1 John viii. 58. ch. i. 12. Rev. i. 4.

1

& v. 6. Col. ii. 4, 8.

1 John iv. 1. + So all our oldest MSS.

9 m Be

Col. ii. 16.

o 1 Cor. ix. 18. & x. 18.

profited.

by martyrdom, as Stephen, James the brother of John, and possibly [but see the matter discussed in Introd. to James] James the brother of the Lord: and possibly too, St. Peter [see Introd. to 1 Pet.]) of their conversation (i. e. their Christian behaviour, walk, course. No English word completely gives it), imitate the faith. 8.] Jesus Christ is yesterday and to-day the same, and for ever (the verse stands as a transition from what has passed to what follows. "It was Christ whom these leaders preached, when they spoke the word of God: Christ who supported them to the end, being the author and finisher of their faith; and He remains still the same with regard to you,-the same: be not then carried away &c." As to the meaning of the words, yesterday refers to the time past, when their leaders passed away from them, to-day to the time present, when the Writer and the readers were living. In our A. V., this verse, by the omission of the copula "is," appears as if it were in apposition with "the end of whose conversation:" and in the carelessly printed polyglott of Bagster, the matter is made worse, by a colon being substituted for the period, after conversation.' serve Jesus Christ, not common with our Writer: only e. g. ver. 21, where he wishes to give a solemn fulness to the mention of the Lord Jesus, the Person, of whom we have been proving, that He is the Christ, the Anointed of God. Compare also ch. x. 10). Be not carried away (the fixed point from which they are not to be carried away, is clearly that given in the last verse, viz. Jesus Christ) by various and strange (strangers to the truth) doctrines (teachings, Matt. xv. 9; Col. ii. 22; 1 Tim. iv. 1): for it is good that the heart be confirmed with grace (God's grace, working on us by faith), not with meats (it is a question whether this be meant of meat eaten after sacrifices, or of "meats as spoken of so much by St. Paul, meats partaken of or abstained from as a matter of

Ob

AUTHORIZED VERSION.

9 Be

conversation. Jesus Christ
the same yesterday, and to
day, and for ever.
not carried about with di-
vers and strange doctrines.

For it is a good thing that

the heart be established

with grace; not with meats, which have not profited

them that have been occu10 We have pied therein.

conscience: see 1 Cor. viii. 8, 13: ib. vi. 13: Rom. xiv. 15, 20. The former view is taken by Schlichting, Bleek, Lünemann, &c., on the grounds, 1) that the expression will not suit meats abstained from, only those partaken of: 2) that ver. 10, which is in close connexion with this, speaks of an altar and of partaking of meats sacrificed: and 3) that this same reference, to meats offered in sacrifice, is retained throughout, to ver. 15. The other view is taken by Chrysostom, &c., the great body of later Commentators, and recently by Böhme, Tholuck, and Delitzsch. And Ỉ own the reasons urged in its favour incline me strongly to this view, to the exclusion of the other), in which (the observance of which the word meats being used for the observance of rules concerning meats and drinks, &c.) they who walked were not profited (these, who walked in such observances, are the whole people of God under the Old Test. dispensation [notice the past tenses], to whom they were of themselves useless and profitless, though ordained for a preparatory purpose: so that Calvin's objection is answered, that "the discipline of which the distinction between meats was a part, was useful to the fathers under the law." Yes, and so was the shedding of the blood of bulls and goats part of the discipline: useless to take away sin). is the connexion with ver. 9? sented as being entirely done away by our interpretation of meats above. If I regard it aright, it is not only not done away, but established in its proper light. Those ancient distinctions are profitless: one distinction remains: that our true meat is not to be partaken of by those who adhere to those old distinctions: that Christianity and Judaism are necessarily and totally distinct. See more below. We have an altar (to what does the Writer allude? Some have said that no distinct idea was before him, but that he merely used the term altar, to help the figure which he was

but it was 10.] What It is repre

AUTHORIZED VERSION.

no right to eat which serve the tabernacle. 11 For the

about to introduce. And this view has just so much truth in it, that there is no emphasis on the word altar. The altar bears only a secondary place in the figure; but still I cannot think that it has not a definite meaning. Others understand by the altar, Christ himself. This again has so much truth in it, that the Victim is so superior to the altar, as to cast it altogether into shade; but still is not Himself the altar. Some again understand, the table of the Lord, at which we eat the Lord's Supper. This is so far true, that that table may be said to represent to us the Cross whereupon the Sacrifice was offered, just as the bread and wine, laid on it, represent the oblation itself: but it is not the altar, in any propriety of language, however we may be justified, in common parlance, in so calling it. Some again have interpreted it to mean the heavenly place, where Christ now offers the virtue of His Blood to the Father for us. This again is so far true, that it is the antitype of the Cross, just as the Cross is the antitype of the Lord's table: but we do not want, in this word, the heavenly thing represented by, any more than the enduring ordinance representing, the original historic concrete material altar: we want that altar itself: and that altar is, the CROss, on which the Lord suffered. That is our altar: not to be emphasized, nor exalted into any comparison with the adorable Victim thereon offered; but still our altar, that wherein we glory, that for which, as for our altars, we contend: of which our banners, our tokens, our adornments, our churches, are full severed from which, we know not Christ; laid upon which, He is the power of God, and the wisdom of God. And so it is here explained by most of the best Commentators) to eat of which (see esp. 1 Cor. ix. 13) they have not licence who serve the tabernacle (who are these? Some, as Schlichting, Morus, and strange to say recently Hofmann, understand by them the same, viz. Christians, as the subject of we have. We Christians have an altar whereof [even] they who serve the [Christian] tabernacle have no right to eat: i. e. as explained by Hofmann, as the high priest himself did not eat of the sin-offerings whose blood was brought into the tabernacle, but they were burnt without the camp, so we Christians have no sacrifice of which we have any right

11 For

to eat, no further profit to be derived from that one sacrifice, by which we have been reconciled to God. But this is 1) false in fact. We have a right to eat of our Sacrifice, and are commanded so to do. All that our Lord says of eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood [explain it how we will] would be nullified and set aside by such an interpretation. And 2) it is directly against the whole context, in which the meats, whatever they are, are pronounced profitless, and they who walked in them contrasted with us who have higher privileges. To what purpose then would it be to say, that we have an altar of which we cannot eat? that we have a sacrifice which brings us no profit, but only shame? I pass over the interpretation which understands by the words some particular class of Christians among the Hebrews, because it involves the anachronism of a distinction between clergy and laity which certainly then had no place: and also because it would furnish no sense at all suiting the passage, referring as it then would to some Christians only, not to all. The only true reference of our words, as also that which has been all but universally acknowledged, is that to the Jewish priesthood, and in them to those who have part with them in serving the rites and ordinances of the ceremonial law. These have no right to eat of our altar for just as the bodies of those beasts whose blood was brought into the sanctuary were burnt without the camp, so Jesus suffered altogether without the gate of legal Judaism. Let us then not tarry serving that tabernacle which has no part in Him, but go forth to Him without the camp, bearing His reproach. For we cleave not to any abiding city, such as the earthly Jerusalem, but seek one to come. Let us then not tarry in the Jewish tabernacle, serving their rites, offering their sacrifices; but offer our now only possible sacrifice, that of praise, the fruit of a good confession, acceptable to God through Him. Thus, and thus only, does the whole context stand in harmony. Thus the words in they that serve the tabernacle keep their former meanings: see ch. viii. 5, where we have "such as have the delineation and the shadow of heavenly things:" and remember that "the tabernacle," barely so placed, cannot by any possibility mean any part of the Christian apparatus of worship, nor

AUTHORIZED VERSION.

14. Lev. iv.

vi. 30. & ix.

11. & xvi. 27.

+ for sin is

omitted, or

variously placed by two

outside the camp.

MSS.

18. Acts vií.

58.

r ch. xi. 26.

1 Pet. iv. 14.

have any antitypical reference, but can only import that which throughout the Epistle it has imported, viz. the Jewish tabernacle: see ch. viii. 5, ix. 21, &c.).

11.] For (reason why this exclusion has place because our great Sacrifice is not one of those in which the servants of the tabernacle had any share, but answers to one which was wholly taken out and burnt: see below) of the animals of which the blood is brought into the holy place by the high priest, of these the bodies are consumed by fire outside the camp (there was a distinction in the sacrifices as to the subsequent participation of certain parts of them by the priests. Those of which they did partake were: 1) the sin-offering of the rulers [a male kid], and the sin-offering of the common people [a female kid or lamb], Lev. iv. 22 ff., 27 ff. [compare the rules in ch. vi. about eating and not eating the sacrifices]: 2) the dove of the poor inan, Lev. v. 9: 3) the trespass-offering, Lev. vii. 7: 4) the skin of the whole burnt-offering, ib. ver. 8: 5) the wave-breast and heave-shoulder of the peace-offerings: 6) the wave-offerings on the feast of weeks, entire. But those of which they did not partake were 1) the sin-offering of the high priest for himself, Lev. iv. 5-7, esp. ver. 12: 2) the sinoffering for sins of ignorance of the congregation, Lev. iv. 16-21, see Num. xv. 24: 3) the sin-offering for high priest and people combined, on the great day of atonement, the blood of which was brought not only into the holy but into the holiest place, Lev. xvi. 27. Besides which we have a general rule, to which doubtless the Writer here alludes, Lev. vi. 30, "No sin-offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the tabernacle of the congregation to reconcile withal in the holy place, shall be eaten it shall be burnt in the fire." As regards particular expressions: the holy place here, as in ch.

ix. 8, 12, 24, 25, and x. 19, probably means not the holy place commonly so called, but the holy of holies, into which the blood of the sin-offering was brought on the day of atonement, and which only typified heaven, whither Christ as High Priest is entered with His Blood. Without the camp refers to the time when Israel was encamped in the wilderness: the enclosure of the camp was afterwards succeeded by the walls of Jerusalem, so that without the gate below answers to it).

12.] Wherefore (as being the antitype of the sin-offering on the day of atonement) Jesus also, that He might sanctify (see on ch. ii. 11) the people (see on ch. ii. 17) through His own blood, suffered outside the gate (of Jerusalem. It is necessary in order to understand this verse rightly, to trace with some care the various steps of the symbolism. The offering of Christ consists of two parts: 1) His offering on earth, which was accomplished on the cross, and answered to the slaying of the legal victim and the destruction of its body by fire, the annihilation of the fleshly life: and 2) His offering in the holy place above, which consisted in His entering heaven, the abode of God, through the veil, that is to say his flesh, and carrying His blood there as a standing atonement for the world's sin. This, the sanctifying of the people through His own blood, was the ulterior end of that sacrifice on earth: and therefore whatever belonged to that sacrifice on earth, is said to have been done in order to that other. This will sufficiently account for the clause indicating purpose here, without making it seem as if the ultimate end, the sanctification of God's people, depended on the subordinate circumstance of Christ's having suffered outside the gate. It did depend on the entire fulfilment by Him of all things written of Him in the law: and of them this was one). So then let us go forth to Him outside

AUTHORIZED VERSION.

his reproach. 14 For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come.

14

the

communicate forget not:

s Mic. ii. 10. Phil. iii. 20. ch. xi. 10, 10. & xii. 22.

u

his x

Eph. v. 20.

1 Pet. ii. 5.

2

2

Cor. ix. 13

to y Rom. xii. 13.

Phil. iv. 18.
ch. vi. 10.

The

the camp ("meaning, outside the polity which is according to the law:" Theodoret. This is certainly intended, and not the meaning given by Chrysostom ["let us take up His cross, and remain outside the world"], nor that of Schlichting, and others "let us undergo exile, reproach, and the like, with Him"]. Both these may be involved in that which is intended; the latter particular is presently mentioned: but they are not identical with it. Possibly there may be a reference to Exod. xxxiii. 7, "It came to pass, that every one which sought the Lord went out unto the tabernacle of the congregation, which was without the camp." Bleek objects that if so, we should not expect the tabernacle to have been so shortly before mentioned as representing the Jewish sanctuary, in distinction from the Christian. But this seems hardly sufficient reason for denying the reference. occasion in Exod. xxxiii. was a remarkable The people were just quitting Sinai, the home of the law; and the term, one which sought the Lord," seems to bear more than ordinary solemnity), bearing His reproach (see on ch. xi. 26). 14.] For (reason why such going forth is agreeable to our whole profession: not why the word "camp," and not "city," is used above) we have not here (on earth: not, in the earthly Jerusalem) an abiding city, but we seek for that (abiding city) which is to come ("he calls the city, one to come, because it is future to us. To God, Christ, the angels, it is already present." Schlichting. Yet this is not altogether true. The heavenly Jerusalem, in all her glory, is not yet existing, nor shall be until the number of the elect is accomplished. Then she shall come down out of heaven as a bride prepared for her husband, Rev. xxi. 2. This verse certainly

one.

every

1 Thess. v.

12. 1 Tim. v. 17. ver. 7.

15.]

comes with a solemn tone on the reader, considering how short a time the abiding city did actually remain, and how soon the destruction of Jerusalem put an end to the Jewish polity which was supposed to be so enduring). Through Him (placed first, as carrying all the emphasis-through Him, not by means of the Jewish ritual observances) therefore (this gathers its inference from the whole argument, vv. 10-14) let us offer up a sacrifice of praise (this, a sacrifice of praise, is in the Septuagint version. It is the term for a thank-offering in the law. The Commentators quote an old say. ing of the Rabbis, "In the future age all sacrifices shall cease, but praises shall not cease") continually (not at fixed days and seasons, as the Levitical sacrifices, but all through our lives) to God, that is, the fruit of lips (from Hosea [ref.]: the literal meaning of the Hebrew is, "we will account our lips as calves" [for a sacrifice]: A. V., "we will render the calves of our lips." The fruit of the lips is explained by the next words to be, a good confession to God) confessing to His name (i. e. the name of God, as the ultimate object to which the confession, through Him, Jesus, is referred). 16.] But

(as if it were said, the fruit of the lips is not the only sacrifice: God must be praised not only with the lips, but with the life) of beneficence and communication (of your means to others who are in want an usage of the word which, as Bleek remarks, sprung up in the primitive Christian church, as also the corresponding one of the verb: see on ch. ii. 14) be not forgetful (ver. 2): for with such sacrifices (viz. beneficence and communication, not including ver. 15, which is complete in itself) God is well pleased.

17-end.] Concluding exhortations and