__________________________________________________________________

   Title: Commentary on Hebrews
   Creator(s): Calvin, John (1509-1564)
   (Alternative)
   (Translator)
   Rights: Public Domain
   LC Call no: BS491
   LC Subjects:

   The Bible

   Works about the Bible
     __________________________________________________________________

   COMMENTARIES

   ON THE

   EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE

   TO

   THE HEBREWS


   BY JOHN CALVIN



   TRANSLATED AND EDITED

   BY THE REV. JOHN OWEN,

   VICAR OF THRUSSINGTON, LEICESTERSHIRE



   CHRISTIAN CLASSICS ETHEREAL LIBRARY
   GRAND RAPIDS, MI

   [1]http://www.ccel.org
     __________________________________________________________________

   TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE

   No doubt the Epistle next in importance to that to the Romans is this
   to the Hebrews. The truths explained in it might, indeed, have been
   deduced from other portions of Scripture; but it is a vast advantage
   and a great satisfaction to find them expressly set forth, and
   distinctly stated by an inspired Apostle.

   In condescension to our ignorance, it has pleased God, not only to give
   us what might have been deemed sufficient for our information, but also
   to add "line upon line," so that there might be every help given to
   those who have a desire to know the truth, and every reasonable accuse
   taken away from such as resolve to oppose it, and to follow the
   guidance of selfwill, and the delusions of their own proud minds and
   depraved hearts. It might then, seem strange to us that defect,
   insufficiency, and obscurity have been ascribed to the Scriptures, did
   we not know that these have been made by such as wish Revelation to be
   otherwise than it is; they having imbibed errors and adopted
   superstitions to which it yields no countenance, but which it condemns
   in terms so plain, that they must be represented as defective or
   obscure in order to be evaded.

   There are especially two parties who find this Epistle in no way
   favorable to them -- the Papists and the Socinians. The Sole Priesthood
   of Christ, and his Sole Sufficient Sacrifice, are here so distinctly
   stated, that the former cannot resist the evidence except by the subtle
   arts of the most consummate sophistry; and the latter find it a very
   difficult task to neutralize the strong and clear testimony here given
   as to the Divinity of our Savior and his Atonement. Though these
   parties are wholly opposed to one another, yet, like Herod and Pilate,
   they unite in degrading the Savior -- the one indirectly, by
   substituting others in his place; and the other in open manner, by
   denying his dignity and the character and efficacy of his death. But by
   both the Savior is equally dishonored.

   There have been more disputes about this Epistle than any other portion
   of Scripture; but many of the questions which have been raised have
   been of a very trifling character, as though learned men were idle and
   had nothing else to do; and this has been the case, especially with the
   divines of the German school, not only with regard to this Epistle, but
   with respect to many other subjects.

   Disquisitions called learned, have been written as to the character of
   this Epistle, whether it be properly an Epistle, or something that
   ought to be called by some other name! [1] Then it has been a subject
   learnedly discussed, to whom in particular the Epistle was sent,
   whether to the dispersed Jews, or to those in Palestine -- whether to a
   particular Congregation, or to the Hebrews in general? [2] Such
   questions are comparatively of very little importance; and to spend
   time and talent in discussing them, is a work frivolous and useless;
   and not only so, but also mischievous, calculated to serve the purposes
   of Popery and Infidelity; for to render thus apparently important what
   is not so, and on which no degree of certainty can be obtained, is to
   involve men in a mist which may lead them astray.

   Another subject has been much discussed, which is of no great
   consequence, as the inspiration of the Epistle is not thereby
   endangered, and that is the language in which the Epistle was
   originally written. An opinion prevailed among some of the Early
   Fathers that it was written in Hebrew, or rather in SyroChaldee
   language, and that it was translated into Greek by Luke, Clement, or
   Barnabas. It was stated as an opinion, confirmed by no authority, and
   founded mainly on two circumstances -- that it was written to Hebrews,
   and that its style is different from that of Paul in his other
   Epistles. Almost all modern divines regard this opinion as not well
   founded. The Greek language was in Paul's time well known throughout
   Palestine; the "General Epistles," intended for the Jews as well as the
   Gentiles, were written in Greek; and there is no record of any copy of
   this Epistle in Hebrew. As to the style, it differs not more from that
   of the other Epistles than what may be observed in writers in all ages,
   or what might be expected in Paul when advanced in years, compared with
   what he wrote in his younger days. It may be further added, that the
   Epistle itself contains things which seem to show that it was written
   in Greek: Hebrew words are interpreted, Hebrews 7:2; the passages
   quoted are mostly from the Septuagint, and not from the Hebrew; and
   there is the use of a word, rendered "Testament," in Hebrews 9:17, in
   the sense of a Will, which the Hebrew word never means.

   There are only two questions of real importance -- the canonicity of
   the Epistle, and its Author.

   As to the first, it has never been doubted except by some of the
   strange heretics in the first ages. There is quite as much external
   testimony in its favor as most portions of the New Testament. It was
   from the first received by the Churches, Eastern and Western, as a
   portion of the Inspired Volume. It is found in the very first versions
   of the New Testament, the Syriac and the Italic. These versions were
   made as early as the end of the second century, about 140 years after
   the date of this Epistle. [3] The testimony of the Fathers from the
   earliest time is uniformly the same in this respect. The Epistle is
   acknowledged by them all as a portion of Holy Writ.

   But with regard to the Author there has been a diversity of opinion,
   though, when all things are duly weighed, without reason. From the
   earliest times, the Eastern Church acknowledge Paul as the Author. Some
   in the Western Church, in the third and the fourth century, did not
   regard Paul as the Author, but Luke, or Clement, or Barnabas. Jerome
   and Augustine in the fifth century, a more enlightened age than the two
   preceding centuries, ascribed to Paul the authorship; and since their
   time the same opinion has prevailed in the Western, as it did from the
   beginning in the Eastern Church. How to account for a different opinion
   in the Western Church during the third and the fourth century, is
   difficult. Some think it was owing to the Novalien Heresy, which some
   parts of this Epistle were supposed to favor, though without any good
   reason.

   As far then as the testimony of history goes, almost the whole weight
   of evidence is in favor of Paul being the Author.

   With regard to modern times, the prevailing opinion has been that it is
   the Epistle of Paul. Luther, indeed, ascribed it to Apollos -- a mere
   conjecture. Calvin, as we find, supposed that either Luke or Clement
   was the author; for which there are no satisfactory reasons. Beza
   differed from his illustrious predecessor, and regarded Paul as the
   writer; and such has been the opinion entertained by most of the
   successors of the Reformers, both in this country and on the Continent,
   as proved by their confessions of Faith.

   About the middle of the seventeenth century there seems to have been a
   revival of the controversy; for in the year 1658 the younger Spanheim
   wrote an elaborate treatise on the subject, in which he canvasses the
   whole evidence, both historical and internal, and affords the strongest
   ground for the conclusion that Paul was the writer of this Epistle.
   Since that time, till late years, his arguments were regarded by most
   as conclusive. But some of the German divines, who seem to have a taste
   for exploded opinions, have again revived the question, produced afresh
   the old arguments, and added some new ones to them. But a second
   Spanheim has appeared in the person of Professor Stuart, of America,
   who has published a learned Commentary on this Epistle, and prefixed to
   it a long Introduction, in which he has fully entered into the subject,
   and more fully than his predecessor. The labor and toil which this
   Introduction must have cost its author, were no doubt very great; for
   every argument, however frivolous, (and some of the arguments are very
   frivolous indeed,) is noticed, and everything plausible is most clearly
   exposed.

   The evidence both external and internal is so satisfactory, that an
   impression is left on the mind, that Paul was the author of this
   Epistle, nearly equal to what his very name prefixed to it would have
   produced. Indeed the writer can truly say, that he now entertains no
   more doubt on the subject than if it had the Apostle's own
   superscription. [4]

   As to the date of this Epistle, it is commonly supposed to have been
   written late in 62 or early in 63, about the time that Paul was
   released from his first imprisonment at Rome.

   There seem to be especially two reasons why Paul did not commence this
   Epistle in his usual manner: first, because he was not specifically an
   Apostle to the Jews, but to the Gentiles; and secondly, because the
   contents of the Epistle are such that it was not necessary for him to
   assume his Apostolic character; for the arguments are founded on
   testimonies found in the Old Testament, and not on his authority as a
   commissioned Apostle. His main object appears to have been to show and
   prove that the Gospel is but a fulfillment of the ancient Scriptures,
   which the Jews themselves received as divine. His arguments and his
   examples are throughout borrowed from the Old Testament. This is a fact
   that is too often overlooked, to which Macknight, in an especial
   manner, very justly refers.

   The Epistle begins by indicating a connection between the Old and the
   New Testament: both are revelations from the same God; He who spoke by
   the Prophets in the Old, speaks by His Son in the New. Then the obvious
   and inevitable conclusion is, that the New is but the Old completed. It
   is on this ground that the whole argument of the Epistle proceeds.

   Having thus clearly intimated the connection between the two
   Testaments, the Apostle immediately enters on his great subject -- the
   superiority of Him who introduced the perfected dispensation over all
   connected with the previous incomplete, elementary, and, in a great
   measure, symbolical dispensation, even over angels and Moses and the
   Levitical highpriest. And this subject occupies the largest portion of
   the Epistle, extending from the first chapter to the 19th verse of the
   tenth chapter. From that verse to the end of the Epistle, we have
   exhortations, warnings, examples of faith and patience, admonitions,
   directions, and salutations.

   Then the Epistle divides itself into two main parts: --

   1. The didactic, including the ten first chapters, with the exception
   of the latter part of the tenth.

   2. The parainetic or hortative, from the 19th verse of the tenth
   chapter to the end of the Epistle.

   The first part may be thus divided, --

   1. Christ's superiority over angels -- warnings objections answered,
   ch. 1 and 2.

   2. Christ's superiority over Moses -- warnings as to faith and the
   promised rest, ch. 3 and 4:13.

   3. Christ's superiority over the Levitical highpriest, as to his
   appointment, the perpetuity of his office, his covenant, and the
   efficacy of his atonement, ch. 4:14, to 10:19.

   The second part admits of these divisions, --

   1. Exhortation to persevere, derived from the free access in a new way
   to God; from the awful fate of apostates; and from their own past
   example, ch. 10:1937.

   2. Exhortation to faith and patience, derived from the example of the
   ancient saints, ch. 10:38, to the end of ch. 11.

   3. Exhortation to encounter trials and afflictions, derived from the
   example of Christ; and from the love of God, as manifested by
   afflictions, ch. 12:113.

   4. Exhortation to peace and holiness, derived from our superior
   privileges, and the aggravated guilt of no electing Him who speaks to
   us from heaven, ch. 12:1429.

   5. Various directions and cautions, requests and salutations, ch. 13.

   The former part, the didactic, has many digressions, and hence the
   difficulty sometimes of tracing the course of the Apostle's reasoning.
   But it was his practice as appears from his other epistles, to apply,
   as it were, the subject, as he proceeds. Having in the first chapter
   proved the superiority of Christ over angels, he points out at the
   beginning of the second the great danger of disregarding his doctrine,
   and of neglecting his salvation, an inference drawn from what had been
   previously proved. He then proceeds with the same subject, Christ's
   superiority over angels, answers an objection derived from his human
   nature, and shows the necessity there was that he should become man; as
   he could not otherwise have sympathized with lost creatures, nor have
   atoned for their Sins. Here he first refers to him in express terms as
   a priest.

   Then in ch. 3 he proceeds to show Christ's superiority over Moses; and
   having done so, he goes on in verse 7 to warn the Hebrews against
   following the example of their forefathers, who, through unbelief, lost
   the land of promise; and he pursues this subject to the end of the 13th
   verse of ch. 4.

   The last section of the didactic part commences at ch. 4 and extends to
   verse 19 of the tenth chapter; it occupies nearly six chapters, and
   contains several episodes, so that it is sometimes no easy matter to
   trace the connection.

   He begins this portion by calling attention to Christ as a highpriest,
   whom he had before represented as such at the end of ch. 2; where he
   mentions two things respecting him -- that he became man, in order that
   he might atone for sin, and in order that he might be capable of
   sympathizing with his people. But here he refers mainly to the last, to
   his sufferings; and in order to anticipate an objection from the fact
   that he was a suffering Savior, he mentions his appointment, which,
   according to the testimony of David in the Book of Psalms, was to be
   according to the order of Melchisedec. Without going on with this
   subject, he makes a digression, and evidently for the purpose of making
   them more attentive to the explanation he was going to give of
   Melchisedec as a type of Christ in his priesthood.

   This digression contains several particulars. To arouse their attention
   and stimulate them, he blames them for their ignorance, mentions the
   danger of continuing satisfied with the knowledge of first principles,
   and the impossibility of restoration in case of apostasy; he gives an
   illustration of this from unproductive land after culture and rain;
   reminds them of their past commendable conduct, and encourages them to
   activity and zeal by an assurance respecting the certainty of Gods
   promises, ch. 5:12, to the end of ch. 6.

   In chap. 7 he proceeds with Melchisedec as the type of Christ in his
   priestly office. Christ is a priest according to his order, not
   according to that of Aaron; then Aaron must have been superseded.
   According to the testimony of David, Christ's priesthood excelled that
   of Aaron in two things -- it was established by an oath, and it was to
   he perpetuated "forever," ch. 7 to the end of the 25th verse.

   He now goes on to the other part of this subject, to speak of Christ as
   making an atonement for sin, ch. 7:26, having before spoken of him as a
   sympathizing priest from the circumstance of having been a sufferer.
   While speaking of his expiation, he refers to the covenant of which he
   was the Mediator, for expiations depended on the covenant. Respecting
   the new covenant, he quotes the express words of Jeremiah; and it
   included the remission of sins, and remission of sins necessarily
   implies an expiation. Then in the ninth chapter he refers to the old
   covenant, the tabernacle, and its services, and proves the
   insufficiency of these services, they being only typical of what was to
   come. From the tenth chapter to the 19th verse he pursues the same
   subject, and shows that the sacrifices under the Law were insufficient
   for the remission of sins, and that this could only be obtained through
   the Mediator of the new covenant promised by God through his prophet
   Jeremiah, chapter. 7:26, to chapter.10:19. [5]

   Here the Apostle completes the first part, having stated at large in
   the last portion of it the claims of Christ as a highpriest, and these
   claims are fully confirmed by the testimonies of the ancient
   Scriptures. His arguments are such that it is impossible really to
   understand and believe the Old Testament and to deny the New; the
   latter being most evidently the fulfillment of the former. The Old
   Testament distinctly speaks of another priesthood different from that
   of Aaron, and of another covenant different from that made with the
   children of Israel, and of one which would confer the remission of
   sins, which the other could not do. Now these are the testimonies not
   of the New but of the Old Testament; and the New exhibits a priest and
   a covenant exactly answerable to the priest and the covenant which the
   Old Testament refers to and describes. Nothing can be more plain and
   more conclusive than the Apostle's arguments on this subject.

   The parainetic or hortative portion of the Epistle, extending from
   chap. 10:19 to the end, requires no further explanation.

   We especially learn from this Epistle that the distinctive character of
   the old dispensation was symbolical, and of the new spiritual. The old
   abounded in forms, rituals, and ceremonies; the new exhibits what these
   things signified and typified. To have recourse again to symbols and
   rituals, is to prefer darkness to light, to reverse the order of
   things, and to disregard a favor which kings and prophets in ancient
   times desired to enjoy. This is not only an evidence of fatuity, but it
   is also ingratitude and sin, and it ought never to be deemed as
   innocent or harmless. Having the glorious light of the Gospel, let us
   walk in the light, and never regard "beggarly elements" as things to be
   perpetuated and admired.

   This Commentary was translated into English by Clement Cotton, from the
   French Version, and was published in 1605 under the following title: --
   "A Commentarie on the whole Epistle to the Hebrews. By Iohn Calvin.
   Translated ovt of French. The Lawe was given by Moses, but grace and
   truth came by Iesus Christ John 1:17. Imprinted at London by Felix
   Kingston, for Arthur Iohnson, and are to be sold at his shop neere the
   great North doors of Pauls, at the signs of the white Horse. 1605."
   Like his translation of Isaiah, that of the Commentary on the Hebrews,
   "though not altogether suitable to modern taste, is faithful, vigorous,
   idiomatic, and not inelegant."

   The "Epistle Dedicatorie" to Cotton's patron, Robert Cecil, Earl of
   Salisbury, and his Address "to the Reader," have been reprinted as a
   specimen of the style of such performances at that period.

   J. O.
   Thrussington, August 1853
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1] To say that it has not the unusual introductory form of an Epistle,
   is no valid objection; for we find the case to be the same with regard
   to the First Epistle of John. It begins in a way very similar to this,
   while in the two following the usual mode is adopted.

   [2] The following account seems sufficiently satisfactory on this
   point: -- "Clement of Alexandria, Jerome, Euthalius [Epiphanius?],
   Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact and others, were of opinion that the
   Epistle to the Hebrews was sent to the Jews living in Judea, who in the
   Apostle's time were called Hebrews to distinguish them from the jews in
   the Gentile countries, who were called Hellenists or Grecians, Acts
   6:1; 9:29; 11:20. In that opinion these ancient authors were well
   founded, because as Lardner observes, this letter appears to have been
   written to persons dwelling in one place, Hebrews 13:19, 23, 24,
   namely, to the inhabitants of Judea, and to those of them especially
   who lived in Jerusalem." -- Macknight

   [3] It is indeed thought, as stated by Horne in his Introduction, that
   the Syriac version was made at the end of the first, or at the
   beginning of the second century. In that case, it was made less than 40
   years after the Epistle was written.

   [4] The arguments in favor of Paul being the author of this Epistle are
   briefly found in Horne's Introduction to the Critical Study of the
   Scriptures; but those who wish to see the subject fully handled, and
   that with great discrimination and judgment, must read Stuart's
   Introduction to his Commentary on this epistle. Dr. Bloomfield uses no
   exaggerated language when he says, that is "very elaborate and
   invaluable."

   [5] There is an elaborate analysis of the subject from chapter 4:14, to
   chapter 10:19, by Stuart at the commencement of his notes on Chapter 5;
   but it is not satisfactory. He seems to have overlooked that there are
   two sections to this part, the one referring mainly to the appointment
   of Christ as a priest, which stands connected with this sufferings, and
   His capability of sympathy, chapter 4:14 to 7:25; and the other
   referring to the expiation he made as Mediator of the new covenant,
   chapter 7:26 to chapter 10:9. The text which is the ground of the first
   section is Psalm 110:4; the passage on which the second section is
   built is Jeremiah 31:31-34, in connection with Psalm 40:6.
     __________________________________________________________________


   TO THE RIGHT HONOVRABLE

   ROBERT EARLE OF SALISBVRIE, VICOVNT

   Cranbourne, Baron of Essendon, Principall Secretarie to

   the Kings most excellent Maiestie, Master of the

   Court of Wardes and Liueries, and one of

   his Highnesse most Honourable

   Priuie Counsell.


   Grace and peace be multiplied


   Right Honorable, such has been the singular care and fatherly
   providence of God over his church in these last times: that according
   to his own most gratious promise (through the means of preaching and
   writing) knowledge has overflowed in all places, as the waters that
   cover the sea. Hence it is come to pass, that even this nation also,
   albeit utterly unworthy to receive so much as the least sprincklings of
   this knowledge, has not withstanding been replenished and filled
   therewith, almost from corner to corner. Many chosen and worthy
   instruments has the Lord raised up here and there for this purpose. But
   amongst the rest, none for whom there is greater cause of thankfulness,
   than for that rare and excellent light of this age, Mr. Calvin: whether
   in respect of the large and many volumes, which with unwearable pains
   he has written, or the exceeding fruits which the Churches have thereby
   gained. So that all of sound judgment will acknowledge, that God had
   poured out upon him a principal portion and measure of his spirit to
   profit with all, 1 Corinthians 12:7. Whereof, as his whole works give
   sufficient proofs, so his Commentaries especially. For besides his
   sincerity and faithfulness in delivering the true and natural sense of
   the holy Scriptures; he has this as peculiar to himself, that with his
   faithfulness and sincerity he always matches an exceeding plainness and
   gravity: whereby his Reader may obtain that he seeks, both with great
   ease, and with very little loss of time.

   Divers of these his Commentaries, Right Honorable, have been already
   translated to the great benefit of this nation: others yet remain
   untranslated, which doubtless would be no less beneficial. The which,
   as I have earnestly desired; so, had gifts and means been in any
   measure answerable, it had been performed ere this. For the present, I
   have been bold to give your Honor a small taste thereof in these my
   poor first fruits: wherein although my pains are no way sufficient to
   commend the same unto your Honor, yet I doubt not but the matter itself
   will be found worthy of your H. patronage. For where are the natures
   and offices of Christ so largely described; the doctrine of the free
   remission of sins in Christ's blood better established, or faith with
   her effects more highly commended, than in this Epistle to the Hebrews?

   Now as touching the reasons, Right Honorable, that have moved me
   hereunto, they are briefly these; First, I was not ignorant what
   singular love and affection your Honor bare to the author of this
   Commentary for his work's sake, whereof many also are witnesses. Unto
   which, if your Honor should be pleased to add a second favor in
   Patronizing these his labors, I thought it would be a special means to
   revive his memory again, now almost decayed amongst us.

   Secondly, I was persuaded that if your Lordship, whom it has pleased
   the Almighty so highly to advance, being also a favorer and defender of
   the truth, and of all good causes; would permit this works to pass
   under your Honors protection: that it would be both better esteemed,
   and the more acceptably received of all.

   Lastly, my good Lord. As I cannot conceal that deep and inward
   affection of love and duties which I owe unto your Honor, in regard of
   the near employments which sometimes a dear friend of mine had about
   your Lordship in your young years: so by this dedication it was my
   desire to testify part of a thankful mind, in respect that you have not
   suffered neither length of time, nor your H. weighty affairs in matters
   of state, to wear the same out of your Honorable remembrance: as by the
   great favors your H. has lately showed in that behalf, does plainly
   appear.

   Thus in most humble manner craving pardon for my great boldness, I
   humbly end; beseeching the most high God, possessor of heaven and
   earth, to pour out the abundance of all blessings both upon you and
   yours in this life, and to crown your H. and them with immortal
   blessedness in his kingdom of Gloria, through Christ.

   Your Honours in all humble and dutifull affection
   ever to bee commanded,

   Clement Cotton
     __________________________________________________________________

   TO THE READER

   Dear Christian Reader, among the many helps wherewith God has furnished
   thee for the furtherance of thy godly Meditations and spiritual growth
   in Christ, I pray thee accept of this amongst the rest; of which (if I
   may so speak) thou has been too long unfurnished. Diverse good and
   godly men have labored, some by their own writings, and some again by
   translating the works of others, to store thee with Sermons and
   Expositions in English, upon all the books of the New Testament, this
   Epistle to the Hebrews lonely excepted: which lack, rather than it
   should be unsupplied, has caused me (the unfittest I confess at many
   thousands) to undertake the translation of the Commentary ensuing:
   which being finished, I have been bold (for thy benefit Christian
   Reader) now to publish. Hoping therefore of thy friendly allowance and
   acceptance of these my poor endeavors: I beseech thee, if thou reap
   that benefit thereby, which I heartily with thou may, to give God the
   praise, and to help me with thy prayers. Thus commending thee and thy
   studies to the grace of God, I bid thee farewell.

   Thine ever in Christ,
   C.C.
     __________________________________________________________________

   EPISTLE DEDICATORY

   JOHN CALVIN

   TO THE MOST MIGHTY AND MOST SERENE PRINCE,

   SIGISMUND AUGUSTUS,

   by the Grace of God, the King of Poland,
   Great Duke of Lithuania, Russia, Prussia,
   and Lord and Heir of Muscovy, etc.

   There are at this day many foolish men, who everywhere, through a vain
   desire for writing, engage the minds of ignorant and thoughtless
   readers with their trifles. And to this evil, most illustrious King, is
   added another indignity -- that while they inscribe to kings and
   princes their silly things, to disguise, or at least to cover them by
   borrowed splendor, they not only profane sacred names, but also impart
   to them some measure of their own disgrace. Since the unreasonable
   temerity of such men makes it necessary for serious and sober writers
   to frame an excuse, when they publicly dedicate their labors to great
   men, while yet there is nothing in them but what corresponds with the
   greatness of those to whom they are offered, it was necessary to make
   this remark, lest I should seem to be of the number of those who allow
   themselves, through the example of others, to render public anything
   they please, however foolish it may be. But it has not escaped me how
   much it has the appearance of foolish confidence, that I, (not to speak
   of other things,) who am an unknown and obscure man, should not
   hesitate to address your royal Majesty. Let my reasons be heard, and if
   you, O King, approve of what I do, what others may judge will cause me
   no great anxiety.

   First, then, though I am not forgetful of mine insignificance, nor
   ignorant of the reverence due to your Majesty, yet the fame of your
   piety, which has extended almost to all who are zealous for the sincere
   doctrine of Christ, is alone sufficient to remorse any fear; for I
   bring with me a present which that piety will not allow you to reject.
   Since the Epistle inscribed to the Hebrews contains a full discussion
   respecting the eternal divinity of Christ, his government, and only
   priesthood, (which are the main points of celestial wisdom,) and as
   these things are so explained in it, that the whole power and work of
   Christ are set forth in the most graphic manner, it deservedly ought to
   obtain in the Church the place and the honor of an invaluable treasure.
   By you also, who desire that the Son of God should reign alone and be
   glorified, I doubt not but that it will be valued.

   In the interpretation which I have undertaken, I say not that I have
   succeeded; but I feel confident that when you have read it you will
   approve at least of my fidelity and diligence. And as I claim not the
   praise of great knowledge or of erudition, so what has been given me by
   the Lord for the purpose of understanding the Scripture, (since this is
   to glory in him,) I am not ashamed to profess; and if in this respect I
   have any capacity to assist the Church of God, I have endeavored to
   give an evident proof of it in these my labors. I therefore hope that
   the present (as I have said) which I offer will not only avail, O King,
   as an excuse to your Majesty, but also procure for me no small favor.

   This may possibly be also a new encouragement to your Majesty, who is
   already engaged in the work of restoring the kingdom of Christ, and to
   many who live under your government to further the same work. Your
   kingdom is extensive and renowned, and abounds in many excellences; but
   its happiness will then only be solid, when it adopts Christ as its
   chief ruler and governor, so that it may be defended by his safeguard
   and protection; for to submit your scepter to him, is not inconsistent
   with that elevation in which you are placed; but it would be far more
   glorious than all the triumphs of the world. For since among men
   gratitude is deemed the proper virtue of a great and exalted mind, what
   in kings can be more unbecoming than to be ungrateful to the Son, by
   whom they have been raised to the highest degree of honor? It is,
   therefore, not only an honorable, but more than a royal service, which
   raises us to the rank of angels, when the throne of Christ is erected
   among us, so that his celestial voice becomes the only rule for living
   and dying both to the highest and to the lowest. For though at this day
   to obey the authority of Christ is the common profession, made almost
   by all, yet there are very few who render this obedience of which they
   boast.

   Now this obedience cannot be rendered, except the whole of religion be
   formed according to the infallible rule of his holy truth. But on this
   point strange conflicts arise, while men, not only inflated with pride,
   but also bewitched by monstrous madness, pay less regard to the
   unchangeable oracles of our heavenly Master than to their own vain
   fictions; for whatever pretenses they may set up, who oppose us and
   strive to assist the Roman Antichrist, the very fountain of all the
   contentions, by which the Church for these thirty years has been so
   sorely disturbed, will be found to be, that they who seek to be deemed
   first among Christ's disciples, cannot bear to submit to his truth.
   Ambition as well as audacity has so far prevailed, that the truth of
   God lies buried under innumerable lies, that all his institutions are
   polluted by the basest corruptions; his worship is in every part
   vitiated, the doctrine of faith is wholly subverted, the sacraments are
   adulterated, the government of the Church is turned into barbarous
   tyranny, the abominable sale of sacred things has been set up, the
   power of Christ has been abused for the purpose of sustaining the
   tyranny of the ungodly, and in the place of Christianity is substituted
   a dreadful profanation, full of the grossest mummeries of every kind.
   When for these so many and so atrocious evils we bring this one remedy
   -- to hear the Son of God speaking from heaven, we are instantly
   opposed by these Atlases, not those who support the Church on their
   shoulders, but who elevate on high by vain boastings of empty titles an
   idol devised and formed by themselves. They also adduce this as a
   pretext for their fierce recriminations, that we by our appeals disturb
   the peace of the Church. When we come to know things aright, we see
   that these subtle artifices devise for themselves a Church wholly
   different from that of Christ! And what else is this but a wicked and
   sacrilegious attempt to separate the body from its head? It hence
   appears how frivolous is the boasting of many as to Christianity; for
   the greatest part suffer themselves to be governed by nothing less than
   by the pure teaching of the Gospel.

   But what you acknowledge, O King, that in order that Christ may take an
   entire possession of his own kingdom, it is necessary to clear away all
   superstitions, is a proof of singular wisdom; and to undertake and
   attempt what you judge to be thus necessary, is an evidence of rare
   virtue. That you are indeed like another Hezekiah or Josiah, destined
   by God to restore shortly to the kingdom of Poland a purer teaching of
   that gospel, which has been throughout the world vitiated by the craft
   of Satan and perfidy of men, there are many things which give almost a
   certain hope to all good men. For, to omit other superior qualities,
   which even foreigners proclaim and men of your own kingdom observe with
   great advantage, there has ever appeared in you a wonderful concern for
   religion, and religion itself appears eminent in you in the present
   day. But the chief thing is, that Christ, the Sun of Righteousness, has
   so irradiated your mind with the light of his Gospel, that you
   understand that the true way of governing the Church is no other than
   what is to be derived from him, and that you at the same time know the
   difference between that genuine form of religion which he has
   instituted, and that fictions and degenerate form which was afterwards
   introduced; for you wholly understand that God's worship has been
   corrupted and deformed, as innumerable superstitions have crept in,
   that the grace of Christ has been unworthily involved in great
   darkness, that the virtue of his death has been annihilated, that he
   himself has been almost lacerated and torn in pieces, that assurance of
   salvation has been plucked up by the roots, that consciences have been
   miserably and even horribly vexed and tormented, that wretched men have
   been led away from the sincere and right worship of God into various
   and perplexed labyrinths, that the Church has been cruelly and
   tyrannically oppressed; and, in short, that no real Christianity has
   been left.

   It is not to be believed, O most noble King, that you have been in vain
   endowed by God with this knowledge; doubtless he has chosen you as his
   minister for some great purposes. And it has hitherto happened through
   God's wonderful Providence that no innocent blood has been shed in the
   renowned kingdom of Poland -- no, not a drop, which by calling for
   vengeance might retard so great a benefit. It was through the clemency
   and gentleness of King Sigismund, of happy memory, the father of your
   Majesty, that this did not take place; for, while the contagion of
   cruelty was spreading through the whole of the Christian world, he kept
   his hands pure. But now your Majesty and some of the most eminent of
   your princes not only receive Christ willingly when offered to them,
   but anxiously desire him. I also see John a Lasco, born of a noble
   family, carrying the torch to other nations.

   The presumption of Eckius is by no means to be endured, who dedicated
   to King Sigismund, the father of your Majesty, his book on The
   Sacrifice of the Mass; for he thus, as far as he could, affixed a base
   blot to your illustrious kingdom! At the same time, it was nothing
   strange in that Silenus, who, being the prince of drunkards, was wont
   to vomit at the altar as well as at the dunghill. Now, by dedicating
   this my labor to your Majesty, I shall at least effect this, that I
   shall wash away from the name of Poland the base filth of Eckius, so
   that it may not stick where it has been so unworthily fixed. And by
   doing so I shall not, as it seems to me, attain a small object; and no
   book of Scripture could hardly be chosen so suitable for such a
   purpose. For here our Apostle shows in an especial manner, that the
   sacrifice which Eckius advocates is manifestly inconsistent with the
   priesthood of Christ. There is here, indeed, no mention of the mass,
   which Satan had not then vomited out of hell. But by bidding the Church
   to be satisfied with the one only true sacrifice which Christ offered
   on the cross, that all rites of sacrificing might cease forever, he
   doubtless closes the door against all their new glosses. The Apostle
   cries aloud that Christ was sacrificed on the cross once for all, while
   Eckius feigns that this sacrifice is daily renewed! The Apostle
   declares that the only Son of God was the fit priest to offer himself
   to the Father, and hence he was constituted by an oath; but Eckius
   denies that he alone is the priest, and transfers that function to
   hired sacrificers! At the same time, I am not ignorant of the evasions
   by which they elude these and similar arguments; but there is no fear
   that he will deceive any but those who are blind or who shun the light.
   He was at the same time so inebriated with Thrasonic haughtiness that
   he labored more in insolent boasting than in subtle demonstration. That
   I may not, however, seem to triumph over a dead dog, I will add nothing
   more at present than that my Commentary may serve to wipe off the
   filthy stain which that unprincipled and Scottish man attempted to fix
   on the name of Poland; and there is no fear that they who will read
   will be taken by his baits.

   Moreover, as I wish not in offering this my labor to your Majesty, only
   to show privately a regard for you, O King, but especially to make it
   known to the whole world, it remains now for me humbly to implore your
   Majesty not to repudiate what I do. If indeed a stimulus be thereby
   given to encourage your pious endeavors, I shall think it an ample
   remuneration. Undertake, then, I pray, O magnanimous King, under the
   auspicious banner of Christ, a work so worthy of your royal elevation,
   as well as of your heroic virtue, so that the eternal truth of God, by
   which his own glory and the salvation of men are promoted, may,
   wherever thy kingdom spreads, recover its own authority, which has been
   taken away by the fraudulent dealings of Antichrist. It is truly an
   arduous work, and of such magnitude as is sufficient to fill even the
   wisest with solicitude and fear.

   But first, there is no danger which we ought not cheerfully to undergo,
   no difficulty which we ought not resolutely to undertake, no conflicts
   in which we ought not boldly to engage, in a cause so necessary.
   Secondly, as it is the peculiar work of God, we ought not in this case
   to regard so much the extent of human powers as the glory due to his
   power; so that, relying on that not only to help us, but also to guide
   us, we may venture on things far beyond our own strength; for the work
   of restoring and establishing the church is not without reason
   everywhere assigned in Scripture to God. Besides, the work itself is
   altogether divine; and as soon as any beginning is made, whatever arts
   of injury Satan possesses, he employs them all either to stop or to
   delay a further progress. And we know that the prince of this world has
   innumerable agents who are ever ready to oppose the kingdom of Christ.
   Some are instigated by ambition, others by gain. These contests try us
   in some degree in our humble condition; but your majesty will have, no
   doubt, to experience far greater difficulties. Therefore, all those who
   undertake to promote the doctrine of salvation and the wellbeing of the
   Church must be armed with invincible firmness. But as this business is
   above our strength, aid from heaven will be granted to us.

   It is in the meantime our duty to have all these promises which
   everywhere occur in Scripture inscribed on our hearts. The Lord who has
   himself as it were by his own hand laid the foundations of the Church,
   will not suffer it to remain in a decayed state, for he is represented
   as solicitous to restore it and to repair its ruins; for, by speaking
   thus, he in effect promises that he will never fail us when engaged in
   this work. As he would not have us to sit down as idle spectators of
   his power, so the presence of his aid in sustaining the hands which
   labor, clearly proves that he himself is the chief architect. What,
   therefore, he so often repeats and inculcates, and not without reason,
   is, that we are not to grow weary, however often we may have to contend
   with enemies, who continually break forth into hostility; for they are,
   as we have said, almost infinite in number, and in kinds various. But
   this one thing is abundantly sufficient, that we have such an
   invincible Leader, that the more he is assailed the greater will be the
   victories and triumphs gained by his power.

   Farewell, invincible King. May the Lord Jesus rule you by the spirit of
   wisdom, sustain you by the spirit of valor, bestow on you all kinds of
   blessings, long preserve your Majesty in health and prosperity, and
   protect your kingdom. Amen.

   Geneva, May 23, 1549
     __________________________________________________________________

   THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

   THE ARGUMENT

   ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

   Not only various opinions were formerly entertained as to the author of
   this Epistle, but it was only at a late period that it was received by
   the Latin Churches. They suspected that it favored Novatus in denying
   pardon to the fallen; [6] but that this was a groundless opinion will
   be shown by various passages. I, indeed, without hesitation, class it
   among apostolical writings; nor do I doubt but that it has been through
   the craft of Satan that any have been led to dispute its authority.
   There is, indeed, no book in the Holy Scriptures which speaks so
   clearly of the priesthood of Christ, so highly exalts the virtue and
   dignity of that only true sacrifice which he offered by his death, so
   abundantly treats of the use of ceremonies as well as of their
   abrogation, and, in a word, so fully explains that Christ is the end of
   the Law. Let us not therefore suffer the Church of God nor ourselves to
   be deprived of so great a benefit, but firmly defend the possession of
   it.

   Moreover, as to its author, we need not be very solicitous. Some think
   the author to have been Paul, others Luke, others Barnabas, and others
   Clement, as Jerome relates; yet Eusebius, in his sixth book of his
   Church History, mentions only Luke and Clement. I well know that in the
   time of Chrysostom it was everywhere classed by the Greeks among the
   Pauline Epistles; but the Latins thought otherwise, even those who were
   nearest to the times of the Apostles.

   I indeed, can adduce no reason to show that Paul was its author; for
   they who say that he designedly suppressed his name because it was
   hateful to the Jews, bring nothing to the purpose; for why, then, did
   he mention the name of Timothy as by this he betrayed himself. But the
   manner it of teaching, and the style, sufficiently show that Paul was
   not the author; and the writer himself confesses in the second chapter
   that he was one of the disciples of the Apostles, which is wholly
   different from the way in which Paul spoke of himself. Besides, what is
   said of the practice of catechizing in the sixth chapter, does not well
   suit the time or age of Paul. There are other things which we shall
   notice in their proper places.

   What excuse is usually made as to the style I well know that is, that
   no opinion can be hence formed, because the Greek is a translation made
   from the Hebrew by Luke or someone else. But this conjecture can be
   easily refuted: to pass by other places quoted from Scripture, on the
   supposition that the Epistle was written in Hebrew, there would have
   been no allusion to the word Testament, on which the writer so much
   dwells; what he says of a Testament, in the ninth chapter, could not
   have been drawn from any other fountain than from the Greek word; for
   diatheke has two meanings in Greek, while |berit| in Hebrew means only
   a covenant. This reason alone is enough to convince men of sound
   judgment that the epistle was written in the Greek languages. Now, what
   is objected on the other hand, that it is more probable that the
   Apostle wrote to the Jews in their own language, has no weight in it;
   for how few then understood their ancient language? Each had learned
   the language of the country where he dwelt. Besides, the Greek was then
   more widely known than all other languages. We shall proceed now to the
   Argument.

   The object at the beginning is not to show to the Jews that Jesus, the
   son of Mary, was the Christ, the Redeemer promised to them, for he
   wrote to those who had already made a profession of Christ; that point,
   then, is taken as granted. But the design of the writer was to prove
   what the office of Christ is. And it hence appears evident, that by his
   coming an end was put to ceremonies. It is necessary to draw this
   distinction; for as it would have been a superfluous labor for the
   Apostle to prove to those who were already convinced that he was the
   Christ who had appeared, so it was necessary for him to show what he
   was, for they did not as yet clearly understand the end, the effect,
   and the advantages of his coming; but being taken up with a false view
   of the Law, they laid hold on the shadow instead of the substance. Our
   business with the Papists is similar in the present day; for they
   confess with us that Christ is the Son of God, the redeemer who had
   been promised to the world: but when we come to the reality, we find
   that they rob him of more than onehalf of his power.

   Now, the beginning is respecting the dignity of Christ; for it seemed
   strange to the Jews that the Gospel should be preferred to the Law. And
   first indeed he settles that point which was in dispute, that the
   doctrine brought by Christ had the preeminence, for it was the
   fulfillment of all the prophecies. But as the reverence in which they
   held Moses might have been a hindrance to them, he shows that Christ
   was far superior to all others. And after having briefly referred to
   those things in which he excelled others, he mentions by name the
   angels, that with them he might reduce all to their proper rank. Thus
   he advanced prudently in his course; for if he had begun with Moses,
   his comparison would have been more disliked. But when it appears from
   Scripture that celestial powers are subordinated to Christ, there is no
   reason why Moses or any mortal being should refuse to be classed with
   them, so that the Son of God may appear eminent above angels as well as
   men.

   After having thus brought the angels under the power and dominion of
   Christ, the Apostle having, as it were, gained confidence, declares
   that Moses was so much inferior to him as a servant is to his master.

   By thus setting Christ in the three first chapters in a supreme state
   of power, he intimates, that when he speaks all ought to be silent, and
   that nothing should prevent us from seriously attending to his
   doctrine. At the same time he sets him forth in the second chapter as
   our brother in our flesh; and thus he allures us to devote ourselves
   more willingly to him; and he also blends exhortations and threatening
   in order to lead those to obedience who are tardy or perversely resist;
   and he continues in this strain nearly to the end of the fourth
   chapter.

   At the end of the fourth chapter he begins to explain the priesthood of
   Christ, which abolishes all the ceremonies of the Law. But after having
   briefly showed how welcome that priesthood ought to be to us, and how
   gladly we ought to acquiesce in it, he shortly turns aside to reprove
   the Jews, because they stopped at the first elements of religion like
   children; and he also terrifies them with a grievous and severe
   denunciation, that there was danger lest they, if slothful to make
   progress, should at length be rejected by the Lord. But he presently
   softens this asperity by saying, that he hoped better things of them,
   in order that he might encourage them, whom he had depressed, to make
   progress.

   Then [in the seventh chapter] he returns to the priesthood; and first
   shows that it differed from the ancient priesthood under the Law;
   secondly, that it was more excellent, because it succeeded it, and was
   sanctioned by an oath, -- because it is eternal, and remains for ever
   efficacious, -- because he who performs its duties is superior in honor
   and dignity to Aaron and all the rest of the Levitical tribe; and he
   shows that the type which shadowed forth all things was found in the
   person of Melchisedec.

   And in order to prove more fully that the ceremonies of the Law were
   abrogated he mentions that the ceremonies were appointed, and also the
   tabernacle, for a particular end, even that they might get forth the
   heavenly prototype. Hence it follows, that they were not to be rested
   in unless we wish to stop in the middle of our course, having no regard
   to the goal. On this subject he quotes a passage from Jeremiah, in
   which a new covenant is promised, which was nothing else than an
   improvement on the old. It hence follows, that the old was weak and
   fading.

   Having spoken of the likeness and similitude between the shadows and
   the reality exhibited in Christ, he then concludes that all the rituals
   appointed by Moses have been abrogated by the one only true sacrifice
   of Christ, because the efficacy of this sacrifice is perpetual, and
   that not only the sanction of the New Testament is made by it complete,
   but that it is also a true and a spiritual accomplishment of that
   external priesthood which was in force under the Law.

   To this doctrine he again connects exhortation like a goad, that
   putting aside all impediments they might receive Christ with due
   reverence.

   As to the many examples he mentions in the eleventh chapter concerning
   the fathers, they seem to me to have been brought forward for this
   purpose, -- that the Jews might understand, that if they were led from
   Moses to Christ, they would be so far from departing from the fathers,
   that they would thus be especially connected with them. For if the
   chief thing in them was faith, and the root of all other virtues, it
   follows that this is especially that by which they should be counted
   the children of Abraham and the Prophets; and that on the other hand
   all are bastards who follow not the faith of the fathers. And this is
   no small commendation of the Gospel, that by it we have union and
   fellowship with the universal Church, which has been from the beginning
   of the world.

   The two last chapters contain various precepts as to the way in which
   we ought to live: they speak of hope, of bearing the cross, of
   perseverance, of gratitude towards God, of obedience, of mercy, of the
   duties of love, of chastity, and of such like things. And lastly, he
   concludes with prayer, and at the same time gives them a hope of his
   coming to see them.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [6] Novatus was a priest in Carthage about the middle of the third
   century, and came to Rome as an advocate on Novation, who was the
   leader in this opinion. What gave the first occasion to this sentiment
   was the case of some who fell away from the faith during the Decian
   persecution. Novatian resisted their restoration, and afterwards
   extended the same denied repentance to all such, and regarded them as
   forever unfit to be received into the Church. He opposed the election
   of Cornelius to the see of Rome, who differed from his jurisdiction,
   and formed a sect of his own. He was consequently excommunicated,
   together with his party, (of which Novatus seems to have been one,) by
   a council assembled by Cornelius in the year 251. He was then made a
   bishop by his own party, and was followed by many; and his sect
   continued to flourish till the fifth century. But Novation, a Roman
   priest, rather than Novatus, a priest from Carthage, was its founder.
   -- See Mosheim's Eccl. Hist., volume. 1 page 249. -- Ed.
     __________________________________________________________________

   COMMENTARIES

   ON THE

   EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL TO THE HEBREWS

   CHAPTER 1
     __________________________________________________________________

   Hebrews 1:1-2

   1. God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past
   unto the fathers by the prophets,

   1. Deus olim multifariam multisque modis loquutus patribus per
   prophetas,

   2. Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath
   appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

   2. Extremis hisce diebus loquutus est nobis per Filium, quem constituit
   haeredem omnium, per quem etiam secula condidit.

   God formerly, etc. This beginning is for the purpose of commending the
   doctrine taught by Christ; for it shows that we ought not only
   reverently to receive it, but also to be satisfied with it alone. That
   we may understand this more clearly, we must observe the contrast
   between each of the clauses. First, the Son of God is set in opposition
   to the prophets; then we to the fathers; and, thirdly, the various and
   manifold modes of speaking which God had adopted as to the fathers, to
   the last revelation brought to us by Christ. But in this diversity he
   still sets before us but one God, that no one might think that the Law
   militates against the Gospel, or that the author of one is not the
   author of the other. That you may, therefore, understand the full
   import of this passage, the following arrangement shall be given, --

   God spake

   Formerly by the Prophets

   Now by the Son;

   Then to the Fathers

   But now to us;

   Then at various times

   Now as at the end of the times.


   This foundation being laid, the agreement between the Law and the
   Gospel is established; for God, who is ever like himself, and whose
   word is the same, and whose truth is unchangeable, has spoken as to
   both in common.

   But we must notice the difference between us and the fathers; for God
   formerly addressed them in a way different from that which he adopts
   towards us now. And first indeed as to them he employed the prophets,
   but he has appointed his Son to be an ambassador to us. [7] Our
   condition, then, in this respect, is superior to that of the fathers.
   Even Moses is to be also classed among the prophets, as he is one of
   the number of those who are inferior to the Son. In the manner also in
   which revelation was made, we have an advantage over them. For the
   diversity as to visions and other means adopted under the Old
   Testament, was an indication that it was not yet a fixed state of
   things, as when matters are put completely in order. Hence he says,
   multifariously and in many ways". God would have indeed followed the
   same mode perpetually to the end, had the mode been perfect and
   complete. It hence follows, that this variety was an evidence of
   imperfection.

   The two words I thus understand: I refer multifariously to a diversity
   as to times; for the Greek word polumeros which we may render, "in many
   parts," as the case usually is, when we intend to speak more fully
   hereafter; but polutropos points out a diversity, as I think, in the
   very manner itself. [8] And when he speaks of the last times, he
   intimates that there is no longer any reason to expect any new
   revelation; for it was not a word in part that Christ brought, but the
   final conclusion. It is in this sense that the Apostles take the last
   times and the last days. And Paul means the same when he says, "Upon
   whom the ends of the world are come." (1 Corinthians 10:11.) If God
   then has spoken now for the last time, it is right to advance thus far;
   so also when you come to Christ, you ought not to go farther: and these
   two things it is very needful for us to know. For it was a great
   hindrance to the Jews that they did not consider that God had deferred
   a fuller revelation to another time; hence, being satisfied with their
   own Law, they did not hasten forward to the goal. But since Christ has
   appeared, an opposite evil began to prevail in the world; for men
   wished to advance beyond Christ. What else indeed is the whole system
   of Popery but the overleaping of the boundary which the Apostle has
   fixed? As, then, the Spirit of God in this passage invites all to come
   as far as Christ, so he forbids them to go beyond the last time which
   he mentions. In short, the limit of our wisdom is made here to be the
   Gospel. [9]

   2. Whom he has appointed, heir, etc. He honors Christ with high
   commendations, in order to lead us to show him reverence; for since the
   Father has subjected all things to him, we are all under his authority.
   He also intimates that no good can be found apart from him, as he is
   the heir of all things. It hence follows that we must be very miserable
   and destitute of all good things except he supplies us with his
   treasures. He further adds that this honor of possessing all things
   belongs by right to the Son, because by him have all things been
   created. At the same time, these two things [10] are ascribed to Christ
   for different reasons.

   The world was created by him, as he is the eternal wisdom of God, which
   is said to have been the director of all his works from the beginning;
   and hence is proved the eternity of Christ, for he must have existed
   before the world was created by him. If, then, the duration of his time
   be inquired of, it will be found that it has no beginning. Nor is it
   any derogation to his power that he is said to have created the world,
   as though he did not by himself create it. According to the most usual
   mode of speaking in Scripture, the Father is called the Creator; and it
   is added in some places that the world was created by wisdom, by the
   word, by the Son, as though wisdom itself had been the creator, [or the
   word, or the Son.] But still we must observe that there is a difference
   of persons between the Father and the Son, not only with regard to men,
   but with regard to God himself. But the unity of essence requires that
   whatever is peculiar to Deity should belong to the Son as well as to
   the Father, and also that whatever is applied to God only should belong
   to both; and yet there is nothing in this to prevent each from his own
   peculiar properties.

   But the word heir is ascribed to Christ as manifested in the flesh; for
   being made man, he put on our nature, and as such received this
   heirship, and that for this purpose, that he might restore to us what
   we had lost in Adam. For God had at the beginning constituted man, as
   his Son, the heir of all good things; but through sin the first man
   became alienated from God, and deprived himself and his posterity of
   all good things, as well as of the favor of God. We hence only then
   begin to enjoy by right the good things of God, when Christ, the
   universal heir, admits to a union with himself; for he is an heir that
   he may endow us with his riches. But the Apostle now adorns him with
   this title, that we may know that without him we are destitute of all
   good things.

   If you take all in the masculine gender, the meaning is, that we ought
   all to be subject to Christ, because we have been given to him by the
   Father. But I prefer reading it in the neuter gender; then it means
   that we are driven from the legitimate possession of all things, both
   in heaven and on earth, except we be united to Christ.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [7] The absence of the definite article before huio is not unusual in
   the New Testament, it being often omitted before all sorts of nouns. In
   many instances it is Hebrewism, and so here; for Chrysostom in his
   comment supplies it, and mentions that en here is dia, which is another
   Hebrewism. -- Ed.

   [8] Some of the fathers, such as Chrysostom, regarded the two words as
   meaning the same thing; but there is no reason for this. On the
   contrary, each word has a distinct meaning; one expresses a variety as
   to parts or portions, and the other variety as to the mode or manner.
   The "parts" clearly refer to the different portions of revelation
   communicated to "holy men" in different ages of the world. Hence the
   meaning, though not the literal rendering, is given in our version, "at
   sundry time;" or "often", as by Stuart; or "at many times", as by
   Doddridge. A more literal version is given by Macknight, "in sundry
   parts". Most agree as to the second word, that it designates the
   various modes of communication, -- by visions, dreams, interposition of
   angels, and speaking face to face, as the case was with Moses; see
   Numbers 12:6-8. And there was another variety in the manner, sometimes
   in plain language, and at another time in similitudes and parables. --
   Ed.

   [9] It is said that the MSS, are in favor of eschatou "in the last of
   these days." Were it not for "these", this might be allowed, as the
   literal rendering of these Hebrew words often used, v'chryt hmym, "at
   the extremity of the days", (see Isaiah 2:2; Hosea 3:5, etc.) but the
   sentence, as changed by Griesbach and others, makes no sense, and is
   inconsistent with the words as elsewhere used by Paul; see 2 Timothy
   3:1. A mere majority of MSS, is no sufficient authority for a reading.
   -- Ed.

   [10] That is, heirship and creation.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Hebrews 1:3

   3. Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his
   person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had
   by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty
   on high.

   3. Qui quum sit splendor gloriae et character substantiae ejus,
   portetque omnia verbo suo potenti, peccatorum nostrorum purgatione per
   seipsum facta, considit in dextera magnificentiae in excelsis.


   3. Who being the brightness of his glory, etc. These things are said of
   Christ partly as to his divine essence, and partly as a partaker of our
   flesh. When he is called the brightness of his glory and the impress of
   his substance, his divinity is referred to; the other things appertain
   in a measure to his human nature. The whole, however, is stated in
   order to set forth the dignity of Christ.

   But it is for the same reason that the Son is said to be "the
   brightness of his glory", and "the impress of his substance:" they are
   words borrowed from nature. For nothing can be said of things so great
   and so profound, but by similitudes taken from created things. There is
   therefore no need refinedly to discuss the question how the Son, who
   has the same essence with the Father, is a brightness emanating from
   his light. We must allow that there is a degree of impropriety in the
   language when what is borrowed from created things is transferred to
   the hidden majesty of God. But still the things which are indent to our
   senses are fitly applied to God, and for this end, that we may know
   what is to be found in Christ, and what benefits he brings to us.

   It ought also to be observed that frivolous speculations are not here
   taught, but an important doctrine of faith. We ought therefore to apply
   these high titles given to Christ for our own benefit, for they bear a
   relation to us. When, therefore, thou hear that the Son is the
   brightness of the Father's glory, think thus with thyself, that the
   glory of the Father is invisible until it shines forth in Christ, and
   that he is called the impress of his substance, because the majesty of
   the Father is hidden until it shows itself impressed as it were on his
   image. They who overlook this connection and carry their philosophy
   higher, weary themselves to no purpose, for they do not understand the
   design of the Apostle; for it was not his object to show what likeness
   the Father bears to the Son; but, as I have said, his purpose was
   really to build up our faith, so that we may learn that God is made
   known to us in no other way than in Christ: [11] for as to the essence
   of God, so immense is the brightness that it dazzles our eyes, except
   it shines on us in Christ. It hence follows, that we are blind as to
   the light of God, until in Christ it beams on us. It is indeed a
   profitable philosophy to learn Christ by the real understanding of
   faith and experience. The same view, as I have said is to be taken of
   "the impress;" for as God is in himself to us incomprehensible, his
   form appears to us only in his Son. [12]

   The word apaugasma means here nothing else but visible light or
   refulgence, such as our eyes can bear; and charakter is the vivid form
   of a hidden substance. By the first word we are reminded that without
   Christ there is no light, but only darkness; for as God is the only
   true light by which it behaves us all to be illuminated, this light
   sheds itself upon us, so to speak, only by irradiation. By the second
   word we are reminded that God is truly and really known in Christ; for
   he is not his obscure or shadowy image, but his impress which resembles
   him, as money the impress of the die with which it is stamped. But the
   Apostle indeed says what is more than this, even that the substance of
   the Father is in a manner engraven on the Son. [13]

   The word upostasis which, by following others, I have rendered
   substance, denotes not, as I think, the being or essence of the Father,
   but his person; for it would be strange to say that the essence of God
   is impressed on Christ, as the essence of both is simply the same. But
   it may truly and fitly be said that whatever peculiarly belongs to the
   Father is exhibited in Christ, so that he who knows him knows what is
   in the Father. And in this sense do the orthodox fathers take this
   term, hypostasis, considering it to be threefold in God, while the
   essence (ousia) is simply one. Hilary everywhere takes the Latin word
   substance for person. But though it be not the Apostle's object in this
   place to speak of what Christ is in himself, but of what he is really
   to us, yet he sufficiently confutes the Asians and Sabellians; for he
   claims for Christ what belongs to God alone, and also refers to two
   distinct persons, as to the Father and the Son. For we hence learn that
   the Son is one God with the Father, and that he is yet in a sense
   distinct from him, so that a subsistence or person belongs to both.

   And upholding (or bearing) all things, etc. To uphold or to bear here
   means to preserve or to continue all that is created in its own state;
   for he intimates that all things would instantly come to nothing, were
   they not sustained by his power. Though the pronoun his may be referred
   to the Father as well as to the Son, as it may be rendered "his own,"
   yet as the other exposition is more commonly received, and well suits
   the context, I am disposed to embrace it. Literally it is, "by the word
   of his power;" but the genitive, after the Hebrew manner, is used
   instead of an adjective; for the perverted explanation of some, that
   Christ sustains all things by the word of the Father, that is, by
   himself who is the word, has nothing in its favor: besides, there is no
   need of such forced explanation; for Christ is not wont to be called
   rhema, saying, but logos, word. [14] Hence the "word" here means simply
   a nod; and the sense is, that Christ who preserves the whole world by a
   nod only, did not yet refuse the office of effecting our purgation.

   Now this is the second part of the doctrine handled in this Epistle;
   for a statement of the whole question is to be found in these two
   chapters, and that is, that Christ, endued with supreme authority,
   ought to be head above all others, and that as he has reconciled us to
   his Father by his own death, he has put an end to the ancient
   sacrifices. And so the first point, though a general proposition, is
   yet a twofold clause.

   When he further says, by himself, there is to be understood here a
   contrast, that he had not been aided in this by the shadows of the
   Mosaic Law. He shows besides a difference between him and the Levitical
   priests; for they also were said to expiate sins, but they derived this
   power from another. In short, he intended to exclude all other means or
   helps by stating that the price and the power of purgation were found
   only in Christ. [15]

   Sat down on the right hand, etc.; as though he had said, that having in
   the world procured salvation for men, he was received into celestial
   glory, in order that he might govern all things. And he added this in
   order to show that it was not a temporary salvation he has obtained for
   us; for we should otherwise be too apt to measure his power by what now
   appears to us. He then reminds us that Christ is not to be less
   esteemed because he is not seen by our eyes; but, on the contrary, that
   this was the height of his glory, that he has been taken and conveyed
   to the highest seat of his empire. The right hand is by a similitude
   applied to God, though he is not confined to any place, and has not a
   right side nor left. The session then of Christ means nothing else but
   the kingdom given to him by the Father, and that authority which Paul
   mentions, when he says that in his name every knee should bow.
   (Philippians 2:10) Hence to sit at the right hand of the Father is no
   other thing than to govern in the place of the Father, as deputies of
   princes are wont to do to whom a full power over all things is granted.
   And the word majesty is added, and also on high, and for this purpose,
   to intimate that Christ is seated on the supreme throne whence the
   majesty of God shines forth. As, then, he ought to be loved on account
   of his redemption, so he ought to be adored on account of his royal
   magnificence. [16]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [11] The fathers and some modern divines have held that these words
   express the eternal relation between the Father and the Son. But
   Calvin, with others, such as Beza, Dr. Owen, Scott and Stuart, have
   regarded the words as referring to Christ as the Messiah, as the Son of
   God in human nature, or as Mediator, consistently with such passages as
   these, -- "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." John 14:9; "He
   that hath seen me hath seen him that sent me." (John 12:45). By this
   view we avoid altogether the difficulty that arises from the
   expressions, "the impress of his substance," or essence, he being so,
   not as to his eternal divinity, but as a Mediator. -- Ed.

   [12] The remarkable wisdom of the preceding remarks must be approved by
   every enlightened Christian. There is an "Excursus" in Professor
   Stuart's Commentary on this Epistle, on the same subject, which is very
   valuable, distinguished for caution, acuteness, and sound judgment.
   Well would it be were all divines to show the same humility on a
   subject so remote from human comprehension. The bold and unhallowed
   speculations of some of the fathers, and of the schoolmen, and divines
   after them, have produced infinite mischief, having occasioned
   hindrances to the reception of the truth respecting our Savior's
   divinity, which would have otherwise never existed. -- Ed.

   [13] See [2]Appendix A.

   [14] Stuart following Chrysostom, renders the words pheran,
   "controlling" or governing, and so does Schleusner; but the sense of
   "upholding" or sustaining, or supporting, is more suitable to the words
   which follow -- "by the word of his power," or by his powerful word.
   Had it been "by the word of his wisdom," then controlling or governing
   would be compatible; but as it is "power", doubtless sustension or
   preservation is the most congruous idea. Besides, this is the most
   obvious and common meaning of the word, and so rendered by most
   expositors; among others by Beza, Doddridge, Macknight and Bloomfield.
   Doddridge gives this paraphrase, -- "Upholding the universe which he
   hath made by the efficacious word of his Father's power, which is ever
   resident in him as his own, by virtue of that intimate but incomparable
   union which renders them one." This view is consistent with the whole
   passage: "his substance" and "his power" corresponds; and it is said,
   "by whom he made the world," so it is suitable to say that he sustains
   the world by the Father's power. -- Ed

   [15] The word here used means properly "purification," but is used for
   expiation by the Sept.; see Exodus 30:10. The same truth is meant as
   when in chapter 10:12, that Christ, "after he had offered on sacrifice
   for sins, for ever sat down on the right hand of God." The reference
   here cannot be to the actual purification of his people; for what was
   done by Christ when he died is what is spoken of, even when he "put
   away sin" as it is said in chapter 9:26, "by the sacrifice for
   himself." The word then, may be forgiveness proceeds from the
   atonement: see 1 John 1:9. Dr. Owen gives three reasons for considering
   the word in the sense of expiation or atonement, -- It is so rendered
   in some instances by the Septuagint; the act spoken is past, while
   cleansing or purification is what is effected now; and "himself" shows
   that it is not properly sanctification as that is effected by means of
   the word, (Ephesians 5:26,) and by the regenerating Spirit. (Titus 3:5)
   The version of Stuart is, "made expiation for our sins," which is no
   doubt the meaning. -- Ed.

   [16] It has been observed by some that in these verses the three
   offices of Christ are to be found: the Father spoke by him as a
   prophet; he made expiation for our sins as a priest; and he sits at
   God's right hand as a king. -- Ed.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Hebrews 1:4-6

   4. Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance
   obtained a more excellent name than they.

   4. Tanto praestantior angelis factus, quanto excellentius prae ipsis
   sortitus est nomen.

   5. 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?

   5. Cui enim inquam angelorum dixit, Filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui
   te? Et rursus, ego illi in Patrem, et ipse erit mihi in Filium.

   6. And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he
   saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

   6. Rursus autem quum introducit filium in orbem dicit, Et adorent eum
   omnes angeli Dei.


   4. Being made so much better, etc. After having raised Christ above
   Moses and all others, he now amplifies His glory by a comparison with
   angels. It was a common notion among the Jews, that the Law was given
   by angels; they attentively considered the honorable things spoken of
   them everywhere in Scripture; and as the world is strangely inclined to
   superstition, they obscured the glory of God by extolling angels too
   much. It was therefore necessary to reduce them to their own rank, that
   they might not overshadow the brightness of Christ. And first he proves
   from his name, that Christ far excelled them, for he is called the Son
   of God; [17] and that he was distinguished by this title he shows by
   two testimonies from Scripture, both of which must be examined by us;
   and then we shall sum up their full import.

   5. Thou art my Son, etc. It cannot be denied but that this was spoken
   of David, that is, as he sustained the person of Christ. Then the
   things found in this Psalm must have been shadowed forth in David, but
   were fully accomplished in Christ. For that he by subduing many enemies
   around him, enlarged the borders of his kingdom, it was some
   foreshadowing of the promise, "I will give thee the heathen for thine
   inheritance." But how little was this in comparison with the amplitude
   of Christ's kingdom, which extends from the east to the west? For the
   same reason David was called the son of God, having been especially
   chosen to perform great things; but his glory was hardly a spark, even
   the smallest, to that glory which shone forth in Christ, on whom the
   Father has imprinted his own image. So the name of Son belongs by a
   peculiar privilege to Christ alone, and cannot in this sense be applied
   to any other without profanation, for him and no other has the Father
   sealed.

   But still the argument of the Apostle seems not to be well-grounded;
   for how does he maintain that Christ is superior to angels except on
   this ground, that he has the name of a Son? As though indeed he had not
   this in common with princes and those high in power, of whom it is
   written, "Ye are gods and the sons of the most", (Psalm 50:6;) and as
   though Jeremiah had not spoken as honorably of all Israel, when he
   called them the firstborn of God. (Jeremiah 31:9.) They are indeed
   everywhere called children or sons. Besides, David calls angels the
   sons of God;

   "Who," he says, "is like to Jehovah among the sons of God?" (Psalm
   89:6.)

   The answer to all this is in no way difficult. Princes are called by
   this name on account of a particular circumstance; as to Israel, the
   common grace of election is thus denoted; angels are called the sons of
   God as having a certain resemblance to him, because they are celestial
   spirits and possess some portion of divinity in their blessed
   immortality. But when David without any addition calls himself as the
   type of Christ the Son of God, he denotes something peculiar and more
   excellent than the honor given to angels or to princes, or even to all
   Israel. Otherwise it would have been an improper and absurd expression,
   if he was by way of excellence called the son of God, and yet had
   nothing more than others; for he is thus separated from all other
   beings. When it is said so exclusively of Christ, "Thou art my Son," it
   follows that this honor does not belong to any of the angels. [18]

   If any one again objects and says, that David was thus raised above the
   angels; to this I answer, that it is nothing strange for him to be
   elevated above angels while bearing the image of Christ; for in like
   manner there was no wrong done to angels when the highpriest, who made
   an atonement for sins, was called a mediator. They did not indeed
   obtain that title as by right their own; but as they represented the
   kingdom of Christ, they derived also the name from him. Moreover, the
   sacraments, though in themselves lifeless, are yet honored with titles
   which angels cannot claim without being guilty of sacrilege. It is
   hence evident that the argument derived from the term Son, is well
   grounded. [19]

   As to his being begotten, we must briefly observe, that it is to be
   understood relatively here: for the subtle reasoning of Augustine is
   frivolous, when he imagines that today means perpetuity or eternity.
   Christ doubtless is the eternal Son of God, for he is wisdom, born
   before time; but this has no connection with this passage, in which
   respect is had to men, by whom Christ was acknowledged to be the Son of
   God after the Father had manifested him. Hence that declaration or
   manifestation which Paul mentions in Romans 1:4, was, so to speak, a
   sort of an external begetting; for the hidden and internal which had
   preceded, was unknown to men; nor could there have been any account
   taken of it, had not the Father given proof of it by a visible
   manifestation. [20]

   I will be to him a Father, etc. As to this second testimony the former
   observation holds good. Solomon is here referred to, and though he was
   inferior to the angels, yet when God promised to be his Father, he was
   separated from the common rank of all others; for he was not to be to
   him a Father as to one of the princes, but as to one who was more
   eminent than all the rest. By the same privilege he was made a Son; all
   others were excluded from the like honor. But that this was not said of
   Solomon otherwise than as a type of Christ, is evident from the
   context; for the empire of the whole world is destined for the Son
   mentioned there, and perpetuity is also ascribed to his empire: on the
   other hand, it appears that the kingdom of Solomon has confined within
   narrow bounds, and was so far from being perpetual, that immediately
   after his death it was divided, and some time afterwards it fell
   altogether. Again, in that Psalm the sun and moon are summoned as
   witnesses, and the Lord swears that as long as they shall shine in the
   heavens, that kingdom shall remain safe: and on the other hand, the
   kingdom of David in a short time fell into decay, and at length utterly
   perished. And further, we may easily gather from many passages in the
   Prophets, that that promise was never understood otherwise than of
   Christ; so that no one can evade by saying that this is a new comment;
   for hence also has commonly prevailed among the Jews the practice of
   calling Christ the Son of David.

   6. And again, when he bringeth or introduceth [21] , etc. He now proves
   by another argument that Christ is above the angels, and that is
   because the angels are bidden to worship him. (Psalm 97:7.) It hence
   follows that he is their head and Prince. But it may seem unreasonable
   to apply that to Christ which is spoken of God only. Were we to answer
   that Christ is the eternal God, and therefore what belongs to God may
   justly be applied to him, it would not perhaps be satisfactory to all;
   for it would avail but little in proving a doubtful point, to argue in
   this case from the common attributes of God.

   The subject is Christ manifested in the flesh, and the Apostle
   expressly says, that the Spirit thus spoke when Christ was introduced
   into the world; but this would not have been said consistently with
   truth except the manifestation of Christ be really spoken of in the
   Psalm. And so the case indeed is; for the Psalm commences with an
   exhortation to rejoice; nor did David address the Jews, but the whole
   earth, including the islands, that is, countries beyond the sea. The
   reason for this joy is given, because the Lord would reign. Further, if
   you read the whole Psalm, you will find nothing else but the kingdom of
   Christ, which began when the Gospel was published; nor is the whole
   Psalm anything else but a solemn decree, as it were, by which Christ
   was sent to take possession of His kingdom. Besides, what joy could
   arise from His kingdom, except it brought salvation to the whole world,
   to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews? Aptly then does the Apostle say
   here, that he was introduced into the world, because in that Psalm what
   is described is his coming to men.

   The Hebrew word, rendered angels, is Elohim -- gods; but there is no
   doubt but that the Prophet speaks of angels; for the meaning is, that
   there is no power so high but must be in subjection to the authority of
   this king, whose advent was to cause joy to the whole world.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [17] Some by "name" understand dignity, but not correctly, as it
   appears from what follows; for the name, by which he is proved here to
   be superior to angels, was that of a Son, as Calvin here states. -- Ed.

   [18] "If it be objected," says Stuart, "that angels are also called
   sons, and men too, the answered is easy: No one individual, except
   Jesus, is ever called by way of eminence, the Son of God, i.e., the
   Messiah or the King of Israel," John 1:49. By "The Son of God" is to be
   understood here His kingly office: He was a Son as one endowed with
   superior power and authority; and angels are not sons in this respect.
   -- Ed.

   [19] The foregoing is a sufficient answer to Doddridge, Stuart, and
   others, who hold that the texts quoted must refer exclusively to
   Christ, else the argument of the Apostle would be inconclusive. David
   is no doubt called a son in the 2^nd Psalm, but as a king, and in that
   capacity as a type of Christ; and what is said of him as a king, and
   what is promised to him, partly refers to himself and to his
   successors, and partly to Christ whom he represented. How to
   distinguish these things is now easy, as the character of Christ is
   fully developed in the New Testament. We now see the reason why David
   was called a son, and why Solomon, as in the next quotation, was called
   a son; they as kings of Israel, that is, of God's people, were
   representatives of him who is alone really or in a peculiar sense the
   Son of God, the true king of Israel, an honor never allotted to angels.
   (See [3]Appendix B) -- Ed.

   [20] Many have interpreted to-day as meaning eternity; but there is
   nothing to countenance such a view. As to the type, David, his "to-day"
   was his exaltation to the throne; the "to-day" of Christ, the antitype,
   is something of a corresponding character; it was his resurrection and
   exaltation to God's right hand, where he sits, as it were, on the
   throne of David. See Acts 2:30; 5:30, 31; 13:33. -- Ed.

   [21] See [4]Appendix C.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Hebrews 1:7-9

   7. And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his
   ministers a flame of fire.

   7. Et ad angelos quidem dicit, Qui facit angelos suos spiritus et
   ministros suos flamman ignis.

   8. But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever:
   a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom.

   8. Ad Filium vero, Thronus tuus, O Deus, in seculum seculi; virga
   directionis, virga regni tui:

   9. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God,
   even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy
   fellows.

   9. Dilexisti justitiam et odisti iniquitatem; propterea unxit te Deus
   tuus oleo laetitiae prae consortibus tuis.


   7. And to the angels, etc. To the angels means of the angels. But the
   passage quoted seems to have been turned to another meaning from what
   it appears to have; for as David is there describing the manner in
   which we see the world to be governed, nothing is more certain than the
   winds are mentioned, which he says are made messengers by the Lord, for
   he employs them as his runners; so also, when he purifies the air by
   lightnings, he shows what quick and swift ministers he has to obey his
   orders. But this has nothing to do with angels. Some have had recourse
   to an allegory, as though the Apostle explained the plain, and as they
   say, the literal sense allegorically of angels. But it seems preferable
   to me to consider this testimony is brought forward for this purpose,
   that it might by a similitude be applied to angels, and in this way
   David compares winds to angels, because they perform offices in this
   world similar to what the angels do in heaven; for the winds are, as it
   were, visible spirits. And, doubtless, as Moses, describing the
   creation of the world, mentioned only those things which are subject to
   our senses, and yet intended that higher things should be understood;
   so David in describing the world and nature, represented to us on a
   tablet what ought to be understood respecting the celestial orders.
   Hence I think that the argument is one of likeness or similarity, when
   the Apostle transfers to angels what properly applies to the winds.
   [22]

   8. But to the Son, etc. It must indeed be allowed, that this Psalm was
   composed as a marriage song for Solomon; for here is celebrated his
   marriage with the daughter of the king of Egypt; [23] but it cannot yet
   be denied but that what is here related, is much too high to be applied
   to Solomon. The Jews, that they may not be forced to own Christ to be
   called God, make an evasion by saying, it at the throne of God is
   spoken of, or that the verb "established" is to be understood. So that,
   according to the first exposition, the word Elohim, God, is to be in
   construction with throne, "the throne of God;" and that according to
   the second, it is supposed to be a defective sentence. But these are
   mere evasions. Whosoever will read the verse, who is of a sound mind
   and free from the spirit of contention, cannot doubt but that the
   Messiah is called God. Nor is there any reason to object, that the word
   Elohim is sometimes given to angels and to judges; for it is never
   found to be given simply to one person, except to God alone. [24]

   Farther, that I may not contend about a word, whose throne can be said
   to be established forever, except that of God only? Hence the
   perpetuity of his kingdom is an evidence of his divinity.

   The scepter of Christ's kingdom is afterwards called the scepter of
   righteousness; of this there were some, though obscure, lineaments in
   Solomon; he exhibited them as far as he acted as a just king and
   zealous for what was right. But righteousness in the kingdom of Christ
   has a wider meaning; for he by his gospel, which is his spiritual
   scepter, renews us after the righteousness of God. The same thing must
   be also understood of his love of righteousness; for he causes it to
   reign in his own people, because he loves it.

   9. Wherefore God has appointed him, etc. This was indeed truly said of
   Solomon, who was made a king, because God had preferred him to his
   brethren, who were otherwise his equals, being the sons of the king.
   But this applies more suitably to Christ, who has adopted us as his
   joint heirs, though not so in our own right. But he was anointed above
   us all, as it was beyond measure, while we, each of us, according to a
   limited portion, as he has divided to each of us. Besides, he was
   anointed for our sake, in order that we may all draw out of his
   fatness. Hence he is the Christ, we are Christians proceeding from him,
   as rivulet from a fountain. But as Christ received this unction when in
   the flesh, he is said to have been anointed by his God; for it would be
   inconsistent to suppose him inferior to God, except in his human
   nature. [25]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [22] Many have been the explanations of this sentence; but this is the
   most suitable to the passage as it occurs in Psalm 104:4, and to the
   design of the Apostle; it is the one adopted by Doddridge, Stuart, and
   Bloomfield. The meaning would be thus more apparent, -- "Who maketh
   like his angels the winds, and like his ministers the flaming fire,"
   that is, the winds are subject to him as the angels are, and also the
   flaming fire as his ministers or attendants. The particle v is
   sometimes omitted in Hebrew. -- Ed.

   [23] It is generally admitted to be a kind of epithalamium, but not on
   the occasion here specified, as there was nothing in that marriage that
   in any degree correspond with the contents of the Psalm. Such was the
   opinion of Beza, Dr. Owen, Scott, and Horsley. -- Ed.

   [24] The Hebrew will admit of no other construction than that given in
   our version and by Calvin. The Greek version, the Sept., which the
   Apostle adopts, seems at first view to be different, as "God" is in the
   nominative case, ho Theos; but the Sept. used in commonly instead of
   the vocative case. We meet with two instances in the seventh Psalm,
   verses 1 and 3, and in connection with "Lord," kurie in the vocative
   case. See also Psalm 10:12; 41:1, etc. The Vulgate, following literally
   the Sept., without regarding the preceding peculiarity, has rendered
   "God" in the nominative, "Deus," and not "O Deus." -- Ed.

   [25] He is evidently throughout spoken of in his mediatorial character.
   To keep this in view will enable us more fully to understand the
   chapter. It is more agreeable to this passage, to regard "the
   anointing," not that of consecration, but that of refreshment to guests
   according to a prevailing custom, see Luke 7:46. The word "gladness"
   favors this, and also the previous words of the passage; Christ is
   addressed as already on his throne, and his administration is referred
   to; and it is on account of his just administration, that he is said to
   have been anointed with the perfuming oil of gladness, see Acts 10:38.
   The words, "above thy fellows," are rendered by Calvin, "above thy
   partners," and by Doddridge and Macknight, "above thine associates."
   Christ is spoken of as king, and his associates are those in the same
   office; but he is so much above them that he is the "king of kings;"
   and yet his superior excellencies are here represented as entitling him
   to higher honors. -- Ed.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Hebrews 1:10-14

   10. And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the
   earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

   10. Et tu ab initio, Domine, terram fundasti; et opera manuum tuarum
   sunt coeli:

   11. They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old
   as doth a garment;

   11. Ipsi peribunt, tu autem permanes; et omnes quasi vestimentum
   veterascent;

   12. And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be
   changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

   12. Et tanquam amictum involves eos, et mutabuntur: tu autem idem es,
   et anni tui non deficient.

   13. But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right
   hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?

   13. Ad quem vero angelorum dixit inquam, Sede a dextris meis, donec
   ponam inimicos tuos scabellum pedum tuorum?

   14. Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for
   them who shall be heirs of salvation?

   14. Annon omnes sunt administratorii spiritus, qui in ministerium
   emittuntur propter eos qui haereditatem capiunt salutis?


   10. And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning, etc. This testimony at first
   sight may seem to be unfitly applied to Christ, especially in a
   doubtful matter, such as is here handled; for the subject in dispute is
   not concerning the glory of God, but what may be fitly applied to
   Christ. Now, there is not in this passage any mention made of Christ,
   but the majesty of God alone is set forth. I indeed allow that Christ
   is not named in any part of the Psalm; but it is yet plain that he is
   so pointed out, that no one can doubt but that his kingdom is there
   avowedly recommended to us. Hence all the things which are found there,
   are to be applied to his person; for in none have they been fulfilled
   but in Christ, such as the following, -- "Thou shalt arise and have
   mercy on Sion, that the heathens may fear the name, and all the kings
   of the earth thy glory." Again, -- "When the nations shall be gathered
   together, and the kingdoms, to serve the Lord." Doubtless, in vain
   shall we seek to find this God through whom the whole world have united
   in one faith and worship of God, except in Christ.

   All the other parts of the Psalm exactly suit the person of Christ,
   such as the following, that he is the eternal God, the creator of
   heaven and earth, that perpetuity belongs to him without any change, by
   which his majesty is raised to the highest elevation, and he himself is
   removed from the rank of all created beings.

   What David says about the heavens perishing, some explain by adding,
   "Were such a thing to happen," as though nothing was affirmed. But what
   need is there of such a strained explanation, since we know that all
   creatures are subjected to vanity? For to what purpose is that
   renovation promised, which even the heavens wait for with the strong
   desire as of those in travail, except that they are now verging towards
   destruction?

   But the perpetuity of Christ which is here mentioned, brings no common
   comfort to the godly; as the Psalm at last teaches us, they shall be
   partakers of it, inasmuch as Christ communicates himself and what he
   possesses to his own body. [26]

   13. But to whom of the angels, etc. He again by another testimony
   extols the excellency of Christ, that it might hence be evident how
   much he is above the angels. The passage is taken from Psalms 110:1,
   and it cannot be explained of any but of Christ. For as it was not
   lawful for kings to touch the priesthood, as is testified by the
   leprosy of Uzziah; and as it appears that neither David, nor any other
   of his successors in the kingdom, was ordained a priest, it follows,
   that a new kingdom as well as a new priesthood is here introduced,
   since the same person is made a king and a priest. Besides, the
   eternity of the priesthood is suitable to Christ alone.

   Now, in the beginning of the Psalm he is set at God's right hand. This
   form of expression, as I have already said, means the same, as though
   it was said, that the second place was given him by the Father; for it
   is a metaphor which signifies that he is the Father's vicegerent and
   his chief minister in exercising authority, so that the Father rules
   through him. No one of the angels bears so honorable an office; hence
   Christ far excels all.

   Until I make, etc. As there are never wanting enemies to oppose
   Christ's kingdom, it seems not to be beyond the reach of danger,
   especially as they who attempt to overthrow it possess great power,
   have recourse to various artifices, and also make all their attacks
   with furious violence. Doubtless, were we to regard things as they
   appear, the kingdom of Christ would seem often to be on the verge of
   ruin. But the promise, that Christ shall never be thrust from his seat,
   takes away from us every fear; for ho will lay prostrate all his
   enemies. These two things, then, ought to be borne in mind, -- that the
   kingdom of Christ shall never in this world be at rest, but that there
   will be many enemies by whom it will be disturbed; and secondly, that
   whatever its enemies may do, they shall never prevail, for the session
   of Christ at God's right hand will not be for a time, but to the end of
   the world, and that on this account all who will not submit to his
   authority shall be laid prostrate and trodden under his feet

   If any one asks, whether Christ's kingdom shall come to an end, when
   all his enemies shall be subdued; I give this answer, -- that his
   kingdom shall be perpetual, and yet in such a way as Paul intimates in
   1 Corinthians 15:25; for we are to take this view, -- that God who is
   not known to us in Christ, will then appear to us as he is in himself.
   And yet Christ will never cease to be the head of men and of angels;
   nor will there be any diminution of his honor. But the solution of this
   question must be sought from that passage.

   14. Are they not all, etc. That the comparison might appear more
   clearly, he now mentions what the condition of angels is. For calling
   them spirits, he denotes their eminence; for in this respect they are
   superior to corporal creatures. But the office (leitourgia) which he
   immediately mentions reduces them to their own rank, as it is that
   which is the reverse of dominion; and this he still more distinctly
   states, when he says, that they are sent to minister. The first word
   means the same, as though ale had said, that they were officials; but
   to minister imports what is more humble and abject. [27] The service
   which God allots to angels is indeed honorable; but the very fact that
   they serve, shows that they are far inferior to Christ, who is the Lord
   of all.

   If any one objects and says, that Christ is also called in many places
   both a servant and a minister, not only to God, but also to men, the
   reply may be readily given; his being a servant was not owing to his
   nature, but to a voluntary humility, as Paul testifies, (Philippians
   2:7;) and at the same time his sovereignty remained to his nature; but
   angels, on the other hand, were created for this end, -- that they
   might serve, and to minister is what belongs to their condition. The
   difference then is great; for what is natural to them is, as it were,
   adventitious or accidental to Christ, because he took our flesh; and
   what necessarily belongs to them, he of his own accord undertook.
   Besides, Christ is a minister in such a way, that though he is in our
   flesh nothing is diminished from the majesty of his dominion. [28]

   From this passage the faithful receive no small consolation; for they
   hear that celestial hosts are assigned to them as ministers, in order
   to secure their salvation. It is indeed no common pledge of God's love
   towards us, that they are continually engaged in our behalf. Hence also
   proceeds a singular confirmation to our faith, that our salvation being
   defended by such guardians, is beyond the reach of danger. Well then
   has God provided for our infirmities by giving us such assistants to
   oppose Satan, and to put forth their power in every way to defend us!

   But this benefit he grants especially to his chosen people; hence that
   angels may minister to us, we must be the members of Christ. Yet some
   testimonies of Scripture may on the other hand be adduced, to show that
   angels are sometimes sent forth for the sake of the reprobate; for
   mention is made by Daniel of the angels of the Persians and the Greeks.
   (Daniel 10:20.) But to this I answer, that they were in such a way
   assisted by angels, that the Lord might thus promote the salvation of
   his own people; for their success and their victories had always a
   reference to the benefit of the Church. This is certain, that as we
   have been banished by sin from God's kingdom, we can have no communion
   with angels except through the reconciliation made by Christ; and this
   we may see by the ladder shown in a vision to the patriarch Jacob.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [26] See [5]Appendix D.

   [27] There is no doubt a distinction between the two words here used,
   but not exactly that which is intimated; the first, leitourgika refers
   to an official appointment; and the other, diakonian, to the work which
   was to be done. Angels are said to be officially appointed, and they
   are thus appointed for the purpose of doing service to the heirs of
   salvation; "Are they not all ministrant (or ministerial) spirits, sent
   forth for service, on account dia of those who are to inherit
   salvation?" Then they are spirits, having a special office allotted
   them, being sent forth to do service in behalf of those who are heirs
   of salvation. It hence appears that they have a special appointment for
   this purpose See Acts 5:19, and 12:7. -- Ed.

   [28] See [6]Appendix E.
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

   CHAPTER 2
     __________________________________________________________________

   Hebrews 2:1-4

   1. Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which
   we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip.

   1. Quamobrem opertet nos magis attendere iis quae audimus, ne quando
   diffluamus.

   2. For if the word spoken by angels was steadfast, and every
   transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward;

   2. Si enim quo per angelos enunciatus erat, sermo, firmus fuit, et
   omnis transgressio et inobedientia justam acceptit repensionem
   mercedis;

   3. How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the
   first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them
   that heard him;

   3. Quomodo nos effugiemus tanta neglecta salute? quae quum initio
   coepisset enarrari per Dominum, ab iis qui audierant, erga nos
   confirmata fuit;

   4. God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with
   divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own
   will?

   4. Simul attestante Deo signis et prodigiis, et virtutibus variis, et
   distributionibus Spiritus Sancti secundum ejus voluntatem.


   1. Therefore we ought, etc. He now declares what he had before in view,
   by comparing Christ with angels, even to secure the highest authority
   to his doctrine. For if the Law given through angels could not have
   been received with contempt, and if its transgression was visited with
   severe punishment, what is to happen, he asks, to the despisers of that
   gospel, which has the Son of God as its author, and was confirmed by so
   many miracles? The import of the whole is this, that the higher the
   dignity of Christ is than that of angels, the more reverence is due to
   the Gospel than to the Law. Thus he commends the doctrine by mentioning
   its author.

   But should it seem strange to any one, that as the doctrine both of the
   Law and of the Gospel is from God, one should be preferred to the
   other; inasmuch as by having the Law lowered the majesty of God would
   be degraded; the evident answer would be this, -- that he ought indeed
   always to be heard with equal attention whenever he may speak, and yet
   that the fuller he reveals himself to us, it is but right that our
   reverence and attention to obedience should increase in proportion to
   the extent of his revelations; not that God is in himself less at one
   time than at another; but his greatness is not at all times equally
   made known to us.

   Here also another question arises. Was not the Law also given by
   Christ? If so, the argument of the Apostle seems not to be well
   grounded. To this I reply, that in this comparison regard is had to a
   veiled revelation on one side, and to that which is manifest on the
   other. Now, as Christ in bringing the Law showed himself but obscurely
   or darkly, and as it were under coverings, it is nothing strange that
   the Law should be said to have been brought by angels without any
   mention being made of his name; for in that transaction he never
   appeared openly; but in the promulgation of the Gospel his glory was so
   conspicuous, that he may justly be deemed its author.

   Lest at any time we should let them slip, or, "lest we should at any
   time flow abroad," or, if you prefer, "let dip," though in reality
   there is not much difference. The true sense is to be gathered from the
   contrast; for to give heed, or to attend and to let slip, are
   opposites; the first means to hold a thing, and the other to let off
   like a sieve, or a perforated vessel, whatever may be poured into it. I
   do not indeed approve of the opinion of those who take it in the sense
   of dying, according to what we find in 2 Samuel 15:14, "We all die and
   slide away like water." On the contrary, we ought, as I have said, to
   regard the contrast between attention and flowing out; an attentive
   mind is like a vessel capable of holding water; but that which is
   roving and indolent is like a vessel with holes. [29]

   2. Steadfast, or "firm," or sure, etc.; that is, it was the word of
   authority, for God required it to be believed; and that it was
   authoritative, was made more evident by its sanctions; for no one
   despised the law with impunity. Then firmness means authority; and what
   is added respecting punishment ought to be understood as explanatory;
   for it is evident the doctrine of which God shows himself to be the
   avenger, is by no means unprofitable or unimportant.

   3. If we neglect so great a salvation, etc. Not only the rejection of
   the Gospel, but also its neglect, deserves the heaviest punishment, and
   that on account of the greatness of the grace which it offers; hence he
   says, so great a salvation. God would indeed leave his gifts valued by
   us according to their worth. Then the more precious they are, the baser
   is our ingratitude when we do not value them. In a word, in proportion
   to the greatness of Christ will be the severity of God's vengeance on
   all the despisers of his Gospel. [30]

   And observe that the word salvation is transferred here metonymically
   to the doctrine of salvation; for as the Lord would not have men
   otherwise saved than by the Gospel, so when that is neglected the whole
   salvation of God is rejected; for it is God's power unto salvation to
   those who believe. (Romans 1:16.) Hence he who seeks salvation in any
   other way, seeks to attain it by another power than that of God; which
   is an evidence of extreme madness. But this encomium is not only a
   commendation of the Gospel, but is also a wonderful support to our
   faith; for it is a testimony that the word is by no means unprofitable,
   but that a sure salvation is conveyed by it. [31]

   Which at first began, etc. Here he sets the Son of God, the first
   herald of the Gospel, in opposition to angels, and also anticipates
   what was necessary to remove a doubt which might have crept into the
   minds of many; for they had not been taught by the mouth of Christ
   himself, whom the greatest part had never seen. If then they regarded
   only the man by whose ministry they had been led to the faith, they
   might have made less of what they had learnt from him; hence the
   Apostle reminded them, that the doctrine which had been delivered them
   by others, yet proceeded from Christ; for he says that those who had
   faithfully declared what had been committed to them by Christ, had been
   his disciples. He therefore uses the word, was confirmed, as though he
   had said, that it was not a random report, without any author, or from
   witnesses of doubtful credit, but a report which was confirmed by men
   of weight and authority.

   Moreover, this passage indicates that this epistle was not written by
   Paul; for he did not usually speak so humbly of himself, as to confess
   that he was one of the Apostles' disciples, nor did he thus speak from
   ambition, but because wicked men under a pretense of this kind
   attempted to detract from the authority of his doctrine. It then
   appears evident that it was not Paul who wrote that he had the Gospel
   by hearing and not by revelation. [32]

   4. God also bearing them witness, etc. In addition to the fact, that
   the Apostles had what they preached from the Son of God, the Lord also
   proved his approbation of their preaching by miracles, as by a solemn
   subscription. Then they who do not reverently receive the Gospel
   recommended by such testimonies, disregard not only the word of God,
   but also his works.

   He designates miracles, for the sake of amplifying their importance, by
   three names. They are called signs because they rouse men's minds, that
   they may think of something higher that what appears; and wonders,
   because they present what is rare and unusual; and miracles, because
   the Lord shows in them a singular and an extraordinary evidence of his
   power. [33]

   As to the word, bearing witness, or attesting, it points out the right
   use of miracles, even that they serve to establish the Gospel. For
   almost all the miracles done in all ages were performed as we find for
   this end, that they might be the seals of Gods word. The more strange
   then is the superstition of the Papists, who employ their own
   fictitious miracles for the purpose of overthrowing the truth of God.

   The conjunction sun, together with, has this meaning, that we are
   confirmed in the faith of the Gospel by the joint testimony of God and
   men; for God's miracles were testimonies concurring with the voice of
   men.

   He adds, by the gifts or distributions of the Holy Spirit, by which
   also the doctrine of the Gospel was adorned, of which they were the
   appendages. [34] For why did God distribute the gifts of his Spirit,
   except in part that they might be helps in promulgating it, and in part
   that their might move through admiration the minds of men to obey it?
   Hence Paul says, that tongues were a sign to unbelievers. The words,
   according to his will, remind us, that the miracles mentioned could not
   be ascribed to any except to God alone, and that they were not wrought
   undesignedly, but, for the distinct purpose of sealing the truth of the
   Gospel.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [29] See [7]Appendix F.

   [30] To "neglect," is literally, not to care for; not to care for our
   salvation is to neglect it. It is rendered, to "make light of," in
   Matthew 22:5; and "not to regard," in chapter 8:9. -- Ed.

   [31] So great, observes Dr. Owen is this salvation, that is a
   deliverance from Satan, from sin, and from eternal sin, and from
   eternal death. The means also by which it has been procured, and is now
   effected, and its endless results, prove in a wonderful manner its
   greatness. -- Ed.

   [32] The same objection has been advanced by Grotius and others, but it
   has no weight in it; for the Apostle here distinctly refers to the
   facts in connection with the twelve Apostles, as this alone was
   necessary for his purpose here; and the same reason for concealing his
   name accounts for no reference being made here to his own ministry. And
   "we" and "us" as employed by the Apostle, often refer to things which
   belong to all in common as Christians. See chapter 4:1, 11; 11:40, etc.
   And he uses them sometimes when he himself personally is not included.
   See 1 Corinthians 15:51. -- Ed.

   [33] These three words occur twice together in other places, Acts 2:22,
   and 2 Thessalonians 2:9; only they are found in Acts in a different
   order -- miracles wonders and signs. Signs and wonders are often found
   together both in the Old Testament, and in this order except in three
   places, Acts 2:19, 43; and 7:36. The same things, as Calvin says, are
   no doubt meant by three words under different views. They are called
   "signs" or as tokens as evidence of a divine interposition; "wonders"
   or prodigies, as being not natural, but supernatural, and as having the
   effect of filling men with terror, Acts 2:43; and "miracles" or powers,
   as being the effects of a divine power. So that "signs" betoken their
   intention; "wonders" their characters; and "miracles" their origin, or
   the power which produces them. -- Ed.

   [34] By referring to 1 Corinthians 12:4-11, we shall be able to see the
   meaning of "distributions of the Spirit," which seems to have been
   different from signs and wonders, for in that passage there are several
   gifts mentioned distinct from signs and wonders, such as the word of
   wisdom, the word of knowledge, the gift of prophecy, and the discerning
   of spirits. These were the distributions, or the portions, which the
   Spirit divined to every one "according to his will;" for the "will"
   here, as in 1 Corinthians 12:11, is the will of the Spirit. The most
   suitable rendering of the last clause would be "and by the gifts of the
   Holy Spirit distributed according to his will." There is an evident
   metonymy in the word "distributions;" it is used abstractly for things
   distributed or divided. -- Ed.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Hebrews 2:5-9

   5. For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come,
   whereof we speak.

   5. Non enim angelis subjecit orbem futurum de quo loquimur:

   6. But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou
   art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?

   6. Testatus est autem quidam alicubi, dicens, Quid est homo quod memor
   es ejus? aut filius hominis quod visitas eum?

   7. Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him
   with glory and honor, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:

   7. Minuisti eum paululum ab angelis; gloria et onore coronasti eum, et
   constituisti eum super opera manuum tuarum:

   8. Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that
   he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put
   under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.

   8. Omnia subjecisti sub pedibus ejus: subjiciendo certe illi omnia,
   nihil reliquit non subjectum: atqui nonc nondum videmus illi omnia
   subjecta:

   9. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for
   the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the
   grace of God should taste death for every man.

   9. Iesum autem qui paululum imminuatus fuit ab angelis intuimur propter
   passionem mortis gloria et honore coronatum; ut gratia Dei pro omnibus
   gustaret mortem.


   5. For unto the angels, etc. He again proves by another argument that
   Christ ought to be obeyed; for the Father has conferred on him the
   sovereignty of the whole world, while the angels are wholly destitute
   of such an honor. It hence follows that none of the angels should stand
   in the way of his preeminence who alone possesses supremacy.

   But first, the Psalm which he quotes must be examined, for it seems to
   be unfitly applied to Christ. David there mentions the benefits which
   God bestows on mankind; for after having contemplated God's power as
   manifested in heaven and the stars, he comes to man, among whom the
   wonderful goodness of God appears in a peculiar manner. He does not,
   then, speak of any particular person, but of all mankind. To this I
   answer, that all this affords no reason why the words should not be
   applied to the person of Christ. I indeed allow that man was at first
   put in possession of the world, that he might rule over all the works
   of God; but by his own defection he deserved the loss of his dominion,
   for it was a just punishment for ingratitude as to one thus favored,
   that the Lord, whom he refused to acknowledge and faithfully to
   worship, should have deprived him of a right previously granted to him.
   As soon, then, as Adam alienated himself from God through sin, he was
   justly deprived of the good things which he had received; not that he
   was denied the use of them, but that he would have had no right to them
   after he had forsaken God. And in the very use of them God intended
   that there should be some tokens of this loss of right, such as these,
   -- the wild beasts ferociously attack us, those who ought to be awed by
   our presence are dreaded by us, some never obey us, others can hardly
   be trained to submit, and they do us harm in various ways; the earth
   answers not our expectations in cultivating it; the sky, the air, the
   sea, and other things are often adverse to us. But were all creatures
   to continue in subjection, yet whatever the sons of Adam possessed
   would be deemed a robbery; for what can they call their own when they
   themselves are not God's?

   This foundation being laid, it is evident that God's bounty belongs not
   to us until the right lost in Adam be restored by Christ. For this
   reason Paul teaches us that food is sanctified to us by faith, (1
   Timothy 4:5;) and in another place he declares that to the unbelieving
   nothing is clean, for they have a polluted conscience. (Titus 1:16.)

   We found at the beginning of this epistle that Christ has been
   appointed by the Father the heir of all things. Doubtless, as he
   ascribes the whole inheritance to one, he excludes all others as
   aliens, and justly too, for we are all become exiles from God's
   kingdom. What food, then, God has destined for his own family, we leave
   no right to take. But Christ, by whom we are admitted into this family,
   at the same time admits us into a participation of this right, so that
   we may enjoy the whole world, together with the favor of God. Hence
   Paul teaches us that Abraham was by faith made an heir of the world,
   that is, because he was united to the body of Christ. (Romans 4:13) If
   men, then, are precluded from all God's bounty until they receive a
   right to it through Christ, it follows that the dominion mentioned in
   the Psalm was lost to us in Adam, and that on this account it must
   again be restored as a donation. Now, the restoration begins with
   Christ as the head. There is, then, no doubt but that we are to look to
   him whenever the dominion of man over all creatures is spoken of.

   To this the reference is made when the Apostle mentions the world to
   come, or the future world, for he understands by it the renovated
   world. To make the thing clearer, let us suppose two worlds, -- the
   first the old, corrupted by Adam's sin; the other, later in time, as
   renewed by Christ. The state of the first creation has become wholly
   decayed, and with man has fallen as far as man himself is concerned.
   Until, then, a new restitution be made by Christ, this Psalm will not
   be fulfilled. It hence now appears that here the world to come is not
   that which we hope for after the resurrection, but that which began at
   the beginning of Christ's kingdom; but it will no doubt have its full
   accomplishment in our final redemption.

   But why he suppressed the name of David does not appear to me.
   Doubtless he says one, or some one, not in contempt, but for honor's
   sake, designating him as one of the prophets or a renowned writer.

   7. Thou madest him, etc. A new difficulty now arises as to the
   explanation of the words. I have already shown that the passage is
   fitly applicable to the Son of God; but the Apostle seems now to turn
   the words from that meaning in which David understood them; for a
   little, brachu ti seems to refer to time, as it means a little while,
   and designates the abasement of Christ's humiliation; and he confines
   the glory to the day of resurrection, while David extends it generally
   to the whole life of man.

   To this I answer, that it was not the Apostle's design to give an exact
   explanation of the words. For there is nothing improperly done, when
   verbal allusions are made to embellish a subject in hand, as Paul does
   in quoting a passage in Romans 10:6, from Moses, "Who shall ascend into
   heaven," etc., he does not join the words "heaven and hell" for the
   purpose of explanation, but as ornaments. The meaning of David is this,
   -- "O Lord, thou hast raised man to such a dignity, that it differs but
   little from divine or angelic honor; for he is set a ruler over the
   whole world." This meaning the Apostle did not intend to overthrow, nor
   to turn to something else; but he only bids us to consider the
   abasement of Christ, which appeared for a short time, and then the
   glory with which he is perpetually crowned; and this he does more by
   alluding to expressions than by explaining what David understood. [35]

   To be mindful and to visit mean the same thing, except that the second
   is somewhat fuller, for it sets forth the presence of God by the
   effect.

   8. For in that he put all in subjection under him; or, doubtless in
   subjecting all things to him, etc. One might think the argument to be
   this, -- "To the man whom David speaks all things are subjected, but to
   mankind all things are not made subject; then he does not speak of any
   individual man." But this reasoning cannot stand, for the minor
   proposition is true also of Christ; for all things are not as yet made
   subject to him, as Paul shows in 1 Corinthians 15:28. There is
   therefore another sentence; for after having laid down this truth, that
   Christ has universal dominion over all creatures, he adds, as an
   objection, "But all things do not as yet obey the authority of Christ."
   To meet this objection he teaches us that yet now is seen completed in
   Christ what he immediately adds respecting glory and honor, as if he
   had said, "Though universal subjection does not as yet appear to us,
   let us be satisfied that he has passed through death, and has been
   exalted to the highest state of honor; for that which is as yet
   wanting, will in its time be completed."

   But first, this offends some, that the Apostle concludes with too much
   refinement, that there is nothing not made subject to Christ, as David
   includes all things generally; for the various kinds of things which he
   enumerates afterwards prove no such thing, such as beasts of the field,
   fishes of the sea, and birds of the air. To this I reply, that a
   general declaration ought not to be confined to these species, for
   David meant no other thing than to give some instances of his power
   over things the most conspicuous, or indeed to extend it to things even
   the lowest, that we may know that nothing is ours except through the
   bounty of God and our union with Christ. We may, therefore, explain the
   passage thus, -- "Thou hast made subject to him all things, not only
   things needful for eternal blessedness, but also such inferior things
   as serve to supply the wants of the body." However this may be, the
   inferior dominion over animals depends on the higher.

   It is again asked, "Why does he say that we see not all things made
   subject to Christ?" The solution of this question you will find in that
   passage already quoted from Paul; and in the first chapter of this
   Epistle we said a few things on the subject. As Christ carries on war
   continually with various enemies, it is doubtless evident that he has
   no quiet possession of his kingdom. He is not, however, under the
   necessity of waging war; but it happens through his will that his
   enemies are not to be subdued till the last day, in order that we may
   be tried and proved by fresh exercises.

   9. But we see Jesus, etc. As the meaning of the words, brachu ti "a
   little" is ambiguous, [36] he looks to the thing itself, as exhibited
   in the person of Christ, rather then to the exact meaning of the words,
   as I have already said; and he presents to our meditation the glory
   after the resurrection, which David extends to all the gifts by which
   man is adorned by God's bounty; but in this embellishment, which leaves
   the literal sense entire, there is nothing unsuitable or improper.

   For the suffering of death, etc. It is the same as though it was said
   that Christ, having passed through death, was exalted into the glory
   which he has obtained, according to what Paul teaches us in Philippians
   2:8-10; not that Christ obtained anything for himself individually, as
   sophists say, who have devised the notion that he first earned eternal
   life for himself and then for us; for the way or means, so to speak, of
   obtaining glory, is only indicated here. Besides, Christ is crowned
   with glory for this end, that every knee should bow to him.
   (Philippians 2:10.) We may therefore reason from the final cause that
   all things are delivered into his hand.

   That he by the grace of God, [37] etc. He refers to the cause and the
   fruit of Christ's death, lest he should be thought to detract anything
   from his dignity. For when we hear that so much good has been obtained
   for us, there is no place left for contempt, for admiration of the
   divine goodness fills the whole mind. By saying for every man, he means
   not only that he might be ample to others, as Chrysostom says, who
   brings the example of a physician tasting first a bitter draught, that
   the patient might not refuse to drink it; but he means that Christ died
   for us, and that by taking upon him what was due to us, he redeemed us
   from the curse of death. And it is added, that this was done through
   the grace of God, for the cause of redemption was the infinite love of
   God towards us, through which it was that he spared not even his own
   Son. What Chrysostom says of tasting of death, as though he touched it
   with his lips, because Christ emerged from death a conqueror, I will
   not refute nor condemn, though I know not whether the Apostle meant to
   speak in a manner so refined. [38]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [35] See [8]Appendix G.

   [36] There is no doubt but that the expression is capable of being
   understood as "little" in degree, or as "little" in time; but in the
   Psalm the former is evidently the meaning, and there is no reason for a
   different meaning here: Christ, in becoming man, assumed a nature
   inferior to that of angels. Many of the fathers, indeed, and some
   moderns, have thought that time is what is intended "for a little
   while;" but this is not true, for Christ continues in the nature which
   has assumed, though it be now refined and perfected. The inferiority of
   nature is admitted, but that inferiority is as it were compensated by a
   superiority of honor and glory. Our version is the Vulgate, which
   Doddridge has also adopted, and also Stuart and Bloomfield. -- Ed.

   [37] See [9]Appendix H.

   [38] There is no doubt but that is a fanciful refinement. To taste
   food, according to the language of Scripture, is to eat it. See Acts
   10:11; 20:11; 23:14. To taste death is to die, to undergo death, and
   nothing else. See Matthew 16:28; Luke 9:27. Stuart observes that the
   word for taste in Hebrew is taken in the same sense, and also in
   classic Greek authors. "For every man," huper pantos, that is "man,"
   mentioned in verse 6; and the "man" there means all the faithful, to
   whom God in Noah restored the dominion lost in Adam; but this dominion
   was not renewed to man as a fallen being, but as made righteous by
   faith. -- Ed.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Hebrews 2:10-13

   10. For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all
   things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their
   salvation perfect through sufferings.

   10. Decebat enim eum propter quem omnia, et per quem omnia, quum multos
   filios in gloriam adduceret, ducem salutis eorum per passiones
   consecrare.

   11. For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of
   one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,

   11. Nam qui sanctificat et qui sanctificantur, ex uno omnes; propter
   quam causam non erubescit fratres ipsos vocare;

   12. Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of
   the church will I sing praise unto thee.

   12. Dicens, Nuntiabo nomen tuum fratribus meis; in medio Ecclesiae
   canam te;

   13. And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the
   children which God hath given me.

   13. Et rursum, Ego ero fidens in ipso; et rursum, Ecce ego et pueri
   quos mihi dedit Deus.


   10. For it became him, etc. His object is, to make Christ's humiliation
   to appear glorious to the godly; for when he is said to have been
   clothed with our flesh, he seems to be classed with the common order of
   men; and the cross brought him lower than all men. We must therefore
   take heed, lest Christ should be less esteemed, because he willingly
   humbled himself for us; and this is what is here spoken of. For the
   Apostle shows that this very thing ought to be deemed honorable to the
   Son of God, that he was by these means consecrated the Captain of our
   salvation.

   He first assumes it as granted, that we ought to be satisfied with
   God's decree; for as all things are sustained by his power, so all
   things ought to serve to his glory. No betters cause, then, can be
   found out than the good pleasure of God. Such is the purport of the
   circumlocution which he employs, for whom, and by whom, are all things.
   He might by one word have named God; but his purpose was to remind us,
   that what is to be deemed best is that which he appoints, whose will
   and glory is the right end of all things. [39]

   It does not, however, appear as yet what he intends by saying, that it
   became Christ to be thus consecrated. But this depends on the ordinary
   way which God adopts in dealing with his own people; for his will is to
   exercise them with various trials, so that they may spend their whole
   life under the cross. It was hence necessary that Christ, as the first-
   begotten, should by the cross be inaugurated into his supremacy, since
   that is the common lot and condition of all. This is the conforming of
   the head with the members, of which Paul speaks in Romans 8:29.

   It is indeed a singular consolation, calculated to mitigate the
   bitterness of the cross, when the faithful hear, that by sorrows and
   tribulations they are sanctified for glory as Christ himself was; and
   hence they see a sufficient reason why they should lovingly kiss the
   cross rather than dread it. And when this is the case, then doubtless
   the reproach of the cross of Christ immediately disappears, and its
   glory shines forth; for who can despise what is sacred, nay, what God
   sanctifies? Who can deem that ignominious, by which we are prepared for
   glory? And yet both these things are said here of the death of Christ.

   By whom are all things, etc. When creation is spoken of, it is ascribed
   to the Son as his own world, for by him were all things created; but
   here the Apostle means no other thing than that all creatures continue
   or are preserved by the power of God. What we have rendered
   consecrated, others have rendered made perfect. But as the word,
   teleiosai which he uses, is of a doubtful meaning, I think it clear
   that the word I leave adopted is more suitable to the context. [40] For
   what is meant is the settled and regular way or method by which the
   sons of God are initiated, so that they may obtain their own honor, and
   be thus separated from the rest of the world; and then immediately
   sanctification is mentioned.

   11. For both he that sanctifieth, etc. He proves that it was necessary
   that what he had said should be fulfilled in the person of Christ on
   account of his connection with his members; and he also teaches that it
   was a remarkable evidence of the divine goodness that he put on our
   flesh. hence he says, that they are all of one, that is, that the
   author of holiness and we are made partakers of it, are all of one
   nature, as I understated the expression. It is commonly understood of
   one Adam; and some refer it to God, and not without reasons; but I
   rather think that one nature is meant, and one I consider to be in the
   neuter gender, as though he had said, that they are made out of the
   same mass. [41]

   It avails not, indeed, a little to increase our confidence, that we are
   united to the Son of God by a bond so close, that we can find in our
   nature that holiness of which we are in want; for he not only as God
   sanctifies us, but there is also the power of sanctifying in his human
   nature, not that it has it from itself, but that God had poured upon it
   a perfect fullness of holiness, so that from it we may all draw. And to
   this point this sentence refers, "For their sakes I sanctify myself."
   (John 17:19.) If, then we are sinful and unclean, we have not to go far
   to seek a remedy; for it is offered to us in our own flesh. If any one
   prefers to regard as intended here that spiritual unity which the godly
   have with the Son of God, and which differs much from that which men
   commonly have among themselves, I offer no objection, though I am
   disposed to follow what is more commonly received, as it is not
   inconsistent with reason.

   He is not ashamed to call them brethren. This passage is taken from
   Psalm 22:22. That Christ is the speaker there, or David in his name,
   the evangelists do especially testify, for they quote from it many
   verses, such as the following, -- "They parted my garments," -- "They
   gave gall for my meat," -- "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
   And further, the other parts of the chapter prove the same; for we may
   see in the history of the passion a delineation of what is there
   related. The end of the Psalm, which speaks of the calling of the
   Gentiles, can be applied to none but to Christ alone, "Turn to the Lord
   shall all the ends of the world; adore before him shall all the
   families of the nations," -- "The Lord's is the kingdom, and he will
   reign over the nations." These things are found accomplished only in
   Christ, who enlarged the kingdom of God not over a small space, as
   David did, but extended it over the whole world; it was before confined
   as it were within narrow limits. There is, then, no doubt but that his
   voice is what is referred to in this passage; and appropriately and
   suitably does he say that he is not ashamed; for how great is the
   distance between us and him? Much, then, does he let down himself, when
   he dignifies us with the name of brethren; for we are unworthy that he
   should deem us his servants. And this so great an honor conferred on us
   is amplified by this circumstance -- Christ does not speak here as a
   mortal man while in the form of a servant, but when elevated after the
   resurrection into immortal glory. Hence this title is the same, as
   though he had raised us into heaven with himself. And let us remember,
   whenever we hear that we are called brethren by Christ, that he has
   clothed us, so to speak, with this honor, that together with this
   fraternal name we may lay hold on eternal life and every celestial
   blessing. [42]

   We must further notice the office which Christ assumes, which is that
   of proclaiming the name of God; and this began to be done when the
   gospel was first promulgated and is now done daily by the ministry of
   pastors. We hence learn, that the gospel has been presented to us for
   this end, that we may be brought to the knowledge of God, in order that
   his goodness may be celebrated by us, and that Christ is the author of
   the gospel in whatever manner it may be offered to us. And this is what
   Paul says, for he declares that he and others were ambassadors for
   Christ; and he exhorted men as it were in the name of Christ. (2
   Corinthians 5:20.) And this ought to add no small reverence to the
   gospel, since we ought not so much to consider men as speaking to us,
   as Christ by his own mouth; for at the time when he promised to publish
   God's name to men, he had ceased to be in the world; it was not however
   to no purpose that he claimed this office as his own; for he really
   performs it by his disciples.

   12. In the midst of the Church. [43] It hence appears plainly, that the
   proclamation of God's praises is always promoted by the teaching of the
   gospel; for as soon as God becomes known to us, his boundless praises
   sound in our hearts and in our ears; and at the same time Christ
   encourages us by his own example publicly to celebrate them, so that
   they may be heard by as many as possible. For it would not be
   sufficient for each one of us to thank God himself for benefits
   received, except we testify openly our gratitude, and thus mutually
   stimulate one another. And it is a truth, which may serve as a most
   powerful stimulant, and may lead us most fervently to praise God, when
   we hear that Christ leads our songs, and is the chief composer of our
   hymns.

   13. I will put my trust in him, or, I will confide in him. As this
   sentence is found in Psalm 18:2, it was probably taken from that place;
   [44] and Paul, in Romans 15:9, applies another verse to Christ
   respecting the calling of the Gentiles. In addition to this, it may be
   said that the general contents of that Psalm show clearly that David
   spoke in the person of another. There indeed appeared in David but a
   faint shadow of the greatness which is there set forth in terms so
   magnificent. He boasts that he was made the head of the heathens, and
   that even aliens and people unknown willingly surrendered themselves to
   him at the report of his name. David subdued a few neighboring and
   wellknown nations by the force of arms, and made them tributaries. But
   what was this to the extensive dominions of many other kings? And
   further, where was voluntary submission? Where were the people that
   were so remote that he knew them not? In short, where was the solemn
   proclamation of God's glory among the nations mentioned at the end of
   the Psalm? Christ then is he who is made head over many nations, to
   whom strangers from the utmost borders of the earth submit, and roused
   by hearing of him only; for they are not forced by arms to undertake
   his yoke, but being subdued by his doctrine, they spontaneously obey
   him.

   There is also seen in the Church that feigned and false profession of
   religion, which is there referred to; for many daily profess the name
   of Christ, but not from the heart.

   There is then no doubt but that the Psalm is rightly applied to Christ.
   But what has this to do with the present subject? For it seems not to
   follow that we and Christ are of one, in order that he might especially
   put his trust in God. To this I answer, that the argument is valid,
   because he would have no need of such trust, had he not been a man
   exposed to human necessities and wants. As then he depended on God's
   aid, his lot is the same with ours. It is surely not in vain or for
   nothing that we trust in God; for were we destitute of his grace, we
   should be miserable and lost. The trust then which we put in God, is an
   evidence of our helplessness. At the same time we differ from Christ in
   this -- the weakness which necessarily and naturally belongs to us he
   willingly undertook. But it ought not a little to encourage us to trust
   in God, that we have Christ as our leader and instructor; for who would
   fear to go astray while following in his steps? Nay, there is no danger
   that our trust should be useless when we have it in common with Christ;
   who, we know, cannot be mistaken.

   Behold, I and the children, etc. It is indeed certain that Isaiah was
   speaking of himself; for when he gave hope of deliverance to the
   people, and the promise met with no credit, lest being broken down by
   the perverse unbelief of the people he should despond, the Lord bade
   him to seal the doctrine he had announced among a few of the faithful;
   as though he had said, that though it was rejected by the multitude,
   there would yet be a few who would receive it. Relying on this answer,
   Isaiah took courage, and declared that he and the disciples given to
   him would be ever ready to follow God. (Isaiah 8:18.)

   Let us now see why the Apostle applied this sentence to Christ. First,
   what is found in the same place, that the Lord would become a rock of
   stumbling and a stone of offense to the kingdom of Israel and of Judas,
   will not be denied by any one of a sound mind, to have been fulfilled
   in Christ. And doubtless as the restoration from the Babylonian exile
   was a sort of prelude to the great redemption obtained by Christ for us
   and the fathers; so also the fact that so few among the Jews availed
   themselves of that kindness of God, that a small remnant only were
   saved, was a presage of their future blindness, through which it
   happened that they rejected Christ, and that they in turn were rejected
   by God, and perished. For we must observe that the promises extant in
   the Prophets respecting the restoration of the Church from the time the
   Jews returned from exile, extend to the kingdom of Christ, as the Lord
   had this end in view in restoring the people, that his Church might
   continue to the coming of his Son, by whom it was at length to be
   really established.

   Since it was so, God not only addressed Isaiah, when he bade him to
   seal the law and the testimony, but also in his person all his
   ministers, who would have to contend with the unbelief of the people,
   and hence Christ above all, whom the Jews resisted with greater
   contumacy than all the former Prophets. And we see now that they who
   have been substituted for Israel, not only repudiate his Gospel, but
   also furiously assail him. But how much soever the doctrine of the
   Gospel may be a stone of stumbling to the household of the Church, it
   is not yet God's will that it should wholly fail; on the contrary, he
   bids it to be sealed among his disciples: and Christ, in the name of
   all his teachers as the head of them, yea, as the only true Teacher,
   who rules us by their ministry, declares that amidst this deplorable
   ingratitude of the world, there shall still be some always who shall be
   obedient to God. [45]

   See then how this passage may be fitly applied to Christ: the Apostle
   concludes, that we are one with him, because he unites us to himself,
   when he presents himself and us together to God the Father: for they
   form but one body who obey God under the same rule of faith. What could
   have been said more suitably to commend faith, than that we are by it
   the companions of the Son of God, who by his example encourages us and
   shows us the way? If then we follow the Word of God, we know of a
   certainty that we have Christ as our leader; but they belong not at all
   to Christ, who turn aside from his word. What, I pray, can be more
   desired than to agree with the Son of God? But this agreement or
   consent is in faith. Then by unbelief we disagree with him, than which
   nothing is a greater evil. The word "children", which in many places is
   taken for servants, means here disciples.

   Which God hath given me. Here is pointed out the primary cause of
   obedience, even that God has adopted us. Christ brings none to the
   Father, but those given him by the Father; and this donation, we know,
   depends on eternal election; for those whom the Father has destined to
   life, he delivers to the keeping of his Son, that he may defend them.
   This is what he says by John, "All that the Father has given me, will
   come to me." (John 6:37.) That we then submit to God by the obedience
   of faith, let us learn to ascribe this altogether to his mercy; for
   otherwise we shall never be led to him by the hand of Christ. Besides,
   this doctrine supplies us with strong ground of confidence; for who can
   tremble under the guidance and protection of Christ? Who, while relying
   on such a keeper and guardian, would not boldly disregard all dangers?
   And doubtless, while Christ says, "Behold, I and the children," he
   really fulfills what he elsewhere promises, that he will not suffer any
   of those to perish whom he has received from the Father. (John 10:28.)
   [46]

   We must observe lastly, that though the world with mad stubbornness
   reject the Gospel, yet the sheep ever recognize the voice of their
   shepherd. Let not therefore the impiety of almost all ranks, ages, and
   nations, disturb us, provided Christ gathers together his own, who have
   been committed to his protection. If the reprobate rush headlong to
   death by their impiety, in this way the plants which God has not
   planted are rooted up. (Matthew 15:13.) Let us at the same time know
   that his own are known to him, and that the salvation of them all is
   sealed by him, so that not one of them shall be lost. (2 Timothy 2:19.)
   Let us be satisfied with this seal.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [39] Having vindicated Christ's superiority over angels, he being
   "crowned with glory and honor," notwithstanding his assumption of human
   nature, and for his sufferings, the Apostle now, as it were, goes back,
   and proves the necessity of what has been done; showing how needful it
   was for him to become man, and to suffer as he did; and we find he
   states two especial reasons -- that he might reconcile us to God and be
   able to sympathize with his people. -- Ed.

   [40] Our version seems more intelligible -- "to make perfect." As it
   appears afterwards his perfection consisted in his having made an
   atonement for sin, and in being capable of sympathy with his people.
   God made him perfectly qualified to be the Captain or leader in our
   salvation, that is, in the work of saving us, even through sufferings,
   as thereby he procured our salvation and became experimentally
   acquainted with the temptations and trials of humanity. The sense given
   by Stuart and some others, borrowed from the use of the word in the
   classics, which is that of crowning or rewarding the victor at the
   games is not suitable here; for what follows clearly shows that its
   meaning is what has been stated. Both Scott and Stuart connect "the
   bringing many sons unto glory" with "the captain of their salvation."
   One thing is indeed thus gained, the cases seem to suit better; but
   then the sense is violated. When the sentence is thus rendered, there
   is no antecedent to "their" connected with "salvation;" and the
   faithful are not called the "sons" of Christ, but his brethren. As to
   the case of the participle for "bringing," an accusative for a dative,
   it is an anomaly, says Bloomfield, that sometimes occurs in Paul's
   writings and also in the classics. -- Ed.

   [41] Though many, ancient and modern, such as Chrysostom, Beza, Grotius
   and Bloomfield, regard "God" as meant here by "one", yet the context is
   in favor of the view taken by Calvin, which is also adopted by Dr. Owen
   and Stuart. The 14^th verse seems to decide the question. The word to
   sanctify hagiazo, means -- 1. To consecrate, to set apart to a holy use
   or to an office, Matthew 23:19; John 17:19; -- 2. To purify from
   pollution, either ceremonially, Hebrew 9:13, or morally and
   spiritually, 1 Thessalonians 5:23; -- 3. To purify from the guilt of
   sin by a free remission, Hebrews 10:10, compared with verses 14 and 18.
   Now, which of these meanings are we to take here? Calvin takes the
   second, that is to purify from pollution, or to make spiritually holy;
   others, such as Stuart and Bloomfield, take the last meaning, and the
   latter gives the rendering, "the expiator and the expiated," This is
   more consistent with the general tenor of the passage. The subject is
   not sanctification properly so called, but expiation or atonement. See
   verses 9 and 17. -- Ed.

   [42] "If Christ was merely a man and nothing more, where (we may ask
   with Abresch) would be either the great condescension, or particular
   kindness manifested in calling men his brethren? If however, he
   possessed a higher nature, if heauton ekenosen morphen doulou labon,
   Philippians 2:7, if ekenose heauton morphen doulou labon, Philippians
   2:8; then was it an act of particular kindness and condescension in him
   to call men his brethren?" -- Stuart

   [43] This quotation is made from Psalm 22:22, and from the Sept.,
   except that the Apostle changes diegesomai into apangelo. The words are
   often used synonymously, only the latter includes the idea of a
   message, as it literally means to declare something from another. --
   Ed.

   [44] The words are found literally, according to the Sept., in 2 Samuel
   22:3; which chapter is materially the same with Psalm 18, and also in
   Isaiah 8:17. The words are somewhat different in Psalm 18:2, though the
   Hebrew is the same as in 2 Samuel 22:3, 'chsh vv, "I will trust in
   him." The words in Hebrew are wholly different in Isaiah 8:17, rendered
   literally, from Isaiah, because they see nothing in the 18^th Psalm
   respecting the Messiah; but the whole Psalm is respecting him who was
   eminently a type of the Messiah; and in that sense no doubt the Messiah
   is found there. As God was to David his trust in all trials, so he was
   to the Son of David. See chapter 5:7. -- Ed.

   [45] Stuart suggests that these texts are applicable to Christ as the
   antitype of those to whom they most immediately refer. "As the type,"
   he says, "put his confidence in God, so did the antitype: as the type
   had children who were pledges for the deliverance of Judah, so has the
   antitype many sons and daughters,' the pledges of his powerful grace,
   and sureties that his promises in regard to future blessings will be
   accomplished." Christ was promised as the Son of David in his office as
   king: he was therefore to be like David: and the trials and support of
   David as a king were typical of his trials and support. Hence the
   Apostle applies to him the language of David. Christ was also promised
   as a Prophet; and is applied to the antitype. This must have been
   admitted as a valid reasoning by the Jews who regarded the Messiah both
   as king and as a prophet. -- Ed.

   [46] Be it observed that throughout the whole of this passage, from 5
   to 14 inclusive, the representation is, that God had a people prior to
   the coming of Christ, first called "man," afterwards "sons" and
   "children," and Christ's "brethren," -- that those were promised
   "dominion," glory and honor," -- and that the Son of God assumed their
   nature became lower than the angels, in order to obtain for them this
   dominion, glory and honor. This statement bears a similarity to what
   the Apostle says in the 4^th chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, and
   in the 3^rd and 4^th to the Galatians: only he seems to go back here to
   Noah, to whom was restored the dominion and the glory lost in Adam,
   while in the chapters referred to, he begins with Abraham: and there
   seems to have been a reason for this; for the posterity of Noah soon
   departed from the faith; and Abraham became alone the father of the
   faithful, and through faith "the heir of the world," and had the land
   of Canaan as a special pledge of a "better country." And the Apostle
   here also comes to Abraham, verse 16. -- Ed.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Hebrews 2:14-15

   14. Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he
   also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he
   might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

   14. Quando igitur pueri carni et sanguini communicant, ipse quoque
   similiter eorundem fuit particeps, ut per mortem aboleret eum qui
   habebat mortis imperium, hoc est, diabolum;

   15. And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime
   subject to bondage.

   15. Et redimeret quicunque metu mortis per totam vitam obnoxii erant
   servituti.


   14. Forasmuch then as the children, etc., or, since then the children,
   etc. This is an inference from the foregoing; and at the same time a
   fuller reason is given than what has been hitherto stated, why it
   behooved the Son of God to put on our flesh, even that he might partake
   of the same nature with us, and that by undergoing death he might
   redeem us from it.

   The passage deserves especial notice, for it not only confirms the
   reality of the human nature of Christ, but also shows the benefit which
   thence flows to us. "The Son of God," he says, "became man, that he
   might partake of the same condition and nature with us." What could be
   said more fitted to confirm our faith? Here his infinite love towards
   us appears; but its overflowing appears in this -- that he put on our
   nature that he might thus make himself capable of dying, for as God he
   could not undergo death. And though he refers but briefly to the
   benefits of his death, yet there is in this brevity of words a
   singularly striking and powerful representation, and that is, that he
   has so delivered us from the tyranny of the devil, that we are rendered
   safe, and that he has so redeemed us from death, that it is no longer
   to be dreaded.

   But as all the words are important, they must be examined a little more
   carefully. First, the destruction of the devil, of which he speaks,
   imports this -- that he cannot prevail against us. For though the devil
   still lives, and constantly attempts our ruin, yet all his power to
   hurt us is destroyed or restrained. It is a great consolation to know
   that we have to do with an enemy who cannot prevail against us. That
   what is here said has been said with regard to us, we may gather from
   the next clause, that he might destroy him that had the power of death;
   for the apostle intimates that the devil was so far destroyed as he has
   power to reign to our ruin; for "the power of death" is ascribed to him
   from the effect, because it is destructive and brings death. He then
   teaches us not only that the tyranny of Satan was abolished by Christ's
   death, but also that he himself was so laid prostrate, that no more
   account is to be made of him than as though he were not. He speaks of
   the devil according to the usual practice of Scripture, in the singular
   number, not because there is but one, but because they all form one
   community which cannot be supposed to be without a head. [47]

   15. And deliver them who, etc. This passage expresses in a striking
   manner how miserable is the life of those who fear death, as they must
   feel it to be dreadful, because they look on it apart from Christ; for
   then nothing but a curse appears in it: for whence is death but from
   God's wrath against sin? Hence is that bondage throughout life, even
   perpetual anxiety, by which unhappy souls are tormented; for through a
   consciousness of sin the judgment of God is ever presented to the view.
   From this fear Christ has delivered us, who by undergoing our curse has
   taken away what is dreadful in death. For though we are not now freed
   from death, yet in life and in death we have peace and safety, when we
   have Christ going before us. [48]

   But it any one cannot pacify his mind by disregarding death, let him
   know that he has made as yet but very little proficiency in the faith
   of Christ; for as extreme fear is owing to ignorance as to the grace of
   Christ, so it is a certain evidence of unbelief.

   Death here does not only mean the separation of the soul from the body,
   but also the punishment which is inflicted on us by an angry God, so
   that it includes eternal ruin; for where there is guilt before God,
   there immediately hell shows itself.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [47] See [10]Appendix I

   [48] The same seem to be meant here as before, -- "the sons, the
   children." Before Christ came, though heirs, yet they were in a state
   of bondage; so the Apostle represents them in Galatians 4:1-3. See
   Romans 8:15. -- Ed.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Hebrews Chapter 2:16-18

   16. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on
   him the seed of Abraham.

   16. Nusquam enim angelos assumit; sed semen Abrahae assumit.

   17. Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his
   brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in
   things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the
   people.

   17. Unde fratribus debuit per omnia esse similis, ut misericors esset
   et fidelis pontifex in iis quae sunt erga Deum, ut peccata expiet
   populi.

   18. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to
   succor them that are tempted.

   18. Ex quo enim ipsi contigit tentari, potest et iis qui tentantur,
   succurrere.


   16. For verily, or, For nowhere, etc. By this comparison he enhances
   the benefit and the honor with which Christ has favored us, by putting
   on our flesh; for he never did so much for angels. As then it was
   necessary that there should be a remarkable remedy for man's dreadful
   ruin, it was the design of the Son of God that there should be some
   incomparable pledge of his love towards us which angels had not in
   common with us. That he preferred us to angels was not owing to our
   excellency, but to our misery. There is therefore no reason for us to
   glory as though we were superior to angels, except that our heavenly
   Father has manifested toward us that ampler mercy which we needed, so
   that the angels themselves might from on high behold so great a bounty
   poured on the earth. The present tense of the verb is to be understood
   with reference to the testimonies of Scripture, as though he set before
   us what had been before testified by the Prophets.

   But this one passage is abundantly sufficient to lay prostrate such men
   as Marcion and Manicheus, and fanatical men of similar character, who
   denied Christ to have been a real man, begotten of human seed. For if
   he bore only the appearance of man, as he had before appeared in the
   form of an angel, there could have been no difference; but as it could
   not have been said that Christ became really an angel, clothed with
   angelic nature, it is hence said that he took upon him man's nature and
   not that of angels.

   And the Apostle speaks of nature, and intimates that Christ, clothed
   with flesh, was real man, so that there was unity of person in two
   natures. For this passage does not favor Nestorius, who imagined a
   twofold Christ, as though the Son of God was not a real man but only
   dwelt in man's flesh. But we see that the Apostle's meaning was very
   different, for his object was to teach us that we find in the Son of
   God a brother, being a partaker of our common nature. Being not
   therefore satisfied with calling him man, he says that he was begotten
   of human seed; and he names expressly the seed of Abraham, in order
   that what he said might have more credit, as being taken from
   Scripture. [49]

   17. Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his
   brethren, or, to be like his brethren, etc. In Christ's human nature
   there are two things to be considered, the real flesh and the
   affections or feelings. The Apostle then teaches us, that he had not
   only put on the real flesh of man, but also all those feelings which
   belong to man, and he also shows the benefit that hence proceeds; and
   it is the true teaching of faith when we in our case find the reason
   why the Son of God undertook our infirmities; for all knowledge without
   feeling the need of this benefit is cold and lifeless. But he teaches
   us that Christ was made subject to human affections, that he might be a
   merciful and faithful high priest; which words I thus explain, "that he
   might be a merciful, and therefore a faithful high priest." [50]

   For in a priest, whose office it is to appease God's wrath, to help the
   miserable, to raise up the fallen, to relieve the oppressed, mercy is
   especially required, and it is what experience produces in us; for it
   is a rare thing, for those who are always happy to sympathize with the
   sorrows of others. The following saying of Virgil was no doubt derived
   from daily examples found among men:

   "Not ignorant of evil, I learn to aid the miserable." [51]

   The Son of God had no need of experience that he might know the
   emotions of mercy; but we could not be persuaded that he is merciful
   and ready to help us, had he not become acquainted by experience with
   our miseries; but this, as other things, has been as a favor given to
   us. Therefore whenever any evils pass over us, let it ever occur to us,
   that nothing happens to us but what the Son of God has himself
   experienced in order that he might sympathize with us; nor let us doubt
   but that he is at present with us as though he suffered with us. [52]

   Faithful means one true and upright, for it is one opposite to a
   dissembler; and to him who fulfils not his engagements. An acquaintance
   with our sorrows and miseries so inclines Christ to compassion, that he
   is constant in imploring God's aid for us. What besides? Having
   purposed to make atonement for sins, he put on our nature that we might
   have in our own flesh the price of our redemption; in a word, that by
   the right of a common nature he might introduce us, together with
   himself, into the sanctuary of God. By the words, in things pertaining
   to God, he means such things as are necessary to reconcile men to God;
   and as the first access to God is by faith, there is need of a Mediator
   to remove all doubting.

   18. For in that he himself has suffered, etc. Having been tried by our
   evils, he is ready, he says, to bring us help. The word temptation here
   means no other thing than experience or probation; and to be able, is
   to be fit, or inclined, or suitable.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [49] See [11]Appendix K

   [50] Here is, as I conceive, an instance of an arrangement similar to
   what is often found in the prophets, and to what occurs in verse 9;
   this would be seen were a part of this verse and the following verse
   put in lines, -- That compassionate he might be
   And a faithful high priest in the things of God
   To make an atonement for the sins of the people;
   For as he suffered, being himself tempted, he can help the tempted. The
   first and last line correspond, and the second and the third. He is
   compassionate, because he can sympathize with the tempted, having been
   himself tempted; and he is a true and faithful high priest, because he
   really expiated the sins of the people: and that he might be all this,
   he became like his brethren that is, by taking their nature. -- Ed.

   [51] Non ignara mali, miseris succurrere disco.

   [52] This paragraph, which begins at verse 5, commences with what
   belongs to the kingly office -- dominion, and what accompanies it,
   glory and honor; but it ends with the priestly office; and it is shown
   that it was necessary for the Savior to be a priest in order that he
   might be a king, and might make his people kings as well as priests to
   God. The dominion and glory promised to the faithful from the beginning
   intimated even in the first promise made to fallen man, and more fully
   developed afterwards, was what they had no power to attain of
   themselves: Hence it became necessary for the Son of God to become the
   son of man, that he might obtain for his people the dominion and glory.
   This seems to be the view presented to us in this passage. The children
   of God, before Christ came into the world, were like heirs under age,
   though lords of all. He came, took their flesh and effected whatever
   was necessary to put them in full possession of the privileges promised
   them. See Galatians 4:1-6. -- Ed.
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

   CHAPTER 3
     __________________________________________________________________

   Hebrews Chapter 3:1-6

   1. Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling,
   consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

   1. Unde fratres sancti vocationis coelestis participes, considerate
   Apostolum et sacerdotem confessionis nostrae, Christum Iesum;

   2. Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was
   faithful in all his house.

   2. Qui fidelis est ei qui constituit eum, quemadmodum et Moses in Tota
   domo ejus.

   3. For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch
   as he who hath builded the house hath more honor than the house.

   3. Majore quippe gloria hic dignus habitus est quam Moses, quanto
   majorem habet honorem architectus domus quam ipsa.

   4. For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things
   is God.

   4. Omnis enim domus construitur ab aliquo, qui autem omnia construxit
   Deus est.

   5. And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a
   testimony of those things which were to be spoken after;

   5. Et Moses quidem fidelis in tota domo ejus tanquam minister in
   testimonium eorum quae post dicenda erant;

   6. But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we
   hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the
   end.

   6. Christus autem tanquam filius supra domum ipsius; cujus nos domus
   sumus, si fiduciam et gloriationem spei ad finem usque firmam
   tenuerimus.


   1. Wherefore, holy brethren, etc. He concludes the preceding doctrine
   with a necessary exhortation, that the Jews should attentively consider
   what sort of being and how great Christ is. As he had before, by naming
   him a teacher and a priest, briefly compared him with Moses and Aaron,
   so he now includes both clauses; for he adorns him with two titles, as
   he sustains a twofold character in the Church of God. Moses was a
   prophet and a teacher, and Aaron was a priest; but the two offices
   belong to Christ. If then we seek rightly to know him, we must inquire
   what sort of being he is; yea, he must be clothed with his own power,
   lest we lay hold on an empty shadow and not on him. [53]

   First, the word consider, is important, for it intimates that singular
   attention is required, as he cannot be disregarded with impunity, and
   that at the same time the true knowledge of Christ is sufficient to
   dissipate the darkness of all errors. And to encourage them the more to
   pursue this study, he reminds them of their calling; as though he had
   said, "God favored you with no common grace when He called you into his
   kingdom; [54] it now remains that you have your eyes fixed on Christ as
   your leader in the way." [55] For the calling of the godly cannot be
   otherwise confirmed than by a thorough surrender of themselves to
   Christ. We ought not therefore to regard this as said only to the Jews,
   but that it is a general truth addressed to all who desire to come into
   the kingdom of God; they ought sedulously to attend to Christ, for he
   is the sole instructor of our faith, and has confirmed it by the
   sacrifice of himself; for confession, or profession, is to be taken
   here for faith, as thought he had said, that the faith we profess is
   vain and of no avail, unless Christ be its object. [56]

   2. Who was, or is faithful, etc. This is a commendation of the
   apostleship of Christ, in order that the faithful may securely
   acquiesce in him; and he commends it on two grounds, because the Father
   has set him to be over us as our teacher, and because Christ himself
   has faithfully performed the office committed to him. These two things
   are always necessary to secure authority to a doctrine; for God alone
   ought to be attended to, as the whole Scripture testifies; hence Christ
   declares, that the doctrine which he delivered was not his own, but the
   Father's, (John 7:16;) and in another place he says, "He who received
   me, receiveth him who has sent me." (Luke 9:48.) For we say of Christ,
   that as he is clothed with our flesh, he is the Father's minister to
   execute his commands. To the calling of God is added the faithful and
   upright performance of duty on the part of Christ; and this is required
   in true ministers, in order that they may obtain credence in the
   Church. Since these two things are found in Christ, doubtless he cannot
   be disregarded without despising God in him.

   As also Moses, etc. Omitting for a while the priesthood, he speaks here
   of his apostleship. For as there are two parts in God's covenant, the
   promulgation of the truth, and so to speak, its real confirmation, the
   full perfection of the covenant would not appear in Christ, were not
   both parts found in him. Hence the writer of the epistle, after having
   mentioned both, roused attention by a brief exhortation. But he now
   enters on a longer discussion, and begins with the office of a teacher:
   he therefore now compares Christ only with Moses. The words, in all his
   house, may be applied to Moses; but I prefer to apply them to Christ,
   as he may be said to be faithful to his Father in ruling his whole
   house. It hence follows, that none belong to the Church of God except
   those who acknowledge Christ. [57]

   3. For this man (or, he) was counted worthy, etc. Lest he might appear
   to make Moses equal to Christ, he reminds us of his superior
   excellency; and this he proves by two arguments, Moses so ruled the
   Church, that he was still a part and member of it; but Christ being the
   builder, is superior to the whole building, -- Moses while ruling
   others, was ruled also himself, as he was a servant; but Christ being a
   Son possesses supreme power.

   It is a frequent and wellknown metaphor used in Scripture to call the
   Church the house of God. (1 Timothy 3:15.) And as it is composed of the
   faithful, each of them is called a living stone. (1 Peter 2:5.) They
   are also sometimes called the vessels with which the house is
   furnished. (2 Timothy 2:20.) There is then no one so eminent that he is
   not a member, and included in the universal body. God being the
   builder, alone is to be set above his own work; but God dwells in
   Christ, so that whatever is said of God is applicable to him.

   If any one objects and says that Christ is also a part of the building
   because he is the foundation, because he is our brother, because he has
   a union with us and then that he is not the masterbuilder because he
   himself was formed by God: in reply to these things we say that our
   faith is so founded on him that he still rules over us that he is in
   such a way our brother that he is yet our Lord, that he was so formed
   by God as man that he nevertheless by his Spirit revives and restores
   all things as the eternal God. The Scripture employs us various
   metaphors to set forth Christ s grace towards us; but there is no one
   which derogates from his honor mentioned here by the Apostle; for what
   is stated here is that all ought to be brought down to their own state
   because they ought to be in subjection to the head and that Christ
   alone is exempt from this submission, because he is the head.

   If it be again objected and said that Moses was no less a masterbuilder
   than Paul who gloried in this title: to this I reply that this name is
   applied to prophets and teachers but not with strict correctness; for
   they are only the instruments and indeed dead instruments, except the
   Lord from heaven gives efficacy to what they do; and then they so labor
   in building the Church, that they themselves form a part of the
   structure; but the case is wholly different as to Christ, for he ever
   builds up the Church by the power of his own Spirit. Besides, he stands
   far above the rest, for he is in such a way the true temple of God,
   that he is at the same time the God who inhabits it.

   4. He that built, etc. Though these words may be extended to the
   creation of the whole world, yet I confine them to the present subject.
   We are then to understand that nothing is done in the Church which
   ought not to he ascribed to Gods power; for he alone has founded it by
   his own hand, (Psalm 87:5;) and Paul says of Christ that he is the
   head, from whom the whole body, joined together and connected by every
   subservient juncture, makes an increase according to what is done
   proportionally by every member. (Ephesians 4:16.) Hence he often
   declares that the success of his ministry was God's work. In a word, if
   we take a right view of things, it will appear that how much soever God
   may use the labors of men in building his Church, yet he himself
   performs everything -- the instrument derogates nothing from the
   workman. [58]

   5. And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, etc.
   The second difference is, that to Moses was committed a doctrine to
   which he, in common with others, was to submit; but Christ, though he
   put on the form of a servant, is yet Master and Lord, to whom all ought
   to be subject; for, as we found in chap. 1:2, he is constituted heir of
   all things.

   For a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after, or which
   were afterwards to be said or declared. I explain this simply in this
   way, -- that Moses, while a herald of that doctrine which was to be
   published for a time to the ancient people, did at the same time render
   a testimony to the Gospel, the publication of which was not as yet to
   be made; for it is doubtless evident, that the end and completion of
   the Law is that perfection of wisdom contained in the Gospel. This
   exposition seems to comport with the future tense of the participle.
   The meaning indeed is, that Moses faithfully delivered to the people
   what the Lord had committed to him, but that limits were prescribed to
   him which it was not lawful for him to pass. God formerly spoke at
   different times and in various ways by the prophets, but he deferred to
   the fullness of time the complete revelation of the Gospel.

   6. Whose house are we, etc. As Paul in his Epistle to the Romans, after
   having prefaced that he was appointed to be the Apostle of the
   Gentiles, adds, for the sake of gaining credit among them, that they
   were of that number; so now the author of this epistle exhorts the Jews
   who had already made a profession of Christ to persevere in the faith,
   that they might be deemed as being in Gods household. He had said
   before that God's house was subject to the authority of Christ.
   Suitably to this declaration is added the admonition that they would
   then have a place in God's family when they obeyed Christ. But as they
   had already embraced the gospel, he mentions their condition if they
   persevered in the faith. For the word hope I take for faith; and indeed
   hope is nothing else but the constancy of faith. He mentions confidence
   and rejoicing, or glorying, in order to express more fully the power of
   faith. [59] And we hence conclude that those who assent to the Gospel
   doubtfully and like those who vacillate, do not truly and really
   believe; for faith cannot be without a settled peace of mind, from
   which proceeds the bold confidence of rejoicing. And so these two
   things, confidence and rejoicing, are ever the effects of faith, as we
   stated in explaining Romans the [12]5^th chapter, and Ephesians the
   [13]3^rd chapter

   But to these things the whole teaching of the Papists is opposed; and
   this very fact, were there nothing else, sufficiently proves that they
   pull down the Church of God rather than build it. For the certainty by
   which alone we are made, as the Apostle teaches us, holy temples to
   God, they not only darken by their glosses, but also condemn as
   presumption. Besides, what firmness of confidence can there be when men
   know not what they ought to believe? And yet that monstrous thing,
   implicit faith, which they have invented, is nothing else than a
   license to entertain errors. This passage reminds us that we are always
   to make progress even unto death; for our whole life is as it were a
   race.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [53] He calls them "holy brethren." Stuart takes holy as meaning
   "consecrated, devoted, i.e. to Christ, set apart as Christians." The
   people of Israel were called holy in the same sense, not because they
   were spiritually holy, but because they were set apart and adopted as
   God's people. The word saints, at the commencement of Paul's Epistles,
   means the same thing. -- Ed.

   [54] The word heavenly, may also mean a call from heaven. See chapter
   12:25. It is no doubt both, it is a call to the enjoyment of heavenly
   things, as well as a call that comes from heaven. -- Ed.

   [55] This is the only place in which Christ is called an Apostle, the
   design no doubt was to institute a comparison between him and Moses,
   who is often said to have been sent by God, as Christ is said to have
   been sent by the Father: they might both therefore be rightly called
   Apostles, i.e., messengers sent by God. And then he adds, high priest,
   that he might afterwards make a comparison between him and Aaron. He
   had before exalted Christ as a teacher above all the prophets,
   including no doubt Moses among the rest; but here refers to Moses as
   the leader of the people, as one sent especially by God to conduct them
   from Egypt through the wilderness to the land of Canaan. But as our
   call is from heaven and to heaven, Christ is sent as a messenger to
   lead us to the heavenly country. We hence see that in this connection
   the "heavenly calling" is to be taken most suitably as a call to
   heaven. -- Ed.

   [56] The simpler meaning of this phrase is to view it as sort of
   Hebraism, when a noun is put for an adjective or a participle; and it
   is so rendered by Schleusner and Stuart, "professed by us," or, "whom
   we profess." See similar instances in chapter 10:23, and in 2
   Corinthians 9:13. -- Ed.

   [57] This testimony as to Moses is found in Numbers 12:7. God says
   there "in all mine house;" we ought therefore to consider "his" here as
   referring to God or to Christ, and not to Moses. "For this man," outos;
   it is better to render it here he, as it is sometimes rendered, and is
   so rendered in this place by Doddridge, Macknight and Stuart. The
   connection is with "consider," in the first verse; "for," a reason is
   given for the exhortation; "for he," i.e., the apostle and high priest
   before mentioned, etc. -- Ed.

   [58] See [14]Appendix L

   [59] It is better for "hope" here to be retained in its proper meaning;
   for in verse 12 the defect of it is traced to unbelief. Were the words
   "confidence" and "rejoicing" rendered adjectivally, the meaning would
   be more evident, -- "If we hold firm our confident and joyful hope to
   the end." So we may render a similar form of expression in verse 13,
   "through deceitful sin," as "newness of life" in Romans 6:4, means "new
   life." The most common practice is to render the genitive in such
   instances as an adjective, but this is not always the case. Hope is
   "confident" or assured, while it rests on the word of God, and is
   "joyful" while it anticipates the glory and happiness of the heavenly
   kingdom. But Beza and Doddridge take words apart, "freedom of
   profession and boasting of hope," or according to Beza, "the hope of
   which we boast." Macknight renders them "the boldness and the
   glorifying of the hope." The secondary meaning of the word parresia is
   confidence, and of kauchema, joy or rejoicing, and the most suitable
   here, as it comports better with holding fast, or firm. -- Ed.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Hebrews Chapter 3:7-13

   7. Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his
   voice,

   7. Quare (sicut dicit Spiritus Sanctus, Hodie si vocem ejus audieritis,

   8. Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of
   temptation in the wilderness:

   8. Ne obduretis corda vestra, sicut in exacerbatione, in die
   tentationis in deserto;

   9. When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty
   years.

   9. Ubi tentaverunt me patres vestri, probaverunt me, et viderunt opera
   mea

   10. Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do
   always err in their heart; and they have not known my ways.

   10. Quadraginta annis: quamobrem infensus fui generationi illi, et
   dixi, semper errant corde; ipsi vero non cognoverunt vias meas;

   11. So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.)

   11. Sicut juravi in ira mea, Si ingressuri sint in requiem meam.)

   12. Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of
   unbelief, in departing from the living God.

   12. Videte fratres, ne quando sit in ullo vestrum cor pravum
   incredulitatis (vel, pravum et incredulum,) deficiendo a Deo vivente:

   13. But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any
   of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.

   13. Sed exhortamini vos ipsos quotidie, quandiu vocatur dies hodiernus;
   nequis ex vobis induretur deceptione peccati.


   He proceeds in his exhortation, that they were to obey Christ speaking
   to them; and that he might add more weight to it, he confirms it by the
   testimony of David; for since they were to be sharply goaded, it was
   better, for the sake of avoiding offense, to bring forward another
   person. Had he simply reproached them for the unbelief of the fathers,
   they would have less favorably attended to him; but when he brought
   forward David, it was less offensive. Now, the import of the whole is,
   -- As God from the beginning would his voice obeyed, and could not
   endure perverseness without punishing it severely, so at this day he
   will not lightly punish our stubbornness, unless we become teachable.
   But the discourse is suspended until we come to the words, "Take heed,
   brethren, lest there be at any time in any of you," etc. That the
   passage, then, may flow better, it would be proper to include the rest
   in a parenthesis. [60] Let us now consider the words in order.

   7. As the Holy Ghost saith, etc. This availed much more to touch their
   hearts than if he had quoted David by name. And it is useful for us to
   familiarize ourselves with such expressions, so that we may remember
   that the words adduced from the books of the prophets are those of God
   and not of men.

   But as this sentence, Today, if ye will hear his voice, is a part of a
   former verse, some have not unsuitably rendered it thus, "Would to God
   you would this day hear his voice." It is indeed certain that when
   David called the Jews God's people, he immediately drew this
   conclusion, that the voice of God ought to have been heard by them; for
   as to those whom he there invited to sing praises to God and to
   celebrate his goodness, he reminded them at the same time that
   obedience was the chief worship which he required, and that it was
   better than all sacrifices. The chief thing, then, was to obey the word
   of God.

   8. Then follows, Harden not your hearts By which words is intimated
   that our rebellion against God flows from no other fountain than
   willful wickedness, by which we obstruct the entrance of his grace, We
   have indeed by nature a heart of stone, and there is in all an innate
   hardness from the womb, which God alone can mollify and amend. That we,
   however, reject the voice of God, it happens through a spontaneous
   obstinacy, not through an external impulse, a fact of which every one
   is a witness to himself. Rightly, then, does the Spirit accuse all the
   unbelieving that they resist God, and that they are the teachers and
   authors of their own perverseness, so that they can throw the blame on
   none else. It is hence, however, absurdly concluded that we have, on
   the other hand, a free power to form the heart for God's service; nay
   rather, it must ever be the case with men, that they harden their heart
   until another be given them from heaven; for as we are bent towards
   wickedness, we shall never cease to resist God until we shall be tamed
   and subdued by his hand.

   As in the provocation, etc. It was for two reasons necessary for them
   to be reminded of the disobedience of their fathers; for as they were
   foolishly inflated on account of the glory of their race, they often
   imitated the vices of their fathers as though they were virtues, and
   defended themselves by their examples; and further, when they heard
   that their fathers were so disobedient to God, they were thus more
   fully taught that this admonition was not superfluous. As both these
   reasons existed even in the Apostle's time, he readily accommodated to
   his own purpose what had been formerly said by David, in order that
   those whom he addressed might not imitate their fathers too much.

   And hence may be learnt a general truth, that we are not to defer too
   much to the authority of the fathers lest it should draw us away from
   God; for if any fathers have ever been worthy of honor, no doubt the
   Jews possessed that preeminence; and yet David distinctly commanded
   their children to beware of being like them.

   And I have no doubt but that he referred to the history recorded in
   Exodus 17: for David uses here the two names which Moses relates were
   given to a certain place, mrvh Meribah, which means strife or
   provocation, and msh Massah, which means temptation. They tempted God
   by denying that he was in the midst of them, because they were
   distressed for want of water; and they also provoked him by contending
   with Moses. Though indeed they gave many examples of unbelief, yet
   David selected this in an especial manner, because it was more
   memorable then any other, and also, because in order of time it
   followed for the most part the rest, as it evidently appears from the
   fourth book of Moses, where from chap. 10 to 20 a series of many
   temptations is described; but this narrative is given in the twentieth
   chapter. This circumstance increased not a little the atrocity of their
   wickedness; for they had often experienced the power of God, and yet
   they perversely contended with him, and renounced all confidence in
   him: how great was their ingratitude! He then mentioned one particular
   instance instead of many.

   9. Tempted, etc. This word is to be taken in a bad sense; it means to
   provoke in a proud and insulting manner, which we express in French by
   saying, defier comme en depitant For though God had often brought them
   help, yet they forgot all, and scornfully asked, where was his power.
   Proved, etc. This clause is to be thus explained, "When yet they had
   proved me and seen my works". For it enhanced the guilt of their
   impiety, that having been taught by so many evidences of divine power,
   they had made so bad a progress. For it was a marvelous supineness and
   stupidity to esteem God's power as nothing, which had been so fully
   proved. [61]

   Forty years. These are connected by David with what follows. But we
   know that the Apostles in quoting passages attend more to the general
   meaning than to the words. And no doubt God complained that the people
   had been vexatious to him for forty years, because so many benefits had
   availed nothing for the purpose of teaching them; for though God did
   good continually to them who were wholly unworthy, they yet never
   ceased to rise up against him. Hence arose his continual indignation,
   as though he had said "Not once or for a short time have they provoked
   me, but by their incessant wickedness for forty years." Generation
   means race, or men of one age.

   10. And I said, etc. This was God's sentence, by which he declared that
   they were destitute of a sound mind, and he adds the reason, For they
   have not known my ways. In short, he regarded them as past hope, for
   they were without sense and reason. And here he assumed the character
   of man, who at length after long trials declares that he has discovered
   obstinate madness, for he says that they always went astray, and no
   hope of repentance appeared.

   11. So I sware, etc. It was the punishment of their madness, that they
   were deprived of the rest promised them. Moreover, the Lord calls the
   land, where they might have had their dwelling, his rest. For they had
   been sojourners in Egypt and wanderers in the wilderness; but the land
   of Canaan was to be, according to the promise, their perpetual
   inheritance; and it was in reference to this promise that God called it
   his rest: for nowhere can we have a settled dwelling, except where we
   are fixed by his hand. But their right to a sure possession was founded
   on what God said to Abraham,

   "To thy seed will I give this land." (Genesis 12:7.)

   By God swearing, If they shall enter, etc., the atrocity of their evil
   conduct is made more evident and is more forcibly set forth, for it is
   an evidence of wrath greatly inflamed. "If they shall enter," is in the
   form of an oath, in which something is to be understood, as an
   imprecation, or some such thing, when men speak; but when God speaks,
   it is the same as though he said, "Let me not be deemed true,", or,
   "Let me not be hereafter believed, if such a thing shall not be so."
   However, this defective mode of speaking recommends fear and reverence
   to us, so that we may not rashly swear, as many do, who are often in
   the habit of pouring forth dreadful curses.

   But as to the present passage, we ought not to think that they were
   then for the first time denied entrance into the land by God's oath,
   when they tempted him in Rephidim; for they had long before been
   excluded, even from the time they had refused to march forward at the
   report of the spies. God then does not here ascribe their expulsion
   from the land to this instance of tempting him as to the first cause;
   but he intimates that by no chastisement could they have been restored
   to a sound mind, but that they continually added new offenses: and thus
   he shows that they fully deserved to be thus severely punished, for
   they never ceased to increase more and more his wrath by various sins,
   as though he had said, "This is the generation to which I denied the
   possession of the promised land, for during whole forty years
   afterwards it betrayed its obstinate madness by innumerable sins."

   12. Take heed, (or See,) brethren, lest there be at any time in any of
   you a wicked heart of unbelief, etc. I have preferred to retain
   literally what the Apostle states, rather than to give a paraphrase as
   to the wicked or depraved heart of unbelief, by which he intimates that
   unbelief would be connected with depravity or wickedness, if after
   having received the knowledge of Christ they departed from his faith.
   For he addressed them who had been imbued with the elements of
   Christianity; hence he immediately added, By departing; for the sin of
   defection is accompanied with perfidy. [62]

   13. He also pointed out the remedy, so that they might not fall into
   this wickedness, and that was, to exhort one another. For as by nature
   we are inclined to evil, we have need of various helps to retain us in
   the fear of God. Unless our faith be now and then raised up, it will
   lie prostrate; unless it be warmed, it will be frozen; unless it be
   roused, it will grow torpid. He would have us then to stimulate one
   another by mutual exhortations, so that Satan may not creep into our
   hearts, and by his fallacies draw us away from God. And this is a way
   of speaking that ought to be especially observed; for we fall not
   immediately by the first assault into this madness of striving against
   God; but Satan by degrees accosts us artfully by indirect means, until
   he holds us ensnared in his delusions. Then indeed being blinded, we
   break forth into open rebellion. [63]

   We must then meet this danger in due time, and it is one that is nigh
   us all, for nothing is more possible than to be deceived; and from this
   deception comes at length hardness of heart. We hence see how necessary
   it is for us to be roused by the incessant goads of exhortations. Nor
   does the Apostle give only a general precept, that all should take heed
   to themselves, but he should have them also to be solicitous for the
   salvation of every member, so that they should not suffer any of those
   who had been once called to perish through their neglect, and he who
   feels it his duty so to watch over the salvation of the whole flock as
   to neglect no one sheep, performs in this case the office of a good
   shepherd.

   While it is called today. He now applies what David said more
   particularly to his own subjects; for he reminds us that the word
   today, mentioned in the Psalm, ought not to be confined to the age of
   David, but that it comprehends every time in which God may address us.
   As often, then, and as long as he opened his sacred mouth to teach us,
   let this sentence come to our minds, "Today, if ye will hear his
   voice". In the same way Paul teaches us that when the Gospel is
   preached to us, it is the accepted time in which God hears us, and the
   Day of salvation in which he helps us. (2 Corinthians 6:2.)

   Now, of this opportunity we ought to avail ourselves; for if through
   our sloth we suffer it to pass by, we shall hereafter in vain deplore
   its loss. So Christ says,

   "Walk while ye have the light; come shortly shall the night." (John
   12:35.)

   The particle while, then, or as long as, intimates that, The seasonable
   time will not continue always, if we be too slothful to follow when the
   Lord calls us. God knocks at our door; unless we open to him he will no
   doubt in his turn close against us the gate of his kingdom. In a word,
   too late will be their groans who despise the grace offered to them
   today. As, then, we know not whether God will extend his calling to
   tomorrow, let us not delay. Today he calls us; let us immediately
   respond to him, for there is no faith except where there is such a
   readiness to obey.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [60] There is the same parenthesis in our version; but Beza, Doddridge,
   Macknight, and Stuart, do not use it, but connect "therefore" or
   wherefore with "harden not," which seems more suitable. -- Ed.

   [61] See [15]Appendix M.

   [62] The word connected with "heart" is en to, which properly means
   diseased and hence corrupted, depraved, wicked. Depraved or wicked
   would perhaps be the best rendering of it here. "Unbelief" is a
   genitive used for an adjective or a participle, -- "a wicked
   unbelieving heart." It is unbelieving owing to its wickedness or
   depravity. Grotius says, that there are two kinds of unbelief, -- The
   first the rejection of the truth when first offered, -- and the second
   the renouncing of it after having once professed it. The latter is the
   more heinous sin. "The departing," etc.; en to is rendered "by" by
   Macknight: it is considered by Grotius to be for eis to, which word
   makes the meaning more evident, "so as to depart," etc. -- Ed.

   [63] "Deceitfulness of sin" is rendered by Stuart "sinful delusion." It
   ought rather to be "deceitful (or seductive) sin" as "deceitfulness of
   riches" in Matthew 13:22, means "deceitful riches." The "sin" was
   evidently that of apostasy: and it was deceitful, because there was a
   present prospect of relief from troubles and persecutions. The power of
   any sin to deceive and seduce, consists in some present gratification
   or interest. [16]See note on verse 6. -- Ed.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Hebrews Chapter 3:14-19

   14. For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of
   our confidence steadfast unto the end;

   14. Participes enim facti sumus Christi, siquidem initium fiduciae
   (vel, subsistentiae) ad finem usque firmum tenuerimus;

   15. While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your
   hearts, as in the provocation.

   15. In hoc quod dicitur, Hodie si vocem ejus audieritis, ne obduretis
   corda vestra sicut in exacerbatione.

   16. For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that
   came out of Egypt by Moses.

   16. Quidam enim quum audissent, exacerbarunt; at non omnes qui egressi
   fuerant ex AEgypto per Mosen.

   17. But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that
   had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness?

   17. Quibus autem infensus fuit quadraginta annis? an non iis qui
   peccaverant, quorum membra ceciderunt in deserto?

   18. And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but
   to them that believed not?

   18. Quibus autem juravit, non ingressuros in requiem suam nisi
   incredulis (aut, inobedientibus)?

   19. So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.

   19. Et videmus non potuisse ingredi propter infidelitatem.


   14. For we are made partakers, etc. He commends them for having begun
   well; but lest, under the pretext of the grace which they had obtained,
   they should indulge themselves in carnal security, he says that there
   was need of perseverance; for many having only tasted the Gospel, do
   not think of any progress as though they had reached the summit. Thus
   it is that they not only stop in the middle of their race, yea, nigh
   the startingposts, but turn another way. Plausible indeed is this
   objection, "What can we wish more after having found Christ?" But if he
   is possessed by faith, we must persevere in it, so that he may be our
   perpetual possession. Christ then has given himself to be enjoyed by us
   on this condition, that by the same faith by which we have been
   admitted into a participation of him, we are to preserve so great a
   blessing even to death. [64]

   Hence he says beginning, intimating that their faith was only begun. As
   hypostasis sometimes means confidence, it may be so taken here; yet the
   term substance, as some have rendered it, I do not dislike, though I
   explain it in a way somewhat different. They think that faith is thus
   called, because the whole of what man may have without it is nothing
   but vanity; but I so regard it, because we recumb on it alone, as there
   is no other support on which we can rely. And suitable to this view is
   the word steadfast or firm; for we shall be firmly fixed and beyond the
   danger of vacillating, provided faith be our foundation. The sum of the
   whole then is, that faith whose beginnings only appear in us, is to
   make constant and steady progress to the end. [65]

   15. While it is said, etc. He intimates that the reason for making
   progress never ceases as long as we live, because God calls us daily.
   For since faith responds to the preaching of the Gospel, as preaching
   continues through the whole course of our life, so we ought to continue
   growing in faith. The phrase, then, while it is said, is the same as
   though he had said, "Since God never makes an end of speaking, it is
   not enough for us readily to receive his doctrine, except we exhibit
   the same teachableness and obedience tomorrow and every following day."
   [66]

   16 For some, when they had heard, etc. David spoke of the fathers as
   though that whole generation were unbelieving; but it appears that some
   who truly feared God mingled with the wicked. The apostle mentions this
   to modify what had been more severely said by David, in order that we
   may know that the word is preached to all for this end, that all may
   obey it with one consent, and that the whole people were justly
   condemned for unbelief, when the body was torn and mutilated by the
   defection of the greatest part.

   But by saying that some provoked, while yet they were by far the
   greatest part, this object was not only to avoid giving offense, but
   also to encourage the Jews to imitate those who believed; as though he
   had said, "As God forbids you to follow the unbelief of the fathers, so
   he sets before you other fathers whose faith is to be your example".
   Thus is mitigated what otherwise might have appeared too hard; that is,
   had they been commanded wholly to dissent from their fathers. To come
   out by Moses, means by the hand of Moses, for he was the minister of
   their deliverance. But there is an implied comparison between the
   benefit which God had bestowed on them by Moses, and the participation
   of Christ previously mentioned.

   17. But with whom was he grieved, or angry, etc. He means that God had
   never been angry with his people except for just causes, as Paul also
   reminds us in 1 Corinthians 10:5, 6. Therefore as many chastisements of
   God as we read were inflicted on the ancient people, so many grievous
   sins shall we find which provoked God's vengeance. At the same time we
   must come to this conclusion, that unbelief was the chief of all their
   evils; for though he mentions this the last, he yet means that it was
   the primary cause of their curse; and no doubt from the time they once
   became unbelievers, they never ceased to add one sin to another, and
   thus they brought on themselves new scourges continually. Hence those
   very persons who through unbelief rejected the possession of the land
   offered to them, pursued their own obstinacy, now lusting, then
   murmuring, now committing adultery, then polluting themselves with
   heathen superstitions, so that their depravity became more fully
   manifested.

   The unbelief, then, which they showed from the beginning, prevented
   them from enjoying the kindness of God; for the contempt of his word
   ever led them to sin. And as at first they deserved through their
   unbelief that God should deprive them of the promised rest, so whatever
   sin they committed afterwards flowed from the same fountain.

   It may be further asked, whether Moses, and Aaron, and those like them,
   were included in this number? To this I answer, that the Apostle speaks
   of the whole community rather than of individuals. It is certain that
   there were many godly men who were either not entangled in the general
   impiety or soon repented. Moses' faith was once shaken and only once,
   and that for a moment. The Apostle's words, therefore, contain a
   statement of the whole instead of a part, a mode of speaking frequently
   employed when a multitude or body of people are spoken of.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [64] What is implied here is that we may professedly be partakers of
   Christ: that is of his blessings as a Savior, and yet be not really so:
   the proof of the reality is perseverance. -- Ed.

   [65] Here is another instance of the genitive being the main subject,
   "the beginning of our confidence," i.e., our first confidence, which
   the Apostle calls "first faith" in 1 Timothy 5:12. Macknight renders it
   "the begun confidence." -- Ed.

   [66] Most connect this verse with the preceding, as in our version, and
   as Doddridge thus "forasmuch as it is said;" and Macknight thus "as ye
   may know by the saying." So does Beza; and Calvin seems to do the same;
   but some connect it with the 13^th and others with the 14^th verse.
   Modern authors, such as Stuart and Blooomfield, regard it as the
   commencement of a paragraph, and connect it with what follows. Stuart's
   version is -- 15. With regard to the saying, "today while ye hear his
   voice, harden
   16. Not your hearts as in the provocation;" who now were they that when
   they heard did provoke? Nay, did not all who came out of Egypt under
   Moses? Etc. Bloomfield approves of this version, only he considers the
   quotation is confined to the words, "Today, while ye hear his voice,"
   and regards what follows, "harden not," etc., as said by the writer:
   See [17]Appendix N. -- Ed.
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

   CHAPTER 4
     __________________________________________________________________

   Hebrews Chapter 4:1-2

   1. Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering
   into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.

   1. Timeamus ergo ne derelicta promissione introeundi in requiem ejus
   videatur quispiam nostrum esse frustratus.

   2. For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the
   word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them
   that heard it

   2. Nobis enim annuntiata est promissio quemadmodum et illis; at illis
   nihil profuit sermo auditus, quia non fuit cum fide conjunctus in iis
   qui audierant.


   1. Let us therefore fear, etc. He concludes that there was reason to
   fear lest the Jews to whom he was writing should be deprived of the
   blessing offered to them; and then he says, lest anyone, intimating
   that it was his anxious desire to lead them, one and all, to God; for
   it is the duty of a good shepherd, in watching over the whole flock so
   to care for every sheep that no one may be lost; nay, we ought also so
   to feel for one another that every one should fear for his neighbors as
   well as for himself

   But the fear which is here recommended is not that which shakes the
   confidence of faith but such as fills us with such concern that we grow
   not torpid with indifference. Let us then fear, not that we ought to
   tremble or to entertain distrust as though uncertain as to the issue,
   but lest we be unfaithful to God's grace.

   By saying Lest we be disappointed of the promise left us, he intimates
   that no one comes short of it except he who by rejecting grace has
   first renounced the promise; for God is so far from repenting to do us
   good that he ceases not to bestow his gifts except when we despise his
   calling. The illative therefore, or then means that by the fall of
   others we are taught humility and watchfulness according to what Paul
   also says,

   "These through unbelief have fallen; be not thou then high  minded, but
   fear." [67] ^
   (Romans 11:20.)

   2. For to us, etc. He reminds us that the doctrine by which God invites
   us to himself at this day is the same with that which he formerly
   delivered to the fathers; and why did he say this? That we may know
   that the calling of God will in no degree be more profitable to us than
   it was to them, except we make it sure by faith. This, then, he
   concedes, that the Gospel is indeed preached to us; [68] but lest we
   should vainly glory, he immediately adds that the unbelieving whom God
   had formerly favored with the participation of so great blessings, yet
   received from them no fruit, and that therefore we also shall be
   destitute of his blessing unless we receive it by faith. He repeats the
   word hear for this end, that we may know that hearing is useless except
   the word addressed to us be by faith received.

   But we must here observe the connection between the word and faith. It
   is such that faith is not to be separated from the word, and that the
   word separated from faith can confer no good; not indeed that the
   efficacy or power of the word depends on us; for were the whole world
   false, he who cannot lie would still never cease to be true, but the
   word never puts forth its power in us except when faith gives it an
   entrance. It is indeed the power of God unto salvation, but only to
   those who believe. (Romans 1:16.) There is in it revealed the
   righteousness of God, but it is from faith to faith. Thus it is that
   the word of God is always efficacious and saving to men, when viewed in
   itself or in its own nature; but no fruit will be found except by those
   who believe.

   As to a former statement, when I said that there is no faith where the
   word is wanting, and that those who make such a divorce wholly
   extinguish faith and reduce it to nothing, the subject is worthy of
   special notice. For it hence appears evident that faith cannot exist in
   any but in the children of God, to whom alone the promise of adoption
   is offered. For what sort of faith have devils, to whom no salvation is
   promised? And what sort of faith have all the ungodly who are ignorant
   of the word? The hearing must ever precede faith, and that indeed that
   we may know that God speaks and not men.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [67] Calvin renders the last verb "be disappointed," (frustratus,)
   though the verb means properly to be behind in time, to be too late;
   yet it is commonly used in the sense of falling short of a thing, of
   being destitute; of being without. See Romans 3:23; 1 Corinthians 1:7;
   chapter 12:15. To "come short" of our version fitly expresses its
   meaning here, as adopted by Doddridge and Stuart; or "to fall short,"
   as rendered by Macknight. "Seem" is considered by some to be
   pleonastic. The verb dokeo is so no doubt sometimes, but not always;
   but here appears to have a special meaning, as the Apostle would have
   no one to present even the appearance of neglecting to secure the rest
   promised. -- Ed.

   [68] See [18]Appendix O
     __________________________________________________________________

   Hebrews Chapter 4:3-10

   3. For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have
   sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works
   were finished from the foundation of the world.

   3. Ingredimur enim in ejus requiem postquam credidimus: sicut dixit,
   Itaque juravi in ira mea, si introibunt in requiem meam; tametsi
   operibus a creatione mundi perfectis.

   4. For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And
   God did rest the seventh day from all his works.

   4. Dixit enim alicubi sic de die septimo, Et requievit Deus septimo die
   ab omnibus operibus suis:

   5. And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.

   5. Et in hoc rursum, Si introibunt in requiem meam.

   6. Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they
   to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:

   6. Quando igitur reliquum fit ut quidam ingrediantur in ipsam, et
   quibus prius evangelizatum fuit, non intrarunt propter incredulitatem:

   7. Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so
   long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden
   not your hearts.

   7. Rursum quendam praeficit diem hodiernuum in David dicens post tantum
   temporis (quemadmodum dictum est) Hodie si vocem ejus audieritis, ne
   obduretis corda vestra:

   8. For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have
   spoken of another day.

   8. Nam si Iesus requiem illis praestitisset, non de alia loqueretur
   post illos dies.

   9. There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

   9. Ergo relinquitur sabbathismus populo Dei.

   10. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his
   own works, as God did from his.

   10. Nam qui ingreditur in requiem ejus, requievit et ipse ab operibus
   propriis quemadmodum a suis Deus.


   He now begins to embellish the passage which he had quoted from David.
   He has hitherto taken it, as they say, according to the letter, that
   is, in its literal sense; but he now amplifies and decorates it; and
   thus he rather alludes to than explains the words of David. This sort
   of decoration Paul employed in Romans 10:6, in referring to these words
   of Moses, "Say not, who shall ascend into heaven!" etc. Nor is it
   indeed anything unsuitable, in accommodating Scripture to a subject in
   hand, to illustrate by figurative terms what is more simply delivered.
   However, the sum of the whole is this, that what God threatens in the
   Psalm as to the loss of his rest, applies also to us, inasmuch as he
   invites us also at this day to a rest.

   The chief difficulty of this passage arises from this, that it is
   perverted by many. The Apostle had no other thing in view by declaring
   that there is a rest for us, than to rouse us to desire it, and also to
   make us to fear, lest we should be shut out of it through unbelief He
   however teaches us at the same time, that the rest into which an
   entrance is now open to us, is far more valuable than that in the land
   of Canaan. But let us now come to particulars.

   3. For we which have believed do enter into rest, or, for we enter into
   the rest after we have believed, etc. It is an argument from what is
   contrary. Unbelief alone shuts us out; then faith alone opens an
   entrance. We must indeed bear in mind what he has already stated, that
   God being angry with the unbelieving, had sworn that they should not
   partake of that blessing. Then they enter in where unbelief does not
   hinder, provided only that God invites them. But by speaking in the
   first person he allures them with greater sweetness, separating them
   from aliens.

   Although the works, etc. To define what our rest is, he reminds us of
   what Moses relates, that God having finished the creation of the world,
   immediately rested from his works and he finally concludes, that the
   true rest of the faithful, which is to continue forever, will be when
   they shall rest as God did. [69] And doubtless as the highest happiness
   of man is to be united to his God, so ought to be his ultimate end to
   which he ought to refer all his thoughts and actions. This he proves,
   because God who is said to have rested, declared a long time after that
   he would not give his rest to the unbelieving; he would have so
   declared to no purpose, had he not intended that the faithful should
   rest after his own example. Hence he says, It remaineth that some must
   enter in: for if not to enter in is the punishment of unbelief, then an
   entrance, as it has been said, is open to believers.

   7. But there is some more difficulty in what he immediately subjoins,
   that there is another today appointed for us in the Psalm, because the
   former people had been excluded; but the words of David (as it may be
   said) seem to express no such thing, and mean only this, that God
   punished the unbelief of the people by refusing to them the possession
   of the land. To this I answer, that the inference is correct, that to
   us is offered what was denied to them; for the Holy Spirit reminds and
   warns us, that we may not do the same thing so as to incur the same
   punishment. For how does the matter stand? Were nothing at this day
   promised, how could this warning be suitable, "Take heed lest the same
   thing happen to you as to the fathers." Rightly then does the Apostle
   say, that as the fathers' unbelief deprived them of the promised
   possession, the promise is renewed to their children, so that they may
   possess what had been neglected by their fathers.

   8. For if Jesus had given them rest, or, had obtained rest for them,
   etc. He meant not to deny but that David understood by rest the land of
   Canaan, into which Joshua conducted the people; but he denies this to
   be the final rest to which the faithful aspire, and which we have also
   in common with the faithful of that age; for it is certain that they
   looked higher than to that land; nay, the land of Canaan was not
   otherwise so much valued except for this reason, because it was an
   image and a symbol of the spiritual inheritance. When, therefore, they
   obtained possession of it, they ought not to have rested as though they
   had attained to the summit of their wishes, but on the contrary to
   meditate on what was spiritual as by it suggested. They to whom David
   addressed the Psalm were in possession of that land, but they were
   reminded of the duty of seeking a better rest.

   We then see how the land of Canaan was a rest; it was indeed but
   evanescent, beyond which it was the duty of the faithful to advance. In
   this sense the Apostle denies that that rest was given by Joshua; for
   the people under his guidance entered the promised land for this end,
   that they might with greater alacrity advance forward towards heaven.

   And we may hence easily learn the difference between us and them; for
   though the same end is designed for both, yet they had, as added to
   them, external types to guide them; not so have we, nor have we indeed
   any need of them, for the naked truth itself is set before our eyes.
   Though our salvation is as yet in hope, yet as to the truth, it leads
   directly to heaven; nor does Christ extend his hand to us, that he may
   conduct us by the circuitous course of types and figures, but that he
   may withdraw us from the world and raise us up to heaven. Now that the
   Apostle separates the shadow from the substance, he did so for this
   reason, -- because he had to do with the Jews, who were too much
   attached to external things.

   He draws the conclusion, that there is a sabbathizing reserved for Gods
   people, that is, a spiritual rest; to which God daily invites us.

   10. For he that is entered into his rest, or, For he who has rested,
   etc. This is a definition of that perpetual Sabbath in which there is
   the highest felicity, when there will be a likeness between men and
   God, to whom they will be united. For whatever the philosophers may
   have ever said of the chief good, it was nothing but cold and vain, for
   they confined man to himself, while it is necessary for us to go out of
   ourselves to find happiness. The chief good of man is nothing else but
   union with God; this is attained when we are formed according to him as
   our exemplar.

   Now this conformation the Apostle teaches us takes place when we rest
   from our works. It hence at length follows, that man becomes happy by
   selfdenial. For what else is to cease from our works, but to mortify
   our flesh, when a man renounces himself that he may live to God? For
   here we must always begin, when we speak of a godly and holy life, that
   man being in a manner dead to himself, should allow God to live in him,
   that he should abstain from his own works, so as to give place to God
   to work. We must indeed confess, that then only is our life rightly
   formed when it becomes subject to God. But through inbred corruption
   this is never the case, until we rest from our own works; nay, such is
   the opposition between God's government and our corrupt affections,
   that he cannot work in us until we rest. But though the completion of
   this rest cannot be attained in this life, yet we ought ever to strive
   for it. [70] Thus believers enter it but on this condition, -- that by
   running they may continually go forward.

   But I doubt not but that the Apostle designedly alluded to the Sabbath
   in order to reclaim the Jews from its external observances; for in no
   other way could its abrogation be understood, except by the knowledge
   of its spiritual design. He then treats of two things together; for by
   extolling the excellency of grace, he stimulates us to receive it by
   faith, and in the meantime he shows us in passing what is the true
   design of the Sabbath, lest the Jews should be foolishly attached to
   the outward rite. Of its abrogation indeed he does expressly speak, for
   this is not his subject, but by teaching them that the rite had a
   reference to something else, he gradually withdraws them from their
   superstitious notions. For he who understands that the main object of
   the precept was not external rest or earthly worship, immediately
   perceives, by looking on Christ, that the external rite was abolished
   by his coming; for when the body appears, the shadows immediately
   vanish away. Then our first business always is, to teach that Christ is
   the end of the Law.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [69] The general drift of the passage is evident, yet the construction
   has been found difficult. Without repeating the various solutions which
   have been offered, I shall give what appears to me the easiest
   construction, -- 3. We indeed are entering into the rest who believe:
   as he hath said, "So that I sware in my wrath, They shall by no means
   enter into my rest," when yet the works were finished since the
   foundation of
   4. the world; (for he hath said thus in a certain place of the seventh
   day, "And God rested on the seventh day from all his works,"
   5. and again in this place, "They shall by no means enter into my
   6. rest;") it then remains therefore that some do enter in because of
   unbelief. The particle epei has created the difficulty, which I render
   in the sense of epeita, then consequently the argument is simply this:
   Inasmuch as God had sworn that the unbelieving should not enter into
   his rest long after the rest of the sabbath was appointed; it follows
   as a necessary consequence that some do enter into it, though the
   unbelieving did not enter. The argument turns on the word "rest;" It
   was to show that it was not the rest of the Sabbath. The argument in
   the next verses turns on the word "today," in order to show that it was
   not the rest of Canaan. The fourth and fifth verses are only
   explanatory of the concluding sentence of the preceding, and therefore
   ought to be regarded as parenthetic. -- Ed.

   [70] Many, like Calvin, have made remarks of this kind, but they are
   out of place here; for the rest here mentioned is clearly the rest in
   heaven. -- Ed.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Hebrews Chapter 4:11-13

   11. Let us labor therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall
   after the same example of unbelief.

   11. Studeamus ergo ingredi illam requiem, nequis eodem cadat
   incredulitatis exemplo.

   12. For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any
   two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and
   spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the
   thoughts and intents of the heart.

   12. Vivus enim sermo Dei et efficax, et penetrantior quovis gladio
   utrinque scindente, et pertingens usque ad divisionem animae et
   spiritus, compagumque et medullaarum, et discretor cogitationum et
   intentionum cordis.

   13. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight:
   but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we
   have to do.

   13. Nec ulla est creatura quae non appareat coram ipso, imo omnia nuda
   et resupina in oculis ejus com quo nobis est ratio.


   Having pointed out the goal to which we are to advance, he exhorts us
   to pursue our course, which we do, when we habituate ourselves to self-
   denial. And as he compares entering into rest to a straight course, he
   sets falling in opposition to it, and thus he continues the metaphor in
   both clauses, at the same time he alludes to the history given by Moses
   of those who fell in the wilderness, because they were rebellious
   against God. (Numbers 26:65.) Hence he says, after the same example,
   signifying as though the punishment for unbelief and obstinacy is there
   set before us as in a picture; nor is there indeed a doubt but that a
   similar end awaits us, if there be found in us the same unbelief.

   Then, "to fall" means to perish; or to speak more plainly, it is to
   fall, not as to sin, but as a punishment for it. But the figure
   corresponds as well with the word to "enter", as with the sad overthrow
   of the fathers, by whose example he intended to terrify the Jews.

   12. For the word of God is quick, or living, etc. What he says here of
   the efficacy or power of the word, he says it, that they might know,
   that it could not be despised with impunity, as though he had said,
   "Whenever the Lord addresses us by his word, he deals seriously with
   us, in order that he may touch all our inmost thoughts and feelings;
   and so there is no part of our soul which ought not to be roused." [71]

   But before we proceed further, we must inquire whether the Apostle
   speaks of the effect of the word generally, or refers only to the
   faithful.

   It indeed appears evident, that the word of God is not equally
   efficacious in all. For in the elect it exerts its own power, when
   humbled by a true knowledge of themselves, they flee to the grace of
   Christ; and this is never the case, except when it penetrates into the
   innermost heart. For hypocrisy must be sifted, which has marvelous and
   extremely winding recesses in the hearts of men; and then we must not
   be slightly pricked or torn, but be thoroughly wounded, that being
   prostrate under a sense of eternal death, we may be taught to die to
   ourselves. In short, we shall never be renewed in the whole mind, which
   Paul requires, (Ephesians 4:23,) until our old man be slain by the edge
   of the spiritual sword. Hence Paul says in another place, (Philippians
   2:17,) that the faithful are offered as a sacrifice to God by the
   Gospel; for they cannot otherwise be brought to obey God than by
   having, as it were, their own will slain; nor can they otherwise
   receive the light of God's wisdom, than by having the wisdom of the
   flesh destroyed. Nothing of this kind is found in the reprobate; for
   they either carelessly disregard God speaking to them, and thus mock
   him, or clamour against his truth, and obstinately resist it. In short,
   as the word of God is a hammer, so they have a heart like the anvil, so
   that its hardness repels its strokes, however powerful they may be. The
   word of God, then, is far from being so efficacious towards them as to
   penetrate into them to the dividing of the soul and the spirit. Hence
   it appears, that this its character is to be confined to the faithful
   only, as they alone are thus searched to the quick.

   The context, however, shows that there is here a general truth, and
   which extends also to the reprobate themselves; for though they are not
   softened, but set up a brazen and an iron heart against God's word, yet
   they must necessarily be restrained by their own guilt. They indeed
   laugh, but it is a sardonic laugh; for they inwardly feel that they
   are, as it were, slain; they make evasions in various ways, so as not
   to come before God's tribunal; but though unwilling, they are yet
   dragged there by this very word which they arrogantly deride; so that
   they may be fitly compared to furious dogs, which bite and claw the
   chain by which they are bound, and yet can do nothing, as they still
   remain fast bound.

   And further, though this effect of the word may not appear immediately
   as it were on the first day, yet it will be found at length by the
   event, that it has not been preached to any one in vain. General no
   doubt is what Christ declares, when he says, When the Spirit shall
   come, he will convince the world, (John 16:8 9.) for the Spirit
   exercises this office by the preaching, of the Gospel. And lastly,
   though the word of God does not always exert its power on man, yet it
   has it in a manner included in itself. And the Apostle speaks here of
   its character and proper office for this end only, -- that we may know
   that our consciences are summoned as guilty before God's tribunal as
   soon as it sounds in our ears, as though he had said, "If any one
   thinks that the air is beaten by an empty sound when the word of God is
   preached, he is greatly mistaken; for it is a living thing and full of
   hidden power, which leaves nothing in man untouched." The sum of the
   whole then is this, -- that as soon as God opens his sacred mouth, all
   our faculties ought to be open to receive his word; for he would not
   have his word scattered in vain, so as to disappear or to fall
   neglected on the ground, but he would have it effectually to constrain
   the consciences of men, so as to bring them under his authority; and
   that he has put power in his word for this purpose, that it may
   scrutinize all the parts of the soul, search the thoughts, discern the
   affections, and in a word show itself to be the judge.

   But here a new question arises, "Is this word to be understood of the
   Law or of the Gospel?" Those who think that the Apostle speaks of the
   Law bring these testimonies of Paul, -- that it is the ministration of
   death, (2 Corinthians 3:6, 7,) that it is the letter which killeth,
   that it worketh nothing but wrath, (Romans 4:15,) and similar passages.
   But here the Apostle points out also its different effects; for, as we
   have said, there is a certain vivifying killing of the soul, which is
   effected by the Gospel. Let us then know that the Apostle speaks
   generally of the truth of God, when he says, that it is living and
   efficacious. So Paul testifies, when he declares, that by his preaching
   there went forth an odor of death unto death to the unbelieving, but of
   life unto life to believers, (2 Corinthians 2:16,) so that God never
   speaks in vain; he draws some to salvation, others he drives into ruin.
   This is the power of binding and loosing which the Lord conferred on
   his Apostles. (Matthew 18:18.) And, indeed, he never promises to us
   salvation in Christ, without denouncing, on the other hand, vengeance
   on unbelievers; who by rejecting Christ bring death on themselves. [72]

   It must be further noticed, that the Apostle speaks of God's word,
   which is brought to us by the ministry of men. For delirious and even
   dangerous are those notions, that though the internal word is
   efficacious, yet that which proceeds from the mouth of man is lifeless
   and destitute of all power. I indeed admit that the power does not
   proceed from the tongue of man, nor exists in mere sound, but that the
   whole power is to be ascribed altogether to the Holy Spirit; there is,
   however, nothing in this to hinder the Spirit from putting forth his
   power in the word preached. For God, as he speaks not by himself, but
   by men, dwells carefully on this point, so that his truth may not be
   objected to in contempt, because men are its ministers. So Paul, by
   saying, that the Gospel is the power of God, (Romans 1:16.) designedly
   adorned with this distinction his own preaching, though he saw that it
   was slandered by some and despised by others. And when in another
   place, (Romans 10:8,) he teaches us that salvation is conferred by the
   doctrine of faith, he expressly says that it was the doctrine which was
   preached. We indeed find that God ever commends the truth administered
   to us by men, in order to induce us to receive it with reverence.

   Now, by calling the word quick or living he must be understood as
   referring to men; which appears still clearer by the second word,
   powerful, for he shows what sort of life it possesses, when he
   expressly says that it is efficacious; for the Apostle's object was to
   teach us what the word is to us. [73] The sword is a metaphorical word
   often used in Scripture; but the Apostle not content with a simple
   comparison, says, that God's word is sharper than any sword, even than
   a sword that cuts on both sides, or twoedged; for at that time swords
   were in common use, which were blunt on one side, and sharp on the
   other. Piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and spirit, or
   to the dividing of the soul and spirit, etc. The word soul means often
   the same with spirit; but when they occur together, the first includes
   all the affections, and the second means what they call the
   intellectual faculty. So Paul, writing to the Thessalonians, uses the
   words, when he prays God to keep their spirit, and soul, and body
   blameless until the coming of Christ, (1 Thessalonians 5:23,) he meant
   no other thing, but that they might continue pure and chaste in mind,
   and will, and outward actions. Also Isaiah means the same when he says,

   "My soul desired thee in the night; I sought thee with my spirit."
   (Isaiah 26:9.)

   What he doubtless intends to show is, that he was so intent on seeking
   God, that he applied his whole mind and his whole heart. I know that
   some give a different explanation; but all the soundminded, as I
   expect, will assent to this view.

   Now, to come to the passage before us, it is said that God's word
   pierces, or reaches to the dividing of soul and spirit, that is, it
   examines the whole soul of man; for it searches his thoughts and
   scrutinizes his will with all its desires. And then he adds the joints
   and marrow, intimating that there is nothing so hard or strong in man,
   nothing so hidden, that the powerful word cannot pervade it. [74] Paul
   declares the same when he says, that prophecy avails to reprove and to
   judge men, so that the secrets of the heart may come, to light. (1
   Corinthians 14:24.) And as it is Christ's office to uncover and bring
   to light the thoughts from the recesses of the heart, this he does for
   the most part by the Gospel.

   Hence God's word is a discerner, (kritikos, one that has power to
   discern,) for it brings the light of knowledge to the mind of man as it
   were from a labyrinth, where it was held before entangled. There is
   indeed no thicker darkness than that of unbelief, and hypocrisy is a
   horrible blindness; but God's word scatters this darkness and chases
   away this hypocrisy. Hence the separating or discerning which the
   Apostle mentions; for the vices, hid under the false appearance of
   virtues, begin then to be known, the varnish being wiped away. And if
   the reprobate remain for a time in their hidden recesses, yet they find
   at length that God's word has penetrated there also, so that they
   cannot escape God's judgment. Hence their clamour and also their fury,
   for were they not smitten by the word, they would not thus betray their
   madness, but they would seek to elude the word, or by evasion to escape
   from its power, or to pass it by unnoticed; but these things God does
   not allow them to do. Whenever then they slander God's word, or become
   enraged against it, they show that they feel within its power, however
   unwillingly and reluctantly. [75]

   13. Neither is there any creature, etc. The conjunction here, as I
   think, is causal, and may be rendered for; for in order to confirm this
   truth, that whatever is hid in man is discerned and judged by God's
   word, he draws an argument from the nature of God himself. There is no
   creature, he says, which is hid from the eyes of God; there is,
   therefore, nothing so deep in man's soul, which cannot be drawn forth
   into light by that word that resembles its own author, for as it is
   God's office to search the heart, so he performs this examination by
   his word.

   Interpreters, without considering that God's word is like a long staff
   by which he examines and searches what lies deep in our hearts, have
   strangely perverted this passage; and yet they have not relieved
   themselves. But all difficulty disappears when we take this view, --
   that we ought to obey God's word in sincerity and with cordial
   affection, because God, who knows our hearts, has assigned to his word
   the office of penetrating even into our inmost thoughts. The ambiguous
   meaning of the last words has also led interpreters astray, which they
   have rendered, "Of whom we speak;" but they ought, on the contrary, to
   be rendered, With whom we have to do. The meaning is, that it is God
   who deals with us, or with whom we have a concern; and that, therefore,
   we ought not to trifle with him as with a mortal man, but that whenever
   his word is set before us, we ought to tremble, for nothing is hid from
   him.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [71] It has been a matter of dispute whether the "word" here is Christ,
   or the Scripture. The fathers as well as later divines are divided. The
   former is the opinion of Augustin, Ambrose, and also of Dr. Owen and
   Doddridge: and the latter is held by Chrysostom, Theophylact, and also
   by Calvin, Beza, Macknight, Scott, Stuart and Bloomfield. The latter is
   clearly the most suitable to the words of the passage. The only
   difficulty is in verse 13; but there a transition is evidently made
   from the word of God to God himself; and thus both are in remarkable
   manner connected together. -- Ed.

   [72] See [19]Appendix P.

   [73] See [20]Appendix Q.

   [74] The metaphor of a sword is evidently carried on; the word is like
   the sword which "penetrates so as to separate the soul (the animal
   life) and the spirit, (the immortal part,) the joints also and the
   marrows, being even a strict judge of the thoughts and purposes of the
   heart." -- Ed.

   [75] See [21]Appendix R.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Hebrews Chapter 4:14-16

   14. Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into
   the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.

   14. Habentes igitur ponticem magnum qui coelos ingressus est, Iesum
   filium Dei, teneamus confessionem.

   15. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the
   feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we
   are, yet without sin.

   15. Neque enim habemus pontificem, qui compati non possit
   infirmitatibus nostris; sed in omnibus tentatum, secundum
   similitudinem, absque peccato.

   16. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may
   obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

   16. Accedamus igitur cum ficucia ad thronum gratiae, ut obtineamus
   miseericordiam, et gratiam inveniamus in auxilium opportunum.


   14. Seeing then that we have, or, Having then, etc. He has been
   hitherto speaking of Christ's apostleship, But he how passes on to his
   second office. For we have said that the Son of God sustained a twofold
   character when he was sent to us, even that of a teacher and of a
   priest. The Apostle, therefore, after having exhorted the Jews
   obediently to embrace the doctrine of Christ, now shows what benefit
   his priesthood has brought to us; and this is the second of the two
   points which he handles. And fitly does he connect the priesthood with
   the apostleship, since he reminds us that the design of both is to
   enable us to come to God. He employs an inference, then; for he had
   before referred to this great truth, that Christ is our high priest;
   [76] but as the character of the priesthood cannot be known except
   through teaching, it was necessary to prepare the way, so as to render
   men willing to hear Christ. It now remains, that they who acknowledge
   Christ as their teacher, should become teachable disciples, and also
   learn from his mouth, and in his school, what is the benefit of his
   priesthood, and what is its use and end.

   In the first place he says, Having a great high priest, [77] Jesus
   Christ, let us hold fast our profession, or confession. Confession is
   here, as before, to be taken as a metonymy for faith; and as the
   priesthood serves to confirm the doctrine, the Apostle hence concludes
   that there is no reason to doubt or to waver respecting the faith of
   the Gospel, because the Son of God has approved and sanctioned it; for
   whosoever regards the doctrine as not confirmed, dishonors the Son of
   God, and deprives him of his honor as a priest; nay, such and so great
   a pledge ought to render us confident, so as to rely unhesitantly on
   the Gospel.

   15. For we have not, etc. There is in the name which he mentions, the
   Son of God, such majesty as ought to constrain us to fear and obey him.
   But were we to contemplate nothing but this in Christ, our consciences
   would not be pacified; for who of us does not dread the sight of the
   Son of God, especially when we consider what our condition is, and when
   our sins come to mind? The Jews might have had also another hindrance,
   for they had been accustomed to the Levitical priesthood; they saw in
   that one mortal man, chosen from the rest, who entered into the
   sanctuary, that by his prayer he might reconcile his brethren to God.
   It is a great thing, when the Mediator, who can pacify God towards us,
   is one of ourselves. By this sort of allurement the Jews might have
   been ensnared, so as to become ever attached to the Levitical
   priesthood, had not the Apostle anticipated this, and showed that the
   Son of God not only excelled in glory, but that he was also endued with
   equal kindness and compassion towards us.

   It is, then, on this subject that he speaks, when he says that he was
   tried by our infirmities, that he might condole with us. As to the word
   sympathy, (sumpatheia,) I am not disposed to indulge in refinements;
   for frivolous, no less than curious, is this question, "Is Christ now
   subject to our sorrows?" It was not, indeed, the Apostle's object to
   weary us with such subtleties and vain speculations, but only to teach
   us that we have not to go far to seek a Mediator, since Christ of his
   own accord extends his hand to us, that we have no reason to dread the
   majesty of Christ since he is our brother, and that there is no cause
   to fear, lest he, as one unacquainted with evils, should not be touched
   by any feelings of humanity, so as to bring us help, since he took upon
   him our infirmities, in order that he might be more inclined to succor
   us. [78]

   Then the whole discourse of the Apostle refers to what is apprehended
   by faith, for he does not speak of what Christ is in himself, but shows
   what he is to us. By the likeness, he understands that of nature, by
   which he intimates that Christ has put on our flesh, and also its
   feelings or affections, so that he not only paroled himself to be real
   man, but had also been taught by his own experience to help the
   miserable; not because the Son of God had need of such a training, but
   because we could not otherwise comprehend the care he feels for our
   salvation. Whenever, then, we labor under the infirmities of our flesh,
   let us remember that the Son of God experienced the same, in order that
   he might by his power raise us up, so that we may not be overwhelmed by
   them.

   But it may be asked, What does he mean by infirmities? The word is
   indeed taken in various senses. Some understand by it cold and heat;
   hunger and other wants of the body; and also contempt, poverty, and
   other things of this mind, as in many places in the writings of Paul,
   especially in 2 Corinthians 12:10. But their opinion is more correct
   who include, together with external evils, the feelings of the souls
   such as fear, sorrow, the dread of death, and similar things. [79]

   And doubtless the restriction, without sin, would not have been added,
   except he had been speaking of the inward feelings, which in us are
   always sinful on account of the depravity of our nature; but in Christ,
   who possessed the highest rectitude and perfect purity, they were free
   from everything vicious. Poverty, indeed, and diseases, and those
   things which are without us, are not to be counted as sinful. Since,
   therefore, he speaks of infirmities akin to sin, there is no doubt but
   that he refers to the feelings or affections of the mind, to which our
   nature is liable, and that on account of its infirmity. For the
   condition of the angels is in this respect better than ours; for they
   sorrow not, nor fear, nor are they harassed by variety of cares, nor by
   the dread of death. These infirmities Christ of his own accord
   undertook, and he willingly contended with them, not only that he might
   attain a victory over them for us, but also that we may feel assured
   that he is present with us whenever we are tried by them.

   Thus he not only really became a man, but he also assumed all the
   qualities of human nature. There is, however, a limitation added,
   without sin; for we must ever remember this difference between Christ's
   feelings or affections and ours, that his feelings were always
   regulated according to the strict rule of justice, while ours flow from
   a turbid fountain, and always partake of the nature of their source,
   for they are turbulent and unbridled. [80]

   16. Let us therefore come boldly, or, with confidence, etc. He draws
   this conclusion, -- that an access to God is open to all who come to
   him relying on Christ the Mediator; nay, he exhorts the faithful to
   venture without any hesitation to present themselves before God. And
   the chief benefit of divine teaching is a sure confidence in calling on
   God, as, on the other hand, the whole of religion falls to the ground,
   and is lost when this certainty is taken away from consciences.

   It is hence obvious to conclude, that under the Papacy the light of the
   Gospel is extinct, for miserable men are bidden to doubt whether God is
   propitious to them or is angry with them. They indeed say that God is
   to be sought; but the way by which it is possible to come to him is not
   pointed out, and the gate is barred by which alone men can enter. They
   confess in words that Christ is a Mediator, but in reality they make
   the power of his priesthood of none effect, and deprive him of his
   honor.

   For we must hold this principle, -- that Christ is not really known as
   a Mediator except all doubt as to our access to God is removed;
   otherwise the conclusion here drawn would not stand, "We have a high
   priest Who is willing to help us; therefore we may come bold and
   without any hesitation to the throne of grace." And were we indeed
   fully persuaded that Christ is of his own accord stretching forth his
   hand to us, who of us would not come in perfect confidence? [81] It is
   then true what I said, that its power is taken away from Christ's
   priesthood whenever men have doubts, and are anxiously seeking for
   mediators, as though that one were not sufficient, in whose patronage
   all they who really trust, as the Apostle here directs them, have the
   assurance that their prayers are heard.

   The ground of this assurance is, that the throne of God is not arrayed
   in naked majesty to confound us, but is adorned with a new name, even
   that of grace, which ought ever to be remembered whenever we shun the
   presence of God. For the glory of God, when we contemplate it alone,
   can produce no other effect than to fill us with despair; so awful is
   his throne. The Apostle, then, that he might remedy our diffidence, and
   free our minds from all fear and trembling, adorns it with "grace," and
   gives it a name which can allure us by its sweetness, as though he had
   said, "Since God has affirmed to his throne as it were the banner of
   grace' and of his paternal love towards us, there are no reasons why
   his majesty should drive us away." [82]

   The import of the whole is, that we are to call upon God without fear,
   since we know that he is propitious to us, and that this may be done is
   owing to the benefit conferred on us by Christ, as we find from
   Ephesians 3:12; for when Christ receives us under his protection and
   patronage, he covers with his goodness the majesty of God, which would
   otherwise be terrible to us, so that nothing appears there but grace
   and paternal favor.

   That we may obtain mercy, etc. This is not added without great reason;
   it is for the purpose of encouraging as it were by name those who feel
   the need of mercy, lest any one should be cast down by the sense of his
   misery, and close up his way by his own diffidence. This expression,
   "that we may obtain mercy", contains especially this most delightful
   truth, that all who, relying on the advocacy of Christ, pray to God,
   are certain to obtain mercy; yet on the other hand the Apostle
   indirectly, or by implication, holds out a threatening to all who take
   not this way, and intimates that God will be inexorable to them,
   because they disregard the only true way of being reconciled to him.

   He adds, To help in time of need, or, for a seasonable help; that is,
   if we desire to obtain all things necessary for our salvation. [83]
   Now, this seasonableness refers to the time of calling, according to
   those words of Isaiah, which Paul accommodates to the preaching of the
   Gospel, "Behold, now is the accepted time," etc., (Isaiah 49:8; 2
   Corinthians 6:2;) for the Apostle refers to that "today," during which
   God speaks to us. If we defer hearing until tomorrow, when God is
   speaking to us today, the unseasonable night will come, when what now
   may be done can no longer be done; and we shall in vain knock when the
   door is closed.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [76] That is, in the latter part of chapter 2. In the beginning of
   chapter 3 he exhorted us to "consider" the apostle and high priest of
   our profession, and then proceeded to speak of him as an apostle. He
   now returns to the high priesthood, and says that as we have a great
   high priest, we ought to hold fast our profession. Such, according to
   Calvin, is the connection, and is adopted by Stuart and Bloomfield. --
   Ed.

   [77] In the Apostle's time there were many called high priests, such as
   the heads of the Levitical courses; but "the great high priest" meant
   him who alone had the privilege of entering into the holy of holies,
   that is, the high priest, as distinguished from all the rest. -- Ed.

   [78] Calvin has followed the Vulg. In rendering this clause, "who
   cannot sympathize (compati) with our infirmities." Our version is that
   of Eramus and Beza. The meaning may thus be given, "Who cannot feel for
   us in our infirmities." -- Ed.

   [79] The word "infirmities" is often used metonymically for things
   which we are too weak to bear, even trials and temptations. Christ, our
   high priest, feels for us in all those straits and difficulties,
   whatever they be, which meet us in our course, and make us feel and
   know our weaknesses. -- Ed.

   [80] The common idea of what is here said is, that Christ though tried
   and tempted, was not yet guilty of sin, or did not fall into sin. That
   he had no sin, that he was without sin, is what we plainly learn from 2
   Corinthians 5:21; 1 John 3:5, etc.; but is this what is taught here?
   The clause, I conceive, may be thus rendered, -- "But was in all things
   tried in like manner except sin;" that is, with the exception that he
   had no innate sin to contend with. The last words are literally, "in
   likeness with the exclusion of sin," which seems to import that it was
   a likeness with the exclusion of sin. But if the words "except (or
   without) sin" do not qualify "likeness," they must be connected with
   "tried" or tempted, and thus rendered, -- "But was in like manner tried
   in all things without sin;" that is, without sinning, or falling into
   sin. The difference is, that in the one sense Christ had no inward sin
   to contend with, and that in the other he withstood temptation without
   falling into sin. Both senses are true, and either of them will suit
   this passage. -- Ed.

   [81] "Confidence," that is, of being heard. -- Ed.

   [82] The "throne of grace" is evidently in opposition to the throne of
   judgment, which especially belongs to a king. Some of the Greek fathers
   regarded this as the throne of Christ; but most commentators consider
   it to be God's throne, as Christ is here represented as a priest and as
   access to God is ever described as being through Christ. See Ephesians
   2:18. -- Ed.

   [83] Calvin's version is, "and find grace for a seasonable help;" which
   according to his explanation, means a help during the season or period
   of "today." Doddridge has, "for our seasonable assistance," --
   Macknight, "for the purpose of seasonable help," -- and Stuart, "and
   find favor so as to be assisted in time of need." Our version seems the
   best, "and find grace to help in the time of need." The address is to
   those exposed to trials and persecutions; and the seasonable or
   opportune help was such as their peculiar circumstances and wants
   required. The word eukairon, is in the Sept. put for "due season," or
   in its time, in Psalm 104:27. The idea of Calvin is that some of the
   fathers, but is not suitable to this passage. "Mercy" is compassion,
   and "grace" is favor or benefit received; it means sometimes favor
   entertained, but here the effect of favor -- a benefit, and this
   benefit was to be a help in time of need. -- Ed.
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

   CHAPTER 5
     __________________________________________________________________

   Hebrews Chapter 5:1-6

   1. For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in
   things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices
   for sins:

   1. Omnis namque Pontifex ex hominibus assumptus, pro hominibus
   constituitur de eis quae (vel, ordinat ea quae) ad Deum pertinent, ut
   offerat dona et sacrifia pro peccatis;

   2. Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of
   the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.

   2. Qui possit placabilem (vel, moderatum) se praebere ignorantibus et
   errantibus, quando ipse quoque circumdatus est infirmitate.

   3. And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for
   himself, to offer for sins.

   3. Et propter hanc debet, quemadmodum pro populo, ita et pro seipso
   offerre pro peccatis.

   4. And no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of
   God, as was Aaron.

   4. Ac nemo sibi usurpat honorem, sed qui vocatur a Deo, sicut et Aaron.

   5. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but
   he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.

   5. Quare nec Christus seipsum glorificavit ut esset Pontifex, sed qui
   loquutus est ad eum, Filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui te.

   6. As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after
   the order of Melchisedec.

   6. Quemadmodum et alibi dicit, Tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum
   ordinem Melchisedec.


   1. For every high priest, etc. He compares Christ with the Levitical
   priests, and he teaches us what is the likeness and the difference
   between them; and the object of the whole discourse is, to show what
   Christ's office really is, and also to prove that whatever was ordained
   under the law was ordained on his account. Hence the Apostle passes on
   at last to show that the ancient priesthood was abolished.

   He first says that the priests were taken from among men; secondly,
   that they did not act a private part but for the whole people; thirdly,
   that they were not to come empty to appease God, but furnished with
   sacrifices; fourthly, that they were not to be exempt from human
   infirmities, that they might more readily succor the distressed; and
   lastly, that they were not presumptuously to rush into this office, and
   that then only was the honor legitimate when they were chosen and
   approved by God. We shall consider briefly each of these points.

   We must first, however, expose the ignorance of those who apply these
   things to our time, as though there was at this day the same need of
   priests to offer sacrifices; at the same time there is no necessity for
   a long refutation. For what can be more evident than that the reality
   found in Christ is compared with its types, which, being prior in time,
   have now ceased? But this will appear more fully from the context. How
   extremely ridiculous then are they who seek by this passage to
   establish and support the sacrifice of the mass! I now return to the
   words of the Apostle.

   Taken from among men, etc. This he says of the priests. It hence
   follows that it was necessary for Christ to be a real man; for as we
   are very far from God, we stand in a manner before him in the person of
   our priest, which could not be, were he not one of us. Hence, that the
   Son of God has a nature in common with us, does not diminish his
   dignity, but commends it the more to us; for he is fitted to reconcile
   us to God, because he is man. Therefore Paul, in order to prove that he
   is a Mediator, expressly calls him man; for had he been taken from
   among angels or any other beings, we could not by him be united to God,
   as he could not react down to us.

   For men, etc. This is the second clause; the priest was not privately a
   minister for himself, but was appointed for the common good of the
   people. But it is of great consequence to notice this, so that we may
   know that the salvation of us all is connected with and revolves on the
   priesthood of Christ. The benefit is expressed in these words, ordains
   those things which pertain to God. They may, indeed, be explained in
   two ways, as the verb kathistatai has a passive as well as an active
   sense. They who take it passively give this version, "is ordained in
   those things," etc.; and thus they would have the preposition in to be
   understood; I approve more of the other rendering, that the high priest
   takes care of or ordains the things pertaining to God; for the
   construction flows better, and the sense is fuller. [84] But still in
   either way, what the Apostle had in view is the same, namely, that we
   have no intercourse with God, except there be a priest; for, as we are
   unholy, what have we to do with holy things? We are in a word alienated
   from God and his service until a priest interposes and undertakes our
   cause.

   That he may offer both gifts, etc. The third thing he mentions
   respecting a priest is the offering of gifts. There are however here
   two things, gifts and sacrifices; the first word includes, as I think,
   various kinds of sacrifices, and is therefore a general term; but the
   second denotes especially the sacrifices of expiation. Still the
   meaning is, that the priest without a sacrifice is no peacemaker
   between God and man, for without a sacrifice sins are not atoned for,
   nor is the wrath of God pacified. Hence, whenever reconciliation
   between God and man takes place, this pledge must ever necessarily
   precede. Thus we see that angels are by no means capable of obtaining
   for us God's favor, because they have no sacrifice. The same must be
   thought of Prophets and Apostles. Christ alone then is he, who having
   taken away sins by his own sacrifice, can reconcile God to us.

   2. Who can, etc. This fourth point has some affinity to the first, and
   yet it may be distinguished from it; for the Apostle before taught us
   that mankind are united to God in the person of one man, as all men
   partake of the same flesh and nature; but now he refers to another
   thing, and that is, that the priest ought to be kind and gentle to
   sinners, because he partakes of their infirmities. The word which the
   Apostle uses, metriopathein is differently explained both by Greek and
   Latin interpreters. [85] I, however, think that it simply means one
   capable of sympathy. All the things which are here said of the
   Levitical priests do not indeed apply to Christ; for Christ we know was
   exempt from every contagion of sin; he therefore differed from others
   in this respect, that he had no necessity of offering a sacrifice for
   himself. But it is enough for us to know that he bare our infirmities,
   though free from sin and undefiled. Then, as to the ancient and
   Levitical priests, the Apostle says, that they were subject to human
   infirmity, and that they made atonement also for their own sins, that
   they might not only be kind to others when gone astray, but also
   condole or sympathize with them. This part ought to be so far applied
   to Christ as to include that exception which he mentioned before, that
   is, that he bare our infirmities, being yet without sin. At the same
   time, though ever free from sin, yet that experience of infirmities
   before described is alone abundantly sufficient to incline him to help
   us, to make him merciful and ready to pardon, to render him solicitous
   for us in our miseries. The sum of what is said is, that Christ is a
   brother to us, not only on account of unity as to flesh and nature, but
   also by becoming a partaker of our infirmities, so that he is led, and
   as it were formed, to show forbearance and kindness. The participle,
   dunamenos is more forcible than in our common tongue, qui possit, "who
   can," for it expresses aptness or fitness. The ignorant and those out
   of the way, or erring, he has named instead of sinners, according to
   what is done in Hebrew; for sggh, shegage, means every kind of error or
   offense, as I shall have presently an occasion to explain.

   4. And no man, etc. There is to be noticed in this verse partly a
   likeness and partly a difference. What makes an office lawful is the
   call of God; so that no one can rightly and orderly perform it without
   being made fit for it by God. Christ and Aaron had this in common, that
   God called them both; but they differed in this, that Christ succeeded
   by a new and different way and was made a perpetual priest. It is hence
   evident that Aaron's priesthood was temporary, for it was to cease. We
   see the object of the Apostle; it was to defend the right of Christ's
   priesthood; and he did this by showing that God was its author. But
   this would not have been sufficient, unless it was made evident that an
   end was to be put to the old in order that a room might be obtained for
   this. And this point he proves by directing our attention to the terms
   on which Aaron was appointed, for we are not to extend them further
   than God's decree; and he will presently make it evident how long God
   had designed this order to continue. Christ then is a lawful priest,
   for he was appointed by God's authority. What is to be said of Aaron
   and his successors? That they had as much right as was granted them by
   the Lord, but not so much as men according to their own fancy concede
   to them.

   But though this has been said with reference to what is here handled,
   yet we may hence draw a general truth, -- that no government is to be
   set up in the Church by the will of men, but that we are to wait for
   the command of God, and also that we ought to follow a certain rule in
   electing ministers, so that no one may intrude according to his own
   humor. Both these things ought to be distinctly noticed for the Apostle
   here speaks not of persons only, but also of the office itself; nay, he
   denies that the office which men appoint without God's command is
   lawful and divine. For as it appertains to God only to rule his Church,
   so he claims this right as his own, that is, to prescribe the way and
   manner of administration. I hence deem it as indisputable, that the
   Papal priesthood is spurious; for it has been framed in the workshop of
   men. God nowhere commands a sacrifice to be offered now to him for the
   expiation of sins; nowhere does he command priests to be appointed for
   such a purpose. While then the Pope ordains his priests for the purpose
   of sacrificing, the Apostle denies that they are to be counted lawful
   priests; they cannot therefore be such, except by some new privilege
   they exalt themselves above Christ, for he dared not of himself to take
   upon him this honor, but waited for the command of the Father.

   This also ought to be held good as to persons, that no individual is of
   himself to seize on this honor without public authority. I speak now of
   offices divinely appointed. At the same time it may sometimes be, that
   one, not called by God, is yet to be tolerated, however little he may
   be approved, provided the office itself be divine and approved by God;
   for many often creep in through ambition or some bad motives, whose
   call has no evidence; and yet they are not to be immediately rejected,
   especially when this cannot be done by the public decision of the
   Church. For during two hundred years before the coming of Christ the
   foulest corruptions prevailed with respect to the priesthood, yet the
   right of honor, proceeding from the calling of God, still continued as
   to the office itself; and the men themselves were tolerated, because
   the freedom of the Church was subverted. It hence appears that the
   greatest defect is the character of the office itself, that is, when
   men of themselves invent what God has never commanded. The less
   endurable then are those Romish sacrificers, who prattle of nothing but
   their own titles, that they may be counted sacred, while yet they have
   chosen themselves without any authority from God.

   5. Thou art my Son, etc. This passage may seem to be farfetched; for
   though Christ was begotten of God the Father, he was not on this
   account made also a priest. But if we consider the end for which Christ
   was manifested to the world, it will plainly appear that this character
   necessarily belongs to him. We must however bear especially in mind
   what we said on the first chapter; that the begetting of Christ, of
   which the Psalmist speaks, was a testimony which the Father rendered to
   him before men. Therefore the mutual relation between the Father and
   the Son is not what is here intended; but regard is rather had to men
   to whom he was manifested. Now, what sort of Son did God manifest to
   us? One indued with no honor, with no power? Nay, one who was to be a
   Mediator between himself and man; his begetting then included his
   priesthood. [86]

   6 As he saith in another place, or, elsewhere, etc. Here is expressed
   more clearly what the Apostle intended. This is a remarkable passage,
   and indeed the whole Psalm from which it is taken; for there is
   scarcely anywhere a clearer prophecy respecting Christ's eternal
   priesthood and his kingdom. And yet the Jews try all means to evade it,
   in order that they might obscure the glory of Christ; but they cannot
   succeed. They apply it to David, as though he was the person whom God
   bade to sit on his right hand; but this is an instance of extreme
   effrontery; for we know that it was not lawful for kings to exercise
   the priesthood. On this account, Uzziah, that is, for the sole crime of
   intermeddling with an office that did not belong to him, so provoked
   God that he was smitten with leprosy. (2 Chronicles 26:18.) It is
   therefore certain that neither David nor any one of the kings is
   intended here.

   If they raise this objection and say, that princes are sometimes called
   khnymcohenim, priests, I indeed allow it, but I deny that the word can
   be so understood here. For the comparison here made leaves nothing
   doubtful: Melchisedec was God's priest; and the Psalmist testifies that
   that king whom God has set on his right hand would be a |kohen|
   according to the order of Melchisedec. Who does not see that this is to
   be understood of the priesthood? For as it was a rare and almost a
   singular thing for the same person to be a priest and a king, at least
   an unusual thing among God's people, hence he sets forth Melchisedec as
   the type of the Messiah, as though he had said, "The royal dignity will
   not prevent him to exercise the priesthood also, for a type of such a
   thing has been already presented in Melchisedec." And indeed all among
   the Jews, possessed of any modesty, have conceded that the Messiah is
   the person here spoken of, and that his priesthood is what is
   commended.

   What is in Greek, kata taxin according to the order, is in Hebrew,
   l-dvrty ol-deberti, and means the same, and may be rendered, "according
   to the way" or manner: and hereby is confirmed what I have already
   said, that as it was an unusual thing among the people of God for the
   same person to bear the office of a king and of a priest, an ancient
   example was brought forward, by which the Messiah was represented. The
   rest the Apostle himself will more minutely set forth in what follows.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [84] The former view is what is commonly taken, "is appointed;" and it
   comports with the subject in hand -- the appointment of the priest, as
   it appears evident from what follows in verses 5 and 6. -- Ed.

   [85] "The classic or philosophic use of the word metriopathein, may be
   briefly explained. The Stoics maintained that a man should be apathes,
   i.e., not subject to passions, such as anger, fear, hope, joy, etc. The
   Platonists on the other hand averred that a wise man should
   metriopathes, moderate in his affections, and not apathes. The leading
   sense, then, or the word metriopathein, is to be moderate in our
   feelings or passions." -- Stuart. But this is not exactly its meaning
   here. Schleusner, quoting the Greek Lexicographers, shows that it was
   used in the sense of being indulgent, or of acting kindly and
   forgivingly, or forebearingly; and this seems to be its meaning in this
   passage. The sentence is rendered by Macknight, "Being able to have a
   right measure of compassion on the ignorant and erring." It may be
   rendered, "Being capable of duly feeling for the ignorant and the
   erring," or the deceived, that is by sin. See as to the ignorant
   Leviticus 5:17-19; and as to the deceived by passions or interest, see
   Leviticus 6:1-7 -- Ed.

   [86] This passage, "Thou art my Son," etc., in this place, is only
   adduced to show that Christ was the Son of God: Christ did not honor or
   magnify or exalt himself, (for so doxazo means here,) but he who said
   to him, "Thou art my son," etc., did honor or exalt him. This is the
   meaning of the sentence. The verse may thus be rendered, -- 5. So also
   Christ, himself he did not exalt to be a high priest, but he who had
   said to him, "My son art thou, I have this day begotten thee." It is
   the same as though he had said, "Christ did not make himself a high
   priest but God." And the reason why he speaks of God as having said "My
   Son," etc., seems to be this, -- to show that he who made him king (for
   the reference in Psalm 2 is to his appointment as a king) made him also
   a high priest. And this is confirmed by the next quotation from Psalm
   110; for in the first verse he is spoken of as a king, and then in
   verse 4 his priesthood is mentioned. -- Ed.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Hebrews Chapter 5:7-11

   7. Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and
   supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to
   save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;

   7. Qui in diebus carnis suae, quum et precationes et supplicationes
   obtulisset cum clamore valido et lachrymis ei qui poterat eum ex morte
   servare, et exauditus esset ex suo metu:

   8. Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which
   he suffered;

   8. Tametsi Filius erat, didicit ex iis quae passus est, obedientiam;

   9. And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation
   unto all them that obey him;

   9. Et sanctificatus omnibus qui illi obediunt, factus fuit causa
   aeternae salutis,

   10. Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.

   10. Cognominatus a Deo sacerdos secundum ordinem Melchisedec:

   11. Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing
   ye are dull of hearing.

   11. De quo nobis multus sermo et difficilis explicatu, quandoquidem
   tardi facti estis auribus.


   7. Who in the days, etc. As the form and beauty of Christ is especially
   disfigured by the cross, while men do not consider the end for which he
   humbled himself, the Apostle again teaches us what he had before
   briefly referred to, that his wonderful goodness shines forth
   especially in this respect, that he for our good subjected himself to
   our infirmities. It hence appears that our faith is thus confirmed, and
   that his honor is not diminished for having borne our evils.

   He points out two causes why it behooved Christ to suffer, the
   proximate and the ultimate. The proximate was, that he might learn
   obedience; and the ultimate, that he might be thus consecrated a priest
   for our salutation.

   The days of his flesh no doubt mean his life in this world. It hence
   follows, that the word flesh does not signify what is material, but a
   condition, according to what is said in 1 Corinthians 15:50, "Flesh and
   blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God." Rave then do those
   fanatical men who dream that Christ is now divested of his flesh,
   because it is here intimated that he has outlived the days of his flesh
   for it is one thing to be a real man, though endued with a blessed
   immortality; it is another thing to be liable to those human sorrows
   and infirmities, which Christ sustained as long as he was in this
   world, but has now laid aside, having been received into heaven.

   Let us now look into the subject. Christ who was a Son, who sought
   relief from the Father and was heard, yet suffered death, that thus he
   might be taught to obey. There is in every word a singular importance.
   By days of the flesh he intimates that the time of our miseries is
   limited, which brings no small alleviation. And doubtless hard were our
   condition, and by no means tolerable, if no end of suffering were set
   before us. The three things which follow bring us also no small
   consolations; Christ was a Son, whom his own dignity exempted from the
   common lot of men, and yet he subjected himself to that lot for our
   sakes: who now of us mortals can dare refuse the same condition?
   Another argument may be added, -- though we may be pressed down by
   adversity, yet we are not excluded from the number of God's children,
   since we see him going before us who was by nature his only Son; for
   that we are counted his children is owing only to the gift of adoption
   by which he admits us into a union with him, who alone lays claim to
   this honor in his own right.

   When he had offered up prayers, etc. The second thing he mentions
   respecting Christ is, that he, as it became him, sought a remedy that
   he might be delivered from evils; and he said this that no one might
   think that Christ had an iron heart which felt nothing; for we ought
   always to consider why a thing is said. Had Christ been touched by no
   sorrow, no consolation could arise to us from his sufferings; but when
   we hear that he also endured the bitterest agonies of mind, the
   likeness becomes then evident to us. Christ, he says, did not undergo
   death and other evils because he disregarded them or was pressed down
   by no feeling of distress, but he prayed with tears, by which he
   testified the extreme anguish of his soul. [87] Then by tears and
   strong crying the Apostle meant to express the intensity of his grief,
   for it is usual to show it by outward symptoms; nor do I doubt but that
   he refers to that prayer which the Evangelists mention, "Father, if it
   be possible, let this cup pass from me," (Matthew 26:42; Luke 22:42;)
   and also to another, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
   (Matthew 27:46.) For in the second instance mention is made by the
   evangelists of strong crying; and in the first it is not possible to
   believe that his eyes were dry, since drops of blood, through excessive
   grief, flowed from his body. It is indeed certain that he was reduced
   to great straits; and being overwhelmed with real sorrows, he earnestly
   prayed his Father to bring him help. [88]

   And what application is to be made of this? Even this, that whenever
   our evils press upon us and overwhelm us, we may call to mind the Son
   of God who labored under the same; and since he has gone before us
   there is no reason for us to faint. We are at the same time reminded
   that deliverance from evils can be found from no other but from God
   alone, and what better guidance can we have as to prayer than the
   example of Christ? He betook himself immediately to the Father. And
   thus the Apostle indicates what ought to be done by us when he says
   that he offered prayers to him who was able to deliver him from death;
   for by these words he intimates that he rightly prayed, because he fled
   to God the only Deliverer. His tears and crying recommend to us ardor
   and earnestness in prayer, for we ought not to pray to God formally,
   but with ardent desires.

   And was heard, etc. Some render the following words, "on account of his
   reverence" or fears but I wholly differ from them. In the first place
   he puts the word alone eulatheias without the possessive "his"; and
   then there is the preposition apo "from," not huper "on account of," or
   any other signifying a cause or a reason. As, then, eulatheia means for
   the most part fear or anxiety, I doubt not but that the Apostle means
   that Christ was heard from that which he feared, so that he was not
   overwhelmed by his evils or swallowed up by death. For in this contest
   the Son of God had to engage, not because he was tried by unbelief, the
   source of all our fears, but because he sustained as a man in our flesh
   the judgment of God, the terror of which could not have been overcome
   without an arduous effort. Chrysostom interprets it of Christ's
   dignity, which the Father in a manner reverenced; but this cannot be
   admitted. Others render it "piety." But the explanation I have given is
   much more suitable, and requires no long arguments in its favor. [89]

   Now he added this third particular, lest we should think that Christ's
   prayers were rejected, because he was not immediately delivered from
   his evils; for at no time was God's mercy and aid wanting to him. And
   hence we may conclude that God often hears our prayers, even when that
   is in no way made evident. For though it belongs not to us to prescribe
   to him as it were a fixed rule, nor does it become him to grant
   whatsoever requests we may conceive in our minds or express with our
   tongues, yet he shows that he grants our prayers in everything
   necessary for our salvation. So when we seem apparently to be repulsed,
   we obtain far more than if he fully granted our requests.

   But how was Christ heard from what he feared, as he underwent the death
   which he dreaded? To this I reply, that we must consider what it was
   that he feared; why was it that he dreaded death except that he saw in
   it the curse of God, and that he had to wrestle with the guilt of all
   iniquities, and also with hell itself? Hence was his trepidation and
   anxiety; for extremely terrible is God's judgment. He then obtained
   what he prayed for, when he came forth a conqueror from the pains of
   death, when he was sustained by the saving hand of the Father, when
   after a short conflict he gained a glorious victory over Satan, sin,
   and hell. Thus it often happens that we ask this or that, but not for a
   right end; yet God, not granting what we ask, at the same time finds
   out himself a way to succor us.

   8. Yet learned he obedience, etc. The proximate end of Christ's
   sufferings was thus to habituate himself to obedience; not that he was
   driven to this by force, or that he had need of being thus exercised,
   as the case is with oxen or horses when their ferocity is to be tamed,
   for he was abundantly willing to render to his Father the obedience
   which he owed. But this was done from a regard to our benefit, that he
   might exhibit to us an instance and an example of subjection even to
   death itself. It may at the same time be truly said that Christ by his
   death learned fully what it was to obey God, since he was then led in a
   special manner to deny himself; for renouncing his own will, he so far
   gave himself up to his Father that of his own accord and willingly he
   underwent that death which he greatly dreaded. The meaning then is that
   Christ was by his sufferings taught how far God ought to be submitted
   to and obeyed.

   It is then but right that we also should by his example be taught and
   prepared by various sorrows, and at length by death itself, to render
   obedience to God; nay, much more necessary is this in our case, for we
   have a disposition contumacious and ungovernable until the Lord subdues
   us by such exercises to bear his yoke. This benefit, which arises from
   the cross, ought to allay its bitterness in our hearts; for what can be
   more desirable than to be made obedient to God? But this cannot be
   effected but by the cross, for in prosperity we exult as with loose
   reins; nay, in most cases, when the yoke is shaken off, the wantonness
   of the flesh breaks forth into excesses. But when restraint is put on
   our will, when we seek to please God, in this act only does our
   obedience show itself; nay, it is an illustrious proof of perfect
   obedience when we choose the death to which God may call us, though we
   dread it, rather than the life which we naturally desire.

   9. And being made perfect, or sanctified, etc. Here is the ultimate or
   the remoter end, as they call it, why it was necessary for Christ to
   suffer: it was that he might thus become initiated into his priesthood,
   as though the Apostle had said that the enduring of the cross and death
   were to Christ a solemn kind of consecration, by which he intimates
   that all his sufferings had a regard to our salvation. It hence
   follows, that they are so far from being prejudicial to his dignity
   that they are on the contrary his glory; for if salvation be highly
   esteemed by us, how honorably ought we to think of its cause or author?
   For he speaks not here of Christ only as an example, but he ascends
   higher, even that he by his obedience has blotted out our
   transgressions. He became then the cause of salvation, because he
   obtained righteousness for us before God, having removed the
   disobedience of Adam by an act of an opposite kind, even obedience.

   Sanctified suits the passage better than "made perfect." The Greek word
   teleiotheis means both; but as he speaks here of the priesthood, he
   fitly and suitably mentions sanctification. And so Christ himself
   speaks in another place, "For their sakes I sanctify myself." (John
   17:19.) It hence appears that this is to be properly applied to his
   human nature, in which he performed the office of a priest, and in
   which he also suffered. [90]

   To all them that obey him. If then we desire that Christ's obedience
   should be profitable to us, we must imitate him; for the Apostle means
   that its benefit shall come to none but to those who obey. But by
   saying this he recommends faith to us; for he becomes not ours, nor his
   blessings, except as far as we receive them and him by faith. He seems
   at the same time to have adopted a universal term, all, for this end,
   that he might show that no one is precluded from salvation who is but
   teachable and becomes obedient to the Gospel of Christ.

   10. Called of God, or named by God, etc. As it was necessary that he
   should pursue more at large the comparison between Christ and
   Melchisedec, on which he had briefly touched, and that the mind of the
   Jews should be stirred up to greater attention, he so passes to a
   digression that he still retails his argument.

   11. He therefore makes a preface by saying that he had many things to
   say, but that they were to prepare themselves lest these things should
   be said in vain. He reminds them that they were hard or difficult
   things; not indeed to repel them, but to stimulate them to greater
   attention. For as things that are easily understood render us slothful,
   so we become more keenly bent on hearing when anything obscure is set
   before us. He however states that the cause of the difficulty was not
   in the subject but in themselves. And indeed the Lord speaks to us so
   clearly and without any obscurity, that his word is rightly called our
   light; but its brightness become dim through our darkness. [91] This
   happens partly through our dullness and partly through our sloth; for
   though we are very dull to understand the truth of God, yet there is to
   be added to this vice the depravity of our affections, for we apply our
   minds to vanity rather than to God's truth. We are also continually
   impeded either by our perverseness, or by the cares of the world, or by
   the lusts of our flesh. Of whom does not refer to Christ, but to
   Melchisedec; yet he is not referred to as a private man, but as the
   type of Christ, and in a manner personating him.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [87] "Prayers and supplications" are nearly of the same meaning; the
   first word means a request, a petition, strictly a prayer; and the last
   an earnest or humble entreaty. The last word is found only here in the
   New Testament; once in the Septuagint, in Job 41:3; and once in the
   Apocrypha, 2 Macc. 9:18. Hesychius, as quoted by Schleusner, gives
   paraklesis, request, entreaty, as its meaning: it comes from hiketes, a
   suppliant. The word hiketeria, which is here used means first an olive
   branch wrapped in wool, carried by suppliants as a symbol of entreaty
   and hence used often in the sense of entreaty and supplication. -- Ed.

   [88] Stuart on this passage very justly observes, "If Jesus died as a
   common virtuous suffered, and merely as a martyr to the truth, without
   any vicarious suffering laid upon him, then is his death a most
   unaccountable event in respect to the manner of his behavior while
   suffering it; and it must be admitted that multitudes of humble,
   sinful, meek and very imperfect disciples of Christianity have
   surpassed their Master in the fortitude, and collected firmness and
   calm complacency which are requisite to triumph over the pangs of a
   dying hour. But who can well believe this? Or who can regard Jesus as a
   simple sufferer in the ordinary way upon the cross, and explain the
   mysteries of his dreadful horror before and during the hours of
   crucifixion?" What is referred to is certainly inexplicable, except we
   admit what is often and in various ways plainly taught us in God's
   word, that Christ died for our sins. -- Ed.

   [89] The idea of the effect of hearing, that is deliverance, is no
   doubt included in eisakoustheis, "having been heard," as it is
   sometimes in the corresponding word in Hebrew; so that Stuart is
   justified in the rendering it delivered, -- "and being delivered from
   that which he feared." It is rendered the same by Macknight, "and being
   delivered from fear." Both Beza and Grotius render the last word fear;
   and this is its meaning as used in the Septuagint. -- Ed

   [90] The word teleiotheis, means here the same as in chapter 2:10.
   Stuart gives it the same meaning here as in the former passage, "Then
   when exalted to glory," etc.; but this does not comport with what
   follows, for it was not his exaltation to glory that qualified him to
   be "the author (or the causer or effecter) of eternal salvation," but
   his perfect or complete work in suffering, by his having completely and
   perfectly performed the work of atonement. And that his suffering in
   obedience to God's will, even his vicarious suffering, is meant here,
   appears also from the following reference to his being a priest after
   the order of Melchisedec. The meaning then seems to be, that Christ
   having fully completed his work as a priest, and that by suffering,
   became thereby the author of eternal salvation. -- Ed

   [91] The literal rendering is "Of whom we have many a word to say, and
   hardly explainable," or hard to be explained. This hardness of
   explanation was however owing to their dullness of comprehension, as
   Calvin justly observes. "Hard to be uttered" of our version is not
   correct; nor is "hard to be understood" of Doddridge right. Macknight
   gives the true meaning, "difficult to be explained." Beza's is the
   same. The reason is added "Since dull (or sluggish) ye are become in
   ears," or in hearings. To be dull in ears is to be inattentive; but to
   be sluggish in ears seems to mean stupidity, slowness of comprehension.
   The latter is evidently meant here; that is, a tardiness or slowness in
   understanding. To hear with the ear is in the language of Scripture to
   understand. (Matthew 11:15; John 8:43; 1 Corinthians 14:2.) Hence to be
   sluggish in ears is to be slow or tardy in understanding the Word of
   God. Stuart therefore gives the sense, "Since ye are dull of
   apprehension." -- Ed.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Hebrews Chapter 5:12-14

   12. For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that
   one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of
   God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

   12. Nam quum debeatis esse doctores pro ratione temporis, rursum opus
   habetis, ut quis vos doceat elementa initii sermonum Dei; et facti
   estis ii quibus lacte opus sit et non solido cibo.

   13. For every one that useth milk is unskillful in the word of
   righteousness: for he is a babe.

   13. Nam quisquis lactis est particeps, imperitus est sermonis justitae,
   infans est enim.

   14. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those
   who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good
   and evil.

   14. Perfectorum vero est solidus cibus, qui propter assuetudinem sensus
   habent exercitatos ad discretionem boni et mali.


   12. For when for the time ye ought, etc. This reproof contains in it
   very sharp goads to rouse the Jews from their sloth. He says that it
   was unreasonable and disgraceful that they should still continue in the
   elements, in the first rudiments of knowledge, while they ought to have
   been teachers. "You ought," he says, "to have been the instructors of
   others, but ye are not even disciples capable of comprehending an
   ordinary truth; for ye do not as yet understand the first rudiments of
   Christianity." That he might, however, make them the more ashamed of
   themselves, he mentions the "first principles," or the elements of the
   beginning of God's words, as though he had said, You do not know the
   alphabet. We must, indeed, learn through life; for he alone is truly
   wise who owns that he is very far from perfect knowledge; but we ought
   still to profit so much by learning as not to continue always in the
   first principles. Nor are we to act in such a way, that what is said by
   Isaiah should be verified in us,

   "There shall be to you a precept on precept, a precept on precept,"
   etc. (Isaiah 28:10;)

   but we ought, on the contrary, so to exert ourselves, that our progress
   may correspond to the time allowed us.

   Doubtless, not only years, but days also, must be accounted for; so
   that every one ought to strive to make progress; but few there are who
   summon themselves to an account as to past time, or who show any
   concern for the future. We are, therefore, justly punished for our
   sloth, for most of us remain in elements fitted for children. We are
   further reminded, that it is the duty of every one to impart the
   knowledge he has to his brethren; so that no one is to retain what he
   knows to himself, but to communicate it to the edification of others.
   [92]

   Such as have need of milk. Paul uses the same metaphor in 1 Corinthians
   3:2; and he reproaches the Corinthians with the same fault with what is
   mentioned here, at least with one that is very similar; for he says,
   that they were carnal and could not bear solid food. Milk then means an
   elementary doctrine suitable to the ignorant. Peter takes the word in
   another sense, when he bids us to desire the milk that is without
   deceit, (1 Peter 2:2;) for there is a twofold childhood, that is, as to
   wickedness, and as to understanding; and so Paul tells us, "Be not
   children in understanding, but in wickedness." (1 Corinthians 14:20.)
   They then who are so tender that they cannot receive the higher
   doctrine, are by way of reproach called children.

   For the right application of doctrines is to join us together, so that
   we may grow to a perfect manhood, to the measure of full age, and that
   we should not be like children, tossed here and there, and carried
   about by every wind of doctrine. (Ephesians 4:14.) We must indeed show
   some indulgence to those who have not yet known much of Christ, if they
   are not capable as yet of receiving solid food, but he who has had time
   to grow, if he till continues a child, is not entitled to any excuse.
   We indeed see that Isaiah brands the reprobate with this mark, that
   they were like children newly weaned from the breasts. (Isaiah 28:9.)
   The doctrine of Christ does indeed minister milk to babes as well as
   strong meat to adults; but as the babe is nourished by the milk of its
   nurse, not that it may ever depend on the breast, but that it may by
   degrees grow and take stronger food; so also at first we must suck milk
   from Scripture, so that we may afterwards feed on its bread. The
   Apostle yet so distinguishes between milk and strong food, that he
   still understands sound doctrine by both, but the ignorant begin with
   the one, and they who are welltaught are strengthened by the other.

   13. For every one who uses milk, or, who partakes of milk, etc. He
   means those who from tenderness or weakness as yet refuse solid
   doctrine; for otherwise he who is grown up is not averse to milk. But
   he reproves here an infancy in understanding, such as constrains God
   even to prattle with us. He then says, that babes are not fit to
   receive the word of righteousness, understanding by righteousness the
   perfection of which he will presently speak. [93] For the Apostle does
   not here, as I think, refer to the question, how we are justified
   before God, but takes the word in a simpler sense, as denoting that
   completeness of knowledge which leads to perfection, which office Paul
   ascribes to the Gospel in his epistle to the Colossians, 1:28; as
   though he had said, that those who indulge themselves in their
   ignorance preclude themselves from a real knowledge of Christ, and that
   the doctrine of the Gospel is unfruitful in them, because they never
   reach the goal, nor come even near it.

   14. Of full age, or perfect, etc. He calls those perfect who are
   adults; he mentions them in opposition to babes, as it is done in 1
   Corinthians 2:6; 14:20; Ephesians 4:13. For the middle and manly age is
   the full age of human life; but he calls those by a figure men in
   Christ; who are spiritual. And such he would have all Christians to be,
   such as have attained by continual practice a habit to discern between
   good and evil. For he cannot have been otherwise taught aright in the
   truth, except we are fortified by his protection against all the
   falsehoods and delusions of Satan; for on this account it is called the
   sword of the Spirit. And Paul points out this benefit conferred by
   sound doctrine when he says, "That we may not be carried about by every
   wind of doctrine." (Ephesians 4:14.) And truly what sort of faith is
   that which doubts, being suspended between truth and falsehood? Is it
   not in danger of coming to nothing every moment?

   But not satisfied to mention in one word the mind, he mentions all the
   senses, in order to show that we are ever to strive until we be in
   every way furnished by God's word, and be so armed for battle, that
   Satan may by no means steal upon us with his fallacies. [94]

   It hence appears what sort of Christianity there is under the Papacy,
   where not only the grossest ignorance is commended under the name of
   simplicity, but where the people are also most rigidly prevented from
   seeking real knowledge; nay, it is easy to judge by what spirit they
   are influenced, who hardly allow that to be touched which the Apostle
   commands us to handle continually, who imagine that a laudable neglect
   which the Apostle here so severely reproves, who take away the word of
   God, the only rule of discerning rightly, which discerning he declares
   to be necessary for all Christians! But among those who are freed from
   this diabolical prohibition and enjoy the liberty of learning, there is
   yet often no less indifference both as to hearing and reading. When
   thus we exercise not our powers, we are stupidly ignorant and void of
   all discernment.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [92] Our version of this clause is very literal and compact, and
   sufficiently plain, "For when for the time ye ought to be teachers."
   Its elegance and conciseness are not retained either by Macknight or by
   Stuart. What is implied in the words, "for the time," is sufficiently
   evident without being expressed. As to the following sentence, "Ye have
   need," etc., some difficulty has been found in the construction. I
   render it as follows, "Ye have again need of this -- that some one
   should teach you the first principles of the oracles of God." I take
   tina to be accusative before "teach." The word "oracles" is used by
   Peter in the same sense, as designating the doctrines of the Gospels, 1
   Peter 4:11. -- Ed

   [93] This is the view of Grotius and others, but some regard "the word
   of righteousness" as a paraphrasis for the Gospel; and Stuart renders
   it, "the word of salvation." Dr. Owen says that the Gospel is called
   "the word of righteousness," because it reveals the righteousness of
   God, Romans 1:17. It may also be so called, because it reveals and
   contains the truth, the full truth, partly revealed previously. The
   word "righteousness" has this meaning both in the Old and New
   Testaments. See Psalm 3:4; Isaiah 45:19, 23; and Matthew 21:23, 2
   Corinthians 11:15. "The ministers of righteousness" in the last text
   are opposed to false ministers. -- Ed.

   [94] The word for "senses" means literally the organs of the senses,
   such as the eyes, the ears, etc., but here as signifying the senses
   themselves, as seeing, hearing, tasting, and smelling, by means of
   which those grown up are enabled by long experience to know what is
   good and wholesome for them, and also what is bad and injurious. By
   this comparison, which is here carried out fully, he intimates that the
   grown up in Christian truth attain by the habit of exercising all the
   senses or faculties of their minds, a capacity to distinguish between
   good and evil, between truth and error, in religion. The doctrine of
   reserve cannot be drawn from this passage; for though the Apostle says
   that they were not capable, owing to their sloth, or taking strong
   food, he yet lays it before them. -- Ed.
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

   CHAPTER 6
     __________________________________________________________________

   Hebrews Chapter 6:1-2

   1. Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us
   go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance
   from dead works, and of faith toward God,

   1. Quare omisso sermone principii Christi, ad perfectionem feramur, non
   jacentes rursum fundamentum poenitentiae ab operibus mortuis et fidei
   in Deum.

   2. Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of
   resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

   2. (Baptismatum doctrinae et impositionis manuum) et resurrectionis
   mortuorum et judicii aeterni.


   1. Therefore, leaving, etc. To his reproof he joins this exhortation,
   -- that leaving first principles they were to proceed forward to the
   goal. For by the word of beginning he understands the first rudiments,
   taught to the ignorant when received into the Church. Now, he bids them
   to leave these rudiments, not that the faithful are ever to forget
   them, but that they are not to remain in them; and this idea appears
   more clear from what follows, the comparison of a foundation; for in
   building a house we must never leave the foundation; and yet to be
   always engaged in laying it, would be ridiculous. For as the foundation
   is laid for the sake of what is built on it, he who is occupied in
   laying it and proceeds not to the superstruction, wearies himself with
   foolish and useless labor. In short, as the builder must begin with the
   foundation, so must he go on with his work that the house may be built.
   Similar is the case as to Christianity; we have the first principles as
   the foundation, but the higher doctrine ought immediately to follow
   which is to complete the building. They then act most unreasonably who
   remain in the first elements, for they propose to themselves no end, as
   though a builder spent all his labor on the foundation, and neglected
   to build up the house. So then he would have our faith to be at first
   so founded as afterwards to rise upwards, until by daily progress it be
   at length completed. [95]

   Of repentance from dead works, etc. He here refers to a catechism
   commonly used. It is hence a probable conjecture that this Epistle was
   written, not immediately after the promulgation of the Gospel, but when
   they had some kind of polity established in the Churches; such as this,
   that the catechumen made a confession of his faith before he was
   admitted to baptism. And there were certain primary points on which the
   pastor questioned the catechumen, as it appears from the various
   testimonies of the fathers; there was an examination had especially on
   the creed called the Apostles' Creed. This was the first entrance, as
   it were, into the church to those who were adults and enlisted under
   Christ, as they were before alienated from faith in him. This custom
   the Apostle mentions, because there was a short time fixed for
   catechumens, during which they were taught the doctrine of religion, as
   a master instructs his children in the alphabet, in order that he may
   afterwards advance them to higher things.

   But let us examine what he says. He mentions repentance and faith,
   which include the fullness of the Gospel; for what else does Christ
   command his Apostles to preach, but repentance and faith? When,
   therefore, Paul wished to show that he had faithfully performed his
   duty, he alleged his care and assiduity in teaching these two things.
   It seems then (as it may be said) unreasonable that the Apostle should
   bid repentance and faith to be omitted, when we ought to make progress
   in both through the whole course of our life. But when he adds, from
   dead works, he intimates that he speaks of first repentance; for though
   every sin is a dead work, either as it leads to death, or as it
   proceeds from the spiritual death of the soul; yet the faithful,
   already born again of the Spirit of God, cannot be said properly to
   repent from dead works. Regeneration is not indeed made perfect in
   them; but because of the seed of new life which is in them, however
   small it may be, this at least may be said of them that they cannot be
   deemed dead before God. The Apostle then does not include in general
   the whole of repentance, the practice of which ought to continue to the
   end; but he refers only to the beginning of repentance, when they who
   were lately and for the first time consecrated to the faith, commenced
   a new life. So also the word, faith, means that brief summary of godly
   doctrine, commonly called the Articles of Faith.

   To these are added, the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment.
   These are some of the highest mysteries of celestial wisdom; nay, the
   very end of all religion, which we ought to bear in mind through the
   whole course of our life. But as the very same truth is taught in one
   way to the ignorant, and in another way to those who have made some
   proficiency, the Apostle seems here to refer to the common mode of
   questioning, "Dost thou believe the resurrection of the dead? Dost thou
   believe eternal life?" These things were suitable to children, and that
   only once; therefore to turn back to them again was nothing else but to
   retrograde.

   2. Of the doctrine of baptisms, etc. Some read them separately, "of
   baptisms and of doctrine;" but I prefer to connect them, though I
   explain them differently from others; for I regard the words as being
   in apposition, as grammarians say, according to this form, "Not laying
   again the foundation of repentance, of faith in God, of the
   resurrection of the dead, which is the doctrine of baptisms and of the
   laying on of hands." If therefore these two clauses, the doctrine of
   baptisms and of the laying on of hands, be included in a parenthesis,
   the passage would run better; for except you read them as in
   apposition, there would be the absurdity of a repetition. For what is
   the doctrine of baptism but what he mentions here, faith in God,
   repentance, judgment, and the like?

   Chrysostom thinks that he uses "baptisms" in the plural number, because
   they who returned to first principles, in a measure abrogated their
   first baptism: but I cannot agree with him, for the doctrine had no
   reference to many baptisms, but by baptisms are meant the solemn rites,
   or the stated days of baptizing.

   With baptism he connects the laying on of hands; for as there were two
   sorts of catechumens, so there were two rites. There were heathens who
   came not to baptism until they made a profession of their faith. Then
   as to these, these, the catechizing was wont to precede baptism. [96]
   But the children of the faithful, as they were adopted from the womb,
   and belonged to the body of the Church by right of the promise, were
   baptized in infancy; but after the time of infancy, they having been
   instructed in the faith, presented themselves as catechumens, which as
   to them took place after baptism; but another symbol was then added,
   the laying on of hands.

   This one passage abundantly testifies that this rite had its beginning
   from the Apostles, which afterwards, however, was turned into
   superstition, as the world almost always degenerates into corruptions,
   even with regard to the best institutions. They have indeed contrived
   the fiction, that it is a sacrament by which the spirit of regeneration
   is conferred, a dogma by which they have mutilated baptism for what was
   peculiar to it, they transferred to the imposition of hands. Let us
   then know, that it was instituted by its first founders that it might
   be an appointed rite for prayer, as Augustine calls it. The profession
   of faith which youth made, after having passed the time of childhood,
   they indeed intended to confirm by this symbol, but they thought of
   nothing less than to destroy the efficacy of baptism. Wherefore the
   pure institution at this day ought to be retained, but the superstition
   ought to be removed. And this passage tends to confirm pedobaptism; for
   why should the same doctrine be called as to some baptism, but as to
   others the imposition of hands, except that the latter after having
   received baptism were taught in the faith, so that nothing remained for
   them but the laying on of hands?
     __________________________________________________________________

   [95] See [22]Appendix S.

   [96] Calvin has followed some of the fathers in his exposition of these
   two clauses, who refer to a state of things which did not exist in the
   Church for a considerable time after the Apostolic age. What is here
   said comports with the time of the Apostles, and with that only more
   particularly. "Baptisms," being in the plural number, have been a
   knotty point to many; but there is an especial reason for this in an
   Epistle to the Hebrews; some of them had no doubt been baptized by
   John, such were afterwards baptized only in the name of Christ, Acts
   19:5, but those who not so baptized, were doubtless baptized in the
   name of Trinity. "The laying on of hands" on the baptized was an
   Apostolic practice, by which the miraculous gift of tongues was
   bestowed. Acts 8:15-17; 19:6. To understand the different things
   mentioned in the first two verses, we must consider the particulars
   stated in the 4^th and the 5^th verses; they are explanatory of each
   other. The penitent were "the enlightened;" "faith towards God" was
   "the heavenly gift;" the baptized, who had hands laid on them, were
   those who were "made partakers of the Holy Ghost;" the prospect and
   promise of a "resurrection," was "the good word of God;" and "eternal
   judgment," when believed made them to feel "the powers (or the powerful
   influences) of the word to come." Thus the two passages illustrate one
   another. Such is the meaning which Schleusner gives dunameis in this
   passage, which Scott and Bloomfield have adopted. -- Ed
     __________________________________________________________________

   Hebrews Chapter 6:3-6

   3. And this will we do, if God permit.

   3. Et hoc faciemus, siquidem permiserit Deus.

   4. For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have
   tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

   4. Nam impossibile est eos qui semel fuerunt illuminati, gustaveruntque
   donum coeleste, et participes facti fuerunt Spiritus sancti,

   5. And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to
   come,

   5. Et gustaverunt bonum Dei verbum, virtutesque futuri seculi,

   6. If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing
   they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an
   open shame.

   6. Prolapsi sunt, iterum renovari ad poenitentiam, rursum crucifigentes
   sibi ipsis Filium Dei et ostentui habentes.


   3. This will we do, etc. A dreadful denunciation follows; but the
   Apostle thus fulminated, lest the Jews should indulge their own
   supineness, and trifle with the favor of God; as though he had said,
   "There ought not in this case it to be any delay; for there will not
   always be the opportunity for making progress; it is not in man's power
   to bound at once, whenever he pleases, from the starting point to the
   goal; but progress in our course is the special gift of God."

   4. For it is impossible, etc. This passage has given occasion to many
   to repudiate this Epistle, especially as the Novatians armed themselves
   with it to deny pardon to the fallen. Hence those of the Western
   Church, in particular, refused the authority of this Epistle, because
   the sect of Novatus annoyed them; and they were not sufficiently
   conversant in the truth so as to be equal to refute it by argument. But
   when the design of the Apostle is understood, it then appears evident
   that there is nothing here which countenances so delirious an error.
   Some who hold sacred the authority of the Epistle, while they attempt
   to dissipate this absurdity, yet do nothing but evade it. For some take
   "impossible" in the sense of rare or difficult, which is wholly
   different from its meaning. Many confine it to that repentance by which
   the catechumens in the ancient Church were wont to be prepared for
   baptism, as though indeed the Apostles prescribed fasting, or such
   things to the baptized. And then what great thing would the Apostle
   have said, by denying that repentance, the appendage of baptism, could
   be repeated? He threatens with the severest vengeance of God all those
   who would cast away the grace which had been once received; what weight
   would the sentence have had to shake the secure and the wavering with
   terror, if he only reminded them that there was no longer room for
   their first repentance? For this would extend to every kind of offense.
   What then is to be said? Since the Lord gives the hope of mercy to all
   without exception, it is wholly unreasonable that any one for any cause
   whatever should be precluded.

   The knot of the question is in the word, fall away. Whosoever then
   understands its meaning, can easily extricate himself from every
   difficulty. But it must be noticed, that there is a twofold falling
   away, one particular, and the other general. He who has in anything, or
   in any ways offended, has fallen away from his state as a Christian;
   therefore all sins are so many fallings. But the Apostle speaks not
   here of theft, or perjury, or murder, or drunkenness, or adultery; but
   he refers to a total defection or falling away from the Gospel, when a
   sinner offends not God in some one thing, but entirely renounces his
   grace.

   And that this may be better understood, let us suppose a contrast
   between the gifts of God, which he has mentioned, and this falling
   away. For he falls away who forsakes the word of God, who extinguishes
   its light, who deprives himself of the taste of the heavens or gift,
   who relinquishes the participation of the Spirit. Now this is wholly to
   renounce God. We now see whom he excluded from the hope of pardon, even
   the apostates who alienated themselves from the Gospel of Christ, which
   they had previously embraced, and from the grace of God; and this
   happens to no one but to him who sins against the Holy Spirit. For he
   who violates the second table of the Law, or transgresses the first
   through ignorance, is not guilty of this defection; nor does God surely
   deprive any of his grace in such a way as to leave them none remaining
   except the reprobate.

   If any one asks why the Apostle makes mention here of such apostasy
   while he is addressing believers, who were far off from a perfidy so
   heinous; to this I answer, that the danger was pointed out by him in
   time, that they might be on their guard. And this ought to be observed;
   for when we turn aside from the right way, we not only excuse to others
   our vices, but we also impose on ourselves. Satan stealthily creeps on
   us, and by degrees allures us by clandestine arts, so that when we go
   astray we know not that we are going astray. Thus gradually we slide,
   until at length we rush headlong into ruin. We may observe this daily
   in many. Therefore the Apostle does not without reason forewarn all the
   disciples of Christ to beware in time; for a continued torpor commonly
   ends in lethargy, which is followed by alienation of mind.

   But we must notice in passing the names by which he signalizes the
   knowledge of the Gospel. He calls it illumination; it hence follows
   that men are blind, until Christ, the light of the world, enlightens
   them. He calls it a tasting of the heavenly gift; intimating that the
   things which Christ confers on us are above nature and the world, and
   that they are yet tasted by faith. He calls it the participation of the
   Spirit; for he it is who distributes to every one, as he wills, all the
   light and knowledge which he can have; for without him no one can say
   that Jesus is the Lord, (1 Corinthians 12:3;) he opens for us the eyes
   of our minds, and reveals to us the secret things of God. He calls it a
   tasting of the good word of God; by which he means, that the will of
   God is therein revealed, not in any sort of way, but in such a way as
   sweetly to delight us; in short, by this title is pointed out the
   difference between the Law and the Gospel; for that has nothing but
   severity and condemnation, but this is a sweet testimony of God's love
   and fatherly kindness towards us. And lastly, he calls it a tasting of
   the powers of the world to come; by which he intimates, that we are
   admitted by faith as it were into the kingdom of heaven, so that we see
   in spirit that blessed immortality which is hid from our senses. [97]

   Let us then know, that the Gospel cannot be otherwise rightly known
   than by the illumination of the Spirit, and that being thus drawn away
   from the world, we are raised up to heaven, and that knowing the
   goodness of God we rely on his word.

   But here arises a new question, how can it be that he who has once made
   such a progress should afterwards fall away? For God, it may be said,
   calls none effectually but the elect, and Paul testifies that they are
   really his sons who are led by his Spirit, (Romans 8:14;) and he
   teaches us, that it is a sure pledge of adoption when Christ makes us
   partakers of his Spirit. The elect are also beyond the danger of
   finally falling away; for the Father who gave them to be preserved by
   Christ his Son is greater than all, and Christ promises to watch over
   them all so that none may perish. To all this I answer, That God indeed
   favors none but the elect alone with the Spirit of regeneration, and
   that by this they are distinguished from the reprobate; for they are
   renewed after his image and receive the earnest of the Spirit in hope
   of the future inheritance, and by the same Spirit the Gospel is sealed
   in their hearts. But I cannot admit that all this is any reason why he
   should not grant the reprobate also some taste of his grace, why he
   should not irradiate their minds with some sparks of his light, why he
   should not give them some perception of his goodness, and in some sort
   engrave his word on their hearts. Otherwise, where would be the
   temporal faith mentioned by Mark 4:17? There is therefore some
   knowledge even in the reprobate, which afterwards vanishes away, either
   because it did not strike roots sufficiently deep, or because it
   withers, being choked up. [98]

   And by this bridle the Lord keeps us in fear and humility; and we
   certainly see how prone human nature is otherwise to security and
   foolish confidence. At the same time our solicitude ought to be such as
   not to disturb the peace of conscience. For the Lord strengthens faith
   in us, while he subdues our flesh: and hence he would have faith to
   remain and rest tranquilly as in a safe haven; but he exercises the
   flesh with various conflicts, that it may not grow wanton through
   idleness.

   6. To renew them again into repentance, etc. Though this seems hard,
   yet there is no reason to charge God with cruelty when any one suffers
   only the punishment of his own defection; nor is this inconsistent with
   other parts of Scripture, where God's mercy is offered to sinners as
   soon as they sigh for it, (Ezekiel 18:27;) for repentance is required,
   which he never truly feels who has once wholly fallen away from the
   Gospel; for such are deprived, as they deserve, of God's Spirit and
   given up to a reprobate mind, so that being the slaves of the devil
   they rush headlong into destruction. Thus it happens that they cease
   not to add sin to sin, until being wholly hardened they despise God, or
   like men in despair, express madly their hatred to him. The end of all
   apostates is, that they are either smitten with stupor, and fear
   nothing, or curse God their judge, because they cannot escape from him.
   [99]

   In short, the Apostle warns us, that repentance is not at the will of
   man, but that it is given by God to those only who have not wholly
   fallen away from the faith. It is a warning very necessary to us, lest
   by often delaying until tomorrow, we should alienate ourselves more and
   more from God. The ungodly indeed deceive themselves by such sayings as
   this, -- that it will be sufficient for them to repent of their wicked
   life at their last breath. But when they come to die, the dire torments
   of conscience which they suffer, prove to them that the conversion of
   man is not an ordinary work. As then the Lord promises pardon to none
   but to those who repent of their iniquity, it is no wonder that they
   perish who either through despair or contempt, rush on in their
   obstinacy into destruction. But when any one rises up again after
   falling, we may hence conclude that he had not been guilty of
   defection, however grievously he may have sinned.

   Crucifying again, etc. He also adds this to defend God's severity
   against the calumnies of men; for it would be wholly unbecoming, that
   God by pardoning apostates should expose his own Son to contempt. They
   are then wholly unworthy to obtain mercy. But the reason why he says,
   that Christ would thus be crucified again, is, because we die with him
   for the very purpose of living afterwards a new life; when therefore
   any return as it were unto death, they have need of another sacrifice,
   as we shall find in the tenth chapter. Crucifying for themselves means
   as far as in them lies. For this would be the case, and Christ would be
   slandered as it were triumphantly, were it allowed men to return to him
   after having fallen away and forsaken him.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [97] See [23]Appendix T.

   [98] See [24]Appendix U.

   [99] Some render the verb "renew" actively, in this way, -- "For it is
   impossible as to those who have been once enlightened, and have tasted
   of the heavenly gift, and have been made partakers of holy spirit, and
   have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come,
   and have fallen away, to renew them again unto repentance, since they
   crucify again as to themselves to Son of God, and expose him to open
   shame." This is more consistent with the foregoing, for the Apostle
   speaks of teaching. It is as though he had said "It is impossible for
   us as teachers;" as they had no commission. To "renew" may be rendered
   to "restore." It is only found here, but is used by the Sept. for a
   verb which means renewing in the sense of restoring. See Psalm 103:5;
   104:30; Lamentations 5:21. Josephus applies it to the renovation or
   restoration of the temple. The "crucifying" was what they did by
   falling away; for they thereby professed that he deserved to be
   crucified as an imposter, and thus counted his blood, as it is said in
   chapter 10:29, "unholy," as the blood of a malefactor; and they thus
   also exhibited him as an object of public contempt. -- Ed.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Hebrews 6:7-10

   7. For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it,
   and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth
   blessing from God:

   7. Siquidem terra quae imbrem saepius in se venientem imbibit, et
   progignit herbam commodam iis opera quorum et colitur, recipit
   benedictionem a Deo:

   8. But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh
   unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.

   8. At quae produxerit spinas et tribulos, reproba est, et obnoxia
   maledictioni, cujus exitus tendit ad combustionem.

   9. But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that
   accompany salvation, though we thus speak.

   9. Caeterum persuasimus nobis de vobis, dilecti, quae sint iis meliora,
   et cum salute conjunta, tametsi sic loquamur.

   10. For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labor of love,
   which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the
   saints, and do minister.

   10. Non enim injustus est Deus, ut obliviscatur operis vestri et
   laboris in charitatem impensi, quem ostendistis erga nomen ejus, dum
   ministrastis sanctis, et ministratis.


   7. For the earth, etc. This is a similitude most appropriate to excite
   a desire to make progress in due time, for as the earth cannot bring
   forth a good crop in harvest except it causes the seed as soon as it is
   sown to germinate, so if we desire to bring forth good fruit, as soon
   as the Lord sows his word, it ought to strike roots in us without
   delay; for it cannot be expected to fructify, if it be either choked or
   perish. But as the similitude is very suitable, so it must be wisely
   applied to the design of the Apostle.

   The earth, he says, which by sucking in the rain immediately produces a
   blade suitable to the seed sown, at length by God's blessing produces a
   ripe crop; so they who receive the seed of the Gospel into their hearts
   and bring forth genuine shoots, will always make progress until they
   produce ripe fruit. On the contrary, the earth, which after culture and
   irrigation brings, forth nothing but thorns, affords no hope of a
   harvest; nay, the more that grows which is its natural produce, the
   more hopeless is the case. Hence the only remedy the husbandman has is
   to burn up the noxious and useless weeds. So they who destroy the seed
   of the Gospel either by their indifference or by corrupt affections, so
   as to manifest no sign of good progress in their life, clearly show
   themselves to be reprobates, from whom no harvest can be expected.

   The Apostle then not only speaks here of the fruit of the Gospel, but
   also exhorts us promptly and gladly to embrace it, and he further tells
   us, that the blade appears presently after the seed is sown, and that
   growing follows the daily irrigations. Some render thotanen eutheton "a
   seasonable shoot," others, "a shoot meet;" either meaning suits the
   place; the first refers to time, the second to quality. [100] The
   allegorical meanings with which interpreters have here amused
   themselves, I pass by, as they are quite foreign to the object of the
   writer.

   9. But we are persuaded, etc. As the preceding sentences were like
   thunderbolts, by which readers might have been struck dead, it was
   needful to mitigate this severity. He therefore says now, that he did
   not speak in this strain, as though he entertained such an opinion of
   them. And doubtless whosoever wishes to do good by teaching, ought so
   to treat his disciples as ever to add encouragement to them rather than
   to diminish it, for there is nothing that can alienate us more from
   attending to the truth than to see that we are deemed to be past hope.
   The Apostle then testifies that he thus warned the Jews, because he had
   a good hope of them, and was anxious to lead them to salvation. We
   hence conclude, that not only the reprobate ought to be reproved
   severely and with sharp earnestness, but also the elect themselves,
   even those whom we deem to be the children of God.

   10. For God is not unrighteous, etc. These words signify as much as
   though he had said, that from good beginnings he hoped for a good end.

   But here a difficulty arises, because he seems to say that God is bound
   by the services of men: "I am persuaded," he says, "as to your
   salvation, because God cannot forget your works." He seems thus to
   build salvation on works, and to make God a debtor to them. And the
   sophists, who oppose the merits of works to the grace of God, make much
   of this sentence, "God is not unrighteous." For they hence conclude
   that it would be unjust for him not to render for works the reward of
   eternal salvation. To this I briefly reply that the Apostle does not
   here speak avowedly of the cause of our salvation, and that therefore
   no opinion can be formed from this passage as to the merits of works,
   nor can it be hence determined what is due to works. The Scripture
   shows everywhere that there is no other fountain of salvation but the
   gratuitous mercy of God: and that God everywhere promises reward to
   works, this depends on that gratuitous promise, by which he adopts us
   as his children, and reconciles us to himself by not imputing our sins.
   Reward then is reserved for works, not through merit, but the free
   bounty of God alone; and yet even this free reward of works does not
   take place, except we be first received into favor through the kind
   mediation of Christ.

   We hence conclude, that God does not pay us a debt, but performs what
   he has of himself freely promised, and thus performs it, inasmuch as he
   pardons us and our works; nay, he looks not so much on our works as on
   his own grace in our works. It is on this account that he forgets not
   our works, because he recognizes himself and the work of his Spirit in
   them. And this is to be righteous, as the Apostle says, for he cannot
   deny himself. This passage, then, corresponds with that saying of Paul,
   "He who has begun in you a good work will perfect it." (Philippians
   1:6.) For what can God find in us to induce him to love us, except what
   he has first conferred on us? In short, the sophists are mistaken in
   imagining a mutual relation between God's righteousness and the merits
   of our works, since God on the contrary so regards himself and his own
   gifts, that he carries on to the end what of his own goodwill he has
   begun in us, without any inducement from anything we do; nay, God is
   righteous in recompensing works, because he is true and faithful: and
   he has made himself a debtor to us, not by receiving anything from us;
   but as Augustine says, by freely promising all things. [101]

   And labor of love, etc. By this he intimates that we are not to spare
   labor, if we desire to perform duty towards our neighbors; for they are
   not only to be helped by money, but also by counsel, by labor, and in
   various other ways. Great sedulity, then, must be exercised, many
   troubles must be undergone, and sometimes many dangers must be
   encountered. Thus let him who would engage in the duties of love,
   prepare himself for a life of labor. [102]

   He mentions in proof of their love, that they had ministered and were
   still ministering to the saints. We are hence reminded, that we are not
   to neglect to serve our brethren. By mentioning the saints, he means
   not that we are debtors to them alone; for our love ought to expand and
   be manifested towards all mankind; but as the household of faith are
   especially recommended to us, peculiar attention is to be paid to them;
   for as love, when moved to do good, has partly a regard to God, and
   partly to our common nature, the nearer any one is to God, the more
   worthy he is of being assisted by us. In short, when we acknowledge any
   one as a child of God, we ought to embrace him with brotherly love.

   By saying that they had ministered and were still ministering, he
   commended their perseverance; which in this particular was very
   necessary; for there is nothing to which we are more prone than to
   weariness in welldoing. Hence it is, that though many are found ready
   enough to help their brethren, yet the virtue of constancy is so rare,
   that a large portion soon relax as though their warmth had cooled. But
   what ought constantly to stimulate us is even this one expression used
   by the apostle, that the love shown to the saints is shown towards the
   name of the Lord; for he intimates that God holds himself indebted to
   us for whatever good we do to our neighbors, according to that saying,

   "What ye have done to one of the least of these,
   ye have done to me," (Matthew 25:40;)

   and there is also another,

   "He that giveth to the poor lendeth to the Lord."
   (Proverbs 19:17.)
     __________________________________________________________________

   [100] The word botane here means everything the earth produces service
   for food. It only occurs here in the New Testament, but is commonly
   used by the Sept. for sv, which has the same extensive meaning: fruit
   or fruits would be its best rendering here. The word euthetos is also
   found in Luke 9:62; 14:34; and it means fit, meet, suitable, or useful;
   and the last is the meaning given it here by Grotius, Schleusner,
   Stuart, Bloomfield, and others. It is indeed true that it is used in
   the Sept. in the sense of seasonable. See Psalm 32:6 -- Ed

   [101] Nothing can exceed the clearness and the truth of the preceding
   remarks. The word adikos, unrighteousness, is rendered by many,
   unmerciful or unkind. But the reason for such a meaning is this: There
   are three kinds, we may say, of righteousness -- that of the law, of
   love, and of promise. To act according to the law is to be righteous;
   to comply with what love requires, that is, to be kind and charitable,
   is to be righteous, and hence almsgiving is called righteousness has
   often the meaning of faithfulness or mercy. See 1 John 1:9. Therefore
   the meaning here is, that God is not so unrighteous as not to fulfill
   his promise. Hence the notion of merit is at once shown to be
   groundless. -- Ed

   [102] See [25]Appendix X.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Hebrews Chapter 6:11-15

   11. And we desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to
   the full assurance of hope unto the end:

   11. Desideramus autem ununquemque vestrum idem ostendere studium ad
   certitudinem spei usque in finem;

   12. That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith
   and patience inherit the promises.

   12. Ne segnes (vel, molles, aut fluxi) reddamini, sed potius imitatores
   eorum qui per fidem et patientiam haereditario obtinuerunt
   promissiones.

   13. For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no
   greater, he sware by himself,

   13. Abrahae enim promittens Deus, quandoquidem majorem per quem
   juraret, non habebat, juravit per seipsum;

   14. Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will
   multiply thee.

   14. Dicens, Nisi benedicens benedixero tibi, et multiplicans
   multicavero te.

   15. And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise.

   15. Atque ita quum patienter expectasset, consequutus est promissionem.


   11. And we desire, etc. As he blended with exhortation, lest he should
   altogether grieve their minds; so he now freely reminds them of what
   was still wanting in them, lest his courtesy should appear to have in
   it any flattery. "You have made," he says, "your love evident by many
   acts of kindness; it remains, however, that your faith should
   correspond with it; you have sedulously labored not to be wanting in
   your duties to men; but with no less earnestness it behooves you to
   make progress in faith, so as to manifest before God its unwavering and
   full certainty."

   Now, by these words the Apostle shows that there are two parts in
   Christianity which correspond with the two tables of the Law.
   Therefore, he who separates the one from the other, has nothing but
   what is mutilated and mangled. And hence it appears what sort of
   teachers they are who make no mention of faith, and enjoin only the
   duty of honesty and uprightness towards men; nay, it is a profane
   philosophy, that dwells only on the outward mask of righteousness, if
   indeed it deserves to be called philosophy; for it so unreasonably
   performs its own duties, that it robs God, to whom the preeminence
   belongs, of his own rights. Let us then remember, that the life of a
   Christian is not complete in all its parts, unless we attend to faith
   as well as to love.

   To the full assurance of hope, or, to the certainty of hope, etc. As
   they who professed the Christian faith were distracted by various
   opinions, or were as yet entangled in many superstitions, he bids them
   to be so fixed in firm faith, as no longer to vacillate nor be driven
   here and there, suspended between alternate winds of doubts. This
   injunction is, however, applicable to all; for, as the truth of God is
   unchangeably fixed, so faith, which relies on him, when it is true,
   ought to be certain, surmounting every doubt. It is a full assurance,
   plerophoria, [103] an undoubting persuasion, when the godly mind
   settles it with itself, that it is not right to call in question what
   God, who cannot deceive or lie, has spoken.

   The word hope, is here to be taken for faith, because of its affinity
   to it. The Apostle, however, seems to have designedly used it, because
   he was speaking of perseverance. And we may hence conclude how far
   short of faith is that general knowledge which the ungodly and the
   devils have in common; for they also believe that God is just and true,
   yet they derive hence no good hope, for they do not lay hold on his
   paternal favor in Christ. Let us then know that true faith is ever
   connected with hope.

   He said to the end, or perfection; and he said this, that they might
   know that they had not yet reached the goal, and were therefore to
   think of further progress. He mentioned diligence, that they might know
   that they were not to sit down idly, but to strive in earnest. For it
   is not a small thing to ascend above the heavens, especially for these
   who hardly creep on the ground, and when innumerable obstacles are in
   the way. There is indeed, nothing more difficult than to keep our
   thoughts fixed on things in heaven, when the whole power of our nature
   inclines downwards, and when Satan or numberless devices draw us back
   to the earth. hence it is, that he bids us to beware of sloth or
   effeminacy.

   12. But followers, or imitators, etc. To sloth he opposes imitation; it
   is then the same thing as though he said, that there was need of
   constant alacrity of mind; but it had far more weight, when he reminded
   them, that the fathers were not made partakers of the promises except
   through the unconquerable firmness of faith; for examples convey to us
   a more impressive idea of things. When a naked truth is set before us,
   it does not so much affect us, as when we see what is required of us
   fulfilled in the person of Abraham. But Abraham's example is referred
   to, not because it is the only one, but because it is more illustrious
   than that of any other. For though Abraham had this faith in common
   with all the godly; yet it is not without reason that he is called the
   father of the faithful. It is, then, no wonder that the Apostle
   selected him from all the rest, and turned towards him the eyes of his
   readers as to the clearest mirror of faith.

   Faith and patience, etc. What is meant is, a firm faith, which has
   patience as its companion. For faith is what is, chiefly required; but
   as many who make at first a marvelous display of faith, soon fail, he
   shows, that the true evidence of that faith which is not fleeting and
   evanescent, is endurance. By saying that the promises were obtained by
   faith, he takes away the notion of merits; and still more clearly by
   saying, that they came by "inheritance"; for we are in no other way
   made heirs but by the right of adoption. [104]

   13. For when God made a promise to Abraham, etc. His object was to
   prove, that the grace of God is offered to us in vain, except we
   receive the promise by faith, and constantly cherish it in the bosom of
   our heart. And he proves it by this argument, that when God promised a
   countless offspring to Abraham, it seemed a thing incredible; Sarah had
   been through life barren; both had reached a sterile old age, when they
   were nearer the grave than to a conjugal bed; there was no vigor to
   beget children, when Sarah's womb, which had been barren through the
   prime of life, was now become dead. Who could believe that a nation
   would proceed from them, equaling the stars in number, and like the
   sand of the sea? It was, indeed, contrary to all reason. Yet Abraham
   looked for this and feared no disappointment, because he relied on the
   Word of God. [105] We must, then, notice the circumstance as to time,
   that the Apostle's reasoning may appear evident; and what he subjoins
   refers to this -- that he was made partaker of this blessing, but that
   it was after he had waited for what no one could have thought would
   ever come to pass. In this way ought glory to be given to God; we must
   quietly hope for what he does not as yet show to our senses, but hides
   from us and for a long time defers, in order that our patience may be
   exercised.

   Why God did swear by himself we shall presently see. The manner of
   swearing, Except blessing I will bless thee, we have explained what it
   means in the third chapter: God's name is not here expressed, but must
   be understood, for except he performs what he promises, he testifies
   that he is not to he counted true and faithful.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [103] This noun and the verb from which it comes, are peculiar to the
   new testament, but the latter is once used in the Sept., Ecclesiastes
   8:11. The metaphor is taken from a ship in full sail, or from a tree
   fully laden with fruit. Fullness or perfection is the general idea. It
   is applied to knowledge in Colossians 2:2, and to faith in Hebrew
   10:22. It is also found once more in 1 Thessalonians 1:5, and is
   applied to the assurance with which the gospel was preached. It may be
   rendered certainly, or assurance, or full assurance. As a passive
   participle it means to be fully persuaded in Romans 4:21, and in 14:5.
   See [26]Appendix Y. -- Ed.

   [104] The word for "patience" is properly long-suffering, or
   forbearance, Romans 2:4; but it is used here in the same sense of
   patient expectation, as the participle clearly means in verse 15. As to
   "inherit," the present, as Grotius says, is used for the past tense --
   "who inherited," or rather, "became heirs to the promises." They did
   not really possess them, as we find in chapter 11:13, but heired them,
   as we may say; they died in faith and became entitled to them. The word
   "promises" is used here as well as in chapter 11; for many things were
   included in what God had promised to the fathers, but chiefly the
   Messiah and the heavenly inheritance. -- Ed.

   [105] It is said, that having "patiently endured" or rather waited, "he
   obtained the promise," that is, of a numerous posterity, the particular
   thing previously referred to. After having waited for twenty-five
   years, (see Genesis 12:1-4, and Genesis 17:1-16,) a son was given him;
   and this beginning of the fulfilled promise was a pledge of its full
   accomplishment. This case is brought forward as an example of waiting
   faith. -- Ed.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Hebrews Chapter 6:16-20

   16. For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation
   is to them an end of all strife.

   16. Nam homines quidem per eum jurant qui major est, et omnis ipsis
   controversiae finis est jusjurandum in confirmationem.

   17. Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of
   promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath:

   17. In quo Deus volens uberius ostendere haeridibus promissionis
   immutabilem consilii sui firmitudinem, interposuit jusjurandum;

   18. That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to
   lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to
   lay hold upon the hope set before us:

   18. Ut per duas res immutabiles, in quibus impossibile sit Deum
   mentiri, validam consolationem habeamus nos qui confugimus ad
   obtinendam propositam spem;

   19. Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and
   steadfast, and which entereth into that within the veil;

   19. Quam velut anchoram habemus animae tutam et firmam, et quae
   ingreditur ad ea quae intro velum sunt;.

   20. Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high
   priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

   20. Quo praecursor noster ingressus est Iesus, secondum ordinem
   Melchisedec factus in aeternum pontifex.


   16. For men, etc. It is an argument from the less to the greater; if
   credit is given to man, who is by nature false, when he swears, and for
   this reason, because he confirms what he says by God's name, how much
   more credit is due to God, who is eternal truth, when he swears by
   himself?

   Now he mentions several things to commend this declaration; and first
   he says that men swear by the greater; by which he means that they who
   are wanting in due authority borrow it from another. He adds that there
   is so much reverence in an oath that it suffices for confirmation, and
   puts an end to all disputes where the testimonies of men and other
   proofs are wanting. Then is not he a sufficient witness for himself
   whom all appeal to as a witness? Is he not to obtain credit for what he
   says, who, by his authority, removes all doubts among others? If God's
   name, pronounced by man's tongue, possesses so much superiority, how
   much more weight ought it to have, when God himself swears by his own
   name? Thus much as to the main point.

   But here in passing, two things are to be noticed, -- that we are to
   swear by God's name when necessity requires, and that Christians are
   allowed to make an oath, because it is a lawful remedy for removing
   contentions. God in express words bids us to swear by his name; if
   other names are blended with it, the oath is profaned. For this there
   are especially three reasons: when there is no way of bringing the
   truth to light, it is not right, for the sake of verifying it, to have
   recourse to any but to God, who is himself eternal truth; and then,
   since he alone knows the heart, his own office is taken from him, when
   in things hidden, of which men can form no opinion, we appeal to any
   other judge; and thirdly, because in swearing we not only appeal to him
   as a witness, but also call upon him as an avenger of perjury in case
   we speak falsely. It is no wonder, then, that he is so greatly
   displeased with those who swear by another name, for his own honor is
   thus disparaged. And that there are different forms often used in
   Scripture, makes nothing against this truth; for they did not swear by
   heaven or earth, as though they ascribed any divine power to them, or
   attributed to them the least portion of divinity, but by this indirect
   protestation, so to speak, they had a regard to the one true God. There
   are indeed various kinds of protestations; but the chief one is, when
   we refer to God as a judge and directly appeal to his judgmentseat;
   another is, when we name things especially dear to us as our life, or
   our head, or anything of this kind; and the third is, when we call
   creatures as witnesses before God. But in all these ways we swear
   properly by no other than by God. hence they betray their impiety no
   less than their ignorance, who contend that it is lawful to connect
   dead saints with God so as to attribute to them the right of punishing.

   Further, this passage teaches us, as it has been said, that an oath may
   be lawfully used by Christians; and this ought to be particularly
   observed, on account of fanatical men who are disposed to abrogate the
   practice of solemn swearing which God has prescribed in his Law. For
   certainly the Apostle speaks here of the custom of swearing as of a
   holy practice, and approved by God. Moreover, he does not say of it as
   having been formerly in use, but as of a thing still practiced. Let it
   then be employed as a help to find out the truth when other proofs are
   wanting.

   17. God, willing, etc. See how kindly God as a gracious Father
   accommodates himself to our slowness to believe; as he sees that we
   rest not on his simple word, that he might more fully impress it on our
   hearts he adds an oath. Hence also it appears how much it concerns us
   to know that there is such a certainty respecting his goodwill towards
   us, that there is no longer any occasion for wavering or for trembling.
   For when God forbids his name to be taken in vain or on a slight
   occasion, and denounces the severest vengeance on all who rashly abuse
   it, when he commands reverence to be rendered to his majesty, he thus
   teaches us that he holds his name in the highest esteem and honor. The
   certainty of salvation is then a necessary thing; for he who forbids to
   swear without reason has been pleased to swear for the sake of
   rendering it certain. And we may hence also conclude what great account
   he makes of our salvation; for in order to secure it, he not only
   pardons our unbelief, but giving up as it were his own right, and
   yielding to us far more than what we could claim, he kindly provides a
   remedy for it.

   Unto the heirs of promise, etc. He seems especially to point out the
   Jews; for though the heirship came at length to the Gentiles, yet the
   former were the first lawful heirs, and the latter, being aliens, were
   made the second heirs, and that beyond the right of nature. So Peter,
   addressing the Jews in his first sermon, says,

   "To you and to your children is the promise made, and to those who are
   afar of, whom the Lord shall call." (Acts 2:39.)

   He left indeed a place for adventitious heirs, but he sets the Jews in
   the first rank, according to what he also says in the third chapter,
   "Ye are the children of the fathers and of the covenant," etc. (Acts
   3:25.) So also in this place the Apostle, in order to make the Jews
   more ready to receive the covenant, shows that it was for their sakes
   chiefly it was confirmed by an oath. At the same time this declaration
   belongs at this day to us also, for we have entered into the place
   quitted by them through unbelief

   Observe that what is testified to us in the Gospel is called the
   counsel of God, that no one may doubt but that this truth proceeds from
   the very inmost thoughts of God. Believers ought therefore to be fully
   persuaded that whenever they hear the voice of the Gospel, the secret
   counsel of God, which lay hid in him, is proclaimed to them, and that
   hence is made known to them what he has decreed respecting our
   salvation before the creation of the world.

   18. That by two immutable things, etc. What God says as well as what he
   swears is immutable. (Psalm 12:6; Numb. 23:19.) It may be with men far
   otherwise; for their vanity is such that there cannot be much firmness
   in their word. But the word of God is in various ways extolled; it is
   pure and without any dross, like gold seven times purified. Even
   Balaam, though an enemy, was yet constrained to bring this testimony,

   "God is not like the sons of men that he should lie, neither like men
   that he should repent: has he then said, and shall he not do it? Has he
   spoken, and shall he not make it good?" (Numbers 23:19.)

   The word of God, then, is a sure truth, and in itself authoritative,
   (autopistos selfworthy of trust.) But when an oath is added it is an
   overplus added to a full measure. We have, then, this strong
   consolation, that God, who cannot deceive when he speaks, being not
   content with making a promise, has confirmed it by an oath. [106]

   Who have fled for refuge, etc. By these words he intimates that we do
   not truly trust in God except when we forsake every other protection
   and flee for refuge to his sure promise, and feel assured that it is
   our only safe asylum. Hence by the word flee is set forth our poverty
   and our need; for we flee not to God except when constrained. But when
   he adds the hope set before us, he intimates that we have not far to go
   to seek the aid we want, for God himself of his own free will meets us
   and puts as it were in our hand what we are to hope for; it is set
   before us. But as by this truth he designed to encourage the Jews to
   embrace the Gospel in which salvation was offered to them; so also he
   thus deprived the unbelieving, who rejected the favor presented to
   them, of every excuse. And doubtless this might have been more truly
   said after the promulgation of the Gospel than under the Law: "There is
   now no reason for you to say, Who shall ascent into heaven? Or, Who
   shall descend into the deep? Or, Who shall pass over the sea? For nigh
   is the word, it is in thy mouth and in thy heart.'" [107] (Deuteronomy
   30:12; Romans 10:6.)

   But there is a metonymy in the word hope, for the effect is put for the
   cause; and I understand by it the promise on which our hope leans or
   relies, for I cannot agree with those who take hope here for the thing
   hoped for -- by no means: and this also must be added, that the Apostle
   speaks not of a naked promise, suspended as it were in the air, but of
   that which is received by faith; or, if you prefer a short expression,
   the hope here means the promise apprehended by faith. By the word
   laying hold, as well as by hope, he denotes firmness.

   19. As an anchor, etc. It is a striking likeness when he compares faith
   leaning on God's word to an anchor; for doubtless, as long as we
   sojourn in this world, we stand not on firm ground, but are tossed here
   and there as it were in the midst of the sea, and that indeed very
   turbulent; for Satan is incessantly stirring up innumerable storms,
   which would immediately upset and sink our vessel, were we not to cast
   our anchor fast in the deep. For nowhere a haven appears to our eyes,
   but wherever we look water alone is in view; yea, waves also arise and
   threaten us; but as the anchor is cast through the waters into a dark
   and unseen place, and while it lies hid there, keeps the vessel beaten
   by the waves from being overwhelmed; so must our hope be fixed on the
   invisible God. There is this difference, -- the anchor is cast
   downwards into the sea, for it has the earth as its bottom; but our
   hope rises upwards and soars aloft, for in the world it finds nothing
   on which it can stand, nor ought it to cleave to created things, but to
   rest on God alone. As the cable also by which the anchor is suspended
   joins the vessel with the earth through a long and dark intermediate
   space, so the truth of God is a bond to connect us with himself, so
   that no distance of place and no darkness can prevent us from cleaving
   to him. Thus when united to God, though we must struggle with continual
   storms, we are yet beyond the peril of shipwreck. Hence he says, that
   this anchor is sure and steadfast, or safe and firm. [108] It may
   indeed be that by the violence of the waves the anchor may be plucked
   off, or the cable be broken, or the beaten ship be torn to pieces. This
   happens on the sea; but the power of God to sustain us is wholly
   different, and so also is the strength of hope and the firmness of his
   word.

   Which entereth into that, or those things, etc. As we have said, until
   faith reaches to God, it finds nothing but what is unstable and
   evanescent; it is hence necessary for it to penetrate even into heaven.
   But as the Apostle is speaking to the Jews, he alludes to the ancient
   Tabernacle, and says, that they ought not to abide in those things
   which are seen, but to penetrate into the inmost recesses, which lie
   hid within the veil, as though he had said, that all the external and
   ancient figures and shadows were to be passed over, in order that faith
   might be fixed on Christ alone.

   And carefully ought this reasoning to be observed, -- that as Christ
   has entered into heaven, so faith ought to be directed there also: for
   we are hence taught that faith should look nowhere else. And doubtless
   it is in vain for man to seek God in his own majesty, for it is too far
   removed from them; but Christ stretches forth his hand to us, that he
   may lead us to heaven. And this was shadowed forth formerly under the
   Law; for the high priest entered the holy of holies, not in his own
   name only, but also in that of the people, inasmuch as he bare in a
   manner the twelve tribes on his breast and on his shoulders; for as a
   memorial for them twelve stones were wrought on the breastplate, and on
   the two onyx stones on his shoulders were engraved their names, so that
   in the person of one man all entered into the sanctuary together.
   Rightly then does the Apostle speak, when he reminds them that our high
   priest has entered into heaven; for he has not entered only for
   himself, but also for us. There is therefore no reason to fear that
   access to heaven will be closed up against our faith, as it is never
   disjoined from Christ. And as it becomes us to follow Christ who is
   gone before, he is therefore called our Forerunner, or precursor. [109]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [106] The "two immutable things," says most, are the promise and the
   oath. But some of late, such as Stuart, have disputed this
   interpretation; and they hold that they are two oaths, -- the first was
   made to Abraham respecting a Son (the Messiah) in whom all nations
   should be blessed; and the second refers to Christ's priesthood,
   recorded in Psalm 110:4. This is the clearly to go out of the passage
   for its interpretation. The case of the fathers, and especially
   Abraham, in verses 12, 13, 14 and 15, was introduced for the sake of
   illustration. And having mentioned God's oath with regard to Abraham,
   he proceeds in verse 16 to state the use of an oath among men, and
   evidently reverting to the promise of eternal life implied in "the
   hope" mentioned in verse 11, he says that God confirmed that promise,
   called here God's "counsel," by an oath; and the oath specially
   referred to seems to have been that respecting the priesthood of his
   Son, more than once mentioned before and at the end of this chapter;
   for upon his priesthood in an especial manner depended the promise of
   eternal life. The "counsel" of God means his revealed counsel or
   gracious purpose, his promise of eternal life to those who believe. In
   establishing a priesthood by an oath, he confirmed this promise, for
   its accomplishment depended on that priesthood. To call two oaths two
   immutable things is nothing so apposite as to call so the promise and
   the oath by which the priesthood was established. -- Ed.

   [107] The "strong consolation" is rendered by Theophylact "strong
   encouragement;" nor is it unsuitable here. The influence of the "two
   immutable things" was no other than to give strong encouragement to
   those who believed: the tendency was to confirm them in the faith.
   Stuart gives it the meaning of "persuasion," and renders the passage
   thus, "So that by two immutable things, concerning which is impossible
   for God to lie, we, who have sought for refuge, might be strongly
   persuaded to hold fast the hope that is set before us." The great
   objection to this is the separation of "fleeing" from the latter part
   of the sentence, which I find is done by none; and to seek for refuge,
   or to flee for refuge, is not the meaning of kataphugontes, but merely
   to flee; and to construe it by itself gives no meaning. We are hence
   under the necessity of construing it with what follows, "That we might
   have a strong consolation (or encouragement) who have fled to lay hold
   on the hope set before us." So Beza substantially, and Doddridge, and
   Macknight. -- Ed

   [108] "Safe," that is safely fixed; and "firm," that is strong, so as
   not to be bent nor broken, as Parens says. Stuart seems to have
   inverted the proper meaning of the words, as he applies asphalo to the
   anchor as having been made of good materials, and thebaian as
   signifying that it is firmly fixed. The first word means what cannot
   fall, be subverted, or overthrown, and must therefore refer to what is
   safely fixed; and the other means firm, stable, constant, enduring. So
   Schleusner renders the words, "tutam ac firmam," safe and firm; and he
   quotes Phavorinus as giving the meaning of the first word hedraios,
   steadfast. -- Ed

   [109] Calvin's version is "Where our precursor Jesus has entered." The
   prodromos is one who goes before to prepare the way for those who
   follow him. It is used in the Sept. to designate the first ripe grapes
   and the first ripe figs. Numbers 13:20; Isaiah 28:4. These were the
   precursors for us (or, in our behalf) Jesus has entered." He has not
   only gone to prepare a place for his people; but he is also their
   leader whom they are to follow; and where he has entered they shall
   also enter. His entrance is a pledge of their entrance. -- Ed
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

   CHAPTER 7
     __________________________________________________________________

   Hebrews 7:1-3

   1. For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God,
   who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed
   him;

   1. Hic enim erat Melchisedec rex Salem, pontifex Dei altissimi, qui
   occurrit Abrahae revertenti a caede regum, et benedixit illi;

   2. To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by
   interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of
   Salem, which is, King of peace;

   2. Cui et decimas ex omnibus impartitus est Abraham; qui primum quidem
   ex interpretatione dicitur Rex justitiae, deinde etiam Rex Salem, quod
   est Rex pacis;

   3. Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither
   beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God;
   abideth a priest continually.

   3. Sine patre, sine matre, sine genere, nec initium dierum, nec vitae
   finem habens; sed assimilatus Filio Dei manet sacerdos in perpetuum.


   1. For this Melchisedec, etc. He has hitherto been stimulating the Jews
   by exhortations, that they might attentively consider the comparison
   between Christ and Melchisedec. At the end of the last chapter, that he
   might return from his digression to his subject, he quoted again the
   passage from the Psalms; and now he enters fully into what he had
   before slightly referred to; for he enumerates particularly the things
   connected with Melchisedec, in which he resembled Christ. It is indeed
   no wonder that he dwells so minutely on this subject. It was doubtless
   no common thing that in a country abounding in the corruptions of so
   many superstitions, a man was found who preserved the pure worship of
   God; for on one side he was nigh to Sodom and Gomorrah, and on the
   other to the Canaanites, so that he was on every side encompassed by
   ungodly men. Besides, the whole world was so fallen into impiety, that
   it is very probable that God was nowhere faithfully worshipped except
   in the family of Abraham; for his father and his grandfather, who ought
   to have retained true religion, had long before degenerated into
   idolatry. It was therefore a memorable fact, that there was still a
   king who not only retained true religion, but also performed himself
   the office of a priest. And it was doubtless necessary that in him who
   was to be a type of the Son of God all things excellent should be
   found: and that Christ was shadowed forth by this type is evident from
   the Psalm referred to; for David did not say without reason, "Thou art
   a priest forever after the order Melchisedec;" no, but on the contrary,
   by these words a sublime mystery was recommended to the Church.

   Let us now consider each of those particulars in which the Apostle
   makes Christ like Melchisedec. [110]

   The first likeness is in the name; for it was not without a mystery
   that he was called the King of righteousness. For though this honor is
   ascribed to kings who rule with moderation and in equity, yet this
   belongs really to Christ alone, who not only exercises authority justly
   as others do, but also communicates to us the righteous of God, partly
   when he makes us to be counted righteous by a gratuitous
   reconciliation, and partly when he renews us by his Spirit, that we may
   lead a godly and holy life. He is then called the King of
   righteousness, because of what he effects in diffusing righteousness on
   all his people. [111] It hence follows, that out of his kingdom nothing
   but sin reigns among men. And therefore Zechariah, when he introduces
   him, as by the solemn decree of God, into the possession of his
   kingdom, thus extols him, --

   "Rejoice, O daughter of Sion, Behold thy righteous King
   cometh to thee," (Zechariah 2:10;)

   intimating that the righteousness, which is otherwise wanting to us, is
   brought to us by the coming of Christ.

   The second likeness which the Apostle states is as to the kingdom of
   peace. This peace indeed is the fruit of that righteousness which he
   has mentioned. It hence follows that wherever Christ's kingdom extends,
   there peace ought to be, as we find in Isaiah 2 and 9, and in other
   places. But as peace among the Hebrews means also a prosperous and
   happy state, it may be so taken here: yet I prefer to understand it
   here of that inward peace which tranquilizes the conscience and renders
   it confident before God. And the excellency of this blessing cannot be
   sufficiently estimated, unless you consider on the other hand, how
   miserable a thing it is to be tormented by constant inquietude; which
   must necessarily be the case until we have our consciences pacified by
   being reconciled to God through Christ.

   3. Without father, etc. I prefer this rendering to that of "unknown
   father;" for the Apostle meant to express something more emphatic than
   that the family of Melchisedec was obscure or unknown. Nor does this
   objection disturb me, that the reality does not correspond with the
   figure or type, because Christ has a Father in heaven, and had a mother
   on earth; for the Apostle immediately explains his meaning by adding
   without descent, or kindred. He then exempts Melchisedec from what is
   common to others, a descent by birth; by which he means that he is
   eternal, so that his beginning from men was not to be sought after. It
   is indeed certain that he descended from parents; but the Apostle does
   not speak of him here in his private capacity; on the contrary, he sets
   him forth as a type of Christ. He therefore allows himself to see
   nothing in him but what Scripture contains. For in treating of things
   respecting Christ, such reverence ought to be observed as not to know
   anything but what is written in the Word of the Lord. Now, as the Holy
   Spirit in mentioning this king, the most illustrious of his age, is
   wholly silent as to his birth, and makes afterwards no record of his
   death, is not this the same thing as though eternity was to be ascribed
   to him? And what was shadowed forth in Melchisedec is really exhibited
   in Christ. It behooves us then to be satisfied with this moderate view,
   that while Scripture sets forth to us Melchisedec as one who had never
   been born and never died, it shows to us as in a mirror, that Christ
   has neither a beginning nor an end. [112]

   But we hence also learn how much reverence and sobriety is required as
   to the spiritual mysteries of God: for what is not found read in
   Scripture the Apostle is not only willing to be ignorant of, but also
   would have us to seek to know. And surely it is not lawful for us to
   allege anything of Christ from our own thoughts. And Melchisedec is not
   to be considered here, as they say, in his private capacity, but as a
   sacred type of Christ; nor ought we to think that it was accidentally
   or inadvertently omitted that no kindred is ascribed to him, and that
   nothing is said of his death; but on the contrary, that this was done
   designedly by the Spirit, in order to give us an idea of one above the
   common order of men. There seems therefore to be no probability in the
   conjecture of those who say that Melchisedec was Shem the son of Noah;
   for if we make him to be some known individual, we destroy this third
   likeness between Melchisedec and Christ.

   Made like, or assimilated, etc. Not as far as what was typified
   required; for we must always bear in mind that there is but an analogy
   between the thing signified and the sign; for they make themselves
   ridiculous who imagine that he came down from heaven, in order that
   there might be a perfect similarity. It is enough that we see in him
   the lineaments of Christ, as the form of the living man may be seen in
   his picture, while yet the man himself is very different from what
   represents him. [113] It seems not to be worth one's while to refute
   the delirious notions of those who dream that Christ himself, or the
   holy Spirit, or an angel, appeared at that time; unless indeed one
   thought it to be the duty of a rightminded man to dispute with
   Postillus and such fanatics; for that impostor asserts that he is
   Melchisedec with no less supercilious folly than those mad spirits of
   old, mentioned by Jerome, who pretended that they were Christ.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [110] The passage reads better, and the meaning appears more evident,
   when we consider was as understood in the first verse, as Calvin does.
   The first part refers to what he did as to Abraham: and the second, to
   what he was as a type of Christ. Now this Melchisedec, king of Salem,
   was a priest of the most high God; who met Abraham returning from the
   overthrow of the kings, and blessed him; to whom Abraham also divided
   the tenth of all: being first indeed, by interpretation, King of
   righteousness, and then also King of Salem, which is, King of Peace;
   without father, without mother, without decent, having no beginning of
   days or end of life, but By saying that he "blessed" Abraham, we are to
   render that he prayed God to bless him, as we find it explained in
   Genesis 14:19.

   [111] It is not as a king, but as a priest that Christ is our
   righteousness. Therefore strictly speaking, as a king, he administers
   righteousness, or acts righteously. "The king of righteousness," may be
   rendered, as Stuart does, a righteous king. See Psalm 45:7 -- Ed.

   [112] Some regard what is said of Melchisedec being without father,
   etc., as meaning that he was so in his office as a king and priest,
   there being no account of a predecessor or of a successor to him; but
   this view cannot be taken on account of these words, "without mother,
   without descent," etc., Calvin gives the explanation commonly received.
   -- Ed.

   [113] Our version "made like," etc., is objected to by Stuart; and he
   renders it, "being like," alleging that the Apostle's object is to
   show, not that Melchisedec was "made like" to Christ as a priest, but
   the contrary, according to Psalm 110:4. But the object here seems to be
   different: he shows why it is that there is no record of Melchisedec's
   office as to its beginning or end; it was that he might be made a fit
   type to represent the Son of God. -- Ed.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Hebrews Chapter 7:4-10

   4. Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch
   Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.

   4. Considerate autem quantus sit hic, cui et decimas dedit de spoliis
   Abraham patriarcha.

   5. And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office
   of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people
   according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out
   of the loins of Abraham:

   5. Atque ii quidem qui sacerdotium accipiunt, qui scilicet sunt ex
   filiis Levi, praeceptum habent a populo decimas sumendi juxta legem,
   hoc est, a fratribus suis licet egressis ex lumbis Abrahae:

   6. But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of
   Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.

   6. Cujus autem genus non recensetur ex ipsis, decimas sumpsit ab
   Abraham, et habentem promissiones benedixit.

   7. And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.

   7. Porro sine controversia quod minus est a potiore benedicitur.

   8. And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them,
   of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.

   8. Atque hic quidem homines qui moriuntur, decimas accipiunt; illic
   autem is de quo testatum est quod vivat:

   9. And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes
   in Abraham.

   9. Et ut ita loquar, in Abraham decimatus est ipse Levi qui decimas
   solet accipere;

   10. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met
   him.

   10. Nam is adhuc in lumbis patris erat quum occurrerit Abrahae
   Melchisedec.


   4. Now consider, etc. This is the fourth comparison between Christ and
   Melchisedec, that Abraham presented tithes to him. But though tithes
   were instituted for several reasons, yet the Apostle here refers only
   to what serves his present purpose. One reason why tithes were paid to
   the Levites was, because they were the children of Abraham, to whose
   seed the land was promised. It was, then, by a hereditary right that a
   portion of the land was allotted to them; for as they were not allowed
   to possess land, a compensation was made to them in tithes. There was
   also another reason, -- that as they were occupied in the service of
   God and the public ministry of the Church, it was right that they
   should be supported at the public cost of the people. Then the rest of
   the Israelites owed them tithes as a remuneration for their work. But
   these reasons bear not at all on the present subject; therefore, the
   Apostle passes them by. The only reason now alleged is, that as the
   people offered the tithes as a sacred tribute to God, the Levites only
   received them. It hence appears that it was no small honor that God in
   a manner substituted them for himself. Then Abraham, being one of the
   chief sergeants of God and a prophet, having offered tithes to
   Melchisedec the priest, thereby confessed that Melchisedec excelled him
   in dignity. If, then, the patriarch Abraham owned him more honourable
   than himself, his dignity must have been singular and extraordinary.
   The word patriarch is mentioned for the sake of setting forth his
   dignity; for it was in the highest degree honourable to him to have
   been called a father in the Church of God.

   Then the argument is this, -- Abraham, who excelled all others, was yet
   inferior to Melchisedec; then Melchisedec had the highest place of
   honor, and is to be regarded as superior to all the sons of Levi. The
   first part is proved, for what Abraham owed to God he gave to
   Melchisedec: then by paying him the tenth he confessed himself to be
   inferior.

   5. And verily they, etc. It would be more suitable to render the words
   thus, "because they are the sons of Levi." The Apostle indeed does not
   assign it as a reason that they received tithes because they were the
   sons of Levi; but he is comparing the whole tribe with Melchisedec in
   this way. Though God granted to the Levites the right of requiring
   tithes from the people, and thus set them above all the Israelites, yet
   they have all descended from the same parent; and Abraham, the father
   of them all, paid tithes to a priest of another race: then all the
   descendants of Abraham are inferior to this priest. Thus the right
   conferred on the Levites was particular as to the rest of their
   brethren; yet Melchisedec, without exception, occupies the highest
   place, so that all are inferior to him. Some think that the tenths of
   tenths are intended, which the Levites paid to the higher priests; but
   there is no reason thus to confine the general declaration. The view,
   then, I have given is the most probable.

   6. Blessed him, etc. This is the fifth comparison between Christ and
   Melchisedec. The Apostle assumes it as an admitted principle that the
   less is blessed by the greater; and then he adds that Melchisedec
   blessed Abraham: hence the conclusion is that the less was Abraham. But
   for the sake of strengthening his argument he again raises the dignity
   of Abraham; for the more glorious Abraham is made, the higher the
   dignity of Melchisedec appears. For this purpose he says that Abraham
   had the promises; by which he means that he was the first of the holy
   race with whom God made the covenant of eternal life. It was not indeed
   a common honor that God chose him from all the rest that he might
   deposit with him the privilege of adoption and the testimony of his
   love. But all this was no hindrance that he should not submit himself
   in all his preeminence to the priesthood of Melchisedec. We hence see
   how great he was to whom Abraham gave place in these two things, --
   that he suffered himself to be blessed by him, and that he offered him
   tithes as to God's vicegerent.

   7. The less is, [114] etc. Let us first know what the word blessed
   means here. It means indeed a solemn praying by which he who is
   invested with some high and public honor, recommends to God men in
   private stations and under his ministry. Another way of blessing is
   when we pray for one another; which is commonly done by all the godly.
   But this blessing mentioned by the Apostle was a symbol of greater
   authority. Thus Isaac blessed his son Jacob, and Jacob himself blessed
   his grandsons, Ephraim and Manasseh. (Genesis 27:27; 48:15.) This was
   not done mutually, for the son could not do the like to the father; but
   a higher authority was required for such a blessing as this. And this
   appears more evident still from Numbers 6:23, where a command is given
   to the priest to bless the people, and then a promise is immediately
   added, that they would be blessed whom they blessed. It hence appears
   that the blessing of the priest depended on this, -- that it was not so
   much man's blessing as that of God. For as the priest in offering
   sacrifices represented Christ, so in blessing the people he was nothing
   more than a minister and legate of the supreme God. In the same sense
   ought to be understood what Luke records when he says, that Christ
   lifted up his hands and blessed the Apostles. (Luke 24:50.) The
   practice of lifting up the hands he no doubt borrowed from the priests,
   in order to show that he was the person by whom God the Father blesses
   us. Of this blessing mention is also made in Psalm 116:17; 118:1

   Let us now apply this idea to what the apostle treats of: The blessing
   of the priest, while it is a divine work is also an evidence of a
   higher honor; then Melchisedec, in blessing Abraham, assumed to himself
   a higher dignity. This he did, not presumptuously, but according to his
   right as a priest: then he was more eminent than Abraham. Yet Abraham
   was he with whom God was pleased to make the covenant of salvation;
   though, then, he was superior to all others, yet he was surpassed by
   Melchisedec. [115]

   8. Of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. He takes the silence
   respecting his death, as I have said, as an evidence of his life. This
   would not indeed hold as to others, but as to Melchisedec it ought
   rightly to be so regarded, inasmuch as he was a type of Christ. For as
   the spiritual kingdom and priesthood of Christ are spoken of here,
   there is no place left for human conjectures; nor is it lawful for us
   to seek to know anything farther than what we read in Scripture. But we
   are not hence to conclude that the man who met Abraham is yet alive, as
   some have childishly thought, for this is to be applied to the other
   person whom he represented, even the Son of God. And by these words the
   Apostle intended to show, that the dignity of Melchisedec's priesthood
   was to be perpetual, while that of the Levites was temporary. [116]

   For he thus reasons, -- those to whom the Law assigns tithes are dying
   men; by which it was indicated that the priesthood would some time be
   abrogated, as their life came to an end: but the Scripture makes no
   mention of the death of Melchisedec, when it relates that tithes were
   paid to him; so the authority of his priesthood is limited by no time,
   but on the contrary there is given an indication of perpetuity. And
   this is added for this purpose, lest a posterior law, as it is usual,
   should seem to take away from the authority of a former law. For it
   might have been otherwise objected and said, that the right which
   Melchisedec formerly possessed is now void and null, because God had
   introduced another law by Moses, by which he transferred the right to
   the Levites. But the Apostle anticipates this objection by saying, that
   tithes were paid to the Levites only for a time, because they did not
   live; but that Melchisedec, because he is immortal, retains even to the
   end what was once given to him by God.

   9. Levi also, etc. He advances farther, and says, that even Levi
   himself, who was then in the loins of Abraham, was not exempt from the
   same subordination; for Abraham, by paying tithes, made himself and his
   posterity inferior to the priesthood of Melchisedec. [117] But here
   one, on the other hand, may say, that in the same way Judas also of
   whose seed Christ was born, paid tithes. But this knot can be easily
   untied, when one considers two things which are settled beyond all
   dispute among Christians: first, Christ is not to be counted simply as
   one of the sons of Abraham, but is to be exempted by a peculiar
   privilege from the common order of men; and this is what he himself
   said, "If he is the son of David, then does David call him his Lord?"
   (Matthew 22:45;) secondly, since Melchisedec is a type of Christ, it is
   by no means reasonable that the one should be set in opposition to the
   other; for we must remember that common saying, that what is
   subordinate is not in opposition: hence the type, which comes short of
   the reality, ought by no means to be opposed to it, nor can it be, for
   such is the conflict of equals.

   These five particulars, mentioned by the Apostle, complete the
   comparison between Christ and Melchisedec, and thus is dissipated the
   gloss of those who seek to show that the chief likeness between them is
   in offering of bread and wine. We see that the Apostle carefully, and
   even scrupulously, examines here each of these points; he mentions the
   name of the man, the seat of his kingdom, the perpetuity of his life,
   his right to tithes, and his benediction.

   There is, forsooth! in these things, less importance than in the
   oblation! Shall we say that the Spirit of God, through forgetfulness,
   omitted this, so that he dwelt on minor things, and left unnoticed the
   chief thing, and what was most necessary for his purpose? I marvel the
   more that so many of the ancient doctors of the Church were so led away
   by this notion, that they dwelt only on the offering of bread and wine.
   And thus they spoke, "Christ is a priest according to the order of
   Melchisedec; and Melchisedec offered bread and wine; then the sacrifice
   of bread and wine is suitable to the priesthood of Christ." The Apostle
   will hereafter speak largely of the ancient sacrifices; but of this new
   sacrifice of bread and wine he says not a word. Whence then did
   ecclesiastical writers derive this notion? Doubtless, as one error
   usually leads to another, having of themselves imagined a sacrifice in
   Christ's Supper without any command from him, and thus adulterated the
   Supper by adding a sacrifice, they afterwards endeavored to find out
   plausible arguments here and there in order to disguise and cover their
   error. This offering of bread and wine pleased them, and was instantly
   laid hold on without any discretion. For who can concede that these men
   were more intelligent than the Spirit of God? Yet if we receive what
   they teach, we must condemn God's Spirit for inadvertence in having
   omitted a matter so important, especially as the question is avowedly
   handled!

   I hence conclude, that the ancients invented a sacrifice, of which
   Moses had never thought; for Melchisedec offered bread and wine, not to
   God, but on the contrary to Abraham and his companions. These are the
   words, "Melchisedec, king of Salem, went out to meet him, and brought
   forth bread and wine; and the same was priest to the most high God, and
   blessed him." (Genesis 14:18.) The first thing mentioned was a royal
   act; he refreshed those wearied after the battle and their journey with
   sustenance; the blessing was the act of a priest. If then his offering
   had anything mystical in it, the completion of it is to be found in
   Christ, when he fed the hungry and those wearied with fatigue. But the
   Papists are extremely ridiculous, who though they deny that there is
   bread and wine in the Mass, yet prattle about the sacrifice of bread
   and wine.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [114] The words are in the neuter gender, "what is less blessed by the
   greater." This is an idiom; the neuter is put for the masculine, as pan
   is used for all men in John 6:37, and pan mora for foolish men in 1
   Corinthians 1:27. The meaning is, "the inferior is blessed by his
   superior." -- Ed

   [115] There are three kinds of blessing mentioned in Scripture, --
   prayer for a blessing, Matthew 5:44; prophetic blessing, as in the case
   of the patriarchs, chapter 11:20, 21; and sacerdotal blessing, as
   recorded in Numbers 6:23-27. The latter is what is meant here. It was a
   blessing announced in the name of the Lord, or a prayer offered in his
   name, and by his authority. -- Ed.

   [116] Critics often make a difficulty where is none. The obvious
   meaning of this verse is given by Calvin, -- continual succession,
   owing to death, betokened the unenduring character of the Levitical
   priesthood; but the perpetuity of that Melchisedec is proved by this,
   that he lives. To live often means to be perpetual; and to die
   intimates what is evanescent. The Levites were dying men, which showed
   the character of their office, Melchisedec is represented as not dying,
   which betokens that his office as a priest is perpetual. -- Ed.

   [117] Our version is "For he was yet," etc., epi, here is not yet, but
   even, as in Luke 1:15, or then, as rendered by Stuart; "For he was even
   (or then) in the loins of his father when Melchisedec met him." -- Ed
     __________________________________________________________________

   Hebrews Chapter 7:11-14

   11. If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for
   under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that
   another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be
   called after the order of Aaron?

   11. Porro si consummatio per Leviticum sacerdotium erat (populus enim
   sub eo legem accepit) quid adhuc opus fuit secundum ordinem Melchisedec
   alterum exoriri sacerdotem, et non secundum ordinem Aaron dici?

   12. For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a
   change also of the law.

   12. Etenim dum transfertur sacerdotium, necessario etiam fit legis
   translatio.

   13. For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe,
   of which no man gave attendance at the altar.

   13. Certe is de quo haec dicuntur, alterius fuit tribus particeps, ex
   qua nemo adstitit altari.

   14. For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe
   Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

   14. Clarum enim est quod ex tribu Judae natus sit Dominus noster, de
   qua tribu nihil loquutus est Moses quod ad sacerdotium spectat.


   11. If therefore perfection, or, moreover if perfection, [118] etc.
   From the same testimony the Apostle concludes, that the old covenant
   was abrogated by the coming of Christ. He has hitherto spoken of the
   office and person of the priest; but as God had instituted a priesthood
   for the purpose of ratifying the Law, the former being abolished, the
   latter necessarily ceases. That this may be better understood, we must
   bear in mind the general truth, -- That no covenant between God and man
   is in force and ratified, except it rests on a priesthood. Hence the
   Apostle says, that the Law was introduced among the ancient people
   under the Levitical priesthood; by which he intimates, that it not only
   prevailed during the time of the Law, but that it was instituted, as we
   have said for the sake of confirming the Law.

   He now reasons thus, If the ministry of the Church was perfect under
   the order of Aaron, why was it necessary to return to another order?
   For in perfection nothing can be changed. It then follows, that the
   ministry of the Law was not perfect, for that new order was to be
   introduced of which David speaks. [119]

   For under it the people received the Law, etc. This parenthesis is
   inserted in order that we may know that the Law was annexed to the
   priesthood. The Apostle had in view to prove that in the Law of Moses
   there was no ultimate end at which we ought to stop. This he proves by
   the abrogation of the priesthoods and in this way: Had the authority of
   the ancient priesthood been such as to be sufficient fully to establish
   the Law, God would have never introduced in its place another and a
   different priesthood. Now, as some might doubt whether the abolition of
   the Law followed the abolition of the priesthood, he says that the Law
   was not only brought in under it, but that it was also by it
   established. [120]

   12. For the priesthood being changed, or, transferred, etc. As the
   authority of the Law and the priesthood is the same, Christ became not
   only a priest, but also a Lawgiver; so that the right of Aaron, as well
   as of Moses, was transferred to him. The sum of the whole is, that the
   ministry of Moses was no less temporary than that of Aaron; and hence
   both were annulled by the coming of Christ, for the one could not stand
   without the other. By the word Law, we understand what peculiarly
   belonged to Moses; for the Law contains the rule of life, and the
   gratuitous covenant of life; and in it we find everywhere many
   remarkable sentences by which we are instructed as to faith, and as to
   the fear of God. None of these were abolished by Christ, but only that
   part which regarded the ancient priesthood.

   For Christ is here compared with Moses; whatever then they had in
   common, is not to be taken to the account, but only the things in which
   they differ. They in common offer God's mercy to us, prescribe the rule
   of a holy and godly life, teach us the true worship of God, and exhort
   us to exercise faith and patience, and all the duties of godliness. But
   Moses was different from Christ in this respect, that while the love of
   the Gospel was not as yet made known, he kept the people under veils,
   set forth the knowledge of Christ by types and shadows, and, in short,
   accommodated himself to the capacity of ignorant people, and did not
   rise higher than to puerile elements. We must then remember, that the
   Law is that part of the ministration which Moses had as peculiarly his
   own, and different from that of Christ. That law, as it was subordinate
   to the ancient priesthood, was abolished when the priesthood was
   abolished. And Christ, being made a priest, was invested also with the
   authority of a legislator, that he might be the teacher and interpreter
   of the new covenant. At the same time, the word Law is applied, though
   not in its strict sense, to the Gospel; but this impropriety of
   language is so far from having anything harsh in it, that on account of
   the contrast it adds beauty to the sentence, as we find in the seventh
   chapter of the Epistle to the Romans

   Moreover, the impiety of the Pope is extremely arrogant, who has
   inserted this article in his decretals, that he himself is now invested
   with the same authority as Aaron formerly had, because the Law and also
   the priesthood have been transferred to him. We see what the Apostle
   says; he maintains that ceremonies have ceased since the time when
   Christ came forth with command to proclaim the new covenant. It is then
   absurd hence to conclude, that anything has been transferred to the
   ministers of Christ; for Christ himself is alone contrasted here with
   Moses and Aaron. Under what pretext then can Antichrist arrogate to
   himself any such authority? I do not indeed speak now for the sake of
   disproving so gross an arrogance; but it is worth while to remind
   readers of this sacrilegious audacity, that they may know that this
   notorious servant of the servants of Christ wholly disregards the honor
   of his Master, and boldly mangles the Scriptures, that he may have some
   cloak for his own tyranny.

   13. For he of whom these things are spoken, or, said, [121] etc. As the
   Apostle was speaking to them who confessed Jesus the Son of Mary to be
   the Christ, he proves that an end was put to the ancient priesthood,
   because the new Priest, who had been set in the place of the old, was
   of another tribe, and not of Levi; for according to the Law the honor
   of the priesthood was to continue, by a special privilege, in that
   tribe. But he says that it was evident that Christ was born of the
   tribe of Judah, for it was then a fact commonly known. As then they
   acknowledged that he was the Christ, it was also necessary that they
   should be persuaded that he was the son of David; for he who had been
   promised could derive his origin from no other.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [118] The particles Ei men oun, are rendered by Elsner, "but if," -- by
   Doddridge, "now if," -- by Stuart, "moreover if," and by Macknight,
   "moreover, if indeed;" and all these consider that there is here a
   commencement from what has preceded. -- Ed

   [119] "Perfection," or completion, rather than consummation is no doubt
   the best word teleiosis. To render it "perfect expiation," as
   Schleusner does, is not to render the word, but to explain it. The
   imperfection of the Levitical priesthood was doubtless its capacity
   really to make an atonement for sin, as its work was ceremonial and
   typical: but it was enough for the present purpose merely to say that
   it was not perfect, as it failed to answer the great end of
   establishing a priesthood. And the Apostle grounds its deficiency, or
   imperfect character, on the fact that a priest of another order had
   been promised. This was an argument which the Jews could not resist, as
   it was founded on the Scriptures, which they themselves acknowledged as
   divine. -- Ed

   [120] See [27]Appendix Z.

   [121] Calvin renders "for", gar, "doubtless -- certe," and Stuart,
   "now;" but it may better be rendered here, "for," as a reason is given
   for a change in "the law" respecting the priesthood. The gar in the
   former verse may be rendered "indeed," or "wherefore" as by Macknight.
   In the 11^th verse, the Apostle proves the imperfection or
   defectiveness of the Levitical priesthood, by the promise of another
   priest after the order of Melchisedec for Christ was not of the tribe
   specified by the Law. -- Ed
     __________________________________________________________________

   Hebrews Chapter 7:15-22

   15. And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of
   Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,

   15. Idque magis etiam liquet, siquidem ad similitudinem Melchisedec
   exoritur sacerdos alius;

   16. Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after
   the power of an endless life.

   16. Qui non juxta legem mandati carnalis factus fuit, sed secundum
   potentiam vitae insolubilis.

   17. For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of
   Melchisedec.

   17. Testatur enim ad hunc modum, Tu serdos in aeternum secundum ordinem
   Melchisedec.

   18. For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before
   for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

   18. Abrogatio enim sit prioris mandati propter imbecillitatem et
   inutilitatem.

   19. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better
   hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

   19. Nihil enim lex perfecit, sed accessit introductio ad spem potiorem
   per quam appropinquamus Deo:

   20. And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:

   20. Atque hoc potiorem, quod non absque jurejurando res acta sit: nam
   illi quidem citra jusjurandum sacerdotes facti sunt:

   21. (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath
   by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art
   a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:)

   21. Hic vero cum jurejurando, per eum qui dixit illi, Tu sacerdos in
   aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedec.

   22. By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.

   22. Tanto potioris Testamenti sponsor factus est Iesus.


   15. And it is yet far more evident, etc. He proves by another argument,
   that the Law is abolished. He reasoned before as to the person of the
   priest, but now as to the nature of the priesthood, and the reason for
   which it was appointed. The ancient priesthood, he says, had to do with
   external rites; but in Christ's priesthood there is nothing but what is
   spiritual. It hence appears, that the former was evanescent and
   temporary; but that the latter was to be perpetual.

   16. Carnal commandment, etc. It was called carnal, because it refers to
   things corporal, that is, to external rites. We know how Aaron and his
   sons were initiated into their office. What was fulfilled in Christ by
   the hidden and celestial power of the Spirit, was shadowed forth under
   the Law by ointment, various vestments, the sprinkling of blood, and
   other earthly ceremonies. Now this kind of institution was suitable to
   the nature of the priesthood; it hence follows, that the priesthood
   itself was liable to change. At the same time, as we shall hereafter
   see, the priesthood was not so carnal, but that it was still spiritual;
   but the Apostle here refers only to the difference between Christ and
   Aaron. However spiritual then might have been the meaning of these
   shadows, they were yet but shadows in themselves; and as they were made
   up of the elements of this world, they may justly be called earthly.

   After the power of an endless life, or, of an indissoluble life. As
   Christ is a perpetual priest, it was necessary, that he should be
   different from Aaron as to the manner of his appointment; and so it
   was, for it was not Moses, a mortal man, who consecrated him, but the
   Holy Spirit, and that not with oil, nor with the blood of goats, nor
   with the outward pomp of vestments, but with celestial power, which the
   Apostle here sets in opposition to weak elements. We hence see how the
   eternity of his priesthood was exhibited in Christ.

   17. Thou art a priest forever, etc. It is on the single word forever,
   that the Apostle lays stress in this passage; for he confirms what he
   said of an indissoluble life. He then shows that Christ differs from
   the whole race of Levi, because he is made a priest for ever. [122]

   But here it may be objected, as the Jews also do, that the word,lvlm
   laoulam, does not always mean eternity, but the extent of one age, or,
   at farthest, a long time; and it is added, that when Moses speaks of
   the ancient sacrifices, he often uses this expression, "This ordinance
   shall be forever." (Exodus 12:17, and 19:9.) To this I answer that
   whenever the sacrifices of the Law are mentioned, "forever" is to be
   confined to the time of the Law; nor ought this to be deemed strange;
   for by the coming of Christ a certain renovation of the world was
   effected. Whenever, then, Moses speaks of his own ministration, he
   extends the longest time no farther than to Christ. It must yet be also
   observed, that "forever" is applied to the ancient sacrifices, not with
   regard to the external ceremony, but on account of their mystical
   signification. On the present occasion, however, this reason ought to
   be sufficient, that Moses and his ministrations were for ever; that is,
   until the coming of the kingdom of Christ, under whom the world was
   renovated. Now when Christ is come, and a perpetual priesthood is given
   to him, we can find no end to his age, so that it cannot terminate
   after a certain period of time. So when applied to him, the word ought
   to be understood in the sense of eternity; for by the context we are
   always to judge of the meaning of the word, lvlmlaoulam

   18. For there is verily a disannulling, or abrogation, etc. As the
   Apostle's discourse depends on this hinge, that the Law together with
   the priesthood had come to an end, he explains the reason why it ought
   to have been abolished, even because it was weak and unprofitable. And
   he speaks thus in reference to the ceremonies, which had nothing
   substantial in them, nor in themselves anything available to salvation;
   for the promise of favor annexed to them, and what Moses everywhere
   testifies that God would be pacified by sacrifices and that sins would
   be expiated, did not properly belong to sacrifices, but were only
   adventitious to them. For as all types had a reference to Christ, so
   from him they derived all their virtue and effect; nay, of themselves
   they availed nothing or effected nothing; but their whole efficacy
   depended on Christ alone

   But as the Jews foolishly set up these in opposition to Christ, the
   Apostle, referring to this notion, shows the difference between these
   things and Christ. For as soon as they are separated from Christ, there
   is nothing left in them, but the weakness of which he speaks; in a
   word, there is no benefit to be found in the ancient ceremonies, except
   as they refer to Christ; for in this way they so made the Jews
   acquainted with God's grace, that they in a manner kept them in
   expectation of it. Let us then remember that the Law is useless, when
   separated from Christ. And he also confirms the same truth by calling
   it the commandment going before; for it is a wellknown and common
   saying, that former laws are abrogated by the latter. The Law had been
   promulgated long before David; but he was in possession of his kingdom
   when he proclaimed this prophecy respecting the appointment of a new
   priest; this new Law then annulled the former.

   19. For the Law made nothing perfect, etc. As he had spoken rather
   harshly of the Law, he now mitigates or, as it were, corrects that
   asperity; for he concedes to it some utility, as it had pointed out the
   way which leads at length to salvation. It was, however, of such a kind
   as to be far short of perfection. The Apostle then reasons thus: The
   Law was only a beginning; then something more perfect was necessarily,
   to follow; for it is not fit that God's children should always continue
   in childish elements. By the word bringing in, or introduction, he
   means a certain preparation made by the Law, as children are taught in
   those elements which smooth the way to what is higher. But as the
   preposition epi denotes a consequence, when one thing follows another;
   it ought, as I think, to be thus rendered, "but added was an
   introduction into a better hope." For he mentions two introductions,
   according to my view; the first by Melchisedec as a type; and the
   second by the Law, which was in time later. Moreover, by Law he
   designates the Levitical priesthood, which was superadded to the
   priesthood of Melchisedec.

   By a better hope is to be understood the condition of the faithful
   under the reign of Christ; but he had in view the fathers, who could
   not be satisfied with the state in which they were then, but aspired to
   higher things. Hence that saying, "Many kings and prophets desired to
   see the things which ye see." (Luke 10:24.) They were therefore led by
   the hand of the Law as a schoolmaster, that they might advance farther.
   [123]

   By the which we draw nigh, etc. There is to be understood here an
   implied contrast between us and the fathers; for in honor and privilege
   we excel them, as God has communicated to us a full knowledge of
   himself, but he appeared to them as it were afar off and obscurely. And
   there is an allusion here made to the tabernacle or the temple; for the
   people stood afar off in the court, nor was there a nearer access to
   the sanctuary opened to any one except to the priests; and into the
   interior sanctuary the highest priest only entered; but now, the
   tabernacle being removed, God admits us into a familiar approach to
   himself, which the fathers were not permitted to have. Then he who
   still holds to the shadows of the Law, or seeks to restore them, not
   only obscures the glory of Christ, but also deprives us of an immense
   benefit; for he puts God at a great distance from us, to approach whom
   there is a liberty granted to us by the Gospel. And whosoever continues
   in the Law, knowingly and willingly deprives himself of the privilege
   of approaching nigh to God.

   20. And inasmuch as not without an oath, etc. Here is another argument,
   why the Law ought to give place to the Gospel; for God has set Christ's
   priesthood above that of Aaron, since in honor to the former he was
   pleased to make an oath. For when he appointed the ancient priests, he
   introduced no oath; but it is said of Christ, the Lord swore; which was
   doubtless done for the sake of honoring him. We see the end for which
   he again quotes the Psalmist, even that we may know, that more honor
   through God's oath was given to Christ than to any others. But we must
   bear in mind this truth, that a priest is made that he may be the
   surety of a covenant. The Apostle hence concludes, that the covenant
   which God has made by Christ with us, is far more excellent than the
   old covenant of which Moses was the interpreter.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [122] This paragraph extends from the 11^th verse to the end of the
   17^th. The "law" parenthetically referred to in the 11^th, seems not to
   be the Mosaic Law generally, as too commonly supposed, but the law
   respecting the Levitical priesthood, as it appears evident from the
   12^th and the following verses, for what is spoken of is Christ as
   being a priest not in succession from Aaron, but according to the order
   of Melchisedec. See [28]Appendix A 2. -- Ed.

   [123] Calvin is peculiar in his view of this verse. He considered the
   Law to be "an introduction to a better hope." Many agree with our
   version, such as Beza, Doddridge, Macknight, Stuart, etc. But there are
   those who render "introduction" in connection with "disannulling." See
   [29]Appendix B 2. -- Ed.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Hebrews Chapter 7:23-28

   23. And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to
   continue by reason of death:

   23. Et illi quidem plures facti fuerunt sacerdotes, quod prohiberentur
   morti permanere:

   24. But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable
   priesthood.

   24. Hic autem quia perpetuo manet immutabile habet sacerdotium.

   25. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come
   unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

   25. Unde et servare in aeternum potest eos qui per ipsum Deo
   appropinquant, semper vivens ut intercedat pro nobis.

   26. For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless,
   undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

   26. Talis enim nos decebat Pontifex, sanctus, innocens, impollutus,
   segregatus a peccatoribus, et excelsior coelis factus;

   27. Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up
   sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this
   he did once, when he offered up himself.

   27. Qui non necesse habeat quotidie, quemadmodum sacerdotes, primum pro
   suis peccatis hostias offerre, deinde pro populi: hoc enim semel fecit,
   quum seipsum obtulit.

   28. For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the
   word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is
   consecrated for evermore.

   28. Lex quidem homines constituit sacerdotes habentes informatem; sermo
   autem jurisjurandi, quod lege posterius est, Filium in aeternum
   perfectum.


   23. And they truly, etc. He had already touched on this comparison; but
   as the subject deserved more attention, he unfolds it more fully,
   though the point discussed is different from what it was before; for
   then he concluded that the ancient priesthood was to come to an end
   because they who exercised it were mortal; but now he simply shows that
   Christ remains perpetually a priest. This he does by an argument taken
   from things unequal; the ancient priests were many, for death put an
   end to their priesthood; but there is no death to prevent Christ from
   discharging his office. Then he alone is a perpetual priest. Thus a
   different cause produces different effects.

   25. Wherefore he is able to save, etc. This is the fruit of an eternal
   priesthood, even our salvation, if indeed we gather this fruit by faith
   as we ought to do. For where death is or a change, you will there seek
   salvation in vain; hence they who cleave to the ancient priesthood, can
   never attain salvation. When he says, them that come unto God, or who
   approach God, by this phrase he points out the faithful who alone enjoy
   the salvation procured by Christ; but he yet at the same time indicates
   what faith ought to regard in a mediator. The chief good of man is to
   be united to his God, with whom is the fountain of life and of all
   blessings; but their own unworthiness drives all away from any access
   to him. Then the peculiar office of a mediator is to bring us help in
   this respect, and to stretch out his hand to us that he may lead us to
   heaven. And he ever alludes to the ancient shadows of the Law; for
   though the high priest carried the names of the twelve tribes on his
   shoulders and symbols on his breast, yet he alone entered the
   sanctuary, while the people stood in the court. But now by relying on
   Christ the Mediator we enter by faith into heaven, for there is no
   longer any veil intervening, but God appears to us openly, and lovingly
   invites us to a familiar access. [124]

   Seeing he ever liveth, etc. What sort of pledge and how great is this
   of love towards us! Christ liveth for us, not for himself! That he was
   received into a blessed immortality to reign in heaven, this has taken
   place, as the Apostle declares, for our sake. Then the life, and the
   kingdom, and the glory of Christ are all destined for our salvation as
   to their object; nor has Christ any thing, which may not be applied to
   our benefit; for he has been given to us by the Father once for all on
   this condition, that all his should be ours. He at the same time
   teaches us by what Christ is doing, that he is performing his office as
   a priest; for it belongs to a priest to intercede for the people, that
   they may obtain favor with God. This is what Christ is ever doing, for
   it was for this purpose that he rose again from the dead. Then of
   right, for his continual intercession, he claims for himself the office
   of the priesthood.

   26. For such an high priest, etc. He reasons from what is necessarily
   connected with the subject. These conditions, or qualifications, as
   they commonly say, are of necessity required in a priest -- that he
   should be just, harmless, and pure from every spot. This honor belongs
   to Christ alone. Then what was required for the real discharge of the
   office was wanting in the priests of the law. It hence follows, that
   there was no perfection in the Levitical priesthood; nor was it indeed
   in itself legitimate, unless it was subservient to that of Christ; and,
   doubtless, the external ornaments of the high priest indicated this
   defect; for why were those costly and splendid vestments used with
   which God commanded Aaron to be adorned while performing holy rites,
   except that they were symbols of a holiness and excellency far
   exceeding all human virtues? Now, these types were introduced, because
   the reality did not exist. It then appears that Christ alone is the
   fully qualified priest.

   Separate from sinners, etc. This clause includes all the rest. For
   there was some holiness, and harmlessness, and purity in Aaron, but
   only a small measure; for he and his sons were defiled with many spots;
   but Christ, exempt from the common lot of men, is alone free from every
   sin; hence in him alone is found real holiness and innocency. For he is
   not said to be separate from us, because he repels us from his society,
   but because he has this excellency above us all, that he is free from
   every uncleanness. [125]

   And we hence conclude, that all prayers, which are not supported by
   Christ's intercession, are rejected.

   It may, however, be asked as to angels, whether they are separate from
   sinners? And if so, what prevents them from discharging the offices of
   the priesthood, and from being our mediators with God? To this there is
   an easy reply: -- No one is a lawful priest, except he is appointed by
   God's command; and God has nowhere conferred this honor on angels. It
   would then be a sacrilegious usurpation, were they, without being
   called, to intrude into the office; besides, it is necessary, as we
   shall presently see at the beginning of the next chapter, that the
   Mediator between God and men should himself be a man. At the same time
   the last thing mentioned here by the Apostle is abundantly sufficient
   as an answer to the question; for no one can unite us to God but he who
   reaches to God; and this is not the privilege of angels, for they are
   not said to have been made higher than the heavens. It then belongs to
   Christ alone to conciliate God to us, as he has ascended above all the
   heavens. Now, these words mean the same as though Christ were said to
   have been placed above all orders of creatures, so that he stands
   eminent above all angels.

   27. Who needeth not, etc. He pursues the contrast between Christ and
   the Levitical priests; and he points out especially two defects, so to
   speak, in the ancient priesthood, by which it appears that it was not
   perfect. And here, indeed, he only touches briefly on the subject; but
   he afterwards explains every particular more at large, and particularly
   that which refers to the daily sacrifices, as the main question was
   respecting these. It is briefly also that I will now touch on the
   several points. One of the defects of the ancient priesthood was, that
   the high priest offered sacrifices for his own sins; how then could he
   have pacified God for others, who had God justly displeased with
   himself? Then they were by no means equal to the work of expiating for
   sins. The other defect was, that they offered various sacrifices daily;
   it hence follows, that there was no real expiation; for sins remain
   when purgation is repeated. The case with Christ was wholly different;
   for he himself needed no sacrifice, as he was sprinkled with no spot of
   sin; and such was the sacrifice, that it was alone sufficient to the
   end of the world, for he offered himself. [126]

   28. For the law, etc. From the defects of men he draws his conclusion
   as to the weakness of the priesthood, as though he had said, "Since the
   law makes no real priests, the defect must by some other means be
   remedied; and it is remedied by the word of the oath; for Christ was
   made a priest, being not of the common order of men, but the Son of
   God, subject to no defect, but adorned and endowed with the highest
   perfection." He again reminds us, that the oath was posterior to the
   law, in order to show that God, being not satisfied with the priesthood
   of the law, designed to constitute a better priesthood; for in the
   institutions of God what succeeds advances the former to a better
   state, or it abolishes what was designed to exist only for a time.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [124] Calvin's version of the former part of the verse is, "Hence he is
   also able to save for ever those who through him draw nigh to God."
   Instead of "to the uttermost" of our version, we have here "forever,"
   according to the Vulg. Macknight renders the phrase the same and Stuart
   "always." But the original, eis to panteles, do not refer to time, but
   to what is fully or perfectly done. It is so taken by Erasmus, Beza,
   Capellus and Schleusner. There is another difference, whether to
   connect the words with "able" or with "save." Most join them with
   "save," "he is able also fully (or, for ever) able to save." When we
   consider what the subject is -- the perfection of Christ as a priest,
   and not the character of his salvation. We must see that the latter is
   the right view, and that the passage ought to have been thus rendered,
   -- "And hence he is fully (or perfectly) able to save those who through
   him come to God." And the words which follow may be deemed as affording
   a reason for this, "always living in order to intercede for them," or,
   "to interpose in their behalf." However, there is not much difference
   in the meaning, whether the word "fully" or perfectly be connected with
   "able" or with "save;" the same truth is essentially conveyed. -- Ed.

   [125] Christ as a priest was "holy" with regard to God; "harmless," or
   innocent, or guileless, according to Chrysostom, with respect to men;
   "undefiled" as to himself, morally so, as the priests under the law
   were so ceremonially; "separate," or separated "from sinners" removed
   from their society to another place, and "exalted higher than the
   heavens." There is an allusion to the Levitical high priest, especially
   in the three last words, and a contrast in the two last; the Levitical
   high priest continued among sinners, Christ is removed from them; the
   former entered into the holy of holies, the latter has entered into a
   place higher that the heavens, even the heavens of heavens. How
   immeasurable is the superiority of our high priest! -- Ed.

   [126] See [30]Appendix C 2.
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

   CHAPTER 8
     __________________________________________________________________

   Hebrews Chapter 8:1-6

   1. Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such
   an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the
   Majesty in the heavens;

   1. Porro eurum quae dicuntur summa est, Talem habemus pontificem qui
   consedit in dextera throni majestatis in coelis;

   2. A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the
   Lord pitched, and not man.

   2. Sanctorum minister et tabernaculi veri quod fixit Dominus et non
   homo.

   3. For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices:
   wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.

   3. Omnis enim pontifex ad offerendum dona et sacrificia constituitur;
   unde necesse est hunc quoque habere quod offerat.

   4. For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that
   there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:

   4. Sane si in terra esset, ne pontifex quidem esset, quamdiu essent
   sacerdotes qui secundum legem offerrent dona;

   5. Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses
   was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for,
   See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern
   shewed to thee in the mount.

   5. Qui in exemplari et umbra ministrant coelestium, quemadmodum oraculo
   admonitus fuit Moses, quum tabernaculum esset perfecturus, Vide,
   inquit, ut facias omnia secundum typum qui tibi ostensus fuit in monte.

   6. But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also
   he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon
   better promises.

   6. Nunc autem excellentius obtinuit ministerium, quanto et potioris
   testamenti Mediator, quod supeer praestantioiribus promissionibus
   promulgatum fuit.


   1. Now of the things, etc. That readers might know the subject he
   handles, he reminds them that his object is to prove that Christ's
   priesthood, by which that of the law had been abolished, is spiritual.
   He, indeed, proceeds with the same argument; but as he contends with
   various reasonings, he introduced this admonition, that he might keep
   his readers attentive to what he had in view.

   He has already shown that Christ is a high priest; he now contends that
   his priesthood is celestial. It hence follows, that by his coming the
   priesthood established by Moses under the law was made void, for it was
   earthly. and as Christ suffered in the humble condition of his flesh,
   and having taken the form of a servant, made himself of no reputation
   in the world, (Philippians 2:7;) the Apostle reminds us of his
   ascension, by which was removed not only the reproach of the cross, but
   also of that abject and mean condition which he had assumed together
   with our flesh; for it is by the power of the Spirit which gloriously
   appeared in the resurrection and the ascension of Christ, that the
   dignity of his priesthood is to be estimated. He then reasons thus --
   "Since Christ has ascended to the right hand of God, that he might
   reign gloriously in heaven, he is not the minister of the earthly but
   of the heavenly sanctuary. [127]

   2. Of the sanctuary, or, literally, of holy things, etc. The word is to
   be taken, as being in the neuter gender; and the Apostle explains
   himself by saying, of the true tabernacle. [128]

   But it may be asked, whether the tabernacle built by Moses was a false
   one, and presumptuously constructed, for there is an implied contrast
   in the words? To this I answer, that to us mentioned here is not set in
   opposition to what is false, but only to what is typical; as we find in
   John 1:17, "The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by
   Jesus Christ." Then the old tabernacle was not the empty inventions of
   man, but the effigy of the heavenly tabernacle. As, however, a shadow
   differs from the substance, and the sign from the thing signified, the
   Apostle denies it to have been the true tabernacle, as though he had
   said, that it was only a shadow.

   Which the Lord pitched, or, fixed, etc. What does the Apostle mean by
   locating Christ's priesthood in heaven? For doubtless he suffered on
   earth, and by an earthly blood he atoned for our sins, for he derived
   his origin from the seed of Abraham; the sacrifice of his death was
   visible; and lastly, that he might offer himself to the Father, it was
   necessary for him to descend from heaven to the earth, and as man to
   become exposed to the sorrows of this mortal life, and at length to
   death itself. To all this I reply, that whatever of an earthly kind
   appears at first sight to be in Christ, it is to be viewed spiritually
   by the eye of faith. Thus his flesh, which proceeded from the seed of
   Abraham, since it was the temple of God, possessed a vivifying power;
   yea, the death of Christ became the life of the world, which is
   certainly above nature. The Apostle therefore does not refer to what
   belongs peculiarly to human nature, but to the hidden power of the
   Spirit; and hence it is, that the death of Christ has nothing earthly
   in it. When therefore we speak of Christ, let us learn to raise up all
   our thoughts to the kingdom of God, so that no doubt may remain in us.

   Nearly to the same purpose is the language of Paul in 2 Corinthians
   5:1; he calls God the builder of this tabernacle, in order to set forth
   its stability and perpetuity; for, on the other hand, what is built by
   men's hands, is unstable, and at last sure to perish. But he says this,
   because redemption was truly a divine work, attained by the death of
   Christ; and in this the power of Christ manifested itself in a
   wonderful manner.

   3. For every high priest, etc. The Apostle intends to show, that
   Christ's priesthood cannot coexist with the Levitical priesthood. He
   proves it in this way, -- "The Law appointed priests to offer
   sacrifices to God; it hence appears that the priesthood is an empty
   name without a sacrifice. But Christ had no sacrifice, such as was
   offered under the Law; it hence follows, that his priesthood is not
   earthly or carnal, but one of a more excellent character."

   Let us now examine every clause. The first thing that deserves notice,
   is that which he teaches that no priest is appointed except to offer
   gifts; it is hence evident, that no favor from God can be obtained for
   men except through the interposition of a sacrifice. Hence, that our
   prayers may be heard, they must be founded on a sacrifice; their
   audacity, therefore, is altogether pernicious and fatal, who pass by
   Christ and forget his death, and yet rush into the presence of God.
   Now, if we wish to pray in a profitable manner, we must learn ever to
   set before us the death of Christ, which alone sanctifies our prayers.
   For God will never hear us unless he is reconciled; but he must be
   first pacified, for our sins cause him to be displeased with us.
   Sacrifice must necessarily precede, in order that there may be any
   benefit from prayer.

   We may hence further conclude, that no one either among men or angels
   is qualified for pacifying God, for all are without any sacrifice of
   their own which they can offer to appease God. And hereby is abundantly
   exposed the effrontery of the Papists who make Apostles and martyrs to
   share with Christ as mediators in the work of intercession; for in vain
   do they assign them such an office, except they supply them with
   sacrifices. [129]

   4. For if he were on earth, etc. It is now beyond dispute that Christ
   is a high priest; but as the office of a judge does not exist without
   laws and statutes, so the office of sacrificing must be connected with
   Christ as a priest: yet he has no earthly or visible sacrifice; he
   cannot then be a priest on earth. We must always hold this truth that
   when the Apostle speaks of the death of Christ, he regards not the
   external action, but the spiritual benefit. He suffered death as men
   do, but as a priest he atoned for the sins of the world in a divine
   manner; there was an external shedding of blood, but there was also an
   internal and spiritual purgation; in a word, he died on earth, but the
   virtue and efficacy of his death proceeded from heaven.

   What immediately follows some render thus, "He could not be a priest of
   the number of those who offer gifts according to the Law." But the
   words of the Apostle mean another thing; and therefore I prefer this
   rendering, "He could not be a priest as long as there are priests who,"
   etc. For he intends to show one of these two things, either that Christ
   is no priest, while the priesthood of the Law continued, as he had no
   sacrifice, or that the sacrifices of the law ceased as soon as Christ
   appeared. The first of these is against all reason, for it is an act of
   impiety to deprive Christ of his priesthood. It then remains for us to
   confess, that the Levitical order is now abolished.

   5. Who serve unto the example, etc. The verb latreuein to serve, I take
   here to mean the performing of sacred rites; and so en or epi is to be
   understood. This is certainly more appropriate than the rendering given
   by some, "Who serve the shadow and example of heavenly things; and the
   construction in Greek will admit naturally of the meaning I have
   proposed. In short, he teaches us that the true worship of God consists
   not in the ceremonies of the Law, and that hence the Levitical priests,
   while exercising their functions, had nothing but a shadow and a copy,
   which is inferior to the prototype, for this is the meaning of the word
   hupodeigma, exemplar. And he thus anticipates what might have been
   raised as an objection; for he shows that the worship of God, according
   to the ancient sacrifices, was not superfluous, because it referred to
   what was higher, even to heavenly realities. [130]

   As Moses was admonished by God, etc. This passage is found in Exodus
   25:40; and the apostle adduces it here on purpose, so that he might
   prove that the whole service, according to the Law, was nothing more
   than a picture as it were, designed to shadow forth what is found
   spiritually in Christ. God commanded that all the parts of the
   tabernacle should correspond with the original pattern, which had been
   shown to Moses on the mount. And if the form of the tabernacle had a
   reference to something else, then the same must have been the case as
   to the rituals and the priesthood; it hence follows that there was
   nothing real in them.

   This is a remarkable passage, for it contains three things entitled to
   special notice.

   First, we hence learn that the ancient rituals were not without reason
   appointed, as though God did by them engage the attention of the people
   as with the diversions of children; and that the form of the tabernacle
   was not an empty thing, intended only to allure and attract the eyes by
   its external splendor; for there was a real and spiritual meaning in
   all these things, since Moses was commanded to execute every thing
   according to the original pattern which was given from heaven.
   Extremely profane then must the opinion of those be, who hold that the
   ceremonies were only enjoined that they might serve as means to
   restrain the wantonness of the people, that they might not seek after
   the foreign rites of heathens. There is indeed something in this, but
   it is far from being all; they omit what is much more important, that
   they were the means of retaining the people in their expectation of a
   Mediator.

   There is, however, no reason that we should be here overcurious, so as
   to seek in every nail and minute things some sublime mystery, as
   Hesychius did and many of the ancient writers, who anxiously toiled in
   this work; for while they sought refinedly to philosophize on things
   unknown to them, they childishly blundered, and by their foolish
   trifling made themselves ridiculous. We ought therefore to exercise
   moderation in this respect, which we shall do if we seek only to know
   what has been revealed to us respecting Christ.

   Secondly, we are here taught that all those modes of worship are false
   and spurious, which men allow themselves by their own wit to invent,
   and beyond God's command; for since God gives this direction, that all
   things are to be done according to his own rule, it is not lawful for
   us to do anything different from it; for these two forms of expression,
   "see that thou do all things according to the patterns," and, "See that
   thou do nothing beyond the pattern," amount to the same thing. Then by
   enforcing the rule delivered by himself, he prohibits us to depart from
   it even in the least thing. For this reason all the modes of worship
   taught by men fall to the ground, and also those things called
   sacraments which have not proceeded from God.

   Thirdly, let us hence learn that there are no true symbols of religion
   but those which conform to what Christ requires. We must then take
   heed, lest we, while seeking to adapt our own inventions to Christ,
   transfigure him, as the Papists do, so that he should not be at all
   like himself; for it does not belong to us to devise anything as we
   please, but to God alone it belongs to show us what to do; it is to be
   "according to the pattern" showed to us.

   6. But now has he obtained a more excellent ministry, etc. As he had
   before inferred the excellency of the covenant from the dignity of the
   priesthood, so also now he maintains that Christ's priesthood is more
   excellent than that of Aaron, because he is the interpreter and
   Mediator of a better covenant. Both were necessary, for the Jews were
   to be led away from the superstitious observance of rituals, by which
   they were prevented from advancing directly forward to the attainment
   of the real and pure truth of the Gospel. The Apostle says now that it
   was but right that Moses and Aaron should give way to Christ as to one
   more excellent, because the gospel is a more excellent covenant than
   the Law, and also because the death of Christ was a nobler sacrifice
   than the victims under the Law.

   But what he adds is not without some difficulty, -- that the covenant
   of the Gospel was proclaimed on better promises; [131] for it is
   certain that the fathers who lived under the Law had the same hope of
   eternal life set before them as we have, as they had the grace of
   adoption in common with us, then faith must have rested on the same
   promises. But the comparison made by the Apostle refers to the form
   rather than to the substance; for though God promised to them the same
   salvation which he at this day promises to us, yet neither the manner
   nor the character of the revelation is the same or equal to what we
   enjoy. If anyone wishes to know more on this subject, let him read the
   4th and 5th chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians and my Institutes.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [127] See [31]Appendix D 2.

   [128] It is better to take "holy things" as designating the holy duties
   of the priest, afterwards specified when the offering of gifts and
   sacrifices is mentioned, than as signifying "the sanctuary." Christ is
   a priest and a minister in sacred things, and a minister in the true
   tabernacle. He has holy things to do, and he does them, not in the
   shadowy and typical tabernacle, but in that which is real and
   celestial. We find, that the word in the next chapter means the holiest
   place, accompanied as here with the article, chapter 9: 8-12, and
   without the article, the holy place or the sanctuary, chapter 9:2. So
   then if this meaning be taken, the rendering here ought to be, "the
   minister of the holiest;" and then "tabernacle" is used as including
   the whole building, as in chapter 9:2. But the context here seems to
   favor the former meaning. The version of Doddridge is, "A minister of
   holy things." -- Ed.

   [129] "This man" of our version, in the latter clause of the verse,
   should be either "he," or "this high priest," in contrast with the high
   priest at the beginning of the verse. Such is the rendering of
   Macknight and Stuart. -- Ed.

   [130] Our version of this clause is hardly intelligible. Calvin's
   rendering with a little addition would convey a clear meaning. "Who do
   service in that which is the exemplar and shadow of celestial things."
   Stuart considers "tabernacle" as being understood. We have the words,
   "who serve the tabernacle," in chapter 13:10, that is, "who do the
   service belonging to the tabernacle," or, "who attend on the
   tabernacle." So the literal rendering here is, "who serve the model and
   shadow of celestial things," which means, "who do the service belonging
   to the model and shadows of celestial things." The tabernacle no doubt
   is what is meant; and it is called a "model," or likeness, because it
   emblematically represented, or exhibited things heavenly, and a
   "shadow," because it was not the substance or the reality. Stuart seems
   to have unwisely combined the two words, "a mere copy;" for the two
   ideas they convey are not thus so clearly seen. But to "serve," or to
   do service, includes what was done by the people as well as by the
   priests. Those who offered the sacrifices, as well as the priests
   through whom they offered the sacrifices, or performed the services
   belonging to the tabernacle; the latter are meant here, and the former
   or both in chapter 10:2; 13:10. To serve the Lord, and to offer
   sacrifices to him, are in Exodus represented as the same; see chapter
   8:1; 10:7, 26. -- Ed.

   [131] Instead of "proclaimed," it is "established" in our version, and
   in that of Doddridge, and Macknight, and of Stuart, "sanctioned." The
   verb means what is set as a law; that is, firmly and irrevocably fixed.
   It was a covenant firmly set or founded on more excellent promises.
   What these are, we learn in the following verses. This verse is
   connected with the fourth; and the fifth is to be put in a parenthesis.
   The reasoning is, -- Though he is no priest on earth, yet he has a
   higher ministry, inasmuch as the covenant of which he is the Mediator
   is far superior to that of priests on earth; that is, the Levitical
   priests. Then he proceeds to the end of the chapter with the covenant,
   and shows its superiority. -- Ed.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Hebrews Chapter 8:7-13

   7. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place
   have been sought for the second.

   7. Si enim primum ellud reprehensione caruisset, non fuisset secundo
   quaesitus locus.

   8. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith
   the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and
   with the house of Judah:

   8. Porro incusans eos, dicit, Ecce dies veniunt, dicit Dominus, quum
   perficiam super domum Israel, et super domum Juda foedus novum:

   9. Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the
   day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt;
   because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not,
   saith the Lord.

   9. Non secundum foedus quod feci cum patribus eorum in die, quo
   apprehendi manum eorum, ut educerem eos e terra, Aegypti, quai ipsi non
   perstiterunt in foedere meo, et ego neglexi eos, dicit Dominus.

   10. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
   after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind,
   and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they
   shall be to me a people:

   10. Quia hoc est foedus quod disponam domui Israel illus diebus, dicit
   Dominus, Ponam leges meas in mente ipsorum, et in cordibus eorum
   scribam eos; et ero illis in deum et ipsi erunt mihi in populum:

   11. And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his
   brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least
   to the greatest.

   11. Et non docebunt unusquisque civem suum et unusquisque fratrem suum,
   dicendo, Cognosce Dominum; quia omnes me scient a parvo inter vos usque
   ad magnum.

   12. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and
   their iniquities will I remember no more.

   12. Quoniam propitius ero injustitiis, et peccatorum eorum et
   iniquitatum non recordabor amplius.

   13. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now
   that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

   13. Dicende novum antiquavit prius; quod autem antiquatur et veterascit
   prope est ut evanescat.


   7. For if that first, etc. He confirms what he had said of the
   excellency of the covenant which God has made with us through Christ;
   and he confirms it on this ground, because the covenant of the Law was
   neither valid nor permanent; for if nothing was wanting in it, why was
   another substituted for it? But another has been substituted; and from
   this it is evident that the old covenant was not in every respect
   perfect. To prove this he adduces the testimony of Jeremiah, which we
   shall presently examine.

   But it seems hardly consistent to say, that after having said that no
   place would have been sought for the second covenant, had the first
   been faultless, he should then say that the people were at fault, and
   that for this cause the new covenant was introduced as a remedy; and
   thus it appears unjust, that if the blame was in the people it should
   be transferred to God's covenant. Then the argument seems not valid,
   for though God might have a hundred times blamed the people, yet the
   covenant could not on that account be deemed faulty. The answer to this
   objection may be easily given. Though the crime of violating the
   covenant was justly imputed to the people, who had through their own
   perfidy departed from God, yet the weakness of the covenant is also
   pointed out, because it was not written in their hearts. Then, to
   render it perfect and valid, God declares that it needed an amendment.
   It was not, therefore, without reason that the Apostle contended that a
   place was to be sought for a second. [132]

   8. Behold, the days come, etc. (Jeremiah 31:31-34.) The Prophet speaks
   of future time; he arraigns the people of perfidy, because they
   continued not faithful after having received the Law. The Law, then,
   was the covenant which was broken, as God complains, by the people. To
   remedy this evil, he promised a new and a different covenant, the
   fulfillment of which prophecy was the abrogation of the old covenant.

   But it may be said, the Apostle seems unreasonably to turn this
   prophecy to suit his own purpose; for here the question is respecting
   ceremonies, but the Prophet speaks of the whole Law: what has it to do
   with ceremonies, when God inscribes on the heart the rule of a godly
   and holy life, delivered by the voice and teaching of men? To this I
   reply that the argument is applied from the whole to a part. There is
   no doubt but that the Prophet includes the whole dispensation of Moses
   when he says, "I have made with you a covenant which you have not
   kept." Besides, the Law was in a manner clothed with ceremonies; now
   when the body is dead, what is the use of garments? It is a common
   saying that the accessory is of the same character with his principal.
   No wonder, then, that the ceremonies, which are nothing more than
   appendages to the old covenant, should come to an end, together with
   the whole dispensation of Moses. Nor is it unusual with the Apostles,
   when they speak of ceremonies, to discuss the general question
   respecting the whole Law. Though, then, the prophet Jeremiah extends
   wider than to ceremonies, yet as it includes them under the name of the
   old covenant, it may be fitly applied to the present subject.

   Now, by the days which the prophet mentions, all agree that Christ's
   kingdom is signified; it hence follows, that the old covenant was
   changed by the coming of Christ. And he names the house of Israel and
   the house of Judah, because the posterity of Abraham had been divided
   into two kingdoms. So the promise is to gather again all the elect
   together into one body, however separated they may have been formerly.

   9. Not according to the covenant, etc. Here is expressed the difference
   between the covenant which then existed and the new one which he caused
   them to expect. The Prophet might have otherwise said only: "I will
   renew the covenant which through your fault has come to nothing;" but
   he now expressly declares that it would be one unlike the former. By
   saying that the covenant was made in the day when he laid holds on
   their hand to rescue them from bondage, he enhanced the sin of
   defection by thus reminding them of so great a benefit. At the same
   time he did not accuse one age only of ingratitude; but as these very
   men who had been delivered immediately fell away, and as their
   posterity after their example continually relapsed, hence the whole
   nation had become covenantbreakers.

   By saying that he disregarded them or cared not for them, he intimates
   that it would profit them nothing to have been once adopted as his
   people, unless he succored them by this new kind of remedy. At the same
   time the Prophet expresses in Hebrew something more; but this has
   little to do with the present question. [133]

   10 For this is the covenant that I will make, etc. There are two main
   parts in this covenant; the first regards the gratuitous remission of
   sins; and the other, the inward renovation of the heart; there is a
   third which depends on the second, and that is the illumination of the
   mind as to the knowledge of God. There are here many things most
   deserving of notice.

   The first is, that God calls us to himself without effect as long as he
   speaks to us in no other way than by the voice of man. He indeed
   teaches us and commands what is right but he speaks to the deaf; for
   when we seem to hear anything, our ears are only struck by an empty
   sound; and the heart, full of depravity and perverseness, rejects every
   wholesome doctrine. In short, the word of God never penetrates into our
   hearts, for they are iron and stone until they are softened by him;
   nay, they have engraven on them a contrary law, for perverse passions
   rule within, which lead us to rebellion. In vain then does God proclaim
   his Law by the voice of man, unless he writes it by his Spirit on our
   hearts, that is, unless he forms and prepares us for obedience. It
   hence appears of what avail is freewill and the uprightness of nature
   before God regenerates us. We will indeed and choose freely; but our
   will is carried away by a sort of insane impulse to resist God. Thus it
   comes that the Law is ruinous and fatal to us as long as it remains
   written only on tables of stone, as Paul also teaches us. (2
   Corinthians 3:3.) In short, we then only obediently embrace what God
   commands, when by his Spirit he changes and corrects the natural
   pravity of our hearts; otherwise he finds nothing in us but corrupt
   affections and a heart wholly given up to evil. The declaration indeed
   is clear, that a new covenant is made according to which God engraves
   his laws on our hearts, for otherwise it would be in vain and of no
   effect. [134]

   The second particular refers to the gratuitous pardon of sins. Though
   they have sinned, saith the Lord, yet I will pardon them. This part is
   also most necessary; for God never so forms us for obedience to his
   righteousness, but that many corrupt affections of the flesh still
   remain; nay, it is only in part that the viciousness of our nature is
   corrected; so that evil lusts break out now and then. And hence is that
   contest of which Paul complains, when the godly do not obey God as they
   ought, but in various ways offend. (Romans 7:13.) Whatever desire then
   there may be in us to live righteously, we are still guilty of eternal
   death before God, because our life is ever very far from the perfection
   which the Law requires. There would then be no stability in the
   covenant, except God gratuitously forgave our sins. But it is the
   peculiar privilege of the faithful who have once embraced the covenant
   offered to them in Christ, that they feel assured that God is
   propitious to them; nor is the sin to which they are liable, a
   hindrance to them, for they have the promise of pardon.

   And it must be observed that this pardon is promised to them, not for
   one day only, but to the very end of life, so that they have a daily
   reconciliation with God. For this favor is extended to the whole of
   Christ's kingdom, as Paul abundantly proves in the fifth chapter of his
   second Epistle to the Corinthians. And doubtless this is the only true
   asylum of our faith, to which if we flee not, constant despair must be
   our lot. For we are all of us guilty; nor can we be otherwise released
   then by fleeing to God's mercy, which alone can pardon us.

   And they shall be to me, etc. It is the fruit of the covenant, that God
   chooses us for his people, and assures us that he will be the guardian
   of our salvation. This is indeed the meaning of these words, And I will
   be to them a God; for he is not the God of the dead, nor does he take
   us under his protection, but that he may make us partakers of
   righteousness and of life, so that David justly exclaims, "Blessed are
   the people to whom the Lord is God (Psalm 144:15.) There is further no
   doubt but that this truth belongs also to us; for though the Israelites
   had the first place, and are the proper and legitimate heirs of the
   covenant, yet their prerogative does not hinder us from having also a
   title to it. In short, however far and wide the kingdom of Christ
   extends, this covenant of salvation is of the same extent.

   But it may be asked, whether there was under the Law a sure and certain
   promise of salvation, whether the fathers had the gift of the Spirit,
   whether they enjoyed God's paternal favor through the remission of
   sins? Yes, it is evident that they worshipped God with a sincere heart
   and a pure conscience, and that they walked in his commandments, and
   this could not have been the case except they had been inwardly taught
   by the Spirit; and it is also evident, that whenever they thought of
   their sins, they were raised up by the assurance of a gratuitous
   pardon. And yet the Apostle, by referring the prophecy of Jeremiah to
   the coming of Christ, seems to rob them of these blessings. To this I
   reply, that he does not expressly deny that God formerly wrote his Law
   on their hearts and pardoned their sins, but he makes a comparison
   between the less and the greater. As then the Father has put forth more
   fully the power of his Spirit under the kingdom of Christ, and has
   poured forth more abundantly his mercy on mankind, this exuberance
   renders insignificant the small portion of grace which he had been
   pleased to bestow on the fathers. We also see that the promises were
   then obscure and intricate, so that they shone only like the moon and
   stars in comparison with the clear light of the Gospel which shines
   brightly on us.

   If it be objected and said, that the faith and obedience of Abraham so
   excelled, that hardly any such an example can at this day be found in
   the whole world; my answer is this, that the question here is not about
   persons, but that reference is made to the economical condition of the
   Church. Besides, whatever spiritual gifts the fathers obtained, they
   were accidental as it were to their age; for it was necessary for them
   to direct their eyes to Christ in order to become possessed of them.
   Hence it was not without reason that the Apostle, in comparing the
   Gospel with the Law, took away from the latter what is peculiar to the
   former. There is yet no reason why God should not have extended the
   grace of the new covenant to the fathers. This is the true solution of
   the question.

   11. And they shall not teach, etc. We have said that the third point is
   as it were a part of the second, included in these words, I will put my
   laws in their mind; for it is the work of the Spirit of God to
   illuminate our minds, so that we may know what the will of God is, and
   also to bend our hearts to obedience. For the right knowledge of God is
   a wisdom which far surpasses the comprehension of man's understanding;
   therefore, to attain it no one is able except through the secret
   revelation of the Spirit. Hence Isaiah, in speaking of the restoration
   of the Church, says, that all God's children would be his disciples or
   scholars. (Isaiah 28:16.) The meaning of our Prophet is the same when
   he introduces God as saying, They shall know me. For God does not
   promise what is in our own power, but what he alone can perform for us.
   In short, these words of the Prophet are the same as though he had
   said, that our minds are blind and destitute of all right understanding
   until they are illuminated by the Spirit of God. Thus God is rightly
   known by those alone to whom he has been pleased by a special favor to
   reveal himself.

   By saying, From the least to the greatest, he first intimates that
   God's grace would be poured on all ranks of men, so that no class would
   be without it. He, secondly, reminds us that no rude and ignorant men
   are precluded from this heavenly wisdom, and that the great and the
   noble cannot attain it by their own acuteness or by the help of
   learning. Thus God connects the meanest and the lowest with the
   highest, so that their ignorance is no impediment to the one, nor can
   the other ascend so high by their own acumen; but the one Spirit is
   equally the teacher of them all.

   Fanatical men take hence the occasion to do away with public preaching,
   as though it were of no use in Christ's kingdom; but their madness may
   be easily exposed. Their objection is this: "After the coming of Christ
   every one is to teach his neighbor; away then with the external
   ministry, that a place may be given to the internal inspiration of
   God." But they pass by this, that the Prophet does not wholly deny that
   they would teach one another, but his words are these, They shall not
   teach, saying, Know the Lord; as though he had said, "Ignorance shall
   not as heretofore so possess the minds of men as not to know who God
   is." But we know that the use of teaching is twofold; first, that they
   who are wholly ignorant may learn the first elements; and secondly,
   that those who are initiated may make progress. As then Christians, as
   long as they live, ought to make progress, it cannot surely be said,
   that any one is so wise that he needs not to be taught; so that no
   small part of our wisdom is a teachable spirit. And what is the way of
   making progress if we desire to be the disciples of Christ? This is
   shown to us by Paul when he says, that Christ gave pastors and
   teachers. (Ephesians 4:11.) It hence appears that nothing less was
   thought of by the Prophet than to rob the Church of such a benefit.
   [135] His only object was to show that God would make himself known to
   small and great, according to what was also predicted by Joel 2:28. It
   ought also in passing to be noticed, that this light of sacred
   knowledge is promised peculiarly to the Church; hence this passage
   belongs to none but to the household of faith. [136]

   13. In that he saith, A new, etc. From the fact of one covenant being
   established, he infers the subversion of the other; and by calling it
   the old covenant, he assumes that it was to be abrogated; for what is
   old tends to a decay. [137] Besides, as the new is substituted, it must
   be that the former has come to an end; for the second, as it has been
   said, is of another character. But if the whole dispensation of Moses,
   as far as it was opposed to the dispensation of Christ, has passed
   away, then the ceremonies also must have ceased.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [132] This apparent inconsistency is avoided by some by rendering the
   8^th verse differently, "But finding fault," that is, with the first
   covenant, "he" Chrysostom, Beza, Doddridge, our own version, as well as
   Calvin and the Vulgate, connect "them" with "finding fault with," and
   more correctly too; for the Israelites are blamed in the very passage
   that is quoted. There was a double fault or defect, which is explained
   in Romans 8:3, "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak
   through the flesh," etc. This double fault or weakness more fully sets
   forth the excellency of the new covenant. --Ed.

   [133] See [32]Appendix E 2.

   [134] The Apostle adopts here the Septuagint version. The Hebrew is "I
   will put my law in their inmost part, and on their heart will I write
   (or engrave) it." The word "law" and "heart", are put here in the
   plural number, and the "inmost part" is rendered "mind." These changes
   are according to the peculiar character of the two languages. -- Ed.

   [135] It is a sufficient answer to the fanatics here alluded to, that
   their conclusion from his text militates against the practice of the
   apostolic Church as established by Christ himself, he having sent
   apostles, evangelists, pastors and teachers. -- Ed.

   [136] The 12^th verse is passed over. It differs in words, though not
   in substance, both from the Hebrew and the Sept. It is indeed the
   latter version with the addition of these words, "and their
   iniquities." The nouns are in the singular number in Hebrew,
   "unrighteousness" and "sin." When the Apostle quotes again the passage
   in chapter 10:17, he leaves out "unrighteousness," and mentions only
   "sins and iniquities." There is also a shade of difference as to the
   first verb. In Hebrew remission or forgiveness is its meaning, but here
   the idea is mercy. The Apostle no doubt considered that the truth was
   essentially conveyed in the Greek version. -- Ed.

   [137] This verse may be thus rendered, -- "By saying, a new covenant,'
   he has made ancient the first: now what is ancient and becomes old is
   nigh a dissolution (or disappearing.)" It is said to be ancient in
   contrast with the new; and old or aged is afterwards added to be
   ancient in order to show its weak and feeble character, being like an
   old man tottering on the brink of the grave, who, when buried,
   disappears from among the living. It is supposed that there is here an
   intimation of the dissolution of the whole Jewish polity, which soon
   afterwards took place. -- Ed.
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

   CHAPTER 9
     __________________________________________________________________

   Hebrews Chapter 9:1-5

   1. Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine
   service, and a worldly sanctuary.

   1. Habebat quidem prius illud justificationes cultus et sanctum
   mundanum:

   2. For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the
   candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the
   sanctuary.

   2. Tabernaculum enim primum compositum erat, in quo candelabrum et
   mensa et panum propositio; quod dicitur sanctuarium.

   3. And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the
   Holiest of all;

   3. Post secundum autem velum tabernaculum quod sancta sanctorum
   dicitur;

   4. Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid
   round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and
   Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;

   4. Aureum habens thuribulum et arcam foederis undique coopertam auro,
   in qua urna aurea habens manna, et virga Aaronis quae floruerat, et
   tabulae testamenti;

   5. And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which
   we cannot now speak particularly.

   5. Supra autem ipsam cherubin gloriae obumbrantes propitiatorium; de
   quibus non attinet nunc dicere sigillatim.


   1 Then verily the first, etc [138] After having spoken generally of the
   abrogation of the old covenant, he now refers specially to the
   ceremonies. His object is to show that there was nothing practiced then
   to which Christ's coming has not put an end. He says first, that under
   the old covenant there was a specific form of divine worship, and that
   it was peculiarly adapted to that time. It will hereafter appear by the
   comparison what kind of things were those rituals prescribed under the
   Law.

   Some copies read, prote skene the first tabernacle; but I suspect that
   there is a mistake as to the word "tabernacle;" nor do I doubt but that
   some unlearned reader, not finding a noun to the adjective, and in his
   ignorance applying to the tabernacle what had been said of the
   covenant, unwisely added the word skene tabernacle. I indeed greatly
   wonder that the mistake had so prevailed, that it is found in the Greek
   copies almost universally. [139] But necessity constrains me to follow
   the ancient reading. For the Apostle, as I have said, had been speaking
   of the old covenant; he now comes to ceremonies, which were additions,
   as it were, to it. He then intimates that all the rites of the Mosaic
   Law were a part of the old covenant, and that they partook of the same
   ancientness, and were therefore to perish.

   Many take the word latreias as an accusative plural. I agree with those
   who connect the two words together, dikaiomata latreias for institutes
   or rites, which the Hebrews call chvqym, and the Greeks have rendered
   by the word dikaiomata ordinances. The sense is, that the whole form or
   manner of worshipping God was annexed to the old covenant, and that it
   consisted of sacrifices, ablutions, and other symbols, together with
   the sanctuary. And he calls it a worldly sanctuary, because there was
   no heavenly truth or reality in those rites; for though the sanctuary
   was the effigy of the original pattern which had been shown to Moses;
   yet an effigy or image is a different thing from the reality, and
   especially when they are compared, as here, as things opposed to each
   other. Hence the sanctuary in itself was indeed earthly, and is rightly
   classed among the elements of the world, it was yet heavenly as to what
   it signified. [140]

   2. For there was a tabernacle, etc. As the Apostle here touches but
   lightly on the structure of the tabernacle, that he might not be
   detained beyond what his subject required; so will I also designedly
   abstain from any refined explanation of it. It is then sufficient for
   our present purpose to consider the tabernacle in its three parts, --
   the first was the court of the people; the middle was commonly called
   the sanctuary; and the last was the inner sanctuary, which they called,
   by way of eminence, the holy of holies. [141]

   As to the first sanctuary, which was contiguous to the court of the
   people, he says that there were the candlestick and the table on which
   the shewbread was set: he calls this place, in the plural number, the
   holies. Then, after this is mentioned, the most secret place, which
   they called the holy of holies, still more remote from the view of the
   people, and it was even hid from the priests who ministered in the
   first sanctuary; for as by a veil the sanctuary was closed up to the
   people, so another veil kept the priests from the holy of holies.
   There, the Apostle says, was the thumiaterion by which name I
   understand the altar of incense, or fumigation, rather than the censer;
   [142] then the ark of the covenant, with its covering, the two
   cherubim, the golden pot filled with manna, the rod of Aaron, and the
   two tables. Thus far the Apostle proceeds in describing the tabernacle.

   But he says that the pot in which Moses had deposited the manna, and
   Aaron's rod which had budded, were in the ark with the two tables; but
   this seems inconsistent with sacred history, which in 1 King s 8:9,
   relates that there was nothing in the ark but the two tables. But it is
   easy to reconcile these two passages: God had commanded the pot and
   Aaron's rod to be laid up before the testimony; it is hence probable
   that they were deposited in the ark, together with the tables. But when
   the Temple was built, these things were arranged in a different order,
   and certain history relates it as a thing new that the ark had nothing
   else but the two tables. [143]

   5. Of which we cannot now, etc. As nothing can satisfy, curious men,
   the apostle cuts off every occasion for refinements unsuitable to his
   present purpose, and lest a longer discussion of these things should
   break off the thread of his argument. If, therefore, any one should
   disregard the Apostle's example, and dwell more minutely on the
   subject, he would be acting very unreasonably. There might be, indeed,
   an occasion for doing this elsewhere; but it is now better to attend to
   the subject of which he treats: it may further be said, that to
   philosophize beyond just limits, which some do, is not only useless,
   but also dangerous. There are some things which are not obscure and
   fitted for the edification of faith; but discretion and sobriety ought
   to be observed, lest we seek to be wise above what God has been pleased
   to reveal.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [138] Rather, "Yet even the first," etc. It is connected with the last
   verse of the preceding chapter; as though he had said, -- "Though the
   covenant is become antiquated, yet it had many things divinely
   appointed connected with it." Men oun mean "yet," or however. See Art.
   8:4. Macknight has "Now verily;" and Stuart, "Moreover." -- Ed

   [139] It has since been discovered that it is not found in many of the
   best MSS., and is dismissed from the text by Griesbach and all modern
   critics. The noun understood is evidently "covenant," spoken of in the
   preceding chapter. -- Ed.

   [140] Many, such as Grotius, Beza, etc., consider that "ordinances" and
   "services" (not service) are distinct, and both in the objective case,
   and render the words "rituals, services, and a wordly sanctuary." And
   if the sequel is duly examined, it will be found that this is the right
   construction. The Apostle, according to the manner of the prophet,
   reverses the order, and speaks distinctly of these three particulars,
   -- first, "the wordly sanctuary" -- the tabernacle in verses 2, 3, 4,
   and 5; secondly, "the services" in verses 6 and 7; and thirdly, "the
   rituals" in verse 10, where the word "ordinances" again occur. There
   can therefore be hardly a doubt as to the construction of the first
   verse. The sanctuary is called worldly in contrast with what is
   heavenly or divine, not made with hands: see verse 11. -- Ed.

   [141] See [33]Appendix F 2.

   [142] This is evidently a mistake, for the altar of incense was in the
   sanctuary -- the first tabernacle. See Exodus 30:1-6. The word is used
   in the Sept., for "censer," 2 Chronicles 26:19. There were many censors
   made, as it is supposed, of brass; for they were daily used in the
   sanctuary for incense; but this golden censor was probably used only on
   the day of expiation, when the chief priest entered the holiest place;
   and the probability is, though there is no account of this in the Old
   Testament, that it was laid up or deposited, as Stuart suggests, in the
   holy of holies. -- Ed.

   [143] Stuart observes, "Our author is speaking of the tabernacle, and
   not of the temple; still less of the second temple, which must have
   lacked even the tables of testimony. The probability is, that the ark,
   during its many removals, and in particular during its captivity by the
   Philistines, was deprived of those sacred deposits; for we hear no more
   concerning them." -- Ed.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Hebrews Chapter 9:6-12

   6. Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always
   into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God

   6. His vero sic compositis, in prius tabernaculum semper ingrediuntur
   sacerdotes qui sacra peragunt:

   7. But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not
   without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the
   people:

   7. At in secundum semel quotannis solus pontifex, non sine sanguine
   quem offert pro suis et populi ignorantiis:

   8. The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all
   was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet
   standing:

   8. Hoc declarante Spiritu Sancto, nondum manifestatum esse sanctorum
   viam, stante adhuc priore tabernaculo;

   9. Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered
   both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service
   perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;

   9. Quae similitudo erat in praesens tempus, quo dona et hostiae
   offeruntur quae non possunt secundum conscientiam sanctificare
   cultorem;

   10. Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and
   carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

   10. Solum in cibis et potibus et diversis ablutionibus et
   sanctifictionibus carnis usque ad tempus correctionis imposita.

   11. But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a
   greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to
   say, not of this building;

   11. Christus autem superveniens pontifex futurorum bonorum per majus et
   perfectius tabernaculum non manufactum, hoc est, non hujus creationis;

   12. Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he
   entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption
   for us

   12. Neque per sanguinem hircorum et vitulorum, sed per proprium
   sanguinem intravit semel in sancta, aeterna redemptione inventa.


   6. Now, when these things were thus ordained, etc. Omitting other
   things, he undertakes to handle the chief point in dispute: he says
   that the priests who performed sacred rites were wont to enter the
   first tabernacle daily, but that the chief priest entered the holy of
   holies only yearly with the appointed sacrifice. He hence concludes,
   that while the tabernacle under the Law was standing, the sanctuary was
   closed up, and that only through that being removed could the way be
   open for us to the kingdom of God. We see that the very form of the
   ancient tabernacle reminded the Jews that they were to look for
   something else. Then foolishly did they act who, by retaining the
   shadows of the Law, willfully obstructed their own way.

   He mentions proten skenen the first tabernacle, in ver. 2, in a
   different sense from what it has here, for here it means the first
   sanctuary, but there the whole tabernacle; for he sets it in opposition
   to the spiritual sanctuary of Christ, which he presently mentions. He
   contends that this had fallen for our great benefit, for through its
   fall a more familiar access to God has been obtained for us.

   7. For himself and for the errors of the people, or for his own and the
   ignorances of the people. As the verb |shagag|, means in Hebrew to err,
   to mistake, so |shgagah|, derived from it, properly denotes error, or
   mistake; but yet it is generally taken for any kind of sin; and
   doubtless we never sin except when deceived by the allurements of
   Satan. The Apostle does not understand by it mere ignorance, as they
   say, but, on the contrary, he includes also voluntary sins; but as I
   have already said, no sin is free from error or ignorance; for however
   knowingly and willfully any one may sin, yet it must be that he is
   blinded by his lust, so that he does not judge rightly, or rather he
   forgets himself and God; for men never deliberately rush headlong into
   ruin, but being entangled in the deceptions of Satan, they lose the
   power of judging rightly. [144]

   9. Which was a figure, etc. The word parathole, used here, signifies,
   as I think, the same thing with antitupos, antitype; for he means that
   that tabernacle was a second pattern which corresponded with the first.
   For the portrait of a man ought to be so like the man himself, that
   when seen, it ought immediately to remind us of him whom it represents.
   He says further, that it was a figure, or likeness, for the time then
   present, that is, as long as the external observance was in force; and
   he says this in order to confine its use and duration to the time of
   the Law; for it means the same with what he afterwards adds, that all
   the ceremonies were imposed until the time of reformation; nor is it
   any objection that he uses the present tense in saying, gifts are
   offered; for as he had to do with the Jews, he speaks by way of
   concession, as though he were one of those who sacrificed. Gifts and
   sacrifices differ, as the first is a general term, and the other is
   particular.

   That could not make him that did the service perfect as pertaining to
   the conscience; that is, they did not reach the soul so as to confer
   true holiness. I do not reject the words, make perfect, and yet I
   prefer the term sanctify, as being more suitable to the context. But
   that readers may better understand the meaning of the Apostle, let the
   contrast between the flesh and the conscience be noticed; he denies
   that worshippers could be spiritually and inwardly cleansed by the
   sacrifices of the Law. It is added as a reason, that all these rites
   were of the flesh or carnal. What then does he allow them to be? It is
   commonly supposed, that they were useful only as means of training to
   men, conducive to virtue and decorum. But they who thus think do not
   sufficiently consider the promises which are added. This gloss,
   therefore, ought to be wholly repudiated. Absurdly and ignorantly too
   do they interpret the ordinances of the flesh, as being such as
   cleansed or sanctified only the body; for the Apostle understands by
   these words that they were earthly symbols, which did not reach the
   soul; for though they were true testimonies of perfect holiness, yet
   they by no means contained it in themselves, nor could they convey it
   to men; for the faithful were by such helps led, as it were, by the
   hand to Christ, that they might obtain from him what was wanting in the
   symbols.

   Were any one to ask why the Apostle speaks with so little respect and
   even with contempt of Sacraments divinely instituted, and extenuates
   their efficacy? This he does, because he separates them from Christ;
   and we know that when viewed in themselves they are but beggarly
   elements, as Paul calls them. (Galatians 4:9.)

   10. Until the time of reformation, etc. Here he alludes to the prophecy
   of Jeremiah. (Jeremiah 31:31.) [145] The new covenant succeeded the old
   as a reformation. He expressly mentions meats and drinks, and other
   things of minor importance, because by these trifling observances a
   more certain opinion may be formed how far short was the Law of the
   perfection of the Gospel. [146]

   11. But Christ being come, etc. He now sets before us the reality of
   the things under the Law, that it may turn our eyes from them to
   itself; for he who believes that the things then shadowed forth under
   the Law have been really found in Christ, will no longer cleave to the
   shadows, but will embrace the substance and the genuine reality.

   But the particulars of the comparison between Christ and the ancient
   high priest, ought to be carefully noticed. He had said that the high
   priest alone entered the sanctuary once a year with blood to expiate
   sins. Christ is in this life the ancient high priests for he alone
   possesses the dignity and the office of a high priest; but he differs
   from him in this respect, that he brings with him eternal blessings
   which secure a perpetuity to his priesthood. Secondly, there is this
   likeness between the ancient high priest and ours, that both entered
   the holy of holies through the sanctuary; but they differ in this, that
   Christ alone entered into heaven through the temple of his own body.
   That the holy of holies was once every year opened to the high priest
   to make the appointed expiation -- this obscurely prefigured the one
   true sacrifice of Christ. To enter once then was common to both, but to
   the earthly it was every year, while it was to the heavenly forever,
   even to the end of the world. The offering of blood was common to both;
   but there was a great difference as to the blood; for Christ offered,
   not the blood of beasts, but his own blood. Expiation was common to
   both; but that according to the Law, as it was inefficacious, was
   repeated every year; but the expiation made by Christ is always
   effectual and is the cause of eternal salvation to us. Thus, there is
   great importance almost in every word. Some render the words, "But
   Christ standing by," or asking; but the meaning of the Apostle is not
   thus expressed; for he intimates that when the Levitical priests had
   for the prefixed time performed their office, Christ came in their
   place, according to what we found in the seventh chapter. [147]

   Of good things to come, etc. Take these for eternal things; for as
   mellon kairos, time to come, is set in opposition to the present to
   enestekoti; so future blessings are to the present. The meaning is,
   that we are led by Christ's priesthood into the celestial kingdom of
   God, and that we are made partakers of spiritual righteousness and of
   eternal life, so that it is not right to desire anything better. Christ
   alone, then, has that by which he can retain and satisfy us in himself.
   [148]

   By a greater and more perfect tabernacle, etc. Though this passage is
   variously explained, yet I have no doubt but that he means the body of
   Christ; for as there was formerly an access for the Levitical high
   priest to the holy of holies through the sanctuary, so Christ through
   his own body entered into the glory of heaven; for as he had put on our
   flesh and in it suffered, he obtained for himself this privilege, that
   he should appear before God as a Mediator for us. In the first place,
   the word sanctuary is fitly and suitably applied to the body of Christ,
   for it is the temple in which the whole majesty of God dwells. He is
   further said to have made a way for us by his body to ascend into
   heaven, because in that body he consecrated himself to God, he became
   in it sanctified to be our true righteousness, he prepared himself in
   it to offer a sacrifice; in a word, he made himself in it of no
   reputation, and suffered the death of the cross; therefore, the Father
   highly exalted him and gave him a name above every name, that every
   knee should bow to him. (Philippians 2:8-10.) He then entered into
   heaven through his own body, because on this account it is that he now
   sits at the Father's right hand; he for this reason intercedes for us
   in heaven, because he had put on our flesh, and consecrated it as a
   temple to God the Father, and in it sanctified himself to obtain for us
   an eternal righteousness, having made an expiation for our sins. [149]

   It may however seem strange, that he denies the body of Christ to be of
   this building; for doubtless he proceeded from the seed of Abraham, and
   was liable to sufferings and to death. To this I reply, that he speaks
   not here of his material body, or of what belongs to the body as such,
   but of the spiritual efficacy which emanates from it to us. For as far
   as Christ's flesh is quickening, and is a heavenly food to nourish
   souls, as far as his blood is a spiritual drink and has a cleansing
   power, we are not to imagine anything earthly or material as being in
   them. And then we must remember that this is said in allusion to the
   ancient tabernacle, which was made of wood, brass, skins, silver, and
   gold, which were all dead things; but the power of God made the flesh
   of Christ to be a living and spiritual temple.

   12. Neither by the blood of goats, etc. All these things tend to show
   that the things of Christ so far excel the shadows of the Law, that
   they justly reduce them all to nothing. For what is the value of
   Christ's blood, if it be deemed no better than the blood of beasts?
   What sort of expiation was made by his death, if the purgations
   according to the Law be still retained? As soon then as Christ came
   forth with the efficacious influence of his death, all the typical
   observances must necessarily have ceased.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [144] It is said that the high priest entered the holiest place "once
   every year," that is, on one day, the day of expiation, every year; but
   on that day he went in at least three times. See Leviticus 16:12-15;
   and probably four times, according to the Jewish tradition; and one of
   the times, as supposed by Stuart, was for the purpose of bringing out
   the golden censer. The word rendered "errors," literally means
   "ignorances," and so some render it "sins of ignorance;" but it is used
   in the Apocrypha as designating sins in general; and Grotius refers to
   Tob. 3:3; Judith 5:20; Sirach 23:2, 1 Macc. 13:39. And that it means
   sins of all kinds is evident from the account given in Leviticus 16 of
   the atonement made on the annual man, says Estius, "is ignorant; and
   all sins proceed from error in judgement." Hence it seems, sins were
   called ignorances. -- Ed.

   [145] Although the original text in the book refers to Jer 31:37, which
   warns of an ultimate rejection of Israel; it would seem that Jer 31:31
   is more appropriate in the current context of reformation. -- fj.

   [146] See [34]Appendix G 2.

   [147] See commentary on [35]Chapter 7 .

   [148] "Good things (or blessings) to come," may have a reference to the
   blessings promised in the Old Testament as the blessings of the kingdom
   of Christ, included in "the eternal redemption" mentioned in the next
   verse. -- Ed.

   [149] There is no other view that is satisfactory. The idea that has
   been by some suggested, that the "better tabernacle" is the visible
   heaven through which he entered into the heaven of heavens, has no
   evidence in its support. Some of the Ancients, such as Ambrose, and
   also Doddridge and Scott consider heaven as intended, as in chapter
   8:2, (but "tabernacle" in that passage means the whole structure,
   especially the holy of holies.) According to this view dia is rendered
   in -- "in a greater and more perfect tabernacle." But Chrysostom,
   Theophylact, Grotius, Beza, etc., agree with Calvin in regarding
   Christ's human nature as signified by the "tabernacle;" and what
   confirms this exposition is what we find in chapter 10:5, 10, and 20.
   "Not made with hands," and "not of this creation," for no objection;
   for Christ's body was supernaturally formed; and the contrast is with
   the material tabernacle, a human structure, made by men and made of
   earthly materials. It is, however, better to connect "tabernacle" with
   the preceding than with the following words, -- But Christ, having come
   the high priest of the good things to come by means of a better and
   more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is, not of this
   creation, has entered once for all into the holiest, not indeed with
   (or by) the blood of goats and calves but (or by) his own blood, having
   obtained an eternal redemption. "Creation" here means the world; it was
   not made of worldy materials. See verse 1. -- Ed.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Hebrews Chapter 9:13-17

   13. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer
   sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

   13. Si enim sanguis taurorum et hircorum, et cinis vitulae aspersus eos
   qui communicant, sanctificat ad carnis puritatem,

   14. How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal
   Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from
   dead works to serve the living God?

   14. Quanto magis sanguis Christi, qui per Spiritum aueternum sepsum
   obtulit irreprehensibilem Deo, mundabit conscientiam vestram a mortuis
   operibus ad serviendum Deo viventi?

   15. And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by
   means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were
   under the first testament, they which are called might receive the
   promise of eternal inheritance.

   15. Ac propterea testamenti novi mediator est, ut morte intercedente in
   redemptionem transgressionum quae sub priore testamento erant, qui
   vocati sunt promissionem accipiant aeternae haeriditatis.

   16. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death
   of the testator.

   16. Nam ubi est testamentum, illic necesse est mortem testatoris
   intercedere.

   17. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of
   no strength at all while the testator liveth.

   17. Testamentum enim in mortuis firmum est, quia nunquam validum est
   quandiu vivit testator.


   13. For if the blood of bulls, etc. This passage has given to many all
   occasion to go astray, because they did not consider that sacraments
   are spoken of, which had a spiritual import. The cleansing of the flesh
   they leave explained of what avails among men, as the heathens had
   their expiations to blot out the infamy of crimes. But this explanation
   is indeed very heathenish; for wrong is done to God's promises, if we
   restrict the effect to civil matters only. Often does this declaration
   occur in the writings of Moses, that iniquity was expiated when a
   sacrifice was duly offered. This is no doubt the spiritual teaching of
   faith. Besides, all the sacrifices were destined for this end, that
   they might lead men to Christ; as the eternal salvation of the soul is
   through Christ, so these were true witnesses of this salvation.

   What then does the Apostle mean when he speaks of the purgations of the
   flesh? He means what is symbolical or sacramental, as follows, -- If
   the blood of beasts was a true symbol of purgation, so that it cleansed
   in a sacramental manner, how much more shall Christ who is himself the
   truth, not only bear witness to a purgation by an external rite, but
   also really perform this for consciences? The argument then is from the
   signs to the thing signified; for the effect by a long time preceded
   the reality of the signs.

   14. Who through the eternal Spirit, etc. He now clearly shows how
   Christ's death is to be estimated, not by the external act, but by the
   power of the Spirit. For Christ suffered as man; but that death becomes
   saving to us through the efficacious power of the Spirit; for a
   sacrifice, which was to be an eternal expiation, was a work more than
   human. And he calls the Spirit eternal for this reason, that we may
   know that the reconciliation, of which he is the worker or effecter, is
   eternal. [150] By saying, without spot, or unblamable, though he
   alludes to the victims under the Law, which were not to have a blemish
   or defect, he yet means, that Christ alone was the lawful victim and
   capable of appeasing God; for there was always in others something that
   might be justly deemed wanting; and hence he said before that the
   covenant of the Law was not amempton, blameless.

   From dead works, etc. Understand by these either such works as produce
   death, or such as are the fruits or effects of death; for as the life
   of the soul is our union with God, so they who are alienated from him
   through sin may be justly deemed to be dead.

   To serve the living God. This, we must observe, is the end of our
   purgation; for we are not washed by Christ, that we may plunge
   ourselves again into new filth, but that our purity may serve to
   glorify God. Besides, he teaches us, that nothing can proceed from us
   that can be pleasing to God until we are purified by the blood of
   Christ; for as we are all enemies to God before our reconciliation, so
   he regards as abominable all our works; hence the beginning of
   acceptable service is reconciliation. And then, as no work is so pure
   and so free from stains, that it can of itself please God, it is
   necessary that the purgation through the blood of Christ should
   intervene, which alone can efface all stains. And there is a striking
   contrast between the living God and dead works.

   15. And for this cause he is Mediator of the New Testament, etc. He
   concludes that there is no more need of another priest, for Christ
   fulfills the office under the New Testament; for he claims not for
   Christ the honor of a Mediator, so that others may at the same time
   remain as such with him; but he maintains that all others were
   repudiated when Christ undertook the office. But that he might more
   fully confirm this fact, he mentions how he commenced to discharge his
   office of a Mediator; even through death intervening. Since this is
   found alone in Christ, being wanting in all others, it follows that he
   alone can be justly deemed a Mediator. [151]

   He further records the virtue and efficacy of his death by saying that
   he paid the price for sins under the first covenant or testament, which
   could not be blotted out by the blood of beasts; by which words he was
   seeking draw away the Jews from the Law to Christ. For, if the Law was
   so weak that all the remedies it applied for expiating sins did by no
   means accomplish what they represented, who could rest in it as in a
   safe harbor? This one thing, then, ought to have been enough to
   stimulate them to seek for something better than the law; for they
   could not but be in perpetual anxiety. On the other hand, when we come
   to Christ, as we obtain in him a full redemption, there is nothing
   which can any more distress us. Then, in these words he shows that the
   Law is weak, that the Jews might no longer recumb on it; and he teaches
   them to rely on Christ, for in him is found whatever can be desired for
   pacifying consciences.

   Now, if any one asks, whether sins under the Law where remitted to the
   fathers, we must bear in mind the solution already stated, -- that they
   were remitted, but remitted through Christ. Then notwithstanding their
   external expiations, they were always held guilty. For this reason Paul
   says, that the Law was a handwriting against us. (Colossians 2:14.) For
   when the sinner came forward and openly confessed that he was guilty
   before God, and acknowledged by sacrificing an innocent animal that he
   was worthy of eternal death, what did he obtain by his victim, except
   that he sealed his own death as it were by this handwriting? In short,
   even then they only reposed in the remission of sins, when they looked
   to Christ. But if only a regard to Christ took away sins, they could
   never have been freed from them, had they continued to rest in the Law.
   David indeed declares, that blessed is the man to whom sins are not
   imputed, (Psalm 32:2;) but that he might be a partaker of this
   blessedness, it was necessary for him to leave the Law, and to have his
   eyes fixed on Christ; for if he rested in the Law, he could never have
   been freed from guilt.

   They who are called, etc. The object of the divine covenant is, that
   having been adopted as children, we may at length be made heirs of
   eternal life. The Apostle teaches us that we obtain this by Christ. It
   is hence evident, that in him is the fulfillment of the covenant. But
   the promise of the inheritance is to be taken for the promised
   inheritance, as though he had said, "The promise of eternal life is not
   otherwise made to us to be enjoined, than through the death of Christ."
   Life, indeed, was formerly promised to the fathers, and the same has
   been the inheritance of God's children from the beginning, but we do
   not otherwise enter into the possession of it, than through the blood
   of Christ previously shed.

   But he speaks of the called, that he might the more influence the Jews
   who were made partakers of this calling; for it is a singular favor,
   when we have the gift of the knowledge of Christ bestowed on us. We
   ought then to take the more heed, lest we neglect so valuable a
   treasure, and our thoughts should wander elsewhere. Some regard the
   called to be the elect, but incorrectly in my judgment; for the Apostle
   teaches here the same thing as we find in Romans 3:25, that
   righteousness and salvation have been procured by the blood of Christ,
   but that we become partakers of them by faith.

   16. For where a testament is, etc. Even this one passage is a
   sufficient proof, that this Epistle was not written in Hebrew; for vryt
   means in Hebrew a covenant, but not a testament; but in Greek,
   diatheke, includes both ideas; and the Apostle, alluding to its
   secondary meaning, holds that the promises should not have been
   otherwise ratified and valid, had they not been sealed by the death of
   Christ. And this he proves by referring to what is usually the case as
   to wills or testaments, the effect of which is suspended until the
   death of those whose wills they are.

   The Apostle may yet seem to rest on too weak an argument, so that what
   he says may be easily disproved. For it may be said, that God made no
   testament or will under the Law; but it was a covenant that he made
   with the ancient people. Thus, neither from the fact nor from the name,
   can it be concluded that Christ's death was necessary. For if he infers
   from the fact, that Christ ought to have died, because a testament is
   not ratified except by the death of the testator, the answer may be
   this, that |berit|, the word ever used by Moses, is a covenant made
   between those who are alive, and we cannot think otherwise of the fact
   itself. Now, as to the word used, he simply alluded, as I have already
   said, to the two meanings it has in Greek; he therefore dwells chiefly
   on the thing in itself. Nor is it any objection to say, that it was a
   covenant that God made with his people; for that very covenant bore
   some likeness to a testament, for it was ratified by blood. [152]

   We must ever hold this truth, that no symbols have ever been adopted by
   God unnecessarily or unsuitably. And God in establishing the covenant
   of the law made use of blood. Then it was not such a contract, as they
   say, between the living, as did not require death. Besides, what
   rightly belongs to a testament is, that it begins to take effect after
   death. If we consider that the Apostle reasons from the thing itself,
   and not from the word, and if we bear in mind that he avowedly takes as
   granted what I have already stated, that nothing has been instituted in
   vain by God, there will be no great difficulty.

   If anyone objects and says, that the heathens ratified covenants
   according to the other meaning by sacrifices; this indeed I admit to be
   true; but God did not borrow the rite of sacrificing from the practice
   of the heathens; on the contrary, all the heathen sacrifices were
   corruptions, which had derived their origin from the institutions of
   God. We must then return to the same point, that the covenant of God
   which was made with blood, may be fitly compared to a testament, as it
   is of the same kind and character.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [150] Some as Grotius and Schleusner, take "the eternal Spirit" as
   meaning the same thing as "endless life" in chapter 7:16, -- "who
   having (or in) an eternal spirit," or life, etc.; they give the sense
   of "in" to dia. The comparison they represent to be between perishable
   victims and the sacrifice of Christ, who possesses a spirit or life
   that is eternal. Others, as Junius and Beza, consider Christ's divine
   nature as signified by "the eternal Spirit." Beza says, that it was the
   Deity united to humanity that consecrated the whole sacrifice and
   endued it with vivifying power. The view of Stuart can hardly be
   comprehended. But the explanation most commonly adopted is that given
   here by Calvin that the Holy Spirit is meant, whose aid and influence
   are often mentioned in connection with Christ; see Matthew 12:28; Acts
   1:2; 10:38. Some MSS and fathers have "holy" instead of "eternal," but
   the greatest number and the best have the last word. Dr. Owen,
   Doddridge and Scott take this view. Why the Spirit is called "eternal"
   is not very evident. It may have been for the purpose of showing that
   the Spirit mentioned before in verse 8 is the same Spirit, he being
   eternal, and thus in order to prove that the offering of Christ was
   according to the divine will. God is said to be eternal in Romans
   16:26, where a reference is made to the past and the present
   dispensation, with the view, as it seems, to show that he is the author
   of both. But perhaps the explanation of Calvin is the most suitable. --
   Ed.

   [151] Here begins a new subject, that the covenant, or it may be viewed
   as the resumption of what is found in chapter 8:6, 7. "For this cause,"
   or for this reason, refers, as it seems, to what follows, "in order
   that," hopos, etc. -- And for this reason is he the Mediator of a new
   covenant, in order that death being undergone for the redemption of
   transgressions under the first covenant, they who were called might
   receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. As in Romans 3:25, 26,
   the reference is to the retrospective effect of Christ's expiatory
   sacrifice. Hence "are called" is not correct; and the participle is in
   the past tense. To "receive the promise," means to enjoy its
   fulfillment. -- Ed.

   [152] See [36]Appendix H 2.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Hebrews Chapter 9:18-23

   18. Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.

   18. Inde neque primum illud sine sanguine dedicatum fuit.

   19. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according
   to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and
   scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the
   people,

   19. Nam postquam exposuisset Moses secundum legem totum mandatum
   universo populo, accipiens sanguinem vitulorum et hircorum, cum aqua et
   lana coccinea et hysopo, librum et totum populum aspersit,

   20. Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined
   unto you.

   20. Dicens, Hic est sanguis testamenti quod Deus mandavit vobis
   omnibus.

   21. Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the
   vessels of the ministry.

   21. Quin tabernaculum et omnia vasa ministerii sanguine similiter
   aspersit.

   22. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without
   shedding of blood is no remission.

   22. Et propemodum sanguine omnia purgantur secundum legem, nec sine
   sanguinis effusione sit remissio.

   23. It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the
   heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things
   themselves with better sacrifices than these.

   23. Necesse igitur est exempla eorum quae sunt in coelis istis purgari;
   ipsa vero coelestia melioribus quam illae fuerint hostiis.


   18. Whereupon neither the first, etc. It hence appears that the fact is
   what is mainly urged, and that it is not a question about the word,
   though the Apostle turned to his own purpose a word presented to his
   attention in that language in which he wrote, as though one, while
   speaking of God's covenant, which is often called in Greek marturia, a
   testimony, were to recommend it among other things under that title.
   And doubtless that is a testimony, marturia, to which angels from
   heaven has borne witness, and of which there have been so many
   illustrious witnesses on earth, even all the holy Prophets, Apostles,
   and a vast number of martyrs, and of which at last the Son of God
   himself became a surety. No one in such a discourse would deem any such
   thing as unreasonable. And yet the Hebrew word, tvdh will admit of no
   such meaning as a covenant; but as nothing is advanced but what is
   consistent with the thing itself, no scrupulous regard is to be paid to
   the meaning of a word.

   The Apostle then says, that the old testament or covenant was dedicated
   with blood. He hence concludes, that men were even then reminded, that
   it could not be valid and efficacious except death intervened. For
   though the blood of beasts was then shed, yet, he denies that it
   availed to confine an everlasting covenant. That this may appear more
   clearly, we must notice the custom of sprinkling which he quotes from
   Moses. He first teaches us that the covenant was dedicated or
   consecrated, not that it had in itself anything profane; but as there
   is nothing so holy that men by their uncleanness will not defile,
   except God prevents it by making a renewal of all things, therefore the
   dedication was made on account of men, who alone wanted it.

   He afterwards adds, that the tabernacle and all the vessels, and also
   the very book of the law, were sprinkled; by which rite the people were
   then taught, that God could not be sought or looked to for salvation,
   nor rightly worshipped, except faith in every case looked to an
   intervening blood. For the majesty of God is justly to be dreaded by
   us, and the way to his presence is nothing to us but a dangerous
   labyrinth, until we know that he is pacified towards us through the
   blood of Christ, and that this blood affords to us a free access. All
   kinds of worship are then faulty and impure until Christ cleanses them
   by the sprinkling of his blood. [153]

   For the tabernacle was a sort of visible image of God; and as the
   vessels for ministering were destined for his service, so they were
   symbols of true worship. But since none of these were for salvation to
   the people, we hence reasonably conclude, that where Christ does not
   appear with his blood, we have nothing to do with God. So doctrine
   itself, however unchangeable may be the will of God, cannot be
   efficacious for our benefit, unless it be dedicated by blood, as is
   plainly set forth in this verse.

   I know that others give a different interpretation; for they consider
   the tabernacle to be the body of the Church, and vessels the faithful,
   whose ministry God employs; but what I have stated is much more
   appropriate. For whenever God was to be called upon, they turned
   themselves to the sanctuary; and it was a common way of speaking to say
   that they stood before the Lord when they appeared in the temple.

   20. Saying, This is the blood of the testament, [154] etc. If that was
   the blood of the testament, then neither the testament was without
   blood ratified, nor the blood without the testament available for
   expiation. It is hence necessary that both should be united; and we see
   that before the explanation of the Law, no symbol was added, for what
   would a sacrament be except the word preceded it? Hence a symbol is a
   kind of appendage to the word. And mark, this word was not whispered
   like a magic incantation, but pronounced with a clear voice, as it was
   destined for the people, according to what the words of the covenant
   express, which God hath enjoined unto you. [155] Perverted, then, are
   the sacraments, and it is a wicked corruption when there is no
   explanation of the commandment given, which is as it were the very soul
   of the sacrament. Hence the Papists, who take away the true
   understanding of things from signs, retain only dead elements.

   This passage reminds us that the promises of God are then only
   profitable to us when they are confirmed by the blood of Christ. For
   what Paul testifies in 2 Corinthians 1:20, that all God's promises are
   yea and amen in Christ -- this happens when his blood like a seal is
   engraven on our hearts, or when we not only hear God speaking, but also
   see Christ offering himself as a pledge for those things which are
   spoken. If this thought only came to our minds, that what we read is
   not written so much with ink as with the blood of Christ, that when the
   Gospel is preached, his sacred blood distills together with the voice,
   there would be far greater attention as well as reverence on our part.
   A symbol of this was the sprinkling mentioned by Moses!

   At the same time there is more stated here than what is expressed by
   Moses; for he does not mention that the book and the people were
   sprinkled, nor does he name the goats, nor the scarlet wool, nor the
   hyssop. As to the book, that it was sprinkled cannot be clearly shown,
   yet the probability is that it was, for Moses is said to have produced
   it after he had sacrificed; and he did this when he bound the people to
   God by a solemn compact. With regard to the rest, the Apostle seems to
   have blended together various kinds of expiations, the reason for which
   was the same. Nor indeed was there anything unsuitable in this, since
   he was speaking of the general subject Or purgation under the Old
   Testament, which was done by means of blood. Now as to the sprinkling
   made by hyssop and scarlet wool, it is evident that it represented the
   mystical sprinkling made by the Spirit. We know that the hyssop
   possesses a singular power to cleanse and to purify; so Christ employs
   his Spirit to sprinkle us in order to wash us by his own blood when he
   leads us to true repentance, when he purifies us from the depraved
   lusts of our flesh, when he imbues us with the precious gift of his own
   righteousness. For it was not in vain that God had instituted this
   rite. David also alluded to this when he said,

   "Thou wilt sprinkle me, O Lord, with hyssop, and I shall be cleansed."
   (Psalm 51:7.)

   These remarks will be sufficient for those who wish to be soberminded
   in their speculations.

   22. And almost all things, etc. By saying almost he seems to imply that
   some things were otherwise purified. And doubtless they often washed
   themselves and other unclean things with water. But even water itself
   derived its power to cleanse from the sacrifices; so that the Apostle
   at length truly declares that without blood there was no remission.
   [156] Then uncleanness was imputed until it was expiated by a
   sacrifice. And as without Christ there is no purity nor salvation, so
   nothing without blood can be either pure or saving; for Christ is never
   to be separated from the sacrifice of his death. But the Apostle meant
   only to say that this symbol was almost always made use of. But if at
   any time the purgation was not so made, it was nevertheless through
   blood, since all the rites derived their efficacy in a manner from the
   general expiation. For the people were not each of them sprinkled, (for
   how could so small a portion of blood be sufficient for so large a
   multitude?) yet the purgation extended to all. Hence the particle
   almost signifies the same as though he had said, that the use of this
   rite was so common that they seldom omitted it in purgations. For what
   Chrysostom says, that unfitness is thus denoted, because these were
   only figures under the Law, is inconsistent with the Apostle's design.

   No remission, etc. Thus men are prevented from appearing before God;
   for as he is justly displeased with them all, there is no ground for
   them to promise themselves any favor until he is pacified. But there is
   but one way of pacification, and that is by an expiation made by blood:
   hence no pardon of sins can be hoped for unless we bring blood, and
   this is done when we flee by faith to the death of Christ.

   23. The patterns, or exemplars, etc. Lest any one should object and say
   that the blood by which the old testament was dedicated was different
   from that of a testator, the Apostle meets this objection, and says
   that it was no wonder that the tabernacle which was earthly was
   consecrated by the sacrificing of beasts; for there was an analogy and
   a likeness between the purification and the things purified. But the
   heavenly pattern or exemplar of which he now speaks was to be
   consecrated in a very different way; there was here no need of goats or
   of calves. It hence follows that the death of the testator was
   necessary.

   The meaning then is this, -- as under the Law there were only earthly
   images of spiritual things, so the rite of expiation was also, so to
   speak, carnal and figurative; but as the heavenly pattern allows of
   nothing earthly, so it requires another blood than that of beasts, such
   as may correspond with its excellency. Thus the death of the testator
   is necessary, in order that the testament may be really consecrated.

   He calls the kingdom of Christ heavenly things, [157] for it is
   spiritual and possesses a full revelation of the truth. Better
   sacrifices he mentions instead of "a better sacrifice," for it was only
   one; but he uses the plural number for the sake of the antithesis or
   contrast.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [153] It is worthy of notice that the Apostle mentions here several
   things which are not particularly by Moses in Exodus 24:3-8, where the
   account is given; and yet what is there stated sufficiently warrants
   the particulars mentioned here. The blood of "goats" is not mentioned,
   and yet burnt offerings are said to have been offered, and goats were
   so offered; see Leviticus 1:10. Moses says nothing of "scarlet wool and
   hyssop;" but he mentions "sprinkling," and this was commonly done
   thereby; see Leviticus 14:51. "Blood" only is mentioned by Moses; but
   we find that when sprinkled, "water" was often connected with it. See
   Leviticus 14:52; Numbers 19:18 The main difficulty is respecting "the
   book" being sprinkled, which is not stated by Moses. But as the altar
   was sprinkled, there was the same reason for sprinkling the book,
   though that is not expressly mentioned. However, it is evident that
   this was the general opinion among the Jews, for otherwise the Apostle
   would not have mentioned it in an Epistle especially addressed to them.
   Then the "tabernacle," it was not expressly mentioned that it was
   sprinkled with blood when consecrated; and this was some time after the
   covenant was made. The setting up of the tabernacle is mentioned in
   Exodus 40:17-33. In the previous verses, 9 and 10, there is a direction
   given to anoint the tabernacle, and all its vessels, and also to hallow
   them and to anoint the alter, and to sanctify it. The hallowing or
   sanctifying was no doubt done by sprinkling them with blood. See as a
   proof of this Exodus 29:21. We hence perceive how well acquainted the
   writer must have been with the Jewish rituals. -- Ed.

   [154] Both Calvin and our verse retain the word "testament" as derived
   from verse 17; but as that verse and the preceding are to be viewed as
   parenthetic, the word "covenant" is the term used by Moses. The latter
   is the word adopted by Beza, Doddridge, Macknight, and Stuart, "This is
   the blood of the covenant," etc. -- Ed.

   [155] The Apostle here follows neither the Hebrew nor the Septuagint.
   The Hebrew is "which the Lord (Jehovah) hath made with you;" and the
   Septuagint, "Which the Lord hath covenanted (dietheto) with you." And
   instead of "Behold the blood of the covenant," (the same in both) we
   have here, "This is the blood of the covenant." But though the words
   are different, yet the meaning is essentially the same, -- the main
   things r