Produced by Marcia Brooks, Colin Bell, Nigel Blower and
the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images
generously made available by The Internet Archive/Canadian
Libraries)









  [Transcriber’s Note:

  This e-text includes Greek characters and punctuation that will only
  display in UTF-8 (Unicode) text readers, e.g. ὁ λόγος. If any of these
  characters do not display properly, make sure your text reader’s
  “character set” or “file encoding” is set to Unicode (UTF-8). You may
  also need to change the default font. As a last resort, use the
  ISO-8859-1 (Latin-1) version of this text instead, in which the Greek
  words have been transliterated.

  _Italic_ and *bold* words in the original have been enclosed in
  underscores and asterisks respectively in this version.

  A few minor typographical errors and incorrect verse numbers have been
  silently corrected.

  The Table of Contents and Index refer to page numbers in the original
  text.

  All advertising material has been placed at the end of the text.]




                    THE EXPOSITOR’S BIBLE


                     EDITED BY THE REV.
              W. ROBERTSON NICOLL, M.A., LL.D.

              _Editor of “The Expositor,” etc._


                 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

                             BY
                THOMAS CHARLES EDWARDS, D.D.


                           London
                    HODDER AND STOUGHTON
                    27, PATERNOSTER ROW

                           MCMIV




                            THE
                   EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS


                             BY
                THOMAS CHARLES EDWARDS, D.D.

  PRINCIPAL OF THE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF WALES, ABERYSTWYTH


                       _NINTH EDITION_


                           London
                    HODDER AND STOUGHTON
                    27, PATERNOSTER ROW

                           MCMIV




_Printed by Hazell, Watson & Viney, Ld., London and Aylesbury._




PREFACE.


In this volume the sole aim of the writer has been to trace the unity of
thought in one of the greatest and most difficult books of the New
Testament. He has endeavoured to picture his reader as a member of what
is known in the Sunday-schools of Wales as “the teachers’ class,” a
thoughtful Christian layman, who has no Greek, and desires only to be
assisted in his efforts to come at the real bearing and force of words
and to understand the connection of the sacred author’s ideas. It may
not be unnecessary to add that this design by no means implies less
labour or thought on the part of the writer. But it does imply that the
labour is veiled. Criticism is rigidly excluded.

The writer has purposely refrained from discussing the question of the
authorship of the Epistle, simply because he has no new light to throw
on this standing enigma of the Church. He is convinced that St. Paul is
neither the actual author nor the originator of the treatise.

In case theological students may wish to consult the volume when they
study the Epistle to the Hebrews, they will find the Greek given at the
foot of the page, to serve as a catch-word, whenever any point of
criticism or of interpretation seems to the writer to deserve their
attention.

    T. C. E.

    ABERYSTWYTH, _April 12th, 1888_.




CONTENTS.


                                                  PAGE
    CHAPTER I.
    THE REVELATION IN A SON                          3

    CHAPTER II.
    THE SON AND THE ANGELS                          21

    CHAPTER III.
    FUNDAMENTAL ONENESS OF THE DISPENSATIONS        51

    CHAPTER IV.
    THE GREAT HIGH-PRIEST                           69

    CHAPTER V.
    THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF RENEWAL                    83

    CHAPTER VI.
    THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF FAILURE                    99

    CHAPTER VII.
    THE ALLEGORY OF MELCHIZEDEK                    113

    CHAPTER VIII.
    THE NEW COVENANT                               133

    CHAPTER IX.
    AN ADVANCE IN THE EXHORTATION                  183

    CHAPTER X.
    FAITH AN ASSURANCE AND A PROOF                 199

    CHAPTER XI.
    THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM                           213

    CHAPTER XII.
    THE FAITH OF MOSES                             233

    CHAPTER XIII.
    A CLOUD OF WITNESSES                           259

    CHAPTER XIV.
    CONFLICT                                       273

    CHAPTER XV.
    MOUNT ZION                                     293

    CHAPTER XVI.
    SUNDRY EXHORTATIONS                            315

    INDEX                                          331




SUMMARY.


I. THE REVELATION IN A SON: i. 1–3.

1. The previous revelation was in portions; this is a Son, Who is the
Heir and the Creator.

2. The previous revelation was in divers manners; this in a Son, Who is
(1) the effulgence of God’s glory; (2) the image of His substance; (3)
the Sustainer of all things; (4) the eternal Priest-King.

II. THE SON AND THE ANGELS: i. 4–ii. 18.

1. The Revealer of God Son of God: i. 4–ii. 4.

2. The Son the Representative of man: ii. 5–18. (1) He is crowned with
glory as Son, that His propitiation may prove effectual, and His
humiliation involves a propitiatory death. (2) His glory consists in
being Leader of His people, and His humiliation fitted Him for
leadership. (3) His glory consists in power to consecrate men to God,
and His humiliation endowed Him with this power. (4) His glory consists
in the destruction of Satan, and Satan is destroyed through the Son’s
humiliation.

III. FUNDAMENTAL ONENESS OF THE DISPENSATIONS: iii. i-iv. 13.

1. Moses and Christ are equally God’s stewards.

2. The threatenings of God under the Old Testament are in force in
reference to apostasy from Christ.

3. The promises of God are still in force.

IV. THE GREAT HIGH-PRIEST: iv. 4–v. 10.

1. His sympathy.

2. His authority.

V. (A DIGRESSION) THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF RENEWAL IN THE CASE OF SCOFFERS:
v. 11–vi. 8.

Their renewal is impossible (1) because the doctrine of Christianity is
practical, and (2) because God’s punishment of cynicism is the
destruction of the spiritual faculty.

VI. (CONTINUATION OF THE DIGRESSION.) THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF FAILURE: vi.
9–20.

VII. THE ALLEGORY OF MELCHIZEDEK: vii. 1–28.

1. Melchizedek foreshadows the kingship of Christ.

2. Melchizedek foreshadows the personal greatness of Christ.

3. The allegory teaches the existence of a priesthood other than that of
Aaron, viz., the priesthood founded on an oath.

4. The allegory sets forth the eternal duration of Christ’s priesthood.

VIII. THE NEW COVENANT: viii. 1.

1. A new covenant promised through Jeremiah: viii. 1–13. The new
covenant would excel (1) in respect of the moral law; (2) in respect of
knowledge of God; (3) in respect of forgiveness of sins.

2. A new covenant symbolized in the tabernacle: ix. 1–14.

3. A new covenant ratified in the death of Christ: ix. 15–x. 18.

IX. AN ADVANCE IN THE EXHORTATION: x. 19–39.

X. FAITH AN ASSURANCE AND A PROOF: xi. 1–3.

XI. THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM: xi. 8–19.

1. His faith compared with the faith of Noah.

2. His faith compared with the faith of Enoch.

3. His faith compared with the faith of Abel.

XII. THE FAITH OF MOSES: xi. 23–28.

1. Faith groping for the work of life.

2. Faith chooses the work of life.

3. Faith a discipline for the work of life.

4. Faith renders the man’s life and work sacramental.

XIII. A CLOUD OF WITNESSES: xi. 20–xii. 1.

XIV. CONFLICT: xii. 2–17. Faith as a hope of the future endures the
present conflict against men.

1. The preparatory training for the conflict consists in putting away
(1) our own grossness; (2) the sin that besets us.

2. The contest is successfully maintained if we look unto Jesus (1) as
Leader and Perfecter of our faith; (2) as an example of faith.

3. The contest is necessary as a discipline in dealing with (1) the
weaker brethren, (2) the enemy at the gate, and (3) the secular spirit.

XV. MOUNT ZION: xii. 18–29. The revelation on Sinai preceded the
sacrifices of the tabernacle; the revelation on Zion follows the
sacrifice of the Cross. Hence—

1. Sinai revealed the terrible side of God’s character, Zion the
peaceful tenderness of His love.

2. The revelation on Sinai was earthly; that on Zion is spiritual.

XVI. SUNDRY EXHORTATIONS: xiii. 1–25.




CHAPTER I.

_THE REVELATION IN A SON._


    “God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by
    divers portions and in divers manners, hath at the end of these days
    spoken unto us in His Son, Whom He appointed Heir of all things,
    through Whom also He made the worlds; Who being the effulgence of
    His glory, and the very image of His substance, and upholding all
    things by the word of His power, when He had made purification of
    sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.”—HEB. i.
    1–3 (R.V.).


“God hath spoken.” The eternal silence has been broken. We have a
revelation. That God has spoken unto men is the ground of all religion.
Theologians often distinguish between natural religion and revealed. We
may fairly question if all worship is not based on some revelation of
God. Prayer is the echo in man’s spirit of God’s own voice. Men learn to
speak to the Father Who is in heaven as children come to utter words: by
hearing their parent speak. It is the deaf who are also dumb. God speaks
first, and prayer answers as well as asks. Men reveal themselves to the
God Who has revealed Himself to them.

The Apostle is, however, silent about the revelations of God in nature
and in conscience. He passes them by because we, sinful men, have lost
the key to the language of creation and of our own moral nature. We know
that He speaks through them, but we do not know what He says. If we were
holy, it would be otherwise. All nature would be vocal, “like some
sweet beguiling melody.” But to us the universe is a hieroglyphic which
we cannot decipher, until we discover in another revelation the key that
will make all plain.

More strange than this is the Apostle’s omission to speak of the Mosaic
dispensation as a revelation of God. We should have expected the verse
to run on this wise: “God, having spoken unto the fathers in the
sacrifices and in the prophets, institutions, and inspired words,” etc.
But the author says nothing about rites, institutions, dispensations,
and laws. The reason apparently is that he wishes to compare with the
revelation in Christ the highest, purest, and fullest revelation given
before; and the most complete revelation vouchsafed to men, before the
Son came to declare the Father, is to be found, not in sacrifices, but
in the words of promise, not in the institutions, but in holy men, who
were sent, time after time, to quicken the institutions into new life or
to preach new truths. The prophets were seers and poets. Nature’s
highest gift is imagination, whether it “makes” a world that transcends
nature or “sees” what in nature is hidden from the eyes of ordinary men.
This faculty of the true poet, elevated, purified, taken possession of
by God’s Holy Spirit, became the best instrument of revelation, until
the word of prophecy was made more sure through the still better gift of
the Son.

But it would appear from the Apostle’s language that even the lamp of
prophecy, shining in a dark place, was in two respects defective. “God
spake in the prophets by divers portions and in divers manners.” He
spake in divers portions; that is, the revelation was broken, as the
light was scattered before it was gathered into one source. Again, He
spake in divers manners. Not only the revelation was fragmentary, but
the separate portions were not of the same kind. The two defects were
that the revelation lacked unity and was not homogeneous.

In contrast to the fragmentary character of the revelation, the Apostle
speaks of the Son, in the second verse, as the centre of unity. He is
the Heir and the Creator of all things. With the heterogeneous
revelation in the prophets he contrasts, in the third verse, the
revelation that takes its form from the peculiar nature of Christ’s
Sonship. He is the effulgence of God’s glory, the very image of His
substance; He upholds all things by the word of His power; and, having
made purification of sins, He took His seat on the right hand of the
Majesty on high.

Let us examine a little more closely the double comparison made by the
Apostle between the revelation given to the fathers and that which we
have received.

_First_, the previous revelation was in portions. The Old Testament has
no centre, from which all its wonderful and varied lights radiate, till
we find its unity in the New Testament and read Jesus Christ into it.
God scattered the revelations over many centuries, line upon line,
precept after precept, here a little and there a little. He spread the
knowledge of Himself over the ages of a nation’s history, and made the
development of one people the medium whereby to communicate truth. This
of itself, if nothing more had been told us, is a magnificent
conception. A nation’s early struggles, bitter failures, ultimate
triumph, the appearance within it of warriors, prophets, poets, saints,
used by the Spirit of God to reveal the invisible! Sometimes revelation
would make but one advance in an age. We might almost imagine that God’s
truth from the lips of His prophets was found at times too overpowering.
It was crushing frail humanity. The Revealer must withdraw into silence
behind the thick veil, to give human nature time to breathe and recover
self-possession. The occasional message of prophecy resembles the
suddenness of Elijah’s appearances and departures, and forms a strange
contrast to the ceaseless stream of preaching in the Christian Church.

Still more strikingly does it contrast with the New Testament, the
greater book, yea the greatest of all books. Only two classes of men
deny its supremacy. They are those who do not know what real greatness
is, and those who disparage it as a literature that they may be the
better able to seduce foolish and shallow youths to reject it as a
revelation. But honest and profound thinkers, even when they do not
admit that it is the word of God, acknowledge it to be the greatest
among the books of men.

Yet the New Testament was all produced—if we are forbidden to say
“given”—in one age, not fifteen centuries. Neither was this one of the
great ages of history, when genius seems to be almost contagious. Even
Greece had at this time no original thinkers. Its two centuries of
intellectual supremacy had passed away. It was the age of literary
imitations and counterfeits. Yet it is in this age that the book which
has most profoundly influenced the thought of all subsequent times made
its appearance. How shall we account for the fact? The explanation is
not that its writers were great men. However insignificant the writers,
the mysterious greatness of the book pervades it all, and their lips are
touched as with a live coal from the altar. Nothing will account for the
New Testament but the other fact that Jesus of Nazareth had appeared
among men, and that He was so great, so universal, so human, so Divine,
that He contained in His own person all the truth that will ever be
discovered in the book. Deny the incarnation of the Son of God, and you
make the New Testament an insoluble enigma. Admit that Jesus is the
Word, and that the Word is God, and the book becomes nothing more,
nothing less, than the natural and befitting outcome of what He said and
did and suffered. The mystery of the book is lost in the greater mystery
of His person.

Here the second verse comes in, to tell us of this great Person, and how
He unites in Himself the whole of God’s revelation. He is appointed Heir
of all things, and through Him God made the ages. He is the Alpha and
the Omega, the first and the last, He which is, and which was, and which
is to come,—the spring from which all the streams of time have risen
and the sea into which they flow. But these are the two sides of all
real knowledge; and revelation is nothing else than knowledge given by
God. All the infinite variety of questions with which men interrogate
nature may be reduced to two: Whence? and whither? As to the latter
question, the investigation has not been in vain. We do know that,
whatever the end will be, the whole universe rises from lower to higher
forms. If one life perishes, it reappears in a higher life. It is the
ultimate purpose of all which still remains unknown. But the Apostles
declare that this interrogation is answered in Jesus Christ. Only that
they speak, not of “ultimate purpose,” but of “the appointed Heir.” He
is more than the goal of a development. He is the Son of the living God,
and therefore the Heir of all the works and purposes of His Father. He
holds His position by right of sonship, and has it confirmed to Him as
the reward of filial service.

The word “Heir” is an allusion to the promise made to Abraham. The
reference, therefore, is not to the eternal relation between the Son and
God, not to any lordship which the Son acquires apart from His
assumption of humanity and atoning death. The idea conveyed by the word
“Heir” will come again to the surface, more than once, in the Epistle.
But everywhere the reference is to the Son’s final glory as Redeemer. At
the same time, the act of appointing Him Heir may have taken place
before the world was. We must, accordingly, understand the revelation
here spoken of to mean more especially the manifestation of God in the
work of redemption. Of this work also Christ is the ultimate purpose. He
is the Heir, to Whom the promised inheritance originally and ultimately
belongs. It is this that befits Him to become the full and complete
Revealer of God. He is the answer to the question, Whither? in reference
to the entire range of redemptive thought and action.

Again, He, too, is the Creator. Many seek to discover the origin of all
things by analysis. They trace the more complex to the less complex, the
compound to its elements, and the higher developments of life to lower
types. But to the theologian the real difficulty does not lie here.
What matter _whence_, if we are still the same? We know what we are. We
_are_ men. We are capable of thinking, of sinning, of hating or loving
God. The problem is to account for these facts of our spirit. What is
the evolution of holiness? Whence came prayer, repentance, and faith?
But even these questions Christianity professes to answer. It answers
them by solving still harder problems than these. Do we ask who created
the human spirit? The Gospel tells us who can sanctify man’s inmost
being. Do we seek to know who made conscience? The New Testament
proclaims One Who can purify conscience and forgive the sin. To create
is but a small matter to Him Who can save. Jesus Christ is that Saviour.
He, therefore, is that Creator. In being these things, He is the
complete and final revelation of God.

_Second_, previous revelations were given in divers manners. God used
many different means to reveal Himself, as if He found them one after
another inadequate. And how can a visible, material creation
sufficiently reveal the spiritual? How can institutions and systems
reveal the personal, living God? How can human language even express
spiritual ideas? Sometimes the means adopted appear utterly incongruous.
Will the great Spirit, the holy and good God, speak to a prophet in the
dreams of night? Shall we say that the man of God sees real visions
when he dreams an unreal dream? Or will an apparition of the day more
befittingly reveal God? Has every substance been possessed by the spirit
of falsehood, so that the Being of beings can only reveal His presence
in unsubstantial phantoms? Has the waking life of intellect become so
entirely false to its glorious mission of discovering truth that the God
of truth cannot reveal Himself to man, except in dreams and spectres?
Yet there was a time when it might be well for us to recall our dreams,
and wise to believe in spiritualism. For a dream might bring a real
message from God, and ecstasy might be the birth-throes of a new
revelation. Some of the good words of Scripture were at first a dream.
In the midst of the confused fancies of the brain, when reason is for a
time dethroned, a truth descends from heaven upon the prophet’s spirit.
This has been, but will never again take place. The oracles are dumb,
and we shall not regret them. We consult no interpreter of dreams. We
seek not the seances of necromancers. Let the peaceful spirits of the
dead rest in God! They had their trials and sorrows on earth. Rest,
hallowed souls! We do not ask you to break the deep silence of heaven.
For God has spoken unto us in a Son, Who has been made higher than the
heavens, and is as great as God. Even the Son need not, must not, come
to earth a second time to reveal the Father in mighty deeds and a
mightier self-sacrifice. The revelation given is enough. “We will not
say in our hearts, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring
Christ down:) or, Who shall descend into the abyss? (that is, to bring
Christ up from the dead.) The word is nigh us, in our mouth, and in our
heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach.”[1]

The final form of God’s revelation of Himself is, therefore, perfectly
homogeneous. The third verse explains that it is a revelation, not only
in a Son, but in His Sonship. We learn what kind of Sonship is His, and
how its glorious attributes qualify Him to be the perfect Revealer of
God. Nevermore will a message be sent to men except in Jesus Christ.
God, Who spake unto the fathers in divers manners, speaks to us in Him,
Whose Sonship constitutes Him the effulgence of God’s glory, the image
of His substance, the Upholder of the universe, and, lastly, the eternal
Redeemer and King.

1. He is the effulgence of God’s glory. Many expositors prefer another
rendering: “the reflection of His glory.” This would mean that God’s
self-manifestation, shining on an external substance, is reflected, as
from a mirror, and that this reflection is the Son of God. But such an
expression does not convey a consistent idea. For the Son must be the
substance from which the light is reflected. What truth there is in this
rendering is more correctly expressed in the next clause: “the image of
His substance.” It is, therefore, much better to accept the rendering
adopted in the Revised Version: “the effulgence of His glory.” God’s
glory is the self-manifestation of His attributes, or, in other words,
the consciousness which God has of His own infinite perfections. This
implies the triune personality of God. But it does not imply a
revelation of God to His creatures. The Son participates in that
consciousness of the Divine perfections. But He also reveals God to men,
not merely in deeds and in words, but in His person. He _is_ the
revelation. To declare this seems to be the Apostle’s purpose in using
the word “effulgence.” It expresses “the essentially ministrative
character of the person of the Son.”[2] If a revelation will be given at
all, His Sonship points Him out as the Interpreter of God’s nature and
purposes, inasmuch as He is essentially, because He is Son, the
emanation or radiance of His glory.

2. He is the image of His substance. A solar ray reveals the light, but
not completely, unless indeed it guides the eye back along its pencilled
line to the orb of day. If the Son of God were only an effulgence,
Christ could still say that He Himself is the way to the Father, but He
could not add, “He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father.”[3] That the
revelation may be complete, the Son must be, in one sense, distinct from
God, as well as one with Him. Apparently this is the notion conveyed in
the metaphor of the “image.” Both truths are stated together in the
words of Christ: “As the Father hath life in Himself, so _hath He given_
to the Son to have life _in Himself_.”[4] If the Son is more than an
effulgence, if He is “the very image” of God’s essence, nothing in God
will remain unrevealed. Every feature of His moral nature will be
delineated in the Son. If the Son is the exact likeness of God and has a
distinct mode of subsisting He is capable of all the modifications in
His form of subsisting which may be necessary, in order to make a
complete revelation of God intelligible to men. It is possible for Him
to become man Himself. He is capable of obedience, even of learning
obedience by suffering, and of acquiring power to succour by being
tempted. He can taste death. We might add, if we were studying one of
St. Paul’s Epistles (which we are not at present doing), that this
distinction from God, involved in His very Sonship, made Him capable of
emptying Himself of the Divine form of subsisting and taking upon Him
instead of it the form of a servant. This power of meeting man’s actual
condition confers upon the Son the prerogative of being the complete and
final revelation of God.

3. He upholds all things by the word of His power. This must be closely
connected with the previous statement. If the Son is the effulgence of
God’s glory and the express image of His essence, He is not a creature,
but is the Creator. The Son is so from God that He is God. He so
emanates from Him that He is a perfect and complete representation of
His being. He is not in such a manner an effulgence as to be only a
manifestation of God, nor in such a manner an image as to be a creature
of God. But, in fellowship of nature, the essence of God is communicated
to the Son in the distinctness of His mode of subsisting. The Apostle’s
words fully justify—perhaps they suggested—the expressions in the
Nicene and still earlier creeds, “God _of_ God, Light _of_ Light, very
God _of_ very God.” If this is His relation to God, it determines His
relation to the universe, and the relation of the universe to God. Philo
had described the Word as an effulgence, and spoken also of Him as
distinct from God. But in Philo these two statements are inconsistent.
For the former means that the Word is an attribute of God, and the
latter means that He is a creature. The writer of the Epistle to the
Hebrews says that the Word is not an attribute, but a perfect
representation of God’s essence. He says also that He is not a creature,
but the Sustainer of all things. These statements are consistent. The
one, in fact, implies the other; and both together express the same
conception which we find in St. John’s Gospel: “In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were
made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that hath been
made.”[5] It is also the teaching of St. Paul: “In Him were all things
created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things
invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers:
all things have been created through Him, and unto Him; and in Him all
things consist.”[6]

But the Apostle has a further motive in referring to the Son as Upholder
of all things. As Creator and Sustainer He reveals God. He upholds all
things _by the word of His power_. “The invisible things of God are
perceived through the things which are made, even His everlasting power
and Divinity.”[7] There is a revelation of God prior even to that given
in the prophets.

4. Having made purification of sins, He took His seat on the right hand
of the Majesty on high. We come now, at last, to the special revelation
of God which forms the subject of the Epistle. The Apostle here states
his central truth on its two sides. The one side is Christ’s priestly
offering; the other is His kingly exaltation. We shall see as we proceed
that the entire structure of the Epistle rests on this great
conception,—the Son of God, the eternal Priest-King. By introducing it
at this early stage, the author gives his readers the clue to what will
very soon prove a labyrinth. We must hold the thread firmly, if we wish
not to be lost in the maze. The subject of the treatise is here given
us. It is “The Son as Priest-King the Revealer of God.” The revelation
is not in words only, nor in external acts only, but in love, in
redemption, in opening heaven to all believers. It is well termed a
revelation. For the Priest-King has rent the thick veil and opened the
way to men to enter into the true holiest place, so that they know God
by prayer and communion.


FOOTNOTES:

[1] Rom. x. 6–8.

[2] Newman, _Arians_, p. 182 (ed. 1833).

[3] John xiv. 6, 9.

[4] John v. 26.

[5] John i. 1, 3.

[6] Col. i. 16, 17.

[7] Rom. i. 20.




CHAPTER II.

_THE SON AND THE ANGELS._


HEBREWS i. 4–ii. 18.


The most dangerous and persistent error against which the theologians of
the New Testament had to contend was the doctrine of emanations. The
persistence of this error lay in its affinity with the Christian
conception of mediation between God and men; its danger sprang from its
complete inconsistency with the Christian idea of the person and work of
the Mediator. For the Hebrew conception of God, as the “I AM,” tended
more and more in the lapse of ages to sever Him from all immediate
contact with created beings. It would be the natural boast of the Jews
that Jehovah dwelt in unapproachable light. They would point to the
contrast between Him and the human gods of the Greeks. An ever-deepening
consciousness of sin and spiritual gloom would strengthen the conviction
that the Lord abode behind the veil, and their conception of God would
of necessity react on their consciousness of sin. If, therefore, God is
the absolute Being—so argued the Gnostics of the day—He cannot be the
actual Creator of the world. We must suppose the existence of an
emanation or a series of emanations from God, every additional link in
the chain being less Divine, until we arrive at the material universe,
where the element of Divinity is entirely lost. These emanations are the
angels, the only possible mediators between God and men. Some theories
came to a stand at this point; others took a further step, and
worshipped the angels, as the mediators also between men and God. Thus
the angels were regarded as messengers or apostles from God and
reconcilers or priests for men. St. Paul has already rejected these
notions in his Epistle to the Colossians. He teaches that the Son of
God’s love is the visible image of the invisible God, prior to all
creation and by right of primogeniture Heir of all, Creator of the
highest angels, Himself being before they came into existence. Such He
is before His assumption of humanity. But it pleased God that in Him,
also as God-Man, all the plenitude of the Divine attributes should
dwell; so that the Mediator is not an emanation, neither human nor
Divine, but is Himself God and Man.[8]

Recent expositors have sufficiently proved that there was a Judaic
element in the Colossian heresy. We need not, therefore, hesitate to
admit that the Epistle to the Hebrews contains references to the same
error. Our author acknowledges the existence of angels. He declares that
the Law was given through angels, which is a point not touched upon more
than once in the Old Testament, but seemingly taken for granted, rather
than expressly announced, in the New. Stephen reproaches the Jews, who
had received the Law as the ordinances of angels, with having betrayed
and murdered the Righteous One, of Whom the Law and the prophets
spake.[9] St. Paul, like the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews,
argues that the Law differs from the promise in having been ordained
through angels, as mediators between the Lord and His people Israel,
whereas the promise was given by God, not as a compact between two
parties, but as the free act of Him Who is one.[10] The main purpose of
the first and second chapters of our Epistle is to maintain the
superiority of the Son to the angels, of Him in Whom God has spoken unto
us to the mediators through whom He gave the Law.

The defect of the doctrine of emanations was twofold. They are supposed
to consist of a long chain of intermediate beings. But the chain does
not connect at either end. God is still absolutely unapproachable by
man; man is still inaccessible to God. It is in vain new links are
forged. The chain does not, and never will, bring man and God together.
The only solution of the problem must be found in One Who is God and
Man; and this is precisely the doctrine of our author, on the one hand,
that the Revealer of God is Son of God; and, on the other hand, that the
Son of God is our brother-man. The former statement is proved, and a
practical warning based upon it, in the section that extends from chap.
i. 4 to chap. ii. 4. The latter is the subject of the section from chap.
ii. 5 to chap. ii. 18.


I. THE REVEALER OF GOD SON OF GOD.

    “Having become by so much better than the angels, as He hath
    inherited a more excellent name than they. For unto which of the
    angels said He at any time,

        Thou art my Son,
        This day have I begotten Thee?

    and again,

        I will be to Him a Father,
        And He shall be to Me a Son?

    And when He again bringeth in the Firstborn into the world He saith,
    And let all the angels of God worship Him. And of the angels He
    saith,

        Who maketh His angels winds,
        And His ministers a flame of fire:

    but of the Son _He saith_,

        Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever;
        And the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of Thy kingdom.
        Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity;
        Therefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee
        With the oil of gladness about Thy fellows.

    And,

        Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth,
        And the heavens are the works of Thy hands:
        They shall perish; but Thou continuest:
        And they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
        And as a mantle shall Thou roll them up,
        As a garment, and they shall be changed:
        But Thou art the same,
        And Thy years shall not fail.

    But of which of the angels hath He said at any time,

        Sit Thou on My right hand,
        Till I make Thine enemies the footstool of Thy feet?

    Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to do service for
    the sake of them that shall inherit salvation?

    Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things that
    were heard, lest haply we drift away _from them_. For if the word
    spoken through angels proved steadfast, and every transgression and
    disobedience received a just recompense of reward; how shall we
    escape, if we neglect so great salvation? which having at the first
    been spoken through the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that
    heard; God also bearing witness with them, both by signs and
    wonders, and by manifold powers, and by gifts of the Holy Ghost
    according to His own will” (Heb. i. 4–ii. 4, R.V.).

Christ is Son of God, not in the sense in which angels, as a class of
beings, are designated by this name, but as He Who has taken His seat on
the right hand of the Majesty on high. The greatness of His position is
proportionate to the excellency of the name of Son. This name He has
not obtained by favour nor attained by effort, but inherited by
indefeasible right. Josephus says that the Essenes forbade their
disciples to divulge the names of the angels. But He Who has revealed
God has been revealed Himself. He is Son. Which of the angels was ever
so addressed? To speak of the angels as sons and yet say that not one of
them individually is a son may be self-contradictory in words, but the
thought is consistent and true.

From the pre-existent Son, regarded as the idealised theocratic King,
the Apostle passes to the incarnate Christ, returning to the world which
He has redeemed, and out of which He brings[11] many sons of God unto
glory. God brings Him also in as the First-begotten among these many
brethren. But our Lord Himself describes His coming. “The Son of man
shall come in His glory, and all the angels with Him.”[12] In allusion
to this saying of Christ, the Apostle applies to His second advent the
words which in the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament are a summons
to all the angels to worship Jehovah. They are the Son’s ministers. Like
swift winds, they convey His messages; or they carry destruction at His
bidding, like a flame of fire. But the Son is enthroned God for ever.
The sceptre of righteousness, by whomsoever borne, is the sceptre of
His kingdom; all thrones and powers, human and angelic, hold sway under
Him. They are His fellows, and participate only in His royal gladness,
Whose joy surpasses theirs.

The author reverts to the Son’s pre-incarnate existence. The Son created
earth and heaven, and, for that reason, He remains when the works of His
hand wax old, as a garment. Creation is the vesture of the Son. In all
the changes of nature the Son puts off a garment, while He remains
unchanged Himself.

Finally, our author glances at the triumphant consummation, when God
will do for His Son what He will not do for the angels. For He will make
His enemies the footstool of His feet, as the reward of His redemptive
work. The angels have no enemy to conquer. Neither are they the authors
of our redemption. Yea, they are not even the redeemed. The Son is the
Heir of the throne. Men are the heirs of salvation. Must we, then, quite
exclude the angels from all present activity in the kingdom of the Son?
Do they altogether belong to a past epoch in the development of God’s
revelation? Must we say of them, as astronomers speak of the moon, that
they are dead worlds? Shall we not rather find a place for them in the
spirit-world corresponding to the office filled in the sphere of nature
by the works of God’s hands? God has His earthly ministers. Are not the
angels ministering spirits? The Apostle puts the question tentatively.
But the pious instinct of the Church and of good men has answered, Yes.
For salvation has created a new form of service for which nature is not
fitted. The narrative of the Son’s own life on earth suggests the same
reply. For an angel appeared unto Him in Gethsemane and strengthened
Him.[13] It is true that the Son Himself is the Minister of the
sanctuary. He alone serves in the holiest place. But may not the angels
be _sent forth_ to minister? Salvation is the work of the Son. But shall
we not say that the angels perform a service for the Son, which is
possible only because of men who are now on the eve of inheriting that
salvation?

We must beware of minimising the significance of the Apostle’s words. If
he means by “Son” merely an official designation, where is the
difference between the Son and the angels? The only definition of “Son”
that will satisfy the argument is “God the Revealer of God.” Sabellius
said, “The Word is not the Son.” The contrary doctrine is necessary to
give any value to the reasoning of our Epistle. The Revealer is Son; and
the Son, in order to be the full Revealer, must be “of the essence of
the Father,” inasmuch as God only can perfectly reveal God. This is so
vital to the Apostle’s argument that he need not hesitate to use a term
in reference to the Son which in another connection might be liable to
be misunderstood, as if it expressed the theory of emanation. The Son is
“the effulgence” of the Father’s glory, or, in the words of the Nicene
Creed, He is “Light out of Light.” It is safe to use such words when our
very argument demands that He should also be “the distinct impress of
His substance,”—“very God out of very God.”

The Apostle has now laid the foundation of his great argument. He has
shown us the Son as the Revealer of God. This done, he at once
introduces his first practical warning. It is his manner. He does not,
like St. Paul, first conclude the argumentative portion of his Epistle,
and afterwards heap precept on precept in words of warning, sympathy, or
encouragement. Our author alternates argument with exhortation. The
Epistle wears to a superficial reader the appearance of a mosaic. The
truth is that no book in the New Testament is more thoroughly or more
skilfully welded into one piece from beginning to end. But the danger
was imminent, and urgent warning was needed at every step. One truth was
better fitted to drive home one lesson, and another argument to enforce
another.

The first danger of the Hebrew Christians would arise from
indifference. The first warning of the Apostle is, Take care that you do
not drift.[14] In the Son as the Revealer of God we have a sure
anchorage. Let us fasten the vessel to its moorings. That the Son has
revealed God is beyond question. The fact is well assured. For the
message of salvation has been proclaimed by the Lord Jesus Himself. It
has run its course down to the writer of the Epistle and his readers
through the testimony of eye-witnesses and ear-witnesses. God Himself
has borne witness with these faithful men by signs and wonders and
divers manifestations of power, yea by giving the Holy Ghost to each one
severally according to His own will. The last words are not to be
neglected. The apparent arbitrariness of His sovereign will in the
distribution of the Spirit lends force to the proof, by pointing to the
direct, personal action of God in this great concern.

But the warning is based, not simply on the fact of a revelation, but on
the greatness of the Revealer. The Law was given through angels, and the
Law was not transgressed with impunity. How, then, shall we escape God’s
anger if we contemptuously neglect a salvation so great that no one less
than the Son could have wrought or revealed it?

Observe the emphatic notions. Salvation is contrasted with law. It is a
greater sin to despise God’s free, merciful offer of eternal life than
to transgress the commandments of His justice. There may be emphasis
also on the certainty of the proof. The word spoken by angels was firmly
assured, and, because no man could shelter under the plea that the
heavenly authority of the message was doubtful, disobedience met with
unsparing retribution. But the Gospel is proved to be of God by still
more abundant evidence,—the personal testimony of the Lord Jesus, the
witness of those who heard Him, and the cumulative argument of gifts and
miracles. While these truths are emphatic, more important than all is
the fact that the Son is the Giver of this salvation. The thought seems
to be that God is jealous for the honour of His Son. Our Lord Himself
teaches this, and the form which it assumes in His parable implies that
He speaks, not as a speculative moralist, but as One Who knows God’s
heart: “Last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will
reverence my son.” But when Christ asks His hearers what the lord of the
vineyard will do unto those wicked husbandmen, the manner of their reply
shows that they only half understand His meaning or else pretend not to
see the point of His question. They acknowledge the husbandmen’s
wickedness, but profess that it consists largely in not rendering to
the owner the fruits in their season, as if, forsooth, their wickedness
in killing their master’s son had not thrust their dishonesty quite out
of sight.[15] The Apostle, too, appeals to his readers,[16] evidently in
the belief that they would at once feel the force of his argument,
whether trampling under foot the Son of God did not deserve sorer
punishment than despising the law of Moses. Christ and the Apostle speak
in the spirit of the second Psalm: “Thou art My Son. Ask of Me, and I
shall give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance, and the uttermost
parts of the earth for Thy possession.... Kiss the Son!” Now, if Christ
adopts this language, it is not mere metaphor, but is a truth concerning
God’s moral nature. Resentment must, in some sense or other, belong to
God’s Fatherhood. The doctrine of the Trinity implies the necessary and
eternal altruism of the Divine nature. It would not be true to say that
the God of the Christians was less jealous than the God of the Hebrews.
He is still the living God. It is a fearful thing to fall into His
hands. He will still vindicate the majesty of His law. But now He has
spoken unto us in One Who is Son. The Judge of all is not a mere
official Administrator, but a Father. The place occupied in the Old
Testament by the Law is now filled by the Son.


II. THE SON THE REPRESENTATIVE OF MAN.

    “For not unto angels did He subject the world to come, whereof we
    speak. But one hath somewhere testified, saying,

        What is man, that Thou art mindful of him?
        Or the son of man, that Thou visitest him?
        Thou madest him a little lower than the angels;
        Thou crownedst him with glory and honour,
        And didst set him over the works of Thy hands:
        Thou didst put all things in subjection under his feet.

    For in that He subjected all things unto him, He left nothing that
    is not subject to him. But now we see not yet all things subjected
    to him. But we behold Him Who hath been made a little lower than the
    angels, _even_ Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with
    glory and honour, that by the grace of God He should taste death for
    every _man_. For it became Him, for Whom are all things, and through
    Whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the
    Author of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For both He
    that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are all of one: for
    which cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying,

        I will declare Thy name unto My brethren,
        In the midst of the congregation will I sing Thy praise.

    And again, I will put My trust in Him. And again, Behold, I and the
    children which God hath given Me. Since then the children are
    sharers in flesh and blood, He also Himself in like manner partook
    of the same; that through death He might bring to nought him that
    had the power of death, that is, the devil; and might deliver all
    them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to
    bondage. For verily not of angels doth He take hold, but He taketh
    hold of the seed of Abraham. Wherefore it behoved Him in all things
    to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and
    faithful High-priest in things pertaining to God, to make
    propitiation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself hath
    suffered being tempted, He is able to succour them that are tempted”
    (HEB. ii. 5–18, R.V.).

The Son is better than the angels, not only because He is the Revealer
of God, but also because He represents man. We have to do with more than
spoken promises. The salvation through Christ raises man to a new
dignity, and bestows upon him a new authority. God calls into existence
a “world to come,” and puts that world in subjection, not to angels, but
to man.

The passage on the consideration of which we now enter is difficult,
because the interpretation offered by some of the best expositors,
though at first sight it has the appearance of simplicity, really
introduces confusion into the argument. They think the words of the
Psalmist,[17] as applied by the Apostle, refer to Christ only. But the
Psalmist evidently contrasts the frailty of man with the authority
bestowed upon him by Jehovah. Mortal man has been set over the works of
God’s hand. Man is for a little inferior to the angels; yet he is
crowned with glory and honour. The very contrast between his frailty and
his dignity exalts the name of his Creator, Who judges not as we judge.
For He confronts His blasphemers with the lisping of children, and weak
man He crowns king of creation, in order to put to shame the wisdom of
the world.[18]

We cannot suppose that this is said of Christ, the Son of God. But there
are two expressions in the Psalm that suggested to St. Paul[19] and the
author of this Epistle a Messianic reference. The one is the name “Son
of man;” the other is the action ascribed to God: “Thou hast made him
lower than the angels.” The word[20] used by the Seventy, whose
translation the Apostle here and elsewhere adopts, means, not, as the
Hebrew, “to create lower,” but “to bring from a more exalted to a
humbler condition.” Christ appropriated to Himself the title of “Son of
man;” and “to lower from a higher to a less exalted position” applies
only to the Son of God, Whose pre-existence is taught by the Apostle in
chap. i. The point of the Apostle’s application of the Psalm must,
therefore, be that in Christ alone have the Psalmist’s words been
fulfilled. The Psalmist was a prophet, and testified.[21] In addition to
the witnesses previously mentioned,[22] the Apostle cites the evidence
from prophecy. An inspired seer, “seeing this beforehand, spake of
Christ,” not primarily, but in a mystery now explained in the New
Testament. The distinction also between crowning with glory and putting
all things under his feet holds true only of Christ. The Psalmist, we
admit, appears to identify them. But the relevancy of the Apostle’s use
of the Psalm lies in the distinction between these two things. The
creature man may be said to be crowned with glory and honour by
receiving universal dominion and by the subjection of all things under
his feet. “But we see not yet all things put under him;” and,
consequently, we see not man crowned with glory and honour. The words of
the Psalmist have apparently failed of fulfilment or were at best only
poetical exaggeration. But Him Who was actually translated from a higher
to a lower place than that of angels, from heaven to earth—that is to
say, Jesus, the meek and lowly Man of Nazareth—we see crowned with
glory and honour. He has ascended to heaven and sat down on the right
hand of the Majesty on high. So far the prophecy has come true, but only
so far. All things have not yet been put under Him. He is still waiting
till He has put all enemies, even the last enemy, which is death, under
His feet. As, then, the glory and honour are bestowed on man through his
Representative, Jesus, so also dominion is given him only through Jesus;
and the glory comes only with the dominion. Every honour that falls to
man’s share is won for him by the victory of Christ over an enemy. This
is the nearest approach in our Epistle to the Pauline conception of
Christ as the second Adam.

But is there any connection between Christ’s victory and His being made
lower than the angels? When the Psalmist describes the great dignity
conferred on frail man, he sees only the contrast between the dignity
and the frailty. He can only wonder and worship in observing the
incomprehensible paradox of God’s dealings with man. The Apostle, on the
other hand, fathoms this mystery. He gives the reasons for the strange
connection of power and feebleness, not indeed in reference to man as a
creature, but in reference to the Man Christ Jesus. Apart from Christ
the problem that struck the Psalmist with awe remains unsolved. But in
Christ’s incarnation we see why man’s glory and dominion rest on
humiliation.

1. Christ’s humiliation involved a propitiatory death for every man, and
He is crowned with glory and honour that His propitiation may prove
effectual: “that He may have tasted[23] death for every man.” By His
glory we must mean the self-manifestation of His person. Honour is the
authority bestowed upon Him by God. Both are the result of His suffering
death, or rather the suffering of His death. He is glorified, not simply
because He suffered, but because His suffering was of a certain kind and
quality. It was a propitiatory suffering. Christ Himself prayed His
Father to glorify Him with His own self with the glory He had with the
Father before the world was.[24] This glory was His by right of Sonship.
But He receives from His Father another glory, not by right, but by
God’s grace.[25] It consists in having His death accepted and
acknowledged as an adequate propitiation for the sins of men. In this
verse the great conception of atonement, which hereafter will fill so
large a place in the Epistle, is introduced, not at present for its own
sake, but in order to show the superiority of Christ to the angels. He
is greater than they because He is the representative Man, to Whom, and
not to the angels, the world to come has been put in subjection. But the
Psalmist has taught us that man’s greatness is connected with
humiliation. This connection is realised in Christ, Whose exaltation is
the Divine acceptance of the propitiation wrought in the days of His
humiliation, and the means of giving it effect.

2. Christ’s glory consists in being Leader[26] of His people, and for
such leadership He was fitted by the discipline of humiliation. There is
no incongruity in the works of God because He is Himself the ground of
their being[27] and the instrument of His own action.[28] Every
adaptation of means to an end would not become God, though it might
befit man. But this became Him for Whom and through Whom are all things.
When He crowns man with glory and honour, He does this, not by an
external ordinance merely, but by an inward fitness. He deals, not with
an abstraction, but with individual men, whom He makes His sons and
prepares for their glory and honour by the discipline of sons. “For what
son is there whom his father does not discipline?”[29] Thus it is more
true to say that God leads His sons to glory than to say that He bestows
glory upon them. It follows that the representative Man, through Whom
these many sons are glorified, must Himself pass through like
discipline, that, on behalf of God, He may become their Leader and the
Captain of their salvation. It became God to endow the Son, in Whose
Sonship men are adopted as sons of God, with inward fitness, through
sufferings, to lead them on to their destined glory. Perhaps the verse
contains an allusion to Moses or Joshua, the leaders of the Lord’s
redeemed to the rich land and large. If so, the author is preparing his
readers for what he has yet to say.

3. Christ’s glory consists in power to consecrate[30] men to God, and
this power springs from His consciousness of brotherhood with them. But,
first of all, the author thinks it necessary to prove that Christ has a
deep consciousness of brotherhood with men. He cites Christ’s own words
from prophetic Scripture.[31] For Christ has vowed unto the Lord, Who
has delivered Him, that He will declare God’s name unto His brethren.
Here the pith of the argument is quite as much in the vow to reveal God
to them as in His giving them the name of brethren. He is so drawn in
love to them that He is impelled to speak to them about the Father. Yea,
in the midst of the Church, as if He were one of the congregation, He
will praise God. They praise God for His Son; the Son joins in the
praise, as being thankful for the privilege of being their Saviour,
while they offer their thanks for the joy of being saved. That is not
all. Christ puts His trust in God. So human is He that, conscious of
utter weakness, He leans on God, as the feeblest of His brethren.
Finally, His triumphant joy at the safety of His redeemed ones arises
from this consciousness of brotherhood. “Behold, I and the children” (of
God) “which God hath given Me.”[32] The Apostle does not fear to apply
to Christ what Isaiah[33] spoke in reference to himself and his
disciples, the children of the prophet. Christ’s brotherhood with men
assumes the form of identifying Himself with His prophetic servants.
Evidently He is not ashamed of His brethren, though, like Joseph, He has
reason to be ashamed of them for their sin. The expression means that He
glories in them, because His assumption of humanity has consecrated
them. For this consecration springs from union. We do not, for our
part, understand this as a general proposition, of which the sanctifying
power of Christ is an illustration. No other instance of such a thing
exists. Yet the Apostle does not prove the statement. He appeals to the
intelligence and conscience of his readers to acknowledge its truth.
Whether we understand the word “sanctification” in the sense of moral
consecration through an atonement or in the sense of holy character, it
springs from union. Christ cannot sanctify by a creative word or by an
act of power. Neither can His power to sanctify be transmitted by God to
the Son externally, in the same way in which the Creator bestows on
nature its vital, fertilising energy. Christ must derive His power to
sanctify through His Sonship, and men must become sons of God that they
may be sanctified through the Son. Our passage adds Christ’s
brotherhood. He that consecrates, therefore, and they that are
consecrated are united together, first, by being born of the same Divine
Father, and, second, by having the same human nature. Here, again, the
chain connects at both ends: on the side of God and on the side of man.
Now to have dwelling in Him the power of consecrating men to God is so
great an endowment that Christ may dare even to glory in the brotherhood
that brings with it such a gift.

4. Christ’s glory manifests itself in the destruction of Satan, who had
the power of death, and his destruction is accomplished through
death.[34] The children of God have every one his share of blood and
flesh, which means vital, mortal humanity. Blood signifies life, and
flesh the mortality of that life. They are, therefore, subject to
disease and death. But to the Hebrews disease and death involved vastly
more than physical suffering and the termination of man’s earthly
existence. They had their angel, by which is meant that they had a moral
significance. They were spiritual forces, wielded by a messenger of God.
This angel was Satan. But, following the lead of the later Jewish
theology, our author explains who Satan really is. He identifies him
with the evil spirit, who from envy, says the Book of Wisdom, brought
death into the world. To make clear this identification, he adds the
words, “that is, the devil.” The reference to Satan is sufficient to
show that the writer of the Epistle means by “the power of death” power
to inflict it and keep men in its terrible grasp. But the difficulty is
to understand how the devil is destroyed through death. Evidently the
death of Christ is meant; we may paraphrase the Apostle’s expression by
rendering, “through _His_ death.” At first glance, the words, taken in
connection with the reference to Christ’s humanity, seem to favour the
doctrine, propounded by many writers in the early ages of the Church,
that God delivered His Son to Satan as the price of man’s release from
his rightful possession. Such a notion is utterly inconsistent with the
dominant idea of the Epistle: the priestly character of Christ’s death.
A Hebrew Christian could not conceive the high-priest entering the
holiest place to offer a redemptive sacrifice to the spirit of evil.
Indeed, the advocates of this strange theory of the Atonement admitted
as much when they described Christ as outwitting the devil or escaping
from his hands by persuasion. But the doctrine is quite as inconsistent
with the passage before us, which represents the death of Christ as the
_destruction_ of the Evil One. Power faces power. Christ is the Captain
of salvation. His leadership of men implies conflict with their enemy
and ultimate victory. Death was a spiritual conception. Here lay its
power. Deliverance from the crushing bondage of its fear could come only
through the great High-priest. Priesthood was the basis of Christ’s
power. We shall soon see that Christ is the Priest-King. The Apostle
even now anticipates what he has hereafter to say on the relation of the
priesthood to the kingly power. For as Priest Christ delivers men from
guilt of conscience and, by so doing, delivers them from their fear of
death; as King He destroys him who had the power to destroy. He is
“death of death and hell’s destruction.” It has been well said that the
two terrors from which none but Christ can deliver men are guilt of sin
and fear of death. The latter is the offspring of the former. When the
conscience of sin is no more, dread of death yields to peace and joy.

In these four ways is the glory of Christ connected with humiliation,
and thus will the prophecy of the Psalmist find its fulfilment in the
representative Man, Jesus. His humiliation implied propitiation, moral
discipline, conscious brotherhood, and subjection to him who had the
power of death. His glory consisted in the effectiveness of the
propitiation, in leadership of His people, in consecration of His
brethren, in the destruction of the devil.

But an interesting view of the passage has been proposed by Hofmann, and
accepted by at least one thoughtful theologian of our country. They
consider that the Apostle identifies the humiliation and the glory. In
the words of Dr. Bruce,[35] “Christ’s whole state of exinanition was not
only worthy to be rewarded by a subsequent state of exaltation, but was
in itself invested with moral sublimity and dignity.” The idea has
considerable fascination. We cannot set it aside by saying that it is
modern, seeing that the Apostle himself speaks of the office of
high-priest as an honour and a glory.[36] Yet we are compelled to reject
it as an explanation of the passage. The Apostle is showing that the
Psalmist’s statement respecting man is realised only in the Man Christ
Jesus. The difficulty was to connect man’s low estate and man’s glory
and dominion. But if the Apostle means that voluntary humiliation for
the sake of others is the glory, some men besides Jesus Christ might
have been mentioned in whom the words of the Psalm find their
accomplishment. The difference between Jesus and other good men would
only be a difference of degree. Such a conclusion would very seriously
weaken the force of the Apostle’s reasoning.

In bringing his most skilful and original argument to a close, the
Apostle recapitulates. He has said that the world to come,—the world of
conscience and of spirit,—has been put in subjection to man, not to
angels, and that this implies the incarnation of the Son of God. This
thought the Apostle repeats in another, but very striking, form: “For
verily He taketh not hold of angels, but He taketh hold of the seed of
Abraham.” Though the old versions were incorrect in so rendering the
words as to make them express the fact of the Incarnation, the verse is
a reference to the Incarnation, described, however, as Christ’s strong
grasp[37] of man. By becoming man He takes hold of humanity, as with a
mighty hand, and that part by which He grasps humanity is the seed of
Abraham, to whom the promise was made.

Four points of connection between the glory of Christ and His
humiliation have been mentioned. In his recapitulation, the Apostle sums
all up in two. The one is that Christ is Priest; the other is that He
succours them that are tempted. His propitiatory death and His bringing
to nought the power of Satan are included in the notion of priesthood.
The moral discipline that made Him our Leader and the sense of
brotherhood that made Him Sanctifier render Him able to succour the
tempted. Even this also, as will be fully shown by the Apostle in a
subsequent chapter, is contained in His priesthood. For He only can make
propitiation, Whose heart is full of tender pity and steeled only
against pity for Himself by reason of His dauntless fidelity to others.

Thus is the Son better than the angels.


FOOTNOTES:

[8] Col. i. 15, 19.

[9] Acts vii. 53.

[10] Gal. iii. 19.

[11] ἀγαγόντα.

[12] Matt. xxv. 31.

[13] Luke xxii. 43. The genuineness of the verse is somewhat doubtful.

[14] μὴ παραρυῶμεν (ii. 1).

[15] Matt. xxi. 33, sqq.

[16] Heb. x. 29.

[17] Ps. viii. 4.

[18] Ps. viii. 2.

[19] 1 Cor. xv. 27.

[20] ἠλάττωσας.

[21] Cf. Acts ii. 30.

[22] Chap. ii. 4.

[23] γεύσηται (ii. 9).

[24] John xvii. 5.

[25] χάριτι.

[26] ἀρχηγόν (ii. 10).

[27] δι’ ὅν.

[28] δι’ οὖ.

[29] Chap. xii. 7.

[30] ὁ ἁγιάζων (ii. 11).

[31] Ps. xxii. 22.

[32] Chap. ii. 13.

[33] Isa. viii. 18

[34] Chap. ii. 14.

[35] _Humiliation of Christ_, p. 46.

[36] Chap. v. 4, 5.

[37] ἐπιλαμβάνεται (ii. 16).




CHAPTER III.

_FUNDAMENTAL ONENESS OF THE DISPENSATIONS._


Hebrews iii. i-iv. 13 (R.V.).

    “Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider
    the Apostle and High-priest of our confession, _even_ Jesus; who was
    faithful to Him that appointed Him as also was Moses in all his
    house. For He hath been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, by
    so much as he that built the house hath more honour than the house.
    For every house is builded by some one; but He that built all things
    is God. And Moses indeed was faithful in all his house as a servant,
    for a testimony of those things which were afterward to be spoken;
    but Christ as a Son, over His house; Whose house are we, if we hold
    fast our boldness and the glorying of our hope firm unto the end.
    Wherefore, even as the Holy Ghost saith,

        To-day if ye shall hear His voice,
        Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation,
        Like as in the day of the temptation in the wilderness,
        Wherewith your fathers tempted _Me_ by proving _Me_,
        And saw My works forty years.
        Wherefore I was displeased with this generation,
        And said, They do always err in their heart:
        But they did not know My ways;
        As I sware in My wrath,
        They shall not enter into My rest.

    Take heed, brethren, lest haply there shall be in any one of you an
    evil heart of unbelief, in falling away from the living God: but
    exhort one another day by day, so long as it is called to-day; lest
    any one of you be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin: for we are
    become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our
    confidence firm unto the end: while it is said,

        To-day if ye shall hear His voice,
        Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation.

    For who, when they heard, did provoke? nay, did not all they that
    came out of Egypt by Moses? And with whom was He displeased forty
    years? was it not with them that sinned, whose carcases fell in the
    wilderness? And to whom sware He that they should not enter into His
    rest, but to them that were disobedient? And we see that they were
    not able to enter in because of unbelief.

    Let us fear therefore, lest haply, a promise being left of entering
    into His rest, any one of you should seem to have come short of it.
    For indeed we have had good tidings preached unto us, even as also
    they: but the word of hearing did not profit them, because they were
    not united by faith with them that heard. For we which have believed
    do enter into that rest; even as He hath said,

        As I sware in My wrath,
        They shall not enter into My rest:

    although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
    For He hath said somewhere of the seventh _day_ on this wise, And
    God rested on the seventh day from all His works; and in this
    _place_ again,

        They shall not enter into My rest.

    Seeing therefore it remaineth that some should enter thereinto, and
    they to whom the good tidings were before preached failed to enter
    in because of disobedience, He again defineth a certain day, saying
    in David, after so long a time, To-day, as it hath been before said,

        To-day if ye shall hear His voice,
        Harden not your hearts.

    For if Joshua had given them rest, he would not have spoken
    afterward of another day. There remaineth therefore a sabbath rest
    for the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest hath
    himself also rested from his works, as God did from His. Let us
    therefore give diligence to enter into that rest, that no man fall
    after the same example of disobedience. For the word of God is
    living, and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and
    piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and
    marrow, and quick to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart.
    And there is no creature that is not manifest in His sight: but all
    things are naked and laid open before the eyes of Him with Whom we
    have to do.”


The broad foundation of Christianity has now been laid in the person of
the Son, God-Man. In the subsequent chapters of the Epistle this
doctrine is made to throw light on the mutual relations of the two
dispensations.

The first deduction is that the Mosaic dispensation was itself created
by Christ; that the threats and promises of the Old Testament live on
into the New; that the central idea of the Hebrew religion, the idea of
the Sabbath rest, is realised in its inmost meaning in Christ only; that
the word of God is ever full of living energy. Hereafter the Apostle
will not be slow to expose the wide difference between the two
dispensations. But it is equally true and not less important that the
old covenant was the vesture of truths which remain when the garment has
been changed.

At the outset the writer’s tone is influenced by this doctrine. He turns
his treatise unconsciously into an epistle. He addresses his readers as
brethren, holy indeed, but not holy after the pattern of their former
exclusiveness; for their holiness is inseparably linked with their
common brotherhood. They are partakers with the Gentile Churches in a
heavenly call. Startling words! Hebrews holy in virtue of their sharing
with Greeks and barbarians, bond and free, in a common call from high
Heaven, which sees all earth as a level plain beneath! The middle wall
of partition has been broken down to the ground. Yet soothing words, and
full of encouragement! The Apostle and his leaders were standing near
the end of the Apostolic age, when the Hebrew Christians were
despondent, weak, and despised, both by reason of national calamities
and because of their inferiority to their sister Churches among the
Gentiles. The Apostle does not bluntly assure them of their equality,
but gently addresses them as partakers of a heavenly call. His words are
the reverse of St. Paul’s language to the Ephesians, who are reminded
that the Gentiles are partakers in the privileges of Israel. Those who
sometimes were far off have been made nigh; the strangers and sojourners
are henceforth fellow-citizens with the saints and of the household of
God. Here, on the contrary, Hebrew Christians are encouraged with the
assurance that they partake in the privileges of all believers. If the
wild olive tree has been grafted in among the branches and made partaker
of the root, the branches, broken off that the wild olive might be
grafted in, are themselves in consequence grafted into their own olive
tree. Through God’s mercy to the Gentiles, Israel also has obtained
mercy.

The Apostle addresses them with affection. But his behest is sharp and
urgent: “Consider the Apostle and High-priest of our profession, Jesus.”
Consider intently, or, to borrow a modern word that has sometimes been
abused, Realise Jesus. Dwell not with abstractions and theories. Fear
not imaginary dangers. Make Jesus Christ a reality before the eyes of
your mind. To do this well will be more convincing than external
evidences. To behold the glory of the temple, linger not to admire the
strong buttresses without, but enter. Realisation of Christ may be said
to be the gist of the whole Epistle.

This spiritual vision is not ecstasy. We realise Christ as Apostle and
as High-priest. We behold Him when His words are a message to us from
God, and when He carries our supplications to God. Revelation and prayer
are the two opposite poles of communion with the Father. The
dispensation of Moses rested on these two pillars,—apostleship and
priesthood. But the fundamental conceptions of the Old Testament centre
in Jesus. Though our author has distinguished between God’s revelation
in the prophets and His revelation in a Son, he teaches also that even
the prophets received their message through the Son. Though he contrasts
in what follows of the Epistle the high-priesthood of Aaron with
Christ’s, still he regards Aaron’s office as utterly meaningless apart
from Christ. The words “Apostle and High-priest” pave the way,
therefore, to the most prominent truth in this section of the Epistle:
that whatever is best in the Old Testament has been assimilated and
inspired with new energy by the Gospel.

1. To begin, we must understand the actual position of the founders of
the two dispensations. Neither Moses nor Christ set about originating,
designing, constructing, from his own impulse and for his own purposes.
Both acted for God, and were consciously under His directing eye.[38]
“It is required in stewards that a man be found faithful.”[39] They have
but to obey, and leave the unity and harmony of the plan to another. To
use an illustration, every house is built by some one or other.[40] The
design has been conceived in the brain of the architect. He is the real
builder, though he employs masons and joiners to put the materials
together according to his plan. This applies to the subject in hand; for
God is the Architect of all things. He realises His own ideas as well
through the seeming originality of thinkers as through the willing
obedience of workers. Now, the dispensation of the old covenant was one
part of God’s design. To build this portion of the house He found a
faithful servant in Moses. The dispensation of the new covenant is but
another, though more excellent, part of the same design; and Jesus was
not less faithful to finish the structure. The unity of the design was
in the mind of God.

Moses was faithful when he refused the treasures of Egypt, and chose
affliction with the people of God and the reproach of His Christ. He was
faithful when he chid the people in the wilderness for their unbelief,
and when he interceded for them again with God. Christ also was faithful
to His God when He despised the shame and endured the Cross.

Yet we must acknowledge a difference. God has accounted Jesus worthy of
greater honour than Moses, inasmuch as Moses was part of the house, and
that part the pre-existent Christ erected. Moses was “made” all that he
became by Christ, but Christ was “made”[41] all that He
became—God-Man—by God. Moreover, though Moses was greater than all the
other servants of God before Christ, because they were placed in
subordinate positions, while he was faithful in the _whole_ house, yet
even he was but a servant, whereas Christ was Son. Moses was in the
house, it is true; but the Son was placed over the house. The work which
Moses had to do was to uphold the authority of the Son, to witness, that
is, to the things which would afterwards be spoken unto us by God in His
Son, Jesus Christ.[42]

The Apostle seems to delight in his illustration of the house, and
continues to use it with a fresh meaning. This house, or, if you please,
this household, are we Christians. We are the house in which Moses
showed the utmost faithfulness as servant. We are the circumcision, we
the true Israel of God. If, then, we turn away from Christ to Moses,
that faithful servant himself will have none of us. That we may be God’s
house, we must lay fast hold of our Christian confidence and the
boasting of our hope out-and-out to the end.

2. Again, the threatenings of the Old Testament for disobedience to God
apply with full force to apostasy from Christ. They are the
authoritative voice of the Holy Spirit. The Apostle is reminded by the
words which he has just used, “We are God’s house,” of the Psalmist’s
joyful exclamation, “He is our God, and we are the people of His
pasture, and the sheep of His hand.”[43] Then follows in the Psalm a
warning, which the Apostle considers it equally necessary to address to
the Hebrew Christians: “To-day, if indeed you still hear His voice (for
it is possible He may no longer speak), harden not your hearts, as you
did in Meribah, rightly called,—the place of contention. Your fathers,
far from trusting Me when I put them to the test, turned upon Me and put
Me to the test, and that although they saw My works during forty years.”
Forty years,—ominous number! The readers would at once call to mind
that forty years within a little had now passed since their Lord had
gone through the heavens to the right hand of the Father. What if, after
all, the old belief proves true that He returns to judgment after
waiting for precisely the same period for which He had patiently endured
their fathers’ unbelief in the wilderness! God is still living, and He
is the same God. He Who sware in His wrath that the fathers should not
enter into the rest of Canaan is the same in His anger, the same in His
mercy. Exhort one another. In the wilderness God dealt with individuals.
He does so still. See that there be no evil heart, which is unbelief, in
_any one_ of you at any time while the call, “To-day!” is sounded in
your ears. For sin weakens the sense of individual guilt, and thus
deceives men by hardening their hearts.[44] All that came out of Egypt
provoked God to anger. But they provoked Him, not in the mass, but one
by one, and one by one, with palsied limbs,[45] they fell in the
wilderness, as men fall exhausted on the march. Thus, for their
persistent unbelief, God sware they should not enter into His
rest—“His,” for He kept the key still in His own hand. But persistent
unbelief made them incapable of entering. If God were still willing to
cut off for them the waters of Jordan, they _could_ not[46] enter in
because of unbelief.

3. Similarly, the promises of God are still in force. Indeed, the
steadfastness of the threatenings involves the continuance of the
promises, and the rejection of the promises ensures the fulfilment of
every threatening. As much as this is expressed in the opening words of
chap. iv.: “A promise being left to us, let us therefore fear.”

To prove the identity of the promises under the two dispensations, the
Apostle singles out one promise, which may be considered most
significant of the national no less than the religious life of Israel.
The Greek mind was ever on the alert for something new. Its character
was movement. But the ideal of the Old Testament is rest. Christ came
into touch with the people at once when He began His public ministry
with an invitation to the weary and heavy-laden to come unto Him, and
with the promise that He would give them rest. Near the close of His
ministry He explained and fulfilled the promise by giving to His
disciples peace. The object of our author, in the difficult chapter now
under consideration, is to show that the idea most characteristic of the
old covenant finds its true and highest realisation in Christ. After the
manner of St. Paul, who, in more than one passage, teaches that through
the fall of Israel salvation is come unto the Gentiles, the writer of
this Epistle also argues that the promise of rest still remains, because
it was not fulfilled under the Old Testament in consequence of Israel’s
unbelief. The word of promise was a gospel[47] to them, as it is to us.
But it did not profit them, because they did not assimilate[48] the
promise by faith. Their history from the beginning consists of continued
renewals of the promise on the part of God and persistent rejections on
the part of Israel, ending in the hardening of their hearts. Every time
the promise is renewed, it is presented in a higher and more spiritual
form. Every rejection inevitably leads to grosser views and more
hopeless unbelief. So entirely false is the fable of the Sibyl! God does
not burn some of the leaves when His promises have been rejected, and
come back with fewer offers at a higher price. His method is to offer
more and better on the same conditions. But it is the nature of unbelief
to cause the heart to wax gross, to blind the spiritual vision, until in
the end the rich, spiritual promises of God and the earthly, dark
unbelief of the sinner stand in extremest contrast.

At first the promise is presented in the negative form of rest from
labour. Even the Creator condescended thus to rest. But what _such_ rest
can be to God it were vain for man to try to conceive. We know that, as
soon as the foundations of the world were laid and the work of creation
was ended, God ceased from this form of activity. But when this negative
rest had been attained, it was far from realising God’s idea of rest
either for Himself or for man. For, though these works of God, the
material universe, were finished from the laying of the world’s
foundations to the crowning of the edifice,[49] God still speaks of
another rest, and threatens to shut some men out for their unbelief. Our
Lord told the Pharisees, whose notion of the Sabbath was the negative
one, that He desired His Sabbath rest to be like that of His Father, Who
“worketh hitherto.” The Jewish Sabbath, it appears, therefore, is the
most crude and elementary form of God’s promised rest.

The promise is next presented as the rest of Canaan.[50] This is a stage
in advance in the development of the idea. It is not mere abstention
from secular labour, and the consecration of inactivity. The rest now
consists in the enjoyment of material prosperity, the proud
consciousness of national power, the growth of a peculiar civilization,
the rise of great men and eminent saints, and all this won by Israel
under the leadership of their Jesus, who was in this respect a type of
ours. But even in this second garden of Eden Israel did not attain unto
God’s rest. Worldliness became their snare.

But God still called to them by the mouth of the Psalmist, long after
they had entered on the possession of Canaan. This only proves that the
true rest was still unattained, and God’s promise not yet fulfilled. The
form which the rest of God now assumed is not expressly stated in our
passage. But we have not far to go in search of it. The first Psalm,
which is the introduction to all the Psalms, declares the blessedness of
contemplation. The Sabbath is seldom mentioned by the Psalmist. Its
place is taken by the sanctuary, in which rest of soul is found in
meditating on God’s law and beholding the Lord’s beauty.[51] The call is
at last urgent. “To-day!” It is the last invitation. It lingers in the
ears in ever fainter voice of prophet after prophet, until the prophet’s
face turns towards the east to announce the break of dawn and the coming
of the perfect rest in Jesus Christ. God’s promise was never fulfilled
to Israel, because of their unbelief. But shall their unbelief make the
faithfulness of God of none effect? God forbid. The gifts and calling of
God are without repentance. The promise that has failed of fulfilment in
the lower form must find its accomplishment in the higher. Even a prayer
is the more heard for every delay. God’s mill grinds slowly, but for
that reason grinds small. What is the inference? Surely it is that the
Sabbath rest still remains for the true people of God. This Sabbath rest
St. Paul prayed that the true Israel, who glory, not in their
circumcision, but in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, might receive:
“_Peace_ be upon them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.”[52]

The faithfulness of God to fulfil His promise in its higher form is
proved by His having accomplished it in its more elementary forms to
every one that believed. “For he that entered into God’s rest did
actually rest from his works”[53]—that is to say, received the
blessings of the Sabbath—as truly as God rested from the work of
creation. The Apostle’s practical inference is couched in language
almost paradoxical: “Let us _strive_ to enter into God’s _rest_”—not
indeed into the rest of the Old Testament, but into the better rest
which God now offers in His Son.

The oneness of the dispensations has been proved. They are one in their
design, in their threatenings, in their promises. If we seek the
fundamental ground of this threefold unity, we shall find it in the fact
that both dispensations are parts of a Divine revelation. God has
spoken, and the word of God does not pass away. “Think not,” said our
Lord, “that I came to destroy the Law or the prophets; I came not to
destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth
pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the Law
till all things be accomplished.”[54] On another occasion He says,
“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass
away.”[55] These passages teach us that the words of God through Moses
and in the Son are equally immutable. Many features of the old covenant
may be transient; but, if it is a word of God, it abides in its
essential nature through all changes. For “the word of God is
living,”[56] because He Who speaks the word is the living God. It acts
with mighty energy,[57] like the silent laws of nature, which destroy
or save alive according as men obey or disobey them. It cuts like a
sword whetted on each side of the blade, piercing through to the place
where the natural life of the soul divides[58] from, or passes into, the
supernatural life of the spirit. For it is revelation that has made
known to man his possession of the spiritual faculty. The word “spirit”
is used by heathen writers. But in their books it means only the air we
breathe. The very conception of the spiritual is enshrined in the bosom
of God’s word. Revelation has separated between the life of heathenism
and the life of the Church, between the natural man and the spiritual,
between the darkness that comprehended it not and the children of the
light who received it and thus became children of God. Further, the word
of God pierces to the joints that connect the natural and the
supernatural.[59] It does not ignore the former. On the contrary, it
addresses itself to man’s reason and conscience, in order to erect the
supernatural upon nature. Where reason stops short, the word of God
appeals to the supernatural faculty of faith; and when conscience grows
blunt, the word makes conscience, like itself, sharper than any
two-edged sword. Once more, the word of God pierces to the marrow.[60]
It reveals to man the innermost meaning of his own nature and of the
supernatural planted within him. The truest morality and the highest
spirituality are both the direct product of God’s revelation.

But all this is true in its practical application to every man
individually. The power of the word of God to create distinct
dispensations and yet maintain their fundamental unity, to distinguish
between masses of men and yet cause all the separate threads of human
history to converge and at last meet, is the same power which judges the
inmost thoughts and inmost purposes of the heart. These it surveys with
critical judgment.[61] If its eye is keen, its range of vision is also
wide. No created thing but is seen and manifest. The surface is bared,
and the depth within is opened up before it. As the upturned neck of the
sacrificial beast lay bare to the eye of God,[62] so are we exposed to
the eye of Him to Whom we have to give our account.[63]


FOOTNOTES:

[38] Chap. iii. 2.

[39] 1 Cor. iv. 2.

[40] Chap. iii. 4.

[41] ποιήσαντι.

[42] Chap. iii. 5.

[43] Ps. xcv. 7, sqq.

[44] Chap. ii. 13.

[45] τὰ κῶλα. Cf. chap. xii. 12.

[46] οὐκ ἠδυνήθησαν (iii. 19).

[47] εὐηγγελισμένοι (iv. 2).

[48] Reading συγκεκερασμένος.

[49] Chap. iv. 3.

[50] Chap. iv. 8.

[51] Ps. xxvii. 4.

[52] Gal. vi. 16.

[53] Chap. iv. 10.

[54] Matt. v. 17, 18.

[55] Matt. xxiv. 35.

[56] Chap. iv. 12.

[57] ἐνεργής.

[58] μερισμοῦ.

[59] ἁρμῶν.

[60] μυελῶν.

[61] κριτικός.

[62] τετραχηλισμένα (iv. 13).

[63] ὁ λόγος.




CHAPTER IV.

_THE GREAT HIGH-PRIEST._


    “Having then a great High-priest, Who hath passed through the
    heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For
    we have not a high-priest that cannot be touched with the feeling of
    our infirmities; but One that hath been in all points tempted like
    as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore draw near with boldness
    unto the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy, and may find
    grace to help us in time of need. For every high-priest, being taken
    from among men, is appointed for men in things pertaining to God,
    that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: who can bear
    gently with the ignorant and erring, for that he himself also is
    compassed with infirmity; and by reason thereof is bound, as for the
    people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. And no man taketh
    the honour unto himself, but when he is called of God, even as was
    Aaron. So Christ also glorified not Himself to be made a
    High-priest, but He that spake unto Him,

        Thou art My Son,
        This day have I begotten Thee:

    as He saith also in another place,

        Thou art a Priest for ever
        After the order of Melchizedek.

    Who in the days of His flesh, having offered up prayers and
    supplications with strong crying and tears unto Him that was able to
    save Him from death, and having been heard for His godly fear,
    though He was a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which He
    suffered; and having been made perfect, He became unto all them that
    obey Him the Author of eternal salvation; named of God a High-priest
    after the order of Melchizedek.”—HEB. iv. 14–v. 10 (R.V.)


The results already gained are such as these: that the Son, through Whom
God has spoken unto us, is a greater Person than the angels; that Jesus,
Whom the Apostle and the Hebrew Christians acknowledge to be Son of God,
is the representative Man, endowed, as such, with kingly authority; that
the Son of God became man in order that He might be constituted
High-priest to make reconciliation for sin; and, finally, that all the
purposes of God revealed in the Old Testament, though they have hitherto
been accomplished but partially, will not fall to the ground, and will
remain in higher forms under the Gospel.

The writer gathers these threads to a head in chap. iv. 14. The
high-priest still remains. If we have the high-priest, we have all that
is of lasting worth in the old covenant. For the idea of the covenant is
reconciliation with God, and this is embodied and symbolised in the
high-priest, inasmuch as he alone entered within the veil on the day of
atonement. Having the high-priest in a greater Person, we have all the
blessings of the covenant restored to us in a better form. The Epistle
to the Hebrews is intended to encourage and comfort men who have lost
their all. Judaism was in its death-throes. National independence had
already ceased. When the Apostle was writing, the eagles were gathering
around the carcase. But when all is lost, all is regained if we “have”
the High-priest.

The secret of His abiding for ever is His own greatness. He is a _great_
High-priest; for He has entered into the immediate presence of God, not
through the Temple veil, but through the very heavens. In chap. viii. 1
the Apostle declares this to be the head and front of all he has said:
“We have _such_ an High-priest” as He must be “Who is set on the right
hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens.” He is a great
High-priest because He is a Priest on a throne. As the representative
Man, Jesus is crowned. His glory is kingly. But the glory bestowed on
the Man as King has brought Him into the audience-chamber of God as
High-priest. The kingship of Jesus, to Whom all creation is subjected,
and Who sits above all creation, has made His priestly service
effectual. His exaltation is much more than a reward for His redemptive
sufferings. He entered the heaven of God as the sanctuary of which He is
Minister. For if He were on earth, He would not be a Priest at all,
seeing that He is not of the order of Aaron, to which the earthly
priesthood belongs according to the Law.[64] But Christ is not entered
into the holy place made with hands, but into the very heaven, now to be
manifested before the face of God for us.[65] The Apostle has said that
Christ is Son over the house of God. He is also High-priest over the
house of God, having authority over it in virtue of His priesthood for
it, and administering His priestly functions effectually through His
kingship.[66]

The entire structure of the Apostle’s inferences rests on the twofold
argument of the first two chapters. Jesus Christ is a great High-priest;
that is, King and High-priest in one, because He unites in His own
person Son of God and Son of man.

One is tempted to find an intentional antithesis between the
awe-inspiring description of the word of God in the previous verse and
the tender language of the verse that follows. Is the word a living,
energising power? The High-priest too is living and powerful, great and
dwelling above the heavens. Does the word pierce to our innermost being?
The High-priest sympathises with our weaknesses, or, in the beautiful
paraphrase of the English Version, “is touched with a feeling of our
infirmities.” Does the word judge? The High-priest can be equitable,
inasmuch as He has been tempted like as we are tempted, and that without
sin.[67]

On the last-mentioned point much might be said. He was tempted to sin,
but withstood the temptation. He had true and complete humanity, and
human nature, as such and alone, is capable of sin. Shall we, therefore,
admit that Jesus was capable of sin? But He was Son of God. Christ was
Man, but not a human Person. He was a Divine Person, and therefore
absolutely and eternally incapable of sin; for sin is the act and
property of a person, not of a mere nature apart from the persons who
have that nature. Having assumed humanity, the Divine person of the Son
of God was truly tempted, like as we are. He felt the power of the
temptation, which appealed in every case, not to a sinful lust, but to a
sinless want and natural desire. But to have yielded to Satan and
satisfied a sinless appetite at his suggestion would have been a sin. It
would argue want of faith in God. Moreover, He strove against the
tempter with the weapons of prayer and the word of God. He conquered by
His faith. Far from lessening the force of the trial, His being Son of
God rendered His humanity capable of being tempted to the very utmost
limit of all temptation. We dare not say that mere man would certainly
have yielded to the sore trials that beset Jesus. But we do say that
mere man would never have felt the temptation so keenly. Neither did His
Divine greatness lessen His sympathy. Holy men have a wellspring of pity
in their hearts, to which ordinary men are total strangers. The
infinitely holy Son of God had infinite pity. These are the sources of
His power to succour the tempted,—the reality of His temptations as He
was Son of man, the intensity of them as He was Son of God, and the
compassion of One Who was both Son of God and Son of man.

Our author is wont to break off suddenly and intersperse his arguments
with affectionate words of exhortation. He does so here. It is still the
same urgent command: Do not let go the anchor. Hold fast your profession
of Christ as Son of God and Son of man, as Priest and King. Let us draw
nearer, and that boldly, unto this great High-priest, Who is enthroned
on the mercy-seat, that we may obtain the pity which, in our sense of
utter helplessness, we seek, and _find_ more than we seek or hope for,
even His grace to help us. Only linger not till it be too late. His aid
must be sought in time.[68] “To-day” is still the call.

Pity and helping grace, sympathy and authority—in these two
excellences all the qualifications of a high-priest are comprised. It
was so under the old covenant. Every high-priest was taken from among
men that he might sympathise, and was appointed by God that he might
have authority to act on behalf of men.

1. The high-priest under the Law is himself beset by the infirmities of
sinful human nature, the infirmities at least for which alone the Law
provides a sacrifice, sins of ignorance and inadvertence.[69] Thus only
can he form a fair and equitable judgment[70] when men go astray. The
thought wears the appearance of novelty. No use is apparently made of it
in the Old Testament. The notion of the high-priest’s Divine appointment
overshadowed that of his human sympathy. His sinfulness is acknowledged,
and Aaron is commanded to offer sacrifice for himself and for the sins
of the people.[71] But the author of this Epistle states the reason why
a sinful man was made high-priest. He has told us that the Law was given
through angels. But no angel interposed as high-priest between the
sinner and God. Sympathy would be wanting to the angel. But the very
infirmity that gave the high-priest his power of sympathy made sacrifice
necessary for the high-priest himself. This was the fatal defect. How
can he bestow forgiveness who must seek the like forgiveness?

In the case of the great High-priest, Jesus the Son of God, the end must
be sought in another way. He is not so taken from the stock of humanity
as to be stained with sin. He is not one of many men, any one of whom
might have been chosen. On the contrary, He is holy, innocent,
stainless, separated in character and position before God from the
sinners around Him.[72] He has no need to offer sacrifice for any sin of
His own, but only for the sins of the people; and this He did once for
all when He offered up Himself. For the Law makes mere men, beset with
sinful infirmity, priests; but the word of the oath makes the Son
Priest, Who has been perfected for His office for ever.[73] In this
respect He bears no resemblance to Aaron. Yet God did not leave His
people without a type of Jesus in this complete separateness. The
Psalmist speaks of Him as a Priest after the order of Melchizedek, and
concerning Christ as the Melchizedek Priest the Apostle has more to say
hereafter.[74]

The question returns, How, then, can the Son of God sympathise with
sinful man? He can sympathise with our sinless infirmities because He is
true Man. But that He, the sinless One, may be able to sympathise with
sinful infirmities, He must be made sin for us and face death as a
sin-offering. The High-priest Himself becomes the sacrifice which He
offers. Special trials beset Him. His life on earth is pre-eminently
“days of the flesh,”[75] so despised is He, a very Man of sorrows. When
He could not acquire the power of sympathy by offering atonement for
Himself, because He needed it not, He _offered_ prayers and
supplications with a strong cry and tears to Him Who was able to save
Him out of death. But why the strong cries and bitter weeping? Can we
suppose for a moment that He was only afraid of physical pain? Or did He
dread the shame of the Cross? Our author elsewhere says that He despised
it. Shall we say that Jesus Christ had less moral courage than Socrates
or His own martyr-servant, St. Ignatius? At the same time, let us
confine ourselves strictly to the words of Scripture, lest by any gloss
of our own we ascribe to Christ’s death what is required by the
exigencies of a ready-made theory. “Being in an agony, He prayed more
earnestly; and His sweat became as it were great drops of blood falling
down upon the ground.”[76] Is this the attitude of a martyr? The Apostle
himself explains it. “Though He was a Son,” to Whom obedience to His
Father’s command that He should lay down His life was natural and
joyful, yet He learned His obedience, special and peculiar as it was, by
the things which He suffered.[77] He was perfecting Himself to be our
High-priest. By these acts of priestly offering He was rendering Himself
fit to be the sacrifice offered. Because there was in His prayers and
supplications, in His crying and weeping, this element of entire
self-surrender to His Father’s will, which is the truest piety,[78] His
prayers were heard. He prayed to be delivered out of His death. He
prayed for the glory which He had with His Father before the world was.
At the same time He piously resigned Himself to die as a sacrifice, and
left it to God to decide whether He would raise Him from death or leave
His soul in Hades. Because of this perfect self-abnegation, His
sacrifice was complete; and, on the other hand, because of the same
entire self-denial, God did deliver Him out of death and made Him an
eternal Priest. His prayers were not only heard, but became the
foundation and beginning of His priestly intercession on behalf of
others.

2. The second essential qualification of a high-priest was authority to
act for men in things pertaining to God, and in His name to absolve the
penitent sinner. Prayer was free to all God’s people and even to the
stranger that came out of a far country for the sake of the God of
Israel’s name. But guilt, by its very nature, involves the need, not
merely of reconciling the sinner, but primarily of reconciling God.
Hence the necessity of a Divine appointment. For how can man bring his
sacrifice to God or know that God has accepted it unless God Himself
appoints the mediator and through him pronounces the sinner absolved? It
is true, if man only is to be reconciled, a Divinely appointed prophet
will be enough, who will declare God’s fatherly love and so remove the
sinner’s unbelief and slay his enmity. But the Epistle to the Hebrews
teaches that God appoints a high-priest. This of itself is fatal to the
theory that God needs not to be reconciled. In the sense of having this
Divine authorization, the priestly office is here said to be an honour,
which no man takes upon himself, but accepts when called thereunto by
God.[79]

How does this apply to the great High-priest Who has passed through the
heavens? He also glorified not Himself to become High-priest. The
Apostle has changed the word.[80] To Aaron it was an honour to be
high-priest. He was authorized to act for God and for men. But to Christ
it was more than an honour, more than an external authority conferred
upon Him. It was part of the glory inseparable from His Sonship. He Who
said to Him, “Thou art My Son,” made Him thereby potentially
High-priest. His office springs from His personality, and is not, as in
the case of Aaron, a prerogative superadded. The author has cited the
second Psalm in a previous passage[81] to prove the kingly greatness of
the Son, and here again he cites the same words to describe His priestly
character. His priesthood is not “from men,” and, therefore, does not
pass away from Him to others; and this eternal, independent priesthood
of Christ is typified in the king-priest Melchizedek. Before He began to
act in His priestly office God said to Him, “Thou art a Priest for ever
after the order of Melchizedek.” When He has been perfected and learned
His obedience[82] by the things which He suffered, God still addresses
Him as a High-priest according to the order of Melchizedek.


FOOTNOTES:

[64] Chap. viii. 4.

[65] Chap. ix. 24.

[66] Cf. chap. x. 21.

[67] Chap. iv. 15.

[68] εὔκαιρον (iv. 16).

[69] Chap. v. 1, 2.

[70] μετριοπαθεῖν.

[71] Lev. xvi. 6.

[72] Chap. vii. 26.

[73] Chap. vii. 28.

[74] Chap. v. 10, 11.

[75] Chap. v. 7.

[76] Luke xxii. 44. The genuineness of the verse is not quite certain.

[77] Cf. John x. 18.

[78] ἀπὸ τῆς εὐλαβείας (v. 7).

[79] Chap. v. 4.

[80] τιμήν (v. 4); ἐδόξασεν (v. 5).

[81] Chap. i. 5.

[82] τὴν ὑπακοήν (v. 8).




CHAPTER V.

_THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF RENEWAL._


    “Of Whom we have many things to say, and hard of interpretation,
    seeing ye are become dull of hearing. For when by reason of the time
    ye ought to be teachers, ye have need again that some one teach you
    the rudiments of the first principles of the oracles of God; and are
    become such as have need of milk, and not of solid food. For every
    one that partaketh of milk is without experience of the word of
    righteousness; for he is a babe. But solid food is for full-grown
    men, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to
    discern good and evil. Wherefore let us cease to speak of the first
    principles of Christ, and press on unto perfection; not laying again
    a foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
    of the teaching of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of
    resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And this will we
    do, if God permit. For as touching those who were once enlightened
    and tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy
    Ghost, and tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the age to
    come, and then fell away, it is impossible to renew them again unto
    repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh,
    and put Him to an open shame. For the land which hath drunk the rain
    that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them for
    whose sake it is also tilled, receiveth blessing from God: but if it
    beareth thorns and thistles, it is rejected and nigh unto a curse;
    whose end is to be burned.”—HEB. v. 11–vi. 8 (R.V.).


In one of the greatest and most strange of human books the argument is
sometimes said “to veil itself,” and the sustained image of a man
battling with the waves betrays the writer’s hesitancy. When he has
surmounted the first wave, he dreads the second. When he has escaped out
of the second, he fears to take another step, lest the third wave may
overwhelm him. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews has proved that
Christ is Priest-King. But before he starts anew, he warns his readers
that whoever will venture on must be prepared to hear a hard saying,
which he himself will find difficult to interpret and few will receive.
Hitherto he has only shown that whatever of lasting worth was contained
in the old covenant remains and is exalted in Christ. Even this truth is
an advance on the mere rudiments of Christian doctrine. But what if he
attempts to prove that the covenant which God made with their fathers
has waxed old and must vanish away to make room for a new and better
one? For his part, he is eager to ascend to these higher truths. He has
yet much to teach about Christ in the power of His heavenly life.[83]
But his readers are dull of hearing and inexperienced in the word of
righteousness.

The commentators are much divided and exercised on the question whether
the Apostle means that the argument should advance or that his readers
ought to make progress in spiritual character.[84] In a way he surely
means both. What gives point to the whole section now to be considered
is the connection between development of doctrine and a corresponding
development of the moral nature. “For the time ye ought to be
teachers.”[85] They ought to have been teachers of the elementary
truths, in consequence of having discovered the higher truths for
themselves, under the guidance of God’s Spirit. It ought to have been
unnecessary for the Apostle to explain them. At this time the “teachers”
in the Church had probably consolidated into a class formally set apart,
but had not yet fallen to the second place, as compared with the
“prophets,” which they occupy in the “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.”
A long time had elapsed since the Church of Jerusalem, with the Apostles
and elders, had sat in judgment on the question submitted to their
decision by such men as Peter, Barnabas, Paul, and James.[86] Since then
the Hebrew Christians had degenerated, and now needed somebody—it
mattered little who it might be,[87]—to teach them the alphabet[88] of
Christian doctrine.

Philo had already emphasised the distinction between the child in
knowledge and the man of full age and mature judgment. St. Paul had said
more than once that such a distinction holds among Christians. Many are
carnal; some are spiritual. In his writings the difference is not an
external one, nor is the line between the two classes broad and clear.
The one shades into the other. But, though we may not be able to
determine where the one begins and the other ends, both are tendencies,
and move in opposite directions. In the Epistle to the Hebrews the
distinction resembles the old doctrine of habit taught by Aristotle. Our
organs of sense are trained by use to distinguish forms and colours. In
like manner, there are inner organs of the spirit,[89] which distinguish
good from evil, not by mathematical demonstration, but by long-continued
exercise[90] in hating evil and in loving holiness. The growth of this
spiritual sense is connected by our author with the power to understand
the higher doctrine. He only who discerns, by force of spirited
insight, what is good and what is evil, can also understand spiritual
truths. The difference between good and evil is not identical with “the
word of righteousness.” But the moral elevation of character that
clearly discerns the former is the condition of understanding also the
latter.

“Wherefore”—that is, inasmuch as solid food is for full-grown men—“let
us have done[91] with the elementary doctrines, and permit ourselves to
be borne strongly onwards[92] towards full growth of spiritual
character.”[93] The Apostle has just said that his readers needed some
one to teach them the rudiments. We should have expected him, therefore,
to take it in hand. But he reminds them that the defect lies deeper than
intellectual error. The remedy is not mere teaching, but spiritual
growth. Apart from moral progress there can be no revelation of new
truths. Ever-recurring efforts to lay the foundation of individual piety
will result only in an apprehension of what we may designate personal
and subjective doctrines.

The Apostle particularises. Repentance towards God and faith in God are
the initial graces.[94] For without sorrow for sin and trust in God’s
mercy God’s revelation of Himself in His Son will not be deemed worthy
of all acceptation. If this is so, the doctrines suitable to the
initial stage of the Christian life will be—(1) the doctrine of
baptisms and of laying on of hands, and (2) the doctrine of the
resurrection of the dead and of eternal judgment. Repentance and faith
accept the gospel of forgiveness, which is symbolised in baptism, and of
absolution, symbolised in the laying on of hands. Again, repentance and
faith realise the future life and the final award; the beginning of
piety reaching forth a hand, as runners do, as if to grasp the furthest
goal before it touches the intermediate points. Yet every intermediate
truth, when apprehended, throws new light on the soul’s eschatology. In
like manner civilization began with contemplation of the stars, long
before it descended to chemical analysis, but at last it applies its
chemistry to make discoveries in the stars.

This, then, is the initial stage in the Christian character,—repentance
and faith; and these are the initial doctrines, baptism, absolution,
resurrection, and judgment. How may they be described? They all centre
in the individual believer. They have all to do with the fact of his
sin. One question, and one only, presses for an answer. It is, “What
must I do to be saved?” One result, and one only, flows from the
salvation obtained. It is the final acquittal of the sinner at the last
day. God is known only as the merciful Saviour and the holy Judge. The
whole of the believer’s personal existence hovers in mid-air between
two points: repentance at some moment in the past and judgment at the
end of the world. Works are “dead,” and the reason why is that they have
no saving power. There is here no thought of life as a complete thing or
as a series of possibilities that ever spring into actuality, no thought
of the individual as being part of a greater whole. The Church exists
for the sake of the believer, not the believer for the sake of the
Church. Even Christ Himself is nothing more to him than his Saviour, Who
by an atoning death paid his debt. The Apostle would rise to higher
truths concerning Christ in the power of His heavenly life. This is the
truth which the story of Melchizedek will teach to such as are
sufficiently advanced in spirituality to understand its meaning.

But, before he faces the rolling wave, the Apostle tells his readers why
it is that, in reference to Christian doctrine, character is the
necessary condition of intelligence. It is so for two reasons.

_First_, the word spoken by God in His Son has for its primary object,
not speculation, but “righteousness.”[95] Theology is essentially a
practical, not a merely theoretical, science. Its purpose is to create
righteous men; that is, to produce a certain character. When produced,
this lofty character is sustained by the truths of the Gospel as by a
spiritual “food,” milk or strong meat. Christianity is the art of holy
living, and the art is mastered only as every other art is learned: by
practice or experience. But experience will suggest rules, and rules
will lead to principles. The art itself creates a faculty to transform
it into a science. Religion will produce a theology. The doctrine will
be understood only by the possessor of that goodness to which it has
itself given birth.

_Second_, the Apostle introduces the personal action of God into the
question. Understanding of the higher truths is God’s blessing on
goodness,[96] and destruction of the faculty of spiritual discernment is
His way of punishing moral depravity.[97] This is the general sense and
purport of an extremely difficult passage. The threatened billow is
still far away. But before it rolls over us, we seem to be already
submerged under the waves. Our only hope lies in the Apostle’s
illustration of the earth that bears here thorns and there good grain.

Expositors go quite astray when they explain the simile as if it were
intended to describe the effect on moral character of rightly or wrongly
using our faculty of knowledge. The meaning is the reverse. The Apostle
is showing the effect of character on our power to understand truth.
Neither soil is barren. Both lands drink in the rain that often comes
upon them. But the fatness of the one field brings forth thorns and
thistles, and this can only mean that the man’s vigour of soul is itself
an occasion of moral evil. The richness of the other land produces
plants fit for use by men, who are the sole reason for its tillage.[98]
This, again, must mean that, in the case of some men, God blesses that
natural strength which itself is neither good nor evil, and it becomes a
source of goodness. We come now to the result in each case. The soil
that brings forth useful herbs has its share of the Creator’s first
blessing. What the blessing consists in we are not here told, and it is
not necessary to pursue this side of the illustration further. But the
other soil, which gives its natural strength to the production of
noxious weeds, falls under the Creator’s primal curse and is nigh unto
burning. The point of the parable evidently is that God blesses the one,
that God destroys the other. In both cases the Apostle recognises the
Divine action, carrying into effect a Divine threat and a Divine
promise.

Let us see how the simile is applied. The terrible word “impossible”
might indeed have been pronounced, with some qualification, over a man
who had fallen under the power of evil habits. For God sets His seal to
the verdict of our moral nature. To such a man the only escape is
through the strait gate of repentance. But here we have much more than
the ordinary evil habits of men, such as covetousness, hypocrisy, carnal
imaginations, cruelty. The Apostle is thinking throughout of God’s
revelation in His Son. He refers to the righteous anger of God against
those who persistently despise the Son. In the second chapter[99] he has
asked how men who neglect the salvation spoken through the Lord can hope
to shun God’s anger. Here, he declares the same truth in a stronger
form. How shall they escape His wrath who crucify afresh the Son and put
Him to an open shame? Such men God will punish by hardening their
hearts, so that they cannot even repent. The initial grace becomes
impossible.

The four parts of the simile and of the application correspond.

_First_, drinking in the rain that often comes upon the land corresponds
to being once enlightened, tasting of the heavenly gift, being made
partakers of the Holy Ghost, and tasting the good word of God and the
powers of the world to come. The rain descends on all the land and gives
it its natural richness. The question whether the Apostle speaks of
converted or unconverted men is entirely beside the purpose, and may
safely be relegated to the limbo of misapplied interpretations. No doubt
the controversy between Calvinists and Arminians concerning final
perseverance and the possibility of a fall from a state of grace is
itself vastly important. But the question whether the gifts mentioned
are bestowed on an unconverted man is of no importance to the right
apprehension of the Apostle’s meaning. We must be forgiven for thinking
he had it not in his mind. It is more to the purpose to remind ourselves
that all these excellences are regarded by the Apostle as gifts of God,
like the oft-descending rain, not as moral qualities in men. He mentions
the one enlightenment produced by the one revelation of God in His Son.
It may be compared to the opening of blind eyes or the startled waking
of the soul by a great idea. To taste the heavenly gift is to make trial
of the new truth. To be made partakers of the Holy Ghost is to be moved
by a supernatural enlightening influence. To taste the good word of God
is to discern the moral beauty of the revelation. To taste the powers of
the world to come is to participate in the gifts of power which the
Spirit divides to each one severally even as He will. All these things
have an intellectual quality. Faith in Christ and love to God are
purposely excluded. The Apostle brings together various phases of our
spiritual intelligence, the gift of illumination, which we sometimes
call genius, sometimes culture, sometimes insight, the faculty that
ought to apprehend Christ and welcome the revelation in the Son. If
these high gifts are used to scoff at the Son of God, and that with the
persistence that can spring only from the pride and self-righteousness
of unbelief, renewal is impossible.

_Second_, the negative result of not bringing forth any useful herbs
corresponds to falling away.[100] God has bestowed His gift of
enlightenment, but there is no response of heart and will. The soul does
not lay hold, but drifts away.

_Third_, the positive result of bearing thorns and thistles corresponds
to crucifying to themselves the Son of God afresh and putting Him to an
open shame. The gifts of God have been abused, and the contrary of what
He, in His care for men, intended the earth to produce, is the result.
The Divine gift of spiritual enlightenment has been itself turned into a
very genius of cynical mockery. The Son of God has already been once
crucified amid the awful scenes of Gethsemane and Calvary. The agony and
bloody sweat, the cry of infinite loneliness on the Cross, the tender
compassion of the dying Jesus, the power of His resurrection—all this
is past. One bitterness yet remains. Men use God’s own gift of spiritual
illumination to crucify the Son afresh. But they crucify Him only for
themselves.[101] When the sneer has died away on the scoffer’s lips,
nothing is left. No result has been achieved in the moral world. When
Christ was crucified on Calvary, His death changed for ever the
relations of God and men. When He is crucified in the reproach of His
enemies, nothing has been accomplished outside the scoffer’s little
world of vanity and pride.

_Fourth_, to be nigh unto a curse and to be given in the end to be
burned corresponds to the impossibility of renewal. The illustration
requires us to distinguish between “falling away” and “crucifying the
Son of God afresh and putting Him to an open shame.”[102] The land is
doomed to be burned because it bears thorns and thistles. God renders
men incapable of repentance, not because they have fallen away once or
more than once, but because they scoff at the Son, through Whom God has
spoken unto us. The terrible impossibility of renewal here threatened
applies, not to apostasy (as the early Church maintained) nor to the
lapsed (as the Novatianists held),[103] but to apostasy combined with a
cynical, scoffing temper that persists in treading the Son of God under
foot. Apostasy resembles the sin against the Son of man; cynicism in
reference to the Son of man comes very near the sin against the Holy
Ghost. This sin is not forgiven, because it hardens the heart and makes
repentance impossible. It hardens the heart, because God is jealous of
His Son’s honour, and punishes the scoffer with the utter destruction of
the spiritual faculty and with absolute inability to recover it. This is
not the mere force of habit. It is God’s retribution, and the Apostle
mentions it here because the text of the whole Epistle is that God has
spoken unto us in His Son.

But the Hebrew Christians have not come to this.[104] The Apostle is
persuaded better things of them, and things that are nigh, not unto a
curse, but unto ultimate salvation. Yet they are not free from the
danger. If we may appropriate the language of an eminent historian, “the
worship of wealth, grandeur, and dominion blinded the Jews to the form
of spiritual godliness; the rejection of the Saviour and the deification
of Herod were parallel manifestations of the same engrossing
delusion.”[105] That the Christian Hebrews may not fall under the curse
impending over their race, the Apostle urges them to press on unto full
growth of character. And this he and they will do—he ranks himself
among them, and ventures to make reply in their name. But He must add an
“if God permit.” For there are men whom God will not permit to advance a
jot higher. Because they have abused His great gift of illumination to
scoff at the greater gift of the Son, they are doomed to forfeit
possession of both. The only doomed man is the cynic.


FOOTNOTES:

[83] Chap. v. 11.

[84] Chap. vi. 1.

[85] Chap. v. 12.

[86] Acts xv.

[87] τινά (v. 12).

[88] στοιχεῖα.

[89] αἰσθητήρια.

[90] γεγυμνασμένα.

[91] ἀφέντες (vi. 1).

[92] φερώμεθα.

[93] τελειότητα.

[94] θεμέλιον.

[95] Chap. v. 13.

[96] Chap. vi. 7.

[97] Chap. vi. 8.

[98] δι’ οὕς.

[99] Chap. ii. 3.

[100] παραπεσόντας (vi. 6). Cf. παραρυῶμεν (ii. 1).

[101] ἑαυτοῖς.

[102] Apart from the exigencies of the illustration, the change from the
aorist participle to the present participles tells in the same way. It
is extremely harsh to consider ἀνασταυροῦντας and παραδειγματίζοντας to
be explanatory of παραπεσόντας. The former must be rendered
hypothetically: “They cannot be renewed after falling away if they
persist in crucifying,” etc.

[103] The apostates, or deserters, were not identical with the lapsed,
who fell away from fear of martyrdom. Novatian refused to restore either
to Church privileges. The Church restored the latter, but not the
former. Cf. Cyprian, Ep. lv. _ad fin._

[104] Chap. vi. 9.

[105] Dean Merivale, _Romans under the Empire_, chap. lix.




CHAPTER VI.

_THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF FAILURE._


    “But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things
    that accompany salvation, though we thus speak: for God is not
    unrighteous to forget your work and the love which ye showed toward
    His name, in that ye ministered unto the saints, and still do
    minister. And we desire that each one of you may show the same
    diligence unto the fulness of hope even to the end: that ye be not
    sluggish, but imitators of them who through faith and patience
    inherit the promises. For when God made promise to Abraham, since He
    could swear by none greater, He sware by Himself, saying, Surely
    blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee.
    And thus, having patiently endured, he obtained the promise. For men
    swear by the greater: and in every dispute of theirs the oath is
    final for confirmation. Wherein God, being minded to show more
    abundantly unto the heirs of the promise the immutability of His
    counsel, interposed with an oath: that by two immutable things, in
    which it is impossible for God to lie, we may have a strong
    encouragement, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set
    before us; which we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure
    and steadfast and entering into that which is within the veil;
    whither as a Forerunner Jesus entered for us, having become a
    High-priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.”—HEB, vi. 9–20
    (R.V.).


Solemn warning is followed by words of affectionate encouragement.
Impossibility of renewal is not the only impossibility within the
compass of the Gospel.[106] Over against the descent to perdition, hope
of the better things grasps salvation with the one hand and the climbing
pilgrim with the other, and makes his failure to reach the summit
impossible. Both impossibilities have their source in God’s justice. He
is not unjust to forget the deed of love shown towards His name, when
the only-begotten Son ministered to men and still ministers. Contempt of
this love God will punish. Neither is He unjust to forget the love that
ministered to His poor saints in days of persecution, when the Hebrew
Christians became partakers with their fellow-believers in their
reproaches and tribulations, showed pity towards their brethren in
prisons, and took joyfully the spoiling of their goods.[107] The stream
of brotherly kindness was still flowing. This love God rewards. But the
Apostle desires them to show, not only faithfulness in ministering to
the saints, but also Christian earnestness generally,[108] until they
attain the full assurance of hope. The older expositors understand the
words to express the Apostle’s wish that his readers should continue to
minister to the saints. But Calvin’s view has, especially since the time
of Bengel, been generally accepted: that the Apostle urges his readers
to be as diligent in seeking the full assurance of hope as they are in
ministering to the poor. This is most probably the meaning, but with the
addition that he speaks of “earnestness” generally, not merely of active
diligence. Their religion was too narrow in range. Care for the poor has
sometimes been the piety of sluggish despondency and bigotry. But
spiritual earnestness is the moral discipline that works hope, a hope
that makes not ashamed, but leads men on to an assured confidence that
the promise of God will be fulfilled, though now black clouds overspread
their sky.

An incentive to faith and endurance will be found in the example of all
inheritors of God’s promise.[109] The Apostle is on the verge of
anticipating the splendid record of the eleventh chapter. But he arrests
himself, partly because, at the present stage of his argument, he can
speak of faith only as the deep fountain of endurance. He cannot now
describe it as the realisation and the proof of things unseen.[110] He
wishes, moreover, to dwell on the oath made by God to Abraham. Even
this, if not an anticipation of what is still to come, is at least a
preparation of the reader for the distinction hereafter effectively
handled between the high-priest made without an oath and the High-priest
made with an oath. But, in the present section, the emphatic notion is
that the promise made to Abraham is the same promise which the Apostle
and his brethren wait to see fulfilled, and that the confirmation of the
promise by oath to Abraham is still in force for their strong
encouragement. It is true that Abraham received the fulfilment of the
promise in his lifetime, but only in a lower form. The promise, like the
Sabbath rest, has become more and still more elevated, profound,
spiritual, with the long delay of God to make it good. It is equally
true that the saints under the Old Testament received not the fulfilment
of the promise in its highest meaning, and were not perfected apart from
believers of after-ages,[111] God’s words never grow obsolete. They are
never left behind by the Church. If they seem to pass away, they return
laden with still choicer fruit. The coursing moon in the high heavens
is never outstripped by the belated traveller. The hope of the Gospel is
ever set before us. God swears to Abraham in the spring-time of the
world that _we_, on whom the ends of the ages have come, may have a
strong incentive to press onwards.

But, if the oath of God to Abraham is to inspire us with new courage, we
must resemble Abraham in the eager earnestness and calm endurance of his
faith. The passage has often been treated as if the oath had been
intended to meet the weakness of faith. But unbelief is logician enough
to argue that God’s word is as good as His bond; yea, that we have no
knowledge of His oath except from His word. The Apostle refers to the
greatest instance of faith ever shown even by Abraham, when he withheld
not his son, his beloved son, on Moriah. The oath was made to him by
God, not before he gave up Isaac, in order to encourage his weakness,
but when he had done it, as a reward of his strength. Philo’s fine
sentence, which indeed the sacred writer partly borrows, is intended to
teach the same lesson: that, while disappointments are heaped on sense,
an endless abundance of good things has been given to the earnest soul
and the perfect man.[112] It is to Abraham when he has achieved his
supreme victory of faith that God vouchsafes to make oath that He will
fulfil His promise. This gives us the clue to the purport of the words.
Up to this final test of Abraham’s faith God’s promise is, so to speak,
conditional. It will be fulfilled if Abraham will believe. Now at length
the promise is given unconditionally. Abraham has gone triumphantly
through every trial. He has not withheld his son. So great is his faith
that God can now confirm His promise with a positive declaration, which
transforms a promise made to a man into a prediction that binds Himself.
Or shall we retract the expression that the promise is now given
unconditionally? The condition is transferred from the faith of Abraham
to the faithfulness of God. In this lies the oath. God pledges His own
existence on the fulfilment of His promise. He says no longer, “If thou
canst believe,” but “As true as I live.” Speaking humanly, unbelief on
the part of Abraham would have made the promise of God of none effect;
for it was conditional on Abraham’s faith. But the oath has raised the
promise above being affected by the unbelief of some, and itself
includes the faith of some. St. Paul can now ask, “What if some did not
believe? Shall their unbelief make the _faith_” (no longer merely the
promise) “of God without effect?”[113] Our author also can speak of two
immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie. The one is
the promise, the immutability of which means only that God, on His part,
does not retract, but casts on men the blame if the promise is not
fulfilled. The other is the oath, in which God takes the matter into His
own hands and puts the certainty of His fulfilling the promise to rest
on His own eternal being.

The Apostle is careful to point out the wide and essential difference
between the oath of God and the oaths of men. “For men swear by the
greater;” that is, they call upon God, as the Almighty, to destroy them
if they are uttering what is false. They imprecate a curse upon
themselves. If they have sworn to a falsehood, and if the imprecation
falls on their heads, they perish, and the matter ends. And yet an oath
decides all disputes between man and man.[114] Though they appeal to an
Omnipotence that often turns a deaf ear to their prayer against
themselves; though, if the Almighty were to fling retribution on them,
the wheels of nature would whirl as merrily as before; though, if their
false swearing were to cause the heavens to fall, the men would still
exist and continue to be men;—yet, for all this, they accept an oath as
final settlement. They are compelled to come to terms; for they are at
their wits’ end. But it is very different with the oath of God. When He
swears by Himself, He appeals, not to His omnipotence, but to His
truthfulness. If any jot or tittle of God’s promise fails to the
feeblest child that trusts Him, God ceases to be. He has been
annihilated, not by an act of power, but by a lie.

We have said that the oath met, not the weakness, but the strength, of
Abraham’s faith. If so, why was it given him?

_First_, it simplified his faith. It removed all tendency to morbid
introspection and filled his spirit with a peaceful reliance on God’s
faithfulness. He had no more need to try himself whether he was in the
faith. Anxious effort and painful struggle were over. Faith was now the
very life of his soul. He could leave his concerns to God, and wait.
This is the thought expressed in the word “enduring.”

_Second_, it was a new revelation of God to him, and thus elevated his
spiritual nature. The moral character of the Most High, rather than His
natural attribute of omnipotence, became the resting-place of his
spirit. Even the joy of God’s heart was made known and communicated to
his. God was pleased with Abraham’s final victory over unbelief, and
wished to show him more abundantly[115] His counsel and the immutability
of it. “The secret of the Lord is with them that fear Him, and He will
show them His covenant.”[116]

_Third_, it was intended also for our encouragement. It is strange, but
true, that the promises of God are confirmed to us by the victorious
faith of a nomad chief from Ur of the Chaldees, who, in the morning of
the world’s history, withheld not his son. After all, we are not
disconnected units. God only can trace the countless threads of
influence. Abraham’s strong faith evoked the oath that now sustains the
weakness of ours. Because he believed so well, the promise comes to us
with all the sanction of God’s own truth and unchangeableness. The oath
made to Abraham was linked with a still more ancient, even an eternal,
oath, made to the Son, constituting Him Priest for ever after the order
of Melchizedek. The priesthood of Melchizedek is said by the Apostle to
be a type of the priesthood founded on an oath. It was becoming that the
man who acknowledged the priesthood of Melchizedek and received its
blessing should have that blessing fulfilled to him in the confirmation
by oath of God’s promise. Thus the promises that have been fulfilled
through the eternal priesthood of the true Melchizedek are confirmed to
us by an oath made to him who acknowledged that priesthood in the
typical Melchizedek.

Yet, notwithstanding these vital points of contact, Abraham and the
Hebrew Christians are in some respects very unlike. They have left his
serene and contemplative life far behind. The souls of men are stirred
with dread of the threatened end of all things. Abraham had no need to
flee for refuge from an impending wrath. His religion even was not a
fleeing from any wrath to come, but a yearning for a better fatherland.
He never heard the midnight cry of Maranatha, but longed to be gathered
to his fathers. If any similitude to the Christian’s fleeing from the
wrath to come must be sought in ancient days, it will be found in the
history of Lot, not of Abraham. Whether the Apostle’s thoughts rested
for a moment on Lot’s flight from Sodom, it is impossible to say. His
mind is moving so rapidly that one illustration after another flits
before his eye. The notion of Abraham’s strong faith, reaching out a
hand to the strong grasp of God’s oath, reminds him of men fleeing for
refuge, perhaps into a sanctuary, and laying hold of the horns of the
altar, with a reminiscence of the Baptist’s taunting question, “Who
warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” and a side glance at the
approaching destruction of the holy city, if indeed the catastrophe had
not already befallen the doomed people. The thought suggests another
illustration. Our hope is an anchor cast into the deep sea. The anchor
is sure and steadfast—“sure,” for, like Abraham’s faith, it will
neither break nor bend; “steadfast,” for, like Abraham’s faith again, it
bites the eternal rock of the oath. Still another metaphor lends itself.
The deep sea is above all heavens in the sanctuary within the veil, and
the rock is Jesus, Who has entered into the holiest place as our
High-priest. Yet another thought. Jesus is not only High-priest, but
also Captain, of the redeemed host, leading us on, and opening the way
for us to enter after Him into the sanctuary of the promised land.

Thus, with the help of metaphor heaped on metaphor in the fearless
confusion delightful to conscious strength and gladness, the Apostle has
at last come to the great conception of Christ in the sanctuary of
heaven. He has hesitated long to plunge into the wave; and even now he
will not at once lift the veil from the argument. The allegory of
Melchizedek must prepare us for it.


FOOTNOTES:

[106] Compare chap. vi. 4 and chap. vi. 18.

[107] Chap. x. 34.

[108] σπουδήν (vi. 11).

[109] Chap. vi. 13.

[110] Chap. xi. 1.

[111] Chap. xi. 40.

[112] _SS. Legg. Alleg._, iii., p. 98 (vol. i., p. 127. Mang.). With
Philo’s τῇ σπουδαίᾳ ψυχῇ compare the Apostle’s σπουδήν (chap. v. 11).

[113] Rom. iii. 3.

[114] Chap. vi. 16.

[115] περισσότερον.

[116] Ps. xxiv. 14.




CHAPTER VII.

_THE ALLEGORY OF MELCHIZEDEK._


HEBREWS vii. 1–28 (R.V.).

    “For this Melchizedek, King of Salem, priest of God Most High, who
    met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed
    him, to whom also Abraham divided a tenth part of all (being first,
    by interpretation, King of righteousness, and then also King of
    Salem, which is, King of peace; without father, without mother,
    without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life,
    but made like unto the Son of God), abideth a priest continually.
    Now consider how great this man was, unto whom Abraham, the
    patriarch, gave a tenth out of the chief spoils. And they indeed of
    the sons of Levi that receive the priest’s office have commandment
    to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their
    brethren, though these have come out of the loins of Abraham: but he
    whose genealogy is not counted from them hath taken tithes of
    Abraham, and hath blessed him that hath the promises. But without
    any dispute the less is blessed of the better. And here men that die
    receive tithes; but there one, of whom it is witnessed that he
    liveth. And, so to say, through Abraham even Levi, who receiveth
    tithes, hath paid tithes; for he was yet in the loins of his father,
    when Melchizedek met him. Now if there was perfection through the
    Levitical priesthood (for under it hath the people received the
    Law), what further need was there that another Priest should arise
    after the order of Melchizedek, and not be reckoned after the order
    of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of
    necessity a change also of the law. For He of Whom these things are
    said belongeth to another tribe, from which no man hath given
    attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord hath sprung
    out of Judah; as to which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning
    priests. And what we say is yet more abundantly evident, if after
    the likeness of Melchizedek there ariseth another Priest, Who hath
    been made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the
    power of an endless life: for it is witnessed of Him,

        Thou art a Priest for ever
        After the order of Melchizedek.

    For there is a disannulling of a foregoing commandment because of
    its weakness and unprofitableness (for the Law made nothing
    perfect), and a bringing in thereupon of a better hope, through
    which we draw nigh unto God. And inasmuch as it is not without the
    taking of an oath (for they indeed have been made priests without an
    oath; but He with an oath by Him that saith of Him,

        The Lord sware and will not repent Himself,
        Thou art a Priest for ever);

    by so much also hath Jesus become the Surety of a better covenant.
    And they indeed have been made priests many in number, because that
    by death they are hindered from continuing: but He, because He
    abideth for ever, hath His priesthood unchangeable. Wherefore also
    He is able to save to the uttermost them that draw near unto God
    through Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them.
    For such a High-priest became us, holy, guileless, undefiled,
    separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; Who
    needeth not daily, like those high-priests, to offer up sacrifices,
    first for His own sins, and then for the sins of the people: for
    this He did once for all, when He offered up Himself. For the Law
    appointeth men high-priests, having infirmity; but the word of the
    oath, which was after the Law, appointeth a Son, perfected for
    evermore.”


Jesus has entered heaven as our Forerunner, in virtue of His eternal
priesthood. The endless duration and heavenly power of His priesthood is
the “hard saying” which the Hebrew Christians would not easily receive,
inasmuch as it involves the setting aside of the old covenant. But it
rests on the words of the inspired Psalmist. Once already an inference
has been drawn from the Psalmist’s prophecy. The meaning of the Sabbath
rest has not been exhausted in the Sabbath of Judaism; for David, so
long after the time of Moses, speaks of another and better day.
Similarly in the seventh chapter the Apostle finds an argument in the
mysterious words of the Psalm, “The Lord hath sworn, and will not
repent, Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.”[117]

The words are remarkable because they imply that in the heart of Judaism
there lurked a yearning for another and different kind of priesthood
from that of Aaron’s order. It may be compared to the strange intrusion
now and again of other gods than the deities of Olympus into the
religion of the Greeks, either by the introduction of a new deity or by
way of return to a condition of things that existed before the young
gods of the court of Zeus began to hold sway. But, to add to the
mysterious character of the Psalm, it gives utterance to a desire for
another King also, Who should be greater than a mere son of David: “The
Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at My right hand, until I make Thine
enemies Thy footstool.” Yet the Psalmist is David himself, and Christ
silenced the Pharisees by asking them to explain the paradox: “If David
then call Him Lord, how is He his Son?”[118] Delitzsch observes “that in
no other psalm does David distinguish between himself and Messiah;” that
is, in all his other predictions Messiah is David himself idealised, but
in this Psalm He is David’s Lord as well as his Son. The Psalmist
desires a better priesthood and a better kingship.

These aspirations are alien to the nature of Judaism. The Mosaic
dispensation pointed indeed to a coming priest, and the Jews might
expect Messiah to be a King. But the Priest would be the antitype of
Aaron, and the King would be only the Son of David. The Psalm speaks of
a Priest after the order, not of Aaron, but of Melchizedek, and of a
King Who would be David’s Lord. To increase the difficulty, the Priest
and the King would be one and the same Person.

Yet the Psalmist’s mysterious conception comes to the surface now and
again. In the Book of Zechariah the Lord commands the prophet to set
crowns upon the head of Joshua the high-priest, and proclamation is made
“that he shall be a priest upon his throne.”[119] The Maccabæan princes
are invested with priestly garments. Philo[120] has actually anticipated
the Apostle in his reference to the union of the priesthood and kingship
in the person of Melchizedek. We need not hesitate to say that the
Apostle borrows his allegory from Philo, and finds his conception of the
Priest-King in the religious insight of the profounder men, or at least
in their earnest groping for better things. All this notwithstanding,
his use of the allegory is original and most felicitous. He adds an
idea, fraught with consequences to his argument. For the central thought
of the passage is the endless duration of the priesthood of Melchizedek.
The Priest-King is Priest for ever.

We have spoken of Melchizedek’s story as an allegory, not to insinuate
doubt of its historical truth, but because it cannot be intended by the
Apostle to have direct inferential force. It is an instance of the
allegorical interpretation of Old Testament events, similar to what we
constantly find in Philo, and once at least in St. Paul. Allegorical use
of history has just as much force as a parable drawn from nature, and
comes just as near a demonstration as the types, if it is so used by an
inspired prophet in the Scriptures of the Old Testament. This is
precisely the difference between our author and Philo. The latter
invents allegories and lets his fancy run wild in weaving new
coincidences, which Scripture does not even suggest. But the writer of
the Epistle to the Hebrews keeps strictly within the lines of the Psalm.
We must also bear in mind that the story of Melchizedek sets forth a
feature of Christ’s priesthood which cannot be figured by a type of the
ordinary form. Philo infers from the history of Melchizedek the
sovereignty of God. The Psalmist and the Apostle teach from it the
eternal duration of Christ’s priesthood. But how can any type represent
such a truth? How can the fleeting shadow symbolise the notion of
abiding substance? The type by its very nature is transitory. That
Christ is Priest for ever can be symbolically taught only by negations,
by the absence of a beginning and of an end, in some such way as the
hieroglyphics represent eternity by a line turning back upon itself. In
this negative fashion, Melchizedek has been assimilated to the Son of
God. His history was intentionally so related by God’s Spirit that the
sacred writer’s silence even is significant. For Melchizedek suddenly
appears on the scene, and as suddenly vanishes, never to return.
Hitherto in the Bible story every man’s descent is carefully noted, from
the sons of Adam to Noah, from Noah down to Abraham. Now, however, for
the first time, a man stands before us of whose genealogy and birth
nothing is said. Even his death is not mentioned. What is known of him
wonderfully helps the allegorical significance of the intentional
silence of Scripture. He is king and priest, and the one act of his life
is to bestow his priestly benediction on the heir of the promises. No
more appropriate or more striking symbol of Christ’s priesthood can be
imagined.

His name even is symbolical. He is “King of righteousness.” By a happy
coincidence, the name of his city is no less expressive of the truth to
be represented. He is King of Salem, which means “King of peace.” The
two notions of righteousness and peace combined make up the idea of
priesthood. Righteousness without peace punishes the transgressor. Peace
without righteousness condones the transgression. The kingship of
Melchizedek, it appears, involves that he is priest.

This king-priest is a monotheist, though he is not of the family of
Abraham. He is even priest of the Most High God, though he is outside
the pale of the priesthood afterwards founded in the line of Aaron.
Judaism, therefore, enjoys no monopoly of truth. As St. Paul argues that
the promise is independent of the Law, because it was given four hundred
years before, so our author hints at the existence of a priesthood
distinct from the Levitical. What existed before Aaron may also survive
him.

Further, these two men, Melchizedek and Abraham, were mutually drawn
each to the other by the force of their common piety. Melchizedek went
out to meet Abraham on his return from the slaughter of the kings,
apparently not because he was indebted to him for his life and the
safety of his city (for the kings had gone their way as far as Dan after
pillaging the Cities of the Plain), but because he felt a strong impulse
to bestow his blessing on the man of faith. He met him, not as king, but
as priest. Would it be too fanciful to conjecture that Abraham had that
mysterious power, which some men possess and some do not, of attracting
to himself and becoming a centre, around which others almost
unconsciously gather? It is suggested by his entire history. Whether it
was so or not, Melchizedek blessed him, and Abraham accepted the
blessing, and acknowledged its priestly character by giving him the
priest’s portion, the tenth of the best spoils. How great must this man
have been, who blessed even Abraham, and to whom Abraham, the patriarch,
paid even the tenth! But the less is blessed of the greater. In Abraham
the Levitical priesthood itself may be said to acknowledge the
superiority of Melchizedek.[121]

Wherein lay his greatness? He was not in the priestly line. Neither do
we read that he was appointed of God. Yet no man taketh this honour unto
himself. God had made him king and priest by conferring upon him the
gift of innate spiritual greatness. He was one of nature’s kings, born
to rule, not because he was his father’s son, but because he had a great
soul. It is not in record that he bequeathed to his race a great idea.
He created no school, and had no following. So seldom is mention made of
him in the Old Testament, that the Psalmist’s passing reference to his
name attracts the Apostle’s special notice. He became a priest in virtue
of what he was as man. His authority as king sprang from character.

Such men appear on earth now and again. But they are never accounted
for. All we can say of them is that they have neither father nor mother
nor genealogy. They resemble those who are born of the Spirit, of whom
we know neither whence they come nor whither they go. It is only from
the greatest one among these kings and priests of men that the veil is
lifted. In Him we see the Son of God. In Christ we recognise the ideal
greatness of sheer personality, and we at once say of all the others, as
the Apostle says of Melchizedek, that they have been “made like,” not
unto ancestors or predecessors, but unto Him Who is Himself like His
Divine Father.

Such priests remain priests for ever. They live on by the vitality of
their priesthood. They have no beginning of days or end of life. They
have never been set apart with outward ritual to an official
distinction, marked by days and years. Their acts are not ceremonial,
and wait not on the calendar. They bless men, and the blessing abides.
They pray, and the prayer dies not. If their prayer lives for ever, can
we suppose that they themselves pass away? The king-priest is heir of
immortality, whoever else may perish. He at least has the power of an
endless life. If he dies in the flesh, he lives on in the spirit. An
eternal heaven must be found or made for such men with God.

Now this is the gist and kernel of the Apostle’s beautiful allegory. The
argument points to the Son of God, and leads up to the conception of His
eternal priesthood in the sanctuary of heaven. Let us see how the
parable is interpreted and applied.

That Jesus is a great High-priest has been proved by argument after
argument from the beginning of the Epistle. But this is not enough to
show that the priesthood after the order of Aaron has passed away. The
Hebrew Christians may still maintain that the Messiah perfected the
Aaronic priesthood and added to it the glory of kingship. Transference
of the priesthood must be proved; and it is symbolised in the history of
Melchizedek. But transference of the priesthood involves much more than
what has hitherto been mentioned. It implies, not merely that the
priesthood after the order of Aaron has come to an end, but that the
entire dispensation of law, the old covenant, is replaced by a new
covenant and a better one, inasmuch as the Law was erected on the
foundation[122] of the priesthood. It was a religious economy. The
fundamental conceptions of the religion were guilt and forgiveness.[123]
The essential fact of the dispensation was sacrifice offered for the
sinner to God by a priest. The priesthood was the article of a standing
or a falling Church under the Old Testament. Change of the priesthood of
itself abrogates the covenant.

What, then, is the truth in this matter? Has the priesthood been
transferred? Let the story of Melchizedek, interpreted by the inspired
Psalmist, supply the answer.

_First_, Jesus sprang from the royal tribe of Judah, not from the
sacerdotal tribe of Levi. The Apostle intentionally uses a term[124]
that glances at the prophet Zechariah’s prediction concerning Him Who
shall arise as the dawn, and be a Priest upon His throne. We shall,
therefore, entitle Him “Lord,” and say that “our _Lord_” has risen out
of Judah.[125] He is Lord and King by right of birth. But this
circumstance, that He belongs to the tribe of Judah, hints, to say the
least, at a transference of the priesthood. For Moses said nothing of
this tribe in reference to priests, however great it became in its
kings. The kingship of our Lord is foreshadowed in Melchizedek.

_Second_, it is still more evident that the Aaronic priesthood has been
set aside if we recall another feature in the allegory of Melchizedek.
For Jesus is like Melchizedek as Priest, not as King only. The
priesthood of Melchizedek sprang from the man’s inherent greatness. How
much more is it true of Jesus Christ that His greatness is personal! He
became what He is, not by force of law, which could create only an
external, carnal commandment, but by innate power, in virtue of which He
will live on and His life will be indestructible.[126] The commandment
that constituted Aaron priest has not indeed been violently abrogated;
but it has been thrust aside in consequence of its own inner feebleness
and uselessness.[127] That it has been weak and unprofitable to men is
evident from the inability of the Law, as a system erected upon that
priesthood, to satisfy conscience.[128] Yet this carnal, decayed
priesthood was permitted to linger on and work itself out. The better
hope, through which we do actually come near unto God, did not forcibly
put an end to it, but was super-added.[129] Christ never formally
abolished the old covenant. We cannot date its extinction. We must not
say that it ceased to exist when the Supper was instituted, or when the
true Passover was slain, or when the Spirit descended. The Epistle to
the Hebrews is intended to awaken men to the fact that it is gone. They
can hardly realise that it is dead. It has been lost, like the light of
a star, in the spreading “dawn” of day. The sun of that eternal day is
the infinitely great personality of Jesus Christ, born a crownless King;
crowned at His death, but with thorns. Yet what mighty power He has
wielded! The Galilæan has conquered. Since He has passed through the
heavens from the eyes of men, thousands in every age have been ready to
die for Him. Even to-day the Christianity of the greatest part of His
followers consists more in profound loyalty to a personal King than in
any intellectual comprehension of the Teacher’s dogmatic system. Such
kingly power cannot perish. Untouched by the downfall of kingdoms and
the revolutions of thought, such a King will sit upon His moral throne
from age to age, yesterday and to-day the same, and for ever.

_Third_, the entire system or covenant based on the Aaronic priesthood
has passed away and given place to a better covenant,—better in
proportion to the firmer foundation on which the priesthood of Jesus
rests.[130] Beyond question, the promises of God were steadfast. But men
could not realise the glorious hope of their fulfilment, and that for
two reasons. First, difficult conditions were imposed on fallible men.
The worshipper might transgress in many points of ritual. His mediator,
the priest, might err where error would be fatal to the result.
Worshipper and priest, if they were thoughtful and pious men, would be
haunted with the dread of having done wrong they knew not how or where,
and be filled with dark forebodings. Confidence, especially full
assurance, was not to be thought of. Second, Christ found it necessary
to urge His disciples to believe in God. The misery of distrusting God
Himself exists. Men think that He is such as they are; and, as they do
not believe in themselves, their faith in God is a reed shaken by the
wind. These wants were not adequately met by the old covenant. The
conditions imposed perplexed men, and the revelation of God’s moral
character and Fatherhood was not sufficiently clear to remove distrust.
The Apostle directs attention to the strange absence of any swearing of
an oath on the part of God when He instituted the Aaronic priesthood, or
on the part of the priest at his consecration. Yet the kingship was
confirmed by oath to David. In the new covenant, on the other hand, all
such fears may be dismissed. For the only condition imposed is faith. In
order to make faith easy and inspire men with courage, God appoints a
Surety[131] for Himself. He offers His Son as Hostage, and thus
guarantees the fulfilment of His promise. As the Man Jesus, the Son of
God was delivered into the hands of men. “Of the better covenant Jesus
is the Surety.” This will explain a word in the sixth chapter, which we
were compelled at the time to put aside. For it is there said that God
“mediated” with an oath.[132] We now understand that this means the
appointment of Christ to be Surety of the fulfilment of God’s promises.
The old covenant could offer no guarantee. It is true that it was
ordained in the hands of a mediator. But it is also true that the
mediator was no surety, inasmuch as those priests were made without an
oath. Christ has been made Priest with an oath. Therefore He is, as
Jesus, the Surety of a better covenant. In what respects the covenant is
better, the Apostle will soon tell us. For the present, we only know
that the foundation is stronger in proportion as the oath of God reveals
more fully His sincerity and love, and renders it an easier thing for
men laden with guilt to trust the promise.

Before we dismiss the subject, it may be well to remind the reader that
this mention of a Surety by our author is the _locus classicus_ of the
Federalist school of divines. Cocceius and his followers present the
whole range of theological doctrines under the form of covenant. They
explain the words “Surety of a better covenant” to mean that Christ is
appointed by God to be a Surety on behalf of men, not on behalf of God.
The course of thought in the passage is, we think, decisive against this
interpretation. At the same time, we readily admit that their doctrine
is a just theological inference from the passage. If God swears that His
gracious purposes will be fulfilled and ordains Jesus to be His Surety
to men, and if also the fulfilment of the Divine promise depends on the
fulfilment of certain conditions on the part of men, the oath of God
will involve His enabling men to fulfil those conditions, and the Surety
will become in eventual fact a Surety on behalf of men. But this is only
an inference. It is not the meaning of the Apostle’s words, who only
speaks of the Surety on the part of God. The validity of the inference
now mentioned depends on other considerations extraneous to this
passage. With those considerations, therefore, we have at present
nothing to do.

_Fourth_, the climax of the argument is reached when the Apostle infers
the endless duration of Christ’s one priesthood.[133] The number of men
who had been successively high-priests of the old covenant increased
from age to age. Dying one after another, they were prevented from
continuing as high-priests. But Melchizedek had no successor; and the
Jews themselves admitted that the Christ would abide for ever. The
ascending argument of the Apostle proves that He ever liveth, and has,
therefore, an immutable priesthood. For, first, He is of the royal
tribe, and the oath of God to David guarantees that of his kingdom there
shall be no end. Again, in the greatness of His personality, He is
endowed with the power of an endless life. Moreover, as Priest He has
been established in His office by oath. He is, therefore, Priest for
ever.

A question suggests itself. Why is the endless life of one high-priest
more effective than a succession, conceivably an endless succession, of
high-priests? The eternal priesthood involves two distinct, but mutually
dependent, conceptions,—power to save and intercession. In the case of
any man, to live for ever means power. Even the body of our humiliation
will be raised in power. Can the spirit, therefore, in the risen life,
its own native home, be subject to weakness? What, then, shall we say of
the risen and glorified Christ? The difference between Him and the
high-priests of earth is like the difference between the body that is
raised and the body that dies. In Aaron priesthood is sown in
corruption, dishonour, weakness; in Christ priesthood is raised in
incorruption, in glory, in power. In Aaron it is sown a natural
priesthood; in Christ it is raised a spiritual priesthood. It must be
that the High-priest in heaven has power to save continually and
completely. Whenever help is needed, He is living. But He ever lives
that He may intercede.[134] Apart from intercession on behalf of men,
His power is not moral. It has no greatness or joy, or meaning.
Intercession is the moral content of His powerful existence. Whenever
help is needed, He is living, and is mighty[135] to save from sin, to
rescue from death, to deliver from its fear.

To prove that Christ’s eternal priesthood involves power and
intercession is the purpose of the next verses.[136] Such a High-priest,
powerful to save and ever living to intercede, is the only One befitting
us, who are at once helpless and guilty. The Apostle triumphantly
unfolds the glory of this conception of a high-priest. He means Christ.
But he is too triumphant to name Him. “Such a high-priest befits us.”
The power of His heavenly life implies the highest development of moral
condition. He will address God with holy reverence.[137] He will succour
men without a tinge of malice,[138] which is but another way of saying
that He wishes them well from the depth of His heart. He must not be
sullied by a spot of moral defilement[139] (for purity only can face God
or love men). He must be set apart for His lofty function from the
sinners for whom He intercedes. He must enter the true holiest place and
stand in awful solitariness above the heavens of worlds and angels in
the immediate presence of God. Further, He must not be under the
necessity of leaving the holiest place to renew His sacrifice, as the
high-priests of the old covenant had need to offer, through the priests,
new sacrifices every day through the year for themselves and for the
people—yea, for themselves first, then for the people—before they
dared re-enter within the veil.[140] For Christ offered Himself. Such a
sacrifice, once offered, was sufficient for ever.

To sum up.[141] The Law appoints men high-priests; the word, which God
has spoken unto us in His Son, appoints the Son Himself High-priest. The
Law appoints men high-priests in their weakness; the word appoints the
Son in His final and complete attainment of all perfection. But the Law
will yield to the word. For the word, which had gone before the Law in
the promise made to Abraham, was not superseded by the Law, but came
also after it in the stronger form of an oath, of which the old covenant
knew nothing.


FOOTNOTES:

[117] Ps. cx. 4.

[118] Matt. xxii. 45.

[119] Zech. vi. 11, 13.

[120] _SS. Legg. Alleg._, iii. (vol. i., p. 103. Mang.).

[121] Chap. vii. 6–10.

[122] ἐπ’ αὐτῆς (vii. 11).

[123] Cf. chap. vi. 1.

[124] Ἀνατέταλκεν. Cf. Zech. vi. 12. Ἀνατολή, _dawn_. The citation, as
usual, is from the Septuagint.

[125] Chap. vii. 14.

[126] Chap. vii. 16.

[127] ἀθέτησις, _a setting aside_ (chap. vii. 18).

[128] οὐδεν ἐτελείωσεν (vii. 19).

[129] ἐπεισαγωγή.

[130] Chap. vii. 20–22.

[131] ἔγγυος.

[132] ἐμεσίτευσεν (vi. 17)

[133] Chap. vii. 23–25.

[134] Chap. vii. 25.

[135] δύναται, the emphatic word in the passage.

[136] Chap. vii. 26.

[137] ὅσιος.

[138] ἄκακος.

[139] ἀμίαντος.

[140] Chap. vii. 27.

[141] Chap. vii. 28.




CHAPTER VIII.

_THE NEW COVENANT._


    “Now in the things which we are saying the chief point _is this_: We
    have such a High-priest, Who sat down on the right hand of the
    throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a Minister of the sanctuary,
    and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man. For
    every high-priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices:
    wherefore it is necessary that this _High-priest_ also have somewhat
    to offer. Now if He were on earth, He would not be a Priest at all,
    seeing there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law; who
    serve _that which is_ a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, even
    as Moses is warned _of God_ when he is about to make the tabernacle:
    for, See, saith He, that thou make all things according to the
    pattern that was showed thee in the mount. But now hath He obtained
    a ministry the more excellent, by how much also He is the Mediator
    of a better covenant, which hath been enacted upon better
    promises.”—HEB. viii. 1–6 (R.V.).


The Apostle has interpreted the beautiful story of Melchizedek with
wonderful felicity and force. The point of the whole Epistle, he now
tells us, lies there. He has brought forth the headstone of the corner,
the keystone of the arch.[142] It is, in short, that we have such a
High-priest. Country, holy city, ark of the covenant, all are lost. But
if we have the High-priest, all are restored to us in a better and more
enduring form. Jesus is the High-priest and King. He has taken His seat
once for all, as King, on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty,
and, as Priest, is also Minister of the sanctuary and of the true
tabernacle. The indefinite and somewhat unusual term “minister” or
“public servant”[143] is intentionally chosen, partly to emphasise the
contrast between Christ’s kingly dignity and His priestly service,
partly because the author wishes to explain at greater length in what
Christ’s actual work as High-priest in heaven consists. For Christ’s
heavenly glory is a life of service, not of selfish gratification. Every
high-priest serves.[144] He is appointed for no other purpose than to
offer gifts and sacrifices. The Apostle’s readers admitted that Christ
was High-priest. But they were forgetting that, as such, He too must
necessarily minister and have something which He can offer. Our theology
is still in like danger. We are sometimes prone to regard Christ’s life
in heaven as only a state of exaltation and power, and, consequently, to
speak more of the saints’ happiness than of their service. It is the
natural result of superficial theories of the Atonement that little
practical use is made by many Christians of the truth of Christ’s
priestly intercession. The debt has been paid, the debtor discharged,
and the transaction ended. Christ’s present activity towards God is
acknowledged and—neglected. Protestants are confirmed in this baneful
worldliness of conception by their just desire to keep at a safe
distance from the error in the opposite extreme: that Christ presents to
God the Church’s sacrifices of the mass.

The truth lies midway between two errors. On the one hand, Christ’s
intercession is not itself the making or constituting of a sacrifice; on
the other, it is not mere pleading and prayer. The sacrifice was made
and completed on the Cross, as the victims were slain in the outer
court. But it was through the blood of those victims the high-priest had
authority to enter the holiest place; and when he had entered, he must
sprinkle the warm blood, and so present the sacrifice to God. Similarly
Christ must enter a sanctuary in order to present the sacrifice slain on
Calvary. The words of the Apostle John, “We have an Advocate with the
Father,” express only one side of the truth. But he adds the other side
of the conception in the same verse, “And He is the propitiation,” which
is a very different thing from saying, “His death was the propitiation.”
But what sanctuary shall He enter? He could not approach the holiest
place in the earthly temple. For if He were on earth, He would not be a
Priest at all, seeing there are men ordained by the Law to offer the
appointed gifts on earth.[145] The Jewish priests have satisfied and
exhausted the idea of an earthly priesthood. Even Melchizedek could not
found an order. If he may be regarded as an attempt to acclimatise on
earth the priesthood of personal greatness, the attempt was a failure.
It always fails, though it is always renewed. On earth there can be no
order of goodness. When a great saint appears among men, he is but a
bird of passage, and is not to be found, because God has translated him.
If it is so of His saints, what of Christ? Christ on earth through the
ages? Impossible! And what is impossible to-day will be equally
inconceivable at any point of time in the future. A correct conception
of Christ’s priestly intercession is inconsistent with the dream of a
reign of Christ on earth. It may, or may not, be consistent with His
kingly office. But His priesthood forbids. We infer that Christ has
transformed the heaven of glory into the holiest place of a temple, and
the throne of God into a shrine before which He, as High-priest,
presents His sacrifice.

The Jewish priesthood itself teaches the existence of a heavenly
sanctuary.[146] All the arrangements of tabernacle and ritual were made
after a pattern shown to Moses on Mount Sinai. The priests, in the
tabernacle and through their ritual, ministered to the holiest place, as
the visible image and outline of the real holiest place—that is,
heaven—which the Lord pitched, not man.

Now Christ’s more excellent ministry as High-priest in heaven carries in
its bosom all that the Apostle contends for,—the establishment of a new
covenant which has set aside for ever the covenant of the Law. “He has
obtained a ministry the more excellent by how much He is the Mediator
of a better covenant.”[147] These words contain in a nutshell the entire
argument, or series of arguments, that extends from the sixth verse of
the eighth chapter to the eighteenth verse of the tenth. The course of
thought may be divided as follows:—

1. That the Lord intends to establish a new covenant is first of all
shown by a citation from the prophet Jeremiah (viii. 7–13).

2. A description of the tabernacle and of the entrance of the priests
and high-priests into it teaches that the way into the holiest place was
not yet open to men. This is contrasted with the entering of Christ into
heaven through His own blood, which proves that He has obtained for us
an eternal redemption and is Mediator of a new covenant, founded on His
death (ix. 1–18).

3. The frequent entering of the high-priest into the holiest place is
contrasted with the one death of Christ and His entering heaven once.
This proves the power of His sacrifice and intercession to bring in the
better covenant and set aside the former one (ix. 25–x. 18).


I. A NEW COVENANT PROMISED THROUGH JEREMIAH.

    “For if that first covenant had been faultless, then would no place
    have been sought for a second. For finding fault with them, He
    saith,

        Behold, the days come, saith the Lord,
        That I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and
            with the house of Judah;
        Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers
        In the day that I took them by the hand to lead them forth
            out of the land of Egypt;
        For they continued not in My covenant,
        And I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
        For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
        After those days, saith the Lord;
        I will put My laws into their mind,
        And on their heart also will I write them:
        And I will be to them a God,
        And they shall be to Me a people:
        And they shall not teach every man his fellow-citizen,
        And every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord:
        For all shall know Me,
        From the least to the greatest of them.
        For I will be merciful to their iniquities,
        And their sins will I remember no more.

    In that He saith, A new covenant, He hath made the first old. But
    that which is becoming old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing
    away.”—HEB. viii. 7–13 (R.V.).

The more spiritual men under the dispensation of law anticipated a new
and better era. The Psalmist had spoken of another day, and prophesied
of the appearance of a Priest after the order of Melchizedek and a Son
of David Who would also be David’s Lord. But Jeremiah is very bold, and
says[148] that the covenant itself on which the hope of his nation hangs
will pass away, and his dream of a more spiritual covenant, established
on better promises, will at some distant day come true. It is well to
bear in mind that this discontent with the present order lodged in the
hearts, not of the worst, but of the best and greatest, sons of Judaism.
It was the salt of their character, the life of their inspiration, the
message of their prophecy. In days of national distress and despair,
this star shone the brighter for the darkness. The terrible shame of the
Captivity and the profound agony that followed it were lit up with the
glorious vision of a better future in store for the people of God. On
the quivering lips of the prophet that “sat weeping,” as he is described
in the Septuagint,[149] this strong hope found utterance. He had washed
the dust of worldliness from his eyes with tears, and, therefore, saw
more clearly than the men of his time the threatened downfall of Judah
and the bright dawn beyond. In reading his prophecy of the new covenant
we almost cease to wonder that some persons thought Jesus was Jeremiah
risen from the dead. The prophet’s words have the same ring of undaunted
cheerfulness, of intense compassion, of prophetic faith; and Christ, as
well as the Apostle, cites His prediction that all shall be taught of
God.[150]

Jeremiah blames the people.[151] But the Apostle infers that the
covenant itself was not faultless, inasmuch as the prophet seeks, in his
censure of the people, to make room for another covenant. We have
already been told that there was on earth no room for the priesthood of
Christ.[152] Similarly, in the sphere of earthly nationality, there was
no room for a covenant other than that which God had made with His
people Israel when He brought them out of the land of Egypt. But the
earthly priesthood could not give efficacy to its ministering, and thus
room is found for a heavenly priesthood. So also, the covenant on which
the earthly priesthood rested being inadequate, the prophet makes room
for the introduction of a new and better covenant.

Now the peculiar character of the old covenant was that it dealt with
men in the aggregate which we call the nation. Nationalism is the
distinctive feature of the old world, within the precincts of Judaism
and among the peoples of heathendom. Even the prophets could not see the
spiritual truth, which they themselves foretold, except through the
medium of nationality. The Messiah was the national king idealised, even
when He was a Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. In the passage
before us the prophet Jeremiah speaks of God’s promise to write His law
on the heart as made to the house of Judah and the house of Israel, as
if he were not aware that, in so speaking, he was really contradicting
himself. For the blessing promised was a spiritual and, consequently,
personal one, with which nationality cannot possibly have any sort of
connection. It is a matter of profound joy to every lover of his people
to witness and share in the uprising of a national consciousness. Some
among us are beginning to know now for the first time that a national
ideal is possible in thought, and sentiment, and life. But there must
not, cannot, be a nationality in religion. A moral law in the heart does
not recognise the quality of the blood that circulates through. This
truth the prophets strove to utter, often in vain. Yet the breaking up
of the nation into Judah and Israel helped to dispel the illusion. The
loss of national independence prepared for the universalism of Jesus
Christ and St. Paul. Now also, when an epistle is written to the Hebrew
Christians, the threatened extinction of nationality drives men to seek
the bond of union in a more stable covenant, which will save them, if
anything can, from the utter collapse of all religious fellowship and
civil society. It is the glory of Christianity that it creates the
individual and at the same moment keeps perfectly clear of
individualism. Its blessings are personal, but they imply a covenant. If
nationalism has been dethroned, individualism has not climbed to the
vacant seat. How it achieves this great result will be understood from
an examination of Jeremiah’s prophecy.

The new covenant deals with the same fundamental conceptions which
dominated the former one. These are the moral law, knowledge of God, and
forgiveness of sin. So far the two dispensations are one. Because these
great conceptions lie at the root of all human goodness, religion is
essentially the same thing under both covenants. There is a sense in
which St. Augustine was right in speaking of the saints under the old
Testament as “Christians before Christ.” Judaism and Christianity stand
shoulder to shoulder over against the religious ideas and practices of
all the heathen nations of the world. But in Judaism these sublime
conceptions are undeveloped. Nationalism dwarfs their growth. They are
like seeds falling on the thorns, and the thorns grow up and choke them.
God, therefore, spoke unto the Jews in parables, in types and shadows.
Seeing, they saw not; and hearing, they heard not, neither did they
understand.

Because the former covenant was a national one, the conceptions of the
moral law, of God, of sin and its forgiveness, would be narrow and
external. The moral law would be embedded in the national code. God
would be revealed in the history of the nation. Sin would consist either
in faults of ignorance and inadvertence or in national apostasy from the
theocratic King. In these three respects the new covenant excels,—in
respect, that is, of the moral law, knowledge of God, and forgiveness of
sin, which yet may be justly regarded as the three sides of the
revelation given under the former covenant.

1. The moral law will either forget its own holiness, righteousness, and
goodness, and degenerate into national rules of conduct, or else, by the
innate force of its spirituality, create in men a consciousness of sin
and a strong desire for reconciliation with God. Men will resist, and,
when resistance is vain, will chafe against its terrible strength. “The
Law came in beside, that the trespass might abound.”[153] But it often
happens that guilt of conscience is the alarum that awakens moral
self-consciousness out of sleep, never to fall asleep again when
holiness has found entrance into the soul. Beyond this the old covenant
advanced not a step. The promise of the new covenant is to put the Law
into the mind, not in an ark of shittim wood, and to write it in the
heart, not on tables of stone. The Law was given on Sinai as an external
commandment; it is put into the mind as a knowledge of moral truth. It
was written on the two tables in the weakness of the letter; on the
heart it is written as a principle and a power of obedience. The power
of God to command becomes the strength of man to obey. In this way the
new covenant realises what the former covenant demanded. The new
covenant is the old covenant transformed, made spiritual. God is become
the God of His people; and this was the promise of the former covenant.
They are no more children, as they were when God took them by the hand
and led them out of the land of Egypt. Instead of the external guidance,
they have the unction within, and know all things. Renewed in the spirit
of their mind, they put on the new man, which after God is created in
righteousness and the holiness of truth.

2. So also of knowing God. The moral attributes of the Most High are
revealed under the former covenant, and the God of the Old Testament is
the God of the New. Abraham knows Him as the everlasting God. Elisha
understands that there is no darkness or shadow of death where the
workers of iniquity may hide themselves. Balaam declares that God is not
a man that He should lie. The Psalmist confesses to God that he cannot
flee from His presence. The father of believers fears not to ask, “Shall
not the Judge of the earth do right?” Moses recognises that the Lord is
longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression.
Isaiah hears the seraphim crying one to another, “Holy, holy, holy, is
the Lord of hosts.” But nationalism distorted the image. The conception
of God’s Fatherhood is most indistinct. When, however, Christ taught His
disciples to say in prayer, “Our Father,” He could then at once add the
words “Who art in heaven.” The spirit of man rose immediately with a
mighty upheaval above the narrow bounds of nationalism. The attributes
of God became more lofty as well as more amiable to the eyes of His
children. The God of a nation is not great enough to be our Father. The
God Who is our Father is God in heaven.

Not only are God’s attributes revealed, but the faculty to know Him is
also bestowed. The moral law and a heart to love it are the two elements
of a knowledge of God’s nature. For God Himself is holiness and love. In
vain will men cry one to another, saying, “Know the Lord.” As well might
they bid the blind behold the light, or the wicked love purity.
Knowledge of nature can be taught. It can be parcelled in propositions,
carried about, and handed to others. But the character of God is not a
notion, and cannot be taught as a lesson or in a creed, however true the
creed may be. The two opposite ends of all our knowledge are our
sensations and God. In one respect the two are alike. Knowledge of them
cannot be conveyed in words.

3. The only thing concerning God that can be known by a man who is not
holy himself is that He will punish the impenitent, and can forgive.
These are objective facts. They may be announced to the world, and
believed. In the history of all holy men, under the Old Testament as
well as under the New, they are their first lesson in spiritual
theology. To say that penitent sinners under the Law could not be
absolved from guilt or taste the sweetness of God’s forgiving grace must
be false. St. Paul himself, who describes the Law as a covenant that
“gendereth to bondage,” cites the words of the Psalmist, “Blessed is he
whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered,” to prove that
God imputes righteousness without works.[154] When the Apostle Peter was
declaring that all the prophets witness to Jesus Christ, that through
His name whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins, the
Holy Ghost fell on all who heard the word. The very promise which
Jeremiah says will be fulfilled under the future covenant Isaiah claims
for his own days: “I, even I, am He that blotteth out thy transgressions
for Mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.”[155]

On the other hand, it is equally plain that St. Paul and the author of
this Epistle agree in teaching that the sacrifices of the old covenant
had in them no virtue to remove guilt. They cannot take away sin, and
they cannot remove the consciousness of sin.[156] The writer evidently
considers it sufficient to state the impossibility, without labouring to
prove it. His readers’ consciences would bear him out in the assertion
that it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take
away sins.

It remains—and it is the only supposition left to us—that peace of
conscience must have been the result of another revelation, simultaneous
with the covenant of the Law, but differing from it in purpose and
instruments. Such a revelation would be given through the prophets, who
stood apart as a distinct order from the priesthood. They were the
preachers. They quickened conscience, and spoke of God’s hatred of sin
and willingness to forgive. Every advance in the revelation came through
the prophets, not through the priests. The latter represent the
stationary side of the covenant, but the prophets hold before the eyes
of men the idea of progress. What, then, was the weakness of prophecy in
reference to forgiveness of sin when compared with the new covenant? The
prophets predicted a future redemption. This was their strength. It was
also their weakness. For that future was not balanced by an equally
great past. However glorious the history of the nation had been, it was
not strong enough to bear the weight of so transcendent a future. Every
nation that believes in the greatness of its own future already
possesses a great past. If not, it creates one. Mythology and
hero-worship are the attempt of a people to erect their future on a
sufficient foundation. But men had not experienced anything great enough
to inspire them with a living faith in the reality of the promises which
the prophets announced. Sin had not been atoned for. The Christian
preacher can point to the wonderful but well-assured facts of the life
and death of Jesus Christ. If he could not do this, or if he neglects to
do it, feeble and unreal will sound his proclamation of the terrors and
joys of the world to come. The Gospel has for one of its primary objects
to appease the guilty conscience. How it achieves this purpose our
author will tell us in another chapter. For the present all we learn is
that knowledge of God is knowledge of His moral nature, and that this
knowledge belongs to the man whose moral consciousness has been
quickened. The evangelical doctrine that the source of holiness is
thankfulness was well meant, as an antidote to legalism on the one hand
and to Antinomianism on the other. The sinner, we were told, once
redeemed from the curse of the Law and delivered from the danger of
perdition, begins to love the Christ Who redeemed and saved him. The
doctrine contains a truth, and is applicable to this extent; that he to
whom much is forgiven loveth much. But it would not be true to say that
all good men have sought God’s forgiveness because they feared hell
torments. To some their guilt is their hell. Fear is too narrow a
foundation of holiness. We cannot explain saintliness by mere gratitude.
For “thankfulness” we must write “conscience,” and substitute
forgiveness and absolution from guilt for safety from future misery, if
we would lay a foundation broad and firm enough on which to erect the
sublimest holiness of man.

Our author infers from the words of Jeremiah that there was an inherent
decay in the former covenant. It was itself ready to vanish away, and
make room for a new and more spiritual one.[157]


II. A NEW COVENANT SYMBOLIZED IN THE TABERNACLE.

    “Now even the first covenant had ordinances of divine service, and
    its sanctuary, a sanctuary of this world. For there was a tabernacle
    prepared, the first, wherein were the candlestick, and the table,
    and the shewbread; which is called the Holy place. And after the
    second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holy of holies;
    having a golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round
    about with gold, wherein was a golden pot holding the manna, and
    Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant; and above
    it cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy-seat; of which we
    cannot now speak severally. Now these things having been thus
    prepared, the priests go in continually into the first tabernacle,
    accomplishing the services; but into the second the high-priest
    alone, once in the year, not without blood, which he offereth for
    himself, and for the errors of the people: the Holy Ghost this
    signifying, that the way into the holy place hath not yet been made
    manifest, while as the first tabernacle is yet standing; which is a
    parable for the time now present; according to which are offered
    both gifts and sacrifices that cannot, as touching the conscience,
    make the worshipper perfect, being only (with meats and drinks and
    divers washings) carnal ordinances, imposed until a time of
    reformation. But Christ having come a High-priest of the good things
    to come, through the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made
    with hands, that is to say, not of this creation, nor yet through
    the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, entered in
    once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal
    redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the ashes of a
    heifer sprinkling them that have been defiled, sanctify unto the
    cleanness of the flesh: how much more shall the blood of Christ, Who
    through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish unto God,
    cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living
    God?”—HEB. ix. 1–14 (R.V.).

With the words of a prophet the Apostle contrasts the ritual of the
priests. Jeremiah prophesied of a better covenant, because he found the
former one did not satisfy conscience. A description of the tabernacle,
its furniture and ordinances of Divine service, follows. At first it
appears strange that the author should have thought it necessary to
enumerate in detail what the tabernacle contained. But to infer that he
is a Hellenist, to whom the matter had all the charm of novelty, would
be very precarious. His purpose is to show that the way of the holiest
was not yet open. The tabernacle consisted of two chambers: the foremost
and larger of the two, called the sanctuary, and an inner one, called
the holiest of all. Now the sanctuary had its furniture and stated
rites. It was not a mere vestibule or passage leading to the holiest.
The eighth verse, literally rendered, expresses that the outer
sanctuary “held a position.”[158] Its furniture was for daily use. The
candelabrum supported the seven lamps, which gave light to the
ministering priests. The shewbread, laid on the table in rows of twelve
cakes, was eaten by Aaron and his sons. Into this chamber the priests
went always, accomplishing the daily services. Moreover, between the
holy place and the holiest of all hung a thick veil. Into the holiest
the high-priest only was permitted to enter, and he could only enter on
the annual day of atonement. This chamber also had its proper furniture.
To it belonged[159] the altar of incense (for so we must read in the
fourth verse, instead of “golden censer”), although its actual place was
in the outer sanctuary. It stood in front of the veil that the
high-priest might take the incense from it, without which he was not
permitted to enter the holiest; and when he came out, he sprinkled it
with blood as he had sprinkled the holiest place itself. In the inner
chamber stood the ark of the covenant, containing the pot of manna,
Aaron’s rod that budded, and the two tables of stone on which the Ten
Commandments were written. On the ark was the mercy-seat, and above the
mercy-seat were the cherubim. But there were no lamps to give light;
there was no shewbread for food. The glory of the Lord filled it, and
was the light thereof. When the high-priest had performed the atoning
rites, he was not permitted to stay within. It is evident that
reconciliation through blood was the idea symbolized by the holiest
place, its furniture, and the yearly rite performed within it. But the
veil and the outer chamber stood between the sinful people and the
mercy-seat. Our author ascribes this arrangement of the two chambers,
the veil, and the one entrance every year of the high-priest into the
inner shrine, to the Holy Spirit, Who teaches men by symbol[160] that
the way to God is not yet open. But He also teaches them through the
ordinances of the outer sanctuary that access to God is a necessity of
conscience, and yet that the gifts and sacrifices there offered cannot
satisfy conscience, resting, as they do, only on meats and drinks and
divers washings. All we can say of them is that they were the
requirements of natural conscience, here termed “flesh,” and that these
demands of human consciousness of guilt were sanctioned and imposed on
men by God provisionally, until the time came for restoring permanently
the long-lost peace between God and men.

Contrast with all this the ministry of Christ. He made His appearance on
earth as High-priest of the things which have now at length come to
us.[161] The blessings prophesied by Jeremiah have been realised. As
High-priest He entered the true holiest place, a tabernacle greater and
more perfect, even heaven itself.[162] It is greater; that is, larger.
The outer sanctuary has ceased to exist, because the veil has been rent
in twain, and the holy place has been taken into the holiest place. The
tabernacle has now only one chamber, and in that chamber God meets all
His worshipping saints, who come to Him through and with Jesus, the
High-priest. The tabernacle of God is with men, and He shall dwell, as
in the tabernacle, with them, and they shall be His peoples, and God
Himself shall be with them.[163] Yea, the holiest place has spread
itself over Mount Zion, on which stood the king’s palace, and over the
whole city of Jerusalem, which lieth four-square, and is become the
heavenly and holy city, having no temple, because the Lord God Almighty
and the Lamb are the temple thereof. “And the city hath no need of the
sun, neither of the moon, to shine upon it; for the glory of God
lightens it, and the lamp thereof is the Lamb.” The city and the holiest
place are commensurate. So large, indeed, is the holiest that the
nations shall walk amidst the light thereof. It is also more
perfect.[164] For Christ has entered into the presence of God for us.
Such a tabernacle is not constructed of the materials of this
world,[165] nor fashioned with the hands of cunning artificers, Bezaleel
and Aholiab. When Christ destroyed the sanctuary made with hands, in
three days He built another made without hands. In a true sense it is
not made at all, not even by the hands of Him Who built all things; for
it is essentially God’s presence. Into this holiest place Christ
entered, to appear in the immediate presence of God. But the Apostle is
not satisfied with saying that He entered within. Ten thousand times ten
thousand of His saints will do this. He has done more. He went
_through_[166] the holiest. He has passed through the heavens.[167] He
has been made higher than the heavens.[168] He has taken His seat on the
right hand of God.[169] The Melchizedek Priest has ascended to the
mercy-seat and made it His throne. He is Himself henceforth the
shechinah, and the manifested glory of the unseen Father. All this is
expressed in the words “through a greater and more perfect tabernacle.”

Moreover, the high-priest entered into the holiest place in virtue of
the blood of goats and calves.[170] Add, if you will, the ceremony of
cleansing a person who had contracted defilement by touching a dead
body.[171] He also was cleansed by having the ashes of a heifer
sprinkled upon his flesh. Why, the very defilement is unreal and
artificial. To touch a dead body a sin! It may have been well to make it
a crime from sanitary considerations, and it may become a sin because
God has forbidden it. So far it touched conscience. When Elijah
stretched himself upon the dead child of the widow of Zarephath three
times, and the soul of the child came into him again, or when Elisha put
his mouth upon the mouth of the dead son of the Shunammite, his eyes
upon his eyes, and his hands upon his hands, and the flesh of the child
waxed warm, God’s holy prophet was defiled! The mother and the child
might bring their thank-offering to the sanctuary; but the prophet, who
had done the deed of power and mercy, was excluded from joining in
thanksgiving and prayer. If the defilement is unreal, what shall we
think of the means of cleansing? To touch a dead child defiles, but the
touch of the ashes of a burnt heifer cleanses! Yet natural conscience
felt guilty when thus defiled, and recovered itself, in some measure,
from its shame when thus made clean.[172] Such men resemble the persons,
referred to by St. Paul, who have “a conscience of the idol.”[173]
Judaism enfeebled the conscience. A man of morbid religious sentiment
is often defiled in his own eyes by what is not really wrong, and often
finds peace and comfort in what is not really a propitiation or a
forgiveness.

On the other hand, Christ entered the true holiest place by His own
blood. He offered Himself. The High-priest is the sacrifice. Under the
old covenant the victim must be “without spot.” But the high-priest was
not without blemish, and he offered for himself as well as for the
errors of the people. But in the offering of Christ, the spotless purity
of the Victim ensures that the High-priest Himself is holy, harmless,
undefiled, separate from sinners. For this reason it is said here[174]
that He offered Himself “through an eternal spirit,” or, as we should
say in modern phrase, “through His eternal personality.” He is the
High-priest after the order of Melchizedek; and He invests the sacrifice
with all the personal greatness of the High-priest. Is He “without
beginning of days or end of life”? So also His sacrifice abides for
ever. His power of an indissoluble life belongs to His atonement. Is He
untouched by the rolling stream of time? His death was of infinite merit
in reference to the past and to the future, though it took place
historically at the end of the ages. His eternal personality made it
unnecessary for Him to suffer often since the foundation of the world.
Because of His personal greatness, it sufficed that He should suffer
once only and enter once into the holiest place. The eternal High-priest
in one transitory act of death offered a sacrifice that remains
eternally, and obtains for us an eternal redemption. If, then, the blood
of goats and bulls and the ashes of an heifer appease, in some measure,
the weak, frightened conscience of unenlightened nature, how much more
shall the conscious, voluntary sacrifice of this eternal, personal Son
deliver the conscience of him who worships, not a phantom deity, but an
eternal, personal, living God, from the guilt of dead works, and bring
him to worship that living God with an eternal, living personality!

Mark the contrasted notions. The brute life, dragged to the altar,
little knowing that its hot blood is to be a propitiation for human
guilt, is contrasted with the blood of the Christ (for there is but
one), Who, with the consciousness and strength of an eternal
personality, willingly offers Himself as a sacrifice. Between these two
lives are all the lives which God created, human and angelic. Yet the
offering of a beast in some fashion and to some degree appeased
conscience, unillumined by the fierce light of God’s holiness and
untouched by the pathos of Christ’s death. With this imperfect and
negative peace, or, to speak more correctly, truce, of conscience is
contrasted the living, eager worship of him whose enlightened conscience
has been purified from spiritual defilement by the blood of Christ. Such
a man’s entire service is worship, and his worship is the ministering of
a priest.[175] He stands in the congregation of the righteous, and
ascends unto God’s holy hill. He enters the holiest place with Christ.
He draws near with boldness to the mercy-seat, now the very throne
itself of grace.

It will be seen, if we have rightly traced the line of thought, that the
outer sanctuary no longer exists. The larger and more perfect tabernacle
is the holiest place itself, when the veil has been removed, and the
sanctuary and courts are all included in the expanded holiest. Several
very able expositors deny this. They find an antitype of the holy place
either in the body of Christ or in the created heavens, through which He
has passed into the immediate presence of God. But this introduces
confusion, adds nothing of value to the meaning of the type, and is
inconsistent with our author’s express statement that the way into the
holiest was not yet open so long as the holy place stood.


III. A NEW COVENANT RATIFIED IN THE DEATH OF CHRIST.

    “And for this cause He is the Mediator of a new covenant, that a
    death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions
    that were under the first covenant, they that have been called may
    receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. For where a
    testament is, there must of necessity be the death of him that made
    it. For a testament is of force where there hath been death; for
    doth it ever avail while he that made it liveth? Wherefore even the
    first covenant hath not been dedicated without blood. For when every
    commandment had been spoken by Moses unto all the people according
    to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with
    water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book
    itself, and all the people, saying, This is the blood of the
    covenant which God commanded to you-ward. Moreover the tabernacle
    and all the vessels of the ministry he sprinkled in like manner with
    the blood. And according to the Law, I may almost say, all things
    are cleansed with blood, and apart from shedding of blood there is
    no remission. It was necessary therefore that the copies of the
    things in the heavens should be cleansed with these; but the
    heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For
    Christ entered not into a holy place made with hands, like in
    pattern to the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear before
    the face of God for us: nor yet that He should offer Himself often;
    as the high-priest entereth into the holy place year by year with
    blood not his own; else must He often have suffered since the
    foundation of the world: but now once at the end of the ages hath He
    been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And
    inasmuch as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this
    cometh judgment; so Christ also, having been once offered to bear
    the sins of many, shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to
    them that wait for Him, unto salvation. For the Law having a shadow
    of the good _things_ to come, not the very image of the things, they
    can never with the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer
    continually, make perfect them that draw nigh. Else would they not
    have ceased to be offered, because the worshippers, having been once
    cleansed, would have had no more conscience of sins? But in those
    _sacrifices_ there is a remembrance made of sins year by year. For
    it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away
    sins. Wherefore when He cometh into the world, He saith,

        Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldest not,
        But a body didst Thou prepare for Me:
        In whole burnt offerings and _sacrifices_ for sin Thou hadst
            no pleasure:
        Then said I, Lo, I am come
        (In the roll of the book it is written of Me)
        To do Thy will, O God.

    Saying above, Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and
    _sacrifices_ for sin Thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure
    therein (the which are offered according to the Law), then hath He
    said, Lo, I am come to do Thy will. He taketh away the first, that
    He may establish the second. By which will we have been sanctified
    through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And
    every priest indeed standeth day by day ministering and offering
    oftentimes the same sacrifices, the which can never take away sins:
    but He, when He had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat
    down on the right hand of God; from henceforth expecting till His
    enemies be made the footstool of His feet. For by one offering He
    hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. And the Holy Ghost
    also beareth witness to us: for after He hath said,

        This is the covenant that I will make with them
        After those days, saith the Lord;
        I will put My laws on their heart,
        And upon their mind also will I write them;

    _then saith He_,

        And their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

    Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for
    sin.”—HEB. ix. 15–x. 18 (R.V.).

The Apostle has proved that a new covenant was promised through the
prophet and prefigured in the tabernacle. Christ is come to earth and
entered into the holiest place of God, as High-priest. The inference is
that His high-priesthood has abolished the old covenant and ratified the
new. The priesthood has been changed, and change of the priesthood
implies change of the covenant. In fact, to this priesthood the rites
of the former covenant pointed, and on it the priestly absolution
rested. Sins were forgiven, but not in virtue of any efficacy supposed
to belong to the rites or sacrifices, all of which were types of another
and infinitely greater death. For a death has taken place for the
redemption of all past transgressions, which had been accumulating under
the former covenant. Now at length sin has been put out of the way. The
heirs of the promise made to Abraham, centuries before the giving of the
Law, come at last into possession of their inheritance. The call has
sounded. The hour has struck. For this inheritance they waited till
Christ should die. The earthly Canaan may pass from one race to another
race; but the unchangeable, eternal[176] inheritance, into which none
but the rightful heirs can enter, is incorruptible, undefiled, fading
not away, reserved in heaven for those who are kept[177] for its
possession.

Because possession of it was delayed till Christ died, it may be likened
to an inheritance bequeathed by a testator in his last will. For when a
person leaves property by will to another, the will is of no force, the
transference is not actually made, the property does not change hands,
in the testator’s lifetime. The transaction takes place after and in
consequence of his death. This may serve as an illustration. Its
pertinence as such is increased by the fact, which in all probability
suggested it to our author, that the same word would be used by a
Hebrew, writing in Greek, for “covenant,” and by a native of Greece for
“a testamentary disposition of property.”[178] But it is only an
illustration. We cannot suppose that it was intended to be anything
more.[179]

To return to argument, the blood of Christ may be shown to have ratified
a covenant from the use of blood by Moses to inaugurate the former
covenant. The Apostle has spoken before of the shedding and sprinkling
of blood in sacrifice. When the high-priest entered into the holiest
place, he offered blood for himself and the people. But, besides its use
in sacrifice, blood was sprinkled on the book of the law, on the
tabernacle, and on all the vessels of the ministry. Without a copious
stream, a veritable “outflow”[180] of blood, both as ratifying the
covenant and as offered in sacrifice, there was under the Law no
remission of sins. Now the typical character of all the arrangements and
ordinances instituted by Moses is assumed throughout. Even the
purification of the tabernacle and its vessels with blood must be
symbolical of a spiritual truth. There is, therefore, in the new
covenant a purification of the true holiest place. To make the matter
still more evident, the author reminds his readers of a fact, which he
has already mentioned,[181] in reference to the construction of the
tabernacle. Moses was admonished of God to make it a copy and shadow of
heavenly things. “For, See, saith He, that thou make all things
according to the pattern showed to thee in the mount.” It appears, then,
that not only the covenant was typical, but the tabernacle, its vessels,
and the purifying of all with blood were a copy of things in the
heavens, the true holiest place. And, inasmuch as the holiest place has
now, in Christ, included within it the sanctuary, and every veil and
wall of partition has been removed, the purification of the tabernacle
corresponds to a purification, under the new covenant, of heaven itself.

Not that the heaven of God is polluted. Even the earthly shrine had not
itself contracted defilement. The blood sprinkled on the tabernacle and
its vessels was not different from the blood of the sacrifice. As
sacrificial blood, it consecrated the place, and was also offered to
God. Similarly the blood of Christ made heaven a sanctuary, erected
there a holiest place for the appearing of the great High-priest,
constituted the throne of the Most High a mercy-seat for men. By the
same act it became an offering to God, enthroned on the mercy-seat. The
two notions of ratifying the covenant and atoning for sin cannot be
separated. For this reason our author says the heavenly things are
purified with _sacrifices_. But as heaven is higher than the earth, as
the true holiest place excels the typical, so must the sacrifices that
purify heaven be better than the sacrifices that purified the
tabernacle. But Christ is great enough to make heaven itself a new
place, whereas He Himself remains unchanged, “yesterday and to-day the
same, and for ever.”

The thought of Christ’s eternal oneness is apparently suggested to the
Apostle by the contrast between Christ and the purified heaven. But it
helps his argument. For the blood of Christ, when offered in heaven, so
fully and perfectly ratified the new covenant that He remains for
evermore in the holiest place and evermore offers Himself to God in one
eternally unbroken act. He did not enter heaven to come out again, as
the high-priests presented their offering repeatedly, year after year.
They could not do otherwise, because they entered “with blood not their
own,” or, as we may render the word, “with alien[182] blood.” The blood
of goats and bulls cannot take away sin. Consequently, the absolution
obtained is unreal and, therefore, temporary in its effect. The blood of
the beasts must be renewed as the annual day of atonement comes round.
If Christ’s offering of Himself had only a temporary efficacy, He must
often have suffered since the foundation of the world. The forgiveness
under the former covenant put off the retribution for one year. St. Paul
expresses the same conception when he describes it as not a real
forgiveness, but as “the passing over[183] of the sins done aforetime,
in the forbearance of God.” The writer of the Epistle infers that, if
Christ’s sacrifice were meritorious for a time only, then He ought to
have repeated His offering whenever the period for which it was
efficacious came to an end; and, inasmuch as His atonement was not
restricted to one nation, it would have been necessary for Him to appear
on earth repeatedly, and repeatedly die, not from the time of Moses or
of Abraham, but from the foundation of the world. But our author has
long since said “that the works were finished from the foundation of the
world.”[184] God Himself after the work of creation entered on His
Sabbath rest. The Sabbath developed from initial creation to final
atonement, and, because Christ’s atonement is final, He has perfected
the Sabbath eternally in the heavens. But the Sabbath of God would have
been no Sabbath to the Son of God, but a constant recurrence of
sufferings and deaths, if He did not finish transgression and atone for
sin by His one death. “Once, at the end of the ages,” when the tale of
sin and woe has been all told, “hath He appeared,” which proves that He
has finally and for ever put away sin through His one sacrifice.[185]

The Apostle speaks as one who believed that the end of the world was at
hand. He even builds an argument on this to him assured fact of the near
future. True, the end of the world was not yet. But the argument is
equally valid in its essential bearing. For the important point is that
Christ appeared on earth only once. Whether His one death occurred at
the beginning of human history, or at the end, or at the end of one
period and the beginning of another, is immaterial.

Then follows a very original piece of reasoning, plainly intended to be
an additional proof that Christ’s dying once put away sin for ever. To
appear on earth often, and to die often, would have been impossible for
Him. He was true man, of woman born, not an apparition, not an angel
assuming the appearance of humanity, not the Son of God really and man
only seemingly. But it is appointed unto men once, and only once, to
die. After their one death comes, sooner or later, judgment. To return
to earth and make a new beginning, to retrieve the errors and failures
of a completed life, is not given to men. This is the Divine
appointment. Exception to the Apostle’s argument must not be taken from
the resurrection of Lazarus and others who were restored to life. The
Apostle speaks of God’s usual course of action. So understood, it is
difficult to conceive how any words can be more decisive against the
doctrine of probation after death. For, however long judgment may tarry,
our author acknowledges no possibility of changing any man’s state or
character between death and the final award. On this impossibility of
retrieving the past the force of the argument entirely depends. If
Christ, Who was true man, failed in His one life and one death, the
failure is irretrievable. He cannot come again to earth and try anew. To
Him, as to other men, it was appointed to die once only. In His case, as
in the case of others, judgment follows death,—judgment irreversible on
the things done in the body. To add emphasis to the notion of finality
in the work of Christ’s life on earth, the Apostle uses the passive
verb, “was offered.”[186] The offering, it is true, was made by Christ
Himself. But here the deed is more emphatic than the Doer: “He was
offered once for all.” The result of the offering is also emphasised:
“He was offered _so as_[187] to lift up sins, like a heavy burden, and
bear them away for ever.” Even the word “many” is not to be slurred
over. It too indicates that the work of Christ was final; for the sins
of _many_ have been put away.

What will be the judgment on Christ’s one redemptive death? Has it been
a failure? The answer is that His death and His coming into the judgment
have a closer relation to men than mere similarity. He entered into the
presence of God as a sin-offering. He will be proved, at His second
appearing, to have put away sin. For He will appear then apart from[188]
sin. God will pronounce that Christ’s blood has been accepted, and that
His work has been finished. His acquittal will be the acquittal of those
whose sins He bare in His body on the tree.

Nor will His appearing be now long delayed. It was already the end of
the ages when He first appeared. Therefore look out for Him with eager
expectancy[189] and upward gaze. For He will be once again actually
beheld by human eyes, and the vision will be unto salvation.

We must not fail to note that, when the Apostle speaks in this passage
of Christ’s being once offered, he refers to His death. The analogy
between men and Christ breaks down completely if the death of Christ was
not the offering for sin. Faustus Socinus revived the Nestorian doctrine
that our author represents the earthly life and death of Jesus as a
moral preparation for the priesthood which was conferred upon Him at His
ascension to the right hand of God. The bearing of this interpretation
of the Epistle on the Socinian doctrine generally is plain. A moral
preparation there undoubtedly was, as the Apostle has shown in the
second chapter. But if Christ was not Priest on earth, His death was not
an atoning sacrifice. If He was not Priest, He was not Victim. Moreover,
if He fills the office of Priest in heaven only, His priesthood cannot
involve suffering and, therefore, cannot be an atonement. But the view
is inconsistent with the Apostle’s express statement that, “as it is
appointed unto men once to die, so Christ was once offered.” Of course,
we cannot acquiesce in the opposite view that His death was Christ’s
only priestly act, and that His life in heaven is such a state of
exaltation as excludes the possibility of priestly service. For He is “a
Minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord
pitched, not man,”[190] The death of Christ was a distinct act of
priestly service. But it must not be separated from His entering into
heaven. Aaron received into his hands the blood of the newly slain
victim, and immediately carried the smoking blood into the holiest
place. The act of offering the blood before God was as necessary to
constitute the atonement as the previous act of slaying the animal.
Hence it is that the shedding and the sprinkling of the blood are spoken
of as one and the same action. Christ, in like manner, went into the
true holiest through His death. Any other way of entering heaven than
through a sacrificial death would have destroyed the priestly character
of His heavenly life. But His death would have been insufficient. He
must offer His blood and appear in the presence of God for us. To give
men access unto God was the ultimate purpose of redemption. He must,
therefore, consecrate through the veil of His flesh—a new and living
way by which we may come unto God through Him.

Must we, therefore, say that Christ entered the holiest place at His
death, not at His ascension? Does the Apostle refer only to the entrance
of the soul into the invisible world? The question is not an easy one.
If the Apostle means the Ascension, what doctrinal use does he make of
the interval between the Crucifixion and the Ascension? Many of the
fathers are evidently at a loss to know what to make of this interval.
They think the Divine person, as well as the human soul, of Christ was
conveyed to Hades to satisfy what they call the law of death. Does the
Epistle to the Hebrews pass over in silence the descent into Hades and
the resurrection? On the other hand, if our author means that Christ
entered the holiest place immediately at His death, we are met by the
difficulty that He leaves the holiest, to return finally at His
ascension, whereas the Apostle has argued that Christ differs from the
high-priests under the former covenant in that He does not enter
repeatedly. Much of the confusion has arisen from the tendency of
theologians, under the influence of Augustine, to construct their
systems exclusively on the lines of St. Paul. In his Epistles atonement
is a forensic conception. “Through one act of righteousness the free
gift came unto all men to the justification of life.”[191] Consequently
the death of Christ is contrasted with His present life. “For the death
that He died, He died unto sin once; but the life that He liveth, He
liveth unto God.”[192] But our author does not put his doctrine in a
Pauline framework. Instead of forensic notions, we meet with terms
pertaining to ritual and priesthood. What St. Paul speaks of as law is,
in his language, a covenant, and what is designated justification in the
Epistle to the Romans appears here as sanctification. Conscience is
purified; the worshipper is perfected. The entering of the high-priest
into the holiest place is as prominent as the slaying of the victim.
These are two distinct, but inseparable, parts of one priestly action.
All that lies between is ignored. It is as if it were not. Christ
entered into the holiest through His death and ascension to the right
hand of the Majesty. But the initial and the ultimate stages of the act
must not be put asunder. Nothing comes between. Our author elsewhere
speaks of Christ’s resurrection as a historical fact.[193] But His
resurrection does not form a distinct notion in the idea of His entrance
into the holiest place.

The Apostle has spoken of the former covenant with surprising severity,
not to say harshness. It was the law of a carnal commandment; it has
been set aside because of its weakness and unprofitableness; it has
grown old and waxed aged; it was nigh unto vanishing away. His austere
language will compare with St. Paul’s description of heathenism as a
bondage to weak and beggarly elements.

The root of all the mischief was unreality. Our author brings his
argument to a close by contrasting the shadow and the substance, the
unavailing sacrifices of the Law, which could only renew the remembrance
of sins, and the sacrifice of the Son, which has fulfilled the will of
God.

The Law had only a shadow.[194] He is careful not to say that the Law
was itself but a shadow. On the contrary, the very promise includes that
God will put His laws in the heart and write them upon the mind. This
was one of “the good things to come.” Endless repetition of sacrifice
after sacrifice year by year in a weary round of ceremonies only made it
more and more evident that men were walking in a vain show and
disquieting themselves in vain. The Law was holy, righteous, and good;
but the manifestation of its nature in sacrifices was unreal, like the
dark outline of an object that breaks the stream of light. Nothing more
substantial, as a revelation of God’s moral character; was befitting or
possible in that stage of human development, when the purposes of His
grace also not seldom found expression in dreams of the night and
apparitions of the day.

To prove the unreal nature of these ever-recurring sacrifices, the
writer argues that otherwise they would have ceased to be offered,
inasmuch as the worshippers, if they had been once really cleansed from
their guilt, would have had no more conscience of sins.[195] The
reasoning is very remarkable. It is not that God would have ceased to
require sacrifices, but that the worshipper would have ceased to offer
them. It implies that, when a sufficient atonement for sin has been
offered to God, the sinner knows it is sufficient, and, as the result,
has peace of conscience. The possibility of a pardoned sinner still
fearing and doubting does not seem to have occurred to the Apostle. One
difference apparently between the saints under the Old Testament and
believers under the New is the joyful assurance of pardon which the
latter receive, whereas the former were all their lifetime subject to
bondage from fear of death, and that although in the one case the
sacrifice was offered by the worshipper himself through the priest, but
in the latter case by Another, even Christ, on his behalf. And we must
not ask the Apostle such questions as these: Are we not in danger of
deceiving ourselves? How is the assurance created and kept alive? Does
it spring spontaneously in the heart, or is it the acceptance of the
authoritative absolution of God’s ministers? Such problems were not
thought of when the Epistle to the Hebrews was written. They belong to
a later and more subjective state of mind. To men who cannot leave off
introspection and forget themselves in the joy of a new faith, the
Apostle’s argument will have little force and perhaps less meaning.

If the sacrifices were unreal, why, we naturally inquire, were they
continually repeated? The answer is that there were two sides to the
sacrificial rites of the old covenant. On the one hand, they were, like
the heathen gods, “nothings;” on the other, their empty shadowiness
itself fitted them to be a Divinely appointed means to call sins to
remembrance. They represented on the one side the invincible, though
always baffled, effort of natural conscience. For conscience was
endeavouring to purify itself from a sense of guilt. But God also had a
purpose in awakening and disciplining conscience. The worshipper sought
to appease conscience through sacrifice, and God, by the same sacrifice,
proclaimed that reconciliation had not been effected. The Apostle’s
judgment on the subject[196] is not different from St. Paul’s answer to
the question, What then is the Law? “It was added because of
transgressions.... The Scripture hath shut up all things under sin....
We were kept in ward under the Law.... We were held in bondage under
the rudiments of the world.”[197] In allusion to this idea, that the
sacrifices were instituted by God in order to renew the remembrance of
sins every year, Christ said, “Do this in remembrance of _Me_,”—of Him
Who hath put away sins by the sacrifice of Himself.

Such then was the shadow, at once unreal and dark. In contrast to it,
the Apostle designates the substance as “the very image of the objects.”
Instead of repeating the indefinite expression “good things to come,” he
speaks of them as “objects,”[198] individually distinct, substantial,
true. The image[199] of a thing is the full manifestation of its inmost
essence, in the same sense in which St. Paul says that the Son of God’s
love, in Whom we have our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins, is
the image of the invisible God.[200] Indeed, it is extremely
questionable whether our author too does not refer allusively to the
same truth. For, in the verses that follow, he contrasts with the
sacrifices of the former covenant the coming of Jesus Christ into the
world to accomplish the work which they had failed to do.[201] When the
blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin, inasmuch as it was an
unreal atonement, God prepared a body for His own eternal Son. The Son
responded to the Divine summons and, in accordance with the prophecies
of Scripture concerning Him, came from heaven to earth to give Himself
as the sufficient sacrifice for sin. The contrast, as heretofore, is
between the vanity of animal sacrifices and the greatness of the Son,
Who offered Himself. His assumption of humanity had for its ultimate end
to enable the Son to do the will of God. The gracious purpose of God is
to forgive sin, and this was accomplished by the infinite humiliation of
the infinite Son. God’s will was to sanctify us; that is, to remove our
guilt.[202] We have actually been thus sanctified through the one
offering of the body of Jesus Christ. The sacrifices of the Law are
taken out of the way in order to establish the sacrifice of the
Son.[203]

It will be observed that the Apostle is not contrasting sacrifice and
obedience. His meaning is not precisely the same as the prophet
Samuel’s: that “to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than
the fat of rams.”[204] It is perfectly true that the sacrifice of the
Son involved obedience,—a conscious, deliberate, willing obedience,
which the beasts to be slain in sacrifice could not offer. The idea
pervades these verses, as an atmosphere. But it is not the idea
expressed. The dominant thoughts of the passage are the greatness of the
Person Who obeyed and the greatness of the sacrifice from which His
obedience did not shrink. The Son is here represented as existing and
acting apart from His human nature.[205] He comes into the world, and is
not originated in the world. The Christology of the Epistle to the
Hebrews is identical in this vital point with that of St. Paul. The
purpose of the Son’s coming is already formed. He comes to offer His
body, and we have been taught in a previous chapter that He did this
with an eternal spirit.[206] For the will of God means our
sanctification, in the meaning attached to the word “sanctification” in
this Epistle, the removal of guilt, the forgiveness of sins. But the
fulfilment of this gracious will of God demands a sacrifice, even a
sacrificial death, and that not the death of beasts, but the infinite
self-sacrifice and obedience unto death of the Son of God. This is
implied in the expression “the offering of the body of Jesus
Christ.”[207]


The superstructure of argument has been raised. Christ as High-priest
has been proved to be superior to the high-priests of the former
covenant. It remains only to lay the topstone in its place. This brings
us back to our starting point. Jesus Christ, the eternal High-priest, is
for ever King. For the priests under the Law stand while they perform
the duties of their ministry.[208] They stand because they are only
priests. But Christ has taken His seat, as King, on the right hand of
God.[209] They offer the same sacrifices, which can never take away
sins, and wait, and wait, but in vain. Though they are priests of the
true God, yet they wait, like the priests of Baal, from morning until
midday is past and until the time of the offering of the evening
sacrifice. But there is neither voice nor any to answer. Christ also
waits, but not to renew an ineffectual sacrifice. He waits eagerly[210]
to receive from God the reward of His effective sacrifice in the
subjugation of His enemies. The priests under the Law had no enemies.
Their persons were sacred. They incurred no hatred, inspired no love.
Our High-priest goes out to war, the most hated, the most loved, of all
captains of men.

The foundation of this kingly power is in two things: first, He has
perfected men for ever by His one offering; second, He has put the law
of God into the hearts of His people. The final conclusion is that the
sacrifices of the Law have passed away, because they are no longer
needed. “For where there is forgiveness, there is no more an offering
for sin.”


FOOTNOTES:

[142] κεφάλαιον (viii. 1).

[143] λειτουργός (viii. 2).

[144] Chap. viii. 3.

[145] Chap. viii. 4.

[146] Chap. viii. 5

[147] Chap. viii. 6.

[148] Jer. xxxi. 31–34.

[149] Lamentations, _Preface_.

[150] John vi. 45.

[151] αὐτούς (viii. 8).

[152] Chap. viii. 4.

[153] Rom. v. 20.

[154] Rom. iv. 7.

[155] Isa. xliii. 25.

[156] Chap. x. 2, 4.

[157] Chap. iii. 13.

[158] ἐχούσης στάσιν (ix. 8).

[159] ἔχουσα (ix. 4).

[160] δηλοῦντος (ix. 8).

[161] Reading γενομένων (ix. 11).

[162] Chap. ix. 11. Cf. chap. ix. 24.

[163] Rev. xxi. 3.

[164] τελειοτέρας (ix. 11).

[165] κοσμικόν (ix. 1).

[166] διά (ix. 11).

[167] Chap. iv. 14.

[168] Chap. vii. 26.

[169] Chap. x. 12.

[170] Chap. ix. 12.

[171] Chap. ix. 13.

[172] ἁγιάζει (ix. 13).

[173] 1 Cor. viii. 7.

[174] Chap. ix. 14.

[175] λατρεύειν (ix. 14).

[176] αἰωνίου (ix. 15).

[177] τετηρημένην ... φρουρουμένους (1 Pet. i. 4).

[178] διαθήκη.

[179] To forestall censure for inconsistency, the present writer may be
permitted to refer to what he now sees to have been a desperate attempt
on his part (in the _Expositor_) to explain the passage on the
supposition that the word διαθήκη means “covenant” throughout. He is
bound to admit that the attempt was a failure. If he lives to write
retractations, this will be one.

[180] αἱματεκχυσίας (ix. 22).

[181] Chap. viii. 5.

[182] ἀλλοτρίῳ (ix. 25).

[183] πάρεσιν (Rom. iii. 25), as contrasted with ἄφεσις.

[184] Chap. iv. 3.

[185] Chap. ix. 26.

[186] προσενεχθείς (ix. 28).

[187] εἰς.

[188] χωρὶς.

[189] ἀπεκδεχομένοις.

[190] Chap. viii. 2.

[191] Rom. v. 18.

[192] Rom. vi. 10.

[193] Chap. xiii. 20.

[194] Chap. x. 1.

[195] Chap. x. 2.

[196] Chap. x. 3.

[197] Gal. iii. 19–iv. 3.

[198] πραγμάτων (x. 1).

[199] εἰκόνα.

[200] Col. i. 14, 15.

[201] Chap. x. 5 sqq.

[202] Chap. x. 10.

[203] Chap. x. 9.

[204] 1 Sam. xv. 22.

[205] Chap. x. 7.

[206] Chap. ix. 14.

[207] Chap. x. 10.

[208] Chap. x. 11.

[209] Chap. x. 13.

[210] ἐκδεχόμενος (x. 13).




CHAPTER IX.

_AN ADVANCE IN THE EXHORTATION._


    “Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holy place
    by the blood of Jesus, by the way which He dedicated for us, a new
    and living way, through the veil, that is to say, His flesh; and
    having a great Priest over the house of God; let us draw near with a
    true heart in fulness of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an
    evil conscience, and our body washed with pure water: let us hold
    fast the confession of our hope that it waver not; for He is
    faithful that promised: and let us consider one another to provoke
    unto love and good works; not forsaking the assembling of ourselves
    together, as the custom of some is, but exhorting one another; and
    so much the more, as ye see the day drawing nigh. For if we sin
    wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth,
    there remaineth no more a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful
    expectation of judgment, and a fierceness of fire which shall devour
    the adversaries. A man that hath set at nought Moses’ law dieth
    without compassion on the word of two or three witnesses: of how
    much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who hath
    trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the
    covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath
    done despite unto the Spirit of grace? For we know Him that said,
    Vengeance belongeth unto Me. I will recompense. And again, The Lord
    shall judge His people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands
    of the living God. But call to remembrance the former days, in
    which, after ye were enlightened, ye endured a great conflict of
    sufferings; partly, being made a gazing-stock both by reproaches and
    afflictions; and partly, becoming partakers with them that were so
    used. For ye both had compassion on them that were in bonds, and
    took joyfully the spoiling of your possessions, knowing that ye
    yourselves have a better possession and an abiding one. Cast not
    away therefore your boldness, which hath great recompense of reward.
    For ye have need of patience, that, having done the will of God, ye
    may receive the promise.

        For yet a very little while,
        He that cometh shall come, and shall not tarry.
        But My righteous one shall live by faith:
        And if he shrink back, My soul hath no pleasure in him.

    But we are not of them that shrink back unto perdition; but of them
    that have faith unto the saving of the soul.”—HEB. x. 19–39 (R.V.).


The argument is closed. Christ is the eternal Priest and King, and every
rival priesthood or kingship must come to an end. This is the truth won
by the Apostle’s original and profound course of reasoning. But he has
in view practical results. He desires to confirm the Hebrew Christians
in their allegiance to Christ. We shall be better able to understand the
precise bearing of his exhortation if we compare it with the appeal
previously made to his readers in the earlier chapters of the
Epistle.[211] At the very outset he plunged into the midst of his
subject and proved that Jesus Christ is Son of God and representative
Man. The union in Christ of these two qualifications constituted Him a
great High-priest. He is able to succour the tempted; He is faithful as
a Son, Who is set over the house of God; He has experienced the bitter
humiliation of life, He is perfected as our Saviour, and has passed
through the heavens. The exhortation, based on these truths, is that we
must lay fast hold of our confidence.

Then come the big wave, the hesitation to face it, the allegory of
Melchizedek, the appeal to the prophet Jeremiah, the comparison between
the old covenant and the new. But the argument triumphs and advances.
Jesus not only is a great High-priest, but this is interpreted as
meaning that He is Priest and King, and that His priesthood and power
will never pass away. Their eternal duration involves the setting aside
of every other priesthood, the destruction of every opposing force.
Christ has entered into the true holiest place and enthroned Himself on
the mercy-seat.

This being so, the Apostle no longer urges his readers to be confident.
He now appeals to them as having confidence,[212] in virtue of the blood
of Jesus, so that they tarry not in the precincts, but enter themselves
into the holiest. The high-priest alone dared enter under the former
covenant, and he approached with fear and trembling, lest he also, like
others before him, should fall down dead in the presence of God. The
exhortation now is, not to confidence, but to sincerity.[213] Let their
confidence become more objective. They had the boasting of hope. Let
them seek the silent, unboasting assurance that is grounded on faith, on
the realisation of the invisible. Instead of believing because they
hoped, let them hope because they believed. In the earlier chapters the
exhortation rested mainly on what Jesus was as Son over God’s house.
Now, however, the Apostle speaks of Him as a _great_[214] Priest over
God’s house. His authority over the Church springs, not only from His
relation to God, but also from His relation to men. He is King of His
Church because He prays for it and blesses it. Through His priesthood
our hearts are cleansed by the sprinkling of His blood from the
consciousness of sin.[215] But this blessing of the individual believer
is now closely connected by the Apostle with the idea of the Church,
over which Christ is King in virtue of His priesthood on its behalf. In
addition to the cleansing of our hearts from an evil conscience, our
bodies have been washed with pure water. The Apostle alludes primarily
in both clauses to the rite of priestly consecration. “Moses brought
Aaron and his sons, and washed them with water.” He also “took of the
blood which was upon the altar and sprinkled it upon Aaron, and upon his
garments, and upon his sons, and upon his sons’ garments with him, and
sanctified Aaron, and his garments, and his sons, and his sons’
garments with him.”[216] The meaning of our author seems certainly to be
that the worshippers have the privilege of the high-priest himself. They
lose their priestly character only in the more excellent glory and
greatness of that High-priest through Whom they have received their
priesthood. In comparison with Him, they are but humble worshippers, and
He alone is Priest. In contrast to the world around them, they also are
priests of God. But the words of the Apostle contain another allusion.
Both clauses refer to baptism. The mention of washing the “body” renders
it, we think, unquestionable that baptism is meant. But baptism is not
here said to be the antitype of the priestly consecration of the old
covenant. One rite cannot be the type of another rite, which is itself
an external action. The solution of this apparent difficulty is simply
that _both_ clauses together mean baptism, which is invariably
represented in the New Testament as much more than an outward rite. The
external act may be performed without its being a true baptism. For the
meaning of baptism is the forgiveness of sin, the cleansing of the heart
or innermost consciousness from guilt, and the reception of the absolved
sinner into the Church of God. “Christ loved the Church, and gave
Himself up for it, that He might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the
washing of water with the word.”[217]

In an earlier chapter our author told his readers that they were the
house of God if they held fast their confidence. He does not repeat it.
The Church consciousness _has_ sprung up within them. They were
previously taught to look steadfastly at Jesus as the Apostle and
High-priest of their confession.[218] They are now urged to look as
steadfastly at one another as fellow-confessors of the same Apostle and
High-priest, and to sharpen one another’s love and activity even to the
point of jealousy.[219] In the earlier exhortation no mention was made
of the Church assemblies. Here prominence is given them. Importance is
attached to the words of encouragement addressed at these gatherings of
believers. Christian habits were at this time forming and consolidating
into customs of the Church. Occasional and eccentric manifestations of
the religious life and temperament were yielding to the slow, normal
growth of true vitality. As faithfulness in frequenting the Church
assemblies began to rank among the foremost virtues, unfaithfulness
would, by force of contrast, harden into habitual neglect of the house
of prayer: “As the custom of some is.”[220]

The chief of all reasons for exhorting the readers to habitual
attendance on the Church assemblies the writer of the Epistle finds in
the expectation of the Lord’s speedy return. They could see for
themselves that the day was at hand. The signs of the Son of man’s
coming were multiplying and thrusting themselves on the notice of the
Church. Perhaps the voice of Joshua, the son of Hanan, had already been
heard in the streets, exclaiming, “Woe to Jerusalem!” The holy city was
plainly doomed. But Christ will come to His Church, not to individuals.
He will not be found in the wilderness, nor in the inner chambers. “As
the lightning cometh forth from the east, and is seen even unto the
west, so shall be the coming of the Son of man.”[221]

The day of Christ is a day of judgment. The two meanings of the word
“day,”—day in contrast to night, and day as a fixed time for the
transaction of public business,—coalesce in the New Testament usage.
The second idea seems to have gradually superseded the former.

The author proceeds to unfold the dreadful character of this day of
judgment. Here, again, the precise force of his declarations will best
appear by comparison with the warnings of the first part of the Epistle
in reference to the sin and to the punishment.

_First_, the sin referred to here has a wider range than the
transgression spoken of in the second chapter. For there he mentions the
special sin of neglecting so great salvation. But in the present passage
his words seem to imply that rejection of Christ has given birth to a
progeny of evil through the self-abandonment of those who wilfully
persist in sinning, as if from reckless bravado.[222] The special guilt,
too, of rejecting Christ is here painted in darker hues. For in the
earlier passage it is indifference; here it is contempt. In the former
case it is ingratitude to a merciful Saviour; in the latter it is
treason against the majesty of God’s own Son. “To trample under foot”
means to desecrate. Christ is the holy High-priest of God, and is now
ministering in the true holiest place. Therefore to choose Judaism, with
its dead rites, and to reject the living Christ, is no longer the action
of a holy zeal for God’s house. Quite the reverse. The sanctuary of
Judaism has been shorn of its glory, and its sacredness transferred to
the despised Nazarene. To tread under foot the Son of God is to trample
with revel rout on the hallowed floor of the holiest place. Further, the
Apostle’s former warnings contained no allusion to the covenant. Now he
reminds his readers that they have been sanctified—that is, cleansed
from guilt—through the blood of the covenant. Is the cleansing blood
itself unclean? Shall we deem the reeking gore of a slain beast or the
grey ashes of a burnt heifer holy, and consider the blood of the Christ,
Who with an eternal spirit offered Himself without spot to God, unholy
and defiling?[223] Moreover, that eternal spirit in the Son of God is a
spirit of grace[224] towards men. But His infinite compassion is
spurned. And thus the Apostle brings us once more[225] in sight of the
hopeless character of cynicism.

_Second_, the punishment is partly negative. A sacrifice for sins is no
more left to men who have spurned the sacrifice of the Son.[226] Here
again we notice an advance in the thought. The Apostle told his readers
before that it is impossible to renew to repentance those who crucify
afresh the Son of God and put Him to an open shame. But the
impossibility consists in hardness of heart and spiritual blindness. The
result also is subjective,—they cannot repent. He now adds the
impossibility of finding another propitiation than the offering of
Christ or of finding in His offering a different kind of propitiation,
seeing that He is the final revelation of God’s forgiving grace. Then,
further, the punishment has a positive side. After hardness of heart
comes stinging remorse, arising from a vague, but on that account all
the more fearful, expectation of the judgment. The abject terror is
amply justified. For the fury[227] of a fire, already kindling around
the doomed city, warns the Hebrew backsliders that the Christ so
wilfully scoffed at is at the door. Observe the contrast. The law of
Moses is on occasion set aside. The matter is almost private. Only two
or three persons witnessed it.[228] Its evil influence did not spread,
and when the criminal was led out to be stoned to death, they who passed
by went their way unheeding. The Christ of God is put to an open
shame;[229] the covenant, for ever established on the sure foundation of
God’s oath and Christ’s death, and the spirit of all grace that filled
the heart of Christ are mocked. Of how much sorer punishment shall
Christ at His speedy coming deem the scorner worthy? The answer is left
by the Apostle to his readers. They knew with Whom they had to do.[230]
It was not with angels, the swift messengers and flaming ministers of
His power. It was not with Moses, who himself exceedingly feared and
quaked.[231] It was not with the blind pressure of fate. They had to do
with the living God Himself directly. He will lay upon them His living
hand,—the hand that might and, if they had not spurned it, would have
protected and saved. Retribution descends swift and resistless. It can
only be likened to a sudden falling into the very hands of a waiting
avenger.[232] He will not entrust the work of vengeance to another. No
extraneous agent shall come between the smiting hand and the heart that
burns with the anger of the sincere against the false, of the
compassionate against the pitiless. Does not Scripture teach that the
Lord will execute judgment on behalf of His people?[233] If on behalf of
His people, will He not enter into judgment for His Son?

From the terrible expectation of future judgment the Apostle turns away,
to recall to his readers the grounds of hope supplied by their
steadfastness in the past. He has already spoken of their work and the
love which they had shown in ministering to the saints.[234] God’s
justice would not forget their brotherly kindness. Now, however, His
purpose in bidding them remember the former days is something different.
He writes to convince them that they needed no other and greater
confidence to face the future than had carried them triumphantly through
conflicts in days of yore. They had endured sufferings; let them conquer
their own indifference and put away their cynicism with the lofty
disdain of earnest faith. The courage that could do the former can also
do the latter.

From the first break of day in their souls[235] they had felt the
confidence of men who walk, not in darkness, not knowing whither they go
and fearing to take another step, but in the light, so that they trod
firmly and stepped boldly onward. Their confidence was based on
conviction and understanding of truth. For that reason it inspired them
with the courage of athletes,[236] when they had to endure also the
shame of the arena. Made a gazing-stock to a scoffing theatre, they had
not turned pale at the roar of the wild beasts. Instead of tamely
submitting, they had turned their sufferings into a veritable contest
against the world, and maintained the conflict long.[237] Taunted by the
spectators, torn by the lions, reproaches and afflictions alike had been
ineffectual to break their spirit. When they witnessed the prolonged
tortures of their brethren whose Christian life was one martyrdom,[238]
they had not shrunk from the like usage. They had pitied the brethren in
prisons and visited them. They had taken joyfully the spoiling of their
substance, knowing that now they had themselves,[239] as a better and an
abiding possession. If they had lost the world, they had gained for
themselves their souls.[240] As true athletes, therefore, let them not
throw away[241] their sword, which is no other than their old, undaunted
confidence. There was none like that sword. Their victory was assured.
Their reward would be, not the plaudits of the fickle onlookers, but the
fulfilment of God’s promise to Abraham. They had need of endurance,
because in enduring they were doing the will of God. But the Deliverer
would be with them in a twinkling.[242] He had delayed His chariot
wheels, but He would delay no more. Hear ye not His voice? It is He that
speaks in the words of the prophet, “Those whom I deny will perish out
of the way. But I have My righteous ones[243] here and there, unseen by
the world, and out of their faith will be wrought for them eternal life.
But let even Mine own beware of lowering sail. My soul will have no
delight even in him if he draws back.”

The Apostle reflects on the words of Christ in the prophecy of Habakkuk.
But he has an assured hope that he and his readers would repudiate the
thought of drawing back. They were men of faith, bent on winning[244]
the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus; and the prize
would be their own souls. May we not conjecture that the Apostle’s
fervid appeal prevailed with the Christians within the doomed city “to
break the last bands of patriotism and superstition which attached them
to the Temple and the altar, and proclaim themselves missionaries of the
new faith, without a backward glance of lingering reminiscence”?[245]


FOOTNOTES:

[211] Chaps. ii. 1-5; iii. 1, 6; iv. 11, 16; vi.

[212] Chap. x. 19.

[213] μετὰ ἀληθινῆς καρδίας (x. 22).

[214] μέγαν (x. 21).

[215] ἀπὸ συνειδήσεως πονηρᾶς (x. 22).

[216] Lev. viii. 6, 30.

[217] Eph. v. 26.

[218] Chap. iii. 1.

[219] εἰς παροξυσμόν (x. 24).

[220] ἔθος (x. 25).

[221] Matt. xxiv. 27.

[222] ἑκουσίως (x. 26).

[223] Chap. x. 29.

[224] πνεῦμα τῆς χάριτος.

[225] See chap. vi. 6.

[226] Chap. x. 26.

[227] ζῆλος (x. 27).

[228] Chap. x. 28.

[229] παραδειγματίζοντας (vi. 6).

[230] Chap. iii. 12.

[231] Chap. xii. 21.

[232] ἐμπεσεῖν.

[233] Deut. xxxii. 36.

[234] Chap. vi. 10.

[235] φωτισθέντες (x. 32).

[236] ἄθλησιν.

[237] πολλήν.

[238] οὕτως ἀναστρεφομένων (x. 33).

[239] Reading ἑαυτούς (x. 34).

[240] εἰς περιποίησιν (x. 39).

[241] μὴ ἀποβάλητε.

[242] μικρὸν ὅσον ὅσον (x. 37).

[243] Reading μου (x. 38).

[244] περιποίησιν (x. 39).

[245] Dean Merivale, _Romans under the Empire_, chap. lix.




CHAPTER X.

_FAITH AN ASSURANCE AND A PROOF._


    “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the proving of
    things not seen. For therein the elders had witness borne to them.
    By faith we understand that the worlds have been framed by the word
    of God, so that what is seen hath not been made out of things which
    do appear.”—HEB. xi. 1–3 (R.V.).


It is often said that one of the greatest difficulties in the Epistle to
the Hebrews is to discover any real connection of ideas between the
author’s general purpose in the previous discussion and the splendid
record of faith in the eleventh chapter. The rhetorical connection is
easy to trace. His utterances throughout have been incentives to
confidence. “Let us hold fast our confession.” “Let us draw near with
boldness unto the throne of grace.” “Show diligence unto the full
assurance of hope.” “Cast not away your boldness.” Any of these
exhortations would sufficiently describe the Apostle’s practical aim
from the beginning of the Epistle. But he has just cited the words of
Habakkuk, and the prophet speaks of faith. How, then, does the prophet’s
declaration that the righteous man of God will escape death by his faith
bear on the Apostle’s arguments or help his strong appeals? The first
verse of the eleventh chapter is the reply. Faith _is_ assurance, with
emphasis on the verb.

But this is only a rhetorical connection, or at best a justification of
the use the author has made of the prophet’s words. Indeed, he has
already in several places identified confidence with faith, and the
opposite of confidence with unbelief. “Take heed lest there be in any
one of you an evil heart of unbelief; ... for we are become partakers of
Christ if we hold fast the beginning of our confidence firm unto the
end.”[246] “They could not enter in because of unbelief; ... let us
therefore give diligence to enter into that rest, that no man fall after
the same example of disobedience.”[247] “Be not sluggish, but imitators
of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.”[248]
“Having therefore boldness to enter into the holy place, ... let us draw
near with a true heart in fulness of faith.”[249]

Why, therefore, does the author formally state that faith is confidence?
The difficulty is a real one. We must suppose that, when this Epistle
was written, the word “faith” was already a well-known and almost
technical term among Christians. We infer as much as this also from St.
James’s careful and stringent correction of abuses in the application of
the word. It is unnecessary to say who was the first to perceive the
vital importance of faith in the life and theology of Christianity. But
in the preaching of St. Paul faith is trust in a personal Saviour, and
trust is the condition and instrument of salvation. Faith, thus
represented, is the opposite of works. Such a doctrine was liable to
abuse, and has been abused to the utter subversion of morality on the
one hand and to the extinction of all unselfish greatness of soul on the
other. Not, most certainly, that St. Paul himself was one-sided in
teaching or in character. To him Christ is a heavenly ideal: “The Lord
is the Spirit;” and to him the believer is the spiritual man, who has
the moral intellect of Christ.[250] But it must be confessed—and the
history of the Church abundantly proves the truth of the statement—that
the good news of eternal salvation on the sole condition of trust in
Christ is one of the easiest of all true doctrines to be fatally abused.
The Epistle of St. James and the Epistle to the Hebrews seem to have
been written to meet this danger. The former represents faith as the
inner life of the spirit, the fountain of all active goodness. “Faith,
if it have not works, is dead in itself. Yea, a man will say, Thou hast
faith, and I have works; show me thy faith apart from thy works, and I
by my works will show thee my faith.”[251] St. James contends against
the earliest phases of Antinomianism. He reconciles faith and morality,
and maintains that the highest morality springs out of faith. The writer
of the Epistle to the Hebrews contends against legalism,—the proud,
self-satisfied, indifferent, hard, slothful, contemptuous, cynical
spirit, which is quite as truly and as often an abuse of the doctrine of
salvation through faith. It is the terrible plague of those Churches
which have never risen above individualism. When men are told that the
whole of religion consists in securing the soul’s eternal safety, and
that this salvation is made sure once for all by a moment’s trust in
Christ, their after-life will harden into a worldliness, not gross and
sensual, but pitiless and deadening. They will put on the garb of
religious decorum; but the inner life will be eaten by the canker of
covetousness and self-righteous pride. These are the men described in
the sixth chapter of our Epistle, who have, after a fashion, repented
and believed, but whose religion has no recuperative power, let alone
the growth and richness of deep vitality.

Our author addresses men whose spiritual life was thus imperilled. Their
condition is not that of the heathen world in its agony of despair. He
does not call his readers, in the words of St. Paul to the jailer at
Philippi, to trust themselves into the hands of the Lord Jesus Christ,
that they may be saved. Yet he too insists on faith. He is anxious to
show them that he is not preaching another gospel, but unfolding the
meaning of the same conception of faith, which is the central principle
of the Gospel revealed at the first by Christ to their fathers, and
applied to the wants of the heathen by the Apostle of the Gentiles.

If so, it goes without saying that the writer does not intend to give a
scholastic definition of faith. The New Testament is not the book in
which to seek formal definitions. For his present purpose we require
only to know that, whatever else faith includes, confidence in reference
to the objects of our hope must find a place in it. Faith bridges over
the chasm between hope and the things hoped for. It saves us from
building castles in the air or living in a fool’s paradise. The phantoms
of worldliness and the phantoms of religion (for they too exist) will
not deceive us. In the course of his discussion in the Epistle the
author has used three different words to set forth various sides of the
same feeling of confidence. One refers to the freedom and boldness with
which the confidence felt manifests its presence in words and
action.[252] Another signifies the fulness of conviction with which the
mind when confident is saturated.[253] The third word, which we have in
the present passage, describes confidence as a reality, resting on an
unshaken foundation, and contrasted with illusions.[254] He has urged
Christians to boldness of action and fulness of conviction. Now he adds
that faith is that boldness and that wealth of certitude in so far as
they rest upon reality and truth.

We can now in some measure estimate the value of the Apostle’s
description of faith as an assurance concerning things hoped for, and
apply it to give force to the exhortations of the Epistle. The evil
heart of unbelief is the moral corruption of the man whose soul is
steeped in sensual imaginations and never realises the things of the
Spirit. They who came out of Egypt by Moses could not enter into rest
because they did not descry, beyond the earthly Canaan, the rest of the
spirit in God. Others inherit the promises, because on earth they lifted
their hearts to the heavenly country. In short, the Apostle now tells
his readers that the true source of Christian constancy and boldness is
the realisation of the unseen world.

But faith is this assurance concerning things hoped for because it is a
proof[255] of their existence, and of the existence of the unseen
generally. The latter part of the verse is the broad foundation on which
faith rests in all the rich variety of its meanings and practical
applications. Here St. Paul, St. James, and the writer of the Epistle to
the Hebrews meet in the unity of their conception. Whether men trust
unto salvation, or develop their inner spiritual life, or enter into
communion with God and lift the weapon of unflinching boldness in the
Christian warfare, trust, character, confidence, all three derive their
being and vitality from faith, as it demonstrates the existence of the
unseen.

The Apostle’s language is a seeming contradiction. Proof is usually
supposed to dispense with faith and compel us to accept the inference
drawn. He intentionally describes faith as occupying in reference to
spiritual realities the place of demonstration. Faith in the unseen is
itself a proof that the unseen world exists. It is so in two ways.

_First_, we trust our own moral instincts. Malebranche observes that our
passions justify themselves. How much more is this true of intellect and
conscience! In like manner, some men have firm confidence in a world of
spiritual realities, which eye has not seen. This confidence is itself a
proof to them. How do I know that I know? It is a philosopher’s enigma.
For us it may be sufficient to say that to know and to know that we know
are one and the same act. How do we justify our faith in the unseen? The
answer is similar. It is the same thing to trust and to trust our trust.
Scepticism wins a cheap victory when it arraigns faith as a culprit
caught in the very act of stealing the forbidden fruit of paradise. But
when, like a guilty thing, faith blushes for its want of logic, its
only refuge is to look in the face of the unseen Father. He who has most
faith in his own spiritual instincts will have the strongest faith in
God. To trust God is to trust ourselves. To doubt ourselves is to doubt
God. We must add that there is a sense in which trust in God means
distrust of self.

_Second_, faith fastens directly on God Himself. We believe in God
because we impose implicit confidence in our own moral nature. With
equal truth we may also say that we believe all else because we believe
in God. Faith in God Himself immediately and personally is the proof
that the promises are true, that our life on earth is linked to a life
above, that patient well-doing will have its reward, that no good deed
can be in vain, and ten thousand other thoughts and hopes that sustain
the drooping spirit in hours of conflict. It may well happen that some
of these truths are legitimate inferences from premises, or it may be
that a calculation of probabilities is in favour of their truth. But
faith trusts itself upon them because they are worthy of God. Sometimes
the silence of God is enough, if an aspiration of the soul is felt to be
such that it became Him to implant it and will be glorious in Him to
reward the heaven-sent desire.

An instance of faith as a proof of the unseen is given by our author in
the third verse. We may paraphrase it thus: “By faith we know that the
ages have been constructed by the word of God, and that even to this
point of assurance: that the visible universe as a whole came not into
being out of things that do appear.”

The author began in the previous verse to unroll his magnificent record
of the elders. But from the beginning men found themselves in the
presence of a mystery of the past before they received any promise as to
the future. It is the mystery of creation. It has pressed heavily on men
in all ages. The Apostle himself has felt its power, and speaks of it as
a question which his readers and himself have faced. How do we know that
the development of the ages had a beginning? If it had a beginning, how
did it begin? The Apostle replies that we know it by faith. The
revelation which we have received from God addresses itself to our moral
perception and our confidence in God’s moral nature. We have been taught
that “in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,” and that
“God said, Let there be light.”[256] Faith demands this revelation. Is
faith trust? That trust in God is our proof that the framework of the
world was put together by His creative wisdom and power. Is faith the
inner life of righteousness? Morality requires that our own
consciousness of personality and freedom should be derived from a Divine
personality as the Originator of all things. Is faith communion with
God? Those who pray know that prayer is an absolute necessity of their
spiritual nature, and prayer lifts its voice to a living Father. Faith
demonstrates to him who has it, though not to others, that the universe
has come to its present form, not by an eternal evolution of matter, but
by the action of God’s creative energy.

The somewhat peculiar form of the clause seems certainly to suggest that
the Apostle ascribes the origin of the universe, not only to a personal
Creator, but to that personal Creator acting through the ideas of His
own mind. “The visible came into being, not out of things that appear.”
We catch ourselves waiting till he finishes the sentence with the words,
“but out of things that do not appear.” Most expositors fight shy of the
inference and explain it away by alleging that the negative has been
misplaced.[257] But is it not true that the universe is the
manifestation of thought in the unity of the Divine purpose? This is the
very notion required to complete the Apostle’s statement concerning
faith as a proof. If faith demonstrates, it acts on principles. If God
is personal, those principles are ideas, thoughts, purposes, of the
Divine mind.

So long, therefore, as our spiritual nature can trust, can unfold a
morality, can pray, the simple soul need not much bewail its want of
logic and its loss of arguments. If the famous ontological argument for
the being of God has been refuted, we shall not, on that account,
tremble for the ark. We shall not lament though the argument from the
watch has proved treacherous. Our God is not a mere infinite
mechanician. Indeed, such a phrase is a contradiction in terms. A
mechanician must be finite. He contrives, and as the result produces,
not what is absolutely best, but what is the best possible under the
circumstances and with the materials at his disposal. But if we have
lost the mechanician, we have not lost the God that thinks. We have
gained the perfectly righteous and perfectly good. His thoughts have
manifested themselves in nature, in human freedom, in the incarnation of
His Son, in the redemption of sinners. But the intellect that knows
these things is the good heart of faith.


FOOTNOTES:

[246] Chap. iii. 12.

[247] Chaps. iii. 19; iv. 11.

[248] Chap. vi. 12.

[249] Chap. x. 19.

[250] 2 Cor. iii. 17; 1 Cor. ii. 16.

[251] James ii. 17, 18.

[252] παρρησία.

[253] πληροφορία.

[254] ὑπόστασις.

[255] ἔλεγχος.

[256] Gen. i. 1, 3.

[257] As if μὴ ἐκ φαινομένων were for ἐκ μὴ φαινομένων.




CHAPTER XI.

_THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM._


    “By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed to go out unto a place
    which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not
    knowing whither he went. By faith he became a sojourner in the land
    of promise, as in a land not his own, dwelling in tents, with Isaac
    and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: for he looked for
    the city which hath the foundations, whose Builder and Maker is God.
    By faith even Sarah herself received power to conceive seed when she
    was past age, since she counted Him faithful Who had promised:
    wherefore also there sprang of one, and him as good as dead, so many
    as the stars of heaven in multitude, and as the sand, which is by
    the sea-shore, innumerable. These all died in faith, not having
    received the promises, but having seen them and greeted them from
    afar, and having confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on
    the earth. For they that say such things make it manifest that they
    are seeking after a country of their own. And if indeed they had
    been mindful of that country from which they went out, they would
    have had opportunity to return. But now they desire a better
    country, that is, a heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed of them,
    to be called their God: for He hath prepared for them a city. By
    faith Abraham, being tried, offered up Isaac: yea, he that had
    gladly received the promises was offering up his only-begotten son;
    even he to whom it was said, In Isaac shall thy seed be called:
    accounting that God is able to raise up, even from the dead; from
    whence he did also in a parable receive him back.”—HEB. xi. 8–19
    (R.V.).


We have learned that faith is the proof of the unseen. We must not
exclude even from this clause the other thought that faith is an
assurance of things hoped for. It is not stated, but it is implied. The
conception of a personal God requires only to be unfolded in order to
yield a rich harvest of hope. The author proceeds to show that by faith
the elders had witness borne to them in God’s confession of them and
great rewards. He recounts the achievements of a long line of believers,
who as they went handed the light from one to another. In them is the
true unity of religion and revelation from the beginning. For the poor
order of high-priests the writer substitutes the glorious succession of
faith.

We choose for the subject of this chapter the faith of Abraham. But we
shall not dismiss in silence the faith of Abel, Enoch, and Noah. The
paragraph in which Abraham’s deeds are recorded will most naturally
divide itself into three comparisons between their faith and his. We
venture to think that this was in the writer’s mind and determined the
form of the passage. From the eighth to the tenth verse the Apostle
compares Abraham’s faith with that of Noah; after a short episode
concerning Sarah, he compares Abraham’s faith with Enoch’s, from the
thirteenth verse to the sixteenth; then, down to the nineteenth verse,
he compares Abraham’s faith with that of Abel. Noah’s faith appeared in
an act of obedience, Enoch’s in a life of fellowship with God, Abel’s in
his more excellent sacrifice. Abraham’s faith manifested itself in all
these ways. When he was called, he obeyed; when a sojourner, he desired
a better country, that is, a heavenly, and God was not ashamed to be
called his God; being tried, he offered up Isaac.

Two points of surpassing worth in his faith suggest themselves. The one
is largeness and variety of experience; the other is conquest over
difficulties. These are the constituents of a great saint. Many a good
man will not become a strong spiritual character because his experience
of life is too narrow. Others, whose range is wide, fail to reach the
higher altitudes of saintliness because they have never been called to
pass through sore trials, or, if they have heard the summons, have
shrunk from the hardships. Before Abraham faith was both limited in its
experience and untested with heaven-sent difficulties. Abraham’s
religion was complex. His faith was “a perfect cube,” and, presenting a
face to every wind that blows, came victorious out of every trial.

Let us trace the comparisons.

_First_, Noah obeyed a Divine command when he built an ark to the saving
of his house. He obeyed by faith. His eyes saw the invisible, and the
vision kindled his hopes of being saved through the very waters that
would destroy every living substance. But this was all. His faith acted
only in one direction: he hoped to be saved. The Apostle Peter[258]
compares his faith to the initial grace of those who seek baptism, and
have only crossed the threshold of the spiritual life. It is true that
he overcame one class of difficulties. He was not in bondage to the
things of sense. He made provision for a future belied by present
appearances. But the influence of the senses is not the greatest
difficulty of the human spirit. As the lonely ship rode on the heaving
waste of waters, all within was gladness and peace. No heaven-sent
temptations tried the patriarch’s faith, He overcame the trials that
spring out of the earth; but he knew not the anguish that rends the
spirit like a lightning-stroke descending from God.

With Abraham it was otherwise. “He went out, not knowing whither he
went.”[259] He leaves his father’s house and his father’s gods. He
breaks for ever with the past, even before the future has been revealed
to him. The thoughts and feelings that had grown up with him from
childhood are once for all put away. He has no sheltering ark to receive
him. A homeless wanderer, he pitches his tent to-day at the well, not
knowing where his invisible guide may bid him stretch the cords on the
morrow. His departure from Ur of the Chaldees was a family migration.
But the writer of this Epistle, like Philo, describes it as the man’s
own personal obedience to a Divine call. Submitting to God’s will,
possessed with the inspiration and courage of faith, obeying daily new
intimations, he bends his steps this way or that, not knowing whither he
goes. True, he went right into the heart of the land of promise. But,
even in his own heritage, he became a sojourner, as in a land not his
own.[260] God “gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to
set his foot on.”[261] Possessor of all in promise, he purchased a
sepulchre, which was the first ground he could call his own. The cave of
Machpelah was the small beginning of the fulfilment of God’s promise,
which the spirit of Abraham is even now receiving in a higher form. It
is still the same. The bright dawn of heaven often breaks upon the soul
at an open grave. But he journeyed on, and trusted. For a time he and
Sarah only; afterwards Isaac with them; at last, when Sarah had been
laid to rest, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the three together, held on
bravely, sojourning with aching hearts, but ever believing. The Apostle
brings in the names of Isaac and Jacob, not to describe their
faith—this he will do subsequently,—but to show the tenacity and
patience of “the friend of God.”

His faith, thus sorely tried by God’s long delay, is rewarded, not with
an external fulfilment of the promise, but with larger hopes, wider
range of vision, greater strength to endure, more vivid realisation of
the unseen. “He looked for the city which hath the foundations, whose
Architect and Maker is God.”[262] In the promise not a word is said
about a city. Apparently he was still to be a nomad chief of a large and
wealthy tribe. When God deferred again and again the fulfilment of His
promise to give him “this land,” His trusting servant bethought him what
the delay could mean. This was his hill of difficulty, where the two
ways part. The worldly wisdom of unbelief would argue from God’s
tardiness that the reality, when it comes, will fall far short of the
promise. Faith, with higher wisdom, makes sure that the delay has a
purpose. God intends to give more and better things than He promised,
and is making room in the believer’s heart for the greater blessings.
Abraham cast about to imagine the better things. He invented a blessing,
and, so to speak, inserted it for himself in the promise.

This new blessing has an earthly and a heavenly meaning. On its earthly
side it represents the transition from a nomadic life to a fixed abode.
Faith bridged the gulf that separates a wandering horde from the
cultured greatness of civilization. The future grandeur of Zion was
already held in the grasp of Abraham’s faith. But the invented blessing
had also a heavenly side. The more correct rendering of the Apostle’s
words in the Revised Version expresses this higher thought: “He looked
for the city which hath the foundations”—_the_ city; for, after all,
there is but one that hath the eternal foundations. It is the holy
city,[263] the heavenly Jerusalem, seen by the faith of Abraham in the
early morning of revelation, seen again in vision by the Apostle John at
its close. The expression cannot mean anything that comes short of the
Apostle’s description of faith as the assurance of things hoped for in
the unseen world. Abraham realised heaven as an eternal city, in which
after death he would be gathered to his fathers. A sublime
conception!—eternity not the dwelling-place of the solitary spirit, the
joy of heaven consisting in personal fellowship for ever with the good
of every age and clime. There the past streams into the present, not, as
here, the present into the past. All are contemporaries there, and death
is no more. Whatever makes civilization powerful or beautiful on
earth—laws, arts, culture—all is there etherealised and endowed with
immortality. Such a city has God only for its Architect,[264] God only
for its Builder.[265] He Who conceived the plan can alone execute the
design and realise the idea.

Of this sort was Abraham’s obedience. He continued to endure in the face
of God’s delay to fulfil the promise. His reward consisted, not in an
earthly inheritance, not in mere salvation, but in larger hopes and in
the power of a spiritual imagination.

_Second_, Abraham’s faith is compared with Enoch’s, whose story is most
sweetly simple. He is the man who has never doubted, across whose placid
face no dark shadow of unbelief ever sweeps. A virgin soul, he walks
with God in a time when the wickedness of man is great in the earth and
the imagination of the thoughts of his heart is only evil continually,
as Adam walked with God in the cool of the evening before sin had
brought the hot fever of shame to his cheek. He walks with God, as a
child with his father; “and God takes him” into His arms. Enoch’s
removal was not like the entrance of Elijah into heaven: a victorious
conqueror returning into the city in his triumphal car. It was the quiet
passing away, without observation, of a spirit of heaven that had
sojourned for a time on earth. Men sought him, because they felt the
loss of his presence among them. But they knew that God had taken him.
They inferred his story from his character. In Enoch we have an instance
of faith as the faculty of realising the unseen, but not as a power to
conquer difficulties.

Compare this faith with Abraham’s. “These,”—Abraham, Isaac,
Jacob,—“all _died_ in faith,” or, as we may render the word, “according
to faith,”—according to the faith which they had exhibited in their
life. Their death was after the same pattern of faith. Enoch’s
contemplative life came to a fitting end in a deathless translation to
higher fellowship with God. His way of leaving life became him.
Abraham’s repeated conflicts and victories closed with quite as much
becomingness in a last trial of his faith, when he was called to die
without having received the fulfilment of the promises. But he had
already seen the heavenly city and greeted it from afar.[266] He saw the
promises, as the traveller beholds the gleaming mirage of the desert.
The illusiveness of life is the theme of moralists when they preach
resignation. It is faith only that can transform the illusions
themselves into an incentive to high and holy aspirations. All profound
religion is full of seeming illusions. Christ beckons us onward. When we
climb this steep, His voice is heard calling to us from a higher peak.
That height gained reveals a soaring mass piercing the clouds, and the
voice is heard above still summoning us to fresh effort. The climber
falls exhausted on the mountain-side and lays him down to die. Ever as
Abraham attempted to seize the promise, it eluded his grasp. The
Tantalus of heathen mythology was in Tartarus, but the Tantalus of the
Bible is the man of faith, who believes the more for every failure to
attain.

Such men “declare plainly that they seek a country of their own.”[267]
Let not the full force of the words escape us. The Apostle does not mean
that they seek to emigrate to a new country. He has just said that they
confess themselves to be “strangers and pilgrims on the earth.” They are
“pilgrims,” because they are journeying through on their way to another
country; they are “strangers,” because they have come hither from
another land.[268] His meaning is that they long to return home. That
he means this is evident from his thinking it necessary to guard himself
against the possibility of being understood to refer to Ur of the
Chaldees. They were not mindful of the earthly home, the cradle of their
race, which they had left for ever. Not once did they cast a wistful
look back, like Lot’s wife and the Israelites in the wilderness. Yet
they yearned for their fatherland.[269] Plato imagined that all our
knowledge is a reminiscence of what we learned in a previous state of
existence; and Wordsworth’s exquisite lines, which cannot lose their
sweet fragrance however often they are repeated, are a reflection of the
same visionary gleam,—

    “Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting:
    The soul that rises with us, our life’s star.
          Hath had elsewhere its setting,
              And cometh from afar;
          Not in entire forgetfulness,
          And not in utter nakedness,
    But trailing clouds of glory, do we come
              From God, Who is our home.”

Our author too suggests it; and it is true. We need not maintain it as
an external fact in the history of the soul, according to the old
doctrine, resuscitated in our own times, of Traducianism. The Apostle
represents it rather as a feeling. There is a Christian consciousness of
heaven, as if the soul had been there and longed to return. And if it
is a glorious attainment of faith to regard heaven as a city, more
consoling still is the hope of returning there, storm-tossed and
weather-beaten, as to a home, to look up to God as to a Father, and to
love all angels and saints as brethren in the household of God, over
which Christ is set as a Son. Such a hope renders feeble, sinful men not
altogether unworthy of God’s Fatherhood. For He is not ashamed to be
called their God, and Jesus Christ is not ashamed to call them
brethren.[270] The proof is, that God has prepared for them a settled
abode in the eternal city.

_Third_, the faith of Abraham is compared with the faith of Abel. In the
case of Abel faith is more than a realisation of the unseen. For Cain
also believed in the existence of an invisible Power, and offered
sacrifice. We are expressly told in the narrative[271] that “Cain
brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord.” Yet he
was a wicked man. The Apostle John says[272] that “Cain was of the Evil
One.” He had the faith which St. James ascribes to the demons, who
“believe there is one God, and shudder.”[273] He was possessed with the
same hatred, and had also the same faith. It was the union of the two
things in his spirit that made him the murderer of his brother. Our
author points out very clearly the difference between Cain and Abel.
Both sacrificed, but Abel desired righteousness. He had a conscience of
sin, and sought reconciliation with God through his offering. Indeed,
some of the most ancient authorities, for “God bearing witness in
respect to his gifts,” read “he bearing witness to God on the ground of
his gifts;” that is, Abel bore witness by his sacrifice to God’s
righteousness and mercy. He was the first martyr, therefore, in two
senses. He was God’s witness, and he was slain for his righteousness.
But, whether we accept this reading or the other, the Apostle presents
Abel before us as the man who realised the great moral conception of
righteousness. He sought, not the favours of an arbitrary Sovereign, not
the mere mercy of an omnipotent Ruler, but the peace of the righteous
God. It was through Abel that faith in God thus became the foundation of
true ethics. He acknowledged the immutable difference between right and
wrong, which is the moral theory accepted by the greater saints of the
Old Testament, and in the New Testament forms the groundwork of St.
Paul’s forensic doctrine of the Atonement. Moreover, because Abel
witnessed for righteousness by his sacrifice, his blood even cried from
the ground unto God for righteous vengeance. For this is unquestionably
the meaning of the words “and through his faith he being dead yet
speaketh;” and in the next chapter[274] the Apostle speaks of “the
blood of sprinkling, that speaketh a better thing than that of Abel.” It
was the blood of one whose faith had grasped firmly the truth of God’s
righteousness. His blood, therefore, cried to the righteous God to
avenge his wrong. The Apostle speaks as if he were personifying the
blood and ascribing to the slain man the faith which he had manifested
before. The action of Abel’s faith in life and, as we may safely assume,
in the very article of death, retained its power with God. Every
mouthing wound had a tongue. In like manner, says the writer of the
Epistle, the obedience of Jesus up to and in His death made His blood
efficacious for pardon to the end of time.

But Abraham’s faith excelled. Abel was prompted to offer sacrifice by
natural religiousness and an awakened conscience; Abraham sternly
resolved to obey a command of God. He prepared to do that against which
nature revolted, yea that which conscience forbade. Had not the story of
Abel’s faith itself loudly proclaimed the sacredness of human life?
Would not Abraham, if he offered up Isaac, become another Cain? Would
not the dead child speak, and his blood cry from the ground to God for
vengeance? It was the case of a man to whom “God is greater than
conscience.” He resolved to obey at all hazards. Hereby he assured his
heart—that is, his conscience—before God in that matter wherein his
heart may have condemned him.[275] We, it is true, in the light of a
better revelation of God’s character, should at once deny, without more
ado, that such a command had been given by God; and we need not fear
thankfully and vehemently to declare that our absolute trust in the
rightness of our own moral instincts is a higher faith than Abraham’s.
But he had no misgiving as to the reality of the revelation or the
authority of the command. Neither do the sacred historian and the writer
of the Epistle to the Hebrews question it. We also need not doubt. God
met His servant at that stage of spiritual perception which he had
already attained. His faith was strong in its realisation of God’s
authority and faithfulness. But his moral nature was not sufficiently
educated to decide by the character of a command whether it was worthy
of God or not. He calmly left it to Him to vindicate His own
righteousness. Those who deny that God imposed such a hard task on
Abraham must be prepared to solve still greater difficulties. For do not
we also, in reference to some things, still require Abraham’s faith that
the Judge of all the earth will do right? What shall we say of His
permitting the terrible and universal sufferings of all living things?
What are we to think of the still more awful mystery of moral evil?
Shall we say He could not have prevented it? Or shall we take refuge in
the distinction between permission and command? Of the two it were
easier to understand His commanding what He will not permit, as in the
sacrifice of Isaac, than to explain His permission of what He cannot and
will not command, as in the undoubted existence of sin.

But let us once more repeat that the greatest faith of all is to
believe, with Abel, that God is righteous, and yet to believe, with
Abraham, that God can justify His own seeming unrighteousness, and also
to believe, with the saints of Christianity, that the test which God
imposed on Abraham will nevermore be tried, because the enlightened
conscience of humanity forbids it and invites other and more subtle
tests in its place.

We must not suppose that Abraham found the command an easy one. From the
narrative in the Book of Genesis we should infer that he expected God to
provide a substitute for Isaac: “And Abraham said, My son, God will
provide Himself a lamb for a burnt offering; so they went both of them
together.”[276] But the Apostle gives us plainly to understand that
Abraham offered his son because he accounted that God was able to raise
him from the dead. Both answers are true. They reveal to us the anxious
tossings of his spirit, seeking to account to itself for the terrible
command of Heaven. At one moment he thinks God will not carry matters to
the bitter end. His mind is pacified with the thought that a substitute
for Isaac will be provided. At another moment this appeared to detract
from the awful severity of the trial, and Abraham’s faith waxed strong
to obey, even though no substitute would be found in the thicket.
Another solution would then offer itself. God would immediately bring
Isaac back to life. For Isaac would not cease to be, nor cease to be
Isaac, when the sacrificial knife had descended. “God is not God of the
dead, but of the living, for all live unto Him.”[277] Besides, the
promise had not been withdrawn, though it had not yet been confirmed by
an oath; and the promise involved that the seed would be called in
Isaac, not in another son. Both solutions were right. For a ram was
caught in a thicket by the horns, and Abraham did receive his son back
from the dead, not literally indeed, but in a parable.

Most expositors explain the words “in a parable” as if they meant
nothing more than “as it were,” “so to speak;” and some have actually
supposed them to refer to the birth of Isaac in his father’s old age,
when Abraham was “as good as dead.”[278] Both interpretations do
violence to the Greek expression,[279] which must mean “even in a
parable.” It is a brief and pregnant allusion to the ultimate purpose of
Abraham’s trial. God intended more by it than to test faith. The test
was meant to prepare Abraham for receiving a revelation. On Moriah, and
ever after, Isaac was more than Isaac to Abraham. He offered him to God
as Isaac, the son of the promise. He received him back from God’s hand
as a type of Him in Whom the promise would be fulfilled. Abraham had
gladly received the promise. He now saw the day of Christ, and
rejoiced.[280]


FOOTNOTES:

[258] 1 Peter iii. 20.

[259] Chap. xi 8.

[260] Chap. xi. 9.

[261] Acts vii. 5.

[262] Chap. xi. 10.

[263] Rev. xxi. 10.

[264] τεχνίτης.

[265] δημιουργός.

[266] ἀσπασάμενοι (xi. 13).

[267] Chap. xi. 14.

[268] ξένοι καὶ παρεπίδημοι.

[269] πατρίδα.

[270] Chaps. xi. 16; ii. 11.

[271] Gen. iv. 3.

[272] 1 John iii. 12.

[273] James ii. 19.

[274] Chap. xii. 24.

[275] 1 John iii. 19, 20.

[276] Gen. xxii. 8.

[277] Luke xx. 38.

[278] Chap. xi. 12.

[279] καὶ ἐν παραβολῇ.

[280] John viii. 56.




CHAPTER XII.

_THE FAITH OF MOSES._


    “By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months by his
    parents, because they saw he was a goodly child; and they were not
    afraid of the king’s commandment. By faith Moses, when he was grown
    up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; choosing
    rather to be evil entreated with the people of God, than to enjoy
    the pleasures of sin for a season; accounting the reproach of Christ
    greater riches than the treasures of Egypt: for he looked unto the
    recompense of reward. By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the
    wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing Him Who is invisible.
    By faith he kept the passover, and the sprinkling of the blood, that
    the destroyer of the first-born should not touch them.”—HEB. xi.
    23–28 (R.V.).


One difference between the Old Testament and the New is the comparative
silence of the former respecting Moses and the frequent mention of him
in the latter. When he has brought the children of Israel through the
wilderness to the borders of the promised land, their great leader is
seldom mentioned by historian, psalmist, or prophet. We might be tempted
to imagine that the national life of Israel had outgrown his influence.
It would without question be in a measure true. We may state the same
thing on its religious side by saying that God hid the memory as well as
the body of his servant, in the spirit of John Wesley’s words, happily
chosen for his and his brother’s epitaph in Westminster Abbey, “God
buries His workmen and carries on His work.” But in the New Testament it
is quite otherwise. No man is so frequently mentioned. Sometimes when he
is not named it is easy to see that the sacred writers have him in their
minds.

One reason for this remarkable difference between the two Testaments in
reference to Moses is to be sought in the contrast between the earlier
and later Judaism. During the ages of the old covenant Judaism was a
living moral force. It gave birth to a peculiar type of heroes and
saints. Speaking of Judaism in the widest possible meaning, David and
Isaiah, as well as Samuel and Elijah, are its children. These men were
such heroes of religion that the saints of the Christian Church have not
dwarfed their greatness. But it is one of the traits of a living
religion to forget the past, or rather to use it only as a
stepping-stone to better things. It forgets the past in the sense in
which St. Paul urges the Philippians to count what things were gain a
loss, and to press on, forgetting the things which are behind, and
stretching forward to the things which are before. Religion lives in its
conscious, exultant power to create spiritual heroes, not in looking
back to admire its own handiwork. The only religion among men that lives
in its founder is Christianity. Forget Christ, and Christianity ceases
to be. But the life of Mosaism was not bound up with the memory of
Moses. Otherwise we may well suppose that idolatry would have crept in,
even before Hezekiah found it necessary to destroy the brazen serpent.

When we come down to the times of John the Baptist and our Lord, Mosaism
is to all practical ends a dead religion. The great movers of men’s
souls came down upon the age, and were not developed out of it. The
product of Judaism at this time was Pharisaism, which had quite as
little true faith as Sadduceeism. But when a religion has lost its power
to create saints, men turn their faces to the great ones of olden times.
They raise the fallen tombstones of the prophets, and religion is
identical with hero-worship. An instance of this very thing may be seen
in England to-day, where Atheists have discovered how to be devout, and
Agnostics go on a pilgrimage! “We are the disciples of Moses,” cried the
Pharisees. Can any one conceive of David or Samuel calling himself a
disciple of Moses? The notion of discipleship to Moses does not occur in
the Old Testament. Men never thought of such a relation. But it is the
dominant idea of Judaism in the time of Christ. Hence it was brought
about that he who was the servant and friend appears in the New
Testament as the antagonist. “For the Law was given by Moses; grace and
truth came by Jesus Christ.”[281] This is opposition and rivalry. Yet
“this is that Moses which said unto the children of Israel, A Prophet
shall God raise up unto you from among your brethren, _like unto
me_.”[282]

The notable difference between the Moses of New Testament times and the
Moses delineated in the ancient narrative renders it especially
interesting to study a passage in which the writer of the Epistle to the
Hebrews takes us back to the living man, and describes the attitude of
Moses himself towards Jesus Christ. Stephen told his persecutors that
the founder of the Aaronic priesthood had spoken of a great Prophet to
come, and Christ said that Moses wrote of Him.[283] But it is with
joyous surprise we read in the Epistle to the Hebrews that the
legislator was a believer in the same sense in which Abraham was a
believer. The founder of the old covenant himself walked by faith in the
new covenant.

The references to Moses made by our Lord and by Stephen sufficiently
describe his mission. The special work of Moses in the history of
religion was to prepare the way of the Lord Jesus Christ and make His
paths straight. He was commissioned to familiarise men with the
wondrous, stupendous idea of the appearing of God in human nature,—a
conception almost too vast to grasp, too difficult to believe. To render
it not impossible for men to accept the truth, he was instructed to
create a historical type of the Incarnation. He called into being a
spiritual people. He realised the magnificent idea of a Divine nation.
If we may use the term, he showed to the world God appearing in the
life of a nation, in order to teach them the higher truth that the Word
would at the remote end of the ages appear in the flesh. The nation was
the Church; the Church was the State. The King would be God. The court
of the King would be the temple. The ministers of the court would be the
priests. The law of the State would have equal authority with the moral
requirements of God’s nature. For Moses apparently knew nothing of the
distinction made by theologians between the civil, the ceremonial, and
the moral law.

But in the passage before us we have something quite different from
this. The Apostle says nothing about the creation of the covenant people
out of the abject slaves of the brick-kilns. He is silent concerning the
giving of the Law amid the fire and tempest of Sinai. It is plain that
he wishes to tell us about the man’s inner life. He represents Moses as
a man of faith.

Even of his faith the apparently greatest achievements are passed over.
Nothing is said of his appearances before Pharaoh; nothing of the
wonderful faith that enabled him to pray with uplifted hands on the brow
of the hill whilst the people were fighting God’s battle in the valley;
nothing of the faith with which, on the top of Pisgah, Moses died
without receiving the promise. Evidently it is not the Apostle’s purpose
to write the panegyric of a hero.

Closer examination of the verses brings out the thought that the Apostle
is tracing the growth and formation of the man’s spiritual character. He
means to show that faith has in it the making of a man of God. Moses
became the leader of the Lord’s redeemed people, the founder of the
national covenant, the legislator and prophet, because he believed in
God, in the future of Israel, and in the coming of the Christ. The
subject of the passage is faith as the power that creates a great
spiritual leader. But what is true of leaders is true also of every
strong spiritual nature. No lesson can be more timely in our days. Not
learning, not culture, not even genius, makes a strong doer, but faith.

The contents of the verses may be classified under four remarks:—

1. Faith gropes at first in the dark for the work of life.

2. Faith chooses the work of life.

3. Faith is a discipline of the man for the work of life.

4. Faith renders the man’s life and work sacramental.

1. The initial stage in forming the servant of God is always the
same,—a vague, restless, eager groping in the dark, a putting forth
feelers for the light of revelation. This is often a time of childish
mistakes and follies, of which he is afterwards keenly ashamed, and at
which he can sometimes afford to smile. It often happens, if the man of
God is to spring from a religious family, that his parents undergo, in a
measure, this first discipline for him. So it was in the case of Moses.
The child was hid three months of his parents. Why did they hide him?
Was it because they feared the king? It was because they did not fear
the king. They hid their child by faith. But what had faith to do with
the hiding of him? Had they received an announcement from an inspired
seer that their child would deliver Israel, or that he would stand with
God on the top of Sinai and receive the Law for the people, or that he
would lead the redeemed of the Lord to the borders of a rich land and
large? None of these sufficient grounds for defying the king’s authority
are mentioned. The reason given in the narrative and as well by
Stephen[284] and the writer of this Epistle sounds quaint, if not
childish. They hid him because he was comely. Yet they hid him by faith.
The beauty of a sleeping babe was to them a revelation, as truly a
revelation as if they had heard the voice of the angel that spoke to
Manoah or to Zacharias. The _Scripture_ narrative contains no hint that
the child’s beauty was miraculous, and, what is more to the purpose, we
are not told that God had given it as the token of His covenant. It is
an instance of faith making a sacrament of its own, and seeking in what
is natural its warrant for believing in the supernatural. Nothing is
easier, and perhaps nothing would be more rational, than to dismiss the
entire story with a contemptuous smile.

The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews must admit that Jochebed’s
faith was unauthorised. But does not faith always begin in folly? Is it
not at first a blind instinct, fastening on what is nearest to hand? Has
not our belief in God sprung out of trust in human goodness or in
nature’s loveliness? To many a father has not the birth of his
first-born been a revelation of Heaven? Is not such faith as Jochebed’s
the true explanation of the instinctive rise and wonderful vitality of
infant baptism in the Christian Church? If Abraham’s faith dared to look
for the city which hath the foundations when God had promised only the
wealth of a tented nomad, was not the mother of Moses justified, since
God had given her faith, in letting the heaven-born instinct entwine
with her earth-born love of her offspring? It grew with its growth, and
rejoiced with its joy; but it also endured and triumphed in its sore
distress, and justified its presence by saving the child. Faith is God’s
gift, no less than the testimony which faith accepts. Sometimes the
faith is implanted when no fitting revelation is vouchsafed. But faith
will live on in the darkness, until the day dawn and the day-star arise
in the heart.

A wise teacher has warned us against phantom notions and bidden us
interpret rather than anticipate nature. But another great thinker
demonstrated that the clearest vision begins in mere groping.
Anticipations of God precede the interpretation of His message. The
immense space between instinct and genius is in religion traversed by
faith, which starts with _mera palpatio_, but at last attains to the
beatific vision of God.

2. Faith chooses the work of life. The Apostle has spoken of the faith
that induced the parents of Moses to hide their child three months. Some
theologians have set much value on what they term “an implicit faith.”
The faith of Moses himself would be said by them to be “enwrapped” in
that of his parents. Whatever we may think of this doctrine, there can
be no question that the New Testament recognises the idea of
representation. The Church has always upheld the unity, the solidarity,
of the family. It sprang itself out of the family. Perhaps its
consummation on earth will be a return into the family relation. It
retains the likeness throughout its long history. It acknowledges that a
believing husband sanctifies the unbelieving wife, and a believing wife
sanctifies the unbelieving husband. In like manner, a believing parent
sanctifies the children, and no one but themselves can deprive them of
their privileges. But they can do it. The time comes when they must
choose for themselves. Hitherto led gently on by loving hands, they must
now think and act for themselves, or be content to lose the power of
independent action, and remain always children. The risk is sometimes
great. But it cannot be evaded. It oftentimes happens that the
irrevocable step is taken unobserved by others, almost unconsciously to
the man himself. The decision has been taken in silence; the even tenor
of life is not disturbed. The world little weens that a soul has
determined its own eternity in one strong resolve.

But in the case of a man destined to be a leader of his fellows, whether
in thought or in action, a crisis occurs. We use the word in its correct
meaning of judgment. It is more than a transition, more than a
conversion. He judges, and is conscious that as he judges he will be
judged. If God has any great work for the man to do, the command comes
sooner or later, as if it descended audibly from heaven, that he stand
alone and, in that first terrible solitariness, choose and reject. In an
educational age we may often be tempted to sneer at the doctrine of
immediate conversion. It is true, nevertheless. A man has come to the
parting of the two ways, and choice must be made, because they _are_ two
ways. To no living man is it given to walk the broad and the narrow
ways. Entrance is by different gates. The history of some of the most
saintly men presents an entire change of motive, of character even, and
of general life, as produced through one strong act of faith.

When the Apostle wrote to the Hebrew Christians, the time was critical.
The question of Christian or not Christian brooked no delay. The Son of
man was nigh, at the doors. Even after swift vengeance had overtaken the
doomed city of Jerusalem, the urgent cry was still the same. In the
so-called “Epistle of Barnabas,” in the “Pastor of Hermas,” and in the
priceless treasure recently brought to light, “The Teaching of the
Twelve Apostles,” the two ways are described: the way of life and the
way of death. Those who professed and called themselves Christians were
warned to make the right choice. It was no time for facing both ways,
and halting between two opinions.

Moses too refused and chose. This is the second scene in the history of
the man. Standing as he did at the fountain-head of nationalism, the
prominence assigned to his act of individual choice and rejection is
very significant. Before his days the heirs of the promise were in the
bond of God’s covenant in virtue of their birth. They were members of
the elect family. After the days of Moses every Israelite enjoyed the
privileges of the covenant by right of national descent. They were the
elect nation. Moses stands at the turning point. The nation now absorbs
the family, which becomes henceforth part of the larger conception. In
the critical moment between the two, a great personality emerges above
the confusion. The patriarchal Church of the family comes to a
dispensational end in giving birth to a great man. That man’s personal
act of refusing the broad and choosing the narrow way marks the birth of
the theocratic Church of nationalism. Before and after, personality is
of secondary importance. In Moses for a moment it is everything.

Do we seek the motives that determined his choice? The Apostle mentions
two, and they are really two sides of the same conception.

_First_, he chose to be evil-entreated with the people of God. The work
of his life was to create a spiritual nation. This idea had already been
presented to his mind before he refused to be called the son of
Pharaoh’s daughter. “He was instructed in all the wisdom of the
Egyptians; and he was mighty in his words and works.”[285] But an idea
had taken possession of him. That idea had already invested the
miserable and despised bondsmen with glory. Truly no man will achieve
great things who does not pay homage to an idea, and is not ready to
sacrifice wealth and position for the sake of what is as yet only a
thought. He who sells the world for an idea is not far from the kingdom
of heaven. He will be prepared to forfeit all that the world can give
him for the sake of Him in Whom truth eternally dwells in fulness and
perfection. Such a man was Moses. Had not his parents often told him,
when his mother was nourishing the child for Pharaoh’s daughter, of the
wonderful story of their hiding him by faith and afterwards putting him
in an ark of bulrushes by the river’s brim? Did not his mother bring him
up to be at once the son of Pharaoh’s daughter and the deliverer of
Israel? Was the boy not living a double life? He was gradually coming to
understand that he was to be the heir of the throne, and that he would
or might be the destroyer of that throne. May we not, with profoundest
reverence, liken it to the twofold inner life of the Child Jesus when at
Nazareth He came to know that He, the Child of Mary, was the Son of the
Highest?

Stephen continues the story: “When he was well-nigh forty years old, it
came into his heart to visit his brethren the children of Israel.” “He
went out unto his brethren,” we are told in the narrative, “and looked
on their burdens.”[286] But the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews
perceives in the act of Moses more than love of kindred. The slaves of
Pharaoh were, in the eyes of Moses, the people of God. The national
consecration had already taken place; he himself was already swayed by
the glorious hope of delivering his brethren, the covenant people of
God, from the hands of their oppressors. This is the explanation which
Stephen gives of his conduct in slaying the Egyptian. When he saw one of
the children of Israel suffer wrong, he defended him and smote the
Egyptian, supposing that his brethren understood how that God by his
hand was giving them deliverance. The deed was, in fact, intended to be
a call to united effort. He was throwing the gauntlet. He was
deliberately making it impossible for him to return to the former life
of pomp and courtly worship. He wished the Hebrews to understand his
decision, and accept at once his leadership. “But they understood not.”

Our author pierces still deeper into the motives that swayed his spirit.
It was not a selfish ambition, nor merely a patriotic desire to put
himself at the head of a host of slaves bent on asserting their rights.
Simultaneous with the social movement there was a spiritual work
accomplished in the personal, inner life of Moses himself. All true,
heaven-inspired revolutions in society are accompanied by a personal
discipline and trial of the leaders. This is the infallible test of the
movement itself. If the men who control it do not become themselves more
profound, more pure, more spiritual, they are counterfeit leaders, and
the movement they advocate is not of God. The writer of the Epistle
argues from the decision of Moses to deliver his brethren that his own
spiritual life was become deeper and holier. When he refused to be
called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, he also rejected the pleasures of
sin. He took his stand resolutely on the side of goodness. The example
of Joseph was before him, of whom the same words are said: “he refused”
to sin against God.

As the crisis in his own spiritual life fitted him to be the leader of a
great national movement, so also his conception of that movement became
a help to him to overcome the sinful temptations of Egypt. He saw that
the pleasures of sin were but for a season. It is easy to supply the
other side of this thought. The joy of delivering his brethren would
never pass away. He welcomed the undying joy of self-sacrifice, and
repudiated the momentary pleasures of self-gratification.

_Second_, he accounted the reproach of Christ greater riches than the
treasures of Egypt. Not only the people of God, but also the Christ of
God, determined his choice. An idea is not enough. It must rest on a
person, and that person must be greater than the idea. He may be himself
but an idea. But, even when it is so, he is the glorious thought in
which all the other hopes and imaginations of faith centre and merge. If
he is more than an idea, if it is a living person that controls the
man’s thoughts and becomes the motive of his life, a new quality will
then enter into that life. Conscience will awake. The question of doing
what is right will control ambition, if it will not quite absorb it.
Treachery to the idea of life will now be felt to be a sin, if
conscience has pronounced that the idea itself is not immoral, but good
and noble. For, when conscience permits, faith will not lag behind, and
will proclaim that the moral is also spiritual, that the spiritual is an
ever-abiding possession.

Many expositors strive hard to make the words mean something else than
the reproach which Christ Himself suffered. It is marvellous that the
great doctrine of Christ’s personal activity in the Church before His
incarnation should have so entirely escaped the notice of the older
school of English theology. On this passage, for instance, such
commentators as Macknight, Whitby, Scott, explain the words to mean that
Moses esteemed the scoffs cast on the Israelites for expecting the
Christ to arise from among them greater riches than the treasures of
Egypt. The more profound exegesis of Germany has made the truth of
Christ’s pre-existence essential to the theology of the New Testament.
Far from being an innovation, it has brought us back to the view of the
greater theologians in every age of the Church.

We cannot enter into the general question. Confining ourselves to the
subject in hand, the faith of Moses, why may we not suppose that he had
heard of the patriarch Jacob’s blessing on Judah? It had been uttered in
the land of Egypt, where Moses was brought up. It spoke of a Lawgiver.
Did not the consciousness of his own mission lead Moses to apply the
reference to the long succession of leaders, whether judges or kings or
prophets, who would follow in his wake? If so, could he have altogether
misunderstood the promise of the Shiloh? Jacob had spoken of a personal
King, Whom the people would obey. But nowhere in the Old Testament, not
once in the history of Moses, is the coming of Messiah represented as
the goal of the national development. Christ is not the flowering of
Judaism. On the contrary, the Angel of the covenant established through
Moses is not a ministering servant, sent forth to minister on the chosen
people. He is the Lord Jehovah Himself. Christ was with Israel, and
Moses knew it. We may admit the vagueness of his conception, but we
cannot deny the conception. To Moses, as to the Psalmist, the reproaches
of them that reproached Israel fell on the Christ. Community in
suffering was enough to ensure community in the glory to be revealed.
Suffering with Christ, they would also be glorified with Christ. This
was the recompense of reward to which Moses looked.

The lesson taught to the Hebrew Christians by the decision of Moses is
loyalty to truth and loyalty to Jesus Christ.

3. Faith is a discipline for the work of life. Moses has made his final
choice. Conscience is thoroughly awake, and eager aspirations fill his
soul. But he is not yet strong. Men of large ideas are often found to be
lacking in courage. A cloistered is often a fugitive virtue. But, apart
from want of practical resolution to face the difficulties of the
situation, special training is needed for special work. Israel had come
into Egypt to endure chastening and be made fit for national
independence. But in Egypt Moses was a courtier, perhaps heir to the
throne. That he may be chastened and fitted for his share of the work
which God was about to accomplish towards His people, he must be driven
out of Egypt into the wilderness. Every servant of God is sent into the
wilderness. St. Paul was three years in Arabia between his conversion
and his entrance on the work of the ministry. Jesus Himself was led up
of the Spirit into the wilderness. He learned endurance in forty days,
Moses in forty years.

It will be seen that we accept the explanation of the twenty-seventh
verse given by all expositors down to the time of De Lyra and Calvin.
But in modern times it has been customary to say that the Apostle refers
to the final departure of the children of Israel out of Egypt with a
strong hand and outstretched arm. Our reasons for preferring the other
view are these. The departure of the Israelites through the Red Sea is
mentioned subsequently; an event that occurred before the people left
Egypt is mentioned in the next verse, and it is very improbable that the
writer would refer to their departure first, then to the events that
preceded, then once more speak of their departure. Further, the word
well rendered by the Old and the Revised Versions “forsook” expresses
precisely the notion of going out alone, in despondency, as if Moses had
abandoned the hope of being the deliverer of Israel. If we have
correctly understood the Apostle’s purpose in the entire passage, this
is the very notion which we should expect him to introduce. Moses
forsakes Egypt, deserts his brethren, abandons his work. He flees from
the vengeance of Pharaoh. Yet all this fear, hopelessness, and unbelief
is only the partial aspect of what, taken as a whole, is the action of
faith. He still believes in his glorious idea, and is still willing to
bear the reproach of Christ. He will not return to the court and make
his submission to the king. But the time is not come, he thinks, or he
is not the man to deliver Israel. Forty years afterwards he is still
loath to be sent. He forsook Egypt because the people did not believe
him; after forty years he asks the Lord to send another for the very
same reason; “Behold, they will not believe me, nor hearken unto my
voice.” But we should be obtuse indeed if we failed to recognise the
faith that underlies his despondency. Doubt is oftentimes partial faith.

Let us place ourselves in his position. He refuses the selfish luxury
and worldly glory of Pharaoh’s court, that he may rush to deliver his
brethren. He brings with him the consciousness of superiority, and at
once assumes the duty of composing their quarrels. Evidently he is a
believer in God, but a believer also in himself. Such men are not God’s
instruments. He will have a man be the one thing or the other. If the
man is self-confident, conscious of his own prowess, oblivious of God or
a denier of Him, the Most High can use him to do His work, to his own
destruction. If the man has no confidence in the flesh, knows his utter
weakness and very nothingness, and yields himself to God’s hand
entirely, with no by-ends to seek, him too God uses to do His work, to
the man’s own salvation. But Moses strove to combine faith in God and in
himself. He was at once thwarted. His brethren taunted him, when he
expected to be trusted and honoured. Despondency takes possession of his
spirit. But his trepidation is on the surface. Beneath it is a great
deep of faith. What he now needs is discipline. God leads him to the
back of the wilderness. The courtier serves as a herdsman. Far removed
from the monumental literature of Egypt, he communes with himself, and
with nature’s mighty visions. He gazes upon the dread and silent
mountain, hallowed of old as the habitation of God. He had already, in
Egypt, learned the faith of Joseph and of Jacob. Now, in Midian, he will
imbibe the faith of Isaac and of Abraham. Far from the busy haunts of
men, the din of cities, the stir of the market-place, he will learn how
to pray, how to divest himself of all confidence in the flesh, and how
to worship the Invisible alone. For “he endured as seeing Him Who is
invisible.” Do not paraphrase it “the invisible _King_.” That is too
narrow. It was not Pharaoh only that had vanished out of his sight and
out of his thoughts. Moses himself had disappeared. He had broken down
when he trusted himself. He now endures, because he sees nought but God.
Surely he was in the same blessed state of mind in which St. Paul was
when he said, “I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.” When Moses
and when Paul ceased to be anything, and God was to them everything,
they were strong to endure.[287]

4. Faith renders the work of life sacramental. The long period of
discipline has drawn to a close. The self-confidence of Moses has been
fully subdued. “He supposed that his brethren understood how that God
by his hand was giving them deliverance.” These, says Stephen, were his
thoughts before he fled from Egypt. Very different is his language after
the probation of the wilderness: “Who am I, that I should go unto
Pharaoh, and that I should bring forth the children of Israel out of
Egypt?” Four times he pleads and deprecates. Not until the anger of the
Lord is kindled against him does he take heart to attempt the formidable
task.

The Hebrews had been more than two hundred years in the house of
bondage. So far as we know, the Lord had not once appeared or spoken to
men for six generations. No revelation was given between Jacob’s vision
at Beersheba[288] and the vision of the burning bush. We may well
believe that there were in those days mockers, saying, The age of
miracles is past; the supernatural is played out. But Moses henceforth
lives in a veritable world of miracles. The supernatural came with a
rush, like the waking of a sleeping volcano. Signs and wonders encompass
him on every side. The bush burns unconsumed; the rod in his hand is
cast on the ground, and becomes a serpent; he takes the serpent in his
hand again, and it becomes a rod; he puts his hand into his bosom, and
it is leprous; he puts the leprous hand into his bosom, and it is as
his other flesh. When he returns into Egypt, signs vie with signs, God
with demons. Plague follows plague. Moses lifts up his rod over the sea,
and the children of Israel go on dry ground through the midst of the
sea. At last he stands once more on Horeb. But in the short interval
between the day when one poor thorn-bush of the desert glowed with flame
and the day on which Sinai was altogether on a smoke and the whole
mountain quaked, a religious revolution had occurred second only to one
in the history of the race. At the touch of their leader’s wand a nation
was born in a day. The immense transition from the Church in a family to
a holy nation was brought about suddenly, but effectively, when the
people were hopeless outcasts and Moses himself had lost heart.

Such a revolution must be inaugurated with sacrifice and with sacrament.
The sins of the past must be expiated and forgiven, and the people,
cleansed from the guilt of their too frequent apostasy from the God of
their fathers, must be dedicated anew to the service of Jehovah. The
patriarchal dispensation expired in the birth of a holy nation. The
Passover was both a sacrifice and a sacrament, an expiation and a
consecration. It retained its sacrificial character till Christ, the
true Paschal Lamb, was slain. As a sacrifice it then ceased. But
sacrament continues, and will continue as long as the Church exists on
earth.

Moses had seen the invisible God. The burning bush had symbolized the
sacramental nature of the work which he had been called to do. God would
be in Israel as He was in the bush, and Israel would not be consumed. He
Who is to His foes a consuming fire dwells among His people, as the
vital heat and glow of their national life. The eye that can see Him is
faith. This is the power that can transform the whole life of man, and
make it sacramental. Too long has man’s earthly existence been divided
into two separate spheres. On the one side and for a stated time he
lives to God; on the other side he relinquishes himself for a period to
the pursuits of the world. We seem to think that the secular cannot be
religious, and, consequently, that the religiousness of one day or of
one place will make amends for the irreligion of the rest of life. The
Passover consecrated a nation. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper have, times
without number, consecrated the individual. The true Christian life
draws its vital sap from God. It is not cleverness and worldly success,
but unselfish loyalty to the supernatural, and incessant prayer, that
marks the man who lives by faith.


FOOTNOTES:

[281] John i. 17.

[282] Acts vii. 37.

[283] John v. 46.

[284] Exod. ii. 2; Acts vii. 20.

[285] Acts vii. 22.

[286] Exod. ii. 11.

[287] After penning the above the writer of these pages saw that, in his
view of the purpose of the sojourn in Midian, he had been anticipated by
Kurtz (_History of the Old Covenant_).

[288] Gen. xlvi. 2.




CHAPTER XIII.

_A CLOUD OF WITNESSES._


    “By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau, even concerning things to
    come. By faith Jacob, when he was a-dying, blessed each of the sons
    of Joseph; and worshipped, _leaning_ upon the top of his staff. By
    faith Joseph, when his end was nigh, made mention of the departure
    of the children of Israel; and gave commandment concerning his
    bones.... By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they had
    been compassed about for seven days. By faith Rahab the harlot
    perished not with them that were disobedient, having received the
    spies with peace. And what shall I more say? for the time will fail
    me if I tell of Gideon. Barak, Samson, Jephthah; of David and Samuel
    and the prophets: who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought
    righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions,
    quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, from
    weakness were made strong, waxed mighty in war, turned to flight
    armies of aliens. Women received their dead by a resurrection: and
    others were tortured, not accepting their deliverance; that they
    might obtain a better resurrection: and others had trial of mockings
    and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment: they were
    stoned, they were sawn asunder, they were tempted, they were slain
    with the sword: they went about in sheepskins, in goatskins; being
    destitute, afflicted, evil-entreated (of whom the world was not
    worthy), wandering in deserts and mountains and caves, and the holes
    of the earth. And these all, having had witness borne to them
    through their faith, received not the promise, God having provided
    some better thing concerning us, that apart from us they should not
    be made perfect. Therefore let us also, seeing we are compassed
    about with so great a cloud of witnesses, lay aside every weight,
    and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with
    patience the race that is set before us.”—HEB. xi. 20–xii. 1
    (R.V.).


Time fails us to dilate on the faith of the other saints of the old
covenant. But they must not be passed over in silence. The impression
produced by our author’s splendid roll of the heroes of faith in the
eleventh chapter is the result quite as much of an accumulation of
examples as of the special greatness of a few among them. At the close
they appear like an overhanging “cloud” of witnesses for God.

By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau; and Jacob, dying in a strange
land, blessed the sons of Joseph, distinguishing wittingly, and
bestowing on _each_[289] his own peculiar blessing. His faith became a
prophetic inspiration, and even distinguished between the future of
Ephraim and the future of Manasseh. He did not create the blessing. He
was only a steward of God’s mysteries. Faith well understood its own
limitations. But it drew its inspiration to foretell what was to come
from a remembrance of God’s faithfulness in the past. For, before[290]
he gave his blessing, he had bowed his head in worship, leaning upon the
top of his staff. In his dying hour he recalled the day on which he had
passed over Jordan with his staff,—a day remembered by him once before,
when he had become two bands, wrestled with the angel, and halted on his
thigh. His staff had become his token of the covenant, his reminder of
God’s faithfulness, his sacrament, or visible sign of an invisible
grace.

Joseph, though he was so completely Egyptianised that he did not, like
Jacob, ask to be buried in Canaan, and only two of his sons became,
through Jacob’s blessing, heirs of the promise, yet gave commandment
concerning his bones. His faith believed that the promise given to
Abraham would be fulfilled. The children of Israel might dwell in Goshen
and prosper. But they would sooner or later return to Canaan. When his
end drew near, his Egyptian greatness was forgotten. The piety of his
childhood returned. He remembered God’s promise to his fathers. Perhaps
it was his father Jacob’s dying blessing that had revived the thoughts
of the past and fanned his faith into a steady flame.

“By faith the walls of Jericho fell down.”[291] When the Israelites had
crossed Jordan and eaten of the old corn of the land, the manna ceased.
The period of continued miracle came to an end. Henceforth they would
smite their enemies with their armed thousands. But one signal miracle
the Lord would yet perform in the sight of all Israel. The walls of the
first city they came to would fall down flat, when the seven priests
would blow with the trumpets of rams’ horns the seventh time on the
seventh day. Israel believed, and as God had said, so it came to pass.

The treachery of a harlot even is mentioned by the Apostle as an
instance of faith.[292] Justly. For, whilst her past life and present
act were neither better nor worse than the morality of her time, she saw
the hand of the God of heaven in the conquest of the land, and bowed to
His decision. This was a greater faith than that of her daughter-in-law,
Ruth, whose name is not mentioned. Ruth believed in Naomi and, as a
consequence, accepted Naomi’s God and people.[293] Rahab believed in God
first, and, therefore, accepted the Israelitish conquest and adopted the
nationality of the conquerors.[294]

Of the judges the Apostle selects four: Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah.
The mention of Barak must be understood to include Deborah, who was the
mind and heart that moved Barak’s arm; and Deborah was a prophetess of
the Lord. She and Barak wrought their mighty deeds and sang their pæan
in faith.[295] Gideon put the Midianites to flight by faith; for he knew
that his sword was the sword of the Lord,[296] Jephthah was a man of
faith; for he vowed a vow unto the Lord, and would not go back.[297]
Samson had faith; for he was a Nazarite to God from his mother’s womb,
and in his last extremity called unto the Lord and prayed.[298]

The Apostle does not name Othniel, Ehud, Shamgar, and the rest. The
Spirit of the Lord came upon them also. They too were mighty through
God. But the narrative does not tell us that they prayed, or that their
soul consciously and believingly responded to the voice of Heaven.
Alaric, while on his march towards Rome, said to a holy monk, who
entreated him to spare the city, that he did not go of his own will, but
that One was continually urging him forward to take it.[299] Many are
the scourges of God that know not the hand that wields them.

Individuals “through faith subdued kingdoms.”[300] Gideon dispersed the
Midianites;[301] Barak discomfited Sisera, the captain of Jabin king of
Canaan’s host; Jephthah smote the Ammonites;[302] David held the
Philistines in check,[303] measured Moab with a line,[304] and put
garrisons in Syria of Damascus. Samuel “wrought righteousness,” and
taught the people the good and the right way.[305] David “obtained the
fulfilment of God’s promises:” his house was blessed that it should
continue for ever before God.[306] Daniel’s faith stopped the mouths of
lions.[307] The faith of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego trusted in God,
and quenched the power of the fire, without extinguishing its
flame.[308] Elijah escaped the edge of Ahab’s sword.[309] Elisha’s faith
saw the mountain full of horses and chariots of fire round about
him.[310] Hezekiah “from weakness was made strong.”[311] The Maccabæan
princes waxed mighty in war and turned to flight armies of aliens.[312]
The widow of Zarephath[313] and the Shunammite[314] received their dead
back into their embrace in consequence of[315] a resurrection wrought by
the faith of the prophets. Others refused deliverance, gladly accepting
the alternative to unfaithfulness, to be beaten to death, that they
might be accounted worthy[316] to attain the better world and the
resurrection, not _of_, but _from_, the dead, which is the resurrection
to eternal life. Such a man was the aged Eleazar in the time of the
Maccabees.[317] Zechariah was stoned to death at the commandment of
Joash the king in the court of the house of the Lord.[318] Isaiah is
said to have been sawn asunder in extreme old age by the order of
Manasseh. Others were burnt[319] by Antiochus Epiphanes. Elijah had no
settled abode, but went from place to place clad in a garment of hair,
the skin of sheep or goat. It ought not to be a matter of surprise that
these men of God had no dwelling-place, but were, like the Apostles
after them, buffeted, persecuted, defamed, and made as the filth of the
world, the offscouring of all things. For the world was not worthy of
them. The world crucified their Lord, and they would be ashamed of
accepting better treatment than He received. By the world is meant the
life of those who know not Christ. The men of faith were driven out of
the cities into the desert, out of homes into prisons. But their faith
was an assurance of things hoped for and, therefore, a solvent of fear.
Their proving of things not seen rendered the prison, as Tertullian
says,[320] a place of retirement, and the desert a welcome escape from
the abominations that met their eyes wherever the world had set up its
vanity fair.

All these sturdy men of faith have had witness borne to them in
Scripture. This honour they won from time to time, as the Spirit of
Christ, which was in the prophets, saw fit to encourage the people of
God on earth by their example. Are we forbidden to suppose that this
witness to their faith gladdened their own glorified spirits, and calmed
their eager expectation of the day when the promise would be fulfilled?
For, after all, their reward was not the testimony of Scripture, but
their own perfection. Now this perfection is described through out the
Epistle as a priestly consecration. It expresses fitness for entering
into immediate communion with God. This was the final fulfilment of the
promise. This was the blessing which the saints under the old covenant
had not obtained. The way of the holiest had not yet been opened.[321]
Consequently their faith consisted essentially in endurance. “None of
these received the promise,” but patiently waited. This is inferred
concerning them from the testimony of Scripture that they believed.
Their faith must have manifested itself in this form,—endurance. To us,
at length, the promise has been fulfilled. God has spoken unto us in
His Son. We have a great High-priest, Who has passed through the
heavens. The Son, as High-priest, has been perfected for evermore; that
is, He is endowed with fitness to enter into the true holiest place. He
has perfected also for ever them that are sanctified: freed from guilt
as worshippers, they enter the holiest through a priestly consecration.
The new and living way has been dedicated through the veil.

But the important point is that the fulfilment of the promise has not
dispensed with the necessity for faith. We saw, in an earlier chapter,
that the revelation of the Sabbath advances from lower forms of rest to
higher and more spiritual. The more stubborn the unbelief of men became,
the more fully the revelation of God’s promise opened up. The thought is
somewhat similar in the present passage. The final form which God’s
promise assumes is an advance on any fulfilment vouchsafed to the saints
of the old covenant during their earthly life. It now includes
perfection, or fitness to enter into the holiest through the blood of
Christ. It means immediate communion with God. Far from dispensing with
faith, this form of the promise demands the exercise of a still better
faith than the fathers had. They endured by faith; we through faith
enter the holiest. To them, as well as to us, faith is an assurance of
things hoped for and a proving of things not seen; but our assurance
must incite us to draw near with boldness unto the throne of grace, to
draw near with a true heart in _full assurance_ of faith. This is the
better faith which is not once ascribed in the eleventh chapter to the
saints of the Old Testament. On the contrary, we are given to
understand[322] that they, through fear of death, were all their
lifetime subject to bondage. But Christ has abolished death. For we
enter into the presence of God, not through death, but through faith.

In accordance with this, the Apostle says that “God provided some better
thing concerning us.”[323] These words cannot mean that God provided
some better thing _for_ us than He had provided for the fathers. Such a
notion would not be true. The promise was made to Abraham, and is now
fulfilled to all the heirs alike; that is, to those who are of the faith
of Abraham. The author says “concerning,”[324] not “for.” The idea is
that God foresaw we would, and provided (for the word implies both
things) that we should, manifest a better kind of faith than it was
possible for the fathers to show, better in so far as power to enter the
holiest place is better than endurance.

But the author adds another thought. Through the exercise of the better
faith by us, the fathers also enter with us into the holiest place.
“Apart from us they could not be made perfect.” The priestly
consecration becomes theirs through us. Such is the unity of the Church,
and such the power of faith, that those who could not believe, or could
not believe in a certain way, for themselves, receive the fulness of the
blessing through the faith of others. Nothing less will do justice to
the Apostle’s words than the notion that the saints of the old covenant
have, through the faith of the Christian Church, entered into more
immediate and intimate communion with God than they had before, though
in heaven.

We now understand why they take so deep an interest in the running of
the Christian athletes on earth. They surround their course, like a
great cloud. They know that they will enter into the holiest if we win
the race. For every new victory of faith on earth, there is a new
revelation of God in heaven. Even the angels, the principalities and
powers in the heavenly places, learn, says St. Paul, through the Church
the manifold wisdom of God.[325] How much more will the saints, members
of the Church, brethren of Christ, be better able to apprehend the love
and power of God, Who makes weak, sinful men conquerors over death and
its fear.

The word “witnesses”[326] does not itself refer to their looking on, as
spectators of the race. Another word would almost certainly have been
used to express this notion, which is moreover contained in the phrase
“having so great a cloud surrounding[327] us.” The thought seems to be
that the men to whose faith the Spirit of Christ in Scripture bare
witness were themselves witnesses for God in a godless world, in the
same sense in which Christ tells His disciples that they were His
witnesses, and Ananias tells Saul that he would be a witness for
Christ.[328] Every one who confessed Christ before men, him did Christ
also confess before His Church which is on earth, and does now confess
before His Father in heaven, by leading him into God’s immediate
presence.


FOOTNOTES:

[289] ἕκαστον (xi. 21).

[290] Gen. xlvii. 31.

[291] Chap. xi. 30.

[292] Chap. xi. 31.

[293] Ruth i. 16.

[294] Matt. i. 5.

[295] Judges iv. and v.

[296] Judges vii. 18.

[297] Judges xi. 35.

[298] Judges xiii. 7; xvi. 28.

[299] Robertson, _History of the Christian Church_, book ii., chap. vii.

[300] Chap. xi. 33.

[301] Judges vii.

[302] Judges xi. 33.

[303] 2 Sam. v. 25.

[304] 2 Sam. viii. 2, 6.

[305] 1 Sam. xii. 23.

[306] 2 Sam. vii. 28, 29.

[307] Dan. vi. 22.

[308] Dan. iii. 27, 28.

[309] 1 Kings xix. 1–3.

[310] 2 Kings vi. 17.

[311] 2 Kings xx. 5.

[312] 1 Macc. v.

[313] 1 Kings xvii. 22.

[314] 2 Kings iv. 35.

[315] ἐξ (chap. xi. 35).

[316] Luke xx. 35.

[317] 2 Macc. vi. 19.

[318] 2 Chron. xxiv. 21.

[319] Reading ἐπρήσθησαν.

[320] _Ad Martyras_, 2.

[321] Chap. ix. 8.

[322] Chap. ii. 15.

[323] Chap. xi. 40.

[324] περί.

[325] Eph. iii. 10.

[326] mart/yrôn (xii. 1).

[327] perike/imenon.

[328] Acts i. 8; xxii. 14.




CHAPTER XIV.

_CONFLICT._


    “Therefore let us also, seeing we are compassed about with so great
    a cloud of witnesses, lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth
    so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is
    set before us, looking unto Jesus the Author and Perfecter of _our_
    faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the Cross,
    despising shame, and hath sat down at the right hand of the throne
    of God. For consider Him that hath endured such gainsaying of
    sinners against themselves, that ye wax not weary, fainting in your
    souls. Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin:
    and ye have forgotten the exhortation, which reasoneth with you as
    with sons,

        My son, regard not lightly the chastening of the Lord,
            Nor faint when thou art reproved of Him;
        For whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth,
            And scourgeth every son whom He receiveth.

    It is for chastening that ye endure; God dealeth with you as with
    sons; for what son is there whom _his_ father chasteneth not? But if
    ye are without chastening, whereof all have been made partakers,
    then are ye bastards, and not sons. Furthermore, we had the fathers
    of our flesh to chasten us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not
    much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?
    For they verily for a few days chastened _us_ as seemed good to
    them; but He for _our_ profit, that _we_ may be partakers of His
    holiness. All chastening seemeth for the present to be not joyous,
    but grievous: yet afterward it yieldeth peaceable fruit unto them
    that have been exercised thereby, _even the fruit_ of righteousness.
    Wherefore lift up the hands that hang down, and the palsied knees;
    and make straight paths for your feet, that that which is lame be
    not turned out of the way, but rather be healed. Follow after peace
    with all men, and the sanctification without which no man shall see
    the Lord: looking carefully lest _there be_ any man that falleth
    short of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up
    trouble _you_, and thereby the many be defiled; lest _there be_ any
    fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one mess of meat
    sold his own birthright. For ye know that even when he afterward
    desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected (for he found no
    place of repentance), though he sought it diligently with
    tears.”—HEB. xii. 1–17 (R.V.).


The author has told his readers that they have need of endurance;[329]
but when he connects this endurance with faith, he describes faith, not
as an enduring of present evils, but as an assurance of things hoped for
in the future. His meaning undoubtedly is that assurance of the future
gives strength to endure the present. These are two distinct aspects of
faith. In the eleventh chapter both sides of faith are illustrated in
the long catalogue of believers under the Old Testament. Examples of men
waiting for the promise and having an assurance of things hoped for come
first. They are Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. In
some measure these witnesses of God suffered; but the more prominent
feature of their faith was expectation of a future blessing. Moses is
next mentioned. He marks a transition. In him the two qualities of faith
appear to strive for the pre-eminence. He chooses to be evil entreated
with the people of God, because he knows that the enjoyment of sin is
short-lived; he suffers the reproach of Christ, and looks away from it
to the recompense of reward. After him conflict and endurance are more
prominent in the history of believers than assurance of the future. Many
of these later heroes of faith had a more or less dim vision of the
unseen; and in the case of those of whose faith nothing is said in the
Old Testament except that they endured, the other phase of this
spiritual power is not wanting. For the Church is one through the ages,
and the clear eye of an earlier period cannot be disconnected from the
strong arm of a later time.

In the twelfth chapter the two aspects of faith exemplified in the
saints of the Old Testament are urged on the Hebrew Christians. Now
practically for the first time in the Epistle the writer addresses
himself to the difficulties and discouragements of a state of conflict.
In the earlier chapters he exhorted his readers to hold fast their own
individual confession of Christ. In the later portions he exhorted them
to quicken the faith of their brethren in the Church assemblies. But his
account of the worthies of the Old Testament in the previous chapter has
revealed a special adaptedness in faith to meet the actual condition of
his readers. We gather from the tenor of the passage that the Church had
to contend against evil men. Who they were we do not know. They were
“the sinners.” Our author is claiming for the Christian Church the right
to speak of the men outside in the language used by Jews concerning the
heathen; and it is not at all unlikely that the unbelieving Jews
themselves are here meant. His readers had to endure the gainsaying of
sinners, who poured contempt on Christianity, as they had also covered
Christ Himself with shame. The Church might have to resist unto blood in
striving against the encompassing sin. Peace is to be sought and
followed after with all men, but not to the injury of that
sanctification without which no man shall see the Lord.[330] The true
people of God must go forth unto Jesus without the camp of Judaism,
bearing His reproach.[331]

This is an advance in the thought. Our author does not exhort his
readers individually to steadfastness, nor the Church collectively to
mutual oversight. He has before his eyes the conflict of the Church
against wicked men, whether in sheep’s clothing or without the fold. The
purport of the passage may be thus stated: Faith as a hope of the future
is a faith to endure in the present conflict against men. The reverse of
this is equally true and important: that faith as a strength to endure
the gainsaying of men is the faith that presses on toward the goal unto
the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

The connecting link between these two representations of faith is to be
found in the illustration with which the chapter opens. A race implies
both a hope and a contest.

The hope of faith is simple and well understood. It has been made
abundantly clear in the Epistle. It is to obtain the fulfilment of the
promise made to Abraham and renewed to other believers time after time
under the old covenant. “For we who believe do enter into God’s
rest.”[332] “They that have been called receive the promise of the
eternal inheritance.”[333] “We have boldness to enter into the holiest
by the blood of Jesus.”[334] In the latter part of the chapter the
writer speaks of his readers as having already attained. They have come
to God, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus, the
Mediator of the new covenant. In the first verse he urges them to run
the race, so as to secure for themselves the blessing. He points them to
Jesus, Who has run the race before them and won the crown, Who sits on
the right hand of God, with authority to reward all who reach the goal.
Both representations are perfectly consistent. Men do enter into
immediate communion with God on earth; but they attain it by effort of
faith.

Such is the aim of faith. The conflict is more complex and difficult to
explain. There is, first of all, a conflict in the preparatory training,
and this is twofold. We have to strive against ourselves and against the
world. We must put away our own grossness,[335] as athletes rid
themselves by severe training of all superfluous flesh. Then we must
also put away from us the sin that surrounds us, that quite besets us,
on all sides,[336] whether in the world or in the Church, as runners
must have the course cleared and the crowd of onlookers that press
around removed far enough to give them the sense of breathing freely and
running unimpeded in a large space. The word “besetting” does not refer
to the special sin to which every individual is most prone. No
thoughtful man but has felt himself encompassed by sin, not merely as a
temptation, but much more as an overpowering force, silent, passive,
closing in upon him on all sides,—a constant pressure from which there
is no escape. The sin and misery of the world has staggered reason and
left men utterly powerless to resist or to alleviate the infinite evil.
Faith alone surmounts these preliminary difficulties of the Christian
life. Faith delivers us from grossness of spirit, from lethargy,
earthliness, stupor. Faith will also lift us above the terrible
pressure of the world’s sin. Faith has the heart that still hopes, and
the hand that still saves. Faith resolutely puts away from her whatever
threatens to overwhelm and impede, and makes for herself a large room to
move freely in.

Then comes the actual contest. Our author says “contest.”[337] For the
conflict is against evil men. Yet it is, in a true and vital sense, not
a contest of the kind which the word naturally suggests. Here the effort
is not to be first at the goal. We run the race “through endurance.”
Mental suffering is of the essence of the conflict. Our success in
winning the prize does not mean the failure of others. The failure of
our rivals does not imply that we attain the mark. In fact, the
Christian life is not the competition of rivals, but the enduring of
shame at the hands of evil men, which endurance is a discipline. Maybe
we do not sufficiently lay to heart that the discipline of life consists
mainly in overcoming rightly and well the antagonism of men. The one
bitterness in the life of our Lord Himself was the malice of the wicked.
Apart from that unrelenting hatred we may regard His short life as
serenely happy. The warning which He addressed to His disciples was that
they should beware of men. But, though wisdom is necessary, the
conflict must not be shunned. When it is over, nothing will more
astonish the man of faith than that he should have been afraid, so weak
did malice prove to be.

To run our course successfully, we must keep our eyes steadily fixed on
Jesus.[338] It is true we are compassed about with a cloud of God’s
faithful witnesses. But they are a cloud. The word signifies not merely
that they are a large multitude, but also that we cannot distinguish
individuals in the immense gathering of those who have gone before. The
Church has always cherished a hope that the saints of heaven are near
us, perhaps seeing our efforts to follow their glorious example. Beyond
this we dare not go. Personal communion is possible to the believer on
earth with One only of the inhabitants of the spiritual world. That One
is Jesus Christ. Even faith cannot discern the individual saints that
compose the cloud. But it can look away from all of them to Jesus. It
looks unto Jesus as He is and as He was: as He is for help; as He was
for a perfect example.

1. Faith regards Jesus as He is,—the “Leader and Perfecter.” The words
are an allusion to what the writer has already told us in the Epistle
concerning Jesus. He is “the Captain or Leader of our salvation,”[339]
and “by one offering He hath perfected for ever them that are
sanctified.”[340] He leads onward our faith till we attain the goal, and
for every advance we make in the course He strengthens, sustains, and in
the end completes our faith. The runner, when he seizes the crown, will
not be found to have been exhausted by his efforts. High attainments
demand a correspondingly great faith.

Many expositors think the words which we have rendered “Leader” and
“Perfecter” refer to Christ’s own faith. But the words will hardly admit
of this meaning. Others think they are intended to convey the notion
that Christ is the Author of our faith in its weak beginnings and the
Finisher of it when it attains perfection. But the use which the Apostle
has made of the words “Leader of salvation” in chap. ii. seems to prove
that here also he understands by “Leader” One Who will bring our faith
onward safely to the end of the course. The distinction is rather
between rendering us certain of winning the crown and making our faith
large and noble enough to be worthy of wearing it.

2. Faith regards Jesus as He was on earth, the perfect example of
victory through endurance. He has acquired His power to lead onward and
to make perfect our faith by His own exercise of faith. He is “Leader”
because He is “Forerunner;”[341] He is “Perfecter” because He Himself
has been perfected.[342] He endured a cross. The author leaves it to his
readers to imagine all that is implied in the awful word. More is
involved in the Cross than shame. For the shame of the Cross He could
afford to despise. But there was in the Cross what He did not despise;
yea, what drew tears and strong cries from Him in the agony of His soul.
Concerning _this_, whatever it was, the author is here silent, because
it was peculiar to Christ, and could never become an example to others,
except indeed in the faith that enabled Him to endure it.

Even in the gainsaying of men there was an element which He did not
despise, but endured. He understood that their gainsaying was against
themselves.[343] It would end, not merely in putting Him to an open
shame, but in their own destruction. This caused keen suffering to His
holy and loving spirit. But He endured it, as He endured the Cross
itself in all its mysterious import. He did not permit the sin and
perdition of the world to overwhelm Him. His faith resolutely put away
from Him the deadly pressure. On the one hand, He did not despise sin;
on the other, He was not crushed by its weight. He calmly endured.

But He endured through faith, as an assurance of things hoped for and
the proving of things not seen. He hoped to attain the joy which was set
before Him as the prize to be won. The connection of the thought with
the general subject of the whole passage satisfies us that the words
translated “for the joy set before Him” are correctly so rendered, and
do not mean that Christ chose the suffering and shame of the Cross in
preference to the enjoyment of sin. This also is perfectly true, and
more true of Christ than it was even of Moses. But the Apostle’s main
idea throughout is that faith in the form of assurance and faith in the
form of enduring go together. Jesus endured because He looked for a
future joy as His recompense of reward; He attained the joy through His
endurance.

But, as more than shame was involved in His Cross, more also than joy
was reserved for Him in reward. Through His Cross He became “the Leader
and Perfecter” of our faith. He was exalted to be the Sanctifier of His
people. “He has sat down on the right hand of God.”

Our author proceeds: Weigh this in the balance.[344] Compare this
quality of faith with your own. Consider who He was and what you are.
When you have well understood the difference, remember that He endured,
as you endure, by faith. He put His trust in God.[345] He was faithful
to Him Who had constituted Him what He became through His assumption of
flesh and blood.[346] He offered prayers and supplications to Him Who
was able to save Him out of death, yet piously committed Himself to the
hands of God. The gainsaying of men brought Him to the bloody death of
the Cross. You also are marshalled in battle array, in the conflict
against the sin of the world. But the Leader only has shed His blood—as
yet. Your hour may be drawing nigh! Therefore be not weary in striving
to reach the goal! Faint not in enduring the conflict! The two sides of
faith are still in the author’s thoughts.

It would naturally occur to the readers of the Epistle to ask why they
might not end their difficulties by shunning the conflict. Why might
they not enter into fellowship with God without coming into conflict
with men? But this cannot be. Communion with God requires personal
fitness of character, and manifests itself in inward peace. This
fitness, again, is the result of discipline, and the discipline implies
endurance. “It is for discipline that ye endure.”[347]

The word translated “discipline” suggests the notion of a child with
his father. But it is noteworthy that the Apostle does not use the word
“children” in his illustration, but the word “sons.” This was occasioned
partly by the fact that the citation from the Book of Proverbs speaks of
“sons.” But, in addition to this, the author’s mind seems to be still
lingering with the remembrance of Him Who was Son of God. For discipline
is the lot and privilege of all sons. Who is a son whom his father does
not discipline? There might have been One. But even He humbled Himself
to learn obedience through sufferings. Absolutely every son undergoes
discipline.

Furthermore, the fathers of our bodies kept us under discipline, and we
not only submitted, but even gave them reverence, though their
discipline was not intended to have effect for more than the few days of
our pupilage, and though in that short time they were liable to error in
their treatment of us. How much more shall we subject ourselves to the
discipline of God! He is not only the God of all spirits and of all
flesh,[348] but also the Father of our spirits; that is, He has created
our spirit after His own likeness, and made it capable, through
discipline, of partaking in His own holiness, which will be our true and
everlasting life. The gardener breaks the hard ground, uproots weeds,
lops off branches; but the consequence of his rough treatment is that
the fruit at last hangs on the bough. We are God’s tillage. Our conflict
with men and their sin is watched and guided by a Father, The fruit
consists in the calm after the storm, the peace of a good conscience,
the silencing of accusers, the putting wicked men to shame, the
reverence which righteousness extorts even from enemies. In the same
book from which our author has cited far-reaching instruction, we are
told that “when a man’s ways please the Lord, He maketh even his enemies
to be at peace with him.”[349]

Here, again, the Apostle addresses his readers as members of the Church
in its conflict with men. He tells them that, in doing what is incumbent
upon them as a Church towards different classes of men, they secure for
themselves individually the discipline of sons and may hope to reap the
fruit of that discipline in peace and righteousness. The Church has a
duty to perform towards the weaker brethren, towards the enemy at the
gate, and towards the Esaus whose worldliness imperils the purity of
others.

1. There were among them weaker brethren, the nerves of whose hands and
knees were unstrung. They could neither combat a foe nor run the race.
It was for the Church to smooth the ruggedness of the road before its
feet, that the lame things[350] (for so, with something of contempt, he
names the waverers) might not be turned out of the course by the
pressure of the other runners. Rather than permit this, let the Church
lift up their drooping hands and sustain their palsied knees, that they
may be healed of their lameness.

2. As to enemies and persecutors, it is the duty of the Church to follow
after peace with all men, as much as in her lies. Christians may
sacrifice almost anything for peace, but not their own priestly
consecration, without which no man shall see the Lord Jesus at His
appearing. He will be seen only by those who eagerly expect Him unto
salvation.[351]

3. The consecration of the Church is maintained by watchfulness[352]
against every tendency to alienation from the grace of God, to
bitterness against God and the brethren, to sensuality and profane
worldliness. All must watch over themselves and over all the brethren.
The danger, too, increases if it is neglected. It begins in withdrawing
from[353] the Church assemblies, where the influences of grace are
manifested. It grows into the poisonous plant of a bitter spirit, which,
“like a root that beareth gall and wormwood,” spreads through “a family
or tribe,”[354] and turns away their heart from the Lord to go and serve
the gods of the nations. “The many are defiled.” The Church as a whole
becomes infected. But bitterness of spirit is not the only fruit of
selfishness. On the same tree sensuality grows, which God will punish
when the Church cannot detect its presence.[355]

From the stem of selfishness, which will not brook the restraints of
Church communion, springs, last and most dangerous of all, the profane,
worldly spirit, which denies and mocks the very idea of consecration. It
is the spirit of Esau, who bartered the right of the first-born to the
promise of the covenant for one mess of pottage. The author calls
attention to the incident, as it displays Esau’s contempt of the promise
made to Abraham and his own father Isaac. His thoughts never rose above
the earth. “What profit shall this birthright do to me?”[356] We must
distinguish between the birthright and the blessing. The former carried
with it the great promise given to Abraham with an oath on Moriah: “In
thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.”[357] Possession
of it did not depend on Isaac’s fond blessing. It belonged to Esau by
right of birth till he sold it to Jacob. But Isaac’s blessing, which he
intended for Esau because he loved him, meant more especially lordship
over his brethren. Esau plainly distinguishes the two things: “Is not he
rightly named Jacob? For he hath supplanted me these two times: he took
away my birthright, and behold, now he hath taken away my
blessing.”[358] When he found that Jacob had supplanted him a second
time, he cried with a great and exceeding bitter cry, and sought
diligently, not the birthright, which was of a religious nature, but the
dew of heaven, and the fatness of the earth, and plenty of corn and
wine, and the homage of his mother’s sons. But he had sold the greater
good and, by doing so, forfeited the lesser. The Apostle recognises,
beyond the subtilty of Jacob and behind the blessing of Isaac, the
Divine retribution. His selling the birthright was not the merely rash
act of a sorely tempted youth. He continued to despise the covenant.
When he was forty years old, he took wives of the daughters of the
Canaanites. Abraham had made his servant swear that he would go to the
city of Nahor to take a wife unto Isaac; and Rebekah, true to the
instinct of faith, was weary of her life because of the daughters of
Heth. But Esau cared for none of these things. The day on which Jacob
took away the blessing marks the crisis in Esau’s life. He still
despised the covenant and sought only worldly lordship and plenty. For
this profane scorn of the spiritual promise made to Abraham and Isaac,
Esau not only lost the blessing which he sought, but was himself
rejected. The Apostle reminds his readers that they know it to have been
so from Esau’s subsequent history. They would not fail to see in him an
example of the terrible doom described by the Apostle himself in a
previous chapter. Esau was like the earth that brings forth thorns and
thistles and is “rejected.”[359] The grace of repentance was denied
him.[360]


FOOTNOTES:

[329] ὑπομονή (x. 36).

[330] Chap. xii. 14.

[331] Chap. xiii. 13.

[332] Chap. iv. 3.

[333] Chap. ix. 15.

[334] Chap. x. 19.

[335] ὄγκον (xii. 1).

[336] εὐπερίστατον.

[337] ἀγῶνα.

[338] Chap. xii. 2.

[339] ἀρχηγόν (ii. 10).

[340] τετελείωκεν (x. 14).

[341] πρόδρομος (vi. 20).

[342] τετελειωμένον (vii. 28).

[343] Reading εἰς ἑαυτούς (xii. 3).

[344] ἀναλογίσασθε (xii. 3).

[345] Chap. ii. 13.

[346] Chap. iii. 2.

[347] εἰς παιδείαν ὑπομένετε (xii. 7, where the verb is indicative, not
imperative).

[348] Num. xvi. 22.

[349] Prov. xvi. 7.

[350] τὸ χωλόν (xii. 13).

[351] Chap. ix. 28.

[352] ἐπισπκοποῦντες (xii. 15).

[353] ὑστερῶν ἀπό.

[354] Deut. xxix. 18.

[355] Chap. xiii. 4. Cf. Rom. i. 18 sqq.

[356] Gen. xxv. 32.

[357] Gen. xxii. 18.

[358] Gen. xxvii. 36.

[359] ἀδόκιμος (vi. 8).

[360] Chap. vi. 6.




CHAPTER XV.

_MOUNT ZION._


    “For ye are not come unto _a mount_ that might be touched, and that
    burned with fire, and unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest, and
    the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which _voice_ they
    that heard entreated that no word more should be spoken unto them:
    for they could not endure that which was enjoined, If even a beast
    touch the mountain, it shall be stoned; and so fearful was the
    appearance, _that_ Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake: but ye
    are come unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the
    heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable hosts of angels, to the
    general assembly and Church of the first-born who are enrolled in
    heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men
    made perfect, and to Jesus the Mediator of a new covenant, and to
    the blood of sprinkling that speaketh better than _that of_ Abel.
    See that ye refuse not Him that speaketh. For if they escaped not,
    when they refused him that warned _them_ on earth, much more _shall
    not_ we _escape_, who turn away from Him that _warneth_ from heaven:
    whose voice then shook the earth: but now He hath promised, saying,
    Yet once more will I make to tremble not the earth only, but also
    the heaven. And this _word_, Yet once more, signifieth the removing
    of those things that are shaken, as of things that have been made,
    that those things which are not shaken may remain. Wherefore,
    receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us have grace,
    whereby we may offer service well-pleasing to God with reverence and
    awe, for our God is a consuming fire.”—HEB. xii. 18–29 (R.V.).


Mutual oversight is the lesson of the foregoing verses. The author urges
his readers to look carefully that no member of the Church withdraws
from the grace of God, that no prison of bitterness troubles and defiles
the Church as a whole, that sensuality and worldliness are put away. In
the paragraph that comes next he still has the idea of Church fellowship
in his mind. But his advice to his readers to exercise supervision over
one another yields to the still more urgent warning to watch themselves,
and especially to shun the most dangerous even of these evils, which is
worldliness of spirit. Esau was rejected; see that ye yourselves refuse
not Him that speaketh.

That the passage is thus closely connected with what immediately
precedes may be admitted. But it must be also connected with the entire
argument of the Epistle. It is the final exhortation directly based on
the general idea that the new covenant excels the former one. As such it
may be compared with the earlier exhortation, given before the allegory
of Melchizedek introduced the notion that the old covenant had passed
away, and with the warning in the tenth chapter which precedes the
glorious record of faith’s heroes from Abel to Jesus. As early as the
second chapter he warns the Hebrew Christians not to drift away and
neglect a salvation revealed in One Who is greater than the angels,
through whom the Law had been given. In the later exhortations he adds
the notion of the blood of the covenant, and insists, not merely on the
greatness, but also on the finality, of the revelation. But in the
concluding passage, which now opens before us, he makes the daring
announcement that all the blessings of the new covenant have already
been fulfilled, and that in perfect completeness and grandeur. We _have_
come unto Mount Zion; we _have_ received a kingdom which cannot be
shaken. The passage must, therefore, be considered as the practical
result of the whole Epistle.

Our author began with the fact of a revelation of God in a Son. But a
thoughtful reader will not fail to have observed that this great subject
seldom comes to the front in the course of the argument. Reading the
Epistle, we seem for a time to forget the thought of a revelation given
in the Son. Our minds are mastered by the author’s powerful reasoning.
We think of nothing but the surpassing excellence of the new covenant
and its Mediator. The greatness of Jesus as High-priest makes us
oblivious of His greatness as the Revealer of God. But this is only the
glamour cast over us by a master mind. After all, to know God is the
highest glory and perfection of man. Apart from a revelation of God in
His Son, all other truths are negative; and their value to us depends on
their connection with this self-manifestation of the Father. Religion,
theology, priesthood, covenant, atonement, salvation, and the
Incarnation itself, do not attain a worthy and final purpose except as
means of revealing God. It would be a serious misapprehension to suppose
that our author had forgotten this fundamental conception. His aim has
been to show that the economy of the new covenant _is_ the perfect
revelation. God has spoken, not through, but _in_, the Son. The Divine
personality, the human nature, the eternal priesthood, the infinite
sacrifice, of the Son are the final revelation of God.

In the sublime contrast between Mount Sinai and Mount Zion the two
thoughts are brought together. We have had frequent occasion to point
out that the central fact of the new covenant is direct communion with
God. Access to God is now open to all men in Christ. We are invited to
draw near with boldness unto the throne of grace.[361] Jesus has entered
as a Forerunner for us within the veil.[362] We have boldness to enter
into the holiest by the blood of Jesus.[363] Yea, we have already
actually entered. We are come unto Mount Zion. Death has been
annihilated. We are now where Christ is. The writer of our Epistle has
advanced beyond the perplexity that, in his hour of loneliness, troubled
St. Paul, who was in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart and
be with Christ, which is far better.[364] We are come to Jesus, the
Mediator of the new covenant. That great city the heavenly Jerusalem has
descended out of heaven from God.[365] The angels pass to and fro as
ministering spirits. The names of the first-born are registered in
heaven, as possessing already the privilege of citizenship. We must not
say that the spirits of the righteous have departed from us; let us
rather say that we, by being made righteous, have come to them. We stand
now before the tribunal of God, the Judge of all. Jesus has fulfilled
His promise to come and receive us unto Himself, that where He is, there
we may be also.[366]

All these things are contained in access unto God. The Apostle explains
their meaning and unfolds their glory by contrasting them with the
revelation of God on Sinai. We might perhaps have expected him to
institute a comparison between them and the incidents of the day of
atonement, inasmuch as he has described Christ’s ascension to the right
hand of God as the entering of the High-priest into the true holiest
place. But the day of atonement was not a revelation of God. The
propitiation required antecedently to a revelation was indeed offered.
But, as the propitiation was unreal, the full revelation, to which it
was intended to lead, was never given. Nothing is said in the books of
Moses concerning the people’s state of mind during the time when the
high-priest stood in God’s presence. The transaction was so purely
ceremonial that the people do not seem to have taken any part in it,
beyond gathering perhaps around the tabernacle to witness the ingress
and egress of the high-priest. Moreover, no words were spoken either by
the high-priest before God, or by God to the high-priest or to the
people. No prayer was uttered, no revelation vouchsafed. For these
reasons the Apostle goes back to the revelation on Sinai, which indeed
instituted the rites of the covenant. With the revelation that preceded
the sacrifices of the Law he compares the revelation that is founded
upon the sacrifice of Christ. This is the fundamental difference between
Sinai and Zion. The revelation on Sinai precedes the sacrifices of the
tabernacle; the revelation on Zion follows the sacrifice of the Cross.
Under the old covenant the revelation demanded sacrifices; under the new
covenant the sacrifice demands a revelation.

From this essential difference in the nature of the revelations a
twofold contrast is apparent in the phenomena of Sinai and Zion. Sinai
revealed the terrible side of God’s character, Zion the peaceful
tenderness of His love. The revelation on Sinai was earthly; that on
Zion is spiritual.

There can be no question that the Apostle intends to contrast the
terrible appearances on Sinai with the calm serenity of Zion. The very
rhythm of his language expresses it. But the key to his description of
the one and the other is to be found in the distinction already
mentioned. On Sinai the unappeased wrath of God is revealed. Sacrifices
are instituted, which, however, when established, evoke no response from
the offended majesty of Heaven. Of the holiest place of the old covenant
the best thing we can say is that the lightning and thunders of Sinai
slumbered therein. The author’s beautiful description of the sunny steep
of Zion is framed, on the other hand, in accordance with his frequent
and emphatic declaration that Christ has entered the true holiest place,
having obtained for us eternal redemption. All that the Apostle says
concerning Sinai and Zion gathers around the two conceptions of sin and
forgiveness.

The Lord spake on Sinai out of the midst of the palpable, enkindled
fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice. All
the people heard the voice. They saw “that God doth talk with man, and
he liveth.” They begin to hope. But immediately they bethink them that,
if they hear the voice of the Lord any more, they will die. Thus does a
guilty conscience contradict itself! Again, the people are invited to
come up into the mount when the trumpet shall sound long. Yet, when the
voice of the trumpet sounds long and waxes louder and louder, they are
charged not to come up unto the Lord, lest He break forth upon them. All
this appearance of inconsistency is intended to symbolize that the
people’s desire to come to God struggled in vain against their sense of
guilt, and that God’s purpose of revealing Himself to them was
contending in vain with the hindrances that arose from their sins. The
whole assembly heard the voice of the Lord proclaiming the Ten
Commandments. Conscience-smitten, they could not endure to hear more.
They gat them into their tents, and Moses alone stood on the mountain
with God, to receive at His mouth all the statutes and judgments which
they should do and observe in the land which He would give them to
possess. The Apostle singles out for remark the command that, if a beast
touched the mountain, it should be stoned to death. The people, he says,
could not endure this command. Why not this? It connected the terrors of
Sinai with man’s guilt. According to the Old Testament idea of Divine
retribution, the beasts of the earth fall under the curse due to man.
When God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the days of Noah,
He said, “I will destroy both man and beast.”[367] When, again, He
blessed Noah after the waters were dried up, He said, “I, behold, I
establish My covenant with you and with every living creature that is
with you.”[368] Similarly, the command to put to death any beast that
might haply touch the mountain revealed to the people that God was
dealing with them as sinners. Moses himself, the mediator of the
covenant, who aspired to behold the glory of God, feared exceedingly.
But his fear came upon him when he looked and beheld that the people had
sinned against the Lord their God[369] and made them a molten calf. His
fear was not the prostration of nervous terror. Remembering, when he had
descended, the awful sights and sounds witnessed on the mountain, he was
afraid of the anger and hot displeasure of God against the people, who
had done wickedly in the sight of the Lord. Almost every word the
Apostle has here written bears closely upon the moral relation between a
guilty people and the angry God.

If we turn to the other picture, we at once perceive that the thoughts
radiate from the holiest place as from a centre. The passage is, in
fact, an expansion of what is said in the ninth chapter, that Christ has
entered in once for all into the holiest place, through the greater and
more perfect tabernacle. The holiest has widened its boundaries. The
veil has been removed, so that the entire sanctuary now forms part of
the holy of holies. It is true that the Apostle begins, in the passage
under consideration, not with the holiest place, but with Mount Zion. He
does so because the immediate contrast is between the two mountains, and
he has already stated that Christ entered through a larger tabernacle.
The holiest place includes, therefore, the whole mountain of Zion, on
which the tabernacle was erected; yea, all Jerusalem is within the
precincts. If we extend the range of our survey, we behold the earth
sanctified by the presence of the first-born sons of God, who are the
Church, and of His myriads, the other sons of God, who also have, not
indeed the birthright, but a blessing, even the joyful multitude of the
heavenly host.[370] The Apostle describes the angels as keeping festal
holiday, for joy to witness the coming of the first-born sons. They are
the friends of the Bridegroom, who stand and hear Him, and rejoice
greatly because of the Bridegroom’s voice. If, again, we attempt to soar
above this world of trials, we find ourselves at once before the
judgment-seat of God. But even here a change has taken place. For we are
come to a Judge Who is God of all,[371] and not merely to a God Who is
Judge of all. Thus the promise of the new covenant has been fulfilled,
“I will be to them a God.”[372] If in imagination we pass the tribunal
and consider the condition of men in the world of spirits, we recognise
there the spirits of the righteous dead, and are given to understand
that they have already attained the perfection[373] which they could not
have received before the Christian Church had exercised a greater faith
than some had found possible to themselves on earth.[374] If we ascend
still higher, we are in the presence of Jesus Himself. But He is on the
right hand of the Majesty on high, not simply as Son of God, but as
Mediator of the new covenant. His blood is sprinkled on the mercy-seat,
and speaks to God, but not for vengeance on those who shed it on the
Cross, some of whom possibly were now among the readers of the Apostle’s
piercing words. What an immeasurable distance between the first man of
faith, mentioned in the eleventh chapter, and Jesus, with Whom his list
closes! The very first blood of man shed to the earth cried from the
ground to God for vengeance. The blood of Jesus sprinkled in heaven
speaks a better thing. What the better thing is, we are not told. Men
may give it a name; but it is addressed to God, and God alone knows its
infinite meaning.

From all this we infer that the comparison here made between Sinai and
Zion is intended to depict the difference (seen, as it were, in another
Bunyan’s dream) between a revelation given before Christ offered Himself
as a propitiation for sin and the revelation which God gives us of
Himself after the sacrifice of Christ has been presented in the true
holiest place.

The Apostle’s account of Mount Zion is followed by a most incisive
warning, introduced with a sudden solemnity, as if the thunder of Sinai
itself were heard remote. The passage is beset with difficulties, some
of which it would be inconsistent with the design of the present volume
to discuss. One question has scarcely been touched upon by the
expositors. But it enters into the very pith of the subject. The
exhortation which the author addresses to his readers does not at first
appear to be based on a correct application of the narrative. For the
Israelites at the foot of Sinai are not said to have refused Him that
spake to them on the mount. No doubt God, not Moses, is meant; for it
was the voice of God that shook the earth. The people were terrified.
They were afraid that the fire would consume them. But they had
understood also that their God was the living God, and therefore not to
be approached by man. They wished Moses to intervene, not because they
rejected God, but because they acknowledged the awful greatness of His
living personality. Far from rejecting Him, they said to Moses, “Speak
thou unto us all that the Lord our God shall speak unto thee; and we
will hear it and do it.”[375] God Himself commended their words: “They
have well said all that they have spoken.” Can we suppose, therefore,
that the Apostle in the present passage represents them as actually
rebelling, and “refusing Him that spake”? The word here translated
“refuse”[376] does not express the notion of rejecting with contempt. It
means “to deprecate,” to shrink in fear from a person. Again, the word
“escape,” in its reference to the children of Israel at Sinai, cannot
signify “to avoid being punished,” which is its meaning in the second
chapter of this Epistle.[377] The meaning is that they could not flee
from His presence, though Moses mediated between Him and the people.
They could not escape Him. His word “_found_[378] them” when they
cowered in their tents as truly as if they had climbed with Moses the
heights of Sinai. For the word of God was then also a living word, and
there was no creature that was not manifest in His sight. Yet it was
right in the people to deprecate, and desire Moses to speak to them
rather than God. This was the befitting spirit under the old covenant.
It expresses very precisely the difference between the bondage of that
covenant and the liberty of the new. In Christ only is the veil taken
away. Where the Spirit of the Lord Jesus is, there is liberty. But, for
this reason, what was praiseworthy in the people who were kept at a
distance from the bounds placed around Sinai is unworthy and censurable
in those who have come to Mount Zion. See, therefore, that ye do not ask
Him that speaketh to withdraw into the thick darkness and terrible
silence. For us to deprecate is tantamount to rejection of God. We are
actually turning away from Him. But to ignore and shun His presence is
now impossible to us. The revelation is from heaven. He Who brought it
descended Himself from above. Because He is from heaven, the Son of God
is a life-giving Spirit. He surrounds us, like the ambient air. The sin
of the world is not the only “besetting” element of our life. The
ever-present, besetting God woos our spirit. He speaks. That His words
are kind and forgiving we know. For He speaks to us from heaven,
because the blood sprinkled in heaven speaks better before God than the
blood of Abel spoke from the ground. The revelation of God to us in His
Son preceded, it is true, the entrance of the Son into the holiest
place; but it has acquired a new meaning and a new force in virtue of
the Son’s appearing before God for us. This new force of the revelation
is represented by the mission and activity of the Spirit.

The author’s thoughts glide almost imperceptibly into another channel.
We can refuse Him that speaketh, and turn away from Him in unbelief. But
let us beware. It is the final revelation. His voice on Sinai shook the
earth. The meaning is not that it terrified the people. The writer has
passed from that thought. He now speaks of the effect of God’s voice on
the material world, the power of revelation over created nature. This is
a truth that frequently meets us in Scripture. Revelation is accompanied
by miracle. When the Ten Commandments were spoken by the lips of God to
the people, “the whole mount quaked greatly.”[379] But the prophet
Haggai predicts the glory of the second house in words which recall to
our author the trembling of Mount Sinai: “For thus saith the Lord of
hosts: Yet once more, it is a little while, and I will shake the
heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land; and I will shake
all nations, and the desirable things of all nations shall come, and I
will fill this house with glory, saith the Lord of hosts.”[380] It is
very characteristic of the writer of this Epistle to fasten on a few
salient points in the prophet’s words. He seems to think that Haggai had
the scenes that occurred on Sinai in his mind. Two expressions connect
the narrative in Exodus with the prophecy. When God spoke on Sinai, His
voice shook the earth. Haggai declares that God will, at some future
time, shake the heaven. Again, the prophet has used the words “yet once
more.” Therefore, when the greater glory of the second house will have
come to pass, the last shaking of earth and of heaven will take place.
The inference is that the word “yet once more” signifieth the removing
of those things that are shaken. The whole fabric of nature will perish
in its present material form, and the Apostle connects this universal
catastrophe with the revelation of God in His Son.

Many very excellent expositors think that our author refers, not to the
final dissolution of nature, but to the abrogation of the Jewish
economy. It is true that the Epistle has declared the old covenant a
thing of the past. But there are two considerations that lead us to
adopt the other view of this passage. In the first place, this Epistle
does not describe the abrogation of the old covenant as a violent
catastrophe, but rather as the passing away of what had grown old and
decayed. In the second place, the coming of the Lord is elsewhere, in
writings of that age, spoken of as accompanied by a great convulsion of
nature. The two notions go together in the thoughts of the time. “The
day of the Lord will come as a thief, in the which the heavens shall
pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall be dissolved with
fervent heat, and the earth and the works that are therein shall be
burned up.”[381]

We connect the words “as things that have been made” with the next
clause: “that those things which are not shaken may remain.” It is not
because they have been made that the earth and the heaven are removed;
and their place will not be occupied by uncreated things only, but also
by things made. The meaning is that nature will be dissolved when it has
answered its purpose, and not till then. Earth and heaven have been
made, not for their own sakes, but in order that out of them a new world
may be created, which will never be removed or shaken. This new world is
the kingdom of which the King-Priest is eternal Monarch.[382] As we
partake in His priesthood, we share also in His kingship. We enter into
the holiest place and stand before the mercy-seat, but our absolution
is announced and confirmed to us by the Divine summons to sit down with
Christ in His throne, as He has sat down with His Father in His
throne.[383]

Let us therefore accept the kingdom. But beware of your peculiar danger,
which is self-righteous pride, worldliness, and the evil heart of
unbelief. Rather let us seek and get that grace from God which will make
our royal state a humble service of worshipping priests.[384] The grace
which the Apostle exhorts his reader to possess is much more than
thankfulness. It includes all that Christianity bestows to counteract
and vanquish the special dangers of self-righteousness. Such priestly
service will be well-pleasing to God. Offer it with pious resignation to
His sovereign will, with awe in the presence of His holiness. For,
whilst our God proclaims forgiveness from the mercy-seat as the
worshippers stand before it, He is _also_ a consuming fire. Upon the
mercy-seat itself rests the Shechinah.


FOOTNOTES:

[361] Chap. iv. 16.

[362] Chap. vi. 20.

[363] Chap. x. 19.

[364] Phil. i. 23.

[365] Rev. xxi. 10.

[366] John xiv. 3.

[367] Gen. vi. 7.

[368] Gen. ix. 9, 10.

[369] Deut. ix. 16, 19.

[370] Reading καὶ μυριάσιν, ἀγγέλων πανηγύρει, καὶ ἐκκλησίᾳ πρωτοτόκων
(xii. 22, 23). This disconnected use of μυριάς is amply justified by
Deut. xxxiii. 2, Dan. vii. 10, and Jude 14. Besides, πανήγυρις is
precisely the word to describe the assemblage of angels and distinguish
them from the Church.

[371] κριτῇ θεῷ πάντων.

[372] Chap. viii. 10.

[373] τετελειωμένων.

[374] Chap. xi. 40.

[375] Deut. v. 27, 28.

[376] παραιτησάμενοι (xii. 25).

[377] Chap. ii. 3.

[378] “The Bible finds me,” said Coleridge.

[379] Exod. xix. 18. In his citation of this passage our author forsakes
the Septuagint, which has “And all the people were greatly amazed.”

[380] Haggai ii. 6, 7.

[381] 2 Pet. iii. 10.

[382] Chap. xii. 28.

[383] Rev. iii. 21.

[384] λατρεύωμεν (xii. 28).




CHAPTER XVI.

_SUNDRY EXHORTATIONS._


    HEBREWS xiii.

    Let love of the brethren continue. Forget not to shew love unto
    strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.
    Remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them; them that are
    evil entreated, as being yourselves also in the body. Let marriage
    be had in honour among all, and let the bed be undefiled: for
    fornicators and adulterers God will judge. Be ye free from the love
    of money; content with such things as ye have: for Himself hath
    said, I will in no wise fail thee, neither will I in any wise
    forsake thee. So that with good courage we say.

        The Lord is my helper; I will not fear:
        What shall man do unto me?

    Remember them that had the rule over you, which spake unto you the
    word of God; and considering the issue of their life, imitate their
    faith. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and to-day, yea and for
    ever. Be not carried away by divers and strange teachings: for it is
    good that the heart be established by grace; not by meats, wherein
    they that occupied themselves were not profited. We have an altar,
    whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle. For
    the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the holy
    place by the high priest as an offering for sin, are burned without
    the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people
    through His own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us therefore
    go forth unto Him without the camp, bearing His reproach. For we
    have not here an abiding city, but we seek after the city which is
    to come. Through Him then let us offer up a sacrifice of praise to
    God continually, that is, the fruit of lips which make confession to
    His name. But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with
    such sacrifices God is well pleased. Obey them that have the rule
    over you, and submit to them: for they watch in behalf of your
    souls, as they that shall give account: that they may do this with
    joy, and not with grief: for this were unprofitable for you.

    Pray for us: for we are persuaded that we have a good conscience,
    desiring to live honestly in all things. And I exhort you the more
    exceedingly to do this, that I may be restored to you the sooner.

    Now the God of peace, who brought again from the dead the great
    shepherd of the sheep with the blood of the eternal covenant, even
    our Lord Jesus, make you perfect in every good thing to do His will,
    working in us that which is well-pleasing in His sight, through
    Jesus Christ; to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.

    But I exhort you, brethren, bear with the word of exhortation: for I
    have written unto you in few words. Know ye that our brother Timothy
    hath been set at liberty; with whom if he come shortly, I will see
    you.

    Salute all them that have the rule over you, and all the saints.
    They of Italy salute you.

    Grace be with you all. Amen.


The condition of the Hebrew Christians was most serious. But one
excellence is acknowledged to have belonged to them. It was almost the
only ground of hope. They ministered to the saints.[385] Yet even this
grace was in peril. In a previous chapter the writer has exhorted them
to call to remembrance the former days, in which they had compassion on
them that were in bonds.[386] But he considers it sufficient, in
reference to brotherly love, to urge them to see that it continues.[387]
They were in more danger of forgetting to show kindness to their
brethren of other Churches, who, in pursuance of the liberty of
prophesying accorded in Apostolic times, journeyed from place to place
for the purpose of founding new Churches or of imparting spiritual gifts
to Churches already established. Besides, it was a time of local
persecutions. One Church might be suffering, and its members might take
refuge in a sister-Church. Missionaries and persecuted brethren would
be the strangers to whom the enrolled widows used hospitality, and whose
feet they washed.[388] We can well understand why in that age a bishop
would be especially expected to be given to hospitality.[389] Uhlhorn
excellently observes that “the greatness of the age consisted in this
very feature: that Christians of all places knew themselves to be
fraternally one, and that in this oneness all differences
disappeared.”[390] In the case of a Church consisting of Hebrews the
duty of entertaining strangers, many of them necessarily Greeks, would
be peculiarly apt to be forgotten. When a Church wavered in its
allegiance to Christianity, the alienation would become still more
pronounced.

The constant going and coming of missionary brethren reminds the author
of the ministry of angels, who are like the swift breezes, and carry
Christ’s messages over the face of the earth.[391] Sometimes they are as
a flame of fire. When they were on their way to destroy the Cities of
the Plain, Abraham and Lot entertained them, not knowing that they were
heaven-sent ministers of wrath.[392] It would be presumptuous in any man
to deny the possibility of angelic visitations in the Christian Church;
but the Apostle’s meaning is not that hospitality ought to be shown to
strangers in the hope that angels may be among them. They are to be
received unawares; otherwise the fragrance of the deed is gone. But the
fact remains, and has been proved in the experience of many, that
kindness to strangers, be they preaching friars, or itinerant exhorters,
or persecuted outcasts, brings a rich blessing to children’s children. A
Syrian builds for himself a hut on the riverside, and offers to carry
the wayfarers across on his shoulders. One day a child asks to be taken
over. But the light burden becomes every moment heavier. The exhausted
bearer asks in astonishment, “Who art thou, child?” It was Christ, and
the Syrian was named the Christ-bearer in remembrance of the event.[393]

The next exhortation is to purity. It is better not to attempt to
connect these exhortations. Their special importance in the case of the
Hebrew Christians is reason enough for them. Abstinence from marriage is
not commended. Our author is not an Essene. On the contrary, he would
discourage it. “Let marriage be held in honour among all classes of
men.” It is the Divinely appointed remedy against incontinence. But in
the married state itself let there be purity. For the incontinent,
whether in the bonds of wedlock or not, God’s direct, providential
judgments will overtake.

Then follows a warning against love of money, and the Lord’s promise not
to fail or forsake Joshua[394] is appropriated by our author on behalf
of his readers. Their covetousness arose from anxiety, which may have
been occasioned by their distressing poverty in the days of
Claudius.[395] That the advice was needed shows the precise character of
their threatening apostasy. Worldliness was at the root of their
Judaism. It is still the same. The self-righteous do not hate money.

Let them imitate the trustfulness of their great leaders in the past,
who had not given their time and thoughts to heaping up riches, but had
devoted themselves to the work of witnessing and of speaking the word of
God. Let them review with critical eye their manner of life, and observe
how it ended. They all died in faith. Some of them suffered martyrdom,
so complete and entirely unworldly was their self-surrender to Jesus
Christ! But Jesus Christ is still the same One. If He was worthy that
Stephen and James should die for His sake, He is worthy of our
allegiance too. Yea, He will be the same for ever. When the world has
passed away, with its fashion and its lust, when the earth and the works
that are therein are burned up and dissolved, Jesus Christ abides. What
He was yesterday to His martyr Stephen, that He is to all that follow
Him in earth’s to-day, and that He will for ever be when He shall have
appeared unto them who expect Him unto salvation. The antithesis, it
will be seen, is not between the departed saints and the abiding Christ,
but between the world, which the Hebrew Christians loved too well, and
the Christ Whom the saints of their Church had loved better than the
world and served by faith unto death.

If Jesus Christ abides, He is our anchorage, and the exhortation first
given near the beginning of the Epistle once more suggests itself to the
Apostle. “Permit not yourselves to drift and be carried past[396] the
moorings by divers strange doctrines.” The word “doctrines” is itself
emphatic, “Be not borne aside from the personal, abiding Jesus Christ by
propositions, whether in reference to practice or to belief.” What these
“doctrines” were in this particular case we learn from the next verse.
They were the doubtful disputations about meats. The epithets “divers
and strange” restrict the allusion still more nearly. He speaks not of
the general and familiar injunctions of Jewish teachers respecting
meats, the subject rather contemptuously dismissed by St. Paul in the
Epistle to the Romans: “One man hath faith to eat all things; but he
that is weak eateth herbs.”[397] Our author could not have regarded
these doctrines as “strange,” and he could scarcely have spoken of
“strengthening the heart with meats” if he had meant abstinence from
meats. A recent English expositor[398] has pointed out the direction in
which we must seek the interpretation of this difficult passage. The
Apostle brushes aside the novel teaching of the Essenes, who, without
becoming Christians, “had broken away from the sacrificial system” of
the Mosaic law and “substituted for it new ordinances of their own,
according to which the daily meal became a sacrifice, and the president
of the community took the place of the Levitical priest.” Such teaching
was quite as inconsistent with Judaism as with Christianity. But the
writer of this Epistle rejects it for precisely the same reason for
which he repudiates Judaism. Both are inconsistent with the perfect
separateness of Christ’s atonement.

It is well, as St. Paul said, for every man to be fully assured in his
own mind.[399] A doubting conscience enfeebles a man’s spiritual vigour
for work. The Essenes found a remedy for morbidness in strictness as to
meats and minute directions for the employment of time. St. Paul taught
that an unhealthy casuistry would be best counteracted by doing all
things unto the Lord. “He that eateth eateth unto the Lord, for he
giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, unto the Lord he eateth not,
and giveth God thanks. For none of us liveth to himself, and none dieth
to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; or whether we
die, we die unto the Lord.”[400] The author of the Epistle to the
Hebrews considers that it betokens a littleness of soul to strengthen
conscience by regulations as to various kinds of food. The noble
thing[401] is that the heart—that is, the conscience—be stablished by
thankfulness,[402] which will produce a strong, placid, courageous, and
healthy moral perception. The moral code of the New Testament is direct
and simple. It is entirely free from all casuistical crotchets and
distinctions without a difference. Those who busy themselves[403] about
such matters have never gained anything by it.

Do the Essenes repudiate the altar the sacrifice of which may not be
eaten? Do they teach that the only sacrifice for sin is the daily meal?
This is a fatal error. “We _have_” says the Apostle, “an altar of which
the worshippers are not permitted to eat.”[404] All these expressions
are metaphorical. By the altar we must understand the atoning sacrifice
of Christ; by “those who serve the tabernacle” are meant believers in
that sacrifice, prefigured, however, by the priests and worshippers
under the old covenant; and by “eating of the altar” is meant
participation in the sacredness that pertains to the death and atonement
of Christ. The purpose of the writer is to teach the entire separateness
of Christ’s atonement. It is true that Christians eat the body and drink
the blood of Christ.[405] But the words of our Lord and of St. Paul[406]
refer to the passover, whereas our author speaks of the sin-offering. In
the former the lamb was eaten;[407] in the latter the carcases of the
beasts whose blood was brought by the worshipper through his
representative,[408] the high-priest, into the holiest place on the day
of atonement, were carried forth without the camp and burned in the
fire.[409] Both sacrifices, the passover and the sin-offering, were
typical. The former typified our participation in Christ’s death, the
latter the separateness of Christ’s death.

Many expositors see a reference in the Apostle’s words to the Lord’s
Table, and some of them infer from the word “altar” that the Eucharist
is a continual offering of a propitiatory sacrifice to God. It is not
too much to say that this latter doctrine is the precise error which the
Apostle is here combating.

Two other interpretations of these verses have been suggested. Both are,
we think, untenable. The one is that we Christians have an altar of
which we have a right to eat, but of which the Jewish priests and all
who cling to Judaism have no right to eat; and, to prove that they have
not, the Apostle mentions the fact that they were not permitted to eat
the bodies of the beasts slain as a sin-offering under the old covenant.
There are several weighty objections to this view, but the following one
will be sufficient. The reference to the sin-offering in the eleventh
verse is made in order to show that it was a type of Christ’s atoning
death. As the bodies of the slain beasts were carried outside the camp
and burned, so Christ suffered without the gate. But there is no real
resemblance between the two things unless the Apostle intends to teach
that the atonement of Christ stands apart and cannot be shared in by any
other person, which implies that the tenth verse does not convey the
notion that Christians have a right to eat of the altar.

The other interpretation is that we, Christians, have an altar of which
we who serve the ideal tabernacle have no right to eat, inasmuch as the
sacrifice is spiritual. “Our Christian altar supplies no flesh for
carnal food.”[410] But if the reference is to carnal food, the
expression “We have no _right_ to eat” is not the appropriate one. The
writer would surely have said, “of which we _cannot_ eat.” Besides, this
view misses the connection between the ninth and tenth verses. To say
that Christ’s death procured spiritual blessings and that we do not eat
His body after a carnal manner does not affect the question concerning
meats, unless the doctrine concerning meats includes the notion that
they are themselves an atoning sacrifice. Such was the doctrine of the
Essenes. The argument of the Apostle is good and forcible if it means
that Christ’s atonement is Christ’s alone. We share not in its
sacredness, though we partake of its blessings. It resembles the
sin-offering on the day of atonement, as well as the paschal lamb.

But it was not enough that the slain beasts should be burned without the
camp. Their blood also must be brought into the holiest place. The
former rite signified that the slain beast bore the sin of the people,
the latter that the people themselves were sanctified. Similarly Jesus
suffered without the gate of Jerusalem, in reproach and ignominy, as the
Sin-bearer, and also entered into the true holiest place, in order to
sanctify His people through His own blood.

We must not press the analogy. The author sees a quaint but touching
resemblance between the burning of the slain beasts outside the camp and
the crucifying of Jesus on Golgotha outside the city. The point of
resemblance is in the ignominy symbolized in the one and in the other.
Here too the writer finds the practical use of what he has said. Though
the atonement of the Cross is Christ’s, and cannot be shared in by
others, the reproach of that atoning death can. The thought leads the
Apostle away from the divers strange doctrines of the Essenes, and
brings him back to the main idea of the Epistle, which is to induce his
readers to hold no more dalliance with Judaism, but to break away from
it finally and for ever. “Let us come out,” he says. The word recalls
St. Paul’s exhortation to the Christians of Corinth “to come out from
among them, to be separate, and not to touch the unclean thing. For what
concord can there be between Christ and Belial, between a believer and
an unbeliever, between the sanctuary of God and idols?”[411] Our author
tells the Hebrew Christians that on earth they have nothing better than
reproach to expect. Quit, therefore, the camp of Judaism. Live, so to
speak, in the desert. (He speaks metaphorically throughout.) You have no
abiding city on earth. The fatal mistake of the Jews has been that they
have turned what ought to be simply a camp into an abiding city. They
have lost the feeling of the pilgrim; they seek not a better country and
a city built by God. Shun ye this worldliness. Not only regard not your
earthly life as a permanent dwelling in a city, but leave even the camp;
be not only sojourners, but outcasts. Share in the reproach of Jesus,
and look for your citizenship in heaven.

Reverting to the teaching of the Essenes, the writer proceeds: “Through
Jesus let us offer a sacrifice of praise.”[412] The emphasis must rest
on the words “through Jesus.” The daily meal is not a sacrifice, except
in the sense of being a thanksgiving; and our thanksgiving is acceptable
to God when it is offered through Him Whose death is a propitiation.
Even then lip-worship only is not accepted. Share the meal with the
poor. God is pleased with the sacrifices of doing good to all and
contributing[413] to the necessities of the saints.

The Apostle next exhorts them to obey their leaders, and that with
yielding submission. The atmosphere is certainly different from the
democratic spirit of the Corinthian Church. Yet it is not improbable
that the safety of the Hebrew Christians everywhere from a violent
reaction towards Judaism was due to the wisdom and profounder insight of
the leaders. Our author evidently considers that he has them on his
side. “They, whatever we may think of the common herd, are wide awake.
They understand that they will have to give an account of their
stewardship over you to Christ at His coming. Submit to them, that they
may watch over your souls with joy, and not with a grief that finds
utterance in frequent sighs.[414] When they give their account, you will
not find that your fretful rebelliousness has profited you aught. The
Essenian society gain nothing by absorption of the individual in the
community, and you will gain nothing, but quite the reverse, by
asserting your individual crotchets to the destruction of the
Church.”[415]

He asks his readers to pray for him and Timothy, who has been released
from prison. Their prayers are his due. For he believes he has an
upright conscience in breaking with Judaism. For the same reason he is
confident that their prayers on his behalf will be answered. He and his
friends wish in all things to live noble lives. He is the more desirous
of having their prayers because of his eagerness to be “restored”[416]
to them. He means much more than to return to them. He wishes to be
“restored,” or “refitted.” Their prayers will put an end to the
perturbation of his mind, and bring back the happiness of their first
love.

He, too, prays for them. His prayer is that God may furnish them with
every gift of grace to do His will, and His will is their
consecration,[417] through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ
once. God will answer his prayer and provide in them that which is
pleasing in His sight through Jesus Christ. For He has not left His
Church without a Shepherd, though it is in the wilderness. He has
brought up from the dead, and restored out of the ignominious death
without the gate, our Lord Jesus Christ, the great Shepherd, Who is ever
with them, whatever may become of the undershepherds. That He has been
raised from the dead is certain. For, when He was crucified in ignominy
without the gate, His blood was at the same time offered in the true
holiest place. That blood has ratified the new and final covenant
between God and His people. It was through His own blood of this eternal
covenant that He was raised from the dead, and it is in virtue of the
same blood and of the same covenant that He is now the Shepherd of His
Church.

Here, again, we must not draw too broad a distinction between the
resurrection of Christ and His ascension to heaven. On the one hand, we
must not say that by the words “bringing up from the dead” the Apostle
means the ascension; on the other hand, the words do not exclude the
ascension. The resurrection and the ascension coalesce in the notion of
Christ being living. The only distinction present, we think, to the
writer’s mind was that between the shame of Christ’s death without the
camp and the offering of His blood by the living Christ in the holiest
place. He Who died on the Cross through that death liveth evermore. He
lives to be the Shepherd of His people. Therefore to Him must be
ascribed the glory for ever and ever.

The Apostle once more begs his readers to bear with the word of
exhortation. Let them remember that he has written briefly in order to
spare them. He might have said more, but he has refrained.

He hopes to bring Timothy with him, unless his friend tarries long. In
that case he will come alone, so great is his anxiety to see them.

He sends his greetings to all the saints, but mentions the leaders.
Brethren who have come from Italy are with him. They may have been
exiles or fugitives who had sought safety during the first great
persecution of the Church in the days of Nero. They too send greetings.

He closes with the Apostolic benediction. For, whoever he was, he was
truly an Apostolic man.


FOOTNOTES:

[385] Chap. vi. 10.

[386] Chap. x. 34.

[387] Chap. xiii. 1.

[388] 1 Tim. v. 10.

[389] 1 Tim. iii. 2.

[390] _Christian Charity in the Ancient Church_, English Trans., p. 92.

[391] Chap. i. 7.

[392] Gen. xviii. 2; xix. 1.

[393] The legend of Christopher is beautifully told by Oosterzee at the
beginning of his book on _The Person and Work of the Redeemer_, English
Trans. (Ed. 1886).

[394] Josh. i. 5.

[395] Acts xi. 28.

[396] μὴ παραφέρεσθε (xiii. 9).

[397] Rom. ix. 13.

[398] Rendall: _The Epistle to the Hebrews_, pp. xxv. and 139.

[399] Rom. xiv. 15.

[400] Rom. xiv. 6–8.

[401] καλόν (xiii. 9).

[402] χάριτι. The author has chosen a more classical word than that
which St. Paul uses.

[403] περιπατοῦντες.

[404] Chap. xiii. 10.

[405] John vi. 51–55.

[406] 1 Cor. x. 16.

[407] Exod. xii.

[408] διά.

[409] Lev. xvi. 27.

[410] So Rendall, _loc. cit._

[411] 2 Cor. vi. 15 sqq.

[412] Chap. xiii. 15.

[413] κοινωνίας.

[414] στενάζοντες (xiii. 17).

[415] ἀλυσιτελές. Comp. ver. 9.

[416] ἀποκατασταθῶ (xiii. 19).

[417] Chap. x. 10.




INDEX.

_The numerals refer to the pages._


Aaron, consecration of, 185;
  priesthood of, 79, 128.

Abel’s faith, 223.

Abraham, faith of, 213;
  God’s oath to, 101;
  promise made to, 9;
  seed of, 45.

Adam, 220;
  the second, 36.

Agnostics, 235.

Acquittal of Christ, 168.

Alaric, 272.

Allegory of Melchizedek, 113.

Altar, 323.

Angels, assembly of, 301;
  as emanations, 22;
  man inferior to, 34;
  ministry of, 27, 316.

Anticipation of nature, 241.

Antinomianism, 148, 201.

Antiochus Epiphanes, 264.

Apostasy, 95.

Architect of all, God the, 54.

Aristotle’s doctrine of habit, 85.

Assemblies, Church, 187.

Assurance, 174.

Athletes, 194.

Atonement, day of, 296;
  Christ’s, 38.

Augustine cited, 142.

Authority of our High priest, 77.


Baptism, 186;
  infant, 240.

Baptisms, doctrine of, 87.

Barak’s faith, 26.

Benediction, apostolic, 329.

Bengel, 100.

Blessing of God, 89.

Brotherhood, Christ’s, 39, 41.

Bruce, Dr., _Humiliation of Christ_, 44.


Cain, how far he had faith, 223.

Calvin, 100, 250.

Canaan, rest of, 61.

Character in relation to understanding of truth, 90.

Christ, the coming of, 195;
  a spotless victim, 156;
  death of, 37, 93;
  return of, 188;
  as creator, 9;
  the effulgence of God’s glory, 12;
  as theocratic king, 26, 179;
  piety of, 77;
  true man, 167;
  unchangeable, 164;
  unites all revelations of God, 8;
  as first-begotten, 26;
  as Leader, 38;
  His trust in God, 40;
  His humiliations a propitiatory in death, 37;
  more worthy than Moses, 55;
  incapable of sin, 72;
  the great Shepherd, 328.

Christology of the Epistle, 178.

Christopher, legend of, 317.

Church, consciousness of the, 187;
  customs, 187;
  idea of the, 185.

Cloud of witnesses, 259, 279.

Cocceius, 126.

Coleridge, S. T., cited, 304.

Colossian heresy, 22.

Colossians, Epistle to the, 22.

Conflict of faith, 273, 277.

Conscience, enlightened, 158, 227, 248;
  natural, 152, 155;
  enfeebled by Judaism, 156;
  as a revelation of God, 3;
  not satisfied under the Law, 123.

Consecration, priestly, 185.

Conversion, immediate, 242.

Cross, use of the word, 281.

Creed, the Nicene, 15.

Cynicism, 96, 190.

Cyprian cited, 95.

Covenant, new. See under New.

Covenant, old, 307.


David’s faith, 263.

Death a spiritual conception, 43.

Deborah’s faith, 261.

Delitzsch cited, 114.

Demons, faith of, 224.

De Lyra, 258.

Discipline of conscience, 175;
  of character, 283.

Doctrines, strange, 317.

Dominion bestowed on man through Christ, 36.

Dreams once a revelation of God, 10.


Earnestness, 100.

Ecstasy, 11, 53.

Effulgence of God’s glory, 12.

Eleazar’s faith, 264.

Elijah’s removal, 220;
  his faith, 263;
  his sudden appearances, 6;
  defiled by touching a dead person, 155.

Elisha defiled by touching a dead person, 155.

Emanations, doctrine of, 21 _sqq._

Enoch’s faith, 219.

Ephesians, Epistle to the, 52.

Equity of our High-priest, 72, 74.

Esau a representative of the worldly spirit, 287.

Essenes, 26, 320 _sqq._

Eternal duration of Christ’s priesthood, 116.

Exhortations of the Epistle compared, 183.

Exmanition of Christ, 44.


Failure, impossibility of, 99.

Faith, as an initial grace, 86;
  as confidence, 200;
  as trust, 201;
  and works, 201;
  as an inner life, 201;
  and morality, 202;
  as a realisation of the unseen, 204;
  as proof, 204;
  as obedience, 215;
  groping for the light, 238;
  as endurance, 273;
  the better, 267.

Family, the, 241.

Father of our spirit, God as, 284.

Fatherhood, of God, 32;
  Old Testament conception of God’s, 145;
  Christ’s conception of God’s, 145.

Federalist theology, 126.

Finality of Christ’s work, 167.

First-begotten, Christ the, 26.

Flesh, use of the word, 152.

Forensic conception of the atonement, 171, 224.

Forgiveness, 145 _sq._;
  under the Old Testament, 146.

Forty years since Christ’s ascension, 57.


Galatians, Epistle to the, 175.

Gideon’s faith, 261.

Glory, of sonship, 37;
  of leadership, 38;
  in power to consecrate, 39;
  in destroying Satan, 42.

God, not a mechanician, 209;
  the Son is, 27;
  a consuming fire, 309.

Gnostics, 22.

Greek gods human, 21.


Habakkuk, prophecy of, 195.

Habit, Aristotle’s doctrine of, 85.

Habits, evil, 91.

Hades, Christ in, 170.

Haggai, prophesy of, 306.

Heathenism, 64, 202.

Heaven, a sanctuary, 70;
  purification of, 163;
  a city, 218.

Hebrew conception of God, 21.

Heir, Christ the, 8.

Herod, deification of, 96.

Heroes of religion, 234.

High-priest, the great, 69.

High-priest, the, an embodiment of the old covenant, 69.

Hofmann on Christ’s humiliation, 44.

Holiest place, the, 150 _sq._

Holy Ghost, partaking of the, 91;
  sin against the, 95.

Hope of faith, 276.

House, God’s, 56.

Humiliation of Christ, 44;
  dominion rests on, 37.


Ideas of God, 208.

Ignatius, St., 76.

Illumination, gift of, 93.

Illusiveness of life, 221.

Image, use of the word, 176;
  of God’s substance, 13.

Imagination, nature’s highest gift, 4.

Implicit faith, 241.

Immutable things, 103.

Incarnation, the, 45 _sq._

Incense, altar of, 151.

Individualism, 141.

Inheritance, the eternal, 161.

Initial grace, 91.

Intercession of Christ, 128, 134.

Interpretation of nature, 241.

Introspection, 105.

Isaac, 102;
  resurrection of, 228;
  blessing of, 259.

Isaiah, cited, 40;
  faith of, 261.


Jacob’s blessing, 249, 259.

James, St., on faith, 200.

Jephthah’s faith, 261.

Jeremiah predicts a new covenant, 138.

Jerusalem, the church of, 9, 85;
  the heavenly, 153.

Jesus, as God’s servant, 55;
  looking unto, 279;
  faith of, 280;
  as leader and perfecter of faith, 280;
  unchangeable, 318.

John, St., First Epistle of, 135.

Joseph, faith of, 260.

Josephus on Essenes, 26.

Joshua son of Hanan, 188.

Judah, Jesus sprang from, 122.

Judaism, earlier and later, 234;
  Christ not the flowering of, 249.

Judgment, the coming of Christ a, 188;
  doctrine of eternal, 87.

Justice, God’s, 99.


Kindness, brotherly, 99.

King, Christ the theocratic, 26.

Kingship of Christ, 179, 308.

Knowledge of God, 144.

Kurtz, _History of the Old Covenant_, 253.


Lapsed, the, 95.

Law, given through angels, 23;
  given by the Son, 31;
  contrasted with salvation, 31;
  how far immutable, 63.

Laying on of hands, 87.

Legalism, 148, 202.


Maccabæan Princes, 115.

Macknight, 248.

Malebranche cited, 205.

Man, how inferior to the angels, 34.

Martyrdom, 194.

Mass, sacrifice of the, 134.

Mediator, Christ a, 137;
  of the new covenant, 302.

Melchizedek, 75, 79, 88, 106, 113, 135, 156.

Mercy-seat, the, 154.

Merivale, Dean, _Romans under the Empire_, 96, 196.

Messiah, David’s Lord, 114.

Messianic, the eighth Psalm, 35.

Midian, purpose of Moses’ sojourn in, 253.

Minister of the Sanctuary, Christ the, 133, 169.

Ministering to the saints, 192, 313.

Miracles, 30 _sq._, 306.

Missionary brethren, 315.

Monotheist, Melchizedek a, 118.

Moral instincts, 205.

Mosaic dispensation created by Christ, 51.

Moses, 32;
  a steward of Christ, 54;
  inferior to Christ, 55;
  faith of, 233;
  mission of, 236;
  inner life of, 237;
  comeliness of, 239;
  Stephen’s account of, 245;
  fear of, 300.

Mythology, 148.


Nation, a spiritual, 236.

Nationalism of the old covenant, 140, 243.

Natural religion, 3.

Nature, the vesture of the Son, 27;
  interrogated, 8;
  as a revelation of God, 3;
  dissolution of, 307.

Nestorian doctrine, 169.

New covenant, superiority of the, 142;
  in relation to the law, 143;
  in relation to knowing God, 144.

Newman, Cardinal, _The Arians_, 13.

New Testament, produced in one age, 7;
 only accounted for by the Incarnation, 7.

Nicene Creed, 15.

Noah’s faith, 215.

Nomadic life, 218.

Novatianists, 95.


Oath, of God to Abraham, 101;
  of men and God contrasted, 104.

Obedience of the Son, 77.

Old Testament defective in unity, 6.

Oneness of the Dispensations, 51.

Ontological argument, the, 209.

Oosterzee, _Person and Work of the Redeemer_, 317.


Parable, use of the word, 228.

Passover, 320.

Paul, St., on the atonement, 224;
  manner of, 29;
  his account of faith, 201.

Peace of conscience, 174.

Permission and command, 227.

Personality, greatness of Christ’s, 120;
  of God, 208.

Phantoms, 203, 241.

Pharisaism, 235.

Philo, on child in knowledge, 85;
  on the earnest soul, 102;
  on Abraham’s faith, 216;
  on Melchizedek, 115;
  on the use of allegory, 116;
  on the Word as an effulgence, 15.

Piety of Christ, 77.

Pity of our High-priest, 73.

Plato on reminiscence, 222.

Pre-existence of Christ, 126 _sq._, 248.

Priesthood, the foundation of Christ’s power, 43;
  of Christ on earth, 169.

Priest-King, the Son as, 17.

Probation after death, 167.

Progress, moral, 86.

Promise, implies a threatening, 58;
  and oath of God, 104.

Prophecy, in what respects defective, 5.

Prophets, as preachers, 147;
  received their message through the Son, 54;
  visions of the, 10.

Purification, of the tabernacle, 163;
  of heaven, 163.


Qualifications of the High-Priest, 74.


Race, illustration of the, 276.

Rahab’s faith, 261.

Ratification of the new covenant, 162.

Realisation of Christ, 52.

Reconciliation of God, 78;
  the holiest place a symbol of, 152.

Reign of Christ on earth, 136.

Reminiscence, Plato’s doctrine of, 222.

Remorse, 190 _sq._

Rendall, _Epistle to the Hebrews_, 320, 323.

Renewal, impossibility of, 83.

Repentance an initial grace, 86.

Representation recognized in the New Testament, 241.

Representative man, Christ the, 34.

Resentment belongs to God’s fatherhood, 32.

Rest, offered by Christ, 58;
  the ideal of the Old Testament, 58;
  from labour the rudimentary Sabbath, 60;
  in Canaan, 61;
  described by the Psalmist, 61.

Resurrection, doctrine of the, 87;
  of Christ, 72.

Retribution, 191;
  Old Testament conception of, 300.

Revealer of God—Son of God, 24.

Revelation of God, 294 _sq._

Righteousness, word of, 88.

Robertson, _History of the Church_, 262.

Ruth, 261.


Sabbath, the, 60, 62, 166.

Sabellius, 28.

Sacrament, 255.

Saintliness, 214.

Salvation contrasted with law, 31.

Samson’s faith, 262.

Samuel the prophet, on obedience, 177.

Sanctification, what, 41;
  use of the word, 178.

Sanctuary, the outer, has ceased to exist, 150 _sq._, 158.

Satan, atonement not given to, 43;
  destruction of, 42;
  as tempter, 72.

Scott, Thomas, 248.

Sense, a spiritual, 85.

Separateness of Jesus, 75.

Septuagint, 35, 139, 306.

Shadow, the law had only a, 173.

Shedding of blood, 170.

Shiloh, promise of the, 249.

Sibyl, fable of the, 59.

Sin, the besetting, 277;
  Christ incapable of, 72.

Sinai, Mount, 297.

Sinners, use of the word, 275.

Sin-offering, 322.

Socinas, Faustus, 169.

Son of man, sin against the, 95.

Sons, discipline of, 284.

Sonship of Christ, defined, 28;
  a revelation of God, 12.

Soul of Christ in Hades, 170.

Special trials of Christ, 76.

Spirit, an eternal, 156;
  of grace, what, 190.

Spirit, the Holy, 152, 306.

Spiritualism, 11.

Staff, Jacob’s, 260.

Stephen reproaches the Jews, 23.

Subsisting, the Son’s distinct mode of, 14.

Supernatural erected on nature, 64.

Surety for God, 125.

Sustainer, the Word as, 16.

Sympathy wanting to the angels, 74.


Tabernacle, description of the, 150;
  the greater, 153;
  purification of the, 163.

Table, the Lord’s, 322.

Tantalus, 221.

_Teachings of the Twelve Apostles_, 84.

Teachers in the Church, 84.

Temptation of Christ real, 72.

Testament, 161.

Tertullian cited, 264.

Thankfulness, 309.

Theology, 88 _sq._

Timothy, 329.

Traducianism, 222.

Trinity, the, 13.

Typical character of the Law, 163.


Uhlhorn, _Charity in the Ancient Church_, 316.

Union the basis of consecration, 41.

Universalism of Christ and St. Paul, 141.


Veil of Christ’s flesh, 170.

Vineyard, parable of the, 31.


Wesleys, epitaph of the, 233.

Whitby, 248.

Wilderness, discipline of the, 250.

Will of God our sanctification, 177.

Wisdom, Book of, 42.

Witnesses, use of the word, 269.

Word of God, living, 65, 305;
  immutable, 63.

Wordsworth, W., cited, 222.

Works, dead, 88.

World, end of the, 166.

Worship, the result of a revelation, 3.


Zechariah, Book of, 115, 122; faith of, 264.

Zion, Mount, 153, 297 _sq._


_Printed by Hazell, Watson, & Viney, Ld., London and Aylesbury._




THE EXPOSITOR’S BIBLE.

_Crown 8vo, cloth, price 7s. 6d. each vol._


FIRST SERIES, 1887–8.

Colossians.
  By the Rev. A. MACLAREN, D.D.

St. Mark.
  By the Right Rev. the Bishop of Derry.

Genesis.
  By Prof. MARCUS DODS, D.D.

1 Samuel.
  By Prof. W. G. BLAIKIE, D.D.

2 Samuel.
  By the same Author.

Hebrews.
  By Principal T. C. EDWARDS, D.D.


SECOND SERIES, 1888–9.

Galatians.
  By Prof. G. G. FINDLAY, B.A., D.D.

The Pastoral Epistles.
  By the Rev. A. PLUMMER, D.D.

Isaiah I.-XXXIX.
  By Prof. G. A. SMITH, D.D. Vol. I.

The Book of Revelation.
  By Prof. W. MILLIGAN, D.D.

1 Corinthians.
  By Prof. MARCUS DODS, D.D.

The Epistles of St. John.
  By the Most Rev. the Archbishop of
Armagh.


THIRD SERIES, 1889–90.

Judges and Ruth.
  By the Rev. R. A. WATSON, M.A., D.D.

Jeremiah.
  By the Rev. C. J. BALL, M.A.

Isaiah XL.-LXVI.
  By Prof. G. A. SMITH, D.D. Vol. II.

St. Matthew.
  By the Rev. J. MONRO GIBSON, D.D.

Exodus.
  By the Right Rev. the Bishop of Derry.

St. Luke.
  By the Rev. H. BURTON, M.A.


FOURTH SERIES, 1890–91.

Ecclesiastes.
  By the Rev. SAMUEL COX, D.D.

St. James and St. Jude.
  By the Rev. A. PLUMMER, D.D.

Proverbs.
  By the Rev. R. F. HORTON, D.D.

Leviticus.
  By the Rev. S. H. KELLOGG, D.D.

The Gospel of St. John.
  By Prof. M. DODS, D.D. Vol. I.

The Acts of the Apostles.
  By Prof. STOKES, D. D. Vol. I.


FIFTH SERIES, 1891–2.

The Psalms.
  By the Rev. A. MACLAREN, D.D. Vol. I.

1 and 2 Thessalonians.
  By Prof. JAMES DENNEY, D.D.

The Book of Job.
  By the Rev. R. A. WATSON, M. A., D.D.

Ephesians.
  By Prof. G. G. FINDLAY, B.A., D.D.

The Gospel of St. John.
  By Prof. M. DODS, D. D. Vol. II.

The Acts of the Apostles.
  By Prof. STOKES, D.D. Vol. II.


SIXTH SERIES, 1892–3.

1 Kings.
  By the Very Rev. the Dean of Canterbury.

Philippians.
  By Principal RAINY, D.D.

Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther.
  By Prof. W. F. ADENEY, M.A.

Joshua.
  By Prof. W. G. BLAIKIE, D.D.

The Psalms.
  By the Rev. A. MACLAREN, D.D. Vol. II.

The Epistles of St. Peter,
  By Prof. RAWSON LUMBY, D.D.


SEVENTH SERIES, 1893–4.

2 Kings.
  By the Very Rev. the Dean of Canterbury.

Romans.
  By the Right Rev. H. C. G. MOULE, D.D.

The Books of Chronicles.
  By Prof. W. H. BENNETT, D.D., D.Lit.

2 Corinthians.
  By Prof. JAMES DENNEY, D.D.

Numbers.
  By the Rev. R. A. WATSON, M.A., D.D.

The Psalms.
  By the Rev. A. MACLAREN, D.D. Vol. III.


EIGHTH SERIES, 1895–6.

Daniel.
  By the Very Rev. the Dean of Canterbury.

The Book of Jeremiah.
  By Prof. W. H. BENNETT, D.D., D.Lit.

Deuteronomy.
  By Prof. ANDREW HARPER, B.D.

The Song of Solomon and Lamentations.
  By Prof. W. F. ADENEY, M.A.

Ezekiel.
  By Prof. JOHN SKINNER, M.A.

The Books of the Twelve Prophets.
  By Prof. G. A. SMITH, D.D. Two Vols.




_BY THE SAME AUTHOR._

A COMMENTARY ON THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.

Fourth Edition, 8vo, cloth, price 14s.


NOTICES OF THE PRESS.

“The exposition, based throughout on the Greek text, surveys with
minuteness the words, phrases, and construction, bringing out the sense
specially and generally, tracing the apostle’s arguments, and unfolding
his views on the diversified subjects which the epistle embraces.
Fulness of comment characterizes the work. Variations of the original
text, grammar, syntax, usage of words, enter into the expositor’s plan,
as well as the doctrinal views of the sacred writer. We have been
pleased to see so much good exposition from one who has used many
sources with independence, and advanced far beyond any English
commentator in correct explanation of the epistle.”—_Athenæum._

“An important feature is the sketch given in the Introduction of the
Commentaries on First Corinthians, from the earliest times to our own
day. The Commentary itself is learned, clear, impartial, and based on an
ample knowledge of preceding writers.”—_Academy._

“We refer to the truly masterly exposition of the history of
interpretation from its beginning to our day in Edwards’ introduction to
his Commentary.... The author of this Commentary possesses high
philological culture. The spirit and value of his exegesis will appear
from the quotations which we shall not fail to make from his important
work.”—PROFESSOR GODET’S Introduction to his _Commentary on First
Corinthians_.

“It is with the utmost satisfaction that we welcome the appearance of a
commentator of the first class, whose work bears to be judged by the
highest standard, if, indeed, it does not even raise the standard by
which exegetical work is measured. Such books as this which we now
receive from Principal Edwards, make room for themselves, and disclose
unthought of possibilities of exposition. There is apparent a
combination of gifts, any of which singly would make the fortune of a
commentator. His knowledge of Greek, and familiarity with both classical
and patristic literature, are worthy of one who professes himself the
friend and pupil of Prof. Jowett. To the use of the highest linguistic
authorities he has brought a fineness of grammatical and lexical
discernment which enables him to criticise and sometimes to correct
their judgments. But the great merit of the commentary is that the
reader finds himself in contact with the mind of Paul, and not merely
examining an old-world document. All is thought out beforehand, and
compactly and vigorously expressed. It will be recognised as the work of
a sound scholar, of a learned, earnest, and philosophical theologian, of
a mind masculine and accomplished; and it will speedily take its place
as the indispensable aid to the understanding of this part of
Scripture.”—Rev. MARCUS DODS, D.D., in _Expositor_.

“Of living commentators it is obviously not desirable for me to say more
than to express my respectful recognition of labours that have been well
bestowed, and work that has been well done. There are two English
Commentaries, however, to which I may be permitted very briefly to
refer, as I have received from both much that has reassured me in my own
judgment in difficult passages, and much that has led me to test my
results when I have not found myself in agreement with them. The works
to which I refer are the singularly attractive Commentary of Canon
Evans, and the full, careful, and comprehensive Commentary of Principal
Edwards.”—BISHOP ELLICOTT, _in his Commentary on First Corinthians_.


LONDON: HODDER & STOUGHTON, 27, PATERNOSTER ROW.


_WORKS BY THE RIGHT REV. H. C. G. MOULE, D.D._

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

In the “Expositor’s Bible” Series.

_Seventh Edition. Crown 8vo, cloth 7s. 6d._

“Mr. Moule has made a very careful study of Paul’s great doctrinal
Epistle, and has entered thoroughly into its spirit.”—_Scotsman._

“We do not hesitate to place it in the very front of the little group of
volumes which are the best examples of this carefully edited work. It
would be pleasant to linger upon this commentary, upon the clearness
with which the great evangelical doctrines of the Epistle are explained
and enforced, upon the earnestness of its personal appeal, and the charm
which often marks its language; but the judicious student of the New
Testament will obtain the book for himself.”—_Record._

“The spirit in which he expounds it, is beyond our
praise.”—_Spectator._


OUTLINES OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

In the “Theological Educator” Series.

_Nineteenth Thousand, 2s. 6d._

“The author disclaims originality or exhaustiveness, but the work shews
a certain originality of the expository skill with which the familiar
doctrine is made clear, and it is so concisely written that a divinity
student who had mastered its contents might be fairly well considered
able to pass the examination for Orders. It is an admirable text-book,
and enhances the value of the series in which it appears.”—_Scotsman._

“Marked throughout by the most careful and critical knowledge of
Scriptures, more particularly of the New Testament, and the most patient
weighing and comparison of parallel texts.... It forms an admirable
introduction to the subject, and seems in intellectual power to even
surpass any other of Mr. Moule’s published writings.”—_Record._


THE EXPOSITOR’S BIBLE.

EDITED BY THE REV.

*W. ROBERTSON NICOLL, M.A., LL.D.,*

Editor of “The Expositor,” etc.

THE RECORD says:—

“_Few series of volumes gives us so much pleasure to review as the
‘Expositor’s Bible.’ We never open a volume without expecting to find in
it much that is inspiriting and much that is suggestive, and we are
never disappointed. We have no hesitation in advising any Clergyman who
is thinking of expounding a book of Scripture to his congregation to
procure, as one of his most valuable aids, the right volume of the
‘Expositor’s Bible.’_”


*Eighth and Final Series.*

SEVEN VOLUMES.

_In large crown 8vo, cloth. Subscription Price *28s.* Separate Vols.,
*7s. 6d.* each._

*The Book of Daniel*

    By the *Very Rev. F. W. FARRAR, D.D., F.R.S.*, Dean of Canterbury.

*The Book of Ezekiel*

    By the *Rev. JOHN SKINNER, M.A.*, Professor of Old Testament Exegesis,
    Presbyterian College, London.

*The Book of Jeremiah* Chapters XXI.-LII.

    By the *Rev. W. H. BENNETT, D.D.*, Professor of Old Testament
    Languages and Literature, Hackney and New Colleges.

*The Book of Deuteronomy*

    By the *Rev. Professor ANDREW HARPER, B.D.*, Ormond College,
    Melbourne.

*The Song of Solomon and the Lamentations of Jeremiah*

    By the *Rev. W. F. ADENEY, M.A.*, Professor of Exegesis, New College,
    London.

*The Minor Prophets*

    By the *Rev. Professor GEORGE ADAM SMITH, D.D.* Author of “The Book of
    Isaiah,” “The Historical Geography of the Holy Land,” etc. In Two
    Volumes.

LONDON: HODDER & STOUGHTON. 27, PATERNOSTER ROW.


First Series.

_Subscription Price, *24s.* Separate Volumes, *7s. 6d.* each._

*The Gospel of St. Mark*

By the *Right Rev. G. A. CHADWICK, D.D.*, Lord Bishop of Derry and Raphoe.

    “The exposition is original, full of life, striking, and relevant.
    He has given us the fruit of much careful thought, and all students
    of the New Testament and preachers of the Gospel will be grateful to
    him. This is, in short, an unusually good book.”—_British Weekly._

*The Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon*

By the *Rev. ALEXANDER MACLAREN, D.D.*

    “In nothing Dr. Maclaren has written is there more of beauty, of
    spiritual insight, or of brilliant elucidation of Scripture. Indeed,
    Dr. Maclaren is here at his best.”—_Expositor._

    “It contains a wealth of thought for preachers.”—_Rock._

    “Dr. Maclaren’s exposition is remarkable for vigour and common
    sense. It is strongly written, and arranged with scholarly
    thoroughness.”—_Academy._

*The Book of Genesis*

By the *Rev. Prof. MARCUS DODS, D.D*.

    “Every reader of cultured mind and delicate instinct will recognise
    with delight and admire the fine qualities of sympathetic insight,
    sensitive perception, ethical intuition, and religious tact.”—_The
    late_ PROF. W. G. ELMSLIE, M.A.

*The First Book of Samuel*

By the *Rev. Prof. W. G. BLAIKIE, D.D., LL.D.*

    “Remarkably interesting and helpful. Very seldom have we met with a
    religious work which we can more confidently recommend for its
    thoughtfulness, fidelity, and kindly spirit.”—_Leeds Mercury._

*The Second Book of Samuel*

By the *Rev. Prof. W. G. BLAIKIE, D.D., LL.D*.

    “There can be no doubt of the care and thoroughness with which Dr.
    Blaikie has executed his task. From his own point of view he has
    produced a solid and able piece of work.”—_Academy._

*The Epistle to the Hebrews*

By the *Rev. Principal T. C. EDWARDS, D.D.*, Author of “A Commentary on
the First Epistle to the Corinthians.”

    “He has entered into the spirit and purport of what truly he calls
    ‘one of the greatest and most difficult books of the New Testament’
    with a systematic thoroughness and fairness which cannot be too
    highly commended.”—_Academy._

    “There is abundant evidence of accurate scholarship, acute
    criticism, patient thought, and faculty of lucid exposition. However
    thoroughly any one has studied the Epistle here explained, he will
    certainly find in Dr. Edwards’s volume fresh suggestions.”—DR.
    MARCUS DODS.


Second Series.

_Subscription Price, *24s.* Separate Volumes, *7s. 6d.* each._

*The Epistle to the Galatians*

By the *Rev. Prof. G. G. FINDLAY, D.D.*, Headingley College, Leeds.

    “In this volume we have the mature results of broad and accurate
    scholarship, exegetical tact, and a firm grasp of the great
    principles underlying the Gospel of Paul presented in a form so
    lucid and attractive that every thoughtful reader can enjoy
    it.”—PROFESSOR BEET.

*The Book of Isaiah* Chapters I.-XXXIX.

By the *Rev. Prof. G. ADAM SMITH, M.A., D.D.*

    “This is a very attractive book. Mr. George Adam Smith has evidently
    such a mastery of the scholarship of his subject that it would be a
    sheer impertinence for most scholars, even though tolerable
    Hebraists, to criticise his translations; and certainly it is not
    the intention of the present reviewer to attempt anything of the
    kind, to do which he is absolutely incompetent. All we desire is to
    let English readers know how very lucid, impressive—and, indeed,
    how vivid—a study of Isaiah is within their reach; the fault of the
    book, if it has a fault, being rather that it finds too many points
    of connection between Isaiah and our modern word, than that it finds
    too few. In other words, no one can say that the book is not full of
    life.”—_Spectator._

*The Pastoral Epistles*

By the *Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, D.D.*, Master of University College, Durham.

    “An admirable sample of what popular theology ought to
    be.”—_Saturday Review._

    “The treatment is throughout scholarlike, lucid,
    thoughtful.”—_Guardian._

*The First Epistle to the Corinthians*

By the *Rev. Prof. MARCUS DODS, D.D.*

    “A clear, close, unaffected, unostentatious exposition, not verse by
    verse, but thought after thought, of this most interesting perhaps,
    and certainly most various, of all the Apostle’s writings.”—_London
    Quarterly Review._

*The Epistles of St. John*

By the *Most Rev. W. ALEXANDER, D.D.*, Lord Archbishop of Armagh.

    “These commentaries are explicitly intended to help the preacher,
    and in Dr. Alexander’s ‘Discourses’ they will find material ready
    shaped to their hand—not facts only, but imagery, references, and
    allusions, none of them cheap or commonplace, and some of them
    felicitous in a high degree.”—_Guardian._

*The Revelation of St. John*

By the *Rev. Prof. W. MILLIGAN, D.D.*, of the University of Aberdeen.

    “Lucid, scholarly.”—_Academy._

    “The style is admirably lucid, expressive, and withal stately. The
    task of the reader could not possibly be easier, and in the case of
    such an abstruse theme the result is no small feat of intellectual
    and literary ingenuity.”—_Aberdeen Free Press._


Third Series.

_Subscription Price, *24s.* Separate Volumes, *7s. 6d.* each._

*Judges and Ruth*

By the *Rev. R. A. WATSON, D.D.*

    “This volume deals chiefly with a book considered by some one of the
    most difficult of expositions from a Christian point of view. While
    feeling this to be the case, the writer is able to deduce valuable
    instruction from the history by the only legitimate mode, that of
    remembering that the character and laws of God are essentially
    unchangeable, though the amount of their revelation must vary with
    the capacity of those who receive it.... The moralisings on the Book
    of Ruth are also most excellent, and just what are adapted to
    present circumstances.”—_Spectator._

*The Prophecies of Jeremiah*

*With a Sketch of his Life and Times.*

By the *Rev. C. J. BALL, M.A.*, Chaplain of Lincoln’s Inn.

    “Mr. Ball brings competent knowledge to his task.... A useful
    running commentary.”—_Saturday Review._

    “It consists of an interesting and sympathetic delineation of the
    prophet’s life and character, of a new translation, and of
    expository remarks, which are partly critical and partly homiletic.
    The critical portion will be prized most, as it exhibits deep
    learning, breadth of view, and clear insight into the prophet’s
    meaning.”—_Manchester Examiner._

*The Book of Exodus*

By the *Right Rev. G. A. CHADWICK, D.D.*, Lord Bishop of Derry and Raphoe.

    “Marked by sound exegesis, common sense, and a devotional
    spirit.”—_Record._

    “Every part of the book is replete with instruction and interest,
    and a unity of thought and purpose pervades it all.”—_Glasgow
    Herald._

*The Gospel of St. Matthew*

By the *Rev. J. MONRO GIBSON, D.D.*, Author of “The Ages before Moses,”
etc.

    “A careful exposition in which one important part is not slightly
    dealt with while disproportionate space is given to another, but by
    studied economy of labour and space due care and labour are given to
    every part. The exposition is sober, reverent, and systematic; it is
    also enlightened and well informed.”—_London Quarterly Review._

*The Gospel of St. Luke*

By the *Rev. HENRY BURTON, M.A.*

    “Full of vivid illustration and fresh, bright
    exposition.”—_Record._

    “In the unfolding of truth Mr. Burton writes as a poet. There is
    glow and colour and melody in his descriptions. Often there are
    passages of great beauty.”—_Methodist Recorder._

*The Book of Isaiah Chapters* XL. to LXVI.

By the *Rev. Prof. G. ADAM SMITH, M.A., D.D.*

    “A work of no ordinary merit; indeed, it is but rare that such
    exegetical power and mature scholarship are united with an ease of
    style and a fertility of modern illustration that leave but little
    to desire.”—_Speaker._


Fourth Series.

_Subscription Price, *24s.* Separate Volumes, *7s. 6d.* each._

*The Gospel of St. John. Vol. I.*

By the *Rev. Prof. MARCUS DODS, D.D.*

    “Dr. Dods’ exposition, besides being characterised by all the
    literary grace by which his previous works are distinguished, is
    also thoroughly evangelical in tone, without, however, being at all
    narrow; while the arguments which this portion of Scripture so
    powerfully suggests in proof of the divinity of Christ are handled
    in such a way as will carry them home to all who accept the
    narrative as authentic.”—_Scotsman._

*The Acts of the Apostles. Vol. I.*

By the *Rev. Prof. G. T. STOKES, D.D.*

    “One of the most valuable contributions to the history of the
    Primitive Church that have appeared within recent years.”—_Dundee
    Advertiser._

*The Book of Leviticus*

By the *Rev. S. H. KELLOGG, D.D.*

    “The relation of law and gospel is grandly exhibited, and a
    difficult portion of Holy Writ explained in detail and with
    power.”—_Christian._

    “He has certainly succeeded in investing with fresh interest this
    old book of laws.”—_Scotsman._

*The Book of Proverbs*

By the *Rev. R. F. HORTON, M.A., D.D.*

    “Ably and freshly written.”—_Church Times._

    “A book which may be read by all with pleasure and profit, and
    which, by ministers of all orders, may be taken as a model of one
    kind of expository teaching.”—_Christian World._

    “The expositor has done his work in a most masterly
    fashion.”—_Glasgow Herald._

*The Epistles of St. James and St. Jude*

By the *Rev. A. PLUMMER, D.D.*, Master of University College, Durham.

    “It is even a better piece of work than his former volume on the
    Pastoral Epistles. It contains everything that the student can
    desire by way of introduction to the two Epistles, while for those
    who read with an eye to the manufacture of sermons, or for their own
    edification, the doctrinal and moral lessons are developed in a
    style redolent of books, yet singularly easy and unaffected. Points
    of interest abound.”—_Saturday Review._

    “A very able and interesting exposition.... An excellent example of
    Scriptural exegesis.”—_Academy._

*The Book of Ecclesiastes*

*With a New Translation.*

By the *Rev. SAMUEL COX, D.D.*

    “The most luminous, original, and practical exposition of
    Ecclesiastes which is within the reach of ordinary English
    readers.”—_Speaker._

    “Dr. Cox’s work is likely to count as one of the most interesting of
    the many Interesting studies of which Ecclesiastes has been the
    basis.”—_Guardian._


Fifth Series.

_Subscription Price, *24s.* Separate Volumes, *7s. 6d.* each._

*The Epistles to the Thessalonians*

By the *Rev. Prof. JAMES DENNEY, D.D.*

    “As an expositor we are able to say that Mr. Denney seems to have
    entered very fully into the spirit of the Apostle Paul, and to have
    succeeded in expressing very clearly, and impressing very forcibly,
    the general meaning of the Apostle’s words.... It is a very ably
    written work, and one which is well calculated to make the Apostle’s
    teaching in these two epistles more intelligible and more
    telling.”—_Scotsman._

*The Book of Job*

By the *Rev. R. A. WATSON, D.D.*, Author of “Gospels of Yesterday,” etc.

    “Dr. Watson does not fall behind his predecessors in doing justice
    to this magnificent effort of Hebrew genius or inspiration. The
    opening scene on earth and the opening scene in heaven are brought
    before us with graphic power, and the problem raised by the
    situation of Job by the unmerited suffering of the good man stated
    and discussed with much force and philosophical insight. Dr. Watson
    has written with conspicuous ability and a thorough mastery of his
    subject.”—_Scotsman._

*The Gospel of St. John. Vol. II.*

By *Prof. MARCUS DODS, D.D.*

    “Dr. Dods appears to us always to write with clearness and
    vigour.... He has the gift of lucid expression, and by means of apt
    illustrations he avoids the cardinal sin of dryness, so that the
    interest even of the general reader will not flag as he smoothly
    glides through these chapters.”—_Guardian._

*The Epistle to the Ephesians*

By the *REV. Prof. G. G. FINDLAY, B.A. D.D.*

    “Every page shows that he has made a minute and careful examination
    of the text, while in every chapter there are inferences drawn and
    suggestions thrown out which will find their way into many sermons.
    They who know this Epistle best will be the first to acknowledge the
    value of Prof. Findlay’s exposition.”—_Expositor._

*The Acts of the Apostles. Vol. II.*

By the *Rev. Prof. G. T. STOKES, D.D.*

    “The second volume is as readable as the first, full of learning
    without a spice of pedantry.... The volume is highly to be commended
    for knowledge, sobriety, and manly piety.”—_Saturday Review._

*The Psalms. Vol. I.*

By the *Rev. ALEXANDER MACLAREN, D.D.*

    “Dr. Maclaren has evidently mastered his subject with the aid of the
    best authorities, and has put the results of his studies before his
    readers in a most attractive form; and if we add that his commentary
    really helps to the better understanding of the Psalms, that, far
    from degrading, it vivifies and illuminates these sublime stories,
    and that it is written in a charming style, very seldom tailing
    below the dignity of the subject, we believe we only give it the
    praise which is its due.”—_Scotsman._


Sixth Series.

_Subscription Price, *24s.* Separate Volumes, *7s. 6d.* each._

*The Epistle to the Philippians*

By the *Rev. Principal RAINY, D.D.*

    “A piece of good and thorough work, the work of a sound and
    well-read expositor, and especially of an orthodox Scotch
    divine.”—_London Quarterly Review._

*The First Book of Kings*

By the *Very Rev. F. W. FARRAR, D.D. F.R.S.*, Dean of Canterbury.

    “Dr. Farrar brings his versatile literary powers to bear upon these
    majestic and imposing scenes, with all his gifts of poetic
    description, his wealth of quotations, and his aptitude for
    picturesque comparisons.”—_Guardian._

*Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther*

By the *Rev. Prof. W. F. ADENEY, M.A.*

    “Mr. Adeney has evidently grasped the whole story with clearness and
    force: his portraits are lifelike; he has all the instinct of the
    expositor in high development. It is no small triumph to have done
    so well with one of the least pictorial and fascinating of Old
    Testament histories.”—_Independent._

*The Book of Joshua*

By the *Rev. Prof. W. G. BLAIKIE, D.D., LL.D.*

    “We have no hesitation in saying that for every-day working purposes
    expositors of the Book of Joshua will find this volume more helpful
    than many more critical and modernised works.... His expositions are
    usually fresh and interesting, and there is an eye for the practical
    in all he writes.”—_Glasgow Herald._

*The Psalms. Vol. II.*

By the *Rev. ALEXANDER MACLAREN, D.D.*

    “The volume is as attractive as the first, and shows throughout the
    same high qualities of penetration and spiritual sympathy. Its pages
    give abundant evidence of care, critical study, and acquaintance
    with the best that our most competent scholars have contributed to
    the exposition of the Psalms.”—_Critical Review._

*The Epistles of Peter*

By the *Rev. Prof. LUMBY, D.D.*, Cambridge.

    “A sound and finely practical commentary.”—_Saturday Review._

    “We have been impressed by the carefulness, fulness, and almost
    minuteness of the expositions which Dr. Lumby gives in this
    volume.”—_Literary World._


Seventh Series.

_Subscription Price, *24s.* Separate Volumes, *7s. 6d.* each._

*The Epistle to the Romans*

By the *Right Rev. HANDLEY C. G. MOULE, M.A., D.D.*, Lord Bishop of
Durham.

    “We do not hesitate to place it in the very front of the little
    group of volumes which are the best examples of this carefully
    edited work. It would be pleasant to linger upon this commentary,
    upon the clearness with which the great evangelical doctrines of the
    Epistle are explained and enforced, upon the earnestness of its
    personal appeal, and the charm which often marks its language; but
    the judicious student of the New Testament will obtain the book for
    himself.”—_Record._

*The Second Book of Kings*

By the *Very Rev. F. W. FARRAR, D.D. F.R.S.*, Dean of Canterbury.

    “For a vivid picture of men and times, and a spirited account of the
    events which led to Israel’s and Judah’s downfall, with fine
    illustrative use of the contemporary writings of the prophets, his
    book is a distinct accession to the series.”—_Glasgow Herald._

*The Books of Chronicles*

By the *Rev. W. H. BENNETT, D.D.*, Professor of Old Testament Languages
and Literature, Hackney and New Colleges.

    “Readers of Mr. Bennett’s contribution to ‘Faith and Criticism’
    might expect that a book written wholly by him would be distinctive
    and original. But few could have foreseen that he would produce
    anything so illuminating, so broad, so powerful as this
    volume.”—_Daily Chronicle._

*The Second Epistle to the Corinthians*

By the *Rev. Prof. JAMES DENNEY, D.D.*, Author of “The Epistles to the
Thessalonians,” etc,.

    “Mr. Denney’s commentary is a masterly one in every respect. Its
    exegesis of the text is exact and thorough; its use of the best
    expositors most helpful; its final conclusion generally
    convincing.”—_Methodist Times._

*The Book of Numbers*

By the *Rev. R. A. WATSON, D.D.*, Author of “Judges and Ruth,” etc.

    “Dr. Watson’s exposition may be commended as showing considerable
    insight into the deeper meanings of Scripture, and skill in applying
    them to the needs and conditions of modern life; ... his book is
    throughout scholarly in tone and earnestly written.”—_Scotsman._

*The Psalms. Vol. III.*

By the *Rev. ALEXANDER MACLAREN, D.D.*

    “With the exposition of the whole Psalter before us, we may say that
    for what it professes to be, the work is very well done, and there
    has been no falling off in the third volume from such an amount of
    excellence as was attained in the other two.”—_Guardian._

LONDON: HODDER & STOUGHTON, 27, PATERNOSTER ROW.