The question proposed is annexed unto that foregoing, and declar- ed to be designed unto the same purpose, by the respective copulative dé, which we render “and,” “And to whom.” The words of this question have been explained before on verse 11, Only here is one thing added. For whereas it is there said only that “God sware in his wrath that they should not enter into his rest,” —that is, he sware so concerning them,—it is here intimated, that for their greater terror, and the manifestation of his wrath and indigna-
AG.
VER. 15-19.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 187
tion, he sware so to them: Tio: &wooe, “To whom did he swear.” And so it appears to have been from the story. For though the words of the Lord were repeated unto the people by Moses and Aaron, yet the people themselves are proposed as they unto whom he spake and sware: “As ye have spoken in mine ears, so will I do to you: your carcasses shall fall in this wilderness,” Num. xiv. 28, 29. This inquiry the apostle makes upon that typical ex- ample wherein the present condition of the church of the Hebrews was represented.
The answer which he returns hereunto, which is evidently col- lected from the whole matter, contains the instruction
Ties apocs.
; : 2 \ ~~ 2 , Tois as ‘he intended by him: Ei wi rots daeidqoacr; The word,asI _°” eas have showed, is variously rendered ;—by some, “obeyed
not;” by some, “ believed not;” by some, “assented not,” “acqui-
esced not.” Tw is “ to persuade,” by words, or any other means, And deéw is properly, “ not to be persuaded,” so as to do the thing that the persuasion leads unto. And if that persuasion be with authority, that dissent is “to be disobedient or contumacious,” And these are varied according as the proposal of the persuasion which they respect hath been. For it may sometimes be by an exhorta- tion in general, and sometimes it may be attended with commands, promises, and threatenings, which vary, if not the kind, yet the degree of the sin intended. ’Avzfdeam is usually “ inobedientia,” “ contu- macia,”’ and sometimes “rebellio;’—“disobedience,” “stubbornness,” or “rebellion.” But the same words are often in the New Testa- ment rendered by “unbelief,” “infidelity,” “incredulity,” “not to be- lieve ;”’—as indeed the word sioris itself, or “faith,” is from zeilw, “to persuade;” and in other authors is nothing but that persuasion of mind which is begotten in any man by the arguments and reasons that are proposed unto him for that purpose. But the promiscuous rendering of that word by “disobedience” or “ unbelief,” seeing these things formally differ, is not so safe, and ought to be reduced unto some certain rule. This, for aught I can perceive, interpreters have not done, but have indifferently rendered it by the one word or the other. ’Aseiéeia, we render “ unbelief,’ Rom. xi. 30, 32, Heb. iv. 11; and by “ disobedience,” Eph. ii. 2, v. 6, Col. iii. 6; but for the most part we place the other word in the margin: deredéu, commonly, by “ believe not,” Rom. xi. 30, 31, xv. 31, Acts xiv. 2, xvii 5, xix. 9; sometimes by “obey not,” Rom. ii. 8, x. 21, 1 Pet. ii. 7, 8, iii. 20, iv. 17: and daed4g everywhere by “ disobedient,” Luke i. 17, Acts xxvi. 19, Rom. i. 30, 2 Tim. iti. 2, Tit. 1 16, iii. 3. And the like variety may be observed in other interpreters. I sup- pose, as was said, that the translation of this word may be reduced unto some certain rule. "A-side and dared do certainly denote a denial of the proper effect of +:/¢w: the effect of persuasion is not
188 AN EXPOSITION OF THE [oHap. 111.
produced. Now, this persuasion is not merely and solely an exhor- tation by words, but whatever it is that hath, or ought to have, a moral power to prevail with the mind of a man to do or not to do any thing, it hath the virtue of a persuasion. Thus in commands, in promises, in threatenings, there is a persuasion. This is common to them all, that they are fitted and suited to prevail with the minds of men to do or not to do the things which they do respect. But there is some peculiar adjunct whereby they are distinguished as to their persuasive efficacy,—as authority in commands, faithfulness in promises, severity in threatenings, power and holiness in all. That which is persuasive in commands, as formally such, is authority and power; that which is so in promises, is faithfulness and power; and so of threatenings. Look, then, in any place what is the formal rea- son of the persuasion whose disappointment is expressed by dqeiléw and dqeidem, and we shall understand what it is that firstly and di- rectly is intended by them. That whereby we answer a command is obedience, because of the authority wherewith it is attended, and our not being persuaded or prevailed on thereby is disobedi- ence; that whereby we answer a promise is faith, or trust, or believ- ing, and our failing herein is unbelief. Not that these things can be separated from one another, as though we could obey and not believe, or believe and not obey, but that they are thus distinguished one from another. Wherever, then, these expressions occur, we must consider whether they directly express the neglect of the command of God or of his promise. If it be of the former, they are duly ren- dered by “ disobeying” and “ disobedience ;’ if the latter, by “ unbe- lief,” “incredulity,” and the ike. Now, because these things are of a near alliance and cannot be separated, wherever one is expressed, the conjunction of the other is also understood; as in this place. Their dee did principally respect the promise of God to give them the land of Canaan, and his power to effect it, so that unbelief is firstly and principally intended,—they would not believe that he would or could bring them into that land; but yet because they were also under the command of God to go up and possess it, their unbelief was accompanied with disobedience and rebellion. This, then, is the meaning of these words in this place, ‘“To whom did he swear that they should not enter into his rest?” It was unto them to whom the promise of it being made, and a command given that they should be ready to go up and possess it, they would not, they did not acquiesce in the faithfulness and power of God, believed not his word, and thereupon yielded not obedience unto his command.’ And this was sufficient both to provoke and justify the severity of God against them in his oath, and the execution of it.