Merpioradsiy.
454 AN EXPOSITION OF THE ' (CHAP. v.
man Moses was 78939” (apatg oédpm), “very meek above all men.” It is spoken of him with respect unto his quiet and patient bearing of exasperating provocations, when he was opposed and re- proached by Miriam. and Aaron. He was werpiradjs; but as the best in the best of men is but weak and imperfect, so God in his wisdom hath ordered things that the failings of the best should be in their best, or that wherein they did most excel; that no man should glory in himself, but that “he that glorieth should glory in the Lord.” Thus Abraham and Peter failed in their faith, wherein they were so eminent. And the failure afterwards of Moses was in this meekness or moderate bearing with provocations. He was not able in all things werpioraéer, but, upon the provocation of the people, “spoke unadvisedly” and in wrath, saying, “ Hear now, ye rebels; must we fetch you water out of this rock?” Num. xx. 10. This privilege is reserved in every case for Christ alone; he can al- ways bear “quantum satis est,” so much as shall assuredly prevent any evil consequent whatever.
If the word be used in this sense, then respect is had to what is of provocation and exasperation in those who are “ignorant and out of the way.” ‘The high priest is one who is fit and able to bear moderately and quietly with the failings, miscarriages, and sins of those for whom he executes his office; not breaking out into any anger or excess of indignation against them by reason of their infir- mities,’ And this, as applied unto Jesus Christ, is a matter of the highest encouragement and consolation unto believers. Were there not an absolute sufficiency of this disposition in him, and that as unto all occurrences, he must needs cast us all off in displeasure.
Erasmus expresseth it by “ qui placabilis esse possit,” one “ who may be appeased,” who is ready to be pleased again when he is angry or provoked. But the apostle doth not teach us herein how the high priest may be appeased when he is angry, but how remote he is, or ought to be, from being so on any occasion.
The Vulg. Lat., as we saw, reads, “ qui condolere possit;’ which is the same with durduevos cummabjous, chap. iv. 15, “can be touched with a feeling.” And it is not improbable but that merprratei may be used here in the same sense with ovuqradjoas, chap. iv. 15. But then it may be questioned whether “condoleo,” “to grieve with,” be as extensive and significant as “ compatior;” which also it may, seeing the proper signification of “doleo” is to have a sense of pain. And thus no more should be intended than what we have already opened on those other places. What is said belongs to the description of the nature of a high priest as he is merciful, and of his disposition unto pity and compassion, with his readiness thereon to relieve and succour them that are tempted.
But I cannot judge that the apostle useth this word merely as it
VER. 2.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 455
were for change, without a design to intimate something further and peculiar therein. Hence is that translation of Beza, “qui quantum satis est miserari possit vicem,’—“ who can meetly and sufficiently pity the condition of the ignorant.” By yérpios, in this composition, the apostle intends the just and due measure of a disposition unto compassion. Not that he sets bounds unto it with respect unto any excess, as if he had said, ‘He hath no more compassion or condo- lency than becomes him,—he shall observe a measure therein, and not exceed it; which, although it be true, yet is not the intimation of it in this place unto his purpose. But he is one that doth not come short herein, who will not fail in any instance, who hath a sufficient measure of it to answer the condition and necessities of all with whom he hath to do. And this doth not infer a new sense, distinct from that last before mentioned, but only further explains it, accord- ing to the intention of the apostle in the peculiar use of this word.
I see no reason to confine myself unto either of these senses pre- cisely, but do rather think that the apostle on purpose made use of this word to include them both. For,—
Suppose the object of this qualification of the high priest, in them that are ignorant and do wander out of the way, be their ignorance and wanderings, that is, their sins, and those considered as containing a provocation of himself, as every sin is attended with provocation; then duvdmwevog werproradsiv is “qui potest moderate ferre,” “who is able to bear with them with that due moderation of mind and affections,” as not to have any vehement commotion of the one or the other against them: for if he should be liable unto such impressions he would be provoked to call them “rebels,” as did Moses; and to say, as in the pro- phet, “I will feed you no more; let that that dieth die,” Zech. xi. 9. But he is able to bear with them patiently and meekly, so as to continue the faithful discharge of his office towards them and for them. This, as we observed, Moses was not able always to do, as he also complains, Numb. xi. 12, “ Have I conceived all this people? have I begotten them, that thou shouldest say unto me, Carry them in thy bosom, as a nursing father beareth the sucking child?” Yet this is required in a high priest, and that he should no more cast off poor sinners for their ignorance and wanderings than a nursing father should cast away a sucking child for its crying or frowardness; which whoso is ready to do is very unfit for that duty. So our apostle, in his imitation of Jesus Christ, affirms that in the church he was “gentle among them, even as a nurse cherisheth her chil- dren,’ 1 Thess. ii. 7;—not easy to be provoked, not ready to take offence or cast off the care of him. So it is said of God, Acts xiii. 18, that for forty years érporopépyos, “he bare with the manners of the people in the wilderness ;” or as some read it, érpopogépnos, “ he bare” or “fed them, as a nurse feedeth her child.” Thus ought