Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Hebrews 3:1 - 3:6
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
SUPERIORITY OF JESUS CHRIST TO THE DIVINELY-SENT SERVANTS AND LEADERS OF ISRAEL, MOSES AND JOSHUA
______
I
The exhortation to fidelity toward Christ, the faithful Messenger of God, rests on the preëminence of Christ, as Son ruling over the house, above Moses, the faithful servant in the house
Heb_3:1-6
[Heb_3:1.— Ὅèåí , whence, wherefore, logical, as nearly, or quite always in this Epistle.— ÊáôáíïÞóáôå : êáôÜ emphatic; mark with attention, contemplate earnestly. Moll: “Richtet euren Sinn anf.’ Êáôáíïåῖí , of lingering, penetrating regard, a favorite word of Luke.” (Del.)— Ἀðüóôïëïí , commissioned one, then Apostle. Moll and Del.: Gottesbote; De Wette: der Gesandte; used of Christ as God’s great commissioned one of the New Testament, as Moses was of the Old. Moses was the ἀðüóôïëïò and Aaron the ἀñ÷éåñåýò of the Old Covenant; Christ combines in himself both characters in the New.
Heb_3:2.— ðéóôὸí ὄíôá , being faithful. Eng. ver. renders “was faithful;” so De Wette; Moll, following Bleek, renders is, but justly censures Bleek for pressing the force of the present ὄíôá . The truth is ὄíôá is not necessarily present at all, except to the time that is expressed by the finite verb, or that is present to the mind of the writer. Here I take it to be clearly that of Christ’s residence on earth, and hence follow Eng. ver. and De W., in supplying was rather than Moll and Del. in rendering is. But see exposition.
Heb_3:3.—“This man,” Eng. ver., ïὗôïò is often difficult to render into Eng. ‘This one’ is inelegant English; ‘This man,’ directs an undue amount of attention to the word ‘man’ (for here the reference is almost equally to Christ’s sojourn as ‘man’ on earth, and his present heavenly exaltation): ‘this personage,’ is too formal; ‘he’ is not sufficiently emphatic. The German dieser is unexceptionable. Has been counted or deemed worthy; ἡîßùôáé Perf., much better than Auth. ver. “was counted worthy,” because the reference is not merely to that reward of glorification which Jesus once received, but which he still retains.
Heb_3:4.—Founded, êáôáóêåõÜæåéí , furnish out, prepare, equip; not ïἰêïäïìåῖí , to build, as also the noun is not ïἰêßá , a house proper, but ïἶêïí , an estate, a domestic establishment, a household.
Heb_3:5.—“And Moses indeed,” or “while Moses.” Eng. ver. renders ìÝí here, as often elsewhere, “verily;” but always unfortunately.
Heb_3:6.— ×ñéóôὸò ὡò õἱὸò ἐðß , etc. The ellipsis may be supplied so as to read, “But Christ, as a Son, was faithful over His house,” or “was faithful, as a Son, over His house;” or, “as a Son was over His house,” which construction I adopt with Moll and Del. (except that they put is for was, which, perhaps, is admissible, the discussion sliding forward into the present) as the simplest, the idea of fidelity retreating, and that of authority becoming prominent. Both the best texts and the connection demand His (viz., God’s áὐôïῦ ) not his own ( ἑáõôïῦ ).—K.].
Consider attentively the apostle and high-priest of our confession.— Êáôáíïåῖí denotes the turning of the íïῦò to an object, not, however, for the sake of theoretical recognition, but for the practical weighing of that which we have in Him—i.e., for moral and spiritual heeding. The two epithets, descriptive of Jesus, bring most impressively before the readers the substance of the preceding statements. Jesus is the highest organ of the revelation of God to man, and at the same time the true and perfect Mediator of redemption. Precisely for this reason He is not like Moses and Joshua, a mere lawgiver and leader, but with all His resemblance to these servants of God, is yet exalted infinitely above them. To avoid all misunderstanding, however, He is not called ἄããåëïò , but ἀðüóôïëïò , which word corresponds as well with the Heb. maleach, as with His essential relations, Gal_4:4; Joh_3:34; Joh_5:36; Joh_6:29; Joh_10:36; Joh_20:21. Thol. and Biesenthal (after Braun, Deyling, Schöttg.) are inclined to refer the term to Rabbinical usage, in which ἀðüóôïëïò = ùְׁìִéçַ might bear the sense of Mediator. But according to Del. the priest has this name only precisely in his quality of delegate partly of God, partly of the congregation. Otto (“The Apostle and High Priest of our confession,” 1861) assumes a reference to Numbers 13, and sums up the result of his investigation in the following paraphrase: “Therefore, ye brethren who have been rescued from the world, and been endowed with the prerogative of a heavenly home and citizenship, observe that the Apostle and High-priest of our confession, i.e., He who first trod the sacred land of our inheritance with the confession, ‘Jehovah delivers,’ and now stands at our head as leader, but who at the same time is the high-priest of our confession, i.e., who brings before God our confession, ‘Jehovah delivers,’ in that He secures by His mediation our entrance into the heavenly home,—in fine that the Apostle and High priest of our confession, Jesus (as it were, our Joshua) is ðéïôüò to Him who has constituted Him.” We have here an interpolation of references and allusions which, indeed, a subtle ingenuity might easily enough light upon, but which are wholly alien to the context. Equally without foundation is also the remark of Kluge (p. 19): “From His êëῆóéò , act of calling, the Son receives the name of ἀðüóôïëïò , from His ἁãéÜæåéí , sanctifying, the name of ἀñ÷éåñåýò .” In His two-fold character Jesus is immediately described as belonging specifically to our, i.e., the Christian confession, in order that the readers may direct their mind to Him, and consider what they have in Him. The rendering of the Itala: Constitutionis nostræ, reminding us perhaps of the ‘Messenger of the Covenant’ (Mal_3:1), is inadmissible, since ὁìïëïãßá in the New Testament signifies only confession, acknowledgment, never ‘contract or covenant,’ and this along with the subject (De W.) and the object (Bl., Lün.) of the confession, 2Co_9:13; 1Ti_6:12-13. The Gen. marks possession, belonging to. [The high-priest who belongs to our confession: the high-priest whom we confess, acknowledge, i.e., (as Beng.) agree with; God ëÝãåé , man ὁìïëïãåῖ .]
Heb_3:2. Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house.—According to Otto ðéóôüò does not designate a moral quality, but “position next the heart of a higher personage” (p. 47), and should for this reason be taken in the sense of trusted, confidential, organ of trust. This by no means harmonizes with Heb_2:17, where assuredly a moral quality is indicated for the display of which in His high-priestly calling the Son of God became incarnate. But the faithfulness of Jesus creates an obligation of like faithfulness in His church. The mention of the former lays a foundation for demanding the latter; and this all the more in that the two historical and visible founders of the old and of the new covenant, in their exhibition of this fidelity in their respective positions, have left a pattern to their disciples, that, viz., of fidelity toward Him to whom they owed their respective historical positions. In this respect there is a close analogy between Jesus and Moses, which adds weight to the writer’s exhortation. The object of êáôáíïåῖí , attentively observe, is not the fact that Jesus is a ðéóôüò (Otto), but the person of Jesus, already signalized as entirely peculiar, and whose permanently abiding quality the ὄíôá renders prominent. Bleek, after Seb. Schmidt, erroneously presses the present, as if indicating that the reference is to the exalted Messiah. It is also an error (with Calv., Bl., Ebr.) to place a comma after Moses; for the following words are cited from Num_12:7, and apply properly only to Moses. For in respect of Jesus we are immediately reminded of His prerogative of being over the house. [I doubt if this is any adequate reason against inserting the comma with Calv., Bl., and Ebr. Because although Christ was a Son over the house, He was also a servant in the house, and the point of resemblance is that which is first adverted to: the distinction comes out later. In His double character Christ could be at once compared and contrasted with Moses. Like him and more fully than he, He proved a faithful servant in God’s house, but unlike him, He was also a Son over it. In the exceedingly elliptical language of the author some elements of the parallel are taken for granted, and hence its difficulty. Still I incline on the whole, though with hesitation, to obliterate the comma after Moses.—K.]
The ðïéåῖí , make, constitute, appoint, denotes the placing or putting forward of Christ on the theatre of history (De W., Del., Thol.). Bleek, Lönemann, and Alford, with Ital., Ambros., Primas., D. Schultz, adhere to the proper signification of the word, and refer the ðïéåῖí either to the incarnation of the Son, or to His eternal generation. [Alford: “The word, thus taken, however, is, of course, to be understood of that constitution of our Lord as Apostle and High-priest, in which He, being human, was made by the Father”]. They are right, in so far as they take the word absolutely; for it is quite unnecessary to supply a second accusative (as is done by the majority following Chrys.), as if the construction were “who made Him, scil., Apostle or high-priest.” But on the other hand, to refer the word to the “eternal generation”—considering that ðïéåῖí is used Heb_1:1 for actual creation, would give the passage a strong tincture of Arianism, and resolve Christ into a creature ( êôßóìá ), in decided contradiction to Heb_1:3. And again, to refer the word to the incarnation—the commencement of the temporal and earthly life of Jesus—though done by the orthodox Fathers, is scarcely admissible; for this term would hardly have been employed to designate the assumption of human nature by the Logos in the bosom of the virgin, or the overshadowing influence of the Holy Spirit and of the “power of the Highest” (Luk_1:35). The author was, perhaps, led to the term by 1Sa_12:6 [ ὁ ðïéÞóáò ôὸí Ìùõóῆí êáὶ ôὸí Ἀáñþí . Heb. òָùָׂä ]. Bl. The house ïἶêïò designates the family of God, or the Theocratic nation (Heb_10:21), in which Moses had a position in which he could show fidelity. The reference of áὐôïῦ to Moses (Oec. and alt., with whom I formerly agreed) is inadmissible, since the words refer to Num_1:2; Num_1:7 : the reference to Christ (Bl., Riehm) would be anticipating.
Heb_3:3. For of greater glory than Moses has he been deemed worthy by how much, etc.—The passage is not explaining or analyzing Heb_3:2 (De W.), but enforcing the exhortation êáôáíïÞóáôå . It expresses directly the elevation of Jesus above Moses, which appears all the more worthy of regard as it comes out in connection with the recognition of a like fidelity on the part of both. The relation between them is then illustrated in the relation which always exists between a house and its founder. Êáôáóêåõ . is not barely building, but fitting out a house with furniture and servants. But from this it does not follow that we are to construct ôïῦ ïἴêïõ with ôéìÞí , honor from the house (Wolf, Michael., Steng., etc.). The Gen. depends rather on ðëåßïíá . The respect and admiration rendered to a house redound in a very high degree to him who has reared and established it. In the same relation stands the glory ( äüîá ) of Christ to that of Moses. There is here no comparison drawn between the splendor of the countenance of Moses when, having spoken with Jehovah on the mount, he was about to utter His word to Israel, and the radiance which involved the whole person of Jesus on the mount of transfiguration (Hofm., Weissag., II. 188). The reference is to the glory of their respective callings and positions. Entirely untenable is the assertion of Del., that by understanding Christ to be here referred to as the founder, we involve in confusion the entire course of argumentation. Such a view by no means necessitates the absurd conclusion that in that case Moses must be the house. For the thought may perfectly well be, that Moses, as servant, is only a member or a part of the house of which Christ is the founder. We can only say that the language does not speak directly and in terms of Christ, but has the form of a universal statement, and that there appears as yet no occasion to pass beyond the comparison immediately expressed in the text between the relation of Jesus to Moses and the relation of a founder to a house. But we involuntarily turn our thoughts upon Jesus, and are justified in applying the passage to Him, as the founder of that house of God which we Christians constitute.
Heb_3:4. For every house is established by some one: but he who established all things is God.—This is also a general statement of unquestionable correctness, forming a link between the premise and the conclusion, but neither the conclusion itself, nor a remark merely incidental and parenthetical. If Christ is founder of the true Theocracy, it follows not from this that He has reared this house alongside of that which was established through the instrumentality of Moses. The general statement that God is the universal founder and establisher, who has placed Jesus, as He formerly did Moses, in His historical position [as founder of His New Testament house], would rather and simply suggest that the Theocracy founded by Jesus is in correspondence with the will of God. [And also, perhaps, it incidentally illustrates the way in which both Moses and Jesus could be faithful—the ground on which fidelity could be predicated of them, viz., that while each of these was a founder in his respective sphere, yet each worked under God as supreme founder, and to whom, therefore, both stood responsible.—K.].
Many older expositors have erroneously regarded (with Theodoret) èåüò as predicate, and found in it a proof passage for the divinity of Jesus, whom they assumed to be the subject. So also Otto, who, by ïἶêïò , Heb_3:3, understands specially the house of God, and thus paraphrases the following (p. 87 and 96): “For every house is founded by some one (but to meet and supply all its needs is in the power of none). He who has furnished the house with every thing (as Jesus, for example, has supplied it with all that was needful for time and eternity),—such an one is all-powerful,—such an one must be Divine ( èåüò ).” But the absence of the article involves no necessity of assuming this construction, for èåüò here has nearly the force of a proper name; and the connection is opposed to it. [Alford: “Apart from the extreme harshness and forcing of the construction to bring out this meaning, the sentiment itself is entirely irrelevant here. If the writer was proving Christ to be greater than Moses, inasmuch as He is God, the founder of all things, then clearly the mere assertion of this fact would have sufficed for the proof, without entering on any other consideration; nay, after such an assertion, all minor considerations would have been not only superfluous, but preposterous. He does, however, after this, distinctly go into the consideration of Christ being faithful, not as a servant, but as a Son, so that he cannot be here speaking of his Deity as a ground of superiority”].
Ðᾶò ïἰ ̄ êïò designates not the house in all its parts, the whole house, but according to the usage of our Epistle Heb_5:1; Heb_5:13; Heb_8:3 [and correct classical usage], every house. They who refer the previous clause ( ὁ êáôáóêåõÜóáò áὐôüí ) directly to Jesus, interpolate the idea that the question is here answered how fidelity can be predicated of Jesus, at the same time that He is asserted to be the founder of the Theocracy. The solution then is this: The Theocracy stands in the same category with every household, in that it must have a [subordinate] founder; while it yet remains true that God is the causa prima of each and all (Thol., Ebr., etc.) But the question itself, raising such a query, and demanding a solution, is entirely gratuitous: inasmuch as the Messiah has been from the outset designated as Son, and in the most definite manner declared to be the Mediator of Revelation and Redemption, as well as Mediator of the creation and government of the world. In these relations then the matter of His fidelity has of course already come up and been disposed of. This point is no longer under discussion; the topic now under consideration is the relation of him who has founded a house to the house. And as God is the supreme and universal founder, the Theocracy, as well in its Christian as in its Mosaic form, must be referred back to Him. And in perfect harmony with this view is the fact that a little before God is styled in reference to the Messiah ὁ ðïéÞóáò áὐôüí , and that it is only by this view that the following verse (Heb_3:5) is brought into logical connection with Heb_3:3, as legitimately authorizing its assertion of the superior glory ( äüîá ) of Christ. [That is: Heb_3:3, Christ, the founder of the New Testament house, is declared to have been deemed worthy of higher glory than Moses, by all the difference between the founder of the house and the house itself. Then Heb_3:4 reminds us that the New Testament house, as well as the Old Testament Mosaic house, was also founded under the ultimate and supreme direction of God, whence Moses and Christ, both in their respective positions, sustained direct relations to God, each having been placed, constituted, viz. ðïéÞóáò , by God in his position. Consequently we are prepared at Heb_3:5, to see the different relation which these two personages sustained to the house, on the one hand, and to God as the common founder, on the other; Moses being a servant, and Christ a Son; Moses being in the house and a part of it, and Christ over it. Yet I cannot see, after all, any very essential difference between the author’s view of the force of ὁ äὲ êáôáóêåõÜóáò , and that of Ebrard and Tholuck, which he rejects. Ebrard makes it declare God the supreme founder, and thus answer the implied question, how Christ as founder could have fidelity predicated of Him. Moll says: that “as God is the universal founder, therefore, the Theocracy, in its Christian as well as in its Mosaic form, must be referred back to Him.” This comes to near the same thing as the other. Both make the passage put God as universal and supreme founder into His true relation to both Moses and Jesus in their respective spheres. But with respect to the statement of Moll, regarding the Mediatorship of the Son, he seems to me to put the Son’s mediatorship in the creation and government of the world, as eternal Logos, one and equal with the Father, too nearly on a level with His Mediatorship in His humbled and servile character as Redeemer. In the latter the question of His fidelity is indeed often raised, and is absolutely vital: in the former relation, I do not remember where the term ðéóôüò is applied to Him, and I scarcely see how it could be without derogating from His divine dignity.—K]. Riehm’s opinion, (Lehrbegriff, I. 310) that Christ is designated as the founder of the Old Testament kingdom of God, and that Moses has held his position in it as assigned by Christ, cannot be substantiated by an appeal to the doctrine of our Epistle, that the Son is the Mediator of every form of divine agency that is directed to the world. It is here decidedly to be rejected, because the subject of discourse is here specially Jesus, the Messiah, as actually and historically manifested.
[Moll’s exposition of this difficult and vexed passage seems to labor under obscurity from his having failed to do justice to the elliptical character of the passage. The first thing, it seems to me, to be settled, is whether Moses and Christ are conceived by the author, as both in one house of God, or as in two, i.e., each in that respectively to which God had assigned him. This Alford, following Delitzsch, denies, maintaining that both are in one house of God, Moses as servant, and Christ as Son, and that the force and “strictness of the comparison” requires this. It seems to me that this confounding of the houses in which Moses and Christ were, raises at once an inexplicable difficulty. The question arises, How could Moses be in a house which was not reared or founded until by Christ, many centuries after? Or, how could Jesus found or rear a house in which Moses had officiated as servant, many centuries before? For that Christ founded or reared the New Testament house of God, is certain, and Christ, on the other hand, did not rear the Old Testament house of God; for Christ, the God-man, the Mediator, Jesus, had not then an existence. And to bring in here the Logos, the Eternal Son, as founding the Old Testament economy, is entirely out of the question; for with Him as such, the passage has nothing to do. The comparison is between Moses and Jesus, and by the whole tenor and sentiment of the Epistle, it is between Moses, as the servant of God in founding the Old Testament or Jewish economy, in rearing the house of God in its Old Testament form, and Jesus, in founding the New Testament economy—in rearing the house of God in its New Testament form. The comparison is between the two historical characters in the work which each respectively had performed. And it matters not that the two houses—the house of Moses and the house of Jesus—are in their deepest significance one house—as they certainly are—both God’s house—yet for the purposes, and in the representation of the author, they are different houses—the one an earthly, transitory, typical house, the other a heavenly, spiritual, imperishable house. In these two houses, respectively stand Moses and Jesus; both raised up of God, made, constituted (see ðïéÞóáò applied to Moses, 1Sa_12:6, and to Jesus, Heb_3:2, I have little doubt the latter suggested by the former)—each for his special work. Each was a founder, an institutor, inaugurator,—Moses of the Old Testament economy, Jesus of the New Testament economy. Each had the high honor of being appointed by God as the introducer and inaugurator of His respective system. But each was not only a founder, he was also a servant: Moses a servant ( èåñÜðùí , often so called in the Sept.); Jesus still more manifestly and deeply a servant ( äïῦëïò , äéÜêïíïò ); yet both faithful in both relations. Moses was faithful as a founder under God, of the old economy, and as a servant in it; Christ was faithful as a founder, under God, of the new economy, and as a servant in it. Thus far the resemblance; now the contrast. Moses, while apparently a founder of the old economy, a builder of the Old Testament house, was in reality only a servant in it; his highest function was purely ministerial. Christ, while apparently, and indeed really a servant in the New Testament house, yet in reality was a Son over it; His character of servant was but secondary and temporary; His highest and trne nature was that of Son. Thus Moses, the apparent builder of the Old Testament house, yet in reality and ultimately sinks to the level of the house, and becomes a part of it. Jesus, the builder of the New Testament house, and also seemingly an humble servant in it, yet ultimately rises completely above this servile condition, and by virtue of His essential equality and identity with God, the Supreme Founder of all things, becomes precisely as much superior to Moses as the founder of the house which He truly and absolutely was, is to the house itself, to which Moses only belonged as a part. The paradox, it is perceived, is a necessary one. It grows out of the double nature of the great Head of the New Testament Church. Lower than the angels, He yet rises in position, as He was in essential nature, infinitely above them. Appearing lower than Moses—as much lower as a äïῦëïò , slave, is lower than a èåñÜðùí , voluntary attendant, He yet rises transcendently and infinitely above him, by virtue of that nature which He shared in common with the eternal Father. I should, therefore, paraphrase the exceedingly elliptical passage somewhat as follows, reminding the reader that the facts regarding the positions both of Moses and of Christ—and certainly of the former—were so well-known, that the author, in his comparison, could safely presuppose them: “Consider—Jesus, who was faithful in the New Testament house of God to Him who constituted Him as builder and servant, as also Moses was faithful in all God’s Old Testament house to Him who constituted him builder and servant in it. For Jesus has been deemed worthy of, and been advanced to, higher glory than Moses, by how much the builder of the house has more honor than the house. For every house (and of course, therefore, the Old and the New Testament houses) must be founded immediately and secondarily by some one, as was the former by Moses, and the latter by Jesus; but He who ultimately and absolutely founded all things, and therefore was ultimate and supreme founder of these, was God. And while Moses, though apparent and formal founder of the Old Testament house, was in reality in his highest nature, but in it, and strictly but a part of it, Jesus, the founder of the New Testament house, though apparently a servant in it, was, in reality, and in His highest nature, as Son, equal with and substantially identical with the absolute and Supreme Founder Himself.”—This paraphrase introduces no elements into the comparison which are not presupposed in it, and which do not lie on the very face of the historical facts. It simply says thus: Moses and Jesus, each a founder of and a servant in the Old and the New Testament Theocracy respectively; each appointed of God and each faithful; but Moses, after all, only faithful as a servant, who was thus but part of the house; but Christ faithful as a Son, who was, therefore, in spite of His servile appearance, equal with the Supreme Founder Himself.
The only point on which there can be doubt, is as to the dual nature of the house of God; but I confess I do not see how there can be legitimate doubt on this point. Moll himself, who with most, denies this duality, is yet obliged to speak of the house of God “in its Old and its New Testament form,” and I suppose he could hardly deny that Moses was founder or rearer of the house in its Old Testament form, as was Jesus of the house in its New Testament form. But this comes very nearly to the same thing as affirming two houses. None can doubt that ultimately, and in their deepest meaning, they were indeed identical; i.e., both were not only from one Supreme Founder, but stood in close connection with the same great economy of salvation. But formally, and historically, and according to the whole scope and treatment of our author, they were different; as different as the Mosaic Tabernacle in which Aaron ministered, and the heavenly Tabernacle in which Christ ministered; as different as were the many animal sacrifices of the one, from the single spiritual and life-giving offering of the other. The Old Testament house of God which Moses reared, but in which he was but servant, was earthly, material, typical and transitory; the New Testament house of God which Jesus reared, apparently a servant, but in reality a Son and Lord, is heavenly, spiritual, archetypal and eternal.—K.].
Heb_3:5. And while Moses indeed is faithful, etc.—Moses, as well as Christ, has been raised up, set, forth by God, and designated in his fidelity, not merely for an individual service, or for a special department of action in the administration of God’s house, and his agency and fidelity stand in relation to the entire Theocracy. But (as shown by the Ìùõóῆò ìÝí , Moses indeed, within this similar relation, which is common to Moses and Christ, we are to recognize a profound and fundamental difference in the two persons. Moses has officiated as a servant, by no means indeed as a slave ( äïῦëïò ), or as a domestic servant, or menial, ( ïἰêÝôçò ), but (Wis_10:16) as a èåñÜðùí , a word always implying voluntary subordination, and willing and honorable service. But at the same time all this has been but typical and preparatory. The ëáëçèçóüìåíá are not the revelations which Moses was hereafter himself to receive, thus requiring the translation: “in order to render testimony to that which was then to be spoken.” Bleek, De W., Thol., Lün., so understanding the words, refer them specially to the law; Riehm reminds us of the expression, Num_12:8, óôüìá êáôὰ óôüìá ëáëÞóù áὐôῶ . These words, it is true, indicated the definite point in the life of Moses in which to him himself future revelations were promised. But the question is here no longer of the resemblance between Jesus and Moses, in fidelity to their respective vocations, but of the elevation of Christ above Moses, which, in fact, receives attestation even from the fidelity of Moses, who scrupulously held himself entirely within his prescribed sphere. The term refers therefore to those revelations to whose necessity the very ministry of Moses renders in all respects its testimony; and these, too, are not the revelations of later prophecy, nor specially, again, the declarations contained in our Epistle. They are rather those which have been disclosed in full perfection in the Son, John 5:49 (Erasm., Calv., Ebr., Hofm., Del., etc.). Precisely for this reason the name now employed is not Ἰçóïῦò , but ÷ñéóôüò .
Heb_3:6. Yet Christ as a Son over his house, whose house are we.—The reading, ὅò , instead of ïὗ , in Heb_3:6, is critically unsustained, and the article is wanting before ïἶêïò , as frequently before èåüò , íüìïò , and similar familiar terms. The house is still the Theocracy in which Moses served, but at the head of which stands Christ, who, as Son of Him who appointed Him, and erected the house, receives a position of authority and preëminence, and inasmuch as He, as Son of God, is not merely Lord and Heir of all possessions, but the essential agent in originating and procuring them, has a corresponding glory. These declarations, with which the Epistle opens, could not possibly remain unregarded by the readers. But with them the representation here given stands in the most perfect harmony, and ὡò õἱüò emphatically precedes, because, while even a servant of higher grade might be entrusted with the management of a household, yet this would leave the specific distinction between Christ and Moses entirely unexpressed. For this reason we are neither to refer áὐôïῦ , Heb_3:5, to God, and ἀõôïῦ , Heb_3:6, to Christ (Œcum., Bl., De W., etc.), as if designing to place in contrast the fact that Moses has his special position in an alien house, but Christ in His own; nor are these genitives to be regarded as genitives of reference=in his, i.e., in the house assigned to him (Ebr., who speaks confusedly of two houses); but they both refer grammatically to God (Chrys., Theod., Calv., Lun., Del., etc.), as does also the relative ïὗ , although referring as matter of fact to the Christian dispensation; for this is quite frequently called the house of God, Heb_10:21; 1Co_3:9; 1Co_3:16; 2Co_6:16; Eph_2:22; 1Ti_3:15; 1Pe_4:17; 1Pe_2:5; but never the house of Christ. We give most emphasis to the contrast by simply supplying ἐóôßí with ÷ñéóôὸò äὲ — áὐôïῦ (Erasm., Grot., Del., etc.), while the supplying of ðéóôüò ἐóôéí is yet undoubtedly admissible, Heb_10:21; Mat_25:21 (Bez., Grot., Thol., etc.); not, however, twice (Bl., De W., Bisp.)=Christ (is faithful) as a Son over his house (is faithful). The ὡò cannot here signify quemadmodum, but simply ut.
Provided that we hold fast the confidence and the glorying of our hope, etc.—Christianity, as such, bears the above assigned character of the ‘house of God;’ hence exclusion from the temple need occasion no anxiety to the Church. But whether, as a Church, we preserve this character (not whether we are permitted personally to apply to ourselves this designation, or to regard ourselves as this house), depends on the fulfilment of the requisite condition. The ðáῤῥçóßá denotes here, as Heb_4:16; Heb_10:19; Heb_10:35; not bold confession (Grot., etc.), but resolute confidence, and triumphant joyfulness of faith, corresponding to the ðëçñïöïñßá ôῆò ἐëðßäïò mentioned Heb_6:11, which gives to itself a corresponding expression, even in the most unfavorable circumstances. This expression the ὁìïëïãßá ôῆò ἐëðßäïò , Heb_10:23, is here called êáý÷çìá , which denotes the result of the act of glorying ( êáý÷çóéò ), not glorying itself (Bl., etc.), and not the mere object of glorying (Lün.). The ἐëðßò denotes, in a specifically Christian sense, the hope of the perfect consummation of the Kingdom of God, and of participation therein. For this reason ìÝ÷ñé ôÝëïõò refers not to the death of the individual (Schlicht., Grot., Kuin.), but to the end of the present order of things.
2. In their fidelity, in their respective vocations, towards God who has given to His messengers their respective historical position, appears a striking parallel between Jesus and Moses, inasmuch as the vocation of both has special reference to the establishment of the kingdom of God among men. It is by this that Moses takes precedence above all the prophets and messengers of God in the Old Covenant. But the infinite elevation of Jesus Christ is not, in this respect, in the slightest degree disparaged; but within the limits of the parallel stands forth sharply and clearly. Moses was neither priest nor king, but within the Theocracy, to whose establishment his ministry and fidelity had reference, was a servant, and so served that the true theocracy was designated by Himself as still in the future. Christ, on the contrary, is a High-Priest and for this reason, inasmuch as redemption was accomplished through His sacrifice of Himself, He announces, at the same time, a present salvation; and again, because He is Son He appears, indeed, as a messenger of God, but is, at the same time, ruler over the kingdom of God, and not one of its servants and citizens.
3. The confession of Christians has, as its specific subject, the historical God-man, and Him, as one who in His essential agency appears as, at one and the same time, the author and the herald of salvation. This confession is the original, universal, and comprehensive confession of the primitive church. It is the fundamental, Apostolical, Scriptural testimony, which, as such, is not merely to regulate subsequent developments, but also, as an expression of the living faith of the Church, has, to direct individual souls in their impulses of thought, feeling, and will, toward the person of that Saviour, who, as Son of God, possesses an incomparable elevation, an everlasting ministry, and a Divine ubiquity.
4. The actual earthly ministry of Jesus, with its beginning in time, within local relations, and under given conditions, by no means reduces Him as a historical personage, to the level of a creature. Nor is this result produced by the fact that the life of the God-man has an actual historical commencement. For although the commencement of the life, and the ministry of Jesus may, and must, on the one hand, be regarded as determined, and at a definite point of time, originated by the will and power of God, yet, on the other, we must maintain with equal emphasis the self-determining purpose and act of the Son of God by which, in time as well as in eternity, He kept Himself in undisturbed harmony with the will of His Father. For the Holy Scripture says no less that He came—Mat_9:13; Mat_18:11; Joh_16:28; Joh_18:37, than that He was sent, Mat_10:40; Joh_20:21, and lays no less emphasis upon His offering Himself in sacrifice (Joh_10:17-18; Eph_5:2; Heb_7:27), than upon His being delivered up for the expiation of the sins of the world (Rom_8:32; Joh_3:16; 1Jn_4:10). Neither again has the man Jesus at any time received or acquired the Divine nature; nor has the preëxistent Son of God so “emptied Himself” in His incarnation, that a complete destitution of the essence of the Logos, even to the extent of an unconsciousness of the commencement of life, existed in the human embryo. But the uncreated Son of God received, at the incarnation, human nature into the personal unity of an actual theanthropic consciousness and life. If the carrying out of the doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum, led in fact to that conception of the êÝíùóéò which we have just denied, which Gess. (The Doctrine of the Person of Christ, Basle, 1856) has most unqualifiedly developed, it were then high time to surrender this form of our doctrine for the sake of preserving its real substance. The inconsequence of the earlier Lutheran theologians, who denied the applicability of the intrinsically possible fourth kind of the communicatio idiomatum argues a higher mode of thinking, and is substantially more correct than the formal consistency of many recent divines; but still shows the necessity of a reconstruction of this doctrinal formula which, in the form it has hitherto held, is untenable.
5. In that the same God who brought forward Moses upon the stage of history, in like manner brought forward Jesus, any internal contradiction between the Mosaic and the Christian Theocracy is out of the question; while at the same time the fidelity of these two persons who are brought into comparison—a fidelity having reference to the theocracy in its collective character as a house of God—furnishes a pledge that in both cases the founding and arrangement of the house in question has been made in entire accordance with the Divine will. But the diversity of the two persons introduces a corresponding diversity of the Mosaic and the Christian Theocracy. And equally also from the diversity of the economies, which, as a matter of fact, comes first under our eyes, we may reason back to the diversity of the persons. And this diversity is not barely that relative diversity expressing itself in a merely negative way, which the synagogal Midrash expresses in the words (Jalkut on Isa_52:13): “the servant of Jehovah, the King Messiah, will be more venerable than Abraham, more exalted than Moses, higher than the angels of the service;” but it is the positive and absolute distinction between preparation and fulfilment on the one hand, and between a creaturely servant, and a son and lord equal with God, upon the other.
6. “Moses prophesied, not only by his vocation, and his fidelity in that vocation, but also by his testimony (Joh_5:47) to the Son, the Apostle of the final salvation. None the less did the Old Testament house of God, in which Moses had the employment of a servant, viz., the Old Testament Church, which had, as its central point, the ‘tabernacle of testimony’ (Act_7:44; Rev_15:5), with its typical furniture and administration, prophesy of the New Testament house of God, over which Christ is placed as Son, viz., the New Testament Church which has its central point in Christ, in whom God appeared incarnate, and in whom as antitype that tabernacling ( óêÞíùóéò ) of God among men which was prefigured in the Old Testament tabernacle ( óêçíÞ ), has thus been realized.” Del.
7. Christ is not, indeed, ashamed to call us His brethren; and He has in reality become truly man, and by circumcision has subjected Himself to the Jewish law (Gal_4:4), and become incorporated with the Israelite people of God. But in respect to the New Testament people of God, He is not a member, but Head and Lord. He is, indeed, “the first-born among many brethren” (Rom_8:29); and, by that completed and perfected life on which our Epistle lays special stress, holds a relationship to men who, by regeneration, become children of God, and becomes a type and pattern to all who are perfected through Him. But the expression “first-born” points to His relation to those who, after the resurrection, are perfected in the Messianic kingdom (Heb_1:5; Col_1:18; Rev_1:5). In His essential being, He is chief of the creation (Rev_3:14), and ðñùôüôïêïò ðÜóçò êôßóåùò (Col_1:15). The attributes which are ascribed to the Son in the opening of our Epistle, forbid our assigning to this term, in the present section, any other signification than that He who, as Son of the Universal Founder, is elevated over the house of God, is essentially equal to Him, so that an indirect proof of the deity of Jesus Christ may be drawn from this passage.
8. While the mention of the fidelity of Jesus reminds us, indeed, of His moral perfection, and the comparison of His vocation with that of Moses, reminds us of His agency in establishing a new relation of man to God, in a new covenant and kingdom; while the mention, at the same time, of the filial nature and imperial dignity of Jesus Christ rises above and beyond the sphere of mere morality and natural religion; and the whole tenor of Scripture forbids our interpreting the language used in such a way as to favor the subordinatian and Arian heresy,—so, on the other hand, the declaration that God “made Him,” and has “founded all things,” precludes the interpretation which merges the Father in the Son, and yet lends no countenance to Monarchianism or Unitarianism.
9. “Calling” ( êëῆóéò ) denotes not merely an invitation into the kingdom of God by means of preaching. To this conception of a “called” one ( êëçôüò ), as occurring in the parables of Jesus (Mat_20:16; Mat_22:14), and there without doctrinal import, but simply standing in inseparable connection with the depicting of well-known usages and customs, corresponds in our Epistle, the term åὐçããåëéóìÝíïò , Heb_4:2, or åὐáããåëèåßò (Heb_4:6). The êëçôüò , on the contrary, is, precisely as with Paul, one in whom the gracious call has been made effectual. He is one destined for the Messianic salvation (Heb_1:14), for the eternal inheritance (Heb_9:15), which is the substance of the ἐðáããåëßá , Heb_6:17, has His citizenship in heaven, Heb_12:23, and has been given by the Father to the Son, Heb_2:13, and by a Divine act, in which the eternal purpose of grace realizes itself in time in the case of individuals, has become, by means of the preached Word, an actual member of the Church which is destined to eternal salvation. But since the Word of God works, not magically, but spiritually, and, as a condition of its saving efficacy, requires repentance and faith (as unfolded in the passage immediately following), steadfastness in a gracious state and the attainment of perfection, are secured by our imitation of the fidelity of Jesus Christ.
Berlenburger Bible:—Stability of doctrine takes the lead; to this, therefore, stability on our part must be added, not from our own powers, but from grace. We must look to it that we do not fall from our own steadfastness (2Pe_3:17). In this we should place the glory of our religion.
Starke:—That which was required to be said, and actually is said of the ways of God, demands to be heard, and received with faith. Blessed, therefore, are ye who hear and keep the word of God (Luk_11:29