{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_32968/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_32968","id":"gutenberg_32968","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/32968","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. Hebrews -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"Produced by Marcia Brooks, Colin Bell, Nigel Blower and\nthe Online Distributed Proofreading Team at\nhttps://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images\ngenerously made available by The Internet Archive/Canadian\nLibraries)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n [Transcriber's Note:\n\n This e-text is intended for users whose text readers cannot display\n the Unicode (utf-8) version of the file. Greek words have been\n transliterated and enclosed in equals signs, e.g. =ho logos=.\n\n _Italic_ and *bold* words have been similarly enclosed in\n underscores and asterisks respectively.\n\n A few minor typographical errors and incorrect verse numbers have been\n silently corrected.\n\n The Table of Contents and Index refer to page numbers in the original\n text.\n\n All advertising material has been placed at the end of the text.]\n\n\n\n\n THE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE\n\n\n EDITED BY THE REV.\n W. ROBERTSON NICOLL, M.A., LL.D.\n\n _Editor of \"The Expositor,\" etc._\n\n\n THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS\n\n BY\n THOMAS CHARLES EDWARDS, D.D.\n\n\n London\n HODDER AND STOUGHTON\n 27, PATERNOSTER ROW\n\n MCMIV\n\n\n\n\n THE\n EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS\n\n\n BY\n THOMAS CHARLES EDWARDS, D.D.\n\n PRINCIPAL OF THE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF WALES, ABERYSTWYTH\n\n\n _NINTH EDITION_\n\n\n London\n HODDER AND STOUGHTON\n 27, PATERNOSTER ROW\n\n MCMIV\n\n\n\n\n_Printed by Hazell, Watson & Viney, Ld., London and Aylesbury._\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nIn this volume the sole aim of the writer has been to trace the unity of\nthought in one of the greatest and most difficult books of the New\nTestament. He has endeavoured to picture his reader as a member of what\nis known in the Sunday-schools of Wales as \"the teachers' class,\" a\nthoughtful Christian layman, who has no Greek, and desires only to be\nassisted in his efforts to come at the real bearing and force of words\nand to understand the connection of the sacred author's ideas. It may\nnot be unnecessary to add that this design by no means implies less\nlabour or thought on the part of the writer. But it does imply that the\nlabour is veiled. Criticism is rigidly excluded.\n\nThe writer has purposely refrained from discussing the question of the\nauthorship of the Epistle, simply because he has no new light to throw\non this standing enigma of the Church. He is convinced that St. Paul is\nneither the actual author nor the originator of the treatise.\n\nIn case theological students may wish to consult the volume when they\nstudy the Epistle to the Hebrews, they will find the Greek given at the\nfoot of the page, to serve as a catch-word, whenever any point of\ncriticism or of interpretation seems to the writer to deserve their\nattention.\n\n T. C. E.\n\n ABERYSTWYTH, _April 12th, 1888_.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\n PAGE\n CHAPTER I.\n THE REVELATION IN A SON 3\n\n CHAPTER II.\n THE SON AND THE ANGELS 21\n\n CHAPTER III.\n FUNDAMENTAL ONENESS OF THE DISPENSATIONS 51\n\n CHAPTER IV.\n THE GREAT HIGH-PRIEST 69\n\n CHAPTER V.\n THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF RENEWAL 83\n\n CHAPTER VI.\n THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF FAILURE 99\n\n CHAPTER VII.\n THE ALLEGORY OF MELCHIZEDEK 113\n\n CHAPTER VIII.\n THE NEW COVENANT 133\n\n CHAPTER IX.\n AN ADVANCE IN THE EXHORTATION 183\n\n CHAPTER X.\n FAITH AN ASSURANCE AND A PROOF 199\n\n CHAPTER XI.\n THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM 213\n\n CHAPTER XII.\n THE FAITH OF MOSES 233\n\n CHAPTER XIII.\n A CLOUD OF WITNESSES 259\n\n CHAPTER XIV.\n CONFLICT 273\n\n CHAPTER XV.\n MOUNT ZION 293\n\n CHAPTER XVI.\n SUNDRY EXHORTATIONS 315\n\n INDEX 331\n\n\n\n\nSUMMARY.\n\n\nI. THE REVELATION IN A SON: i. 1-3.\n\n1. The previous revelation was in portions; this is a Son, Who is the\nHeir and the Creator.\n\n2. The previous revelation was in divers manners; this in a Son, Who is\n(1) the effulgence of God's glory; (2) the image of His substance; (3)\nthe Sustainer of all things; (4) the eternal Priest-King.\n\nII. THE SON AND THE ANGELS: i. 4-ii. 18.\n\n1. The Revealer of God Son of God: i. 4-ii. 4.\n\n2. The Son the Representative of man: ii. 5-18. (1) He is crowned with\nglory as Son, that His propitiation may prove effectual, and His\nhumiliation involves a propitiatory death. (2) His glory consists in\nbeing Leader of His people, and His humiliation fitted Him for\nleadership. (3) His glory consists in power to consecrate men to God,\nand His humiliation endowed Him with this power. (4) His glory consists\nin the destruction of Satan, and Satan is destroyed through the Son's\nhumiliation.\n\nIII. FUNDAMENTAL ONENESS OF THE DISPENSATIONS: iii. i-iv. 13.\n\n1. Moses and Christ are equally God's stewards.\n\n2. The threatenings of God under the Old Testament are in force in\nreference to apostasy from Christ.\n\n3. The promises of God are still in force.\n\nIV. THE GREAT HIGH-PRIEST: iv. 4-v. 10.\n\n1. His sympathy.\n\n2. His authority.\n\nV. (A DIGRESSION) THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF RENEWAL IN THE CASE OF SCOFFERS:\nv. 11-vi. 8.\n\nTheir renewal is impossible (1) because the doctrine of Christianity is\npractical, and (2) because God's punishment of cynicism is the\ndestruction of the spiritual faculty.\n\nVI. (CONTINUATION OF THE DIGRESSION.) THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF FAILURE: vi.\n9-20.\n\nVII. THE ALLEGORY OF MELCHIZEDEK: vii. 1-28.\n\n1. Melchizedek foreshadows the kingship of Christ.\n\n2. Melchizedek foreshadows the personal greatness of Christ.\n\n3. The allegory teaches the existence of a priesthood other than that of\nAaron, viz., the priesthood founded on an oath.\n\n4. The allegory sets forth the eternal duration of Christ's priesthood.\n\nVIII. THE NEW COVENANT: viii. 1.\n\n1. A new covenant promised through Jeremiah: viii. 1-13. The new\ncovenant would excel (1) in respect of the moral law; (2) in respect of\nknowledge of God; (3) in respect of forgiveness of sins.\n\n2. A new covenant symbolized in the tabernacle: ix. 1-14.\n\n3. A new covenant ratified in the death of Christ: ix. 15-x. 18.\n\nIX. AN ADVANCE IN THE EXHORTATION: x. 19-39.\n\nX. FAITH AN ASSURANCE AND A PROOF: xi. 1-3.\n\nXI. THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM: xi. 8-19.\n\n1. His faith compared with the faith of Noah.\n\n2. His faith compared with the faith of Enoch.\n\n3. His faith compared with the faith of Abel.\n\nXII. THE FAITH OF MOSES: xi. 23-28.\n\n1. Faith groping for the work of life.\n\n2. Faith chooses the work of life.\n\n3. Faith a discipline for the work of life.\n\n4. Faith renders the man's life and work sacramental.\n\nXIII. A CLOUD OF WITNESSES: xi. 20-xii. 1.\n\nXIV. CONFLICT: xii. 2-17. Faith as a hope of the future endures the\npresent conflict against men.\n\n1. The preparatory training for the conflict consists in putting away\n(1) our own grossness; (2) the sin that besets us.\n\n2. The contest is successfully maintained if we look unto Jesus (1) as\nLeader and Perfecter of our faith; (2) as an example of faith.\n\n3. The contest is necessary as a discipline in dealing with (1) the\nweaker brethren, (2) the enemy at the gate, and (3) the secular spirit.\n\nXV. MOUNT ZION: xii. 18-29. The revelation on Sinai preceded the\nsacrifices of the tabernacle; the revelation on Zion follows the\nsacrifice of the Cross. Hence--\n\n1. Sinai revealed the terrible side of God's character, Zion the\npeaceful tenderness of His love.\n\n2. The revelation on Sinai was earthly; that on Zion is spiritual.\n\nXVI. SUNDRY EXHORTATIONS: xiii. 1-25.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\n_THE REVELATION IN A SON._\n\n\n \"God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by\n divers portions and in divers manners, hath at the end of these days\n spoken unto us in His Son, Whom He appointed Heir of all things,\n through Whom also He made the worlds; Who being the effulgence of\n His glory, and the very image of His substance, and upholding all\n things by the word of His power, when He had made purification of\n sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.\"--HEB. i.\n 1-3 (R.V.).\n\n\n\"God hath spoken.\" The eternal silence has been broken. We have a\nrevelation. That God has spoken unto men is the ground of all religion.\nTheologians often distinguish between natural religion and revealed. We\nmay fairly question if all worship is not based on some revelation of\nGod. Prayer is the echo in man's spirit of God's own voice. Men learn to\nspeak to the Father Who is in heaven as children come to utter words: by\nhearing their parent speak. It is the deaf who are also dumb. God speaks\nfirst, and prayer answers as well as asks. Men reveal themselves to the\nGod Who has revealed Himself to them.\n\nThe Apostle is, however, silent about the revelations of God in nature\nand in conscience. He passes them by because we, sinful men, have lost\nthe key to the language of creation and of our own moral nature. We know\nthat He speaks through them, but we do not know what He says. If we were\nholy, it would be otherwise. All nature would be vocal, \"like some\nsweet beguiling melody.\" But to us the universe is a hieroglyphic which\nwe cannot decipher, until we discover in another revelation the key that\nwill make all plain.\n\nMore strange than this is the Apostle's omission to speak of the Mosaic\ndispensation as a revelation of God. We should have expected the verse\nto run on this wise: \"God, having spoken unto the fathers in the\nsacrifices and in the prophets, institutions, and inspired words,\" etc.\nBut the author says nothing about rites, institutions, dispensations,\nand laws. The reason apparently is that he wishes to compare with the\nrevelation in Christ the highest, purest, and fullest revelation given\nbefore; and the most complete revelation vouchsafed to men, before the\nSon came to declare the Father, is to be found, not in sacrifices, but\nin the words of promise, not in the institutions, but in holy men, who\nwere sent, time after time, to quicken the institutions into new life or\nto preach new truths. The prophets were seers and poets. Nature's\nhighest gift is imagination, whether it \"makes\" a world that transcends\nnature or \"sees\" what in nature is hidden from the eyes of ordinary men.\nThis faculty of the true poet, elevated, purified, taken possession of\nby God's Holy Spirit, became the best instrument of revelation, until\nthe word of prophecy was made more sure through the still better gift of\nthe Son.\n\nBut it would appear from the Apostle's language that even the lamp of\nprophecy, shining in a dark place, was in two respects defective. \"God\nspake in the prophets by divers portions and in divers manners.\" He\nspake in divers portions; that is, the revelation was broken, as the\nlight was scattered before it was gathered into one source. Again, He\nspake in divers manners. Not only the revelation was fragmentary, but\nthe separate portions were not of the same kind. The two defects were\nthat the revelation lacked unity and was not homogeneous.\n\nIn contrast to the fragmentary character of the revelation, the Apostle\nspeaks of the Son, in the second verse, as the centre of unity. He is\nthe Heir and the Creator of all things. With the heterogeneous\nrevelation in the prophets he contrasts, in the third verse, the\nrevelation that takes its form from the peculiar nature of Christ's\nSonship. He is the effulgence of God's glory, the very image of His\nsubstance; He upholds all things by the word of His power; and, having\nmade purification of sins, He took His seat on the right hand of the\nMajesty on high.\n\nLet us examine a little more closely the double comparison made by the\nApostle between the revelation given to the fathers and that which we\nhave received.\n\n_First_, the previous revelation was in portions. The Old Testament has\nno centre, from which all its wonderful and varied lights radiate, till\nwe find its unity in the New Testament and read Jesus Christ into it.\nGod scattered the revelations over many centuries, line upon line,\nprecept after precept, here a little and there a little. He spread the\nknowledge of Himself over the ages of a nation's history, and made the\ndevelopment of one people the medium whereby to communicate truth. This\nof itself, if nothing more had been told us, is a magnificent\nconception. A nation's early struggles, bitter failures, ultimate\ntriumph, the appearance within it of warriors, prophets, poets, saints,\nused by the Spirit of God to reveal the invisible! Sometimes revelation\nwould make but one advance in an age. We might almost imagine that God's\ntruth from the lips of His prophets was found at times too overpowering.\nIt was crushing frail humanity. The Revealer must withdraw into silence\nbehind the thick veil, to give human nature time to breathe and recover\nself-possession. The occasional message of prophecy resembles the\nsuddenness of Elijah's appearances and departures, and forms a strange\ncontrast to the ceaseless stream of preaching in the Christian Church.\n\nStill more strikingly does it contrast with the New Testament, the\ngreater book, yea the greatest of all books. Only two classes of men\ndeny its supremacy. They are those who do not know what real greatness\nis, and those who disparage it as a literature that they may be the\nbetter able to seduce foolish and shallow youths to reject it as a\nrevelation. But honest and profound thinkers, even when they do not\nadmit that it is the word of God, acknowledge it to be the greatest\namong the books of men.\n\nYet the New Testament was all produced--if we are forbidden to say\n\"given\"--in one age, not fifteen centuries. Neither was this one of the\ngreat ages of history, when genius seems to be almost contagious. Even\nGreece had at this time no original thinkers. Its two centuries of\nintellectual supremacy had passed away. It was the age of literary\nimitations and counterfeits. Yet it is in this age that the book which\nhas most profoundly influenced the thought of all subsequent times made\nits appearance. How shall we account for the fact? The explanation is\nnot that its writers were great men. However insignificant the writers,\nthe mysterious greatness of the book pervades it all, and their lips are\ntouched as with a live coal from the altar. Nothing will account for the\nNew Testament but the other fact that Jesus of Nazareth had appeared\namong men, and that He was so great, so universal, so human, so Divine,\nthat He contained in His own person all the truth that will ever be\ndiscovered in the book. Deny the incarnation of the Son of God, and you\nmake the New Testament an insoluble enigma. Admit that Jesus is the\nWord, and that the Word is God, and the book becomes nothing more,\nnothing less, than the natural and befitting outcome of what He said and\ndid and suffered. The mystery of the book is lost in the greater mystery\nof His person.\n\nHere the second verse comes in, to tell us of this great Person, and how\nHe unites in Himself the whole of God's revelation. He is appointed Heir\nof all things, and through Him God made the ages. He is the Alpha and\nthe Omega, the first and the last, He which is, and which was, and which\nis to come,--the spring from which all the streams of time have risen\nand the sea into which they flow. But these are the two sides of all\nreal knowledge; and revelation is nothing else than knowledge given by\nGod. All the infinite variety of questions with which men interrogate\nnature may be reduced to two: Whence? and whither? As to the latter\nquestion, the investigation has not been in vain. We do know that,\nwhatever the end will be, the whole universe rises from lower to higher\nforms. If one life perishes, it reappears in a higher life. It is the\nultimate purpose of all which still remains unknown. But the Apostles\ndeclare that this interrogation is answered in Jesus Christ. Only that\nthey speak, not of \"ultimate purpose,\" but of \"the appointed Heir.\" He\nis more than the goal of a development. He is the Son of the living God,\nand therefore the Heir of all the works and purposes of His Father. He\nholds His position by right of sonship, and has it confirmed to Him as\nthe reward of filial service.\n\nThe word \"Heir\" is an allusion to the promise made to Abraham. The\nreference, therefore, is not to the eternal relation between the Son and\nGod, not to any lordship which the Son acquires apart from His\nassumption of humanity and atoning death. The idea conveyed by the word\n\"Heir\" will come again to the surface, more than once, in the Epistle.\nBut everywhere the reference is to the Son's final glory as Redeemer. At\nthe same time, the act of appointing Him Heir may have taken place\nbefore the world was. We must, accordingly, understand the revelation\nhere spoken of to mean more especially the manifestation of God in the\nwork of redemption. Of this work also Christ is the ultimate purpose. He\nis the Heir, to Whom the promised inheritance originally and ultimately\nbelongs. It is this that befits Him to become the full and complete\nRevealer of God. He is the answer to the question, Whither? in reference\nto the entire range of redemptive thought and action.\n\nAgain, He, too, is the Creator. Many seek to discover the origin of all\nthings by analysis. They trace the more complex to the less complex, the\ncompound to its elements, and the higher developments of life to lower\ntypes. But to the theologian the real difficulty does not lie here.\nWhat matter _whence_, if we are still the same? We know what we are. We\n_are_ men. We are capable of thinking, of sinning, of hating or loving\nGod. The problem is to account for these facts of our spirit. What is\nthe evolution of holiness? Whence came prayer, repentance, and faith?\nBut even these questions Christianity professes to answer. It answers\nthem by solving still harder problems than these. Do we ask who created\nthe human spirit? The Gospel tells us who can sanctify man's inmost\nbeing. Do we seek to know who made conscience? The New Testament\nproclaims One Who can purify conscience and forgive the sin. To create\nis but a small matter to Him Who can save. Jesus Christ is that Saviour.\nHe, therefore, is that Creator. In being these things, He is the\ncomplete and final revelation of God.\n\n_Second_, previous revelations were given in divers manners. God used\nmany different means to reveal Himself, as if He found them one after\nanother inadequate. And how can a visible, material creation\nsufficiently reveal the spiritual? How can institutions and systems\nreveal the personal, living God? How can human language even express\nspiritual ideas? Sometimes the means adopted appear utterly incongruous.\nWill the great Spirit, the holy and good God, speak to a prophet in the\ndreams of night? Shall we say that the man of God sees real visions\nwhen he dreams an unreal dream? Or will an apparition of the day more\nbefittingly reveal God? Has every substance been possessed by the spirit\nof falsehood, so that the Being of beings can only reveal His presence\nin unsubstantial phantoms? Has the waking life of intellect become so\nentirely false to its glorious mission of discovering truth that the God\nof truth cannot reveal Himself to man, except in dreams and spectres?\nYet there was a time when it might be well for us to recall our dreams,\nand wise to believe in spiritualism. For a dream might bring a real\nmessage from God, and ecstasy might be the birth-throes of a new\nrevelation. Some of the good words of Scripture were at first a dream.\nIn the midst of the confused fancies of the brain, when reason is for a\ntime dethroned, a truth descends from heaven upon the prophet's spirit.\nThis has been, but will never again take place. The oracles are dumb,\nand we shall not regret them. We consult no interpreter of dreams. We\nseek not the seances of necromancers. Let the peaceful spirits of the\ndead rest in God! They had their trials and sorrows on earth. Rest,\nhallowed souls! We do not ask you to break the deep silence of heaven.\nFor God has spoken unto us in a Son, Who has been made higher than the\nheavens, and is as great as God. Even the Son need not, must not, come\nto earth a second time to reveal the Father in mighty deeds and a\nmightier self-sacrifice. The revelation given is enough. \"We will not\nsay in our hearts, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring\nChrist down:) or, Who shall descend into the abyss? (that is, to bring\nChrist up from the dead.) The word is nigh us, in our mouth, and in our\nheart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach.\"[1]\n\nThe final form of God's revelation of Himself is, therefore, perfectly\nhomogeneous. The third verse explains that it is a revelation, not only\nin a Son, but in His Sonship. We learn what kind of Sonship is His, and\nhow its glorious attributes qualify Him to be the perfect Revealer of\nGod. Nevermore will a message be sent to men except in Jesus Christ.\nGod, Who spake unto the fathers in divers manners, speaks to us in Him,\nWhose Sonship constitutes Him the effulgence of God's glory, the image\nof His substance, the Upholder of the universe, and, lastly, the eternal\nRedeemer and King.\n\n1. He is the effulgence of God's glory. Many expositors prefer another\nrendering: \"the reflection of His glory.\" This would mean that God's\nself-manifestation, shining on an external substance, is reflected, as\nfrom a mirror, and that this reflection is the Son of God. But such an\nexpression does not convey a consistent idea. For the Son must be the\nsubstance from which the light is reflected. What truth there is in this\nrendering is more correctly expressed in the next clause: \"the image of\nHis substance.\" It is, therefore, much better to accept the rendering\nadopted in the Revised Version: \"the effulgence of His glory.\" God's\nglory is the self-manifestation of His attributes, or, in other words,\nthe consciousness which God has of His own infinite perfections. This\nimplies the triune personality of God. But it does not imply a\nrevelation of God to His creatures. The Son participates in that\nconsciousness of the Divine perfections. But He also reveals God to men,\nnot merely in deeds and in words, but in His person. He _is_ the\nrevelation. To declare this seems to be the Apostle's purpose in using\nthe word \"effulgence.\" It expresses \"the essentially ministrative\ncharacter of the person of the Son.\"[2] If a revelation will be given at\nall, His Sonship points Him out as the Interpreter of God's nature and\npurposes, inasmuch as He is essentially, because He is Son, the\nemanation or radiance of His glory.\n\n2. He is the image of His substance. A solar ray reveals the light, but\nnot completely, unless indeed it guides the eye back along its pencilled\nline to the orb of day. If the Son of God were only an effulgence,\nChrist could still say that He Himself is the way to the Father, but He\ncould not add, \"He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father.\"[3] That the\nrevelation may be complete, the Son must be, in one sense, distinct from\nGod, as well as one with Him. Apparently this is the notion conveyed in\nthe metaphor of the \"image.\" Both truths are stated together in the\nwords of Christ: \"As the Father hath life in Himself, so _hath He given_\nto the Son to have life _in Himself_.\"[4] If the Son is more than an\neffulgence, if He is \"the very image\" of God's essence, nothing in God\nwill remain unrevealed. Every feature of His moral nature will be\ndelineated in the Son. If the Son is the exact likeness of God and has a\ndistinct mode of subsisting He is capable of all the modifications in\nHis form of subsisting which may be necessary, in order to make a\ncomplete revelation of God intelligible to men. It is possible for Him\nto become man Himself. He is capable of obedience, even of learning\nobedience by suffering, and of acquiring power to succour by being\ntempted. He can taste death. We might add, if we were studying one of\nSt. Paul's Epistles (which we are not at present doing), that this\ndistinction from God, involved in His very Sonship, made Him capable of\nemptying Himself of the Divine form of subsisting and taking upon Him\ninstead of it the form of a servant. This power of meeting man's actual\ncondition confers upon the Son the prerogative of being the complete and\nfinal revelation of God.\n\n3. He upholds all things by the word of His power. This must be closely\nconnected with the previous statement. If the Son is the effulgence of\nGod's glory and the express image of His essence, He is not a creature,\nbut is the Creator. The Son is so from God that He is God. He so\nemanates from Him that He is a perfect and complete representation of\nHis being. He is not in such a manner an effulgence as to be only a\nmanifestation of God, nor in such a manner an image as to be a creature\nof God. But, in fellowship of nature, the essence of God is communicated\nto the Son in the distinctness of His mode of subsisting. The Apostle's\nwords fully justify--perhaps they suggested--the expressions in the\nNicene and still earlier creeds, \"God _of_ God, Light _of_ Light, very\nGod _of_ very God.\" If this is His relation to God, it determines His\nrelation to the universe, and the relation of the universe to God. Philo\nhad described the Word as an effulgence, and spoken also of Him as\ndistinct from God. But in Philo these two statements are inconsistent.\nFor the former means that the Word is an attribute of God, and the\nlatter means that He is a creature. The writer of the Epistle to the\nHebrews says that the Word is not an attribute, but a perfect\nrepresentation of God's essence. He says also that He is not a creature,\nbut the Sustainer of all things. These statements are consistent. The\none, in fact, implies the other; and both together express the same\nconception which we find in St. John's Gospel: \"In the beginning was the\nWord, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were\nmade by Him; and without Him was not anything made that hath been\nmade.\"[5] It is also the teaching of St. Paul: \"In Him were all things\ncreated, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things\ninvisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers:\nall things have been created through Him, and unto Him; and in Him all\nthings consist.\"[6]\n\nBut the Apostle has a further motive in referring to the Son as Upholder\nof all things. As Creator and Sustainer He reveals God. He upholds all\nthings _by the word of His power_. \"The invisible things of God are\nperceived through the things which are made, even His everlasting power\nand Divinity.\"[7] There is a revelation of God prior even to that given\nin the prophets.\n\n4. Having made purification of sins, He took His seat on the right hand\nof the Majesty on high. We come now, at last, to the special revelation\nof God which forms the subject of the Epistle. The Apostle here states\nhis central truth on its two sides. The one side is Christ's priestly\noffering; the other is His kingly exaltation. We shall see as we proceed\nthat the entire structure of the Epistle rests on this great\nconception,--the Son of God, the eternal Priest-King. By introducing it\nat this early stage, the author gives his readers the clue to what will\nvery soon prove a labyrinth. We must hold the thread firmly, if we wish\nnot to be lost in the maze. The subject of the treatise is here given\nus. It is \"The Son as Priest-King the Revealer of God.\" The revelation\nis not in words only, nor in external acts only, but in love, in\nredemption, in opening heaven to all believers. It is well termed a\nrevelation. For the Priest-King has rent the thick veil and opened the\nway to men to enter into the true holiest place, so that they know God\nby prayer and communion.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] Rom. x. 6-8.\n\n[2] Newman, _Arians_, p. 182 (ed. 1833).\n\n[3] John xiv. 6, 9.\n\n[4] John v. 26.\n\n[5] John i. 1, 3.\n\n[6] Col. i. 16, 17.\n\n[7] Rom. i. 20.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\n_THE SON AND THE ANGELS._\n\n\nHEBREWS i. 4-ii. 18.\n\n\nThe most dangerous and persistent error against which the theologians of\nthe New Testament had to contend was the doctrine of emanations. The\npersistence of this error lay in its affinity with the Christian\nconception of mediation between God and men; its danger sprang from its\ncomplete inconsistency with the Christian idea of the person and work of\nthe Mediator. For the Hebrew conception of God, as the \"I AM,\" tended\nmore and more in the lapse of ages to sever Him from all immediate\ncontact with created beings. It would be the natural boast of the Jews\nthat Jehovah dwelt in unapproachable light. They would point to the\ncontrast between Him and the human gods of the Greeks. An ever-deepening\nconsciousness of sin and spiritual gloom would strengthen the conviction\nthat the Lord abode behind the veil, and their conception of God would\nof necessity react on their consciousness of sin. If, therefore, God is\nthe absolute Being--so argued the Gnostics of the day--He cannot be the\nactual Creator of the world. We must suppose the existence of an\nemanation or a series of emanations from God, every additional link in\nthe chain being less Divine, until we arrive at the material universe,\nwhere the element of Divinity is entirely lost. These emanations are the\nangels, the only possible mediators between God and men. Some theories\ncame to a stand at this point; others took a further step, and\nworshipped the angels, as the mediators also between men and God. Thus\nthe angels were regarded as messengers or apostles from God and\nreconcilers or priests for men. St. Paul has already rejected these\nnotions in his Epistle to the Colossians. He teaches that the Son of\nGod's love is the visible image of the invisible God, prior to all\ncreation and by right of primogeniture Heir of all, Creator of the\nhighest angels, Himself being before they came into existence. Such He\nis before His assumption of humanity. But it pleased God that in Him,\nalso as God-Man, all the plenitude of the Divine attributes should\ndwell; so that the Mediator is not an emanation, neither human nor\nDivine, but is Himself God and Man.[8]\n\nRecent expositors have sufficiently proved that there was a Judaic\nelement in the Colossian heresy. We need not, therefore, hesitate to\nadmit that the Epistle to the Hebrews contains references to the same\nerror. Our author acknowledges the existence of angels. He declares that\nthe Law was given through angels, which is a point not touched upon more\nthan once in the Old Testament, but seemingly taken for granted, rather\nthan expressly announced, in the New. Stephen reproaches the Jews, who\nhad received the Law as the ordinances of angels, with having betrayed\nand murdered the Righteous One, of Whom the Law and the prophets\nspake.[9] St. Paul, like the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews,\nargues that the Law differs from the promise in having been ordained\nthrough angels, as mediators between the Lord and His people Israel,\nwhereas the promise was given by God, not as a compact between two\nparties, but as the free act of Him Who is one.[10] The main purpose of\nthe first and second chapters of our Epistle is to maintain the\nsuperiority of the Son to the angels, of Him in Whom God has spoken unto\nus to the mediators through whom He gave the Law.\n\nThe defect of the doctrine of emanations was twofold. They are supposed\nto consist of a long chain of intermediate beings. But the chain does\nnot connect at either end. God is still absolutely unapproachable by\nman; man is still inaccessible to God. It is in vain new links are\nforged. The chain does not, and never will, bring man and God together.\nThe only solution of the problem must be found in One Who is God and\nMan; and this is precisely the doctrine of our author, on the one hand,\nthat the Revealer of God is Son of God; and, on the other hand, that the\nSon of God is our brother-man. The former statement is proved, and a\npractical warning based upon it, in the section that extends from chap.\ni. 4 to chap. ii. 4. The latter is the subject of the section from chap.\nii. 5 to chap. ii. 18.\n\n\nI. THE REVEALER OF GOD SON OF GOD.\n\n \"Having become by so much better than the angels, as He hath\n inherited a more excellent name than they. For unto which of the\n angels said He at any time,\n\n Thou art my Son,\n This day have I begotten Thee?\n\n and again,\n\n I will be to Him a Father,\n And He shall be to Me a Son?\n\n And when He again bringeth in the Firstborn into the world He saith,\n And let all the angels of God worship Him. And of the angels He\n saith,\n\n Who maketh His angels winds,\n And His ministers a flame of fire:\n\n but of the Son _He saith_,\n\n Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever;\n And the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of Thy kingdom.\n Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity;\n Therefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee\n With the oil of gladness about Thy fellows.\n\n And,\n\n Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth,\n And the heavens are the works of Thy hands:\n They shall perish; but Thou continuest:\n And they all shall wax old as doth a garment;\n And as a mantle shall Thou roll them up,\n As a garment, and they shall be changed:\n But Thou art the same,\n And Thy years shall not fail.\n\n But of which of the angels hath He said at any time,\n\n Sit Thou on My right hand,\n Till I make Thine enemies the footstool of Thy feet?\n\n Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to do service for\n the sake of them that shall inherit salvation?\n\n Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things that\n were heard, lest haply we drift away _from them_. For if the word\n spoken through angels proved steadfast, and every transgression and\n disobedience received a just recompense of reward; how shall we\n escape, if we neglect so great salvation? which having at the first\n been spoken through the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that\n heard; God also bearing witness with them, both by signs and\n wonders, and by manifold powers, and by gifts of the Holy Ghost\n according to His own will\" (Heb. i. 4-ii. 4, R.V.).\n\nChrist is Son of God, not in the sense in which angels, as a class of\nbeings, are designated by this name, but as He Who has taken His seat on\nthe right hand of the Majesty on high. The greatness of His position is\nproportionate to the excellency of the name of Son. This name He has\nnot obtained by favour nor attained by effort, but inherited by\nindefeasible right. Josephus says that the Essenes forbade their\ndisciples to divulge the names of the angels. But He Who has revealed\nGod has been revealed Himself. He is Son. Which of the angels was ever\nso addressed? To speak of the angels as sons and yet say that not one of\nthem individually is a son may be self-contradictory in words, but the\nthought is consistent and true.\n\nFrom the pre-existent Son, regarded as the idealised theocratic King,\nthe Apostle passes to the incarnate Christ, returning to the world which\nHe has redeemed, and out of which He brings[11] many sons of God unto\nglory. God brings Him also in as the First-begotten among these many\nbrethren. But our Lord Himself describes His coming. \"The Son of man\nshall come in His glory, and all the angels with Him.\"[12] In allusion\nto this saying of Christ, the Apostle applies to His second advent the\nwords which in the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament are a summons\nto all the angels to worship Jehovah. They are the Son's ministers. Like\nswift winds, they convey His messages; or they carry destruction at His\nbidding, like a flame of fire. But the Son is enthroned God for ever.\nThe sceptre of righteousness, by whomsoever borne, is the sceptre of\nHis kingdom; all thrones and powers, human and angelic, hold sway under\nHim. They are His fellows, and participate only in His royal gladness,\nWhose joy surpasses theirs.\n\nThe author reverts to the Son's pre-incarnate existence. The Son created\nearth and heaven, and, for that reason, He remains when the works of His\nhand wax old, as a garment. Creation is the vesture of the Son. In all\nthe changes of nature the Son puts off a garment, while He remains\nunchanged Himself.\n\nFinally, our author glances at the triumphant consummation, when God\nwill do for His Son what He will not do for the angels. For He will make\nHis enemies the footstool of His feet, as the reward of His redemptive\nwork. The angels have no enemy to conquer. Neither are they the authors\nof our redemption. Yea, they are not even the redeemed. The Son is the\nHeir of the throne. Men are the heirs of salvation. Must we, then, quite\nexclude the angels from all present activity in the kingdom of the Son?\nDo they altogether belong to a past epoch in the development of God's\nrevelation? Must we say of them, as astronomers speak of the moon, that\nthey are dead worlds? Shall we not rather find a place for them in the\nspirit-world corresponding to the office filled in the sphere of nature\nby the works of God's hands? God has His earthly ministers. Are not the\nangels ministering spirits? The Apostle puts the question tentatively.\nBut the pious instinct of the Church and of good men has answered, Yes.\nFor salvation has created a new form of service for which nature is not\nfitted. The narrative of the Son's own life on earth suggests the same\nreply. For an angel appeared unto Him in Gethsemane and strengthened\nHim.[13] It is true that the Son Himself is the Minister of the\nsanctuary. He alone serves in the holiest place. But may not the angels\nbe _sent forth_ to minister? Salvation is the work of the Son. But shall\nwe not say that the angels perform a service for the Son, which is\npossible only because of men who are now on the eve of inheriting that\nsalvation?\n\nWe must beware of minimising the significance of the Apostle's words. If\nhe means by \"Son\" merely an official designation, where is the\ndifference between the Son and the angels? The only definition of \"Son\"\nthat will satisfy the argument is \"God the Revealer of God.\" Sabellius\nsaid, \"The Word is not the Son.\" The contrary doctrine is necessary to\ngive any value to the reasoning of our Epistle. The Revealer is Son; and\nthe Son, in order to be the full Revealer, must be \"of the essence of\nthe Father,\" inasmuch as God only can perfectly reveal God. This is so\nvital to the Apostle's argument that he need not hesitate to use a term\nin reference to the Son which in another connection might be liable to\nbe misunderstood, as if it expressed the theory of emanation. The Son is\n\"the effulgence\" of the Father's glory, or, in the words of the Nicene\nCreed, He is \"Light out of Light.\" It is safe to use such words when our\nvery argument demands that He should also be \"the distinct impress of\nHis substance,\"--\"very God out of very God.\"\n\nThe Apostle has now laid the foundation of his great argument. He has\nshown us the Son as the Revealer of God. This done, he at once\nintroduces his first practical warning. It is his manner. He does not,\nlike St. Paul, first conclude the argumentative portion of his Epistle,\nand afterwards heap precept on precept in words of warning, sympathy, or\nencouragement. Our author alternates argument with exhortation. The\nEpistle wears to a superficial reader the appearance of a mosaic. The\ntruth is that no book in the New Testament is more thoroughly or more\nskilfully welded into one piece from beginning to end. But the danger\nwas imminent, and urgent warning was needed at every step. One truth was\nbetter fitted to drive home one lesson, and another argument to enforce\nanother.\n\nThe first danger of the Hebrew Christians would arise from\nindifference. The first warning of the Apostle is, Take care that you do\nnot drift.[14] In the Son as the Revealer of God we have a sure\nanchorage. Let us fasten the vessel to its moorings. That the Son has\nrevealed God is beyond question. The fact is well assured. For the\nmessage of salvation has been proclaimed by the Lord Jesus Himself. It\nhas run its course down to the writer of the Epistle and his readers\nthrough the testimony of eye-witnesses and ear-witnesses. God Himself\nhas borne witness with these faithful men by signs and wonders and\ndivers manifestations of power, yea by giving the Holy Ghost to each one\nseverally according to His own will. The last words are not to be\nneglected. The apparent arbitrariness of His sovereign will in the\ndistribution of the Spirit lends force to the proof, by pointing to the\ndirect, personal action of God in this great concern.\n\nBut the warning is based, not simply on the fact of a revelation, but on\nthe greatness of the Revealer. The Law was given through angels, and the\nLaw was not transgressed with impunity. How, then, shall we escape God's\nanger if we contemptuously neglect a salvation so great that no one less\nthan the Son could have wrought or revealed it?\n\nObserve the emphatic notions. Salvation is contrasted with law. It is a\ngreater sin to despise God's free, merciful offer of eternal life than\nto transgress the commandments of His justice. There may be emphasis\nalso on the certainty of the proof. The word spoken by angels was firmly\nassured, and, because no man could shelter under the plea that the\nheavenly authority of the message was doubtful, disobedience met with\nunsparing retribution. But the Gospel is proved to be of God by still\nmore abundant evidence,--the personal testimony of the Lord Jesus, the\nwitness of those who heard Him, and the cumulative argument of gifts and\nmiracles. While these truths are emphatic, more important than all is\nthe fact that the Son is the Giver of this salvation. The thought seems\nto be that God is jealous for the honour of His Son. Our Lord Himself\nteaches this, and the form which it assumes in His parable implies that\nHe speaks, not as a speculative moralist, but as One Who knows God's\nheart: \"Last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will\nreverence my son.\" But when Christ asks His hearers what the lord of the\nvineyard will do unto those wicked husbandmen, the manner of their reply\nshows that they only half understand His meaning or else pretend not to\nsee the point of His question. They acknowledge the husbandmen's\nwickedness, but profess that it consists largely in not rendering to\nthe owner the fruits in their season, as if, forsooth, their wickedness\nin killing their master's son had not thrust their dishonesty quite out\nof sight.[15] The Apostle, too, appeals to his readers,[16] evidently in\nthe belief that they would at once feel the force of his argument,\nwhether trampling under foot the Son of God did not deserve sorer\npunishment than despising the law of Moses. Christ and the Apostle speak\nin the spirit of the second Psalm: \"Thou art My Son. Ask of Me, and I\nshall give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance, and the uttermost\nparts of the earth for Thy possession.... Kiss the Son!\" Now, if Christ\nadopts this language, it is not mere metaphor, but is a truth concerning\nGod's moral nature. Resentment must, in some sense or other, belong to\nGod's Fatherhood. The doctrine of the Trinity implies the necessary and\neternal altruism of the Divine nature. It would not be true to say that\nthe God of the Christians was less jealous than the God of the Hebrews.\nHe is still the living God. It is a fearful thing to fall into His\nhands. He will still vindicate the majesty of His law. But now He has\nspoken unto us in One Who is Son. The Judge of all is not a mere\nofficial Administrator, but a Father. The place occupied in the Old\nTestament by the Law is now filled by the Son.\n\n\nII. THE SON THE REPRESENTATIVE OF MAN.\n\n \"For not unto angels did He subject the world to come, whereof we\n speak. But one hath somewhere testified, saying,\n\n What is man, that Thou art mindful of him?\n Or the son of man, that Thou visitest him?\n Thou madest him a little lower than the angels;\n Thou crownedst him with glory and honour,\n And didst set him over the works of Thy hands:\n Thou didst put all things in subjection under his feet.\n\n For in that He subjected all things unto him, He left nothing that\n is not subject to him. But now we see not yet all things subjected\n to him. But we behold Him Who hath been made a little lower than the\n angels, _even_ Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with\n glory and honour, that by the grace of God He should taste death for\n every _man_. For it became Him, for Whom are all things, and through\n Whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the\n Author of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For both He\n that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are all of one: for\n which cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying,\n\n I will declare Thy name unto My brethren,\n In the midst of the congregation will I sing Thy praise.\n\n And again, I will put My trust in Him. And again, Behold, I and the\n children which God hath given Me. Since then the children are\n sharers in flesh and blood, He also Himself in like manner partook\n of the same; that through death He might bring to nought him that\n had the power of death, that is, the devil; and might deliver all\n them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to\n bondage. For verily not of angels doth He take hold, but He taketh\n hold of the seed of Abraham. Wherefore it behoved Him in all things\n to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and\n faithful High-priest in things pertaining to God, to make\n propitiation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself hath\n suffered being tempted, He is able to succour them that are tempted\"\n (HEB. ii. 5-18, R.V.).\n\nThe Son is better than the angels, not only because He is the Revealer\nof God, but also because He represents man. We have to do with more than\nspoken promises. The salvation through Christ raises man to a new\ndignity, and bestows upon him a new authority. God calls into existence\na \"world to come,\" and puts that world in subjection, not to angels, but\nto man.\n\nThe passage on the consideration of which we now enter is difficult,\nbecause the interpretation offered by some of the best expositors,\nthough at first sight it has the appearance of simplicity, really\nintroduces confusion into the argument. They think the words of the\nPsalmist,[17] as applied by the Apostle, refer to Christ only. But the\nPsalmist evidently contrasts the frailty of man with the authority\nbestowed upon him by Jehovah. Mortal man has been set over the works of\nGod's hand. Man is for a little inferior to the angels; yet he is\ncrowned with glory and honour. The very contrast between his frailty and\nhis dignity exalts the name of his Creator, Who judges not as we judge.\nFor He confronts His blasphemers with the lisping of children, and weak\nman He crowns king of creation, in order to put to shame the wisdom of\nthe world.[18]\n\nWe cannot suppose that this is said of Christ, the Son of God. But there\nare two expressions in the Psalm that suggested to St. Paul[19] and the\nauthor of this Epistle a Messianic reference. The one is the name \"Son\nof man;\" the other is the action ascribed to God: \"Thou hast made him\nlower than the angels.\" The word[20] used by the Seventy, whose\ntranslation the Apostle here and elsewhere adopts, means, not, as the\nHebrew, \"to create lower,\" but \"to bring from a more exalted to a\nhumbler condition.\" Christ appropriated to Himself the title of \"Son of\nman;\" and \"to lower from a higher to a less exalted position\" applies\nonly to the Son of God, Whose pre-existence is taught by the Apostle in\nchap. i. The point of the Apostle's application of the Psalm must,\ntherefore, be that in Christ alone have the Psalmist's words been\nfulfilled. The Psalmist was a prophet, and testified.[21] In addition to\nthe witnesses previously mentioned,[22] the Apostle cites the evidence\nfrom prophecy. An inspired seer, \"seeing this beforehand, spake of\nChrist,\" not primarily, but in a mystery now explained in the New\nTestament. The distinction also between crowning with glory and putting\nall things under his feet holds true only of Christ. The Psalmist, we\nadmit, appears to identify them. But the relevancy of the Apostle's use\nof the Psalm lies in the distinction between these two things. The\ncreature man may be said to be crowned with glory and honour by\nreceiving universal dominion and by the subjection of all things under\nhis feet. \"But we see not yet all things put under him;\" and,\nconsequently, we see not man crowned with glory and honour. The words of\nthe Psalmist have apparently failed of fulfilment or were at best only\npoetical exaggeration. But Him Who was actually translated from a higher\nto a lower place than that of angels, from heaven to earth--that is to\nsay, Jesus, the meek and lowly Man of Nazareth--we see crowned with\nglory and honour. He has ascended to heaven and sat down on the right\nhand of the Majesty on high. So far the prophecy has come true, but only\nso far. All things have not yet been put under Him. He is still waiting\ntill He has put all enemies, even the last enemy, which is death, under\nHis feet. As, then, the glory and honour are bestowed on man through his\nRepresentative, Jesus, so also dominion is given him only through Jesus;\nand the glory comes only with the dominion. Every honour that falls to\nman's share is won for him by the victory of Christ over an enemy. This\nis the nearest approach in our Epistle to the Pauline conception of\nChrist as the second Adam.\n\nBut is there any connection between Christ's victory and His being made\nlower than the angels? When the Psalmist describes the great dignity\nconferred on frail man, he sees only the contrast between the dignity\nand the frailty. He can only wonder and worship in observing the\nincomprehensible paradox of God's dealings with man. The Apostle, on the\nother hand, fathoms this mystery. He gives the reasons for the strange\nconnection of power and feebleness, not indeed in reference to man as a\ncreature, but in reference to the Man Christ Jesus. Apart from Christ\nthe problem that struck the Psalmist with awe remains unsolved. But in\nChrist's incarnation we see why man's glory and dominion rest on\nhumiliation.\n\n1. Christ's humiliation involved a propitiatory death for every man, and\nHe is crowned with glory and honour that His propitiation may prove\neffectual: \"that He may have tasted[23] death for every man.\" By His\nglory we must mean the self-manifestation of His person. Honour is the\nauthority bestowed upon Him by God. Both are the result of His suffering\ndeath, or rather the suffering of His death. He is glorified, not simply\nbecause He suffered, but because His suffering was of a certain kind and\nquality. It was a propitiatory suffering. Christ Himself prayed His\nFather to glorify Him with His own self with the glory He had with the\nFather before the world was.[24] This glory was His by right of Sonship.\nBut He receives from His Father another glory, not by right, but by\nGod's grace.[25] It consists in having His death accepted and\nacknowledged as an adequate propitiation for the sins of men. In this\nverse the great conception of atonement, which hereafter will fill so\nlarge a place in the Epistle, is introduced, not at present for its own\nsake, but in order to show the superiority of Christ to the angels. He\nis greater than they because He is the representative Man, to Whom, and\nnot to the angels, the world to come has been put in subjection. But the\nPsalmist has taught us that man's greatness is connected with\nhumiliation. This connection is realised in Christ, Whose exaltation is\nthe Divine acceptance of the propitiation wrought in the days of His\nhumiliation, and the means of giving it effect.\n\n2. Christ's glory consists in being Leader[26] of His people, and for\nsuch leadership He was fitted by the discipline of humiliation. There is\nno incongruity in the works of God because He is Himself the ground of\ntheir being[27] and the instrument of His own action.[28] Every\nadaptation of means to an end would not become God, though it might\nbefit man. But this became Him for Whom and through Whom are all things.\nWhen He crowns man with glory and honour, He does this, not by an\nexternal ordinance merely, but by an inward fitness. He deals, not with\nan abstraction, but with individual men, whom He makes His sons and\nprepares for their glory and honour by the discipline of sons. \"For what\nson is there whom his father does not discipline?\"[29] Thus it is more\ntrue to say that God leads His sons to glory than to say that He bestows\nglory upon them. It follows that the representative Man, through Whom\nthese many sons are glorified, must Himself pass through like\ndiscipline, that, on behalf of God, He may become their Leader and the\nCaptain of their salvation. It became God to endow the Son, in Whose\nSonship men are adopted as sons of God, with inward fitness, through\nsufferings, to lead them on to their destined glory. Perhaps the verse\ncontains an allusion to Moses or Joshua, the leaders of the Lord's\nredeemed to the rich land and large. If so, the author is preparing his\nreaders for what he has yet to say.\n\n3. Christ's glory consists in power to consecrate[30] men to God, and\nthis power springs from His consciousness of brotherhood with them. But,\nfirst of all, the author thinks it necessary to prove that Christ has a\ndeep consciousness of brotherhood with men. He cites Christ's own words\nfrom prophetic Scripture.[31] For Christ has vowed unto the Lord, Who\nhas delivered Him, that He will declare God's name unto His brethren.\nHere the pith of the argument is quite as much in the vow to reveal God\nto them as in His giving them the name of brethren. He is so drawn in\nlove to them that He is impelled to speak to them about the Father. Yea,\nin the midst of the Church, as if He were one of the congregation, He\nwill praise God. They praise God for His Son; the Son joins in the\npraise, as being thankful for the privilege of being their Saviour,\nwhile they offer their thanks for the joy of being saved. That is not\nall. Christ puts His trust in God. So human is He that, conscious of\nutter weakness, He leans on God, as the feeblest of His brethren.\nFinally, His triumphant joy at the safety of His redeemed ones arises\nfrom this consciousness of brotherhood. \"Behold, I and the children\" (of\nGod) \"which God hath given Me.\"[32] The Apostle does not fear to apply\nto Christ what Isaiah[33] spoke in reference to himself and his\ndisciples, the children of the prophet. Christ's brotherhood with men\nassumes the form of identifying Himself with His prophetic servants.\nEvidently He is not ashamed of His brethren, though, like Joseph, He has\nreason to be ashamed of them for their sin. The expression means that He\nglories in them, because His assumption of humanity has consecrated\nthem. For this consecration springs from union. We do not, for our\npart, understand this as a general proposition, of which the sanctifying\npower of Christ is an illustration. No other instance of such a thing\nexists. Yet the Apostle does not prove the statement. He appeals to the\nintelligence and conscience of his readers to acknowledge its truth.\nWhether we understand the word \"sanctification\" in the sense of moral\nconsecration through an atonement or in the sense of holy character, it\nsprings from union. Christ cannot sanctify by a creative word or by an\nact of power. Neither can His power to sanctify be transmitted by God to\nthe Son externally, in the same way in which the Creator bestows on\nnature its vital, fertilising energy. Christ must derive His power to\nsanctify through His Sonship, and men must become sons of God that they\nmay be sanctified through the Son. Our passage adds Christ's\nbrotherhood. He that consecrates, therefore, and they that are\nconsecrated are united together, first, by being born of the same Divine\nFather, and, second, by having the same human nature. Here, again, the\nchain connects at both ends: on the side of God and on the side of man.\nNow to have dwelling in Him the power of consecrating men to God is so\ngreat an endowment that Christ may dare even to glory in the brotherhood\nthat brings with it such a gift.\n\n4. Christ's glory manifests itself in the destruction of Satan, who had\nthe power of death, and his destruction is accomplished through\ndeath.[34] The children of God have every one his share of blood and\nflesh, which means vital, mortal humanity. Blood signifies life, and\nflesh the mortality of that life. They are, therefore, subject to\ndisease and death. But to the Hebrews disease and death involved vastly\nmore than physical suffering and the termination of man's earthly\nexistence. They had their angel, by which is meant that they had a moral\nsignificance. They were spiritual forces, wielded by a messenger of God.\nThis angel was Satan. But, following the lead of the later Jewish\ntheology, our author explains who Satan really is. He identifies him\nwith the evil spirit, who from envy, says the Book of Wisdom, brought\ndeath into the world. To make clear this identification, he adds the\nwords, \"that is, the devil.\" The reference to Satan is sufficient to\nshow that the writer of the Epistle means by \"the power of death\" power\nto inflict it and keep men in its terrible grasp. But the difficulty is\nto understand how the devil is destroyed through death. Evidently the\ndeath of Christ is meant; we may paraphrase the Apostle's expression by\nrendering, \"through _His_ death.\" At first glance, the words, taken in\nconnection with the reference to Christ's humanity, seem to favour the\ndoctrine, propounded by many writers in the early ages of the Church,\nthat God delivered His Son to Satan as the price of man's release from\nhis rightful possession. Such a notion is utterly inconsistent with the\ndominant idea of the Epistle: the priestly character of Christ's death.\nA Hebrew Christian could not conceive the high-priest entering the\nholiest place to offer a redemptive sacrifice to the spirit of evil.\nIndeed, the advocates of this strange theory of the Atonement admitted\nas much when they described Christ as outwitting the devil or escaping\nfrom his hands by persuasion. But the doctrine is quite as inconsistent\nwith the passage before us, which represents the death of Christ as the\n_destruction_ of the Evil One. Power faces power. Christ is the Captain\nof salvation. His leadership of men implies conflict with their enemy\nand ultimate victory. Death was a spiritual conception. Here lay its\npower. Deliverance from the crushing bondage of its fear could come only\nthrough the great High-priest. Priesthood was the basis of Christ's\npower. We shall soon see that Christ is the Priest-King. The Apostle\neven now anticipates what he has hereafter to say on the relation of the\npriesthood to the kingly power. For as Priest Christ delivers men from\nguilt of conscience and, by so doing, delivers them from their fear of\ndeath; as King He destroys him who had the power to destroy. He is\n\"death of death and hell's destruction.\" It has been well said that the\ntwo terrors from which none but Christ can deliver men are guilt of sin\nand fear of death. The latter is the offspring of the former. When the\nconscience of sin is no more, dread of death yields to peace and joy.\n\nIn these four ways is the glory of Christ connected with humiliation,\nand thus will the prophecy of the Psalmist find its fulfilment in the\nrepresentative Man, Jesus. His humiliation implied propitiation, moral\ndiscipline, conscious brotherhood, and subjection to him who had the\npower of death. His glory consisted in the effectiveness of the\npropitiation, in leadership of His people, in consecration of His\nbrethren, in the destruction of the devil.\n\nBut an interesting view of the passage has been proposed by Hofmann, and\naccepted by at least one thoughtful theologian of our country. They\nconsider that the Apostle identifies the humiliation and the glory. In\nthe words of Dr. Bruce,[35] \"Christ's whole state of exinanition was not\nonly worthy to be rewarded by a subsequent state of exaltation, but was\nin itself invested with moral sublimity and dignity.\" The idea has\nconsiderable fascination. We cannot set it aside by saying that it is\nmodern, seeing that the Apostle himself speaks of the office of\nhigh-priest as an honour and a glory.[36] Yet we are compelled to reject\nit as an explanation of the passage. The Apostle is showing that the\nPsalmist's statement respecting man is realised only in the Man Christ\nJesus. The difficulty was to connect man's low estate and man's glory\nand dominion. But if the Apostle means that voluntary humiliation for\nthe sake of others is the glory, some men besides Jesus Christ might\nhave been mentioned in whom the words of the Psalm find their\naccomplishment. The difference between Jesus and other good men would\nonly be a difference of degree. Such a conclusion would very seriously\nweaken the force of the Apostle's reasoning.\n\nIn bringing his most skilful and original argument to a close, the\nApostle recapitulates. He has said that the world to come,--the world of\nconscience and of spirit,--has been put in subjection to man, not to\nangels, and that this implies the incarnation of the Son of God. This\nthought the Apostle repeats in another, but very striking, form: \"For\nverily He taketh not hold of angels, but He taketh hold of the seed of\nAbraham.\" Though the old versions were incorrect in so rendering the\nwords as to make them express the fact of the Incarnation, the verse is\na reference to the Incarnation, described, however, as Christ's strong\ngrasp[37] of man. By becoming man He takes hold of humanity, as with a\nmighty hand, and that part by which He grasps humanity is the seed of\nAbraham, to whom the promise was made.\n\nFour points of connection between the glory of Christ and His\nhumiliation have been mentioned. In his recapitulation, the Apostle sums\nall up in two. The one is that Christ is Priest; the other is that He\nsuccours them that are tempted. His propitiatory death and His bringing\nto nought the power of Satan are included in the notion of priesthood.\nThe moral discipline that made Him our Leader and the sense of\nbrotherhood that made Him Sanctifier render Him able to succour the\ntempted. Even this also, as will be fully shown by the Apostle in a\nsubsequent chapter, is contained in His priesthood. For He only can make\npropitiation, Whose heart is full of tender pity and steeled only\nagainst pity for Himself by reason of His dauntless fidelity to others.\n\nThus is the Son better than the angels.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[8] Col. i. 15, 19.\n\n[9] Acts vii. 53.\n\n[10] Gal. iii. 19.\n\n[11] =agagonta=.\n\n[12] Matt. xxv. 31.\n\n[13] Luke xxii. 43. The genuineness of the verse is somewhat doubtful.\n\n[14] =m\u00ea parary\u00f4men= (ii. 1).\n\n[15] Matt. xxi. 33, sqq.\n\n[16] Heb. x. 29.\n\n[17] Ps. viii. 4.\n\n[18] Ps. viii. 2.\n\n[19] 1 Cor. xv. 27.\n\n[20] =\u00ealatt\u00f4sas=.\n\n[21] Cf. Acts ii. 30.\n\n[22] Chap. ii. 4.\n\n[23] =geus\u00eatai= (ii. 9).\n\n[24] John xvii. 5.\n\n[25] =chariti=.\n\n[26] =arch\u00eagon= (ii. 10).\n\n[27] =di' hon=.\n\n[28] =di' hou=.\n\n[29] Chap. xii. 7.\n\n[30] =ho hagiaz\u00f4n= (ii. 11).\n\n[31] Ps. xxii. 22.\n\n[32] Chap. ii. 13.\n\n[33] Isa. viii. 18\n\n[34] Chap. ii. 14.\n\n[35] _Humiliation of Christ_, p. 46.\n\n[36] Chap. v. 4, 5.\n\n[37] =epilambanetai= (ii. 16).\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\n_FUNDAMENTAL ONENESS OF THE DISPENSATIONS._\n\n\nHebrews iii. i-iv. 13 (R.V.).\n\n \"Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider\n the Apostle and High-priest of our confession, _even_ Jesus; who was\n faithful to Him that appointed Him as also was Moses in all his\n house. For He hath been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, by\n so much as he that built the house hath more honour than the house.\n For every house is builded by some one; but He that built all things\n is God. And Moses indeed was faithful in all his house as a servant,\n for a testimony of those things which were afterward to be spoken;\n but Christ as a Son, over His house; Whose house are we, if we hold\n fast our boldness and the glorying of our hope firm unto the end.\n Wherefore, even as the Holy Ghost saith,\n\n To-day if ye shall hear His voice,\n Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation,\n Like as in the day of the temptation in the wilderness,\n Wherewith your fathers tempted _Me_ by proving _Me_,\n And saw My works forty years.\n Wherefore I was displeased with this generation,\n And said, They do always err in their heart:\n But they did not know My ways;\n As I sware in My wrath,\n They shall not enter into My rest.\n\n Take heed, brethren, lest haply there shall be in any one of you an\n evil heart of unbelief, in falling away from the living God: but\n exhort one another day by day, so long as it is called to-day; lest\n any one of you be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin: for we are\n become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our\n confidence firm unto the end: while it is said,\n\n To-day if ye shall hear His voice,\n Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation.\n\n For who, when they heard, did provoke? nay, did not all they that\n came out of Egypt by Moses? And with whom was He displeased forty\n years? was it not with them that sinned, whose carcases fell in the\n wilderness? And to whom sware He that they should not enter into His\n rest, but to them that were disobedient? And we see that they were\n not able to enter in because of unbelief.\n\n Let us fear therefore, lest haply, a promise being left of entering\n into His rest, any one of you should seem to have come short of it.\n For indeed we have had good tidings preached unto us, even as also\n they: but the word of hearing did not profit them, because they were\n not united by faith with them that heard. For we which have believed\n do enter into that rest; even as He hath said,\n\n As I sware in My wrath,\n They shall not enter into My rest:\n\n although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.\n For He hath said somewhere of the seventh _day_ on this wise, And\n God rested on the seventh day from all His works; and in this\n _place_ again,\n\n They shall not enter into My rest.\n\n Seeing therefore it remaineth that some should enter thereinto, and\n they to whom the good tidings were before preached failed to enter\n in because of disobedience, He again defineth a certain day, saying\n in David, after so long a time, To-day, as it hath been before said,\n\n To-day if ye shall hear His voice,\n Harden not your hearts.\n\n For if Joshua had given them rest, he would not have spoken\n afterward of another day. There remaineth therefore a sabbath rest\n for the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest hath\n himself also rested from his works, as God did from His. Let us\n therefore give diligence to enter into that rest, that no man fall\n after the same example of disobedience. For the word of God is\n living, and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and\n piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and\n marrow, and quick to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart.\n And there is no creature that is not manifest in His sight: but all\n things are naked and laid open before the eyes of Him with Whom we\n have to do.\"\n\n\nThe broad foundation of Christianity has now been laid in the person of\nthe Son, God-Man. In the subsequent chapters of the Epistle this\ndoctrine is made to throw light on the mutual relations of the two\ndispensations.\n\nThe first deduction is that the Mosaic dispensation was itself created\nby Christ; that the threats and promises of the Old Testament live on\ninto the New; that the central idea of the Hebrew religion, the idea of\nthe Sabbath rest, is realised in its inmost meaning in Christ only; that\nthe word of God is ever full of living energy. Hereafter the Apostle\nwill not be slow to expose the wide difference between the two\ndispensations. But it is equally true and not less important that the\nold covenant was the vesture of truths which remain when the garment has\nbeen changed.\n\nAt the outset the writer's tone is influenced by this doctrine. He turns\nhis treatise unconsciously into an epistle. He addresses his readers as\nbrethren, holy indeed, but not holy after the pattern of their former\nexclusiveness; for their holiness is inseparably linked with their\ncommon brotherhood. They are partakers with the Gentile Churches in a\nheavenly call. Startling words! Hebrews holy in virtue of their sharing\nwith Greeks and barbarians, bond and free, in a common call from high\nHeaven, which sees all earth as a level plain beneath! The middle wall\nof partition has been broken down to the ground. Yet soothing words, and\nfull of encouragement! The Apostle and his leaders were standing near\nthe end of the Apostolic age, when the Hebrew Christians were\ndespondent, weak, and despised, both by reason of national calamities\nand because of their inferiority to their sister Churches among the\nGentiles. The Apostle does not bluntly assure them of their equality,\nbut gently addresses them as partakers of a heavenly call. His words are\nthe reverse of St. Paul's language to the Ephesians, who are reminded\nthat the Gentiles are partakers in the privileges of Israel. Those who\nsometimes were far off have been made nigh; the strangers and sojourners\nare henceforth fellow-citizens with the saints and of the household of\nGod. Here, on the contrary, Hebrew Christians are encouraged with the\nassurance that they partake in the privileges of all believers. If the\nwild olive tree has been grafted in among the branches and made partaker\nof the root, the branches, broken off that the wild olive might be\ngrafted in, are themselves in consequence grafted into their own olive\ntree. Through God's mercy to the Gentiles, Israel also has obtained\nmercy.\n\nThe Apostle addresses them with affection. But his behest is sharp and\nurgent: \"Consider the Apostle and High-priest of our profession, Jesus.\"\nConsider intently, or, to borrow a modern word that has sometimes been\nabused, Realise Jesus. Dwell not with abstractions and theories. Fear\nnot imaginary dangers. Make Jesus Christ a reality before the eyes of\nyour mind. To do this well will be more convincing than external\nevidences. To behold the glory of the temple, linger not to admire the\nstrong buttresses without, but enter. Realisation of Christ may be said\nto be the gist of the whole Epistle.\n\nThis spiritual vision is not ecstasy. We realise Christ as Apostle and\nas High-priest. We behold Him when His words are a message to us from\nGod, and when He carries our supplications to God. Revelation and prayer\nare the two opposite poles of communion with the Father. The\ndispensation of Moses rested on these two pillars,--apostleship and\npriesthood. But the fundamental conceptions of the Old Testament centre\nin Jesus. Though our author has distinguished between God's revelation\nin the prophets and His revelation in a Son, he teaches also that even\nthe prophets received their message through the Son. Though he contrasts\nin what follows of the Epistle the high-priesthood of Aaron with\nChrist's, still he regards Aaron's office as utterly meaningless apart\nfrom Christ. The words \"Apostle and High-priest\" pave the way,\ntherefore, to the most prominent truth in this section of the Epistle:\nthat whatever is best in the Old Testament has been assimilated and\ninspired with new energy by the Gospel.\n\n1. To begin, we must understand the actual position of the founders of\nthe two dispensations. Neither Moses nor Christ set about originating,\ndesigning, constructing, from his own impulse and for his own purposes.\nBoth acted for God, and were consciously under His directing eye.[38]\n\"It is required in stewards that a man be found faithful.\"[39] They have\nbut to obey, and leave the unity and harmony of the plan to another. To\nuse an illustration, every house is built by some one or other.[40] The\ndesign has been conceived in the brain of the architect. He is the real\nbuilder, though he employs masons and joiners to put the materials\ntogether according to his plan. This applies to the subject in hand; for\nGod is the Architect of all things. He realises His own ideas as well\nthrough the seeming originality of thinkers as through the willing\nobedience of workers. Now, the dispensation of the old covenant was one\npart of God's design. To build this portion of the house He found a\nfaithful servant in Moses. The dispensation of the new covenant is but\nanother, though more excellent, part of the same design; and Jesus was\nnot less faithful to finish the structure. The unity of the design was\nin the mind of God.\n\nMoses was faithful when he refused the treasures of Egypt, and chose\naffliction with the people of God and the reproach of His Christ. He was\nfaithful when he chid the people in the wilderness for their unbelief,\nand when he interceded for them again with God. Christ also was faithful\nto His God when He despised the shame and endured the Cross.\n\nYet we must acknowledge a difference. God has accounted Jesus worthy of\ngreater honour than Moses, inasmuch as Moses was part of the house, and\nthat part the pre-existent Christ erected. Moses was \"made\" all that he\nbecame by Christ, but Christ was \"made\"[41] all that He\nbecame--God-Man--by God. Moreover, though Moses was greater than all the\nother servants of God before Christ, because they were placed in\nsubordinate positions, while he was faithful in the _whole_ house, yet\neven he was but a servant, whereas Christ was Son. Moses was in the\nhouse, it is true; but the Son was placed over the house. The work which\nMoses had to do was to uphold the authority of the Son, to witness, that\nis, to the things which would afterwards be spoken unto us by God in His\nSon, Jesus Christ.[42]\n\nThe Apostle seems to delight in his illustration of the house, and\ncontinues to use it with a fresh meaning. This house, or, if you please,\nthis household, are we Christians. We are the house in which Moses\nshowed the utmost faithfulness as servant. We are the circumcision, we\nthe true Israel of God. If, then, we turn away from Christ to Moses,\nthat faithful servant himself will have none of us. That we may be God's\nhouse, we must lay fast hold of our Christian confidence and the\nboasting of our hope out-and-out to the end.\n\n2. Again, the threatenings of the Old Testament for disobedience to God\napply with full force to apostasy from Christ. They are the\nauthoritative voice of the Holy Spirit. The Apostle is reminded by the\nwords which he has just used, \"We are God's house,\" of the Psalmist's\njoyful exclamation, \"He is our God, and we are the people of His\npasture, and the sheep of His hand.\"[43] Then follows in the Psalm a\nwarning, which the Apostle considers it equally necessary to address to\nthe Hebrew Christians: \"To-day, if indeed you still hear His voice (for\nit is possible He may no longer speak), harden not your hearts, as you\ndid in Meribah, rightly called,--the place of contention. Your fathers,\nfar from trusting Me when I put them to the test, turned upon Me and put\nMe to the test, and that although they saw My works during forty years.\"\nForty years,--ominous number! The readers would at once call to mind\nthat forty years within a little had now passed since their Lord had\ngone through the heavens to the right hand of the Father. What if, after\nall, the old belief proves true that He returns to judgment after\nwaiting for precisely the same period for which He had patiently endured\ntheir fathers' unbelief in the wilderness! God is still living, and He\nis the same God. He Who sware in His wrath that the fathers should not\nenter into the rest of Canaan is the same in His anger, the same in His\nmercy. Exhort one another. In the wilderness God dealt with individuals.\nHe does so still. See that there be no evil heart, which is unbelief, in\n_any one_ of you at any time while the call, \"To-day!\" is sounded in\nyour ears. For sin weakens the sense of individual guilt, and thus\ndeceives men by hardening their hearts.[44] All that came out of Egypt\nprovoked God to anger. But they provoked Him, not in the mass, but one\nby one, and one by one, with palsied limbs,[45] they fell in the\nwilderness, as men fall exhausted on the march. Thus, for their\npersistent unbelief, God sware they should not enter into His\nrest--\"His,\" for He kept the key still in His own hand. But persistent\nunbelief made them incapable of entering. If God were still willing to\ncut off for them the waters of Jordan, they _could_ not[46] enter in\nbecause of unbelief.\n\n3. Similarly, the promises of God are still in force. Indeed, the\nsteadfastness of the threatenings involves the continuance of the\npromises, and the rejection of the promises ensures the fulfilment of\nevery threatening. As much as this is expressed in the opening words of\nchap. iv.: \"A promise being left to us, let us therefore fear.\"\n\nTo prove the identity of the promises under the two dispensations, the\nApostle singles out one promise, which may be considered most\nsignificant of the national no less than the religious life of Israel.\nThe Greek mind was ever on the alert for something new. Its character\nwas movement. But the ideal of the Old Testament is rest. Christ came\ninto touch with the people at once when He began His public ministry\nwith an invitation to the weary and heavy-laden to come unto Him, and\nwith the promise that He would give them rest. Near the close of His\nministry He explained and fulfilled the promise by giving to His\ndisciples peace. The object of our author, in the difficult chapter now\nunder consideration, is to show that the idea most characteristic of the\nold covenant finds its true and highest realisation in Christ. After the\nmanner of St. Paul, who, in more than one passage, teaches that through\nthe fall of Israel salvation is come unto the Gentiles, the writer of\nthis Epistle also argues that the promise of rest still remains, because\nit was not fulfilled under the Old Testament in consequence of Israel's\nunbelief. The word of promise was a gospel[47] to them, as it is to us.\nBut it did not profit them, because they did not assimilate[48] the\npromise by faith. Their history from the beginning consists of continued\nrenewals of the promise on the part of God and persistent rejections on\nthe part of Israel, ending in the hardening of their hearts. Every time\nthe promise is renewed, it is presented in a higher and more spiritual\nform. Every rejection inevitably leads to grosser views and more\nhopeless unbelief. So entirely false is the fable of the Sibyl! God does\nnot burn some of the leaves when His promises have been rejected, and\ncome back with fewer offers at a higher price. His method is to offer\nmore and better on the same conditions. But it is the nature of unbelief\nto cause the heart to wax gross, to blind the spiritual vision, until in\nthe end the rich, spiritual promises of God and the earthly, dark\nunbelief of the sinner stand in extremest contrast.\n\nAt first the promise is presented in the negative form of rest from\nlabour. Even the Creator condescended thus to rest. But what _such_ rest\ncan be to God it were vain for man to try to conceive. We know that, as\nsoon as the foundations of the world were laid and the work of creation\nwas ended, God ceased from this form of activity. But when this negative\nrest had been attained, it was far from realising God's idea of rest\neither for Himself or for man. For, though these works of God, the\nmaterial universe, were finished from the laying of the world's\nfoundations to the crowning of the edifice,[49] God still speaks of\nanother rest, and threatens to shut some men out for their unbelief. Our\nLord told the Pharisees, whose notion of the Sabbath was the negative\none, that He desired His Sabbath rest to be like that of His Father, Who\n\"worketh hitherto.\" The Jewish Sabbath, it appears, therefore, is the\nmost crude and elementary form of God's promised rest.\n\nThe promise is next presented as the rest of Canaan.[50] This is a stage\nin advance in the development of the idea. It is not mere abstention\nfrom secular labour, and the consecration of inactivity. The rest now\nconsists in the enjoyment of material prosperity, the proud\nconsciousness of national power, the growth of a peculiar civilization,\nthe rise of great men and eminent saints, and all this won by Israel\nunder the leadership of their Jesus, who was in this respect a type of\nours. But even in this second garden of Eden Israel did not attain unto\nGod's rest. Worldliness became their snare.\n\nBut God still called to them by the mouth of the Psalmist, long after\nthey had entered on the possession of Canaan. This only proves that the\ntrue rest was still unattained, and God's promise not yet fulfilled. The\nform which the rest of God now assumed is not expressly stated in our\npassage. But we have not far to go in search of it. The first Psalm,\nwhich is the introduction to all the Psalms, declares the blessedness of\ncontemplation. The Sabbath is seldom mentioned by the Psalmist. Its\nplace is taken by the sanctuary, in which rest of soul is found in\nmeditating on God's law and beholding the Lord's beauty.[51] The call is\nat last urgent. \"To-day!\" It is the last invitation. It lingers in the\nears in ever fainter voice of prophet after prophet, until the prophet's\nface turns towards the east to announce the break of dawn and the coming\nof the perfect rest in Jesus Christ. God's promise was never fulfilled\nto Israel, because of their unbelief. But shall their unbelief make the\nfaithfulness of God of none effect? God forbid. The gifts and calling of\nGod are without repentance. The promise that has failed of fulfilment in\nthe lower form must find its accomplishment in the higher. Even a prayer\nis the more heard for every delay. God's mill grinds slowly, but for\nthat reason grinds small. What is the inference? Surely it is that the\nSabbath rest still remains for the true people of God. This Sabbath rest\nSt. Paul prayed that the true Israel, who glory, not in their\ncircumcision, but in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, might receive:\n\"_Peace_ be upon them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.\"[52]\n\nThe faithfulness of God to fulfil His promise in its higher form is\nproved by His having accomplished it in its more elementary forms to\nevery one that believed. \"For he that entered into God's rest did\nactually rest from his works\"[53]--that is to say, received the\nblessings of the Sabbath--as truly as God rested from the work of\ncreation. The Apostle's practical inference is couched in language\nalmost paradoxical: \"Let us _strive_ to enter into God's _rest_\"--not\nindeed into the rest of the Old Testament, but into the better rest\nwhich God now offers in His Son.\n\nThe oneness of the dispensations has been proved. They are one in their\ndesign, in their threatenings, in their promises. If we seek the\nfundamental ground of this threefold unity, we shall find it in the fact\nthat both dispensations are parts of a Divine revelation. God has\nspoken, and the word of God does not pass away. \"Think not,\" said our\nLord, \"that I came to destroy the Law or the prophets; I came not to\ndestroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth\npass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the Law\ntill all things be accomplished.\"[54] On another occasion He says,\n\"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass\naway.\"[55] These passages teach us that the words of God through Moses\nand in the Son are equally immutable. Many features of the old covenant\nmay be transient; but, if it is a word of God, it abides in its\nessential nature through all changes. For \"the word of God is\nliving,\"[56] because He Who speaks the word is the living God. It acts\nwith mighty energy,[57] like the silent laws of nature, which destroy\nor save alive according as men obey or disobey them. It cuts like a\nsword whetted on each side of the blade, piercing through to the place\nwhere the natural life of the soul divides[58] from, or passes into, the\nsupernatural life of the spirit. For it is revelation that has made\nknown to man his possession of the spiritual faculty. The word \"spirit\"\nis used by heathen writers. But in their books it means only the air we\nbreathe. The very conception of the spiritual is enshrined in the bosom\nof God's word. Revelation has separated between the life of heathenism\nand the life of the Church, between the natural man and the spiritual,\nbetween the darkness that comprehended it not and the children of the\nlight who received it and thus became children of God. Further, the word\nof God pierces to the joints that connect the natural and the\nsupernatural.[59] It does not ignore the former. On the contrary, it\naddresses itself to man's reason and conscience, in order to erect the\nsupernatural upon nature. Where reason stops short, the word of God\nappeals to the supernatural faculty of faith; and when conscience grows\nblunt, the word makes conscience, like itself, sharper than any\ntwo-edged sword. Once more, the word of God pierces to the marrow.[60]\nIt reveals to man the innermost meaning of his own nature and of the\nsupernatural planted within him. The truest morality and the highest\nspirituality are both the direct product of God's revelation.\n\nBut all this is true in its practical application to every man\nindividually. The power of the word of God to create distinct\ndispensations and yet maintain their fundamental unity, to distinguish\nbetween masses of men and yet cause all the separate threads of human\nhistory to converge and at last meet, is the same power which judges the\ninmost thoughts and inmost purposes of the heart. These it surveys with\ncritical judgment.[61] If its eye is keen, its range of vision is also\nwide. No created thing but is seen and manifest. The surface is bared,\nand the depth within is opened up before it. As the upturned neck of the\nsacrificial beast lay bare to the eye of God,[62] so are we exposed to\nthe eye of Him to Whom we have to give our account.[63]\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[38] Chap. iii. 2.\n\n[39] 1 Cor. iv. 2.\n\n[40] Chap. iii. 4.\n\n[41] =poi\u00easanti=.\n\n[42] Chap. iii. 5.\n\n[43] Ps. xcv. 7, sqq.\n\n[44] Chap. ii. 13.\n\n[45] =ta k\u00f4la=. Cf. chap. xii. 12.\n\n[46] =ouk \u00eadyn\u00eath\u00easan= (iii. 19).\n\n[47] =eu\u00eangelismenoi= (iv. 2).\n\n[48] Reading =synkekerasmenos=.\n\n[49] Chap. iv. 3.\n\n[50] Chap. iv. 8.\n\n[51] Ps. xxvii. 4.\n\n[52] Gal. vi. 16.\n\n[53] Chap. iv. 10.\n\n[54] Matt. v. 17, 18.\n\n[55] Matt. xxiv. 35.\n\n[56] Chap. iv. 12.\n\n[57] =energ\u00eas=.\n\n[58] =merismou=.\n\n[59] =harm\u00f4n=.\n\n[60] =myel\u00f4n=.\n\n[61] =kritikos=.\n\n[62] =tetrach\u00ealismena= (iv. 13).\n\n[63] =ho logos=.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\n_THE GREAT HIGH-PRIEST._\n\n\n \"Having then a great High-priest, Who hath passed through the\n heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For\n we have not a high-priest that cannot be touched with the feeling of\n our infirmities; but One that hath been in all points tempted like\n as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore draw near with boldness\n unto the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy, and may find\n grace to help us in time of need. For every high-priest, being taken\n from among men, is appointed for men in things pertaining to God,\n that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: who can bear\n gently with the ignorant and erring, for that he himself also is\n compassed with infirmity; and by reason thereof is bound, as for the\n people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. And no man taketh\n the honour unto himself, but when he is called of God, even as was\n Aaron. So Christ also glorified not Himself to be made a\n High-priest, but He that spake unto Him,\n\n Thou art My Son,\n This day have I begotten Thee:\n\n as He saith also in another place,\n\n Thou art a Priest for ever\n After the order of Melchizedek.\n\n Who in the days of His flesh, having offered up prayers and\n supplications with strong crying and tears unto Him that was able to\n save Him from death, and having been heard for His godly fear,\n though He was a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which He\n suffered; and having been made perfect, He became unto all them that\n obey Him the Author of eternal salvation; named of God a High-priest\n after the order of Melchizedek.\"--HEB. iv. 14-v. 10 (R.V.)\n\n\nThe results already gained are such as these: that the Son, through Whom\nGod has spoken unto us, is a greater Person than the angels; that Jesus,\nWhom the Apostle and the Hebrew Christians acknowledge to be Son of God,\nis the representative Man, endowed, as such, with kingly authority; that\nthe Son of God became man in order that He might be constituted\nHigh-priest to make reconciliation for sin; and, finally, that all the\npurposes of God revealed in the Old Testament, though they have hitherto\nbeen accomplished but partially, will not fall to the ground, and will\nremain in higher forms under the Gospel.\n\nThe writer gathers these threads to a head in chap. iv. 14. The\nhigh-priest still remains. If we have the high-priest, we have all that\nis of lasting worth in the old covenant. For the idea of the covenant is\nreconciliation with God, and this is embodied and symbolised in the\nhigh-priest, inasmuch as he alone entered within the veil on the day of\natonement. Having the high-priest in a greater Person, we have all the\nblessings of the covenant restored to us in a better form. The Epistle\nto the Hebrews is intended to encourage and comfort men who have lost\ntheir all. Judaism was in its death-throes. National independence had\nalready ceased. When the Apostle was writing, the eagles were gathering\naround the carcase. But when all is lost, all is regained if we \"have\"\nthe High-priest.\n\nThe secret of His abiding for ever is His own greatness. He is a _great_\nHigh-priest; for He has entered into the immediate presence of God, not\nthrough the Temple veil, but through the very heavens. In chap. viii. 1\nthe Apostle declares this to be the head and front of all he has said:\n\"We have _such_ an High-priest\" as He must be \"Who is set on the right\nhand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens.\" He is a great\nHigh-priest because He is a Priest on a throne. As the representative\nMan, Jesus is crowned. His glory is kingly. But the glory bestowed on\nthe Man as King has brought Him into the audience-chamber of God as\nHigh-priest. The kingship of Jesus, to Whom all creation is subjected,\nand Who sits above all creation, has made His priestly service\neffectual. His exaltation is much more than a reward for His redemptive\nsufferings. He entered the heaven of God as the sanctuary of which He is\nMinister. For if He were on earth, He would not be a Priest at all,\nseeing that He is not of the order of Aaron, to which the earthly\npriesthood belongs according to the Law.[64] But Christ is not entered\ninto the holy place made with hands, but into the very heaven, now to be\nmanifested before the face of God for us.[65] The Apostle has said that\nChrist is Son over the house of God. He is also High-priest over the\nhouse of God, having authority over it in virtue of His priesthood for\nit, and administering His priestly functions effectually through His\nkingship.[66]\n\nThe entire structure of the Apostle's inferences rests on the twofold\nargument of the first two chapters. Jesus Christ is a great High-priest;\nthat is, King and High-priest in one, because He unites in His own\nperson Son of God and Son of man.\n\nOne is tempted to find an intentional antithesis between the\nawe-inspiring description of the word of God in the previous verse and\nthe tender language of the verse that follows. Is the word a living,\nenergising power? The High-priest too is living and powerful, great and\ndwelling above the heavens. Does the word pierce to our innermost being?\nThe High-priest sympathises with our weaknesses, or, in the beautiful\nparaphrase of the English Version, \"is touched with a feeling of our\ninfirmities.\" Does the word judge? The High-priest can be equitable,\ninasmuch as He has been tempted like as we are tempted, and that without\nsin.[67]\n\nOn the last-mentioned point much might be said. He was tempted to sin,\nbut withstood the temptation. He had true and complete humanity, and\nhuman nature, as such and alone, is capable of sin. Shall we, therefore,\nadmit that Jesus was capable of sin? But He was Son of God. Christ was\nMan, but not a human Person. He was a Divine Person, and therefore\nabsolutely and eternally incapable of sin; for sin is the act and\nproperty of a person, not of a mere nature apart from the persons who\nhave that nature. Having assumed humanity, the Divine person of the Son\nof God was truly tempted, like as we are. He felt the power of the\ntemptation, which appealed in every case, not to a sinful lust, but to a\nsinless want and natural desire. But to have yielded to Satan and\nsatisfied a sinless appetite at his suggestion would have been a sin. It\nwould argue want of faith in God. Moreover, He strove against the\ntempter with the weapons of prayer and the word of God. He conquered by\nHis faith. Far from lessening the force of the trial, His being Son of\nGod rendered His humanity capable of being tempted to the very utmost\nlimit of all temptation. We dare not say that mere man would certainly\nhave yielded to the sore trials that beset Jesus. But we do say that\nmere man would never have felt the temptation so keenly. Neither did His\nDivine greatness lessen His sympathy. Holy men have a wellspring of pity\nin their hearts, to which ordinary men are total strangers. The\ninfinitely holy Son of God had infinite pity. These are the sources of\nHis power to succour the tempted,--the reality of His temptations as He\nwas Son of man, the intensity of them as He was Son of God, and the\ncompassion of One Who was both Son of God and Son of man.\n\nOur author is wont to break off suddenly and intersperse his arguments\nwith affectionate words of exhortation. He does so here. It is still the\nsame urgent command: Do not let go the anchor. Hold fast your profession\nof Christ as Son of God and Son of man, as Priest and King. Let us draw\nnearer, and that boldly, unto this great High-priest, Who is enthroned\non the mercy-seat, that we may obtain the pity which, in our sense of\nutter helplessness, we seek, and _find_ more than we seek or hope for,\neven His grace to help us. Only linger not till it be too late. His aid\nmust be sought in time.[68] \"To-day\" is still the call.\n\nPity and helping grace, sympathy and authority--in these two\nexcellences all the qualifications of a high-priest are comprised. It\nwas so under the old covenant. Every high-priest was taken from among\nmen that he might sympathise, and was appointed by God that he might\nhave authority to act on behalf of men.\n\n1. The high-priest under the Law is himself beset by the infirmities of\nsinful human nature, the infirmities at least for which alone the Law\nprovides a sacrifice, sins of ignorance and inadvertence.[69] Thus only\ncan he form a fair and equitable judgment[70] when men go astray. The\nthought wears the appearance of novelty. No use is apparently made of it\nin the Old Testament. The notion of the high-priest's Divine appointment\novershadowed that of his human sympathy. His sinfulness is acknowledged,\nand Aaron is commanded to offer sacrifice for himself and for the sins\nof the people.[71] But the author of this Epistle states the reason why\na sinful man was made high-priest. He has told us that the Law was given\nthrough angels. But no angel interposed as high-priest between the\nsinner and God. Sympathy would be wanting to the angel. But the very\ninfirmity that gave the high-priest his power of sympathy made sacrifice\nnecessary for the high-priest himself. This was the fatal defect. How\ncan he bestow forgiveness who must seek the like forgiveness?\n\nIn the case of the great High-priest, Jesus the Son of God, the end must\nbe sought in another way. He is not so taken from the stock of humanity\nas to be stained with sin. He is not one of many men, any one of whom\nmight have been chosen. On the contrary, He is holy, innocent,\nstainless, separated in character and position before God from the\nsinners around Him.[72] He has no need to offer sacrifice for any sin of\nHis own, but only for the sins of the people; and this He did once for\nall when He offered up Himself. For the Law makes mere men, beset with\nsinful infirmity, priests; but the word of the oath makes the Son\nPriest, Who has been perfected for His office for ever.[73] In this\nrespect He bears no resemblance to Aaron. Yet God did not leave His\npeople without a type of Jesus in this complete separateness. The\nPsalmist speaks of Him as a Priest after the order of Melchizedek, and\nconcerning Christ as the Melchizedek Priest the Apostle has more to say\nhereafter.[74]\n\nThe question returns, How, then, can the Son of God sympathise with\nsinful man? He can sympathise with our sinless infirmities because He is\ntrue Man. But that He, the sinless One, may be able to sympathise with\nsinful infirmities, He must be made sin for us and face death as a\nsin-offering. The High-priest Himself becomes the sacrifice which He\noffers. Special trials beset Him. His life on earth is pre-eminently\n\"days of the flesh,\"[75] so despised is He, a very Man of sorrows. When\nHe could not acquire the power of sympathy by offering atonement for\nHimself, because He needed it not, He _offered_ prayers and\nsupplications with a strong cry and tears to Him Who was able to save\nHim out of death. But why the strong cries and bitter weeping? Can we\nsuppose for a moment that He was only afraid of physical pain? Or did He\ndread the shame of the Cross? Our author elsewhere says that He despised\nit. Shall we say that Jesus Christ had less moral courage than Socrates\nor His own martyr-servant, St. Ignatius? At the same time, let us\nconfine ourselves strictly to the words of Scripture, lest by any gloss\nof our own we ascribe to Christ's death what is required by the\nexigencies of a ready-made theory. \"Being in an agony, He prayed more\nearnestly; and His sweat became as it were great drops of blood falling\ndown upon the ground.\"[76] Is this the attitude of a martyr? The Apostle\nhimself explains it. \"Though He was a Son,\" to Whom obedience to His\nFather's command that He should lay down His life was natural and\njoyful, yet He learned His obedience, special and peculiar as it was, by\nthe things which He suffered.[77] He was perfecting Himself to be our\nHigh-priest. By these acts of priestly offering He was rendering Himself\nfit to be the sacrifice offered. Because there was in His prayers and\nsupplications, in His crying and weeping, this element of entire\nself-surrender to His Father's will, which is the truest piety,[78] His\nprayers were heard. He prayed to be delivered out of His death. He\nprayed for the glory which He had with His Father before the world was.\nAt the same time He piously resigned Himself to die as a sacrifice, and\nleft it to God to decide whether He would raise Him from death or leave\nHis soul in Hades. Because of this perfect self-abnegation, His\nsacrifice was complete; and, on the other hand, because of the same\nentire self-denial, God did deliver Him out of death and made Him an\neternal Priest. His prayers were not only heard, but became the\nfoundation and beginning of His priestly intercession on behalf of\nothers.\n\n2. The second essential qualification of a high-priest was authority to\nact for men in things pertaining to God, and in His name to absolve the\npenitent sinner. Prayer was free to all God's people and even to the\nstranger that came out of a far country for the sake of the God of\nIsrael's name. But guilt, by its very nature, involves the need, not\nmerely of reconciling the sinner, but primarily of reconciling God.\nHence the necessity of a Divine appointment. For how can man bring his\nsacrifice to God or know that God has accepted it unless God Himself\nappoints the mediator and through him pronounces the sinner absolved? It\nis true, if man only is to be reconciled, a Divinely appointed prophet\nwill be enough, who will declare God's fatherly love and so remove the\nsinner's unbelief and slay his enmity. But the Epistle to the Hebrews\nteaches that God appoints a high-priest. This of itself is fatal to the\ntheory that God needs not to be reconciled. In the sense of having this\nDivine authorization, the priestly office is here said to be an honour,\nwhich no man takes upon himself, but accepts when called thereunto by\nGod.[79]\n\nHow does this apply to the great High-priest Who has passed through the\nheavens? He also glorified not Himself to become High-priest. The\nApostle has changed the word.[80] To Aaron it was an honour to be\nhigh-priest. He was authorized to act for God and for men. But to Christ\nit was more than an honour, more than an external authority conferred\nupon Him. It was part of the glory inseparable from His Sonship. He Who\nsaid to Him, \"Thou art My Son,\" made Him thereby potentially\nHigh-priest. His office springs from His personality, and is not, as in\nthe case of Aaron, a prerogative superadded. The author has cited the\nsecond Psalm in a previous passage[81] to prove the kingly greatness of\nthe Son, and here again he cites the same words to describe His priestly\ncharacter. His priesthood is not \"from men,\" and, therefore, does not\npass away from Him to others; and this eternal, independent priesthood\nof Christ is typified in the king-priest Melchizedek. Before He began to\nact in His priestly office God said to Him, \"Thou art a Priest for ever\nafter the order of Melchizedek.\" When He has been perfected and learned\nHis obedience[82] by the things which He suffered, God still addresses\nHim as a High-priest according to the order of Melchizedek.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[64] Chap. viii. 4.\n\n[65] Chap. ix. 24.\n\n[66] Cf. chap. x. 21.\n\n[67] Chap. iv. 15.\n\n[68] =eukairon= (iv. 16).\n\n[69] Chap. v. 1, 2.\n\n[70] =metriopathein=.\n\n[71] Lev. xvi. 6.\n\n[72] Chap. vii. 26.\n\n[73] Chap. vii. 28.\n\n[74] Chap. v. 10, 11.\n\n[75] Chap. v. 7.\n\n[76] Luke xxii. 44. The genuineness of the verse is not quite certain.\n\n[77] Cf. John x. 18.\n\n[78] =apo t\u00eas eulabeias= (v. 7).\n\n[79] Chap. v. 4.\n\n[80] =tim\u00ean= (v. 4); =edoxasen= (v. 5).\n\n[81] Chap. i. 5.\n\n[82] =t\u00ean hypako\u00ean= (v. 8).\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\n_THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF RENEWAL._\n\n\n \"Of Whom we have many things to say, and hard of interpretation,\n seeing ye are become dull of hearing. For when by reason of the time\n ye ought to be teachers, ye have need again that some one teach you\n the rudiments of the first principles of the oracles of God; and are\n become such as have need of milk, and not of solid food. For every\n one that partaketh of milk is without experience of the word of\n righteousness; for he is a babe. But solid food is for full-grown\n men, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to\n discern good and evil. Wherefore let us cease to speak of the first\n principles of Christ, and press on unto perfection; not laying again\n a foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,\n of the teaching of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of\n resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And this will we\n do, if God permit. For as touching those who were once enlightened\n and tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy\n Ghost, and tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the age to\n come, and then fell away, it is impossible to renew them again unto\n repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh,\n and put Him to an open shame. For the land which hath drunk the rain\n that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them for\n whose sake it is also tilled, receiveth blessing from God: but if it\n beareth thorns and thistles, it is rejected and nigh unto a curse;\n whose end is to be burned.\"--HEB. v. 11-vi. 8 (R.V.).\n\n\nIn one of the greatest and most strange of human books the argument is\nsometimes said \"to veil itself,\" and the sustained image of a man\nbattling with the waves betrays the writer's hesitancy. When he has\nsurmounted the first wave, he dreads the second. When he has escaped out\nof the second, he fears to take another step, lest the third wave may\noverwhelm him. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews has proved that\nChrist is Priest-King. But before he starts anew, he warns his readers\nthat whoever will venture on must be prepared to hear a hard saying,\nwhich he himself will find difficult to interpret and few will receive.\nHitherto he has only shown that whatever of lasting worth was contained\nin the old covenant remains and is exalted in Christ. Even this truth is\nan advance on the mere rudiments of Christian doctrine. But what if he\nattempts to prove that the covenant which God made with their fathers\nhas waxed old and must vanish away to make room for a new and better\none? For his part, he is eager to ascend to these higher truths. He has\nyet much to teach about Christ in the power of His heavenly life.[83]\nBut his readers are dull of hearing and inexperienced in the word of\nrighteousness.\n\nThe commentators are much divided and exercised on the question whether\nthe Apostle means that the argument should advance or that his readers\nought to make progress in spiritual character.[84] In a way he surely\nmeans both. What gives point to the whole section now to be considered\nis the connection between development of doctrine and a corresponding\ndevelopment of the moral nature. \"For the time ye ought to be\nteachers.\"[85] They ought to have been teachers of the elementary\ntruths, in consequence of having discovered the higher truths for\nthemselves, under the guidance of God's Spirit. It ought to have been\nunnecessary for the Apostle to explain them. At this time the \"teachers\"\nin the Church had probably consolidated into a class formally set apart,\nbut had not yet fallen to the second place, as compared with the\n\"prophets,\" which they occupy in the \"Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.\"\nA long time had elapsed since the Church of Jerusalem, with the Apostles\nand elders, had sat in judgment on the question submitted to their\ndecision by such men as Peter, Barnabas, Paul, and James.[86] Since then\nthe Hebrew Christians had degenerated, and now needed somebody--it\nmattered little who it might be,[87]--to teach them the alphabet[88] of\nChristian doctrine.\n\nPhilo had already emphasised the distinction between the child in\nknowledge and the man of full age and mature judgment. St. Paul had said\nmore than once that such a distinction holds among Christians. Many are\ncarnal; some are spiritual. In his writings the difference is not an\nexternal one, nor is the line between the two classes broad and clear.\nThe one shades into the other. But, though we may not be able to\ndetermine where the one begins and the other ends, both are tendencies,\nand move in opposite directions. In the Epistle to the Hebrews the\ndistinction resembles the old doctrine of habit taught by Aristotle. Our\norgans of sense are trained by use to distinguish forms and colours. In\nlike manner, there are inner organs of the spirit,[89] which distinguish\ngood from evil, not by mathematical demonstration, but by long-continued\nexercise[90] in hating evil and in loving holiness. The growth of this\nspiritual sense is connected by our author with the power to understand\nthe higher doctrine. He only who discerns, by force of spirited\ninsight, what is good and what is evil, can also understand spiritual\ntruths. The difference between good and evil is not identical with \"the\nword of righteousness.\" But the moral elevation of character that\nclearly discerns the former is the condition of understanding also the\nlatter.\n\n\"Wherefore\"--that is, inasmuch as solid food is for full-grown men--\"let\nus have done[91] with the elementary doctrines, and permit ourselves to\nbe borne strongly onwards[92] towards full growth of spiritual\ncharacter.\"[93] The Apostle has just said that his readers needed some\none to teach them the rudiments. We should have expected him, therefore,\nto take it in hand. But he reminds them that the defect lies deeper than\nintellectual error. The remedy is not mere teaching, but spiritual\ngrowth. Apart from moral progress there can be no revelation of new\ntruths. Ever-recurring efforts to lay the foundation of individual piety\nwill result only in an apprehension of what we may designate personal\nand subjective doctrines.\n\nThe Apostle particularises. Repentance towards God and faith in God are\nthe initial graces.[94] For without sorrow for sin and trust in God's\nmercy God's revelation of Himself in His Son will not be deemed worthy\nof all acceptation. If this is so, the doctrines suitable to the\ninitial stage of the Christian life will be--(1) the doctrine of\nbaptisms and of laying on of hands, and (2) the doctrine of the\nresurrection of the dead and of eternal judgment. Repentance and faith\naccept the gospel of forgiveness, which is symbolised in baptism, and of\nabsolution, symbolised in the laying on of hands. Again, repentance and\nfaith realise the future life and the final award; the beginning of\npiety reaching forth a hand, as runners do, as if to grasp the furthest\ngoal before it touches the intermediate points. Yet every intermediate\ntruth, when apprehended, throws new light on the soul's eschatology. In\nlike manner civilization began with contemplation of the stars, long\nbefore it descended to chemical analysis, but at last it applies its\nchemistry to make discoveries in the stars.\n\nThis, then, is the initial stage in the Christian character,--repentance\nand faith; and these are the initial doctrines, baptism, absolution,\nresurrection, and judgment. How may they be described? They all centre\nin the individual believer. They have all to do with the fact of his\nsin. One question, and one only, presses for an answer. It is, \"What\nmust I do to be saved?\" One result, and one only, flows from the\nsalvation obtained. It is the final acquittal of the sinner at the last\nday. God is known only as the merciful Saviour and the holy Judge. The\nwhole of the believer's personal existence hovers in mid-air between\ntwo points: repentance at some moment in the past and judgment at the\nend of the world. Works are \"dead,\" and the reason why is that they have\nno saving power. There is here no thought of life as a complete thing or\nas a series of possibilities that ever spring into actuality, no thought\nof the individual as being part of a greater whole. The Church exists\nfor the sake of the believer, not the believer for the sake of the\nChurch. Even Christ Himself is nothing more to him than his Saviour, Who\nby an atoning death paid his debt. The Apostle would rise to higher\ntruths concerning Christ in the power of His heavenly life. This is the\ntruth which the story of Melchizedek will teach to such as are\nsufficiently advanced in spirituality to understand its meaning.\n\nBut, before he faces the rolling wave, the Apostle tells his readers why\nit is that, in reference to Christian doctrine, character is the\nnecessary condition of intelligence. It is so for two reasons.\n\n_First_, the word spoken by God in His Son has for its primary object,\nnot speculation, but \"righteousness.\"[95] Theology is essentially a\npractical, not a merely theoretical, science. Its purpose is to create\nrighteous men; that is, to produce a certain character. When produced,\nthis lofty character is sustained by the truths of the Gospel as by a\nspiritual \"food,\" milk or strong meat. Christianity is the art of holy\nliving, and the art is mastered only as every other art is learned: by\npractice or experience. But experience will suggest rules, and rules\nwill lead to principles. The art itself creates a faculty to transform\nit into a science. Religion will produce a theology. The doctrine will\nbe understood only by the possessor of that goodness to which it has\nitself given birth.\n\n_Second_, the Apostle introduces the personal action of God into the\nquestion. Understanding of the higher truths is God's blessing on\ngoodness,[96] and destruction of the faculty of spiritual discernment is\nHis way of punishing moral depravity.[97] This is the general sense and\npurport of an extremely difficult passage. The threatened billow is\nstill far away. But before it rolls over us, we seem to be already\nsubmerged under the waves. Our only hope lies in the Apostle's\nillustration of the earth that bears here thorns and there good grain.\n\nExpositors go quite astray when they explain the simile as if it were\nintended to describe the effect on moral character of rightly or wrongly\nusing our faculty of knowledge. The meaning is the reverse. The Apostle\nis showing the effect of character on our power to understand truth.\nNeither soil is barren. Both lands drink in the rain that often comes\nupon them. But the fatness of the one field brings forth thorns and\nthistles, and this can only mean that the man's vigour of soul is itself\nan occasion of moral evil. The richness of the other land produces\nplants fit for use by men, who are the sole reason for its tillage.[98]\nThis, again, must mean that, in the case of some men, God blesses that\nnatural strength which itself is neither good nor evil, and it becomes a\nsource of goodness. We come now to the result in each case. The soil\nthat brings forth useful herbs has its share of the Creator's first\nblessing. What the blessing consists in we are not here told, and it is\nnot necessary to pursue this side of the illustration further. But the\nother soil, which gives its natural strength to the production of\nnoxious weeds, falls under the Creator's primal curse and is nigh unto\nburning. The point of the parable evidently is that God blesses the one,\nthat God destroys the other. In both cases the Apostle recognises the\nDivine action, carrying into effect a Divine threat and a Divine\npromise.\n\nLet us see how the simile is applied. The terrible word \"impossible\"\nmight indeed have been pronounced, with some qualification, over a man\nwho had fallen under the power of evil habits. For God sets His seal to\nthe verdict of our moral nature. To such a man the only escape is\nthrough the strait gate of repentance. But here we have much more than\nthe ordinary evil habits of men, such as covetousness, hypocrisy, carnal\nimaginations, cruelty. The Apostle is thinking throughout of God's\nrevelation in His Son. He refers to the righteous anger of God against\nthose who persistently despise the Son. In the second chapter[99] he has\nasked how men who neglect the salvation spoken through the Lord can hope\nto shun God's anger. Here, he declares the same truth in a stronger\nform. How shall they escape His wrath who crucify afresh the Son and put\nHim to an open shame? Such men God will punish by hardening their\nhearts, so that they cannot even repent. The initial grace becomes\nimpossible.\n\nThe four parts of the simile and of the application correspond.\n\n_First_, drinking in the rain that often comes upon the land corresponds\nto being once enlightened, tasting of the heavenly gift, being made\npartakers of the Holy Ghost, and tasting the good word of God and the\npowers of the world to come. The rain descends on all the land and gives\nit its natural richness. The question whether the Apostle speaks of\nconverted or unconverted men is entirely beside the purpose, and may\nsafely be relegated to the limbo of misapplied interpretations. No doubt\nthe controversy between Calvinists and Arminians concerning final\nperseverance and the possibility of a fall from a state of grace is\nitself vastly important. But the question whether the gifts mentioned\nare bestowed on an unconverted man is of no importance to the right\napprehension of the Apostle's meaning. We must be forgiven for thinking\nhe had it not in his mind. It is more to the purpose to remind ourselves\nthat all these excellences are regarded by the Apostle as gifts of God,\nlike the oft-descending rain, not as moral qualities in men. He mentions\nthe one enlightenment produced by the one revelation of God in His Son.\nIt may be compared to the opening of blind eyes or the startled waking\nof the soul by a great idea. To taste the heavenly gift is to make trial\nof the new truth. To be made partakers of the Holy Ghost is to be moved\nby a supernatural enlightening influence. To taste the good word of God\nis to discern the moral beauty of the revelation. To taste the powers of\nthe world to come is to participate in the gifts of power which the\nSpirit divides to each one severally even as He will. All these things\nhave an intellectual quality. Faith in Christ and love to God are\npurposely excluded. The Apostle brings together various phases of our\nspiritual intelligence, the gift of illumination, which we sometimes\ncall genius, sometimes culture, sometimes insight, the faculty that\nought to apprehend Christ and welcome the revelation in the Son. If\nthese high gifts are used to scoff at the Son of God, and that with the\npersistence that can spring only from the pride and self-righteousness\nof unbelief, renewal is impossible.\n\n_Second_, the negative result of not bringing forth any useful herbs\ncorresponds to falling away.[100] God has bestowed His gift of\nenlightenment, but there is no response of heart and will. The soul does\nnot lay hold, but drifts away.\n\n_Third_, the positive result of bearing thorns and thistles corresponds\nto crucifying to themselves the Son of God afresh and putting Him to an\nopen shame. The gifts of God have been abused, and the contrary of what\nHe, in His care for men, intended the earth to produce, is the result.\nThe Divine gift of spiritual enlightenment has been itself turned into a\nvery genius of cynical mockery. The Son of God has already been once\ncrucified amid the awful scenes of Gethsemane and Calvary. The agony and\nbloody sweat, the cry of infinite loneliness on the Cross, the tender\ncompassion of the dying Jesus, the power of His resurrection--all this\nis past. One bitterness yet remains. Men use God's own gift of spiritual\nillumination to crucify the Son afresh. But they crucify Him only for\nthemselves.[101] When the sneer has died away on the scoffer's lips,\nnothing is left. No result has been achieved in the moral world. When\nChrist was crucified on Calvary, His death changed for ever the\nrelations of God and men. When He is crucified in the reproach of His\nenemies, nothing has been accomplished outside the scoffer's little\nworld of vanity and pride.\n\n_Fourth_, to be nigh unto a curse and to be given in the end to be\nburned corresponds to the impossibility of renewal. The illustration\nrequires us to distinguish between \"falling away\" and \"crucifying the\nSon of God afresh and putting Him to an open shame.\"[102] The land is\ndoomed to be burned because it bears thorns and thistles. God renders\nmen incapable of repentance, not because they have fallen away once or\nmore than once, but because they scoff at the Son, through Whom God has\nspoken unto us. The terrible impossibility of renewal here threatened\napplies, not to apostasy (as the early Church maintained) nor to the\nlapsed (as the Novatianists held),[103] but to apostasy combined with a\ncynical, scoffing temper that persists in treading the Son of God under\nfoot. Apostasy resembles the sin against the Son of man; cynicism in\nreference to the Son of man comes very near the sin against the Holy\nGhost. This sin is not forgiven, because it hardens the heart and makes\nrepentance impossible. It hardens the heart, because God is jealous of\nHis Son's honour, and punishes the scoffer with the utter destruction of\nthe spiritual faculty and with absolute inability to recover it. This is\nnot the mere force of habit. It is God's retribution, and the Apostle\nmentions it here because the text of the whole Epistle is that God has\nspoken unto us in His Son.\n\nBut the Hebrew Christians have not come to this.[104] The Apostle is\npersuaded better things of them, and things that are nigh, not unto a\ncurse, but unto ultimate salvation. Yet they are not free from the\ndanger. If we may appropriate the language of an eminent historian, \"the\nworship of wealth, grandeur, and dominion blinded the Jews to the form\nof spiritual godliness; the rejection of the Saviour and the deification\nof Herod were parallel manifestations of the same engrossing\ndelusion.\"[105] That the Christian Hebrews may not fall under the curse\nimpending over their race, the Apostle urges them to press on unto full\ngrowth of character. And this he and they will do--he ranks himself\namong them, and ventures to make reply in their name. But He must add an\n\"if God permit.\" For there are men whom God will not permit to advance a\njot higher. Because they have abused His great gift of illumination to\nscoff at the greater gift of the Son, they are doomed to forfeit\npossession of both. The only doomed man is the cynic.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[83] Chap. v. 11.\n\n[84] Chap. vi. 1.\n\n[85] Chap. v. 12.\n\n[86] Acts xv.\n\n[87] =tina= (v. 12).\n\n[88] =stoicheia=.\n\n[89] =aisth\u00eat\u00earia=.\n\n[90] =gegymnasmena=.\n\n[91] =aphentes= (vi. 1).\n\n[92] =pher\u00f4metha=.\n\n[93] =teleiot\u00eata=.\n\n[94] =themelion=.\n\n[95] Chap. v. 13.\n\n[96] Chap. vi. 7.\n\n[97] Chap. vi. 8.\n\n[98] =di' hous=.\n\n[99] Chap. ii. 3.\n\n[100] =parapesontas= (vi. 6). Cf. =parary\u00f4men= (ii. 1).\n\n[101] =heautois=.\n\n[102] Apart from the exigencies of the illustration, the change from the\naorist participle to the present participles tells in the same way. It\nis extremely harsh to consider =anastaurauntas= and =paradeigmatizontas=\nto be explanatory of =parapesontas=. The former must be rendered\nhypothetically: \"They cannot be renewed after falling away if they\npersist in crucifying,\" etc.\n\n[103] The apostates, or deserters, were not identical with the lapsed,\nwho fell away from fear of martyrdom. Novatian refused to restore either\nto Church privileges. The Church restored the latter, but not the\nformer. Cf. Cyprian, Ep. lv. _ad fin._\n\n[104] Chap. vi. 9.\n\n[105] Dean Merivale, _Romans under the Empire_, chap. lix.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\n_THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF FAILURE._\n\n\n \"But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things\n that accompany salvation, though we thus speak: for God is not\n unrighteous to forget your work and the love which ye showed toward\n His name, in that ye ministered unto the saints, and still do\n minister. And we desire that each one of you may show the same\n diligence unto the fulness of hope even to the end: that ye be not\n sluggish, but imitators of them who through faith and patience\n inherit the promises. For when God made promise to Abraham, since He\n could swear by none greater, He sware by Himself, saying, Surely\n blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee.\n And thus, having patiently endured, he obtained the promise. For men\n swear by the greater: and in every dispute of theirs the oath is\n final for confirmation. Wherein God, being minded to show more\n abundantly unto the heirs of the promise the immutability of His\n counsel, interposed with an oath: that by two immutable things, in\n which it is impossible for God to lie, we may have a strong\n encouragement, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set\n before us; which we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure\n and steadfast and entering into that which is within the veil;\n whither as a Forerunner Jesus entered for us, having become a\n High-priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.\"--HEB, vi. 9-20\n (R.V.).\n\n\nSolemn warning is followed by words of affectionate encouragement.\nImpossibility of renewal is not the only impossibility within the\ncompass of the Gospel.[106] Over against the descent to perdition, hope\nof the better things grasps salvation with the one hand and the climbing\npilgrim with the other, and makes his failure to reach the summit\nimpossible. Both impossibilities have their source in God's justice. He\nis not unjust to forget the deed of love shown towards His name, when\nthe only-begotten Son ministered to men and still ministers. Contempt of\nthis love God will punish. Neither is He unjust to forget the love that\nministered to His poor saints in days of persecution, when the Hebrew\nChristians became partakers with their fellow-believers in their\nreproaches and tribulations, showed pity towards their brethren in\nprisons, and took joyfully the spoiling of their goods.[107] The stream\nof brotherly kindness was still flowing. This love God rewards. But the\nApostle desires them to show, not only faithfulness in ministering to\nthe saints, but also Christian earnestness generally,[108] until they\nattain the full assurance of hope. The older expositors understand the\nwords to express the Apostle's wish that his readers should continue to\nminister to the saints. But Calvin's view has, especially since the time\nof Bengel, been generally accepted: that the Apostle urges his readers\nto be as diligent in seeking the full assurance of hope as they are in\nministering to the poor. This is most probably the meaning, but with the\naddition that he speaks of \"earnestness\" generally, not merely of active\ndiligence. Their religion was too narrow in range. Care for the poor has\nsometimes been the piety of sluggish despondency and bigotry. But\nspiritual earnestness is the moral discipline that works hope, a hope\nthat makes not ashamed, but leads men on to an assured confidence that\nthe promise of God will be fulfilled, though now black clouds overspread\ntheir sky.\n\nAn incentive to faith and endurance will be found in the example of all\ninheritors of God's promise.[109] The Apostle is on the verge of\nanticipating the splendid record of the eleventh chapter. But he arrests\nhimself, partly because, at the present stage of his argument, he can\nspeak of faith only as the deep fountain of endurance. He cannot now\ndescribe it as the realisation and the proof of things unseen.[110] He\nwishes, moreover, to dwell on the oath made by God to Abraham. Even\nthis, if not an anticipation of what is still to come, is at least a\npreparation of the reader for the distinction hereafter effectively\nhandled between the high-priest made without an oath and the High-priest\nmade with an oath. But, in the present section, the emphatic notion is\nthat the promise made to Abraham is the same promise which the Apostle\nand his brethren wait to see fulfilled, and that the confirmation of the\npromise by oath to Abraham is still in force for their strong\nencouragement. It is true that Abraham received the fulfilment of the\npromise in his lifetime, but only in a lower form. The promise, like the\nSabbath rest, has become more and still more elevated, profound,\nspiritual, with the long delay of God to make it good. It is equally\ntrue that the saints under the Old Testament received not the fulfilment\nof the promise in its highest meaning, and were not perfected apart from\nbelievers of after-ages,[111] God's words never grow obsolete. They are\nnever left behind by the Church. If they seem to pass away, they return\nladen with still choicer fruit. The coursing moon in the high heavens\nis never outstripped by the belated traveller. The hope of the Gospel is\never set before us. God swears to Abraham in the spring-time of the\nworld that _we_, on whom the ends of the ages have come, may have a\nstrong incentive to press onwards.\n\nBut, if the oath of God to Abraham is to inspire us with new courage, we\nmust resemble Abraham in the eager earnestness and calm endurance of his\nfaith. The passage has often been treated as if the oath had been\nintended to meet the weakness of faith. But unbelief is logician enough\nto argue that God's word is as good as His bond; yea, that we have no\nknowledge of His oath except from His word. The Apostle refers to the\ngreatest instance of faith ever shown even by Abraham, when he withheld\nnot his son, his beloved son, on Moriah. The oath was made to him by\nGod, not before he gave up Isaac, in order to encourage his weakness,\nbut when he had done it, as a reward of his strength. Philo's fine\nsentence, which indeed the sacred writer partly borrows, is intended to\nteach the same lesson: that, while disappointments are heaped on sense,\nan endless abundance of good things has been given to the earnest soul\nand the perfect man.[112] It is to Abraham when he has achieved his\nsupreme victory of faith that God vouchsafes to make oath that He will\nfulfil His promise. This gives us the clue to the purport of the words.\nUp to this final test of Abraham's faith God's promise is, so to speak,\nconditional. It will be fulfilled if Abraham will believe. Now at length\nthe promise is given unconditionally. Abraham has gone triumphantly\nthrough every trial. He has not withheld his son. So great is his faith\nthat God can now confirm His promise with a positive declaration, which\ntransforms a promise made to a man into a prediction that binds Himself.\nOr shall we retract the expression that the promise is now given\nunconditionally? The condition is transferred from the faith of Abraham\nto the faithfulness of God. In this lies the oath. God pledges His own\nexistence on the fulfilment of His promise. He says no longer, \"If thou\ncanst believe,\" but \"As true as I live.\" Speaking humanly, unbelief on\nthe part of Abraham would have made the promise of God of none effect;\nfor it was conditional on Abraham's faith. But the oath has raised the\npromise above being affected by the unbelief of some, and itself\nincludes the faith of some. St. Paul can now ask, \"What if some did not\nbelieve? Shall their unbelief make the _faith_\" (no longer merely the\npromise) \"of God without effect?\"[113] Our author also can speak of two\nimmutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie. The one is\nthe promise, the immutability of which means only that God, on His part,\ndoes not retract, but casts on men the blame if the promise is not\nfulfilled. The other is the oath, in which God takes the matter into His\nown hands and puts the certainty of His fulfilling the promise to rest\non His own eternal being.\n\nThe Apostle is careful to point out the wide and essential difference\nbetween the oath of God and the oaths of men. \"For men swear by the\ngreater;\" that is, they call upon God, as the Almighty, to destroy them\nif they are uttering what is false. They imprecate a curse upon\nthemselves. If they have sworn to a falsehood, and if the imprecation\nfalls on their heads, they perish, and the matter ends. And yet an oath\ndecides all disputes between man and man.[114] Though they appeal to an\nOmnipotence that often turns a deaf ear to their prayer against\nthemselves; though, if the Almighty were to fling retribution on them,\nthe wheels of nature would whirl as merrily as before; though, if their\nfalse swearing were to cause the heavens to fall, the men would still\nexist and continue to be men;--yet, for all this, they accept an oath as\nfinal settlement. They are compelled to come to terms; for they are at\ntheir wits' end. But it is very different with the oath of God. When He\nswears by Himself, He appeals, not to His omnipotence, but to His\ntruthfulness. If any jot or tittle of God's promise fails to the\nfeeblest child that trusts Him, God ceases to be. He has been\nannihilated, not by an act of power, but by a lie.\n\nWe have said that the oath met, not the weakness, but the strength, of\nAbraham's faith. If so, why was it given him?\n\n_First_, it simplified his faith. It removed all tendency to morbid\nintrospection and filled his spirit with a peaceful reliance on God's\nfaithfulness. He had no more need to try himself whether he was in the\nfaith. Anxious effort and painful struggle were over. Faith was now the\nvery life of his soul. He could leave his concerns to God, and wait.\nThis is the thought expressed in the word \"enduring.\"\n\n_Second_, it was a new revelation of God to him, and thus elevated his\nspiritual nature. The moral character of the Most High, rather than His\nnatural attribute of omnipotence, became the resting-place of his\nspirit. Even the joy of God's heart was made known and communicated to\nhis. God was pleased with Abraham's final victory over unbelief, and\nwished to show him more abundantly[115] His counsel and the immutability\nof it. \"The secret of the Lord is with them that fear Him, and He will\nshow them His covenant.\"[116]\n\n_Third_, it was intended also for our encouragement. It is strange, but\ntrue, that the promises of God are confirmed to us by the victorious\nfaith of a nomad chief from Ur of the Chaldees, who, in the morning of\nthe world's history, withheld not his son. After all, we are not\ndisconnected units. God only can trace the countless threads of\ninfluence. Abraham's strong faith evoked the oath that now sustains the\nweakness of ours. Because he believed so well, the promise comes to us\nwith all the sanction of God's own truth and unchangeableness. The oath\nmade to Abraham was linked with a still more ancient, even an eternal,\noath, made to the Son, constituting Him Priest for ever after the order\nof Melchizedek. The priesthood of Melchizedek is said by the Apostle to\nbe a type of the priesthood founded on an oath. It was becoming that the\nman who acknowledged the priesthood of Melchizedek and received its\nblessing should have that blessing fulfilled to him in the confirmation\nby oath of God's promise. Thus the promises that have been fulfilled\nthrough the eternal priesthood of the true Melchizedek are confirmed to\nus by an oath made to him who acknowledged that priesthood in the\ntypical Melchizedek.\n\nYet, notwithstanding these vital points of contact, Abraham and the\nHebrew Christians are in some respects very unlike. They have left his\nserene and contemplative life far behind. The souls of men are stirred\nwith dread of the threatened end of all things. Abraham had no need to\nflee for refuge from an impending wrath. His religion even was not a\nfleeing from any wrath to come, but a yearning for a better fatherland.\nHe never heard the midnight cry of Maranatha, but longed to be gathered\nto his fathers. If any similitude to the Christian's fleeing from the\nwrath to come must be sought in ancient days, it will be found in the\nhistory of Lot, not of Abraham. Whether the Apostle's thoughts rested\nfor a moment on Lot's flight from Sodom, it is impossible to say. His\nmind is moving so rapidly that one illustration after another flits\nbefore his eye. The notion of Abraham's strong faith, reaching out a\nhand to the strong grasp of God's oath, reminds him of men fleeing for\nrefuge, perhaps into a sanctuary, and laying hold of the horns of the\naltar, with a reminiscence of the Baptist's taunting question, \"Who\nwarned you to flee from the wrath to come?\" and a side glance at the\napproaching destruction of the holy city, if indeed the catastrophe had\nnot already befallen the doomed people. The thought suggests another\nillustration. Our hope is an anchor cast into the deep sea. The anchor\nis sure and steadfast--\"sure,\" for, like Abraham's faith, it will\nneither break nor bend; \"steadfast,\" for, like Abraham's faith again, it\nbites the eternal rock of the oath. Still another metaphor lends itself.\nThe deep sea is above all heavens in the sanctuary within the veil, and\nthe rock is Jesus, Who has entered into the holiest place as our\nHigh-priest. Yet another thought. Jesus is not only High-priest, but\nalso Captain, of the redeemed host, leading us on, and opening the way\nfor us to enter after Him into the sanctuary of the promised land.\n\nThus, with the help of metaphor heaped on metaphor in the fearless\nconfusion delightful to conscious strength and gladness, the Apostle has\nat last come to the great conception of Christ in the sanctuary of\nheaven. He has hesitated long to plunge into the wave; and even now he\nwill not at once lift the veil from the argument. The allegory of\nMelchizedek must prepare us for it.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[106] Compare chap. vi. 4 and chap. vi. 18.\n\n[107] Chap. x. 34.\n\n[108] =spoud\u00ean= (vi. 11).\n\n[109] Chap. vi. 13.\n\n[110] Chap. xi. 1.\n\n[111] Chap. xi. 40.\n\n[112] _SS. Legg. Alleg._, iii., p. 98 (vol. i., p. 127. Mang.). With\nPhilo's =t\u00ea spoudaia psych\u00ea= compare the Apostle's =spoud\u00ean= (chap. v.\n11).\n\n[113] Rom. iii. 3.\n\n[114] Chap. vi. 16.\n\n[115] =perissoteron=.\n\n[116] Ps. xxiv. 14.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\n_THE ALLEGORY OF MELCHIZEDEK._\n\n\nHEBREWS vii. 1-28 (R.V.).\n\n \"For this Melchizedek, King of Salem, priest of God Most High, who\n met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed\n him, to whom also Abraham divided a tenth part of all (being first,\n by interpretation, King of righteousness, and then also King of\n Salem, which is, King of peace; without father, without mother,\n without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life,\n but made like unto the Son of God), abideth a priest continually.\n Now consider how great this man was, unto whom Abraham, the\n patriarch, gave a tenth out of the chief spoils. And they indeed of\n the sons of Levi that receive the priest's office have commandment\n to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their\n brethren, though these have come out of the loins of Abraham: but he\n whose genealogy is not counted from them hath taken tithes of\n Abraham, and hath blessed him that hath the promises. But without\n any dispute the less is blessed of the better. And here men that die\n receive tithes; but there one, of whom it is witnessed that he\n liveth. And, so to say, through Abraham even Levi, who receiveth\n tithes, hath paid tithes; for he was yet in the loins of his father,\n when Melchizedek met him. Now if there was perfection through the\n Levitical priesthood (for under it hath the people received the\n Law), what further need was there that another Priest should arise\n after the order of Melchizedek, and not be reckoned after the order\n of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of\n necessity a change also of the law. For He of Whom these things are\n said belongeth to another tribe, from which no man hath given\n attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord hath sprung\n out of Judah; as to which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning\n priests. And what we say is yet more abundantly evident, if after\n the likeness of Melchizedek there ariseth another Priest, Who hath\n been made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the\n power of an endless life: for it is witnessed of Him,\n\n Thou art a Priest for ever\n After the order of Melchizedek.\n\n For there is a disannulling of a foregoing commandment because of\n its weakness and unprofitableness (for the Law made nothing\n perfect), and a bringing in thereupon of a better hope, through\n which we draw nigh unto God. And inasmuch as it is not without the\n taking of an oath (for they indeed have been made priests without an\n oath; but He with an oath by Him that saith of Him,\n\n The Lord sware and will not repent Himself,\n Thou art a Priest for ever);\n\n by so much also hath Jesus become the Surety of a better covenant.\n And they indeed have been made priests many in number, because that\n by death they are hindered from continuing: but He, because He\n abideth for ever, hath His priesthood unchangeable. Wherefore also\n He is able to save to the uttermost them that draw near unto God\n through Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them.\n For such a High-priest became us, holy, guileless, undefiled,\n separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; Who\n needeth not daily, like those high-priests, to offer up sacrifices,\n first for His own sins, and then for the sins of the people: for\n this He did once for all, when He offered up Himself. For the Law\n appointeth men high-priests, having infirmity; but the word of the\n oath, which was after the Law, appointeth a Son, perfected for\n evermore.\"\n\n\nJesus has entered heaven as our Forerunner, in virtue of His eternal\npriesthood. The endless duration and heavenly power of His priesthood is\nthe \"hard saying\" which the Hebrew Christians would not easily receive,\ninasmuch as it involves the setting aside of the old covenant. But it\nrests on the words of the inspired Psalmist. Once already an inference\nhas been drawn from the Psalmist's prophecy. The meaning of the Sabbath\nrest has not been exhausted in the Sabbath of Judaism; for David, so\nlong after the time of Moses, speaks of another and better day.\nSimilarly in the seventh chapter the Apostle finds an argument in the\nmysterious words of the Psalm, \"The Lord hath sworn, and will not\nrepent, Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.\"[117]\n\nThe words are remarkable because they imply that in the heart of Judaism\nthere lurked a yearning for another and different kind of priesthood\nfrom that of Aaron's order. It may be compared to the strange intrusion\nnow and again of other gods than the deities of Olympus into the\nreligion of the Greeks, either by the introduction of a new deity or by\nway of return to a condition of things that existed before the young\ngods of the court of Zeus began to hold sway. But, to add to the\nmysterious character of the Psalm, it gives utterance to a desire for\nanother King also, Who should be greater than a mere son of David: \"The\nLord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at My right hand, until I make Thine\nenemies Thy footstool.\" Yet the Psalmist is David himself, and Christ\nsilenced the Pharisees by asking them to explain the paradox: \"If David\nthen call Him Lord, how is He his Son?\"[118] Delitzsch observes \"that in\nno other psalm does David distinguish between himself and Messiah;\" that\nis, in all his other predictions Messiah is David himself idealised, but\nin this Psalm He is David's Lord as well as his Son. The Psalmist\ndesires a better priesthood and a better kingship.\n\nThese aspirations are alien to the nature of Judaism. The Mosaic\ndispensation pointed indeed to a coming priest, and the Jews might\nexpect Messiah to be a King. But the Priest would be the antitype of\nAaron, and the King would be only the Son of David. The Psalm speaks of\na Priest after the order, not of Aaron, but of Melchizedek, and of a\nKing Who would be David's Lord. To increase the difficulty, the Priest\nand the King would be one and the same Person.\n\nYet the Psalmist's mysterious conception comes to the surface now and\nagain. In the Book of Zechariah the Lord commands the prophet to set\ncrowns upon the head of Joshua the high-priest, and proclamation is made\n\"that he shall be a priest upon his throne.\"[119] The Maccab\u00e6an princes\nare invested with priestly garments. Philo[120] has actually anticipated\nthe Apostle in his reference to the union of the priesthood and kingship\nin the person of Melchizedek. We need not hesitate to say that the\nApostle borrows his allegory from Philo, and finds his conception of the\nPriest-King in the religious insight of the profounder men, or at least\nin their earnest groping for better things. All this notwithstanding,\nhis use of the allegory is original and most felicitous. He adds an\nidea, fraught with consequences to his argument. For the central thought\nof the passage is the endless duration of the priesthood of Melchizedek.\nThe Priest-King is Priest for ever.\n\nWe have spoken of Melchizedek's story as an allegory, not to insinuate\ndoubt of its historical truth, but because it cannot be intended by the\nApostle to have direct inferential force. It is an instance of the\nallegorical interpretation of Old Testament events, similar to what we\nconstantly find in Philo, and once at least in St. Paul. Allegorical use\nof history has just as much force as a parable drawn from nature, and\ncomes just as near a demonstration as the types, if it is so used by an\ninspired prophet in the Scriptures of the Old Testament. This is\nprecisely the difference between our author and Philo. The latter\ninvents allegories and lets his fancy run wild in weaving new\ncoincidences, which Scripture does not even suggest. But the writer of\nthe Epistle to the Hebrews keeps strictly within the lines of the Psalm.\nWe must also bear in mind that the story of Melchizedek sets forth a\nfeature of Christ's priesthood which cannot be figured by a type of the\nordinary form. Philo infers from the history of Melchizedek the\nsovereignty of God. The Psalmist and the Apostle teach from it the\neternal duration of Christ's priesthood. But how can any type represent\nsuch a truth? How can the fleeting shadow symbolise the notion of\nabiding substance? The type by its very nature is transitory. That\nChrist is Priest for ever can be symbolically taught only by negations,\nby the absence of a beginning and of an end, in some such way as the\nhieroglyphics represent eternity by a line turning back upon itself. In\nthis negative fashion, Melchizedek has been assimilated to the Son of\nGod. His history was intentionally so related by God's Spirit that the\nsacred writer's silence even is significant. For Melchizedek suddenly\nappears on the scene, and as suddenly vanishes, never to return.\nHitherto in the Bible story every man's descent is carefully noted, from\nthe sons of Adam to Noah, from Noah down to Abraham. Now, however, for\nthe first time, a man stands before us of whose genealogy and birth\nnothing is said. Even his death is not mentioned. What is known of him\nwonderfully helps the allegorical significance of the intentional\nsilence of Scripture. He is king and priest, and the one act of his life\nis to bestow his priestly benediction on the heir of the promises. No\nmore appropriate or more striking symbol of Christ's priesthood can be\nimagined.\n\nHis name even is symbolical. He is \"King of righteousness.\" By a happy\ncoincidence, the name of his city is no less expressive of the truth to\nbe represented. He is King of Salem, which means \"King of peace.\" The\ntwo notions of righteousness and peace combined make up the idea of\npriesthood. Righteousness without peace punishes the transgressor. Peace\nwithout righteousness condones the transgression. The kingship of\nMelchizedek, it appears, involves that he is priest.\n\nThis king-priest is a monotheist, though he is not of the family of\nAbraham. He is even priest of the Most High God, though he is outside\nthe pale of the priesthood afterwards founded in the line of Aaron.\nJudaism, therefore, enjoys no monopoly of truth. As St. Paul argues that\nthe promise is independent of the Law, because it was given four hundred\nyears before, so our author hints at the existence of a priesthood\ndistinct from the Levitical. What existed before Aaron may also survive\nhim.\n\nFurther, these two men, Melchizedek and Abraham, were mutually drawn\neach to the other by the force of their common piety. Melchizedek went\nout to meet Abraham on his return from the slaughter of the kings,\napparently not because he was indebted to him for his life and the\nsafety of his city (for the kings had gone their way as far as Dan after\npillaging the Cities of the Plain), but because he felt a strong impulse\nto bestow his blessing on the man of faith. He met him, not as king, but\nas priest. Would it be too fanciful to conjecture that Abraham had that\nmysterious power, which some men possess and some do not, of attracting\nto himself and becoming a centre, around which others almost\nunconsciously gather? It is suggested by his entire history. Whether it\nwas so or not, Melchizedek blessed him, and Abraham accepted the\nblessing, and acknowledged its priestly character by giving him the\npriest's portion, the tenth of the best spoils. How great must this man\nhave been, who blessed even Abraham, and to whom Abraham, the patriarch,\npaid even the tenth! But the less is blessed of the greater. In Abraham\nthe Levitical priesthood itself may be said to acknowledge the\nsuperiority of Melchizedek.[121]\n\nWherein lay his greatness? He was not in the priestly line. Neither do\nwe read that he was appointed of God. Yet no man taketh this honour unto\nhimself. God had made him king and priest by conferring upon him the\ngift of innate spiritual greatness. He was one of nature's kings, born\nto rule, not because he was his father's son, but because he had a great\nsoul. It is not in record that he bequeathed to his race a great idea.\nHe created no school, and had no following. So seldom is mention made of\nhim in the Old Testament, that the Psalmist's passing reference to his\nname attracts the Apostle's special notice. He became a priest in virtue\nof what he was as man. His authority as king sprang from character.\n\nSuch men appear on earth now and again. But they are never accounted\nfor. All we can say of them is that they have neither father nor mother\nnor genealogy. They resemble those who are born of the Spirit, of whom\nwe know neither whence they come nor whither they go. It is only from\nthe greatest one among these kings and priests of men that the veil is\nlifted. In Him we see the Son of God. In Christ we recognise the ideal\ngreatness of sheer personality, and we at once say of all the others, as\nthe Apostle says of Melchizedek, that they have been \"made like,\" not\nunto ancestors or predecessors, but unto Him Who is Himself like His\nDivine Father.\n\nSuch priests remain priests for ever. They live on by the vitality of\ntheir priesthood. They have no beginning of days or end of life. They\nhave never been set apart with outward ritual to an official\ndistinction, marked by days and years. Their acts are not ceremonial,\nand wait not on the calendar. They bless men, and the blessing abides.\nThey pray, and the prayer dies not. If their prayer lives for ever, can\nwe suppose that they themselves pass away? The king-priest is heir of\nimmortality, whoever else may perish. He at least has the power of an\nendless life. If he dies in the flesh, he lives on in the spirit. An\neternal heaven must be found or made for such men with God.\n\nNow this is the gist and kernel of the Apostle's beautiful allegory. The\nargument points to the Son of God, and leads up to the conception of His\neternal priesthood in the sanctuary of heaven. Let us see how the\nparable is interpreted and applied.\n\nThat Jesus is a great High-priest has been proved by argument after\nargument from the beginning of the Epistle. But this is not enough to\nshow that the priesthood after the order of Aaron has passed away. The\nHebrew Christians may still maintain that the Messiah perfected the\nAaronic priesthood and added to it the glory of kingship. Transference\nof the priesthood must be proved; and it is symbolised in the history of\nMelchizedek. But transference of the priesthood involves much more than\nwhat has hitherto been mentioned. It implies, not merely that the\npriesthood after the order of Aaron has come to an end, but that the\nentire dispensation of law, the old covenant, is replaced by a new\ncovenant and a better one, inasmuch as the Law was erected on the\nfoundation[122] of the priesthood. It was a religious economy. The\nfundamental conceptions of the religion were guilt and forgiveness.[123]\nThe essential fact of the dispensation was sacrifice offered for the\nsinner to God by a priest. The priesthood was the article of a standing\nor a falling Church under the Old Testament. Change of the priesthood of\nitself abrogates the covenant.\n\nWhat, then, is the truth in this matter? Has the priesthood been\ntransferred? Let the story of Melchizedek, interpreted by the inspired\nPsalmist, supply the answer.\n\n_First_, Jesus sprang from the royal tribe of Judah, not from the\nsacerdotal tribe of Levi. The Apostle intentionally uses a term[124]\nthat glances at the prophet Zechariah's prediction concerning Him Who\nshall arise as the dawn, and be a Priest upon His throne. We shall,\ntherefore, entitle Him \"Lord,\" and say that \"our _Lord_\" has risen out\nof Judah.[125] He is Lord and King by right of birth. But this\ncircumstance, that He belongs to the tribe of Judah, hints, to say the\nleast, at a transference of the priesthood. For Moses said nothing of\nthis tribe in reference to priests, however great it became in its\nkings. The kingship of our Lord is foreshadowed in Melchizedek.\n\n_Second_, it is still more evident that the Aaronic priesthood has been\nset aside if we recall another feature in the allegory of Melchizedek.\nFor Jesus is like Melchizedek as Priest, not as King only. The\npriesthood of Melchizedek sprang from the man's inherent greatness. How\nmuch more is it true of Jesus Christ that His greatness is personal! He\nbecame what He is, not by force of law, which could create only an\nexternal, carnal commandment, but by innate power, in virtue of which He\nwill live on and His life will be indestructible.[126] The commandment\nthat constituted Aaron priest has not indeed been violently abrogated;\nbut it has been thrust aside in consequence of its own inner feebleness\nand uselessness.[127] That it has been weak and unprofitable to men is\nevident from the inability of the Law, as a system erected upon that\npriesthood, to satisfy conscience.[128] Yet this carnal, decayed\npriesthood was permitted to linger on and work itself out. The better\nhope, through which we do actually come near unto God, did not forcibly\nput an end to it, but was super-added.[129] Christ never formally\nabolished the old covenant. We cannot date its extinction. We must not\nsay that it ceased to exist when the Supper was instituted, or when the\ntrue Passover was slain, or when the Spirit descended. The Epistle to\nthe Hebrews is intended to awaken men to the fact that it is gone. They\ncan hardly realise that it is dead. It has been lost, like the light of\na star, in the spreading \"dawn\" of day. The sun of that eternal day is\nthe infinitely great personality of Jesus Christ, born a crownless King;\ncrowned at His death, but with thorns. Yet what mighty power He has\nwielded! The Galil\u00e6an has conquered. Since He has passed through the\nheavens from the eyes of men, thousands in every age have been ready to\ndie for Him. Even to-day the Christianity of the greatest part of His\nfollowers consists more in profound loyalty to a personal King than in\nany intellectual comprehension of the Teacher's dogmatic system. Such\nkingly power cannot perish. Untouched by the downfall of kingdoms and\nthe revolutions of thought, such a King will sit upon His moral throne\nfrom age to age, yesterday and to-day the same, and for ever.\n\n_Third_, the entire system or covenant based on the Aaronic priesthood\nhas passed away and given place to a better covenant,--better in\nproportion to the firmer foundation on which the priesthood of Jesus\nrests.[130] Beyond question, the promises of God were steadfast. But men\ncould not realise the glorious hope of their fulfilment, and that for\ntwo reasons. First, difficult conditions were imposed on fallible men.\nThe worshipper might transgress in many points of ritual. His mediator,\nthe priest, might err where error would be fatal to the result.\nWorshipper and priest, if they were thoughtful and pious men, would be\nhaunted with the dread of having done wrong they knew not how or where,\nand be filled with dark forebodings. Confidence, especially full\nassurance, was not to be thought of. Second, Christ found it necessary\nto urge His disciples to believe in God. The misery of distrusting God\nHimself exists. Men think that He is such as they are; and, as they do\nnot believe in themselves, their faith in God is a reed shaken by the\nwind. These wants were not adequately met by the old covenant. The\nconditions imposed perplexed men, and the revelation of God's moral\ncharacter and Fatherhood was not sufficiently clear to remove distrust.\nThe Apostle directs attention to the strange absence of any swearing of\nan oath on the part of God when He instituted the Aaronic priesthood, or\non the part of the priest at his consecration. Yet the kingship was\nconfirmed by oath to David. In the new covenant, on the other hand, all\nsuch fears may be dismissed. For the only condition imposed is faith. In\norder to make faith easy and inspire men with courage, God appoints a\nSurety[131] for Himself. He offers His Son as Hostage, and thus\nguarantees the fulfilment of His promise. As the Man Jesus, the Son of\nGod was delivered into the hands of men. \"Of the better covenant Jesus\nis the Surety.\" This will explain a word in the sixth chapter, which we\nwere compelled at the time to put aside. For it is there said that God\n\"mediated\" with an oath.[132] We now understand that this means the\nappointment of Christ to be Surety of the fulfilment of God's promises.\nThe old covenant could offer no guarantee. It is true that it was\nordained in the hands of a mediator. But it is also true that the\nmediator was no surety, inasmuch as those priests were made without an\noath. Christ has been made Priest with an oath. Therefore He is, as\nJesus, the Surety of a better covenant. In what respects the covenant is\nbetter, the Apostle will soon tell us. For the present, we only know\nthat the foundation is stronger in proportion as the oath of God reveals\nmore fully His sincerity and love, and renders it an easier thing for\nmen laden with guilt to trust the promise.\n\nBefore we dismiss the subject, it may be well to remind the reader that\nthis mention of a Surety by our author is the _locus classicus_ of the\nFederalist school of divines. Cocceius and his followers present the\nwhole range of theological doctrines under the form of covenant. They\nexplain the words \"Surety of a better covenant\" to mean that Christ is\nappointed by God to be a Surety on behalf of men, not on behalf of God.\nThe course of thought in the passage is, we think, decisive against this\ninterpretation. At the same time, we readily admit that their doctrine\nis a just theological inference from the passage. If God swears that His\ngracious purposes will be fulfilled and ordains Jesus to be His Surety\nto men, and if also the fulfilment of the Divine promise depends on the\nfulfilment of certain conditions on the part of men, the oath of God\nwill involve His enabling men to fulfil those conditions, and the Surety\nwill become in eventual fact a Surety on behalf of men. But this is only\nan inference. It is not the meaning of the Apostle's words, who only\nspeaks of the Surety on the part of God. The validity of the inference\nnow mentioned depends on other considerations extraneous to this\npassage. With those considerations, therefore, we have at present\nnothing to do.\n\n_Fourth_, the climax of the argument is reached when the Apostle infers\nthe endless duration of Christ's one priesthood.[133] The number of men\nwho had been successively high-priests of the old covenant increased\nfrom age to age. Dying one after another, they were prevented from\ncontinuing as high-priests. But Melchizedek had no successor; and the\nJews themselves admitted that the Christ would abide for ever. The\nascending argument of the Apostle proves that He ever liveth, and has,\ntherefore, an immutable priesthood. For, first, He is of the royal\ntribe, and the oath of God to David guarantees that of his kingdom there\nshall be no end. Again, in the greatness of His personality, He is\nendowed with the power of an endless life. Moreover, as Priest He has\nbeen established in His office by oath. He is, therefore, Priest for\never.\n\nA question suggests itself. Why is the endless life of one high-priest\nmore effective than a succession, conceivably an endless succession, of\nhigh-priests? The eternal priesthood involves two distinct, but mutually\ndependent, conceptions,--power to save and intercession. In the case of\nany man, to live for ever means power. Even the body of our humiliation\nwill be raised in power. Can the spirit, therefore, in the risen life,\nits own native home, be subject to weakness? What, then, shall we say of\nthe risen and glorified Christ? The difference between Him and the\nhigh-priests of earth is like the difference between the body that is\nraised and the body that dies. In Aaron priesthood is sown in\ncorruption, dishonour, weakness; in Christ priesthood is raised in\nincorruption, in glory, in power. In Aaron it is sown a natural\npriesthood; in Christ it is raised a spiritual priesthood. It must be\nthat the High-priest in heaven has power to save continually and\ncompletely. Whenever help is needed, He is living. But He ever lives\nthat He may intercede.[134] Apart from intercession on behalf of men,\nHis power is not moral. It has no greatness or joy, or meaning.\nIntercession is the moral content of His powerful existence. Whenever\nhelp is needed, He is living, and is mighty[135] to save from sin, to\nrescue from death, to deliver from its fear.\n\nTo prove that Christ's eternal priesthood involves power and\nintercession is the purpose of the next verses.[136] Such a High-priest,\npowerful to save and ever living to intercede, is the only One befitting\nus, who are at once helpless and guilty. The Apostle triumphantly\nunfolds the glory of this conception of a high-priest. He means Christ.\nBut he is too triumphant to name Him. \"Such a high-priest befits us.\"\nThe power of His heavenly life implies the highest development of moral\ncondition. He will address God with holy reverence.[137] He will succour\nmen without a tinge of malice,[138] which is but another way of saying\nthat He wishes them well from the depth of His heart. He must not be\nsullied by a spot of moral defilement[139] (for purity only can face God\nor love men). He must be set apart for His lofty function from the\nsinners for whom He intercedes. He must enter the true holiest place and\nstand in awful solitariness above the heavens of worlds and angels in\nthe immediate presence of God. Further, He must not be under the\nnecessity of leaving the holiest place to renew His sacrifice, as the\nhigh-priests of the old covenant had need to offer, through the priests,\nnew sacrifices every day through the year for themselves and for the\npeople--yea, for themselves first, then for the people--before they\ndared re-enter within the veil.[140] For Christ offered Himself. Such a\nsacrifice, once offered, was sufficient for ever.\n\nTo sum up.[141] The Law appoints men high-priests; the word, which God\nhas spoken unto us in His Son, appoints the Son Himself High-priest. The\nLaw appoints men high-priests in their weakness; the word appoints the\nSon in His final and complete attainment of all perfection. But the Law\nwill yield to the word. For the word, which had gone before the Law in\nthe promise made to Abraham, was not superseded by the Law, but came\nalso after it in the stronger form of an oath, of which the old covenant\nknew nothing.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[117] Ps. cx. 4.\n\n[118] Matt. xxii. 45.\n\n[119] Zech. vi. 11, 13.\n\n[120] _SS. Legg. Alleg._, iii. (vol. i., p. 103. Mang.).\n\n[121] Chap. vii. 6-10.\n\n[122] =ep' aut\u00eas= (vii. 11).\n\n[123] Cf. chap. vi. 1.\n\n[124] =Anatetalken=. Cf. Zech. vi. 12. =Anatol\u00ea=, _dawn_. The citation,\nas usual, is from the Septuagint.\n\n[125] Chap. vii. 14.\n\n[126] Chap. vii. 16.\n\n[127] =athet\u00easis=, _a setting aside_ (chap. vii. 18).\n\n[128] =ouden etelei\u00f4sen= (vii. 19).\n\n[129] =epeisag\u00f4g\u00ea=.\n\n[130] Chap. vii. 20-22.\n\n[131] =engyos=.\n\n[132] =emesiteusen= (vi. 17)\n\n[133] Chap. vii. 23-25.\n\n[134] Chap. vii. 25.\n\n[135] =dynatai=, the emphatic word in the passage.\n\n[136] Chap. vii. 26.\n\n[137] =hosios=.\n\n[138] =akakos=.\n\n[139] =amiantos=.\n\n[140] Chap. vii. 27.\n\n[141] Chap. vii. 28.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\n_THE NEW COVENANT._\n\n\n \"Now in the things which we are saying the chief point _is this_: We\n have such a High-priest, Who sat down on the right hand of the\n throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a Minister of the sanctuary,\n and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man. For\n every high-priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices:\n wherefore it is necessary that this _High-priest_ also have somewhat\n to offer. Now if He were on earth, He would not be a Priest at all,\n seeing there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law; who\n serve _that which is_ a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, even\n as Moses is warned _of God_ when he is about to make the tabernacle:\n for, See, saith He, that thou make all things according to the\n pattern that was showed thee in the mount. But now hath He obtained\n a ministry the more excellent, by how much also He is the Mediator\n of a better covenant, which hath been enacted upon better\n promises.\"--HEB. viii. 1-6 (R.V.).\n\n\nThe Apostle has interpreted the beautiful story of Melchizedek with\nwonderful felicity and force. The point of the whole Epistle, he now\ntells us, lies there. He has brought forth the headstone of the corner,\nthe keystone of the arch.[142] It is, in short, that we have such a\nHigh-priest. Country, holy city, ark of the covenant, all are lost. But\nif we have the High-priest, all are restored to us in a better and more\nenduring form. Jesus is the High-priest and King. He has taken His seat\nonce for all, as King, on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty,\nand, as Priest, is also Minister of the sanctuary and of the true\ntabernacle. The indefinite and somewhat unusual term \"minister\" or\n\"public servant\"[143] is intentionally chosen, partly to emphasise the\ncontrast between Christ's kingly dignity and His priestly service,\npartly because the author wishes to explain at greater length in what\nChrist's actual work as High-priest in heaven consists. For Christ's\nheavenly glory is a life of service, not of selfish gratification. Every\nhigh-priest serves.[144] He is appointed for no other purpose than to\noffer gifts and sacrifices. The Apostle's readers admitted that Christ\nwas High-priest. But they were forgetting that, as such, He too must\nnecessarily minister and have something which He can offer. Our theology\nis still in like danger. We are sometimes prone to regard Christ's life\nin heaven as only a state of exaltation and power, and, consequently, to\nspeak more of the saints' happiness than of their service. It is the\nnatural result of superficial theories of the Atonement that little\npractical use is made by many Christians of the truth of Christ's\npriestly intercession. The debt has been paid, the debtor discharged,\nand the transaction ended. Christ's present activity towards God is\nacknowledged and--neglected. Protestants are confirmed in this baneful\nworldliness of conception by their just desire to keep at a safe\ndistance from the error in the opposite extreme: that Christ presents to\nGod the Church's sacrifices of the mass.\n\nThe truth lies midway between two errors. On the one hand, Christ's\nintercession is not itself the making or constituting of a sacrifice; on\nthe other, it is not mere pleading and prayer. The sacrifice was made\nand completed on the Cross, as the victims were slain in the outer\ncourt. But it was through the blood of those victims the high-priest had\nauthority to enter the holiest place; and when he had entered, he must\nsprinkle the warm blood, and so present the sacrifice to God. Similarly\nChrist must enter a sanctuary in order to present the sacrifice slain on\nCalvary. The words of the Apostle John, \"We have an Advocate with the\nFather,\" express only one side of the truth. But he adds the other side\nof the conception in the same verse, \"And He is the propitiation,\" which\nis a very different thing from saying, \"His death was the propitiation.\"\nBut what sanctuary shall He enter? He could not approach the holiest\nplace in the earthly temple. For if He were on earth, He would not be a\nPriest at all, seeing there are men ordained by the Law to offer the\nappointed gifts on earth.[145] The Jewish priests have satisfied and\nexhausted the idea of an earthly priesthood. Even Melchizedek could not\nfound an order. If he may be regarded as an attempt to acclimatise on\nearth the priesthood of personal greatness, the attempt was a failure.\nIt always fails, though it is always renewed. On earth there can be no\norder of goodness. When a great saint appears among men, he is but a\nbird of passage, and is not to be found, because God has translated him.\nIf it is so of His saints, what of Christ? Christ on earth through the\nages? Impossible! And what is impossible to-day will be equally\ninconceivable at any point of time in the future. A correct conception\nof Christ's priestly intercession is inconsistent with the dream of a\nreign of Christ on earth. It may, or may not, be consistent with His\nkingly office. But His priesthood forbids. We infer that Christ has\ntransformed the heaven of glory into the holiest place of a temple, and\nthe throne of God into a shrine before which He, as High-priest,\npresents His sacrifice.\n\nThe Jewish priesthood itself teaches the existence of a heavenly\nsanctuary.[146] All the arrangements of tabernacle and ritual were made\nafter a pattern shown to Moses on Mount Sinai. The priests, in the\ntabernacle and through their ritual, ministered to the holiest place, as\nthe visible image and outline of the real holiest place--that is,\nheaven--which the Lord pitched, not man.\n\nNow Christ's more excellent ministry as High-priest in heaven carries in\nits bosom all that the Apostle contends for,--the establishment of a new\ncovenant which has set aside for ever the covenant of the Law. \"He has\nobtained a ministry the more excellent by how much He is the Mediator\nof a better covenant.\"[147] These words contain in a nutshell the entire\nargument, or series of arguments, that extends from the sixth verse of\nthe eighth chapter to the eighteenth verse of the tenth. The course of\nthought may be divided as follows:--\n\n1. That the Lord intends to establish a new covenant is first of all\nshown by a citation from the prophet Jeremiah (viii. 7-13).\n\n2. A description of the tabernacle and of the entrance of the priests\nand high-priests into it teaches that the way into the holiest place was\nnot yet open to men. This is contrasted with the entering of Christ into\nheaven through His own blood, which proves that He has obtained for us\nan eternal redemption and is Mediator of a new covenant, founded on His\ndeath (ix. 1-18).\n\n3. The frequent entering of the high-priest into the holiest place is\ncontrasted with the one death of Christ and His entering heaven once.\nThis proves the power of His sacrifice and intercession to bring in the\nbetter covenant and set aside the former one (ix. 25-x. 18).\n\n\nI. A NEW COVENANT PROMISED THROUGH JEREMIAH.\n\n \"For if that first covenant had been faultless, then would no place\n have been sought for a second. For finding fault with them, He\n saith,\n\n Behold, the days come, saith the Lord,\n That I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and\n with the house of Judah;\n Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers\n In the day that I took them by the hand to lead them forth\n out of the land of Egypt;\n For they continued not in My covenant,\n And I regarded them not, saith the Lord.\n For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel\n After those days, saith the Lord;\n I will put My laws into their mind,\n And on their heart also will I write them:\n And I will be to them a God,\n And they shall be to Me a people:\n And they shall not teach every man his fellow-citizen,\n And every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord:\n For all shall know Me,\n From the least to the greatest of them.\n For I will be merciful to their iniquities,\n And their sins will I remember no more.\n\n In that He saith, A new covenant, He hath made the first old. But\n that which is becoming old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing\n away.\"--HEB. viii. 7-13 (R.V.).\n\nThe more spiritual men under the dispensation of law anticipated a new\nand better era. The Psalmist had spoken of another day, and prophesied\nof the appearance of a Priest after the order of Melchizedek and a Son\nof David Who would also be David's Lord. But Jeremiah is very bold, and\nsays[148] that the covenant itself on which the hope of his nation hangs\nwill pass away, and his dream of a more spiritual covenant, established\non better promises, will at some distant day come true. It is well to\nbear in mind that this discontent with the present order lodged in the\nhearts, not of the worst, but of the best and greatest, sons of Judaism.\nIt was the salt of their character, the life of their inspiration, the\nmessage of their prophecy. In days of national distress and despair,\nthis star shone the brighter for the darkness. The terrible shame of the\nCaptivity and the profound agony that followed it were lit up with the\nglorious vision of a better future in store for the people of God. On\nthe quivering lips of the prophet that \"sat weeping,\" as he is described\nin the Septuagint,[149] this strong hope found utterance. He had washed\nthe dust of worldliness from his eyes with tears, and, therefore, saw\nmore clearly than the men of his time the threatened downfall of Judah\nand the bright dawn beyond. In reading his prophecy of the new covenant\nwe almost cease to wonder that some persons thought Jesus was Jeremiah\nrisen from the dead. The prophet's words have the same ring of undaunted\ncheerfulness, of intense compassion, of prophetic faith; and Christ, as\nwell as the Apostle, cites His prediction that all shall be taught of\nGod.[150]\n\nJeremiah blames the people.[151] But the Apostle infers that the\ncovenant itself was not faultless, inasmuch as the prophet seeks, in his\ncensure of the people, to make room for another covenant. We have\nalready been told that there was on earth no room for the priesthood of\nChrist.[152] Similarly, in the sphere of earthly nationality, there was\nno room for a covenant other than that which God had made with His\npeople Israel when He brought them out of the land of Egypt. But the\nearthly priesthood could not give efficacy to its ministering, and thus\nroom is found for a heavenly priesthood. So also, the covenant on which\nthe earthly priesthood rested being inadequate, the prophet makes room\nfor the introduction of a new and better covenant.\n\nNow the peculiar character of the old covenant was that it dealt with\nmen in the aggregate which we call the nation. Nationalism is the\ndistinctive feature of the old world, within the precincts of Judaism\nand among the peoples of heathendom. Even the prophets could not see the\nspiritual truth, which they themselves foretold, except through the\nmedium of nationality. The Messiah was the national king idealised, even\nwhen He was a Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. In the passage\nbefore us the prophet Jeremiah speaks of God's promise to write His law\non the heart as made to the house of Judah and the house of Israel, as\nif he were not aware that, in so speaking, he was really contradicting\nhimself. For the blessing promised was a spiritual and, consequently,\npersonal one, with which nationality cannot possibly have any sort of\nconnection. It is a matter of profound joy to every lover of his people\nto witness and share in the uprising of a national consciousness. Some\namong us are beginning to know now for the first time that a national\nideal is possible in thought, and sentiment, and life. But there must\nnot, cannot, be a nationality in religion. A moral law in the heart does\nnot recognise the quality of the blood that circulates through. This\ntruth the prophets strove to utter, often in vain. Yet the breaking up\nof the nation into Judah and Israel helped to dispel the illusion. The\nloss of national independence prepared for the universalism of Jesus\nChrist and St. Paul. Now also, when an epistle is written to the Hebrew\nChristians, the threatened extinction of nationality drives men to seek\nthe bond of union in a more stable covenant, which will save them, if\nanything can, from the utter collapse of all religious fellowship and\ncivil society. It is the glory of Christianity that it creates the\nindividual and at the same moment keeps perfectly clear of\nindividualism. Its blessings are personal, but they imply a covenant. If\nnationalism has been dethroned, individualism has not climbed to the\nvacant seat. How it achieves this great result will be understood from\nan examination of Jeremiah's prophecy.\n\nThe new covenant deals with the same fundamental conceptions which\ndominated the former one. These are the moral law, knowledge of God, and\nforgiveness of sin. So far the two dispensations are one. Because these\ngreat conceptions lie at the root of all human goodness, religion is\nessentially the same thing under both covenants. There is a sense in\nwhich St. Augustine was right in speaking of the saints under the old\nTestament as \"Christians before Christ.\" Judaism and Christianity stand\nshoulder to shoulder over against the religious ideas and practices of\nall the heathen nations of the world. But in Judaism these sublime\nconceptions are undeveloped. Nationalism dwarfs their growth. They are\nlike seeds falling on the thorns, and the thorns grow up and choke them.\nGod, therefore, spoke unto the Jews in parables, in types and shadows.\nSeeing, they saw not; and hearing, they heard not, neither did they\nunderstand.\n\nBecause the former covenant was a national one, the conceptions of the\nmoral law, of God, of sin and its forgiveness, would be narrow and\nexternal. The moral law would be embedded in the national code. God\nwould be revealed in the history of the nation. Sin would consist either\nin faults of ignorance and inadvertence or in national apostasy from the\ntheocratic King. In these three respects the new covenant excels,--in\nrespect, that is, of the moral law, knowledge of God, and forgiveness of\nsin, which yet may be justly regarded as the three sides of the\nrevelation given under the former covenant.\n\n1. The moral law will either forget its own holiness, righteousness, and\ngoodness, and degenerate into national rules of conduct, or else, by the\ninnate force of its spirituality, create in men a consciousness of sin\nand a strong desire for reconciliation with God. Men will resist, and,\nwhen resistance is vain, will chafe against its terrible strength. \"The\nLaw came in beside, that the trespass might abound.\"[153] But it often\nhappens that guilt of conscience is the alarum that awakens moral\nself-consciousness out of sleep, never to fall asleep again when\nholiness has found entrance into the soul. Beyond this the old covenant\nadvanced not a step. The promise of the new covenant is to put the Law\ninto the mind, not in an ark of shittim wood, and to write it in the\nheart, not on tables of stone. The Law was given on Sinai as an external\ncommandment; it is put into the mind as a knowledge of moral truth. It\nwas written on the two tables in the weakness of the letter; on the\nheart it is written as a principle and a power of obedience. The power\nof God to command becomes the strength of man to obey. In this way the\nnew covenant realises what the former covenant demanded. The new\ncovenant is the old covenant transformed, made spiritual. God is become\nthe God of His people; and this was the promise of the former covenant.\nThey are no more children, as they were when God took them by the hand\nand led them out of the land of Egypt. Instead of the external guidance,\nthey have the unction within, and know all things. Renewed in the spirit\nof their mind, they put on the new man, which after God is created in\nrighteousness and the holiness of truth.\n\n2. So also of knowing God. The moral attributes of the Most High are\nrevealed under the former covenant, and the God of the Old Testament is\nthe God of the New. Abraham knows Him as the everlasting God. Elisha\nunderstands that there is no darkness or shadow of death where the\nworkers of iniquity may hide themselves. Balaam declares that God is not\na man that He should lie. The Psalmist confesses to God that he cannot\nflee from His presence. The father of believers fears not to ask, \"Shall\nnot the Judge of the earth do right?\" Moses recognises that the Lord is\nlongsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression.\nIsaiah hears the seraphim crying one to another, \"Holy, holy, holy, is\nthe Lord of hosts.\" But nationalism distorted the image. The conception\nof God's Fatherhood is most indistinct. When, however, Christ taught His\ndisciples to say in prayer, \"Our Father,\" He could then at once add the\nwords \"Who art in heaven.\" The spirit of man rose immediately with a\nmighty upheaval above the narrow bounds of nationalism. The attributes\nof God became more lofty as well as more amiable to the eyes of His\nchildren. The God of a nation is not great enough to be our Father. The\nGod Who is our Father is God in heaven.\n\nNot only are God's attributes revealed, but the faculty to know Him is\nalso bestowed. The moral law and a heart to love it are the two elements\nof a knowledge of God's nature. For God Himself is holiness and love. In\nvain will men cry one to another, saying, \"Know the Lord.\" As well might\nthey bid the blind behold the light, or the wicked love purity.\nKnowledge of nature can be taught. It can be parcelled in propositions,\ncarried about, and handed to others. But the character of God is not a\nnotion, and cannot be taught as a lesson or in a creed, however true the\ncreed may be. The two opposite ends of all our knowledge are our\nsensations and God. In one respect the two are alike. Knowledge of them\ncannot be conveyed in words.\n\n3. The only thing concerning God that can be known by a man who is not\nholy himself is that He will punish the impenitent, and can forgive.\nThese are objective facts. They may be announced to the world, and\nbelieved. In the history of all holy men, under the Old Testament as\nwell as under the New, they are their first lesson in spiritual\ntheology. To say that penitent sinners under the Law could not be\nabsolved from guilt or taste the sweetness of God's forgiving grace must\nbe false. St. Paul himself, who describes the Law as a covenant that\n\"gendereth to bondage,\" cites the words of the Psalmist, \"Blessed is he\nwhose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered,\" to prove that\nGod imputes righteousness without works.[154] When the Apostle Peter was\ndeclaring that all the prophets witness to Jesus Christ, that through\nHis name whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins, the\nHoly Ghost fell on all who heard the word. The very promise which\nJeremiah says will be fulfilled under the future covenant Isaiah claims\nfor his own days: \"I, even I, am He that blotteth out thy transgressions\nfor Mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.\"[155]\n\nOn the other hand, it is equally plain that St. Paul and the author of\nthis Epistle agree in teaching that the sacrifices of the old covenant\nhad in them no virtue to remove guilt. They cannot take away sin, and\nthey cannot remove the consciousness of sin.[156] The writer evidently\nconsiders it sufficient to state the impossibility, without labouring to\nprove it. His readers' consciences would bear him out in the assertion\nthat it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take\naway sins.\n\nIt remains--and it is the only supposition left to us--that peace of\nconscience must have been the result of another revelation, simultaneous\nwith the covenant of the Law, but differing from it in purpose and\ninstruments. Such a revelation would be given through the prophets, who\nstood apart as a distinct order from the priesthood. They were the\npreachers. They quickened conscience, and spoke of God's hatred of sin\nand willingness to forgive. Every advance in the revelation came through\nthe prophets, not through the priests. The latter represent the\nstationary side of the covenant, but the prophets hold before the eyes\nof men the idea of progress. What, then, was the weakness of prophecy in\nreference to forgiveness of sin when compared with the new covenant? The\nprophets predicted a future redemption. This was their strength. It was\nalso their weakness. For that future was not balanced by an equally\ngreat past. However glorious the history of the nation had been, it was\nnot strong enough to bear the weight of so transcendent a future. Every\nnation that believes in the greatness of its own future already\npossesses a great past. If not, it creates one. Mythology and\nhero-worship are the attempt of a people to erect their future on a\nsufficient foundation. But men had not experienced anything great enough\nto inspire them with a living faith in the reality of the promises which\nthe prophets announced. Sin had not been atoned for. The Christian\npreacher can point to the wonderful but well-assured facts of the life\nand death of Jesus Christ. If he could not do this, or if he neglects to\ndo it, feeble and unreal will sound his proclamation of the terrors and\njoys of the world to come. The Gospel has for one of its primary objects\nto appease the guilty conscience. How it achieves this purpose our\nauthor will tell us in another chapter. For the present all we learn is\nthat knowledge of God is knowledge of His moral nature, and that this\nknowledge belongs to the man whose moral consciousness has been\nquickened. The evangelical doctrine that the source of holiness is\nthankfulness was well meant, as an antidote to legalism on the one hand\nand to Antinomianism on the other. The sinner, we were told, once\nredeemed from the curse of the Law and delivered from the danger of\nperdition, begins to love the Christ Who redeemed and saved him. The\ndoctrine contains a truth, and is applicable to this extent; that he to\nwhom much is forgiven loveth much. But it would not be true to say that\nall good men have sought God's forgiveness because they feared hell\ntorments. To some their guilt is their hell. Fear is too narrow a\nfoundation of holiness. We cannot explain saintliness by mere gratitude.\nFor \"thankfulness\" we must write \"conscience,\" and substitute\nforgiveness and absolution from guilt for safety from future misery, if\nwe would lay a foundation broad and firm enough on which to erect the\nsublimest holiness of man.\n\nOur author infers from the words of Jeremiah that there was an inherent\ndecay in the former covenant. It was itself ready to vanish away, and\nmake room for a new and more spiritual one.[157]\n\n\nII. A NEW COVENANT SYMBOLIZED IN THE TABERNACLE.\n\n \"Now even the first covenant had ordinances of divine service, and\n its sanctuary, a sanctuary of this world. For there was a tabernacle\n prepared, the first, wherein were the candlestick, and the table,\n and the shewbread; which is called the Holy place. And after the\n second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holy of holies;\n having a golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round\n about with gold, wherein was a golden pot holding the manna, and\n Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant; and above\n it cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy-seat; of which we\n cannot now speak severally. Now these things having been thus\n prepared, the priests go in continually into the first tabernacle,\n accomplishing the services; but into the second the high-priest\n alone, once in the year, not without blood, which he offereth for\n himself, and for the errors of the people: the Holy Ghost this\n signifying, that the way into the holy place hath not yet been made\n manifest, while as the first tabernacle is yet standing; which is a\n parable for the time now present; according to which are offered\n both gifts and sacrifices that cannot, as touching the conscience,\n make the worshipper perfect, being only (with meats and drinks and\n divers washings) carnal ordinances, imposed until a time of\n reformation. But Christ having come a High-priest of the good things\n to come, through the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made\n with hands, that is to say, not of this creation, nor yet through\n the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, entered in\n once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal\n redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the ashes of a\n heifer sprinkling them that have been defiled, sanctify unto the\n cleanness of the flesh: how much more shall the blood of Christ, Who\n through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish unto God,\n cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living\n God?\"--HEB. ix. 1-14 (R.V.).\n\nWith the words of a prophet the Apostle contrasts the ritual of the\npriests. Jeremiah prophesied of a better covenant, because he found the\nformer one did not satisfy conscience. A description of the tabernacle,\nits furniture and ordinances of Divine service, follows. At first it\nappears strange that the author should have thought it necessary to\nenumerate in detail what the tabernacle contained. But to infer that he\nis a Hellenist, to whom the matter had all the charm of novelty, would\nbe very precarious. His purpose is to show that the way of the holiest\nwas not yet open. The tabernacle consisted of two chambers: the foremost\nand larger of the two, called the sanctuary, and an inner one, called\nthe holiest of all. Now the sanctuary had its furniture and stated\nrites. It was not a mere vestibule or passage leading to the holiest.\nThe eighth verse, literally rendered, expresses that the outer\nsanctuary \"held a position.\"[158] Its furniture was for daily use. The\ncandelabrum supported the seven lamps, which gave light to the\nministering priests. The shewbread, laid on the table in rows of twelve\ncakes, was eaten by Aaron and his sons. Into this chamber the priests\nwent always, accomplishing the daily services. Moreover, between the\nholy place and the holiest of all hung a thick veil. Into the holiest\nthe high-priest only was permitted to enter, and he could only enter on\nthe annual day of atonement. This chamber also had its proper furniture.\nTo it belonged[159] the altar of incense (for so we must read in the\nfourth verse, instead of \"golden censer\"), although its actual place was\nin the outer sanctuary. It stood in front of the veil that the\nhigh-priest might take the incense from it, without which he was not\npermitted to enter the holiest; and when he came out, he sprinkled it\nwith blood as he had sprinkled the holiest place itself. In the inner\nchamber stood the ark of the covenant, containing the pot of manna,\nAaron's rod that budded, and the two tables of stone on which the Ten\nCommandments were written. On the ark was the mercy-seat, and above the\nmercy-seat were the cherubim. But there were no lamps to give light;\nthere was no shewbread for food. The glory of the Lord filled it, and\nwas the light thereof. When the high-priest had performed the atoning\nrites, he was not permitted to stay within. It is evident that\nreconciliation through blood was the idea symbolized by the holiest\nplace, its furniture, and the yearly rite performed within it. But the\nveil and the outer chamber stood between the sinful people and the\nmercy-seat. Our author ascribes this arrangement of the two chambers,\nthe veil, and the one entrance every year of the high-priest into the\ninner shrine, to the Holy Spirit, Who teaches men by symbol[160] that\nthe way to God is not yet open. But He also teaches them through the\nordinances of the outer sanctuary that access to God is a necessity of\nconscience, and yet that the gifts and sacrifices there offered cannot\nsatisfy conscience, resting, as they do, only on meats and drinks and\ndivers washings. All we can say of them is that they were the\nrequirements of natural conscience, here termed \"flesh,\" and that these\ndemands of human consciousness of guilt were sanctioned and imposed on\nmen by God provisionally, until the time came for restoring permanently\nthe long-lost peace between God and men.\n\nContrast with all this the ministry of Christ. He made His appearance on\nearth as High-priest of the things which have now at length come to\nus.[161] The blessings prophesied by Jeremiah have been realised. As\nHigh-priest He entered the true holiest place, a tabernacle greater and\nmore perfect, even heaven itself.[162] It is greater; that is, larger.\nThe outer sanctuary has ceased to exist, because the veil has been rent\nin twain, and the holy place has been taken into the holiest place. The\ntabernacle has now only one chamber, and in that chamber God meets all\nHis worshipping saints, who come to Him through and with Jesus, the\nHigh-priest. The tabernacle of God is with men, and He shall dwell, as\nin the tabernacle, with them, and they shall be His peoples, and God\nHimself shall be with them.[163] Yea, the holiest place has spread\nitself over Mount Zion, on which stood the king's palace, and over the\nwhole city of Jerusalem, which lieth four-square, and is become the\nheavenly and holy city, having no temple, because the Lord God Almighty\nand the Lamb are the temple thereof. \"And the city hath no need of the\nsun, neither of the moon, to shine upon it; for the glory of God\nlightens it, and the lamp thereof is the Lamb.\" The city and the holiest\nplace are commensurate. So large, indeed, is the holiest that the\nnations shall walk amidst the light thereof. It is also more\nperfect.[164] For Christ has entered into the presence of God for us.\nSuch a tabernacle is not constructed of the materials of this\nworld,[165] nor fashioned with the hands of cunning artificers, Bezaleel\nand Aholiab. When Christ destroyed the sanctuary made with hands, in\nthree days He built another made without hands. In a true sense it is\nnot made at all, not even by the hands of Him Who built all things; for\nit is essentially God's presence. Into this holiest place Christ\nentered, to appear in the immediate presence of God. But the Apostle is\nnot satisfied with saying that He entered within. Ten thousand times ten\nthousand of His saints will do this. He has done more. He went\n_through_[166] the holiest. He has passed through the heavens.[167] He\nhas been made higher than the heavens.[168] He has taken His seat on the\nright hand of God.[169] The Melchizedek Priest has ascended to the\nmercy-seat and made it His throne. He is Himself henceforth the\nshechinah, and the manifested glory of the unseen Father. All this is\nexpressed in the words \"through a greater and more perfect tabernacle.\"\n\nMoreover, the high-priest entered into the holiest place in virtue of\nthe blood of goats and calves.[170] Add, if you will, the ceremony of\ncleansing a person who had contracted defilement by touching a dead\nbody.[171] He also was cleansed by having the ashes of a heifer\nsprinkled upon his flesh. Why, the very defilement is unreal and\nartificial. To touch a dead body a sin! It may have been well to make it\na crime from sanitary considerations, and it may become a sin because\nGod has forbidden it. So far it touched conscience. When Elijah\nstretched himself upon the dead child of the widow of Zarephath three\ntimes, and the soul of the child came into him again, or when Elisha put\nhis mouth upon the mouth of the dead son of the Shunammite, his eyes\nupon his eyes, and his hands upon his hands, and the flesh of the child\nwaxed warm, God's holy prophet was defiled! The mother and the child\nmight bring their thank-offering to the sanctuary; but the prophet, who\nhad done the deed of power and mercy, was excluded from joining in\nthanksgiving and prayer. If the defilement is unreal, what shall we\nthink of the means of cleansing? To touch a dead child defiles, but the\ntouch of the ashes of a burnt heifer cleanses! Yet natural conscience\nfelt guilty when thus defiled, and recovered itself, in some measure,\nfrom its shame when thus made clean.[172] Such men resemble the persons,\nreferred to by St. Paul, who have \"a conscience of the idol.\"[173]\nJudaism enfeebled the conscience. A man of morbid religious sentiment\nis often defiled in his own eyes by what is not really wrong, and often\nfinds peace and comfort in what is not really a propitiation or a\nforgiveness.\n\nOn the other hand, Christ entered the true holiest place by His own\nblood. He offered Himself. The High-priest is the sacrifice. Under the\nold covenant the victim must be \"without spot.\" But the high-priest was\nnot without blemish, and he offered for himself as well as for the\nerrors of the people. But in the offering of Christ, the spotless purity\nof the Victim ensures that the High-priest Himself is holy, harmless,\nundefiled, separate from sinners. For this reason it is said here[174]\nthat He offered Himself \"through an eternal spirit,\" or, as we should\nsay in modern phrase, \"through His eternal personality.\" He is the\nHigh-priest after the order of Melchizedek; and He invests the sacrifice\nwith all the personal greatness of the High-priest. Is He \"without\nbeginning of days or end of life\"? So also His sacrifice abides for\never. His power of an indissoluble life belongs to His atonement. Is He\nuntouched by the rolling stream of time? His death was of infinite merit\nin reference to the past and to the future, though it took place\nhistorically at the end of the ages. His eternal personality made it\nunnecessary for Him to suffer often since the foundation of the world.\nBecause of His personal greatness, it sufficed that He should suffer\nonce only and enter once into the holiest place. The eternal High-priest\nin one transitory act of death offered a sacrifice that remains\neternally, and obtains for us an eternal redemption. If, then, the blood\nof goats and bulls and the ashes of an heifer appease, in some measure,\nthe weak, frightened conscience of unenlightened nature, how much more\nshall the conscious, voluntary sacrifice of this eternal, personal Son\ndeliver the conscience of him who worships, not a phantom deity, but an\neternal, personal, living God, from the guilt of dead works, and bring\nhim to worship that living God with an eternal, living personality!\n\nMark the contrasted notions. The brute life, dragged to the altar,\nlittle knowing that its hot blood is to be a propitiation for human\nguilt, is contrasted with the blood of the Christ (for there is but\none), Who, with the consciousness and strength of an eternal\npersonality, willingly offers Himself as a sacrifice. Between these two\nlives are all the lives which God created, human and angelic. Yet the\noffering of a beast in some fashion and to some degree appeased\nconscience, unillumined by the fierce light of God's holiness and\nuntouched by the pathos of Christ's death. With this imperfect and\nnegative peace, or, to speak more correctly, truce, of conscience is\ncontrasted the living, eager worship of him whose enlightened conscience\nhas been purified from spiritual defilement by the blood of Christ. Such\na man's entire service is worship, and his worship is the ministering of\na priest.[175] He stands in the congregation of the righteous, and\nascends unto God's holy hill. He enters the holiest place with Christ.\nHe draws near with boldness to the mercy-seat, now the very throne\nitself of grace.\n\nIt will be seen, if we have rightly traced the line of thought, that the\nouter sanctuary no longer exists. The larger and more perfect tabernacle\nis the holiest place itself, when the veil has been removed, and the\nsanctuary and courts are all included in the expanded holiest. Several\nvery able expositors deny this. They find an antitype of the holy place\neither in the body of Christ or in the created heavens, through which He\nhas passed into the immediate presence of God. But this introduces\nconfusion, adds nothing of value to the meaning of the type, and is\ninconsistent with our author's express statement that the way into the\nholiest was not yet open so long as the holy place stood.\n\n\nIII. A NEW COVENANT RATIFIED IN THE DEATH OF CHRIST.\n\n \"And for this cause He is the Mediator of a new covenant, that a\n death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions\n that were under the first covenant, they that have been called may\n receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. For where a\n testament is, there must of necessity be the death of him that made\n it. For a testament is of force where there hath been death; for\n doth it ever avail while he that made it liveth? Wherefore even the\n first covenant hath not been dedicated without blood. For when every\n commandment had been spoken by Moses unto all the people according\n to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with\n water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book\n itself, and all the people, saying, This is the blood of the\n covenant which God commanded to you-ward. Moreover the tabernacle\n and all the vessels of the ministry he sprinkled in like manner with\n the blood. And according to the Law, I may almost say, all things\n are cleansed with blood, and apart from shedding of blood there is\n no remission. It was necessary therefore that the copies of the\n things in the heavens should be cleansed with these; but the\n heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For\n Christ entered not into a holy place made with hands, like in\n pattern to the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear before\n the face of God for us: nor yet that He should offer Himself often;\n as the high-priest entereth into the holy place year by year with\n blood not his own; else must He often have suffered since the\n foundation of the world: but now once at the end of the ages hath He\n been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And\n inasmuch as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this\n cometh judgment; so Christ also, having been once offered to bear\n the sins of many, shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to\n them that wait for Him, unto salvation. For the Law having a shadow\n of the good _things_ to come, not the very image of the things, they\n can never with the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer\n continually, make perfect them that draw nigh. Else would they not\n have ceased to be offered, because the worshippers, having been once\n cleansed, would have had no more conscience of sins? But in those\n _sacrifices_ there is a remembrance made of sins year by year. For\n it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away\n sins. Wherefore when He cometh into the world, He saith,\n\n Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldest not,\n But a body didst Thou prepare for Me:\n In whole burnt offerings and _sacrifices_ for sin Thou hadst\n no pleasure:\n Then said I, Lo, I am come\n (In the roll of the book it is written of Me)\n To do Thy will, O God.\n\n Saying above, Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and\n _sacrifices_ for sin Thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure\n therein (the which are offered according to the Law), then hath He\n said, Lo, I am come to do Thy will. He taketh away the first, that\n He may establish the second. By which will we have been sanctified\n through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And\n every priest indeed standeth day by day ministering and offering\n oftentimes the same sacrifices, the which can never take away sins:\n but He, when He had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat\n down on the right hand of God; from henceforth expecting till His\n enemies be made the footstool of His feet. For by one offering He\n hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. And the Holy Ghost\n also beareth witness to us: for after He hath said,\n\n This is the covenant that I will make with them\n After those days, saith the Lord;\n I will put My laws on their heart,\n And upon their mind also will I write them;\n\n _then saith He_,\n\n And their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.\n\n Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for\n sin.\"--HEB. ix. 15-x. 18 (R.V.).\n\nThe Apostle has proved that a new covenant was promised through the\nprophet and prefigured in the tabernacle. Christ is come to earth and\nentered into the holiest place of God, as High-priest. The inference is\nthat His high-priesthood has abolished the old covenant and ratified the\nnew. The priesthood has been changed, and change of the priesthood\nimplies change of the covenant. In fact, to this priesthood the rites\nof the former covenant pointed, and on it the priestly absolution\nrested. Sins were forgiven, but not in virtue of any efficacy supposed\nto belong to the rites or sacrifices, all of which were types of another\nand infinitely greater death. For a death has taken place for the\nredemption of all past transgressions, which had been accumulating under\nthe former covenant. Now at length sin has been put out of the way. The\nheirs of the promise made to Abraham, centuries before the giving of the\nLaw, come at last into possession of their inheritance. The call has\nsounded. The hour has struck. For this inheritance they waited till\nChrist should die. The earthly Canaan may pass from one race to another\nrace; but the unchangeable, eternal[176] inheritance, into which none\nbut the rightful heirs can enter, is incorruptible, undefiled, fading\nnot away, reserved in heaven for those who are kept[177] for its\npossession.\n\nBecause possession of it was delayed till Christ died, it may be likened\nto an inheritance bequeathed by a testator in his last will. For when a\nperson leaves property by will to another, the will is of no force, the\ntransference is not actually made, the property does not change hands,\nin the testator's lifetime. The transaction takes place after and in\nconsequence of his death. This may serve as an illustration. Its\npertinence as such is increased by the fact, which in all probability\nsuggested it to our author, that the same word would be used by a\nHebrew, writing in Greek, for \"covenant,\" and by a native of Greece for\n\"a testamentary disposition of property.\"[178] But it is only an\nillustration. We cannot suppose that it was intended to be anything\nmore.[179]\n\nTo return to argument, the blood of Christ may be shown to have ratified\na covenant from the use of blood by Moses to inaugurate the former\ncovenant. The Apostle has spoken before of the shedding and sprinkling\nof blood in sacrifice. When the high-priest entered into the holiest\nplace, he offered blood for himself and the people. But, besides its use\nin sacrifice, blood was sprinkled on the book of the law, on the\ntabernacle, and on all the vessels of the ministry. Without a copious\nstream, a veritable \"outflow\"[180] of blood, both as ratifying the\ncovenant and as offered in sacrifice, there was under the Law no\nremission of sins. Now the typical character of all the arrangements and\nordinances instituted by Moses is assumed throughout. Even the\npurification of the tabernacle and its vessels with blood must be\nsymbolical of a spiritual truth. There is, therefore, in the new\ncovenant a purification of the true holiest place. To make the matter\nstill more evident, the author reminds his readers of a fact, which he\nhas already mentioned,[181] in reference to the construction of the\ntabernacle. Moses was admonished of God to make it a copy and shadow of\nheavenly things. \"For, See, saith He, that thou make all things\naccording to the pattern showed to thee in the mount.\" It appears, then,\nthat not only the covenant was typical, but the tabernacle, its vessels,\nand the purifying of all with blood were a copy of things in the\nheavens, the true holiest place. And, inasmuch as the holiest place has\nnow, in Christ, included within it the sanctuary, and every veil and\nwall of partition has been removed, the purification of the tabernacle\ncorresponds to a purification, under the new covenant, of heaven itself.\n\nNot that the heaven of God is polluted. Even the earthly shrine had not\nitself contracted defilement. The blood sprinkled on the tabernacle and\nits vessels was not different from the blood of the sacrifice. As\nsacrificial blood, it consecrated the place, and was also offered to\nGod. Similarly the blood of Christ made heaven a sanctuary, erected\nthere a holiest place for the appearing of the great High-priest,\nconstituted the throne of the Most High a mercy-seat for men. By the\nsame act it became an offering to God, enthroned on the mercy-seat. The\ntwo notions of ratifying the covenant and atoning for sin cannot be\nseparated. For this reason our author says the heavenly things are\npurified with _sacrifices_. But as heaven is higher than the earth, as\nthe true holiest place excels the typical, so must the sacrifices that\npurify heaven be better than the sacrifices that purified the\ntabernacle. But Christ is great enough to make heaven itself a new\nplace, whereas He Himself remains unchanged, \"yesterday and to-day the\nsame, and for ever.\"\n\nThe thought of Christ's eternal oneness is apparently suggested to the\nApostle by the contrast between Christ and the purified heaven. But it\nhelps his argument. For the blood of Christ, when offered in heaven, so\nfully and perfectly ratified the new covenant that He remains for\nevermore in the holiest place and evermore offers Himself to God in one\neternally unbroken act. He did not enter heaven to come out again, as\nthe high-priests presented their offering repeatedly, year after year.\nThey could not do otherwise, because they entered \"with blood not their\nown,\" or, as we may render the word, \"with alien[182] blood.\" The blood\nof goats and bulls cannot take away sin. Consequently, the absolution\nobtained is unreal and, therefore, temporary in its effect. The blood of\nthe beasts must be renewed as the annual day of atonement comes round.\nIf Christ's offering of Himself had only a temporary efficacy, He must\noften have suffered since the foundation of the world. The forgiveness\nunder the former covenant put off the retribution for one year. St. Paul\nexpresses the same conception when he describes it as not a real\nforgiveness, but as \"the passing over[183] of the sins done aforetime,\nin the forbearance of God.\" The writer of the Epistle infers that, if\nChrist's sacrifice were meritorious for a time only, then He ought to\nhave repeated His offering whenever the period for which it was\nefficacious came to an end; and, inasmuch as His atonement was not\nrestricted to one nation, it would have been necessary for Him to appear\non earth repeatedly, and repeatedly die, not from the time of Moses or\nof Abraham, but from the foundation of the world. But our author has\nlong since said \"that the works were finished from the foundation of the\nworld.\"[184] God Himself after the work of creation entered on His\nSabbath rest. The Sabbath developed from initial creation to final\natonement, and, because Christ's atonement is final, He has perfected\nthe Sabbath eternally in the heavens. But the Sabbath of God would have\nbeen no Sabbath to the Son of God, but a constant recurrence of\nsufferings and deaths, if He did not finish transgression and atone for\nsin by His one death. \"Once, at the end of the ages,\" when the tale of\nsin and woe has been all told, \"hath He appeared,\" which proves that He\nhas finally and for ever put away sin through His one sacrifice.[185]\n\nThe Apostle speaks as one who believed that the end of the world was at\nhand. He even builds an argument on this to him assured fact of the near\nfuture. True, the end of the world was not yet. But the argument is\nequally valid in its essential bearing. For the important point is that\nChrist appeared on earth only once. Whether His one death occurred at\nthe beginning of human history, or at the end, or at the end of one\nperiod and the beginning of another, is immaterial.\n\nThen follows a very original piece of reasoning, plainly intended to be\nan additional proof that Christ's dying once put away sin for ever. To\nappear on earth often, and to die often, would have been impossible for\nHim. He was true man, of woman born, not an apparition, not an angel\nassuming the appearance of humanity, not the Son of God really and man\nonly seemingly. But it is appointed unto men once, and only once, to\ndie. After their one death comes, sooner or later, judgment. To return\nto earth and make a new beginning, to retrieve the errors and failures\nof a completed life, is not given to men. This is the Divine\nappointment. Exception to the Apostle's argument must not be taken from\nthe resurrection of Lazarus and others who were restored to life. The\nApostle speaks of God's usual course of action. So understood, it is\ndifficult to conceive how any words can be more decisive against the\ndoctrine of probation after death. For, however long judgment may tarry,\nour author acknowledges no possibility of changing any man's state or\ncharacter between death and the final award. On this impossibility of\nretrieving the past the force of the argument entirely depends. If\nChrist, Who was true man, failed in His one life and one death, the\nfailure is irretrievable. He cannot come again to earth and try anew. To\nHim, as to other men, it was appointed to die once only. In His case, as\nin the case of others, judgment follows death,--judgment irreversible on\nthe things done in the body. To add emphasis to the notion of finality\nin the work of Christ's life on earth, the Apostle uses the passive\nverb, \"was offered.\"[186] The offering, it is true, was made by Christ\nHimself. But here the deed is more emphatic than the Doer: \"He was\noffered once for all.\" The result of the offering is also emphasised:\n\"He was offered _so as_[187] to lift up sins, like a heavy burden, and\nbear them away for ever.\" Even the word \"many\" is not to be slurred\nover. It too indicates that the work of Christ was final; for the sins\nof _many_ have been put away.\n\nWhat will be the judgment on Christ's one redemptive death? Has it been\na failure? The answer is that His death and His coming into the judgment\nhave a closer relation to men than mere similarity. He entered into the\npresence of God as a sin-offering. He will be proved, at His second\nappearing, to have put away sin. For He will appear then apart from[188]\nsin. God will pronounce that Christ's blood has been accepted, and that\nHis work has been finished. His acquittal will be the acquittal of those\nwhose sins He bare in His body on the tree.\n\nNor will His appearing be now long delayed. It was already the end of\nthe ages when He first appeared. Therefore look out for Him with eager\nexpectancy[189] and upward gaze. For He will be once again actually\nbeheld by human eyes, and the vision will be unto salvation.\n\nWe must not fail to note that, when the Apostle speaks in this passage\nof Christ's being once offered, he refers to His death. The analogy\nbetween men and Christ breaks down completely if the death of Christ was\nnot the offering for sin. Faustus Socinus revived the Nestorian doctrine\nthat our author represents the earthly life and death of Jesus as a\nmoral preparation for the priesthood which was conferred upon Him at His\nascension to the right hand of God. The bearing of this interpretation\nof the Epistle on the Socinian doctrine generally is plain. A moral\npreparation there undoubtedly was, as the Apostle has shown in the\nsecond chapter. But if Christ was not Priest on earth, His death was not\nan atoning sacrifice. If He was not Priest, He was not Victim. Moreover,\nif He fills the office of Priest in heaven only, His priesthood cannot\ninvolve suffering and, therefore, cannot be an atonement. But the view\nis inconsistent with the Apostle's express statement that, \"as it is\nappointed unto men once to die, so Christ was once offered.\" Of course,\nwe cannot acquiesce in the opposite view that His death was Christ's\nonly priestly act, and that His life in heaven is such a state of\nexaltation as excludes the possibility of priestly service. For He is \"a\nMinister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord\npitched, not man,\"[190] The death of Christ was a distinct act of\npriestly service. But it must not be separated from His entering into\nheaven. Aaron received into his hands the blood of the newly slain\nvictim, and immediately carried the smoking blood into the holiest\nplace. The act of offering the blood before God was as necessary to\nconstitute the atonement as the previous act of slaying the animal.\nHence it is that the shedding and the sprinkling of the blood are spoken\nof as one and the same action. Christ, in like manner, went into the\ntrue holiest through His death. Any other way of entering heaven than\nthrough a sacrificial death would have destroyed the priestly character\nof His heavenly life. But His death would have been insufficient. He\nmust offer His blood and appear in the presence of God for us. To give\nmen access unto God was the ultimate purpose of redemption. He must,\ntherefore, consecrate through the veil of His flesh--a new and living\nway by which we may come unto God through Him.\n\nMust we, therefore, say that Christ entered the holiest place at His\ndeath, not at His ascension? Does the Apostle refer only to the entrance\nof the soul into the invisible world? The question is not an easy one.\nIf the Apostle means the Ascension, what doctrinal use does he make of\nthe interval between the Crucifixion and the Ascension? Many of the\nfathers are evidently at a loss to know what to make of this interval.\nThey think the Divine person, as well as the human soul, of Christ was\nconveyed to Hades to satisfy what they call the law of death. Does the\nEpistle to the Hebrews pass over in silence the descent into Hades and\nthe resurrection? On the other hand, if our author means that Christ\nentered the holiest place immediately at His death, we are met by the\ndifficulty that He leaves the holiest, to return finally at His\nascension, whereas the Apostle has argued that Christ differs from the\nhigh-priests under the former covenant in that He does not enter\nrepeatedly. Much of the confusion has arisen from the tendency of\ntheologians, under the influence of Augustine, to construct their\nsystems exclusively on the lines of St. Paul. In his Epistles atonement\nis a forensic conception. \"Through one act of righteousness the free\ngift came unto all men to the justification of life.\"[191] Consequently\nthe death of Christ is contrasted with His present life. \"For the death\nthat He died, He died unto sin once; but the life that He liveth, He\nliveth unto God.\"[192] But our author does not put his doctrine in a\nPauline framework. Instead of forensic notions, we meet with terms\npertaining to ritual and priesthood. What St. Paul speaks of as law is,\nin his language, a covenant, and what is designated justification in the\nEpistle to the Romans appears here as sanctification. Conscience is\npurified; the worshipper is perfected. The entering of the high-priest\ninto the holiest place is as prominent as the slaying of the victim.\nThese are two distinct, but inseparable, parts of one priestly action.\nAll that lies between is ignored. It is as if it were not. Christ\nentered into the holiest through His death and ascension to the right\nhand of the Majesty. But the initial and the ultimate stages of the act\nmust not be put asunder. Nothing comes between. Our author elsewhere\nspeaks of Christ's resurrection as a historical fact.[193] But His\nresurrection does not form a distinct notion in the idea of His entrance\ninto the holiest place.\n\nThe Apostle has spoken of the former covenant with surprising severity,\nnot to say harshness. It was the law of a carnal commandment; it has\nbeen set aside because of its weakness and unprofitableness; it has\ngrown old and waxed aged; it was nigh unto vanishing away. His austere\nlanguage will compare with St. Paul's description of heathenism as a\nbondage to weak and beggarly elements.\n\nThe root of all the mischief was unreality. Our author brings his\nargument to a close by contrasting the shadow and the substance, the\nunavailing sacrifices of the Law, which could only renew the remembrance\nof sins, and the sacrifice of the Son, which has fulfilled the will of\nGod.\n\nThe Law had only a shadow.[194] He is careful not to say that the Law\nwas itself but a shadow. On the contrary, the very promise includes that\nGod will put His laws in the heart and write them upon the mind. This\nwas one of \"the good things to come.\" Endless repetition of sacrifice\nafter sacrifice year by year in a weary round of ceremonies only made it\nmore and more evident that men were walking in a vain show and\ndisquieting themselves in vain. The Law was holy, righteous, and good;\nbut the manifestation of its nature in sacrifices was unreal, like the\ndark outline of an object that breaks the stream of light. Nothing more\nsubstantial, as a revelation of God's moral character; was befitting or\npossible in that stage of human development, when the purposes of His\ngrace also not seldom found expression in dreams of the night and\napparitions of the day.\n\nTo prove the unreal nature of these ever-recurring sacrifices, the\nwriter argues that otherwise they would have ceased to be offered,\ninasmuch as the worshippers, if they had been once really cleansed from\ntheir guilt, would have had no more conscience of sins.[195] The\nreasoning is very remarkable. It is not that God would have ceased to\nrequire sacrifices, but that the worshipper would have ceased to offer\nthem. It implies that, when a sufficient atonement for sin has been\noffered to God, the sinner knows it is sufficient, and, as the result,\nhas peace of conscience. The possibility of a pardoned sinner still\nfearing and doubting does not seem to have occurred to the Apostle. One\ndifference apparently between the saints under the Old Testament and\nbelievers under the New is the joyful assurance of pardon which the\nlatter receive, whereas the former were all their lifetime subject to\nbondage from fear of death, and that although in the one case the\nsacrifice was offered by the worshipper himself through the priest, but\nin the latter case by Another, even Christ, on his behalf. And we must\nnot ask the Apostle such questions as these: Are we not in danger of\ndeceiving ourselves? How is the assurance created and kept alive? Does\nit spring spontaneously in the heart, or is it the acceptance of the\nauthoritative absolution of God's ministers? Such problems were not\nthought of when the Epistle to the Hebrews was written. They belong to\na later and more subjective state of mind. To men who cannot leave off\nintrospection and forget themselves in the joy of a new faith, the\nApostle's argument will have little force and perhaps less meaning.\n\nIf the sacrifices were unreal, why, we naturally inquire, were they\ncontinually repeated? The answer is that there were two sides to the\nsacrificial rites of the old covenant. On the one hand, they were, like\nthe heathen gods, \"nothings;\" on the other, their empty shadowiness\nitself fitted them to be a Divinely appointed means to call sins to\nremembrance. They represented on the one side the invincible, though\nalways baffled, effort of natural conscience. For conscience was\nendeavouring to purify itself from a sense of guilt. But God also had a\npurpose in awakening and disciplining conscience. The worshipper sought\nto appease conscience through sacrifice, and God, by the same sacrifice,\nproclaimed that reconciliation had not been effected. The Apostle's\njudgment on the subject[196] is not different from St. Paul's answer to\nthe question, What then is the Law? \"It was added because of\ntransgressions.... The Scripture hath shut up all things under sin....\nWe were kept in ward under the Law.... We were held in bondage under\nthe rudiments of the world.\"[197] In allusion to this idea, that the\nsacrifices were instituted by God in order to renew the remembrance of\nsins every year, Christ said, \"Do this in remembrance of _Me_,\"--of Him\nWho hath put away sins by the sacrifice of Himself.\n\nSuch then was the shadow, at once unreal and dark. In contrast to it,\nthe Apostle designates the substance as \"the very image of the objects.\"\nInstead of repeating the indefinite expression \"good things to come,\" he\nspeaks of them as \"objects,\"[198] individually distinct, substantial,\ntrue. The image[199] of a thing is the full manifestation of its inmost\nessence, in the same sense in which St. Paul says that the Son of God's\nlove, in Whom we have our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins, is\nthe image of the invisible God.[200] Indeed, it is extremely\nquestionable whether our author too does not refer allusively to the\nsame truth. For, in the verses that follow, he contrasts with the\nsacrifices of the former covenant the coming of Jesus Christ into the\nworld to accomplish the work which they had failed to do.[201] When the\nblood of bulls and goats could not take away sin, inasmuch as it was an\nunreal atonement, God prepared a body for His own eternal Son. The Son\nresponded to the Divine summons and, in accordance with the prophecies\nof Scripture concerning Him, came from heaven to earth to give Himself\nas the sufficient sacrifice for sin. The contrast, as heretofore, is\nbetween the vanity of animal sacrifices and the greatness of the Son,\nWho offered Himself. His assumption of humanity had for its ultimate end\nto enable the Son to do the will of God. The gracious purpose of God is\nto forgive sin, and this was accomplished by the infinite humiliation of\nthe infinite Son. God's will was to sanctify us; that is, to remove our\nguilt.[202] We have actually been thus sanctified through the one\noffering of the body of Jesus Christ. The sacrifices of the Law are\ntaken out of the way in order to establish the sacrifice of the\nSon.[203]\n\nIt will be observed that the Apostle is not contrasting sacrifice and\nobedience. His meaning is not precisely the same as the prophet\nSamuel's: that \"to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than\nthe fat of rams.\"[204] It is perfectly true that the sacrifice of the\nSon involved obedience,--a conscious, deliberate, willing obedience,\nwhich the beasts to be slain in sacrifice could not offer. The idea\npervades these verses, as an atmosphere. But it is not the idea\nexpressed. The dominant thoughts of the passage are the greatness of the\nPerson Who obeyed and the greatness of the sacrifice from which His\nobedience did not shrink. The Son is here represented as existing and\nacting apart from His human nature.[205] He comes into the world, and is\nnot originated in the world. The Christology of the Epistle to the\nHebrews is identical in this vital point with that of St. Paul. The\npurpose of the Son's coming is already formed. He comes to offer His\nbody, and we have been taught in a previous chapter that He did this\nwith an eternal spirit.[206] For the will of God means our\nsanctification, in the meaning attached to the word \"sanctification\" in\nthis Epistle, the removal of guilt, the forgiveness of sins. But the\nfulfilment of this gracious will of God demands a sacrifice, even a\nsacrificial death, and that not the death of beasts, but the infinite\nself-sacrifice and obedience unto death of the Son of God. This is\nimplied in the expression \"the offering of the body of Jesus\nChrist.\"[207]\n\n\nThe superstructure of argument has been raised. Christ as High-priest\nhas been proved to be superior to the high-priests of the former\ncovenant. It remains only to lay the topstone in its place. This brings\nus back to our starting point. Jesus Christ, the eternal High-priest, is\nfor ever King. For the priests under the Law stand while they perform\nthe duties of their ministry.[208] They stand because they are only\npriests. But Christ has taken His seat, as King, on the right hand of\nGod.[209] They offer the same sacrifices, which can never take away\nsins, and wait, and wait, but in vain. Though they are priests of the\ntrue God, yet they wait, like the priests of Baal, from morning until\nmidday is past and until the time of the offering of the evening\nsacrifice. But there is neither voice nor any to answer. Christ also\nwaits, but not to renew an ineffectual sacrifice. He waits eagerly[210]\nto receive from God the reward of His effective sacrifice in the\nsubjugation of His enemies. The priests under the Law had no enemies.\nTheir persons were sacred. They incurred no hatred, inspired no love.\nOur High-priest goes out to war, the most hated, the most loved, of all\ncaptains of men.\n\nThe foundation of this kingly power is in two things: first, He has\nperfected men for ever by His one offering; second, He has put the law\nof God into the hearts of His people. The final conclusion is that the\nsacrifices of the Law have passed away, because they are no longer\nneeded. \"For where there is forgiveness, there is no more an offering\nfor sin.\"\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[142] =kephalaion= (viii. 1).\n\n[143] =leitourgos= (viii. 2).\n\n[144] Chap. viii. 3.\n\n[145] Chap. viii. 4.\n\n[146] Chap. viii. 5\n\n[147] Chap. viii. 6.\n\n[148] Jer. xxxi. 31-34.\n\n[149] Lamentations, _Preface_.\n\n[150] John vi. 45.\n\n[151] =autous= (viii. 8).\n\n[152] Chap. viii. 4.\n\n[153] Rom. v. 20.\n\n[154] Rom. iv. 7.\n\n[155] Isa. xliii. 25.\n\n[156] Chap. x. 2, 4.\n\n[157] Chap. iii. 13.\n\n[158] =echous\u00eas stasin= (ix. 8).\n\n[159] =echousa= (ix. 4).\n\n[160] =d\u00ealountos= (ix. 8).\n\n[161] Reading =genomen\u00f4n= (ix. 11).\n\n[162] Chap. ix. 11. Cf. chap. ix. 24.\n\n[163] Rev. xxi. 3.\n\n[164] =teleioteras= (ix. 11).\n\n[165] =kosmikon= (ix. 1).\n\n[166] =dia= (ix. 11).\n\n[167] Chap. iv. 14.\n\n[168] Chap. vii. 26.\n\n[169] Chap. x. 12.\n\n[170] Chap. ix. 12.\n\n[171] Chap. ix. 13.\n\n[172] =hagiazei= (ix. 13).\n\n[173] 1 Cor. viii. 7.\n\n[174] Chap. ix. 14.\n\n[175] =latreuein= (ix. 14).\n\n[176] =ai\u00f4niou= (ix. 15).\n\n[177] =tet\u00ear\u00eamen\u00ean= ... =phrouroumenous= (1 Pet. i. 4).\n\n[178] =diath\u00eak\u00ea=.\n\n[179] To forestall censure for inconsistency, the present writer may be\npermitted to refer to what he now sees to have been a desperate attempt\non his part (in the _Expositor_) to explain the passage on the\nsupposition that the word =diath\u00eak\u00ea= means \"covenant\" throughout. He is\nbound to admit that the attempt was a failure. If he lives to write\nretractations, this will be one.\n\n[180] =haimatekchysias= (ix. 22).\n\n[181] Chap. viii. 5.\n\n[182] =allotri\u00f4= (ix. 25).\n\n[183] =paresin= (Rom. iii. 25), as contrasted with =aphesis=.\n\n[184] Chap. iv. 3.\n\n[185] Chap. ix. 26.\n\n[186] =prosenechtheis= (ix. 28).\n\n[187] =eis=.\n\n[188] =ch\u00f4ris=.\n\n[189] =apekdechomenois=.\n\n[190] Chap. viii. 2.\n\n[191] Rom. v. 18.\n\n[192] Rom. vi. 10.\n\n[193] Chap. xiii. 20.\n\n[194] Chap. x. 1.\n\n[195] Chap. x. 2.\n\n[196] Chap. x. 3.\n\n[197] Gal. iii. 19-iv. 3.\n\n[198] =pragmat\u00f4n= (x. 1).\n\n[199] =eikona=.\n\n[200] Col. i. 14, 15.\n\n[201] Chap. x. 5 sqq.\n\n[202] Chap. x. 10.\n\n[203] Chap. x. 9.\n\n[204] 1 Sam. xv. 22.\n\n[205] Chap. x. 7.\n\n[206] Chap. ix. 14.\n\n[207] Chap. x. 10.\n\n[208] Chap. x. 11.\n\n[209] Chap. x. 13.\n\n[210] =ekdechomenos= (x. 13).\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\n_AN ADVANCE IN THE EXHORTATION._\n\n\n \"Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holy place\n by the blood of Jesus, by the way which He dedicated for us, a new\n and living way, through the veil, that is to say, His flesh; and\n having a great Priest over the house of God; let us draw near with a\n true heart in fulness of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an\n evil conscience, and our body washed with pure water: let us hold\n fast the confession of our hope that it waver not; for He is\n faithful that promised: and let us consider one another to provoke\n unto love and good works; not forsaking the assembling of ourselves\n together, as the custom of some is, but exhorting one another; and\n so much the more, as ye see the day drawing nigh. For if we sin\n wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth,\n there remaineth no more a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful\n expectation of judgment, and a fierceness of fire which shall devour\n the adversaries. A man that hath set at nought Moses' law dieth\n without compassion on the word of two or three witnesses: of how\n much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who hath\n trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the\n covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath\n done despite unto the Spirit of grace? For we know Him that said,\n Vengeance belongeth unto Me. I will recompense. And again, The Lord\n shall judge His people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands\n of the living God. But call to remembrance the former days, in\n which, after ye were enlightened, ye endured a great conflict of\n sufferings; partly, being made a gazing-stock both by reproaches and\n afflictions; and partly, becoming partakers with them that were so\n used. For ye both had compassion on them that were in bonds, and\n took joyfully the spoiling of your possessions, knowing that ye\n yourselves have a better possession and an abiding one. Cast not\n away therefore your boldness, which hath great recompense of reward.\n For ye have need of patience, that, having done the will of God, ye\n may receive the promise.\n\n For yet a very little while,\n He that cometh shall come, and shall not tarry.\n But My righteous one shall live by faith:\n And if he shrink back, My soul hath no pleasure in him.\n\n But we are not of them that shrink back unto perdition; but of them\n that have faith unto the saving of the soul.\"--HEB. x. 19-39 (R.V.).\n\n\nThe argument is closed. Christ is the eternal Priest and King, and every\nrival priesthood or kingship must come to an end. This is the truth won\nby the Apostle's original and profound course of reasoning. But he has\nin view practical results. He desires to confirm the Hebrew Christians\nin their allegiance to Christ. We shall be better able to understand the\nprecise bearing of his exhortation if we compare it with the appeal\npreviously made to his readers in the earlier chapters of the\nEpistle.[211] At the very outset he plunged into the midst of his\nsubject and proved that Jesus Christ is Son of God and representative\nMan. The union in Christ of these two qualifications constituted Him a\ngreat High-priest. He is able to succour the tempted; He is faithful as\na Son, Who is set over the house of God; He has experienced the bitter\nhumiliation of life, He is perfected as our Saviour, and has passed\nthrough the heavens. The exhortation, based on these truths, is that we\nmust lay fast hold of our confidence.\n\nThen come the big wave, the hesitation to face it, the allegory of\nMelchizedek, the appeal to the prophet Jeremiah, the comparison between\nthe old covenant and the new. But the argument triumphs and advances.\nJesus not only is a great High-priest, but this is interpreted as\nmeaning that He is Priest and King, and that His priesthood and power\nwill never pass away. Their eternal duration involves the setting aside\nof every other priesthood, the destruction of every opposing force.\nChrist has entered into the true holiest place and enthroned Himself on\nthe mercy-seat.\n\nThis being so, the Apostle no longer urges his readers to be confident.\nHe now appeals to them as having confidence,[212] in virtue of the blood\nof Jesus, so that they tarry not in the precincts, but enter themselves\ninto the holiest. The high-priest alone dared enter under the former\ncovenant, and he approached with fear and trembling, lest he also, like\nothers before him, should fall down dead in the presence of God. The\nexhortation now is, not to confidence, but to sincerity.[213] Let their\nconfidence become more objective. They had the boasting of hope. Let\nthem seek the silent, unboasting assurance that is grounded on faith, on\nthe realisation of the invisible. Instead of believing because they\nhoped, let them hope because they believed. In the earlier chapters the\nexhortation rested mainly on what Jesus was as Son over God's house.\nNow, however, the Apostle speaks of Him as a _great_[214] Priest over\nGod's house. His authority over the Church springs, not only from His\nrelation to God, but also from His relation to men. He is King of His\nChurch because He prays for it and blesses it. Through His priesthood\nour hearts are cleansed by the sprinkling of His blood from the\nconsciousness of sin.[215] But this blessing of the individual believer\nis now closely connected by the Apostle with the idea of the Church,\nover which Christ is King in virtue of His priesthood on its behalf. In\naddition to the cleansing of our hearts from an evil conscience, our\nbodies have been washed with pure water. The Apostle alludes primarily\nin both clauses to the rite of priestly consecration. \"Moses brought\nAaron and his sons, and washed them with water.\" He also \"took of the\nblood which was upon the altar and sprinkled it upon Aaron, and upon his\ngarments, and upon his sons, and upon his sons' garments with him, and\nsanctified Aaron, and his garments, and his sons, and his sons'\ngarments with him.\"[216] The meaning of our author seems certainly to be\nthat the worshippers have the privilege of the high-priest himself. They\nlose their priestly character only in the more excellent glory and\ngreatness of that High-priest through Whom they have received their\npriesthood. In comparison with Him, they are but humble worshippers, and\nHe alone is Priest. In contrast to the world around them, they also are\npriests of God. But the words of the Apostle contain another allusion.\nBoth clauses refer to baptism. The mention of washing the \"body\" renders\nit, we think, unquestionable that baptism is meant. But baptism is not\nhere said to be the antitype of the priestly consecration of the old\ncovenant. One rite cannot be the type of another rite, which is itself\nan external action. The solution of this apparent difficulty is simply\nthat _both_ clauses together mean baptism, which is invariably\nrepresented in the New Testament as much more than an outward rite. The\nexternal act may be performed without its being a true baptism. For the\nmeaning of baptism is the forgiveness of sin, the cleansing of the heart\nor innermost consciousness from guilt, and the reception of the absolved\nsinner into the Church of God. \"Christ loved the Church, and gave\nHimself up for it, that He might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the\nwashing of water with the word.\"[217]\n\nIn an earlier chapter our author told his readers that they were the\nhouse of God if they held fast their confidence. He does not repeat it.\nThe Church consciousness _has_ sprung up within them. They were\npreviously taught to look steadfastly at Jesus as the Apostle and\nHigh-priest of their confession.[218] They are now urged to look as\nsteadfastly at one another as fellow-confessors of the same Apostle and\nHigh-priest, and to sharpen one another's love and activity even to the\npoint of jealousy.[219] In the earlier exhortation no mention was made\nof the Church assemblies. Here prominence is given them. Importance is\nattached to the words of encouragement addressed at these gatherings of\nbelievers. Christian habits were at this time forming and consolidating\ninto customs of the Church. Occasional and eccentric manifestations of\nthe religious life and temperament were yielding to the slow, normal\ngrowth of true vitality. As faithfulness in frequenting the Church\nassemblies began to rank among the foremost virtues, unfaithfulness\nwould, by force of contrast, harden into habitual neglect of the house\nof prayer: \"As the custom of some is.\"[220]\n\nThe chief of all reasons for exhorting the readers to habitual\nattendance on the Church assemblies the writer of the Epistle finds in\nthe expectation of the Lord's speedy return. They could see for\nthemselves that the day was at hand. The signs of the Son of man's\ncoming were multiplying and thrusting themselves on the notice of the\nChurch. Perhaps the voice of Joshua, the son of Hanan, had already been\nheard in the streets, exclaiming, \"Woe to Jerusalem!\" The holy city was\nplainly doomed. But Christ will come to His Church, not to individuals.\nHe will not be found in the wilderness, nor in the inner chambers. \"As\nthe lightning cometh forth from the east, and is seen even unto the\nwest, so shall be the coming of the Son of man.\"[221]\n\nThe day of Christ is a day of judgment. The two meanings of the word\n\"day,\"--day in contrast to night, and day as a fixed time for the\ntransaction of public business,--coalesce in the New Testament usage.\nThe second idea seems to have gradually superseded the former.\n\nThe author proceeds to unfold the dreadful character of this day of\njudgment. Here, again, the precise force of his declarations will best\nappear by comparison with the warnings of the first part of the Epistle\nin reference to the sin and to the punishment.\n\n_First_, the sin referred to here has a wider range than the\ntransgression spoken of in the second chapter. For there he mentions the\nspecial sin of neglecting so great salvation. But in the present passage\nhis words seem to imply that rejection of Christ has given birth to a\nprogeny of evil through the self-abandonment of those who wilfully\npersist in sinning, as if from reckless bravado.[222] The special guilt,\ntoo, of rejecting Christ is here painted in darker hues. For in the\nearlier passage it is indifference; here it is contempt. In the former\ncase it is ingratitude to a merciful Saviour; in the latter it is\ntreason against the majesty of God's own Son. \"To trample under foot\"\nmeans to desecrate. Christ is the holy High-priest of God, and is now\nministering in the true holiest place. Therefore to choose Judaism, with\nits dead rites, and to reject the living Christ, is no longer the action\nof a holy zeal for God's house. Quite the reverse. The sanctuary of\nJudaism has been shorn of its glory, and its sacredness transferred to\nthe despised Nazarene. To tread under foot the Son of God is to trample\nwith revel rout on the hallowed floor of the holiest place. Further, the\nApostle's former warnings contained no allusion to the covenant. Now he\nreminds his readers that they have been sanctified--that is, cleansed\nfrom guilt--through the blood of the covenant. Is the cleansing blood\nitself unclean? Shall we deem the reeking gore of a slain beast or the\ngrey ashes of a burnt heifer holy, and consider the blood of the Christ,\nWho with an eternal spirit offered Himself without spot to God, unholy\nand defiling?[223] Moreover, that eternal spirit in the Son of God is a\nspirit of grace[224] towards men. But His infinite compassion is\nspurned. And thus the Apostle brings us once more[225] in sight of the\nhopeless character of cynicism.\n\n_Second_, the punishment is partly negative. A sacrifice for sins is no\nmore left to men who have spurned the sacrifice of the Son.[226] Here\nagain we notice an advance in the thought. The Apostle told his readers\nbefore that it is impossible to renew to repentance those who crucify\nafresh the Son of God and put Him to an open shame. But the\nimpossibility consists in hardness of heart and spiritual blindness. The\nresult also is subjective,--they cannot repent. He now adds the\nimpossibility of finding another propitiation than the offering of\nChrist or of finding in His offering a different kind of propitiation,\nseeing that He is the final revelation of God's forgiving grace. Then,\nfurther, the punishment has a positive side. After hardness of heart\ncomes stinging remorse, arising from a vague, but on that account all\nthe more fearful, expectation of the judgment. The abject terror is\namply justified. For the fury[227] of a fire, already kindling around\nthe doomed city, warns the Hebrew backsliders that the Christ so\nwilfully scoffed at is at the door. Observe the contrast. The law of\nMoses is on occasion set aside. The matter is almost private. Only two\nor three persons witnessed it.[228] Its evil influence did not spread,\nand when the criminal was led out to be stoned to death, they who passed\nby went their way unheeding. The Christ of God is put to an open\nshame;[229] the covenant, for ever established on the sure foundation of\nGod's oath and Christ's death, and the spirit of all grace that filled\nthe heart of Christ are mocked. Of how much sorer punishment shall\nChrist at His speedy coming deem the scorner worthy? The answer is left\nby the Apostle to his readers. They knew with Whom they had to do.[230]\nIt was not with angels, the swift messengers and flaming ministers of\nHis power. It was not with Moses, who himself exceedingly feared and\nquaked.[231] It was not with the blind pressure of fate. They had to do\nwith the living God Himself directly. He will lay upon them His living\nhand,--the hand that might and, if they had not spurned it, would have\nprotected and saved. Retribution descends swift and resistless. It can\nonly be likened to a sudden falling into the very hands of a waiting\navenger.[232] He will not entrust the work of vengeance to another. No\nextraneous agent shall come between the smiting hand and the heart that\nburns with the anger of the sincere against the false, of the\ncompassionate against the pitiless. Does not Scripture teach that the\nLord will execute judgment on behalf of His people?[233] If on behalf of\nHis people, will He not enter into judgment for His Son?\n\nFrom the terrible expectation of future judgment the Apostle turns away,\nto recall to his readers the grounds of hope supplied by their\nsteadfastness in the past. He has already spoken of their work and the\nlove which they had shown in ministering to the saints.[234] God's\njustice would not forget their brotherly kindness. Now, however, His\npurpose in bidding them remember the former days is something different.\nHe writes to convince them that they needed no other and greater\nconfidence to face the future than had carried them triumphantly through\nconflicts in days of yore. They had endured sufferings; let them conquer\ntheir own indifference and put away their cynicism with the lofty\ndisdain of earnest faith. The courage that could do the former can also\ndo the latter.\n\nFrom the first break of day in their souls[235] they had felt the\nconfidence of men who walk, not in darkness, not knowing whither they go\nand fearing to take another step, but in the light, so that they trod\nfirmly and stepped boldly onward. Their confidence was based on\nconviction and understanding of truth. For that reason it inspired them\nwith the courage of athletes,[236] when they had to endure also the\nshame of the arena. Made a gazing-stock to a scoffing theatre, they had\nnot turned pale at the roar of the wild beasts. Instead of tamely\nsubmitting, they had turned their sufferings into a veritable contest\nagainst the world, and maintained the conflict long.[237] Taunted by the\nspectators, torn by the lions, reproaches and afflictions alike had been\nineffectual to break their spirit. When they witnessed the prolonged\ntortures of their brethren whose Christian life was one martyrdom,[238]\nthey had not shrunk from the like usage. They had pitied the brethren in\nprisons and visited them. They had taken joyfully the spoiling of their\nsubstance, knowing that now they had themselves,[239] as a better and an\nabiding possession. If they had lost the world, they had gained for\nthemselves their souls.[240] As true athletes, therefore, let them not\nthrow away[241] their sword, which is no other than their old, undaunted\nconfidence. There was none like that sword. Their victory was assured.\nTheir reward would be, not the plaudits of the fickle onlookers, but the\nfulfilment of God's promise to Abraham. They had need of endurance,\nbecause in enduring they were doing the will of God. But the Deliverer\nwould be with them in a twinkling.[242] He had delayed His chariot\nwheels, but He would delay no more. Hear ye not His voice? It is He that\nspeaks in the words of the prophet, \"Those whom I deny will perish out\nof the way. But I have My righteous ones[243] here and there, unseen by\nthe world, and out of their faith will be wrought for them eternal life.\nBut let even Mine own beware of lowering sail. My soul will have no\ndelight even in him if he draws back.\"\n\nThe Apostle reflects on the words of Christ in the prophecy of Habakkuk.\nBut he has an assured hope that he and his readers would repudiate the\nthought of drawing back. They were men of faith, bent on winning[244]\nthe prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus; and the prize\nwould be their own souls. May we not conjecture that the Apostle's\nfervid appeal prevailed with the Christians within the doomed city \"to\nbreak the last bands of patriotism and superstition which attached them\nto the Temple and the altar, and proclaim themselves missionaries of the\nnew faith, without a backward glance of lingering reminiscence\"?[245]\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[211] Chaps. ii. 1-5; iii. 1, 6; iv. 11, 16; vi.\n\n[212] Chap. x. 19.\n\n[213] =meta al\u00eathin\u00eas kardias= (x. 22).\n\n[214] =megan= (x. 21).\n\n[215] =apo syneid\u00ease\u00f4s pon\u00earas= (x. 22).\n\n[216] Lev. viii. 6, 30.\n\n[217] Eph. v. 26.\n\n[218] Chap. iii. 1.\n\n[219] =eis paroxysmon= (x. 24).\n\n[220] =ethos= (x. 25).\n\n[221] Matt. xxiv. 27.\n\n[222] =hekousi\u00f4s= (x. 26).\n\n[223] Chap. x. 29.\n\n[224] =pneuma t\u00eas charitos=.\n\n[225] See chap. vi. 6.\n\n[226] Chap. x. 26.\n\n[227] =z\u00ealos= (x. 27).\n\n[228] Chap. x. 28.\n\n[229] =paradeigmatizontas= (vi. 6).\n\n[230] Chap. iii. 12.\n\n[231] Chap. xii. 21.\n\n[232] =empesein=.\n\n[233] Deut. xxxii. 36.\n\n[234] Chap. vi. 10.\n\n[235] =ph\u00f4tisthentes= (x. 32).\n\n[236] =athl\u00easin=.\n\n[237] =poll\u00ean=.\n\n[238] =hout\u00f4s anastrephomen\u00f4n= (x. 33).\n\n[239] Reading =heautous= (x. 34).\n\n[240] =eis peripoi\u00easin= (x. 39).\n\n[241] =m\u00ea apobal\u00eate=.\n\n[242] =mikron hoson hoson= (x. 37).\n\n[243] Reading =mou= (x. 38).\n\n[244] =peripoi\u00easin= (x. 39).\n\n[245] Dean Merivale, _Romans under the Empire_, chap. lix.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\n_FAITH AN ASSURANCE AND A PROOF._\n\n\n \"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the proving of\n things not seen. For therein the elders had witness borne to them.\n By faith we understand that the worlds have been framed by the word\n of God, so that what is seen hath not been made out of things which\n do appear.\"--HEB. xi. 1-3 (R.V.).\n\n\nIt is often said that one of the greatest difficulties in the Epistle to\nthe Hebrews is to discover any real connection of ideas between the\nauthor's general purpose in the previous discussion and the splendid\nrecord of faith in the eleventh chapter. The rhetorical connection is\neasy to trace. His utterances throughout have been incentives to\nconfidence. \"Let us hold fast our confession.\" \"Let us draw near with\nboldness unto the throne of grace.\" \"Show diligence unto the full\nassurance of hope.\" \"Cast not away your boldness.\" Any of these\nexhortations would sufficiently describe the Apostle's practical aim\nfrom the beginning of the Epistle. But he has just cited the words of\nHabakkuk, and the prophet speaks of faith. How, then, does the prophet's\ndeclaration that the righteous man of God will escape death by his faith\nbear on the Apostle's arguments or help his strong appeals? The first\nverse of the eleventh chapter is the reply. Faith _is_ assurance, with\nemphasis on the verb.\n\nBut this is only a rhetorical connection, or at best a justification of\nthe use the author has made of the prophet's words. Indeed, he has\nalready in several places identified confidence with faith, and the\nopposite of confidence with unbelief. \"Take heed lest there be in any\none of you an evil heart of unbelief; ... for we are become partakers of\nChrist if we hold fast the beginning of our confidence firm unto the\nend.\"[246] \"They could not enter in because of unbelief; ... let us\ntherefore give diligence to enter into that rest, that no man fall after\nthe same example of disobedience.\"[247] \"Be not sluggish, but imitators\nof them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.\"[248]\n\"Having therefore boldness to enter into the holy place, ... let us draw\nnear with a true heart in fulness of faith.\"[249]\n\nWhy, therefore, does the author formally state that faith is confidence?\nThe difficulty is a real one. We must suppose that, when this Epistle\nwas written, the word \"faith\" was already a well-known and almost\ntechnical term among Christians. We infer as much as this also from St.\nJames's careful and stringent correction of abuses in the application of\nthe word. It is unnecessary to say who was the first to perceive the\nvital importance of faith in the life and theology of Christianity. But\nin the preaching of St. Paul faith is trust in a personal Saviour, and\ntrust is the condition and instrument of salvation. Faith, thus\nrepresented, is the opposite of works. Such a doctrine was liable to\nabuse, and has been abused to the utter subversion of morality on the\none hand and to the extinction of all unselfish greatness of soul on the\nother. Not, most certainly, that St. Paul himself was one-sided in\nteaching or in character. To him Christ is a heavenly ideal: \"The Lord\nis the Spirit;\" and to him the believer is the spiritual man, who has\nthe moral intellect of Christ.[250] But it must be confessed--and the\nhistory of the Church abundantly proves the truth of the statement--that\nthe good news of eternal salvation on the sole condition of trust in\nChrist is one of the easiest of all true doctrines to be fatally abused.\nThe Epistle of St. James and the Epistle to the Hebrews seem to have\nbeen written to meet this danger. The former represents faith as the\ninner life of the spirit, the fountain of all active goodness. \"Faith,\nif it have not works, is dead in itself. Yea, a man will say, Thou hast\nfaith, and I have works; show me thy faith apart from thy works, and I\nby my works will show thee my faith.\"[251] St. James contends against\nthe earliest phases of Antinomianism. He reconciles faith and morality,\nand maintains that the highest morality springs out of faith. The writer\nof the Epistle to the Hebrews contends against legalism,--the proud,\nself-satisfied, indifferent, hard, slothful, contemptuous, cynical\nspirit, which is quite as truly and as often an abuse of the doctrine of\nsalvation through faith. It is the terrible plague of those Churches\nwhich have never risen above individualism. When men are told that the\nwhole of religion consists in securing the soul's eternal safety, and\nthat this salvation is made sure once for all by a moment's trust in\nChrist, their after-life will harden into a worldliness, not gross and\nsensual, but pitiless and deadening. They will put on the garb of\nreligious decorum; but the inner life will be eaten by the canker of\ncovetousness and self-righteous pride. These are the men described in\nthe sixth chapter of our Epistle, who have, after a fashion, repented\nand believed, but whose religion has no recuperative power, let alone\nthe growth and richness of deep vitality.\n\nOur author addresses men whose spiritual life was thus imperilled. Their\ncondition is not that of the heathen world in its agony of despair. He\ndoes not call his readers, in the words of St. Paul to the jailer at\nPhilippi, to trust themselves into the hands of the Lord Jesus Christ,\nthat they may be saved. Yet he too insists on faith. He is anxious to\nshow them that he is not preaching another gospel, but unfolding the\nmeaning of the same conception of faith, which is the central principle\nof the Gospel revealed at the first by Christ to their fathers, and\napplied to the wants of the heathen by the Apostle of the Gentiles.\n\nIf so, it goes without saying that the writer does not intend to give a\nscholastic definition of faith. The New Testament is not the book in\nwhich to seek formal definitions. For his present purpose we require\nonly to know that, whatever else faith includes, confidence in reference\nto the objects of our hope must find a place in it. Faith bridges over\nthe chasm between hope and the things hoped for. It saves us from\nbuilding castles in the air or living in a fool's paradise. The phantoms\nof worldliness and the phantoms of religion (for they too exist) will\nnot deceive us. In the course of his discussion in the Epistle the\nauthor has used three different words to set forth various sides of the\nsame feeling of confidence. One refers to the freedom and boldness with\nwhich the confidence felt manifests its presence in words and\naction.[252] Another signifies the fulness of conviction with which the\nmind when confident is saturated.[253] The third word, which we have in\nthe present passage, describes confidence as a reality, resting on an\nunshaken foundation, and contrasted with illusions.[254] He has urged\nChristians to boldness of action and fulness of conviction. Now he adds\nthat faith is that boldness and that wealth of certitude in so far as\nthey rest upon reality and truth.\n\nWe can now in some measure estimate the value of the Apostle's\ndescription of faith as an assurance concerning things hoped for, and\napply it to give force to the exhortations of the Epistle. The evil\nheart of unbelief is the moral corruption of the man whose soul is\nsteeped in sensual imaginations and never realises the things of the\nSpirit. They who came out of Egypt by Moses could not enter into rest\nbecause they did not descry, beyond the earthly Canaan, the rest of the\nspirit in God. Others inherit the promises, because on earth they lifted\ntheir hearts to the heavenly country. In short, the Apostle now tells\nhis readers that the true source of Christian constancy and boldness is\nthe realisation of the unseen world.\n\nBut faith is this assurance concerning things hoped for because it is a\nproof[255] of their existence, and of the existence of the unseen\ngenerally. The latter part of the verse is the broad foundation on which\nfaith rests in all the rich variety of its meanings and practical\napplications. Here St. Paul, St. James, and the writer of the Epistle to\nthe Hebrews meet in the unity of their conception. Whether men trust\nunto salvation, or develop their inner spiritual life, or enter into\ncommunion with God and lift the weapon of unflinching boldness in the\nChristian warfare, trust, character, confidence, all three derive their\nbeing and vitality from faith, as it demonstrates the existence of the\nunseen.\n\nThe Apostle's language is a seeming contradiction. Proof is usually\nsupposed to dispense with faith and compel us to accept the inference\ndrawn. He intentionally describes faith as occupying in reference to\nspiritual realities the place of demonstration. Faith in the unseen is\nitself a proof that the unseen world exists. It is so in two ways.\n\n_First_, we trust our own moral instincts. Malebranche observes that our\npassions justify themselves. How much more is this true of intellect and\nconscience! In like manner, some men have firm confidence in a world of\nspiritual realities, which eye has not seen. This confidence is itself a\nproof to them. How do I know that I know? It is a philosopher's enigma.\nFor us it may be sufficient to say that to know and to know that we know\nare one and the same act. How do we justify our faith in the unseen? The\nanswer is similar. It is the same thing to trust and to trust our trust.\nScepticism wins a cheap victory when it arraigns faith as a culprit\ncaught in the very act of stealing the forbidden fruit of paradise. But\nwhen, like a guilty thing, faith blushes for its want of logic, its\nonly refuge is to look in the face of the unseen Father. He who has most\nfaith in his own spiritual instincts will have the strongest faith in\nGod. To trust God is to trust ourselves. To doubt ourselves is to doubt\nGod. We must add that there is a sense in which trust in God means\ndistrust of self.\n\n_Second_, faith fastens directly on God Himself. We believe in God\nbecause we impose implicit confidence in our own moral nature. With\nequal truth we may also say that we believe all else because we believe\nin God. Faith in God Himself immediately and personally is the proof\nthat the promises are true, that our life on earth is linked to a life\nabove, that patient well-doing will have its reward, that no good deed\ncan be in vain, and ten thousand other thoughts and hopes that sustain\nthe drooping spirit in hours of conflict. It may well happen that some\nof these truths are legitimate inferences from premises, or it may be\nthat a calculation of probabilities is in favour of their truth. But\nfaith trusts itself upon them because they are worthy of God. Sometimes\nthe silence of God is enough, if an aspiration of the soul is felt to be\nsuch that it became Him to implant it and will be glorious in Him to\nreward the heaven-sent desire.\n\nAn instance of faith as a proof of the unseen is given by our author in\nthe third verse. We may paraphrase it thus: \"By faith we know that the\nages have been constructed by the word of God, and that even to this\npoint of assurance: that the visible universe as a whole came not into\nbeing out of things that do appear.\"\n\nThe author began in the previous verse to unroll his magnificent record\nof the elders. But from the beginning men found themselves in the\npresence of a mystery of the past before they received any promise as to\nthe future. It is the mystery of creation. It has pressed heavily on men\nin all ages. The Apostle himself has felt its power, and speaks of it as\na question which his readers and himself have faced. How do we know that\nthe development of the ages had a beginning? If it had a beginning, how\ndid it begin? The Apostle replies that we know it by faith. The\nrevelation which we have received from God addresses itself to our moral\nperception and our confidence in God's moral nature. We have been taught\nthat \"in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,\" and that\n\"God said, Let there be light.\"[256] Faith demands this revelation. Is\nfaith trust? That trust in God is our proof that the framework of the\nworld was put together by His creative wisdom and power. Is faith the\ninner life of righteousness? Morality requires that our own\nconsciousness of personality and freedom should be derived from a Divine\npersonality as the Originator of all things. Is faith communion with\nGod? Those who pray know that prayer is an absolute necessity of their\nspiritual nature, and prayer lifts its voice to a living Father. Faith\ndemonstrates to him who has it, though not to others, that the universe\nhas come to its present form, not by an eternal evolution of matter, but\nby the action of God's creative energy.\n\nThe somewhat peculiar form of the clause seems certainly to suggest that\nthe Apostle ascribes the origin of the universe, not only to a personal\nCreator, but to that personal Creator acting through the ideas of His\nown mind. \"The visible came into being, not out of things that appear.\"\nWe catch ourselves waiting till he finishes the sentence with the words,\n\"but out of things that do not appear.\" Most expositors fight shy of the\ninference and explain it away by alleging that the negative has been\nmisplaced.[257] But is it not true that the universe is the\nmanifestation of thought in the unity of the Divine purpose? This is the\nvery notion required to complete the Apostle's statement concerning\nfaith as a proof. If faith demonstrates, it acts on principles. If God\nis personal, those principles are ideas, thoughts, purposes, of the\nDivine mind.\n\nSo long, therefore, as our spiritual nature can trust, can unfold a\nmorality, can pray, the simple soul need not much bewail its want of\nlogic and its loss of arguments. If the famous ontological argument for\nthe being of God has been refuted, we shall not, on that account,\ntremble for the ark. We shall not lament though the argument from the\nwatch has proved treacherous. Our God is not a mere infinite\nmechanician. Indeed, such a phrase is a contradiction in terms. A\nmechanician must be finite. He contrives, and as the result produces,\nnot what is absolutely best, but what is the best possible under the\ncircumstances and with the materials at his disposal. But if we have\nlost the mechanician, we have not lost the God that thinks. We have\ngained the perfectly righteous and perfectly good. His thoughts have\nmanifested themselves in nature, in human freedom, in the incarnation of\nHis Son, in the redemption of sinners. But the intellect that knows\nthese things is the good heart of faith.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[246] Chap. iii. 12.\n\n[247] Chaps. iii. 19; iv. 11.\n\n[248] Chap. vi. 12.\n\n[249] Chap. x. 19.\n\n[250] 2 Cor. iii. 17; 1 Cor. ii. 16.\n\n[251] James ii. 17, 18.\n\n[252] =parr\u00easia=.\n\n[253] =pl\u00earophoria=.\n\n[254] =hypostasis=.\n\n[255] =elenchos=.\n\n[256] Gen. i. 1, 3.\n\n[257] As if =m\u00ea ek phainomen\u00f4n= were for =ek m\u00ea phainomen\u00f4n=.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\n_THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM._\n\n\n \"By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed to go out unto a place\n which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not\n knowing whither he went. By faith he became a sojourner in the land\n of promise, as in a land not his own, dwelling in tents, with Isaac\n and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: for he looked for\n the city which hath the foundations, whose Builder and Maker is God.\n By faith even Sarah herself received power to conceive seed when she\n was past age, since she counted Him faithful Who had promised:\n wherefore also there sprang of one, and him as good as dead, so many\n as the stars of heaven in multitude, and as the sand, which is by\n the sea-shore, innumerable. These all died in faith, not having\n received the promises, but having seen them and greeted them from\n afar, and having confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on\n the earth. For they that say such things make it manifest that they\n are seeking after a country of their own. And if indeed they had\n been mindful of that country from which they went out, they would\n have had opportunity to return. But now they desire a better\n country, that is, a heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed of them,\n to be called their God: for He hath prepared for them a city. By\n faith Abraham, being tried, offered up Isaac: yea, he that had\n gladly received the promises was offering up his only-begotten son;\n even he to whom it was said, In Isaac shall thy seed be called:\n accounting that God is able to raise up, even from the dead; from\n whence he did also in a parable receive him back.\"--HEB. xi. 8-19\n (R.V.).\n\n\nWe have learned that faith is the proof of the unseen. We must not\nexclude even from this clause the other thought that faith is an\nassurance of things hoped for. It is not stated, but it is implied. The\nconception of a personal God requires only to be unfolded in order to\nyield a rich harvest of hope. The author proceeds to show that by faith\nthe elders had witness borne to them in God's confession of them and\ngreat rewards. He recounts the achievements of a long line of believers,\nwho as they went handed the light from one to another. In them is the\ntrue unity of religion and revelation from the beginning. For the poor\norder of high-priests the writer substitutes the glorious succession of\nfaith.\n\nWe choose for the subject of this chapter the faith of Abraham. But we\nshall not dismiss in silence the faith of Abel, Enoch, and Noah. The\nparagraph in which Abraham's deeds are recorded will most naturally\ndivide itself into three comparisons between their faith and his. We\nventure to think that this was in the writer's mind and determined the\nform of the passage. From the eighth to the tenth verse the Apostle\ncompares Abraham's faith with that of Noah; after a short episode\nconcerning Sarah, he compares Abraham's faith with Enoch's, from the\nthirteenth verse to the sixteenth; then, down to the nineteenth verse,\nhe compares Abraham's faith with that of Abel. Noah's faith appeared in\nan act of obedience, Enoch's in a life of fellowship with God, Abel's in\nhis more excellent sacrifice. Abraham's faith manifested itself in all\nthese ways. When he was called, he obeyed; when a sojourner, he desired\na better country, that is, a heavenly, and God was not ashamed to be\ncalled his God; being tried, he offered up Isaac.\n\nTwo points of surpassing worth in his faith suggest themselves. The one\nis largeness and variety of experience; the other is conquest over\ndifficulties. These are the constituents of a great saint. Many a good\nman will not become a strong spiritual character because his experience\nof life is too narrow. Others, whose range is wide, fail to reach the\nhigher altitudes of saintliness because they have never been called to\npass through sore trials, or, if they have heard the summons, have\nshrunk from the hardships. Before Abraham faith was both limited in its\nexperience and untested with heaven-sent difficulties. Abraham's\nreligion was complex. His faith was \"a perfect cube,\" and, presenting a\nface to every wind that blows, came victorious out of every trial.\n\nLet us trace the comparisons.\n\n_First_, Noah obeyed a Divine command when he built an ark to the saving\nof his house. He obeyed by faith. His eyes saw the invisible, and the\nvision kindled his hopes of being saved through the very waters that\nwould destroy every living substance. But this was all. His faith acted\nonly in one direction: he hoped to be saved. The Apostle Peter[258]\ncompares his faith to the initial grace of those who seek baptism, and\nhave only crossed the threshold of the spiritual life. It is true that\nhe overcame one class of difficulties. He was not in bondage to the\nthings of sense. He made provision for a future belied by present\nappearances. But the influence of the senses is not the greatest\ndifficulty of the human spirit. As the lonely ship rode on the heaving\nwaste of waters, all within was gladness and peace. No heaven-sent\ntemptations tried the patriarch's faith, He overcame the trials that\nspring out of the earth; but he knew not the anguish that rends the\nspirit like a lightning-stroke descending from God.\n\nWith Abraham it was otherwise. \"He went out, not knowing whither he\nwent.\"[259] He leaves his father's house and his father's gods. He\nbreaks for ever with the past, even before the future has been revealed\nto him. The thoughts and feelings that had grown up with him from\nchildhood are once for all put away. He has no sheltering ark to receive\nhim. A homeless wanderer, he pitches his tent to-day at the well, not\nknowing where his invisible guide may bid him stretch the cords on the\nmorrow. His departure from Ur of the Chaldees was a family migration.\nBut the writer of this Epistle, like Philo, describes it as the man's\nown personal obedience to a Divine call. Submitting to God's will,\npossessed with the inspiration and courage of faith, obeying daily new\nintimations, he bends his steps this way or that, not knowing whither he\ngoes. True, he went right into the heart of the land of promise. But,\neven in his own heritage, he became a sojourner, as in a land not his\nown.[260] God \"gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to\nset his foot on.\"[261] Possessor of all in promise, he purchased a\nsepulchre, which was the first ground he could call his own. The cave of\nMachpelah was the small beginning of the fulfilment of God's promise,\nwhich the spirit of Abraham is even now receiving in a higher form. It\nis still the same. The bright dawn of heaven often breaks upon the soul\nat an open grave. But he journeyed on, and trusted. For a time he and\nSarah only; afterwards Isaac with them; at last, when Sarah had been\nlaid to rest, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the three together, held on\nbravely, sojourning with aching hearts, but ever believing. The Apostle\nbrings in the names of Isaac and Jacob, not to describe their\nfaith--this he will do subsequently,--but to show the tenacity and\npatience of \"the friend of God.\"\n\nHis faith, thus sorely tried by God's long delay, is rewarded, not with\nan external fulfilment of the promise, but with larger hopes, wider\nrange of vision, greater strength to endure, more vivid realisation of\nthe unseen. \"He looked for the city which hath the foundations, whose\nArchitect and Maker is God.\"[262] In the promise not a word is said\nabout a city. Apparently he was still to be a nomad chief of a large and\nwealthy tribe. When God deferred again and again the fulfilment of His\npromise to give him \"this land,\" His trusting servant bethought him what\nthe delay could mean. This was his hill of difficulty, where the two\nways part. The worldly wisdom of unbelief would argue from God's\ntardiness that the reality, when it comes, will fall far short of the\npromise. Faith, with higher wisdom, makes sure that the delay has a\npurpose. God intends to give more and better things than He promised,\nand is making room in the believer's heart for the greater blessings.\nAbraham cast about to imagine the better things. He invented a blessing,\nand, so to speak, inserted it for himself in the promise.\n\nThis new blessing has an earthly and a heavenly meaning. On its earthly\nside it represents the transition from a nomadic life to a fixed abode.\nFaith bridged the gulf that separates a wandering horde from the\ncultured greatness of civilization. The future grandeur of Zion was\nalready held in the grasp of Abraham's faith. But the invented blessing\nhad also a heavenly side. The more correct rendering of the Apostle's\nwords in the Revised Version expresses this higher thought: \"He looked\nfor the city which hath the foundations\"--_the_ city; for, after all,\nthere is but one that hath the eternal foundations. It is the holy\ncity,[263] the heavenly Jerusalem, seen by the faith of Abraham in the\nearly morning of revelation, seen again in vision by the Apostle John at\nits close. The expression cannot mean anything that comes short of the\nApostle's description of faith as the assurance of things hoped for in\nthe unseen world. Abraham realised heaven as an eternal city, in which\nafter death he would be gathered to his fathers. A sublime\nconception!--eternity not the dwelling-place of the solitary spirit, the\njoy of heaven consisting in personal fellowship for ever with the good\nof every age and clime. There the past streams into the present, not, as\nhere, the present into the past. All are contemporaries there, and death\nis no more. Whatever makes civilization powerful or beautiful on\nearth--laws, arts, culture--all is there etherealised and endowed with\nimmortality. Such a city has God only for its Architect,[264] God only\nfor its Builder.[265] He Who conceived the plan can alone execute the\ndesign and realise the idea.\n\nOf this sort was Abraham's obedience. He continued to endure in the face\nof God's delay to fulfil the promise. His reward consisted, not in an\nearthly inheritance, not in mere salvation, but in larger hopes and in\nthe power of a spiritual imagination.\n\n_Second_, Abraham's faith is compared with Enoch's, whose story is most\nsweetly simple. He is the man who has never doubted, across whose placid\nface no dark shadow of unbelief ever sweeps. A virgin soul, he walks\nwith God in a time when the wickedness of man is great in the earth and\nthe imagination of the thoughts of his heart is only evil continually,\nas Adam walked with God in the cool of the evening before sin had\nbrought the hot fever of shame to his cheek. He walks with God, as a\nchild with his father; \"and God takes him\" into His arms. Enoch's\nremoval was not like the entrance of Elijah into heaven: a victorious\nconqueror returning into the city in his triumphal car. It was the quiet\npassing away, without observation, of a spirit of heaven that had\nsojourned for a time on earth. Men sought him, because they felt the\nloss of his presence among them. But they knew that God had taken him.\nThey inferred his story from his character. In Enoch we have an instance\nof faith as the faculty of realising the unseen, but not as a power to\nconquer difficulties.\n\nCompare this faith with Abraham's. \"These,\"--Abraham, Isaac,\nJacob,--\"all _died_ in faith,\" or, as we may render the word, \"according\nto faith,\"--according to the faith which they had exhibited in their\nlife. Their death was after the same pattern of faith. Enoch's\ncontemplative life came to a fitting end in a deathless translation to\nhigher fellowship with God. His way of leaving life became him.\nAbraham's repeated conflicts and victories closed with quite as much\nbecomingness in a last trial of his faith, when he was called to die\nwithout having received the fulfilment of the promises. But he had\nalready seen the heavenly city and greeted it from afar.[266] He saw the\npromises, as the traveller beholds the gleaming mirage of the desert.\nThe illusiveness of life is the theme of moralists when they preach\nresignation. It is faith only that can transform the illusions\nthemselves into an incentive to high and holy aspirations. All profound\nreligion is full of seeming illusions. Christ beckons us onward. When we\nclimb this steep, His voice is heard calling to us from a higher peak.\nThat height gained reveals a soaring mass piercing the clouds, and the\nvoice is heard above still summoning us to fresh effort. The climber\nfalls exhausted on the mountain-side and lays him down to die. Ever as\nAbraham attempted to seize the promise, it eluded his grasp. The\nTantalus of heathen mythology was in Tartarus, but the Tantalus of the\nBible is the man of faith, who believes the more for every failure to\nattain.\n\nSuch men \"declare plainly that they seek a country of their own.\"[267]\nLet not the full force of the words escape us. The Apostle does not mean\nthat they seek to emigrate to a new country. He has just said that they\nconfess themselves to be \"strangers and pilgrims on the earth.\" They are\n\"pilgrims,\" because they are journeying through on their way to another\ncountry; they are \"strangers,\" because they have come hither from\nanother land.[268] His meaning is that they long to return home. That\nhe means this is evident from his thinking it necessary to guard himself\nagainst the possibility of being understood to refer to Ur of the\nChaldees. They were not mindful of the earthly home, the cradle of their\nrace, which they had left for ever. Not once did they cast a wistful\nlook back, like Lot's wife and the Israelites in the wilderness. Yet\nthey yearned for their fatherland.[269] Plato imagined that all our\nknowledge is a reminiscence of what we learned in a previous state of\nexistence; and Wordsworth's exquisite lines, which cannot lose their\nsweet fragrance however often they are repeated, are a reflection of the\nsame visionary gleam,--\n\n \"Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting:\n The soul that rises with us, our life's star.\n Hath had elsewhere its setting,\n And cometh from afar;\n Not in entire forgetfulness,\n And not in utter nakedness,\n But trailing clouds of glory, do we come\n From God, Who is our home.\"\n\nOur author too suggests it; and it is true. We need not maintain it as\nan external fact in the history of the soul, according to the old\ndoctrine, resuscitated in our own times, of Traducianism. The Apostle\nrepresents it rather as a feeling. There is a Christian consciousness of\nheaven, as if the soul had been there and longed to return. And if it\nis a glorious attainment of faith to regard heaven as a city, more\nconsoling still is the hope of returning there, storm-tossed and\nweather-beaten, as to a home, to look up to God as to a Father, and to\nlove all angels and saints as brethren in the household of God, over\nwhich Christ is set as a Son. Such a hope renders feeble, sinful men not\naltogether unworthy of God's Fatherhood. For He is not ashamed to be\ncalled their God, and Jesus Christ is not ashamed to call them\nbrethren.[270] The proof is, that God has prepared for them a settled\nabode in the eternal city.\n\n_Third_, the faith of Abraham is compared with the faith of Abel. In the\ncase of Abel faith is more than a realisation of the unseen. For Cain\nalso believed in the existence of an invisible Power, and offered\nsacrifice. We are expressly told in the narrative[271] that \"Cain\nbrought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord.\" Yet he\nwas a wicked man. The Apostle John says[272] that \"Cain was of the Evil\nOne.\" He had the faith which St. James ascribes to the demons, who\n\"believe there is one God, and shudder.\"[273] He was possessed with the\nsame hatred, and had also the same faith. It was the union of the two\nthings in his spirit that made him the murderer of his brother. Our\nauthor points out very clearly the difference between Cain and Abel.\nBoth sacrificed, but Abel desired righteousness. He had a conscience of\nsin, and sought reconciliation with God through his offering. Indeed,\nsome of the most ancient authorities, for \"God bearing witness in\nrespect to his gifts,\" read \"he bearing witness to God on the ground of\nhis gifts;\" that is, Abel bore witness by his sacrifice to God's\nrighteousness and mercy. He was the first martyr, therefore, in two\nsenses. He was God's witness, and he was slain for his righteousness.\nBut, whether we accept this reading or the other, the Apostle presents\nAbel before us as the man who realised the great moral conception of\nrighteousness. He sought, not the favours of an arbitrary Sovereign, not\nthe mere mercy of an omnipotent Ruler, but the peace of the righteous\nGod. It was through Abel that faith in God thus became the foundation of\ntrue ethics. He acknowledged the immutable difference between right and\nwrong, which is the moral theory accepted by the greater saints of the\nOld Testament, and in the New Testament forms the groundwork of St.\nPaul's forensic doctrine of the Atonement. Moreover, because Abel\nwitnessed for righteousness by his sacrifice, his blood even cried from\nthe ground unto God for righteous vengeance. For this is unquestionably\nthe meaning of the words \"and through his faith he being dead yet\nspeaketh;\" and in the next chapter[274] the Apostle speaks of \"the\nblood of sprinkling, that speaketh a better thing than that of Abel.\" It\nwas the blood of one whose faith had grasped firmly the truth of God's\nrighteousness. His blood, therefore, cried to the righteous God to\navenge his wrong. The Apostle speaks as if he were personifying the\nblood and ascribing to the slain man the faith which he had manifested\nbefore. The action of Abel's faith in life and, as we may safely assume,\nin the very article of death, retained its power with God. Every\nmouthing wound had a tongue. In like manner, says the writer of the\nEpistle, the obedience of Jesus up to and in His death made His blood\nefficacious for pardon to the end of time.\n\nBut Abraham's faith excelled. Abel was prompted to offer sacrifice by\nnatural religiousness and an awakened conscience; Abraham sternly\nresolved to obey a command of God. He prepared to do that against which\nnature revolted, yea that which conscience forbade. Had not the story of\nAbel's faith itself loudly proclaimed the sacredness of human life?\nWould not Abraham, if he offered up Isaac, become another Cain? Would\nnot the dead child speak, and his blood cry from the ground to God for\nvengeance? It was the case of a man to whom \"God is greater than\nconscience.\" He resolved to obey at all hazards. Hereby he assured his\nheart--that is, his conscience--before God in that matter wherein his\nheart may have condemned him.[275] We, it is true, in the light of a\nbetter revelation of God's character, should at once deny, without more\nado, that such a command had been given by God; and we need not fear\nthankfully and vehemently to declare that our absolute trust in the\nrightness of our own moral instincts is a higher faith than Abraham's.\nBut he had no misgiving as to the reality of the revelation or the\nauthority of the command. Neither do the sacred historian and the writer\nof the Epistle to the Hebrews question it. We also need not doubt. God\nmet His servant at that stage of spiritual perception which he had\nalready attained. His faith was strong in its realisation of God's\nauthority and faithfulness. But his moral nature was not sufficiently\neducated to decide by the character of a command whether it was worthy\nof God or not. He calmly left it to Him to vindicate His own\nrighteousness. Those who deny that God imposed such a hard task on\nAbraham must be prepared to solve still greater difficulties. For do not\nwe also, in reference to some things, still require Abraham's faith that\nthe Judge of all the earth will do right? What shall we say of His\npermitting the terrible and universal sufferings of all living things?\nWhat are we to think of the still more awful mystery of moral evil?\nShall we say He could not have prevented it? Or shall we take refuge in\nthe distinction between permission and command? Of the two it were\neasier to understand His commanding what He will not permit, as in the\nsacrifice of Isaac, than to explain His permission of what He cannot and\nwill not command, as in the undoubted existence of sin.\n\nBut let us once more repeat that the greatest faith of all is to\nbelieve, with Abel, that God is righteous, and yet to believe, with\nAbraham, that God can justify His own seeming unrighteousness, and also\nto believe, with the saints of Christianity, that the test which God\nimposed on Abraham will nevermore be tried, because the enlightened\nconscience of humanity forbids it and invites other and more subtle\ntests in its place.\n\nWe must not suppose that Abraham found the command an easy one. From the\nnarrative in the Book of Genesis we should infer that he expected God to\nprovide a substitute for Isaac: \"And Abraham said, My son, God will\nprovide Himself a lamb for a burnt offering; so they went both of them\ntogether.\"[276] But the Apostle gives us plainly to understand that\nAbraham offered his son because he accounted that God was able to raise\nhim from the dead. Both answers are true. They reveal to us the anxious\ntossings of his spirit, seeking to account to itself for the terrible\ncommand of Heaven. At one moment he thinks God will not carry matters to\nthe bitter end. His mind is pacified with the thought that a substitute\nfor Isaac will be provided. At another moment this appeared to detract\nfrom the awful severity of the trial, and Abraham's faith waxed strong\nto obey, even though no substitute would be found in the thicket.\nAnother solution would then offer itself. God would immediately bring\nIsaac back to life. For Isaac would not cease to be, nor cease to be\nIsaac, when the sacrificial knife had descended. \"God is not God of the\ndead, but of the living, for all live unto Him.\"[277] Besides, the\npromise had not been withdrawn, though it had not yet been confirmed by\nan oath; and the promise involved that the seed would be called in\nIsaac, not in another son. Both solutions were right. For a ram was\ncaught in a thicket by the horns, and Abraham did receive his son back\nfrom the dead, not literally indeed, but in a parable.\n\nMost expositors explain the words \"in a parable\" as if they meant\nnothing more than \"as it were,\" \"so to speak;\" and some have actually\nsupposed them to refer to the birth of Isaac in his father's old age,\nwhen Abraham was \"as good as dead.\"[278] Both interpretations do\nviolence to the Greek expression,[279] which must mean \"even in a\nparable.\" It is a brief and pregnant allusion to the ultimate purpose of\nAbraham's trial. God intended more by it than to test faith. The test\nwas meant to prepare Abraham for receiving a revelation. On Moriah, and\never after, Isaac was more than Isaac to Abraham. He offered him to God\nas Isaac, the son of the promise. He received him back from God's hand\nas a type of Him in Whom the promise would be fulfilled. Abraham had\ngladly received the promise. He now saw the day of Christ, and\nrejoiced.[280]\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[258] 1 Peter iii. 20.\n\n[259] Chap. xi 8.\n\n[260] Chap. xi. 9.\n\n[261] Acts vii. 5.\n\n[262] Chap. xi. 10.\n\n[263] Rev. xxi. 10.\n\n[264] =technit\u00eas=.\n\n[265] =d\u00eamiourgos=.\n\n[266] =aspasamenoi= (xi. 13).\n\n[267] Chap. xi. 14.\n\n[268] =xenoi kai parepid\u00eamoi=.\n\n[269] =patrida=.\n\n[270] Chaps. xi. 16; ii. 11.\n\n[271] Gen. iv. 3.\n\n[272] 1 John iii. 12.\n\n[273] James ii. 19.\n\n[274] Chap. xii. 24.\n\n[275] 1 John iii. 19, 20.\n\n[276] Gen. xxii. 8.\n\n[277] Luke xx. 38.\n\n[278] Chap. xi. 12.\n\n[279] =kai en parabol\u00ea=.\n\n[280] John viii. 56.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\n_THE FAITH OF MOSES._\n\n\n \"By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months by his\n parents, because they saw he was a goodly child; and they were not\n afraid of the king's commandment. By faith Moses, when he was grown\n up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; choosing\n rather to be evil entreated with the people of God, than to enjoy\n the pleasures of sin for a season; accounting the reproach of Christ\n greater riches than the treasures of Egypt: for he looked unto the\n recompense of reward. By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the\n wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing Him Who is invisible.\n By faith he kept the passover, and the sprinkling of the blood, that\n the destroyer of the first-born should not touch them.\"--HEB. xi.\n 23-28 (R.V.).\n\n\nOne difference between the Old Testament and the New is the comparative\nsilence of the former respecting Moses and the frequent mention of him\nin the latter. When he has brought the children of Israel through the\nwilderness to the borders of the promised land, their great leader is\nseldom mentioned by historian, psalmist, or prophet. We might be tempted\nto imagine that the national life of Israel had outgrown his influence.\nIt would without question be in a measure true. We may state the same\nthing on its religious side by saying that God hid the memory as well as\nthe body of his servant, in the spirit of John Wesley's words, happily\nchosen for his and his brother's epitaph in Westminster Abbey, \"God\nburies His workmen and carries on His work.\" But in the New Testament it\nis quite otherwise. No man is so frequently mentioned. Sometimes when he\nis not named it is easy to see that the sacred writers have him in their\nminds.\n\nOne reason for this remarkable difference between the two Testaments in\nreference to Moses is to be sought in the contrast between the earlier\nand later Judaism. During the ages of the old covenant Judaism was a\nliving moral force. It gave birth to a peculiar type of heroes and\nsaints. Speaking of Judaism in the widest possible meaning, David and\nIsaiah, as well as Samuel and Elijah, are its children. These men were\nsuch heroes of religion that the saints of the Christian Church have not\ndwarfed their greatness. But it is one of the traits of a living\nreligion to forget the past, or rather to use it only as a\nstepping-stone to better things. It forgets the past in the sense in\nwhich St. Paul urges the Philippians to count what things were gain a\nloss, and to press on, forgetting the things which are behind, and\nstretching forward to the things which are before. Religion lives in its\nconscious, exultant power to create spiritual heroes, not in looking\nback to admire its own handiwork. The only religion among men that lives\nin its founder is Christianity. Forget Christ, and Christianity ceases\nto be. But the life of Mosaism was not bound up with the memory of\nMoses. Otherwise we may well suppose that idolatry would have crept in,\neven before Hezekiah found it necessary to destroy the brazen serpent.\n\nWhen we come down to the times of John the Baptist and our Lord, Mosaism\nis to all practical ends a dead religion. The great movers of men's\nsouls came down upon the age, and were not developed out of it. The\nproduct of Judaism at this time was Pharisaism, which had quite as\nlittle true faith as Sadduceeism. But when a religion has lost its power\nto create saints, men turn their faces to the great ones of olden times.\nThey raise the fallen tombstones of the prophets, and religion is\nidentical with hero-worship. An instance of this very thing may be seen\nin England to-day, where Atheists have discovered how to be devout, and\nAgnostics go on a pilgrimage! \"We are the disciples of Moses,\" cried the\nPharisees. Can any one conceive of David or Samuel calling himself a\ndisciple of Moses? The notion of discipleship to Moses does not occur in\nthe Old Testament. Men never thought of such a relation. But it is the\ndominant idea of Judaism in the time of Christ. Hence it was brought\nabout that he who was the servant and friend appears in the New\nTestament as the antagonist. \"For the Law was given by Moses; grace and\ntruth came by Jesus Christ.\"[281] This is opposition and rivalry. Yet\n\"this is that Moses which said unto the children of Israel, A Prophet\nshall God raise up unto you from among your brethren, _like unto\nme_.\"[282]\n\nThe notable difference between the Moses of New Testament times and the\nMoses delineated in the ancient narrative renders it especially\ninteresting to study a passage in which the writer of the Epistle to the\nHebrews takes us back to the living man, and describes the attitude of\nMoses himself towards Jesus Christ. Stephen told his persecutors that\nthe founder of the Aaronic priesthood had spoken of a great Prophet to\ncome, and Christ said that Moses wrote of Him.[283] But it is with\njoyous surprise we read in the Epistle to the Hebrews that the\nlegislator was a believer in the same sense in which Abraham was a\nbeliever. The founder of the old covenant himself walked by faith in the\nnew covenant.\n\nThe references to Moses made by our Lord and by Stephen sufficiently\ndescribe his mission. The special work of Moses in the history of\nreligion was to prepare the way of the Lord Jesus Christ and make His\npaths straight. He was commissioned to familiarise men with the\nwondrous, stupendous idea of the appearing of God in human nature,--a\nconception almost too vast to grasp, too difficult to believe. To render\nit not impossible for men to accept the truth, he was instructed to\ncreate a historical type of the Incarnation. He called into being a\nspiritual people. He realised the magnificent idea of a Divine nation.\nIf we may use the term, he showed to the world God appearing in the\nlife of a nation, in order to teach them the higher truth that the Word\nwould at the remote end of the ages appear in the flesh. The nation was\nthe Church; the Church was the State. The King would be God. The court\nof the King would be the temple. The ministers of the court would be the\npriests. The law of the State would have equal authority with the moral\nrequirements of God's nature. For Moses apparently knew nothing of the\ndistinction made by theologians between the civil, the ceremonial, and\nthe moral law.\n\nBut in the passage before us we have something quite different from\nthis. The Apostle says nothing about the creation of the covenant people\nout of the abject slaves of the brick-kilns. He is silent concerning the\ngiving of the Law amid the fire and tempest of Sinai. It is plain that\nhe wishes to tell us about the man's inner life. He represents Moses as\na man of faith.\n\nEven of his faith the apparently greatest achievements are passed over.\nNothing is said of his appearances before Pharaoh; nothing of the\nwonderful faith that enabled him to pray with uplifted hands on the brow\nof the hill whilst the people were fighting God's battle in the valley;\nnothing of the faith with which, on the top of Pisgah, Moses died\nwithout receiving the promise. Evidently it is not the Apostle's purpose\nto write the panegyric of a hero.\n\nCloser examination of the verses brings out the thought that the Apostle\nis tracing the growth and formation of the man's spiritual character. He\nmeans to show that faith has in it the making of a man of God. Moses\nbecame the leader of the Lord's redeemed people, the founder of the\nnational covenant, the legislator and prophet, because he believed in\nGod, in the future of Israel, and in the coming of the Christ. The\nsubject of the passage is faith as the power that creates a great\nspiritual leader. But what is true of leaders is true also of every\nstrong spiritual nature. No lesson can be more timely in our days. Not\nlearning, not culture, not even genius, makes a strong doer, but faith.\n\nThe contents of the verses may be classified under four remarks:--\n\n1. Faith gropes at first in the dark for the work of life.\n\n2. Faith chooses the work of life.\n\n3. Faith is a discipline of the man for the work of life.\n\n4. Faith renders the man's life and work sacramental.\n\n1. The initial stage in forming the servant of God is always the\nsame,--a vague, restless, eager groping in the dark, a putting forth\nfeelers for the light of revelation. This is often a time of childish\nmistakes and follies, of which he is afterwards keenly ashamed, and at\nwhich he can sometimes afford to smile. It often happens, if the man of\nGod is to spring from a religious family, that his parents undergo, in a\nmeasure, this first discipline for him. So it was in the case of Moses.\nThe child was hid three months of his parents. Why did they hide him?\nWas it because they feared the king? It was because they did not fear\nthe king. They hid their child by faith. But what had faith to do with\nthe hiding of him? Had they received an announcement from an inspired\nseer that their child would deliver Israel, or that he would stand with\nGod on the top of Sinai and receive the Law for the people, or that he\nwould lead the redeemed of the Lord to the borders of a rich land and\nlarge? None of these sufficient grounds for defying the king's authority\nare mentioned. The reason given in the narrative and as well by\nStephen[284] and the writer of this Epistle sounds quaint, if not\nchildish. They hid him because he was comely. Yet they hid him by faith.\nThe beauty of a sleeping babe was to them a revelation, as truly a\nrevelation as if they had heard the voice of the angel that spoke to\nManoah or to Zacharias. The _Scripture_ narrative contains no hint that\nthe child's beauty was miraculous, and, what is more to the purpose, we\nare not told that God had given it as the token of His covenant. It is\nan instance of faith making a sacrament of its own, and seeking in what\nis natural its warrant for believing in the supernatural. Nothing is\neasier, and perhaps nothing would be more rational, than to dismiss the\nentire story with a contemptuous smile.\n\nThe writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews must admit that Jochebed's\nfaith was unauthorised. But does not faith always begin in folly? Is it\nnot at first a blind instinct, fastening on what is nearest to hand? Has\nnot our belief in God sprung out of trust in human goodness or in\nnature's loveliness? To many a father has not the birth of his\nfirst-born been a revelation of Heaven? Is not such faith as Jochebed's\nthe true explanation of the instinctive rise and wonderful vitality of\ninfant baptism in the Christian Church? If Abraham's faith dared to look\nfor the city which hath the foundations when God had promised only the\nwealth of a tented nomad, was not the mother of Moses justified, since\nGod had given her faith, in letting the heaven-born instinct entwine\nwith her earth-born love of her offspring? It grew with its growth, and\nrejoiced with its joy; but it also endured and triumphed in its sore\ndistress, and justified its presence by saving the child. Faith is God's\ngift, no less than the testimony which faith accepts. Sometimes the\nfaith is implanted when no fitting revelation is vouchsafed. But faith\nwill live on in the darkness, until the day dawn and the day-star arise\nin the heart.\n\nA wise teacher has warned us against phantom notions and bidden us\ninterpret rather than anticipate nature. But another great thinker\ndemonstrated that the clearest vision begins in mere groping.\nAnticipations of God precede the interpretation of His message. The\nimmense space between instinct and genius is in religion traversed by\nfaith, which starts with _mera palpatio_, but at last attains to the\nbeatific vision of God.\n\n2. Faith chooses the work of life. The Apostle has spoken of the faith\nthat induced the parents of Moses to hide their child three months. Some\ntheologians have set much value on what they term \"an implicit faith.\"\nThe faith of Moses himself would be said by them to be \"enwrapped\" in\nthat of his parents. Whatever we may think of this doctrine, there can\nbe no question that the New Testament recognises the idea of\nrepresentation. The Church has always upheld the unity, the solidarity,\nof the family. It sprang itself out of the family. Perhaps its\nconsummation on earth will be a return into the family relation. It\nretains the likeness throughout its long history. It acknowledges that a\nbelieving husband sanctifies the unbelieving wife, and a believing wife\nsanctifies the unbelieving husband. In like manner, a believing parent\nsanctifies the children, and no one but themselves can deprive them of\ntheir privileges. But they can do it. The time comes when they must\nchoose for themselves. Hitherto led gently on by loving hands, they must\nnow think and act for themselves, or be content to lose the power of\nindependent action, and remain always children. The risk is sometimes\ngreat. But it cannot be evaded. It oftentimes happens that the\nirrevocable step is taken unobserved by others, almost unconsciously to\nthe man himself. The decision has been taken in silence; the even tenor\nof life is not disturbed. The world little weens that a soul has\ndetermined its own eternity in one strong resolve.\n\nBut in the case of a man destined to be a leader of his fellows, whether\nin thought or in action, a crisis occurs. We use the word in its correct\nmeaning of judgment. It is more than a transition, more than a\nconversion. He judges, and is conscious that as he judges he will be\njudged. If God has any great work for the man to do, the command comes\nsooner or later, as if it descended audibly from heaven, that he stand\nalone and, in that first terrible solitariness, choose and reject. In an\neducational age we may often be tempted to sneer at the doctrine of\nimmediate conversion. It is true, nevertheless. A man has come to the\nparting of the two ways, and choice must be made, because they _are_ two\nways. To no living man is it given to walk the broad and the narrow\nways. Entrance is by different gates. The history of some of the most\nsaintly men presents an entire change of motive, of character even, and\nof general life, as produced through one strong act of faith.\n\nWhen the Apostle wrote to the Hebrew Christians, the time was critical.\nThe question of Christian or not Christian brooked no delay. The Son of\nman was nigh, at the doors. Even after swift vengeance had overtaken the\ndoomed city of Jerusalem, the urgent cry was still the same. In the\nso-called \"Epistle of Barnabas,\" in the \"Pastor of Hermas,\" and in the\npriceless treasure recently brought to light, \"The Teaching of the\nTwelve Apostles,\" the two ways are described: the way of life and the\nway of death. Those who professed and called themselves Christians were\nwarned to make the right choice. It was no time for facing both ways,\nand halting between two opinions.\n\nMoses too refused and chose. This is the second scene in the history of\nthe man. Standing as he did at the fountain-head of nationalism, the\nprominence assigned to his act of individual choice and rejection is\nvery significant. Before his days the heirs of the promise were in the\nbond of God's covenant in virtue of their birth. They were members of\nthe elect family. After the days of Moses every Israelite enjoyed the\nprivileges of the covenant by right of national descent. They were the\nelect nation. Moses stands at the turning point. The nation now absorbs\nthe family, which becomes henceforth part of the larger conception. In\nthe critical moment between the two, a great personality emerges above\nthe confusion. The patriarchal Church of the family comes to a\ndispensational end in giving birth to a great man. That man's personal\nact of refusing the broad and choosing the narrow way marks the birth of\nthe theocratic Church of nationalism. Before and after, personality is\nof secondary importance. In Moses for a moment it is everything.\n\nDo we seek the motives that determined his choice? The Apostle mentions\ntwo, and they are really two sides of the same conception.\n\n_First_, he chose to be evil-entreated with the people of God. The work\nof his life was to create a spiritual nation. This idea had already been\npresented to his mind before he refused to be called the son of\nPharaoh's daughter. \"He was instructed in all the wisdom of the\nEgyptians; and he was mighty in his words and works.\"[285] But an idea\nhad taken possession of him. That idea had already invested the\nmiserable and despised bondsmen with glory. Truly no man will achieve\ngreat things who does not pay homage to an idea, and is not ready to\nsacrifice wealth and position for the sake of what is as yet only a\nthought. He who sells the world for an idea is not far from the kingdom\nof heaven. He will be prepared to forfeit all that the world can give\nhim for the sake of Him in Whom truth eternally dwells in fulness and\nperfection. Such a man was Moses. Had not his parents often told him,\nwhen his mother was nourishing the child for Pharaoh's daughter, of the\nwonderful story of their hiding him by faith and afterwards putting him\nin an ark of bulrushes by the river's brim? Did not his mother bring him\nup to be at once the son of Pharaoh's daughter and the deliverer of\nIsrael? Was the boy not living a double life? He was gradually coming to\nunderstand that he was to be the heir of the throne, and that he would\nor might be the destroyer of that throne. May we not, with profoundest\nreverence, liken it to the twofold inner life of the Child Jesus when at\nNazareth He came to know that He, the Child of Mary, was the Son of the\nHighest?\n\nStephen continues the story: \"When he was well-nigh forty years old, it\ncame into his heart to visit his brethren the children of Israel.\" \"He\nwent out unto his brethren,\" we are told in the narrative, \"and looked\non their burdens.\"[286] But the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews\nperceives in the act of Moses more than love of kindred. The slaves of\nPharaoh were, in the eyes of Moses, the people of God. The national\nconsecration had already taken place; he himself was already swayed by\nthe glorious hope of delivering his brethren, the covenant people of\nGod, from the hands of their oppressors. This is the explanation which\nStephen gives of his conduct in slaying the Egyptian. When he saw one of\nthe children of Israel suffer wrong, he defended him and smote the\nEgyptian, supposing that his brethren understood how that God by his\nhand was giving them deliverance. The deed was, in fact, intended to be\na call to united effort. He was throwing the gauntlet. He was\ndeliberately making it impossible for him to return to the former life\nof pomp and courtly worship. He wished the Hebrews to understand his\ndecision, and accept at once his leadership. \"But they understood not.\"\n\nOur author pierces still deeper into the motives that swayed his spirit.\nIt was not a selfish ambition, nor merely a patriotic desire to put\nhimself at the head of a host of slaves bent on asserting their rights.\nSimultaneous with the social movement there was a spiritual work\naccomplished in the personal, inner life of Moses himself. All true,\nheaven-inspired revolutions in society are accompanied by a personal\ndiscipline and trial of the leaders. This is the infallible test of the\nmovement itself. If the men who control it do not become themselves more\nprofound, more pure, more spiritual, they are counterfeit leaders, and\nthe movement they advocate is not of God. The writer of the Epistle\nargues from the decision of Moses to deliver his brethren that his own\nspiritual life was become deeper and holier. When he refused to be\ncalled the son of Pharaoh's daughter, he also rejected the pleasures of\nsin. He took his stand resolutely on the side of goodness. The example\nof Joseph was before him, of whom the same words are said: \"he refused\"\nto sin against God.\n\nAs the crisis in his own spiritual life fitted him to be the leader of a\ngreat national movement, so also his conception of that movement became\na help to him to overcome the sinful temptations of Egypt. He saw that\nthe pleasures of sin were but for a season. It is easy to supply the\nother side of this thought. The joy of delivering his brethren would\nnever pass away. He welcomed the undying joy of self-sacrifice, and\nrepudiated the momentary pleasures of self-gratification.\n\n_Second_, he accounted the reproach of Christ greater riches than the\ntreasures of Egypt. Not only the people of God, but also the Christ of\nGod, determined his choice. An idea is not enough. It must rest on a\nperson, and that person must be greater than the idea. He may be himself\nbut an idea. But, even when it is so, he is the glorious thought in\nwhich all the other hopes and imaginations of faith centre and merge. If\nhe is more than an idea, if it is a living person that controls the\nman's thoughts and becomes the motive of his life, a new quality will\nthen enter into that life. Conscience will awake. The question of doing\nwhat is right will control ambition, if it will not quite absorb it.\nTreachery to the idea of life will now be felt to be a sin, if\nconscience has pronounced that the idea itself is not immoral, but good\nand noble. For, when conscience permits, faith will not lag behind, and\nwill proclaim that the moral is also spiritual, that the spiritual is an\never-abiding possession.\n\nMany expositors strive hard to make the words mean something else than\nthe reproach which Christ Himself suffered. It is marvellous that the\ngreat doctrine of Christ's personal activity in the Church before His\nincarnation should have so entirely escaped the notice of the older\nschool of English theology. On this passage, for instance, such\ncommentators as Macknight, Whitby, Scott, explain the words to mean that\nMoses esteemed the scoffs cast on the Israelites for expecting the\nChrist to arise from among them greater riches than the treasures of\nEgypt. The more profound exegesis of Germany has made the truth of\nChrist's pre-existence essential to the theology of the New Testament.\nFar from being an innovation, it has brought us back to the view of the\ngreater theologians in every age of the Church.\n\nWe cannot enter into the general question. Confining ourselves to the\nsubject in hand, the faith of Moses, why may we not suppose that he had\nheard of the patriarch Jacob's blessing on Judah? It had been uttered in\nthe land of Egypt, where Moses was brought up. It spoke of a Lawgiver.\nDid not the consciousness of his own mission lead Moses to apply the\nreference to the long succession of leaders, whether judges or kings or\nprophets, who would follow in his wake? If so, could he have altogether\nmisunderstood the promise of the Shiloh? Jacob had spoken of a personal\nKing, Whom the people would obey. But nowhere in the Old Testament, not\nonce in the history of Moses, is the coming of Messiah represented as\nthe goal of the national development. Christ is not the flowering of\nJudaism. On the contrary, the Angel of the covenant established through\nMoses is not a ministering servant, sent forth to minister on the chosen\npeople. He is the Lord Jehovah Himself. Christ was with Israel, and\nMoses knew it. We may admit the vagueness of his conception, but we\ncannot deny the conception. To Moses, as to the Psalmist, the reproaches\nof them that reproached Israel fell on the Christ. Community in\nsuffering was enough to ensure community in the glory to be revealed.\nSuffering with Christ, they would also be glorified with Christ. This\nwas the recompense of reward to which Moses looked.\n\nThe lesson taught to the Hebrew Christians by the decision of Moses is\nloyalty to truth and loyalty to Jesus Christ.\n\n3. Faith is a discipline for the work of life. Moses has made his final\nchoice. Conscience is thoroughly awake, and eager aspirations fill his\nsoul. But he is not yet strong. Men of large ideas are often found to be\nlacking in courage. A cloistered is often a fugitive virtue. But, apart\nfrom want of practical resolution to face the difficulties of the\nsituation, special training is needed for special work. Israel had come\ninto Egypt to endure chastening and be made fit for national\nindependence. But in Egypt Moses was a courtier, perhaps heir to the\nthrone. That he may be chastened and fitted for his share of the work\nwhich God was about to accomplish towards His people, he must be driven\nout of Egypt into the wilderness. Every servant of God is sent into the\nwilderness. St. Paul was three years in Arabia between his conversion\nand his entrance on the work of the ministry. Jesus Himself was led up\nof the Spirit into the wilderness. He learned endurance in forty days,\nMoses in forty years.\n\nIt will be seen that we accept the explanation of the twenty-seventh\nverse given by all expositors down to the time of De Lyra and Calvin.\nBut in modern times it has been customary to say that the Apostle refers\nto the final departure of the children of Israel out of Egypt with a\nstrong hand and outstretched arm. Our reasons for preferring the other\nview are these. The departure of the Israelites through the Red Sea is\nmentioned subsequently; an event that occurred before the people left\nEgypt is mentioned in the next verse, and it is very improbable that the\nwriter would refer to their departure first, then to the events that\npreceded, then once more speak of their departure. Further, the word\nwell rendered by the Old and the Revised Versions \"forsook\" expresses\nprecisely the notion of going out alone, in despondency, as if Moses had\nabandoned the hope of being the deliverer of Israel. If we have\ncorrectly understood the Apostle's purpose in the entire passage, this\nis the very notion which we should expect him to introduce. Moses\nforsakes Egypt, deserts his brethren, abandons his work. He flees from\nthe vengeance of Pharaoh. Yet all this fear, hopelessness, and unbelief\nis only the partial aspect of what, taken as a whole, is the action of\nfaith. He still believes in his glorious idea, and is still willing to\nbear the reproach of Christ. He will not return to the court and make\nhis submission to the king. But the time is not come, he thinks, or he\nis not the man to deliver Israel. Forty years afterwards he is still\nloath to be sent. He forsook Egypt because the people did not believe\nhim; after forty years he asks the Lord to send another for the very\nsame reason; \"Behold, they will not believe me, nor hearken unto my\nvoice.\" But we should be obtuse indeed if we failed to recognise the\nfaith that underlies his despondency. Doubt is oftentimes partial faith.\n\nLet us place ourselves in his position. He refuses the selfish luxury\nand worldly glory of Pharaoh's court, that he may rush to deliver his\nbrethren. He brings with him the consciousness of superiority, and at\nonce assumes the duty of composing their quarrels. Evidently he is a\nbeliever in God, but a believer also in himself. Such men are not God's\ninstruments. He will have a man be the one thing or the other. If the\nman is self-confident, conscious of his own prowess, oblivious of God or\na denier of Him, the Most High can use him to do His work, to his own\ndestruction. If the man has no confidence in the flesh, knows his utter\nweakness and very nothingness, and yields himself to God's hand\nentirely, with no by-ends to seek, him too God uses to do His work, to\nthe man's own salvation. But Moses strove to combine faith in God and in\nhimself. He was at once thwarted. His brethren taunted him, when he\nexpected to be trusted and honoured. Despondency takes possession of his\nspirit. But his trepidation is on the surface. Beneath it is a great\ndeep of faith. What he now needs is discipline. God leads him to the\nback of the wilderness. The courtier serves as a herdsman. Far removed\nfrom the monumental literature of Egypt, he communes with himself, and\nwith nature's mighty visions. He gazes upon the dread and silent\nmountain, hallowed of old as the habitation of God. He had already, in\nEgypt, learned the faith of Joseph and of Jacob. Now, in Midian, he will\nimbibe the faith of Isaac and of Abraham. Far from the busy haunts of\nmen, the din of cities, the stir of the market-place, he will learn how\nto pray, how to divest himself of all confidence in the flesh, and how\nto worship the Invisible alone. For \"he endured as seeing Him Who is\ninvisible.\" Do not paraphrase it \"the invisible _King_.\" That is too\nnarrow. It was not Pharaoh only that had vanished out of his sight and\nout of his thoughts. Moses himself had disappeared. He had broken down\nwhen he trusted himself. He now endures, because he sees nought but God.\nSurely he was in the same blessed state of mind in which St. Paul was\nwhen he said, \"I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.\" When Moses\nand when Paul ceased to be anything, and God was to them everything,\nthey were strong to endure.[287]\n\n4. Faith renders the work of life sacramental. The long period of\ndiscipline has drawn to a close. The self-confidence of Moses has been\nfully subdued. \"He supposed that his brethren understood how that God\nby his hand was giving them deliverance.\" These, says Stephen, were his\nthoughts before he fled from Egypt. Very different is his language after\nthe probation of the wilderness: \"Who am I, that I should go unto\nPharaoh, and that I should bring forth the children of Israel out of\nEgypt?\" Four times he pleads and deprecates. Not until the anger of the\nLord is kindled against him does he take heart to attempt the formidable\ntask.\n\nThe Hebrews had been more than two hundred years in the house of\nbondage. So far as we know, the Lord had not once appeared or spoken to\nmen for six generations. No revelation was given between Jacob's vision\nat Beersheba[288] and the vision of the burning bush. We may well\nbelieve that there were in those days mockers, saying, The age of\nmiracles is past; the supernatural is played out. But Moses henceforth\nlives in a veritable world of miracles. The supernatural came with a\nrush, like the waking of a sleeping volcano. Signs and wonders encompass\nhim on every side. The bush burns unconsumed; the rod in his hand is\ncast on the ground, and becomes a serpent; he takes the serpent in his\nhand again, and it becomes a rod; he puts his hand into his bosom, and\nit is leprous; he puts the leprous hand into his bosom, and it is as\nhis other flesh. When he returns into Egypt, signs vie with signs, God\nwith demons. Plague follows plague. Moses lifts up his rod over the sea,\nand the children of Israel go on dry ground through the midst of the\nsea. At last he stands once more on Horeb. But in the short interval\nbetween the day when one poor thorn-bush of the desert glowed with flame\nand the day on which Sinai was altogether on a smoke and the whole\nmountain quaked, a religious revolution had occurred second only to one\nin the history of the race. At the touch of their leader's wand a nation\nwas born in a day. The immense transition from the Church in a family to\na holy nation was brought about suddenly, but effectively, when the\npeople were hopeless outcasts and Moses himself had lost heart.\n\nSuch a revolution must be inaugurated with sacrifice and with sacrament.\nThe sins of the past must be expiated and forgiven, and the people,\ncleansed from the guilt of their too frequent apostasy from the God of\ntheir fathers, must be dedicated anew to the service of Jehovah. The\npatriarchal dispensation expired in the birth of a holy nation. The\nPassover was both a sacrifice and a sacrament, an expiation and a\nconsecration. It retained its sacrificial character till Christ, the\ntrue Paschal Lamb, was slain. As a sacrifice it then ceased. But\nsacrament continues, and will continue as long as the Church exists on\nearth.\n\nMoses had seen the invisible God. The burning bush had symbolized the\nsacramental nature of the work which he had been called to do. God would\nbe in Israel as He was in the bush, and Israel would not be consumed. He\nWho is to His foes a consuming fire dwells among His people, as the\nvital heat and glow of their national life. The eye that can see Him is\nfaith. This is the power that can transform the whole life of man, and\nmake it sacramental. Too long has man's earthly existence been divided\ninto two separate spheres. On the one side and for a stated time he\nlives to God; on the other side he relinquishes himself for a period to\nthe pursuits of the world. We seem to think that the secular cannot be\nreligious, and, consequently, that the religiousness of one day or of\none place will make amends for the irreligion of the rest of life. The\nPassover consecrated a nation. Baptism and the Lord's Supper have, times\nwithout number, consecrated the individual. The true Christian life\ndraws its vital sap from God. It is not cleverness and worldly success,\nbut unselfish loyalty to the supernatural, and incessant prayer, that\nmarks the man who lives by faith.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[281] John i. 17.\n\n[282] Acts vii. 37.\n\n[283] John v. 46.\n\n[284] Exod. ii. 2; Acts vii. 20.\n\n[285] Acts vii. 22.\n\n[286] Exod. ii. 11.\n\n[287] After penning the above the writer of these pages saw that, in his\nview of the purpose of the sojourn in Midian, he had been anticipated by\nKurtz (_History of the Old Covenant_).\n\n[288] Gen. xlvi. 2.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\n_A CLOUD OF WITNESSES._\n\n\n \"By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau, even concerning things to\n come. By faith Jacob, when he was a-dying, blessed each of the sons\n of Joseph; and worshipped, _leaning_ upon the top of his staff. By\n faith Joseph, when his end was nigh, made mention of the departure\n of the children of Israel; and gave commandment concerning his\n bones.... By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they had\n been compassed about for seven days. By faith Rahab the harlot\n perished not with them that were disobedient, having received the\n spies with peace. And what shall I more say? for the time will fail\n me if I tell of Gideon. Barak, Samson, Jephthah; of David and Samuel\n and the prophets: who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought\n righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions,\n quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, from\n weakness were made strong, waxed mighty in war, turned to flight\n armies of aliens. Women received their dead by a resurrection: and\n others were tortured, not accepting their deliverance; that they\n might obtain a better resurrection: and others had trial of mockings\n and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment: they were\n stoned, they were sawn asunder, they were tempted, they were slain\n with the sword: they went about in sheepskins, in goatskins; being\n destitute, afflicted, evil-entreated (of whom the world was not\n worthy), wandering in deserts and mountains and caves, and the holes\n of the earth. And these all, having had witness borne to them\n through their faith, received not the promise, God having provided\n some better thing concerning us, that apart from us they should not\n be made perfect. Therefore let us also, seeing we are compassed\n about with so great a cloud of witnesses, lay aside every weight,\n and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with\n patience the race that is set before us.\"--HEB. xi. 20-xii. 1\n (R.V.).\n\n\nTime fails us to dilate on the faith of the other saints of the old\ncovenant. But they must not be passed over in silence. The impression\nproduced by our author's splendid roll of the heroes of faith in the\neleventh chapter is the result quite as much of an accumulation of\nexamples as of the special greatness of a few among them. At the close\nthey appear like an overhanging \"cloud\" of witnesses for God.\n\nBy faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau; and Jacob, dying in a strange\nland, blessed the sons of Joseph, distinguishing wittingly, and\nbestowing on _each_[289] his own peculiar blessing. His faith became a\nprophetic inspiration, and even distinguished between the future of\nEphraim and the future of Manasseh. He did not create the blessing. He\nwas only a steward of God's mysteries. Faith well understood its own\nlimitations. But it drew its inspiration to foretell what was to come\nfrom a remembrance of God's faithfulness in the past. For, before[290]\nhe gave his blessing, he had bowed his head in worship, leaning upon the\ntop of his staff. In his dying hour he recalled the day on which he had\npassed over Jordan with his staff,--a day remembered by him once before,\nwhen he had become two bands, wrestled with the angel, and halted on his\nthigh. His staff had become his token of the covenant, his reminder of\nGod's faithfulness, his sacrament, or visible sign of an invisible\ngrace.\n\nJoseph, though he was so completely Egyptianised that he did not, like\nJacob, ask to be buried in Canaan, and only two of his sons became,\nthrough Jacob's blessing, heirs of the promise, yet gave commandment\nconcerning his bones. His faith believed that the promise given to\nAbraham would be fulfilled. The children of Israel might dwell in Goshen\nand prosper. But they would sooner or later return to Canaan. When his\nend drew near, his Egyptian greatness was forgotten. The piety of his\nchildhood returned. He remembered God's promise to his fathers. Perhaps\nit was his father Jacob's dying blessing that had revived the thoughts\nof the past and fanned his faith into a steady flame.\n\n\"By faith the walls of Jericho fell down.\"[291] When the Israelites had\ncrossed Jordan and eaten of the old corn of the land, the manna ceased.\nThe period of continued miracle came to an end. Henceforth they would\nsmite their enemies with their armed thousands. But one signal miracle\nthe Lord would yet perform in the sight of all Israel. The walls of the\nfirst city they came to would fall down flat, when the seven priests\nwould blow with the trumpets of rams' horns the seventh time on the\nseventh day. Israel believed, and as God had said, so it came to pass.\n\nThe treachery of a harlot even is mentioned by the Apostle as an\ninstance of faith.[292] Justly. For, whilst her past life and present\nact were neither better nor worse than the morality of her time, she saw\nthe hand of the God of heaven in the conquest of the land, and bowed to\nHis decision. This was a greater faith than that of her daughter-in-law,\nRuth, whose name is not mentioned. Ruth believed in Naomi and, as a\nconsequence, accepted Naomi's God and people.[293] Rahab believed in God\nfirst, and, therefore, accepted the Israelitish conquest and adopted the\nnationality of the conquerors.[294]\n\nOf the judges the Apostle selects four: Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah.\nThe mention of Barak must be understood to include Deborah, who was the\nmind and heart that moved Barak's arm; and Deborah was a prophetess of\nthe Lord. She and Barak wrought their mighty deeds and sang their p\u00e6an\nin faith.[295] Gideon put the Midianites to flight by faith; for he knew\nthat his sword was the sword of the Lord,[296] Jephthah was a man of\nfaith; for he vowed a vow unto the Lord, and would not go back.[297]\nSamson had faith; for he was a Nazarite to God from his mother's womb,\nand in his last extremity called unto the Lord and prayed.[298]\n\nThe Apostle does not name Othniel, Ehud, Shamgar, and the rest. The\nSpirit of the Lord came upon them also. They too were mighty through\nGod. But the narrative does not tell us that they prayed, or that their\nsoul consciously and believingly responded to the voice of Heaven.\nAlaric, while on his march towards Rome, said to a holy monk, who\nentreated him to spare the city, that he did not go of his own will, but\nthat One was continually urging him forward to take it.[299] Many are\nthe scourges of God that know not the hand that wields them.\n\nIndividuals \"through faith subdued kingdoms.\"[300] Gideon dispersed the\nMidianites;[301] Barak discomfited Sisera, the captain of Jabin king of\nCanaan's host; Jephthah smote the Ammonites;[302] David held the\nPhilistines in check,[303] measured Moab with a line,[304] and put\ngarrisons in Syria of Damascus. Samuel \"wrought righteousness,\" and\ntaught the people the good and the right way.[305] David \"obtained the\nfulfilment of God's promises:\" his house was blessed that it should\ncontinue for ever before God.[306] Daniel's faith stopped the mouths of\nlions.[307] The faith of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego trusted in God,\nand quenched the power of the fire, without extinguishing its\nflame.[308] Elijah escaped the edge of Ahab's sword.[309] Elisha's faith\nsaw the mountain full of horses and chariots of fire round about\nhim.[310] Hezekiah \"from weakness was made strong.\"[311] The Maccab\u00e6an\nprinces waxed mighty in war and turned to flight armies of aliens.[312]\nThe widow of Zarephath[313] and the Shunammite[314] received their dead\nback into their embrace in consequence of[315] a resurrection wrought by\nthe faith of the prophets. Others refused deliverance, gladly accepting\nthe alternative to unfaithfulness, to be beaten to death, that they\nmight be accounted worthy[316] to attain the better world and the\nresurrection, not _of_, but _from_, the dead, which is the resurrection\nto eternal life. Such a man was the aged Eleazar in the time of the\nMaccabees.[317] Zechariah was stoned to death at the commandment of\nJoash the king in the court of the house of the Lord.[318] Isaiah is\nsaid to have been sawn asunder in extreme old age by the order of\nManasseh. Others were burnt[319] by Antiochus Epiphanes. Elijah had no\nsettled abode, but went from place to place clad in a garment of hair,\nthe skin of sheep or goat. It ought not to be a matter of surprise that\nthese men of God had no dwelling-place, but were, like the Apostles\nafter them, buffeted, persecuted, defamed, and made as the filth of the\nworld, the offscouring of all things. For the world was not worthy of\nthem. The world crucified their Lord, and they would be ashamed of\naccepting better treatment than He received. By the world is meant the\nlife of those who know not Christ. The men of faith were driven out of\nthe cities into the desert, out of homes into prisons. But their faith\nwas an assurance of things hoped for and, therefore, a solvent of fear.\nTheir proving of things not seen rendered the prison, as Tertullian\nsays,[320] a place of retirement, and the desert a welcome escape from\nthe abominations that met their eyes wherever the world had set up its\nvanity fair.\n\nAll these sturdy men of faith have had witness borne to them in\nScripture. This honour they won from time to time, as the Spirit of\nChrist, which was in the prophets, saw fit to encourage the people of\nGod on earth by their example. Are we forbidden to suppose that this\nwitness to their faith gladdened their own glorified spirits, and calmed\ntheir eager expectation of the day when the promise would be fulfilled?\nFor, after all, their reward was not the testimony of Scripture, but\ntheir own perfection. Now this perfection is described through out the\nEpistle as a priestly consecration. It expresses fitness for entering\ninto immediate communion with God. This was the final fulfilment of the\npromise. This was the blessing which the saints under the old covenant\nhad not obtained. The way of the holiest had not yet been opened.[321]\nConsequently their faith consisted essentially in endurance. \"None of\nthese received the promise,\" but patiently waited. This is inferred\nconcerning them from the testimony of Scripture that they believed.\nTheir faith must have manifested itself in this form,--endurance. To us,\nat length, the promise has been fulfilled. God has spoken unto us in\nHis Son. We have a great High-priest, Who has passed through the\nheavens. The Son, as High-priest, has been perfected for evermore; that\nis, He is endowed with fitness to enter into the true holiest place. He\nhas perfected also for ever them that are sanctified: freed from guilt\nas worshippers, they enter the holiest through a priestly consecration.\nThe new and living way has been dedicated through the veil.\n\nBut the important point is that the fulfilment of the promise has not\ndispensed with the necessity for faith. We saw, in an earlier chapter,\nthat the revelation of the Sabbath advances from lower forms of rest to\nhigher and more spiritual. The more stubborn the unbelief of men became,\nthe more fully the revelation of God's promise opened up. The thought is\nsomewhat similar in the present passage. The final form which God's\npromise assumes is an advance on any fulfilment vouchsafed to the saints\nof the old covenant during their earthly life. It now includes\nperfection, or fitness to enter into the holiest through the blood of\nChrist. It means immediate communion with God. Far from dispensing with\nfaith, this form of the promise demands the exercise of a still better\nfaith than the fathers had. They endured by faith; we through faith\nenter the holiest. To them, as well as to us, faith is an assurance of\nthings hoped for and a proving of things not seen; but our assurance\nmust incite us to draw near with boldness unto the throne of grace, to\ndraw near with a true heart in _full assurance_ of faith. This is the\nbetter faith which is not once ascribed in the eleventh chapter to the\nsaints of the Old Testament. On the contrary, we are given to\nunderstand[322] that they, through fear of death, were all their\nlifetime subject to bondage. But Christ has abolished death. For we\nenter into the presence of God, not through death, but through faith.\n\nIn accordance with this, the Apostle says that \"God provided some better\nthing concerning us.\"[323] These words cannot mean that God provided\nsome better thing _for_ us than He had provided for the fathers. Such a\nnotion would not be true. The promise was made to Abraham, and is now\nfulfilled to all the heirs alike; that is, to those who are of the faith\nof Abraham. The author says \"concerning,\"[324] not \"for.\" The idea is\nthat God foresaw we would, and provided (for the word implies both\nthings) that we should, manifest a better kind of faith than it was\npossible for the fathers to show, better in so far as power to enter the\nholiest place is better than endurance.\n\nBut the author adds another thought. Through the exercise of the better\nfaith by us, the fathers also enter with us into the holiest place.\n\"Apart from us they could not be made perfect.\" The priestly\nconsecration becomes theirs through us. Such is the unity of the Church,\nand such the power of faith, that those who could not believe, or could\nnot believe in a certain way, for themselves, receive the fulness of the\nblessing through the faith of others. Nothing less will do justice to\nthe Apostle's words than the notion that the saints of the old covenant\nhave, through the faith of the Christian Church, entered into more\nimmediate and intimate communion with God than they had before, though\nin heaven.\n\nWe now understand why they take so deep an interest in the running of\nthe Christian athletes on earth. They surround their course, like a\ngreat cloud. They know that they will enter into the holiest if we win\nthe race. For every new victory of faith on earth, there is a new\nrevelation of God in heaven. Even the angels, the principalities and\npowers in the heavenly places, learn, says St. Paul, through the Church\nthe manifold wisdom of God.[325] How much more will the saints, members\nof the Church, brethren of Christ, be better able to apprehend the love\nand power of God, Who makes weak, sinful men conquerors over death and\nits fear.\n\nThe word \"witnesses\"[326] does not itself refer to their looking on, as\nspectators of the race. Another word would almost certainly have been\nused to express this notion, which is moreover contained in the phrase\n\"having so great a cloud surrounding[327] us.\" The thought seems to be\nthat the men to whose faith the Spirit of Christ in Scripture bare\nwitness were themselves witnesses for God in a godless world, in the\nsame sense in which Christ tells His disciples that they were His\nwitnesses, and Ananias tells Saul that he would be a witness for\nChrist.[328] Every one who confessed Christ before men, him did Christ\nalso confess before His Church which is on earth, and does now confess\nbefore His Father in heaven, by leading him into God's immediate\npresence.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[289] =hekaston= (xi. 21).\n\n[290] Gen. xlvii. 31.\n\n[291] Chap. xi. 30.\n\n[292] Chap. xi. 31.\n\n[293] Ruth i. 16.\n\n[294] Matt. i. 5.\n\n[295] Judges iv. and v.\n\n[296] Judges vii. 18.\n\n[297] Judges xi. 35.\n\n[298] Judges xiii. 7; xvi. 28.\n\n[299] Robertson, _History of the Christian Church_, book ii., chap. vii.\n\n[300] Chap. xi. 33.\n\n[301] Judges vii.\n\n[302] Judges xi. 33.\n\n[303] 2 Sam. v. 25.\n\n[304] 2 Sam. viii. 2, 6.\n\n[305] 1 Sam. xii. 23.\n\n[306] 2 Sam. vii. 28, 29.\n\n[307] Dan. vi. 22.\n\n[308] Dan. iii. 27, 28.\n\n[309] 1 Kings xix. 1-3.\n\n[310] 2 Kings vi. 17.\n\n[311] 2 Kings xx. 5.\n\n[312] 1 Macc. v.\n\n[313] 1 Kings xvii. 22.\n\n[314] 2 Kings iv. 35.\n\n[315] =ex= (chap. xi. 35).\n\n[316] Luke xx. 35.\n\n[317] 2 Macc. vi. 19.\n\n[318] 2 Chron. xxiv. 21.\n\n[319] Reading =epr\u00easth\u00easan=.\n\n[320] _Ad Martyras_, 2.\n\n[321] Chap. ix. 8.\n\n[322] Chap. ii. 15.\n\n[323] Chap. xi. 40.\n\n[324] =peri=.\n\n[325] Eph. iii. 10.\n\n[326] mart/yr\u00f4n (xii. 1).\n\n[327] perike/imenon.\n\n[328] Acts i. 8; xxii. 14.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\n_CONFLICT._\n\n\n \"Therefore let us also, seeing we are compassed about with so great\n a cloud of witnesses, lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth\n so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is\n set before us, looking unto Jesus the Author and Perfecter of _our_\n faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the Cross,\n despising shame, and hath sat down at the right hand of the throne\n of God. For consider Him that hath endured such gainsaying of\n sinners against themselves, that ye wax not weary, fainting in your\n souls. Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin:\n and ye have forgotten the exhortation, which reasoneth with you as\n with sons,\n\n My son, regard not lightly the chastening of the Lord,\n Nor faint when thou art reproved of Him;\n For whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth,\n And scourgeth every son whom He receiveth.\n\n It is for chastening that ye endure; God dealeth with you as with\n sons; for what son is there whom _his_ father chasteneth not? But if\n ye are without chastening, whereof all have been made partakers,\n then are ye bastards, and not sons. Furthermore, we had the fathers\n of our flesh to chasten us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not\n much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?\n For they verily for a few days chastened _us_ as seemed good to\n them; but He for _our_ profit, that _we_ may be partakers of His\n holiness. All chastening seemeth for the present to be not joyous,\n but grievous: yet afterward it yieldeth peaceable fruit unto them\n that have been exercised thereby, _even the fruit_ of righteousness.\n Wherefore lift up the hands that hang down, and the palsied knees;\n and make straight paths for your feet, that that which is lame be\n not turned out of the way, but rather be healed. Follow after peace\n with all men, and the sanctification without which no man shall see\n the Lord: looking carefully lest _there be_ any man that falleth\n short of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up\n trouble _you_, and thereby the many be defiled; lest _there be_ any\n fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one mess of meat\n sold his own birthright. For ye know that even when he afterward\n desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected (for he found no\n place of repentance), though he sought it diligently with\n tears.\"--HEB. xii. 1-17 (R.V.).\n\n\nThe author has told his readers that they have need of endurance;[329]\nbut when he connects this endurance with faith, he describes faith, not\nas an enduring of present evils, but as an assurance of things hoped for\nin the future. His meaning undoubtedly is that assurance of the future\ngives strength to endure the present. These are two distinct aspects of\nfaith. In the eleventh chapter both sides of faith are illustrated in\nthe long catalogue of believers under the Old Testament. Examples of men\nwaiting for the promise and having an assurance of things hoped for come\nfirst. They are Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. In\nsome measure these witnesses of God suffered; but the more prominent\nfeature of their faith was expectation of a future blessing. Moses is\nnext mentioned. He marks a transition. In him the two qualities of faith\nappear to strive for the pre-eminence. He chooses to be evil entreated\nwith the people of God, because he knows that the enjoyment of sin is\nshort-lived; he suffers the reproach of Christ, and looks away from it\nto the recompense of reward. After him conflict and endurance are more\nprominent in the history of believers than assurance of the future. Many\nof these later heroes of faith had a more or less dim vision of the\nunseen; and in the case of those of whose faith nothing is said in the\nOld Testament except that they endured, the other phase of this\nspiritual power is not wanting. For the Church is one through the ages,\nand the clear eye of an earlier period cannot be disconnected from the\nstrong arm of a later time.\n\nIn the twelfth chapter the two aspects of faith exemplified in the\nsaints of the Old Testament are urged on the Hebrew Christians. Now\npractically for the first time in the Epistle the writer addresses\nhimself to the difficulties and discouragements of a state of conflict.\nIn the earlier chapters he exhorted his readers to hold fast their own\nindividual confession of Christ. In the later portions he exhorted them\nto quicken the faith of their brethren in the Church assemblies. But his\naccount of the worthies of the Old Testament in the previous chapter has\nrevealed a special adaptedness in faith to meet the actual condition of\nhis readers. We gather from the tenor of the passage that the Church had\nto contend against evil men. Who they were we do not know. They were\n\"the sinners.\" Our author is claiming for the Christian Church the right\nto speak of the men outside in the language used by Jews concerning the\nheathen; and it is not at all unlikely that the unbelieving Jews\nthemselves are here meant. His readers had to endure the gainsaying of\nsinners, who poured contempt on Christianity, as they had also covered\nChrist Himself with shame. The Church might have to resist unto blood in\nstriving against the encompassing sin. Peace is to be sought and\nfollowed after with all men, but not to the injury of that\nsanctification without which no man shall see the Lord.[330] The true\npeople of God must go forth unto Jesus without the camp of Judaism,\nbearing His reproach.[331]\n\nThis is an advance in the thought. Our author does not exhort his\nreaders individually to steadfastness, nor the Church collectively to\nmutual oversight. He has before his eyes the conflict of the Church\nagainst wicked men, whether in sheep's clothing or without the fold. The\npurport of the passage may be thus stated: Faith as a hope of the future\nis a faith to endure in the present conflict against men. The reverse of\nthis is equally true and important: that faith as a strength to endure\nthe gainsaying of men is the faith that presses on toward the goal unto\nthe prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.\n\nThe connecting link between these two representations of faith is to be\nfound in the illustration with which the chapter opens. A race implies\nboth a hope and a contest.\n\nThe hope of faith is simple and well understood. It has been made\nabundantly clear in the Epistle. It is to obtain the fulfilment of the\npromise made to Abraham and renewed to other believers time after time\nunder the old covenant. \"For we who believe do enter into God's\nrest.\"[332] \"They that have been called receive the promise of the\neternal inheritance.\"[333] \"We have boldness to enter into the holiest\nby the blood of Jesus.\"[334] In the latter part of the chapter the\nwriter speaks of his readers as having already attained. They have come\nto God, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus, the\nMediator of the new covenant. In the first verse he urges them to run\nthe race, so as to secure for themselves the blessing. He points them to\nJesus, Who has run the race before them and won the crown, Who sits on\nthe right hand of God, with authority to reward all who reach the goal.\nBoth representations are perfectly consistent. Men do enter into\nimmediate communion with God on earth; but they attain it by effort of\nfaith.\n\nSuch is the aim of faith. The conflict is more complex and difficult to\nexplain. There is, first of all, a conflict in the preparatory training,\nand this is twofold. We have to strive against ourselves and against the\nworld. We must put away our own grossness,[335] as athletes rid\nthemselves by severe training of all superfluous flesh. Then we must\nalso put away from us the sin that surrounds us, that quite besets us,\non all sides,[336] whether in the world or in the Church, as runners\nmust have the course cleared and the crowd of onlookers that press\naround removed far enough to give them the sense of breathing freely and\nrunning unimpeded in a large space. The word \"besetting\" does not refer\nto the special sin to which every individual is most prone. No\nthoughtful man but has felt himself encompassed by sin, not merely as a\ntemptation, but much more as an overpowering force, silent, passive,\nclosing in upon him on all sides,--a constant pressure from which there\nis no escape. The sin and misery of the world has staggered reason and\nleft men utterly powerless to resist or to alleviate the infinite evil.\nFaith alone surmounts these preliminary difficulties of the Christian\nlife. Faith delivers us from grossness of spirit, from lethargy,\nearthliness, stupor. Faith will also lift us above the terrible\npressure of the world's sin. Faith has the heart that still hopes, and\nthe hand that still saves. Faith resolutely puts away from her whatever\nthreatens to overwhelm and impede, and makes for herself a large room to\nmove freely in.\n\nThen comes the actual contest. Our author says \"contest.\"[337] For the\nconflict is against evil men. Yet it is, in a true and vital sense, not\na contest of the kind which the word naturally suggests. Here the effort\nis not to be first at the goal. We run the race \"through endurance.\"\nMental suffering is of the essence of the conflict. Our success in\nwinning the prize does not mean the failure of others. The failure of\nour rivals does not imply that we attain the mark. In fact, the\nChristian life is not the competition of rivals, but the enduring of\nshame at the hands of evil men, which endurance is a discipline. Maybe\nwe do not sufficiently lay to heart that the discipline of life consists\nmainly in overcoming rightly and well the antagonism of men. The one\nbitterness in the life of our Lord Himself was the malice of the wicked.\nApart from that unrelenting hatred we may regard His short life as\nserenely happy. The warning which He addressed to His disciples was that\nthey should beware of men. But, though wisdom is necessary, the\nconflict must not be shunned. When it is over, nothing will more\nastonish the man of faith than that he should have been afraid, so weak\ndid malice prove to be.\n\nTo run our course successfully, we must keep our eyes steadily fixed on\nJesus.[338] It is true we are compassed about with a cloud of God's\nfaithful witnesses. But they are a cloud. The word signifies not merely\nthat they are a large multitude, but also that we cannot distinguish\nindividuals in the immense gathering of those who have gone before. The\nChurch has always cherished a hope that the saints of heaven are near\nus, perhaps seeing our efforts to follow their glorious example. Beyond\nthis we dare not go. Personal communion is possible to the believer on\nearth with One only of the inhabitants of the spiritual world. That One\nis Jesus Christ. Even faith cannot discern the individual saints that\ncompose the cloud. But it can look away from all of them to Jesus. It\nlooks unto Jesus as He is and as He was: as He is for help; as He was\nfor a perfect example.\n\n1. Faith regards Jesus as He is,--the \"Leader and Perfecter.\" The words\nare an allusion to what the writer has already told us in the Epistle\nconcerning Jesus. He is \"the Captain or Leader of our salvation,\"[339]\nand \"by one offering He hath perfected for ever them that are\nsanctified.\"[340] He leads onward our faith till we attain the goal, and\nfor every advance we make in the course He strengthens, sustains, and in\nthe end completes our faith. The runner, when he seizes the crown, will\nnot be found to have been exhausted by his efforts. High attainments\ndemand a correspondingly great faith.\n\nMany expositors think the words which we have rendered \"Leader\" and\n\"Perfecter\" refer to Christ's own faith. But the words will hardly admit\nof this meaning. Others think they are intended to convey the notion\nthat Christ is the Author of our faith in its weak beginnings and the\nFinisher of it when it attains perfection. But the use which the Apostle\nhas made of the words \"Leader of salvation\" in chap. ii. seems to prove\nthat here also he understands by \"Leader\" One Who will bring our faith\nonward safely to the end of the course. The distinction is rather\nbetween rendering us certain of winning the crown and making our faith\nlarge and noble enough to be worthy of wearing it.\n\n2. Faith regards Jesus as He was on earth, the perfect example of\nvictory through endurance. He has acquired His power to lead onward and\nto make perfect our faith by His own exercise of faith. He is \"Leader\"\nbecause He is \"Forerunner;\"[341] He is \"Perfecter\" because He Himself\nhas been perfected.[342] He endured a cross. The author leaves it to his\nreaders to imagine all that is implied in the awful word. More is\ninvolved in the Cross than shame. For the shame of the Cross He could\nafford to despise. But there was in the Cross what He did not despise;\nyea, what drew tears and strong cries from Him in the agony of His soul.\nConcerning _this_, whatever it was, the author is here silent, because\nit was peculiar to Christ, and could never become an example to others,\nexcept indeed in the faith that enabled Him to endure it.\n\nEven in the gainsaying of men there was an element which He did not\ndespise, but endured. He understood that their gainsaying was against\nthemselves.[343] It would end, not merely in putting Him to an open\nshame, but in their own destruction. This caused keen suffering to His\nholy and loving spirit. But He endured it, as He endured the Cross\nitself in all its mysterious import. He did not permit the sin and\nperdition of the world to overwhelm Him. His faith resolutely put away\nfrom Him the deadly pressure. On the one hand, He did not despise sin;\non the other, He was not crushed by its weight. He calmly endured.\n\nBut He endured through faith, as an assurance of things hoped for and\nthe proving of things not seen. He hoped to attain the joy which was set\nbefore Him as the prize to be won. The connection of the thought with\nthe general subject of the whole passage satisfies us that the words\ntranslated \"for the joy set before Him\" are correctly so rendered, and\ndo not mean that Christ chose the suffering and shame of the Cross in\npreference to the enjoyment of sin. This also is perfectly true, and\nmore true of Christ than it was even of Moses. But the Apostle's main\nidea throughout is that faith in the form of assurance and faith in the\nform of enduring go together. Jesus endured because He looked for a\nfuture joy as His recompense of reward; He attained the joy through His\nendurance.\n\nBut, as more than shame was involved in His Cross, more also than joy\nwas reserved for Him in reward. Through His Cross He became \"the Leader\nand Perfecter\" of our faith. He was exalted to be the Sanctifier of His\npeople. \"He has sat down on the right hand of God.\"\n\nOur author proceeds: Weigh this in the balance.[344] Compare this\nquality of faith with your own. Consider who He was and what you are.\nWhen you have well understood the difference, remember that He endured,\nas you endure, by faith. He put His trust in God.[345] He was faithful\nto Him Who had constituted Him what He became through His assumption of\nflesh and blood.[346] He offered prayers and supplications to Him Who\nwas able to save Him out of death, yet piously committed Himself to the\nhands of God. The gainsaying of men brought Him to the bloody death of\nthe Cross. You also are marshalled in battle array, in the conflict\nagainst the sin of the world. But the Leader only has shed His blood--as\nyet. Your hour may be drawing nigh! Therefore be not weary in striving\nto reach the goal! Faint not in enduring the conflict! The two sides of\nfaith are still in the author's thoughts.\n\nIt would naturally occur to the readers of the Epistle to ask why they\nmight not end their difficulties by shunning the conflict. Why might\nthey not enter into fellowship with God without coming into conflict\nwith men? But this cannot be. Communion with God requires personal\nfitness of character, and manifests itself in inward peace. This\nfitness, again, is the result of discipline, and the discipline implies\nendurance. \"It is for discipline that ye endure.\"[347]\n\nThe word translated \"discipline\" suggests the notion of a child with\nhis father. But it is noteworthy that the Apostle does not use the word\n\"children\" in his illustration, but the word \"sons.\" This was occasioned\npartly by the fact that the citation from the Book of Proverbs speaks of\n\"sons.\" But, in addition to this, the author's mind seems to be still\nlingering with the remembrance of Him Who was Son of God. For discipline\nis the lot and privilege of all sons. Who is a son whom his father does\nnot discipline? There might have been One. But even He humbled Himself\nto learn obedience through sufferings. Absolutely every son undergoes\ndiscipline.\n\nFurthermore, the fathers of our bodies kept us under discipline, and we\nnot only submitted, but even gave them reverence, though their\ndiscipline was not intended to have effect for more than the few days of\nour pupilage, and though in that short time they were liable to error in\ntheir treatment of us. How much more shall we subject ourselves to the\ndiscipline of God! He is not only the God of all spirits and of all\nflesh,[348] but also the Father of our spirits; that is, He has created\nour spirit after His own likeness, and made it capable, through\ndiscipline, of partaking in His own holiness, which will be our true and\neverlasting life. The gardener breaks the hard ground, uproots weeds,\nlops off branches; but the consequence of his rough treatment is that\nthe fruit at last hangs on the bough. We are God's tillage. Our conflict\nwith men and their sin is watched and guided by a Father, The fruit\nconsists in the calm after the storm, the peace of a good conscience,\nthe silencing of accusers, the putting wicked men to shame, the\nreverence which righteousness extorts even from enemies. In the same\nbook from which our author has cited far-reaching instruction, we are\ntold that \"when a man's ways please the Lord, He maketh even his enemies\nto be at peace with him.\"[349]\n\nHere, again, the Apostle addresses his readers as members of the Church\nin its conflict with men. He tells them that, in doing what is incumbent\nupon them as a Church towards different classes of men, they secure for\nthemselves individually the discipline of sons and may hope to reap the\nfruit of that discipline in peace and righteousness. The Church has a\nduty to perform towards the weaker brethren, towards the enemy at the\ngate, and towards the Esaus whose worldliness imperils the purity of\nothers.\n\n1. There were among them weaker brethren, the nerves of whose hands and\nknees were unstrung. They could neither combat a foe nor run the race.\nIt was for the Church to smooth the ruggedness of the road before its\nfeet, that the lame things[350] (for so, with something of contempt, he\nnames the waverers) might not be turned out of the course by the\npressure of the other runners. Rather than permit this, let the Church\nlift up their drooping hands and sustain their palsied knees, that they\nmay be healed of their lameness.\n\n2. As to enemies and persecutors, it is the duty of the Church to follow\nafter peace with all men, as much as in her lies. Christians may\nsacrifice almost anything for peace, but not their own priestly\nconsecration, without which no man shall see the Lord Jesus at His\nappearing. He will be seen only by those who eagerly expect Him unto\nsalvation.[351]\n\n3. The consecration of the Church is maintained by watchfulness[352]\nagainst every tendency to alienation from the grace of God, to\nbitterness against God and the brethren, to sensuality and profane\nworldliness. All must watch over themselves and over all the brethren.\nThe danger, too, increases if it is neglected. It begins in withdrawing\nfrom[353] the Church assemblies, where the influences of grace are\nmanifested. It grows into the poisonous plant of a bitter spirit, which,\n\"like a root that beareth gall and wormwood,\" spreads through \"a family\nor tribe,\"[354] and turns away their heart from the Lord to go and serve\nthe gods of the nations. \"The many are defiled.\" The Church as a whole\nbecomes infected. But bitterness of spirit is not the only fruit of\nselfishness. On the same tree sensuality grows, which God will punish\nwhen the Church cannot detect its presence.[355]\n\nFrom the stem of selfishness, which will not brook the restraints of\nChurch communion, springs, last and most dangerous of all, the profane,\nworldly spirit, which denies and mocks the very idea of consecration. It\nis the spirit of Esau, who bartered the right of the first-born to the\npromise of the covenant for one mess of pottage. The author calls\nattention to the incident, as it displays Esau's contempt of the promise\nmade to Abraham and his own father Isaac. His thoughts never rose above\nthe earth. \"What profit shall this birthright do to me?\"[356] We must\ndistinguish between the birthright and the blessing. The former carried\nwith it the great promise given to Abraham with an oath on Moriah: \"In\nthy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.\"[357] Possession\nof it did not depend on Isaac's fond blessing. It belonged to Esau by\nright of birth till he sold it to Jacob. But Isaac's blessing, which he\nintended for Esau because he loved him, meant more especially lordship\nover his brethren. Esau plainly distinguishes the two things: \"Is not he\nrightly named Jacob? For he hath supplanted me these two times: he took\naway my birthright, and behold, now he hath taken away my\nblessing.\"[358] When he found that Jacob had supplanted him a second\ntime, he cried with a great and exceeding bitter cry, and sought\ndiligently, not the birthright, which was of a religious nature, but the\ndew of heaven, and the fatness of the earth, and plenty of corn and\nwine, and the homage of his mother's sons. But he had sold the greater\ngood and, by doing so, forfeited the lesser. The Apostle recognises,\nbeyond the subtilty of Jacob and behind the blessing of Isaac, the\nDivine retribution. His selling the birthright was not the merely rash\nact of a sorely tempted youth. He continued to despise the covenant.\nWhen he was forty years old, he took wives of the daughters of the\nCanaanites. Abraham had made his servant swear that he would go to the\ncity of Nahor to take a wife unto Isaac; and Rebekah, true to the\ninstinct of faith, was weary of her life because of the daughters of\nHeth. But Esau cared for none of these things. The day on which Jacob\ntook away the blessing marks the crisis in Esau's life. He still\ndespised the covenant and sought only worldly lordship and plenty. For\nthis profane scorn of the spiritual promise made to Abraham and Isaac,\nEsau not only lost the blessing which he sought, but was himself\nrejected. The Apostle reminds his readers that they know it to have been\nso from Esau's subsequent history. They would not fail to see in him an\nexample of the terrible doom described by the Apostle himself in a\nprevious chapter. Esau was like the earth that brings forth thorns and\nthistles and is \"rejected.\"[359] The grace of repentance was denied\nhim.[360]\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[329] =hypomon\u00ea= (x. 36).\n\n[330] Chap. xii. 14.\n\n[331] Chap. xiii. 13.\n\n[332] Chap. iv. 3.\n\n[333] Chap. ix. 15.\n\n[334] Chap. x. 19.\n\n[335] =onkon= (xii. 1).\n\n[336] =euperistaton=.\n\n[337] =ag\u00f4na=.\n\n[338] Chap. xii. 2.\n\n[339] =arch\u00eagon= (ii. 10).\n\n[340] =tetelei\u00f4ken= (x. 14).\n\n[341] =prodromos= (vi. 20).\n\n[342] =tetelei\u00f4menon= (vii. 28).\n\n[343] Reading =eis heautous= (xii. 3).\n\n[344] =analogisasthe= (xii. 3).\n\n[345] Chap. ii. 13.\n\n[346] Chap. iii. 2.\n\n[347] =eis paideian hypomenete= (xii. 7, where the verb is indicative,\nnot imperative).\n\n[348] Num. xvi. 22.\n\n[349] Prov. xvi. 7.\n\n[350] =to ch\u00f4lon= (xii. 13).\n\n[351] Chap. ix. 28.\n\n[352] =epispkopountes= (xii. 15).\n\n[353] =hyster\u00f4n apo=.\n\n[354] Deut. xxix. 18.\n\n[355] Chap. xiii. 4. Cf. Rom. i. 18 sqq.\n\n[356] Gen. xxv. 32.\n\n[357] Gen. xxii. 18.\n\n[358] Gen. xxvii. 36.\n\n[359] =adokimos= (vi. 8).\n\n[360] Chap. vi. 6.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\n_MOUNT ZION._\n\n\n \"For ye are not come unto _a mount_ that might be touched, and that\n burned with fire, and unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest, and\n the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which _voice_ they\n that heard entreated that no word more should be spoken unto them:\n for they could not endure that which was enjoined, If even a beast\n touch the mountain, it shall be stoned; and so fearful was the\n appearance, _that_ Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake: but ye\n are come unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the\n heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable hosts of angels, to the\n general assembly and Church of the first-born who are enrolled in\n heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men\n made perfect, and to Jesus the Mediator of a new covenant, and to\n the blood of sprinkling that speaketh better than _that of_ Abel.\n See that ye refuse not Him that speaketh. For if they escaped not,\n when they refused him that warned _them_ on earth, much more _shall\n not_ we _escape_, who turn away from Him that _warneth_ from heaven:\n whose voice then shook the earth: but now He hath promised, saying,\n Yet once more will I make to tremble not the earth only, but also\n the heaven. And this _word_, Yet once more, signifieth the removing\n of those things that are shaken, as of things that have been made,\n that those things which are not shaken may remain. Wherefore,\n receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us have grace,\n whereby we may offer service well-pleasing to God with reverence and\n awe, for our God is a consuming fire.\"--HEB. xii. 18-29 (R.V.).\n\n\nMutual oversight is the lesson of the foregoing verses. The author urges\nhis readers to look carefully that no member of the Church withdraws\nfrom the grace of God, that no prison of bitterness troubles and defiles\nthe Church as a whole, that sensuality and worldliness are put away. In\nthe paragraph that comes next he still has the idea of Church fellowship\nin his mind. But his advice to his readers to exercise supervision over\none another yields to the still more urgent warning to watch themselves,\nand especially to shun the most dangerous even of these evils, which is\nworldliness of spirit. Esau was rejected; see that ye yourselves refuse\nnot Him that speaketh.\n\nThat the passage is thus closely connected with what immediately\nprecedes may be admitted. But it must be also connected with the entire\nargument of the Epistle. It is the final exhortation directly based on\nthe general idea that the new covenant excels the former one. As such it\nmay be compared with the earlier exhortation, given before the allegory\nof Melchizedek introduced the notion that the old covenant had passed\naway, and with the warning in the tenth chapter which precedes the\nglorious record of faith's heroes from Abel to Jesus. As early as the\nsecond chapter he warns the Hebrew Christians not to drift away and\nneglect a salvation revealed in One Who is greater than the angels,\nthrough whom the Law had been given. In the later exhortations he adds\nthe notion of the blood of the covenant, and insists, not merely on the\ngreatness, but also on the finality, of the revelation. But in the\nconcluding passage, which now opens before us, he makes the daring\nannouncement that all the blessings of the new covenant have already\nbeen fulfilled, and that in perfect completeness and grandeur. We _have_\ncome unto Mount Zion; we _have_ received a kingdom which cannot be\nshaken. The passage must, therefore, be considered as the practical\nresult of the whole Epistle.\n\nOur author began with the fact of a revelation of God in a Son. But a\nthoughtful reader will not fail to have observed that this great subject\nseldom comes to the front in the course of the argument. Reading the\nEpistle, we seem for a time to forget the thought of a revelation given\nin the Son. Our minds are mastered by the author's powerful reasoning.\nWe think of nothing but the surpassing excellence of the new covenant\nand its Mediator. The greatness of Jesus as High-priest makes us\noblivious of His greatness as the Revealer of God. But this is only the\nglamour cast over us by a master mind. After all, to know God is the\nhighest glory and perfection of man. Apart from a revelation of God in\nHis Son, all other truths are negative; and their value to us depends on\ntheir connection with this self-manifestation of the Father. Religion,\ntheology, priesthood, covenant, atonement, salvation, and the\nIncarnation itself, do not attain a worthy and final purpose except as\nmeans of revealing God. It would be a serious misapprehension to suppose\nthat our author had forgotten this fundamental conception. His aim has\nbeen to show that the economy of the new covenant _is_ the perfect\nrevelation. God has spoken, not through, but _in_, the Son. The Divine\npersonality, the human nature, the eternal priesthood, the infinite\nsacrifice, of the Son are the final revelation of God.\n\nIn the sublime contrast between Mount Sinai and Mount Zion the two\nthoughts are brought together. We have had frequent occasion to point\nout that the central fact of the new covenant is direct communion with\nGod. Access to God is now open to all men in Christ. We are invited to\ndraw near with boldness unto the throne of grace.[361] Jesus has entered\nas a Forerunner for us within the veil.[362] We have boldness to enter\ninto the holiest by the blood of Jesus.[363] Yea, we have already\nactually entered. We are come unto Mount Zion. Death has been\nannihilated. We are now where Christ is. The writer of our Epistle has\nadvanced beyond the perplexity that, in his hour of loneliness, troubled\nSt. Paul, who was in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart and\nbe with Christ, which is far better.[364] We are come to Jesus, the\nMediator of the new covenant. That great city the heavenly Jerusalem has\ndescended out of heaven from God.[365] The angels pass to and fro as\nministering spirits. The names of the first-born are registered in\nheaven, as possessing already the privilege of citizenship. We must not\nsay that the spirits of the righteous have departed from us; let us\nrather say that we, by being made righteous, have come to them. We stand\nnow before the tribunal of God, the Judge of all. Jesus has fulfilled\nHis promise to come and receive us unto Himself, that where He is, there\nwe may be also.[366]\n\nAll these things are contained in access unto God. The Apostle explains\ntheir meaning and unfolds their glory by contrasting them with the\nrevelation of God on Sinai. We might perhaps have expected him to\ninstitute a comparison between them and the incidents of the day of\natonement, inasmuch as he has described Christ's ascension to the right\nhand of God as the entering of the High-priest into the true holiest\nplace. But the day of atonement was not a revelation of God. The\npropitiation required antecedently to a revelation was indeed offered.\nBut, as the propitiation was unreal, the full revelation, to which it\nwas intended to lead, was never given. Nothing is said in the books of\nMoses concerning the people's state of mind during the time when the\nhigh-priest stood in God's presence. The transaction was so purely\nceremonial that the people do not seem to have taken any part in it,\nbeyond gathering perhaps around the tabernacle to witness the ingress\nand egress of the high-priest. Moreover, no words were spoken either by\nthe high-priest before God, or by God to the high-priest or to the\npeople. No prayer was uttered, no revelation vouchsafed. For these\nreasons the Apostle goes back to the revelation on Sinai, which indeed\ninstituted the rites of the covenant. With the revelation that preceded\nthe sacrifices of the Law he compares the revelation that is founded\nupon the sacrifice of Christ. This is the fundamental difference between\nSinai and Zion. The revelation on Sinai precedes the sacrifices of the\ntabernacle; the revelation on Zion follows the sacrifice of the Cross.\nUnder the old covenant the revelation demanded sacrifices; under the new\ncovenant the sacrifice demands a revelation.\n\nFrom this essential difference in the nature of the revelations a\ntwofold contrast is apparent in the phenomena of Sinai and Zion. Sinai\nrevealed the terrible side of God's character, Zion the peaceful\ntenderness of His love. The revelation on Sinai was earthly; that on\nZion is spiritual.\n\nThere can be no question that the Apostle intends to contrast the\nterrible appearances on Sinai with the calm serenity of Zion. The very\nrhythm of his language expresses it. But the key to his description of\nthe one and the other is to be found in the distinction already\nmentioned. On Sinai the unappeased wrath of God is revealed. Sacrifices\nare instituted, which, however, when established, evoke no response from\nthe offended majesty of Heaven. Of the holiest place of the old covenant\nthe best thing we can say is that the lightning and thunders of Sinai\nslumbered therein. The author's beautiful description of the sunny steep\nof Zion is framed, on the other hand, in accordance with his frequent\nand emphatic declaration that Christ has entered the true holiest place,\nhaving obtained for us eternal redemption. All that the Apostle says\nconcerning Sinai and Zion gathers around the two conceptions of sin and\nforgiveness.\n\nThe Lord spake on Sinai out of the midst of the palpable, enkindled\nfire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice. All\nthe people heard the voice. They saw \"that God doth talk with man, and\nhe liveth.\" They begin to hope. But immediately they bethink them that,\nif they hear the voice of the Lord any more, they will die. Thus does a\nguilty conscience contradict itself! Again, the people are invited to\ncome up into the mount when the trumpet shall sound long. Yet, when the\nvoice of the trumpet sounds long and waxes louder and louder, they are\ncharged not to come up unto the Lord, lest He break forth upon them. All\nthis appearance of inconsistency is intended to symbolize that the\npeople's desire to come to God struggled in vain against their sense of\nguilt, and that God's purpose of revealing Himself to them was\ncontending in vain with the hindrances that arose from their sins. The\nwhole assembly heard the voice of the Lord proclaiming the Ten\nCommandments. Conscience-smitten, they could not endure to hear more.\nThey gat them into their tents, and Moses alone stood on the mountain\nwith God, to receive at His mouth all the statutes and judgments which\nthey should do and observe in the land which He would give them to\npossess. The Apostle singles out for remark the command that, if a beast\ntouched the mountain, it should be stoned to death. The people, he says,\ncould not endure this command. Why not this? It connected the terrors of\nSinai with man's guilt. According to the Old Testament idea of Divine\nretribution, the beasts of the earth fall under the curse due to man.\nWhen God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the days of Noah,\nHe said, \"I will destroy both man and beast.\"[367] When, again, He\nblessed Noah after the waters were dried up, He said, \"I, behold, I\nestablish My covenant with you and with every living creature that is\nwith you.\"[368] Similarly, the command to put to death any beast that\nmight haply touch the mountain revealed to the people that God was\ndealing with them as sinners. Moses himself, the mediator of the\ncovenant, who aspired to behold the glory of God, feared exceedingly.\nBut his fear came upon him when he looked and beheld that the people had\nsinned against the Lord their God[369] and made them a molten calf. His\nfear was not the prostration of nervous terror. Remembering, when he had\ndescended, the awful sights and sounds witnessed on the mountain, he was\nafraid of the anger and hot displeasure of God against the people, who\nhad done wickedly in the sight of the Lord. Almost every word the\nApostle has here written bears closely upon the moral relation between a\nguilty people and the angry God.\n\nIf we turn to the other picture, we at once perceive that the thoughts\nradiate from the holiest place as from a centre. The passage is, in\nfact, an expansion of what is said in the ninth chapter, that Christ has\nentered in once for all into the holiest place, through the greater and\nmore perfect tabernacle. The holiest has widened its boundaries. The\nveil has been removed, so that the entire sanctuary now forms part of\nthe holy of holies. It is true that the Apostle begins, in the passage\nunder consideration, not with the holiest place, but with Mount Zion. He\ndoes so because the immediate contrast is between the two mountains, and\nhe has already stated that Christ entered through a larger tabernacle.\nThe holiest place includes, therefore, the whole mountain of Zion, on\nwhich the tabernacle was erected; yea, all Jerusalem is within the\nprecincts. If we extend the range of our survey, we behold the earth\nsanctified by the presence of the first-born sons of God, who are the\nChurch, and of His myriads, the other sons of God, who also have, not\nindeed the birthright, but a blessing, even the joyful multitude of the\nheavenly host.[370] The Apostle describes the angels as keeping festal\nholiday, for joy to witness the coming of the first-born sons. They are\nthe friends of the Bridegroom, who stand and hear Him, and rejoice\ngreatly because of the Bridegroom's voice. If, again, we attempt to soar\nabove this world of trials, we find ourselves at once before the\njudgment-seat of God. But even here a change has taken place. For we are\ncome to a Judge Who is God of all,[371] and not merely to a God Who is\nJudge of all. Thus the promise of the new covenant has been fulfilled,\n\"I will be to them a God.\"[372] If in imagination we pass the tribunal\nand consider the condition of men in the world of spirits, we recognise\nthere the spirits of the righteous dead, and are given to understand\nthat they have already attained the perfection[373] which they could not\nhave received before the Christian Church had exercised a greater faith\nthan some had found possible to themselves on earth.[374] If we ascend\nstill higher, we are in the presence of Jesus Himself. But He is on the\nright hand of the Majesty on high, not simply as Son of God, but as\nMediator of the new covenant. His blood is sprinkled on the mercy-seat,\nand speaks to God, but not for vengeance on those who shed it on the\nCross, some of whom possibly were now among the readers of the Apostle's\npiercing words. What an immeasurable distance between the first man of\nfaith, mentioned in the eleventh chapter, and Jesus, with Whom his list\ncloses! The very first blood of man shed to the earth cried from the\nground to God for vengeance. The blood of Jesus sprinkled in heaven\nspeaks a better thing. What the better thing is, we are not told. Men\nmay give it a name; but it is addressed to God, and God alone knows its\ninfinite meaning.\n\nFrom all this we infer that the comparison here made between Sinai and\nZion is intended to depict the difference (seen, as it were, in another\nBunyan's dream) between a revelation given before Christ offered Himself\nas a propitiation for sin and the revelation which God gives us of\nHimself after the sacrifice of Christ has been presented in the true\nholiest place.\n\nThe Apostle's account of Mount Zion is followed by a most incisive\nwarning, introduced with a sudden solemnity, as if the thunder of Sinai\nitself were heard remote. The passage is beset with difficulties, some\nof which it would be inconsistent with the design of the present volume\nto discuss. One question has scarcely been touched upon by the\nexpositors. But it enters into the very pith of the subject. The\nexhortation which the author addresses to his readers does not at first\nappear to be based on a correct application of the narrative. For the\nIsraelites at the foot of Sinai are not said to have refused Him that\nspake to them on the mount. No doubt God, not Moses, is meant; for it\nwas the voice of God that shook the earth. The people were terrified.\nThey were afraid that the fire would consume them. But they had\nunderstood also that their God was the living God, and therefore not to\nbe approached by man. They wished Moses to intervene, not because they\nrejected God, but because they acknowledged the awful greatness of His\nliving personality. Far from rejecting Him, they said to Moses, \"Speak\nthou unto us all that the Lord our God shall speak unto thee; and we\nwill hear it and do it.\"[375] God Himself commended their words: \"They\nhave well said all that they have spoken.\" Can we suppose, therefore,\nthat the Apostle in the present passage represents them as actually\nrebelling, and \"refusing Him that spake\"? The word here translated\n\"refuse\"[376] does not express the notion of rejecting with contempt. It\nmeans \"to deprecate,\" to shrink in fear from a person. Again, the word\n\"escape,\" in its reference to the children of Israel at Sinai, cannot\nsignify \"to avoid being punished,\" which is its meaning in the second\nchapter of this Epistle.[377] The meaning is that they could not flee\nfrom His presence, though Moses mediated between Him and the people.\nThey could not escape Him. His word \"_found_[378] them\" when they\ncowered in their tents as truly as if they had climbed with Moses the\nheights of Sinai. For the word of God was then also a living word, and\nthere was no creature that was not manifest in His sight. Yet it was\nright in the people to deprecate, and desire Moses to speak to them\nrather than God. This was the befitting spirit under the old covenant.\nIt expresses very precisely the difference between the bondage of that\ncovenant and the liberty of the new. In Christ only is the veil taken\naway. Where the Spirit of the Lord Jesus is, there is liberty. But, for\nthis reason, what was praiseworthy in the people who were kept at a\ndistance from the bounds placed around Sinai is unworthy and censurable\nin those who have come to Mount Zion. See, therefore, that ye do not ask\nHim that speaketh to withdraw into the thick darkness and terrible\nsilence. For us to deprecate is tantamount to rejection of God. We are\nactually turning away from Him. But to ignore and shun His presence is\nnow impossible to us. The revelation is from heaven. He Who brought it\ndescended Himself from above. Because He is from heaven, the Son of God\nis a life-giving Spirit. He surrounds us, like the ambient air. The sin\nof the world is not the only \"besetting\" element of our life. The\never-present, besetting God woos our spirit. He speaks. That His words\nare kind and forgiving we know. For He speaks to us from heaven,\nbecause the blood sprinkled in heaven speaks better before God than the\nblood of Abel spoke from the ground. The revelation of God to us in His\nSon preceded, it is true, the entrance of the Son into the holiest\nplace; but it has acquired a new meaning and a new force in virtue of\nthe Son's appearing before God for us. This new force of the revelation\nis represented by the mission and activity of the Spirit.\n\nThe author's thoughts glide almost imperceptibly into another channel.\nWe can refuse Him that speaketh, and turn away from Him in unbelief. But\nlet us beware. It is the final revelation. His voice on Sinai shook the\nearth. The meaning is not that it terrified the people. The writer has\npassed from that thought. He now speaks of the effect of God's voice on\nthe material world, the power of revelation over created nature. This is\na truth that frequently meets us in Scripture. Revelation is accompanied\nby miracle. When the Ten Commandments were spoken by the lips of God to\nthe people, \"the whole mount quaked greatly.\"[379] But the prophet\nHaggai predicts the glory of the second house in words which recall to\nour author the trembling of Mount Sinai: \"For thus saith the Lord of\nhosts: Yet once more, it is a little while, and I will shake the\nheavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land; and I will shake\nall nations, and the desirable things of all nations shall come, and I\nwill fill this house with glory, saith the Lord of hosts.\"[380] It is\nvery characteristic of the writer of this Epistle to fasten on a few\nsalient points in the prophet's words. He seems to think that Haggai had\nthe scenes that occurred on Sinai in his mind. Two expressions connect\nthe narrative in Exodus with the prophecy. When God spoke on Sinai, His\nvoice shook the earth. Haggai declares that God will, at some future\ntime, shake the heaven. Again, the prophet has used the words \"yet once\nmore.\" Therefore, when the greater glory of the second house will have\ncome to pass, the last shaking of earth and of heaven will take place.\nThe inference is that the word \"yet once more\" signifieth the removing\nof those things that are shaken. The whole fabric of nature will perish\nin its present material form, and the Apostle connects this universal\ncatastrophe with the revelation of God in His Son.\n\nMany very excellent expositors think that our author refers, not to the\nfinal dissolution of nature, but to the abrogation of the Jewish\neconomy. It is true that the Epistle has declared the old covenant a\nthing of the past. But there are two considerations that lead us to\nadopt the other view of this passage. In the first place, this Epistle\ndoes not describe the abrogation of the old covenant as a violent\ncatastrophe, but rather as the passing away of what had grown old and\ndecayed. In the second place, the coming of the Lord is elsewhere, in\nwritings of that age, spoken of as accompanied by a great convulsion of\nnature. The two notions go together in the thoughts of the time. \"The\nday of the Lord will come as a thief, in the which the heavens shall\npass away with a great noise, and the elements shall be dissolved with\nfervent heat, and the earth and the works that are therein shall be\nburned up.\"[381]\n\nWe connect the words \"as things that have been made\" with the next\nclause: \"that those things which are not shaken may remain.\" It is not\nbecause they have been made that the earth and the heaven are removed;\nand their place will not be occupied by uncreated things only, but also\nby things made. The meaning is that nature will be dissolved when it has\nanswered its purpose, and not till then. Earth and heaven have been\nmade, not for their own sakes, but in order that out of them a new world\nmay be created, which will never be removed or shaken. This new world is\nthe kingdom of which the King-Priest is eternal Monarch.[382] As we\npartake in His priesthood, we share also in His kingship. We enter into\nthe holiest place and stand before the mercy-seat, but our absolution\nis announced and confirmed to us by the Divine summons to sit down with\nChrist in His throne, as He has sat down with His Father in His\nthrone.[383]\n\nLet us therefore accept the kingdom. But beware of your peculiar danger,\nwhich is self-righteous pride, worldliness, and the evil heart of\nunbelief. Rather let us seek and get that grace from God which will make\nour royal state a humble service of worshipping priests.[384] The grace\nwhich the Apostle exhorts his reader to possess is much more than\nthankfulness. It includes all that Christianity bestows to counteract\nand vanquish the special dangers of self-righteousness. Such priestly\nservice will be well-pleasing to God. Offer it with pious resignation to\nHis sovereign will, with awe in the presence of His holiness. For,\nwhilst our God proclaims forgiveness from the mercy-seat as the\nworshippers stand before it, He is _also_ a consuming fire. Upon the\nmercy-seat itself rests the Shechinah.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[361] Chap. iv. 16.\n\n[362] Chap. vi. 20.\n\n[363] Chap. x. 19.\n\n[364] Phil. i. 23.\n\n[365] Rev. xxi. 10.\n\n[366] John xiv. 3.\n\n[367] Gen. vi. 7.\n\n[368] Gen. ix. 9, 10.\n\n[369] Deut. ix. 16, 19.\n\n[370] Reading =kai myriasin, angel\u00f4n pan\u00eagyrei, kai ekkl\u00easia pr\u00f4totok\u00f4n=\n(xii. 22, 23). This disconnected use of =myrias= is amply justified by\nDeut. xxxiii. 2, Dan. vii. 10, and Jude 14. Besides, =pan\u00eagyris= is\nprecisely the word to describe the assemblage of angels and distinguish\nthem from the Church.\n\n[371] =krit\u00ea the\u00f4 pant\u00f4n=.\n\n[372] Chap. viii. 10.\n\n[373] =tetelei\u00f4men\u00f4n=.\n\n[374] Chap. xi. 40.\n\n[375] Deut. v. 27, 28.\n\n[376] =parait\u00easamenoi= (xii. 25).\n\n[377] Chap. ii. 3.\n\n[378] \"The Bible finds me,\" said Coleridge.\n\n[379] Exod. xix. 18. In his citation of this passage our author forsakes\nthe Septuagint, which has \"And all the people were greatly amazed.\"\n\n[380] Haggai ii. 6, 7.\n\n[381] 2 Pet. iii. 10.\n\n[382] Chap. xii. 28.\n\n[383] Rev. iii. 21.\n\n[384] =latreu\u00f4men= (xii. 28).\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI.\n\n_SUNDRY EXHORTATIONS._\n\n\n HEBREWS xiii.\n\n Let love of the brethren continue. Forget not to shew love unto\n strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.\n Remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them; them that are\n evil entreated, as being yourselves also in the body. Let marriage\n be had in honour among all, and let the bed be undefiled: for\n fornicators and adulterers God will judge. Be ye free from the love\n of money; content with such things as ye have: for Himself hath\n said, I will in no wise fail thee, neither will I in any wise\n forsake thee. So that with good courage we say.\n\n The Lord is my helper; I will not fear:\n What shall man do unto me?\n\n Remember them that had the rule over you, which spake unto you the\n word of God; and considering the issue of their life, imitate their\n faith. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and to-day, yea and for\n ever. Be not carried away by divers and strange teachings: for it is\n good that the heart be established by grace; not by meats, wherein\n they that occupied themselves were not profited. We have an altar,\n whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle. For\n the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the holy\n place by the high priest as an offering for sin, are burned without\n the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people\n through His own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us therefore\n go forth unto Him without the camp, bearing His reproach. For we\n have not here an abiding city, but we seek after the city which is\n to come. Through Him then let us offer up a sacrifice of praise to\n God continually, that is, the fruit of lips which make confession to\n His name. But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with\n such sacrifices God is well pleased. Obey them that have the rule\n over you, and submit to them: for they watch in behalf of your\n souls, as they that shall give account: that they may do this with\n joy, and not with grief: for this were unprofitable for you.\n\n Pray for us: for we are persuaded that we have a good conscience,\n desiring to live honestly in all things. And I exhort you the more\n exceedingly to do this, that I may be restored to you the sooner.\n\n Now the God of peace, who brought again from the dead the great\n shepherd of the sheep with the blood of the eternal covenant, even\n our Lord Jesus, make you perfect in every good thing to do His will,\n working in us that which is well-pleasing in His sight, through\n Jesus Christ; to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.\n\n But I exhort you, brethren, bear with the word of exhortation: for I\n have written unto you in few words. Know ye that our brother Timothy\n hath been set at liberty; with whom if he come shortly, I will see\n you.\n\n Salute all them that have the rule over you, and all the saints.\n They of Italy salute you.\n\n Grace be with you all. Amen.\n\n\nThe condition of the Hebrew Christians was most serious. But one\nexcellence is acknowledged to have belonged to them. It was almost the\nonly ground of hope. They ministered to the saints.[385] Yet even this\ngrace was in peril. In a previous chapter the writer has exhorted them\nto call to remembrance the former days, in which they had compassion on\nthem that were in bonds.[386] But he considers it sufficient, in\nreference to brotherly love, to urge them to see that it continues.[387]\nThey were in more danger of forgetting to show kindness to their\nbrethren of other Churches, who, in pursuance of the liberty of\nprophesying accorded in Apostolic times, journeyed from place to place\nfor the purpose of founding new Churches or of imparting spiritual gifts\nto Churches already established. Besides, it was a time of local\npersecutions. One Church might be suffering, and its members might take\nrefuge in a sister-Church. Missionaries and persecuted brethren would\nbe the strangers to whom the enrolled widows used hospitality, and whose\nfeet they washed.[388] We can well understand why in that age a bishop\nwould be especially expected to be given to hospitality.[389] Uhlhorn\nexcellently observes that \"the greatness of the age consisted in this\nvery feature: that Christians of all places knew themselves to be\nfraternally one, and that in this oneness all differences\ndisappeared.\"[390] In the case of a Church consisting of Hebrews the\nduty of entertaining strangers, many of them necessarily Greeks, would\nbe peculiarly apt to be forgotten. When a Church wavered in its\nallegiance to Christianity, the alienation would become still more\npronounced.\n\nThe constant going and coming of missionary brethren reminds the author\nof the ministry of angels, who are like the swift breezes, and carry\nChrist's messages over the face of the earth.[391] Sometimes they are as\na flame of fire. When they were on their way to destroy the Cities of\nthe Plain, Abraham and Lot entertained them, not knowing that they were\nheaven-sent ministers of wrath.[392] It would be presumptuous in any man\nto deny the possibility of angelic visitations in the Christian Church;\nbut the Apostle's meaning is not that hospitality ought to be shown to\nstrangers in the hope that angels may be among them. They are to be\nreceived unawares; otherwise the fragrance of the deed is gone. But the\nfact remains, and has been proved in the experience of many, that\nkindness to strangers, be they preaching friars, or itinerant exhorters,\nor persecuted outcasts, brings a rich blessing to children's children. A\nSyrian builds for himself a hut on the riverside, and offers to carry\nthe wayfarers across on his shoulders. One day a child asks to be taken\nover. But the light burden becomes every moment heavier. The exhausted\nbearer asks in astonishment, \"Who art thou, child?\" It was Christ, and\nthe Syrian was named the Christ-bearer in remembrance of the event.[393]\n\nThe next exhortation is to purity. It is better not to attempt to\nconnect these exhortations. Their special importance in the case of the\nHebrew Christians is reason enough for them. Abstinence from marriage is\nnot commended. Our author is not an Essene. On the contrary, he would\ndiscourage it. \"Let marriage be held in honour among all classes of\nmen.\" It is the Divinely appointed remedy against incontinence. But in\nthe married state itself let there be purity. For the incontinent,\nwhether in the bonds of wedlock or not, God's direct, providential\njudgments will overtake.\n\nThen follows a warning against love of money, and the Lord's promise not\nto fail or forsake Joshua[394] is appropriated by our author on behalf\nof his readers. Their covetousness arose from anxiety, which may have\nbeen occasioned by their distressing poverty in the days of\nClaudius.[395] That the advice was needed shows the precise character of\ntheir threatening apostasy. Worldliness was at the root of their\nJudaism. It is still the same. The self-righteous do not hate money.\n\nLet them imitate the trustfulness of their great leaders in the past,\nwho had not given their time and thoughts to heaping up riches, but had\ndevoted themselves to the work of witnessing and of speaking the word of\nGod. Let them review with critical eye their manner of life, and observe\nhow it ended. They all died in faith. Some of them suffered martyrdom,\nso complete and entirely unworldly was their self-surrender to Jesus\nChrist! But Jesus Christ is still the same One. If He was worthy that\nStephen and James should die for His sake, He is worthy of our\nallegiance too. Yea, He will be the same for ever. When the world has\npassed away, with its fashion and its lust, when the earth and the works\nthat are therein are burned up and dissolved, Jesus Christ abides. What\nHe was yesterday to His martyr Stephen, that He is to all that follow\nHim in earth's to-day, and that He will for ever be when He shall have\nappeared unto them who expect Him unto salvation. The antithesis, it\nwill be seen, is not between the departed saints and the abiding Christ,\nbut between the world, which the Hebrew Christians loved too well, and\nthe Christ Whom the saints of their Church had loved better than the\nworld and served by faith unto death.\n\nIf Jesus Christ abides, He is our anchorage, and the exhortation first\ngiven near the beginning of the Epistle once more suggests itself to the\nApostle. \"Permit not yourselves to drift and be carried past[396] the\nmoorings by divers strange doctrines.\" The word \"doctrines\" is itself\nemphatic, \"Be not borne aside from the personal, abiding Jesus Christ by\npropositions, whether in reference to practice or to belief.\" What these\n\"doctrines\" were in this particular case we learn from the next verse.\nThey were the doubtful disputations about meats. The epithets \"divers\nand strange\" restrict the allusion still more nearly. He speaks not of\nthe general and familiar injunctions of Jewish teachers respecting\nmeats, the subject rather contemptuously dismissed by St. Paul in the\nEpistle to the Romans: \"One man hath faith to eat all things; but he\nthat is weak eateth herbs.\"[397] Our author could not have regarded\nthese doctrines as \"strange,\" and he could scarcely have spoken of\n\"strengthening the heart with meats\" if he had meant abstinence from\nmeats. A recent English expositor[398] has pointed out the direction in\nwhich we must seek the interpretation of this difficult passage. The\nApostle brushes aside the novel teaching of the Essenes, who, without\nbecoming Christians, \"had broken away from the sacrificial system\" of\nthe Mosaic law and \"substituted for it new ordinances of their own,\naccording to which the daily meal became a sacrifice, and the president\nof the community took the place of the Levitical priest.\" Such teaching\nwas quite as inconsistent with Judaism as with Christianity. But the\nwriter of this Epistle rejects it for precisely the same reason for\nwhich he repudiates Judaism. Both are inconsistent with the perfect\nseparateness of Christ's atonement.\n\nIt is well, as St. Paul said, for every man to be fully assured in his\nown mind.[399] A doubting conscience enfeebles a man's spiritual vigour\nfor work. The Essenes found a remedy for morbidness in strictness as to\nmeats and minute directions for the employment of time. St. Paul taught\nthat an unhealthy casuistry would be best counteracted by doing all\nthings unto the Lord. \"He that eateth eateth unto the Lord, for he\ngiveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, unto the Lord he eateth not,\nand giveth God thanks. For none of us liveth to himself, and none dieth\nto himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; or whether we\ndie, we die unto the Lord.\"[400] The author of the Epistle to the\nHebrews considers that it betokens a littleness of soul to strengthen\nconscience by regulations as to various kinds of food. The noble\nthing[401] is that the heart--that is, the conscience--be stablished by\nthankfulness,[402] which will produce a strong, placid, courageous, and\nhealthy moral perception. The moral code of the New Testament is direct\nand simple. It is entirely free from all casuistical crotchets and\ndistinctions without a difference. Those who busy themselves[403] about\nsuch matters have never gained anything by it.\n\nDo the Essenes repudiate the altar the sacrifice of which may not be\neaten? Do they teach that the only sacrifice for sin is the daily meal?\nThis is a fatal error. \"We _have_\" says the Apostle, \"an altar of which\nthe worshippers are not permitted to eat.\"[404] All these expressions\nare metaphorical. By the altar we must understand the atoning sacrifice\nof Christ; by \"those who serve the tabernacle\" are meant believers in\nthat sacrifice, prefigured, however, by the priests and worshippers\nunder the old covenant; and by \"eating of the altar\" is meant\nparticipation in the sacredness that pertains to the death and atonement\nof Christ. The purpose of the writer is to teach the entire separateness\nof Christ's atonement. It is true that Christians eat the body and drink\nthe blood of Christ.[405] But the words of our Lord and of St. Paul[406]\nrefer to the passover, whereas our author speaks of the sin-offering. In\nthe former the lamb was eaten;[407] in the latter the carcases of the\nbeasts whose blood was brought by the worshipper through his\nrepresentative,[408] the high-priest, into the holiest place on the day\nof atonement, were carried forth without the camp and burned in the\nfire.[409] Both sacrifices, the passover and the sin-offering, were\ntypical. The former typified our participation in Christ's death, the\nlatter the separateness of Christ's death.\n\nMany expositors see a reference in the Apostle's words to the Lord's\nTable, and some of them infer from the word \"altar\" that the Eucharist\nis a continual offering of a propitiatory sacrifice to God. It is not\ntoo much to say that this latter doctrine is the precise error which the\nApostle is here combating.\n\nTwo other interpretations of these verses have been suggested. Both are,\nwe think, untenable. The one is that we Christians have an altar of\nwhich we have a right to eat, but of which the Jewish priests and all\nwho cling to Judaism have no right to eat; and, to prove that they have\nnot, the Apostle mentions the fact that they were not permitted to eat\nthe bodies of the beasts slain as a sin-offering under the old covenant.\nThere are several weighty objections to this view, but the following one\nwill be sufficient. The reference to the sin-offering in the eleventh\nverse is made in order to show that it was a type of Christ's atoning\ndeath. As the bodies of the slain beasts were carried outside the camp\nand burned, so Christ suffered without the gate. But there is no real\nresemblance between the two things unless the Apostle intends to teach\nthat the atonement of Christ stands apart and cannot be shared in by any\nother person, which implies that the tenth verse does not convey the\nnotion that Christians have a right to eat of the altar.\n\nThe other interpretation is that we, Christians, have an altar of which\nwe who serve the ideal tabernacle have no right to eat, inasmuch as the\nsacrifice is spiritual. \"Our Christian altar supplies no flesh for\ncarnal food.\"[410] But if the reference is to carnal food, the\nexpression \"We have no _right_ to eat\" is not the appropriate one. The\nwriter would surely have said, \"of which we _cannot_ eat.\" Besides, this\nview misses the connection between the ninth and tenth verses. To say\nthat Christ's death procured spiritual blessings and that we do not eat\nHis body after a carnal manner does not affect the question concerning\nmeats, unless the doctrine concerning meats includes the notion that\nthey are themselves an atoning sacrifice. Such was the doctrine of the\nEssenes. The argument of the Apostle is good and forcible if it means\nthat Christ's atonement is Christ's alone. We share not in its\nsacredness, though we partake of its blessings. It resembles the\nsin-offering on the day of atonement, as well as the paschal lamb.\n\nBut it was not enough that the slain beasts should be burned without the\ncamp. Their blood also must be brought into the holiest place. The\nformer rite signified that the slain beast bore the sin of the people,\nthe latter that the people themselves were sanctified. Similarly Jesus\nsuffered without the gate of Jerusalem, in reproach and ignominy, as the\nSin-bearer, and also entered into the true holiest place, in order to\nsanctify His people through His own blood.\n\nWe must not press the analogy. The author sees a quaint but touching\nresemblance between the burning of the slain beasts outside the camp and\nthe crucifying of Jesus on Golgotha outside the city. The point of\nresemblance is in the ignominy symbolized in the one and in the other.\nHere too the writer finds the practical use of what he has said. Though\nthe atonement of the Cross is Christ's, and cannot be shared in by\nothers, the reproach of that atoning death can. The thought leads the\nApostle away from the divers strange doctrines of the Essenes, and\nbrings him back to the main idea of the Epistle, which is to induce his\nreaders to hold no more dalliance with Judaism, but to break away from\nit finally and for ever. \"Let us come out,\" he says. The word recalls\nSt. Paul's exhortation to the Christians of Corinth \"to come out from\namong them, to be separate, and not to touch the unclean thing. For what\nconcord can there be between Christ and Belial, between a believer and\nan unbeliever, between the sanctuary of God and idols?\"[411] Our author\ntells the Hebrew Christians that on earth they have nothing better than\nreproach to expect. Quit, therefore, the camp of Judaism. Live, so to\nspeak, in the desert. (He speaks metaphorically throughout.) You have no\nabiding city on earth. The fatal mistake of the Jews has been that they\nhave turned what ought to be simply a camp into an abiding city. They\nhave lost the feeling of the pilgrim; they seek not a better country and\na city built by God. Shun ye this worldliness. Not only regard not your\nearthly life as a permanent dwelling in a city, but leave even the camp;\nbe not only sojourners, but outcasts. Share in the reproach of Jesus,\nand look for your citizenship in heaven.\n\nReverting to the teaching of the Essenes, the writer proceeds: \"Through\nJesus let us offer a sacrifice of praise.\"[412] The emphasis must rest\non the words \"through Jesus.\" The daily meal is not a sacrifice, except\nin the sense of being a thanksgiving; and our thanksgiving is acceptable\nto God when it is offered through Him Whose death is a propitiation.\nEven then lip-worship only is not accepted. Share the meal with the\npoor. God is pleased with the sacrifices of doing good to all and\ncontributing[413] to the necessities of the saints.\n\nThe Apostle next exhorts them to obey their leaders, and that with\nyielding submission. The atmosphere is certainly different from the\ndemocratic spirit of the Corinthian Church. Yet it is not improbable\nthat the safety of the Hebrew Christians everywhere from a violent\nreaction towards Judaism was due to the wisdom and profounder insight of\nthe leaders. Our author evidently considers that he has them on his\nside. \"They, whatever we may think of the common herd, are wide awake.\nThey understand that they will have to give an account of their\nstewardship over you to Christ at His coming. Submit to them, that they\nmay watch over your souls with joy, and not with a grief that finds\nutterance in frequent sighs.[414] When they give their account, you will\nnot find that your fretful rebelliousness has profited you aught. The\nEssenian society gain nothing by absorption of the individual in the\ncommunity, and you will gain nothing, but quite the reverse, by\nasserting your individual crotchets to the destruction of the\nChurch.\"[415]\n\nHe asks his readers to pray for him and Timothy, who has been released\nfrom prison. Their prayers are his due. For he believes he has an\nupright conscience in breaking with Judaism. For the same reason he is\nconfident that their prayers on his behalf will be answered. He and his\nfriends wish in all things to live noble lives. He is the more desirous\nof having their prayers because of his eagerness to be \"restored\"[416]\nto them. He means much more than to return to them. He wishes to be\n\"restored,\" or \"refitted.\" Their prayers will put an end to the\nperturbation of his mind, and bring back the happiness of their first\nlove.\n\nHe, too, prays for them. His prayer is that God may furnish them with\nevery gift of grace to do His will, and His will is their\nconsecration,[417] through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ\nonce. God will answer his prayer and provide in them that which is\npleasing in His sight through Jesus Christ. For He has not left His\nChurch without a Shepherd, though it is in the wilderness. He has\nbrought up from the dead, and restored out of the ignominious death\nwithout the gate, our Lord Jesus Christ, the great Shepherd, Who is ever\nwith them, whatever may become of the undershepherds. That He has been\nraised from the dead is certain. For, when He was crucified in ignominy\nwithout the gate, His blood was at the same time offered in the true\nholiest place. That blood has ratified the new and final covenant\nbetween God and His people. It was through His own blood of this eternal\ncovenant that He was raised from the dead, and it is in virtue of the\nsame blood and of the same covenant that He is now the Shepherd of His\nChurch.\n\nHere, again, we must not draw too broad a distinction between the\nresurrection of Christ and His ascension to heaven. On the one hand, we\nmust not say that by the words \"bringing up from the dead\" the Apostle\nmeans the ascension; on the other hand, the words do not exclude the\nascension. The resurrection and the ascension coalesce in the notion of\nChrist being living. The only distinction present, we think, to the\nwriter's mind was that between the shame of Christ's death without the\ncamp and the offering of His blood by the living Christ in the holiest\nplace. He Who died on the Cross through that death liveth evermore. He\nlives to be the Shepherd of His people. Therefore to Him must be\nascribed the glory for ever and ever.\n\nThe Apostle once more begs his readers to bear with the word of\nexhortation. Let them remember that he has written briefly in order to\nspare them. He might have said more, but he has refrained.\n\nHe hopes to bring Timothy with him, unless his friend tarries long. In\nthat case he will come alone, so great is his anxiety to see them.\n\nHe sends his greetings to all the saints, but mentions the leaders.\nBrethren who have come from Italy are with him. They may have been\nexiles or fugitives who had sought safety during the first great\npersecution of the Church in the days of Nero. They too send greetings.\n\nHe closes with the Apostolic benediction. For, whoever he was, he was\ntruly an Apostolic man.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[385] Chap. vi. 10.\n\n[386] Chap. x. 34.\n\n[387] Chap. xiii. 1.\n\n[388] 1 Tim. v. 10.\n\n[389] 1 Tim. iii. 2.\n\n[390] _Christian Charity in the Ancient Church_, English Trans., p. 92.\n\n[391] Chap. i. 7.\n\n[392] Gen. xviii. 2; xix. 1.\n\n[393] The legend of Christopher is beautifully told by Oosterzee at the\nbeginning of his book on _The Person and Work of the Redeemer_, English\nTrans. (Ed. 1886).\n\n[394] Josh. i. 5.\n\n[395] Acts xi. 28.\n\n[396] =m\u00ea parapheresthe= (xiii. 9).\n\n[397] Rom. ix. 13.\n\n[398] Rendall: _The Epistle to the Hebrews_, pp. xxv. and 139.\n\n[399] Rom. xiv. 15.\n\n[400] Rom. xiv. 6-8.\n\n[401] =kalon= (xiii. 9).\n\n[402] =chariti=. The author has chosen a more classical word than that\nwhich St. Paul uses.\n\n[403] =peripatountes=.\n\n[404] Chap. xiii. 10.\n\n[405] John vi. 51-55.\n\n[406] 1 Cor. x. 16.\n\n[407] Exod. xii.\n\n[408] =dia=.\n\n[409] Lev. xvi. 27.\n\n[410] So Rendall, _loc. cit._\n\n[411] 2 Cor. vi. 15 sqq.\n\n[412] Chap. xiii. 15.\n\n[413] =koin\u00f4nias=.\n\n[414] =stenazontes= (xiii. 17).\n\n[415] =alysiteles=. Comp. ver. 9.\n\n[416] =apokatastath\u00f4= (xiii. 19).\n\n[417] Chap. x. 10.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX.\n\n_The numerals refer to the pages._\n\n\nAaron, consecration of, 185;\n priesthood of, 79, 128.\n\nAbel's faith, 223.\n\nAbraham, faith of, 213;\n God's oath to, 101;\n promise made to, 9;\n seed of, 45.\n\nAdam, 220;\n the second, 36.\n\nAgnostics, 235.\n\nAcquittal of Christ, 168.\n\nAlaric, 272.\n\nAllegory of Melchizedek, 113.\n\nAltar, 323.\n\nAngels, assembly of, 301;\n as emanations, 22;\n man inferior to, 34;\n ministry of, 27, 316.\n\nAnticipation of nature, 241.\n\nAntinomianism, 148, 201.\n\nAntiochus Epiphanes, 264.\n\nApostasy, 95.\n\nArchitect of all, God the, 54.\n\nAristotle's doctrine of habit, 85.\n\nAssemblies, Church, 187.\n\nAssurance, 174.\n\nAthletes, 194.\n\nAtonement, day of, 296;\n Christ's, 38.\n\nAugustine cited, 142.\n\nAuthority of our High priest, 77.\n\n\nBaptism, 186;\n infant, 240.\n\nBaptisms, doctrine of, 87.\n\nBarak's faith, 26.\n\nBenediction, apostolic, 329.\n\nBengel, 100.\n\nBlessing of God, 89.\n\nBrotherhood, Christ's, 39, 41.\n\nBruce, Dr., _Humiliation of Christ_, 44.\n\n\nCain, how far he had faith, 223.\n\nCalvin, 100, 250.\n\nCanaan, rest of, 61.\n\nCharacter in relation to understanding of truth, 90.\n\nChrist, the coming of, 195;\n a spotless victim, 156;\n death of, 37, 93;\n return of, 188;\n as creator, 9;\n the effulgence of God's glory, 12;\n as theocratic king, 26, 179;\n piety of, 77;\n true man, 167;\n unchangeable, 164;\n unites all revelations of God, 8;\n as first-begotten, 26;\n as Leader, 38;\n His trust in God, 40;\n His humiliations a propitiatory in death, 37;\n more worthy than Moses, 55;\n incapable of sin, 72;\n the great Shepherd, 328.\n\nChristology of the Epistle, 178.\n\nChristopher, legend of, 317.\n\nChurch, consciousness of the, 187;\n customs, 187;\n idea of the, 185.\n\nCloud of witnesses, 259, 279.\n\nCocceius, 126.\n\nColeridge, S. T., cited, 304.\n\nColossian heresy, 22.\n\nColossians, Epistle to the, 22.\n\nConflict of faith, 273, 277.\n\nConscience, enlightened, 158, 227, 248;\n natural, 152, 155;\n enfeebled by Judaism, 156;\n as a revelation of God, 3;\n not satisfied under the Law, 123.\n\nConsecration, priestly, 185.\n\nConversion, immediate, 242.\n\nCross, use of the word, 281.\n\nCreed, the Nicene, 15.\n\nCynicism, 96, 190.\n\nCyprian cited, 95.\n\nCovenant, new. See under New.\n\nCovenant, old, 307.\n\n\nDavid's faith, 263.\n\nDeath a spiritual conception, 43.\n\nDeborah's faith, 261.\n\nDelitzsch cited, 114.\n\nDemons, faith of, 224.\n\nDe Lyra, 258.\n\nDiscipline of conscience, 175;\n of character, 283.\n\nDoctrines, strange, 317.\n\nDominion bestowed on man through Christ, 36.\n\nDreams once a revelation of God, 10.\n\n\nEarnestness, 100.\n\nEcstasy, 11, 53.\n\nEffulgence of God's glory, 12.\n\nEleazar's faith, 264.\n\nElijah's removal, 220;\n his faith, 263;\n his sudden appearances, 6;\n defiled by touching a dead person, 155.\n\nElisha defiled by touching a dead person, 155.\n\nEmanations, doctrine of, 21 _sqq._\n\nEnoch's faith, 219.\n\nEphesians, Epistle to the, 52.\n\nEquity of our High-priest, 72, 74.\n\nEsau a representative of the worldly spirit, 287.\n\nEssenes, 26, 320 _sqq._\n\nEternal duration of Christ's priesthood, 116.\n\nExhortations of the Epistle compared, 183.\n\nExmanition of Christ, 44.\n\n\nFailure, impossibility of, 99.\n\nFaith, as an initial grace, 86;\n as confidence, 200;\n as trust, 201;\n and works, 201;\n as an inner life, 201;\n and morality, 202;\n as a realisation of the unseen, 204;\n as proof, 204;\n as obedience, 215;\n groping for the light, 238;\n as endurance, 273;\n the better, 267.\n\nFamily, the, 241.\n\nFather of our spirit, God as, 284.\n\nFatherhood, of God, 32;\n Old Testament conception of God's, 145;\n Christ's conception of God's, 145.\n\nFederalist theology, 126.\n\nFinality of Christ's work, 167.\n\nFirst-begotten, Christ the, 26.\n\nFlesh, use of the word, 152.\n\nForensic conception of the atonement, 171, 224.\n\nForgiveness, 145 _sq._;\n under the Old Testament, 146.\n\nForty years since Christ's ascension, 57.\n\n\nGalatians, Epistle to the, 175.\n\nGideon's faith, 261.\n\nGlory, of sonship, 37;\n of leadership, 38;\n in power to consecrate, 39;\n in destroying Satan, 42.\n\nGod, not a mechanician, 209;\n the Son is, 27;\n a consuming fire, 309.\n\nGnostics, 22.\n\nGreek gods human, 21.\n\n\nHabakkuk, prophecy of, 195.\n\nHabit, Aristotle's doctrine of, 85.\n\nHabits, evil, 91.\n\nHades, Christ in, 170.\n\nHaggai, prophesy of, 306.\n\nHeathenism, 64, 202.\n\nHeaven, a sanctuary, 70;\n purification of, 163;\n a city, 218.\n\nHebrew conception of God, 21.\n\nHeir, Christ the, 8.\n\nHerod, deification of, 96.\n\nHeroes of religion, 234.\n\nHigh-priest, the great, 69.\n\nHigh-priest, the, an embodiment of the old covenant, 69.\n\nHofmann on Christ's humiliation, 44.\n\nHoliest place, the, 150 _sq._\n\nHoly Ghost, partaking of the, 91;\n sin against the, 95.\n\nHope of faith, 276.\n\nHouse, God's, 56.\n\nHumiliation of Christ, 44;\n dominion rests on, 37.\n\n\nIdeas of God, 208.\n\nIgnatius, St., 76.\n\nIllumination, gift of, 93.\n\nIllusiveness of life, 221.\n\nImage, use of the word, 176;\n of God's substance, 13.\n\nImagination, nature's highest gift, 4.\n\nImplicit faith, 241.\n\nImmutable things, 103.\n\nIncarnation, the, 45 _sq._\n\nIncense, altar of, 151.\n\nIndividualism, 141.\n\nInheritance, the eternal, 161.\n\nInitial grace, 91.\n\nIntercession of Christ, 128, 134.\n\nInterpretation of nature, 241.\n\nIntrospection, 105.\n\nIsaac, 102;\n resurrection of, 228;\n blessing of, 259.\n\nIsaiah, cited, 40;\n faith of, 261.\n\n\nJacob's blessing, 249, 259.\n\nJames, St., on faith, 200.\n\nJephthah's faith, 261.\n\nJeremiah predicts a new covenant, 138.\n\nJerusalem, the church of, 9, 85;\n the heavenly, 153.\n\nJesus, as God's servant, 55;\n looking unto, 279;\n faith of, 280;\n as leader and perfecter of faith, 280;\n unchangeable, 318.\n\nJohn, St., First Epistle of, 135.\n\nJoseph, faith of, 260.\n\nJosephus on Essenes, 26.\n\nJoshua son of Hanan, 188.\n\nJudah, Jesus sprang from, 122.\n\nJudaism, earlier and later, 234;\n Christ not the flowering of, 249.\n\nJudgment, the coming of Christ a, 188;\n doctrine of eternal, 87.\n\nJustice, God's, 99.\n\n\nKindness, brotherly, 99.\n\nKing, Christ the theocratic, 26.\n\nKingship of Christ, 179, 308.\n\nKnowledge of God, 144.\n\nKurtz, _History of the Old Covenant_, 253.\n\n\nLapsed, the, 95.\n\nLaw, given through angels, 23;\n given by the Son, 31;\n contrasted with salvation, 31;\n how far immutable, 63.\n\nLaying on of hands, 87.\n\nLegalism, 148, 202.\n\n\nMaccab\u00e6an Princes, 115.\n\nMacknight, 248.\n\nMalebranche cited, 205.\n\nMan, how inferior to the angels, 34.\n\nMartyrdom, 194.\n\nMass, sacrifice of the, 134.\n\nMediator, Christ a, 137;\n of the new covenant, 302.\n\nMelchizedek, 75, 79, 88, 106, 113, 135, 156.\n\nMercy-seat, the, 154.\n\nMerivale, Dean, _Romans under the Empire_, 96, 196.\n\nMessiah, David's Lord, 114.\n\nMessianic, the eighth Psalm, 35.\n\nMidian, purpose of Moses' sojourn in, 253.\n\nMinister of the Sanctuary, Christ the, 133, 169.\n\nMinistering to the saints, 192, 313.\n\nMiracles, 30 _sq._, 306.\n\nMissionary brethren, 315.\n\nMonotheist, Melchizedek a, 118.\n\nMoral instincts, 205.\n\nMosaic dispensation created by Christ, 51.\n\nMoses, 32;\n a steward of Christ, 54;\n inferior to Christ, 55;\n faith of, 233;\n mission of, 236;\n inner life of, 237;\n comeliness of, 239;\n Stephen's account of, 245;\n fear of, 300.\n\nMythology, 148.\n\n\nNation, a spiritual, 236.\n\nNationalism of the old covenant, 140, 243.\n\nNatural religion, 3.\n\nNature, the vesture of the Son, 27;\n interrogated, 8;\n as a revelation of God, 3;\n dissolution of, 307.\n\nNestorian doctrine, 169.\n\nNew covenant, superiority of the, 142;\n in relation to the law, 143;\n in relation to knowing God, 144.\n\nNewman, Cardinal, _The Arians_, 13.\n\nNew Testament, produced in one age, 7;\n only accounted for by the Incarnation, 7.\n\nNicene Creed, 15.\n\nNoah's faith, 215.\n\nNomadic life, 218.\n\nNovatianists, 95.\n\n\nOath, of God to Abraham, 101;\n of men and God contrasted, 104.\n\nObedience of the Son, 77.\n\nOld Testament defective in unity, 6.\n\nOneness of the Dispensations, 51.\n\nOntological argument, the, 209.\n\nOosterzee, _Person and Work of the Redeemer_, 317.\n\n\nParable, use of the word, 228.\n\nPassover, 320.\n\nPaul, St., on the atonement, 224;\n manner of, 29;\n his account of faith, 201.\n\nPeace of conscience, 174.\n\nPermission and command, 227.\n\nPersonality, greatness of Christ's, 120;\n of God, 208.\n\nPhantoms, 203, 241.\n\nPharisaism, 235.\n\nPhilo, on child in knowledge, 85;\n on the earnest soul, 102;\n on Abraham's faith, 216;\n on Melchizedek, 115;\n on the use of allegory, 116;\n on the Word as an effulgence, 15.\n\nPiety of Christ, 77.\n\nPity of our High-priest, 73.\n\nPlato on reminiscence, 222.\n\nPre-existence of Christ, 126 _sq._, 248.\n\nPriesthood, the foundation of Christ's power, 43;\n of Christ on earth, 169.\n\nPriest-King, the Son as, 17.\n\nProbation after death, 167.\n\nProgress, moral, 86.\n\nPromise, implies a threatening, 58;\n and oath of God, 104.\n\nProphecy, in what respects defective, 5.\n\nProphets, as preachers, 147;\n received their message through the Son, 54;\n visions of the, 10.\n\nPurification, of the tabernacle, 163;\n of heaven, 163.\n\n\nQualifications of the High-Priest, 74.\n\n\nRace, illustration of the, 276.\n\nRahab's faith, 261.\n\nRatification of the new covenant, 162.\n\nRealisation of Christ, 52.\n\nReconciliation of God, 78;\n the holiest place a symbol of, 152.\n\nReign of Christ on earth, 136.\n\nReminiscence, Plato's doctrine of, 222.\n\nRemorse, 190 _sq._\n\nRendall, _Epistle to the Hebrews_, 320, 323.\n\nRenewal, impossibility of, 83.\n\nRepentance an initial grace, 86.\n\nRepresentation recognized in the New Testament, 241.\n\nRepresentative man, Christ the, 34.\n\nResentment belongs to God's fatherhood, 32.\n\nRest, offered by Christ, 58;\n the ideal of the Old Testament, 58;\n from labour the rudimentary Sabbath, 60;\n in Canaan, 61;\n described by the Psalmist, 61.\n\nResurrection, doctrine of the, 87;\n of Christ, 72.\n\nRetribution, 191;\n Old Testament conception of, 300.\n\nRevealer of God--Son of God, 24.\n\nRevelation of God, 294 _sq._\n\nRighteousness, word of, 88.\n\nRobertson, _History of the Church_, 262.\n\nRuth, 261.\n\n\nSabbath, the, 60, 62, 166.\n\nSabellius, 28.\n\nSacrament, 255.\n\nSaintliness, 214.\n\nSalvation contrasted with law, 31.\n\nSamson's faith, 262.\n\nSamuel the prophet, on obedience, 177.\n\nSanctification, what, 41;\n use of the word, 178.\n\nSanctuary, the outer, has ceased to exist, 150 _sq._, 158.\n\nSatan, atonement not given to, 43;\n destruction of, 42;\n as tempter, 72.\n\nScott, Thomas, 248.\n\nSense, a spiritual, 85.\n\nSeparateness of Jesus, 75.\n\nSeptuagint, 35, 139, 306.\n\nShadow, the law had only a, 173.\n\nShedding of blood, 170.\n\nShiloh, promise of the, 249.\n\nSibyl, fable of the, 59.\n\nSin, the besetting, 277;\n Christ incapable of, 72.\n\nSinai, Mount, 297.\n\nSinners, use of the word, 275.\n\nSin-offering, 322.\n\nSocinas, Faustus, 169.\n\nSon of man, sin against the, 95.\n\nSons, discipline of, 284.\n\nSonship of Christ, defined, 28;\n a revelation of God, 12.\n\nSoul of Christ in Hades, 170.\n\nSpecial trials of Christ, 76.\n\nSpirit, an eternal, 156;\n of grace, what, 190.\n\nSpirit, the Holy, 152, 306.\n\nSpiritualism, 11.\n\nStaff, Jacob's, 260.\n\nStephen reproaches the Jews, 23.\n\nSubsisting, the Son's distinct mode of, 14.\n\nSupernatural erected on nature, 64.\n\nSurety for God, 125.\n\nSustainer, the Word as, 16.\n\nSympathy wanting to the angels, 74.\n\n\nTabernacle, description of the, 150;\n the greater, 153;\n purification of the, 163.\n\nTable, the Lord's, 322.\n\nTantalus, 221.\n\n_Teachings of the Twelve Apostles_, 84.\n\nTeachers in the Church, 84.\n\nTemptation of Christ real, 72.\n\nTestament, 161.\n\nTertullian cited, 264.\n\nThankfulness, 309.\n\nTheology, 88 _sq._\n\nTimothy, 329.\n\nTraducianism, 222.\n\nTrinity, the, 13.\n\nTypical character of the Law, 163.\n\n\nUhlhorn, _Charity in the Ancient Church_, 316.\n\nUnion the basis of consecration, 41.\n\nUniversalism of Christ and St. Paul, 141.\n\n\nVeil of Christ's flesh, 170.\n\nVineyard, parable of the, 31.\n\n\nWesleys, epitaph of the, 233.\n\nWhitby, 248.\n\nWilderness, discipline of the, 250.\n\nWill of God our sanctification, 177.\n\nWisdom, Book of, 42.\n\nWitnesses, use of the word, 269.\n\nWord of God, living, 65, 305;\n immutable, 63.\n\nWordsworth, W., cited, 222.\n\nWorks, dead, 88.\n\nWorld, end of the, 166.\n\nWorship, the result of a revelation, 3.\n\n\nZechariah, Book of, 115, 122; faith of, 264.\n\nZion, Mount, 153, 297 _sq._\n\n\n_Printed by Hazell, Watson, & Viney, Ld., London and Aylesbury._\n\n\n\n\nTHE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE.\n\n_Crown 8vo, cloth, price 7s. 6d. each vol._\n\n\nFIRST SERIES, 1887-8.\n\nColossians.\n By the Rev. A. MACLAREN, D.D.\n\nSt. Mark.\n By the Right Rev. the Bishop of Derry.\n\nGenesis.\n By Prof. MARCUS DODS, D.D.\n\n1 Samuel.\n By Prof. W. G. BLAIKIE, D.D.\n\n2 Samuel.\n By the same Author.\n\nHebrews.\n By Principal T. C. EDWARDS, D.D.\n\n\nSECOND SERIES, 1888-9.\n\nGalatians.\n By Prof. G. G. FINDLAY, B.A., D.D.\n\nThe Pastoral Epistles.\n By the Rev. A. PLUMMER, D.D.\n\nIsaiah I.-XXXIX.\n By Prof. G. A. SMITH, D.D. Vol. I.\n\nThe Book of Revelation.\n By Prof. W. MILLIGAN, D.D.\n\n1 Corinthians.\n By Prof. MARCUS DODS, D.D.\n\nThe Epistles of St. John.\n By the Most Rev. the Archbishop of\nArmagh.\n\n\nTHIRD SERIES, 1889-90.\n\nJudges and Ruth.\n By the Rev. R. A. WATSON, M.A., D.D.\n\nJeremiah.\n By the Rev. C. J. BALL, M.A.\n\nIsaiah XL.-LXVI.\n By Prof. G. A. SMITH, D.D. Vol. II.\n\nSt. Matthew.\n By the Rev. J. MONRO GIBSON, D.D.\n\nExodus.\n By the Right Rev. the Bishop of Derry.\n\nSt. Luke.\n By the Rev. H. BURTON, M.A.\n\n\nFOURTH SERIES, 1890-91.\n\nEcclesiastes.\n By the Rev. SAMUEL COX, D.D.\n\nSt. James and St. Jude.\n By the Rev. A. PLUMMER, D.D.\n\nProverbs.\n By the Rev. R. F. HORTON, D.D.\n\nLeviticus.\n By the Rev. S. H. KELLOGG, D.D.\n\nThe Gospel of St. John.\n By Prof. M. DODS, D.D. Vol. I.\n\nThe Acts of the Apostles.\n By Prof. STOKES, D. D. Vol. I.\n\n\nFIFTH SERIES, 1891-2.\n\nThe Psalms.\n By the Rev. A. MACLAREN, D.D. Vol. I.\n\n1 and 2 Thessalonians.\n By Prof. JAMES DENNEY, D.D.\n\nThe Book of Job.\n By the Rev. R. A. WATSON, M. A., D.D.\n\nEphesians.\n By Prof. G. G. FINDLAY, B.A., D.D.\n\nThe Gospel of St. John.\n By Prof. M. DODS, D. D. Vol. II.\n\nThe Acts of the Apostles.\n By Prof. STOKES, D.D. Vol. II.\n\n\nSIXTH SERIES, 1892-3.\n\n1 Kings.\n By the Very Rev. the Dean of Canterbury.\n\nPhilippians.\n By Principal RAINY, D.D.\n\nEzra, Nehemiah, Esther.\n By Prof. W. F. ADENEY, M.A.\n\nJoshua.\n By Prof. W. G. BLAIKIE, D.D.\n\nThe Psalms.\n By the Rev. A. MACLAREN, D.D. Vol. II.\n\nThe Epistles of St. Peter,\n By Prof. RAWSON LUMBY, D.D.\n\n\nSEVENTH SERIES, 1893-4.\n\n2 Kings.\n By the Very Rev. the Dean of Canterbury.\n\nRomans.\n By the Right Rev. H. C. G. MOULE, D.D.\n\nThe Books of Chronicles.\n By Prof. W. H. BENNETT, D.D., D.Lit.\n\n2 Corinthians.\n By Prof. JAMES DENNEY, D.D.\n\nNumbers.\n By the Rev. R. A. WATSON, M.A., D.D.\n\nThe Psalms.\n By the Rev. A. MACLAREN, D.D. Vol. III.\n\n\nEIGHTH SERIES, 1895-6.\n\nDaniel.\n By the Very Rev. the Dean of Canterbury.\n\nThe Book of Jeremiah.\n By Prof. W. H. BENNETT, D.D., D.Lit.\n\nDeuteronomy.\n By Prof. ANDREW HARPER, B.D.\n\nThe Song of Solomon and Lamentations.\n By Prof. W. F. ADENEY, M.A.\n\nEzekiel.\n By Prof. JOHN SKINNER, M.A.\n\nThe Books of the Twelve Prophets.\n By Prof. G. A. SMITH, D.D. Two Vols.\n\n\n\n\n_BY THE SAME AUTHOR._\n\nA COMMENTARY ON THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.\n\nFourth Edition, 8vo, cloth, price 14s.\n\n\nNOTICES OF THE PRESS.\n\n\"The exposition, based throughout on the Greek text, surveys with\nminuteness the words, phrases, and construction, bringing out the sense\nspecially and generally, tracing the apostle's arguments, and unfolding\nhis views on the diversified subjects which the epistle embraces.\nFulness of comment characterizes the work. Variations of the original\ntext, grammar, syntax, usage of words, enter into the expositor's plan,\nas well as the doctrinal views of the sacred writer. We have been\npleased to see so much good exposition from one who has used many\nsources with independence, and advanced far beyond any English\ncommentator in correct explanation of the epistle.\"--_Athen\u00e6um._\n\n\"An important feature is the sketch given in the Introduction of the\nCommentaries on First Corinthians, from the earliest times to our own\nday. The Commentary itself is learned, clear, impartial, and based on an\nample knowledge of preceding writers.\"--_Academy._\n\n\"We refer to the truly masterly exposition of the history of\ninterpretation from its beginning to our day in Edwards' introduction to\nhis Commentary.... The author of this Commentary possesses high\nphilological culture. The spirit and value of his exegesis will appear\nfrom the quotations which we shall not fail to make from his important\nwork.\"--PROFESSOR GODET'S Introduction to his _Commentary on First\nCorinthians_.\n\n\"It is with the utmost satisfaction that we welcome the appearance of a\ncommentator of the first class, whose work bears to be judged by the\nhighest standard, if, indeed, it does not even raise the standard by\nwhich exegetical work is measured. Such books as this which we now\nreceive from Principal Edwards, make room for themselves, and disclose\nunthought of possibilities of exposition. There is apparent a\ncombination of gifts, any of which singly would make the fortune of a\ncommentator. His knowledge of Greek, and familiarity with both classical\nand patristic literature, are worthy of one who professes himself the\nfriend and pupil of Prof. Jowett. To the use of the highest linguistic\nauthorities he has brought a fineness of grammatical and lexical\ndiscernment which enables him to criticise and sometimes to correct\ntheir judgments. But the great merit of the commentary is that the\nreader finds himself in contact with the mind of Paul, and not merely\nexamining an old-world document. All is thought out beforehand, and\ncompactly and vigorously expressed. It will be recognised as the work of\na sound scholar, of a learned, earnest, and philosophical theologian, of\na mind masculine and accomplished; and it will speedily take its place\nas the indispensable aid to the understanding of this part of\nScripture.\"--Rev. MARCUS DODS, D.D., in _Expositor_.\n\n\"Of living commentators it is obviously not desirable for me to say more\nthan to express my respectful recognition of labours that have been well\nbestowed, and work that has been well done. There are two English\nCommentaries, however, to which I may be permitted very briefly to\nrefer, as I have received from both much that has reassured me in my own\njudgment in difficult passages, and much that has led me to test my\nresults when I have not found myself in agreement with them. The works\nto which I refer are the singularly attractive Commentary of Canon\nEvans, and the full, careful, and comprehensive Commentary of Principal\nEdwards.\"--BISHOP ELLICOTT, _in his Commentary on First Corinthians_.\n\n\nLONDON: HODDER & STOUGHTON, 27, PATERNOSTER ROW.\n\n\n_WORKS BY THE RIGHT REV. H. C. G. MOULE, D.D._\n\nTHE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.\n\nIn the \"Expositor's Bible\" Series.\n\n_Seventh Edition. Crown 8vo, cloth 7s. 6d._\n\n\"Mr. Moule has made a very careful study of Paul's great doctrinal\nEpistle, and has entered thoroughly into its spirit.\"--_Scotsman._\n\n\"We do not hesitate to place it in the very front of the little group of\nvolumes which are the best examples of this carefully edited work. It\nwould be pleasant to linger upon this commentary, upon the clearness\nwith which the great evangelical doctrines of the Epistle are explained\nand enforced, upon the earnestness of its personal appeal, and the charm\nwhich often marks its language; but the judicious student of the New\nTestament will obtain the book for himself.\"--_Record._\n\n\"The spirit in which he expounds it, is beyond our\npraise.\"--_Spectator._\n\n\nOUTLINES OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.\n\nIn the \"Theological Educator\" Series.\n\n_Nineteenth Thousand, 2s. 6d._\n\n\"The author disclaims originality or exhaustiveness, but the work shews\na certain originality of the expository skill with which the familiar\ndoctrine is made clear, and it is so concisely written that a divinity\nstudent who had mastered its contents might be fairly well considered\nable to pass the examination for Orders. It is an admirable text-book,\nand enhances the value of the series in which it appears.\"--_Scotsman._\n\n\"Marked throughout by the most careful and critical knowledge of\nScriptures, more particularly of the New Testament, and the most patient\nweighing and comparison of parallel texts.... It forms an admirable\nintroduction to the subject, and seems in intellectual power to even\nsurpass any other of Mr. Moule's published writings.\"--_Record._\n\n\nTHE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE.\n\nEDITED BY THE REV.\n\n*W. ROBERTSON NICOLL, M.A., LL.D.,*\n\nEditor of \"The Expositor,\" etc.\n\nTHE RECORD says:--\n\n\"_Few series of volumes gives us so much pleasure to review as the\n'Expositor's Bible.' We never open a volume without expecting to find in\nit much that is inspiriting and much that is suggestive, and we are\nnever disappointed. We have no hesitation in advising any Clergyman who\nis thinking of expounding a book of Scripture to his congregation to\nprocure, as one of his most valuable aids, the right volume of the\n'Expositor's Bible.'_\"\n\n\n*Eighth and Final Series.*\n\nSEVEN VOLUMES.\n\n_In large crown 8vo, cloth. Subscription Price *28s.* Separate Vols.,\n*7s. 6d.* each._\n\n*The Book of Daniel*\n\n By the *Very Rev. F. W. FARRAR, D.D., F.R.S.*, Dean of Canterbury.\n\n*The Book of Ezekiel*\n\n By the *Rev. JOHN SKINNER, M.A.*, Professor of Old Testament Exegesis,\n Presbyterian College, London.\n\n*The Book of Jeremiah* Chapters XXI.-LII.\n\n By the *Rev. W. H. BENNETT, D.D.*, Professor of Old Testament\n Languages and Literature, Hackney and New Colleges.\n\n*The Book of Deuteronomy*\n\n By the *Rev. Professor ANDREW HARPER, B.D.*, Ormond College,\n Melbourne.\n\n*The Song of Solomon and the Lamentations of Jeremiah*\n\n By the *Rev. W. F. ADENEY, M.A.*, Professor of Exegesis, New College,\n London.\n\n*The Minor Prophets*\n\n By the *Rev. Professor GEORGE ADAM SMITH, D.D.* Author of \"The Book of\n Isaiah,\" \"The Historical Geography of the Holy Land,\" etc. In Two\n Volumes.\n\nLONDON: HODDER & STOUGHTON. 27, PATERNOSTER ROW.\n\n\nFirst Series.\n\n_Subscription Price, *24s.* Separate Volumes, *7s. 6d.* each._\n\n*The Gospel of St. Mark*\n\nBy the *Right Rev. G. A. CHADWICK, D.D.*, Lord Bishop of Derry and Raphoe.\n\n \"The exposition is original, full of life, striking, and relevant.\n He has given us the fruit of much careful thought, and all students\n of the New Testament and preachers of the Gospel will be grateful to\n him. This is, in short, an unusually good book.\"--_British Weekly._\n\n*The Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon*\n\nBy the *Rev. ALEXANDER MACLAREN, D.D.*\n\n \"In nothing Dr. Maclaren has written is there more of beauty, of\n spiritual insight, or of brilliant elucidation of Scripture. Indeed,\n Dr. Maclaren is here at his best.\"--_Expositor._\n\n \"It contains a wealth of thought for preachers.\"--_Rock._\n\n \"Dr. Maclaren's exposition is remarkable for vigour and common\n sense. It is strongly written, and arranged with scholarly\n thoroughness.\"--_Academy._\n\n*The Book of Genesis*\n\nBy the *Rev. Prof. MARCUS DODS, D.D*.\n\n \"Every reader of cultured mind and delicate instinct will recognise\n with delight and admire the fine qualities of sympathetic insight,\n sensitive perception, ethical intuition, and religious tact.\"--_The\n late_ PROF. W. G. ELMSLIE, M.A.\n\n*The First Book of Samuel*\n\nBy the *Rev. Prof. W. G. BLAIKIE, D.D., LL.D.*\n\n \"Remarkably interesting and helpful. Very seldom have we met with a\n religious work which we can more confidently recommend for its\n thoughtfulness, fidelity, and kindly spirit.\"--_Leeds Mercury._\n\n*The Second Book of Samuel*\n\nBy the *Rev. Prof. W. G. BLAIKIE, D.D., LL.D*.\n\n \"There can be no doubt of the care and thoroughness with which Dr.\n Blaikie has executed his task. From his own point of view he has\n produced a solid and able piece of work.\"--_Academy._\n\n*The Epistle to the Hebrews*\n\nBy the *Rev. Principal T. C. EDWARDS, D.D.*, Author of \"A Commentary on\nthe First Epistle to the Corinthians.\"\n\n \"He has entered into the spirit and purport of what truly he calls\n 'one of the greatest and most difficult books of the New Testament'\n with a systematic thoroughness and fairness which cannot be too\n highly commended.\"--_Academy._\n\n \"There is abundant evidence of accurate scholarship, acute\n criticism, patient thought, and faculty of lucid exposition. However\n thoroughly any one has studied the Epistle here explained, he will\n certainly find in Dr. Edwards's volume fresh suggestions.\"--DR.\n MARCUS DODS.\n\n\nSecond Series.\n\n_Subscription Price, *24s.* Separate Volumes, *7s. 6d.* each._\n\n*The Epistle to the Galatians*\n\nBy the *Rev. Prof. G. G. FINDLAY, D.D.*, Headingley College, Leeds.\n\n \"In this volume we have the mature results of broad and accurate\n scholarship, exegetical tact, and a firm grasp of the great\n principles underlying the Gospel of Paul presented in a form so\n lucid and attractive that every thoughtful reader can enjoy\n it.\"--PROFESSOR BEET.\n\n*The Book of Isaiah* Chapters I.-XXXIX.\n\nBy the *Rev. Prof. G. ADAM SMITH, M.A., D.D.*\n\n \"This is a very attractive book. Mr. George Adam Smith has evidently\n such a mastery of the scholarship of his subject that it would be a\n sheer impertinence for most scholars, even though tolerable\n Hebraists, to criticise his translations; and certainly it is not\n the intention of the present reviewer to attempt anything of the\n kind, to do which he is absolutely incompetent. All we desire is to\n let English readers know how very lucid, impressive--and, indeed,\n how vivid--a study of Isaiah is within their reach; the fault of the\n book, if it has a fault, being rather that it finds too many points\n of connection between Isaiah and our modern word, than that it finds\n too few. In other words, no one can say that the book is not full of\n life.\"--_Spectator._\n\n*The Pastoral Epistles*\n\nBy the *Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, D.D.*, Master of University College, Durham.\n\n \"An admirable sample of what popular theology ought to\n be.\"--_Saturday Review._\n\n \"The treatment is throughout scholarlike, lucid,\n thoughtful.\"--_Guardian._\n\n*The First Epistle to the Corinthians*\n\nBy the *Rev. Prof. MARCUS DODS, D.D.*\n\n \"A clear, close, unaffected, unostentatious exposition, not verse by\n verse, but thought after thought, of this most interesting perhaps,\n and certainly most various, of all the Apostle's writings.\"--_London\n Quarterly Review._\n\n*The Epistles of St. John*\n\nBy the *Most Rev. W. ALEXANDER, D.D.*, Lord Archbishop of Armagh.\n\n \"These commentaries are explicitly intended to help the preacher,\n and in Dr. Alexander's 'Discourses' they will find material ready\n shaped to their hand--not facts only, but imagery, references, and\n allusions, none of them cheap or commonplace, and some of them\n felicitous in a high degree.\"--_Guardian._\n\n*The Revelation of St. John*\n\nBy the *Rev. Prof. W. MILLIGAN, D.D.*, of the University of Aberdeen.\n\n \"Lucid, scholarly.\"--_Academy._\n\n \"The style is admirably lucid, expressive, and withal stately. The\n task of the reader could not possibly be easier, and in the case of\n such an abstruse theme the result is no small feat of intellectual\n and literary ingenuity.\"--_Aberdeen Free Press._\n\n\nThird Series.\n\n_Subscription Price, *24s.* Separate Volumes, *7s. 6d.* each._\n\n*Judges and Ruth*\n\nBy the *Rev. R. A. WATSON, D.D.*\n\n \"This volume deals chiefly with a book considered by some one of the\n most difficult of expositions from a Christian point of view. While\n feeling this to be the case, the writer is able to deduce valuable\n instruction from the history by the only legitimate mode, that of\n remembering that the character and laws of God are essentially\n unchangeable, though the amount of their revelation must vary with\n the capacity of those who receive it.... The moralisings on the Book\n of Ruth are also most excellent, and just what are adapted to\n present circumstances.\"--_Spectator._\n\n*The Prophecies of Jeremiah*\n\n*With a Sketch of his Life and Times.*\n\nBy the *Rev. C. J. BALL, M.A.*, Chaplain of Lincoln's Inn.\n\n \"Mr. Ball brings competent knowledge to his task.... A useful\n running commentary.\"--_Saturday Review._\n\n \"It consists of an interesting and sympathetic delineation of the\n prophet's life and character, of a new translation, and of\n expository remarks, which are partly critical and partly homiletic.\n The critical portion will be prized most, as it exhibits deep\n learning, breadth of view, and clear insight into the prophet's\n meaning.\"--_Manchester Examiner._\n\n*The Book of Exodus*\n\nBy the *Right Rev. G. A. CHADWICK, D.D.*, Lord Bishop of Derry and Raphoe.\n\n \"Marked by sound exegesis, common sense, and a devotional\n spirit.\"--_Record._\n\n \"Every part of the book is replete with instruction and interest,\n and a unity of thought and purpose pervades it all.\"--_Glasgow\n Herald._\n\n*The Gospel of St. Matthew*\n\nBy the *Rev. J. MONRO GIBSON, D.D.*, Author of \"The Ages before Moses,\"\netc.\n\n \"A careful exposition in which one important part is not slightly\n dealt with while disproportionate space is given to another, but by\n studied economy of labour and space due care and labour are given to\n every part. The exposition is sober, reverent, and systematic; it is\n also enlightened and well informed.\"--_London Quarterly Review._\n\n*The Gospel of St. Luke*\n\nBy the *Rev. HENRY BURTON, M.A.*\n\n \"Full of vivid illustration and fresh, bright\n exposition.\"--_Record._\n\n \"In the unfolding of truth Mr. Burton writes as a poet. There is\n glow and colour and melody in his descriptions. Often there are\n passages of great beauty.\"--_Methodist Recorder._\n\n*The Book of Isaiah Chapters* XL. to LXVI.\n\nBy the *Rev. Prof. G. ADAM SMITH, M.A., D.D.*\n\n \"A work of no ordinary merit; indeed, it is but rare that such\n exegetical power and mature scholarship are united with an ease of\n style and a fertility of modern illustration that leave but little\n to desire.\"--_Speaker._\n\n\nFourth Series.\n\n_Subscription Price, *24s.* Separate Volumes, *7s. 6d.* each._\n\n*The Gospel of St. John. Vol. I.*\n\nBy the *Rev. Prof. MARCUS DODS, D.D.*\n\n \"Dr. Dods' exposition, besides being characterised by all the\n literary grace by which his previous works are distinguished, is\n also thoroughly evangelical in tone, without, however, being at all\n narrow; while the arguments which this portion of Scripture so\n powerfully suggests in proof of the divinity of Christ are handled\n in such a way as will carry them home to all who accept the\n narrative as authentic.\"--_Scotsman._\n\n*The Acts of the Apostles. Vol. I.*\n\nBy the *Rev. Prof. G. T. STOKES, D.D.*\n\n \"One of the most valuable contributions to the history of the\n Primitive Church that have appeared within recent years.\"--_Dundee\n Advertiser._\n\n*The Book of Leviticus*\n\nBy the *Rev. S. H. KELLOGG, D.D.*\n\n \"The relation of law and gospel is grandly exhibited, and a\n difficult portion of Holy Writ explained in detail and with\n power.\"--_Christian._\n\n \"He has certainly succeeded in investing with fresh interest this\n old book of laws.\"--_Scotsman._\n\n*The Book of Proverbs*\n\nBy the *Rev. R. F. HORTON, M.A., D.D.*\n\n \"Ably and freshly written.\"--_Church Times._\n\n \"A book which may be read by all with pleasure and profit, and\n which, by ministers of all orders, may be taken as a model of one\n kind of expository teaching.\"--_Christian World._\n\n \"The expositor has done his work in a most masterly\n fashion.\"--_Glasgow Herald._\n\n*The Epistles of St. James and St. Jude*\n\nBy the *Rev. A. PLUMMER, D.D.*, Master of University College, Durham.\n\n \"It is even a better piece of work than his former volume on the\n Pastoral Epistles. It contains everything that the student can\n desire by way of introduction to the two Epistles, while for those\n who read with an eye to the manufacture of sermons, or for their own\n edification, the doctrinal and moral lessons are developed in a\n style redolent of books, yet singularly easy and unaffected. Points\n of interest abound.\"--_Saturday Review._\n\n \"A very able and interesting exposition.... An excellent example of\n Scriptural exegesis.\"--_Academy._\n\n*The Book of Ecclesiastes*\n\n*With a New Translation.*\n\nBy the *Rev. SAMUEL COX, D.D.*\n\n \"The most luminous, original, and practical exposition of\n Ecclesiastes which is within the reach of ordinary English\n readers.\"--_Speaker._\n\n \"Dr. Cox's work is likely to count as one of the most interesting of\n the many Interesting studies of which Ecclesiastes has been the\n basis.\"--_Guardian._\n\n\nFifth Series.\n\n_Subscription Price, *24s.* Separate Volumes, *7s. 6d.* each._\n\n*The Epistles to the Thessalonians*\n\nBy the *Rev. Prof. JAMES DENNEY, D.D.*\n\n \"As an expositor we are able to say that Mr. Denney seems to have\n entered very fully into the spirit of the Apostle Paul, and to have\n succeeded in expressing very clearly, and impressing very forcibly,\n the general meaning of the Apostle's words.... It is a very ably\n written work, and one which is well calculated to make the Apostle's\n teaching in these two epistles more intelligible and more\n telling.\"--_Scotsman._\n\n*The Book of Job*\n\nBy the *Rev. R. A. WATSON, D.D.*, Author of \"Gospels of Yesterday,\" etc.\n\n \"Dr. Watson does not fall behind his predecessors in doing justice\n to this magnificent effort of Hebrew genius or inspiration. The\n opening scene on earth and the opening scene in heaven are brought\n before us with graphic power, and the problem raised by the\n situation of Job by the unmerited suffering of the good man stated\n and discussed with much force and philosophical insight. Dr. Watson\n has written with conspicuous ability and a thorough mastery of his\n subject.\"--_Scotsman._\n\n*The Gospel of St. John. Vol. II.*\n\nBy *Prof. MARCUS DODS, D.D.*\n\n \"Dr. Dods appears to us always to write with clearness and\n vigour.... He has the gift of lucid expression, and by means of apt\n illustrations he avoids the cardinal sin of dryness, so that the\n interest even of the general reader will not flag as he smoothly\n glides through these chapters.\"--_Guardian._\n\n*The Epistle to the Ephesians*\n\nBy the *REV. Prof. G. G. FINDLAY, B.A. D.D.*\n\n \"Every page shows that he has made a minute and careful examination\n of the text, while in every chapter there are inferences drawn and\n suggestions thrown out which will find their way into many sermons.\n They who know this Epistle best will be the first to acknowledge the\n value of Prof. Findlay's exposition.\"--_Expositor._\n\n*The Acts of the Apostles. Vol. II.*\n\nBy the *Rev. Prof. G. T. STOKES, D.D.*\n\n \"The second volume is as readable as the first, full of learning\n without a spice of pedantry.... The volume is highly to be commended\n for knowledge, sobriety, and manly piety.\"--_Saturday Review._\n\n*The Psalms. Vol. I.*\n\nBy the *Rev. ALEXANDER MACLAREN, D.D.*\n\n \"Dr. Maclaren has evidently mastered his subject with the aid of the\n best authorities, and has put the results of his studies before his\n readers in a most attractive form; and if we add that his commentary\n really helps to the better understanding of the Psalms, that, far\n from degrading, it vivifies and illuminates these sublime stories,\n and that it is written in a charming style, very seldom tailing\n below the dignity of the subject, we believe we only give it the\n praise which is its due.\"--_Scotsman._\n\n\nSixth Series.\n\n_Subscription Price, *24s.* Separate Volumes, *7s. 6d.* each._\n\n*The Epistle to the Philippians*\n\nBy the *Rev. Principal RAINY, D.D.*\n\n \"A piece of good and thorough work, the work of a sound and\n well-read expositor, and especially of an orthodox Scotch\n divine.\"--_London Quarterly Review._\n\n*The First Book of Kings*\n\nBy the *Very Rev. F. W. FARRAR, D.D. F.R.S.*, Dean of Canterbury.\n\n \"Dr. Farrar brings his versatile literary powers to bear upon these\n majestic and imposing scenes, with all his gifts of poetic\n description, his wealth of quotations, and his aptitude for\n picturesque comparisons.\"--_Guardian._\n\n*Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther*\n\nBy the *Rev. Prof. W. F. ADENEY, M.A.*\n\n \"Mr. Adeney has evidently grasped the whole story with clearness and\n force: his portraits are lifelike; he has all the instinct of the\n expositor in high development. It is no small triumph to have done\n so well with one of the least pictorial and fascinating of Old\n Testament histories.\"--_Independent._\n\n*The Book of Joshua*\n\nBy the *Rev. Prof. W. G. BLAIKIE, D.D., LL.D.*\n\n \"We have no hesitation in saying that for every-day working purposes\n expositors of the Book of Joshua will find this volume more helpful\n than many more critical and modernised works.... His expositions are\n usually fresh and interesting, and there is an eye for the practical\n in all he writes.\"--_Glasgow Herald._\n\n*The Psalms. Vol. II.*\n\nBy the *Rev. ALEXANDER MACLAREN, D.D.*\n\n \"The volume is as attractive as the first, and shows throughout the\n same high qualities of penetration and spiritual sympathy. Its pages\n give abundant evidence of care, critical study, and acquaintance\n with the best that our most competent scholars have contributed to\n the exposition of the Psalms.\"--_Critical Review._\n\n*The Epistles of Peter*\n\nBy the *Rev. Prof. LUMBY, D.D.*, Cambridge.\n\n \"A sound and finely practical commentary.\"--_Saturday Review._\n\n \"We have been impressed by the carefulness, fulness, and almost\n minuteness of the expositions which Dr. Lumby gives in this\n volume.\"--_Literary World._\n\n\nSeventh Series.\n\n_Subscription Price, *24s.* Separate Volumes, *7s. 6d.* each._\n\n*The Epistle to the Romans*\n\nBy the *Right Rev. HANDLEY C. G. MOULE, M.A., D.D.*, Lord Bishop of\nDurham.\n\n \"We do not hesitate to place it in the very front of the little\n group of volumes which are the best examples of this carefully\n edited work. It would be pleasant to linger upon this commentary,\n upon the clearness with which the great evangelical doctrines of the\n Epistle are explained and enforced, upon the earnestness of its\n personal appeal, and the charm which often marks its language; but\n the judicious student of the New Testament will obtain the book for\n himself.\"--_Record._\n\n*The Second Book of Kings*\n\nBy the *Very Rev. F. W. FARRAR, D.D. F.R.S.*, Dean of Canterbury.\n\n \"For a vivid picture of men and times, and a spirited account of the\n events which led to Israel's and Judah's downfall, with fine\n illustrative use of the contemporary writings of the prophets, his\n book is a distinct accession to the series.\"--_Glasgow Herald._\n\n*The Books of Chronicles*\n\nBy the *Rev. W. H. BENNETT, D.D.*, Professor of Old Testament Languages\nand Literature, Hackney and New Colleges.\n\n \"Readers of Mr. Bennett's contribution to 'Faith and Criticism'\n might expect that a book written wholly by him would be distinctive\n and original. But few could have foreseen that he would produce\n anything so illuminating, so broad, so powerful as this\n volume.\"--_Daily Chronicle._\n\n*The Second Epistle to the Corinthians*\n\nBy the *Rev. Prof. JAMES DENNEY, D.D.*, Author of \"The Epistles to the\nThessalonians,\" etc,.\n\n \"Mr. Denney's commentary is a masterly one in every respect. Its\n exegesis of the text is exact and thorough; its use of the best\n expositors most helpful; its final conclusion generally\n convincing.\"--_Methodist Times._\n\n*The Book of Numbers*\n\nBy the *Rev. R. A. WATSON, D.D.*, Author of \"Judges and Ruth,\" etc.\n\n \"Dr. Watson's exposition may be commended as showing considerable\n insight into the deeper meanings of Scripture, and skill in applying\n them to the needs and conditions of modern life; ... his book is\n throughout scholarly in tone and earnestly written.\"--_Scotsman._\n\n*The Psalms. Vol. III.*\n\nBy the *Rev. ALEXANDER MACLAREN, D.D.*\n\n \"With the exposition of the whole Psalter before us, we may say that\n for what it professes to be, the work is very well done, and there\n has been no falling off in the third volume from such an amount of\n excellence as was attained in the other two.\"--_Guardian._\n\nLONDON: HODDER & STOUGHTON, 27, PATERNOSTER ROW.","title":"The Expositor's Bible: The Epistle to the Hebrews","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":77888}