2. Take the two different senses which the words, as commonly translated, do present, and there is nothing of contradiction, or in- deed the least disagreement between them. For the words, as we have translated them in the prophet, express an aggravation of the sin of the people: “They brake my covenant, although I was” (that is, therein) “an husband unto them,” exercising singular kindness and care towards them. And as they are rendered by the apostle, they express the effect of that sin so aggravated,He “regarded them not;” that is, with the same tenderness as formerly: for he denied.
VOL, XXIII. 9
130 AN EXPOSITION OF THE [ CHAP. VIII.
to go with them as before, and exercised severity towards them in the wilderness until they were consumed. Each way, the design is to show that the covenant was broken by them, and that they were dealt withal accordingly.
But expositors do find or make great difficulties herein, It is generally supposed that the apostle followed the translation of the LXX., in the present copy whereof the words are so expressed. But how they came to render ‘A7¥2 by juéanow, they are not agreed. Some say the original copies might differ in some letters from those we now enjoy. Therefore it is thought they might read, as some think, ‘eM, “ neglexi,” or neva, “ fastidivi,’-—“I neglected” or “loathed them.” And those who speak most modestly, suppose that the copy which the LXX. made use of had one of these words instead of FOYE, which yet is the truer reading; but because this did not belong unto the substance of the argument which he had in hand, the apostle would not depart from that translation which was then in use amongst the Hellenistical Jews.
But the best of these conjectures is uncertain, and some of them by no means to be admitted. Uncertain it is that ‘the apostle made any of his quotations out of the translation of the LXX.; yea, the contrary is certain enough, and easy to be demonstrated. Neither did he write this epistle unto the Hellenistical Jews, or those who lived in or belonged unto their dispersions, wherein they made use of the Greek tongue; but unto the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judea principally and in the first place, who made no use of that transla- tion. He expressed the mind of the Scripture as he was directed by the Holy Ghost, in words of his own. And the coincidence of them with those in the present copies of the LXX. hath been ac- counted for in our Exercitations.
Dangerous it is, as well as untrue, to allow of alterations in he original text, and then upon our conjectures to supply other words into it than what are contained in it. This is not to explain, but to corrupt the Scripture. Wherefore one learned man (Pococke in Miscellan.) hath endeavoured to prove that MY, by all rules of interpretation, in this place must signify to “despise and neglect,” and ought to have been so translated. And this he confirms from the use of it in the Arabic language. The reader may find it in the place referred unto, with great satisfaction.
My apprehensions are grounded on what I have before observed and proved. The apostle neither in this nor in any other place doth bind up himself precisely unto the translation of the words, but in- fallibly gives us the sense and meaning; and so he hath done in this place. For whereas °¥3 signifies a “husband,” or to be a husband or a lord, 2 being added unto it in construction, as it is here, 2v3 D3, it is as much as “jure usus sum maritali,’—‘I exercised the
VER. 9.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 131
right, power, and authority of a husband towards them; I dealt with them as a husband with a wife that breaketh covenant:’ that is, saith the apostle, ‘“ I regarded them not” with the love, tender- ness, and affection of a husband.’ So he dealt indeed with that generation which so suddenly brake covenant with him, He pro- vided no more for them as unto the enjoyment of the inheritance, he took them not home unto him in his habitation, his resting- place in the land of promise; but he suffered them all to wander, and bear their whoredoms in the wilderness, until they were con- sumed. §o did God exercise the right, and power, and authority of a husband towards a wife that had broken covenant. And herein, as in many other things in that dispensation, did God give a repre- sentation of the nature of the covenant of works, and the issue of it.
Thirdly, There is a confirmation of the truth of these things in that expression, “Saith the Lord.” This assertion is not to be extended unto the whole matter, or the promise of the introduction of the new covenant; for that is secured with the same expression, verse 8, Aéyes Képsos, “Saith the Lord.” But it hath a peculiar ros in it, being added in the close of the words,— MANDI, and respects only the sin of the people, and God’s dealing with them thereon. And this manifests the meaning of the preceding words to be God’s severity towards them: ‘I used the authority of a husband, I regarded them not as a wife any more, saith the Lord.’