TRANSLATIONS. —. Literally, “of the things which are being spoken.” — Conybeare and Howson. “Of which we are speaking.” — Craik. ” In the course of being spoken.” —Turner. “To what has been hitherto said.” — Ebrard. Kefa>l . “The prominent point.” —Turner. “The crowning point.” —Craik. “‘Sum’ will do here, if understood not of a recapitulation, but as a product resulting from all that goes before.” — Ebrard. “The most important thing in regard to what we are now treating of.” —Stuart. — ED. See vol. 2:232, 3:549, 4:383, of the author’s miscellaneous works. — ED. The meaning intended seems to be, “made provision to accomplish two necessary objects.” —ED. EXPOSITION. —Turner remarks that nuni> , now, is not here so much a mark of time, as a formula to introduce with earnestness something which has close, and may have even logical, connection with what precedes. See also for this use of the term, ch. 11:16, Corinthians15:20, 12:18, 20; in which passages it does not refer to time, but implies strong conviction grounded upon preceding arguments. —ED. See vol. 1. of this Exposition, p. 446. —ED. See vol. 3: p. 125, of his miscellaneous works. —ED. TRANSLATION. —Stuart and Conybeare and Howson connect the aujtoi~v with le>gei: “But finding fault [with the first covenant], he says to them;” i.e., the Jews. Memfo>menov , according to the first of these critics, appears to reduplicate upon the a]memptolhsa . This is the Septuagint rendering. The Hebrew, according to A. V., ms, though I was an husband to them.”

Some explain the discrepancy by conjecturing that the Greek translators had the guttural cheth instead of ayin in their copies. As the Arabic cognate word signifies to despise or reject, Kimchi and Pococke adopt this translation of the Hebrew word in this passage.

Hengstenberg in his Christology denies that the word can bear this sense. —ED. VARIOUS READING. — Toon has been rejected, and tothn substituted as the proper reading, by Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, and Tischendorf. All the uncial MSS., with most of the versions, vindicate the propriety of the change. —ED. See his treatise on the Holy Spirit, vol. 3 of his miscellaneous works. —ED. See Exere. xxv.-xxxiv.; and vol. 1 of the author’s miscellaneous works. See vol. 6 of the author’s miscellaneous words. —ED. VARIOUS READING. — An absurd jealousy against the critical amendment of the sacred text has sometimes been imputed to our author, from his controversy with Walton. The extent to which Owen’s views have been misapprehended has been indicated in vol. of his miscellaneous works, p. 345. In this verse we have proof that his mind was under no servile thraldom to the textus receptus. That text inserts skhnh> after prw>th . Our author omits it, and argues strongly for the omission of it. Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, and Tischendorf, agree in rejecting it. In Wright’s edition of this work the word was inserted in the text of the verse, although Owen himself in the original edition had omitted it. —ED. EXPOSITION. —Four solutions have been offered of the difficulty arising from the statement in the fourth verse, that the most holy place had the zumiath>rion; which is generally understood to signify, not the censer, but the altar of incense, whereas it belonged only to the holy place. 1.

Some, among whom Bleek must be numbered, suppose the author of the epistle to have been mistaken, —a notion, of course, inconsistent with the inspiration of the apostle, and an easy method of escaping from all difficulties in exegesis. 2. Others, such as Tholuck, suppose the altar of incense may in reality have stood in the most holy place, and refer to 1 Kings 6:22, Exodus 26:35. But see Exodus 30:6,7. 3. Others, G. Michaelis, Kuinoel, Stuart, and Turner, translate the word by censer, as sometimes in the classics, the LXX., and Josephus. This view is exposed to two objections: —the high priest would have had to enter the holy of holies, not once in the year, but every day; and why should an object so important as the altar be omitted? 4. Olshausen, Ebrard, and Conybeare and Howson, Substantially adopt Owen’s explanation. “The altar of incense,” says Ebrard, “stood in the holy place, but referred to the holy of holies.” — ED. TRANSLATION. —Instead of the past tense, “went,” it seems agreed that “enter,” and “entereth” should be substituted; as also, verse 9, “can” instead of “could ;” and Hebrews 10:1, “offer” instead of” offered.” The tense sheds light on the date of the epistle, as written before the destruction of the temple. —ED. VARIOUS READING. —Scholz, Lachmann, Tholuck, and Theile, prefer dikaiw>mata to dikaiw>masi . “According to the dative reading, the translation and punctuation will run thus — ‘Being only —along with meats, and drinks, and various washings, fleshly ordinances —things imposed until the time of reformation.’ With the nominative it will be thus: ‘Being only —along with meats, and drinks, and various washings —fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.’” Turner. — ED. VARIOUS READING. —Instead of mello>ntwn, Lachmann reads genome>nwn . The latter has the support of BB* , the Italic, and the Peschito. Ebrard decides in its favor, understanding the word in reference to the good things of grace as already secured and existing, in contrast with the old testament high priest, who had to deal with the types of good things still future. EXPOSITION. — Th~v mei>z . kai< teleiot . skhnh~v . Zuingle, Bucer, Tholuck, Bleek, and Turner, understand by the phrase the literal canopy of heaven; Calov and Vriemont, the new testament church; Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Bengel, and others, the body of Christ. Ebrard thus explains it: “Through that time in which the old covenant with its ordinances still subsisted Christ has passed, inasmuch as he was made under the law; his act of passing through this state, his act of living in a state of humiliation, i.e. therefore, his perfect inward fulfillment of the law in his holy life, was the teleiote>ra skhnh> through which he passed into his state of exaltation. The real fact of holiness (in the life of Jesus upon earth) stands opposed to the symbolical representation of holiness in the Mosaic prw>th skhnh> .” —ED. See vol. 1: p. 273, of his miscellaneous works. — ED. VARIOUS READING. —It seems now agreed that the reading Pneu>matov aijwni>ou is to be preferred to the reading Pneu>matov aJgi>ou ; the authority for the latter being D, Copt., Basm., Vulg., Slav., and Lat. D, E., and Chrysostom; that for the former being A, B, Peschito, Philoxen., Armen., Ambrose, Theodoret, and Theophylact. EXPOSITION. —Different views have been taken of the import of pneu>matov ; —Beza, Ernesti, Cappell, Outrein, Wolf, Cramer, Carpzoff, Morus, Schulz, and others, referring it to the divine nature of Christ; Grotius, Limborch, Heinrichs, Schleusner, Rosenmuller, Koppe, Jaspis, and others, referring it to endless or immortal life; Doederlein, Storr, and others, to the exalted and, glorified,person or condition of Christ; Winzer, Kuinoel, Moses Stuart (see his “Excursus”), under-standng by the phrase, divine influence; Bleek, Tholuck, and others, the Holy Spirit; Ebrard, the disposition of mind, rendering the act not mechanical compliance with a ritual but moral in its character, and eternal as done in the eternal spirit of absolute love. —ED. See vol. 3, p. 168, of the author’s miscellaneous works. — Ed. See the note on the ensuing verse. — Ed. EXPOSITION. — Scholefield characterizes this passage “as perhaps the most perplexing in the whole New Testament.” The dispute relates to the import of diaqh>kh , whether the translation “covenant” should be retained, as the word is commonly rendered; or whether the translation “testament” is not more suitable to the idea conveyed, particularly by verses 16, 17. Most of the Greek fathers, most of the Reformed theologians, Grotius, Pierce, Doddridge, Michaelis, .Macknight, Scholefield, Tholuck, Dr Henderson, Turner, and Ebrard, pronounce in favor of “covenant.” On the other hand, Chrysostom, Luther, Calvin, Erasmus, Wolf, Campbell, Bengel, Schleusner, Wahl, Rosenmuller, Bretschneider, Kuinoel, Stuart, Robinson, Conybeare and Howson, decide in favor of “testament” as the proper translation. The central difficulty in the passage will probably be admitted to Ale in the meaning of diaqe>menov. Conybeare and Howson affirm that “the A.

V. is unquestionably correct in translating diaqh>kh “testament” in this passage. The attempts which have been made to avoid this meaning are irreconcilable with any natural explanation of oJ diaqe>menov.” Macknight renders it “appointed sacrifice.” But this would involve a grammatical error: and to obviate this consideration, Scholefield proposes a rendering in an active sense, “mediating sacrifice;” but he candidly owns that there is no instance of the word being used elsewhere in this signification; and besides, there is great harshness in affixing to diaqe>menov a meaning so widely different from its congener, diaqh>kh , occurring as they do in the same sentence. Whitby and Burton, accordingly, propose the phrase “covenanting party.” But from this translation results another difficulty; the death of a covenanting party dissolves rather than confirms a covenant. Ebrard’s solution of this difficulty is ingenious: “The man who will enter into a covenant with God is a sinner, and as such incapable of entering into fellowship with the holy God, nay, even of appearing before God’s presence, Deuteronomy 5:26. He must die on account of his guilt, if a suhstitutionary sacrifice be not offered for him. But he must also die to his former life, in order to begin a new life in covenant with God. In short, from a simple view of the symbolical import of the covenant burnt-offering, described in verses 18-22, the following may be stated as the result: When a sinful man will enter into covenant with the holy God, the man must first die, — must first atone for his guilt by a death, (or he must produce a substitutionary burnt-offering.)” — ED. EXPOSITION. — From the fact that Christ has offered his own blood, it is inferred that he needed not to repeat this sacrifice; in verses 27, 28, it is inferred from the same thing that he could not repeat it. A man can offer the blood of another repeatedly; his own blood he can offer — in other words, die — only once. — Ebrard The pretense of repeating the Redeemer’s one and only offering in the sacrifice of the mass, is in most direct opposition to the doctrine of this epistle. ...... The apostle speaks of men’s dying only “once” as analogous to Christ’s having been but “once offered.” There is only one death for men on earth; and there is only one offering by Christ, and that implies his death. — Turner. — ED. See vol. 5 of miscellaneous works, on Justification. See vol. 6 ibid. VARIOUS READING. — Though the textus receptus omits oujk, it is restored in most of the critical editions. Tischendorf in its favor appeals to all the uncial Mss., by far the most of the others, most of the versions, and many fathers. This passage is one in which the A. V. differs from the textus receptus. — ED. Dissertation on Divine Justice, miscellaneous works, vol. 10 p. 481. — ED. Dissertation on Divine Justice, vol. 10 p. 481. — ED. EXPOSITION. — Five views have been taken in regard to the difference between the Hebrew original and the LXX. rendering, as given in verse 5. 1. Even before the days of Kennicott some resolved the difficulty on the hypothesis of a corruption of the Hebrew text. Kennicott conjectured that t;yyiK; µyin’z]a; was a corruption for T;t’n; hw;ge za; , — ”Then a body thou hast given.” Since za; , however, is an adverb of time, it cannot be taken in the sense of “therefore.” Pierce adopts the emendation so far, but leaves the verb as it stands. Pye Smith inclines to this view, and holds that . hy;k; signifies “to prepare.” 2. Bleek supposes a corruption in the LXX., — sw~ma , instead of w+ta , or w]tia originally. 3. Rosenmiiller, with Owen, a synecdoche, “Thou hast opened mine ears;” — ‘given a capacity to hear, and therefore to obey thy commands.’ 4. Michaelis, Storr, Kuinoel, Hengstenberg, and Stuart, paraphrase it somewhat thus, “Thou hast opened, i.e., spoken closely and effectually into mine ears;” — ‘I have ears to hear, and I understand the secret meaning of the laws concerning sacrifices.