The glory of Christ intended the apostle sets forth under the metaphorical terms of a house, its building, and builder... The occa- sion of this metaphor he takes (as was said) from the foregoing testi- mony, wherein it is affirmed that “ Moses was faithful in the house of God.” A house is either natwral,—that is, a family or a house- hold, the children of one parent, that is built by them (as 12, “a son,” is from 23, “to build;” so Ruth iv. 11, “The Lorp make the woman that is come into thy house like Rachel and like Leah, 32 7Us DN Mans OMAY,”—“which two built” (“childed”) “the house of Israel “evor artificial, —a building by men for a habitation, as every such house is built by some. And in an allusion thereimto; there is a house that is moral and spiritual, or a mystical habita~ tion, namely, for God himself. Such is the church of God said to be, Eph. ii. 20-22, 1 Tim. iii. 15, 2 Tim. ii. 20, 1 Pet. 11.5; partly
Odros,
Heiaras.
540 AN EXPOSITION OF THE [CHAP. IIL.
by a general allusion unto any house for habitation, partly with particular respect to the temple, that was called the “house of God” under the old testament. The metaphor used by the apostle in this place respects an artificial house, and the things spoken do primarily belong thereunto. The application that he makes is unto a spiri- tual house,—the house of God wherein he will dwell; and thereunto also do the things that are spoken properly appertain. Herein, then, lies the design and force of the apostle’s discourse; the church of God, with all the ordinances of worship in it, is a house, the house of God, as appears in the foregoing testimony. Now, as to honour and glory, this is the condition of a house, that he who builds it is much more honourable than the house itself. But this house of God was built by Jesus Christ, whereas Moses was only a part of the house itself, and so no way to be compared in honour and glory with him that built it.
Both parts of this discourse are obnoxious to some difficulty, the removal whereof will further clear up the sense of the words and meaning of the Holy Ghost.
First, then, ‘ It doth not appear that the proposition laid down by the apostle is universally true in all cases, namely, that he who builds the house is always more honourable than the house, which yet is the foundation of the apostle’s inference in this verse; for Solomon built the temple, yet the temple was far more glorious than Solomon. I do not speak in respect of their essence and being,—for so an in- tellectual, rational creature is to be preferred above any artificial building whatever,—but in respect of their use in the church of God; and so the temple far excelled Solomon, its builder.’
I answer, This may so fall out where one builds a house by the authority of another, and for his use, so that it is not his own house when it is built. But when one builds a house by his own autho- rity, for his own use, whereby it becomes his own house, and wholly at his own disposal, then he is always more honourable than the house itself. And so is it in this matter. Solomon indeed built the temple, but upon the command and authority of God; he built it as a, servant; it was never his in possession, or for his use, to dwell in or dispose of. On all accounts it was another’s. It was the house of God, built by his command, for himself to dwellin. Itis no wonder, then, if it were more honourable than Solomon. But things are quite otherwise in the building intended. Christ built his house by his own authority, for his own use, for himself to dwell in. And in such cases the proposition is universally true. And this appears so clearly from the nature of the thing itself that it needs no further confirmation. |
Secondly, ‘ For the proof of the apostle’s intention, it is supposed in the assumption that Moses was not the builder of the house of
VER. 3-6.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 541
God, but only a part of it; for without that supposition, the asser- tion of Christ’s being preferred above him as the builder is not con- firmed. But the contrary hereunto seems to be true, namely, that Moses was a principal builder of the house of God, at least of the house under the old testament. Paul, upon the account of his preaching the gospel, fears not to term himself “a wise master- builder,” 1 Cor. iii. 10; and shall not at least the same honour be allowed unto Moses? for what was wanting to render him a builder? There were two principal parts of that house of God wherein his ministry was used ;—first, the place and seat of the worship of God, or the tabernacle, with all its glorious utensils and appurtenances; secondly, the ordinances and institutions of worship to be celebrated therein. Of these two that house of God seemed to consist; and they are often so called. And was not Moses the principal builder of both? For the tabernacle and the furniture of it, he received its pattern from God, and gave direction for its building unto the utmost pins, like a wise master-builder. And, secondly, for the ordinances and institutions of worship, they were wholly of his appointment. He received them, indeed, by revelation from God, and so God spake in him, as he did afterwards in the Son, Heb. i. 1; but he prescribed them unto the church, on which account they are called “The law of Moses.” Sothat he seems not to have been a part of the house, but plainly the builder of it.