THE NEW TESTAMENT COMMENTARY VOL. IX.—EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. BY R. MILLIGAN Late President of the College of the Bible in Kentucky University. GOSPEL LIGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY DELIGHT, ARKANSAS Printed in U. S. A. PUBLISHERS' PREFACE. IN announcing the volume on Hebrews of the NEW TESTAMENT COMMENTARY, we are pained to state that the author of it did not live till it had passed through the press. Still, we are rejoiced that his work on it was complete before he was called away from this scene of his labors. We doubt not the work will be received as a valuable contribution to Biblical criticism on its own merits. It will be doubly dear to a host of friends of the deceased who had the highest regard for him personally while living, and who, now that he has passed into the spirit-land, hold him in most affectionate remembrance. A brief sketch of his life and character will be found at the end of this volume. For writing this volume on Hebrews, President Milligan possessed some very rare qualifications. He was a man of most deep and fervent piety. This brought him into close sympathy with our Savior in his mediatorial and priestly offices. Then his general and accurate scholarship, his practical experience as a teacher, and above all his ardent love for the truth, and nothing but the truth, at once made it impossible for him to fail in a work of this kind. The volume is not burdened with new interpretation or original views. The author has aimed to be safe rather than brilliant; faithful to the Divine Spirit rather than original; and eminently practical rather than novel. Still it shows that he had decided opinions of his own, and these are always freely given when it is thought to be necessary. Nevertheless, the work is decidedly .conservative. Every-where we see stamped upon it this peculiar characteristic of the author's mind. President Milligan was naturally a very prudent man, while his profound reverence for the word of God, and his constant anxiety lest he might lead some one astray, tended to quicken the natural bent of his (iii) iv PUBLISHERS' PREFACE. mind, and shut out all doubtful interpretations, even when the temptation was very great. And it ought to be said, furthermore, that not only his habits of mind, but his studies as well, led him to discredit every thing in the new school of criticism, and threw him largely upon the old critics for help. Hence his work from beginning to end has the flavor of the old authors, and may be said to occupy a middle ground between the old and new schools of criticism. While it relies chiefly on the old English commentators as authorities, it is nevertheless well up to the demands of the present times in Biblical criticism. The plan of this volume does not materially differ from the one on Matthew and Mark, and yet there are some features in this that are specially worthy of mention. It will be noticed that each section is preceded by a very careful and full analysis. This we think will be found valuable to the student as helping him at once to comprehend the whole argument. Besides this, each section is followed by practical reflections which are always interesting and sometimes of great value. These supply largely a homiletical part which we doubt not will be very acceptable to most students and especially preachers of the gospel. The author had made the study of topology a specialty for many years of his life, and he has freely given us the results of his studies in this volume. And it is believed that his treatment of the types will receive the highest commendation from those who are at all competent to judge. We feel confident that this interesting study will receive new interest from what President Milligan has written, and we do not hesitate to call special attention to this portion of his work. INTRODUCTION. THE main historical circumstances of this Epistle may be summed up and considered under the following general heads: I. By whom was the Epistle written? II. Is it, or is it not, of canonical authority? III. To whom was it written? IV. For what purpose was it written? V. When and where was it written? VI. In what language was it written? SECTION I. BY WHOM WAS THE EPISTLE WRITTEN? Some have ascribed it to Clement of Rome; some to Barnabas, the companion of Paul; some to Silas or Silvanus; some to Apollos; some to Aquila; some to Mark; and some to Paul the Apostle. These hypotheses have all been maintained by able critics, and with some show of reason, as any one may see by referring to Davidson's Introduction to the New Testament, Alford's Prolegomena, or Stewart's Introduction to this Epistle. But to my mind, it is quite evident that the last of these is the only hypothesis that is really worthy of our consideration, because it is the only one that is sustained by any reliable evidence. The others are all purely conjectural; and hence if it can be shown that Paul did not write the Epistle, then indeed we may as well give up all further inquiry about its authorship, and wait patiently for the revelations of the day of judgment. But that it is one of Paul's genuine Epistles seems, at least, quite probable from the following considerations: (5) 6 EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. I. It is ascribed to Paid by many of the Christian Fathers, who, so far as we know, had the best means of information with regard to both its genuineness and its authenticity. 1. The first of these is PANTAENUS, an eminent Oriental scholar, who was for several years President of the Catechetical School of sacred learning in Egypt. He flourished about A. D. 180, and he is spoken of by Eusebius and Jerome as a man of great learning and influence. None of his writings are now extant, but his testimony with regard to the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews is given by Clement of Alexandria in his work called Hypotyposis (Institutions). The work itself is now lost, but Clement's testimony, embracing that of Pantaenus, is given in an extract from it, preserved by Eusebius in the fourteenth chapter of the sixth book of his Ecclesiastical History. In this extract, Clement is attempting to explain why it is that Paul did not connect his name with the Epistle, and after giving his own opinion, he says, "But now as the blessed Presbyter [Pantaenus] used to say, Since the Lord, who was the Apostle of the Almighty, was sent to the Hebrews, Paul, by reason of his inferiority, as if sent to the Gentiles, did not subscribe himself an Apostle to the Hebrews, both out of reverence for the Lord, and because he wrote of his abundance to the Hebrews, as a herald and Apostle to the Gentiles." This testimony is very direct, and comes from one who had rare opportunities of judging correctly about such matters. He had heard, as we learn from Photius, those who had seen the Apostles; and according to Eusebius (Eccl. Hist. B. v. 10), he was, on account of his great learning and piety, sent by Julian, Bishop of Alexandria, as a missionary to the East, even as far as to India. He was also, according to the same historian (Eccl. Hist. B. vi. 14), very highly commended by Alexander, Bishop of Jerusalem, about A. D. 212. And hence it would seem that the testimony of Pantaenus is entitled to very great respect in the settlement of this question. In matters of opinion he was of course liable to err, as we all are, and I do not therefore attach much importance to the reason which he assigns, in explanation of the fact, that Paul did not attach his name to the Epistle. 2. Next to the testimony of Pantaenus comes that of CLEMENT of Alexandria. He was for some time a pupil of Pantaenus, and about A. D. 187 he succeeded him as President of the Catechetical School in Alexandria. His birthplace is uncertain, but in his Stromata (Miscellanies), he tells us that he had been instructed by one teacher in Italy, one in Greece, two in the East, and one in Egypt. (Lard. Cred. AUTHORSHIP. 7 Vol. ii. 22.) He was therefore, no doubt, well acquainted with the prevailing opinions of both the Eastern and Western churches, touching the Canon of the Holy Scriptures. In his Ecclesiastical History (B. vi. 14), Eusebius has recorded the testimony of Clement with regard to the authorship of our Epistle. Eusebius says, "In his work called Hypotyposis, he [Clement] affirms that Paul is the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews; and that, as it was addressed to the Hebrews, it was originally written in their language, and afterward translated by Luke for the Greeks;—which is the reason why the coloring of the style is the same in this Epistle and in the Acts of the Apostles. The reason why Paul did not affix his name to the head of it, probably is, because the Hebrews had conceived a prejudice against him, and were suspicious of him. Very prudently, therefore, did he not place his name at the head of the Epistle, so as to divert them from the perusal of it." In his other works, Clement testifies several times to the same effect, touching the authorship of this Epistle.