-- — " s -;#—•¦'•• i ^?~'~ ~*~~ r --^Jiff*-'-

YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

THE LIBRARY OF THE
DIVINITY SCHOOL

WORKS

PROFESSOR A. B. BRUCE, D.D.

1. The Epistle to the Hebrews : The First Apology for Christianity.
An Exegetieal Study. Post 8vo, 7s. 6d.
2. St. Paul's Conception of Christianity. Post 8vo, 7s. 6d.
3. Apologetics ; or, Christianity Defensively Stated. Post 8vo, 10s. 6d_
4. The Kingdom of God ; or, Christ's Teaching according to the-
Synoptical Gospels. Post Svo, 7s. 6d.
5. The Training of the Twelve ; or, Exposition of Passages in the
Gospels exhibiting the Twelve Disciples of Jesus under Discipline
for the Apostleship. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
6. The Humiliation of Cheist in its Physical, Ethical, and-
Official Aspects. 8vo, I0S. 6d.
"Dr. Bruce has won for himself the foremost place among- living
apologists." — Expositor.

Edinburgh : T. & T.. CLARK,. 38- Geo*ge Street..

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

PRINTED BY
MORRISON AXD G1BB LIMITED,
FOR
T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH.
LONDON : SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT, AXD CO. LIMITED.
NEW YORK: CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS.
TORONTO I FLEMING II. REVELL COMPANY.

THE
EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
/ —
THE FIRST APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY
AN EXEGETICAL STUDY

ALEXANDER BALMAIN BRUCE, D.D.
t\ t
professor of apologetics and new testament exegesis ix the
free church college, glasgow
author. of
"the kingdom! of god" " st. paul's conception of christianity '
"the training of the twelve" "the humiliation of christ"
"apologetics; or, Christianity defensively stated"
etc. etc.

EDINBURGH
T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET
1899

TO
A. J. BU1ST, Esq.
AXD
OTHEE SURVIVING MEMBERS OF EAST FEES CHURCH,
BROUGHTY FERRY, WHO, NEARLY THIRTY YEARS
AGO, HEARD LECTUEES ON" THE EPISTLE TO THE
HEBEEWS, CONTAINING THE GERMS OF THOUGHT
OUT OF WHICH THIS BOOK HAS GROWN

PREFACE

This work is a companion to The Kingdom of God and St.
Paul's Conception of Christianity, published respectively in
1889 and 1894.
The greater part of the contents appeared in the
pages of The Expositor in 1888, 1889, 1890. All has
been carefully revised, some portions have been re-written,
and a chapter on the theological import of the Epistle,
entirely new, has been added at the end of the book.
The recent literature of the subject has been duly taken
into account in footnotes on important points connected
with the exposition.
Among the works referred to in these new notes, the
chief are the Commentaries of Westcott (1889), Vaughan
(1890), Weiss (in Meyer), and von Soden (in Hand-
commentar). To these may be added the work of
Menegoz on the theology of the Epistle (La Theologie de
Z'Epitre aux Hebreux, 1894). It gives me pleasure to
name here a book just published on the same subject
by the Rev. George Milligan, son of the late Professor
Milligan, some sheets of which I had an opportunity of
reading while it was passing through the press.

X PREFACE
I had expected, and even hoped, that recent publica
tions on this important book of the New Testament
would have made a new contribution to its interpretation
superfluous. I cannot honestly say that I have found
this to be the case. The last word has not yet been
spoken. The interpretation of the letter has been
carried to a high degree of perfection. But there is
room and need for fresh work in the unveiling of the
soul of this sacred writing, in the light of its author's
aim, which I take to be to show the excellence of
Christianity to a community possessing a very defective
insight into its true nature. It is indeed the first apology
for Christianity, as indicated in my sub-title. Readers
will judge how far I have succeeded in placing this view
of the book on a solid foundation.
I can at least claim for this effort that it is not the
product of a brief and hasty consideration. It is the
mature fruit of study carried on for a period of thirty
years — a fact which I deemed it not unfitting to com
memorate in the form of a- dedication to friends to whom
my thoughts were communicated in their earliest shape.
I owe thanks to my esteemed colleague, Professor
Denney, D.D., for assisting me in reading the proof
sheets, and for offering some valuable suggestions. A. B. BRUCE.
Glasgow, March 1899.

CONTENTS

CHATTER I
PAGE
INTRODUCTION . . . . 1-25
CHAPTER II
CHRIST AND THE PROPHETS : CHAP. I. 1-4 . . . 26-44
CHAPTER III
CHRIST AND THE ANGELS : CHAPS. I. 5-14— II. 1-4 . 45-64
CHAPTER IV
THE HUMILIATION OF CHEIST AND ITS RATIONALE: CHAP. II. 5-18 65-87
CHAPTER V
THE CAPTAIN OF SALVATION : CHAP. II. 10 . 88-105
CHAPTER VI
THE WAY OF SALVATION : CHAP. II. 11-18 106-128
CHAPTER VII
CHRIST AND MOSES : CHAP. III. . . . 129-150
CHAPTER VIII
THE GOSPEL OF REST : CHAP. IV. . 151-173
CHAPTER IX
CHEIST NOT A SELF-ELECTED, BUT A GOD-APPOINTED PRIEST :
CHAP. V. 1-10 . ... . . . 174-195

xii CONTENTS
CHAPTER X I'AGE
THE TEACHEE'S COMPLAINT: CHAPS. V. 11-14 — VI. 1-8 196-218
CHAPTER XI
THE TEACHEE'S CHARITY : CHAT. VI. 9-20 . 219-239
CHAPTER XII
THE OEDER OF MELCHISEDEC : CHAP. VII. 1-10 . 240-261
CHAPTER XIII
THE PRIEST AFTER THE OEDEE OF MELCHISEDEC : CHAP. VII.
11-28 . 262-287
CHAPTER XIV
CHEIST AND AAEON : CHAP. VIII. 288-305
CHAPTER XV
THE ANCIENT TABERNACLE : CHAP. IX. 1-10 . 306-325
CHAPTER XVI
THE MORE EXCELLENT MINISTRY : CHAP. IX. 11-14 . 326-354
CHAPTER XVII
THE NEW COVENANT : CHAP. IX. 15-28 . 355-372
CHAPTER XVIII
SHADOW AND SUBSTANCE : CHAP. X. 1-18 . . 373-392
CHAPTER XIX
DRAW NEAR ! : CHAP. X. 19-31 . 393-109
CHAPTER XX
BE NOT OF THEM THAT DRAW BACK : CHAPS. X. 32 — XII. 29 410-427
CHAPTER XXI
THE THEOLOGICAL IMPORT OF THE EPISTLE . 428-451

THE EPISTLE TO THE
HEBEEWS

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
My purpose in this work is to expound the Epistle to
the Hebrews in relation to its leading idea, or distinctive
conception of the Christian religion. The main object of
this introductory chapter will be to state what, in my
view, that central idea is. But as this question is closely
connected with anotlK^jianieJ^What was"~"the religious~

condrtioiT of the first rea.dersV mm that again tn n.
subordinate extent with a third, Who were the first
readers ? it may be advantageous to approach the main
question by a brief preliminary discussion of the other two.
The question as to the first readers resolves itself into
three distinct questions : (1) Were there,. properly speak

ing, any first readers ? i.e. 'was the writing designed for"
the bp.rienr, of a.uy jj^rppi1^r colrimirnity^ (2) Were they
re^/^ntilei3>(3) Where were they located ?

As to the first point: it is in favour of a special

2 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
definite destination that, throughout, the author not
only employs the second person, but in exhortations
expresses himself with a. fervour and urgency that
- forcibly suggest a circle of readers whose spiritual needs
, are known and lie as a burden on his heart. " Where
fore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling,
consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession,
Christ Jesus." " Take heed, brethren, lest there be in
any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from
the living God." " Having therefore, brethren, boldness
to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus ... let us
draw near with a true heart." Justice is not done to
such hortatory intensity when it is treated as a mere
oratorical device on the part of a writer who is all the
time dealing with tendencies rather than with persons,
though doubtless aware that many persons, unknown to
him, in whom these tendencies reveal themselves, may
be influenced by what'he says.1
As to the second point, the nationality of the first
readers : till recent times the generally accepted view
was that the inscription To the Hebrews, though not
original, correctly indicated the destination. But of late
there has been a tendency, especially among German
scholars, to set this traditional view aside, and Lo lnrM-
thatjihe first readers rn^gTEave been ftfintilesriu3rifews&
Among the grounds on which this hypothesis is made to
rest are such as these : the fundamentals enumerated in
1 So Beuss. Vide La Bible, vol. viii. ; L'Epitre aux He'breux,
pp. 12, 14.
2 Among those who hold this view may be named Schiirer,
Weizsaoker, and von Soden ; and, among English writers, M'Giffert,
in his History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age.

INTRODUCTION '6
chap. vi. 1,2 are such as were suitable only for catechumens
of pagan antecedents ; the expression " the living God,"
chaps, iii. 12, ix. 14, suggests an antithesis between the
true God and pagan idols ; the moral exhprtations in the
Epistle possess special appropriateness only when con
ceived as meant for Gentile Christians. Those who
advocate a Gentile destination recognise, of course, that
the writing, on the face of it. seems to connect its readers.
in respect of religious traditions and sympathies, with
' tne Jewish people. But the numerous phrases which
seem to imply readers of Hebrew race are explained by
/'the aisumption that at the time when our Epistle was
^written the Gentile Church had served itself heir to the
gj^ile~and privileges of the elect people. To the question,
What need for so elaborate a plea for Christianity as
against Leviticalism in a work written for Gentile Chris
tians ? the answer given is : The type of Gentile
Christianity the author had to deal with was an eclectic
svncretistic system into which an amateur attachment to
Levitical institutions entered as an element, and became
so strong as to imperil the Christian faith with which it
•ffiras associated in a time of persecution.1
* That this hypothesis has been supported with an
amount of ingenuity sufficient to lend it plausibility may
be frankly admitted. But that the case has been even
approximately proved cannot be allowed. After all has
been said for it that can be said by such a scholar as
von Soden,2 one cannot but sympathise with the verdict
1 So in effect Pfleiderer in Urchristenthum, p. 620. In his
Paulinismus he assumed that the readers were Jews.
2 Vide his commentary in Hand-Commentar.

4 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
of a distinguished English commentator who pronounces
the theory, however ably supported, " an ingenious
paradox." 1 Whatever impression arguments in its
support may make on our minds for a moment, the old
view soon reasserts itself with irresistible force. A
recent French writer on the theology of the Epistle has
well said : " What strikes us in this Epistle throughout
is a Jewish taste of the soil, and an absence of allusion
to pagan worship so complete, that we have difficulty in
comprehending how anyone can discover in it the least
indication of its being meant for readers of pagan
antecedents."2 Ostensibly, the first readers are cer
tainly Hebrews, and Hebrews alone ; the onus probandi
lies on those who affirm that they were not really such.
It requires a very extensive display of exegetical in
genuity to explain away the Jewish physiognomy and
costume. If the readers were indeed Gentiles, they were
gentiles so completely disguised in Jewish dress, and
wearing a mask with so pronounced Jewish features,
that the true nationality has been successfully hidden for
"nineteen centuries.

In comparison with the question of nationality, that
of locality is of quite subordinate importance. The
home of the community addressed, according to the
traditional opinion, was Jerusalem, or at least Palestine.
The chief argument in support of this view, intrinsically
probable, is one of which the full force cannot be felt till
the question as to spiritual situation has been discussed.
Here it can only be briefly stated. The Epistle in its
1 Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews. Introduction, p. xxxv.
2 Menegoz, La TMolorjic de L'lipitre aux He'breux, pp. 26, 27.

INTRODUCTION 5
whole contents implies a very grave situation. Those to
whom it is sent are in danger of apostasy, not merely
through outward tribulation, but even more through a
reactionary state of mind. The evidence of reaction is
the pains taken to meet it by an exhibition of the nature
and excellence of the Christian religion in comparison
with the Levitical. Now this state of mind was more
likely to be found in Palestine, in Jerusalem above all,
than anywhere else ; especially if, as has been inferred
from some things in the Epistle, the temple was still
standing and the temple worship still going on when it
was written. Jerusalem was the home of Jewish con
servatism, and all the influences there tended to develop
and strengthen even in Christian circles a reactionary
spirit. It is this consideration which tells in favour of
Jerusalem as against Alexandria. In the neighbourhood
of this Egyptian city, at Leontopolis, there was a temple
where Jews resident in Egypt might worship, which out
lasted the temple at Jerusalem by one or two years. In
so far, therefore, as the Epistle implies the present
practice of temple worship, that part of the problem
might be met as well by Alexandria as by Jerusalem.
But the religious atmosphere of Alexandria was less
conservative than that of Jerusalem. There one might
expect to find in the Christian community a type of
thought more in sympathy with that of the writer of our
Epistle. For such readers such a writing was not
needed. To outward trial they might be exposed, but in
absence of the more serious inward trial there was no
demand for so elaborate an apology for the Christian
faith.

6 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
Objections to the Jerusalem hypothesis have been
stated, which to not a few modern scholars have
appeared insuperable. The most formidable, perhaps,
is the language in which the Epistle is written. If it
was addressed to the Church in the Holy City, why
was it not written in Aramaic, the language with which
they were most, if not exclusively, familiar ? In ancient
times this difficulty was met by the suggestion that the
Epistle was originally written in the Hebrew tongue, and
then translated into Greek. This opinion, entertained
by Clement of Alexandria, was merely a device to get
over stylistic objections to Pauline authorship and
linguistic objections to Palestinian readers. If the
work was first written in Hebrew, it might be Paul's,
though the Greek was not >his ; and it might be intended
for Jews in Jerusalem as its first readers, though they
understood Greek with difficulty, or not at all. The
hypothesis has nothing else to commend it. For no
one reading the Epistle, and noting the fluent style of
the Greek, and the original cast both of thought and
expression, will readily acquiesce in the view that what
we have here is a translation out of another tongue, so
entirely different in structure, of the thoughts of another
mind. The simplest solution of the difficulty in ques
tion is that the writer used the language he had at
command. A Hellenist, Jew by race, Greek in culture,
he wrote in the Greek language, hoping to be understood
by his readers sufficiently well, if not perfectly, through
their knowledge of Greek, or with the aid of an
interpreter. Other objections are of so little weight as to be

INTRODUCTION 7
hardly worth mentioning; and on the whole it may be
said that, in spite of all that has been urged against it,
the traditional view is still entitled to hold its ground.
What has been advanced in favour of other places, such
as Rome,1 at most amounts to this, that they satisfy more
or less the conditions of the problem, and are not
improbable suggestions. None of them satisfy so well
as Jerusalem or Palestine the main condition, namely,
the moral and spiritual situation required by the con
tents of the Epistle. I care not, for my part, where
the first readers are located, provided this fundamental
requirement be duly secured. I am content to leave the
question of locality unsettled — an attitude demanded by
the state of the evidence — so long as the religious posi
tion is justly conceived. That the Epistle itself f ull^
puts within our power. 
Th^_spiritual situation of the persons addressed was
-Arffrv fieri mis, frill nf perjl I Kr,+Tn from outward and fiuin "
¦inward naiifipa Thny-'nrgyf'jm rlano-Pv of apostatising _
from the faith, because of persecution endured on
account of it, and also because of doubts concerning
its truth. The former part of this description of their
state rests on express statements in the Epistle. That
they had in tima pfl.pt hn"n n pprr^itH pr^pl" it mani
fest from chapter x. 32: " Call to remembrance the
former days, in which, after ye were illuminated, ye
endured a great fight of afflictions." That they were
subject to tribulation on account of their faith, still, is
plain from the fact that they are exhorted to remember
1 One of the ablest recent contributions in support of the Rome
hypothesis may be found in Reville's Origines de L'Episcopat, 1894.

8 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
their former experiences and their heroic bearing under
these as an aid to patience now. The fact is also appa
rent from the eloquent recital of pious deeds done by
the fathers in ancient days, in the eleventh chapter.
The noble army of martyrs is made to march past as in
a military review, to inspire the living sufferers with
martial fortitude. Then, when the main body of the
army has marched past, the attention of the spectators
is directed to the Great Captain, for the same end.
Tried Christians are bid look at Jesus, that His example
may keep them from growing weary and faint in their
minds. The inner spiritual condition of the Hebrews is not
so plainly and explicitly described, but ominous hints
occur here and there in the Epistle from which it
can, with tolerable certainty, be inferred. They are in
danger of slippinp; awav from the Christian fa.it.nj ag a
boat is carried pa.st the landing-place by the strong
current of a stream (chap. ii. 1). They have become .
dull in hearing, and in all their spiritual senses : they
are in their dotage or secnnrl childhood, and need again
to? be fed with milk, i.e. to be taught anew the rudi-
j^agnts of the Christian faitb instead nf with the strong
^meat which befits spiritual manhood (chap, v. 11—14).
Their state is such as to suggest to a faithful instructor,
anxious for their welfare, thoughts of a final apostasy
and malignant renunciation of Christ, and to call up
before his mind the unwelcome picture of a land well
tilled and rained upon, yet bringing forth only thorns
and briers, and, so, nigh unto cursing (chap. vi. 6—8).
Evidently those of whom such things can be said are

INTRODUCTION

9

men who have never had insight into the essential
nature and distinctive features of the Christian religion ;
who, with the lapse of time, have fallen more and more
out of sympathy with the faith they profess, and who
are now held to it chiefly by a tie of custom, which,
under the stress of outward trial, may be snapped at
any moment ; insomuch that their friend who writes to
them feels it necessary to make a desperate effort to
rescue them from the impending danger by trying to
show to them what is so clear to his own mind, the
incomparable excellence of the Christian religion.
That effort, in which the writer, stimulated by a
supreme occasion, puts forth all his great intellectual
and moral strength, is the best evidence that the fore
going account of the spiritual state of the Hebrew
•Church is not exaggerated. Such an effort was not
made without urgent cause. The writers of the New
Testament were nnt, 1it.Bra.ry hnsyrinrlips nr thp.nlngia.nH
tryjDr^fessio*!, whu btiulicd theological topics in a purely ¦¦
academic spirit. They wrote under the imperious con-
,--stral5t~!)fgurgerit np.adsr^ When, e.g.. Paul writes epistles
to prove that salvation is through faith alone, it is
because there is a powerful' party at work, endeavouring
to subvert the gospel of grace by reintroducing a religion
of legalism. In like manner, when some unknown
doctor in the Church sets himself to commend Chris-
tianity as the perfect religion, it is because he finds
many fellow- Christians dinging to Levitical rites, unable
to see that, whpr thQ ppriW. has come, the rudelv.
imperfect should be allowed to pass away. Some have
~ thought that the book before us, which we have been

10 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
accustomed to call an Epistle, is in reality a theological
treatise, or a carefully studied discourse delivered by a
superior man to a Christian congregation in a great
centre of intellectual culture, like Rome.1 It is, one
would say, too long, and in part too abstruse, to be
suitable for preaching, though portions of it, like the
eloquent eulogium on faith in the eleventh chapter, may
have formed the substance of congregational addresses.
But if it be a sermon, it is a very unusual one, excep
tional in its moral intensity not less than in its ability,
spoken with peculiar solemnity to a congregation placed
in very critical circumstances.
Be it treatise, sermon, or epistle, this writing is no
mere collection of theological commonplaces. The writer
is not repeating but creating theology. His readers or
hearers are persons with whom nothing can be taken for
granted, not even the most elementary ideas as to the
significance of Christ's death. No greater mistake, I
hpliPVP, fia/i hp pnmmit.t.prl (t.hnncfh it. ift..g..ggmmnn f-inlt —
of commentators) than to assume that the first readers
were in the main in sympathy with the doctrinal views
' nfthp writar, and that the chief or sole occasion f Pl
anting was the nrrd of iriii'inl'iliiini iiim! L'llTrHhrnip^
IBador outward trial.3 — -Such an assumption involves a
""virtual reflection on the judgment of the writer in ex-
1 Vide von Soden in Hand-Cornmentar, p. 5.
2 Professor A. B. Davidson expresses this view in these terms :
" The writer evidently feels that, on the whole, he has his readers
on his side.1' " The Epistle is written from the secondary position
of theological reflection upon the facts. The fact that the Son is
a High Priest is a commonplace to his readers." — Commentary, in
Handbooks for Bible Glasses, pp. 14, 106.

INTRODUCTION 1 1
patiating at unnecessary length on accepted truths, and
it must exercise a prejudicial influence on the exposition
of the weightier, that is the doctrinal, part of the Epistle,
taking the soul out of it for the expositor, and making
the most strikingly original thoughts appear in his eyes
trite formulas of an already familiar system. Thus the
remarkable combination of the idea of a forerunner with
that ot a -tligh Priest in chapter vi. 20 will probably
provoke no remark, but be quietly passed over as if it
were as familiar to the first readers as it has become to

us; whereas it must have appeared quite startling in
\ their eyes, and not unnaturally, as the one word irpo-'
' bponos expresses the whole essential difference between

the Christian and the Levitical religions — between the
"religion that brings men nigh to God and the religion
that kept or left men standing at a distance.
Observing the points which are emphasised in the
Epistle, we gather__tha23thTee things connectetr— with
^hristiallity were stumbling - blocks to the Hebrew
xChrhs (l)T%e^uperseding of an ancient, divwiely~appoint£d^
Tigion TnTyohat appeared to be a novelty and, an j/nnoya-
tion. The Levitical worship was of^eneTable antjquily7>'1
sand not of man's devising but of God's ordering ; and
now a system which had lasted so long and had derived
ats origin from heaven could ever pass away, and how it
could be legitimately replaced by a religion which was of
yesterday, were matters which ill-instructed Hebrew
jaelieyeTS were at a loss to_c.omprehend. Nor can we
wonder greatly at this, when we consider with what
desperate tenacity many at all times cling to old

12 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
religious customs which can make no pretensions to
Divine origin, but are merely human inventions.
(£}~?iej^brew-CFristians found mrbhe*--slairnbhng-
^block in the humiliation and sufferings of Jesus regwmed
^Eg-tko Christ- They were unable to reconcile the indignity
of Christ's earthly experience with the dignity of His
Person as the Son of God and promised Messiah. They
did not see the glory of the Cross. They were unable to
understand and appreciate the honour which was con
ferred upon Jesus in His being appointed to taste death
as the Saviour and Sanctifier of sinners. They were
unable to comprehend how it was consistent with the
character of the First Cause and Last End of all things
either to permit or to command His Son to pass through
a curriculum of suffering and temptation as a qualification
for office as the Captain of Salvation. In this respect
they were like the apostles in the days of their disciple-
hood, who, having confessed their faith in Jesus as the
Christ, the Son of the living God, were utterly confounded
when they heard their Master immediately after go on to
tell " how that He must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer
many things," and even be put to death. The pains
taken and the ingenuity displayed by the writer in
^endeavouring to make it clear that suffering, or deSt
'¦wag^jfc.r one reason or anotlwt x a necessary experience
of one occupying Christ's position, show how much
his readers stood in need of enlightenment on the
subject. (3) The third stumbling-block in Christianity to the
1 On the various aspects under which the death of Jesus is
presented in the Epistle, vide the last chapter of this work.

INTRODUCTION 1 3
mind of the Hebrews was the absence therefrom of a
priesthood, and a sacrificial ritual. For that Christ was
at once a Priest and a Sacrifice they do not seem to have
been able to comprehend, or even to imagine. Their
ideas of priesthood and sacrifices were legal and technical.
A priest was a man belonging to the tribe of Levi and to
the family of Aaron, physically faultless, whose business
it was to offer in behalf of the people the blood of bulls
and goats as a sacrifice for sin. Of course Jesus could
lay no claims to a priesthood of that sort. He was not
of the tribe of Levi, or the house of Aaron, and He had
nothing to offer — nothing, that is, which the legal mind
could regard as a victim. And of any other priesthood
than the legal, men accustomed to Levitical rites doubt
less found it difficult to form any concerptfsrr. — A— Jxiest
withoiit-pjie£iJ^-¥efee«r^i'i^isibIe materials of sacrifice
as oxen, sheep, and goats, was to them a shadowy, tin-
author of the Epistle was well aware that
such W3« thp. feeling nf his rea.rlerfi ¦ hia whole manner of
treating the subject betrays consciousness of the fact.
Thus when he introduces a reference to the royal
pripst^nnn f»f iviPir-hisAripp, to showthem that a priest^-
hood other than legal was recognised in Scfiptm^, and
to help them to rise up to the thought of the spiritual,
eternal priesthood of Christ, he cannot refrain from
giving expression to a feeling of irritation, as if conscious
beforehand that he will not succeed in carrying their
intelligence and sympathy along with him. He feels it
to be a hard, thankless task to set forth such lofty truths
to dull, mechanical, custom-ridden minds.
Such being the situation of the parties addressed, it is

14 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
easy to see what must be the character of a writing fitted
and designed to conduct them through the perils of a
transition time. It must combine argument and ex
hortation, now expounding a great spiritual truth, now
pausing to utter a warning, or to speak a word of an
inspiring, cheering nature to heavy-hearted men. Such,
accordingly, is the writing before us. It is not a merely
didactic theological treatise, though it begins in an
abstract theological manner, without preface or salutation-
It is what it is called in the superscription in our
English TestamegtT~an epistle or letterr-ia. which the
writer never loses sight of his readers and their perilous
condition, but contrives to mingle argument and exhorta-
/tion, theoretical and practical matter, so as to be at every
i point in contact with their hearts and consciences as well
—as their intellects. Theology and counsel are interwoven
throughout so as to give to the whole the character of a
" word of exhortation."
The theoretical sections of the Epistle, however, may
be looked at apart, and the question asked, What do they
teach, what conception of the Christian religion do they
embody ? That is the question to which we now, at
last, turn our attention.
The theoretical matter may be viewed either abstractly
and per se, or in relation to the occasion of its being
written. Viewed in the former way, it shows us the
author's own mode of conceiving Christianity; viewed
in the latter, it shows us the method he pursued to
bring others to his way of tjrinMMg^ iv. thb one aspecfr—
it ia^ar-dTigrnatic treatise.jn_ the other it, is in ipnlnrrnfpr—
^eatis^Jjoe^ questionwe propose to consider thus

INTRODUCTION

15

resolves itself into two : What is the author's own idea
of Christianity ? and, What is his method of insinuating
it into minds prepossessed with beliefs more or less
^incompatible therewith?  .  ¦  ____

Tjbe-mtthvfS offlnidgm?>- He regards Christianity a.s the
¦Jd; gTld therefore the fim.nl, religion Tt"-ts perfect
,— beeause it accomplishes the end of religion, and because
"Tfrdoes this it can never be superseded. Nothing better
can take its place. But--wfeairTs~ the en^P of rU

?ion?

To bring men nigh to God, to establish between man
and God a fellowship, as complete and intimate as if sin
had np.vpr existed Thisj accordingly is wha.t the writer
of our Epistle emphasises. Christianity for him is the
religion of fve^WnrestrictedT^e»ss-^e--€ki^: the religion of
a new, everlasting covenant, under which sin is com
pletely extinguished, and can act no longer as a sepa
rating influence. This thought runs like a refrain
through the Epistle. It appears first distinctly in the
place where Christ the High Priest of the New Testa
ment is called a forerunner (vi. 20). Where the High
Priest of the new era can go, we may follow, in contrast
to the state of things under the old covenant, according
to which the High Priest of Israel could alone go into
the Most Holy Place. The thought recurs at vii. 19,
where the Christian religion is in effect characterised as -
the religion of the better hOUe, because it ib the mrigiott*-
ligh to Godr—Jhe same great

throug

idea lurks in the puzzle concerning the altar of incense,
whose position in the tabernacle it is impossible to
lefine (ix. 4). It belonged to the place within the veil
m spirit and function, but it had to be without for

16 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
daily use, in connection with the service carried on in
the first compartment. The source of this anomaly
was the veil, whose very existence was the emblem of
a rude, imperfect religion, under which men could not
get nigh to God. Finally, how prominent a place the
idea of free access held in the writer's mind appears
from the fact that when he has finished his theoretic
statement he commences his last prolonged exhortation
to his readers in these terms : " Having therefore,
brethren, liberty to enter into the holiest by the blood
of Jesus, by a new and living way, which He hath
consecrated for us, through the veil,, that is to say, His
flesh ; and having an High Priest over the house of
God_os£ us draw near with a true heart TnTuTr--a§sur-
-ance of faith" (x. 19-22).
~~This positive idSa'OMhb' GhTiHtlUH IBlfgiEn* contains an
implicit contrast between it and the Levitical religion,
which is conceived of as failing to accomplish the end
of all religion — keeping or leaving men far off from God.
Many things connected with Leviticalism were, in the
writer's view, significant of this radical fatal defect, but
chiefly the veil dividing the tabernacle into two com
partments — an outer chamber, accessible to the priests
for daily service, and an inner chamber, accessible to
the high priest alone, and even to him only once a year
and after the most careful precautions. That veil pro
hibitory and minatory was, to his mind, the emblem of
a religion which taught a negative idea of Divine holi
ness, presenting God as saying : " Stand off, I am
unapproachably holy '' ; and left the conscience of the
worshipper unpurged, so that he feared to come near.

INTRODUCTION 1 7
As such the veil was a prophecy of transiency in refer
ence to the system with which it was connected. For
no religion may or can endure that fails in the great
end for which religion exists. Accordingly, in the
Epistle the temporary character of the Levitical religion
is proclaimed with emphasis and iteration. On the other
hand, permanency is predicated of the Christian religion
yith^if possible, ggrgater~emphasis and ltera|i5i& The
'TifcTen of the Epistle is : Leviticalism for a time, Chris
tianity for aye. . Of everything connected with Chris
tianity eternity is predicated. The salvation it provides
is eferwa^errt5~prIesthood is fo£%«m-j t.rZS great High Priest
of humanity possesses the power of an endless life, and
by the offering of Himself through the eternal Spirit has
obtained eternal redemption for men. Those who believe
in Him have the promise of an eternal inheritance. The
new covenant is everlasting. 

This contrasjt--feeween J>he two religions in the vi

"naturally suggests the method of contrast generally^
¦as a good one for the apologetic purposejn^^nd. The
central defect presumably implies defect at all points.
Accordingly, the writer adopts this method, and institutes
a series ot comparisons so managed as, while duly and
even generously recognising what.pyp.r was good in the
Old System, to rnnrV 1-f inrMirily with n atcimp nf infpri-
ority. The first point of comparison most readily sug

gesting itself is that of the priesthood. The Levitical
religion had its high priest, with his gorgeous robes a
very imposing figure. How about Christianity ? can its
superiority be demonstrated here ? If not, the cause is
lost, for the whole value of religion lies in its power

18 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
to deal with the problem of sin. The vital question is :
Can it perfect the worshipper as to conscience ? Only
where there is a perfect priest can there be a perfect
religion. The writer will need all his skill to establish
his case here. Not that there is any room for doubt to
men possessing spiritual insight ; but he is writing to men
who lack that gift, and to whom it is difficult to make
it clear that Christ was a Priest at all, not to speak of
His being the perfect Priest, the very ideal of Priesthood
realised^ — ; 
^/j-^A^contrast between Christ and Moses nrigh~r~TPftdi1y
^-suggest itself. J£b institute this contrast might indeed
seem to be raising questions not vital to the argument.
But there was room for relevant comparison here also.
For Moses was the leader of Israel during the memorable
epoch of her redemption out of Egypt, and Jesus was
the Captain of a still greater salvation. The general
resemblance in the point of leadership might make plain
some things incidental to the career of a captain. And

if it could be shown that Jesus was greater than
Moses, it would prevent the prestige of the lesser
leader from shutting the mind to the claims of the
greater. Another contrast still was possible — one that would
not readily occur to us, but which lay ready to the hand
of one writing to Hebrews familiar with the current views
of Jewish theology. In that theology angels figured
prominently, and in particular they were believed to
have been God's agents in the revelation of the law to
Moses and Israel. This view gave to that revelation a
very august and imposing character, through which the

INTRODUCTION 19
Christian revelation might suffer eclipse. A comparison
between Christ and angels was therefore forced on a
writer who desired to deal exhaustively with the sources
of anti-Christian prejudices. He must show that Christ
was higher in dignity than angels, that the word spoken
through Him might receive due attention.
These contrasts are all instituted in the Epistle, but
in the reverse order. The most remote from the centre,
and as we are apt to think the least important, comes
first ; and the most vital, last. First the agents of .,
revelation under the two Testaments are compared ;
then their respective Captains of salvation, and then y
finally their High Priests. It is shown, first, that Christ
is greater than angels as one who speaks to men in
God's name ; second, that He is greater than .Moses as
the leader of a redeemed host ; third, that He is greater
than Aaron as one who transacts for men in God's
presence. The argument will unfold itself gradually,
and need not be here outlined.
The opening sentences of the Epistle may be said to
contain yet another comparison — between Christ and
the Prophets, the human agents of the earlier revelation.
This comparison is less developed and less emphasised,
partly because the prophets were in the same line with
Jesus, precursors rather than rivals, preaching the gospel
of a Messiah and a Divine kingdom before the epoch of
fulfilment, pointing on to that epoch and making no
pretence to finality; partly because they were men,
not angels, less likely to become the objects of an
overweening idolatrous esteem. But there is a latent
contrast here also, as we shall see. The revelation of

20 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
the Son was the natural and needed complement of
prophetic revelation.
We have thus in all four contrasts, forming together
a full statement as to the comparative merits of the two
religions. In the first two Jesus, as Revealer, is con
trasted with the Old Testament agents of Revelation,
prophets and angels. In the second couple Jesus, as
Redeemer, is contrasted with the Old Testament agents
of Redemption, Moses and Aaron. The position formally
proved is that in both respects the new religion is
better than the old. The real view of the writer is that
Christianity is the best religion possible, the ideally
perfect and therefore final religion.
Taken as a whole, the Epistle, in its apologetic aspect,
is a masterpiece, meeting effectually a most urgent need
of the early apostolic age, and in its general principles,
if not in all its arguments, of perennial value to the
Christian Church. At transition times, when an old
world is passing away and a new world is taking its place,
it is ever the fewest who enter with full intelligence and
sympathy into the spirit of the new time. The majority,
from timidity, reverence, or lower motives, go along with
the new movement only with half their heart, and have
an all but invincible hankering after old custom, aud a
strong reluctance to break with the past. Christ signal
ised and also kindly apologised for this conservative
tendency when He said, " No man having drunk old
wine desireth new ; for he saith, The old is good." For
such half-hearted ones, numerous in a transition time, a
1 prophet is needed to interpret the new, and a literature
of an apologetic character, vindicating the rights of the

INTRODUCTION 21
new while knowing how to recognise the worth of the
past. Such a prophet was the writer of this Epistle,
and such a literature is preserved for us therein. It is
the only writing in the New Testament of a formally
and systematically apologetic nature. Elsewhere may
be found ideas helpful to Christians passing through a
transition time, notably in the Pauline Epistles. But
the stray apologetic thoughts in these Epistles, though of
great value, were not sufficient. A more detailed and
elaborate theology of mediation was required to make
Jewish believers men who did not look back. Paul did
not go sufficiently into particulars. He spoke of the
law too much as a whole, as was natural for one who
had passed through his experience. He had tried to
make the law everything, and having failed, he swung to
the opposite extreme and pronounced it nothing. That
salvation could not come through legalism needed no
further proof for him : it was axiomatically clear. It
was enough to say oracularly, " By the works of the
law shall no flesh be justified."
That might be enough for a Paul, but it was not enough
for ordinary men who lacked Paul's intense experience,
clear insight, and the intellectual thoroughness that can
follow to their last consequences accepted principles.
A more detailed, one may say a more patient, less im
passioned apologetic was needed to carry the mass of
Jewish Christians safely through the perils of a transi-
tionary period. It was not sufficient to say, Christ is
come, therefore the legal economy must end; it was
necessary to point out carefully what men had got in
Christ — not merely a Saviour in a general way, but the

22 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
reality of Old Testament symbols, the substance whereof
legal rites were adumbrations ; to demonstrate, in short,
that not grace alone, but truth came by Christ, truth in
the sense of spiritual reality. Paul insisted mainly on
the grace that came by Christ. It was reserved for the
author of the Epistle to the Hebrews to insist on the
truth that came by Christ. Paul, indeed, had not alto
gether overlooked this aspect. His epistles contain hints
of the doctrine that Levitical rites were shadows of good
things to come, as in the significant passage, " Christ our
Passover is sacrificed for us " (1 Cor. v. 7). But these
hints remain undeveloped. Of what splendid develop
ments they were capable appears in our Epistle, where
the Melchisedec Priesthood of Christ is unfolded with
such subtlety of argument and elevation of thought as
awaken the admiration of all.
If the view prevalent in the Eastern section of the
early Church, that Paul was the author of our Epistle,
were true, then we should have to say that in it he
performed a service which he had not had leisure or
occasion to render in any other epistle. But the Pauline
authorship seems destitute of all probability. A priori
it was unlikely that the man who wrote the recognised
Pauline Epistles should be the man to achieve the task
prescribed to the writer of this Epistle to the Hebrews.
It is seldom given to one man to do for his age all that
it needs. Paul surely did enough without claiming for
him everything. Moreover, the style, the temperament,
and the cast of thought characteristic of this Epistle are
markedly different from those traceable in the letters to
the Galatian, Corinthian, and Roman Churches. The

INTRODUCTION 23
difference in style has been often commented on, but the
contrast in the other respects is even more arresting.
The contrast has its source in diversity of mental con
stitution and of religious experience. Paul was of an
impetuous, passionate, vehement nature ; hence his
thought rushes on like a mountain torrent leaping over
the rocks. The writer of our Epistle is obviously a man
of calm, contemplative, patient spirit, and hence the
movement of his mind is like that of a stately river
flowing through a plain. Their respective ways of
looking at the law speak to an entirely different religious
history. The law had been to Paul a source of the
knowledge of sin, an irritant to sin, and a murderer of
hope ; therefore he ascribed to it the same functions in
the moral education of mankind. The writer of our
Epistle, on the other hand, appears to have gained his
insight into the transient character of the Levitical
religion and the glory of Christianity, not through a
fruitless attempt at keeping the law with Pharisaic
scrupulosity, but through a mental discipline enabling
him to distinguish between shadow and substance, sym
bol and spiritual reality. In other words : while Paul
was a moralist, he was a religious philosopher ; while for
Paul the organ of spiritual knowledge was conscience,
for him it was devout reason.
One consideration which biassed the ancients in favour
of Pauline authorship, and which is still not without
influence on opinion, was the wish to have for so im
portant a writing a worthy and, in view of the question
of canonicity, an apostolic author. It is c.ertainly re
markable that the writer of so important a book should

24 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
have remained unknown. But there is no call for
solicitude on that account. Canonicity is entirely inde
pendent of authorship. It depends on canonical function.
That the Epistle to the Hebrews performs an important
function in the organism of New Testament literature is
evident if the views presented as to its character and
aim in this chapter be correct. We may therefore rest
content that the name of the writer should remain
unknown, and even find a certain satisfaction in the
reflection that anonymity is a not incongruous attribute
of a writing which begins by virtually proclaiming God
to be the only Speaker in Scripture and Jesus Christ to
be the one Speaker of God's final revelation to men.
And yet it might be advantageous for the interpreta
tion of the Epistle if we knew, if not the name, at least
the thought-affinities of the writer. It always helps us
to understand an author when we know the school he
belongs to. Some are of opinion that this can be posi
tively ascertained in the case before us, the evidence
being found in the thought and style of the book itself.
The writer's speech, it is held, bewray eth him. He is
thereby shown to be a disciple of Philo, an adherent of
the Alexandrian school of religious philosophy. The
fact is that there are words, phrases, and ideas in the
Epistle which sound like an echo of the dialect and
type of thought characteristic of that school, as these are
made known to us in the pages of Philo. How far the
acquaintance of the writer with Alexandrian philosophy
extended cannot be determined, but there is that about his
style of thought, expression, and argument which suggests
an Alexandrian influence or atmosphere, and lends

INTRODUCTION 25
plausibility, if not probability, to the conjecture of Luther,
which has since his time found wide acceptance, that
he is to be identified with the Apollos mentioned in
Acts xviii. 24-28, there described as "born at Alex
andria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures."
While, however, keeping in view the Alexandrian culture
of the writer as a possible factor, we must be careful not
to exaggerate the extent of its influence on his thought.
There is certainly, as we shall have occasion to point out,
no trace of abject, helpless discipleship. We shall do
wisely, indeed, not to make the writer a slavish follower
of any school, whether Alexandrian, Pauline, or Rabbinical,
but to recognise frankly the free independent activity of
his mind, and to be ever on the outlook for originalities.
The date of the Epistle has been variously fixed.
There are some things in it which suggest the impending
destruction of the Jewish State in the year 70 A.D., and
such an ominous situation harmonises well with the
grave tone of the book throughout. All seems to say :
a judgment day is approaching ; a general overturn is at
hand, when all that can be shaken will be shaken to
make room for the kingdom that cannot be shaken.
There is therefore a high degree of probability in the
suggestion that the Epistle was written when the war ,
which issued disastrously for the Jewish people was
raging, and drawing near to its awful crisis.1
1 Vide on this Rendall, Epistle to the Hebreivs, Appendix, p. 65.

CHAPTER II
CHRIST AND THE PROPHETS
Chap. i. 1-4
The long sonorous sentence with which the Epistle opens
serves as an introduction to all that is to follow. It is, so
to speak, the portico of an august temple, its weighty
clauses being a row of stately ornamental pillars sup
porting the roof. This temple front has an imposing
aspect ! It fills the mind with awe, and disposes one
to enter the sacred edifice in religious silence rather than
to undertake the interpreter's task. May a fitting spirit
of reverence control and chasten throughout the train of
expository thought !
The writer announces at once the theme of discourse,
and introduces the leading thought on which he intends
to expatiate. The rhetorical style of his work may
explain in part why, being an Epistle, it does not begin
with salutations, but rushes in medias res. Be this as it
may, our author does, without a moment's delay, plunge
into the heart of his subject : defining his Christological
position ; setting forth Christ as the supreme object
of religious regard, superior to prophets, priests, and
angels ; the Apostle through whom God made His
26

CHRIST AND THE PROPHETS 27
final revelation to men ; the Priest who effectually
and for ever made that purification of sins which
Levitical sacrifices failed to accomplish; the Heir,
Maker, and Sustainer of all things ; not only above
angels, but Divine, God's Eternal Son and perfect
image. While forming a suitable introduction to the whole
writing, the opening paragraph is at the same time the
first instalment of an apologetic argument designed to
show the superiority of Christ, and by consequence of
the Christian religion. Therein the writer institutes
a contrast between Christ and the Hebrew prophets
as agents of Divine revelation. "God, having spoken
of old in many parts and in many modes, to the fathers
in the prophets, at the end of these days spake to us
in (His) Son."
By " the prophets " may be meant chiefly those strictly
so called, the literary prophets — Hosea, Isaiah, Jeremiah,
etc. In that case the contrast stated, though still valid,
loses somewhat of its sharpness. For the men who
uttered the oracles of the New Covenant, and of the
suffering servant of Jehovah, and (including Psalmists
among the prophets) such evangelic sentiments as " He
hath not dealt with us after our sins," were, as already
remarked, forerunners rather than rivals, preachers of
the Gospel of Divine Grace before the time. Still, even
in their case, there is a contrast at least in degree, if
not in kind (as in the Pauline antithesis between law
and gospel). The terms employed to discriminate
between the earlier and the final revelations apply to
the whole contents of the Old Testament. Hence the

28 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
term " prophets " is probably intended to cover the
whole body of Hebrew Scriptures, the " law," as well
as the " prophets " in the narrower sense. It is not
against this that the angels are recognised as the agents
by whom the law was given (ii. 2), for such recognition
may be regarded as a concession to Jewish opinion rather
than as the serious expression of the writer's own view.
Before considering the terms in which the two revela
tions are contrasted, we may pause for a moment to note
and comment on the manner in which the recipients
of the earlier revelation are described. They are called
" the fathers." The title implies that the Epistle is
meant for the special benefit of Jewish readers. Does
it imply further that the writer recognises only Jewish
Christians, or recognises Gentile Christians only on
condition of their consenting first to become Jews by
submitting to the rite of circumcision ? In that ease
we should have to say that the author was not merely
not Paul, but not even a Paulinist, a man, that is,
sympathising with the universalist position taken up
by Paul in the great controversy between him and the
Judaists. This I cannot believe. The Epistle, though
apparently identifying Christendom with the Hebrew
Church, is manifestly universalistic in spirit. No one
who considers the freedom with which the writer
speaks of Levitical institutions as weak, useless, doomed
to pass away, can imagine him having any difficulty
about recognising Gentile Christianity without regard
to circumcision, any more than one who understands the
spirit of Christ's teaching can think of Him as attaching
religious importance to the Jewish national rite, although

CHRIST AND THE PROPHETS 29
in the Gospels, as in this Epistle, there is no express
indication of opinion on the subject. Then, on the
principle that a man is known from the company he
keeps, Pauline sympathies may be inferred from the
writer's acquaintance with Timothy.1 That acquaintance
ship " makes it all but certain that he could not be
ignorant of the controversy, and therefore cannot be
conceived of as one to whom the question between Paul
and the Judaists had not occurred, and who was in the
same state of mind as if he had written his book before
the controversy arose. He must have had an opinion
on the subject ; and under whatever influences he had
been reared, Palestinian or Alexandrian, we may be
sure that his sympathies were on the side of universalism.
While therefore he is not to be identified with Paul,
he may be regarded as a Paulinist ; not in the sense
that he resembles or follows Paul in the details of his
theology, which he certainly does not, but in the sense
that for him, as for Paul, the Israel of God means all in
every land that believe in Christ, and that in Christ
for him, as for Paul, there is no distinction between Jew
and Gentile.
Passing now to the terms of the contrast, we observe
that the ancient revelation is characterised objectively
by the ascription to it of certain attributes, whereas
on the other hand the quality of the final revelation
is indicated by a simple reference to the agent. The
former is in effect described as a piecemeal, multiform,
or multimodal revelation, the latter as one made through
a Son. 1 Chap. xiii. 23.

30 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
God spake to the fathers " in many parts and in many
modes " (TroXvpepcos ica\ TroXvrpoTrm). These epithets
are not employed for the purpose of merely literary
description, to suggest, e.g., the picturesque nature of the
Hebrew sacred literature ; still less for the purpose of
pointing out its spiritual excellence. They are rather
carefully selected to serve the end aimed at in the whole
writing — to indicate the inferiority of the earlier reve
lation, that Hebrew Christians might not cling to it
as something final. Each of them is serviceable to this
purpose, both together adequately describe the situation.
The first of the two words points to the obvious fact
that there were many human speakers, each making his
little contribution to the unfolding of the Divine will,
the law being given by Moses, the story of Divine
Providence in Israel's history by a series of chroniclers,
the songs of the sanctuary by sacred poets, the wisdom of
life by the sages, and the Messianic prophecies by Isaiah,
Jeremiah, and their brethren. The mere fact that there
were many speakers involved of course the partiality
and fragmentariness of any one of the contributions. If
the law was all God had to say, e.g., why did the
Hebrew Bible contain more than the Pentateuch ? No
intelligent person could dream of regarding any section
of the ancient sacred literature as by itself a complete
revelation. But perhaps taken altogether they might
lay claim to that character ? The writer's reply is a
decided negative ; for it is to exclude this idea that
he adds the second epithet. The meaning of it is not
so clear as that of the first, but the best guide to its
interpretation is the end it is designed to serve — the

CHRIST AND THE PROPHETS 31
exclusion of the notion of finality as attaching to the
Hebrew Bible as a whole. The thought intended is
that the sum of the parts could not make a complete,
satisfactory revelation, because each part, besides being
fragmentary, was disadvantageously qualified by the
fact of the human agent knowing only in part. Each
speaker or writer was an imperfectly enlightened man,
and his contribution was coloured by his ignorance. The
separate pieces of revelation were tinged with the sub
jectivity of the writer and the prevailing ideas of his
time. Hence they could not be summed up in one
uniform whole, because they were heterogeneous and
even discrepant in religious tendency. They might be
bound up in one volume, but that did not make them
one coherent revelation. The one sacred book contained
two types of religion — one legal, the other evangelic ;
two theories of Providence — one teaching an unvarying,
exceptionless, retributive moral order, rendering to every
man according to his works, the other having for its
keynote, " He hath not dealt with us after our sins " ; two
conceptions of the Messianic kingdom — one particularistic,
the other universal. How could such a book be God's
full final message .to men ? How needful at the very
least an authoritative interpreter who should tell us to
which parts of the Holy Book we must attach most
importance !
After centuries, during which the voice of prophecy
was silent and the " night of legalism " prevailed, God
at length sent One who was able to do that and more.
In the end of the days He spake in or by a Son. This
is all that is stated by way of characterising the new

32 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
final revelation. No descriptive epithets are employed,
as in the case of the earlier revelation, because they are
not needed. The one expression " in a Son " (ev vlw) in
volves in itself a full antithesis to the fragmentary
modal revelation given to the fathers in the prophets.
In the first place, there is only one agent of revelation
instead of many, therefore the revelation is given in
one gush instead of in many separate parts. Then the
absence of the article in the phrase iv vla> gives it this
meaning, that one standing to God in the relation of Son
can make a revelation which shall be perfect in its
character, therefore complete and final in contents. The
thought is substantially identical with that expressed in
the Fourth Gospel : " No man hath seen God at any
time ; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the
Father, He hath declared Him." A Son dwelling in
the bosom of God, His Father, and having access to His
inmost thoughts, is fit to be the perfect exegete of His
mind : such is the implicit argument of both Gospel and
Epistle. This view implies that the Son must be the
last speaker : no more remains to be said ; it implies
further that He is the only Speaker of the new era
— apostles and apostolic men sinking into the sub
ordinate position of witnesses, confirmers of what they
have seen and heard of the Son, echoes of His voice,
commenders of His teaching to the world.
Who the " Son " is does not immediately appear,
but from the sequel we learn that He is Jesus Christ,
who is called by -His historical name, Jesus, for the first
t time, in chapter ii. 9. That ascertained, we know what
' is meant when it is stated that God hath spoken by the

CHRIST AND THE PROPHETS 33
Son. The reference, doubtless, is to the words spoken
by the Son when He was in this world, and as a
historical personage was known by the name of Jesus of
Nazareth. And as God's speech through Him is placed
in parallelism with His speech through the prophets,
which took written form in a sacred literature, the
presumption is that the author of our Epistle had in his
mind a fixed, accessible, probably written, tradition of
all that Jesus taught and did. That such an evangelic
tradition, of definite contents, was in existence when
our Epistle was written, and was known to the author,
there can be little doubt ; that he valued it highly, and
desired his readers to value it, may be taken for
granted. It is true, there is no very clear reference
in the Epistle to a Gospel literature, unless we find
one such in chapter ii. 3. It is also true that copious
indications of acquaintance with evangelic facts are not
forthcoming. There are, however, more traces of such
acquaintance than we might at first imagine, and it is
quite misleading to say that there are in the Epistle only
two data with reference to the terrestrial life of Jesus,
namely, that He was of the tribe of Judah, and that
He offered up prayer with strong crying and tears.1 In
any case, paucity of reference to evangelic facts must be
ascribed to lack of occasion, by no means to any sup
posed indifference to the teaching of Jesus as we find
it recorded in the Gospels. Such indifference would be
self-stultifying on the part of one who laid such stress
on the revelation made through the Son ; inconceivable
1 Menegoz, p. 77. For traces of acquaintance with evangelic facts
in our Epistle, vide chapter iii. of this work.
3

34 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
in one who was so fully alive to the defects of the Old
Testament, and the need there was for a further revelation
in regard to the very fundamentals of 1 eligion — the ideas of
God, man and their relations, the true nature of righteous
ness, and of the kingdom of heaven and the conditions
of admission within its borders — that is to say, of just
such a revelation as the recorded words of Jesus contain.
The speech of God through Jesus is represented in
the first place as speech through a Son, to invest it with
due authority. It may here be pointed out that in all
the four contrasts the superiority of Jesus Christ is
made to rest on the foundation of His Sonship. It is so
here in the first contrast, that between Jesus and the
prophets. It is so also in the contrast between Jesus
and angels. He, as Son, is begotten ; angels, like all
creatures, are made. Therefore His word claims more
attention than that spoken by angels, with whatever
solemn accompaniments, on Sinai (chaps, i. 5, 10 :
ii. 1, 2). So, also, in the contrast between Jesus and
Moses. Moses was great in God's house, but only as a
servant ; Christ is not only greater, but belongs to
another category, that of Son (iii. 5, 6). So, finally, in
the contrast between Jesus and Aaron. Aaron, though
an important personage within the Levitical system, was
but a sacerdotal drudge, ever performing ceremonies with
out real value, " daily ministering and offering oftentime
the same sacrifices which can never take away sin " (x. 11).
But the High Priest of Christendom is Jesus, the Son of God
(iv. 1 4), who, as a Son, learned obedience through suffering
(v. 8), and who, after His Passion, voluntarily endured,
was, as the Son, " consecrated for evermore " (vii. 28).

CHRIST AND THE PROPHETS 35
Sonship being the basis of Christ's claim to supremacy,
it was fitting that on the first mention of His filial
standing occasion should be taken to unfold the full
significance of the august title. This, accordingly, is
done in the following clauses of the opening sentence, in
a manner which shows how far our author was from
understanding the title in a common or attenuated sense.
He indeed takes it so much in earnest that the effect
of his statement is to make Christ, to all intents and
purposes, not the highest of creatures,1 but absolutely
Divine. His Christological position is not less advanced
than that of the prologue of the Fourth Gospel. Whence
he drew his lofty ideal of the Son we may try to guess,
and the pages of Philo, with their constant eulogistic
references to the Logos, the texts which follow relating
to the excellent name inherited by the Messiah (i. 5-12),
and logical analysis of the idea of Sonship, may be
suggested as possible sources of inspiration. What we
have to do with, however, is the ideal as here presented,
and the interpretation of the phrases by which it is
delineated. Our best guide in this task will be to keep
constantly in view the bearing of the attributes ascribed on
the fitness of the Son to be the full and final Revealer of
God's mind.
The first attribute is heirship, which is immediately
suggested by the idea of Sonship. This attribute has
no remote bearing on fitness to be the final Revealer.
Heirship of all things implies that all things exist for
the heir. He is the moral aim of creation ; the key to
1 Menegoz maintains that the Christology of the Epistle is Arian.
Vide his work on the Theology of the Epistle, p. 100.

36 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
the religious significance of the universe is in His hands.
Who, then, can better than He tell what it all means —
this vast world — its raison d'itre ; give us a hint of the
true theory of the universe, surely a most important
subject of revelation ? x
It is next said concerning the Son, that by Him also
God made the worlds. This is not, like heirship, an
immediate, obvious deduction from Sonship. The Logos
idea perhaps lies behind this part of the account given
of the Son's privileges and functions. In that case,
making means not mechanical agency, but supplying the
plan according to which a thing is made. The Son, as
the Logos, is the Divine idea of the world, its rational
basis. He is the ideal origin of the world, as well as
the world-aim. And the former attribute, not less than
the latter, qualifies Him for being the Revealer par
excellence. In virtue thereof He can reveal the spiritual
essence of the world, the great thoughts of God which
find expression in the laws of nature and in the course
of history. It is not His business, indeed, to discover
the secrets of science, and play the part of a Newton.
His work is higher : to tell us what we are to think
of the Being who appointed the laws of the planetary
system and set the sun to shine in the heavens. He
was performing this work when He said, " A sparrow
shall not fall on the ground without your Father "
(Matt. x. 29), and, "He maketh His sun to rise on the
evil and on the good " (Matt. v. 45).
Of special importance is the third clause in the
1 The thought of our Epistle at this point has affinity with the
Epistle to the Colossians,

CHRIST AND THE PROPHETS 37
eulogium on the Son, that in which He is declared
to be the effulgence (aTravyacrfia) of God's glory, and
the exact image (xapa/cTr/p) of His essence. The terms
employed had a place in the vocabulary of the Grasco-
Jewish religious philosophy. Philo called man a ray
(apaugasm) of the Divine,1 and in the Book of Wisdom
the same term is used to express the relation of wisdom
to the Eternal Light.2 Philo calls the Logos the char
acter, or image, on the seal of God,3 and the higher
spirit in man a certain type and character of Divine
Power.4 In view of such passages in the Alexandrian
literature, possibly known to our author, we might give
to the expressions he employs an alternative reference,
either to the Son as man or to the Son as the Logos
or Wisdom of God. Adopting the former alternative,
we should find in his phrases the thought that the Son
as man — God in human form — was in an eminent
manner what all men are in their degree, a ray of
Divine Light and an image or copy of the Divine
Nature. But it is more probable that the mind of the
writer does not at this point touch the earth, but moves
in the high transcendental region of the Son's eternal
relations, and that it is of the Son as Logos, or the
Reason of God, that he makes the statement on which
I now comment.
The two terms apaugasma and character are sus
ceptible of a double interpretation. The former may
mean either the effulgence or the refulgence of the Divine
1 De Opif. M. 51. 2 vii. 26.
3 De Plantat. 5, trcppayiSi. 8eov r/s 6 xapaKTrjp Iutiv aihios Xdyor.
4 Vide, on these passages, Siegfried's Philo von Alexandria, p. 324.

38 the epistle to the Hebrews
Glory,1 the direct outgoing radiance or the reflected image,
as of the sun in water. The latter may mean either the
figure carved on a seal, or the impression which it makes
when stamped upon a soft receptive substance like wax.
Taken in the former sense, in either case the two words
would express the Son's relation to the world, setting Him
forth as the Divine Light which illuminates the world,
" the true Light which lighteth every man that cometh into
the world," and as the Divine Figure on God's seal by
which He puts His stamp on the whole creation, and
especially on man. Taken in the latter sense, they
would place the emphasis on the Son's relation to God —
the Son the luminous image of God, a reflected sun, and
resembling God as exactly as the copy in wax resembles
the figure on the seal. It is not necessary to decide
between the two alternative renderings and references,
as both convey or imply the same view of the Son's
Divine nature.
It was to be expected that these pregnant phrases
would play their part in the history of theological con
troversy. Heretics and orthodox had each their own
way of interpreting them. The Sabellians laid stress on
the term apaugasma as suggesting the idea of a modal
manifestation rather than of a distinct personality. The
Arians emphasised the term character as implying a
position of dependence and derivation belonging to the
Son in relation to the Father. The orthodox, on their
side, maintained that by the combination of the two
both errors were excluded, the one phrase implying
identity of nature — " Light from Light " — so excluding
1 Vide Westcott, ad loc.

CHRIST AND THE PROPHETS 39
Arianism ; the latter implying independent personality,
so excluding Sabellianism. Strict exegesis cannot settle
the controversy.
Whatever the precise theological import of the phrases,
there can be no doubt that they serve well the purpose
of evincing the fitness of the Son to be the full and final
Revealer of God to men. It is for this end, not to
furnish in a scholastic or speculative spirit a definition
of the Son's Divinity, that they are here employed, and
in that view they are happily chosen. Who so fit to
make God known as one who is related to Him as the
sun's rays to the sun, and who resembles Him as the
image impressed on wax resembles that on the seal?
His word must be as the bright light of day, than which
nothing can be brighter, and He can say of Himself,
" He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father."
-^ One clause more completes the imposing description
of the Son's nature and functions : " Bearing all things
by the word of His power." It claims for the Son the
functions of Providence, as a previous statement had
claimed for Him the functions of Creation. He is the
Sustainer of the world, as He is the Creator, Light, and
Reason of the world. This attribute also bears on His
fitness to be the full final Revealer. He who is the
Providence of the world can interpret Providence, can
tell us authoritatively what the course of nature and
history means, what is the Divine Purpose running
through the ages. The prophets tried to read the riddle
of life, but they were as men groping in the dark. The
Son came and spoke as one who was in the secret,
finding a Gospel of Divine Grace even in sunshine and

40 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
rain, and assigning beneficent redemptive virtue to the
sufferings of the good which had so sorely perplexed a
Jeremiah and a Job.
In view, now, of all these august attributes ascribed
to the Son, what is the inevitable inference ? Surely
that here is One who when He speaks for God eclipses
all previous speakers, and has a supreme claim to be
listened to ! And yet, is the argument not too con
clusive, the logic too crushing ? Does the writer not
defeat his own purpose by making everything turn on
status, dignity, rather than on intrinsic merit ? The
final Speaker is exhibited as Divine : would it not have
been more serviceable to have exhibited Him rather as
eminently human ? Would it not have been better to
have said, " Hath in these last days spoken to us by the
meek, lowly Son of Man," thus giving the word spoken
by Him a chance of appearing winsome, and not merely
avjful ? Yes, if he had been writing for us and not for
Hebrew Christians. But the melancholy fact was that he
was arguing with men who had no power of appreciating
the humiliation state of Jesus, and the pathos of the
contrast between the incomparable sweetness and light
of His speech and the lowly condition of the Speaker.
Therefore there was no course open but to fall back on
a celestial dignity which was not apparent in the earthly
life, and to borrow therefrom a robe of external authority
wherewith to invest words which, on their own merits,
however exceptional, would fail to command attention.
Whether by this means attention was secured, and what
might be its moral value, are questions which may be
left to private reflection.

CHRIST AND THE PROPHETS 41
The closing part of the sublime encomium on the Son
remains to be noticed : " Who having made purification
of sin, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on
High." From the beginning of verse 3 the exaltation of Christ
is in the view of the writer, as appears from the fact
that all the clauses preceding that in which the session
on the throne is spoken of are participial in form.
" Who being, etc., having made purification, etc., -sat
down." The participial clauses indicate, two grounds for
the exaltation, a physical and an ethical. Being God
like in nature, a celestial throne is the place that fits the^
Son ; having made purification of sin, He deserves it.
The purification is antecedent to the exaltation, and
belongs to the earthly state, the state of humiliation.
From the slight parenthetical manner in which it is
referred to, one might hastily infer that the earthly state
and all that belonged to it was in the writer's eye some
thing to be ashamed of. How very far that was from
being the case we shall see hereafter. Meanwhile it is
enough to point out that the author of our Epistle, like
the Apostle Paul, evidently viewed the exaltation-state /(
not only as congruous to the nature of the Son, but as l
the reward of His priestly performance. "He humbled1'
Himself and became obedient unto death, therefore God
exalted Him," said Paul. Our author means the same
thing when he says : He made purification of sin and
then sat down on the throne.
In the Textus Receptus the means of purification are
specified : " When He had by Himself purged our sins."
The words St' eavrov, omitted in the best codices, were

42 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
a natural, almost inevitable addition, slipping from the
margin into the text ; for that Chris£s_iiffiering_^was
Himself is one of the great ieading ideas of the Epistle,
written, so to speak, in large capitals. Yet it was not
at all likely to be introduced here. The writer was too
skilful a master of the art of persuasion to bring in so
distinctive, and for his readers so difficult, a truth before
he could make more of it than was possible at the outset.
Therefore he contents himself with stating Christ's priestly
achievement in the barest terms, reserving developments
for a later stage.
, At this point alone the lofty encomium on the Apostle
I and High Priest of the Christian confession touches the
i earth. But for this brief reference to the purification
of sins, we might almost doubt whether the august
personage spoken of in the proem had ever been in this
world of time and sense. It is indeed natural to assume
that the Son, being placed on a line with the prophets
as an agent of revelation, like them appeared as a man
amoDg men, and heroically witnessed for truth amidst
the contradictions of the world. But when we read on,
and observe the lofty, superhuman epithets attached to
the name, we half suspect that we have been mistaken,
till we come to the words, " when He had purged sins,"
whereby we are reassured. Some hold that the purifi
cation itself took place in heaven ; but even in that case
we touch the earth, at least inferentially. For purifica
tion implies blood shed, and bloodshedding implies death,
and death bears witness to a previous incarnate life.
Thus the priestly service, wherever performed, has a
human history for its background — a history which

CHRIST AND THE PROPHETS 43
when inquired into will doubtless turn out to be full
of instruction, pathos, inspiration, and consolation. It
may be said to have been the interest of one writing to
tempted Hebrews to make as much use as possible of
this history, to bid them look to the Man Jesus, and to
show them this Man in His brotherly sympathy, heroic
fidelity, and manifold experience of trial, so that they
might see Him in a way fitted to nerve them to endur
ance. We expect therefore, and we desire, to find in
this writing not a little relating to the earthly life of
the Son. Our bias is not to relegate everything to
heaven ; it is decidedly the opposite, — we avow it at the
outset^ — to hold on firmly to the earth wherever we can,
consistently with honest exegesis. That the priesthood
of Christ is placed in the heavenly sanctuary is admitted,
but it is a question how far this is due to the apologetic
method of the Epistle. We must distinguish between
the form and the substance of the writer's thought,
between his essential idea and the mode in which he
states it in an argument constructed for the benefit of
others. But of this more hereafter.
The exaltation is described in terms taken from Psalm
ex., amplified by a rhetorical circumlocution for the Divine
name. In other places the language employed for the
same purpose is simpler, except in chapter viii. 1, where
the formula becomes even more solemn : " Sat down on
the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the
heavens." There the session on the right hand seems
to be referred to as the symbol and proof of the com
pleteness, and therefore finality, of Christ's self-sacrifice.
Here the aim rather is to make the exalted Christ com-

44 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
pletely eclipse the angels. For the long introductory
sentence winds up with the declaration that in taking
His seat on the right hand of the Majesty on high the
Son became " by so much better than angels as He hath
inherited a more excellent name than they." Thus, after
the skilful manner of the writer, is the new theme woven
into the old ; for angels are to be the next subject of
comparison with Christ. The preliminary statement
here made has to our ears the effect of an anticlimax.
It seems a small thing to say of One who sitteth at the
right hand of God that He is higher in dignity than
angels. So it is from the view-point of modern Christian
thought, in which angels occupy a very subordinate
place. But the high rank assigned to angels by
Jewish theology at the beginning of our- era imposed
upon the writer of our Epistle the unwelcome necessity
of making what appears to us this superfluous assertion
of Christ's superiority.

CHAPTER III
CHRIST AND THE ANGELS
Chap. i. 5-14 ; Chap. it. 1-4
A modern interpreter would not be sorry to pass over in
silence this section about angels. It is an unwelcome task
to consider gravely a proof that Christ is greater than
angels ; the thing to be proved is so much a matter of
course. For modern men the angels are very much
a dead theological category. Everywhere in the old
Jewish world, they are next to nowhere in our world.
They have practically disappeared from the universe in
thought and in fact. The " nature " angels, by whose
agency, according to the Jewish theory of the universe,
the phenomena of the physical world were produced, have
been replaced in our scientific era by mechanical and
chemical forces. The angels of Providence, though not
so completely discarded, are now rare and strange
visitants. The subject was probably a weariness to the writer of
our Epistle. A Jew, and well acquainted with Jewish
opinion, and obliged to adjust his argument to it, he was
tired, I imagine, of the angelic regime. Too much had
been made of it in rabbinical teaching and in popular
45

46 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
opinion. It must not be supposed that he was in
sympathy with either. His state of mind was, doubt
less, similar to that of all reformers living at periods of
transition, who have lost interest in the traditional, old,
and decadent, and are eagerly, enthusiastically open to
the influences of the new time. He cared as little for
angelology as for Leviticalism. Both for him belonged
to the old world of Judaism, which was ready to vanish
away, and whose disappearance he did his best to pro
mote. This mood of his one can fully appreciate ; it
lends a pathetic interest even to his argument about the
angels. That argument possesses a certain religious grandeur.
Overlooking for the moment critical and exegetical
difficulties connected with this picturesque mosaic of
Old Testament texts,1 how impressive the sublime contrast
drawn, how admirably it serves the purpose of making
angels dwindle into insignificance in presence of Christ !
He, the first-born of God, Himself Divine, performing
creative functions, everlasting, sitting on a Divine
throne, victorious over all foes, and exercising righteous
rule ; they, worshippers, servants, subjects, creatures,
perishable like all created beings.
When studied in detail, however, the proof of the
thesis maintained is much less plain than the thing
proved. We have no difficulty in believing that Christ
is greater than angels. But the citations by which
this proposition is supported bristle with perplexities of
I 1 Let it be here noted, once for all, that in quoting the Old
\\ Testament the writer relies entirely on the Septuagint. He uses a
I text closely resembling that of the Codex Alexnndrinus.

CHRIST AND THE ANGELS 47
all sorts. There is hardly a text in this Old Testament
mosaic that does not present a problem, soluble per
haps, but by its presence weakening for us the religious
impression which the whole passage can be conceived to
have made on minds for which our difficulties did not exist.
These problems, critical and exegetical, I shall lightly
touch, just sufficiently to indicate their nature and the
direction in which solution lies. That done, we shall be
in a better position for appreciating the broad effect of
the contrast running through the quotations.
There are seven quotations in all, having for their
general aim to show the surpassing excellence of Christ's
name — His Messianic inheritance from Old Testament
Psalms and Prophecies. Some divide them into two
classes — those which relate to the more excellent name,
and those which relate to the better dignity, including
under the former head the three quotations in verses
5, 6, and under the latter the four in verses 7—13.
Such a rigid distinction is uncalled for. The two
topics run into each other. The ostensible aim through
out is to show the kind of titles given to the Messiah.
But into the exhibition of the name the dignity intrudes,
simply because each implies the other. Thus in one of
the texts Christ is set forth as a Divine King. It is a
name and also an office, or, if you will, an office and
also a name.
Another solicitude of interpreters is to determine the
relation of the citations to the " states " of Christ. Some
think that they all refer exclusively to the state of
exaltation. This, doubtless, must be the case if the
writer of our Epistle held the theory concerning the posi-

48 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
tion of angels in the old world which certain recent
commentators ascribe to him. The theory is this : that
angels were the rulers of the present visible world, that
to their dominion men in general were subject, and
Christ also when He was on earth. The contrast drawn
between Christ and the angels is thus really a contrast
between two worlds, the present world and the world to
come, and between two universal administrations, that of
angels in the world about to pass away, and that of
Christ and men in the new world about to come in. It
is only in tho latter that Christ occupies a position of
superiority, therefore the texts which assert His
superiority must be relegated to the post-earthly state in
which He became better than angels.
There is no evidence in the Epistle that the writer
held this theory as to angelic rule. There is no evidence
that he regarded it even as a tenet of contemporary
Jewish theology. The statement in chapter ii. 5, " Unto
the angels hath He not put in subjection the world to
come" may indeed contain a hint that he was aware of
such a view, based on Deuteronomy xxxii. 8, being enter
tained by Jews, but it would not follow that he himself
held the opinion, or even that he thought it worth
reckoning with, like the Jewish doctrine of the angelic
function in connection with the lawgiving, which for
argumentative purposes he assumed to be true.1
1 Vide on this point Professor Davidson, who ascribes to the
writer the above theory, and Bishop Westcott, in his Commentary,
who thinks it possible the writer in chap. ii. 5 had the statement
in Deut. xxxii. 8 (Sept. Version) in his mind, as expressing the belief
that God had assigned the nations to the care of angels, while Israel
was His own portion.

CHRIST AND THE ANGELS 49
Turning now to the quotations, questions may be
raised either as to their relevancy or as to their legitimacy.
They are not relevant unless the passages quoted refer
to the Messiah. The writer assumes that they do, and
takes for granted that the assumption will not be dis
puted by his readers. Not only so : he assumes that
these texts are directly and exclusively Messianic. He
proceeds on the same assumption in reference to all his
Messianic citations throughout the Epistle. His interest
in the Old Testament is purely religious and Christian.
He thinks, not of what meaning these holy writings
might have for the contemporaries of the writers, but
only of the meaning they have for his own generation.
This need cause us no trouble. The limited, purely
practical view taken of Old Testament prophecy by New
Testament writers is no law for us, and ought not to
be viewed as interdicting the scientific, historical inter
pretation of the prophetic writings. It were a more
serious matter if it should be found that passages cited as
Messianic had no reference whatever to the Messiah, either
directly or indirectly. Now, on first view of at least
some of these quotations, it certainly seems as if the
writer thought himself at liberty to quote as Messianic
any statement about either God or man that appeared to
suit his purpose. Which of us, e.g., would have thought
the passage quoted from Psalm cii. in vers. 10-12 applic
able to Messiah ? Yet on second thoughts we discover
that, consciously or instinctively, the writer proceeds on
a principle, and does not quote at haphazard. Two prin
ciples appear to underlie the group of quotations : that
all statements concerning men, say, kings of Israel,
4

50 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
which rise above the historical reality into the ideal are
Messianic; and that statements concerning Jehovah
viewed as the Saviour of the latter days are also to be
regarded as Messianic. The former of these principles
applies to the first two quotations in ver. 5, and to the
fifth and seventh in vers. 8, 9, and 13. All these
passages may be regarded as referring originally to a
king of Israel, to Solomon, or some other ; but in each
case there is an ideal element which could not be
applied to the historical reality without extravagance.
" I have begotten thee," " Thy throne, 0 God," or even
" thy throne of God," the words implying in either case
Divine dignity, " Sit on My right hand," taken along
with " thou art a priest for ever." The latter of the two
principles above stated applies to the quotation from a
Psalm (cii.) which speaks of a time coming when Jehovah
shall build up Zion, and when the kingdoms of the
world shall join with Israel in serving Him. It is
possible that the writer regarded this text as Messianic,
because in his view creation was the work of the pre-
existent Christ. But it is equally possible that he ascribed
creative agency to Christ out of regard to this and other
similar texts, believed to be Messianic on other grounds.
The third quotation, in ver. 6, presents a complica
tion of difficulties. The first is, whence is it taken ?
The thought is substantially found in Psalm xcvii. 7,
" Worship Him, all ye gods " (angels in Sept.). But the
" And " (ical) with which the quotation begins is against
the Psalm being the source. The sentence, word for
word, including the " and," occurs in the Septuagint
Version of Deuteronomy, xxxii. 43. and there can he little

CHRIST AND THE ANGELS 51
doubt that it was from that place the writer made the
citation. But just there the Septuagint diverges widely
from the Hebrew original as we know it, the verse in Greek
consisting of four clauses, only one of which, the third,
has words answering to it in the Hebrew. It is the
second clause which is quoted in our Epistle. The
question thus arises : With what propriety could use be
made, in an important argument, of words taken from
the Greek version which have nothing answering to
them in the Hebrew text 1 This is a question of
legitimacy. Now it is possible that the Greek trans
lators found Hebrew words corresponding to their version
in the Codex they used, but as that is only a possibility
the question cannot be evaded. The answer offered in an
apologetic interest by commentators is, that the thought
contained in the quotation is found elsewhere in Scrip
ture, as, e.g., in the above cited Psalm, and that therefore
no wrong is done to the teaching of the sacred writings
in the original tongues by quoting from the Septuagint
a passage to which there is nothing corresponding in the
Hebrew. This consideration is for our benefit. For
the first readers there was no difficulty. For them, as
for the writer, the Septuagint was Scripture ; and hence
throughout the book it is always quoted without hesita
tion, and apparently without reference to the question
how far it corresponded with the Hebrew original. For
us the Septuagint is nothing more than a translation,
sometimes accurate, sometimes the reverse, based on a
Codex which might have many defects. Hence the
argument of the Epistle cannot always carry for us the
weight it had for the first readers. Nor is it necessary

52 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
it should. What we have mainly to do with is the
essential teaching, the principles which the arguments
are adduced to establish. Arguments are for an age ;
principles are for all time.
Why did the writer take the citation from Deuter
onomy rather than from the Psalm ? Possibly because it
was the first place in Scripture where the thought occurred;
possibly because he found the thought embedded there
in a passage Messianic in its scope, on the second of the
two principles above enunciated ; for therein Jehovah is
represented as appearing in the latter days for the
deliverance of Israel by the judgment of her and His
adversaries. If the Messianic reference be admitted, of
course the use of the text in a eulogy on the Son is
legitimate. But we observe that the writer calls the
Son the " first-begotten," and speaks of Him as intro
duced into the inhabited world on the occasion to which
the text refers. Whence the title ? and what is meant
by this introduction ? As to the title, the writer
possibly regarded it as implicitly contained in the texts
quoted in ver. 5 ; or he may have had in his mind the
words, " I will make Him My first-born " (Psalm lxxxix.
27), which, like the first two texts, refer to the promise
made to David through Nathan. In the latter case the
use of the title here is virtually the introduction of
another quotation illustrative of the excellent name con
ferred on the Son. It is as if he had written, " Unto
which of the angels said He at any time, ' Thou art My
Son, this day have I begotten Thee'? And again, 'I
will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son'?
and again, ' I will make Him My first-begotten ' ? "

CHRIST AND THE ANGELS 53
/ By these texts the Son is placed in a position of peer-
'less eminence, in a unique relation to God. The next text,
that taken from Deuteronomy, assigns to angels, though
also called sons of God in Scripture, the lowly position
of worshippers : '' Let all the angels of God worship
Him." This order is conceived by our writer as given
out by the Supreme Lord " when He bringeth in the
First-begotten into the world." How are we to understand
this statement ? It seems to me simply an imaginative
interpretation of the quotation to which it is attached.
The summons to worship addressed to the angels suggests
to the writer's mind, as a fit setting, the idea of a solemn
introduction of the Son to the world which He has made,
and of which He is the heir, that He may receive
worshipful homage, as the heir, from its rational inhabit
ants, and especially from angels as the highest created
intelligences, and as representing the universe of being
(to, irdvTa). The " introduction " is ideal, not historic ;
the conception is dramatic, as in chapter v. 10, where the
Son entering heaven, perfected by suffering, is represented
as hailed, saluted by His Father : " High Priest after the
order of Melchisedec ! " It is poetry, not history or
dogmatic theology.1
1 Some And in the text an implied antithesis between a first and a
second introduction of the Son into the inhabited world (oiKov/te'1/77),
and understand the writer as referring to the latter event, i.e. to
the second coming of Christ accompanied by an angelic host. Their
chief grounds are — (1) the place in Deuteronomy from which the
words are taken speaks of judgment ; (2) the position of nakiv in
the sentence requires us to render, not "and again when," but
"and when again," and suggests connection with the nearest
verb = and when He again bringeth in. Against this is the previous
use of ndXtv, ver. 5, tq introduce a second quotation, which makes

54 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
The quotation we have been considering refers
indirectly to angels, assigning to them a place of
subordination to the Son. The one which follows in
ver. 7 refers to them directly. It is the only one of the
seven quotations which does contain a direct statement
concerning the angels, so that it is of great importance
as revealing the writer's conception of their position in
the universe. In reference to this quotation there is a
preliminary question of legitimacy to be considered.
The words are an exact reproduction of the Septuagint
version of Psalm civ. 4, their sense in English being:
" Who maketh His angels winds (not spirits, as in A.V.),
and His ministers a flame of fire." But it has been
doubted whether the Greek version is a correct render
ing of the Hebrew. It is held by some commentators
it likely that it is here used a second time to introduce a third. If
the writer had meant to hint at a second introduction, he would
probably have used another word, say, Seirepov. Further, how
unlikely that he would in this abrupt way refer to a second coming
without any mention of a first ! It is therefore most probable that the
" again" is to be taken with " He saith," i.e. as introducing another
quotation, and that its transposition is to be regarded as a rhetorical
negligence. (So von Soden : " Doubtless an inversion of irdkiv, as
often found in Philo's citations.'' Westcott says, " Such a transposi
tion is without parallel — yet see Wisdom xiv. 1.") The aorist
claayayn rendered as a present " bringeth in " in the Authorised
and Revised Versions, strictly means "shall have brought in," but an
incongruity thus arises with " He saith," which practically compels
us to take elo-ayayu as a present. But granting it is future, from
what point of view is futurity contemplated — from the writer's living
in the end of the days, or from the day when the Son is begotten ?
We may conceive him placing himself back in the eternal " to-day "
of the Son's generation, and looking forward into time. So viewed,
the " when He shall have brought the First-begotten into the
world " might refer to an event happening at any time in the
world's historv, if indeed it refer to anv historical event at all,

CHRIST AND THE ANGELS 55
of good name, including Calvin, that the proper trans
lation is, " who maketh the winds His messengers, and
flaming fire His ministers " ; according to which the
passage contains no reference whatever to angels. And
it must be confessed that a reference to angels seems out
of place in the connection of thought. The Psalm is a
Hymn of Creation — a free poetic version of creation's
story ; and in the foregoing context the psalmist praises
God as the Maker of the light, and of the visible
heavens, and of the clouds, and of the waters ; and one
expects to read, in such, a connection of wind and fire,
but not of angels. Recent Hebrew scholarship, however,
defends the Septuagint Version, and the opinion gains
ground that it faithfully reflects the original. In that
case there is no question of legitimacy, but while a
doubt remains the question will intrude itself : Of what
value is a statement concerning angels occurring merely
in the Septuagint, and having nothing answering to it in
the Hebrew text ? And the reply must be similar to
that given in connection with the previous quotation from
Deuteronomy. The words express a scriptural idea, if
not an idea to be found ,in that particular place. It
occurs in the preceding Psalm, the one hundred and
third. The words, " Bless the Lord, ye His angels, that
excel in strength, that do His commandments, hearken
ing unto the voice of His word : bless ye the Lord, all
ye His hosts, ye ministers of His that do His pleasure,"
suggest the idea of a multitude of ministering spirits
who surround the throne of the Sovereign of the universe,
and who are continually receiving commissions and
being sent on errands in the administration of. the

56 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
Divine King — essentially the same idea as that con
tained in the text quoted from Psalm civ.
With reference to angels, then, He saith, "Who
i maketh His angels winds, and His ministers a flame of
| fire." Is this a poetic comparison suggestive of move
ment and mighty power, or is it a matter-of-fact state
ment concerning the nature of angels, implying that
angels are transformable into winds and flames — in short,
that they are the elements and forces of nature under
another name ? It was poetry at first, but as time went
on it became dogmatic prose. In the Jewish theory of
the universe angelic agency occupied the same place
that physical causation holds in ours. Angelology was
the animistic philosophy of the later Judaism. It had
as many angels in its world as there were things or
events. " There is not a thing in the world," says the
Talmud, " not even a tiny blade of grass, over which
there is not an angel set." What the writer of our
Epistle, however, was interested in was not the physical
constitution of the angels, but their functions ; not that
they were fire-like or wind-like, but that they were
messengers and ministers. ' This is what he finds stated
about them in the one representative text he quotes
concerning them. This is the name they have inherited :
simply ministers, mere instruments like the will-less,
unconscious elements. No word of rule, dominion ;
only of service. Why, having quoted Deuteronomy in
reference to the First-begotten, not also quote from the
same chapter these words concerning the angels : " He
fixed the bounds of the nations according to the number
of the angels of God," suggesting the idea that each

CHRIST AND THE ANGELS 57
nation had its angelic Prince ? Because the notion of
rule did not enter into his angelic idea.
Passing now from detailed criticism and comment, let
us note the broad contrast which runs through the
group of quotations. There is only one radical contrast,
but it has three aspects : Son and servants, King and
subjects, Creator and creatures. Christ is the Son of
God, angels are the servants of Gad. They too are sons,
but in comparison with the sonship of the First
begotten their sonship is not worthy to be mentioned,
and is not mentioned. They simply appear as ministers
of the Divine will. This is the contrast suggested in
vers. 5-7. Then, secondly, . Christ is a Divine King,
sitting on a throne of omnipotence exercised in behalf
of righteousness. The angels are His subjects. For the
God who maketh His angels winds is none other than
the God who sits on the throne of righteousness.
Formally He is to be distinguished from the latter,
inasmuch as He is represented as addressing the Son :
" To the Son He saith." But the King is the Creator, and
it is the Creator and Governor of the world who maketh
His angels winds. This contrast between King and
subjects is contained in vers. 8, 9. Finally, Christ is
the Creator, and the angels are His creatures : He
everlasting; they, like all created beings, perishable.
Creatureliness is not expressly predicated of angels in
the sixth quotation (vers. 10-12), but it is implied in the
comparison of them to winds and flames, which connects
them with the elements and involves them in their
doom. The one statement concerning angels in ver. 7
stands in antithesis to the two following statements

58 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
concerning the Son : " With regard to the angels, He
saith," etc., but with regard to the Son, that He is a
Divine King, and also that He is a Divine Creator.
Even the Rabbis thought of the angels as perishable like
all other creatures. " Day by day," they said, " the angels
of service are created out of the fire-stream, and sing a
song and disappear, as is said in Lamentations iii. 23,
' They are new every morning.' " This final contrast is
contained in ver. 7 and vers. 10—12.
The writer concludes his argument with a final state
ment about the angels in interrogative form : " Are they
not all ministering spirits?" (ver. 14). He brings the
whole class under the category of service, not dominion,
for the words " all " and " ministering '' are emphatic.
None are excepted, not even the highest in rank ; not
even the princes of the nations, who rule not, but act as
tutelary spirits, guardian angels. The assertion that
they all serve is absolute, not merely relative to the
kingdom of redemption, concerning which a supple
mentary statement is made in the closing words : " Being
sent forth for ministry for the sake of those who are
about to inherit salvation." Service is not an incident
in the history of angels ; it is their whole history.
This category suits the nature of angels so far as we
can know it from Scripture. They are associated with
the elements and powers of nature — are these under
another name. They are changeable in form, appear
ing now as winds, now as fire. They are perishable,
transient as the pestilence and the storm, as tongues of
flame, or clouds, or clew. They are one and many in
turn, the one dividing into many, the many recombining

CHRIST AND THE ANGELS 59
into one. They are imperfectly personal, lacking will
and self- consciousness ; thinking, deliberating, resolving
not their affair, but execution. " Ye ministers of His
that do His pleasure." They are disqualified for rule by
the simplicity of their nature. Angel princes cannot
take a wide survey of a nation's character and desert,
like the prophets. They are blind partisans, mere
personifications of national spirit. Each angel prince
takes his nation's side in a quarrel, as a thing of course.
A human will is the meeting-place of many forces
brought into harmony; an angelic will is a single force
moving in a straight line towards a point. Angels are
mere expressions of the will of God. To impute to them
dominion were to infringe on the monarchy of God.
It were to reinstate Paganism. Angel-worship is nature-
worship under another name, not improved by the
change of name. No wonder the author of our Epistle
is so careful to connect angels with the idea of service.
It is his protest against the angelolatry which had crept
into Israel from Persian sources.
In chapter ii. 1—4 we have the first of those exhorta
tions which come in at intervals throughout the Epistle,
relieving the argument and applying it at each point.
This exhortation reveals the purpose of the foregoing
comparison between Christ and the angels. It is to
establish Christ's superior claim to be heard when He
speaks in God's name to men. As in Stephen's speech
before the Sanhedrim, and in Paul's Epistle to the
Galatians, angelic agency in Divine revelation is
recognised, that is, in the revelation of the law on Sinai.
How far the recognition expresses personal conviction in

60 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
either of these instances, or is merely an accommodation
to existing opinion, need not be discussed. It is enough
in the present instance to say that the writer is aware
of current modes of thought, and, if he does not
sympathise with them, at least accommodates his
reasoning to them so far as to regard the law as a
" word spoken by angels."
Law and gospel might have been compared on their
own merits, as is done by Paul in 2 Corinthians iii. 6-11
in a series of contrasts. But the power of appreciating
the gospel being defective in the Hebrew Christians, it
is the merits of the speakers that are insisted on, though
the incomparable worth of the gospel is implicitly
asserted in the phrase, " so great salvation." The
admonition, delicately expressed iu the first person, is to
this effect : " I have shown how vastly greater Christ is
than angels in name and dignity. In proportion to the
august dignity of Him by whom God hath in the end of
the days spoken to men ought to be the attention paid
to His words. Let us then give due, even the most
earnest possible, heed to the things which, directly or
indirectly, we have heard from His lips, out of respect
to Him, and also out of regard to our own spiritual
interests, which are imperilled by negligence. Respecting
as we do the word of angels, let us respect still more
His word."
Why should there be any difficulty in acting on such
reasonable counsel ? Because the word of Christ is new,
and the word of angels is old and has the force of
venerable custom on its side. This difference the writer
has in view when he adds : " Lest at any time (or

CHRIST AND THE ANGELS 61
haply) we drift away " (fir) irore Trapapvaifiev ]). It is
a most significant figure. It warns the Hebrews against
being carried past the landing-place by the strong
current of a river. It is a warning suitable for all
times ; for there are currents of thought, feeling, and
action which, if not resisted, carry down to the sea of
spiritual death — currents of irreligion, secularity, and the
like. But the current by which the Hebrew Christians
were in danger of being carried headlong was that of
established religious custom, specially perilous in transi
tion times. That current threatened to carry them away
from Christianity to the Dead Sea of Judaism, and so to
involve them in the dire calamities that were soon to
overwhelm the Jewish people. How much is suggested
by these two words — pbrjirore wapapvco/jbev ! They warn
against national ruin, if not the eternal loss of the soul,
through the force of use and wont, like a strong flood
rushing away from the new Christian land of promise to
the old world of Leviticalism, its very strength appearing
to justify as well as compel surrender ; for why go
against an almost unanimous public opinion ? How
ready are men in the situation of the Hebrew Christians
to say : " We follow the religious customs of our pious
forefathers, we observe the word of God spoken to them
by angels, on Sinai, millenniums ago ; therefore we dread
no evil, though we neglect the doctrine of Jesus, which
requires us to break with the old and take up with
something new and revolutionary."
1 This verb occurs in this sense in Proverbs iii. 21 (Sept.) vie pri
rrapapvrjs, Tr)pr\<rov Se ip.f)v fiovkrjv = Son, do not drift away, but
observe my counsel.

62 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
The exhortation to give heed to Christ's teaching is
enforced by three reasons : It is the teaching of the
Lord ; the penalty of neglect is great ; the teaching is
well attested. The word of the great salvation began
to be spoken by the Lord. The Lord means for the
Hebrew readers Christ seated on His heavenly throne.
The gospel is the word spoken by One who is now the
exalted Lord, and the writer would have his readers
view it in the light of that fact. It is a way of lending
importance by external considerations to a doctrine not
appreciated on its own merits. For himself the gospel
stands on its own merits. It does not need to be
invested with the glory of the Exaltation in order to
receive his attention. It is welcome to him as the word
of the man Jesus. The man Jesus is for him Lord, even
in His humble earthly state. He does not need to
think of Him as sitting on His heavenly throne that he
may be enabled to resist the temptation to give less
heed to His word than to that spoken through angels on
Sinai. The temptation does not exist for him. In com
parison with the words of Jesus recorded in the Gospels
the law is as moonlight to sunlight. It is to be feared
that those who are otherwise minded will get little help
from the thought that He who spake these words is now
glorified. It is not true faith which needs the Exalta
tion to open its eyes. To such faith the exalted One
might say, " I was a stranger, and ye took Me not hi."
The word spoken through angels may appear a very
solemn matter. Yet, after all, it was a word at second
hand. The law was given by God to angels, then by
angels to Moses, who in turn gave it to Israel. The

CHRIST AND THE ANGELS 63
gospel came from God immediately, for Jesus was God
speaking to men in human form.
The greatness of the penalty of neglecting this final
word of God is indicated by the question : " How shall
we escape if we neglect ? " The nature of that word
enhances culpability. It is a word of grace, of " salvation."
The Sinai- word was a word of law. It is more culpable
far to sin against love than against law, to despise God's
mercy than to break His commandments.
For those who scorn appeals to fear, considerations of
a different order are suggested. The teaching of Christ,
they are assured, is well attested ; it is confirmed to
" us " by men who heard it, their credibility in turn being
guaranteed by signs, wonders, mighty works, and various
gifts of the Holy Spirit. The writer means to say that
he and those to whom he writes, though not enjoying
the advantage of having heard Jesus Himself speak the
words of salvation, are by this twofold attestation placed
practically in as good a position as those who did hear
Jesus. The doctrine does indeed come to them at
second-hand through the companions of Jesus ; but the
teaching of apostles is simply an echo of the teaching
of their Master. Their voice is His repeated. They
simply report what they saw and heard.
The claim thus made to be virtually in the position
of direct hearers of Jesus implies a knowledge of His
teaching such as we possess through the Synoptical
Gospels. It is not necessary to suppose that the author
of this Epistle was acquainted with these Gospels, but
the manner in which he expresses himself justifies the
inference that he was familiar with the evangelic

64 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
tradition whereof they contain the written record. A
careful study of the Epistle bears out this view. The
image of Christ which is presented therein rests on a
solid basis of fact. The writer knows of the temptations
of Jesus ; of His life of faith, and the scope that His
experience afforded for the exercise of faith ; of His
agony in the garden ; of the contradictions He endured
at the hands of ignorant, prejudiced, evil-minded men ;
of His gentle, compassionate bearing towards the erring ;
of the fact that He occupied Himself in preaching the
gospel of the kingdom ; and also of the fact that He
was surrounded by a circle of friends and disciples,
whose connection with Him was so close that they could
be trusted to give a reliable account of His public
ministry. Of course the man who knew so much had
the means of knowing much more. It will be in
teresting and instructive to learn what conception of
Christianity is entertained by one who is well acquainted
with the historical data lying at the foundation. We
observe that the word he employs to denote the subject
of Christ's preaching is secondary, reminding us of the
style of the apostolic Church rather than of Christ
Himself. Christ spoke of the kingdom, our author
speaks of " salvation." But let not that be to his
prejudice. The word is universally current and con
venient, and as good as any other, provided the right
meaning be attached to it. We shall find that the
thing so named is presented under various aspects,
citizenship in the kingdom, though not prominent,
being included among them,

CHAPTER IV
THE HUMILIATION OF CHRIST AND ITS RATIONALE
Chap. ii. 5-18
This supremely important section of our Epistle may
have for its heading either The Humiliation of Christ
and its Rationale, or, The Great Salvation and how it
has been obtained. The former title is the more fitting
from the point of view of the writer's apologetic aim ;
the latter, from the point of view of biblical theology.
The two themes practically coincide, for the rationale
of Christ's Humiliation just consists in this that the
method of the Great Salvation demanded it, so that the
boon could not be obtained without the drawback.
At this point the writer passes from the ideal dignity '
of the Son, which has hitherto been his theme, to the
startlingly contrasted historic reality presented in the
life of Jesus — the Son, now a, hurnan__heirig with blood
and flesh like other men, subject to temptation, suffering
deafJfar~"He~ camibT~avoiE the topic, for to his readers
the ideal and the historic reality appear irreconcilable,
present an absolute, insoluble antinomy. He has no
wish to avoid it, no need even to state the facts in
subdued terms ; for to his mind the antinomy is not
5

66 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
absolute. He sees a glory even in the humiliation, so
that he can afford to let the humiliation appear in its
most sombre colours.
The sum of the doctrine taught as to the Great
Salvation is, that it consists in Lordship in the world
to be, and that, because men were to share in that
Lordship, it behoved the Captain of salvation to descend
into their low estate in order to make them partakers
of the coming glory. These thoughts are introduced in
vers. 5—9. In vers. 10—18 the method of salvation
by a suffering Captain is defended, developed, and illus
trated. What is there written will be dealt with in the
next two chapters.
Why does the writer not speak of the Great Salvation
in the terms used by " the Lord," who, as he states, was
its first preacher ? The burden of Christ's message was
" the kingdom of God is come." The conception of the
summum bonum implied here is : lordship in the new
world. It may be the same thing in different terms,
the idea of Jesus modified. But why are the terms
altered : what need for the modification ?
Here, as so often throughout the Epistle, the ex
planation is to be sought in its apologetic aim. The
conception of the highest good latent in ii. 5 is not the
author's exclusive or even favourite view. It is one of
several, taking its place in a series of tableaux, then
making way for others. As indicated in the introductory
chapter, nearness to God, unrestricted access to God,
is his central conception — that to which in a purely
positive and didactic theological statement he might have
adhered throughout. But his apologetic aim requires

THE HUMILIATION OF CHRIST AND ITS RATIONALE 67
him constantly to keep in view what will help his first
readers. Therefore at this point he uses this mode of
presentation, which fits well into his argument at its
present stage, and enables him to meet one of the most
urgent spiritual needs of the Hebrew Christians. He has, \
with ample Scripture authority, set Christ above angels ;
intrinsically, always, but especially in heaven. But
beyond doubt He was lower too, on earth ; not absolutely,
but in certain respects constituting together the state
of humiliation. That fact must be reckoned with and
reconciled to his doctrine. The two he clearly sees to
be perfectly compatible, but their compatibility is not
apparent to his readers, and it now becomes his urgent
task to make it plain to their apprehension. With
this purpose in view he avails himself, with character
istic skill, of a passage from the Psalter. The value of
the citation for him lies in the fact that in it the ideas
of humiliation and exaltation are combined. The use of
it determines the form under which the state of exalta
tion — salvation — must be presented, for in the Psalm
it is made to consist in lordship over all.
The new section setting forth the nature and way of
salvation opens thus : " For not to angels did He subject
the. world to come of which we are speaking." The
references to angels here and in ver. 16 have misled
some into the notion that from this point onwards to
the end of the chapter we have a continuation of the
discussion of the relative positions of Christ and the
angels. It is a mistake carefully to be avoided, as
exercising an unhappy bias on the exposition. The
angels are not the theme of what follows ; rather are

68 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
they here respectfully bowed out, that they may give
place to more important actors, in appearance less than
angels in so far as human and subject to death, but
destined to rise to higher heights, if doomed for a little
while to descend to lower depths. Henceforth what
we have to think of is the Great Salvation and the
Great JSaviour and the sublime career of suffering
through which He passed to glory lind prepared the
way by which a host of redeemed men might follow
Him. The contrast between Christ and angels exercises
a certain influence on the form of thought, but the
thought itself is not a further contribution to the
argument about angels.
The " for " with which the new section begins shows
that the writer has in view what he has just said in his
first admonition to his readers. What is uppermost
in his thoughts — the_greatuess of the salvation or the
human agency by which it was- proclaimed ? Probably
both. He means to justify the use of the epithet
" great " in reference to the gospel, and he means also
to emphasise the importance of man in connection
with the gospel salvation, both as recipient of its
benefits and as agent in its proclamation. The former
end is served by identifying salvation with lordship in
" the world to come," the latter by laying stress on the
fact that not to angels does that world pertain, whether
as inheritance or as theatre of activity. " Not to
angels, but to men " he means to say, but the antithesis
is completed not in this sentence but in the following
quotation. Not to angels, but to men. Some think
that the antithesis intended is one between the world

THE HUMILIATION OF CHRIST AND ITS RATIONALE 69
to come, the new world of redemption, and the old world
that is destined to pass away, and the thought suggested :
the new world not subject to angelic sway, as the old
one has been. This interpretation is not justified by the
order of words in the sentence, in which " angels," not
" the world to come," occupies the emphatic place. We
cannot legitimately find in this text a recognition of
the dogma that in the old world angels exercised
dominion : not even acquaintance with it, still less
acceptance of it. What it really contains is safe counsel
to. Hebrew Christians still hankering after the past, to
this effect : " Open your hearts to the new world ushered
in by Christ ; in it lies man's highest hope." This new
world belongs entirely to man, not_to beings of angelic
najtura__ Humanity determines its whole nature, and its
manner of coming jnto_bemg-^
~~TEeT citation which forms the Scripture basis of, this
implicit admonition follows. It is introduced by the
vague, indefinite phrase : " But one hath somewhere
testified saying." The vagueness proceeds not from
ignorance, but is simply a characteristic of the oratorical
style which disdains pedantic accuracy in niinutise.2
1 Hofmann, who holds the view that we are not here to find a
new argument to prove Christ's superiority to angels, adverting to
the fact that ayyeKois wants the article, renders : " God hath sub
jected the world to come to beings who are no angels, no mere
spirits." The force of yap he thus brings out : The writer has
spoken of a o-mri/pia, but the bare idea of a salvation implies that
its subjects are not angels, and what is implied he expresses in
commencing a new paragraph. Die Heilige Schrift, vol. v. p. 104.
2 Von Soden finds here a trace of Alexandrian influence : "The
person of a Scripture writer is or the Alexandrian view of
inspiration indifferent."

70 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
The words quoted, as they stand in the 8th Psalm,
refer to mankind at large. This Psalm, like the 104th,
is a hymn of creation. It celebrates first the Divine
glory as seen in the visible world, and especially in the
firmament at night ; it then proceeds to speak of the
signal favour shown to man, apparently insignificant as
compared with the heavenly bodies, in constituting him
creation's lord. In describing the honours conferred
by God on the sons of men, the Psalmist appears to
have in view what is written in the Book of Genesis
concerning man when he was created. The first clause,
" Thou hast made him little less than God," or, as it
stands in the Septuagint and here, " than the angels,"
recalls the words spoken by the Creator when He con
templated creating the human race : " Let us make man
in our image after our likeness " ; and the other clauses
seem to be a free poetic version of the charter by which
the Creator conferred lordship over all other creatures
on the being whom He had made in His own image.
The reference to Genesis has indeed been questioned,
but the resemblance between the Psalm and the history
is so close that it is difficult to escape the inference
that either the Psalmist drew inspiration from the
historian, or the historian from the Psalmist. Which
of the two alternatives is to be adopted depends on the
critical question of priority in authorship. That the
writer of our Epistle found in the Psalm reminiscences
of the book of Origins I can hardly doubt, and for this
reason, that all his representations of salvation in the
early chapters rest on the accounts of man's primitive
history contained in Genesis. Salvation is represented

THE HUMILIATION OF CHRIST AND ITS RATIONALE 71
succe^ively as lordship ; as destruction of him that had
the power of death, and consequent deliverance^oT~man
frorn__the-^ fea-p— ef~death_; and as a rest or Sabbatism ;
with obvious allusion to man's original position in the
creation, to the curse which .overtook him after the Fall,
and to God's rest on the seventh day after He had
finished His creative work.
The words quoted from the 8th Psalm have the
same reference here as in their original place. The
glorioTi8~thingir~written there are quoted here as de
scribing favours conferred by IxQjEon^mam.- This some
have failed to see. Because the passage is ultimately
applied to Christ, it is assumed that it applies only to
Him, and in consequence it has been maintained that the
words as they stand, even in the Psalm itself, are purely
_arid__exclusively Messianic Jn import. JThis view misses
the meaning of the writer, involves his argument in
confusion,__ar±d— is quite -gratuitous. We are not pre
cluded by the application made eventually to Christ,
from applying the oracle in the first place to men in
general. The two references are perfectly compatible,
and, indeed, the one involves the other. Whatever is
true of man as man must be pre-eminently true of
Him who loved to call Himself " the Son of Man."
Whatever is predicable of the first man as God made
him, is in a still more eminent sense predicable of the
SecoriaTMan. And7since the first man stood not in his
integrity, whatever favour God continues to confer on
men is conferred on them for the_-Seeo-nd-^fam!a_ sake ;
so that, while we read the 8 th Psalm as really referring
to -the children of' men, sin -notwithstanding, we must

72 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
think of them as included in and represented by the
seed of the woman who was to bruise the serpent's
head, remove the curse, and restore paradise lost to
mankind. It is just in this way that the writer of our Epistle
.views this Psalm. He regards the words, " Thou hast
put all things in subjection under his feet," as applicable
to the sons of men, but not to them apart from Christ.
He attaches great importance to this comprehensive refer
ence, because the very doctrine he means to teach is,
that in speaking of the great salvation he is really
speaking of that lordship whereof the Hebrew prophet
sang ; in other words, that nothing less than that in
heritance is the glorious hope and prospect of Christians.
As surely as he believes that the great salvation con
cerns man, does he believe that the prophetic oracle he
quotes refers to man. But while this is so, he is not
conscious of any inconsistency in proceeding to speak of
Jesus, as if He were the Person of whom it is said in
the Psalm that God had made Him a little lower than
the angels, and at the same time lord of all. Eor the
other great doctrine he means to teach is, that the lord
ship spoken of in the Psalm comes to men through the
Man Jesus Christ, and must therefore belong to Him
personally and pre-eminently.
But now, these things admitted, a question arises
here. Why does our author take occasion from his
Psalm-text to call the sphere of lordship a world to
come ? The Psalmist seems to have in view this present
visible and tangible world, for he names such substantial
things as sheep, oxen, fowls, fishes as the subject of

THE HUMILIATION OF CHRIST AND ITS RATIONALE 73
man's dominion. While not furnishing any direct
answer to this question, the writer supplies materials
out of which we can construct an answer for ourselves.
First, like Paul in 1 Corinthians xv., he lays stress on
the word " all " (ver. 8), and insists that it be taken
in earnest, that man's rightful dominion be viewed as
absolutely complete. Then he notes the actual state of
matters patent to observation, which is that now, at this
present time, all things are not put under man. Some,
influenced by the theory of angelic dominion in the old
world, think the reference is to angels, as if the idea
intended were : the dominion promised is not yet com
plete — the angels are yet unsubjected. Surely this
can hardly be what is meant ! The supposed exception
is not particularly open to observation. Neither is the
alleged angelic reluctance to come under man's sway a
very great grievance. If all were right in man's estate
but that, there would be little to complain of. And
surely it is not necessary to have recourse to this
imaginary angelic obstinacy to prove that man's present
state is not one of perfect lordship, as if all would be
right if only the angels would surrender ! Too many
things show that man is as yet more slave than lord,
a slave oftentimes in virtue of seeming lordship, at best
lord with a very insecure tenure. The Hebrews were
conscious of being under something more grievous than
the yoke of angels — the grim iron yoke of Rome.
Man is not yet to all jnten_ts__and-^)u-r-poses lord.
$Eha±_Jh]mXl Is.^God's purpose towards men to be
fulfilled ? If it is, the fulfilment must be a thing in
the future, the present state of things being such as we

74 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
see. And the fulfilment when it comes will be the
world-to-come of our Epistle. For Jhe_ world-to-come
does not mean something entirely distinct from and
having no relation to ~the present world. It- rather
means this world, where much is out of gear, put right,
delivered from the curse, restored to a normal condition,
death abolished, man made fit to be lord by temperance
and sanctity and godliness, and no longer kept out of
his inheritance by envious barriers, but actually exer
cising dominion, the meek inheriting the earth, and
delighting themselves in the abundance of peace. There
fore it is not wholly future and transcendent, but in part -
present and immanent. " The hour cometh, yea, now
is," said Jesus. In like manner, here and throughout
the Epistle our author says in effect : " The new world
of _redemptiiin_is to come, and it is here. It is to
come, for the ideal is not yet realised ; it is here, for
the work of realisation has commenced."
Such being the relation between the world-to-come
and the present world, it is evident that the mention of
the former in connection with the quotation from the
Psalter is not to be justified on the ground that it is a
part of the "all" which is declared subject to man.
" The world-to-come " is not a part of the all, it is the
all. When the all shall really, fully, permanently, and
inalienably have become subject to man, then the world-
to-come will be the present world. The justification of
the reference to a world-to-come is simply that from
the Scriptures it appears to be God's purpose that man
should inherit all things, and that the fulfilment of that
purpose is a thing we see not yet. The writer infers a

THE HUMILIATION OF CHRIST AND ITS RATIONALE 75
world-to-come from the purpose of God and the present
state of the world, just as further on he infers that a rest
stands over for the people of God because a rest has been
promised, and it has never yet come.
Having adverted to the present visible situation of
the world, in its bearing on man's lordship, the writer
next speaks of what may be seen in Jesus in reference
to the same subject. " Looking around us we see not
yet all things put under man ; looking unto Jesus what
see we there ? " " We see," such is the reply in effect,
" we see at once that which confirms the statement
that man has not yet fully entered into his inheritance,
and that which lays a sure foundation for the hope that
the promise will ultimately be fulfilled." " But Him who
hath been made a little lower than angels — even Jesus,
we do see, with reference to the suffering of death
crowned with glory and honour, that by the grace of
God He might taste death for every one " (ver. 9).
In this remarkable sentence, by which transition is
/made from mankind in general to the man Christ Jesus,
(two things at once arrest attention. First, Jesus is
spoken of as if He were the one man who had been
made a little lower than angels. He stands out in the
history of mankind as the man made lower than angels.
That is for our author as much a distinctive name for
Him as the Son of Man, or the Second Adam. Then,
secondly, very noteworthy is the introduction of a
reference to death in this application of the Hebrew
oracle to Jesus. There is not a word about death in
the Psalm. The thought of mortality or weakness may
be latent in the question, What is man ? and in the name

76 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
enosh, but on the surface all is sunny, bright, cheerful.
The one fact would seem to imply that for Jesus alone
was the being made lower than angels in any emphatic
sense a humiliation ; the other may throw light on the
nature of the humiliation.
Now as to the former of these two points. It is
really the case that, in the Psalm, being lower than God
or angels is not mentioned as a humiliating feature in
man's estate. It rather forms an element in his state
of exaltation. Man's privilege and glory consists in
this, that he has been made a little lower than God, or
Divine angelic beings — the Elohim — and appointed lord
and head of creation. He is less than Divine, but
the point emphasised is not that he is less than God,
but that he is so little less, a kind of God on earth, as
Jehovah is God in heaven. The inferiority to God does
not stand in antithesis to the lordship ; the two attri
butes are not incompatible or mutually exclusive, but
harmonious and contemporaneous elements in one and
the same condition. The question is whether our author,
in quoting the Psalm, so understands the matter, or
whether he does not rather regard the inferiority as
detracting from the lordship, and therefore as an element
that must be removed before the state of lordship can
come to pass. The latter view has often been assumed
to be the truth, as a matter of course, and that in con
nection with the interpretation of (Spa^y ti as meaning
" for a little while." x There is, however, no urgent
reason for assigning to the phrase a temporal sense.
1 On this view vide an ingenious article by the late Professor
W. E. Smith in The Expositor, vol. i. 2nd Series, p. 138.

THE HUMILIATION OF CHRIST AND ITS RATIONALE 77
It may be taken throughout as an adverb of degree,
not to the exclusion of the temporal sense, for the two
senses are not incompatible. Why should not the
meaning of the oracle, both in its original place in the
Psalter and as quoted here, be : Thou hast made man
only a little lower in nature and position than God or
angelic beings ?
If this be indeed the sense, then we can understand
how the writer of our Epistle should regard Jesus as
the only man to whom the predicate of inferiority to
angels can be applied with emphasis, as a predicate of
humiliation. For while Jesus as man was lower than
angels in the same sense as other men, that is to say
in so far as He was partaker of flesh and blood, and
was no longer, like the angels, pure spirit,1 there was
for Him in that fact, apart from all other circumstances
of His earthly experience, humiliation enough. Other
men were never anything else or higher, and, so far from
its being a signal humiliation to them that they are
lower than angels, it is rather their glory to be little
less than angels. But for the Son of God it was a
descent to be made even a little lower than angels,
by becoming man, partaker of flesh and blood. In the
case of ordinary men we wonder to what all but angelic
1 If the writer was imbued with the Alexandrian religious
philosophy, which shared the Greek view of the flesh as the foe of
the spirit, we can understand how intense would be his sense of the
humiliation involved for Christ in taking flesh and blood. If, on
the other hand, he held the Hebrew view of the flesh, according to
which it was the symbol of weakness rather than the seat of sin,
then his sense of the humiliation would be less acute. Jesus as
man  spirit allied with flesh — would appear to him made only a
little lower than angels.

78 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
heights of thought and worship those can arrive who
began their being as " babes and sucklings," flesh born
of flesh. In the case of the man Jesus we are
astonished to hear of the Son of God being born, wrapt
in swaddling clothes, laid in a manger, a helpless, speech
less infant. Yet while astonished, we believe and
gratefully acknowledge that out of the mouth of this
babe and suckling God hath perfected His own praise,
and by means of this Holy Child, Jesus, hath stilled the
enemy and the avenger.
The assumption of human nature on its material side
being what constitutes the humiliating inferiority to
angels for Jesus, the phrase " made a little lower than
angels " applied to Him becomes a synonym for the
Incarnation. But to complete our view of its meaning,
we must take into account the reference to the suffer
ing of death. If the Incarnation alone constituted the
humiliation, then permanent inferiority would be the
consequence, and the exaltation of Christ would involve
the laying aside of His humanity. We must conceive
of the humiliation as consisting in the assumption of
humanity subject to suffering in various forms, death the
supreme suffering included. Thereby the " little " of
degree becomes a " little " of time. The patristic com
mentators were right in thought, though wrong in
grammar, when they connected the clause " made lower
than angels " with the clause " for the suffering of
death." The true construction of the sentence is to
regard " Jesus " as closing up the subject — and all that
follows as the predicate — reading " Him who was made
lower than angels, namely, Jesus, we see so and so

THE HUMILIATION OF CHRIST AND ITS RATIONALE 79
situated." But while the suffering of death belongs to
the predicate, it influences the writer's thought of the
subject, and it ought also to influence our interpretation
of it. Death enters into his conception of Christ's
humiliation, though he consistently avoids introducing
it into the definition, because his aim is to set Christ's
Passion in a new light — surrounded with a halo of
glory. " Made a little lower than angels " — such is the
writer's formula for the humiliation of Christ as a par
taker of humanity. It is not the way in which we
would naturally speak of -it. The phrase sounds to
our ears artificial, and so tends to obscure rather than
reveal the moral grandeur of the train of thought in
vers. 5-18. We are inclined to ask, Would it not be
better for us to forget the angels and translate the
phrases referring to them into modern equivalents,
throwing away the antiquated shell that we may get at
the eternal kernel ? Let those who thus feel do so, by
all means. Only let us not forget that the shell was
important to the Hebrews, and let us admire the
sympathy and tact displayed by their teacher in adapting
to their modes of thought his statement concerning the
great Christian verities, speaking of these in terms which
took up his readers at the point where he found them,
and led them on to more perfect insight into the genius
of the new religion.
And now at length we come to the crux interpretum
— the crowning of Jesus with glory and honour. The
crux lies in the thought rather than in the grammar.
The plain meaning of the text seems to be, that Jesus

80 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
was crowned with glory and honour, in reference to the
(prospective) suffering of death, in order that by the
favour of God (to Him) He might taste death for men.
This rendering suggests a crowning antecedent to death,
a fact occurring in the earthly life of Jesus, an exaltation
in the humiliation, a higher even in the lower, a glory
consummated in heaven but begun even on earth. But
commentators almost with one consent regard such a
view as inadmissible ; or rather, to speak more correctly,
hardly seem to have had it present to their minds as a
possibility. Since one or two writers ventured modestly
to propound it, the view in question has been disposed
of by a jest as " a fine modern idea, but one to which
Scripture has hardly yet advanced." It requires some
courage to retain an opinion, long cherished,1 thus
treated by great authorities, but the recent history of
exegesis is reassuring. Not that one can boast of
many new adherents,2 but that the embarrassments
betrayed by supporters of the traditional view — that the
crowning refers to the state of exaltation — have all the
effect of a reductio absurdum.

1 Vide my work, The Humiliation of CJirist, p. 30, and for
remarks on the view there advocated, vide Professor A. B. David
son's work on the Epistle in the " Handbooks for Bible Classes "
Series. 2 Among the supporters of the view advocated in the text are
Hofmann, Matheson (in the Monthly Interpreter for November
1884), and Eendall (The Epistle to the Hebrew*, 1888). Kendall
places the crowning in the preincarnate state, but the ethical effect
is the same. " As the victim is crowned unto death, so it was
purposed in the eternal counsels of heaven to exalt the Son that
He might sacrifice the more, and exhibit the fulness of God's love
to man by tasting for him the utmost bitterness of death."

THE HUMILIATION OF CHRIST AND ITS RATIONALE 81
The traditional view is beset with insuperable
difficulties, especially with this difficulty, that it is not
easy under it to assign a natural sense to the words in
the last clause of verse 9. What clear satisfactory
sense can one attach to the statement that Jesus
was exalted to heaven in order that He might taste
death for everyone ? It is pathetic to observe the
expedients to which interpreters have recourse to get
over the difficulty. The most plausible solution is to
assign to the verb yevawTai a retrospective reference,
and find in the last clause of the verse the doctrine
that Christ's exaltation gave to His antecedent death
redemptive efficacy. Some who adopt this expedient
admit that the manner of expression lacks logical
precision, and that the more correct way of putting the
idea would have been : " In order that the death which
He tasted might be for the good of all." J Bleek, still
our greatest authority, regards the retrospective reference
assigned to the verb as inadmissible, and gets out of the
difficulty by supplying after to TrdOn/J-a rod davdrov the
words b ewaOev, and rendering : " Crowned for the
suffering of death which He endured in order that He
might by the grace of God taste death for every man."
' Two other suggestions have been more recently made.
One is to take the particle 6V&>? as connected, not with
e<TTe<pava>p.evov alone, but as referring to all that precedes
— " to the Passion crowned by the Ascension." 2 The
other is to subject the sentence to violent dislocation so
as to bring out this sense : " Him who had been made a
little lower than the angels, even Jesus, for the sake of
1 So Ebrard. 2 So Westcott.
6

82 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
suffering death — in other words, that by the grace of
God He might taste death for every man — Him we now
behold crowned with glory and honour." x The scholar
who makes this suggestion truly observes that " the
chief objection to this arrangement of the construction
is its interrupted and dislocated character," and he
would apparently be glad to fall back on the retrospective
sense of yeva-vrai were it not that he sees in that
direction an objection not less formidable, namely, that
for the rendering " that He may have tasted " no clear
parallel can be found.
Considering the forced, unnatural character of all
these solutions, I am constrained to ask interpreters,
" Why should it be thought a thing incredible with
you " that the crowning referred to may be prior, not
posterior, to death — an exaltation latent in the
humiliation ? If I am met with the sceptical question,
With what glory and honour can the man Jesus be said
to have been crowned on earth ? I reply, With just such
glory and honour as are spoken of in the third and fifth
chapters of this same Epistle : with the glory of a Moses
and the honour of an Aaron ; the glory of being the
leader of the people out of Egypt into the promised
land, that is, of being the " Captain of Salvation " ; the
honour of being the High Priest of men, procuring for
them, through the sacrifice of Himself, life and blessed
ness. The glory and honour spoken of as conferred on
Jesus may thus quite well be those connected with His
appointment to the honourable and glorious office of
Apostle and High Priest of our profession.
1 So Vaughan.

THE HUMILIATION OF CHRIST AND ITS RATIONALE 83
This, accordingly, is the thought I find in this text :
Jesus, " crowned for death," to use the happy phrase of
Dr. Matheson, by being appointed to an office whereby
His death, instead of being a mere personal experience
of the common lot, became a death for others, and
a humiliation was transmuted into a signal mark of
Divine favour. This crowning had a twofold aspect and
relation ; a subjective and an objective side, a relation to
the will of Christ and a relation to the will of God. It
would not have been complete unless there had been
both an act of self-devotion on the part of Christ and an
act of sovereign appointment on the part of God. The
subjective aspect is in abeyance here, though it is not
forgotten in the Epistle ; it receives full recognition
in those places where it is taught that Christ's priestly
offering was Himself. Here it is the objective Godward
aspect that is emphasised, as appears from the remark
able expression, " by the grace of God;" and from the
line of thought contained in the following verse, to be
hereafter considered. There was a subjective grace in
Christ which made Him willing to sacrifice His individual
life for the good of the whole, but there was also
conferred on Him by His Father the signal favour that
His life, to be freely given in self-sacrifice, should have
universal significance and value.1
1 It is to the subjective aspect that Dr. Matheson gives prominence
in the article previously referred to. Dr. Edwards' main objection
to our interpretation of the crowning is based on an exclusive
regard to the subjective aspect. " If," he argnes, "'the apostle
means that voluntary humiliation for the sake of others is the
glory, some men besides Jesus Christ might have been mentioned
in whom the words of the Psalm find their accomplishment. The

84 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
By the expression " by the grace of God " (yapin
6eov) favour to us men has usually been supposed to
be intended. Some modern commentators, e.g. Ebrard,
instead of falling back on the interpretation here
offered, have sought refuge in the ancient reading xt0Pl'i
deov, " apart from God." The adoption of this desperate
shift by so independent a theologian as the one just
named shows what need there is for insisting on the
thought that Jesus by the favour of God to Him tasted
death for men, that His death, by being a death for
others, was transmuted from a humiliation into a glory.
From the common consent of interpreters to shun this
view, one might conclude that it was indeed only a fine
modern idea to which Scripture had hardly advanced.
Strange that an idea of which the Greek Euripides had
clear vision x should have been so completely hidden
from the highest Hebrew minds, inspiration notwith
standing. But the fact was not so, as the following
particulars will show.
Kindred to the thought I find in the text is the
Beatitude pronouncing the persecuted blessed ; 2 Paul's
words to the Philippians : " Unto you it is given as
a favour (s^apicrOn) in the behalf of Christ not only to
believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake " ; 3 and
Peter's word to the Hebrew Diaspora : " If ye be
reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye ; for the
difference between Jesus and other good men would only be a
difference of degree." Vide his work on the Epistle in The
Expositor's Bible.
1 Vide Lecture on the Greek tragic poets in my Gifford Lectures,
2nd Series, soon to be published.
2 Matt. v. 12. s Phil. i. 29.

THE HUMILIATION OF CHRIST AND ITS RATIONALE 85
spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you." 1
Kindred also are the texts in John's Gospel in which
Jesus refers to His approaching Passion as His glorifica
tion. Add to these the voices from heaven pronouncing
Jesus God's beloved Son when He manifested at the
Jordan and on the Mount of Transfiguration His
readiness to endure suffering in connection with His
Messianic vocation, and the reflection on the later
event in 2 Peter : " He received from God the Father
honour and glory, when there came such a voice to Him
from the excellent glory, This is My beloved Son, in
whom I am well pleased." 2 With these Divine voices
stand in contrast the voices from hell uttered by Satan
in the temptation. The God-sent voices say in effect,
" Thou art My beloved Son because Thou devotest Thyself
to the arduous career of a Saviour, and I show My
favour unto Thee by solemnly setting Thee apart to
Thy high and holy office." The Satanic voices say,
" Thou art the Son of God, it seems ; use Thy privilege,
then, for Thine own advantage." God shows His grace
unto His Son by appointing Him to an office in which
He will have an opportunity of doing a signal service to
men at a great cost of suffering to Himself. Satan
cannot conceive of Jesus being the Son of God at
all unless sonship carry along with it exemption from all
arduous tasks and irksome hardships, privations and
pains. God puts a stamp of Divinity on self-sacrifice,
Satan associates Divinity with selfishness.
There can be little doubt, then, that the crowning, as
I conceive it, is an idea familiar to the New Testament
1 1 Pet. iv. 14. 2 2 Pet. i. 17.

86 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
writers. The only question that may legitimately be
asked is, whether this thought be relevant to the
connection of thought in the passage, and serviceable to
the purpose of the Epistle, that of instructing in Christian
truth readers who needed to be again taught the merest
elements of the Christian faith. To this question I can
have little hesitation in giving an affirmative answer.
Was it not desirable to show to men who stumbled at
the humiliating circumstances of Christ's earthly lot,
that there was not merely a glory coming after the
humiliation, compensating for it, but a glory in the
humiliation itself ? This ethical instruction was more
urgently needed than a merely theological instruction as
to the purpose and effect of Christ's exaltation into
heaven. The exaltation needed no apology, it spoke for
itself ; what was needed was to remove the stigma from
the state of humiliation, and to do this was, I believe,
one of the leading aims of the Epistle. The blinded
Jew said, " How dishonourable and shameful that death
of Jesus — how hard to believe that He who endured it
could be Messiah and the Son of God ! " The writer
replies, " Not disgrace, but favour, honour, glory, do
I see there : this career of suffering is one which it was
honourable for Christ to pass through, and to which it
was nowise unmeet that the Sovereign Lord should
subject His Son. For while to taste death in itself was
a humiliation, to taste it for others was glorious."
It is a point in favour of the interpretation here
advocated, that it makes the crowning not subsequent
to the being made lower than angels, but, as in the
Psalm, contemporaneous with it. It is unnecessary to

THE HUMILIATION OF CHRIST AND ITS RATIONALE 87
add that the glory in the humiliation is not exclusive of
the glory after it. The full thesis of the Epistle on this
topic is : " First lower, then higher, nay, a higher in the
lower." Most interpreters find in its teaching only the
former member of the thesis. I find in it both. The
two truths, indeed, are complementary of each other.
There could not be exaltation subsequent to the humilia
tion unless there were an exaltation in the humiliation.
" Exalted because of " implies " exalted in." One who
does not appreciate the latter truth cannot understand
the former. The posthumous exaltation must be seen to
be but the public recognition of the eternal fact, other
wise belief in it possesses no spiritual value. That
is why, in his apologetic effort to unfold the true
nature of Christianity, the writer insists on the glory
inherent in Christ's vocation as Captain of Salvation.
In doing so he is self-consistent. In his view of the
glory of Christ there is the same duality we found in his
view of the Christian era. The world to come is future
and it is here. Even so the exaltation of Christ is in
heaven, and yet also on earth.

CHAPTER V
THE CAPTAIN OF SALVATION
Chap. ii. 10
The statement contained in this verse is so weighty
that a separate chapter must be devoted to its
elucidation. The writer here affirms that the career of suffering to
which Christ was subjected was worthy of God. The
affirmation is made to justify the assertion of the previous
sentence that the appointment of Jesus to taste death
for others was a manifestation of grace or favour on
God's part towards His well-beloved Son. " By the
grace of God I have said, and I said so deliberately ; for
it became Him who is the first and final cause of all to
accomplish this great end, the salvation of men, in a way
which involved suffering to the Saviour," — such is the
connection of thought. The author feels that this is a.
position which must be made good in order to reconcile
his readers to the humiliation and sufferings which Christ
underwent. This he virtually acknowledges by the peri
phrastic manner in which he names God. If God be the
last end of all, and the first cause of all, He must be the
final and first cause of Christ's sufferings among other

THE CAPTAIN OF SALVATION 89
things ; and unless it can be maintained that the end
for which Christ suffered was worthy of Him who is the
great end of the universe, and that the means employed
for the attainment of that end were worthy of Him who
is the first cause of everything that happens, the defence
of the Christian faith is a failure. Knowing perfectly
well what is at stake, the writer, having full confidence
in the goodness of his cause, fearlessly maintains that
everything relating to the matter of salvation, means not
less than end, is. worthy of the Maker and Lord of all.
" It became Him." The point of view is peculiar. In
one respect it goes beyond the usual biblical manner of
regarding Divine action, the Bible writers ordinarily
being content to rest in God's good pleasure. In another
it is defective, as compared, for example, with Paul's
way of treating the death of Christ as necessitated by
the righteousness of God. The apologetic aim explains
both features. The writer is dealing with men to whom
Christ's sufferings are a stumbling-block, to whom there
fore it will not suffice to say, " It pleased the Lord to
bruise Him." On the other hand, he is glad to be able
to show them the fitness of Christ's sufferings from any
point of view, even though his statement should come
far short of presenting a complete theory. The state
ments of apologists are apt .to appear defective from a
dogmatic point of view, as. they sometimes learn to their
cost. At the same time it must be remarked that the
statement of this inspired apologist is not so defective as
has sometimes been represented, as when it is said that
the reason for the death of Christ here given is related
to the Pauline as the Scotist theory to the Anselmian,

90 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
or the Socinian to the Lutheran.1 It points to a con-
gruity between the experience of Christ and the moral
nature of God. It is in the same line with the Pauline
doctrine, only it is less definite and more general.
The sentence in which the Godworthiness of the
method of salvation is asserted is so constructed as to be
in a manner self-evidencing. The writer, as he proceeds,
uses words charged with persuasive virtue, so that by the
time we arrive at the end of the verse we are disposed
to give a cordial assent to the doctrine enunciated. Not
that the whole evidence is either stated or even suggested
in this single sentence ; for all that remains of the second
chapter may be regarded as an expression and elucida
tion of the thought contained therein. But the words
are so fitly chosen, and the clauses so skilfully arranged,
as to win our sympathy in behalf of the truth stated,
and to dispose us to lend a favourable ear to what may
be further advanced in its illustration and defence. This
will appear as we consider in detail the separate members
of the sentence.
First comes the clause in which God's end in the
mission of Christ is set forth : " In bringing many sons
unto glory " (iroWoix; vlovs els ho%av dyayovra). The
reference is to God, not to Christ, notwithstanding the
change of case from the dative (avrai) to the accusative
(dyayovra). The aim of the whole sentence makes this
certain. The intention is to ascribe to God, in connec
tion with the sufferings of Christ, an end indisputably
worthy of Him who is the final end of all things. The
Godworthiness of that end is not, indeed, expressly
1 So Pfleiderer, Paulinism, vol. ii. p. 71, English edition.

THE CAPTAIN OF SALVATION 91
declared, and that because the whole stress of the difficulty
lies not on the end but on the means. But though not
formally asserted it is plainly implied. The end is
alluded to by way of suggesting that thought as an
aid to the understanding of the more difficult one —
the Godworthiness of the means. Skill in the art of
persuasion is exhibited in placing it in the forefront.
For no one could doubt the Godworthiness of the end —
the salvation of men. It might be presumptuous to say
that God was bound to become a Saviour, but it may confi
dently be asserted that to save becomes Him. The work
He undertook was congruous -to His position as Creator
and to His relation to men as Father. It was worthy
of God the Creator that He should not allow His work
manship in man to be frustrated by sin. The irretriev
able ruin of man would have compromised the Creator's
glory by making it possible to charge Him with failure.
Speaking of this, Athanasius says : " It would have been
unbecoming if those who had been once created rational
had been allowed to perish through corruption. For
that- would have been unworthy of the goodness of God,
if the beings He had Himself created had been allowed
to perish through the fraud of the devil against man.
Nay, it would have been unbecoming that the skill of
God displayed in man should be destroyed, either through
their carelessness or through the devil's craftiness." J
The Godworthiness of the end is still more apparent
in view of man's filial relation to God. What more
worthy of God than to lead His own sons, however
degenerate, to the glory for which man was destined and
1 From the treatise on the Incarnation of the Word.

92 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
fitted when he was made in God's image, and set at the
head of creation ? The title " sons " was possibly sug
gested by the creation story, but it arises immediately out
of the nature of salvation as indicated in the quotation
from the 8 th Psalm, — lordship in the world to be.
This high destiny places man alongside of the Son whom
God " appointed heir of all things." " If sons, then
heirs," reasoned Paul; "if heirs, then sons," argues
inversely the author of our Epistle. Both reason legiti
mately, for sonship and heirship imply each other.
Those who are appointed to lordship in the new world of
redemption are sons of God, for what higher privilege or
glory can God bestow on His sons ? And on those who
stand in a filial relation to God He may worthily bestow
so great a boon. To lead His sons to their glorious
inheritance is the appropriate thing for God to do.
We have next to notice the title given to Him who
for men tasted death. He is designated " the Captain
(or Leader) of salvation " (top dpx'nyov t^s (rayrqplaf;).
This rendering, that of the Authorised Version, is prefer
able to that of the Revised Version, which, with some
recent interpreters,1 for the suggestive title " Captain "
substitutes the weak general term " Author." The only
1 Opinion is divided on the point. Davidson cautiously remarks,
" The idea that the Son goes before the saved in the same path ought
perhaps to be retained." Professor TV. R. Smith (Expositor, 2nd
Series, vol. ii. p. 422), while acknowledging that the idea of leader
ship is suitable enough to the thought of the Epistle, remarks that
the phrase "leader in their salvation" is "awkward." Vaughan
says, " The meaning of dpxqybs varies (like that of dpx>)) between
the ideas of beginning and rule ; of principium and principatus." He
admits that the idea of leader or prince is the more common, and is
the proper sense of apxnybs in Acts iii. 15. On the other hand, he

THE CAPTAIN OF SALVATION 93
objection to the rendering " Captain " is its predomin
antly military associations — an objection to which the
equivalent title Leader is not liable. The idea of leader
ship serves admirably the apologetic purpose, and is
therefore by all means to be retained. There is no good
reason for excluding it. It is in harmony with the
general thought of the Epistle. It sympathises with the
idea of salvation embodied in the phrase : lordship in the
world to come. The lordship is not yet actual, the world
to come is a promised land into which the redeemed
have to march. And as the Israelites had their leader
under whose guidance they marched from Egypt to
Canaan, so the subjects of the greater salvation have
their Leader who conducts them to their inheritance.
This parallelism, there can be little doubt, was present to
the writer's thoughts. He speaks of Moses and Joshua,
in different senses leaders of Israel, further on, and it is
not a violent supposition that he has them in view even
at this early stage. Then we have found reason for
believing that the expression " crowned with glory and
honour " might be thus paraphrased : " Crowned with
the glory of a Moses and the honour of an Aaron."
Therefore we expect to find him, in the immediate sequel,
applying epithets to Christ descriptive of the respective
offices of the two brothers, as both united in Him. And
this is what we do find. Here he calls Christ the
thinks the sense " author " " slightly more appropriate " in Heb. ii.
10, and the use of the word in Heb. xii. 2 he allows to decide in
favour of it. Kendall quite decidedly favours " captain," as being
the invariable sense of the Greek word in the Sept. Reuss is equally
decided. He gives as the French equivalent "guide," and says that
the Greek word never means Vauteur.

94 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
archegos, answering to Moses ; a little further on we find
him calling Him the archiereus, answering to Aaron.
Finally, it is to be noted that Christ as archegos is said to
be perfected by sufferings (iraOn^aTav), not by the one
suffering of death. The use of the plural is not acci
dental, it is intended to convey the idea of all sorts of
suffering. But the experience of sufferings of all kinds
fits into the idea of leader better than to that of priest,
in which the suffering of death is the thing to be empha
sised. The writer, indeed, knows how to adapt a wide
experience of suffering to the priestly aspect of Christ's
work, through the medium of a sympathy acquired by
such experience, in virtue of which He becomes a trusty
High Priest. But the connection between the experi
ence and the office is not immediately obvious in the
case of the priestly office ; on the other hand, it is
immediately obvious in the case of the office of leader.
Adopting, then, the rendering " Leader of salvation,"
let us consider the apologetic value of the title.
It implies a particular method of saving men, and
readily suggests certain things likely to be involved in
the adoption of that method.
As to the method of salvation, the title teaches that,
while God is the supreme Saviour of men, He performs
the office through a Mediator. He might conceivably
have saved men by a direct act of sovereign power and
mercy. But He chose to save by mediation. And this
method, if not the only possible one, is at least fitting.
It became Him for whom are all things, and by whom
are all things, to bring His sons to glory in this way.
It became Him, for this reason among others, that He

THE CAPTAIN OF SALVATION 95
was , thereby following the analogy of providence, doing
this work of deliverance in the manner in which we see
Him performing all works of deliverance recorded in
history, e.g. the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt, which
was, as we have seen, most probably in ¦ the writer's
thoughts as the great historical type of the work of
redemption. How did God deliver Israel ? The poetical
account of the transaction is : " As an eagle stirreth up
her nest, fluttereth over her young, spreadeth abroad her
wings, taketh them, beareth them on her wings : so the
Lord alone did lead him."1 In a high, ideal sense it is
a true as well as a beautiful representation. Nevertheless,
the sole leadership, while excluding all strange gods, did
not exclude the subordinate leadership of men. God
led His ancient people from Egypt to Canaan, like a
flock, " by the hand of Moses and Aaron." 2
The method involves that salvation is a gradual process.
It is a march under the guidance of a Leader to the
promised land. With this view the aorist participle in
the clause preceding, dyayovra, is not incompatible.
This aorist has puzzled interpreters. Some render it
" who had led," understanding it as referring to Old
Testament saints whom God in His providence had led
to glory, or to disciples whom Jesus had brought into
the kingdom of heaven during His earthly ministry.3
This rendering is in accordance with the grammatical
rule that " the aorist participle generally represents an
action as past with reference to the time of its leading
1 Deut. xxxii. 11. 2 Ps. lxxvii. 20.
3 So the Vulgate, which translates " qui niultos Alios in gloriam
adduxerat."

96 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
verb," x but it has no other recommendation. If we will
insist on assigning to the participle its temporal force as
required by this rule, it is better to lift the writer's
thought out of the region of history into that of Divine
intention, wherein the end ideally precedes the means.
The resulting sense will be : it became God, having
formed the purpose of leading sons to glory, to appoint
for His chosen agent an experience of suffering. From
this point of view the aorist becomes in effect a future,
and signifies, not " having done," but " being about to
do." 2 Such a reference to eternal purpose is in keeping
with the phrases employed to describe God's relation to
history (" for whom all things," " by whom all things ").
It was natural that one who had used these phrases
should look at the events of time sub specie ceternitatis.
The possible effects of this mode of contemplation are
threefold. It may invert the temporal order, making that
which is posterior in time prior in purpose ; it may make
events which are successive in history synchronous for
thought ; it may make events which are distinct in the
historic order, virtually identical. In each of these cases
the use of the aorist participle would be appropriate ; 3
certainly so in the last mentioned, for one of the well-ascer
tained facts about the use of the participle is that it "may
1 Goodwin, Syntax of Greek Moods and Tenses, p. 48.
2 Bleek takes dyayovra in a future sense.
3 Vaughan favours the first alternative : " The bringing of many
sons to glory is (conceptionally) prior to the perfecting of Christ
through suffering." Westcott adopts the second : " Though the
objects of dyayovra and reXeiaxrai are different, the two acts which
they describe are regarded as synchronous, or rather as absolute
without regard to the succession of time."

THE CAPTAIN OF SALVATION 97
express time coincident with that of the verb, when the
actions of the verb and the participle are practically one." 1
Sub specie mternitatis the leading of sons to glory is the
perfecting of Christ, and the perfectmg of Christ is the
leading of sons to glory, and both together are the act
of a moment.
But the temporal order, nevertheless, has its rights,
and in that order the leading to glory, not less than the
perfecting of the Leader, is no mere momentary act, but
a process. The sons of God are led to glory step by
step. The new heavens and the new earth are not
brought in per saltum, but by a gradual process of
development, during which the teaching, example, and
suffering of Jesus work noiselessly as a leaven. Redemp
tion has a history alike in Leader and in led. Redemp
tion after this fashion became Him for whom and by
whom are all things better than an instantaneous deliver
ance. The latter might reveal Divine omnipotence in a
signal way, but the former affords scope for the display
of all Divine attributes : power, wisdom, patience, faith
fulness, unwearied loving care.
The method of salvation by a Leader involves certain
things for the Leader.
1. He must, of course, be a man visible to men whom
He has to lead, so that they can look unto Him as
Leader and Perfecter of faith, and, inspired by His
example, follow Him in the path which conducts to glory.
1 Goodwin, p. 52. A familiar example of this use of the aorist is
supplied in the phrase often occurring in the Gospels, diroicpideh
elntv. The speaker did not answer first, then say. He answered
in saying. 7

98 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
2. Out of this primary requirement naturally springs
another. He who in person is to lead the chosen people
out of the house of bondage into the promised land must,
in the discharge of his duty, encounter hardship and
suffering. He must share the lot of those whom he has
to deliver. He not only ought, he must ; it arises
inevitably out of the nature of the task. Whether we
take the word dpxwyos as signifying a leader like Moses,
or a military captain like Joshua, the truth of this state
ment is apparent. Neither Moses nor Joshua had an
easy time of it. The leadership of Israel was for neither
a dilettante business, but a sore, perilous, often thankless
toil and warfare. And there never was any real leader
or captain of men whose life was anything else than a
yoke of care, and a burden of toil and sorrow. They
have all had to suffer with those they led, and - more
than any of the led. What wonder, then, if the Captain
or Leader of the great salvation was acquainted with
suffering ? Must He be the solitary exception to the
rule which connects leadership with suffering ? Ought
we not rather to expect that He, being the ideally
perfect Captain given by God to be a leader and
commander to the people whom He purposes to conduct
to glory, will likewise be more than any other experienced
in suffering ? If out of regard to His dignity as the
Son He must be exempted from suffering, then for
the same reason He must forfeit the position of leader.
To exempt from suffering is to disable for leadership.
Companionship in suffering is one of the links that
connect a leader with those he leads and give him
power over them. For the led, especially those who are

THE CAPTAIN OF SALVATION 99
being led to " glory," have their troubles too, and no
leader can win their hearts who does not share these.
For one thing they have all to die, therefore their Leader
also must " taste death " for their encouragement.
Therefore it certainly became Him for whom are all
things, and by whom are all things, in leading many
sons to glory through tribulation, to make the Captain
of salvation a participant in tribulation. He was thereby
only fitting Him to be the better Captain.
3. This brings us to a third implicate of the method
of salvation by a Captain for the Captain Himself. It
is, that experience of suffering is not merely inseparable
from His office, but useful to Him in connection there
with. It perfects Him for Leadership. Here at length
we reach the climax of the apologetic argument, the
final truth in which, when understood, the mind finds
rest. If this be indeed true, then, beyond doubt, it
became God to subject His Son to a varied experience
of suffering. To proclaim its truth is the real aim of the
writer. For while his direct affirmation is that it became
God to perfect His Son by suffering, the really important
thing is the indirect affirmation that the Son was perfected
by suffering. It is one of the great thoughts of the
Epistle, to be printed, so to speak, in large capitals.
How are we to understand the perfecting of Jesus ?
The term Tekeiacrai has been variously rendered. Some
take it in a ceremonial sense, as meaning that Jesus by
His death was consecrated to the priestly office which
He exercises in heaven. Others take it as equivalent to
" glorify," finding in the statement the truth Jesus Him
self taught that it behoved Christ to enter into the glory

100 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
and felicity of heaven through suffering. On this view the
" perfecting " of verse 1 0 is synonymous with the " crown
ing" of verse 9, understood as referring to the state of
exaltation. Others, again, favour an ethical interpretation,
finding in the statement of the text the idea that through
His curriculum of suffering Christ was made perfect in
character by learning certain moral virtues, e.g. sympathy,
patience, obedience, faith. Finally, some contend that the
precise sense of the verb here is to fit for office. Briefly
put, the four alternative meanings are : consecration, beati
fication, perfected moral development, official equipment.
The four senses in reality shade into each other. The
author of our Epistle does not bind himself to one
precise technical sense throughout, but uses the word
in an elastic way. He employs it in reference to Christ
in various connections of thought, now apparently in
relation to office, now in relation to character, and now
in relation to state. He uses it in reference to men in
a quite different sense, as when he speaks of worshippers
being perfected as pertaining to the conscience, where to
" perfect " is equivalent to " justify " in Pauline phrase
ology. Through all the various special senses one radical
sense runs, namely, to bring to the end. The special senses
vary with the nature of the end. If the end be to
become a leader, the special sense will be to make one
a perfect leader, a thoroughly efficient captain. If it be
to get into right relation with God as a pardoned sinner,
the special sense will be to justify.1
Other opportunities will occur for considering more
1 For an instructive statement on the meanings of re\«d<», vide
Davidson, The Epistle to the Hebrews, pp. 65, 207.

THE CAPTAIN OF SALVATION 101
fully the various uses of the word. Meantime we are
concerned with the specific sense of TeXedbaai in chapter
ii. 10. Without hesitation I take it in the last of the
four senses above distinguished. The writer means to
say that Christ was perfected by suffering, in the sense
that He was perfected for leadership. The perfecting of
Christ was a process resulting in His becoming a con
summate Captain of salvation. It was a process carried
on through sufferings, taking place contemporaneously
with these. It was a process begun on earth, carried on
throughout Christ's whole earthly life, reaching its goal
in heaven ; just as the crowning with glory and honour
began on earth and was completed in heaven. The
crowning was the appointment of Jesus to the vocation
of Saviour, the perfecting was the process through which
He became skilled in the art of saving. The theatre or
school of His training was His human history, and the
training consisted in His acquiring, or having opportunity
of exercising, the qualities and virtues which go to make
a good leader of salvation. Foremost among these are
sympathy, patience, obedience, faith, all of which are
mentioned in the course of the Epistle. Whether we
should say of Christ that He acquired these virtues and
became more and more expert in them, or merely that
He had an opportunity in His earthly life, with its
experiences of temptation and suffering, of displaying
them, is a question of dogmatic theology rather than of
exegesis. Our author declares in another place that
Christ learned obedience. We know what that would
mean as applied to an ordinary man. It would imply
growth, development in moral character. Whether that

102 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
can be predicated of Christ without prejudice to His
sinlessness is a question for dogmatic theology to settle.
If it were, we should then be entitled to include in the
official perfecting of Christ a personal ethical element,
that it might be as real, full of contents, and significant
as possible. The official perfecting of every ordinary
man includes an ethical element. An apprentice during
the course of his apprenticeship not only goes through
all the departments of his craft and acquires gradually
skill in each branch, but all along undergoes a discipline
of character, which tends to make him a better man as
well as a good tradesman. It is consonant to the general
view taken by the writer of Christ's earthly state as one of
humiliation, that he should conceive Jesus as subject to the
law of moral growth ; that was one of His humiliations.1
In any case, whatever view we take on the question
as to Christ's personal growth in virtue, the point of
importance is, that the process of His official perfecting
took place within the ethical sphere. The supreme qualifi
cation for a leader of salvation is the possession and
exercise of high heroic virtues, such as those already
enumerated. He leads by inspiring admiration and
trust ; that is, by being a moral hero. But a moral
hero means one whose life is hard, tragic. Heroes are
produced by passing through a severe, protracted curri
culum of trial. They are perfected by sufferings —
sufferings of all sorts, the more numerous, varied, and
severe the better ; the more complete the training, the
more perfect the result, when the discipline has been
successfully passed through. Hence the fitness, nay the
1 Vide on this the last chapter.

THE CAPTAIN OF SALVATION 103
necessity, that one having Christ's vocation should live
such a life as the Gospels depict and our Epistle hints at :
full of temptations, privations, contradictions of unbelief,
ending with death on the cross ; calling into play to the
uttermost the virtue of fortitude, affording ample scope
for the display at all costs of fidelity to duty and
obedience to God, and, in the most desperate situations, of
implicit filial trust in a heavenly Father ; and, through
all these combined, furnishing most satisfactory guarantees
for the possession of unlimited capacity to sympathise
with all exposed to the temptations and tribulations of
this world. How can any son of God who is being led
through fire and flood to his inheritance doubt the value
of a Leader so trained and equipped ? I know not
whether those commentators be right who say that Sta
nraOnfiaTav, in the intention of the writer, applies to the
" many sons " who are being led to glory, as well as to
their Leader ; l but I am quite sure that he regarded
their experience of suffering as an aid to the under
standing of the doctrine of Christ's perfecting, not less
than as an occasion for administering the comfort of it.
From the foregoing exposition it will be evident what
apologetic force resides in this skilfully worded and con
structed sentence. Its didactic import may be summed
up as follows :¦ —
1. The end in view — the conducting of sons to glory
— is manifestly Godworthy.
2. The carrying out of this end naturally demands a
human Leader.
3. Leadership inevitably involves arduous experiences
1 So Grotius, and likewise Pfleiderer ; vide his Paulinism, ii. 72.

104 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
common to Leader and led, but falling more heavily on
Him than on them.
4. These experiences fit the Leader for His work,
establishing comradeship between Him and the led,
inspiring in them admiration and confidence.
It is not less apparent that a firm grasp of the
apologetic aim is the key to the true interpretation.
Lose sight of it, or faintly recognise it as a bare possi
bility, then the idea of leadership sinks into a mere
" perhaps," or is merged in the vague general idea of
authorship, and it is no longer apparent how suffering
should be an indispensable part of Christ's experience.
A self-evidencing proposition becomes a comparatively
obscure assertion.
It may be objected that what we gain apologetically
by adopting the title " Leader " or " Captain " we lose
dogmatically. Leader signifies little more than example.
The death of Christ as Leader simply takes its place
among His many earthly experiences of suffering, and
possesses no exceptional significance. It is but the last
and severest event in a tragic career. He died for men
as their Leader, but only in the sense that He made
death another thing — no longer terrible — for all who look
to Him as their Captain —
" The Saviour hath passed through its portals before thee,
And the lamp of His love is thy guide through the gloom."
All this is-' true. The rationale of the suffering
experience of Christ offered to us by the author of our
Epistle, so far as we have yet gone, is, theologically, meagre.
But the view given is true so far as it goes ; it is one
side of a many-sided doctrine, which embraces all the

THE CAPTAIN OF SALVATION 105
fragments of truth that form the basis of the various
theories concerning the meaning of Christ's Passion.
The writer was not a one-sided theorist, but a man of
prophetic insight, looking at truth with spiritual versa
tility, from diverse points of view, and knowing how to
use them all in turn. And he was thankful, to begin
with, to be able to exhibit the fitness and necessity of
Christ's sufferings from any point of view which had a
chance of commending itself to the minds of his Hebrew
readers. If it was true, important, useful, and above all
obvious, it was enough. It was a point gained to have
lodged in their minds the one thought : the sufferings of
Christ a useful discipline for Him in sympathy with
men and in obedience to God, and therefore a good
training for being the Leader of salvation. It may seem
incredible that at that time of day, after many years of
Christian profession, they should need to be taught truths
which are but the alphabet of the doctrine concerning
Christ's death. But we have the writer's own word for
it that such was the fact. And if we wish to understand
the Epistle, we must keep the fact steadily in mind, and
beware of falling into the error of supposing that the
writer and his readers stood, in religious thought and
belief, pretty much on a level. The error may be applied
in either of two ways : by lifting the readers up to the
writer's level, or by degrading him down to theirs.
Both mistakes are alike fatal to successful exposition.
In the one case we shall find in the book a collection of
lifeless theological commonplaces ; in the other we shall
find in it a conception of Christianity which has not
surmounted Judaism.

CHAPTER VI
THE WAY OF SALVATION
Chap. ii. 11-18
This section contains a further elucidation of the way or
method of salvation in its bearing on the personal expe
riences of the Saviour. It may be analysed into three
parts : First, the statement of a principle on which the
argument proceeds (ver. 11); second, illustrations of the
principle by citations from the Old Testament (vers.
12, 13); third, applications of the principle to particular
facts in the history of Jesus (vers. 14—18).
The writer at this point seems at first sight to be
making a new start, looking forward rather than back
ward, and with the priesthood of Christ, of which ex
press mention is made in ver. 17, specially in his eye.
Further reflection, however, satisfies us that, as the " for "
at the commencement of ver. 11 suggests, he looks
backward as well as forward, and that the new truth
therein enunciated has its root in the statement con
tained in ver. 10. The assertion that the Sanctifier and
the sanctified are all of one may be viewed as answering
two questions naturally arising out of ver. 10, to which
it furnishes no explicit answer. First, Christ is called
106

THE WAY OF SALVATION 107
the Captain or Leader of salvation : how does He
contribute to salvation ? Is He simply the first of a
series who pass through suffering to glory ? or does He
influence all the sons whom God brings to glory so as to
contribute very materially to the great end in view, their
reaching the promised land ? Second, what is the con
dition of His influence ? what is the nexus between Him
and them, the Leader and the led, that enables Him to
exert over them this power ? The answer to the former
question is, Christ saves by sanctifying ; the answer to
the latter, that He and the sanctified are one. The
answer in the first case is given indirectly by the substi
tution of one title for another, the " Leader of salvation "
being replaced by the " Sanctifier " ; the answer in the
second case is given directly, and forms the doctrine
of the text : the Sanctifier and the sanctified are all of
one. The new designation for Christ is presumably selected
because it fits in both to that view of His function sug
gested by the title Leader, and to that implied in the
title High Priest, introduced in the sequel. No good
reason can be given for limiting the reference to the
latter. The probability is that the writer meant to
imply that Christ sanctifies both as a Captain and as
a Priest, at once as the Moses and as the Aaron of the
great salvation. It is probable that he introduces the
title "the Sanctifier" to adjust the idea of salvation
to the Saviour's priestly office, but it is reasonable to
suppose that he does this without any breach in the
continuity of thought.
These are simple observations, but they involve a very

108 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
important question, namely, In what sense are the terms
" Sanctifier " and " sanctified " used in this place ? and,
generally, what conception of sanctification pervades the
Epistle ? In the ordinary theological dialect " sanctifica
tion " bears an ethical meaning, denoting the gradual
renewal of his nature experienced by a believing man. The
usage can be justified by New Testament texts in Paul's
Epistles, and as I believe also in the Epistle to the
Hebrews ; but the notion of holiness thus reached is
secondary and derivative. In the Old Testament holi
ness is a religious rather than an ethical idea, and
belongs properly to the sphere of worship. The people
of Israel were holy in the sense of being consecrated
for the service of God, the consecration being effected by
sacrifice, which purged the worshippers from the defile
ment of sin. It was to be expected that the ritual or
theocratic idea of holiness should reappear in the New
Testament, especially in an Epistle like that to the
Hebrews, in which Christian truth is largely stated in
terms suggested by Levitical analogies. Accordingly we
do find the word " sanctify " employed in the Epistle
in the Old Testament sense, in connection with the
priestly office of Christ, as in chapter x. 10: " Sanctified
through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for
all." In such texts sanctification has more affinity with
"justification" in the Pauline system of thought than
with the sanctification of dogmatic theology. But it
might also be anticipated that the conception of holiness
would undergo transformation under Christian influences,
passing from the ritual to the ethical sphere. The
source of transforming power lay in the nature of the

THE WAY OF SALVATION 109
Christian service. The sacrifices of the new era are
spiritual : thankfulness, beneficent deeds, pure conduct.
A good life is the Christian's service to God. Thus while
formally considered sanctification might continue to
mean consecration to God's service, materially it came
to mean the process by which a man was enabled to live
soberly, righteously, godly. Traces of this transformed
meaning are to be found' throughout the New Testament.
The Epistle to the Hebrews is no exception to this state
ment. The term " holiness " (ayiaafi6<;, dyiorvs) is used in
an ethical sense twice in the twelfth chapter. In ver. 10
it is stated that God's end in subjecting His children to
paternal discipline is to make them partakers of His
own holiness; in ver. 14, Christians are exhorted to
follow peace with all men and holiness — -holiness being
prescribed as a moral task, and as an end to be reached
gradually. In the one case, God is the Sanctifier through
the discipline of life ; in the other, Christians are sum
moned to sanctify themselves by a process of moral
effort. In another class of texts Christ appears as a
fountain of sanctifying influence. The word is not used,
but the thing, help to godly living, is there: " Looking
unto Jesus " the Leader in faith is commended as a
source of moral strength and steadfastness (xii. 2). Even
in His priestly character He is set forth as a source of
moral inspiration. Through Him, the great High Priest,
we receive "grace for seasonable succour" (iv. 16); from
Him, the tempted one, emanates aid to the tempted
(ii. 18). God's paternal discipline, our own self-effort,
Christ's example, priestly influence, and sympathy, all
contribute to the same end, persistency and progress

110 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
in the Christian life. In connection with the first, we
may say God sanctifies ; in connection with the second,
we may say we sanctify ourselves; why may we not,
in connection with the third, call Christ the Sanctifier ?
It thus appears that sanctification is spoken of in the
Epistle both in a ritual and in an ethical sense, and
that Christ is represented, in effect if not in express
terms, as performing the part of a sanctifier, not merely
by consecrating us once for all to God by the sacrifice
of Himself, but likewise by being to us in various ways
a source of gracious help. This double sense of the word
" sanctify " is analogous to the double sense of the word
" righteousness " in the Pauline literature. In stating
his doctrine of salvation, Paul uses the word in an
objective sense. The righteousness of God is an objective
righteousness, given to us for Christ's sake. But in the
Pauline apologetic, in which the apostle seeks to recon
cile his doctrine with apparently conflicting interests,
such as the claims of the law, the prerogatives of Israel,
and the demands of morality, we find the word used in
a subjective sense — to denote a righteousness within us.1
Repelling the insinuation that we may continue in sin
that grace may abound, he strives to show how every
believer in Christ becomes a servant of righteousness.
Even so in the Epistle to the Hebrews we find
sanctification used in a double sense, a ritual and an
ethical. But there is a failure in the parallelism between
the two writers in this respect, that whereas in Paul
what one might call the artificial or technical sense
1 On the senses in which Paul uses the term ditiaioovi/ri, vide my
St. Paul's Conception of Cliristianity.

THE WAY OF SALVATION 111
of righteousness appears in his doctrinal statement, and
the ethical sense in his apologetic, in the author of our
Epistle the ritual sense of sanctification appears in those
parts of his writing which are dominated by his apolo
getic aim, and the ethical chiefly in the practical or
hortatory passages, where he is set free from the
trammels of his apologetic argument.1
If it be indeed true that Christ appears in the Epistle
as a sanctifier in a twofold sense, — in a specific sense as
a priest, in a general sense as a fountain of grace, — then
it is natural to suppose that in introducing the title " the
Sanctifier " for the first time the writer would employ
it in a comprehensive sense, covering the whole extent of
Christ's sanctifying influence. This comprehensive sense,
as we have seen, suits the connection of thought, the text
standing midway between two views of Christ's function
as Saviour, — that suggested by the title Captain of salva
tion, on the one hand, and that suggested by the title
High Priest, on the other — looking back to the one and
forward to the other. I feel justified therefore in putting
upon the designation " the Sanctifier " this pregnant con
struction, and shall now proceed to consider the affirma
tion in ver. 11, that the Sanctifier and the sanctified are
all of one.2
1 Another point will come up for comparison in due course. Paul
discovers, in faith, in the very heart of his system a nexus between
objective and subjective righteousness. Does the system of thought
in this Epistle provide for the union of the two kinds of sanctifica
tion ? or do they stand side by side, external to each other 1 Are
religious and ethical interests reconciled by a principle inherent in
the system 1 On this vide Chapter xvi. of this work.
2 The present participle, oi &yia£6p,evoi, fits into the view that an
ethical progressive sanctification is included, but it does not prove

112 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
This statement, as indicated at the outset, I regard as
the enunciation of a principle ; by which is meant that
the unity asserted is involved in the relation of Sanctifier
to sanctified. Whether there be only one or many exem
plifications of the relation is immaterial. Though only
one Sanctifier were in view or possible, the proposition
would still continue to be of the nature of a principle.
The point is, that Christ, as Sanctifier, must be one with
those whom He sanctifies, could not otherwise perform
for them that function. Some, as if bent on reducing the
significance of the statement to a minimum, take it as the
mere assertion of a fact : that this Sanctifier, Jesus Christ,
and those whom He sanctifies are all of one God, that is,
are all the children of God, the purpose of the statement
being to justify the use of the title " sons " in the previous
verse, or to repeat the truth implied in it. But that
title, as we have seen, rests on its own foundation, the
lordship of men, and needs neither justification nor
repetition. Viewed as the mere statement of a fact, the
first member of verse 1 1 becomes almost purposeless and
superfluous. Viewed as the statement of a principle, on
the other hand, it becomes a very necessary and fruitful
proposition. The relative terms " Sanctifier " and " sancti
fied " imply one very obvious and wide difference between
the parties. The Sanctifier is holy ; the sanctified, when
He takes them in hand, are unholy. That being so, it
needs to be said that, notwithstanding the separation
between the parties, there is a unity between them sur-
it, for the participles may be timeless designations of the parties.
ol ayia£6p,evot are those who need sanctification. That is their
characteristic, as to be able to sanctify is that of the Sanctifier.

THE WAY OF SALVATION 113
mounting the difference. And that can be said with
truth, for otherwise the two parties could not stand in
the relation of Sanctifier to sanctified ; they could only
stand permanently apart as holy and unholy. Unity is
involved in the nature of the case. That is precisely
what the writer means to say. He states the truth as
an axiom, which he expects even his dull-minded readers
to accept immediately as true ; and he means to use it
as a key to the cardinal facts of Christ's human experi
ence. Unity to some extent or in some sense is involved ; that
is clear. But in what sense ; to what extent ? This is
indicated very laconically by the phrase " of or from one,
all" (e|? ivbt Trdvres). The sentence has no verb, and is
worn down to the fewest possible words, after the manner
of a proverb. " For the Sanctifier and the sanctified — of
one, all." Commentators have been much exercised over
this elliptical utterance, and have made innumerable sug
gestions as to the noun to be supplied after " one." One
seed, blood, mass, nature ; or one Adam, Abraham, God.
The consensus is in favour of the last. But if the writer
had a particular noun in his mind why did he not insert
it, and so make his meaning clear ? It does look as if his
purpose were to lay stress, not on descent from one God,
one Divine Father, but rather on the result, the brother
hood or comradeship between the two parties. Is not his
idea that Sanctifier and sanctified are all " of one piece,
one whole," x two parties welded into one, having everything
in common except character ? The phrase e% evos does
1 The phrase is Professor Davidson's, who admits that e| evos
might bear -this meaning.
8

114 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
not necessarily imply that descent or origin is in his
view. As in the text " every one that is of the truth
heareth My voice " the phrase e'«: rr)<; d\rjdeua<; means true,
in sympathy with the truth, so ef evos in our text may
mean " one " ; one as a family is one, having a common
interest and a common lot. The connecting particle re
is in consonance with this view. It binds the two parties
closely together as forming a single category : " Sanctifier
and sanctified, all one."
We can now answer the question, To what extent
one ? Surely, as far as possible ! The nature of the
relation craves unity in everything but the one inefface
able distinction of character. From whatever point of
view we regard the Sanctifier's function, this becomes
apparent on reflection. Conceive Christ first as Sanctifier
in the ethical sense : in that capacity it behoved Him to
be in all possible respects one with those to be sanctified.
For in that case the sanctifying power lies in His
example, His character, His human experience. He
makes men believing in Him holy by reproducing in His
own life the lost ideal of human character and bringing
that ideal to bear on their minds ; by living a true, godly
life amid the same conditions of trial as those by which
they are surrounded, and helping them by inspiration and
sympathy to be faithful. His power to sanctify depends
on likeness in nature, position, experience.
Conceive Christ next as Sanctifier in the ritual sense,
as a priest, consecrating us for the service of God by the
sacrifice of Himself, and the same need for a pervading,
many-sided unity is apparent. The priest must be one
with his clients in God's sight, their accepted representa-

THE WAY OF SALVATION 115
tive, so that what He does is done in their name and
avails for their benefit. He must be one with them in
death, for it is by His death in sacrifice that He makes
propitiation for their sins. He must be one with them
in the possession of humanity, for unless He become
partaker of human nature He cannot die. Finally, He
must be one with them in experience of trial and tempta
tion, for thereby is demonstrated the sympathy which
wins trust, and unless the priest be trusted it is in vain
that He transacts. All these unities except the first are
unfolded in the sequel of the second chapter, and are
common to the two aspects of Christ's function as the
Sanctifier. The first unity, that before God, is peculiar
to the priestly office, and is reserved for mention at a
later stage, when the priesthood of Christ becomes the
subject of formal consideration.1
Having enunciated this great principle of unity, the
writer next proceeds to show that it has its root in Old
Testament Scripture. The manner in which he does this
is very lively and impressive. In abstract language the
import is this : " The unity asserted implies a brotherly
relation between Sanctifier and sanctified. But traces of
such a brotherhood are. discernible in the Old Testament,
as in the following passages, where Messiah appears
saying, ' I will declare Thy name unto My brethren ' ;
' I will put My trust in Him ' ; ' Behold, I and the
children which God hath given Me.' " But the writer
does not put the matter in this cold, colourless way. He
introduces his quotations in an animated, rhetorical manner
with the spirit-stirring sentiment, " for which cause He is
1 Vide chap. v. 1.

116 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
not ashamed to call them brethren." Observing that the
quoted passages are all of the nature of personal declara
tions or exclamations, observing also that they are all
utterances of an impassioned character, he strives to
reflect the spirit of the original texts in his own language.
Therefore he says not, Messiah is represented as the
brother of men, but He calls Himself their brother ; and,
not content with that, he introduces another word to
bring out the fact that Messiah does not barely admit
or reluctantly acknowledge the brotherhood, but proclaims
it with ardour and enthusiasm, rejoicing, glorying therein.
" He is not ashamed to call them brethren. On the
contrary, He calls them brethren with all His heart,
with the fervour of love, with the eloquence of earnest
conviction." The reference to shame points significantly
to the one cardinal difference, sin, which constitutes the
temptation to the Holy One to be ashamed.
The quotations so spiritedly introduced are well selected
for the purpose in hand. In all, brotherhood is expressed
or clearly implied. In the first, the speaker, primarily
the Psalmist,1 represents himself as a member of a con
gregation of worshippers whom he calls his brethren ; in
the second, the speaker, primarily the prophet Isaiah,2
declares his purpose to trust God, implying that he is in
a situation of trial in which trust is necessary; in the
third, taken from the same place,3 he associates himself
with the children God has given him, as of the same
1 Ps. xxii. 22.
2 Isa. viii. 17, as in Septuagint. The rendering in the English
version is, " I will look for Him."
8 lsa. viii. 18.

THE WAY OF SALVATION 117
family and sharing the same prophetic vocation. The
utterances put into the mouth of Messiah imply brother
hood in worship and in trying experience, and even the
closer kind of brotherhood involved in family connections
and a common calling.1
We now come to the applications of the principle
enunciated in verse 11. They are three in number,
together covering the whole earthly history of Christ,
beginning with His birth and ending with His death,
and all viewed as belonging to the category of humiliation.
Incarnation, sorrowful experience, death, such are the
three grand exemplifications of the brotherly unity of the
Sanctifier with the sanctified ; not arranged, however, in
this order, the second changing places with the third,
because the incarnation is exhibited in subordination to
the death as a means to an end : Christ took flesh that
He might die. The applications are as obvious as they
are important. If the principle has validity and value,
it must and will prove true in those particulars. What
we have to do therefore is not to justify these deductions,
but to study the terms in which they are expressed,
which are in many respects curious and instructive.
First conies the incarnation (ver. 14). The sanctified
are here referred to in terms borrowed from the last of
the three quotations, " the children." The use of this
designation is not only rhetorically graceful but logically
apt, as suggesting the idea of an existence derived from
1 The children of Isaiah prophesied by the very names they bore,
e.g. Maher-shalal-hash-baz = " making speed to the spoil, he hasteneth
the prey." On the reason for proving the solidarity of Jesus with
sinners by prophetic texts rather than by reference to evangelic
facts recorded in the Gospels, vide the last chapter of this work.

118 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
birth. Children is an appropriate name for men as born
of blood, and therefore possessing blood and flesh.
These terms, " blood and flesh," in their turn are
employed to denote human nature as mortal, as it exists
under the conditions of this earthly life ; for flesh and
blood have no place in the eternal life. Of man's
mortal nature, as thus designated, Christ is said to have
taken part " likewise " (irapairkricriais)} similarly. The
scope of the whole passage requires that this word be
emphasised, so that the similarity may be as great as
possible. Therefore not merely is participation in man's
mortal flesh implied, but entrance into human nature
by the same door as other men — by birth. We may not,
with Irving and the Adoptianists, include sinfulness in
the likeness, for the application of the principle of unity
is necessarily limited by the personal holiness of the
Sanctifier. The rule is, Like in all things, sin excepted.
The second application of the principle is to the
death of Christ, which, as already indicated, is next
mentioned because it supplies the rationale of the
incarnation (vers. 14&, 15). As a mere corollary to the
principle it would have been enough to have said,
Because the brethren die, He too died. But the
objection might be raised, Why should the sinless One
die, if, as we have been taught, death be the penalty of
sin ? Therefore the application of the principle to the
death of Christ is so stated as to bring out at the same
time the service He thereby rendered to His brethren.
This is done, however, in a very peculiar way, which has
1 " From the idea of close alongside comes that of in precisely like
manner. The adverb occurs here only in Scripture." — Vaughan.

THE WAY OF SALVATION 119
greatly perplexed commentators. The difficulty arises
in part from our trying to put too much theology into
the passage, and to bring its teaching into line with
other more familiar modes of exhibiting the significance
of Christ's death. It must be recognised once for all
that the writer has various ways of showing that it
behoved Christ to die, and that he gladly avails himself
of any way that tends to throw light on a subject ill-
understood by his readers. This is one of the ways ; and
although from its isolation in the Epistle it looks obscure
and forbidding, the text yields a good, clear, intelligible
sense, if we will be content not to find in it the whole
mystery and theory of the atonement. For the
materials of explanation we do not need to go outside
the Bible : they are evidently to be found in the account
of the Fall in the third chapter of Genesis. According
to that account, death came into the world because Adam
sinned, tempted by the serpent. The text before us
is a free paraphrase of that account. The serpent is
identified with the devil, death is represented as a source
of slavish fear, embittering human life,1 because it is the
penalty of sin ; the power of death is ascribed to the
devil, because he is the tempter to sin which brought
death into the world, and the accuser of those who sin,
so that they, having sin brought to mind, fear to die.
Christ destroys the devil by destroying his power, and
He destroys his power by freeing mortal men from the
cruel bondage of the fear of death.
1 The universal fact is here described, though tovtovs o<toi might
seem to imply limitation. " There is no limitation intended." —
Vauehan.

120 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
All this is plain enough. But the question now
arises, How did Christ through death free from the fear
of death ? We, steeped in theology, would naturally
reply, By offering Himself an atoning sacrifice for sin.
But that is certainly not the writer's thought here. He
reserves the great thought of Christ's priestly self-
sacrifice for a more advanced stage in the development of
his doctrine. What, then, is his thought ? Simply this.
Christ delivers from the fear of death by dying as a sin
less one. Death and sin are connected very intimately
in our minds ; hence, fear. But lo, here is one who
knows no sin dying. His point is not that the sinless
One dies instead of the sinful, but that the sinless One,
though sinless, dies. The bare fact breaks the association
between sin and death. But more than that : He who
dies is our brother, has entered into our mortal state in
a fraternal spirit for the very purpose of lending us a
helping hand. We may not fully know how His death
avails to help us. But we know that the Sanctifier in a
spirit of brotherhood became one with us, even in death ;
and the knowledge enables us to realise our unity with
Him in death, and so emancipates us from fear.
" Sinners may die, for the Sinless has died." The
benefit thus derived from the death of the sinless One
is but the other side of the great principle, Sanctifier
and sanctified all one. For it has two sides ; it applies
both ways. The Sanctifier becomes one with the sancti
fied in brotherly love ; the sanctified become one with
the Sanctifier in privilege. They are mutually one in
both directions in God's sight ; they are mutually one in
both directions for the spiritual instincts of the believer,

THE WAY OF SALVATION 121
even before he knows what the twofold validity for God
means. In proportion as we realise the one aspect of
the principle, the Sanctifier one with us, we are enabled
to realise and get benefit from the other. While the
Holy One stands apart from us in the isolation of His
sinlessness, we, sinners, fear to die ; when we see Him by
our side, even in death, which we have been accustomed
to regard as the penalty of sin, death ceases to appear as
penalty, and becomes the gate of heaven.1
Thus with consummate tact does the writer turn the
one thing that divides Christ from ordinary men, and
seems to disable Him for helping them, into a source
of consolation. Sanctifier, that presupposes sinlessness ;
sanctified, that presupposes sin ; and being sinners we
fear to die. Yes ; but the sinless One died, and we feel
ing our unity with Him cease to fear. He cannot be
one with us in sin, but He is one with us in that which
comes nearest to sin, and derives all its terror from sin.
Before passing to the third application of the
principle, the writer throws in a truism to relieve the
argument and make it more intelligible to persons to
whom the train of thought is new and strange (ver. 16),
Simply rendered, what the verse states is this : " For, as
1 So in effect Professor Davidson, p. 70. Rendall renders the
last clause of ver. 14, "that through His death He might bring to
nought him that had the power of that death," limiting the devil's
power to the death of Christ. He takes the article roi before
davdmv as referring to a particular instance of death. But it is
rather a case of the article prefixed to abstracts. '0 ddvaros is
simply death as a familiar human experience. The omission of the
article in ver. 15 makes no difference ; it is still the abstract idea of
death. The use of the article with abstracts, though common, is
not necessary.

122 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
you know,1 it is not of angels that He taketh hold (to
be their Helper), but He taketh hold of the seed of
Abraham." The rendering of the Authorised Version
(an inheritance from patristic times) is due apparently
to inability to conceive of the writer penning so self-
evident a truth as that Christ did not undertake to save
angels. That inability, again, is due to failure to gauge
the spiritual ignorance of his Hebrew readers. To the
same cause it is due that some recent commentators
have not been content to regard ver. 16 as the state
ment of a truism, but have laboured hard to assign to it
an important place in the chain of argument. To me
this text is one of the most significant indications of the
dark condition of the Hebrew Christians in reference to
the nature of Christianity. They were so little at home,
it appears, in Christian truth, that nothing could be
taken for granted, and they had to be coaxed like
children to engage in the most elementary process of
thought on the subject. Such coaxing I find here. The
writer stops short in his argument, and says in effect :
" Please to remember that Christ is not the Saviour of
the angels of whom I have lately been speaking, but of
men, and reflect on what that implies, and it will help
you to go along with me in this train of thought."
But we observe that he does not say, Christ taketh
1 This is one of the comparatively few instances of the use of the
particle 8j) (8q wov) in the New Testament. It is not well rendered
either in the Authorised or in the Revised Version, here or anywhere.
It always points to something familiar, matter of course, or specially
noteworthy. Here " it implies that the statement made is a familiar
truth. 'For He doth not, as we well know.'"— Westcott. The
combination 817 wov occurs here only in the New Testament.

THE WAY OF SALVATION 123
hold of men, but, " of the seed of Abraham." We must
beware of attaching too much importance to this, as if the
reference implied that the Christian salvation concerned
only the people of Israel. Here, again, the apologetic
exigencies and aim are our best guide. The writer is
not enunciating a theological proposition, but having
recourse to an oratorical device to bring home his teaching
to the hearts of his readers. He means to say, " Christ
took in hand to save, not angels, but yourselves, my
Hebrew brethren." His argument up to this point has
been stated in terms applicable to all mankind ; to
charge it with a warmer tone and an intenser interest
he gives it now a homeward-bound turn. To infer
from this that he considered the gospel the affair of
the Jews exclusively, is to sink to the rabbinical level
in exposition. At the same time it may be noted that
the introduction of a reference to Israel just here is
convenient, as from this point onwards things are to be
spoken of, e.g. the office of the high priest,1 in which
persons belonging to the chosen people were specially
interested. The writer now resumes and completes his application
of the principle enunciated in ver. 11, giving prominence
in the final instance to Christ's experience of temptation
(vers. 17, 18). In doing, so he takes occasion from the
parenthetical remark about the subjects of Christ's saving
work (ver. 16) to make a new start, and go over the
1 Von Soden remarks : " The expression a-wipp.a 'hfUpaap. is chosen
here because it prepares for the introduction of the high-priest
idea," so making the use of the phrase intelligible even on the
hypothesis of Gentile first readers.

124 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
ground again with variations. The thoughts contained
in these closing sentences are similar to those expressed
in verses 14, 15. Here, as there, it is inferred from the
fact that the subjects of Christ's work are men, that He
must have a human nature and experience likewise. Here
also, as there, the ends served by the assumption of
human nature and endurance of a human experience
are set forth. But neither in stating the fact of the
incarnation nor in explaining its end does the writer
repeat himself. He varies not only the forms of expres
sion, but also the aspects under which he presents the
truth, so as to give to his unfolding of the doctrine
variety, richness, and fulness. While before he said that
because the children were partakers of blood and flesh
Christ also took part of the same, here he says that for
the same reason it behoved Christ in all things to be
made like unto His brethren. And whereas in the
former place he set it forth as the end of the incarna
tion to deprive the devil of his power over man through
death, and to rob death itself of its terrors, in this con
cluding passage he represents the human experience of
Jesus as serving these two ends : first, the fitting of
Him to transact as a priest for men towards God ; and
second, the qualifying of Him for being a sympathetic
friend in need to all the tempted.
To be noted specially are the terms in which the
unity between the Sanctifier and the sanctified is stated
here. It behoved Him to be in all respects (icard
wavra) made like unto His brethren. Likeness is
asserted without qualification, and yet there are limits
arising out of the nature of the case. One limit, of

THE WAY OF SALVATION 125
course, is that there can be no likeness in moral
character. This limit is implied in the very titles
applied to the two parties, Sanctifier and sanctified,
and it is expressly stated in the place where Christ
is represented as " tempted in all respects similarly, apart
from sin" (iv. 15). Another limit, nowhere referred
to in words, but tacitly assumed, is, that the likeness
is in those respects chiefly in which our life on earth
is affected by the curse pronounced on man for sin.
Overlooking this principle, we might fail to be impressed
with the likeness of Jesus to other men in His experi
ence ; we might even be impressed with a sense of
unlikeness. There are respects in which Christ's life
was unlike the common life of men. He was a celi
bate ; He died young, and had no experience of the
temptations of middle life, or the infirmities of old age ;
in outward lot He was the brother of the poor, and was
well acquainted with their griefs, but of the joys and
temptations of wealth He had no experience. But these
features of difference do not fall under the category of
the curse. Family ties date from before the Fall. The
doom pronounced on man was death immediate, and
prolonged life is a mitigation of the curse. Wealth too
is a mitigating feature, another evidence that the curse
has not been executed in rigour, but has remained to a
considerable extent an unrealised ideal, because counter
acted by an underlying redemptive economy. It will be
found that Christ's likeness to His brethren is closest just
where the traces of the curse are most apparent : in so far
as this life is (1) afflicted with poverty, (2) exposed to
temptations to ungodliness, (3) subject to death under its

126 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
more manifestly penal forms, as when it conies as a
blight in early life, or as the judicial penalty of crime.
Jesus was like His brethren in proportion as they need
His sympathy and succour — like the poor, the tempted,
the criminal.1
This likeness had for its final cause that the Sanctifier
might become an effective helper of those to whom He
was thus made like.
" That He might be a merciful and trusty High T'riest
in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the
sins of the people." These weighty words form an im
portant landmark in the Epistle, as containing the first
express mention of a topic which the writer has had in
view from the outset, and on which he will have much
to say in the sequel, namely, the Priesthood of Christ. He
has now arrived at a point in his argument at which he
can introduce the great thought with some chance of
being understood ; though how well aware he is of the
difficulty likely to be felt by his readers in taking it in
appears from the fact that, immediately after announcing
the new theme, he invites them to consider carefully the
Apostle and High Priest of their confession (iii. 1). In
effect he says, " Now this is a great and glorious topic,
but for you it is a difficult one ; give your minds to it ;
come, study it with me, it will well repay your pains."
Here he does little more than introduce the subject. The
priestly function of Christ he describes in general terms
1 Westcott, always careful to report patristic opinion, gives the
following from Chrysostom : erix^V< </»?<"'>'> erpd<pr], r)v^fj8r], <fwade
wdvra awep £xP*lv> TC^°s dwedavfv = " He was born, nourished, grew,
suffered what was needful, at last died."

THE WAY OF SALVATION 127
as exercised towards God and as consisting in the
expiation of sin.1 No mention as yet of the means of
propitiation, "gifts and sacrifices" (v. 1); still less of
the fact that Christ accomplishes the result by the
sacrifice of Himself. He will take care not to introduce
that master-thought till he can do so with effect. Here
on the threshold of the subject he gives prominence
rather to the moral qualities of a well-equipped High
Priest, mercifulness and trustworthiness ; moved partly
by a regard to the connection of thought, and partly by
a desire to present Christ as Priest in a winsome . light.
The stress laid on these attributes is one of the
originalities of the Epistle, whether we have regard to
the legal requirements for the priestly office as specified
in the Pentateuch, or to the view of Christ's atoning
work presented by other New Testament writers. It is
one of the writer's favourite themes.
Of the two attributes the former is the chief, for he
who is merciful, compassionate, will be faithful. It is
want of sympathy that makes officials perfunctory.
Hence we might read, " a merciful and therefore a
faithful, trustworthy High Priest." So reading, we see
the close connection between the experiences of Christ
and His fitness for the priestly office. For all can
understand how an experience of trial and temptation
might help to make Christ compassionate, while it is
1 eif to LKdo'KicrOai ras dfxaprias roil Xaov. Note that the object of
the verb is sin, not God, as it would have been in a Pagan writer.
The present tense points to a habitual exercise of the function of
propitiation. " The real thought is to secure the forgiveness of sin
from day to day and from hour to hour, by His presence with God
as the Propitiation."— Vaughan.

128 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
not so easy to see why it behoved Him to suffer all
He suffered in order to perform the essential duty
of a Priest — that of atoning for sin. One might
think that for the latter purpose it were enough to
die ; but to ensure that a High Priest should be heart
and soul interested in His constituents, it behoved Him
to be made in all respects like unto His brethren.
The other end served by Jesus being made in all
things like His brethren is thus stated: "For having
Himself been tempted in that which He suffered, He is able
to succour those who are being tempted." This rendering
of verse 18 is one of several possible ones which it is
not necessary to enumerate or discuss, as the general
sense is plain, namely, that Christ having experienced
temptation to be unfaithful to His vocation in connection
with the sufferings arising out of it, previously alluded
to as a source of perfecting, is able to succour those
who, like the Hebrew Christians, were tempted in similar
ways to be unfaithful to their Christian calling. The
words show us, not so much a different part of Christ's
ministry as Priest, as a different aspect of it. In the
previous verse His work is looked at in relation to
sinners for whose sins He makes propitiation. In this
verse, on the other hand, that work is looked at in
relation to believers needing daily succour .amid the
temptations to which they are exposed. Both aspects
are combined when, further on, mercy and grace for
seasonable succour are named as the things to be sought
in our petitions at the throne of grace (iv. 1 6).

CHAPTER VII
CHRIST AND MOSES
Chap, hi
The remarkable statement concerning the nature and
way of salvation contained in the section which we
have been considering in the three last chapters supplies
ample material for a new exhortation. The writer has
shown that the Christian salvation consists in nothing
less than lordship in the world to come. He has set
forth C_hriRt_~.iiii Un", Captain of this salvation, and the
High Priest of the new people of God, the Moses and
the Aaron of Christendom, and in both  capacities
as the San"tiifipT' r^ f1in rinv"- "f n'"1 '"1ljmi ~^a leads to
glory, and, in order to the efficient discharge of that
function, one with His brethren in nature and experience.
The immense supply of motive power stored up in this
densely packed group of thoughts he now brings to bear
on the tempteii-Hebrcw Qhristianii^-*»s"a^i"'~hmpn-innt trt—
steatrTfluitririsiri : " W-frgjeforeT holv br^^hrpn pa.rt.g Vera nf n,
heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of
^yftir confession. Jesus."
Every word here is an echo of something going before,
and is instinct with persuasive virtue. " Brethren," of
9

130 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
Him who in a fraternal spirit identified Himself with the
unholy, and for their sakes took flesh and tasted death.
" Holy," at least in standing, in virtue of the priestly
action of the Sanctifier ; and because holy in this sense,
under obligation to make their consecration to God
a reality by living a truly Christian life. " Partakers of
a heavenly calling " — thus described, at once with truth
and with rhetorical skill, with a backward glance at the
greatness of the Christian's hope as the destined lord of
the future world, and with a mental reference to the
contrast between that glorious prospect and the present
state of believers as partakers of flesh and blood, and
subject to death and the fear thereof ; reminding them
at the same time of the blessed truth, that as Christ
became partaker of their present lot, so they were
destined to be partakers of His glorious inheritance, the
unity and fellowship between Him and His people
being on both sides perfect and complete. The epithet
" heavenly " gracefully varies the point of view from
which the inheritance is contemplated. The world to
come becomes now a world above, a celestial country.
The change in the mode of expression is an oratorical
variation ; but it is more, even a contribution to the
parenetic force of the sentence, for the heavenly in the
thought of the writer here and throughout the Epistle is
the real, the abiding. Heaven is the place of realities,
as this material world is the place of shadows. Such is
our author's philosophic view-point, if we may ascribe
such a thing to him — his way of contemplating the
universe, supposed by some to be borrowed from Philo
and the Alexandrine school of philosophy ; certainly a

CHRIST AND MOSES 131
marked peculiarity, whencesoever derived.1 With the
heavenly world Christianity is identified, and thereby its
absolute and abiding nature is strongly asserted, as
against Judaism, which as belonging to the visible world
is necessarily doomed to pass away. This contrast
indeed does not find open expression here, but that it is
in the writer's mind the sequel abundantly shows. He
uses his philosophy for his apologetic purpose, employing
it as a vehicle for expressing and defending the thesis :
Judaism transient, Christianity for aye.
The titles here ascribed to Jesus also arise out of the
previous context, and are full of significance. Specially
noteworthy is the former of the two, " Apostle," here
only applied to Christ. The use of this epithet in
reference to our Lord is one of several indications of the
fresh creative genius of the writer, and of the un
conventional nature of his style. When he calls Christ
an apostle he is not thinking .of the twelve apostles, or
of Christ's prophetic office. Christ's claim to attention
as one through whom God has spoken His last word to
men he has sufficiently recognised and insisted on in the
first exhortation (ii. 1-4). He is thinking rather of the
apostleship of Moses. The basis for the title is such a
text as Exodus iii. 10: " Come now therefore, and
I will send thee (dTroaTeiXu, Sept.) unto Pharaoh, that
1 Among the thought-affinities between our Epistle and Philo are
the distinction between the visible world (to. (pawop.eva, xi. 3 =
Philo's 6 oparbs nocrpos) and the invisible (p.fj ex <paivop.eva>v, xi. 3
= Philo's Koo-fios vorjros) ; the conception of heaven as the country
or home of the soul (warpls, xi. 14) ; the application to Christ
of attributes ascribed by Philo to the Logos, e.g. wpcororoKos,
( = wpcaroyovos in Philo, or wpecrftvTfpos viof) 6eos, (i. 8) dpxiepevs.

132 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
thou mayest bring forth My people the children of
Israel out of Egypt." Moses was an apostle, as one
sent by God on the important mission of leading the
enslaved race of Israel out of Egypt into Canaan.
Christ was our Apostle, as one sent by God to be the
Leader in the greater salvation. The Apostle of our
Christian confession and the " Captain of salvation " are
synonymous designations. Something indeed might be
said for taking it as a generic title, including all Christ's
functions. In that case it might have stood alone,
though even then special mention of the priestly office
would have been appropriate, as having been previously
named, and as a source of peculiar comfort and
inspiration, and also because it is in the sequel the
subject of a lengthened consideration. As applied to it,
the exhortation to consider has a somewhat different
meaning from that which it bears in reference to the
title Apostle. " Consider the Apostle " means, consider
for practical purposes a subject already sufficiently
understood ; " consider the High Priest " means, consider
the doctrine of Christ's priesthood, that ye may first
understand it, and then prove its practical value.
Christ the Apostle is the immediate subject of
contemplation. That aspect is in view throughout the
third and fourth chapters, the priestly aspect being
presented at the close of the latter, as an introduction
to the long discussion which commences with the fifth
chapter and extends to the tenth. " Consider the
Apostle of our confession *' is the rubric of this new
section. To guide consideration, a point of view is suggested

CHRIST AND MOSES 133
congruous to the practical aim. The aim being to
promote steadfastness in the Christian faith and life,
the selected point of view is the fidelity of Jesus our
Apostle. " Who was faithful to Him that made Him."
In other words, " faithful to His vocation." God made
Jesus, as in 1 Samuel xii. 6 He is said to have made
Moses and Aaron. The underlying idea is, that it is
God in His providence who raises up all great actors in
human affairs and prepares them for their position
as public men. God " made " Jesus by giving Him His
unique place in the world's history, as the chief agent
in the work of redemption. And Jesus was faithful to
God by discharging faithfully the high duties entrusted
to Him. What the Hebrews are invited to do, there
fore, is to  consider .Tpsiih as thp taithfnl flfl.ptaHl of

gglvnt.ifin, whr. nm-nr Tinfugynd TTip trying obirkpd Tjj^
responsibilities, or — neglected — duty to — cooapo personal
anffoT-inrj, oi-iri ™ii/-> oft fliq }asfc great crisis said, " Not My
will, but Thine be done." For of cfmrap. the thp.a.t,ra in

which Christ's fidelity was displayed was His earthly
fife of trial and temptation. True, it is present fidelity
that is asserted (ttigtov ovto), nevertheless the rendering
a " who was faithful " is practically correct. What is
^jneant is, that Jesus is one who by His past career has
earned the chaa?acTierof the FaithfiilX)neT^Eriat is the

honourable title to Which in vMutPof a spotless record
He is fully entitled. The field of observation is His
public ministry on earth, assumed to be familiar to
readers of the Epistle, either through our written Gospels,
or through the unwritten evangelic tradition. What
end could be served by pointing to a fidelity displayed

134 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
in heaven ? Fidelity there costs no effort ; but fidelity
maintained amid constant temptation to unfaithfulness
is worth remarking on, and may fitly be commended
to the admiring contemplation of the tempted. Then
how inappropriate the comparison between Christ and
Moses, if the fidelity ascribed to the former were that
exercised in the heavenly state ! The faithfulness of
Moses, which drew forth the Divine commendation, was
certainly exercised on earth, and could fitly be compared
to that of Jesus only if the virtue were in both cases
practised under similar conditions. This, then, is what
the writer holds up to the view of his readers as an
example and source of inspiration — the faithfulness of
Jesus to God in the fulfilment of His vocation during
His earthly life. He has already held up Jesus as
Priest, as one who is faithful to the interests of those
for whom He transacts before God, and therefore entitled
to their confidence. The two views supplement each
other, and complete the picture of the Faithful One.
Faithful as Priest to men in virtue of sympathies learned
on earth, faithful as Apostle to God in the execution
of the arduous mission on which He was sent to the
world ; in the one aspect inspiring trust, in the other
exciting admiration and inciting to imitation.
The following comparison between Christ and Moses
at once serves the general end of the Epistle by con
tributing to the proof of the superiority of Christianity to
Judaism, and the special end of the present exhortation
by affording the opportunity of extracting wholesome
lessons from the fate of the people whom Moses led out
of Egypt. The task of exalting Christ above Moses was

CHRIST AND MOSES 135
a delicate one, requiring careful handling ; but the tact
of the writer does not desert him here. With rhetorical
skill he first places the lesser apostle beside the greater
One, as one who like Him had been faithful to his
commission. In doing this, he simply does justice to the
familiar historical record of the Jewish hero's life, and to
God's own testimony borne on a memorable occasion, the
substance of which he repeats in the words, " as also
Moses (was faithful) in his house." " My servant Moses,
faithful in all My house, he," 1 God had said emphatically,
to silence murmuring against him on the part of his
brother Aaron and his sister Miriam. In presence of
such strong commendation proceeding from the Divine
lips, our author, writing to Hebrews proud of their great
legislator, might well have been afraid to say anything
which even seemed to disparage him ; and one wonders
what words he will find wherewith to praise Christ and
set Him above Moses, without appearing to set aside the
testimony of Jehovah to the worth of His servant. But
the gifted Christian doctor knows how to manage this
part, as well as all other parts of his argument. He
lays hold of the suggestive words " house " and " servant,"
and turns them to account for his purpose, saying in
effect, " Moses was as faithful as any servant in a house
can be : still he was only a servant, while He of whom I
now speak was not a mere servant in the house, but a
son ; and that makes all the difference."
Verses 3 to Qa are substantially just the working
out of this thought. So much in general is clear ; but
when we look closely into these sentences, we find them
1 Num. xii. 7.

136 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
a little hard to interpret, owing to an apparent confusion
of thought. There seem to be two builders of the house :
Christ (ver. 3), it being natural to assume that he who
hath builded the house is the same with him who is said
to have more glory than Moses, and God (ver. 4), the
builder of all things. Then the same man Moses figures
in two characters : first, as the house (ver. 3), then as
a servant in the house (ver. 5). The former of these
puzzles is disposed of in various ways by the commenta
tors. Some say there are two houses and two builders:
the Old Testament house, whereof God was builder ; and
the New Testament house, whereof Christ was the builder.
Others say there is one house and one builder ; the one
house being God's supremely, Christ's subordinately, and
the builder God as . the first great cause, using His Son
as His agent in building the spiritual house as well as in
making the worlds. A third class, agreeing that there is
but one house and one builder, make the builder Christ,
and render the last clause of ver. 4, " He that buildeth
all things is Divine," taking 0eo? without the article as a
predicate, and finding in it an argument for Christ's
divinity. The truth doubtless is, that the house is one,
even God's, in which Moses was servant, in which Christ
is the Son, that house being the Church, essentially one
and the same though varying in form under the earlier
and the later dispensations; whereof the builder and
maker is He that made all things, building it through
His Son. The other difficulty regarding the double
character of Moses disappears when it is explained that
the word oIko<s is used in a comprehensive sense, as signi
fying not merely the stone and lime, so to speak, or even

CHRIST AND MOSES 137
the furniture, but likewise the household, or establishment
of servants. In this sense Moses, being a servant in the
house of God, was a part of the house, and therefore
inferior to the builder ; for if he who builds a house hath
more honour than the whole house, A fortiori he hath
more honour than any part of it.__
JesuL4sa Son, Moses was' a servaiitT~gnsh, apart
from all minute questions of interpretation, is the ground
on which the greater glory is claimed for the former.
But ltmay be asked, the subject of comparison being the
respective fidelities of the two apostles, is not a reference
to their positions irrelevant ? What does it matter
whether Moses was son or servant, if he was faithful in
God's house, in all parts of his work as the leader of

rLf one were comparing two commanders in
respect of bravery and military genius, would it not be
an irrelevance to say of one of them, he was the better
man, for he was the king's son ? The question is
pertinent, but it admits of a satisfactory answer.
Reference to the superior dignity of Christ is relevant,
if His position as Son tended to enhance His fidelity.
That it did the writer doubtless meant to suggest.
Further on we find him saying, " Though He was a
Son, yet learned He obedience." Similarly he says here
in effect, " Christ, though a Son, was faithful to His
vocation amid trial." It is a just thought. Beyond
doubt, we have in Christ as Son a more sublime moral
spectacle of fidelity than in any ordinary man called to
play a great and responsible part in history. To the
fidelities which He has in common with other men the
Son adds this other : resolute resistance to the temptation

138 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
to use His Sonship as an excuse for declining arduous
heroic tasks. "If Thou be the Son of God, use Thy
privilege for Thine own advantage," said the tempter in
the wilderness, and all through life. " Get thee behind
Me, Satan," was the Son's constant reply, giving to His
faithfulness to God and duty a unique quality and
value. But there is more than this to be said. The refer
ence to the dignity of Christ looks beyond the immediate
parenetic purpose to the ultimate aim of the whole
Epistle. It is designed to insinuate the great truth that
Christianity is the absolute, eternal religion. For there
is more in this statement concerning Christ and Moses
than meets the ear, thoughts suggested though not plainly
expressed. One great idea never absent from the writer's
mind is here quietly insinuated by aptly chosen phrases
and pregnant hints — the transient nature of the old
dispensation in contrast to the abiding nature of the
new. This idea casts its shadow on the page at three
different points:
1. In the contrast between Moses and Jesus as re
spectively servant and Son.
2. In the representation of the ministry of Moses as
being for a testimony of things to be spoken afterwards,
ver. 5 : eis- fiaprvpiov tuiv XaXnOrjaopievcov.
3. In the representation of Christians as pre-emi
nently though not exclusively God's, Christ's, house :
ov oucos iap,ev ^/xelf, ver. 6.
In the first, because, as Christ Himself once said,
" The servant abideth not in the house for ever : but
the Son abideth ever." And with the servant the service

CHRIST AND MOSES 139
also must pass away. In the second also, in spite of the
difficulties which have been raised by Bleek and others,
who hold that the things to be spoken of were the things
spoken by Moses himself to the people of Israel, and the
idea intended, that the fidelity he had hitherto exhibited
ought to secure respect for all he might say in future,
and protect him from such assaults as were made upon
him by his brother and sister. Bleek thinks that, had a
reference to Christ been meant, the writer would have
written, " to be spoken in the end of the days," or " by
the Son." But over against the verbal difficulty arising
out of the use of \a\w9r)aop,evav, without qualifying
phrase, is to be set the far greater difficulty of believing
that the writer meant to utter in such a connection so
paltry a thought as the one above indicated. How much
more congenial to the whole style of the Epistle to find
here a hint of the truth that Moses in his whole ministry
was but a testimony to things to be spoken in the future
by another greater Apostle !
The transient nature of the Mosaic ministry as sub
servient to the enduring ministry of the Son is a third
time hinted at in the words, whose house are we. This is
not a claim to monopoly of family privileges for Chris
tians, but it is an assertion that the Christian community
is in an emphatic sense the house of God. The assertion
manifestly implies the transiency of the Mosaic system.
It suggests the thought that the house as it stood in the
times of Moses was but a rude, temporary model of the
true, eternal house of God ; good enough to furnish
shelter from the elements, so to speak, but unfit to be
the everlasting dwelling-place of the children of the Most

140 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
High, therefore destined to be superseded by a more
glorious structure, having the Spirit of God for its
architect, which should be to the old fabric as was the
" magnifical " temple of Solomon to the puny tabernacle
in the wilderness.
At ver. 6& transition is naturally made from Moses
to the lessons of the wilderness life of Israel. The
writer is haunted by the fear lest the tragic fate of the
generation of the Exodus should be repeated in the
experience of the Hebrew Christians. He hopes that
the powerful motives arising out of the truths he has
stated may bring about a better result. But he cannot
hide from himself that another issue is possible. For
the future fortunes of Christianity he has no anxiety;
he is firmly persuaded that it will prosper, though the
Hebrew Church, or even the whole Hebrew nation,
should perish. That fatal catastrophe he dreads ; there
fore with great solemnity he proceeds to represent re
tention of their position in the house of God as
conditional : Whose house are we, if we hold fast the
boldness and the boasting of the hope. He does not express
hunself so strongly here as in ver. 14, where the thought
is repeated by way of applying the lesson taught in the
quotation from the Psalter concerning the conduct of
Israel in the wilderness.1 He is content for the present
simply to indicate that there is room for doubt or fear.
By the use of the qualifying words " boldness and boast-
1 idv strengthened by the particle wep, which intensifies the doubt,
and the words "to the end" (pexP1 "Aou?) added : "We are made
partakers of Christ if, that is to say, we hold fast the beginning of
our confidence firm to the end."

CHRIST AND MOSES 141
ing" (irappvo-iav, /cav^/Mi) he teaches by implication
that the Christian hope is worth holding fast. It must
be a sure and glorious hope which inspires in those who
cherish it confidence and exultation.
In the sequel the grounds both of the hope and of the
fear are set forth. Of the fear first, the material for the
demonstration being drawn from the wilderness history
of Israel, as referred to in a quotation from the 95th
Psalm. First comes the quotation itself, in vers. 7—11,
connected with what goes before by Bio, and introduced
as an utterance of the Holy Spirit. The quotation
keeps pretty close to the Septuagint, materially diverging
only at ver. 9, where " forty years " is connected with
the clause " they saw My works," instead of with " I was
grieved with this generation," as in the Hebrew and the
Septuagint. This change led to another, the insertion of
Bio at the commencement of ver. 10. This divergence
is intentional, as we see from ver. 12, where the writer
reverts to the original connection, which there suits his
purpose, asking, "But with whom was He grieved for forty
years ?" He prefers here to represent the people of Israel
as seeing God's works forty years, rather than to speak of
God as grieved with them for the same space — both being
equally true, — because he is anxious to make the case
of the ancient Israel as closely parallel as possible to
that of the Hebrew Christians, with a view to enhanced
impressiveness. For both parties were very similarly
situated in this very respect of seeing God's works for
forty years. From the time when Jesus began His
public ministry, to the destruction of Jerusalem, an
event probably very nigh at hand when the Epistle was

142 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
written, was, as near as can be calculated, forty years.
What a significant, solemn hint to beware is contained
for the Christian Hebrews in this statement concern
ing their forefathers, And saw My works forty years ! 1
It says more powerfully than express words could :
" You too have seen the works of the Lord, greater
works than the ancient ones wrought by the hand of
Moses, for the very same space of time. Take care that
ye see them to better purpose, lest their doom, or a
worse, overtake you." 2
Next follows the application of the quotation to the case of
the Hebrew Christians (vers. 12—14). Take heed, brethren,
lest haply there shall be in any one of you an evil heart of
unbelief, in departing from the living God. But exhort each
other every day, while the word "to-day" is named, lest any one
of you be hardened by the deceit of sin. For we are become
1 The liberty taken with the words of the Psalm in altering the
connection might be adduced as a fact helping to fix the date of the
Epistle. The manipulation of the forty years may reasonably be
regarded as evidence that such a period of time had elapsed since
the beginning of the Christian Church.
2 One other point in the quotation may be noticed. The Psalmist,
in using the wilderness history for the instruction of his own genera
tion, alludes to two instances in which God was tempted, namely, at
Massah, at the beginning of the forty years, and at Meribah, towards
their close. This point is obscure in the Septuagint, which takes
the names as abstract nouns, in which it is followed by our author.
The Psalmist selects the incidents at the beginning and the end of
the wilderness history as examples of the conduct of Israel through
out the whole period of the wandering. "From these two learn
all," he would say ; the behaviour of Israel being such that God
might justly complain, "Forty years was I grieved with this genera
tion," the very similarity of the events sewing to show how
incorrigible a generation it was, given to repeating its offences,
learning nothing from experience.

CHRIST AND MOSES 143
Companions of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our con
fidence firm to the end. The Bio of ver. 7 is to be taken
along with fiXiireTe, all that lies between being regarded
as a parenthesis. " Wherefore — beware," the beware
being charged with solemn significance by the interven
ing quotation, conceived by the writer as spoken by the
Holy Ghost directly to the Christian Church living in
the era of the final revelation. The earnest exhortation
follows closely the sense of the passage quoted from the
Psalter. First, the brethren are warned against an
unbelieving heart revealing its wickedness in apostasy
from the living God, in allusion to the hardness of heart
charged against Israel, and spoken of as the source of
their unbelief and misbehaviour. Then homiletic use is
made of the hortatory word : To-day if ye will hear His
voice. " Exhort each other daily while to-day is named,
while there is a to-day to speak of, while the day of
grace lasts. Let each cry in the ear of a brother negli
gent or slothful, To-day, brother, to-day hear His voice,
lest your heart become hardened by the deceit of sin,
every to-morrow making repentance and. faith more
difficult." The solemn character of the admonition is
excused by the remark, " for we are become Companions of
Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stead
fast unto the end." This is the sentiment of ver. 6
expanded, with a new designation for Christians (/neTo^oi
tov Xpiorov) to be considered forthwith, and with
marked emphasis on "beginning" and "end" (dpxv and
reXo?). The writer wishes to impress on his readers
that it is not enough to have begun, not enough to have
once known the confidence and joy of the Christian hope,

144 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
that all turns on persevering to the end. And he would
have them further understand that perseverance is not a
matter of course, that there is a real risk of an ill ending
where there has been a fair beginning. For this purpose
he again falls back on his quotation, to show that
a disastrous ending after a fair beginning is not an
imaginary evil (vers. 15—19).
In ver. 15 we have the formula by which the writer
makes reference to the previously given quotation. It
is loose and vague, and has given rise to much difference
of opinion. Literally rendered it is, " In its being said,
' To-day if ye will hear His voice, harden not your hearts,
as in the provocation ' " ; and the question is, What does
the phrase " in its being said " mean ? My own idea is,
that its sole object is to recall attention to the quotation
with a view to some further reflections on it intended
to substantiate the statement made in ver. 14. The
writer, as it were, says to his readers, " Look at that
Scripture again, my brethren, and after you have care
fully re-perused it let me ask you a series of questions on
it." He means them to read or recall to mind the
whole passage, though he quotes only the first verse ; for
the questions which follow go over the whole ground,
and bring to bear the whole teaching of the extract for
the purpose he has in view.
The first verse having been repeated with an etc.
understood, the questions, six in all in three pairs, follow,
the first pair, founded on the verse quoted, being put in
ver. 1 6. For it is now universally admitted that this verse
in both its members is to be rendered interrogatively, not
as in the Authorised English Version, which makes sad

CHRIST AND MOSES 145
havoc of the sense in rendering, " Some when they had
heard did provoke : howbeit not all that came out of
Egypt by Moses." In this version our translators were
but following the all but unanimous exegetical tradition
of previous ages,1 and till the time of Bengel it hardly
occurred to anyone that the rive's at the beginning of the
verse was the interrogative rives, not the indefinite pro
noun rive?. The fact that for ages men could be con
tent with so unmeaning an interpretation as the latter
yields is an extreme illustration of the sequacious habits
of commentators. It requires courage to forsake fashion
in exegesis no less than in other things.
" Who," asks the writer, " having heard, provoked ?
Was it not all they who came out of Egypt by Moses ? "
Thus rendered, the words manifestly bear very directly
on the purpose in hand, which is to impress on
the Hebrews that a warning against apostasy is not
superfluous or impertinent as addressed to persons who
have believed in Jesus. The questions asked remind
them that the men who provoked God in the desert
were all of them persons that had started on the journey
from the land of bondage to the land of promise. The
second of the two questions, which answers the first,
reminds the Hebrews of the notorious fact that the
persons who were guilty of the sin of provoking God
were so numerous, and the exceptions so few, that they
might be represented as coextensive with the whole
generation that came out of Egypt.
The following verse (17) contains a second couple of
questions based on the statement : " Wherefore I was
1 Weiss (Meyer) mentions a few exceptions, including Chrysostom.
10

146 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
grieved with this generation." " And with whom was
He grieved for forty years ? Was it not with them that
sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness ? " In
other words, the men who grieved God for forty years
were men who for their sins were not permitted to enter
Canaan, though they left Egypt in that hope and expec
tation, but were doomed to die in the desert, leaving their
flesh to feed the vultures and their bones to bleach on
the burning sands. A fact surely full of warning to
those who had set out with high hopes on the way to
the heavenly country to beware of coming short through
unbelief and ungodliness.
Ver. 18 contains a third pair of questions based on
the last sentence of the quotation : "So I sware in My
wrath, They shall not enter into My rest." "And to
whom sware He that they should not enter into His
rest ? Was it not to them that were disobedient ? "
The aim here is to point out the cause of failure in
the case of ancient Israel, namely, disobedience, having
its root in unbelief, to give weight to the warning
addressed to the Hebrew Christians. To make the
meaning if possible still more plain and emphatic, there
is appended to the series of questions the final reflec
tion : " So we see that they could not enter in because
of unbelief." Summing up the import of these questions : the first
pair shows that it is not enough to begin the life of faith,
that it is necessary to hold fast the beginning of our
confidence firm unto the end. The second shows that a
good beginning does not of itself ensure a good ending,
that many begin well who end ill. The third points out

CHRIST AND MOSES 147
the cause of such disastrous failures — unbelief in the
heart, manifesting itself in disobedience and apostasy in
the outward life. The drift of the whole is the same as
that of 1 Corinthians x., in which, after reminding the
Corinthians how many of the Israelites perished in the
wilderness for their sins, though they had been baptized
into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and had eaten
of the heavenly bread, and drank of the water that
flowed out of the smitten rock, the apostle goes on to
say, '' Now all these things happened unto them for
ensamples, and they are written for our admonition upon
whom the ends of the world are come. Wherefore let
him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he
fall." Reverting now to the designation of Christians as fieroxoi
rov Xpiarov, rendered in our Authorised Version " par
takers of Christ," let us consider its precise import.
" Partaker of " is undoubtedly the meaning of fiiroxos in
several places in the Epistle where it is used with
reference to things.1 But here, as in i. 9, it is used in
reference to a person, the Christ, and therefore here as
there it may well bear the sense of companions, fellows,
or partners. This is the uniform sense of the word in
the Septuagint, and the presumption is therefore in
favour of that sense here, It is indeed not difficult to
assign a true and valuable meaning to the rendering in
the Authorised Version, by viewing " Christ " as a com
pendium of salvation, just as " Moses " stands as a
synonym for the redemption he achieved for Israel in
1 It is so used in iii. 1, vi. 4, xii. 8. The corresponding verb is
used in the same way in ii. 14, v. 13, vii. 13.

148 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
the passage above cited from Paul's Epistle to the
Corinthians. But an equally valuable and much more
vivid and impressive idea is conveyed by the other
rendering. It is an idea which fits in to the connection
of thought. How natural that in a passage which runs
a parallel between Moses and Jesus Christians should be
thought of as the companions or comrades of the New
Testament Captain of Salvation, just as the sons of Israel
were the companions of Moses in the march through the
wilderness to the promised land ? 2 Then one can easily
imagine that the echo of the words, " the oil of gladness
above thy fellows " (i. 9), still lingers in the writer's ear,
and suggests the use of the phrase here in a cognate
sense. The conception " fellows of Christ " is in full
accord with the thought in ver. 6, that Christians are
God's house. At the head of that house is God's Son,
the Christ, and Christians are in the house as sons, not
as servants, therefore as brethren of Christ, in intimate,
familiar relations with Him, and sharing with Him all
the privileges of the common home.
Fellowship, comradeship is pointed at, then, and that
in the superlative degree. We have become and remain
(yeyovafiev) " fellows " of the Christ when the conditions
specified are fulfilled — fellows in the full, final sense.
All the Israelites in the wilderness were in a sense
comrades of Moses, but it was the faithful men, like
Caleb and Joshua, who were his comrades in the highest
sense. Our author's thought is, that those who hold fast
the beginning of their confidence steadfast unto the end
1 So Hofmann, who favours the rendering " fellows " (Genossen).
Vide Die Heilige Schrift, vol. v.

CHRIST AND MOSES 149
enter into a Caleb-like relation of intimate fellowship
with the Leader of Salvation.1
Who the fieroxoi of Messiah in i. 9 may be is un
certain. Perhaps they are the angels. Be that as it
may, angels are not the true " fellows " of Christ. They
are rather men, men who have passed bravely through
the tribulations of life and been faithful even unto death.
We have here a complementary truth to that stated in
ii. 16. Christ took not hold of angels, it is said there;
Christ's fellows are not angels but faithful men, it is in
effect said here. It is a thought worthy of one who
grasped the significance of the great principle : Sanctifier
and sanctified all one. It is but the other side of
that truth. The side_ first exhibited is Christ's unity
with those He undertakes to sanctify, and His willing
acceptance of all the conditions necessary to His complete
identification with them. The other side is the unity of
the sanctified with Christ, complete equality with Him
in privilege. In crediting the writer with the sentiment,
" faithful men the fellows of Christ," we merely assume
that he understands his own system of thought ; and I
may add that he is familiar with the teaching of Christ,
and with the conception of the relation between Christ
and His people that pervades the entire New Testament.
For the sentiment in question is no " fine modern idea,"
but one which we find again and again stated in bold,
inspiring terms. " Ye are they which have continued
1 Among those who adopt the rendering "fellows," socii, are,
besides Hofmann, Delitzsch, Weiss (Meyer), von Soden, Rendall.
Vaughan hesitates ; Westcott adopts the traditional rendering with
out even referring to the one now coming into favour.

150 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
with Me in My temptations. And I appoint unto you a
kingdom, as My Father hath appointed unto Me ; that ye
may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom." " Well
done, good and faithful servant : enter thou into the joy
of thy Lord." " If children, then heirs ; heirs of God,
and joint-heirs with Christ ; if so be that we suffer with
Him, that we may be also glorified together." " Blessed
is the man that endureth temptation : for when he is
tried, he shall receive the crown of life." " To him that
overcometh will I grant to sit with Me in My throne,
even as I also overcame, and am set down with My
Father in His throne." Christ, Paul, James, John, all
say the same thing. Is it strange to find a thought
common to them, and familiar to the minds of all heroic
men in the ages of fiery trial, getting recognition also in
this Epistle ?
On all these grounds I conclude that the true rendering
of this text is : " We are become companions, partners, or
fellows of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our con
fidence steadfast unto the end." Its aim is to proclaim
the fulness of joy awaiting those who play the hero's part,
not to assert the total forfeiture of salvation — of even a
minimum share in the blessing of Christ, by those who
sink below the heroic level. It presents the motives to
steadfastness under the most attractive and stimulating
form ; for what can be conceived more desirable than
comradeship with the Faithful One in the " land of the
leal " ?

CHAPTER VIII
THE GOSPEL OP REST
Chap, iv
The interest of an ordinary reader of our Epistle is apt
to flag at this point, in consequence of the obscurity
overhanging the train of thought and the aim of the
whole passage relating to a " rest that remaineth." It
helps to rescue the section from listless perusal to fix
our attention on this one thought, that the Christian
salvation is here presented under a third aspect as a rest,
a sabbatism, a participation in the rest of God ; the new
view, like the two preceding, in which the great salva
tion was identified with lordship in the world to come
and with deliverance from the power of the devil and
the fear of death, being taken from the beginning of
human history as narrated in the early chapters of
Genesis. One aim of the writer of the Epistle in this part of
his work was doubtless to enunciate this thought, and so
to identify the gospel of Christ with the Old Testament
gospel of rest. But his aim is not purely didactic, but
partly also, and even chiefly, parenetic. Doctrine rises
out of and serves the purpose of exhortation. The

152 the epistle to the Hebrews
obscurity of the passage springs from the interblending
of the two aims — the theoretical and the practical; which
makes it difficult to decide whether the object of the
writer is to prove that a rest really remains over for
Christians, or to exhort them to be careful not to lose a
rest, whose availability for them is regarded as beyond
dispute. In the latter case one is apt to think it might
have been better to have omitted vers. 2-10 and to have
passed at once to ver. 12, where comes in the solemn
statement concerning the word of God. As in the
previous chapter he had asserted without proof, " whose
house are we," why could our author not here also have
contented himself with asserting, " which rest is ours, if
we lose it not by unbelief, as did Israel of old," and
adding, " let us therefore, one and all of us, be on our
guard against such a calamity " ? Would his exhortation
not have gained in strength by being put in this brief,
authoritative form, instead of being made to rest on an
intricate process of reasoning ?
As proof offered naturally implies doubt of the thing
proved, it is a ready inference that the Hebrew Christians
required to be assured that they had not come too late
for participation in the rest promised to their fathers.
Evidence of this has been found in the word Bo/cy (ver. 1),
rendered not " seem," as in the Authorised Version, but
" think " : " lest any of you imagine he hath failed of it
by coming too late in the day." x The exhortation to
1 So a number of the older commentators, and, among more recent
writers, Kendall, who says the rendering " seem " conveys no mean
ing to his mind ; also Weiss (Meyer), who refers to Luke xii. 51,
xiii. 2, 4, 1 Cor. iii. 18, viii. 2, as parallel instances. Vaughan takes

the gospel of rest 153
fear, however, does not suit such a state of mind. It is
more likely that the writer was led to argue the point,
that the promised rest was still left over, simply because
there were Old Testament materials available for the
purpose. He chose to present the truth as mediated
through Old Testament texts fitted to stimulate both
hope and fear : hope of gaining the rest, fear of
losing it.
In so far as the section, vers. 1-10, has a didactic
drift, its object is to confirm the hope ; in so far as it is
hortatory, its leading purpose is to enforce the warning,
" let us fear."
The hortatory interest predominates at the commence
ment, vers. 1,2, which may be thus paraphrased : " Now
with reference to this rest I have been speaking of
(iii. 18, 19), let us fear lest we miss it. For it is in our
power to gain it, seeing the promise still remains over
unfulfilled or but partially fulfilled. Let us fear, I say ;
for if we have a share in the promise, we have also
in the threat of forfeiture : it too stands over. We
certainly have a share in the promise ; we have been
evangelised, not merely in general, but with the specific
gospel of rest. But those who first heard this gospel of
rest failed through unbelief. So may we : therefore let
us fear." When we thus view the connection of thought
in these two verses, we have no difficulty in under
standing the omission of the pronoun (f/fieis) in the first
SoKrj in a forensic sense, in which it would be the way of pronouncing
a verdict. " Did 6 Setva commit such or such a crime ? Sok? I (he
seems to have done it ; I am of opinion that he did it)." Von Soden
also takes the word in this forensic sense = " be convicted." This is
probably the true sense of the word here.

154 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
clause of ver. 2, which might surprise one. As in the
previous chapter (ver. 6) the writer had said, "whose
house are we," so we expect him here to say " we not less
than they have received the good tidings of rest." But
his point at this stage is not " we have been evangelised "
— that is, " the ancient gospel of rest concerns us as well
as our forefathers," — but "we have been evangelised, and
therefore are concerned in the threatening as well as in
the promise."
To be noted is the freedom with which, as in the case
of the word " apostle " (iii. 1), the writer uses the term
evriyyekia-fievoi, which might have been supposed to have
borne in his time a stereotyped meaning. Any promise
of God, any announcement of good tidings, is for him a
gospel. Doubtless all God's promises are associated in
his mind with the great final salvation, nevertheless they
are formally distinct from the historical Christian gospel.
The gospel he has in view is not that which " began to
be spoken by the Lord," but that spoken by the Psalmist
when he said, " To-day if ye will hear His voice, harden
not your hearts." Only when this is lost sight of can it
create surprise that the statement in the text runs, " We
have had a gospel preached unto us as well as they,"
instead of, " They had a gospel preached unto them as
well as we."
Not less noteworthy is the way in which the abortive
result of the preaching of the gospel of rest to the
fathers is accounted for. " The word preached did not
profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that
heard it." The remarkable point is the idea of mixing,
instead of which one might have expected the introduc-

THE GOSPEL OF REST 155
tion of some simple commonplace word such as " re
ceived " : " The word did not profit, not being received
in faith." Had this form of language been employed,
we should probably have been spared the trouble of
deciding between various readings. The penalty of
originality in speaker or writer is misconception by
reporters, copyists, and printers. Uncertain how the
idea of mixing was to be taken, the copyists would try
their hand at conjectural emendation, changing avyiceice-
pacrp,evo<; into avyK.eKepaap,evov<i, or vice versd. In this
way corruption may have crept in very early, and it is
quite possible that none of the extant readings is the
true one.1 Of the two most important variants given
above, the second, according to which the participle has
the accusative plural ending, and is in agreement with
eicelvovs, is the best attested,2 but it does not give the
most probable sense : " The word did not profit them,
because they were not mixed by faith with the (true)
hearers." On this reading the word " mixed " receives
the intelligible sense of " associated with," but it is open
to the serious objection that the writer has assumed in
the previous chapter that there were no true hearers, or
1 Bleek conjectures that instead of aKova-ao-i may have stood origin
ally aKovo-p-acn. Among the various readings are several varieties of
spelling and form in the participle o-vyKeKepacrpevos, of no import
ance to the sense, but showing an unusual amount of uncertainty as
to the original text. In their critical notes on Select Readings,
Westcott and Hort say : " After much hesitation we have marked
this very difficult passage as probably containing a primitive corrup
tion." In his Commentary on the Epistle Westcott gives a prefer
ence to <rvvK.eK.epaiTp.ivos.
2 The other variant has only the Sinai-tic, of the great MSS., on
its side.

156 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
so few that they might be left out of account (iii. 16).1
Assuming that the other reading is to be preferred,
according to which the participle is in agreement with
X070?, it is difficult to decide how the mixing is to be
conceived of. Is the word mixed with faith in the
hearer, or by faith with the hearer ? and what natural
analogy is suggested in either case ? Obviously, this
reading points to a more intimate and vital union than
that of association suggested by the other ; such a union
as takes place when food is assimilated by digestion and
made part of the bodily organisation. But how the
matter presented itself to the writer's mind we can only
conjecture. The one thing certain is, that he deemed
faith indispensable to profitable hearing : a truth, happily,
taught with equal clearness in the text, whatever reading
we adopt.
At ver. 3 the didactic interest comes to the front.
The new thought grafted into ver. 1 by the parenthetical
clause, " a promise being still left," now becomes the
leading affirmation. The assertion of ver. 2, " we have
been evangelised," is repeated, with the emphasis this
time on the " we " ; for though the pronoun is not used,
ol iriarevaavres stands in its stead. " We do enter into
rest, we believers in Christ." More is meant than that
the rest belongs only to such as believe. It is a state
ment of historical fact, similar to " whose house are we "
— Christians. Only there is this difference between the
1 Vaughan thinks that this rendering brings Caleb and Joshua
into such prominence as to make it impossible the writer could have
left them out of account in iii. 16. That is, it forces us to take rives
as meaning " some," not " who 1 "

THE GOSPEL OF REST 157
two affirmations : that whereas in the earlier it is claimed
for Christians that they are God's house principally, if
not exclusively, here the more modest claim is advanced
in their behalf that they share in, are not excluded from,
the rest. The writer, indeed, believes that the promise
in its high ideal sense concerns Christians chiefiy, if not
alone ; that thought is the tacit assumption underlying
his argument. But the position formally maintained is
not, We Christians have a monopoly of the rest, but, We
have a share in it, it belongs to us also. A rest is left
over for the New Testament people of God.
The sequel, as far as ver. 10, contains the proof of this
thesis. The salient points are these two : First, God
spoke of a rest to Israel by Moses, though He Himself
rested from His works when the creation of the world
was finished ; therefore the creation-rest does not exhaust
the idea and promise of rest. Second, the rest of Israel
in Canaan under Joshua did not realise the Divine idea
of rest, any more than did the personal rest of God at
the creation, for we find the rest spoken of again in the
Psalter as still remaining to be entered upon, which
implies that the Canaan-rest was an inadequate fulfil
ment : " For if Joshua had given them rest " — i.e. given
rest adequately, perfectly — " then would He (God or the
Holy Spirit) not afterward have spoken of another day."
The former of these two points contains the substance of
what is said in vers. 3-5, the latter gives the gist of
vers. 7, 8 ; whereupon follows the inference in ver. 9 :
a rest is left over. A third step in the argument by
which the inference is justified is passed over in silence.
It is, that neither in the Psalmist's day nor at any subse-

158 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
quent period in Israel's history had the promise of rest
been adequately fulfilled, any more than at the creation
or in the days of Joshua. Had the writer chosen he
might have shown this in detail, pointing out that even
Solomon's reign did not bring complete rest ; the Solo
monic rest containing within its bosom the seeds of
future disturbance, division, and warfare, and proving to
be but a halcyon period, followed by wintry storms,
bringing desolation and ruin on a once happy land. As
for the rest after the return from Babylon, the only
other point in Jewish history at which the promise could
find a place whereon to set its foot, he would have no
difficulty in showing what a poor, imperfect, disappointing
fulfilment it brought. Who that reads the sad, chequered
tale of Ezra and Nehemiah would say that it realises all
the meaning of the twice-spoken oracle of Jeremiah :
" Therefore fear thou not, 0 My servant Jacob ; neither
be dismayed, 0 Israel : for, lo, I will save thee from afar,
and thy seed from the land of their captivity ; and Jacob
shall return, and shall be in rest, and none shall make
him afraid."1
Our author takes the oracle in the Psalter as the
final word of the Old Testament on the subject of rest,
and therefore as a word which concerns the New Testa
ment people of God. God spake of rest through
" David," implying that up till that time the long
promised rest had not come, at least in satisfying
measure. Therefore a rest remains for Christians. Is
the inference cogent ? Because a certain promised good
1 Jer. xxx. 10, xlvi. 27. The idea of rest is in these texts, but it
is not rendered by Karawaica in the Septuagint.

THE GOSPEL OF REST 159
had not come up to a certain date, must it come now ?
Let us review the situation. The ancient Scriptures
speak of a Divine rest which God enjoyed at the
beginning of the world's history, and in which man
seemed destined to share. But man's portion in this
rest has never yet come in any satisfying degree. It
came not at the creation, for after that came all too
soon the Fall ; it came not at the entrance into Canaan,
for the people of Israel had to take possession sword in
hand, and long after their settlement they continued
exposed to annoyance from the Canaanitish tribes ; it
came not from Joshua till David, for even in his late
time the Holy Spirit still spoke of another day. Ex
tending our view, we observe that it came not under
Solomon, for after him came Rehoboam and the revolt
of the ten tribes ; it came not with the return of the
tribes from Babylon, for envious neighbours kept them
in a continual state of anxiety and fear, and they rebuilt
their temple and the city walls in troublous times. Is
not the natural inference from all this that the rest
will never come, all actual rests being but imperfect
approximations to the ideal ? So reasons unbelief,
which treats the summum bonum in every form as a
mere ideal, a beautiful dream, a pleasure of hope, like
that of the maniac, to whom
"Mercy gave, to charm the sense of woe,
Ideal bliss that truth could never know."
Far otherwise thought the writer of our Epistle. He
believed that all Divine promises, that the promise of
rest in particular, shall be fulfilled with ideal complete
ness. " Some must enter in " ; and as none have yet

160 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
entered in perfectly, this bliss must be reserved for those
on whom the ends of the world are come, even those who
believe in Jesus. " There remaineth therefore a rest for
the people of God."
A sabbatism our author calls the rest, so at the con
clusion of his argument introducing a new name for it,1
after using another all through. It is one of the significant
thought-suggesting words which abound in the Epistle.
It is not, we may be sure, employed merely for literary
reasons, as if to vary the phraseology and avoid too
frequent repetition of the word Kardiravcn<;. Neither is
it enough to say that the term was suggested by the
fact that God rested on the seventh day. It embodies
an idea. It felicitously connects the end of the world
with the beginning, the consummation of all things with
the primal state of the creation. It denotes the ideal
rest, and so teaches by implication that Christians not
only have an interest in the gospel of rest, but for the
first time enter into a rest which is worthy of the name,
a rest corresponding to and fully reahsing the Divine
idea. This final name for the rest thus supplements
the defect of the preceding argument, which understates
the case for Christians. It further hints, though only
hints, the nature of the ideal rest. It teaches that it is
not merely a rest which God gives, but the rest which
God Himself enjoys.2 God rested on the seventh day,
and by the choice of this name the writer happily hints
1 It is not a coinage of our author's. It occurs in Plutarch. The
verb o-qS/Sim'fo) occurs in the Septuagint.
2 The writer takes the pronoun "my" in the expression "my
rest " in the latter sense.

THE GOSPEL OF REST 161
that it is God's own rest into which Christians enter.
It is God's own rest for God's own true people, an ideal
rest for an ideal community, embracing all believers, all
believing Israelites of all ages, and many more ; for
God's rest began long before there was an Israel, and
the gospel in the early chapters of Genesis is a gospel
for man, as the writer of our Epistle well knows, though
he does not plainly say it. Into this sabbatic rest
cessation from work enters as an essential element ; for
it is written that God " rested on the seventh day from
all His work which He had made." That this is the
thought which our author chiefly associates with the
term cra/3^aria-p,6<; appears from ver. 10, which may be
thus paraphrased : " One who enters into rest ceases,
like God, from work, and therefore may be said to enjoy
a sabbatism." But this yields only a negative idea of
the rest, and the summum bonum can hardly be a pure
negation. The rabbinical conception of the Sabbath
was purely negative. The Rabbis made a fetich of
abstinence from whatever bore the semblance of work,
however insignificant in amount, and whatever its nature
and intention. Christ discarded this rabbinised Sabbath,
and put in its place a humanised Sabbath, making man's
good the law of observance, declaring that it was always
lawful to do well, and justifying beneficent activity by
representing Divine activity as incessant, and Divine
rest therefore as only relative, a change in the manifested
form of an eternal energy. We do not know how far
our author was acquainted with the sabbatic controversies
of the Gospels, but we cannot doubt on which side his sym
pathies would be. It has been suggested that he coined

1G2 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
a name for the rest that remains, containing an allusion
to the seventh day rest, that he might wean the Hebrews
from its external observance by pointing out its spiritual
end.1 This view rests on no positive evidence, but it is
far more credible than that the bliss of the future world
meant for him the eternal prolongation of a rabbinical
Sabbath, as it meant for the Talmudist who wrote :
" The Israelites said, Lord of all the world, show us a
type of the world to come. God answered them, That
type is the Sabbath." He took his ideas of the perfect
rest, not from the degenerate traditions of the rabbis, but
from the book of Origins. That being the fountain of-
his inspiration, it is probable that he conceived of the
ideal rest, not as cessation from work absolutely, but
only from the weariness and pain which often accompany
it. There was work for man in paradise. God placed
him in the garden of Eden to work it 2 and to keep it ;
and the whole description of the curse implies that it is
the sorrow of labour, and not labour itself, that is the
unblessed element. The epya which pass away when
the ideal rest comes are the kottoi — -the irksome toil and
worry — of which John speaks in the Book of Revelation :
" They shall rest from their labours," and " pain shall be
no more."3
We have seen that our author borrows three distinct
conceptions of the great salvation from the primitive
history of man. It is reasonable to suppose that they
1 So Calvin. 2epyd£e<r8ai in Septuagint.
3 Eev. xiv. 13, xxi. 4. Very significant for the sense of kottos are
the texts Luke xi. 7, xviii. 5 ; Gal. vi. 17. Worry, annoyance,
enter into its meaning in all three places.

THE GO.SPF.L OF REST 163
were all connected together in his mind, and formed one
picture of the highest good. They suggest the idea of
paradise restored : the Divine ideal of man ' and the
world and their mutual relations realised in perpetuity ;
man made veritably lord of creation, delivered from the
fear of death, nay, death itself for ever left behind, and
no longer subject to servile tasks, but occupied only with
work worthy of a king and a son of God, and compatible
with perfect repose and undisturbed enjoyment. It is
an apocalyptic vision: fruition lies in the beyond. The
dominion and deathlessness and sabbatism are reserved for
the world to come, objects of hope for those who believe.
The perfect rest will come, and a people of God will
enter into it, — of these things our author is well assured ;
but he fears lest the Hebrew Christians should forfeit
their share in the felicity of that people : therefore he
ends his discourse on the gospel of rest as he began,
with solemn admonition. "Let us fear lest we enter
not in," he said at the beginning ; " Let us give diligence
to enter in," he says now at the close. Then to enforce
the exhortation he appends two words of a practical
character — one fitted to inspire awe, the other to cheer
Christians of desponding temper.
The former of these passages (vers. 12, 13) describes
the attributes of the Divine word, the general import of
the statement being that the word of God, like God
Himself, is not to be trifled with ; the word referred to
being, in the first place, the word of threatening which
doomed unbelieving, disobedient Israelites to perish in
the wilderness, and, by implication, every word of God.
The account given of the Divine word is impressive,

164 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
almost appalling. It is endowed in succession with the
qualities of the lightning, which moves with incredible
swiftness like a living spirit, and hath force enough to
shiver to atoms the forest trees ; of a two-edged sword,
whose keen, glancing blade cuts clean through every
thing — flesh, bone, sinew; of the sun in the firmament,
from whose great piercing eye, as he circles round the
globe, nothing on earth is hid. " Living is the word of
God, and energetic, and more cutting than every two-
edged sword, penetrating even to the dividing of soul
and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning and
judging the affections and thoughts of the heart. And
there is not a creature invisible before it, but all things
are bare and exposed to the eyes of Him with whom we
have to reckon."
The description falls into four parts. First, " living
and forceful is the word." I have suggested a com
parison to the lightning as interpretative of the epithet
"living." But possibly the allusion is to a seed, in
which life and force lie dormant together, capable of
development under fitting conditions. The blade of
grain is the witness both of the life and of the power
latent in the seed from which it springs. Or perhaps
the thought intended is that the word of threatening,
though spoken long ago, is not dead, but living still,
instinct with the eternal life and energy of God who
spake it, a word for to-day, as well as for bygone ages.
There is no difficulty in determining to what the Divine
word is likened in the next member of the sentence,, for it
is expressly compared to a sword. The only difficulty
lies in the construction and interpretation of the words

THE GOSPEL OF REST 165
descriptive of its achievements in this capacity. Does the
word divide soul from spirit, or both soul and spirit, not
only soul, but even spirit ? And what are we to make of
the mention of joints and marrow, after soul and spirit ?
Have we here a minghng of metaphor and literal truth, and
an accumulation of phrase in order to heighten the im
pression ? or is it meant that " joints and marrow " are the
subject of a distinct action of the word ? Believing that
we have to do here with rhetoric and poetry rather than
with dogmatic theology, I prefer a free, broad interpre
tation of the words to that which finds in them a con
tribution to biblical psychology and a support for the
doctrine of the trichotomy of human nature, which, with
all respect for its patrons, savours, in my opinion, of
pedantry. The simple meaning of the passage is this :
The word of God divides the soul, yea, the very spirit of
man, even to its joints and marrow. It is a strong,
poetical way of saying that the word penetrates into the
inmost recesses of our spiritual being, to the thoughts,
emotions, and hidden motives, whence outward actions
flow, as easily and as surely as a sword of steel cuts
through the joints and marrows of the physical frame.
Thus understood, the second part of the description
leads naturally up to the third, which speaks of the
critical function of the word, in virtue of which it is
" the candle of the Lord searching all the inward parts."
In the concluding part of the eloquent panegyric on
the word, it is spoken of in a way which suggests the
idea, not of a candle, but of the sun, which beholdeth all
things ; and in the final clause, it is said of God Him
self that all things are naked and exposed to His eyes.

166 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
The word which I have rendered exposed is one of
uncertain meaning, and untranslatable except by
periphrasis. When a Greek writer used it he had a
picture in his mind which charged it with a significance
and force no English word can reproduce ; but what
the picture was it is not easy to determine. The most
probable opinion is that rpaxn\i^(o, not found in classical
Greek authors, was a coinage of the wrestling school, to
express the act of a wrestler who overmastered his
antagonist by seizing him by the neck. Hence the
participle rerpaxyXicrfj,evo<; might come to mean one
overpowered, as by calamity, or by passion. The verb
and its compound eKrpaxvXi^a occur frequently in Philo,
in this tropical sense. In the Epistle to the Hebrews
the meaning must be more specific, involving a reference
to the effect of the grip of the wrestler on the head
of his antagonist, which might be either to force it
downwards, or to throw it backwards, according as he
seized him behind or before. In the one case we
should render " downcast," 1 in the other " exposed " ;
the one epithet suggesting the desire of the guilty
one to hide his face from the searching eye of God, the
other implying that no one, however desirous, can so
hide himself from the Divine gaze.2
1 So Rendall, whose note on the passage is well worth consulting ;
as is also that of Vaughan, who remarks that there are two chief lines
of explanation, one being to take it as a wrestler's word, the other as
a sacrificial word = to bare the neck for the knife. Weiss adopts the
latter view. Westcott quotes tho Fathers to show that the word
puzzled them.
2 The reference to Philo reminds me that another word in this
eulogy on the word of God recalls him to the thoughts of one

THE GOSPEL OF REST 167
In the closing sentences of the chapter the writer
winds up the long exhortation to steadfastness by an
inspiring allusion to the sympathy of the great High
Priest, who has passed out of this time-world, through
the veil of the visible heavens, into the celestial world ;
taking care that his last word shall be of a cheering
character, and also so managing that the conclusion of
this hortatory section shall form a suitable introduction
to the next part of his discourse. On this account vers.
familiar with his writings. I refer to the epithet roparepos, which
sounds like an echo of Philo's doctrine concerning the cutting or
dividing function of the Logos in the universe, set forth at length
in the book Quis div. rer. heres. Indeed, one bent on establishing a
close connection between our author and Philo might find a copious
supply of plausible material in this part of the Epistle. Besides
these two words, there are the epithet " great high priest," and the
attribute of sinlessness, applied here to Christ, and to the Logos by
Philo, and in the next chapter the unusual word perpwwadeiv,
also occurring in Philo. Then does not the expression 6 \6yos rov
Oeoii seem like an allusion to the mystic personified Logos of whom
one reads everywhere in Philo ? and is not this fervent eulogy on
the word almost like an extract from the praises of the Logos un-
weariedly sung by the philosophic Jew of Alexandria ? The resem
blance in style is certainly striking, yet I concur in the judgment
of Principal Drummond, that " there is nothing to prove conscious
borrowing, and it is probable that the resemblances are due to the
general condition of religious culture among the Jews'' (Philo
Judceus, vol. i. Introduction, p. 12). In any case, whatever is to
be said of the style, it is certain that our Epistle is independent of
Philo in thought and spirit. The word of God here is not Philo's
Logos, nor is his cutting function the same. Philo calls the Logos
the " cutter " (6 rope-is), as cutting chaos into distinct things, and so
creating a kosmos. The cutting function of the word in our Epistle
is wholly ethical. The originality of the Epistle in thought is all
the more remarkable if the writer was acquainted with Philo's
writings, so that there is no cause for jealous denial of such acquaint
ance. It is a mere question of fact.

168 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
14-16 might have been reserved for consideration in the
next chapter, but I prefer to notice them here, in accord
ance with the traditional division of the Epistle. How
truly they form a part of the exhortation which began
at chapter iii. 1 appears from the repetition of phrases.
" Consider the High Priest of our confession," the writer
had said there ; " having a High Priest, let us hold fast
our confession," he says here. But it is to be noted that
he does not simply repeat himself. The movement of
his thought is like that of the flowing tide, which falls
back upon itself, yet in each successive wave advances to
a point beyond that reached by any previous one. Here
for the third time Christ is designated a High Priest,
and attributes are ascribed to Him as such which are
to form the theme of the next great division of the
Epistle, wherein the priestly office of Christ is elaborately
discussed. The writer re-invites the attention of his
readers to the High Priest of their confession, and in
doing so uses words every one of which contains an
assertion which he means to prove or illustrate, and
which being proved will serve the great end of the
whole Epistle, the instruction and confirmation of the
ignorant and tempted.
The first important word is the epithet " great " pre
fixed to the title High Priest. It is introduced to make
the priestly office of Christ assume due importance in
the minds of the Hebrews. It serves the same purpose
as if the title High Priest had been written in large
capitals, and asserts by implication not merely the
reality of Christ's priestly office, but the superiority of
Christ as the High Priest of humanity over all the high

THE GOSPEL OF REST 169
priests of Israel, Aaron not excepted. As an author,
writing a treatise on an important theme writes the
title of the theme in letters fitted to attract notice,
so the writer of our Epistle places at the head of
the ensuing portion this title, Jesus the Son of
God the Great High Priest, insinuating thereby
that He of whom he speaks is the greatest of all
priests, the only real Priest, the very Ideal of priesthood
realised. The expression " passed through the heavens " is also
very suggestive. It hints at the right construction to
be put upon Christ's departure from the earth. There
is an obvious allusion to the entering of the high priest
of Israel within the veil on the great day of atonement ;
and the idea suggested is, that the ascension of Christ
was the passing of the great High Priest through the
veil into the celestial sanctuary, as our representative
and in our interest.
The name given to the great High Priest, " Jesus the
Son of God," contributes to the argument. Jesus is the
historical person, the tempted Man; and this part of
the name lays the foundation for what is to be said
in the following sentence concerning His power to
sympathise. The title " Son of God," on the other
hand, justifies what has been already said of the
High Priest of our confession. If our High Priest
be the Son of God, He may well be called the Great,
and moreover there can be no doubt whither He has
gone. Whither but to His native abode, His Father's
house ?
Having thus by brief, pregnant phrase hinted the

170 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
thoughts he means to prove, our author proceeds to address
to his readers an exhortation, which is repeated at the
close of the long discussion on the priesthood of Christ
to which these sentences are the prelude.1 In doing so
he gives prominence to that feature of Christ's priestly
character of which alone he has as yet spoken explicitly :
His power to sympathise, acquired and guaranteed by
His experience of temptation.2 He presents Christ to
view as the Sympathetic One in golden words which may
be regarded as an inscription on the breastplate of the
High Priest of humanity : " We have not a High Priest
who cannot be touched with the feeling of our in
firmities; but one that hath been tempted in all points
like ourselves, without sin."
It is noteworthy that the doctrine of Christ's
sympathy is here stated in a defensive, apologetic
manner, " We have not a High Priest who cannot be
touched," as if there were someone maintaining the
contrary. This defensive attitude may be conceived
of as assumed over against two possible objections to the
reality of Christ's sympathy — one drawn from His dignity
as the Son of God, the other from His sinlessness. Both
objections are dealt with in the only way open to one
who addresses weak faith, namely, not by elaborate or
philosophical argument, but by strong assertion. As the
Psalmist said to the desponding, " Wait, I say, on the
Lord," and as Jesus said to disciples doubting the
utility of prayer, " I say unto you, Ask, and ye shall
receive," so our author says to dispirited Christians,
" We have not a High Priest who cannot be touched
1 Chap. x. 19-23. 2 Chap. ii. 17, 18.

THE GOSPEL OF REST 171
with sympathy " — this part of his assertion disposing of
doubt engendered by Christ's dignity — " but one who has
been tempted in all respects as we are, apart from sin "
— this part of the assertion meeting doubt based on
Christ's sinlessness. How this can be is a question
theologians may discuss, but which our author passes
over in silence.1
To this strong assertion of Christ's power to sym
pathise is fitly appended the final exhortation : " Let us
therefore draw near with boldness unto the throne of
grace, that we may receive mercy and grace for season
able succour." Specially noteworthy are the words,
Let us approach confidently (m-pocrepxaip-eda fiera rrap-
prja-iasi). They have more than practical import — they
are of theoretic significance ; they strike the doctrinal-
keynote of the Epistle : Christianity the religion of free
access. In the opening chapter I said that this great
thought first finds distinct, clear utterance in chapter
vi. 20, where Christ is called our forerunner. But it is
hinted, though not so plainly, here, it being implied that
the priesthood of Christ, in virtue of His sympathy, and
of other properties remaining to be mentioned, for the
first time makes free, fearless, close approach to God
possible. There is a latent contrast between Christianity
and Leviticalism, as in a corresponding passage in Paul's
Epistles there is an expressed contrast between Chris
tianity and Mosaism. " Having therefore," writes the
apostle, " such a hope, we use great boldness (of speech,
1 The sinlessness of Christ here, asserted means, in the first
place, that He never yielded to temptation, but that implies as its
source absolute sinlessness.

172 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
¦jrapprjai'd), and are not as Moses, who put a veil upon
his face " ; 1 the contrast being between the free, frank,
unreserved speech of the minister of a religion of life,
righteousness, and good hope, and the mystery observed
by the minister of a religion of condemnation, death, and
despair. The one cannot be too plain-spoken, because
he has good news to tell ; the other has to practise
reserve, to keep up respect for a rude, imperfect cultus
which cannot afford to have the whole truth told.
Paul's contrast relates to a diversity in the attitude
assumed by the ministers of the two rehgions towards
men. That latent in the text before us, on the other
hand, relates to diversity of attitude towards God : the
Christian has courage to draw near to God, while the
votary of the old religion lacks courage. But the reason
of the contrast is the same in both cases, namely, because
Christianity is the religion of good hope. " Having such
hope (as is inspired by the nature of Christianity), we
are outspoken," says Paul ; " having the better hope based
on the priesthood of Christ, we draw nigh to God con
fidently," says the author of our Epistle.
The contrast is none the less real that the expression
" to draw near " was applied to acts of worship under
the Levitical system. Every act of worship in any
religion whatever may be called an approach to Deity.
Nevertheless, religions may be wide apart as the poles in
respect to the measure in which they draw near to God.
In one religion the approach may be ceremonial only,
while the spirit stands afar off in fear. In another
the approach may be spiritual, with mind and heart,
1 2 Cor. iii. 12, 13.

THE GOSPEL OF REST 116
in intelligence, trust, and love, and with the confidence
which these inspire. Such an approach alone is real,
and deserves to be called a drawing near to God. Such
an approach was first made possible by Christ, and on
this account it is that the religion which bears His name
is the perfect, final, perennial religion.

CHAPTER IX
christ not a self-elected, but a god-appointed priest
Chap. v. 1-10
At length the priesthood of Christ, already three times
alluded to, is taken up in earnest, and made the subject
of an elaborate discussion extending from this point to
chapter x. 18.
The writer begins at the beginning, setting forth first
of all that Christ was a legitimate priest, not a usurper :
one solemnly called to the office by God, not self-elected.
For this is the leading thought in this introductory
statement. It seems indeed to be only one of two.
Primd facie the writer's aim seems to be to specify, as
of equal and co-ordinate importance, two fundamental
qualifications for the office of a high priest, and then to
show that these were both possessed in a signal manner
by Jesus. Every properly qualified high priest, he
seems to say, must both sympathise with men, and have
a call from God ; accordingly, Jesus had such a call, and
He was also eminently sympathetic. And he evidently
does regard sympathy as, not less than a Divine call,
indispensable, the terms in which he speaks of it being
remarkable for vividness and emphasis. But he does
174

CHRIST A GOD-APPOINTED PRIEST 175
not put the two on the same footing. The chief thing
in his mind is the call ; the sympathy is referred to, in
connection with its source personal infirmity, as explain
ing the need for a call, so as to suggest the question,
Who, conscious of the infirmity which is the secret of
sacerdotal mildness, would dream of undertaking such an
office without a Divine call ? Hence, in the application
of the general principles stated regarding the high-
priestly office (vers. 1—4) to the case of Christ (5-10), no
reference is made to His sympathy, but only to His call,
and to experiences in His earthly life which showed how
far He was from arrogating to Himself the priestly office.
These experiences were indeed a discipline in sympathy,
but that aspect is not spoken of.
If sympathy is not co-ordinate with the call in the
writer's mind, still less is it his main theme. This it
would have been had the Hebrew Christians been
familiar with the doctrine of Christ's priesthood and stood
in no need of its being proved or elaborately expounded,
but only of its being used for their encouragement under
trial. To those who take this view of the situation,
chapter v. 1—10 appears a mere pendant to the state
ment in chapter iv. 14—16, to this effect: "Compassion
may be counted on in every high priest, for he is
conscious of his own infirmity, and moreover he is called
to office by God, who takes care to call only such as
are humane in spirit. On both grounds you may rest
assured of the sympathy of Jesus." The real drift of
the passage is rather this : " Sympathy is congruous to
the high-priestly office in general. It arises out of the
sense of personal infirmity, whence also it comes that no

176 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
right-minded man would undertake the office voluntarily,
or without being called of God. Jesus assuredly under
took the office only as called of God. He was called to
the priesthood before His incarnation. He came to the
world under a Divine call. And during the days of
His earthly life His behaviour was such as utterly to
exclude the idea of His being a usurper of sacerdotal
honours. All through His incarnate experiences, and
especially in those of the closing scene, He was simply
submitting to God's will that He should be a priest.
And when He returned to heaven He was saluted High
Priest in recognition of His loyalty. Thus from first to
last He was emphatically One called of God." Thus
viewed, the passage before us is obviously the proper
logical commencement of a discourse on the priesthood
of Christ, intended to instruct readers who had next to no
idea of the doctrine, and needed to be taught the very rudi
ments thereof. Was this their position, or was it not ?
It is a question on which it is very necessary to make up
our minds, as the view we take of it must seriously
influence our interpretation of the lengthy section of
the Epistle of which the passage now under consideration
forms the introduction.1
What is said of the sympathy that becomes a high
priest, though subordinate to the statement concerning
1 Of all recent expositors, Mr. Kendall seems to have this question
most distinctly before his mind, and to realise its importance for the
interpretation of the Epistle. He decidedly advocates the view I
have indicated above, holding that the Hebrew Christians " did not
connect the idea of priesthood with Christ, though they knew Him
as their Prophet and their King." — The Expositor for January
1889, p. 32,

CHRIST A GOD-APPOINTED PRIEST 177
his call, is important and interesting. First, a descrip
tion is given of the office which in every clause suggests
the reflection, How congruous sympathy to the sacerdotal
character ! The high priest is described as taken from
among men, and the suggestion is that, being a man of
like nature with those for whom he transacts, he may be
expected to have fellow-feeling with them. Then he
is further described as ordained for men in things
pertaining to God, the implied thought being that he
cannot acquit himself satisfactorily in that capacity
unless he sympathise with those whom he represents
before God. Lastly, it is declared to be his special
duty to offer sacrifices of various sorts for sin, the latent
idea being that it is impossible for anyone to perform
that duty with any earnestness or efficiency who has
not genuine compassion for the sinful.
What is implied in ver. 1 is plainly stated in ver. 2,
though in participial form, in accordance with the
subordinate position assigned to the requirement of
sympathy in relation to the Divine call. " Being able to
have compassion on the ignorant and erring."
Very remarkable is the word employed to describe
priestly compassion, ^erpioiradelv. It does not, like
avpuraOfja-ai in iv. 15, signify to feel with another, but
rather to abstain from feeling against him ; to be able to
restrain antipathy. It was used by Philo to describe
Abraham's sober grief on the loss of Sarah and Jacob's
patience under affliction. Here it seems to be employed
to denote a state of feeling towards the ignorant and
erring balanced between severity and undue leniency.
It is carefully selected to represent the spirit" which

178 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
becomes a high priest as a mean between two extremes.
On the one hand, he should be able to control
the passions provoked by error and ignorance : anger,
impatience, disgust, contempt. On the other hand, he
must not be so amiable as not even to be tempted
to give way to these passions. Ignorance and mis
conduct he must not regard with unruffled equanimity.
It is plainly implied that it is possible to be too
sympathetic, and so to become the slave or tool of men's
ignorance or prejudices, and even partaker of their
sins ; a possibility illustrated by the histories of Aaron
and of Eli, two high priests of Israel. The model high
priest is not like either. He hates ignorance and sin,
but he pities the ignorant and sinful. He is free alike
from the inhuman severity of the pharisee, who thinks
he has done his duty towards all misconduct when
he has expressed himself in terms of unmeasured
condemnation regarding it, and from the selfish apathy
of the world, which simply does not trouble itself about
the failings of the weak. He feels resentment, but it
is in moderation ; disgust, but it is under control ;
impatience, but not such as finds vent in ebullitions
of temper, but such rather as takes the form of
determined effort to remove evils with which it cannot
live on friendly terms. All this, of course, imphes a
loving, kind heart. The negative virtue "of patience
implies the positive virtue of sympathy. The model
high priest is one in whose heart the law of charity
reigns, and who regards the people for whom he acts in
holy things as his children. The iguorant, for him, are
persons to be taught ; the erring, sheep to be brouglit

CHRIST A GOD- APPOINTED PRIEST 179
back to the fold. He remembers that sin is not only an
evil thing in God's sight, but also a bitter thing for the
offender ; realises the misery of an accusing conscience,
the shame and fear which are the ghostly shadows
of guilt. All this is hinted at in the word fierpioiradelv,
whereby, instantaneously, the writer photographs the
character of the model high priest.
The character thus drawn is obviously congenial
to the priestly office. The priest's duty is to pffer gifts
and sacrifices for sin. The performance of this duty
habituates the priestly mind to a certain way of viewing
sin : as an offence deserving punishment, yet pardonable
on the presentation of the appropriate offering. The
priest's relation to the offender is also such as demands
a sympathetic spirit. He is not a legislator, enacting
laws with rigid penalties attached. Neither is he a
judge, but rather an advocate pleading for his client at
the bar. Neither is he a prophet, giving ¦ utterance in
vehement language to the Divine displeasure against
transgression, but rather an intercessor imploring mercy,
appeasing anger, striving to awaken Divine pity.
But the special source to which sacerdotal sympathy
is traced is the consciousness of personal infirmity.
" For that he himself also is compassed with infirmity."
The explanation seems to labour, under the defect of
too great generality. A high priest is no more human
in his nature and experience than other men; why,
then, should he be exceptionally humane ? Two reasons
suggest themselves.
The high priest was officially a very holy person,
begirt on all sides with the emblems of holiness :

180 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
copiously anointed with oil, whose exquisite aroma
typified the odour of sanctity; arrayed in gorgeous
robes, significant of the beauty of holiness ; required to
be so devoted to his sacred calling and so dead to the
world that he might not mourn for the death of his
nearest kin. How oppressive the burden of this official
sanctity must have been to a thoughtful, humble man,
conscious of personal infirmity, and knowing himself to
be of like passions and sinful tendencies with his fellow-
worshippers ! How the very sanctity of his office would
force on the attention of one who was not a mere puppet
priest the contrast between his official and his personal
character, as a subject of solemn reflection. And what
would the result of such reflection be but a deepened
self-knowledge, a sense of unworthiness for his sacred
vocation, which would seek relief in cherishing a meek
and humble spirit, and in manifesting a gracious
sympathy towards his brethren, considering himself as
one also tempted ; and would gladly hail the return of
that solemn season— the great day of atonement — when
the high priest of Israel offered a propitiatory sacrifice
first for his own sins, and then for the people's ?
Another source of priestly benignity was, I imagine,
habitual converse in the discharge of duty with the
erring and the ignorant. The high priest had officially
much to do with men, and that not with picked
samples, but with men in the mass ; the greater number
probably being inferior specimens of humanity, and all
presenting to his view their weak side. He learned
in the discharge of his functions to take a kindly
interest in all sorts of people, even the most erratic, and

CHRIST A GOD-APPOINTED PRIEST 181
to bear with inconsistency even in the best. The poet
or philosopher, conversant chiefly with ideal men, heroes
invested with all imaginary excellences, is prone to feel
disgust towards real common men, sadly unheroic and
unromantic in character. The high priest had abundant
opportunities for learning that the characters even of the
good and devout are very defective, and he was thankful
to find that their hearts were right with God, and that
when they erred they were desirous to confess their
error and make atonement. He looked not for sinless,
perfect beings, but at most only for men broken-hearted
for their sins, and bringing their trespass offering to the
altar of the Lord.
The account given of priestly sympathy prepares us
for appreciating the statement which follows concerning
the need for a Divine call to the priestly office. " And
no one taketh the honour to himself, but only when
called by God, as indeed was Aaron " (ver. 4).
No one, duly impressed with his own infirmities,
would ever think of taking unto himself so sacred an
office. A need for a Divine call is felt by all devout
men in connection with all sacred offices involving a
ministry on men's behalf in things pertaining to God.
The tendency is to shrink from such offices, rather
than to covet and ambitiously appropriate them. The
sentiment, nolo episcopari, which has ever been common
in the best days of the Church, is not an affectation of
modesty, but the expression of a deep reluctance
to undertake the onerous responsibilities of a representa
tive man in religion by all who know themselves, and
who realise the momentous nature of religious interests.

182 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
The sentiment is deepened by the reflection that the
office is honourable as well as sacred. For it is a maxim
which calls forth a response from every healthy conscience,
that men should not seek honours, but be sought for them,
it being but an application of the proverb, " Let another
man praise thee, and not thine own mouth."
Having stated the general principle that a Divine call
is necessary as an inducement to the assumption of the
priestly office, the writer passes to the case of Jesus
Christ, whom he emphatically declares to have been
utterly free from the spirit of ambition, and to have been
made a high priest, not by self-election, but by Divine
appointment. Of the two texts quoted in proof of the
assertion, the second, taken from Psalm ex.. naturally
appears the more important, as containing an express
reference to Messiah's priesthood. This oracle, the key
to the whole doctrine of the Epistle on the subject in
question, is introduced here for the first time, very
quietly, as if by the way, and in subordination to
the more familiar text already quoted from the 2nd
Psalm bearing on Messiah's Sonship. Here once more
we have occasion to admire the oratorical tact of the
writer, who, having in mind to present to his readers
a difficult thought, first puts it forth in a stealthy,
tentative way, as if hoping that it may thus catch the
attention better than if more obtrusively presented ;
just as one can see a star in the evening twilight more
distinctly by looking a little to one side of it, than
by gazing directly at it.
It is difficult to understand, at first, why the text
from the 2nd Psalm, " My Son art Thou," is introduced

CHRIST A GOD-APPOINTED PRIEST 183
here at all, the thing to be proved being, not that
Messiah was made by God a Son, but that He was made
a Priest. But on reflection we perceive that it is a
preliminary hint as to what sort of priesthood is signified
by the order of Melchisedec, a first attempt to insinuate
into the minds of readers the idea of a priesthood
belonging to Christ altogether distinct in character from
the Levitical, yet the highest possible, that of one at
once a Divine Son and a Divine King. On further
consideration, it dawns on us that a still deeper truth is
meant to be taught : that Christ's priesthood is coeval
with His Sonship, and inherent in it. Only when we
find this idea in it do we feel the relevancy of the first
citation to be fully justified. So interpreted, it contains
a reference to an eternal Divine call to the priesthood
in consonance with the order of Melchisedec, which is
described further on as " having neither beginning of
days nor end of life " — eternal a parte ante, as well as
a parte post. Thus viewed, Christ's priestly vocation
ceases to be an accident in His history, and becomes an
essential characteristic of His position as Son : Sonship,
Christhood, priestliness, inseparably interwoven.
From the preincarnate state to which the quotations
from the Psalter refer, the writer proceeds to speak of
Christ's earthly history : " Who, in the days of His
flesh " (iv rals r)p.epai<; ttj? aapicos avrov). For a
Philo , the Son and Logos of God could have no such days,
contact with flesh being beneath the dignity of so exalted
a spirit. If our author had ever been a disciple of Philo's,
he had surmounted that difficulty. The solution of the
problem in which his mind found rest was not specu-

184 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
lative, but ethical. It lay in this that the life in the
flesh, with all that went along with it, was seen to be
invested with moral grandeur, not only in spite of, but
in virtue of, its humiliations. Hence, as we see, these
humiliations are not glozed over or understated in the
following sentences, but allowed to appear in their naked
grim reality. Not every Christian teacher in the apos
tolic age could have dared to speak of the experience of
Jesus in Gethsemane as is done here ; not Luke, e.g.,
whose account of that experience in his Gospel, if one
omit the critically doubtful passage concerning the
bloody sweat, is very much toned down as compared
with the parallel accounts in Matthew and Mark.1
" Who, in the days of His flesh." The writer here
conceives, as further on he expressly represents,2 the
Christ as coming into the world under a Divine call to
be a priest, and conscious of His vocation. In vers. 7,8,
his purpose is to exhibit the behaviour of Jesus during
His life on earth in such a light that the idea of usurpa
tion shall appear an absurdity. The general import is :
" Jesus ever loyal, but never ambitious ; so far from
arrogating, rather shrinking from priestly office, at most
simply submitting to God's will, and enabled to do that
by special grace in answer to prayer." It is implied
that this is a true account of Christ's whole behaviour on
earth ; but the special features of the picture are taken
from the prelude to the Passion, the Agony, where the
1 On this vide my book, With Open Face, chap. xii. In view of
Luke's treatment of the Agony, it is clear that he could never have
been the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, as some have
imagined. 2 Chap. x. 5.

CHRIST A GOD-APPOINTED PRIEST 185
truth of the representation becomes startlingly con
spicuous. In the description of the tragic experiences of that
crisis, we note the pains taken to lay bare the infirmity
of Jesus, the object being to show the extreme improba
bility of one who so behaved assuming the priestly office
without a Divine call. The familiar fact that Jesus
prayed that the cup might pass from Him is stated in
the strongest terms : " When He had offered prayers and
supplications with strong crying " ; and a particular is
mentioned not otherwise known, that the prayers were
accompanied with " tears." Jesus is thus made to appear
manifesting, confessing, His weakness, frankly and unre
servedly ; even as the high priest of Israel confessed his
weakness when he offered a sacrifice for himself before
he presented an offering for the people. Whether the
writer had in his view a parallel between Christ's agony
in the garden and the high priest's offering for himself it
is impossible to decide, although several things give
plausibility to the suggestion, such as the use of the sacri
ficial term m-poo-evey/cas in reference to Christ's prayer in
the garden.1 What is certain is that he is careful to
point out that Christ was compassed with infirmity not
less real, though sinless, than that which in the case of
the Jewish high priest made it necessary that he should
offer a sacrifice for himself before offering for the people ;
the moral being : How unlikely that one who so shrank
1 Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, ii. 399, earnestly contends that such a
parallel is intended. Vide The Humiliation of Christ, p. 277, where
I have stated and adopted his view. I still feel its attraction, but I
am not so sure that the alleged parallel was present to the writer's
mind.

186 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
from the cup of death should be the usurper of an office
which involved the drinking of that cup !
The hearing of Christ's prayer referred to in the last
clause of ver. 7 belongs to the description of His sinless
infirmity. Whether we render, " And being heard for
His piety," or " and being heard (and delivered) from the
fear " (of death, as distinct from death itself), is imma
terial j1 in any case the answer consisted in deliverance
from that fear, in courage given to face death. Some
have supposed that the reference is to the resurrection
and ascension. But it is not permissible to read into the
passage a hidden allusion to events of such importance.
Moreover, the reference is excluded by the consideration
that all that is spoken of in ver. 7 leads up to the main
affirmation in ver. 8, and must be included under the
category of learning obedience. The last clause of ver. 7
describes the attitude of one who shrank from death, and
who was at length enabled to face death by special aid
in answer to prayer delivering him from fear ; that is to
say, of one who in all that related to the passion was
only learning obedience. The point to be emphasised is,
not so much that the prayer of Jesus was heard, as that
it needed to be heard : that He needed heavenly aid to
drink the appointed cup.
To perform, or even to attempt, such a task without a
conscious Divine call was impossible. Even with a clear
1 Opinion is very much divided as between .these two renderings
of the words el<raKova-8e\s dwb ttjs evkafieias, many weighty names
being on either side. Bleek supports the first view, Bengel the
second. On the whole, the weight of authority and of argument
inclines to the rendering, "being heard for His piety, or His godly
fear."

CHRIST A GOD-APPOINTED PRIEST 187
consciousness of such a call it was difficult. That is the
truth stated in ver. 8, in these terms : " Though He was
a Son, yet learned He obedience from the things which
He suffered." Freely paraphrased these words mean :
" In His earthly experience Christ was so far from play
ing the part of one who was taking to Himself the honour
of the priesthood, that He was simply throughout sub
mitting to God's purpose to make Him a Priest, and the
circumstances were such as made obedience to the Divine
will anything but easy, rather a painful process of learn
ing." Reference is made to Christ's Sonship to enhance
the impression of difficulty. Though He was a son full
of love and devotion to His Father, intensely, enthusias
tically loyal to the Divine interest, ever accounting it His
meat and drink to do His Father's will, yet even for Him
so minded it was a matter of arduous learning to comply
with the Father's will in connection with His priestly
vocation. For it must be understood that the obedience
here spoken of has that specific reference. The aim is
not to state didactically that in His earthly life Jesus
was a learner in the virtue of obedience all round, but
especially to predicate of Him learning obedience in con
nection with His priestly calling — obedience to God's will
that He should be a Priest.
But why should obedience be so difficult in this con
nection ? The full answer comes later on, but it is
hinted at even here. It is because priesthood involves
for the Priest death (ver. 7), mortal suffering (ver. 8) ;
because the Priest is at the same time victim. And it is
in the light of this fact that we clearly see how impos
sible it was that the spirit of ambition should come into

188 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
play with reference to the priestly office in the case of
Christ. Self-glorification was excluded by the nature of
the service. One might be tempted to take unto himself
the honour of the Aaronic priesthood, though even with
reference to it one who fully realised its responsi
bilities would be disposed to exclaim, "Nolo pontifex
fieri." A vain, thoughtless, or ambitious man might
covet the office of Aaron, because of the honour and
power which it conferred. In point of fact, there were
many ambitious high priests in Israel's last, degenerate
days, as there have been many ambitious ecclesiastics.
But there was no risk of a self-seeker coveting the
priestly office of Christ, because in that office the Priest
had, not only to offer, but Himself to be the sacrifice.
With reference to such a priesthood, a self-seeker would
be sure to say, " I do not wish it ; I have no taste for
such an honour." Yea, even one who was no self-seeker
might say, " If it be possible, let me escape the dread
vocation " ; and he would accept its responsibilities only
after a sore struggle with the reluctance of sentient
nature, such as martyrs have experienced before appear
ing with serene countenance at the stake. The holy,
sinless Jesus did indeed say " no " for a moment in refer
ence to this unique sort of priesthood. His agony in
Gethsemane, so touchingly alluded to in our Epistle, was
an emphatic " no," which proved that, far from proudly
aspiring, He found it hard even to humbly submit to be
made a priest.1
1 Eeferring to the Agony, I have made this strong statement in
The Humiliation of Glirist : " That agony was an awfully earnest,
utterly sincere, while perfectly sinless Nolo pontif ex fieri on the part

CHRIST A GOD-APPOINTED PRIEST 189
The verses which follow (9, 10) show the other side
of the picture : how He who glorified not Himself to be
made a priest was glorified by God; became a priest
indeed, efficient in the highest degree, acknowledged as
such by His Father, whose will He had loyally obeyed.
" And being perfected became to all who obey Him
author of eternal salvation, saluted by God ' High Priest
after the order of Melchisedec' " A weighty, pregnant
sentence, setting forth the result of Christ's earthly
experience in terms suitable to the initial stage of the
discussion concerning His priestly office, implying much
that is not expressly stated, and suggesting questions
that are not answered, and therefore liable to diverse
interpretation. " Being perfected " — how ? In obedience, and by
obedience even unto death ; perfected for the office of
priest, death being the final stage in His training through
which He became a Pontifex Consummatus. Some think
the reference is to the resurrection and ascension. It is
a plausible and tempting suggestion, but one cannot help
feeling that the writer has studiously avoided such
specific references, and expressed himself in general
terms fitted to convey the moral truths involved, inde
pendently of time and place. I therefore see no reason
for assigning to reXeiadek a different sense from that
which seemed to be most appropriate in chapter ii. 10.
Being made perfect in and through death Jesus became
of one who realised the tremendous responsibilities of the post to
which He was summoned, and who was unable for the moment to
find any comfort in the thought of its honours and prospective
joys "(p. 276).

190 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
ipso facto author of eternal salvation, the final experience
of suffering by which His training for the priestly office
was completed being at the same time His great priestly
achievement. This interpretation of our author's mean
ing takes for granted that in his view the death of Christ
was a priestly act, not merely a preparation for a priest
hood to be exercised afterwards, in heaven. Nay, not
merely a priestly act, but the great priestly act, the fact-
basis of the whole doctrine of Christ's priesthood. I
have no doubt this is a correct impression. In this
connection it is noteworthy that the first and last times
the writer refers to the subject of our Lord's priestly work
(chap. ii. 9 and chap. x. 10) it is to this death that he
gives prominence : " that He should taste death for every
man " ; " we are sanctified through the offering of the
body of Jesus Christ." That Christ's priestly ministry
is placed in the heavenly sanctuary is not less certain,
and the two views seem to be in flat contradiction to
each other. Whether they can be reconciled, and how,
are questions which will come up for discussion here
after ; meantime let us be content to leave the two views
side by side, an unresolved antinomy, not seeking escape
from difficulty by denying either.1
The statement that through death Jesus became ipso
facto author of salvation is not falsified by the fact that
the essential point in a sacrifice was its presentation
before God in the sanctuary, which in the Levitical
system took place subsequently to the slaughtering of
the victim, when the priest took the blood within the
1 For the solution vide Chapter xvi., also passage towards the close
of Chapter xiv.

CHRIST A GOD-APPOINTED PRIEST 191
tabernacle and sprinkled it on the altar of incense or on
the mercy- seat. The death of our High Priest is to be
conceived of as including all the steps of the sacrificial
process within itself. Lapse of time or change of place
is not necessary to the accomplishment of the work. The
death of the victim, the presentation of the sacrificial
blood — all was performed when Christ cried Terekearai.1
It is not the writer's object in this place to indicate
the nature of " salvation," — that is, the precise benefit
procured for men by Christ as Priest, — but simply to
indicate the fact that He attained to the high honour of
being the source or author of salvation. Two facts, how
ever, he notifies respecting the salvation of which Christ
is the author : that it is eternal, and that it is available
for those who obey Him. The epithet aldovios, here used
for the first time, frequently recurs in the sequel. It is
one of the great, characteristic watchwords of the Epistle,
intended to proclaim the absolute final nature of Chris
tianity, in contrast to the transient nature of the Levitical
religion. Possibly it is meant here to suggest a contrast
between the eternal salvation procured by Christ and the
annual salvation effected by the ceremonial of the great
day of atonement. More probably its introduction at
this place is due to the desire to make the salvation
correspond in character to the Melchisedec type of priest-
1 Some theologians, such as Professor Smeaton, contend for an
entrance "within the veil" by Christ, with His blood, in His dis
embodied state, immediately after His death on the cross. The
feeling which dictates this view is right, but the view itself takes
too literally and prosaically the parallel between Christ and the
Jewish high priest. For Professor Smeaton's view vide The Apostles'
Doctrine of the Atonement, p. 48.

192 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
hood, whose leading feature is perpetuity : " Thou art a
Priest for ever." To the same sense of congruity it is
due that obedience to Christ is accentuated as the con
dition of salvation. Christ became a Saviour through
obedience to the will of His Father, and it is meet that
He in turn should be obeyed by those who are to receive
the benefit of His arduous service. It is a thought
kindred to that expressed by Christ Himself when He
spake of the Son of Man laying down His life for the
many as the way He took to become the greatest, and to
be ministered unto by willing subjects.
The Divine acknowledgment of Christ's priestly
dignity, referred to in ver. 10, is not to be prosaically
interpreted as a formal appointment ; whether a first
appointment, as some think, to an official position now
commencing in the state of exaltation, or a second con
firming a first made long before, alluded to in the Mes
sianic oracle quoted in ver. 6. from Psalm ex.1 It is
rather the animated recognition of an already existing
fact. Christ, called from of old to be a priest in virtue
of His Sonship, and made a priest indeed by His arduous
training on earth, is cordially owned to be a priest when
1 Mr. Eendall takes this view. He says : " The language of this
verse and the context alike point to a new appointment quite
distinct from that recorded in the Psalms, though both refer to the
same Melchisedec priesthood. Psalm ex. has been cited as evidence
of the earlier appointment of God's Anointed by prophetic anticipa
tion to a priesthood. This verse declares the formal recognition of
His high priesthood by a Divine salutation addressed personally to
Jesus" (The Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 45). I agree with him so far
as to recognise the distinction between the two appointments, only I
cannot regard the expression "formal recognition" as true to the
spirit of the passage commented on.

CHRIST A GOD-APPOINTED PRIEST 193
the death which completed His training, and constituted
Him a priest, had been endured — whether immediately
after the passion or after the ascension must be left un
determined. The style is dramatic, and the language
emotional. God is moved by the spectacle of His Son's
self-sacrifice, as of old He had been moved by the readi
ness of Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, and exclaims, " Thou
art a Priest indeed ! " That the writer is not thinking
of a formal appointment, which creates a position pre
viously non-existent, appears from the liberties he takes
with the words of the oracle which contains the evidence
that Christ was a God-called Priest : " high priest " sub
stituted for " priest," and " for ever " omitted. The
former of these changes is specially noteworthy. It is
not accidental and trivial, but intended and significant.
The alteration is made to suit the situation : Christ,
already a High Priest in virtue of functions analogous to
those of Aaron, and now and henceforth a priest after
the order of Melchisedec. The oracle, as adjusted,
combines the past with the future, the earthly with the
heavenly, the temporal with the eternal.
Translated into abstract language, ver. 10 supplies
the rationale of the fact stated in ver. 9. Its effect
is to tell us that Christ became author of eternal
salvation because He was a true High Priest after the
order of Melchisedec : author of salvation in virtue of
His being a priest, author of eternal salvation because
His priesthood was of the Melchisedec type — never
ending. The words put into the mouth of God serve yet
another purpose : to indicate the lines along which the
13

194 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
writer intends to develop the subject of Christ's priest
hood. His plan is to employ two types of priesthood
to exhibit the nature of the perfect priesthood of the
absolute final religion — the order of Aaron, and the order
of Melchisedec. I say not that he means to teach that
Christ occupied successively two priestly offices — one like
that of Aaron, the other like that of Melchisedec, the
former on earth, the latter in heaven. That is too crude
a view of the matter. His plan rather is to utilise the
Aaronic priesthood to set forth the nature of Christ's
priestly functions, and the Melchisedec priesthood to set
forth their ideal worth and eternal validity ; and he here
as it were lets us into the secret. The plan in both its
parts is based on Scripture warrant, to be produced at
the proper place. This view of the writer's method is
not to be summarily set aside by the assertions that
priest and high priest are synonymous terms, and that
the functions of all orders of priesthood are the same.
As to the one point, it is enough to say that the writer
uses the two words with discrimination : " priest " when
likening Christ to Melchisedec, " high priest " when
comparing Him with Aaron. As to the other, it is to
be remarked that no mention is made of sacrificial
functions in connection with Melchisedec's history as
given in Genesis, and that the writer evidently does not
choose to ascribe to him functions not spoken of in the
record. Arguing from his way of drawing inferences
from the silences of history, one might rather conclude
that because he found no sacrificial functions men
tioned in the story, he therefore assumed that such
duties as were performed by Aaron about the taber-

CHRIST A GOD-APPOINTED PRIEST 195
nacle did not enter into the idea of the Melchisedec
priesthood. The words, " high priest after the order of Mel
chisedec," containing the programme of the discussion
about to be entered on, we expect to find the two topics
suggested taken up in this order : first, Christ as High
Priest ; next, Christ as Priest after the order of Mel
chisedec. In point of fact, they are taken up in the
inverse order. Why, we may be able to discover in
another chapter.

CHAPTER X
THE TEACHER'S COMPLAINT
Chaps, v. 11-14; vi. 1-8
" Of whom," i.e. Melchisedec, continues the writer, taking
up the second part of his programme first, " we have
many things to say." Yet he does not forthwith say
these things ; he refrains from entering on ample dis
course (ttoXvs A.6709) on the Melchisedec priesthood,
because his spirit is disturbed by the recollection that
he writes to persons dull of apprehension, at once ignorant,
indolent, and prejudiced, unable and unwilling to take in
new ideas, and, like horses with blinders on, capable of
seeing only straight before them in the direction of use
and wont, and therefore certain to find the thoughts he
is about to express hard to understand. The haunting
consciousness of this painful fact obscures the subject of
discourse as a cloud hides the glory of the sun on an
April day ; and even as our Lord was not able to proceed
with His farewell address to His disciples till He had rid
Himself of the presence of the traitor, so this man of
philosophic mind and eloquent pen cannot proceed with
his argument till he has given expression to the vexation
and disappointment caused by the inaptitude of his
196

THE TEACHER'S COMPLAINT 197
scholars. This he does with very great plainness of
speech, for which all Christian teachers have reason to
thank him ; for what he has written may be regarded as an
assertion of the right of the Church to be something more
than an infant school, and as a defence of the liberty
of prophesying on all themes pertaining to Christ as their
centre against the intolerance always manifested by ignor
ance, stupidity, indolence, and prejudice towards every
thing that is not old, familiar, and perfectly elementary.
The teacher's complaint is severe — too severe, if the
things to be said concerned some curious point in theology
on which the complainer had some pet notions. A man
may be a good Christian, and yet be ignorant or in
different in reference to the mysteries of predestination
and free will and their reconciliation. Might not the
Hebrews be sufficiently good Christians, and yet remain
ignorant of, or incapable of understanding, the trans
cendental doctrine of the Melchisedec priesthood 1 No ;
because the question at issue is not a mere curious point in
theology. It is rather the fundamental question whether
Christ was really a priest. The priesthood of Christ in
its reality and ideal worth is not understood, unless it is
seen to be of the Melchisedec type. Therefore the in
capacity complained of, if not fatal, is at least serious.
The account given of the spiritual state of the Hebrew
Christians is not flattering. In effect, they are repre
sented as in their dotage. They have become dull of
hearing, have become children having need of milk, and
not able to receive the solid food of full-grown men;
They are not merely children, but in their second child
hood ; in which respect it is interesting to compare the

198 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
Hebrew Church with the Corinthian as described in Paul's
First Epistle. The members of the Corinthian Church were
in their first childhood spiritually; hence they were unruly,
quarrelsome, and had an indiscriminate appetite for all
sorts of food, without possessing the capacity to discern
between what was wholesome and what unwholesome, or
the self-control to choose the good and reject the evil.
The members of the Hebrew Church, on the other hand,
were in that state of dotage so affectingly described by
Barzillai with reference to the physical powers : " I am this
day fourscore years old ; and can I discern between good
and evil ? can thy servant taste what I eat or what I drink ?
can I hear any more the voice of singing men and singing
women ? wherefore then should thy servant be yet a
burden unto my lord the king ? " 1 The Hebrew Christians
had once had a certain capacity of discernment, but they
had lost it. Their senses had become blunted by the
hebetude of old age : they had, so to speak, no teeth to
eat solid food, no taste to discern the excellency of new,
strong meat, but simply enough taste to detect that the
meat was new ; no ear to appreciate the new songs of the
Christian era, but just enough hearing left to tell them
that the sounds they heard dimly were strange, not the
familiar melodies of the synagogue ; no eyes to see the
glory of Christ's self-sacrifice, but simply vision enough to
perceive as through a haze the gorgeous robes of the
high priest as he moved about the temple precincts
performing his sacerdotal duties. All the symptoms of
senility were upon them as described by the preacher ;
decay was present and death near. Melancholy end of a
1 2 Sam. xix. 35.

THE TEACHER'S COMPLAINT 199
Christian profession that had lasted some forty years !
Dotage at an advanced age, in the physical sphere, is
natural and blameless, exciting only tender pity ; in the
spiritual sphere it is unnatural and blameworthy. What
ought to be is steady progress towards moral and religious
maturity (reXeiornTa), characterised by practised skill to
discern between good and evil, and settled preference for
the good : a wise, enlightened mind, and a sanctified will.1
That so few reach the goal, that healthy growth in the
spiritual life is so rare, is for all earnest souls a wonder
and a deep disappointment.
Having uttered these sharp words of reproof, the
writer proceeds (vi. 1) to exhort his readers to aspire to
that state of Christian maturity which is capable of
digesting solid food, and not to remain always at the
beginnings of the Christian life. Perhaps we should
rather say that the writer intimates his own purpose to
go on in his discourse from the milk of elementary truth
that suits babes to the solid food of advanced doctrine
that suits men. The commentators are divided in opinion
as to which of these two interpretations is the more
correct; but it is scarcely worth while to discuss the
question, as the one view implies the other. The writer
1 The words reXeios and reXeiorqs (v. 14, vi. 1) are used here in
a sense distinct from that in which Christ is said to have been
perfected by suffering, and from that in which men are said to have
been perfected by His one offering of Himself. To be perfect is
always to be in the position of having reached the end ; but the end
in the present instance is not training for an office, or purgation of
the conscience from the guilt of sin, but the attainment of manhood,
with the characteristics named above. Of the two characteristics
only the wise mind, or experienced judgment, is referred to, because
defective spiritual intelligence is the thing complained of,

200 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
does not wish merely to express his own thoughts con
cerning Christ's priestly office, but to communicate them
to others. He desires to teach ; but he can teach only in
so far as there is receptivity in his scholars. Teaching
and learning are correlative, and teacher and scholar
must keep pace with each other. No man can teach
unless his pupils let him. Therefore this Christian
doctor, minded to discourse not of the principia of
Christianity — " the beginning of Christ " — but of its
higher truths, appropriately says, " Let us go on," express
ing at once a purpose and an exhortation.
In declining to make the Christian elements his ex
clusive theme, the writer takes occasion to indicate what
these are. We scan with eager interest the list of
fundamentals setting forth what, in the view of our
author, and we may assume also of the Church in his
time, a man was required to do and believe when he
became a Christian. What first strikes one in this
primitive " sum of saving knowledge " is how little that
is specifically Christian it contains.1 There is no express
reference to Christ, not even in connection with faith,
where it might have been expected. In his address to
the elders at Miletus, Paul claimed to have testified to
Jews and Greeks " repentance towards God, and faith
towards our Lord Jesus Christ." Here, on the other
hand, mention is made of " repentance from dead works,
and faith towards God," as if it were a question of theism
as against polytheism, rather than of Christian belief.2
1 A similar remark may be made in reference to " The Teaching
of the Twelve Apostles."
2 M'Giffert too confidently remarks : " Nearly all the principles

THE TEACHER'S COMPLAINT 201
It is superfluous to remark that the priesthood of Christ
finds no place in the list ; that topic evidently is regarded
as belonging to the advanced doctrine. To us, who have
been accustomed to regard faith in the atoning death of
Christ, and even in a particular theory of the atonement,
as essential to salvation, all this must appear surprising.
Yet the meagre account here given of the catechumen's
creed is no isolated phenomenon in the New Testament.
It is in entire accord with what we learn from Paul's
First Epistle to the Thessalonians, which may be said
to show the style of his instructions to young converts
during the period of missionary activity antecedent to
the rise of the great controversy concerning the law.
Paul's purpose in that Epistle seems to be to remind the
Thessalonian Christians, for their encouragement and
strengthening, of the things he had taught them at the
time of their conversion, such phrases as " ye remember,"
" ye know," being of frequent occurrence. Yet throughout
the Epistle we can' find no trace of the doctrine of justifica
tion in the specifically Pauline sense, or of the doctrine
of Christ's atoning death. Christ's death is indeed re
ferred to, but in such a way as to suggest that the fact
of vital importance to faith was not that He died, but
that He rose again. " If we believe that Jesus died and
rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will
God bring with Him." 1
enumerated in this passage were common to Jews and Christians ;
and a Christian, therefore, in writing to Jewish disciples could not
refer to them in such a way. Only a heathen would need to lay
such a foundation in accepting Christ " (p. 468).
1 1 Thess. iv. 14. Vide my work, St. Paul's Conception of
Christianity, chap. i.

202 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
The apparently non-Christian character of the Christian
principia is not the only perpl-exing feature in the hst of
fundamentals. It is not easy to determine how the
various matters mentioned are related to each other.
Judging from the rhythmical structure of the sentence,
one's first thought is that the list contains six co-ordinate
articles, grouped in pairs : first, repentance and faith
second, the doctrines of baptism and laying on of hands
third, the doctrines of resurrection and eternal judgment
the members of each pair being of kindred nature, and
the whole six forming together the foundation of the
Christian religion. But doubt arises when it is observed
that in this view things are mixed together which belong
to different categories ; repentance and faith, which are
spiritual states, with doctrines about other matters of
greater or less importance. If there are six articles in
the list of fundamentals, why not say, " Not laying again
a foundation in doctrine concerning repentance, faith,
baptisms," etc. ? And so we are tempted to adopt
another hypothesis, namely, that the last four are to be
regarded as the foundation of the first two, conceived not
as belonging to the foundation, but rather as the super
structure. On this view we should have to render, " Not
laying again a foundation for repentance and faith, con
sisting in instruction concerning baptisms, laying on of
hands, resurrection, and judgment." In favour of this
construction is the reading BiBaxvv (ver. 2, clause 1)
found in B, and adopted by Westcott and Hort, which
being in apposition with 6ep,ekiov (ver. 1) suggests that
the four things following form the foundation of repent
ance and faith.

THE TEACHER'S- COMPLAINT 203
It is possible that the mixing up of states and doctrines
in the list is due to the double attitude of the writer, as
partly exhorting his readers, partly expressing his own
purpose. " Not laying again a foundation, you by renewed
repentance and faith, I by repetition of elementary
instructions." But I cannot help thinking that there
is discernible in this passage, notwithstanding its
graceful rhythmical structure, on which Bengel and
others have remarked, a slight touch of that rhetorical
carelessness which recurs in much more pronounced form
in chapter ix. 10, where the writer, referring to the in
effectual ordinances of Levitical worship, characterises
them, in language difficult to construe, as " only, with their
meats and drinks and diverse washings, ordinances of the
flesh imposed until a time of reformation." In that
place the loose construction of the sentence is an
oratorical device to express a feeling of impatience with
the bare idea that Levitical rites could possibly cleanse
the consciences of worshippers. Of course the writer
has no thought of putting the elementary truths of
Christianity on a level with these rites. But the feeling
of impatience with never getting beyond the elements
seems to influence his manner of referring to them, giving
rise to an elliptical abruptness of style which leaves
room for questions as to the construction that cannot
with certainty be answered.
On the whole, our first thought as to the connection is
probably the correct one, according to which the passage
is to be paraphrased thus : " Leaving discourse on the
beginning of Christ, let us go on unto maturity, and unto
the doctrine that suits it, not laying again a foundation

204 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
in reiterated exhortations to repentance and faith, and
in instructions about such matters as baptisms, laying on
of hands, resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment."
The only points needing explanation in this summary
of elements are those included in the middle pair. Re
pentance and faith, the resurrection and the judgment,
are obviously suitable subjects of instruction for persons
beginning the Christian life. In the teaching of Jesus
repentance and faith are the cardinal conditions of
entrance into the kingdom of God. " The time is ful
filled, and the kingdom of God is at hand : repent ye, and
believe the gospel" (Mark i. 15). There is room for
dispute as to the import of the phrase employed to indi
cate the things to be repented of — " dead works." The
phrase recurs in chapter ix. 14, where it will be made the
subject of discussion. I will merely say here that it is
by no means so clear as most commentators assume it to
be, that " dead works " are synonymous with sinful works
in general, and that there is no reference to the religious
works of an artificial and servile legalism which first our
Lord and then Paul declared to be worthless and per
nicious. But be that as it may, there can be no doubt
that repentance in some form, with faith, has a very
appropriate place in the list of fundamentals. So have
resurrection and judgment; for though, as events, they
come at the end of the Christian's career, the doctrine
concerning them comes fitly at the beginning, as tending
to inspire an awe and a hope that are strong motives
to holiness.But what is the doctrine of baptisms ? If instruction
as to Christian baptism be mainly referred to, its appro-

THE TEACHER'S COMPLAINT 205
priateness at the commencement is beyond question.
But why baptisms and not baptism ? Commentators
generally concur in replying : because the writer has in
view not merely Christian baptism, but all the symbolic
uses of water with which Jewish converts might be
familiar. Where various forms of such use were known
comparison would be natural, and might be helpful as a
means of conveying instruction as to the distinctive
significance of Christian baptism. Against the reference
to baptism in the specifically Christian sense it has been
urged that it is never called f3ai7rTia-/j,6'i, the word used
here, but always fid-ima-fia. To this it seems a sufficient
answer that the former term is employed because Chris
tian baptism is included in a more comprehensive category
along with Levitical purifications.
The " laying on of hands " is to be understood in the
light of the apostolic practice of imposing hands on the
heads of baptized persons, as a sign of the communication
of the Holy Ghost. According to the accounts in the
Book of Acts, this symbolic action was often followed by
the communication of the Holy Ghost in the sense of a
power to perform marvellous acts, such, e.g., as speaking
with tongues. This gift, in the view of the primitive
Church, appears to have been regarded as the chief effect
of the Divine Spirit's influence. Our present way of
thinking is entirely different. We conceive of the Holy
Spirit, not as a transcendent power descending occasionally
on men, enabling them to exercise miraculous charisms,
but as an indwelling influence enabling Christians to be
good men. This happy change in our conceptions is due
to the Apostle Paul, who, in his Epistles, while not denying

206 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
the reality of the so-called " spiritual gifts " or their
utility, yet placed the ethical above the charismatic, and
represented love as of more value than all the charisms
put together. His treatment of the subject in his Epistle
to the Corinthians probably led to the decline of the
" gifts." 1 But while they lasted there had to be some
thing said about them, a doctrine of charisms — tongues,
prophesyings, and the like. The miraculous charisms
having passed away, a doctrine of the laying on of hands
is no longer needed. With the doctrine the symbolic
action has also ceased, save in the case of ordination of
ministers. It might be for the advantage of the Church
if it also passed away, as in connection with it the tend
ency of religious symbols to become causes of superstition
has received baleful illustration.
Such are the fundamentals. What is meant by leaving
them ? Not, of course, ceasing to believe in them, or to
think and speak of them, or to attach importance to them ;
for, though elementary, they are the foundation (dep,i\iov).
They are to be left in the sense in which a builder leaves
the foundation of a house — by erecting an edifice thereon.
They are not to be treated as if they were everything,
building as well as foundation. There has always been a
Christianity of this sort, stationary, unprogressive ; always
concerned about the initial stage, and never getting
beyond it. With reference to Christian teachers, the
lesson is not to confine themselves to elementary truths,
but to teach wisdom also to the " perfect," not forgetting
their needs, though the number of them in the Church be
small. Even for the sake of the immature, it is well not
1 Vide St. Paul's Conception of Christianity, chap. xiii.

THE TEACHER'S COMPLAINT 207
to tarry too long by the elements, lest they imagine they
have nothing more to learn, when in truth they are in
the state of the disciples to whom Jesus said, " I have yet
many things to say to you, but ye cannot bear them now."
What he has just declared to be desirable the writer
intimates his own purpose to do, cherishing the wish, if
not the hope, that he may carry his readers along with
him. " And this will we do," you and I, " if, that is,1
God permit." This " if God permit " is an ominous hint
at the more than possibility of the Hebrews having
become so spiritually hidebound that they will prove
totally incapable of receiving new truth. And so it
forms a suitable introduction to the solemn passage which
follows. And yet, though when a grave, earnest man
makes reference to God's sovereign will, we feel that he
must have ' some serious thought in his mind, we are
hardly prepared for the very sombre picture of the
apostate which this passage contains. Nor is it quite
easy to see how it is connected with what goes before.
Does the writer mean, " It is useless to keep insisting on
foundation truths relating to repentance, faith, and the
like topics ; for if any one have fallen away you cannot
bring him to repentance by any amount of preaching on
the old trite themes " ? or is his meaning rather, " I do
trust you and I will go on together to manhood and its
proper food, though I have my fears concerning you, fears
lest you be in the position of men who have lapsed from
a bright initial experience, whose outlook for the future
is necessarily very gloomy " ? Possibly both of these
thoughts were passing through his mind when he wrote.
1 edvwep, the wep, intensifying the force of the edv.

208 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
In these verses (4-6) there is a vivid description of a
happy past, a supposition made regarding those whose past
experience is portrayed, and a strong assertion hazarded
regarding any in whom that supposition is realised.
The description of initial Christian experience is a
companion picture to the preceding account of initial
Christian instruction. It points to an intense religious
life, full of enthusiasm, joy, and spiritual elevation, not,
however, to be regarded as the exceptional privilege of
the few, but rather as the common inheritance of the
Church in the apostolic age. The picture is painted in
high colours, but the outlines are not very distinct ; and
the spectator, while powerfully impressed, fails to carry
away a clear idea of the scene. The writer's purpose is
not to give information to us, but to awaken in the
breasts of his first readers sacred memories, and breed
godly sorrow over a dead past. Hence he expresses
himself in emotional terms such as might be used by
recent converts rather than in the colder but more exact
style of the historian. " The heavenly gift " — precious
doubtless, but what is it ? " The good word of God " —
ineffably sweet, but what precise word gave such rare
enjoyment ? Five distinct elements in the initial
Christian experience of converts seem to be specified,
yet on further analysis they appear to be reducible to
three : the illumination conveyed by elementary Chris
tian instruction (<pcoria8evTa<s), the enjoyment connected
with that illumination (yevaap.ivov<;, ver. 4, repeated
in ver. 5);1 and the spiritual power communicated by
1 The repetition of yevcrapevovs suggests that the clause in which
the participle occurs for the second time may be explanatory of that

THE TEACHER'S COMPLAINT 209
the Holy Ghost, and manifesting itself in the miracu
lous charisms whereof we read in Acts and in Paul's
First Epistle to the Corinthians (Bwdfieis p,e\\ovro<;
alwvos, ver. 5). The cardinal fact is the illumination.
The light of heaven breaking in on the soul awakens
strong emotions, which find vent in speaking with
tongues and prophesying — the powers and signs of the
Messianic age. That illumination is the epoch-making
event of the Christian life. It takes place once for all
(aira^) ; there ought to be no need for its repetition, nay,
it cannot be repeated. It comes like a revelation, and
produces mighty effects ; and woe to the man who lets
the light go out !
"If they fall away" (/cat rrapaireaovTaq): such is the
supposition made with reference to persons who have
gone through experiences so remarkable. The case put
is that of persons who once knew, believed, and loved
Christian truth, did wonderful works in Christ's name
and by the power of His Spirit, lapsing into ignorance,
unbelief, indifference, or even dislike of what they once
found sweet to their taste — God's word and the gift of
in which it occurs for the first time. In that case the "heavenly
gift " would be practically identical with the " word of God," which
the convert finds good to his taste = the gospel of grace ; and the
" Holy Spirit " in which the convert participates would be synony
mous with the " powers of the world to come." That is to say, the
Holy Spirit would be referred to, not as the indwelling source of
Christian sanctity, but as the source of spiritual gifts or miraculous
charisms. The change in the construction (the genitive after the
participle in the first case, the accusative in the second) may suggest
slightly differing shades of meaning : sharing, having part in the
heavenly gift ; appreciating the quality of the Divine word, receiving
the truth, feeling its value. ¦• ..;/.- ...
14

210 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
grace to which it bears witness. The very putting of
such a case seems a rude contradiction of the dogma of
perseverance, and hence this passage has been a famous
.battlefield between Arminians and Calvinists. The ex
positor who is more concerned about the correct inter
pretation of Scripture than about the defence of any
system of theology will not find himself able to go
altogether with either side in the controversy. The
Bible is an excellent book for the purposes of practical
religion, but rather a tantalising book for the systematic
theologian. Its writers know nothing of the caution and
reserve of the system-maker, but express themselves in
strong, unqualified terms which are the torment of the
dogmatist and the despair of the controversialist. The
author of this Epistle in particular writes, not as a
theorist, but as an observer of facts. Cases of the kind
described have actually come under his eye. He has
seen many bearing all the marks of true believers fall
away, and he has observed that such men do not usually
return to the faith from which they have lapsed. He
speaks as his experience prompts. He does not call in
question the reality of the faith and gracious affections
of quondam Christians, but describes these after their fall,
as he would have described them before it, admitting
them to have been blossoms, though they were blighted
by frost ; or leaf-bearing branches, though they afterwards
became dead and withered.
As little, on the other hand, does he hesitate to affirm
that recovery in such cases is impossible, reasoning again
from past observation, and also doubtless in part from
the nature of the case, apostates appearing to him like

THE TEACHER'S COMPLAINT 211
a fire whose fuel has been completely consumed so that
nothing remains but ashes. This brings us to the third
point in the passage before us — the strong assertion
made regarding those who lapse : " It is impossible to
renew them again unto repentance." Two questions
suggest themselves. Is the assertion to be taken
strictly ? and, so taken, is it true ? That the writer
uses the word " impossible " strictly may be inferred
from the reason he gives for his assertion. When men
have got the length of crucifying Christ to themselves,
and putting Him to an open shame before others, their
case is hopeless.1 But possibly he puts too severe a
construction on the facts. There may be a lapse from
the bright life of a former time, serious and perilous,
but not amounting to a crucifying of Christ, or so harden
ing the heart as to make repentance impossible.
Now two things may be admitted here. First, there
are phases of the spiritual life liable to be mistaken for
symptoms of apostasy, which are truly interpreted only
when looked at in the light of the great law of gradual
1 Dr. Edwards takes the participles dvaa-ravpovvras and wapa-
8eiypari£ovras, not as explanatory of wapairea-ovras, but as putting
a hypothetical case, and renders, " they cannot be renewed after
falling away if they persist in crucifying." The change from the
aorist to the present may be in favour of this view, yet one cannot
help feeling that the writer means to say something more serious
than that falling away i» fatal when it amounts to crucifying Christ.
Mr. Kendall has another way of softening the severity of the dictum,
namely, to take avaicaivifav as expressing continuous action, and
render " it is impossible to keep renewing " = the process of falling
and renewing cannot go on indefinitely : the power of impression
grows weaker, and at length becomes exhausted by repetition.
This view is certainly in keeping with the spirit of the whole
passage (v. 11-14, vi. 1-8).

212 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
growth enunciated by our Lord in the parable of the
blade, the green ear, and the full corn in the ear.1 The
difficult problem of Christian experience cannot be
mastered unless we grasp the truth taught in that
parable, and know the characteristics of each stage, and
especially of the second, which are most liable to be
misunderstood. For lack of such knowledge many a
Christian, destined to reach a splendid spiritual manhood,
has seemed to himself and others to have fallen away
utterly from grace, faith, and goodness, while he was simply
passing through the stage of the green fruit, with all its
unwelcome yet wholesome experiences. In this crude
stage of his religious history Bunyan thought he had
committed the sin against the Holy Ghost, and " an
ancient Christian," supposed to be wise in counsel, whom
he consulted, told him he thought so too. Yet he was
on the way to Beulah through the valley of the shadow
of death ; and few reach that blessed land without
passing along the same dark, dreary road. How far
the writer of our Epistle, or indeed any of the New
Testament writers, understood the law of growth by
broadly discriminated stages, enunciated by Christ, does
not appear. It is certain that nowhere else in the
New Testament can there be found a statement approach
ing in scientific clearness and distinctness to that con
tained in the parable referred to.2 In absence of a
1 Mark iv. 26-29. On this parable see The Parabolic Teaching of
Christ. 2 It has been disputed whether there be any distinct doctrine
of growth or gradual sanctification in Paul's Epistles. Pfleiderer
maintains the affirmative. Reuss, a more orthodox theologian,
denies, maintaining that Paul conceives the new life as perfect

THE TEACHER'S COMPLAINT 213
theory of sanctification to guide them, however, their
spiritual sagacity might be trusted to keep them from
confounding a case like Bunyan's with that of an
apostate. Second. Bible writers often state in unqualified terms
as an absolute truth what is in reality only an affair of
tendency. Translated into a statement of tendency, the
doctrine taught is this. Every fall involves a risk of
apostasy, and the higher the experience fallen from the
greater the risk. The deeper religion has gone into a
man at the commencement of his Christian course, the
less hopeful his condition if he lapse. The nearer the
initial stage to a thorough conversion the less likely is a
second change, if the first turn out abortive ; and so on,
in ever-increasing degrees of improbability as lapses
increase in number. The brighter the light in the soul,
the deeper the darkness when the light is put out. The
sweeter the manna of God's word to the taste, the more
loathsome it becomes when it has lost its relish. The
fiercer the fire in the hearth while the fuel lasts, the
more certain it is that when the fire goes out there
will remain nothing but ashes. The livelier the hope of
glory, the greater the aversion to all thoughts of the
world to come when once a Christian has, like Atheist in
the Pilgrims Progress, turned his back on the heavenly
from the first. There is a noticeable difference between Paul and
our Lord in their respective manner of dealing with the defects of
young Christians. Paul blames, as if they were full-grown men ;
Christ corrects, as one who knows that nothing else is to be looked
for in children, and that the future will bring wisdom : " I have
many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." Vide
St. Paul's Conception of Christianity, chap. xix.

214 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
Jerusalem. Action and reaction are equal. The more
forcibly you throw an elastic ball against a wall the
greater the rebound ; in like manner the more powerfully
the human spirit is brought under celestial influences, the
greater the recoil from all good, if there be a recoil at all.
The gushing enthusiasts of to-day are the cynical sceptics
of to-morrow. Have promoters of " revivals " laid these
things duly to heart ?
But the wise teacher whose complaint of his dull
scholars we are considering has something more serious
in view, when he speaks of falling away, than the cold
ness and languor, or even the moral lapses, which are
apt to overtake converts after a period of great excite
ment. It is not a question of loss of feeling, or of
unstable, inconsistent conduct, or of falls through
infirmity, but of deep alienation of heart. He thinks of
such as are capable of cherishing towards Christ the
feelings of hatred which animated the men who crucified
Him, and of openly renouncing the Christian faith.
This was the crime the Hebrew Christians were tempted
to commit. A fatal step it must be when taken ; for
men who left the Christian Church and went back to the
synagogue became companions of persons who thought
they did God service in cursing the name of Jesus.
The writer proceeds (vers. 7, 8), by a comparison
drawn from agriculture, to illustrate the danger to which
those are exposed who, having had a pronounced
spiritual experience, afterwards fall away from the faith
and life of the gospel. The parable does not really
afford us much help to the understanding of the matter ;
as it is rendered in the Authorised Version it affords no

THE TEACHER'S COMPLAINT 215
help at all. As the case is put there, a contrast seems
to be drawn between two kinds of soil, one of which is
well watered, and therefore fertile, while the other is
unwatered, and therefore sterile or productive, only of
thorns and thistles. Such a contrast would bring out
the difference between those who have and those who
have not enjoyed gospel privileges, not the difference
between two classes of Christians who have both equally
enjoyed such privileges, or the two possible alternatives
in the case of every professing Christian. It is a con
trast fitted to serve the latter purpose that really is
made. Exactly rendered it runs thus : "For land which,
after drinking in the rain that cometh oft upon it, bringeth
forth herbage meet for those for whose benefit it is tilled,
receiveth blessing from God ; but if it (the same land
well watered) bear thorns and thistles, it is worthless,
and nigh unto a curse, whose end is unto burning."
When we compare this parable with any of our
Lord's, there is a great falling off in point of felicity
and instructiveness. One purpose it doubtless serves, to
make clear the matter of fact, that the same Christian
privileges and experiences may issue in widely different
ultimate results. The soil is supposed in either case to
be well watered, not only rained upon, but often
saturated with water, having drunk up the blessing of
the clouds, and moreover to be carefully tilled; for
though that point is left in the background, it is alluded
to in the words " for whose benefit it is tilled " (Bl ov?
ical yempyeirai). Yet in one case it yields a useful crop,
in the other only a useless crop of thorns and thistles.
But why ? On this important question the parable

216 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
throws no light. The land which bears the useless crop
is not a barren rock ; for it drinks in the rain, and it is
considered worth ploughing. Nay, it is doubtful if the
case supposed in the second alternative can occur in the
natural world. Was there ever a land well tilled and
watered that produced nothing but thorns and thistles ?
It seems as if the natural and the spiritual were mixed
up here, and that were said of the one which is strictly
true only with reference to the other. The writer
describes a case in the natural world which can hardly
happen to represent a case which may happen in the spiri
tual world, that, namely, of men whose hearts have been
sown with the seed of truth and watered with the rain of
grace becoming so utterly degenerate and reprobate as
in the end to produce nothing but the thorns and thistles
of unbelief and ungodliness.1 Mixture of metaphor and
literal sense is indeed manifest throughout, the phrases
" receiveth blessing," " reprobate " (dBoKifio^), " nigh to a
curse," " whose end is unto burning," expressing moral
ideas rather than physical facts. This is particularly
evident in the case of the last phrase. It plainly points
to a judicial visitation of the severest kind, the appointed
penalty of spiritual unfruitfulness. But in the natural
1 Natural improbability occurs in some of our Lord's parables ;
e.g. in the Parable of the Great Supper. Such a thing as all the
guests invited to a feast with one consent refusing to come does not
happen in society. The truth is, it is impossible to describe the
essentially unreasonable behaviour of men in regard to the kingdom
of God in parabolic language, without violating natural probability.
On the other hand, the parables which describe Christ's own con
duct, much assailed by His contemporaries, are all thoroughly true
to nature ; e.g. those in the fifteenth chapter of Luke. I have
remarked on this contrast in The Parabolic Teaching of C/aist.

THE TEACHER'S COMPLAINT 217
sphere burning is remedial rather than punitive, to burn
land which has become foul being a good method of
restoring it to fertility.
In yet another respect the comparison fails us. Sup
posing there were such a thing as burning unprofitable
land by way of judicial visitation, as the land of Sodom
was destroyed by fire and brimstone, — an event which
may have been present to the writer's thoughts, — the
fact might serve to symbolise the Divine judgment on
apostasy. But the matter on which we most of all need
light is the asserted impossibility of renewal. That the
finally impenitent should be punished we understand, but
what we want to know is, how men get into that state :
what is the psychological history of irrecoverable
apostasy ? To refer to Divine agency in hardening
human hearts does not help us, for God hardens by
means naturally fitted and intended to soften and win.
Neither can we take refuge in the supposition of insuffi
cient initial grace, at least from the point of view of the
writer of our Epistle ; for he assumes that the fruitful
and the unfruitful have been equally favoured. The
rain falls not less liberally on the land that bears thorns
and thistles than on the land that brings forth an
abundant crop of grass or grain ; and the rain represents
the enlightenment, enjoyment, and power previously
mentioned. In the Parable of the Sower the diversity in the
results is traced to the nature of the soil. In each case
the issue is exactly such as we should expect from the
character of the soil. In the parable before us opposite
results are supposed to be possible in the same soil. The

218 TflE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
effect, that is to say, is conceived to depend on the will
of the individual, on the use he makes of his privileges.
The Hebrew Christians might have been teachers in
stead of childish learners, had they chosen to take the
necessary pains. They might have been full-grown men.
had they only properly exercised their spiritual senses
in the art of discerning between good and evil.

CHAPTER XI
THE TEACHER'S CHARITY
Chap. vi. 9-20
At this point the teacher of the Hebrew Church sud
denly and decidedly changes his tone. He will not let
his last word be one of complaint and despondency. He
refuses to believe that the apostate's doom is in store for
any of those to whom he writes. Therefore he hastens
to assure them that he cherishes hopeful thoughts of
their present and future state, calling them, in this
solitary instance, " beloved," as if to make amends for the
severity of his rebuke, and declaring that he fully
expects to see realised in their experience the better
alternative of the foregoing contrast — fruitfulness con
nected with, leading up to, salvation- — instead of the
cursing and perdition appointed for the land that bears
only thorns and thistles.
So the teacher's complaining gives place to the -charity
that believeth all things and hopeth all things. It is
the way of all New Testament writers, eminently of
Paul. How he labours to persuade himself of the better
things in regard to unbelieving Israel in that section
of his Epistle to the Romans in which he deals with the
219

220 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
hard problem, how to reconcile Israel's position as God's
elect people with her attitude towards the gospel!
Having faced first the dark alternative, that the facts
meant the cancelling of the election, and shown that in
that case no one was to blame but Israel herself, he
declares his belief that the state of matters is not
so serious. " I say then, Hath God cast away His
people ? God forbid." The recurrent phrases, " I say
then" and "God forbid," show how hard' he finds it to
make good this position. But the ingenuity of love
discovers a ground of hope even in the very terms in
which rejection was threatened : " I will provoke you
to jealousy by a no-people " ; whence the apostle extracts
the theory, that God has temporarily cast away Israel,
and called the Gentiles to make the former jealous, and
so lead her to value privileges hitherto despised. It
is only a new, roundabout method of working for
Israel's good (Rom. xi).
Such was Paul's ground of hope for Hebrew un
believers. And what is the ground of the hope the
writer of our Epistle cherishes for Hebrew Christians ? It
is their Christian work, and more especially the love they
have shown to the name of God, and of His Son Jesus,
by past and present ministries to the necessities of saints.
Verily a good, solid foundation for a judgment of charity
and hope ! And in adducing it for that purpose, the
writer shows himself to be a man thoroughly imbued
with the spirit of Christ's teaching. He evidently knows
what value the great Master set upon even a cup of cold
water given to a disciple in the name of a disciple, and
how in the representation of the last judgment He made

THE TEACHER'S CHARITY 221
charity the great decisive test of character. He hopes
that it is well with these poor Hebrew Christians, in
spite of their vacillations in opinion and their hankering
after old religious customs, because they have manifested,
and are still manifesting, love to the name of Christ
by deeds of kindness to Christians afflicted with the
common ills of life, or exposed to persecution for the
gospel's sake. In cherishing such a hope on such a
ground he acted on a sound instinct. Men were still
a long way from crucifying Christ afresh who continued
to show kind feelings towards His followers. Their
hearts were right, though their heads might be confused,
and their minds in a state of painful oscillation between
the old and the new religions, between the traditions
of the synagogue and the simple, spiritual, free, re
volutionary principles of the gospel, as preached first
by the Lord Jesus and then by His apostles. Had these
Hebrews really been apostates, or on the point of
becoming such, they would have hated, not loved, their
former brethren ; they would have addicted themselves to
the bad work of persecuting believers in Jesus, rather than
to the blessed work of ministering to the necessities of the
saints. Renegades are ever the most ruthless persecutors :
witness James Sharp, Archbishop of St. Andrews in
the reign of Charles ii., formerly a Covenanting Presby
terian minister, whose cold-blooded cruelty towards his
old fellow-religionists horrified even his unscrupulous
associates in the bad work of persecution, and brought at
length its own penalty in the murder of the apostate by
a band of daring men whom his iniquity had driven mad.
Recalling the kindly deeds of his slow-minded pupils,

222 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
the teacher almost repents of the alarming tone in which
he has addressed them, and becomes apologetic, saying in
effect : "I do not think so badly of you as to believe
that the fearful doom I have depicted will befall you,
but I have thought it right to put the dark picture
before your eyes, that you might look at it ; for I wish
to rouse you out of your torpor, and stir you up to
diligence to make your calling and election sure, that
your salvation may be a matter of certainty, and not
merely of charitable hope" (vers. 11, 12).
Noteworthy in these verses is the individualising
character of the pious solicitude of this man of God
for the spiritual wellbeing of the Hebrews. Every one
of you. The good shepherd goeth after even one stray
ing sheep. The expression may signify that while there
was no reason to take a despairing view of the Hebrew
Church as a whole, there were some of its members
in imminent danger of apostasy. It may also be legiti
mately taken as an index of personal relations — a proof
that the writing we are studying was really an epistle
addressed to a particular community well known to the
writer. The teacher desires to see faith and hope in as lively
exercise as charity, in the characters of these Hebrews.
With their love it appears he had no fault to find, but
their faith was weak and their hope was dim. Even at
the worst, even if they should suffer shipwreck of faith,
he trusts that men so kindly affectioned towards Christ's
people would get safe to heaven's shore, " some on boards,
some on broken pieces of the ship " ; but he is not con
tent that they should be saved in this precarious

THE TEACHER'S CHARITY 223
manner. He would have them go into the haven with
ship intact, with the rudder of faith in good working
condition, and with sails filled with the favouring breeze
of the hope of glory.
He further expresses his desire that the Hebrews
should become imitators of those who through faith and
patience inherit the promises. He has in view, doubtless,
the roll of heroes who have made their lives sublime,
and who receive honourable mention in the eleventh
chapter. The reference is not merely to the patriarchs,
though the mention of Abraham in the next verse might
lead us to suppose that they are specially intended, but
to all in all ages, living or dead, present or past, who
by steadfast faith and firm endurance do make sure the
inheritance, and do in a sense possess it even before life's
close. What is wished for the Hebrews therefore is,
that they may have a faith so clear that it shall be
the substance of things hoped for, the future inheritance
in present possession ; and that by a great-souled, in
domitable patience, proof against all temptation, they
may persevere in the faith even to the end, and so
obtain the promise, not merely by way of earnest, but in
full fruition.
This expression of his pium desiderium the writer
follows up by a reference to Abraham, as the most signal
example of patient, magnanimous faith, and as one whose
history served to show how reliable are the promises
of God (vers. 13—17). All New Testament writers, Paul,
James, our author, utilise the story of the great patriarch
of the Jewish race for the purpose of establishing a
doctrine or enforcing a moral lesson. Nothing was more

224 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
likely to touch the Hebrew heart. The part of Abra
ham's history alluded to is that in which the pathos
of his life reaches its climax, the words quoted being
those spoken to him by God after his sublime manifes
tation of implicit obedience and trust in offering up
for sacrifice his only son. What God said is not quoted
in full, only the kernel of the promise being given, and
the Divine eulogy on Abraham's magnanimity being
passed over in silence. The point on which stress is
laid is the oath accompanying the promise; for the
writer's purpose is to make prominent the trustworthiness
of the promises, as amply justifying the desiderated
" full assurance of hope," not to pass an encomium on
Abraham. He does not indeed lose sight of the latter
object entirely. The patriarch's patient faith gets
honourable mention in ver. 15, where it is said in
effect that, having received the word of promise, con
firmed by an oath, Abraham persevered in faith, and,
persevering, at length obtained the fulfilment of the
promise. Even here, it is to be observed, the leading
thought is not Abraham's patience, but the certainty
of the promise. The patriarch's patience is referred
to only in a participial clause (ovtco? fj,aKpo6vfi.rj<ra<;) ;
that he obtained the promise is the main affirmation.
And the purpose of that affirmation again is not to assert
that Abraham personally entered into full possession
of the thing promised. This was that his seed should be
multiplied as the stars of heaven, and as the sand of
the seashore, and that in his seed all the nations of
the earth should eventually he blessed. It was in truth
the promise of the great Messianic salvation, the object

THE TEACHER'S CHARITY 225
of hope for humanity at large, and for the Hebrew
Christians in particular. That promise, of course, was
not fulfilled exhaustively and comprehensively in Abra
ham's lifetime. Of Abraham, as of all the patriarchs,
it was true that he died in faith, not having received the
promises, but having only seen them afar off. This
is our author's own reflection (xi. 13), and he does
not mean to say anything inconsistent therewith here.
His aim in the two places is not the same. In the
eleventh chapter his object is to extol the faith of the
patriarchs ; here it is chiefly to extol the reliableness of
God's promises, that it may appear that a fully assured
hope is justifiable and attainable. Viewed in the light
of this purpose, what he says is in effect this : the
promise made to Abraham, extravagant as its terms
may seem, and however unlikely to be fulfilled, regarded
before the event, shall be fulfilled to the letter. Im
portant instalments of fulfilment lie behind us in the
history of Israel ; there was even an initial fulfilment in
Abraham's own lifetime, in the giving back to him of his
son Isaac from the dead, in the marriage of Isaac to
Rebekah, and in the birth of grandchildren through
their marriage.1
1 In what sense the statement that Abraham received the promise
is to be understood, is a point on which interpreters are not agreed.
Bleek understands it as meaning that he obtained the promise
itself, but not the thing promised ; or the latter, only de jure
(Grotius), not de facto. In support of this view he adverts to the fact
that the word used to express the idea of obtaining in chapter vi.
15 (ewervxev) is not the same as in chapter xi. 13, 39 (wpoa8e£dpevoi,
eKopia-auTo). Similarly, among recent interpreters, Rendall. The
great majority of commentators have found in the words a reference
to fulfilment ; and it does seem as if the scope of, the argument
IS

226 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
The writer's purpose being to insist on the trustworthi
ness of God's promises for the strengthening of hope in
dejected hearts, he naturally makes the oath accompany
ing the promise to Abraham the subject of some reflections
designed to bring out its significance, proceeding on the
assumption that the oath, like the promise, concerned
not Abraham only, but all his spiritual seed. That oath
is indeed remarkable in many ways, and in a high degree
provocative of thought. It is the first instance in
Scripture in which God is represented as binding Him
self by an oath to the keeping of His word. It is
further remarkable as an expression of admiration
awakened in the Divine bosom by the spectacle of self-
sacrifice presented by the patriarch in offering up his
only son Isaac. Looking down thereon God exclaims :
" As I live, this is a great, heroic deed ; it shall not go
unrewarded ; out of the son with whom this man is
willing to part at the call of duty shall spring a seed
multitudinous as the stars or the sand of the seashore,
and destined to be a channel of grace and mercy to all
the peoples that dwell on the face of the earth."
But it is not in either of these senses that our author
wishes to fix the attention of his readers on the oath, but
in a third respect, namely, as a reliable guarantee of the
required this. There would not be much encouragement to hope
in the mere fact of believing men getting promises, if there were
not at least partial fulfilments to point to. Westcott's view is
similar to that stated in the text. Weiss thinks the birth of Isaac
and of his sons was not the fulfilment referred to, but the growth of
a great people out of them. Vaughan thinks the fulfilment was
that of the promise of the heavenly rest realised, though not
exhaustively, by Abraham.

THE TEACHER'S CHARITY 227
absolute certainty of the promise to which the oath was
attached. To commend it in this view, he enlarges on
the oath, exhibiting it particularly on two sides : (1) as
a manifestation of Divine condescension, in gracious soli
citude for man's good, therefore a moral argument for the
truth of the promise ; and (2) as pledging the Divine
nature, and therefore a metaphysical argument for the
truth of the promise. The former aspect is suggested
by the words, " because He could swear by no greater,
He sware by Himself " (ver. 13). That is as much as to
say, that if it had been possible for God to find any
being greater than Himself of whom He stood in awe, as
men stand in awe of Him, He would have been glad to
swear by that being, to show to the heirs of the promise
the immutability of His counsel, for their encourage
ment and confirmation. But the Divine condescension is
still more strikingly exhibited in the words efiea-irevuev
SpKw (ver. 17), weakly rendered in the Authorised
Version " confirmed it by an oath," but which literally
signify, " interposed Himself as a middle party or medi
ator by an oath." The idea is a very bold but also a
very grand one : that God, in taking an oath, made
Himself a third party intermediate between God and
Abraham. Men, as is remarked in ver. 16, swear by
the greater, and so in a sense did God. God swearing
became inferior in His condescension to God sworn by :
" descended as it were " (to quote Delitzsch) " from His
own absolute exaltation, in order,, so to speak, to look up
to Himself after the manner of men, and take Himself to
witness ; and so by a gracious condescension confirm the
promise for the sake of its inheritors." Thus God, in

228 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
taking an oath, does a thing analogous to God becoming
man. The acts are kindred, being both acts of conde
scension and love. In these two acts and in covenant-
making God stoops down from His majesty to the weak
ness and want and low estate of man. In taking an
oath, He submits to indignity, imposed by man's distrust,
and, instead of standing on His character for truthfulness,
puts Himself under oath, that there may be an end of
gainsaying (dvrikoyias, ver. 16). In becoming man,
God condescends to man's sin, submits to the lot of a
sinner, that man may be delivered from the power of
evil. In making a covenant, He makes Himself a
debtor to His creatures, and gives them a right to claim
what is in reality a matter of grace, and not of debt.
The other aspect of the oath is presented in ver. 18.
The point here is the utter impossibility of God perjuring
Himself. Apart altogether from God's love, it is simply
impossible for the Divine Being to make a promise
on oath which He does not mean to keep. But it
may be asked, What are the two unchangeable (dfiera-
Oerav) things ? God's oath is one of the things, of
course, but what is the other ? It is the bare word
of promise without the oath. It is right to count
the word separately among the immutabilities. By
so doing our author does not weaken the argument
drawn from the oath, but rather strengthens it. The
very stress he lays on the oath requires him to attach
not less value to the bare word of God. For if God's
word were not immutable, His oath would not be
immutable either. Unless His word were as good as an
oath, His oath would be worthless. For He has nothing

THE TEACHER'S CHARITY 229
to fear as the penalty of perjury. Men have something
to fear, but not God ; the only influence that can affect
Him is reverence for Himself, and that will influence
Him not less when He simply pledges His word than
when He seals His word with the solemnity of an
oath. The fitness of God's word, backed by His oath, to
encourage even the weakest faith, is strongly asserted by
implication in the description of those for whose, benefit
the whole argument is intended, as persons who have
fled as for refuge to lay hold upon the forelying hope.
The words suggest the idea of a person fleeing to a
, sanctuary, and laying hold of the horns of the altar.
Or perhaps, as the image of an anchor occurs in the
next verse, the writer had in his mind the case of a
sailor running his vessel into the most convenient harbour
of refuge, to escape the fury of the storm and the danger
of shipwreck.In addition to all that has been said on the oath, it
may be remarked that, without doubt, the writer made
it the subject of the foregoing reflections, because they
well, served the purpose of preparing his readers for
attaching importance to another oath of God — that sworn
in announcing the introduction of a new order of priest
hood. He wished to suggest the thought, that it is
always an important occasion when God swears an oath.
An oath reveals a great tide of emotion in the Divine
heart, which nothing short of an epoch-making event in
the history of the world can give rise to. Note well the
crises when God plays the part of mediator between
Himself and men by oath-taking, and mark their profound

230 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
significance. In the case of Abraham, the oath expressed
the Divine delight in self-sacrifice, and the certainty of
ultimate renown and bliss for all who rise to the heroic
pitch in faith and patience. They shall be the founders
of enduring races, the originators of great beneficent
movements for the good of mankind, and their memory
shall live while the world lasts. In the case of the
Melchisedec priesthood, the oath meant the Divine weari
ness of a rude Levitical ritual, and the inbringing of a new
order that should perfectly realise the ideal, and therefore
be eternal. The two events, the giving of the promise to
Abraham, and the institution of the Melchisedec priest
hood, had, it thus appears, this much in common, that
they were both occasions sufficiently important to be
worthy of a Divine oath. Had they no other connection ?
Was it a mere accident that God took an oath in these
two cases, and so tied together by a slight string events
otherwise unrelated ? This is not the view of the writer
of our Epistle. The promise to Abraham and his seed —
the object of the Christian hope — and the Melchisedec
priesthood are in his mind closely related. In referring
to the oath sworn to Abraham, he gives a premonitory
hint of the intimate connection between the two things,
which is plainly declared in the closing verses of the
chapter (19, 20).
These beautiful words form the happy, cheering con
clusion of a passage, which as a whole, and especially
at its commencement, is of a very stern and sombre
character. Here the frown passes away from the teacher's
face, and is replaced by a benignant smile, and his style
of writing relaxes from prophetic severity to evangelic

THE TEACHER'S CHARITY 231
geniality and tenderness. While in the early part of
this section we were conducted to the edge of a precipice,
and bid look down and behold the appalling fate of
apostates, or carried away back to the plain of Sodom,
and shown there a land rendered sterile for ever by fire
and brimstone for the sins of its inhabitants, we are here
privileged to witness the pleasing sight of a ship riding
safely at anchor, an emblem of the security of a Christian
who cherishes the hope of eternal life, and is thereby
enabled to hold fast his profession of faith in spite of all
the stormy tribulations of time. Then how fitted to
reassure the Christian pilgrim on his heavenward way,
that view of Jesus gone within the veil as our Fore
runner, reminding us of His own words to His disciples
on the eve of His passion : " In My Father's house are
many mansions ; . . . I go to prepare a place for you.
And ... I shall come again, and receive you unto My
self; that where I am, there ye may be also" (John
xiv. 2, 3).
Which (hope) we have as an anchor of the soul, secure
and firm, and entering into the place within the veil.
The two epithets (dcr<ba\r) re ical fieftaiav) describe
the qualities of a good anchor. Being connected by
re Kal they may be regarded as expressing only a single
idea. But we may refer the first epithet to the anchor
ing ground, as good for anchorage, and the second to the
anchor, as one which will keep its hold.
The comparison of hope to an anchor is apt in respect
both to its use and to the way in which it is used. The
use of an anchor is to keep a ship fixed to one spot, and
prevent it from drifting before wind and tide ; and it is

232 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
made available for this purpose by being thrown out of
the ship into the sea, that it may sink to the bottom
and lay hold of the unseen ground. Even so the func
tion of hope is to keep the soul in peace and safety amid
trouble, and it does this by entering into the unseen
future, and laying hold of good not now enjoyed. This
is true of hope in general. The peculiarity of Christian
hope is, that it finds its anchorage, not in the nearer
future lying between the present moment and death,
but in the remote future beyond the tomb. Its anchor
ing ground lies deep beneath the dark waters of time,
invisible to sense, existing only for faith.
Assuming that the former of the two epithets by which
the anchor is described refers to the anchoring ground,
it amounts to a testimony that the Christian hope is
objectively true. If it be asked, What is the evidence
for such an assertion ? to find the answer of the writer
we must fall back on the " two immutable things."
God's promises and His oaths, and His covenant with
men, and the whole history of His dealings with men
in the execution of a redemptive purpose, as recorded
in the Scriptures, — these are the guarantees that we
strike the anchor of our eternal hope into a firm, un
yielding bottom. If we are to doubt the reality of the
thing hoped for, then we must give up the idea of a
revelation and all that it implies ; for it is not credible
that God would act towards men as the Bible represents,
if human existence was limited to threescore years and
ten. If man's destiny be to " be blown about in
desert dust, or sealed within the iron hills," not only is
man " a monster then, a dream, a discord," but the faith

THE TEACHERS CHARITY 233
which revelation inspires, that " God was love indeed,
and love creation's final law," is a delusion.
The image of the anchor is in itself very appropriate
and pathetic, but the conception of it as entering into
the place within the veil, i.e. the Holy of Holies, strikes
one at first as artificial and frigid. It seems incongruous
to speak of an anchor in connection with the inner
shrine of the tabernacle. Some seek escape from the
incongruity by taking the " entering " (eiaepxo^evqv) as
referring, not to the anchor, but to the hope, the figure
being dropped at this point. The truth appears to be,
that we have here a combination of two metaphors, with
the connecting link suppressed. The full thought is this :
Hope is an anchor entering into the eternal, invisible
world, like the anchor of a ship entering into the waters,
and laying hold of the bottom of the sea ; and that
eternal world whereof hope lays hold may in turn be
likened unto the place within the veil, because it is hid
from view, as by a veil suspended before our eyes, to be
drawn aside at the hour of our decease.
The allusion to the Holy of Holies as an emblem of
the eternal world is made, it seems to me, with the
purpose of bringing the train of thought back to the
old theme. In the long digression into which he has
been drawn, the writer has, to use a familiar phrase,
gone off the rails, and he employs this expression as a
switch to bring the train back to the main line. It is
another example of the rhetorical tact by which the
whole Epistle is so notably distinguished. But the
expression is more than a switch : it contributes to the
argument, and serves to justify the representation of the

234 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
anchor of Christian hope as one sure and steadfast.
This appears when we reflect what is " the place within
the veil." It is the place where are the ark of the
covenant, and the mercy-seat, and the cherubim with
outstretched wings — which were just Israel's grounds
of hope that God would fulfil His promise, and keep
His covenant with His people, maintaining them in
peace and prosperity in the Promised Land. This the
Hebrews well knew, and their friend would have them
understand that the new covenant of grace, and the
gospel of mercy, and the outstretched wings of redeeming
love, in the New Testament holy of hohes, are not less
reliable grounds of hope for believers in Christ with
respect to the " world to come " than was the furniture
of the inner shrine of the tabernacle for the people of
Israel with respect to the temporal blessings God had
promised them.
And now we come to the crowning thought : Where,
as Forerunner for us, entered Jesus, become, after the order
of Melchisedec, our High Priest for ever (ver. 20). The
word irpoBpofia is, as Bengel remarks, verbum valde
significans, though in common with nearly all com
mentators he fails to perceive, or at least to express in
any adequate manner, its significance. It lies really in
this, that it expresses an idea entirely new, lying altogether
outside the Levitical system. The high priest of Israel
did not go into the most holy place as forerunner, but
only as the representative of the people. He went into
a place whither none might follow him, entering once a
year, in the people's stead, not as their pioneer. The
glory and privilege of the new Christian era, the peculiar

THE TEACHER'S CHARITY 235
excellence of the perfect religion, is, that Christ, as
the High Priest of humanity, goes nowhere where His
people cannot follow Him. He is our pioneer, clearing
our way. There is no longer any envious veil screening
off some specially holy place, and shutting it against us.
The veil was the sure sign that the Levitical religion
was not the absolute religion, not the summum bonum,
but only a shadow of good things to come. The absolute
religion demands an unrestricted fellowship of the human
spirit with a Divine Father, who is not merely in a place
technically holy, but wherever there is a contrite, humble,
devout worshipper ; a Father who dwells in heaven,
doubtless, but not in a heaven which He keeps to Him
self, but rather in a heaven into which He means to
gather together all His children. Not till such unre
stricted fellowship has been established has the perfect,
perennial religion come. That it has been established,
is what the writer of our Epistle means to suggest by
the use of the term rrp6Bpopio<s in reference to Jesus as
our great High Priest entering into the place within the
veil. He means to point out a contrast between the two
religions, saying in effect : That which was lacking in the
old religion is at length come. Where the High Priest
goeth we may also go, instead of, as of old, standing
without, waiting anxiously for the exit of the high priest
from that inaccessible, dark, awful, perilous, most holy
place beyond the veil. The great thought forms a
worthy close to a discourse designed to revive hope in
drooping hearts.
To what extent it served this purpose we know not ;
possibly the Hebrew Christians failed to perceive the

236 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
point, and so lost the intended benefit. This certainly
has been the case with most commentators ; why, I find
it hard to understand. How completely the authors of
the old English version missed the sense appears from
their rendering " whither the Forerunner is for us entered,
even Jesus," as if the idea of a high priest being a fore
runner were a perfectly familiar one, instead of being a
startling, beneficent originality. Familiar to us of course
it is, but we must consider what it was to the first
readers of the Epistle. Some of the more recent com
mentators fail not less completely, by connecting the idea
of forerunner, not with Christ's high-priestly office, but
with His function as the Captain of salvation, leading God's
people into the Promised Land. Jesus is our Forerunner,
not as the Aaron, but as the Joshua of the new era,1 though
He is represented as entering for us and before us, not
the heavenly Canaan, but the heavenly holy of holies
— the place beyond the veil. Thus what the author,
as I believe, intended to be a striking contrast becomes
a parallel between the two dispensations. Without doubt,
the main cause of all this miscarriage is failure to grasp

1 So Dr. Edwards and Mr. Kendall, and apparently also Dr. Weiss ;
for he refers back to chapter ii. 10, and the title dpxiybs there.
Vaughan's note on wpabpopos is purely verbal, except that he
weakens the religious value of the truth it expresses by the remark,
" We might have expected the simple genitive (Jipav) after wpoSpopos.
But the insertion of vwep is reverential, and marks the disparity of
the wpoSpopos and the followers." Westcott sees the point dimly,
but he does not put the contrast with adequate sharpness. " Thus
to the fulfilment of the type of the high priest's work another work
is added. The high priest entered the Holy of Holies on behalf of
the people, but they never followed him. Christ enters heaven as
Forerunner of believers."

THE TEACHER'S CHARITY 237
firmly the apologetic character of the Epistle, as intended
to show the superiority of the Christian religion over
the Levitical, and never losing an opportunity of pro
moting that end. Here surely was an excellent oppor
tunity, a glaring contrast between the two religions
offering itself for remark, a contrast in which the*
advantage was altogether and manifestly on the side of
Christianity : the high priest of Israel going within the
veil as a substitute, the High Priest of humanity
going within the veil as a Forerunner. A competent
writer of an apologetic work, such as I take the
Epistle to the Hebrews to be, could not omit this
thought; and if it is to be found anywhere in the
Epistle, it is here.
Probably a subsidiary misleading influence, preventing
expositors from finding the thought referred to in this
text, has been the notion that Christ's priestly office did
not begin till He entered the heavenly sanctuary. If
Jesus became our High Priest only after He had reached
the place within the veil, then His function as Forerunner
must not be connected with that office, but is to be
accounted for in some other way. But are we really
required to date the commencement of His priesthood
so rigidly from His arrival in heaven ? Not certainly
by the closing words of the text now under consideration :
having become, or becoming, after the order of Melchisedec,
a High Priest for ever. We may think of Jesus as
becoming a High Priest in the very act of entering, be
coming Priest by doing a priestly act. On this principle
of becoming by doing, we must go back further still for
the commencement of His priesthood, and include His

238 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
death among His priestly functions. He dies as
Priest, He enters the heavenly sanctuary as Priest,
He takes His seat on the throne as Priest. He
does not become a High Priest after His entrance.
He only becomes a High Priest for ever then. His
likeness to Melchisedec lies, not in His being a High
Priest, but in the eternal endurance of His priestly
office, the imperishable value of His priestly work,
whereof His session on the throne is the symbol and
evidence. While the idea of Jesus as Forerunner serves to bring
into strong relief the superiority of the Christian
religion over the Levitical, yet it does not give adequate
expression to the worth of the rehgion of free access.
It makes salvation a thing of the future, an object of
hope, the point of view from which it is regarded in this
whole section. This conception of salvation as future
is not the exclusive, though it is the predominant view
point of the Epistle. In some places the summum
bonum appears as a present good. The way into the
most holy place is already consecrated, and we may
boldly come even now into the very presence of God
(x. 19-22). We are come unto Mount Zion (xii. 22).
The same truth is implied in the exhortation in chapter iv.
1 6 to come with boldness unto the throne of grace. The
Christian faith not only has a promise of lordship in the
world to come, but possesses that world now. Chris
tianity, in fact, is the future world. This paradox, as
Pfleiderer has remarked,1 expresses in the most pregnant
form the peculiar point of view of the Epistle, and gives
1 Paulinism, vol. ii. pp. 57, 58.

THE TEACHER'S CHARITY 239
to its teaching a place intermediate between the Jewish-
Christian conception, according to which salvation was
purely future, and the Johannine, according to which it
is, as an ideally perfect thing, present : eternal life, not
merely in prospect, but now enjoyed to the full by
believers.

CHAPTER XII
THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEC
Chap. vii. 1-10
Having unburdened his heart by these words of com
plaint and charitable hope, our author proceeds to
determine the nature of the Melchisedec order of priest
hood, and to demonstrate its superior and supreme value.
Before considering his method of fixing the type, and
showing its ideal worth, it may be helpful to offer here
some introductory observations on the writer's aim in
introducing into his treatise this remarkable speculation,
if I may so designate it, or the function which the latter
performs in his argument.
The section concerning the Melchisedec type of priest
hood serves, I think, a double purpose. First, and in
some respects foremost in importance, there is the
apologetic purpose. The writer eagerly lays hold of the
Melchisedec priesthood, as a means of showing that
Christ might be a priest, though not possessing the legal
qualifications for the Levitical priesthood. Here is a
priesthood, represented in the oracle of Psalm ex. as
of a different order, to which Jesus, as the Messiah, may
lay claim. This new type of priesthood, other than
240

THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEC 241
Levitical, further serves well the apologetic aim by its
priority in point of time. The new type is older than
the Levitical, supposed alone to possess legitimacy ; nay,
is the oldest type known to sacred history. In com
parison with this ancient order, the Levitical priesthood
is an upstart. But what if this order were only a rude,
imperfect, irregular sort of priesthood, good enough for
those old-world times, and graciously accepted by God in
absence of a better, but destined to pass away when a
regularly established priesthood came in, not worthy to
continue side by side therewith, and not fit to be referred
to as establishing a new sort of priesthood, claiming to
supersede the Levitical ? In that case it would be a
mere impertinence to refer to that rude, primitive priest
hood to justify the antiquation of the divinely instituted,
not merely graciously tolerated, priesthood of the sons
of Levi. This would be a very natural view of the
matter for Jewish minds to take ; and the apologist of
Christianity could not be sure that it would not suggest
itself to the Hebrew Christians whom he sought to
estabhsh in the faith. The possibihty was present to his
mind, and he amply provides for it in his argument by
unfolding the full significance of the oracle in Psalm ex.,
pointing out that the priesthood of Melchisedec is there
referred to, not as a rude, irregular, inferior sort of
priesthood, the continuance of which, in times of estab
lished order, were absurd or impious, but as the highest
sort of priesthood, the very ideal of priesthood, a priest
hood fit for kings, as opposed to sacerdotal drudges.
" ' Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Mel
chisedec' Here," says our apologist in effect, " here is
16

242 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
Melchisedec's priesthood erected into the dignity of an
eternal priesthood, a priesthood worthy to be established
by an oath, a priesthood which would not dishonour a
king, nay, a priesthood fit even for Messiah ; for you, my
readers, believe this to be a Messianic rjsalm. See how
possible it is for Jesus to be not only a priest, but the
Priest par excellence, though not of the house of Aaron."
The Melchisedec priesthood a distinct type, the most
ancient, and, though ancient, yet not rude, but rather the
better, and the best possible : such are the moments in
the apologetic argument, which has for its aim to prove
that the priesthood of Christ is at once real, and of ideal
worth. One cannot help comparing this use of the Mel
chisedec priesthood in our Epistle with that made by
Paul of the promise in the Epistle to the Galatians.1
The promise, argued Paul, was before the law, and there
fore above it : the law came in afterwards, not to super
sede the promise, but to serve a purpose in subordination
to it ; and when that purpose is fulfilled, the law must
pass away, that the promise may come into full effect,
and the reign of grace begin.2 Both lines of thought-
1 For some interesting observations on this parallel between Paul
and the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, vide Pfleiderer's
Paulinism, vol. ii. p. 94. The idea of Christ as a Priest after the
order of Melchisedec, he represents as strictly a pendant to the
Pauline philosophy of religion. The apologetic value of the Mel
chisedec priesthood is not destroyed by the fact of his not belonging
to the Jewish people. No Jew could say, " What is Melchisedec or
his priesthood to us ? He was a mere heathen." The priest of
Salem was drawn into, and, as it were, naturalised in the history of
Israel by Abraham receiving the benefit of his priestly benediction,
and recognising him as the priest of the most high God.
2 Gal. iii. 17.

THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEC 243
tend in the same general direction, that of establishing
the independence and absolute worth of Christianity over
against Judaism. Paul, by his line of thought concern
ing the promise, establishes the absolute worth of
Christianity as against legalism ; the author of our
Epistle, by his line of thought concerning the Mel
chisedec priesthood, establishes the same truth as against
Leviticalism, thereby exhibiting himself as in full
sympathy with the Pauline system, if not as a direct
disciple of the great Gentile apostle.
Besides the apologetic purpose of the Melchisedec
section, we may distinguish a dogmatic one. In saying
this, I clo not mean that the writer himself makes any
such formal distinction, or deals with the relative
material successively from the apologetic and the dog
matic points of view ; but merely that we may regard
what he has written on the subject from the latter
point of view as well as from the former. Dogmatically
considered, the section exhibits the Melchisedec priest
hood as a symbol of the eternal validity of Christ's
priestly functions. In this connection, the expression
" for ever " in the oracle from the Psalter is the point
emphasised. In his scheme of thought, our author
employs the Aaronic type of priesthood to convey an idea
of the nature of Christ's priestly functions, and the Mel
chisedec type to symbolise the everlasting duration of
His priestly office. Hence, in determining the character
istics of the latter type, it is to the attribute of eternity
that he gives prominence (ver. 3). But it would be a
mistake to suppose that he attaches no importance to
any other attribute, or means to suggest that none but

244 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
the one emphasised enters into the idea of the type.
The contrary is evident, from the way in which he deals
with the history of Melchisedec, in order to determine
the nature of his priesthood. It is further evident from
the nature of the case. Eternity is the main fact, but
the question inevitably arises, Why is the Melchisedec
type of priesthood eternal ? The answer must be,
Because it is perfect, because it possesses ideal value.
Eternity and ethical worth go together. We see this,
and that the writer saw it will forthwith appear. The
" order of Melchisedec," as he conceived it, did not mean
merely an eternal priesthood, but a priesthood of such a
nature that its eternity follows of course.
To the above-mentioned uses the Melchisedec priest
hood could be put, and for the sake of pointing them out
the discourse concerning it was well worth while. It
remains to state that that peculiar priesthood was not an
adequate medium for conveying all the writer had to say
on the subject of Christ's priesthood. It indeed failed
to teach precisely the supreme, vital lessons that Christ's
sacrifice was Himself, and that self-sacrifice is the highest
kind of sacrifice — indeed the only real sacrifice.1
It is not surprising that the ancient priest of Salem
took so strong a hold of an imaginative, philosophic mind
like that of our author. Melchisedec is a strikins; ficmre
in the early history of mankind. The reference to him
in the Hebrew Psalter shows that from of old he had
attracted the attention of men of prophetic gifts in
Israel, and that in the few facts narrated concerning
1 Vide on this the last chapter of this work ; also some observa
tions towards the close of the following chapter.

THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEC 245
him such men had been able to discern an ideal
significance. That Philo would have something to say
about him might have been anticipated. But what he
says is not important or stimulating. One searching the
writings of the Alexandrian philosopher, in quest of
thoughts concerning Melchisedec similar to those in our
Epistle, and fitted to support the hypothesis that the
writer drew his inspiration from him, is doomed to
disappointment. Philo does not, so far as I have
observed, quote or refer to the text in Psalm ex., and
there is nothing in all his writings to show that he
followed the Psalmist in ascribing to Melchisedec an
ideal significance. What Bleek says is strictly true, that
in Philo the significance of Melchisedec is always treated
of in an incidental manner.1 On the whole, he speaks
of the priest of Salem with respect, though one phrase
might almost suggest that he conceived of his priesthood
as of the rude character above indicated. I refer to that
passage in which he describes it as a " self -learned, self-
taught priesthood." 2 There is certainly nothing in his
writings to justify the representation that on the subject
1 Hebraerbrief, ii. p. 323, note.
2 6 rqv avropadrj Ka\ avrohihaKrov Aaywi/ iepao-vvrjv, in the tract De
Congr. Erud. Gr. cap. xviii. In another place Philo speaks of God
having made Melchisedec a priest by an act of grace, without regard
to any meritorious work of his : lepea eavrov wewoirjKev 6 Qebs, oidev
epyov avrov wpoSiarvwaxras (Leg. Allegor. iii. 25). In the same place
Melchisedec is compared to reason, the point of the comparison
being, that reason is able to discourse worthily of God, the highest
of all themes, and Melchisedec was the priest of the most high God :
tepevs yap ecrri \6yos (not 6 \6yos), Kh.ijpov exav rbv ovra, Kai v^tj\S>s
wepl avrov \oyi£6pevos. " For Reason is a priest, having Him who
is for his inheritance, and reasoning loftily concerning Him."

246 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
of Melchisedec the writer of our Epistle borrowed from
him. We can fairly claim for our author originality, so
far, at least, as Philo is concerned. He got his inspira
tion, not from the Jewish philosopher, but from the
Hebrew prophet who wrote Psalm ex. And what he got
from the poet's brief pregnant word was but an impulse,
a starting-point, a slight hint, which only a mind of
an equally high order could appreciate, and which for
generations of Bible-readers had remained dead, unpro
ductive, almost unobserved. All honour to the man
through whose philosophic genius, illuminated by the
Spirit of Christ, the grain of precious wheat, after abiding
alone for ages, at length attained to abundant fruitful-
ness, in the form of a theory concerning the Melchisedec
priesthood of Jesus Christ, preserved for our instruction
in the seventh chapter of this Epistle, whose contents we
now proceed to consider ! 1
The first part of the chapter (vers. 1—10) has for its
object to determine the type, or to fix the meaning of the
expression, " after the order of Melchisedec." In the
opening paragraph (vers. 1—3), the writer condenses into
one closely packed sentence every particular of typical
significance in reference to the mysterious personage whose
1 Dr. Edwards regards the passage relating to Melchisedec as an
allegory borrowed from Philo, which " cannot be intended by the
apostle to have direct inferential force." I can hardly think that,
on reflection, this excellent commentator, who has made a real con
tribution to the elucidation of the Epistle, would abide by this
view. It appears to me fatal to the whole doctrine of Christ's
priesthood set forth in the Epistle. If Christ's priesthood is not
proved at this point, it is not proved at all. The writer certainly
thinks he is proving it. The whole stress of his argument lies on
the apologetic value of the Melchisedec priesthood.

THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEC 247
priesthood is represented in Psalm ex. as the model of
Messiah's. Of the things here said, some are plain
enough, being simply a repetition of the historical facts as
stated in the Book of Genesis ; others are indeed hard to
be understood, and have given rise to great variety of inter
pretation. Yet it is possible to exaggerate the difficulty
of these enigmatical statements, and so to make the whole
discourse about Melchisedec a cloud of mist, obscuring
the great truth of Christ's priestly office, rather than a
light shining in a dark place, through which a subject
ill understood becomes clearer to the mental eye. The
meaning of this remarkable passage can be ascertained,
in proof whereof it is enough to adduce the fact that the
leading expositors of ancient and modern times are in the
main agreed as to the sense.
Let us note first the structure of this long sentence.
The main proposition, stripped of all adjuncts (and these
are so numerous that the fact might escape notice), is,
'' For this Melchisedec abideth a priest for ever, or
continually." Hence the word yap (for), with which the
chapter begins. At the close of chapter vi. it is said of
Jesus that He entered heaven, to be there a High Priest
for ever, after the order of Melchisedec ; the idea implied
being, that eternal endurance is an essential characteristic
of the Melchisedec priesthood. Here this thought is
justified by the assertion that the typical Melchisedec
had a priesthood, whose nature it is to abide for
ever. Of the participial or relative clauses lying between the
beginning and the end of the sentence, the first five,
down to the words efiepiaev 'Afipadp, (ver. 2, clause 1),

248 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
recapitulate the historical facts concerning Melchisedec ;
the remaining eight are a comment on the history, in
tended mainly to justify the statement that Melchisedec
abideth a priest continually, and incidentally to suggest
other characteristics of the priesthood that abideth. This
analysis yields three categories under which the contents
may be ranged : first, the facts ; second, the commentary ;
third, the main proposition or doctrine.
1. The facts are simple, and need little explanatory
comment. Melchisedec is called " king of Salem," which
most commentators regard as the name of a place to be
identified with Jerusalem. He is next called " priest of
the most high God," the title being exactly reproduced
from the Septuagint. The third fact referred to is the
meeting between Melchisedec and Abraham, on the
return of the latter from his victorious battle with the
kings. That the writer has his eye on the page of the
Septuagint appears from the use of the Hellenistic word
kottyj, employed by the Seventy to express the idea of
defeat or slaughter.1 The fourth fact mentioned is that
Melchisedec blessed Abraham. The words of blessing
are not quoted, the aim being simply to emphasise the
fact that Abraham was blessed by Melchisedec. Last in
the list of facts comes the gift of a tenth of the spoil to
Melchisedec by Abraham, an act of worship on the
patriarch's part, whereby he recognised God as the
universal proprietor and Melchisedec as His priestly
vice-regent. 2. For the better understanding of the writer's com
mentary on these facts, we must recall to mind the
1 Gen. xiv. 17.

THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEC 249
practical design of this whole excursus concerning Mel
chisedec. It is to determine the notes of the ideal
perfect priesthood of the Christ, as typified by the priest
of Salem. For this purpose he finds it necessary to
attach importance, not merely to what is said of Mel
chisedec in the history, but to what is not said. He gets
at the ideal by laying stress on the silences as well as on
the utterances of the narrative in Genesis. To Western
minds the method of reasoning may appear strange, but
there can be no doubt of the fact that the writer
does so reason, and the fact must be frankly recognised
if we are to get at his real thought. He finds, e.g., that
no mention is made of the parentage or genealogy of
Melchisedec, and he regards that as significant. And on
reflection one sees that he has some reason for doing so,
and that his method of fixing the notes of the Melchise
dec order is not so arbitrary or fanciful as at the first
blush we are apt to imagine. This inspired commentator
is by no means a blind disciple of the Rabbis in his
method of exegesis. The lack of a genealogy in the case
of Melchisedec is undoubtedly a significant circumstance,
at once suggesting the thought that here we have a
priesthood of a different sort from that of the tribe of
Levi. For in connection with the Levitical priesthood,
parentage, genealogy, was of fundamental importance.
To be a priest in Israel it was necessary to belong to the
tribe of Levi, and no man might exercise sacerdotal func
tions who could not trace his lineage to the house of
Aaron. If therefore, so far as the history is concerned,
Melchisedec was fatherless, motherless, without genealogy,
it must signify, for the typical interpretation, that his

250 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
was a sort of priesthood that had no connection with
parentage or descent, depending on personal, not on
technical, external qualifications.1
That this is the true explanation of those mysterious
epithets, dirdrcop, dfirjrcop, dyeveaXoyr/ro';, there is no room
for doubt. Equally certain is it that the two following
phrases, " having neither beginning of days, nor end of
life," are to be explained on a similar principle. Here
also significance is attached to the silences of history.
The narrative in Genesis makes no allusion to the birth
or the death of Melchisedec ; so far as the record is con
cerned, he is without beginning of days and end of life.
He makes a mysterious, momentary appearance out of
eternity on the stage of time, then disappears for ever
from view, to be mentioned only once again in Old
Testament Scripture in a psalm which represents his
priesthood as the ideal priesthood, and, on the principle
that whatever is ideal is Messianic, as the type of
Messiah's priesthood. Our author assumes that, in fixing
on the Melchisedec priesthood as the ideal, the Psalmist
laid stress on the absence of all reference to birth or
1 In Philo, Sarah is called dpijrap because the name of her mother
is not mentioned. But, as Bleek has pointed out, by the epithet
Philo does not mean merely that Sarah was motherless so far as the
record is concerned, but that she had no mother. There can be no
doubt, however, that the method of reasoning from silences was
practised by Philo. Instances are given in Siegfried's Philo von
Alexandria, p. 179. That the writer of our Epistle uses the method
is admitted by so cautious commentators as Vaughan and Westcott.
" For all that the narrative in Genesis tells of him, Melchisedec
might have been all these." — Vaughan. " The silence of Scripture,
the characteristic form, that is, in which the narrative is presented,
is treated as having prophetic force." — Westcott, who then proceeds
to mention Philo's use of the same method.

THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEC 251
death in the historical account, and so obtained eternal
duration as one of the marks, as the outstanding mark,
of the kind or order. He, for his own part, sees no other
way whereby the attribute of eternity can be shown to
be a mark of the Melchisedec order ; and that it is a
mark is a point settled for him by the fact that it is so
represented in the prophetic oracle.
The last clause in the commentary need not now cause
us much trouble. " Made like unto the Son of God."
The words simply put in different form the thought
contained in the previous clause. The intention is to
suggest a parallel between Melchisedec and the Son of
God in their respective relations to time. The Son of
God as Son of man, like Melchisedec, had both a birth
and a death ; yet as Son of God He had neither
beginning of clays nor end of life. And Melchisedec is
likened unto Him in this, that his life, so far as the
record is concerned, is " shrouded in the mystery of
eternity." x
Having thus explained the more difficult part of the
commentary, let me revert now to the easier portion,
hitherto overlooked. " Being first by interpretation (of
the name Melchisedec) king of righteousness, and then
also king of Salem, which is king of peace." A mystic
significance is assigned to the priest's name, and to the
name of the city over which he ruled. It is assumed that
these names, mystically interpreted, are to be taken into
1 For a strenuous, almost fierce attack on this method of interpret
ing the passage Heb. vii. 1-3, vide The Authorship of the Epistle to
the Hebrews, by the Rev. A. Welch, 1898. Mr. Welch holds that the
Melchisedec of Genesis and Ps. ex. is Christ, i.e. that Christ is Mel
chisedec, not merely after the order of Melchisedec.

252 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
account in determining the marks of the " order of Mel
chisedec." No other reason can be given why the
writer thinks it necessary to explain their meaning. He
did not need t#. tell his Hebrew readers the literal mean
ing of the words Melchi, Zedec, Salem. He interprets
them because he wishes to suggest ideas entering into
the " order " of which these words are the symbols, the
ideas of royalty, righteousness, and a royal priesthood
resulting in peace, or exercised in a region of peace
remote from the passion, temptation, and strife of this
world. And this is just what was to be expected. For
it is not enough to know that the new (yet most ancient)
order of priesthood is eternal. We want, further, to
know the intrinsic nature of a priesthood to which it
belongs to be eternal. That the new order is eternal is
a fact — if you please, it is the main fact ; but the fact has
its rationale, and our demand is to know the rationale.
Our author recognises the demand as reasonable, and
does his utmost to meet it ; and we accept these inter
pretations of names as a welcome contribution to the
solution of the problem. The above-mentioned attributes,
royalty, righteousness, etc., are therefore by no means to
be regarded as " only accessories," which " might con
ceivably be absent without derogating from His Mel
chisedec priesthood." 1 They are no more accessory than
is perfection accessory to the Christian religion, which
throughout the Epistle is declared to be eternal. Chris
tianity is the final, perennial religion, because it is the
perfect religion, the religion which for the first time
established a real, unrestricted fellowship between man
1 So Davidson.

THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEC 253
and God. In like manner the priesthood after the
order of Melchisedec is eternal, because in it for the
first time the ideal of priesthood is realised, and all the
conditions of an absolutely efficient exer<ee of priestly
functions are fully satisfied.
Not one merely ,_ but five notes are specified as belong
ing to the Melchisedec type of priesthood. Taking them
in the order in which they are referred to in the text, it
is, first, a royal priesthood (Icing of righteousness) ; second,
a righteous priesthood (king of righteousness) ; third, a
priesthood promotive of peace, or exercised in the country
of peace (king of peace) ; fourth, it is a personal, not
an inherited dignity (without father, without mother) ;
fifth, it is an eternal priesthood (without beginning of
days or end of life). The first four are related to the
last as cause to effect. Because the priesthood after the
order of Melchisedec possesses these characteristics, it is
eternal. 3. A word now on the main affirmation, that Mel
chisedec " abideth a priest continually." The variation
in expression (ei? rb BinveKe<; instead of eh rbv alcova,
vi. 20) is probably made out of regard to style, rather
than to convey a different shade of meaning. The point
to be noted is, that it is affirmed of the historical Mel
chisedec that he is a priest for ever. In what sense is
this true ? The statement is to be understood in the
same way as all the others of similar startling character.
Melchisedec had neither predecessor nor successor in
office. We know of one priest of Salem, and but one.
He lives in Scripture and in our imagination the priest
of the city of peace. If he had had in the history, as

254 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
doubtless he had in fact, a successor in office, we should
have said of him that he was the priest of Salem in the
days of Abraham. As the case stands, he is the priest
of Salem. He is known and lives in sacred history by
that name, and in that respect, as well as in others, is an
apt type of the one, true, eternal Priest of humanity.
More than this may be said. Not only does Melchisedec
abide in name the priest of Salem, but his priestly acts
have an abiding value. His blessing on Abraham had a
lasting effect. Levi was blessed (as well as tithed) in
Abraham ; all the generations of Israel got the benefit of
that blessing. It is a great thing for a people to have
a Melchisedec at the fountain-head of its history, a man
fitted by genuine holiness and righteousness to transact
on behalf of his fellow-men with God. The prayer of a
righteous man availeth much, and the life of a saintly
man availeth much. Such prayers and such lives are
the bread and wine of life to men, from generation to
generation. Such, then, is the " order of Melchisedec," and such
are the notes of that august order. The question might
now be raised, Does the order thus determined absolutely
coincide with the ideal order ? in other words, Is the
order of Melchisedec, possessing the above-mentioned
characteristics, the highest order of priesthood conceiv
able ? It is a question in speculative or philosophical
theology. To answer it, it would be necessary to form a
conception of an ideally perfect priesthood, and then to
ascertain how far the marks of the Melchisedec order
covered the ground. Thus we might say, The ideal
priest must be really, not merely ritually, holy ; he must

THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEC 255
not be a mere sacerdotal drudge, offering daily ex officio
the statutory tale of sacrifices, but one whose whole
priestly ministry is a course of gracious condescension —
a royal priest, whose sacrifice is the outcome and highest
manifestation of free, sovereign love — is, in fact, the
sacrifice of himself ; he must be one who by his personal
worth and official acts is able to establish a reign of
righteousness, peace, and perfect fellowship between man
and God ; finally, he must be one who never dies, ever
lives, hath a priesthood that does not pass from him to
another, as a guarantee for the maintenance of peace and
fellowship. If this be the ideal, then the Melchisedec
order comes at least near to its realisation, though failing
apparently at one vital point — self-sacrifice ; its notes all
point that way, though they are so rapidly indicated that
their full import cannot be certainly determined, but can
only be guessed at. The words king, righteousness, peace
are very suggestive, but the writer has not attempted to
appreciate their precise value in relation to the order,
preferring to leave them vague, provocative of thought,
rather than satisfying the intellectual craving for know
ledge, as is the way of Scripture writers in general.1
While not attempting the philosophical task of showing
that the order of Melchisedec satisfied the requirements
of the ideal, our author takes pains to show that that
order is, at least, vastly superior to the order of Levi.
1 Mr. Kendall suggests that the kingly aspect of Christ's Mel
chisedec priesthood, while evidently regarded by the writer as of
essential importance, is not made prominent, from prudential reasons.
" The title in the mouth of Hebrews was readily susceptible of
a treasonable construction at the time of the national Jewish
rebellion."

256 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
This is the burden of what follows of chapter vii (vers.
4-28). No less than five arguments are adduced in
support of the thesis : one based on the personal dignity
of Melchisedec, three on the oracle in Psalm ex., and the
fifth based on the contrast between many and one : many
priests under the order of Levi, one priest under the
order of Melchisedec. The first, as a pendant to the
statement concerning the nature of the order, may be
considered here ; the rest will form the subject of the
next chapter.
" How great was this man, Melchisedec ! He was
greater even than Abraham, the great, august patriarch
of our race ; therefore greater than his descendants, in
cluding the tribe of Levi." Such is the drift of vers. 4—10.
Two facts are adduced as showing that Melchisedec
was greater than Abraham. He received tithes from the
patriarch, and he gave him his blessing. To bring out
the significance of the former fact, a comparison is made
between the tithe-taking of Melchisedec and the similar
privilege of the Levitical priesthood (vers. 5, 6). "It is
true, indeed, that those of the sons of Levi who receive
the office of the priesthood have a commandment, are
entitled by statute, under the Mosaic law, to tithe the
people, though they be their brethren descended from
the same ancestor. But Melchisedec, who hath no part
in their genealogy (and therefore no legal right), never
theless tithed1 Abraham." Such is the drift of these
1 Literally " hath tithed " (Sefit Karaxev). The perfect is what
Vaughan calls a Scripture perfect, the fact having a permanent place
in the written record. As Vaughan puts it : " The yeypawrai (so to
say) quickens the dead, and gives to the prceterite of the history the
permanence of a perfect." There are many such perfects in the

THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEC 257
verses, and the point specially emphasised is, that the
right of the Levitical priest is only a legal right. He is
not' intrinsically superior to his fellow-Israelites.; they
are all his brethren. Only a positive statute gives him
the right of tithing his brethren as the means of his
support, so that the fact of his receiving tithes is no
evidence of personal superiority. But in Melchisedec's
case it is different. He had no legal right. There was
no law entitling him to receive, or compelling Abraham
to give, tithes. The gift on the patriarch's part was
entirely spontaneous. And just because it was so, it
was, in the view of our author, unmistakable evidence of
Melchisedec's personal greatness. He was so great a
man in every sense, that the high-souled patriarch, who
scorned to play the part of sycophant towards the king
of Sodom, of his own motion, no law or custom compelling,
out of pure reverence for worth, offered to the priest of
Salem a tenth of the spoil taken in battle. Surely the
priesthood of this man, who inspires reverence in the
noblest, is of a very high order, superior to that based on
a statute, a mere hereditary trade or profession.
In giving tithes to Melchisedec, then, Abraham volun
tarily acknowledged his superiority. And Melchisedec in
turn accepted the position accorded to him by bestowing
on the donor his blessing : " And blessed him who had
the promises. And without all contradiction, the less is
blessed by the better " (vers. 6, 7). The fact is held to
be conclusive evidence as to the relative position of the
Epistle, e.g. ei\6yt]Kev in this same verse and Kexpipdrio-rai in chapter
viii. 5. For a long list of perfects in the Epistle, vide Westcott on
vii. 6. These perfects are in effect presents.
17

258 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
parties, in accordance with the axiom that it belongs to
the superior person to bless. The axiom is certainly
true, though it is subject to limitations, holding chiefly
with reference to solemn benedictions, and with regard
even to these only when the parties understand and
accept their proper relative positions. The inferior in
age, status, worth, influence may assume the position of
blessing-giver if he be conceited, forward, impudent.
But in all cases it is true that it belongs to the better to
bless the less. It is the place of the father to bless his
son, of age to bless youth, as when Jacob blessed his son
Joseph and his two grandsons, or Simeon blessed Mary
the mother of Jesus. It is no exception to the rule that
Jacob blesses Pharaoh; for such is the dignity of age,
that the humblest peasant whose head is hoary, and
whose feet have walked through life in the paths of
righteousness, may with perfect propriety give bis blessing
to a king.
To enhance the greatness of Melchisedec as the
bestower of blessing, it is carefully noted that the
receiver of blessing was he who had the promises. It
was no small matter to bless the man who had the
promises ! How great must he have been, who, without
presumption, might give his blessing to the man whom
the Maker of heaven and earth had called to be the
father of a great nation, and to be a fountain of blessing
for all the nations !
But it is Melchisedec's superiority over the Levitical
priests that our author is really concerned to establish.
For this purpose he states or suggests no less than four
arguments, First, greater than the ancestor, therefore a

THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEC 259
fortiori greater than all or any of his descendants. This
argument is suggested by the epithet " patriarch " (o
Trarpi.dpx'n<;) attached to the name of Abraham in ver. 4,
and placed at the end of the sentence for emphasis.
Second, greater than the sons of Levi, even in the respect
in which they were superior to their brethren of the
other tribes ; they receiving tithes in virtue of a legal
right, he receiving tithes in virtue of a higher moral
right freely and cordially acknowledged by the giver.
Third, greater in this, that in receiving tithes from
Abraham, he virtually received tithes from his descend
ants, including the tribe of Levi (vers. 9, 10). Fourth,
he received tithes as one who continues to live, the
Levitical priests receive tithes as men that die (ver. 8).
The third argument is curious. The reasoning may
appear to us more subtle and ingenious than convincing ;
and the writer himself seems to hint that it must be
taken cum grano by introducing it with an apologetic
phrase : " And so to say (ical a>? eVo? elirelv) through
Abraham Levi also, the receiver of tithes, was tithed;
for he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec
met him." Yet the statement will bear examination.
It simply proclaims in a concrete form the principle that
Abraham, in all the leading transactions of his life, was
a representative man. To many this idea of solidarity
appears a mere theological fiction. But it is not so, in
deed : it is a great law whose operation is discernible in
the whole course of human history. There are individuals
in whose personal life the history of whole races is, as it
were, summed up. Abraham was one of these. God's call
to him was a call to Israel. God's blessing to him was a

260 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
blessing to the human family. In like manner we may say
that Melchisedec's blessing on Abraham was a blessing on
all his descendants, and that Abraham's offering of tithes
was an act of homage from the people of Israel to the
priest of Salem. Therefore, in addressing Hebrews, who
recognised the federal principle, and gloried in some of its
applications, e.g. in being the people to whom belonged
the covenants and the promises and the fathers, the
writer of our Epistle was justified in pressing this
thought into the service of his argument, and so inviting
his readers to open their minds to the truth that, while
within the race there were men bearing the title of priest,
there was a higher priesthood, with reference to which
these priests were simple laymen, paying tithes, doing
homage thereto, receiving blessing therefrom, just like
ordinary men.
The fourth argument seems the least cogent of all.
Even the fact-basis of it may appeal- questionable.
Melchisedec is described as a person testified to as living.
Where is the testimony borne ? Not in Psalm ex., for
the statement there is made concerning Messiah, not
concerning the historical Melchisedec. If it be supposed
that the testimony is implicitly contained in the expres
sion, " the order of Melchisedec," that order having
eternity for one of its attributes, we are still thrown
back on the narrative in Genesis as the basis of that
attribute, and therefore as the original source of the
witness. But the witness of the history is not positive,
but negative. The story does not say that Melchisedec
continued to live ; it simply omits to say that he died.
We have here therefore another inference from the

THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEC 261
silence of Scripture. The meaning is : though the his
torical Melchisedec doubtless died, the Melchisedec of the
sacred narrative does nothing but live. Stress is laid
on the omission of all reference to the death of the
priest of Salem to hint that the receiving of tithes from
Abraham has significance for all time. The type is
regarded as continuing to receive tithes from Abraham's
descendants, because the antitype is entitled to receive
tribute from all men of all generations. Under the
Levitical system dying men received tithes, and when
they died their claim died with them or was transmitted
to their successors. The true Priest never dies, and
therefore is ever able to save, and therefore ever also
entitled to receive a Saviour's homage, the tithes of
grateful love and faithful service.
I must not close this chapter without remarking on
one feature in the " order of Melchisedec " which is con
spicuous by its absence — its universalism. Melchisedec,
though priest of the most high God, did not belong to
the Jewish race. The order of priesthood named after
him ought, therefore, to exist for the benefit not of Jews
only, but of humanity. The Priest after that order
ought to be the great High Priest of mankind. Here, as
throughout the Epistle, the writer is silent as to the
universal reference, but doubtless he has it in his mind.
It is the latent unexpressed postulate of his whole
system of thought.

CHAPTER XIII
THE PRIEST AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEC
Chap. vii. 11-28
The didactic significance of this section is, that in Jesus
Christ, as the Priest after the order or type of Melchisedec,
the ideal of priesthood is realised. The truth is estab
lished by the method of comparison. That Jesus is the
best possible Priest is proved by showing that He is
better than the familiar Levitical priest. The emphasis
•lies now on the inferior, unsatisfactory nature of the
Levitical priesthood, now on the supreme, absolute worth
of the Messianic Priest.
Having demonstrated the superiority of the Melchise
dec priesthood over the Levitical, by setting forth the
personal dignity of the priest of Salem as attested by the
history, the writer proceeds next to make use of the text
from the 110th Psalm for the same purpose. From this
famous prophetic oracle he draws no less than three
arguments in support of his position. The first infers
the inferiority of the Levitical priesthood from the mere
fact of another priesthood being promised (vers. 11—14);
the second infers its transient nature from the eternal
duration ascribed to the new order (vers. 15—19); the
202

THE PRIEST AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEC 263
third emphasises the fact that the new order of priesthood,
in contrast to the old, is introduced with an oath, implying
the transcendent importance of the one as compared with
the other (vers. 20-22).
The first of these arguments, stripped of all adjuncts,
is expressed in these terms : " If then perfection were by
the Levitical priesthood, what further need was there that a
different priest should arise after the order of Melchisedec?"
The remaining matter of vers. 11—14 is of the nature
of explanatory comment. On two points the writer
deemed it necessary to offer explanations : on the term
perfection (re\eieoai<;) ; and on the expression, the order of
Melchisedec, as implying the origination of a new, different
(erepov) type of priesthood, not to be called after the
order of Aaron (ov Kara rr)v rd^iv Aapwv XiyeaOai).
The parenthetical clause, " for under (rather, upon) it the
people received the law " (ver. 11), is his comment on the
word TeXeiWt?. The purpose is to justify the demand
of perfection from a priesthood laying claim to finality.
It is assumed that a priesthood worthy of and destined
to perpetuity must make men " perfect," in the sense of
bringing them really near to God, establishing between
them and God a true, unimpeded fellowship by the
removal of sin. It is further assumed that if perfection
in this sense was possible at all under the Mosaic law, it
was so in virtue of the Levitical priesthood, seeing that
thereon, undeniably, as a foundation, the .people was
legally constituted as a people in covenant with God. On
both grounds, because it is the function of all priesthoods
to perfect the worshipper as to conscience, and because of
the central position occupied by the Levitical priesthood

264 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
in the Mosaic law, it is held to be reasonable to demand
of that priesthood, conceived of as laying claim to
finality and refusing to be superseded, nothing less than
"perfection." To the advocates of Levitical finality is
offered the alternative : either perfection or supersession.
To the plea, " Our time-honoured priesthood may be
permanently useful in its own place, as part of a greater
whole, though it come short of what you call perfection,
and aspire not to a virtue which can rightfully be ascribed
only to the whole legal system," the stern reply is, " No ;
it must be all or nothing." And from the oracle in the
Psalter it is inferred that it is not capable of being all.
By that oracle it is, as matter of fact, superseded ; there
fore it cannot have been able to provide " perfection."
Such is the inexorable logic of the Christian apologist.
Here again we have occasion to note the affinity
between our author and the Apostle Paul. Paul said,
The law must be everything in salvation, or nothing. To
the Judaistic compromise, law and grace, he replied by
an " either — or." Either the law or grace, choose your
alternative. The same " either — or " reappears here in
an altered form. Either perfection must come by the
Levitical priesthood, the soul or kernel of the law, or that
priesthood must pass away as unprofitable, and give place
to a different order of priesthood, which can perform the
task for which it has been found incompetent.
We come now to the writer's comment on the ex
pression, " the order of Melchisedec." He regards it as
involving a legal revolution. It means the origination of
a different type of priesthood, to be called after Mel
chisedec, not after Aaron ; and it involves therefore

THE PRIEST AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEC 265
change in the law in at least one point : a priest for
the Israel of God who does not belong to the Levitical
tribe — a mark of the Messianic priest inferable from
prophecy, and verified as a matter of fact in the history
of Jesus (vers. 13, 14);, this one apparently minute
change implying many more. But why insist on the
revolutionary effect of the introduction of the new order
of priesthood? Would it not have been more prudent-
in the apologist of Christianity to have concealed or
minimised the legal change that was to accompany the
advent of the Messianic priest ? Such timid, time-serving
apologetic did not suit the temper of New Testament
writers. Jesus boldly claimed to have brought to the
world " new wine," and all New Testament writers ac
centuate the innovating effect of Christianity, the writer
of our Epistle not least. He has the courage to look the
revolutionary character of the new religion straight in
the face. And his courage is true wisdom. For, in the
first place, there is the undeniable fact to be reckoned
with, that Jesus Christ sprang out of Judah, " as to
which tribe Moses spake nothing about priests." The
only way to deal with such a fact is to find a broad
principle that covers and justifies it : such as, that the
priesthood is the foundation of the legal system, so that
a change in the priesthood prepares us to expect manifold
change in the law. Then the bold proclamation of this
principle, while accounting for the evident fact, at the
same time serves admirably the main purpose of the
argument, which is to show the radical defectiveness of
the Levitical priesthood. Men think twice before they
make any change in an existing state of things which

266 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
involves a political revolution. They bear with innumer
able abuses loudly calling for reform, because they fear
that if one stone of the building (not to speak of the
foundation) be removed, the whole edifice may come
tumbling down. What then may be inferred from the
fact, that God, by the mouth of a prophet, declared His
intention to inaugurate a new priesthood that should
supersede the old, and by consequence abrogate the whole
legal system whereof it was the foundation ? Surely
this, that in His view, and in very truth, the Levitical
priesthood was hopelessly insufficient, incapable of ful
filling the ends for which a priesthood exists, fit only to
foreshadow the true priesthood by which perfection might
come, and by its defectiveness to prepare men for
thankfully embracing the " better hope," no matter with
how much innovation on existing usage it might be
ushered in.
It is probable that the " evident fact," that our Lord
did not belong to the tribe of Levi, appeared to Hebrew
Christians an insuperable objection to His claim to be a
priest.1 We cannot therefore but admire the tact with
which our author virtually turns it into an argument
in support of that claim. It is not difficult to con
struct such an argument out of his rapid hints. It is
to this effect. In the 110th Psalm, the rise of a new-
order of priesthood is predicted. This change is revolu
tionary ; it involves the upsetting of the whole Mosaic
1 That our Lord's connection with the tribe of Judah is spoken
of as " evident," implies acquaintance on the part both of writer and
first readers with a current tradition to that effect. The writer
knew that Jesus was popularly called " The Son of David," and he
may even have seen a genealogy justifying the title.

THE PRIEST AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEC 267
law, whereof the Levitical priesthood was the foundation.
Any amount of innovation may be looked for under the
new order of priesthood. We need not be surprised if
we find that the Messianic Priest when He comes does not
belong to the tribe of Levi ; on the contrary, we ought to
regard that circumstance as a matter of course, for a
descendant of Aaron would not be a suitable person to
inaugurate an entirely new order of priesthood.
This is one use to which our Lord's descent from
Judah might be put, that, namely, of showing that in so
far as He did not trace His descent to Levi His history
corresponded to what the oracle in the Psalter would
lead one to expect. There is another service which it
could be made to render, and which possibly it did render
to some of the Hebrew Christians as they reflected
thereon. It might help to cure inordinate fondness
for the religious ordinances of the old dispensation by
suggesting a process of reasoning backwards thus : Jesus
is the Christ, we all believe that ; but Jesus is descended
from David, not from Aaron. Yet is He a priest,
according to the oracle. But a priest not connected
with the tribe of Levi — what an innovation, what a
revolutionary transgression of the law that is ! It is no
light thing to set aside, virtually to disannul, a law
given thousands of years ago to our fathers. If such a
momentous step was necessary, what an unsatisfactory
affair must the Levitical system of priests and sacrifices,
after all, have been ! Why then cling to such poor,
beggarly elements when that which is perfect is come ?
The second argument drawn from Psalm ex. to prove
the inferiority of the Levitical priesthood is stated in

268 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
these terms : And it is yet more abundantly evident, if,
according to tlie similitude of Melchisedec, tliere ariseth a
different priest, who Jiath become priest, not according to the
law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power
of an indissoluble life. For He is witnessed to that " Thou
art a priest FOR EVER, after the order of Melchisedec."
The thing that is said to be evident here is, not that
which is declared to be evident in ver. 14, but the general
thesis which the writer is engaged in estabhshing, namely,
the unsatisfactory character of the Levitical priesthood,
making change of the priesthood, and consequently of
the whole law, necessary. The use of a different word
(icardBrfKov 1 instead of TrpoBrfXov) puts us on our guard
against supposing that the reference is still to the fact
that our Lord sprang out of Judah : it possibly points to
a different kind of evidence, that which comes through
logical inference, as distinct from that supplied by facts.
The writer means to say, that the argument he now
proceeds to state makes it even more evident than the
one previously advanced, that by the Levitical priesthood
perfection could not and never was intended to come.2
And the justice of the affirmation becomes apparent
when we consider the drift of this new argument. The
emphasis lies on the expression for ever (et? rov almva).
1 The use of this word is all the more noticeable that it is found
here only in the New Testament or the Septuagint. It means
literally " downright evident " (Vaughan).
2 Many commentators think that what is declared evident in
ver. 14 is the change in the law. But it is not the mere fact of
change, but the need for it, created by the defect of the Levitical
priesthood, that the writer has in view. So Bengel : "Patet, scilicet
illud quod versu 11 asseritur (nullam eonsummationmi factum esse
pir sacerdotiitiu leviticum").

THE PRIEST AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEC 269
The writer views, the phrase as at once signalising the
peculiar excellence of the new order, and dooming to
decay and death the 'old order for its weakness and un
profitableness. From the mere fact that a new order is
¦instituted he has already inferred that the old order was
inadequate ; and how from the eternal character of the
new order he infers with, if possible, even more cogency
the transient nature of the old.
The terms in which, under this new point of view, the
two priesthoods are contrasted are very forcible. They
transcend the limits of the argument, and suggest thoughts
which an expositor must refrain from expatiating on, lest
the connected chain of reasoning be lost sight of. There
is a double contrast hinted at in ver. 1 6 : first, one be
tween law and power; and next, one between a fleshly
commandment and an endless life. The former dis
tinguishes the Levitical priesthood, as resting on positive
law, from the Messianic, as resting on spiritual fitness
and energy. The. Levitical. priest was law-made, without-
reference to spiritual qualifications ; . the Messianic Priest
becomes a priest because > He hath inherent spiritual fitness
for, and therefore inherent right to, the office. The latter
contrast distinguishes the Levitical priest as liable to
death from the Messianic Priest as one over whom death
has no power. For the epithet fleshly (a-ap/civvs),1 applied
to the commandments regulating appointments to the
1 This is the true reading, not aapKiKr/s as in T.R. Adjectives in
vos denote the material of which anything is made. Thus we have,
in 2 Cor. iii. 3, ovk ev 7rXa£ii> ~ki8lvais dW iv w\a£lv <ap8iais
n-apKivais : " not on stone tablets, but on tablets consisting in fleshen
hearts." The adjective a-apxiKos expresses a moral idea, for which
the word " carnal " should be reserved.

270 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
priestly office, points to the fact that all the conditions
had reference to the corruptible body. A man's fitness
for office was determined by physical considerations. He
must be the son of this or that father, without blemish
in his body, and so forth. It was altogether an affair
of physical descent and fleshly qualities. And just on
that account it was transient, not merely in the individual,
but in the kind. A priestly order whose existence was
based on the properties of corruptible flesh must share
the ' fate of its unstable foundation. Of it, as of the
flesh with which it is so closely associated, it was written,
" Dust thou art, and to dust shalt thou return." All flesh
is grass, and a priesthood based on fleshly requirements
must of necessity fall before the scythe of Time, while
the priesthood of spirit and righteousness, like the word
of God, and all things Divine, liveth and abideth for ever.
Just such a thought is it that our author finds in the
110th Psahn. The oracle uttered there sounds to his
ear as an echo of the voice from the wilderness. He
hears in it the death-knell of the priesthood of Levi and
of the whole law with which it was connected, and at
the same time the Divine fiat which calls into being a
new dispensation. Hence the sentences wliich follow
(vers. 18, 19), wherein the writer states what he takes
to be the practical effect of the solemn announcement
in the Psalm. The rendering of these verses in the
Authorised Version totally misses the sense ; it is per
haps the greatest aud most serious of numerous failures
occurring in the Epistle. What is really said is this :
" There takes place (through the oracle in the Psalm), on
the one hand (fiev), a disannulling of the commandment

THE PRIEST AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEC 271
going before, on account of its weakness and unprofitable
ness (for the law perfected nothing) ; and (there takes
place through the same oracle), on the other hand (Be),
the introduction thereupon of a better hope, through
which we draw nigh to God." In short, the text from
the Psalm is to our author a bell, which with solemn
tones rings out the old order of things, and at the same
moment rings in the new ; rings out the priesthood of
Levi and the Levitical sacrifices, and rings in the Christ
that is to be and that sublime sacrifice of Himself which
once offered shall possess eternal worth and undying
virtue. As he listens with devout attention to the
solemn peal, he feels as if it said to him : " The priest
hood of physical descent is weak and unprofitable. It
must pass away, so must the whole ritual law ; for it is all
alike weak and useless ; it makes nothing perfect, it fails
of its professed end throughout. But be of good cheer ;
Christ is coming; another and a very different Priest
shall arise, one who is really and perfectly holy, and of
regal dignity, and whose priesthood rests on personal
merit, not on fleshly descent. He will make all things
perfect. What the old law could not do, because of its
weakness, He will do effectually. Place your hope in
Him ; for He will meet all your need, sanctify you,
bring you nigh and keep you nigh to God."
" A BETTER HOPE, THROUGH WHICH WE DRAW NIGH
unto God." If one were to attempt by typography to
indicate the great, salient thoughts of this Epistle, these
words would certainly have to be printed in capitals.
They contain the dogmatic centre of the Epistle, setting
forth Christianity as the religion of the better hope by

272 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
comparison with the earlier religion ; absolutely as the
religion of good hope, because the religion through which
men for the first time enter into intimate fellowship
with God. This, as has been indicated in the intro
ductory chapter, is the distinctive conception of the
Christian religion, or of the good which came by Jesus
Christ, contained in our Epistle. In the Synoptical
Gospels the summum bonum appears as the kingdom of
God ; in the Fourth Gospel, as eternal life ; in Paul's
Epistles, as the righteousness of God; in the Epistle to
the Hebrews, as free access to, unrestricted fellowship
with, God. The thing is one, though the names and the
view-points are diverse ; and under any of the four
aspects Christianity is well entitled to be called the
religion of good hope, the religion that absolutely satisfies
the highest hopes and aspirations of mankind. Corre
sponding to the four phases pf the good He brings are the
functions of the Saviour. He introduces into the king
dom of God as the Son of God and Son of man; He
communicates eternal life as the Logos ; He makes men
partakers of the Divine righteousness as then- federal
Head ; He brings them nigh to God as their great High
Priest, the aspect under which He is appropriately pre
sented in this Epistle.1
1 One is so accustomed to find in commentaries blunt, commonplace
generalities where one expects, or at least desires, to find distinct
recognition of great broad truths, that it has given me sincere
pleasure to discover in Vaughan a sharp precise statement of the
radical contrast between Leviticalism and Christianity. " The use-
lessness (unhelpfulness) of the priesthood was proved by its inability to
aid men in that iyyi^eiv t<£ 8ea which is their one want." " In the
Old Testament we have the limitation and prohibition of this drawing
nigh." At this testing-place of the Epistle Westcott is disappointing.

THE PRIEST AFTER TI3E ORDER OF MELCHISEDEC 273
The third argument taken from the text in Psalm ex.
to prove the inferiority of the Levitical and the incom
parable superiority of the Messianic priesthood rests on
the fact that the new order is introduced with an oath
(vers. 20-22). By a lengthy parenthesis (ver. 21)
pointing out the difference between the two priesthoods
in the matter of the oath, the statement of the argument
is rendered elliptical but not obse-ure, for the meaning
obviously is : " Inasmuch as not without an oath He was
made priest, by so much more must the constitution in
connection with which He exercises His sacerdotal
functions be superior to the old."
The principle of the argument is,' that God doth not
swear oaths lightly. When He says, " I have sworn,
and will not repent," the matter on hand must be
supremely important, and of an enduring nature. The
new priesthood must be one of whose: institution He will
never have any cause to repent.. It is implied that the
old priesthood was one of which God had cause to repent.
The oracle insinuates that God had found the Levitical
institute after trial unsatisfactory ; and as if weary of its
law-made officials, and of their daily task of butchery
and bloodshed, He swears a solemn oath saying : " As I
live, I will bring this fleshly system to an end. I will
ordain a new Priest not of Aaron's line, who shall perform
His work in a very different way, whose character and
service shall be to Me an everlasting delight, and whose
merit shall benefit sinners time without end."
But it is noteworthy that hi connection with this final
argument from the Psalm, based on the oath, it is not so
much the inferiority of the Levitical priest that is in-

274 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
sisted upon, as the inferiority of the dispensation under
which he served. What is said is not, Because He is
made a Priest with an oath, therefore He exercises a
superior kind of priesthood ; but, Because He is made a
Priest with an oath, therefore He is become surety of a
better covenant. It is now not the men of the olden time,
but the whole system of things with which they are
associated, that is found wanting, the very fundamental
constitution of the Israelitish commonwealth, by which
it was made a people of God. The writer waxes ever
bolder as he advances. First the priesthood is con
demned ; then the law creating and regulating it ; then
the covenant, which gave birth, not merely to the priest
hood, but to the very people for which it transacted in
holy things. The introduction of this reference to the
covenant at first surprises us. We partly understand it
when we observe that, in the next section of the Epistle,
the covenants old and new become a leading subject of
discourse. It is another instance of the skilful inter
weaving of a new theme into the one about to be
dismissed. But we understand the new turn of thought
fully only when we perceive that it fitly belongs to what
goes before. When we attach due importance to the
great idea expressed by the words, " Through which wc
draw nigh to God" this becomes clear. By the covenant
at Sinai Israel became a people related to God, theoreti
cally near to Him. But only theoretically. Israel was
nigh, yet not nigh, not merely because of her sin, but
through the very ordinances that were designed to
express and maintain the intimacy ; witness the Levitical
priesthood, the veil, and the inaccessible holy place.

THE PRIEST AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEC 275
Thinking of this, our author feels that the Sinaitic
covenant, which brought Israel nominally near to God,
was a poor, disappointing thing, a failure, like all else
belonging to the old religion. It might have cost him
an effort to say so, had not Jeremiah with prophetic
liberty said it before him. But, encouraged by Jeremiah's
famous oracle of the new covenant, he does say so, by
implication, by speaking of Jesus as the surety or
guarantor of a better covenant. It is for him a better
covenant, because it does really what the old covenant
did only in name, i.e. brings men nigh to God. And
he calls Jesus " surety" (eyyvos) of the better covenant,
because it is He who prevents it also from being a
failure like the old. There is literary felicity in the use
of the word, as playfully alluding to the foregoing word
eyyi^o/iev. There is more than literary felicity, for the
two words probably have the same root, so that we
might render eyyvos : the one who insures permanently
near relations with God}
1 On the word eyyvs, Passow remarks : " Probably of the same
origin with e'yyvos, eyyvr], from yv'iov = lying to the hand." Referring
to the view that eyyvos forms a paronomasia with eyyifrpev, Bleek
expresses doubt, on account of the distance between the two words,
and thinks it more probable that eyyvos is used out of regard to the
similarity of sound between it and yiyovev going before. The
question has been much discussed among commentators, whether
Jesus is surety for men to God (so the old theologians of the
Lutheran and Reformed Churches), or for God to men (so
Schlichting, Grotius, and others), or both (so Limborch, Baum-
garten, etc.). The question really cannot be decided. The word
occurs here only in the New Testament (it is not found in the
Septuagint), and all that can be certainly taken out of it is the
general idea that Jesus insures the stability of the new covenant
and of the close relations between God and men which it establishes.

276 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
We have now to notice the last of the five arguments
adduced to prove the inferiority of the Levitical priest
hood, as compared with that of the Priest after the
order of Melchisedec, which turns on the contrast
between many and one. It is to this effect. The old
priesthood was imperfect in this, that it was exercised by
many priests in succession ; the new is perfect in this,
that the office is held in perpetuity by one Person, who
continueth for ever, and therefore hath a priesthood
that is inviolable, or that doth not pass from Him to
another (dirapdfiarov -,1 vers. 23, 24). To appreciate
the full force of the argument, it is well to remember
that even under the Levitical system the importance
of having a continuous priesthood was felt. To such a
feehng may be ascribed the fact that Aaron and his
sons were consecrated simultaneously. Some think that
this simultaneous consecration is alluded to in the text,
when it is said that " they indeed have been made
many priests." There can be no doubt, at all events,
All beyond has to be read into it. eyyvos expresses more than
peo-lrrjs (connected with Sio^kt; in viii. 6, ix. 15, xii. 24), adding to
the general idea of mediation the more specific idea of " one who
makes himself responsible for the validity and effectuation of the
SiadrjKT] " (Vaughan).
1 This is a aw. Xey. ; a word of late Greek and disapproved by
Phrynichus (p. 313). It may be taken passively when it will bear
the meaning " not to be invaded," inviolable ; or actively, when it
will mean "not passing over from one person to another." Com
mentators are divided as to the rendering to be preferred. Vaughan
and Westcott adopt the first, Weiss and von Soden the second.
Weiss refers to Exodus xxxii. 18, and Sirach xxiii. 18, where wapa-
jiaiva is used in the sense of passing from (avdpawos wapafiaivav
dwb rijs kXIvtjs airov — a man passing from his bed. Sir. xxiii. 18).
The latter meaning seems the more appropriate.

THE PRIEST AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEC 277
that one end served by simultaneous ordination was to
provide for the office being continuously occupied. From
the nature of the case this was desirable. If there was
need for a priest at all, there was need for one at all
times ; the office must abide without intermission, though
the official might change. It is interesting to notice in
this connection, that Eleazar was invested with the office
of high priest before Aaron his father died. Moses took
both father and son up to Mount Hor, and stripping
the sacerdotal garments from the father put them on
the son, whereupon the first occupant of the office
breathed out his life.1 Such precautions might serve
after a fashion to secure for Israel an unchangeable
priesthood. But if it were possible to have one priest
never dying, and performing efficiently his duties per
ennially, that were obviously a more excellent way. If
not only the priesthood, but the priest were continuous,
that were the ideally perfect state of things. Our
author here informs his readers that such is the actual
state of things under the priesthood of Jesus. He,
because He abideth for ever, hath the priesthood un-
. changeably. The New Testament Priest was not exempt from
death. He too, like Aaron, ascended a hill to die. But
that fact is not in contradiction to the doctrine enunci
ated. He did not require to hand over His office to
another, for death was not to have power over Him.
He died as one possessing the power of an indissoluble
life, taking death up as an element into His life, through
which its power, instead of being destroyed or impaired,
1 Num. xx. 28.

278 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
was rather enhanced. He rose again, and after forty
days ascended another hill, not to die, but to be trans
lated to the celestial sanctuary, there to abide a Priest
for ever.
So we come back, at the close of the argument,
to the point from which we started: the Priest after
the order of Melchisedec, superior to the Levitical
priests in all respects, but especially in this, that He
is a Priest for ever. And by an easy transition we
pass on to the natural consequence of Christ's un
changeable priesthood. " Whence also He is able to
save perfectly those that draw near unto God through
Him, seeing He ever liveth to intercede for them "
(ver. 25).
Noteworthy here are the terms in which Christ's
power to help men is described. He is able to save
perfectly all those who seek to attain the end of all
religion, close fellowship with God. In making this
statement, the writer has in view what he has said of
the Levitical priesthood, namely, that perfection came
not by it. He here says in effect, Perfection does come
by Jesus. But he does not say this in so many words.
He prefers to vary the phrase, aiming at the greatest
possible breadth and strength of statement. " Perfec
tion," reXeicoa-if, narrows the range of benefit, pointing
chiefly if not exclusively to the pardon of sin. There
fore for this word is substituted the more general and
comprehensive aa>£eiv, suggesting the idea of salvation in
all its aspects. Then the root idea of re\eim&i<s, reaching
the end, is thrown into the adverbial phrase eh rb
iravreXes, which may be rendered " perfectly," " com-

THE PRIEST AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEC 279
pletely," " to all intents and purposes." 1 Thereby is
ascribed to Christ the power of conferring a salvation
uniting in itself all possible " perfections," accomplishing
all manner of devoutly to be wished beneficent ends :
pardon of sin, spiritual renewal, defence against tempta
tion to apostasy, maintenance of Christian fidelity even
unto death. It has been discussed whether iravreXes
contains a reference to time. Such a reference is very
natural in connection with the asserted unchangeableness
of Christ's priesthood ; and for us who live so far down
in the Christian centuries, it is a legitimate homiletic
use of the text. But as the writer expected the con
summation soon, the temporal reference must, to say the
least, have had a very subordinate place in his mind.2
His aim was to ascribe the highest degree of saving
power to Jesus, in contrast to the impotence with which
he had previously charged the Levitical priesthood. The
law, he would say, the Levitical priesthood, completed
nothing, not even the cancelling of guilt ; Christ com
pletes everything that enters into the idea of salvation,
as most comprehensively conceived. Thus understood,
this text favours the broad construction I put upon the
title "the Sanctifier," given to Jesus in chap. ii. 11, as
including sanctification in the ethical Pauline sense, as
well as the narrower sense of " justification," in which
it is sometimes used in this Epistle.
Noticeable further in the remarkable sentence now
1 The phrase occurs again in Luke xiii. 11, there bearing the
meaning '* completely."
2 On the temporal sense Westcott remarks : " The old com
mentators strangely explain it as if it were els to Sir/veKes (so Latt.
in perpetuum)."

280 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
under consideration are the means or method by which
Christ is represented as perfectly saving those who
through Him approach God. He saves by intercession,
for such doubtless is the meaning of the word ein-i/y-
Xaveiv. In classic usage it signifies to meet with. In
Acts xxv. 24 it is construed with a dative, and a geni
tive governed by rrep'i, and signifies to deal with one
concerning a matter. Here, as in Romans viii. 26,
where it is compounded with vrrip, it means to intercede,
or more generally to transact on behalf of. That the
notion of intercession, speaking for, is mainly intended
appears from what follows, the object of which is to
point out that Christ, in consequence of His perfection,
does not need to offer sacrifice, or to do anything more
than intercede, in contrast to the Levitical priests, who,
by reason of their infirmity, had to offer up sacrifices
daily. The writer would say : " A word from Him is
enough. As by His word of power He created and
upholds all things, so by a word He can bring to bear
all the resources of the Almighty for the complete and
final salvation of His brethren." What power can be
greater than this ?
A word of intercession — nothing more is required ;
one who by a mere word can save is the sort of High
Priest that meets our need — such is the import of what
remains of this chapter (vers. 26-28). The Priest that
suits us, that can' perfect us as to our relations with
God, that can bring us nigh and keep us nigh to God,
is one perfectly righteous in all relations, " holy " towards
God, benevolent towards men, free from any fault that
might disqualify Him for His priestly office, separated

THE PRIEST AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEC 281
locally from sinners by translation to the blessed region
of peace, where He is exempt from temptation and
eternally secure against moral evil ; exalted to a position
of supercelestial glory and power in full and equal
fellowship with His Father, needing not to offer repeated
sacrifices, or to do anything whatever in our interest
beyond interceding for us. Here at last is the writer's
ideal of priesthood. In determining the marks of the
Melchisedec type, he omitted to say how far they satisfied
the ideal, or to indicate what the ideal was. Here, at the
close of the discussion on the new type, he supplies the
lack by sketching in a few rapid strokes an ideal priest.
Does the ideal answer to the type ? is it drawn with the
type in view, and in order to assign more definite values
to certain terms left vague — king, righteousness, peace ?
It is not improbable that the beginning and the end thus
meet in the author's thought, and that the terms oato^,
axa/cos, dfiiavro? define " righteousness," that the phrase
kexa>peerfievo<s d-irb rmv dfiaprwXwv interprets " peace,"
and that vyjrrjX6repo<s rwv ovpavav yevo/ievo<; indicates
the significance of " king."
Thus far all seems clear; but what shall we say of
the last trait in the picture of the ideal Priest, which
represents Him as one who needs not to repeat sacrifice ?
Is this an element in the ideal to which there is no
counterpart in the type ? In determining the marks of
the Melchisedec type, our author said nothing about
sacrifice. He may, however, have thought of Melchisedec
as offering no sacrifices, and have regarded this fact also
as possessing typical significance. In so doing he would
simply have been applying his method of determining

282 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
the type by laying stress on the silences as well as the
utterances of Scripture. If this suggestion be correct,
then we must regard the statement concerning the non-
repetition of sacrifice as a supplement to the doctrine of
the type reserved for the close of the discussion, as the
place where it could most fitly and impressively be
introduced. In the writer's mind this last feature is connected
with those going before, and especially with those re
lating to the moral character of the ideal Priest, as
effect with cause. Because He is " holy, harmless, un-
defiled," therefore He needs not to repeat sacrifice ; and
this is His crowning merit. To the Hebrew Christians
it would probably appear a grave defect, rather than a
merit, in the Priest after the order of Melchisedec, that
He was not constantly occupied in offering sacrifices like
the priests after the order of Aaron. The morning
and evening sacrifices, and the great day of atonement
annually recurring, what a comfort ! And what a blank
would be created were these swept away, and nothing
similar took their place ! Their teacher gives them to
understand that they are mistaken, and that the repeti
tion of sacrifice in the Levitical system was due to the
moral imperfection of the offerers. He does not mean
to say that it was wholly due to this cause, for he else
where traces it to the nature of the sacrifices (chap.
x. 1—11). But he does mean to say that it was due
in part to this cause, and that is the point which he
deems it needful to insist on here. The infirmity of the
priest made it necessary that he should offer repeated
sacrifices for himself, and because for himself, therefore

THE PRIEST AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHTSEDEC 283
for the people ; for the priestly offices of sinful officials
could not avail to remove the people's sins for ever, if
indeed at all. On the other hand, the High Priest of
the new, better order has no need to offer repeated
sacrifices, either for Himself or for His people. Not
for Himself, because He has been perfected both in
character and in state for evermore.1 Free from sin,
even in His earthly state, when subject to temptation,
though not free from sinless infirmity, and worthy even
then to be described by the august attributes, " holy,
harmless, undefiled," He is now in a position in which
sin is out of the question. Not for others, because He
offered for sinners a perfect sacrifice once for all.
That sacrifice was Himself. The great thought comes
in here for the first time. Once struck, as Delitzsch
says, the note sounds on ever louder and louder.2 It
comes in very relevantly here in connection with an
argument designed to prove that repetition of sacrifice
was a mark of inferiority and weakness adhering to the
Levitical system, and that the non-repetition of sacrifice
1 The term rereXeiapevos, ver. 28, here, as in ii. 10 and v. 9, means
to fit for office. The fitness in this case embraces two elements : a
character rendered temptation-proof, and a position inaccessible to
temptation. That both elements are included appears from the
description of the ideal priest in ver. 26. The idea of " consecra
tion" is foreign to the connection of thought. The same remark
applies to ver. 11. The rendering of Mr. Rendall, "seeing again
that there was a consecration under the Levitical priesthood," seems
to me to involve the argument in confusion.
3 Delitzsch is honourably distinguished by his sense of the grave
significance of the thought that Christ's sacrifice was Himself, in
the develojjment of the writer's argument. Many commentators
treat it as if it were a matter of course. Such is the deadening
effect of familiarity.

284 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
was an equally sure mark of the superiority of the
Christian dispensation. For the nature of the sacrifice
in either case had an important bearing on the question
of repetition or non-repetition. The ancient priest of
Israel, himself morally stained, had to offer a brute beast
physically faultless, a mere shadowy emblem of holiness ;
and such offerings being intrinsically worthless, he had
to present them again and again by way of renewing
an impressive spectacle. The High Priest of humanity
offered Himself, and by the very act demonstrated Him
self to be perfectly holy, presenting in his death an
embodiment of exact, loving obedience to the Divine
will and of self-effacing devotion to the well-being of
man ; and just because the offering was the very ideal
of sacrifice realised, it needed not to be repeated. The
offering was presented once for all, and stands there
before the universe a thing perfectly well done, recog
nisable as an eternally valid and valuable act by all
men of purged vision, whose minds are not blinded, as
were those of the Hebrews, by long familiarity with and
doting attachment to the beggarly elements of a rude
ritual. But how does this sacrifice " of nobler name " stand
related to the " order of Melchisedec " ? Does it lie
within or without the type ? On first thoughts it seems
as if the answer must be " without." Not only does it
take place on earth, while the Melchisedec priesthood
belongs to heaven, where no sacrifice is offered de now,
but there appears to be nothing in the history of Mel
chisedec which would lead us to look for such a sacrifice.
Neither by the utterances nor by the silences of Scripture

THE PRIEST AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEC 285
does it seem possible to, arrive at selflsacrificc as one of
the notes of the Melchisedec type. By the silences we
might rather arrive at the conclusion that there was,
not merely no repetition of sacrifice, but no sacrifice at
all, in the new order, and that its functions were limited
to prayer and benediction. There is only one way of
escape out of the difficulty, though it may be doubted
if it was in the writer's thoughts.1 We have seen that
the non-repetition of sacrifice results from the moral
attributes of the ideal Priest. Because He is "holy,
harmless, undefiled," therefore He needs not to be con
tinually performing new sacrificial acts. What if the
one sacrifice be also the result of the same moral
attributes ? What if the whole truth be, " holy, harmless,
undefiled " — in one word, perfectly righteous, therefore
owe sacrifice and only one, and that sacrifice Himself 1
This would lead us to regard Christ's death as the
natural effect of His fidelity to the interests of God and
man in this evil world: And this is the actual historic
fact. Whatever theological significance may attach to
that death, this is the fundamental fact on which our
theological construction must rest. The first lesson
Jesus taught His disciples on the meaning of His passion
was, that His cross came to Him through loyalty to
duty, that He suffered for righteousness' sake.2 In the
light of this doctrine we comprehend why there was
one sacrifice, and only one, and that one " Himself."
There was one sacrifice, because the Holy One lived in
an evil world, to which His holiness, even, yea above
1 Vide on this the concluding chapter of this work.
2 Matt. xvi. 24.

286 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
all, His love, His brotherly sympathy with man, was an
offence ; and they cried in fierce intolerance, " Crucify
Him." There was only one sacrifice, because after His
death He was raised to the region of peace, " where the
wicked cease from troubling, and the weary are at rest."
By this train of thought an attempt might be made
to show that self-sacrifice enters as an element into the
Melchisedec type. But it is better to confess frankly
that the thought, however true in itself, was not present
to the writer's mind, and to content ourselves with say
ing that self-sacrifice is certainly an essential feature
of the ideal Priesthood. The highest possible priesthood
is that in which priest and victim are one, and the only
true sacrifice is that which results from character, and
reveals, is offered through, the indwelling spirit. The
proof of this is the Spirit of Christ witnessing in our
hearts. There is no other proof for us ; there was no
other proof for the writer of our Epistle. If a man
does not see this for himself, typological arguments,
whether from Melchisedec or from Aaron, will not help
him. We see only what we bring. Another thing the
man of open spiritual vision understands : that the real
nature of Christ's sacrifice is to be learned from His
life on earth. The perplexities arising out of the
typological form into which the truth concerning Christ's
priesthood is cast in our Epistle have driven some to
find His true sacrifice in a perpetual service of love and
praise rendered by Him to God in heaven.1 It is rather
1 For this view vide the late Professor Milligan's The Ascension of
our Lord, and the work of his son, the Rev. George Milligan, B.D.,
on the Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews, recently published.

THE PRIEST AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEC 287
to be found in His earthly career of heroic fidelity to God
amid incessant temptation, culminating in the crucifixion.
There lies the pathos, the moral power, and the in
spiration which helps us to live well. Thence we know
anything we do know of the spirit of Christ's life in
heaven. His spirit is " eternal " ; the mind that is, in
Him now is the same mind that animated Him while
He lived in this world. But it is the mind that was
in Him that interprets to us the mind that is in Him.
And it is the spirit of His earthly life that gives value
to His heavenly life for God and for men. The tem
poral at once illuminates and enshrines the eternal.
Without those sacred years lived under Syrian skies the
eternal life of the High Priest of humanity would be for
us an infinite void, whence issued no light to our minds
and no comfort to our hearts.
The view here contended for seems to be that of the
author of our Epistle in this place. He speaks, not of
a perpetual sacrifice in heaven, but of the sacrifice which
Christ presented once for all " when He offered up Him
self." 1 If he speak elsewhere of Christ offering sacrifice
in heaven, that is an apparent antinomy to be solved,
but it must not be solved by denying that His death
on earth was a priestly act.
1 The question has been discussed whether tovto (ver. 27, last
clause) includes both the previous clauses : " First for His own
sins, then for those of the people." Verbal interpretation answers in
the affirmative; but the nature of the case requires a negative. The
doctrine of the Epistle being that Christ was ever sinless, the writer
cannot have meant to represent Christ as offering a sacrifice for
His own sins. Those who make rovro include both have to take
dpapnav in the sense of infirmities. So Schlichting and Hof-

CHAPTER XIV
CHRIST AND AARON
Chap, viii
The discourse on Melchisedec is finished, and now Aaron
comes to the front. Having used the priest of Salem to
set forth the dignity and value of Christ's priesthood, the
writer proceeds to use the high priest of Israel to convey
an idea of His priestly functions. The aim of the next
division of the Epistle, comprising the eighth and ninth
chapters, is to show that the priestly ministry of Clirist
is as much superior to that of the Levitical priests as He
Himself is personally superior to them. The rubric of
the whole passage is " the more excellent ministry." But
as comparison can be made only between things that have
something in common, this comparison between Christ
and the Levitical priest implies a certain resemblance
which the writer intends to exhibit. By the one train
of thought he accomplishes a twofold object, establishing
superiority on a basis of similitude.
Thus he puts the crown 1 or copestone on the discourse
1 The opening words of the next discourse — Ke(pd\aiov Se ewl rois
Xeyopevots — are happily rendered by Dr. Field in Utium Norvicense :
" Now to crown our present discourse," and by Renclall : " Now to
crown what we are saying." Ke<pd\aiov may mean cither ''sum"
ass

CHRIST AND AARON 289
concerning the priestly Minister after the order of Mel
chisedec by a discourse on His priestly ministry, in terms
drawn from the order of Aaron. That discourse runs on
to the end of the theoretic part of the Epistle (chap.
x. 18), and might have for its general heading "Christ
and Aaron," though I have assigned to its divisions
special headings, reserving the general title for the
contents of chapter viii, which forms the introduction
to the discourse.
For the new line of thought Scripture warrant is
produced, as had been done in the case of the discourse
on the Melchisedec type. The warrant for describing
Christ's priestly functions in terms of those performed
by the priests of the house of Aaron is found in the
words : " See that thou make all things according to the
pattern showed to thee in the mount," x understood to
mean that the Levitical system of worship was a copy
or shadow of a higher heavenly reality. This principle
was carried to absurd lengths by the Rabbis, whose notion
was that there were in heaven original models of the
tabernacle and its furniture, and that these were shown
to Moses, somewhat as original pictures by famous artists,
of which copies are made by obscurer men, are shown to
travellers in the picture-galleries of European cities.
Like most rabbinical notions, this was a prosaic carica
ture of the truth implied in the word of God to Moses.
or "principal matter." Most recent interpreters take it in the
latter of these senses, as I have done above. As to the grammatical
construction : Ke(pd\aiov is an accusative in apposition with the
following sentence. A similar construction in Rom. viii. 3 (to yap
d8vuarov tov vopov).
1 Ex. xxv. 9, and again in ver. 40.
19

290 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
Our author was too much of a poet and philosopher to be
capable of such pedantry as to imagine that of every
article of furniture in the Jewish tabernacle — snuffers,
candlesticks, tables, altars — there was an eternal material
pattern in heaven. But he did believe, and he here
teaches, that the material tabernacle with all its appur
tenances was an emblem of a spiritual, Divine, eternal
sanctuary, shown to Moses in vision on the mount.
Hence he describes the Levitical priests as those who
serve " that which is the pattern and shadow of the
heavenlies," namely, the material, man-made tabernacle
(ver. 5), and represents heaven itself as a sanctuary, the
holy place par excellence, the true tabernacle which the
Lord pitched, not man (ver. 2). In the same way he
assumes that as there was a priesthood and a system of
sacrifices in the religious establishment set up by Moses,
so there must be a priest in the real heavenly sanctuary
(ver. 1), and the Man who fills that office there must
have something to offer (ver. 3). A celestial Sanctuary,
High Priest, and Sacrifice : such are the transcendent
realities whereof the material tabernacle, and the Levitical
priests and sacrifices were the rude, shadowy copies.
It is worthy of note with what a firm, confident tone
the writer asserts the superiority of the heavenly patterns
over the earthly copies. The heavenly sanctuary is the
true, genuine tabernacle, that which answers to the ideal
(aXndivr)^ J) ; the material man-made tabernacle, on the
1 The word is used in the same sense in the Fourth Gospel, e.g.,
" I am the true vine " (rj apweXos rj d\i]6ivri). In this sense dXrj6ivos
is opposed to the vulgar reality which comes short of the ideal,
* while dXrjdris is opposed to the false or unreal in the common sense.

CHRIST AND AARON 291
other hand, is but a rude sketch, or barely that, only
such a dim, scarcely recognisable likeness as a shadow
(aicia) supplies, of the fair spiritual sanctuary which, like
Plato's republic, is to be found nowhere in this world,
but only in the heavens. With this way of describing
the things contrasted, the Hebrew Christians of course
would not sympathise. They would feel disposed to
invert the terms, and apply the epithet " true " to the
material structure, and the epithet " shadowy " to the
spiritual one. Yet what, after all, are the essential con
stituents of a holy place ? Not the boards and the veil,
not stone and lime ; but a God present in His grace, and
a priest competent to transact for man with God, and
a people drawing nigh to God through his mediation.
Given these, your religious establishment is complete in
all essential points. And these essentials are found in
connection with the celestial sanctuary more perfectly
than they were in connection with the old tabernacle in
the wilderness.
Corresponding to the transcendent excellence of the
heavenly sanctuary is the incomparable dignity of its
priestly Minister. He is " such an High Priest as sat
down on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty
in the heavens." He is a royal Priest, who does not
stand ministering like the sacerdotal drudges of the tribe
of Levi (chap. x. 11), but while He ministers, interceding
for men, sits in regal state.
On the principle that all the great religious realities
are to be found in heaven, there also must be the true
offering, or sacrifice. What is it ? That is the question
on which the writer specially desires his readers to

292 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREW'S
exercise their thoughts. For them it is the hardest
question. They might recognise that heaven could, by a
certain latitude of speech, be called a sanctuary, and that
the glorified Christ could be conceived of as in some vague
sense a priest ; but sacrifice in heaven ! What has He
to offer ? Their teacher does his best to help them to
master this abstruse point. First, he remarks that if Clirist
were on earth He would not even be a priest at all, there
being those who offer gifts according to the law (ver. 4).
This statement does not mean that Christ while on earth
was not a priest in any sense. The remark is meant for
Hebrew ears, and is intended to provoke reflection on the
question, What gift did the Priest of the new order offer ?
in the hope that readers slow to learn would at length
get hold of the great idea (unfamiliar to them, though
commonplace to us) first hinted in the close of the
seventh chapter, and developed in the sequel, that Christ's
offering was Himself. In catechetical form our author's
meaning may be put thus : " Christ is a Priest, the true,
high, highest, ideal Priest. He must therefore have
something to offer ; for the very duty of a priest is to
offer gifts and sacrifices for sin. But what is it which
He offers 1 It is not any such sacrifice as the Levitical
priest offers, insomuch that were He on earth He could
not be recognised as a priest at all. What then can it
be ? It cannot certainly be the blood of bulls and goats.
The daily scenes of slaughter that took place before the
door of the tabernacle would be utterly out of place
in the celestial sanctuary. You cannot imagine such
sanguinary work going on up yonder. The sacrifice
that is to make even heaven pure must be of a very

CHRIST AND AARON 293
different character. No shadows, no dim emblems, no
rude, barbaric rites will do there. All must be real,
spiritual, and of the highest kind, and in the highest
measure of perfection. The priest that gets entry yonder
must be more than officially holy, and his offering must
be as holy as himself. Can you not guess what it is ?
It is Himself, offered without spot or stain of sin unto
God, through the eternal Spirit of filial obedience and
lowly love. That will do even for heaven." This, or
something like it, is what the writer has in his mind;
but he does not utter all his thought just yet. He is
content for the present to throw out the remark : " This
Man must have something to offer," and to leave his
readers for a while to puzzle over the question, What
can it be ?
At no point in the Epistle is it more needful to bear in
mind its apologetic character, and to realise the ignorance
of its first readers as to the nature of Christianity, which
made an elaborate apology necessary, than at the place
which now engages our attention. If we assume that the
Hebrew Christians were familiar with the doctrine that
Christ was a Priest, and that by His death He made
atonement for sin, it is difficult to understand what the
writer could mean by the statement that He must have
something to offer. It degenerates into a mere truism.
Why, of course He had His own blood shed on the cross
to present to God in heaven. . Or are we to suppose that
the writer means something additional to that : such as
intercessions for sinners, and presentation to God of the
prayers and praises of His people ? Assume, on the
other hand, that the Hebrew Christians were ignorant

294 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
of the great truth that in His death Christ offered Him
self a sacrifice to God, and all becomes clear. The
observation that Clirist must have somewhat to offer
gains point, and the added remark that if He were on
earth He would not be a priest serves an important
purpose. The former is no longer a theological common
place, or dogmatic truism, but an apologetic device to
force slow-witted men to think; and the latter is a
friendly hint as to the direction in which the solution of
the problem is to be found.
This Man must have somewhat to offer — what can it
be ? such was the puzzling question for the first readers
of our Epistle. The puzzle for modern readers and
interpreters is different. The priestly ministry is in
heaven ; and yet the sacrifice the Priest presents there
appears to be none other than that offering of Himself
which He made once for all; an event, so far at least as
the initial stage of it, the blood-shedding, is concerned,
happening on earth, and within this visible world. This
is the antinomy to which reference has already been
made.1 For the final solution we must wait till we have
come in the course of exposition to the writer's fullest
expression of his conception of Christ's sacrifice.
Meantime it will suffice to hint that in his view " true "
and " heavenly " are synonyms ; whatever is " true " is
heavenly, belongs to the upper world of realities, and
whatever belongs to that upper world is true and real.
If Christ's sacrifice of Himself be a true sacrifice, it
belongs to the heavenly world, no matter where or when
it takes place. Then, secondly, Christ's sacrifice is for
1 Vide Chapter ix. p. 190 ; for the solution, vide Chapter xvi.

CHRIST AND AARON 295
him a true sacrifice, because it is an affair of spirit.
Flesh and blood, whether of man or of beast, are of the
earth, earthy, and belong to the realm of shadows.
Even the blood of Clirist, literally'- considered, can find
no place in heaven ; so that it is vain to distinguish
between the first stage of the sacrifice, the death or
blood-shedding, and the second, the sprinkling of the
shed blood on the mercy-seat within the sanctuary, and
to relegate the former to earth as something lying out
side the sphere of Christ's proper priestly activity, and
to locate the latter in heaven, regarding it as the point at
which Christ's priestly ministry begins. Christ's sacrifice
of Himself finds entrance into heaven only when blood
is transmuted into spirit. In other words : the shedding
of Christ's blood is a true sacrifice, as distinct from the
shedding of the blood of bulls and goats, which was only
a shadow of sacrifice, because it is the manifestation of
a mind or spirit. And because it is that, it belongs
to heaven, though it take place on earth. As in the
Gospel of John, the Son of man living on the earth is
represented as claiming to be in heaven,1 so we may
claim for the death of Christ, in virtue of the spirit it
revealed, that it belongs to the heavenlies, though it
took place on Mount Calvary. The magic phrase,
" through an eternal spirit," lifts us above distinctions of
time and place, and makes it possible for us to regard
1 John iii. 13. I am aware that 6 &v ev t<3 ovpava is a doubtful
reading omitted by W. and H. (given in the margin). But it is
retained by Tischendorf, and the thought is entirely in the manner
of the Fourth Gospel, which contemplates history sub specie mterni
tatis, whereby distinctions of here and there, now and then, are
abolished.

296 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
Christ's offering of Himself, in all its stages, as a trans
action within the celestial sanctuary.
Leaving his readers for a while to their own meditations
on the question, What is it Christ had to offer ? our
author proceeds to show that the ministry of the " true
tabernacle," whatever its precise nature, must needs be
one of surpassing excellence. For this purpose he
reverts to the idea of the " better covenant " introduced
in the previous chapter (ver. 22), of which he declares
Christ to be the " Mediator," that is, the agent by whom
it is established, as he has already declared Him to be
its " surety," that is, the agent by whom its stability is
guaranteed. " But now," he argues, " hath He obtained
a more excellent ministry, by how much He is also
Mediator of a better covenant, one which has been
legally constituted upon better promises." From one
occupying this position what may not be expected ? Of
the priestly service connected with the better covenant,
based on better promises, too lofty ideas cannot be
formed. Thus would the wise teacher entice backward
pupils onward in the untrodden path that conducts to
Christian enlightenment. Whether he was successful
we know not. Not improbably he failed with his first
readers because of the novelty of his thoughts, as he is
apt to fail with us through their being too familiar.
The "new covenant" is now a trite theme, and it requires
an effort of historical imagination to conceive that at one
time it was a great, spiritual, poetic thought : first for
Jeremiah, whose prophetic soul gave birth to it ; and
then, ages after, for the author of our Epistle, who utilised
it in his grand apology for the Christian religion. In so

CHRIST AND AARON 297
doing he certainly showed his wonted skill. For Jere
miah's oracle of the new covenant, here quoted at length,
serves excellently the purpose of the whole Epistle, while
it facilitates the exposition of the peculiar nature of
Christ's priestly ministry. The oracle speaks of a new
covenant, and is thus another Scripture text showing that
a new order of things was contemplated even in long
past ages, and that the old order was felt to be un
satisfactory. The oracle further represents the new,
desiderated order as a covenant, implying an analogy as
well as a difference between the new and the old, and
preparing us to expect, in connection with the new not
less than the old, a priestly ministry and sacrifice, serv
ing a purpose analogous to that served by the Levitical
system of worship, only serving it far more effectually.
After justifying the application of the epithet "better"
to the new covenant by the remark that, if the first
covenant had been faultless, no place would have been
sought for a second (ver. 7), and by pointing out that
the oracle of the new covenant is introduced with dis
paraging reflections on the old (vers. 8,1 9), the writer
quotes the oracle (with its preface) at length (vers. 8—
12), and leaves it to speak for itself as to the quality of
its promises which he had declared to be " better " than
those of the old covenant. Read the oracle, he says in
effect, and judge for yourselves. It would certainly have
been satisfactory if he had treated his readers of all ages
1 peptpopevos yap alrovs. B. has avrols, which might be neuter,
and refer to the details of the Sinaitic legislation, a reference
to which seems to be required by the dpepwros in ver. 7. So
Vaughan. Weiss thinks that even with airois, which he adopts, the
reference is to the people.

298 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
as children so far as to think it necessary to give a
succinct enumeration of the promises, that they might
know on what he chiefly laid stress. Fortunately he
returns to the subject farther on, and by a partial
requotation lets us see what bulks most largely in his
view (chap. x. 16-18). Two promises are covered by
the second quotation : the writing of the law on the
heart, and the everlasting oblivion of sin. One might
have been quite sure, apart from any express indication,
that our author had the last-mentioned promise very
specially in mind when he characterised the promises of
the new covenant as " better " ; for the very aim of his
whole work is to show that Christ for the first time
deals effectually with the defilement of sin, so that we
can indeed draw near to God. But it is important to
observe that remission of sin, while of great moment in
his view, is not everything. He includes the writing of
the law on the heart within the scope of Christ's work.
He thinks of that as one of the ends to be effected by
Christ as the founder and guarantor of the new covenant.
In other words, he conceives of Christ as the Sanctifier in
the ethical or Pauline sense, as well as in the ritual or
theocratic sense of putting men, through forgiveness, in
right relations with God.
The new covenant might well be left to speak for
itself as to the superior quality of its promises. Under
the Sinaitic covenant God gave the people of Israel,
through Moses as mediator, the Ten Commandments
written on tables of stone, and promised to bless them if
they kept these commandments, to be their God if they
would be His people and do all the words of His law.

CHRIST AND AARON 299
He gave them, further, detailed instructions with refer
ence to their religious duties, and provided a priestly
caste to keep them right in point of ritual, a thing
very necessary under so complicated a system. Finally,
God promised to His people temporary forgiveness of
sins of ignorance and infirmity, on condition of their
offering certain specified sacrifices, at certain stated
times, and in accordance with certain prescribed forms ;
cancelling, e.g., the " ignorances " of a year in considera
tion of the sacrifices offered by the high priest on
the great day of atonement. Benefits these not to be
despised, but how poor compared with those of the new
covenant ! Instead of a law written on tables of stone,
and deposited in the ark, was to be a law written on the
heart, and deposited in the safe custody of a renewed
mind. And there is no " if " in the promise of the
covenanting God. It is absolute, and runs : " I will be
their God, and they shall be My people." Then, instead
of instruction in the details of a cumbrous ceremonial
system by the priest, or by any neighbour who happened
to be better informed, there is to be intuitive, first-hand
knowledge of God, of His will, and of His heart, possessed
by all, accessible to laymen as well as to priests, to the
poor as well as to the rich, to the least as well as to the
greatest, to the illiterate as well as to the learned — the
knowledge being of a kind not dependent on talent,
status, or profession, but simply on moral disposition, the
common possession of all the pure in heart. Finally,
there is promised under the new covenant, not a tempo
rary — say, annual — forgiveness of sins of a minor and
artificial character, but forgiveness free, full, everlasting,

300 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
of all sins, however heinous. " I will be merciful to their
unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities I will
remember no more " ; words which in the mouth of a
prophet meant something more serious than the pardon
ing of petty offences against a religious ritual.
The new, reformed covenant is evidently constructed
on the principle of avoiding the defects of the old one.
The oracle announcing it is in one aspect just a criticism
of the Sinaitic covenant. When prophets thus boldly
criticise the constitution of their nation, change more or
less revolutionary may be looked for. The first item in
the reform programme, the law written on the heart,
may indeed appear a poet's dream, to be relegated to the
realm of Utopia. No fault is found at this point with
the old law in itself. The law referred to is the Decalogue,
as we gather from the implied contrast between writing
on the heart and writing on stone tablets. It was this
law above all that the people of Israel broke when they
provoked God to disregard His covenant, and send them
into exile. They were banished to Babylon, not for
neglecting religious ritual, but for neglecting the great
duties of righteousness, which it was the glory of the
prophets to preach. This law in itself was good, and
accordingly in this case the old covenant is blamed
merely for not providing that the law should be kept.
The complaint may seem unreasonable, but there can be
no doubt that a law which not only told men what to do,
but insured compliance with its own precepts, would be a
great boon.
The second item in the programme points not merely
to a new method of enforcing old laws, but to abrogation.

CHRIST AND AARON 301
The dependence of each man upon his neighbour for the
knowledge of God's will arose out of the fact that under
the ancient covenant the people of Israel were subject to
a vast body of positive precepts, which had no reason
except that God was pleased to enjoin them. Even
under that covenant the moral law was to a certain
extent written on the heart. But the heart, or the
conscience, could give no guidance in reference to
religious ritual or ceremonial purity. In such matters
men had to seek the law at the priest's mouth. Yet
ignorance might have serious consequences. Exact
knowledge of God was at once necessary and difficult.
It was so difficult, that the rise of a class like the
scribes, whose business it was to interpret the law,
became inevitable ; it was so necessary, that a man could
not be legally righteous without a minute acquaintance
with the contents of the statute book, there being
innumerable offences which were not sins against the
Decalogue, but only against ceremonial precepts, having
penalties attaching to them. This it was which made
the legal yoke grievous. It was not enough to be a
good man ; you must likewise, as touching the positive
precepts of the law, be blameless. And it was so difficult
to be ritually blameless, that one might know God
essentially very well, even as a prophet knew Him, and
yet be in Divine things an ignoramus, from the point of
view of the priestly code. ' For this incongruous state
of matters abrogation was the only remedy. Sweep
away the cumbrous and vexatious system of positive
precepts, and let the things needful to be known in
order to acceptable acquaintance with God be reduced

302 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
to a few great moral and spiritual truths, comprehensible
by all, without aid of priest, scribe, rabbi, or village
schoolmaster, the all-sufficient organ of knowledge being
a pure heart. This was one of the boons to be brought
in by the days that were coming, the " time of reforma
tion," the era of the " new covenant."
Another was the abolition of the Levitical priesthood,
and the system of worship with which it was connected.
For this is what is pointed at in the third complaint
virtually brought against the old covenant, that it did
not deal effectually with the problem of sin. This is the
most serious charge, as it is the one which the author
of our Epistle is most concerned to emphasise. It was
well founded. The Levitical system might, without any
breach of charity, be characterised as trifling with the
great question, How can human sin be pardoned, and the
sinner brought near to God ? It really dealt only, or at
least for the most part, with artificial sins, arising out
of ignorance of the ritual law, and its tendency was to
divorce religion from morality. A man might be ritually
right who was morally wrong, and morally right who
was ritually wrong. Perhaps it was not of this that
Jeremiah was thinking when he wrote, " I will forgive
their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more."
But an implied censure on the old religion is what our
author finds in the words. For him they contain the
promise of a boon which it was not in the power of
that religion to confer ; therefore by inference an inti
mation that it must and shall pass away, and give place
to a better religion that shall effectually provide for the
pardon of sin and the establishment of peace between

CHRIST AND AARON 303
man and God. He does not interpret the prophecy as
pointing to the total abolition of priests and sacrifices ;
he finds in it rather the promise of a better priest and a
better sacrifice. That is for him the promise of the new
covenant, the fulfilment of which brings along with it
the fulfilment of the other two. Give us only the true
Priest and the true Sacrifice, then ritual worship becomes
useless, and a simple worship of the living God takes its
place, and obedience is made easy by law being trans
muted into love.
How fully the revolutionary character of Jeremiah's
oracle of the new covenant was present to our author's
mind appears from the remark which he appends to the
quotation from the prophet : " In that He saith ' new ' He
hath made old the first " (ver. 1 3). He regards the
mere use of the fateful word "new" as implying that
even in the prophet's time the Sinaitic covenant was in
the Divine view moribund. It was therefore virtually
a notice to the old order generally, and to the Levitical
priesthood in particular, to be ready to quit. The
obvious moral is pointed still more plainly for the
benefit of Hebrew readers by the added reflection : " that
which is becoming antiquated x and growing age-worn is
nigh unto vanishing away." It is implied that the
sentence of antiquation pronounced seven centuries ago
through the mouth of Jeremiah has at length become
ready for execution through the long process of decay
to which legal institutions had been subject. It was
necessary to point this out, because the Hebrew Christians
1 wa\aiovp,evov, present participle, contrasting with wewdXaiaKev
in the previous clause.

&

304 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
might think that a prophetic verdict of condemnation
that had^ lain dormant so long, and been treated as
brittum fulmen by triumphant Rabbinism, would remain
for ever a dead letter. " Not so," says their teacher. " No
word of God returns unto Him void of effect, least of all
shall this word of censure on the old covenant fall to the
ground. The time of fulfilment has arrived. Leviticahsm
is decrepit, and death must ensue. Think of this, ye
Hebrews, who cling to Levitical ordinances ! See : the
high priest's head is white with age ; his limbs totter
from feebleness ; the boards of the tabernacle are rotten ;
the veil of the sanctuary is moth-eaten. Everything
portends approaching dissolution. Let it die then, the
hoary system, and receive from devout men decent
burial. Shut not your eyes to the white hairs and
tottering steps, fanatically striving to endow the vener
able with immortality, embalming that which is already
dead. Accept the inevitable, however painful, and find
comfort in the thought that though the body dies the
spirit lives on, that when the old passes away something
new and better takes its place. It is sad to lose such a
one as Simeon the just and devout ; but why mourn for
him when a Christ is born ? "
Wise counsel, accepted by all in reference to revolu
tions lying behind them in long past history. Good
counsel, we say, for Hebrew Christians of the apostolic
age, and for the men of the sixteenth century when
Luther introduced his reforms. The difficulty is to
accept and act on the counsel in connection with changes
impending or now going on. Then the voice of wisdom
seems to many a word of blasphemy. "Abolish the

CHRIST AND AARON 305
Sinaitic covenant, and the God -given law, and the
divinely instituted priesthood — what an impious pro
posal ! " It is this that makes the prophet ever a
heavy-hearted man. He sees so clearly to be a duty
what to other men appears a crime. Well if they do
not stone him to death, like Stephen !

CHAPTER XV
the ancient tabernacle
Chap. ix. 1-10
The writer now proceeds to compare the old and the new
covenants with reference to their respective provisions for
religious communion between man and God, his purpose
being to show the superiority of the priestly ministry of
Christ over that of the Levitical priesthood. In the first
five verses of the section now to be considered he gives
an inventory of the furniture of the tabernacle pitched in
the wilderness ; in the next five he describes the religious
services there carried on. Thereafter he proceeds to
describe in contrast the ministry of Christ, the new
covenant High Priest, as performed in the greater and
more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands.
The first paragraph simply continues the train of
thought, and hence the subject of the affirmation in
ver. 1 is left .to be understood : " Now (o5k leading back
to viii. 6) the first (covenant) had ordinances of Divine
service and its mundane sanctuary." x The epithet icoa-
1 The diKaimpara \arpeias and the dyiov koo'pikov are joined
together as one composite institution by re. Service and sanctuary
corresponded to each other, the sanctuary being adapted in its con
struction to the services therein carried on.
306

THE ANCIENT TABERNACLE 307
fiiicov here applied to the tabernacle evidently signifies
" belonging to this material world," in opposition to the
heavenly sanctuary (ver. 11) not made with hands out
of things visible and tangible. Some have rendered
" ornate," or well ordered, for which, however, the usual
Greek word is icoo-fiios. The purpose of the writer is to
point out that the tabernacle belonged to this earth, and
therefore possessed the attributes of all things earthly,
materiality and perishableness. The materials might be
fine and costly; still they were material, and as such
were liable to wax old and vanish away.
In vers. 2—5 is given a detailed description of the
arrangements and furniture of this cosmic1 sanctuary.
It is represented as divided into two parts, each of
which is called a tabernacle, distinguished as first and
second ; and the articles contained in, or belonging to,
each compartment are carefully specified. " For there
was prepared a tabernacle ; the first, wherein were the
candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread ; which
is called the Holy place. But behind the second veil,
the tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies ; having
a golden altar of incense, and the ark of the covenant
covered on all sides with gold, wherein (was) a golden
pot containing manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and
the tables of the covenant; and above it cherubim of
1 I use this word simply as a synonym for " mundane," not as
hinting sympathy with the idea that the sanctuary was cosmic in
significance, representing the universe, or even as implying that
KocrpiKov points to the universality of the worship, the temple being
open to Gentiles. Neither of these ideas was present to the mind
of the writer, though some interpreters, ancient and modern, have
found them in the epithet he applies to the sanctuary.

308 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
glory overshadowing the mercy-seat ; of which I cannot
now speak severally." The tabernacle called in ver. 3
" the Holy of Holies " is in ver. 7 called " the second." The
veil between the Holy place and the most Holy place is
called the second veil, to distinguish it from the curtain
at the door of the tent, which is regarded as the first.
The inventory of the tabernacle furniture here given
offers several points for consideration. Looking at it as
a whole, what strikes one is the great care taken to give
a full list of the articles, and also to describe them,
specially those of costly material. Several things are
named which have no bearing on the comparison
between the old and new covenants, no counterparts in
the Christian sanctuary, apparently for no other reason
than just that the list might be complete. No valuator
could be more careful to make an inventory of household
furniture perfectly accurate than our author is to give
an exhaustive list of the articles to be found in the
Jewish tabernacle, whether in the Holy place or in the
most Holy. Indeed, so careful is he to make the list
complete, not only in his own judgment, but in the
judgment of his readers, that he includes things which
had no connection with religious worship, but were
merely put into the tabernacle for safe custody, as
valuable mementoes of incidents in Israel's history ;
e.g., the golden pot of manna, and Aaron's rod that
budded. It is further to be noted, in regard to these
articles, that they are represented as being within the
ark of the covenant, though it is nowhere in the
Old Testament said that they were, the direction given
being merely that they should be placed before the

THE ANCIENT TABERNACLE 309
Testimony,1 and it being expressly stated in regard to
the ark in Solomon's temple that there was nothing
in it save the two tables on which the Ten Command
ments were inscribed.2 Whether these things ever had
been in the ark we do not know. The fact that they
are here represented to have been does not settle the
point. The writer speaks not by inspiration, or from
his own knowledge, but simply in accordance with
traditional belief. The Rabbis held that the golden pot
and Aaron's rod were placed not only before, but inside
the ark ; and the Jews generally accepted this opinion.
And our author is content to state the case as his
readers might have stated it. He has no interest or
wish to deny the truth of the opinion ; on the contrary,
his whole purpose in making the enumeration gives him
rather an interest in acquiescing in current opinion on
the point. For he desires to convince his readers of the
superior excellence of the priestly ministry of Christ,
and it is a part of his art as an orator to go as far as
he honestly can in pleasing those whom he would
persuade. If they think that it makes the golden pot
and the budding rod more precious to have them
inside the ark, why then, let it be so. He acts like a
valuator describing certain articles greatly valued by
surviving relatives as heirlooms that had belonged to a
deceased friend. The valuator sees well enough that
the articles in question are of little intrinsic worth, and
knows that they would bring little money if sold. But
he knows also the superstitious veneration with which
the old rehcs are regarded by the kinsfolk of the
1 Ex. xvi. 32-34 ; Num. xvii. 10. 2 1 Kings viii. 9.

310 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
departed ; so he takes care how he speaks about them,
that he may not shock natural feeling by assigning to
them their real as distinct from their imaginary senti
mental value.
To the same motive is due the careful manner in
which notice is taken of the fact that certain articles of
furniture — all pertaining to the inner shrine — had gold
about them. The writer wishes to avoid the slightest
suspicion of ungenerous disparagement. He is required
by truth to disparage the old covenant as a whole, in
comparison with the new ; but he desires to speak of
its ordinances and properties with becoming respect, as
things regarded with peculiar reverence by his readers, and
even held in high esteem by himself. While his doctrine
is that the ancient tabernacle was at best but a poor,
shadowy affair, he takes pains to show that in his judg
ment it was as good as it was possible for a cosmic sanctuary
to be.1 Its articles of furniture were of the best material ;
the ark of fine wood covered all over with gold, the altar
of incense of similar materials, the pot with manna of
pure gold. He feels he can afford to describe in generous
terms the furniture of the tabernacle, because, after all,
he will have no difficulty in showing the immeasurable
superiority of the " true " tabernacle wherein Clirist
ministers. One single phrase settles the point — 01
XeopoTTolwro? (ver. 11). The old tabernacle and all its
furniture were made by the hands of men out of
1 Intention to praise the sanctuary as far as possible is revealed
by the pev in ver. 1, which finds its answering he in ver. 6, where
the description of the worship begins. On the one hand, the highly
ornamented sanctuary ; on the other hand, the disappointing
service !

THE ANCIENT TABERNACLE 311
perishable materials. The curtains might be fine in
texture and ornamentation, and the wood employed
in constructing the tables the most beautiful and durable
that could be procured. Still all was material, all was
fashioned by human handicraft, all was doomed to wax
old and vanish away. The " gold, and silver, and brass,
and the blue, purple, and scarlet cloths, and the fine
linen, and goats' hair, and rams' skins dyed red, and
badgers' skins, and shittim wood," were all liable to
destruction by the devouring tooth of time, that spares
nothing visible and tangible.
This eulogistic style of describing the furniture of the
cosmic tabernacle was not only generous, but politic.
The more the furniture was praised, the more the
religious service carried on in the tent so furnished
was in effect depreciated by the contrast inevitably
suggested. In this point of view there is a latent
irony in the reference to the precious materials of
which the articles were made. The emphasis laid on
the excellent quality of these really signifies the
inferiority of the whole Levitical system. It says to the
ear of the thoughtful : " The furniture of the tabernacle
was golden, but its worship was poor ; the outward
aspect of things was fine, but. the spiritual element was
weak and defective ; the apparatus was costly, but the
practical religious result was of small account. The
whole system was barbaric and beggarly, placing value
in the outside, rather than in the inside, in matter
rather than in mind, in the costliness of the furniture
rather than in the high intelligence and refined purity
of the cultus there carried on."

312 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
Looking now at the inventory distributively, let us
note what articles are placed in either compartment of
the tabernacle respectively. In the first are located the
candlestick, the table, and the shewbread, wliich was
arranged in two rows on the table ; to the second are
assigned what is called the 6vp.iarrjpiov, and the ark of
the covenant, containing, as is said, the manna pot,
Aaron's rod, and the tables of the covenant, and
surmounted by the cherubim of glory shadowing the
mercy-seat, or lid of the ark.
After finishing his enumeration, the writer adds that
he cannot speak of the things enumerated in detail.
Neither can I. The only article of which there is any
need to speak " particularly " is the 6vp,iarr\piov,
concerning which there are two questions to be con
sidered : What is it ? and with what propriety is it
assigned to the most Holy place ? As to the former,
the word 6vp,iarrjpiov may mean either " the altar of
incense," as I have rendered it, or " the golden censer,"
as translated in the Authorised and Revised Versions.
It is, as Alford remarks, " a neuter adjective, importing
anything having regard to, or employed in, the burning
of incense," and " may therefore mean either an altar
upon which, or a censer in which, incense was burned."
The word occurs in Greek authors in both senses, and
great division of opinion has arisen among commentators
as to which of the two senses is to be preferred here.
In favour of the rendering " censer " is a passage in the
Mischna, in which stress is laid on the censer to be used
on the great day of atonement as distinguished from that
used on any other day, on the fact of its being of gold,

THE ANCIENT TABERNACLE 313
and not only so, but of a particular and precious kind
of gold. No mention of such a golden censer occurs
in the Pentateuch. In Leviticus xvi. 12, where direc
tions are given to Aaron concerning the incense-offering,
we read : " He shall take a censer full of burning coals
of fire from off the altar before the Lord, and his hands
full of sweet incense beaten small, and bring it within
the veil : and he shall put the incense upon the fire
before the Lord, that the cloud of the incense may cover
the mercy-seat that is upon the testimony, that he die
not." In this passage the Greek name for the censer in
the Septuagint is to irvpelov ; the censer is not called
golden ; and, lastly, it could not from the nature of the
case be kept in the most Holy place, for the high priest
would then have had to go in for it in order to use it, a
very unlikely procedure, considering that the very
purpose of its use was to make it safe for the officiating
priest to go within the veil. Still there may have been
a censer, distinguished as the golden one, employed in
after ages in the solemnities of the great day of atone
ment ; and it is conceivable that, following Jewish
tradition in this as in other particulars already referred
to, the writer might include it in his enumeration.
Conceivable, but that is all : the supposition is highly
improbable. For observe what would follow. One very
important article of furniture, the golden altar of
incense, would in that case find no place in the enumera
tion. Is it at all likely that so prominent a piece of
furniture would be overlooked in an inventory designed
to give a full list of the articles that were the glory and
boast of the ancient sanctuary ? It is by no means

314 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
a strong argument against its being the article intended
that it is not named as in the Septuagint, where it
is designated rb 6vaiaarr}piov rod Ov/jLid/xaro*;. In
calling the altar of incense dvfuarrjpiov the writer
followed the usage of his time, as illustrated in the
writings of Philo and Josephus. The true cause of
the hesitation to adopt this interpretation is not verbal,
but theological — the consideration, namely, that by
deciding that the altar of incense is intended, we seem
to make the writer guilty of an inaccuracy in assigning
it to the inner shrine of the tabernacle. I have little
doubt that this consideration had its own weight with
our Revisers in leading them to retain the old rendering,
" the golden censer " ; and the fact detracts from the
value of . their judgment, as based, not on the merits of
the question, but on the ground of theological prudence.
A clearer insight into the mind of the writer would have
shown them that this well-meant solicitude for his
infallibility was uncalled for.
This brings us to the question as to the propriety of
placing the altar of incense among the things belonging
to the most Holy place. On this point even such
a considerate interpreter as Bleek has not hesitated
to say that the writer has fallen into a mistake, not
without its bearing on the question of authorship,
as showing that the Epistle could not have been written
by an inhabitant of Palestine, who would have known
better, but may with more probability be ascribed to
an Alexandrian, who might excusably be imperfectly
informed. But it is not credible that so able and
well instructed a writer as the author of our Epistle,

THE ANCIENT TABERNACLE 315
whoever he was, shows himself on every page to be,
could commit such a blunder as is imputed to him, that,
namely, of locating the altar of incense within rather
than without the second veil.1
But why then, it may be asked, does he not mention
this altar among the articles to be found in the first
division of the tabernacle ? The answer is of vital
importance in its bearing on the main doctrine of the
Epistle, the utter insufficiency of the Levitical system.
The fact is, that the altar of incense was a puzzle to one
who was called on to state to which part of the taber
nacle it belonged. Hence the peculiar manner in which
the writer expresses himself in reference to the things
assigned to the most Holy place. He does not say, as in
connection with the first division, " in which were " (ev $),
but represents it as " having " (e^oftra) certain things.
1 In his latest work, Das Urchristenthum, Pfleiderer repeats the
assertion that the writer v makes a mistake as to the altar of
incense, and presses it, along with other supposed mistakes (e.g. the
daily offering of sacrifice by the high priest, chap. x. 11) into the
service of his argument as to the destination and authorship of
the Epistle. As the note on page 317 will show, he might have
found in the writings of Philo, from which he supposes our author
to have drawn freely, a hint of a solution that would have kept him
from bringing so hasty a charge. Weiss and von Soden think that
the expression exovo-a leaves it doubtful whether the writer
conceived the altar of incense as within the Holy of Holies. Von
Soden is of opinion that he would have some excuse for so
thinking in some Old Testament texts, e.g. Ex. xxvi. 35, where
only the candlestick and the table of shewbread are mentioned as
being in the Holy place. Weiss says that it does not matter what
the writer thought- as to that. He has in his mind the high priest's
service on the day of atonement in the most Holy place, when
incense was there offered, so that the altar of incense appeared
naturally as a piece of furniture belonging to it.

316 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
The phrase is chosen with special reference to the
altar of incense. Of all the other articles it might have
been said " in which were," but not of it. Nothing more
could be said than that it belonged to the second division.
The question is, whether even so much could be said,
and why the writer preferred to say this rather than
to say that the altar of incense stood outside the veil in
the first division. Now as to the former part of the
question, in so putting the matter our author was only
following an Old Testament precedent, the altar of
incense being in 1 Kings vi. 2 2 called the altar " that
was by the oracle," or, more correctly, as in the Revised
Version, the altar " that belonged to the oracle." Then
the directions given for fixing its position, as recorded
in Exodus xxx. 6, are very significant. The rubric runs:
" Thou shalt put it before the veil that is by the ark
of the Testimony, before the mercy-seat that is over the
Testimony, where I will meet with thee." The purport
of this directory seems to be : outside the veil for daily
use (for within it could not be used save once a year),
but tending inwards, indicating by its very situation
a wish to get in, standing there, so to speak, at the door
of the most Holy place, petitioning for admission. So
the eloquent eulogist of the better ministry of the new
covenant appears to have understood it. He thinks
of the altar of incense as praying for admission into
the inner shrine, and waiting for the removal of the
envious veil which forbade entrance. And he so far
sympathises with its silent prayer as to admit it within
the veil before the time, or at least to acknowledge that,
while materially without, it belonged in spirit and

THE ANCIENT TABERNACLE 317
function to the most Holy place. It really did so at
all times, and very specially in reference to the service
on the great day of atonement, when incense was carried
within the veil.
In stating the case as he does, our author was not
only following usage, but utilising the double relations of
the altar of incense for the purposes of his apologetic.
He wanted to make it felt that the position of that altar
was difficult to define, that it was both without and
within the veil, that you could not place it exclusively in
either position without leaving out something that should
be added to make the account complete. And he wished
to press home the question, What was the cause of
the difficulty ? The radical evil, he would suggest,
was the existence of the veil. It was the symbol of
an imperfect religion, which denied men free access
to God, and so was the parent of this anomaly, that
the altar of incense had to be in two places at the
same time : within the veil, as there were the mercy-
seat and the Hearer of prayer ; without the veil, because
the incense of prayer must be offered daily, and yet no
one might go within save the high priest, and he only
once a year. How thankful, then, should we be that the
veil is done away, so that the distinction of without
and within no longer exists, and we may come daily
to offer the incense of our prayers in the very presence
of God, without fear of evil, with perfect " assurance
to be heard " ! 1
1 A thought similar to the one above stated occurs in Philo in
reference, not to the altar of incense, but to the tree of the know
ledge of good and evil. Observing that it is not expressly said in

318 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
After the inventory of its furniture comes an account
of the ministry carried on in the Jewish sanctuary (vers.
6-10); the description of which, coming after the
former, has all the effect of an anticlimax. One can
hardly fail to say to himself, What a fall is here ! The
furniture was precious, but the worship how poor ! I
read first of golden arks, altars, and pots, and then
of sacrifices, ceremonies, meats, drinks, divers washings —
mere fleshly ordinances, utterly unfit to put away sin
Without any commentary, the two lists placed side by
side tell their own tale. Every one capable of reflection
feels that a religious system in which the vessels of
the sanctuary are so much superior to the service cannot
be the final and permanent form of man's communion
with God, but only a type or parable for the time of
better things to come, that could last only till the era of
reformation arrived.
This truth, however, the writer does not leave to
be inferred, but expressly points out and proves. On
two things he insists, as tending to show the insufficiency
Scripture where it was placed, he asks. " What shall we say ? " and
decides that it was both within and without paradise — within as to
essence, without as to power : ova-la pev e'v aira, Svvdpei Se euro's ;
just the converse of what I have said of the altar of incense, which
was within the Holy of Holies as to power, without as to essence.
Vide Alleg. i. chap, xviii. I have not noticed any reference to
this passage from Philo in any of the recent commentaries, nor
indeed any such conception of the state of the case as to the location
of the altar of incense, as would call for such a reference. Vaughan
and Westcott both pronounce in favour of the view that dvpiarqpiov
means the altar of incense, but neither perceives the point above
stated. Vaughan is very conscious of the difficulties for the in
terpreter, but has not thought of the difficulty for the writer in
locating the dvpiarripiov, or of the lesson he means to teach thereby.

THE ANCIENT TABERNACLE 319
and therefore the transitiveness of the Levitical system,
and all that pertained to it. First, he asserts that the
mere division of the tabernacle into an accessible Holy
place and an inaccessible most Holy place proved the
imperfection of the worship there carried on; and,
secondly, he points out the disproportion between the
great end of religion and the means employed for reach
ing it under the Levitical system. The former of these
positions is dealt with in vers. 6-8, the latter in vers.
9, 10.
The method in which religious worship was carried on
in the tabernacle is stated in these terms : " These things
being thus prepared, the priests go in continually into
the first tabernacle, accomplishing their services ; but
into the second, once in the year, alone, the high priest,
not without blood, which he offers for himself, and for
the ignorances of the people." 1 The purpose of this
statement is to convey a vivid impression of inaccessi
bility in reference to the most Holy place, which is
done by emphasising three particulars: (1) that no
ordinary priest, not to speak of lay persons, ever entered
there, only the high priest; (2) that even the high priest
entered only once a year;2 (3) that he dared not enter
without the blood of a victim, to make atonement for
his own sins and for the sins of the whole people. The
1 The present tenses (eurlaxriv, wpoa-cpepei) are held by some to
prove that when the Epistle was written the temple service was still
going on. But the argument is not conclusive. The present may
be that of the Scripture record, the writer describing ideally as if
the service were now going on.
2 That is, on one day in the year ; how often on that one day is
of no consequence to the purpose on hand.

320 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
inaccessibility was not absolute, but the solitary exception
made the sense of inaccessibility more intense than if
there had been no exception. Had entrance been abso
lutely forbidden, men would have regarded the inner
sanctuary as a place with which they had no concern,
and would have ceased to think of it at all. But the
admission of their highest representative in holy things
on one solitary day in the year taught them that the
most Holy place was a place with which they had to
do, and at the same time showed it to be a place very
difficult of access. The ceremonial of the great day
of atonement said in effect : " You need to get in here,
but it is barely possible to get in. You can be ad
mitted only by deputy, as represented by your officially
holy man ; and even he may enter only at rare intervals,
and with fear and trembling, with blood in his hands
to atone for his and your sins. The door of the second
tabernacle is all but shut against you ; open just enough
to keep alive in your hearts at once a sense of your need
to get in, and the painful consciousness that your desire
for admission is rather whetted than satisfied."
Our author proceeds to intimate that just this was
the import of the arrangement. " The Holy Ghost this
(or by this arrangement) indicating that the way of
(into) the Holy place has not yet been manifested, while
the first tabernacle has a standing " (ver. 8). The idea
is, that the exclusion from the inner part of the Jewish
tabernacle, and the all but entire restriction of religious
service to the outer part, signified " perfect intercourse
with God not yet granted, the highest and therefore
abiding form of religion a thing yet to come." The

THE ANCIENT TABERNACLE 321
writer would have his readers see, in the mere fact of
such a division of the tabernacle into a first and second
chamber, a Divine intimation that there was a higher
boon, a nearer approach to, a more intimate fellowship
with God in store for men, which for the present was
denied. " The first part of the tabernacle," he would say,
" is yours ; the second in its spiritual significance belongs
to the future, to the time of Messiah, when all things
are to undergo renovation. To cling to legal worship,
then, as something that must last for ever is to shut your
ear to the voice of the sanctuary itself, by its very
structure bearing witness to its own insufficiency, and
saying to all who have ears to hear : ' I am not for aye.
I have a first and a second chamber, a Near and a
Nearer to God. The first and the Near is yours, 0
people of Israel, for daily use ; the second and the
Nearer is as good as shut against you. When that
which is perfect is come, the Nearer will be accessible
to all, and the veil and the place outside and all the
services that now go on there will cease to exist.'"
In some such sense as this are to be understood the
words in the first clause of ver. 9: "Which (the existence,
i.e., or standing of the tabernacle as a first chamber) 1
is a parable for the time being." The sense is, that
the outer part of the tabernacle, by its position as a
first chamber, was a parable, not in word but in a
fabric, teaching the temporary, shadowy, imperfect
nature of the dispensation. Some think the time re*
1 The tfTis refers to ardaiv, "a standing or position such as." So
Mr. Rendall, who remarks : " It is not the chamber itself (as in
A V.), but its position, which is a figure."
21

322 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
ferred to is the time of the gospel, and that the idea
is, that the services carried on in the Holy place were
a figure, and nothing more, of the spiritual services
offered by Christians. But I think the Authorised
Version is correct in making the time referred to, be
the time present to the Old Testament worshippers.
The tabernacle was a parable even to them, bidding
them look forward to the future, to the reality whereof it
was but a rude sketch or adumbration.
It will be evident from the foregoing exposition how
central to the author's system of thought is the con
ception of Christianity as the rehgion of free access, and
with what truth that conception may be represented
as the dogmatic kernel of the Epistle.
We come now to the description of the service carried
on in the Jewish sanctuary (vers. 9, 10). The aim and
effect is to make the reader feel that the ritual was
in keeping with the parabolic character of the sanctuary
itself, the services not less than the structure of the
tabernacle proclaiming it to be but a shadow of good
things to come. "A parable in keeping with which are
offered both gifts and sacrifices having no power to
perfect as to conscience him that serveth " (rbv
Xarpevovra, either the officiating priest, or the people
worshipping through him). That the legal sacrifices
could not perfect the worshipper, whether priest or
layman, as to conscience, appears to the writer self-
evident, and he states the truth as an axiom, hoping
that his readers will say Amen to it. Of what limited
avail those sacrifices were to put away sin is significantly
hinted by the term ayvoijp,ara in ver. 7 ; which points

THE ANCIENT TABERNACLE 323
to the fact that the sacrificial system dealt chiefly with
mistakes in matters of ritual.1
The following sentence, which gives some details
regarding the system, is very loosely connected with
the foregoing context. " Only, with meats and drinks,
and divers washings, ordinances of the flesh, imposed
till a time of reformation" (ver. 10). Two questions
may be asked in reference to this loosely constructed
sentence : (1) What is it that is called " ordinances of
the flesh " ? (2) In what relation do the meats and
drinks and washings stand to the gifts and sacrifices ? —
are they the same things under different names, or some
thing additional ? The " ordinances " are doubtless the
gifts and sacrifices of the preceding verse. The connec
tion of thought is : " gifts and sacrifices not having the
power to perfect as to conscience ; on the contrary, being
mere ordinances of the flesh putting away ceremonial
uncleanness." As to the meats, drinks, etc., I think
they are neither altogether the same with the gifts
and sacrifices, nor altogether different from them, but
things that were very prominent in connection with
sacrifices, — there being meat offerings and drink offerings
1 Besides such ignorances there were other more real and serious
offences for which sacrifices were prescribed = sins against the
seventh, eighth, and ninth commandments. These were of the
nature of exceptions proving the rule ; they were included in the
category of expiable offences for special reasons : e.g. in a case of
keeping back something stolen, entrusted, lent, or found, when the
sin was voluntarily confessed and could not otherwise have been
proved. Similarly, in the case of suppressing truth as a witness,
and of the least aggravated offence against chastity, when the
offenders were allowed to offer a trespass-offering after the sin had
been punished by scourging. (Vide Lev. vi. 1-6, xix. 20, 21.)

324 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
prescribed by the law, and many washings connected with
sacrifices and their occasions. They are referred to in a
loose way to illustrate the grossly material nature of the
whole religious services, and to justify the application
of the depreciatory term " ordinances of flesh." We
may paraphrase the whole passage thus : " A parable in
keeping with which are offered gifts and sacrifices not
fit to perfect the worshipper as to conscience, but only,
with their meats and drinks, and divers washings, and so
forth, mere ordinances of flesh." Thus understood, the
careless construction is studied, being an oratorical
device to express impatience with the notion that such
ceremonies could possibly cleanse the conscience. The
writer speaks as Luther was wont to speak of penances,
etc. The great reformer never came in the way of such
things without getting into a holy rage at them, and
relieving his feelings by a contemptuous enumeration,
as if holding them up to scorn, and " making a show of
them openly." A similar passage may be found in
Paul's Epistle to the Colossians, just where the words
now quoted occur : " If ye be dead with Christ, why, as
though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
(or perhaps, why do ye dogmatise, saying,) Touch not,
taste not, handle not ? " The careless, offhand way in
which the apostle gives examples of the habit he con
demns, " Touch not this, taste not that, handle not a
third thing," is expressive of the contempt he feels for
the whole system wliich attached importance to such
trivialities (Col. ii. 20, 21).
The expression, " time of reformation " (icaipb<; SiopOab-
creo)?), is one of several names given to the new Christian

THE ANCIENT TABERNACLE 325
era from an Old Testament point of view. For those
who lived under the moonlight of Jewish ordinances,
and, conscious of its insufficiency, waited eagerly for the
dawn of day, that era, the object of their hope, was the
age to come, the time of a better hope, the time of
refreshing, 'the day of redemption, or, as here, the time
of rectification. This last designation, if not the most
poetical, is very appropriate. For when Christ, the High
Priest of the good things to come, arrived, all defects
inherent in the ancient system were remedied. The veil
was removed ; the multitude of ineffectual sacrificial
rites was replaced by one all-availing sacrifice ; the
problem of the pacification of conscience was thoroughly
dealt with ; and religion became, not an affair of
mechanical routine, but a rational spiritual service.

CHAPTER XVI
THE MORE EXCELLENT MINISTRY
Chap. ix. 11-14
In these remarkable sentences the priestly ministry of
Christ is described in contrast to that of the Jewish high
priest, the aim being to show that the former ministry
is, as stated in chap. viii. 6, a more excellent one both
in its nature and in its result.
Between things contrasted there must be some resem
blance. Hence, to facilitate comparison, the essential
facts which form the basis of the doctrine of Christ's
priesthood, His death as a sacrificial victim, and His
ascension into heaven as one whose blood had been shed,
are here stated in terms suggested by the transactions
on the great day of atonement, involving a parallehsm
between Christ and Aaron which at each point is at the
same time a contrast in Christ's favour. This mode of
stating the truth is dictated by the apologetic aim, and
serves well the purpose of conveying rudimentary ideas
on the subject to ill-instructed minds. But of course it
has its drawbacks. It involves obscurity at points where
the parallelism is faint, and provides in a very inadequate
measure for the expression of the highest truth. In

THE MORE EXCELLENT MINISTRY 327
this respect teaching by types is like teaching by parables.
It is good to begin with, but ill fitted to be the last
word. These remarks find illustration in the passage now to
be considered, which bristles with difficulties of all sorts :
uncertainty in the text, doubtful connections of clauses,
expressions to which it is not easy to assign an intelligible
meaning, and phrases suggestive of lofty thoughts, where
the mind of the writer seems to break away from the
trammels of typology and soar into the serene region
of spiritual truth. In the circumstances I deem it
best to state as plainly as possible the views which
commend themselves to my own mind, without discussing
at length others with which I am unable to agree. At
one point only shall I depart from this attitude, namely,
in connection with the expression " through the eternal
spirit," which I deem the most important in the whole
Epistle, and as at once needing and justifying the most
careful exposition, both positive and defensive.
Vers. 1 1 and 12 1 render as follows : " But Christ,
appearing1 as High Priest of the good things to come,2
did, through the greater and more perfect tabernacle not
made with hands, that is to say not of this creation (or,
1 wapayevopevos. This participle expresses the idea of appearing
on the stage of history (vide wapaylverai, Matt. iii. 1, in reference to
the Baptist). We need not, however, confine its application to the
advent of Christ, or to His life on earth, though it includes these ;
but take it as referring "to the whole accomplished course of Christ
summed up in one" (Alford), from the birth to the entrance into
heaven as a Priest after the order of Melchisedec.
2 For peXXovrcov Codex B. has yevopevav, adopted by W. and H.
This reading may be an ancient error of the eye caused by wapa
yevopevos going before,

328 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
not of common structure), and not through blood of goats
and calves, but through His own blood, enter in, once for
all, into the holy place, so obtaining eternal redemption."1
The ministry of Christ is set forth as the more excellent
compared with Aaron's in four respects : (1) because He
entered into the true sanctuary through a more perfect
tabernacle ; (2) because He entered " through His own
blood," not through blood of goats and calves ; (3) be
cause He thereby obtained, not an annual but an " eternal
redemption " ; (4) because on that account He needed
to enter only once (ecbd-iral;).
The very first of these four particulars makes us
aware of the difficulties created by the typological
parallelism. The suggestion seems to be that, as Aaron
on the day of atonement entered into the Holy of Hohes
through the first division of the tabernacle, so Clirist
entered into the celestial most Holy place through some
thing corresponding thereto. We may indeed very ex
cusably doubt whether that can be intended, seeing it
is part of the author's doctrine that by Christ the dis
tinction between holy place and most holy is abolished.
But the veil might exist for Christ entering, and be
abolished by His entering. Assuming then that Christ is
conceived of as entering in through something correspond-
1 I render ela-rjkdev periphrastically "did enter in," separating
the auxiliary from the main verb by the intervening 'clauses, to
make clear the dependence of these clauses on elo-rj\8ev. This
dependence is acknowledged by most recent interpreters. Rendall
takes another view of the construction, and arranges thus : " Christ
appearing, not through blood of goats and calves, but through His
own blood, as High Priest of good things which came (yevopevtov)
through the greater and more perfect tabernacle,'' etc,

THE MORE EXCELLENT MINISTRY 329
ing to the first division of the tabernacle, the question
arises, What is the something ? I am inclined to agree
with those who think that we have nothing here but
a form of thought dictated by the parallelism between
Christ and Aaron. You may fill it in, if you please, by
the lower or first heavens, or by the place of God's
visible presence, where He is manifested as an object of
worship to angels and spirits of just men made perfect,
as distinguished from the proper abode of God, whom no
eye hath seen or can see, the celestial holy of hohes.
I for my part prefer to leave it vague. Were I to yield
to the temptation to become definite, I should take up
with the antiquated view of the worthy Fathers who saw
in Christ's body or human nature the greater and more
perfect tabernacle through which our High Priest passed
into the celestial sanctuary. Whatever one may think
of its truth, it has at least the merits of intelligibility
and moral interest. It is much easier to think of Christ's
human nature as a tabernacle through which He entered
into glory, than to form a definite conception of the
heavens as divided into a holy and a most holy place.
Then there is something fine in the idea that our Lord's
human nature and earthly history were to Him what
the transit through the first division of the tabernacle
was to the Jewish high priest, namely, the condition of
His gaining an entrance into the most holy place, the
heavenly sanctuary, as the great High Priest of mankind.
On this view, the space between the two veils becomes
an emblem of the life of Jesus on earth between His
mysterious advent as the holy Child and His no less
mysterious exit when He ascended into heaven ; and His

330 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
career between these two points answers to the solemn
passage of Aaron through the first tabernacle to the
second on the day of annual atonement. I feel
the beauty of this thought, while not prepared to
affirm that it is the one intended ; though in view
of the representation of Christ's flesh as a veil in
chapter x. 20, it cannot be said to be foreign to the
writer's typological system. Acceptance of it is of
course not facilitated by the description of the
better tabernacle as not of this creation (ov ravrr)*; rr)<;
Kriaem)} The body of Christ was of this creation, just
like the bodies of other men. From this difficulty some
take refuge in the glorified, spiritualised body of Christ,
only to encounter trouble in another direction from the
question, In what sense can it be said that Christ passed
through His glorified body ? The only possible solution
is to say that through means with, not implying local
transition, but a condition under which a particular
action is performed.
At the next point in the comparison the typological
parallelism brings us in front of a new difficulty. Aaron
1 Though I have adopted here the rendering of the Revised
Version, I am by no means sure that the words above quoted should
not be rendered "not of common structure." Dr. Field, in Otium
Norvicense, remarks on this passage, "By ravTr/s- I understand
vulgaris, quiz vulgo dicitur." After giving several examples of this
usage, which he thinks has been overlooked by lexicographers, he
adds : " This being understood, there is no occasion to take ktio-is in
any other sense than that in which Kri^eiv is commonly applied to
a city (3 Esd. iv. 53 : ktiVoi rr\v woKiv) or to the tabernacle itself
(Lev. xvi. 16 : ovria wolricrets rij a-Ktjvrj rrj eKTia-pevrj avrols)." Most
recent commentators adopt the rendering " not of this visible crea
tion," Weiss and von Soden referring to Sap. Sol, xix. 6 for this use
of ktI<tis,

THE MORE EXCELLENT MINISTRY 331
entered into the inner shrine of the tabernacle with the
blood of sacrificial victims in his hands. Is it suggested
that Christ took His blood with Him into heaven ? No
such crude idea ever entered the writer's mind. Does
the parallelism then fail at this point ? In some respects
it certainly does. In the Levitical system, blood-sprink
ling within the sanctuary -was an essential feature in
sacrifice. In connection with the better ministry there
is no blood-sprinkling, except in a figure which has no
value save as the symbol of a spiritual truth. Blood
belongs to this world, and can find no place in heaven.
But an analogy can be established between Christ and
Aaron by conceiving of blood as the means of gaining
admission into the sanctuary. The blood in either case
may be regarded as a key opening the door of the holiest.
It is in the light of this idea that the phrases, "not
through blood of goats and calves, but through His own
blood," are to be understood. The writer seizes hold of
the one point at which parallelism in the matter of blood
is possible, and skilfully adapts his mode of expression
(Bid) to the state of the case.
Thus far of the parallelism, but now of the contrast :
" not by blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood."
To feel the force of this distinction we must understand
that the comparison lies not between the bloods, but
between the victims. Blood, whether of man or of beast,
is a material, corruptible thing. Chemically considered, I
suppose, there is not much difference between the blood of
man and. that of beast. But what a difference between the
victims ! In the one case a bullock or a goat, in the other
Jesus Christ Himself, There is really no comparison

332 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
here. " His own blood " takes us into a region of
thought where typological conceptions serve no purpose,
save to make a crude religious system a foil to show off
the grandeur of spiritual truth. We pass per saltum
from the ritual to the ethical ; from a brute beast slain
involuntarily, without foreknowledge, and without capacity
to consent to, or appreciate the reason of, its dying, to
a holy, loving Man, who laid down His own life deliber
ately, freely, devotedly, animated by an eternal spirit of
goodness. Without knowing much of theology one can
understand that the two kinds of sacrifice must have
very different values in the judgment of God. How the
Levitical sacrifice could have any value or any effect it
is not easy to see ; but that a self-sacrifice like that of
Jesus has immeasurable value, however it is to be
theologically formulated, for God and for man, one in
stinctively feels. The difficulty experienced by theologians
in their attempts to express its worth in terms of theory
is due to the vastness of its significance. Therein is
revealed a " many-coloured wisdom of God." 1
What virtue our author ascribed to Christ's sacrifice
appears from the words which set forth the third and
chief point of contrast between His ministry and that
of Aaron : " obtaining eternal redemption " (alasviav
Xvrpaaiv evpdp,evo<;). This is what results from the
entrance of Christ into the sanctuary through His own
blood, i.e. as one who had Himself been the victim.
When we come to consider the two following verses, we
shall see more clearly why that fact should have so
momentous a consequence. For the present we may
1 Eph. iii. 10 ; fj wo\vwoIki\os <ro0ia rov 6£ov.

THE MORE EXCELLENT MINISTRY 333
confine our attention to the exact force of the contrast
between the two ministries at this point. It is this :
By his sacrifice of bullocks and goats the high priest
of Israel procured for himself and for the people an
annual redemption ; by His sacrifice of Himself Christ
procured an everlasting, perennial redemption. The
blood of bulls and goats taken within the veil and
sprinkled on the mercy-seat procured, not by its
intrinsic virtue, but by positive Divine appointment,
remission of certain offences against the Levitical
religious system, with the effect of restoring offenders
to right theocratic relations for the time being, so
giving the people a fair start, as it were, for another
year. The blood of Christ shed freely and lovingly on
Calvary, and conceived as taken up by Him into heaven,
procured by its transcendent essential merit perpetual
remission of all sin, took away the whole sin of the
world, and so gave mankind a new start, not for a new
year, but for a new, unending era of grace. Such is the
contrast : on one side, an annual, partial, putative redemp
tion ; on the other, an eternal, complete, real redemption.
There is no room to doubt where the superiority lies.
The final point of comparison is the number of
entries into the most Holy place. The high priest of
Israel went in once a year, our great High Priest went
in once for all. To the legal, ceremony-loving mind
the advantage in this respect might seem to be with the
Levitical priesthood. What a fine, imposing service was
that annual solemnity of expiation ! With what pious
delight the devout worshipper anticipated its return,
with all its hallowed associations ! How pleasant and

334 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
comforting to have the year divided by sacred seasons !
and what a blank would be created by their discon
tinuance ! Tell him not of the insufficiency of those
annual atonements ; all he knows is that he finds much
pleasure in them, and real satisfaction to his conscience
in their periodic cancelling of the sins of each past year.
Very natural feelings these. It is natural to men in all
ages (yes, even in this Christian era, when we ought
to have outgrown such childish practices) to observe
" days and months and times and years." But such
attachments to sacred times in no case settle the question
as to the worth or unworth of religious institutions. In
particular, it by no means followed that, because the day
of atonement was an institution to which the pious
Israelite fondly clung, therefore it was fitted to perfect
the worshipper as to conscience, or to deal thoroughly
with the problem of sin. On the contrary, the annual
repetition of the solemnity was a standing testimony to
its insufficiency. It needed to be repeated, because at
no time did it fulfil the end of its existence. Repetition
is not indeed in all cases evidence of insufficiency. The
repetition of the passover did not show that it came
short of its purpose. It was a commemorative festival,
and its repetition served to keep alive the memory of
the Exodus. The same remark applies to the feast of
tabernacles, which commemorated the wilderness life of
Israel. But the annual atonement was not commem
orative of redemption achieved once for all. There
was in it a remembrance of sin, not of redemption
from sin, every year. It was a fresh act of expiation.
Therefore in this case repetition implied insufficiency.

THE MORE EXCELLENT MINISTRY 335
The atonement for sin was not, like the deliverance
out of Egypt, a thing done thoroughly once for all ;
therefore it had to be done over and over again.
We pass now to vers. 13, 14. The purpose of these
sentences is to justify the ascription to the one sacrifice
of Christ virtue sufficient to procure for sinful men a
real and eternal redemption. They contain the writer's
fullest statement as to the nature of Christ's sacrifice,
his final answer to the question, What has this Man
to offer?
" For if the blood of goats and bulls, and ashes of a
heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled, sanctifieth
unto the cleanness of the flesh : how much more shall
the blood of Christ, who through an eternal spirit
offered Himself without spot unto God, purge our
conscience from dead works to serve the living God ? "
The point chiefly to be noted in ver. 13 is, that,
while in the previous part of the argument mention is
made only of the victims slain on the day of atonement,
here, besides these, a reference is made to the legal
provision for removing uncleanness contracted by
accidental contact with a dead body. The reason readily
suggests itself. Both things, the blood of victims on
the day of atonement, and the ashes of the red heifer,
are named together, because the two combined formed
the complete legal provision for removing uncleanness,
however contracted,'/rom the whole people of Israel. The
one dealt with the defilement of sin, the other with the
defilement caused by contact with death. By thus uniting
the two, our author protects himself from a possible
charge of dealing partially with the subject under

336 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
consideration. And while doing full justice to the law
he has an eye to the glory of the gospel. He is prepar
ing the way for the presentation of Christ's sacrifice as
dealing effectually with the whole question of moral
defilement in all its aspects. He mentions both the
blood of sacrificial victims and the ashes of the heifer,
because he means to exhibit Christ's blood as serving
both the purposes for which these two kinds of legal
purification were respectively provided, so proving itself
to be a perfect cure for moral evil. On this view the
mention of the two Levitical remedies for defilement
over against the one remedy under the gospel suggests
a subsidiary argument for the superiority of the priestly
ministry of the new covenant.
Another point in ver. 13 is worthy of notice. Both
the Levitical remedies for uncleanness are spoken of as
availing merely for the purity of the flesh. The state
ment is strictly applicable to the ashes of the heifer, for
the sole design of that peculiar institution was to make
a man technically clean whose person had come into
contact with a corpse. But it may seem rather depre
ciatory to say of the blood shed on the day of atonement
that it availed only to the purifying of the flesh, seeing
the express purpose of the sacrifices offered on that day
was to make atonement for the sins of Israel. Yet
practically, and in effect, the representation is correct.
These sacrifices did not purge the conscience, but only
the persons of the worshippers. Grave moral offences
they did not even profess to deal with, but only with
technical offences against religious ritual. And their
effect was just -that which followed application of the

THE MORE EXCELLENT MINISTRY 337
ashes of the heifer, the removal of technical disability
to serve God. A man who touched a dead body was
not allowed to approach the tabernacle till he had been
sprinkled with holy water mixed with a portion of the
ashes. In like manner the whole people of Israel were
regarded as formally disqualified for the service of God
by the accumulated " ignorances " of the past year, till
the blood of victims had been duly applied for the
purpose of purgation.
In ver. 14 Christ's sacrifice in its infinite worth and
eternal validity is set over against these legal provisions
for the purification of Israel. We have to note (1) on
what the virtue of Christ's sacrifice is made to depend ;
and (2) what its effect is represented to be.
1. The reason why the sacrifice of Christ possesses
transcendent virtue is given in these words, " Who
through an eternal spirit offered Himself spotless to
God " (o? Bid Trvevfj.aro'i altoviov eavrbv rrpocrrjveyicev
a.p,a>fj,ov rut ®ea>) ; where stress must be laid on each of
three particulars: Christ offered Himself; in offering
Himself He presented a spotless offering; He offered
Himself through an eternal spirit. I arrange them thus,
because through the explanation of the first two par
ticulars I hope to feel my way to the sense of the third
and most difficult one.
First, then, Christ's sacrifice possesses incomparable
worth and virtue because the victim was Himself.
The eavrov before the verb is emphatic, and is one of
the words to be written here and throughout the Epistle
in large letters. In this one fact is involved that Christ's
sacrifice possessed certain moral attributes altogether
22

338 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
lacking in the Levitical sacrifices : voluntariness and
beneficent intention, the freedom of a rational being
with a mind of his own and capable of self-determina
tion, the love of a gracious personahty in whom the soul
of goodness dwells. Christ's sacrifice was an affair of
mind and heart — in one word, of spirit.
Christ's sacrifice possesses incomparable worth and
virtue, secondly, because in Himself He presented to
God a spotless sacrifice — spotless in the moral sense. He
was a perfectly holy, righteous Man, and He showed His
moral purity precisely by being loyal and obedient even
to the point of enduring death for righteousness' sake.
The victims under the law were spotless also, but merely
in a physical sense. Christ's spotlessness, on the contrary,
was ethical, a quality belonging not to His body, but to
His spirit.
We are now prepared in some measure to understand
the third ground of the value attaching to Christ's
sacrifice, namely, that He offered Himself through an
eternal spirit. Putting aside for a moment the epithet
" eternal," we see that Christ's sacrifice was one in which
spirit was concerned, as opposed to the legal sacrifices in
which flesh and blood only were concerned. The im
portant thing in connection with the latter was the
simple fact that the blood was shed and sprinkled accord
ing to the rubric. The important thing in Christ's
sacrifice was, not the fact that His blood was shed, but
the spirit in which it was shed. Then, further, we have
no difficulty in determining the ethical character of the
spirit in which Christ offered Himself. It was a free,
loving, holy spirit. But the writer, it is observable,

THE MORE EXCELLENT MINISTRY 339
omits mention of these moral qualities, and employs in
stead another epithet, which in the connection of thought
it was more important to specify, and which there was
little chance of his readers supplying for themselves.
That epithet is eternal. The apparent purpose it is
meant to serve is, to explain how it comes that the
sacrifice of Christ has perpetual validity, how it obtained
eternal redemption. It meets a state of mind that might
express itself thus : " I see the difference between a brute
beast slain by the priest and a sacrifice in which the
priest is himself the victim, a difference arising out of
the introduction of the elements of will and intention ;
but how that one sacrifice of Himself offered by Christ,
though presented through a free, loving, holy spirit,
avails to procure an eternal redemption, so that no more
sacrifices are needed, I do not see." The epithet
" eternal " suggests the thought : the act performed by
Jesus in offering Himself may, as an historical event,
become old with the lapse of ages ; but the spirit in
which the act was done can never become a thing of the
past. The blood shed was corruptible ; but the spirit
which found expression in Christ's self-sacrifice is
the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever, and in its
eternal self-identity lends to the priestly deed imperish
able merit and significance.
This fitly chosen phrase thus makes the one sacrifice of
Christ cover with its efficacy all prospective sin. But it
does more than that. It is retrospective as well as
prospective, and makes the sacrifice valid for the ages
going before. For an eternal spirit is independent of
time, and gives to acts done through its inspiration

340 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
validity for all time. In this respect it might be said of
Christ, that though He offered Himself in historical fact
after the world had been in existence for some thousands
of years, He offered Himself in spirit " before the founda
tion of the world." It does not follow from this that
the value of His sacrifice was the same in all respects
before and after its historical presentation. It was the
same for God, but not for man. The sacrifice that was
to be, influenced God's attitude towards the world from
the first. But' the mystery hid in God was hid from
man for ages, and during that long period the beneficent
influence of the Christ's eternal spirit could reach men
only through the reflected moonlight of Levitical sacrifices,
serving as aids to faith in Divine redeeming grace till
the era of reformation arrived.
One virtue more must be ascribed to this magic
phrase, " through an eternal spirit." It helps us over the
difficulty created by the fact that Christ's real self-
sacrifice took place on earth, and yet ideally belongs to
the heavenly sanctuary. The contradiction, it will be
observed, is similar to that I had occasion to note in
reference to the altar of incense. Like it, this apparently
hopeless antinomy is, when rightly viewed, easily soluble.
When we think of Christ's sacrifice as offered through
an eternal spirit, we see that we may place it where we
please, in earth or in heaven, on Calvary or on high, as
suits our purpose. For, to repeat what has been already
stated,1 a sacrifice offered through the spirit is a reality
not a mere shadowy symbol, and the spiritually real
belongs to the heavenlies even though it have its place
1 Vide Chapter xiv. p. 294.

THE MORE EXCELLENT MINISTRY 341
also as an historic event among the earthlies. Do you
insist that Christ's proper offering of Himself took place
in the celestial sanctuary after the ascension, even as
Aaron's proper offering was the blood-sprinkling within
the most holy place ? I reply, Be it so : but it took
place there through an eternal spirit which gave to it its
value ; and if we want to know what that spirit was, we
must look to the earthly life of obedience and love
culminating in the crucifixion, wherein it found its perfect
manifestation. Through this eternal spirit Christ offered
Himself before He came into the world, when He was in
the world, after He left the world. All this the author
of our Epistle understands full well, and here in effect
teaches ; though the apologetic method of his writing
requires him to relegate the priestly work of Christ, for
the most part, to heaven.
In the foregoing train of reflection we have been, as it
were, feeling our way to the sense of this remarkable
phrase, and not, I trust, without gaining some light on
the place it occupies in our author's system of thought.
In proceeding to make some further observations upon
it, I begin by remarking, that it may be assumed that the
phrase Bid ¦7rvev/j,aro<; aleoviov serves an important purpose
in the argument — really tends to throw light on the
transcendent worth of Christ's sacrifice by explaining its
unique nature. No interpretation can be accepted which
reduces it to a mere expletive that might be omitted
without being missed. On first thoughts, indeed, it may
seem as if it only produced difficulty, and as if the sense
would have been clearer had the sentence run, " Who
offered Himself without spot to God." It is surprising

342 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
indeed that among the variants found in ancient texts
and versions there is not one consisting of just such an
omission, and that the readings are limited to the omission
of almviov and the substitution for it of 07/01;, yielding
the mutilated idea " through a spirit," and the common
place idea "through the Holy Spirit." But whatever
difficulty the added phrase may create, so long as we
remain in ignorance as to the function it performs, we
may be quite sure that the philosophic author of our
Epistle uses it with a weighty meaning, which forms an
important contribution to the argument, and " crowns ''
his doctrine as to the nature and worth of Christ's
sacrifice. In absence of other instances of its use, our
best guide is to try and discover for ourselves what links
of thought are still wanting ; what questions regarding
Christ's sacrifice remain as yet unanswered.
Now one question at least arises naturally out of the
foregoing argument, and urgently demands an answer.
Why should the sacrifice of Christ possess a value out of
all proportion to that of legal victims ? To the blood of
goats and bulls is assigned an extremely limited virtue ;
why should unlimited virtue be ascribed to the blood of
Christ ? The kernel of the reply given by the writer to
this momentous question is contained in the word spirit.
It stands in antithesis, not merely to the blood of bulls
and goats, but to blood in general (the blood of Christ
included). The expression " the blood of Christ " refers
to His sacrifice in terms of parallelism with Levitical
sacrifices ; the expression " spirit " belongs to the category
of contrast. It lifts the sacrifice Christ offered in Himself
into a higher region, altogether different from that of

THE MORE EXCELLENT MINISTRY 343
blood, — -the region of mind, will, conscious purpose. The
sense in which it is used here may be partly illustrated
by a passage in the writings of our author's contemporary
Philo. Philo in one place speaks of man as having two
souls : the blood, the soul of the man as a whole ; the
Divine spirit, the soul of his higher nature : 1 in the
former part of his doctrine following the teaching of the
Hebrew Scriptures, that " the life or soul of all flesh is the
blood."2 We may conceive our author as consciously or
unconsciously re-echoing the sentiment, and saying : " Yes,
the blood, according to the Scriptures, is the soul of a
living animal, and in the blood of the slain victim its
soul or life was presented as an offering to God by the
officiating priest. But in connection with the sacrifice of
Christ, we must think of the higher human soul, the
Divine spirit. It was as a spirit He offered Himself, as a
self-conscious, free, moral personality; and His offering was
a spirit revealed through a never-to-be-forgotten act of
self-surrender, not the literal blood shed on Calvary,
which in itself possessed no more intrinsic value than the
blood of Levitical victims."
Thus interpreted, the term " spirit " unfolds the implicit
1 "KweiBav yap ^vx^j fit^Ss Xeyerac, fj re 6\tj ko.\ fjyepoviKov avrrjs
pepos, o Kvplws elweiv i/'uxT ^VXVS ^<""<> <a8dwep 6<p8aXpbs o re kvkXos
irvpwas, <al to Kvpimrarov pepos to <b fSXewopev, e'Sofe ra> vopoderrj
biwXrjv elvai Kai rrjv ovaiav rqs ijrvxrjs' aipa pev ro ttjS bXrjs, rov de
fiyepoviKardrov wvevpa delov : " Since soul is spoken of in two senses,
the whole soul and the ruling part of it, which, to speak truly, is
the soul of the soul, as the eye is both the whole ball and the
principal part by which we see, it seemed to the legislator (Moses)
that the essence of the soul is double : blood of the whole, and the
Divine spirit of the ruling part " (Quis Per. Div. xi.).
2 Lev. xvii. 14.

344 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
significance of " Himself," and gives us the rationale of all
real value in sacrifice. It can have no value, we learn
therefrom, unless mind, spirit be revealed in it. Death,
blood, in its own place, may have theological significance,
but not apart from spirit. This is the new truth which
by a wide gulf separates Levitical from Christian sacrifice.
It has been doubted whether the writer had any such
truth in view : whether, that is, he meant to teach any
thing in advance of Leviticalism on the question, What
determines the value of sacrifice ? It has been argued
that with the Levitical sacrifices before him he did not
feel any need for seeking after a new principle, his idea
being just that blood atoned, and that the higher efficacy
of Christ's blood lay in its being the blood of Christ}
Had the Epistle to the Hebrews been a purely practical
homiletic writing, I could have imagined this to be the
writer's state of mind. In such a writing it would not
be necessary to raise the question of the rationale of
value, and the expression, "the blood of Christ cleanseth
from all sin," could and would have been used without
explanatory comment. But the author of an apologetic
writing, if he really understands the Christian religion
which he undertakes to defend as against those who fail
to see its superiority to Levitical institutions, will have
something more to say. It is not enough for him to say,
" Blood atones." We understand what that means in
reference to Levitical sacrifices : blood was sprinkled on
the altar and the mercy-seat, and so made places and
persons ritually holy. Was Christ's blood literally
sprinkled on the holy things in the " true " tabernacle ?
1 So Davidson.

THE MORE EXCELLENT MINISTRY 345
is it sprinkled literally on human consciences ? If not,
we are forced to ask what " blood " in New Testament
dialect means, and wherein the cleansing virtue really
lies. In the phrase, " through an eternal spirit," I
see the evidence that the writer of our Epistle felt
the pressure of the question, and knew how to
answer it.
It goes without saying that the idea of spirit is
essentially ethical in its import. Voluntariness and
beneficent intention enter into the very substance of
Christ's sacrifice. Only a frigid exegesis could suggest
that the voluntariness of that sacrifice lies outside Christ's
priestly action. It is in virtue of its moral contents that
Christ is the ideal Priest, and that His sacrifice is the
ideal sacrifice. But for the holy, beneficent will revealed
therein; Christ's offering of Himself, instead of being a
sacrifice " of nobler name " than those offered by Levitical
priests, would be a reversion to the lowest type exhibited
in human sacrifices. It passes at a bound from the
lowest to the highest type by the introduction of the
moral elements of free will and holy, gracious purpose,
Sacrifice and priesthood are perfected when priest and
victim are one, and when the sacrifice is the revelation of
spirit. This is the doctrine of our Epistle taught in this
famous text, for which we are indebted to the writer's
clear, spiritual insight ; for it came to him thence, not
from reflection on either the Melchisedec or the Aaronic
type of priesthood. These he used as the vehicle of his
thoughts for apologetic purposes, but they were not the
fountain of his own inspiration.
Another remark still may be added. In the light of

346 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
the foregoing discussion we can see the vital significance
of the death of Christ in connection with His priestly
work. The tendency of recent commentators, following
in the wake of Bahr, has been to throw the death into
the shade, and make the stress lie on the subsequent
transaction, the entrance of Christ into heaven " through
His own blood." In connection with this view much is
made of the fact that in the case of most sacrifices under
the Levitical system the victim was not slain by the
priest, but apparently by the offerer,1 the chief exception
being the sacrifices offered on the day of annual atone
ment. Such was the fact, so far as we know ; but hi
connection with the highest ideal sacrifice the case is
otherwise. The least priestly act of the Levitical system
becomes here the most important, the humble, non-
1 Philo in the Life of Moses speaks of the victims as slain by the
priests. The Septuagint leaves the point vague, using the expres
sion, " they shall slay " (<n£d|ou<rt), vide Lev. i. 5, iv. 29. Assuming
that the victims, in cases of private or individual sacrifices, were
slain by the offerers, we get a threefold gradation in the discharge
of priestly functions. All that belonged to a sacrifice : presentation,
laying on of hands, slaying, blood manipulation, burning on the
altar, was priestly, but in different degrees. Some acts (the first
three) were competent to lay offerers, who shared in the general
priesthood of Israel, the " kingdom of priests." Other acts connected
with ordinary sacrifices, without the tabernacle and within the first
division, were competent to the general body of priests in the
professional sense. The offices connected with the annual atonement
were reserved for the high priest alone, the priest par excellence, as
in the solemn service in which he exclusively officiated the whole
Levitical system culminated. This gradation was a mark of imper
fection and helped to increase the sense of distance from God. The
people's part, though rudimentary, was very important. The pathos
of the Levitical system came out in the acts which they might
perform.

THE MORE EXCELLENT MINISTRY 347
sacerdotal first step the essence of the whole matter.
Through the death of the Victim His spirit finds its
culminating expression, and it is that spirit which con
stitutes the acceptableness of His sacrifice in the sight of
God ; as Paul also understood when he said, " Walk in
love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given Himself
for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-
smelling savour." x The death of Christ is indeed the
cardinal fact, whatever theory we adopt as to the nature
of the atonement : whether, e.g., we regard the victim in a
sacrifice as a substitute for the offerer, bearing the penalty
of his sin, or, with Bahr and others, as the symbol of his
own self-devotion, the blood presented to God representing
a pure life and pledging the offerer to a life of self-conse
cration. On either view applied to Christ His death was
of vital significance; obviously so if He bore the penalty
of our sin, not less obviously if His death was but the
consummation of a life of self-sacrifice, wherein He is the
pattern to all His followers.
On the epithet " eternal " attached to " spirit " it is
not necessary further to enlarge. As the term " spirit "
guarantees the real worth of Christ's offering as opposed
to the putative value of Levitical sacrifices, so the term
" eternal " vindicates for it absolute worth. It lifts that
offering above all limiting conditions of space and time,
so that viewed sub specie mternitatis it may, as to its
efficacy, be located at will at any point of time, and
either in earth or in heaven. " Eternal " expresses the
1 Eph. v. 2. Pfleiderer, regarding this Epistle as non-Pauline,
finds in the text cited a different view of the atonement from that of
Paul. Vide Urchristenthum.

348 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
speculative element in the writer's system of thought,
as " spirit " expresses the ethical.1
At the close of this discussion I must once more point
out how much the interpretation of this Epistle is biassed
by the assumption that the priesthood of Christ was a
theological commonplace for the writer and his readers.
Had it been so, it would have been quite superfluous to
insist on so elementary a truth as that, in virtue of being
an affair of mind and spirit, Christ's sacrifice possessed
incomparably greater value than Levitical sacrifices. One
would have expected rather a statement as to the precise
1 Among other interpretations of the expression, 8ia wvevparos
alavlov, the most favoured by recent writers is that which makes it
substantially identical in import with wavrore £S>v in chap. vii. 25.
So Bleek, and more recently Davidson, Edwards, Weiss, etc. On
this view, the purpose of the expression is to explain how Christ
could offer Himself in death, and yet survive the operation, so as to
be able to offer Himself again to God in heaven. " Spirit " is taken,
i.e., not in an ethical, but in an ontological or metaphysical sense.
On this interpretation I remark, first, that the eternal duration of
Christ's person is sufficiently recognised in chap. vii. 16, 25, so that
I cannot think it likely that, as Reuss puts it, the writer here says,
" by a new turn of thought, what he has already twice said in other
terms " ; and, second, that what the connection of thought in chap. ix.
requires to be emphasised and accounted for is, not the " eternal
personality " of Christ, but the real and absolute worth of His sacri
fice, or what it is that makes His priestly performance the " more
excellent," perfectly efficacious, ministry. Rendall takes spirit in
the ethical sense : " In the eternal spirit of redeeming love the Son
had from the beginning planned this offering of Himself for man's
redemption." The ethical interpretation finds at least partial
recognition in Strack and Zbckler's Commentar ; also in Vaughan,
who offers alternative interpretations : the ontological, in case
wpoo-rjveyKev refers to the self-presentation of Christ in heaven ; the
ethical, in case it refers to the death on earth. In the latter case the
thought is that the Holy Spirit enabled Jesus to present Himself to
God in life and death a spotless offering.

THE MORE EXCELLENT MINISTRY 349
significance of Christ's death, a theory of the atonement.
Such a theory modern readers are chiefly interested in,
and expect an expositor to bring out of the Epistle. I
am sorry that I am unable to gratify the natural wish,
and can only offer as the result of inquiry what may
appear a moral truism. My excuse must be the entirely
different situation of the first readers, for whom the
truism was the thing of vital importance, by no means
self-evident, but needing to be insisted on. They were
children who required instruction in the merest elements
of the Christian doctrine of atonement, and nothing more
is to be looked for in the Epistle. That the only true
priesthood is that in which priest and victim are one, and
that the only real sacrifice is that which reveals and is
offered through the spirit, is its contribution — of inestim
able, not yet sufficiently estimcded, worth, however elemen
tary. In what relations such a sacrifice stands to the
moral order of the world, and to what extent and under
what conditions it exerts its virtue, are questions left
comparatively unanswered.
2. The effect of Christ's self-sacrifice is made to consist
in purging the conscience from dead works. That "the
blood of Christ " has, or must have, this effect is not
proved. The writer is content to assert, and for the rest
invites his readers to reflect, and appeals to their personal
experience. The more the subject is thought on, the
clearer it becomes ; and the appeal to experience is most
legitimate, seeing it is within the region of conscience or
consciousness that the effect takes place. That this is the
case is implied rather than asserted ; but the implied truth,
that the real source of disability to serve God is to be

350 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
found, not in bodily defilement, but in " an evil conscience,'
is of cardinal importance, as forming one of the leading
points of contrast between Christianity and Leviticalism.
Conscience being the sphere within which the blood of
Christ exerts its cleansing power, its mode of action is
correspondingly modified. The blood of Levitical victims
and the ashes of the heifer were literally sprinkled, and
the effect was immediate, ex opere operato. Christ's blood
acts on the conscience through the mind interpreting its
significance, and in proportion as it is thought on. It
speaks to our reason and our heart, and the better we
understand its language the more we feel its virtue. It
has a minimum of virtue for those who, in their way of
contemplating Christ's death, scarce rise above the Leviti
cal point of view. " The blood of Jesus shed as a sin-
offering, God's ordinance for salvation ; I look to it, and
believe, on God's word, that my sin is forgiven." This
way of regarding Christ's death as a positive institution
for procuring pardon, for which no account can be given
save God's sovereign will, hmits the range of benefit and
lowers the quality of service. God's mind is not known.
He may be thought of perhaps as one who demands the
blood of a victim in satisfaction to His justice, and that
goes so far in the way of insight. But there is no
thought of satisfaction to His love, of His delight in His
Son's love ; no perception of the truth that the value of
Christ's sacrifice is immensely greater for God and for
man propter magnitudinem charitatis, as Aquinas expressed
it — " on account of the greatness of His love." It is
difficult to serve such a God in the spirit of filial trust
and devotion. When the spirit in which Christ offered

THE MORE EXCELLENT MINISTRY 351
Himself is taken into consideration, assurance of forgive
ness is greatly strengthened. We then not merely beheve
that the sacrifice satisfies God, but understand in some
measure why. We learn from the feelings it awakens in
our own breasts that such an act of self-devotion must
be well-pleasing to God, and we cannot doubt that our
trusty Brother and High Priest is the beloved of His
Father, and that we are accepted in Him.
Thus conscience is purged in the sense that we are
assured of pardon, and are no more troubled by the sense
of guilt. But the sense of guilt is not the only disability
under which we labour. We are hindered from serving
God at all, or effectively, by moral evil present in us
even after we have believed in pardon, tempting us to
doubt our standing and God's power to save, and to enter
into the bypaths of legalism and self-salvation. Is there
any reference to these serious disabilities in this text ?
If we think of the writer as a slave to Levitical forms of
thought, and as dominated by the parallelism between
the ancient sacrificial system and the Christian priest
hood, we shall answer in the negative. In that case, we
restrict the effect of Christ's sacrifice to the pardon of sin,
and not of all sin, but only of sins within the covenant ;
the benefit being confined to those already in covenant
relations, and consisting in being cleansed from sins of
infirmity such as even God's people commit. I have
consistently protested against this narrow interpretation
of the Epistle, which puts the writer practically on a
level with his ill-instructed readers, and not much, if at
all,' in advance of the position held by the Judaistic party
in the Church, and have contended for an interpretation

352 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
which makes the contrast everywhere prominent, and the
parallelism subservient to apologetic purposes. In accord
ance with this view, I am inclined to take the term
" purge," as I have already taken the term " sanctify," in
a large sense, and to understand by the purifying of the
conscience the removal of all disabilities whereby men
are prevented from rendering an efficient, acceptable
service unto God. I believe the writer of our Epistle
means to claim for Christ's sacrifice, viewed in the light
of the spirit in which it was offered, the power to deliver
us from all manner of disabilities, to bestow on us " a
plenteous redemption," to unloose all bonds wliich keep us
from being in the highest, noblest sense God's servants.
Holding this view, I naturally sympathise with the in
terpretation of the expression " dead works " advocated by
Bleek, according to which it signifies, not merely sinful
works in general, but more specifically religious works
done by men who serve God in a legal spirit, not in the
filial spirit of trust and love. The epithet " dead " is
appropriate under either interpretation, as describing the
defiling influence of the works done, so that from the
mere words the question cannot be decided. We must
be guided in our decision by a regard to the connection
of thought and the religious condition of the first readers
Looked at from the former of these two points of view,
we may assume that the phrase is employed to express
the completeness and thoroughness with which Christ's
blood cleanses the conscience. It is very well fitted to
do that if it refer to works of religious legahsm, because
deliverance from the bondage of a legal spirit is the
most difficult part and last instalment of redemption.

THE MORE EXCELLENT MINISTRY 353
The severest test of Christ's power to redeem is His
abihty to loose the bonds springing out of a legal
religion, by which many are bound that have escaped the
dominion of gross sinful habits. Nor is it a matter of
small moment whether men be set free from these bonds
or not ; for though they do not prevent their victims
from serving God after a fashion, they prevent them from
rendering to the living God a service acceptable in spirit
and intelligent in aim. Men under the dominion of a
legal temper often think they do God service, when they
are simply obstructing His work in their time and
thwarting His chosen instruments. In view of this fact,
abundantly exemplified in the history of the Church, it
becomes very apparent what cardinal importance attaches
to redemption from legalism. A man of prophetic spirit,
in sympathy with Christ and Paul and reformers in
every age, in their judgment on religion of a legal type,
could not fail to refer to Christ's power to deliver from
its influence in a eulogium on His redeeming work. And
such a reference was equally apposite, in view of the
religious state of the Hebrew Christians. For that they
had not escaped the fetters of legahsm is manifest from
the simple fact that such an elaborate apologetic for
Christianity versus Leviticalism was called for.
Complete redemption involves deliverance from the
sense of guilt, from the power of moral evil, and from
religious legalism. These combined cover at once all
ethical and all religious interests, both " justification " and
" sanctification " in the Pauline sense. All these benefits
flow from Christ's sacrifice, viewed in the light of the spirit
through which it was offered. We are now in a position to
23

354 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
answer a question hinted at in an early chapter, namely,
"Does the system of thought in this Epistle provide
for the union of the two kinds of sanctification ? or do
they stand side by side, external to each other ? Are
religious and ethical interests reconciled by a prmciple
inherent in the system V1 I answer confidently in the
affirmative, and I point to the great utterance, " through
the eternal spirit," as the key to the solution of the
problem. That word not only demonstrates the immea
surable superiority of Christ's sacrifice to those offered
by Levitical priests, but brings unity and harmony into
Christian experience. Intelligent appreciation of the
spirit by which Christ offered Himself inspires that full,
joyful trust in God that gives peace to the guilty
conscience. But its effect does not stop there. The
same appreciation inevitably becomes a power of moral
impulse. The mind of Christ flows into us through the
various channels of admiration, sympathy, gratitude, and
becomes our mind, the law of God written on the heart.
And the law within emancipates from the law without,
purges the conscience from the baleful influence of " dead
works," that we may serve the Father in heaven in the
free yet devoted spirit of faith and love. To say that
the author of our Epistle understood all this, and here
has it in view, is only to say that he was an enlightened
Christian ; that he walked in the broad daylight of the
Christian faith, not in the dim morning twilight of
Judseo-Christian compromise ; that if not a Paulinist, he
was at least not less sensible than Paul to what extent
the world was indebted to Jesus Christ.
1 Vide p. Ill, note 1.

CHAPTER XVII
THE NEW COVENANT
Chap. ix. 15-28
One is inclined to wonder that after making the con
summate statement as to the significance of Christ's
death in ix. 14 the writer of our Epistle did not at
once pass on to the exhortation to Christian confidence
and steadfastness which begins at x. 19. The terms of
the exhortation (x. 19—23) fit exactly to those of the
doctrinal statement : the free access in the blood of Jesus
answers to the deliverance by the same blood from all
that disables for the service of the living God, and the
heart sprinkled from an evil conscience answers to the
purging of the conscience from dead works. Indeed, so
close is the correspondence between the two passages,
that one is tempted to indulge the conjecture that in the
first draft of the Epistle they stood in immediate con
tact, and that all lying between is an interpolation sub
sequently inserted by the writer in the final revision.
The introduction of this intervening train of thought,
which contains some obscurities, and in which the
interest seems to sink below the high - water mark
reached in chapter ix. 14, like so much more in the
355

356 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
Epistle, is best understood in the light of apologetic
aims and exigencies. In the section commencing with
chapter viii. the writer has been putting two great
thoughts before his readers : a better covenant than the
Sinaitic, a better ministry than the Levitical, brought in
by the Christian religion. Both these thoughts are new
and unfamiliar to them, and to their conservative temper
unacceptable, as involving religious innovation or revolu
tion. Had either been famihar and accepted, it could
have been used for the estabhshment of the other, wliich
being done, there would be nothing more to be said.
But both being unfamiliar, each must be used in turn to
justify the other. From the better covenant prophesied
of by Jeremiah, and assumed to be legitimised by bis
authority, it is inferred that there must be a better
ministry, which, whatever its precise nature, shall be
supremely effective. What that better ministry is
chapter ix. 14 declares. On the strength of that state
ment the infinitely valuable self-sacrifice of Christ is next
assumed to be the truth conceded, and from it in turn
is deduced as a corollary the inauguration of a new cove
nant (ver. 15). The idea of the new covenant again is
employed to throw light on the death of the Inaugurator,
the writer being well aware how slow his readers are to
take in the thought that the thing which this Man has
to offer is Himself. Hence in this interpolated train of
thought, if we may so call it, the emphasis with which
is iterated and reiterated, in reference to Christ's death,
the sentiment, " Once, but once only." This alternate use
of two unaccepted truths to prove each other is reason
ing in a circle, but there is no help for it ; and the fact

THE NEWr COVENANT 357
that the writer is obliged to have recourse to it shows
conclusively how true is the assumption on which I have
been proceeding in my exposition of the Epistle, that the
whole system of ideas embodied in it was strange to its
first readers.
" For this cause He is mediator of a new covenant " (ver.
15). "From the better covenant I inferred a better
ministry, and I have just told you what the better
ministry is. Judge for yourselves of its excellence. If
what I said of it be true, the priestly Minister of the
Christian faith is well entitled to inaugurate a new cove
nant involving the supersession of the old ; nay, the
direct effect of His ministry is to establish such a cove
nant, for the purification of the conscience from dead
works to serve the living God is just the improved state
of things to which Jeremiah's oracle pointed. It imports
all sin forgiven, the law written on the heart, God truly
known in His grace, and close relations subsisting
between Him and His people." Such is the connection
of thought. To make the new covenant welcome, its
novelty notwithstanding, the writer hastens to specify
two important benefits it brings : full redemption of the
transgressions under the first covenant, and the consequent
actual, effective attainment of the inheritance. To
understand the former we must keep in mind the
writer's doctrine as to the valuelessness of legal sacrifices.
He conceives of the uncancelled iniquities of the
covenanted people as going on accumulating, these
sacrifices notwithstanding. In spite of annual expiations
designed to clear the " ignorances " of the past year, in
spite of the blood of goats and bulls profusely shed, in

358 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
spite of countless sin-offerings presented by individual
offenders, the mass of unpardoned sins went on increas
ing, till it had become a great mountain rising up
between Israel and God, loudly calling for some
Mighty One who could lift it and cast it into the sea.
Christ is the Mighty One. Or, to use a figure more in
keeping with the language of the text, the first benefit
He confers is, that He pays off the immense mass of
debts with which the promised inheritance is so burdened
that it is hardly worth possessing, being an inheritance
of pecuniary obligation rather than of a real, substantial
estate. This accomplished, there follows of course the second
benefit : the heir enters on a not merely nominal but
real possession of his inheritance. " They that have been
called receive the promise of the eternal inlieritance." They
get not only the promise, but the thing promised, real
fellowship with God now, with the certain hope of com
pleted fruition in the great hereafter, when, following the
Captain of salvation, they shall have passed through
death to the promised land.
Having thus used Christ's death to justify the estab
lishment of a new covenant, the writer proceeds to use
the idea of a covenant to justify or explain Christ's
death. It was fitting and needful that the Inaugurator
of the new covenant should die once, but once only:
such is the drift of what remains of the ninth chapter.
In entering on this line of thought the writer makes a
statement which it is difficult to understand unless we
assume that he uses SiaOrjKn in vers. 16, 17 in the
specific sense of a testamentary disposition ; in one

THE NEW COVENANT 359
simple word, a will, or deed of gift by wliich a man
disposes of his property to his heir. The Greek word
bears this specific sense, as well as the more general one
of an agreement between two parties.1 The two mean
ings are not exclusive of each other, for the same thing
may be at once a covenant and a testament. The new
constitution on which our Christian fellowship with God
is based is both. It is a covenant ; a rather one-sided
one indeed, a covenant of promises or of grace, still a
covenant thus far, that the promises of Gocl are given to
faith. It is also a testament or will ; for the peace of
the new dispensation was bequeathed by Christ to His
disciples on the eve of His death, and it was in the
same solemn circumstances that He said to them, " I
appoint2 unto you a kingdom." It is easy to see why
at this point the " new covenant " becomes a testament,
and the Mediator a Testator. It is because under that
aspect it becomes apparent why the death of the
Inaugurator should precede the actual obtainment of the
inheritance. For in the case of wills, though not in the
case of covenants, it is true that a death must occur,3
the death, namely, of the testator. Of this fact the
' Vaughan (ad vii. 22) says : " biad'nKrj has the comprehensive
sense of an arrangement whether of relations (covenant) or of
possessions (testament)." He finds the latter use in Heb. ix. 16,
in common with most recent commentators, including Weiss and
von Soden.
2 Luke xx ii. 29 : bvarldepai,. the verb corresponding to the noun
Siadqirq. (Cf . " dispone " in Scotch law.)
3 The Greek word here is (bipea-dai, which is used probably to
express, along with the idea of happening, that of becoming known.
" It contains besides the idea of yevecrdai that of evidence that it has
taken place." — Von Soden.

360 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
writer takes advantage as a means of showing the con-
gruity of death to Christ's position as Mediator of the
new covenant. The view here presented of Christ's
death is by no means so important as that given in the
previous context ; for the death of a testator is not
sacrificial : it is enough that he die in any way, in order
that the heir may enter into possession. But it was
something gained if it could be made to appear that in
some way or other, on one ground or another, Jesus as
the Christ behoved to die. One wonders at the intro
duction of so elementary and inferior a view close upon
the grand conception of ver. 14. But remember to
whom the writer is addressing himself. He is not at all
sure that his grand thought will strike his readers as it
strikes him, and so he falls back on this cruder view as
more level to childish apprehension. In patient con
descension he steps down from the sublime to the
commonplace. For lack of attention to his aim it may
readily happen that what he meant to simplify, his
argument may create for us confusion and perplexity.
We have difficulty in understanding how a man could at
this stage in his discourse say anything so elementary.1
The two views of Christ's death, though quite distinct,
and of very different degrees of importance, are yet
closely connected. It is because Christ's death is
sacrificial, and in that capacity of infinite virtue, that it
1 Even Westcott remarks : " The death of Christ was a chief
difficulty of the Hebrews, and therefore the writer presents it under
different aspects, in order to show its full significance in the
Christian dispensation"; on ix. 16, 17. On this view the atone
ment cannot have been, as some think, a commonplace for the first
readers.

THE NEW COVENANT 361
is also the death of a testator. In other words, because
Christ through the spirit offered Himself a spotless and
most acceptable sacrifice to God, therefore He hath an
inheritance to bequeath, and might say, " I appoint unto
you a kingdom, as My Father hath appointed unto Me."
The writer goes on to mention the fact that the
Sinaitic covenant was inaugurated by sacrifice, still by
way of showing the close connection between death and
covenanting, and the congruity between Christ's death
and His position as the Inaugurator of the new covenant
(ver. 18). In doing so he seems to drop the specific idea
of a testament that had been suggested to his mind by
the word "inheritance" (ver. 15), and to return to the
more general meaning of the term BiaStf/cn. Such a
sudden transition, without warning, from one sense to
another of the same word is, from a logical point of view,
unsatisfactory, and one is tempted to try whether the old
sense cannot be made to fit into the new connection of
thought. In that case the covenant at Sinai would have
to be regarded as a testamentary one, by which God
bestowed on Israel a valuable inheritance. The victim
slain in sacrifice would represent the testator shedding
his own blood as the condition of the heir obtaining
possession of the inheritance. In support of this view
stress might be laid on the deviation from the original
Hebrew and from the Septuagint in the report of the
words spoken by Moses to Israel when he sprinkled the
blood. " Behold the blood of the covenant," he said. In
our Epistle the words are altered to, " This is the blood
of the covenant," which sounds like an echo of the words
spoken by Jesus in instituting the Holy Supper : " This is

362 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
My blood of the new testament." But this interpreta
tion, besides putting on the first covenant a sense foreign
to Hebrew customs, would involve us in a very com
plicated typology. Christ would have to play many
parts, being at once testator, mediator, priest, and
victim ; God, Moses, young men, and sacrifices, all in one.
In stating the facts connected with the ratification of
the covenant at Sinai, the writer is not careful to keep
close to the narrative in Exodus. He says nothing of
the burnt-offerings and peace-offerings made by the
young men (firstborn sons ?), acting pro tempore as priests,
but mentions only the sacrificial acts of Moses. On the
other hand, he adds particulars from tradition or con
jecture to make the description as vivid as possible ; the
added particulars being the water, scarlet wool, and
hyssop. Further, in the original narrative there is no
mention of the sprinkling of the book, nor are goats
alluded to as being among the victims slain. These
discrepancies are of trifling moment. The phrase " calves
and goats " is a convenient expression for all bloody
sacrifices. The water, wool, and hyssop were doubtless
used on the occasion : the water to dilute the blood, a
hyssop wand whereon to tie the wool, the wool to lick
up the blood and be the instrument for sprinkling. That
the book was sprinkled is probable when we consider
the fact stated iu ver. 22, that almost all things were by
the law purged with blood, and the reason of the fact,
that all things with wliich sinful men had to do con
tracted defilement, no matter how holy the things in
themselves might be, the very Holy of Holies standing in
need of purification.

THE NEW COVENANT 363
This copious use of blood in connection with the in
auguration of the covenant naturally leads the writer to
mention other instances of blood-sprinkling, and to make
the general observation that under the law almost every
thing was purged with blood,1 and especially that the
important matter of remission of sin never took place
except in connection with blood-shedding2 (vers. 21, 22).
The reference in ver. 2 1 appears to be to the ceremonies
connected with the consecration of Aaron and his sons,
and also to those connected with the consecration of the
tabernacle, events which probably took place at the same
time, though they are described in different places.8
Here again we have an addition to the rites. There is
no mention in the history of the sprinkling of the
tabernacle and its vessels with blood, but only of an
anointing with oil. It is to be noted, however, that both
blood and oil were used in the consecration of holy
persons,4" which makes it probable that both were used in
the consecration of holy things. The emblematic signifi
cance of the elements justifies such an inference. Blood-
sprinkling signified sanctification in the negative sense of
1 Literally " one may almost say (o-^eSdv) that, according to the
law, all things are cleansed in blood." " The crxe&bv qualifies the
sweeping statement which it prefaces, and especially the wdvra." —
Vaughan. 2 aipareKxvo-las, blood-shedding, or blood-outpouring. Mr. Ren-
dall contends for the latter ; but, as Professor Davidson remarks,
" so far as the author's purpose here is concerned, which is to show
the necessity of a death for remission of transgressions (ver. 15), it
is immaterial to decide which is meant." Westcott renders " out
pouring of blood," and remarks that the Greek word is found else
where only in patristic writings. It is found here only in the New
Testament, and not in the Septuagint.
3 Lev. viii. and Ex. xl. * Vide Lev. viii. 30.

364 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
purging away the uncleanness of sin ; the anointing with
oil signified sanctification in the positive sense of infusing
grace, or the spirit of holiness. Now sacred things
admitted of the former sort of sanctification more obvi
ously than of the latter, which seems appropriate only to
persons. The inference that the blood was sprinkled on
the tabernacle and its furniture is justified by Josephus,
who states that Moses, when he had rewarded the
artificers who had made and adorned these things, slew
a bullock and a ram and a kid in the court of the taber
nacle as God had commanded, and thus with the blood
of the victims sprinkled Aaron and his sons with their
vestments, purifying them with spring water and oil,
that they might be the priests of God. In this way he
sanctified them for seven days in succession. The taber
nacle likewise and all its vessels he sanctified, anointing
them with fragrant oil, and sprinkling them with the
blood of bulls and rams and goats.1
From this extensive use of blood under the law
an inference is drawn as to the probability of its use
under the new covenant (ver. 23). If, it is argued,
the cosmic tabernacle, with all that belonged to it,
required to be purified by the blood of victims slain for
that end, it stands to reason that the heavenly things of
which these were the rude emblems should have their
sacrifices also, only better than the legal ones. Why
better is thus explained : " For not into a holy place
made with hands, a copy (dvrlrvn-a,2 hterally ' antitype ') of
the true, is Christ entered, but into heaven itself, now to
appear before the face of God for us " (ver. 24). The
1 Antiquities, iii. 18, 6. " Vide note at end of this chapter.

THE NEW COVENANT 365
point insisted on is : the tabernacle into which Christ
hath entered being not the material, man-made one, but
the spiritual, heavenly one, His sacrifice must be in
keeping with the dignity of the sanctuary wherein He
officiates, must, in fact, possess attributes to be found
only in Himself; for the aim is still to press home the
truth that that is what this Man has to offer.
With regard to this line of argument three observations
may be made. First, seeing that blood-shedding and
blood-sprinkling were so prominent features under the
law, it was to be expected that there would be a sacrifice
of some kind under the new dispensation. Wherever
there is a shadow there must be a body that casts it.
The sacrifices of the law were shadows of something
better of the same kind, of a rare, perfect sacrifice offered
for the same purpose, the purification of sin. Second,
for the new dispensation better sacrifices (or one better
sacrifice) were required. The blood of bulls and goats
might do for the cosmic sanctuary, but not for " the true
tabernacle which the Lord pitched, not man." One
cannot read the directions for sacrifice in the law without
feeling, " This is a system of beggarly elements, of rude,
barbaric ritualism, in which flesh and blood are very
prominent, and spiritual import very hidden and obscure.
There must surely be something better than this to come,
a sacrifice of moral and not merely ritual value." Third,
that the new covenant sacrifice (for though the plural
is used in ver. 23 to suit the parallelism of thought,
there is and can be only one sacrifice), Christ Himself, is
better than any sacrifice under the law, better than all
of them put together, the best conceivable, it being abso-

366 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
lutely impossible to imagine any quality of excellence
not found in the sacrifice Christ made of Himself through -
an eternal spirit. There is only one point in the inference
contained in ver. 23 that we may reasonably have diffi
culty in understanding, namely, the implied assertion
that the heavenly things needed to be purified by sacrifice.
Various modes of meeting the difficulty have been sug
gested. We are told, e.g., that the heavenly things do
not mean heaven proper, but only the things of the new
covenant, the new testament Church, or something of
that sort, the sphere and the means of men's relations to
God ; that purifying is predicated of heaven, only to
make the second half of the sentence correspond to the
first ; that even heaven itself does need or admit of
purification in the sense that it needs to be made by
Christ's entry there, with or through His own blood,
approachable to sinful man, by the removal of the
shadow cast on God's face by human guilt. For my
own part, I prefer to make no attempt to assign a
theological meaning to the words. I would rather make
them intelligible to my mind by thinking of the glory
and honour accruing even to heaven by the entrance
there of " the Lamb of God." I believe there is more of
poetry than of theology in the words. For the writer is
a poet as well as a theologian, and on this account theo
logical pedants, however learned, can never succeed in
interpreting satisfactorily this Epistle.
Thus far the leading thought has been, It behoved
(Jhrist to die once. Of what remains, the burden is, once
only. It is not a new thought, but the repetition of a
thought more than once already enunciated (vii. 27,

THE NEW COVENANT 367
ix. 12), iteration being forced on the teacher by the
dulness of his pupils. But while not new in itself, the
truth is enforced by a new argument, drawn not from
the same source as the argument for the necessity of
Christ's dying once, the analogy between the old and
the new covenants, but from an analogy between the
course of Christ's experience and that of men in general.
It behoved Christ as a Mediator to die once, for even
the first covenant was inaugurated by death ; but it
behoved Him to die once only, because it is appointed
unto all men to die once only. The writer could find
nothing in the Levitical system, or in the history of the
old covenant analogous to the " once-for-all " attribute of
Christ's death ; and it was this fact that made it hard
for the Hebrews to be reconciled to the sohtary sacrifice
of the Christian dispensation. He makes here a last
effort to enlighten them, skilfully seeking in the history
of the human race what he could not find in the history
of the Sinaitic covenant, an analogy fitted to popularise
the truth he is bent on inculcating.
These verses (25—28) may be paraphrased thus : Christ
has entered into the heavenly sanctuary to appear in the
presence of God for us, and to abide tliere, herein differing
from the Levitical high priest, who went into the most
holy place, and came out, and went in again, repeating
the process year by year, and making many appearances
before God, with the blood of fresh sacrifices. Christ
presents Himself before God once for all, remaining in
the celestial sanctuary, and not going out and coming in
again and again. It must be so ; any other state of
things would involve an absurdity. If Christ were to

368 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
go in and come out, go in and come out, again and again,
that would imply His dying over and over again ; for the
object of the repeated self-presentations in the presence of
God on the part of the Jewish high priest was to offer the
blood of new victims : but as Christ's sacrifice was Himself,
each new self-presentation would in His case imply a
previous repetition of His passion. He must often on
that supposition have suffered death since the foundation
of the world. But such an idea is absurd. It is contrary
to all human experience, for it is appointed to men to
die once only. After death comes no new return to life,
to be followed by a second death, and so on times without
number. After death once endured comes only the judg
ment. In like manner it is absurd to think of Christ as
coming to the earth to live and die over and over again.
He will indeed come once again, a second time ; not,
however, as a Saviour to die for sin, but as a Judge.
As for us men, after death comes at the end of the world
the judgment, so for Him after His passion comes at the
end of the world the work of judging : that is to say, in
the case of those who believe in Him and look for Him,
the work of assigning to them, by a judicial award, the
end of their faith, even eternal salvation.
To minds enhghtened in Christian truth this train of
thought is by no means so important as that contained
in vers. 13, 14, where the sufficiency of Christ's one
sacrifice of Himself to accomplish the end of all sacrifice
is proved from the infinite moral worth of that 'one
sacrifice. But though of little value intrinsically, because
giving no insight into the rationale of non-repetition of
sacrifice, this final argument is of a more popular character,

THE NEW COVENANT 369
and fitted to tell on minds unable to appreciate arguments
of a higher order. Their need is its justification.
Three points here call for a few sentences of additional
explanation :
1. In the statement that repeated self -presentation
on Christ's part before God, after the manner of the
Levitical high priest, would imply frequent experience of
death, the date from which these hypothetical experiences
are made to begin is remarkable. " Since in that case it
would have been necessary that He should suffer often
from the foundation of the world." Why go back so far ?
why not rather say, " Then must He suffer again and
again hereafter " ? The answer to the latter part of the
question will appear when we come to the second point
I mean to notice ; but as for the former part of the
question, it admits of a satisfactory answer offhand.
When we consider the purpose for which Christ died, it
becomes clear that if one dying was not enough, then the
commencement of the series of His self-sacrifices would
require to be contemporaneous with the origin of sin. If
by a single offering of Himself He could take away the sin
of the world, then it did not matter when it was made. It
might be presented at any time which seemed best to the
wisdom of God. For its efficacy in that case would be
spread over all time ; it would avail for the ages before
Christ's advent as well as for the ages that might come
after, in- virtue of the eternal spirit by which it was
offered. But if by one offering Christ could not take
away absolutely the world's sin ; if the efficacy of His
blood, like that of legal victims, was only temporary,
limited, say, to a generation, as that of the victims slain
24

370 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
on the day of atonement was to a single year, — then He
must either die for each successive generation, or the
sins of the world, those of one favoured generation
excepted, must go unatoned for.
It is thus clear that if one offering had not sufficed,
Christ would have had to begin His series of incarnations
and atonements from the date of Adam's fall, and to
carry them on as long as the world lasted. This is what
the writer intended to say in the statement above quoted.
But the same idea might have been expressed thus:
" Then must He continue to offer Himself from time to
time till the end of the world." The difference between
the two ways of putting the matter is, that in the one it
is virtually stated that the experience which Christ
underwent eighteen centuries ago could not (in the case
supposed) have been the first ; while in the other it would
be virtually stated that that same experience could not
be the last, the whole truth being that it could neither
be the first nor the last.
2. But why then not say, " Then must He often
suffer hereafter " ? The answer to this question is, that
as the writer conceived the history of the world there
was no room left for future Incarnations and Passions.
The world's history was near its end. This view comes
out in these words : " But now once for all, at the end
of the ages, hath He been manifested for the cancelling
of sin by the sacrifice of Himself" (ver. 26); and it is
the second point calling for remark. Now as to the
belief held by the writer in common with all who lived
in the apostolic age, that the end of the world was at
hand, there is nothing to be said about it, save that he

THE NEW COVENANT 371
and his contemporaries knew no better. They had no
revelation on the subject, but were left to their own im
pressions, which have turned out to be mistaken. The
one true element in them was, that the Christian dis
pensation is the final one, so that we look for no new
era, but only for the avvreXeia rwv alcovmv. But it is
worthy of remark, that the conception of Christ's death,
resulting from this belief, as taking place at the end
of the world, is in its own way very impressive. The
history of redemption implied therein is something like
this : The sins of the world go on accumulating as the
successive generations of mankind appear and disappear.
In spite of all that legal sacrifices can effect, the mass
grows ever bigger. At the end of the ages Christ
makes His appearance on the earth to annihilate this
immense accumulation of sins, to lift the load on His
strong shoulders, and cast it into the depths of the sea,
and so to bring in the new heavens and the new earth
wherein dwelleth righteousness. Surely a sublime mode
of conceiving Christ's work ; not less so than that which
is more natural to us living far down in the Christian
centuries, according to which Christ, in His earthly life,
bisects the course of time into two parts, appearing as
the central figure in the world's history, spreading His
healing wings over the whole race of Adam, one wing over
the ages before He came, the other over the ages after.
3. The third point calling for mention is the repre
sentation of Christ as appearing in His second advent
ivithout sin (%«/»? dp-aprias, ver. 28).
The expression, "without sin," used in reference to the
second coming, implies that in some sense Christ came

372 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
with sin at His first advent. And, however hard the idea
may be, the writer certainly does mean to represent Christ
as appearing the first time with sin. His own words in
the immediately preceding context explain the sense in
which he understands the statement, " Christ, once offered
to bear the sins of many." Clirist came the first time with
sin, but not His own: with the sins of the many, of the
world, of all generations of mankind ; with sin on Him,
not in Him ; came to be laden in spirit, destiny, and lot
with the world's guilt, so that He might truly be called
"the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world."
To say that Christ appeared the first time with sin is
equivalent to saying that He came to be a Redeemer from
sin. The difference between the two comings therefore is
this : in the first, Christ came as a Sin-bearer ; in the
second, He will come as a Judge. After the first coming
no more sacrifice for sin is needed ; all that remains to be
done is to gather up the results of the one great sacrifice.
Note on avrirvwa referred to on p. 364.
I append here the remarks of Westcott and Vaughan on this
word occurring in Heb. ix. 24. Westcott says : " In the two
passages in which the word avrirvwov is used in the X.T. the sense
corresponds with the two fundamentally different ideas of tvwos.
The tvwos may be the archetype (cf. Acts vii. 44), of which the
avrirvwov is the provisional copy, as here ; or the tvwos may be the
provisional adumbration (cf. Acts vii. 43) of that which the avrirvwov
more completely expresses. So the water of baptism answered as
avrirvwov to the water of the flood, which bore in safety the tenants
of the ark (1 Pet. iii. 21)." Vaughan : " Corresponding to. The same
word avrirvwov may be either (1) answering in type to or (2) answer
ing to the type of. Thus type and antitype may change places in its
use. The x«po7roijjr<* here (the Levitical Holy of Holies) are called
avrlrvwa to the heavenly. Corresponding typically to the aKrj6ivd.
In 1 Pet. iii. 21 the water of baptism is said to correspond antitypically
to the water of the deluge."

CHAPTER XVIII
SHADOW AND SUBSTANCE
Chap. x. 1-18
What might seem the last word is not quite the last.
The writer makes a fresh start, not as having any
absolutely new truths to utter, but with intent to reassert
old truths with a power and impressiveness befitting
the peroration of a weighty discourse. The " for " with
which the chapter begins does not imply close connection
with what goes immediately before, as if what follows
were a continuation of the argument written at the same
moment ; it expresses merely a general connection with
the drift of the preceding discussion, the value of Christ's
one sacrifice as compared with the valuelessness of
oft-repeated Levitical sacrifices. We may conceive the
writer making a pause to collect himself, that he may
deliver his final verdict on Leviticalism in a solemn,
deliberate, authoritative manner. This verdict we have
here : rapid in utterance, lofty in tone, rising from the
didactic style of the theological doctor to the oracular
speech of the Hebrew prophet, as in that peremptory sen
tence: "It is not possible that the blood of bulls and of
goats should take away sins." The notable thing in it is,
373

374 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
not any new line of argument, though that element is
not wanting, but the series of spiritual intuitions it con
tains, stated or hinted, in brief, pithy phrases : the law a
shadow ; Levitical sacrifices constantly repeated inept ;
the removal of sin by the blood of brute beasts
impossible ; the only sacrifice that can have any real
virtue that by which God's will is fulfilled. The passage
reminds one of the postscript to Paul's Epistle to the
Galatians, written in large letters by the apostle's own
hand, in which, in the same abrupt, impassioned, pro
phetic style, he enumerates some of his deepest convic
tions : the legal zealots hollow hypocrites ; the cross of
Christ alone to be gloried in ; circumcision nothing, the
new creation everything ; the men who take this for their
motto, the true Israel of God.1
The first important aphorism in this prophetic post
script, if we may so call it, expressed in a participial
clause, is that the Levitical law had but a shadow of the
good things to come (amd), and not the substance of
them (eltcwv). The terms a-Kid and elicmv are fitly chosen
to convey an idea of the comparative merits of Levitical
ism and Christianity. A aicid is a rude outline, such as
a body casts on a wall in sunshine ; an elxcov is an exact
life-like image. But a shadow is, further, a likeness
separate from the body which casts it ; whereas the
image denoted by eUcov is inseparable from the sub
stance, is the form of the substance, and here, without
doubt, stands for it.2 The difference in the one case
1 Gal. vi. 11-18.
2 The Greek patristic commentators understood by a-Kid the first
sketch of a picture before the colours were put in, and by eUav the

SHADOW AND SUBSTANCE 375
is one of degree, and points to the superiority of the
Christian religion over the Levitical ; in the other it is
a. difference in kind, and points to the absolute worth
of Christianity.
The idea that the law had only a shadow, hinted for
the first time in chapter viii. 5, there, in reference to the
cosmic tabernacle as a shadow of the true, heavenly
tabernacle, is here repeated to account for the in
sufficiency of the legal sacrifices. How can a shadow
serve the purposes of the substance ? The statement is
made with special reference to the ceremonies connected
with the annual atonement, as is evident from the second
clause of ver. 1, and its truth in that view might be
illustrated by going into details. In its comprehensive
reference as an atonement for the whole people ; in the
sin-offering presented by the high priest for himself,
before offering for the people ; in the dress worn by the
high priest on that occasion; in the proximity of the
solemn season to the feast of tabernacles, which followed
four days after, and to the jubilee, which began on the
evening of the same day — the religious ceremonial of the
tenth day of the seventh month bore a shadowy resem
blance to the transaction by which the sin of the world
was really atoned for. It foreshadowed an atonement for
picture when it was finished. Westcott remarks : " The word
contains one of the very few illustrations which are taken from art
in the N. T. The ' shadow ' is the dark, outlined figure cast by the
object — as in the legend of the origin of the bas-relief — contrasted
with the complete representation (eUav) produced by the help of
colour and solid mass." In harmony with the statement made in
the text von Soden defines ehwv as "the appearance-form bearing
in itself the reality which casts the shadow that in itself includes no
reality."

376 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
all, by a perfectly holy Person, humbling Himself unto
death, and procuring for men true liberty, peace, and joy.
But how rude and barely recognisable the resemblance !
The atonement, annual, partial, putative ; the holiness of
the priest, not real but ritual ; his humiliation an affair
of dress, not an experience of temptation, sorrow, and
pain ; the feast of tabernacles, a halcyon period of seven
days; the year of jubilee, a twelvemonth of freedom,
preceded and followed by fifty years of servitude, not an
unending era of freedom and gladness. Looking at a
shadow on a wall, you can tell that it is the shadow of a
man, not of a horse or a tree ; but, of what particular
man, even if it were your own brother, you know not.
Who, reading the sixteenth chapter of Leviticus, could
guess what the ideal redemption would be like ?
The law, having only a shadow, is not able 1 through
its sacrifices to perfect worshippers, by communicating to
them the sense of forgiveness : such, in brief, is the
next aphorism. Admirers of Leviticalism might reply,
"Perhaps not by a single sacrifice, or by the ceremonial
of one sacred season ; but repetition might help, the
system as a whole might bring satisfaction." " No,"
rejoins our author, " repetition does not mend matters ;
1 The reading hvvavrai (ver. 1) has more diplomatic evidence in
its favour than the singular bvvarai ; but it is intrinsically so im
probable as to lead Bleek to remark, " Even if it had been found
in the autograph of the author, I should have regarded it as an
accidental mistake on his part." Westcott and Hort have bvvavrai,
but Westcott in his Commentary has hvvarai, with an additional
note on the reading of chap. x. 1, p. 339, in which he states that
hvvavrai. was suggested by wpoo-<pepovmv. Weiss regards it as a case
of mechanical conformation of the one verb to the other. Whatever
reading we adopt, the sense remains the same.

SHADOW AND SUBSTANCE 377
on the contrary, it is part of the shadowiness, it but
serves to proclaim the ineffectual character of the
sacrifices repeated. ' Since otherwise would they not
have ceased to be offered, on account of the worshippers
having no longer any consciousness of sin, being once for
all purified ? J But (so far is that from being the case,
that, on the contrary) in them is a remembrance of sins
year by year ' (vers. 2,3). A remembrance, mark, not
an atonement ; an acknowledgment that there is sin there
to be atoned for, but not an effectual dealing with it
such as can satisfy the conscience : not at least the
enlightened conscience, for the unenlightened might be
well enough content." " The annual atonement," the
unenhghtened conscience might say, " cancelled the ritual
errors of the year past — that was what it was intended
to do ; what more is needed ? " " Ritual errors," replies
the enlightened conscience — "mere artificial offences
against a code of arbitrary rules ! What I want to be
rid of is sin, real sin, offences against the moral law,
which alone give me serious trouble." The conscience
that takes up this attitude has broken with Leviticalism,
lives in a wholly different world, and accepts as an
axiom needing no proof, and admitting of no dispute,
the blunt, downright assertion which follows : " For it is
1 Mo3t commentators read ver. 2 as a question. In some texts
the negative is omitted, so that the sentence reads, " The sacrifices
would then have ceased to be offered, on account of the worshippers
having been cleansed once for all, and having no more conscience
of sins." Mr. Rendall thinks both transcribers and translators have
missed the meaning, and renders : " For these sacrifices would not
have ceased to be offered by reason of those who serve having been
cleansed once for all, and having no more conscience of sins " ; that
is, so good a reason for cessation of sacrifice would not have existed.

378 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
impossible that the blood of bulls and of goats should
take away sin " (ver. 4).
Here, at last, is the whole truth, declared without
periphrasis or qualifying clauses, by one to whose
illuminated Christian consciousness it is as clear as
noonday that the very notion that sin can be removed
by the shedding or sprinkling of a beast's blood is
monstrous and absurd. How refreshing to him, weary
of elaborate argumentation, to have an opportunity of
uttering in this direct way his spiritual intuition on the
subject under consideration ! And who does not feel
that there is more force in this plain statement of
conviction than in the lengthened argument foregoing,
skilful and persuasive though it be ? To every spiritually
intelligent mind it is self-evident that sin cannot be
removed by the blood of beasts, or even by blood at all,
viewed simply as blood, whether of man or of beast, but
only by a holy will revealing itself through an act of
self-devotion, and sanctifying, not through the mere
blood shed in death, but by the holy, loving mind
revealed in dying. Such is the thought the writer has
in view when he makes the round assertion above quoted,
for he has not forgotten his great word, " through an
eternal spirit " ; and accordingly he goes on to unfold
this very thought, employing as the vehicle yet
another Old Testament oracle, taken from the 40th
Psalm. " Wherefore, coming into the world, He saith : Sacri
fice and offering Thou didst not wish, but a body didst
Thou prepare for Me. In whole burnt-offerings and
sacrifices for sin Thou hadst no pleasure. Then said I,

SHADOW AND SUBSTANCE 379
Lo, I am come (in the roll of the book it is written
of Me) to do Thy will, 0 God."
This oracle, as it stands in the Hebrew text, is an echo
of the great prophetic maxim, " to obey is better than
sacrifice." Instead of " a body didst Thou prepare for
Me," taken by our author from the Septuagint Version,
the original has, " Mine ears hast Thou bored or opened " ;
the meaning being, " Thou hast no pleasure in sacrifices,
but Thou hast made Me obedient, and Thou hast
pleasure in that." Thus read, the oracle might seem
to point to the total abolition of sacrifice. As read by
our author, it points to the supersession of one kind of
sacrifice by another of a higher type. " He taketh away
the first, that He may establish the second " (ver. 9).
So he points the lesson, after requoting the passage. He
finds in it a reference to the sacrificial death of Christ on
the cross. He assumes it to be Messianic, and conceives
of Messiah as uttering the words, put into His mouth
on entering the world, an eternal spirit incarnate. The
Christ, having assumed flesh, says : " Lo, I come, that in
this body which Thou hast prepared for Me I may do
Thy will, 0 God, by offering Myself as a sacrifice."
From a critical point of view, the use made of the oracle
may seem questionable ; but on the spiritual side it is
unquestionably grand, provided we interpret the writer's
meaning sympathetically. We must understand him as
teaching, not merely that it pleased God by a sovereign
act of His will to supersede one kind of sacrifice by
another, the blood of beasts by the blood of the Man
Christ Jesus, but that Christ's self-sacrifice stood in an
inner, intimate, essential relation to God's will, conceived

380 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
of, not as sovereign only, but as an embodiment of the
moral ideal, and that its virtue lay in its being a perfect
fulfilment of that will. Some interpreters, bent on
emptying all the great words of this Epistle of ethical
contents, as if jealous lest its author should appear more
than a common, contracted Jewish Christian, do their
best to reduce the significance of this last great word to a
minimum, by conceiving of Christ's sacrifice as standing,
in the writer's view, in a purely external relation to the
Divine will. According to them, all he means to teach
is, that Christ's offering of Himself is the true and final
offering for sin, because it is the sacrifice which, according
to the prophecy in the Book of Psalms, God desired to be
presented. In this way he is made to appear inferior
in spiritual insight to the Psalmist, who, it is admitted,
set obedience to the general moral will of God above
sacrifice. I have no sympathy with such starved
exegesis. I think that when the writer conceives of
Christ, come into the world, as saying, " Lo, I am come
to do Thy will, 0 God," he means something more than,
" I am come to suffer in this body, since that is the way
by which it pleaseth Thee to redeem man " ; and that
when he remarks, " In which will we have been sancti
fied, through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ
once for all" (ver. 10), he means that it is God's will
that sanctifies through the offering, and not merely that
it is God's will that we should be sanctified in this
particular way. His doctrine is, that Christ's self-
sacrifice was a perfect embodiment of Divine righteous
ness, and on this account possesses sanctifying virtue.
God is well pleased with it, and out of regard to it

SHADOW AND SUBSTANCE 381
pardons sin. In short, the will of God in this text
serves the same general purpose as the eternal spirit in
chapter ix. 14, that, namely, of accounting for the value
of Christ's sacrifice. I attach great importance to my
interpretation of the two texts, because I believe that
the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews had really
surmounted Judaism, did really understand Christianity,
had valuable light to throw on the momentous question,
Why Leviticalism should be superseded by a new religion,
a satisfactory explanation to offer why the blood of
Christ should have more virtue than the blood of beasts.
In the following three verses (11—13) we have a
pictorial representation addressed to the spiritual imagi
nation, graphically depicting the contrast between the
Levitical priest and the great High Priest of humanity.
The picture might be named " The Sacerdotal Drudge
and the Priest upon the Throne." The contrast is care
fully worked out, that it may be as vivid and impressive
as possible. The portrait of the Jewish priest in par
ticular is minutely drawn, every word contributing to
the pictorial effect. "And every priest x stands day by
day ministering, and offering often the same sacrifices,
such as can never take away 2 sins." First, " every "
1 In the best texts is found dpxiepevs (high priest), the objection
to which is, that what is said of the Levitical priest applies to the
ordinary priests rather than to the high priest, for it was not the
high priest that offered the daily sacrifices. But in a rhetorical
statement strict accuracy is not aimed at. The main point is,
that there was periodic repetition of sacrifice under the Levitical
system, in the high priest's department as well as in the ordinary
priest's. 2 wepteXeiv, literally " to strip off all round," implying thorough
work.

382 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
i. (7ro?) suggests the idea of a multitude, and that is one
note of imperfection, already remarked on in an earlier
,- part of the Epistle.1 Every priest standeth (eo-rrj/cev) :
the attitude is servile, and as such is in contrast to the
j regal attitude of sitting on a throne ascribed to the
exalted Christ. " Day by day " (/caB* r}/j^pav), a third
, mark of inferiority. The work never gets done, the
wearisome round of duty is daily gone through by the
sacerdotal drudge, without any result, and the poor
official, as you look at him with the eye of the spirit,
becomes an object of compassion to you, as if he
were some criminal doomed to fruitless labour in the
treadmill. " Offering the same sacrifices " (t<z? airds
8vcria<;) : yes, ever the same, no change from day to day,
from year to year ; evermore the same tale of lambs,
and rams, and bullocks, and goats, slain and offered in
the same stereotyped fashion as prescribed by rigid rule.
" Often " (TroXXdici'i) are these same sacrifices offered.
Had the service been confined to a few occasions, coming
round at distant intervals, the sameness of the ritual
would have been less felt. But as each day summoned
the priest to his sacerdotal duties, his office would be
come in course of time unspeakably wearisome to him,
and the only comfort available to the hapless official
would be a beneficent stupidity, rendering him gradually
insensible, as human ears grow insensible by custom to
the unmelodious sounds emanating from a factory.
" Sacrifices such as can never take away sin " (oiBeTrore).
Here was the most fatal defect of all. These Levitical
sacrifices, daily repeated in the same invariable manner,
1 vii. 23.

SHADOW AND SUBSTANCE 383
were of no real value. They were utterly unfit to do
the very thing for which sacrifice exists. They could
not divest the sinner of his sins, although the priest
should live to the age of Methuselah, and offer the same
sacrifices every day of his almost interminable life.
This combination of ever and never is very pathetic to the
reflecting mind. Ever, ever, ever at work ; never, never,
never doing any real good. What a dismal existence !
How welcome death, coming as a kind friend to take the
melancholy official from the treadmill to the grave,
making his place vacant for his son and successor !
Turn your eye now from the sacerdotal drudge, and
fix it on the Priest on the throne. This Man has a
different career and destiny. " This one, having offered
one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right hand
of God, thenceforth waiting till His enemies be made the
footstool of His feet." This Priest too had His ex
perience of drudgery ; but it had a glorious end and a
magnificent result. He was a priest, but He is a king ;
a priest for ever indeed, but of the regal type. He
standeth not daily offering over and over again the
same sacrifices ; He offered Himself once for all, and
then sat down on a celestial throne. He who on earth
was as one that serveth is now ministered unto ; He
that humbled Himself is exalted. His work too, how
ever arduous and painful, was not like that of a criminal
in the treadmill, but rather like that of a warrior in a
campaign. He had His battle, and then His victory;
He had His cross, and then His crown " of full, and
everlasting, and passionless renown."
How it came about that Christ got done with His

384 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
priestly work, so far as sacrifice was concerned, and in
due course entered into glory is thus explained : " For
by one offering x He hath perfected for ever them that
are sanctified" (ver. 14). His one offering serves all
the purposes of all the sacrifices under the law : sancti
fies, i.e. places men in covenant relations with God, like
the " blood of the covenant " inaugurated at Sinai ; per
fects, i.e. keeps those covenant relations intact, maintains
uninterrupted fellowship with God, the end which all
Levitical sacrifices, offered daily, monthly, or yearly,
vainly sought to effect. Surely a sufficient reason for
the cessation of Christ's priestly work, in so far as it
was servile ! If the one sacrifice secured all that was
wanted, why offer more ? Why work for working's
sake ? The earnest man does no work aimlessly. He
will spare no pains to accomphsh a desired end ; but
that clone, he will rest from his labours. One can
indeed conceive a man of heroic spirit heaving a sigh
when the toil and struggle are past. There was such an
elevation of mind, such a -buoyancy of spirit, such a
blessed satisfaction of conscience connected therewith,
1 pla wpoo-cbopd might be taken as nominative to the verb, which
would give us this contrast : all the Levitical sacrifices together
were never able to take away sin ; Christ's one sacrifice, on the con
trary, hath perfected for ever those whom it sanctifies. No recent
commentator, so far as I have observed, takes wpooxpopd as a
nominative. Westcott remarks : " It is significant that Christ
Hinjself is said to perfect 'by the offering'; it is not said that
'the offering' perfects. His action is personal in the application
of His own work. The importance of this form of expression
appears from the language used of the Law : vii. 16, oihev
ereXeiao-ev 6 vopos. Comp.1 ix. 9, x. 1. In the case of Levitical
institutions, the action of the appointed ministers fell into the
background."

SHADOW AND SUBSTANCE 385
that, despite the drudgery and the strain upon the
powers of endurance, he could almost wish he had the
same work to do over again. " All things that are, are
with more spirit chased than enjoyed." Yet, if inactivity
be distasteful to the moral hero, not less so is an idle,
aimless- busy bodyism. And then it is to be remembered
that, though the particular task be ended, there may be
other work to do. The case is so with men on earth ;
but how is it, it may be asked, with Christ in heaven ?
What new work is there for Him to do ? Does not His
whole occupation now consist in sitting on a throne ?
and is not that, to speak with reverence, as monotonous
as the mechanical, never-ending routine of the Levitical
service ? Can we imagine the eager, adventurous,
enthusiastic spirit of Jesus content with that passive
existence in heavenly glory ? Surely He must remember
almost" with regret that sublime career on earth, and be
tempted to wish that He were back again in the arena
of conflict, to go through His course of suffering once
more ! , . r . , .
Such thoughts, though bold, are not impious, for , they
do homage to the heart of Christ; yet, while natural,
they are not well founded. For Christ's celestial state
is not so passive as at first it seems. He too has new
work to do, which occupies His mind, and shuts out
regret that the old work is at an end. "He ever liveth
to make intercession." He watches the progress of the
world's, history and the development of His kingdom.,
He uses His power to promote 'the triumph of good over
evil. From the invisible heights of heaven, whence all
below is in full view to the eye of; His " eternal spirit,"
2S

386 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
He not only surveys, but conducts the fight between the
kingdom of light and the kingdom of darkness. And up
yonder His breast heaves with the varied emotions
naturally awakened by the chequered course of the battle.
By sympathy with His friends He fights His own battles
over again with His own old foes, superstition, hypocrisy,
unbelief, unrighteousness. No need therefore to look
back to the long distant, ever -receding past, as if all the
interest of His eternal existence were wrapped up in
those memorable thirty-three years. The present is full
of thrilling interest for Him, the present, I mean, of this
world's history. His eyes see, His ears hear, His heart
is interested in the things of earth. Earth is a very
minute object seen from the skies ; but the omniscient
eye of Christ is a telescope of unlimited magnifying
power, which can make the earth to His view just what
it is to ours, a large world, full of exciting grand dramas
going through their several acts, and filling His breast
with strong emotions, such as we feel when we read of
battles fought, of barbaric empires perishing, of slavery
and other iniquities receiving their death-doom. And
the future of the world is a source of intense interest to
the King on the throne, not less than the present. He
watches with eager, expectant eye the progress of that
great struggle between good and evil, whose final issue
shall be the triumph of the good over the evil. He has
great expectations as well as great recollections, pleasures
of hope as well as pleasures of memory. The final issues
of things, whereof the beginnings were in His own
earthly life, rising there like a mighty river in an un-
tracked mountain region, are in His view ; and He looks

SHADOW AND SUBSTANCE 387
for them with patient yet unflagging confidence, waiting
for the end, for the final victory of the Divine kingdom :
" expecting till His enemies be made His footstool." He
has had longer to wait than it entered into the mind of
the writer of this Epistle to imagine ; but hope deferred
maketh not His heart sick.
The picture of the sacerdotal drudge and the Priest
on the throne would have made a most impressive close
to the discourse on the priestly office of Christ. One
may be inclined to say, After that, not another word,
Yet there is another word, intended to substantiate the
statement, that by His one offering Christ perfected for
ever the sanctified, bringing them nigh and keeping them
nigh to God. There was no logical necessity for this
being done, for the position has been , proved over and
over again, and one is tempted to wonder that a writer
of such consummate tact should spoil the artistic effect
of that fine picture by requoting Jeremiah's oracle of the
new covenant, and pointing its moral anew. But he is
writing for Hebrew Christians, not for us, and he is more
concerned about convincing them than about the artistic
finish of his discourse. He fears lest, after all he has
said, Levitical rites should still hold possession of their
minds, and he makes one last effort to break the spell, at
the risk of being thought tedious. It is one of very
many indications, that have been pointed out as we came
upon them, in how benighted a condition were the first
readers as to the whole subject of Christ's priesthood and
the claims of Christianity to be the final religion. And,
of course, if the elaborate argument going before failed
to convince them, this last touch would not succeed. It

388 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
would be so easy to raise objections. The 'argument is':
The oracle promises- complete pardon of sin, but where
such pardon is there is no longer offering for sin: ' - To
which two objections might be taken. First, the oracle
makes no mention of a sin-offering as the ground of for
giveness : why should not its meaning be — an amnesty
for the guilty past, the heart regenerated, therefore no
more sin done, therefore no further interruption of the
friendly relation subsisting between the covenant people
and their God ? Abolition of Levitical sacrifice may
possibly be involved, but what indication is there that
another kind of sacrifice was to take 'its place ? Next,
is not the promise of perpetual forgiveness too strictly
interpreted ? Perpetual forgiveness, sin remembered no
more': is this not an ideal? Will there not in reality
under the new covenant, as under the old, be new sin
committed even by men who have the law written on
their heart, therefore need for new acts of forgiveness, and
therefore naturally for ,new offerings for sin? So we
have the dilemma : either the new covenant points to no
new kind of offering, or it does not preclude a plurality
of sacrifices. How difficult for men living in different
worlds of thought to convince one another by argument !
The spiritual guides of a transition time have a difficult
and comparatively thankless task to perform. They are
compelled by the necessities of their position to use old
forms of thought as the vehicle of new ideas; and their
reward is, that the new element in their teaching makes
it unacceptable to their contemporaries attached to the
past, while the old element, on the other hand, makes it
uninviting and obscure to men of later generations.

,.- , SHADOW.: AND. SUBSTANCE . 389
: We have made small progress indeed in the. under-,
standing of this Epistle- if -w'e have not discovered in itj
under its Levitical forms of thought, many great moral
and - religious truths. : But. much more than this . is
involved in a thorough' insight; into its meaning. Some
of the most important. ' truths , it .teaches have grown
•through long familiarity^. ; trite.; • The " new covenant "
is. a commonplace in theology-.) That Christ's ,; offering
of Himself had a . value that could not belong, to the
sacrifice of, a beast '.is now a truism. , That Christianity
is "better,", presents, a higher', type of : religion, than
Leyiticalism is at this date axiomatic'ally; clear.; Under
standing of this Epistle means '.power to realise that none
of these now familiar truths: were commonplaces for, its
author. It was the vivid perception of this fact that
many years ago opened my eyes to, the thrilling interest
and abiding value of this -New Testament; Writing, 'and
awakened in me a desire to unfold its significance to
others. I do not think , that one who :makes/it:; his
specific aim to interpret the spirit of the- book- under :
takes a superfluous task. Many men of greater learning
by far than I lay claim to have applied; their, powers to
the elucidation of its text, and have done much to. make
the meaning of every word and phrase clear. ¦ But, while
the work of verbal exegesis has been almost brought. to
perfection, the interpretation of the spirit is far- from
complete. Too many learned commentators write "as ( if
the ideas of a new covenant, atonement through self-
sacrifice, a forerunner, etc., had been as familiar to the
writer and his first readers as they are to themselves.
and as if, the doctrine that Christianity was the religion

390 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
of good hope, because it for the first time brought men
nigh to God, was a matter of course to all parties. Even
the pregnant remark, that " that which decayeth and
waxeth old is ready to vanish away," is lightly passed
over, as if its applicability to the ancient constitution
of Israel and the venerable Levitical priesthood were
called in question by no one. Even Bleek, still our
foremost commentator on the Epistle, often disappoints
in connection with the interpretation of its spirit.
This leads me to remark, at the close of my exposition
of the doctrinal part of the Epistle, what I have again
and again remarked in its course, that successful inter
pretation of the spirit of this sacred writing depends,
above all, on a right conception of the religious situation
of the first readers. Was it that of men who had no
real insight into the nature and worth of Christianity
as the final, perennial religion, and into its characteristic
truths ? or was it that of men who, while fairly well-
grounded in the Christian faith, were sorely tempted to
apostasy by outward trial, and disappointment as to the
second advent, and stood in need of aids to steadfastness,
including among these a restatement of familiar Christian
doctrines, such as that of our Lord's priesthood ? I have
gone on the supposition that the former of these alter
natives is the true one, and conceived the attitude of the
first readers towards Levitical rites to have been similar
to that of the Judaists, with whom Paul contended,
towards circumcision. The view we take on this question
affects, not only our interpretation of many texts, but
still more our idea of the man who wrote the texts. On
it depends whether we conceive of him as a theologian

SHADOW AND SUBSTANCE 391
or as a prophet, as a doctor or as an apostle, as a
philosophic student or as a moral hero. If my view
of the situation be right, then he belonged to the nobler
categories, and was a man like-minded with Paul, the
vindicator of the independence of Christianity against
legalists, who assailed it. He was one who, with pro
phetic boldness and apostolic inspiration, asserted , the
antiquation of the old covenant and worship against men
holding on desperately to these, and dared to apply the
maxim, " the decadent old must pass away," to institu
tions that had lasted more than a thousand years, writing
to men who probably regarded his views as little short of
blasphemy. It requires an effort of historical imagination to realise
the situation which called forth this great Epistle. It
greatly helps one when he himself lives in a transition
time and is in sympathy with the changes it brings.
One can then divine the spirit in which the Epistle was
written, understand the attitude of its author towards
the past, and his enthusiasm for the new in the present,
and appreciate the heroic moral basis of his religious
character. Learning can do much for the interpretation
of the letter ; but when spiritual affinity is lacking,
learned labour may end in a scholastic commentary on
a biblical writing from which the soul has fled.
The task I undertook was to expound the doctrinal
part of the Epistle with reference to its central theo
logical idea and the apologetic occasion. I have come
to the end of that task. Exposition of the remaining
portion of the Epistle (chiefly hortatory in its character),
on the same scale, might tend rather to fatigue the reader

392 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
than to throw additional light on the aim of the .writing.
The general purpose of this book will be best served: by
a hasty sketch of the drift of the hortatory section follow
ing. . Such a sketch is offered in the next twp chapters
under the suggestive titles, " Draw near ! ',' " Be not of
them that draw back." A final chapter .will endeavour
to summarise the theological import of the Epistle in the
light of the foregoing exposition. , , . .

CHAPTEE XIX
DRAW NEAR!
Chap. x. 19-31
In what I have to say on the remainder of the Epistle
my object will be simply to notice those passages which
touch and lend support to the leading idea of the doctrinal
part — Christianity, the religion of unrestricted fellowship
with God. In this connection the exhortation which
begins at ver. 19 of the tenth chapter claims special
attention. It rests on and is expressed in terms of the
central truth. <^CEnst has made it possibIe~~Eo~~harve^
perfect jellewBhipwith God ; that is the objective sig
nificance of the Christian efs^. Therefore draw near,
^n1i^jFTTy~P^^'"p subjectively "  Z^T^--
is the appropriate application of the
whole foregoing argument, the goal to which the long
train of thought has been leading up. Eeaders who
have felt the force of the theoretical statement can do
nothing else than come into the presence of God with
filial trust and holy joy. They do not merely hope for
free access as a future good. They consciously enjoy it
r now as a present possession. For that is implied in the
exhortation irpocrepxd>fi'eda, " let. us draw near." The

394 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
thing is to be done now, the privilege can be enjoyed
at once ; if it be not, it is our own fault. There is thus
a noteworthy advance at this point on the teaching in
the sixth chapter, where the summum bonum,, nearness
to God, appears as a boon in store for us in the future —
Christ has gone within the veil as our Forerunner, and
we shall follow Him by and by ; but meantime we only
cast into that sacred region the anchor of our hope.
Now, not hope, but full assurance of faith, making the
future present, is the watchword. The increased bold
ness of tone befits the close of the argument intended
to show that Christianity is the perfect religion. And
yet we are not to conceive of this boldness as something
to which the writer has gradually worked himself up.
It is but a return to his manner of speaking, when he
was on the threshold of his great demonstration, that in
Jesus Christ we have the true ideal Priest over the
hous^^f--GT5d-7chap. iv. 16).
^^PrTeexhortation to draw near is enforced by the tw?
reasons, that thertg_ia_an open way, and a powerfuljriend--
-afr-cunri, (vers. 2u, 21). "The terms in which the way of
access is described are worthy of note. It is called new
(irpovfyarov x) and living (£<ocrav). With reference to the
former of these two epithets, one has occasion to repeat
the observation already more than once made in the
course of our study of the Epistle : how boldly the
writer puts in the forefront just those features of the
1 This word meant originally " newly slain " (wpos , <peva), and
one is tempted to find in it here a reference to the sacrifice by
which the way was opened up. But in later usage the word means
simply " new," without thought of any connection with sacrifice.

DRAW near! 395
Christian religion which a timid prudence would take
care to conceal ! To the conservative mind of Hebrew
readers, enamoured of the ancient Levitical system, the
novelty of the way might seem the reverse of a recom
mendation. Nevertheless, the teacher hesitates not to
proclaim with emphasis the fact that the way is new.
And his boldness was never more completely justified.
For in this case the contrast is not between a new,
unfrequented path, and an old one, familiar and well-
trodden ; but rather between a new way and no way at
all. While the veil existed, dividing the tabernacle into
a Holy place and an inaccessible most Holy place, the
way into God's presence was not opened up. Men were
kept at a distance in fear, not daring to go beyond the
door of the tent, or at farthest, in the case of ordinary
priests, the screen which separated the outer from the
inner compartment. To call the way new was simply
to pronounce on Leviticalism a verdict of incom
petence. In the expression a " living way " we have an exhibi
tion of boldness under- another form. The writer not
only dares to emphasise an unpopular aspect of the
Christian religion by the use of the term new, but has
the courage in its praise to create what on the surface
appears an incongruous combination of ideas. For such
courage all the New Testament writers had need. A
" living way," " living stones " : such expressions bear
witness to the inadequacy of ordinary language to
convey the truth concerning the good that came to
the world by Jesus Christ. Bible writers laboured in
expression, throwing out words and phrases with a

396 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
certain sublime helplessness at an object passing
human comprehension. And yet ' the meaning here is
plain enough. The epithet " living " implies that God's
presence is not now, as of old, restricted to any
particular place. To be near Him we do not need to
pass locally from one point in space to another. We
draw nigh to God by right thoughts of His character,
and by loving, trustful affections. When we think of
Him as revealed to us in Christ, when we trust Him
implicitly, as one who for Christ's sake forgiveth our
sin, we are in His very presence. The way is living
because it is spiritual, a way which we tread, not by
the feet, but by the mind and the heart, as is hinted in
ver. 22, where it is said, "Let us draw near with true
heart and with full assurance of faith." The way is Christ
Himself, the Eevealer and the Eeconciler, and we come to
God through Him when we trust Him in both capacities.
Of the new and living way it is further affirmed that
it has been consecrated for us by Jesus through the veil.
It has been consecrated for us by being first used, trodden
by Him. The expression, " through the veil " (Bid rod
KaraTrerda-fiaro'i), suggests a double contrast. First,
between the old and the new dispensations in respect of
access to God. Under the Levitical system there was a
veil which barred the way, so that beyond it no man but
the high priest might go. Under the new economy there
is no bar — the way lies right through the veil to the
very presence of God. But, secondly, there is a. contrast
between Christ and Christians not less than between the
two dispensations. There ie n™ ™il w n0| l-m* tH "¦""'
a veil for our great High/TOest. Heopened up tUiWrSC'

DRAW NEAR ! 397
for us through the veil, pushing it aside, never again to
be drawn across the entrance. What this means is
explained'-in the words, " that is to say, His flesh." The
thought of the writer seems to be that the veil through
which Jesus' had to pass, by the pushing aside of which
He opened up an entrance into the Divine presence, was
His mortal flesh. That is to say, in unfigurative terms,
the truth taught is, that we owe our liberty Godwards to
the fact that Christ took a body and passed with it into
glory through a course of humiliation and suffering.
There was a veil for Him, inasmuch as it behoved Him
to suffer in the flesh, and so pass into glory ; there is no
veil for us, because the Just One suffered for the unjust,
that He might bring them nigh to God. This conception
of Christ's flesh as a veil is beautiful as a passing, poetic
thought, but care must be taken not to press it too far.
It " cannot, of course, be made part of a consistent and
complete typology. It is not meant for this. But as
the veil stood locally before' the holiest in the Mosaic
tabernacle, the way into which lay through it, so Christ's
life in the flesh stood between Him and His entrance
before God, and His flesh had to be rent ere He could
enter."1 The one truth to be laid to heart is, that our
liberty of access cost Christ much. The making of the
new way was no light matter for Him.
1 Professor A. B. Davidson, p. 211. Bishop Westcott points out
the difficulties connected with the view that the veil means Christ's
flesh, which he thinks so serious as to justify a departure from the
universal exegetical tradition, to the effect of identifying Christ's
flesh, not with the veil, bnt with the way.. He renders : " the
entrance which He inaugurated for us, even a fresh and living way
through the veil, that is to say, a way of His flesh."

398 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
Having stated the grounds of the exhortation to draw
near, the writer next describes the appropriate manner of
approach : " With a true heart, in full assurance of faith,
having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and
our bodies washed with pure water" (ver. 22). These
four particulars are to be regarded, not in the light of
legal requirements necessary to an acceptable approach,
but rather as together indicating the state of mind which
is congruous to the privileged position of Christians.
" Come thus ; in our happy circumstances we can come
so ; it is fitting and easy " — so we are to take" the exhorta
tion. A parallel suggests itself between this text in our
Epistle and Eomans v. 1-11, where Paul expatiates on
the privileges of the justified man. " Being therefore,"
exclaims the apostle, " justified by faith, let us have peace
with God ; and let us joy in hope of a blessed future, yea,
even in present tribulation, and, above all, in God Him
self." He means to say that, the method of justification
being by faith, and not by legal works, such a bright,
buoyant, joyous mood is within the reach of all believers ;
life need not be a thing of gloom, sadness, and uncertainty.
Even so here. We must be careful not to read this
verse as if it meant, Take heed how ye draw near to the
presence of God ; see that ye come in a right frame of
mind and heart. It means rather, Think of the open way
and of the powerful friend at court, and come boldly,
gladly, assured of your welcome. All the phrases which
indicate the manner of approach must be interpreted in
this spirit.
With a true heart. This is commonly taken as
equivalent to " in sincerity." I object to this rendering

DRAW NEAR ! 399
as too narrow, and moreover as leaning to legalism,
making the expression point to requirement rather than
to privilege. Literally translated, the words mean :
" With a heart answering to the ideal " (dXndivr)^) ; that
is to say, in the excellent words of Bishop Westcott, " a
heart which fulfils the ideal office of the heart, the seat
of the individual character, towards God."1 The question
thus comes to be, What sort of heart is that which
realises the ideal of worship, offering eloquent worship,
blessing God with all that is within ? An undivided,
sincere heart, doubtless, but also something more. Besides
sincerity there must be gladness, the gladness that is
possible when men worship a God whom they can utterly
trust and love. Along with this gladness begotten of
faith go enthusiasm, generous self-abandonment, spon
taneous service, rendered not slavishly, in mechanical
compliance with rigid rules, but in the free spirit of
sonship, the heart obeying no law but its own devoted
impulses. In short, the direction, " with a true heart,"
must be analysed into two : with heart, as opposed to
heartlessly ; with a true heart, as opposed to half
heartedly or insincerely. I am persuaded that the writer
of our Epistle had in view the former not less, rather
more, than the latter. It was not his purpose to insist
so much on the subjective, ethical condition of an accept
able approach to God, as on the objective, religious con
dition of an approach which shall be real, involving
actual, conscious fellowship with God. There is a latent
contrast between the glad-heartedness in worship which
1 Commentary, p. 322. Weiss' comment is, " a heart as it ought to
be " (urie es sein soil).

400 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
is possible to one who worships the Father whom Jesus
revealed, and the depression and gloom inseparable from
all religion that has for its object a God who hides
Himself, and keeps His votaries far off. It would be
false to say that the religion of Israel was joyless ; on
the contrary, in comparison with ethnic religions, it was
bright and happy. Witness the 100th Psalm, beginning,
" Make a joyful noise unto the Lord, all ye lands," and
ending with that noble confession of faith which reveals
the secret of the gladness : " For the Lord is good-; His
mercy is everlasting; and His truth endureth to all
generations."1 But Israel's religion was joyous in spite
of the peculiarities of the Levitical system of worship.
Its many rules and restrictions, with penalties attached
for transgression, its jealous arrangements for protecting
the majesty of God, all tended to engender an oppres
sive sense of solemnity, and a chilling feeling of fear.
The spirit of the system was sombre and awe-inspiring.
Even if sincerity were the thing primarily intended by
the requirement, " with true heart," it would still be
necessary to interpret it widely, so as to include the
gladness inspired by faith. For sincerity and gladness
are closely allied : to have a sincere heart you must have
a glad heart as well. Insincerity has two sources, the
moral state of a corrupt heart, and the fear of a timid
true heart. A religion of fear makes the best men
hypocrites, feigning sentiments which they do not feel.
1 We must remember here what is stated in Chapter ii. p. 31, about
two types of piety in the Old Testament, some portions of the
literature being legal, others evangelic in tone. Now we are under
the shadow of Sinai, anon on the bright hilltop of Zion.

DRAW NEAR! 401
The formalism of such a religion tends to aggravate the
evil. There is so much routine duty, that worshippers
almost inevitably get into a way of putting exact com
pliance with the rubric in the place of worship " in spirit
and in truth." Indeed, it may be affirmed that the
votaries of crude cults have no conception of worshipping
in spirit or in truth. The very notion of sincerity is
possible only when God is conceived of as good and as
Spirit : His goodness drawing out the heart into elo
quent utterance of adoration, trust, and love, His spirit
uality emancipating the conscience from bondage to form.
In the light of these remarks, we comprehend why our
author, having said " with true heart," goes on next to
say "in full assurance of faith." He simply indicates
by this second expression that which makes the glad,
sincere heart possible : absolute, unqualified confidence,
without any doubt of a gracious reception. It is im
plied that such confidence is justified by the facts
mentioned in the preamble to the exhortation.
In the first two specifications spiritual truth is
expressed in spiritual language. The third and fourth,
on the other hand, are stated in typological terms,
suggested by the Levitical rules of purification by blood
and water to be observed by the priests. When Aaron i
and his sons were consecrated to the priesthood, they
were sprinkled with the blood of sacrifices. .They were
also washed with water.1 It was, further, the duty of the
priests to wash their hands and feet in the brazen layer
every time they entered the tabernacle or approached
the altar.2 How, then, are we to understand these two
1 Ex. xxix. 4. 2 Ex. xxx. 19-21.
26

402 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
last clauses in the directory for Christian worship ? Are
we to find in them nothing more than a graceful allusion
to Levitical ritual ? or shall we extract from them merely
the general idea that Christians have all the privilege
and standing of priests, yea, of high priests coming into
the very presence of God ? There can be little doubt
that the writer does intend to suggest that idea. He
says in effect : " Draw near priest-like, for priests indeed
you are!' But it is reasonable to suppose that he also
means to indicate in what priest-likeness consists ; in
other words, that he attaches some definite, practical
sense to the specifications, " having our hearts sprinkled
from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure
water." It is not difficult to determine to what the former
points. The heart sprinkled from an evil conscience is
synonymous with the conscience purged from dead works
(ix. 14). The state described is that of a heart or a
conscience which has experienced the full effect of Christ's
sacrifice, taken in all the latitude assigned to it in a
previous chapter, as embracing the pardon of sin, moral
renewal, and deliverance from the dominion of a legal
spirit.1 It is not so easy to decide what precisely is
signified by the body " washed with pure water." The
meaning is plain in reference to the Levitical type, but
what is the corresponding fact in the spiritual sphere ?
The common reply to the question is, Christian baptism.
The suggestion is tempting, and even not altogether
destitute of probability ; and yet one cannot help feeling
that, if baptism had been in the writer's mind, it would
1 Chapter xvi. pp. 349-354.

DRAW NEAR ! ,403
have been easy and natural for him to have indicated his
thought by the addition of a word. I doubt if this final
specification serves any purpose beyond expressing the
thoroughness of the cleansing process undergone by a
Christian man who surrenders himself completely to the
redeeming influence of Christ. The whole man, body,
soul, and spirit, becomes purified, consecrated, trans
figured, a veritable king and priest of God. The two
clauses express together one thought. " The rhetorical
balance of parts must not be made a doctrinal distinction
of effects."1 Such, then, is the ideal state and standing of the
Christian worshipper, the manner of approach to God
possible and real for one who understands and appreciates
his position as hving in the era of the better hope
through which we draw nigh to God. He can and does
come into the Divine presence with gladness and
sincerity, with heart and with the whole heart, having
no doubt at all of his welcome, and untroubled by the
thought of his sin, being assured of forgiveness and
conscious of Christ's renovating power ; he comes in
the evangelic, filial spirit of thankfulness, not in the
legal spirit of a slave ; asking, not, How may I satisfy
the exacting demands of an austere Deity ? but, " What
1 Professor A. B. Davidson, The Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 213,
Most recent commentators find in the last clause of ver. 22 a
reference to baptism. Vaughan says : " The reference to baptism is
clear." Is it? It would have been if the writer had said, "and
your bodies washed with the pure water of baptism.'' Wishes count
for much in the interpretation of such texts. A reference to baptism
in such a connection of thought would imply an importance assigned
to sacraments which I should accept only on very clear evidence.

404 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
shall I render unto the Lord for all His benefits ? "
This is the type of Christian piety which prevails at
all times when the intuition of God's grace in Christ
is restored. It was pre-eminently the prevailing type
in the apostolic age among all who understood the
epoch-making significance of Christ's work, and the
extent to which He made all things new. But, alas !
the difficulty is to remain up in that sunny region, or,
indeed, ever to get up to it, away out of the low-lying,
unhealthy valleys of legalism, filled with mist and.
gloom. The Hebrew Church, to which our Epistle was
addressed, had never been up there, or, at least, had
been unable for any time to remain there ; and hence
the glowing description of the ideal Christian worship,
which we have been considering, is followed by a most
depressing picture of the actual situation in that un
happy community (vers. 23—25). What we find in these
verses formally, indeed, is but an exhortation wliich
might with more or less point be addressed to any
Christian community. Yet it is not to be taken as a
commonplace admonition, but as a counsel urgently
called for by a state of things presenting a sad contrast
to the bright ideal previously depicted. Each clause in
the exhortation suggests an evil not imaginary, but
imminent. " Let us hold fast the profession of . our
hope without wavering," hints at a more than possible
apostasy. "Let us consider one another to provoke
unto love and to good works," imphes the chilling of
the rehgious affections. " Not forsaking the assembling
of ourselves together," indicates a tendency to isolation,

DRAW near! 405
involving forfeiture of all the benefits that come from
association in religion. That is to say, the Hebrews
were letting their faith go, allowing their love to grow
cold, neglecting social worship and all means of keeping
one another in heart, so that they were becoming like
a demoralised army with its discipline broken, a mere
disorderly mob, a sure prey to the foe.
For this sad state of matters there is but one
radical cure : clear vision of the ideal, vivid realisation
of the grace wherein believers in Jesus stand, insight
into the incomparable value of the Christian faith.
Given this, the faith would be dearer than life ; cold,
selfish isolation would cease ; a close brotherhood would
be established, inspired by the sense of a common
possession of something worth living and dying for. It
was the knowledge of this that moved the writer of
our Epistle to make a great effort to expound the nature
and show the glory of the New Testament religion. He
believed that the best of all antidotes to apostasy was
intelligent conviction. In the course of his work he
plies his readers with every conceivable aid to constancy,
calling up old memories, appealing alternately to hope
and fear, pointing, on the one hand, to historic examples
of the fate of unbelief, and, on the other, to lives made
sublime by the power of faith. But his main trust is
in instruction. If he can only get them to understand
the religion they profess, all will be well, everything
else will follow of course.
The teacher has done his best, but at the end of his
great effort he seems to be depressed with the sense of
failure. Witness the ominous passage following, con-

406 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
cerning the doom of apostates (vers. 26-31). I have
drawn a parallel between Hebrews x. 19-22 and
Romans v. 1—11, but I must here note a contrast.
There is nothing in the Epistle to the Romans corre
sponding to this sombre picture of judgment without
mercy. Paul allows no shadow to fall on the sunny
landscape of the justified man's privileges. The summer
mood lasts till we come to the ninth chapter, when there
is a sudden change. The explanation of the difference
is, that in Paul's case the causes of gloom are without
the Church, in the spiritual state of unbelieving Israel.
Here, on the contrary, they are within the Church,
among Christians who are in danger of joining the ranks
of their unbelieving countrymen, the question of the
hour being whether they are to remain Christian, or to
renounce the Christian name.
It was a solemn question for the Hebrew Church on
the eve of Israel's judgment day. For such is the
situation suggested by the words, " and so much the
more, as ye see the day approaching" (ver. 25). This is
one of the passages in the Epistle which help us to fix
the time when it was written, as falling within the
fateful period of the Jewish war, which in 70 A.D.
issued in the destruction of the holy city. The " day "
is that predicted by Jesus as He sat on the Mount of
Olives, looking sorrowfully down upon the temple, and
said : " Verily I say unto you, There shall not be left
here one stone upon another that shall not be thrown
clown." If, as is not improbable, our author was
acquainted with our Lord's prophecy, we cannot be
surprised at the tragic style in which he depicts the

DRAW near! 407
horrors Of that day, winding up with the reflection, " It
is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living
God." It was a fearful thing, indeed, for Israel in those
years. And it would be a fearful thing for the Hebrew
Christians also, if they apostatised ; for then they would
inevitably share the fate of the guilty nation. And
surely most righteously ! For how great would be their
guilt ! — greater than that of men who in ancient times
transgressed Moses' law, greater than that of their
contemporaries who had never believed in Jesus ; the
greatest guilt possible. For what greater crime can be
conceived than to tread underfoot the Son of God, to
treat the precious blood of Christ shed for man's
redemption as a common thing, and to do outrage to the
Spirit of grace ? Of all this, it is rightly held, he is
guilty who, having once believed, apostatises. He once
worshipped Jesus as the Son of God, and now he curses
Him ; he once believed that Jesus died, the Just for the
unjust : , now he thinks of Christ's death as that of a
common man, or even of a criminal ; he once was a
partaker of the Holy Ghost, and now he laughs at his
former religious experience as a hallucination.
Two points in this sombre passage, of exegetic
interest for one who is mainly concerned with the
theology of the Epistle, may now be noticed. One
is the combination here, as in chapter ix. 14, of blood
with spirit. The " blood of the covenant," the " Spirit
of grace." Here they appear as distinct sources of
sanctification. But in the writer's mind, as in truth,
they are closely allied. The blood is the blood of
Christ, the Spirit is the spirit of Christ, He is the

408 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
Spirit through whose inspiration Christ shed His blood,
and He is the Spirit who passes into the hearts of all
that believe in Christ, and thus becomes a renewing
influence. The other point is the unique title for the
Spirit — the Spirit of grace. The question arises, How
is the designation to be understood ? Does it mean the
Spirit who imparts grace, or the Spirit who is Himself
the gift of God's grace ? Formally distinct, the two
meanings run into each other. The Spirit's presence is
felt as an energy, producing effects through which God's
grace is manifested. The more important question is,
What is the nature of the effects ? Are they ethical,
or merely charismatical ? Does the grace of which the
Spirit is the vehicle consist in the power to speak with
tongues and to do other supernatural acts, or in the
power to live holy lives ? In the former case, we
should have to recognise a difference between the
doctrine of the Spirit taught in our Epistle and that
contained in Paul's Epistles, according to which the
Holy Spirit, while the source of miraculous charisms, is,
before all things, the immanent ground of Christian
sanctity. I do not think any such difference exists. I
believe that the writer of this Epistle, if not a disciple
of Paul, is at least in sympathy with Paul in his
conception of the Spirit's work. As was meet in one
who had so enlightened a view as to the absolute worth
of the good that came to the world through Jesus Christ,
he uses repeatedly the word " grace," and in most
instances he employs it in an ethical sense : as in the
expression, " the throne of grace " ; 1 in the saying, " it
1 Chap. iv. 16,

DRAW near! 409
is a good thing that the heart be established with
grace " ; x and in the concluding prayer, " grace be with
you all." 2 There is little reason to doubt that he uses
it in the same sense here. It has been remarked that
the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews does not speak
of the Spirit's influence among Christians in so lively a
way as Paul.3 That may be ; but the explanation of
the fact is probably to be found, not in any supposed
abatement of the Spirit's influence in the subapostolic
generation,4 but in the circumstance that the Pauline
doctrine of the Spirit had become, when our Epistle was
written, the common possession of the Church.5
1 Chap. xiii. 9. 2 Chap. xiii. 25.
3 Vide Ewald, Die Lehre der Bibel von Gott., iii. 400.
4 So Ewald, who seems to regard the doctrine of the Spirit in our
Epistle as essentially Pauline.
5 Westcott takes the gen. in the phrase to wvevpa rrjs xdpiros as
= " the Spirit through whom the grace of God is manifested " ;
Vaughan as = the Spirit who is all grace.

CHAPTER XX
BE NOT OF THEM THAT DRAW BACK
Chap. x. 32— Chap. xii. 29
" Draw near," the teacher had said, in a tone of cheerful
emphasis. " Draw not back," he now says in a tone of
deep solemnity. " Draw not back " is virtually the
burden of all that follows from this point onwards to
the end of the twelfth chapter. The friend of the
Hebrew Church fears the deprecated result, and puts
forth a great final effort to avert it. In spite of his
inward fear, he assumes a tone of confidence, and says,
" We (you and I) are not of them who draw back unto
perdition ; but of them that believe to the saving of the
soul" (chap. x. 39). But he means: "Be ye not, ye
must not be, it is not to be thought of, such a disastrous
issue is intolerable." What he dreads is mean, ignoble,
dastardly slinking from ChristiflTr ^""-^^ny-ftpd responsi-
bility, flSough an abject desirtPfor safety, whlXli defeats
itself, and brings on the moral coward the very evil he
seeks to shun ; what he commends is the heroic spirit
~,of faith, which enables a man to live a true, mst, gndh
; life, preferring duty to safety : so. while willing to lose
life, really gaining it, as Jesus had taught His disciples,

BE NOT OF THEM THAT DRAW BACK 411
In laconic phrase he offers as the watchword for times
of trial, " not men of shrinking, but men of faith " (ou%
inroerToXrjt;,1 aXXd Tricrrecos).
To insure that the Hebrews shall so behave as to
merit this description, the writer brings to bear on them
a variety of stimulating influences : their own past
memories (chap. x. 32—36), the heroic career of the men
of faith of former times (chap, xi), the example of
Jesus (chap, xii 2, 3), the uses of affliction (chap. xii.
5—13), the solemn responsibilities lying on the privileged
recipients of a final revelation (chap, xii 14—29). With
reference to the first, he bids them in effect conduct
themselves at the end of their Christian life in a manner
worthy of its beginning, when they both bravely en
dured hardships on account of the faith, and generously
sympathised with brethren exposed to trial. Why
should they cast away that old boldness, which, per
severed in to the end (now not far off), must have
worthy recompense ? What a pity to lose heart, when
patience only for a little longer will bring the promised
reward !

The^Bcond line of thought is worked out with great
joration. This magnificent discourse on faith may
'conceivably have been prepared for and used on other
occasions, and afterwards embodied in our Epistleafi-
¦~5£gllfitted to serve_the__pajspese — m — ha»d^> to help
waverers to be men of faith by showing them what
1 vwoo-roXtf is used here only in the New Testament, and little
used at all in the sense it bears here. The verb is used not only in
the previous verse, but in a very expressive way in Gal. ii. 12, in
reference to the behaviour of Peter on the arrival of the bigots from
Jerusalem ; viweaTeXXev = l(i,e stealthily and sneakingly slunk away,

412 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
faith had done for others. The opening sentence,
containing what looks like a scholastic definition of
faith, might suggest that the leading aim of the dis-
. course had originally been to illustrate the nature of
faith as there defined to be the substance or assurance

6T things hoped for, and the evidence or proof of things'
not seen, whether past7 present, or future. _The nrst
example of faith's action taken from the creation of the
world appears to bear out this view, as it serves merely
to explain the nature of faith and the vast range of its
action as a principle in the human mind. It is not an
instance of the faith by which the elders obtained a good
report, but only the first case in the Old Testament
history in which an opportunity occurs for showing the
psychological nature of faith as the evidence of things
not seen ; that by which we apprehend the visible world
to be the product of an invisible creative word of God.
The same desire to illustrate the abstract nature of faith
and the range of its action seems to come out in ver. 6,
where it is argued that pleasing God necessarily involves
faith (and not merely good conduct), inasmuch as he
who seeks to please God, ipso facto, believes that God is,
and that He rewards well-doing, the one act of faith
exemplifying its nature as evidence of the unseen, the
other as the assurance of things hoped for.
Whatever truth there may be in the foregoing conjec
ture, there can be no doubt that the main purpose of
^tlje-TTiSQourse-TrS'Tt- here^£ft&ers=4s tcr-eliow7~noT; the-
^^tbstract nature of faiCh. but its ni^pf^jaawfer • how it
~ enables men tO live noh> l"rpg nnrl gr> rTm'r. o ^pr*A
^ report Tbp writer's interest in the psychology of faith

BE NOT OF THEM THAT DRAW BACK 413
lies chiefly in the fact that it furnishes the key to faith's
wonderful practical virtue. The connection of thought
is to this effect : " Be ye men of faith, my Hebrew
brethren, for faith is a mighty thing : it makes one as
sure of the future as if it were present, and brings the
invisible within view. Through these its marvellous
properties the good men of olden time were enabled
so to live as to deserve the testimony that they were
' righteous ' (ver. 4), that they ' pleased God ' (ver. 5),
that they were men of whom God was not ashamed
(ver. 16), and 'of whom the world was not worthy'
(ver. 3 8)." Such is the writer's argument, and in the =
sequel of_^hie--Trfecoursi he makes good~nts~~,p^sitiriQ.
/•TKtTexamples cited are allrelevetnt as(-=ifis1iances oftEe^>
action of faith as defined V4g_ all faith was the_wx>rkiHg'^
vnower. The actions specmed are important, having a
foremost place in the memorabilia of Old Testament
story. The actors are all worthy of honourable mention.
Their characters bear the heroic stamp due in every
case to their faith, even the least worthy, e.g. " the
harlot Eahab," rising above moral commonplace into
the lofty region of heroism through the redeeming
power of a faith that could rightly interpret past
events and shrewdly forecast the future.
The eloquent preacher makes good his case, yet in
the end of his discourse he is constrained to make an
important admission. "These all being witnessed to
(ft,aprvpr)6evre<i) through faith, (yet) received not the
promises." That is to say, faith, as the assurance of
things hoped for and the proof of things not seen,
helped them to live well, so that God and discerning

414 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
men could give them a certificate of nobihty ; but that
of which faith assured them, the things hoped for, they
did not obtain. They got their certificate of character,
and — nothing more. Does this not look like saying
that faith entices men into a heroic, arduous career
that will win for them a barren renown, by promises
of a future which in the form these assume to the
imagination will never be realised ? It does ; and the
fact is even so, and it is a great fact in human experi
ence, this " illusiveness of life"- — a bitter fact till it is
understood and accepted as an essential element in the
Divine discipline of character. The writer of our Epistle
would not conceal the truth from his readers, even
though it might tend to defeat his purpose to inspire
them with the spirit of fortitude, by suggesting depres
sing, pessimistic thoughts and dark questions, whether
it was worth while living nobly if the end was to be
disappointment. But he skilfully contrives, while
admitting the fact, to put such a construction on the
disappointing experience of Old Testament saints that
it shall encourage rather than depress : " God providing
something better concerning us, that they without us
should not be made perfect" (ver. 40). That is to
say : first, our experience is not to be as theirs, in our
case the promise shall be fulfilled ; second, even in their
case the disappointment was not final and absolute, it
was only a case of deferred fulfilment, that we and they
might, by the fulfilment of our common hopes, he per
fected together. The author conceives of the end of
the world as at hand, and of the age of fulfilment as
approaching, bringing with it the reahsation of all

BE NOT OF THEM THAT DRAW BACK 415
religious ideals — the perfect pardon of sin, the heavenly
country, the city which hath the foundations, whose
architect and builder is God ; bringing these alike to
the " elders '' and to those on whom the ends of the
world are come, doubled in value to all by common
participation. The witnessed or certificated ones (p.aprvpnGevre's,
xi. 39) next become a great cloud of witnesses (ve<po<;
uaprvpmv, xii. 1), gathered around the men now under
going trial on earth, the spectators in imagination, if not
in literal fact, of their behaviour, and bearing testimony
by their recorded lives to the power of faith, and by
their faithfulness even unto death encouraging their
suffering brethren to play the man and to run their
appointed race strenuously and persistently till they
have reached the goal. It is a spirit-stirring scene
that is thus by a few felicitous phrases brought before
our view ; but the eye is not allowed to rest on it. For
among the cloud of witnesses that constitute the ideal
spectatorship of the race One stands out conspicuous
above all the rest — Jesus, the Captain and Perfecter of
faith, the Man who first perfectly realised the idea of
living by faith, and who thereby became the Model and
Leader of all the faithful, to whom they look as their
pattern, and from whose heroic behaviour they draw
their inspiration. Therefore our author, having sug
gested the idea of a cloud of witnesses, consisting of
all in past ages who have a fair and honourable record,
hastens to point out the great central Personality, and
ask his readers to fix their attention on Him, saying in
effect : " Conscious of that imposing crowd, run your

416 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
race ; but before all, run it, if you would run well,
looking , unto Jesus." What will they see there ? One
who undauntedly endured the bitter suffering of the
cross, and who despised the ignominy of it, sustained
by a faith that so vividly realised coming joy and glory
as to obliterate the consciousness of present pain and
shame ; One, moreover, in whose case it is clearly seen
that faith is no deceiver, making promises that will
never be fulfilled ; for, behold, the crucified One is now
set down on the right hand of the throne of God !
" Consider Him," continues the preacher, with eloquent
urgency. " Compare His experience with your own, and
your own with His, and extract from the comparison
consolatory lessons. Realise first of all that the experi
ences are comparable, that they belong to the same
category of the trial and triumph of faith, that Jesus
and you have been brothers in tribulation, and may be
brothers in bliss. Then, having mastered the truth that
the experiences of the Leader and the led are analogous,1
note further that the experience of the Leader differs
from that of the led, though not in kind, yet in degree.
He was by far the greater sufferer. What humiliating
contradiction of sinners,2 by word and deed, in life and
1 dvaXoyl&aade, ver. 3.
2 The reading, " sinners against themselves " (els eavrovs), becomes
credible if, with Westcott and Vaughan, we find in the phrase an
allusion to the rebellion of Korah and his companions, who, in
Num. xvi. 38, are described as " sinners against their own souls."
Von Soden adopts the reading els eavrovs, holding that with the
usual reading els eavrov neither the term dvTiXoylav, nor the emphatic
vwb toiv dpaprioX&v, can be explained. With els eavrovs the passage
points to " the tragic fact that Jesus was the victim, not of a contra
diction against Him, but of a portentous violent contradiction of

BE NOT OF THEM THAT DRAW BACK 417
in death, He endured ! what blasphemies against the
Son of man — •' drunkard, glutton, boon companion of
publicans and sinners'! — what ribald indignities, before
and during the crucifixion ! Ye have not endured any
thing like that. Ye have not been crucified ; ye know
little of the hatred, contempt, and reviling, that are
worse than violent death."
From this topic, the example of Jesus, fertile in con
solation, the writer easily passes to another, also fruitful
of instruction, the uses of affliction (xii 5—13). Here
the chief feature of didactic interest is the manner in
which the writer brings the hard experiences of life
under the view-point of man's filial relation to God.
This mention of the fatherhood of God, just after refer
ring to the earthly trials of Christ, suggests the thought
that our author has present to his mind Christ's habit
of calling God His Father, and the comfort and peace
He derived from that name. He cites indeed, not the
Gospels, but the Book of Proverbs ; it is possible never
theless that he draws his inspiration, not from Solomon,
but from Jesus. One cannot help feeling that under
such expressions as the " contradiction of sinners," " the
Father of spirits," there lurks a familiar acquaintance
with the evangelic tradition of the life of the Son of
man, and with His doctrine of God and man, and their
mutual relations. The teacher of the Hebrews under-
men against themselves, against their better selves and their true
interest ; a contradiction by which they showed themselves empha
tically as sinners, and which for them as such was so irrational and
so fatal. How hard was that for Him ! He would save them, but
they were their own worst foes." He refers to Matt, xxiii. 37 and
Phil. i. 28, as illustrative texts.
27

418 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
stands the filial consciousness of Jesus as it found
expression in the prayer, " I thank Thee, 0 Father, Lord
of heaven and earth," and knows that it meant for Him
loyal submission, perfect trust, intimate, joyful fellowship,
and absolute independence in His attitude toward the
world ; and it is his desire that those to whom he writes
may attain unto the same filial consciousness, with all
its spiritual blessedness. It would have been gratifying
had this part of his exhortation contained a single distinct
allusion to the gospel records of Christ's sayings. But,
alas ! the Hebrew Christians were so far below the
breezy, bracing heights of sonship in the dank, misty
hollows of legalism, that their teacher is constrained to
extract for their benefit the elements of the doctrine of a
paternal providence from Old Testament texts ; these
truths, namely : that God does regard men as His
children ; that sorrowful experiences reveal His fatherly
love, are the chastisement He administers to those He
counts sons ; that the aim of all His discipline is to
make men partakers of His holiness — an end worthy of
Him, and supremely important for them.
This end — holiness — next becomes the subject of
discourse. That you should be truly holy is God's great
purpose in all His dealings with you : make it your own
great business to be God-consecrated men ; guard sedu
lously against moral stains ; remissness here may be
fatal; holiness becometh Christians in view of their
position and privileges — such is the drift of the following
section (xii. 12-29). We notice here for the first time
a distinct reference to evil conduct as a possible source
of clanger : " Lest there be any fornicator, or profane

BE NOT OF THEM THAT DRAW BACK 419
person, as Esau, who for one meal sold his own birth
right" (ver. 16). The word iropvos is not to be spiri
tualised ; we ought rather to find in it a hint that in
the Hebrew Church, besides defective insight into and
appreciation of the Christian religion, and a timid, un-
heroic temper, there was a third evil influence at work
exposing them to shipwreck, a tendency to vulgar im
morality, sensuahsm in diverse forms — a base, ignoble,
Esau-like preference of immediate enjoyment, present
gratification of animal appetite, to the honourable voca
tion and destiny of sons of God, a state of mind well
deserving to be stigmatised as " profane " (fiefirjXos).
To what extent this tendency prevailed we can only
conjecture; but it may be assumed that a writer char
acterised by a delicate reserve would not have mentioned
the topic at all, unless it had been urgent ; and the
emphasis and iteration of his admonition, " looking to it
that there be no one falling from the grace of God, no
root of bitterness springing up in gall} no fornicator or
profane person," is very ominous. Then all history tells
that a transition time in religion, when an old faith is
passing away and a new one is coming in, is apt to be
a time characterised by a dissolution of morals. Such
1 'Ei>oyX>7, ver. 15, is the undisputed reading ; but there is proba
bility in the suggestion that the two letters ox had been at an early
date transposed in transcription, and that the original reading was
ev xoAS> as in Deuteronomy xxix. 18, which the writer has in his
mind and here quotes. Kendall adopts this reading, and Westcott
more cautiously simply alludes to it in a bracketed remark : " The
strange coincidence of letters between enoxAh and gnxoAh of Deut.
xxix. 18 cannot escape notice." The rendering given above assumes
that iv xoA5 is the true text. 'EvoxXi? demands the rendering of
the A.V. . " Springing up trouble you."

420 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
an age presents startling contrasts : here, fanatical
attachment to the past ; there heroic devotion to the
new revelation ; in a third class, unsettlement in opinion,
scepticism, licentiousness. This bad leaven of doubt
accompanied by moral laxity seems to have been at work
in the Hebrew Church, and in proportion as it was it
made the chance of success in an effort to bring them to
a better mind infinitesimally small. The profane person
who prefers the mess of pottage to the heavenly railing
is doomed. There is no place of repentance for him; he
does not even, like Esau, desire it: he habitually despises
his birthright. And such a man is a curse to the com
munity in which he lives. He is a plant whose root
sucks poison from the soil, and which bears fruit death-
bringing to all who partake of it.
But charity hopeth all things ; therefore, in spite of
the presence among them of the Esau-spirit, the friend
of the Hebrew Christians persists in pressing on their
attention their heavenly birthright, and in a passage of
majestic eloquence brings before their minds all the
august, sacred realities of the new dispensation, each and
all enforcing the admonition, Be holy. To make the
argument more impressive it is put in the form of a con
trast between the awe-inspiring phenomena of the law
giving and the still more solemn, while also more genial,
surroundings of one whose lot is cast in the Christian
era : " Ye have not come to Sinai ; ye have come to
Zion." The argument is a fortiori: Your fathers, when
they approached the mount of lawgiving, had to prepare
themselves and make themselves technically holy : x how
1 Ex. xix. 14-25.

BE NOT OF THEM THAT DRAW BACK 421
much more ought ye to be holy " in all manner of con
versation " — ye who are surrounded by things of a higher
order : not sensible, but spiritual ; not transient, but
abiding ; not inspiring mere abject terror, but the higher,
godly fear of reverence !
For detailed exegesis this eloquent passage, forming
the splendid finale to the exhortation to steadfastness,
commencing at chapter x. 19, presents a variety of difficult
problems relating to the text,1 the bearing of individual
expressions,2 and the scope of the whole. For a general
survey like the present the last of these topics is alone
of importance. It has been disputed whether we are to
find in the contrast between the two dispensations a
single or a double antithesis : that between the sensible
and supersensible, physical and spiritual alone ; or also
one between the terrifying character of the earlier dis
pensation and the gracious, winsome character of the
later. In favour of the former view are the facts that
the immediate aim of the contrast is to present an incite
ment to holiness, that fear is regarded by the writer as
an element in the New Testament religion not less than
in the Old (ver. 28), and that God is referred to, not as
the Father, as one would expect in an attempt to describe
the grace of the New Testament, but as the Judge
1 It is doubtful whether Spec belongs to the text in ver. 18. If it
be omitted we get the sense, " Ye are not come unto a palpable
and burning fire," or "a material and kindled fire," as Westcott
renders it.
2 It is disputed whether " the general assembly and Church of the
first-born " refer to angels, or form a distinct class of citizens ;
namely, Christian men on earth, whose names are written in
heaven.

422 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
(ver. 23), and is even declared in the sequel to be a con
suming fire (ver. 29). In view of these facts, it might
seem as if the gracious aspect of some of the things
enumerated, as in the clauses referring to " Jesus, the
Mediator of the new covenant," and to " the blood of
sprinkling that speaketh better things than that of Abel,"
were accidental to the aim of the writer, or not present
to his view at all. But the holiness and the fear of the
Christian are different from those of Israel at Sinai.
They are such as are -producible, not by material fire,
but by association with the spiritual commonwealth of
which God is the head. They are the holiness and the
fear of those who are themselves citizens. The grace
lies in admission to citizenship, and privilege is the source
of obligation. The moral is : Be thankful for member
ship in such an august society, and strive to be worthy
' of it. In the writer's own words : " We, receiving a
kingdom which cannot be moved, let us be thankful,1 and
in the spirit of thankfulness serve God acceptably with
godly fear and awe."
The designation "kingdom," here used for the good
that came to the world through Jesus Christ, suggests
that at this point, as in his doctrine of God's paternal
providence, the writer may have had present to his mind
the teaching of our Lord as recorded in the Synoptical
Gospels. But here, as in the other instance, the express
allusion is not to the evangelic tradition, but to the
Hebrew Scriptures. The train of thought commencing
^"Exiopev x^Plv- Westcott remarks: "The use of the phrase
Xapiv exeiv elsewhere in the New Testament is strongly in favour of
the sense, ' let us feel and show thankfulness to God.' "

BE NOT OF THEM THAT DRAW BACK 423
with " see that ye refuse not Him that speaketh "
(ver. 25), and ending with the words just quoted
(ver. 28), is suggested, and in expression coloured, by an
oracle of the prophet Haggai, intended to encourage the
people of Israel, returned from exile, in the work of
rebuilding the temple, by assuring them that the second
house should be greater than the first, and that the
kingdom of Judah should again be established, though it
should be necessary to shake the heavens and the earth,
and to overturn all other kingdoms, in order to achieve
the result (Hag. ii). This prophecy the writer regards
as Messianic, and from it he takes occasion to draw what
we may call a supplementary contrast between the
Sinaitic and the Christian revelations, so as still further
to deepen the sense of responsibility in those who are
the recipients of the latter. In both cases God spoke to
men ; by what agents, whether angels, Moses, or Christ,
is here left out of account. But in the earlier revelation
He spake "on earth" (irrl 7J79, ver. 25), in the later
"from heaven" (air ovpavwv, ver. 25); earth meaning
the place of shadows, heaven the place of realities. In
the first case God's voice shook the earth, not the whole
earth, but Mount Sinai and its environment : " the whole
mount quaked greatly" (Ex. xix. 18); in the second,
the Divine voice, according to the prophetic oracle, was
to shake, " not the earth only, but also heaven " (ver. 26),
the whole universe of being — a statement implying the
universal character of Christianity : God's voice in
Christ concerns the whole world. And the shaking pro
duced by this voice, presumably, though the fact is not
expressly indicated, is of a different nature from that

424 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
which took place at Sinai — a moral, not a physical
earthquake. In the mind of the writer probably, as in
our Lord's apocalyptic discourse, as recorded in the
Gospels, the material and the spiritual aspects are mixed
up, the shaking affecting the frame of nature, the
fortunes of nations, the minds of men, causing stars,
thrones, city walls, temples, effete religions, to tumble
down into one vast mass of ruin. Lastly, God's first
voice, being a voice spoken on earth, like all things
earthly, is transient ; God's second voice, spoken from
heaven, is final and, with all that it creates, eternal.
The , transiency of the first voice, with the system of
things it belongs to, is implied in the prophetic
expression, "yet once more" (en aira%, ver. 26). It
implies that the order of things to which the first voice
belonged was not satisfactory or fitted to abide. It
implies further that the order of things to be ushered in
by the second voice will remain. For God is to speak
only this one time more — once for all. Thus the voice
of God uttered in the end of the days through His Son
signifies, on the one hand, the removal of all things
capable of being shaken because " made," material,
earthly ; and, on the other, the establishment of an order
that shall be permanent, unshakable, because not " made"
after the fashion of the sensible world, spiritual,
heavenly — the bringing in, in power and glory, of the
kingdom of heaven.
With what sublime serenity the author of our Epistle
contemplates the destruction of the old world and the
birth-pangs of the new, albeit the process involves much
that is disastrous, tragic, awful to think of, for the

BE NOT OF THEM THAT DRAW BACK 425
people to which his readers belong ! It is the calm of
faith : of one who understands what is going on, who
knows that, whatever may perish, there is always some
thing of priceless worth that remains ; that, though the
earth be removed, and though the mountains be carried
into the midst of the sea, and the waters thereof roar
and be troubled, there is a river of life, a strong refuge,
a city of God, a " kingdom which cannot be moved."
One who has this faith passes quietly and peacefully
through the perils of a transition time, when the
hearts of those who do not understand and believe fail
them for fear, and for looking after those things which
are coming on the earth.
The long exhortation to Christian steadfastness is
ended. What remains of the Epistle, chapter xiii, is an
epilogue, containing, in addition to sundry ethical pre
cepts (vers. 1-6), a passage bearing on the main theme,
which lets us see how difficult the writer found it to
take final leave of his subject, doubtless due to a fear
that, after all he had written, he had failed to accomplish
his purpose (vers. 7—14). The drift of this postscript is :
" Cleave to Christ and the Christian faith by all means
and at all hazards. Be moved to do so by the memory
of deceased apostolic teachers ; contemplating the issue
of their life, their death in faith, some of them in
martyrdom, imitate these believing, faithful men. Be
moved also and above all by the consideration that in
the great Object of our faith we have One that can
satisfy all spiritual needs. Jesus Christ is yesterday,
and to-day, the same, and for ever. What He was to

426 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
your departed instructors He can still be to you. Cling
to Him as your sympathetic Brother, Captain, and High
Priest. Be not carried away from Him by Judaistic
teachings in reference to meats,1 etc., foreign to the
genius of the Christian faith, and valueless to one whose
heart is established with grace. Break finally with
Judaism, forsake the synagogue, go forth " without the
camp," bearing cheerfully any reproach in fidelity to
Him who " suffered without the gate." Ye must make
your choice between Christianity and Judaism. Ye
cannot amalgamate the two. As the victim slain for sin
on the day of atonement was not eaten by the priests,
but removed without the camp and burned, so those
who chng to the Levitical system can have no part in
the great Christian sacrifice which was offered up on
Calvary outside the gate of Jerusalem. To share in the
benefit of that sacrifice you also must go outside, no
matter what it may cost." Here once more we note
the affinity between the writer of our Epistle and the
Apostle Paul in pressing on half-hearted Christians,
prone to compromise, the inexorable " either- — or."
" Either the law, or faith," said Paul ; " Either the
Levitical ritual, or the one sacrifice of Christ, offered
through the eternal Spirit," says the unknown insph-ed
man who wrote this remarkable book.
It is worthy of note that the closing benediction con
tains the solitary reference to be found in the Epistle to
1 In the depreciation of marriage (supposed to be referred to in
xiii. 4), angelolatry, and sacrificial meals (ver. 9), Rendall sees
traces of Essene influence. Vide Appendix to The Epistle to the
Hebrews, pp. 86- -92.

BE NOT OF THEM THAT DRAW BACK 427
the resurrection of our Lord : " The God of peace who
brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus" (ver. 20).
It looks almost like an endeavour to compensate for
a defect in the body of the writing. A reference so
explicit and unequivocal supplies conclusive evidence
that the writer was acquainted with the evangelic
tradition concerning that momentous event, and un
hesitatingly accepted it as true. Still, the fact remains
that that event, as distinct from the ascension, possesses
no special theological significance, and has no place
assigned to it in the theoretic structure. In this respect
the Epistle to the Hebrews presents a striking contrast
to the Epistles of Paul.

CHAPTEE XXI
THE THEOLOGICAL IMPORT OF THE EPISTLE
The grand distinction and merit of the Christian religion,
for the writer of the Epistle, is that it brings men near
to God. It is the religion of free access and intimate
fellowship. The value of this peculiarity is heightened by contrast
with the antecedent Levitical religion, which is shown to
have been a religion that failed to render this supreme
service to worshippers. It did not bring the Israelite
nigh to God ; it kept him in fear at a distance. It had
a sanctuary into which none might enter but priests ; its
sanctuary was divided into two compartments by a veil,
beyond which, into the place called most holy, no one
might go save the chief priest, and he only on one day in
the year, and with due precautions. The effect was to
make God for the common mind an unapproachable
being dwelling in isolation and darkness.
This radical difference between the two rehgions im
plies and rests on a difference in their respective provi
sions for dealing with human sin. For sin is the great
separator. It creates a gulf between man and God.
The sinner is afraid to come near to the Holy One. The
penitent sinner even trembles at the thought of entering
•128

THE THEOLOGICAL IMPORT OF THE EPISTLE 429
into the Divine Presence. He needs to be assured of his
welcome ; means -for overcoming his suspicion and dread
must be provided. Judged by this test, Leviticalism is
held to have failed. It did not perfect the worshipper
as to conscience. It did not give him adequate assurance
that his sin was forgiven and that God was gracious.
Christianity, on the other hand, satisfies all requirements.
It thoroughly cleanses the conscience, and gives boldness
to come into the presence of God.
The verdict of incompetency to solve the problem of
sin pronounced upon Leviticalism implies thorough dis
satisfaction with its sacrificial and sacerdotal system.
This dissatisfaction finds vigorous, unqualified expression
in the Epistle. Both the victims offered and the offering
priests are condemned as inadequate to the ends for
which they existed. The blood of bulls and goats could
not take away sin. The officiating priests were them
selves sinners, who had to offer for then own sins before
offering for the sins of the people. Such men offering
such sacrifices were engaged in a vain work, offering
oftentimes the same victims which, however often offered,
could never take away sin.
Such a sweeping verdict on Leviticalism imposes on
the writer an imperative obhgation to show that Christi
anity is not liable to the same imputation of incompetency.
It, must be proved that its sacrificial and sacerdotal
provisions for dealing with sin meet all requirements.
The keen critic of the ancient Hebrew ritual is fully
alive to the task he creates for himself, and does not
shirk it. The priesthood of Christ and the sacrifice of
Christ occupy a very prominent place in his system of

430 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
Christian thought. He knows only of one Priest and one
Sacrifice ; it is one of the excellences of Christianity, in
his judgment, that it needs, and admits of, no more ; and
he puts forth all his exegetic and philosophic strength to
do then transcendent worth full justice.
The doctrine of Christ's priesthood is a theological
specialty of our Epistle. Practically it is the only book
of the New Testament in which that doctrine finds any,
or at least adequate, recognition.
The prominence given to that theme is, of course, due
in part to the apologetic aim. One whose purpose was
to wean Hebrew Christians from undue attachment to
Levitical institutions would have to show, if possible,
that Christianity was not without its priesthood and
means of propitiation ; that, on the contrary, it had the
substance whereof the Levitical ritual was but the rude
shadow. Not otherwise could he hope to make his
readers content with the new faith. And it is apparent
to the intelligent student of his writing that his whole
manner of treating the subject is controlled by the exi
gencies of the apologetic situation. But this is not the
whole truth. The writer could not honestly pursue such
a line of argument to produce conviction in the minds of
others unless what he said represented a sincere convic
tion of his own mind. The apologist is most successful
when he offers to others as aids to faith thoughts which
have first helped himself. Therefore it may be taken for
granted that the priesthood of Christ was a religious
reality for our author, apart altogether from the apolo
getic use to which it was turned.
Priestly functions are simply a special aspect, or form

THE THEOLOGICAL IMPORT OF THE EPISTLE 431
of salvation by mediation. That the salvation of men
should be achieved on this method probably presented
itself to the mind of our author as an axiom. If not
the only possible method, and therefore necessary if men
were to be saved at all, it seemed to him at least a
natural, reasonable, and God-worthy method. It became
God, the first cause and last end of all, to communicate to
men the blessings of His grace through a Mediator,
whether called a Captain, a Sanctifier, a Priest, a Surety, or
a Shepherd. The use of this method is not conceived
as belonging exclusively to the rudimentary forms of
religion ; it is regarded as a feature of the final
form, a characteristic of the absolute perfect religion.
That religion demands, not discontinuance of mediation,
but a Mediator worthy of the position and adequate to
the vocation. The final religion, therefore, will have its
Priest ; but the vital question is, What shall be the
manner of the Man who under the perfect state of things
shall transact for men in things pertaining to God ?
The Epistle to the Hebrews gives a distinct, definite
answer to this question ; but, owing to the exigencies of
the situation, in a very roundabout way. The writer had
to deal with readers who could not conceive how Jesus
could be a priest, if only because He did not, as they
learned from the evangelic tradition, belong to the sacer
dotal tribe. Hence his employment of Melchisedec as an
apologetic medium. By the use of that historic figure
he could show that a man might be a priest without
belonging to the tribe of Levi, and not a priest of an
irregular or inferior kind, but such as an inspired
Psalmist could invest with all the august dignity of a

432 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
sacerdotal ideal. A priest after the order of Melchisedec,
according to the Psalmist, was one in whom the ideal of
priesthood was realised. This being the chosen line of
approach to the pre-eminent priesthood of Christ, of
course the " order of Melchisedec " had to be determined,
its characteristic notes had to be ascertained. This,
accordingly, is done in the seventh chapter of the Epistle
by a hermeneutical method which, whatever its merits,
would raise no scruples in the minds of the first readers.
But it may very readily raise doubts in the minds of
modern Christians. Even the value attached to the
oracle in the Psalm may appear to many excessive. It
may seem a case of straining the didactic significance of
what is in truth a very obscure, mysterious utterance.
These doubts and hesitations of moderns may possess
little intrinsic weight, but they cannot be disregarded.
It would be a serious thing if doubt as to the validity of
the proof carried along with it doubt as to the reahty
of the thing proved. It is therefore desirable, if possible,
to make the priesthood of Christ independent of a hne
of evidence which at this date appears, to at least some
minds, subtle and artificial. It can be done, and the
Epistle itself supplies pregnant hints which help us in
the task.
What are the essential elements in the case ? What
are the facts in the history of Jesus out of which a
thoughtful man might now, unaware that the attempt
had ever been made before, construct for himself a
priestly theory as to the significance of our Lord's earthly
life ? It would be easy to state the grounds on which
an intelligent reader of the Gospels might readily feel

THE THEOLOGICAL IMPORT OF THE EPISTLE 433
justified in conceiving of Jesus as a great religious
Teacher, or Hebrew Prophet. It is enough to point to
the Sermon on the Mount, and the many searching words
of criticism on the religion of the time. But what
features of the wonderful ministry might suggest the
idea of investing with sacerdotal robes One who was the
sworn foe of priestcraft, and an object of deadly enmity
to temple officials ? They are not so obvious ; they do
not lie on the surface ; but they are there. Two things
fix the attention of one who thoroughly understands the
earthly career of Jesus: self-sacrifice and solidarity with
sinners. Are not these the essential elements of priest-
liness ? One might, it is true, note these things in Jesus
and yet not think of calling Him a priest. But that
might be due more to the fact of the priest, as we know
him, falling far below the ideal constituted by these
characteristics, than to the intrinsic inapplicability of the
term to one in whose character they were the conspicuous
features. If you want a name for one who is uniquely
self-devoted, and endowed with unparalleled sympathy with
sinful men, what better can you find than Priest 1 This
Man has His sacrifice, and He offers it for others. His
offering is Himself, His life ; and He • lays it down " a
ransom for the many."
The two things above noted as the fact-basis of a
priestly construction of our Lord's earthly life find, as
we have seen, prominent recognition in our Epistle. The
principle of solidarity receives happy expression in the
words, "Sanctifier and sanctified all one" (ii. 11); and
that Jesus gave His life for the salvation of men is again
and again proclaimed (ii. 9, vii. 27, ix. 14). These two
28

434 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
positions are stated independently of the theologoumenon
concerning the Melchisedec priesthood. The former is
enunciated as an axiom involved in the relation spoken
of. The relation demands solidarity, and solidarity con
stitutes the relation. One man cannot sanctify others
unless he be one with them, and wherever a holy being
is indeed one with unholy beings, he is ipso facto a
priestly sanctifier. As for the latter, the self-sacrifice cf
Christ, it is not presented by the writer as included in
any known type of priesthood recognised in Hebrew
history ; not even in the Melchisedec type, so far as
appears on the surface of the argument. The writer
makes no attempt to deduce it as a note of that type ;
there is nothing to show that he even thought such a thing
possible. At most Christ's self-sacrifice is connected
with the Melchisedec excursus by a very slender logical
thread, thus : The story of Melchisedec, with the relative
Messianic oracle in the Psalm, shows that there is a priest
hood for the Christ independent of the Levitical order.
Therefore Jesus as the Christ is a Priest. But if He be a
Priest, He must have something to offer. That something
can be nothing else than Himself ; there is nothing else
to point to. That the act of Jesus in surrendering His
life was sacrificial in its character, and that it exemplified
the highest form of sacrifice, are propositions for which
no proof is offered ; they rest on their own self-evidence.
It thus appears that for the writer, as for us. the
ultimate basis for the priestly conception of Christ's work
was supplied by the two facts above specified. If now
we ask, How did he know these facts ? I presume the
answer must be : Much in the same wav as we know

THE THEOLOGICAL IMPORT OF THE EPISTLE 435
them, namely, through the evangelic tradition, in either a
written or an unwritten form. That was certainly the
source of his knowledge that Jesus endured death in the
form of crucifixion (xii. 2). That it was likewise the
source of his knowledge of the other cardinal fact,
solidarity, may appear more doubtful. That the Sancti
fier was not ashamed to call unsanctified men His
brethren is presented rather as an inference from certain
Messianic texts, than as an induction based on the solid
facts of the gospel history. What a feeble impression
these texts make compared with a single gospel fact, say
the meeting of Jesus with the publicans and sinners of
Capernaum ! Who, in view of that one fact, could for a
moment doubt that the Sinless One was not ashamed to
call sinners His brethren ! Assuredly the fact proves
the thesis well — too well for Hebrew Christian readers.
They could not appreciate such facts ; they would
regard them rather as an integral part of that strange
state of humiliation which was one of the stumbling-
blocks for their faith. Hence, however well he knew
the evangelic tradition, the writer had to deny himself
the pleasure of drawing on it for illustration of Messiah's
solidarity with sinners. He must content himself with
establishing that solidarity by Messianic citations, and
then using it to explain gospel facts viewed as problems,
not as proofs ; such facts as that Christ was born,
tempted, subject to death. Of these he knew from the
evangelic tradition, and doubtless from the same source
he knew of many other significant experiences of Jesus,
His eating and drinking with publicans and sinners
included.

436 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
In connection with the doctrine of Christ's priesthood,
and the sacrificial construction put upon His death, one
has occasion to note the mental versatility of our author.
He is not a man of one idea, the slave of a formula, in
capable of regarding a great subject from more than a
single favourite point of view. He firmly believes in the
sacrificial character of Christ's death; it is a cardinal
tenet of his theology. But that is not the only aspect
under which he views the event. He handles the topic
with great freedom, presenting it under five phases
adapted to varying connections of thought and argumen
tative exigencies. Beginning with the lowest and most
elementary view, and rising gradually to the highest,
they are as follows : —
1. Jesus died once, and once only, as it is appointed
unto all men once to die (ix. 27). On this
view Christ's death is simply an instance of the
common lot.
2. Jesus died as a testator who, by a will, bequeaths
an inheritance (ix. 16). From this point of
view His death might have taken place in any
manner, by disease or by accident. All that is
necessary is that the testator be, and be known
to be, dead, as the condition of the will coming
into effect.
3. The death of Jesus was the culminating point of a
varied experience of suffering through which He
was qualified for His office as Captain of salva
tion. Crucifixion, with all that went before it,
was a discipline for Him, not a sacrifice for
others (ii. 10).

THE THEOLOGICAL IMPORT OF THE EPISTLE 437
4. The death of Jesus, as a sinless Man, broke the
connection between sin and death as its penalty,
and so delivered sinful men from the fear of
death as penal (ii. 14, 15). On this view the
idea is not that the Sinless One dies instead of
the sinful, but that the Sinless One, though
sinless, dies ; nor does any emphasis lie on the
manner of His death.
5. The death of Jesus was a priestly act of self-sacrifice
whereby He " perfected for ever them that are
sanctified" (x. 14).
All those five views of the same event possessed for
the time real, though not equal, apologetic value. They
helped Hebrew Christians to see, in one way or another,
why it behoved Jesus to die. Dogmatic theology has
made little or no use of any but the last. It is, of
course, by far the most important, but a theological
system is self -impoverished which finds no place under its
categories for the third aspect, which presents Christ's
death in a light at once eminently human and eminently
. natural. From this point of view the earthly career of
Jesus, with its tragic experience of suffering, is invested
with the unique ethical interest of a heroic life lived
under the hardest conditions. Then from the same point
of view the whole suffering experience of Jesus, including
His death, is seen to be the natural result of His moral
fidelity. The cross came to Him because He cared
supremely for the Divine interest and for duty. It is
not a matter of minor moment whether 'Christians
know and confess these things or ignore them. That
Socinians make everything of this aspect of Christ's

438 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
sufferings is no reason why we should make nothing
of it. One thing more must be said of Christ's priestly func
tion. It has been said again and again in the exposition
but it needs repetition. Christ's sacrifice is not on the
same level with Levitical sacrifice. A recent wiiter on
the theology of our Epistle, comparing Christianity with
Leviticalism, has remarked : " The religious and theo
logical idea has not varied. ... It is the ritual notion
of bloody sacrifice." 1 The statement is true in form
only, not in substance. Blood, as such, is not the im
portant matter in the sacrifice of Christ, as conceived by
our writer. Blood, death, has value only as revealing
will, spirit. It is the eternal spirit of holy love, the
righteous will fulfilling all righteousness, that gives the
sacrifice of Jesus transcendent worth, and makes it differ
toto cozlo from the ritual sacrifices of Leviticalism. Till
that truth is clearly seen, and firmly grasped, we have
not escaped from the religion of shadows.
When spirit, as distinct from flesh and blood, has
taken its due place in Christian thought, there will be
no desire to leave behind the conception of Christ as a
Priest, as unworthy of the final religion. Jesus Christ
will be trusted and adored as the great High Priest of
humanity. But the religion of the spirit will acknow
ledge no other priest beside Him. Priestcraft, sacer
dotalism, sacraments tinned into magic sources of spiritual
benefit, have no place in true Christianity. They are a
lapse back to the era of shadows, a lapse only too
intelligible and explicable, nevertheless lamentable. There
1 Meitdgoz, p. 255.

THE THEOLOGICAL IMPORT OF THE EPISTLE 439
is nothing to encourage such a lapse in our Epistle. It
has been truly said that " no writing, apparently, is less
favourable to the establishment of a human priesthood
than the treatise in which it is proved that Christ has
put an end to the Levitical priesthood, substituting for
the terrestrial high priests and material sacrifices of the
old covenant the celestial sacrifice, unique, supreme, final,
in which He combines the functions of Priest and Victim.
Henceforth no more need of new priests and new sacri
fices." x Yet the same writer contends that the doctrinal
premises of this conception are such as necessarily lead
to the reconstruction of a new sacerdotal order, and even
finds in the r)yovp,evoi of chapter xiii, as the regular
intermediaries of the work of salvation, the rudiments
of such an order. This is simply a plausible error.
Doubtless the parallelism run between Levitical priests
and Christ might lead Christian readers to assimilate
Christian pastors to Levitical priests, till at length sacer
dotal conceptions of the Christian ministry took full
possession of men's minds. But this would be only an
instance of the abuse of Scripture by persons who, while
conversant with the letter, failed to penetrate its spirit.
As for the r)yovp.evoi or " leaders," no functions are
ascribed to them save such as the most orthodox Protes
tant might ascribe to his pastor. All pastors " watch for
souls," and there was much need for such watchers in
a Church which was in imminent danger of dissolution
through the cowardice and disloyalty of its. members.
The priestly vocation of Christ implies a lofty concep
tion of His Person. He whose function it is to bring
1 Seville, Les Origines de L'Episcopat, pp. 391, 392.

440 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
men nigh to God, the great end of religion, must be Him
self very near to God in character and in nature. So
accordingly Christ appears in our Epistle. He is repre
sented as near to God in character — " without sin "
(iv. 15). The very title " Sanctifier " implies such moral
nearness to the Divine Being. The solidarity between
Sanctifier and sanctified is subject to this limitation, that
while the latter are sinners the former is not. A sancti
fier, from the nature of the case, must be holy in some
sense, ritually at least, or by comparison with those he
sanctifies — as a saint is holy compared with ordinary
men. The ideal sanctifier, possessing the highest qualifi
cations for his function, will be really not ritually holy,
holy absolutely, not relatively. The type of priesthood
exemplified in Christ guarantees rare, if not unique,
absolute, moral excellence. It is a type in which Priest
and Victim are combined in the same person. Its sacri
fice is self-sacrifice. Jesus sanctified sinners by giving
Himself in life and in death for them. Such self-
devotion is possible only for one whose spirit is pure,
noble, heroic.
Christ is also represented as very near to God in
nature. He is called " the Son," a name wliich seems to
place Him at once within the sphere of the Divine. It has
been maintained that it is not the intention of the writer
to ascribe Deity in the strict sense to the Son. In
answer to this it may be affirmed that it was the interest
of the writer, as the eulogist of Christ's priesthood, to
charge His Sonship with the greatest possible fulness of
meaning. The greater the condescension the greater the
merit of the self-sacrifice, and the higher the dignity the

THE THEOLOGICAL IMPORT OF THE EPISTLE 441
greater the condescension. The condescension reaches a
maximum when the self-devoted One stoops down from a
position of Divine Majesty. The same interest, that of
magnifying the sacrifice, requires the Sonship to be of
older date than the life on earth. Self-consecration
within the limits of a human life is great, but greater is
a devoted mind whose first act is to enter humanity, in
order therein to exhibit in life and death the " eternal
spirit " of self-sacrifice. From yet another point of view
the Deity of Christ may be said to be a postulate of the
system of thought embodied in our Epistle. Its great
doctrine is the absolute, perfect, and therefore final nature
of the Christian religion. But Christianity cannot be the
absolute religion unless Jesus, the Author and Finisher
of faith, the object of Christian trust and reverence, have
for faith the religious value of God. The Son and the
Father must be one.
The Divine dignity of the Son is asserted in the Epistle
in no stinted terms, but that does not prevent the author
from doing equal justice to the earthly state of humiliation.
The dignity is asserted with emphasis to enhance the
greatness of the sacrifice, not to eclipse it. The writer
was therefore only consistent with himself in not allowing
the sacrifice to be eclipsed. He was under no temptation
to cast a veil over the humiliation, because, as was pointed
out in the exposition, there was for his mind no incom
patibility between the dignity and the apparent degradation.
The Son on the throne and the Son wearing human garb
and suffering mortal pain was the same in spirit — a
priest for ever in His heart. He left glory behind when
He came into our world, but only to find therein a new

442 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
glory — that of a Captain leading a host through the
hardships of the wilderness to the promised land. A
new glory, yet not altogether new, for the glory of the
Son had from of old been that of One who in purpose
was a Lamb slain.
The thoughtful student of our Epistle feels that the
writer speaks of the humiliation state not by constraint
but willingly, as one charmed by its unique pathos. No
theme was more welcome to his mind. He could, one
imagines, have sympathised with the sentiment of Anselm
when he said, " I know not how it is that Thou art far
sweeter in the heart of one who loves Thee in that Thou
art flesh, than in that Thou art the Word ; sweeter in
Thy humility than in Thy exaltation." 1
The humiliation of Christ is described as reahstically
as is possible without concrete detail such as could not
easily find a place within the limits of an epistle. The
Son became man, like other men, through birth ; subject
therefore to the law of physical and mental growth. On
arriving at maturity, He experienced temptation under all
the variety of forms with which life makes other men
acquainted. Ever loyal to the right amid these moral
trials, He encountered the troubles which overtake all
who are animated by the passion for righteousness. He
endured the " contradiction of sinners " — was misunder
stood, maligned, hated, put to death, by men who were
very religious and yet the most malignant enemies of God
1 " Et certe nescio, quia nee plene comprehendere valeo, unde hoc
est, quod longe dulcior es in corde diligentis te in eo quod caro es,
quam in eo quod verbum : dulcior in eo quod humilis, quam in eo
quod sublimis." Meditatio xii., De Humanitate Christi, near the
beginning.

THE THEOLOGICAL IMPORT OF THE EPISTLE 443
and all real good. All this He bravely bore, yet not
without shrinking, and even, at the last crisis, deadly
overmastering fear, revealing very human though innocent
infirmity. To this infirmity, in the garden, He gave
unrestrained utterance " with strong crying and tears."
Finally, He was subject to the law of growth even in the
moral sphere, reaching perfection only by a process of
development, as in the case of ordinary men ; learning
trust, sympathy, obedience by testing experience. The
Gospels supply the data for verifying the truth of this
picture, but nowhere else in the New Testament are the
earthly lot and human behaviour of Jesus depicted
in such vivid and lifelike colours. Not even all the
Gospels (not Luke, e.g.) show us Jesus in the weakness of
His flesh side by side with the purity of His spirit, as He
is exhibited here. We are so accustomed to one-sidedness
in human thought, even in the case of philosophers, that
we hardly expect one whose delight it was to contemplate
the Divine dignity of the Son to display such masterliness
in the treatment of His lowliness. Think of Philo with
his Logos invested with the most dazzling attributes, but
never allowed to become incarnate or to touch the ground !
What a barren, wearisome splendour it all is, for lack of
a decided contrast ! If our author had ever been a
disciple of Philo, he must have taken lessons in a very
different school before he wrote this Epistle with its
Christ so truly human while divine.
This vivid presentation of the humiliation of Christ
lends itself to the hortatory purposes of the Epistle. The
moire Christ endured in the way of temptation, suffering,
and indignity, the greater His capacity to sympathise

444 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
with Christians subject to similar experiences. It is one
of the aims of the writer to insist on this sympathy, re
garding it as he does as a powerful aid to Christian
fidelity. Hence the strong negative assertion that " we
have not an High Priest who cannot be touched with
the feeling of our infirmities" (iv. 15), and the positive
exhortation to " look unto Jesus the Leader in the life of
faith and the perfect pattern of faith, who braved death
and shame in loyalty to God and duty" (xii. 2). But
the sympathy could not be effectively asserted if the
humiliation were thrown into the shade. It must be
ostentatiously proclaimed, not timidly slurred over. This
accordingly is done with the thoroughness which may be
looked for when a task of delicate nature is performed at
once from personal liking, and with a sense of its utility
to others.
There is nothing on the surface of the Epistle very
distinctive in its way of speaking concerning God. One's
first impression might even be that its dominant idea of
God was that of the Old Testament, wherein God is
chiefly viewed as a moral Governor rendering to every
man according to his work, with special emphasis on the
punitive aspect of Divine Providence. God is described
as " a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him " (xi. 6),
and with stern emphasis as " a consuming fire." A very
different conception this from that suggested by the
genial saying of the Great Teacher on the Mount con
cerning the Father in heaven, " who maketh His sun to
rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the
just and on the unjust," — benignity, not strict retributive
justice, His conspicuous attribute ! The paternal aspect

THE THEOLOGICAL IMPORT OF THE EPISTLE 445
of the Divine character does find recognition, however,
though chiefly in the final hortatory section. There God
is called " the Father of spirits " (xii. 9), and it is set
forth as His supreme aim in all His dealings with His
children to make them " partakers of His holiness "
(xii. 1 0). The expression " Father of spirits " seems to
suggest a paternal relation of God to men as such, co
extensive with the human family, or rather, inclusive of
the human family, embracing it in a larger category, the
world of spirits, including men living in the flesh but
having a spirit, the spirits of just men made perfect, and
angels. In the theoretic part of the Epistle the Father
hood is implied rather than expressed, and chiefly though
not exclusively in reference to Christ. God is by
implication the Father of " the Son," and also of the
many sons whom the Son, as Captain of salvation,
conducts to glory.
That the distinctively Christian conception of God as
Father is comparatively in the background, so far as
formal statement is concerned, may be ascribed to the
exigencies of the apologetic argument rather than to
the imperfectly Christianised condition of the writer's
theology. That Old and New Testament conceptions
should mingle in the idea of God cherished by one living
in a transition time, on the border-line between an old
and a new world, is in itself not surprising. But the
presence of what may be called the pre-Christian element
is due mainly to the fact that the author has to do with
readers who belong to the old world rather than to the
new. Then the historic situation in which the Epistle in
all probability was written — the destruction of Jerusalem

446 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
and of the Jewish State impending — -fully accounts for the
sombre side of the Divine character, as depicted in it,
represented by the repellent phrase, " a consuming fire."
There is a sombre side even in Christ's presentation of
God, due to the same cause — the ruin of the Jewish
people foreseen as a certainty. In the moral order of
the world, God does show Himself at times very really
as a consuming fire. Prophets knew this, Jesus knew it,
apostles knew it ; and however firmly they believed in
and asserted the loving-kindness of God, it was without
prejudice to their belief in, and, when needful, their
earnest proclamation of, the darker aspect of Divine
action as manifested in Providence. It was the un
welcome task of those whose lot was cast in evil times
to give this aspect special prominence. Hence the deep
shadow resting on the countenance of God in our
Epistle. Yet the writer believed with all his heart in the
Father-God of Jesus. How could he help doing so,
holding such a view as he teaches concerning Christianity
as the religion of free access to God ? This central
conception covers the whole ground. A rehgion of un
restricted access is, must be, a religion of sonship in
relation to God as Father. Its spirit is filial, not legal :
it brings its votaries to Mount Zion, not to Mount Sinai.
That is possible only because God is eminently accessible —
above all things gracious — the generous, bountiful giver
of all good, a Being who loves not to dwell in darkness,
apart, but welcomes to His presence even the sinful,
confessing their sin, and treats them as if they had
never sinned, as set forth in the Parable of the Prodigal.

THE THEOLOGICAL IMPORT OF THE EPISTLE 447
In a religion of free access to a gracious God, faith
must necessarily occupy a prominent place. Faith in
man answers to grace in God. We draw near to our
Father in heaven by trust. A gracious God is a
Giver of all good, and men are humble, thankful
receivers, and receiving is faith. The religious function
of faith in trusting God's good will, and accepting His
grace, finds due recognition in our Epistle, as in the
exhortations to come boldly, confidently, unto the
throne of grace (iv. 16), and to draw near in full assur
ance of faith (x. 19), the purpose of the coming being to
receive the blessings of salvation, to obtain mercy and
find grace for seasonable succour. This is Paul's doctrine
of justification by faith, stripped of its theological techni
cality. Paul's doctrine of faith as an energetic principle
making for personal righteousness (Gal. v. 6) also re
appears in our Epistle, but with a noteworthy change in
the form under which it is presented. The action of faith,
in Paul's handling of the topic, is confined to the moral
and religious sphere. The sole question in which he is
interested is the tendency of faith to promote Christian
goodness, to show that faith alone is competent to
all the requirements of the spiritual life, able at once to
" justify " and to " sanctify." The writer of our Epistle
takes a wider view of faith's activity, viewing it as a
principle which enters into and is the secret spring of
all great heroic conduct, of all remarkable historical
characters, from Enoch the saint to Eahab the harlot,
enabling men to subdue kingdoms and stop the mouths
of lions, as well as to work righteousness. Nothing
great done in this world, in any sphere, without faith —

448 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
such is the comprehensive thesis of our author, though it
must be observed that his chief interest also is in the
action of faith within the religious sphere, and that most
of his instances lie within that region. Still, the wide
universal outlook is there, and it is worth noting as a
mark of the philosophic thinker as distinct from the
purely religious thinker exemplified in Paul. Corre
sponding to the wide range of faith's activity is the
motive power which lends it the needful force. In
Paul's presentation faith works by love; in our Epistle faith
derives its virtue from its psychological character as a
faculty of the human mind, whereby it can make the
future present and the unseen visible. This faculty is
not, as such, ethical or religious ; it is a natural endow
ment of man. It was by faith that Columbus persevered
in his voyage of discovery, quite as much as it was by
faith that Abraham set out in quest of the land of
promise, not knowing whither he went. In both cases,
faith's nature, as able to make the future present and
the unseen visible, was signally exemplified. It is not
to be supposed, however, that one man's faith is in all
respects the same as another's. A differentiating prin
ciple comes into play in connection with the kind of
invisibles which faith makes visible. It may be a great
trans-Atlantic western continent, or it may be a heavenly
country, a city whose builder and maker is God. For
the heavenly realities which the philosophic vision of
our author descried, the faith of some men has no eye,
the range of its vision being restricted to this present
life and the tangible interests of time. It is the faith
which sees God, the world above, the life beyond the

THE THEOLOGICAL IMPORT OF THE EPISTLE 449
veil, which, in the view of our Epistle, emphatically
saves. Such faith, it is therein taught, does indeed save.
Witness the description of the men who persevere in
Christian belief as the men of faith unto the winning of
the soul (chap. x. 39).1 This winning of the soul, as our
author conceives it, is a great affair. His idea of salva
tion is not partial and fragmentary, but full, many-sided.
It does not mean merely pardon of sin, though it
embraces that, and in a very ample sense. It includes
nearness to God in life, " holiness, without which no
man shall see the Lord" (xii. 14), loyal obedience to
Jesus Christ the Lord (v. 9), a priestly life of thanks
giving and beneficence (xiii. 15, 16). It means great
good in store for the faithful in another and better
world — lordship in the world to come, a Sabbatic
rest, citizenship in the heavenly Jerusalem. But
the summum bonnm is not exclusively other-worldly.
The felicity of the other world is the reward of an
unworldly life here and now, which forms an essential
ingredient of the state of salvation. The " saved " man
is a moral hero in this present world, and takes his
place among the ranks of the glorious company who have
gained the diploma of righteousness. He wins his soul
1 eis wepiwolr/cnv TJsvxrjs. Vaughan's note here is instructive. "The
verb wepiwoieiv (to make to be over and above) carries the two
ideas of survival and surplus. The former predominates in the
active voice, to save (a life, etc.), the latter in the middle, to
acquire. . . . The noun in its New Testament use takes its colour
from the middle, acquisition. Thus here the thought is that of the
¦^vxv being in this life the stake of the contest, to be won or lost in the
great day." 29

450 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
by being willing to lose life for the sake of truth and
duty. So the Master taught, and the author of this
Epistle understood and earnestly re-echoed His teaching.
In the foregoing rapid sketch we have seen how the
author's theological system springs genetically out of
the radical conception of the Christian religion as the
religion of free access to God. The system in all its
ramifications rises naturally and easily out of the religious
consciousness of a thoroughly Christianised man. It has
not been necessary to take into account the philosophy
of the author, as furnishing the only key to his views on
any topic of cardinal importance, though the philosopher
does appear now and then, as in the manner of describ
ing the Son (chap. i. 1—3) and of defining faith (chap.
xi). At one point only is it necessary to lay his
philosophy under requisition with a view to the full
understanding of his theology. I refer, of course, to his
final utterance on the subject of Christ's self-sacrifice.
It repays us to keep in mind, at this point, his concep
tion of heaven as the locus of realities, and of earth as
the place of shadows. The distinction is not one belong
ing so much to the category of space, as to that of
spiritual value. Hence the thesis : heaven the place of
the real, is convertible : the real is the heavenly.
Heaven is wherever reality is ; earth is a synonym
for the shadowy. Therefore the death of Christ, though
occurring in this visible world on a hill called Calvary,
essentially belongs to the heavenlies. As an act of the
Spirit, it was and is a sacrifice performed in the heavenly
sanctuary. As an act of an Eternal Sphit, it has no
exclusive connection with a certain point of time in

THE THEOLOGICAL IMPORT OF THE EPISTLE 451
human history. It is eternal, and, like Christ Him
self, is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever. Leviti
cal sacrifices, on the other hand, had nothing either of the
heavenly or of the eternal in them. Devoid of spirit,
they belonged exclusively to the region of shadows, and
their effect was momentary and purely conventional.
To this extent a speculative element must be recognised
in the Epistle, and for the charm it lends to the work,
and the aid it brings to the interpreter at a crucial
point in the train of thought, we owe a debt of gratitude
to the writer. Philosophy has not always rendered
good service, unmixed with evil, to theology. But in the
case before us the benefit is real, and there is no draw
back.

THE END

PRINTED BY MORRISON AND GIBB LIMITED, EDINBURGH

PUBLICATIONS OF
T. &c T. C L A B Z,
38 GEORGE STREET, EDINBURGH.
LONDON: SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT, & CO. LIMITED.
Abbott (T. K, B.D., D.Lit.) — Ephesians and Colossians. (Inter
national Critical Commentary.) Rost 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Adam (J., D.D;) — An Exposition of the Epistle of James. 8vo, 9s.
Adamson (Eev, T., D.D.)— Studies of the Mind in Christ. Post
8vo, 4s. 6d.
 The Spirit of Power. Second Edition. Fcap. 8vo, Is.
Ahlfeld (Dr.), etc. — The Voice from the Cross. Cr. 8vo, price 5s.
Alcock (Deborah) — The Seven Churches of Asia.. Is.
Alexander(Prof. W.Lindsay) — Biblical Theology. Twovols.8vo,21s.
Allen (Prof. A. V. G., D.D.) — Life of Jonathan Edwards. Fcap.
8vo, 5s.
 Christian Institutions. (International Theological Library.)
Post 8vo, 12s.
Ancient Faith in Modern Light, The. 8vo, 10s, 6d.
Andrews (S. J.) — The Life of our Lord. Large post 8vo, 9s.
Ante-Nicene Christian Library— A Collection of all the Works
or the Fathers op the Christian Church prior to the Council of
NiasA. Twenty-four vols. 8vo, Subscription price, £6, 6s. Additional
Volume, contaimimg MSS. discovered smce the completion of the Series,
12s:i 6d. net.
Augustine's Works — Edited by Marcus Dods, D.D. Fifteen vols.
8vo, Subscription price, £3, 19s. net.
Balfour (E. G., D.D.) — Central Truths And Side Issues. Crown
8vo, 3s. 6d.
Bannerman (Prof.) — The Church of Christ. Two vols. 8vo,,21s.
Bannerman (D. D., D.D.) — The Doctrine of the Church. 8vo, 12s.
Baumgarten (Professor) — Apostolic History. Three vols. 8vo, 27s.
Bayne (P., LL.D,) — The Free Church of Scotland. Post 8vo,
3s. 6d.
Beck (Dr.) — Outlines of Biblical- Psychology. Crown 8vo, 4s.
 Pastoral Theology of the New Testament. Crown 8vo, 6s.
Bengel-^r&NOMON of the New Testament. With Original Notes,
Explanatory and Illustrative. Five vols. 8vo, Subscription price, 31s. 6d.
Cheaper Edition, the five volumes bound in three, 24s.
Besser's Christ the Life of the World. Price 6s.
Beyschlag (W., D-D.) — New , Testament Theology. Two vols.
demy 8vo, 18s. net.
Bible Dictionary. Edited by Jas. Hastings, D.D. Seepage^. Special
Prospectus on, application. Vol. h now ready.
%* Detailed Catalogue free on application.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Bible-Class Handbooks. Crown 8vo. Forty-four Volumes, Is. 3d;- to
3s. each. Edited by Prof. Marcus Dods, D.D., and Alex. Whyte, D.D.
Detailed List free on application.
Bible-Class Primers. Thirty-four now issued in the Series. Edited
by Prof. S. D. F. Salmond, D.D. Paper covers, 6d. each ; free by post, 7d.
In cloth, 8d. ; free by post, 9d. Detailed List free, on application. .
Blaikie (Prof. W. G., D.D.) — The Preachers of Scotland from the
6th to the 19th Century. Post 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Blake (Buchanan, B.D.) — How to Read the Prophets. Part I.—
The Pre- Exilian Minor Prophets (with Joel). Second Edition, 4s. Part IL
— Isaiah (ch. i.-xxxix.). Second Edition, 2s. 6d. Part III. — Jeremiah, 4s.
Part IV. — Ezekiel, 4s. Part V. — Isaiah (ch. xl.-lxvi.), and the Post-Exilian
Prophets. Tlie Series beimg noto complete, Messrs. Clark offer the Set of Five
Volumes for 15s.
Bleek's Introduction to the New Testament. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
Briggs (Prof. C. A., D.D.) — Biblical Study. Fourth Edition, post
8vo, 7s. 6d.
 American Presbyterianism. Post 8vo, 7s. 6d.
 Messianic Prophecy. Post 8vo, 7s. 6d.
 The Messiah of the Apostles. Post 8vo, 7s. 6d.
 The Messiah of the Gospels. Post 8vo, 6s. 6d.
 Whither? A Theological QuestionfortheTimes. Post8vo,7s.6d.
 The Bible, the Church, and the Reason. Post 8vo, 6s. 6d
 The Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch. 6s. 6d.

Brockelrnann (C.) — Lexicon Syriacum. With a Preface by Professor
T. Noldeke. Crown 4to, 30s. net.
Bruce (Prof. A. B., D.D.) — The Training of the Twelve ; exhibiting
the Twelve Disciples under Discipline for the Apostleship. Fifth Edition,
8vo, 10s, 6d.
 The Humiliation of Christ. 3rd Ed., 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 The Kingdom of God ; or, Christ's Teaching according to the
Synoptical Gospels. New Edition, 7s. 6d.
 Apologetics ; or, Christianity Defensively Stated.
(International Theological Library.) Post 8vo, 10s. 6d.
St. Paul's Conception of Christanity. Post 8vo, 7s. 6d.

Bruce (W. S., D.D.)— The Ethics of the Old Testament. Cr. 8vo, 4s.
Buchanan (Professor) — The Doctrine of Justification. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 On Comfort in Affliction. Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d.
 : — On Improvement of Affliction. Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d.
Bungener (Felix)— Rome and theCouncil in 19™Century. Cr.8vo,5s.
Burton (Prof. E.)— Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New
Testament Greek. New Edition. Post 8vo, 5s. 6d. net.
Calvin's Institutes of Christian Religion. (Translation. )2vols.8vo, 1 4s.
 • Commentaries. Forty -five A'ols.
Calvini Institutio Christiana Religionis. Curavit A. Tholuck..
Two vols. 8vo, Subscription price, 14s.
Candlish (Prof. J. S., D.D.)— The Kingdom of God, Biblically' and
Historically considered. 8vo, 10s. 6d.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Caspar! (C. E.) — A Chronological and Geographical Introduc
tion to the Life op Christ. 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Caspers (A.) — The Footsteps of Christ. Crown 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Cassel (Prof.) — Commentary on Esther. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Cave (Principal A., D.D.) — The Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice
and Atonement. Second Edition, 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 An Introduction to Theology. Second Edition, 8vo, 12s.
Chapman (Principal C, LL.D.) — Pre-Organic Evolution and the
Biblical Idea of God. Crown 8vo, 6s.
Christlieb (Prof. T., D.D.) — Modern Doubt and Christian Belief.
8vo, 10s. 6d.
 Homiletic : Lectures on Preaching. 7s. 6d.
Clark (Professor W. R., LL.D., D.C.L.) — The Anglican Reforma
tion. (Eras of Church History. ) 6s.
Clarke (Professor W. W„ D.D.) — An Outline of Christian
Theology. Post 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Concordance to the Greek Testament— MoultoN (W. F., D.D.) and
Geden (A. S., M.A.). Crown 4t'o, 26s. net.
Crawford (J. H., M.A.) — The Brotherhood of Mankind. Crown
8vo, 5s.
Gremer (Professor) — Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testa
ment Greek. Third Edition, with Supplement, demy 4t'o, 38s.
Crippen (Rev. T. G.) — A Popular Introduction to the History
of Christian Doctrine. 8vo, 9s.
Critical Review of Theological and Philosophical Literature.
Edited by Prof. S. D. F. Salmond, D.D. Quarterly, Is. 6d.
Cunningham (Principal) — Historical Theology. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
Curtiss (Dr. S. I.)— The Levitical Priests. Crown 8vo, 5s.
 Franz Delitzsch : A Memorial Tribute. Portrait. Cr. 8vo, 3s.
Dabney (Prof. R. L., D.D.) — The Sensualistic Philosophy of
the Nineteenth Century considered. Crown 8vo, 6s.
Dahle (Bishop) — Life after Death. Demy 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Davidson (Prof. A.B., D.D., LL.D.)— An Introductory Hebrew
Grammar. With Progressive Exercises in Beading and Writing. 15th
Edition, 8vo, 7s. 6d.
 A Syntax of the Hebrew Language. 2nd Ed., 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Deane (Wm., M.A.) — Pseudepigrapha : An Account of Certain
Apocryphal Writings of the Jews and Early Christians. Post 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Delitzsch (Prof.)— System of Biblical. Psychology, 8vo, 12s,;
New Commentary on Genesis, 2 vols. 8vo, 21s. ; Psalms, ,3 vols., 31s. 6d. ;
Proverbs, 2 vols., 21s. ; Song of Solomon and Ecolesiastes, 10s. 6d. ;
Isaiah, Fourth Edition, rewritten; 2 vols., 21s. ; Hebrews, 2 vols., 21s.
Dictionary of the Bible, A. (See page 16.) .
Dillmann (Prof. A., D.D.) — Genesis : Critical and Exegetical Com
mentary. Two vols., 21s.
Doedes — Manual of New Testament Hermeneutics, Cr. 8vo, 3s.
Dollinger (Dr.)— Hippolyt/US and Callistus. 8vo, 7s. 6d. .-.
 Declarations and Letters on the Vatican Decrees,
1869-1887. : Authorised Translation. .Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d. .,
Dorner (Professor)— History of the Development of the Doctrine
of the Person of Christ. Five vols. 8vb, £2, '12s'. 6d.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Dorner (Professor) — System of Christian Doctrine, i vols. 8 vo, £2, 2s.
 System of Christian Ethics. 8vo, 14s.
Driver (Prof. S. R., D.D.)— An Introduction to the Literature
of the Old Testament. (International Theological Library.). 7th
Edition, post 8 vo, 1 2s,
 Deuteronomy : A Critical and Exegetical Commentary.
[International Critical Commentary.) Post 8vo, 12s.
Du Bose (Prof. W. P., D.D.)— Tre Ecumenical Councils. (Eras
' of Church History.) 6s.
Duff (Prof. David, D.D.)— 'The Early Church. 8vo, 12s.
Dyke (Paul Van) — The Age of the Renascence. With an Intro
duction by Henry Van Dyxe. (Eras of Church History.) 6s.
Eadie (Professor)— Commentaries on St. Paul's Epistles to the
Ephesians, Philifpians, Colossians. New and .Revised Editions, Edited
by Rev. Wm. Young, M.A. Three vols. 8vo, 10s. 6d. each ; or set, 18s. net.
Ebrard (Dr. J. H. A.)— The Gospel History. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 ¦ Apologetics. Three vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d.
 Commentary on the Epistles of St. John. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Edgar (R. M'C, D.D.) — The Gospel of a Risen Saviour. Post 8vo,
7s. 6d.
Elliotts — On.the Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. 8vo, 6s.
Eras of the Christian Church —
" •'" Dc Bose (Prof. W. P., D.D.)— The Ecumenical Councils. 6s.
Waterman (Ii., D.D.) — The Post- Apostolic Age. 6s.
Dyke (Paul Van) — The Age of the Renascence. 6s.
Locke (Clinton, D.D.) — The Age of the Great Western Schism. 6s.
Ludlow (J. M., D.D.) — The Age of the Crusades. 6s.
Vincent (Prof. M. R., D.D.)— The Age of Hildebrand. 6s.
Clark (Prof. W. R., LL.D., D.C.L.)— The Anglican Reformation. 6s.
Wells (Prof. 0. L. )— The Age of Charlemagne. 6s.
The following ,T,wo Volumes, completing the Series, are in preparation- -
Bartlet (J. Vernon, .M.A.) — The Apostolic. Age.
Walker (Prof. W., Ph.D., D.D.)— The Protestant Reformation.
Ernesti — Biblical Interpretation of New Testament. Two vols.,8s.
Ewald (Heinrich) — Hebrew Syntax.. 8vo, 8s. 6d.
 Revelation: Its Nature and Record. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 Old and New Testament Theology. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Expository Times. Edited by James Hastings, D.D. Monthly, 6d.
Fairbaixn (Prin.) — The Revelation of Law in Scripture, 8vq, 1.0s. 6d.
 Ezikiel and the Book of his Prophecy. 4thEd.,8vo, 10s. 6d.
 Prophecy. Second Edition, 8vo, 10s. 6d.
— — — - Pastoral Theology. Crown 8vo, 6s.
Fisher (Prof. G. P., D.D., LL.D.) — History of Christian Doctrine,
(International Theological Library.) Post 8vo, 12s.
Forbes (Prof.)-r-SYMMETRiCAL Structure of Scripture, 8vo, 8s. 6d.
 Analytical Commentary on Romans. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 Studies in the Book of Psalms. 8vo, 7s. 6d.
 The Servant of the Lord in Isaiah xl.-lxvi. Cr, 8vo, 5s.

T. and T. Clark's Publications. 5
Foreign Theological Library — For details seep. 13.
Forrest (D. W., M.A.)— The Christ of History and of Ex
perience. 10s. 6d. . ,. ".:..
Frank (Prof.F. H.)— System of Christian Certainty. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Funcke (Otto) — The World of Faith and the Everyday World,
As displayed in the Footsteps of Abraham. Post 8vo, 7s. 6d. ¦
Gebhardt (H.) — The Doctrine of the Apocalypse, and its relation
to the Doctrine of the Gospel and Epistles of John, 8vo, 10s.. 6d. .
Gerlach — Commentary on the Pentateuch. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Gieseler (Dr. J. .C. L.) — Ecclesiastical History. Fourvols. 8vo, £2, 2s.
Gilford (Canon) — Voices of the Prophets. Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d.
Given (Rev. Prof. J. J.) — The Truth of Scripture in connection
with Revelation, Inspiration, and the Canon. 8vo, 6s.
Gladden (Washington, D.D., LL.D.) The Christian Pastor and
the Working Church. (International Theological Library.) Post 8vo,
,10s. 6d.
Glasgow (Prof. ) — ApOcadypse Translated And Expounded. 8vo, lo/6.
Gloag (Paton J., D.D.) — The Messianic Prophecies. Crown 8vo,
7s. 6d.
 Introduction to the Pauline Epistles. 8vo, 12s.
 Introduction to the Catholic Epistles. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 ¦ — Exegetical Studies. Crown 8vo, 5s.
 Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels. 8vo, 7s. 6d.
 The Primeval World. Crown 8 vo, 3s.
Godet (Prof. F.) — An Introduction to the New Testament : ' The
Epistles of St. Paul.' Authorised Translation. 8vo, 12s. 6d. net.
 ¦ — Commentary on St. Luke's Gospel. Two vols. 8vo, 2 Is.
 Commentary on St. John's Gospel. Three vols. 8 vo, 31s. 6d.
 Commentary on Epistle to the Romans. Twovois. 8vo,21s.
 Commentary on 1st Epistle to Corinthians. 2vols. 8vo, 21s.
 Defence of The Christian Faith. Cheap Edition, crown
8vo,,4s.
Gdebel (Siegfried) — The Parables of Jesus. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Gotthold's Emblems ; or, Invisible Things Understood by Things
that are MAde. Crown 8vo, 5s.
Gould (Prof. E. P., D.D.) — St. Mark. (International. Critical
Commentary.) Post Svo, 10s. 6d.
Grimm's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Trans
lated, Revised, and Enlarged by Joseph H. Thayer, I).D. Demy 4to, 36s.
Guyot (Arnold, LL.D.) — Creation; or, The Biblical Cosmogony in the
Light of Modern Science. With IlWt'ratioW Crown 8vo, 5s. 6d.
Hagenbach (Dr. K. R.) — History of Doctrines i 3 vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d.
.  History of the Reformation. 2 vols; 8vo, 21s.
Halcombe (Rev. J. J., M.A.)— What Think Ye of the Gospels ? A
Handbook of Gospel Study. 8vo, 3s. 6d.
Hall (Newman, D.D.) — The Lord's Prayer. Third Edition, crown
8vo, 4s. 6d:
Gethsemane ; or, Leaves, of Healing, from, the Garden of Grief.

Second Edition, crown 8vo, 4s.
— Divine Brotherhood. Crown 8vo, is.'

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Hamilton (T., D.D.) — Beyond the Stars; or, Heaven, its Inhabitants,
Occupations, and Life. Third Edition, crown 8vo, 3s. 6d.
Harless (Dr. C. A.) — System of Christian Ethics. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Harris (S., D.D.) — God the Creator and Lord of All. Two
vols, post 8vo, 16s.
Haupt (Erich) — The First Epistle of St. John. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Havernick (H. A. Ch.) — Introduction to Old Testament. 10s. 6d.
Heard (Rev. J. B., M.A.)— The Tripartite Nature of-Man — Spirit,
Soul, and Body. Fifth Edition, crown 8vo, 6s.
 Old and New Theology. AConstructiveCritique. Cr. 8vo, 6s.
 Alexandrian and Carthaginian Theology contrasted.
The Hulsean Lectures, 1892-93. Crown 8vo, 6s.
Hefele (Bishop) — A History of the Councils of the Church.
Vol. I., to a.d. 325. Vol. II., a.d. 326 to 429. Vol. III., a.d. 431 to the close
of the Council of Chalcedon, 451. Vol. IV., a.d. 451 to 680. Vol. V., a.d.
626 to 787. 8vo, 12s. each.
Hengstenberg (Professor) — Commentary on Psalms, 3 vols. 8vo, 33s. ;
Ecclesiastes, etc, 8vo, 9s. ; Ezekiel, 8vo, 10s. 6d. ; The Genuineness
of Daniel, etc., 8vo, 12s. ; History of the Kingdom of God, 2 vote, 8vo,
21s. ; Christology of the Old Testament, 4 vols. 8vo, £2, 2s. ; St.
John's Gospel, 2 vols. 8vo, 21s.
Herzog — Encyclopedia of Living Divines, etc., of all De
nominations in Europe and America. (Supplement to Herzog's Encyclo
paedia.) Imp. 8vo, 8s.
Hill (Rev. J. Hamlyn, D.D.) — The Earliest Life of Christ
ever Compiled from the Four Gospels: Being 'The Diatessaron of
Tatian' Literally Translated from the Arabic Version, and containing the
Four Gospels woven into one' Story. With an Historical and Critical
Introduction, Notes, and Appendix. ,8vo, 10s. 6d.
 St. Ephraem the Syrian. 8vo, 7s. 6d.

Hodgson (Principal J. M„ M.A., D.Sc, D.D.) — Theologia Pectoris:
Outlines of Religious Faith and Doctrine. Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d.
Hutchison (John, D.D.) — Commentary on Thessalonians. 8vo, 9s.
 Commentary on Philippians. 8vo, 7s. 6d.
 Our Lord's Signs in St. John's Gospel. Demy 8vo, 7s. 6d.
International Critical Commentary.
Driver (Prof. S. R., D.D.)— Deuteronomy. Post 8vo, 12s.
Moore (Prof. G. F., D.D.)— Judges. Post 8vo, 12s.
Gould (Prof. E. P., D.D.)— St. Mark. Post 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Plummer (Alfred, D. D. ) — St. Luke. Post 8vo, 12s.. 
Sanday (Prof. W., D.D.) and Headlam (A. C, B.D.)— Romans. Post
8vo, 12s.
Abbott (Prof. T. K., B.D., D.Lit.)— Ephesians and Colossians. Post
8vo,, 10s. 6d.
Vincent (Prof. M. R., D.D.) — Philippians and Philemon. Post 8vo, 8s. 6d.
For List of future Volumes see p. 15.

T. and T. -Clark's Publications.

International Theological Library.
Driver (Prof. S.R., D.D.)— An Introduction to the Literature of the Old
Testament. Post 8vo, 12s.
Smyth (Newman, D.D.)— Christian Ethics. Post 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Bruce (Prof. A. B., D.D.)— Apologetics. Post 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Fisher (Prof. G. P., D.D., LL.D.)— History of Christian Doctrine. Post
8vo, 12s.,
Allen (Prof. A. V. G., D.D.) — Christian Institutions. Post 8vo, 12s.
MoGiffert (Prof. A. C, Ph.D.)— The Apostolic Age. Post 8vo, 12s.
Gladden (Washington, D.D.)— The Christian Pastor. Post 8vo, 10s. 6d.
For List of future Volumes see p. 14.
Janet (Paul) — Final Causes. Second Edition, demy 8vo, 12s.
 The Theory of Morals. Demy 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Johnstone (Prof. R., D.D.)— Commentary on 1st Peter. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Jones (E. E. C.) — Elements of Logic. 8vo, 7 s. 6d.
Jouffroy— Philosophical Essays. Fcap. 8vo, 5s.
Kaftan (Prof. J., D.D.) — The Truth of the Christian Religion.
Authorised Translation. 2 vols. 8vo, 16s. net.
Kant — The Metaphysic of Ethics. Crown 8vo, 6s.
 Philosophy of Law. Trans, by W. Hastie, D.D. Cr.8yo,5s.
 r Principles of Politics, etc. Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d.
Keil (Prof.)— Pentateuch, 3 vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d. ; Joshua, Judges,
and Ruth, 8vo, 10s. 6d. ; Samuel, 8vo, 10s. 6d. ; Kings, 8vo, 10s. 6d.;
Chronicles, 8vo, 10s. 6d. ; Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 8vo, 10s. 6d. ;
Jeremiah, 2 vols. 8vo, 21s. ; Ezekiel, 2 vojs. 8vo, 21s. ; Daniel, 8vo,
10s. 6d. ; Minor Prophets, 2 vols. 8vo, 21s. ; Introduction to the
Canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament, 2 vols. 8vo, 21s. ;
Handbook of Biblical Archeology, 2 vols. 8vo, 21s.
Kennedy (H. A. A., M.A., D.Sc.)— Sources of New Testament
Greek. Post 8vo, 5s.
Keymer (Rev. N., M.A.)— Notes on Genesis. Crown '8vo, Is. 6d.
Kidd (James, D.D.) — Morality and Religion. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Killen (Prof.) — The Framework of the Church. 8vo, 9s.
 The Old Catholic Church. 8vo, 9s.
 TheIgnatian Epistles Entirely Spurious. Cr. 8vo, 2s. 6d.
Konig (Dr. F. E.)— The Religious History of Israel. Cr. 8vo, 3s. 6d.
Rrummacher (Dr. F. W.) — The Suffering Saviour ; or, Meditations
on the Last Days of the Sufferings of Christ, Eighth Edition, crown 8vo, 6s.
 David, the King of Israel. Second Edition, cr. 8vo, 6s.
 ¦ Autobiography. , Crown 8vo, 6s.
Kurtz (Prof.)— Handbook of Church History (from 1517). 8vo,7s. 6d.
 r History of the Old Covenant. ., Three vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d.
Ladd (Prof. G. T.)— The Doctrine of Sacred Scripture: A
Critical, Historical, and Dogmatic Inquiry into the Origin and Nature of the
Old and New Testaments. Two vols. 8vo, 1600 pp.,, 24s.
Laidlaw (Prof. J., D.D.)— The Bible Dpctrine of Man; or, The
Anthropology and Psychology of Scripture. New Edition Revised and
Rearranged, post 8vo, 7s. 6d.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Lane (Laura M.) — Life of Alexander Vinet. Crown 8vo, 7s. 6<L
Lange (J. P., D.D.)— The Life of our Lord Jesus Christ. Edited
by Marcus Dods, D.D. 2nd Ed., in 4 vols. 8vo, price 28s. net.
 ¦ Commentaries on the Old and New Testaments. Edited
by Philip Schaff, D.D. Old Testament, 14 vols. ; New Testament, 10
vols. ; Apocrypha, 1 vol. Subscription price, net, 15s. each.
St. Matthew and St. Mark, 3 vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d.; St. Luke,

2 vols. 8vo, 18s. : St. John, 2 vols. 8vo, 21s.
Lechler (Prof. G. V., D.D.)— The Apostolic and Post-Apostolic
Times. Their Diversity and Unity in Life and Doctrine. 2 vols. cr. 8vo, 16s.
Lehmann (Pastor) — Scenes from the Life of Jesus. Cr. 8vo, 3s. 6d.
Lewis (Tayler, LL.D.) — The Six Days of Creation. Cr. 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Lichtenberger (P., D.D.) — History of German Theology in the
19th Century. 8vo, 14s.
LiUey (J. P., M.A) — The Lord's Supper : Its 0rigin> Nature, and
Use. Crown 8vo, 5s.
Lisco (F. G.) — Parables of Jesus Explained. Fcap. 8vo, 5s.
Locke (Clinton, D.D.)— The Age of the Great Western Schism.
(Eras of Church History. ) 6s.
Lotze (Hermann) — Microcosmus : An Essay concerning Man and his
relation to the World. Cheaper Edition, 2 vols. 8vo (1450 pp ), 24s;
Ludlow (J. M., D.D.)— The Age of the Crusades. (Eras of
Church History.) 6s.
Luthardt, Kahnis, and Bruckner — The Church. Crown 8vo, 5s.
Luthardt(Prof) — St. John the Author of theFourth Gospel. 7s.6d.
 Commentary on St. John's Gospel. 3 vols. 8vo, 31s. 6<L
 History of Christian Ethics. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Apologetic Lectures on the Fundamental (7 Ed.), Saving

(5 Ed.), Moral Truths of Christianity (4 Ed.). 3 vols. cr. 8vo,/6s. each.
Macdonald — Introduction to Pentateuch. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
 The Creation and Fall. 8vo, 12s.
Macgregor (Rev. Jas., D.D.) — The Apology of the Christian
Religion. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 The Revelation and the Record: Essays on Matters of
Previous Question in the Proof of Christianity. 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Studies in the History of New Testament Apologetics.

8vo, 7s. 6d.
Macgregor (Rev. G. H. C, M.A.)^So Great Salvation. Crown
32m©, Is,
Macpherson (Rev. John, M.A.)— Commentary on the Epistle to
the Ephesians. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 Christian Dogmatics. Post 8vo, 9s.
McCosh (James), Life of. 8vo, 9s.
McGiffert (Prof. A. C, Ph.D.) — History of Christianity in the
Apostolic Auk. (International Theological. Library.) Post Svo, 12s.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

M'Realsham (E. D.)— Romans Dissected. A Critical Analysis of the
Epistle to the Romans. Crown 8vo, 2s.
Mair (A., D.D.) — Studies in the Christian Evidences. Third
Edition, Revised and Enlarged, crown 8vo, 6s.
Martensen (Bishop)— Christian Dogmatics. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 Christian Ethics. . (General — Individual — Social.)
Three vols. 8vo, 10s. 6d. each.
Matheson (Geo., D.D.) — Growth of the Spirit of Christianity, from
the First Century to the Dawn of the Lutheran Era. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
Meyer (Dr.) — Critical and Exegetical Commentaries on the
New Testament. Twenty vols. 8vo. Subscription Price, £5, 5s. net;
Non- Subscription Price, iOs. 6d. each volume.
St. Matthew, 2 vols. ; Mark and Luke, 2 vols. ; St. John, 2 vols. ;
Acts,, 2 vols. ; Romans, 2 vols. ; Corinthians, 2 vols. ; Galatians, one vol. ;
Ephesians and Philemon, one vol. ; Philippians and Colossians, one vol. ;
Thessalonians (Dr. Lunemann), one vol. ; The Pastoral Epistles (Dr.
Huther), one vol. ; Hebrew's (Dr. Lunemann), one vol. ; St. James and St.
John's Epistles (Huther), one vol. ; Peter and Jude (Dr. Huther), one vol.
Michie (Charles, M. A.)— Bible Words and Phrases. i8mo, Is.
Milligan (Prpf. W., D.D.) — The Resurrection of the Dead.
Second Edition, crown 8vo, 4s. 6d.
Milligan (Prof. W., D.D.) and Moulton (W. F., D.D.) -^ Com
mentary on the Gospel of St. John. Imp. Svo, 9s.
Monrad (Dr. D. G.)— The World of Prayer. Crown Svo, 4s. 6d.
Moore (Prof. G. P., D.D.)— Judges. (International, Critical Com
mentary.) Post 8vo, 12s.
Morgan (J., D.D.) — Scripture Testimony to the Holy Spirit. 7s. 6d.
 Exposition of the First Epistle of John. 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Moulton (W. F., D.D.) and Geden (A. S., M.A.) — A Concordance
to the Greek Testament. Crown 4to, 26s. net, and 31s. 6d. net. ,
Muir (Sir W.) — Mohammedan Controversy, Etc. 8vo, ,7s. ,6d.
fltuller (Dr. Julius)— The Christian Doctrine of Sin. 2 vols. 8vo, 21s.
Murphy (Professor)— Commentary on the Psalms., 8vo, 12s.
 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Exodus. 9s.
NaviUe (Ernest)— The Problem of Evil. Crown 8vo, 4s. 6d.
 The Christ. Translated by Rev. T. J. Despr^s. Cr. 8 vo, 4s. 6d.
 Modern Physics. Crown 8vo, 5s.
Neander (Dr.) — Church History. Eight vols. Svo, £2, 2s. net.
Nicoll (W. Robertson, M.A.., LL.D.)— The Incarnate Saviour.
Cheap Edition, price 3s. 6d.
Novalis— Hymns and Thoughts on Religion. Crown 8vo, 4s.
Oehler (Prof.) — Theology of the Old Testament. 2 vols. 8vo, 21s.
Olshausen (Dr. H.) — Biblical Commentary on the Gospels and
Acts. Four vols. 8vo, £2, 2s. Cheaper Edition, four vols, crown Svo, 24s.
 Romans, one vol. 8vo, 10s; 6d. ; Corinthians, one vol. 8vo,
9s. ; Philippians, Titus, and First Timothy, one vol. 8vo, Ids. 6d.
Oosterzee (Dr. Van) — The Year of Salvation. 2 vols. 8vo, 6s. each.
 Moses : A Biblical Study. Crown 8vo, 6s.

i o T. and T. Clark's Publications.
Orelli (Dr. C. von) — Old Testament Prophecy ; Commentary on
Isaiah ; Jeremiah ; The Twelve Minor Prophets. 4 vols. 8vo,
10s. 6d. each.
Owen (Dr. John) — Works. Best and only Complete Edition. Edited
by Rev. Dr. Goold. Twenty-four vols. 8vo, Subscription price, £4, 4s.
The 'Hebrews' may be had separately, in seven vols., £2, 2s. net.
Pbilippi (F. A.) — Commentary on the Romans. Two vols. Svo, 21s.
Piper — Lives of Leaders of Church Universal. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
Popular Commentary on the New Testament. Edited by Philip
Schaff, D.D. With Illustrations and Maps. Vol. I. — The Synoptical
Gospels. Vol. II. — St. John's Gospel, and the Acts of the Apostles.
Vol. III.— Romans to Philemon. Vol. IV. — Hebrews to Revelation.
In four vols, imperial 8vo, 12s. 6d. each.
Plummer (Alfred, D.D ) — St. Luke. (International Critical Com
mentary.) Post 8vo, 12s.
Pressense (Edward de) — The Redeemer : Discourses. Crown 8vo, 6s.
Punjer (Bemhard) — History of the Christian Philosophy of
Religion from the Reformation to Kant. 8vo, 16s.
Rabiger (Prof.) — Encyclopaedia of Theology. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
Rainy (Principal) — Delivery and Development of Christian
Doctrine. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Reusch (Prof.) — Nature and the Bible: Lectures on the Mosaic
History of Creation in Relation to Natural Science. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
Reuss (Professor) — History of the Sacred Scriptures of the New
Testament. 640 pp. 8vo, 15s.
Riehm (Dr. E.) — Messianic Prophecy. New Edition. Post 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Bitter (Carl) — Comparative Geography of Palestine. 4 vols. 8vo, 26s.
Robinson (Rev. S., D.D.) — Discourses on Redemption. 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Robinson (E., D.D. ) — Greek and Eng. Lexicon of the N. Test. 8vo, 9s.
Rooke (T. G., B.A.) — Inspiration, and other Lectures. 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Ross (C.)— Our Father's Kingdom. Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d.
Rothe (Prof.) — Sermons for the Christian Year. Cr. Svo, 4s. 6d.
Saisset — Manual of Modern Pantheism. Two vols. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Salmond (Prof. S. X>. F„ D.D.) — The Christian Doctrine of
Immortality. 8vo, 14s.
Sanday (Prof. W., D.D.) and Headlam (A. C, B.D.)— Romans.
(International Critical Commentary.) Pust 8yo, 12s.
Sartorius (Dr. E.) — Doctrine of Divine Love. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Schaff (Professor) — History of the Christian Church. (New
Edition, thoroughly Revised and Enlarged.) Six 'Divisions,' in 2 vols^
each, extra 8vo.
1. Apostolic Christianity, a.d. 1-100, 2 vols. 21s. 2. Ante-Nicene,
a.d. 100-325, 2 vols., 21s. 3. Nicene and Post-Nicene, a.d. 325-600,
2 vols., 21s. 4. Mediaeval, a.d. 590-1073, 2 vols., 21s. (Completion of
this Period, 1073-1517, in preparation). 5. The Swiss Reformation,
2 vols., extra demy 8vo, 21s. 6. The German Reformation, 2 vols., extra
demy 8vo, 21s.

T. and T. Clark's Publications. 1 1
Schleiermacher's Christmas Eve. Crown Svo, 2s.
Schmid's Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Schubert (Prof. H. Von., D.D.) — The Gospel of St. Peter. Synoptical
Tables. With Translation and Critical Apparatus. 8vo, Is. 6d, net.
Schultz (Hermann) — Old Testament Theology. Two vols. 1,8s. net.
Sehiirer (Prof.) — History of the Jewish People. 5 vols. 8vo, 52/6.
Schwartzkopif (Dr. P.) — The Prophecies of Jesus Christ. Crown
8vo, 5s.
Scott (Jas., M.A., D.D.) — Principles of New Testament Quotation
Established and Applied to Biblical Criticism. Cr. 8vo, 2nd Edit., 4s.
Sell (K, D.D.) — The Church in the Mirror of History. Cr. 8vo, 3/6.
Shedd — History of Christian Doctrine. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
 Sermons to the Natural Man. 8vo, 7s. 6d.
 Sermons to the Spiritual Man. 8vo, 7s. 6d.
 Dogmatic Theology. Three vols. ex. 8vo, 37s. 6d.
Simon (Prof.) — The Bible; An Outgrowth or Theocratic Life. Cr.8vo,4/6.
 The Redemption of Man. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 Reconciliation by Incarnation. Post 8vo, 7 s. 6d.
Skene-Bickell — The Lord's Supper & The Passover Ritual. 8vo, 5s.
Smeaton (Professor) — Doctrine of the Holy Spirit. 2nd Ed. , 8vo, 9s-
Smith (Professor Thos., D.D.) — Mediaeval Missions. Cr, 8vo, 4s. 6d.
Smyth (Newman, D.D.) — Christian Ethics. (Internationai Theo
logical Library.) Post 8vo, 10s. 6d. ' . ¦•¦ -
Somerville (Rev. D., M.A.)— St. Paul's Conception of Christ. 9s.
Stahlin (Leonh.)— Kant, Lotze, and Ritschl. 8vo, 9s.
Stalker (Jas., D.D.) — Life of Christ. Large Type Ed., cr.! Svo, 3s. 6d.
 Life of St. Paul. Large Type Edition, crown 8vo> 3s. 6d.
Stanton (V. H., D.D.)— The Jewish and The Christian Messiah.
A Study in the Earliest History of Christianity. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Stead (F. H.) — The Kingdom of God. Is. 6d.
Steinmeyer (Dr. F. L.) — The Miracles of our Lord. 8yo, 7s. 6d,
Steinmeyer (Dr. ,F. L.) — The History of the Passion and Resur
rection of our Lord, considered in the Light of Modern Criticism. 8vo.
10s. 6d.
Stevenson (Mrs.) — The Symbolic Parables. Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d.
Steward (Rev. G.)— Mediatorial Sovereignty. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
 The Argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 8vo, l0s.6d.
Stier (Dr. Rudolph)— On the Words of the Lord Jesus. Eight
vols. 8vo, Subscription price of £2, 2s. Separate volumes, price 10s. 6d.
 The Words of the Risen Saviour, and Commentary on
the Epistle of St. James. 8vo, 10s: 6d.
The Words of the Apostles Expounded. 8vo, 10s. 6d.

Stirling (Dr. J. Hutchison)— Philosophy and Theology. Post 8vo, 9s.
—  Darwinianism : Workmen and Work. Post 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Tholuck (Prof.) — The Epistle to the Romans. Two vols. fcap. 8vo, 8s.

1 2 T. and T. Clark's Publications.
Thomson (J. E. H, B.D.) — Books which Influenced our Lord
and His Apostles. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Thomson (Rev. E. A.) — Memorials of a Ministry. Crown 8vo, 5s.
Tophel (Pastor G.) — The Work of the Holy Spirit. Cr. 8vo, 2s. 6d.
Troup (Rev. G. Elmslie, M.A.) — Words to Young Christians:
Being Addresses to Young Communicants. On antique laid paper, chaste
binding, fcap. 8vo, 4s. 6d.
Uhlhorn(G.) — Christian CharityintheAncientChurch. Cr.8vo,6s.
Ullmann (Dr. Carl) — Reformers before the Reformation, princi
pally in Germany and the Netherlands. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
Urwick (W., M.A.)— The Servant of Jehovah: A Commentary
upon Isaiah Iii. 13-liii. 12; with Dissertations upon Isaiah xl.-lxvi. 8vo, 3s.
Vinet (Life and Writings of). By L. M. Lane. Crown 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Vincent (Prof. M. R., D.D.)— The Age of Hildebrand. (Eras of
Church History.) 6s.
 Philippians and Philemon. (International Critical Com
mentary.) Post 8vo, 8s. 6d.
Walker (James, of Carnwath) — Essays, Papers, and Sermons.
Post Svo, 6s.
Walker (J., D.D.)— Theology and Theologians of Scotland.
New Edition, crown 8vo, 3s. 6d.
Warfield (B. B.) — The Right of Systematic Theology. Crown
8vo, 2s.
Waterman (L., D.D.) — The Post-Apostolic Age. (Eras of Church
History. ) 6s.
Watt (W. A.) — The Theory of Contract in its Social Light.
8vo, Ss.
Watts (Professor) — The Newer Criticism and the Analogy of
the Faith. Third Edition, crown 8vo, 5s.
 The Reign of Causality :. A Vindication of the Scientific
Principle of Telic Causal Efficiency. Crown 8vo, 6s.
The New Apologetic. Crown 8vo, 6s.

Weir ( J. F., M.A.) — The Way : The Nature and Means of Salvation.
Ex. crown 8vo, 6s. 6d.
Weiss (Prof. ) — Biblical Theology of New Testament. 2 vols. 8 vo, 21s.
 — Life of Christ. Three vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d.
Wells (Prof. C. L.)— The Age of Charlemagne. (Eras of the
Christian Church.) 6s.
Wendt (H. H, D.D.)— The Teaching of Jesus. 2 vols. Svo, 21s.
Wenley (R. M.)— Contemporary Theology and Theism. Crown
8vo, 4s. 6d.
White (Rev. M.) — Symbolical Numbers of Scripture. Cr. 8vo, 4s.
Williams (E. F., D.D.) — Christian Life in Germany. Crown 8vo, 5s,,
Winer (Dr. G. B.)— A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testa
ment Greek, regarded as the Basis of New Testament Exegesis. Third
Edition, edited by W. F. Moulton, D.D. Ninth English Edition, 8vo, 15s.
 The Doctrines and Confessions of Christendom. 8vo,ios.6d.
Witherow(Prof . T. ,D.D. ) —The Form of the Christian Temple. 8vo,io/6.
Woods (F. H., B.D.)— The Hope of Israel. Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d.
Workman (Prof . G. C.) — The Text of Jeremiah; or, A Critical Investi
gation of the Greek and Hebrew, etc. Post 8vo, 9s.
Wright (C. H., D.D.)— Biblical Essays. Crown 8vo, 5s.

T. and T. Clark's Publications. 13
THE FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY.
The following are the Works from which a Selection of Ei^ht Volumes for £2, 2s. (or more at the
same ratio) may be made. (Non-subscription Price within brackets) : —
Baumgarten— The History of the Church in the Apostolic Age. Three Vols (27s.)
Bleek— Introduction to the New Testament. Two Vols. (21s.)
Cassel— Commentary on Esther. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Christlieb— Modern Doubt and Christian Belief. One Vol. (10s. 64.)
Delitzsch — New Commentary on Genesis. Two Vols. (21s.)
 Commentary on the Psalms. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.)
 Commentary on the Proverbs of Solomon. Two Vols. (21s.)
 Commentary on Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
 Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah. Last Edition. Two Vols. (21s.)
 Commentary on Epistle to the Hebrews. Two Vols (21s.)
 A System of Biblical Psychology. One Vol. (12s.)
Dollinger— Hippolytus and Callistus ; or, The Church of Rome : A.D. 200-260. One Vol. (7s. 6d.>
Dorner— A System of Christian Doctrine. Four Vols. (42s.)
 History of the Development of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ. Five Vols. (52s. 6d. ).
Ebrard— Commentary on the Epistles of St. John. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
 The Gospel History. One Vol. (10si 6d.) Apologetics. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.)
Ewald— Revelation : Its Nature and Record. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
 Old and New Testament Theology. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Frank— System of Christian Certainty. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Gebhardt — Doctrine of the Apocalypse. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Gerlach— Commentary on the Pentateuch. One Vol. (10s, 6d.)
Gieseler— Compendium of Ecclesiastical History : A.D. 451-1409. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.)
Godet— Commentary on St. Luke's Gospel. Two Vols. (21s.)
 Commentary on St. John's Gospel. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.)
 Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Two Vols. (21s.)
 . Commentary on 1st Corinthians. Two Vols. (21s.)
Goebel— On the Parables. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Hagenbach— History of the Reformation. Two Vols. (21s.)
 History of Christian Doctrines. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.)
Harless— A System of Christian Ethics. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Haupt— Commentary on the First Epistle of St. John. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Haverni ok— General Introduction to the Old Testament. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Hengstenberg— Christology of the Old Testament. Four Vols. (42s.),
 Commentary on the Psalms. Three Vols. (33s.)
 On the Book of Ecclesiastes, etc. etc. One Vol. (9s.)
 Commentary on the Gospel of St. John. Two Vols. (21s.)
 Commentary on Ezekiel. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
 Dissertations on the Genuineness of Daniel, etc. One Vol. (12s.)
 The Kingdom of God under the Old Covenant. Two Vols. (21s.)
Hell— Introduction to the Old Testament. Two Vols. (21s.)
 Commentary on the Pentateuch. ' Three Vols. (31s. 6d.)
 Commentary on Joshua, Judges, and Ruth. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)<
 Commentary on the Books of Samuel. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
 Commentary on the Books of Kings. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
 Commentary on the Books of Chronicles. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
 Commentary on Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
 Commentary on Jeremiah and Lamentations. Two Vols. (21s.)
 Commentary on Ezekiel. Two Vols. (21s.) Book of Daniel. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
 Commentary on the Minor Prophets. Two Vols. (21s.)
 Biblical Archaeology. Two Vols. (21s.)
Kurtz— History of the Old Covenant ; or, Old Testament Dispensation. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.)
Lange— Commentary on the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.)
 Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke. Two Vols. (18s.) St. John. Two Vols. (21s.)-
Luthardt— Commentary on the Gospel of St. John. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.)
 History of Christian Ethics to the Reformation. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Maedonald— Introduction to the Pentateuch. Two Vols. (21s.)
Martensen— Christian Dogmatics. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
 Christian Ethics. General— Social— Individual. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.)
Mflller— The Christian Doctrine of Sin. Two Vols. (21s.)
Murphy— Commentary on the Psalms. To count as Two Volumes. One Vol. (12s.)
Neander— General History of the Christian Religion and Church. Vols. I. to VIII. (60s.)
Oehler— Biblical Theology of the Old Testament. Two Vols. (21s.)
Olshausen— Commentary on the Gospels and Acts. Four Vols. (42s.)
 Commentary on Epistle to the Romans. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Corinthians. One Vol (9s.)»
 Commentary on Philippians, Titus, and 1st Timothy. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Orelli— Prophecy regarding Consummation of God's Kingdom. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
 Commentary on Isaiah. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Jeremiah. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Philippi— Commentary on Epistle to Romans. Two Vols. (21s.)
KSbiger— Encyclopaedia of Theology. Two Vols. (21s.)
Ritter— Comparative Geography of Palestine,. Four Vols. (26s.)
Sartorius— The Doctrine of Divine Love. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Schflrer— The Jewish People in the Time of Christ. Five Vols. (10s. 6d. each.)
Shedd— History of Christian Doctrine. Two Vols. (21s.)
Steinmeyer— History of the Passion and Resurrection of our Lord. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
 The Miracles of our Lord in relation to Modern Criticism. One Vol (7s. 6d.)
Stier— The Words of the Lord Jesus. Eight Vols. (10s. 6d. per vol.)
 The Words of the Risen Saviour, and Commentary on Epistle of St. James. One Vol. (10s. 6d ) -
 The Words of the Apostles Expounded. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Dllmann— Reformers before the Reformation. Two Vols. (21s.)
Weiss— Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 2V0IS. (21s.) The Life of Christ. 3 Vols. (31s. 6d.) •
Winer— Collection of the Confessions of Christendom. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)

H

T. and T. Clark 's Publications.

THE INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY.

The following eminent Scholars have contributed, or are
engaged upon, the Volumes named : —

An Introduction to the Literature of
the Old Testament.
Christian Ethics.

Apologetics.
History of Christian Doctrine.
A History of Christianity in the Apostolic
Age.
Christian Institutions.
The Christian Pastor.
Theology of the Old Testament.
An Introduction to the Literature of
the New Testament.
Old Testament History.
Theology of the New Testament.
Canon and Text of the New Testament.
The Latin Church.
The Ancient Catholic Church.
Hncyclopsedia. Contemporary History of the Old Testa
ment.
•Contemporary History of the Mew Testa
ment.
Philosophy of Religion.
The Study of the Old Testament.
-Rabbinical Literature.
The Life of Christ.
The Christian Preacher.

By S. R. Driver, D.D., Regius Professor
of Hebrew, and Canon of Christ Church,
Oxford. {Seventh Edition. 12s.
By Newman Smyth, D.D., Pastor of the
First Congregational Church, New Haven,
Conn. [Third Edition. 10s. 6d.
By A. B. Bruce, D.D., Professor of New
Testament Exegesis, Free Church College,
Glasgow. {Third Edition. 10s. 6d.
By G. P. Fisher, D.D., LL.D., Professor
of Ecclesiastical History, Yale University,
New Haven, Conn. [Second Edition. 12s.
By Arthur Cushman' McGiffert, Ph.D.,
DJD., Professor of Church History, Union
Theological Seminary, New York,
' [Receiitly published. 12s.
By A. V. G. Allen, D.D., Professor of
Ecclesiastical History, Episcopal Theo
logical School, Cambridge, Mass.
[Just published. 12s.
By Washington Gladden, D.D., Pastor of
¦Congregational Church, Columbus, Ohio.
[Just published, ros. 6d.
By A. B. Davidson, D.D., LL.D., Professor
of Hebrew, New College, Edinburgh.
By S. D. F. Salmond, D.D., Principal,
and Professor of Systematic Theology and
New Testament Exegesis, Free Church
College, Aberdeen.
By H. P. Smith, D.D., late Professor of
Hebrew, Lane Theological Seminary,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
By George B. Stevens, Ph.D., D.D., Pro
fessor of New Testament Criticism and In
terpretation in Yale University, U.S.A.
By Caspar Rene Gregory, Ph.D., Pro
fessor in the University of Leipzig.
By Archibald Robertson, D.D., Principal
of King's College, London.
By Robert Rainy, D.D., Principal of the
New College, Edinburgh.
By C. A. BriggSj D.D., Professor of Biblical
Theology, Union Theological Seminary,
New York.
By Francis Brown, D.D., Professor of
Hebrewand Cognate Languages, Union
Theological Seminary, New York.

By Frank C. Porter. Ph.D., Yale Uni
versity, New Haven, Conn.
By Robert Flint, D.D., LL.D., Professor
, of Divinity in the University .of Edinburgh.
By Herbert E. Ryle, D.D., President of
Queens' College, Cambridge.
By S. Schechter, M. A . , Reader in Talmudic
in the University of Cambridge.
By William Sanday, D.D., LL.D., Lady
Margaret Professor of Divinity, and Canon
of Christ Church, Oxford.
By John Watson, D.D. ('Ian Mac-
i.aren '), Sefton Park Presbyterian Church
of England, Liverpool. ,

EDINBURGH: T. & T, CLARK, 38- GEORGE STREET.

T. and X. Clark's Publications.

15

THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY.
SEVEN VOLUMES NOW READY, viz. :—
Deuteronomy, Judges, S. Mark, S. Luke, Romans, Ephesians, and
Colossians, Philippians and Philemon.
The following other Volumes are in course of preparation : —
THE OLD TESTAMENT.

Genesis.
Exodus. Leviticus.
Numbers.Joshua. Samuel.
Kings. Isaiah.Jeremiah.Minor Prophets.
Psalms. Proverbs.
Job.Daniel.
Ezra and Nehemiah.
Chronicles.

Acts. Corinthians.Galatians.

T. K. Cheyne, D.D.,, Oriel Professor of the' Interpretation of Holy
Scripture, Oxford.
A. R. S. Kknne'dy, D.D.j Professor of Hebrew, University of Edinburgh.
Rev. H. A. "White, M.A., Fellow of New College, Oxford, and Theological
Tutor in the University of Durham.
G. Buchanan Gray, M.A., Lecturer in Hebrew, Mansfield College,
Oxford. ¦
George Adam Smith, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, Free Church College,
Glasgow.
H. P. Smith, D.D., late Professor of Hebrew, Lane Theological Seminary,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
Francis Brown, D.D., Professor of Hebrew and Cognate Languages,
Union Theological Seminary, New York,
A. B. Davidson, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Hebrew, Free Church College,
Edinburgh.
A. F. Kirkpatrick, D.D., Regius Professor of Hebrew, and Fellow of
Trinity College, Cambridge.
W. R. Harper, Ph.D., President of Chicago University.
C. A. Briggs, D.D., Edward Robinson Professor of Biblical Theology,
Union Theological Seminary, New York.
C. H. Tot, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, Harvard University, Cambridge,

S. R.. Driver, D.D., Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford.
Rev^ John P. Peters, Ph.D., late Professor of Hebrew, P. E. Divinity
School, Philadelphia, now Rector of St. Michael's Church, New
York City.
Rev. L. W. Batten, Ph.D., Professor of Hebrew, P. E. Divinity School,
Philadelphia.
Edward L. .Curtis, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, Yale University, New
Haven, Conn.
THE NEW TESTAMENT.
Frederick H. Chase, D.D., Christ's College, Cambridge.
Arch. Robertson, D.D., Principal of King's College, London.
Rev. Ernest D. Burton, A.B., Professor of New Testament Literature,
1 - University of Chicago.

The Pastoral Epistles. Rev. Walter Lock, M.A
Hebrews.

Dean Ireland's Professor of Exegesis, Oxford.

T. C. Edwards, D.D., Principal of the Theological College, Bala; late
Principal of University College of Wales, Aberystwyth.
James. Rev. James H. Ropes, A.B., Instructor in New Testament Criticism in
Harvard University.
Peter and Jude. Charles Bigg, D.D., Rector of Fenny Compton, Leamington ; Bampton
Lecturer, 1886.
Revelation. Rev. Robert H. Charles, M.A.i Trinity College, Dublin, and Exeter
College, Oxford.
Other engagements will be announced shortly,

EDINBURGH: T. & T., CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET.
LONDON: SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT, & CO. LTD.

1 6 T. and T. Clark's Publications.

DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE.
To be completed in Four Volumes, imp. Sua (of nearly 900 pages each).
Price per Volume: in cloth, 2Ss.; in half-morocco, 34s,
A Dictionary of the Bible, dealing with its Language,
Literature, and Contents, including the Biblical Theology. Edited by
James Hastings, M.A., D.D., with the assistance of John A. Selbie,
M.A., and, chiefly in the revision of the Proofs, of Professor A. B.
Davidson, D.D., LL.D., Edinburgh; Professor S. E. Driver, D.D.,
Oxford ; and Professor H.. B. Swete, D.D., Cambridge.
MESSRS. T. & T. CLARK have pleasure in announcing the publication of
Volume I. of this work. Every effort has been made to make the information
it contains reasonably FULL, TRUSTWORTHY, and ACCESSIBLE.
Articles have been written on the Names of all Pkrsons and Places, on the
Antiquities and Archaeology of the Bible, on the Ethnology, Geology, and
Natural History, ( on Biblical Theology and Ethic, and on the Obsolete and
Archaic Words occurring in the English Versions.
The Names of the Authors are appended to their Articles, and these names are the
best guarantee that the work may be relied on.
In addition to the Editor and his Assistant, every sheet has passed through the
hands of the three distinguished Scholars whose names are found on the title-pa'ge, and
the time and trouble they have spent upon it may be taken as a good assurance that the
work as a whole is reliable and' authoritative.
The MAPS have been specially prepared by Mr. J. G. Bartholomew, F.R.G.S.
*** Full Prospectus, with Specimen Pages, from all Booksellers, or from the Publishers.
' The first volume of the "Dictionary of the Bible," which Dr. Hastings has had in hand for the
' last five years, is now before us ; and we offer him our sincere congratulations on the publication of
the first instalment of this great enterprise. . . . A work was urgently needed which should present
the student with the approved results of modern inquiry, ana which should also acquaint him
with the methods by which theological problems are now approached by the most learned and
devout of our theologians. . . . The names of the three scholars who have read through the entire
work in proof will, as Dr. Hastings says, give a reasonable guarantee that the articles are, as a
whole, fairly authoritative. Dr. Davidson, Dr. Driver, and Dr. Swete have given their invaluable
aid in this way, and have, besides,, written more or less important articles of their own. The
Dictionary is, indeed, particularly strong in scholarship and criticism. . . . "We have left ourselves
no space to speak of many important articles which we had marked for notice. "We have only to
add that the book is well. printed, that the maps are good, and that the price is not excessive. . . .
The work promises to be, when completed, the best biblical. encyclopaedia in English. Dr. Hastings
has shown his wide sympathies by his choice of contributors, who represent many shades of
Christian opinion. '-r-Guardiam. ,, , .
' "We welcome with the utmost cordiality the first volume of Messrs. Clark's great enterprise,
" A Dictionary of the Bible." That there was room and need for such a book is unquestionable.
. . We have here all that the student can desire, a work of remarkable fulness, well up to date.
and yet at the same time conservative in its general tendency, almost faultlessly accurate, and
produced by the publishers in a most excellent and convenient style. We can thoroughly recom
mend it to our readers as a book which should fully satisfy their anticipations. . . . This new
Dictionary is one of the most important aids that have recently been furnished to a true under
standing of Scripture, and, properly used, will brighten and enrich the pulpit work of every minister
who possesses it. . . . We are greatly struck by the excellence of the short articles. They are better
done than in any other work or the kind. We have compared several of them with their sources,
and this shows at once the unpretentious labour that is behind them. . . . Dr. A. B. Davidson is
a tower of strength, and he shows at his best in the articles on Angels, on Covenant (a masterpiece,
full of illumination), and on Eschatology of the Old Testament. His contributions are the chief
ornaments and treasure-stores of the Dictionary. . . . We are very conscious of having done most
inadequate justice to this very valuable book. Perhaps, however, enough has been said to show
our great sense of its worth. It is a book that one is sure to be turning to again and again with
increased confidence and gratitude. It will be an evil omen for the Church if ministers do not come
forward to make the best of the opportunity now presented them.1— Editor. BHtish Weekly.
'Will give widespread satisfaction. Every person consulting it: may rely upon its trustworthi
ness Par away in advance of any other Bible Dictionary that has ever oeen published in real
usefulness for preachers, Bible students, and teachers.'— Methodist Recorder.
' This monumental work. It has made a great beginning^ and promises to take rank as one of
the most important biblical enterprises of the century.'— Christian World.
' We can, in the most cordial way, congratulate the publishers, the editor, and the contributors
on the appearance of this new " Dictionary of the Bible." We can no less cordially congratulate
biblical students on an excellent and helpful, and, on the whole, accurate and scholarly aid to their
studies All concerned in its production seem to have done their work well aud with conscientious
thoroughness, The editor has got together a very remarkable staff of contributors, representing
various Churches, but all possessing a common spirit and purpose and character. . . . There has been
no Dictionary of the Bible produced in any modern language up till now that can, on the whole, be
so unreservedly commended as this, for it is remarkable that as much care has been taken with
small articles as with large. . . . We are grateful to find scholars like Canon Driver and Professors
Davidson and Swete giving up their time to the revision of proofs< or .the direction of research, in
order that they may secure more science in detail and a more satisfactory result.'— Speaker,