"Ex tox. trav qe. “Under the last period, viz., of the Messiah.”— Stuart. “On the confines of the former period, and of the new everlasting epoch; not within the latter, and also not within the former.”—Tholuck. The end of this time, in reference to the mim adv of the Jews, the period of the world which pre- ceded the coming of Christ, whose work was to form the transition from it to the period terminating in the resurrection.”—Ebrard. ‘The period of the gospel, the last dispensation of God.”—Bloomfield.
*Ey Yi. A specimen of the arbitrary use of the article, for “ Yig is mo- nadie: it designates one individual peculiarly distinguished, and the pronoun evrov is omitted after it; on all which accounts, according to theory, the article should be added.”—Stuart. “‘God spake to us by one who was Son,’ who stood not in the relation of prophet, but in the relation of Son to him. If it were ¢y 7@ Yi@, then Christ would be placed as this individual, in opposition to the individuals of the prophets; but as the article is wanting, it is the species that is placed in opposition to the species, although, of course, Christ is the single indi-
VIE] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 5
Ver. 1, 2.—By sundry parts, and in divers manners, God having formerly | or, of old] spoken unto the fathers in the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us in the Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all, by whom also he made the worlds.
The apostle intending a comparison between the Mosaical law
and the gospel, referreth it unto two heads,—first, Their revelation and wstitution, whence the obligation to the observance of the one and the other did arise; and, secondly, Their whole nature, use, and efficacy. The first he enters upon in these words, and premising that wherein they did agree, distinctly lays down the severals wherein the difference between them doth consist; both which were necessary to complete the comparison intended. ’ That wherein they agree is the principal efficient cause of their revelation, or the prime author from whom they were. This is God. He was the author of the law and gospel. He spake of old “inthe prophets,” he spake in the last days “in the Son.” Neither of them was from men; not one from one principle, and the other from an- other,—both have the same divine original. See 2 Tim. iii. 16; 2 Pet. i. 20, 21. Herein they both agree.
Their difference in this respect, namely, in their revelation, he re- fers to four heads, all distinctly expressed, saving that some branches of the antithesis on the part of the gospel are only included in the
_ opposite expressions that relate unto the law. Their difference, first, respects the manner of their revelation, and
vidual of his species.”—ZHbrard. “ Yics may in this use be considered (like Xpiords, put for “O Xpiords tov @sov) as an appellative converted into a sort of proper name.”—See Middleton on the Greek article, note Matt. i. 1, and iv. 3; Bloomfield. KaAnpovowos. “The Son inherited the world neither by lot nor by the demise of the possessor. Like the Hebrew %™, of which inherit is only a
Tole rar. “To our fathers.”—De Wette. Ti#a. “Since primeval times.”—Tholuck. “In ancient times.” —Stwart. "Ew toy. x. 7. A. “In the end of these days.”—Conybeare and Howson. ‘Ey Y. In the person of the Son.”—Conybeare and Howson. Ka. “Lord of all things.” —Stuart. ae “The world.”—Stuart. “The universe.”—-Conybeare and How- son.—LD.
6 AN EXPOSITION OF THE [cHAP. 1
that in two particulars:—1. The revelation of the will of God under the law was given out by “divers parts;” that under the gospel at once, or in one dispensation of grace and truth. 2. That “in divers manners;” this one way only, by the Spirit dwelling in the Lord Christ in his fulness, and by him communicated unto his apostles.
Secondly, The times and seasons of their revelation. That of the law was made “of old,” “formerly,” “in times past;” this of the gospel “in these last days”
Thirdly, The persons to whom the revelation of them was made. That was to the “fathers,” this to “ns
Fourthly, and principally, The persons by whom these revelations were made. That was by “the prophets;” this by “the Son.” God spake then in the prophets; now he hath spoken in the Son.
The whole stress of the apostle’s argument lying on this Jast in- stance, omitting the prosecution of all the other particulars, he enters upon the further description of this immediate revealer of the gospel in whom God spake, the Son, and lays down in general, 1. The authority coramitted unto him,—God made him “heirof all;” 2. The ground and equity of committing that great power and trust unto him, in these words, “By whom also he made the worlds:” whereby he opens his way to the further declaration of his divine and incom- parable excellencies, wherein he is exalted far above all or any that were employed in the revelation or administration of the law of Moses, and the holy worship instituted thereby.
All these particulars must be opened severally, that we may see the intendment of the apostle, and the force of his argument in the whole; and some of them must necessarily be somewhat largely insisted on, because of their influence into the ensuing discourse.