Levi, who was of the posterity of Abraham, might be reckoned as then
virtually in the patriarch ; and since he descended from him, and there-
fore could not be regarded as of a rank above him, it would follow,
according to the Jewish mode of reasoning, that the priesthood of Mel-
chisedek was of a rank superior to that of Levi.
If it be said, " We do not need such considerations as these, to esta-
blish the superior priesthood of Christ ; neither do we, in this manner,
count upon genealogy, and descent, and rank :" I freely assent. But
then I am not able to see, why this should at all detract from the pro-
priety or the weight of the epistle to the Hebrews, viz. that the writer
has fully met the exigencies of the case, which called forth the epistle
itself; and met them in just such a way as was adapted to the condition
of his readers, and the modes of reasoning to which they were accus-
tomed. If they attached high importance and dignity to the Levitical
priesthood, because the Levites descended from Abraham, (as they surely
did,) and this opinion served to fill their minds with difficulty in regard
to admitting that the priesthood of Christ could supersede that of
Aaron ; then was it directly to the writer's purpose to remove this pre-
judice, and to show them, that, according to their own grounds of argu-
ment and computation, Melchisedek must be superior to the Levitical
priests, and to Abraham himself. If now, in doing this, (which all must
admit was necessary and proper to be done,) the writer has met their
prejudices with arguments specially adapted to this purpose, and the
force of which they must acknowledge, if true to their own principles ;
and, at the same time, he has averred nothing which is adapted to incul-
cate error, or to mislead others who were educated in a different manner
from the Hebrews ; then has he done what every wise and prudent man
ought to do, under circumstances like his. And if several of his argu-
ments are not now needed by us, and cannot well be employed by us,
at the present time, with any particular efficacy, this makes nothing
against his discretion, or against the validity of his reasoning. We all
enjoy the light which has been shed around us by the whole of the New
584 EXCURSUS XIV.
Testament. Of this the Hebrews had little or nothing. We are edu-
cated with views and feelings entirely different, in many respects, from
those in which they were brought up. We do not, therefore, need to
be addressed and reasoned with, in all respects, just as they did. Many
of their prejudices we have not ; many of their doubts with respect to
the superiority of Christianity over the Mosaic religion, we never enter-
tained. Many things, then, which were said with great force and pro-
priety to them, by our author, cannot be addressed to us with the same
pertinency, nor felt with the same power.
Let the reasoning in the epistle to the Hebrews be judged of equi-
tably, by taking into view such considerations as these, and all difficul-
ties of any serious import, will, as I am inclined to believe, be removed
from the mind of a serious, candid, and intelligent reader. Such con-
siderations, too, might have saved the many inuendos, (with which we
meet, in riot a few of the recent commentaries on our epistle,) that the
writer has built nearly all his arguments upon allegory and accommoda-
tion ; an accommodation which allows the whole force of all the erro-
neous methods of Jewish reasoning, and conforms to it, merely in order
to prevent the apostacy of professed Christians. I cannot acquiesce in
the latitude of this opinion ; nor can I well admit, that a sacred wri-
ter would make use of an argument, which in its nature he knows to be
wholly erroneous and destitute of force, for the sake of persuading men
to embrace Christianity, or to continue in the profession of it. Would
not this be " doing evil, that good might come ?" But I feel no objec-
tion to admitting, that argumentum ad hominem may be employed, for
the sake of confuting errorists, and exposing their inconsistency. The
Saviour himself plainly resorts to this, in some cases ; see Matt. xii. 27.
Luke xi. 19. So in our epistle, it cannot be deemed irrelevant or impro
per, if the writer shows the Jews, that, from their own modes of counting
descent, and reckoning precedence in regard to rank, Melchisedek, (and
consequently Jesus,) was as a priest of an order superior to the Levites.
For substance, this is done, in the chapter under examination. Yet
there is jiothing conceded here, which can in any way endanger the prin-
ciples of truth. At the same time, after the explanations that have
been made, it is hazarding nothing to say, that we now have more con-
vincing arguments than those here used, to establish the superiority 01
Christ's priesthood* But let it be remembered, we owe them to the
New Testament, which we have in our hands, and which the Hebrews
HEBREWS VIII. 5. 585
had not. Many things, therefore, needed by them in their condition,
and with the greatest propriety urged upon them, are less applicable
and less important to us, merely because our circumstances differ so
much from theirs.
If the reader wants confirmation, in regard to the statement above
made, of the Jewish views respecting the precedency of Abraham > let
him peruse Matt. iii. 9. John viii. 52 58. Luke xvi. 22 25.
EXCURSUS XV.
HEB. VIII. 5. "Opa yap, (final, TrotTiffyg TTO.VTO. Kara TOV rvirov TUV
<roi kv ri{> opti.
IT has been asked, in what was this TVKOQ exhibited to Moses? Was
it by ocular vision ; or by suggestion to the mind ; or by words com-
municated to Moses, descriptive of the form in which the tabernacle
should be constructed ? The answer to all such questions is very easy ;
viz. that the subject is beyond the boundaries of human knowledge, so
that we can know nothing more respecting it, than what Moses himself
has told us. But this is merely an assertion of the fact, that the TVTTOQ
was exhibited to him. He says nothing at all of the manner in which it
was exhibited. Consequently, the fact is all that we can know : and
surely it is all that we need to know ; for of what importance to us can
the manner be, in which this revelation was made ? The passage in
Acts vii. 44, which speaks of the TVTTOV that Moses ewpa/cet, determines
nothing, as it is not said whether he saw in a bodily or mental manner ;
and the word ewpam is plainly applicable to either. In 1 Chron.
xxviii. 19, David, after having drawn a plan for the temple, says, All,
which is in the writing from the hand of the Lord, i. e. made by
Divine assistance ; 7*3^!"^ he taught me, even all the work, rVELFVtl,
TVTTOV, i. e. of the plan. Yet there was no ocular disclosure. Conse-
quently, the words used in our text will not determine the manner of the
communication to Moses; and therefore we are not to consider it as
capable of being definitely determined.
It follows, of course, that the exhibition of a visible temple in heaven,
to the view of Moses, of a temple having form and locality, cannot be
assumed ; unless we build upon that which has no foundation to support
586 EXCURSUS XV.
it. The most that we can know of this subject is, that on Mount Sinai,
the Lord revealed to Moses the TVTTOV of the tabernacle which he was to
build ; and that this is merely a vTrocJcty^a and o-/aa of the heavenly one.
Is it a V7r63cty/Lta, then, in a material sense, or in a spiritual, moral
one? In the latter, without any reasonable doubt; for so the whole
nature of the argument leads us to conclude. The apostle is not
comparing one material tabernacle on earth, with another more
magnificent one, of the same kind, in heaven ; but a material earthly
one, with one which the Lord made, which is ov x"P 07rotr J r > an( ^ *>
TavrrjQ rfJQ KTiffcwc, ch. ix. 11, i. c. which is spiritual and heavenly in it&
nature. The whole representation, then, comes to this : "In heaven
are truly and really all those things which the Jewish tabernacle and
temple, with all their rites and offerings, only adumbrated. What is
there, is reality in the highest and noblest sense; what is here, is,
comparatively only shadow and effigy. Christ does really there, what
the high-priest has been accustomed to do figuratively and symbolically
here. The temple here faintly represents (is i7roc)ety/ja and <r/aa of), real
spiritual existences and occurrences there."
The very nature of the heavenly world, and of the apostle's argument,
is sufficient to show, that this is all that can be rationally deduced from
the language which he employs. It would be just as rational to main-
tain, that God has a local habitation, and a corporeal form visible to the
eye, because the Scriptures speak of his fixed dwelling place in heaven
(tl%tyft\ and of his hands, and eyes, and face, and heart, as it would
be to suppose that the temple above, in which Christ ministers, possesses
form, and is composed of material substance, like that which was built
by the Jews. This was merely CTKIO. ; that is aX^Sem, vTroorao-ie, i. e. of
heavenly, spiritual, divine vTroorainc, not earthly, visible, local matter.
How to build the earthly tabernacle, Moses was instructed on the
Mount. But whether a form of the same was presented to his vision,
bodily or mental ; or whether he was taught by words, what the TVTTOQ
should be, does not, (as we have seen), appear from Scripture ; nor is it
important for us to know. Enough to know, that the earthly tabernacle
is related to the heavenly one, only as shadow to substance ; and conse-
quently, that our great High Priest above, is exalted to a rank unspeak-
ably higher than that of the Jewish high priest.
All which Moses and the people of Israel saw upon Mount Sinai, the
darkness, and smoke, the fire, the cloud, and the lightnings ; the voice
of the trumpet which they heard, and the quaking of the earth which
HEBREWS IX. 4. 587
they felt, (Exod. xix, 1720; ch. xx. 1821; xxiv. 1,2.9, 10. 15 18;
Heb. xii. 18 21) ; were manifestly symbols merely of the Divine
presence, adapted to inspire the people with reverence and awe. In the
same manner, the JT^in, or TVTTOQ of the tabernacle to be built, was a
symbol of what is heavenly or divine. It may just as well be argued
from the clouds, and darkness, and fire, and lightning, and thunder, and
earthquake of Sinai, that all these belong materially and formally to
the heavenly world, as that the TVITOQ exhibited to Moses was an actually
visible, material part of heaven.
If, now, the tabernacle built by Moses, the greatest of all the Jewish
prophets, Heb. iii. 2, was nothing more than an avrirvn-oQ of that in
heaven, ch. ix. 23, 24 ; a mere <ma of it, ch. viii. ,5 ; then the temple
built by Solomon, which was only an imitation of this, 1 Kings, viii. 10 19;
1 Chron. xxviii. 19 ; and that in after times, built by Zerubbabel, Ezra v. 1,
seq. and which was less magnificent, ch. iii. 12, 13; must also be merely
avnrvTTOt and fraud of that temple, of which Jesus is the priest. Conse-
quently, the greater dignity of his priestly office may be obviously
inferred, from this comparison.
EXCURSUS XVI.
. IX. 4. Xpvorouv
THERE is great difficulty and much perplexity, among commentators,
in regard to the ^vjumn/piov here mentioned. Moses makes no mention
of such a sacred utensil, as appertaining to the most holy place ; neither
does the description of Solomon's temple, (modelled after the taber-
nacle,) contain any information respecting it. Qvpiarripiov, in its
general sense, indicates any thing which contains dupiofUL, or incense ;
so that it may be applied either to an altar of incense, or to any pot
or vessel, adapted for offering incense by burning it. Josephus applies
Svpiart'ipwv to the altar of incense, Antiq. III. 6. 8 ; and so some
have applied the word, in the phrase under consideration. But it is a
strong, if not conclusive objection to this, that the altar of incense was
before the veil of the most holy place, and not within it, Exod. xxx.
16; ch. xl. 5. 26. Moreover, this altar is called, in Hebrew,
arq, Exod. xxxvii. 25. 2 Chron. xxvi. 19. 16; JVJpj? 1 ? TOTD,
588 EXCURSUS XVI.
Exod. xl. 5 ; or, nlOp ")Dj?D rtjltD, ch. xxx. 1. In Greek, it is named
Svffiaorfjpiov, and Svo-iaffrhpiov v/ua/ictroe. On this altar, moreover,
daily offerings of incense were to be made, both morning and evening,
ch. xxx. 1 8. The horns of it, once iri each year, were to be sprinkled
with blood, viz. on the great day of atonement ver. 10. But I am
unable to find any place which declares that this altar was carried
within the veil, on the day just named, by the priest who offered incense
before the Lord. On the contrary, the incense offered on that day
was strewed on a vessel of burning coals, or a censer, i. e. pan, or fire-
pan, which the priest held in his hand, and carried with him into the
most holy place, Lev. xvi. 12 14. The name of the vessel was nnHD
ver. 12. Exod. xxvii. 3; ch. xxxviii. 3. I Kings, vii. 50. 2 Chron. iv.
22. In ch. xxvi. 19, this vessel is named rniDj?D ? and again in Ezek.
vii. 11; in both which places the Septuagint have Svfiiarripiov. Now,
nothing can be plainer, than that the HJinD and rnUDfJD were dif-
rent from the altar of incense, rntDj5H rDTD. Upon this, on the
morning and evening of every day, offerings of incense were made :
and this altar stood before the veil, Exod. xxx. 68. On the day of
atonement, also, the horns of it were to be sprinkled with blood,
ver. 10; ch. xl. 5, 26. But the incense before the Lord, which was
to be offered in the inner sanctuary, was offered upon a nnPJD pan of
burning coals, Lev. xvi. 12. Uzziah was about to burn incense in this
manner, when the priests withstood him, 2 Chron. xxvi. 16 19. Com-
pare also the case of Nadab and Abihu, Lev. x. 1 .
That the incense altar was stationary, is plain from the dimensions
assigned to it in Exod. xxx. 1,2; viz. a cubit (i. e. 1 $ foot) long,
and broad ; and two cubits in height. The removal of this by the
high priest, into the most holy place, is out of the question, when we
consider that it was made of solid materials, probably metal of some
kind. But the censers (fire-pans) were hand utensils, constructed for
the very purpose of taking coals from the altar of burnt-offering,
(where the fire was never suffered to become extinguished,) for the
various uses of the temple, Lev. xvi. 12. The whole difficulty then, in
our verse, amounts to this, viz, whether the ^vaovv Svpiarripior, here
mentioned, was laid up or deposited in the most holy place. That
there were several Supar//pm, or /tnHDj is certain, from Exod. xxvii. 3;
ch. xxxviii. 3. That the Jl/HTOj or ujuian'/peov, which was employed
by the high priest, was xpvo-ovr, i. e. gilded, or (if you will) golden, is
highly probable; indeed, one would suppose quite certain, seeing that
HEBREWS IX. 4. 589
the altar of incense, (which was designed only for the every-day's
offering of incense,) was to be overlaid with pure gold, Exod. xxx. 3.
Much more may we well suppose, that the censer, (carried by the high
priest into the ayta ayiW, on the most solemn of all days, viz. the
day of atonement for the whole nation, was covered with gold, i. e. was
Wwovv, as the apostle calls it. Moses, indeed, has not given us any
particular description of such a censer ; nor is it mentioned particularly
in the description of Solomon's temple ; nor is it any where said in the
Old Testament, that such a censer was laid up in the most holy place.
But, as nothing can be more probable than that the censer was ^vaovv ;
so nothing can be more probable than that it was deposited in the
inner sanctuary. That a censer used for the most sacred of all the
temple rites, on a day the most solemn of all the Jewish festival days,
should be used for the common and every-day occasions of temple
service, is highly improbable ; especially when we consider, that every
thing pertaining to the service of the inner sanctuary was regarded in
a light that corresponded with the designation of that place, viz. ayta
aytW, or D^lp .$*7.P
Besides, the writer of our epistle, so intimately acquainted with every
thing that pertained to the temple, to its rites, and, indeed, to the whole
Jewish economy, cannot be reasonably supposed to have mistaken the
fact, relative to the materials of which the censer used on the great
day of expiation was made, or to the place where it was deposited.
How easily would those whom he addressed have detected his error,
and been led, of course, to think lightly of his accuracy, when matters
so obvious escaped his notice ! In short, all the objection against the
account of our author is, that the Old Testament is silent in regard to
the two particulars about the censer which he mentions, viz. that it was
Xpvo-ouv, and that it was deposited in the aym aytW. But surely
silence, in such a case, is no contradiction; and the nature of the
whole case is such, there can be no rational doubt that our author has
made a correct statement. The want of correctness here, would have
argued an ignorance on his part, which would have destroyed all his
credit with those whom he addressed.
If any apology be needed for dwelling so long on this subject, any
one may find it by consulting the commentators, and learning the
difficulties which have been made about it, and the charges of inac-
curacy, or failure of memory, which have been made against the writer
of our epistle, on account of the clause ^vaovv e-^ovcra $v /uar ftp toy.
590 EXCURSUS XVII
EXCURSUS XVII.
HEB. IX. 4. 'Ev y ord^^oc XP U<T */ X Uflra [Aavva, KCU // pafiSof Aapwx
, KOI at
BUT there is another difficulty, in regard to the phrase under consider-
ation. It is said, 1 Kings viii. 9, and 2 Chron. v. 10, that " there was
nothing in the ark, save the two tables which Moses put therein at
Horeb." This, no doubt, is true ; but our author is speaking, in Heb.
ix. 4, of the tabernacle as constructed and furnished by Moses, and not
of the temple built some five hundred years afterwards ; still less, of the
second temple, which, after the burning of the first by Nebuchadnezzar,
must have lacked even the tables of the testimony or law. These were
probably destroyed at the time when the first temple was consumed ;
since we have no authentic intelligence respecting them afterwards. It
is probable, too, that the first temple lacked both the pot of manna, tind
the rod of Aaron ; at least, we have no account of their being deposited
in it. The probability is, that the ark, during its many removals by the
Israelites after it was constructed, and in particular during its captivity
by the Philistines, 1 Sam. iv. 11 ; v. 1 ; vi. 1. 21, was deprived of these
sacred deposits ; for we hear no more concerning them. Be this as it
may, our author is fully justified, when, in describing the tabernacle, he
attributes to it what the Pentateuch does ; and that the pot of manna
and Aarons rod were laid up in the most holy place, and in the ark of
the covenant, may be seen in Exod. xvi. 32 34. Num. xvii. 10; (xvii. 25.)
In both these passages, the Hebrew runs thus : Laid up JTnjfil ^HJ/,
before the testimony, i. e. either before the ark containing the testimony;
or (which is altogether more probable,) before the testimony itself, i. e.
the two tables which were in the ark. Consequently, ftiey were laid up
with the testimony, i. e. the two tables ; and the account given by our
author is strictly correct.
It will be recollected, too, that it is the tabernacle made by Moses
that he is describing throughout. As this was patterned after that which
Moses " had seen upon the mount," and was built by workmen who had
particular Divine assistance, Exod. xxxvi. 1 , it was, of course, regarded
by the Jews as the most perfect structure of all that had been erected for
the worship of God. Perfect as it was, however, the apostle labours to
show, that it was a mere shadow or image of the heavenly tabernacle, in
which Jesus ministers.
HEBREWS IX. 14. 591
EXCURSUS XVIII.
HEB. IX. 14. *Of ia Trveujuarog aiwiov eavrov irpoarivsyKev
aluviov is a difficult phrase, about the meaning of which
a great variety of opinions have been formed. Some understand it of
the Holy Spirit ; and some manuscripts and versions read ayiov instead
of auavlov. But in what respect the Holy Spirit rendered the offering of
Christ perfect, (ajuw/*ov,) it would be difficult to show from other parts
of the Scriptures ; which contain, so far as I have been able to discover,
no assertions of a doctrine analogous to this. Others, as Ernesti, Capell,
Outrein, Wolf, Cramer, Carpzoff, &c. understand it of the Divine nature
of Christ. But although the offering of Christ might be rendered of the
highest value, on account of the dignity of his person, in consequence
of the higher nature which dwelt in him ; yet the sacred writers represent
him as having made atonement in his human nature, not in his Divine,
Heb. ii. 14. 17, 18. Col. i. 21, 22. Phil. ii. 68. Heb. x. 5. 10. 1 Pet.
ii. 24. But, independently of this consideration, instances are" wanting
satisfactorily to prove, that trvevpa aytov, or alvtviov, when applied to
Christ, designates simply his Divine nature as such.
Others consider irvevpa alwviov as designating the idea of a victim, the
sacrifice of which had perpetual efficacy to procure the pardon of sin ;
which is the ground of the epithet, aiwviov. Thus Noesselt, in his essay
on this passage, contained in his Opuscula. But in this case, no usus
loquendi can be alleged, to justify such an interpretation.
Others, as Heinrichs, Schleusner, Rosenmiiller, Koppe, Jaspis, &c.
consider irvevpa aiwviov as endless or immortal life, comparing it with
ch. vii. 16. They place this in antithesis to the perishable nature of the
beasts that were slain in sacrifice, and which are mentioned in the pre-
ceding verse. The antithesis would then be thus : " If mere perishable
brutes., slain in sacrifice, effected external sanctification ; how much
more shall the offering of Christ, endowed with eternal life, or, with an
immortal spirit, purify the conscience," &c. To this view of the subject
I was myself inclined, before I made special investigation of the word
TTvev/ia, as applied to Christ. In doing this, I found, beside the present
instance, two other cases, in which it is pretty evidently applied to desig-
nate his glorified state, in the world of spirits, in distinction from his
592 EXCURSUS xvin.
state of incarnation and humiliation. Thus, Rom. i. 3, 4, Kara
ayiii)ffvvr]q designates a state of distinction from Kara tra^Ka, the human
nature of Christ, that was descended from David ; IK crTrt'p/ua-o
Kara aapKa ...... vlov QEOV iv $urafj.i, Kara Trvtvpa. Kara
ayiuxTvvrig here designates the condition, in which Christ was the exalted
and powerful Son of God, viov Qeov iv vvaju, compare Phil. ii. 8, 9.
Heb. ii. 9, 10 ; i. e. it is descriptive of that spiritual majesty, ayiwffvvTj,
"fn> tV> or exaltation, which belongs to the Saviour in the heavenly
world. So 1 Pet. iii. 18, 3-ai/arwSae [Xptorog] fj.ev trap/a, faoTroinStiQ de
TntevfjiaTi, i. e. in his incarnate nature, subjected to sufferings and death ;
in his spiritual [heavenly] nature or condition, enjoying happiness and
glory. So in 1 Cor. xv. 45, the last Adam, i. e. Christ, is called irvtvpa
wo7roiouv, in distinction from the ^vxn w<ra attributed to the first Adam.
This could not be because Christ had an immortal soul, and Adam had
only a living animal soul ; for Adam too was immortal. It would seem,
here, that Trvev^a and ^vyr) both designate a spiritual or immortal
nature ; but ifvtv^a here designates such a nature of a higher order ;
and the antithesis is more fully made by faoiroiovv and faaav, life-giving
and living.
With these texts I am now inclined to believe the one in our verse
is to be classed ; and that the sense is to be given to it, which I have
just expressed, viz. in his eternal state or condition, i. e. his heavenly
one, Christ presented his offering, &c. As to &a, there is no difficulty
in making such a translation of it. It is frequently used with the
genitive in order to denote the quality, condition, circumstances, or
means, that have relation to any thing or person; e. g. 2 Cor. iii. 11,
ta 3of7e, i. q. iv Sofy in the other clause of the verse, and in ver. 8, 9,
and equivalent plainly to eVoo. So Rom. ii. 27, &a ypa/^iaroe, with
the Scripture, i. e. having the Scripture, &a Tre/oi-o/^e, with circum-
cision, i. e. circumcised; Rom. iv. 11, &' af.-po/Wn'ag, uncircumcised ;
Phil. i. 20, eire Sia farJQ eire Sia Savarov, whether living or dying.