The Hebrew in the psalm is in reality y[eHo µ[ć . — ED. VARIOUS READINGS. — Instead of the clause, ou= ejpei>rasa>n. .. ejdoki>masa>n me , as it stands above, Tischendorf reads ou+ ejpei>rasan oiJ pate>rev uJmw~n ejn dokimasi>a . | Lachmann concurs with him; and the manuscripts quoted in support of this reading are such as A B C D E, C D E inserting me after ejpei>rasan . Both of these critics, moreover, read tau>th| instead of ejkei>nh| . EXPOSITION. — Erasmus, Calvin, Grotius, Bengel, Wetstein, Carpzov, Ernesti, Bleek, etc., connect all the quotations, verses 7-11, under the government of kaqw>v , as the protasis, of which verse 12 is the opodosis. Schlichting, Cappellus, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Klee, and Ebrard, understand kaqw>v. .. a[gion as a parenthesis, and the citations as dependent upon the preceding dio> . TRANSLATION. — Kai< ei+don , “although they saw.” — De Wette. — ED. See the author’s treatise on Temptation, volume 6 of this edition of his works. — ED. On Indwelling Sin in Believers, volume 6 of this edition of the author’s works. — ED. On Indwelling Sin, volume 6 of the author’s works. — ED. See On Communion with God, volume 2 of this edition of the author’s works. VARIOUS READINGS. — It is evident, even from the train of thought, that the true reading is ti>nev , ti>si , and not, with (Ecum., Theoph., Luther, Calvin, Orotius, etc., tine , “only some.” The author could infer only from the universality of sin in the time of Moses that the Israelites entered not into their rest, and therefore that the promise still awaited its fulfillment; he could not have inferred this from the fact that “only some had sinned at that time, and had been punished.” So far Ebrard; in which view he agrees with Griesbaeh and Tischendorf, who both point these clauses interrogatively.

EXPOSITION. — jAlla> , in a series of questions, and standing at the head of a question, means veto, porto. It serves to connect and give intensity to the interrogation. So here; ajlla> , truly, indeed, certe. The meaning is, ‘Might I not ask, Did not all who came out of Egypt rebel?’ — Stuart. TRANSLATIONS. — jApeiq . Disobedient. — Conybeare and Howson.

Kai< ble>pomen . We see then, or, thus we see. — Stuart, Turner. — ED. VARIOUS READINGS. — Sugkekrame>n . Instead of the Attic form, some codices have sugkekerasme>nov , which Ebrard deems the true reading is the reading of codices A B C D, as also of several important versions. Recent commentators, with the exception of Ebrard, prefer the latter; in which ease the sense would be, “because they were not united in the faith with those who obeyed.”\parTRANSLATIONS. — Katal . ejpagg . The promise being contemned. — Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Gerhard. That no one appear to remain behind the promise which is still left. — Cramer, Ernesti. That no one show himself as too late, theft a promise is still with us. — Bleek, Olshausen, Stuart. Lest while thee promise to be.fulfilled, any of you imagine that he has come too late. — Schottgen, Baumgarten, Schulz, Wahl, Bretschneider, Ebrard. — ED. EXPOSITION. — Ebrard takes a peculiar view of the last clause of this verse: “It is self-evident that the works here are antithetically opposed to faith. It is surprising how all critics should have supposed that the works of God are here meant, and especially hisworks of God are here meant, and especially his works of creation.” —ED. VARIOUS READING. — Lachmann and Tisehendorf insert proei>rhtai in the text, as undoubtedly the true reading; Griesbach marks it as a reading of great value. EXPOSITION. — The words kaqwrhtai connect grammatically with le>gwn , and indicate that the words had already been cited, Hebrews 3:7,15. Others take the first sh>meron as the object of le>gwn , “inasmuch as in David he calls it (the day), a to-day.” Others, as Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Bleek, take sh>meron , as apposition to hJme>ran tina> , “he defines again a day, a to-day.” This entire treatment of sh>meron is modern. — Ebrard. — ED. See “Causes, Ways, and Means of Understanding the Word of God,” in volume 4 of the author’s works. — ED. In his edition of this work, Dr. Wright very properly transfers the three lines which follow, from their place, in the original edition, at the close of the fifth particular under the next division. We adopt his emendation, as obviously required by the subject of these lines, which have evidently a connection with the paragraph above. — ED. TRANSLATIONS. — Saz . The celebration of a Sabbath. — Ebrard. A Sabbath-rest. — Boothroyd, De Wette, Tholuck, Craik. A Sabbath-rest, or, in extenso, a keeping of sabbatical rest. — Conybeare and Howson.

A Sabbath-keeping. — Scholefield. — ED. See volume 19, p. 261. Exposition. — Three questions are raised by the use of the term lo>gov in this passage: — l. Does it refer to the personal or written Word?

That the former is the correct exegesis is the opinion of Clericus, Seb.

Schmid, Spener, Heinsius, Cramer, Alting, Olshausen, and Tholuek; while the latter view is held by Bengel, M’Knight, M’Lean, Bloomfield, Stuart, Scholefield, Turner, and Ebrard. 2. Do both the 12th and 13th verses apply to the written word? Most of those who hold by the latter of the two views just mentioned, with some exceptions, such as Ebrard, conceive that there is a transition in the 13th verse to God himself, — the pronoun aujtou~ referring to the same person to whom our account is to be rendered. 3. Opposed to the view that the personal Word is meant, three opinions are held: — (1.) Some writers conceiving “the word” to mean Old Testament threatenings, such as Stuart; (2.) Others, such as Ebrard, New Testament revelation; while (3.) Conybeare and Howson understand by it the revelation of God’a judgment to the conscience. — ED. That is, in a sense remote from the proper use of the word. — Ed. See vol. 10. p. 23, of the author’s works. — Ed. Treatise on Indwelling Sin, volume 6 of the author’s works. — Ed. In the original edition the word is “sin,” — an evident misprint for “grace,” or some similar word. — Ed. Pepeirame>non is the reading of Knapp and Tischendorf, on the authority of and most other See volume 6, p. 153 of the author’s works. — ED. The article before kalou>menov is omitted by Griesbach, SchoIz, Lachmann, Tischendorf, and most other modern critics. — Ed. Or rather, John the Baptist. — Ed. EXPOSITION. — Chrys., Phot., Theophyl., Vulg., Luther, Calov, Olshausen, Bleek, and some others, understand eujla>b . in the sense of “fear of God;” — Jesus was heard on account of his piety. The Peschito, Itala, Ambrose, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Gerhard, Cappellus, Limborch, Carpzor, Bengei, Morus, Storr, Kuinoel, Paulus, De Wette, Tholuck, and a whole host of critics besides, render eujla>b . by fear, anxiety; which signification has been vindicated on philological grounds by Casaubon, Wetstein, and Krebs. Ebrard proceeds to argue, that though the prayer of Christ was to be saved from death, it was not unheard, inasmuch as he was divested of the fear of death. Others understand the fear to be simply that horror of soul under which he was” exceeding sorrowful.” — Ed. TRANSLATION. — UiJo>v . The word becomes definite from its connection and well-known application; as in Matthew 12:41,42, “men of Nineveh,” and “a queen translation, and thereby gives the precise See the speech of Croesus, Herodot. 1:207. — Ed. TRANSLATIONS. — Prosag . Declared of God. — Craik. Having been named of God. — Conybeare and Howson. Genannt. — De Wette.