— — — — The final disclosure of God’ s mind and purpose has been made in his Son, who is far superior to the angels; beware then of taking it casually and carelessly (1:1-2:4)! The epistle opens with a long sentence (vv. 1-4), the subject being first (vv. 1, 2) God, then (vv. 3, 4) the Son of God; rhetorically and logically the sentence might have ended with ἐν (+ τῷ arm) υἱῷ ,) but the author proceeds to elaborate in a series of dependent clauses the pre-eminence of the Son within the order of creation and providence. The main thread on which these clauses about the Son’ s relation to God and the world are strung is ὃς … ἐκάθισενἐνδεξιᾷτῆςμεγαλωσύνης . It is in this (including the purging of men from their sins by His sacrifice) that the final disclosure of God’ s mind and purpose is made; ὁθεὸςἐλάλησενἡμῖνἐνυἱῷ … ὃς … ἐκάθισενκτλ . But the cosmic significance of the Son is first mentioned (v. 2); he is not created but creative, under God. Here as in 2:10 the writer explicitly stresses the vital connexion between redemption and creation; the Son who deals with the sins of men is the Son who is over the universe. This is again the point in the insertion of φέρωντετὰπάντακτλ . before καθαρισμὸνἁμαρτιῶνποιησάμενος . The object of insisting that the Son is also the exact counterpart of God (ὃςὤνκτλ . 3a), is to bring out the truth that he is not only God’ s organ in creation, but essentially divine as a Son. In short, since the object of the divine revelation is fellowship between God and men, it must culminate in One who can deal with sin, as no prophet or succession of prophets could do; the line of revelation ἐνπροφήταις has its climax ἐνυἱῷ , in a Son whose redeeming sacrifice was the real and effective manifestation of God’ s mind for communion. As it is necessary to break up this elaborate sentence for the purpose of exposition, I print it not only in Greek but in the stately Vulgate version, in order to exhibit at the very outset the style and spirit of ΠρὸςἙβραίους . Πολυμερῶςκαὶπολυτρόπωςπάλαιὁθεὸςλαλήσαςτοῖςπατράσινἐντοῖςπροφήταιςἐπ ʼ ἐσχάτουτῶνἡμερῶντούτωνὲλάλησενἡμῖνἐνυἱῷ , ὃνἔθηκεκληρονόμονπάντων , δι ʼ οὗκαὶἐποίησετοὺςαἰῶνας · ὄςὢνἀπαύγασματῆςδόξηςκαὶχαρακτὴρτῆςὑποστάσεωςαὐτοῦ , φέρωντετὰπάντατῷῥήματιτῆςδυνάμεωςαὐτοῦ , καθαρισμὸντῶνἁμαρτιῶνποιησάμενοςἐκάθισενἐνδεξιᾷτῆςμεγαλωσύνηςἐνὑψηλοῖς , τοσούτῳκρείττωνγενόμενοςτῶνἀγγέλωνὅσῳδιαφορώτερονπαρ ʼ αὐτοὺςκεκληρονόμηκενὄνομα . Multifariam et multis modis olim Deus loquens patribus in prophetis novissime diebus istis locutus est nobis in filio, quem constituit heredem universorum, per quem fecit et saecula, qui cum sit splendor gloriae et figura substantiae eius, portans quoque omnia verbo virtutis suae, purgationem peccatorum faciens, sedit ad dexteram majestatis in excelsis, tanto melior angelis effectus quanto differentius prae illis nomen hereditavit. 1 Many were the forms and fashions in which God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these days at the end he has spoken to us by a Son— a Son whom he has appointed heir of the universe, as it was by him that he created the world. Greek prefaces and introductions of a rhetorical type were fond of opening with πολύς in some form or other (e.g. Sirach prol. πολλῶνκαὶμεγάλωνκτλ .; Dion. Halic. de oratoribus antiquis, πολλὴνχάρινκτλ ., an early instance being the third Philippic of Demosthenes, πολλῶν , ὦἄνδρεςἈθηναῖοι , λόγωνγιγνομένωνκτλ .). Here πολυμερῶςκαὶπολυτρόπως is a sonorous hendiadys for “ variously,” as Chrysostom was the first to point out . A similar turn of expression occurs in 2:2 παραβάσιςκαὶπαρακοή . The writer does not mean to exclude variety from the Christian revelation; he expressly mentions how rich and manysided it was, in 2:4. Nor does he suggest that the revelation ἐνπροφήταις was inferior because it was piecemeal and varied. There is a slight suggestion of the unity and finality of the revelation ἐνυἱῷ , as compared with the prolonged revelations made through the prophets, the Son being far more than a prophet; but there is a deeper suggestion of the unity and continuity of revelation then and now. Πολυμερῶςκαὶπολυτρόπως really “ signalises the variety and fulness of the Old Testament word of God” (A. B. Davidson). On the other hand, Christ is God’ s last word to the world; revelation in him is complete, final and homogeneous. Compare the comment of Eustathius on Odyssey, 1:1: πολυτρόπωςἀνεγνωρίσθηπᾶσινοἷςἦλθενεἰςγνῶσιν , μηδενὸςἀναγνωρισμοῦσυμπεσόντοςἑτέρῳἀναγνωρισμῷτὸσύνολον · ἄλλωςγὰρτῷΤελεμάχῳ , ἑτέρωςδὲΕὐρυκλείᾳ , ἑτέρωςτοῖςδούλοις , ἄλλονδὲτρόποντῷΛαέρτῃ , καὶὄλωςἀνομοίωςἅπασι . Πολυμερῶς , according to Hesychius , differs from πολυτρόπως , and, strictly speaking, is the adverb of πολυμερής =manifold . But no such distinction is intended here. In πάλαιθεὸςλαλήσας , λαλεῖν , here as throughout the epistle, is practically an equivalent for λέγειν (see Anz’ s Subsidia, pp. 309-310), with a special reference to inspired and oracular utterances of God or of divinely gifted men. This sense is as old as Menander (ὁνοῦςγάρἐστινὁλαλήσωνθέος , Kock’ s Comic. Attic. Fragm. 70). Οἱπατέρες in contrast to ἡμεῖς means OT believers in general (cp. John 6:58, John 7:22), whereas the more usual NT sense of the term is “ the patriarchs” (cp. Diat. 1949-1950, 2553e), i.e. Abraham, etc., though the term (3:9, 8:9) covers the ancients down to Samuel or later (Matthew 23:30). Our fathers or ancestors (Wis 18:6) means the Hebrew worthies of the far past to whom Christians as God’ s People, whether they had been born Jews or not , look back, as the earlier Sirach did in his πατέρωνὕμνος (Sir 44:1-50:33), or the prophet in Zechariah 1:5 . For οἱπατέρες = our fathers, cp. Prayer of Manasseh1 and Wessely`s Studien zur Palä ographie und Papyruskunde, i. 64, where boys are reckoned in a list σὺντοῖςπατράσι . The insertion of ἡμῶν (p12 999. 1836 boh sah Clem. Alex., Chrys. Priscillian) is a correct but superfluous gloss. As for ἐντοῖςπροφήταις , προφῆται is used here in a broader sense than in 11:32; it denotes the entire succession of those who spoke for God to the People of old, both before and after Moses (Acts 3:22, Acts 7:37), who is the supreme prophet, according to Philo (de ebriet. 21, de decalogo 33). Joshua is a prophet (Sir 46:1), so is David (Philo, de agric. 12). In Psalms 105:15 the patriarchs, to whom revelations are made, are both God’ s προφῆται and χριστοί . Later on, the term was extended, as in Luke 13:28 (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, καὶπάνταςτοὺςπροφήτας , cp. Hebrews 11:32), and still more in Matthew 5:12 . The reason why there is no contrast between the Son and the prophets is probably because the writer felt there was no danger of rivalry; prophecy had ceased by the time that the Son came; the “ prophet” belonged to a bygone order of things, so that there was no need to argue against any misconception of their function in relation to that of the Son (Bar 85:1-3 “ in former times our fathers had helpers, righteous men and holy prophets … but now the righteous have been gathered and the prophets have fallen asleep” ). As no further use is made of the contrast between Jesus and the prophets (who are only again mentioned incidentally in 11:32), it was natural that ἀγγέλοις should be conjectured (S. Crellius, Initium Ioannis Evangelii restitutum, p. 238, independently by Spitta in Stud. u. Kritiken, 1913, pp. 106-109) to have been the original reading, instead of προφήταις . But “ the word spoken by angels” (2:2) does not refer to divine communications made to the patriarchs; nor can οἱπατέρες be identified with the patriarchs, as Spitta contends (cf. U. Holzmeister in Zeitschrift fü r kathol. Theologie, 1913, pp. 805-830), and, even if it could, προφήταις would be quite apposite (cp. Philo, de Abrah. 22). Why the writer selects προφήταις is not clear. But ἀνθρώποις would have been an imperfect antithesis, since the Son was human. Philo (de Monarch. 9: ἑρμηνεῖςγάρεἰσινοἱπροφῆταιθεοῦκαταχρωμένουτοῖςἐκείνωνὀργάνοιςπρὸςδήλωσινὧνἂνἐθελήσῃ ) views the prophets as interpreters of God in a sense that might correspond to the strict meaning of ἐν , and even applies ἄγγελος to the prophet. But ἐν here is a synonym for διά , as in 1 S 28:6 . In Test. Daniel 1:1 [acc. to the tenth cent. Paris MS 938]1 and in LXX of Num 24:14, Jeremiah 23:20 [B:ἐσχάτων , A Q*], 25:19 (49:39) [B: ἐσχάτων , A Q], 37 (30) 24 [A Q: ἐσχάτων , B], Ezekiel 38:8 , Daniel 10:14 [ἐσχάτῳἐσχάτων ], Hosea 3:5 [Q], ἐπ ʼ ἐσχάτουτῶνἡμερῶν appears, instead of the more common ἐπ ʼ ἐσχάτωντῶνἡμερῶν , as a rendering of the phrase ב ּ ְ א ח ֲ ר ִ י ת ה ַ י ּ ָ מ ִ י ם . A similar variety of reading occurs here; Origen, e.g., reads ἐσχάτων without τούτων (on Lamentations 4:20) and ἐσχάτου (fragm. on John 3:31), while ἐσχάτων is read by 044, a few minor cursives, d and the Syriac version. The same idea is expressed in 1 P 1:20 by ἐπ ʼ ἐσχάτουτῶνχρόνων , but the τοῦτων here is unique. The messianic mission of Jesus falls at the close of these days, or, as the writer says later (9:26), ἐπὶσυντελείᾳτῶναἰώνων . These days correspond to the present age ; the age (or world) to come (ὁμέλλωναἰών , 6:5) is to dawn at the second coming of Christ (9:28, 10:37). Meantime, the revelation of God ἐνυἱῷ has been made to the Christian church as God’ s People ; the ἡμεῖς does not mean simply the hearers of Jesus on earth, for this would exclude the writer and his readers (2:3), and ἐλάλησεν covers more than the earthly mission of Jesus. There is no special reference in ἐλάλησεν to the teaching of Jesus; the writer is thinking of the revelation of God’ s redeeming purpose in Christ as manifested (vv. 3, 4) by the (resurrection and) intercession in heaven which completed the sacrifice on the cross. This is the final revelation, now experienced by Christians. The saying of Jesus quoted by Epiphanius (Haer. xxiii. 5, xli. 3, lxvi. 42), ὁλαλῶνἐντοῖςπροφήταις , ἰδοὺπάρειμι , was an anti-gnostic logion based partly on this passage and partly on Isaiah 52:6 ἐγώεἰμιαὐτὸςὁλαλῶν , πάρειμι . The author of Hebrews is not conscious of any polemic against the OT revelation as inferior to and unworthy of the Christian God. He assumes that it was the same God who spoke in both Testaments: “ Sed in hac diversitate unum tamen Deus nobis proponit: nequis putet Legem cum Evangelio pugnare, vel alium esse huius quam illius authorem” (Calvin). In ὃνἔθηκενκληρονόμονπάντων there is a parallel, perhaps even an allusion, to the Synoptic parable: finally he sent his son (Matthew 21:27), or, as Mark (12:6) and Luke (20:13) explicitly declare, his beloved son, though our author does not work out the sombre thought of the parable. There, the son is the heir , though not of the universe. Here, the meaning of ὃνἔθηκενκληρονόμονπάντων is the same: he was “ appointed” heir, he was heir by God’ s appointment. It is the fact of this position, not the time, that the writer has in mind, and we cannot be sure that this “ appointment” corresponds to the elevation of v. 3 . Probably, in our modern phrase, it describes a pre-temporal act, or rather a relationship which belongs to the eternal order. The force of the aorist ἔθηκεν is best rendered by the English perfect, “ has appointed” ; no definite time is necessarily intended. “ Nam ideo ille haeres, ut nos suis opibus ditet. Quin hoc elogio nunc eum ornat Apostolus ut sciamus nos sine ipso bonorum omnium esse inopes” (Calvin). The reflection of Sedulius Scotus (alii post patrem haeredes sunt, hic autem vivente Patre haeres est) is pious but irrelevant, for κληρονομεῖν in Hellenistic Greek had come to mean, like its equivalent “ inherit” in Elizabethan English, no more than “ possess” or “ obtain” ; a κληρονόμος was a “ possessor,” with the double nuance of certainty and anticipation. “ Haeres” in Latin acquired the same sense; “ pro haerede gerere est pro domino gerere, veteres enim ‘ haeredes’ pro ‘ dominis’ appellabant” (Justinian, Instit. ii.19. 7). In δι ʼ οὗκαὶἐποίησετοὺςαἰῶνας the καί especially1 suggests a correspondence between this and the preceding statement; what the Son was to possess was what he had been instrumental in making. Τοὺςαἰῶνας here, though never in Paul, is equivalent (EBi 1147) to τὰπάντα in v. 3 (implied in πάντων above), i.e. the universe or world (11:3). The functions assigned by Jewish speculation to media like the Logos at creation are here claimed as the prerogative of the Son. This passing allusion to the function of Christ in relation to the universe probably originated, as in the case of Paul, in the religious conception of redemption. From the redeeming function of Christ which extended to all men, it was natural to infer His agency in relation to creation as part of his pre-existence. The notion is that “ the whole course of nature and grace must find its explanation in God, not merely in an abstract divine arbitrium, but in that which befits the divine nature” (W. Robertson Smith), i.e. the thought behind 2:9f. is connected with the thought behind 1:1-3. This may be due to a theological reflection, but the tendency to emphasize the moral rather than the metaphysical aspect, which is noticeable in ΠρὸςἙβραίους as in the Fourth Gospel, and even in Paul, is consonant with Philo’ s tendency to show the function of the Logos and the other intermediate powers as religious rather than cosmical (cp. Bré hier’ s Les Idé es Philos. et Religieuses de Philon d’ Alexandrie, pp. 65 f., 111 f., 152, “ il ne s’ agit plus chez Philon d’ un explication du monde mais du culte divin” ; 174 f., “ la thé se de Philon, qui explique et produit la doctrine des intermé diaires, n’ est pas l’ impossibilité pour Dieu de produire le monde mais l’ impossibiliteé pour l’ â me d’ atteindre Dieu directement” ). Yet Philo had repeatedly claimed for his Logos, that it was the organ of creation , and this is what is here, as by Paul, claimed for Christ. Only, it is a religious, not a cosmological, instinct that prompts the thought. The early Christian, who believed in the lordship of Christ over the world, felt, as a modern would put it, that the end must be implicit in the beginning, that the aim and principle of the world must be essentially Christian. This is not elaborated in “ Hebrews” any more than in the Fourth Gospel (John 1:3); the author elsewhere prefers the simple monotheistic expression (2:10, 11:3). But the idea is consonant with his conception of the Son. “ If pre-existence is a legitimate way of expressing the absolute significance of Jesus, then the mediation of creation through Christ is a legitimate way of putting the conviction that in the last resort, and in spite of appearances, the world in which we live is a Christian world, our ally, not our adversary” (Denney in ERE viii. 516 f.). 3 He reflecting God’ s bright glory and stamped with God’ s own character, sustains the universe with his word of power; when he had secured our purification from sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high; 4 and thus he is superior to the angels, as he has inherited a Name superior (διαφορώτερον , 8:6) to theirs. The unique relation of Christ to God is one of the unborrowed truths of Christianity, but it is stated here in borrowed terms. The writer is using metaphors which had been already applied in Alexandrian theology to Wisdom and the Logos. Thus Wisdom is an unalloyed emanation τῆςτοῦπαντοκράτοροςδόξης , ἀπαύγασμα … φωτὸςαἰδίου (Wis 7:25, 26), and ἀπαύγασμα in the same sense of “ reflection” occurs in Philo, who describes the universe as οἷονἁγίωνἀπαύγασμα , μίμημαἀρχετύπου (de plant. 12), the human spirit as τύποντινὰκαὶχαρακτῆραθείαςδυνάμεως (quod deter. pot. ins. sol. 83), and similarly the Logos. χαρακτήρ is “ the exact reproduction,” as a statue of a person ; literally, the stamp or clear-cut impression made by a seal, the very facsimile of the original. The two terms ἀπαύγασμα and χαρακτήρ are therefore intended to bring out the same idea. ὑπόστασις = the being or essence of God, which corresponds to his δόξα (= character or nature); it is a philosophical rather than a religious term, in this connexion, but enters the religious world in Wis 16:21 (ἡμὲνγὰρὑπόστασίςσουκτλ .). Its physical sense emerges in the contemporary de Mundo, 4, τῶνἑνἀέριφαντασμάτωντὰμένἐστικατ ʼ ἔμφασιντὰδὲκαθ ʼ ὑπόστασιν . The use of it as a term for the essence or substance of a human being is not uncommon in the LXX (e.g. Psalms 39:5, Psalms 139:15); cp. Schlatter’ s Der Glaube im NT3 (1905), pp. 615 f., where the linguistic data are arranged. χαρακτήρ had already acquired a meaning corresponding to the modern “ character” (e.g. in Menander’ s proverb, ἀνδρὸςχαρακτὴρἐκλόγουγνωρίζεται , Heauton Timoroumenos, 11). The idea of χαρακτήρ as replica is further illustrated by the Bereschith rabba, 52. 3 (on Genesis 21:2): “ hence we learn that he (Isaac) was the splendour of his (father’ s) face, as like as possible to him.” An early explanation of this conception is given by Lactantius , viz. that “ the Father is as it were an overflowing fountain, the Son like a stream flowing from it; the Father like the sun, the Son as it were a ray extended from the sun (radius ex sole porrectus). Since he is faithful (cp. Hebrews 3:2) and dear to the most High Father, he is not separated from him, any more than the stream is from the fountain or the ray from the sun; for the water of the fountain is in the stream, and the sun’ s light in the ray.” But our author is content to throw out his figurative expressions. How the Son could express the character of God, is a problem which he does not discuss; it is felt by the author of the Fourth Gospel, who suggests the moral and spiritual affinities that lie behind such a function of Jesus Christ, by hinting that the Son on earth taught what he had heard from the Father and lived out the life he had himself experienced and witnessed with the unseen Father. This latter thought is present to the mind of Seneca in Epp. 6:5, 6, where he observes that “ Cleanthes could never have exactly reproduced Zeno, if he had simply listened to him; he shared the life of Zeno, he saw into his secret purposes” (vitae eius interfuit, secreta perspexit). The author of Hebrews, like Paul in Colossians 1:15-17, contents himself with asserting the vital community of nature between the Son and God, in virtue of which the Son holds his position in the universe. In the next clause, φέρων 1 τετὰπάντα is not used in the sense in which Sappho speaks of the evening star “ bringing all things home,” the sheep to their fold and children to their mother. The phrase means “ upholding the universe as it moves,” bearing it and bearing it on. “ Thou bearest things on high and things below,” Cain tells God in Bereschith rabba, 23. 2, “ but thou dost not bear my sins.” “ Deus ille maximus potentissimusque ipse vehit omnia” (Seneca, Epist. 31:10). The idea had been already applied by Philo to the Logos (e.g. de migrat. Abrah. 6, ὁλόγος … ὁτῶνὅλωνκυβερνήτηςπηδαλιουχεῖτὰσύμπαντα : de spec. legibus i., 81, λόγοςδ ʼ ἐστὶνεἰκὼνθεοῦ , δι ʼ οὗσύμπαςὁκόσμοςἐδημιουργεῖτο : de plant. 32, λόγοςδὲὁἀΐδιοςθεοῦτοῦαἰωνίουτὸὀχυρώτατονκαὶβεβαιότατονἔρεισματῶνὅλωνἐστί ). So Chrysostom takes it: φέρων … τουτέστι , κυβερνῶν , τὰδιαπίπτοντασυγκρατῶν . It would certainly carry on the thought of δι ʼ οὗ … αἰῶνας , however, if φέρειν here could be taken in its regular Philonic sense of “ bring into existence” (e.g. quis rer. div. haer. 7, ὁτὰμὴὄνταφέρωνκαὶτὰπάνταγεννῶν : de mutat. nom. 44, πάνταφέρωνσπουδαῖαὁθεός ); this was the interpretation of Gregory of Nyssa (MPG. xlvi. 265), and it would give a better sense to “ word of power” as the fiat of creative authority. But the ordinary interpretation is not untenable. In τῷῥήματιτῆςδυνάμεωςαὐτοῦ , the αὐτοῦ (αὑτοῦ) refers to the Son, not as in the preceding clause and in 11:3 to God. Hence perhaps its omission by M 424** 1739 Origen. With καθαρισμὸν … ὑψηλοῖς the writer at last touches what is for him the central truth about the Son; it is not the teaching of Jesus that interests him, but what Jesus did for sin by his sacrifice and exaltation. From this conception the main argument of the epistle flows. Καθαρισμὸντῶνἁμαρτιῶν is a Septuagint expression τῆςἁμαρτίαςμου ), though this application of κ . to sins is much more rare than that either to persons (Leviticus 15:13) or places (1 Chronicles 23:26, 1 Chronicles 23:2 Mac 10:5). In 2 P 1:9 it is filled out with the possessive pronoun, which is supplied here by some (e.g. ἡμῶν Dc K L harkl sah arm Athan Chrys., ὑμῶν א c). Grammatically it = (a) purgation of sins, as καθαρίζω may be used of the “ removal” of a disease (Matthew 8:3, Matthew 8:4), or = (b) our cleansing from sins . Before καθαρισμόν the words δι ʼ ἑαυτοῦ are inserted by D H K L M 256 d harkl sah boh eth Orig. Athan Aug. etc. Δι ʼ ἑαυτοῦ = ipse, as ἑαυτῷ = sua sponte. Ἐκάθισενἐνδεξιᾷ is a reminiscence of a favourite psalm (110:1) of the writer, though he avoids its ἐκδεξιῶν . It denotes entrance into a position of divine authority. “ Sedere ad Patris dexteram nihil aliud est quam gubernare vice Patris” (Calvin). Ἐνὑψηλοῖς , a phrase used by no other NT writer, is a reminiscence of the Greek psalter and equivalent to ἐνὑψίστοις : grammatically it goes with ἐκάθισεν . (The divine attribute of μεγαλωσύνη is for the first time employed as a periphrasis for the divine Majesty.) This enthronement exhibits (v. 4) the superiority of the Son to the angels. Ὄνομα is emphatic by its position at the close of the sentence; it carries the general Oriental sense of “ rank” or “ dignity.” The precise nature of this dignity is described as that of sonship (v. 5), but the conception widens in the following passage (vv. 6f.), and it is needless to identify ὄνομα outright with υἱός , though υἱές brings out its primary meaning. In τοσούτῳκρείττωνγενόμενοςτῶν (accidentally omitted by B and Clem. Rom.) ἀγγέλων (emphatic by position) παρ ʼ αὐτοὺςκεκληρονόμηκενὄνομα , the relative use of ὅσος in NT Greek is confined to Mark 7:36, but τοσούτος … ὅσος is a common Philonic expression. Κρείττων is an indefinite term = “ superior.” Unlike Paul, the writer here and elsewhere is fond of using παρά after a comparative. Κρείττων in this sense occurs in the contemporary (?) Aristotelian treatise de Mundo, 391a , where τὰκρειττόνα means the nobler Universe. The sudden transition to a comparison between the Son and the angels implies that something is before the writer’ s mind. Were his readers, like the Colossians to whom Paul wrote, in danger of an undue deference to angels in their religion, a deference which threatened to impair their estimate of Christ? Or is he developing his argument in the light of some contemporary belief about angels and revelation? Probably the latter, though this does not emerge till 2:2. Meanwhile, seven Biblical proofs (cp. W. Robertson Smith, Expositor2, i. pp. 5 f.) of v. 4 are adduced; the two in v. 5; specially explain the διαφορώτερονὄνομα , while the five in vv. 6-14 describe the meaning and force of κρείττωντῶνἀγγέλων . The first two are: 5 For to what angel did God ever say, “ Thou art my son, to-day have I become thy father” ? Or again, “ I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me” ? The first quotation is from the 2nd Psalm (v. 7), read as a messianic prediction— which may have been its original meaning, and certainly was the meaning attached to it by the early Christians, if not already by some circles of Judaism:1 υἱόςμουεἶσύ , ἐγὼσήμερονγεγέννηκάσε . Did the author take σήμερον here, as perhaps in 3:7f., though not in 13:8, in (a) a mystical sense, or (b) with a reference to some special phase in the history of Christ? (a) tallies with Philo’ s usage: σήμερονδ ʼ ἐστὶνὁἀπέρατοςκαὶἀδιεξίτητοςαἰών … τὸἀψευδὲςὄνομααἰῶνος (de fuga, 11, on Deuteronomy 4:4), ἕωςτῆςσήμερονἡμέρας , τουτέστινἀεί · ὁγὰραἰὼνἅπαςτῷσήμερονπαραμετρεῖται (leg. alleg. iii. 8 on Genesis 35:4). (b) might allude either to the baptism or to the resurrection of Christ in primitive Christian usage; the latter would be more congenial to our author, if it were assumed that he had any special incident in mind. But he simply quotes the text for the purpose of bringing out the title of Son as applied to Christ. When we ask what he meant by σήμερον , we are asking a question which was not present to his mind, unless, indeed, “ the idea of a bright radiance streaming forth from God’ s glory” (v. 8) pointed in the direction of (a), as Robertson Smith thought. But the second line of the verse is merely quoted to fill out the first, which is the pivot of the proof: υἱόςμουεἶσυ . Sons of God is not unknown as a title for angels in the Hebrew Old Testament (see EBi 4691). “ Sometimes Moses calls the angels sons of God,” Philo observes (Quaest. in Genesis 6:4 — as being bodiless spirits). But the LXX is careful to translate: “ sons of Elohim” by ἄγγελοιθεοῦ (e.g. in Genesis 6:2, Genesis 6:4, Job 1:6, Job 2:1, Job 38:7), except in Psalms 29:1 and 89:7, where sons of God are intended by the translator to denote human beings; and no individual angel is ever called υἱός .1 As the author of ΠρὸςἙβραίους and his readers knew only the Greek Bible, the proof holds good. The second quotation is from 2 S 7:14: Ἐγὼἔσομαιαὐτῷεἰςπατέρα , καὶαὐτὸςἔσταιμοιεἰςυἱόν , a promise cited more exactly than in 2 Corinthians 6:18 and Revelation 21:7, but with equal indifference to its original setting. Paul and the prophet John apply it to the relationship between God and Christians; our author prefers to treat it as messianic. Indeed he only alludes twice, in OT quotations, to God as the Father of Christians (see Introd. p. xxxv). The third quotation (v. 6) clinches this proof of Christ’ s unique authority and opens up the sense in which he is κρείττωντῶνἀγγέλων : and further, when introducing the Firstborn into the world, he says, “ Let all God’ s angels worship him.” In ὅτανδὲπάλινεἰσαγάγῃ the term πάλιν , rhetorically transferred, answers to the πάλιν of v. 5; it is not to be taken with εἰσαγάγῃ = “ reintroduce,” as if the first “ introduction” of the Son had been referred to in v. 2f. A good parallel for this usage occurs in Philo (leg. alleg.iii. 9: ὁδὲπάλινἀποδιδράσκωνθεὸντὸνμὲνοὐδενὸςαἴτιονφησὶνεἶναι , where πάλιν goes with φησίν ). Εἰσάγειν might refer to birth,2 as, e.g., in Epictetus and pseudo-Musonius, ep. 90 (Hercher’ s Epist. Graeci, 401 f.: οὐτέκναμόνονεἰςτὸγένοςἄλλακαὶτοιάδετέκναεἰσήγαγες ), or simply to “ introduction” (cp. Mitteis-Wilcken, i. 2. 141 (110 b.c.), εἰσάξωτὸνἐμαυτοῦυἱὸνεἰςτὴνσύνοδον ). Linguistically either the incarnation or the second advent might be intended; but neither the tense of εἰσαγάγῃ (unless it be taken strictly as futuristic = ubi introduxerit) nor the proximity of πάλιν is decisive in favour of the latter (ὅτανεἰσαγάγῃ might, by a well-known Greek idiom, be equivalent to “ when he speaks of introducing, or, describes the introduction of” — Valckenaer, etc.). Πρωτότοκος is Firstborn in the sense of superior. The suggestion of Christ being higher than angels is also present in the context of the term as used by Paul (Colossians 1:15, Colossians 1:16), but it is nowhere else used absolutely in the NT, and the writer here ignores any inference that might be drawn from it to an inferior sonship of angels. Its equivalent (cp. the v.ll. in Sir 36:17) πρωτόγονος is applied by Philo to the Logos. Here it means that Christ was Son in a pre-eminent sense; the idea of priority passes into that of superiority. A πρωτότοκοςυἱός had a relationship of likeness and nearness to God which was unrivalled. As the context indicates, the term brings out the pre-eminent honour and the unique relationship to God enjoyed by the Son among the heavenly host. The notion of worship being due only to a senior reappears in the Vita Adae et Evae (14), where the devil declines to worship Adam: “ I have no need to worship Adam … I will not worship an inferior being who is my junior. I am his senior in the Creation; before he was made, I was already made; it is his duty to worship me.” In the Ascensio Isaiae (11:23 f.) the angels humbly worship Christ as he ascends through the heavens where they live; here the adoration is claimed for him as he enters ἡοἰκουμένη . The line καὶπροσκυνησάτωσαναὐτῷπάντεςἄγγελοιθεοῦ comes from a LXX addition to the Hebrew text of the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy 32:43, calling upon all angels to pay homage to Yahweh. But the LXX text1 actually reads υἱοὶθεοῦ , not ἄγγελοιθεοῦ (into which F corrects it)! Our author probably changed it into ἄγγελοιθεοῦ , recollecting the similar phrase in Psalms 97:7 ,2 unless, indeed, the change had been already made. The fact that Justin Martyr (Dial. 130) quotes the LXX gloss with ἄγγελοι , is an indication that this may have been the text current among the primitive Christians. The last four (vv. 7-14) quotations carry on the idea of the Son’ s superiority to the angels: 7 While he says of angels (πρός = with reference to), “ Who makes his angels into winds, his servants into flames of fire,” 8 he says of the Son, “ God is thy throne for ever and ever, and thy royal sceptre is the sceptre of equity: 9 thou hast loved justice and hated lawlessness, therefore God, thy God, has consecraled thee with the oil of rejoicing beyond thy comrades” — 10 and, “ Thou didst found the earth at the beginning, O Lord, and the heavens are the work of thy hands: 11 they will perish, but thou remainest, they will all be worn out like a garment, 12 thou wilt roll them up like a mantle, and they will be changed, but thou art the same, and thy years never fail.” In v. 7 the quotation only differs from the LXX by the substitution of πυρὸςφλόγα 1 for πῦρφλέγον (B: πυρὸςφλέγα Aa). The singular in φλόγα and perhaps the recollection that πνεῦμα elsewhere in NT = “ wind” only in the singular, led to the change of πνεύματα into πνεῦμα (D 1, 326, 424**, 1912, 1245, 2005 d sah eth Orig). The author is taking the LXX translation or mistranslation of Psa 104:4 (ὁποιῶνκτλ ., a nominative without a verb, as in 1 Corinthians 3:19) to mean that God can reduce angels to the elemental forces of wind and fire, so unstable is their nature, whereas the person and authority of the Son are above all change and decay. The meaning might also be that God makes angels out of wind and fire;2 but this is less apt. Our author takes the same view as the author of 4 Esdras, who (8:21) writes: “ Before whom the heavenly host stands in terror, and at thy word change to wind and fire.” Rabbinic traditions corroborate this interpretation; e.g. “ every day ministering angels are created from the fiery stream, and they utter a song and perish” (Chagiga, ed. Streane, p. 76), and the confession of the angel to Manoah in Yalkut Shimeoni, ii. 11. 3: “ God changes us every hour … sometimes he makes us fire, at other times wind.” The interest of rabbinic mysticism in the nature of angels is illustrated by the second century dialogue between Hadrian, that “ curiositatum omnium explorator,” and R. Joshua ben Chananja (cp. W. Bacher, Agada der Tannaiten2, i. 171-172). The emperor asks the rabbi what becomes of the angels whom God creates daily to sing His praise; the rabbi answers that they return to the stream of fire which flows eternally from the sweat shed by the Beasts supporting the divine throne or chariot (referring to the vision of Ezekiel and the “ fiery stream” of Daniel 7:10). From this stream of fire the angels issue, and to it they return. Λειτουργούς of angels as in Psalms 103:21 . The fifth (vv. 8, 9) quotation is from Psalms 45:7, Psalms 45:8— a Hebrew epithalamium for some royal personage or national hero, which our author characteristically regards as messianic. ὁθρόνοςσουὁθεὸςεἰςτὸναἰῶνατοῦαἰῶνος , καὶ 1 ῥάβδοςτῆςεὐθύτητοςἡῥάβδοςτῆςβασιλείαςσου .2 ἠγάπησαςδικαιοσύνηνκαὶἐμίσησαςἀνομίαν · διὰτοῦτοἔχρισέσεὁθεός , ὁθεόςσου , ἔλαιονἀγαλλιάσεωςπαρὰ 3 τοὺςμετόχουςσου . The quotation inserts τῆς before εὐθύτητος , follows A in preferring τὸναἰῶνατοῦαἰῶνος (τοῦαἰῶνος om. B 33) to αἰῶνααἰῶνος (B), but prefers4 B’ s ἀνομίαν (cp. 2 Corinthians 6:14) to A’ s ἀδικίαν , and agrees with both in prefixing ἡ to the second (D K L P Cyr. Cosm Dam.) instead of to the first (א A B M, etc.) ῥάβδος . The psalm is not quoted elsewhere in NT (apart from a possible reminiscence of 45:5, 6 in Revelation 6:2), and rarely cited in primitive Christian literature, although the messianic reference reappears in Irenaeus (iv. 34. 11, quoting v. 2). ὁθεός may be (a) nominative (subject or predicate). This interpretation , which was probably responsible for the change of σοῦ after βασιλείας into αὐτοῦ (א B), has been advocated, e.g., by Grotius, Ewald , WH , and Wickham . Tyndale’ s rendering is, “ God thy seat shall be.” Those who find this interpretation harsh prefer to (b) take ὁθεός as a vocative, which grammatically is possible ( = ὦθεέ , cp. 10:7 and Psalms 3:8, 138:17 etc.); “ Thy throne, O God (or, O divine One), is for ever and ever.” This (so sah vg, etc.) yields an excellent sense, and may well explain the attractiveness of the text for a writer who wished to bring out the divine significance of Christ; ὁθεός appealed to him like κύριε in the first line of the next quotation. The sense would be clear if ὁθεός were omitted altogether, as its Hebrew equivalent ought to be in the original; but the LXX text as it stands was the text before our author, and the problem is to decide which interpretation he followed. (b) involves the direct application of ὁθεός to the Son, which, in a poetical quotation, is not perhaps improbable (see John 1:18, John 20:28); in v. 9 it may involve the repetition of ὁθεός (om. by Irenaeus, Apost. Preaching, 47— accidentally?) as vocative, and does involve the rendering of ὁθεόςσου as the God of the God already mentioned. The point of the citation lies in its opening and closing words: (i) the Son has a royal and lasting authority (as ὁθεός), in contrast to the angels, and (ii) he is anointed more highly than his companions— an Oriental metaphor referring here, as in Isaiah 61:3 etc., not to coronation but to bliss. If the writer of Hebrews has anything specially in mind, it is angels (12:23) rather than human beings (3:14) as μέτοχοι of the royal Prince, whose superior and supreme position is one of intense joy, based on a moral activity (as in 12:2, where the passive side of the moral effort is emphasized). The sixth (vv. 10-12) quotation is from Psalms 102:26-28 which in A runs thus: κατ ʼ ἀρχὰς 2 σύ , κύριε ,3 τὴνγῆνἐθεμελίωσας , καὶἔργατῶνχειρῶνσούεἰσινοἱοὐρανοί · αὐτοὶ 4 ἀπολοῦνται , σὺδὲδιαμένεις , καὶπάντεςὡςἱμάτιονπαλαιωθήσονται , καὶὡσεὶπεριβόλαιονἑλίξειςαὐτοὺςκαὶἀλλαγήσονται · σοὶδὲὁαὐτὸςεἰ , καὶτὰἔτησουοὐκἐκλείψουσιν . The author, for purposes of emphasis (as in 2:13), has thrown σύ to the beginning of the sentence, and in the last line he has reverted to the more natural σύ (B). In the text of the epistle there are only two uncertain readings, for the proposed change of διαμένεις into the future διαμενεῖς (vg. permanebis) does not really affect the sense, and D’ s ὡς for ὡσεί is a merely stylistic alteration. In 12a two small points of textual uncertainty emerge. (a) ἑλίξεις (A B Dc K L P M fu Syr arm sah boh eth Orig. Chrys.) has been altered into ἀλλάξεις (א D 327, 919 vt Tert. Ath). The same variant occurs in LXX, where ἀλλάξεις is read by א for ἑλίξεις , which may have crept into the text from Isaiah 34:4, but is more likely to have been altered into ἀλλάξεις in view of ἀλλαγήσονται (ἐλιγήσονται , arm). (b) ὡςἱμάτιον (א A B D 1739 vt arm eth) after αὐτούς is omitted by Dc M vg syr sah boh Chrys. Ath Cyril Alex. Probably the words are due to homoioteleuton. If retained, a comma needs to be placed after them (so Zimmer.); they thus go with the preceding phrase, although one early rendering (D d) runs: “ (and) like a garment they will be changed.” The psalm is taken as a messianic oracle (see Bacon in Zeitschrift fü r die neutest. Wissenschaft, 1902, 280-285), which the Greek version implied, or at any rate suggested; it contained welcome indications of the Son in his creative function and also of his destined triumph. The poetical suggestion of the sky as a mantle of the deity occurs in Philo, who writes (de fuga, 20) that the Logos ἐνδύεταιὡςἐσθῆτατὸνκόσμον · γῆνγὰρκαὶὕδωρκαὶἀέρακαὶπῦρκαὶτὰἐκτούτωνἐπαμπίσχεται . But the quotation is meant to bring out generally (i) the superiority of the Son as creative (so v. 2) to the creation, and (ii) his permanence amid the decay of nature;1 the world wears out,2 even the sky (12:26) is cast aside, and with it the heavenly lights, but the Son remains (“ thou art thou,” boh); nature is at his mercy, not he at nature’ s. The close connexion of angels with the forces of nature (v. 7) may have involved the thought that this transiency affects angels as well, but our author does not suggest this. The final biblical proof (v. 13) is taken from Psalms 110:1, a psalm in which later on the writer is to find rich messianic suggestion. The quotation clinches the argument for the superiority of the Son by recalling (v. 8) his unique divine commission and authority: 13 To what angel did he ever say, “ Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies a footstool for your feet” ? 14 Are not all angels merely spirits in the divine service, commissioned for the benefit of those who are to inherit salvation? The Greek couplet— κάθουἐκδεξιῶνμου , ἕωςἂνθῶτοὺςἐχθρούςσουὑποπόδιοντῶνποδῶνσου , corresponds exactly to the LXX; D* omits ἄν as in Acts 2:35. The martial metaphor is (cp. Introd. pp. xxxiii f.) one of the primitive Christian expressions which survive in the writer’ s vocabulary (cp. 10:12). The subordinate position of angels is now (v. 14) summed up; πάντες — all without distinction— are simply λειτουργικὰπνεύματα (without any power of ruling) εἰςδιακονίανἀποστελλόμενα (commissioned, not acting on their own initiative).3 According to the Mechilta on Exodus 14:13, the Israelites, when crossing the Red Sea, were shown “ squadrons upon squadrons of ministering angels” (ת ּ ו ּ ר ְ מ ִ י ו ֹ ת ת ּ ו ּ ר ְ מ ִ י ו ֹ ת ש ׁ ֶ ל מ ַ ל ְ א ֲ ב ֵ י ה ַ ש ׁ ָ ר ֵ ת ); cp. Heb. of Sir 43:26a, and Dieterich’ s Mithrasliturgie, p. 6, line 14, ἡἀρχὴτοῦλειτουργοῦντοςἀνέμου (see above, v. 7). Philo speaks of ἄγγελοιλειτουργοί (de virtutibus, 74), of τοὺςὑποδιακόνουςαὐτοῦτῶνδυνάμεωνἀγγέλους (de templo, i), and in de plantatione, 4: Μωσῆςδὲὀνόματιεὐθυβόλῳχρώμενοςἀγγέλουςπροσαγορεύει , πρεσβευομέναςκαὶδιαγγελλούσαςτάτεπαρὰτοῦἡγεμόνοςτοῖςὑπηκόοιςἀγαθὰκαὶτῷβασιλεῖὧνεἰσινοἱὑπήκοοιχρεῖοι . “ Angels of the (divine) ministry” was a common rabbinic term, and the writer concludes here that the angels serve God, not, as Philo loved to argue, in the order of nature, but in promoting the interests of God’ s people; this is the main object of their existence. He ignores the Jewish doctrine voiced in Test. Leviticus 3:5, that in (the sixth?) heaven the angels of the Presence sacrifice and intercede for the saints, just as in 11:40-12:1 he ignores the companion doctrine that the departed saints interceded for the living. Later Christian speculation revived the Jewish doctrine of angels interceding for men and mediating their prayers, but our author stands deliberately apart from this. Heaven has its myriads of angels (12:23), but the entire relation of men to God depends upon Christ. Angels are simply servants (λειτουργοί , v. 7) of God’ s saving purpose for mankind; how these “ angels and ministers of grace” further it, the writer never explains. He would not have gone as far as Philo, at any rate (ἄγγελοι … ἱεραὶκαὶθεῖαιφύσεις , ὑποδιάκονοικαὶὕπαρχοιτοῦπρώτουθεοῦ , δι ʼ ὧνοἷαπρεσβευτῶνὅσαἂνθελήσῃτῷγένειἡμῶνπροσθεσπίσαιδιαγγέλλει , de Abrahamo, 23). In διὰτοὺςμέλλονταςκληρονομεῖνσωτηρίαν (κλ . σωτ . only here in NT), it is remarkable that σωτηρία is mentioned for the first time without any adjective or explanation. Evidently it had already acquired a specific Christian meaning for the readers as well as for the writer; no definition was required to differentiate the Christian significance of the term from the current usage. As σωτηρία involves the sacrificial work of Christ , it cannot be applied to the pre-Christian period of revelation. Indeed in our epistle σωτηρία is invariably eschatological. The outlook in the messianic oracles already quoted is one of expectation; some future deliverance at the hands of God or his messianic representative is anticipated. Μέλλοντας implies a divine purpose, as in 8:5, 11:8.The phrase about τοὺςμέλλονταςκληρονομεῖνσωτηρίαν marks a skilful transition to the deeper theme of the next passage, viz. the relation of the Son to this σωτηρία (on 2:1-9 cp. W. Robertson Smith in Expositor2, i. pp. 138 f.). e (Latin version of E) 1836 [α 65] boh The Coptic Version of the NT in the Northern Dialect (Oxford, 1905), vol. iii. pp. 472-555. sah The Coptic Version of the NT in the Southern Dialect (Oxford, 1920), vol. v. pp. 1-131. Philo Philonis Alexandriai Opera Quae Supersunt (recognoverunt L. Cohn et P. Wendland). 1 The Armenian reading τούτων after ἡμερῶν , instead of αὐτοῦ , is incorrect, and may even be a reminiscence of Heb 1:1. LXX The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint Version (ed. H. B. Swete). B [03: δ 1] cont. 1:1-9:18: for remainder cp. cursive 293. A [02: δ 4]. 1 An emphasis blurred by the τοὺςαίῶναςἐποίησεν of Db K L P harkl Chrys. Theod. (Blass, von Sod.). EBi The Encyclopaedia Biblica (1899-1903, ed. J. S. Black and T. K. Cheyne). ERE Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics (ed. J. Hastings). OGIS Dittenberger’ s Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae (1903-1905). 1 φανερῶν is, like ἀπολεῖται in 4:9, an error of B*. M [0121: α 1031] cont. 1:1-4:3 12:20-13:25. 424 [O 12] Hort’ s 67 1739 [α 78] D [06: α 1026] cont. 1:1-13:20. Codex Claromontanus is a Graeco-Latin MS, whose Greek text is poorly * reproduced in the later (saec. ix.-x.) E = codex Sangermanensis. The Greek text of the latter (1:1-12:8) is therefore of no independent value (cp. Hort in WH, § § 335-337); for its Latin text, as well as for that of F=codex Augiensis (saec. ix.), whose Greek text of ΠρὸςἘβραίους has not been preserved, see below, p. lxix. K [018:1:1]. L [020: α 5] cont. 1:1-13:10. Athan Athanasius א Ԡ [01: δ 2). H [015: α 1022] cont. 1:3-8 2:11-16 3:13-18 4:12-15 10:1-7, 32-38 12:10-15 13:24-25: mutilated fragments, at Moscow and Paris, of codex Coislinianus. 256 [α 216] Expositor The Expositor. Small superior numbers indicate the series. 1 See G. H. Box, The Ezra-Apocalypse, pp. lvi, lvii. 1 It is only Theodotion who ventures in Daniel 3:25 (92) to retain the literal son, since from his christological point of view it could not be misunderstood in this connexion. 2 Cp. M. Aurelius, v. 1, ποιεῖνὧνἕνεκενγέγονακαὶὧνχάρινπροῆγμαιεἰςτὸνκόσμον . 90 [δ 652] Mitteis-Wilcken Grundzü ge u. Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde (1912). 1 As the song appears in A, at the close of the psalter, the reading is ἄγγελοι (υἱοί , R). 2 Which acquired a messianic application (see Diat 3134). 1 Aquila has πῦρλάβρον , Symm. πυρίνηνφλόγα . 1 [δ 254] 326 [α 257] 1912 [α 1066] 1245 [α 158] 2005 [α 1436] cont. 1:1-7:2 d (Latin version of D) 2 As in Apoc. Bar. 21:6 (“ the holy creatures which thou didst make from the beginning out of flame and fire” ) and 48:8 . 1 The addition of this καί is not to mark a fresh quotation (as in v. 10), but simply to introduce the parallel line (as in v. 10 καὶἔργακτλ .). 2 Cp. Psalms 110:2 ῥάβδονδυνάμεωςσουἐξαποστελεῖκύριος . 3 For παρά with accus. in this sense, cp. above, v. 4, and Isaiah 53:8 ἄτιμονκαὶἐκλιπὸνπαρὰτοὺςυἱοὺςτῶνἀνθρώπων . 33 [δ 48] Hort’ s 17 4 ἀνομίαν , B D M P lat harkl Ath. Eus., ἀδικίαν א A 33 38, 218, 226, 919 Iren. Cosm. P [025: α 3] cont. 1:1-12:8 12:11-13:25. Cosm Cosmas Indicopleustes (ed. E. O. Winstedt, CAmbridge, 1909) WH Westcott and Hort’ s New Testament in Greek (1890, 1896). vg vg Vulgate, saec. iv. 1 χρίω , in contrast to ἀλείφω , is exclusively metaphorical in NT (cp. Gray in EBi 173), although neither Latin nor English is able to preserve the distinction. 2 A classical and Philonic equivalent for ἐνἀρχῇ (LXX again in Psalms 119:152). 3 This title, which attracted our author, is an addition of the LXX. 4 Including ἡγῆ , but with special reference to οἱοὐρανοί . 327 [O 36] 919 [α 113] vt vt Old Latin, saec. ii. (?)-iv. Ath Athanasius 1 A pre-Christian Upanishad (Sacred Books of East, xv. 266) cries: “ Only when men shall roll up the sky like a hide, will there be an end of misery, unless God has first been known.” 2 παλαιοῦσθαι is a common word with ἱμάτιον , and the wearing-out of clothes is a favourite metaphor for men (Isaiah 50:9, Sir 14:17) as well as for nature (Isaiah 51:6). Περιβολαῖον is any covering for the body; not simply a veil (1 Corinthians 11:15), but a generic term . 3 B reads διακονίας , as in 8:9 ἡμέραις for ἡμέρᾳ . But the transition is worked out in a practical warning (2:1-4) to the readers, which not only explains the underlying interest of the preceding biblical proofs, but leads up effectively to the next aspect of truth which he has in mind: 1 We must therefore (διὰτοῦτο , in view of this pre-eminent authority of the Son) pay closer attention to what we have heard, in case we drift away. 2 For if the divine word spoken by angels held good (ἐγένετοβέβαιος , proved valid), if transgression and disobedience met with due (ἔνδικον = adequate, not arbitrary) punishment in every case,3 how shall we (ἡμεῖς , emphatic) escape the penalty1 for neglecting (ἀμελήσαντες , if we ignore: Matthew 22:5) a salvation which (ἥτις , inasmuch as it) was originally proclaimed by the Lord himself (not by mere angels) and guaranteed to us by those who heard him, 4 while God corroborated their testimony with signs and wonders and a variety of miraculous powers, distributing the holy Spirit as it pleased him (αὐτοῦ emphatic as in Romans 3:25). Apart from the accidental omission of v. 1 by M 1739, Origen, and of τε (M P) in v. 4, with the variant παραρρυῶμεν (Bc Dc) for παραρυῶμεν ,2 the only textual item of any moment, and it is a minor one, is the substitution of ὑπό for διά in v. 3 by some cursives (69, 623, 1066, 1845), due either to the following ὑπό , or to the dogmatic desire of emphasizing the initiative of ὁκύριος . But διά here as in δι ʼ ἀγγέλων , meaning “ by,” is used to preserve the idea that in λαλεῖν the subject is God (1:1). The order of words (v. 1) δεῖπερισσοτερῶςπροσέχεινἡμᾶς has been spoiled in א vg and K L P . As elsewhere in Hellenistic Greek (e.g. Jos. Apion. i. 1, ἐπεὶδὲσυχνοὺςὁρῶταῖςὑπὸδυσμενείαςὑπὸτινωνεἰρημέναιςπροσέχονταςβλασφημίαιςκαὶτοῖςπερὶτὴνἈρχαιολογίανὑπ ʼ ἐμοῦγεγραμμένοιςἀπιστοῦνταςκτλ .; Strabo, ii. I. 7, τοῖςμὲνἀπιστεῖν … ἐκείνῃδὲπροσέχειν ), προσέχειν is the opposite of ἀπιστεῖν : to “ attend” is to believe and act upon what is heard. This is implied even in Acts 8:6 and 16:14 where it is the attention of one who hears the gospel for the first time; here it is attention to a familiar message. Περισσοτέρως is almost in its elative sense of “ with extreme care” ; “ all the more” would bring out its force here as in 13:19. Certainly there is no idea of demanding a closer attention to the gospel than to the Law. Ἡμᾶς = we Christians (ἡμῖν , 1:1), you and I, as in v. 3. The τὰἀκουσθέντα is the revelation of the εὐαγγέλιον (a term never used by our author), i.e. what ὁθεὸςἐλάλησενἡμῖνἐνυἱῷ , 1:1, and this is further defined (in vv. 3, 4) as consisting in the initial revelation made by Jesus on earth and the transmission of this by divinely accredited envoys to the writer and his readers . In the Ep. Aristeas, 127, oral teaching is preferred to reading (τὸγὰρκαλῶςζῇνἐντῷτὰνόμιμασυντηρεῖνεἶναι · τοῦτοδὲἐπιτελεῖσθαιδιὰτῆςἀκροάσεωςπολλῷμᾶλλονἢδιὰτῆςἀναγνώσεως ), and the evangelists of v. 4 include οἴτινεςἐλάλησανὑμῖντὸνλόγοντοῦθεοῦ (13:7); but while the news was oral, there is no particular emphasis as that here. The author simply appeals for attentive obedience, μήποτεπαραρυῶμεν (2 aor. subj.), i.e. drift away from (literally, “ be carried past” and so lose) the σωτηρία which we have heard. Παραρέω in this sense goes back to Proverbs 3:21 υἱέ , μὴπαραρυῇς , τήρησονδὲἐμὴνβουλὴνκαὶἔννοιαν (see Clem. Paed. III. xi. 58, διὸκαὶσυστέλλεινχρὴτὰςγυναῖκαςκοσμίωςκαὶπερισφίγγειναἰδοῖσώφρονι , μὴπαραρρυῶσιτῆςἀληθείας ); indeed the writer may have had the line of Proverbs in mind, as Chrys. suggested. The verb may have lost its figurative meaning, and may have been simply an equivalent for “ going wrong,” like “ labi” in Latin . Anyhow προσέχειν must not be taken in a nautical sense ( = moor), in order to round off the “ drift away” of παραρέω , a term which carries a sombre significance here ( = παραπίπτειν , 6:8); μήποτεπαραρυῶμεν , τουτέστιμὴἀπολώμεθα , μὴἐκπέσωμεν (Chrysostom). In vv. 2f. we have a characteristic (e.g. 10:28-31) argument a minori ad maius; if, as we know from our bible (the bible being the Greek OT), every infringement of the Sinaitic legislation was strictly punished— a legislation enacted by means of angels— how much more serious will be the consequences of disregarding such a σωτηρία as that originally proclaimed by the Lord himself! The τηλικαύτη is defined as (a) “ directly inaugurated by the Κύριος himself,” and (b) transmitted to us unimpaired by witnesses who had a rich, supernatural endowment; it is as if the writer said, “ Do not imagine that the revelation has been weakened, or that your distance from the life of Jesus puts you in any inferior position; the full power of God’ s Spirit has been at work in the apostolic preaching to which we owe our faith.” The reference in λόγος is to the Mosaic code, not, as Schoettgen thought, to such specific orders of angels as the admonitions to Lot and his wife. Λόγος is used, not νόμος , in keeping with the emphasis upon the divine λαλεῖν in the context, and, instead of νόμοςΜωσέως (10:28), ὁδι ʼ ἀγγέλωνλαληθεὶςλόγος is chosen for argumentative reasons. Here as in Galatians 3:19 and Acts 7:38, Acts 7:53 the function of angels in the revelation of the Law at Sinai is assumed, but without any disparaging tone such as is overheard in Paul’ s reference. The writer and his readers shared the belief, which first appeared in Hellenistic Judaism, that God employed angels at Sinai. Josephus (Ant. xv. 136, ἡμῶνδὲτὰκάλλιστατῶνδογμάτωνκαὶτὰὁσιώτατατῶνἐντοῖςνόμοιςδι ʼ ἀγγέλωνπαρὰτοῦθεοῦμαθόντων )1 repeats this tradition, but it went back to the LXX which altered Deuteronomy 33:2 into a definite proof of angelic co-operation and brought this out in Psalms 68:18. Rabbinic tradition elaborated the idea. The writer, however, would not have claimed, like Philo (de vita Mosis, 2:3), that the Mosaic legislation was βέβαια , ἀσάλευτα , valid and supreme as long as the world endured. Παράβασιςκαὶπαρακοή form one idea (see on 1:1); as παρακοή (which is not a LXX term) denotes a disregard of orders or of appeals (cp. Clem. Hom. x. 13, εἰἐπὶπαρακοῇλόγωνκρίσιςγίνεται , and the use of the verb in Matthew 18:17 ἐὰνδὲπαρακούσῃαὐτῶνκτλ ., or in LXX of Isa 65:12 ἐλάλησεκαὶπαρηκούσατε ), it represents the negative aspect, παράβασις the positive. Μισθαποδοσία is a sonorous synonym for μισθός or for the classical μισθοδοσία . Some of the facts which the writer has in mind are mentioned in 3:17 and 10:28. The Law proved no dead letter in the history of God’ s people; it enforced pains and penalties for disobedience. In v. 3 ἀρχὴνλαβοῦσα is a familiar Hellenistic phrase; cp. e.g. Philo in Quaest. in Exodus 12:2 , and de vita Mosis, 1:14 . The writer felt, as Plutarch did about Rome, τὰῬωμαίωνπράγματαοὐκἂνἐνταῦθαπρούβηδυνάμεως , μὴθείαντινὰἀρχὴνλαβόντακαὶμηδὲνμέγαμήδεπαράδοξονἔχουσαν . The modern mind wonders how the writer could assume that the σωτηρία , as he conceives it, was actually preached by Jesus on earth. But he was unconscious of any such difference. The Christian revelation was made through the Jesus who had lived and suffered and ascended, and the reference is not specifically to his teaching, but to his personality and career, in which God’ s saving purpose came to full expression. οἱἀκούσαντες means those who heard Jesus himself, the αὐτόπται of Luke 1:1-4 (cp. the shorter conclusion to Mark’ s gospel: μετὰδὲταῦτακαὶαὐτὸςὁἸησοῦς … ἐξαπέστειλενδι ʼ αὐτῶντὸἱερὸνκαὶἄφθαρτονκήρυγματῆςαἰωνίουσωτηρίας ). If the Sinaitic Law ἐγένετοβέβαιος , the Christian revelation was also confirmed or guaranteed to us— εἰςἡμᾶς (1 P 1:25 τὸῥῆματὸεὐαγγελισθὲνεἰςὑμᾶς : Acts 2:22 Ἰησοῦν … ἄνδραἀπὸτοῦθεοῦἀποδεδειγμένονεἰςὑμᾶς ) ἐβεβαιώθη . It reached us, accurate and trustworthy. No wonder, when we realize the channel along which it flowed. It was authenticated by the double testimony of men1 who had actually heard Jesus, and of God who attested and inspired them in their mission. Συνεπιμαρτυρεῖν means “ assent” in Ep. Aristeas, 191, and “ corroborate” in the de Mundo, 400a , as usual, but is here a sonorous religious term for συμμαρτυρεῖν (Romans 8:16). “ Coniunctio σύν … hunc habet sensum, nos in fide euangelii confirmari symphonia quadam Dei et hominum” (Calvin). σημ ., τερ ., δυν . in the reverse order describe the miracles of Jesus in Acts 2:22; here they denote the miracles of the primitive evangelists as in 2 Corinthians 12:12. Philo, speaking of the wonderful feats of Moses before the Pharaoh, declares that signs and wonders are a plainer proof of what God commands than any verbal injunction (ἅτεδὴτοῦθεοῦτρανοτέραιςχρησμῶνἀποδείξεσιταῖςδιάσημείωνκαὶτεράτωντὸβούλημαδεδηλωκότος , vit, Mos. i. 16). As “ God” is the subject of the clause, αὐτοῦ refers to him, and πνεύματοςἁγίου is the genitive of the object after μερισμοῖς (cp. 6:4). What is distributed is the Spirit, in a variety of endowments. To take αὐτοῦ with πνεύματος and make the latter the genitive of the subject, would tally with Paul’ s description of the Spirit διαιροῦνἰδίᾳἐκάστῳκαθὼβούλεται (1 Corinthians 12:11), but would fail to explain what was distributed and would naturally require τῷμερισμῷ . A fair parallel lies in Galatians 3:5 ὁἐπιχορηγῶνὑμῖντὸπνεῦμακαὶἐνεργῶνδυνάμειςἐνὑμῖν , where δυνάμεις also means “ miraculous powers” or “ mighty deeds” . In κατὰτὴναὐτοῦθέλησιν , as perhaps even in 7:18 (cp. Blass, 284, 3; Abbott’ s Johannine Grammar, 2558), the possessive αὐτός is emphatic. θέλησιν is read by א ca R for δέησιν in Psalms 21:3 . It is not merely a vulgarism for θέλημα . “ Θέλημα n’ est pas θέλησις , volonté ; θέλημα dé signe le vouloir concentré sur un moment, sur un acte, l’ ordre, le commandment” (Psichari, Essai sur le grec de la Septante, 1908, p. 171 n.). The writer is fond of such forms . Naturally the phrase has a very different meaning from the similar remark in Lucian, who makes Hesiod (Disputatio cum Hesiode, 4) apologize for certain omissions in his poetry, by pleading that the Muses who inspired him gave their gifts as they pleased— αἱθεαὶδὲτὰςἑαυτῶνδωρεὰςοἷςτεἂνἐθέλωσι . The vital significance of the Son as the ἀρχηγός of this “ salvation” 1 by means of his sufferings on earth, is now developed (vv. 5-18). This unique element in the Son has been already hinted (1:3), but the writer now proceeds to explain it as the core of Christ’ s pre-eminence. The argument starts from the antithesis between the Son and angels (v. 5); presently it passes beyond this, and angels are merely mentioned casually in a parenthesis (v. 16). The writer is now coming to the heart of his theme, how and why the Son or Lord, of whom he has been speaking, suffered, died, and rose. Vv. 5-9 are the prelude to vv. 10-18. The idea underlying the whole passage is this: λαλεῖσθαιδιὰτοῦκυρίου meant much more than λαλεῖσθαιδι ʼ ἀγγέλων , for the Christian revelation of σωτηρία had involved a tragic and painful experience for the Son on earth as he purged sins away. His present superiority to angels had been preceded by a period of mortal experience on earth ἐνταῖςἡμέραιςτῆςσαρκὸςαὐτοῦ . But this sojourn was only for a time; it was the vital presupposition of his triumph; it enabled him to die a death which invested him with supreme power on behalf of his fellow-men; and it taught him sympathy (cp. Zimmer, in Studien und Kritiken, 1882, pp. 413 f., on 2:1-5, and in NTlichen Studien, i. pp. 20-129, on 2:6-18). 5 For the world to come, of which I (ἡμεῖς of authorship) am speaking, was not put under the control of angels (whatever may be the case with the present world). 6 One writer, as we know, has affirmed, “ What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou carest for him? 7 For a little while thou hast put him lower than the angels, crowning him with glory and honour, 8 putting all things under his feet.” Now by1 “ putting all things under him” 2 the writer meant to leave nothing out of his control. But, as it is, we do not yet see ” all things controlled” by man; 9 what we do see is Jesus “ who was put lower than the angels for a little while” to suffer death, and who has been “ crowned with glory and honour,” that by God’ s grace he might taste death for everyone. Οὐγὰρἀγγέλοις (γάρ , as in Greek idiom, opening a new question; almost equivalent to “ now” : οὐγάρ = non certe, Valckenaer) ὑπέταξε (i.e. ὁθεός , as C vg add)— the writer is already thinking of ὑπέταξας in the quotation which he is about to make. In the light of subsequent allusions to μέλλονταἀγαθά (9:11, 10:1) and ἡμέλλουσαπόλις (13:14), we see that τὴνοἰκουμένηντὴνμέλλουσαν means the new order of things in which the σωτηρία of 1:14, 2:2, 3 is to be realized (see 9:28), and from which already influences are pouring down into the life of Christians. The latter allusion is the pivot of the transition. The powers and spiritual experiences just mentioned (in v. 4) imply this higher, future order of things , from which rays stream down into the present. How the ministry of angels is connected with them, we do not learn. But the author had already urged that this service of angels was rendered to the divine authority, and that it served to benefit Christians (1:14). This idea starts him afresh. Who reigns in the new order? Not angels but the Son, and the Son who has come down for a time into human nature and suffered death. He begins by quoting a stanza from a psalm which seems irrelevant, because it compares men and angels. In reality this is not what occupies his mind; otherwise he might have put his argument differently and used, for example, the belief that Christians would hold sway over angels in the next world (1 Corinthians 6:2, 1 Corinthians 6:3). Philo argues that man is not inferior in position because he was created last in order; but this refers to man in relation to other creatures, not in relation to angels, as here. The quotation (vv. 6-8a) from the 8th psalm runs: τίἐστινἄνθρωποςὅτιμιμνήσκῃ 1 αὐτοῦ , ἢυἱὸςἀνθρώπουὅτιἐπισκέπτῃαὐτόν ; ἠλάττωσαςαὐτὸνβραχύτιπαρ ʼ ἀγγέλους , δόξῃκαὶτιμῇἐστεφάνωσαςαὐτόν . πάνταὑπέταξαςὑποκάτωτῶνποδῶναὐτοῦ . The LXX tr. א ל ה י ם not incorrectly by ἀγγέλους , since the elohim of the original probably included angels. This was the point of the quotation, for the author of Hebrews. The text of the quotation offers only a couple of items. (a) τί is changed into τίς (LXX A) by C P 104, 917, 1288, 1319, 1891, 2127 vt boh, either in conformity to the preceding τις or owing to the feeling that the more common τίς (in questions, e.g. 12:7, John 12:34) suited the reference to Christ better (Bleek, Zimmer). (b) The quotation omits καὶκατέστησαςαὐτὸνἐπὶτὰἔργατῶνχειρῶνσου before πάντα : it is inserted by א A C M P syr lat boh arm eth Euth. Theodt. Sedul. to complete the quotation. It is the one line in the sentence on which the writer does not comment; probably he left it out as incompatible with 1:10 , although he frequently quotes more of an OT passage than is absolutely required for his particular purpose. In διεμαρτύρατοδέπούτις (v. 6), even if the δέ is adversative, it need not be expressed in English idiom. διαμαρτυρεῖσθαι in Greek inscriptions “ means primarily to address an assembly or a king” (Hicks, in Classical Review, i. 45). Here, the only place where it introduces an OT quotation, it = attest or affirm. Πούτις in such a formula is a literary mannerism familiar in Philo , and που later on (4:4) recurs in a similar formula, as often in Philo. The τις implies no modification of the Alexandrian theory of inspiration; his words are God’ s words (v. 8). The psalm intends no contrast between ἠλάττωσαςκτλ . and δόξῇ … ἐστεφάνωσαςαὐτόν . The proof that this wonderful being has been created in a position only slightly inferior to that of the divine host lies in the fact that he is crowned king of nature, invested with a divine authority over creation. The psalm is a panegyric on man, like Hamlet’ s (“ What a piece of work is man! how noble in reason! how infinite in faculties! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like an angel!” etc.), but with a religious note of wonder and gratitude to God. In applying the psalm, however, our writer takes βραχύτι in the sense of “ temporarily” rather than “ slightly,” and so has to make the “ inferiority” and “ exaltation” two successive phases, in applying the description to the career of Jesus. He does not take this verse as part of a messianic ode; neither here nor elsewhere does he use the term “ Son of Man.” He points out, first of all (v. 8) that, as things are (νῦνδὲοὔπω : οὔπω = οὔπως might be read, i.e. “ in no wise,” and νῦν taken logically instead of temporally; but this is less natural and pointed), the last words are still unfulfilled; οὔπωὅρωμεναὐτῷ (i.e. man) τὰ “ πάντα ” i.e. ἡοἰκουμένηἡμέλλουσα ) ὑποτεταγμένα . Human nature is not “ crowned with glory and honour” at present. How can it be, when the terror of death and the devil (v. 15) enslaves it? What is to be said, then? This, that although we do not see man triumphant, there is something that we do see: βλέπομενἸησοῦν dealing triumphantly with death on man’ s behalf (v. 9). The Ἰησοῦν comes in with emphasis, as in 3:1 and 12:2, at the end of a preliminary definition τὸν … ἠλαττωμένον . It is less natural to take the messianic interpretation which involves the reference of αὐτῷ already to him. On this view, the writer frankly allows that the closing part of the prophecy is still unfulfilled. “ We do not yet see τὰπάντα under the sway of Jesus Christ, for the world to come has not yet come; it has only been inaugurated by the sacrifice of Christ . Though the Son is crowned (1:8, 9) and enthroned , his foes are still to be subdued , and we must be content to wait for our full σωτηρία (9:28) at his second coming; under the οὔπωὁρῶμενκτλ . of experience there is a deeper experience of faith.” The writer rather turns back in v. 9 to the language of v. 7; this at least has been fulfilled. Jesus has been put lower than the angels and he has been crowned. How and why? The writer answers the second question first. Or rather, in answering the second he suggests the answer to the first. At this point, and not till then, the messianic interpretation becomes quite natural and indeed inevitable. It is the earlier introduction of it which is unlikely. The application to the messiah of words like those quoted in v. 6 is forced, and “ Hebrews” has no room for the notion of Christ as the ideal or representative Man, as is implied in the messianic interpretation of αὐτῷ in v. 8. That interpretation yields a true idea— the thought expressed, e.g., in T. E. Brown’ s poem, “ Sad! Sad!” — “ One thing appears to me— The work is not complete; One world I know, and see It is not at His feet— Not, not! Is this the sum?” No, our author hastens to add, it is not the sum; our outlook is not one of mere pathos; we do see Jesus enthroned, with the full prospect of ultimate triumph. But the idea of the issues of Christ’ s triumph being still incomplete is not true here. What is relevant, and what is alone relevant, is the decisive character of his sacrifice. The argument of v. 8, 9, therefore, is that, however inapplicable to man the rhapsody of the psalm is, at present, the words of the psalm are true, notwithstanding. For we see the Jesus who was “ put lower than the angels for a little while” to suffer death (διὰτὸπάθηματοῦθανάτου must refer to the death of Jesus himself,1 not to the general experience of death as the occasion for his incarnation), now “ crowned with glory and honour.” When διὰτὸπάθηματοῦθανάτου is connected with what follows , it gives the reason for the exaltation, not the object of the incarnation . But διά … θανάτου is elucidated in a moment by ὅπως … θανάτου . V. 9 answers the question why Jesus was lowered and exalted— it was for the sake of mankind. In v. 10 the writer proceeds to explain how he was “ lowered” — it was by suffering that culminated in death. Then he recurs naturally to the “ why.” The mixture of quotation and comment in v. 9 leaves the meaning open to some dubiety, although the drift is plain. “ But one Being referred to in the psalm we do see— it is Jesus, and Jesus as ἠλαττωμένον for the purpose of suffering death, and δόξῃκαὶτιμῇἐστεφανωμένον . Why did he die? Why was he thus humiliated and honoured ? For the sake of every man; his death was ὑπὲρπαντός , part of the divine purpose of redemption.” Thus ὅπως … θανάτου explains and expounds the idea of διὰτὸπάθημα (which consists in) τοῦθανάτου , gathering up the full object and purpose of the experience which has just been predicated of Jesus. This implies a pause after ἐστεφανωμένον , or, as Bleek suggests, the supplying of an idea like ὃἔπαθεν before ὅπωςκτλ ., if γεύσηται is to be taken, as it must be, as = “ he might taste.” How a ὅπως clause follows and elucidates διάκτλ . may be seen in Ep. Arist. 106 . As for v. 8a, Paul makes a similar comment (1 Corinthians 15:27), but excludes God from the τὰπάντα . The curiously explicit language here is intended to reiterate what is possibly hinted at in v. 5, viz., that the next world has no room for the angelic control which characterizes the present. (The τὰπάντα includes even angels!) This belief was familiar to readers of the Greek bible, where Deuteronomy 32:8 voices a conception of guardian-angels over the non-Jewish nations which became current in some circles of the later Judaism. Non-Jewish Christians, like the readers of our epistle, would be likely to appreciate the point of an argument which dealt with this. Note that ἀνυπότακτον occurs in a similar antithesis in Epictetus, ii. 10, 1, ταύτῃτὰἅλλαὑποτεταγμένα , αὐτὴνδ ʼ ἀδούλευτονκαὶἀνυπότακτον . Our author’ s language reads almost like a tacit repudiation of Philo’ s remark on Genesis 1:26 in de opificio Mundi (28), that God put man over all things with the exception of the heavenly beings— ὅσαγὰρθνητὰἐντοῖςτρισὶστοιχείοιςγῇὑδάτιἀέριπάνταὑπέταττεναὐτῷ , τὰκατ ʼ οὐρανὸνὑπεξελόμενοςἅτεδειότεραςμοίραςἐπίλαχόντα . The closing clause of v. 9 , therefore, resumes and completes the idea of διὰτὸπάθηματοῦθανάτου . Each follows a phrase from the psalm; but ὅπως … θανάτου does not follow ἐστεφανωμένον logically. The only possible method of thus taking ὅπωςκτλ . would be by applying δοξῇκαὶτιμῇἐστεφανωμένον to Christ’ s life prior to death, either (a) to his pre-incarnate existence, when “ in the counsels of heaven” he was, as it were, “ crowned for death” (so Rendall, who makes γεύσασθαιθανάτου cover the “ inward dying” of daily self-denial and suffering which led up to Calvary), or (b) to his incarnate life (so, e.g., Hofmann, Milligan, Bruce), as if his readiness to sacrifice himself already threw a halo round him, or (c) specifically to God’ s recognition and approval of him at the baptism and transfiguration (Dods). But the use of δόξα in v. 10 tells against such theories; it is from another angle altogether that Jesus is said in 2 P 1:17 to have received τιμὴνκαὶδόξαν from God at the transfiguration. The most natural interpretation, therefore, is to regard δόξῃ … ἐστεφανωμένον as almost parenthetical, rounding off the quotation from the psalm. It is unnecessary to fall back on such suggestions as (i) to assume a break in the text after ἐστεφανωμένον , some words lost which led up to ὅπως … θανάτου (Windisch), or (ii) to translate ὅπως by “ how,” as in Luke 24:20, i.e. “ we see how Jesus tasted death” , or by “ after that” or “ when” (Moses Stuart), as in Soph. Oed. Col. 1638 (where, however, it takes the indicative as usual), etc. In ὑπὲρπαντός , παντός was at an early stage taken as neuter, practically =the universe. This was a popular idea in Egyptian Christianity. “ You know,” says the risen Christ to his disciples, in a Bohairic narrative of the death of Joseph (Texts and Studies, iv. 2. 130), “ that many times now I have told you that I must needs be crucified and taste death for the universe.” The interpretation occurs first in Origen, who (in Joan. i. 35) writes: “ He is a ‘ great highpriest’ [referring to Hebrews 4:15], having offered himself up in sacrifice once not for human beings alone, but for the rest of rational creatures as well . ‘ For without God he tasted death for everyone’ . In some copies of the epistle to the Hebrews this passage runs: ‘ for by the grace of God’ . Well, if ‘ without God he tasted death for everyone,’ he did not die simply for human beings, but for the rest of rational creatures as well; and if ‘ by the grace of God he tasted the death for everyone,’ 1 he died for all except for God — for ‘ by the grace of God he tasted death for everyone.’ It would indeed be preposterous to say that he tasted death for human sins and not also for any other being besides man who has fallen into sin— e.g. for the stars. Even the stars are by no means pure before God, as we read in the book of Job: ‘ The stars are not pure before him,’ unless this is said hyperbolically. For this reason he is a ‘ great highpriest,’ because he restores all things to his Father’ s kingdom, ordering it so that what is lacking in any part of creation is completed for the fulness of the Father’ s glory .” The Greek fathers adhered steadily to this interpretation of παντός as equivalent to the entire universe, including especially angels. But the neuter is always expressed in “ Hebrews” by the plural, with or without the article, and, as v. 16 shows, the entire interest is in human beings. Γεύσηται after ὑπὲρπαντός has also been misinterpreted. Γεύειν in LXX, as a rendering of מ ָ ע ַ ם , takes either genitive (1 S 14:24, cp. 2 Mac 6:20) or accusative (1 S 14:29, Job 34:3), but γεύεσθαιθανάτου never occurs; it is the counterpart of the rabbinic phrase ט ע ם מ י ת ה , and elsewhere in the NT (Mark 9:1 = Matthew 16:28 = Luke 9:27, John 8:50) is used not of Jesus but of men. It means to experience ( = ἰδεῖνθάνατον , 11:5). Here it is a bitter experience, not a rapid sip, as if Jesus simply “ tasted” death (Chrysostom, Theophyl., Oecumenius: οὐγὰρἐνέμεινεντῷθανάτωἀλλὰμόνοναὐτὸντρόποντινὰἀπεγεύσατο ) quickly, or merely sipped it like a doctor sipping a drug to encourage a patient. The truer comment would be: “ When I think of our Lord as tasting death it seems to me as if He alone ever truly tasted death” (M ’ Leod Campbell, The Nature of the Atonement, p. 259); γεύσηται does not echo βραχύτι , as though all that Jesus experienced of death was slight or short. The hardest knot of the hard passage lies in χάριτιθεοῦ . In the second century two forms of the text were current, χωριςθεογ and χαριτιθεογ . This is plain from Origen’ s comment (see above); he himself is unwilling to rule out the latter reading, but prefers the former, which he apparently found to be the ordinary text. Theodoret assumed it to be original, as Ambrose did in the West. Jerome knew both (on Galatians 3:10), and the eighth century Anastasius Abbas read χωρίς , i.e., in the sense already suggested by Fulgentius and Vigilius, that Christ’ s divine nature did not die. On the other hand, writers like Eusebius, Athanasius, and Chrysostom never mention any other reading than χάριτι . Of all the supporters of χωρίς , the most emphatic is Theodore of Mopsuestia, who protests that it is most absurd to substitute χάριτιθεοῦ , for χωρὶςθεοῦ , arguing from passages like 1 Corinthians 15:10 and Ephesians 2:8, Ephesians 2:9 that Paul’ s custom is not to use the former phrase ἁπλῶς , ἀλλὰπάντωςἀπότινοςἀκολουθίαςλόγου . The reading suited the Nestorian view of the person of Christ, and probably the fact of its popularity among the Nestorians tended to compromise χωρίς in the eyes of the later church; it survives only in M 424 **, though there is a trace of it (a Nestorian gloss?) in three codices of the Peshitto. But Oecumenius and Theophylact are wrong in holding that it originated among the Nestorians. This is dogmatic prejudice; χωρίς was read in good manuscripts, if not in the best, by Origen’ s time, and the problem is to determine whether it or χάριτι was original. The one may be a transcriptional error for the other. In this case, the textual canon “ potior lectio difficillima” would favour χωρίς . But the canon does not apply rigidly to every such case, and the final decision depends upon the internal probabilities. Long associations render it difficult for a modern to do justice to χωρὶςθεοῦ . Yet χωρίς is elsewhere used by our author in a remarkable way, e.g. in 9:28 χωρὶςἁμαρτίαςὀφθήσεται , and the question is whether χωρὶςθεοῦ here cannot be understood in an apt, although daring, sense. It may be (i) “ forsaken by God,” an allusion to the “ dereliction” of Mark 15:34 (B. Weiss, Zimmer), though this would rather be put as ἄτερθεοῦ . (ii) “ Apart from his divinity” (see above), i.e. when Christ died, his divine nature survived. But this would require a term like τῆςθεότητος . (iii) Taken with παντός , “ die for everyone (everything?) except God” (Origen’ s view, adopted recently by moderns like Ewald and Ebrard). Of these (i) and (iii) are alone tenable. Even if (iii) be rejected, it furnishes a clue to the problem of the origin of the reading. Thus Bengel and others modify it by taking ὑπὲρπαντός = to master everything, χωρὶςθεοῦ being added to explain that “ everything” does not include God. It is possible, of course, that in the Latin rendering (ut gratia Dei pro omnibus gustaret mortem) gratia is an original nominative, not an ablative, and represents χάρις (Christ = the Grace of God),1 which came to be altered into χωρίς and χάριτι . But, if χωρὶςθεοῦ is regarded as secondary, its origin probably lies in the dogmatic scruple of some primitive scribe who wrote the words on the margin as a gloss upon παντός , or even on the margin of v. 8 opposite οὐδὲνἀφῆκεναὐτῷἀνυπότακτον , whence it slipped lower down into the text. Upon the whole, it seems fairest to assume that at some very early stage there must have been a corruption of the text, which cannot be explained upon the available data. But at any rate χάριτι fits in well with ἔπρεπει , which immediately follows, and this is one point in its favour. It was χάριτιθεοῦ that Jesus died for everyone, and this was consonant with God’ s character . The nearest Latin equivalent for πρέπον , as Cicero (de Officiis, i. 26) said, was “ decorum” (dulce et decorum est pro patria mori), and in this high sense the divine χάρις (4:16), shown in the wide range and object of the death of Jesus, comes out in the process and method. The writer now explains (vv. 10-18) why Jesus had to suffer and to die. Only thus could he save his brother men who lay (whether by nature or as a punishment, we are not told) under the tyranny of death. To die for everyone meant that Jesus had to enter human life and identify himself with men; suffering is the badge and lot of the race, and a Saviour must be a sufferer, if he is to carry out God’ s saving purpose. The sufferings of Jesus were neither an arbitrary nor a degrading experience, but natural, in view of what he was to God and men alike. For the first time, the conception of suffering occurs, and the situation which gave rise to the author’ s handling of the subject arose out of what he felt to be his readers’ attitude. “ We are suffering hardships on account of our religion.” But so did Jesus, the writer replies. “ Well, but was it necessary for him any more than for us? And if so, how does that consideration help us in our plight?” To this there is a twofold answer. (a) Suffering made Jesus a real Saviour; it enabled him to offer his perfect sacrifice, on which fellowship with God depends. (b) He suffered not only for you but like you, undergoing the same temptations to faith and loyalty as you have to meet. The threefold inference is: (i) do not give way, but realize all you have in his sacrifice, and what a perfect help and sympathy you can enjoy. (ii) Remember, this is a warning as well as an encouragement; it will be a fearful thing to disparage a religious tie of such privilege. (iii) Also, let his example nerve you. 10 In bringing many sons to glory, it was befitting that He for whom and by whom the universe exists, should perfect the Pioneer of their salvation by suffering . 11For sanctifier and sanctified have all one origin (ἐξἕνος , sc. γενοῦς : neuter as Acts 17:26). That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers, 12 saying, “ I will proclaim thy name to my brothers, in the midst of the church I will sing of thee” ; 13 and again, “ I will put my trust in him” ; and again, “ Here am I and the children God has given me.” 14 Since the children then (οὖν , resuming the thought of v. 11a) share blood and flesh,1 he himself participated in their nature,2 so that by dying he might crush him who wields the power of death (that is to say, the devil), 15 and release from thraldom those who lay under a life-long fear of death. 16 (For of course it is not angels that “ he succours,” it is “ the offspring of Abraham” ). 17 He had to resemble his brothers in every respect, in order to prove a merciful and faithful high priest in things divine, to expiate the sins of the People. 18 It is as he suffered by his temptations that he is able to help the tempted. It is remarkable (cp. Introd. p. xvi) that the writer does not connect the sufferings of Jesus with OT prophecy, either generally (as, e.g., Luke 24:26 οὐχὶταῦταἔδεὶ 1 παθεῖντὸνΧριστόνκτλ .), or with a specific reference to Isa_53. He explains them on the ground of moral congruity. Here they are viewed from God’ s standpoint, as in 12:2 from that of Jesus himself. God’ s purpose of grace made it befitting and indeed inevitable that Jesus should suffer and die in fulfilling his function as a Saviour (v. 10); then (vv. 11f.) it is shown how he made common cause with those whom he was to rescue. Ἔπρεπενγάρκτλ . (v. 10). Πρέπειν or πρέπον , in the sense of “ seemly,” is not applied to God in the LXX, but is not uncommon in later Greek, e.g. Lucian’ s Prometheus, 8 , and the de Mundo, 397b, 398a (ὃκαὶπρέπονἐστὶκαὶθεῷμάλισταἁρμόζον — of a theory about the universe, however). The writer was familiar with it in Philo, who has several things to say about what it behoved God to do,2 though never this thing; Philo has the phrase, not the idea. According to Aristotle , what is “ befitting” relates to the person himself, to the particular occasion, and to the object. Here, we might say, the idea is that it would not have done for God to save men by a method which stopped short of suffering and actual death. “ Quand il est question des actes de Dieu, ce qui est convenable est toujours né cessaire au point de vue mé taphysique” (Reuss). In the description of God (for αὐτῷ cannot be applied to Jesus in any natural sense) δι ʼ ὃντὰπάντακαὶδι ʼ οὗτὰπάντα , the writer differs sharply from Philo. The Alexandrian Jew objects to Eve (Genesis 4:1) and Joseph (Genesis 40:18) using the phrase διὰτοῦθεοῦ (Cherubim, 35), on the ground that it makes God merely instrumental; whereas, ὁθεὸςαἴτιον , οὐκὄργανον . On the contrary, we call God the creative cause of the universe, ὄργανονδὲλόγονθεοῦδι ʼ οὗκατεσκευάσθη . He then quotes Exodus 14:13 to prove, by the use of παρά , that οὐδιὰ 3 τοῦθεοῦἀλλὰπαρ ʼ αὐτοῦὡςαἰτίουτὸσῴζεσθαι . But our author has no such scruples about διά , any more than Aeschylus had . Like Paul (Romans 11:36) he can say δι ʼ οὗτὰπάντα of God, adding, for the sake of paronomasia, δι ʼ ὅν to cover what Paul meant by ἐξαὐτοῦκαὶεἰςαὐτόν . Or rather, starting with δι ʼ ὃντὰπάντα he prefers another διά with a genitive, for the sake of assonance, to the more usual equivalent ἐξοὗ or ὑφ ʼ οὗ . To preserve the assonance, Zimmer proposes to render: “ um dessentwillen das All, und durch dessen Willen das All.” The ultimate origin of the phrase probably lies in the mystery-cults; Aristides (ΕἰςτὸνΣάραπιν , 51: ed. Dindorf, i. p. 87), in an invocation of Serapis, writes to this effect, πάνταγὰρπανταχοῦδιὰσοῦτεκαὶδιὰσεἡμῖνγίγνεται . But Greek thought in Stoicism had long ago played upon the use of διά in this connexion Possibly διά with the accusative was the primitive and regular expression, as Norden contends.1 We call Zeus “ ΖῆνακαὶΔία ” ὡςἄνεἰλέγοιμενδι ʼ ὃνζῶμεν , says the author of de Mundo (401a), like the older Stoics (see Arnim’ s Stoicorum veterum Fragmenta, ii. pp. 305, 312), and διά with the accusative might have the same causal sense here,2 i.e. “ through,” in which case the two phrases δι ʼ ὅν and δι ʼ οὗ would practically be a poetical reduplication of the same idea, or at least = “ by whom and through whom.” But the dominant, though not exclusive, idea of δι ʼ ὅν here is final, “ for whom” ; the end of the universe, of all history and creation, lies with Him by whom it came into being and exists; He who redeems is He who has all creation at His command and under His control. The point in adding δι ʼ ὅν … τὰπάντα to αὐτῷ is that the sufferings and death of Jesus are not accidental; they form part of the eternal world-purpose of God. Philo had explained that Moses was called up to Mount Sinai on the seventh day, because God wished to make the choice of Israel parallel to the creation of the world (Quaest. in Exodus 24:16 βουλόμενοςἐπιδεῖξαιὅτιαὐτὸςκαὶτὸνκόσμονἐδημιούργησεκαὶτὸγένοςεἵλετο . Ἡδὲἀνάκλησιςτοῦπροφήτουδεύτεραγένεσίςἐστιτῆςπροτέραςἀμείνων ). But our author goes deeper; redemption, he reiterates (for this had been hinted at in 1:1-4), is not outside the order of creation. The distinction between the redeeming grace of God and the created universe was drawn afterwards by gnosticism. There is no conscious repudiation of such a view here, only a definite assertion that behind the redeeming purpose lay the full force of God the creator, that God’ s providence included the mysterious sufferings of Jesus His Son, and that these were in line with His will. In πολλοὺςυἱούς the πολλοί is in antithesis to the one and only ἀρχηγός , as in Romans 8:29, Mark 14:24. For the first time the writer calls Christians God’ s sons. His confidence towards the Father is in sharp contrast to Philo’ s touch of hesitation in De Confus. Ling. 28 (κἂνμηδέπωμέντοιτυγχάνῃτιςἀξιόχρεωςὤνυἱὸςθεοῦπροσαγορεύεσθαι … καὶγὰρεἰμήπωἱκανοὶθεοῦπαῖδεςνομίζεσθαιγεγόναμεν ). Ἀγαγόντα is devoid of any reference to past time. The aorist participle is used adverbially, as often, to denote “ an action evidently in a general way coincident in time with the action of the verb, yet not identical with it. The choice of the aorist participle rather than the present in such cases is due to the fact that the action is thought of, not as in progress, but as a simple event or fact” (Burton, Moods and Tenses, 149). It is accusative instead of dative, agreeing with an implied αὐτόν instead of αὐτῷ , by a common Greek assimilation (cp. e.g. Acts 11:12, Acts 15:22, Acts 22:17, Acts 25:27). The accusative and infinitive construction prompted ἀγαγόντα instead of ἀγαγόντι . Had ἀγαγόντα been intended to qualify ἀρχηγόν , πολλούς would have been preceded by τόν . The thought is: thus do men attain the δόξα which had been their destiny (v. 7), but only through a Jesus who had won it for them by suffering. The mistaken idea that ἀγαγόντα must refer to some action previous to τελειῶσαι , which gave rise to the Latin rendering “ qui adduxerat” (vg) or “ multis filiis adductis” (vt), is responsible for the ingenious suggestion of Zimmer that δόξα denotes an intermediate state of bliss, where the δίκαιοι of the older age await the full inheritance of the messianic bliss. It is possible (see below on 11:40, 12:23) to reconstruct such an idea in the mind of the writer, but not to introduce it here. The general idea in ἀρχηγόν is that of originator or personal source; τουτέστι , τὸναἴτιοντῆςσωτηρίας (Chrysostom). It is doubtful how far the writer was determined, in choosing the term, by its varied associations, but the context, like that of 12:2, suggests that the “ pioneer” meaning was present to his mind; Jesus was ἀρχηγὸςτῆςσωτηρίαςαὐτῶν in the sense that he led the way, broke open the road for those who followed him. This meaning, common in the LXX, recurs in Acts 5:31 , and suits ἀγαγόντα better than the alternative sense of the head or progenitor— as of a Greek clan or colony. In this sense ἀρχηγός is applied to heroes, and is even a divine title of Apollo as the head of the Seleucidae (OGIS 212:13, 219:26), as well as a term for the founder (= conditor) or head of a philosophical school . But the other rendering is more relevant. Compare the confession (in the Acts of Maximilianus) of the soldier who was put to death in 295 a.d. (Ruinart, Acta Martyrum, pp. 340 f.): “ huic omnes Christiani servimus, hunc sequimur vitae principem, salutis auctorem.” The sufferings of Jesus as ἀρχηγὸςσωτηρίας had, of course, a specific value in the eyes of the writer. He did not die simply in order to show mortals how to die; he experienced death ὑπὲρπαντός , and by this unique suffering made it possible for “ many sons” of God to enter the bliss which he had first won for them. Hence, to “ perfect” the ἀρχηγὸςσωτηρίας is to make him adequate, completely effective. What this involved for him we are not yet told; later on (5:9, 7:28) the writer touches the relation between the perfect ability of Christ and his ethical development through suffering (see below, v. 14), but meantime he uses this general term. God had to “ perfect” Jesus by means of suffering, that he might be equal to his task as ἀρχηγός or ἀρχιερεύς (v. 17); the addition of αὐτῶν to σωτηρίας implies (see 7:26) that he himself had not to be saved from sin as they had. The underlying idea of the whole sentence is that by thus “ perfecting” Jesus through suffering, God carries out his purpose of bringing “ many sons” to bliss. The verb had already acquired a tragic significance in connexion with martyrdom; in 4 Mac 7:15 it is used of Eleazar’ s heroic death, and this reappeared in the Christian vocabulary, as, e.g., in the title of the Passio S. Perpetuae . But, although Philo had popularized the idea of τελευτᾶν = τελεῖσθαι , this is not present to our writer’ s mind; he is thinking of God’ s purpose to realize a complete experience of forgiveness and fellowship through the Son, and this includes and involves (as we shall see) a process of moral development for the Son. The writer now (v. 11) works out the idea suggested by πολλοὺςυἱούς . Since Jesus and Christians have the same spiritual origin, since they too in their own way are “ sons” of God, he is proud to call them brothers and to share their lot (vv. 11-13). The leader and his company are a unit, members of the one family of God. It is implied, though the writer does not explain the matter further, that Christ’ s common tie with mankind goes back to the pre-incarnate period; there was a close bond between them, even before he was born into the world; indeed the incarnation was the consequence of this solidarity or vital tie . Ὁἁγιάζων and οἱἀγιαζόμενοι are participles used as substantives, devoid of reference to time. Here, as at 13:12, Jesus is assigned the divine prerogative of ἁγιάζειν (cp. Ezekiel 20:12 ἐγὼκύριοςὁἁγιάζωναὐτούς , 2 Mac 1:25, etc.), i.e. of making God’ s People His very own, by bringing them into vital relationship with Himself. It is another sacerdotal metaphor; the thought of 1:3 is touched again, but the full meaning of ἁγιάζειν is not developed till 9:13f., where we see that to be “ sanctified” is to be brought into the presence of God through the self-sacrifice of Christ; in other words, ἁγιάζεσθαι = προσέρχεσθαι or ἐγγίζειντῷθεῷ , as in Numbers 16:5 where the ἅγιοι are those whom God προσηγάγετοπρὸςἑαυτόν . According to (Akiba?) Mechilta, 71b (on Exodus 20:18), God said to the angels at Sinai, “ Go down and help your brothers” ; yet it was not merely the angels, but God himself, who helped them (the proof-text being Son 2:6!). Δι ʼ ἣναἰτίαν — a phrase only used elsewhere in the NT by the author of the Pastoral epistles— οὐκἐπαισχύνεταικτλ . Ἐπαισχύνεσθαι implies that he was of higher rank, being somehow υἱὸςθεοῦ as they were not. The verb only occurs three times in LXX, twice of human shame (Psalms 119:6, Isaiah 1:29), and once perhaps of God in Job 34:19. In Test. Joshua 2:5 it is used passively . In the gospels, besides Mark 3:34f. and Matthew 25:40, there are slight traditions of the risen Jesus calling the disciples his ἀδελφοί (Matthew 28:10, John 20:17); but the writer either did not know of them or preferred, as usual, to lead biblical proofs. He quotes three passages (vv. 12, 13), the first from the 22nd psalm (v. 23) taken as a messianic cry, the only change made in the LXX text being the alteration of διηγήσομαι into ἀπαγγελῶ (a synonym, see Psalms 55:18). The Son associates himself with his ἀδελφοί in the praise of God offered by their community (a thought which is echoed in 12:28, 13:15). According to Justin Martyr (Dial. 106), Psalms 22:22, Psalms 22:23 foretells how the risen Jesus stood ἐνμέσῳτῶνἀδελφῶναὐτοῦ , τῶνἀποστόλων … καὶμετ ʼ αὐτῶνδιάγωνὕμνησετὸνθεόν , ὡςκαὶἑντοῖςἀπομνημονεύμασιντῶνἀποστόλωνδηλοῦταιγεγενημένον , and in the Acta Joannis (11) Jesus, before going out to Gethsemane, says, Let us sing a hymn to the Father . The couplet is quoted here for the sake of the first line; the second fills it out. Our author only uses ἐκκλησία (12:23) of the heavenly host, never in its ordinary sense of the “ church.” The second quotation (v. 13a) is from Isaiah 8:17 ἔσομαιπεποιθὼς (a periphrastic future) ἐπ ʼ αὐτῷ , but the writer prefixes ἐγώ to ἔσομαι for emphasis. The insertion of ἐρεῖ by the LXX at the beginning of Isa 8:17 helped to suggest that the words were not spoken by the prophet himself. The fact that Jesus required to put faith in God proves that he was a human being like ourselves (see 12:2). In Philo trustful hope towards God is the essential mark of humanity; e.g. quod det. pot. 38 (on Genesis 4:26), τοῦδὲκατὰΜωυσῆνἀνθρώπουδιάθεσιςψυχῆςἐπὶτὸνὄντωςὄνταθεὸνἐλπιζούσης . The third quotation (v. 13b) is from the words which immediately follow in Isaiah 8:18, where the LXX breaks the Hebrew sentence into two, the first of which is quoted for his own purposes by the writer. The παιδία are God’ s children, the fellow υἱοί of Christ. It is too subtle to treat, with Zimmer, the three quotations as (a) a resolve to proclaim God, as a man to men; (b) a resolve to trust God amid the sufferings incurred in his mission, and (c) an anticipation of the reward of that mission. On the other hand, to omit the second καὶπάλιν as a scribal gloss (Bentley) would certainly improve the sense and avoid the necessity of splitting up an Isaianic quotation into two, the first of which is not strictly apposite. But καὶπάλιν is similarly1 used in 10:30; it is more easy to understand why such words should be omitted than inserted; and the deliberate addition of ἐγώ in the first points to an intentional use of the sentence as indirectly a confession of fellow-feeling with men on the part of the Son. The same words of the 22nd psalm are played upon by the Od. Sol 31:4: “ and he (i.e. messiah or Truth) lifted up his voice to the most High, and offered to Him the sons that were with him (or, in his hands).” In v. 14 κεκοινώνηκεν (here alone in the NT) takes the classical genitive, as in the LXX. An apt classical parallel occurs in the military writer Polyaenus (Strateg. iii.11. 1), where Chabrias tells his troops to think of their foes merely as ἀνθρώποιςαἷμακαὶσάρκαἔχουσι , καὶτῆςαὐτῆςφύσεωςἡμῖνκεκοινωνηκόσιν . The following phrase παραπλησίως (= “ similarly,” i.e. almost “ equally” or “ also,” as, e.g., in Maxim. Tyr. vii. 2, καὶἐστὶνκαὶὁἄρχωνπόλεωςμέρος , καὶοἱἀρχόμενοιπαραπλησίως ) μετέσχεν … ἵνακτλ , answers to the thought of ἠλαττωμένον … διὰτὸπάθημακτλ . above. The verb is simply a synonym for κοινωνεῖν ; in the papyri and the inscriptions μετέχειν is rather more common, but there is no distinction of meaning between the two. This idea (ἵνακτλ .) of crushing the devil as the wielder of death is not worked out by the writer. He alludes to it in passing as a belief current in his circle, and it must have had some context in his mind; but what this scheme of thought was, we can only guess. Evidently the devil was regarded as having a hold upon men somehow, a claim and control which meant death for them. One clue to the meaning is to be found in the religious ideas popularized by the Wisdom of Solomon, in which it is pretty clear that man was regarded as originally immortal (1:13, 14), that death did not form part of God’ s scheme at the beginning, and that the devil was responsible for the introduction of death into the world (2:23, 24); those who side with the devil encounter death , which they bring upon themselves as a result of their sins. Robertson Smith (Expositor2, iii. pp. 76 f.) suggests another explanation, viz., that Jesus removes the fear of death by acting as our Highpriest, since (cp. Numbers 18:5) the OT priests were responsible for averting death from the people, “ the fear of death” being “ specially connected with the approach of an impure worshipper before God.” This certainly paves the way for v. 17, but it does not explain the allusion to the devil, for the illustration of Zec 3:5f. is too remote. Corroborations of this idea are to be found in more quarters than one. (a) There is the rabbinic notion that the angel of death has the power of inflicting death, according to Pes. Kahana, 32. 189b; Mechilta, 72a on Exodus 20:20 (where Psalms 82:6 is applied to Israel at Sinai, since obedience to the Torah would have exempted them from the power of the angel of death), the angel of death being identified with the devil. (b) There is also the apocalyptic hope that messiah at the end would crush the power of the devil, a hope expressed in the second-century conclusion (Freer-Codex) to Mark, where the risen Christ declares that “ the limit of years for Satan’ s power has now expired.” (c) Possibly the author assumed and expanded Paul’ s view of death as the divine punishment for sin executed by the devil, and of Christ’ s death as a satisfaction which, by removing this curse of the law, did away with the devil’ s hold on sinful mortals. Theodoret’ s explanation (Dial. iii.) is that the sinlessness of Christ’ s human nature freed human nature from sin, which the devil had employed to enslave men: ἐπειδὴγὰρτιμωρίατῶνἁμαρτηκότωνὁθάνατοςἦν , τὸδὲσῶματὸΚυριακὸνοὐκἔχονἁμαρτίαςκηλῖδαὂπαρὰτὸνθεῖοννόμονὁθάνατοςἀδίκωςέξήρπασεν , ἀνέστησεμὲνπρῶτοντὸπαρανόμωςκατασχεθέν · ἔπειταδὲκαὶτοῖςἐνδίκωςκαθειργμένοιςὑπέσχετοτὴνἀπαλλαγήν . The force of the paradox in διὰτοῦθανάτου is explained by Chrysostom: δι ʼ οὗἐκράτησενὁδιάβολος , διὰτούτουἡττήθη . As the essence of σωτηρία is life, its negative aspect naturally involves emancipation from death. Ἔχειντὸκράτοςτοῦθανάτου means to wield the power of death, i.e. to have control of death. ἔχειντὸκράτος with the genitive in Greek denoting lordship in a certain sphere, e.g. Eurip. Helena, 68 . Ἀπαλλάξῃ goes with δουλείας (as in Joseph. Ant. 13. 13 (363), τῆςὑπὸτοῖςἐχθροῖςαὐτοὺςδουλείας … ἀπολλάττειν , etc.), which is thrown to the end of the sentence or emphasis, after ὅσοι … ἦσαν which qualifies τούτους . Ἔνοχοι is a passive adjective, equivalent to ἐνεχόμενοι , “ bound by” (as in Demosthenes, 1229), and goes with φόβῳθανάτου , which is not a causal dative. Ὅσοι in Hellenistic Greek is no more than the ordinary relative οἵ . Διὰπαντὸςτοῦζῆν , not simply in old age, as Musonius (ed. Hense, xvii.) thinks: καὶτόγεἀθλιώτατονποιοῦντὸνβίοντοῖςγέρουσιναὐτὸἐστὶν , ὁτοῦθανάτουφόβος . Aristeas (130, 141, 168) uses δι ʼ ὅλουτοῦζῆν , but διὰπαντὸςτοῦζῆν is an unparalleled (in NT Greek) instance of an attribute in the same case being added to the infinitive with a preposition. There is a classical parallel in the Platonic διὰπαντὸςτοῦεἶναι (Parmenides, 152 E); but τὸζῆν had already come to be equivalent to ὁβίος . The enslaving power of fear in general is described by Xenophon in the Cyropaedia, iii. 1. 23 f.: οἴειοὖντιμᾶλλονκαταδουλοῦσθαιἀνθρώπουςτοῦἰσχυροῦφόβου ; … οὕτωπάντωντῶνδεινῶνὁφόβοςμάλιστακαταπλήττειτὰςψυχάς . Here it is the fear of death, or rather of what comes after death, which is described. The Greek protest against the fear of death (cp. Epict. iii. 36. 28), as unworthy of the wise and good, is echoed by Philo (quod omnis probus liber, 3, ἐπαινεῖταιπαράτισινὁτρίμετρονἐκεῖνοποιήσας · “ τίςἐστιδοῦλος , τοῦθανεῖνἄφροντιςὤν ;’ ὡςμάλασυνιδὼντὸἀκόλουθον . Ὑπέλαβεγάρ , ὅτιοὐδὲνοὕτωδουλοῦσθαιπέφυκεδιάνοιαν , ὡςτὸἐπὶθανάτῳδέος , ἕνεκατοῦπρὸςτὸζῆνἱμέρου ). But the fear persisted, as we see from writers like Seneca (“ optanda mors est sine metu mortis mori,” Troades, 869) and Cicero; the latter deals with the fear of death in De Finibus, v. 11, as an almost universal emotion . Lucretius as a rationalist had denounced it magnificently in the De Rerum Natura, which “ is from end to end a passionate argument against the fear of death and the superstition of which it was the basis. The fear which he combated was not the fear of annihilation, but one with which the writer of this Epistle could sympathize, the fear of what might come after death; ‘ aeternas quoniam poenas in morte timendum est’ (i. 111)” (Wickham). The fear of death as death (cp. Harnack’ s History of Dogma, iii:180) has been felt even by strong Christians like Dr. Johnson. But our author has more in view. Seneca’ s epistles, for example, are thickly strewn with counsels against the fear of death; he remonstrates with Lucilius on the absurdity of it, discusses the legitimacy of suicide, if things come to the worst, points out that children and lunatics have no such fear (Ep. xxxvi. 12), and anticipates most of the modern arguments against this terror. Nevertheless, he admits that it controls human life to a remarkable extent, even though it is the thought of death, not death itself, that we dread (Ep. xxx. 17); he confesses that if you take anyone, young, middle-aged, or elderly, “ you will find them equally afraid of death” (22:14). And his deepest consolation is that death cannot be a very serious evil, because it is the last evil of all (“ quod extremum est,” Ep. iv. 3). Now the author of ΠρὸςἙβραίους sees more beyond death than Seneca. “ After death, the judgment.” The terror which he notes in men is inspired by the fact that death is not the final crisis (9:27). “ Ultra (i.e. post mortem) neque curae neque gaudio locum esse,” said Sallust. It was because a primitive Christian did see something “ ultra mortem,” that he was in fear, till his hope reassured him (9:28). It is noteworthy that here (vv. 14, 15) and elsewhere our author, not unlike the other διδάσκαλος who wrote the epistle of James, ignores entirely the idea of the devil as the source of temptation; he does not even imply the conception of the devil, as 1 Peter does, as the instigator of persecution. In one of his terse parentheses the writer now (v. 16) adds, οὐγὰρδήπουἀγγέλωνἐπιλαμβάνεται . Δήπου is the classical term for “ it need hardly be said” or “ of course,” and ἐπιλαμβάνεσθαι means “ to succour” . If it meant “ seize” or “ grip,” θάνατος (i.e. either death, or the angel of death, cp. v. 14) might be taken as the nominative, the verse being still a parenthesis. This idea, favoured by some moderns, seems to lie behind the Syriac version (cp. A. Bonus, Expository Times, xxxiii. pp. 234-236); but ἐπιλαμβάνεσθαι here corresponds to βοηθῆσαι in v. 18, and is used in the same good sense as in the other quotation in 8:9. The words ἀλλὰσπέρματοςἈβραὰμἐπιλαμβάνεται may be a reminiscence of Isa 41:8, Isaiah 41:9 where God reassures Israel: σπέρμαἈβραὰμ … οὗἀντελαβόμην . The archaic phrase was perhaps chosen, instead of a term like ἀνθρώπων ,1 on account of Abraham’ s position as the father of the faithful (see 11:8f.). Paul had already claimed it as a title for all Christians, irrespective of their birth: οὐκἔνιἸουδαῖοςοὐδὲἝλλην … εἰδὲὑμεῖςΧριστοῦ , ἆρατοῦἈβραὰμσπέρμαἐστέ (Galatians 3:28, Galatians 3:29), and our author likes these archaic, biblical periphrases. He repeats ἐπιλαμβάνεται after Ἀβραάμ to make a rhetorical antistrophe (see Introd. p. lvii). This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ 1 Holy brothers (ἅγιοι = οἱἁγιαζόμενοι , 2:11), you who participate in a heavenly calling, look at Jesus then (ὅθεν in the light of what has just been said), at the apostle and highpriest of our confession; 2 he is “ faithful” to Him who appointed him. For while “ Moses” also was “ faithful in every department of God`s house,” 3 Jesus (οὗτος , as in 10:12) has been adjudged greater glory than (παρά , as 1:4) Moses, inasmuch as the founder of a house enjoys greater honour than the house itself. 4 (Every house is founded by some one, but God is the founder of all.) 5 Besides, while “ Moses” was “ faithful in every department of God`s house” as an attendant— by way of witness to the coming revelation— 6 Christ is faithful as a son over God`s house. In v. 2 ὅλῳ (om. p 13 B sah boh Cyr. Amb.) may be a gloss from v. 5. In v. 3 the emphasis on πλείονος is better maintained by οὗτοςδόξης (א A B C D P vt Chrys.) than by δόξηςοὗτος (p 13 K L M 6. 33. 104. 326. 1175. 1288 vg) or by the omission of οὗτος altogether (467 arm Basil). In v. 4 πάντα has been harmonized artificially with 1:3, 2:10 by the addition of τά (Cc L P Ψ 104. 326. 1175. 1128 Athan.). For the first time the writer addresses his readers, and as ἀδελφοὶἅγιοι (only here in NT, for ἁγίοις in 1 Thessalonians 5:27 is a later insertion), κλήσεωςἐπουρανίουμέτοχοι (6:4 etc., cp. Psalms 119:63 μέτοχοςἐγώεἰμιπάντωντῶνφοβουμένωνσε , Ep. Arist. 207; de Mundo, 401b). In Philippians 3:14 the ἄνωκλῆσις is the prize conferred at the end upon Christian faith and faithfulness. Here there may be a side allusion to 2:11 . In κατανοήσατε (a verb used in this general sense by Ep. Aristeas, 3, πρὸςτὸπεριέργωςτὰθεῖακατανοεῖν ) κτλ ., the writer summons his readers to consider Jesus as πιστός ; but, instead of explaining why or how Jesus was loyal to God, he uses this quality to bring out two respects (the first in vv. 2a-4, the second in vv. 5-6a) in which Jesus outshone Moses, the divinely-commissioned leader and lawgiver of the People in far-off days, although there is no tone of disparagement in the comparison with Moses, as in the comparison with the angels. In the description of Jesus as τὸνἀπόστολονκαὶἀρχιερέατῆςὁμολογίαςἡμῶν , ὁμολογία is almost an equivalent for “ our religion,” as in 4:14 (cp. 10:23).1 Through the sense of a vow (LXX) or of a legal agreement (papyri and inscriptions), it had naturally passed into the Christian vocabulary as a term for the common and solemn confession or creed of faith. Ἡμῶν is emphatic. In “ our religion” it is Jesus who is ἀπόστολοςκαὶἀρχιερεύς , not Moses. This suits the context better than to make the antithesis one between the law and the gospel . Possibly the writer had in mind the Jewish veneration for Moses which found expression during the second century in a remark of rabbi Jose ben Chalafta upon this very phrase from Numbers (Sifre, § 110): “ God calls Moses ‘ faithful in all His house,’ and thereby he ranked higher than the ministering angels themselves.” The use of ἀπόστολος as an epithet for Jesus shows “ the fresh creative genius of the writer and the unconventional nature of his style” (Bruce). Over half a century later, Justin (in Revelation 1:12) called Jesus Christ τοῦπατρὸςπάντωνκαὶδεσπότουθεοῦυἱὸςκαὶἀπόστολοςὤν , and in Apol. 1:63 described him as ἄγγελοςκαὶἀπόστολος · αὐτὸςγὰρἀπαγγέλλειὅσαδεῖγνωσθῆναι , καὶἀποστέλλεται , μηνύσωνὅσαἀγγέλλεται (the connexion of thought here possibly explains the alteration of διηγήσομαι into ἀπαγγελῶ in Hebrews 2:12). Naturally Jesus was rarely called ἄγγελος ; but it was all the easier for our author to call Jesus ἀπόστολος , as he avoids the term in its ecclesiastical sense (cp. 2:3). For him it carries the usual associations of authority; ἀπόστολος is Ionic for πρεσβευτής , not a mere envoy, but an ambassador or representative sent with powers, authorized to speak in the name of the person who has dispatched him. Here the allusion is to 2:3, where the parallel is with the Sinaitic legislation, just as the allusion to Jesus as ἀρχιερεύς recalls the ὁἁγιάζων of 2:11, 17. On the other hand, it is not so clear that any explicit antithesis to Moses is implied in ἀρχιερέα , for, although Philo had invested Moses with highpriestly honour (praem. et poen. 9, τυγχάνει … ἀρχιερωσύνης , de vita Mosis ii., I, ἐγένετογὰρπρονοίᾳθεοῦ … ἀρχιερεύς ), this is never prominent, and it is never worked out in “ Hebrews.” The reason why they are to look at Jesus is (v. 2) his faithfulness τῷποιήσαντιαὐτόν , where ποιεῖν means “ to appoint” to an office . This faithfulness puts him above Moses for two reasons. First (vv. 2b-4), because he is the founder of the House or Household of God, whereas Moses is part of the House. The text the writer has in mind is Numbers 12:7 , and the argument of v. 3, where οἶκος , like our “ house,” includes the sense of household or family,1 turns on the assumption that Moses belonged to the οἶκος in which he served so faithfully. How Jesus “ founded” God`s household, we are not told. But there was an οἶκοςθεοῦ before Moses, as is noted later in 11:2, 25, a line of πρεσβύτεροι who lived by faith; and their existence is naturally referred to the eternal Son. The founding of the Household is part and parcel of the creation of the τὰπάντα (1:2, 3). Κατασκευάζειν includes, of course (see 9:2, 6), the arrangement of the οἶκος (cp. Epict. i. 6. 7-10, where κατασκευάζω is similarly used in the argument from design). The author then adds an edifying aside, in v. 4, to explain how the οἶκος was God`s , though Jesus had specially founded it. It would ease the connexion of thought if θεός meant (as in 1:8?) “ divine” as applied to Christ (so, e.g., Cramer, M. Stuart), or if οὗτος could be read for θεός , as Blass actually proposes. But this is to rewrite the passage. Nor can we take αὐτοῦ in v. 6a as “ Christ`s” ; there are not two Households, and πᾶς (v. 4) does not mean “ each” (so, e.g., Reuss). Αὐτοῦ in vv. 2, 5; and 6a must mean “ God`s.” He as creator is ultimately responsible for the House which, under him, Jesus founded and supervises. This was a commonplace of ancient thought. Justin, e.g., observes: Μενάνδρῳτῷκωμικῷκαὶτοῖςταῦταφήσασιταὐτὰφράζομεν · μείζοναγὰρτὸνδημιουργὸντοῦσκευαζομένουἀπεφήνατο (Revelation 1:20). It had been remarked by Philo (De Plant. 16): ὅσῳγὰρὁκτησάμενοςτὸκτῆματοῦκτήματοςἀμείνωνκαὶτὸπεποιηκὸςτοῦγεγονότος , τοσούτῳβασιλικώτεροιἀκεῖνοι , and in Legum Allegor. iii. 32 he argues that just as no one would ever suppose that a furnished mansion had been completed ἄνευτέχνηςκαὶδημιουργοῦ , so anyone entering and studying the universe ὥσπερεἰςμεγίστηνοἰκίανἢπόλιν would naturally conclude that ἧνκαὶἔστινὁτοῦδετοῦπαντὸςδημιουργὸςὁθεός . The usual way of combining the thought of v. 4 with the context is indicated by Lactantius in proving the unity of the Father and the Son (diuin. instit. iv. 29): “ When anyone has a son of whom he is specially fond (quem unice diligat), a son who is still in the house and under his father`s authority (in manu patris)— he may grant him the name and power of lord (nomen domini potestatemque), yet by civil law (civili iure) the house is one, and one is called lord. So this world is one house of God, and the Son and the Father, who in harmony (unanimos) dwell in the world, are one God.” The second (5-6a) proof of the superiority of Jesus to Moses is now introduced by καί . It rests on the term θεράπων used of Moses in the context (as well as in Numbers 11:11, Numbers 11:12:7, Numbers 11:8 etc.; of Moses and Aaron in Wis 10:16, 18:21); θεράπων is not the same as δοῦλος , but for our author it is less than υἱός , and he contrasts Moses as the θεράπωνἐντῷοἴκῳ with Jesus as the Son ἐπὶτὸνοἶκον , ἐπί used as in 10:21 and Matthew 25:21, Matthew 25:23 . Moses is “ egregius domesticus fidei tuae” (Aug. Conf. xii. 23). The difficult phrase εἰςτὸμαρτύριοντῶνλαληθησομένων means, like 9:9, that the position of Moses was one which pointed beyond itself to a future and higher revelation; the tabernacle was a σκήνητοῦμαρτυρίου (Numbers 12:5) in a deep sense. This is much more likely than the idea that the faithfulness of Moses guaranteed the trustworthiness of anything he said, or even that Moses merely served to bear testimony of what God revealed from time to time (as if the writer was thinking of the words στόμακατὰστόμαλαλήσωαὐτῷ which follow the above-quoted text in Numbers). The writer now passes into a long appeal for loyalty, which has three movements (3:6b-19, 4:1-10, 4:11-13). The first two are connected with a homily on Psalms 95:7-11 as a divine warning against the peril of apostasy, the story of Israel after the exodus from Egypt being chosen as a solemn instance of how easy and fatal it is to forfeit privilege by practical unbelief. It is a variant upon the theme of 2:2, 3 suggested by the comparison between Moses and Jesus, but there is no comparison between Jesus and Joshua; for although the former opens up the Rest for the People of to-day, the stress of the exhortation falls upon the unbelief and disobedience of the People in the past. 6 Now we are this house of God , if we will only keep confident and proud of our hope. 7 Therefore, as the holy Spirit says: “ Today, when (ἐάν , as in 1 John 2:28) you hear his voice, 8 harden not (μὴσκληρύνητε , aor. subj. of negative entreaty) your hearts as at the Provocation, on the day of the Temptation in the desert, 9 where (οὗ = ὅπου as Deuteronomy 8:15) your fathers put me to the proof, 10 and for forty years felt what I could do.” Therefore “ I grew exasperated with that generation, I said, ‘ They are always astray in their heart’ ; they would not learn my ways; 11 so (ὡς consecutive) I swore in my anger ‘ they shall never (εἰ = the emphatic negative א ם in oaths) enter my Rest.’ ” 12 Brothers, take care in case there is a wicked, unbelieving heart in any of you, moving you to apostatize from the living God. 13 Rather admonish one another daily, so long as this word “ Today” is uttered. that none of you may be deceived by sin and “ hardened.” 14 For we only participate in Christ provided that we keep firm to the very end the confidence with which we started, 15 this word ever sounding in our ears: “ Today when you hear his voice, harden not your hearts as at the Provocation.” 16 Who heard and yet “ provoked” him? Was it not all who left Egypt under the leadership of Moses? 17 And with whom was he exasperated for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose “ corpses1 fell in the desert” ? 18 And to whom “ did he swear that they would never enter his Rest” ? To whom but those who disobeyed (ἀπειθήσασιν , cp. Acts 19:9)? 19 Thus (καί consecutive) we see it was owing to unbelief that they could not enter. In v. 6 (a) οὗ is altered into ὅς by D* M 6. 424 Lat Lucifer, Ambr. Priscillian, probably owing to the erroneous idea that the definite article (supplied by 440. 2005) would have been necessary between οὗ and οἶκος . (b) ἐάν is assimilated to the text of v. 14 by a change to ἐάνπερ in א c A C Dc K L W syrhkl Lucifer, Chrys, etc. (von Soden). (c) After ἐλπίδος the words μέχριτέλουςβεβαίαν are inserted from v. 14 by a number of MSS; the shorter, correct text is preserved in P13 B 1739 sah eth Lucifer, Ambrose. V. 6b introduces the appeal, by a transition from 6a. When Philo claims that παρρησία is the mark of intelligent religion (quis rer. div. haeres, 4, τοῖςμὲνοὖνἀμαθέσισυμφέρονἡσυχία , τοῖςδὲἐπιστήμηςἐφιεμένοιςκαὶἅμαφιλοδεσπότοιςἀναγκαιότατονἡπαρρησίακτῆμα ), he means by παρρησία the confidence which is not afraid to pray aloud: cp. ib. 5 (παρρησίαδὲφιλίαςσυγγενές , ἐπεὶπρὸςτίναἄντιςἢπρὸςτὸνἑαυτοῦφίλονπαρρησιάσαιτο ;), where the prayers and remonstrances of Moses are explained as a proof that he was God`s friend. But here as elsewhere in the NT παρρησία has the broader meaning of “ confidence” which already appears in the LXX . This confidence is the outcome of the Christian ἐλπίς ; here as in 4:16 and 10:19, 35; it denotes the believing man`s attitude to a God whom he knows to be trustworthy. The idea of τὸκαύχηματῆςἐλπίδος is exactly that of Rom 5:2 , and of a saying like Psalms 5:12 . Διό in v. 7 goes most naturally with μὴσκληρύνητε (v. 8), the thought of which recurs in v. 13 as the central thread. The alternative, to take it with βλέπετε in v. 12, which turns the whole quotation into a parenthesis, seems to blunt the direct force of the admonition; it makes the parenthesis far too long, and empties the second διό of its meaning. βλέπετε is no more abrupt in v. 12 than in 12:25; it introduces a sharp, sudden warning, without any particle like οὖν or δέ , and requires no previous term like διό . The quotation is introduced as in 10:15 by “ the holy Spirit” as the Speaker, a rabbinic idea of inspiration. The quotation itself is from Psalms 95:7-11 which in A runs as follows: σήμερονἐὰντῆςφωνῆςαὐτοῦἀκούσητε , μὴσκληρύνητετὰςκαρδίαςὑμῶνὡςἐντῷπαραπικρασμῷ κατὰτὴνἡμέραντοῦπειρασμοῦἐντῇἐρήμῳ · οὗἐπείρασαν 1 οἱπατέρεςὑμῶν , ἐδοκίμασανμεκαὶἴδοντὰἔργαμου . τεσσεράκονταἔτηπροσώχθισατῇγενεᾷἐκείνῃ ,2 καὶεἶπον · 3 ἀεὶ 4 πλανῶνταιτῇκαρδίᾳ , αὐτοὶδὲοὐκἔγνωσαντὰςὁδούςμου . ὡςὤμοσαἐντῇὀργῇμου , εἰεἰσελεύσονταιεἰςτὴνκατάπαυσίνμου . In vv. 9, 10, though he knew (v. 17) the correct connexion of the LXX (cp. v. 17a), he alters it here for his own purpose, taking τεσσαράκονταἔτη with what precedes instead of with what follows, inserting διό (which crept into the text of R in the psalm) before προσώχθισα for emphasis, and altering ἐδοκίμασανμε into ἐνδοκιμασίᾳ .5 The LXX always renders the place-names “ Meriba” and “ Massa” by generalizing moral terms, here by παραπικρασμός and πειρασμός , the former only here in the LXX (Aquila, 1 Samuel 15:33; Theodotion, Proverbs 17:11). The displacement of τεσσεράκονταἔτη was all the more feasible as εἶδοντὰἔργαμου meant for him the experience of God`s punishing indignation. (Τεσσαράκοντα is better attested than τεσσεράκοντα (Moulton, ii. 66) for the first century.) There is no hint that the writer was conscious of the rabbinic tradition, deduced from this psalm, that the period of messiah would last for forty years, still less that he had any idea of comparing this term with the period between the crucifixion and 70 a.d. What he really does is to manipulate the LXX text in order to bring out his idea that the entire forty years in the desert were a “ day of temptation,” 6 during which the People exasperated God. Hence (in v. 9) he transfers the “ forty years” to εἶδοντὰἔργαμου , in order to emphasize the truth that the stay of the People in the desert was one long provocation of God; for εἶδοντὰἔργαμου is not an aggravation of their offence , but a reminder that all along God let them feel how he could punish them for their disobedience. Finally, their long-continued obstinacy led him to exclude them from the land of Rest. This “ finally” does not mean that the divine oath of exclusion was pronounced at the end of the forty years in the desert, but that as the result of God`s experience he gradually killed off (v. 17) all those who had left Egypt. This retribution was forced upon him by the conviction αὐτοὶδὲοὐκἔγνωσαντὰςὁδούςμου (i.e. would not learn my laws for life, cared not to take my road). The rabbinic interpretation of Psa_95 as messianic appears in the legend (T.B. Sanhedrim, 98a) of R. Joshua ben Levi and Elijah. When the rabbi was sent by Elijah to messiah at the gates of Rome, he asked, “ Lord, when comest thou?” He answered, “ To-day.” Joshua returned to Elijah, who inquired of him: “ What said He to thee?” Joshua: “ Peace be with thee, son of Levi.” Elijah: “ Thereby He has assured to thee and My father a prospect of attaining the world to come.” Joshua: “ But He has deceived me, by telling me He would come to-day.” Elijah: “ Not so, what He meant was, To-day, if you will hear His voice.” The severe view of the fate of the wilderness-generation also appears in Sanh. 110b, where it is proved that the generation of the wilderness have no part in the world to come, from Numbers 14:35 and also from Psa_95 (as I swore in my anger that they should not enter into my Rest). This was rabbi Akiba’ s stern reading of the text. But rabbinic opinion, as reflected in the Mishna (cp. W. Bacher, Agada der Tannaiten2, i. 135 f.), varied on the question of the fate assigned to the generation of Israelited during the forty years of wandering in the desert. While some authorities took Psalms 95:11 strictly, as if the “ rest” meant the rest after death, and these Israelites were by the divine oath excluded from the world to come, others endeavoured to minimize the text; God`s oath only referred to the incredulous spies, they argued, or it was uttered in the haste of anger and recalled. In defence of the latter milder view Psalms 50:5 was quoted, and Isaiah 35:10. Our author takes the sterner view, reproduced later by Dante (Purgatorio, xviii. 133-135), for example, who makes the Israelites an example of sloth; “ the folk for whom the sea opened were dead ere Jordan saw the heirs of promise.” He never speaks of men “ tempting God,” apart from this quotation, and indeed, except in 11:17, God`s πειρασμός or probation of men is confined to the human life of Jesus. For διό in v. 10 Clem. Alex. (Protrept. 9) reads δι ʼ ο . Προσωχθίζειν is a LXX term for the indignant loathing excited by some defiance of God’ s will, here by a discontented, critical attitude towards him. In v. 11 κατάπαυσις is used of Canaan as the promised land of settled peace, as only in Deuteronomy 12:9 and 1 K 8:56 . The mystical sense is developed in 4:3f. The application (vv. 12f.) opens with βλέπετεμὴ … ἔσται , the reason for the future being probably “ because the verb εἰμί has no aorist, which is the tense required,” Field, Notes on Translation of N.T., p. 38) ἐντινιὑμῶν — the same concern for individuals as in 4:11, 10:25, 12:15— καρδίαἀπιστίας (genitive of quality— a Semitism here). Ἀπιστία must mean more than “ incredulity” ; the assonance with ἀποστῆναι was all the more apt as ἀπιστία denoted the unbelief which issues in action, ἐντῷἀποστῆναι — the idea as in Ezekiel 20:8 καὶἀπέστησανἀπ ʼ ἐμοῦ , καὶοὐκἠθέλησανεἰσακοῦσαιμου , though the preposition ἀπό was not needed, as may be seen, e.g., in Wis 3:10 . Our author is fond of this construction, the infinitive with a preposition. “ The living God” suggests what they lose by their apostasy, and what they bring upon themselves by way of retribution (10:31), especially the latter (cp. 4:12). There is no real distinction between θεοῦζῶντος and τοῦθεοῦζῶντος , for the article could be dropped, as in the case of θεὸςπατήρ and κύριοςἸησούς , once the expression became stamped and current. In v. 13 παρακαλεῖτε … καθ ʼ ἑκάστηνἡμέραν emphasizes the keen, constant care of the community for its members, which is one feature of the epistle. In ἄχριςοὗ (elsewhere in NT with aorist or future), which is not a common phrase among Attic historians and orators, ἄχρις is a Hellenistic form of ἄχρι (p13 M) used sometimes when a vowel followed. Σήμερον is “ God`s instant men call years” (Browning), and the paronamasia in καλεῖται 1 … παρακαλεῖτε led the writer to prefer καλεῖται to a term like κηρύσσεται . The period (see 4:7) is that during which God`s call and opportunity still hold out, and the same idea is expressed in ἐντῷλέγεσθαιΣήμερονκτλ . (v. 15). ἐξὑμῶν is sufficiently emphatic as it stands, without being shifted forward before τις (B D K L d e etc. harkl Theodt. Dam.) in order to contrast ὑμεῖς with οἱπατέρεςὑμῶν (v. 9). As for ἡἁμαρτία , it is the sin of apostasy (12:4), which like all sin deceives men (Romans 7:11), in this case by persuading them that they will be better off if they allow themselves to abandon the exacting demands of God. The responsibility of their position is expressed in ἵναμὴσκληρυνθῇ , a passive with a middle meaning; men can harden themselves or let lower considerations harden them against the call of God. As Clement of Alexandria (Protrept. ix.) explains: ὁρᾶτετὴνἀπειλήν · ὁρᾶτετὴνπροτροπήν · ὁρᾶτετὴντιμήν . τίδὴοὖνἔτιτὴνχάρινεἰςὀργὴνμεταλλάσσομεν … ; μεγάληγὰρτῆςἐπαγγελίαςαὐτοῦἡχάρις , “ ἐὰνσήμεροντῆςφωνῆςαὐτοῦἀκουσῶμεν ” · τὸδὲσήμεροντῆςφωνῆςαὐτοῦαὔξεταιτὴνἡμέραν , ἔστ ʼ ἂνἡσήμερονὀνομάζηται . In v. 14 μέτοχοιτοῦΧριστοῦ (which is not an equivalent for the Pauline ἐνΧριστῷ , but rather means to have a personal interest in him) answers to μέτοχοικλήσεωςἐπουρανίου in v. 1 and to μετόχουςπνεύματοςἁγίου in 6:4; γεγόναμεν betrays the predilection of the writer for γέγονα rather than its equivalent εἰναι . Ἐάνπερ an intensive particle (for ἐάν , v. 6) τὴνἀρχὴντῆςὑποστάσεως (genitive of apposition)— i.e. “ our initial confidence” (the idea of 10:32)— κατάσχωμεν (echoing v. 6b). The misinterpretation of ὑποστάσεως as (Christ’ s) “ substance” 1 led to the addition of αὐτοῦ (A 588. 623. 1827. 1912 vg). But ὑπόστασις here as in 11:1 denotes a firm, confident conviction or resolute hope (in LXX, e.g., Rth 1:12 ἔστινμοιὑπόστασιςτοῦγενηθῆναιμεἀνδρί , rendering ת ק ו ה , which is translated by ἐλπίς in Proverbs 11:7), with the associations of steadfast patience under trying discouragements. This psychological meaning was already current , alongside of the physical or metaphysical. What a man bases himself on, as he confronts the future, is his ὑπόστασις , which here in sound and even (by contrast) in thought answers to ἀποστῆναι . It is possible to regard v. 14 as a parenthesis, and connect ἐντῷλέγεσθαι (v. 15) closely with παρακαλεῖτε or ἵναμὴ … ἁμαρτίας (v. 13), but this is less natural; ἐντῷλέγεσθαι connects easily and aptly with κατάσχωμεν , and vv. 14, 15 thus carry on positively the thought of v. 13, viz. that the writer and his readers are still within the sound of God’ s call to his οἶκος to be πιστός . The pointed questions which now follow (vv. 16-18) are a favourite device of the diatribe style. Παραπικραίνειν 2 in v. 16 seems to have been coined by the LXX to express “ rebellious” with a further sense of provoking or angering God; e.g. Deuteronomy 31:27 παραπικραίνοντεςἦτετὰπρὸςτὸνθεόν , and Deuteronomy 32:16 ἐνβδελύγμασιναὐτῶνπαρεπίκρανάνμε . The sense of “ disobey” recurs occasionally in the LXX psalter (e.g. 104:28, 106:11); indeed the term involves a disobedience which stirs up the divine anger against rebels, the flagrant disobedience (cp. παραβαίνειν for מ ר ה in Deuteronomy 1:43, Numbers 27:14) which rouses exasperation in God. Ἀλλ ʼ , one rhetorical question being answered by another (as Luke 17:8), logically presupposes τινές , but τίνες must be read in the previous question. By writing πάντες the writer does not stop to allow for the faithful minority, as Paul does . In the grave conclusion (v. 19) δι ʼ ἀπιστίαν (from v. 12) is thrown to the end for the sake of emphasis. But, the author continues (4:1f.), the promised rest is still available; it is open to faith, though only to faith (1-3). No matter how certainly all has been done upon God’ s part (3-5), and no matter how sure some human beings are to share his Rest (v. 6), it does not follow that we shall, unless we take warning by this failure of our fathers in the past and have faith in God. Such is the urgent general idea of this paragraph. But the argument is compressed; the writer complicates it by defining the divine Rest as the sabbath-rest of eternity, and also by introducing an allusion to Joshua. That is, he (a) explains God’ s κατάπαυσις in Psa_95 by the σαββατισμός of Genesis 2:2, and then (b) draws an inference from the fact that the psalm-promise is long subsequent to the announcement of the σαββατισμός . He assumes that there is only one Rest mentioned, the κατάπαυσις into which God entered when he finished the work of creation, to which οἱπατέρεςὑμῶν were called under Moses, and to which Christians are now called. They must never lose faith in it, whatever be appearances to the contrary. B [03: δ 1] cont. 1:1-9:18: for remainder cp. cursive 293. sah The Coptic Version of the NT in the Southern Dialect (Oxford, 1920), vol. v. pp. 1-131. boh The Coptic Version of the NT in the Northern Dialect (Oxford, 1905), vol. iii. pp. 472-555. Amb Ambrose. א Ԡ [01: δ 2). A [02: δ 4]. C [04: δ 3] cont. 2:4-7:26 9:15-10:24 12:16-13:25. D [06: α 1026] cont. 1:1-13:20. Codex Claromontanus is a Graeco-Latin MS, whose Greek text is poorly * reproduced in the later (saec. ix.-x.) E = codex Sangermanensis. The Greek text of the latter (1:1-12:8) is therefore of no independent value (cp. Hort in WH, § § 335-337); for its Latin text, as well as for that of F=codex Augiensis (saec. ix.), whose Greek text of ΠρὸςἘβραίους has not been preserved, see below, p. lxix. P [025: α 3] cont. 1:1-12:8 12:11-13:25. K [018:1:1]. L [020: α 5] cont. 1:1-13:10. M [0121: α 1031] cont. 1:1-4:3 12:20-13:25. 6 [δ 356] cont. 1:1-9:3 10:22-13:25 33 [δ 48] Hort’ s 17 104 [α 103] 326 [α 257] 1175 [α 74] cont. 1:1-3:5 6:8-13:20 1288 [α 162] Ψ̠ [044: δ 6] cont. 1:1-8:11 9:19-13:25. Athan Athanasius 1 Had it not been for these other references it might have been possible to take τ . ὀ . ἡ . here as = “ whom we confess.” The contents of the ὁμολογία are suggested in the beliefs of 6:1f., which form the fixed principles and standards of the community, the Truth (10:26) to which assent was given at baptisra. LXX The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint Version (ed. H. B. Swete). Philo Philonis Alexandriai Opera Quae Supersunt (recognoverunt L. Cohn et P. Wendland). 1 Our author avoids (see on 2:12) ἐκκλησία , unlike the author of 1 Timothy 3:15 who writes ἐνοἴκῳθεοῦ , ἤτιςἐστὶνἐκκλησίατοῦθεοῦ . Blass F. Blass, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch: vierte, vö llig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner (1913); also, Brief an die Hebrä er, Text mit Angabe der Rhythmen (1903). 1 κῶλα in this sense is from Numbers 14:29, Numbers 14:32, a passage which the writer has in mind. 424 [O 12] Hort’ s 67 440 [δ 260] 2005 [α 1436] cont. 1:1-7:2 W [I] cont. 1:1-3, 9-12. 2:4-7, 12-14. 3:4-6, 14-16 4:3-6, 12-14 5:5-7 6:1-3, 10-13, 20 7:1-2, 7-11, 18-20, 27-28 8:1, 7-9 9:1-4, 9-11, 16-19, 25-27 10:5-8, 16-18, 26-29, 35-38 11:6-7, 12-15, 22-24, 31-33, 38-40 12:1, 7-9, 16-18, 25-27 13:7-9, 16-18, 23-25: NT MSS in Freer Collection, The Washington MS of the Epp. of Paul (1918), pp. 294-306. Supports Alexandrian text, and is “ quite free from Western readings.” c (Codex Colbertinus: saec. xii.) 1739 [α 78] 1 א ca adds με (so T), which has crept (needlessly, for πειράζειν may be used absolutely as in 1 Corinthians 10:9) into the text of Hebrews through א c Dc M vg pesh harkl boh arm Apollin. 2 In some texts of Hebrews (p 13 א A B D* M 33. 424** vg Clem. Apollin.) this becomes (under the influence of the literal view of forty years?) ταύτῃ (ἐκείνῃ in C Dc K L P syr sah boh arm eth Eus. Cyril, Chrys.). 3 The Ionic form εἶπα (B) has slipped into some texts of Hebrews (A D 33. 206. 489. 1288. 1518. 1836). 4 The LXX is stronger than the Hebrew; it appears to translate not the ע ם of the MT, but ע ל ם (cp. Flashar in Zeits fü r alt. Wiss., 1912, 84-85). 5 ἐδοκίμασαν is read in the text of Hebrews, by assimilation, in א c Dc K L vg syr arm eth Apollin. Lucifer, Ambr, Chrys. etc. i.e. Ε̄ΔΟΚΙΜΑ CΙΑ was altered into ΕΔΟΚΙΜΑ CᾹ . Moulton J. H. Moulton’ s Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. i. (2nd edition, 1906). 6 The κατά in κατὰτὴνἡμέραν (v. 8) is temporal as in 1:10, 7:27, not “ after the manner of” (“ secundum,” vg). 1 The common confusion between αι and ει led to the variant καλεῖτε (AC). 1 Another early error was to regard it as “ our substance,” so that ἡἀρχὴτῆςὑποστάσεως meant faith as “ the beginning of our true nature” (a view already current in Chrysostom). 623 [α 173] 1827 [α 367] 1912 [α 1066] vg vg Vulgate, saec. iv. 2 In Deuteronomy 32:16 it is parallel to παροξύνειν ; cp. Flashar’ s discussion in Zeitlschrift fü r alt. Wiss., 1912, 185 f. It does not always require an object (God). 1Well then, as the promise of entrance into his Rest is still left to us, let us be afraid of anyone being judged to have missed it. 2For (καὶγάρ = etenim) we have had the good news as well as they (ἐκεῖνοι =3:8, 19); only, the message they heard was of no use to them, because it did not meet with faith in the hearers. 3 For we do “ enter the Rest” by our faith: according to his word, “ As I swore in my anger, they shall never enter my Rest” — although “ his works” were all over by the foundation of the world. 4For he says somewhere about the seventh day: “ And God rested from all his works on the seventh day.” 5And again in this passage, “ they shall never enter my Rest.” 6Since then it is reserved (ἀπολείπεται , a variant for καταλειπ . v. 1) for some “ to enter it,” and since those who formerly got the good news failed to “ enter” owing to their disobedience,1 7he again fixes a day; “ today” — as he says in “ David” after so long an interval, and as has been already quoted: “ Today, when you hear his voice, harden not your hearts.” 8Thus if Joshua had given them Rest, God would not speak later about another day. There is a sabbath-Rest, then, reserved (ἀπολείπεται , as in 6) still for the People of God (for once “ a man enters his (αὐτοῦ , i.e. God’ s) rest,” he “ rests from work” just as God did). Ἐπαγγελία (v. 1) is not common in the LXX, though it mistranslates ס ִ פ ְ ר ָ ה in Psalms 56:8, and is occasionally the term for a human promise. In the Prayer of Manasseh (6) it is the divine promise , and recurs in the plural, of the divine promises, in Test. Joshua 20:1 and Ps. Sol 12:8 (ὅσιοικυρίουκληρονομήσαιενἐπαγγελίαςκυρίου — the first occurrence of this phrase κλ . ἐπ ., cp. below on 6:12). Καταλειπομένηςἐπαγγελίας (+ τῆς D* 255, from 6:15, 17, 11:9) is a genitive absolute. Ἐπαγγελίαςεἰσελθεῖν (like ὁρμὴ … ὑβρίσαι in Acts 14:5) κτλ : the basis of the appeal is (a) that the divine promise of Rest has been neither fulfilled nor withdrawn ; and (b) that the punishment which befalls others is a warning to ourselves (cp. Philo, ad Gaium, 1: αἱγὰρἑτέρωντιμωρίαιβελτοιῦσιτοὺςπολλούς , φόβῳτοῦμὴπαραπλήσιαπαθεῖν ). By a well-known literary device μήποτε , like μή in 12:15, takes a present , instead of the more usual aorist, subjunctive. Δοκῇ means “ judged” or “ adjudged,” as in Josephus, Ant. viii. 32, κἂνἀλλότριονδοκῇ . This is common in the LXX, e.g. in Proverbs 17:28 ἐνεὸνδέτιςἑαυτὸνποιήσαςδόξειφρόνιμοςεἶναι , 27:14 ; indeed it is an ordinary Attic use which goes back to Plato and Demosthenes (629. 17, οἱδεδογμένοιἀνδροφόνοι = the convicted murderers). The searching scrutiny which passes this verdict upon lack of faith is the work of the divine Logos (in v. 12). In v. 2 εὐηγγελισμένοι is remarkable. Our author, who never uses εὐαγγέλιον (preferring ἐπαγγελία here as an equivalent), employs the passive of εὐαγγελίζειν 1 (as in v. 6) in the broad sense of “ having good news brought to one.” The passive occurs in LXX of 2 S 18:31 and in Matthew 11:5 . The καί after καθάπερ emphasizes as usual the idea of correspondence. The reason for the failure of the past generation was that they merely heard what God said, and did not believe him; ὁλόγοςτῆςἀκοῆς (ἀκοῆς , passive = “ sermo auditus,” vg), which is another (see 3:12) instance of the Semitic genitive of quality, is defined as μήσυγκεκραμένοςτῇπίστειτοῖςἀκούσασιν , since it did not get blended with faith in (the case of) those who heard it. Or τῇπίστει may be an instrumental dative: “ since it did not enter vitally into the hearers by means of the faith which it normally awakens in men.” The fault lies, as in the parable of the Sower, not with the message but with the hearers. The phrase λόγος … συγκεκρασμένος may be illustrated from Menander (Stob. Serm. 42, p. 302), τὴντοῦλόγουμὲνδύναμινοὐκἐπίφθονονἤθειδὲχρηστῷσυγκεκραμένηνἔχειν , and Plutarch, non posse suauiter vivi secundum Epicurum, 1101, βέλτιονγὰρἐνυπάρχειντικαὶσυγκεκρᾶσθαιτῇπερὶθεῶνδόξῃκοινὸναἰδοῦςκαὶφόβουπάθοςκτλ . The use of λόγος with such verbs is illustrated by Plutarch, Vit. Cleom. 2 (ὁδὲΣτωικὸςλόγος … βάθειδὲκαὶπράῳκεραννύμενοςἤθειμάλισταεἰςτὸοἰκεῖονἀγαθὸνἐπιδίδωσιν ). Κρᾶσις occurs in Philo’ s definition of φιλία (Quaest. in Genesis 2:18) as consisting [οὐκ ] ἐντῷχρειώδειμᾶλλονἢκράσεικαὶσυμφωνίᾳβεβαίῳτῶνἠθῶν , and συγκεκρᾶσθαι in his description of the union of spirit and blood in the human body . The original reading συγκεκραμένος (א 114 vt pesh Lucif.) was soon assimilated into the accusative -ους (p13 A B C D K L M P vg boh syrhkl etc. Chrys. Theod.-Mops. Aug.), and this led to the alteration of τοῖςἀκούσασιν into τῶνἀκουσάντων (D* 104. 1611. 2005 d syrhkl mg Lucif.), or τοῖςἀκουσθεῖσιν (1912 vg Theod. -Mops.), or τοῖςἀκούουσιν (1891). The absence of any allusion elsewhere to the faithful minority (Caleb, Joshua) tells decisively against συγκεκρασμένονς ; for the writer (see above) never takes them into account, and, to make any sense, this reading implies them. How could the majority be blamed for not associating with believing hearers when ex hypothesi there were none such? The writer now (vv. 3-10) lays emphasis upon the reality of the Rest. “ We have had this good news too as well as they,” for we believers do enter into God’ s Rest; it is prepared and open, it has been ready ever since the world began— ἄραἀπολείπεταισαββατισμὸςτῷλαῷτοῦθεοῦ . Εἰσερχόμεθα is the emphatic word in v. 3: “ we do (we are sure to) enter,” the futuristic present (“ ingrediemur,” vg). When God excluded that unbelieving generation from his Rest, he was already himself in his Rest. The κατάπαυσις was already in existence; the reason why these men did not gain entrance was their own unbelief, not any failure on God’ s part to have the Rest ready. Long ago it had been brought into being (this is the force of καίτοι in v. 3), for what prevents it from being realized is not that any ἔργα of God require still to be done. Κατάπαυσις is the sequel to ἔργα . The creative ἔργα leading up to this κατάπαυσις have been completed centuries ago; God enjoys his κατάπαυσις , and if his People do not, the fault lies with themselves, with man’ s disbelief. Here, as in Romans 3:28, there is a choice of reading between οὖν (א A C M 1908 boh) and γάρ (p13 B D K L P Ψ 6, 33 lat syrhkl eth Chrys. Lucif. etc.); the colourless δέ (syrpesh arm) may be neglected. The context is decisive in favour of γάρ . Probably the misinterpretation which produced οὖν led to the change of εἰσερχόμεθα into εἰσερχώμεθα 1 (A C 33. 69: future in vg sah boh Lucif.). The insertion of τήν (the first) may be due to the same interpretation, but not necessarily; p13 B D om., but B omits the article sometimes without cause (e.g. 7:15). The omission of εἰ (p13 D* 2, 330, 440, 623, 642, 1288, 1319, 1912) was due to the following εἰ in εἰσελεύσονται . Καίτοι (with gen. absol., as OP 898:26) is equivalent here to καίτοιγε for which it is a v.l. in Acts 17:27 (A E, with ptc.). “ Καίτοι , ut antiquiores καίπερ , passim cum participio iungunt scriptores aetatis hellenisticae” (Herwerden, Appendix Lexici Graeci, 249). Καταβολή is not a LXX term, but appears in Ep. Aristeas, 129 and 2 Mac 2:29 (τῆςὅληςκαταβολῆς = the entire edifice); in the NT always, except Hebrews 11:11, in the phrase ἀπό or πρὸκαταβολῆςκόσμου . The writer then (v. 4) quotes Genesis 2:2, inserting ὁθεὸςἐν (exactly as Philo had done, de poster. Caini, 18), as a proof that the κατάπαυσις had originated immediately after the six days of creation. In εἴρηκεπου the που is another literary mannerism (as in Philo); instead of quoting definitely he makes a vague allusion (cp. 2:6). The psalm-threat is then (v. 5) combined with it, and (v. 6) the deduction drawn, that the threat (v. 7) implies a promise (though not as if v. 1 meant, “ lest anyone imagine he has come too late for it” — an interpretation as old as Schö ttgen, and still advocated, e.g., by Dods). The title of the 92nd psalm, “ for the sabbath-day,” was discussed about the middle of the 2nd century by R. Jehuda and R. Nehemia; the former interpreted it to mean the great Day of the world to come, which was to be one perfect sabbath, but R. Nehemia’ s rabbinical tradition preferred to make it the seventh day of creation on which God rested (see W. Bacher’ s Agada der Tannaiten2, 1. pp. 328-329). The author of the Epistle of Barnabas (15) sees the fulfilment of Gen 2:2 in the millennium: “ he rested on the seventh day” means that “ when his Son arrives he will destroy the time of the lawless one, and condemn the impious, and alter sun and moon and stars; then he will really rest on the seventh day,” and Christians cannot enjoy their rest till then. Our author’ s line is different— different even from the Jewish interpretation in the Vita Adae et Evae (li. I), which makes the seventh day symbolize “ the resurrection and the rest of the age to come; on the seventh day the Lord rested from all his works.” In v. 7 μετὰτοσοῦτονχρόνον , like μετὰταῦτα (v. 8), denotes the interval of centuries between the desert and the psalm of David, for ἐνΔαυείδ means “ in the psalter” (like ἐνἨλίᾳ , Romans 11:2); the 95th psalm is headed αἶνοςᾠδῆςτῷΔαυείδ in the Greek bible, but the writer throughout (3:7f.) treats it as a direct, divine word. Προείρηται (the author alluding to his previous quotation) is the original text (p13 A C D* P 6, 33, 1611, 1908, 2004, 2005 lat syr Chrys. Cyr. Lucif.); προείρηκεν (B 256, 263, 436, 442, 999, 1739, 1837 arm sah boh Orig.) suggests that God or David spoke these words before the oath (v. 7 comes before v. 11!), while εἴρηται (Dc K L eth etc. Theophyl.) is simply a formula of quotation. From the combination of Psa 95:7, Psalms 95:8 with Psalms 95:11 and Genesis 2:2 (vv. 3-7) the practical inference is now drawn (v. 8f.). Like Sirach (46:1, 2 κραταιὸςἐνπολέμοιςἸησοῦςΝαυή … ὃςἐγένετοκατὰτὸὄνομααὐτοῦμέγαςἐπὶσωτηρίᾳἐκλεκτῶναὐτοῦ ), Philo (de mutatione nominum, 21, Ἰησοῦςδὲ [ἑρμηνεύεται ] σωτηρίακυρίου , ἓξεωςὄνοματῆςἀρίστης ) had commented on the religious significance of the name Joshua; but our author ignores this, and even uses the name Ἰησοῦς freely, since Ἰνσοῦς is never applied by him to Christ before the incarnation . The author of Ep. Barnabas plays on the fact that “ Joshua” and “ Jesus” are the same names: ἐλπίσατεἐπὶτὸνἐνσαρκὶμέλλονταφανεροῦσθαιὑμῖνἸησοῦν (6:9), i.e. not on the “ Jesus” who led Israel into the land of rest, but on the true, divine “ Joshua.” Such, he declares, is the inner meaning of Isa 28:16 . But the author of ΠρὸςἙβραίους takes his own line, starting from the transitive use of καταπαύειν (Joshua 1:13 κύριοςὁθεὸςὑμῶνκατέπαυσενὑμᾶςκαὶἔδωκενὑμῖντὴνγὴνταύτην , etc.); not that he reads subtle meanings into the transitive and intransitive usages of καταπαύειν , like Philo. Nor does he philosophize upon the relevance of κατάπαυσις to God. Philo, in De Cherubim (26), explains why Moses calls the sabbath the “ sabbath of God” in Exodus 20:10 etc.; the only thing which really rests is God— “ rest meaning not inactivity in good — for the cause of all things which is active by nature never ceases doing what is best, but— an energy devoid of laboriousness, devoid of suffering, and moving with absolute ease.” The movement and changes of creation point to labour, but “ what is free from weakness, even though it moves all things, will never cease to rest: ὥστεοἰκειοτότατονμόνῳθεῷτὸἀναπαύεσθαι .” So in De Sacrif. Abelis et Caini, 8, τὸντοσοῦτονκόσμονἄνευπόνωνπάλαιμὲνεἰργάζετο , νυνὶδὲκαὶεἰσαεὶσυνέχωνοὐδέποτελήγει [cp. Hebrews 1:3 φέρωντετὰπάντα ], θεῷγὰρτὸἀκάματονἁρμοδιώτατον . All such speculations are remote from our author. He simply assumes (a) that God’ s promise of κατάπαυσις is spiritual; it was not fulfilled, it was never meant to be fulfilled, in the peaceful settlement of the Hebrew clans in Canaan; (b) as a corollary of this, he assumes that it is eschatological. In v. 9 ἄρα , as in 12:8, Luke 11:48, Acts 11:18, Romans 10:17, is thrown to the beginning by an unclassical turn (“ mü sste dem gebildeten Hellenen hochgradig anstö ssig erscheinen,” Radermacher, 20). Σαββατισμός , apparently1 a word coined by the writer, is a Semitic-Greek compound. The use of σαββατισμός for κατάπαυσις is then (v. 10) justified in language to which the closest parallel is Revelation 14:13. “ Rest” throughout all this passage— and the writer never refers to it again— is the blissful existence of God’ s faithful in the next world. As a contemporary apocalyptist put it, in 4 Es 8:52: “ for you paradise is opened, the tree of life planted, the future age prepared, abundance made ready, a City built, a Rest appointed” (κατέσταθη). In ἀπὸτῶνἰδίων , as in διὰτοῦἰδίουαἵματος (13:12), ἴδιος is slightly emphatic owing to the context; it is not quite equivalent to the possessive pronoun. When Maximus of Tyre speaks of life as a long, arduous path to the goal of bliss and perfection, he describes in semi-mystical language how tired souls, longing for the land to which this straight and narrow and little-frequented way leads, at length reach it and “ rest from their labour” (Dissert. xxiii.). The lesson thus drawn from the reading of the OT passages is pressed home (vv. 11-13) with a skilful blend of encouragement and warning. 11Let us be eager then to “ enter that Rest,” in case anyone falls into the same sort of disobedience. 12For the Logos of God is a living thing, active and more cutting than any sword with double edge, penetrating to the very division of soul and spirit, joints and marrow— scrutinizing the very thoughts and conceptions of the heart. 13And no created thing is hidden from him; all things lie open and exposed before the eyes of him with whom we have to reckon . In v. 11 the position of τις , as, e.g., in Luke 18:18, is due to “ the tendency which is to be noted early in Greek as well as in cognate languages, to bring unemphasized (enclitic) pronouns as near to the beginning of the sentence as possible” (Blass, § 473. 1). For πίπτεινἐν , cp. Epict. 3:22, 48, πότεὑμῶνεἶδένμέτις … ἐνἐκκλίσειπεριπίπτοντα . This Hellenistic equivalent for πίπτεινεἰς goes back to earlier usage, e.g. Eurip. Herc. 1091, 1092, ἐνκλύδωνικαὶφρενῶνταράγματιπέπτωκαδεινῷ . In Hellenistic Greek ὑπόδειγμα came to have the sense of παράδειγμα , and is used here loosely for “ kind” or “ sort” ; take care of falling into disobedience like that of which these πατέρεςὑμῶν yield such a tragic example. The writer, with his fondness for periphrases of this kind, writes ἐντῷαὐτῷὑποδείγματιτῆςἀπειθείας , where ἐντῇαὐτῇἀπειθείᾳ would have served. In passing away from the text about Rest, he drops this last warning reference to the classical example of ἀπείθεια in the far past of the People. The connexion of thought in vv. 11f. is suggested by what has been already hinted in v. 1, where the writer pled for anxiety, μήποτεδοκῇτιςἐξὑμῶνὑστερηκέναι . He repeats ἵναμὴ … τις … πέσῃ , and enlarges upon what lies behind the term δοκῇ . Then, after the passage on the relentless scrutiny of the divine Logos, he effects a transition to the direct thought of God (v. 13), with which the paragraph closes. Σπουδάσωμεν — we have to put heart and soul into our religion, for we are in touch with a God whom nothing escapes; ζῶνγάρκτλ . (v. 12). The term ζῶν echoes θεὸςζῶν in 3:12 (men do not disobey God with impunity), just as καρδίας echoes καρδίαπονηρὰἀπιστίας . God is swift to mark any departure from his will in human thought— the thought that issues in action. The personifying of the divine λόγος , in a passage which described God in action, had already been attempted. In Wis 18:15, for example, the plagues of Egypt are described as the effect of God’ s λόγος coming into play: ὁπαντοδύναμόςσουλόγοςἀπ ʼ οὐρανῶν … ξίφοςὀξὺτὴνἀνυπόκριτονἐπιταγήνσουφέρων . In Wis 1:6, again, the φιλάνθρωπονπνεῦμασοφία , which cannot tolerate blasphemy, reacts against it: ὅτιτῶννεφρῶναὐτοῦ (the blasphemer) μάρτυςὁθεός , καὶτῆςκαρδίαςαὐτοῦἐπίσκοποςἀληθής , so that no muttering of rebellion is unmarked. Here the writer poetically personifies the revelation of God for a moment. Ὁλόγοςτοῦθεοῦ is God speaking, and speaking in words which are charged with doom and promise (3:7f.). The revelation, however, is broader than the scripture; it includes the revelation of God’ s purpose in Jesus (1:1f.). The free application of ὁλόγος in primitive Christianity is seen in 1 P 1:23f., James 1:18f., quite apart from the specific application of the term to the person of Christ (John 1:1-18). Here it denotes the Christian gospel declared authoritatively by men like the writer, an inspired message which carries on the OT revelation of God’ s promises and threats, and which is vitally effective. No dead letter, this λόγος ! The rhetorical outburst in vv. 12f. is a preacher’ s equivalent for the common idea that the sense of God’ s all-seeing scrutiny should deter men from evil-doing, as, e.g., in Plautus . This had been deepened by ethical writers like Seneca (Ep. lxxxiii. I, “ nihil deo clusum est, interest animis nostris et cogitationibus mediis intervenit” ), Epictetus , and the author of the Epistle of Aristeas (132-133: Moses teaches ὅτιμόνοςὁθεόςἐστι … καὶοὐθὲναὐτὸνλανθάνειτῶνἐπὶγῆςγινομένωνὑπ ʼ ἀνθρώπωνκρυφίως … κἂνἐννοηθῇτιςκακίανἐπιτελεῖν , οὐκἂνλάθοι , μὴὅτικαὶπράξας , and 210: the characteristic note of piety is τὸδιαλαμβάνεινὅτιπάνταδιαπαντὸςὁθεὸςἐνεργεῖκαὶγινώσκει , καὶοὐθὲνἂνλάθοιἄδικονποιήσαςἢκακὸνἐργασάμενοςἄνθρωπος ), as well as by apocalyptists like the author of Baruch (83:3: He will assuredly examine the secret thoughts and that which is laid up in the secret chambers of all the members of man). But our author has one particular affinity. Take Philo’ s interpretation of διεῖλεναὐτὰμέσα in Genesis 15:10. Scripture means, he explains (quis rer. div. haeres, 26) that it was God who divided them, τῷτομιεῖτῶσυμπάντωνἑαυτοῦλόγῳ , ὃςεἰςτὴνὀξυτάτηνἀκονηθεὶςἀκμὴνδιαιρῶνοὐδέποτελήγει . τὰγὰραἰσθητὰπάνταἐπειδὰνμέχριτῶνἀτόμωνκαὶλεγομένωνἀμερῶνδιεξέλθῃ , πάλινἀπὸτούτωντὰλόγῳθεωρητὰεἰςἀμυθήτουςκαὶἀπεριγράφουςμοίραςἄρχεταιδιαιρεῖνοὗτοςὁτομεύς . He returns (in 48) to this analytic function of the Logos in God and man, and in De mutatione nominum (18) speaks of ἠκονημένονκαὶὀξὺνλόγον , μαστεύεινκαὶἀναζητεῖνἕκασταἱκανόν . Still, the Logos is τομεύς as the principle of differentiation in the universe, rather than as an ethical force; and when Philo connects the latter with ὁλόγος , as he does in quod deter. pot. 29, Cherub. 9, etc., ὁλόγος is the human faculty of reason. Obviously, our author is using Philonic language rather than Philonic ideas. Ἐνεργής (for which B, by another blunder, has ἐναργής = evidens) is not a LXX term, but denotes in Greek vital activity . Neither is τομώτερος a LXX term; the comparison of ὁλόγος to a sword arose through the resemblance between the tongue and a “ dagger,” though μάχαιρα had by this time come to mean a sword of any size, whether long or short.1 The comparative is followed (cp. Luke 16:8) by ὑπέρ , as elsewhere by παρά , and the “ cutting” power of ὁλόγος extends or penetrates to the innermost recesses of human nature— ἄχριμερισμοῦψυχῆςκαὶπνεύματος ,2 ἁρμῶντεκαὶμυελῶν (the conj. μελῶν = limbs is neat but superfluous, for μυελῶν was in the text known to Clem. Alex. quis dives, 41). D K here (as in 11:32) insert τε before the first καί , but there is no idea of distinguishing the psychical and the physical spheres; ἅρμων … μυελῶν is merely a metaphorical equivalent for ψυχῆςκαὶπνεύματος . Μερισμός (only in LXX in Job 11:23, Job 11:2 Ezra 6:18) means here “ division,” not “ distribution” (2:4); the subtlest relations of human personality, the very border-line between the ψυχή and the πνεῦμα , all this is open to ὁλόγος . The metaphorical use of μυελῶν in this sense is as old as Euripides, who speaks of μὴπρὸςἄκρονμυελὸνψυχῆς (Hippolytus, 255). According to Philo (De Cherubim, 8, 9), the flaming sword of Gen 3:24 is a symbol either of the sun, as the swiftest of existences (circling the whole world in a single day), or of reason, ὀξυκινητότατονγὰρκαὶθέρμονλόγοςκαὶμάλισταὁτοῦαἰτίου . Learn from the fiery sword, o my soul, he adds, to note the presence and power of this divine Reason, ὅςοὐδέποτελήγεικινούμενοςσπουδῇπάσῃπρὸςαἵρεσινμὲντῶνκαλῶν , φυγὴνδὲτῶνἐναντίων . But there is a still better parallel to the thought in Lucian’ s account of the impression made by the address of a philosopher: οὐγὰρἐξἐπιπολῆςοὐδ ʼ ὡςἔτυχενἡμῶνὁλόγοςκαθίκετο , βαθεῖαδὲκαὶκαίριοςἡπληγὴἐγένετο , καὶμάλαεὐστόχωςἐνεχθεὶςὁλόγοςαὐτήν , εἰοἶόντεεἰπεῖν , διέκοψετὴνψυχήν (Nigr. 35). Only, Lucian proceeds to compare the soul of a cultured person to a target at which the words of the wise are aimed. Similarly, in pseudo-Phocylides, 124: ὅπλοντοιλόγοςἀνδρὶτομώτερονἐστισιδήρου , and Od. Sol. 12:5: for the swiftness of the Word is inexpressible, and like its expression is its swiftness and force, and its course knows no limit. The μερισμοῦ … μυελῶν passage is “ a mere rhetorical accumulation of terms to describe the whole mental nature of man” (A. B. Davidson); the climax is καρδία , for what underlies human failure is καρδίαπονηρὰἀπίστιας (3:12), and the writer’ s warning all along has been against hardening the heart, i.e. obdurate disobedience. Hence the point of καὶκριτικόςκτλ . Κριτικός is another of his terms which are classical, not religious; it is used by Aristotle (Eth. Nik. vi. 10) of ἡσύνεσις , the intelligence of man being κριτική in the sense that it discerns. If there is any distinction between ἐνθυμήσεων (ἐνθυμήσεως C D W vt Lucifer) and ἐννοιῶν , it is between impulses and reflections, but contemporary usage hardly distinguished them; indeed ἔννοια could mean “ purpose” as well as “ conception.” The two words are another alliterative phrase for “ thought and conception,” ἔννοια , unlike ἐνθύμησις , being a LXX term. In v. 13 καὶοὐκἔστινκτίσιςἀφανήςκτλ ., κτίσις means anything created (as in Romans 8:39), and αὐτοῦ is “ God’ s.” The negative side is followed by the positive, πάνταδὲγυμνὰκαὶτετραχηλισμένα . The nearest verbal parallel is in En 9:5 πάνταἐνώπιόνσουφανερὰκαὶἀκάλυπτα , where the context points as here to secret sins. The general idea was familiar; e.g. (above, p. 55) “ nihil deo clusum est, interest animis nostris et cogitationibus mediis intervenit.” Μόνῳγὰρἔξεστιθεῷ , ψυχὴνἰδεῖν (Philo, de Abrahamo, 21). But what the writer had in mind was a passage like that in de Cherub. 5, where Philo explains Deuteronomy 29:29 by arguing, γενητὸςδὲοὐδεὶςἱκανὸςγνώμηςἀφανοῦςκατιδεῖνἐνθύμημα , μόνοςδὲὁθεός . Hence, he adds, the injunction (Numbers 5:18) τὴνψυχὴν “ ἐναντίοντοῦθεοῦστῆσαι ” with head uncovered; which means, the soul τὸκεφάλαιονδόγμαγυμνωθεῖσανκαὶτὴνγνώμηνᾗκέχρηταιἀπαμφιασθεῖσαν , ἵν ʼ ὄψεσιταῖςἀκριβεστάταιςἐπικριθεῖσατοῦἀδεκάστουθεοῦκτλ ., the closing description of God being τῷμόνῳγυμνὴνψυχὴνἰδεῖνδυναμένῳ . For γυμνά see also M. Aurel. 12:2 ὁθεὸςπάντατὰἡγεμονικὰγυμνὰτῶνὑλικῶνἀγγείων … ὁρᾷ . Τετραχηλισμένα must mean something similar, “ exposed” or “ bared” (“ aperta,” vg; πεφανερωμένα , Hesych.). Though τραχηλιζω does not occur in the LXX, the writer was familiar with it in Philo, where it suggests a wrestler “ downing” his opponent by seizing his throat. How this metaphorical use of throttling or tormenting could yield the metaphorical passive sense of “ exposed,” is not easy to see. The Philonic sense of “ depressed” or “ bent down” would yield here the meaning “ abashed,” i.e. hanging down the head in shame (“ conscientia male factorum in ruborem aguntur caputque mittunt,” Wettstein). But this is hardly on a level with γυμνά . The most probable clue is to be found in the practice of exposing an offender’ s face by pushing his head back, as if the word were an equivalent for the Latin “ resupinata” in the sense of “ manifesta.” The bending back of the neck produced this exposure. Thus when Vitellius was dragged along the Via Sacra to be murdered, it was “ reducto coma capite, ceu noxii solent, atque etiam mento mucrone gladii subrecto, ut visendam praeberet faciem” (Suet. Vit. Vitell. 17). In the last five words, πρὸςὃνἡμῖνὁλόγος , which are impressive by their bare simplicity, there is a slight play on the term λόγος here and in v. 12, although in view of the flexible use of the term, e.g. in 5:11 and 13:17, it might be even doubtful if the writer intended more than a verbal assonance. The general sense of the phrase is best conveyed by “ with whom we have to reckon.” (a) This rendering, “ to whom we have to account (or, to render our account),” was adopted without question by the Greek fathers from Chrysostom onwards, and the papyri support the origin of the phrase as a commercial metaphor; e.g. OP. 1188:5 (a.d. 13) ὡςπρὸςσὲτοῦπερὶτῶνἀγνοη [θέντων ] ζη [τήματος ] ἐσο [μένου ] , and Hibeh Papyri, 53:4 (24:6 b.c.) πειρῶοὖνἀσφολῶςὡςπρὸςσὲτοῦλόγουἐσομένου . (b) The alternative rendering, “ with whom we have to do,” has equal support in Gk. usage; e.g. in the LXX phrase λόγοςμοιπρόςσε (1 K 2:14, 2 K 9:5) and in Judges 17:7 . The former idea is predominant, however, as the context suggests (cp. Ignat. ad Magn 3, τὸδὲτοιοῦτονοὐπρὸςσάρκαὁλόγος , ἀλλὰπρὸςθεὸντὸντὰκρύφιαεἰδότα ), and includes the latter. It is plainly the view of the early anti-Marcionite treatise, which has been preserved among the works of Ephraem Syrus (cp. Preuschen, Zeitschrift fü r die neutest. Wissenschaft, 1911, pp. 243-269), where the passage is quoted from a text like this: ὡςκαὶὁΠαῦλοςλέγει , ζῶνὁλόγοςτοῦθεοῦκαὶτομώτεροςὑπὲρπασὰνμάχαιρανδίστομον , διϊκνούμενονμέχριμερισμοῦπνεύματοςκαὶσαρκός , μέχριἁρμῶντεκαὶμυελῶν , καὶκριτικόςἐστινἐνθυμήσεωνκαὶἐννοιῶνκαρδίας · καὶοὐκἔστινκτίσιςἀφανὴςἐνώπιοναὐτοῦ , ἀλλὰπάνταἐμφανῇἐνώπιοναὐτοῦ , ὅτιγυμνοὶκαὶτετραχηλισμένοιἐσμὲνἐντοῖςὀφθαλμοῖςαὐτοῦἕκαστοςἡμῶνλόγοναὐτῷἀποδιδόναι . The rendering, “ who is our subject, of whom we are speaking” (πρός = with reference to, and ἡμῖνὁλόγος as in 5:11), is impossibly flat. At this point the writer effects a transition to the main theme, which is to occupy him till 10:18, i.e. Christ as ἀρχιερεύς . He begins, however, by a practical appeal (vv. 14-16) which catches up the ideas of 2:17, 18, 3:1. 14As we have a great highpriest, then, who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast to our confession; 5for ours is no high priest who is incapable (μὴδυν . as in 9:9) of sympathizing with our weaknesses, but one who has been tempted in every respect like ourselves , yet without sinning. 16So let us approach the throne of grace with confidence (μετὰπαρρησίας , 3:6), that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in the hour of need. Μέγας is a favourite adjective for ἀρχιερεύς in Philo,1 but when the writer adds, ἔχοντεςοὖνἀρχιερέαμέγανδιεληλυθότατοὺςοὐρανούς , he is developing a thought of his own. The greatness of Jesus as ἀρχιερεύς consists in his access to God not through any material veil, but through the upper heavens; he has penetrated to the very throne of God, in virtue of his perfect self-sacrifice. This idea is not elaborated till later (cp. 6:19f, 9:24f.), in the sacerdotal sense. But it has been already mentioned in 2:9, 10, where Jesus the Son of God saves men by his entrance into the full divine glory. Κρατῶμεν here as in 6:18 with the genitive (ὁμολογιάς , see 3:1); in Paul it takes the accusative. The writer now (v. 15) reiterates the truth of 2:11f.; the exalted Jesus is well able to sympathize with weak men on earth, since he has shared their experience of temptation. It is put negatively, then positively. Συμπαθῆσαι is used of Jesus1 as in Acta Pauli et Theclae, 17 ; see below, on 10:34. Origen (in Matt. xiii. 2) quotes a saying of Jesus: διὰτοὺςἀσθενοῦνταςἠσθένουνκαὶδιὰτοὺςπεινῶνταςἐπείνωνκαὶδιὰτοὺςδιψῶνταςἐδίψων , the first part of which may go back to Matthew 8:17 ; cp. also Matthew 25:35f.. Philo uses the term even of the Mosaic law , but here it is more than “ to be considerate.” The aid afforded by Jesus as ἀρχιερεύς is far more than official; it is inspired by fellow-feeling ταῖςἀσθενείαιςἡμῶν . “ Verius sentiunt qui simul cum externis aerumnis comprehendunt animi affectus, quales sunt metus, tristitia, horror mortis, et similes” (Calvin). These ἀσθένειαι are the sources of temptation. Ἠσὰρξἀσθενής , as Jesus had said to his disciples, warning them against temptation. Jesus was tempted κατὰπάντα (2:17, 18) καθ ʼ ὁμοιότητα (a psychological Stoic term; the phrase occurs in OP ix. 1202:24 and BGU 1028:15, in second-century inscriptions) χωρὶςἁμαρτίας , without yielding to sin. Which is a real ground for encouragement, for the best help is that afforded by those who have stood where we slip and faced the onset of temptation without yielding to it. The special reference is to temptations leading to apostasy or disobedience to the will of God. It is true that χωρὶςἁμαρτίας does exclude some temptations. Strictly speaking, κατὰπάντα is modified by this restriction, since a number of our worst temptations arise out of sin previously committed. But this is not in the writer’ s mind at all. He is too eager, to enter into any psychological analysis. Philo deduces from Leviticus 4:3 (μόνονοὐκἄντικρυςἀναδιδάσκων , ὅτιὁπρὸςὰλήθειανἀρχιερεὺςκαὶμὴψευδώνυμοςἀμέτοχοςἁμαρτημάτωνἐστίν ) that the ideal highpriest is practically sinless (de Victimis, 10); but this is a thought with which he wistfully toys, and the idea of the Logos as unstained by contact with the material universe is very different from this conception of Jesus as actually tempted and scatheless. Nor would the transference of the idea of messiah as sinless account for our writer’ s view. To him and his readers Jesus is sinless, not in virtue of a divine prerogative, but as the result of a real human experience which proved successful in the field of temptation. Hence (v. 16) προσερχώμεθαοὖνμετὰπαρρησίας . Philo (quis rer. div. haeres, 2) makes παρρησία the reward of a good conscience, which enables a loyal servant of God to approach him frankly. But here (cp. ERE ii. 786) παρρησία is not freedom of utterance so much as resolute confidence (cp. on 3:6). Our writer certainly includes prayer in this conception of approaching God, but it is prayer as the outcome of faith and hope. Seneca bids Lucilius pray boldly to God, if his prayers are for soundness of soul and body, not for any selfish and material end: “ audacter deum roga; nihil illum de alieno rogaturus es” (Ep. x. 4). But even this is not the meaning of παρρησία here. The Roman argues that a man can only pray aloud and confidently if his desires are such as he is not ashamed to have others hear, whereas the majority of people “ whisper basest of prayers to God.” Our author does not mean “ palam” by παρρησία . Our approach (προσερχώμεθα : the verb in the sense of applying to a court or authority, e.g. in OP 1119:8 προσήλθομεντῇκρατίστῃβουλῇ , BGU 1022) is τῷθρονῷτῆςχάριτος , for grace is now enthroned (see 2:9f.). For the phrase see Isaiah 16:5 διορθωθήσεταιμετ ʼ ἐλέουςθρόνος . Our author (cp. Introd. p. xlvii), like those who shared the faith of apocalyptic as well as of rabbinic piety, regarded heaven as God’ s royal presence and also as the σκηνή where he was worshipped, an idea which dated from Isaiah 6:1f. and Psa_29 (cp. Mechilta on Exodus 15:17), though he only alludes incidentally (12:22) to the worship of God by the host of angels in the upper sanctuary. He is far from the pathetic cry of Azariah (Daniel 3:38): ὠκἔστινἐντῷκαιρῷτούτῳ … οὔδετόποςτοῦκαρπῶσαιἐνώπιόνσουκαὶεὑρεῖνἔλεος . He rather shares Philo’ s feeling (de Exsecrat. 9) that οἱἀνασῳζομένοι can rely upon the compassionate character of God , though he regards this mercy as conditioned by the sacrifice of Jesus. The twofold object of the approach is (a) λαμβάνεινἔλεος , which is used for the passive of ἐλεῶ (which is rare), and (b) χάρινεὑρίσκεινκτλ ., an echo of the LXX phrase (e.g. Genesis 6:8) εὑρίσκεινχάρινἐναντίονκυρίου . In the writer’ s text (A) of the LXX, Proverbs 8:17 ran οἱδὲἐμὲζητοῦντεςεὑρήσουσιχάριν .1 Εἰςεὔκαιρονβοήθειαν recalls τοῖςπειραζομένοιςβοηθῆσαι in 2:18; it signifies “ for assistance in the hour of need.” Εὔκαιρος means literally “ seasonable,” as in Psalms 104:27 , “ fitting” or “ opportune” (Ep. Aristeas, 203, 236). The “ sympathy” of Jesus is shown by practical aid to the tempted, which is suitable to their situation, suitable above all because it is timely (εὔκαιρον being almost equivalent to ἐνκαιρῷχρείας , Sir 8:9). Philo (de sacrificantibus, 10) shows how God, for all his greatness, cherishes compassion for needy folk, especially for poor proselytes, who, in their devotion to him, are rewarded by his help . But the best illustration of the phrase is in Aristides, ΕἰςτὸνΣάραπιν 50: σὲγὰρδὴπᾶςτιςἐνπαντὶκαιρῷβοηθὸνκαλεῖ , Σάραπι . How widely even good cursives may be found supporting a wrong reading is shown by the evidence for προσερχόμεθα : 6. 38. 88. 104. 177. 206*. 241. 255. 263. 337. 378. 383. 440. 462. 467. 487. 489. 623. 635. 639. 642. 915. 919. 920. 927. 1149. 1245. 1288. 1518. 1836. 1852. 1872. 1891. 2004. For ἔλεος (the Hellenistic neuter, cp. Cronert’ s Memoria Graeca Herculanensis, 176:1), the Attic ἔλεον (ἔλεος , masc.) is substituted by L and a few minuscules (Chrys. Theodoret). B om. εὕρωμεν . 1 Ἀπείθειαν , altered into ἀπιστίαν by א *vg sah boh arm Cyr. LXX The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint Version (ed. H. B. Swete). D [06: α 1026] cont. 1:1-13:20. Codex Claromontanus is a Graeco-Latin MS, whose Greek text is poorly * reproduced in the later (saec. ix.-x.) E = codex Sangermanensis. The Greek text of the latter (1:1-12:8) is therefore of no independent value (cp. Hort in WH, § § 335-337); for its Latin text, as well as for that of F=codex Augiensis (saec. ix.), whose Greek text of ΠρὸςἘβραίους has not been preserved, see below, p. lxix. 255 [α 174] Philo Philonis Alexandriai Opera Quae Supersunt (recognoverunt L. Cohn et P. Wendland). Josephus Flavii Josephi Opera Omnia post Immanuelem Bekkerum, recognovit S. A. Naber. 1 An almost contemporary instance of the active verb is cited by Mitteis-Wilcken, i. 2, 29. vg vg Vulgate, saec. iv. א Ԡ [01: δ 2). vt vt Old Latin, saec. ii. (?)-iv. p [α 1034] cont. 2:14-5:6 10:8-11:13 11:28-12:17: Oxyrhynchus Papyri, iv. (1904) 36-48. The tendency, in 2:14-5:5, to agree with B “ in the omission of unessential words and phrases … gives the papyrus peculiar value in the later chapters, where B is deficient” ; thus p 13 partially makes up for the loss of B after 9:14. Otherwise the text of the papyrus is closest to that of D. A [02: δ 4]. B [03: δ 1] cont. 1:1-9:18: for remainder cp. cursive 293. C [04: δ 3] cont. 2:4-7:26 9:15-10:24 12:16-13:25. K [018:1:1]. L [020: α 5] cont. 1:1-13:10. M [0121: α 1031] cont. 1:1-4:3 12:20-13:25. P [025: α 3] cont. 1:1-12:8 12:11-13:25. boh The Coptic Version of the NT in the Northern Dialect (Oxford, 1905), vol. iii. pp. 472-555. 104 [α 103] 1611 [α 208] 2005 [α 1436] cont. 1:1-7:2 d (Latin version of D) 1908 [O π 103] Ψ̠ [044: δ 6] cont. 1:1-8:11 9:19-13:25. 6 [δ 356] cont. 1:1-9:3 10:22-13:25 33 [δ 48] Hort’ s 17 1 A similar error of A C in 6:2. 69 [δ 505] sah The Coptic Version of the NT in the Southern Dialect (Oxford, 1920), vol. v. pp. 1-131. 2 [α 253] 330 [δ 259] 440 [δ 260] 623 [α 173] 642 [α 552] cont. 1:1-7:18 9:13-13:25 1288 [α 162] 1319 [δ 180] 1912 [α 1066] OP The Oxyrhynchus Papyri (ed. B. P. Grenfell and A. Hunt). 2004 [α 56] 256 [α 216] 263 [δ 372] 436 [α 172] 442 [O 18] 999 [δ 353] 1739 [α 78] 1837 [α 192] Radermacher Neutestamentliche Grammatik (1911), in Lietzmann’ s Handbuch zum Neuen Testament (vol. i.). 1 The only classical instance is uncertain; Bernadakis suspects it in the text of Plutarch, de superstit. 166 A. Blass F. Blass, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch: vierte, vö llig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner (1913); also, Brief an die Hebrä er, Text mit Angabe der Rhythmen (1903). 1 The description was familiar to readers of the LXX, e.g. Proverbs 5:4 ἠκονημένονμᾶλλονμαχαίραςδιστόμου . 2 The subtlety of thought led afterwards to the change of πνεύματος into σώματος (2, 38, 257, 547, 1245). W [I] cont. 1:1-3, 9-12. 2:4-7, 12-14. 3:4-6, 14-16 4:3-6, 12-14 5:5-7 6:1-3, 10-13, 20 7:1-2, 7-11, 18-20, 27-28 8:1, 7-9 9:1-4, 9-11, 16-19, 25-27 10:5-8, 16-18, 26-29, 35-38 11:6-7, 12-15, 22-24, 31-33, 38-40 12:1, 7-9, 16-18, 25-27 13:7-9, 16-18, 23-25: NT MSS in Freer Collection, The Washington MS of the Epp. of Paul (1918), pp. 294-306. Supports Alexandrian text, and is “ quite free from Western readings.” 1 ὁμὲνδὴμέγαςἀρχιερεύς (de Somn. i. 38), even of the Logos. 1 Of God in 4 Mac 5:25 κατὰφύσινἡμῖνσυμπαθεῖνομοθετῶνὁτοῦκτίστης , but in the weaker sense of consideration. It is curious that 4 Mac., like Hebrews, uses the word twice, once of God and once of men . BGU Aegyptische Urkunden (Griechisch Urkunden), ed. Wilcken (1895). ERE Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics (ed. J. Hastings). 1 Aristotle argues that χάρις or benevolence must be spontaneous and disinterested; also, that its value is enhanced by necessitous circumstances (ἕστωδὴχάρις , καθ ʼ ἢνὁἔχωνλέγεταιχάρινὑπουργεῖνδεομένῳμὴἀντίτινος , μηδ ʼ ἵνατιαὐτῷτῷὑπουργοῦντιἀλλ ʼ ἵν ʼ ἐκείνῳτι · μεγάληδ ʼ ἂνᾖσφόδραδεομένῳ , ἢμεγάλωνκαὶχαλεπῶν , ἢἐνκαιροῖςτοιουτοῖς , ἢμόνοςἢπρῶτοςἢμάλιστα , Rhet. ii. 7. 2). 38 [δ 355] 88 [α 200] 177 [α 106] 206 [α 365] 241 [δ 507] 337 [α 205] 378 [α 258] 383 [α 353] cont. 1:1-13:7 462 [α 502] 487 [α 171] 489 [δ 459] Hort’ s 102 639 [α 169] 915 [α 382] 919 [α 113] 920 [α 55] 927 [δ 251] 1149 [δ 370] 1245 [α 158] 1518 [α 116] 1836 [α 65] 1852 [α 114] cont. 1:1-11:10 1872 [α 209] 1891 [α 62] He now (5:1-10) for the first time begins to explain the qualifications of the true ἀρχιερεύς . (a) First, he must be humane as well as human: 1 Every highpriest who is selected from men and appointed to act on behalf of men in things divine, offering gifts and sacrifices for sin, 2 can deal gently with those who err through ignorance, since he himself is beset with weakness— 3 which obliges him to present offerings for his own sins as well as for those of the People. (b) Second, he must not be self-appointed. 4 Also, it is an office which no one elects to take for himself; he is called to it by God, just as Aaron was. The writer now proceeds to apply these two conditions to Jesus, but he takes them in reverse order, beginning with (b). 5 Similarly Christ was not raised to the glory of the priesthood by himself, but by Him who declared to him, “ Thou art my son, to-day have I become thy father.” 6 Just as elsewhere he says, “ Thou art a priest for ever, with the rank of Melchizedek.” He then goes back to (a): 7 In the days of his flesh, with bitter cries and tears, he offered prayers and supplications to Him who was able to save him from death; and he was heard, because of his godly fear. 8 Thus, Son though he was, he learned by all he suffered how to obey, 9 and by being thus perfected he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him, 10 being designated by God highpriest “ with the rank of Melchizedek.” Πὰςγὰρἀρχιερεύς (dealing only with Hebrew highpriests, and only with what is said of them in the LXX) ἐξἀνθρώπωνλαμβανόμενοςκαθίσταται — passive, in the light of 7:28 and of the Philonic usage . The middle may indeed be used transitively, as, e.g., in Eurip. Supplic. 522 , and is so taken here by some (e.g. Calvin, Kypke). But τὰπρὸςτὸνθεόν is an adverbial accusative as in 2:17, not the object of καθίσταται in an active sense. In δωράτεκαὶθυσίας , here as in 8:3 and 9:9, the writer goes back to the LXX (A) rendering of 1 K 8:64 . The phrase recurs in Ep. Aristeas, 234 , and is a generic term for sacrifices or offerings, without any distinction. The early omission of τε (B Db K Lat boh pesh) was due to the idea that θυσίας should be closely connected with ἁμαρτιῶν (“ ut offerat dona, et sacrificia pro peccatis,” vg). Instead of writing εἰςτὸπροσφέρειν , our author departs from his favourite construction of εἰς with the infinitive and writes ἵναπροσφέρῃ , in order to introduce μετριοπαθεῖνδυνάμενος . This, although a participial clause, contains the leading idea of the sentence. The ἀρχιερεύς is able to deal gently with the erring People whom he represents, since he shares their ἀσθένεια , their common infirmity or liability to temptation. Μετριοπαθεῖν in v. 2 is a term coined by ethical philosophy. It is used by Philo to describe the mean between extravagant grief and stoic apathy, in the case of Abraham’ s sorrow for the death of his wife (τὸδὲμέσονπρὸτῶνἄκρωνἑλόμενονμετριοπαθεῖν , De Abrah. 44); so Plutarch (Consol. ad Apoll. 22) speaks of τῆςκατὰφύσινἐντοιούτοιςμετριοπαθείας . But here it denotes gentleness and forbearance, the moderation of anger in a person who is provoked and indignant— as in Plut. de Cohib. ira, 10, ἀναστῆσαιδὲκαὶσῶσαι , καὶφείσασθαικαὶκαρτερῆσαι , πραότητόςἐστικαὶσυγγνώμηςκαὶμετριοπαθείας . Josephus (Ant. xii. 3:2) praises this quality in Vespasian and Titus , who acted magnanimously and generously towards the unruly Jews; Dionysius Halicarnassus accuses Marcius (Ant. 8. 529) of lacking τὸεὐδιάλλακτονκαὶμετριοπαθές , ὁπότεδι ʼ ὀργῆςτῷγένοιτο . And so on. The term is allied to πραότης . The sins of others are apt to irritate us, either because they are repeated or because they are flagrant; they excite emotions of disgust, impatience, and exasperation, and tempt us to be hard and harsh (Galatians 6:1). The thought of excess here is excessive severity rather than excessive leniency. The objects of this μετριοπαθεῖν are τοῖςἀγνοοῦσινκαὶπλανωμένοις , i.e., people who sin through yielding to the weaknesses of human nature. For such offenders alone the piacula of atonement-day (which the writer has in mind) availed. Those who sinned ἑκουσίως (10:26), not ἀκουσίως , were without the pale; for such presumptuous sins, which our writer regards specially under the category of deliberate apostasy (3:12, 10:26), there is no pardon possible. The phrase here is practically a hendiadys, for τοῖςἐξἀγνοίαςπλανωμένοις : the People err through their ἄγνοια . Thus ἀγνοεῖν becomes an equivalent for ἁμαρτάνειν (Sir 23:2 etc.), just as the noun ἀγνόημα comes to imply sin (cp. 9:7 and Jth 5:20 εἰμένἐστινἀγνόημαἐντῷλαῷτούτῳκαὶἁμαρτάνουσιεἰςτὸνθεὸναὐτῶν , with Tebt. Pap. 124:4 (118 b.c.) and 5:3— a proclamation by king Euergetes and queen Cleopatra declaring “ an amnesty to all their subjects for all errors, crimes,” etc., except wilful murder and sacrilege). In the Martyr. Pauli, 4, the apostle addresses his pagan audience as ἄνδρεςοἱὄντεςἐντῇἀγνωσίᾳκαὶτῇπλάνῃταύτῃ . (a) Strictly speaking, only such sins could be pardoned (Leviticus 4:2, Leviticus 4:5:21, Leviticus 4:22, Numbers 15:22-31, Deuteronomy 17:12) as were unintentional. Wilful sins were not covered by the ordinary ritual of sacrifice (10:26, cp. Numbers 12:11). (b) The term περίκειμαι only occurs in the LXX in Ep. Jer. 23:57 and in 4 Mac 12:3 , and in both places in its literal sense (Symm. Isaiah 61:10), as in Acts 28:20. But Seneca says of the body, “ hoc quoque natura ut quemdam vestem animo circumdedit” (Epist. 92), and the metaphorical sense is as old as Theocritus . The ἀρχιερεύς , therefore (v. 3), requires to offer sacrifice for his own sins as well as for those of the People, καθὼςπερὶτοῦλαοῦοὕτωκαὶπερὶἑαυτοῦ . This twofold sacrifice is recognized by Philo (de vit. Mosis ii., 1), who notes that the holder of the ἱερωσύνη must ἐπὶτελείοιςἱεροῖς beseech God for blessing αὑτῷτεκαὶτῆςἀρχομένοις . The regulations for atonement-day (Leviticus 16:6-17) provided that the ἀρχιερεύς sacrificed for himself and his household as well as for the People (καὶπροσάξειἈαρὼντὸνμόσχοντὸνπερὶτῆςἁμαρτίαςαὐτοῦκαὶἐξιλάσεταιπερὶαὐτοῦκαὶτοῦοἴκουαὐτοῦ … καὶπερὶπάσηςσυναγωγῆςυἱῶνἸσραήλ ). But our author now turns from the idea of the solidarity between priest and People to the idea of the priest’ s commission from God. Τὴντιμήν (in v. 4) means position or office, as often, e.g. ἐπίτροποςλαμβάνειταύτηντὴντιμήν (i.e. of supervising the household slaves), Arist. Pol. i. 7, τιμὰςγὰρλέγομενεἶναιτὰςἀρχάς , ib. iii. 10, περὶτῶνἀρχιερέωνπῶςτ ʼ ἤρξαντοκαὶτίσινἔξεστιτῆςτιμῆςταύτηςμεταλαμβάνειν , Joseph. Ant. xx. 10. 1. Ἀλλὰκαλούμενος , but takes it when (or, as) he is called. The terseness of the phrase led to the alteration (Ce L) of ἀλλά into ἀλλ ʼ ὁ (as in v. 5). καθώσπερκαὶἈαρών . In Josephus (Ant. iii. 8. 1), Moses tells the Israelites, νῦνδ ʼ αὐτὸςὁθεὸςἈαρῶνατῆςτιμῆςταύτηςἄξιονἔκρινεκαὶτοῦτονᾕρηταιἱερέα . περὶ (before ἁμαρτιῶν in v. 3) has been changed to ὕπερ in Cc Dc K L etc. (conforming to 5:1). There is no difference in meaning (cp. περί , Matthew 26:28 = ὄπερ , Mk. and Lk.), for περί (see 10:6, 8, 18, 26, 13:11) has taken over the sense of ὕπερ . For καθώσπερ (א A B D 33) in v. 4, א c Dc K L P ψ 6, 1288, 1739 read the more obvious καθάπερ . In v. 5 οὐχἑαυτὸνἐδόξασεν , while the term δόξα was specially applicable to the highpriestly office , the phrase is quite general, as in the parallel John 8:54. The following γενηθῆναι is an epexegetic infinitive, which recurs in the Lucan writings (Luke 1:54, Luke 1:72, Acts 15:10) and in the earlier Psalter of Solomon (2:28, 40 etc.). After ἀλλ ʼ we must supply some words like αὐτὸνἐδόξασεν . The argument runs thus: We have a great ἀρχιερεύς , Jesus the Son of God (4:14), and it is as he is Son that he carries out the vocation of ἀρχιερεύς . There is something vital, for the writer’ s mind, in the connexion of ἀρχιερεύς and Υἱός . Hence he quotes (v. 5) his favourite text from Psalms 2:7 before the more apposite one (in v. 6) from Psalms 110:4, implying that the position of divine Son carried with it, in some sense, the rô le of ἀρχιερεύς . This had been already suggested in 1:2, 3 where the activities of the Son include the purification of men from their sins. Here the second quotation only mentions ἱερεύς , it is true; but the writer drew no sharp distinction between ἱερεύς and ἀρχιερεύς . In κατὰτὴςτάξινΜελχισεδέκ , τάξις for the writer, as 7:15 proves , has a general meaning;1 Jesus has the rank of a Melchizedek, he is a priest of the Melchizedek sort or order, though in the strict sense of the term there was no τάξις or succession of Melchizedek priests. Τάξις in the papyri is often a list or register; in OP 1266:24 (a.d. 98) ἐντάξει means “ in the class” (of people). It had acquired a sacerdotal nuance, e.g. Michel 735:125f. (the regulations of Antiochus 1.), ὅστιςτεἃνὑστέρωιχρόνωιτάξινλάβῃταύτην , and occasionally denoted a post or office (e.g. Tebt. P 297:8, a.d. 123). Ὅςκτλ . Some editors (e.g. A. B. Davidson, Lü nemann, Peake, Hollmann) take vv. 7-10 as a further proof of (b). But the writer is here casting back to (a), not hinting that the trying experiences of Jesus on earth proved that his vocation was not self-sought, but using these to illustrate the thoroughness with which he had identified himself with men. He does this, although the parallel naturally broke down at one point. Indeed his conception of Christ was too large for the categories he had been employing, and this accounts for the tone and language of the passage. (a) Jesus being χωρὶςἁμαρτίας did not require to offer any sacrifices on his own behalf; and (b) the case of Melchizedek offered no suggestion of suffering as a vital element in the vocation of an ἀρχιερεύς . As for the former point, while the writer uses προσενέγκας in speaking of the prayers of Jesus, this is at most a subconscious echo of προσφέρειν in vv. 1-3; there is no equivalent in Jesus to the sacrifice offered by the OT ἀρχιερεύς , περὶἑαυτοῦ … περὶἁμαρτιῶν . The writer starts with his parallel, for ἐνταῖςἡμέραιςτῆςσαρκὸςαὐτοῦ corresponds to περικεῖταιἀσθένειαν (v. 2); but instead of developing the idea of sympathy in an official (μετριοπαθεῖνδυνάμενοςκτλ .), he passes to the deeper idea that Jesus qualified himself by a moral discipline to be ἀρχιερεύς in a pre-eminent sense. He mentions the prayers and tears of Jesus here, as the faith of Jesus in 2:12f., for the express purpose of showing how truly he shared the lot of man on earth, using δεήσειςτεκαὶἱκετηρίας , a phrase which the writer may have found in his text (A) of Job 40:22 (27) δεήσειςκαὶἱκετηρίας , but which was classical . Ἱκετηρία had become an equivalent for ἱκεσία , which is actually the reading here in 1 . The phrase recurs in a Ptolemaic papyrus (Brunet de Presle et E. Egger’ s Papyrus Grecs du Musé e du Louvre, 27:22), χαίρεινσεἀξιῶμετὰδεήσεωςκαὶἱκετείας , though in a weakened sense. The addition of μετὰκραυγῆς (here a cry of anguish) ἰσχυρᾶςκαὶδακρύων may be a touch of pathos, due to his own imagination,1 or suggested by the phraseology of the 22nd psalm, which was a messianic prediction for him (cp. above, 2:12) as for the early church; the words of v. 3 in that psalm would hardly suit , but phrases like that of v. 6; and v. 25 might have been in his mind. Tears were added before long to the Lucan account of the passion, at 22:44 (Epiph. Ancor. 31, ἀλλὰ “ καὶἔκλαυσεν ” κεῖταιἐντῷκατὰΛουκᾶνεὐαγγελίῳἐντοῖςἀδιορθώτοιςἀντιγράφοις ). It is one of the passages which prove how deeply the writer was impressed by the historical Jesus; the intense faith and courage and pitifulness of Jesus must have deeply moved his mind. He seeks to bring out the full significance of this for the saving work of Jesus as Son. His methods of proof may be remote and artificial, to our taste, but the religious interest which prompted them is fundamental. No theoretical reflection on the qualification of priests or upon the dogma of messiah’ s sinlessness could have produced such passages as this. Later Rabbinic piety laid stress on tears, e.g. in Sohar Exod. fol. 5:19, “ Rabbi Jehuda said, all things of this world depend on penitence and prayers, which men offer to God (Blessed be He!), especially if one sheds tears along with his prayers” ; and in Synopsis Sohar, p. 33, n. 2, “ There are three kinds of prayers, entreaty, crying, and tears. Entreaty is offered in a quiet voice, crying with a raised voice, but tears are higher than all.” In ἀπὸτῆςεὐλαβείας , the sense of εὐλαβεία in 12:28 and of εὐλαβεῖσθαι in 11:7 shows that ἀπό here means “ on account of” (as is common in Hellenistic Greek), and that ἀπὸτῆςεὐλαβείας must be taken, as the Greek fathers took it, “ on account of his reverent fear of God,” pro sua reverentia (vg), “ because he had God in reverence” (Tyndale; “ in honoure,” Coverdale). The writer is thinking of the moving tradition about Jesus in Gethsemane, which is now preserved in the synoptic gospels, where Jesus entreats God to be spared death: Ἀββᾶὁπατήρ , πάνταδυνατάσοι · παρένεγκετὸποτήριονἀπ ʼ ἐμοῦτοῦτο (Mark 14:36). This repeated supplication corresponds to the “ bitter tears and cries.” Then Jesus adds, ἀλλ ʼ οὐτίἐγὼθέλω , ἀλλὰτίσύ . This is his εὐλάβεια , the godly fear which leaves everything to the will of God. Such is the discipline which issues in ὑπακοή . Compare Psalms 6:8 καὶκύριοςεἰσήκουσεπροσευχὴνπαντὸςἐνφόβῳθεοῦ . (a) The alternative sense of “ fear” appears as early as the Old Latin version (d = exauditus a metu). This meaning of εὐλαβεία occurs in Joseph. Ant. xi. 6. 9, εὐλαβείαςαὐτὴν (Esther) ἀπολύων . Indeed εὐλαβεία (cp. Anz, 359) and its verb εὐλαβεῖσθαι are common in this sense; cp. e.g. 2 Mac 8:16 μὴκαταπλαγῆναιτοῖςδεσμίοιςμηδὲεὐλαβεῖσθαιτὴν … πολυπληθείαν : Sir 41:3 μὴεὐλαβοῦκρῖμαδανάτου : Wis 17:8 οὗτοικαταγέλαστονεὐλάβειανἐνόσουν . But here the deeper, religious sense is more relevant to the context. “ In any case the answer consisted … in courage given to face death … The point to be emphasized is, not so much that the prayer of Jesus was heard, as that it needed to be heard” (A. B. Bruce, p. 186). (b) Some (e.g. Linden in Studien und Kritiken, 1860, 753 f., and Blass, § 211) take ἀπὸτῆςεὐλαβείας with what follows; this was the interpretation of the Peshitto (“ and, although he was a son, he learned obedience from fear and the sufferings which he bore” ). But the separation of ἀπὸτῆςεὐλαβείας from ἀφ ʼ ὦν and the necessity of introducing a καί before the latter phrase point to the artificiality of this construction. In v. 8 καίπερὢνυἱός (καίπερ being used with a participle as in 7:5, 12:17) means, “ Son though he was,” not “ son though he was.” The writer knows that painful discipline is to be expected by all who are sons of God the Father; he points out, in 12:5f., that every son, because he is a son, has to suffer. Here the remarkable thing is that Jesus had to suffer, not because but although he was υἱός , which shows that Jesus is Son in a unique sense; as applied to Jesus υἱός means something special. As divine υἱός in the sense of 1:1f., it might have been expected that he would be exempt from such a discipline. Ὃς … ἔμαθεν … ὑπακοήν is the main thread of the sentence, but καίπερὤνυἱός attaches itself to ἔμαθενκτλ . rather than to the preceding participles προσενέγκας and εἰσακουσθείς (Chrys. Theophyl.). With a daring stroke the author adds, ἔμαθενἀφ ʼ ὣνἔπαθετὴνὑπακοήν . The paronomasia goes back to a common Greek phrase which is as old as Aeschylus (Agam. 177 f.), who describes Zeus as τὸνπάθειμάθοςθέντακυρίωςἔχειν , and tells how (W. Headlam)— “ The heart in time of sleep renews Aching remembrance of her bruise, And chastening wisdom enters wills that most refuse” — which, the poet adds, is a sort of χάριςβίαιος from the gods. This moral doctrine, that πάθος brings μάθος , is echoed by Pindar and other writers, notably by Philo (de vit. Mos. iii. 38, τούτουςοὐλόγοςἀλλ ʼ ἔργαπαιδεύει · παθόντεςεἴσονταιτὸἐμὸνἀψευδὲς , ἐπεὶμαθόντεςοὐκἔγνωσαν : de spec. leg. III. 6, ἵν ʼ ἐκτοῦπαθεῖνμάθῃκτλ .: de somn. ii. 15, ὃπαθὼνἀκριβῶςἔμαθεν , ὅτιτοῦθεοῦ (Genesis 50:19) ἐστιν ). But in the Greek authors and in Philo it is almost invariably applied to “ the thoughtless or stupid, and to open and deliberate offenders” (Abbott, Diat. 3208a), to people who can only be taught by suffering. Our writer ventures, therefore, to apply to the sinless Jesus an idea which mainly referred to young or wilful or undisciplined natures. The term ὑπακοή only occurs once in the LXX, at 2 S 22:36 (καὶὑπακοήσουἐπλήθυνένμε , A), where it translates ע ֲ נ ָ ו ָ ה . The general idea corresponds to that of 10:5-9 below, where Jesus enters the world submissively to do the will of God, a vocation which involved suffering and self-sacrifice. But the closest parallel is the argument of Paul in Philippians 2:6-8, that Jesus, born in human form, ἐταπείνωσενἑαυτὸνγενόμενοςὑπήκοοςμέχριθανάτου , and the conception of the ὑπακοή of Jesus (Romans 5:18, Romans 5:19) in contrast to the παρακοή of Adam. What our writer means to bring out here, as in 2:10f., is the practical initiation of Jesus into his vocation for God and men. “ Wherever there is a vocation, growth and process are inevitable. … Personal relations are of necessity relations into which one grows; the relation can be fully and practically constituted only in the practical exercise of the calling in which it is involved. So it was with Christ. He had, so to speak, to work Himself into His place in the plan of salvation, to go down among the brethren whom He was to lead to glory and fully to identify Himself with them, not of course by sharing their individual vocation, but in the practice of obedience in the far harder vocation given to Him. That obedience had to be learned, not because His will was not at every moment perfect … but simply because it was a concrete, many-sided obedience” (W. Robertson Smith, Expositor2, ii. pp. 425, 426). Τελειωθείς in v. 9 recalls and expands the remark of 2:10, that God “ perfected” Jesus by suffering as τὸνἀρχηγὸντῆςσωτηρίαςαὐτῶν , and the argument of 2:17, 18. The writer avoids the technical Stoic terms προκόπτειν and προκοπή . He prefers τελειοῦν and τελείωσις , not on account of their associations with the sacerdotal consecration of the OT ritual, but in order to suggest the moral ripening which enabled Jesus to offer a perfect self-sacrifice, and also perhaps with a side-allusion here to the death-association of these terms. Philo (de Abrah. 11) observes that nature, instruction, and practice are the three things essential πρὸςτελειότητατοῦβιοῦ , οὔτεγὰρδιδασκαλίανἄνευφύσεωςἢἀσκἡσεωςτελειωθῆναιδυνατὸνοὔτεφύσιςἐπὶπέραςἐστὶνἐλθεῖνἱκανὴδίχατοῦμαθεῖν . Αἴτιοςσωτηρίας was a common Greek phrase. Thus Philo speaks of the brazen serpent as αἴτιοςσωτηρίαςγενόμενοςπαντελοῦςτοῖςθεασαμένοις (de Agric. 22), Aeschines (in Ctesiph. 57) has τὴςμὲνσωτηρίαντῇπόλειτοὺςθεοὺςαἰτίουςγεγενήμενους , and in the de Mundo, 398b, the writer declares that it is fitting for God αἴτιοντεγίνεσθαιτοῖςἐπὶτῆςγῆςσωτηρίας . Σωτηρίααἰωνίος is a LXX phrase (Isaiah 45:17), but not in the sense intended here (cp. 2:3). The collocation of Jesus learning how to obey God and of thus proving a saviour τοῖςὑπακούουσιναὐτῷ is remarkable. At first sight there is a clue to the sense in Philo, who declares that “ the man who is morally earnest,” receiving God’ s kingdom, “ does not prove a source of evil to anyone , but proves a source of the acquisition and use of good things for all who obey him” (πᾶσιτοῖςὑπηκόοις , de Abrah. 45). This refers to Abraham, but to the incident of Gen 23:6, not to that of Melchizedek; Philo is spiritualizing the idea of the good man as king, and the ὑπηκόοι are the members of his household under his authority. The parallel is merely verbal. Here by πᾶσιντοῖςὑπακούουσιναὐτῷ the writer means οἱπιστεύσαντες (4:3), but with a special reference to their loyalty to Christ. Disobedience to Christ or to God (3:18, 4:6, 11) is the practical expression of disbelief. It is a refusal to take Christ for what he is, as God’ s appointed ἀρχιερεύς . The writer then adds (v. 10) προσαγορευθεὶςὑπὸτοῦθεοῦἀρχιερεὺςκατὰτὴντάξινΜελχισεδέκ , in order to explain how, thus commissioned, he brought the σωτηρίααἰωνίος . The paragraph is thus rounded off, like that of vv. 5, 6, with a reference to the Melchizedek priesthood, which the writer regards as of profound importance, and to which he now proposes to advance. Though προσαγορεύω is not used in this sense in the LXX, the usage is common in Hellenistic writings like 2 Maccabees (1:36, 4:7, 10:9) and Josephus (e.g. c. Apion. i. 311). But the Melchizedek type of priesthood is not discussed till 6:20, 7:1f. The interlude between 5:10 and 6:20 is devoted to a stirring exhortation; for this interpretation of the Son as priest is a piece of γνῶσις which can only be imparted to those who have mastered the elementary truths of the Christian religion, and the writer feels and fears that his readers are still so immature that they may be unable or unwilling to grasp the higher and fuller teaching about Christ. The admonition has three movements of thought, 5:11-14, 6:1-8, and 6:9-19. 11 On this point I (ἡμῖν , plural of authorship, as 2:5) have a great deal to say, which it is hard to make intelligible to you. For (καὶγάρ = etenim) you have grown dull of hearing. 12 Though by this time you should be teaching other people, you still need someone to teach you once more the rudimentary principles of the divine revelation. You are in need of milk, not of solid food. 13 (For anyone who is fed on milk is unskilled in moral truth; he is1 a mere babe. 14 Whereas solid food is for the nature, for those who have their faculties trained by exercise to distinguish good and evil.) 6:1 Let us pass on then to what is mature, leaving elementary Christian doctrine behind, instead of laying the foundation over again with repentance from dead works, with faith in God, 2 with instruction about ablutions and the laying on of hands, about the resurrection of the dead and eternal punishment. 3 With God’ s permission we will take this step. Περὶοὗ (i.e. on ἀρχιερεὺςκατὰτὴντάξιν M.) πολύςκτλ . (v. 11). The entire paragraph (vv. 11-14) is full of ideas and terms current in the ethical and especially the Stoic philosophy of the day. Thus, to begin with, πολύςὁλόγος is a common literary phrase for “ there is much to say” ; e.g. Dion. Hal. ad Amm. i. 3, πολὺςγὰρὁπερὶαὐτῶνλόγος , and Lysias in Pancleonem, 11, ὅσαμὲνοὖναὐτόθιἐρρήθη , πολὺςἂνεἴημοιλόγοςδεηγεῖσθαι . Πολύς and δυσερμήνευτος are separated, as elsewhere adjectives are (e.g. 2:17). For the general sense of δυσερμήνευτοςλέγειν , see Philo, de migrat. Abrah. 18, ἧςτὰμὲνἄλλαμακροτέρωνἢκατὰτὸνπαρόντακαιρὸνδεῖταιλόγωνκαὶὑπερθετέον , and Dion. Halic. de Comp. viii. περὶὧνκαὶπολὺςὁλόγοςκαὶβαθεῖαἡθεωρία . Δυσερμήνευτος occurs in an obscure and interpolated passage of Philo’ s de Somniis i. , and Artemidorus uses it of dreams. Ἐπείκτλ . for the fault lies with you, not with the subject. Νωθρός only occurs once in the LXX, and not in this sense ; even in Sir 4:29, 11:12 it means no more than slack or backward (as below in 6:12). It is a common Greek ethical term for sluggishness, used with the accusative or the (locative) dative. With ἀκοή it denotes dulness. The literal sense occurs in Heliodorus (v. 10: ἐγὼμὲνοὖνᾖσθόμην … τάχαμένπουκαὶδι ʼ ἡλικίαννωθρότεροςὢντὴνἀκοήν · νόσοςγὰρἄλλωντεκαὶὠτῶντὸγῆρας ), and the metaphorical sense of ἀκοαί is illustrated by Philo’ s remark in quis rer. div. haer. 3: ἐνἀψύχοιςἀνδριᾶσιν , οἷςὦταμὲνἐστιν , ἀκοαὶδ͵οὐκἔνεισιν . Why (καὶγάρ , v. 12), the writer continues, instead of being teachers you still need a teacher. For χρεία with the article and infinitive (τοῦδιδάσκειν 2 κτλ .), cp. the similar use of χρέων in OP 1488:25. In what follows, τινά , the masculine singular, gives a better sense than τίνα , the neuter plural. “ Ye again have need of (one) to teach you what are the elements” (sah boh); but it is the elementary truths themselves, not what they are, that need to be taught. Τὰστοιχεῖα here means the ABC or elementary principles (see Burton’ s Galatians, pp. 510f.), such as he mentions in 6:1, 2. He defines them further as τῆςἀρχῆςτῶνλογίωνθεοῦ , where τὰλογίαθεοῦ means not the OT but the divine revelation in general, so that τὰς . τ . ἀρχῆς corresponds to the Latin phrase “ prima elementa.” The words ὀφείλοντεςεἶναιδιδάσκαλοι simply charge the readers with backwardness. “ The expression, ‘ to be teachers,’ affirms no more than that the readers ought to be ripe in Christian knowledge. Once a man is ripe or mature, the qualification for teaching is present” (Wrede, p. 32). The use of the phrase in Greek proves that it is a general expression for stirring people up to acquaint themselves with what should be familiar. See Epict. Enchir. 51, ποῖονοὖνἔτιδιδάσκαλονπροσδοκᾷς ; … οὐκἔτιεἶμειράκιον , ἀλλὰἀνὴρἤδητέλειος . It was quite a favourite ethical maxim in antiquity. Thus Cyrus tells the Persian chiefs that he would be ashamed to give them advice on the eve of battle: οἶδαγὰρὑμᾶςταῦταἐπισταμένουςκαὶμεμελετηκόταςκαὶἀσκοῦνταςδιὰτέλουςοἷάπερἐγώ , ὥστεκἂνἄλλουςεἰκότωςἂνδιδάσκοιτε (Cyrop. iii. 3. 35). Similarly we have the remark of Aristophanes in Plato, Sympos. 189d, ἐγὼοὖνπειράσομαιὑμῖνεἰσηγήσασθαιτὴνδύναμιναὐτοῦ , ὑμεῖςδὲτῶνἄλλωνδιδάσκαλοιἔσεσθε , and the reply given by Apollonius of Tyana to a person who asked why he never put questions to anybody: ὅτιμειράκιονὢνἐζήτησα , νῦνδὲοὐχρὴζητεῖνἀλλὰδιδάσκεινἃεὕρηκα (Philostratus, Vita Apoll. i. 17). Seneca tells Lucilius the same truth: “ quousque disces? iam et praecipe (Ep. 33:9). Thus the phrase here offers no support whatever to any theories about the readers of ΠρὸςἙβραίους being a group of teachers, or a small, specially cultured community. The author, himself a διδάσκαλος , as he is in possession of this mature γνῶσις , is trying to shame his friends out of their imperfect grasp of their religion. That is all. Γεγόνατεχρείανἔχοντες is a rhetorical variant for χρείανἔχετε , due to the writer’ s fondness for γεγόνα . If there is any special meaning in the larger phrase, it is that detected by Chrysostom, who argues that the writer chose it deliberately: τουτέστιν , ὑμεῖςἠθελήσατε , ὑμεῖςἑαυτοὺςεἰςτοῦτοκατεστήσατε , εἰςταύτηντὴνχρείαν . They are responsible for this second childhood of theirs. The comparison1 of milk and solid food is one of the most common in Greek ethical philosophy, as in Epictetus, e.g. ii. 16. 39, οὐθέλειςἤδηὡςτὰπαιδίαἀπογαλακτισθῆναικαὶἅπτεσθαιτροφῆςστερεωτέρας , and iii. 24. 9, οὐκἀπογαλακτίσομενἤδηποθ ʼ ἑαυτούς , and particularly in Philo. A characteristic passage from the latter writer is the sentence in de agric. 2: ἐπεὶδὲνηπίοιςμὲνἐστιγάλατροφή , τελείοιςδὲτὰἐκπυρῶνπέμματα , καὶψυχῆςγαλακτώδειςμὲνἂνεἶεντροφαὶκατὰτὴνπαιδικὴνἡλικίαντὰτῆςἐγκυκλίουμουσικῆςπροπαιδεύματα , τέλειαιδὲκαὶἀνδράσινἐμπρεπεῖςαἱδιὰφρονήσεωςκαὶσωφροσύνηςκαὶἁπάσηςἀρετῆςὑφηγήσεις . Our writer adopts the metaphor, as Paul had done (1 Corinthians 3:1, 1 Corinthians 3:2), and adds a general aside (vv. 13, 14) in order to enforce his remonstrance. He does not use the term γνῶσις , and the plight of his friends is not due to the same causes as operated in the Corinthian church, but he evidently regards his interpretation of the priesthood of Christ as mature instruction, στερεὰτροφή . Ὁμετέχωνγάλακτος is one whose only food (μετέχειν as in 1 Corinthians 10:17 etc.) is milk; ἄπειρος is “ inexperienced,” and therefore “ unskilled,” in λόγουδικαιοσύνης — an ethical phrase for what moderns would call “ moral truth,” almost as in Xen. Cyrop. i.6. 31, ἀνὴρδιδάσκαλοςτῶνπαίδων , ὃςἐδίδασκενἄρατοὺςπαῖδαςτὴνδικαιοσύνηνκτλ ., or in M. Aurelius xi:10, xii:1. Thus, while δικαιοσύνη here is not a religious term, the phrase means more than (a) “ incapable of talking correctly” (Delitzsch, B. Weiss, von Soden), which is, no doubt, the mark of a νήπιος , but irrelevant in this connexion; or (b) “ incapable of understanding normal speech,” such as grown-up people use (Riggenbach). Τελείωνδέκτλ . (v. 14). The clearest statement of what contemporary ethical teachers meant by τέλειος as mature, is (cp. p. 70) in Epict. Enchirid. 51, “ how long will you defer thinking of yourself as worthy of the very best … ? You have received the precepts you ought to accept, and have accepted them. Why then do you still wait for a teacher , that you may put off amending yourself till he comes? You are a lad no longer, you are a full-grown man now . … Make up your mind, ere it is too late, to live ὡςτέλειονκαὶπροκόπτοντα .” Then he adds, in words that recall Hebrews 12:1f.: “ and when you meet anything stiff or sweet, glorious or inglorious, remember that νῦνὁἀγὼνκαὶἤδηπάρεστιτὰὈλύμπια .” As Pythagoras divided his pupils into νήπιοι and τέλειοι , so our author distinguishes between the immature and the mature . In διὰτὴνἕξιν he uses ἕξις much as does the writer of the prologue to Sirach , for facility or practice.1 It is not an equivalent for mental faculties here, but for the exercise of our powers. These powers or faculties are called τὰαἰσθητήρια . Αἰσθητήριον was a Stoic term for an organ of the senses, and, like its English equivalent “ sense,” easily acquired an ethical significance, as in Jeremiah 4:19 τὰαἰσθητήριατῆςκαρδίαςμου . The phrase γεγυμνασμένααἰσθητήρια may be illustrated from Galen (de dign. puls. iii:2, ὃςμὲνγὰρἂνεὐαισθητότατονφύσιντεκαὶτὸαἰσθητήριονἔχῃγεγυμνασμένονἱκανῶς … οὗτοςἂνἄριστοςεἴηγνώμωντῶνἐντὸςὑποκειμένων , and de complexu, ii.: λελογισμένουμὲνἐστινἀνδρὸςτοὺςλογισμοὺςοὓςεἴρηκακαὶγεγυμνασμένατὴναἴσθησινἐνπολλῇτῇκατὰμέροςἐμπειρίᾳκτλ .), γεγυμνασμένα being a perfect participle used predicatively, like πεφυτευμένην in Luke 13:6, and γεγυμνασμένον above. Compare what Marcus Aurelius (iii:1) says about old age; it may come upon us, bringing not physical failure, but a premature decay of the mental and moral faculties, e.g., of self-control, of the sense of duty, καὶὅσατοιαῦταλογισμοῦσυγγεγυμνασμένουπάνυχρῄζει . Elsewhere (ii:13) he declares that ignorance of moral distinctions is a blindness as serious as any inability to distinguish black and white. The power of moral discrimination is the mark of maturity, in contrast to childhood . Compare the definition of τὸἠθικόν in Sextus Empiricus (Hyp. Pyrrh. 3:168): ὅπερδοκεῖπερὶτὴνδιάκρισιντῶντεκαλῶνκαὶκακῶνκαὶἀδιαφόρωνκαταγίγνεσθαι . In spite of Resch’ s arguments (Texte u. Untersuchungen, xxx:3. 112f.), there is no reason to hear any echo of the well-known saying attributed to Jesus: γίνεσθεδὲδόκιμοιτραπεζῖται , τὰμὲνἀποδοκιμάζοντες , τὸδὲκαλὸνκατὲχοντες . LXX The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint Version (ed. H. B. Swete). 522 [δ 602] B [03: δ 1] cont. 1:1-9:18: for remainder cp. cursive 293. D [06: α 1026] cont. 1:1-13:20. Codex Claromontanus is a Graeco-Latin MS, whose Greek text is poorly * reproduced in the later (saec. ix.-x.) E = codex Sangermanensis. The Greek text of the latter (1:1-12:8) is therefore of no independent value (cp. Hort in WH, § § 335-337); for its Latin text, as well as for that of F=codex Augiensis (saec. ix.), whose Greek text of ΠρὸςἘβραίους has not been preserved, see below, p. lxix. K [018:1:1]. boh The Coptic Version of the NT in the Northern Dialect (Oxford, 1905), vol. iii. pp. 472-555. Philo Philonis Alexandriai Opera Quae Supersunt (recognoverunt L. Cohn et P. Wendland). Josephus Flavii Josephi Opera Omnia post Immanuelem Bekkerum, recognovit S. A. Naber. L [020: α 5] cont. 1:1-13:10. C [04: δ 3] cont. 2:4-7:26 9:15-10:24 12:16-13:25. א Ԡ [01: δ 2). A [02: δ 4]. 33 [δ 48] Hort’ s 17 P [025: α 3] cont. 1:1-12:8 12:11-13:25. 6 [δ 356] cont. 1:1-9:3 10:22-13:25 1288 [α 162] 1739 [α 78] 1 As in 2 Mac 9:18 ἐπιστολὴνἔχουσανἱκετηρίαςτάξιν , Ep. Arist. 69, κρηπῖδοςἔχουσατάξιν . OP The Oxyrhynchus Papyri (ed. B. P. Grenfell and A. Hunt). Michel Recueil d’ Inscriptions Grecques (ed. C. Michel, 1900). 1 Like that of Hos 12:4, where tears are added to the primitive story (Genesis 32:26) of Jacob’ s prayer . In 2 Mac 11:6 the Maccabean army μετὰὀδυρμῶνκαὶδακρύωνἱκέτευοντὸνκύριον . d (Latin version of D) Blass F. Blass, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch: vierte, vö llig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner (1913); also, Brief an die Hebrä er, Text mit Angabe der Rhythmen (1903). 177 [α 106] 1 D* inserts ἀκμήν (Matthew 15:16) between γάρ and ἐστιν : “ he is still a mere babe.” Blass adopts this, for reasons of rhythm. 2 1912 and origen read (with 462) διδάσκεσθαι , and omit ὑμᾶς . sah The Coptic Version of the NT in the Southern Dialect (Oxford, 1920), vol. v. pp. 1-131. 1 Origen (Philocalia, xviii. 23) uses this passage neatly to answer Celsus, who had declared that Christians were afraid to appeal to an educated and intelligent audience. He quotes 5:12f. as well as 1 Corinthians 3:2f., arguing that in the light of them it must be admitted ἡμεῖς , ὅσηδύναμις , πάνταπράττομενὑπὲρτοῦφρονίμωνἀνδρῶνγενέσθαιτὸνσύλλογονἡμῶν · καὶτὰἐνἡμῖνμάλιστακαλὰκαὶθεῖατότετολμῶμενἐντοῖςπρὸστὸκοινὸνδιαλόγοιςφέρεινεἰςμέσον , ὅτ ʼ εὐποροῦμενσυνετῶνἀροατῶν . Weiss B. Weiss, “ Textkritik der paulinischen Briefe” (in Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, vol. xiv. 3), also Der Hebrä erbrief in Zeitgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung (1910). 1 “ Firma quaedam facilitas quae apud Graecos ἕξις nominatur” (Quint. Instit. Orat. 10:1). Διὸ — well then (as in 12:12, 28)— ἐπὶτὸντελειότηταφερώμεθα (6:1). It is a moral duty to grow up, and the duty involves an effort. The τελειότης in question is the mature mental grasp of the truth about Christ as ἀρχιερεύς , a truth which the writer is disappointed that his friends still find it difficult to understand. However, διὰτὸνχρόνον they ought to understand it. He has every reason to expect an effort from them, and therefore he follows up his remonstrance with a word of encouragement. Instead of the sharp, severe tone of vv. 11 f., he now speaks more hopefully. The connexion is not easy. We expect “ however” instead of “ well then.” But the connexion is not made more easy by regarding 6:1f. as a resolve of the writer: “ since you are so immature, I am going on myself to develop the higher teaching.” It would be senseless for a teacher to take this line, and it is not facilitated by reading φερόμεθα . The plural is not the literary plural as in 5:11. The writer wishes to carry his readers along with him. “ If you want anyone to instruct you over again in rudimentary Christianity, I am not the man; I propose to carry you forward into a higher course of lessons. Come, let us advance, you and I together.” The underlying thought, which explains the transition, is revealed in the next paragraph (vv. 4 f.), where the writer practically tells his readers that they must either advance or lose their present position of faith,1 in which latter case there is no second chance for them. In spite of his unqualified censure in 5:12, he shows, in 6:9f., that they are really capable of doing what he summons them to try in 6:1f., i.e. to think out the full significance of Jesus in relation to faith and forgiveness. Only thus, he argues, can quicken the faint pulse of your religious life. “ Religion is something different from mere strenuous thinking on the great religious questions. Yet it still remains true that faith and knowledge are inseparable, and that both grow stronger as they react on one another. More often than we know, the failure of religion, as a moral power, is due to no other cause than intellectual sloth” (E. F. Scott, p. 44). After the parenthesis of 5:13, 14, the writer resumes the thought with which he started in 5:11a “ you must make an effort to enter into this larger appreciation of what Christ means.” Ἄφεντες … φερώμεθα is a phrase illustrated by Eurip. Androm. 392-393, τὴνἀρχὴνἀφεὶς | πρὸςτὴντελευτὴνὑστέρανοὖσανφέρῃ : by ἀφέντες the writer means “ leaving behind,” and by φερώμεθα “ let us advance.” Ἀφίημι might even mean “ to omit” ; it is so used with λόγον (= to pass over without mentioning), e.g. in Plutarch’ s an seni respublica gerenda sit, 18, ἀλλ ʼ ἀφέντες , εἰβούλει , τὸνἀποσπῶντατῆςπολιτείαςλόγονἐκεῖνοσκοπῶμενἤδηκτλ ., and even independently (cp. Epict. iv:1. 15, τὸνμὲνΚαίσαραπρὸςτὸπαρὸνἀφῶμεν , and Theophrastus, prooem. ἀφεὶςτὸπροοιμιάζεσθαικαὶπολλὰπερὶτοῦπράγματοςλέγειν ). In what follows, τὸντῆςἀρχῆςτοῦΧριστοῦλόγον is a variant for τὰστοιχεῖατῆςἀρχῆςτῶνλογίωντοῦθεοῦ (5:12). ΤοῦΧριστοῦ is an objective genitive; the writer is not thinking of injunctions issued by Christ (so Harnack, Constitution and Law of the Church, p. 344). Blass follows L in reading λοιπόν after λόγον — needlessly. The use of the θεμέλιον metaphor after τῆςἀρχῆς was natural; it occurs in Epictetus and in Philo . Indeed the θεμέλιον metaphor is particularly common in Philo, as, e.g., in the de vita contempl. 476 . This basis of Christian instruction is now described; the contents are arranged in three pairs, but, as the middle pair are not distinctively Christian ideas (v. 2), the writer puts in διδαχήν or διδαχῆς . The θεμέλιον of instruction consists of μετανοίας … καὶπίστεως (genitives of quality), while διδαχήν , which is in apposition to it , controls the other four genitives. Μετάνοια and πίστις , βαπτισμοί and ἐπιθέσιςχειρῶν , ἀνάστασις and κρίμααἰώνιον , are the fundamental truths. Μετάνοια 1 ἀπό is like μετανοεῖνἀπό (Acts 8:22), and πίστιςἐπὶθεόν like πιστεύεινἐπί . These two requirements were foremost in the programme of the Christian mission. The other side of repentance is described in 9:14 πόσῳμᾶλλοντὸαἷματοῦΧριστοῦ … καθαριεῖτὴνσυνείδησινἡμῶνἀπὸνεκρῶνἔργωνεἰςτὸλατρεύεινθεῷζῶντι , where the last word indicates that νεκρὰἔργα mean the conduct of those who are outside the real life and service of God. Practically, therefore, νεκρὰἔργα are sins, as the Greek fathers assumed; the man who wrote 11:25 would hardly have hesitated to call them such. He has coined this phrase to suggest that such ἔργα have no principle of life in them,2 or that they lead to death. The origin of the phrase has not been explained, though Chrysostom and Oecumenius were right in suggesting that the metaphor of 9:14 was derived from the contamination incurred by touching a corpse (see Numbers 19:1f, Numbers 31:19). Its exact meaning is less clear. The one thing that is clear about it is that these ἔργανεκρά were not habitual sins of Christians; they were moral offences from which a man had to break away, in order to become a Christian at all. They denote not the lifeless, formal ceremonies of Judaism, but occupations, interests, and pleasures, which lay within the sphere of moral death, where, as a contemporary Christian writer put it (Ephesians 2:1), pagans lay νεκροὶτοῖςπαραπτώμασινκαὶταῖςἁμαρτίαις . The phrase might cover Jewish Christians, if there were any such in the community to which this homily is addressed, but it is a general phrase. Whatever is evil is νεκρόν , for our author, and ἔργανεκρά render any Christian πίστις or λατρεύειν impossible (cp. Expositor, Jan. 1918, pp. 1-18), because they belong to the profane, contaminating sphere of the world. In v. 2 διδαχήν is read, instead of διδαχῆς , by B syrharkl and the Old Latin, a very small group— yet the reading is probably original; the surrounding genitives led to its alteration into διδαχῆς . However, it makes no difference to the sense, which reading is chosen. Even διδαχῆς depends on θεμέλιον as a qualifying genitive. But the change of διδαχήν into διδαχῆς is much more likely than the reverse process. Διδαχήν follows βαπτισμῶν like κόσμος in 1 P 3:3 . Βαπτισμοί by itself does not mean specifically Christian baptism either in this epistle (9:10) or elsewhere (Mark 7:4), but ablutions or immersions such as the mystery religions and the Jewish cultus required for initiates, proselytes, and worshippers in general. The singular might mean Christian baptism (as in Colossians 2:12), but why does the writer employ the plural here? Not because in some primitive Christian circles the catechumen was thrice sprinkled or immersed in the name of the Trinity (Didache 7:1-3), but because ancient religions, such as those familiar to the readers, had all manner of purification rites connected with water (see on 10:22). The distinctively Christian uses of water had to be grasped by new adherents. That is, at baptism, e.g., the catechumen would be specially instructed about the difference between this Christian rite, with its symbolic purification from sins of which one repented, and (a) the similar rites in connexion with Jewish proselytes on their reception into the synagogue or with adherents who were initiated into various cults, and (b) the ablutions which were required from Christians in subsequent worship. The latter practice may be alluded to in 10:22 . Justin (Apol. 1:62) regards these lustrations of the cults as devilish caricatures of real baptism: καὶτὸλουτρὸνδὴτοῦτοἀκούσαντεςοἱδαίμονες … ἐνήργησανκαὶῥαντίζεινἑαυτοὺςτοὺςεἰςτὰἱερὰαὐτῶνἐπιβαίνονταςκαὶπροσιέναιαὐτοῖςμέλλοντας , λοιβὰςκαὶκνίσαςἀποτελοῦνταςτέλεονδὲκαὶλούεσθαιἐπιόνταςπρὶνἐλθεῖνἐπὶτὰἱερά , ἔνθαἵδρυνται , ἐνεργοῦσι . The ἐπιθέσιςχειρῶν which often followed baptism in primitive days (e.g. Acts 8:17f. Acts 8:19:6), though it is ignored by the Didache and Justin, was supposed to confer the holy Spirit (see v. 4). Tertullian witnesses to the custom (de baptismo, 18, de carnis resurrectione, 8), and Cyprian corroborates it . The rite was employed in blessing, in exorcising, and at “ ordination,” afterwards at the reception of penitents and heretics; here it is mentioned in connexion with baptism particularly (ERE vi:494b). The subject is discussed in monographs like A. J. Mason’ s The Relation of Confirmation to Baptism (1891), and J. Behm’ s Die Handauflegung im Urchristenthum (1911). The final pair of doctrines is ἀναστάσεωςνεκρῶνκαὶκρίματος (2:14, 15, 9:27) αἰωνίου (as in Acts 24:15, Acts 24:25). Tε is added after ἀναστάσεως mechanically by א A C K L Lat arm syrhkl pesh, just as it is added after βαπτισμῶν by harkl. In the rather elliptical style and loose construction of the whole sentence, “ notwithstanding its graceful rhythmical structure,” it is possible to see, with Bruce (p. 203), “ an oratorical device to express a feeling of impatience” with people who need to have such principia mentioned. At any rate the writer hastens forward. V. 3 is not a parenthesis (“ I will do this,” i.e. go over such elementary truths with you, “ if God permits,” when I reach you, 13:23); the τοῦτο refers to the advance proposed in v. 1, and after ποιήσομεν the author adds reverently, “ if God permits,” ἐάνπερἐπιτρέπῃὁθεός , almost as a contemporary rhetorician might say in a pious aside: ἐὰνδὲσῴζητὸδαιμόνιονἡμᾶς (Dion. Halicarn. De Admir. Vi dicendi in Dem. 58), or θεῶνἡμᾶςφυλαττόντωνἀσινεῖςτεκαὶἀνόσους (De Composit. Verborum, 1). The papyri show that similar phrases were current in the correspondence of the day (cp. Deissmann’ s Bible Studies, p. 80), and Josephus (Ant. xx:11. 2) uses κἂντὸθεῖονἐπιτρεπῇ . ποιήσομεν (א B K L N 1. 2. 5. 6. 33. 69. 88. 216. 218. 221. 226. 242. 255. 337. 429. 489. 919. 920. 1149. 1518. 1739. 1758. 1827. 1867. 2127. 2143. Lat sah boh Chrys.) has been changed into ποιήσωμεν by A C D P arm, etc., though the latter may have been originally, like φερόμεθα in v. 1, an orthographical variant, ο and ω being frequently confused. 4 For in the case of people who have been once enlightened, who tasted the heavenly Gift, who participated in the holy Spirit, 5 who tasted the goodness of God’ s word and the powers of the world to come, 6and then fell away— it is impossible to make them repent afresh, since they crucify the Son of God in their own persons and hold him up to obloquy. 7 For “ land” which absorbs the rain that often falls on it, and bears “ plants” that are useful to those for whom it is tilled, receives a blessing from God; 8 whereas, if it “ produces thorns and thistles,” it is reprobate and on the verge of being cursed— its fate is to be burned. Vv.4-6 put the reason for τοῦτοποιήσομεν (v. 3), and vv. 7, 8 give the reason for ἀδύνατον … ἀνακαινίζεινεἰςμετάνοιαν (vv. 4-6). Ἀδύνατονγάρκτλ . (v. 4); there are four impossible things in the epistle: this and the three noted in vv. 18, 10:4 and 11:6. Τοὺς … αἰῶνος (4, 5a) is a long description of people who have been initiated into Christianity; then comes the tragic καὶπαραπεσόντας . What makes the latter so fatal is explained in (v. 6) ἀνασταυροῦντας … παραδειγματίζοντας . Logically πάλινἀνακαινίζεινεἰςμετάνοιαν ought to come immediately after ἀδύνατονγάρ , but the writer delayed the phrase in order to break up the sequence of participles. The passage is charged with an austerity which shows how seriously the writer took life. Seneca quotes (Ep. xxiii:9-11) to Lucilius the saying of Epicurus, that “ it is irksome always to be starting life over again,” and that “ they live badly who are always beginning to live.” The reason is: “ quia semper illis imperfecta vita est.” But our writer takes a much more sombre view of the position of his friends. He urges them to develop their ideas of Christianity. “ You need some one to teach you the rudimentary lessons of the faith all over again,” he had said. “ Yes,” he now adds, “ and in some cases that is impossible. Relaying a foundation of repentance, etc.! That cannot be done for deliberate apostates.” The implication is that his readers are in danger of this sin, as indeed he has hinted already (in 3:7-4:14), and that one of the things that is weakening them is their religious inability to realize the supreme significance of Jesus. To remain as they are is fatal; it means the possibility of a relapse altogether. “ Come on,” the writer bids them, “ for if you do not you will fall back, and to fall back is to be ruined.” The connexion between this passage and the foregoing, therefore, is that to rest content with their present elementary hold upon Christian truth is to have an inadequate grasp of it; the force of temptation is so strong that this rudimentary acquaintance with it will not prevent them from falling away altogether, and the one thing to ensure their religious position is to see the full meaning of what Jesus is and does. This meaning he is anxious to impart, not as an extra but as an essential. The situation is so serious, he implies, that only those who fully realize what Jesus means for forgiveness and fellowship will be able to hold out. And once you relapse, he argues, once you let go your faith, it is fatal; people who deliberately abandon their Christian confession of faith are beyond recovery. Such a view of apostasy as a heinous offence, which destroyed all hope of recovery, is characteristic of ΠρὸςἙβραίους . It was not confined to this writer. That certain persons could not repent of their sins was, e.g., an idea admitted in rabbinic Judaism. “ Over and over again we have the saying: ‘ For him who sins and causes others to sin no repentance is allowed or possible’ (Aboth v. 26; Sanhedrin, 107b). ‘ He who is wholly given up to sin is unable to repent, and there is no forgiveness to him for ever’ (Midrash Tehillim on Psa_1 ad fin.).” 1 There is a partial parallel to this passage in the idea thrown out by Philo in de agricultura, 28, as he comments upon Genesis 9:20: “ Noah began to till the earth.” Evidently, says Philo, this means that he was merely working at the ἄρχαι of the subject. Ἀρχὴδ ʼ , ὁτῶνπαλαιῶνλόγος , ἥμισυτοῦπάντος , ὡςἂνἡμίσειπρὸςτὸτέλοςἀφεστηκυῖα , οὗμὴπροσγενομένουκαὶτὸἄρξασθαιπολλάκιςμεγάλαπολλοὺςἔβλαψεν . His point is that it is dangerous to stop short in any moral endeavour. But our author is more rigorous in his outlook. His warning is modified, however. (a) It is put in the form of a general statement. (b) It contains a note of encouragement in v. 7; and (c) it is at once followed up by an eager hope that the readers will disappoint their friend and teacher’ s fear (v. 9). In the later church this feature of ΠρὸςἙβραίους entered into the ecclesiastical question of penance (cp. ERE ix:716, and Journal of Theological Studies, iv: 321 f.), and seriously affected the vogue of the epistle (cp. Introd. p. xx). The fourfold description of believers (4, 5a) begins with ἅπαξφωτισθέντας , where φωτισθέντας corresponds to λαβεῖντὴνἐπίγνωσιντῆςἀληθείας (10:26), in the general sense of LXX , i.e. “ enlightened” in the sense of having their eyes opened (Ephesians 1:18) to the Christian God. Subsequently, earlier even than Justin Martyr, the verb, with its noun φωτισμός , came to be used of baptism specifically (cp. ERE viii:54, 55).Ἅπαξ is prefixed, in contrast to πάλιν (v. 6); once for all men enter Christianity, it is an experience which, like their own death (9:27) and the death of Jesus (9:28), can never be repeated. In καλὸνγευσαμένουςθεοῦῥῆμα the construction resembles that of Herod. vii:46, where the active voice is used with the accusative , and the adj. is put first: “ the deity, who let us taste the sweetness of life (or, that life is sweet), is found to be spiteful in so doing.” The similar use of the middle here as in Proverbs 29:36 and John 2:9 probably points to the same meaning (cp., however, Diat. 2016-2018), i.e., practically as if it were ὅτικτλ . (cp. Psalms 34:8 γεύσασθεκαὶἴδετεὅτιχρηστὸςὁκύριος , 1 P 2:3), in contrast to the more common construction with the genitive (v. 4, 2:9). The writer uses genitive and accusative indifferently, for the sake of literary variety; and καλόν here is the same as καλοῦ in 5:14. Γευσαμένουςκτλ . recalls the partiality of Philo for this metaphor (e.g. de Abrah. 19; de Somniis, i:26), but indeed it is common (cp. e.g. Jos. Ant. 4:6. 9, ἅπαξτὸνέονγευσαμένονξενικῶνἐθισμῶνἀπλήστωςαὐτῶνἐνεφορεῖτο ) throughout contemporary Hellenistic Greek as a metaphor for experiencing. Probably γευσαμένους … ἐπουρανίου , μετόχους … ἁγίου , and καλὸνγευσαμένουςαἰῶνος are three rhetorical expressions for the initial experience described in ἅπαξφωτισθέντας . “ The heavenly Gift” may be the Christian salvation in general, which is then viewed as the impartation of the holy Spirit, and finally as the revelation of the higher world which even already is partly realized in the experience of faith. Note that φωτισθέντας is followed by γευσαμένουςκτλ ., as the light-metaphor is followed by the food-metaphor in Philo’ s (de fuga et invent. 25) remarks upon the manna (Exodus 16:15, Exodus 16:16): ἡθείασύνταξιςαὕτητὴνὁρατικὴνψυχὴνφωτίζειτεκαὶὁμοῦκαὶγλυκαίνει … τοὺςδιψῶνταςκαὶπεινῶνταςκαλοκἀγαθίαςἐφηδύνουσα . Also, that δυνάμειςτεμέλλοντοςαἰῶνος  1 includes the thrilling experiences mentioned in 2:4. The dramatic turn comes in (v. 6) καὶπαραπεσόντας . Παραπίπτειν is here used in its most sinister sense; it corresponds to ἀποστῆναι (3:12), and indeed both verbs are used in the LXX to translate the same term פ ע ל . The usage in Wis 6:9 12:2 paves the way for this sense of a deliberate renunciation of the Christian God, which is equivalent to ἑκουσίωςἁμαρτάνειν in 10:26. The sin against the holy Spirit, which Jesus regarded as unpardonable, the mysterious ἁμαρτίαπρὸςθάνατον of 1 John 5:16, and this sin of apostasy, are on the same level. The writer never hints at what his friends might relapse into. Anything that ignored Christ was to him hopeless. Ἀδύνατον is now (v. 6) taken up in ἀνακαινίζειν , a LXX term (e.g. Psalms 51:12) which is actually used for the Christian start in life by Barnabas , and naturally of the divine action. Πάλιν is prefixed for emphasis, as in Isokr. Areopag. 3, τῆςἔχθραςτῆςπρὸςτὸνβασιλέαπάλινἀνακεκαινισμένης . There have been various, vain efforts to explain the apparent harshness of the statement. Erasmus took ἀδύνατον (like d = difficile) as “ difficult” ; Grotius said it was impossible “ per legem Mosis” ; others take ἀνακαινίζειν to mean “ keep on renewing,” while some, like Schoettgen, Bengel, and Wickham, fall back on the old view that while men could not, God might effect it. But even the last-named idea is out of the question. If the writer thought of any subject to ἁνακαινίζειν , it was probably a Christian διδάσκαλος like himself; but the efforts of such a Christian are assumed to be the channel of the divine power, and no renewal could take place without God. There is not the faintest suggestion that a second repentance might be produced by God when human effort failed. The tenor of passages like 10:28f. and 12:17 tells finally against this modification of the language. A similarly ominous tone is heard in Philo’ s comment on Numbers 30:10 in quod deter. pot. insid. 40: φήσομενδιάνοιαν … ἐκβεβλῆσθαικαὶχήρανθεοῦ , ἣτιςἢγονὰςθείαςοὐπαρεδέξατοἢπαραδεξαμένηέκουσίωςαὖθιςἐξήμβλωσε … ἡδ ʼ ἅπαξδιαζευκθεῖσακαὶδιοικισθεῖσαὡςἄσπονδοςμέχριτοῦπαντὸςαἰῶνοςἐκτετόξευται , εἰςτὸνἀρχαῖονοἶκονἐπανελθεῖνἁδυνατοῦσα . The reason why a second repentance is impossible is given in ἀνασταυροῦντας … παραδειγματίζοντας , where ἀνασταυροῦντας is used instead of σταυροῦντας , for the sake of assonance , but with the same meaning. Ἀνασταυροῦν simply means “ to crucify,” as, e.g., in Plato’ s Gorgias, 28 ; Thucyd. 1:110 ; Josephus , etc. The ἀνα = sursum, not rursum, though the Greek fathers , and several of the versions , took it in the sense of re-crucify. Ἑαυτοῖς : it is their crucifixion of Jesus. “ The thought is that of wilfulness rather than of detriment” (Vaughan). In the story of Jesus and Peter at Rome, which Origen mentions as part of the Acts of Paul (in, Joh. xx. 12), the phrase, “ to be crucified over again” occurs in a different sense (Texte u. Unters. xxx. 3, pp. 271-272). Καὶὁκύριοςαὐτῷεἶπεν · εἰσέρχομαιεἰςτὴνῬώμηνσταυρωθῆναι . ΚαὶὁΠέτροςεἶπεναὐτῷ · Κύριε , πάλινσταυροῦσαι ; εἶπεναὐτῷ · ναὶ , Πέτρε , πάλινσταυροῦμαι . Origen, quoting this as Ἄνωθενμέλλωσταυροῦσθαι , holds that such is the meaning of ἀνασταυροῦν in He Hebrews 6:5. The meaning of the vivid phrase is that they put Jesus out of their life, they break off all connexion with him; he is dead to them. This is the decisive force of σταυροῦσθαι in Galatians 6:14. The writer adds an equally vivid touch in καὶπαραδειγματίζοντας ( = τὸνυἱὸνθεοῦκαταπατήσαςκτλ ., 10:29)— as if he is not worth their loyalty! Their repudiation of him proclaims to the world that they consider him useless, and that the best thing they can do for themselves is to put him out of their life. Παραδειγματίζειν is used in its Hellenistic sense, which is represented by τιθέναιεἰςπαράδειγμα in the LXX (Nahum 3:6). Possibly the term was already associated with impaling ,1 but our author does not use it in the LXX sense of “ make an example of” (by punishing); the idea is of exposing to contemptuous ignominy, in public (as in Matthew 1:19). The Bithynians who had renounced Christianity proved to Pliny their desertion by maligning Christ— one of the things which, as he observed, no real Christian would do . “ Omnes … Christi male dixerunt.” When the proconsul urges Polykarp to abandon Christianity, he tells the bishop, λοιδόρησοντὸνΧριστόν (Mart. Polyk. ix. 3). The language of ΠρὸςἙβραίους is echoed in the saying of Jesus quoted in Apost. Const. vi. 18: οὗτοίεἰσιπερὶὧνκαὶὁκύριοςπικρῶςκαὶἀποτόμωςἀπεφήνατολέγωνὅτιεἰσὶψευδόχριστοικαὶψευδοδιδάσκαλοι , οἱβλασφημήσαντεςτὸπνεῦματῆςχάριτοςκαὶὰποπτύσαντεςτὴνπαρ ʼ αὐτοῦδωρεὰνμετὰτὴνχάριν , οἶςοὐκἀφεθήσεταιοὔτεἐντῷαἰῶνιτούτῳοὔτεἐντῷμέλλοντι . In Sir 31:30 (βαπτιζόμενοςἀπὸνεκροῦκαὶπάλινἁπτόμενοςαὐτοῦ , τίὠφελησεντῷλουτρῷ͂αὐτοῦ ;) the allusion is to the taboo-law of Num 19:11, Numbers 19:12; the parallel is verbal rather than real. But there is a true parallel in Mongolian Buddhism, which ranks five sins as certain “ to be followed by a hell of intense sufferings, and that without cessation … patricide, matricide, killing a Doctor of Divinity (i.e. a lama), bleeding Buddha, sowing hatred among priests.… Drawing blood from the body of Buddha is a figurative expression, after the manner of Heb 6:6” (J. Gilmour, Among the Mongols, pp. 233, 234). In the little illustration (vv. 7, 8), which corresponds to what Jesus might have put in the form of a parable, there are reminiscences of the language about God’ s curse upon the ground (Genesis 3:17, Genesis 3:18): ἐπικατάρατοςἡγῆ … ἀκάνθαςκαὶτριβόλουςἀνατελεῖ , and also of the words in Genesis 1:12 καὶἐξήνεγκενἡγῆβοτάνηνχόρτου , though the writer uses ἐκφέρειν for ἀνατέλλειν , and prefers τίκτειν to ἐκφέρειν (in v. 7). The image of a plot or field is mentioned by Quintilian (Instit. Orat. v. 11, 24) as a common instance of the παραβολή : “ ut, si animum dicas excolendum, similitudine utaris terrae quae neglecta spinas ac dumos, culta fructus creat.” The best Greek instance is in Euripides (Hecuba, 592 f.: οὔκουνδεινόν , εἰγῆμὲνκακὴ | τυχοῦσακαιροῦθεόθενεὖστάχυνφέρει , | χρηστὴδ ʼ ἁμαρτοῦσ ʼ ὧνχρεὼναὐτὴντυχεῖν | κακὸνδίδωσικαρπόνκτλ .). Πιοῦσα of land, as, e.g., in Deuteronomy 11:11 γῆ … ἐκτοῦὑετοῦτοῦοὐρανοῦπίεταιὕδωρ : Isaiah 55:10f. etc. As εὔθετος generally takes εἰς with the accusative, it is possible that τίκτουσα was meant to go with ἐκεινοῖς . Γεωργεῖται , of land being worked or cultivated, is a common term in the papyri as well as in the LXX. (a) Origen’ s homiletical comment (Philocalia, xxi. 9) is, τὰγινόμεναὑπὸτοῦθεοῦτεράστιαοἰονεὶὑετόςἐστιν · αἱδὲπροαιρέσειςαἱδιάφοροιοἰονεὶἡγεγεωργημένηγῆἐστὶκαὶἡἠμελημένη , μιᾷτῇφύσειὡςγῆτυγχάνουσα — an idea similar to that of Jerome (tractatus de psalmo xcvi., Anecdota Maredsolana, 3:3, 90: “ apostolorum epistolae nostrae pluviae sunt spiritales. Quid enim dicit Paulus in epistola ad Hebraeos? Terra enim saepe venientem super se bibens imbrem, et reliqua” ). (b) The Mishna directs that at the repetition of the second of the Eighteen Blessings the worshipper should think of the heavy rain and pray for it at the ninth Blessing (Berachoth, 5:1), evidently because the second declares, “ Blessed art thou, O Lord, who restorest the dead” (rain quickening the earth), and the ninth runs, “ Bless to us, O Lord our God, this year and grant us a rich harvest and bring a blessing on our land.” Also, “ on the occasion of the rains and good news, one says, Blessed be He who is good and does good” (Berachoth, 9:2). Cp. Marcus Aurelius, v. 7, εὐχὴἈθηναίων · ὗσον , ὗσον , ὦφίλεΖεῦ , κατὰτῆςἀρούραςτῆςἈθηναίωνκαὶτῶνπεδίων . Μεταλαμβάνει ( = participate in) is not a LXX term, but occurs in this sense in Wis 18:9 etc.; εὐλογίας occurs again in 12:17 , and there is a subtle suggestion here, that those alone who make use of their divine privileges are rewarded. What the writer has in mind is brought out in v. 10; that he was thinking of the Esau-story here is shown by the reminiscence of ἀγροῦὃνηὐλόγησενΚύριος (Genesis 27:27). The reverse side of the picture is now shown (v. 8). Commenting on Genesis 3:18 Philo fancifully plays on the derivation of the word τρίβολος : ἓκαστονδὲτῶνπαθῶντριβόλιαεἴρηκεν , ἐπειδὴτριττάἐστιν , αὐτότεκαὶτὸποιητικὸνκαὶτὸἐκτούτωνἀποτέλεσμα (leg. alleg. iii. 89). He also compares the eradication of evil desires in the soul to a gardener or farmer burning down weeds (de Agric. 4, πάντ ʼ ἐκκόψω , ἐκτεμῶ … καὶε ʼ πικαύσωκαὶτὰςῥίζαςαὐτῶνἐφιεῖσ ʼ ἄχριτῶνὑστάτωντῆςγῆςφλογὸςῥιπήν ); but in our epistle, as in John 15:6, the burning is a final doom, not a process of severe discipline. Ἀδόκιμος is used as in 1 Corinthians 9:27; the moral sense breaks through, as in the next clause, where the meaning of εἰςκαῦσιν may be illustrated by Deuteronomy 29:22 and by Philo’ s more elaborate description of the thunderstorm which destroyed Sodom (de Abrah. 27); God, he says, showered a blast οὐχὕδατοςἀλλάπυρός upon the city and its fields, by way of punishment, and everything was consumed, ἐπεὶδὲτὰἐνφανερῷκαὶὑπὲργῆςἅπαντακατανάλωσενἡφλόξ , ἤδηκαὶτὴνγῆναὐτὴνἔκαιε … ὑπὲρτοῦμηδ ʼ αὖθίςποτεκαρπὸνἐνεγκεῖνἢχλοηφορῆσαιτὸπαράπανδονηθῆναι . The metaphor otherwise is inexact, for the reference cannot be to the burning of a field in order to eradicate weeds; our author is thinking of final punishment ( = κρίματοςαἰωνίου , 6:2), which he associates as usual with fire (10:26, 27, 12:29). The moral application thus impinges on the figurative sketch. The words κατάραςἐγγύς actually occur in Aristides .1 There is no thought of mildness in the term ἐγγύς , it being used, as in 8:13, of imminent doom, which is only a matter of time. Meanwhile there is the ἐκδοχή (10:27). Later on, this conception of unpardonable sins led to the whole system of penance, which really starts from the discussion by Hermas in the second century. But for our author the unpardonable sin is apostasy, and his view is that of a missionary. Modern analogies are not awanting. Thus, in Dr. G. Warneck’ s book, The Living Forces of the Gospel (p. 248), we read that “ the Battak Christians would have even serious transgressions forgiven; but if a Christian should again sacrifice to ancestors or have anything to do with magic, no earnest Christian will speak in his favour; he is regarded as one who has fallen back into heathenism, and therefore as lost.” 9 Though I say this, beloved, I feel sure you will take the better2 course that means salvation. 10 God is not unfair; he will not forget what you have done, or the love you have shown for his sake in ministering, as you still do, to the saints. 11 It is my heart’ s desire that each of you would prove equally keen upon realizing your full (πληροφορίαν , 10:22) hope to the very end, 12 so that instead of being slack you may imitate those who inherit the promises by their steadfast faith. The ground for his confident hope about his “ dear friends” (Tyndale, v. 9) lies in the fact that they are really fruitful (v. 7) in what is the saving quality of a Christian community, viz. brotherly love (v. 10). The God who blesses a faithful life (v. 7) will be sure to reward them for that; stern though he may be, in punishing the disloyal, he never overlooks good service. Only (vv. 11, 12), the writer adds, put as much heart and soul into your realization of what Christianity means as you are putting into your brotherly love; by thus taking the better course, you are sure of God’ s blessing. As ἀγαπητοί indicates (the only time he uses it), the writer’ s affection leads him to hope for the best; he is deeply concerned about the condition of his friends, but he does not believe their case is desperate (v. 4). He has good hopes of them, and he wishes to encourage them by assuring them that he still believes in them. We may compare the remarks of Seneca to Lucilius, Ep. xxix. 3, about a mutual friend, Marcellinus, about whom both of them were anxious. Seneca says he has not yet lost hope of Marcellinus. For wisdom or philosophy “ is an art; let it aim at some definite object, choosing those who will make progress (profecturos) and withdrawing from those of whom it despairs— yet not abandoning them quickly, rather trying drastic remedies when everything seems hopeless.” Elsewhere, he encourages Lucilius himself by assuring him of his friend’ s confidence and hope (Ep. xxxii. 2: “ habeo quidem fiduciam non posse to detorqueri mansurumque in proposito” ), and, in connexion with another case, observes that he will not be deterred from attempting to reform certain people (Ep. xxv. 2): “ I would rather lack success than lack faith.” In καὶ (epexegetic) ἐχόμενασωτηρίας , ἐχόμενα , thus employed, is a common Greek phrase (cp. e.g. Marc. Aurel. 1. 6, ὅσατοιαῦτατῆςἙλληνικῆςἀγωγῆςἐχόμενα : Musonius (ed. Hence), 11., ζητεῖνπαιδείαςἐχόμενα : Philo, de Agric. 22, τὰδὲκαρτερίαςκαὶσωφροσύνης … ἐχόμενα ) for what has a bearing upon, or is connected with; here, for what pertains to and therefore promotes σωτηρία . The reason for this confidence, with which he seeks to hearten his readers, lies in their good record of practical service (τοῦἔργουὑμῶνκτλ .) which God is far too just to ignore. After all, they had some fruits as well as roots of Christianity (v. 10). Ἐπιλαθέσθαι is an infinitive of conceived result (Burton’ s Moods and Tenses, 371c; Blass, § 391, 4), instead of ἱνα c. subj., as, e.g., in 1 John 1:9, or ὥστε c. infinitive; cp. Xen. Cyrop. iv. 1. 20, δίκαιοςεἶἀντιχαρίζεσθαι .1 The text of τοῦἔργουὑμῶνκαὶτῆςἀγάπης was soon harmonized with that of 1 Thessalonians 1:3 by the insertion of τοῦκόπου after καὶ (so Dc K L 69, 256, 263, 1611, 2005, 2127 boh Theodoret, etc.). The relative ἣν after ἀγάπης has been attracted into the genitive ἧς (as in 9:20). One practical form of this διακονεῖν is mentioned in 10:33, 34. Here εἰςτὸὄνομααὐτοῦ goes closely with διακονήσαντεςκτλ ., as well as with ἐνεδείξασθε , in the sense of “ for his sake.” In Pirke Aboth, 2:16 R. Jose’ s saying is quoted, “ Let all thy works be done for the sake of heaven” (literally ל ְ ש ׁ ֵ ם , i.e. εἰςὄνομα , as here and in Ign. Romans 9:3 ἡἀγάπητῶνἐκκλησιῶντῶνδεξαμένωνμεεἰςὄνομαἼησοῦΧριστοῦ ). Τοῖςἁγίοις , the only place (except 13:24) where the writer uses this common term for “ fellow-Christians” ; God will never be so unjust as to overlook kindness shown to “ his own.” The personal affection of the writer comes out not only in the ἀγαπητοί of v. 9, but again (v. 11) in the deep ἐπιθυμοῦμεν , a term charged with intense yearning , and in the individualizing ἕκαστον (cp. 3:12, 13). He is urgent that they should display τὴναὐτὴνσπουδήν with regard to their Christian ἐλπίς as they display in the sphere of their Christian ἀγάπη . This does not mean that he wishes them to be more concerned about saving their own souls or about heaven than about their duties of brotherly love; his point is that the higher knowledge which he presses upon their minds is the one security for a Christian life at all. Just as Paul cannot assume that the warm mutual affection of the Thessalonian Christians implied a strict social morality (see below on 13:4), or that the same quality in the Philippian Christians implied moral discrimination (Philippians 1:9), so our author pleads with his friends to complete their brotherly love by a mature grasp of what their faith implied. He reiterates later on the need of φιλαδελφία (13:1), and he is careful to show how it is inspired by the very devotion to Christ for which he pleads (10:19-24). Πληροφορία (not a LXX term) here is less subjective than in 10:22, where it denotes the complete assurance which comes from a realization of all that is involved in some object. Here it is the latter sense of fulness, scope and depth in their— ἐλπίς .1 This is part and parcel of the τελειότης to which he is summoning them to advance (6:1). The result of this grasp of what is involved in their faith will be (v. 12) a vigorous constancy, without which even a kindly, unselfish spirit is inadequate. For ἐνδείκνυσθαισπουδήν compare Herodian’ s remark that the soldiers of Severus in a.d. 193 πᾶσανἐνεδείκνυντοπροθυμίανκαὶσπουδήν (2:10:19), Magn 53:61 (iii. b.c.), ἀπόδειξινποιούμενοςτῆςπερὶτὰμέγιστασπουδῆς , and Syll. 342:41 (i. b.c.) τὴνμεγίστηνἐνδείκνυταισπουδὴνεἰςτὴνὑπὲρτῆςπατρίδοςσωτηρίαν . The Greeks used the verb as we use “ display,” in speaking of some inward quality. This ardour has to be kept up ἄχριτέλους (cp. pseudo-Musonius, Epp. 1, in Hercher’ s Epistolog. Graeci, 401 f.: τηροῦνταςδὲἣνἔχουσινῦνπρόθεσινἄχριτέλουςφιλοσοφῆσαι ); it is the sustained interest in essential Christian truth which issues practically in μακροθυμία (v. 12), or in the confident attitude of hope (3:6, 14). Aristotle, in Rhet. ii. 19. 5, argues that οὗἡἀρχὴδύναταιγενέσθαι , καὶτὸτέλος · οὐδὲνγὰργίγνεταιοὐδ ʼ ἄρχεταιγίγνεσθαιτῶνἀδυνάτων , a paradox which really means that “ if you want to know whether the end of any course of action, plan, scheme, or indeed of anything— is possible, you must look to the beginning: beginning implies end: if it can be begun, it can also be brought to an end” (Cope). In v. 12 the appeal is rounded off with ἵναμὴνωθροὶγένησθε , that you may not prove remiss (repeating νωθροί from 5:11, but in a slightly different sense: they are to be alert not simply to understand, but to act upon the solid truths of their faith), μιμηταὶδέκτλ . Hitherto he has only mentioned people who were a warning; now he encourages them by pointing out that they had predecessors in the line of loyalty. This incentive is left over for the time being; the writer returns to it in his panegyric upon faith in chapter 11. Meanwhile he is content to emphasize the steadfast faith (πίστεωςκαὶμακροθυμίας , a hendiadys) that characterizes this loyalty. Μακροθυμία means here (as in James 5:7f.) the tenacity with which faith holds out. Compare Menander’ s couplet (Kock’ s Com. Attic. Fragm. 549), ἄνθρωποςὢνμηδέποτετὴνἀλυπίαν | αἰτοῦπαρὰθεῶν , ἀλλὰτὴνμακροθυμίαν , and Test. Joshua 2:7 μέγαφάρμακόνἐστινἡμακροθυμία | καὶπολλὰἀγαθὰδίδωσινἡὑπομονή . But this aspect of πίστις is not brought forward till 10:35f., after the discussion of the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ. In κληρονομούντωντὰςἐπαγγελίας the writer implies that hope is invariably sustained by a promise or promises. He has already mentioned ἡἐπαγγελία (4:1). Κληρονομεῖντὰςἐπαγγελίας can hardly mean “ get a promise of something” ; as the appended διὰπίστεωςκαὶμακροθυμίας suggests, it denotes “ coming into possession of what is promised.” This is proved by the equivalent ἐπέτυχετῆςἐπαγγελίας in v. 15. Taking Abraham as the first or as a typical instance of steadfast faith in God’ s promises, the writer now (vv. 13-19) lays stress not upon the human quality, but upon the divine basis for this undaunted reliance. Constancy means an effort. But it is evoked by a divine revelation; what stirs and sustains it is a word of God. From the first the supreme Promise of God has been guaranteed by him to men so securely that there need be no uncertainty or hesitation in committing oneself to this Hope. The paragraph carries on the thought of vv. 11, 12; at the end, by a dexterous turn, the writer regains the line of argument which he had dropped when he turned aside to incite and reprove his readers (5:11f). 13 For in making, a promise to Abraham God “ swore by himself” (since he could swear by none greater), 14 “ I will indeed bless you and multiply you.” 15 Thus it was (i.e. thanks to the divine Oath) that Abraham by his steadfastness obtained (so 11:33) what he had been promised. 16 For as1 men swear by a greater than themselves, and as an oath means to them a guarantee that ends any dispute, 17 God, in his desire to afford the heirs of the Promise a special proof of the solid character of his purpose, interposed with an oath; 18 so that by these two solid facts (the Promise and the Oath), where it is impossible for God to be false, we refugees might have strong encouragement (παράκλησιν , see on 12:5) to seize the hope set before us, 19 anchoring the soul to it safe and sure, as it “ enters the inner” Presence “ behind the veil.” As usual, he likes to give a biblical proof or illustration (vv. 13, 14), God’ s famous promise to Abraham, but the main point in it is that God ratified the promise with an oath. Our author takes the OT references to God’ s oath quite naively. Others had felt a difficulty, as is shown by Philo’ s treatise de Abrahamo (46): “ God, enamoured of this man [i.e. Abraham], for his faith in him, gives him in return a pledge , guaranteeing by an oath the gifts he had promised … for he says, ‘ I swear by myself’ (Genesis 22:16)— and with him a word is an oath— for the sake of confirming his mind more steadfastly and immovably than ever before.” But the references to God’ s oaths were a perplexity to Philo; his mystical mind was embarrassed by their realism. In de sacrif. Abelis et Caini (28, 29) he returns to the subject. Hosts of people, he admits, regard the literal sense of these OT words as inconsistent with God’ s character, since an oath implies God giving evidence in a disputed matter; whereas θεῷοὐδὲνἄδηλονοὐδὲἀμφισβητούμενον , God’ s mere word ought to be enough: ὁδὲθεὸςκαὶλέγωνπιστόςἐστιν , ὥστεκαὶτοὺςλόγουςαὐτοῦβεβαιότητοςἕνεκαμηδὲνὅρκωνδιαφέρειν . He inclines to regard the OT references to God’ s oaths as a condescension of the sacred writer to dull minds rather than as a condescension upon God’ s part. In Leg. Allegor. iii. 72 he quotes this very passage (Genesis 22:16, Genesis 22:17), adding: εὖκαὶτὸὅρκῳβεβαιῶσαιτὴνὑπόσχεσινκαὶὅρκῳθεοπρεπεῖ · ὁρᾷςγὰρὅτιοὐκαθ ʼ ἑτέρουὀμνύειθεός , οὐδὲνγὰραὐτοῦκρεῖττον , ἀλλὰκαθ ʼ ἑαυτοῦ , ὅςἐστιπάντωνἄριστος . But he feels bound to explain it. Some of his contemporaries had begun to take exception to such representations of God, on the ground that God’ s word required no formal confirmation— it confirmed itself by being fulfilled— and that it was absurd to speak of God swearing by himself, in order to bear testimony to himself.1 Philo (ibid. 73) attempts to meet this objection by urging that only God can bear testimony to himself, since no one else knows the divine nature truly; consequently it is appropriate for him to add confirmation to his word, although the latter by itself is amply deserving of belief. In Berachoth, 32. 1 (on Exodus 32:13), it is asked, “ What means ב ך R. Eleazar answered: ‘ Thus saith Moses to God (Blessed be He!), ‘ Lord of all the world, hadst thou sworn by heaven and earth, I would say, even as heaven and earth shall perish, so too thine oath shall perish. But now thou hast sworn by thy Great Name, which lives and lasts for ever and ever; so shall thine oath also last for ever and ever.’ ” Εἶχε (v. 13) with infin. = ἐδύνατο as usual. Ὤμοσεν . … εἰμήν … εὐλογήσω . Both the LXX (Thackeray, pp. 83, 84) and the papyri (Deissmann, Bible Studies, 205 f.) show that εἶμήν after ὀμνύειν in oaths is common as an asseveration; in some cases, as here, the classical form ἦμήν , from which εἰμήν arose by itacism, is textually possible. The quotation (v. 14) is from the promise made to Abraham after the sacrifice of Isaac (Genesis 22:16, Genesis 22:17): κατ ʼ ἐμαυτοῦὤμοσα … εἰμὴνεὐλογῶνεὐλογήσωσε , καὶπληθύνωνπληθυνῶτὸσπέρμασου . The practical religious value of God’ s promise being thus (v. 15) confirmed is now brought out for the present generation (vv. 16f.— another long sentence). Κατὰτοῦμείζονος , i.e. by God. Which, Philo argues, is irreverent: ἀσεβεῖςἂννομισθεῖενοἱφάσκοντεςὀμνύναικατὰθεοῦ (Leg. Allegor. iii. 73), since only swearing by the Name of God is permissible (cp. Deuteronomy 6:13). But our author has no such scruples (see above). And he is quite unconscious of any objection to oaths, such as some early Christian teachers felt (e.g. James 5:12); he speaks of the practice of taking oaths without any scruples. “ Hic locus … docet aliquem inter Christianos jurisjurandi usum esse legitimum … porro non dicit olim fuisse in usu, sed adhuc vigere pronuntiat” (Calvin). Ἀντιλογίας , dispute or quarrel (the derived sense in 7:7 χωρὶςπάσηςἀντιλογίας , there is no disputing). Εἰςβεβαίσωσιν only occurs once in the LXX (Leviticus 25:23), but is a current phrase in the papyri (cp. Deissmann’ s Bible Studies, 163 f.) for “ by way of guarantee” ; it is opposed to εἰςἀθέτησιν , and used here as in Wis 6:19 προσοχὴδὲνόμωνβεβαίωσιςἀφθαρσίας . In Philo (see on v. 13) it is the oath which is guaranteed; here the oath guarantees. The general idea of v. 17 is that of OGIS (2. b.c.), ὅπωςἂνεἰςτὸνἅπανταχρόνονἀκίνητακαὶἀμετάθεταμένηιτάτεπρὸςτὸνθεὸντίμιακαὶτὰπρὸςτὸνἈθήναιονφιλάνθρωπα . Ἐνᾧ ( = διό , Theophylact), such being the case. Περισσότερον , which goes with ἐπιδεῖξαι , is illustrated by what Philo says in de Abrahamo, 46 (see above): “ abundantius quam sine juramento factum videretur” (Bengel). It is an equivalent for περισσοτερῶς , which, indeed, B reads here. Ἐπιδεῖξαι (cp. Elephantine-Papyri [1907] 1:7 (iv. b.c.) ἐπιδειξάτωδὲἩρακλείδηςὅτιἂνἐγκαλῆιΔημητρίαιἐναντίονἀνδρῶντριῶν ): the verb, which is only once used of God in the LXX (Isaiah 37:26 νῦνδὲἐπέδειξαἐξερημῶσαιἔθνηκτλ .), means here “ to afford proof of.” The writer uses the general plural, τοῖςκληρονόμοιςτῆςἐπαγγελίας ,1 instead of the singular “ Abraham,” since the Promise in its mystical sense applied to the entire People, who had faith like that of Abraham. The reference is not specifically to Isaac and Jacob, although these are called his συγκληρονόμοι in 11:9. In τὸἀμετάθετοντῆςβουλῆς our author evidently chooses βουλῆς for the sake of the assonance with βουλόμενος . Ἀμετάθετος is a synonym for ἀκίνητος (cp. above on v. 17 and Schol. on Soph. Antig. 1027), and, as the papyri show, had a frequent connexion with wills in the sense of “ irrevocable.” Here, in connexion with βουλῆς , it implies final determination (cp. 3 Mac 5:11, 12); the purpose had a fixed character or solidity about it. The verb ἐμεσίτευσεν does not occur in the LXX, and is here used intransitively, instead of, as usual (cp. e.g. Dion. Halic. Ant. ix. 59. 5; OGIS 437:76 etc.), with some accusative like συνθήκας . In Jos. Ant. vii. 8 .5 it is used intransitively, but in the sense of “ interceding” . The oath is almost certainly that just mentioned. Less probable is the interpretation (Delitzsch, Hofmann, M. Stuart, von Soden, Peake, Seeberg, Wickham) which regards the oath referred to in vv. 16f. as the oath in the writer’ s favourite Psalms 110:4: ὤμοσενΚύριοςκαὶοὐμεταμεληθήσεται ΣὺεἶἱερεὺςεἰςτὸναἰῶνακατὰτὴντάξινΜελχισέδεκ . This oath does refer to the priesthood of Jesus, which the writer is about to re-introduce (in v. 20); but it is not a thought which is brought forward till 7:20, 21, 28; and the second line of the couplet has been already quoted (5:6) without any allusion to the first. In v. 18 καταφεύγειν and ἐλπίς are connected, but not as in Wis 14:6 . Here, as ἐλπίς means what is hoped for, i.e. the object of expectation, “ the only thought is that we are moored to an immoveable object” (A. B. Davidson). The details of the anchor-metaphor are not to be pressed (v. 19); the writer simply argues that we are meant to fix ourselves to what has been fixed for us by God and in God. To change the metaphor, our hope roots itself in the eternal order. What we hope for is unseen, being out of sight, but it is secure and real, and we can grasp it by faith. (a) Philo (Quaest. in Exodus 22:20) ascribes the survival and success of the Israelites in Egypt διὰτὴνἐπὶτὸνσωτῆραθεὸνκαταφυγήν , ὃςἐξἀπόρωνκαὶἀμηχάνωνἐπιπέμψαςτὴνεὐεργέτινδύναμινἐρρύσατοτοὺςίκέτας . (b) τόν is inserted in v. 18 before θεόν (by א * A C R 33. 1245. 1739. 1827. 2005 Ath Chrys.), probably to harmonize with ὁθεός in v. 17 . But θεόν is quite apposite. Παράκλησιν goes with κρατῆσαι (aor. = “ seize,” rather than “ hold fast to,” like κρατεῖν in 4:14), and οἱκαταφυγόντες stands by itself, though there is no need to conjecture οἱκατὰφυγὴνὄντες = in our flight (so J. J. Reiske, etc.). Is not eternal life, Philo asks, ἡπρὸςτὸὂνκαταφυγή (de fuga, 15) ? In τῆςπροκειμένηςἐλπίδος , προκειμένης must have the same sense as in 12:2; the colloquial sense of “ aforesaid,” which is common in the papyri , would be flat. Ἀσφαλῆτεκαὶβεβαίαν reflects one of the ordinary phrases in Greek ethics which the writer is so fond of employing. Cp. Plutarch, de comm. not. 1061c, καίτοιπᾶσακατάληψιςἐντῷσοφῷκαὶμνήμητὸἀσφαλὲςἔχουσακαὶβέβαιονκτλ . : Sextus Empir. adv. log. ii. 374, ἐςτὸὑποτιθέμενονᾗὑποτίθεταιβέβαιονἐστικαὶἀσφαλές : and Philo, quis rer. div. 62, κατάληφιςἀσφαλὴςκαὶβεβαία . The ἄγκυρα of hope is safe and sure, as it is fixed in eternity. All hope for the Christian rests in what Jesus has done in the eternal order by his sacrifice. Chrysostom’ s comment on the “ anchor” metaphor is all that is needed: ὥσπεργὰρὴἄγκυραἐξαρτηθεῖσατοῦπλοίου , οὐκὰφίησεναὐτὸπεριφέρεσθαι , κἂνμυρίοιπαρασαλεύωσινἄνεμοι , ἀλλ ʼ ἐξαρτηθεῖσαἑδραῖονποιε͂ ʼ οὕτωκαὶἡἐλπίς . The anchor of hope was a fairly common metaphor in the later Greek ethic (e.g. Heliod. vii. 25, πᾶσαἐλπίδοςἄγκυραπαντοίωςἀνέσπασται , and Epict. Fragm. (30) 89, οὔτεναῦνὲξἑνὸςἀγκυριουοὔτεβίονἐκμιᾶςἐλπίδοςὁρμιστέον ), but our author may have taken the religious application from Philo, who writes (de Somniis, i. 39),1 οὐχρὴκατεπτηχέναιτὸνἐλπίδιθείαςσυμμαχίαςἐφορμοῦντα (lies moored to). He does not use it as a metaphor for stability, however, like most of the Greeks from Euripides and Aristophanes onwards, as, e.g., in the most famous use of the anchor-metaphor,2 that by Pythagoras (Stob. Eclog. 3: πλοῦτοςἀσθενὴςἄγκυρα , δόξαἔτιἀσθενεστέρα … τίνεςοὖνἄγκυραιδυναταί ; φρόνησις , μεγαλοψυχία , ἀνδρία · ταύταςοὐθεὶςχειμεὼνσαλεύει ). Suddenly he breaks the metaphor,3 in order to regain the idea of the priesthood of Jesus in the invisible world. Hope enters the unseen world; the Christian hope, as he conceives it, is bound up with the sacrifice and intercession of Jesus in the Presence of God, and so he uses language from the ritual of Lev 16:2f. about Aaron “ passing inside the veil,” or curtain that screened the innermost shrine. To this conception he returns in 9:3f. after he has described the vital functions of Jesus as ἱερεύς (6:20f.). For at last he has reached what he regards as the cardinal theme of his homily. 1 Compare the motto which Cromwell is said to have written on his pocket-bible, “ qui cessat esse melior cessat esse bonus.” Blass F. Blass, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch: vierte, vö llig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner (1913); also, Brief an die Hebrä er, Text mit Angabe der Rhythmen (1903). L [020: α 5] cont. 1:1-13:10. Philo Philonis Alexandriai Opera Quae Supersunt (recognoverunt L. Cohn et P. Wendland). 1 According to Philo (de Abrah. 2, 3), next to hope, which is the ἄρχημετουσίαςἀγαθῶν , comes ἡἐπὶἁμαρτανομένοιςμετάνοιακαὶβελτίωσις . Only, he adds (ibid. 4), repentance is second to τελειότης , ὥσπερκαὶἀνόσουσώματοςἡπρὸςὑγιείανἑξἀσθενείαςμεταβολὴ … ἡδ ʼ ἀπότινοςχρόνουβελτίωσιςἴδιονἀγαθὸνεὐφυοῦςψυχῆςἐστιμὴτοῖςπαιδικοῖςἐπιμενούσηςἀλλ ʼ ἁδροτέροιςκαὶἀνδρὸςὄντωςφρονήμασινἐπιζητούσηςεὔδιονκατάστασιν [ψυχῆς ] καὶτῇφαντασίᾳτῶνκαλῶνἐπιτρεχούσης . 2 Cp. the use of νεκρός in Epict. iii:23. 28, καὶμὴνἃνμὴταῦταἐμποιῇὁτοῦφιλοσόφουλόγος , νεκρόςἐστικαὶαὐτὸςκαὶὁλέγων . This passage indicates how νεκρός could pass from the vivid application to persons (Matthew 8:22, Luke 15:32, cp. Colossians 2:13), into a secondary application to their sphere and conduct. Expositor The Expositor. Small superior numbers indicate the series. B [03: δ 1] cont. 1:1-9:18: for remainder cp. cursive 293. ERE Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics (ed. J. Hastings). א Ԡ [01: δ 2). A [02: δ 4]. C [04: δ 3] cont. 2:4-7:26 9:15-10:24 12:16-13:25. K [018:1:1]. Josephus Flavii Josephi Opera Omnia post Immanuelem Bekkerum, recognovit S. A. Naber. N [0122: α 1030] cont. 5:8-6:10. 1 [δ 254] 2 [α 253] 5 [δ 453] 6 [δ 356] cont. 1:1-9:3 10:22-13:25 33 [δ 48] Hort’ s 17 69 [δ 505] 88 [α 200] 216 [α 469] 218 [δ 300] 221 [α 69] 226 [δ 156] 242 [δ 206] 255 [α 174] 337 [α 205] 429 [α 398] 489 [δ 459] Hort’ s 102 919 [α 113] 920 [α 55] 1149 [δ 370] 1518 [α 116] 1739 [α 78] 1758 [α 396] cont. 1:1-13:14 1827 [α 367] 1867 [α 154] 2127 [δ 202] 2143 [α 184] sah The Coptic Version of the NT in the Southern Dialect (Oxford, 1920), vol. v. pp. 1-131. boh The Coptic Version of the NT in the Northern Dialect (Oxford, 1905), vol. iii. pp. 472-555. D [06: α 1026] cont. 1:1-13:20. Codex Claromontanus is a Graeco-Latin MS, whose Greek text is poorly * reproduced in the later (saec. ix.-x.) E = codex Sangermanensis. The Greek text of the latter (1:1-12:8) is therefore of no independent value (cp. Hort in WH, § § 335-337); for its Latin text, as well as for that of F=codex Augiensis (saec. ix.), whose Greek text of ΠρὸςἘβραίους has not been preserved, see below, p. lxix. P [025: α 3] cont. 1:1-12:8 12:11-13:25. 1 C. G. Montefiore, in Jewish Quarterly Review (1904), p. 225. LXX The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint Version (ed. H. B. Swete). 1 Tertullian’ s translation, “ occidente iam aevo” (de Pudicitia, 20) shows that his Greek text had omitted a line by accident: νουΣΘΥρημαδυν αμειΣτεμελλ οντοΣαιωνοσκαι , i.e. δυν [άμειςτεμέλλ ]οντοςαἰῶνος . Erasmus Adnotationes (1516), In epist. Pauli apostoli ad Hebraeos paraphrasis (1521). 1 In alluding to the gibbeting law of Deu 21:22f., Josephus (Bell. Jud. iv. 5. 2) speaks of ἀνασταυροῖν . 1 Cp. Eurip. Hippolytus, 1070: αἰαῖ , πρὸςἦπαρ · δακρύωνἐγγὺςτόδε . 2 For some reason the softer linguistic form κρείσσονα is used here, as at 10:34, in preference to κρείττονα . 1 See Dolon’ s remark in the Rhesus of Euripides (161, 162): οὐκοῦνπονεῖνμὲνχρή , πονοῦνταδ ʼ ἄξιονμισθὸνφέρεσθαι . 2005 [α 1436] cont. 1:1-7:2 1 For ἐλπίδος , πίστεως is read in W 1867. Magn Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Maeander (ed. Kern, 1900). Syll. Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum2 (ed. W. Dittenberger). 1 To make the connexion clear, some inferior texts (C Dc K L 6, 33, 104, 1610, etc.) add μέν . 1 This is the point raised in John 8:13f. Thackeray H. St J. Thackeray, A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek (1909). OGIS Dittenberger’ s Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae (1903-1905). 1 Eusebius once (Dem. iv. 15, 40) omits τῆςἐπαγγελίας , and once (ibid. v. 3. 21) reads τῆςβασιλείας , either accidentally or with a recollection of Jam 2:5. 1245 [α 158] Ath Athanasius 1912 [α 1066] c (Codex Colbertinus: saec. xii.) 1 The comparison between hope and a voyage in de Abrahamo, 9, is different: ὁδὲἐλπίζων , ὡςαὐτὸδηλοῖτοὔνομα , ἐλλιπής , ἐφιέμενοςμὲνἀεὶτοῦκαλοῦ , μήπωδ ʼ ἐφικέσθαιτούτουδεδυνημένος , ἀλλ ʼ ἑοικὼςτοῖςπλέουσιν , οἳσπεύδοντεςεἰςλιμέναςκαταίρεινθαλαττεύουσινἐνορμίσασθαιμὴδυνάμενοι . This is nearer to the thought of Rom 8:24, Romans 8:25. 2 For the anchor as a symbol on tombs, pagan and Christian, see Le Blant’ s Inscr. Chré t. de Gaule, ii. 158, 312. Contrast with Hebrews 6:18, Hebrews 6:19 the bitter melancholy of the epitaph in the Greek Anthology (ix. 49): ἐλπὶςκαὶσύ , Τύχη , μέγαχαίρετε · τὸνλιμέν ʼ εὗρον · | οὐδὲνἐμοίχ ʼ ὑμῖν · παίζετετοὺςμετ ʼ ἐμέ . 3 A similar mixture of metaphor in Ep. Aristeas, 230 (σὲμὲνοὐδυνατόνἐστιπταῖσαι , πᾶσιγάρχάριταςἔσπαρκαςαἵβλαστάνουσινεὔνοιαν , ἥτὰμέγιστὄτῶνὄπλωνκατισχύουσαπεριλαμβάνειτὴνμεγίστηνἀσφάλειαν ), and Philo, de praemiis, 2 . The first paragraph (7:1-3), which is one long sentence in Greek, applies and expands εἰςτὸναἰῶνα , the first note of Melchizedek’ s priesthood being that it is perpetual, thus typifying the priesthood of Jesus. The next is (7:4-10), that it is prior and superior to the levitical priesthood; this is implied in the former claim, but the writer works it out fancifully from the allusion to tithes. 20 There Jesus entered for us in advance, when he became highpriest “ for ever with the rank of Melchizedek.” 1For “ Melchizedek, the king of Salem, a priest of the Most High God,” who “ met Abraham on his return from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him” — 2 who had “ a tenth part of everything” assigned him by Abraham— this Melchizedek is primarily a “ king of righteousness” (that is the meaning of his name); then, besides that, “ king of Salem” (which means, king of peace). 3 He has neither father nor mother nor genealogy, neither a beginning to his days nor an end to his life, but, resembling the Son of God, continues to be “ priest” permanently. This paragraph and that which follows (vv. 4-10) are another little sermon, this time on the story of Gen 14:18-20. In 6:20-7:3 the writer starts from the idea that Jesus is ἀρχιερεὺςεἰςτὸναἰῶνακατὰτὴντάξινΜελχισεδέκ , and shows how the Melchizedek priesthood was εἰςτὸναἰῶνα , i.e. explaining Psalms 110:4 from Genesis 14:18-20. Εἰσῆλθεν in 6:20 is explained later, in 9:12f. Πρόδρομος recalls ἀρχηγός (2:10), with its suggestion of pioneering. The term is only used in the LXX of the days ἔαρος , πρόδρομοισταφυλῆς (Numbers 13:22), or of early fruit (ὡςπρόδρομοςσύκου , Isaiah 28:4); the present sense occurs, however, in Wis 12:8, where wasps or hornets are called the πρόδρομοι of God’ s avenging host. The thought here is of Christ entering heaven as we are destined to do, after him, once like him (5:9) we are “ perfected.” Vv.1-3 in ch. 7 are another of the writer’ s long sentences: οὗτοςὁΜελχισεδέκ … μένειἱερεὺςεἰςτὸδιηνεκές is the central thought, but the subject is overloaded with quotations and comments, including a long μέν … δέ clause. The length of the sentence and the difficulty of applying μένειἱερεὺςεἰςτὸδιηνεκές to Melchizedek have led some editors to make Jesus the subject of the sentence: οὗτος (Jesus) γὰρμένειἱερεὺςεἰςτὸναἰῶνα . But the οὗτος , as v. 4 shows, is Melchizedek, and the theory is wrecked upon v. 8, for it is quite impossible to take ἐκεῖκτλ . as “ in the upper sanctuary there is One of whom the record is that He lives.” There is a slight but characteristic freedom at the very outset in the use of the story, e.g. in ὁσυναντήσαςκτλ . The story implies this, but does not say it. It was the king of Sodom who ἐξῆλθενεἰςσυνάντησιναὐτῷμετὰτὸὑποστρέψαιαὐτὸνἀπὸτῆςκοπῆς , but as Melchizedek is immediately said to have brought the conquering hero bread and wine, our writer assumed that he also met Abraham. An interesting example of the original reading being preserved in an inferior group of MSS is afforded by ὁσυναντήσας (C L P). The variant ὄςσυναντήσας (א A B C2 D K W 33. 436. 794. 1831. 1837. 1912), which makes a pointless anacolouthon, was due to the accidental reduplication of C , though attempts have been made to justify this reading by assuming an anacolouthon in the sentence, or a parenthesis in ὅς … Ἀβραάμ , or carelessness on the part of the writer who began with a relative and forgot to carry on the proper construction. Some curious homiletic expansions have crept into the text of vv.1, 2. After βασιλέων two late minuscules (456, 460) read ὅτιἐδίωξεντοὺςἀλλοφύλουςκαὶἐξείλατοΛὼτμετὰπάσηςαἰχμαλωσίας , and after αὐτόν , D vt 330. 440. 823 put καὶεὐλογησθεὶςὑπ ʼ αὐτοῦ . The latter is another (cp. 11:23) of the glosses which were thrown up by the Latin versions. In v. 2 ἐμέρισεν is substituted for the ἔδωκεν of the LXX (which reappears in v. 4), in order to make it clear that Abraham’ s gift was a sort of tithe. Tithes were not paid by the Hebrews from spoils of war; this was a pagan custom. But such is the interpretation of the story in Philo, e.g. in his fragment on Genesis 14:18 (Fragments of Philo, ed. J. Rendel Harris, p. 72); τὰγὰρτοῦπολέμουἀριστεῖαδίδωσιτῷἱερεῖκαὶτὰςτῆςνίκηςἀπαρχάς . ἱεροπρεπεστάτηδὲκαὶἁγιωτάτηπασῶνἀπαρχῶνἡδεκάτηδιὰτὸπαντέλειονεἶναιτὸνἀριθμόν , ἀφ ʼ οὗκαὶτοῖςἱερεῦσικαὶνεωκόροιςαἱδεκάταιπροστάξεινόμουκαρπῶνκαὶθρεμμάτωνἀποδίδονται , ἄρξαντοςτῆςἀπαρχῆςἈβραάμ , ὃςκαὶτοῦγένουςἀρχηγέτηςἐστίν . Or again in de congressu, 17, where he describes the same incident as Abraham offering God τὰςδεκάταςχαριστήριατῆςνίκης . The fantastic interpretation of the Melchizedek episode is all the writer’ s own. What use, if any, was made of Melchizedek in pre-Christian Judaism, is no longer to be ascertained. Apparently the book of Jubilees contained a reference to this episode in Abraham’ s career, but it has been excised for some reason (see R. H. Charles’ note on Jub 13:25). Josephus makes little of the story (Ant. i. 10. 2). He simply recounts how, when Abraham returned from the rout of the Assyrians, ἀπήντησεδ ʼ αὐτῷὸτῶνΣοδομιτῶνβασιλεὺςεἰςτόποντινὰὃνκαλοῦσιΠεδίονβασιλικόν · ἔνθαὁτῆςΣολυμᾶπόλεωςὑποδέχεταιβασιλεὺςαὐτὸνΜελχισεδέκης . σημαίνειδὲτοῦτοβασιλεὺςδίκαιος · καὶἧνδὲτοιοῦτοςὁμολογουμένως , ὡςδιὰταύτηναὐτὸντὴναἰτίανκαὶἱερέαγινέσθαιτοῦθεοῦ . τὴνμέντοιΣολυμᾶὕστερονἐκάλεσανἹεροσόλυμα . ἐχορήγησεδὲοὗτοςὁΜελχισεδέκηςτῷἈβράμουστρατῷξένιακαὶπολλὴνἀφθονίαντῶνἐπιτηδείωνπαρέσχε , καὶπαρὰτὴνεὐωχίαναὐτὸντ ʼ ἐπαινεῖνἤρξατοκαὶτὸνθεὸνεὐλογεῖνὑποχειρίουςαὐτῷποιήσαντατοὺςἐχθροὺς . Ἀβράμουδὲδιδόντοςκαὶτὴνδεκάτηντῆςλείαςαὐτῷ , προσδέχεταιτὴνδόσινκτλ . In the later Judaism, however, more interest was taken in Melchizedek (cp. M. Friedlä nder in Revue des É tudes Juives, v. pp. 1f.). Thus some applied the 110th psalm to Abraham (Mechilta on Exodus 15:7, r. Gen. 55:6,), who was ranked as the priest after the order of Melchizedek, while Melchizedek was supposed to have been degraded because he (Genesis 14:19) mentioned the name of Abraham before that of God! This, as Bacher conjectures, represented a protest against the Christian view of Melchizedek (Agada der Tannaiten2, i. p. 259). It denotes the influence of ΠρὸςἙβραίους . Philo, as we might expect, had already made more of the episode than Josephus, and it is Philo’ s method of interpretation which gives the clue to our writer’ s use of the story. Thus in Leg. Alleg. iii. 25, 26 he points out (a) that Μελχισεδὲκβασιλέατετῆςεὶρἡνης — Σαλὴμτοῦτογὰρὲρμηνεύεται — καὶἱερέαἑαυτοῦπεποίηκεν 1 ὁθεός (in Genesis 14:18), and allegorizes the reference into a panegyric upon the peaceful, persuasive influence of the really royal mind. He then (b) does the same with the sacerdotal reference. Ἀλλ ʼ ὀμὲνΜελχισεδὲκἀντἰὕδατοςοἶνονπροσφερέτωκαὶποτιζέτωκαὶἀκρατιζέτωψυχάς , ἵνακατάσχετοιγένωνταιθείᾳμέθῃνηφαλεωτέρᾳνήψεωςαὐτῆς . ἱερεὺςγάρἑστιλόγοςκλῆρονἔχωντὸνὄντακαὶὑψηλῶςπερἰαὐτοῦκαὶὑπερόγκωςκαὶμεγαλοπρεπῶςλογιζόμενος · τοῦγὰρὐψίστουἐστὶνἰερεύς , quoting Genesis 14:18 and hastening to add, οὐχὅτιἐστίτιςἄλλοςοὐχὕψιστος . Philo points out thus the symbolism of wine (not water) as the divine intoxication which raises the soul to lofty thought of God; but our author does not even mention the food and drink, though later on there was a tendency to regard them as symbolizing the elements in the eucharist. His interest in Melchizedek lies in the parallel to Christ. This leads him along a line of his own, though, like Philo, he sees immense significance not only in what scripture says, but in what it does not say, about this mysterious figure in the early dawn of history. In vv.1, 2 the only points in the original tale which are specially noted are (a) that his name means βασιλεὺςδικαιοσύνης ; (b) that Σαλήμ , his capital, means εἰρήνη ; and (c) inferentially that this primitive ideal priest was also a king. Yet none of these is developed. Thus, the writer has no interest in identifying Σαλήμ . All that matters is its meaning. He quotes ἱερεὺςτοῦθεοῦτοῦὑψίστου , but it is ἱερεύς alone that interests him. The fact about the tithes is certainly significant, but it is held over until v. 4. What strikes him as far more vital is the silence of the record about the birth and death of Melchizedek (v. 3). Δικαιοσύνη as a royal characteristic (see Introd. pp. xxxii f.) had been already noted in connexion with Christ (1:8f.); but he does not connect it with εἰρήνη , as Philo does, though the traditional association of δικαιοσύνηκαὶεἰρήνη with the messianic reign may have been in his mind. In the alliteration (v. 3) of ἀπάτωρ , ἀμήτωρ , ἀγενεαλόγητος , the third term is apparently coined by himself; it does not mean “ of no pedigree,” nor “ without successors,” but simply (cp. v. 6) “ devoid of any genealogy.” Having no beginning (since none is mentioned), M. has no end. Ἀπάτωρ and ἀμήτωρ are boldly lifted from their pagan associations. In the brief episode of Gen 14:18-20, this mysterious Melchizedek appears only as a priest of God; his birth is never mentioned, neither is his death; unlike the Aaronic priests, with whom a pure family descent was vital, this priest has no progenitors. Reading the record in the light of Psa 110:4, and on the Alexandrian principle that the very silence of scripture is charged with meaning, the writer divines in Melchizedek a priest who is permanent. This method of interpretation had been popularized by Philo. In quod det. pot. 48, e.g., he calls attention to the fact that Moses does not explain in Genesis 4:15 what was the mark put by God upon Cain. Why? Because the mark was to prevent him from being killed. Now Moses never mentions the death of Cain διὰπάσηςτῆςνομοθεσίας , suggesting that ὥσπερἡμεμυθευμένηΣκύλλα , κακὸνἀθάνατονἐστινἀφροσύνη . Again (de Ebriet. 14) εἶπεγάρπούτις “ καὶγὰρἀληθῶςἀδελφήμούἐστινἐκπατρός , ἀλλ ʼ οὐκἐκμητρός ” (Genesis 20:12)— Abraham’ s evasive description of Sarah— is most significant; she had no mother, i. e. she had no connexion with the material world of the senses. Ἀπάτωρ and ἀμήτωρ were applied to (a) waifs, whose parents were unknown; or (b) to illegitimate children; or (c) to people of low origin; or (d) to deities who were supposed to have been born, like Athenê and Hephaestus, from only one sex. Lactantius (diuin. instit. i. 7) quotes the Delphic oracle, which described Apollo as ἀμήτωρ , and insists that such terms refer only to God (ibid. iv. 13). “ As God the Father, the origin and source of things, is without parentage, he is most accurately called ἀπάτωρ and ἀμήτωρ by Trismegistus, since he was not begotten by anyone. Hence it was fitting that the Son also should be twice born, that he too should become ἀπάτωρ and ἀμήτωρ .” His argument apparently1 is that the pre-existent Son was ἀμήτωρ and that He became ἀμάτωρ by the Virgin-birth (so Theodore of Mopsuestia). Lactantius proves the priesthood of Christ from Psalms 110:4 among other passages, but he ignores the deduction from the Melchizedek of Gen_14; indeed he gives a rival derivation of Jerusalem as if from ἱερὸνΣολομών . Theodoret, who (Dial. ii.) explains that the incarnate Son was ἀμήτωρ , with respect to his divine nature, and ἀγενεαλόγητος in fulfilment of Isa 53:8, faces the difficulty of Melchizedek with characteristic frankness. Melchizedek, he explains, is described as ἀπάτωρ , ἀμήτωρ , simply because scripture does not record his parentage or lineage. Εἰἀληθῶςἀπάτωρἧνκαὶἀμήτωρ , οὐκἂνἧνεἰκὼν , ἀλλ ʼ ἀλήθεια . Ἐπειδὴδὲοὐφύσειταῦτ ʼ ἔχει , ἀλλὰκατὰτὴντῆςθείαςΓραφῆςοἰκονομίαν , δείκνυσιτῆςἀληθείαςτὸντύπον . In his commentary he explains that μένειἱερεὺςεἰςτὸδιηνεκές means τὴνἰερωσύνηνοὐπαρέπεμψενεἰςπαῖδας , καθάπερἈαρὼνκαὶἘλεάζαρκαὶΦινεές . Ἀφωμοιωμένος in v. 3 means “ resembling,” as, e.g., in Ep. Jerem. 70 νεκρῷἐρριμένῳἐνσκότειἀφωμοίωνταιοἱθεοὶαὐτῶν , though it might even be taken as a strict passive, “ made to resemble” (i.e. in scripture), the Son of God being understood to be eternal. Εἰςτὸδιηνεκές is a classical equivalent for εἰςτὸναἰῶνα , a phrase which is always to be understood in the light of its context. Here it could not be simply “ ad vitam” ; the foregoing phrases and the fact that even the levitical priests were appointed for life, rule out such an interpretation. The writer now (vv. 4-10) moralizes upon the statement that Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek and received his blessing, which proves the supreme dignity of the Melchizedek priesthood, and, inferentially, its superiority to the levitical. 4Now mark the dignity of this man. The patriarch “ Abraham paid” him “ a tenth” of the spoils. 5 Those sons of Levi, who receive the priestly office, are indeed ordered by law to tithe the people (that is, their brothers), although the latter are descended from Abraham; 6 but he who had no levitical genealogy actually tithed Abraham and “ blessed” the possessor of the promises! 7 (And there is no question that it is the inferior who is blessed by the superior.) 8 Again, it is mortal men in the one case who receive tithes, while in the other it is one of whom the witness is that “ he lives.” 9 In fact, we might almost say that even Levi the receiver of tithes paid tithes through Abraham; 10 for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him. Θεωρεῖτε (v. 4) is an oratorical imperative as in 4 Mac 14:13 ; πηλίκος is a rare word, often used for ἡλίκος after vowels, though not in Zechariah 2:6 , where alone it occurs in the LXX. The οὗτος (om. D* 67**. 1739 Blass) repeats the οὗτος of v. 1. We have now a triple proof of the inferiority of the levitical priesthood to Melchizedek. (a) Melchizedek, though not in levitical orders, took tithes from and gave a blessing to Abraham himself (vv. 4-7); (b) he is never recorded to have lost his priesthood by death (v. 8); and (c) indeed, in his ancestor Abraham, Levi yet unborn did homage to Melchizedek (9, 10). Τὰἀκροθίνια (v. 4), which this alone of NT writers has occasion to use, explains the πάντα of v. 2; it is one of the classical terms for which he went outside the LXX. Ὁπατριάρχης is thrown to the end of the sentence for emphasis. In v. 5; ἱερατείαν is chosen instead of ἱερωσύνην for the sake of assonance with Λευεί . The LXX does not distinguish them sharply. The general statement about tithing, κατὰτὸννόμον (the ἐντολή of Numbers 18:20, Numbers 18:21), is intended to throw the spontaneous action of Abraham into relief; ἀποδεκατοῦν of “ tithing” persons occurs in 1 S 8:15f., but usually means “ to pay tithes,” like the more common δεκατοῦν (v. 6), the classical form being δεκατεύειν . In v. 6; the perfect εὐλογήκε is like the Philonic perfect (see above). In describing the incident (de Abrahamo, 40), Philo lays stress upon the fact that ὁμέγαςἱερεύςτοῦμεγίστουθεοῦ offered ἐπινίκια and feasted the conquerors; he omits both the blessing and the offering of tithes, though he soon allegorizes the latter (41). Moulton calls attention to “ the beautiful parallel in Plato`s Apol. 28c, for the characteristic perfect in Hebrews, describing what stands written in Scripture,” holding that “ ὅσοιἐνΤροίᾳτετελευτήκασι (as is written in the Athenians’ Bible) is exactly like Hebrews 7:6, Hebrews 7:11:17, Hebrews 7:28.” But these perfects are simply aoristic (see above, p. 91, note). V.7 is a parenthetical comment on what blessing and being blessed imply; the neuter is used, as usual in Greek (cp. Blass, § 138. 1), in a general statement, especially in a collective sense, about persons. Then the writer rapidly summarizes, from vv. 1-4, the contrast between the levitical priests who die off and Melchizedek whose record (μαρτυρούμενος in scripture, cp. 11:5) is “ he lives” . Finally (vv. 9, 10), he ventures (ὡςἔποςεἰπεῖν , a literary phrase, much affected by Philo) on what he seems to feel may be regarded as a forced and fanciful remark, that Levi was committed δι ʼ Ἀβραάμ (genitive) to a position of respectful deference towards the prince-priest of Salem. In v. 5; καίπερἐληλυθόταςἐκτῆςὀσφύοςἈβραάμ (the Semitic expression for descendants, chosen here in view of what he was going to say in v. 10 ἐντῇὀσφύϊτοῦπατρός ) is another imaginative touch added in order to signalize the pre-eminent honour of the levitical priests over their fellow-countrymen. Such is their high authority. And yet Melchizedek’ s is higher still! (a) In v. 6; “ forte legendum, ὁδὲμἡγενεαλογούμενοςαὐτὸνδεδεκάτωκετὸνἈβραάμ , ipsum Abrahamam” (Bentley). But ἐξαὐτῶν explains itself, and the stress which αὐτόν would convey is already brought out by the emphatic position of Ἀβραάμ , and by the comment καὶτὸνἕχοντακτλ . (b) In v. 4 καὶ is inserted after ᾧ , in conformity with v. 2, by א A C Dc K L P syrhkl arm, etc. For ἀποδεκατοῦν in v. 5; the termination (cp. Thackeray, 244) ἀποδεκατοῖν is read by B D (as κατασκηνοῖν in Matthew 13:32). In v. 6; the more common (11:20) aorist, εὐλόγησε , is read by A C P 6, 104, 242. 263. 326. 383. 1288. 1739. 2004. 2143, Chrys. for εὐλόγηκε . He now (vv. 11f.) turns to prove his point further, by glancing at the text from the 110th psalm. “ It is no use to plead that Melchizedek was succeeded by the imposing Aaronic priesthood; this priesthood belonged to an order of religion which had to be superseded by the Melchizedek-order of priesthood.” He argues here, as already, from the fact that the psalter is later than the pentateuch; the point of 7:11 is exactly that of 4:7f. 11 Further, if the levitical priesthood had been the means of reaching perfection (for it was on the basis of that priesthood that the Law was enacted for the People), why was it still necessary for another sort of priest to emerge “ with the rank of Melchizedek,” instead of simply with the rank of Aaron (12 for when the priesthood is changed, a change of law necessarily follows)? 13 He who is thus described belongs to another tribe, no member of which ever devoted himself to the altar; 14 for it is evident that our Lord sprang from Judah, and Moses never mentioned priesthood in connexion with that tribe. 15 This becomes all the more plain when another priest emerges “ resembling Melchizedek,” 16 one who has become a priest by the power of an indissoluble (ἀκαταλύτου , i.e. by death) Life and not by the Law of an external command; 17 for the witness to him is, “ Thou art priest for ever, with the rank of Melchizedek.” 18 A previous command is set aside on account of its weakness and uselessness 19 (for the Law made nothing perfect), and there is introduced a better Hope, by means of which we can draw near to God. >Εἰμένοὗν (without any δέ to follow, as in 8:4) τελείωσις (“ perfection” in the sense of a perfectly adequate relation to God; see v. 19) διὰτηςΛευειτικηςἱερωσύνησκτλ . Λευειτικῆς is a rare word, found in Philo , but never in the LXX except in the title of Leviticus; ἱερωσύνη does occur in the LXX, and is not distinguishable from ἱερατεία (v. 5). In the parenthetical remark ὁλαὸςγὰρἐπ ʼ αὐτῆςνενομοθέτηται , αὐτῆς was changed into αὐτήν (6, 242, 330, 378, 383, 440, 462, 467, 489, 491, 999, 1610, 1836 Theophyl.), or αὐτῇ (K L 326, 1288, etc. Chrys.) after 8:6 (where again we have this curious passive), and νενομοθετήται altered into the pluperfect ἐνενομοθέτητο (K L, etc.). The less obvious genitive ἐπ ʼ αὐτῆς is not “ in the time of,” for the levitical priesthood was not in existence prior to the Law; it might mean “ in connexion with,” since ἐπί and περί have a similar force with this genitive, but the incorrect dative correctly explains the genitive. The Mosaic νόμος could not be worked for the λαός without a priesthood, to deal with the offences incurred. The idea of the writer always is that a νόμος or διαθήκη depends for its validity and effectiveness upon the ἱερεύς or ἱερεῖς by whom it is administered. Their personal character and position are the essential thing. Every consideration is subordinated to that of the priesthood. As a change in that involves a change in the νόμος (v. 12), the meaning of the parenthesis in v. 11 must be that the priesthood was the basis for the νόμος , though, no doubt, the writer has put his points in vv. 11, 12 somewhat intricately; this parenthetical remark would have been better placed after the other in v. 12, as indeed van d. Sande Bakhuyzen proposes. Three times over (cp. v. 19) he puts in depreciatory remarks about the Law, the reason being that the Law and the priesthood went together. It is as if he meant here: “ the levitical priesthood (which, of course, implies the Law, for the Law rested on the priesthood).” The inference that the νόμος is antiquated for Christians reaches the same end as Paul does by his dialectic, but by a very different route. Ἀνίστασθαι ( = appear on the scene, as v. 15) and λέγεσθαι refer to Psalms 110:4, which is regarded as marking a new departure, with far-reaching effects, involving (v. 12) an alteration of the νόμος as well as of the ἱερωσύνη . In καὶοὐ … λέγεσθαι the οὐ negatives the infinitive as μή usually does; Ἀαρών , like Κανᾶ (John 21:2), has become indeclinable, though Josephus still employs the ordinary genitive Ἀαρῶνος . In v. 12 μετάθεσις , which is not a LXX term, though it occurs in 2 Mac 11:24, is practically equivalent here (cp. 12:27) to ἀθέτησις in v. 18. A close parallel occurs in de Mundo, 6, νόμοςμὲνγὰρἡμῖνἰσοκλινὴςὁθεὸς , οὐδεμίανἐπιδεχόμενοςδιόρθωσινἤμετάθεσιν , and a similar phrase is employed by Josephus to describe the arbitrary transference of the highpriesthood (Ant. xii. 9. 7, ὑπὸΛυσίονπεισθεὶς , μεταθεῖναιτὴντιμὴνἀπὸταύτηςτῆςοἰκίαςεἰςἕτερον ). We now (vv. 13f.) get an account of what was meant by οὐκατὰτὴντάξινἈαρών or ἕτεροςἱερεύς in v. 11; Jesus, this ἱερεὺςκατὰτὴντάξινΜελχισεδέκ , came from the non-sacerdotal tribe of Judah, not from that of Levi. Ἐφ ʼ ὅν is another instance of the extension of this metaphorical use of ἐπί from the Attic dative to the accusative. The perfect μετέσχηκεν may be used in an aoristic sense, like ἔσχηκα , or simply for the sake of assonance with προσέσχηκεν , and it means no more than μετέσχεν in 2:14; indeed μετέσχεν is read here by P 489, 623*. 1912 arm, as προσέσχεν is (by A C 33, 1288) for προσέσχηκεν . The conjecture of Erasmus, προσέστηκεν , is ingenious, but προσέχειν in the sense of “ attend” is quite classical. The rule referred to in εἰςἧνφυλήν (ἐξἧςφυλῆς , arm?), i.e. ἐκφυλῆςεἰςἥν (as Luke 10:10) κτλ . is noted in Josephus, Ant. xx. 10. 1, πάτριόνἐστιμηδένατοῦθεοῦτὴνἀρχιερωσύνηνλαμβάνεινἥτόνἐξαἵματοςτοῦἈαρῶνος . No tribe except Levi supplied priests. (Πρόδηλον in v. 14 is not a LXX term, but occurs in this sense in 2 Mal 3:17 and 14:39, as well as in Judith 8:29.) In Test. Leviticus 8:14 it is predicted (cp. Introd. p. xlviii) that βασιλεὺςἐκτοῦἸούδαἀναστήσεταικαὶποιήσειἱερατείαννέαν : but this is a purely verbal parallel, the βασιλεύς is Hyrcanus and the reference is to the Maccabean priest-kings who succeed the Aaronic priesthood. Ἀνατέλλειν is a synonym for ἀνίστασθαι (v. 15), as in Numbers 24:17, though it is just possible that ἀνατέταλκεν is a subtle allusion to the messianic title of Ἀνατολή in Zechariah 6:12; in commenting on that verse Philo observes (de confus. ling. 14): τοῦτονμὲνγὰρπρεσβύτατονυἱὸνὁτῶνὅλωνἀνέτειλεπατήρ . (For ἱερέων the abstract equivalent ἱερωσύνης , from v. 12, is substituted by Dc K L.) The title ὁκύριοςἡμῶν is one of the links between the vocabulary of this epistle and that of the pastorals (1 Timothy 1:14, 2 Timothy 1:8). As the result of all this, what is it that becomes (v. 15) περισσότερονκατάδηλον ?1 The provisional character of the levitical priesthood, or the μετάθεσιςνόμου Probably the latter, though the writer would not have distinguished the one from the other. In v. 15 κατὰτὴνὁμοιότητα linguistically has the same sense as ἀφωμοιώμενος (v. 3). In v. 16 σαρκίνης (for which σαρκικῆς is substituted by Cc D K Ψ 104, 326, 1175, etc.) hints at the contrast which is to be worked out later (in 9:1-14) between the external and the inward or spiritual, the sacerdotal ἐντολή being dismissed as merely σαρκίνη , since it laid down physical descent as a requisite for office. Hereditary succession is opposed to the inherent personality of the Son (= 9:14). The distinction between σαρκικός and σάρκινος is blurred in Hellenistic Greek of the period, where adjectives in -ινος tend to take over the sense of those in -ικος , and vice versa. In v. 17 μαρτυρεῖται (cp. μαρτυρούμενος , v. 8) is altered to the active (10:15) μαρτυρεῖ by C D K L 256, 326, 436, 1175, 1837, 2127 syrhkl Ap.vg; arm Chrys. The μετάθεσις of v. 12 is now explained negatively and positively in vv. 18, 19. Ἀθέτησις (one of his juristic metaphors, cp. 9:26) γίνεται (i.e. by the promulgation of Psa 110:4) προαγούσης (cp. IMA iii. 247, τὰπροάγονταψαψίσματα : προάγειν is not used by the LXX in this sense of “ fore-going” ) ἐντολῆς (v. 16) διὰτὸαὐτῆς (unemphatic) ἀσθενὲςκαὶἀνωφελές (ailiteration). Ἀνωφελές is a word common in such connexions, e.g Ep. Arist. 253, ὅπερἀνωφελὲςκαὶἀλγεινόνἐστιν : Polyb. xii. 25:9 ἄζηλονκαὶἀνωφελές . The uselessness of the Law lay in its failure to secure an adequate forgiveness of sins, without which a real access or fellowship was impossible; οὐδὲνἐτελείωσεν , it led to no absolute order of communion between men and God, no τελείωσις . The positive contrast (v. 19) is introduced by the striking compound ἐπεισαγωγή , a term used by Josephus for the replacing of Vashti by Esther (Ant. xi. 6, 2, σβέννυσθαιγὰρτὸπρὸςτὴνπροτήρανφιλόστοργονἑτέραςἐπεισαγωγῇ , καὶτὸπρὸςἐκείνηνεὔνουνἀποσπώμενονκατὰμικρὸνγίγνεσθαιτῆςσυνούσης ); there is no force here in the ἐπει , as if it meant “ fresh” or “ further.” The new ἐλπίς is κρείττων by its effectiveness (6:18); it accomplishes what the νόμος and its ἱερωσύνη had failed to realize for men, viz. a direct and lasting access to God. In what follows the writer ceases to use the term ἐλπίς , and concentrates upon the ἐγγίζειντῷθεῷ , since the essence of the ἐλπίς lies in the priesthood and sacrifice of Jesus the Son. With this allusion to the κρείττωνἐλπίς , he really resumes the thought of 6:18, 19; but he has another word to say upon the superiority of the Melchizedek priest, and in this connexion he recalls another oath of God, viz. at the inauguration or consecration mentioned in Psalms 110:4, a solemn divine oath, which was absent from the ritual of the levitical priesthood, and which ratifies the new priesthood of Jesus as permanent (vv. 20-22), enabling him to do for men what the levitical priests one after another failed to accomplish (vv. 23-25). 20 A better Hope, because it was not promised apart from an oath. Previous priests (οἱμέν = levitical priests) became priests apart from any oath, 21 but he has an oath from Him who said to him, “ The Lord has sworn, and he will not change his mind, thou art a priest for ever.” 22 And this makes Jesus surety for a superior covenant. 23 Also, while they became priests in large numbers, since death prevents them from continuing to serve, 24 he holds his priesthood without any successor, since he continues for ever. 25 Hence for all time he is able to save those who approach God through him, as he is always living to intercede on their behalf. The long sentence (vv. 20-22) closes with Ἰησοῦς in an emphatic position. After καὶκαθ ʼ ὅσονοὐχωρὶςὁρκωμοσίας , which connect with ἐπεισαγωγὴκρείττονοςἐλπίδος , there is a long explanatory parenthesis οἱμὲνγὰρ … εἰςτὸναἰῶνα , exactly in the literary style of Philo (e.g. quis rer. div. 17, ἐφ ʼ ὅσονγὰροἶμαικτλ .— νοῦςμὲνγὰρ … αἴσθησις — ἐπὶτοσοῦτονκτλ .). In v. 20 ὁρκωμοσία (oath-taking) is a neuter plural (cp. Syll. 593:29, OGIS 229:82) which, like ἀντωμοσία , has become a feminine singular of the first declension, and εἰσὶνγεγονότες is simply an analytic form of the perfect tense, adopted as more sonorous than γεγόνασι . As we have already seen (on 6:13), Philo (de sacrific. 28-29) discusses such references to God swearing. Thousands of people, he observes, regard an oath as inconsistent with the character of God, who requires no witness to his character. “ Men who are disbelieved have recourse to an oath in order to win credence, but God’ s mere word must be believed ; hence, his words are in no sense different from oaths, as far as assurance goes.” He concludes that the idea of God swearing an oath is simply an anthropomorphism which is necessary on account of human weakness. Our author takes the OT language in Psalms 110:4 more naively, detecting a profound significance in the line ὤμοσενκύριοςκαὶοὐμεταμεληθήσεται (in the Hellenistic sense of “ regret” = change his mind). The allusion is, of course, to the levitical priests. But Roman readers could understand from their former religion how oaths were needful in such a matter. Claudius, says Suetonius (Vit. Claud. 22), “ in co-optandis per collegia sacerdotibus neminem nisi juratus (i.e. that they were suitable) nominavit.” The superfluous addition of κατὰτὴντάξινΜελχιζεδέκ was soon made, after εἰςτὸναἰῶνα , by א c A D K L P vt Syrpesh hkl boh eth Eus (Dem. iv. 15, 40), etc. Παραμένειν means to remain in office or serve (a common euphemism in the papyri). The priestly office could last in a family , but mortal men (ἀποθνήσκοντες , v. 8) could not παραμένειν as priests, whereas (v. 24) Jesus remains a perpetual ἱερεύς , διὰτὸμένειν (= πάντοτεζῶν , v. 25) αὐτόν . Ἀπαράβατον , a legal adjective for “ inviolable,” is here used in the uncommon sense of non-transferable , as an equivalent for μὴπαραβαίνουσανεἰςἄλλον , and contrasts Jesus with the long succession of the levitical priests . The passive sense of “ not to be infringed” (cp. Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 43, εἱμαρμένηνφαμὲνἀπαράβατονταύτηνεἶναι , where the adjective = ineluctabile) or “ unbroken” does not suit the context, for Jesus had no rivals and the word can hardly refer to the invasion of death. Like γεγυμνασμένα in 5:14, also after ἔχειν , it has a predicative force, marked by the absence of the article. Philo (quis rer. div. heres, 6) finds a similar significance in the etymology of κύριος as a divine title: κύριοςμὲνγὰρπαρὰτὸκῦρος , ὃδὴβέβαιόνἐστιν , εἴρηται , κατ ʼ ἐναντιότηταἀβεβαίουκαὶἀκύρου . But our author does not discover any basis for the perpetuity of ὁκύριοςἡμῶν in the etymology of κύριος , and is content (in vv. 22-24) to stress the line of the psalm, in order to prove that Jesus guaranteed a superior διαθήκη (i.e. order of religious fellowship). Ἔγγυος is one of the juristic terms (vg, sponsor) which he uses in a general sense; here it is “ surety” or “ pledge.” Διαθήκη is discussed by him later on; it is a term put in here as often to excite interest and anticipation. How readily ἔγγυος could be associated with a term like σώζειν (v. 25) may be understood from Sir 29:15f.: χάριταςἐγγύουμὴἐπιλάθῃ , ἔδωκενγὰρτὴνψυχὴναὐτοῦὑπὲρσου . ἀγαθὰἐγγύουἀνατρέψειἁμαρτωλός , καὶἀχάριστοςἐνδιανοίᾳἐγκαταλείψειῥυσάμενον . Our author might have written μεσίτης here as well as in 8:6; he prefers ἔγγυος probably for the sake of assonance with γέγονεν or even ἐγγίζομεν . As μεσιτεύειν means to vouch for the truth of a promise or statement (cp. 6:17), so ἔγγυος means one who vouches for the fulfilment of a promise, and therefore is a synonym for μεσίτης here. The conclusion (v. 25) is put in simple and effective language. Εἰςτὸπαντελές is to be taken in the temporal sense of the phrase, as in BMiii:161:11 (a.d. 212) ἀπὸτοῦνῦνεἰςτὸπαντελές , being simply a literary variant for πάντοτε . The alternative rendering “ utterly” suits Luke 13:11 better than this passage. This full and final ἱερωσύνη of Jesus is the κρείττωνἐλπίς (v. 19), the τελείωσις which the levitical priesthood failed to supply, a perfect access to God’ s Presence. His intercession has red blood in it, unlike Philo’ s conception, e.g. in Vit. Mos. iii.14, ἀναγκαῖονγὰρἦντὸνἱερωμένον (the highpriest) τῷτοῦκόσμουπατρὶπαρακλήτῳχρῆσθαιτελειοτάτῳτὴνἀρετὴνυἱῷ (i.e. the Logos) πρόςτεἀμνηστίανἁμαρημάτωνκαὶχορηγίανἀφθονωτάτωνἀγαθῶν , and in quis rer. div. 42, where the Logos is ἱκέτηςτοῦθνητοῦκηραίνοντοςἀεὶπρὸςτὸἄφθαρτονπαρὰδὲτῷφύντιπρὸςεὐελπιστίαντοῦμήποτετὸνἵλεωθεὸνπεριιδεῖντὸἴδιονἔργον . The function of intercession in heaven for the People, which originally (see p. 37) was the prerogative of Michael the angelic guardian of Israel, or generally of angels (see on 1:14), is thus transferred to Jesus, to One who is no mere angel but who has sacrificed himself for the People. The author deliberately excludes any other mediator or semi-mediator in the heavenly sphere (see p. xxxix). A triumphant little summary (vv. 26-28) now rounds off the argument of 6:19f-7:25: 26 Such was the highpriest for us, saintly, innocent, unstained, far from all contact with the sinful, lifted high above the heavens, 27 one who has no need, like yonder highpriests, day by day to offer sacrifices first for their own sins and then for (the preposition is omitted as in Acts 26:18) those of the People— he did that once for all in offering up himself. 28 For the Law appoints human beings in their weakness to the priesthood; but the word of the Oath (which came after the Law) appoints a Son who is made perfect for ever. The text of this paragraph has only a few variants, none of any importance. After ἡμῖν in v. 27 καί is added by A B D 1739 syrpesh hkl Eusebius . In v. 27 it makes no difference to the sense whether προσενέγκας (א A W 33, 256, 436, 442, 1837, 2004, 2127 arm Cyr.) or ἀνενέγκας (B C D K L P etc. Chrys.) is read; the latter may have been suggested by ἀναφέρειν , or προσενέγκας may have appealed to later scribes as the more usual and technical term in the epistle. The technical distinction between ἀναφέρειν (action of people) and προσφέρειν (action of the priest) had long been blurred; both verbs mean what we mean by “ offer up” or “ sacrifice.” In v. 28 the original ἱερεῖς (D* 1 vg) was soon changed (to conform with ἀρχιερεῖς in v. 27) into ἀρχιερεῖς . The reason why ἱερεῦς and ἱερεῖς have been used in 7:1f. is that Melchizedek was called ίερεύς , not ἀρχιερεύς . Once the category is levitical, the interchange of ἀρχιερεύς and ἱερεύς becomes natural. The words τοιοῦτοςγὰρἡμῖνἔπρεπεν (another daring use of ἔπρεπεν , cp. 2:10) ἀρχιερεύς (v. 26) might be bracketed as one of the author’ s parentheses, in which case ὅσιοςκτλ . would carry on πάντοτεζῶν … αὐτῶν . But ὅς in Greek often follows τοιοῦτος , and the usual construction is quite satisfactory. Γάρ is intensive, as often. It is generally misleading to parse a rhapsody, but there is a certain sequence of thought in ὅσιοςκτλ ., where the positive adjective ὅσιος is followed by two negative terms in alliteration , and κεχωρισμένοςἀπὸτῶνἁμαρτωλῶν is further defined by ὑψηλότεροςτῶνοὐρανῶνγενόμενος . He is ὅσιος , pious or saintly (cp. ERE vi.743), in virtue of qualities like his reverence, obedience, faith, loyalty, and humility, already noted. Ἄκακος is innocent (as in Job 8:20, Jeremiah 11:19), one of the LXX equivalents for ת ּ ָ ם or ת ּ ָ מ ִ י ם , not simply = devoid of evil feeling towards men; like ἀμίαντος , it denotes a character χωρὶςἁμαρτίας . Ἀμίαντος is used of the untainted Isis in OP 1380 . The language may be intended to suggest a contrast between the deep ethical purity of Jesus and the ritual purity of the levitical highpriest, who had to take extreme precautions against outward defilement (cp. Leviticus 21:10-15 for the regulations, and the details in Josephus, Ant. iii.12. 2, μὴμόνονδὲπερὶτὰςἱερουργίαςκαθαροὺςεἶναι , σπουδάζεινδὲκαὶπερὶτὴναὐτῶνδίαιταν , ὡςαὐτὴνἄμεμπτονεἶναι · καὶδιὰταύτηντὴναἰτίαν , οἱτὴνἱερατικὴνστολὴνφοροῦντεςἄμωμοιτεεἰσικαὶπερὶπάντακαθαροὶκαὶνηφάλιοι ), and had to avoid human contact for seven days before the ceremony of atonement-day. The next two phrases go together. Κεχωρισμένοςἀπὸτῶνἁμαρτωλῶν is intelligible in the light of 9:28; Jesus has ἅπαξ sacrificed himself for the sins of men, and in that sense his connexion with ἁμαρτωλοί is done. He is no levitical highpriest who is in daily contact with them, and therefore obliged to sacrifice repeatedly. Hence the writer at once adds (v. 27) a word to explain and expand this pregnant thought; the sphere in which Jesus now lives (ὑψηλότεροςκτλ .) is not one in which, as on earth, he had to suffer the contagion or the hostility of ἁμαρτωλοί (12:2) and to die for human sins. “ He has outsoared the shadow of our night; Envy and calumny and hate and pain … Can touch him not and torture not again; From the contagion of the world’ s slow stain He is secure.” This is vital1 to the sympathy and intercession of Jesus; it is in virtue of this position before God that he aids his people, as τετελειωμένος , and therefore able to do all for them. His priesthood is, in modern phrase, absolute. As eternal ἀρχιερεύς in the supreme sense, and as no longer in daily contact with sinners, Jesus is far above the routine ministry of the levitical ἀρχιερεῖς . The writer blends loosely in his description (v. 27) the annual sacrifice of the highpriest on atonement-day (to which he has already referred in 5:3) and the daily sacrifices offered by priests. Strictly speaking the ἀρχιερεῖς did not require to offer sacrifices καθ ʼ ἡμέραν , and the accurate phrase would have been κατ ʼ ἐνιαυτόν . According to Leviticus 6:19-23 the highpriest had indeed to offer a cereal offering morning and evening; but the text is uncertain, for it is to be offered both on the day of his consecration and also διὰπάντος . Besides, this section was not in the LXX text of A, so that the writer of Hebrews did not know of it. Neither had he any knowledge of the later Jewish ritual, according to which the highpriest did offer this offering twice a day. Possibly, however, his expression here was suggested by Philo’ s statement about this offering, viz. that the highpriest did offer a daily sacrifice (quis rer. div. 36: τὰςἐνδελεχεῖςθυσίας … ἥντεὑπὲρἑαυτῶνοἱἱερεῖςπροσφέρουσιτῆςσεμιδάλεωςκαὶτὴνὑπὲρτοῦἔθνουςτῶνδυεῖνἀμνῶν , de spec. leg. iii. 23, ὁἀρχιερεύς … εὐχὰςδὲκαὶθυσίαςτελῶνκαθ ʼ ἑκάστηνἡμέραν ). It is true that this offering ὑπέρἑαυτῶν was not a sin-offering, only an offering of cereals; still it was reckoned a θυσία , and in Sir 45:14 it is counted as such. Τοῦτογὰρἐποίησεν refers then to his sacrifice for sins (9:28), not, of course, including any sins of his own (see on 5:3); it means ὑπὲρτῶνἁμαρτιῶντοῦλαοῦ , and the writer could afford to be technically inexact in his parallelism without fear of being misunderstood. “ Jesus offered his sacrifice,” “ Jesus did all that a highpriest has to do,” — this was what he intended. The Greek fathers rightly referred τοῦτο to ἔπειτατῶντοῦλαοῦ , as if the writer meant “ this, not that πρότερον .” It is doubtful if he had such a sharp distinction in his mind, but when he wrote τοῦτο he was thinking of τῶντοῦλαοῦ , and of that alone. An effort is sometimes made to evade this interpretation by confining καθ ʼ ἡμέραν to ὅςοὐκἔχει and understanding “ yearly” after οἱἀρχιερεῖς , as if the idea were that Christ’ s daily intercession required no daily sacrifice like the annual sacrifice on atonementday. But, as the text stands, ἀνάγκην is knit to καθ ʼ ἡμέραν , and these words must all be taken along with ὥσπεροἱἀρχιερεῖς . Compare the common assurance of the votaries of Serapis, e.g. BGU. ii.385 (ii/iii a.d.), τὸπροσκύνημάσουποιῶκατ ʼ ἑκάστηνἡμέρανπαρὰτῷκυρίῳΣαράπιδικαὶτοῖςσυννέοιςθεοῖς . A deep impression is made by the words ἑαυτὸνἀνενέγκας , “ pro nobis tibi uictor et uictima, et ideo uictor, quia uictima, pro nobis tibi sacerdos et sacrificium, et ideo sacerdos, quia sacrificium” (Aug. Conf. x.43). What is meant by this the writer holds over till he reaches the question of the sacrifice of Jesus as ἀρχιερεύς (9:1f.). As usual, he prepares the way for a further idea by dropping an enigmatic allusion to it. Meantime (v. 28) a general statement sums up the argument. Καθίστησιν is used as in 1 Mac 10:20 , and ἀσθένειαν recalls 5:2 , in the special sense that such weakness involved a sacrifice for one’ s personal sins . Whereas Jesus the Son of God was appointed by a divine order which superseded the Law (μετὰτὸννόμον = vv. 11-19), and appointed as one who was τετελειωμένος (in the sense of 2:10) εἰςτὸναἰῶνα . It is implied that he was appointed ἀρχιερεύς , between which and ἱερεύς there is no difference. The writer now picks up the thought (7:22) of the superior διαθήκη which Jesus as ἀρχιερεύς in the eternal σκηνή or sanctuary mediates for the People. This forms the transition between the discussion of the priesthood (5-8) and the sacrifice of Jesus (9:1-10:17). The absolute sacrifice offered by Jesus as the absolute priest (vv. 1-6) ratifies the new διαθήκη which has superseded the old (vv. 7-13) with its imperfect sacrifices. LXX The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint Version (ed. H. B. Swete). C [04: δ 3] cont. 2:4-7:26 9:15-10:24 12:16-13:25. L [020: α 5] cont. 1:1-13:10. א Ԡ [01: δ 2). A [02: δ 4]. B [03: δ 1] cont. 1:1-9:18: for remainder cp. cursive 293. D [06: α 1026] cont. 1:1-13:20. Codex Claromontanus is a Graeco-Latin MS, whose Greek text is poorly * reproduced in the later (saec. ix.-x.) E = codex Sangermanensis. The Greek text of the latter (1:1-12:8) is therefore of no independent value (cp. Hort in WH, § § 335-337); for its Latin text, as well as for that of F=codex Augiensis (saec. ix.), whose Greek text of ΠρὸςἘβραίους has not been preserved, see below, p. lxix. K [018:1:1]. W [I] cont. 1:1-3, 9-12. 2:4-7, 12-14. 3:4-6, 14-16 4:3-6, 12-14 5:5-7 6:1-3, 10-13, 20 7:1-2, 7-11, 18-20, 27-28 8:1, 7-9 9:1-4, 9-11, 16-19, 25-27 10:5-8, 16-18, 26-29, 35-38 11:6-7, 12-15, 22-24, 31-33, 38-40 12:1, 7-9, 16-18, 25-27 13:7-9, 16-18, 23-25: NT MSS in Freer Collection, The Washington MS of the Epp. of Paul (1918), pp. 294-306. Supports Alexandrian text, and is “ quite free from Western readings.” vt vt Old Latin, saec. ii. (?)-iv. 823 [δ 368] Philo Philonis Alexandriai Opera Quae Supersunt (recognoverunt L. Cohn et P. Wendland). Josephus Flavii Josephi Opera Omnia post Immanuelem Bekkerum, recognovit S. A. Naber. r (codex Frisingensis: saec. vi., cont. 6:6-7:5 7:8-8:1 9:27-11:7) 1 The same sort of perfect as recurs in ΠρὸςἙβραίους (e.g. 7:6 and 11:28). d (Latin version of D) 1 In iv. 25 he says that “ as God was the Father of his spirit without a mother, so a virgin was the mother of his body without a father.” 1739 [α 78] Blass F. Blass, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch: vierte, vö llig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner (1913); also, Brief an die Hebrä er, Text mit Angabe der Rhythmen (1903). Moulton J. H. Moulton’ s Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. i. (2nd edition, 1906). P [025: α 3] cont. 1:1-12:8 12:11-13:25. Thackeray H. St J. Thackeray, A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek (1909). 6 [δ 356] cont. 1:1-9:3 10:22-13:25 104 [α 103] 242 [δ 206] 263 [δ 372] 326 [α 257] 383 [α 353] cont. 1:1-13:7 1288 [α 162] 2004 [α 56] 2143 [α 184] 330 [δ 259] 378 [α 258] 440 [δ 260] 462 [α 502] 489 [δ 459] Hort’ s 102 491 [δ 152] 999 [δ 353] 1610 [α 468] 1836 [α 65] 623 [α 173] 1912 [α 1066] 33 [δ 48] Hort’ s 17 Erasmus Adnotationes (1516), In epist. Pauli apostoli ad Hebraeos paraphrasis (1521). 1 Κατάδηλον is the classical intensive form of δῆλον , used here for the sake of assonance with the following κατά . Ψ̠ [044: δ 6] cont. 1:1-8:11 9:19-13:25. 1175 [α 74] cont. 1:1-3:5 6:8-13:20 256 [α 216] 436 [α 172] 1837 [α 192] 2127 [δ 202] IMA Inscriptiones Graecae Insul. Maris Aegaei (1895 f.). Syll. Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum2 (ed. W. Dittenberger). OGIS Dittenberger’ s Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae (1903-1905). boh The Coptic Version of the NT in the Northern Dialect (Oxford, 1905), vol. iii. pp. 472-555. BM Greek Papyri in the British Museum (1893 f.). 442 [O 18] ERE Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics (ed. J. Hastings). OP The Oxyrhynchus Papyri (ed. B. P. Grenfell and A. Hunt). 1 Thus Philo quotes (de Fug. 12) with enthusiasm what Plato says in the Theatetus: οὔτ ʼ ἀπολέσθαιτὰκακὰδυνατόν — ὑπεναντίονγάρτιτῷἀγαθῷἀεὶεἶναιἀνάγκη — οὔτεἐνθείοιςαὐτὰίδρῦσθαι . 1 The point of all this is, we do have such a highpriest, one who is “ seated at the right hand” of the throne of Majesty (see 1:3) in the heavens, 2 and who officiates in the sanctuary or “ true tabernacle set up by the Lord” and not by man. 3 Now, as every highpriest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices, he too must have something to offer. 4 Were he on earth, he would not be a priest at all, for there are priests already to offer the gifts prescribed by Law (5 men who serve a mere outline and shadow of the heavenly— as Moses was instructed when he was about to execute the building of the tabernacle: “ see,” God said, “ that you make everything on the pattern shown you upon the mountain” ). 6 As it is, however, the divine service he has obtained is superior, owing to the fact that he mediates a superior covenant, enacted with superior promises. The terseness of the clause ἢνἔπηξενὁκύριος , οὐκἄνθρωπος (v. 1) is spoiled by the insertion of καί before οὐκ (A K L P vg boh syr arm eth Cosm). In v. 4 οὖν becomes γάρ in Dc K L syrhkl arm Chrys. Theod., and a similar group of authorities add ἱερέων after ὄντων . Τόν is prefixed needlessly to νόμον by א c D K L P Chrys. Dam. to conform to the usage in 7:5, 9:22; but the sense is really unaffected, for the only legal regulation conceivable is that of the Law. In v. 6. νῦν and νυνί (9:26) are both attested; the former is more common in the papyri. The Hellenistic (from Aristotle onwards) form τέτευχεν (א c B Dc 5 226, 487, 623, 920, 927, 1311, 1827, 1836, 1873, 2004, 2143, etc.: or τέτυχεν , א c A D K L) has been corrected in P Ψ 6, 33, 1908 Orig. to the Attic τετύχηκεν . Before κρείττονός , καί is omitted by D 69, 436, 462 arm Thdt. Κεφάλαιον (“ the pith,” Coverdale), which is nominative absolute, is used as in Cic. ad Attic. v.18: “ et multa, immo omnia, quorum κεφάλαιον ,” etc., Dem. 13:36: ἔστιδ ʼ , ὦἄνδρεςἈθηναῖοι , κεφάλαιονἁπάντωντῶνεἰρημένων (at the close of a speech); Musonius (ed. Hense, 67 f.) βίουκαὶγενέσεωςπαίδωνκοινωνίανκεφάλαιονεἶναιγάμου , etc. The word in this sense is common throughout literature and the more colloquial papyri, here with ἐπὶτοῖςλεγομένοις (concerning what has been said). In passing from the intricate argument about the Melchizedek priesthood, which is now dropped, the writer disentangles the salient and central truth of the discussion, in order to continue his exposition of Jesus as highpriest. “ Such, I have said, was the ἀρχιερεύς for us, and such is the ἀρχιερεύς we have — One who is enthroned, ἐντοῖςοὐρανοῖς , next to God himself.” While Philo spiritualizes the highpriesthood, not unlike Paul (Romans 12:1f.), by arguing that devotion to God is the real highpriesthood (τὸγὰρθεραπευτικὸνγένοςἀνάθημάἐστιθεοῦ , ἱερώμενοντὴνμεγάληνἀρχιερωσύνηναὐτῷμόνῳ , de Fug. 7), our author sees its essential functions transcended by Jesus in the spiritual order. The phrase in v. 2 τῶνἁγίωνλειτουργός , offers two points of interest. First, the linguistic form λειτουργός . The ει form stands between the older η or ηι , which waned apparently from the third cent. b.c., and the later ι form; “ λειτουργός sim. socios habet omnium temporum papyros praeter perpaucas recentiores quae sacris fere cum libris conspirantes λιτουργὸςλιτουργία scribunt” (Crö nert, Memoria Graeca Hercul. 39). Then, the meaning of τῶνἁγίων . Philo has the phrase, in Leg. Alleg. iii. 46, τοιοῦτοςδὲὁθεραπευτὴςκαὶλειτουργὸςτῶνἁγίων , where τῶνἁγίων means “ sacred things,” as in de Fug. 17, where the Levites are described as priests οἷςἡτῶνἁγίωνἀνακεῖταιλειτουργία . This might be the meaning here. But the writer uses τὰἅγια elsewhere (9:8f. 10:19, 13:11) of “ the sanctuary,” a rendering favoured by the context. By τὰἅγια he means, as often in the LXX, the sanctuary in general, without any reference to the distinction (cp. 9:2f.) between the outer and the inner shrine. The LXX avoids the pagan term ἱερόν in this connexion, though τὸἅγιον itself was already in use among ethnic writers (e.g. the edict of Ptolemy iii., καὶκαθιδρῦσαιἐντῶνἁγίωι = “ in sacrario templi,” Dittenberger, OGIS 56:59). It is here defined (καί epexegetic) as the true or real σκηνή , ἣν 1 ἔπηξενὁκύριος (a reminiscence of Num 24:6 σκηναὶἃςἔπηξενΚύριος , and of Exo 33:7 καὶλαβὼνΜωυσῆςτὴνσκηνὴναὐτοῦἔπηξεν ). The reality and authenticity of the writer’ s faith come out in a term like ἀληθινός . What he means by it he will explain in a moment (v. 5). Meanwhile he turns to the λειτουργία of Jesus in this ideal sanctuary. This ἀρχιερεύς of ours, in his vocation (v. 3, cp. 5:1), must have some sacrifice to present before God, though what this offering is, the writer does not definitely say, even later in 9:24. The analogy of a highpriest carrying the blood of an animal inside the sacred shrine had its obvious limitations, for Jesus was both ἀρχιερεύς and offering, by his self-sacrifice. Προσενέγκῃ is the Hellenistic aorist subjunctive, where classical Greek would have employed a future indicative (Radermacher, 138). The writer proceeds to argue that this λειτουργία is far superior to the levitical cultus (vv. 4f.). Even in the heavenly sanctuary there must be sacrifice of some kind— for sacrifice is essential to communion, in his view. It is not a sacrifice according to the levitical ritual; indeed Jesus on this level would not be in levitical orders at all. But so far from that being any drawback or disqualification to our ἀρχιερεύς , it is a proof of his superiority, for the bible itself indicates that the levitical cultus is only an inferior copy of the heavenly order to which Jesus belongs. Instead of contrasting at this point (v. 4) τἀδῶρα (sacrifices, as in 11:4) of the levitical priests with the spiritual sacrifice of Jesus, he hints that the mere fact of these sacrifices being made ἐπὶγῆς is a proof of their inferiority. This is put into a parenthesis (v. 5); but, though a grammatical aside, it contains one of the writer’ s fundamental ideas about religion (Eusebius, in Praep. Evang. xii.19, after quoting Hebrews 8:5, refers to the similar Platonic view in the sixth book of the Republic). Such priests (οἵτινες , the simple relative as in 9:2, 10:8, 11, 12:5) λατρεύουσι (with dative as in 13:10) ὑποδείγματικαὶσκιᾷτῶνἐπουρανίων (cp. 9:23). Ὑπόδειγμα here as in 9:23 is a mere outline or copy ; the phrase is practically a hendiadys for “ a shadowy outline,” a second-hand, inferior reproduction. The proof of this is given in a reference to Exodus 25:40: ΚαθὼςκεχρημάτισταιΜωυσῆς — χρηματίζω ,2 as often in the LXX and the papyri, of divine revelations as well as of royal instructions— μέλλωνἐπιτελεῖντὴνσκηνήν . The subject of the φησι is God, understood from κεχρημάτισται , and the γάρ 1 introduces the quotation, in which the writer, following Philo (Leg. Alleg. iii. 33), as probably codex Ambrosianus (F) of the LXX followed him, adds πάντα . He also substitutes δειχθέντα for δεδειγμένον , which Philo keeps , and retains the LXX τύπον (like Stephen in Acts 7:44). The idea was current in Alexandrian Judaism, under the influence of Platonism, that this σκηνή on earth had been but a reproduction of the pre-existent heavenly sanctuary. Thus the author of Wisdom makes Solomon remind God that he had been told to build the temple as μίμημασκηνῆςἁγίαςἣνπροητοίμασαςἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆς (9:8), where σκηνὴἁγία is plainly the heavenly sanctuary as the eternal archetype. This idealism determines the thought of our writer (see Introd. pp. xxxi f.). Above the shows and shadows of material things he sees the real order of being, and it is most real to him on account of Jesus being there, for the entire relationship between God and man depends upon this function and vocation of Jesus in the eternal sanctuary. Such ideas were not unknown in other circles. Seneca (Ep. lviii.18-19) had just explained to Lucilius that the Platonic ideas were “ what all visible things were created from, and what formed the pattern for all things,” quoting the Parmenides, 132 D, to prove that the Platonic idea was the everlasting pattern of all things in nature. The metaphor is more than once used by Cicero, e.g. Tusc. iii.2. 3, and in de Officiis, 3:17, where he writes: “ We have no real and life-like (solidam et expressam effigiem) likeness of real law and genuine justice; all we enjoy is shadow and sketch (umbra et imaginibus). Would that we were true even to these! For they are taken from the excellent patterns provided by nature and truth.” But our author’ s thought is deeper. In the contemporary Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch the idea of Exo 25:40 is developed into the thought that the heavenly Jerusalem was also revealed to Moses along with the patterns of the σκηνή and its utensils (4:4f.); God also showed Moses “ the pattern of Zion and its measures, in the pattern of which the sanctuary of the present time was to be made” (Charles’ tr.). The origin of this notion is very ancient; it goes back to Sumerian sources, for Gudea the prince-priest of Lagash (c. 3000 b.c.) receives in a vision the plan of the temple which he is commanded to build (cp. A. Jeremias, Babylonisches im NT, pp. 62 f.). It is to this fundamental conception that the author of ΠρὸςἙβραίους recurs, only to elaborate it in an altogether new form, which went far beyond Philo. Philo’ s argument (Leg. Alleg. iii. 33), on this very verse of Exodus, is that Bezaleel only constructed an imitation of τὰἀρχέτυπα given to Moses; the latter was called up to the mountain to receive the direct idea of God, whereas the former worked simply ἀπὸσκιᾶςτῶνγενομένων . In de Plant. 6 he observes that the very name of Bezaleel means “ one who works in shadows” ; in De Somniis, i. 35, he defines it as “ in the shadow of God,” and again contrasts Bezaleel with Moses: ὁμὲνοἶασκιὰςὑπεγράφετο , ὁδ ʼ οὐσκιάς , αὐτὰςδὲτὰςἀρχετύπουςἐδημιούργειφύσεις . In Vit. Mos. iii.3 he argues that in building the σκηνή Moses designed to produce καθάπερἀπ ʼ ἀρχετύπουγραφῆςκαὶνοητῶνπαραδειγμάτωναἰσθητὰμιμήματα … ὁμὲνοὖντύποςτοῦπαραδείγματοςἐνεσφραγίζετοτῇδιανοίᾳτοῦπροφήτου … τὸδ ʼ ἀποτέλεσμαπρὸςτὸντύπονἐδημιουργεῖτο . He then continues (v. 6 νῦνδέ , logical as in 2:8, 9:26, answering to εἰμέν in v. 4) the thought of Christ’ s superior λειτουργία by describing him again (cp. 7:22) in connexion with the superior διαθήκη , and using now not ἔγγυος but μεσίτης . Μεσίτης (see on Galatians 3:19) commonly means an arbitrator or intermediary in some civil transaction (OP 1298:19); but this writer’ s use of it, always in connexion with διαθήκη (9:15, 12:24)1 and always as a description of Jesus (as in 1 Timothy 2:5), implies that it is practically (see on 7:22) a synonym for ἔγγυος . Indeed, linguistically, it is a Hellenistic equivalent for the Attic μετέγγυος , and in Diod. Siculus, iv. 54 (τοῦτονγὰρμεσίτηνγεγονότατῶνὁμολογιῶνἐνΚόλχοιςἐπηγγέλθαιβοηθήσειναὐτῇπαρασπονδουμένῃ ), its meaning corresponds to that of ἔγγυος . The sense is plain, even before the writer develops his ideas about the new διαθήκη , for, whenever the idea of reconciliation emerges, terms like μεσίτης and μεσιτεύειν are natural. Μεσίτηςκαὶδιαλλακτής is Philo’ s phrase2 for Moses (Vit. Mos. iii:19). And as a διαθήκη was a gracious order of religious fellowship, inaugurated upon some historical occasion by sacrifice, it was natural to speak of Jesus as the One who mediated this new διαθήκη of Christianity. He gave it ; he it was who realized it for men and who maintains it for men. All that the writer has to say meantime about the διαθήκη is that it has been enacted (v. 6) ἐπὶκρείττοσινἐπαγγελίαις . This passive use of νομοθετεῖν is not unexampled; cf. e.g. OGIS. 493:55 (ii a.d.) καὶταῦταμὲνὑμεῖνὀρθῶςκαὶκαλῶς … νενομοθετήσθω . It is implied, of course, that God is ὁνομοθετῶν (as in LXX Psalms 83:7). What the “ better promises” are, he now proceeds to explain, by a contrast between their διαθήκη and its predecessor. The superiority of the new διαθήκη is shown by the fact that God thereby superseded the διαθήκη with which the levitical cultus was bound up; the writer quotes an oracle from Jeremiah, again laying stress on the fact that it came after the older διαθήκη (vv. 7-13), and enumerating its promises ascontained in a new διαθήκη . 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion for a second. 8 Whereas God does find fault with the people of that covenant, when he says: “ The day is coming, saith the Lord, when I will conclude a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. 9 It will not be on the lines of the covenant I made with their fathers, on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt’ s Land; for they would not hold to my covenant, so I left them alone, saith the Lord, 10 This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel when that (“ the day” of v. 8) day comes, saith the Lord; I will set my laws within their mind, inscribing them upon their hearts; I will be a God (εἰςθεόν , i.e. all that men can expect a God to be) to them, and they shall be a People to me; 11 one citizen will no longer teach his fellow, one man will no longer teach his brother (τὸνἀδελφὸναὐτοῦ , i.e. one another, Exodus 10:23), saying, “ Know the Lord.” for all shall know me, low and high together. 12 I will be merciful to their iniquities, and remember their sins no more. 13 By saying “ a new covenant,” he antiquates the first. And whatever is antiquated and aged is on the verge of vanishing. The contents of the prediction of a καινὴδιαθήκη by God, and the very fact that such was necessary, prove the defectiveness of the first διαθήκη . The writer is struck by the mention of a new διαθήκη even in the OT itself, and he now explains the significance of this. As for ἡπρώτηἐκείνη , εἰ … ἄμεμπτος (if no fault could have been found with it), οὐκἀνδευτέραςἐζητεῖτοτόπος . Δευτέρας is replaced by ἑτέρας in B (so B. Weiss, Blass); but, while ἕτερος could follow πρῶτος (Matthew 21:30), δεύτερος is the term chosen in 10:9, and B is far too slender evidence by itself. Ζητεῖντόπον is one of those idiomatic phrases, like εὑρεῖντόπον and λαβεῖντόπον , of which the writer was fond. The force of the γάρ after μεμφὀμενος is: “ and there was occasion for a second διαθήκη , the first was not ἄμεμπτος , since,” etc. It need make little or no difference to the sense whether we read αὐτοῖς (א c B Dc L 6, 38, 88, 104, 256, 436, 487, 999, 1311, 1319, 1739, 1837, 1845, 1912, 2004, 2127 Origen) or αὐτούς (א A D K P W 33 vg arm), for μεμφόμενος can take a dative as well as an accusative (cf. Arist. Rhet. i.6. 24, Κορινθίοιςδ ʼ οὐμέμφεταιτὸἼλιον : Aesch. Prom. 63, οὐδεὶςἐνδίκωςμέμψαιτομοι ) in the sense of “ censuring” or “ finding fault with,” and μεμφόμενος naturally goes with αὐτοῖς or αὐτούς . The objection to taking αὐτοῖς with λέγει 1 is that the quotation is not addressed directly to the people, but spoken at large. Thus the parallel from 2 Mal 2:7 is not decisive, and the vg is probably correct in rendering “ vituperans enim eos dicit.” The context explains here as in 4:8 and 11:28 who are meant by αὐτούς . The real interest of the writer in this Jeremianic oracle is shown when he returns to it in 10:16-18; what arrests him is the promise of a free, full pardon at the close. But he quotes it at length, partly because it did imply the supersession of the older διαθήκη and partly because it contained high promises (vv. 10-12), higher than had yet been given to the People. No doubt it also contains a warning (v. 9), like the text from the 95th psalm (3:7f.), but this is not why he recites it (see p. xl). The text of Jer 38:31-34 (31:31-34) as he read it in his bible (i.e. in A) ran thus: ἰδοὺἡμέραιἔρχονται , λέγειΚύριος , καὶδιαθήσομαιτῷοἴκωἸσραὴλκαὶτῷοἶκῳἸούδαδιαθήκηνκαινήν , οὐκατὰτὴνδιαθήκηνἣνδιεθέμηντοῖςπατράσιναὐτῶν ἐνἡμέρᾳἐπιλαβομένουμουτῆςχειρὸςαὐτῶνἐξαγαγεῖναὐτοὺςἐκγῆςΑἰγύπτου , ὅτιαὐτοὶοὐκἐνέμεινανἐντῇδιαθήκῃμου , κἀγὼἠμέλησααὐτῶν , φησὶνΚύριος . ὅτιαὕτηἡδιαθήκηἣνδιαθήσομαιτῷοἴκῳἸσραήλ μετὰτὰςἡμέραςἐκείνας , φησὶνΚύριος , διδοὺςνόμουςμουεἰςτὴνδιάνοιαναὐτῶν καὶἐπιγράψωαὐτοὺςἐπὶτὰςκαρδίαςαὐτῶν , καὶὄψομαιαὐτοὺς καὶἔσομαιαὐτοῖςεἰςθεὸν . καὶαὐτοὶἔσονταίμοιεἰςλαόν . καὶοὐμὴ 1 διδάξωσινἕκαστοςτὸνἀδελφὸναὐτοῦ καὶἕκαστοςτὸνπλησίοναὐτοῦλέγων · γνῶθιτὸνΚύριον , ὅτιπάντεςἰδήσουσινμε ἀπὸμικροῦἕωςμεγάλουαὐτῶν . ὅτιἵλεωςἔσομαιταῖςἀδικίαιςαὐτῶν καὶτῶνἁμαρτιῶναὐτῶνοὐμὴμνησθῶἔτι . Our author follows as usual the text of A upon the whole (e.g. λέγει for φησίν in v. 31, κἀγώ in v. 32, the omission of μου after διαθήκη and of δώσω after διδούς in v. 33, οὐμὴδιδάξωσιν for οὐδιδάξουσιν in v. 34 and the omission of αὐτῶν after μικροῦ ), but substitutes συντελέσωἐπὶτὸνοἷκον (his) for διαθήσομαιτῷοἴκῳ in v. 31, reads λέγει for φησίν in v. 32 and v. 33, alters διεθέμην into ἐποίησα (Q), and follows B in reading καὶἐπὶκ . αὐτῶν before the verb (v. 33), and πολίτην … ἀδελφόν in v. 34, as well as in omitting καὶὄψ . αὐτούς in the former verse; in v. 34 he reads εἰδήσουσιν (א Q) instead of ἰδήσουσιν , the forms of οἷδα and εἶδον being repeatedly confused (cp. Thackeray, 278). These minor changes may be partly due to the fact that he is quoting from memory. In some cases his own text has been conformed to other versions of the LXX; e.g. A D Ψ boh restore μου in v. 10, א K vg Clem. Chrys. read καρδίαν (with א in LXX), though the singular1 is plainly a conformation to δίανοιαν (“ Fü r den Plural sprechen ausser A D L noch B, wo nur das C in ε verschrieben und daraus επικαρδιαεαυτων geworden ist, und P, wo der Dat. in den Acc. verwandelt,” B. Weiss in Texte u. Untersuchungen, xiv. 3. 16, 55); B Ψ arm revive the LXX (B) variant γράψω ; the LXX (Q) variant πλησἰον is substituted for πολίτην by P vg syrhkl eth 38 206 218 226 257 547 642 1288 1311 1912 etc. Cyril, and the LXX αὐτῶν restored after μικροῦ by De L syr boh eth, etc. On the other hand, a trait like the reading ἐποίησα in the LXX text of Q* may be due to the influence of Hebrews itself. The addition of καὶτῶνἀνομιῶναὐτῶν after or before καὶτῶνἁμαρτιῶναὐτῶν in v. 12 is a homiletic gloss from 10:17, though strongly entrenched in א c A C D K L P Ψ 6 104 326 etc. vg pesh arm Clem Συντελέσωδιαθήκην , a literary LXX variant for ποιήσωδιαθήκην , recalls the phrase συντελέσαιδιαθήκην (Jeremiah 41:8 (34:8), and, as 12:24 shows, the writer draws no distinction between καινός and νέος (v. 8). In v. 9 the genitive absolute after ἡμέρα ,ͅ instead of ἐνᾗἐπελαβόμην (as Justin correctly puts it, Dial. xi.), is a Hellenistic innovation, due here to translation, but paralleled in Bar 2:28 ἐνἡμέρᾳἐντειλαμένουσουαὐτῷ ); in ὅτι (causal only here and in v. 10) … ἐνέμειναν , the latter is our “ abide by,” in the sense of obey or practise, exactly as in Isokrates, κατὰτῶνΣοφιστῶν , 20: οἷςεἰτιςἐπὶτῶνπράξεωνἐμμείνειεν . Bengel has a crisp comment on αὐτοὶ … κἀγώ here and on ἔσομαι … καὶαὐτοί (“ correlata … sed ratione inversa; populus fecerat initium tollendi foederis prius, in novo omnia et incipit et perficit Deus” ); and, as it happens, there is a dramatic contrast between ἠμέλησα here and the only other use of the verb in this epistle (2:3). In v. 10 διδούς , by the omission of δώσω , is left hanging in the air; but (cp. Moulton, 222) such participles could be taken as finite verbs in popular Greek of the period (cp. e.g. χειροτονηθείς in 2 Corinthians 8:19). The καινὴδιαθήκη is to be on entirely fresh lines, not a mere revival of the past; it is to realize a knowledge of God which is inward and intuitive (vv. 10, 11). There is significance in the promise, καὶἔσομαιαὐτοῖς … εἰςλαόν . A διαθήκη was always between God and his people, and this had been the object even of the former διαθήκη (Exodus 6:7); now it is to be realized at last. Philo’ s sentence (“ even if we are sluggish, however, He is not sluggish about taking to Himself those who are fit for His service; for He says, ‘ I will take you to be a people for myself, and I will be your God,’ ” De Sacrif. Abelis et Caini, 26) is an apt comment; but our author, who sees the new διαθήκη fulfilled in Christianity, has his own views about how such a promise and purpose was attainable, for while the oracle ignores the sacrificial ritual altogether, he cannot conceive any pardon apart from sacrifice, nor any διαθήκη apart from a basal sacrifice. These ideas he is to develop in his next paragraphs, for it is the closing promise of pardon1 which is to him the supreme boon. Meanwhile, before passing on to explain how this had been mediated by Jesus, he (v. 13) drives home the truth of the contrast between old and new (see Introd., p. xxxix). Ἐντῷλέγειν (same construction as in 2:8)— when the word καινὴν was pronounced, it sealed the doom of the old διαθήκη . Παλαιόω in this transitive sense (“ he hath abrogat,” Tyndale) is known to the LXX (Job 9:5, Lamentations 3:4, both times of God in action); γηράσκειν is practically equivalent to μαραίνεσθαι , and implies decay (see Wilamowitz on Eur. Herakles, 1223). The two words ἐγγὺς (as in 6:8) ἀφανισμοῦ , at the end of the paragraph, sound like the notes of a knell, though they have no contemporary reference; the writer simply means that the end of the old διαθήκη was at hand (p. xxii). The new would soon follow, as it had done ἐνυἱῷ (1:1). The verb ἀφανίζειν is applied to legislation in the sense of abolition, lapsing or falling into desuetude, Dion. Hal. Ant. iii. 178, ἃς (i.e. Numa’ s laws) ἀφανισθῆναισυνέβητῷχρόνῳ , the opposite of ἀφανίζειν being γράφειν (ibid. ix. 608, κατὰτοὺςνόμους , οὗςοὐνεωστὶδεήσειγράφεινπάλαιγὰρἐγράφησαν , καὶοὐδεὶςαὐτοὺςἠφάνιζεχρόνος ), and the sense of disappearance in ἀφανισμός appears already in the LXX . But the new διαθήκη is also superior to the old by its sacrifice (9:1f.), sacrifice being essential to any forgiveness such as has been promised. The older διαθήκη had its sanctuary and ritual (vv. 1-5), but even these (vv. 6f.) indicated a defect. A [02: δ 4]. K [018:1:1]. L [020: α 5] cont. 1:1-13:10. P [025: α 3] cont. 1:1-12:8 12:11-13:25. boh The Coptic Version of the NT in the Northern Dialect (Oxford, 1905), vol. iii. pp. 472-555. Cosm Cosmas Indicopleustes (ed. E. O. Winstedt, CAmbridge, 1909) D [06: α 1026] cont. 1:1-13:20. Codex Claromontanus is a Graeco-Latin MS, whose Greek text is poorly * reproduced in the later (saec. ix.-x.) E = codex Sangermanensis. The Greek text of the latter (1:1-12:8) is therefore of no independent value (cp. Hort in WH, § § 335-337); for its Latin text, as well as for that of F=codex Augiensis (saec. ix.), whose Greek text of ΠρὸςἘβραίους has not been preserved, see below, p. lxix. Theod. Theodore of Mospsuestia א Ԡ [01: δ 2). B [03: δ 1] cont. 1:1-9:18: for remainder cp. cursive 293. 5 [δ 453] 226 [δ 156] 487 [α 171] 623 [α 173] 920 [α 55] 927 [δ 251] 1311 [α 170] 1827 [α 367] 1836 [α 65] 1873 [α 252] 2004 [α 56] 2143 [α 184] Ψ̠ [044: δ 6] cont. 1:1-8:11 9:19-13:25. 6 [δ 356] cont. 1:1-9:3 10:22-13:25 33 [δ 48] Hort’ s 17 1908 [O π 103] 69 [δ 505] 436 [α 172] 462 [α 502] Thdt. Theodoret Philo Philonis Alexandriai Opera Quae Supersunt (recognoverunt L. Cohn et P. Wendland). LXX The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint Version (ed. H. B. Swete). OGIS Dittenberger’ s Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae (1903-1905). 1 ἥν is not assimilated, though ἧς might have been written; the practice varied . Radermacher Neutestamentliche Grammatik (1911), in Lietzmann’ s Handbuch zum Neuen Testament (vol. i.). 2 Passively in the NT in Acts 10:22, but the exact parallel is in Josephus, Ant. iii.8. 8, Μωϋσῆς … εἰςτὴνσκηνὴνεἰσιὼνἐχρηματίζετοπερὶὧνἐδεῖτοπαρὰτοῦθεοῦ . 1 Put before φησι , because the point is not that the oracle was given, but what the oracle contained. ReinP Papyrus Grecs et Dé motiques (Paris, 1905), ed. Th. Reinach. OP The Oxyrhynchus Papyri (ed. B. P. Grenfell and A. Hunt). 1 In these two latter passages, at least, there may be an allusion to the contemporary description of Moses as “ mediator of the covenant” (“ arbiter testamenti,” Ass. Mosis, i.14). The writer does not contrast Jesus with Michael, who was the great angelic mediator in some circles of Jewish piety (cp. Jub 1:29, Test. Dan_6). 2 Josephus (Ant. xvi.2. 2) says that Herod τῶνπαρ ʼ Ἀγρίππατισὶνἐπιζητουμένωνμεσίτηςἦν , and that his influence moved πρὸςτὰςεὐεργεσίαςοὐβραδύνοντατὸνἈγρίππαν . Ἰλιεῦσιμὲνγὰραὐτὸνδιήλλαξενὀργιζόμενον . Weiss B. Weiss, “ Textkritik der paulinischen Briefe” (in Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, vol. xiv. 3), also Der Hebrä erbrief in Zeitgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung (1910). Blass F. Blass, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch: vierte, vö llig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner (1913); also, Brief an die Hebrä er, Text mit Angabe der Rhythmen (1903). 38 [δ 355] 88 [α 200] 104 [α 103] 256 [α 216] 999 [δ 353] 1319 [δ 180] 1739 [α 78] 1837 [α 192] 1845 [α 64] 1912 [α 1066] 2127 [δ 202] W [I] cont. 1:1-3, 9-12. 2:4-7, 12-14. 3:4-6, 14-16 4:3-6, 12-14 5:5-7 6:1-3, 10-13, 20 7:1-2, 7-11, 18-20, 27-28 8:1, 7-9 9:1-4, 9-11, 16-19, 25-27 10:5-8, 16-18, 26-29, 35-38 11:6-7, 12-15, 22-24, 31-33, 38-40 12:1, 7-9, 16-18, 25-27 13:7-9, 16-18, 23-25: NT MSS in Freer Collection, The Washington MS of the Epp. of Paul (1918), pp. 294-306. Supports Alexandrian text, and is “ quite free from Western readings.” 1 μεμφόμενος is then “ by way of censure,” and some think the writer purposely avoided adding αὐτήν . Which, in view of what he says in v. 13, is doubtful; besides, he has just said that the former διαθήκη was not ἄμεμπτος . 1 οὐμή only occurs in Hebrews in quotations (here, 10:17, 13:5); out of about ninety-six occurrences in the NT, only eight are with the future. Thackeray H. St J. Thackeray, A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek (1909). vg vg Vulgate, saec. iv. 1 That ἐπί takes the accusative here is shown by 10:16; καρδίας cannot be the genitive singular alongside of an accusative. C [04: δ 3] cont. 2:4-7:26 9:15-10:24 12:16-13:25. 206 [α 365] 218 [δ 300] 257 [α 466] 547 [δ 157] 642 [α 552] cont. 1:1-7:18 9:13-13:25 1288 [α 162] 326 [α 257] Moulton J. H. Moulton’ s Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. i. (2nd edition, 1906). 1 With τῶνἁμαρτῖωναὐτῶνοὐμὴμνησθῶἔτι compare the parable of R. Jochanan and R. Eliezer on God’ s readiness to forget the sinful nature of his servants: “ There is a parable concerning a king of flesh and blood, who said to his servants, Build me a great palace on the dunghill. They went and built it for him. It was not thenceforward the king’ s pleasure to remember the dunghill which had been there” (Chagiga, 16 a. i. 27). 1 The first covenant had indeed its regulations for worship and a material sanctuary. 2 A tent was set up (κατασκευάζω as in 3:3), the outer tent, containing the lampstand, the table, and the loaves of the Presence; this is called the Holy place. 3 But behind (μετά only here in NT of place) the second veil was the tent called the Holy of Holies, 4 containing the golden altar of incense, and also the ark of the covenant covered all over with gold, which held the golden pot of manna, the rod of Aaron that once blossomed, and the tablets of the covenant; 5 above this were the cherubim of the Glory overshadowing the mercy-seat— matters which (i.e. all in 2-5) it is impossible for me to discuss at present in detail. The καινὴδιαθήκη of 8:7-13 had been realized by the arrival of Christ (9:11); hence the older διαθήκη was superseded, and the writer speaks of it in the past tense, εἶχε . As for ἡπρώτη of which he has been just speaking (8:13), the antithesis of the entire passage is between ἡπρώτηδιαθήκη (vv. 1-10) and ἡκαινὴδιαθήκη (vv. 11-22), as is explicitly stated in v. 15. The καί (om. B 38 206. 216. 489 547 1739 1827 boh pesh Origen) before ἡπρώτη emphasizes the fact that the old had this in common with the new, viz. worship and a sanctuary. This is, of course, out of keeping with the Jeremianic oracle of the new διαθήκη , which does not contemplate any such provision, but the writer takes a special view of διαθήκη which involves a celestial counterpart to the ritual provisions of the old order. The former διαθήκη , then, embraced δικαιώματα , i.e. regulations, as in Luke 1:6 and 1 Mac 2:21, 22 (ἵλεωςἡμῖνκαταλείπειννόμονκαὶδικαιώματατὸννόμοντοῦβασιλέωςοὐκἀκουσόμεθα , παρελθεῖντὴνλατρίανἡμῶν ), rather than rights or privileges , arrangements for the cultus. Λατρείας grammatically might be accusative plural (as in v. 6), but is probably the genitive, after δικαιώματα , which it defines. Λατρεία or (as spelt in W) λατρία (cp. Thackeray, 87) is the cultus (Romans 9:4), or any specific part of it (Exodus 12:25, Exodus 12:27). The close connexion between worship and a sanctuary (already in 8:2, 3) leads to the addition of τότε (as in 1:3, 6:5) ἅγιονκοσμικόν . By τὸἅγιον the author means the entire sanctuary (so, e.g., Exodus 36:3, Numbers 3:38), not the innermost sacred shrine or ἅγιαἅγιων . This is clear. What is not so clear is the meaning of κοσμικόν , and the meaning of its position after the noun without an article. Primarily κοσμικός here as in Titus 2:12 is an equivalent for ἐπὶγῆς (8:3), i.e. mundane or material, as opposed to ἐπουράνιον or οὐταύτηςτῆςκτίσεως (v. 11). A fair parallel to this occurs in Test. Joshua 17:8, διὰτὴνκοσμικήνμουδόξαν . But did our author use it with a further suggestion? It would have been quite irrelevant to his purpose to suggest the “ public” aspect of the sanctuary, although Jews like Philo and Josephus might speak of the temple as κοσμικός in this sense, i.e. in contrast to synagogues and προσευχαί , which were of local importance (Philo, ad Caium. 1019), or simply as a place of public worship (e.g. Jos. Bell. iv. 5, 2, τῆςκοσμικῆςθρησκείαςκατάρχοντας , προσκυνουμένουςτετοῖςἐκτῆςοἰκουμένηςπαραβάλλουσινεἰςτὴνπόλιν ). Neither would our author have called the sanctuary κοσμικός as symbolic of the κόσμος , though Philo (Vit. Mosis, iii. 3-10) and Josephus also play with this fancy. He views the sanctuary as a dim representation of the divine sanctuary, not of the universe. Yet he might have employed κοσμικόν in a similar sense, if we interpret the obscure phrase μυστήριονκοσμικὸνἐκκλησίας in Did. 11:11 (see the notes of Dr. C. Taylor and Dr. Rendel Harris in their editions) as a spiritual or heavenly idea, “ depicted in the world of sense by emblematic actions or material objects,” “ a symbol or action wrought upon the stage of this world to illustrate what was doing or to be done on a higher plane.” Thus, in the context of the Didache, marriage would be a μυστήριονκοσμικόν (cp. Ephesians 5:32) of the spiritual relation between Christ and his church. This early Christian usage may have determined the choice of κοσμικόν here, the sanctuary being κοσμικόν because it is the material representation or parabolic outward expression of the true, heavenly sanctuary. But at best it is a secondary suggestion; unless κοσμικόν could be taken as “ ornamented,” the controlling idea is that the sanctuary and its ritual were external and material . The very position of κοσμικόν denotes, as often in Greek, a stress such as might be conveyed in English by “ a sanctuary, material indeed.” The ἅγιον is now described (v. 2f.), after Exodus 25-26. It consisted of two parts, each called a σκηνή . The large outer tent, the first to be entered, was called Ἅγια (neut. plur., not fem. sing.). The phrase, ἥτιςλέγεταιἍγια 1 would have been in a better position immediately after ἡπρώτη , where, indeed, Chrysostom (followed by Blass) reads it, instead of after the list of the furniture. The lampstand stood in front (to the south) of the sacred table on which twelve loaves or cakes of wheaten flour were piled , the Hebrew counterpart of the well-known lectisternia: ἡτράπεζα … ἄρτων is a hendiadys for “ the table with its loaves of the Presence.” Such was the furniture of the outer σκηνή . Then (vv. 3-5) follows a larger catalogue (cp. Joma 2:4) of what lay inside the inner shrine behind the curtain (Exodus 27:16) which screened this from the outer tent, and which is called δεύτερονκαταπέτασμα , δεύτερον , because the first was a curtain hung at the entrance to the larger tent, and καταπέτασμα , either because that is the term used in Exodus 26:31f. (the particular passage the writer has in mind here), the term elsewhere being usually κάλυμμα or ἐπίσπαστρον (Exodus 26:36 etc.), or because Philo had expressly distinguished the outer curtain as κάλυμμα , the inner as καταπέτασμα (de vita Mosis, iii. 9). This inner shrine contained (v. 4) χρυσοῦνθυμιατήριον , i.e. a wooden box, overlaid with gold, on which incense was offered twice daily by the priests. The LXX calls this θυσιαστήριοντοῦθυμιάματος (Exodus 30:1-10), but our writer follows the usage of Philo, which is also, on the whole, that of Josephus, in calling it θυμιατήριον (so Symm. Theodotion, Exodus 30:1, Exodus 31:8); θυμιατήριον , in the non-biblical papyri, denotes articles like censers in a sanctuary, but is never used in the LXX of levitical censers, though Josephus occasionally describes them thus, like the author of 4 Mac 7:11. The ordinary view was that this θυμιατήριον stood beside the λυχνία and the sacred τράπεζα in the outer sanctuary. Both Philo (e.g. quis rer. div. 46, τριῶνὄντωνἐντοῖςἁγίοιςσκευεῶν , λυχνίας , τραπέζης , θυμιατηρίου : de vita Mos. iii. 9 f., in the outer tent, τὰλοιπὰτρίασκευή … μέσονμὲντὸθυμιατήριον … τὴνδὲλυχνίαν … ἡδὲτράπεζα ) and Josephus (Ant, iii. 6. 4 f.; cp. viii. 4, for the reproduction in Solomon’ s temple) are quite explicit on this. Indeed no other position was possible for an altar which required daily service from the priests; inside the ἅγιατῶνἁγίων it would have been useless. But another tradition, which appears in the contemporary (Syriac) apocalypse of Baruch (6:7), placed the altar of incense1 inside the ἅγιαἁγίων , a view reflected as early as the Samaritan text of the pentateuch, which put Exodus 30:1-10 (the description of the altar of incense) after 26:35, where logically it ought to stand, inserting a ל פ נ י י ה ו ה in Exodus 40:27 . The earliest hint of this tradition seems to be given in the Hebrew text of 1 K 6:22, where Solomon is said to have overlaid with gold “ the altar that is by the oracle” . But our author could not have been influenced by this, for it is absent from the LXX text. His inaccuracy was rendered possible by the vague language of the pentateuch about the position of the altar of incense, ἀπέναντιτοῦκαταπετάσματοςτοῦὄντοςἐπὶτῆςκιβωτοῦτῶνμαρτυριῶν (Exodus 30:6), where ἀπέναντι may mean “ opposite” or “ close in front of” the curtain— but on which side of it? In Exo_37 the τράπεζα , the λυχνία , and the altar of incense are described successively after the items in the ἅγιαἁγίων ; but then the LXX did not contain the section on the altar of incense, so that this passage offered no clue to our writer. In Exodus 40:5 it is merely put ἐναντίοντῆςκιβωτοῦ . This vagueness is due to the fact that in the original source the sketch of the σκηνή had no altar of incense at all; the latter is a later accretion, hence the curious position of Exo 30:1-10 in a sort of appendix, and the ambiguity about its site. After all it is only an antiquarian detail for our author. It has been suggested that he regarded the ἅγιατῶνἁγίων , irrespective of the veil, as symbolizing the heavenly sanctuary, and that he therefore thought it must include the altar of incense as symbolizing the prayers of the saints. But there is no trace of such a symbolism elsewhere in the epistle; it is confined to the author of the Apocalypse (8:3f.). The suggestion that he meant ἔχουσα to express only a close or ideal connexion between the inner shrine and the altar of incense, is popular (e.g. Delitzsch, Zahn, Peake, Seeberg) but quite unacceptable; ἔχουσα as applied to the other items could not mean this,1 and what applies to them applies to the θυμιατήριον . Besides, the point of the whole passage is to distinguish between the contents of the two compartments. Still less tenable is the idea that θυμιατήριον really means “ censer” or “ incense pan.” This way out of the difficulty was started very early (in the peshiṭ ta, the vulgate), but a censer is far too minor a utensil to be included in this inventory; even the censer afterwards used on atonement-day did not belong to the ἅγιατῶνἁγίων , neither was it golden. What the σκηνή had was merely a brazier (πυρεῖον , Leviticus 16:12). Since it is not possible that so important an object as the altar of incense could have been left out, we may assume without much hesitation that the writer did mean to describe it by θυμιατήριον ,2 and that the irregularity of placing it on the wrong side of the curtain is simply another of his inaccuracies in describing what he only knew from the text of the LXX. In B the slip is boldly corrected by the transference of χρυσοῦνθυμιατήριον to v. 2, immediately after ἄρτων (so Blass). The second item is τὴνκιβωτὸντῆςδιαθήκης covered with gold all over (πάντοθεν : Philo’ s phrase is ἔνδοθενκαὶἔξωθεν , de Ebriet. 21), a chest or box about 4 feet long and 2½ feet broad and high (Exodus 25:10f.), which held three sacred treasures, (a) the golden pot (στάμνος , Attic feminine) of manna (Exodus 16:32-34); (b) Aaron’ s rod ἡβλαστήσασα (in the story of Num 17:1-11, which attested the sacerdotal monopoly of the clan of Levi); and (c) αἱπλάκεςτῆςδιαθήκης (Exodus 25:16f. Exodus 25:31:18), i.e. the two stone tablets on which the decalogue was written (πλάκαςδιαθήκης , Deuteronomy 9:9; ἐνέβαλοντὰςπλάκαςεἰςτὴνκιβωτόν , 10:5), the decalogue summarizing the terms of the διαθήκη for the People. In adding χρυσῆ to στάμνος the writer follows the later tradition of the LXX and of Philo (de congressu, 18); the pot is not golden in the Hebrew original. He also infers, as later Jewish tradition did, that the ark contained this pot, although, like Aaron’ s rod, it simply lay in front of the ark (Exodus 16:33, Exodus 16:34, Numbers 17:10). He would gather from 1 K 8:9 that the ark contained the tablets of the covenant. He then (v. 5) mentions the χερουβείν (Aramaic form) or χερουβεὶμ (Hebrew form) δόξης , two small winged figures (Exodus 25:18-20), whose pinions extended over a rectangular gold slab, called τὸἱλαστήριον , laid on the top of the ark, which it fitted exactly. They are called cherubim Δόξης , which is like Μεγαλωσύνης (1:3, 8:1) a divine title, applied to Jesus in James 2:1, but here used as in Romans 9:4. The cherubim on the ἱλαστήριον represented the divine Presence as accessible in mercy; the mystery of this is suggested by the couplet in Sir 49:8(10): Ἰεζεκιήλ , ὃςεἶδενὅρασινΔόξης ἣνὑπέδειξεναὐτῷἐπὶἅρματοςχερουβείμ . Philo’ s account of τὸἱλαστήριον is given in de vita Mosis, iii. 8, ἡδὶκιβωτὸς … κεχρυσωμένηπολυτελῶςἔνδοθέντεκαὶἔξωθεν , ἧςἐπίθεμαὡσανεὶπῶματὸλεγόμενονἐνἱεραῖςβιβλοιςἱλαστήριον … ὅπερἔοικενεἶναισύμβολονφυσικώτερονμὲντῆςἵλεωτοῦθεοῦδυνάμεως . Lower down, in the same paragraph, he speaks of τὸἐπίθεματὸπροσαγορευόμενονἱλαστήριον , and τὸἱλαστήριον is similarly used in De Cherub. 8 (on the basis of Exo 25:19). The ἐπίθεμα or covering of the ark was splashed with blood on atonement-day; perhaps, even apart from that, its Hebrew original meant “ means of propitiation,” and was not incorrectly named ἱλαστήριον (cp. Deissmann in EBi 3027-3035), but our author simply uses it in its LXX sense of “ mercy-seat.” He does not enter into any details about its significance; in his scheme of sacrificial thought such a conception had no place. Philo also allegorizes the overshadowing wings of the cherubim as a symbol of God’ s creative and royal powers protecting the cosmos, and explains Exodus 25:22 as follows (Quaest. in Exodus 25:22): τὰμὲνοὖνπερὶτὴνκιβωτὸνκατὰμέροςεἴρηται · δεῖδὲσυλλήβδηνἄνωθενἀναλαβόντατοῦγνωρίσαιχάριντίνωνταῦτάἐστισύμβολαδιεξελθεῖν · ἦνδὲταῦτασυμβολικά · κιβωτὸςκαὶτὰἐναὐτῇθησαυριζόμενανόμιμακαὶἐπὶταύτηςτὸἱλαστήριονκαὶτὰἐπὶτοῦἱλαστηρίουΧαλδαίωνγλώττῃλεγόμεναχερουβίμ , ὑπὲρδὲτούτωνκατὰτὸμέσονφωνὴκαὶλόγοςκαὶὑπεράνωὁλέγωνκτλ . But our author does not enter into any such details. He has no time for further discussion of the furniture, he observes; whether he would have allegorized these items of antiquarian ritual, if or when he had leisure, we cannot tell. The only one he does employ mystically is the καταπέτασμα (10:20), and his use of it is not particularly happy. He now breaks off, almost as Philo does on the same subject. Κατὰμέρος is the ordinary literary phrase in this connexion (e.g. 2 Mac 2:30; Polybius, i. 67. 11, περὶὧνοὐχοἷόντεδιὰτῆςγραφῆςτὸνκατὰμέροςἀποδοῦναιλόγον , and Poimandres [ed. Reitzenstein, p. 84] περὶὧνὁκατὰμέροςλόγοςἐστὶπολύς ). Οὐκἔστιν as in 1 Corinthians 11:20. Worship in a sanctuary like this shows that access to God was defective (vv. 6-8), as was inevitable when the sacrifices were external (vv. 8-10). Having first shown this, the writer gets back to the main line of his argument (8:2), viz. the sacrifice of Jesus as pre-eminent and final (v. 11f.). 6 Such were the arrangements for worship. The priests constantly enter the first tent (v. 2) in the discharge of their ritual duties, 7 but the second tent is entered only once a year by the highpriest alone— and it must not be without blood, which he presents on behalf of (cp. 5:3) himself and the errors of the People. 8 By this the holy Spirit means that the way into the Holiest Presence was not yet disclosed so long as the first tent 9 (which foreshadowed the present age) was still standing, with its offerings of gifts and sacrifices which cannot (μή as in 4:2) possibly make the conscience of the worshipper perfect, 10 since they relate merely to food and drink and a variety of ablutions— outward regulations for the body, that only hold till the period of the New Order. In v. 6; διὰπαντός = continually, as in BM i. 42 6 (ii b.c.) οἱἐνοἴκῳπάντεςσουδιαπαντὸςμνείανποιούμενοι . Εἰσίασιν (which might even be the present with a futuristic sense, the writer placing himself and his readers back at the inauguration of the sanctuary: “ Now, this being all ready, the priests will enter,” etc.) ἐπιτελοῦντες (a regular sacerdotal or ritual term in Philo) λατρείας (morning and evening, to trim the lamps and offer incense on the golden altar, Exodus 27:21, Exodus 30:7f. etc.; weekly, to change the bread of the Presence, Leviticus 24:8f., Jos. Ant. iii. 6, 6). The ritual of the inner shrine (v. 3) is now described (v. 7, cp. Joma 5:3); the place is entered by the highpriest ἅπαξτοῦἐνιαυτοῦ , on the annual day of atonement (Leviticus 16:29, Leviticus 16:34, Exodus 30:10): only once, and he must be alone (μόνος , Leviticus 16:17), this one individual out of all the priests. Even he dare not enter χωρὶςαἵματος (Leviticus 16:14f.), i.e. without carrying in blood from the sacrifice offered for his own and the nation’ s ἀγνοημάτων . In Genesis 43:12 ἀγνόημα is “ an oversight,” but in Judges 5:20, Tob 3:3, 1 Mac 13:39, Sir 23:2 ἀγνοήματα and “ sins” are bracketed together (see above on 5:2), and the word occurs alone in Polyb. xxxviii. 1, 5. as an equivalent for “ offences” or “ errors” in the moral sense. There is no hint that people were not responsible for them, or that they were not serious; on the contrary, they had to be atoned for. Ὑπέρκτλ .; for a similarly loose construction cp. 1 John 2:2 . Rabbi Ismael b. Elischa, the distinguished exegete of i-ii a.d., classified sins as follows (Tos. Joma 5:6): Transgressions of positive enactments were atoned for by repentance, involving a purpose of new obedience, according to Jeremiah 22:23 . The day of atonement, however, was necessary for the full pardon of offences against divine prohibitions: according to Leviticus 16:30 (“ On that day shall the priest make atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins” ). An offender whose wrongdoing deserved severe or capital punishment could only be restored by means of sufferings: according to Psalms 89:32 (“ Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes” ). But desecration of the divine Name could not be atoned for by any of these three methods; death alone wiped out this sin (Jeremiah 24:4). The author now (v. 8) proceeds to find a spiritual significance in this ceremonial. Δηλοῦντος is used of a divine meaning as in 12:27, here conveyed by outward facts. In 1 P 1:11 the verb is again used of the Spirit, and this is the idea here; Josephus uses the same verb for the mystic significance of the jewels worn by the highpriest, but our author’ s interpretation of the significance of the σκηνή is naturally very different from that of Josephus, who regards the unapproachable character of the ἄδυτον or inner shrine as symbolizing heaven itself (Ant. iii. 6, 4 and 7, 7, ὃτοῖςἱερεῦσινἦνἄβατον , ὡςοὐρανὸςἄνειτοτῷθεῷ … διὰτὸκαὶτὸνοὐρανὸνἀνεπίβατονεἶναιἀνθρώποις ). For ὁδόν with gen. in sense of “ way to,” cp. Genesis 3:24 , Judges 5:14 . Τῶνἁγίων here (like τὰἁγία in vv. 12, 25, cp. 13:11) as in 10:19 means the very Presence of God, an archaic liturgical phrase suggested by the context. The word φανεροῦσθαι was not found by the writer in his text of the LXX; it only occurs in the LXX in Jer_40 (33):6, and the Latin phrase “ iter patefieri” (e.g. Caesar, de Bello Gall. iii. i) is merely a verbal parallel. In τῆςπρώτηςσκηνῆςἐχούσηςστάσιν (v. 9), the writer has chosen στάσιν for the sake of assonance with ἐνεστηκότα , but ἔχεινστάσιν is a good Greek phrase for “ to be in existence.” The parenthesis ἥτις 1 παραβολὴ (here = τύπος , as Chrysostom saw) εἰςτὸνκαιρὸντὸνἐνεστηκότα means that the first σκηνή was merely provisional, as it did no more than adumbrate the heavenly reality, and provisional εἰςτὸνκαιρὸντὸνἐνεστηκότα , i.e. the period in which the writer and his readers lived, the period inaugurated by the advent of Jesus with his new διαθήκη . This had meant the supersession of the older διαθήκη with its sanctuary and δικαιώματα , which only lasted μέχρικαιροῦδιορθώσεως . But, so long as they lasted, they were intended by God to foreshadow the permanent order of religion; they were, as the writer says later (v. 23), ὑποδείγματατῶνἐντοῖςοὐρανοῖς , mere copies but still copies. This is why he calls the fore-tent a παραβολή . For now, as he adds triumphantly, in a daring, imaginative expression, our ἀρχιερεύς has passed through his heavenly fore-tent (v. 11), and his heavenly sanctuary corresponds to a heavenly (i.e. a full and final) sacrifice. In the levitical ritual the high priest on atonement-day took the blood of the victim through the fore-tent into the inner shrine. Little that accomplished! It was but a dim emblem of what our highpriest was to do and has done, in the New Order of things. When readers failed to see that ἥτις … ἐνεστηκότα was a parenthesis, it was natural that καθ ʼ ἥν should be changed into καθ ʼ ὅν (D c K L P, so Blass). The failure of animal sacrifices (9b-10) lies κατὰσυνείδησιν . As the inner consciousness here is a consciousness of sin, “ conscience” fairly represents the Greek term συνείδησις . Now, the levitical sacrifices were ineffective as regards the conscience of worshippers; they were merely ἐπὶβρώμασινκαὶπόμασινκαὶδιαφόροιςβαπτισμοῖς , a striking phrase (cp. 13:9) of scorn for the mass of minute regulations about what might or might not be eaten or drunk, and about baths, etc. Food and ablutions are intelligible; a book like Leviticus is full of regulations about them. But πόμασιν Well, the writer adds this as naturally as the author of Ep. Aristeas does, in describing the levitical code. “ I suppose most people feel some curiosity about the enactments of our law περίτετῶνβρωτῶνκαὶποτῶν ” (128); it was to safeguard us from pagan defilement that παντόθενἡμᾶςπεριέφραξενἁγνείαιςκαὶδιὰβρωτῶνκαὶποτῶν (142), ἐπὶτῶνβρωτῶνκαὶποτῶνἀπαρξαμένουςεὐθέωςτότεσυγχρῆσθαικελεύει (158). It is curious that this defence of the levitical code contains an allusion which is a verbal parallel to our writer’ s disparaging remark here; the author asserts that intelligent Egyptian priests call the Jews “ men of God,” a title only applicable to one who σέβεταιτὸνκατὰἀλήθειανθεόν , since all others are ἄνθρωποιβρωτῶνκαὶποτῶνκαὶσκέπης , ἡγὰρπᾶσαδιάθεσιςαὐτῶνἐπὶταῦτακαταφεύγει . τοῖςδὲπαρ ʼ ἡμῶνἐνοὐδενὶταῦταλελόγισται (140, 141). Libations of wine accompanied certain levitical sacrifices (e.g. Numbers 5:15, Numbers 5:6:15, Numbers 5:17, Numbers 5:28:7f.), but no ritual regulations were laid down for them, and they were never offered independently (cp. EBi 4193, 4209). It is because the whole question of sacrifice is now to be restated that he throws in these disparaging comments upon the δῶράτεκαὶθυσίαι and their accompaniments in the older σκηνή . Such sacrifices were part and parcel of a system connected with (v. 10) external ritual, and in concluding the discussion he catches up the term with which he had opened it: all such rites are δικαιώματασαρκός , connected with the sensuous side of life and therefore provisional, μέχρικαιροῦδιορθώσεωςἐπικείμενα . Here ἐπικείμενα is “ prescribed,” as in the description of workmen on strike, in TebtP 26:17 (114 b.c.) ἐγκαταλείπονταςτὴνἐπικειμένηνἀσχολῖαν . Διόρθωσις means a “ reconstruction” of religion, such as the new διαθήκη (8:13) involved; the use of the term in Polybius, iii. 118. 12 , indicates how our author could seize on it for his own purposes. The comma might be omitted after βαπτισμοῖς , and δικαιώματα taken closely with μόνον : “ gifts and sacrifices, which (μόνονκτλ . in apposition) are merely (the subject of) outward regulations for the body,” ἐπί being taken as cumulative (Luke 3:20) — “ besides,” etc. This gets over the difficulty that the levitical offerings had a wider scope than food, drink, and ablutions; but ἐπί is not natural in this sense here, and ἐπὶ … βαπτισμοῖς is not a parenthetical clause. The insertion of καί before δικαιώματα (by א c B Dc etc. vg hkl Chrys.), = “ even” or “ in particular” (which is the only natural sense), is pointless. Δικαιώμασιν (Dc K L vg hkl) was an easy conformation to the previous datives, which would logically involve ἐπικειμένοις , otherwise ἐπικείμενα would be extremely awkward, after δυνάμεναι , in apposition to δῶρατεκαὶθυσίαι . Now for the better sanctuary and especially the better sacrifice of Christ as our ἀρχιερεύς (vv. 11-28)! 11 But when Christ arrived as the highpriest of the bliss that was to be, he passed through the greater and more perfect tent which no hands had made (no part, that is to say, of the present order), 12 not (οὐδέ = nor yet) taking any blood of goats and calves but his own blood, and entered once for all into the Holy place. He secured an eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkled on defiled persons, give them a holiness that bears on bodily purity, 14 how much more shall (καθαριεῖ , logical future) the blood of Christ, who in the spirit of the eternal offered himself as an unblemished sacrifice to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve a living God.” This paragraph consists of two long sentences (vv. 11, 12, 13, 14). The second is an explanation of αἰωνίανλύτρωσινεὑράμενος at the close of the first. In the first, the sphere, the action, and the object of the sacrifice are noted, as a parallel to vv. 6, 7; but in vv. 13, 14 the sphere is no longer mentioned, the stress falling upon the other two elements. The writer does not return to the question of the sphere till vv. 21f. χριστὸςδὲπαραγενόμενος (v. 11). But Christ came on the scene,1 and all was changed. He arrived as ἀρχιερεύς , and the author carries on the thought by an imaginative description of him passing through the upper heavens (no hand-made, mundane fore-court this!) into the innermost Presence. It is a more detailed account of what he had meant by ἔχοντεςἀρχιερέαμέγανδιεληλυθότατοὺςοὐρανούς (4:14). Χειροποιήτου , like χειροποίητα (v. 24), means “ manufactured,” not “ fictitious” (as applied to idols or idol-temples by the LXX and Philo). Τουτ ʼ ἔστινοὐταύτηςτῆςκτίσεως reads like the gloss of a scribe, but the writer is fond of this phrase τουτ ʼ ἔστιν , and, though it adds nothing to οὐχειροποιήτου , it may stand. Κτίσις , in this sense of creation or created order, was familiar to him (e.g. Wis 5:17, 19:6). Μελλόντων , before ἀγαθῶν , was soon altered into γενομένων (by B D 1611 1739 2005 vt syr Orig. Chrys.), either owing to a scribe being misled by παραγενόμενος or owing to a pious feeling that μελλόντων here (though not in 10:1) was too eschatological. The ἄγαθα were μέλλοντα in a sense even for Christians, but already they had begun to be realized; e.g. in the λύτρωσις . This full range was still to be disclosed (2:5, 13:14), but they were realities of which Christians had here and now some vital experience (see on 6:5). Some editors (e.g. Rendall, Nairne) take τῶνγενομένωνἀγαθῶν with what follows, as if the writer meant to say that “ Christ appeared as highpriest of the good things which came by the greater and more perfect tabernacle (not made with hands— that is, not of this creation).” This involves, (a) the interpretation of ούδέ as = “ not by the blood of goats and calves either,” the term carrying on παραγενόμενος ; and (b) διά in a double sense. There is no objection to (b), but (a) is weak; the bliss and benefit are mediated not through the sphere but through what Jesus does in the sphere of the eternal σκηνή . Others (e.g. Westcott, von Soden, Dods, Seeberg) take διὰτῆςσκηνής with Χριστός , “ Christ by means of the … sanctuary.” This sense of διά is better than that of (a) above, and it keeps διά the same for vv. 11 and 12. But the context points to the local use of διά in διὰτῆς … σκηνῆς , rather than to the instrumental; and it is no objection that the writer immediately uses διά in another sense , for this is one of his literary methods (cp. διά with gen. and accus. in 2:1, 2, 2:9, 10, 7:18, 19, 23, 24, 25). Continuing the description of Christ’ s sacrifice, he adds (v. 12) οὐδὲδι ʼ αἵματοςτράγων (for the People) καὶμόσχων (for himself), which according to the programme in Lev_16 the priest smeared on the east side of the ἱλαστήριον . The later Jewish procedure is described in the Mishna tractate Joma, but our author simply draws upon the LXX text, though (like Aquila and Symmachus) he uses μόσχων instead of χίμαρων . Διά is graphically used in διὰτοῦἰδίουαἵματος , as in δι ʼ αἵματοςτράγωνκαὶμόσχων , but the idea is the self-sacrifice, the surrender of his own life, in virtue of which1 he redeemed his People, the αἷμα or sacrifice being redemptive as it was his. The single sacrifice had eternal value, owing to his personality. The term ἐφάπαξ , a stronger form of ἅπαξ , which is unknown to the LXX, is reserved by our author for the sacrifice of Jesus, which he now describes as issuing in a λύτρωσις — an archaic religious term which he never uses elsewhere; it is practically the same as ἀπολύτρωσις (v. 15), but he puts into it a much deeper meaning than the LXX or than Luke (1:68, 2:38), the only other NT writer who employs the term. Though he avoids the verb, his meaning is really that of 1 P 1:18 or of Tit 2:14 (ὃςἔδωκενἑαυτὸνὑπὲρἡμῶν , ἵναλυτρωσήταιἡμᾶςἀπὸπάσηςἀνομίαςκαὶκαθαρίσῃἑαυτῷλαὸνπεριούσιον ). In this compressed phrase, αἰωνίανλύτρωσινεὑράμενος , (a) αἰωνίαν offers the only instance of αἰώνιος being modified in this epistle. (b) Εὑράμενος , in the sense of Dion. Hal. Ant. v. 293 , and Jos. Ant. 1:19. 1 , is a participle (for its form,2 cp. Moulton, 1. p. 51), which, though middle, is not meant to suggest any personal effort like “ by himself,” much less “ for himself” ; the middle in Hellenistic Greek had come to mean what the active meant. what he secured, he secured for us . The aorist has not a past sense; it either means “ to secure” (like εὑράμενοι in 4 Malachi 3:13 and ἐπισκεψάμενοι in 2 Mac 11:36), after a verb of motion (cp. Acts 25:13), or “ securing” . The last three words of v. 12 are now (vv. 13, 14) explained by an a fortiori argument. Why was Christ’ s redemption eternal? What gave it this absolute character and final force? In v. 13 τράγωνκαὶταύρων reverses the order in 10:4, and ταύρων is now substituted for μόσχων . The former led to ταύρωνκαὶτράγων being read (by the K L P group, Athanasius, Cyril, etc.), but “ the blood of goats and bulls” was a biblical generalization (Psalms 50:13, Isaiah 1:11), chosen here as a literary variation, perhaps for the sake of the alliteration, though some editors see in ταύρων a subtle, deliberate antithesis to the feminine δάμαλις . According to the directions of Num 19:9f. a red cow was slaughtered and then burned; the ashes were mixed with fresh water and sprinkled upon any worshipper who had touched a dead body and thus incurred ceremonial impurity, contact with the dead being regarded as a disqualification for intercourse with men or God (see above on 6:1). This mixture was called ὕδωρῥαντισμοῦ . The rite supplies the metaphors of the argument in vv. 14, 15; it was one of the ablutions (v. 10) which restored the contaminated person to the worshipping community of the Lord. The cow is described as ἅμωμον , the purified person as καθαρός ; but our author goes ouside the LXX for κεκοινωμένους , and even ῥαντίζειν is rare in the LXX. “ The red colour of the cow and the scarlet cloth burnt on the pyre with the aromatic woods, suggest the colour of blood; the aromatic woods are also probably connected with primitive ideas of the cathartic value of odours such as they produce” (R. A. S. Macalister in ERE xi. 36a). The lustration had no connexion whatever with atonement-day, and it was only in later rabbinic tradition that it was associated with the functions of the highpriest. According to Pesikta 40a, a pagan inquirer once pointed out to Rabbi Jochanan ben Zakkai the superstitious character of such rites. His disciples considered his reply unsatisfactory, and afterwards pressed him to explain to them the meaning of the ashes and the sprinkling, but all he could say was that it had been appointed by the Holy One, and that men must not inquire into His reasons (cp. Bacher’ s Agada d. Pal. Amorä er, i. 556; Agada der Tannaiten2, i. 37, 38). Our author does not go into details, like the author of Ep. Barnabas (8), who allegorizes the ritual freely in the light of the Jewish tradition; he merely points out that, according to the bible, the rite, like the similar rite of blood on atonement-day, restored the worshipper to outward communion with God. Ἁγιάζει means this and no more. The removal of the religious tabu upon persons contaminated by contact with the dead was familiar to non-Jews. The writer goes back to the OT for his illustration, but it would be quite intelligible to his Gentile Christian readers (cp. Marett’ s The Evolution of Religion, pp. 115f.; ERE iv. 434, x. 456, 483, 485, 501), in a world where physical contact with the dead was a μίασμα . Philo’ s exposition (de spec. legibus. i. περὶθυόντων , 1 f.) of the rite is that the primary concern is for the purity of the soul; the attention needed for securing that the victim is ἄμωμον , or, as he says, παντελῶςμούμωνἀμέτοχον , is a figurative expression for moral sensitiveness on the part of the worshipper; it is a regulation really intended for rational beings. Οὐτῶνθυομένωνφροντίςἐστιν … ἀλλὰτῶνθυόντων , ἵναπερὶμηδὲνπάθοςκηραίνωσι . The bodily cleansing is only secondary, and even this he ingeniously allegorizes into a demand for self-knowledge, since the water and ashes should remind us how worthless our natures are, and knowledge of this kind is a wholesome purge for conceit! Thus, according to Philo, the rite did purge soul as well as body: ἀναγκαῖοντοὺςμέλλονταςφοιτᾶνεἰςτὸἱερὸνἐπὶμετουσίᾳθυσίαςτὸτεσῶμαφαιδρύνεσθαικαὶτὴνψυχὴνπρὸτοῦσώματος . Our author does not share this favourable view (cp. Seeberg’ s Der Tod Christi, pp. 53 f.; O. Schmitz’ s Die Opferanschauung des spä teren Judentums, pp. 281 f.). He would not have denied that the levitical cultus aimed at spiritual good; what he did deny was that it attained its end. Till a perfect sacrifice was offered, such an end was unattainable. The levitical cultus “ provided a ritual cleansing for the community, a cleansing which, for devout minds that could penetrate beneath the letter to the spirit, must have often meant a sense of restoration of God’ s community. But at best the machinery was cumbrous: at best the pathway into God’ s presence was dimly lighted” (H. A. A. Kennedy, The Theology of the Epistles, p. 213). Our author does not explain how the blood of goats and bulls could free the worshiper from ceremonial impurity; the cathartic efficacy of blood is assumed. From the comparative study of religion we know now that this belief was due to the notion that “ the animal that has been consecrated by contact with the altar becomes charged with a divine potency, and its sacred blood, poured over the impure man, absorbs and disperses his impurity” (Marett, The Evolution of Religion, p. 121). But in ΠρὸςἙβραίους , (a) though the blood of goats and bulls is applied to the people as well as to the altar, and is regarded as atoning (see below), the writer offers no rationale of sacrifice. Χωρὶςαἱματεκχυσίαςοὐγίνεταιἄφεσις . He does not argue, he takes for granted, that access to God involves sacrifice, i.e. blood shed. (b) He uses the rite of Num_19 to suggest the cathartic process, the point of this lustration being the use of “ water made holy by being mingled with the ashes of the heifer that had been burnt.” “ The final point is reached,” no doubt (Marett, op. cit. 123), “ when it is realized that the blood of bulls and goats cannot wash away sin, that nothing external can defile the heart or soul, but only evil thoughts and evil will.” Yet our writer insists that even this inward defilement requires a sacrifice, the sacrifice of Christ’ s blood. This is now (v. 14) urged in the phrase ἑαυτὸνπροσήνεγκεν , where we at last see what was intended by προσφέρειντι in 8:3. We are not to think of the risen or ascended Christ presenting himself to God, but of his giving himself up to die as a sacrifice. The blood of Christ means his life given up for the sake of men. He did die, but it was a voluntary death— not the slaughter of an unconscious, reluctant victim; and he who died lives. More than that, he lives with the power of that death or sacrifice. This profound thought is further developed by (a) the term ἄμωμον , which is in apposition to ἑαυτόν ; and (b) by διὰπνεύματοςαἰωνίου , which goes with προσήνεγκεν . (a) Paul calls Christians, or calls them to be, ἄμωμοι ; but our writer, like the author of 1 P (1:19), calls Christ ἄμωμος as a victim. It is a poetic synonym for ἀμώμητος , taken over as the technical term (LXX) for the unblemished animals which alone could be employed in sacrifice; here it denotes the stainless personality, the sinless nature which rendered the self-sacrifice of Jesus eternally valid. Then (b) the pregnant phrase διὰπνεύματοςαἰωνίου , which qualifies ἑαυτὸνπροσήνεγκεν , means that this sacrifice was offered in the realm or order of the inward spirit, not of the outward and material; it was no δικαίωμασαρκός , but carried out διὰπνεύματος , i.e. in, or in virtue of, his spiritual nature. What the author had called ζωὴἀκατάλυτος (7:16) he now calls πνεῦμααἰώνιον . The sacrificial blood had a mystical efficacy; it resulted in an eternal λύτρωσις because it operated in an eternal order of spirit, the sacrifice of Jesus purifying the inner personality because it was the action of a personality, and of a sinless personality which belonged by nature to the order of spirit or eternity. Christ was both priest and victim; as Son of God he was eternal and spiritual, unlike mortal highpriests (7:16), and, on the other side, unlike a mortal victim. The implication (which underlies all the epistle) is that even in his earthly life Jesus possessed eternal life. Hence what took place in time upon the cross, the writer means, took place really in the eternal, absolute order. Christ sacrificed himself ἐφάπαξ , and the single sacrifice needed no repetition, since it possessed absolute, eternal value as the action of One who belonged to the eternal order. He died— he had to die— but only once (9:15-10:18), for his sacrifice, by its eternal significance, accomplished at a stroke what no amount of animal sacrifices could have secured, viz. the forgiveness of sins. It is as trivial to exhaust the meaning of πνεῦμααἰώνιον in a contrast with the animal sacrifices of the levitical cultus as it is irrelevant to drag in the dogma of the trinity. Αἰωνίου closely describes πνεύματος (hence it has no article). What is in the writer’ s mind is the truth that what Jesus did by dying can never be exhausted or transcended. His sacrifice, like his διαθήκη , like the λύτρωσις or σωτηρία which he secures, is αἰώνιος or lasting, because it is at the heart of things. It was because Jesus was what he was by nature that his sacrifice had such final value; its atoning significance lay in his vital connexion with the realm of absolute realities; it embodied all that his divine personality meant for men in relation to God. In short, his self-sacrifice “ was something beyond which nothing could be, or could be conceived to be, as a response to God’ s mind and requirement in relation to sin … an intelligent and loving response to the holy and gracious will of God, and to the terrible situation of man” (Denney, The Death of Christ, p. 228). A later parallel from rabbinic religion occurs in the Midrash Tehillim on Psa_31: “ formerly you were redeemed with flesh and blood, which to-day is and to-morrow is buried; wherefore your redemption was temporal . But now I will redeem you by myself, who live and remain for ever; wherefore your redemption will be eternal redemption (ג א ו ל ח ע ו ל ם , cp. Isaiah 45:17).” One or two minor textual items may be noted in v. 14. πνεύματος ] J. J. Reiske’ s conjecture ἁγνεύματος (purity) is singularly prosaic. Αἰωνίου (א A B Dc K L syrvg hkl arm Ath) is altered into the conventional ἁγίου by א c D P 35. 88. 206. 326. 547, etc. lat boh Chrys. Cyril. Liturgical usage altered ὑμῶν into ἡμῶν (A D P 5. 38. 218. 241. 256. 263. 378. 506. 1319. 1831. 1836. 1912. 2004. 2127 vt syrvg boh Cyr.), and, to ζῶντι , καὶἀληθινῷ (a gloss from 1 Thessalonians 1:9) is added in A P 104 boh Chrys. etc. In the closing words of v. 14 καθαριεῖ is a form which is rare (Matthew 3:12, James 4:8?) in the NT, so rare that καθαρίσει is read here by 206. 221. 1831 Did. Ath It is a Hellenistic verb, used in the inscriptions exactly in the ceremonial sense underlying the metaphor of this passage (Deissmann, Bible Studies, 216 f.). The cleansing of the conscience (cp. v. 9) is ἀπὸνεκρῶνἔργων , from far more serious flaws and stains than ceremonial pollution by contact with a corpse (see above, and in 6:1). As Dods puts it, “ a pause might be made before ἔργων , from dead— (not bodies but) works.” The object is εἰςτὸλατρεύεινθεῷζῶντι . The writer uses the sacerdotal term (8:5) here as in 10:2 and 12:28, probably like Paul in a general sense; if he thought of Christians as priests, i.e. as possessing the right of access to God, he never says so. Religion for him is access to God, and ritual metaphors are freely used to express the thought. When others would say “ fellowship,” he says “ worship.” It is fundamental for him that forgiveness is essential to such fellowship, and forgiveness is what is meant by “ purifying the conscience.” As absolute forgiveness was the boon of the new διαθήκη (8:12), our author now proceeds (vv. 15f.) to show how Christ’ s sacrifice was necessary and efficacious under that διαθήκη . A sacrifice, involving death, is essential to any διαθήκη : this principle, which applies to the new διαθήκη (v. 15), is illustrated first generally (vv. 16, 17) and then specifically, with reference to the former διαθήκη (vv. 18-22). 15 He mediates a new covenant for this reason, that those who have been called may obtain the eternal inheritances they have been promised, now that a death has occurred which redeems them from the transgressions involved in the first covenant. 16 Thus in the case of a will, the death of the testator must be announced. 17 A will only holds in cases of death, it is never valid so long as the testator is alive. 18 Hence even the first (ἡπρώτη , sc. διαθήκη as in 9:1) covenant of God’ s will was not inaugurated apart from blood; 19 for after Moses had announced every command in the Law to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, together with water, scarlet wool and hyssop, sprinkling the book and all the people, and saying, 20 “ This is the blood of that covenant which is God’ s command for you.” 21 He even (καὶ … δέ , only here in Heb.) sprinkled with blood the tent and all the utensils of worship in the same way. 22 In fact, one might almost say that by Law everything is cleansed with blood. No blood shed no remission of sins! The writer thus weaves together the idea of the new διαθήκη (9:15 echoes 8:6) and the idea of sacrifice which he has just been developing. In v. 15 διὰτοῦτο carries a forward reference , as, e.g., in Xen. Cyrop. ii. I. 21, οἱσύμμαχοιοὐδὲδι ʼ ἓνἄλλοτρέφονταιἢὅπωςμαχοῦνταιὑπὲρτῶντρεφόντων . As the climax of the promises in the new διαθήκη is pardon (8:12), so here its purpose is described as ἀπολύτρωσις , which obviously is equivalent to full forgiveness . Ἀπολύτρωσιντῶν … παραβάσεων is like καθαρισμὸντῶνἁμαρτιῶν in 1:3. But pardon is only the means to fellowship, and the full scope of what has been promised is still to be realized. Yet it is now certain; the “ bliss to be” is an eternal κληρονομία , assured by Christ. Note that the ἐπί in ἐπὶτῇπρώτῃδιαθήκῃ is not exactly temporal = “ under,” i.e. during the period of (cp. ἐπὶσυντελείᾳτῶναἰωνῶν in v. 26), but causal. The transgressions, which had arisen “ in connexion with” the first διαθήκη , like unbelief and disobedience, are conceived as having taken their place among men; they are the standing temptations of life towards God. The writer does not say, with Paul, that sin became guilt in view of the law, but this is near to his meaning; with the first διαθήκη sins started, the sins that haunt the People. They are removed, for the penitent, by the atoning death of Jesus, so that the People are now unencumbered. There is a similar thought in Acts 13:38, Acts 13:39, where Paul tells some Jews that through Jesus Christ ὑμῖνἄφεσιςἁμαρτιῶνκαταγγέλλεται , καὶἀπὸπάντωνὧνοὐκἠδυνήθητεἐννόμῳΜωυ — σέωςδικαιωθῆναι , ἐντούτῳπὰςὁπιστεύωνδικαιοῦται . For the sake of emphasis, τὴνἐπαγγελίαν is thrown forward, away from κληρονομίας , like θάνατον in the next verse. Ἀπολύτρωσις , which in 11:35 is used in its non-technical sense of “ release” from death (at the cost of some unworthy compliance), is used here in its LXX religious sense of a redemption which costs much, which can only be had at the cost of sacrifice. The primitive idea of “ ransom” had already begun to fade out of it (cp. Daniel 4:32; Philo, quod omnis probus, 17), leaving “ liberation” at some cost as the predominant idea (so in Clem. Alex. Strom vii. 56). Here it is a synonym for λύτρωσις (v. 12), or as Theophylact put it, for deliverance. But its reference is not eschatological; the retrospective reference is uppermost. For the first and only time he employs οἱκεκλημένοι to describe those whom he had already hailed as κλήσεωςἐπουρανίουμέτοχοι (3:1). To be “ called” was indispensable to receiving God’ s boon (11:8), so that κεκλημένοι here is an appropriate term for those who are no longer hampered by any obstacles of an inadequate pardon. The κεκλημένοι are the faithful People; “ the objects of redemption are united in one category, for the One and Only Sacrifice is not of the sphere of time” (Wickham). It is not an aoristic perfect , as if the κεκλημένοι were simply those under the old διαθήκη , though these are included, for the sacrificial death of Jesus has a retrospective value; it clears off the accumulated offences of the past. The writer does not work out this, any more than Paul does in Romans 3:25f.; but it may be implied in 11:40, 12:23 (see below), where the “ perfecting” of the older believers is connected with the atonement. However, the special point here of θανάτου … παραβάσεων is that the death which inaugurates the new διαθήκη deals effectively with the hindrances left by the former διαθήκη . Not that this is its exclusive function. That the death inaugurates an order of grace in which forgiveness is still required and bestowed, is taken for granted (e.g. 4:16); but the κληρονομία , which from the beginning has been held out to the People of God, has only become attainable since the sacrifice of Jesus, and therefore (a) his death avails even for those who in the past hoped for it, yet could not obtain it, and also (b) deals with the παράβασεις set up by the older διαθήκη among men. But how was a death necessary to a διαθήκη The answer is given in v. 16f. through a characteristic play on the term. In ὅπουγὰρδιαθήκηκτλ . he uses διαθήκη as equivalent to “ will” or testamentary disposition, playing effectively upon the double sense of the term, as Paul had already done in Galatians 3:15f.. The point of his illustration (vv. 16, 17) depends upon this; βεβαία and ἰσχύει are purposely used in a juristic sense, applicable to wills as well as to laws, and ὁδιαθέμενος is the technical term for “ testator.” The illustration has its defects, but only when it is pressed beyond what the writer means to imply. A will does not come into force during the lifetime of the testator, and yet Jesus was living! True, but he had died, and died inaugurating a διαθήκη in words which the writer has in mind (v. 20); indeed, according to one tradition he had spoken of himself figuratively as assigning rights to his disciples (κἀγὼδιατίθεμαιὑμῖν , Luke 22:29). The slight incongruity in this illustration is not more than that involved in making Jesus both priest and victim. It is a curious equivoque, this double use of διαθήκη , the common idea of both meanings being that benefits are “ disponed,” and that the διαθήκη only takes effect after a death. The continuity of argument is less obvious in English, where no single word conveys the different nuances which διαθήκη bore for Greek readers. Hence in v. 18 some periphrasis like “ the first covenant of God’ s will” is desirable. That διαθήκη in vv. 16, 17 is equivalent to “ testamentary disposition,” is essential to the argument. No natural interpretation of vv. 15-20 is possible, when διαθήκη is understood rigidly either as “ covenant” or as “ will.” The classical juristic sense is richly illustrated in the papyri and contemporary Hellenistic Greek, while the “ covenant” meaning prevails throughout the LXX; but Philo had already used it in both senses, and here the juristic sense of κληρονομία (v. 15) paved the way for the juristic sense which v. 17 demands. The linguistic materials are collected, with a variety of interpretations, by Norton in A Lexicographical and Historical Study of Διαθήκη (Chicago, 1908), Behm (Der Begriff Διαθήκη im Neuen Testament, Naumburg, 1912), Lohmeyer (Διαθήκη : ein Beitrag zü r Erklä rung des Neutestamentlichen Begriffs, Leipzig, 1913), and G. Vos in Princeton Theological Review (1915, pp. 587 f.; 1916, pp. 1-61). In v. 16 φέρεσθαι is “ announced,” almost in the sense of “ proved” (as often in Greek); in v. 17 μήποτε (cp. on οὔπω in 2:8) is not equivalent to μήπω (nondum, vg) but simply means “ never” (non unquam), as, e.g., in Eurip. Hipp. 823, ὥστεμήποτεἐκπνεῦσαιπάλιν , μή here following the causal particle ἐπεί , like ὅτι in John 3:18; it had begun to displace οὐ in later Greek. Moulton quotes BGU 530 (I a.d.), μέμφεταίσεἐπὶμὴἀντέγραψαςαὐτῇ , and Radermacher (171) suggests that the change was sometimes due to a desire of avoiding the hiatus. Ἰσχύει has the same force as in Galatians 5:6, cp. OP 286:7 (ii a.d.) νομὴἄδικος [οὐ ]δὲνεἰσχύει . Some needless difficulties have been felt with regard to the construction of the whole sentence. Thus (a) ἐπεὶ … διαθέμενος might be a question, it is urged: “ For is it ever valid so long as the testator is alive?” In John 7:26 μήποτε is so used interrogatively, but there it opens the sentence. This construction goes back to the Greek fathers Oecumenius and Theophylact; possibly it was due to the feeling that μήποτε could not be used in a statement like this. (b) Isidore of Pelusium (Ep. iv. 113) declares that πότε is a corruption of τότε (Π from T, a stroke being added by accident), and that he found τότε “ ἐνπαλαιοῖςἀντιγράφοις .” Two old MSS (א D) do happen to preserve this reading, which is in reality a corruption of πότε . Why, it may be asked, finally, does not the writer refer outright to the new διαθήκη as inaugurated at the last supper? The reason is plain. Here as throughout the epistle he ignores the passover or eucharist. As a non-sacerdotal feast, the passover would not have suited his argument. Every Israelite was his own priest then, as Philo remarks (De Decalogo, 30, πάσχα … ἐνᾗθύουσιπανδημεὶαὐτῶνἕκαστοςτοὺςἱερεῖςαὐτῶνοὐκἀναμένοντες , ἱερωσύνηντοῦνόμουχαρισαμένουτῷἔθνειπαντὶκατὰμίανἡμέρανκτλ .). Hence the absence of a passover ritual from the entire argument of the epistle, and also perhaps his failure to employ it here, where it would have been extremely apt. Reverting now to the other and biblical sense of διαθήκη , the writer (vv. 18f.) recalls how the διαθήκη at Sinai was inaugurated with blood. Ὅθεν — since διαθήκη and θάνατος are correlative— οὐδὲἡπρώτηχωρὶςαἵματοςἐνκεκαίνισται (the verb here and in 10:20 being used in its ordinary LXX sense, e.g., 1 K 11:14 ἐγκαινίσωμενἐκεῖτὴνβασιλείαν , 1 Mac 4:36 ἀναβῶμενκαθαρίσαιτὰἅγιακαὶἐνκαινίσαι ). This fresh illustration of death or blood being required in order to inaugurate a διαθήκη , is taken from the story in Exodus 24:3f., but he treats it with characteristic freedom. Five points may be noted. (i) He inserts1 τὸαἷμα … τῶντράγων , a slip which was conscientiously corrected by a number of MSS which omitted καὶτῶντράγων (א c K L Ψ 5, 181, 203, 242, 487, 489, 506, 623, 794, 917, 1311, 1319, 1739, 1827, 1836, 1845, 1898, 2143) as well as by syr Origen and Chrysostom. Moses merely had μοσχάρια slaughtered; our author adds goats, perhaps because the full phrase had become common for OT sacrifices (see on v. 13). (ii) He inserts μετὰὕδατοςκαὶἐρίουκοκκίνουκαὶὑσσώπου , as these were associated in his mind with the general ritual of sprinkling; water, hyssop, and scarlet thread , for example, he remembered from the description of another part of the ritual in Num_19. The water was used to dilute the blood; and stems of a small wall plant called “ hyssop” were tied with scarlet wool to form a sprinkler in the rite of cleansing a leper (Leviticus 14:6f.), or for sprinkling blood (Exodus 12:22). But of this wisp or bunch there is not a word in Exodus 24:3f. (iii) Nor is it said in the OT that Moses sprinkled2 αὐτὸτὸβιβλίον . He simply splashed half of the blood πρὸςτὸθυσιαστήριον , καὶλαβὼντὸβιβλίον (i.e. the scroll containing the primitive code) τῆςδιαθήκης , read it aloud to the people, who promised obedience; whereupon λαβὼνδὲΜωυσῆςτὸαἷμακατεσκέδασεντοῦλαοῦκαὶεἶπενκτλ . An ingenious but impracticable attempt to correct this error is to take αὐτότετὸβιβλίον with λαβών , but the τε goes with the next καὶπάντατὸνλαόν . The βιβλίον may have been included, since as a human product, for all its divine contents, it was considered to require cleansing; in which case the mention of it would lead up to v. 21, and αὐτότετὸβιβλίον might be rendered “ the book itself.” This intensive use of αὐτός occurs just below in αὐτὰτὰἐπουράνια . But αὐτός may be, according to the usage of Hellenistic Greek, unemphatic, as, e.g., in 11:11 καὶαὐτὴΣάρρα , John 2:24 αὐτὸςδὲὁἸησοῦς . (iv) In quoting the LXX ἰδοὺτὸαἷματῆςδιαθήκηςἧςδιέθετοΚύριοςπρὸςὑμᾶς , he changes ἰδού into τοῦτο (possibly a reminiscence of the synoptic tradition in Mark 14:22), διέθετο into ἐνετείλατο (after ἐντολῆς in v. 19; but the phrase occurs elsewhere, though with the dative, e.g. Joshua 23:16), and κύριοςπρὸςὑμᾶς into πρὸςἡμᾶςὁθεός . This is a minor alteration. It is more significant that, (v) following a later Jewish tradition, which reappears in Josephus (Ant. iii. 8, 6 [Moses cleansed Aaron and his sons] τήντεσκηνὴνκαὶτὰπερὶαὐτὴνσκεύηἐλαίῳτεπροθυμιωμένῳκαθὼςεἶπον , καὶτῷαἵματιτῶνταύρωνκαὶκριῶνσφαγέντωνκτλ ), he makes Moses use blood to sprinkle the σκηνή and all τὰσκεύητῆςλειτουργίας (a phrase from 1 Chronicles 9:28). The account of Exo 40:9, Exodus 40:10 mentions oil only; Josephus adds blood, because the tradition he followed fused the oil-dedication of the σκηνή in Exodus 40:9, Exodus 40:10 with the (oil) sprinkling at the consecration of the priests (Leviticus 8:10f.), which was followed by a blood-sprinkling of the altar alone. Philo had previously combined the oil-dedication of the σκηνή with the consecration of the priests (vit. Mos. iii. 17); but he, too, is careful to confine any blood-sprinkling to the altar. Our author, with his predilection for blood as a cathartic, omits the oil altogether, and extends the blood to everything. This second illustration (vv. 18f.) is not quite parallel to the first; the death in the one case is of a human being in the course of nature, in the other case of animals slaughtered. But αἷμα and θάνατος were correlative terms for the writer. The vital necessity of αἷμα in this connexion is reiterated in the summary of v. 22. Σχεδόν , he begins— for there were exceptions to the rule that atonement for sins needed an animal sacrifice (e.g. Leviticus 5:11-13, where a poverty-stricken offender could get remission by presenting a handful of flour, and Numbers 31:22f., where certain articles, spoils of war, are purified by fire or water). But the general rule was that πάντα , i.e. everything connected with the ritual and every worshipper, priest, or layman, had to be ceremonially purified by means of blood . The Greek readers of the epistle would be familiar with the similar rite of αἱμάσσειντοὺςβωμούς (Theokr. Epigr. i. 5, etc.). Finally, he sums up the position under the first διαθήκη by coining a term αἱματεκχυσία (from ἔκχυσιςαἵματος , 1 K 18:28 etc.) for the shedding of an animal victim’ s blood in sacrifice; χωρὶςαἱματεκχυσίαςοὐγίνεταιἄφεσις , i.e. even the limited pardon, in the shape of “ cleansing,” which was possible under the old order. Ἄφεσις here as in Mark 3:29 has no genitive following, but the sense is indubitable, in view of 10:18 ὅπουδὲἄφεσιςτούτων (i.e. of sins). This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ 1 For as the Law has a mere shadow of the bliss that is to be, instead of representing the reality of that bliss, it never can perfect those who draw near with the same annual sacrifices that are perpetually offered. 2 Otherwise, they would have surely ceased to be offered; for the worshippers, once cleansed, would no longer be conscious of sins! 3 As it is, they are an annual reminder of sins 4 (for the blood of bulls and goats cannot possibly remove sins!). 5 Hence, on entering the world he says, “ Thou hast no desire for sacrifice or offering; it is a body thou hast prepared for me— 6 in holocausts and sin-offerings (περὶἁμαρτίας as 13:11) thou takest no delight. 7 So I said, ‘ Here I come— in the roll of the book this is written of me— I come to do thy will, O God.’ ” 8 He begins by saying, “ Thou hast no desire for, thou takest no delight in, sacrifices and offerings and holocausts and sin-offerings” (and those are what are offered in terms of the Law); 9 he then adds, “ Here I come to do thy will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second. 10 And it is by this “ will” that we are consecrated, because Jesus Christ once for all has “ offered” up his “ body.” This is the author’ s final verdict on the levitical cultus, “ rapid in utterance, lofty in tone, rising from the didactic style of the theological doctor to the oracular speech of the Hebrew prophet, as in that peremptory sentence: ‘ It is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.’ The notable thing in it is, not any new line of argument, though that element is not wanting, but the series of spiritual intuitions it contains, stated or hinted, in brief, pithy phrases” (A. B. Bruce, pp. 373, 374). In σκιὰν … οὐκεἰκόνατῶνπραγμάτων (v. 1) the writer uses a Platonic phrase ; εἰκών ( = ἀλήθεια , Chrysostom) is contrasted with σκιά as the real expression or representation of substance is opposed to the faint shadow. The addition of τῶνπραγμάτων emphasizes this sense; what represents solid realities is itself real, as compared to a mere σκιά . The μέλλονταἀγαθά (9:11) are the boons and blessings still to be realized in their fulness for Christians, being thought of from the standpoint of the new διαθήκη , not of the Law. The Law is for the writer no more than the regulations which provided for the cultus; the centre of gravity in the Law lies in the priesthood (7:11) and its sacrifices, not in what were the real provisions of the Law historically. The writer rarely speaks of the Law by itself. When he does so, as here, it is in this special ritual aspect, and what really bulks in his view is the contrast between the old and the new διαθήκη , i.e. the inadequate and the adequate forms of relationship to God. Once the former was superseded, the Law collapsed, and under the new διαθήκη there is no new Law. Even while the Law lasted, it was shadowy and ineffective, i.e. as a means of securing due access to God. And this is the point here made against the Law, not as Paul conceived it, but as the system of atoning animal sacrifices. The text of v. 1 has been tampered with at an early stage, though the variants affect the grammar rather than the general sense. Unless δύναται (D H K L Ψ 2, 5, 35, 88, 181, 206, 226, 241, 242, 255, 326, 383, 429, 431, 547, 623, 794, 915, 917, 927, 1311, 1518, 1739, 1827, 1836, 1845, 1867, 1873, 1898, 2143 lat boh Orig. Chrys. Thdt.. Oec.) is read for δύνανται , ὁνόμος is a hanging nominative, and an awkward anacolouthon results. Hort suggests that the original form of the text was: καθ ʼ ἣνκατ ʼ ἐνιαυτὸντὰςαὐτάςθυσίαςπροσφέρουσιν , αἳεἰςτὸδιηνεκὲςοὐδέποτεδύνανταιτοὺςπροσερχομένουςτελειῶσαι . As in 9:9, καθ ʼ ἥν (dropped out by a scribe accidentally, owing to the resemblance between καθην and καθεν ) would connect with a previous noun , αι similarly fell out before ει , and ας was changed into αις in the three consecutive words after ἐνιαυτὸν . This still leaves ὁνόμος without a verb, however, and is no improvement upon the sense gained either (a) by treating ὁνόμος as a nominative absolute, and δύνανται as an irregular plural depending on αἵ understood1 from θυσίαις ; or (b) by simply reading δύναται (so Delitzsch, Weiss, Westcott, Peake, Riggenbach, Blass), which clears up everything. A desire to smooth out the grammar or to bring out some private interpretation may be underneath changes like the addition of αὐτῶν after θυσίαις (א P), or the substitution of αὐτῶν for αὐταῖς (69. 1319), or the omission of αὐταῖς altogether (2. 177. 206. 642. 920. 1518. 1872), as well as the omission of ἄς (A 33. 1611. 2005) or αἷς altogether, like the Syriac and Armenian versions, and the change of τελειῶσαι (τελεῶσαι , Blass) into καθαρίσαι (D vt). Προσφέρουσιν is an idiomatic use of the plural , “ where there is such a suppression of the subject in bringing emphasis upon the action, that we get the effect of a passive, or of French on, German man” (Moulton, 1. 58). The allusion is to the yearly sacrifice on atonement-day, for προσφέρουσιν goes with κατ ʼ ἐνιαυτόν , the latter phrase being thrown forward for the sake of emphasis, and also in order to avoid bringing εἰςτὸδιηνεκές too near it. Εἰςτὸδιηνεκές also goes with προσφέρουσιν , not (as in v. 14) with τελειοῦν . Οὐδέποτε here as in v. 11 before δύναται (never elsewhere in the epistle) is doubly emphatic from its position. The constant repetition of these sacrifices proves that their effect is only temporary; they cannot possibly bring about a lasting, adequate relationship to God. So our author denies the belief of Judaism that atonement-day availed for the pardon of the People, a belief explicitly put forward, e.g., in Jub 5:17, 18 (“ If they turn to Him in righteousness, He will forgive all their transgressions, and pardon all their sins. It is written and ordained that He will show mercy to all who turn from their guilt once a year” ). He reiterates this in v. 2, where ἐπεί (as in 9:26 = alioquin) is followed by οὐκ , which implies a question. “ Would they not, otherwise, have ceased to be offered?” When this was not seen, either οὐκ was omitted (H* vg? syr 206, 1245, 1518 Primasius, etc.), leaving ἄν out of its proper place, or it was suggested— as would never have occurred to the author— that the OT sacrifices ceased to be valid when the Christian sacrifice took place. In οὐκἂνἐπαύσαντοπροσφερόμεναι the ἄν is retained (see on 9:26). Κεκαθαρισμένους has been altered into κεκαθάρμενους (L), but καθαρίζω , not the Attic καθαίρω , is the general NT form. If our author spelt like his LXX codex, however, κεκαθερισμένους would be original (cp. Thackeray, 74). Συνείδησις is again used (9:9) in connexion with “ the worshipper(s),” but the writer adds ἁμαρτιῶν (i.e. sins still needing to be pardoned). For the genitive, compare Philo’ s fine remark in quod det. pot. 40, ἱκετεύωμενοὖντὸνθεὸνοἱσυνειδήδειτῶνοἰκείωνἀδικημάτωνἐλεγχόμενοι , κολάσαιμᾶλλονἡμᾶςἢπαρεῖναι . In v. 3 ἀνάμνησις means that public notice had to be taken of such sins (“ commemoratio,” vg). There is possibly an echo here of a passage like Numbers 5:15 , quoted by Philo in de Plant. 25 to illustrate his statement that the sacrifices of the wicked simply serve to recall their misdeeds . In vita Mosis, iii. 10, he repeats this; if the sacrificer was ignorant and wicked, the sacrifices were no sacrifices . What Philo declares is the result of sacrifices offered by the wicked, the author of Hebrews declares was the result of all sacrifices; they only served to bring sin to mind. So in de Victimis, 7, εὔηθεςγὰρτὰςθυσίαςὑπόμνησινἁμαρτημάτωνἀλλὰμὴλήθηναὐτῶνκατασκευάζειν — what Philo declares absurd, our author pronounces inevitable. The ringing assertion of v. 4 voices a sentiment which would appeal strongly to readers who had been familiar with the classical and contemporary protests (cp. ERE iii. 770a), against ritual and external sacrifice as a means of moral purification (see above on 9:13). Ἀφαιρεῖν , a LXX verb in this connexion , becomes ἀφελεῖν in L (so Blass), the aoristic and commoner form; the verb is never used elsewhere in the NT, though Paul once quotes Isaiah 27:9 ὅτανἀφέλωμαιἁμαρτίας (Romans 11:27). All this inherent defectiveness of animal sacrifices necessitated a new sacrifice altogether , the self-sacrifice of Jesus. So the writer quotes Psalms 40:7-9, which in A runs as follows: θυσίανκαὶπροσφορὰνοὐκἠθέλησας , σῶμαδὲκατηρτίσωμοι · ὁλοκαυτώματακαὶπερὶἁμαρτίαςοὐκἐζητήσας . τότεεἶπον · ἰδοὺἥκω , τοῦποιῆσαιτὸθέλημάσου , ὁθεὸςμου , ἠβουλήθην . Our author reads εὐδόκησας for ἐζητήσας ,1 shifts ὁθεός to a position after ποιῆσαι , in order to emphasize τὸθέλημάσου , and by omitting ἐβουλήθην (replaced by W in v. 7), connects τοῦποιῆσαι closely with ἥκω . A recollection of Psa 51:18 εἱἠθέλησαςθυσίαν … ὁλοκαυτώματαοὐκεὐδοκήσεις may have suggested εὐδόκησας , which takes the accusative as often in LXX. Κεφαλίς is the roll or scroll, literally the knob or tip of the stick round which the papyrus sheet was rolled . This is taken as an avowal of Christ on entering the world, and the LXX mistranslation in σῶμα is the pivot of the argument. The more correct translation would be ὠτίαδέ , for the psalmist declared that God had given him ears for the purpose of attending to the divine monition to do the will of God, instead of relying upon sacrifices. Whether ὠτία was corrupted into σῶμα , or whether the latter was an independent translation, is of no moment; the evidence of the LXX text is indecisive. Our author found σῶμα in his LXX text and seized upon it; Jesus came with his body to do God’ s will, i.e. to die for the sins of men. The parenthetical phrase ἐνκεφαλίδιβιβλίουγέγραπταιπερὶἐμοῦ , which originally referred to the Deuteronomic code prescribing obedience to God’ s will, now becomes a general reference to the OT as a prediction of Christ’ s higher sacrifice; that is, if the writer really meant anything by it (he does not transcribe it, when he comes to the interpretation, vv. 8f.). Though the LXX mistranslated the psalm, however, it did not alter its general sense. The Greek text meant practically what the original had meant, and it made this interpretation or application possible, namely, that there was a sacrifice which answered to the will of God as no animal sacrifice could. Only, our author takes the will of God as requiring some sacrifice. The point of his argument is not a contrast between animal sacrifices and moral obedience to the will of God; it is a contrast between the death of an animal which cannot enter into the meaning of what is being done, and the death of Jesus which means the free acceptance by him of all that God requires for the expiation of human sin. To do the will of God is, for our author, a sacrificial action, which involved for Jesus an atoning death, and this is the thought underlying his exposition and application of the psalm (vv. 8-10). In v. 8 ἀνώτερον is “ above” or “ higher up” in the quotation (v. 6). The interpretation of the oracle which follows is plain; there are no textual variants worth notice,1 and the language is clear. Thus εἴρηκεν in v. 9 is the perfect of a completed action, = the saying stands on record, and ἀναιρεῖ has its common juristic sense of “ abrogate,” the opposite of ἵστημι . The general idea is: Jesus entered the world fully conscious that the various sacrifices of the Law were unavailing as means of atonement, and ready to sacrifice himself in order to carry out the redeeming will of God. God’ s will was to bring his People into close fellowship with himself (2:10); this necessitated a sacrifice such as that which the σῶμα of Christ could alone provide. The triumphant conclusion is that this divine will, which had no interest in ordinary sacrifices, has been fulfilled in the προσφορά of Christ; what the Law could not do (v. 1) has been achieved by the single self-sacrifice of Christ; it is by what he suffered in his body, not by any animal sacrifices, that we are ἡγιασμένοι (v. 10). Jesus chose to obey God’ s will; but, while the Psalmist simply ranked moral obedience higher than any animal sacrifice, our writer ranks the moral obedience of Jesus as redeemer above all such sacrifices. “ Christ did not come into the world to be a good man: it was not for this that a body was prepared for him. He came to be a great High Priest, and the body was prepared for him, that by the offering of it he might put sinful men for ever into the perfect religious relation to God” (Denney, The Death of Christ, p. 234). In conclusion (11-18) the writer interprets (11-14) a phrase which he has not yet noticed expressly, namely, that Christ sat down at the right hand of God (1:3, 13); this proves afresh that his sacrifice was final. Then, having quoted from the pentateuch and the psalter, he reverts to the prophets (15-18), citing again the oracle about the new διαθήκη with its prediction, now fulfilled, of a final pardon. 11Again, while every priest stands daily at his service, offering the same sacrifices repeatedly, sacrifices which never can take sins away— 12He offered a single sacrifice for sins and then “ seated himself” for all time “ at the right hand of God,” 13to wait “ until his enemies are made a footstool for his feet.” 14For by a single offering he has made the sanctified perfect for all time. 15Besides, we have the testimony of the holy Spirit; for after saying, 16“ This is the covenant I will make with them when that day comes, saith the Lord, I will set my laws upon their hearts, inscribing them upon their minds,” he adds, 17“ And their sins and breaches of the law I will remember no more.” 18Now where these are remitted (ἄφεσις , as 9:22), an offering for sin exists no longer. One or two textual difficulties emerge in this passage. In v. 11 ἱερεύς was altered (after 5:1, 8:3) into ἀρχιερεύς (A C P 5, 69, 88, 206, 241, 256, 263, 436, 462, 467. 489, 623, 642, 794, 917, 920, 927, 999, 1836, 1837, 1898 syrhki* sah arm eth Cyr. Cosm). In v. 12 αὐτός (K L 104. 326 boh Theod. Oec. Theophyl.) is no improvement upon οὖτος . A curious variant (boh Ephr.) in the following words is ἐαυτὸνμίανὑπὲρἁμαρτιῶνπροσενέγκαςθυσίαν . In v. 14 boh appears to have read μιὰγὰρπροσφορά (so Bgl) τελειωσεικτλ . In v. 16 τῶνδιανοιῶν is read by K L Ψ d r syr sah boh arm. The decisive consideration in favour of ἱερεύς (v. 11) is not that the ἀρχιερεύς did not sacrifice daily (for the writer believed this, see on 7:27), but the adjective πᾶς . Περιελεῖν is a literary synonym for ἀφαιρεῖν (v. 4); there is no special emphasis in the verb here any more than, e.g., in 2 Corinthians 3:16, for the metaphorical idea of stripping no longer attached to the term, and the περί had ceased to mean “ entirely” or “ altogether.” The contrast between this repeated and ineffective ritual of the priests and the solitary, valid sacrifice of Jesus is now drawn in v. 12, where εἰςτὸδιηνεκές goes more effectively with ἐκάθισεν than with προσενέγκαςθυσίαν , since the idea in the latter collocation is at once expressed in v. 14 At the opening of the writer’ s favourite psalm (110:1) lay a promise of God to his Son, which further proved that this sacrifice of Christ was final: εἶπενὁκύριοςτῷκυρίῳμουΚάθουἐκδεξιῶνμου ἕωςἂνθῶτοὺςἐχθρούςσουὑποπόδιοντῶνποδῶνσου . Κάθου — a unique privilege; so Christ’ s priestly sacrifice must be done and over, all that remains for him being to await the submission and homage of his foes. As for the obedient (5:9), they are perfected “ finally,” i.e. brought into the closest relation to God, by what he has done for them; no need for him to stand at any priestly service on their behalf, like the levitical drudges! The contrast is between ἐκάθισεν and ἕστηκεν (the attitude of a priest who has to be always ready for some sacrifice). Who the foes of Christ are, the writer never says.1 This militant metaphor was not quite congruous with the sacerdotal metaphor, although he found the two side by side in the 110th psalm. If he interpreted the prediction as Paul did in 1 Corinthians 15:25f., we might think of the devil (2:14) and such supernatural powers of evil; but this is not an idea which is worked out in ΠρὸςἙβραίους . The conception belonged to the primitive messianic faith of the church, and the writer takes it up for a special purpose of his own, but he cannot interpret it, as Paul does, of an active reign of Christ during the brief interval before the end. Christ must reign actively, Paul argues. Christ must sit, says our writer. The usual variation between the LXX ἐκδεξιῶν and ἐνδεξιᾷ is reproduced in ΠρὸςἙβραίους : the author prefers the latter, when he is not definitely quoting from the LXX as in 1:13. As this is a reminiscence rather than a citation, ἐνδεξιᾷ is the true reading, though ἐκδεξιῶν is introduced by A 104 Athanasius. The theological significance of the idea is discussed in Dr. A. J. Tait’ s monograph on The Heavenly Session of our Lord (1912), in which he points out the misleading influence of the Vulgate’ s mistranslation of 10:12 upon the notion that Christ pleads his passion in heaven. After reiterating the single sacrifice in v. 14 (where τοὺςἁγιαζομένους is “ the sanctified,” precisely as in 2:11), he adds (v. 15) an additional proof from scripture. Μαρτυρεῖδὲἡμῖνκαὶτὸπνεῦματὸἅγιον , a biblical proof as usual clinching the argument. Ἡμῖν is “ you and me,” “ us Christians,” not the literary plural, as if he meant “ what I say is attested or confirmed by the inspired book.” Μαρτυρεῖν is a common Philonic term in this connexion, e.g. Leg. Alleg. iii .2 , μαρτυρεῖδὲκαὶἐνἑτέροιςλέγωνκτλ . (introducing Deuteronomy 4:39 and Exodus 17:6); similarly in Xen. Mem. i. 2. 20, μαρτυρεῖδὲκαὶτῶνποιητῶνὁλέγων . The quotation, which is obviously from memory, is part of the oracle already quoted upon the new διαθήκη (8:8-12); the salient sentence is the closing promise of pardon in v. 17, but he leads up to it by citing some of the introductory lines. The opening, μετὰγὰρτὸεἰρηκέναι , implies that some verb follows or was meant to follow, but the only one in the extant text is λέγεικύριος (v. 16). Hence, before v. 17 we must understand something like μαρτυρεῖ or λέγει or προσέθηκενκαίφησιν (Oecumenius) or τότεεἴρηκεν , although the evidence for any such phrase, e.g. for ὕστερονλέγει (31. 37, 55, 67, 71, 73, 80, 161) is highly precarious. In v. 17 μνησθήσομαι has been corrected into μνησθῶ by א c Dc K L P, etc., since μνησθῶ was the LXX reading and also better grammar, the future after οὐμή being rare (cp. Diat. 2255, and above on 8:11). The oracle, even in the LXX version, contemplates no sacrifice whatever as a condition of pardon; but our author (see above, p.131) assumes that such an absolute forgiveness was conditioned by some sacrifice. The writer now (10:19-12:29) proceeds to apply his arguments practically to the situation of his readers, urging their privileges and their responsibilities under the new order of religion which he has just outlined. In 10:19-31, which is the first paragraph, encouragement (vv. 19-25) passes into warning (26-31). 19Brothers (ἀδελφοί , not since 3:1, 12), since we have confidence to enter the holy Presence in virtue of the blood of Jesus, 20by the fresh, living way which he has inaugurated for us through the veil (that is, through his flesh), 21and since we have “ a great Priest over the house of God,” 22let us draw near with a true heart, in absolute assurance of faith, our hearts sprinkled clean from a bad conscience, and our bodies washed in pure water; 23let us hold the hope we avow without wavering (for we can rely on him who gave us the Promise); 24and let us consider how to stir one another up to love and good deeds— 25not ceasing to meet together, as is the habit of some, but admonishing one another(sc. ἑαυτούς , as 3:13), all the more so, as you see the Day coming near. The writer presses the weighty arguments of 6:20-10:18, but he returns with them to reinforce the appeal of 3:1-4:16; after 10:19-21 the conception of Jesus as the ἱερεύς falls more into the background. The passage is one long sentence, ἔχοντες … προσερχώμεθα … κατέχωμεν … καὶκατανοῶμεν … Ἔχοντεςοὖν (as in 4:14) since the way is now open (9:8) through the sacrifice of Jesus, whose atoning blood is for us the means of entering God’ s presence; παρρησίαν , “ a fre sure intraunce” (Coverdale), echoing 4:16. But the writer fills out the appeal of 4:14-16 with the idea of the sanctuary and the sacrifice which he had broken off, in 5:1f., to develop. Though the appeal still is προσερχώμεθα (23 = 4:16), the special motives are twofold: (a) παρρησία for access in virtue of the sacrifice of Jesus (vv. 19, 20), and (b) the possession of Jesus as the supreme ἱερεύς (v. 21). (a) The religious sense of παρρησία emerges in the early gloss inserted after Sir 18:29: κρείσσωνπαρρησίαἐνδεσπότημόνῳ ἢνεκρὰκαρδίανεκρῶνἀντέχεσθαι . Here παρρησία means confident trust, the unhesitating adherence of a human soul to God as its only Master, but our author specially defines it as παρρησίαεἰςεἴσοδον , i.e. for access to the holy Presence, ἐντῷαἵματιἸησοῦ .1 This resumes the thought of 9:24-26, 10:10-12 (ἐναἵματι as in 9:25). Compare for the phrase and general idea the words on the self-sacrifice of Decius Mus in Florus, i. 15. 3: “ quasi monitu deorum, capite uelato, primam ante aciem dis manibus se devoverit, ut in confertissima se hostium tela iaculatus nouum ad uictoriam iter sanguinis sui semita aperiret.” This εἴσοδοςτῶνἁγίωνἐντῷαἵματιἸησοῦ is further described in v. 20; we enter by (ἥν , with ὅδον … ζῶσαν in apposition) a way which Jesus has inaugurated by his sacrifice (9:18, 24, 25). This way is called recent or fresh and also living. In πρόσφατος , as in the case of other compounds , the literal sense of the second element had been long forgotten (cp. Holden’ s note on Plutarch’ s Themistocles, 24); πρόσφατος simply means “ fresh,” without any sacrificial allusion . Galen (de Hipp. et Plat. plac. iv. 7) quotes the well-known saying that λύπηἐστὶδόξαπρόσφατοςκακοῦπαρουσίας , and the word (i.e. τὸἀρτίωςγενόμενον , νέον , νεαρόν , Hesychius), as is plain from other passages like Arist. Magna Moralia, 1203b (ὁἐκτῆςπροσφάτουφαντασίαςἀκρατήςκτλ .), and Ecclesiastes 1:9 , had no longer any of the specific sacrificial sense suggested etymologically by its second part. It is the thought of ἐχθές in 13:8, though the writer means particularly (as in 1:1-2, 9:8-11) to suggest that a long period had elapsed before the perfect fellowship was inaugurated finally; it is πρόσφατος , not ἀρχαῖος . Ζῶσαν means, in the light of 7:25 (cp. John 14:6), that access to God is mediated by the living Christ in virtue of his sacrificial intercession; the contrast is not so much with what is transient, as though ζῶσαν were equivalent to μένουσαν (Chrysostom, Cosm 415a), as with the dead victims of the OT cultus or “ the lifeless pavement trodden by the highpriest” (Delitzsch). He entered God’ s presence thus διὰτοῦκαταπετάσματος (6:19, 9:3), τοῦτ ʼ ἔστιντοῦσαρκὸςαὐτοῦ — a ritual expression for the idea of 6:19. Διά is local, and, whether a verb like εἰσελθών is supplied or not, διὰτ . κ . goes with ἐνεκαίνισεν , the idea being that Jesus had to die, in order to bring us into a living fellowship with God; the shedding of his blood meant that he had a body (10:5-10) to offer in sacrifice (cp. 9:14). The writer, however, elaborates his argument with a fresh detail of symbolism, suggested by the ritual of the tabernacle which he has already described in 9:2f. There, the very existence of a veil hanging between the outer and the inner sanctuary was interpreted as a proof that access to God’ s presence was as yet imperfectly realized. The highpriest carried once a year inside the veil the blood of victims slain outside it; that was all. Jesus, on the other hand, sheds his own blood as a perfect sacrifice, and thus wins entrance for us into the presence of God. Only, instead of saying that his sacrificial death meant the rending of the veil (like the author of Mar 15:38), i.e. the supersession of the OT barriers between God and man, he allegorizes the veil here as the flesh of Christ; this had to be rent before the blood could be shed, which enabled him to enter and open God’ s presence for the people. It is a daring, poetical touch, and the parallelism is not to be prosaically pressed into any suggestion that the human nature in Jesus hid God from men ἐνταῖςἡμέραιςτῆςσαρκὸςαὐτοῦ , or that he ceased to be truly human when he sacrificed himself. The idea already suggested in ζῶσαν is now (b) developed (in v. 21) by καὶἱερέαμέγανἐπὶτὸνοἶκοντοῦθεοῦ , another echo of the earlier passage (cp. 3:1-6, 4:14), ἱερεὺςμέγας being a sonorous LXX equivalent for ἀρχιερεύς . Then comes the triple appeal, προσερχώμεθα … κατέχωμεν … καὶκατανοῶμεν … The metaphor of προσερχώμεθακτλ . (v. 22), breaks down upon the fact that the Israelites never entered the innermost shrine, except as represented by their highpriest who entered once a year ἐναἵματιἀλλοτρίῳ (9:7, 25), which he took with him in order to atone for the sins that interrupted the communion of God and the people. In ΠρὸςἙβραίους the point is that, in virtue of the blood of Christ, Christians enjoy continuous fellowship with God; the sacrifice of Christ enables them to approach God’ s presence, since their sins have been once and for all removed. The entrance of the OT highpriest therefore corresponds both to the sacrifice of Christ and to that access of Christians which the blood of Christ secures. On the one hand, Christ is our highpriest (v. 21); through his self-sacrifice in death the presence of God has been thrown open to us (vv. 19, 20). This is the primary thought. But in order to express our use of this privilege, the writer has also to fall back upon language which suggests the entrance of the OT highpriest (cp. v. 19 ἐντῷαἵματιἰησοῦ with 9:25). He does not mean that Christians are priests, with the right of entry in virtue of a sacrifice which they present, but, as to approach God was a priestly prerogative under the older order, he describes the Christian access to God in sacerdotal metaphors. Προσερχώμεθα is one of these. It is amplified first by a μετά clause, and then by two participial clauses. The approach to God must be whole-hearted, μετὰἀληθινῆςκαρδίας ,1 without any hesitation or doubt, ἐνπληροφορίᾳ (6:11) πίστεως .2 This thought of πίστις as man’ s genuine answer to the realities of divine revelation, is presently to be developed at length (10:38f.). Meantime the writer throws in the double participial clause, ῥεραντισμένοι … καθαρῷ . The metaphors are sacerdotal; as priests were sprinkled with blood and bathed in water, to qualify them for their sacred service, so Christians may approach God with all confidence, on the basis of Christ’ s sacrifice, since they have been ῥεραντισμένοι (i.e. sprinkled and so purified from— a frequent use of the verb) ἀπὸσυνειδήσεωςπονηρᾶς (= συνειδήσεωςἁμαρτιῶν , 10:2) in their hearts (τὰςκαρδίας — no external cleansing). Then the writer adds, καὶλελουσμένοιτὸσῶμαὕδατικαθαρῷ , suggesting that baptism corresponded to the bathing of priests (e.g. in Leviticus 16:4). Once and for all, at baptism (cp. 1 P 3:21), Christians have been thus purified from guilty stains by the efficacy of Christ’ s sacrifice.3 What room then can there be in their minds for anything but faith, a confident faith that draws near to God, sure that there is no longer anything between Him and them? The distinctive feature which marked off the Christian βαπτισμός from all similar ablutions (6:2, 9:10) was that it meant something more than a cleansing of the body; it was part and parcel of an inward cleansing of the καρδία , effected by τὸαἶματῆςδιαθήκης (v. 29).1 Hence this as the vital element is put first, though the body had also its place and part in the cleansing experience. The καρδία and the σῶμα are a full, plastic expression for the entire personality, as an ancient conceived it. Ancient religious literature2 is full of orders for the penitent to approach the gods only after moral contrition and bodily cleansing, with a clean heart and a clean body, in clean clothes even. But, apart from other things, such ablutions had to be repeated, while the Christian βαπτισμός was a single ceremony, lying at the source and start of the religious experience. And what our author is thinking of particularly is not this or that pagan rite, but the OT ritual for priests as described in Exodus 29:20f., Leviticus 8:23f. Leviticus 8:14:5f. etc. (cp. Joma 3). Three specimens of the anxious care for bodily purity in ancient religious ritual may be given. First (i) the ritual directions for worship in Syll. 567 (ii a.d.): πρῶτονμὲνκαὶτὸμέγιστον , χεῖραςκαὶγνώμηνκαθαροὺςκαὶὑγιεῖςὑπάρχονταςκαὶμηδὲναὑτοῖςδεινὸνσυνειδότας . Second (ii) the stress laid on it by a writer like Philo, who (quod deus sit immutabilis, 2), after pleading that we should honour God by purifying ourselves from evil deeds and washing off the stains of life, adds: καὶγὰρεὔηθεςεἰςμὲντὰἱερὰμὴἐξεῖναιβαδίζειν , ὄςἂνμὴπρότερονλουσάμενοςφαιδρύνηταιτὸσῶμα , εὔχεσθαιδὲκαὶθύεινἐπιχειρεῖνἔτικηλιδωμένῃκαὶπεφυρμένῃδιανοίᾳ . His argument is that if the body requires ablutions before touching an external shrine, how can anyone who is morally impure draw near the most pure God, unless he means to repent? Ὁμὲνγὰρπρὸςτῷμηδὲνἐπεξεργάσασθαικακὸνκαὶτὰπαλαιὰἐκνιψασθαιδικαιώσαςγεγηθὼςπροσίτω [cp. Hebrews 10:19, Hebrews 10:22], ὁδ ʼ ἄνευτούτωνδυσκάθαρτοςὦνἀφιστάσθω · λήσεταιγὰροὐδέποτετὸντὰἐνμυχοῖςτῆςδιανοίαςὁρῶντα [cp. Hebrews 4:13] καὶτοῖςἀδύτοιςαὐτῆςἐμπεριπατοῦντα . Or again in de Plant. 39: σώματακαὶψυχὰςκαθηράμενοι , τὰμὲνλουτροῖς , τὰδὲνόμωνκαὶπαιδείαςὀρθῆςῥεύμασι . In de Cherub. 28 he denounces the ostentatious religion of the worldly, who in addition to their other faults, τὰμὲνσώματαλουτροῖςκαὶκαθαρσίοιςἀπορρύπτονται , τὰδὲψυχῆςἐκνίψασθαιπάθη , οἶςκαταρρυπαίνεταιὁβίος , οὔτεβούλονταιοὔτεἐπιτηδεύουσι , are very particular about their outward religious practices3 but careless about a clean soul. Finally, (iii) there is the saying of Epictetus (iv. 10. 3): ἐπεὶγὰρἐκεῖνοι (i.e. the gods) φύσεικαθαροὶκαὶἀκήρατοι , ἐφ ʼ ὁσονἠγγίκασιναὐτοῖςοἱἄνθρωποικατὰτὸνλόγον , ἐπὶτοσοῦτονκαὶτοῦκαθαροῦκαὶτοῦκαθαρίουεἰσὶνἀνθεκτικοί . For the exceptional ῥεραντισμένοι (א A C D), א c Dc etc. have substituted ἐρραντισμένοι (so Theodoret). The λελουσμένοι of א B D P is the more common κοινή form of the Attic λελουμένοι (A B Dc etc.). The next appeal (v. 23), κατέχωμεντὴνὁμολογίαντῆςἐλπίδος , echoes 4:14 and 3:6 . This hope for the future was first confessed at baptism, and rests upon God’ s promise1 (as already explained in 6:17, 18). It is to be held ἀκλινής , a term applied by Philo to the word of a good man (ὁγὰρτοῦσπουδαίου , φησί , λόγοςὅρκοςἔστω , βέβαιος , ἀκλινής , ἀψευδέστατος , ἐρηρεισμένοςἀληθείᾳ , de Spec. Leg. ii. 1); in Irenaeus it recurs in a similar connexion (i. 88, ed. Harvey: ὁτὸνκανόνατῆςἀληθείαςἀκλινῆἐνἑαυτῷκατέχων , ὃνδιὰτοῦβαπτίσματοςεἴληφε ). The old Wycliffite version translates finely. “ hold we the confessioun of oure hope bowynge to no side.” The close connexion between ῥεραντισμένοικτλ . and λελουσμένοικτλ . makes it inadvisable to begin the second appeal with καὶλελουσμένοιτὸσῶμαὕδατικαθαρῷ (Erasmus, Beza, Bengel, Lachmann, Lü nemann, von Soden, B. Weiss, etc.). A more plausible suggestion, first offered by Theodoret and adopted recently by Hofmann and Seeberg, is to begin the second appeal after πίστεως , making κατεχῶμεν carry ῥεραντισμένοι … καθαρῷ . This yields a good sense, for it brings together the allusions to the baptismal confession. But the ordinary view is more probable; the asyndeton in κατεχῶμεν is impressive, and if it is objected that the κατεχῶμεν clause is left with less content than the other two, the answer is that its eschatological outlook is reiterated in the third clause, and that by itself its brevity has a telling force. Besides, ἔχοντεςκτλ . (19-21) introduce κατεχῶμεν as well as προσερχώμεθα . The third appeal (24, 25) turns on love (cp. 6:10), as the first on faith, and the second on hope. The members of the circle or community are to stir up one another to the practice of Christian love. Since this is only possible when common worship and fellowship are maintained, the writer warns them against following the bad example of abandoning such gatherings; καὶκατανοῶμενἀλλήλους , for, if we are to κατανοεῖν Christ (3:1), we are also bound to keep an eye on one another εἰςπαροξυσμὸνἀγαπῆςκαὶκαλῶνἔργων (i.e. an active, attractive moral life, inspired by Christian love). This good sense of παροξυσμός as stimulus seems to be an original touch; in Greek elsewhere it bears the bad sense of provocation or exasperation (cp. Acts 15:39), although the verb παροξύνειν had already acquired a good sense (e.g. in Josephus, Ant. xvi. 125, παροξῦναιτὴνεὔνοιαν : in Proverbs 6:3 ἴσθιμὴἐκλυόμενος , παρόξυνεδὲκαὶτὸνφίλονσουὃνἐνεγυήσω : and in Xen. Cyrop. vi. 2. 5, καὶτούτουςἐπαινῶντεπαρώξυνε ). Pliny’ s words at the close of his letter to Caninius Rufus (iii. 7) illustrate what is meant by παροξυσμός in this sense: “ Scio te stimulis non egere; me tamen tui caritas evocat ut currentem quoque instigem, sicut tu soles me. Ἀγαθὴδ ʼ ἔρις , cum invicem se mutuis exhortationibus amici ad amorem immortalitatis exacuunt.” How the παροξυσμός is to be carried out, the writer does not say. By setting a good example? By definite exhortations (παρακαλοῦντες , v. 25, like 13:1)? Μὴἐγκαταλείποντες — do not do to one another what God never does to you (13:5), do not leave your fellow-members in the lurch — τὴνἐπισυναγωγὴνἑαυτῶν . Ἐπισυναγωγή in the κοινή (cp. Deissmann’ s Light from the East, 102 f.) means a collection (of money), but had already in Jewish Greek begun to acquire the present sense of a popular “ gathering.” Καθὼςἔθοςτισίν . But who are these? What does this abandonment of common fellowship mean? (a) Perhaps that some were growing ashamed of their faith; it was so insignificant and unpopular, even dangerous to anyone who identified himself with it openly. They may have begun to grow tired of the sacrifices and hardships involved in membership of the local church. This is certainly the thought of 10:32f., and it is better than to suppose (b) the leaders were a small group of teachers or more intelligent Christians, who felt able, in a false superiority, to do without common worship; they did not require to mix with the ordinary members! The author in any case is warning people against the dangers of individualism, a warning on the lines of the best Greek and Jewish ethics, e.g. Isokrates, ad Demon. 13, τιμὰτὸδαιμόνιονἀεὶμὲν , μάλισταδὲμετὰτῆςπόλεως , and the rabbinic counsel in Taanith, 11, 1 (“ whenever the Israelites suffer distress, and one of them withdraws from the rest, two angels come to him and, laying their hands upon his head, say, this man who separates himself from the assembly shall not see the consolation which is to visit the congregation” ), or in Hillel’ s saying (Pirke Aboth 2, 5): “ Separate not thyself from the congregation, and trust not in thyself until the day of thy death.” The loyal Jews are described in Ps.-Sol 17:18 as οἱἀγαπῶντεςσυναγωγὰςὁσίων , and a similar thought occurs also (if “ his” and not “ my” is the correct reading) in Od. Son 3:2: “ His members are with Him, and on them do I hang.” Any early Christian who attempted to live like a pious particle without the support of the community ran serious risks in an age when there was no public opinion to support him. His isolation, whatever its motive— fear, fastidiousness, self-conceit, or anything else— exposed him to the danger of losing his faith altogether. These are possible explanations of the writer’ s grave tone in the passage before us. Some critics, like Zahn (§ 46), even think that (c) such unsatisfactory Christians left their own little congregation for another, in a spirit of lawless pique, or to gratify their own tastes selfishly; but ἑαυτῶν is not emphatic, and in any congregation of Christians the duties of love would be pressed. Separatist tendencies were not absent from the early church; thus some members considered themselves too good to require common worship, as several warnings prove, e.g. in Barn 4:10 μὴκαθ ʼ ἑαυτοὺςἐνδύνοντεςμονάζετεὡςἤδηδεδικαιωμένοι , ἀλλ ʼ ἐπὶτὸαὐτὸσυνερχόμενοισυνζητεῖτεπερὶτοῦκοινῇσυμφέροντος ) and Ign. Ephesians 5:3 . But in our epistle (d) the warning is directed specially against people who combined Christianity with a number of mystery-cults, patronizing them in turn, or who withdrew from Christian fellowship, feeling that they had exhausted the Christian faith and that it required to be supplemented by some other cult. “ At first and indeed always there were naturally some people who imagined that one could secure the sacred contents and blessings of Christianity as one did those of Isis or the Magna Mater, and then withdraw” (Harnack, Expansion of Christianity, bk. iii. c. 4; cp. Reitzenstein’ s Hellen. Mysterienreligionen, 94). This was serious, for, as the writer realized, it implied that they did not regard Christianity as the final and full revelation; their action proved that the Christian faith ranked no higher with them than one of the numerous Oriental cults which one by one might interest the mind, but which were not necessarily in any case the last word on life. The argument of the epistle has been directed against this misconception of Christianity, and the writer here notes a practical illustration of it in the conduct of adherents who were holding aloof, or who were in danger of holding aloof, from the common worship. Hence the austere warning which follows. Such a practice, or indeed any failure to “ draw near” by the way of Jesus, is an insult to God, which spells hopeless ruin for the offender. And evidently this retribution is near. Christians are to be specially on their guard against conduct that means apostasy, for βλἑπετε (how, he does not say) ἐγγίζουσαν (as in Romans 13:12) τὴνἡμέραν . This eschatological setting distinguishes the next warning (vv. 26-31) from the earlier in 6:4-6. 26For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the Truth, there is no longer any sacrifice for sins left, 27nothing but an awful outlook of doom, that “ burning Wrath” which will “ consume the foes” (see v. 13) of God. 28Anyone who has rejected the law of Moses “ dies” without mercy, “ on the evidence of two or of three witnesses.” 29How much heavier, do you suppose, will be the punishment assigned (i.e. by God) to him who has spurned the Son of God, who has profaned “ the covenant-blood” (9:20) with which he was sanctified (10:10), who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30We know who said, “ Vengeance is mine, I will exact a requital” : and again (πάλιν , as in 2:13), “ The Lord will pass sentence on his people.” 31 It is an awful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Apostasy like withdrawal from the church on the ground already mentioned, is treated as one of the deliberate sins which (cp. on 5:2), under the OT order of religion, were beyond any atonement. Wilful offences, like rebellion and blasphemy against God, were reckoned unpardonable. “ In the case of one who, by his sin, intentionally disowns the covenant itself, there can be no question of sacrifice. He has himself cut away the ground on which it would have been possible for him to obtain reconciliation” (Schultz, OT Theology, ii. 88). There is an equivalent to this, under the new διαθήκη , our author declares. To abandon Christianity is to avow that it is inadequate, and this denial of God’ s perfect revelation in Jesus Christ is fatal to the apostate. In ἑκουσίωςἁμαρτόντωνἡμῶν (26), ἑκουσίως is put first for the sake of emphasis, and ἁμαρτόντων means the sin of ἀποστῆναιἀπὸθεοῦζῶντος (3:12) or of παραπίπτειν (6:6), the present tense implying that such people persist in this attitude. Ἑκουσίως is the keynote to the warning. Its force may be felt in a passage like Thuc. iv. 98, where the Athenians remind the Boeotians that God pardons what is done under the stress of war and peril, καὶγὰρτῶνἀκουσίωνἁμαρτημάτωνκαταφυγὴνεἶναιτοὺςβωμούς , and that it is wanton and presumptuous crimes alone which are heinous. Philo (vit. Mos. i. 49) describes Balaam praying for forgiveness from God on the ground that he had sinned ὑπ ʼ ἀγνοίαςἀλλ ʼ οὐκαθ ʼ ἑκούσιονγνώμην . The adverb occurs in 2 Mac 14:3 . The general idea of the entire warning is that the moral order punishes all who wantonly and wilfully flout it; as Menander once put it (Kock’ s Com. Attic. Fragm. 700): νόμοςφυλαχθεὶςοὐδένἐστινἢνόμος · ὁμὴφυλαχθεὶςκαὶνόμοςκαὶδήμιος . Our author expresses this law of retribution in personal terms drawn from the OT, which prove how deeply moral and reverent his religious faith was, and how he dreaded anything like presuming upon God’ s kindness and mercy. The easy-going man thinks God easy going; he is not very serious about his religious duties, and he cannot imagine how God can take them very seriously either. “ We know” better, says the author of ΠρὸςἙβραίους ! Christianity is described (in v. 26) as τὸλαβεῖντὴνἐπίγνωσιντῆςἀληθείας , a semi-technical phrase of the day, which recurs in the Pastoral Epistles . It is not one of our author’ s favourite expressions,1 but the phrase is partly used by Epictetus in its most general sense (λαβώντιςπαρὰτῆςφύσεωςμέτρακαὶκανόναςεἰςἐπίγνωσιντῆςἀληθείαςκτλ ., ii. 20, 21), when upbraiding the wretched academic philosophers for discrediting the senses as organs of knowledge, instead of using and improving them. All that renegades can expect (v. 27) is φοβεράτις (= quidam, deepening the idea with its touch of vagueness) ἐκδοχή (a sense coined by the writer for this term, after his use of ἐκδέχεσθαι in 10:13) κρίσεως , for they have thrown over the only sacrifice that saves men from κρίσις (9:27). This is expanded in a loose1 reminiscence of Isa 26:11 , though the phrase πυρὸςζῆλος recalls Zephaniah 1:19 (3:8) ἐνπυρὶζήλουαὐτοῦκαταναλωθήσεταιπᾶσαἡγῆ . The contemporary Jewish Apocalypse of Baruch (48:39, 40) contains a similar threat to wilful sinners: “ Therefore shall a fire consume their thoughts, and in flame shall the meditations of their reins be tried; for the Judge shall come and will not tarry— because each of earth’ s inhabitant knew when he was transgressing.” The penalty for the wilful rejection of the Mosaic law2 was severe (Deuteronomy 17:2-17), but not more severe than the penalty to be inflicted on renegades from Christianity (vv. 28-31). The former penalty was merciless, χωρὶςοἰκτιρμῶν (to which, at an early period, καὶδακρύων was added by D, most old Latin texts, and syrhkl). It is described in a reminiscence of Deu 17:6 ἐπὶδυσὶνμάρτυσινἢἐπὶτρισίνμάρτυσινἀποθανεῖταιὁἀποθνήσκων (i.e. the apostate who has yielded to idolatry). The witnesses executed the punishment for the sin of which they had given evidence (Deuteronomy 17:7, Acts 7:57 f., John 8:7, Sanhedrim 6:4), but this is not before the writer’ s mind; ἐπί with the dative simply means “ on the ground of (the evidence given by).” In πόσῳδοκεῖτεκτλ . (v. 29), δοκεῖτε is intercalated as in Aristoph. Acharn. 12 , and Herm. Sim. ix. 28, 8 (εἰτὰἔθνητοὺςδούλουςαὐτῶνκολάζουσιν , ἐάντιςἀρνήσηταιτὸνκύριονἑαυτοῦ , τίδοκεῖτεποιήσειὁκύριοςὑμῖν ;). Πόσῳ (cp. 9:14) introduces an argument from the less to the greater, which was the first of Hillel’ s seven rules for exegesis, and which is similarly used by Philo in de Fuga, 16, where, after quoting Exodus 21:15, he adds that Moses here practically denies that there is any pardon for those who blaspheme God (εἰγὰροἱτοὺςθνητοὺςκακηγορήσαντεςγονεῖςἀπάγονταιτὴνἐπὶθανάτῳ , τίνοςἀξίουςχρὴνομίζειντιμωρίαςτοὺςτῶνὅλωνπατέρακαὶποιητὴνβλασφημεῖνὑπομένοντασ ;). There is also a passage in de Spec. Legibus (ii. 254, 255) where Philo asks, “ If a man μὴπροσηκόντωςὁμνύς is guilty, πόσηςἄξιοςτιμωρίαςὁτὸνὄντωςὄνταθεὸνἀρνοῦμενος ;” τιμωρία originally meant vengeance. Διαφέρειδὲτιμωρίακαὶκόλασις · ἡμὲνγὰρκόλασιςτοῦπάσχοντοςἕνεκαἐστιν , ἡδὲτιμωρίατοῦποιοῦντος , ἵναἀποπληρωθῇ (Arist. Rhetoric, i. 10, 11; see Cope’ s Introduction, p. 232). But it became broadened into the general sense of punishment, and this obtained in Hellenistic Greek. The threefold description of what is involved in the sin of apostasy begins: ὁτὸνυἱὸντοῦθεοῦκαταπατήσας , another expression for the thought of 6:6, which recalls Zechariah 12:3 . Καταπατεῖνὅρκια was the phrase for breaking oaths (Iliad, 4:157); with a personal object, the verb denotes contempt of the most flagrant kind. Another aspect of the sin is that a man has thereby κοινὸν 1 ἡγησάμενος the sacrifice of Jesus; his action means that it is no more to him than an ordinary death (“ communem,” d), instead of a divine sacrifice which makes him a partaker of the divine fellowship (see p. 145). Where Christ is rejected, he is first despised; outward abandonment of him springs from some inward depreciation or disparagement. The third aspect, καὶτὸπνεῦματῆςχάριτοςἐνύβρισας , suggests that the writer had in mind the language of Zec 12:10 , but πνεῦμαχάριτος is a periphrasis for πνεῦμαἅγιον (6:4), χάρις being chosen (4:16, 12:15) to bring out the personal, gracious nature of the power so wantonly insulted.2 Ἐνυβρίζειν is not a LXX term, and it generally takes the dative. (Ἐνᾧἡγιάσθη after ἡγησάμενος is omitted by A and some MSS of Chrysostom.) The sombre close (vv. 30, 31) of the warning is a reminder that the living God punishes renegades. φοβερόν (v. 31) re-echoes the φοβερά of v. 27, and the awful nature of the doom is brought out by two quotations adapted from the OT. Ἐμοὶἐκδίκησις , ἐγὼἀνταποδώσω , is the same form of Deu 32:35 as is quoted in Romans 12:19; it reproduces the Hebrew original more closely than the LXX , perhaps from some current Greek version, unless the author of Hebrews borrowed it from Paul.1 Some of the same authorities as in 8:12 indeed add, from Romans 12:19, λέγεικύριος (א c A Dc K L arm Theodoret, Damasus, etc.). ΚρινεῖΚύριοςτὸνλαὸναὐτοῦ is from Deuteronomy 32:36. The thought of the original, in both passages, is God avenging his people on their foes and championing them, not punishing them; but here this fate is assigned to all who put themselves outside the range of God’ s mercy in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ; they fall under God’ s retribution. Τὸἐμπεσεῖνεἰςχεῖραςθεοῦ is a phrase used in a very different sense in 2 S 24:14, Sir 2:18; here it means, to fall into the grasp of the God who punishes the disloyal2 or rebels against his authority. Thus the tyrant Antiochus is threatened, in 2 Mac 7:31, οὐμὴδιαφύγῃςτὰςχεῖραςτοῦθεοῦ . As in 3:12, ζῶντος is added to θεοῦ to suggest that he is quick and alive to inflict retribution. The writer is impressively reticent on the nature of God’ s τιμωρία , even more reticent than Plato, in one of the gravest warnings in Greek literature, the famous passage in the Leges (904, 905) about the divine δίκη : Ταύτηςτῆςδίκηςοὔτεσὺμὴπότεοὔτεεἰἄλλοςἀτυχὴςγενόμενοςἐπεύξηταιπεριγενέσθαιθεῶν · ἣνπασῶνδικῶνδιαφερόντωςἔταξάντεοἱτάξαντεςχρεώντεἐξευλαβεῖσθαιτὸπαράπαν . οὐγὰρἀμεληθήσῃποτὲὑπ ʼ αὐτῆς · οὐχοὕτωσμικρὸςὢνδύσῃκατὰτὸτῆςγῆςβάθος , οὐδ ʼ ὑψηλὸςγενόμενοςεἰςτὸνοὐρανὸνἀναπτήσῃ , τείσειςδὲαὐτῶντὴνπροσήκουσαντιμωρίανεἴτ ʼ ἐνθάδεμένωνεἴτεκαὶἐνΑἵδουδιαπορευθείς . Plato altered the Homeric term δίκηθεῶν to suit his purpose; what meant “ way” or “ habit,” he turned into a weighty word for “ justice.” The alteration is justified from his “ preaching” point of view, and the solemn note of the Greek sage’ s warning is that of Heb 10:26 f.; you cannot play fast and loose with God. Yet, as at 6:9, so here, the writer swiftly turns from warning to encouragement, appealing to his readers to do better than he feared, and appealing to all that was best in them. “ Why throw away the gains of your fine record in the past? You have not long to wait for your reward. Hold on for a little longer.” This is the theme of vv. 32-39: 32 Recall the former days when, after you were enlightened (φωτισθέντες , as 6:4), you endured a hard struggle of suffering, 33 partly by being held up yourselves to obloquy and anguish, partly by making common cause with those who fared in this way; 34 for you did sympathize with the prisoners, and you took the confiscation of your own belongings cheerfully, conscious that elsewhere you had higher, you had lasting possessions. 35 Now do not drop that confidence of yours; it (ἤτις , as in 2:3) carries with it a rich hope of reward. 36 Steady patience is what you need, so that after doing the will of God you may (like Abraham, 6:15) get what you have been promised. 37 For “ in a little, a very little” now, “ The Coming One (9:29) will arrive without delay. 38 Meantime my just man shall live on by his faith; if he shrinks back, my soul takes no delight in him.” 39 We are not the men to shrink back and be lost, but to have faith and so to win our souls. The excellent record of these Christians in the past consisted in their common brotherliness (6:10), which is now viewed in the light of the hardships they had had to endure, soon after they became Christians. The storm burst on them early; they weathered it nobly; why give up the voyage, when it is nearly done? It is implied that any trouble at present is nothing to what they once passed through. Ἀναμιμνήσκεσθεδὲτὰςπρότερονἡμέρας (v. 32): memory plays a large part in the religious experience, and is often as here a stimulus. In these earlier days they had (vv. 32, 33) two equally creditable experiences (τοῦτομέν … τοῦτοδέ , a good classical idiom); they bore obloquy and hardship manfully themselves, and they also made common cause with their fellow-sufferers. By saying ἄθλησινπαθημάτων , the writer means, that the παθήματα made the ἄθλησις which tested their powers (2:10). Ἄθλησις — the metaphor is athletic, as in 12:1— came to denote a martyr’ s death in the early church; but no such red significance attaches to it here. Apparently the persecution was not pushed to the last extreme (12:4); all survived it. Hence there can be no allusion to the “ ludibria” of Nero’ s outburst against the Roman Christians, in (v. 33) θεατριζόμενοι , which is used in a purely figurative sense (so θέατρον in 1 Corinthians 4:9), like ἐκθεατρίζειν in Polybius . The meaning is that they had been held up to public derision, scoffed and sneered at, accused of crime and vice, unjustly suspected and denounced. All this had been, the writer knew, a real ordeal, particularly because the stinging contempt and insults had had to be borne in the open. Ὅτανμὲνγάρτιςὀνειδίζηταικαθ ʼ ἑαυτὸν , λυπηρὸνμὲν , πολλῷδὲπλέον , ὅτανἐπὶπάντων (Chrysostom). They had been exposed to ὀνειδισμοῖςτεκαὶθλίψεσι , taunts and scorn that tempted one to feel shame (an experience which our author evidently felt keenly), as well as to wider hardships, both insults and injuries. All this they had stood manfully. Better still, their personal troubles had not rendered them indisposed to care for their fellow-sufferers, τῶνοὕτωςἀναστρεφομένων (13:18). They exhibited the virtue of practical sympathy, urged in 13:3, at any risk or cost to themselves (κοινωνοὶ … γενηθέντες with the genitive, as in LXX of Pro 28:14, Isaiah 1:23). The ideas of v. 33; are now (v. 34) taken up in the reverse order (as in 5:1-7). Καὶγὰρτοῖςδεσμίοιςσυνεπαθήσατε , imprisonment being for some a form of their παθήματα . Christians in prison had to be visited and fed by their fellow-members. For συμπαθεῖν (cp. 4:15) as between man and man, see Test. Sym. 3:6 καὶλοιπὸνσυμπαθεῖτῷφθονουμένῳ : Test. Benj. 4:4 τῷἀσθενοῦντισυμπάσχει : Ign. Romans 6:4 συμπαθείτωμοι : and the saying which is quoted in Meineke’ s Frag. Comic. Graec. iv. 52, ἐκτοῦπαθεῖνγίγνωσκεκαὶτὸσυμπαθεῖν · καὶσοὶγὰρἄλλοςσυμπαθήσεταιπαθών . They had also borne their own losses with more than equanimity,1 with actual gladness (μετὰχαρᾶς , the same thought as in Romans 5:3, though differently worked out), γινώσκοντες (with accus. and infinitive) ἔχεινἑαυτούς (= ὑμᾶς , which is actually read here by Cosmas Indicopleustes, 348a; ἑαυτούς is not emphatic any more than ἑαυτῶν in v. 25) κρείσσονα (a favourite term of the author) ὕπαρξιν (Acts 2:35) καὶμένουσαν (13:14, the thought of Mat 6:20). Τὴνἁρπαγὴντῶνὑπαρχόντωνὑμῶν implies that their own property had been either confiscated by the authorities or plundered in some mob-riot. Note the paronomasia of ὑπαρχόντων and ὕπαρξιν , and the place of this loss in the list of human evils as described in the Laches, 195 E . There is no question of retaliation; the primitive Christians whom the author has in view had no means of returning injuries for injuries, or even of claiming redress. Thus the problem raised and solved by contemporary moralists does not present itself to the writer; he does not argue, as, e.g., Maximus of Tyre did in the next century (Dissert. ii.), that the good man should treat the loss of property as a trifle, and despise the futile attempts of his enemies to injure him thus, the soul or real self being beyond the reach of such evil doers. The tone is rather that of Tob 4:21 (μὴφοβοῦ , παιδίον , ὅτιἐπτωχεύσαμεν · ὑπάρχεισοὶπολλὰ , εἂνφοβηθῇςτὸνθέονκτλ .), except that our author notes the glow of an enthusiastic unworldliness, which was more than any Stoic resignation or even any quiet acquiescence in providence; he suggests in ἑαυτούς that, while others might seize and hold their property, they themselves had a possession of which no one could rob them. Seneca (Ep. ix. 9:18-19) quotes the famous reply of the philosophic Stilpo to Demetrius Poliorketes, who asked him, after the siege and sack of Megara, if he had lost anything in the widespread ruin, Stilpo answered that he had suffered no loss; “ omnia bona mecum sunt.” That is, Seneca explains, he did not consider anything as “ good” which could be taken from him. This helps to illustrate what the author of ΠρὸςἙβραίους means. As Epictetus put it, there are more losses than the loss of property (ii. 10. 14, ἀλλὰδεῖσεκέρμαἀπολέσαι , ἵναζημιωθῆς , ἄλλου ‹ δ ʼ › οὐδενὸςἀπώλειαζημιοῖτὸνἄνθρωπον ;). A similar view pervades the fine homiletic misinterpretation of Deu 6:5 in Berachoth 9:5 “ Man is bound to bless [God] for evil as for good, for it is said, Thou shall love Jahweh thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy strength. With all thy heart means, with both yetzers, the good and the bad alike: with all thy soul means, even if he deprive thee of thy soul: with all thy strength means, with all thy possessions.” A similar view is cited in Sifre 32. Apollonius, in the last quarter of the second century, declares: “ We do not resent having our goods taken from us, because we know that, whether we live or die, we are the Lord’ s” (Conybeare, Monuments of Early Christianity, p. 44). This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ 1 Now faith means we are confident of what we hope for, convinced of what we do not see. 2 It was for this that the men of old won their record. 3 It is by faith we understand that the world was fashioned by the word of God, and thus the visible was made out of the invisible. Calvin rightly protested against any division here, as an interruption to the thought: “ quisquis hic fecit initium capitis undecimi, perperam contextum abrupit.” The following argument of 11:1-40 flows directly out of 10:35-39: ὑμομονή is justified and sustained by πίστις , and we have now a λόγοςπαρακλήσεως on μιμηταὶτῶνδιὰπίστεωςκαὶμακροθυμίαςκληρονομούντωντὰςἐπαγγελίας (6:12). Hitherto the only historical characters who have been mentioned have been Abraham, Melchizedek, Moses, Aaron, and Joshua; and Abraham alone has been mentioned for his πίστις ; now a long list of heroes and heroines of πίστει is put forward, from Abel to the Maccabean martyrs. But first (vv. 1-3) a general word on faith. Ἔστινδὲπίστιςκτλ . (v. 1). It is needless to put a comma after πίστις , i.e., “ there is such a thing as faith, faith really exists.” Εἰμί at the beginning of a sentence does not necessarily carry this meaning; cp. e.g. Wis 7:1 εἰμὶμὲνκἀγὼθνητός , Luke 8:11 ἔστινδὲαὕτηἡπαραβολή (John 21:25 and 1 John 5:17 etc.). Ἔστιν here is simply the copula, πίστις being the subject, and ἐλπιζομένωνὑπόστασις the predicate. This turn of phrase is common in Philo, who puts ἔστι first in descriptions or definitions (e.g. Leg. Allegor. iii. 75, ἔστιδὲστεναγμὸςσφοδρὰκαὶἐπιτεταμένηλύπη : quod deus immut. 19, ἔστιδὲεὐχὴμὲναἴτησιςἀγαθῶνπαρὰθεοῦκτλ .). Needless difficulties have been raised about what follows. Ὑπόστασις is to be understood in the sense of 3:14 “ une assurance certaine” (Mé né goz); “ faith is a sure confidence of thynges which are hoped for, and a certaynetie of thynges which are not seyne” (Tyndale), the opposite of ὑποστόλη . In the parallel clause, πράγματωνἔλεγχοςοὐβλεπομένων , grammatically πράγματων might go with ἐλπιζομένων instead of with βλεπομένων , for the sake of emphasis (so Chrysostom, Oecumenius, von Soden, etc.); the sense would be unaffected, but the balance of the rhythm would be upset. Ἔλεγχος is used in a fresh sense, as the subjective “ conviction” (the English word has acquired the same double sense as the Greek); as Euthymius said, it is an equivalent for πραγμάτωνἀοράτωνπληροφορία (so syr arm eth). The writer could find no Greek term for the idea, and therefore struck out a fresh application for ἔλεγχος . As for ἐλπιζομένων … οὐβλεπομένων (ὃγὰρβλέπειτις , τίἐλπίζει ; εἰδὲὃοὐβλέπομενἐλπίζομενδι ʼ ὑπομονῆςἀπεκδεχόμεθα , Romans 8:24, Romans 8:25), the unseen realities of which faith is confident are almost entirely in the future as promised by God, though, as the sequel shows, τὰοὐβλεπόμενα (e.g. vv. 3, 7, 8, 27) are not precisely the same as τὰἐλπιζόμενα . It cannot be too emphatically pointed out that the writer did not mean to say: (a) that faith gave substance or reality to unseen hopes, though this is the interpretation of the Greek fathers (Chrysostom, for example, argues: ἐπειδὴτὰἐνἐλπίδιἀνυπόσταταεἶναιδοκεῖ , ἡπίστιςὑπόστασιναὐτοῖςχαρίζεται · μᾶλλονδὲοὐχαρίζεταιἀλλ ʼ αὐτόἐστινοὐσίααὐτῶν ). When the writer declares that it is by faith we understand that the world was created, he does not mean that faith imparts reality to the creation; nor, when he says, e.g., the patriarchs lived in the expectation of a celestial Fatherland, that they thereby made this more real to themselves. No doubt this was true in a sense; but the author’ s point is that just because these objects of hope were real, because, e.g., God had prepared for them a City, therefore they were justified in having faith. It is faith as the reflex of eternal realities or rewards promised by God which is fundamental in this chapter, the faith by which a good man lives. (b) Similarly, faith is not the ἔλεγχος of things unseen in the sense of “ proof,” which could only mean that it tests, or rather attests, their reality. The existence of human faith no doubt proves that there is some unseen object which calls it out, but the writer wishes to show, not the reality of these unseen ends of God— he assumes these— but the fact and force of believing in them with absolute confidence. Such erroneous interpretations arise out of the notion that the writer is giving an abstract definition of πίστις , whereas he is describing it, in view of what follows, as an active conviction which moves and moulds human conduct. The happiest description of it is, “ seeing Him who is invisible” (v. 27); and this idea is applied widely; sometimes it is belief in God as against the world and its forces, particularly the forces of human injustice or of death, sometimes belief in the spirit as against the senses, sometimes again (and this is prominent in 11:5f.) belief in the future as against the present. In the papyri (e.g. in OP ii. pp. 153, 176, where in the plural it = “ the whole body of documents bearing on the ownership of a person’ s property … deposited in the archives, and forming the evidence of ownership” ) ὑπόστασις means occasionally the entire collection of title-deeds by which a man establishes his right to some property (cp. Moulton in Manchester Theological Essays, i. 174; Expositor, Dec. 1903, pp. 438f.); but while this might suggest the metaphor, the metaphor means “ confident assurance.” The original sense of substance or reality, as in the de Mundo, 4 , survives in Dante’ s interpretation (Paradiso, xxiv. 61 f.). He quotes the words as a definition of faith: “ Fede è sustanzia di cose sperate, ed argumento delle non parventi,” adding that he understands this to be its “ quidity” or essence. But the notion that faith imparts a real existence to its object is read into the text. Faith as ὑπόστασις is “ realization” of the unseen, but “ realization” only in our popular, psychological sense of the term. The legal or logical sense of ἔλεγχος , as proof (in classical Greek and elsewhere, e.g. Jos. BJ. iv. 5. 4, ἦνδ ʼ οὔτ ʼ ἔλεγχοςτιςτῶνκατηγορουμένων , οὔτετεκμήριον ) is out of place here. The existence of human faith is in one sense a proof that an invisible order exists, which can alone explain men acting as they do ἐνπίστει . But the writer assumes that, and declares that πίστις lives and moves in the steady light of the unseen realities. The sense of “ test,” as in Epictetus, iii. 10, 11 , is as impossible here as that of “ rebuke” ; the force of πίστις in 11:3-40 rests on its subjective sense as an inner conviction, which forms a motive for human life, and this determines the meaning of ὑπόστασις and ἔλεγχος as applied to it in the introductory description. This connexion of faith with the future is emphasized by Philo in de Migratione Abrahami, 9, commenting on Genesis 12:1 ἥνσοιδείξω . It is δείξω , not δείκνυμι , he points out— εἰςμαρτυρίανπίστεωςἣνἐπίστευσενἡψυχὴθεῷ , οὐκἐκτῶνἀποτελεσμάτωνἐπιδεικνυμένητὸεὐχάριστον , ἀλλ ʼ ἐκπροσδοκίαςτῶνμελλόντων … νομίσασαἤδηπαρεῖναιτὰμὴπαρόνταδιὰτὴντοῦὑποσχομένουβεβαιότηταπίστιν [cp. Hebrews 10:23], ἀγαθὸντέλειον , ἆθλονεὕρηται . Faith thus relies upon God’ s promise and eagerly expects what is to come; indeed it lives for and in the future. So our writer uses πίστις , almost as Paul used ἐλπίς (psychologically the two being often indistinguishable). Nor is this πίστις a novelty in our religion (v. 2), he adds, ἐνταύτῃγὰρἐμαρτυρήθησαν (7:8) οἱπρεσβύτεροι . Ἐν = as in 4:6, 6:16, 9:22, 10:10; δι ʼ ἧςἐμαρτυρήθη (v. 4), μαρτυρηθέντεςδιὰτῆςπίστεως (v. 39). Οἱπρεσβύτεροι ( = οἱπατέρες , 1:1) never bears this exact sense elsewhere in the NT, the nearest1 parallel being Matthew 15:2 = Mark 7:3, Mark 7:5; . Philo (de Abrahamo 46), indeed, noting that Abraham the man of faith is the first man called πρεσβύτερος in scripture (Genesis 24:1), reflects that this is significant; ὁγὰρἀληθείᾳπρεσβύτεροςοὐκἐνμήκειχρόνωνἀλλ ʼ ἐνἐπαινετῷκαὶτελείῳβίῳθεωρεῖται . Aged wordly people can only be called longlived children, τὸνδὲφρονήσεωςκαὶσοφίαςκαὶτῆςπρὸςθεὸνπίστεωςἐρασθένταλέγοιτιςἂνἐνδίκωςεἶναιπρεσβύτερον . But our author weaves no such fancies round the word, though he probably understood the term in an honorific sense . For ἐμαρτυρήθησαν in this sense of getting a good report, cp. B. Latyschev’ s Inscript. Antiquae Orae Septent. i. 2126f. ἐμαρτυρήθητοὺςὑπὲρφιλίαςκινδύνους … παραβολευσάμενος : Syll. 366:28 (i a.d.) ἀρχιτέκτοναςμαρτυρηθένταςὑπὸτῆςσεμνοτάτης [βουλῆς ], and the instances quoted in Deissmann’ s Bible Studies (265). Before describing the scriptural record of the πρεσβύτεροι , however, the writer pauses to point out the supreme proof of πίστις as πραγμάτωνἔλεγχοςοὐβλεπομένων . The very world within which they showed their faith and within which we are to show our faith, was the outcome of what is invisible (v. 3), and this conviction itself is an act of faith. Πίστεινοοῦμεν (cp. Romans 1:20: “ νοεῖν is in Hellenistic Greek the current word for the apprehension of the divine in nature,” A. T. Goodrick on Wis 13:4) κατηρτίσθαιτοὺςαἰῶνας (1:2) ῥήματιθεοῦ (the divine fiat here), εἰς (with consecutive infinitive) τὸμὴἐκφαινομένωντὸβλεπόμενονγεγονέναι (perfect of permanence). The μή goes with φαινομένων , but is thrown before the preposition as, e.g., in Acts 1:5 οὐμετὰπολλὰςταύταςἡμέρας (according to a familiar classical construction, Blass, § 433, 3).2 Faith always answers to revelation, and creation is the first revelation of God to man. Creation by the fiat of God was the orthodox doctrine of Judaism, and anyone who read the OT would accept it as the one theory about the origin of the world (cp. e.g. the description of God in the Mechilta, 33b, on Exodus 14:31 etc. as “ He who spoke and the world was,” ש ׁ ֶ א ָ מ ַ ן ו ְ ח ָ י ָ ה ה ע ִ ו ֹ ל ָ ם , and Apoc. Bar. 14:17: “ when of old there was no world with its inhabitants, Thou didst devise and speak with a word, and forthwith the works of creation stood before Thee” ). But the explicitness of this sentence about creation out of what is invisible, suggests that the writer had other views in mind, which he desired to repudiate. Possibly Greek theories like those hinted at in Wis 10:17 about the world1 being created ἐξἀμόρφουὕλης , or the statement in the de aeternitate mundi, 2, where Philo declares ἐκτοῦμὴὄντοςοὐδὲνγίνεται , quoting Empedocles to this effect, though elsewhere Philo does agree that the world was made out of nothing, as, e.g., in the de Somniis, i. 13 (ὁθεὸςτὰπάνταγεννήσαςοὐμόνονεἰςτοὐμφανὲςἤγαγενἀλλὰκαὶἃπρότερονοὐκἦνἐποίησεν , οὐδημιουργὸςμόνονἀλλὰκαὶκτίστηςαὐτὸςὤν , cp. also Apoc. Bar. 21:4: “ O Thou … that hast called from the beginning of the world that which did not yet exist,” and Slav. En. 24:2: “ I will tell thee now what things I created from the non-existent, and what visible things from the invisible” ). What the μὴφαινόμενα were, our author does not suggest. R. Akiba is said to have applied the words of Psa 101:7 to anyone who rashly speculated on the original material of the world. Our author does not speculate; it is very doubtful if he intends (Windisch, M ’ Neill) to agree with Philo’ s idea (in the de opificio Mundi, 16, de confus. ling. 34) of the φαινόμενοςοὗτοςκόσμος being modelled on the ἀσώματοςκαὶνοητός or archetypal ideas, for the language of 8:5 is insufficient to bear the weight of this inference. To take εἰςτὸ … γεγονέναι as final, is a forced construction. The phrase does not describe the motive of κατηρτίσθαι , and if the writer had meant, “ so that we might know the seen came from the unseen,” 2 he would have written this, instead of allowing the vital words might know to be supplied. The roll-call of the πρεσβύτεροι (vv. 4f.) opens with Abel and Enoch, two men who showed their πίστις before the deluge (vv. 4-6). One was murdered, the other, as the story went, never died; and the writer uses both tales to illustrate his point about πίστις . 4 It was by faith (πίστει , the rhetorical anaphora repeated throughout the section) that Abel offered God a richer sacrifice than Cain did, and thus won from God the record of being “ just,” on the score of what he gave; he died, but by his faith he is speaking to us still. 5 It was by faith that Enoch was taken to heaven, so that he never died . For before he was taken to heaven, his record was that “ he had satisfied God” ; 6 and apart from faith it is impossible “ to satisfy him,” for the man who draws near to God must believe that he exists, and that he does reward those who seek him. The faith of Abel and of Enoch is not πίστιςἐλπιζομένων , which is not introduced till v. 7. In 4 Mac 16:20f. the illustrations of steadfast faith are (a) Abraham sacrificing Isaac, (b) Daniel in the den of lions, and (c) the three men in the fiery furnace; but in 18:11f. the list of noble sufferers includes (a) Abel, (b) Isaac, (c) Joseph in prison, (d) Phinehas, (e) the three men in the fiery furnace, and (f) Daniel. Sirach’ s eulogy of famous men in Israel (44-50) has a wider sweep: Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, Phinehas, Joshua, Caleb, the judges, Samuel, David, Solomon, Elijah, Elisha, Hezekiah, Isaiah, Josiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Job, the twelve prophets, Zerubbabel, Joshua the son of Josedek, Nehemiah, and the highpriest Simon (i.e. down to the second century b.c.). The first illustration (v. 4) is much less natural than most of those that follow. In the story of Gen 4:4-8, ἔπιδενὁθεὸςἐπὶἌβελκαὶἐπὶτοῖςδώροιςαὐτοῦ . But why God disregarded Cain’ s sacrifice and preferred Abel’ s, our author does not explain. Josephus (Ant. i. 54) thought that an offering of milk and animals was more acceptable to God as being natural than Cain’ s cereal offering, which was wrung out of the ground by a covetous man; our author simply argues that the πλείωνθυσία of Abel at the very dawn of history was prompted by faith. He does not enter into the nature of this πλείοναθυσίανπαρὰ (as in 1:4) Κάιν , offered at the first act of worship recorded in scripture. What seems to be implied is that faith must inspire any worship that is to be acceptable to God from anyone who is to be God’ s δίκαιος (10:38). Josephus held that Abel δικαιοσύνηςἐπιμελείτο , the blood of Ἄβελτοῦδικαίου is noted in Matthew 23:35, and the Genesis-words ἔπιδενὁθεός are here expanded by our author into ἐμαρτυρήθηεἶναιδίκαιος . Note the practical equivalence of δῶρα and θυσία , as already in 5:1 etc. There is nothing in ΠρὸςἙβραίους like Philo’ s effort (Quaest. in Genesis 4:4) to distinguish between δῶρα and θυσίας as follows: ὁμὲνθύωνἐπιδιαιρεῖ , τὸμὲναἷματῷβωμῷπροχέων , τὰδὲκρέαοἴκαδεκομίζων . ὁδὲδωρούμενοςὅλονἔοικεπαραχωρεῖντῷλαμβάνοντι · ὁμὲνοὖνφίλαυτοςδιανομεὺςοἷοςὁΚάϊν , ὁδὲφιλόθεοςδώρηταιοἷονὁἌβελ . Πλείονα : of the conjectural emendations, ΠΙΟΝΑ and ΗΔΙΟΝΑ (Cobet, Vollgraff), the latter is favoured by Justin’ s reference in Dial. 29 (εὐδόκησεγὰρκαὶεἰςτὰἔθνη , καὶτὰςθυσίαςἤδιονπαρ ʼ ἡμῖνἢπαρ ʼ ὑμῶνλαμβάνει · τίςοὖνἔτιμοὶπεριτομῆςλόγος , ὑπὸτοῦθεοῦμαρτυρηθέντι ;), and is admitted into the text by Baljon and Blass (so Maynard in Exp.7 vii. 164 f., who infers from μαρτυρηθέντι that Justin knew ΠρὸςἙβραίους , the original text of the latter being αὐτῷτοῦθεοῦ ). In Demosth. Prooem. 23, ἤδιον has been corrupted into πλεῖον . In what follows, (a) the original text is preserved in p13 Clem. . (b) αὐτῷ then became αὐτοῦ under the influence of the LXX, and τῷθεῷ was inserted after προσήνεγκε to complete the sense (א c Dc K L P r vg syr boh arm Orig. Chrys. etc.). Finally, (c) τοῦθεοῦ became assimilated to the preceding τῷθεῷ , and μαρτυροῦντος … αὐτοῦτῷθεῷ (א A D 33, 104, 326, 1311, 1836, eth) became current, as though Abel witnessed to God, instead of God witnessing to Abel. Thus after προσήνεγκε the Greek originally ran: δι ʼ ἦςἐμαρτυρήθηεἶναιδίκαιος , μαρτυροῦντοςἐπὶτοῖςδώροιςαὐτῷτοῦθεοῦ . Then another application of the LXX was added. The phrase in Genesis 4:10 had already suggested to Philo that Abel was in a sense still living (quod det. potiori insid. soleat, 14: ὁἌβελ , τὸπαραδοξότατον , ἀνῄρηταίτεκαὶζῇ · ἀνῄρηταιμὲνἐκτῆςτοῦἄφρονοςδιανοίας , ζῇδὲτὴνἐνθεῷζωὴνεὐδαίμονα · μαρτυρήσειδὲτὸχρησθὲνλόγιον , ἐνᾧ "φωνῇ " χρώμενοςκαὶ "βοῶν " (Genesis 4:10) ἃπέπονθενὑπὸκακοῦσυνδέτουτηλαυγῶςεὑρίσκεται · πῶςγὰρὁμηκέτ ʼ ὢνδιαλέγεσθαιδυνατός ; ). Our author takes a similar line here: καὶδι ʼ αὐτῆςἀποθανὼνἔτιλαλεῖ .. Even after death, Abel’ s cry is represented as reaching God, so Philo puts it (ibid. 20), ζῇμὲνγάρ , ὡςκαὶπρότερονἔφην , ὁτεθνάναιδοκῶν , εἴγεκαὶἱκέτηςὢνθεοῦκαὶφωνῇχρώμενοςεὑρίσκεται . Only, it is not the fact that the cry was one for retribution (12:24) which is stressed here, not the fact that his blood cried to God after he died; but, as λαλεῖν is never used of speaking to God, what the writer means to suggest (as in 3:15) is that Abel’ s faith still speaks to us (λαλεῖ , not the historic present, but = in the record). Not even in 12:24 does he adopt the idea of a divine nemesis for the sufferings of the pious in past generations. He does not represent the blood of martyrs like Abel as crying from the ground for personal vengeance; he has nothing of the spirit which prompted the weird vision of the wronged souls under the altar crying out for retribution (Revelation 6:10). Ἔτιλαλεῖ means, in a general sense, that he is an eloquent, living witness to all ages (so recently Seeberg). Primasius and Chrysostom (τοῦτοκαὶτοῦζῇνσημεῖονἐστι , καὶτοῦπαρὰπάντωνἄδεσθαι , θαυμάζεσθαικαὶμακαρίζεσθαι · ὁγὰρπαραινῶντοῖςἄλλοιςδικαίοιςεἶναιλαλεῖ ) put this well. The witness is that πίστις may have to face the last extreme of death (12:4), and that it is not abandoned by God; ἀποθανών is never the last word upon a δίκαιος . Compare Tertullian’ s argument from Abel, in De Scorpiace, 8: “ a primordio enim justitia vim patitur. Statim ut coli Deus coepit, invidiam religio sortita est: qui Deo placuerat, occiditur, et quidem a fratre; quo proclivius impietas alienum sanguinem sectaretur, a suo auspicata est. Denique non modo justorum, verum etiam et prophetarum.” The difficulty of λαλεῖ led to the tame correction λαλεῖται in D K L d eth, etc. Λαλεῖται as passive is nearly as impossible as middle; to say that Abel, even after death, is still spoken of, is a tepid idea. The writer of Hebrews meant more than an immortal memory, more even than Epictetus when he declared that by dying ὅτεἔδεικαὶὡςἔδει one may do even more good to men than he did in life, like Socrates (iv. 1. 169, καὶνῦνΣωκράτουςἀποθανόντοςοὐθὲνἧττονἤκαὶπλεῖονὠφέλιμόςἐστινἀνθρώποιςἡμνήμηὧνἔτιζῶνἔπραξενἤεἶπεν ). The πίστιςἘνώχ (vv. 5, 6) is conveyed in an interpretation of the LXX of Gen 5:24 καὶεὐηρέστησενἘνὼχτῷθεῷ · καὶοὐχηὑρίσκετο , διότιμετέθηκεναὐτὸνὁθεός . The writer takes the two clauses in reverse order. Enoch μετετέθητοῦ (with infinitive of result) μὴἰδεῖνθάνατον (Luke 2:26) καὶ (“ indeed,” introducing the quotation) οὐχηὑρίσκετο (on this Attic augmented form, which became rare in the κοινή , see Thackeray, 200) διότιμετέθηκεναὐτὸνὁθεός , πρὸγὰρτῆςμεταθέσεωςμεμαρτύρηται (in the scripture record; hence the perfect, which here is practically aoristic) εὐηρεστηκέναιτῷθεοῦ (εὐαρεστεῖν in its ordinary Hellenistic sense of a servant giving satisfaction to his master). For εὑρίσκεσθαι = die (be overtaken or surprised by death),1 cp. Epict. iii. 5. 5 f., οὐκοἶδαςὅτικαὶνόσοςκαὶθάνατοςκαταλαβεῖνἡμᾶςὀφείλουσίντίποτεποιοῦντας ; … ἐμοὶμὲνγὰρκαταληφθῆναιγένοιτομηδενὸςἄλλουἐπιμελουμένῳἢτῆςπροαιρέσεωςτῆςἐμῆς … ταῦταἐπιτηδεύωνθέλωεὑρεθῆναι : iv. 10. 12, ἀγαθὸςὢνἀποθανῇ , γενναίανπρᾶξινἐπιτελῶν . ἐπεὶγὰρδεῖπάντωςἀποθανεῖν , ἀνάγκητίποτεποιοῦνταεὑρεθῆναι … τίοὖνθέλειςποιῶνεὑρεθῆναιὑπὸτοῦθανάτου ; Here εὑρεθῆναι is a synonym for καταληφθῆναι or ἀποθανεῖν , as in Philippians 3:9 . Both Clem. Rom. (9:2) and Origen, like Tertullian, appear to have read οὐχεὑρέθηαὐτοῦθάνατος in Genesis 5:24; and Blass therefore reads here οὐχηὑρίσκεταὐτοῦθάνατος , especially as it suits his scheme of rhythm. This is linguistically possible, as εὑρίσκεσθαι = be (cp. Fr. se trouver), e.g. in Luke 17:18, Philippians 2:8. Μετέθηκεν was turned into the pluperfect μετετέθηκεν by א * Dc L 5, 203, 256, 257, 326, 337, 378, 383, 491, 506, 623, 1611, etc. Traditions varied upon Enoch (EBi 1295a), and even Alexandrian Judaism did not always canonize him in this way. (a) The author of Wis 4:10f., without mentioning his name, quotes Genesis 5:24 as if it meant that God removed Enoch from life early in order to prevent him from sharing the sin of his age ; he departed young, but his removal was a boon mercifully granted by God to his youthful piety. (b) Philo views him in de Abrahamo, 3 (cp. de praem. 3-4), as a type of μετάνοια . Quoting Genesis 5:24 he points out that μετάθεσις means a change for the better, and that οὐχηὑρίσκετο is therefore appropriate, τῷτὸνἀρχαῖονκαὶἐπίληπτονἀπαληλίφθαιβίονκαὶἠφανίσθαικαὶμηκέθ ʼ εὑρίσκεσθαι , καθάπερεἰμηδὲτὴνἀρχὴνἐγένετο . The Greek version of Sir 44:16 echoes the same tradition , viz. that μετέθηκεν implies the effacement of Enoch’ s blameable past, or at any rate that he was enrolled in better company. Our author does not share this view. His general deduction in v. 6 expands the description of πίστις in v. 1. To say that a man has satisfied God is to pronounce the highest possible eulogy upon him, says Philemon 1:1 (de Abrahamo, 6, “ τῷθεῷεὐηρέστησεν · ” οὗτίγένοιτ ʼ ἂνἐντῇψύσεικρεῖττον ; τίςκαλοκἀγαθίαςἐναργέστεροςἔλεγχος ; ), though he is referring to Noah, not to Enoch. Our author explains that to satisfy God necessarily implies πίστις (v. 6) in the sense of 10:35. Πιστεῦσαιγὰρδεῖτὸνπροσερχόμενοντῷθεῷ (4:16 etc.) ὅτιἔστινκαὶτοῖςἐκζητοῦσιναὐτὸνμισθαποδότης (cf. v. 26, 10:35) γίνεται . As for the first element of belief, in the existence of God , the early commentators, from Chrysostom (ὅτιἔστιν · οὐτὸτίἐστιν : cp. Tert. adv. Marc. i. 17, “ primo enim quaeritur an sit, et ita qualis sit” ) and Jerome (on Isaiah 6:1-7, in Anecdota Maredsolana, iii. 3. 110: “ cumque idem apostolus Paulus scribit in alio loco, Credere oportet accedentem ad Deum quia est, non posuit quis et qualis sit debere cognosci, sed tantum quod sit. Scimus enim esse Deum, scimusque quid non sit; quid autem et qualis sit, scire non possumus” ) onwards, emphasize the fact that it is God’ s existence, not his nature, which is the primary element of faith. Philo does declare that the two main problems of enquiry are into God’ s existence and into his essence (de Monarch. i. 4-6), but our author takes the more practical, religious line, and he does not suggest how faith in God’ s existence is to be won or kept. When objectors asked him why he believed in the existence of the gods, Marcus Aurelius used to reply: πρῶτονμὲνκαὶὄψειὁρατοίεἰσιν · ἔπειταμέντοιοὐδὲτὴνψυχὴντὴνἐμαυτοῦἑώρακακαὶὅμωςτιμῶ · οὕτωςοὖνκαὶτοὺςθεούς , ἐξὧντῆςδυνάμεωςαὐτῶνἑκάστοτεπειρῶμαι , ἐκτούτωνὅτιτεεἰσὶκαταλαμβάνωκαὶαἰδοῦμαι (xii. 28). We have no such argument against atheism here; only the reminder that faith does imply a belief in the existence of God— a reminder which would appeal specially to those of the readers who had been born outside Judaism. Belief in the existence of God is for our author, however, one of the elementary principles of the Christian religion (6:1); the stress here falls on the second element, καὶ … μισθαποδότηςγίνεται . When the Stoics spoke about belief in the divine existence, they generally associated it with belief in providence; both Seneca (Ep. xcv. 50, “ primus est deorum cultus deos credere … scire illos esse qui praesident mundo, quia universa vi sua temperant, qui humani generis tutelam gerunt interdum curiosi singulorum” ) and Epictetus (e.g. ii. 14. 11, λέγουσινοἱφιλόσοφοιὅτιμαθεῖνδεῖπρῶτοντοῦτο , ὅτιἔστιθεὸςκαὶπρονοεῖτῶνὅλων : Enchir. xxxi. 1, τῆςπερὶτοὺςθεοὺςεὐσεβείαςἴσθωὅτιτὸκυριώτατονἐκεῖνόἐστινὀρθὰςὑπολήψειςπερὶαὐτῶνἔχεινὡςὄντωνκαὶδιοικούντωντὰὅλακαλῶςκαὶδικαίως ) are contemporary witnesses to this connexion of ideas, which, indeed, is as old as Plato . Τοῖςἐκζῆτοῦσιναὐτόν denotes, not philosophic enquiry, but the practical religious quest, as in the OT (e.g. Acts 15:17, Romans 3:11). This is not Philo’ s view, e.g., in the Leg. Alleg. iii. 15 εἰδὲζητοῦσαεὑρήσειςθεὸνἄδηλον , πολλοῖςγὰροὐκἐφανέρωσενἑαυτὸν , ἀλλ ʼ ἀτελῆτὴνσπουδὴνἄχριπαντὸςἔσχον · ἐξαρκεῖμέντοιπρὸςμετουσίανἀγαθῶνκαὶψιλὸντὸζητεῖνμόνον , ἀεὶγὰραἱἐπὶτὰκαλὰὁρμαὶκἂντοῦτέλουςἀτυχῶσιτοὺςχρωμένουςπροευφραίνουσιν . But our author has a simpler belief; he is sure that the quest of faith is always successful. By God’ s reward he means that the faith of man reaching out to God is never left to itself, but met by a real satisfaction; God proves its rewarder. Such faith is a conviction which illustrates 11:1, for the being of God is an unseen reality and his full reward is at present to be hoped for. A still more apt illustration of πίστις as the ἔλεγχοςπράγματωνοὐβλεπομἐνων which becomes a motive in human life, now occurs in (v. 7) the faith which Noah showed at the deluge when he believed, against all appearances to the contrary, that he must obey God’ s order and build an ark, although it is true that in this case the unseen was revealed and realized within the lifetime of the δίκαιος . Like Philo, our author passes from Enoch to Noah, although for a different reason. Philo ranks Noah as the lover of God and virtue, next to Enoch the typical penitent ; here both are grouped as examples of πίστις . Sirach (44:17.) also passes at once from Enoch to Noah the δίκαιος . 7 It was by faith that Noah, after being told by God of what was still unseen (τῶνμηδέπωβλεπομένων , i.e. the deluge), reverently (εὐλαβηθείς , cp. 5:7) constructed (κατεσκεύασεν , as 1 P 3:20) an ark to save his household; thus he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that follows faith. The writer recalls, though he does not quote from, the story of Gen 6:13f. Πίστει goes closely with εὐλάβηθεὶςκατεσκεύασεν , and περὶτ . μ . βλεπομένων goes with χρηματισθείς , not with εὐλαβηθείς , which is not a synonym for φοβηθείς — the writer is at pains always to exclude fear or dread from faith (cp. vv. 23, 27). Εἰςσωτηρίαν is to be taken as = “ to save alive” (Acts 27:20 πᾶσαἐλπὶςτοῦσώζεσθαιἡμᾶς , 27:34 τοῦτογὰρπρὸςτῆςὑμετέραςσωτηρίαςὑπάρχει ). Δι ʼ ἧς (i.e. by the faith he thus exhibited; as both of the following clauses depend on this, it cannot refer to the ark, which would suit only the first) κατέκρινετὸνκόσμον , where κατέκρινεν corresponds to what is probably the meaning of Wis 4:16 κατακρινεῖδὲδίκαιοςκαμὼντοὺςζῶνταςἀσεβεῖς , though καμών is not the point of Hebrews, which regards Noah’ s action as shaming the world, throwing its dark scepticism into relief against his own shining faith in God (Josephus, in Ant. i. 75, puts it less pointedly: ὁδὲθεὸςτοῦτονμὲντῆςδικαιοσύνηςἠγάπησε , κατεδίκαζεδ ʼ ἐκείνους ); κόσμος here (as in v. 38) means sinful humanity, almost in the sense so common in the Johannine vocabulary, the κόσμοςἀσεβῶν of 2 P 2:5. Philo (de congressu erudit. 17) notes that Noah was the first man in the OT to be specially called (Genesis 6:9) δίκαιος ; but our author, who has already called Abel and Noah δίκαιος , does not use this fact; he contents himself with saying that τῆςκατὰπίστινδικαιοσύνηςἐγένετοκληρόνομος , i.e. he became entitled to, came into possession of, the δικαιοσύνη which is the outcome or property (κατάκτλ ., as in Hellenistic Greek, cp. Ephesians 1:15, a periphrasis for the possessive genitive) of such faith as he showed. Δικαιοσύνη here is the state of one who is God’ s δίκαιος (ὁδίκαιοςμου , 10:38). A vivid description of Noah’ s faith is given in Mark Rutherford’ s novel, The Deliverance, pp. 162, 163. The faith of Abraham, as might be expected, receives more attention than that of any other (cp. Acts 7:2f.). It is described in three phases (8, 9-10, 17-19); the faith of his wife Sara is attached to his (11-12), and a general statement about his immediate descendants is interpolated (13-16) before the writer passes from the second to the third phase. As in Sirach and Philo, Abraham follows Noah. “ Ten generations were there from Noah to Abraham, to show how great was His longsuffering; for all the generations were provoking Him, till Abraham our father came and received the reward of them all” (Pirke Aboth 5:3). 8 It was by faith that Abraham obeyed his call to go forth to a place which he would receive as an inheritance; he went forth, although he did not know where he was to go. 9 It was by faith that he “ sojourned” in the promised land, as in a foreign country, residing in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were co-heirs with him of the same promise; 10 he was waiting for the City with its fixed foundations, whose builder and maker is God. The first phase (v. 8) is the call to leave Mesopotamia and travel West, which is described in Genesis 12:1f.. The writer does not dwell, like Philo (de Abrahamo, 14), on the wrench of tearing oneself from one’ s home. But, as Philo says that Abraham started ἅματῷκελευσθῆναι , our author begins with καλούμενος . When the call came, he obeyed it— ὑπήκουσενἐξελθεῖν (epexegetic infinitive), a reminiscence of Gen 12:1, Genesis 12:4 καὶεἶπενκύριοςτῷἈβρὰμ , Ἔξελθε … καὶἐπορεύθηἈβρὰμκαθάπερἐλάλησεναὐτῷκύριος . He went out from Mesopotamia, μὴἐπιστάμενοςποῦἔρχεται , his faith being tested by this uncertainty. So Philo (de Migr. Abrah. 9) notes the point of the future δείξω in Genesis 12:1; it is εἰςμαρτυρίανπίστεωςἣνἐπίστευσενἡψυχὴθεῷ . The insertion of ὁ before καλούμενος (A D 33. 256. 467. 1739. 2127 sah boh arm Thdt.) turns the phrase into an allusion to Abraham’ s change of name in Genesis 17:5, which is irrelevant to his earlier call to leave the far East. The second phase (vv. 9, 10) is the trial of patience. He did not lose heart or hope, even when he did reach the country appointed to him, although he had to wander up and down it as a mere foreigner, εἰς ( = ἐν , Mark 13:16, Acts 8:40) … ἀλλοτρίαν . He found the land he had been promised still in the hands of aliens, and yet he lived there, lived as an alien in his own country! Παρῴκησεν is the opposite of κατῴκησεν (as in Genesis 37:1), and with a fine touch of paradox the writer therefore goes on to describe Abraham as ἐνσκηναῖςκατοικήσας , contented patiently to lead a wandering, unsettled life. Such was all the “ residence” he ever had! What sustained him was his πίστις (v. 10), his eager outlook for the City, ἧςτεχνίτηςκαὶδημιουργὸςὁθεός . Compare the scholion on Lucian’ s Jou. Trag. 38: ὃνδὴθεὸνκαὶδημιουργὸνὁεὐσεβὴςἀνευρηκὼςλογισμὸςἔφορονκαὶτεχνίτηντοῦπαντὸςπροευτρέπισεν . Τεχνίτης is not a LXX term, and only began to be used of God in Alexandrian Judaism (e.g. in Wis 13:1). This is the one place in the NT where it is applied to God; afterwards (e.g. Did. 12:3; Diognetus, 7:2) it became more common. Δημιουργός is equally unique as a NT term for God, but it occurs in 2 Mal 4:1, and was used in classical literature frequently for a subordinate deity (cp. Schermann, Texte u. Untersuchungen, xxxiv. 2b. 23). In Apoc. Esdrae (ed. Tisch. 32) the phrase occurs, ὁπάσηςτῆςκτίσεωςδημιουργός . Our author simply writes τεχνίτηςκαὶδημιουργός as a rhetorical expression for maker or creator (8:2), without differentiating the one term from the other, as “ designer” and “ constructor” (cp. Philo, quis rer. div. 27, ὁτεχνίτης … ἡνίκατὸνκόσμονἐδημιούργει : de mut. nom. 4, ἔθηκετὰπάνταὁγεννήσαςκαὶτεχνιτεύσαςπατήρ , ὥστετὸ "ἐγώεἰμιθεὸςσὸς " ἴσονἐστὶτῷ "ἐγώεἰμιποιητὴςκαὶδημιουργός "). In 9b the writer adds a new touch in μετὰἸσαὰκκαὶἸακώβ 1— who shared the same outlook— τῶνσυγκληρονόμων (a κοινή , though not a LXX, term for co-heir) τῆςἐπαγγελίαςτῆςαὐτῆς . Their individual faith is noted later (vv. 20, 21). In sketching his fine mystical interpretation of Abraham’ s hope, the author ignores the fact that Jacob, according to Genesis 33:17 , did erect a permanent settlement for himself at Sukkoth. His immediate interest is not in Isaac and Jacob but in Abraham, and in the contrast of the tent-life with the stable, settled existence in a city— the idea which recurs in 12:22, 13:14. It is a Philonic thought in germ, for Philo (Leg. Alleg. 3:27) declares that the land promised by God to Abraham is a πόλιςἀγαθὴκαὶπολλὴκαὶσφόδραεὐδαίμων , typifying the higher contemplation of divine truth in which alone the soul is at home, or that the soul lives for a while in the body as in a foreign land (de Somniis, 1:31), till God in pity conducts it safe to μητρόπολις or immortality. The historical Abraham never dreamed of a πόλις , but our author imaginatively allegorizes the promised land once more (cp. 4:3f.), this time as (12:22) a celestial πόλις or Jerusalem, like Paul and the apocalyptists. According to later tradition in Judaism, the celestial Jerusalem was shown in a vision to Abraham at the scene of Gen 15:9-21 (Apoc. Bar. 4:4), or to Jacob at Bethel (Beresh. rabba on Genesis 28:17). Ἐξεδέχετογὰρ — and this showed the steady patience (10:36) and inward expectation (11:1) of his faith— τὴντοὺςθεμελίους (τούς , because it was such foundations that the tents lacked) ἔχουσανπόλιν . No doubt there was something promised by God which Abraham expected and did get, in this life; the writer admits that (6:13-15). But, in a deeper sense, Abraham had yearnings for a higher, spiritual bliss, for heaven as his true home. The fulfilment of the promise about his family was not everything; indeed, his real faith was in an unseen future order of being (11:1). However, the realization of the one promise about Isaac (6:13-15) suggests a passing word upon the faith of Sara (vv. 11, 12). 11 It was by faith that even Sara got strength to conceive, bearing a son when she was past the age for it— because she considered she could rely on Him who gave the promise. 12 Thus a single man, though he was physically impotent, had issue in number “ like the stars in heaven, countless as the sand on the seashore.” This is the first instance of a woman’ s faith recorded, and she is a married woman. Paul (Romans 4:19f.) ignores any faith on her part. Philo again praises Sarah, but not for her faith; it is her loyalty and affection for her husband which he singles out for commendation, particularly her magnanimity in the incident of Gen 16:2 (de Abrahamo, 42-44). Our author declares that even in spite of her physical condition , she believed God when he promised her a child. The allusion is to the tale of Gen 17:15-7, which the readers are assumed to know, with its stress on the renewal of sexual functions in a woman of her age. This is the point of καὶαὐτή , not “ mere woman that she was” (Chrysostom, Oec., Bengel), nor “ in spite of her incredulity” (Bleek), nor “ Sara likewise,” i.e. as well as Abraham (Delitzsch, Hofmann, von Soden, Vaughan), owing to her close connexion with Abraham (Westcott, Seeberg), though the notion of “ like-wise” is not excluded from the author’ s meaning, since the husband also was an old man. A gloss was soon inserted by D* P, nearly all the versions, and Origen. This is superfluous, however, and probably arose from dittography . The general idea is plain, though there is a difficulty in δύναμινἔλαβεν (i.e. from God) εἰςκαταβολὴνσπέρματος = εἰςτὸκαταβάλλεσθαισπέρμα , i.e. for Abraham the male to do the work of generation upon her. This is how the text was understood in the versions, e.g. the Latin . Probably it was what the writer meant, though the expression is rather awkward, for καταβολὴσπέρματος means the act of the male; εἰςὑποδοχὴνσπέρματος would have been the correct words. This has been overcome (a) by omitting καὶαὐτὴΣάρρα as a gloss, or (b) by reading αὐτῇΣάρρᾳ . (a) certainly clears up the verse, leaving Abraham as the subject of both verses (so Field in Notes on Transl. of NT, p. 232, and Windisch); (b) is read by Michaelis, Storr, Rendall, Hort, and Riggenbach, the latter interpreting it not as “ dativus commodi,” but = “ along with.” If the ordinary text is retained, the idea suggested in καὶαὐτὴΣάρρα is made explicit in παρὰκαιρὸνἡλικίας . What rendered such faith hard for her was her physical condition. Philo (de Abrah. 22) applies this to both parents (ἤδηγὰρὑπερήλικεςγεγονότεςδιὰμακρὸνγῆραςἀπέγνωσανπαιδὸςσποράν ,) and a woman in the period of life described in Genesis 18:11, Genesis 18:12 is called by Josephus γύναιοντὴνἡλικίανἤδηπροβεβληκός (Ant. vii. 8. 4). Εἰςτὸτεκνῶσαι (D* P 69 436. 462. 1245. 1288. 2005 syrhkl) after ἔλαβεν is a harmless gloss. The addition of ἔτεκεν (א c K L P lat arm) after ἡλικίας was made when the force of καί ( = even) before παρὰκαιρόν was missed. Πιστὸνἡγήσατοτὸνἐπαγγειλάμενον (10:23) is an assertion which shows that the author ignores her sceptical laughter in Genesis 18:12; he does not hesitate (cp. v. 27) to deal freely with the ancient story in order to make his point, and indeed ignores the equally sceptical attitude of Abraham himself (Genesis 17:17). To be πιστός in this connexion is to be true to one’ s word, as Cicero observes in the de Officiis (i. 7: “ fundamentum autem justitiae fides, id est dictorum conventorumque constantia et veritas” ). The promise was fulfilled in this life, so that Sara’ s faith resembles that of Noah (v. 7). The fulfilment is described in v. 12, where, after διὸκαὶἀφ ʼ ἑνὸς (i.e. Abraham),1 ἐγεννήθησαν (p13 א L Ψ 1739, etc.) is read by some authorities for ἐγενήθησαν (A D K P etc.), though the latter suits the ἀπό in ἀφ ʼ ἑνός rather better. In either case something like τέκνα must be understood. Ἀφ ʼ ἑνός is resumed in καὶταῦτανενεκρωμένου (in the sense of Rom 4:19). Gen. r. on Genesis 25:1 applies Job 14:7-9 to Abraham, but the plain sense is given in Augustine’ s comment (Civit. Dei, 16:28): “ sicut aiunt, qui scripserunt interpretationes nominum Hebraeorum, quae his sacris literis continentur, Sara interpretatur princeps mea, Sarra autem uirtus. Unde scriptum est in epistula ad Hebraeos: Fide et ipsa Sarra uirtutem accepit ad emissionem seminis. Ambo enim seniores erant, sicut scriptura testatur; sed illa etiam sterilis et cruore menstruo iam destituta, propter quod iam parere non posset, etiam si sterilis non fuisset. Porro si femina sit prouectioris aetatis, ut ei solita mulierum adhuc fluant, de iuuene parere potest, de seniore non potest; quamuis adhuc possit ille senior, sed de adulescentula gignere, sicut Abraham post mortem Sarrae de Cettura potuit [Genesis 25:1], quia uiuidam eius inuenit aetatem. Hoc ergo est, quod mirum commendat apostolus, et ad hoc dicit Abrahae iam fuisse corpus emortuum, quoniam non ex omni femina, cui adhuc esset aliquod pariendi tempus extremum, generare ipse in illa aetate adhuc posset.” This elucidates Hebrews 11:11, Hebrews 11:12a. In what follows, the author is quoting from the divine promise in Genesis 22:17, a passage much used in later Jewish literature,2 though this is the only full allusion to it in the NT (cf. Romans 9:27). Before passing to the third phase of Abraham’ s faith, the writer adds (vv. 13-16) a general reflection on the faith of the patriarchs, an application of vv. 9, 10. There were promises which could not be fulfilled in the present life, and this aspect of faith is now presented. 13 (These all died in faith without obtaining the promises; they only saw them far away and hailed them, owning they were “ strangers and exiles” upon earth. 14 Now people who speak in this way plainly show they are in search of a fatherland. 15 If they thought of the land they have left behind, they would have time to go back, 16 but they really aspire to the better land in heaven. That is why God is not ashamed to be called their God; he has prepared a City for them.) οὗτοιπάντες (those first mentioned in 9-12, particularly the three patriarchs) died as well as lived κατὰπίστιν , which is substituted here for πίστει either as a literary variety of expression, or in order to suggest πίστις as the sphere and standard of their characters. The writer argues that the patriarchs already possessed a πίστις in eternal life beyond the grave; their very language proves that. Μὴκομισάμενοι explains the πίστις in which they died; this is the force of μή . All they had was a far-off vision of what had been promised them, but a vision which produced in them a glad belief— ἰδόντεςκαὶἀσπασάμενοι , the latter ptc. meaning that they hailed the prospect with delight, sure that it was no mirage. The verb here is less metaphorical than, e.g., in Musonius (ed. Hense), vi.: τὴνδὲζωὴνὡςτῶνἀγαθῶνμέγιστονἀσπαζόμεθα , or Philo (ἀγάπησονοὖνἀρετὰςκαὶἄσπασαιψυχῇτῇσεαυτοῦ , quis rer. div. heres, 8). Two interesting classical parallels may be cited, from Euripides (Ion, 585-587: οὐταὐτὸνεἶδοςφαίνεταιτῶνπραγμάτων πρόσωθενὄντωνἔγγύθενθ ʼ ὁρωμένων . ἐγὼδὲτὴνμὲνσυμφορὰνἀσπάζομαι ) and Vergil . Chrysostom prettily but needlessly urges that the whole metaphor is nautical (τῶνπλεόντωνκαὶπόρῥωθενὁρώντωντὰςπόλειςτὰςποθουμένας , ἃςπρὶνἢεἰσελθεῖνεἰςαὐτὰςτῇπροσρήσειλαβόντεςαὐτὰςοἰκειοῦνται ). Κομισάμενοι (p13 א * P W 33, etc.) is more likely to be original than a conformation to 10:36, 11:39; the sense is unaffected if we read the more common λαβόντες (א c D K L Ψ 6. 104. 1739, Orig.). The reading of A arm makes no sense. Καὶὁμολογήσαντες , for to reside abroad carried with it a certain stigma, according to ancient opinion (cp. e.g. Ep. Aristeae, 249, καλὸνἐνἰδίᾳκαὶζῇνκαὶτελευτᾷν . ἡδὲξενίατοῖςμὲνπένησικαταφρόνησινἐργάζεται , τοῖςδὲπλουσίοιςὄνειδος , ὡςδιὰκακίανἐκπεπτωκόσιν : Sir 29:22-28 etc.). The admission, ὅτιξένοικαὶπαρεπίδημοίεἰσινἐπὶγῆς , is a generalization from the Oriental deprecation of Jacob in Genesis 47:9 (εἶπενἸακὼβτῷΦαραώ , αἱἡμέραιτῶνἔτωντῆςζωῆςμουἃςπαροικῶκτλ .), and the similar confession of Abraham in Genesis 23:4 to the sons of Heth, πάροικοςκαὶπαρεπίδημοςἐγώεἰμιμεθ ʼ ὑμῶν . The ἐπὶγῆς is a homiletic touch, as in Psalms 119:19 . In both cases this ὁμολογίατῆςἐλπίδος (10:23) is made before outsiders, and the words ἐπὶτῆςγῆς start the inference (vv. 14-16a) that the true home of these confessors was in heaven. Such a mystical significance of ξένοικαὶπαρεπίδημοι , which had already been voiced in the psalter, is richly and romantically developed by Philo, but it never became prominent in primitive Christianity. Paul’ s nearest approach to it is worded differently (Philippians 3:20, where τὸπολίτευμα corresponds to πατρίς here). In Ephesians 2:12-19, indeed, Christians are no longer ξένοικαὶπάροικοι , for these terms are applied literally to pagans out of connexion with the chosen People of God. The only parallel to the thought of Hebrews is in 1 P, where Christians are παρεπιδήμοι (1:1) and παροίκοικαὶπαρεπιδήμοι (2:11). The term ξένοι is used here as a synonym for πάροικοι , which (cp. Ephesians 2:12, Ephesians 2:19) would be specially intelligible to Gentile Christians. Παρεπίδημος only occurs in the LXX in Genesis 23:4, Psalms 39:13; in the Egyptian papyri παρεπιδημοῦντες (consistentes) denotes foreigners who settled and acquired a domicile in townships or cities like Alexandria (GCP i. 40, 55; cp. A. Peyron’ s Papyri graeci R. Taur. Musei Aegyptii, 8:13 τῶνπαρεπιδημοῦντωνκαὶ [κα ]τοικούντωνἐ [ν ] [τ ]αύται [ς ] ξένων ), and for ξένοι =peregrini, Ep. Arist. 109 f. The use of such metaphorical terms became fairly common in the moral vocabulary of the age, quite apart from the OT, e.g. Marcus Aurelius, 2:17 . A similar symbolism recurs in the argument of Epictetus (ii. 23, 36 f.) against the prevalent idea that logic, style, and eloquence are the end of philosophy: οἷονεἴτιςἀπιὼνεἰςτὴνπατρίδατὴνἑαυτοῦκαὶδιοδεύωνπανδοκεῖονκαλὸνἀρέσαντοςαὐτῷτοῦπανδοκείουκαταμένοιἐντῷπανδοκείῳ . ἄνθρωπε , ἐπελάθουσουτῆςπροθέσεως · οὐκεἰςτοῦτοὥδευες , ἀλλὰδιὰτούτου … τὸδὲπροκείμενονἐκεῖνο · εἰςτὴνπατρίδαἐπανελθεῖν . In a more specifically religious sense, it is expressed in the saying of Anaxagoras quoted by Diogenes Laertius (2:3, 7, πρὸςτὸνεἰπόντα , "οὐδένσοιμέλειτῆςπατρίδος ," "εὐφήμει " ἔφη , "ἔμοιγὰρκαὶσφόδραμέλειτῆςπατρίδος ," δείξαςτὸνοὐρανόν ). According to Philo, the confession that they were strangers and pilgrims meant that the soul in this world longed to return to its pre-existent state in the eternal order, and could never feel at home among things material. So, e.g., de confus. ling. 17, διὰτοῦτοοἱκατὰΜωυσῆνσοφοὶπάντεςεἰσάγονται "παροικοῦντες · " αἱγὰρτούτωνψυχαὶστέλλονταιμὲνἀποικίανοὐδέποτετὴνἐξοὐρανοῦ , εἰώθασιδὲἕνεκατοῦφιλοθεάμονοςκαὶφιλομαθοῦςεἰςτὴνπερίγειονφύσινἀποδημεῖν … ἐπανέρχονταιἐκεῖσεπάλιν , ὅθενὡρμήθησαντὸπρῶτον , πατρίδαμὲντὸνοὐράνιονχῶρονἐνᾧπολιτεύονται , ξένηνδὲτὸνπερίγειονἐνᾧπαρῴκησαννομίζουσαικτλ . In Cherub. 33, 34, commenting on πάροικοι in Leviticus 25:23, he argues that this is the real position of all wise souls towards God, since each of us is a stranger and sojourner in the foreign city of the world where God has for a time placed us till we return to Him. The metaphor had been applied, in a derogatory sense, by Sallust to the lazy and sensual men who never know what real life means, but who pass through it heedlessly: “ many human beings, given over to sensuality and sloth , uneducated, and uncultured, have gone through life like travellers” (“ vitam sicuti peregrinantes transiere,” Son_2). Such a confession proves (v. 14) that the men in question are not satisfied with the present outward order of things; ἐμφανίζουσιν (Esther 2:22 καὶαὐτὴἐνεφάνισεντῷβασιλεῖτὰτῆςἐπιβουλῆς : Acts 23:15, OGIS (3 a.d.) 42:9, Syll. 226:85 τήντεπαρουσίανἐμφανίσαντωντοῦβασίλεως ), they thus avow or affirm, ὃτιπατρίδαἐπιζητοῦσιν (Valckenaer’ s conjecture, ἔτιζητοῦσι , is ingenious but needless, cp. 13:14). For πάτρις in a mystical sense, compare Philo, de Agric. 14, commenting on Genesis 47:4): τῷγὰρὄντιπᾶσαψυχὴσοφοῦπατρίδαμὲνοὐρανόν , ξένηνδὲγῆνἔλαχε , καὶνομίζειτὸνμὲνσοφίαςοἶκονἴδιον , τὸνδὲσώματοςὀθνεῖον , ᾧκαὶπαρεπιδημεῖνοἴεται . Here it is “ heaven, the heart’ s true home.” The creditable feature in this kind of life was that these men had deliberately chosen it.1 Had they liked, they might have taken another and a less exacting line (v. 15). Εἰμὲν (as in 8:4) ἐμνημόνευον (referring to the continuous past) κτλ . The μνημονεύουσιν of א D was due to the influence of the preceding presents, just as ἐμνημόνευσαν (33. 104, 216 Cosm) to the influence of ἐξέβησαν , which in turn was smoothed out into the usual NT term ἐξῆλθον (א c D K L Ψ 436 919. 1288. 1739). Μνημόνευειν here has the sense of “ giving a thought to,” as in Jos. Ant. vi. 37, οὔτετροφῆςἐμνημόνευσενοὔθ ʼ ὕπνου , and below in v. 22. Time (as Acts 24:25), as elsewhere in Hebrews, rather than opportunity , is the idea of εἴχονἂνκαιρὸν , καιρός taking an infinitive ἀνακάμψαι (so Codex A in Judges 11:39 καὶἀνεκάμψενπρὸςτὸνπατέρααὐτῆς , for the ἀπέστρεψεν of B), as in Eurip. Rhesus, 10 . Philo remarks of Abraham: τίςδ ʼ οὐκἂνμετατραπόμενοςπαλινδρόμησενοἴκαδε , βραχέαμὲνφροντίσαςτῶνμελλουσῶνἐλπίδων , τὴνδὲπαροῦσανἀπορίανσπεύδωνἐκφυγεῖν (de Abrahamo, 18). “ Sometimes he wished his aims had been To gather gain like other men; Then thanked his God he’ d traced his track Too far for wish to drag him back.” (Thomas Hardy, The Two Men.) On the contrary (v. 16), so far from that, they held on, the writer adds; νῦνδέ (logical, as in 8:6, not temporal) κρείττονοςὀρέγονται , τοῦτ ʼ ἔστινἐπουρανίου . Διὸοὐκἐπαισχύνεται (compare 2:11) αὐτοὺςὁθεὸς "θεὸς " ἐπικαλεῖσθαι (epexegetic infinitive) “ αὐτῶν ,” referring to Exodus 3:6, Ἐγώεἰμι … θεὸςἈβραὰμκαὶθεὸςἸσαὰκκαὶθεὸςἸακώβ , which the writer1 interprets (cp. Mark 12:26, Mark 12:27) as an assurance of immortality. Their hope of a πατρίς or heavenly home was no illusion; it was because God had such a πόλις (v. 10) all ready for them that he could call himself their God. He might have been ashamed to call himself such, had he not made this provision for their needs and prepared this reward for their faith (ἡτοίμασεν , cp. Matthew 23:34). The third phase of the faith of Abraham (vv. 17-19) is now chronicled, followed by three instances of faith at the end of life, in Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph (vv. 20-22). 17 It was by faith , “ when Abraham was put to the test, that he sacrificed Isaac” ; he was ready to sacrifice “ his only son,” although he had received the promises, 18 and had been told (πρὸςὅν , as 5:5) that (ὅτι recitative) “ it is through Isaac (not Ishmael) that your offspring shall be reckoned” — 19 for he considered God was able even to raise men from the dead. Hence (ὅθεν , causal) he did get him back, by what was a parable of the resurrection. 20 It was by faith that Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau in connection with the future. 21 It was by faith that, when Jacob was dying , he blessed each of the sons of Joseph, “ bending in prayer over the head of his staff.” 22 It was by faith that Joseph at his end (τελευτῶν only here) thought about the exodus of the sons of Israel, and gave orders about his own bones. The supreme test of Abraham’ s πίστις is found in the story of Gen 22:1-18, which Jewish tradition always reckoned as the last and sorest of his ten trials (Pirke Aboth 5:4). It is cited in 4 Mac 16:18-20 as a classical example of ὑπομονή (ὀφείλετεπάνταπόνονὑπομένεινδιὰτὸνθεόν , δι ʼ ὃνκαὶὁπατὴρἡμῶνἈβραὰμἔσπευδεντὸνἐθνοπάτοραυἱὸνσφαγιάσαιἸσαάκκτλ .). In v. 17 the perfect tense προσενήνοχεν may mean “ the ideally accomplished sacrifice, as permanently recorded in scripture” (Moulton, so Diat 2751); but it is more likely to be aoristic (cp. Simcox, Lang. of NT., pp. 104, 126). Πειραζόμενος echoes Genesis 22:1 . Καὶ (epexegetic) τὸνμονογενῆ (a Lucan use of the term in the NT)2 προσέφερεν (conative imperfect of interrupted action, like ἐκάλουν in Luke 1:59) ὁτὰςἐπαγγελίαςἀναδεξάμενος , i.e. the promises of a son, of a numerous line of descendants (v. 12), and of a blessing thus coming to all nations. This is made explicit in v. 18, with its quotation from Genesis 21:12. For ἀναδέχομαι in the sense of “ secure,” see the line from Sophocles’ “ Ichneutae,” in Oxyrh. Papyri, vii. 25 . In v. 19 λογισάμενος (as Romans 8:18 etc.) explains why he had the courage to sacrifice Isaac, although the action seemed certain to wreek the fulfilment of what God had promised him. He held ὅτικαὶἐκνεκρῶνἐγείρειν (weakened into ἐγεῖραι by A P, etc.) δυνατός (Daniel 3:17 ὅςἐστιδυνατὸςἐξελέσθαιἡμᾶςκτλ ., and Romans 4:21) sc. ἔστινὁθεός . Abraham, says Philo (de Abrahamo, 22), πάνταᾔδειθεῷδυνατὰσχεδὸνἐξἔτισπαργάνωντουτὶτὸδόγμαπρομαθοῦσα . Later (32) he speaks of this sacrifice as the most outstanding action in Abraham’ s life— ὀλίγουγὰρδέωφάναιπάσαςὅσαιθεοφιλεῖςὑπερβάλλει . It was “ a complicated and brilliant act of faith” (A. B. Davidson), for God seemed to contradict God, and the command ran counter to the highest human affection . As Chrysostom put it, this was the special trial, τὰγὰρτοῦθεοῦἐδόκειτοῖςτοῦθεοῦμάχεσθαι , καὶπίστιςἐμάχετοπίστει , καὶπρόσταγμαἐπαγγελίᾳ . Hence (ὅθεν , in return for this superb faith) ἐκομίσατο , he did recover him (κομίζεσθαι , as in Genesis 38:20) etc., of getting back what belongs to you),1 in a way that prefigured the resurrection (κρείττονοςἀναστάσεως , v. 35). Such is the meaning of ἐνπαραβολῇ (cp. 9:9). Isaac’ s restoration was to Abraham a sort2 of resurrection (v. 35a “ quaedam resurrectionis fuit species, quod subito liberatus fuit ex media morte,” Calvin). Ἐνπαραβολῇ has been taken sometimes in two other ways. (a) = παραβολῶς , i.e. beyond all expectation, almost παραδόξως , παρ ʼ ἐλπίδα , or in a desperate peril, as Polybius says of Hannibal . This is at any rate less far-fetched than— (b) “ whence he had originally got him, figuratively-speaking,” as if the allusion was to νενεκρωμένου (in v. 12)! Against (a) is the fact that παραβολή never occurs in this sense. Augustine’ s comment is (Civit. Dei, xvi.32): “ non haesitauit, quod sibi reddi poterat immolatus, qui dari potuit non speratus. Sic intellectum est et in epistula ad Hebraeos, et sic expositum [Hebrews 11:17-19] … cuius similitudinem, nisi illius unde dicit apostolus: Qui proprio filio non pepercit, sed pro nobis omnibus tradidit eum?” He makes Isaac carrying the wood a type of Christ carrying his cross, and the ram caught in the thicket typical of Christ crowned with thorns. According to the later Jewish tradition (Pirqe R. Eliezer, 31), Isaac’ s soul, which had left his body as his father’ s sword was falling, returned at the words, “ Lay not thy hand on the lad” ; thus Abraham and Isaac “ learned that God would raise the dead.” The next three instances are of πίστις as ὑπόστασιςἐλπιζομένων , the hope being one to be realized in the destiny of the race (vv. 20-22). This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ From the ἡμῶν … ἡμῶν of the epilogue the writer now passes into a moving appeal to his readers (12:1f.). 1 Therefore (Τοιγαροῦν , as in 1 Thessalonians 4:8), with all this host of witnesses encircling us, we (καὶἡμεῖς , emphatic) must strip off sin with its clinging folds, to run our appointed course steadily , 2 our eyes fixed upon Jesus as the pioneer and the perfection of faith— upon: Jesus who, in order to reach his own appointed joy, steadily endured the cross, thinking nothing of its shame, and is now “ seated at the right hand” of the throne of God. The writer now returns to the duty of ὑπομονή as the immediate exercise of πίστις (10:36f.), the supreme inspiration being the example of Jesus (12:1-3) as the great Believer, who shows us what true πίστις means, from beginning to end, in its heroic course . The general phraseology and idea of life as a strenuous ἀγών , in the Hellenic sense (see on 5:14), may be seen in many passages, e.g. Eurip. Orest. 846 f.: πρὸςδ ʼ Ἀργεῖονοἴχεταιλεών , ψυχῆςἀγῶνατὸνπροκείμενονπέρι δώσων , ἐνᾧζῆνἢθανεῖνὑμᾶςχρεών , Herod. viii. 102 and ix. 60 , and especially in 4 Mac 14:5 πάντες (the seven martyrs), ὥσπερἐπ ʼ ἀθανασίαςὁδὸντρέχοντες , ἐπὶτὸνδιὰτῶνβασάνωνθάνατονἔσπευδον , and Philo’ s de migrat. Abrah. 24, καὶγὰρἉβραὰμπιστεύσας “ ἐγγίζεινθεῷ ” (Genesis 18:23, cp. Hebrews 11:6) λέγεται . ἐανμέντοιπορευόμενοςμήτεκάμῃ (cp. Hebrews 12:3) μήτεῥᾳθυμήσῃ , ὡςπαρ ʼ ἑκάτεραἐκτραπόμενος (cp. Hebrews 12:13) πλανᾶσθαιτῆςμέσηςκαὶεὐθυτενοῦςδιαμαρτὼνὀδοῦ , μιμησάμενοςδὲτοὺςἀγαθοὺςδρομεῖςτὸστάδιονἀπταίστωςἀνύσῃτοῦβίου , στεφάνωνκαὶἄθλωνἐπαξίωντεύξεταιπρὸςτὸτέλοςἐλθών . The figure is elaborately worked out in 4 Mac 17:11-14 (ἀληθῶςγὰρἦνἀγὼνθεῖοςὁδι ʼ αὐτῶνγεγενημένος . ἠθλοθέτειγὰρτότεἀρετὴδι ʼ ὑπομονῆςδοκιμάζουσα · τὸνῖκοςἐνἀφθαρσίᾳἐνζωῇπολυχρονίῳ . Ἐλεαζὰρδὲπροηγωνίζετο · ἡδὲμήτηρτῶνἑπτὰπαίδωνὲνήθλει · οἰδὲἀδελφοὶἠγωνίζοντο · ὀτύραννοςἀντηγωνίζετο · ὁδὲκόσμοςκαὶὁτῶνἀνθρώπωνβίοςἐθεώρει ), where the Maccabean martyrs are athletes of the true Law; but the imagery is more rhetorical and detailed than in ΠρὸςἙβραίους , where the author, with a passing touch of metaphor, suggests more simply and suggestively the same idea. Ἔχοντες … ἀποθέμενοι … ἀφορῶντες , three participles with the verb after the second, as in Jude 1:20, Jude 1:21; but here the first, not the second, denotes the motive. Τοσοῦτον 1 (thrown forward, for emphasis) ἔχοντεςπερικείμενονἡμῖννέφοςμαρτύρων . Μαρτύρες here, in the light of 11:2, 4, 5, 39, denotes those who have borne personal testimony to the faith. Heaven is now crowded with these (12:23), and the record of their evidence and its reward enters into our experience. Such πνεύματαδικαίωντετελειωμένων speak to us (11:4) still; we are, or ought to be, conscious of their record, which is an encouragement to us ἐπ ʼ ἐσχάτουτῶνἡμερῶντούτων (1:2). It is what we see in them, not what they see in us, that is the writer’ s main point; περικείμενον suggests that the idea of them as witnesses of our struggle (see the quot. from 4 Mac, above) is not to be excluded, but this is merely suggested, not developed. Μάρτυς is already, as in Revelation 2:13 etc., beginning to shade off into the red sense of “ martyr” (cp. Kattenbusch in Zeitsch. fü r neutest. Wissenschaft, 1903, pp. 111 f.; G. Krü ger, ibid., 1916, pp. 264 f.; Reitzenstein in Hermes, 1917, pp. 442 f., and H. Delehaye in Analecta Bollandiana, 1921, pp. 20 f.), though the writer uses the word with a special application here, not as usually of the Christian apostles nor of the prophets, but of the heroes and heroines of the People in pre-Christian ages. He does not even call Jesus Christ μάρτυς (as does the author of the Johannine apocalypse). The meaning of “ witnesses of our ordeal” (i.e. spectators) is supported by passages like Epict. iv. 4. 31, οὐδεὶςἀγὼν 1 δίχαθορύβουγίνεται · πολλοὺςδεῖπρογυμναστὰςεἶναι , πολλοὺς [τοὺς ] ἐπικραυγάζοντας , πολλοὺςέπιστάτας , πολλοὺςθεατάς , and particularly Longinus, de sublim. xiv. 2, who, in arguing that many people catch their inspiration from others, notes: τῷγὰρὄντιμέγατὸἀγώνισμα , τοιοῦτονὑποτίθεσθαιτῶνἰδίωνλόγωνδικαστήριονκαὶθέατρον , καὶἐντηλικούτοιςἥρωσικριταῖςτεκαὶμάρτυσινὑπέχειντῶνγραφομένωνεὐθύναςπεπαῖχθαι . In Educational Aims and Methods (p. 28), Sir Joshua Fitch writes: “ There is a remarkable chapter in the Epistle to the Hebrews, in which the writer unfolds to his countrymen what is in fact a National Portrait Gallery, as he enumerates, one by one, the heroes and saints of the Jewish history, and adds to his catalogue these inspiring words … [Hebrews 11:32-34]. And, finally, he draws this conclusion from his long retrospect … [Hebrews 12:1]. How much of the philosophy of history is condensed into that single sentence ! It is suggestive to us of the ethical purpose which should dominate all our historical teaching. To what end do we live in a country whose annals are enriched by the story of great talents, high endeavours and noble sacrifices, if we do not become more conscious of the possibilities of our own life, and more anxious to live worthily of the inheritance which has come down to us?” Νέφος (never in this sense in LXX) has its usual Greek meaning of “ host” (Latin nimbus or nubes), as, e.g., in Herod. viii. 109, νέφοςτοσοῦτοἀνθρώπων . In ὄγκονἀποθέμενοιπάντακαὶτὴνεὐπερίστατονἁμαρτίαν , ὄγκον is thrown first for the sake of emphasis: “ any encumbrance that handicaps us.” The conjecture ὄκνον (P. Junius) is relevant, but superfluous; sloth is a hindrance, but the general sense of ὄγκος in this connexion is quite suitable. Compare Apul. Apologia, 19 (“ etenim in omnibus ad vitae munia utendis quicquid aptam moderationem supergreditur, oneri potius quam usui exuberat” ), and the evening prayer of the Therapeutae (Philo, vit. Contempl. 3) to have their souls lightened from τοῦτῶναἰσθήσεωνκαὶαἰσθητῶνὄγκου . Ὄγκος had acquired in Greek literature the sense of pride, both bad and good, and it has been taken here as an equivalent for pride in the sense of conceit (fastus), as, e.g., by Bengel and Seeberg. But what the readers seem to have been in danger of was not arrogance so much as a tendency to grow disheartened. The metaphor is not “ reducing our weight,” though ὄγκος had sometimes this association with fleshiness; it refers to the weight of superfluous things, like clothes, which would hinder and handicap the runner. Let us strip for the race, says the writer. Put unmetaphorically, the thought is that no high end like πίστις is possible apart from a steady, unflinching resolve to do without certain things. What these encumbrances are the writer does not say (cp. 11:15, 25, 26); he implies that if people will set themselves to the course of faith in this difficult world, they will soon discover what hampers them. In καὶτὴνεὐπερίστατονἁμαρτίαν , the article does not imply any specific sin like that of apostasy (v. 25); it is ἁμαρτία in general, any sin that might lead to apostasy (e.g. v. 16). The sense of εὐπερίστατος can only be inferred from the context and from the analogy of similar compounds, for it appears to have been a verbal adjective coined by the writer; at any rate no instance of its use in earlier writers or in the papyri has been as yet discovered. As the phrase goes with ἀποθέμενοι , the introductory καί linking τὴν … ἁμαρτίαν with ὄγκον , εὐπερίστατος probably denotes something like “ circumstans nos” (vg), from περιϊστάναι ( = cingere). The εὐ is in any case intensive. Theophylact suggested “ endangering” , as though it were formed from περίστασις (distress or misery). Taken passively, it might mean (a) “ popular,” or (b) “ easily avoided,” or (c) “ easily contracted.” (a) περίστατος may mean what people gather round to admire, as, e.g., in Isokrates, de Permut. 135 E, θαυματοπιΐαιςταῖς … ὑπὸτῶνἀνοήτωνπεριστάτοιςγενομέναις , and εὐπερίστατον would then = “ right popular.” This is at any rate more relevant and pointed than (b), from περιΐσταμαι , which Chrysostom once suggested (τὴνεὐκόλωςπεριισταμένηνἡμᾶςἢτὴνεὐκόλωςπερίστασινδυναμένηνπαθεῖν : μᾶλλονδὲτοῦτο , ῥᾴδιονγὰρεἂνθέλωμενπεριγενέσθαιτῆςἁμαρτίας ), though περίστατος does mean “ admired,” and ἀπερίστατος is sometimes, by way of contrast, “ unsupported.” On the other hand, ἀπερίστατος may mean “ unencumbered,” as in the contrast drawn by Maximus of Tyre (Diss. xx.) between the simple life and a life τῷοὐχἁπλῷἀλλ ʼ ἀναγκαίῳκαὶπεριστάσεωνγέμοντι . The former life he declares was that of the golden age, before men worried themselves with the encumbrances of civilization. In the light of this, εὐπερίστατος might mean “ which sorely hinders” (i.e. active), a sense not very different from (vg) “ circumstans nos,” or “ which at all times is prepared for us” (syr). (c) is suggested by Theodoret, who rightly takes ἡἁμαρτία as generic, and defines εὐπερίστατον as εὐκόλωςσυνισταμένηντεκαὶγινομένην . καὶγὰρὀφθαλμὸςδελεάζεται , ἀκοὴκαταθέλγεται , ἁφὴγαργαρίζεται , καὶγλῶσσαῥᾷσταδιολισθαίνει , καὶὁλογισμὸςπερὶτὸχεῖρονὀξύρῥοπος . But “ easily caught” is hardly tense enough for the context. Wetstein, harking back to περίστατος and περίστασις , connects the adjective with the idea of the heroic onlookers. “ Peccatum uestrum seu defectio a doctrina Christi non in occulto potest committi et latere; non magis quam lapsus cursoris, sed conspicietur ab omnibus. Cogitate iterum, spectatores adesse omnes illos heroas, quorum constantiam laudaui, quo animo uidebunt lapsum uestrum? qua fronte ante oculos ipsorum audebitis tale facinus committere?” But “ open” or “ conspicuous” is, again, too slight and light a sense. If any conjecture had to be accepted, εὐπερίσταλτον would be the best. Cp. the schol. on Iliad, ii. 183 , χλαῖνατετράγωνοςχλαμὺςἡεἰςὀξὺλήγουσα · ἀπέβαλεδὲαὐτὴνδιὰτόεὐπερίσταλτον . Hence Bentley’ s note: “ Lego τὴνὑπὲρἱκανὸνἀπαρτίαν … immo potius εὐπερίσταλτονἁπαρτίαν .” In Soph. Ajax, 821, the hero says of the sword on which he is about to fall, “ I have fixed it in the ground, εὖπεριστείλας , right carefully.” The verbal adjective would therefore mean, in this connexion, “ close-clinging,” while ἀπαρτίαν ( = burden) would be practically a synonym for ὄγκον . Τρέχωμεν … ἀφορῶντες , for the motive-power in life comes from inward convictions. What inspires Christians to hold out and to endure is their vision of the unseen (cp. Herodian, v. 6, 7, ὁδ ʼ Ἀντωνῖνοςἔθεε … ἔςτετὸνθεὸνἀποβλέπωνκαὶτοὺςχαλινοὺςἀντέχωντῶνἵππων · πᾶσάντετὴνὁδὸνἤνυετρέχωνἔμπαλινἑαυτοῦἀφορῶντεεἰςτὸπρόσθεντοῦθεοῦ ), as the writer has already shown (11:1f.). Τὸνπροκείμενονἡμῖνἀγῶνα is built on the regular (p. 193) phrase for a course being set or assigned; e.g. Lucian in de Mercede Conduct. 11, σοὶδὲὁὑπὲρτῆςψυχῆςἀγὼνκαὶὑπὲρἅπαντοςτοῦβίουτοτεπροκεῖσθαιδοκεῖ : Plato’ s Laches, 182a, οὗγὰρἀγῶνοςἀθληταίἐσμενκαὶἐνοἷςἡμῖνὁἀγὼνπρόκειταικτλ ., and Josephus, Ant. viii. 12, 3, οἳπροκειμένωναὐτοῖςἄθλων , ἐπὰνπερίτισπουδάσωσιν , οὐδιαλείπουσιπερὶτούτ ʼ ἐνεργοῦντες . For ἀφορῶντεςεἰς (v. 2), see Epictetus, ii. 19, where the philosopher says he wishes to make his disciples free and happy, εἰςτὸνθεὸνἀφορῶνταςἐνπαντὶκαὶμικρῷκαὶμεγάλῳ . An almost exact parallel occurs in the epitaph proposed by the author of 4 Mac (17:10) for the Maccabean martyrs, οἳκαὶἐξεδίκησαντὸἔθνοςεἰςθεὸνἀφορῶντεςκαὶμέχριθανάτουτὰςβασάνουςὑπομείναντες . Ἀφορᾶν implies the same concentrated1 attention as ἀποβλέπειν (see on 11:26): “ with no eyes for any one or anything except Jesus.” Ἰησοῦν comes at the end of the phrase, as in 2:9, and especially 3:1; the terms τὸντῆςπίστεωςἀρχηγὸνκαὶτελειωτήν describe him as the perfect exemplar of πίστις in his earthly life (cp. 2:13), as the supreme pioneer (ἀρχηγός as in 2:10, though here as the pioneer of personal faith, not as the author of our faith) and the perfect embodiment of faith (τελειωτής , a term apparently coined by the writer). He has realized faith to the full, from start to finish. Τελειωτής does not refer to τελειωθῶσιν in 11:40; it does not imply that Jesus “ perfects” our faith by fulfilling the divine promises. In ὃςἀντὶτῆςπροκειμένηςαὐτῷχαρᾶς , the χαρά is the unselfish joy implied in 2:8, 9, “ that fruit of his self-sacrifice which must be presupposed in order that the self-sacrifice should be a reasonable transaction. Self-sacrificing love does not sacrifice itself but for an end of gain to its object; otherwise it would be folly. Does its esteeming as a reward that gain to those for whom it suffers, destroy its claim to being self-sacrifice? Nay, that which seals its character as self-sacrificing love is, that this to it is a satisfying reward” (M’ Leod Campbell, The Nature of the Atonement, p. 23). As Epictetus bluntly put it, εἂνμὴἐντῷαὐτῷᾖτὸεὐσεβὲςκαὶσυμφέρον , οὐδύναταισωθῆναιτὸεὐσεβὲςἔντινι (i. 27, 14). So, in the Odes of Solomon 31:8-12, Christ says: “ They condemned me when I stood up … But I endured and held my peace, that I might not be moved by them. But I stood unshaken like a firm rock, that is beaten by the waves and endures. And I bore their bitterness for humility’ s sake; that I might redeem my people and inherit it.” Hence ἀντί (as in v. 16 ἀντὶβρώσεως : cp. Plato’ s Menex. 237 A, ἄνδραςἀγαθοὺςἐπαινοῦντες , οἳ … τὴντελευτὴνἀντὶτῆςτῶνζώντωνσωτηρίαςἠλλάξαντο ) means, “ to secure.” The sense of προκειμένης (cp. v. 1) tells against the rendering of ἀντὶ … χαρᾶς as “ instead of the joy which had been set before him,” as though the idea were that of 11:25-26, either the renunciation of his preincarnate bliss (so Wetstein, von Soden, Windisch, Goodspeed, etc., recently), or the renunciation of joy in the incarnate life (so Chrysostom, Calvin), i.e. the natural pleasure of avoiding the way of the cross. This is a Pauline idea (2 Corinthians 8:9, Philippians 2:6, Philippians 2:7), which the writer might have entertained; but (p. l) he never hints at it elsewhere, and the other interpretation tallies with the idea of 2:8, 9. Inspired by this, Jesus ὑπέμεινε (+ τόν , p13 D*) σταυρόν — as we might say in English “ a cross.” Aristotle (Nik. Eth. ix. 1, 2) declares that courage is praiseworthy just because it involves pain, χαλεπώτερονγὰρτὰλυπηρὰὑπομένεινἢτὰἡδέωνἀπέχεσθαι : no doubt the end in view is pleasant (τὸκατὰτὴνἀνδρείαντέλοςἡδύ , cp. Hebrews 12:11), but the end is not always visible. In αἰσχύνηςκαταφρονήσας it is not the horrible torture of the crucifixion, but its stinging indignity (cp. Galatians 3:13 for an even darker view), which is noted as a hard thing; it was a punishment for slaves and criminals, for men of whom the world felt it was well rid (cp. 11:38a). But Jesus did not allow either the dread or the experience of this to daunt him. He rose above “ indignity and contumely, that is to say, all that would most touch that life which man has in the favour of man, and which strikes more deeply than physical infliction, because it goes deeper than the body— wounding the spirit” (M ’ Leod Campbell, The Nature of the Atonement, pp. 229, 230). Musonius (ed. Hense, x.) defined ὕβρις or αἰσχύνη as οἷονλοιδορηθῆναιἢπληγῆναιἥἐμπτυσθῆναι , ὧντὸχαλεπώτατονπληγαί . But the special αἰσχύνη here is that of crucifixion. This, says the writer, Jesus did not allow to stand between him and loyalty to the will of God. It is one thing to be sensitive to disgrace and disparagement, another thing to let these hinder us from doing our duty. Jesus was sensitive to such emotions; he felt disgrace keenly. But instead of allowing these feelings to cling to his mind, he rose above them. This is the force of καταφρονήσας here, as in the last clause of St. Philip of Neri’ s well-known maxim, “ Spernere mundum, spernere te ipsum, spernere te sperni.” It is the only place in the NT where καταφρονεῖν is used in a good sense (true and false shame are noted in Sir 4:20, 21 περὶτῆςψυχῆςσουμὴαἰσχυνθῇς · ἔστινγὰραἰσχύνηἐπάγουσαἁμαρτίαν , καὶἔστιναἰσχύνηδόξακαὶχάρις ). The climax is put in one of the writer’ s favourite quotations from the psalter; only this time he uses κεκάθικεν (perfect here alone for the more usual aorist, 1:3, 8:1, 10:12) = and so has entered on his χαρά . Jesus thus had to suffer worse than anything you have had to bear; this is the thought of vv. 3, 4, which round off the first movement of the appeal in 12:1f.:— 3 Compare him who steadily endured all that hostility from sinful men, so as to keep your own hearts from fainting and failing. 4 You have not had to shed blood yet in the struggle against sin. The writer assumes, as in 5:7f., a close knowledge of the Passion story. Before proceeding to argue that suffering is a fruitful discipline, with which God honours them (v. 5f.), he reminds them that as yet they have not had to face the worst (v. 4). The metaphor of the race-course dies away into the general military metaphor of v. 4, where ἁμαρτία is half-personified as in 3:13, Ἀναλογίσασθε 1 (the γάρ is corroborative: “ yes, ἀναλογίσασθε ” κτλ .) is more than κατανοήσατε (3:1): “ consider him and compare his treatment at the hands of these sinners (ἁμαρτωλῶν as in Mark 14:41) with what you are called to suffer.” Τοιαύτην echoes σταυρόν and αἰσχύνης , and is explained by μέχριςαἵματος in the next verse, while ὑπομεμενηκότα is another aoristic perfect like κεκάθικεν . Ἀντιλογίαν is used here of active opposition, as in Ps Sol 17:44 , where א ca R read ἀντιλογίας , and in the papyri . Like the verb (cp. John 19:12, Romans 10:21), the noun covers more than verbal opposition, as in Numbers 20:13 and Jude 1:11τῇἀντιλογίᾳτοῦΚορέ . The words εἰςαὐτόν (or ἑαυτόν , A P syrhkl etc.: in semetipsum, vg.) have no special emphasis; all the writer means to say is that Jesus himself, Jesus in his own person, had to encounter malevolent opposition. This is one of the places at which textual corruption began early. The curious v. l. ἑαυτούς finds early support in א D (αὐτούς , p13 א c 33, 256, 1288, 1319, 1739, 2127 Lat syrvg boh Orig.); p13 א and D go wrong here as in 11:35, D and Lat as at 11:23 (insertion). It is extremely unlikely that the reading arose from a recollection of passages like Numbers 16:37 (Korah, Dathan, and Abiram) ἡγίασαντὰπυρεῖατῶνἁμαρτωλῶντούτωνἐν (i.e. at the cost of) ταῖςψυχαῖςαὐτῶν , or Proverbs 8:35 οἱδὲεἰςἐμὲἁμαρτάνοντεςἀσεβοῦσινεἰςτὰςἑαυτῶνψυχάς . The notion that an evil-doer really injured himself was a commonplace (e.g. M. Aurel. 9:4 ὁἁμαρτάνωνἐαυτῷἁμαρτάνει · ὁἀδικῶνἑαυτὸνἀδικεῖ , the remark of Chrysippus quoted by Plutarch in de Stoic. repugn. xvi., ἀδικεῖσθαιὑφ ʼ ἑαυτοῦτὸνἀδικοῦντακαὶαὐτὸνἀδικεῖν , ὅτανἄλλονἀδικῇ , Aristotle in Magn Moral. 1196a, ὁἄραταῦταμὴπράττωνἀδικεῖαὑτόν , and Xen. Hellen. i. 7, 19, ἡμαρτηκόταςτὰμέγισταεἰςθεούςτεκαὶὑμᾶςαὐτούς ); Philo works it out in quod Deuteronomy 15:16. But there is no point in suggesting here, as this reading does, that the ἁμαρτωλοί were acting against their better selves, unconsciously injuring their own souls, as they maltreated Jesus. The writer deals with sin in a more straightforward and direct way, and, in spite of all arguments to the contrary (e.g. by Westcott, von Soden, Seeberg, Peake, Wickham), this seems a far-fetched idea here. It is like the similar interpretation of ἑαυτούς in 10:34, a piece of irrelevant embroidery; it “ looks like the conceit which some reader wrote upon his margin” (A. B. Davidson). Theodoret took εἰςἑαυτούς with ἀναλογίσασθε = “ think to yourselves.” Which is not natural, though the Ethiopic version follows this interpretation. In some early versions (e. g. sah arm) neither εἰςἑαυτόν nor εἰςἑαυτούς seems to be implied. In ἵνα … ἐκλυόμενοι , ἐκλυόμενοι (ἐκλελυμένοι p13 D*) might go with ταῖςψυχαῖςὑμῶν , as readily as κάμητε . Both verbs connect with it, to express the general sense of inward exhaustion and faint-heartedness; indeed, Aristotle uses both to describe runners relaxing and collapsing, once the goal has been passed: ἐπὶτοῖςκαμπτῆρσιν (at the goal of the race, not till then) ἐκπνέουσικαὶἐκλύονται · προορῶντεςγὰρτὸπέραςοὐκάμνουσιπρότερον (Rhet. iii. 9 2). In v. 4 οὔπω (γάρ is superfluously added by D L 440, 491, 823 arm sah boh) κτλ does not necessarily imply that they would be called upon to shed their blood in loyalty to their faith, as if martyrdom was the inevitable result of tenacity. Nor is the writer blaming them; he does not mean to suggest that if they had been truly decided for God against the world, they would by this time have suffered μέχριςαἵματος . He is shaming them, not blaming them. “ Your sufferings have been serious and sharp (10:32f.), but nothing to what others before you, and especially Jesus, have had to bear. Will you give way under a lesser strain than theirs?” The coming of the messiah was to be heralded by birth-pangs of trouble for his adherents on earth, and it might be supposed that the writer implies here: “ The Coming One (10:37) is near (12:26), as is evident from your woes; do not fail, but be ready for him.” But this line of thought is not worked out elsewhere by the writer, and is not necessary to his argument at this point. To fight μέχριςαἵματος is to resist to the death; cp. the cry of Judas Maccabaeus to his troops (2 Mac 13:14), ἀγωνίσασθαιμέχριθανάτου . Μέχριςαἵματος has the same meaning of a mortal combat, e.g. in Heliod. vii. 8, τῆςμέχριςαἵματοςστάσεως . Note another case of rhetorical alliteration in αἵμ . ἀντικ … ἁμαρτ . ἀνταγωνιζόμενοι , and the use of ἀνταγωνιζέσθαι above (v. 1) in the quot. from 4 Mac. The connexion of thought in vv. 5f, is: God has not yet asked from you the supreme sacrifice (v. 4), and, besides (vv. 5f.), any demand he makes upon your courage is in your highest interests. 5And have you forgotten the word of appeal that reasons with you as sons?— “ My son, never make light of the Lord’ s discipline, never faint under his reproofs; 6for the Lord disciplines the man he loves, and scourges every son he receives.” 7It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons; for where is the son who is not disciplined by his father? 8Discipline is the portion (μέτοχοιγεγόνασι , as 3:14) of all; if you get no discipline, then you are not sons, but bastards. 9Why, we had fathers of our flesh to discipline us, and we yielded to them! Shall we not far more submit to the Father of our spirits, and so live? 10For while their discipline was only for a time, and inflicted at their pleasure, he disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his own holiness. 11 Discipline always seems for the time to be a thing of pain, not of joy; but those who are trained by it reap the fruit of it afterwards in the peace of an upright life. With the interrogative καὶἐκλέλησθεκτλ (v. 5) the writer opens his next argument and appeal. All such ὑπομονή means a divine παιδεία or moral training, which we have the honour of receiving from God. Instead of adducing the example of Jesus, however (see on 5:7, 8), he quotes from the book of Proverbs (vv. 5, 6), and then applies the general idea (vv. 7-11). Ἐκλανθάνεσθαι (not a LXX term) in v. 5; is slightly stronger than the more common ἐπιλανθάνεσθαι , though it may be rhetorically chosen for the sake of assonance after ἐκλυόμενοι . The παράκλησις is personified rhetorically; Ἥτις (2:3) ὑμῖν (for the scripture applies to all believers) ὡςυἱοῖςδιαλέγεται . It is the παράκλησις of God, who speaks as a father to his son , though in the original “ son” is merely the pupil of the sage (personifying the divine wisdom). Παράκλησις in Alexandrian Judaism “ is the regular term for ‘ an appeal’ to an individual to rise to the higher life of philosophy” (Conybeare’ s ed. of Philo’ s de vit. Contempl., p. 201). The quotation is from Proverbs 3:11, Proverbs 3:12 (A): υἱέ , μὴὀλιγώρειπαιδείαςΚυρίου , μηδὲἐκλύουὑπ ʼ αὐτοῦἐλεγχόμενος : ὃνγὰρἀγαπᾷΚύριοςπαιδεύει μαστιγοῖδὲπάνταυἱὸνὃνπαραδέχεται . After υἱέ , μου is added (except by D* 31 Old Latin, Clem.), but otherwise the citation is word for word. Philo (De Congressu. Erud. 31) quotes the same passage to prove that discipline and hardship are profitable for the soul (οὕτωςἄραἡἐπίπληξιςκαὶνουθεσίακαλὸννενόμισται , ὥστεδι ʼ αὐτῆςἡπρὸςθεὸνὁμολογίασυγγένειαγίνεται . τίγὰροἰκειότερονυἱῷπατρὸςἢυἱοῦπατρί ;). The LXX contains a double mistranslation. (a) It is at least doubtful if the Hebrew text of the second line means “ be not weary of” ; the alternative is a parallel to the first line, “ scorn not.” (b) It is certain that the second line of v. 6; originally ran, “ he afflicts the man in whom he delights,” or “ and delights in him as a father in his son.” Our writer, following the free LXX version, notes the twofold attitude of men under hardship. They may determine to get through it and get over it, as if it had no relation to God, seeing nothing of him in it. Stronger natures take this line; they summon up a stoical courage, which dares the world to do its worst to them. This is ὀλιγωρεῖνπαιδείαςκυρίου . It ignores any divine meaning in the rough experience. Other natures collapse weakly ; they see God in the trial, but he seems too hard upon them, and they break down in self-pity, as if they were victims of an unkind providence. Ἐλεγχόμενος … παιδεύει is used, as in Revelation 3:19 , of pointing out and correcting faults; μαστιγοῖ , as in Judith 8:27 and often elsewhere; παραδέχεται , in the sense of Luk 15:2. In fact, the temper inculcated in this passage resembles that of Ps.-Sol 16:11f., where the writer prays: γογγυσμὸνκαὶὀλιγοψυχίανἐνθλίψειμάκρυνονἀπ ʼ ἐμοῦ , εἀνἁμαρτήσωἐντῷσεπαιδεύεινεἰςἐπιστροφήν … ἐντῷἐλέγχεσθαιψυχὴνἐνχειρὶσαπρίαςαὐτῆς … ἐντῷὑπομεῖναιδίκαιονἐντούτοιςἐλεηθήσεταιὑπὸκυρίου . In εἰςπαιδείανὑπομένετε (v. 7), with which the writer begins his application of the text, the vigour is lost by the change of εἰς into εἰ (in a group of late cursives, including 5, 35, 203, 226c, 241, 242, 257, 337, 378, 383, 487, 506, 547, 623, 794, 917, 1319, 1831, 1891, 1898, 2127, 2143 + Theophyl.), and ὑπομένετε is indicative, not imperative.1 To endure rightly, one must endure intelligently; there is a reason for it in God’ s relations with us . Προσφέρεται (cp. Syll. 371:13, i. a.d.) is a non-biblical Greek term for “ treating” or “ handling” ; cp. Syll. 371:13, i a.d., and Latyschev’ s Inscript. Antiq. Orae Septentrionalis, I. 22:28 τοῖςμὲνἡλικιώταιςπροσφερόμενοςὡςἀδελφός … τοῖςδὲπαισὶνὡςπατήρ ); τίς goes with υἱός , as in Matthew 7:9 etc., and ἐστιν after υἱός is rightly omitted by א * A P W 104, 256 vg sah Origen. A mood of bitter scepticism about the discipline of providence recurs in some contemporary Roman writers; both Lucan (Pharsalia, iv. 807 f., “ Felix Roma quidem, civesque habitura beatos, | si libertatis superis tam cura placeret | quam uindicta placet” ) and Tacitus (Hist. I.3, “ nec enim umquam atrocioribus populi Romani cladibus magisve iustis indiciis adprobatum est non esse curae deis securitatem nostram, esse ultionem” ) speak as if the gods showed an unpaternal vindictiveness. But the idea of a fatherly providence was far-spread, both within and without Judaism. When our author argues: “ You think that if God were fatherly, he would spare you these hardships? On the contrary, they are the proof of his wise affection” — he is not far from Seneca’ s position (in the de Providentia, iv. 7): “ hos itaque deus quos probat, quos amat, indurat recognoscit, exercet.” And in 2 Mac 6:12 the author bids his readers remember τὰςτιμωρίαςμὴπρὸςὄλεθρον , ἀλλὰπρὸςπαιδίαντοῦγένουςἡμῶνεἶναι . According to Sanhedr. 101a (cp. Sifre, Deu_32), Rabbi Akiba comforted R. Eliezer on his sick-bed by explaining to him that “ chastisements are precious,” whereas the other three rabbis who accompanied him had only praised the sick man for his piety. There is a fine passage in Philo’ s quad deter. potiori insid. soleat, 39-40, where he argues that discipline at God’ s hands is better than being left to oneself in sin and folly; εὐτυχέστεροιδὲκαὶκρείττουςτῶνἀνεπιτροπεύτωννέωνοἱμάλισταμὲνἐπιστασίαςκαὶἀρχῆςἀξιωθέντεςφυσικῆς , ἣνοἱγεννήσαντεςἐπὶτέκνοιςκεκλήρωνται … ἱκετεύωμενοὖντὸνθεὸνοἱσυνειδήσειτῶνοἰκείωνἀδικημάτωνἐλεγχόμενοι , κολάσαιἡμᾶςμᾶλλονἢπαρεῖναι . Similarly, in de sacrificantibus, 11, he writes of parental care, human and divine, apropos of Deu 14:1 δηλονότιπρονοίαςκαὶκηδεμονίαςἀξιωθησόμενοιτῆςὡςἐκπατρός · ἡδὲἐπιμέλειατοσοῦτονδιοίσειτῆςἀπ ʼ ἀνθρώπωνὅσονπερ , οἶμαι , καὶὁἐπιμελούμενοςδιαφέρει . Compare M. Aur. i. 17, τὸἄρχοντικαὶπατρὶὑποταχθῆναι , ὃςἔμελλεπάντατὸντῦφονἀφαιρήσεινμου (cp. 5:31). When the king asks, in the Epist. Arist. 248, what is the supreme instance of neglect , the Jew answers, εἰτέκνωνἄφροντίςτιςεἴη , καὶμὴκατὰπάντατρόπονἀγαγεῖνσπεύδοι … τὸδὲἐπιδεῖσθαιπαιδείανσωφροσύνηςμετασχεῖν , θεοῦδυνάμειτοῦτογίνεται . Jerome writes in his letter (Epist. xxii. 39) to Eustochium: “ haec est sola retributio, cum sanguis sanguine conpensatur et redempti cruore Christi pro redemptore libenter occumbimus. quis sanctorum sine certamine coronatus est? Abel justus occiditur; Abraham uxorem periclitatur amittere, et, ne in inmensum uolumen extendam, quaere et invenies singulos diuersa perpessos. solus in deliciis Salomon fuit et forsitan ideo corruit. quem enim diligit dominus, corripit; castigat autem omnem filium, quem recipit.” He often quotes this verse (6) in his letters of counsel and warning. Thus in 68:1 he prefixes it with the remark, “ magna ira est, quando peccantibus non irascitur deus.” The modern parallel would be Browning’ s hero in Christmas-Eve and Easter-Day (pt. 2, xxxiii.), who is “ happy that I can Be crossed and thwarted as a man, Not left in God’ s contempt apart, With ghastly smooth life.” In v. 8 πάντες recalls πάνταυἱόν (v. 6). Νόθοι are children born out of wedlock, who are left to themselves; the father is not sufficiently interested in them to inflict on them the discipline that fits his legitimate children for their place in the home. Νόθος (not a LXX term) seems to mean born of mixed marriages, in Wis 4:3 . So Philo compares polytheists and lovers of material pleasure to τῶνἐκπόρνηςἀποκυηθέντων (de Confus. ling. 28), as distinguished from the sons of God. The double ἔστε makes the sentence more vivid; the writer supposes an actual case. In vv. 9, 10 the writer simply develops this idea of παιδεία , comparing the human and the divine methods. Hence εἶτα cannot mean here “ further” (deinde); it is “ besides,” in the sense that it brings out another element in the conception. Εῖτα might be taken interrogatively ( = itane or siccine), to introduce an animated question (as often in Plato, e.g. Leges, 964b, Theat. 207d, Sophist. 222b), though we should expect a δέ in the second clause here or a καί before οὐπολὺμᾶλλον . Kypke suggests that εἶτα = εἰδέ (quodsi) as, e.g., in Jos. B.J. iii. 8, 5, εἶτ ʼ ἂνμὲνἀφανίσῃτιςἀνθρώπουπαρακαταθήκην , ἢδιάθηταικακῶς . Παιδευτής only occurs once in the LXX, and there as a description of God ; in 4 Mac 9:6 it is applied to a man, as in Romans 2:20. Καὶἐνετρεπόμεθα (“ reverebamur,” vg), we submitted respectfully to them , as in Matthew 21:37, not, we amended our ways (as in LXX, e.g. 2 Chronicles 7:14 and Philo’ s quaest. in Gen. iv. 9 τὸμὴἁμαρτάνεινμηδὲντὸπαραμέγιστονἀγαθόν · τὸἁμαρτάνονταἐντραπῆναισυγγένεςἐκείνου ). In οὐπολὺμᾶλλον , the more common πολλῷ is read by Dc K L, and after πολύ a few authorities (p13 א c D* 1739 Origen) supply the δέ which is strictly required after the preceding μέν . The description of God as τῷπατρὶτῶνπνευμάτων is unexpected. In the vocabulary of Hellenistic Judaism God is called ὁτῶνπνευμάτωνκαὶπάσηςἐξουσίαςδυνάστης (2 Mac 3:24), and “ Lord of spirits” is a favourite Enochic title; but “ spirits” here cannot mean angels (cp. Numbers 16:22). The contrast between τοὺςτῆςσαρκὸςπατέρας and τῷπατρὶτῶνπνευμάτων denotes God as the author of man’ s spiritual being; the expression is quite intelligible as a statement of practical religion, and is only rendered ambiguous when we read into it later ideas about traducianism and creationism, which were not in the writer’ s mind. Shall we not submit to Him, the writer asks, καὶζήσομεν “ Monemur hoc verbo nihil esse nobis magis exitiale quam si nos in Dei obsequium tradere recusemus” (Calvin). In v. 10 the assumption that the readers were mature men (εἴχομεν , v. 9) is made explicit by πρὸςὀλίγαςἡμέρας (till we became men). Πρός here, as in Wis 16:6 etc., means duration; it is not final, as if the parental discipline were with a view to the short, earthly life alone. Κατὰτὸδοκοῦναὐτοῖς (as they chose) refers to the arbitrariness of the patria potestas. “ Parents may err, but he is wise,” as the Scottish metrical paraphrase puts it. The writer has in mind the familiar patria potestas of the Romans, as in Terence’ s Heauton Timoroumenos (100: “ vi et via pervolgata patrum” ; 204-207: “ parentum iniuriae unius modi sunt ferme … atque haec sunt tamen ad virtutem omnia” ), where one father is confessing to another how he had mishandled his boy (99 f.: “ ubi rem rescivi, coepi non humanitus neque ut animum decuit aegrotum adulescentuli tractare” ). Compare the remark of the Persian officer in Xenophon’ s Cyropaedia (ii. 2, 14), who argued that a man who set himself to make people laugh did less for them than a man who made them weep, and instanced fathers— κλαύμασιμένγεκαὶπατέρεςυἱοῖςσωφροσύνηνμηχανῶνται . This is wholesome correction. But it was not always so. “ Qur postremo filio suscenseam, patres ut faciunt ceteri?” old Demaenetus asks, in the Asinaria (49) of Plautus. Ovid’ s “ durus pater” (Amores, i. 15, 17) was more than a tradition of literature. Pliny tells us, for example, that he had once to remonstrate with a man who was thrashing his son for wasting money on horses and dogs (Epp. ix. 2): “ haec tibi admonitus immodicae seueritatis exemplo pro amore mutuo scripsi, ne quando tu quoque filium tuum acerbius duriusque tractares.” There is also the story told by Aelian (Var. Hist. 9:33) about the youth who, when asked by his father what he had learned from Zeno, was thrashed for failing to show anything definite, and then calmly replied that he had learned stoically to put up with a father’ s bad temper . Son, says Dio Chrysostom (xv. 240 M), τρέφονταιπάντεςὑπὸτῶνπατέρωνκαὶπαίονταιπόλλακιςὑπ ʼ αὐτῶν . The general point of view is put by Epictetus (Enchiridion, 30, πατήρἐστιν · ὑπαγορεύεταιἐπιμελεῖσθαι , παραχωρεῖνἁπάντων , ἀνέχεσθαιλοιδοροῦντος , παίοντος ), and the connexion of “ life” with παιδεία in Proverbs 4:13 ἐπιλαβοῦἐμῆςπαιδείας , μὴἀφῆς , ἀλλὰφύλαξοναὐτὴνσεαυτῷεἰςζωήνσου : Proverbs 6:23 λύχνοςἐντολήνόμουκαὶφῶς , καὶὁδὸςζωῆςκαὶἔλεγχοςκαὶπαιδεία , and Sir 4:17f. Now for the contrast. Ὁδὲἐπὶτὸσυμφέρον , which is explained in εἰςτὸμεταλαβεῖν (cp. 6:7) τῆςἁγιότητοςαὐτοῦ . Ἁγιότης is a rare term, which begins to appear late in Hellenistic Judaism (e.g. 2 Mac 15:2 τοῦπάνταἐφορῶντοςμεθ ʼ ἁγίοτητος : Test. Leviticus 3:4 ὑπεράνωπάσηςἁγιότητος ), and, except as a v.l. in 2 Corinthians 1:12, occurs nowhere else in the NT. Here it denotes the divine life, to share in which is the outcome of ὁἁγιασμὸςοὗχωρὶςοὐδεὶςὄψεται (i.e. have a direct experience of) τὸνκύριον (v. 14). The writer, in this contrast, is simply arguing that the divine education, which involves some suffering, as all παιδεία does, is more worthy of obedience from mature people than even the parental discipline to which, for all its faults of temper, they submitted during childhood. The sayings of Isokrates, that while the roots of παιδεία were bitter, its fruits were sweet, was a commonplace of ancient morals; the writer is going to develop it in a moment. Meantime he alludes to the equally well-known truth that παιδεία might involve severe physical treatment. Two examples may be added of this doctrine that education involves a discipline which sometimes requires the infliction of pain. Maximus of Tyre (Diss. iv. 7), in arguing that the desire to give pleasure is by no means an invariable proof of true affection, asks: φιλοῦσινδὲπουκαὶπαῖδαςπατέρεςκαὶδιδάσκαλοιμαθητάς · καὶτὶἃνεἴηἀνιαρότερονἢπαιδὶπατὴρκαὶμαθητῇδιδάσκαλος ; so Philo argues in de Migrat. Abrah. 20, σωφρονιστῶνὡςἔοικετοῦτόἐστιτὸἔθος , παιδαγωγῶν , διδασκάλων , γονέων , πρεσβυτέρων , ἀρχόντων , νόμων · ὀνειδίζοντεςγὰρ , ἔστιδ ʼ ὅπουκαὶκολάζοντεςἕκαστοιτούτωνἀμείνουςτὰςψυχὰςἀπεργάζονταιτῶνπαιδενομένων . καὶἐχθρὸςμὲνοὐδεὶςοὐδενί , φίλοιδὲπᾶσιπάντες . In de parent. Col_4, he explains, διὰτοῦτ ʼ ἔξεστιτοῖςπατράσικαὶκατηγορεῖνπρὸςτοὺςπαῖδαςκαὶἐμβριθέστεροννουθετεῖνκαὶ , εἰμὴταῖςδι ʼ ἀκοῶνἀπειλαῖςὑπείκουσι , τύπτεινκαὶπροπηλακίζεινκαὶκαταδεῖν . In v. 11 the writer sums up what he has been saying since v. 5. Discipline or παιδείαπρὸςτὸπαρόν (a classical Greek phrase = for the moment, e.g. Thuc. ii. 22, ὁρῶναὐτοὺςπρὸςτὸπαρὸνχαλεπαίνοντας ) οὐ (πᾶς … οὐ = absolute negative, not any) δοκεῖ (to human feelings and judgment) χαρᾶςεἶναιἀλλὰλύπης (to be a matter of, εἶναι with gen. as in 10:39). Πᾶσαμέν (א P 33, 93) and πᾶσαδέ (p13 א c A Dc H K L Ψ 6, 326, 929. 1288, 1836 vg syr boh Chrys. etc.) practically mean the same thing, for the μέν is concessive and δέ is metabatic. But probably it was the awkwardness of the double μέν that led to the alteration of this one. The other readings, πᾶσαγάρ (Cosm (221 C) Jer. Aug.) and πᾶσα (D 104 460 917 arm eth Orig. Cosm (376 D)) are obviously inferior attempts to clear up the passage. ῞υστερονδέ (cp. Proverbs 5:3, Proverbs 5:4 (of the harlot) ἣπρὸςκαιρὸνλιπαίνεισονφάρυγγα · ὕστερονμέντοιπικρότερονχολῆςεὑρήσεις ), but later on discipline yields fruit; it is not a stone flung down arbitrarily on human life, but a seed. By καρπὸνεἰρηνικὸνδικαιοσύνης the writer means fruit (καρπός as often = result or outcome), which consists in (genit. of apposition) δικαιοσύνη (as in 11:7 a generic term for the good life as a religious relationship to God). But why εἰρηνικόν Possibly in contrast to the restiveness and pain of the period of discipline, when people are being trained ; when the discipline does its perfect work, there is no friction between the soul and God. But there is also the suggestion of “ saving” or “ blissful.” Philo quotes Proverbs 3:11, Proverbs 3:12 (see above on v. 5) as a saying of Solomon the peaceful ; the significance of this he finds in the thought that subjection and obedience are really a wholesome state for people who are inclined to be self-assertive, uncontrolled, and quarrel-some. He thinks that Noah is rightly called by a name denoting rest, since μετίασινἠρεμαῖονδὲκαὶἡσυχάζοντακαὶσταθερὸνἔτιδὲκαὶεἰρηνικὸνβίονοἱκαλοκἀγαθίαντετιμηκότες (Abrah. 5). To take εἰρηνικόν in some such sense (salutaris) would yield a good interpretation; and this is confirmed by the similar use of εἰρήνη in v. 14 and of the adjective in 3 Mac 6:32, where the Jews, in the ecstasy of their relief, χοροὺςσυνίσταντοεὐφροσύνηςεἰρηνικῆςσημεῖον . Those who stand their training reap a safe, sound life at last. In its social aspect, εἰρηνικόν could only refer to the brotherly love of the community; the writer might be throwing out a hint to his readers, that suffering was apt to render people irritable, impatient with one another’ s faults. The later record even of the martyrs, for example, shows that the very prospect of death did not always prevent Christians from quarrelling in prison. This may be the meaning of εἰρηνικόν in James 3:18, but it is out of keeping with the present context. A close parallel to v. 11 is the saying of Aristotle (see above, for the similar remark of Isokrates), quoted by Diog. Laertius (v. 1, 18): τῆςπαιδείαςἔφητὰςμὲνῥίζαςεἶναιπικρὰς , γλυκεῖςδὲτοὺςκαρπούς . In Epist. Arist. 232, τοὺςγὰρἀπ ʼ αὐτῆςἀλυπίανκατασκευάζειν , though the ἀλυπία here is freedom from misfortune. Clem. Alex. (Strom. vii. 10. 56), after speaking of the time when we are delivered from the chastisements and punishments ἂςἐκτῶνἁμαρτημάτωνεἰςπαιδείανὑπομένομενσωτήριον [Hebrews 12:7], adds: μεθ ʼ ἢνἀπολύτρωσιντὸγέραςκαὶαἱτιμαὶτελειωθεῖσινἀποδίδονται … καὶθεοὶτὴνπροσηγορίανκέκληνταιοἱσύνθρονοιτῶνἄλλωνθεῶν , τῶνὑπὸτῷσωτῆριπρώτωντετάγμενων , γενησόμενοι . The writer now resumes the imperative tone (vv. 12f.), with a blend of counsel and warning. The discipline of trouble is viewed under an active aspect; men must co-operate with God, exerting themselves to avoid sin (v. 1) by the exercise of personal zeal and church-discipline. Otherwise, the results may be fatal. The exhortation broadens out here, resuming the tone and range of 10:25f. 12 So (διό as in 6:1) “ up with your listless hands! Strengthen your weak knees!” 13 And “ make straight paths for your feet” to walk in. You must not let the lame get dislocated, but rather make them whole. 14 Aim at peace with all— at that consecration without which no one will ever see the Lord; 15 see to it that no one misses the grace of God, “ that no root of bitterness grows up to be a trouble” by contaminating all the rest of you; 16 that no one turns to sexual vice or to a profane life as Esau did— Esau who for a single meal “ parted with his birthright.” 17 You know how later on, when he wanted to obtain his inheritance of blessing, he was set aside; he got no chance to repent, though he tried for it with tears. For the first time, since the hints in 3:12, 4:1 and 6:11, the writer alludes to differences of attainment in the little community. Hitherto he has treated them as a solid whole. But the possibility of individual members giving way has been voiced in 10:29, and now the writer (13b) widens his appeal; his readers are to maintain their faith not only for their own sakes but for the sake of those who at their side are in special danger of collapsing. The courage of their ὑπομονή is more than a personal duty; they are responsible for their fellow-members, and this involves the duty of inspiriting others by their own unswerving, unflagging faith. The admonition, as in 13:1f, is addressed to the whole community, not to their leaders. The general aim of vv. 12, 13 is to produce the character praised by Matthew Arnold in his lines on Rugby Chapel: “ Ye move through the ranks, recall The stragglers, refresh the out-worn … Ye fill up the gaps in our files, Strengthen the wavering line, Stablish, continue our march, On, to the bound of the waste, On, to the City of God.” He begins in v. 12 by using scriptural language borrowed freely from Isaiah 35:3 , but in a form already current in Sir 25:32 , and also from Proverbs 4:26 . This metaphorical language for collapsing in listless despair is common, e.g., in Sir 2:12 where χεῖρεςπαρειμέναι is bracketed with “ cowardly hearts,” in Philo’ s description of the Israelites who longed to return to Egypt, οἱμὲνγὰρπροκαμόντεςἀνέπεσον , βαρὺνἀντίπαλονἡγησάμενοιτὸνπόνον , καὶτὰςχεῖραςὑπ ʼ ἀσθενείαςὥσπερἀπειρηκότεςἀθληταὶκαθῆκαν (de Congressu Erud. 29, cp. Hebrews 11:15), and especially in the description of moral encouragement in Job 4:3, Job 4:4 εἰγὰρσὺἐνουθέτησαςπολλοὺς , καὶχεῖραςἀσθενοῦςπαρεκάλεσας , ἀσθενοῦντάςτεἐξανέστησαςῥήμασιν , γόνασίντεἀδυνατοῦσινθάρσοςπεριέθηκας . In Deuteronomy 32:36 παραλελυμένους is parallel to παρειμένους , and in Zephaniah 3:16 the appeal is θάρσει … μὴπαρείσθωσαναἱχεῖρέςσου .1 Ἀνορθώσατε (literally = straighten, renew) goes with γόνατα better than with χεῖρας , but the sense is plain. In v. 13, if ποιήσατε is read in the first clause, καὶτροχιὰςὀρθὰςποιήσατετοῖςποσὶνὑμῶν is a hexameter (p. lvii). By τὸχωλόν the writer means “ those who are lame,” these crippled souls in your company. Probably the ποιεῖτε of א * P 33, 917, 1831 (Orig.) has been conformed, in ποιήσατε (א c A D H K L, etc., Chrys.), to the preceding ἀνορθώσατε (so, e.g., B. Weiss, in Texte u. Untersuch. xiv. 3, 4, 9, who declares that the older codices never yield any case of an original aor. being changed into a present), though some edd. (e.g. von Soden) regard ποιήσατε as the original text and ποιεῖτε as having been conformed to LXX (cp. Matthew 3:3). As ἰαθῇδὲμᾶλλον shows, ἐκτραπῇ here has its medical sense , not the common sense of being “ turned aside” (as, e.g., in Philo, Quaest. in Exodus 23:20 οἱἀφυλάκτωςὁδοιποροῦντεςδιαμαρτάναυσιντῆςὀρθῆςκαὶλεωφόρουὡςπολλάκιςεἰςἀνοδίαςκαὶδυσβάτουςκαὶτραχείαςἀτραποὺςἐκτρέπεσθαι · τὸπαραπλήσιόνἐστινὅτεκαὶαἱψυχαὶτῶννεῶνπαιδείαςἀμοιροῦσιν , and in M. Aurel. 1:7, καὶτὸμὴἐκτραπῆναιεἰςζῆλονσοφιστικόν ). In Od. Sol 6:14f. the ministers of the divine grace are praised in similar terms for their service to weaker Christians: “ They have assuaged the dry lips, And the will that had fainted they have raised up: … And limbs that had fallen They have straightened and set up.” But here it is the members as a whole who are addressed, and τροχ . ὀρθαςπ . τ . ποσὶνὑμῶν means “ keep straight” — it is the only way to help your fellow-members who have weakened themselves. Keep up the tone of your community, move in the right direction, to prevent any of your number from wavering and wandering. The straight path is the smooth path, it is implied; if any limping soul is allowed to stray from the straight course, under the influence of a bad example, he will be made worse instead of better. The admonition in Test. Sim. 5:2, 3 is interesting, as it suggests the train of thought here between vv. 12f. and 16f.: ἀγαθύνατετὰςκαρδίαςὑμῶνἐνώπιονΚυρίου καὶεὐθύνατετὰςὁδοὺςὑμῶνἐνώπιοντῶνἀνθρώπων καὶἔσεσθεεὑρίσκοντεςχάρινἐνώπιονΚυρίουκαὶἀνθρώπων . φυλάξασθεοὖνἀπὸτῆςπορνείας , ὅτιἡπορνείαμήτηρἐστὶτῶνκακῶν , χωρίζουσαἀπὸτοῦθεοῦκαὶπροσεγγιζοῦσατῷΒελίαρ . The author of ΠρὸςἙβραίους knows that the difficulties in the way of faith are more than mere despair. In 12:1-11 he has been dealing with the need of cheerful courage under the strain of life; this leads to the appeal of v. 12. But while there is nothing so infectious as cowardice or despair, he rapidly passes on, in vv. 13f. (καίκτλ .), to warn his readers against some specific temptations in the moral life. He continues, in a third imperative (v. 14), εἰρήνηνδιώκετε (an OT phrase, 1 p 3:11) μετὰπάντων . Here μετά goes with διώκετε in the sense of “ along with” , and πάντων means “ all the (other) ἅγιοι ” (as in 13:24). The call is to make common cause with all the rest of the Christians in the quest for God’ s εἰρήνη , i.e. (see above on v. 11) the bliss and security of a life under God’ s control. It is εἰρήνη in a sense corresponding to the older sense of felicity and prosperity on the ground of some (messianic) victory of God, practically as in Luke 1:79, Luke 19:38 the Christian salvation; only this comprehensive sense does justice to the term here and in 13:20. Hence the following καί is almost = “ even.” Εἰρήνη in a similar sense occurs repeatedly in the context of the passage already quoted from Proverbs: e.g. 3:1, 2 υἱέ , ἐμῶννομίμωνμὴἐπιλανθάνου , τὰδὲῥήματαμουτηρείτωσὴκαρδία · μῆκοςγὰρβίουκαὶἔτηζωῆςκαὶεἰρήνηνπροσθήσουσίνσοι … 3:9 ἀπάρχουαὐτῷἀπὸσῶνκαρπῶνδικαιοσύνης … 3:16, 17 ἐκτοῦστόματοςαὐτῆςἐκπορεύεταιδικαιοσύνηκαὶπάντεςοἱτρίβοιαὐτῆςἐνεἰράνῃ … 3:28 ἵναπορεύῃπεποιθὼςἐνεἰρήνῃπάσαςτὰςὁδούςσου . After Proverbs 4:26 (as quoted above) there follows the promise, αὐτὸςδὲτὰςὀρθὰςποιήσειτὰςτροχίαςσου , τὰςδὲπορείαςσουἐνεἰρηνῃπροάξει . The conventional interpretation takes εἰρήνην with μετὰπάντων (i.e. all your members). This yields a fair sense, for a quarrelsome church is a real hindrance to effective faith; the quarrelsomeness here would be due to the presence of faulty persons, whose lapses were apt to be irritating, and what would break εἰρήνη (i e. mutual harmony) in such cases is the spirit of harshness in dealing with faults, censoriousness, or aloofness, just as what makes for εἰρήνη is a concern for purity and goodness inspired by forbearance and patience. But all this is read into the text. There is no hint of such dangers elsewhere in ΠρὸςἙβραίους as there is in 1 P 3:8f. and Romans 12:16f. Our author is characteristically putting a new edge on an old phrase like διώκετεεἰρήνην . What εἰρήνη specially involved is shown in καὶτὸνἁγιασμόνκτλ . Here ἁγιασμός is not to be identified with σωφροσύνη in the special sense of 13:4; it is the larger “ consecration” to God which all ἅγιοι must maintain. In fact, διώκετετὸνἁγιασμόνκτλ . is simply another description of the experience called “ sharing in God’ s ἁγιότης ” (v. 10) Χωρίς generally precedes, here it follows, the word it governs , either for the sake of the rhythm or to avoid a hiatus . “ To see the Lord,” is an expression common in Philo for that vision of the Divine being which is the rare reward of those who can purify themselves from the sensuous (cp. H. A. A. Kennedy’ s Philo’ s Contribution to Religion, pp. 192 f.). Κύριος is God in vv. 5 and 6; here, in view of 9:28, it might be Jesus (as 2:3), though “ to see God” as a term for intimate personal fellowship is more adequate to the context. People must be on the alert against tendencies to infringe this ἁγιασμός (v. 15); ἐπισκοποῦντες , one form and function of παρακαλοῦντες (10:25), introduces three clauses, beginning each with μήτις , though it is not clear whether the third (v. 16) is intended as an example of μιανθῶσιν or as a further definition of the second μήτις (ῥίζακτλ .). The first clause, μήτιςὑστερῶνἀπὸτῆςχάριτοςτοῦθεοῦ , shows ὑστερεῖν (4:1) with ἀπό as in Ecclesiastes 6:2 ὑστερῶν … ἀπὸπάντοςοὗἐπιθυμήσει (Sir 7:34 μὴὑστέρειἀπὸκλαιόντων has a different sense). In writing ἀπὸτῆςχάριτοςτοῦθεοῦ the writer may have had already in mind the words of Deu 29:18 , which he is about to quote in the next clause. The rhetorical tone comes out in the two iambic trimeters οὗχωρὶςοὐδεὶςὄψεταιτὸνκύριον and ἐπισκοποῦντεςμήτιςὑστερῶνἀπό . The next clause, μήτιςῥίζαπικρίαςἄνωφύουσαἐνοχλῇ , is a reminiscence of the warning against idolatry and apostasy in Deuteronomy 29:18, which A (as well as F) preserves in this form, μήτίςἐστινἐνὑμῖνῥίζαπικρίαςἄνωφύουσαἐνοχλῇ (so B: ἐνχολῇ B) καὶπικρίᾳ (B: καὶπικρία B). The form is ungrammatical, for ἐστιν is superfluous, as is καὶπικρίᾳ . On the other hand, the text of B yields no good sense, for a root can hardly be said to grow up ἐνχολῇ , and καὶπικρία is left stranded; the alteration of πικρίᾳ in B does not help matters, for it is not preceded by ἐνχολῇ . Plainly the writer found something like the words of A in his text of the LXX; he may have omitted ἐστιν and καὶπικρίᾳ . The confusion between -οχλη and χολη is intelligible, as ὄχλος and χόλος are confused elsewhere (Blass reads ἐνχολῇ here, which requires ᾖ or ἐστιν to be supplied). Ἐνοχλῇ is the present subjunctive of ἐνοχλεῖν , which is used in 1 Est 2:19 and 2:24 of rebellion disturbing and troubling the realm. As a general term for “ troubling” or “ vexing,” it is common both in classical Greek and in the papyri, either absolutely or with an accusative, as, e.g., Polystr. Epicur. (ed. C. Wilke) 8b. 4, οὐδ ʼ ὑφ ʼ ἑνὸςτούτωνἐνοχλησαμένουςἡμᾶς , the edict of M. Sempronius Liberalis (Aug. 29, 154 a.d.): ἐντῇοἰκείᾳτῇγεω [ργ ]ίᾳπροσκαρτεροῦσιμὴἐνοχλεῖν (BGU ii. 372), and Aristoph. Frogs, 709 f., οὐπολὺνοὐδ ʼ ὁπίθηκοςοὗτοςὁνῦνἐνοχλῶν . As for ῥίζα (of a person, as, e.g., in 1 Mal 1:10 καὶἐξῆλθενἐξαὐτῶνῥίζαἁμαρτωλὸςἈντίοχοςἘπιφανής ) πικρίας (genitive of quality), the meaning is a poisonous character and influence (cp. Acts 8:23). The warning in Deuteronomy is against any pernicious creature in the community, who by cool insolence and infidelity draws down the divine sentence of extermination upon himself and his fellows. Here the writer thinks of people who consider that immediate gratification of their wishes is worth more than any higher end in life; they value their spiritual position as sons (vv. 5f.) so little, that they let it go in order to relapse on some material relief at the moment. Such a nature is essentially βέβηλος , devoid of any appreciation of God’ s privileges, and regarding these as of no more importance than sensuous pleasures of the hour. Under the bad influence of this (διὰταύτης , א D K L Ψ 326 etc., as in 13:2: διὰαὐτῆς , A H P 33, 424* syrhkl boh Clem. etc., as in 11:4, 12:11), all the rest (οἱπολλοί , after one has been mentioned, as in Romans 5:15 etc.) may be tainted , and so (cp. on 10:22) rendered incapable of ὄψεσθαιτὸνΚύριον . This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ 1Let your brotherly love continue. 2Never forget to be hospitable, for by hospitality (διὰταύτης , as 12:15) some have entertained angels unawares. 3Remember prisoners as if you were in prison yourselves; remember those who are being ill-treated (11:37), since you too are in the body. Neither φιλαδελφία nor φιλοξενία is a &LXX term, though the broader sense of the former begins in 4 Mac 13:23, 26, 14:1. Μενέτω (cp. 6:10, 10:24, 32f.), though its demands might be severe at times (cp. Romans 12:10, Romans 12:1 P 1:22; Clem. Romans 1:2; Herm. Mand. 8:10); the duty is laid as usual on members of the church, not specially on officials. In v. 2 a particular expression of this φιλαδελφία is called for. φιλοξενία was practically an article of religion in the ancient world. The primary reference here in τινες is to Abraham and Sara (Genesis 18:1f.), possibly to Manoah (Judges 13:3f.), and even to Tobit (Tob 12:15); but the point of the counsel would be caught readily by readers familiar with the Greek and Roman legends of divine visitants being entertained unawares by hospitable people, e.g. Hom. Odyss. xvii. 485 f. (καίτεθεοὶξείνοισινἐοικότεςἀλλοδαποῖσι | παντοῖοιτελέθοντες , ἐπιστρωφῶσιπόληας , cp. Plat. Soph. 216 B); Sil. Ital. vii. 173 f. , and the story of Philemon and Baucis (Ovid, Met. viii. 626 f.) alluded to in Acts 14:11. In the Hellenic world the worship of Zeus Xenios fortified this kindly custom. According to Resh Lakish (Sota, 10a), Abraham planted the tree at Beersheba (Genesis 21:33) for the refreshment of wayfarers, and φιλοξενία was always honoured in Jewish tradition (e.g. Sabbath, 127. 1, “ there are six things, the fruit of which a man eats in this world and by which his horn is raised in the world to come: they are, hospitality to strangers, the visiting of the sick,” etc.). But there were pressing local reasons for this kindly virtue in the primitive church. Christians travelling abroad on business might be too poor to afford a local inn. Extortionate charges were frequent; indeed the bad repute which innkeepers enjoyed in the Greek world (cp. Plato’ s Laws, 918 D) was due partly to this and partly also to a “ general feeling against taking money for hospitality” (cp. Jebb’ s Theophrastus, p. 94). But, in addition, the moral repute of inns stood low (Theophrastus, Char. 6:5 δεινὸςδὲπανδοκεῦσαικαὶπορνοβοσκῆσαικτλ .); there is significance in the Jewish tradition preserved by Josephus (Ant. v. 1. 1) that Rahab ἡπόρνη (11:31) kept an inn. For a Christian to frequent such inns might be to endanger his character, and this consideration favoured the practice of hospitality on the part of the local church, apart altogether from the discomforts of an inn. (“ In the better parts of the empire and in the larger places of resort there were houses corresponding in some measure to the old coaching inns of the eighteenth century; in the East there were the well-known caravanserais; but for the most part the ancient hostelries must have afforded but undesirable quarters. They were neither select nor clean,” T. G. Tucker, Life in the Roman World, p. 20.) Some of these travellers would be itinerant evangelists (cp. 3 John 1:5-8). According to Philo the three wayfarers seen by Abraham did not at first appear divine , though later on he suspected they were either prophets or angels when they had promised him the birth of a son in return for his splendid hospitality (Abrah. 22-23). “ In a wise man’ s house,” Philo observes, “ no one is slow to practise hospitality: women and men, slaves and freedmen alike, are most eager to do service to strangers” ; at the same time such hospitality was only an incident and instance of Abraham’ s larger virtue, i.e. of his piety. Josephus also (Ant. i. 11. 2) makes Abraham suppose the three visitors were human strangers, until at last they revealed themselves as divine angels (θεασάμενοςτρεῖςἀγγέλουςκαὶνομίσαςεἶναιξένουςἤσπασατότ ʼ ἀναστὰςκαὶπαρ ʼ αὐτῷκαταχθένταςπαρεκάλειξενίωνμεταλαβεῖν ). It was ignorance of the classical idiom in ἔλαθονξενίσαντες , which led to the corruptions of ἔλαθον in some Latin versions into “ latuerunt,” “ didicerunt,” and “ placuerunt.” Note the paronomasia ἐπιλανθάνεσθε … ἔλαθον , and-the emphatic position of ἀγγέλους . “ You never know whom you may be entertaining,” the writer means. “ Some humble visitor may turn out to be for you a very ἄγγελοςθεοῦ ” (cp. Galatians 4:14). Μιμνήσκεσθε (bear in mind, and act on your thought of) τῶνδεσμίων . Strangers come within sight; prisoners (v. 3) have to be sought out or— if at a distance— borne in mind. Christian kindness to the latter, i.e. to fellow-Christians arrested for some reason or other, took the form either of personally visiting them to alleviate their sufferings by sympathy and gifts (cp. Matthew 25:36, 2 Timothy 1:16), or of subscribing money (to pay their debts or, in the case of prisoners of war, to purchase their release), or of praying for them (Colossians 4:18 and 4:3). All this formed a prominent feature of early Christian social ethics. The literature is full of tales about the general practice: e.g. Aristid. Rev_15; Tertull. ad Mart. 1 f. and Apol. 39, with the vivid account of Lucian in the de Morte Peregr. 12, 13. This subject is discussed by Harnack in the Expansion of Early Christianity (bk. 2Ch_3, section 5). Our author urges, “ remember the imprisoned” ὡςσυνδεδεμένοι . If ὡς is taken in the same sense as the following ὡς , the meaning is: (a) “ as prisoners yourselves,” i.e. in the literal sense, “ since you know what it means to be in prison” ; or (b) “ as imprisoned,” in the metaphorical sense of Diognet. 6, Χριστιανοὶκατέχονταιὡςἐνφρουρᾷτῷκόσμῳ . A third alternative sense is suggested by LXX of 1 S 18:1 , but the absence of a dative after συνδεδεμένοι and the parallel phrase ὡςἐνσώματι rule it out. Probably ὡς is no more than an equivalent for ὡσεί . Christians are to regard themselves as one with their imprisoned fellows, in the sense of 1 Corinthians 12:26 εἴτεπάσχειἓνμέλος , συμπάσχειπάντατὰμέλη . This interpretation tallies with 10:34 above (cp. Nehemiah 1:3, Nehemiah 1:4). It does not, however, imply that ἐνσώματι , in the next clause, means “ in the Body ; for ἐνσώματι refers to the physical condition of liability to similar ill-usage. See Orig. c. Cels. ii. 23, τῶντοῖςἐνσώμασισυμβαινόντων , and especially Philo’ s words describing some spectators of the cruelties inflicted by a revenue officer on his victims, as suffering acute pain, ὡςἐντοῖςἑτέρωνσώμασιναὐτοὶκακούμενοι (de Spec. Leg. iii. 30). So in de Confus. Ling. 35, καὶτῷσυμφορῶνἀνηνύτωντῶνκακουχομένων (i.e. by exile, famine, and plague; cp. Hebrews 11:37) οὐκἐνδεθεῖσαιχωρίῳ , σώματι . Seneca (Ep. ix. 8) illustrates the disinterestedness of friendship by observing that the wise man does not make friends for the reason suggested by Epicurus, viz., to “ have someone who will sit beside him when he is ill, someone to assist him when he is thrown into chains or in poverty,” but “ that he may have someone beside whom, in sickness, he may himself sit, someone whom he may set free from captivity in the hands of the enemy.” The former kind of friendship he dismisses as inadequate: “ a man has made a friend who is to assist him in the event of bondage , but such a friend will forsake him as soon as the chains rattle .” In Ep. Arist. 241, 242, when the king asks what is the use of kinship, the Jew replies, ἐὰντοῖςσυμβαίνουσινομίζωμενἀτυχοῦσιμὲνἑλαττοῦσθαικαὶκακοπαθῶμενὡςαὐτοί , φαίνεταιτὸσυγγενὲςὅσονἰσχῦόνἐστι . Cicero specially praises generosity to prisoners, and charity in general, as being serviceable not only to individuals but to the State (de Offic. ii. 18, “ haec benignitas etiam rei publicae est utilis, redimi e servitute captos, locupletari tenuiores” ). 4Let marriage be held in honour by all, and keep the marriage-bed unstained. God will punish the vicious and adulterous. 5 Keep your life free from the love of money; be content with what you have, for He has said, “ Never will I fail you, never will I forsake you.” 6So that we can say confidently, “ The Lord is my helper (βοηθός , cp. 2:18, 4:16), I will not be afraid, What can men do to me?” As vv. 1, 2 echo 10:24, 32, 33, v. 4 drives home the πόρνος of 12:16, and vv. 5, 6 echo the reminder of 10:34. Evidently (v. 4), as among the Macedonian Christians (1 Thessalonians 4:3-9), φιλαδελφία could be taken for granted more readily than sexual purity. Τίμιος (sc. ἔστω as in v. 5, Romans 12:9, the asyndeton being forcible) ὁγάμοςἐνπᾶσιν , i.e. primarily by all who are married, as the following clause explains. There may be an inclusive reference to others who are warned against lax views of sexual morality, but there is no clear evidence that the writer means to protest against an ascetic disparagement of marriage. Κοίτη is, like the classical λέχος , a euphemistic term for sexual intercourse, here between the married; ἀμίαντος is used of incest, specially in Test. Reub. i:6, ἐμίανακοίτηντοῦπατρόςμου : Plutarch, de Fluviis, 18, μὴθέλωνμιαίνειντὴνκοίτηντοῦγεννήσαντος , etc.; but here in a general sense, as, e.g., in Wisdom: μακαρίαἡστεῖραἡἀμίαντος , ἥτιςοὐκἔγνωκοίτηνἐνπαραπτώματι , ἕξεικαρπὸνἐνἐπισκοπῇψυχῶν (3:13), and οὔτεβίουςοὔτεγάμουςκαθαροὺςἔτιφυλάσσουσιν , ἕτεροςδ ʼ ἕτερονἢλοχῶνἀναιρεῖἢνοθεύωνὀδυνᾷ (14:24). In πόρνουςγὰρκαὶμοιχούςκτλ ., the writer distinguishes between μοιχοί , i.e. married persons who have illicit relations with other married persons, and πόρνοι of the sexually vicious in general, i.e. married persons guilty of incest or sodomy as well as of fornication. In the former case the main reference is to the breach of another person’ s marriage; in the latter, the predominating idea is treachery to one’ s own marriage vows. The possibility of πορνεία in marriage is admitted in Tob 8:7 , i.e. of mere sexual gratification1 as distinct from the desire and duty of having children, which Jewish and strict Greek ethics held to be the paramount aim of marriage (along with mutual fellowship); but this is only one form of πορνεία . In the threat κρινεῖ (as in 10:30) ὁθεός , the emphasis is on ὁθεός . “ Longe plurima pars scortatorum et adulterorum est sine dubio, quae effugit notitiam iudicum mortalium … magna pars, etiamsi innotescat, tamen poenam civilem et disciplinam ecclesiasticam vel effugit vel leuissime persentiscit” (Bengel). This is another social duty (cp. Philo, de Decalogo, 24). In view of the Epicurean rejection of marriage (e.g. Epict. iii. 7. 19), which is finely answered by Antipater of Tarsus (Stob. Florileg. lxvii. 25: ὁεὐγενὴςκαὶεὔψυχοςνέος … θεωρῶνδιότιτέλειοςοἷκοςκαὶβίοςοὑκἄλλωςδύναταιγενέσθαι , ἢμετὰ . γυναικὸςκαὶτέκνωνκτλ .), as well as of current ascetic tendencies (e.g., 1 Timothy 4:3), there may have been a need of vindicating marriage, but the words here simply maintain the duty of keeping marriage vows unbroken. The writer is urging chastity, not the right and duty of any Christian to marry. Prejudices born of the later passion for celibacy led to the suppression of the inconvenient ἐνπᾶσι (om. 38. 460. 623. 1836. 1912 Didymus, Cyril Jerus., Eus., Athan, Epiphanius, Thdt.). The sense is hardly affected, whether γάρ (א A D M P lat sah boh) or δέ (C Dc Ψ 6 syr arm eth Clem., Eus., Didymus, Chrys.) is read, although the latter would give better support to the interpretation of the previous clause as an antiascetic maxim. A warning against greed of gain (vv. 5, 6) follows the warning against sexual impurity. There may be a link of thought between them. For the collocation of sensuality and the love of money, see Epict. iii. 7. 21, σοὶκαλὴνγυναῖκαφαίνεσθαιμηδεμίανἢτὴνσήν , καλὸνπαῖδαμηδένα , καλὸνἀργύρωμαμηθέν , χρύσωμαμηθέν : Test. Jude 1:18, φυλάξασθεἀπὸτῆςπορνείαςκαὶτῆςφιλαργυρίας … ὅτιταῦτα … οὐκἀφίειἄνδραἐλεῆσαιτὸνπλησίοναὐτοῦ , and Philo’ s (de Post. Caini, 34) remark, that all the worst quarrels, public and private, are due to greedy craving for ἢεὐμορφίασγυναικὸςἢχρημάτωνκτλ . In de Abrah. 26, he attributes the sensuality of Sodom to its material prosperity. Lucian notes the same connexion in Nigrin. 16 (συνεισέρχεταιγὰρμοιχείακαὶφιλαργυρίακτλ ., the love of money having been already set as the source of such vices). In 1 Corinthians 5:10f. Paul brackets οἱπόρνοι with οἱπλεονέκται , and πλεονεξία (cp. 1 Thessalonians 4:6) as selfishness covers adultery as well as grasping covetousness. But the deeper tie between the two sins is that the love of luxury and the desire for wealth open up opportunities of sensual indulgence. In injuries to other people, Cicero observes (de Offic. i. 7. 24), “ latissime patet avaritia.” When Longinus describes the deteriorating effects of this passion or vice in character (de Sublim. 44), he begins by distinguishing it from mere love of pleasure; φιλαργυρίαμὲννόσημαμικροποιόν , φιληδονίαδ ʼ ἀγεννέστατον . Then he proceeds to analyse the working of φιλαργυρία in life, its issue in ὕβρις , παρανομία , and ἀναισχυντία . Ἀφιλάργυρος (the rebel Appianus tells Marcus Aurelius, in OP xxxiii. 10, 11, that his father τὸμὲνπρῶτονἦνφιλόσοφος , τὸδεύτερονἀφιλάργυρος , τὸτρίτονφιλάγαθος ) ὁτρόπος . Ἀρκούμενοι is the plur. ptc. after a noun (as in 2 Corinthians 1:7, Romans 12:9), and with τοῖςπαροῦσιν reproduces a common Greek phrase for contentment, e.g. Teles, vii. 7, ἀλλ ʼ ἡμεῖςοὐδυνάμεθαἀρκεῖσθαιτοῖςπαροῦσιν , ὅτανκαὶτρυφῇπολὺδιδῶμεν , and xxviii. 31, καὶμὴἔχωνοὐκἐπιποθήσειςἀλλὰβιώσῃἀρκούμενοςτοῖςπαροῦσιν . The feature here is the religious motive adduced in αὐτὸςγὰρεἴρηκεν (of God as usual, e.g., 1:13), a phrase which recalls the Pythagorean αὐτὸςἔφα . The quotation οὐμήσεἀνῶοὐδ ʼ οὐμήσεἐγκαταλίπω is a popular paraphrase of Jos 1:5 or Genesis 28:15 (cp. Deuteronomy 31:8, 1 Chronicles 28:20) which the writer owes to Philo (de Confus. Ling. 32), who quotes it exactly in this form as a λόγιοντοῦἵλεωθεοῦμεστὸνἡμερότητος , but simply as a promise that God will never leave the human soul to its own unrestrained passions. The combination of the aor. subj. with the first οὐμή and the reduplication of the negative (for οὐδ ʼ οὐμή , cp. Matthew 24:21) amount to a strong asseveration. Note that the writer does not appeal, as Josephus does, to the merits of the fathers (Antiq. xi. 5. 7, τὸνμὲνθεὸνἴστεμνήμῃτῶνπατέρωνἈβράμουκαὶἸσάκουκαὶἸακώβουπαραμένοντακαὶδιὰτῆςἐκείνωνδικαιοσύνηςοὐκἐγκαταλείποντατὴνὑπὲρἡμῶνπρόνοιαν ) in assuring his readers that they will not be left forlorn by God. Ἐγκαταλείπω (so all the uncials except D) may be simply an orthographical variant of the true reading ἐγκαταλίπω (aorist subj.). In Deuteronomy 31:6 the A text runs οὐμήσεἀνῇοὐδ ʼ οὐσεἐγκαταλείπῃ , in Joshua 1:5 οὐκἐγκαταλείπωσεοὐδὲὑπερόψομαίσε , and in Genesis 28:15 οὐμήσεἐγκαταλείπω . The promise originally was of a martial character. But, as Keble puts it : “ Not upon kings or priests alone the power of that dear word is spent; it chants to all in softest tone the lowly lesson of content.” Ὥστε (v. 6) θαρροῦντας (on the evidence for this form, which Plutarch prefers to the Ionic variant θαρσεῖν , cp. Crö nert’ s Memoria Graeca Herculanensis, 133:2) ἡμᾶς (om. M, accidentally) λέγειν . What God says to us moves us to say something to ourselves. This quotation from Psalms 118:6 is exact, except that the writer, for the sake of terseness, omits the καί ( = so) before οὐφοβηθήσομαι , which is reinserted by א c A D K L M syrhkl etc. For the phrase θαρροῦνταςλέγειν , see Proverbs 1:21 (Wisdom) ἐπὶδὲπύλαιςπόλεωςθαρροῦσαλέγει : and for βοηθός and θαρρεῖν in conjunction, see Xen. Cyr. v. i. 25, 26, ἐπειδὴδ ʼ ἐκΠερσῶνβοηθὸςἡμῖνὡρμήθης … νῦνδ ʼ αὖοὕτωςἔχομενὡςσὺνμὲνσοὶὅμωςκαὶἐντῇπολεμίᾳὄντεςθαρροῦμεν . Epictetus tells a man who is tempted (ii. 18, 29), τοῦθεοῦμέμνησο , ἐκεῖνονἐπικαλοῦβοηθὸνκαὶπαραστάτην . This is the idea of the psalm-quotation here. Courage is described in Galen (de H. et Plat. decr. vii. 2) as the knowledge ὧνχρὴθαρῥεῖνἢμὴθαρῥεῖν , a genuinely Stoic definition; and Alkibiades tells, in the Symposium (221 A), how he came upon Sokrates and Laches retreating during the Athenian defeat at Delium καὶἰδὼνεὐθὺςπαρακελεύομαίτεαὐτοῖνθαρρεῖν , καὶἔλεγονὅτιοὐκἀπολείψωαὐτώ . In the touching prayer preserved in the Acta Pauli (xlii.), Thekla cries, ὁθεόςμουκαὶτοῦοἰκουτούτου , ΧριστὲἸησοῦὁυἱὸςτοῦθεοῦ , ὁἐμοὶβοηθὸςἐνφυλακῇ , βοηθὸςἐπὶἡγεμόνων , βοηθὸςἐνπυρὶ , βοηθὸςἐνθηρίοις . According to Pliny (Epp. ix. 30: “ primum est autem suo esse contentum, deinde, quos praecipue scias indigere sustentantem fouentemque orbe quodam societatis ambire” ) a man’ s first duty is to be content with what he has; his second, to go round and help all in his circle who are most in need. Epictetus quotes a saying of Musonius Rufus: οὐθέλειςμελετᾶνἀρκεῖσθαιτῷδεδομένῳ ; (i. 1. 27); but this refers to life in general, not to money or property in particular. The argument of our author is that instead of clinging to their possessions and setting their hearts on goods (10:34), which might still be taken from them by rapacious pagans, they must realize that having God they have enough. He will never allow them to be utterly stripped of the necessaries of life. Instead of trying to refund themselves for what they had lost, let them be content with what is left to them and rely on God to preserve their modest all; he will neither drop nor desert them. Hitherto the community has been mainly (see on 12:14f.) addressed as a whole. Now the writer reminds them of the example of their founders, dead and gone, adding this to the previous list of memories (12:1f.). 7 Remember your leaders, the men who spoke the word of God to you; look back upon the close of their career, and copy their faith. Μνημονεύετετῶνἡγουμένωνὑμῶνοἵτινες (since they were the men who) ἐλάλησανὑμῖντὸνλόγοντοῦθεοῦ . The special function of these primitive apostles and prophets was to preach the gospel (cp. 1 Corinthians 1:17) with the supernatural powers of the Spirit. Then the writer adds a further title to remembrance, their consistent and heroic life; they had sealed their testimony with their (ὧνκτλ .) blood. Ἡγούμενος , like ἄρχων , was a substantival formation which had a wide range of meaning; here it is equivalent to “ president” or “ leader” (cp. Epp. Apollon. ii. 69, ἄνδραςτοὺςἡγουμένουςὑμων = your leading citizens, or prominent men, and Acts 15:22).1 It was they who had founded the church by their authoritative preaching; ἐλάλησανὑμῖντὸνλόγοντοῦθεοῦ recalls the allusion to the σωτηρία which ὑπὸτῶνἀκουσάντων (i.e. Jesus) εἰςἡμᾶςἐβεβαιώθη (2:3). The phrase denotes, in primitive Christianity (e.g. Did. 4:1 where the church-member is bidden remember with honour τοῦλαλοῦντοςσοιτὸνλόγοντοῦθεοῦ ), the central function of the apostolic ministry as the declaration and interpretation of the divine λόγος . These men had died for their faith; ἔκβασις here, as in Wis 2:17 , is, like ἔξοδος , a metaphor for death as the close of life, evidently a death remarkable for its witness to faith. They had laid down their lives as martyrs. This proves that the allusion in 12:4 does not exclude some martyrdoms in the past history of the community, unless the reference here is supposed to mean no more than that they died as they had lived κατὰπίστιν (11:13), without giving up their faith. In Egypt, during the Roman period, “ a liturgical college of πρεσβύτεροι or ἡγούμενοι was at the head of each temple” (GCP i. 127), the latter term being probably taken from its military sense of “ officers” . Ἀναθεωροῦντες is “ scanning closely, looking back (ἀνα -) on” ; and ἀναστροφή is used in this sense even prior to Polybius; e.g. Magn 4635, 44 (iii b.c.) and Magn 165:5 (i a.d.) διὰτὴντοῦἤθουςκόσμιονἀναστροφήν . As for μιμεῖσθε , the verb never occurs in the LXX except as a v. l. (B*) for ἐμίσησας in Psalms 31:6, and there in a bad sense. The good sense begins in Wis 4:2 , so far as Hellenistic Judaism goes, and in 4 Mac 9:23 13:9 it is used of imitating a personal example, as here. In the de Congressu Erudit. 13, Philo argues that the learner listens to what his teacher says, whereas a man who acquires true wisdom by practice and meditation attends οὐτοῖςλεγομένοιςἀλλὰτοῖςλέγουσι , μιμούμενοςτὸνἐκείνωνβίονἐνταῖςκατὰμέροςἀνεπιλήπτοιςπράξεσι . He is referring to living examples of goodness, but, as in de Vita Mos. i. 28, he points out that Moses made his personal character a παράδειγματοῖςἐθέλουσιμιμεῖσθαι . This stimulus of heroic memories belonging to one’ s own group is noted by Quintilian (Instit. Orat. xii. 2. 31) as essential to the true orator: “ quae sunt antiquitus dicta ac facta praeclare et nosse et animo semper agitare conveniet. Quae profecto nusquam plura maioraque quam in nostrae civitatis monumentis reperientur … Quantum enim Graeci praeceptis valent, tantum Romani, quod est maius, exemplis.” Marcus Aurelius recollects the same counsel: ἐντοῖςτῶνἘπικουρείωνγράμμασιπαράγγελμαἔκειτοσυνεχῶςὑπομιμνῄσκεσθαιτῶνπαλαιῶντινοςτῶνἀρετῇχρησαμένων (11:26). Human leaders may pass away, but Jesus Christ, the supreme object and subject of their faithful preaching, remains, and remains the same; no novel additions to his truth are required, least of all innovations which mix up his spiritual religion with what is sensuous and material. 8 Jesus Christ is always the same, yesterday, to-day, and for ever. 9 Never let yourselves be carried away with a variety of novel doctrines; for the right thing is to have one’ s heart strengthened by grace, not by the eating of food— that has never been any use to those who have had recourse to it. 10 Our (ἔχομεν as 4:15) altar is one of which the worshippers have no right to eat. 11 For the bodies of the animals whose “ blood is taken into the holy Place” by the highpriest as a “ sin-offering, are burned outside the camp” ; 12 and so Jesus also suffered outside the gale, in order to sanctify the people (cp. 10:2f.) by his own blood (9:12). 13 Let us go to him “ outside the camp,” then, bearing his obloquy 14 (for we have no lasting city here below, we seek the City to come). 15 And by him “ let us” constantly “ offer praise to God” as our “ sacrifice,” that is, “ the fruit of lips” that celebrate his Name. 16 Do not forget (μὴἐπιλανθάνεσθε , as in v. 2) beneficence and charity either; these are the kind of sacrifices that are acceptable to God. V. 8 connects with what precedes and introduces what follows. Ἐχθες 1 refers to his life on earth (2:3, 5:7) and includes the service of the original ἡγούμενοι ; it does not necessarily imply a long retrospect. Σήμερον as in 3:15, and ὁαὐτός as in 1:12. The finality of the revelation in Jesus, sounded at the opening of the homily (1:1f.), resounds again here. He is never to be superseded; he never needs to be supplemented. Hence (v. 9) the warning against some new theology about the media of forgiveness and fellowship, which, it is implied, infringes the all-sufficient efficacy of Jesus Christ. Διδαχαῖς (6:2) ποικίλαις (2:4 in good sense) καὶξέναιςμὴπαραφέρεσθε . Παραφέρεσθαι (cp. Jude 1:12) is never used in this metaphorical sense (swayed, swerved) in the LXX, where it is always literal, and the best illustration of ξέναις in the sense of “ foreign to” (the apostolic faith) is furnished by the author of the epistle to Diognetus (11:1), who protests, οὐξέναὁμιλῶ … ἀλλὰἀποστόλωνγενόμενοςμαθητὴςγίνομαιδιδάσκαλοςἐθνῶν . Such notions he curtly pronounces useless, ἐνοἷςοὐκὠφελήθησανοἱπεριπατοῦντες , where ἐνοἷς goes with περιπατοῦντες ; they have never been of any use in mediating fellowship with God for those who have had recourse to them. It is exactly the tone of Jesus in Mark 7:18. Παραφέρεσθε was altered (under the influence of Eph 4:14) into περιφέρεσθε (K L Ψ 2, 5, 88, 330, 378, 440, 491, 547, 642, 919, 920, 1867, 1872, 1908, arm sah). Περιπατήσαντες (א c C Dc K L M P syrhkl arm Orig. Chrys. etc.) and περιπατοῦντες (א A D 1912 lat) are variants which are substantially the same in meaning, περιπατεῖνἐν being used in its common sense = living in the sphere of (Ephesians 2:10 etc.), having recourse to. The positive position is affirmed in καλόνκτλ . (καλόν , as in 1 Corinthians 7:1, Romans 14:21 etc.). “ Καλός … denotes that kind of goodness which is at once seen to be good” (Hort on 1 P 2:12), i e. by those who have a right instinct. The really right and good course is χάριτιβεβαιοῦσθαιτὴνκαρδίαν , i.e. either to have one’ s heart strengthened, or to be strengthened in heart (καρδίαν , accus. of reference). Bread sustains our physical life (ἄρτοςκαρδίανἀνθρώπουστηρίζει , Psalms 104:15), but καρδία here means more than vitality; it is the inner life of the human soul, which God’ s χάρις alone can sustain, and God’ s χάρις in Jesus Christ is everything (2:9 etc.). But what does this contrast mean? The explanation is suggested in the next passage (vv. 10-16), which flows out of what has just been said. The various novel doctrines were connected in some way with βρώματα . So much is clear. The difficulty is to infer what the βρώματα were. There is a touch of scorn for such a motley, unheard of, set of διδαχαί . The writer does not trouble to characterize them, but his words imply that they were many-sided, and that their main characteristic was a preoccupation with βρώματα . There is no reference to the ancient regulations of the Hebrew ritual mentioned in 9:10; this would only be tenable on the hypothesis, for which there is no evidence, that the readers were Jewish Christians apt to be fascinated by the ritual of their ancestral faith, and, in any case, such notions could not naturally be described as ποικίλαικαὶξέναι . We must look in other directions for the meaning of this enigmatic reference. (a) The new διδαχαί may have included ascetic regulations about diet as aids to the higher life, like the ἐντάλματακαὶδιδασκαλίαιτῶνἀνθρώπων which disturbed the Christians at Colossê . Partly owing to Gnostic syncretism, prohibitions of certain foods (ἀπέχεσθαιβρωμάτων , 1 Timothy 4:3) were becoming common in some circles, in the supposed interests of spiritual religion. “ We may assume,” says Pfleiderer, one of the representatives of this view (pp. 278 f.), “ a similar Gnostic spiritualism, which placed the historical Saviour in an inferior position as compared with angels or spiritual powers who do not take upon them flesh and blood, and whose service consists in mystical purifications and ascetic abstinences.” (b) They may also have included such religious sacraments as were popularized in some of the mystery-cults, where worshippers ate the flesh of a sacrificial victim or consecrated elements which represented the deity. Participation in these festivals was not unknown among some ultra-liberal Christians of the age. It is denounced by Paul in 1Co_10, and may underlie what the writer has already said in 10:25. Why our author did not speak outright of εἰδωλόθυτα , we cannot tell; but some such reference is more suitable to the context than (a), since it is sacrificial meals which are in question. He is primarily drawing a contrast between the various cult-feasts of paganism, which the readers feel they might indulge in, not only with immunity, but even with spiritual profit, and the Christian religion, which dispensed with any such participation. (c) Is there also a reference to the Lord’ s supper, or to the realistic sense in which it was being interpreted, as though participation in it implied an actual eating of the sacrificial body of the Lord? This reference is urged by some critics, especially by F. Spitta (Zur Geschichte u. Litteratur des Urchristentums, i. pp. 325 f.) and O. Holtzmann (in Zeitschrift fü r die neutest. Wissenschaft, x. pp. 251-260). Spitta goes wrong by misinterpreting v. 10 as though the σῶμα of Christ implied a sacrificial meal from which Jewish priests were excluded. Holtzmann rightly sees that the contrast between χάρις and βρώματα implies, for the latter, the only βρῶμα possible for Christians, viz. the Lord’ s body as a food. What the writer protests against is the rising conception of the Lord’ s supper as a φαγεῖντὸσῶματοῦΧριστοῦ . On the day of Atonement in the OT ritual, to which he refers, there was no participation in the flesh of the sacrificial victim; there could not be, in the nature of the case (v. 11). So, he argues, the σῶμαΧριστοῦ of our sacrifice cannot be literally eaten, as these neo-sacramentarians allege; any such notion is, to him, a relapse upon the sensuous, which as a spiritual idealist he despises as “ a vain thing, fondly invented.” A true insight into the significance of Jesus, such as he has been trying to bring out in what he has written, such as their earlier leaders themselves had conveyed in their own way, would reveal the superfluousness and irrelevance of these διδαχαί . As the writer is alluding to what is familiar, he does not enter into details, so that we have to guess at his references. But the trend of thought in vv. 10f. is plain. In real Christian worship there is no sacrificial meal; the Christian sacrifice is not one of which the worshippers partake by eating. This is the point of v. 10. The writer characteristically illustrates it from the OT ritual of atonementday, by showing how the very death of Jesus outside the city of Jerusalem fulfilled the proviso in that ritual (vv. 11, 12) that the sacrifice must not be eaten. Then he finds in this fact about the death of Jesus a further illustration of the need for unworldliness (vv. 13, 14). Finally, in reply to the question, “ Then have Christians no sacrifices to offer at all?” he mentions the two standing sacrifices of thanksgiving and charity (vv. 15, 16), both owing their efficacy to Christ. Inwardness is the dominating thought of the entire paragraph. God’ s grace in Jesus Christ works upon the soul; no external medium like food is required to bring us into fellowship with him; it is vain to imagine that by eating anything one can enjoy communion with God. Our Lord stands wholly outside the material world of sense, outside things touched and tasted; in relationship to him and him alone, we can worship God. The writer has a mystical or idealistic bent, to which the sacramental idea is foreign. He never alludes to the eucharist; the one sacrament he notices is baptism. A ritual meal as the means of strengthening communion with God through Christ does not appeal to him in the slightest degree. It is not thus that God’ s χάρις is experienced. The clue to v. 10 lies in the obvious fact that the θυσιαστήριον and the σκηνή belong to the same figurative order. In our spiritual or heavenly σκηνή , the real σκηνή of the soul, there is indeed a θυσιαστήριονἐξοὗ (partitive; cp. τὰεἰςτοῦἱεροῦἐσθίουσιν , 1 Corinthians 9:13) φαγεῖν (emphatic by position) οὐκἔχουσινἐξουσίαν 1 (1 Corinthians 9:4) οἱτῇσκηνῇλατρεύοντες (λατρεύειν with dative as in 8:5). It makes no difference to the sense whether οἱ … λατρεύοντες means worshippers (9:9, 10:2) or priests (8:5), and the writer does not allegorize θυσιαστήριον as Philo does (e.g. in de Leg. Alleg. i. 15, τῆςκαθαρᾶςκαὶἀμιάντουφύσεωςτῆςἀναφερούσηςτὰἄμωματῷθεῷ , αὕτηδὲἐστιτὸθυσιαστήριον ). His point is simply this, that the Christian sacrifice, on which all our relationship to God depends, is not one that involves or allows any connexion with a meal. To prove how impossible such a notion is, he (v. 11) cites the ritual regulation in Leviticus 16:27 for the disposal of the carcases of the two animals sacrificed περὶτῆςἁμαρτίας (ὧντὸαἷμαεἰσηνέχθηἐξιλάσασθαιἐντῷἁγίῳἐξοίσουσιναὐτὰἔξωτῆςπαρεμβολῆςκαὶκατακαύσουσιναὐτὰἐνπυρί ). For a moment the writer recalls his main argument in chs. 7-10; in v. 10 Christ is regarded as the victim or sacrifice (cp. προσενεχθείς in 9:28), but here the necessities of the case involve the activity of the Victim. ΔιὸκαὶἸησοῦςκτλ . (v. 12). The parallel breaks down at one point, of course; his body was not burned up.2 But the real comparison lies in ἔξωτῆςπύλης (sc. τῆςπαρεμβολῆς , as Exodus 32:26, Exodus 32:27). The Peshitto and 436 make the reference explicit by reading πόλεως , which seems to have been known to Tertullian . The fact that Jesus was crucified outside Jerusalem influenced the synoptic transcripts of the parable in Mark 12:8 = Matthew 21:39 = Luke 20:15. Mark’ s version, ἀπέκτειναναὐτὸνκαὶἐξέβαλοναὐτὸνἔξωτοῦἀμπελῶνος , was altered into ἐκβαλόντεςαὐτὸνἔξωτοῦἀμπελῶνοςἀπέκτειναν . Crucifixion, like other capital punishments, in the ancient world was inflicted outside a city. To the writer this fact seems intensely significant, rich in symbolism. So much so that his mind hurries on to use it, no longer as a mere confirmation of the negative in v. 10, but as a positive, fresh call to unworldliness. All such sensuous ideas as those implied in sacrificial meals mix up our religion with the very world from which we ought, after Jesus, to be withdrawing. We meet Jesus outside all this, not inside it. In highly figurative language (v. 13), he therefore makes a broad appeal for an unworldly religious fellowship, such as is alone in keeping with the χάρις of God in Jesus our Lord. Τοίνυν (beginning a sentence as in Luke 20:28 τοίνυνἀπόδοτεκτλ ., instead of coming second in its classical position), let us join Jesus ἔξωτῆςπαρεμβολῆς , for he is living. The thought of the metaphor is that of Paul’ s admonition μὴσυνσχηματίζεσθετῷαἰῶνιτούτῳ (Romans 12:2), and the words τὸνὀνειδισμὸναὐτοῦφέροντες recall the warnings against false shame (11:26, 12:2), just as the following (v. 14) reason, οὐγὰρἔχομενὧδε (in the present outward order of things) μένουσαν 1 πόλινἀλλὰτὴνμέλλουσανἐπιζητοῦμεν recalls the ideas of 11:10, 14-16. The appeal echoes that of 4:11 σπουδάσωμενοὖνεἰσελθεῖνεἰςἐκείνηντὴνκατάπαυσιν . It is through the experiences of an unsettled and insulted life that Christians must pass, if they are to be loyal to their Lord. That is, the writer interprets ἔξωτῆςπαρεμβολῆς figuratively (“ Egrediamur et nos a commercio mundi huius,” Erasmus). Philo had already done so (cp. specially quod. det. pot. 44), in a mystical sense: μακρὰνδιοικίζειτοῦσωματικοῦστρατυπέδου , μόνωςἂνοὕτωςἐλπίσαςἱκέτηςκαὶθεραπευτὴςἔσεσθαιτέλειοςθεοῦ . Similarly in de Ebrietate, 25, commenting on Exodus 33:7, he explains that by ἐντῷστρατοπέδῳ Moses meant allegorically ἐντῷμετὰσώματοςβίῳ , the material interests of the worldly life which must be forsaken if the soul is to enjoy the inward vision of God. Such is the renunciation which the writer here has in view. It is the thought in 2 Clem. 5:1 (ὅθεν , ἀδελφοί , καταλείψαντεςτὴνπαροικίαντοῦκόσμουτούτουποιήσωμεντὸθέληματοῦκαλέσαντοςἡμᾶς , καὶμὴφοβηθῶμενἐξελθεῖνἐκτοῦκόσμουτούτου ) and 6:5 . Only, our author weaves in the characteristic idea of the shame which has to be endured in such an unworldly renunciation. The next exhortation in v. 15 catches up ἐξερχώμεθα , as δι ʼ αὐτοῦ carries on πρὸςαὐτόν . For once applying sacrificial language to the Christian life, he reminds his readers again of the sacrifice of thanksgiving. The phrase καρπὸνχειλέων explains the sense in which θυσίααἰνέσεως is to be taken; it is from the LXX; mistranslation of Hos 14:3 where the true text has פ ּ ָ ר ִ י ם (bullocks) instead of פ ּ ְ ר ִ י (fruit). In ὁμολογούντωντῷὀνόματιαὐτοῦ , ὁμολογεῖν is used in the sense of ἐξομολογεῖσθαι by an unusual2 turn of expression. The ὄνομα means, as usual, the revealed personality. Probably there is an unconscious recollection of Ps 54:8 ; θυσίααἰνέσεως 3 is also from the psalter (e.g. 50:14, 23). Ἀναφέρειν elsewhere in the NT is only used of spiritual sacrifices in the parallel passage 1 P 2:5 ἀνενέγκαιπνευματικὰςθυσίαςεὐπροσδέκτουςθεῷδιὰἸησοῦΧριστοῦ . We have no sacrificial meals, the writer implies; we do not need them. Nor have we any sacrifices— except spiritual ones. (The οὖν after δι ʼ αὐτοῦ , which א c A C Dc M vg syrhkl boh arm eth Orig. Chrys. etc. retain, is omitted by א D P Ψ vt syrvg; but א D om. οὖν also 1 Corinthians 6:7, as D in Romans 7:25). The thought of 12:28 is thus expanded, with the additional touch that thankfulness to God is inspired by our experience of Jesus ; the phrase is a counterpart of διὰτοῦἀρχιερέως in v. 11. This thank-offering is to be made διὰπαντὸς , instead of at stated times, for, whatever befalls us, we owe God thanks and praise (cp. 1 Thessalonians 5:16). The Mishna (cp. Berachoth 5:4) declares that he must be silenced who only calls upon God’ s name with thankfulness in the enjoyment of good (Berachoth 5:3 ה ָ א ו ֹ מ ֵ ר . . . ע ַ ל ט ו ֹ ב י ִ ז ּ ָ כ ֵ ר ש ׁ ְ מ ֶ ך ָ מ ו ֹ ד ִ י ם מ ו ֹ ד ִ י ם מ ְ ש ׁ ַ ת ּ ְ ק ִ י ן א ו ֹ ת ו ֹ ). The religious idea of thanksgiving was prominent in several quarters. According to Fronto (Loeb ed. i. p. 22) thank-offerings were more acceptable to the gods than sin-offerings, as being more disinterested: μάντεωνδὲπαῖδέςφασινκαὶτοῖςθεοῖςἡδίουςεἶναιθυσιῶντὰςχαριστηρίουςἢτὰςμειλιχίους . Philo had taught (de Plant. 30) that εὐχαριστία is exceptionally sacred, and that towards God it must be an inward sacrifice: θεῷδὲοὐκἔνεστιγνησίωςεὐχαριστῆσαιδι ʼ ὧννομίζουσινοἱπολλοὶκατασκευῶνἀναθημάτωνθυσιῶν — οὐδὲγὰρσύμπαςὁκόσμοςἱερὸνἀξιόχρεωνἂνγένοιτοπρὸςτὴντούτουτιμήν — ἀλλὰδι ʼ ἐπαίνωνκαὶὕμνων , οὐχοὓςἡγεγωνὸςᾄσεταιφωνὴ , ἀλλὰοὓςὁἀειδὴςκαὶκαθαρώτατοςνοῦςἐπηχήσεικαὶἀναμέλψει . He proceeds (ibid. 33) to dwell on the meaning of the name Judah, ὃςἑρμηνεύεταικυρίῳἐξομολόγησις . Judah was the last (Genesis 29:35) son of Leah, for nothing could be added to praise of God, nothing excels ὁεὐλογῶντὸνθεὸννοῦς . This tallies with the well-known rabbinic saying, quoted in Tanchuma, 55. 2: “ in the time of messiah all sacrifices will cease, but the sacrifice of thanksgiving will not cease; all prayers will cease, but praises will not cease” (on basis of Jer 33:1 and Psalms 56:13). The praise of God as the real sacrifice of the pious is frequently noted in the later Judaism (e.g. 2 Mac 10:7). In v. 16 the writer notes the second Christian sacrifice of charity. Εὐποιία , though not a LXX term, is common in Hellenistic Greek, especially in Epictetus, e.g. Fragm. 15 (ed. Schenk), ἐπὶχρηστότητικαὶεὐποιίᾳ ; Fragm. 45, οὐδὲνκρεῖσσον … εὐποιίας . Κοινωνία in the sense of charity or contributions had been already used by Paul (2 Corinthians 9:13 etc.). To share with others, to impart to them what we possess, is one way of worshipping God. The three great definitions of worship or religious service in the NT (here, Romans 12:1, Romans 12:2 and James 1:27) are all inward and ethical; what lies behind this one is the fact that part of the food used in ancient OT sacrifices went to the support of the priests, and part was used to provide meals for the poor. Charitable relief was bound up with the sacrificial system, for such parts of the animals as were not burnt were devoted to these beneficent purposes. An equivalent must be provided in our spiritual religion, the writer suggests; if we have no longer any animal sacrifices, we must carry on at any rate the charitable element in that ritual. This is the force of μὴἐπιλανθάνεσθε . Contributions, e.g., for the support of ἡγούμενοι , who were not priests, were unknown in the ancient world, and had to be explicitly urged as a duty (cp. 1 Corinthians 9:6-14). Similarly the needs of the poor had to be met by voluntary sacrifices, by which alone, in a spiritual religion, God could be satisfied— τοιαύταιςθυσίαιςεὐαρεστεῖται (cp. 11:5, 6; 12:28) ὁθεός . This counsel agrees with some rabbinic opinions . The special duty of supporting the priesthood is urged in Sir 7:30f., but our author shows no trace of the theory that almsgiving in general was not only superior to sacrifices but possessed atoning merit before God (Sir 3:14 ἐλεημοσύνηγὰρπατρὸςοὐκἐπιλησθήσεται , καὶἀντὶἁμαρτιῶνπροσανοικοδομηθήσεταίσοι ). In the later rabbinic theology, prayer, penitence, the study of the Torah, hospitality, charity, and the like were regarded as sacrifices equivalent to those which had been offered when the temple was standing. Thus Rabbi Jochanan b. Zakkai (cp. Schlatter’ s Jochanan ben Zakkai, pp. 39 f.) consoled himself and his friends with the thought, derived from Hosea 6:6, that in the practice of charity they still possessed a valid sacrifice for sins; he voiced the conviction also (e.g. b. baba bathra 10 b) that charity won forgiveness for pagans as the sin-offering did for Israel. In the Ep. Barnabas (2:7f.) the writer quotes Jeremiah 7:22, Jeremiah 7:23 (Zechariah 8:17) as a warning to Christians against Jewish sacrifices (αἰσθάνεσθαιοὖνὀφείλομεντὴνγνώμηντῆςἀγαθωσύνηςτοῦπατρὸςἡμῶνὄτ ʼ ἡμῖνλέγει , θέλωνἡμᾶςμὴὁμοίωςπλανωμένουςἐκείνοιςζητεῖν , πῶςπροσάγωμεναὐτῷ ), but he quotes Psalms 51:19 as the description of the ideal sacrifice. The tendency in some circles of the later Judaism to spiritualize sacrifice in general and to insist on its motive and spirit is voiced in a passage like Jth 16:15f.: ὄρηγὰρἐκθεμελίωνσὺνὕδασινσαλευθήσεται , πέτραιδ ʼ ἀπὸπροσώπουσουὡςκηρὸςτακήσονται : ἔτιδὲτοῖςφοβουμένοιςσεσὺεὐιλατεύειςαὐτοῖς : ὅτιμικρὸνπᾶσαθυσίαεἰςὀσμὴνεὐωδίας , καὶἐλάχιστονπᾶνστέαρεἰςὀλοκαύτωμάσοι · ὁδὲφοβούμενοςτὸνκύριονμέγαςδιὰπαντός . Also in a number of statements from various sources, of which that in Ep. Arist. 234 (τὶμέγιστόνἐστιδόξησ ; ὁδὲεἶπε · τὸτιμᾶντὸνθεόν · τοῦτοδ ʼ ἐστὶνοὐδώροιςοὐδὲθυσίαις , ἀλλὰψυχῆςκαθαρότητικαὶδιαλήψεωςὁσίας ) may be cited as a fair specimen. The congruous idea of bloodless sacrifices was common in subsequent Christianity. Thus the martyr Apollonius (Acta Apollonii, 44; Conybeare’ s Monuments of Early Christianity, pp. 47-48) tells the magistrate, “ I expected … that thy heart would bear fruit, and that thou wouldst worship God, the Creator of all, and unto Him continually offer thy prayers by means of compassion; for compassion shown to men by men is a bloodless sacrifice and holy unto God.” So Jerome’ s comment runs on Psalms 15:4 οὐμὴσυναγάγωτὰςσυναγωγὰςαὐτῶνἐξαἱμάτων . Συνάγων , φησὶν , συναγωγὰςἐκτῶνἑθνῶν , οὐδι ʼ αἱμάτωνταύταςσυνάξω · τοῦτ ʼ ἔστιν , οὐπαρασκευάσωδιὰτῆςνομικῆςμοιπροσέρχεσθαιλατρείας , δι ʼ αἰνέσεωςδὲμᾶλλονκαὶτῆςἀναμάκτουθυσίας (Anecdota Maredsolana, iii. 3, 123). Both in the Didache (14:1 κλάσατεἄρτονκαὶεὐχαριστήσατεπροσεξομολογησάμενοιτὰπαραπτώματαὑμῶν , ὅπωςκαθαρὰἡθυσίαὑμῶνᾖ ) and in Justin Martyr (Dial. 117, πάνταςοὖνοἳδιὰτοῦόνόματοςτούτουθυσίας , ἀςπαρέδωκενἸησοῦςὀΧριστὸςγίνεσθαι , τουτέστινἐπὶτῇεὐχαριστίᾳτοῦἄρτουκαὶτοῦποτηρίου , τὰςἐνπαντὶτόπῳτῆςγῆςγινομέναςὑπὸτῶνΧριστιανῶν , προλαβὼνὁθεὸςμαρτυρεῖεὐαρέστουςὑπάρχειναὐτῷ ), the very prayers at the eucharist are called θυσίαι , but this belongs to a later stage, when the eucharist or love-feast became the rite round which collections for the poor, the sick, prisoners, and travelling visitors (vv. 1f.) gathered, and into which sacrificial language began to be poured (cp. Justin’ s Apol. i. 66, 67). In ΠρὸςἙβραίους we find a simpler and different line of practical Christianity. Now for a word on the living ἡγούμενοι of the community (v. 17), including himself (vv. 18, 19). 17 Obey your leaders, submit to them; for they are alive to the interests of your souls, as men who will have to account for their trust. Let their work be a joy to them and not a grief— which would be a loss to yourselves. 18 Pray for me, for I am sure I have a clean conscience; my desire is in every way to lead an honest life. 19 I urge you to this (i.e. to prayer) all the more, that I may get back to you the sooner. The connexion of vv. 17f. is not only with v. 7, but with vv. 8-16. It would be indeed a grief to your true leaders if you gave way to these ποικίλαικαὶξέναι doctrines, instead of following men who are really concerned for your highest interests. Πείθεσθε (cp. Epict. Fragm. 27, τὸνπροσομιλοῦντα … διασκοποῦ … εἰμὲνἀμείνονα , ἀκούεινχρὴκαὶπείθεσθαιαὐτῷ ) καὶὑπείκετε (ὑπείκω is not a LXX term); strong words but justified, for the λόγοςτοῦθεοῦ which Christian leaders preached meant authoritative standards of life for the community (cp. 1 Corinthians 4:17, 1 Corinthians 4:21, 1 Corinthians 4:14:37 etc.), inspired by the Spirit. Insubordination was the temptation at one pole, an overbearing temper (1 P 5:3) the temptation at the other. Our author knows that, in the case of his friends, the former alone is to be feared. He does not threaten penalties for disobedience, however, as Josephus does (c. Apionem, ii. 194) for insubordination on the part of the Jewish laity towards a priest: ὁδέγετούτῳμὴπειθόμενοςὑφέξειδίκηνὡςεἰςτὸνθεὸναὐτὸνἀσεβῶν . Rather, he singles out the highminded devotion of these leaders as an inducement to the rank and file to be submissive. Αὐτοὶγὰρἀγρυπνοῦσινὑπὲρτῶνψυχῶνὑμῶν , almost as Epictetus says of the true Cynic who zealously concerns himself with the moral welfare of men, ὑπερηγρύπνηκενὑπὲρἀνθρώπων (iii. 22, 95; he uses the verb once in its literal sense of a soldier having to keep watch through the night, iii. 24, 32). The force of the phrase is flattened by the transference of ὑπὲρτῶνψυχῶνὑμῶν to a position after ὡςλόγονἀποδώσοντες (as A vg). The latter expression, ὡς (conscious that) λόγονἀποδώσοντες (ὡς with fut. ptc. here only in NT), is used by Chrysostom, de Sacerdotio, iii. 18 (cp. vi. 1), to enforce a sense of ministerial responsibility (εἰγὰρτῶνοἰκείωνπλημμελημάτωνεὐθύναςὑπέχοντεςφρίττομεν , ὡςοὐδυνησόμενοιτὸπῦρἐκφυγεῖνἐκεῖνο , τίχρὴπείσεσθαιπροσδοκᾶντὸνὑπὲρτοσούτωνἀπολογεῖσθαιμέλλοντα ;), but in ΠρὸςἙβραίους the writer assumes that the ἡγούμενοι are doing and will do their duty. Any sadness which they may feel is due, not to a sense of their own shortcomings, but to their experience of wilfulness and error among their charges. Λόγονἀποδιδόναι is more common in the NT than the equivalent λόγονδιδόναι , which recurs often in Greek literature, e.g. in Plato’ s Sympos. 189b, πρόσεχετὸννοῦνκαὶοὕτωςλέγεὡςδώσωνλόγον , or in the complaint of the Fayyum peasants (A.D. 207), who petition the local centurion that the disturbers of their work may be called to account: ἀξιοῦντες , ἐάνσοιδόξῃ , κελεῦσαιαὐτοὺςἀχθῆναιἐπὶσελόγονἀποδώσονταςπερὶτούτου (GCP i. 354:25, 26). In Clem. Alex. Quis div. salv. 42, John says to the captain of the robbers, ἐγὼΧριστῷλόγονδώσωὑπὲρσοῦ . The ἲνα clause goes back to πείθεσθε … ὑπείκετε . The members have it in their power to thwart and disappoint their ἡγούμενοι . Τοῦτοπ . refers to ἀγρυπνοῦσιν , and the best comment on καὶμὴστενάζοντες is in Denny’ s hymn: “ O give us hearts to love like Thee, Like Thee, O Lord, to grieve Far more for others’ sins than all The wrongs that we receive.” The last four words, ἀλυσιτελὲςγὰρὑμῖντοῦτο , form a rhetorical litotes, as when Pindar (Olymp. i. 53) remarks, ἀκέρδειαλέλογχενθαμινὰκακαγόρος . It would be a “ sore loss” to them if their lives failed to answer the hopes and efforts of their ἡγούμενοι , hopes like those implied in 6:9 and 10:39. Ἀλυσιτελές is probably used after λόγονἀποδώσοντες with its sense of “ reckoning.” Compare the use of the adverb in Theophrastus, viii. 11 , and the dry remark of Philo (in Flaccum, 6), speaking about the attempt of the Alexandrian anti-Semites to erect images in Jewish places of worship, when he says that Flaccus might have known ὡςοὐλυσιτελὲςἔθηπάτριακινεῖν ! The term lent itself to such effective under-statements, as in Philo’ s aphorism (Fragments of Philo, ed. J. Rendel Harris, p. 70) τὸἐπιορκεῖνἀνόσιονκαὶἀλυσιτελέστατον . The next word (v. 18) is about himself. Προσεύχεσθε (continue praying) περὶἡμῶν (plural of authorship), πειθόμεθαγὰρὅτικαλὴνσυνείδησινἔχομεν . He is conscious of a keen desire (θέλοντες as in 12:17) to act in a straightforward, honest way; hence he can ask their prayers. Hence also they may feel confident and eager about praying for him. The writer chooses καλήν (cp. on v. 9) instead of ἀγαθήν as his adjective for συνείδησιν , probably for the sake of assonance with the following καλῶς , perhaps also to avoid the hiatus after ὅτι . When he adds, ἐνπᾶσιν (here neuter) καλῶςθέλοντεςἀναστρέφεσθαι (a phrase which occurs in the Pergamos inscript. 459:5 καλῶςκαὶἐνδόξωςἀναστραφῆναι , in the 1st century b.c. inscription (Priene, 115:5) ἀναστρεφόμενοςἐνπᾶσινφιλ [ανθρώπως ], and in Epict. iv. 40, 46, ἑορτὴνἄγεινδύνασαικαθ ʼ ἡμέραν , ὅτικαλῶςἀνεστράφηςἐντῷδετῷἔργω , etc.), the language recalls that of 2 Corinthians 1:11, 2 Corinthians 1:12 where Paul appeals for the help of his readers’ prayers and pleads his honesty of conscience (τὸμαρτύριοντῆςσυνειδήσεωςἡμῶν , ὅτι … ἀνεστράφημενκτλ .). Perhaps the writer is conscious that his readers have been blaming him, attributing (say) his absence from them to unworthy motives, as in the case of Paul (e.g. 1 Thessalonians 2:18, 2 Corinthians 1:17f.). This may be the feeling which prompts the protest here and the assurances in vv. 19, 23. “ I am still deeply interested in you; my absence is involuntary; believe that.” Καί is inserted before περί by D vt Chrys. (possibly as a reminiscence of 1 Thessalonians 5:25), i.e. pray as well as obey (“ et orate pro nobis,” d); this would emphasize the fact that the writer belonged to the ἡγούμενοι . But the plural in v. 18 is not used to show that the writer is one of the ἡγούμενοι mentioned in v. 17, for whom the prayers of the community are asked. He was one of them; ἡμῶν here is the literary plural already used in 5:11, 6:9, 11. There are apt parallels in Cicero’ s de Officiis, ii. 24 (“ Quem nos … e Graeco in Latinum convertimus. Sed toto hoc de genere, de quaerenda, de collocanda pecunia vellens etiam de utenda” ), and OP x. 1296 (the letter of a boy to his father), ποιῶ … φιλοπονοῦμενκαὶἀναψυχόμεν . Πειθόμεθα (πείθομαι 256, 1319, 2127) has been changed into πεποίθαμεν by א c Cc D Ψ W 6, 104, 263, 326 (Blass), probably because the latter is stronger than πείθομεθα , which (cp. Acts 26:26) only amounts to “ we believe” . Retaining πειθόμεθα , A. Bischoff (Zeits. fü r aie neut. Wiss. ix, 171 f.) evades the difficulty by altering the order of the words: προσεύχ . περὶἡμῶν · καλὴνγὰρσυν . ἔχομεν , ὅτιπείθομεθαἐνπᾶσινκ . θ . ἀναστρέφεσθαι , i.e. taking ὅτι as “ because.” As in Philemon 1:22, the writer’ s return is dependent on his friends’ prayers (v. 19); specially (see p. 17) let them intercede with God for his speedy restoration to them, ἵνατάχιονἀποκατασταθῶὑμῖν (cp. OP i .81 (a.d. 49-50) ἀποκατεστάθημοιὁυἱός ). Τάχιον may mean “ the sooner” (i.e. than if you did not pray) or simply “ soon” (as in v. 23, where, as in Hellenistic Greek, it has lost its comparative meaning). What detained the writer, we cannot tell. Apparently (v. 23) it was not imprisonment. A closing prayer and doxology, such as was not uncommon in epistles of the primitive church (e.g. 1 Thessalonians 5:23, 1 Thessalonians 5:1 P 5:11), now follows. Having asked his readers to pray for him, he now prays for them. 20 May the God of peace “ who brought up” from the dead our Lord (7:14) Jesus (see p. lxiii), “ the” great “ Shepherd of the sheep, with the blood of the eternal covenant,” 21 furnish you with everything that is good for the doing of his will, creating in your lives by Jesus Christ what is acceptable in his own sight! To him (i.e. God) be glory for ever and ever. Amen. Ὁθεὸςτῆςεἰρήνης means the God of saving bliss (see on 12:11), εἰρήνη being taken in a sense like the full OT sense of the secure prosperity won by the messianic triumph over the hostile powers of evil (cp. 2:14, 7:2). There is no special allusion here, as in Paul’ s use of the phrase (Romans 15:33, 2 Corinthians 13:11 etc.), to friction in the community; the conflict is one in which God secures εἰρήνη for his People, a conflict with evil, not strife between members of the church. The method of this triumph is described in some OT phrases, which the writer uses quite apart from their original setting. The first quotation is from Isaiah 63:11 ποῦὁἀναβιβάσαςἐκτῆςγῆςτὸνποιμένατῶνπροβάτων , which the writer applies to Jesus— his only reference to the resurrection (cp. on vv. 11, 12). But there is no need (with Blass) to follow Chrysostom in reading τῆςγῆς here for νεκρῶν . With ἀναγεῖν in this sense, ἐκνεκρῶν (so Romans 10:7) or some equivalent (ἐξᾅδου , Psalms 30:4, Wis 16:13, Joseph. Ant. 6. 14. 2) is much more natural. In τὸνποιμένατῶνπροβάτωντὸνμέγαν , ὁμέγας is applied to him as in 4:14, 10:21. The figure of the ποιμήν , which never occurs in Paul, plays no rô le in our author’ s argument as it does in 1 Peter (2:25, 5:4); he prefers ἱερεύς or ἀρχηγός , and even here he at once passes to the more congenial idea of the διαθήκη . Jesus is the great Shepherd, as he has made himself responsible for the People, identifying himself with them at all costs, and sacrificing his life in order to save them for God. But as death never occurs in the OT description of the divine shepherd, not even in the 23rd Psalm, the writer blends with his quotation from Isaiah another— ἐναἵματιδιαθήκηςαἰωνίου , a LXX phrase from Zechariah 9:11 , Isaiah 55:3 , etc. Ἐναἵματιδιαθήκηςαἰωνίου goes with ἀναγαγών , not with τὸνποιμένα , in which case τόν would need to be prefixed to the phrase. Jesus was raised to present his blood as the atoning sacrifice which mediated the διαθήκη (9:11, 24f.). To the resurrection (cp. on v. 12) is thus ascribed what elsewhere in the epistle is ascribed to the εἰσελθεῖνεἰςτὰἅγια . But as the stress falls on αἰωνίου , then more is implied than that apart from the αἷμα no διαθήκη could have been instituted. In reality the thought resembles that of 9:14 (ὃςδιὰπνεύματοςαἰωνίουἑαυτὸνπροσήνεγκεν … καθαριεῖτὴνσυνείδησινἡμῶν … εἰςτὸλατρεύεινθεῷζῶντι ), where εἰςτὸλατρεύεινθεῷ corresponds to εἰςτὸποιῆσαιτὸθέλημααὐτοῦ below; ἔνκτλ . is “ equipped with,” not “ in virtue of.” This interpretation is in line with the author’ s argument in chs. 7-10. “ Videtur mihi apostolus hoc belle, Christum ita resurrexisse a mortuis, ut mors tamen eius non sit abolita, sed aeternum vigorem retineat, ac si dixisset: Deus filium suum excitavit, sed ita ut sanguis, quem semel in morte fudit, ad sanctionem foederis aeterni post resurrectionem vigeat fructumque suum proferat perinde ac si semper flueret” (Calvin). In καταρτίσαι (the aor. optative)1 κτλ ., there is a parallel to the thought of Php 2:13. Εἰςτὸποιῆσαιτὸθέλημααὐτοῦ recalls the language of 10:36, and διὰἸησοῦχριστοῦ goes with ποιῶν : the power of God in our lives as for our lives (v. 20) works through the person of Jesus Christ. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/