Barnes' Notes - Hebrews

Front matter

PUBLISHERS’ PREFACE

Tue Epistle to the Hebrews forms a most important part of the New Testament. It exhibits the connection between the Old and New Dispensations of Religion, throws a flood of light on the Old Testament Scripture, and illustrates the Harmony of the Scheme of Redemption, in the midst of changing ages and economies. It contains the most sublime descriptions of the dignity and glory of Christ’s person, the excellence of his sacrifice, and the superiority of his gospel; intermingled with hortatory matter, wherever the grand argument can admit of a pause, full of solemnity and pathos.

The Author’s Commentary will be regarded by many as even superior, either to that on Romans or Corinthians. Indeed, it may be fairly questioned if there be any English Commentary on the Hebrews which combines, to so great an extent, the advantages both of a critical and practical exposition. Two classes of readers, therefore, seldom both pleased with the same work, will, it is believed, here find equal satisfaction. The critic may have his difficulties resolved, and the Christian his heart improved. In the “Introduction,” various important questions, which have long interested the learned, but which in many commentaries are either passed in silence, or dismissed with a word, are here ably handled, if not in every case satisfactorily solved. ‘The points alluded to are those regarding the Pauline origin of the Epistle, the parties to whom it was addressed, the language in which it was written, with its date, occasion, scope, and character. At the same time the critical and doctrinal difficulties throughout the Epistle are fairly met, and treated with ability, scholarship, and candour. In this department of his labours, the Author is fully up to the modern mark, and never leaves the reader to complain that a judgment has been formed in ignorance of what the more recent authorities have alleged, while his independence is everywhere manifest. His criticisms and doctrinal discussions are frequently relieved by the most beautiful and pertinent illustrations. The poets furnish him with apposite quotations. The beauties of Spenser and Shakspere occasionally adorn his pages. It would be difficult to find a more beautiful exposition than that on angelic ministry, at chap. i. 14, or that on sympathy with the slave, chap. xiii. 3. On this last subject, the Author scorns to maintain a prudential yet criminal silence, and far as his voice goes—and that is throughout America—vindicates the cause of the oppressed.

Chapter I. Analysis Of The Chapter

The main object of the epistle is to commend the Christian religion to those who were addressed in it in such a way as to prevent defection from it. This is done, principally, by showing its superiority to the Mosaic system. The great danger of Christians in Palestine was of relapsing into the Jewish system. The imposing nature of its rites; the public sentiment in its favour; the fact of its antiquity, and its undisputed divine origin, would all tend to that. To counteract this, the writer of this epistle shows that the gospel had higher claims on their attention, and that if that was rejected ruin was inevitable. In doing this, he begins, in this chapter, by showing the superiority of the Author of Christianity to prophets and to the angels; that is, that he had a rank that entitled him to the profoundest regard. The drift of this chapter, therefore, is to show the dignity and exalted nature of the Author of the Christian system—the Son of God. The chapter comprises the following points :-—

I, The announcement of the fact that God, who had formerly spoken by the. prophets, had in this last dispensation spoken by his Son; vers. 1, 2.

Il. The statement respecting his rank and dignity. le was (1) the heir of all things; (2) the creator of the worlds; (3) the brightness of the divine glory and the proper expression of his nature; (4) he upheld all things; vers. 2, 3.

ILI. The work and exaltation of the Author of the Christian system. (1.)

He, by his own unassisted agency, purified us from our sins. (2.) Heisseated at the right hand of Ged. (3.) He has a more exalted and valua'le inheritance than the angels, in proportion as his name is more exalted than theirs; vers. 3, 4.

IV. Proofs that what is here ascribed to him belongs to him, particularly that he is declared to be superior to the angels; vers. 5—14.

(1.) The angels have never been addressed with the title of Son: ver. 5.

(2.) He is declan to be the object of worship by the angels, while they are emploxed merely as the messengers of God; vers. 6G, 7.

(3.) He is addressed as God, and his throne is said to be for ever and ever; vers. 8, 9.

(4.) He is addressed as immutable. Ife is declared to have laid the foundations of heaven and earth; and though they would perish, yet he would remain the same; vers. 10—12.

(5.) None of the angels had been addres-ed in this manner, but they were employed in tie subordinate work of ministering to the heirs of salvation; vers, 13, 14.

From this train of reasoning, the inference is drawn in ch. ii. 1—4, that we ought to give diligent heed to what had been spoken. ‘The Great Author of the Christian scheme had peculiar claims to be heard, and there was peculiar danger in disregarding his message. ‘The object of this chapter is, to impress those to whom the epistle was addressed with the high claims of the Founder of Christianity, and to show that it was superior in this respect to any other system.

20 CHAPTER I.

OD, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake a Nu. 12. 6, 8.

HEBREWS.

iA. L. v4 in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days

1. God who at sundry times. The commencement of this epistle varies from all the others which Paul wrote. In every other instance he at first announces his name, and the name of the church or of the individual to whom he wrote. In regard to the reason why he here varies from that custom, see the Introduction, $ 3. This commences with the full acknowledgment of his belief that God had made important revelations in past times, but that now he had communicated his will in a manner that more especially claimed their attention. This announcement was of particular importance here. He was writing to those who had been trained up in the full belief of the truths taught by the prophets. As the object of the apostle was to show the superior claims of the gospel, and to lead them from putting confidence in the rites instituted in accordance with the directions of the Old Testament, it was of essential importance that he should admit that their belief of the inspiration of the prophets was well founded. He was not an infidel. He was not disposed to call in question the divine origin of the books which were regarded as given by inspiration. Ie fully admitted all that had been held by the Hebrews on that head, and yet showed that the new revelation had more important claims to their attention. The word rendered “at sundry times ”’—wrsAupseas — means in many parts. It refers here tu the fact that the former revelation had been given in various parts. It had not all been given at once. It had been communicated from time to time as the exigencies of the people required, and as God chose to communicate it. At one time it was by history, then by prophecy, by poetry, by proverbs, by some solemn and special message, d&c. The ancient revelation was a collection of various writings, on different subjecls, and given at different times;

but now God had addressed us by his Son—the one great Messenger who had come to finish the divine communications, and to give a uniform and connected revelation to mankind. The contrast here is between the numerous separate parts of the revelation given by the prophets, and the oneness of that given by his Son. The word does not elsewhere occur in the New Testament. § And in divers manners— roarureixws. In many ways. It was not all in one mode. He had employed various methods in communicating his will, At one time it was by direct communication, at another by dreams, at another by visions, &c. In regard to the various methods which God employed to communicate his will, see Introduction to Isaiah, § 7. In contradistinction from these, God had now spoken by his Son. Tle had addressed us in one uniform manner. Jt was not by dreams, or visions; if was a direct communication from him. The word used here, also, occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. J Jn times past. Formerly; in ancient times. The series of revelations began, as recorded by Moses, with Adam (Gen. lii.), and terminated with Malachi— a period of more than three thousand five hundred years. From Malachi to the time of the Saviour there were no recorded divine communications, and the whole period of written revelation, or when the divine communications were recorded from Moses to Malachi, was about a thousand years. { Unto the fathers. To our ancestors; to the people of ancient tiines. { By the prophets. The word prophet in the Scriptures is used in a wide signification. It means not only those who predict future events, but these who communicate the divine will on any subject. See Notes on Rom. xii. 6;1 Cor. xiv. 1. It is used here in that large sense—as denoting all those by whom God had made communications to the Jewsin former times,

CHAPTER 1.

spoken @ unto us by Ais Son, jof all things, by whom” aizo he whom he hath appointed heir ©|made the worlds ;

2. Hath in these last days. In this the final dispensation; or in this dispensation under which the affairs of the world will be wound up. Phrases similar to this occur frequeatly in the Scriptures. They do not imply that the world was soon coming to an end, but that that was the last dispensation, the last period of the world. There had been the patriarchal period, the period under the law, the prophets, c&c., and this was the period during which God’s last method of communication would be enjoyed, and under which the world would cluse. It might be avery lung period, but it would be the last one; and so far as the meaning of the phrase is concerned, it might be the longest period, or longer than all the others put together, but still it would be the last one. Sec Notes on Acts 11.17; Isa. ii. 2. FY Spoken unto us. The word “us” here does not of necessity imply that the writer of the epistle had actually heard him, or that they had heard him to whom the epistle was written. It means that God had now communicated his will to man by his Son. It may be said with entire propriety that God has spoken to us by his Son, though we have not personally heard or seen him. Wo have what he spoke and caused to be recorded for our direction. By his Son. The title commonly given to the Lord Jesus, as denoting his peculiar relationto God. It was understood by the Jews to denote equality with God (Notes, John v. 18; comp. John x. 33, 36), and is used with such areference here. See Notes on Rom. i. 4, where the meaning of the phrase “Son of God”’ is fully considered. It is implied here that the fact that the Son of God has spoken to us imposes the highest obligations to attend to what he has said; that he has an authority superior to all those who have spoken in past times; and that there will be peculiar guilt in refusing to attend to what he has spoken. See ch. ii, 1—4; comp. ch. xii. 25.

The reasons for the superior respect e Johni.3.

which should be shown to the revelations of the Son of God may be such as these:—(1.) Ilis rank and dignity. Ile is the equal with God (John i. 1), and is himself called God in this chapter; ver. 8. JIe has a right, therefore, to command, and when he speaks men should obey (2.) The clearness of the truths which he communicated to man ona great variety of subjects that are of the highest moment to the world. Revelation has been gradual—like the breaking of the day in the east. At first there iy a little light; it increases and expands till objects become more and more visible, and then the sun rises in full-orbed glory. At first we discern only the existence of some object—obscure and undefined; then we can trace its outline; then its colour, its size, its proportions, its drapery—till it stands before us fuliy revealed. So it has been with revelation. There is a great variety 0: subjects which we now sec clearly, which were very imperfectly understood by the teaching of the prophets, and would be now if we had only the Old Testament. Among them are the following :—(a@) The character of God. Christ came to make him known as a merciful being, and to show how he could be merciful as wellas just. Tho views given of God by the Lord Jesus are far more clear than any given by the ancient prophets; compared with those entertained by the ancient philosophers, they are like the sn compared with the darkest midnight. (b) The way in which man may be reconciled to God. The New Testament—which may be considered as that which Gd ‘has spoken to us by his Son’’—has told us how the great work of being reconciled to God can be effected.

The Lord Jesus told us that he came to “give his life a ransom for many ;” that he laid down his life for his friends; that he was about to dic for man; that he would draw all men to him. The prophets indeed-— partieularly Isaiah—threw much light on these points. But the mass of the people did not understand their revelations. ‘They pertained to future events-. always difficult to be understood. But Christ has told us the way of salvation, and he has made it so plain that he who runs may read. (c) The moral precepts of the Redeemer are superior to those of any and all that had gone before him. They are clevated, pure, expansive, benevolent — such as became the Son of God to proclaim. Indeed this is admitted on all hands. Infidels are constrained to acknowledge that all the moral precepts of the Saviour are eminently pure and benignant. If they were obeyed, the world would be filled with justice, truth, purity, and benevolence. Error, fraud,. hypocrisy, ambition, wars, Jiventiousness, and intemperance, would cease ; and the opposite virtues would diffuse happiness over the face of the world. Prophets had indeed delivered many moral precepts of great importance, but the purest and most extensive body of just principles of good morals on earth are to be found in the teachings of the Saviour. (qd) Je has given to us the clearest view which man has had of the future state ; and he has disclosed in regard to that future state a class of truths of the Jeepest interest to mankind, which vere before wholly unknown or only partially revealed. 1. He has revealed the certainty of a state of future existence—in opposition to the Sadducees of all ages. This was denied before he came by multitudes, and where it was not, the arguments by which it was supported were often of the feeblest kind. The truth was held by some—like Plato and his followers—but the arguments on which they relied were feeble, and such as were unfitted to give rest to the soul. The truth they had obtained by tranition; the arguments were THEIR own. 2. He revealed the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. This before was doubted or denied by nearly all the world. 1t was held to be absurd and imvossible. The Sa-

HEBREWS.

(AL Gk viour tanglit its certainty ; he raised up more than one to show that it was possible; he was himself raised, to put the whole matter beyond debate. 3. Ife revealed the certainty of future judgment—the judgment of all mankind 4. He disclosed great and momentous truths respecting the future state. Before he came, all was dark. The Greeks spoke of Elysian fields, but they were dreams of the imagination; the Hebrews had some faint notion of a future state where all was dark and gloomy, with perhaps an occasional glimpse of the truth that there is a holy and blessed heaven ; but to the mass of mind all was obscure. Christ revealed a heaven, and told us of ahell. Ie showed us that the one might be gained and the other avoided. He presented important motives for doing it; and had he done nothing more, his communications were worthy the profound attention of mankind. I may add, (3.) That the Son of God has claims on our attention from the MANNER in which he spoke. Tle spoke as one having “authority; Matt vii. 29. Ile spoke as a witness of what he saw and knew; John iii. 11. Ife spoke without donbt or ambiguity of God, and heaven, and hell. Ilis is the language of one who is familiar with all that he describes; who saw all, who knew all. There is no hesitancy or doubt in his mind of the truth of what he speaks; and he speaks as if his whole soul were impressed with its unspeakable importance. Never were so momentous communications made to men of hell as fell from the lips of the Lord Jesus (see Notes on Matt. xxiii. 33); never were announcements made so fitted to awe and appal a sinful world. { Whom he hath appointed heir of all things; see Ps. ii. 8; comp. Notes Rom. viii. 1% This is language taken from the fact that he is “the Son of God.” Ifa son, then he is an heir—for so it is usually among men: This is not to be taken literally, as if he inherits anything as a man does. An heir is one who inherits anything after the death of its possessor—-usually his father. But. this

8 Who @ being the brightness @ John i. 14.

cannot be applied in this sense to the Lord Jesus. The language is used to denote his rank and dignity as the Son of God. As such all things are his, as the property of a father descends to his son at his death. The word rendered heir — xAnpovduos — means properly (1) one who acquires any thing by lot; and (2) an heir in the sense in which we usually understand the word. It may also denote a possessor of anything received as a portion, or of property of any kind; eee Rom, iv. 13, 14. It is in every instance rendered heir in the New Testament. Applied to Christ, it ineans that as the Sori of God he is possessor or lord of all things, or that all things are his; comp. Acts ii. 36; x. 36; John xvii. 10; xvi. 15. “ All things that the Father hath are mine.” ‘Ihe sense is, that all things belong to the Son of God. Who is so rich then as Christ? Who so able to endow his friends with enduring and abundant wealth?) { By whom. By whose agency; or who was the actual agent in the creation. Grotius supposes that this means, ‘‘on account of whom,” and that the meaning is, that the universe was formed with reference to the Messiah, in accordance with an ancient Jewish maxim. But the more common and classical usage of the word rendered by (3x), when it governs a genitive, as here, is to denote the instrumental cause ; the agent by which anything is done; see Matt. i. 22; ii. 5, 15, 23; Luke xviii. 31; John ii. 17; Acts, ii. 22, 43; iv. 16; xii. 9; Rom. ii. 16; v. 5. It may be true that the universe was formed with reference to the glory of the Son of God, and that this world was brought into being in order to show his glory; but it would not do to establish that doctrine on a passage like this Its obvious and proper meaning is, that he was the agent of the creation—a truth that is elsewhere abundantly taught; see John i. 3, 10; Col. i. 16; Eph. iii. 9; 1 Cor. viii. 6. This sense, also, better agrees with the design of the

CHAPTER 1.

apostle in this place.

of fis glory, and the express

[lis object is to set forth the dignity of the Son of God. This is better shown by the consideration that he was the creator of all things, than that all things were made for him. { The worlds. The universe, or creation. So the word here—aidv—is undoubtedly used in ch. xi. 3. The word properly means age — an indefinitely long period of time; then perpetuity, ever, eternity—always being. For an extended investigation of the meaning ef the word, the reader may consult an essay by Prof. Stuart, in the Spirit of the Pilgrims, for 1829, pp. 406— 452. From the sense of age, or duration, the word comes to denote the present and future age; the present world and the world to come; tho present world, with all its cares, anxieties, and evils; the men of this world—a wicked generation, ce. Then it means the world—the material universe - creation as itis. The only perfectly clear use of the word in this sense in the New Testament is in feb. xi. 3, and there there can be no doubt. “Through faith wo understand that the worlds were made by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” The passage before us will bear th > same interpretation, and this is the most obvious and intelligible. What would be the meaning of saying that the ages or dispensations were made by the Son of God? The Hebrews used the word —o>is —‘ Olém—in the samo sense. It properly means age, duration; and thence it came to be used by them to denote the world—made up of ages or generations; and then the world itself. This is the fair, and, as it seems to me, the only intelligible interpretation of this passage —an interpretation amply sustained by texts referred to above as demonstrating that the universe was made by the agency of the Son of God. Comp. Notes on vers. 10, and on John i. 3.

8. Who being the brightness of hi.

24 imageof his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when « he had by him- @ ch.7.27;9.12-14.

gory, ‘This verse is designed to state the dignity and exailed rank of the Son of God, and is exceedingly important with reference to a correct view of the Redeemer. Every word which is employed is of great importance, and should be clearly underttood in order to a correct apprehension of the passage. First, in what manner docs it refer to the Redeemer? To his divine nature? ‘T’o the mode of his existence before he was incarnate? Or to him as he appeared on earth? Most of the ancient commentators supposed that it referred to his divit.e dignity before he became incarnate, and proceed to argue on that supposition on the mode of the divine existence. The true solution scems to me to be, that it refers to him as insarnate, but still has reference to him as the incarnate Son of God. It refers to him as Mediator, but not simply or mainly as a man. It is rather to him as divine—thus, in his incarnation, being the brightness of the divine glory, and the express image of God. Chat this is the correct view is apparent, I think, from the whole scope of the passage. The drift of the argument is, to show his dignity as he has spoken to us (ver. 1), and not in iLe period antecedent to his incarnation. It is to show his claims to our reverence as sent from God—the last and greatest of the messengers which God has sent to man. But then it is a description of him as he actually is— the incarnate Son of God; the equal of the Father in human flesh; and this leads the writer to dwell on his divine character, and to argue from that; vers. 8, 10—12. I have no doubt, therefore, that this description refers to his divine nature, but it is the divine nature as it appears in human flesh. An examination of the words used will prepare us for a more clear comprehension of the sense. ‘The vord glory—dze—means properly a seeming, an appearance; and then (1) praise, applause, honour; (2) digns

HEBREWS.

6 Pahic..

nity, splendour, glory; (3) brightness, dazzling light; and (4) excellence perfection, such as belongs to God and such as there is in heaven. It is probably used here, as the word— ias—Kabhodh—is often among the Hebrews, to denote splendour, brightness, and refers to the divine perfections as resembling a bright light, o1 the sun. The word is applied to the sun and stars, 1 Cor. xv. 40, 41; to the light which Paul saw on the way to Damascus, Acts xxii. 11; to the shining of Moses’ face, 2 Cor. iii. 7; to the celestial light which surrounds the angels, Rey. xviii. 1; and glorified saints, Luke ix. 31, 82; and to the dazzling splendour or majesty in which God is enthroned; 2 ‘I'hess i.9;2 Pet.i. 17; Rev. xv. 8; xxi. 11, 23. Ilere there is a comparison of God with the sun ; he is encompassed with splendour and majesty; he is a being of light and of infinite perfection. It refers to all in God that is bright, splendid, glorious; and the idea is, that the Son of God is the brightness of it all. The word rendered bright- NCSS— aravyacua—occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It means properly reflected splendour, or the light which emanates from a luminous body. The rays or beams of the sun are its “brightness,” or that by which the sun is seen and known. The sun itself we do not see; the beams which flow from it we do see. ‘The meaning here is, that if God be represented under the image of a luminous body, ashe isin the Scriptures(s¢o Ps. 1xxxiv. 11; Mal. iv. 2), then Christ is the radiance of that light, the brightness of that luminary. Stuart. Ie is that by which we perceive God, or by which God is made known to us in his real perfections; comp. Jolin i. 18; xiv. 9.—Itis by him only that the true character and glory of God is known tomen. ‘This is truc in regard to the great system of revelation but it is especially true in regard to the views which men have of God

Matt. xi. 27. “No man knoweth the Son but the Father; neither knoweth any manthe Father save the Son, and he to whomsocver the Son will reveal him.’ ‘The human soul is dark respecting the divine character until it is enlightened by Christ. It sees no beauty, no glory in his nature —nothing that excites wonder, or that wins the affections, until it is disclosed by the Redeemer. Somehow it happens, account for it as men may, that there are no elevating practical views of God in the world; no views that engage and hold the affections of the soul; no views that are transforming and purifying, but those which are derived from the Lord Jesus. Aman becomes a Christian, and at once he has elevated, practical views of God. He is to him the most glorious of all beings. Ile finds supreme delight in contemplating his perfections. But he may be a philosopher or an infidel, and though he may profess to believe in the existence of God, yet the belief excites no practical influence on him ; he sees nothing to adinire; nothing which leads him to worship him; comp. Rom. i. 21. Q And the express image. ‘Ihe word here used— xxeuxrie—likewise occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It is that from which our word character is derived. It properly means a gravingtool; and then something engraved, or stamped—a character — as a letter, mark, sign. ‘The image stamped on coins, sezls, wax, expresses the idea: and the sense here is, that if God be represented under the idea of a substance, or being, then Christ is the exact resemblance of that—as an image is of the stamp or die. The resemblance between a stamp and the figure which is impressed is exact; and so is the resemblance between the Redeemer and God; see Col. i. 15. “Who is the image of the invisible God.” J Of his person. ‘The word person with us denotes an individual being, and is applied to human beings, consisting of body and soul. We do not apply it to anything dead —not using it with reference to the body when the spirit isgone. It is applied to man—with individual and separate

CHAPTER f.

consciousness ana will; with body and soul; with an existence separate from others. It is evident that it cannot be used in this sense when applied to God, and that this word does not express the true idea of the passage here. Tindal renders it, more accurately, substance. The word in the original —tréboracis —whence our word hypostasis, means, literally, a foundution, or substructure. ‘Then it means a well-founded trust, firm expectation, confidence, firmness, boldness; and then reality, substance, essential nature, In the New Testament, it is rendered confident, or confidence (2 Cor, ix. 4; xi. 17; eb. iii. 14); substance (Ieb. xi. 1); and person in the passage before us. It is not elsewhere used. Iere it properly refers to the essential nature of God—that which distinguishes him from all other beings, and which, if I. may so say, constitutes him God; and the idea is, that the Redeemer is the exact resemblance of that. Thisresemblance consists, probably, in the following things — though perhaps the enumeration docs not include ali—but in these he certainly resembles God, or is his exact image. (1.) In his original mode of being, or before the incarnation. Of ‘this we know little. But he had a “glory with the Father before the world was ;"’ John xvii. 5. THe was “in the beginning with God, and was God;’’ John i.1. De was in intimate union with the lather, and was one with Him, in certain respects; though in certain other respects, there was a distinction. I do not see any evidence in the Scriptures of the doctrine of ‘eternal gencration,’’ and itis certain that that doctrine militates against the proper eternity of the Son of God. ‘Tho natural and fair meaning of that doctrine would be, that there was a time when he had not an existence, and when he began to be, or was begotten. But the Scripture doctrine is, that he had a strict and proper eternity. 1 sce no evidence that he was in any sense a derived being —deriving his existence and his divinity from the Father. ‘Che Fathers of the Christian church, it is believed, held that the Son of God as to his divine, as well as his human nature. was derived from the Father. Hence the Nicene ereed speaks of him as “ begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made ”—language implying derivation in his divine rature. ‘They held, with one voice, that he was God; but it was in this manner; see Stuart, Excursus IIT. on the Epistle to the Hebrews. But this is incredible and impessible, <A dertucd being cannot in any proper sense be God; and if there is any attribute which the Scriptures have ascribed to the Saviour with peculiar clearness, it is that of proper eternity; Rev.i.11,17; Johni.}.