That wherein the law and gospel do both agree is, that God was the author of them both. About this there was no difference as to the most of them with whom the apostle treated. This he takes for granted. For the professing Jews did not adhere to Mosaical institutions because God was their author, not so of the gospel; but because they were given from God — by Moses in such a manner as never to be changed or abr This the apostle lays down as an acknowledged principle with the most, that both law and gospel received their original from God himself; proving also, as we shall see in the progress of our discourse, to the conviction of others, that such a revelation as that of the gospel was foretold and expected, and that this was it in particular which was preached unto them.
Now, God being here spoken of in distinction from the Son ex- pressly, and from the Holy Ghost by evident implication, it being he by whom he spake in the prophets, that name is not ctemduc, substantially, to denote primarily the essence or being of
"O @tés.
VER. 1, 2] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 7
the Deity, and each person as partaking in the same nature, but imocrarix@c, denoting primarily one certain person, and the divine nature only as subsisting in that person. This is the person of the Father; as elsewhere the person of the Son is so signified by that name, Acts xx. 28; John i. 1; Rom. ix. 5; 1 Tim. iii 16; 1 John iii. 16, v. 20 ;—as also the person of the Holy Spirit, Acts v. 3, 4; 1 Cor. xii. 6, 11; Col. ii. 2. So that God, even the Father, by the way of eminency, was the peculiar author of both law and gospel; of which afterwards. And this observation is made neces- sary from hence, even because he immediately assigns divine pro- perties and excellencies unto another person, evidently distinguished from him whom he intends to denote by the name God in this place; which he could not do did that name primarily express, as here used by him, the divine nature absolutely, but only as it is subsist- ing in the person of the Father.
From this head of their agreement the apostle proceeds to the instances of the difference that was between the law and the gospel as to their revelation from God; of which, a little inverting the order of the words, we shall first consider that which concerns the times of their giving out, sundry of the other instances being regulated thereby.
For the first, or the revelation of the will of God under the old testament, it was, “of old.” God spake sdéAa, “for-
_ merly,” or “of old.” Some space of time is denoted in this word which had then received both its beginning and end, both which we may inquire after. Take the word absolutely, and it comprises the whole space of time from the giving out of the first promise unto that end which was put unio all revelations of public use under the old testament. Take it as relating to the Jews, and the rise of the time expressed in it isthe giving of the law by Moses in the wilderness. And this is that which the apostle hath respect
unto, He had no contest with the Jews about the first promise, and the service of God in the world built thereon, nor about their privilege as they were the sons of Abraham; but only about their then present church privilege and claim by Moses’ law. The proper date, then, and bound of this réAa:, “of old,” is from the giving out ~ of Moses’ law, and therein the constitution of the Judaical church
_and worship, unto ihe close of public prophecy in the days of Malachi. From thence to the days of John Baptist God granted ‘no extraordinary revelation of his will, as to the standing use of the whole church. So that this dispensxtion of God speaking in the prophets continued for the space of twenty-one jubilees, or near eleven hundred years. That it had been now ceased fora long time the apostle intimates in this word, and that agreeably to the con-
Dera.
__ fessed principles of the Jews ; whereby also he confirmed his own of
8 AN EXPOSITION OF THE [CHAP. I.
the coming of the Messiah, by the reviving of the gift of prophecy, as was foretold, Joel ii. 28, 29.
And we may, by the way, a little consider their thoughts in this matter; for, as we-have observed and proved before, the apostle engageth with them upon their own-acknowledged principles. “The Jews, then, generally grant, unto this day, that prophecy for the public use of the church was not bestowed under the second temple after the days of Malachi, nor is to be expected until the coming of Elias. The delusions that have been put upon them by impostors they now labour all they can to conceal; and they are of late, by ex~ perience, made incredulous towards such pretenders as in former ages they have been brought to much misery by. Now, as their manner is to fasten all their conjectures, be they true or false, on some place, word, or letter of the Scripture, so have they done this assertion also. Observing or supposing the want of sundry things in the second house, they pretend that want to be intimated, Hag. i. 7, 8, where God, promising to glorify himself in that temple, the word 7428, ‘T will glorify,’ is written defectively, without 1, as the Keri notes. That letter, being the numeral note of five, signifies, as they say, the want of five things in that house. The first of these was, }8 o’ay13},—‘the ark and cherubim;’ the second, Anwnn jow,—‘the anointing oil;’ the third, A>1yn ‘yy,—‘the wood of disposition,’ or ‘perpetual fire;’ the fourth, nin) oms,—‘Urim and Thummim;’ the fifth, wipn nn,—‘the Holy Ghost,’ or ‘Spirit of prophecy.’ They are not, indeed, all agreed in this enumeration. The Talmud in Nd, Joma, cap. v., reckons them somewhat otherwise:—1l. The ark, with the propitiatory and cherubim; 2. The fire from heaven, which answers the third, or wood of disposition, in the former order; 3. The divine Majesty, in the room of the anointing oil; 4 The Holy Ghost; 5. Urim and Thummim. Another order there is, ac- cording to Rabbi Bechai, Comment. in Pentateuch., sect. wy; who places the anointing oil distinctly, and confounds the A», or ‘divine Majesty,’ with wy pn ny, ‘the Holy Ghost,’ contradicting the Gemara. The commonly approved order is that of the author of Aruch, in the root 133 :—