The Pulpit Commentary — Hebrews — Section 13

nnt t,o sp!'ak in some way to his people Ver. 2.-In theso lnst do.ye. The true between tho times of llfalnehi nnd of Christ, rending being i1r' iux,hou To,11 ,',1upo,v yet both the expression, "to the fathers," .,.o{,.,."'"• not br' lax,h"'"• as in the Textus and the inste.nces of Divine utterances given Receptus, translate, at the end of these days, subsequently in the Epistle, restrict us in The Received Text would, indeed, give the our interpretation to the Old Testament same meaning, the position of the article canon. Addressing Hebrews, it is from denoting "the last of these days," not" these this the.t the writer argues. Having spoken; a lRSt days." The reference appoo.rs to be to word used elsewhere to express all the ways the common rabbinical division of time into in which God has made himself, his will, ci:.l~v o~Tos, o.ud alWv µEA'/\ow, or lpx&µ.evos: and his oonnsels, known (cf. Matt. x. 20; the former denoting the pre-Messianic, the Luke i. 45, 70; John ix. 29; Acts iii. 21; latter the Messianic period. Thus "these ,ii. 6). To the fathers; the a.ncest.ors of the days" is equivalent to o.lwv oO.,.or, "the Jews in r.:,spect both of race e.nd of faith ; present age,'' and the whole expression to I.he saints of the Old Testament. The word brl lfUVTEAEl'f .,..,,, a1C:wow, "at the end of the had a well-understood meaning (of. Matt. ages" (infra, eh. ix. 26); cf. 1 Car. x.11," for :xxiii. 30; Luke i. 55, 72; xi. 47; and our admonition, upon whom the ends of the especially Rom. ix. 5). For the double e.ges are come." The term, o.lwv ,,_,,,._,,._.,,,, i>1 1,ense of the term "father," thus used, see e.lso used in this Epistle (vi. 5) ; of. ii. 5, John viii. 56, "your father Abraham;" but .,.1.,., o1H:ouµlv7111 T¾/v µbv,ouuo.v. For allusions again, John viii. 39, "If ye were Abraham's elsewhere to the two periods, cf. Matt. xii. children, ye would do the works of Abra- 32 ; Mark x. 30 ; Luke xviii. 30 ; xx. 35 ; ham; " a.nd also Rom. iv. and Gal. iii. 7. Eph. J. 21; Titus ii. 12. Cf. also in Old But this distinction between physical and Teate.ment, Isa. ix. 6, where, for" Everlasting spiritual ancestry does not come in here. Father,'' Cod. Alex. has 'ITo.T¾/p .,.au µeA.1'dvTo< In the prophet;;. The word "prophet" must a.lwvo,. A subject of discussion he.a been be taken here in a general sense; not con- the point of division between the two ages~ fined to the prophets distinctively so called, whether the commencement of the Christian as in Luke mv. 44, "Moses, the prophets, dispensation, lll!hered in by the exaltation nnd the psalms." For both Moses and the of Christ, or his second advent. The con- psalms are qnoted in the seqnel, to illustrate e-eption in the lJewish mind, founded on the ancient ntterances. Ilpo,Pf,7'71• means, Messianic prophecy, would, of course, be un- both in classical and Hellenistic Greek (as defined. It would only be that the coming does the Hebrew ~•~, of which 1Tpo4>-l,n1• of the Messiah would inaugurate e. new is the equivalent), not a foreteller, but a order of things. But how did the New jorthteller of the mind of God, e.n inspired Testament writers after Christ's ascension expounder ( cf. tuh 'ITpo,pf,TTJ• ,,,..,.1 Ao!io., conceive the two ages ? Did they regard 1Tarp6s, 2Esch., • Enm.,' 19; and Exod. vii. 1, themselves as living e.t the end of the "See I have made thee a god to Pharaoh, e.nd former age or at the beginning of the new .Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet"). one? The passage before us does not help Observe also the sense of 1Tpo4>71.,.,la. in St. t,o settle the question, nor does eh. ix. 26; for Paul's Epistles (especialiy 1 Cor. :xiv.). In the reference in both cases is to the histori- this sense Moses, David, and all through cal manifestation of Christ before his ascen- whom God in any way spoke to man, were sion. Dut others of the passages cited prophets. On the exact force of the preposi- above seem certainly t,o imply that "the tion ,11, many views have been entertained. coming age " was regarded as still future. It does not mean " in the books of the It bas been said, indeed, with regard to this prophets,'' - the corresponding "in the apparent inference from some of them, that SON " precludes this ; nor that God by his the writers were regarding their own e.ge Spuit spoke within the prophets,-this idea from the old Jewish standing-point when dots not come in naturally here; nor is "the they spoke of it as future, or only used well- SoN" presented afterwards as one in whom known phrases to denote the two a.gee, the Godhead dwelt, so much as being him- though they were no longer strictly applic- i;e:lf a manifestation of God; nor may able (see Alford's note on eh. ii. 5). But we take ,,, as simply o. Hellenism for this explanation cannot well bo made to 0112,-the writer does not use prepositions apply to such passages as 1 Cor. x. 11 and indiscriminately. 'Ev (as Alford explains Eph. i. 21, or to those in the Gospels. It it) differs from 6,a: as denoting the element would appear from them that it was not till in which this speaking takes place. 'fhia the 1Tapo6l1'10. ( or, as it is designated in tho use of the prepoBition is found also in classi- pastoral Epistles, the bri,plivuo.) of Christ cal Greek; cf. u71µal11uv ,,, oiwvois, frequent that " the coming age '' of prophecy was re- in Xenophon ; in the New Testament, cf. gardeu as destined to bogin, ushering in 'Ev rcji 6.pxovn rwv liaJJ,ovi111~ t1'/Jr;r,'"-"-u 'l'CI "n•iw heavens and I\ new co.rth, wherein lio.,µ611H," (Mu.tt. ix, 34). dwelleth righteousness" (2 Pet. iii. 13). on. 1. 1-11.J 'fHE EPISTLE 'l'O 'fHE HEBREWS. 3