Secondly. He gives them to him as his children to be provided for; and to have an inheritance purchased for them, that they may become ‘heirs of God and co-heirs with himself.—Adam was their first parent by nature,.and in him they lost that inheritance, which they might have expected by the law of their creation. They are therefore given to the second Adam as their Parent by grace, to have an inheritance provided for them, which accordingly he hath purchased with the price of his blood.
Thirdly. That the Lord Christ is satisfied with, and rejoiceth in the portion given him of his Father, his children, his redeemed ones.— This the manner of the expression informs us in. ‘ Behold I and the children;? though he considers himself and them at that time ‘ as signs and wonders to be spoken against.’ He rejoiceth in his portion, and doth not call it ‘ Cabul, as Hiram did the cities given him of Solomon, because they displeased him. He is not only satisfied on the sight of the ‘travail of his soul,’ Isa. lui. 11, but glorieth also, that the ‘lines are fallen to him in pleasantnesses, that he hath a goodly heritage,’ Psal. xvi. 6. Such was his love, such was his grace, for we in ourselves are a people not to be desired.
Fourthly. That the Lord Jesus assumes the children given him of his Father into the same condition with himself, both as to life and eternity—‘ I and the children,’ as he is, so are they. His lot is their lot, his God is their God, his Father their Father, and his glory shall be theirs.
Fifthly. From the context of the words in the prophet, expressing the separation of Christ and the children, from the world, and all the hypocrites therein combined together in the pursuit of their sinful courses, we are taught, that Christ and believers are in the same covenant, confederated to trust in God in difficulties and troubles, in opposition to all the confederacies of the men of the world for their carnal security.
And thus by this triple testimony hath the apostle both confirmed his foregoing assertion, and farther manifested the relation that is between the children to be brought to glory, and the Captain of their salvation, whereby it became righteous that he should suffer for them, and meet that they should enjoy the benefit of his sufferigs, which he more fully expresseth in the following verses.
Ver. 14, 15.—Tue union of Christ and the children in their relation to one common root, and participation of the same nature being asserted, the apostle proceeds to declare the ends, use, and necessity of that union, in respect of the work which God had designed him unto, and the ends which he had to accomplish thereby. Of these he layeth down two in these two verses, namely, the destruction of the devil, and the deliverance thereby of them that were m bondage by reason of death; neither of which could have been wrought nor effected, but by the death of the Captain of salvation; which he could not have undergone, nor would what he could otherwise have done, have been profitable to them, had he not been of the same nature with the children; as will appear in the opening of the words themselves.
Era ovv, V. L. Quia ergo; Bez. quoniam ergo, ‘ because therefore:’ Syr. dum, ‘ for seeing,’ or for because. Eras. Posteaquam igitur; ours, ‘ forasmuch then.’ Eze, is sometimes used for εφ᾽ οὗ postquam, ex quo tempore, from whence; so as to express no causality as to that which follows, but only the precedency of that which it relates to. But itis not in that sense used with ovv, which here is subjoined, but quoniam, quandoquidem; the particle ovy, ‘ therefore,’ plainly expressing a causality; they are well rendered by ours, ‘ Forasmuch then,’ or therefore.
Ta παιδια κεκοινώνηκε σαρκὸς καὶ αἵματος. V. L. pueri communicaverunt carni et sanguini, ‘The children communicated in flesh and blood.’ Syr xa, ‘ the sons’ were partakers, or do partake. Eras, Commercium habent cum carne et sanguine, ‘have communion or commerce with flesh and blood.’ Bez. Pueri participes sunt carnis et sanguinis, ‘ the children are partakers of flesh and blood,’ as ours. The Vulgar expresseth the time past, which the original requireth. Ethiopic, ‘ He made his children partakers of his flesh and blood τ’ with respect as it should seem to the sacrament of the Eucharist.
Καὶ avroe παραπλησιὼς perecye των avtwy, V. L. Et ipse similiter (consimiliter, A. M.) participavit eisdem. Bez. Ipse quoque consimiliter particeps factus est eorundem, as ours, ‘ He also himself took part of the same.’ And the Syr. poma pa ὩΠΊΠΩΝ NMA 73 ὙΤ ὯΝ, “he himself also, in the same likeness (or manner) was partaker or partook in the same or self same things.’ Arab. ‘ He also, like unto them, partook in the properties of the same.’ That is, truly partook of flesh and blood in all their natural or essential properties. Ethiop. ‘ And he also was made as a brother to them.’
‘Iva δια Oavarov; Syr. mnv227, ut per mortem suam, ‘ that by his own death,’ properly as to the sense. Karapynoy, V. L. destrueret; all other Latin translations, aboleret, ‘ that he might destroy,’ so
Evoxo. noav δουλειας, Obnoxii erant servituti. Bez. Mancipati erant servituti, properly damnates erant servitutis; ‘ obnoxious, subject unto bondage.’
“ Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood.” This expression is not elsewhere used in the Scripture. Kowwvew, is to have any thing whatever in common with another. Ακοινωνητος, is he who hath nothing in fellowship or common with others. And this word is used in reference to all sorts of things good and bad, as nature, life, actions, qualities, works. Here it intimateth the common and equal share of the children in the things spoken of. They are equally common to all. These are σαρξ καὶ αἷμα, ‘ flesh and blood,’ that is, human nature liable to death, misery, destruction. Some would have, not the nature of man, but the frail and weak condition of mankind, to be intended in this expression. So Eniedinus, and after him Grotius, who refers us to chap. v. 7; 1 Tim. iii. 16; 2 Cor. iv. 11, for the confirmation of this sense. But in none of those places is there mention of flesh and blood, as here: but only of flesh, which word is variously used both in the Old Testament and New. Yet in all the places referred to, it is taken not for the quality of human life, as it is infirm and weak, but for human nature itself which is so, as concerning that of 1 Tim. ii. 16, it hath at large been declared. And the design of the place rejects this gloss, which was invented only to defeat the testimony given in these words to the incarnation of the Son of God. For the apostle adds a reason in these verses, why the Lord Christ was so to be of one with the children, as to take on himself their nature, which is, because that was subject to death, which for them he was to undergo. And flesh and blood are here only mentioned, though they complete not human nature without a rational soul, because in and by them it is that our nature is subject to death. We may only farther observe, that the apostle having especial regard to the saints under the Old Testament, expresseth their participation of flesh and blood in the preterperfect tense, or time past, which by proportion is to be extended to all that believe in Christ; unless we shall say, that he hath respect to the common interest of all mankind in the same nature, in the root of it; whence God is said, “ of one blood to have made them all.’
Méereoye, Partem habuit, particeps erat, ‘he took part.’ And in the use of this word, the dative case of the person is still understood, and sometimes expressed. So Plato, iva δὴ pereyou των Tpaypatwy avroic, ‘that he might share or partake in the same acts with them.’ And it is here also understood, that he might partake with them of flesh and blood. And the apostle purposely changeth the word from that which he had before used concerning the children: κεκοινωνηῆκε ra παίδια, ‘they had human nature in common,’ they were men and that was all, having no existence but in and by that nature. Concerning him he had before proved, that he had a divine nature on the account whereof he was more excellent than the angels. And here he says of hin, peteoye, ‘existing in his divine nature,’ he moreover took part of that nature with them, which makes a difference between their persons, though as to human nature they were every way alike; and this removes the exception of Slichtingius, or Crellius, that he is no more said to be incarnate than the children.
Now, there is not any notion under which the devil is more known unto, or spoken of among the Jews, than this of his having the power of death: his common appellation among them is, nya Ny, ‘the angel of death.’ And they call him Samael also. So the Targum of
Jonathan, xnyt Juda ὉΝΘῸ my NnMN NM Gen. iii. 6. “And the woman, saw Samael the angel of death. And Maimon. More Nebu. lib. ii. cap. 30, tells us from the Midrash, that Samael rode upon the serpent when he deceived Eve; that is, used him as his instrument in that work. And most of them acknowledge Satan to be principally intended in the temptation of Eve, though Aben Ezra denies it in his comment on the words, and disputes against it. And he adds, that by Samael, the angel of death, they understand Satan, which he proves from the words of their wise men, who say in some places, that Satan would have hindered Abraham from sacrificing Isaac; and in others, that Samael would have done it, which proves that it is one and the same who by both names is intended. And hence they usually call him, Dwwr 55 wen yw xno, ‘the wicked Samael, the prince of all the devils;’ and say of him, xady 52d xm oa ΝΟ, ‘Samael brought death upon all the world.’ So that by this Samael, or angel of death, it is evident that they intend him who is termed 6 διαβολος, as the prince and ruler-of the rest. So also they speak expressly in Baba Bathra, distinc. Hashatephir. nvat ΝΘ. st jo NT pynw “aN yams. sim. ‘Rabbi Simeon said the same is Satan, and the angel of death, and the evil figment;’ that is the cause and author of it. And they call him the angel of death on many accounts, the consideration whereof may give us some light into the reason of the expression here used by the apostle. The first is that before mentioned, namely, that by his means death entered and came upon all the world. His temptation was the first occasion of death; and for that reason is he termed by our Saviour, ανθρωποκτονος am’ apxne, John vill. 44. ‘A murderer from the beginning.’ And herein he had the power of death, prevailing to render all mankind obnoxious to the sentence and stroke of it. Secondly. Because he is employed in great and signal judgments to inflict death on men. He is the head of those by “3 52, ‘evil angels,’ who slew the Egyptians, Ps. lxxvil. 49. Soin Ps. xci. 5, those words, ‘Thou shalt not fear Dar sy pm, from the arrow that flieth by day,’ are rendered by the Targum, Nama STwT NN JNDDT NTI, ‘from the arrow of the angel of death which he shooteth by day.’ And in the next verse those words, D 78 Tw Avpa, ‘from the destruction that wasteth at noon day,’ they render Ν ΤΩΣ poamt PTW ny*on, ‘ from the troop of devils that walk at noon day; the Psalmist treating of great and sudden destructions, which they affirm to be all wrought by Satan; and thence the Hellenists also render the latter place by δαιμονιον μεσημβρινον, ‘the devil at noon-day;’ wherein they are followed by the Vulgar Latin, Arabic, and Ethiopic translations. And this the apostle seeins to allude unto, 1 Cor. x. 10, where he says, that those who “murmured in the wilderness were destroyed ὑπο τὸν ολοθρευ- tov, by the destroyer;” ὃ ayyedoc ολοθρευτης, that nian ἽΝ, ‘the destroying angel,’ or the angel of death; as in this Epistle he terms him, ὃ ολοθρευων, ch. xi. 28. And it may be this is he who is called nv 22, Job xviii. 13, ‘ the first-born of death,’ or he that hath right unto the administration of it. They term him also ‘tyawx, that is, ολοθρευτης, the ‘waster’ or destroyer: and τὸ, from tw, to waste or destroy, as also pax; which, as John tells us, is the Hebrew name of VOL. Il. Ὁ τε the ‘angel of the bottomless pit,’ Rev. ix. 11, as his Greek name is ἀπολλυων, that is nvar ἽΝ 55, and ολοθρευτης. Thirdly. The later Jews suppose that this angel of death takes away the life of every man, even of those who die a natural death. And hereby, as they express the old faith of the church, that death is penal, and that it came upon all for sin, through the temptation of Satan, so also they discover the bondage that they themselves are in for fear of death all their days. For when a man is ready to die, they say the angel of death appears to him in a terrible manner, with a sword drawn in his hand. From thence drops 1 know not what poison into him, whereon he dies. Hence, they woefully howl, lament, and rend their garments upon the death of their friends. And they have composed a prayer for themselves against this terror. Because also of this their being slain by the angel of death, they hope and pray that their death may be an expiation for all their sins. Here lies the sting of death, mentioned by the apostle, 1 Cor. xv. 55. Hence they have a long story in their Midrash, or mystical exposition of the Pentateuch, on the last section of Deuteronomy, about Samael’s coming to take away the life of Moses, whom he repelled and drove away with the rod that had the Shem Hamphorash written in it. And the like story they have in a book about the Acts of Moses, which Aben Ezra rejects on Exod. iv. 20. This hand of Satan in death, manifesting it to be penal, is that which keeps them in bondage and fear all their days. Fourthly. They suppose that this angel of death hath power over men even after death. One horrible penalty they fancy in particular that he inflicts on them, which is set down by Elias in his Tishbi in yapr wian, out of the Midrash of Rabbi Isaac, the son of Parner; for when a man, as they say, departs out of this world, nap dy awy nvan qNd Na, ‘ the angel of death comes and sits upon his grave.’ And he brings with him a chain, partly of iron, partly of fire, and making the soul to return into the body, he breaks the bones, and torments variously both body and soul for a season. This is their purgatory, and the best of their hopes are, that their punishment after this life shall not be eternal. -And this various interest of Satan in the power of death, both keeps them in dismal bondage all their days, and puts them upon the invention of several ways for their deliverance. Thus one of their solemn prayers on the day of expiation, is to be delivered from 7apm wan, or this ‘ punishment of the devil in their graves;’ to which purpose also they offer a cock unto him for his pacification. And their prayer to this purpose in their Berachoth is this, >» mT ΠΣ. Ὁ 5590 ΠΥ mbt my nn woesm “pM ὙΤῚ sap dy mann om, ‘That it may please thee (good Lord) to deliver us from evil decrees or laws, from poverty, from contempt, from all kind of punishments, from the judgment of hell, and from beating in the grave, by the angel of death. And this supposition is in like manner admitted by the Mahometans, who have also this prayer, ‘ Deus noster libera nos ab angelo interrogante tormento sepulchri, et a via mala.’ And many such lewd imaginations are they now given up unto, proceeding from their ignorance of the righteousness of God. But yet from these apprehensions of theirs, we may see what the apostle intended in this expression, calling the devil him that had the power of death.
Evoyot noav δουλειας: evoxoc is obnoxius, obstrictus, reus, damnas. He that is legally obnoxious, subject, liable to any thing, that is, law, crime, judge, judgment, punishment, in all which respects the word is used. He that is under the power of any law, is evoyoe τῷ νόμῳ, ‘subject to its authority’ and penalty. See Matt. v. 21, 22, xxvi. 66; Mark 11. 29; 1 Cor. x1. 27; Jamesii. 10. Now the δουλεια, servitude or ‘bondage’ here mentioned is penal, and therefore are men said to be evoxor, ‘obnoxious’ unto it.
Ver. 14, 15.—For as much then as (or, seeing therefore that) the children are (were in common) partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise (after the same manner) took part (did partake) of the same; that through (by) death he might destroy (make void the authority of) hem that had the power of death, that is, the devil. And deliver (free, discharge) them who through fear of death were-all their life-time subject to bondage.
In the former verses, as was shown, the apostle declared the neces-. sity that there was on the part of God, intending to bring many sons unto glory, to constitute such an union between them and the Captain of their salvation, as that it might be just for him to suffer in their stead. In these he proceeds to manifest in particular what that nature is, in the common participation whereof their union designed did consist, wherein they were all of one; and what were the especial reasons why the Lord Christ was made partaker of that nature. This coherence of these verses Chrysostome briefly gives us, Eira δειξας την αδελφοτητα, καὶ THY αἰτιαν τιθησι THE οἰκονομιας, ‘ Having shown the brotherhood that was between Christ and the children, ‘he lays down the causes of that dispensation;’ and what they are, we shall find here expressed.
There are sundry things which the apostle supposeth in these words, as known unto, and granted by the Hebrews. As, first, that the devil had the power of death. Secondly. That on this account men were filled with fear of it, and led a life full of anxiety and trouble, by reason of that fear. Thirdly. That a deliverance from this condition was to be effected by the Messiah. Fourthly. That the way whereby he was to do this, was by his suffering. All which, as they are contained in the first promise, so that they were allowed of by the Hebrews of old, we have fully proved elsewhere. And by all these doth the apostle yield a reason of his former concession, that the Messiah was for a little while made lower than the angels, the causes and ends whereof he here declares. There are in the words,
First. A supposition of a two-fold state and condition of the children to be brought unto glory.
Ist. Natural, or their natural state and condition. They were all of them in common partakers of flesh and blood; ‘Forasmuch then as the children were partakers of flesh and blood,’
2dly. Moral, their moral state and condition. They were obnoxious unto death, as it is penal for sin, and in great bondage through fear of it: ‘Them who, through fear of death, were all their life-time subject unto bondage.’
Secondly. There is a double inference with respect unto this supposition, on the part of Christ, the Captain of salvation.
Ist. As to their natural condition, that he did partake of it, he was soto do: ‘He himself also did partake of the same.’
Thirdly. The means whereby he did this, or this was to be done, evidencing the necessity of his participation with them in their condition of nature, that he might relieve them from their condition of trouble. He did it by death: ‘that by death.’
Fourthly. The immediate effect of his death, tending unto their deliverance and freedom, and that is the destruction of the devil, as to his power over and interest in death as penal, whereof their deliverance is an infallible consequent: ‘and destroy him,’ &c.
In the first place, the apostle expresseth, as by way of supposition, the natural condition of the children, that is, the children whom God designed to bring unto glory; those who were given unto Christ, they were in common partakers of flesh and bleod. I shall not stay to remove the conceit of some, (who yet are not a few) among the Romanists, who refer those words unto the participation of the flesh and blood of Christ in the sacrament, whereunto also, as we observed, the Ethiopic version gives countenance, For not only is there not any thing in the expression that inclines unto such an imagination, but also it enervates the whole design of the apostle’s discourse and argument, as from the former consideration of it doth appear. Flesh and blood are, by a usual synecdoche, put for the whole human nature; not as though by blood the soul was intended, because the life is said to be in it, as not acting without it; but this expression is used, because it is not human nature as absolutely considered, but as mortal, passible, subject unto infirmities and death itself, that is intended. And it is no more than if he had said, the children were men subject unto death. For he gives his reason herein, why the Lord Christ was made a man subject unto death. That he and the children should be of one nature, he had shown before. Forasmuch, then, as this was the condition of the children, that they were all partakers of human nature, liable to sufferings, sorrow, and death, he was so also. And this is thus expressed, to set forth the love and condescension of Jesus Christ, as will afterward appear.
The second thing in these words, is the moral condition of the children; and there are sundry things, partly intimated, partly expressed in the description that is here given us of it. As, lst. Their state absolutely considered, they were subject to death. 2d. The consequences of that state. 1. It wrought fear in them. 2. That fear brought them into bondage. 3. The continuance of that condition,—it was for the whole course of their lives. ἢ
First. It is implied, that they were subject, obnoxious unto, guilty of death, and that as it was penal, due to sin, as contained in the curse of the law, which what it comprehendeth, and how far it is extended, is usually declared. On this supposition lies the whole weight of the mediation of Christ. The children to be brought unto glory were obnoxious unto death; and from the curse and wrath of God therein, he came to deliver them.
Secondly. The first effect and consequent of this obnoxiousness unto death, concurring unto their state and condition 1s, that they were filled with fear of it—for fear of death. ‘ Fear is a perturbation of mind, arising from the apprehension of a future imminent evil.’ And the greater this evil is, the greater will the perturbation of the mind be, provided the apprehension of it be answerable. The fear of death then here intended, is that trouble of mind which men have in’ the expectation of death to be inflicted on them, as a punishment due unto their sins. And this apprehension is common to all men, arising from a general presumption that death is penal, and that it is the judgment of God, that they which commit sin are worthy of death, as Rom. i. 32, ii. 15. But it is cleared and confirmed by the law, whose known sentence is, “The soul that sinneth shall die.” And the troublesome expectation of the event of this apprehension, is the fear of death here intended. And according unto the means that men have to come unto the knowledge of the righteousness of God, are, or ought to be, their apprehensions of the evil that is in death. But. even those who had Jost all clear knowledge of the consequents of death natural, or the dissolution of their present mortal condition, yet on a confused apprehension of its being penal, always esteemed it, φοΐξερων φοξερωτατον, the most dreadful of all things that are so unto human nature. And in some this is heightened and increased, until it come to be pobepa EKOOYN κρίσεως; καὶ πυρος ζηλος, ἐσϑίειν μελλοντος τους ὑπεναντίους, as our apostle speaks, ch. χ. 27, ‘A fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.’ And this is the second thing that is in this description of the state and condition of the children to be brought unto glory: being obnoxious unto the sentence of death, they could not but live in fear of the execution of it.
Thirdly. They are by this means brought into bondage. The troublesome expectation of death as penal, brings them into bondage, into the nature whereof we must a little inquire. Sundry things concur to make any state a state of bondage; as, 1. That it be involuntary. No man is in bondage by his will: that which a man chooseth, is not bondage unto him. A man that would have his ear bored, though he were always a servant, was never in bondage, for he enjoyed the condition that pleased him. Properly all bondage is involuntary. 2. Bondage engenerates strong desires after, and puts men on all manner of attempts for liberty. Yokes gall, and make them on whom they are desire ease. So long as men are sensible of bondage, which is against nature, (for that which is not so, is not bondage,) they will desire and labour for liberty. When some in the Roman senate asked an ambassador of the Privernates, after they were overthrown in battle, if they granted them peace, how they would keep it, what peace they should have with them? he answered, Si bonam dederitis, fidam et perpetuam; si malam, haud diuturnam.’ ‘Whereat when some in the senate stormed, as if he had threatened them with war and rebellion, the wiser sort commended him, as one that spake like a man and a free-man; adding as their reason, ‘ An credi posse, ullum populum, aut hominem denique in ea conditione, cujus eum peniteat, diutius quam necesse sit mansurum. Liv. Dec. 1. lib. 8. So certain it is, that bondage wearieth and stirreth up restless desires in all, endeavours in some after liberty. 3. Bondage perplexeth the mind. It ariseth from fear, the greatest perturbation of the mind, and is attended with weariness and distrust, all which are perplexing. 4. Where bondage is complete, it lies in a tendency unto future and greater evils. Such is the bondage of condemned malefactors, reserved for the day of execution; such is the bondage of Satan, who is kept in chains of darkness for the judgment of the great day. And all these things concur in the bondage here intended; which is a dejected troublesome state and condition of mind arising from the apprehension and fear of death to be inflicted, and their disability in whom it is to avoid it, attended with fruitless desires and vain attempts to be delivered from it, and to escape the evil feared. And this is the condition of sinners out of Christ, whereof there are various degrees answerable unto their convictions. For the apostle treats not here of men’s being servants unto sin, which is voluntary; but of their sense of the guilt of sin which is wrought in them, even whether they will or not; and by any means they would cast off the yoke of it, though by none are they able so to do: for,
Fourthly. They are said to continue in this estate all their lives. Not that they were always perplexed with this bondage, but that they could never be utterly freed from it. For the apostle doth not say, that they were thus in bondage all their days, but that they were obnoxious and subject unto it. They had no way to free and deliver themselves from it, but that at any time they might righteously be brought under its power; and the more they cast off the thoughts of it, the more they increased their dariger. This was the state of the children, whose deliverance was undertaken by the Lord Christ, the Captain of their salvation. And we may hence observe, that,
J. All sinners are subject unto death, as it is penal. The first sentence reacheth them all, Genii, 17. And thence are they said by nature to be children of wrath, Eph. 11. 3, obnoxious unto death, to be inflicted in a way of wrath and revenge for sin. This passeth upon all, inasmuch as all have sinned, Rom. v. 12. This all men see and know; but all do not sufficiently consider what is contained in the
ver. 14, 15.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS..
sentence of death, and very few, how it may be avoided. Most men look on death as the common lot and condition of mankind, upon the account of their frail natural condition, as though it belonged to the natural condition of the children, and not the moral, and were a consequent of their being, and not the demerit of their sin. They consider not, that although the principles of our nature are, in themselves subject unto a dissolution, yet if we had kept the law of our creation, it had been prevented by the power of God, engaged to continue life during our obedience. Life and obedience were to be commensurate, until temporal obedience ended in life eternal. Death is penal, and its being common unto all, hinders not but that it is the punishment of every one. How it is changed unto believers by the death of Christ, shall be afterward declared. In the meantime, all mankind are condemned as soon as born. Life is a reprieve, a suspension of execution. If, during that time, a pardon be not effectually sued out, the sentence will be executed according to the severity of justice. Under this law are men now born, this yoke have they pulled on themselves, by their apostasy from God. Neither is it to any purpose to repine against it, or to conflict with it: there is but one way of deliverance.,
11. Fear of death as it is penal, is inseparable from sin, before the sinner is delivered by the death of Christ. They were in fear of death. There is a fear of death that is natural, and inseparable from our present condition; that is but nature’s aversation from its own dissolution. And this hath various degrees, occasioned by the differences of men’s natural constitution, and other accidental occurrences and occasions; so that some seem to fear death too much, and others not at all: 1 mean those who are freed from it, as it is in the curse and under the power of Satan. But this difference is from occasions foreign and accidental: there is in all naturally the same aversation from it. And this is a guiltless infirmity, like our weariness and sickness, inseparably annexed unto the condition of mortality. But sinners, in their natural state, fear death as it is penal, as an issue of the curse, as under the power of Satan, as a dreadful entrance into eternal ruin. There are indeed a thousand ways whereby this fear is for a season stifled in the minds of men. Some live in brutish ignorance, never receiving any full conviction of sin, judgment, or eternity. Some put off the thoughts of their present and future estate, resolving to shut their eyes and rush into it, when as they can no longer avoid it. Fear presents itself unto them as the forerunner of death, but they avoid the encounter, and leave themselves to the power of death itself. Some please themselves with vain hopes of deliverance, though they know not well how, nor why they should be partakers of it. But let men forego these helpless shifts, and suffer their own innate light to be excited with such means of conviction as they do enjoy, and they will quickly find what a judgment there is made in their own souls concerning death to come, and what effects it will produce. They will conclude, that it is the judgment of God, that they which commit sin are worthy of death, Rom. i. 32, and then that their own consciences do accuse and condemn them, Rom. ii. 14, 15, whence unavoidably, fear, dread, and terror, will seize upon them. And then,
III. Fear of death, as penal, renders the minds of men obnoxious unto bondage; which, what it is, we have in part before declared. It is a state of trouble which men dislike, but cannot avoid. It is a penal disquietment arising from sense of future misery. Fain would men quit themselves of it, but are not able. There is a chain of God in it, not to be broken; men may gall themselves with it, but cannot remove it; and if God take it from them, without granting them a lawful release and deliverance, it is to their farther misery. And this is, in some measure or other, the portion of every one that is convinced of sin, before they are freed by the gospel. And some have disputed what degrees of it are necessary before believing. But what is necessary for any one to attain unto, is his duty. But this bondage can be the duty of no man, because it is involuntary. It will follow conviction of sin, but it is no man’s duty; rather it is such an effect of the law, as every one is to free himself from, so soon as he may, in a right way and manner. This estate then befals men, whether they will or not. And this is so, if we take bondage passively, as it affects the soul of the sinner; which the apostle seems to intend, by placing it as an effect of the fear of death; take it actively, and it is no more than the sentence of the law, which works and causeth it in the soul, and so all sinners are inevitably obnoxious unto it. And this estate, as we observed, fills men with desires after, and puts them upon various attempts for deliverance. Some desire only present ease, and they commonly withdraw themselves from it, by giving up themselves wholly unto their hearts’ lusts, and therein to atheism, which God oftentimes, in his righteous judgment, gives them up unto, knowing that the day is coming wherein their present woeful temporal relief will be recompensed with eternal misery. Some look forward unto what is to come, and according to their light and assistance, variously apply themselves to seek relief. Some do it by a righteousness of their own, and in the pursuit thereof also there are ways imnumerable not now to be insisted on; and some do it by Christ, which how it is by him effected, the apostle in the next place declares.
Two things as was shown, are affirmed of the Lord Christ, in consequence unto the premised supposition of the children’s being partakers of flesh and blood, and of their obnoxiousness unto death, and to bondage. 1. That of their natural condition—he himself partook. 2. That from their moral condition—he delivered them; and that he might do this, it was necessary that he should partake of the other.
1. He himself did likewise partake of the same. The word παραπλησιως, ‘ likewise, in like manner,’ doth denote such a similitude as is consistent with a specifical identity, And therefore Chrysostome from hence urgeth the Marcionites and Valentinians, who denied the reality of the human nature of Christ, secing that he partook of it in like manner with us, that is, truly and really even as we do. But yet the word, by force of its composition, doth intimate some disparity and difference. He took part of human nature really as we do, and almost in like manner with us. For there were two differences between his being partaker of human nature and ours: Ist. In that we; subsist singly in that nature; but he took his portion in this nature mto subsistence with himself in the person of the Son of God. 2dly. This nature in us is attended with many infirmities, that follow the individual persons that are partakers of it: in him it was free from them - all. And this the apostle also intimates in the word: μετεσχε; changing his expression from that whereby he declared the common interest of the children in the same nature, which is every way equal and alike. The whole is, that he took his own portion, in his own manner, unto himself.
And this observation removes what is hence objected against the deity of Christ. ‘Cum Christus (saith Slichtingius) hominum mortalium et fragilium dux et fautor sit, propterea is non angelus aliquis, multo vero minus ipse Deus summus qui solus immortalitatem habet, sed homo suo tempore malis, et variis calamitatibus obnoxius esse debuit.’ It is true it appears from hence, that Christ ought to be a man, subject to sufferings and death, and not an angel, as the apostle farther declares in the next verse; but that he ought not to be God, it doth not appear. As God, indeed, he could not die; but if he who was God had not taken part of flesh and blood, God could not have redeemed his-church with his own blood. But this is the perpetual paralogism of these men. Because Christ is asserted to have been truly a man, therefore he is not God; which is to deny the gospel, and-the whole mystery of it.
He proceeds with his exceptions against the application of these words unto the incarnation of the Lord Christ, the sum whereof is, that the words παραπλησιως μετεσχε, denote an universal conformity, or specific identity between Christ and the children, not only as to the essence, but also as to all other concernments of human nature, or else no benefit could redound unto them from what he did or suffered. But, 1. The words do not assert any such thing, as hath been declared: 2. It is not true. The children were partakers of human nature, either by creation out of the dust of the earth, as Adam; or by natural generation. The Lord Christ was conceived of a virgin by the power of the Holy Ghost; and yet the benefit redounds unto the children. It is evident, then, that the similitude urged by the apostle is confined to the substance of flesh and blood, or the essence of human nature, and is not to be extended unto the personal concernments of the one or the other; nor the way whereby they became partakers of the same nature. Nor is the argument for the incarnation of Christ taken merely from the expressions in this verse; but whereas he had before proved him to be above, and before the angels, even God over all, and here intimating his existence antecedent to his participation of flesh and blood, his incarnation doth necessarily ensue.
The necessity of this incarnation of Christ, with respect to the end of it, hath before been declared, evinced, and confirmed. We shall now stay only a little to admire the love, grace, and mystery of it. And we see here,
IV. That the Lord Christ, out of his inexpressible love, willingly submitted himself unto every condition of the children to be saved by him, and to every thing in every condition of them, sin only excepted. —They being of flesh and blood, which must be attended with many infirmities, and exposed unto all sorts of temptations and miseries, he himself would also partake of the same. His delight was of old in the sons of men, Prov. vill. 30, and his heart was full of thoughts of love towards them; and that alone put him on this resolution, Gal. 11. 20; Rev.i.5. When God refused sacrifices and burnt-offerings, as insufficient to make the atonement required, and the matter was rolled on his hand alone, it was a joy unto him that he had a body prepared, wherein he might discharge his work, although he knew what he had to do and suffer therein, Psal. xl. 8,9; Heb. x.6—9. He rejoiced to do the will of God, in taking the body prepared for him, because the children were partakers of flesh and blood. Though he was in the form of God, equal unto him, yet that mind, that love, that affection towards us, was in him, that to be like unto us, and thereby to save us, he emptied himself, and took on him the form of a servant, our form, and became like unto us, Phil. ii. 5—8. He would be like unto us, that he might make us like unto himself: he would take our flesh, that he might give unto us his Spirit. He would join himself unto us, and become one flesh with us, that we might be joined unto him, and become one spirit with him, 1 Cor, vi. 17. And as this was a fruit of his eternal antecedent love, so it is a spring of consequent love. When Eve was brought unto Adam, after she was taken out of him, Gen. 1. 23, to manifest the ground of that affection which was to be always between them, he says of her, “" This is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh.’ And by this condescension of Christ, saith the apostle, are we members of his body, and of his flesh, and of his bones, Eph. v. 80. Whence he infers, that he loves and nourisheth his church, as a man doth his own flesh. And how should this inexpressible love of Christ constrain us to love him, and to live unto him, 2 Cor. v. 14, as also to labour to be like unto him, wherein all our blessedness consisteth, seeing for that end he was willing to be like unto us, whence all his troubles and sufferings arose. Here also we see that,
V. It was only in flesh and blood, the substance and essence of human nature, and not in our personal infirmities, that the Lord Christ was made like unto us. He took to himself the nature of all men, and not the person of any man. We have not only human nature in common, but we have every one particular infirmities and weaknesses following that nature, as existing in our sinful persons. Such are the sicknesses and pains of our bodies from inward distempers, and the disorder of the passions of our minds. Of these the Lord Christ did not partake, it was not needful, it was not possible that he should do so; not needful, because he could provide for their curewithout assuming them; not possible, for they can have no place in a nature innocent and holy. And therefore he took our nature, not by an immediate new creation out of nothing, or of the dust of the earth like Adam; for if so, though he might have been like unto us, yet he would have been no kin to us, and so could not have been our Goel to whom the right of redemption did belong; nor by natural generation, which would have rendered our nature in him obnoxious to the sin and punishment of Adam; but by a miraculous conception of a virgin, whereby he had truly our nature, yet not subject on its own account, unto any one of those evils, whereunto it is liable as_propagated from Adam in an ordinary course. And thus though he was joined unto us in our nature, yet as he was holy, harmless, and undefiled in that nature, he was ‘separate from sinners,’ Heb. vil. 25. So that although our nature suffered more in his person, than it was capable of in the person of any mere man, yet not being debased by any sinful imperfection, it was always excellent, beautiful, and glorious. And then,
VI. That the Son of God should take part in human nature with the children, is the greatest and most admirable effect of divine love, wisdom, and grace. So our apostle proposeth it, 1 Tim. iii. 16. A mystery which the angels with all diligence desire to look into, 1 Pet. i. 11, 12; see John 1.14; Isa. ix. 6; Rom. ix. 5. Atheists scoff at it, deluded Christians deny it, but the angels adore it, the church professeth it, believers find the comfort and benefit of it. The heavens indeed declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his handy work, Ps. xix. 1. ‘And the invisible things of God from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead,’ Rom. 1. 20. In particular, man himself is fearfully and wonderfully made. These works of God’s power and providence do greatly manifest the glory of his wisdom, omnipotency, and goodness, and are like the light which was created the first day at the beginning of all things, as we have shown. But in this instance of assuming human nature into personal subsistence with himself, that scattered light is gathered into one sun, giving out most glorious beams unto the manifestation of his infinite excellencies, far above all other things. And this surely was not done, but for the greatest end that can be conceived, and such is the salvation of sinners.
But we must proceed with our apostle, and he gives the reason and end of this wonderful dispensation. The end is, the deliverance of the children from the condition before described: and first, the means whereby he wrought and brought about this end is proposed unto us; ‘ by death,’ he was to do it by death.
That by death he might deliver them; that is, by his own death. This as it is placed, as one principal end of his being made partaker of flesh and blood, so it is also the means of the farther end aimed at, namely, the deliverance of the children out of the condition expressed. Some translations add, ‘by his own death,’ which is evidently understood, though it be not literally in the text; the death which he underwent in the nature of man, whereof he was partaker. His death was the means of delivering them from death. Some distinguish between death in the first place, which Christ underwent, and that death in the close of the verse, which the children are said to be in fear of; for this latter they say is more extensive than the former, as comprising death eternal also. But there doth not any thing in the text appear to intimate, that the Captain of salvation, by death of one kind, should deliver the children from that of another. Neither will the apostle’s discourse well bear such a supposition. For if he might have freed the children by any way or means, but only by undergoing that which was due unto them for sin, whence could arise that indispensable necessity which he pleads for by so many considerations of his being made like unto them, seeing without the participation of their nature which he urgeth, he might have done any other thing for their good and benefit, but only suffer what was due to them. And if it be said, that without this participation of their nature, he could not die, which it was necessary that be should do; I desire to know why, if the death which he was to undergo, was not that death to which they were obnoxious for whom he died, how could it be any way more beneficial unto them, than any thing else which he might have done for them, although he had not died? There is no ground then to pretend such an amphibology in the words as that which some contend for. Now, as we observed before, the death of Christ is here placed in the midst, as the end of one thing, and the means or cause of another; the end of his own incarnation, and the means of the children’s deliverance. From the first we may see,
VII. That the first and principal end of the Lord Christ’s assuming human nature, was not to reign in it, but to suffer and die init. He was indeed from of old designed unto a kingdom, but he was to suffer, and so to enter into his glory, Luke xxiv. 26. And he so speaks of his coming into the world, to suffer, to die, to bear witness unto the truth, as if that had been the only work that he was incarnate for. Glory was to follow, a kingdom to ensue, but suffering and dying was the principal work he came about. Glory he had with his Father before the world was, John xvii. 5, and therein a joint rule with him over all the works of his hands. He need not have been made partaker of flesh and blood to have been a king, for he was the King immortal, invisible, the King of kings, and Lord of lords, the only Potentate, from everlasting. But he could not have died, if he had not been made partaker of our nature. And therefore when the people would have taken him by force, and have made hima king, he hid himself from them, John vi. 15. But he hid not himself, when they came to take him by force, and put him to death, but affirmed that for that hour, or business, he came into the world, John xviii. 4, 5, 1]. And this farther sets forth his love and condescension. He saw the work that was proposed unto him, how he was to be exposed unto miseries, afflictions, and persecutions, and at length to make his soul an offermg for sin; yet because it was all for the salvation of the children, he was contented with it, and delighted in it. And how then ought wé to be contented with the difficulties, sorrows, afflictions, and persecutions, which for his sake we are or may be exposed unto; when he on purpose took our nature, that for our sakes he might be exposed and subject unto much more than we are called unto.
There yet remains in these verses, the effects of the death of Christ; ‘that he might destroy sin and deliver:’ wherein we must consider, 1. Who it is that had the power of death. 2. Wherein that power of his did consist. 3. How he was destroyed. 4. How by the death of Christ. 5. What was the deliverance that was obtained for the children thereby. |
EoXoe, ‘the devil,’ the great enemy of our salvation, the great calumniator, make-bait, and false accuser, the firebrand of the creation. The head and captain of the apostasy from God, and of all desertion of the law of the creation. The old serpent, prince of the apostate angels, with all his associates, who first falsely accused Ged unto man, and continues to accuse men falsely unto God; of whom before.
2. His power in and over death is variously apprehended. What the Jews conceive hereof, we have before declared, and much of the truth is mixed with their fables. And the apostle deals with them upon their acknowledgment in general, that he had the power of death. Properly in what sense or in what respect he is said so to have it, learned Expositors are not agreed. All consent, 1. That the devil hath no absolute, or sovereign supreme power over death. Nor 2. Any εξουσια or ‘authority’ about it de jure, in his own right, or on grant, so as to act lawfully and rightly about it according to his own will. Nor 3. Any judging or determining power as to the guilt of death committed unto him, which is peculiar to God, the supreme Rector and Judge of all, Gen. ii. 17; Deut. xxxii. 39; Rev.1.18. _
But wherein this power of Satan doth positively consist, they are not agreed. Some place it in his temptations unto sin, which bind unto death; some in his execution of the sentence of death; he hath the power of an executioner. There cannot well be any doubt, but that the whole interest of Satan in reference unto death is intended in this expression. This death is that which was threatened in the begimning, Gen. ii. 17. Death penally to be inflicted in the way of a curse, Deut. xxvii. 26; Gal. i. 10; that is, death consisting in the dissolution of soul and body, with every thing tending penally thereunto, with the everlasting destruction of body and soul. And _ there are sundry things wherein the xparoc, or power of Satan in reference unto this death doth consist. As 1. He was the means of bringing it into the world. So is the opinion of the Jews in this matter expressed in the book of Wisdom, written as is most probable, by one of them not long before this Epistle. They tell us, chap. 1. 13, 6 Θεὸς θανατον οὐκ εποιησε, ‘God made not death,’ it belonged not unto the original constitution of all things; but chap. 11. 24, φθονῳ διαβόλου θανατος εισηλθεν εἰς τον Koopov, ‘by the envy of the devil death entered into the world.’ And that expression of εἰσηλθεν εἰς Tov κοσμον; is retained by the apostle, Rom. v. 12, Only he lays the end of it on the morally deserving cause, the sin of man, as here it is laid on the efficiently procuring cause, the envy of the devil. And herein consisted ne small part of the power of Satan with respect unto death. Being able to introduce sin he had power to bring in death also, which in the righteous judgment of God, and by the sentence of the law, was inseparably annexed thereunto. And by a parity of reason, so far as he yet continueth to have power over sin, deserving death, he hath power over death itself.
2. Sin and death being thus entered into the world, and all mankind being guilty of the one, and obnoxious unto the other, Satan became thereby to be their prince, as being the prince or author of that state and condition whereinto they are brought. Hence he is called the “ prince of this world,” John xii. 31, and the “god of it,” 2 Cor. iv. 4. Inasmuch as all the world is under the guilt of that sin and death which he brought them into.
3. God having passed the sentence of death against sin, it was in the power of Satan to terrify and aftright the consciences of men, with the expectation and dread of it, so bringing them into bondage. And many God gives up unto him to be agitated and terrified as it were at his pleasure. To this end were persons excommunicated, given up unto Satan to vex, 1 Tim. i. 20. He threatens them as an executioner, with the work that he hath to do upon them.
4. God hath ordained him to be the executioner of the sentence of death upon stubborn sinners unto all eternity; partly for the aggravation of their punishment, when they shall always see, and without relief bewail their folly in hearkening unto his allurements; and partly, to punish himself in his woeful employment. And for these several reasons is Satan said to have the power of death. And hence it is evident, that,
VIII. All the power of Satan in the world, over any of the sons of men is founded in sin, and the guilt of death attending it. Death entered by sin, the guilt of sin brought it in; herewith comes in Satan’s interest, without which, he could have no more to do in the earth, than he hath in heaven. And according as sin abounds or is subdued, so his power is enlarged or straitened. As he is a spirit, he is mighty, strong, wise; as sinful, he is malicious, subtle, ambitious, revengeful, proud; yet none of all these give him his power. He that made him, can cause his sword to pierce unto him, and preserve man, though weak and mortal, from all his force, as a mighty spirit, and from all his attempts asa wicked one. And yet these are the things in him that men are generally afraid of, when yet by them he cannot reach one hair of their heads. But here lies the foundation of his power, even in sin, which so few regard. ‘Then,
IX. All sinners out of Christ, are under the power of Satan. They belong unto that kingdom of death, whereof he is the Prince and Ruler. The whole world lies, ev τῳ πονηρῳ, ‘in the power of this wicked one.’ If the guilt of death be not removed from any, the power of the devil extends unto them. A power indeed it is, that is regulated. Were it sovereign or absolute, he would continually devour. But it is limited unto times, seasons, and degrees, by the will of God, the Judge of all. But yet great it is, and answerable unto his titles, the prince, the god of the world. And however men may flatter themselves, as the Jews did of old, that they are free, if they are not freed by an interest in the death of Christ, they are in bondage unto this beastly tyrant; and as he works effectually in them here, he will ragingly inflict vengeance on them hereafter.
3. He is destroyed—‘ to destroy him.’ The sense and importance of the word here used, was before declared. It is not applied unto the nature, essence, or being of the devil, but unto his power in, and over death; as it is elsewhere declared, John xii. 31, ‘ Now is the judgment of this world, now is the prince of this world cast out.’ That which is here called the destroying of the devil, is there called, the casting out of the prince of this world. It is the casting him out of his power, from his princedom and rule; and Col. 11. 15, “ Having spoiled principalities and _powers, he made an open show of them, triumphing over them in his cross?’ as conquerors used to do, when they had not slain the persons of their enemies, but deprived them of their rule, and led them captives. The destruction then here intended of him that had the power of death, is the dissolution, evacuation, and removing of that power which he had in, and over death, with all the effects and consequences of it.
4. The means whereby Satan was thus destroyed, is also expressed. It was by death, by his own death. This, of all others, seemed the most unlikely way and means, but indeed was not only the best, but the only way whereby it might be accomplished. And the manner how it was done thereby, must be declared and vindicated. The fourfold power of Satan in reference unto death before mentioned, was all founded in sin. The obligation of the sinner unto death, was that which gave him all his power. The taking away then of that obliga~ tion, must needs be the dissolution of his power. The foundation being removed, all that is built upon it must needs fall to the ground. Now this, in reference unto the children for whom he died, was done in the death of Christ; virtually in his death itself, actually in the application of it unto them. When the sinner ceaseth to be obnoxious unto death, the power of Satan ceaseth also. And this every one doth, that hath an interest in the death of Christ; for ‘ there is no condemnation unto them that are in Christ Jesus,’ Rom. vii. 1. and this because he died: he died for their sins, took that death upon himself which was due unto them; which being conquered thereby, and their obligation thereunto ceasing, the power of Satan is therewith dissolved. The first branch of his power consisted in the bringing of sin into the world. This is dissolved by Christ’s taking away the sin of the world, John i. 29, which he did as the Lamb of God, by the sacrifice of himself in his death, typified by the paschal lamb, and all other sacrifices of old. Again, His power consisted in his rule in the world, as cast under sin and death. From this he was cast out, John xii. 31, in the death of Christ; when contending with him for the continuance of his sovereignty, he was conquered, the ground whereon he stood, even the guilt of sin, being taken away from under him, and his title defeated. And actually believers are translated from under his rule, from the power of darkness, into the kingdom of light, and of the Son of God. Nor can he longer make use of death as penal, as threatened in the curse of the law, to ternfy and affright the conciences of men; for being justified by faith in the death of Christ, they have peace with God, Rom. v. 1. Christ making peace between God and us, by the blood of his cross, Eph, 1. 14, 15; 2 Cor. v. 19—21, the weapons of this part of his power are wrested out of his hand, seeing death hath no power to terrify the conscience, but as it expresseth the curse of God. And lastly, his final execution of the sentence of death upon sinners, is utterly taken out of his hand by the death of Christ, inasmuch as they for whom he died shall never undergo death penally. And thus was Satan, as to his power over death, fully destroyed by the death of Christ. And all this depended on God’s institution, appointing the satisfactory sufferings of Christ, and accepting them instead of the sufferings of the children themselves.
The Socinians give us another exposition of these words; as knowing that insisted on to be no less destructive of their error, than the death of Christ is of the power of the devil. The reason hereof, saith Slchtingius, is, ‘Quia per mortem Christus adeptus est supremam potestatem in omnia; qua omnes inimicos suos, quorum caput est diabolus, coercet, eorum vires frangit, eosque tandem penitus abolebit.’ But if this be so, and the abolishing of the power of Satan be an act of sovereign power, then it was not done by the death of Christ, nor was there any need that he should partake of flesh and blood for that purpose, or die. So that this exposition contradicts both the express words of the apostle, and also the whole design of his discourse. No proposition can be more plain than this is, that the power of Satan was destroyed by the death of Christ, which in this mterpretation of the words is denied.
5. And hence it lastly appears, what was the deliverance that was procured for the children by this dissolution of the power of Satan. It respects both what they feared, and what ensued on their fear; that is, death and bondage. For the deliverance here intended, is not merely a consequent of the destruction of Satan, but hath regard unto the things themselves, about which the power of Satan was exercised. They were obnoxious unto death on the guilt of sin, as penal, as under the curse, as attended with hell, or everlasting misery. This he delivered the children from, by making an atonement for their sins in his death virtually loosing their obligation thereunto, and procuring for them eternal redemption, as shall afterwards be fully declared. Hereon also they are delivered from the bondage before described. The fear of death being taken away, the bondage that ensues thereon vanisheth also. And these things, as they are done virtually and legally in the death of Christ, so they are actually accomplished in, and towards the children, upon the application of the death of Christ unto them, when they do believe. And we may now close our consideration of these verses, with one or two other observations; as,
X. The death of Christ, through the wise and righteous disposal of God, is victorious, all-conquering, and prevalent. The aim of the world was to bring him unto death: and therein they thought they had done with him. The aim of Satan was soalso, who thereby supposed he should have secured his own kingdom. And what could worldly or satanical wisdom have imagined otherwise? He that is slain is conquered. His own followers were ready to think so. ‘We trusted,’ say they, ‘that it had been he who should have redeemed Israel,’ Luke xxiv. 21, ‘but he is dead; ’ and their hopes are with him in the grave. What can be expected from him, whois taken, slain, crucified? Can he save others, who it seems could not save himself? Per mortem alterius, stultum est sperare salutem. Is it not a foolish thing, to look for life by the death of another? This was that which the Pagans of old reproached the Christians withal, that they believed in one. that was crucified and died himself; and what could they expect from him? And our apostle tells us, that this death, this cross, was a stumblingblock unto the Jews, and folly to the Greeks, 1 Cor. 1. 18,23. And so it would have been in itself, Acts 11. 23, iv. 28, had not the will, and counsel, and wisdom, and grace of God, been in it. But he ordered things so, that this death of Christ should pull out that pin, which kept together the whole fabric of sin and Satan, that, like Sampson, he should in his death pull down the palace of Satan about his ears, and that in dying he should conquer and subdue all things unto himself. All the angels of heaven stood looking on, to see what would be the end of this great trial. Men and devils were ignorant of the great work which God had in hand. And whilst they thought they were destroying him, God was in, and by him, destroying them and their power. Whilst his heel.was bruised, he brake their head. And this should teach us, to leave all God’s works unto himself; see John xi.6—10. He can bring light out of darkness, and meat out of the eater. He can disappoint his adversaries of their greatest hopes, and fairest possibilities, and raise up the hopes of his own out of the grave. He can make suffering to be saving, death victorious, and heal us by the stripes of his Son. And in particular, it should stir us up to meditate on this mysterious work of his love and wisdom. We can never enough search into it, whilst our inquiry is guided by his word. New mysteries, all fountains of refreshment and joy, will continually open themselves unto us, until we come to be satisfied with the endless fulness of it unto eternity. Again,
XI. One principal end of the death of Christ, was to destroy the power of Satan; to destroy him that had the power of death. This was promised of old, Gen. ii. 15. He was to break the head of the serpent. From him sprang all the miseries which he came to deliver his elect from, and which could not be effected without the dissolution of his power. He was anointed to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening the prison to them that were bound, Isa. Ixi. 1. To this end, he was to conquer him who detained them, which he did by his death, Col. 11. 15, and so lead captivity captive, Psal. Ixviii. 18, stilling this enemy and self-avenger, Ps. vill. 3, binding the strong man, Matt., xii. and dividing the spoil with him, Isa. li, 12. And this he did by the merit of his blood, and the atonement he made for sin thereby. This took away the obligation of the law unto death and disarmed Satan. And moreover, by the power of the eternal Spirit ’ whereby he offered himself unto God, he conquered and quelled him. Satan laid his claim unto the person of Christ; but coming to put itin execution, he met with that great and hidden power in him which he knew not, and was utterly conquered. And this, as it gives us a particular consideration of the excellency of our redemption, wherein Satan, our old enemy, who first foiled us, who always hates us, and seeks our ruin, 1s conquered, spoiled, and chained; so it teacheth us how to contend with him, by what weapons to resist his temptations, and to repel his affrightments, even those whereby he hath been already subdued. Faith in the death of Christ, is the only way and means of obtaining a conquest over him. He will fly at the sign of the cross, rightly made.
Ver. 16.—Havine asserted the incarnation of the Lord Christ, the Captain of our salvation, and shown the necessity of it, from the ends which were to be accomplished by it,and therein given the reason of his concession, that he was for a season made less than the angels, the apostle proceeds in this verse, to confirm what he had taught before, by testimony of the Scripture, and adds an especial amplification of the grace of God in this whole dispensation, from the consideration of the angels, who were not made partakers of the like love and mercy.
Ov yao δηπου. The Syriac quite omits δηπου, and reads only x> 2, non enim, ‘ for he did not.’ V. L. nusquam enim. Που; he renders usquam, ‘ any where;’ and on the consideration of the negative particle, ov nusquam, ‘nowhere.’ Beza, non enim utique: as ours, for verily (he took) not; not reaching the forceor use of δηπου. Anis, non enim videlicet, which answers not the intent of this place. Erasmus fully and properly, non enim sane usquam, ‘ for verily not any where;’ that is, in no place of the Scripture is any such thing testified unto, which way of expression we observed our apostle to use before, ¢h,1..5.
Αγγελων επιλαμξανεται: Syr. 2D) NoNd7a 73, ex angelis assumpsit, ‘he took not of, or from among, the angels τ᾿ that is of their nature. V. L. Arias, angelos apprehendit, ‘ he doth not take hold of angels.’ Beza, angelos assumpsit, ‘he assumed not, he took not angels to himself:’ ertAapbaverat, for ἐπελαΐξε, by an enallage of time; which ours follows, ‘he took not on him the nature of angels” But this change of the tense is needless. For the apostle intends not to express what Christ had done, but what the Scripture saith and teacheth concerning him in this matter. That no where affirms that he takes hold of angels.
The remaining words are generally rendered by translators, according to! the analogy of these. Sed apprehendit, assumit, assumpsit semen Abrahe, ‘ he laid hold of,he takes, he tookthe seed of Abraham;’ only the Ethiopic reads them, ‘Did he not exalt the seed of
The constant use of this word επιλαμξανω, in the New Testament, is ‘to take hold of.’ And so in particular it is elsewhere used in this Epistle, ch. vin. 9, επιλαξομενου μου TNC χέίρος autwy, ‘in the day that I took them by the hand.’ In other authors, it is so variously used, that nothing from thence can be determined, as to its precise signification, in this, or any other place. The first and proper sense of it is acknowledged to be, to take hold of, as it were with the hand. And however the sense may be interpreted, the word cannot properly be translated any otherwise than ‘to take.’ For what some contend, that the effect or end of taking hold of, that is, to help, to vindicate into liberty, whence, by Castalio, it is rendered opitulatur, yet it belongs to the design of the place, not the meaning of the word, which in the first place is to be respected.
Ver. 16.—For verily not any where doth ke take angels, but he takes the seed of Abraham.
In the words, there is first the reference that the apostle makes unto somewhat else, whereby that which he declareth is confirmed. For verily not any where; that is, that which he denieth in the following words, is no where taught in the Scripture: as, ch. 1. 5, ‘ For unto which of the angels said he at any time;’ that is, there is no testimony extant in the Scripture concerning them to that purpose. So here, no where is it spoken in the Scripture, that Christ taketh angels. And what is so spoken, he is said todo. And thus also the afirmative clause of his proposition, ‘ but he taketh the seed of Abraham,’ is to be referred to the Scripture. There it is promised, there it is spoken, and therein it is done by him.
Secondly. That which he asserteth, hath the nature of a discrete axiom, wherein the same thing is denied, and affirmed of the disparates expressed, and that univocally in the same sense: ‘ he took not angels, but he took the seed of Abraham.’ And this, we being referred to the Scripture for the proof and confirmation of, gives light and perfect understanding unto the meaning of the words. For how doth Christ in the Scripture take the seed of Abraham in such a sense, as that therein nothing is spoken of him in reference unto angels? [Ὁ is evident, that it was in that he was of the posterity of Abraham according to the flesh; that he was promised to Abraham, that he should be of his seed, yea, that he should be his seed; as Gal. ui. 16. This was the great principle, the great expectation of the Hebrews, that the Messiah should be the seed of Abraham. This was declared unto them in the promise, and this accordingly was accomplished. And. he is here said to take the seed of Abraham, because in the Scripture it is so plainly, so often affirmed that he should so do; when not one word is any where spoken that he should be an angel, or take their nature upon him. And this, as I said, gives us the true meaning of the words. The apostle in them confirms what he had before affirmed, concerning his being made partaker of flesh and blood, together with the children. This, saith he, the Scripture declares, wherein it is promised that he should be the seed of Abraham, which he therein takes upon him, and which was already accomplished in his being made partaker of flesh and blood; see John i. 14; Rom. ix. 5; Gal. iv. 4, 11. 16. This then the apostle teacheth us, that the Lord Christ, the Son of God, according to the promise, took to himself the nature of man, coming of the seed of Abraham, that is, he took the nature of man into personal union with himself; but took not the nature of angels, no such thing being spoken of him, nor concerning him, any where in the Scripture. And this exposition of the words will be farther evidenced and confirmed by our examination of another, which, with great endeavour, is advanced in opposition unto it. pp2
Some then take the meaning of this exposition to be, that the Lord Christ, by his participation of flesh and blood, brought help and relief not unto angels, but unto men, the seed of Abraham, And they suppose to this purpose, -that ἐπιλαμξανεται is put for ἀναλαμξανεται (αντιλαμξανεται,) ‘to help, to succour, to relieve, to vindicate into liberty.’ Of this mind are Castalio, and all the Socinians; among those of the Roman church, Ribera. Estius also, and A Lapide speak doubtfully in the case. Of Protestants, Camero, and Grotius, who affirms moreover, that Chrysostom and the Greek scholiasts so interpret the place and words, which I should have marvelled at, had I not long before observed him (Grotius) greatly to fail or mistake in many of his quotations. Chrysostom, whom he names in particular, expressly referreth this whole verse unto the Lord Christ’s assumption of the nature of man, and not of the nature of angels. The same also is insisted on by Theophylact and C&cumenius, without any intimation of the sense that Grotius would impose upon them.
The Socinians embrace and endeavour to confirm this second exposition of the words, and it is their concernment so to do. For if the words express that the Lord Christ assumed human nature, which necessarily infers his pre-existence in another nature, their persuasion about the person of Christ is utterly overthrown. Their exceptions in their controversial writings unto this place have been elsewhere considered. ‘Those of Eniedinus on this text are answered by Parzus, those of Castalio by Beza, and the objections of some others by Gomarus. We shall, in the first place, consider what is proposed for the confirmation of their sense, by Slichtingius or Crellius; and then the exception of a very learned expositor unto the sense before laid down and confirmed. And Slichtingius first argues from the context,
‘ Preeter ipsa verba,’ saith he, ‘que hune sensum nullo modo patiuntur ut postea dicemus, contextus et ratiocinatio autoris id repudiat; qui pro ratione et argumento id sumere non potuit debuitve, quod sibi hoc ipso argumento et ratione probandum sumpsisset. De eo enim erat questio, cur Christus qui nune ad tantam majestatem et gloriam est evectus, non angelicam sed humanam, morti et variis calamitatibus obnoxiam habuerit naturam? hujus vero rei, quo pacto ratio redderetur, per id quod non angelicam sed humanam naturam assumpserit; cum istius ipsius rei, que in hac questione continetur, nempe quod Christus homo fuit natus, nunc causa ratioque queratur. At vero si hee verba, de juvandis non angelis, sed hominibus, deque ope iis ferenda intelligamus, pulcherrime omnia cohzrent; nempe Christum hominem mortalem fuisse, non angelum aliquem, quod non angelis sed hominibus juvandis, servandisque fuerit destinatus.” But the foundation of this
exposition of the context is a mistake, which his own preceding discourse might have relieved him from. For there is no such question proposed as here is imagined, nor doth he in his following exposition suppose it. The apostle doth not once propose this unto confirmation, that it behoved the Lord Christ to be a man, and not an angel. But having proved at large before, that in nature and authority he was above the angels, he grants, ver. 8, that he was fora little while made lower than they; and gives at large the reason of the necessity of that dispensation, taken from the work which God had designed him unto, which being to bring many sons unto glory, he shows and proves by sundry reasons, that it could not be accomplished without his death and suffering; for which end, it was indispensably necessary that he should be made partaker of flesh and blood. And this he confirms farther, by referring the Hebrews unto the Scripture, and in especial unto the great promise of the Messiah made unto Abraham, that the Messiah was to be his seed; the love and grace whereof, he amplifies by an intimation that he was not to partake of the angelical nature. That supposition therefore which is the foundation of this exposition, namely that the apostle had before designed to prove that the Messiah ought to partake of human nature, and not of angelical, which is nothing to his purpose, is a surmise suited only to the present occasion. Wherefore Felbinger, in his ‘ Demonstrationes Evangelice,’ | takes another course, and affirms that these words contain the end of what was before asserted, ver. 14, 15, namely, about Christ’s participation of flesh and blood, which was not to help angels, but the seed of Abraham, and to take them into grace and favour. But these things are both of them expressly declared in those verses, especially ver. 15, where it is directly affirmed, that his design in his incarnation and death, was to destroy the devil, and to free and save the children. And to what end should these things be here again repeated, and that in words and terms far more obscure and ambiguous than those wherein it was before taught and declared? For by angels they understand evil angels; and there could be no cause why the apostle should say in this verse, that he did not assist or relieve them, when he had declared in the words immediately foregoing, that he was born and died, that he might destroy them. Neither is it comely to say, that the end why Christ destroyed the devil was, that he might not help him; or he end why he saved the children was, that he might assist them. Besides, the introduction of this assertion, ov yap δηπου, will not allow, that here any end is intimated of what was before expressed, there being no insinuation of any final cause in them. ᾿
The context therefore, not answering their occasion, they betake
themselves to the words, Verbum emiAauPaverat, (saith he,) significat proprie, manu aliquem apprehendere; sive ut illum aliquo ducas, sive ut sustentes; hinc ad opitulationem significandum commode transfertur quos enim adjutos volumus ne cadant, vel sub onere aliquo succumbant, aut si ceciderint erectos cupimus, 115 manum injicere solemus, quo sensu, Ecclesiastic. iv. 12. De sapientia dictum est, καὶ ἐπιλαμ- Baverac των ζητουντων avrny, hoc est, opitulatur querentibus se, eadem est significatio verbi αντιλαμξανεται; quod qui aliquem sublevatum velint illi ex adverso manum porrigere solent.
It is acknowledged that αντιλαμίανεται doth frequently signify as here is alleged, namely ‘to help and assist,’ as it were by putting forth the hand to give relief. But if that were intended by the apostle in this place, what reason can be assigned why he should wave the use of a word proper to his purpose, and frequently so applied by him- self in other places, and make use of another, which signifying no such thing, nor any where used by him in that sense, must needs obscure his meaning, and render it ambiguous? Whereas therefore avriAap- βανεται, signifies to ‘help and relieve, and is constantly used by our apostle in that sense, it being not used or applied by him in this place to express his intention, but emAap(avera, which signifies no such thing, nor is ever used by him to that purpose, the sense contended for of help and relief is plainly excluded. The place of Ecclesiasticus, and that alone, is referred to by all that embrace this exposition. But what if the word be abused in that place by that writer? must that give a rule to its interpretation in all other writers where it is properly used? But yet neither is the word used there for to help and relieve, but to take and receive; wisdom, suscipit, ‘receiveth,’ or taketh to itself, suo more, those that seek it; which is the sense of the word we plead for, and so is it rendered by translators. So the Lord Christ, suo modo, took to himself the seed of Abrabam, by uniting it to his person as he was the Son of God. In the very entrance also of his discourse, this author acknowledgeth that ἐπιλαμβάνεται doth not directly or properly signify to help or to relieve, but signifying to ‘ take hold of,’ is transferred to that use and sense. I ask, where? by whom? in what author? If he says in this place by the apostle, that will not prove it; and where any will plead for the metaphorical use of a word, they must either prove that the sense of the place where it is used enforces that acceptation of it, or at least that in like cases in other places it is so used, neither of which are here pretended.
But he proceeds. Quod hie dicit, ἐπιλαμβανεσθαι, ver. 18, per βοηθησαι, effert, de eadem enim re utrobique agitur, et rationem consequentiz argumenti, quod in hoc versiculo proponit, illic explicat. This is but imagined; the contrary is evident to every one, on the first view of the context. Here the apostle discourseth the reason of the humiliation of Christ, and his taking flesh; there the benefit of his priestly office to them that do believe.
That the genuine sense of the place may be yet more fully vindicated, I shall farther consider the exceptions of a very learned man to our interpretation of the words, and his answers to the reasons whereby it is confirmed.
First, he says, that ‘ ἐπιλαμβανεται, being in the present tense, signifieth a continued action, such as Christ’s helping of us is; but his assumption of human nature was a momentaneous action, which being past long before, the apostle would not express it as a thing present.’ [t is generally answered to this exception, that an enallage is to be allowed, and that ἐπιλαμβάνεται is put for emsdaPero, which is usual in the Scripture. So John i. 31, xxi. 13. But yet there is no just necessity of supposing it in this place. The apostle in his usual manner disputing with the Hebrews on the principles wherein they had been instructed from the Old Testament, minds them that there is nothing said therein of his taking on him the nature of angels, but only of the seed of Abraham. So that ‘he takes,’ is, ‘he doth so in the Scripture,’ that affirms him so to do; and in respect hereunto the expression in the present tense is proper to his purpose. This way of arguing and manner of expression we have manifested on chap. i. 5.
Again he adds this expression, ‘He took not on him angels,’ for ‘the nature of angels,’ is hard and uncouth, as it would be in the affirmative to say, assumpsit homines, or hominem, ‘ he took men,’ or ‘a man;’ which, we say not, although we do that he took human nature. But the reason of this phrase of speech is evident. Having before affirmed that he was partaker σαρκὸς καὶ aiparoc, ‘ of flesh and blood,’ whereby the nature of man is expressed, repeating here again the same assertion with respect to the promise, and a negation of the same thing in reference to angels, because their nature consisteth not of flesh and blood, he expresses it indefinitely and in the concrete; he took not them, that is, not that in, and of them, which answers to flesh and blood in the children, that is, their nature. So that there is no need to assert, as he supposeth some may do, that capxoc καὶ αἵματος, ought to be repeated εκ του κοινου, and referred to those bodies which the angels assumed for a season in their apparitions under the Old Testament, there being only an ellipsis, easy to be supplied, of that in them which answers to flesh and blood in the children.
Thirdly. ‘The apostle,’ he saith, ‘ showeth ver. 17, that Christ ought in all things to be made like to us, by this reason, Quod non assumpsit angelos, sed semen Abrahe.’ But if this be to take on him the nature of man, he comes to prove the same thing by the same. For to be made like to us, and to assume human nature, differ only in words, and not really, or indeed. But, take emAauBaverar, ‘to help or relieve,’ and all things agree. For because he came to help us and not angels, it became him to be made like to us. But herein lies a double mistake. First, in the scope and argument of the apostle, for those words in the beginning of the 17th verse are not an inference or conclusion from what is asserted in this verse, but an affirmation of the necessity of what is there asserted, from that which follows in the same verse, ‘that he might be a faithful High Priest.’ Secondly, those words, ‘ like unto us,’ do not intend his conformity to us in his participation of human nature, which he had on other reasons before confirmed, but in the sufferings and temptations which there he insists on.
Fourthly. ‘The seed of Abraham,’ he says, ‘is a collective expression, and denotes many, at least it must denote the person of some man, which Christ did not assume. And therefore it is the spiritual seed of Abraham that is intended, that is, believers. And the apostle so calls them, because the Hebrews were well pleased with the mention of that privilege.’ But this will not abide the examination. The great promise of old to Abraham was, that, ‘in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed.’ The intendment of that promise was, that the Messiah should be his seed, of his posterity. That by tiis seed one individual was intended, our apostle declares, Gal. il. 16.
As Christ in like manner is said to be of the seed of David according to the flesh, Rom. i. 3. Of this promise the apostle reminds the Hebrews. So that his taking on him the seed of Abraham, is not the assuming of many, nor of the person of any one of them, but merely his being made of the seed of Abraham according to the promise. And to bend these words unto any other sense, than the accomplishment of the promise made to Abraham, that Christ should be of his seed is plainly to pervert them. And this is all of weight that I can meet with, which is objected unto our interpretation of this place, which being removed, it is further established.
Lastly. In the disparate removed, by angels, the good angels, not fallen angels are principally regarded. Of fallen angels he had newly spoken under the collective expression, the ‘devil, who had the power of death.’ Nor are (it may be) the devils any where called absolutely by the name of angels, but they are termed either evil angels, or angels that sinned, that left their habitation, that are to be judged, the devil’?s angels, or have some other peculiar adjunct whereby they are marked out and distinguished. Now it cannot be that this word em- AauBavera, if it be interpreted to ‘help, assist,’ or ‘ relieve,’ can in any sense be applied unto the angels, that must be intended if any. For the word must denote either any help, assistance or relief in general, or that especial help and assistance which is given by Christ in the work of reconciliation and redemption. If the first be intended, I much guestion the truth of the assertion, seeing the angels owe their establishment in grace unto Christ, and their advancement in glory, Eph. i. 10, If it be taken in the latter sense, as is pretended, then the nature of the discrete axiom here used by the apostle, requires that there be the same need of the help intimated in both the disparates, which is denied as unto the one, and affirmed as unto the other. But now the angels, that is, the good angels, had no need of the help of redemption and reconciliation unto God, or of being freed from death or the fear of it, which they were never obnoxious unto. And what remains for the clearing of the mind of the apostle, will appear yet farther in the ensuing observations from the words.
1. The Lord Jesus Christ is truly God and man in one person, and this is fully manifested in these words. For, first, there is supposed in them his pre-existence in another nature than that which he is said here to assume. He was before, he sawbsisted before, or he could not have taken on him what he had not, This was his divine nature, as the like is intimated where he is said to be ‘made flesh,’ Johni. 14; to be ‘made of a woman,’ Gal. iv. 4; to be ‘ manifested in the flesh,’ 1 Tim. ni. 16; to “ take on him the form of a servant,’ Phil. ii. 8,9, as here he took the seed of Abraham; he was before he did so; that is, the Son, the Word of God, the Son of God, as in the places mentioned, eternally pre-existing unto this, his incarnation. For the subject of this proposition, he took on him, &c. denotes a person preexisting unto the act of taking here ascribed unto him, which was no other than the Son of God. 2. He assumed, he took to himself another nature, of the seed of Abraham, according unto the promise; so continuing what he was, he became what he was not. For, 3. He took this to be his own nature; he so took it, as himself to become truly the seed of Abraham, to whom, and concerning whom the promise was given, Gal. iii..16; and was himself made of the ‘seed of David according to the flesh,’ Rom. i. 3; and as ‘ concerning the flesh, came of the fathers,’ Rom. ix. 5; and so was the son of David, the son of Abraham, Matt. i. 1. And this could no otherwise be done, but, 4, by taking” that nature into personal subsistence with himself, in the hypostasis of the Son of God; the nature he assumed could no otherwise become his. For if he had by any ways or means taken the person of aman to be united unto him, in the strictest union that two persons are capable of, a divine and a human, the nature had still been the nature of that other person and not his own. But he took it to be his own nature, which it could no ways be but by personal union, causing it to subsist in his own person. And he is therefore a true and perfect man; for no more is required to make a complete and perfect man, but the entire nature of man subsisting. And this is in Christ as a man, the human nature having a subsistence communicated unto it by the Son of God. And therefore, 6. This is done without a multiplication of persons in him. For the human nature can have no personality of its own, because it was taken to be the nature of another person, who was pre-existent unto it, and by assuming of it, prevented its proper personality. Neither, 7. Did hence any mixture or confusion of natures ensue, or of the essential properties of them, for he took the seed of Abraham to be his human nature, which, if mixed with the divine, it could not be. And this he hath done, 8, inseparably and for ever. Which things are handled at large elsewhere.
II. The redemption of mankind by the taking of our nature, was a work of mere sovereign grace. He took the seed of Abraham, he took not the nature of angels. And for what cause or reason? Can any be assigned but the sovereign grace, pleasure, and love of God? nor doth the Scripture any where assign any other. And this will the better appear if we consider,
First. That for a sinning nature to be saved, it was indispensably necessary that it should be assumed. ‘The nature of angels being not taken, those that sinned in that nature must perish for ever, and they that fancy a possibility of saving sinners any other way but by satisfaction made in the nature that sinned, seem not to have considered aright the nature of sin, and the justice of God. Had any other way been possible, why doth the perishing of angels so inevitably follow the non-assumption of their nature? This way alone then could it be wrought.
Secondly. That we were carrying away all human nature into endless destruction; for so it is mtimated, whence Christ’s assumption of it is expressed by his putting forth his hand and taking hold of it, to stop it in its course of apostasy and ruin.. Of angels, only some individual persons fell from God, but our whole nature, in every one to whom it was communicated from and by Adam, was running headlong to destruction. In itself there could be no relief, nor any thing to commend it unto ‘God.
Here sovereign grace interposeth. The ‘love of God to mankind,’ Tit. tii, 4. As to the angels, he ‘spared them not, 2 Pet. ii. 4. He spared not them, and ‘spared not his Son for us,’ Rom. viii. 32. And if we consider rightly what the Scripture informs us of the number and dignity of the angels that sinned, of their nature and ability to accomplish the will of God, and compare therewith our own vileness and low condition, we may have matter of eternal admiration suggested unto us. And _ there was infinite wisdom as well as sovereign grace in this dispensation, sundry branches whereof the apostle afterwards holds out unto us.
Ver. 17, 18.—Havine declared the general reasons why the Son or Messiah was for a little while to be made lower than the angels, in his incarnation and sufferings, and showed the ends thereof, the apostle proceeds to declare other especial ends of this divine dispensation, and therein makes way unto what he had to instruct the Hebrews in, about the priestly office of Christ, which was the principal ground and foundation of what he intended more fully afterwards to discourse with them about, and to inform them in.
Ὅθεν ὠφειλε, Vulg. unde debuit, ‘whence he ought.’ So Beza. Syr. pti xo dur, ‘for which cause, or wherefore it was just,’ meet, or equal. Others, wherefore it was due, it was convenient. ‘ Wherefore it behoved him,’ so ours. Οφειλω, joined with an infinitive mood, as here it is, signifies commonly oportet me, or necesse est, or debeo; ‘I ought,’ ‘ it behoveth me,’ ‘ it is necessary for me,’ and denotes more than a mere congruency, conveniency, or expediency; even such a kind of necessity as ariseth from that which in itself is just and equal; which the Syriac expresseth. It is of the same import with empeme, ver. 10.
Kara παντα, per omnia; Syr. oi 523, in omni re, ‘in every thing.’ Arab. In cunctis eorum conditionibus, ‘in all conditions,’ that is, every condition and state of life: ours, ‘in all things,’ leaving the words where they are placed in the Original, ‘ Wherefore in all things it behoved him; whereas, a little transposition of them would more clear up the sense; ‘Wherefore it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren in all things.’ The Ethiopic quite omits the words here, and placeth them after ἐλεημων, ‘merciful in all things.’
NID IN MN Nit, ‘that he might be merciful, and a great priest,’ or chief priest, nya, ‘ faithful in the things of God,’ so making his mercifulness an attribute of his person absolutely, and faithfulness only to respect him as a high priest. So also the Arabic and Ethiopic. And the word whereby ἐλεημὼν is rendered, signifies ‘ tenderly merciful,’ with that kind of mercy which is called bowels of compassion, from pm. And it may be here observed, that that interpreter throughout the’epistle renders apyepeve by Na 34, Rab Comara; though that word be always used in an ill sense in the Old Testament. Three times it occurs therein, 2 Kings xxiii. 5, where we render it ‘idolatrous priests,’ Zeph. i. 4, the name Chemarims is retained, Hos. x. 5, we express it by priests, but place Chemarim in the margin. For it principally denoted the priests of Baal and Moloch, and their blackness, (as the word is rendered Job. 111. 5,) and not from the garments they wore, but from the colour they contracted in their diabolical -sacrifices in the fire. Hence wherever the word jm is applied unto a priest of a false god, or one engaged in false worship, the Targumists constantly render it by x71, see Judg. xvii. 5, xviii. 4, 980. But this translator respected not so much the use, as the original and extraction of the word: for from 773, in Niphal Ἴ25), is to ‘wax hot,’ and to be moved with internal heat, whence it is taken to signify compassion and pity, the same with om; hence Deut. xii. 17, pyar 7> jnn, and shall ‘ give thee tender mercy,’ bowels of compassion is rendered by Ben Uzziel, pody am prams poby ayaa, and ‘shall wax hot towards you with compassion, and shall have compassion on you.’ He shall be warmed and moved with compassion towards you. In like manner is the word used, Psal. Ixxvii. 10. With respect unto this heat of affections and abundant compassion, the word may well be applied unto the Lord Christ our High Priest.
Ta προς tov Θεον, Vulg. ad Deum, Pontifex ad Deum, an ‘high priest towards God.’ Very defectively. Eras. In his que apud Deum forent agenda, ‘in the things that were to be done before God;’ so also Beza, noting forent agenda, as a supplement unto the text. So Vatablus and others. Syr. xmds72, ‘in the things of God.’ The apostle explains his own meaning, chap. v. 1, where he tells us that every High Priest, καθίσταται ta προς tov Θεὸν iva προσφερῃ, “ 15. set over the things appertaining unto God, that he may offer sacrifice.’ In things appertaming unto God, what he hath to do with God, is in their behalf for whom he ministers in his office before him. Arab. res nostras apud Deum peragens.
Ere ro ἵλασκεσϑαι τας ἁμαρτιας του Aaov, Vulg. ut repropitiaret delicta populi: aiming to express the {sense of the original, it falls upon a barbarous word, yielding no tolerable sense, though that which seems to be intended in it, is to make propitiation or atonement. Ar. Vatab. Eras. Bez. ad expiandum: Syr. Nayt ‘mon by NDI, expians super peccata populi; so the word is constantly translated, though it rather signifies to show mercy or pity. Ἵλασκομαι, is commonly used actively for propitium facio, or propitio, to “ please, appease, atone, turn away anger τ᾿ and when it is taken in a passive or neuter sense, it signifies to be ‘ merciful, appeased, reconciled,’ as Luke xvii. 13, 6 Θεὸς ‘AaoSyre μοι. τῳ apaprwry, ‘God be merciful unto me a sinner.’ 1 much doubt whether any instance can be given of its signifying to expiate, though because of the construction of it in this place, it be generally so rendered. If it be taken in its first proper sense, then sin cannot be the next object of the act denoted by it. Ours, ‘ to make reconciliation for the sins of the people,’ of the sense whereof we shall deal afterwards at large.
Ev ᾧ yap, In eo enim, Vulg. ¢ for in that:’ Eras. nam ex hoe, ‘ for from hence; Beza, nam ex eo; Vat. ex eo, ob id; ours, ‘ for in that,’ that is, inasmuch; not ‘in that thing wherein he was tempted,’ but, ‘ whereas, inasmuch, seeing that;’ Arab. ‘ for from;those things which happened unto him when he was tempted.’
Πεπονθεν αὐτὸς Trepactec, Vulg. passus est ipse tentatus, ‘in which himself suffered and was tempted.’ Et, Erasmus tells us 15 not in many ancient copies: Ar. in quo passus est ipse tentatus, ‘in that he suffered himself being tempted:’ Bez. ex eo quod perpessus ipse fuit, quum est tentatus; “for that which he suffered when he was tempted.’ But the words rather signify ‘his sufferings by being tempted,’ or from his temptations, than his suffermg on other accounts when he was tempted. Syr. ‘for in that he suffered and was tempted;’ as the Vul. Eras. quod ipsi contigit tentatum esse, ‘that it befel him to be tempted.’ Laying the whole upon temptation, because in the latter clause mention is made of them that are tempted, without any addition of sufferings. It is not certain whether πέπονθα be from πασκω, or from zovew, from whose active πεπονηκα the middle signification in πέπονα is found, and πέπονθα, by an unusual pleonasm of Theta; and if so, not his suffering, but his labouring under temptation is intended. If, as it is commonly thought, it be from πασκω, I confess that word is sometimes used as it is here rendered by Erasmus, accidit, contigit, usu venit, ‘it happened, it befel; but it is but rarely, and that not without regard unto suffering. But it being evident that the suffering of Christ is here intended, his temptation being mentioned only as an instance of that whereby he suffered, that is, not to be passed over, and the sense carried on unto his temptation only. Πειρασθεις, he ‘ suffered being tempted.’ Πειραζω, is in itself but to make a trial or experiment. But this being done from various principles by sundry means, for different ends, and upon divers subjects, there is a great difference in such trials, and great variety in the nature of temptations. How the Lord Christ was tempted, by whom, and of what sort his temptations were, we shall consider afterwards. The Ethiop. reads, ‘ when he tempted him, and afflicted him;? that is, God. ᾿
Ver. 17, 18.— Wherefore (hence) it behoved him to (it was meet he should) be made hike unto his (the) brethren in all things, (every manner of way,) that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in the things of (pertaining unto) God, to make reconcihation for the sins of the people. or in that (whereas) he hath suffered being (when he was) tempted, he is able to succour (come in to the help of) them that are tempted.
In these two verses, the apostle illustrates what he had taught before, and confirms what he had asserted concerning the Son’s participation of flesh and blood, in like manner with the children, from one especial end thereof. And this.end is, his being a high priest, which that Messiah was to be, both the Hebrews granted, and he himself intended more largely afterwards to demonstrate. - Moreover, he was to be such a high priest, as was settled and suited for the discharge of his office, unto the benefit of them for whose good he was to minister therein. This the wisdom of God, and the nature of the thing itself doth require. Now they being persons obnoxious unto temptations and sufferings of all sorts, he must in an especial manner be able to help, relieve, and save such persons, And all this the apostle declares in these verses, in the opening whereof we may consider,
1. The importance of the illative expression in the entrance, ‘ wherefore,’ or hence.
2. The necessity intimated of what is here assigned to the Messiah, ‘it behoved him, or it was meet that he should.
3. What the apostle repeats and re-asserts; namely, that he was ‘in all things,’ or every manner of way, to be made like unto his brethren; or,
4. The general end of this his necessary conformity unto the brethren; that he ‘ might be a merciful and faithful high priest.’
5. The especial work and end of that office, which he was so _prepared for; in the things of God, ‘to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.’