And in these words lies the spring of the apostle’s argument, as is manifest in those interrogatory particles, o/ ydp, “ for if;’—‘ Por if the law that was published unto our fathers by angels was so vindicated against the disobedient, how much more shall the neglect of the gospel he avenged?’
Secondly, He affirms concerning this word thus published, that it was PéCass, “firm,” or “steadfast;” that is, it be- came an assured covenant between God and the people.
_ That peace which is firm and well grounded is called siphyn Beata, “a firm, unalterable peace;” and ri BiCasov is public security. The law’s becoming PéCass, then, “ firm, sure, steadfast,” consists in its being ratified to be the covenant between God and that people as to their typical inheritance: Deut. v. 2, “The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.” And therefore in the preater trang: gressions of the law, the people were said to forsake, to break, to profane, to transgréss the covenant of God, Lev. xxvi. 15; Deut, xvii. 2, xxxi. 20; Hos, vi. 7; Josh. vii. 11; 2 Kings xviii, 12; 1 Kings xix, 14; Jer. xxii. 9; Mal. ii. 10. And the law thus published by angels became a steadfast covenant between God and the people, by their mutual stipulation thereon, Exod. xx. 19; Josh, xxiv, 21, 22, 24, Being thus firm and ratified, obedience unto it becanis necessary and reasonable; for hence,—
Thirdly, The event of disobedience unto this word is expressed : “Tivery transgression and every stubborn disobedience received a meet retribution.” Sundry things must be a little inquired into for the right understanding of these words,—as, 1. The difference between wrapdCacig and rapaxoj. And the first is a 9 ay any transgression, which the Hebrews cal] YYB; the latter includes a refusal so to attend as to obey,—contu- macy, stubbornness, rebellion, 2. And so the latter word may be
Wl yap.
BiCaias,
Wapacaurss. Mapuron.
276 AN EXPOSITION OF THE [CHAP. II.
exegetical of the former,—such transgressions the apostle speaks of as were accompanied with contumacy and stubbornness,—or they may both intend the same things under, diverse respects. 2. How may this be extended to every sin and transgression, seeing it is certain that some sins under the law were not punished, but ex- piated by atonement? Ans. (1.) Every sin was contrary r@ Adyy, “to the doctrine of the law,” its commands and precepts. (2.) Punish- ment was assigned unto every sin, though not executed on every sinner. And so the word ¢aa€ev denotes not the actual infliction of punishment, but the constitution of it in the sanction of the law. (3.) Sacrifices for atonement. manifested punishments to have been due, though the sinner was relieved against them. But, (4.) The sins especially intended by the apostle were such as were directly against the law as it was a covenant be- tween God and the people, for which there was no provision made of any atonement or compensation; but the covenant being broken by them, the sinners were to die without mercy, and to be extermi- nated by the hand of God or man. And therefore the sins against the gospel, which are opposed unto those, are not any transgressions that professors may be guilty of, but final apostasy: or unbelief, which renders the doctrine of it altogether unprofitable unto men. 38.” Evd:xog usobarodocia is a recompence just and equal, proportionable unto the crime according to the judgment of God,—that which answers dmamwors rod Oot, that “judgment of God,” which is, “that they which commit sin are worthy of death,” Rom, i. 32. And there were two things in the sentence of the law against transgressors :—(1.) The temporal punish- ment of cutting off from the land of the living, which respected that dispensation of the law which the Israelites were subjected unto. But the several sorts of punishment that were among the Jews under the law have been declared in our Prolegomena; to discover the nature whereof, let the reader consult the 2lst Exercitation. And, (2.) Eternal punishment, which was figured thereby, due unto all transgressors of the law, as it is a rule of obedience unto God from all mankind, Jews and Gentiles. Now, it is the first of these which the apostle directly and primarily intendeth; because he is comparing the law in the dispensation of it on Horeb unto the Jews, with all its sanctions, unto the present dispensation of the gospel; and from the penalties wherewith the breach of it, as such, among that people, was then attended, argues unto the “sorer punish- ment” that must needs ensue upon the neglect of the dispensation of the gospel, as he himself expounds, chap. x. 28, 29. For other- wise the penalty assigned unto the transgression of the moral law as a rule is the very same, in the nature and kind of it, with that which belongs unto despisers of the gospel, even death eternal.
“"Braacey.
"Eydinos io Sarodocia.
VER. 2-4.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 277
4, Chrysostom observes some impropriety in the use of the word dtcbamcdocia, because it rather denotes a reward for a good work than a punishment for an evil one. But the word is indifferent, 2x rév uéowv,and denotes only a recompence suitable unto that whereunto it isapplied. So is dvriusodia, used by our apostle, Rom. i, 27, excellently expressed by Solomon, Prov. i. 31, “Sinners shall eat of the fruit of their own ways, and be filled with their own devices.” Such rewards we have recorded, Num. xv. 32-34; 2 Sam. vi. 6, 7; 1 Kings XU 4, xx. 36; 2 Kings ii. 23, 24; 2 Chien xxxin QO’ oa"