2. There is a difference between the Son of God revealing the will of God in his divine person to the prophets, of which we have spoken, and the Son of God as incarnate revealing the will of God immediately to the church. This is the difference here insisted on by the apostle. Under the old testament the Son of God, in his divine person, instructed the prophets in the will of God, and gave them that Spirit on whose divine inspiration their infallibility did depend, 1 Pet. i. 11; but now, in the revelation of the gospel, taking his own humanity, or our nature hypostatically united unto him, in the room of all the “internuncii,” or prophetical messengers he had made use of, he taught it immediately himself.
There lies a seeming exception unto this distinction, in the giving of the law; for as we affirm that it was the Son by whom the law was given, so in his so doing he spake immediately to the whole church: Exod. xx. 22, the Lord said, “I have talked with you from heaven.” The Jews say that the people understood not one word of what was spoken, but only heard a voice, and saw the terrible appearances of the majesty of God, as verse 18; for immediately upon that sight they removed and stood afar off: and the matter is left
24 AN EXPOSITION OF THE [CHAP. I.
‘doubtful in the repetition of the story, Deut. v. 4 It is said, in- deed, “The Lorp talked with you face to face in the mount,” but yet neither do these words fully prove that they understood what was spoken, and as it was spoken, but only that they clearly discovered the presence of God delivering the law; for so are those words expounded in verse 5: “I stood,” saith Moses, “ between the Lorp and you at that time, to shew you the word of the Lorp: for ye were afraid by reason of the fire, and went not up into the mount ;’—that is, ‘Ye understood not the words of the law, but as I declared them unto you. And it being so, though the person of the Son caused the words to be heard, yet he spake not immediately to the whole church, but by Moses. But, secondly, we shall after- wards show that all the voices then heard by Moses and the people were formed in the air by the pesey of angels, so that they heard not the immediate voice of God. Now, in the last days did the Lord take that work into his own hands, wherein from the founda- tion of the world he had employed angels and men.
3. Though the apostle’s argument arise not immediately from the different ways of God’s revealing himself to the prophets and to Christ, but in the difference that lies in his immediate speaking unto us in Christ the Son, and his speaking unto the fathers in the prophets, yet that former difference also is intimated by him, in his affirming that he spake to them variously or diversely, as hath been declared; and therefore we must consider that also. And herein we are to obviate the great Judaical prejudice against the gospel; to which end observe,—
(1.) That though the apostle mentions the prophets in general, yet it is Moses whom he principally intends. This is evident in the application of this argument, which he makes in particular, chap. ii. 3, where he expressly prefers the Lord Jesus before Moses by name, in this matter of ministering to the church in the name of God. For whereas, as was before intimated, the apostle manages this thing with excellent wisdom in this epistle, considering the in- veterate prejudices of the Hebrews in their adhering unto Moses, he could not mention him in particular until he had proved him whom he preferred above him to be so excellent and glorious, so far exalted above men and angels, that it was no disreputation to Moses to be esteemed inferior to him,
(2.) That the great reason why the Jews adhered so pertinaciously unto Mosaical institutions was their persuasion of the unparalleled excellency of the revelation made to Moses. This they retreated unto and boasted of when they were pressed with the doctrine and miracles of Christ, John ix. 28, 29; and this was the main founda- tion in all their contests with the apostles, Acts xv. 1, xxi. 21, 28. And this at length they have made a principal root or fundamental
VER. 1, 2.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 25
article of their faith, being the fourth of the thirteen articles of their creed, namely, that Moses was the most excellent and most sub- lime among the prophets,—so far above that excellency, that de- gree of wisdom and honour, which men may attain unto, that he was equal to angels. This Maimonides, the first disposer of their faith into fundamental articles, expounds at large, More Nebuch., p. il. cap. xxxix. “ Declaravimus,” saith he, “quod prophetia Mosis ‘doctoris nostri ab omnium aliorum prophetiis differat. Dicemus nune quod propter solam illam apprehensionem ad legem vocati sumus; quia nempe vocationi illi qua Moses nos vocavit similis neque antecessit ab Adamo primo ad ipsum usque neque etiam post ipsum apud ullum prophetam sequuta est. Sic fundamentum legis nostre _est quod in zeternum finem non sit habitura, vel abolenda; ac prop- terea etiam ex sententia nostra, alia lex nec unquam fuit, nec erit preter unicam hanc legem Mosis doctoris nostri;”—“ We have de- clared that the prophecy of Moses, our master, differed from the pro- phecies of ail others. Now we shall show that upon the account of this persuasion alone” (namely, of the excellency of the revelation made unto Moses) “we are called to the law; for from the first Adam to him, there was never any such call” (from God) “as that wherewith Moses called us, nor did ever any such ensue after him. Hence it is a fundamental principle of our law, that it shall never haye an end or be abolished; and therefore also it is our judgment that there was never any other” (divine) “ law, nor ever shall be, but only this of our master Moses.” This is their present persua- sion; it was so of old. The law and all legal observances are to be continued for ever; other way of worshipping God there can be none; and this upon the account of the incomparable excellency of the revelation made to Moses.