominently brought to view the spiritual aspect of the atonement. Its especial virtue is said to lie, not in the mere suffering or the mere physical blood-shedding and death upon the cross, but in its being a voluntary act of perfect obedience on the part of him who was the Representative of man, and in whom "the eternal Spirit" triumphed over the weakness of humanity. The agony in the garden (see under 1 Peter 3:7, etc) is illustrative of this view of the virtue of the atonement. There we perceive "the eternal Spirit" in the Savior completely victorious over natural human shrinking. The same view appears in the reference to Psalms 40:1-17 in Hebrews 10:1-39., where "Lo, I come to do thy will, O God" expresses the essential principle of the availing sacrifice (see below on Hebrews 10:5, etc). Hence follows what is said next of the effect of such a sacrifice as this was—to purify, not the flesh, but the conscience (συνειδησιν), meaning "man’s inner consciousness" with regard to God and our relations to him. It belonged essentially to the spiritual sphere of things, and in that sphere (as was not the case with the old sacrifices) must be, and is felt to be, its availing power. It was, in fact, just such a sacrifice as man’s conscience, if enlightened, feels to be due to God. Man, as he is now, cannot make it; but in the "Son of man" he sees it made, and thus finds at last the idea of a true atonement fulfilled. In the expression, "dead works," there may be an intended allusion to the dead bodies from the pollution of which especially the "ashes of an heifer" purified; and in "to serve" (εἰςτὸλατρεύειν) there is an evident reference to the legal type. As the legal sin offering purified the flesh from the contamination of contact with the dead, so that the Israelites, thus cleansed, might offer acceptable worship, so Christ’s offering of himself fulfils what was thus typified; it purifies the "conscience" from the contamination of "dead works," so that we may offer our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is our λογικὴλατρεία (Romans 12:1). On νεκρῶνἔργων, see under Hebrews 6:1. Here, the idea of general pollution pervading the whole congregation having been prominent in what precedes, we may, perhaps, take the expression as denoting all human works whatever "done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of his Spirit," all being regarded as tainted with sin, and so dead for the purpose of justification. The purification from them which is spoken of involves (be it further observed) both justification through atonement and sanctification through grace: the first, since, otherwise, the very meaning of the old sin offerings would not be fulfilled; the second, as denoted by the concluding clause, "to serve," etc. The second is the necessary sequence of the first. Believers are not only "cleansed from their former sins," but also put into a position for offering an acceptable service. In the life of Christ in whom they live, and who ever liveth to make intercession for them, they can henceforth "serve the living God." There is involved, in fact (to return to the account of the new covenant in Jeremiah 31:1-40), both oblivion of past sins and a writing of the Law upon the heart. Hebrews 9:15-17 And for this cause he is the Mediator of a new testament, that by means of death (literally, death having taken place), for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. Here the view of the gospel as a new διαθήκη (introduced first in Hebrews 7:22, and enlarged on in Hebrews 8:6-13) is again brought in. For the word is still διαθήκη, though here, for reasons that will appear, rendered "testament" in the A.V. The connecting thought here is—It is because of Christ’s sacrifice having been such as has been described, that he is the Mediator of that new and better covenant; it qualified him for being so. A sacrifice, a death, was required for giving it validity (Hebrews 9:16-23), and the character of his sacrifice implies a better covenant than the old, even such a one as Jeremiah foretold. Further, the purpose of his death is said to be "for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant." For in the passage of Jeremiah the defect of the first covenant was based on the transgression of its conditions by man, while under the new one, such transgressions were to be no more remembered. But this could not be without atonement for them; the whole ceremonial of the Law signified this; and also that such atonement could not be except by death. The death of Christ satisfied this requirement; and so the new covenant could come in. So far the course of thought is clear. Nor is there difficulty in understanding the purport of verse 18, etc., taken by itself, where the "blood-shedding" that inaugurated the first covenant is regarded as typical of that of Christ in the inauguration of the new one. But there is a difficulty about the intervening verses (16, 17), arising from the apparent use of the word διαθήκη in a new sense, not otherwise suggested—that of testament rather than covenant. The verses are, as given in the A.V., For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be (φέρεσθαι. a word of which the exact meaning is not clear; some interpret "be brought in, or proved," some "be understood, implied ") the death of the testator (τοῦδιαθεμένου, equivalent to "him that made it"). For a testament is of force after men are dead (ἐπὶνεκροῖς): otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth (or, for doth it ever avail while he theft made it liveth? ἐπεὶμήποτε: cf. Hebrews 10:2; Romans 3:6; 1 Corinthians 14:16; John 7:26; Luke 3:15). Now, the word διαθήκη itself undoubtedly may bear the sense of "testament." Its general meaning is " disposition," or "settlement;" and it may denote either compact between living persons, or a will to take effect after the testator’s death. In the verses before us it appears to be used specifically in the latter sense. For they express general propositions, which are not true of all covenants, but are true (according to their most obvious sense) of all testaments. Further, this sense is distinctly applicable to the new διαθήκη, regarded as the dying Christ’s bequest to his Church. Hence, but for the context, we should naturally so understand it in these verses. The difficulties attending this sense are: (1) The word is not used in this specific sense before or afterwards in this Epistle or in Jeremiah 31:1-40., which is the basis of the whole argument, or elsewhere, apparently, either in the Old Testament or the New. (2) The sense does not suit the case of the old διαθήκη, which was a covenant between the living God and his people; and there is no intimation of two senses being intended in the two cases: indeed, in the passage before us, the same sense seems to be distinctly implied, since the blood-shedding which inaugurated the old is at once (in Jeremiah 31:17) spoken of as answering to the death which inaugurated the new, as though death inaugurated both in the same sense. (3) The word, in the sense of covenant (equivalent to the Hebrew berith), is common in the LXX., expressing an idea familiar to Jews and Jewish Christians, while testamentary dispositions were, as far as we know, unfamiliar to the Hebrews; and, though the Roman testamentary law may have come into use when the Epistle was written, it is thought unlikely that the writer, addressing Hebrews, would have referred to it in illustration of a Divine dispensation, or, if he had, have used a word so well known to them in its traditional sense. (4) Christ is called (here as well as in Hebrews 12:24 and Hebrews 13:20) the Mediator (μεσίτης) of the new διαθήκη: but a testament does not require a Mediator, nor, if it has one, can the same person be both mediator and testator. If, however, the sense of testament should seem inevitable here, we may explain as follows. Though the word has been used so far in a general sense, yet the writer, on the suggestion of θανάτουγενομένου in verse 15, passes in thought at verse 16 to the specific sense of testament, as suiting the case of Christ, the language he uses being sufficient for carrying his readers with him in the transition. Further, though the old διαθήκη was not in itself a testament, yet it was typical of that which was; its whole ceremonial foreshadowed the future Testator’s death, and so, in a typical sense, it might also itself be called one. Consequently, in verse 18, the inaugurating sacrifices of the old dispensation are regarded as representing the death of the testator; for they prefigured Christ, through whose death the "eternal inheritance" is bequeathed to man. (In accordance with this view, the Vulgate renders διαθήκη testamentum throughout the Epistle, even when the old dispensation is referred to) As to ὁδιαθέμενος (translated "the testator"), it is, according to this view, ultimately God the Father in the new διαθήκη, as well as in the old, though, of course, the Godhead could not die. But the Father having placed the whole inheritance destined for mankind in the hands of Christ as Mediator, in his human death the testator died. And thus one of the difficulties above mentioned may be met, viz. that of Christ being regarded both as Testator and Mediator. Christ was, in fact, both—Testator, in that, being one with God, he bequeathed through his death the kingdom appointed unto hint by the Father; Mediator, in that it was through his incarnation only that the "eternal inheritance" willed to us by the Father could be transmitted in the way of testament. So in effect Chrysostom explains. Apposite to this view of the subject are his own words (Luke 22:29), "And I appoint (διατίθεμαι) unto you a kingdom, as my Father appointed (διέθετο) unto me." Here we have the same verb (διατίθεμαι) as is used in the Epistle. And though, in the passage from St. Luke, the idea of a testamentary appointment is not necessarily implied, yet it is naturally suggested where Christ is speaking on the eve of, and with reference to, his death. There is, however, another view taken (decidedly by Whitby, Ebrard, and in the recent ’Speaker’s Commentary’), according to which the idea of a testament does not come in at all, the word διαθήκη retaining here, as elsewhere, its usual sense of covenant. The position is that, though the propositions of verses 16, 17 are not true of all covenants, yet there is a sense in which they are true of any covenant between God and man; which is the only kind of covenant that the writer has in view, or that his readers would be led to think of by the previous reference to Jeremiah 31:1-40., or by the associations of the word διαθήκη as used in the Old Testament. The sense in which the propositions are true of such a covenant is thus expressed by Ebrard: "Whenever sinful man will enter into a covenant with the holy God, the man must first die—must first atone for his guilt by death (or must put in a substitute for himself)." This principle is expressed (it is alleged), not only by the sacrifices that inaugurated this covenant of the Law, but also wherever a covenant between God and man is spoken of in the Old Testament; e.g. in the covenant with Abraham (Genesis 15:8, etc., and Genesis 22:1-24). In the case of covenants between man and man (as between Abraham and Abimelech, and between Jacob and Laban) there was no need of slain victims, whoso life had to be given for that of one of the contracting parties; but there is always expressed such need in the case of a covenant between God and man. Further, the expression, διαθήκηἐπὶνεκροῖςβεβαία, is, according to this view, illustrated by Psalms 50:5, where the LXX. has τοὺςδιατιθεμένουςτὴνδιαθήκηναὐτοῦἐπὶθυσίαις (in the Vulgate, qui ordinant testamentum ejus super sacrificiis). The same preposition ἐπὶ is used in both passages, and ἐπὶθοσίαις is supposed to express the same idea as ἐπὶνεκροῖς. This passage from the psalm is certainly much to the point in support of the view before us, serving moreover to meet in some degree one principal objection to it, viz. that it requires ὁδιαθέμενος to be understood of the human party to the covenant, and not of its Divine Author. Such is not the most obvious application of the word, nor the one sanctioned by the quotation from Jeremiah, or by other references to the Divine covenant (see supra, Hebrews 8:10, and also Genesis 15:18; Deuteronomy 5:2, Deuteronomy 5:3; Luke 12:29; Acts 3:25; as well as Exodus 24:8, quoted below (verse 20), where διέθετο, not ἐνετείλατο, is the word in the LXX. But such is the application in Psalms 50:5, and may be considered, therefore, not untenable. The writer may, indeed, have had the expression in the psalm in his mind when he wrote the verses before us. It appears from what has been said that difficulties attend both the views that have been above explained. It is not here attempted to decide between them. Hebrews 9:18 Wherefore neither hath the first (testament, A.V; or, covenant) been dedicated without blood. Here the blood of slain victims, which had been essential for the first inauguration of the old διαθήκη, is referred to as expressing the principle of Heb 9:16, Hebrews 9:17, viz. that there must be death for a διαθήκη to take effect. Whichever view we take of the intended import of the word, the reference is equally apposite in support of the introductory proposition of Heb 9:15; which is to the effect that Christ’s death (θανάτουγενμένου), fulfilling the symbolism of the old inaugurating sacrifices, qualified him as Mediator of a new διαθήκη. Hebrews 9:19, Hebrews 9:20 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water anti scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, This is the blood of the covenant (A.V. testament) which God enjoined unto you (strictly, to you-ward; i.e. enjoined to me for you). The reference is to Exodus 24:3-9, where the account is given of the inauguration of the covenant between God and the Israelites through Moses. He "came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD hath said will we do." And then he wrote all the words of the LORD in a book, and builded an altar under the mount, and sacrifices were offered, and half of the blood was sprinkled on the altar, and the words were read from the book, and again the people undertook to observe them, and the other half of the blood was sprinkled on the people, and so the covenant was ratified. The essential part of the whole ceremony being the "blood-shedding," it is of no importance for the general argument that the account in Exodus is not exactly followed. The variations from it are these: (1) The mention of goats as well as calves or bullocks—of water—of the scarlet wool and hyssop—and of the sprinkling of the book, instead of the altar, as in Exodus. (2) The words spoken by Moses are differently given, τοῦτο being substituted for ἰδοὺὁΘεός for Κύριος and ἐνετείλατο for διέθετο. On these variations we may observe that the mention of goats may have been suggested to the writer’s mind by the ceremonies of the Day of Atonement, previously alluded to; and it is not inconsistent with the account in Exodus, where the victims used for the "burnt offerings" are not specified, only the bullocks for "peace offerings." Nor is there inconsistency in the other additions to the ceremonial. The scarlet wool and hyssop were the usual instruments of aspersion (a bunch of the latter being apparently bound by the former to a stick of cedar; cf. Exodus 12:22; Leviticus 14:50; Numbers 19:6, Numbers 19:18). It may have been usual to mix water with the blood used for aspersion, if only to prevent coagulation (see Lightfoot on John 19:34), though in some cases certainly also with a symbolical meaning (cf. Le Exodus 14:5, 50); and, if the book was, as it was likely to be, on the altar when the latter was sprinkled (Exodus 24:6, Exodus 24:7), it would itself partake of this sprinkling, and, being thus consecrated, would be then taken from the altar to be read from to the people and to receive their assent, previously to the sprinkling of themselves with the moiety of the blood reserved. Probably the whole account, as here given, was the traditional one at the time of writing (see below, on verse 21). With regard to the slightly altered form of the words spoken by Moses, it is an interesting suggestion that the writer may have had in his mind our Lord’s corresponding words in the institution of the Eucharist, beginning in all the accounts with τοῦτο, and being thus worded: in St. Luke, Τοῦτοτὸποτήριονἡκαινὴδιαθηκηἐντῷαἱματίμουτὸὑπὲρὑμῶνἐκχυνομενον: and in St. Matthew and St. Mark, Τοῦτοἐστιτὸαἱμάμουτὸτῆςκαινῆςδιαθήκηςτὸπερὶπολλῶνἐκχυνόμενον, St. Matthew adding εἰςἄφεσινἁμαρτιῶν. That Christ in these words referred to those of Moses is obvious, speaking of his own outpoured blood as the antitype of that wherewith the old διαθήκη was dedicated; and it is likely that the writer of the Epistle would have Christ’s words in his mind. Hebrews 9:21 Moreover the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry be sprinkled in like manner with the blood. This refers to a subsequent occasion, the tabernacle not having been constructed at the time of the inauguration of the covenant,—probably to the dedication of the tabernacle, enjoined Exodus 40:1-38., and described Leviticus 8:1-36. It is true that no sprinkling of the tabernacle or its furniture with blood is mentioned in the Pentateuch; only the anointing of them with oil (Le Leviticus 8:10). But the garments of Aaron and his sons are said on that occasion to have been sprinkled with the blood as well as with the anointing oil (Hebrews 8:1-13:30), and Josephus (’Ant.,’ 3.8. 6) says that this blood-sprinkling was extended also to the tabernacle and its vessels (τήντεσκηνὴνκαὶτὰπερὶαὐτὴνσκεύη). Here, as well as in Leviticus 8:19, our writer may be supposed to follow the traditional account, with which there is still nothing in the Pentateuch inconsistent. Be it observed again that the force of the argument does not depend on these added details, but on the general principle, abundantly expressed in the original record, which is assorted in the following verse. Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are according to the Law purified with blood; and without shedding of blood there is no remission. The essentiality of blood, which is "the life of all flesh," for atonement and consequent remission, is emphatically asserted in Leviticus 17:11, which expresses the principle of the whole sacrificial ritual. The idea seems to be that the life of man is forfeit to Divine justice (cf. Genesis 2:17), and so blood, representing life, must be offered instead of his life for atonement. Hebrews 9:23 It was therefore necessary (i.e. in accordance with the principle above expressed) that the patterns (rather, copies, see Hebrews 8:5, supra) of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. According to the view taken under Hebrews 8:2 and Hebrews 9:11, "the heavenly things" here must be taken to denote the corresponding realities in the heavenly sphere of things to which Christ has gone. But how can they themselves be said to require purification or cleansing? The mundane tabernacle did, being itself conceived as polluted by human sin; but how so of the unpolluted heavenly tabernacle? The answer may be that the expressions, chosen to suit the case of the earthly type, need not be pressed in all their details as applying to the heavenly sanctuary. With regard to the latter, they may he meant only to express that, though it be itself pure, yet man requires purification for access to it, and that for this purpose "better sacrifices" are required. "In hac apodosi verbum καθαρίζεσθαι, mundari, subauditum, facit hypallagem: nam exleslia per se sunt pura, sed nos purificandi fuimus, ut ilia possemus capessere" (Bengel). The general meaning is obvious enough. Commentators sometimes raise needless difficulties, and may sometimes even miss the essential purport of a passage by the too constant application of the critical microscope. If, however, it be thought necessary to find a sense in which the heavenly sanctuary may be said to need purification, the idea may be the appeasing of Divine wrath which bars the entrance of mankind. Hebrews 9:24 For not into holy places made with hands did Christ enter, which are figures (ἀντίτυπα, antitypes) of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of (literally, before the face of) God for us. This verse confirms the view that "the heavenly things" of Hebrews 9:23 denoted the heavenly regions into which Christ is entered. Ἅγια at the beginning of the verse may be better translated "holy place" (as at Hebrews 9:12 and Hebrews 9:25) rather than "places," since here the heavenly counterpart of the holy of holies, as distinguished from the" first tabernacle," appears to be in view, viz. "heaven itself," the heaven of heavens, the immediate presence or "face" of God, the "throne of the Majesty on high," to which Christ passed through the intermediate heavens. There he now (the perpetual now of the new era of accomplished redemption), in his humanity, in behalf of and representing all humanity, beholds for ever the very face of the eternal God, which Moses could not see and live, and of which the typical high priest saw from year to year but the emblem, in transitory glimpses, through intervening clouds of incense. The word ἀντίπυπα, like ὑποδείγματα in Hebrews 9:23, expresses the idea of the earthly sanctuary being a visible representation answering to a heavenly reality. The original τύπος (type) was shown to Moses in the mount (Hebrews 8:5); what was constructed by him on the earth below was the antitype to it. The words τύπος and ἀντίτυπος are elsewhere used to express respectively a prophetic figure of a fulfillment to come and the fulfillment itself (as in Romans 5:14 and 1 Peter 3:21, baptism in the latter text being regarded as the ἀντίτυπον of the Deluge), but still with the same idea of the type being prior to the antitype, the latter answering to the former. Hebrews 9:25, Hebrews 9:26 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others (i.e. blood not his own, ἀλλοτρίῳ); for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now (probably νυνί, not νῦν, meaning "as it is ") once at the end of the ages hath he appeared (rather, been manifested, πεφανέρωται) to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. Here (as above noted) the idea of ἐφάπαξ in Hebrews 9:12 is taken up. That Christ’s offering of himself is once for all, needing no repetition, follows from the view of it already given, viz. that it is a perpetual presentation of himself, after fully availing sacrifice of himself, before the very face of God. That this is of necessity once for all is now further shown by the consideration that repeated offerings of himself would involve the impossible condition of repeated deaths. Observe that "offer himself" in Hebrews 9:25 does not refer to the death upon the cross, but to the intercession before the eternal mercy-seat after accomplished atonement, answering to the high priest’s entrance, with the blood of previous sacrifice, within the veil. The death itself is denoted in Hebrews 9:26 by παθεῖν ("suffered"). The argument rests on the principle, already established as being signified by the whole of the ancient ritual, that, for acceptable intercession in behalf of man, previous death or blood-shedding is in every case required. But why add "since the foundation of the world"? We must supply the thought of the retrospective efficacy of Christ’s atonement. Ever since sin entered, man needed atonement, signified, but not effected, by the ancient sacrifices. Christ’s one offering of himself has supplied this primeval need, availing, not only for the present and future, but also for all past ages. This view was definitely expressed, with reference to "transgressions which were under the first covenant," in Hebrews 9:15, and, though not repeated here, is prominent in the writer’s mind. This view accounts for "since the foundation of the world," the idea being that, the transgressions requiring atonement having been since then, repeated deaths since then would have been needed had not Christ’s one offering of himself availed for all time, just as repeated sacrifices were needed for the high priest’s symbolical yearly intercessions. The question is not asked, nor is any reason given, why this one all-sufficient offering was deferred till so long after the need began. It is enough to know that such has been, in fact, the Divine will, viz. that not till the fullness of time was come—not till the end (or consummation) of the long preceding sinful ages—should the Redeemer once for all be manifested for atonement. The phrase, ἐπὶσυντελείᾳτῶναἰώνων, seems certainly to imply the idea, otherwise known to have been prevalent in the apostolic age, of the end of all things being close at hand; and this expectation further accounts for the reference to the past rather than the future in the expression, "since the foundation of the world." For, with regard to the future, the second coming of Christ was the one great idea present to the minds of Christians, the intervening time being regarded by them as but the dawn of coming day (see, on this head, what was said under Hebrews 1:2). The strong expression, εἰςἀθέτησινἁμαρτίας (for the sense of ἀθέτησις, cf. Hebrews 7:18, where it means "abrogation"), used as it here is with reference to all the transgressions of the ages past, though not to be pressed so as to invalidate what is elsewhere said of the future penal consequences of all willful and unrepented sin, may still be cited among the texts supporting the view of those who "trust the larger hope." Hebrews 9:27, Hebrews 9:28 And inasmuch as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this judgment: so the Christ also, once offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time, without sin, to them that look for him, unto salvation. The Divine ordinance concerning mankind in general has its analogy in the truth concerning Christ, who was made like unto us in all things, and who represents humanity. As human life, with all its works, comes to an end in death, and only judgment fellows, so Christ’s death once for all completed his ministerial work, and nothing remains for him to do but to return as Judge in glory—he judicaturus, men judicandi. "To bear the sins of many" is taken from Isaiah 53:12. For similar use of the word ἀναφέρειν, el. Numbers 14:33, LXX; and especially 1 Peter 2:24, Τὰςἁμαρτίᾶςἡμῶναὐτὸςἀνήνεγκενἐντῷσώματιαὑτοῦἐπὶτὸξύλον, which expresses the idea of Christ’s taking our sins upon himself and bearing them up to the cross, and so removing them. The ideas of bearing and of taking away may thus be both implied. In contrast with this is the χωρίςἁμαρτίας ("without, or apart from, sin") when he shall appear again. For then he will have been, as he is now, removed from it altogether—from its burden and its surroundings; it is in glory only that he will then appear. And so also "to them that look for him" his appearing will be "unto salvation" only. They, too, will have done with sin. The insertion of the words, "to them that look for him," precludes the conclusion that it will be so to all. The many passages that express the doom of those who shall be set on the left hand, whatever they imply, retain their awful meaning (cf. especially infra, Hebrews 10:27). Hebrews 9:1-10 Arrangements of the first covenant. The Epistle to the Hebrews is the New Testament Leviticus. In itself, the book of the Jewish ritual is rather dry reading. "Nothing can well be duller or more dingy than the appearance of a stained-glass cathedral window to one who is looking on it from the outside of the building; but, when you enter and gaze at it from within, the whole is aglow with beauty" (Dr. W.M. Taylor). Now, from this Epistle we learn to read Leviticus with the bright gospel sunlight for a background, and we thus discover how rich that ancient Scripture is, in instruction regarding the way of access to God, and the means of fellowship with him. I. THE HEBREW . (Verses 1-5) The tabernacle was the Divine palace, the symbol of Jehovah’s residence among his ancient people. There was a gracious presence of God in Israel which other nations did not enjoy. Mention is made here of the two chambers of the sacred tent, each of which had a "veil" covering the entrance, and of the principal articles of furniture in these two chambers respectively. 1. The holy place. (Verse 2) This anterior apartment was oblong in shape, being thirty feet in length, fifteen in width, and fifteen in height. Three articles are named as belonging to it. (1) The lamp-stand: symbol of the spiritual light which Christ imparts to his Church. (2) The table, with (3) the shewbread: symbol of the spiritual meat provided by God to strengthen for his service. 2. The holy of holies. (Verses 3-5) This innermost recess of the sanctuary, separated from the outer chamber by a richly wrought curtain, was the dwelling-place of Jehovah. It was a smaller apartment than the other, measuring fifteen feet in length, breadth, and height, and thus forming a perfect square. Seven things are named as belonging to it. (1) The golden censer. Whether we understand by this the altar of incense itself, which stood in the holy place close to "the second veil," or the actual censer which was carried from the altar into the holy of holies on the Day of Atonement—in either case the symbol is that of the heart’s devotion. (2) The ark. This was the most sacred piece of furniture in the tabernacle; indeed, the purpose of the whole structure was just to accommodate the ark, as the central symbol of the presence and majesty of the covenant God of Israel. (3) The loot of manna: emblem of the true Bread from heaven, which feeds the mind with truth, the conscience with righteousness, and the heart with love. (4) Aaron’s staff: a type of the intransferable priesthood of Christ, and a symbol of the spiritual priesthood of believers. (5) The two tables of the Law: the revelation to the Jews of Jehovah’s righteous will, which should be written on the hearts of men. (6) The cherubim: representing the angels, and surrounding the luminous cloud of "glory" which appeared above the ark. (7) The mercy-seat: the footstool of God, and the propitiatory lid of the ark; which, sprinkled with atoning blood, covered the sins of the people, by concealing from the Divine eye the Law which they had violated. The Hebrew sanctuary in its innermost symbolism thus represented the wondrous scheme of redemption. It shows us God’s throne of grace standing upon his righteousness (Psalms 85:10). II. ITS . (Verses 6, 7) While the outer court of the tabernacle was open to the whole congregation of Israel, except to such as might at any time be ceremonially unclean, only the sons of Aaron were allowed to minister at the altar, or within the sanctuary proper. 1. The holy place was for the daily ministration of the ordinary priests. (Verse 6) Their duties were such as these: They sprinkled the blood of the sin offerings before the "second veil;" they lighted and fed and trimmed the seven lamps of the candelabrum; they offered incense upon the golden altar; they changed the shewbread every sabbath day. 2. The holy of holies was for the annual ministration of the high priest alone. (Verse 7) None of the ordinary priests ever dared to enter the inner sanctuary, or even to look into it. And even the high priest could only do so on one day in the year—on the great annual fast day, the Day of Atonement. In the course of that day, however, he went into the holy of holies at least three times: first, with the censer and incense; secondly, with the blood of the bullock, for his own and the priests’ sins; and, thirdly, with the blood of the goat, for the people’s sins. He went in "not without blood," the presentation of the blood being necessary to the completion of the sacrifice. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ Hebrews 10:1-19 SUMMARY OF THE WITH RESPECT TO CHRIST’S ETERNAL . Hebrews 10:1 For the Law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make the comers thereunto perfect. The Law is said here to exhibit a shadow (σκιὰν) of the good things to come (τῶνμελλόντωνἀγαθῶν), viz. of the "good things" of which Christ is come as "High Priest" (Hebrews 9:11), belonging to the μέλλωναἰών (Hebrews 6:5), μέλλουσαοἰκουμένη (Hebrews 2:5), which is still, in its full realization, future to us, though already inaugurated by Christ, and though we have already tasted the powers of it (Hebrews 6:5). Similarly (Hebrews 8:5) the priests under the Law are said to have served a copy and shadow of the heavenly things; i.e. of the heavenly realities to be revealed in the "coming age." To "shadow" is opposed "very image" (εἰκόνα), which means, not a representation apart from the things, but (as emphasized by αὐτὴν) the actual presentment of the things themselves; which were, in fact, archetypal and prior to the shadows of the Law, though their manifestation was reserved to the future age. Such is the sense of εἰκὼν in Colossians 3:10, κατεἰκόνατοῦκτίσαντοςαὐτόν: and Romans 8:29, συμμόρφουςτῆςεἰκόνοςτοῦυἱοῦ. (Cf. Colossians 1:15, where Christ is called εἰκὼντοῦΘεοῦτοῦἀοράτου: cf. also Colossians 2:17, where σκιὰ is opposed to σῶμα—shadow to body) In the latter part of the verse, "they," who "offer," are the priests of the Law; "the comers thereunto" (οἱπροσερχομένοι) are the people who resort to the rites. "Make perfect" (τελειῶσαι) means full accomplishment for them of what is aimed at; in this case, remission of sin, and acceptance after complete atonement. The verb τελειοῦν, though variously applied, signifies always full completion of the purpose in view (cf. Hebrews 7:19, οὐδενγὰρἐτελείωσενὁνόμος). (For its application to Christ himself, see under Hebrews 2:10; Hebrews 5:9) Hebrews 10:2, Hebrews 10:3 For then (i.e. had it been so able) would they (the sacrifices) not have ceased to be offered, because that the worshippers, having been once purged, should have had no more conscience of sins? But (on the contrary) in those sacrifices there is a remembrance made of sins year by year. The very annual repetition of the same expiatory rites on the Day of Atonement expressed in itself the idea, not of the putting away (ἀθέτησις, Hebrews 9:26) or oblivion, (Hebrews 10:17) of sin, but a recalling to mind of its continual presence. In the following verse the reason of this is found in the nature of the sacrifices themselves; it being impossible for the blood of irrational animals to cleanse moral guilt: it could only avail for the "passing over" (πάρεσιν, Romans 3:25) of sins, as symbolizing an effectual atonement to come in the spiritual sphere of things. Hebrews 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats (specified as being the offerings of the Day of Atonement) should take away sins. The principle of the insufficiency of animal sacrifices having been thus expressed, confirmation of it is now further adduced from the Old Testament itself, together with a prophetic anticipation of the great self-oblation which was to take their place. Hebrews 10:5-7 Wherefore, when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body didst thou prepare me: In whole burnt offering and offerings for sin thou hadst no pleasure: Then said I, Lo, I am come (in the volume (i.e. roll) of the book it is written of me) to do thy will, O God. The quotation is from Psalms 40:6, Psalms 40:7, Psalms 40:8. It is entitled "a psalm of David," nor is there anything in the psalm itself incompatible with his authorship. The question of authorship is, however, unimportant; all that is required for the purpose of the quotation being that it should have been the utterance of an inspired psalmist. The primary import of the passage quoted is that the psalmist, after deliverance from great affliction, for which he gives thanks, expresses his desire to act on the lesson learnt in his trouble by giving himself entirely to God’s service. And the service in which God delights he declares to be, not sacrifices of slain beasts, but the doing of his will, the ears being opened to his Worst, and his Law being within the heart. Now, bearing in mind what was said under Hebrews 1:5, of the principle on which words used in the Old Testament with a primary human reference are applied in the New Testament directly to Christ, we shall have no difficulty in understanding such application here. The psalmist, it may be allowed, spoke in his own person, and as expressing his own feelings and desires; but, writing under inspiration, he aspired to an ideal beyond his own attainment, the true ideal for humanity, to be realized only in Christ. The ideal is such perfect self-oblation of the human will to God’s as to supersede and render needless the existing sacrifices, which are acknowledged to be, in their own nature, valueless. That the psalmist did not really contemplate the fulfillment of this ideal in himself is evident from the penitential confessions of the latter verses of the psalm. It is but the yearning of inspired humanity for what was really needed for reconciliation with God, such yearning being in itself a prophecy. Hence what was thus spoken in the Spirit is adduced as expressing the mind and work of him who fulfilled all those prophetic yearnings, and effected, as Man and for man, what the holy men of old longed to do but could not. The expression, "when he cometh into the world," reminds us of Heb 1:6. The word εἰσερχόμενος, here used, is connected in thought with the ἤκω ("I am come") in the quotation. Idle are the inquiries of some commentators as to the precise time, either before or after the Incarnation, at which our Lord is to be conceived as so speaking. Enough to say that his purpose in coming into the world is in these significant words expressed. It is noteworthy, in regard to the attribution of this utterance to him, how frequently he is recorded to have spoken of having come into the world for the accomplishment of a purpose "Venio, vel potius, veni, symbolum quasi Domini Jesu fuit" (Bengel). The psalm is quoted from the LXX., with slight variation, not worth considering, as it does not affect the sense of the passage. But the variation of the LXX. from the Hebrew text requires notice. (1) Instead of "a body didst thou prepare for me (σῶμακατηρτίσωμοι)" of the LXX. and the quotation from it, the Hebrew has "mine ears hast thou opened;" literally, "ears hast thou dug for me," meaning probably, "formed the cavity of my ears through which thy Word may penetrate," equivalent to "given me ears to hear," with reference, of course, to spiritual auscultation. If to the Hebrew verb הרַךָ be assigned here the sense of piercing, rather than hollowing out, implying an entrance affected through the ears already formed, the general sense remains the same. In either case the word κατηρτίσω may be accounted for, as being a free rendering, intended to give the meaning of the figure. But the substitution of "body" for "ears" is not so easily accounted for. One conjecture is that some transcriber of the Alexandrian translation of the Hebrew had inadvertently joined the last letter of the preceding word, ἠθελησας, to the following word, ωτια, and that the ΤΙ of ΣΩΤΙΑ was then changed into the Μ of ΣΩΜΑ, so as to make sense of the word thus formed. But this is only conjecture. That some copies of the LXX. had ὠτία appears from the fact that the Vulgate, translated from the LXX., reads aures perfecisti mihi, and that some manuscripts of the LXX. still have ὠτία, or ὧτᾳ. Thus there can be little doubt that σῶμα was a wrong rendering of the Hebrew, however originating, which the writer of the Epistle found in the copies of the LXX. which he used. For that he himself altered the word to suit his purpose, and that the alteration got into copies of the LXX. from the Epistle, is highly improbable, considering the general accuracy of his quotations, and his purpose of proving his positions from the sacred documents to which his readers could refer. As to the unimportance of any such variations from the original Hebrew in the quotations of the Epistle from the LXX., as long as the argument is not affected, see what is said under Hebrews 1:7 with respect to the quotation from Psalms 104:1-35. In this case the variation certainly does not affect the argument. For though the word σῶμα is certainly taken up again in Psalms 104:10 as applicable to Christ, yet the argument of the passage by no means rests on this word, but on θέλημα. This is indeed a passage (as was observed under Hebrews 9:14) notable for the very fact that the essence of the atonement is in it represented as consisting, not so much in its physical accompaniments as in its being a spiritual act of perfect self-oblation. (2) The more probable meaning of the phrase translated in the LXX. and the quotation, "it is written of me γεγράπταιπερὶἐμοῦ)" is in the Hebrew," it is prescribed unto me," i.e. "laid on me as a duty;" this being also the sense in which the same words occur in 2 Kings 22:13, "Great is the wrath of the Lord... because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is prescribed to us;" where the LXX. translates, τὰγεγραμμένακαθἡμῶν. The most obvious reference of the Hebrew psalm is to the Book of the Law generally, in which the duty of fulfilling the Divine will is enjoined, rather than to any prophecy, applied by the writer to himself individually. If so, it is not necessary to inquire what prophecy about himself David might have had in view; whether e.g. Genesis 49:10; Numbers 24:17; or Deuteronomy 17:14, et seq. But the phrase, περὶἐμοῦ, does certainly rather suggest a prophecy, and such suggestion is peculiarly appropriate in the application to Christ. Well, then, if here again there is some variation from the original Hebrew text, it is still such as to leave the general argument intact. Hebrews 10:8-10 Saying above that Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and offerings for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein (such as are offered according to the Law); then hath he said, Lo, I come to do thy will; i.e. he has made this second assertion while making the first also. The purpose of thus putting it is to show the connection between the two assertions; that fulfillment of God’s will is spoken of as a substitute for sacrifices, whose inutility in themselves had been declared. Yes; he taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. In the which will (the Divine will, willing our redemption through Christ, and perfectly fulfilled by him) we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. For the sense to be attached to the verb ἁγιάζω see under Hebrews 2:11. It is not our progressive sanctification by the Holy Ghost that is intended, but the hallowing effected for us once for all, as denoted by the perfect participle ἡγιασμένοι. The remainder of this concluding summary (Hebrews 2:11 -19) serves to weave together the various threads of the foregoing argument and emphasize the result. Hebrews 10:11-13 And every priest indeed standeth daffy ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: but he, having offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made the footstool of his feet. Thus with the one perfectly accomplished and for ever availing sacrifice is brought into connection, as its result, the fulfillment in Christ for man of the ideal of Psa 8:6 (which was set forth in Hebrews 2:5-10; see the remarks there made), and also of the Son’s exaltation to the right hand of God, declared in Psalms 110:1-7. (referred to in Hebrews 1:13, and brought fully into view in Hebrews 8:1, after the chapter about Melchizedek). Be it observed that the priesthood "after the order of Melchizedek" in itself implied this exaltation, which was in fact inferred from it. For the priesthood after this order, having been shown to be eternal and unchangeable, was further seen, from Psalms 110:1-7., to be conjoined to the eternal royalty at God’s right hand. Hebrews 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified. The tense of the participle ἁγιαζομένους, instead of as verse ἡγιασμένους, in 10, does not involve a different sense of the verb, viz. the ordinary one associated with the word "sanctify." When it was necessary to express by the word itself the accomplishment of sanctification in the sense intended, the perfect participle was used; here the subjects of the same sanctification are denoted, the accomplishment being expressed by τετελείωκε (cf. οἱἁγιαζομένοι, Hebrews 2:11). The meaning of τετελείωκε ("hath perfected") may be taken as ruled by τοὺςἁγιαζομένους: hath perfected them as ἁγίοι, done all that was required for their being such, without any need of any further offering (cf. supra, Hebrews 10:1). Hebrews 10:15-18 And the Holy Ghost also testifieth to us: for after that he hath said, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; (then saith he), And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. The apodosis to "after that he hath said," not distinctly marked in the Greek or in the A.V., is denoted in the above rendering by "then saith he" before Hebrews 10:17. Another view is that it begins earlier in the sentence, being introduced by "saith the Lord," which occurs in the quotation from Jeremiah. But this is improbable, since (1) words in the quotation itself could not well be intended to be understood as the quoter’s own; (2) the quotation down to verse 17 is continuous, whereas the citation of verse 17 is in the original passage of Jeremiah separated from the preceding one; (3) the logical conclusion intended to be drawn requires verse 17 to be the apodosis. For the writer’s purpose in referring once more to Jeremiah’s prediction of the" new covenant" is to show from it the completeness and finality of Christ’s atonement; and this, he argues, follows from this characteristic of the "new covenant" being added to the previous description of it—"Their sins and iniquities will I remember no more." Hebrews 10:19-39 Hebrews 10:19-39. PORTION OF THE EPISTLE. The great doctrine of Christ’s eternal priesthood having been led up to, established by argument, and at length fully expounded, it remains only to press the practical result of a belief in it in alternate tones of encouragement and of warning. We have seen that, even in the earlier chapters, hortatory passages were frequently interposed, showing the purpose all along in the writer’s mind. In the central and deepest part of the argument (Hebrews 7:1-10:19) there were none, close and uninterrupted attention to the course of thought being then demanded. But now, the argument being completed, the previous exhortations are taken up again, and enforced in consequently fuller and deeper tones. The connection of thought between these final admonitions and those previously interposed is evident when we compare the very expressions in Hebrews 10:19-23 with those in Hebrews 4:14-16, and the warnings of Heb 10:26, etc., with those of Heb 6:4, etc. Thus appears, as in other ways also, the carefully arranged plan of the Epistle, different in this respect from the undoubted Epistles of St. Paul, in which the thoughts generally follow each other without great regard to artistic arrangement. This, however, is in itself by no means conclusive against St. Paul’s authorship, since there would be likely to be just this difference between a set treatise composed for a purpose, and a letter written currente calamo by the same author. It does, however, mark a different class of composition, and is suggestive, as far as it goes, of a different writer. Hebrews 10:19-21 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter (literally, for the entrance) into the holiest (literally, the holies, i.e. the holy place, as τὰἅγια is translated in Hebrews 9:25, but meaning, there as here, the holy of holies) by the blood of Jesus, which (entrance) he consecrated (or, dedicated, as the same verb ἐγκαινίζω is translated, Hebrews 9:18, with reference to the Mosaic tabernacle) for us, a new and living way, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; and having a great Priest (ἱερέαμέγαν, not ἀρχιερέα, high priest; but a priest of higher order than any earthly priest; cf. Hebrews 5:14, ἀρχιερέαμέγαν) over the house of God. The epithet πρόσφατον ("new") applied to the "way" dedicated for us by Christ, though meaning originally, according to its etymology, "newly slain," is commonly used to express "recent" only. And so here. It is a new way in relation to the old one of the high priest through the veil—a way untrodden by man till opened and dedicated by "the great Priest." The epithet ζῶσα ("living") applied to the way distinguishes it, as a spiritual mode of approach, from the old one. "Opponitur exanimo. Per prosopopoeiam vita adscribitur viae, ex ipsa vita Christi, qui est Via" (Bengel; see John 14:6). But what is the meaning of the veil (καταπέτασμα, the word always used of the veil in the tabernacle or temple) being said to be "his flesh "? The idea cannot be simply that he passed through the human nature assumed at his incarnation to the heavenly throne; for the intended counterpart to the high priest’s passing through the veil must have been after the completed sacrifice. It is rather that, at the moment of death, when, after saying, "It is finished," he "gave up the ghost," the human flesh (which had through all the ages been as a veil hiding "the unseen" from man, and behind which Christ himself had "tabernacled" during his human life) was, as it were, rent asunder and the new way opened. And that this was so was signified by the rending in twain of the veil of the temple from the top to the bottom, mentioned by St. Matthew (Matthew 26:51), at the very moment of the death upon the cross. This incident may have suggested to the writer the expression used. "Quum primum Christus per momentum mortis transierat, praesto fuit mera virtus et vita. Τῆςσαρκὸςαὐτοῦ, carnem suam, quae item scissa est, ut velum" (Bengel). "The house of God" in verse 21 is a resumption of the thought of Heb 3:1-7, where Christ was shown to be greater than Moses, as being the SON over the house of God, having (be it observed) been called ἀρχιερέα in Hebrews 3:1. (For the comprehensive meaning of the expression, not limited either to the Mosaic dispensation or the visible Church, see what was said under Hebrews 3:4) On the now firmly grounded doctrinal bases of (1) open access through Christ to the mercy-seat, (2) his ever-availing intercession, are built the exhortations (1) to confidence, (2) to persistence in faith and corresponding conduct. Hebrews 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our body washed with pure water. "Let us draw near" (προσερχώμεθα) is a liturgical phrase, denoting the approach of the people, after ceremonial atonement, to the earthly sanctuary (cf. Hebrews 10:1, τοὺςπροσερχομένους). We may now draw near to the very heavenly mercy-seat, without any sense of a bar to our doing so on the ground of consciousness of sin. In Christ we are to see accomplished all that is needed for atonement. But there are conditions also required in ourselves, expressed first by the "true heart," and the "fullness of faith," and then by the clauses that fellow. These clauses, like προσερχώμεθα have a liturgical basis—that of the blood-sprinkling (e.g. of the people with the blood of the covenant under Mount Sinai, Hebrews 9:19, and of the priests on their consecration, Leviticus 8:23) and of the ablutions before sacrificial service (Le Hebrews 8:6; 16:4, 24; Exodus 30:1-38:39). Hence these two participial clauses are not to be separated from each other, and seem best to be both taken in connection with the preceding προσερχώμεθα. "Having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience" means our having the inward consciousness of debarring sin removed through the blood of Christ; the "full assurance of faith" in the completed atonement, and the "true heart," being presupposed. The conjoined clause, καὶλελουμένοι, etc., is capable also of being figuratively interpreted, in the sense that "our sinful bodies" have been "made clean," so as to be offered through life acceptably as "a living sacrifice," as well as "our souls washed through his most precious blood." And this may be taken as implied. But the terms body and water after hearts and blood certainly suggest a direct reference to baptism. And such definite allusion is in keeping with references elsewhere to the beginning of the Christian life (see Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:3, Romans 6:4; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:27; Colossians 2:12; 1 Peter 3:21). The passage last referred to is apposite to that before us in that with an undoubted mention of baptism is conjoined "the answer of a good conscience toward God." Hebrews 10:23-25 Let us hold fast the confession (ὁμολογίαν, see Hebrews 3:1, and ref; also Hebrews 4:14) of our hope without wavering (ἀκλινῆ, agreeing with "confession"); for he is faithful that promised: and let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works; not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another; and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. The readers, having been exhorted to confidence towards God, are further warned against remissness in confession before men, or in their duties within the Church towards each other. They had once, at their baptism, "confessed the good confession" (τὴνκαλὴνὁμολογίαν, 1 Timothy 6:12). Let not the recurrence of Jewish prejudices, or either influence or persecution from their Jewish compatriots, or any delay of the Parousia, induce them to waver in maintaining it. Some among them did, it could not be denied, show signs of such wavering, notably in their remiss attendance at Christian worship; let the faithful give heed to keeping faith alive in themselves and others, and especially through the means of the regular Church assemblies. That by τὴνἐπισυναγωγὴνἑαυτῶν is meant definitely the actual assembling together of Christians for reading, exhortation, and worship, we hold confidently with the majority of commentators and with Chrysostom. The word ἐπισυναγωγὴ occurs in the New Testament only here and 2 Thessalonians 2:1, where it denotes the gathering together at the Parousia. In 2 Macc. 2:7, where alone it occurs in the LXX., it expresses the actual assembling of people together, as does the verb ἑπισυνάγω, both in the LXX. and the New Testament. Hence, and in regard to the context as well as the etymology of the word, we may reject the less definite meaning, by some here assigned to it, of Christian communion (conjugatio fidelium), and the explanation of Bengel: "Sensus est, non modo debetis synagogam frequentare, ut Judaei, quod libentius facitis, sed etiam episynagogam, ut Christiani. Neque tamen innuitur praecise aggregatio ad unum locum, aut aggregatio ad unam fidem; sed, medio sensu, congregatio mutua per amorem et communicatio publica et privata officiorum Christianorum." The seen approach of the second advent (τὴνἡμέραν: cf. 1 Corinthians 3:13) is adduced as an additional argument against remissness. The word βλέπετε seems to imply more than the general belief in its imminence, founded on the language of Christ. It would seem as if the signs of the times were interpreted as denoting its approach (el. 1 John 2:18). And it may be that they were rightly so interpreted in reference to the primary fulfillment of our Savior’s words, though to that only, as the event proved. The blending together in the discourses of Mat 24:1-51; Mark 13:1-37; Luke 17:1-37; Luke 21:1-38., of the times of the fall of Jerusalem and of the final day, would naturally lead Christians to regard the signs of the first event as denoting the other also. And indeed the imminence of the first, of which the signs were really apparent, was in itself a peculiar reason why the Hebrew Christians should stick resolutely to Christianity, for its own sake and apart from Judaism. Else might their whole hold on Christ be loosened in the temple’s fall Thus, though the writer might share in the mistaken view then prevalent of the imminence of the final day, his warning, founded on the supposed signs of it, hits well the peculiar needs of his readers. Hebrews 10:26-32 Solemn warning as to the fearful consequences of apostasy. Hebrews 10:26, Hebrews 10:27 For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for (ἐκδοξὴ, used here only; but ἐκδέξομαι is frequent in the New Testament in sense of "expect;" e.g. supra, Hebrews 10:13. Hence there seems no good ground for disputing, with Afford, the usual rendering, "expectation") of judgment, and fiery indignation (πυρόςζῆλος), which shall devour the adversaries. The warning passage thus begun closely resembles the former interposed one, Hebrews 6:4-9. Both have been similarly misapplied (see notes on Hebrews 6:4-9); but both have the same real meaning, which is further confirmed by comparing them together. The purport of both is the hopelessness of a state of apostasy from the faith after full knowledge and full enjoyment of privilege; both are led up to by cautions against remissness, of which the final issue might be such apostasy; both are followed by the expression of a confident hope, founded on past faithfulness, that no such apostasy will really follow. The state contemplated is here expressed by ἐκουσίωςἁμαρτανόντων, a phrase which in itself might at first sight seem to support one of the erroneous views of the drift of the passage, viz. that all willful sin after baptism or grace received is unpardonable. But it is first to be observed that the participle ἁμαρτανόντων is not aorist, but present, expressing a persistent habit; also that the whole context is sufficient to denote the kind of sin intended. For (1) the preceding verses have pointed to laxity of allegiance to Christ, which might have further consequences; (2) the illustration of what is meant, adduced in verse 28 from the Mosaic Law, is (as will appear under that verse) a case of entire apostasy—a sin not to be atoned for by any sacrifice, but visited by "cutting off;" (3) the description in verse 29 of the sin intended implies total repudiation of Christ. Observe, on ἀκουσίωςσίως, the contrast to ἁμαρτάνειν (Le Hebrews 4:2, 27; 5:15, al), expressive of sins of ignorance or infirmity. Not such sins, but deliberate sin with a high hand, is here intended; and further, for the reasons above given, one of this nature so heinous as to be beyond the reach of sacrifice. From all such considerations it appears that ἐκουσίωςἁμαρτανόντων here expresses the same idea as παραπεσόντας (Hebrews 6:6) and ἀποστῆναιἀπὸΘεοῦζῶντος (Hebrews 3:12), viz. final obdurate defection from the faith. Further, the previous conditions for the possibility of arriving at such a hopeless state, set forth more at length in Hebrews 6:4, Hebrews 6:5 of Hebrews 6:1-20., are here shortly expressed by μετὰτὸμαβεῖντὴνἐπίγνωσιντῆςἀληθείας, which is to be interpreted in the light of the other passage (see note thereon). The consequences of such falling away are differently stated in the two passages. In Hebrews 6:1-20, it was the impossibility of renewal unto repentance; here it is the absence of any further atoning sacrifice; and this in keeping with what has been now proved of the sacrifice of Christ having superseded all others and been "once for all." The drift is that, if this is deliberately rejected after full knowledge of it, no ether is left to have recourse to. Then the immediate mention of "judgment" is in keeping also with the conclusion of Heb 9:1-28. (see note on Hebrews 9:27), and is immediately suggested here by τὴνἡμέραν of Hebrews 9:25. The fire in which that day is to be revealed is a prominent figure both in the Old Testament and the New; regarded as both an assaying and a consuming fire (cf. especially 1 Corinthians 3:13-16). The expression, πυρὸςζῆλος ("zeal, or indignation, of fire"), not only expresses the vehemence of the flame, but also implies the idea of the fire itself being instinct with the Divine wrath or jealousy (as ζῆλος, equivalent to האָגְקִ, is usually translated when attributed to God), of which it is the symbol (cf. Psalms 79:5, Ἐκκαυθήσεταιὡςπῦρὁζῆλοςμου: Ezekiel 38:19, Ὁζῆλοςμουἐνπυρὶτῆςὀργῆςμου: Zephaniah 1:18, Ἐνπυρὶζῆλουαὐτοῦ: and infra, Hebrews 12:29, "Our God is a consuming fire"). (For ἐσθίεινμέλλοντοςτοὺςὑπεναντίους, cf. Isaiah 26:11, Ζῆλοςλήψεταιλαὸνἀπαίδευτονκαὶνῦνπῦρτοὺςὑπεναντίουςἔδεται). Hebrews 10:28 One that hath despised (rather, set at naught) Moses’ Law dieth without mercy under (i.e. at the word of) two or three witnesses. The reference is to Deuteronomy 17:2-7, as shown by the mention of the "two or three witnesses" (Deuteronomy 17:6). The sin there spoken of is that of one who "hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD, in transgressing his covenant, and hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or the moon, or any of the host of heaven." The significance of this in its bearing on the meaning of ἁμαρτανόντων in verse 26 has been already noted. Hebrews 10:29, Hebrews 10:30 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden underfoot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? It has been already remarked how these very strong expressions (answering to those in Hebrews 6:6) further denote the kind of sin. intended by ἁμαρτανόντων in Hebrews 10:26. Three characteristics of it are given: (1) contumelious repudiation of Christ; (2) vilification of his atonement; (3) despite to the Holy Spirit that has been given and enjoyed. Citations from the Old Testament follow, according to the general plan of the Epistle, to show that there is a terrible as well as a gracious side of the revelation of the God of Israel, and especially (as intimated by the second quotation) that his own people may be the objects of his vengeance. For we know him that said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. Both citations are from Deuteronomy 32:35, Deuteronomy 32:36, the second being introduced also into Psalms 135:14. The first is remarkable as a combination of the texts of the Hebrew and the LXX., neither being exactly followed. The Hebrew has (A.V), "To me belongeth vengeance and recompense;" the LXX., Ἐνἡμέραἐκδικήσεωςἀνταποδώσω. And in the same form as in the text the passage is cited Romans 12:19. It may be, in this and some other cases of variation from the LXX., that a text different from ours was used by the New Testament writers. The difference here is quite immaterial with regard to the drift of the quotation. Hebrews 10:31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. David, when the option was given him, preferred falling into the hand of the LORD to falling into the hand of man (2 Samuel 24:14), trusting in the greatness of his mercies. But the case contemplated here is that of its being "too late to cry for mercy, when it is the time of justice." Fearful (the writer would say) is the thought of being exposed, without possibility of escape or of atonement, to the wrath of the Eternal Righteousness. The inspired author of this Epistle had evidently an awful sense of the Divine wrath against sin, and of man’s liability to it without atonement. He felt deeply the contradiction between humanity as it is and its ideal of perfection; and hence the wrath attributed to God in Holy Writ would appear to him as inseparable from a just conception of Divine holiness. For the more ardent the love in the human heart of moral good, by so much the keener is the indignation against moral evil, and the sense of the righteousness of retribution. The existence of such evil at all in the good God’s universe is indeed a mystery; but, as long as it is there, we cannot but conceive the face of the holy God as set utterly against it; and so any revelation to us of the Divine nature would be imperfect did it not include the idea which is humanly expressed by such terms as "zeal," "jealousy," "wrath," "vengeance." Hence came the long-felt need of some atonement, to reconcile sinful man to the eternal holiness. This need was expressed of old by the institution of sacrifice, which, however—as is so clearly perceived in this Epistle—could never itself be really efficacious in the spiritual sphere of things. In the atonement of Christ (if rightly apprehended) is found at last a true satisfaction of this spiritual need. But, man’s concurrence being still required, the idea of Divine wrath remains notwithstanding, as operative against such as, in deliberate perversity of free-will, after full knowledge, refuse to be thus reconciled. Hence the awful anticipations of future judgment on some, contained in this Epistle. The nature and duration of the doom to come, on such as remain subject to it, are in these passages left in obscurity. They speak only of φοβεράτιςἐκδοχὴ, an undefined expectation of something terrible. It may be observed, however, that, whatever be the force of other Scriptures in which the fire of that day is described as eternal and unquenchable, here at least the figure of a zeal of fire to devour the adversaries seems in itself to suggest rather utter destruction than perpetual pain. Hebrews 10:32-39 As at Hebrews 6:9, the tones of solemn warning, founded on a real sense of the possibility of apostasy in some, are now relieved by a better hope. In Hebrews 6:9, et seq., the writer expressed his own confidence in his readers on the ground of their conduct in the past; here he reminds them of their conduct by way of confirming their own steadfastness, and this with judgment as well as delicacy; for, as Theodoret remarks on this passage, "nothing so excites to zeal as the remembrance of one’s own right doings." Hebrews 10:32 But call to mind the former days, in which, after ye were enlightened, ye endured a great fight of afflictions; rather, conflict of sufferings. On φωτισθέντες ("enlightened"), cf. Hebrews 6:4, and what was said there as to the meaning of the word. Here certainly the context seems naturally to suggest a definite reference to baptism, as marking the date of the commencement of exposure to persecution. But if so, not, of course, so as to exclude the idea of inward spiritual enlightenment. "Hie primus erat ingressus ad Christianismum; baptismus apud idoneos salutare medium. Existimo haec instituta divina etiam in theoria non tanti aestimari quanti decebat. Apud ipsum baptismum Christi sancta ejus humanitas magnifice illuminata fuit" (Bengel). Hebrews 10:33 Partly, being made a gazing-stock both by reproaches and afflictions; and partly, having become partakers with them that were so used. On θεατριζομένοι (translated "made a gazing-stock"), cf. 1 Corinthians 4:9, Θέατρονἐγενήθημεντῷκόσμῳκαὶὀγγέλοιςκαὶἀνθρώποις. The figure is drawn from the Roman amphitheatres, where persons doomed to death were exposed to the gaze and the contumely of crowds; and the expression may not be wholly figurative, but denote the actual treatment of Christians, as expressed by the common cry, "Christianos ad leones!" The phrase, τῶνοὕτωἀναστρεφομένων, (translated "them that were so used"), might be more correctly rendered (as ἀναστρέφεσθαι is elsewhere), "them that so had their conversation," i.e. manner of life. For the word is not used in a passive sense, but as equivalent to versari; cf. Matthew 17:22; 2 Corinthians 1:12; Ephesians 2:3; Hebrews 13:18; also Galatians 1:13; Ephesians 4:22, etc. (ἀναστροφὴ). The Vulgate has taliter conversantium; Wickliffe, "men living so;" Tyndale and Cranmer, "them who so passed their time." But the A.V. may give the meaning with sufficient correctness, the main thought being probably the experience of the persons referred to rather than their demeanor under it. Hebrews 10:34 For ye had compassion on those who were in bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing that ye have for yourselves a better possession, and an abiding one. For τοῖςδεσμίοις, the Receptus has τοῖςδεσμοῖςμου, which the A.V., so as to avoid the impropriety of expressing sympathy with the bonds themselves, renders "me in my bonds." Even apart from manuscript authority, δεσμίοις is evidently to be preferred, both as suiting the verb συνεπαθήσατε and as being more likely to have been altered to the common Pauline expression, δεσμοῖςμου, than vice versa, especially on the supposition of the writer being St. Paul himself. Thus no evidence as to the authorship of the Epistle is hence deducible. The allusion is to persecutions of Christians, under which the Hebrews addressed had been plundered, and had succored others who were prisoners for the faith, as is intimated also in Hebrews 6:10. More than one such persecution might be in the writer’s view, including, perhaps, that after the stoning of Stephen (Acts 8:1; Acts 11:19); that instituted by Herod Agrippa, under which James the elder suffered (Acts 12:1-25); that which led to the martyrdom of James the Just (Josephus, ’Ant.,’ 20.9. 1) and others. Hebrews 10:35, Hebrews 10:36 Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompense of reward. For ye have need of patience (or, endurance), that, having done the will of God, ye may receive the promise; or, doing the will of God, ye may receive, etc. The aorist participle ποιήσαντες does not of necessity express priority to the receiving (cf. Hebrews 6:15, μακροθυμήσαςἐπέτυχε). The meaning is that by endurance in doing the will they would receive. The full and final enjoyment of what is promised is still future and conditioned by perseverance. Observe the difference between the words κομίζεσθαι, here used, and ἐποτυγχάνειν, used in Hebrews 6:15. The former (occ. Hebrews 11:19, Hebrews 11:39; also 2 Corinthians 5:10; Ephesians 6:8; Colossians 3:25; and 1 Peter 1:9) means the actual reception of what is denoted, equivalent to sibi acquirere; the latter (etc. Hebrews 6:15; Hebrews 11:33; also Romans 11:7; James 4:2) means only "to attain to," without involving full possession. It is not said of Abraham (Hebrews 6:15) that he ἐκομίσατο, only that he ἐπέτυχε. So also of all the faithful of old described in the following chapter (Hebrews 11:39). And even to believing Christians, as this verse shows, the κομίζεσθαι is still future and contingent. Hebrews 10:37, Hebrews 10:38 For yet a little (rather, very little) while, and he that cometh will come, and will not tarry. But the just shall live by faith: and if he draw back, my soul hath no pleasure in him. In these verses, after the manner of the Epistle, what is being urged is supported by an Old Testament quotation (Habakkuk 2:3, Habakkuk 2:4), its drift being (1) the certainty, notwithstanding delay, of the fulfillment of the Divine promise; (2) the necessity meanwhile of continuance in faith and perseverance. The quotation serves also as a step of transition (this, too, after the Epistle’s manner) to the disquisition on faith, which forms the subject of the following chapter. For the prophet speaks of faith as what the righteous one is to live by until the Lord come. It was faith—a fuller faith—that the Hebrew Christians wanted to preserve them from the faltering of which they showed some signs; and the requirement of faith was no new thing—it had been the essential principle of all true religious life from the beginning, and thus is led up to the review which follows of the Old Testament history, showing that this had always been so. The quotation, as usual, is from the LXX., which, in this case as in some others, differs from the Hebrew. But here, as in Hebrews 10:29, supra, the LXX. is not exactly followed. The writer cites freely, so as to apply the essential meaning of the passage to his purpose. The Prophet Habakkuk (writing probably during the long evil days of Manasseh) had in his immediate view the trials of faith peculiar to his own time—violence and iniquity in Israel, and imminence of judgment at the hands of Chaldean conquerors, under which he had cried, "O Lord, how long?" But he stands upon his watch and sits upon his tower, to look out what the LORD will say to him in answer to his difficulties. And the LORD answered him, and said, "Write the vision, and make it plain upon the tables, that he may run that readeth it. For the vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie [rather, ’but it hasteth to the end, and doth not lie’]: though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, and not tarry [or, ’be behindhand’]. Behold, his soul that is lifted up is not upright in him [or, ’behold, his soul is lifted up, it is not upright in him’]; but the just shall live by his faith." The drift of this Divine answer, which inspired the song of joyful confidence with which the Book of Habakkuk so beautifully concludes, is, as aforesaid, that, in spite of all appearances, the prophetic vision will ere long be realized; God’s promises to the righteous will certainly be fulfilled; and that faith meanwhile must be their sustaining principle. The variations of the LXX. from the Hebrew are: (1) Ἐρχόμενοςἥξει, instead of "It (i.e. the vision) shall come;" (2) Ἐὰνὑποστείληταιοὐκεὐδοκεῖἡψυχήμουἐναὐτῷ, instead of "Behold, his soul," etc; (3) Ὁδὲδικαιόςμουἐκπίστεωςζήσεται (A), or δὲὉδίκαιοςἐκπίστεωςμουζήσεται (B), instead of "The just shall live by his faith." The variations in the Epistle from the LXX. are: (1) Ἔτιμικρὸνὅσονὅσον (etc. Isaiah 26:20), interpolated at the beginning of the quotation; (2) Ὁἐρχόμενος for ἐρχόμενος, so as to denote more distinctly the Messiah who was to come (cf. Matthew 10:3; John 6:14); here, of course, with a view to his second advent; (3) the reversal of the order of the two concluding clauses, ἐὰνὑποστείληται, and ὁδὲδίκαιος: (4) in the Textus Receptus the omission of μου after either δίκαιος or πίστεως (as the same text is cited by St. Paul, Romans 1:17 and Galatians 3:11). There is, however, good authority for reading it here after δίκαιος (equivalent to "my Righteous One"). None of these variations from the LXX. affect the meaning of the passage, being only such as to point more clearly the intended application. One of the variations of the LXX. from the Hebrew (ἐὰνὑποστείληται, etc) does alter the meaning of that particular clause, though not the general purport of the whole passage. The adoption here of the LXX. reading, and still more the fact that the following verse depends upon this reading, is among the strong evidences of the Epistle having been originally written, not in Hebrew, but in Greek. Hebrews 10:39 But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe unto the saving of the soul; literally, not of the drawing back unto … but of faith unto, etc. Thus, once more before proceeding to the subject now before him, the writer is careful to disclaim any real expectation of defection in his readers, and with delicacy he includes himself with them by his use of the nominative plural. Hebrews 10:1-18 Close of the argument. This concluding passage presents little more than a re-statement of some points which have been already marked in the discussion which occupies the three preceding chapters. The kernel-thought of the paragraph is expressed in Hebrews 10:9: "He taketh away the first" (the Jewish sacrifices), "that he may establish the second" (redemption by the sacrifice of himself). I. THE OF THE , (Hebrews 10:1-4) Although these availed to remove ceremonial uncleanness, and were the appointed types of the offering of Christ, they were literally useless in relation to the highest ends of sacrifice. The apostle notes three points. 1. The Levitical offerings were inadequate even as representations of the true Sacrifice. (Hebrews 10:1) The entire Jewish ceremonial-tabernacle, priest, victim—was "a shadow" of the coming blessings of the gospel dispensation. But it was "not the very image of the things;" it presented only a rude and incomplete sketch of the great facts and doctrines of Christianity. Take one point as an example. The victims under the Law were dragged unwillingly to the altar;—how inaccurate this feature as compared with the loving obedience and the voluntary self-sacrifice of the Lord Jesus! 2. They were of no use whatever for the removal of guilt. The necessity constantly to repeat them showed this (Hebrews 10:1, Hebrews 10:2). And so did the nature of the sacrifices themselves. Our reason readily assents to the declaration (Hebrews 10:4) that the blood of beasts can never expiate the sins of men. Brute nature is incapable of spiritual suffering. Animal sacrifices could not adequately reflect God’s hatred of sin. They could not vindicate his justice, or recompense his Law. Such blood has no virtue to pacify the conscience, or to purify the soul. 3. Their influence went to perpetuate the remembrance of sins. (Hebrews 10:3) The divinely appointed repetition of the Levitical sacrifices showed that God could not accept them as a real atonement, and therefore could not forget the offences of the worshippers. It was intended also to press home upon the consciences of the people the thought of the accumulated arrears of unexpiated sin. II. THE VALUE OF THE OF CHRIST. (Hebrews 10:5-18) Throughout these verses two passages are cited from the Old Testament, to illustrate the contrast between the legal offerings and the atonement of the Lord Jesus. The infinite merit of his sacrifice is conspicuous, whatever the aspect in which it is viewed. 1. Christ’s satisfaction has shown that obedience is the true sacrifice. (Hebrews 10:5-9) To illustrate this point the writer quotes from a Messianic psalm (Psalms 40:6-8). God "delights not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats." The legal sacrifices were useful only as types of the sacrifice of Christ, and his blood is the symbol of his own perfect obedience as our Substitute. His sacrifice of himself was the offering of an obedient will. He was "obedient unto death." The" cars" which God had pierced for him (Psalms 40:6) were ever swift to hear the Divine commands, and the "body" which he had prepared for him (Hebrews 10:5) readily submitted itself to the Divine will. In coming to the world, and in dying for man’s redemption, Jesus was "doing the will" of his Father. His voluntary "obedience unto death" has swept away for ever the Levitical sin offerings, and his people can now serve God acceptably only by sprinkling themselves with his blood, and then "presenting their bodies a living sacrifice." 2. Christ’s satisfaction has accomplished the removal of guilt. (Hebrews 10:10-14) His people are "sanctified," i.e. cleansed from guilt, "through the offering of his body once for all." The Aaronical priests always stood at their work; they never sat down in the tabernacle. Indeed, no seats were provided for them there. Their constant standing was suggestive of the fact that the ever-repeated sacrifices were of no avail for the pardon of transgression. But our high Priest, after his one offering of himself as a sacrificial Victim, sat down in the most honorable place of the heavenly holy of holies, and still continues to sit there. His very attitude shows that he has fully accomplished the end contemplated by his sacrifice. His completed atonement, besides being the purchase of his mediatorial royalty and the pledge of his final victory over his enemies, has also "perfected" his people "forever" as regards their justification. 3. Christ’s satisfaction takes away the remembrance of sin. (Hebrews 10:15-18) The Prophet Jeremiah, in his oracle about the new covenant, had predicted this (Jeremiah 31:34). After the sacrifice of Calvary, there would be no more need for the annual expiatory rite on the Day of Atonement—a ceremony which, in fact, had only served to bring sins to remembrance. Now that the great redemption has been accomplished, the iniquities of the believer are really swept away and put an end to. God blots them out. He casts them behind his back. He makes them as though they had never been. And this obliteration evinces the absolute perfection of the atonement, and certifies the abolition of the Hebrew sacrifices. Hebrews 10:19-25 The great admonition. Having completed his elaborate argument, and concluded the doctrinal part of the treatise, the author warmly exhorts the Hebrews to maintain their Christian steadfastness. The appeal contained in these verses collects into a focus of intense light and heat the main teaching of this weighty book. The paragraph before us may be regarded as the center of gravity of the Epistle. It is also the key-note of the impressive representations and the loving counsels which occupy the remaining pages. I. THE ’S . (Hebrews 10:19-21) The word "therefore" introduces a brief summary of what precedes in the long section devoted to the priesthood of Christ (Hebrews 4:14-10:18). The grand substantive blessing of the gospel is that of access to God; and this has been secured in connection with: 1. An accepted Sacrifice. (Hebrews 10:19) Hebrews 10:1-18 treats of this. Jesus has gone into heaven with his own blood, and- has been allowed to sprinkle it upon the mercy-seat. His blood has expiated the sins which debarred men from standing in the Divine presence. Washed in it, the penitent sinner may draw near to God with confidence. 2. An opened sanctuary. (Hebrews 10:19, Hebrews 10:20) Hebrews 9:1-28. discusses this branch of the subject. Christians are admitted into a far nobler holy of holies than that from which ancient Israel were excluded. "A new and living way" to the Father has been opened up by Jesus; and it shall always be "new," because, in fact, the "living" Savior is himself the Way. The breaking of his body upon the cross was like the rending of "the veil," for it opened up the mercy-seat to man. 3. A glorious Intercessor. (Hebrews 9:21) Hebrews 7:1-28. treats of the might and majesty of this "great Priest." Through the merit of Christ’s blood the believer takes his place immediately in front of the throne; and then, through the mediation of the Savior, who stands by his side, he is graciously maintained in this position. "Holiness on the bead, Light and perfections on the breast, Harmonious bells below, raising the dead To lead them unto life and rest: Thus are true Aarons drest. "Christ is my only Head, My alone only Heart and Breast, My only Music, striking me ev’n dead; That to the old man I may rest. And lie in him new drest." (George Herbert) II. THE DUTIES WHICH REST UPON THOSE . (Hebrews 7:22-25) These are three in number, each being introduced with the words," Let us." They deal with our conduct towards God, towards the world, and towards the Church. Observance of them calls into exercise respectively the three great graces of the Pauline theology, the duties being those of faith toward God, hope exhibited before the world, and love to our fellow-believers. 1. The duty of Divine worship. (Hebrews 7:22) Worship is the movement of the soul towards God. To "draw near" includes every form which it is possible for acceptable religious service to assume. The apostle, taking for granted that his readers appreciate the inestimable value of communion with God, indicates briefly the qualifications and features of acceptable worship. (1) Sincerity. "With a true heart." Our devotion must not be feigned. We must not be hypocrites, or formalists, or sacramentarians. We "must worship in spirit and in truth." (2) Confidence. "In fullness of faith." Our faith in the way of access must be entire and absolute. The apostle does not speak here of assurance of one’s own personal salvation. What he insists upon is, that true faith cannot admit of any doubt as to its object—that object being the atonement of Christ, and his priestly work within the opened sanctuary of heaven. (3) A pacified conscience. "Having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience." When the Aaronical priests were installed their garments were sprinkled with blood, in token of their acceptance as ministers of the sanctuary; so the blood of Christ, while it satisfies Divine justice, satisfies also the conscience to which it is applied, delivers the soul from the sting of sin, and qualifies for the service of God. (4) A purified heart. "And our body washed with pure water." A brazen vessel, called the laver, which was used for the ablutions of the priests, stood in the outer court between the altar and the door of the tabernacle. So, hard by the entrance of life, stands the baptismal font; and the beginning of the Christian career is for the soul to be washed in the laver of regeneration. It is the "pure in heart" who "shall see God." 2. The duty of public confession. (Hebrews 7:23) It is not enough that we cherish deep religious convictions, and that we maintain a constant commerce with God in acts of secret prayer. We must acknowledge our Christian hope before men—with our lips and by our lives, and in the observance of the public ordinances of grace. We must not he ashamed to manifest profound spiritual earnestness, even in the presence of a persecuting world. To confess our hope will strengthen it. To refuse to acknowledge Christ is to deny him. And our confession ought to be a consistent "Yea." We are unfaithful if we allow it to sway to and fro, even although it should expose us to obloquy and danger. Seeing that our hope is grounded upon the sure promises of our Father God, why should not our acknowledgment of the truth he always explicit and consistent? 3. The duty of Christian fellowship. (Hebrews 7:24, Hebrews 7:25) Brotherly love should prevail among believers as brethren in Christ. Especially should those who are connected with the same congregation cherish a kindly and affectionate interest in one another Our Church-membership is not maintained merely for one’s own personal edification. We should "consider one another" in the spirit of brotherly love, and so that we may be mutually helpful to each other in the Divine life. We are to take kindly thought of each other’s excellences and defects, needs and dangers, trials and temptations, and to minister aid to one another accordingly. And in so far as we realize the bonds of love and sympathy which unite us to our Christian brethren, will we prize such opportunities of intercourse with them as the meetings of the Church afford. One great purpose of our "assembling of ourselves together" is to provide occasions for Christian conference and mutual exhortation. It was peculiarly necessary just now that the Hebrew believers should incite one another "unto love and good works," for "the day" of the destruction of Jerusalem and the final collapse of the Levitical system was fast "drawing nigh." That event is now past, but another and more tremendous "day of the Lord" is still to come. We ought as Christians to "consider" and "exhort" one another in view of "that great and notable day" on which Christ shall come to be our Judge, and to describe with his scepter the eternal boundaries of being and destiny. Hebrews 10:26-31 The guilt and doom of apostasy. This is a terrible passage even to read. It is fitted to fill with alarm the hearts of those who refuse to "draw near" to God, or confess his Name, or hold communion with his people. It is introduced here, like the similar warning in Hebrews 6:4-8, as a motive to Christian steadfastness. I. THE GUILT OF . This tremendous sin is described: 1. Generally. (Verse 26) The context shows that to "sin willfully" refers neither to any isolated act of apostasy, nor to any other peculiarly heinous transgression, but to the specific sin of finally abandoning Christianity. The question here is not about the destiny of the millions of heathendom, who have never heard the gospel. The Bible does not encourage curiosity regarding them. The sin spoken of is that of the man who had "received the knowledge of the truth," and who has rejected the gospel after having perceived its beauty, realized its suitableness, and in some degree experienced its power. 2. More particularly. (Verse 29) Saving knowledge centers in the revelation of the three Persons of the Godhead, who are seen in the gospel working together to accomplish our redemption. So the apostate is described by his conduct towards each. (1) Towards the Father. He "hath trodden underfoot the Son of God." We can know and approach the Father only through the Son; and, therefore, "whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father" (1 John 2:23). (2) Towards the Savior. The apostate tramples upon him, and "counts his blood an unholy thing." The blood of Jesus must be either on the heart or under the heel. But the apostate persistently despises the new covenant. He treats its Divine Mediator as if he were a malefactor. He treads underfoot the precious cleansing blood, as if it were worthless and unclean. (3) Towards the Spirit. He "hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace." To act thus is to deny to the Holy Ghost the reverence and adoration which are his due. It is obstinately and maliciously to reject him. It is to treat him with contempt, and thereby "grieve" him away for ever from the soul. Persistently to despise the Spirit of God is to commit the unpardonable sin. II. THE DOOM OF . An awful punishment shall descend upon those who sin away their souls, after rejoicing for a season in the light and love of Christ. The fearful penalty of their guilt is represented here in different aspects. 1. Negatively. (Verse 26) "There remaineth no more a sacrifice for sins." Those Hebrews, in professing Christianity, had renounced the Levitical sacrifices. But, should they now reject the propitiation of Christ—the only possible means by which God’s justice can be satisfied and man’s guilt cancelled—what would such rejection entail? It would follow, first of all, that the guilt of their ordinary sins against the Divine Law would remain unpardoned, and that even on that ground they must certainly perish. 2. Positively. (Verse 27) It would also follow that the guilt of their special sin of apostasy would bring upon them a heavier penalty than that which shall overtake the other "adversaries" of God. This tremendous sin may fill the soul even here with a horror of great darkness. It may destroy happiness by causing scorpion stings of conscience. It may cover the horizon of life with vague anticipations of a terrible eternity. And, whether such anticipations be present or not, there remains the devouring "fierceness of fire" itself. Not elemental fire, indeed; but spiritual loss, final reprobation, eternal despair. The apostate shall be shut out forever from the presence of God, and such exclusion is itself the hell of hell. 3. Comparatively. (Verses 28, 29) Under the Mosaic Law any Jew who lapsed into idolatry was to be stoned to death, for "transgressing God’s covenant;" and this stern doom was admitted to be just (Deuteronomy 17:2-7). But, asks the apostle, are not apostates from Christianity guilty of a vastly greater sin? and shall they not receive a much more dreadful punishment. He rears the matter to the judgment and conscience of his readers. To reject the gospel is a more heinous crime than to set at naught the Law. To tread underfoot, the eternal Son of God involves more aggravated guilt than to turn away from Moses, who was a merely human messenger. So if the sentence of death for rejecting the old covenant was a righteous arrangement, it is evident that the Divine justice must demand a retribution still more awful for the more terrible sin of apostasy from the new covenant. III. AN OF THE MAJESTY OF GOD’S JUSTICE. (Verses 30, 31) "We know him." The gospel itself has revealed to us his infinite power, his inflexible justice, his spotless holiness, his absolute faithfulness. We know that he has said, "Vengeance belongeth unto me," and "The Lord shall judge his people" (Deuteronomy 32:35, Deuteronomy 32:36). We know his prerogative as the Governor of the universe. We know that the principle of retribution belongs to his moral nature. And we know that he defends and. saves his people by punishing their enemies. Our nineteenth century, no less than the first century, stands greatly in need of faithful teaching on the subject of retribution, both as a principle of moral law and as a doctrine of Christianity. For: This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. On the senses in which the word ὑπόστασις (translated "substance") may be used, see under Hebrews 1:2. As to the sense intended here, views differ. There are three possible ones, expressed in the text and margin of the A.V., substance, ground, and confidence. The first is understood by the Fathers generally, the idea being supposed to be that, inasmuch as things not yet experienced, but only hoped for, become real to us by faith, faith is metaphysically their substance, as substantiating them to us. So Theophilus: Οὐσίωσιςτῶνμήπωὄντωνὑπόστασιςτῶνμὴὑφεστηκότων: and Chrysostom, who illustrates thus: "The resurrection has not yet taken place, but faith substantiates (ὑφίστησιν) it in our souls." So also Dante, following St. Thomas Aquinas, in a striking passage quoted by Delitzsch (’Paradise,’ 24.70-75)— "Le profonde cose Che mi largiscon qui la lor parvenza Agli occhi di laggiu son si nascose, Che l’esser lore ve in sola credenza, Sovra la qual si fondu Palta spene: E pero di sustanza prende Fintenza." "The things profound That here vouch safe to me their apparition From all eyes here below are so concealed That all their being is in faith alone, Upon the which high hope doth base itself: And therefore faith assumes the place of substance." The rendering ground, which involves only the simpler idea of faith being the foundation on which hope is built, has not much support from the use of the word elsewhere, nor does it seem suitable here. For it is not the things hoped for, but rather our hopes of them that are grounded on our faith. The subjective sense, confidence, or assurance, is most in favor with modern commentators, principally as being the most usual one (cf. Hebrews 3:14; 2 Corinthians 9:4; 2 Corinthians 11:17; also Psalms 38:11, Ἡὑπόστασιςμουπαρὰσοῦἔστιν: Ezekiel 19:5, Ἀπώλετοἡὑπόστασιςαὐτῆς: Rth 1:12, Ἔστιμοιὑπόστασιςτοῦγενεθῆναιμεἀνδρί). One objection to this sense of the word here is that it is usually followed, when so intended, by a genitive of rite person, not of the thing; though Rth 1:12 is an instance to the contrary. But apart from this consideration, the consensus of the Greek Fathers is a weighty argument for the retention of the rendering of the A.V. Either rendering, be it observed, gives the same essential meaning, though under different mental conceptions. Faith is further said to be the evidence of things not seen; ἔλεγχος meaning, not as some take it, inward conviction of their existence, but in itself a demonstration, serving the purpose of argument to induce conviction. So Dante, in continuation of the passage quoted above— "E da questa credenza ci conviene Sillogizar senza avere ultra visa; E pero intenza d’argomento tiene." "And from this credence it is fit and right To syllogize, though other sight be none: Therefore faith holds the place of argument." Is this meant as a definition of faith, or only a description of its effect and operation, with especial regard to the subject in hand? Virtually a definition, though not in the strict logical form of one. At any rate, "the constituents and essential characteristics of faith are here laid down" (Delitzsch); i.e. of faith in its most general sense—that of belief in such things, whether past, present, or future, as are not known by experience, and cannot be logically demonstrated. "Licet quidam dicant praedicta apostoli verba non esse fidei definitionem, quia definitio indicat rei quidditatem et essentiam, tamen si quis recte consideret, omnia ex quibus fides potest definiri in praedicta descriptione tanguntur, licet verba non ordinentur sub forma definitionis" (St. Thomas Aquinas, ’Secunda Secundae,’ qu. 4, art. 1). Faith, in the general sense indicated, is and has ever been, as the chapter goes on to show, the very root and inspiring principle of all true religion. And be it observed that, if well grounded, it is not irrational; it would rather be irrational to disregard it, or suppose it opposed to reason. Even in ordinary affairs of life, and in science too, men act, and must act, to a great extent on faith; it is essential for success, and certainly for all great achievements—faith in the testimony and authority of others whom we can trust, faith in views and principles not yet verified by our own experience, faith in the expected outcome of right proceeding, faith with respect to a thousand things which we take on trust, and so make ventures, on the ground, not of positive proof, but of more or less assured conviction. Religious faith is the same principle, though exercised in a higher sphere; and it may be as well grounded as any on which irreligious men are acting daily. Various feelings and considerations may conspire to induce it: the very phenomena of the visible universe, which, though themselves objects of sense, speak to the soul of a Divinity beyond them; still more, conscience, recognized as a Divine voice within us, and implying a Power above us to whom we are responsible; then all our strange yearnings after ideals not yet realized, our innate sense that righteousness ought to triumph over iniquity, as in our disordered world it does not yet;—which things are in themselves prophetic; and, in addition to all this, the general human belief in Deity. And when, further, a revelation has been given, its answering to our already felt needs and aspirations, together with the usual considerations on which we give credence to testimony, induces faith in it also, and in the things by it revealed; natural faith is thus confirmed, and faith in other verities is borne in upon the soul; which is further itself confirmed by experience of the effects of entertaining it. In some minds, as is well known, and these of the highest order, such faith may amount to certitude, rendering the "things unseen" more real to them than "the things that do appear." It cannot be said that to accept such faith as evidence is contrary to reason; our not doing so would be to put aside as meaning nothing the deepest, the most spiritual, the most elevating faculties of our mysterious nature, by means of which, no less than by our other faculties, we are constituted so as to apprehend the truth. And we may observe, lastly, that even to those who have not themselves this "fullness of faith," its very existence in others, including so many of the great and good, may surely be rationally accepted as evidence of realities corresponding to it. Hebrews 11:2 For in this (i.e. faith, ἐνταύτῃ) the elders obtained a good report; literally were witnessed of; i.e. it was in respect of their faith, which inspired their deeds, that they were praised. (For a similar use of the preposition ἐν, cf. 1 Corinthians 11:22, ἐπαινέσωἐν, τούτῳ). Thus is introduced the illustrative review of Old Testament instances, the purpose of which has been explained above. It begins from the beginning, Abel being the first example. But in the Old Testament the account of the creation precedes that first recorded instance; and, therefore, it is in the first place fittingly referred to, the existence of an unseen creative power mentally perceived beyond things visible, being the primary article—the very foundation—of all religious faith (cf. below, Hebrews 11:6). Hebrews 11:3 By faith we perceive that the worlds have been framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen (or, that which is seen) have (or, has) not been made of things which do appear. "By the word of God" has reference to "and God said," of Genesis 1:1-31., which chapter enunciates the primary article of all definite religions faith, viz. the existence and operation of God, as the unseen Author of the visible universe. Even without a revelation to declare this, faith’s office is to apprehend it from observation of the phenomena themselves; as is intimated in Romans 1:20, where even to the Greek "the invisible things of God from the creation of the world" are said to be "clearly seen, being understood [νοούμενα: cf νοοῦμεν in the passage before us] by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead." The drift of both passages is the same, viz. this, and no more—that faith recognizes an unseen power and Godhead behind, and accounting for, the seen universe. Commentators, who—taking μὴἐκφαινομένων as equivalent to ἐκμὴφαινομένων, and hence seeking to explain what is meant by "non-apparent things"—perceive here a reference either to the formless void (Genesis 1:2) out of which the present creation was evolved, or to the Platonic conception of eternal ideas in the Divine mind, read into the text what is not there. Hebrews 11:4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which (i.e. faith, not sacrifice, "faith" being the ruling idea of the whole passage) he obtained witness (literally, was witnessed of) that he was righteous, God testifying of (literally, witnessing upon, or, in respect to) his gifts: and through it (faith) he being dead yet speaketh. In the traditions preserved in Genesis of the dim and distant antediluvian period, three figures stand out prominently as representing the righteous seed in the midst of growing evil—Abel, Enoch, and Noah. These are, therefore, first adduced with the view of showing that it is in respect of faith that they are thus distinguished in the sacred record. With respect to Abel, it is not necessary to inquire or conjecture whether the bloody character of his offering is to be considered as constituting its superior excellence. The record in Genesis simply represents the two brothers as offering each what he had to offer in accordance with his occupation and pursuits, the only difference being that Abel is said to, have offered his firstlings and the fat thereof, while nothing is said of Cain having brought his first fruits or his best. Then, in the account of the result, we are only told that unto one the LORD had respect, and not to the other, without mention of the reason why. It is usual to find a reason in the nature of Abel’s offering as signifying atonement, and to suppose his faith manifested in his recognition of the need of such atonement, signified to him, as has been further supposed, by Divine command. This view of the intention of the narrative is indeed suggested by the description of what his offering was, viewed in the light of subsequent sacrificial theory; but it is not apparent in the narrative taken by itself, or in the reference to it in the passage before us. The acceptableness of the offering is here simply attributed, as of necessity, to the faith of the offerer, without any intimation of how that faith had been evinced. And with this view of the matter agrees the record itself, where it is said that "unto Abel and his offering the LORD had respect;" i.e. to Abel first, and then to his offering—the offering was accepted because Abel was, not Abel on account of his kind of offering. "Crone quod datur Deo ex dantis mente pensatur … Neque enim sacrum eloquimn dicit, Respexit ad munera Abel et ad Cain mqnera non respexit, sed prius air quid respexit ad Abel, ac deinde subjunxit, ’et ad munera ejus.’ Idcirco non Abel ex muneribus, sed ex Abel munera oblata placuerunt" (St. Gregory, quoted by Delitzsch). "And he being dead," etc., refers plainly to Genesis 4:10, "The voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground." The same voice of innocent blood, which appealed at the beginning of human history to the God of righteousness, cries still through all the ages; it sounds in our own cars now, telling us that faith prevails on high, and that "right dear in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints." Cf. Hebrews 12:24 for an allusion again to the cry of the blood of Abel. The word αλεῖν is there also used, supporting the reading λαλεῖ, rather than the λαλεῖται of the Textus Receptus here. Hebrews 11:5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God; literally, hath been witnessed of that he had been well-pleasing to God. The allusion is, of course, to the testimony in Genesis (Genesis 5:24), the LXX. being closely followed, which has, ΕὐηρέστησενἘνὼχτῷΘεῷκαὶοὐχηὑρέσκετοδιότιμετέθηκενἀυτονὉΘεός, whereas the literal translation of our Hebrew text is, "Enoch walked with God; and he was not, because God took him." Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. The purpose of this verse, in connection with the conclusion of the last, is to show that the Scripture record does imply faith in Enoch, though there is no mention of it there by name: it is of necessity involved in the phrase, εὐηρέστεσετῷΘεῷ. The expression in the Hebrew, "walked with God" (be it observed), involves it equally; so that the argument is not affected by the quotation being kern the LXX. Hebrews 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear (εὐλαβηθεὶς), prepared an ark to the saving of his house; through which (i.e. faith) he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith (κατὰπίστιν). The "things not seen as yet" were the divinely predicted events of the Deluge. The word εὐλαβηθεὶς (translated as above in the A.V) is taken by many commentators as implying godly fear, a sentiment of piety, with reference to the previous χρηματισθεὶς, since the noun εὐλαβεία seems to have this special sense in Hebrews 12:28, μετὰαἰδοῦςκαὶεὐλαβείας (see what was said under Hebrews 12:7, where the word occurred); so too the adjective, εὐλαβὴς, Luke 2:25; Acts 2:5; Acts 8:2. Hence the emendation, "moved with godly fear," in the recent "Revised Version." But, inasmuch as the verb εὐλαβείσθαι has in the New Testament, as elsewhere, only its original import of caution or circumspection, there is no need to suppose here a further meaning (cf. Acts 23:10, the only other passage in the New Testament where the verb occurs). Ebrard, taking only prudent forethought to be expressed, enlarges on the lesson thus conveyed to the effect that he who acts on simple faith, regardless of the world’s opinion or of ridicule, is the one who is truly prudent. And we may add that such prudence legitimately comes in as a motive in the religious life. The antecedent of "which" (δἰἧς), though the ancients generally understand κιβωτὸν, is taken as above by most moderns; the reason being, not only that faith (see in Acts 8:4) is the ruling idea of the whole passage, but also that it suits better the expressed results, especially the second, "became heir," etc. For to say that he became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith through the ark, as being the evidence of his faith, or as being the means of his preservation, is less intelligible than to say that through faith he became so. The sense in which Noah "condemned the world" is illustrated by Matthew 12:41, Matthew 12:42, "The men of Nineveh," etc., "The queen of the South," etc. (cf. Romans 2:27). His becoming "heir," etc., rests on the view of the fulfillment of primeval promise being transmitted as an inheritance to the faithful. Noah, as he appears in Genesis, was eminently heir in this sense, as alone in his day appropriating it and as transmitting it to his seed. In like manner Abraham, who is next mentioned, was the prominent heir among the subsequent patriarchs (cf. Romans 4:13). The idea running through the whole Old Testament is that, in the midst of a sinful world, an inheritance of salvation was transmitted through a chosen seed, till the Christ should come as the "Heir of all things," the perfected Head and Representative of all redeemed humanity. The word δικαιοσύνη as that of which Noah was heir, may have been suggested with reference to him by his being the first who is called δίκαιος in Genesis 6:9, and by this being his usual designation (Ezekiel 14:14, Ezekiel 14:20; Ecclesiastes 44:17; Wis. 10:4, 6, Sir. 44:17; cf. 2 Peter 2:5, κήρυξδικαιοσύνης). The whole phrase, τῆςκατὰπίστινδικαιοσύνης, may be taken to imply the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith, which may be supposed to have been familiar to the readers of this Epistle, having been already fully enunciated by St. Paul, and dwelt on by him as especially exemplified in Abraham. St. Paul, indeed, does not use this exact phrase, but δικαιοσύνηςπίστεως (Romans 4:11, Romans 4:13); ἐκπίστεως (Romans 10:6); ἐπὶτῆπίστει (Philippians 3:9); but still the meaning may be the same. The correspondence is an instance of Pauline thought in this Epistle, while the difference of phrase affords a presumption, though by no means in itself conclusive, against Pauline authorship. Hebrews 11:8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed (literally, when called, obeyed to go out, etc); and he went out, not knowing whither he went. The reference is to the first call of Abraham (Genesis 12:1), his obedience to which is the first instance of the faith which the whole life of the father of the faithful so eminently exemplifies. The fact of the place he was to go to being so far unrevealed (intimated only as "a land that I will show thee") enhances the faith displayed, He followed the Divine voice as it were blindly, not seeing whither it was leading him, knowing only that it was right to follow it. So to those who walk by faith now the future may be unknown or dim. "Lead thou me on. ... I do not ask to see The distant scene; one step enough for me." Hebrews 11:9, Hebrews 11:10 By faith he sojourned in (rather, went to sojourn in) the land of promise, as in a strange country (literally, as one belonging to others; i.e. not his own; "As in an alien land" (Wickliffe); cf. Genesis 23:4, "I am a stranger and sojourner with you"), dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: for he looked for a city which hath foundations (literally, the foundations) whose Builder and Maker is God. Of course, here, "with Isaac and Jacob" means "as did also Isaac and Jacob." The three successive patriarchs are presented in Scripture as representing the period of nomadic life in the land of promise, not yet possessed; alike supported by faith in the Divine word; and hence they are ever grouped together (of. Genesis 28:13; Genesis 32:9; Genesis 48:15;Genesis 1:1-31. 24; Exodus 3:6; Deuteronomy 9:5; 1 Kings 18:36, etc; also Matthew 22:32; Luke 13:28). The meaning of their history to us, and the object of their common hope, are further set forth in Genesis 23:13-17, and will be under them considered. In the mean time an instance of Abraham’s faith, peculiar to himself, is adduced. Hebrews 11:11, Hebrews 11:12 By faith also Sarah herself received strength to conceive seed, even when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised. Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea-shore innumerable. The vitality of Abraham’s faith is represented as evinced by its surviving and triumphing over a succession of trials, over apparent impossibilities. One such peculiar trial was the long delay of the birth of a legitimate heir through whom the promise of an innumerable seed might be fulfilled, and this till it seemed out of the question in the natural course of things. Yet "he staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief … being fully persuaded that what he had promised he was able to perform" (see Romans 4:17-23, which is a fuller statement of the idea of this verse, including the use of the words νενεκρώμενον and νέκρωσις to express effeteness, and ἐδυναμώθη, corresponding to δύναμονἔλαβε here. This is a further instance of Pauline thought in this Epistle—ideas already enlarged on by St. Paul being taken for granted as understood) In Romans Abraham’s faith in this regard is treated as typifying Christian faith in the resurrection from the dead (verse 24), as is also, in the chapter before us (verse 19), his faith displayed on the occasion of the offering of Isaac. For to us also our inability to conceive the mode of accomplishment of what well-grounded faith assures us of is no just cause for staggering. "How are the dead raised up? and with what kind of body do they come?" was asked by the Corinthian doubters. St. Paul directs them, in reply, to faith in "the power of God" to accomplish his purposes and fulfill his promises in ways unknown to us, transcending, though analogous to, the mysterious processes of nature that we see before our eyes. For "with God all things are possible." Sarah is here joined with Abraham, as also "receiving power" by faith, i.e. her own faith, as the structure of verse 11 seems evidently to imply. But how is this consistent with the account of her in Genesis, where she is nowhere held up as an example of faith; nay, is censured for incredulity (Genesis 18:12-16) with respect to the promise cf. offspring? The answer may be that her temporary unbelief is concluded to have been succeeded by faith, as proved by the result, viz. that she "received power." And, indeed, her laughter recorded in Genesis 18:1-33, does not seem intended to imply any permanent "heart of unbelief;" for even Abraham had laughed as she did when the same announcement had been previously made to him (Genesis 17:17), and the "laughter" associated with her memory has quite a different meaning given it when that of temporary incredulity was changed into that of joy on the birth of the promised son, who was consequently called Isaac (equivalent to "laughter"). It is, however, Abraham himself who is put prominently before us as the great example of faith; Sarah is only introduced by his side (with the words καὶαὐτὴ) as sharing it and cooperating to the result. To him singly the writer returns in Genesis 18:12, Διὸκαὶἀφἑνὸς, etc. Hebrews 11:13 These all (i.e. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the nomadic patriarchs, not in-eluding the antediluvian heroes, to whom what is further said does not apply) died in faith (literally, according to faith, κατὰπίστιν, as in Hebrews 11:7), not having received the promises, but having seen and greeted them from afar off (omitting the ill-supported καὶπεισθέντες of the Textus Receptus), and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. The reference is to the confession of Abraham to the sons of Heth (Genesis 23:1-20. 4), "I am a stranger and a sojourner with yon," together with Jacob’s words to Pharaoh (Genesis 47:9), "The days of the years of my pilgrimage," etc. The import of such confession, intimated in the preceding part of the verse, is now educed. Hebrews 11:14-16 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country (i.e. a native country, a fatherland, πατρίδα). And truly if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. But now (i.e. as it is) they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God (see refs. under Hebrews 11:9): for he hath prepared for them a city. In consideration of the drift of the whole of this interesting and suggestive passage (Hebrews 11:9, Hebrews 11:10, Hebrews 11:13-17), the question arises whether the patriarchs are represented as actually themselves looking forward to a heavenly inheritance. In their history as given in Genesis, as, indeed, in the Old Testament generally (at any rate, in the earlier books), there is, as is well known, no distinct recognition of the life to come. The promise to Abraham seems to imply only an innumerable seed, its possession as a great nation of the earthly land of promise, and through it some undefined blessing to all the families of the earth. Nor are the patriarchs represented as looking forward to a fulfillment of the promise beyond the limits of the present world. Even so their history is singularly instructive. They lived in hope of things not seen through faith in the Divine promise. The very fact that they were content to die without themselves attaining, if so God’s purpose might be accomplished to their seed, invests them with a peculiar grandeur of unselfishness. Their faith was essentially the same principle as that of Christians, even though the final object of Christian hope were hidden from their eyes; while their dwelling in tents as strangers, and the home and city seen afar off, are apt emblems of the present life and the heavenly citizenship of Christians. It may be that this is all that is intended in the Epistle, the history being allegorized, as that of Isaac and Ishmael is in the Epistle to the Galatians. If so, the apparent attribution of a heavenly hope to the patriarchs themselves must be accounted for by a blending of the actual history with its ideal meaning, such as was observed in the chapter about Melchizedek. But it is difficult to understand the expressions used as implying no more than this. Abraham is said to have himself looked for the "city that hath the foundations," of which God is the Builder—a description which cannot but denote the "heavenly Jerusalem," of which the city whose foundations were on the holy hills below is regarded elsewhere as but a type and emblem (cf. Hebrews 12:22; Hebrews 13:14; Galatians 4:26; Revelation 21:14; also infra, Hebrews 8:2, where ἢνἔπηξενὁΘεὸς is said of the heavenly tabernacle). This interpretation is further supported by our finding in Philo similar views of a heavenly counterpart to Jerusalem as the final object of Israel’s hope. Again, the country desired by the patriarchs is, in verse 16, distinctly called a heavenly one. Nor is the view at all untenable that, notwithstanding the silence of the ancient record on the subject, they did look forward to a life after death with God, seeing in the promised earthly inheritance an emblem and earnest of a heavenly one. Well known is Bishop Warburton’s argument that a belief in a future state, which was so ancient and universal, and so prominent especially in the religion of Egypt must almost of necessity have been shared in by the race of Abraham, and hence that the silence about it in the Mosaic record must be due, not to its absence from the creed of Israel, but to the peculiar purpose of the Mosaic dispensation. Worthy of attention also are Dean Stanley’s words (Lect. 7. on ’Jewish Church’) "Not from want of religion, but (if one might use the expression) from excess of religion, was this void left. The future life was not denied or contradicted, but it was overlooked, set aside, overshadowed, by the consciousness of the living, actual presence of God himself." £But though such void there is, however to be accounted for, there are still, even in the Pentateuch (as certainly in the Psalms and prophets), occasional glimpses of the hope of immortality. The mystic tree of life in the midst of the garden, the predicted bruising, of the serpent’s head, the mystery of Enoch’s departure from the world, and notably (as our Lord himself points out) God still calling himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob after they had been long ago gathered to their fathers, are intimations, even in the Pentateuch, of a belief in man’s immortal hopes. And it may be added, with reference to the history immediately before us, that Jacob’s application of the idea of his being a" sojourner "—used by Abraham with reference to the abode in Palestine—to the whole course of his life upon the earth, in itself suggests the meaning attached to such language in the Epistle. Hence no violence is done to the meaning of the history rather it may be that its deeper meaning is brought out, if the patriarchs are regarded as entertaining a hope of a heavenly inheritance to themselves, and seeing beyond the earthly types. But even f we suppose such immortal hopes as having been in them at the most but vague and dim, still their faith in and longing for a fulfillment of the promise in any sense was really a longing and reaching after the eternal realities which the first fulfillment typified. Compare the view taken in Hebrews 4:1-16. of the meaning of "God’s rest." Delitzsch thus enunciates this view of the passage before us: "The promise given to the patriarchs was a Divine assurance of a future rest. That rest was connected, in the first instance, with the future possession of an earthly home; but their desire for that home was at the same time a longing and a seeking after Him who had given the promise of it, whoso presence and blessing alone made it for them an object of desire, and whose presence and blessing, however vouchsafed, makes the place of its manifestation to be indeed a heaven. The shell of their longing might thus be of earth; its kernel was heavenly and Divine, and as such God himself vouchsafed to honor and reward it." From the general mode of life of the patriarchs the review now passes to particular acts of faith, beginning with Abraham’s memorable one, the offering of Isaac. Hebrews 11:17-19 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up (literally, hath offered up, denoting an accomplished act of which the significance continues) Isaac: and he that had received (rather, accepted, implying his own assent and belief) the promises offered up his only begotten son, he to whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: accounting that God is able to raise up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure. The above rendering varies slightly from the A.V. in Hebrews 11:18, Hebrews 11:19. For, in Hebrews 11:18, πρὸςὃν is more naturally connected with the immediate antecedent, ὁἀναδεξάμενος, than with μονογενῆ: and, in Hebrews 11:19, there is no need to supply "him" after ἐγείρειν: the Greek seems obviously to express belief in God’s general power to raise from the dead, not his power in that instance only. The offering of Isaac (specially instanced also by St. James, if. 21), stands out as the crowning instance of Abraham’s faith. The very son, so king expected, and at length, as it were, supernaturally given,—he in whose single life was bound up all hope of fulfillment of the promise, was to be sacrificed after all, and so seemingly all hope cut off. Yet Abraham is represented as not hesitating for a moment to do in simple faith what seemed God’s will, and still not wavering in his hope of a fulfillment somehow. Such faith is here regarded as virtually faith in God’s power even to raise the dead. (For a similar view of Abraham’s faith as representing "the hope and resurrection of the dead," comp. Romans 4:17, Romans 4:24) The expression, "In Isaac shall thy seed be called" (literally, "In Isaac shall be called to thee a seed"), quoted from Genesis 21:12, means, not that the seed should be called after the name of Isaac, but that the seed to be called Abraham’s should be in Isaac, i.e. his issue. The concluding phrase, "Whence also he received him in a figure" (literally, "in a parable," ἐνπαραβολῇ), has been variously interpreted. Notwithstanding the authority of many modern common-taters, we may certainly reject the view of παραβολῇ carrying here the sense borne by the verb παραβάλλεσθαι, that of venturing or exposing one’s self to risk, or that of the adverb παραβόλως, unexpectedly. Even if the noun παραβολή could be shown by any instance to bear such senses, its ordinary use in the New Testament as well as in the LXX. must surely be understood here. It expresses (under the idea of comparison, or setting one thing by the side of another) an illustration, representation, or figure of something. Its use in this sense in the Gospels is familiar to us all; elsewhere in the New Testament it occurs only in this Epistle, Hebrews 9:9, where the "first tabernacle" is spoken of as a παραβολή. Still, the question remains of the exact drift of this expression, ἐνπαραβολῇ. It surely is, that, though Isaac did not really die, but only the ram in his stead, yet the transaction represented to Abraham an actual winning of iris son from the dead; he did so win him in the way of an acted parable, which confirmed his faith in God’s power to raise the dead as much as if the lad had died. For such use of the preposition ἐν we may compare 1 Corinthians 13:12, βλέπομενδἰἐσόπτρουἐναἰνίγματι, which may mean (notwithstanding the different view of it given doubtfully by the distinguished commentator on the Epistle in the ’Speaker’s Commentary’), "We see, not actually, but in the way of an enigmatical representation, as through a mirror." The above seems a mere natural meaning of the phrase, ἐνπαραβολῇ, than that of the commentators who interpret it "in such sort as to be a parable or type of something else to crone," viz. of the death and resurrection of Christ. It does not, of course, follow that the transaction was not typical of Christ, or that the writer does net so regard it; we are only considering what his language fit itself implies. Rendered literally, and with retention of the order of the words, the sentence runs: "From whence [i.e. from the dead] him [i.e. Isaac, αὐτόν being slightly emphatic, as is shown by its position in the sentence, equivalent to illum, not eum; and this suitably after the general proposition preceding] he did too in a parable win [ἐκομίσατο, equivalent to sibi acquisivit; cf. verse 39, οὐκἐκομίσαντοτὴνἐπαγγελίαν]." With regard to what we may call the moral aspect of this peculiar trial of Abraham’s faith, a few words may be said, since a difficulty naturally suggests itself on the subject. How, it may be asked, is it consistent with our ideas of Divine righteousness, that even readiness to slay his son should be required of Abraham as a duty? How are we to account for this apparent sanction of the principle of human sacrifices? To the latter question we may reply, in the first place, that the narrative in Genesis, taken as a whole, affords no such sanction, but very much the contrary. All we are told is that the great patriarch, in the course of his religious training, was once divinely led to suppose such a sacrifice to be required of him. The offering of sons was not unusual in the ancient races among where Abraham lived; and, however shocking such a practice might be, and however condemned in later Scripture, it was due, we may say. to the perversion only of a true instinct of humanity—that which suggests the need of some great atonement, and the claim of the Giver of all to our best and dearest, if demanded from us. That Abraham should be even divinely led to suppose for a time that his God required him to express his acknowledgment of this need and this claim by not withholding from him as much as even the heathen were accustomed to offer to their gods, is consistent with God’s general way of educating men to a full knowledge of the truth. But the sacrifice was ill the end emphatically forbidden by a voice from heaven; to Abraham thenceforth, and to his seed for ever, it was made dearly known that, though God does require atonement for sin and entire submission to his will, he does not require violence to be done to tender human feeling, or any cruel rites. Hebrews 11:20 By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau, even (or, also) concerning things to come. Here the word καὶ (omitted in the Textus Receptus) gives force to what is meant; words uttered by the patriarchs in the spirit of prophecy being now adduced as further evidence of their faith. To those inspired by this spirit even the distant future is realized as present; and faith is not only a condition of such prophetic visions being granted to them, but is also evinced by their trusting the visions as Divine revelations, and speaking with confidence accordingly. The prophet seems as though able himself to control the future by giving or withholding blessing (cf. Jeremiah 1:10); but it is really that his mind and will are at one with the mind and will of God: a Divine voice speaks within him, and through faith he is receptive of it and gives it utterance. Thus it was that even the future characters, and changing relations to each other, of the yet unborn races of Israel and Edom are represented as having been foreshadowed in the blessings of that dying patriarch. Hebrews 11:21 By faith Jacob, when he was a-dying, blessed each of the sons of Joseph; and worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff. Here two distinct incidents are referred to, both at the close of Jacob’s life. That first mentioned, the blessing of the sons of Joseph (Genesis 48:2), closely resembles the dying act of Isaac already spoken of, and has a similar significance. In both cases, too, human intention is overruled, in that the younger son obtains the higher blessing; and each patriarch accepts alike the Divine intimation to this effect, thus further evincing faith in a power and a will above his own. The latter part of the verse, "and worshipped," etc., is quoted from Genesis 47:31, and refers to a previous instance of the dying Jacob’s faith, in his charge to Joseph to bury him with his fathers in the land of promise. The reversal in the text of the historical order of the two instances may be because the one referred to first is cognate with the instance of Isaac’s faith which has gone before, the other with that of Joseph’s which follows. For the benedictions of Isaac and Jacob, when a-dying, expressed faith in revelations made to them about the several races of their future seed; the deathbed charges of Jacob and Joseph expressed faith in the chosen seed’s inheritance of the Promised Land. Though in the verse before us Jacob’s charge to Joseph, with a view to this inheritance, is not mentioned, yet the quotation from the account of it in Genesis, "and worshipped," etc., would be sufficient, in this concise summary of instances, to recall it to the mind of readers, and so intimate the writer’s meaning. The variation of the LXX., which is here followed as usual, from the Massoretic text, in reading "staff" instead of "bed," is due to the ambiguity of the Hebrew word, which has one meaning or the other according to its pointing. "Bed" seems more likely to have been intended, inasmuch as the bed on which the patriarch lay is twice again mentioned (Genesis 48:2; Genesis 49:33) in the account of the closing scene; and we find also a similar expression used of David in his old age (1 Kings 1:47). Bat the variation is unimportant, the essence of the passage being in the word translated "bowed himself," which in the Hebrew as well as the Greek certainly expresses an act of worship. The only difference is that, according to one rendering, this worship was expressed by his bowing over the staff on which he leant as he sat upon the bed (Genesis 48:2); according to the other, by his turning round to prostrate himself with his head upon the pillow. The view of some of the Fathers, who, adopting the LXX. rendering and supposing the staff to be Joseph’s, regard the act as expressing reverence to Joseph himself, in fulfillment of Gem Genesis 38:5-11, has little probability in its favor, and is controverted by St. Augustine. But so Chrysostom, and apparently Theodoret. And suitably to this idea, the Vulgate has in Hebrews, "et adoravit fastigium virgae ejus," though in Genesis, "adoravit Israel Deum, conversus ad lectuli caput." Quite untenable, and only worthy of mention because of the use that has been made of it in support of image-worship, is the idea that Joseph’s staff was surmounted by some sacred image which Jacob adored. Hebrews 11:22 By faith Joseph, when dying, made mention of the departing (Exodus) of the children of Israel; and gave commandment concerning his bones. The reference is to Genesis 50:24, Genesis 50:25, which, after what has been said above, requires no further comment. Hebrews 11:23 By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months of his parents, because they saw that he was a proper (ἀστεῖον, the word used of the child in Exodus 2:2, there translated "goodly," and in Acts 7:20, "fair") child; and they were not afraid of the king’s commandment. Here the usual following of the LXX. again appears in the hiding being attributed to both parents (this is certainly the meaning of πατέρων, not—as some interpret because of the masculine form—father and grandfather). In the Hebrew it is the mother only that is spoken of as hiding him; whereas in the LXX. the verbs are in the plural, ἰδόντεςδὲ, etc., though with no expressed nominative. It is not necessary to understand a special faith in the fulfillment of the promises through the child thus hidden to be implied, though it may be so intended. But the mere fearlessness in obeying the dictates of heart and conscience in the face of danger, and the mere reliance on Providence, thus displayed, expressed faith. Hebrews 11:24-26 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in (or, of) Egypt; for he had respect unto (literally, looked away to) the recompense of reward. As in the speech of Stephen (Acts 7:1-60), so here, the narrative in Exodus is supple-merited from tradition, such as is found also in Philo. Moses’ refusal to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, i.e. his renunciation of his position in the court in order to associate himself with his oppressed fellow-countrymen, is not mentioned in the original history, though it is consistent with it, and indeed implied. St. Stephen further regards his taking the part of the Israelite against the Egyptian (Exodus 2:11-13) as a sign that he was already conscious of his mission, and hoped even then to rouse his countrymen to make a struggle for freedom. The reproach he subjected himself to by thus preferring the patriot’s to the courtier’s life is here called "the reproach of Christ." How so? Chrysostom takes the expression to mean only the same kind of reproach as Christ was afterwards subjected to, in respect of his being scouted, and his Divine mission disbelieved, by those whom he came to save. But, if the expression had been used with respect to Christian’s suffering for the faith (as it is below, Hebrews 13:13), it would certainly imply more than this; viz. a participation in Christ’s own reproach, not merely a reproach like his. (Cf. 2 Corinthians 1:5, τὰπαθήματατοῦΧριστοῦ, and Colossians 1:24, τῶνθλίψεωντοῦΧριστοῦ, where there is the further idea expressed of Christ himself suffering in his members) And such being the idea which the phrase in itself would at once convey to Christian readers, and especially as the very same is used below (Hebrews 13:13) with reference to Christians, it must surely be somehow involved in this passage. But how so, we ask again, in the case of Moses? To get at the idea of the phrase we must bear in mind the view of the Old and New Testaments being but two parts of one Divine dispensation. The Exodus was thus not only typical of the deliverance through Christ, but also a step towards it, a preparation for it, a link in the divinely ordered chain of events leading up to the great redemption. Hence, in the first place, the reproach endured by Moses in furtherance of the Exodus may be regarded as endured at any rate for the sake of Christ, i.e. in his cause whose coming was the end and purpose of the whole dispensation. And further, inasmuch as Christ is elsewhere spoken of as the Head of the whole mystical body of his people in all ages—all to be gathered together at last in him—he may be regarded, even before his incarnation, as himself reproached in the reproach of his servant Moses. Compare the view, presented in Hebrews 3:1-19, of the Son being Lord of the "house" in which Moses was a servant, and the comprehensive sense of "God’s house" implied in that passage. Nor should we leave out of consideration the identification, maintained by the Fathers generally (see Bull, ’Def. Fid. Nic.,’ I. 1), of the Angel of the Pentateuch, of him who revealed himself to Moses as I AM from the bush, with the Second Person of the holy Trinity, the Word who became incarnate in Christ. (Cf. John 1:1-15; also John 8:58, read in connection with Exodus 3:14; and 1 Corinthians 10:4, where the spiritual rock that followed the children of Israel in the wilderness is said to have been Christ) Whatever, however, be the exact import of the expression, "reproach of Christ," in its application to Moses, it is evidently selected here with the view of bringing his example home to the readers of the Epistle, by thus intimating that his faith’s trial was essentially the same as theirs. Hebrews 11:27 By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible. This forsaking of Egypt must, because of the order in which it comes and of Moses alone being mentioned, be his flight related in Exodus 2:15, not the final Exodus. The only seeming difficulty is in the expression, "not fearing the wrath of the king," whereas in the history Moses is represented as flying in fear from the face of Pharaoh, who sought to slay him. But the two views of his attitude of mind are reconcilable. The assertion of his fearlessness applies to his whole course of action from the time when he elected to brave the king in behalf of Israel. In pursuance of this course, it became necessary for him to leave Egypt for a time. In this, as well as in staying, there was danger; for the king might pursue him: he might, perhaps, have secured his own safety by returning to the court and giving up his project; but he persevered at all hazards. And thus the apprehension of immediate danger under which he fled the country with a view to final success, was in no contradiction to his general fearlessness. Further, his being content to leave Egypt at all, and that for so many years, and still never relinquishing his design, was an additional evidence of faith, as is expressed by the word ἐκαρτέρησε, "he endured." The vision through faith of the unseen heavenly King kept alive his hope through those long years of exile: what was any possible wrath even of the terrible Pharaoh to one supported by that continual vision? Hebrews 11:28, Hebrews 11:29 By faith he kept (literally, hath kept, πεποίηκεν, the perfect being used rather than the historical aorist, as denoting an accomplished act, with continuing effect and significance (cf. προσενήνοχεν, Hebrews 11:17). But πεποίηκεν does not mean, as some suppose, "hath instituted," ποιεῖντὸΠάσχα being the usual expression for the celebration) the Passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them. By faith they passed through the Red Sea, as by dry land; which the Egyptians assaying to do were drowned. The faith of Moses himself is still mainly intended here, though the conjunction of πίστει with seems διέβησαν to imply faith in the people too. Nor is this inconsistent with the narrative; for, though they are represented as having cried out in their sore fear, and even reproached their leader for bringing them out of Egypt to die in the wilderness, yet on his exhortation, "Fear ye not, stand still, dud see the salvation of the LORD," they may be supposed to have trusted him, and caught something of the inspiration of his faith. Moses, indeed, stands out as a prominent example (and this is one point in the moral teaching of his history) of the strong faith of one great man, not only availing in behalf of others, but also in some degree infecting a whole community, little disposed at first to make heroic ventures. Hebrews 11:30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they were compassed about seven days (see Joshua 6:1-21). The capture of Jericho may be selected for mention, not only because of its extraordinary character, but also as being the beginning of the campaign in Canaan, the first necessary conquest that opened the way to the rest. The history is not further pursued in detail, this being sufficient to suggest it all. Only, for a special reason, the case of Rahab has attention drawn to it. Hebrews 11:31 By faith Rahab the harlot perished not with them that were disobedient, when she had received the spies with peace. Rahab is instanced also by St. James (James 2:25) as having shown her faith by works. Such special notice of her is accounted for by her being so remarkable an instance of a heathen, an alien, one of the very doomed Canaanite race, being through faith adopted into the commonwealth of Israel, so as even to become an ancestress of the Messiah (Matthew 1:5). Faith is thus exhibited as the acceptable principle of religious action, not in Israel only, but in all races, as in all times. Rahab’s faith was in the omnipotence and supremacy of the God of Israel, induced by evidence of which she could not resist the force (Joshua 2:9-12). Her consequent action was to protect the spies, of course with great risk to herself, lest she should oppose the Divine will as she believed it. Her fellow-countrymen had the same evidence before them; but it caused them only to lose courage and faint, not to act on faith at all, either in their own gods or in the LORD; hence they are hero called "those who were disobedient (τοῖςἀπειθήσασι)," i.e. resisted God’s will—the same expression as is used of the Israelites who fell in the wilderness (Hebrews 3:18), and of the contemporaries of Noah (1 Peter 3:20; cf. Acts 19:9). That Rahab was, at the time when she thus evinced her faith, a harlot (such is certainly the meaning of πόρνη); that she lied to the King of Jericho’s messengers (Joshua 2:4, Joshua 2:5); and that she treacherously aided the invaders of her country;—have been felt as difficulties with regard to the position assigned her among the faithful. In reply to such aspersions on her character, it is usual to allege as follows: As to her harlotry, there is no reason to suppose that her profession was held in any disrepute among the Canaanites, or that she was aware of there being any harm in it; and that, at any rate after her conversion, she became the honorable wife of a chief in Israel. As to her lying, strict truthfulness in all circumstances was not likely to be known to her as a necessary virtue; Michal, not to mention others, lied to Saul’s messengers in order to save David’s live, and even some Christian casuists allow falsehood in such cases. As to her treachery, what she held to be her religious duty properly took precedence of any sentiment of hopeless patriotism; and, after all, what she did was only to save the spies from a cruel death, not to correspond with the enemy or open the gates of her city to them. Such excuses for what might seem amiss in her are valid. But the main point to be observed is this—that, whatever her enlightenment, as a heathen, in principles of morality familiar to us Christians, she stands out in the sacred record as having been saved and admitted into Israel on account of her faith in the one true God, and action in accordance with her faith. What is said of Jael (Dr. Arnold’s ’Sermons on Interpretation of Scripture’) may be still more said of her: "They who serve him honestly up to the measure of their knowledge are according to the general course of his providence encouraged and blessed; they whose eyes and hearts are still fixed upwards, on duty, not on self, are precisely that smoking flax which he will not quench, but cherish rather, till the smoke be blown into a flame." Be it observed, however, that Jael’s murderous deed—much less easily defensible than Rahab’s conduct—is nowhere adduced in the New Testament as an instance of faith. Among the names that follow here Barak is mentioned, but not Jael. The only ground for supposing her to be approved in Scripture is her being called "blessed" in Deborah’s triumphal song, uttered in the flush of victory. But we are not bound to accept that "prophetess," however inspired for her peculiar mission, as an oracle on questions of morality. Hebrews 11:32-34 And what shall I more say? For the time would fail me to tell of Gideon, and of Barak and Samson and Jephthah; and of David and Samuel and the prophets: who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the months of lions, quenched the power (δύναμιν) of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight (literally, were made strong in war), turned to flight armies of aliens. The names thus mentioned are meant as prominent specimens of the long array of Israel’s heroes to the end of the sacred history, though, for the avoidance of prolixity, the list is not continued beyond the foundation of the kingdom under David and Samuel. Among the judges, Gideon is mentioned first, though he came after Barak, probably as being the most famous hero, as well as more remarkable in the history for faith and heroism. "The day of Midian" is referred to by Isaiah (Isaiah 9:4; Isaiah 10:26) as the memorable triumph of ancient days. Hence (the arrangement of the τες and καιs of the Textus Receptus being retained) Gideon is first mentioned singly, and is succeeded by two groups—viz. Barak, Samson, and Jephthah, representing the period of the judges generally; then David and Samuel, representing that of the kings and prophets. The deeds enumerated in the following verses need not be appropriated exclusively to particular heroes, but may be rather taken as denoting generally the kind of exploits by which faith was evidenced throughout the history. Some, however, seem to have special references, as the stopping of lions’ mouths, and quenching the power of fire, to the incidents recorded in the Book of Daniel. "Escaped the edge of the sword," though peculiarly applicable to Elijah (cf. 1 Kings 19:10, 1 Kings 19:14, "have slain thy prophets with the sword, and I, even I, only am left," etc), has, of course, many other applications. Some see in "out of weakness were made strong" a special allusion to Samson’s recovery of his strength, but it is better taken in general reference to the frequent instances of the weak things of this world being enabled through faith to confound the strong, and the few to prevail against the many. Numerous expressions to this effect in the Psalms, when the psalmist rises out of the depths of humiliation and weakness into confident reliance on Divine aid, will suggest themselves at once; and the instances of Gideon, Jonathan, David, and others, will occur readily to the mind. In the four concluding clauses of verse 34, Delitzsch supposes the Maccabean heroes to be specifically alluded to—partly because of the word παρεμβολὴ being used here, as it is also frequently in 1 Maccabees, in the sense of "encamped army," instead of its proper and usual one of "camp" as in Hebrews 13:11, Hebrews 13:13 (cf. Acts 21:10; Acts 23:1-35. 10) This coincidence of usage does add to the probability that the Maccabean history, to which all the expressions are very suitable, was at any rate included in the writer’s view. But in the history of Gideon too (Judges 7:2) the LXX. has παρεμβολὴ for the host encamped; καὶἔδραμενπᾶσαἡπαρεμβολὴ. Allusion to Maccabees is more distinctly evident; in verse 35, as will be seen. The expression, "obtained promises (ἐπέτυχονἐπαγγελιῶν)," surely expresses having promises fulfilled to them, not merely having promise made to them. "Promises" being in the plural, and without an article, so as to include all prophetic promises even of a temporal character, such as that to David that he should reign instead of Saul,—there is no need here to reconcile the assertion with that of verse 39, "received not the promise (οὐκἐκομίσαντοτὴνἐπαγγελίαν);" on which expression, however, see below. Hebrews 11:35 Women received their dead raised to life again (literally, from, or, out of resurrection. The A.V. gives the sense in good English; only the force of the repetition of the word "resurrection" at the end of the verse is lost); and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection. The first part of this verse evidently refers to 1 Kings 17:22 and 2 Kings 4:36—the memorable instances in the Old Testament of mothers having had their sons restored to them from death. The latter part is as evidently suggested at least by the narrative of 2 Macc. 7; where it is recorded how, under the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes, seven sons of one mother were tortured and lint to death; how one of them, in the midst of his tortures, having deliverance and advancement offered him if he would forsake the Law of his fathers, courageously refused the offer; and how both they and their mother, who encouraged them to persevere, reiterated their hope of a resurrection from the dead. The "better resurrection" means the resurrection to eternal life by them looked for, which was "better" than the temporary restoration to life in this world granted to the sons of the widow of Zarephath and the Shunammite; while the article in the Greek before "deliverance" (τὴνἀπολύτρωσιν) may be due to the thought of that which is recorded to have been offered to those in the writer’s immediate view. There is some doubt as to the exact import of the word ἐτυμπανίσθησαν (translated "tortured"). The usual meaning of the Greek word is" to beat," as a drum is beaten, from τύμπανον, a drum or drumstick: and ἀποτυμπανίζειν means "to beat to death." But, inasmuch as the instrument of torture to which Eleazar was brought is called τὸτύμπανον (6:19, 28), it has been supposed that the punishment referred to was the stretching of the victims, in the way of a rack, on a sort of wheel called a tympanum, on which they were then beaten to death, as Eleazar was. So Vulgate, distenti sunt. The fact that the seven of 2 Macc. 7. were not so martyred, but by fire and other tortures, is not inconsistent with this view; for our author need not be supposed to confine his view to them, but uses the word suggested by Eleazar’s case. Whatever be the exact import of the word, the A.V. ("were tortured") sufficiently gives the generally intended meaning. Hebrews 11:36-38 And others had trial of mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment: they were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented (rather, evil-entreated); (of whom the world was not worthy:) wandering in deserts, and mountains, and dens, and the eaves of the earth. In this general review particular cases may again have suggested some of the expressions used. The mention of "mockings" is prominent in the Maccabean history; "bonds and imprisonments" recall Hanani, Micaiah, and Jeremiah; "they were stoned" recalls Zachariah son of Jehoiada (2 Chronicles 24:20; cf. Matthew 23:1-39. 35; Luke 11:51; also Matthew 23:37; Luke 13:34). "They wandered in sheepskins (μηλωταῖς) and in deserts" peculiarly suggests Elijah (his mantle being called μηλωτής in the LXX., 2 Kings 2:13, 2 Kings 2:14), though the Maccabean heroes also took refuge in "deserts and mountains" (1 Macc. 2). "Sawn asunder" most probably refers to a well-known tradition about Isaiah, who is said to have so suffered under Manasseh. Alford thus gives the notices found elsewhere of this tradition: "Justin Martyr ’Trypho,’ § 120; Tertullian, ’Cont. Guest. Scorpiac.,’ 8, and ’De Patient.,’ 14; Origen, ’Ep. ad African;’ Lactantius, ’Inst.,’ 4.11; Psalm-Epiphanius, ’Vit. Proph; ’Augustine, ’De Cir. Dei,’ 18.24; Jerome, on Isaiah 57:1." Jerome calls it a "certissima traditio apud Judaeos," and says that this passage in the Epistle was by most referred to the passion of Isaiah. The tameness and apparent inappropriateness of the verb ἐπειράσθησαν ("were tempted") in verse 36, in the midst of an enumeration of cruel modes of death, has led to a prevalent view that it is a corruption of the original text. Various conjectures have been made, the most tenable being (1) that it is an interpolation, arising from the repetition by some copyist of ἐπρίσθησαν, which was afterwards altered to ἐπωιράσθησαν: or (2) that it is a substitution for some other word through error in transcription, the most likely conjecture as to the word originally written being ἐπρήσθησαν or ἐπυράσθησαν, equivalent to "were burnt." Either form, especially the latter, might easily be changed to ἐπειράσθησαν: and thus death by fire would have been originally included in the enumeration, which was likely to have been the ease, especially since it is mentioned prominently in the account of the martyrdom of the seven sons. But, as there is no authority of any manuscript for a different word, this is mere conjecture; though the omission of the word altogether in some few manuscripts and versions, and variations of reading in others, suggest some uncertainty as to the original text. The word ἐπειράςθησαν if genuine, may possibly have been suggested by alliteration, and by thought of the temptations to apostatize prominent in the account both of Eleazar and of the seven sons. Hebrews 11:39, Hebrews 11:40 This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ The exhortation, begun at Hebrews 10:19, but interrupted at Hebrews 11:1-40. I by the chapter on faith, is now taken up again with increased force from the array of examples that have been adduced to support it. Observable in the Greek is the fine roll of the majestic and well-ordered phrases with which this chapter begins, as if the writer had felt the dignity of his subject, and the commanding power with which he can now approach it. Even the initiatory word τοιγαροῦν, rather than the usual ὅθεν, or οὖν, or διό, adds to the effect. Hebrews 12:1 Wherefore let us too ("we also," in the A.V., is wrongly placed), seeing we are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience (rather, endurance) the race that is sot before us. Christians, still "fighting the good fight of faith," are hero regarded under the image of athletes in the palaestra, contending for a prize. It is a favorite image with St. Paul, not only, we may suppose, because of its appropriateness, but also because of the probable appreciation of it by his readers in consequence of the general interest taken in the famous games (cf. 1 Corinthians 9:24, etc; 1 Timothy 6:12; 2 Timothy 4:7). The idea in this first verso is that of a race (τρέχωμενἀγῶνα). The word προκείμενον (τὸνπροκείμενονἡμῖνἀγῶνα) is the usual one in the ease of a contest appointed in public games, though, of course, otherwise applicable, as in Hebrews 6:18 and Hebrews 12:2. "Every weight" (ὄγκονπάντα), which we are to "lay aside," or rather put off from us (ἀπόθεσθαι), means, probably, in the figure, any heavy accoutrement, or other encumbrance, which the runner might have about him. Some, indeed, take ὄγκον to denote "obesity"—a sense in which the word is sometimes used, as by Hippocrates, Diodorus, AElian—and think the allusion is to the training required of athletes for getting into condition. But the word ἀποθέμενοι rather suggests as above. In the word ἁμαρτίαν, that follows, the figure is dropped, so as to make evident what is meant, but still retained apparently in the epithet εὐπερίστατον. This word, which is found nowhere else either in biblical or classical Greek, has to be interpreted from its derivation, the analogy of similar words, and the context. The usual and most probable view is, deriving it from περιΐ́στασθαι, to understand "that which easily surrounds us" (equivalent to τὴνεὐκόλωςπεριΐσταμένηνἡμᾶς). Thus Chrysostom: Εὐπερίστατονγὰρἡἁμαρτίαπάντοθενἱσταμένηἔμπροσθεν, ὔπισθενκαὶοὕτωςἡμᾶςκαταβάλλουσα (Chrysostom, ’Hem.’ 2. on 2 Corinthians). Cf. περίκειταιἀσθένειαν (Hebrews 5:2). It is true that other verbals, similarly derived from ἵστημι, or its compounds, are not active, but intransitive or passive; thus περίστατος means "surrounded," not "surrounding; ἀπερίστατος means "unguarded," i.e. "not surrounded." Still, as such verbals derived from other verbs are often active, this may be so here, and thus have an intelligible sense in connection with the context. We may understand the figure of a race to be still kept in view, with regard to the runner not only laving aside encumbrances, but also stripping himself of his clothes, which would cling round him and impede his course. (The idea of close personal encirclement thus supposed to be expressed by αὐπερίστατον seems better to suit the figure, as also the governing verb ἀποθέμενοι, than that preferred by Delitzsch; viz. of sin getting in our road as we run, as might surrounding obstacles in an actual race: "Peecata currentem et implicant ac supplantant, ut prorsus a cursu impediatur vel in medio subsistat ant corruat," Horneius, quoted by Delitzsch) The application of the whole figure to Christian athletes is not hard to understand. The encumbrances to be laid aside by them, lest they should be weighted in their race, may include old associations, lingering Jewish prejudices, ties to the world, habits and customs which, whether or not in themselves blameless, might prove clogs and hindrances. Then the "easily besetting sin" would be all such as might cling to them personally, whether in the heart or in habits of life; which, if not got rid of, would be ever like an encircling and impeding robe, crippling alacrity and arresting speed. But further, as runners, however unencumbered for the race, require what in modern phrase is called "pluck" to keep it up to the end, so with the Christian athlete; for there will always be danger of his flagging as his course goes on under trials and difficulties, and this especially in times of persecution. This further requirement is expressed by δἰὑπομινῆς, "with endurance," i.e. throughout to the end. Thus we have presented to us a grand conception of Christians being as athletes contending on the arena of this present world for the crown of immortality; and, as is expressed at the beginning of the verse, under the eager gaze of a vast multitude of unseen spectators, corresponding to those in the crowded seats, rising higher and higher, of an earthly amphitheatre. These unseen spectators are the innumerable saints before us, who have finished their course and are now at rest, but who are as it were in the air around us, watching us from above with sympathy. The word "cloud" (νέφος), though applicable to any great multitude, is peculiarly appropriate here, as suggesting the idea of an aerial company. The word "witnesses," too (μαρτύρων), though here most obviously to be understood in the sense of θεαταί, i.e. witnesses of our contest, may be intended to convey also, as it certainly suggests to the mind, its other welt-known meaning—that of witnesses to the faith, or martyrs (cf. Acts 22:13; Revelation 2:13; Revelation 11:3; Revelation 17:6). So the Fathers generally understand it here. The saints before us, as they bore witness to God in life, so are conceived as witnesses also of our like witness now, awaiting the day when, "not without us," they shall be finally perfected. Hebrews 12:2 Looking unto the Author and Finisher of our faith (rather, the Leader, or Captain, as in Hebrews 2:10, and Perfecter of the faith, or of faith—faith’s Captain and Completer), Jesus; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. The idea is not, as implied in the A.V. and understood by Chrysostom and other ancients, that Jesus first inspires and then brings to its complete result the individual Christian’s faith ("quod caepit in nobis consummabit"), but (as implied in the word ἀρχηγὸς, and suiting the context better) that he is the Leader of the whole army of faith, whose standard we are to follow, and whose own completed victory is the enabling cause as well as the earnest of our own. It is no valid objection to this view that he could not have been a Leader in this sense to the faithful ones before his coming, referred to in the last chapter; for, as has been before observed (see on "the reproach of Christ," Hebrews 11:26), he is regarded as the Head and Leader, in all ages, of the faithful; and in virtue of his future warfare for mankind the saints of old endured and triumphed:—and certainly Christians, to whom the exhortation is addressed, may look to him in an obvious sense as their Captain to be followed. Nor, again, is there difficulty—apart from that of the whole mystery of the Incarnation—in his being presented to us as himself an example of triumphant faith. For he is elsewhere spoken of as having so "emptied himself" of his Divine glory as to have become like unto us in all things, sin except; and thus to have been sustained during his human life by faith in the unseen, as we are. His addresses to the Father (see especially John 17:1-26) are strikingly significant in this regard. The expression, "for the joy," etc. (ἀντὶτῆςπροκειμένηςαὐτῷχαρᾶς), does not mean, as some take it, "instead of the joy which he might have had on earth" (such e.g. as was offered to him by the tempter), but, as is evident from the word προκειμένης, "as set against, i.e. for the sake of, future joy" (cf. ἀντὶβρώσεωςμιᾶς, Hebrews 12:16). Such looking forward to joy with the Father and the redeemed after triumph is expressed in the great intercessory prayer-above referred to (John 17:5, John 17:13, John 17:22, John 17:23, John 17:24, John 17:26). It may be here observed that anticipation of reward hereafter is among legitimate human motives to a good life. It may be said, indeed, that the highest virtue consists in doing what is right simply because it is right—in fulfilling God’s will, whatever may come of it to ourselves; but the hope of a final happy issue comes properly, and indeed inevitably, in as an inspiring and sustaining motive. Aspiration after Happiness is a God-given instinct of humanity, necessary for keeping up the life of virtue. There may be some so in love with virtue as to be capable of persevering in lifelong self-denial, though without any faith in a life to come. But human nature in general certainly requires this further incentive, and Christian faith supplies it. Nor are those who thus work with a view to future joy to be accused of selfish motives, as though they balanced only a greater against a smaller gain. To the true Christian the grand inspiring principle is still the love of God and of his neighbor, and of goodness for its own sake, though the hope of an eternal reward supports and cheers him mightily. Nor, again, is the joy looked forward to a selfish joy. It is the joy of sharing in the triumph of eternal righteousness in company with all the redeemed, whose salvation, no less than his own, he desires and strives for. And, further, with regard to his own individual joy, what is it but the joy of attaining the end of his being, the perfection God meant him for, and to which it is his duty to aspire? Hence Christ would not have been a perfect Example to man had he not been represented as looking forward to "the joy that was set before him." Hebrews 12:3 For consider him that hath endured such contradiction of sinners against himself (or, of the sinners against him), lest ye be weary fainting in your souls. The word ἀντιλογία ("contradiction"), though strictly applicable to verbal gainsaying, and thus especially suggesting to our minds the blasphemies and false accusations against Christ, includes opposition of all kinds. It is used in the LXX. for "rebellion" (Hebrew, ירַסְ), 2 Samuel 22:41; Proverbs 17:11, cf. Jud Proverbs 1:11, τῇἀντιλογιᾴτοῦΚορέ. (Instead of εἰςἑαυτόν (al. εἰςαὐτὸν) there is weighty manuscript authority for εἰςἑαυτούς, equivalent to "against themselves.") "Lest ye be weary," etc., keeps in view the idea of getting tired in a race, the word ἐκλυεσθαι ("faint") being used primarily for corporeal, and figuratively for mental, lassitude (cf. Matthew 15:32, μήποτεἐκλυθῶσιἐντῇὁδῷ). Hebrews 12:4 Ye have net yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin. Here (as in 1 Corinthians 9:26) there is a transition of thought from a race to a combat. Your trials have not yet reached the point of dying in the good fight of faith, as has been the case with some of your brethren before you, who have followed their Leader to the end (of. Hebrews 13:7). Hebrews 12:5, Hebrews 12:6 And ye have forgotten (or, have ye forgotten?) the exhortation which speaketh unto you (more correctly, discourses, or reasons, with you; i.e. in the way of fatherly remonstrance) as unto children, My son, etc. This verse introduces a further motive for persevering under prolonged trial, viz. our being assured in Holy Writ of its beneficial purpose as discipline. The quotation is from Proverbs 3:11, Proverbs 3:12, as it is in the LXX. We observe that the word "faint" (ἐκλύου) is the same as was used in Proverbs 3:3. In the seventh and following verses this scriptural admonition is applied and commented on. Hebrews 12:7, Hebrews 12:8 For chastening ye endure; i.e. It is for chastening that ye endure. The reading εἰςπαιδείανὑπομένετε, supported by almost the whole weight of manuscripts (including all the uncials that contain the text), of ancient versions, and commentators (Theophylact being the only certain exception), is decidedly to be accepted instead of the εἰπαιδείανὑπομένετε (equivalent to "if ye endure chastening") of the Textus Receptus. Moreover, it is required for the sense of the passage in regard to the proper meaning of the verb ὑπομένετε ("endure"), which is to "submit to," or "endure patiently," not simply "to undergo." For to say, "if ye endure chastisement patiently, God dealeth with you as sons," has no meaning; our being treated as sons depends, not on the way we take our chastisement, but on our being chastised at all. The use of the preposition εἰς to express purpose is common in this Epistle (cf. Hebrews 1:14, εἰςδιακονίαν: Hebrews 3:5, εἰςμαρτύριον: Hebrews 4:16, εἰςβοήθειαν: Hebrews 6:16, εἰςβεβαίωσιν): and the essential sense of παιδεία is discipline or education. The drift is the same, whether we take ὑπομένετε as an indicative or an imperative. Thus the next clause of the verse follows suitably: God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is there (or, who is a son) whom his father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastening, whereof all (i.e. all God’s children, with reference to Hebrews 11:1-40) have been made partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons (ye are not your father’s real children whom he cares for as such). Hebrews 12:9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us (more correctly, we once had, or, we used to have, the fathers of our flesh as chasteners), and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? This introduces an à fortiori argument. We are reminded of the days of our youth, while we were under parental discipline, and bore with it submissively: much more should we submit to the discipline of our heavenly Father, to whom we are as children under training all our life long! Commentators differ as to what is exactly meant by the contrast between "the fathers of our flesh" and "the Father of spirits (τῶνπνευμάτων)." Some (among moderns Delitzsch) find here a support to the theory of creationism as against traducianism; i.e. that the soul of each individual, as distinct from the body, is a new creation, not transmitted from the parents. This view would have more to go on than it has, were we justified in implying ἡμῶν after πνευμάτων ("our spirits," in opposition to "our flesh," preceding). But τῶνπνευμάτων seems evidently meant to be understood generally; and the expression (suggested probably by Numbers 16:22 and Numbers 27:16, "The God of the spirits of all flesh") need imply only that, though God is the original Author of flesh as well as spirit, yet the latter, whether in man or otherwise existing, has in a peculiar sense its parentage from him (cf. Genesis 2:7, "The LORD GOD formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul;" also Job 33:4, "The Spirit of the LORD hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life"). Our earthly parents transmit to us our carnal existence; our spiritual part, in whatever mysterious way derived or inspired, is duo to our Divine parentage; and it is in respect of this that we are God’s children and accountable to him. But, as has been intimated above, it is not human spirits only that are here in the writer’s view. God is the Father of all "the spirits," whether in the flesh or not; all are of Divine parentage, for God himself is Spirit—ΠνεῦμαὁΘεός (John 4:24). Chrysostom explains thus: Τῷπατρὶτῶνπνευμὰτωνἤτοιτῶνχαρισμάτωνλέγει, ἤτοιτῶνεὐχῶνψυχῶνἤτοιτῶνἀσωμάτωνδυνάμεων Hebrews 12:10 For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. The a fortiori argument is thus continued. The discipline of our earthly fathers was "for a few days," i.e. during our childhood only, since which we have been left to ourselves; and even then not necessarily for our greatest advantage; it was only as seemed good to them (κατὰτὸδοκοῦναὐτοῖς); it might be injudicious, or even capricious. But our heavenly Father’s discipline we may trust to be always good for us, and with a definite final purpose. Though there is here no distinctly expressed antithesis to the "few days" of ordinary parental chastisement, yet one is implied in the last clause; for if God’s purpose in chastening us is to make us partakers of his own holiness, we may conclude that the discipline will be continued till the end be attained; and thus also a further reason is implied why Christians should not "faint" under even lifelong trials. Hebrews 12:11 Now no chastening seemeth for the present to be joyous, but grievous (literally, not of joy, but of grief): nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness to them which have been exercised thereby. This is a general statement with respect to all chastening, though the expression of its result at the end of the verse is suggested by the thought of Divine chastening, to which alone it is certainly, and in the full sense of the words, applicable. "Of righteousness" is a genitive of apposition; δικαιοσύνη is the peaceable fruit yielded by παιδεία. And the word here surely denotes actual righteousness in ourselves; not merely justification in what is called the forensic sense: the proper effect of chastening is to make us good, and so at peace with our own conscience and with God. It is by no means thus implied that we can be accepted and so have peace on the ground of our own imperfect righteousness; only that it is in the fruits of faith perfected by discipline that we may "know that we are of the truth, and assure our hearts before him" (cf. James 3:18, "The fruit of righteousness is sown in peace;" also Isaiah 32:17, "And the work of righteousness shall be peace"). Hebrews 12:12 Wherefore lift up (for, straighten anew) the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees (rather, the relaxed hands and the loosened or enfeebled knees). The word παραλελυμένα is used only by St. Luke elsewhere in the New Testament, and with reference to persons paralyzed (Luke 5:18, Luke 5:24; Acts 8:7; Acts 9:33). The form of the exhortation is taken from Isaiah 35:3, Ἰσχύσατεχεῖρεςἀνειμέναικαὶγόναταπαραλελυμένα. The figure of the palaestra is thus again brought into view, with reference both to boxing and running. Hebrews 12:13 And make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but that it rather be healed. The ideas in this verse correspond to, and may be suggested by, those that follow in Isaiah the passage above referred to. For there too the prophet goes on to speak, among other things, of the lame leaping, and of a way of holiness along which none should err. But the words themselves are suggested by Proverbs 4:26, Αὐτὸςδὲὀρθὰςποιήσειτὰςτροχιάςσου (LXX), the verb διαστρέφεσθαι having been previously used for turning out of the way. It is observable that the words, καὶτροχιάς, etc., are arranged so as to form an hexameter line. This may have been unintentional, but it is at any rate effective. Delitzsch remarks on it. "The duty to which the writer urges, his, readers is courageous self-recovery m Gods strength. The tone and language are elevated accordingly, and Proverbs 4:12 is like a trumpet-blast. It need not surprise us, then, if our author here turns poet, and proceeds in heroic measures." With regard to the purport of this verse, we observe that, while the figure of running is still continued, a new idea is introduced—that of pursuing a straight course with a view to others who are to follow on the same track. "That which is lame (τὸχωλόν)" denotes the weak and wavering brethren—the ἀσθενοῦντες, such as are referred to in Romans 14:1-23. and 1 Corinthians 8:1-13. The expression well suits (specially those among the Hebrew Christians who halted between two opinions—between the Church and the synagogue (cf. 1 Kings 18:21, Ἕωςπότεὑμεῖςχωλανεῖτεεπἀμφοτέραιςταῖςἰγνύαις;). The strong in faith ought to desire and aim at the healing of such lame ones, i.e. their being strengthened in the faith, rather than expose them to the risk of apostasy by any wavering of their own. Hebrews 12:14 Follow peace with all (i.e. as required by the context, with all the brethren; cf. Romans 14:19), and holiness (more properly, sanctification), without which no man shall see the Lord. Here the figure is dropped, and two cautions given, peculiarly needed, we may suppose, by the community addressed. The exhortation to "peace with all" reminds of the tone of St. Paul’s admonitions both in Romans and in 1 Corinthians, where he so strongly warns against dissensions and party spirit, and enjoins tolerance and mutual allowance with regard to the weaker brethren. The word ἁγιασμὸς ("sanctification") need not be limited (as by Chrysostom) to the idea of chastity; the general thought implied may be (as expressed by Limborch, quoted by Alford), "No, dum pact studeat, nimis slits obsequendi studio quidquam contra sanctimonism Christianam delinquat;" but the special allusion to πορνεία in verse 16 (as also in Hebrews 13:4) is evidence that chastity was especially in the writer’s mind, with definite reference to which the word ἁγιασμὸς is used in 1 Thessalonians 4:3. The frequent and earnest warnings against fornication in St. Paul’s Epistles are enough to show how slow even some in the Church were to recognize the strict code of Christian morality, unknown to the heathen world, and by the Jews very imperfectly recognized, in this regard; and the case of 1 Corinthians 5:1-13. illustrates how easily such vice might creep into and infect a Christian community without general reprobation. Hence probably the special warning here. Hebrews 12:15 Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many (or, according to the more probable reading, the many, i.e. the general community) be defiled. In this, the usual rendering of the verse, ᾗ is supplied, so as to make μήτιςὑστερῶν mean "lest there be any one that fails." But this is not necessary; the verb ἐνοχλῇ ("trouble you") may be common both to the first μήτις and to μήτιςῥίζα, thus: "Lest any one failing … lest any root … trouble you." The sentence may have been broken off after its first clause in order to bring in the appropriate quotation from Deuteronomy 29:18, which in our A.V. runs thus: "Lest there should be among you a root that beareth gall and wormwood." The Vatican text of the LXX. has Μήτιςἐστὶνἐνὑμῖνῥίζαἄνωφύουσαἐνχολῇκαὶπικρίᾳ: the Alexandrian, which seems to be followed here, has Μήτιςἐστὶνἐνὑμῖνδίζαπικοίαςἄνωφύουσαἐκογλῆκαὶπικρίᾳ. The reference in the speech of Moses is to the future possibility of any "man, or we man, or family, or tribe" turning from the LORD to go and serve the gods of the nations, and so involving, not only themselves, but even the whole people in a curse. The figure is that of a plant being allowed to grow of such a nature at its root as to bear bitter and pernicious fruit. There is no special allusion in the word "bitterness" to disturbance of "peace" by dissensions; for this is not the idea in the original passage, nor is it carried out in the following verses of the Epistle. (Cf. Acts 8:23, "Thou art in the gall of bitterness (εἰςχολὴνπικρίας)") Hebrews 12:16, Hebrews 12:17 Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited (i.e. desired to inherit) the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears. The word "fornicator" is to be understood literally, not figuratively (as Ebrard) of spiritual fornication (see ἁγιασμὸν, Hebrews 12:14). Βέβηλος ("profane") denotes one outside the sphere of sanctity, and so debarred from sacred privileges. Esau is appropriately adduced as a notable instance in the Old Testament of a person thus profane, and especially, in the way of warning, of one who lost irrecoverably the privileges which in his profaneness he had scorned. It is immaterial whether Esau himself is intended to be designated as a fornicator (πόρνος) as well as profane (βέβηλος). The essential moral of his history is this: being the firstborn of Israel, and so the primary inheritor of the promises made to Abraham, he set no store by the privilege, and so lost it irretrievably. In early life he so lightly esteemed his birthright as the eldest born (carrying with it, as is supposed, in the patriarchal age, the priesthood of the family, and in his case, as might be presumed, the custody and transmission of the promises) that he parted with it for the gratification of a passing appetite. His words on that occasion expressed the limit of his aims and interests: "Behold, I am at the point to die: and what profit shall this birthright do to me?" Later in life he nevertheless presented himself to claim the blessing of the firstborn from his dying father, but found that he had been forestalled. It does not appear that he had meanwhile changed his mode of life or made amends for his former carelessness; still, he felt now that he had lost something worth having, and was grieved exceedingly. But not even his "great and exceeding bitter cry" availed then to recover what was forfeited. And so neither he nor his seed had part or lot in the Abrahamic promises: the time of opportunity was gone forever. There is some doubt with regard to the latter part of Heb 12:17, (1) as to whether "it" (αἰτήν) in "he sought it" refers to "repentance" (μετανοίας) or to "the blessing" (τὴνεὐλογίαν); (2) as to what "place of repentance" means. If "it" refers to "repentance," it is difficult to see how Esau’s own repentance can be meant; for not only does seeking repentance with tears seem in itself to imply the capability of it, but also the "great and exceeding bitter cry" to which allusion is made was, not because he could not himself repent, but because he could not get the blessing. Hence, if "it" refers to "repentance," it must be repentance, i.e. change of mind, in Isaac that is meant, or rather in God, against whose will Isaac could not go; cf. "God is not a man … that he should repent" (Numbers 23:1-30. 19). Of such change of mind and purpose it may be meant that Esau found no place. This seems to be the view of many modern interpreters, though not of Bengel, De Wette, Bleek, Hofmann, Delitzsch, Alford, or of Luther, Calvin, Grotius, or any of the Greek Fathers. Against it is the consideration that such is not the more obvious meaning of "he found no place of repentance," taken by itself, especially as μετανοία is always elsewhere in the New Testament (though not always in the LXX) used for a person’s change of mind with respect to his own misdoings (cf. supra, Hebrews 6:6). Difficulty on this ground is removed if, taking the clause, "for he found no place of repentance," as parenthetical, we refer αὐτὴν to τὴνεὐλογίαν, preceding. This is by no means a forced construction of the sentence, and it is supported (as above intimated) by the fact that in Genesis it is the blessing itself that Esau is expressly said to have craved in his "great and exceeding bitter cry:" "Hast thou but one blessing, my father? bless me, even me also, O my father. And Esau lifted up his voice, and wept." Thus we may render either, "When he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected; for he found no place of repentance [i.e. of change of mind in the bestower of the blessing], though he sought it [i.e. such change of mind] with tears;" or, "When he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected (for he found no place of repentance), though he sought it [i.e. the blessing] with tears." If, the latter rendering being adopted, Esau’s own repentance be intended, the idea maybe, either that there was no place left in which even a real repentance could avail, or that of a real repentance he had become incapable; for his tears might be those only of vexation and remorse, not expressing any more appreciation than before of the birthright in its religious aspect. Ebrard’s remark, that his conduct as related in Genesis 33:1-20, shows "a changed heart," and hence a true repentance, is not to the point. For all that there appears is that he had got over his angry feeling towards his brother; it is by no means implied—rather the contrary—that he would have preferred his destiny to his own, or that his views of life had risen above thoughts of worldly prosperity. We observe, further, that nothing is implied one way or the other as to Esau’s own salvation; it is only the privilege of being the patriarch of the chosen seed that he is said to have thus irrecoverably forfeited. But his example is adduced as a warning to Christians with regard to their still more precious inheritance, which does involve their own eternal prospects. The warning to them is similar to those of Heb 6:4, etc., and Hebrews 10:26, etc., to the effect that sacred privileges, if persistently slighted, may be lost beyond recovery. And if the passage before us seems to imply, according to one view of it, what the former ones were found not to do, the possible inefficacy of a true repentance, however late,—we may say that, even if this is implied of Esau with respect to his lost blessing, it is not therefore necessarily implied of Christians with respect to their personal salvation; or that, if it is implied of them, it is not till their probation in this life is over that a "place of repentance" in this sense can for them be found no more (cf. the parable of the ten virgins (Matthew 25:1, etc); also Matthew 7:22, etc; Luke 13:24, etc). One of Dr. Newman’s Parochial Sermons ("Life the Season of Repentance," vol. 6. ’Sermon’ 2) strikingly sets forth this view. See also ’Christian Year’ (Second Sunday in Lent), with the appended note: "Esau’s probation, as far as his birthright was concerned, was quite over when he uttered the cry in the text. His despondency, therefore, is not parallel to anything on this side the grave." Hebrews 12:18-29 There follows now, both for encouragement and for warning, a grand contrast between the Mosaic and Christian dispensations, founded on the phenomena that accompanied the giving of the Law. To Mount Sinai, with its repelling terrors, is opposed an ideal picture of Mount Zion and the heavenly Jerusalem, expressive of the communion of saints in Christ. And then at Hebrews 12:25 (as previously in Hebrews 10:1-39) the tone of encouragement changes again to one of warning, the very excess of privilege being made the measure of the guilt of slighting it. Hebrews 12:18 For ye are not come unto a mount that might be touched, and that burned, with fire, and unto blackness and darkness and tempest. The allusion is to the Israelites approaching Mount Sinai when the Law was given (see Deuteronomy 4:11, whence still more than from Exodus 19:1-25. the whole description is taken, "And ye came near [προσήλθετε, the same word as is used supra, Hebrews 4:16; Hebrews 7:25], and stood under the mountain"). Though the word "mount" in the Received Text has the support of no ancient authority, it must be understood, whether or not originally written. For it comes after προσήλθετε in the passage of Deuteronomy which is evidently referred to, the following words, "blackness, darkness, tempest" (σκότοςγνόφοςθύελλα), being also found there. And otherwise we should have to translate, "a touched [i.e. palpable] and kindled fire;" but "touched" (φηλαφωμένῳ) is not suitable to fire; and we should also lose the evidently intended contrast between the two mountains of Sinai and Zion, which appears in verse 22. Neither may we trans- late, as some would do, "a mountain that might be touched, and kindled fire;" for the original passage in Deuteronomy has "and the mountain burned with fire (καὶτὸὄροςἐκαίετοπυρὶ)." The participle φηλαφωμένῳ (literally, that was touched), rather than ψηφαλητῷ, may be used here, although on the occasion referred to all were forbidden to touch the mountain, by way of bringing more distinctly into view the actual Sinai, which was touched at other times, and which Moses both touched and ascended. If so, the main purpose of the word is to contrast the local and palpable mountain of the Law with the ideal Mount Zion which is afterwards spoken of. Or, the verb ψηλαλάω may here carry with it its common sense of groping after, as in the dark (cf. Deuteronomy 28:29, Καὶἔσηψηλαφῶνμεσημβρίαςὡσεὶψηλαφήσαιὁτυφλὸςἐντῷσκότει), with reference to the cloudy darkness about Sinai, and in contrast with the clear unclouded vision of Zion. Hebrews 12:19-21 And the sound of a trumpet (Exodus 19:16), and the voice of words (Deuteronomy 4:12); which voice they that heard entreated that no word should be spoken to them more: for they could not endure that which was commanded (rather, enjoined), If even a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned (Exodus 19:13; "or thrust through with a dart" is an interpolation in the text from the passage in Exodus): and so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake (Deuteronomy 9:19, ἔκφοβόςεἰμι, to which ἔντρομος is added in the text. This saying of Moses was really uttered afterwards, when he was descending from the mount, and became aware of the sin of the golden calf. It was called forth by the people’s sin, but was due to the alarming character of the preceding phenomena, of τὸφανταζόμενον, that which was being revealed or manifested. Mention of it is added here to show that the general fear extended even to Moses, the mediator). This whole account, thus powerfully condensed from Exodus and Deuteronomy, presents a vivid picture of the terrors of the Mosaic revelation. God was, indeed, revealed to man, but still as unseen and unapproachable, terrible in his wrath against sin, and surrounded by sounds and sights of fear. But now mark the serene and glorious contrast. Hebrews 12:22-24 But ye are come unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. Here, as in Galatians 4:1-31., Zion and Jerusalem, ideally regarded, are contrasted with Sinai. The foundation of the conception is in the Old Testament. When David at length won the citadel of Zion, and placed the ark upon it, it was a sort of primary and typical fulfillment of the promise of rest, seen afar off by the patriarchs and from the wilderness. Psalms 24:1-10., which was sung on that occasion, expresses the idea of the King of glory being at length enthroned there, and his people of clean hands and pure hearts being admitted to stand in the holy place before him (cf. "This is my rest forever: here will I dwell," Psalms 132:14). In the Psalms generally the holy hill of Zion continues to be viewed as the LORD’S immovable abode, where he is surrounded by thousands of angels, and whence he succors his people (cf. Psalms 48:1-14; Psalms 68:1-35; Psalms 125:1-5; Psalms 132:1-18; etc). Then by the prophets it is further idealized as the scene and center of Messianic blessings (cf. Isaiah 12:1-6; Isaiah 25:1-12:13; 33; 35; Isaiah 46:13; Micah 4:1-13; to which many other passages might be added). Compare also the visions, in the latter chapters of Ezekiel, of the ideal city and temple of the future age. Lastly, in the Apocalypse the seer has visions of "Mount Zion" (Revelation 14:1-20), and "the holy city, new Jerusalem" (Revelation 21:1-27), with the presence there of God and the Lamb, and with myriads of angels, and innumerable multitudes of saints redeemed. If, in the passage before us, a distinction is to be made between "Mount Zion" and "the heavenly Jerusalem," it may be that the former represents the Church below, the latter the heavenly regions, though both are blent together in one grand picture of the communion of saints. For so in Revelation 14:1-20. the hundred and forty-four thousand on Mount Zion seem distinct from the singers and harpers round the throne, whose song is heard from heaven and learnt by those below; while the picture of the holy city in Revelation 21:1-27. is one entirely heavenly, representing there the final consummation rather than any present state of things. And to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and Church of the Firstborn (rather, and to myriads, the general assembly of angels, and the Church of the Firstborn), which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the Mediator of a new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel (literally, than Abel). Of the several ways of translating the beginning of the above passage, the best seems to be to take μυριὰσιν by itself as including both the angels and the Church of the Firstborn, and to connect πανηγύρει with "angels" only. "Myriads" is a well-known expression for the LORD’S attendant hosts (cf. Jude 1:14; Deuteronomy 30:2; Daniel 7:10); further, καὶ, which throughout the passage connects the different objects approached, comes between πανηγύρει and ἐκκλησία, not between ἀγγελῶν and πανηγύρει, and the application of both πανηγύρει and ἐκκλησία to πρωτοτόκων would seem an unmeaning redundancy. The word πανήγυρις, which in classical Greek denotes properly the assembly of a whole nation for a festival, is peculiarly appropriate to the angels, whether regarded (as in the Old Testament) as ministering round the throne or as congregated to rejoice over man’s redemption. "The Church of the Firstborn" seems to denote the Church militant rather than the Church triumphant; for (1) ἐκκλησία is elsewhere used for the Church on earth (so also in the Old Testament; cf. Psalms 79:6); (2) the phrase, ἐνοὐρανοῖςἀπογεγραμμένων, expresses the idea of being enrolled in the books of heaven rather than being already there (cf. Luke 10:20; Philippians 4:3; Revelation 20:12; Revelation 21:27); (3) the "spirits of the perfected" are mentioned afterwards as a class distinct. The word πρωτοτόκων may be suggested here by the firstborn of Israel, who were specially hallowed to the Lord (Numbers 3:13), and numbered as such by Moses (Numbers 3:43), or perhaps still more by the birthright (πρωτοτόκια) spoken of above as forfeited by Esau. God’s elect may be called his firstborn as being hallowed to him and heirs of his promises (cf. Exodus 4:22," Israel is my son, even my firstborn;" and Jeremiah 31:9, "Ephraim is my firstborn"). They thus correspond to the hundred and forty-four thousand of Rev 14:1-20., standing on Mount Zion, being "redeemed from the earth," and having "the Father’s Name written on their foreheads;" seen distinct from, and yet in communion with, the saints in bliss, whose voices are heard above. Between them and the spirits of the perfected is interposed, "God the Judge of all;" and this appropriately, since before him the saints on earth must appear ere they join the ranks of the perfected: the former look up to him from below; the latter have already passed before him to the rest assigned them. Τετελειωμένεν ("perfected") expresses, as elsewhere in the Epistle, full accomplishment of an and or purpose with regard to things or persons (of. Hebrews 2:10; Hebrews 5:9; Hebrews 7:19,Hebrews 7:28; Hebrews 9:9; Hebrews 10:1, Hebrews 10:14; Hebrews 11:40); the word is used here of those whose warfare is accomplished, and who have attained the rest of God. Their "spirits" only are spoken of, because the "perfect consummation and bliss both in body and soul" is still to come. In the mean while, with respect to the issue of their earthly course, they have been already perfected (cf. Revelation 14:13, "They rest from their labors"). Corresponding to the Lamb in Revelation, there is seen next Jesus the Mediator, through whom is the approach of the whole company to the Judge of all, and the accomplishment to the perfected. The "new covenant" is, of course, meant to be contrasted with the old one before Mount Sinai, under which there was no such approach or accomplishment. Then "the blood of sprinkling" has reference to that wherewith the old covenant was ratified (Exodus 24:1-18; cf. supra, Hebrews 9:18). The blood shed by Christ on earth for atonement is conceived as carried by him with himself into the holy place on high (cf. Hebrews 9:12), to be forever "the blood of sprinkling for effectual cleansing. And this blood "speaketh better things than Abel." His blood cried from the ground for vengeance, with the accusing voice of primeval sin; Christ’s speaks only of reconciliation anti peace. Some commentators (Bengel in the first place, whom Delitzsch follows)see in this contrast between Sinai and Zion a distinct parallelism between verses 18, 19 and verses 22-24; seven objects of approach in one case being supposed to be set against seven in the other, More obvious is the correspondence of the successive clauses of verses 22-24 to the general ideas connected with the giving of the Law. The two pictures may be contrasted thus— The Old Covenant. The New Covenant. Sinai, a palpable earthly mountain, surrounded by gloom and storm. Zion, radiant with light and crowned with the city of God. The angels through whom the Law was given (of. Hebrews 2:2; Galatians 3:19; Acts 7:53; Deuteronomy 23:1-25. 2), unseen by men, but operating in the winds and in the fire (cf. Hebrews 1:7). Festal choirs of assembled angels. Israel congregated under the mountain, afraid, and forbidden to touch it. The accepted Church of the Firstborn, with free approach to the holiest of all. The LORD, unapproachable, shrouded in darkness or revealed in fire. The Judge of all, without his terrors, accessible, and awarding rest to the perfected. Moses, himself afraid, and winning through his mediation no access for the people. The Divine availing Mediator. The blood sprinkled on the people to ratify the old covenant, but which could not cleanse the conscience. The ever-cleansing blood of complete atonement. The sound of a trumpet and the voice of words, inspiring fear. The voice of that cleansing blood, speaking of peace and pardon. Such is the vision by the contemplation of which the inspired writer would arouse his readers, amid their trials and waverings, to realize the things that are eternal. He would have them pierce with the eye of faith beyond this visible scene into the world invisible, which is no less real. If they were perplexed and disheartened by what they found around them—by the opposition of the world and the fewness of the faithful—he bids them associate themselves in thought with those countless multitudes who were on their side. The picture is, indeed, in some respects, ideal; for the actual Church on earth does not come up to the idea of the "Church of the Firstborn;" but it is presented according to God’s purpose for his people, and it rests with us to make it a present reality to ourselves. Hebrews 12:25 See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not, refusing him that spake (rather, warned; the word here used is not λαλοῦντα, as before, but χρηματίζοντα, expressive of a Divine admonition or warning. In the passive it is translated "warned of God," "admonished of God," Matthew 2:12, Matthew 2:22; Hebrews 8:5; Hebrews 11:7; of. Acts 10:22, ἐχρηματίσθηὑπὸἀγγέλουἁγίου) on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh (or, warneth) from heaven. Here the warning begins. "Him that speaketh (τὸνλαλοῦντα)," is suggested by λαλοῦντι in the preceding verse. But the subject is changed: it is God, not the "blood of sprinkling," that is now regarded as speaking to us from heaven. It was God also that warned on earth; not, as some take it, Moses, whom the word χρηματίζοντα does not suit: of him it is said, κεκρημάτισται (Hebrews 8:5). The allusion is to the voice heard from the earthly Sinai, which the people entreated (supra, Hebrews 12:19, παρητήσαντο—the same word as is used here) should be heard no more. But they escaped not the hearing of that voice, or the consequences of disregarding its warning (cf. Hebrews 2:2; Hebrews 3:10). Hebrews 12:26 Whose voice then shook the earth (see Exodus 19:18, "The whole mount quaked greatly," though there the LXX. has λαός instead of ὄρος: but of. Judges 5:1-31., "The earth trembled," and Psalms 114:7, "Tremble, thou earth," etc., with reference to the phenomena at Sinai; also Habakkuk 3:6, Habakkuk 3:10): but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven. The prophecy referred to is Haggai 2:6, Haggai 2:7, "Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land; and I will shake all nations, and the Desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the LORD of hosts." Again, Haggai 2:21, "I will shake the heavens and the earth" (cf. Isaiah 2:19, Isaiah 2:21). The prophecy was uttered with reference to the second temple, the glory of which was to be greater than the glory of the first, in that it should be the scene of the LORD’s final revelation of himself to his people. Its first fulfillment is rightly seen in Christ’s first coming (cf. Habakkuk 2:9, "And in this place will I give peace, saith the Lord of hosts;" and Ma Habakkuk 3:1, "The Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple"). But the language used points evidently, even in itself, to a further fulfillment; nor do readers need to be reminded here of the pregnant and far-reaching sense of all Messianic prophecy. "Illustre est testimonium Is. Newtoni ad Dan. p. 91: vixque in omni V.T. aliquod de Christo extat vaticinium, quod non, aliquatenus saltem, secundum ejus ad-ventum respiciat" (Bengel). The ultimate reference is what is seen dimly afar off in so many of the prophetic visions—the final dissolution of the whole present order of things, to be succeeded by the kingdom of eternal righteousness (cf. Psalms 102:25, etc). By the heaven that is to be shaken in that great day is meant, of course, not the eternal abode of God, but that which is created and visible (τῶνπεποιημένων, verse 27). This final shaking is set against the local and typical shaking of Mount Sinai in two points of contrast—its extending to the whole creation, and its being once for all (ἔτιἅπαξ); and from the latter expression the removing of the things thus finally shaken is in the next verse inferred. This inference, though not following necessarily from the expression itself, is involved in the general drift of Haggai’s prophecy, taken in connection with other cognate ones, in which an entirely new and heavenly order is pictured as rising over the ruins of the old , let as have grace (or, thankfulness; the usual meaning of ἔχεινχάριν is "to be thankful," or "to give thanks," as in Luke 17:9; 1 Timothy 1:12; 2 Timothy 1:3), whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: for our God is a consuming fire. This last verse is from Deuteronomy 4:24, where the Israelites are being warned of the danger of forgetting the covenant of the LORD their God. The LORD’s nature is not changed: he is still a consuming fire against evil, as he declared himself from Sinai; and if We scorn the present dispensation of grace, the day of judgment will still be to us a day of terror (cf. supra, Hebrews 10:26, etc). Hebrews 12:1-3 The life of faith, and its supreme Exemplar. In these verses the apostle gathers up the practical lesson to be derived from his historical demonstration of the power of faith contained in Hebrews 11:1-40. The figure of the passage is that of a race which the believer is required to run, the reference being doubtless to the foot-race in the Grecian games. I. THE RACE. (Hebrews 11:1) Glance here at the points of analogy, or truths intended to be taught by this figure. The life of faith is: 1. An arduous struggle. "The righteous is with difficulty saved" (1 Peter 4:18). The Christian calling is not a stroll or a saunter, but a race. It entails strenuous effort. 2. A struggle which involves fixedness of aim. It is "set before us." There is a goal to be kept in view, and a prize to be won; and there is, accordingly, a prescribed path of faith and duty. 3. A struggle which involves perseverance. The believer must "run with patience." He must not allow his ardor to decline. He must not desist until he finishes his course. 4. A struggle which will soon be over. "Yet a very little while," and the Christian shall have reached the goal, and won Christ. 5. A public spectacle. "We are compassed about with a great cloud of witnesses." We run this race under the eye of God himself. Other spectators are the holy and the fallen angels, "the spirits of just men made perfect," our fellow-believers on earth, and the ungodly world around us. II. THE OF RUNNING. (Hebrews 11:1) The Olympic runner put off his flowing robes, and everything else that might impede his course. So the Christian is to "lay aside," 1. Weights. This word denotes whatever would put one to disadvantage in running, whether it be in itself innocent or not. Of course every evil passion is a weight, which can only clog the believer’s heavenward progress. But even that which is in itself lawful may become, if we abuse it, a heavy load. We may pervert a good gift of God into a dead weight. And some habit which is no hindrance at all to my Christian brother may have proved to be a great spiritual cumbrance to me. There is, e.g., the weight of prosperity, of care, of sorrow; the weight of worldly business, of earthly ambition, of human affection. "The things which are seen" must not be allowed to lie heavy on the soul, if we would successfully run the Christian race. 2. Sin. This is the essential burden. It "easily besets us," i.e. cleaves to us, wraps itself round us like a cloak, clings to us as a parasitical plant to a tree. It is sin in general which the apostle characterizes as "easily besetting." The adjective in the original does not rotor to the particular sins, whatever these may be, to which individuals are most prone; although, of course, in taking home the exhortation to the conscience, this thought will naturally be suggested. The writer probably had in his mind just now (indeed, be never forgets it throughout this letter) the sin of apostasy—the danger to which the Hebrew Christians were exposed of drifting back to Judaism, and thus of" falling away from the living God" (Hebrews 3:12). This sin, and all others, must be laid aside. If we do not renounce sin, we give up the race. III. TO IN RUNNING. In the midst of affliction and weariness, as well as of powerful temptations to apostatize, how are our fainting hearts to be revived? Two great motives are presented. 1. The presence, as spectators, of the former heroes of faith. (Hebrews 11:1) The Old Testament saints are "witnesses" now of the race which they once ran themselves. They not only testify to the power of faith; they are also spectators of the struggles and conflicts of their successors. The apostle’s language is not that merely of poetic imagination. He seems to say that "the spirits of just men made perfect" are cognizant of what is done upon the earth, and take an absorbing interest in it. We are to think of them as hovering over us in the heavens. They circle and crowd around us, tier upon tier, on both sides of the race-course. On the one side is the gallery of the saints before the Flood, that of the Hebrew Pilgrim Fathers, of the heroes of the Exodus, of the judges, and of the prophets; while on the other side is the gallery of the apostles, that of the Christian confessors and martyrs, of the missionaries of the Church, and of our own departed friends who have gone to glory. These spectators are a "great cloud "—multitudinous in number; they are radiant with the brightness of immortality; and, having themselves passed through the same experience as we, they keenly sympathize with us. We should therefore take heart, as we hear their heavenly greetings, and realize the fellowship with us which they claim. 2. The example of Jesus, the Leader and Perfecter of faith. (Hebrews 11:2, Hebrews 11:3) While gratefully conscious of the presence of the men of faith, we are to gaze fixedly only upon Jesus. The writer refers to the Savior here in his human nature, as the Pattern Man, and as our supreme Exemplar. His portrait is the grandest in the whole exhibition of the heroes of faith; indeed, none of those in Hebrews 11:1-40. can for a moment compare with it. This noblest picture is arranged in two divisions; we see Christ on the one side in his humiliation, and on the other in his exaltation. And the inscription set over it reads thus: "Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of faith." He is the Author, i.e. Captain, Prince, Head, or Leader, of all the men of faith. He exhibited, during his own earthly life, an absolutely perfect example of trust in God. By faith he waited at Nazareth, with his high destiny stirring in his heart, during thirty years. By faith he assumed the burden of the world’s sin. By faith he conquered Satan in the wilderness. By faith he performed the labors of his three years’ active ministry. By faith he endured the agonies of Gethsemane, and the "gainsaying" (Hebrews 11:3) of Gabbatha, and the soul-darkness of Golgotha. Jesus did not "shrink back unto perdition," notwithstanding his unparalleled temptations. So he is also the "Perfecter of faith;" for in him faith has had its perfect work. No other man will ever appear in our world equal to him as a specimen of faith. Therefore he is our great Model. The early Hebrew Christians were to "consider him." That very "cross" at which they stumbled, he "endured." If they were being treated by "sinners" (Hebrews 11:3) as renegades from the religion of Israel, much more had he been. Their sufferings and temptations were not nearly so dreadful as his. Seeing, then, that the Man Christ Jesus, for the sake of the eternal reward in store for him, persevered to the end in running his appointed race, why should any of his followers allow themselves to "wax weary, fainting in their souls"? It was his endurance of the cross that gave him his place "at the right hand of the throne of God;" and all who follow him as their Leader in the race of faith shall eventually sit with him upon his throne. . 1. Life or death depends upon whether or not we run the Christian race. 2. Christ will give us strength to run well, if we ask him. 3. He will crown us at the end, bestowing himself upon us as the Prize. Hebrews 12:4-11 Chastisement. In this passage the writer reminds the Hebrews that although doubtless they had sustained severe trials on account of their devotedness to Christ, none of them had yet been required to seal their faith with their blood (Hebrews 12:4). Other children of God had suffered much more than they (Hebrews 11:35-38), and had remained faithful. For them to apostatize would, therefore, be very heinous sin. Rather they must learn to view their afflictions as the corrections of God’s fatherly love. Consider— I. THE FACT OF . 1. Our afflictions are really such. Sometimes, in forgetfulness of God, the believer may regard his sorrows simply as calamities—untoward events which have no particular spiritual meaning. At other times he may receive them merely as trials of his faith, or as sent to strengthen his Christian graces. But this passage reminds us that we greatly err if we do not find in our troubles the clement of chastisement. It is true that Jesus Christ has borne the essential penalty of his people’s sins; but, though he has done so, he has not removed any lesser punishment which we may require in order to the correcting of our faults. God "forgives" us, but he "takes vengeance of our inventions" (Psalms 99:8). 2. Chastisement is inevitable. The Lord "scourgeth every son" (Hebrews 12:6). "All have been made partakers" of it—all the Old Testament saints, and all believers in Christian times. The unchastened man is a bastard. 3. Chastisement is various in kind and in degree. There are, e.g., disease of body, distress of mind, the loss of property, injury of character, the profligacy of children, the faithlessness of friends, persecution for righteousness’ sake. 4. Chastisement is severe. He "scourgeth" (Hebrews 12:6). The Lord’s rod draws blood. It checkers the believer’s life with wales (Isaiah 1:5, Isaiah 1:6). The Christian "bears branded on his body the marks of Jesus" (Galatians 6:16). II. GOD’S PURPOSE IN . It is a gracious purpose. Divine penalties fall upon the believer as a necessary discipline. The love as well as the righteousness of God prompts to these retributions. Chastisement is sent: 1. To correct our faults. Possibly there are certain sins of ours in regard to which correction is needed, that we may be led to repent of them; and, when affliction overtakes us, we should endeavor to find out what these sins are. Or, perhaps, a life of ease and prosperity may have seduced us into spiritual carelessness, and favored the growth of pride within the soul, In such a case God sends chastisement to convince us of the vanity of the world, and to attract our thoughts towards the things which belong to our peace. 2. To form our spiritual character. Correction is sent as a means of assimilating our moral nature to that of God himself (Hebrews 12:10). Sorrow accepted as Divine chastisement refines and sanctifies the soul. It stirs its tenderest emotions, and touches its richest chords. It draws the heart towards God himself, as its only Rest and Strength and Joy. The most beautiful human faces are not those which show merely the most regular features and the purest complexion; they are those saintly faces which have been beautified by chastisement—"made perfect through sufferings." 3. To promote our eternal well being. The ultimate purpose is that we may "live" (Hebrews 12:9), spiritually and eternally. To become "partakers of God’s holiness" is to be educated for spending eternity with God. Each believer must pass through, a curriculum of chastisement before he can graduate to glory. "’Tis sorrow builds the shining ladder up, Whose golden rounds are our calamities, Whereon our firm feet planting, nearer God The spirit climbs, and hath its eyes unsealed." (Lowell) III. OUR DUTY IN TO . This the apostle gently censures his readers for having overlooked, as it is exhibited in the Old Testament Scriptures. He quotes Proverbs 3:11, Proverbs 3:12, and adds a few sentences of beautiful and suggestive commentary. The quotation (Proverbs 3:5, Proverbs 3:6) exhibits the duty negatively, and the comment (Proverbs 3:7-11) positively. 1. Negatively. (1) We are not to "despise" chastisement. (Proverbs 3:5) We do so when we proudly strive to feel it as little as possible, treating our troubles in a stoical spirit, as if they were meaningless. We do so, too, when we refuse to see God’s hand in them, or to believe that they are determined in providence by our spiritual condition. We despise chastisement when we insist that we do not deserve any; and when, in haughty insubordination, we allow ourselves to be "made cross by cross providences." (2) We must not "faint" under it. (Proverbs 3:5) This is the other extreme—to become depressed, despondent, despairing. We abuse chastisement if we do nothing but bemoan it, as Elijah once did (1 Kings 19:4). We "faint" when we cherish dark and hard and unbelieving thoughts regarding our afflictions—forgetting the blessed purpose that is behind them, and the grace which the Sender will supply to enable us to bear them. 2. Positively. (1) We must "be in subjection unto the Father of spirits." (Proverbs 3:9) This is the opposite of" despising" our troubles. The child of God will school himself into unquestioning submission. He will receive his afflictions as from the Lord, on whose paternal grace he depends for every blessing. (2) We must be "exercised thereby." (Proverbs 3:11) This is the opposite of "fainting" when God reproves us. Chastisement is intended to brace the believer, not to depress him. Afflictions are the gymnastics of the spiritual life. They are like the exercises of the athlete, who is in training for a contest. We are "exercised thereby" when we accept our troubles as sent by God himself for our correction; and when, recognizing this, we cooperate with him in carrying out their gracious purpose. IV. OUR UNDER . This passage suggests many comforting thoughts, which should help us submissively to bear it. It is: 1. Appointed by God. (Proverbs 3:5) Afflictions do not come casually. They do not overtake us merely at the pleasure of our enemies, He who chasteneth is "the Lord," the Sovereign of all. Let us, with Job (Job 1:21) and Eli (1 Samuel 3:18), realize this: to do so will strengthen our hearts. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ As in St. Paul’s Epistles, practical directions as to conduct conclude the treatise, such as the readers may be supposed to have especially needed. They are urged to evince and confirm the faith which was the subject of Heb 11:1-40, and to maintain their communion with the world invisible spoken of in Hebrews 12:1-29, by attending especially to those daily duties which they might be in danger of forgetting. By perseverance in a life consistent with profession faith is not only evidenced, but also kept from faltering. In the course of these hortations (Hebrews 12:10-13), being suggested by one of them, there is introduced a yet additional view of the meaning of the Levitical symbolism. Hebrews 13:1 Let brotherly love continue. Φιλαδελφία does not mean general philanthropy, but the peculiar love of Christians to each other as brethren; "a narrower sphere within the wider sphere of ἀγάπη" (Delitzsch); cf. 1. Peter Hebrews 2:17, "Honor all men, love the brotherhood;" and 2 Peter 1:7, where Christians are exhorted to add ἀγάπη to their φιλαδελπία. This grace of φιλαδελφία they had already, and had evinced it by their conduct (cf. Hebrews 6:10, etc); they are only to take care that it court, me; and let them, among other ways, evince it in hospitality (2 Peter 1:2), and in sympathy with the afflicted brethren (2 Peter 1:3). Hebrews 13:2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers (or, of hospitality): for thereby some have entertained angels unawares. Allusions to this duty are frequent in the Epistles; its exercise would be of especial importance, in those days of persecution, towards scattered and destitute brethren as well as towards missionaries, though it by no means appears that it was meant to be confined to "them that are of the household of faith." Possibly some of the wavering Hebrew Christians might be becoming less ready to open their doors to the persecuted from fear of "reproach" in Jewish circles. The allusion of the latter part of the verse is evidently to Abraham and Lot (Genesis 18:1-33. and 19). At any time the visits even of our fellow-men may be to us as visits of angels, as being messengers of God’s purposes for good when least expected. And especially to be noted are our Lord’s own words, "He that receiveth you receiveth me," etc., and "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me" (Matthew 25:40). Hebrews 13:3 Remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them; and them which suffer adversity, as being yourselves also in the body. The Hebrew readers have been also specially commended for their past sympathy with their imprisoned and despoiled brethren (Hebrews 10:33, etc), having been themselves also at the same time persecuted. Whether or not sufferers themselves now, they must not be forgetful of those that are "As bound with them" seems best taken as expressing the sympathy of one member with another (cf. Hebrews 10:33, Hebrews 10:34 and 1 Corinthians 12:26, "If one member suffer," etc). "As being yourselves," etc., reminds them that they are still in the flesh, and so not only on this account bound to sympathize, but also liable themselves at any time to the like afflictions. Exhortations to personal purity and to contentedness follow next. Of the need, and prominence in the Epistles, of warnings against impurity see what was said on ἁγιασμόν (Hebrews 12:14). St. Paul is given to couple covetousness ’rod uncleanness together in his warnings, as cognate sins, and alike incompatible with the kingdom of God (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:10, 1 Corinthians 5:11; 1 Corinthians 6:9, etc; Ephesians 5:3,Ephesians 5:5; Colossians 3:5). Greediness, or inordinate desire (πλεονεξία), may be for sensual indulgence or for wealth—the same word is used in both senses; and such πλεονεξία, whatever its object, is fatal to the spiritual life. So here, after a warning against impurity, comes a like one against covetousness. Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. So in the A.V. the first clause of this verse, which is taken as an assertion, the copula ἔστι, being understood. So it is also taken by Chrysostom and other ancients. If so, it is a declaration, interposed among hortations, of the honorableness of the" estate of matrimony," with the hortatory purpose of suggesting this "remedy against sin "(as in 1 Corinthians 7:9), or as a protest against false asceticism, such as is alluded to in 1 Timothy 4:3, "forbidding to marry." And certainly the expression, τίμιοςὁγάμος, taken by itself, would most naturally have this meaning. But most modern commentators understand it as an exhortation, supplying ἔστω; and this for the following cogent reasons: it occurs in the midst of a series of exhortations, and is therefore more likely to be one; it is difficult to understand the connected clause, "and the bed undefiled (καὶἡκοίτηἀμίαντος)," as a statement; and the exactly similar phrase in 1 Timothy 4:5, ἀφιλάργυροςὁτρόπος, seems evidently hortatory. Hence we take it to mean "Let marriage be τίμοςἐνπᾶσον." Two questions remain—that of the import of τίμιος, and whether πᾶσιν is masculine or neuter. Τίμιος elsewhere, when applied to persons, means "held in honor" (as in Acts 5:34, of Gamaliel); when applied to things, it means "precious" (as in 1 Corinthians 3:12; Revelation 17:4; 18:12, 16; 21:19, of precious stones; in 1 Peter 1:19, of the blood of the Lamb; 2 Peter 1:4, of promises; Acts 20:24, of "my own life;" James 5:7, of the fruit of the earth). Bengel explains thus: "Caelibes, quibus periculum scortationis imminet, hortatur ut matrimonium contrahant, tanquam pretiosum quiddam agnoscentes, ejusque bone digne utantur. Conf. 1 Thessalonians 4:4.’ And, taking πᾶσιν as masculine, he explains further: "Omnesque debent matrimonium magni facere, ut, si quis eo ipse non utatur, alios tamen non prohibeat." According to this view the first clause is an injunction to all to appreciate marriage, the second warns those that are married against any violation of the bond: "Τίμιοςγάμος antitheton ad scortatotes, κοίτηἀμίαντος ad adulteros" (Bengel). But the more natural, and the usual, meaning of the common expression ἐνπᾶσιν is "in all things," not "among all persons" (cf. Jaffa, 1 Thessalonians 4:18; also Colossians 1:18; Titus 2:9; 1 Timothy 3:2; 2 Timothy 4:5). If so here, τίμιοςὁγάμος must be taken rather as an injunction with respect to the sanctity of marriage when contracted: "Let it be held in honor in all respects; in all ways reverently regarded as a holy bond;" the succeeding clause, ἡκοίτηἀμίαντος, being a further explication of the same idea (cf. 1 Thessalonians 4:4, "That every one of you should know how to possess his own vessel [meaning, probably, as seems to be required by the verb κτᾶσθαι, ’get to himself his own wife’] in sanctification and honor (ἐνἀγιασμῷκαὶτιμῇ);" where ἐντιμῇ may express the same ides as τίμιος in the text). ’In the conclusion of the verse "for" (γὰρ) suits the drift of the sentence as above understood, and is considered to be supported better than "but" (δὲ) of the Textus Receptus. Observe, lastly, that, in "God will judge," "God" is emphatic, being placed last. Though the kind of sin spoken of is lightly regarded among men, and may escape detection or punishment now, yet certainly God will judge it. Hebrews 13:5 Let your conversation (i.e. manner of life, or disposition) be without covetousness; be content with such things as ye have: for he (αὔτος, emphatic) hath said, I will never (i.e. in no wise) leave thee, neither will I ever forsake thee. The reference seems to be to Deuteronomy 31:6, ΚύριοςὁΘεόςσου .. οὔτεμήσεἀνῇοὔτεμήσεἐγκαταλίπῃ, the same assurance being repeated in Deuteronomy 31:8. But similar promises occur elsewhere in the Old Testament (see Genesis 28:15; Joshua 1:5; 1 Chronicles 28:20; Isaiah 41:17; "Est igitur instar adagii divini," Bengel). Hebrews 13:6 So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my Helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me; rather, I will act fear: what shall man do unto me? The quotation is from Psalms 118:6. The memory of their former pastors who had finished their course is next urged upon the readers as an encouragement to perseverance in the life of faith. Hebrews 13:7, Hebrews 13:8 Remember your leaders (τῶνἡγουμένωνὑμῶν, wrongly rendered in the A.V., "them that have the rule over you;" for the reference is to departed chiefs. The word is similarly used by St. Luke (see Luke 22:26; Acts 15:22; also below, Acts 15:17 and Acts 15:24). St. Paul, with a like meaning, calls the rulers of the Church οἱπροιστάμενοι: see Romans 12:8; 1 Thessalonians 5:12; 1 Timothy 5:17), who spake to you the Word of God; of whose conversation (i.e. course of life, ἀναστροφῆς), considering the end (or issue, ἔκβασιν), imitate their faith. Jesus Christ is yesterday and today the same, and forever. This allusion to departed leaders shows the comparatively late date of the Epistle. Those who had died as martyrs, and hence, having a peculiar halo round them in the issue of their lives, may be supposed to be especially referred to; such as Stephen the proto-martyr at Jerusalem, James the son of Zebedee, and possibly James the Just, the acknowledged leader of the Jewish Christians. It may be that Peter, the apostle of the circumcision, had also suffered before the writing of the Epistle. This supposition, however, which would involve a date for the Epistle after St. Paul’s death also, is by no means necessary. Others, too, may be alluded to of whom we have no record, but whose memory would be fresh in the minds of the readers. But it does not follow that martyrs only are intended. Others also who had died in peace, and whose end had been blessed, might be pointed to as models for the imitation of survivors. Verse 8 must be taken as a distinct appended sentence, the watchword on which the preceding exhortation is based. Its drift is that, though successive generations pass away, Jesus Christ remains the same—the Savior of the living as well as of the departed, and the Savior of all to the end of time. It may be here observed that, though his eternal Deity is not distinctly expressed—for "yesterday" does not of necessity reach back to past eternity—yet the sentence can hardly be taken as not implying it. For his unchangeableness is contrasted with the changing generations of men, as is that of Jehovah in the Old Testament (e.g. in Psalms 90:2-4), and surely such language would not have been used of any but a Divine Being. Hebrews 13:9 Be not carried away (so, according to the best authorities, rather than carried about) by divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, in which they that were occupied (literally, that walked) were not profited. From the exhortation to imitate the faith of the departed leaders, the transition is natural to warnings against being carried away from it by new teachings. The faith, which was their faith, remains unchanged, as Jesus Christ remains unchanged; why, then, these doctrines, new and strange (of. 1 Corinthians 3:11; Galatians 1:6-10)? What these doctrines were is not shown, except so far as is intimated by the word βρώμασιν ("meats"), which reminds us at once of similar warnings in St. Paul’s Epistles (cf. Romans 14:2, Romans 14:14, Romans 14:21; Colossians 2:8, Colossians 2:16 -723; 1 Timothy 4:3). These passages seem to refer in the first place to purely Jewish distinctions, still held to by Jewish Christians, between dean and unclean or polluted meats; and further to a new kind of asceticism, not found in the Old Testament, but based probably on notions of the impurity of matter, which led to entire abstention from flesh or wine, and also in some (1 Timothy 4:3) from marriage; also, as appears from the passage in Colossians, a false philosophy about angels and the spiritual world. We may perceive in these allusions the germs at least of later Gnostic heresies, such as found (as that of the Ebionites) their first congenial soil in Jewish circles; Oriental theosophy, or neo-Platonic philosophy, being supposed to have been engrafted on Jewish modes of thought. Some, misled by what is said in verse 10, see in the word βρώμασιν an allusion to those sacrifices of the Law which were eaten by the worshippers, against any fancied obligation to partake in which the readers are supposed to be warned. But the word is never so applied in the Old Testament or the New (see above, Hebrews 9:10; Le Hebrews 11:34; 1 Macc. 1:16; Romans 14:15, Romans 14:20, 31; 1 Corinthians 6:13, 1 Corinthians 8:8, 1 Corinthians 8:13); nor would such error be likely to be classed among "strange doctrines." The drift of the warning is that the religion of the gospel does not consist in any of these notions or observances, the supposed importance of meats being specially noted, and that to make them its essence is a misconception of its whole meaning, and a departure from the faith: "For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost" (Romans 14:17). Hebrews 13:10 We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle. Here there is a plain allusion to the eating of offered sacrifices. If, then, there was no such allusion in the preceding verse, what is the connection of thought? It appears to be this: "Some would teach you that meats are of religious importance. Nay, but what are meats to us who have Christ himself for our spiritual food? This is our peculiar privilege, not shared by the very priests of the old dispensation." Then, in Hebrews 13:11, "That this is so is shown by the very symbolism of the Day of Atonement." Then, in Hebrews 13:12, "Let us, then, be well content to leave Judaism entirely, and cleave to Christ alone." By "those that serve (λατρεύοντες) the tabernacle" are meant the priests of the Law, whose service is, as in former passages, referred to as still going on. It is evidently implied that we have the right which they have not. Hebrews 13:11, Hebrews 13:12 For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the High Priest for sin (i.e. as sin offerings; for this sense of περὶἁμαρτίας, cf. Hebrews 10:6), are burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people through his own blood, suffered without the gate. The allusion is to the sin offerings on the Day of Atonement—the bullock for the high priest, and the goat for the people. Of the flesh of some sacrifices of ordinary peace offerings—the people ate, being themselves "partakers of the altar;" that of ordinary sin offerings was partaken of by the priests alone: but the special sin offerings of the great day, which typified complete atonement, and the blood of which alone was taken into the holiest of all, were consumed entirely by fire without the camp, and not even the priests might eat of them (Leviticus 16:27, etc). This part of the ceremonial, not mentioned in Hebrews 9:1-28., completed the symbolism of the Day of Atonement. It not only typified (together with the other goat that was set free) the entire removal of sin from the congregation; it also signified that the Law itself made none, not even the priests, partakers in such complete atonement. Christ fulfilled the first significance of this type by suffering "without the gate;" the Jews, in casting him out from their midst, were the unconscious instruments of his so fulfilling it; he thus bare and took away the sins of all outside the holy city which represented the Israel of God. But further, in him is supplied what under the Law was wanting; for of him, the true Sin Offering, we may all partake: he declared this himself when he spoke of our caring his flesh and drinking his blood—in which words the mention of the blood as well as of the flesh is peculiarly significant; for of the blood, which was "given upon the altar to make atonement for sins" (Leviticus 17:11), none might in any case under the Law partake; but of him we even drink the blood, in token that atonement is completed, and that we are now full partakers in all its benefits. The only seeming discrepancy between the type and the Antitype, as above set forth, is in the order of the different parts of the old ceremonial. The sin offering was slain in the camp before it was burnt outside, whereas Christ fulfilled both these parts of the type by one act upon the cross outside. Again, the blood of the sin offering was taken into the holy of holies before the body was consumed by fire outside, whereas Christ entered the heavenly sanctuary "with his own blood" after he had suffered "without the gate." But the general significance of the symbolism in its several parts is not thus disturbed; it is viewed as a whole, and all parts of it are found to be fulfilled. In saying, "we have an altar," and implying that we eat of it, the writer has surely the Eucharist in view, though it does not follow that θυσιαστήριον means definitely the table on which it is celebrated. He may, as some explain, have especially in his mind the cross on which the sacrifice was once for all completed; or he may have had no definite local image before him, seeing rather (as elsewhere in the Epistle) in spiritual realities and relations the counterparts of the Levitical symbols. But that the Holy Communion is alluded to, even if it were not apparent here, might be concluded from 1 Corinthians 10:14-22, where similar phrases are used with distinct reference to it. There St. Paul is dissuading from participation in heathen sacrificial feasts, as being inconsistent with partaking of the Holy Communion; and he says in this connection, "Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices (ἐσθίοντεςτὰςθυσίας) partakers of the altar (κοινωνοὶτοῦθυσιαστηρίου)?" It is evident that "partakers of the Lord’s table" (1 Corinthians 10:21) are regarded as being thereby partakers of the Christian altar, of which mention is made in the text before us. It may be observed that the use here of the word θυσιαστηρίον may be held to justify—and this without implying any actual repetition of the one accomplished sacrifice—the application of the term "altar" to the table on which the Eucharist is celebrated, as does 1 Corinthians 10:21 the term "the Lord’s table." Both terms were so applied from very early times. The holy tables in our churches are altars, in that on them is continually commemorated and pleaded the one sacrifice of the cross, and that from them the spiritual food of the body and blood is given to the faithful. Hebrews 13:13 Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach. By a happy turn of thought Christ’s having suffered without the gate is viewed as representing his exclusion from the Jewish Church and polity, outside which we are now to follow him, though we with him be reproached by the Jews as outcasts. There may be a tacit reference, such as Bengel sees in the word φέροντες, to our bearing our cross after him. Hebrews 13:14 For here we have no abiding city, but we seek that which is to come; i.e. not Jerusalem, representing the transitory dispensation of the Law; but the "city of the living God," which is eternal. Hebrews 13:15 Through him therefore let us offer the sacrifice (or, a sacrifice) of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of lips confessing to his Name. Θυσίααἰνέσεως is the designation in the ritual of the Law of the voluntary peace offering, offered by individuals on occasions calling for special thanksgiving (Le Hebrews 7:12). In the psalms it is used to express generally praise and thanksgiving (see Psalms 1:1-6:14, 23; Psalms 116:17. ΘῦσοντῷΘεῷθυσίαναἰνέσεωςκαὶἀπόδοςτῷὑψίστῳτὰςεὐχάςσου, etc). In virtue of their participation in the true and complete Sin Offering, Christians may fulfill this part of the ancient symbolism, not occasionally, but "continually;" bringing to God, not fruits of the earth, but the "fruit of the lips" (an expression found in Hosea 14:2, where the LXX. has καρπὸνχειλέωνἡμῶν), i.e. continual praise, springing from thankful hearts. In the Eucharist especially (hence so called) such sacrifice is continually offered, over the one atoning Sacrifice which is pleaded and partaken of. But not in communions only, but ever in their daily lives, such "sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving" is due. But, as the next verse reminds the readers, the "knit of the lips" is not enough; there is a further sacrifice of our own, whereby we must show that we are true partakers of Christ, and truly thankful. Hebrews 13:16 But to do good and to communicate forget not; while κοινωνίας expresses the sense of Christian fellowship evinced by communicating to others a share of what we have; cf. Romans 15:26; 2 Corinthians 9:13): for With such sacrifices God is well pleased. Hebrews 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you (τοῖςἡγουμένοιςὑμῶν, as in Hebrews 13:7), and submit yourselves (to them): for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it With joy, and not With grief (literally, groaning); for that is (rather, were) unprofitable for you (i.e. their ministry is for your profit; if its result be their giving in their account with groans, its whole purpose will be frustrated). In this allusion to the ἡγουμένοι as in Hebrews 13:7 and Hebrews 13:24, there is evidence of the existence of a regular order of ministry in the Hebrew Churches, such as many allusions in St. Paul’s Epistles show to have formed part of the constitution of the Churches to whom those Epistles were addressed (cf. also Acts 14:23 and Acts 20:17, Acts 20:28, etc). The word itself (ἡγουμένοι) which is here used might, indeed, denote any persons who took the lead in the congregations; but the urging of the duty of submission to them, in virtue of their office of watching for souls for which they would have to give account, shows plainly that a special order is here, as elsewhere, referred to. Observe also below, Hebrews 13:24, where "all the saints," i.e. what we should call the laity, are mentioned in distinction from the ἡγουμένοι. (For similar injunctions, cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:12 and 1 Timothy 5:17, τοὺςπροεσταμένουςὑμῶν and οἱπροεστῶτεςπρεσβύτεροι being the words there used) The special injunction here to obey and submit may have been called for by some deficiency in this respect among the Hebrew Christians. Possibly it was among the people rather than the pastors that there were any signs of wavering between the Church and the synagogue, and that one purpose of the admonition is to strengthen the hands of the former, in whom confidence is placed. Hebrews 13:18 Pray for us: for we trust (rather, we are persuaded, πειθόμεθα) that we have a good conscience, in all things willing (i.e. desiring) to live honestly. When St. Paul uses the plural ἡμεῖς he usually at least, if not always, includes his colleagues (cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:25; 2 Thessalonians 3:1; Colossians 4:3). So probably the writer here, especially as there is a transition to the singular in the following verse. Whoever he was, he associates himself in sending the Epistle with his fellow-laborers, i.e. with others of what we may call the Pauline circle, who were engaged with him elsewhere. Both this and the request for prayer, and also the assertion of integrity, which seems to imply suspicion of possible mistrust, are quite in St. Paul’s way, and confirm the view that, though the author may not have been St. Paul himself, it was at any rate some one who was, or had been, closely connected with him. Hebrews 13:19 And I beseech you the more abundantly (the Pauline word, περισσοτέρως) to do this, that I may be restored to you the sooner. The author of the Epistle proceeds here for the first time to speak of himself individually; and what he thus says shows that the Epistle was addressed to some definite circle of Hebrew Christians, and one which he had been among before. What circumstances, whether of imprisonment or other hindrances, were in the way of his revisiting them does not appear. We remark that this verse again reminds us strongly of St. Paul (cf. Philemon 1:22). The possibility may be here noted that, if the Epistle was composed by one of St. Paul’s friends, and sent under his authority, he may have himself dictated this concluding portion (beginning possibly at Hebrews 13:17) which is in a more epistolary style than the rest, and contains personal allusions. Hebrews 13:20, Hebrews 13:21 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through (literally, in) the blood of the eternal covenant, our Lord Jesus, make you perfect in every good work, to do his will, working in you that which is well-pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom (i.e. to God, the subject of the sentence) be glory forever and ever. Amen. It is St. Paul’s way also to introduce, in the end of his Epistles, a solemn prayer or benediction, couched in terms suitable to the subjects that have been dwelt on (see e.g. Romans 16:25, etc). The term, "God of peace," is also usual with him; and it is appropriate here after so many warnings against disturbing the Church’s peace; as is, with reference also to what has gone before, "make you perfect" (καταρτίσαι), and what follows. On "the great Shepherd," etc., Bengel says, "Habemus, inquit, antistites multos, Hebrews 13:17, sed hic omniam est Antistes. Ego sum absens, Hebrews 13:19, sed DEUS non abest, neque deerit." The expression is taken from Isaiah 63:11, "Where is he that brought them out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? (Ποῦὁἀναβιβάσαςἐκτῆςθαλάσσηςτὸνποιμένατῶνπροβάτων; LXX)." The reference in Isaiah is to Moses and the Red Sea, the well-known types of Christ and his resurrection, and of ours to a new life, leading to eternal life, through him. He is called "the great Shepherd," as in Hebrews 4:14 the "great High Priest," as being the true fulfillment of the ancient types. "In [i.e. ’in virtue of’] the blood of the covenant" seems to be suggested by Zechariah 9:11, Καὶσὺἐναἵματιδιαθήκηςσουἐξαπέστειλαςδεσμίουςσουἐκλάκκουοὐκἔχοντοςὕδωρ: αἰωνίου being added (as αέγαν before) to distinguish the new covenant from the old. The suitableness of the words to the contents of the Epistle is obvious. It is observed that the above is the only distinct allusion in the Epistle to Christ’s resurrection, the writer’s treatment of his subject having led him to pass at once from the sacrifice to the heavenly intercession. But "non concludit apostolus, autequam menti-onem fecerit resurrectionis Christi" (Bengel). Hebrews 13:22 But I beseech you, brethren, suffer the word of exhortation: for I have written a letter unto you in few words. This and the following verse are in the manner of a postscript, such as is usual with St. Paul. Some little apprehension is implied (of. Hebrews 13:18) of the admonitions not being taken well by all. Though the Epistle is not short as compared with others, yet it has been compressed with as "few words" as the subject would allow (cf. Hebrews 13:11). If, however, this concluding portion of the Epistle was written or dictated by St. Paul himself, as suggested under Hebrews 13:19, the "few words" may possibly refer to it only. Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty; with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you. This allusion to Timothy shows that the Epistle, whatever its exact date, was at any rate written in the apostolic age, before his death. Further, though not proving St. Paul’s authorship, it supports the conclusion that the writer, if not himself, was one of his associates, Timothy having been peculiarly his disciple and companion. It seems that Timothy had been, as the readers were aware, in prison; and the joyful news is communicated of his release, and of the prospect of his visiting them. This again shows that the Epistle was addressed to a definite circle of readers. It is observable that the word ἀπολύεσθαι, which does not occur in St. Paul’s writings, is, like so many expressions throughout the Epistle, one usual with St. Luke (Luke 22:68; Luke 23:1-56. 16, etc; Acts 3:13; Acts 4:21; where it expresses release from prison or captivity). He uses it also for dismissal of persons on a mission (Acts 13:3; Acts 15:30); and hence one view is that Timothy’s having already set out to visit the Church addressed is all that is here meant. But the other meaning of the word is more likely. Hebrews 13:24 Salute all them that have the rule over you (τοὺςἡγουμένους, as before), and all the saints. They of Italy salute you. The fact that no names are here mentioned, as is usual with St. Paul in sending salutations to Churches he was personally well acquainted with, leads us to infer that there had been no such close association, at any rate recently, between the writer and the readers in this case; or else that a circle of Churches in some locality is addressed. Nothing certain can be concluded as to the writer’s whereabouts at the time of writing from the expression, "they of Italy (οἱἀπὸτῆςἸταλίας)," though it seems to favor the idea, rather than otherwise, that he was in Italy at the time, possibly at Rome. For the phrase means simply "natives of Italy" (cf. Acts 10:23; Acts 10:38; Acts 12:1; Acts 17:13; Acts 21:27; Acts 18:13; all these being, we observe, expressions of St. Luke’s); it by no means implies that they had left Italy. In fact, as Delitzsch observes, "if the author was then in Italy, and at the same time was not a native of Italy, he could not have selected a more appropriate designation for the Italian Christians." The Epistle is concluded by St. Paul’s accustomed words, which, with some variations, seem to have been appended to all his letters as his authenticating autograph (see 2 Thessalonians 3:1-18., etc)— Hebrews 13:25 Grace be with you all. Amen. Hebrews 13:1-6 Personal exhortations. This book "to the Hebrews" begins like a doctrinal treatise; but it ends like a letter. Hebrews 13:1-25. is written quite in the epistolary form; and concludes with some personal notices—the only such that are to be found in the book. The verses before us contain counsels suited to the individual Christian life. Here the apostle says in effect to his readers—Be not selfish (Hebrews 13:1-3); be not sensual (Hebrews 13:4); be not sordid (Hebrews 13:5, Hebrews 13:6). I. AN TO LOVE. (Hebrews 13:1-3) In the New Testament, love of the brethren means love of the spiritual brotherhood of believers. The natural affection which subsists between brothers and sisters, although very sacred and beautiful, is not in itself Christian brotherly love. No more is patriotism, or love of country, a distinctively Christian sentiment. The brotherly love which the gospel inspires forgets all differences merely of kindred and nation. It is a spiritual bond, and unites the saint to all his fellow-believers everywhere. This love is not one of the things "that can be shaken" (Hebrews 12:27); it "never faileth" (1 Corinthians 13:8, 1 Corinthians 13:13). So, the apostle exhorts the Hebrews to make sure that it shall "remain" among themselves, and be as actively exercised in the future as in the past (Hebrews 6:10). For, the spirit which rejoices to recognize fellow-believers—taking pleasure in their society, laboring to promote their welfare, and throwing the veil of charity over their failings—is one of the richest and ripest fruits of the Christian life. Love of the brethren is the cement of a congregation. And only the man who cherishes it is, in the proper meaning of the word, a gentleman. In Hebrews 13:2, Hebrews 13:3, the apostle specifies two modes by which it is essential that brotherly love should be manifested; those, viz. of hospitality and sympathy. It is to be shown towards: 1. Brethren who are strangers. (Hebrews 13:2) The Christian Hebrews were to account it a sacred duty hospitably to entertain fellow-believers from other lands or districts, who might be traveling either on business, or in the service of the Church, or because driven from home by persecution. And not only a sacred duty, but a blessed privilege. For as Abraham and Lot (Genesis 18:1-33., 19) "entertained angels unawares," so the stranger whom the Christian receives may turn out to be a messenger from God to his soul—one whose presence may fill his house with the atmosphere of heaven. Should the stranger be a man whose mind is stored with the treasures of spiritual truth, and whose affections are devout and pure, his visit may prove a means of direct quickening to the religious life of the household. Samuel Rutherford experienced this privilege, when one Saturday evening he received a stranger into his pleasant manse at Anworth; for after being impressed at the family catechizing with the guest’s answer that the number of the commandments was eleven, the "new commandment" (John 13:34) being cited as proof, he discovered by-and-by that his visitor was Archbishop Usher, the learned and devout primate of the Church of Ireland. But another and a still sweeter thought is not remote from the motive to hospitality contained in this verse, viz. that in entertaining Christ’s servants we are receiving the Master himself: "I was a Stranger, and ye took me in" (Matthew 25:35). 2. Brethren who are sufferers. (Verse 3) The Hebrews were to "remember" the saints who might be in prison. They were to do so "as bound with them;"—a beautiful expression, breathing the aroma of true Christian sympathy. They were to pray earnestly for them, if possible visit them, minister to their wants, and strive to secure their liberation. Brotherly kindness would lead them to conceive of themselves as occupying the position of the sufferers. It would cause them to realize the "bonds" of their brethren as an affliction personal to themselves, just as the elder Brother’s love does (Acts 9:4). But, since imprisonment is not the only calamity to which believers are exposed, the apostle proceeds to bespeak sympathy for all who in any way "are evil entreated" for Jesus’ sake. We ourselves are liable to the same adversities which our brethren endure. Let us, therefore, identify ourselves with them. It is not enough that we contribute to public charities. Neither do we discharge all our duty when we employ some person as our proxy to care for the sufferers. True Christian sympathy requires that we bring ourselves into personal contact with them. Strength is often received from the glance of a sympathizing eye, or the grasp of a loving hand, or the utterance of a tender word of holy comfort. II. A WARNING AGAINST . (Verse 4) The first part of this verse should certainly be translated as an exhortation. Marriage is to be" had in honor;" not so much here, however, as against celibacy, but in opposition to unchastity. The apostle in this precept elevates marriage to its rightful place as a Divine ordinance. The ethics of the New Testament magnify family life. The Christian religion, in honoring the family, guarding its rights, and proclaiming its duties, has invested home with a halo of loveliness. Wherever the sacred character of marriage is recognized and felt, the result will be purity. And, adds the apostle, there is judgment in reserve for those who dishonor God’s ordinance in this matter. For the adulterer is guilty of the greatest of all social crimes, murder alone excepted. Whether, therefore, the breaker of the seventh commandment be a single or a married person, he shall not escape. The doom of impenitent sensualists will be none the less dreadful that the apostle does not here enlarge upon it. He feels it enough to say solemnly regarding such persons, "God will judge." III. A AGAINST THE LOVE OF MONEY. (Verses 5, 6) Constantly in the New Testament sensuality and avarice are mentioned together as being sins of the same class. If sensuality hardens the human heart, sordidness does so also. The love of filthy lucre will drag a man down to perdition quite as readily and insidiously as the love of filthy lust. Avarice is often regarded as the national sin of the Hebrew race. The natural man Jacob is very prone to develop—unless Divine grace prevent—into the sordid, grasping Shylock. But the Anglo-Saxon nations are all powerfully predisposed to this sin too. In our own time how largely are riches over-estimated, both as a means of happiness and as an evidence of success in life! Even the Church of Christ is tempted to pay court to wealth. Yet it cannot be denied that the Savior forbids his people to make it one of their chief aims to accumulate gold. We are to be diligent in business, and neither despise money nor set our hearts upon it. To be "content with present things" (verse 5) is a high Christian attainment. And a man’s habits of thought and life in connection with money are a touchstone of his character. "A right measure and manner in getting, saving, spending, giving, taking, lending, borrowing, and bequeathing, would almost argue a perfect man" (Henry Taylor). The apostle sustains his precept by an appeal to Scripture (verse 5). The words quoted, "I will in no wise fail thee," etc., contain in the original no fewer than five negatives, and are thus, as it were, a fivefold assurance of the Divine support. God gave this same promise to so many of the ancient saints—to Jacob, Joshua, Solomon, etc.—that it possesses the force of a spiritual adage, and thus may be personally appropriated by every believer. In all ages thousands of the people of God have rested on it, and have accordingly exemplified the rare and difficult grace of contentment. This is matter of history and of observation. "O earth, so full of dreary noises! O men, with wailing in your voices O delved gold, the wailers heap! O strife, O curse, that o’er it fall! God strikes a silence through you all, And giveth his beloved sleep." (Mrs. Browning) Seeing, then, that we who believe are assured of the Divine presence and help, why should we not have the "good courage" (verse 6) to say with the psalmist, "I will not fear: what shall man do unto me" (Psalms 118:6)? Avarice has its root in want of faith in God; but no one who is persuaded that the Lord is with him need dread any kind of poverty. Having Jehovah for his Champion, he will not "make gold his hope, or say to the fine gold, Thou art nay confidence." Divine grace will root up out of his heart the noxious weed of covetousness, and plant in its room the fair arid fragrant flower of contentment. Deceased pastors. Passing from admonitions bearing upon the individual Christian life, the writer now proceeds to exhort the brethren about matters arising out of their Church relations. He charges them to cherish the memory of their departed Christian teachers. I. THE WORK OF THE . The duties of the gospel ministry, when these are faithfully discharged, may be said to be threefold. 1. To bear rule over the Church. Christ has given to his Church the "power of the keys," vesting it in her pastors and presbyters. This power, however, is simply ministerial. The rulers of the Church merely administer the laws given by the Lord Jesus Christ, her King and Head. While at liberty to frame by laws which may promote the edifying celebration of the ordinances which be has founded, they dare not prescribe new laws or appoint new ordinances. They are to admit to Church communion and exclude from it; but only upon the lines laid down in the New Testament. 2. To speak the Word of God. The main function of the ministry is to preach the gospel, and to teach Christian truth. The gospel is a definite "word;" and it is enshrined in a Book which is called "The Word." The preacher’s text-book is not the newspaper, or the current literature of the day, but "the oracles of God." The great design of the Christian pulpit is to promote the intellectual and experimental knowledge of the Bible. And no minister "shall have lived in vain if it can be written over his grave, ’He made the people understand the Scriptures’" (Dr. John Hall). 3. To live a consistent Christian life. When a pastor is, like Barnabas, "a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith," it is to be expected that "much people will be added unto the Lord" (Acts 11:24). A holy example lends incalculable momentum to Christian teaching. "The life of a pious minister is visible rhetoric" (Hooker). "To draw mankind to heaven by gentleness And good example, was his business … And Jesus’ love, which owns no pride or pelf, He taught; but first he followed it himself." (Chaucer) II. THE DUTY OF TOWARDS THEIR PASTORS. Although these are removed from us, we still have duties towards them. Indeed, the relationship of pastor and people, being spiritual in its nature, may be said to be prolonged into eternity. We must: 1. Remember their official work. We should recall the strain of their Christian teaching, and think with gratitude of their spiritual supervision. If we continue to "esteem them exceeding highly in love for their work’s sake," they "being dead, shall yet speak" to us. Many a believer tools that he has had one spiritual guide in particular whose influence over his heart and life must continue unaffected by change or time; viz. the pastor under whose ministry he was converted, or whose teaching helped most powerfully to mould his Christian thought and give direction to his spiritual energies. 2. Consider their consistent Christian life. When a man’s career is finished, it can be surveyed as a whole, and its moral worth appraised. So the character of a godly minister comes to be appreciated at its full value only when we are in a position to "consider the issue of his life." The early spiritual guides of the Hebrews had all died in faith; and some of them, it may be (e.g. Stephen, James the son of Zebedee, and James the Little), had obtained the crown of martyrdom. And what an evidence still of the truth of Christianity is the blameless, unselfish, beneficent career, continued through perhaps two generations, of a faithful Christian minister! What a magnificent sunset the close of the life of the pastor who can say upon his death-bed, "I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith" (2 Timothy 4:7). 3. Imitate their holy fidelity. These primitive pastors had been sorely tried; yet they had never swerved from their loyalty to Christ and to his truth. Like the heroes of the old dispensation, whose exploits are recounted in Hebrews 11:1-40., they had "lived by faith." Why, then, should any of the members of the Church, whom they had taught, be guilty of apostasy? Those doctrines of grace which the teachers had held fast were surely worthy of the adherence of the disciples. Let us also continue steadfastly in the pure gospel truth which our departed spiritual guides adorned in their lives, and let us copy their holy and persevering fidelity to the Redeemer. III. A BLESSED TO THIS DUTY. Hebrews 11:8 is to be read as an affirmation: "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday," etc. It expresses the glorious thought of the changelessness of the Redeemer. He is ever the same in his Divine nature, in his true humanity, in his mediatorial power, in his love and tenderness, in his gospel and its promises. More particularly here he is immutable: 1. As the theme of the pulpit. The preacher of the gospel dies, but "the Word of God" which he spoke is immortal. That Word has its focus in the person and work of the Savior. Its central fact is the death of Christ. The backbone of evangelical preaching is the scheme of redemption by him. And the singular vitality of the pulpit, as compared with other institutions—as, e.g. schools of philosophy, scientific societies, commercial guilds—is due to this undying theme; undying, because coeval with the deepest needs of men in all time. We should, then, remember those who "spake the Word of God," because the Word which they spoke is indestructible. 2. As the confidence of the sailors. The apostolic missionaries who had first preached to the Hebrews had made Jesus Christ their own Stay during life, and their "Guide even unto death." It was he who had succored them under all their afflictions and persecutions as ministers of the Word. And, although they were now dead, the same Savior still lived. It was fitted to be a powerful stimulus to the Hebrews to imitate the faithfulness of their ministers, that the immutable Redeemer remains forever with his people; and that they, too, could link their souls with him, and share in his immutability. 3. As the perpetual Pastor of the Church. The under-shepherds are taken away, but the chief Shepherd abides. Each of them was one of his "gifts for men," lent only for a season. But the ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ himself is perennial and inexhaustible. During the "yesterday" of the Jewish dispensation he made his sheep "to lie down in green pastures" (Psalms 23:2). During the today of the Christian dispensation he presides over his flock by his Spirit, "that they may have life, and may have it abundantly" (John 10:10). And, during the blessed "forever" which shall begin with the second coming, when all his sheep shall have been gathered from their various folds into the infinite meadows of heaven," the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall be their Shepherd, and shall guide them unto fountains of waters of life" (Revelation 7:17). Hebrews 13:9-16 "Without the camp." These words occur repeatedly in this passage; and, used as a motto, they express appropriately the nerve-thought which pervades it. Indeed, the entire Epistle may be described as an urgent and affectionate exhortation to the Hebrews to "go forth unto Jesus without the camp, bearing his reproach." We are required to withdraw from the polity and life of Judaism— I. AS REGARDS . (Hebrews 13:9) The reference here seems to be to the Levitical distinctions between clean and unclean "meats," and perhaps also to the traditional customs on the same subject which had been elevated to equal authority with those. The apostle reminds his readers that all such precepts are only "carnal ordinances," which the coming of Jesus Christ has rendered no longer necessary, and the observance of which can now have no influence upon a man’s spiritual life. Christ has "made all meats clean" (Mark 7:19). The principle and power of his religion consists in "grace," and not in fanciful distinctions connected with food. "The kingdom of God is not eating and drinking" (Romans 14:17). No consciousness of external observances can ever "profit" a man spiritually. Only the "grace" of God, given by his Spirit, can regenerate and ennoble the human soul. We must therefore forsake the materialistic "teachings" of Judaism for the spiritual doctrines of Christianity. II. AS REGARDS OUR SIN . (Hebrews 13:10-13) Our "Altar" is Christ (Hebrews 13:10), and he is also our Sacrifice "for sin" (Hebrews 13:12). He is at once High Priest, Altar, and Victim. Under the Levitical law, while the priests were allowed to partake of many of the sacrifices, there were certain sin offerings of which they were expressly forbidden to eat (Leviticus 6:30). Those, e.g. which were presented on the great annual Day of Atonement were wholly consumed by fire "without the camp." This ordinance typified the fact that Christ, the true Sin Offering, was to suffer for us "without the gate" of Jerusalem; and that, if we would participate in the atonement which he has made, we must voluntarily renounce the Jewish Church from which he was expelled. The law of the tabernacle forbade those who remained in connection with the camp of Judaism to eat of the flesh of any sin offering the blood of which had been presented within the tabernacle; but every one who worships before the true altar which has been set up on Calvary is encouraged freely to partake of the flesh of Christ, which he has "given for the life of the world." To cleave to the Law, therefore, is to reject the gospel. If we would eat of the real sin offering which has been provided under the new covenant—i.e., obtain the blessings of pardon and peace, of access and sanctification, which the atonement of Jesus has purchased—we must "go forth unto him without the camp." III. AS REGARDS OUR THANK . (Hebrews 13:15, Hebrews 13:16) These are not to be presented any longer through the medium of the Aaronical priesthood and of the Levitical oblations. Christ’s people are to offer them "through him" as Mediator, and depending for their acceptance upon his atonement and intercession. So soon as we partake of the New Testament sin offering, we are ourselves constituted "a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 2:5). The great substantive thank offering which the believer presents is himself (Romans 12:1; 2 Corinthians 8:5). But the man who has given himself to the Lord will also offer: 1. Words of praise. (Hebrews 13:15) The most direct means by which we can honor God is publicly to "make confession to his Name" in words of faith and songs of adoration. When the spirit of praise takes root within the soil of the heart, it will spread its buds and blossoms over all the soul, and adorn the "lips" with its "fruit." 2. Works of piety. (Hebrews 13:16) These are spiritual sacrifices also. Christianity is eminently a practical religion, and regards every deed of charity done for Jesus’ sake as a sweet and holy psalm. The truly grateful heart is always generous, and "willing to communicate" for the relief of brethren who are in need. And "God is well pleased" with every act of beneficence done out of gratitude for his grace. He accepts such as a "sacrifice" offered to himself. IV. AS REGARDS OUR . (Hebrews 13:14) Very soon, now, Jerusalem and its temple were to be razed to their foundations; and the entire Jewish polity, both civil and ecclesiastical, thus to be brought to a perpetual end. But that event would entail but small loss upon the Christian Hebrews, if only they remained steadfast in the faith. For, in embracing the gospel, they had transferred their affections from the earthly Jerusalem to the heavenly. Not only so, but all believers—Jew and Gentile alike—must "go forth unto Jesus without the camp," in the sense of living a life of separation from the prevailing spirit of the world. The believer is to cultivate habits of reserve in reference to earthly pursuits and interests. His "citizenship is in heaven" (Philippians 3:20). He looks beyond even the kingdom of grace to that of glory. He knows that the whole visible order of things in this world shall pass away, and just as completely as the Jewish polity has already done. And he anticipates for himself a permanent home in the New Jerusalem that shall "come down out of heaven from God." . Seeing we possess such transcendent privileges "outside the camp," let us bear patiently the "reproach" of Christ. We must be content to appear "singular" for his sake. We must be willing to be ostracized by the world on account of our love for him. The spirit of devotion to Jesus will be always diametrically opposed to the prevailing spirit of the ungodly. But what an honor to be permitted to suffer with him! And "if we endure, we shall also reign with him." Hebrews 13:17-19 Duty to present pastors. In Hebrews 13:7 the apostle had exhorted the Hebrews to honor the memory of their deceased ministers. But, if this was a duty incumbent on them, it was equally their duty to render Christian obedience to their living spiritual guides. These precepts connected with the pastoral relation remind us that even in the earliest times the Churches possessed a definite organization, and were presided over by regularly appointed spiritual office-bearers. A twofold duty towards their leaders is pointed out in these verses. I. TO OBEY THEM. (Hebrews 13:17) The spiritual government of the Church is an ordinance of Christ, and a means of grace to his people. It is not, however, a despotic government. Pastors and presbyters are simply to administer the Law of Christ. They may not demand submission to what is based only upon their own will or caprice. But, within the limits of their rightful authority, they are to be honored and obeyed. Their public teaching is to be received with a view to personal edification. Their private pastoral admonitions are to be accepted as "an excellent oil "(Psalms 141:5). The censures of the Church, administered after conviction of scandalous sin, are to be submitted to, not as a penance, but as a means of spiritual benefit. The exhortation of this verse is needed in our own time. The present age is characterized not only by a healthy independence of thought, but also by an unhealthy impatience of legitimate authority—at once in the family, in the state, and in the Church. Yet there must be both government and discipline in every ecclesiastical society; and the proper administration of such is indispensable to the order and purity of the Church, if not even to her visible existence. In the latter part of the verse some reasons and motives are presented by which to enforce this duty of obedience in spiritual things. 1. The solemn work of the pastor. He "watches in behalf of your souls." If the Church ruler be worthy of his office, he will be full of vigilant solicitude for the salvation of the people whom the Lord Jesus has committed to his care. He will take trouble for their souls. He will seek to know the flock personally—their individual condition, character, and needs. He will try to establish true sympathy between himself and them. He will watch, that he may teach and warn and comfort, with a view to their salvation. 2. His responsibility to the chief Shepherd. Every minister knows that he "shall give account." In his private communion with his Master he ought from time to time to report to him upon the condition of his charge. And he must not forget that at the end of the days, when the Son of man shall separate the sheep from the goats, he shall address to him the solemn question, "Where is the flock that was given thee, thy beautiful flock?" (Jeremiah 13:20). 3. The hurtful recoil upon the souls of the people if they fail in obedience. A spirit of docility in the congregation will encourage its spiritual guides to do their responsible work with cheerfulness and joy. But when there is resistance to counsel and contumacy under discipline, the heart of the pastor will become cast down; he will be prone to feel his work irksome, and to do it "with grief," if indeed he be not tempted to abandon it altogether. And such a frame of mind in him will react in turn upon the congregation. A dejected minister will be more or less inefficient. The people will suffer much spiritual loss, for which they can only have themselves to blame. II. TO PRAY FOR THEM. (Hebrews 13:18, Hebrews 13:19) In the verse preceding, the apostle has had in view the anxieties and burdens of the Christian ministry; so he now requests the prayers of the Hebrews for the pastors of the Church, and specially for himself. Here, for the first time in the course of this Epistle, the author—whoever he was—allows his personality to appear. He claims to stand in a pastoral relation to the Hebrews, not only on the ground of former intercourse, but in virtue of this letter, which he has weighted with precious instruction and affectionate appeal, Now, if apostles and inspired men felt the need of the intercessions of the Church, how earnestly ought she to pray for her ordinary pastors and teachers! And a congregation should not only implore Divine grace for "our beloved pastor"—a duty which is sometimes done in a spirit of parochial selfishness; we should also embrace in our intercessions the ministers of all the congregations with which we are associated in Church fellowship, and all the Lord’s servants in the gospel everywhere. The writer advances two considerations in support of his request. 1. His purity of conduct. (Hebrews 13:18) He had the testimony of "a good conscience;" and yet he yearned for the sympathy of his brethren in all his labors and sufferings. Jewish zealots might asperse his motives and defame his character; but the prayers of his fellow-Christians would fortify him against such trials. And the Church ought still to pray for her godly pastors, that they may have grace "to live honestly in all things," preserving "a good conscience" in keeping their own hearts, in maintaining habits of study, in faithfully preaching the gospel, and in watching for souls by means of pastoral work. 2. His desire to revisit the Christian Hebrews. (Verse 19) The writer had resided among them at some former period, and he strongly wished to return to them so soon as circumstances might permit. He solicits their prayers, that the hindrances presently in his way may be removed. He makes this request very earnestly, and as a great personal favor to himself. We are reminded here, accordingly, that prayer is one of the powers which co-operate in the government of the world. The author of this Epistle was persuaded that the almighty energy of God is roused into action by the supplications of his people. He was quite sure that human prayers, not less than human deeds, are a factor in the Divine government. So he begged that the "voice" of the Church might "rise like a fountain for him night and day." Concluding prayer for the Hebrews. The apostle, having earnestly requested the prayers of the Christian Jews for himself, proceeds to plead for them at the throne of the heavenly grace. He virtually says, "Pray for me, brethren; I pray for you." And what a wonderful prayer is this! How brief, yet how comprehensive; how exquisitely simple, yet how deeply sublime! It is a benediction as well as a petition. And it is so richly colored with the doctrine which the writer has been discussing that it reads almost like a summary of the Epistle. Consider— I. THE TITLE UNDER WHICH GOD IS . "The God of peace." This is a Pauline expression. Outside of this book it occurs only in the writings of Paul. The appellation is profoundly suggestive. God is "the God of peace" (1) in his own being and character—he loves peace, and it dwells within him; (2) in his moral administration, the end of which is to work peace in the world, and within the hearts of men. These Hebrews lived during a time of political turmoil and of religious persecution; but the apostle directs their thoughts to the Lord that "sitteth upon the flood," who "will bless his people with peace." There are some very solemn and terrible passages in this Epistle about the sin and doom of apostates; but the writer points us once more to the rainbow of grace shining in front of the gloom, and tells us how the hands of "the God of peace" have bonded it. II. THE SPECIAL ACT HERE . It is that of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus—an event not referred to elsewhere in the Epistle. The God who works peace had sent his Son to obey and suffer and die for man’s sin; and the same God had brought him again from the dead, and confirmed him in his high dignity as "the great Shepherd of the sheep." Throughout this prayer of benediction the writer seems to have in view Isaiah 63:11-14, and to think of the Lord Jesus by contrast with Moses, and the other shepherds of ancient Israel. Jacob and Joseph, Moses and Aaron, Samuel and David, had all been true" shepherds of his flock;" but the Lord Jesus is "the great Shepherd." The Hebrews were to cherish the memory of their own former pastors (Isaiah 63:7), and they had other pastors set over them now (Isaiah 63:17); but the Lord Jesus, the crucified and risen One, was ever their chief Pastor. He had laid down his life as "the good Shepherd," but in rising from the dead and ascending to heaven he had shown himself to be "the great Shepherd." On every account he is entitled to be called "great;" e.g. because all the prophets spoke of him, because all former true shepherds were types of him, because he is himself mighty to save, and because of the vastness of the flock over which he shall preside. Here in particular, however, the apostle calls him "great" because he has sealed the new and "eternal covenant" with his "blood." That blood was the blood of God’ himself (Acts 20:28); and so the covenant confirmed with such a costly sacrifice cannot but be everlasting. Not only so, but the Lord Jesus died, not merely as a federal offering; he died as a Sin Offering. His death completed the fulfillment of the covenant stipulations on his and our part; and, as we know that God also will be faithful to the treaty on his side, we are sure it shall stand forever. Christ is "the Mediator of the new covenant" and "the great Shepherd of the sheep," through virtue of the merit of his blood. III. THE PRAYED FOR. (Verse 21) It is the gift of perfect sanctification, a blessing that had been expressly promised and guaranteed in connection with the new covenant (Jeremiah 31:33, Jeremiah 31:34). The God who has elevated the Lord Jesus to be the Head of the final dispensation is both able and willing to perform his own covenant promise. "Make you perfect;" i.e. put you into order, restore you, equip you. Naturally, every man needs to have his soul reorganized before he can learn to do God’s will. And sometimes a good man requires, as many of these Hebrew believers did, a second conversion. The apostle prays that their equipment may be thorough; that it may be a deep and comprehensive work within the soul, wrought there by the power of the Holy Ghost, and which shall bear fruit outwardly in a career of perfect holiness that shall be "well-pleasing in God’s sight." It is not enough to practice only some of the virtues of the Christian character; we must be "perfect in every good thing "—in worship and work, in thought and feeling, in body and spirit. The rule of our perfect equipment is "his will"—the mind of God as made known to us in Holy Scripture. And the medium by which it is accomplished is "through Jesus Christ"—by means of his gracious operations upon the heart by his Spirit. Perfect holiness in man is all of his creation: not by his doctrine merely, or by faith in him; but through himself, and by virtue of the believer’s union to him. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/