ΠΡΟΣΕΒΡΑΙΟΥΣ — — — — — — Chap. 1:1-2:18. After manifold revelations in former times, God has now revealed Himself to us in His Son (1:1-4), who is greater than the angels, the dispensers of the law (1:4-14; inference, 2:1-4), though for a time he was made lower than the angels, and subjected to sufferings, in order to be, as our High Priest, our reconciler to God (2:5-18). And herein (1:1-4), introduction and statement of position. We may notice, 1. The opening of this Epistle without any address, or mention of the Author. Various reasons have been assigned for this, and inferences drawn from it (see Prolegg.). Some have said that the matter to be treated was so weighty, that the Writer merged altogether his own personality, and trusted to the weight of his subject to gain him a hearing. But, as Ebrard remarks, this would not account for entire omission of the name of the man and his standing. He therefore imagines that another shorter letter of a more private nature must have accompanied this. But we may reply, that this idea derives no countenance from the phæ nomena of the Epistle itself, containing as it does at the end private notices which might well have been dispensed with, if such a commendatory Epistle had accompanied it. We must therefore deal with this circumstance without any such hypothesis to help us. On the supposition of the Pauline authorship, some account may be given of it,— viz. that the name of the Apostle was concealed, from the nature of the relations between himself, and those to whom he was writing (see this hypothesis examined in the Prolegomena). And on the idea of Pauline superintendence, it would obviously admit of the same solution. 2. The carefully balanced and rhetorical style in which the Epistle begins, characteristic indeed of its whole diction (see Prolegg.), but especially marking this first period (vv. 1-4). The clauses are joined by close grammatical and rhetorical dependence: there is no anacoluthon, no carelessness of construction, but all is most carefully and skilfully disposed. 1. In many portions (for the usage of πολυμερῶς and of its cognate adj. πολυμερής , we have two passages of Maximus Tyrius, in which πολύτροπος is also conjoined with it: Dissert. xvii. 7, τῇτοῦἀνθρώπουψυχῇδύοὀργάνωνὄντωνπρὸςσύνεσιν , τοῦμὲνἁπλοῦ , ὃνκαλοῦμεννοῦν , τοῦδὲποικίλουκαὶπολυμεροῦςκαὶπολυτρόπου , ἃςαἰσθήσειςκαλοῦμεν : and ib. vii. 2, οὐθὲνδεῖτῆςπολυμεροῦςταύτηςκ . πολυτρόπουμούσηςτεκαὶἁρμονίας : also ib. xxxix. 2, τὸπολυμερὲςκαὶπολύφωνοντοῦτῶνσωμάτωνπολέμου , ἃςκαλοῦμεννόσους : Plut. de Virt. Mil. p. 757 d, ποικίλοντιδρᾶμακ . πολυμερές : id. de Invid. et Odio, p. 537 d, τοῦΘεοσίτουὁποιητὴςτὴνμὲντοῦσώματοςκακίανπολυμερῶςκαὶπεριοδευμένωςἐξεμόρφωσε , τὴνδὲτοῦἤθουςμοχθηρίανσυντομώτατακ . δι ʼ ἑνὸςἔφρασεν . Aristotle (in Stephanus, but without a reference) has πολυμερέστατοςπόντος , also De Part. Anim. iv. 7.1, τῶνὀστρακοδέρμωνοὐκἔστιτὸσῶμαπολυμερές , and Plato, Tim. Locr. p. 98 d, ὕδατοςστοιχεῖονπολυμερέστατον . Hesychius interprets the adj. εἰςπολλὰμεριζόμενον ; and the adverb, πολυσχεδῶς . Hence we may gather the meaning to be ‘ in many portions,’ or ‘ parts,’ manifoldly as regards the distribution. “ Non enim omnia, nec eadem, omnibus prophetis revelata sunt, sed quasi partibus mysteriorum distributis: alia aliis inspirata. Exempli caussa; Jesaiæ , partus virginis et passio Christi: Danieli, tempus adventus ejus: Jonæ , ejusdem sepultura: Malachiæ , adventus præ cursoris. Ac rursum aliis plura, aliis pauciora.” Estius. πολυμερῶς says Thdrt., τὰςπαντοδαπὰςοἰκονομίαςσημαίνει . So that “ at sundry times” is not an accurate rendering: nor can it be said as by the schol. in ms. 113, cited by Bleek , Calvin, Bleek, Lü nemann, al., to express the meaning: time is a historical condition of the sequence of parts,— persons to whom, an anthropological condition,— but it does not follow that ‘ at sundry times,’ or ‘ to sundry persons,’ gives the force of ‘ in divers parts:’ because it might be the same thing which was revealed again and again. This revelation in portions, by fragments, in and by various persons, was necessarily an imperfect revelation, to which the one final manifestation in and by One Person is properly and logically opposed, without any ἐφάπαξ or ἁπλῶς as Tholuck seems to desiderate in the apodosis) and in divers manners (ἄλλωςγὰρὤφθητῷἈβραάμ , κ . ἄλλωςτῷΜωυσῇ , κ . ἑτέρωςἩλίᾳ , κ . ἄλλωςτῷΜιχαίᾳ . καὶἩσαΐαςδὲκ . Δανιὴλκ . Ἰεζεκιὴλδιάφοραἐθεάσαντοσχήματα . Thdrt. Bleek remarks that in Numbers 12:6-8, the diversity of manner of revelation is recognized: dreams and visions being set beneath that open speaking, mouth to mouth, which the Lord used towards His servant Moses. Wetst. cites a remarkable parallel from Eustathius, where, speaking of Odysseus, he says, πολυτρόπωςἀνεγνωρίσθηπᾶσινοῖςἦλθενεἱςγνῶσιν , μηδενὸςαναγνωρισμοῦσυμπεσόντοςἑτέρῳἀναγνωρισμῷτὸσύνολον · ἄλλωςγὰρτῷΤηλεμάχῳ , ἑτέρωςτῇΕὐρυκλείᾳ , ἑτέρωςτοῖςδούλοις , ἄλλονδὲτρόποντῷΛαέρτῃ , καὶὅλωςἀνομοίωςἅπασι . See also ref. It will be seen, that I cannot agree with Chrys. and many others in regarding the two adverbs as a mere rhetorical redundance— τουτέστιδιαφόρως . Both set forth the imperfection of the O. T. revelations. They were various in nature and in form: fragments of the whole truth, presented in manifold forms, in shifting hues of separated colour: Christ is the full revelation of God, Himself the pure light, uniting in His one Person the whole spectrum: see below on ἀπαύγασμα . Kypke, Bleek, and others, have pointed out the mistake of Lambert Bos (Observ. Misc. p. 109), who imagined, from the passage of Max. Tyr. Diss. vii. 2, cited above, that these words were originally applied to music) in time past (generally interpreted of the O. T. period, ending with Malachi. But, as Ebrard well observes, there is no need for cutting off the period there. In the interim between Malachi and the Writer’ s time, though the O. T. canon was closed, we cannot say that God’ s manifold revelations of Himself had absolutely ceased. Nay, strictly speaking, the Baptist himself belonged to the former, though he pointed on to the latter period. No doubt Bleek is right in denying that he was here in the Writer’ s view, and in maintaining that the period of former revelations is here regarded as distinct from the final Christian one: but for all that, we must not put an artificial terminus where he puts none) God having spoken (see the usage of λαλεῖν in this sense in reff. and Bleek, p. 12) to the fathers (see usage in reff. It is evident from this term being common to the Writer and his readers, where no reference is made to Jews in the context (as in Romans 9:5 al.), that he was writing as a Jew and to Jews. οἱπατέρες , “ qui in carne et in fide nos genuere.” Ps.-Anselm) in (not = διὰ , though it includes it. The readers of Vol. III. of this work need hardly be reminded that such a rendering of ἐν has never been acquiesced in by me. Nor can I concede to any number of Commentators that, as Primasius here,— “ Præ positio pro alia præ positione sæ pe accipitur, sicut in multis locis epistolæ invenitur his præ positionibus indifferenter uti.” Nor again must we bring in the convenient solution of Hellenism, when we find the same usage in Greek classical writers, and the same inadequacy of explanation of it. In such expressions as λαλεῖνἐν , viewed irrespectively of the idea of Beza, “ Deum quasi prophetis ipsis insidere,” the ἐν designates the element in which the λαλεῖν takes place, and holds therefore its own proper force. That we may be sometimes compelled by English idiom to render it ‘ by,’ is possible, though I do not at present recall any instance: certainly such an one does not occur here, where the contrast is much weakened by making it instrumental, instead of conditional. It may be well to state, that this merging of the proper force of prepositions is not confined to those who deal with Greek as a dead language. Chrys. here says, ἐνυἱῷ , διὰτοῦυἱοῦφησι .… ὁρᾷςὅτικαὶτὸἐν , διάἐστι : similarly Œ c., Thl., Primasius (above), and in modern times Luther, Calvin, Grot., al., Reiche, Thol., Ebrard, Delitzsch, al. On the other hand, Thos. Aquinas , Beza (see above), Gerhard, Calov., Seb.-Schmidt, Owen, Wolf, Bengel , Uhland, Bleek, De W., Lunemann, al. Erasm.-Schmid, al. take ἐνπροφήταις to mean, “ in the prophetic writings:” but for this there seems no ground, and thus the antithesis would be marred. The sense contended for above agrees with the expressions of Philo, e. g. De Præ m. et Pœ n. § 9, vol. ii. p. 417, ἑρμηνεὺςγάρἐστινὁπροφήτης , ἔνδοθενὑπηχοῦντοςτὰλεκτέατοῦθεοῦ . See also De Monarch. i. 9, pp. 221 f.: De Spec. Leg. § 8, p. 343: Quis Rer. Div. Hæ r. § 53, vol. i. p. 511: all these are cited in Bl.) the prophets (to be taken here apparently in the wider sense,— as including not only those whose inspired writings form the O. T. canon, but all who were vehicles of the divine self-manifestation to the fathers. Thus Enoch in Jude 1:14 is said προφητεῦσαι . Moses is of course included, and indeed would on any view be the chief of those here spoken of, seeing that by him the greater part of God’ s revelation of Himself to the fathers was made),— at the end of these days . And with this, N. T. usage agrees,— see ref. 1 Pet., also James 5:3: Jude 1:18: 2 Peter 3:3. Thus ἐπ ʼ ἐσχάτουτῶνἡμτούτων would mean, ‘ at the end of this age,’ in the technical sense of these words as signifying the whole world-period, the ‘ terminus ad quem’ of which is the general Resurrection. And thus is the manifestation of Christ in the flesh ever spoken of, and especially in this Epistle: cf. ch. 9:26; and notes on ch. 2:5; 6:5. See, on the whole, Bleek’ s note; and Stuart’ s, who however has mistaken the meaning, in rendering “ during the last dispensation,” and making τούτων to import that the period had already begun. It is not of a beginning, but of an expiring period, the Writer is speaking. The ancient expositors principally use these words as ground of consolation— ἐντούτῳαὐτοὺςδιανίστησιλέγωνὅτιἡσυντέλειαἐγγύς . ὁγὰρἐντῷἀγῶνικαταμαλακισθείς , ἐπειδὰνἀκούσῃτοῦἀγῶνοςτὸτέλος , ἀναπνεῖμικρόν . Thl. aft. Chr.) spake (not “ hath spoken:” the ἔσχατον is looked back on as a definite point, at which the divine revelation took place. The attention of the readers is thus directed not so much to the present state in which they are, as to the act of God towards them. Thus, as almost always, the distinction between the aor. and perfect is important) unto us (i. e. all who have heard that voice, or to whom it is to be announced. There is no distinction between those who received God’ s revelation immediately from the Son, and those who received it mediately through others. To this latter number belonged the Writer himself, cf. ch. 2:3) in (see above) his Son (υἱῷ without the art. is to be noted, and has been variously explained. The omission would not at any time surprise us after a preposition; but here after ἐντοῖςπροφήταις , we should expect, as an antithesis, ἐντῷυἱῷ . Hence we must seek a reason beyond that usual idiomatic omission. Emphatic position will often dispense with the art.: and this may be alleged here. But even thus we do not get at the final cause. If the position of υἱῷ , whenever anarthrous, is emphatic to this extent, it must be for some reason still latent. Some have suggested official denomination, making υἱός into a quasi-proper name. But this again is only an introduction to the final reason. Why is such an anarthrous name here used, as designating our Lord? And thus we come to the word itself, as we must do in all such cases, for our account of the idiom. And that account here seems to be found in the peculiar and exclusive character of that relation to God, which υἱός expresses. We may say, that Jesus is ‘ the Son of God:’ by this is definitely enough expressed the fact, and the distinction from other sons of God implied: but we may also say that He is ‘ Son of God:’ and we thus give the predicate all fulness of meaning and prominence, and even more emphatically and definitely express the exclusive character of His Sonship. And by this anarthrous appellation does the Writer frequently speak of Him: e. g. ch. 7:28, ὁνόμοςγὰρἀνθρώπουςκαθίστησινκ .τ .λ .… ὁλόγοςδὲτῆςὁρκωμοσίαςτῆςμετὰτὸννόμον , υἱὸνεἰςτὸναἰῶνατετελειωμένον : see also 3:6; 5:8; 7:8. Nor is the usage confined to him: cf. John 10:36; John 19:7, and in the case of υἱὸςἀνθρώπου , 5:27. So far is this or any other usage of the art. from being “ arbitrary,” as Stuart here maintains. I will quote his sentence for a caution to tiros: “ After all the rules which have been laid down respecting the insertion or omission of the article in Greek, and all the theories which have been advanced, he who investigates for himself, and is guided only by facts, will find not a little that is arbitrary in the actual use of it. The cases are certainly very numerous, where Greek writers insert or reject it at pleasure.” The direct contrary of this assertion is the fact, and cannot be too much impressed on every Greek Testament student. The rules respecting the art. are rigid, and are constantly observed; and there is no case of its omission or insertion in which there was not a distinct reason in the mind of the Writer,— usually, but not always, discernible by the patient and accurate scholar among ourselves. In this particular case our language, though it allows the predicate in the nominative, ‘ Son of God,’ to be used anarthrously, does not allow it to be so used with a preposition, nor in the objective case: so that we are here obliged to take refuge in the nearly equivalent, though not so accurate ‘ in His Son.’ To render it ‘ in a Son’ would be directly to contravene the logical account of the anarthrousness of the predicate. We might periphrase, ‘ in Him who was Son of God.’ We now pass off into a description of the dignity, and person, and work, of this Son of God: which description ends in asserting and proving Him to be higher than angels, the loftiest of created beings), 2. whom He constituted heir (ἔθηκεκληρονόμον , τουτέστιτοῦτονκύριονἁπάντωνἐποίησεν … τῷδὲτοῦκληρονόμουὀνόματικέχρηταιδύοδηλῶν , καὶτὸτῆςυἱότητοςγνήσιον , καὶτὸτῆςκυριότητοςἀναπόσπαστον . Chrys.: and so Thl. “ Convenienter statim sub Filii nomen memoratur hæ reditas.” Bengel. That κληρ . is not equivalent to κύριον simply, is plain: the same expression could not, as Bleek well remarks, have been used of the Father. It is in virtue of the Sonship of our Lord that the Father constituted Him heir of all things, before the worlds began. “ In Him also,” says Delitzsch, “ culminates the fulfilment of the promise given to the seed of Abraham, τὸκληρονόμονεἶναιτοῦκόσμου .” See below. See for St. Paul’ s use of the word and image, reff.: and Galatians 4:7) of all things (neuter: τουτέστι , τοῦκόσμουπαντός , Chr. And we cannot give this a more limited sense, nor restrict it to this world; especially as the subsequent portion of the chapter distinctly includes the angels in it. It is much disputed whether this heirship of Christ is to be conceived as belonging to Him essentially in his divine nature, or as accruing to Him from his work of redemption in the human nature. The Fathers, and the majority of the moderns, decide for the latter alternative. So Chrys., and even more emphatically Thdrt.: ἀπὸτῶνἀνθρωπίνωνὁθεῖοςἀπόστολοςἤρξατο , καὶτὰταπεινότεραπρῶτονλέγωνοὕτωςἅπτεταιμειζόνων . κληρονόμοςγὰρπάντωνὁδεσπότηςχριστὸςοὐχὡςθεός , ἀλλ ʼ ὡςἄνθρωπος . ὡςγὰρθεός , ποιητήςἐστιπάντων · ὁδὲπάντωνδημιουργὸςφύσειπάντωνδεσπότης . And so the Socinian and quasi-Socinian interpreters, arriving at the same view by another way, not believing the præ -existence of Christ. But it is plain that such an interpretation will not suit the requirements of the passage. For this humiliation of his, with its effects, first comes in at the end of ver. 3. All this, now adduced, is referable to his essential Being as Son of God; not merely in the Godhead before his Incarnation, but also in the Manhood after it, which no less formed a part of His ‘ constitution’ by the Father, than his Godhead itself. So that the ἔθηκεν , as observed above, must be taken not as an appointment in prospect of the Incarnation, but as an absolute appointment, coincident with the σήμερονγεγέννηκάσε , belonging to the eternal Sonship of the Lord, though wrought out in full by his mediatorial work. Delitzsch contends for its exclusive application to the exaltation of Christ in his historical manifestation, beginning with the creation of the world: but I cannot see that he has proved his point), by whom (see ref. John: as His acting Power and personal instrument: so Thl., aft. Chrys.: ἐπειδὴδὲαἴτιοςὁπατὴρτοῦυἱοῦ , εἰκότωςκαὶτῶνὑπ ʼ αὐτοῦγενομένων · διὰτοῦτόφησι , δι ʼ οὗ . ὁπατὴργὰρδοκεῖποιεῖν , ὁτὸνποιήσανταυἱὸνγεννήσας . The idea of Grotius, fortified by a misrendering of Beza’ s, Romans 6:4,— that “ δι ʼ οὗ , per quem, videtur hic recte accipi posse pro δι ʼ ὅν , propter quem,” is only worth recording, to make us thankful that the labours of the great scholars of Germany have brought in a day when it no longer needs refutation) He also made the ages (the meaning of τοὺςαἰῶνας has been much disputed. The main classes of interpreters are two. 1. Those who see in the word its ordinary meaning of “ an age of time;” 2. those who do not recognize such meaning, but suppose it to have been merged in that of “ the world,” or “ the worlds.” To (1) belong the Greek Fathers: Chrys. (see however note on ch. 11:3), Thdrt. , Thl. (ποῦδέεἰσινοἱλέγαντες , ἦνὅτεοὐκἦν ; αὐτὸςτοὺςαἰῶναςἐποίησε , καὶπῶςἦναἰὼνὅτεοὐκἦναὐτός ;), Œ c. &c., and Thom. Aquin., and Heinsius. On the other hand, (2) is the view of the majority of Commentators. It is explained and defended at length by Bleek, none of whose examples however seem to me to be void of the same ambiguity which characterizes the expression here. The Jews, it appears, came at length to designate by their phrase ה ָ ע ו ֹ ל ָ ם ה ַ ו ּ ֶ ה (see above on ἐπ ʼ ἐσχάτουκ .τ .λ .), not only the present age, but all things in and belonging to it— and so of the “ future age” likewise. He produces a remarkable instance of this from Wisd. 13:9, εἰγὰρτοσοῦτονἴσχυσανεἰδέναι , ἵναδύνωνταιστοχάσασθαιτὸναἰῶνα , τὸντούτων (of the things in the world) δεσπότηνπῶςτάχιονοὐχεὗρον ; He therefore would regard τοὺςαἰῶνας as strictly parallel with πάντα above, and would interpret, “ Whom He has constituted lord, possessor and ruler over all, over the whole world, even as by Him He has made all, the universe.” And nearly so Delitzsch, Ebrard, and Lü nemann: these two latter adding however somewhat, inasmuch as they take it of all this state of things constituted in time and space. Ebrard says: Die ewige Selbst-offenbarung Gottes in sich, durch das emige Aussprechen seiner Fulle im ewigen personlichen Wort, das Gott zu sich (John 1:1) redet, und im Wehen des Ewigen Geistes, bildet den Grund und somit das Ewige (nicht zeitliche) Prius der vom Willen des Dreieinigen ausgehenden Offenbarung seiner in einer Sphare, die nicht ewig, sondern zeitlich raumlich, nicht Gott, sondern Creatur ist. And this last view I should be disposed to adopt, going however somewhat further still: for whereas Ebrard includes in τοὺςαἰῶνας God’ s revelation of Himself in a sphere whose conditions are Time and Space, and so would understand by it all things existing under these conditions, I would include in it also these conditions themselves,— which exist not independently of the Creator, but are His work— His appointed conditions of all created existence. So that the universe, as well in its great primæ val conditions,— the reaches of Space, and the ages of Time, as in all material objects and all successive events, which furnish out and people Space and Time, God made by Christ. It will be plain that what has been here said will apply equally to ch. 11:3, which is commonly quoted as decisive for the material sense here. Some (Schlichting, al.) have endeavoured to refer τοὺςαἰῶνας , 3. to the new or spiritual world, or the ages of the Messiah, or of the Christian Church: principally in the interests of Socinianism: or, 4. as Sykes and Pyle, to the various dispensations of God’ s revelation of Himself: or even, 5. as Fabricius (Cod. Apocr. i. p. 710, Bl.), to the Gnostic æ ons, or emanations from the Divine Essence, and so to the higher spiritual order of beings, the angels. Against all these, besides other considerations, ch. 11:3 is a decisive testimony). It will be seen by consulting the note on John 1:1, how very near the teaching of Philo approached to this creation of the universe by the Son. See, among the quotations in my Vol. I. Edn. 6, p. 679, especially those from Philo, vol. i. p. 106: and that in p. 681 from ib. p. 162. See Isaiah 9:6 Heb. and LXX-. 3. “ The Son of God now becomes Himself the subject. The ‘ verbum finitum’ belonging to the relative ὅς is not found till ἐκάθισεν at the end of the verse. But the intermediate participial clauses do not stand in the same relation to the main sentence. The first members, ὢνἀπαύγασμα … δυνάμεωςαὐτοῦ , still set forth those attributes of the Son of God which are of a permanent character, and belonging to Him before the Incarnation: whereas the following member, the last participial clause, stands in nearer relation to the main sentence, expressing as it does the purification of mankind from sin, wrought by the incarnate Son of God, as one individual historical event,— as the antecedent of that exaltation of Him to the right hand of God, which the main sentence enounces.” Bleek. Who (the ὅς represents, it will be evident, rather the præ -existent than the incarnate Logos. But it is perhaps a mistake to let this distinction be too prominent, and would lead to the idea of a change having taken place in the eternal relation of the Son to the Father, when He subjected himself to the conditions of space and time. Even then He could say of himself, ὁυἱὸςτοῦἀνθρώπουὁὢνἐντῷοὐρανῷ . See Ebrard’ s note), being (cf. ὑπάρχων , Philippians 2:6, also of His præ -existent and essential being. This comparison seems decisive against Hofmann, who (Schriftbeweis, i. 140 ff.) takes ὤν and φέρων according to his theory that all the attributes of the Son of God spoken of in the N. T. are adduced in connexion with and as manifested by His work of Redemption. See against this view Delitzsch, h. l. p. 7. But it must also be remembered that ὤν and φέρων are present participles. They must not be rendered utpote qui, or cum esset and ferret, but kept to their essential and timeless sense,— ‘ being,’ and ‘ bearing’ ) the brightness , al. This latter would be legitimate, but does not seem to have been the ordinary usage. Bl. cites from Philo de Concupiscent. § 11, vol. ii. p. 356, τὸδὲἐμφυσώμενον (Genesis 2:7) δῆλονὡςαἰθέριονἦνπνεῦμακαὶεἰδήτιαἰθερίουπνεύματοςκρεῖττον , ἅτετῆςμακαρίαςκαὶτρισμακαρίαςφύσεωςἀπαύγασμα ,— where the sense clearly is, that the breath breathed into man was as it were a ray of the divine nature itself. See also id. de Opif. Mund. § 51, vol. i. p. 35; de Plant. Noë , § 12, p. 154. Cf. Wisd. 7:26, where wisdom is called an ἀπαύγασμαφωτὸςἀϊδίου . And this (which, as Delitzsch remarks, is represented by the φῶςἐκφωτός of the Church) seems to have been universally the sense among the ancients: no trace whatever being found of the meaning ‘ reflexion.’ Nor would the idea be apposite here: the Son of God is, in this his essential majesty, the expression, and the sole expression, of the divine Light,— not, as in his Incarnation, its reflexion. So Thdrt.: τὸγὰρἀπαύγασμακαὶἐκτοῦπυρόςἐστι , καὶσὺντῷπυρίἐστι · καὶαἴτιονμὲνἔχειτὸπῦρ , ἀχώριστονδέἐστιτοῦπυρός .… καὶτῷπυρὶδὲὁμοφυὲςτὸἀπαύγασμα · οὐκοῦνκαὶὁυἱὸςτῷπατρί . (Cf. Athanasius contra Arianos Orat. i. (ii.) § 12, vol. ii. (Migne) p. 328: τίςοὕτωςἐστὶνἀνόητος , ὡςἀμφιβάλλεινπερὶτοῦαἰεὶεἶναιτὸνυἱόν ; πότεγάρτιςεἶδεφῶςχωρὶςτῆςτοῦἀπαυγάσματοςλαμπρότητος ;) And Thl.: καὶγὰρτὸἀπαύγασματῷἀπαυγάζοντισυνεμφαίνεται . οὔτεγὰρἥλιοςὡράθηποτὲχωρὶςἀπαυγάσματος · οὔτεπατὴρνοεῖταιχωρὶςυἱοῦ . ὅτανοὖνἀκούσῃςτῶνἈρειανῶνλεγόντων , ὅτιεἰἐκπατρὸςὁυἱός , λοιπὸνὕστεροςαὐτοῦ · ἀντίθεςαὺτοῖς , ὅτικαὶτὸἀπαύγασμαἐκτοῦἡλίου , καὶοὐχὕστεροναὐτοῦ . ἅμαγὰρἥλιος , ἅμαἀπαύγασμα . And Origen, tom. xxxii. in Joann. § 18, vol. iv. p. 450: ὅληςμὲνοὖνοἶμαιτῆςδόξηςτοῦθεοῦαὐτοῦὰπαύγασμαεἶναιτὸνυἱόν , κατὰτὸνεἰπόνταΠαῦλονὋςὢνἀπαύγασματῆςδόξης · φθάνεινμέντοιγεἀπὸτοῦἀπαυγάσματοςτούτουτῆςὅληςδόξηςμερικὰἀπαυγάσματαἐπὶτὴνλοιπὴνλογικὴνκτίσιν · οὐκοἶμαιγάρτινατὸπᾶνδύνασθαιχωρῆσαιτῆςὅληςδόξηςτοῦθεοῦἀπαύγασμα , ἢτὸνυἱὸναὐτοῦ . Hesychius gives as the meaning of ἀπαύγασμα , ἡλίουφέγγος : and the MS. Lexicon of Cyril, ἀκτὶςἡλίουἡπρώτητοῦἡλιακοῦφωτὸςἀποβολή . See also Clem-rom. in reff. and several other authorities cited in Bleek) of His glory . Again, Owen (vol. i. p. 85 f.) supposes the Shechinah to be alluded to;— Akersloot, the Urim and Thummim. It is hardly probable that in a preliminary description, couched in the most general and sublime terms, any such particular allusion should be intended. Notice again the anarthrous predicate, to which the same remarks will apply as to υἱῷ above. Delitzsch remarks, Es ist kein nimbus um Gott, welchen, hier δόξα genannt wird, sondern die ü bersinnliche geistige Feuer und Lichtnatur Gottes selber, welche er, um sich vor sich selbst offenbar zu merden, aus sich herausfeß t) and impress (“ figura,” vulg.: “ figure,” Wiclif and Rheims: “ very image,” Tyndal and Cranmer: “ ingraved forme,” Geneva: “ express image,” E. V. The word χαρακτήρ , which by formation would be the stamp or die itself on which a device χαράσσεται , and which stamps it on other things, never appears to bear this meaning, but always to be taken for the impression itself so stamped. Thus Æ sch. Suppl. 279, Κύπριοςχαρακτήρτ ʼ ἐνγυναικείοιςτύποιςεἰκὼςπέπληκταιτεκτόνωνπρὸςἀρσένων . “ Aristot. Œ c. ii. p. 689, ἀνενεχθέντοςδὲτοῦἀργυρίουἐπικόψαςχαρακτῆρα : id. Pol. i. 6, where χαρακτῆραἐπιβάλλειν is to stamp coin, and it is said, ὁγὰρχαρακτήρἐτέθητοῦπόσουσημεῖον . Diod. Sic. xvii. 66, τάλανταχρυσοῦ , χαρακτῆραδαρεικὸνἔχοντα . Hence the word is taken, 1. generally for any fixed and sharply marked lineaments, material or spiritual, by which a person or an object may be recognized and distinguished. Herod. i. 116, ὁχ . τοῦπροσώπου . Diod. Sic. i. 82, τοὺςτῆςὄψεωςχαρακτῆρας , the lines of the countenance. Lucian, de Amoribus, p. 1061, calls mirrors τῶνἀντιμόρφωνχαρακτήρωνἀγράφουςεἰκόνας , and ib. p. 1056, ἧςὁμὲνἀληθῶςχ . ἄμορφος . Demosth. (in Stephan.), ἐνμὲντοῖςἐσόπτροιςὁτῆςὄψεως , ἐνδὲταῖςὁμιλίαιςὁτῆςψυχῆςχαρακτὴρβλέπεται . Philo, de Mund. Opif. § 4 (vol. i. p. 4), τοὺςχαρακτῆραςἐνσφραγίζεσθαι , to impress on the mind the lines and forms of an intended city: id. Legg. Allegor. i. § 18 (vol. i. p. 55), ὁτῆςἀρετῆςχαρακτήρ , οἰκεῖοςὢνἐντῷπαραδείσῳ : id. de Mundi Opif. § 23 (p. 15), τὴνδὲἐμφέρειαν (the likeness of man to God) μηδεὶςεἰκαζέτωσώματοςχαρακτῆρσιν , ib. § 53 (p. 36), τῆςἑκατέρουφύσεως (viz. of God and the creation) ἀπεμάττετο (scil. man, while he was alone) τῇψυχῇτοὺςχαρακτῆρας :— and, 2. of the objects themselves, on which the features of another are expressed,— which bear its peculiar image, so that they appear as if taken off from it by impression of a die. So Philo, Quod Det. Potiori Ins. § 23 (vol. i. p. 217), designates the πνεῦμα imparted by God to man τύποντινὰκαὶχαρακτῆραθείαςδυνάμεως , Moses naming the same εἰκών , to shew ὅτιἀρχέτυπονμὲνφύσεωςλογικῆςὁθεόςἐστι , μίμημαδὲκαὶἀπεικόνισμαἄνθρωπος : De Plant. Noë , § 5 (p. 332), he says, Moses named the rational soul τοῦθείουκαὶἀοράτουεἰκόνα , δόκιμονεἶναινομίσαςοὐσιωθεῖσανκ . τυπωθεῖσανσφραγῖδιθεοῦ , ἧςὁχαρακτήρἐστινὁἀΐδιοςλόγος . Here the λόγος is designated as the impress of the seal of God, by the impression of which in like manner on the human soul, this last receives a corresponding figure, as the image of the unseen and divine. Compare also Clem.-rom. ad Cor. c. 33, αὐτὸςὁδημιουργὸςκ . δεσπότηςἁπάντων … τὸν … ἄνθρωπονταῖςἰδίαιςαὐτοῦκαὶἀμώμοιςχερσὶνἔπλασεν , τῆςἑαυτοῦεἰκόνοςχαρακτῆρα . Hence the usage of χαρακτήρ here will be easily understood.” Bleek: see also the word in Palm and Rost’ s Lex. καθ ʼ ἑαυτὸνγάρ , φησίν , ὑφέστηκεν , ὅλονἐνἑαυτῷδεικνὺςπατέρα . τοὺςγὰρπατρικοὺςπερίκειταιχαρακτῆρας . τούτῳἔοικετὸὑπὸτοῦκυρίουπρὸςτὸνΦίλιππονεἰρημένον , ὁἑωρακὼςἐμέ , ἑώρακετὸνπατέραμου . Thdrt.) of His substance (substantial or essential being: “ substance,” Wicl., Tynd., Cranm., Rheims: “ person,” Geneva, and E. V.: Wesen, Luther, &c., De Wette, Bleek, al.: das der Erscheinung unterliegende Wesen, der Wesensgrund, Delitzsch. The various meanings of ὑπόστασις are well traced by Bleek, from whom, as so often in this Epistle, I take the account. Etymologically, the word imports the lying or being placed underneath: and this is put in common usage for, 1. substratum or foundation— fundamentum. Diod. Sic. i. 66, ὑπόστασιςτοῦτάφου : id. xiii. 82, κατὰτὸμέγεθοςτῆςὑποστάσεως : Ezekiel 43:11, κ . διαγράψειςτὸνοἶκονκ . τὰςἐξόδουςαὐτοῦκ . τὴνὑπόστασιναὐτοῦ : Psalms 68:2, ἐνεπάγηνεἰςἰλὺνβυθοῦκ . οὐκἔστινὑπόστασις . Nearly connected with this is, 2. establishment, or the state of being established: hence— α . firmness,— to which idea the word approaches in the last citation: but especially in reference to firmness of spirit, confidence: see more on ch. 3:14,— β . substantial existence, reality, in contradistinction to that which exists only in appearance or idea: Aristot. de Mundo iv. 19, τῶνἐνἀέριφαντασμάτωντὰμένἐστικατ ʼ ἔμφασιν , τὰδὲκαθ ʼ ὑπόστασιν : Artemidor. Oneirocrit. iii. 14, φαντασίανμὲνἔχεινπλούτου , ὑπόστασινδὲμή : Diog. Laert. ix. 91, ζητεῖταιδ ʼ οὐκεἰφαίνεταιταῦτα , ἀλλ ʼ εἰκαθ ʼ ὑπόστασινοὕτωςἔχει : id. vii. 135, καὶκατ ʼ ἐπίνοιανκαὶκαθ ʼ ὑπόστασιν . Hence— γ . generally, consistence or existence. So Philo, de Incorrupt. Mund. § 18, vol. i. p. 505, αὐγὴὑπόστασινἰδίανοὐκἔχει , γεννᾶταιδ ʼ ἐκφλογός : Psalms 38:5, καὶἡὑπόστασίςμουὡσεὶοὐθὲνἐνώπιόνσου : Ps. 88:47, μνήσθητιτίςὑπόστασίςμου (in both places for the existence of man, Heb. ח ֶ ל ֶ ד : hence also, as ὕπαρξις , for possessions or goods, as Deuteronomy 11:6: Jeremiah 10:17). Hence also— δ . it imports the especial manner of being, the peculiar essence of an object. Thus 1 Kings 13:21, τῇἀξίνῃκ . τῷδρεπάνῳὑπόστασιςἦνἡαὐτή : Wisd. 16:21, ἡμὲνγὰρὑπόστασίςσουτὴνσὴνγλυκύτηταπρὸςτέκναἐνεφάνισε . And this last seems to be the best meaning in our place: His essential being, His substance. For in regarding the history of the word, we find that the well-known theological meaning ‘ person’ was not by any means generally received during the first four centuries. We have it indeed in Origen, tom. ii. in Joann. § 6, vol. iv. p. 61 (ἡμεῖςμέντοιγετρεῖςὑποστάσειςπειθόμενοιτυγχάνειν , τὸνπατέρα , κ . τὸνυἱόν , κ . τὸἅγιονπνεῦμα , κ .τ .λ .): but the usage is by no means constant. The Nicene council itself uses ὑπόστασις and οὐσία in the same sense, and condemns the deriving the Son ἐξἑτέραςὑποστάσεωςκαὶοὐσίας from the Father (cited in Bleek, p. 60, note): and so usually (in the genuine works: e. g. Ep. ad Afros, c. 4, vol. ii. (Migne) p. 714: ἡὑπόστασιςοὐσίαἐστί , καὶοὐδὲνἄλλοσημαινόμενονἔχειἢαὐτὸτὸὄν .… ἡγὰρὑπόστασιςκαὶἡοὐσίαὕπαρξίςἐστιν . ἔστιγὰρκαὶὑπάρχει . See Gieseler, Kirchengesch. 1Pe_2, p. 63) Athanasius. The fact was, that the Easterns most commonly used ὑπόστασις to designate the three separate Persons (cf. e. g. Chrys. de Sacerdot. iv. 4, vol. i. p. 410 a, τὴνμὲνθεότηταπατρὸςκ . υἱ . κ . ἁγ . πν . μίανὁμολογοῦντας , προστιθένταςδὲκαὶτὰςτρειςὑποστάσεις , &c., and especially Basil, whom Gieseler regards as the representative of this view: Ep. 236. 6, vol. iv. p. 363, οὐσίακ . ὑπόστασιςταύτηςἔχειτὴδιαφοράν , ἣνἔχειτὸκοινὸνπρὸςτὸκαθ ʼ ἕκαστον . See other passages in Gieseler, ubi supra) in distinction from Sabellianism, which acknowledged three πρόσωπα , but not three ὑποστάσεις , i. e. self-subsisting personalities: whereas the Westerns continued to regard ὑπόστασις as = οὐσία , and assumed but one ὑπόστασις : and the Western bishops, assembled with Athanasius at the council of Sardica in 347, distinctly pronounced the assumption of three hypostases heretical, i. e. Arian. Their words, as cited by Suicer from Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. ii. 6, are very decisive: τὸτῶναἱρετικῶνσύστημαφιλονεικεῖ , διαφόρουςεἶναιτὰςὑποστάσειςτοῦπατρός , κ . τοῦυἱοῦ , κ . τοῦἁγίουπνεύματος , κ . εἶναικεχωρισμένας . ἡμεῖςδὲταύτηνπαρειλήφαμενκ . δεδιδάγμεθα , κ . ταύτηνἔχομεντὴνκαθολικὴνπαράδοσινκ . πίστινκ . ὁμολογίαν , μίανεἶναιὑπόστασιν , ἣναὐτοὶοἱαἱρετικοὶοὐσίανπροσαγορεύουσι , τοῦπατρός , κ . τοῦυἱοῦ , κ . τοῦἁγίουπνεύματος . Subsequently however to this, in the Synod assembled at Alexandria in 362, at which Athanasius, and bishops of Italy, Arabia, Egypt, and Libya were present, the Easterns and Westerns agreed, on examination of one another’ s meaning, to acknowledge one another as orthodox, and to allow indifferently of the use of τρεῖςὑποστάσεις signifying ‘ Persons,’ and μίαὑπόστασις signifying ‘ substance,’ ‘ essence,’ οὐσία . The Epistle from this synod to the bishops of Antioch is among the works of Athanasius, vol. ii. p. 615 ff., and is a very interesting document. But it attempted conciliation in vain, the Miletian schism at Antioch, which began on this point, having been confirmed and perpetuated by external causes. See on the whole subject, Bleek’ s note: Jerome, Epist. 15 (al. 57) ad Damasum, § 4, vol. i. p. 40; and on the use made of this description by orthodox and heretics in early times, Bleek, Chrys. in loc.: Calvin’ s note, where he gives some excellent cautions against the speculative pressing of each expression: “ Nam hoc quoque notandum est, non hic doceri frivolas speculationes, sed tradi solidam fidei doctrinam. Quare debemus in usum nostrum hæ c Christi elogia applicare, sicuti ad nos relationem habent.” On all grounds it will be safer here to hold to the primitive meaning of the word, and not to introduce into the language of the apostolic age a terminology which was long subsequent to it), and (τε couples closely clauses referring to the same subject, and following as matter of course on one another) upholding (we have this sense of φέρειν in reff. and in the later Greek writers, e. g. Plut. Lucull. 6, φέρειντὴνπόλιν . So in Latin, Val. Max. xi. 8.5, “ humeris gestare salutem patriæ :” Cic. pro Flacco, c. 38, “ quam (remp.) vos universam in hoc judicio vestris humeris.… judices, sustinetis:” Senec. Ep. 31, “ Deus ille maximus potentissimusque vehit omnia.” But the usage is principally found in the Rabbinical writings, as appears from the extracts in Schö ttgen,— e. g. Sohar Chadasch, fol. ix. 1, “ Creator benedictus portans omnes mundos robore suo ,” &c. Chrys. says, φέρων , τουτέστικυβερνῶν , τὰδιαπίπτοντασυγκρατῶν : and so Thl.: “ Sursum tenet, ne decidant, et in nihilum revertantur,” Ps.-Anselm) the universe by the word of his (Whose? His own, or the Father’ s? The latter is held by Cyrilalex. contra Julian. viii. vol. ix. p. 259 c, ὡςγὰρὁπάνσοφοςγράφειΠαῦλος · φέρειτὰπ . ἐντῷῥήματιτῆςδυν . αὐτοῦ , τοῦπατρός . And so Grot., al. But Chrys., Thdrt., Thl., and the great body of Commentators understand αὐτοῦ to refer to the Son. That it may do so, it is not necessary to write αὑτοῦ , as is done in the cursive mss. (the uncial mss. being mostly without accents) and in many modern editions. Bleek in his note (vol. i. p. 69) makes it probable that the abbreviated writing αὑτοῦ for ἑαυτοῦ had not been adopted in the days of the N. T. Even if it had, his rule seems a good one;— that αὑτοῦ should never be written unless in cases where, if speaking in the 1st or 2nd person, we should use ἐμαυτοῦ or σεαυτοῦ ,— i. e. never except where emphatic. Now here, supposing the words addressed to the Son, σοῦ and not σεαυτοῦ would evidently be the word used: and consequently in expressing the same sentence in the 3rd person, αὐτοῦ , not αὑτοῦ ought to be written. The interpretation therefore is independent of this distinction. But the question recurs, which is the right one? The strict parallelism of the clauses would seem to require, that αὐτοῦ here should designate the same person, as it does before, after τῆςὑποστάσεως . But such parallelism and consistency of reference of demonstrative pronouns is by no means observed in the N. T., e. g. Ephesians 1:20, Ephesians 1:22, καὶκαθίσαςἐνδεξιᾷαὺτοῦ (of the Father), … καὶπάνταὑπέταξενὑπὸτοὺςπόδαςαὐτοῦ (of the Son). In every such case the reference must be determined by the circumstances, and the things spoken of. And applying that test here, we find that in our former clause, ὢνἀπαύγασματ . δόξηςκ . χαρακτὴρτῆςὑποστάσεωςαὐτοῦ , it is quite out of the question that αὐτοῦ should be reflective, referring, as it clearly does, to another than the subject of the sentence. But when we proceed to our second clause, φέρωντετὰπάντατῷῥ . τ . δυνάμεωςαὐτοῦ , we find no such bar to the ordinary reflective sense of αὐτοῦ , but every reason to adopt it as the most obvious. For we have here an action performed by the Son, who φέρειτὰπάντα . Whereby? τῷῥήματιτῆςδυνάμεωςαὐτοῦ : where we may certainly say, 1. that had another than the subject of the sentence been intended, such intention would have been expressed: and, 2. that the assertion would be after all a strange and unexampled one, that the Son upholds all things by the word of the Father’ s power. So that, on all accounts, this second αὐτοῦ seems better to be referred to the Son) power (not to be weakened into the comparatively unmeaning τῷῥήματιαὐτοῦτῷδυνατῷ . His Power is an inherent attribute, whether uttered or not: the ῥῆμα is that utterance, which He has been pleased to give of it. It is a “ powerful word,” but much more is here stated— that it is the word of, proceeding from, giving utterance to, His power), having made (the vulg. “ faciens” is an unfortunate mistranslation, tending to obscure the truth of the completion of the one Sacrifice of the Lord. The words δι ʼ ἑαυτοῦ can hardly be retained in the text, in the face of their omission in the three most ancient mss., joined to their internal character as an explanatory gloss. Dr. Bloomfield’ s strong argument in their favour, that they “ are almost indispensable,” in fact, pronounces their condemnation. The hypothesis of homœ oteleuton suggests itself: but it is hardly likely in so solemn an opening passage, and weighs little against the probability the other way. Meanwhile, the gloss is a good and true one. It was δι ʼ ἑαυτοῦ , in the fullest sense) purification of sins (as Bleek observes, there is no occasion to suppose the genitive here equivalent to ἀπὸτῶνἁμαρτιῶν , seeing that we may say καθαρίζονταιαἱἁμαρτίαιτοῦἀνθρώπου , as we read, Matthew 8:3, ἐκαθαρίσθηαὐτοῦἡλέπρα . Sin was the great uncleanness, of which He has effected the purgation: the disease of which He has wrought the cure. This καθαρισμός must be understood by the subsequent argument in the Epistle: for that which the Writer had it in his mind to expand in the course of his treatise, he must be supposed to have meant when he used without explanation a concise term, like this. And that we know to have been, the purifications and sacrifices of the Levitical law, by which man’ s natural uncleanness in God’ s sight was typically removed, and access to God laid open to him. Ebrard’ s note here is so important that, though long, I cannot forbear inserting it:— “ καθαρίζειν answers to the Heb. ט ִ ה ַ ר , and its ideal explanation must be sought in the meaning which suits the Levitical cleansing in the O. T.cultus. Consequently, they are entirely wrong, who understand καθαρίζειν of moral amelioration, and would so take καθαρισμὸνποιεῖν in this place, as if the author wished to set forth Christ here as a moral teacher, who by precept and example incited men to amendment. And we may pronounce those in error, who go so far indeed as to explain the καθαρισμός of the propitiatory removal of the guilt of sin, but only on account of later passages in our Epistle, as if the idea of scriptural καθαρισμός were not already sufficiently clear to establish this, the only true meaning. The whole law of purification, as given by God to Moses, rested on the assumption that our nature, as sinful and guilt-laden, is not capable of coming into immediate contact with our holy God and Judge. The mediation between man and God present in the most holy place, and in that most holy place separated from the people, was revealed in three forms; α . in sacrifices, β . in the Priesthood, and γ . in the Levitical laws of purity. Sacrifices were (typical) acts or means of propitiation for guilt; Priests were the agents for accomplishing these acts, but were not themselves accounted purer than the rest of the people, having consequently to bring offerings for their own sins before they offered for those of the people. Lastly, Levitical purity was the condition which was attained, positively by sacrifice and worship, negatively by avoidance of Levitical pollution,— the condition in which the people was enabled, by means of the priests, to come into relation with God ‘ without dying’ (Deuteronomy 5:26); the result of the cultus which was past, and the postulate for that which was to come. So that that which purified, was sacrifice: and the purification was, the removal of guilt. This is most clearly seen in the ordinance concerning the great day of atonement, Lev_16. There we find those three leading features in the closest distinctive relation. First, the sacrifice must be prepared (vv. 1-10): then, the high priest is to offer for his own sins (vv. 11-14): lastly, he is to kill the sin-offering for the people (ver. 15), and with its blood to sprinkle the mercy-seat and all the holy place, and cleanse it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel (ver. 19); and then he is symbolically to lay the sins of the people on the head of a second victim, and send forth this animal, laden with the curse, into the wilderness. For (ver. 30) ‘ on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the Lord.’ In the atonement, in the gracious covering (י ְ כ ַ פ ּ ֵ ר , ver. 30) of the guilt of sin, consists purification in the scriptural sense. (And so also were those who had become levitically unclean, e. g. lepers, Lev_14, cleansed by atoning sacrifices.) So that an Israelitish reader, a Christian Jew, would never, on reading the words καθαρισμὸνποιεῖν , think on what we commonly call ‘ moral amelioration,’ which, if not springing out of the living ground of a heart reconciled to God, is mere self-deceit, and only external avoidance of evident transgression: but the καθαρισμός which Christ brought in would, in the sense of our author and his readers, only be understood of that gracious atonement for all guilt of sin of all mankind, which Christ our Lord and Saviour has completed for us by His sinless sufferings and death: and out of which flows forth to us, as from a fountain, all power to love in return, all love to Him, our heavenly Pattern, and all hatred of sin, which caused His death. To speak these words of Scripture with the mouth, is easy: but he only can say Yea and Amen to them with the heart who, in simple truthfulness of the knowledge of himself, has looked down even to the darkest depths of his ruined state, natural to him, and intensified by innumerable sins of act,— and, despairing of all help in himself, reaches forth his hand after the good tidings of heavenly deliverance.” It is truly refreshing, in the midst of so much unbelief, and misapprehension of the sense of Scripture, in the German Commentators, to meet with such a clear and full testimony to the truth and efficacy of the Lord’ s great Sacrifice. And I am bound to say that Bleek, De Wette, Lü nemann, and Delitzsch, recognize this just as fully: the two former however referring on further in the Epistle for the explanation of the expression, and holding it premature to specify or explain it here. Observe now again, before passing on, the mistake of the vulgate in rendering ποιησάμενος “ faciens.” The purification is completed, before the action next described takes place: this all seem to acknowledge here, and to find an exception to the ordinary rule that an aorist participle connected with an aorist verb, is contemporary with it. The reason seems to be principally pragmatic— that such session could not well be brought in until such purification had been accomplished: see above), sat down on the right hand (‘ in the right hand,’ scil. portion or side. The expression comes doubtless originally from Psa_110 (109):1, cited below. Bleek, in the course of a long and thorough discussion of its meaning as applied to our Lord, shews that it is never used of his præ -existent coequality with the Father, but always with reference to His exaltation in his humanity after his course of suffering and triumph. It is ever connected, not with the idea of His equality with the Father and share in the majesty of the Godhead, but with His state of waiting, in the immediate presence of the Father, and thus highly exalted by Him, till the purposes of his mediatorial office are accomplished. This his lofty state is, however, not one of quiescence; for (Acts 2:33) He shed down the gift of the Spirit,— and (Romans 8:34) He maketh intercession for us: and below (ch. 8:1 ff.) He is, for all purposes belonging to that office, our High Priest in Heaven. This ‘ sitting at the right hand of God’ is described as lasting until all enemies shall have been subdued unto Him, i. e. until the end of this state of time, and His own second coming: after which, properly and strictly speaking, the state of exaltation described by these words shall come to an end, and that mysterious completion of the supreme glory of the Son of God shall take place, which St. Paul describes, 1 Corinthians 15:28. On the more refined questions connected with the expression, see Delitzsch’ s and Ebrard’ s notes here) of majesty (μεγαλωσύνη , said to belong to the Alexandrine dialect, is often found in the LXX, and principally as referring to the divine greatness: see reff.) on high (in high places, i. e. in heaven. Cf. Psalms 92:4, θαυμαστὸςἐνὑψηλοῖςὁκύριος , and 112:5, ὁἐνὑψηλοῖςκατοικῶν : and the singular ἐνὑψηλῷ , Isaiah 33:5: ἀφ ʼ ὑψηλοῦ , Isaiah 32:15: Jer_32 (25):30. In the same sense we have ἐνὑψίστοις , Luke 2:14; Luke 19:38: Job 16:20: ἥλιοςἀνατέλλωνἐνὑψίστοιςκυρίου , Sir. 26:16: and ἐντοῖςὑψ ., Matthew 21:9: Mark 11:10. Cf. Ebrard: “ Heaven, in Holy Scripture, signifies never unbounded space, nor omnipresence, but always either the starry firmament, or, more usually, that sphere of the created world of space and time, where the union of God with the personal creature is not severed by sin,— where no Death reigns, where the glorification of the body is not a mere hope of the future. Into that sphere has the Firstling of risen and glorified manhood entered, as into a place, with visible glorified Body, visibly to return again from thence.” There is a question whether the word should be joined with ἐκάθισεν , or with τῆςμεγαλωσύνης : which again occurs at ch. 8:1, where we have ὃςἐκάθισενἐνδεξιᾷτοῦθρόνουτῆςμεγαλωσύνηςἐντοῖςοὐρανοῖς . The strict grammarians contend for the connexion with the verb, on account of the omission of the art. τῆς . But the order of the words in both places makes the other connexion the more natural; and no scholar versed in N. T. diction will object to it. Cf. τοῖςκυρίοιςκατὰσάρκα , Ephesians 6:5, and note, also John 6:32. The omission of the art. here gives majesty and solemnity— its insertion would seem to hint at other μεγαλωσύναι in the background). 4. having become , Thl. , Estius : but they certainly are wrong. For we are now, in the course of the enunciation,— which has advanced to the main subject of the argument, the proving of the superiority of the New Covenant,— treating of the post-incarnate majesty of the Son of God. He was all that has been detailed in ver. 3: He made purification of sins, and sat down at the right hand of the majesty on high, and thus became this which is now spoken of. This is recognized by Thdrt., but in a form not strictly exact: κ . τοῦτοδὲκατὰτὸἀνθρώπειονεἴρηκεν · ὡςγὰρθεός , ποιητὴςἀγγέλωνκ . δεσπότηςἀγγέλων · ὡςδὲἄνθρωπος , μετὰτὴνἀνάστασινκ . τὴνεἰςοὐρανοὺςἀνάβασινκρείττωνἀγγέλωνἐγένετο · ἐπειδὴκαὶἐλάττωνἦνἀγγέλωνδιὰτὸπάθηματοῦθανάτου (ch. 2:9). ὥσπερτοίνυνἐλάττωνἦνἀγγέλωνὡςἄνθρωπος , ἐπειδὴἐκεῖνοιμὲνἀθάνατονἔχουσιφύσιν , αὐτὸςδὲτὸπάθοςὑπέμεινεν , οὕτωμετὰτὴνεἰςοὐρανοὺςἀνάβασινκρείττωνἀγγέλωνἐγένετο . To this Bleek very properly objects, that the making this exaltation belong only to Christ’ s human nature, and supposing Him to have while on earth possessed still the fulness of the majesty of his Godhead, is not according to the usage of our Writer, nor of the N. T. generally, and in fact induces something like a double personality in the Son of God. The Scriptures teach us, that He who was with God before the creation, from love to men put on flesh, and took the form of a servant, not all the while having on Him the whole fulness of his divine nature and divine glory, but having really and actually emptied himself of this fulness and glory, so that there was not only a hiding, but an absolute κένωσις , a putting off, of it. Therefore His subsequent exaltation must be conceived of as belonging, not to his Humanity only, but to the entire undivided Person of Christ, now resuming the fulness and glory of the Godhead (John 17:5), and in addition to this having taken into the Godhead the Manhood, now glorified by his obedience, atonement, and victory. See Ephesians 1:20-22: Philippians 2:6-9: Acts 2:36: 1 Peter 3:21, 1 Peter 3:22. Œ cumenius, as an alternative, has given this well: ἢτὸγενόμενοςοὐκἐπὶσαρκὸςἐκλάβοις , ἵναμὴδιαιρεῖννομισθῇς , ἀλλ ʼ ἐπὶτοῦχριστοῦτοῦἐνμιᾷὑποστάσειπροσκυνουμένου , καὶμετὰτῆςσαρκὸςαὐτοῦ . The Son of God before his Incarnation was Head over Creation; but after his work in the flesh He had become also Head of Creation, inasmuch as his glorified Body, in which He triumphs sitting at God’ s right hand, is itself created, and is the sum and the centre of creation) so much (reff. Bleek cites from Philo, νομίζοντεςὅσῳθεὸςἀνθρώπωνδιαφέρεικατὰτὸκρεῖττον , τοσούτῳκαὶβασιλείαςἀρχιερωσύνην . Leg. ad Cai. § 36, vol. ii. p. 586. In the classics, the idiom is common enough: see Palm and Rost’ s Lex. It is wholly unknown to the writings of St. Paul) better than (the usual word of general and indefinite comparison in our Epistle, whether of Christian with Jewish (ch. 7:19, 22; 8:6; 9:23), heavenly with earthly (10:34; 11:16; 12:24), eternal with temporal (11:35): see also 6:9; 7:7; 11:40. It is used only three times by St. Paul, and never (unless 1 Corinthians 12:31 rec. be counted) in this sense: but thirteen times in this Epistle. “ The Greeks used οἱκρείττονες , to signify superhuman beings, gods and demi-gods,” Bl. So on κρείττονας , Æ sch. fragm. Æ tn. 2, Hesych. says, τοὺςἥρωας . καὶοἱθεοὶδέ . See also Eurip. Orest. 709: Plato, Sophist. p. 216 (cir. init.): and Philo above) the angels , stand as mediators between man and God. And of these there is, so to speak, a chain of two links: viz. Moses, and the angel of the Lord. The first link is a mere man, who is raised above his fellow-men by his calling, by his office, the commission given to him,— and brought nearer to God; but he is a sinner as they are, and is in reality no more a partaker of the divine nature than they are. The second link is the angelic form in which God revealed himself to his people, coming down to their capacity, like to man, without being man. So that Godhead and Manhood approximated to one another; a man was commissioned and enabled to hear God’ s words: God appeared in a form in which men might see Him: but the two found no point of contact; no real union of the Godhead and the Manhood took place. Whereas in the Son, God and the Manhood not only approximated, but became personally one. God no longer accommodates Himself to the capacities of men in an angelophany or theophany, but has revealed the fulness of His divine nature in the man Jesus,— in that He, who was the ἀπαύγασμα of His glory, became man. The argument of the Writer necessarily then leads him to shew how both Mediators, the angel of the O. T. covenant, and Moses, found their higher unity in Christ. First, he shews this of the angel or angels (for it was not always one individual angelic being, but various) by whom the first covenant was given: then of Moses, ch. 3:4. This first portion is divided into two: vv. 4-14, in which he shews that the Son, as the eternal Son of God, is higher than the angels (see the connexion of this with the main argument below): then, after an exhortation (2:1-4) founded on this, tending also to impress on us the superior holiness of the N. T. revelation, the second part (2:5-18) in which he shews that in the Son, the manhood also is exalted above the angels (mostly from Ebrard)), in proportion as (see above) he hath inherited : the word κεκληρονόμηκεν being perhaps chosen in reference to the O. T. prophecies, which promised it to Him: see below. The perfect is important, as denoting something belonging to His present and abiding state, not an event wholly past, as ἐκάθισεν above, indicating the first ‘ setting himself down:’ though that word might also be used of a permanent state of session, as in κεκάθικεν , ch. 12:2) a more distinguished κέντημαδιάφορον . So also Symm. in reff. The comparative is found only, besides ref., in Sextus Empir. Phys. i. 218, ὁδ ʼ Αἰνησίδημοςδιαφορώτερονἐπ ʼ αὐτῶνἔχρητοταῖςπερὶτῆςγενέσεωςἀπορίαις . For the construction, see below on παρά ) name (to be taken in its proper sense, not understood, with Beza, Calov., al., to mean precedence or dignity; as ver. 5 shews: whence also we get an easy answer to the enquiry, what name is intended: viz. that of υἱός , in the peculiar and individual sense of the citation there. The angels themselves are called “ sons of God,” Job 1:6; Job 2:1; Job 38:7: Daniel 3:25, and Genesis 6:2 (notwithstanding Ebrard’ s denial of this sense: see Delitzsch in loc., Jude 1:6, note, and Proleg. to Jude, § v. 11); but the argument here is, that the title ‘ Son of God’ is bestowed on Him individually, in a sense in which it never was conferred upon an angel. This view is far more probable than that of Bleek, who thinks that the Writer used only the LXX, in which ἄγγελοιθεοῦ stands in all these places except Genesis 6:2, and there in the alex. ms. and Philo: and that he interpreted Psalms 28:1; Psalms 88:6, of other than the angels. To say nothing of à priori considerations, the canon to be followed in such cases is clearly never to suppose partial knowledge in a sacred writer, except where the nature of the case compels us in common honesty so to do: and here that canon is not applicable. See as a parallel, Philippians 2:9 ff. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/alfordgnt/ Chap. 2:1-4. Practical inference from the proved superiority of the Son of God to the angels. 1. On this account (viz. because Christ, the mediator of the New Covenant, is far above all the angels, who were the mediators of the former Covenant) it behoves us (ταύτηντὴνδιαφορὰνἐπισταμένους , Thdrt.: δεῖ , of moral necessity arising from the previous premises: so Matthew 18:33; Matthew 25:27: 2 Timothy 2:6 al. There is no stress on ἡμᾶς according to the reading of the text) to give heed (προσέχειν usually in the classics is transitive, with τὸννοῦν following: so e. g. Aristoph. Nub. 566, ὦσοφώτατοιθεαταί , δεῦροτὸννοῦνπροσέχετε , and Plut. 113, 151, al. In Demosth. both usages are found: e. g. p. 21. 26, εἴτιςὑμῖνπροσέξειτὸννοῦν :— p. 132. 9, προσέχουσινἅπαντες , οὐχοἷςεἴπομένποτεἢνῦνἂνεἴποιμεν , ἀλλ ʼ οἷςποιοῦμεν . And later, intrans. usage prevailed: see reff.) more abundantly , Kuin., al. would join περισσοτέρως with δεῖ : but if so intended, it would certainly have been before that verb. We must not understand after the comparative, τοῦνόμου , “ than we did to the law,” as Chrys., al.; or the aim of the Writer to be, to shew the superiority of the gospel over the law, as Thdrt.: but the adverb intimates how much our attention ought to be increased and intensified by our apprehension of the dignity of Him whose record the gospel is, and who is its Mediator) to the things heard (by us) (ἀκουσθεῖσιν is better taken neuter than masc., “ the persons whom we have heard.” Bleek remarks, after Bö hme, the difference between the tone of exhortation here and in St. Paul, e. g. Galatians 1:6 ff.: but perhaps the remark is hardly just to the Pauline hypothesis: for difference of circumstances should be taken into consideration. Even the same person would not exhort in the same tone, converts to whom he stood in such different relations as St. Paul did to the Galatians and the Jewish converts. A similar criticism will apply to Bleek’ s second remark, that the Writer here classes himself absolutely with his readers who had heard the gospel from others. There may have been reasons for his descending to the level of those whom he was addressing. But see below on ver. 3, and on the authorship, the Prolegomena), lest haply (the ποτε is not to be pressed as meaning ‘ at any time:’ it simply generalizes and renders indefinite the μή ,— ‘ ne forte,’ dass nicht etwa) we be diverted from παραρέω , not the pres. subj. active from παραρυέω , which latter verb is not in use. The orthography with one ρ only is characteristic of the Alexandrine Greek: which usually wrote double consonants single. (See Sturz. de Dial. Maced.) The verb signifies to flow by: so Xen. Cyr. iv. 5. 2, πιεῖνἀπὸτοῦπαραῤῥέοντοςποταμοῦ : ref. Isa. ὡςἰτέαἐπὶπαραῤῥέονὕδωρ . Bleek gives an example from Artemidorus viii. 27, where dreams of running water are interpreted to signify change and instability, διὰτὸμὴμένειντὸὕδωρἀλλὰπαραῤῥεῖν . Aristotle, de Part. Animal. iii. 3, uses this same passive form to indicate that which we familiarly call food going the wrong way in course of swallowing: ἐὰνγάρτιπαρεισρυῇξηρὸνἢὑγρὸνεἰςτὴνἀρτηρίαν , πνιγμοὺςκαὶπόνουςκ . βηχὰςἰσχυροὺςἐμποιεῖ · — συμβαίνειγὰρφανερῶςτὰλεχθένταπᾶσινοἷςἂνπαραῤῥυῇτιτῆςτροφῆς : see also numerous instances of the same or a similar meaning, from Galen, in Wetst. Plut. Amator, p. 754 a, says of fear lest a ring should fall off, ὡςμὴπαραῤῥυῇδεδιώς . Elsner quotes similar Latin usages, among which notice Cicero pro Balbo, c. i., “ Oratio quæ non præ tervecta aures vestras, sed in animis omnium penitus insederit.” The meaning of the verb παραῤῥεῖν seems then to be clear— to flow past, or away, or aside, to fall off, deflect from a course. But it is to one part of that verb that our attention is here directed,— the 2 aor. passive: and it may be noticed that whereas in the above examples that which flows away or flows aside is said παραῤῥεῖν , that which is carried away or aside by floating on it, or which is caused to fall off or away, is said παραῤῥυῆναι : cf. also υἱέ , μὴπαραρυῇς in ref. Prov. And so must the word be taken here. We, going onward in time, living our lives in one or another direction, are exhorted προσέχειντοῖςἀκουσθεῖσι , ‘ to adhere to the things we have heard’ (see above), and that, μήποτεπαραρυῶμεν , ‘ that we do not at any time float past them,’ be not carried away beside them, led astray from the course on which they would take us. Two mistakes respecting the word are to be avoided: 1. that of Bos, Valcknaer, al., and the E. V., “ ne quando præ terfluere ea sinamus:” “ lest at any time we should let them slip.” From what has been above said of the tense and voice, it will be clear that such cannot be the meaning. 2. Still worse is that of those who, misled by the vulgate “ pereffluamus,” have thought of a comparison with a sieve, or leaking vessel. So Est. , Calv. , Owen, al.: and I find it reproduced in Tait’ s commentary on the Hebrews: “ lest.… we should run out as leaking vessels.” The meaning is as untenable, as the simile is irrelevant. And, as Kuin. and Bleek remark, the passage of Terence cited in justification, Eun. i. 2. 25, “ Plenus rimarum sum, hac atque illac perfluo,” has reference not to forgetfulness, but to indiscreet loquacity. The Greek expositors, whose authority in matters of Greek verbal usage is considerable, all explain it as above:— so Chrys., τουτεστι , μὴἀπολώμεθα , μὴἐκπέσωμεν . καὶδείκνυσινἐνταῦθατὸχαλεπὸντῆςἐκπτώσεως , ὅτιδύσκολοντὸπαραῤῥυὲνπάλινἐπανελθεῖν , καθότιἐκῥᾳθυμίαςτοῦτοσυνέβη . ἔλαβεδὲτὴνλέξινἀπὸτῶνπαροιμιῶν · “ υἱὲ ” γάρ , φησί , “ μὴπαραῤῥυῇς :” Thdrt., μήτιναὄλισθονὑπομείνωμεν : Œ c., τουτέστιν , ἐκπέσωμεντοῦκαθήκοντοςκαὶτῆςἐπὶσωτηρίανὁδοῦ : Hesych., ἐξολισθαμεν : Suidas, παραπέσωμεν . So also all the more accurate of the moderns) (from them) (such is the most natural object to supply after παρά : turned aside from and floated away from the course on which the προσέχειν to them would have carried us). 2. For (introduces an argument (vv. 2-4) a minori ad majus. The law was introduced by the mere subordinate messengers of God, but was enforced with strict precision: how much more shall they be punished who reject that Gospel, which was brought in by the Son of God Himself, and continues to be confirmed to us by God’ s present power) if the word which was spoken by means of angels (i. e. the law of Moses: not as mentioned by way of alternative in Chrys., Œ c., Thl., and adopted by Calv., al., all commands in the O. T. delivered by angels (excluding the law: or as Chrys., including it). For this would more naturally be οἱ .… λόγοι : and besides, in similar exhortations in our Epistle, the law and the gospel are so prominently set against one another, that there can be little doubt the same is the case here: see ch. 3:1 ff., 7 ff.; 4:2, 11; 10:28, 29; 12:18-25. This will become even plainer still, when we enter on the consideration of δι ʼ ἀγγέλωνλαληθείς . These words seem to point especially at the law, which was διαταγεὶςδι ʼ ἀγγέλων , Galatians 3:19, where see note: cf. also Acts 7:53, and Deuteronomy 33:2, κύριοςἐκΣινὰἥκεικαὶ .… κατέσπευσενἐξὄρουςΦαρὰνσὺνμυριάσιΚαδής · ἐκδεξιῶναὐτοῦἄγγελοιμετ ʼ αὐτοῦ : on which see Ebrard’ s note: and Psalms 68:17, E. V. The co-operation of angels in the giving of the law at Sinai was not merely a Rabbinical notion, but is implied in both the Old and New Testaments. There can consequently be little doubt that the Writer, in mentioning ὁδι ʼ ἀγγέλωνλαληθεὶςλόγος , had reference to the law of Moses, and not to the scattered messages which were, at different times in O. T. history, delivered by angels. And so Origen, in Matt. tom. xvii. cap. 2, vol. iii. p. 767: Thdrt., δείκνυσινὅσονὑπέρκειταιτῶννομικῶνδιατάξεωνἡτῶνεὐαγγελικῶνδιδασκαλία . τῇγὰρθέσειτοῦνόμουἄγγελοιδιηκόνουνκ .τ .λ . It has been sometimes supposed that the ἄγγελοι spoken of here are not angels, but merely human messengers. Chrys. says, τινὲςμὲνοὖντὸνΜωυσέαφασὶναἰνίττεσθαι · ἀλλ ʼ οὐκἔχειλόγον · ἀγγέλουςγὰρενταῦθαπολλούςφησι . And Olearius, Analys Ep. ad Hebr. § v., says, “ Per ἀγγέλους hic maxime intelligi existimem προφήτας , doctores et Sacerdotes: qui sunt ἄγγελοιθεοῦ , et ita passim vocantur.” But this latter point wants proof. The difficulty as to whether God Himself, or an angel, is to be understood as giving the law in Exodus, raised by Cameron (see also Schlichting in Bleek), hardly seems legitimately to arise here, where the words are δι ʼ ἀγγέλωνλαληθείς , and the angels may manifestly be considered as the inferior agents, acting and speaking in God’ s name. Bl. remarks that the Writer would hardly have used this argument of depreciating contrast, had he regarded the law as given either to Moses or to the people by the direct ministry of the Son of God Himself) was made (“ factus est” vulg., “ constitutus est” Grot., “ became,” on being thus spoken by angels. The aorists point, hardly, as Lü nemann, to the legal dispensation being past and gone by, but, since the same tenses are presently used of the gospel, to two historic periods compared with one another,— the giving of the law, and the promulgation of the gospel) binding βέβαια , ἀσάλευτα , ἀκράδαντα , καθάπερσφραγῖσιφύσεωςαὐτῆςσεσημασμένα ), and every transgression (overstepping of its ordinances, or more properly, walking alongside of, and therefore not in, the path which it marked out. See above on παραρυῶμεν , an allusion to which the prepositions in παραβ . and παρακ . seem to contain. Cf. Romans 4:15 and note there. The substantive does not occur in this sense in the classics, and only once in the Canonical LXX, ref. Ps.: but the verb is found in Plato, Crito, p. 52 d, 53 a, and Legg. 714 d, and Demosth. p. 624. 1, παραβὰςτοὺςὅρκουςκ . τὰςσυνθήκας : and in the LXX passim) and disobedience (“ παρακούειν imports etymologically, ‘ to hear beside:’ and hence the Greeks use it principally in two senses: 1. to hear any thing by stealth, to overhear, as Aristoph. Ran. 749, καὶπαρακούωνδεσποτῶνὅταν (ἅττ ʼ ἄν , Bekker) λαλῶσι : and, 2. to hear any thing inaccurately, to mis-hear, as Plato, Theæ tet. p. 195 a, παρορῶσίτεκ . παρακούουσικ . παρανοοῦσιπλεῖστα . From this last meaning of the word comes the Hellenistic usage, in which it betokens a more intentional mis-hearing, a reluctance to hear (ein nicht-horen-wollen), and hence includes also the idea of non-compliance, of disobedience. So Isaiah 65:12, ἐκάλεσαὑμᾶςκ . οὐχὑπηκούσατε , ἐλάλησακ . παρηκούσατε : Esther 3:8, τῶνδὲνόμωντοῦβασιλέωςπαρακούουσι . See also Matthew 18:17, ἐὰνδὲπερακούσῃαὐτῶν , εἰπὲτῇἐκκλησίᾳ . ἐὰνδὲκαὶτῆςἐκκλησίαςπαρακούσῃκ .τ .λ . So also in Josephus. Accordingly, παρακοή in the N. T., where it occurs thrice only (see reff.: never in the LXX), is used of practical mis-hearing, not listening to, a teaching, or law, or person. The relation of these two words to one another in point of sense seems accordingly to be, that παράβασις denotes the outward act of transgression of the law, the practical withstanding of its precepts,— while παρακοή occurs when we fulfil not, and have no mind to fulfil, the precepts of the law: the former expresses, viewed ab externo, more something positive, the latter something negative, while at the same time it regards more the disposition of the man. Still, the distinction, as regards the moral region here treated of, is not of such a kind that each παράβασις may not also be treated as a παρακοή , and each παρακοή include or induce a παράβασις .” Bleek) received just (ἔνδικος , found twice only (reff.) in N. T. and not at all in LXX, is a good classic word: see lexx.) recompense of reward (used only in this Epistle, and every where else in a good sense: cf. also μισθαποδότης , ch. 11:6. The classical writers use μισθοδοσία (Thuc. viii.83: Xen. Anab. ii. 5. 22: Polyb. i. 69. 3: Diod. Sic. xvi. 73) and μισθοδότης (Xen. Anab. i. 3. 9: Plato, Rep. v. p. 463 b: Æ schin. p. 85. 10: Theocr. xiv. 59). In the passage of Diod. Sic., μισθαποδοσία is a various reading. To what does the Writer refer? To the single instances of punishment which overtook the offenders against the law, or as Grot. suggests, to the general punishment of the whole people’ s unbelief, as in ch. 3:8; 4:11; 12:21, and see 1 Corinthians 10:6 ff.? I should be disposed to think, to the former: such penalties as are denounced in Deuteronomy 32:35, and indeed attached to very many of the Mosaic enactments: as Owen: “ The law was so established, that the transgression of it, so as to disannul the terms and conditions of it, had by divine constitution the punishment of death temporal, or excision, appointed unto it” ), 3. how shall we (emphatic: including Christians in general, all who have received the message of salvation in the manner specified below) escape (φεύγω and its compounds belong to that class of verbs which take the future middle, not using the active form of that tense. See a list of such in Krü ger, Gr. Sprachlehre, § 39. 12. We may here either supply an object after the verb, such as ἔνδικονμισθαποδοσίαν , as in ref. Rom., 2 Macc. 7:35, οὔπωγὰρτὴντοῦ .… θεοῦκρίσινἐκπέφευγας , and ib. 6:26,— or take ἐκφ . absolutely, as in the two last reff. and Sir. 6:13, οὐκἐκφεύξεταιἐνἁρπάγμασινἁμαρτωλός . The latter seems best, inasmuch as τὴνἔνδ . μισθ . does not fulfil the perfectly general motive of the hypothesis, and we are hardly justified in inserting any other object, such as τὸκρῖματοῦθεοῦ in ref. Rom. The forensic sense of ἐκφεύγειν , to be acquitted, founded on that of φεύγειν , to be accused, maintained here by Wolf, appears to be merely imaginary, the forensic word being ἀποφεύγειν , not ἐκφ . So Thom. Mag.: φεύγω , τὸκατηγοροῦμαι . κ . φυγή , ἡκατηγορία . ἀποφεύγωδέ , ὅταννικήσαςἀπολυθῇτιςτῆςκατηγορίας . In the passage of Aristophanes which he quotes to support his view, Vesp. 993, ἐκπέφευγας , ὦΛάβης ,— the word, occurring as it does in the midst of the forensic use of ἀποφεύγειν (cf. vv. 985, 997), may very well be only in its ordinary meaning, ‘ thou hast escaped’ ) if we have neglected (the anarthrous participial construction implies a logical, i. e. here a hypothetical condition: the aor., that that condition will have been fulfilled at the date to which the fut. ἐκφ . refers) so great , an epexegesis of that which was enwrapped in τηλικαύτης ) salvation (σωτηρία as in ch. 1:14; no need, as many Commentators, to supply λόγου before it), the which (= ‘ seeing that it,’ in a direct construction) having begun to be spoken (the construction is a mixed one; the inf. after the substantive would naturally have the art., τοῦλαλεῖσθαι , but it is put without it as if ἀρξαμένη had preceded) by means of (He was the instrument in this case, as the angels in the other; but both, law and gospel, came at first hand not from the mediators, but from God. See Ebrard’ s mistaken antithesis treated below) the Lord (διὰτ . κυρίου is to be joined with the whole ἀρχ . λαβ . λαλ ., not with λαλεῖσθαι alone. τοῦκυρίου , as Bl. remarks, has here an especial emphasis setting forth the majesty and sovereignty of Christ: αὐτὸςὁτῶνἀγγέλωνδεσπότηςπρῶτοςτὴνσωτήριονδιδασκαλίανπροσήνεγκε , Thdrt. See reff.), was confirmed unto us (not = the simple dative, which would be a dat. commodi, but implying the transmission and its direction; see reff.: nor, as Wolf, Wahl, al., to be rendered “ usque ad,” a meaning of εἰς only to be assumed when defined by some indication of time or space in the context. Nor again must it be confounded with the idiom ἐβεβαιώθηἐνὑμῖν , “ among you,” 1 Corinthians 1:6. The construction is a pregnant one) by those who heard (it? or Him? In the sense, the difference will be but little: in either case, those pointed at will be as Thdrt. οἱτῆςἀποστολικῆςἀπολαύσαντεςχάριτος : the αὐτόπταικ . ὑπηρέταιτοῦλόγου of Luke 1:2. From the usage, however, of the Writer himself, I prefer understanding ‘ it:’ cf. ch. 3:16; 4:2; 12:19) it (Ebrard (with whom Delitzsch partly agrees) arranges this whole sentence strangely, and I cannot doubt, wrongly, thus: “ was confirmed to us by those who heard it, as having been from the beginning spoken by the Lord:” and brings out a contrast between the law, which was given through a mediator, and the gospel, which came direct from the Lord Himself. But thus all the parallel, and with it the true contrast, is destroyed. Both law and gospel, proceeding from God, were λαληθέντα to men: the former by angels, the latter by the Lord. Both were βεβαιωθέντα — the former absolutely, as exemplified by the penalties which followed its neglect, the latter relatively to us, as matter of evidence requiring our hearty reception; delivered by eye and ear witnesses, and further witnessed to by God Himself. And in proportion as the Mediator of the new covenant is more worthy than were the mediators of the old covenant, will our punishment be greater if we neglect it. So there can be no doubt that the Writer meant to convey the sense against which Ebrard protests, and that the beginning of the promulgation of the gospel by the Lord, and the handing down of it by those who were its first hearers, are alleged by him as two separate and co-ordinate circumstances. On the evidence furnished by this verse as to the Writer of the Epistle, see Prolegg. § i. parr. 130 ff.), God also bearing witness to it with signs and wonders and various (this adj. belongs only to δυνάμεσιν , not also, as Bleek, to the following clause, in which the μερισμοῖς of itself includes the idea of variety) miraculous powers and distributions (the rare word μερισμός (see reff.) is in strict analogy with the usage of the verb: e. g. Romans 12:3, ἑκάστῳὡςὁθεὸςἐμέρισενμέτρονπίστεως : 1 Corinthians 7:17, ἑκάστῳὡςἐμέρισενὁκύριος … περιπατείτω : 2 Corinthians 10:13, κατὰτὸμέτροντοῦκανόνοςοὗἐμέρισενἡμῖνὁθεὸςμέτρου . But both, in their simple classical meaning, merely signify division, as in ch. 4:12, and not distribution, which is a later sense, found in Polyb. xi. 28. 9, Diog. Laert., Herodian, &c. See Palm and Rost’ s Lexicon) of the Holy Spirit (is this a genitive of the object distributed, or of the subject distributing? The latter is held by Camerar., al., and κατὰτὴναὐτοῦθέλησιν also referred to the will of the Holy Spirit. And so St. Paul certainly speaks, 1 Corinthians 12:11, πάνταδὲταῦταἐνεργεῖτὸἓνκαὶτὸαὐτὸπνεῦμα , διαιροῦνἰδίᾳἑκάστῳκαθὼςβούλεται . But it does not thence follow that such is the sense here: and it seems much more natural to refer the pron. αὐτοῦ to God, the primary subject of the sentence. Otherwise we should have expected ἐκείνου . Still, it may be said that the reference of this genitive is independent of that of the pronoun αὐτοῦ , and that the clause πνεύματοςἁγίουμερισμοῖς should be considered on its own ground. But thus considered, if it be once granted that αὐτοῦ refers to God, we should have, on the supposition of the subjective genitive, an awkwardly complicated sense, hardly consistent with the assertion of absolute sovereignty so prominently made in the following clause. I take then the genitive with most Commentators, as objective, and the Holy Spirit as that which is distributed according to God’ s will, to each man according to his measure and kind. The declaration in John 3:34, of Him whom God sent, οὐγὰρἐκμέτρουδίδωσιντὸπνεῦμα , speaks of the same giving, but of its unmeasured fulness, as imparted to our glorious Head, not of its fragmentary distribution to us the imperfect and limited members), according to His (God’ s: see above) will (θέλησις is a rarer word (reff.) than θέλημα , both being Alexandrine forms. Pollux says of it, v. 165, βούλησις , ἐπιθυμία , ὄρεξις , ἔρως · ἡδὲθέλησιςἰδιωτικόν . It is best to refer this clause, not to the whole sentence preceding, with Bö hme, nor to the two clauses, ποικ . δυν ., κ . πν . ἁγ . μερ ., as Bleek, Lü nem., but to the last of these only, agreeably to 1 Corinthians 12:11, and to the free and sovereign agency implied in μερισμοῖς . See on the whole sense, Acts 5:32)? 5-18. The dogmatic argument now proceeds. The new world is subjected, by the testimony of the Scriptures, not to angels, but to Christ: who however, though Lord of all, was made inferior to the angels, that He might die for, and suffer with, being made like, the children of men. 5. The proposition stated. For (the connexion is with the sentence immediately preceding, i. e. with vv. 2-4. That former λόγος was spoken by angels: it carried its punishment for neglect of it: much more shall this σωτηρία , spoken by … &c., confirmed by … &c. For this whole state of things, induced by the proclamation of that salvation, is not subjected to angels, but to Christ, the Son of God. Then the fact that it is to man, and to Him as man, that it is subjected, is brought in, and a new subject thus grafted on the old one of His superiority to the angels. See Bleek and Ebrard) not to angels (ἀγγέλοις stands in the place of emphasis, as contrasted with ἄνθρωπος below) did He subject (aor.: at the date of His arrangement and laying out of the same. The subjection of this present natural world to the holy angels, as its administrators, is in several places attested in Scripture, and was a very general matter of belief among the Jews. In Deuteronomy 32:8, we read in the LXX, ὅτεδιεμέριζενὁὕψιστοςἔθνη , ὡςδιέσπειρενυἱοὺςἈδάμ , ἔστησενὅριαἐθνῶνκατὰἀριθμὸνἀγγέλωνθεοῦ . There, it is true, the Heb. text has, as E. V., “ according to the number of the children (more properly, the sons, in the stricter sense) of Israel.” Origen, on Numbers, Hom. xxviii. 4, vol. ii. p. 385, says, “ Secundum numerum angelorum ejus, vel ut in aliis exemplaribus legimus, secundum numerum filiorum Israel:” but perhaps, as Bleek suggests, it was not Origen that was pointing to a various reading in the Heb. text, but only his translator that was noticing that the Latin versions differed from the LXX. But the doctrine rests on passages about which there can be no such doubt. See Daniel 10:13, Daniel 10:20, Daniel 10:21; Daniel 12:1, for this committal of kingdoms to the superintendence of angels: Revelation 9:11; Revelation 16:5 al., for the same as regards the natural elements: Matthew 18:10, as regards the guardianship of individuals: Revelation 1:20 &c., for that of churches (for so, and not of chief bishops, is the name to be understood: see note there). See also Daniel 4:13. In the apocryphal and Rabbinical writings we find the same idea asserted, and indeed carried out into minute details. So in Sir. 17:17, ἑκάστῳἔθνεικατέστησενἡγούμενον , κ . μερὶςκυρίουἸσραήλἐστιν . The Rabbinical authorities may be found in Bleek and Eisenmenger. See also a very elaborate article— “ Engel” — by Bö hme in Herzog’ s Encyclopä die: and testimonies to the view of the early church from Eusebius (Demonstr. Evang. iv. 2, vol. iv. p. 146), Justin Martyr (Apol. ii. 5, p. 92), Irenæ us (iii. 12. 11, p. 197), Athenagoras (Legat. 24, p. 302), and Clement of Alexandria (Strom. vii. 2, p. 831 P) in Whitby’ s note. The idea then of subjection of the world to angels was one with which the readers of this Epistle were familiar) the world to come , Œ c. , Cajetan, Estius, a-Lapide, al. This meaning, as Bl. remarks, will hardly tally with the γάρ , nor with περὶἧςλαλοῦμεν : though it might be said that the future life, being the completion of the state of salvation by Christ, might very well here be spoken of as the subject of the present discourse. 2. Some have supposed a direct allusion to ch. 1:6. So Thl. , Schlichting, Grot. , Bö hme, al. But certainly in this case the verb would have been past; and besides, the addition of the epithet μέλλουσαν sufficiently distinguishes it from the mere οἰκουμένη , the inhabited world, in the other place. 3. Others again have thought of the heaven, which is to us future, because we are not yet admitted to its joys. So Cameron , Calov., Limborch, Grot. , al. But this again would not agree with the γάρ and λαλοῦμεν . 4. The most probable account to be given is that the phrase represents the Heb. ה ָ ע ו ֹ ל ָ ם ה ַ ב ּ ָ א (see note on ch. 1:1), and imports the whole new order of things brought in by Christ,— taking its rise in His life on earth, and having its completion in his reign in glory. So Calvin , Beza, Cappellus . Chrys. and Thl. are commonly quoted for this view even by Bleek: but if I understand Chrys., he means, as Thl. certainly does, that the οἰκουμένη here is identical with that in ch. 1:6, and that the Writer calls it μέλλουσαν , because at the time of the divine decree here spoken of, it was not yet created: μέλλουσανδὲαὐτὴνφησί , διότιὁμὲνυἱὸςτοῦθεοῦἧνἀεί , αὕτηδὲἔμελλεγίνεσθαι , μὴοὖσαπρότερονδηλαδή . ὅσονοὖνπρὸςτὴνἀΐδιονὕπαρξιντοῦυἱοῦ , μέλλουσαἦνἡοἰκουμένη . And nearly so Chrys., but not so plainly. This last-mentioned view is by far the best, agreeing as it does with the connexion, for he has been speaking of the gospel above,— with the usus loquendi,— with the whole subject of the Epistle. The word μέλλουσαν has by some been supposed to be used “ ex prospectu veteris Test prophetico in Novum Test.,” as Bengel, who again says, “ Futurus dicitur, non quin jam sit, sed quia olim præ dictus.” And so Bleek (as an additional reason why the word was used, besides that the completion of the state is yet to come), al. I should be disposed, standing as the expression does here without emphasis, to regard μέλλουσαν rather as a well-known and well-understood designation of the latter dispensation, here technically adjoined, than as requiring minute explanation in this place. All reference to the future need not be excluded: we Christians are so eminently “ prisoners of hope,” that the very mention of such a designation would naturally awaken a thought of the glories to come: but this reference must not be pressed as having any prominence. With this latter view agrees in the main that of Delitzsch, which I have seen since this note was first written. He concurs with Hofmann, Weissag. u. Erf. ii. 23, in requiring a more concrete sense for the words, and understands them to point to the new world of Redemption, as distinguished from the old world of Creation, which by reason of sin is subject to death and decay. So that μέλλουσα is not used from the O. T. standing-point, but from the N. T. also, and points to the times of the Messiah in their ideal perfection which shall one day be realized), of which we are speaking (which forms the subject of our present argument: viz. that urged in vv. 1-4. The sense is strictly present; not past (see Grot. above), nor future (“ enallage temporis; de quo in sequenti testimonio loquemur,” as Vatablus). Bleek has here some excellent remarks: “ As regards the whole thought, the non-subjection of the new order of the world to angels, it respects partly what is already present, partly what we have yet to wait for. Certainly, here and there in the N. T. history angels are mentioned: but they come in only as transitory appearances, to announce or to execute some matter which is specially entrusted to them: they never appear as essential agents in the introduction of the kingdom of God, either in general, or in particular: they do not descend on earth as preaching repentance, or preparing men to be received into God’ s kingdom. This is done by men, first and chiefly by Him who is Son of Man κατ ʼ ἐξοχήν , and after Him by the disciples whom He prepared for the work. Even the miraculous conversion of Paul is brought about not by angels, but by the appearing of the Lord Himself. Our author has indeed in ch. 1:14, designated the angels as fellow-workers in the salvation of men: but only in a serving capacity, never as working or imparting salvation by independent agency, as does the Son of Man in the first place, and then in a certain degree his disciples also. So that we cannot speak with any truth of a subjection of this new order of things to the angels. Rather, even by what we see at present, does it appear to be subjected to the Redeemer Himself. And this will ever more and more be the case; for,— according to the prophetic declaration of the Psalm,— the whole world shall be put under His feet (ver. 8). Thus, by reminding them of the will of God declared in the holy Scriptures, does the Writer meet at the same time the objections of those of his readers and countrymen, to whom perhaps this withdrawal of the agency of the angels with the introduction and growing realization of the new order of things might appear an important defect” ). 6. But one somewhere (no inference can be drawn from this indefinite manner of citation, either that the Writer was quoting from memory, as Koppe, Schulz, al., or that he did not know who was the author of the Psalm, as Grot. Rather may we say, that it shews he was writing for readers familiar with the Scriptures, and from whom it might well be expected that they would recognize the citation without further specification. He certainly is not quoting from memory, seeing that the words agree exactly with the LXX: and Psa_8 both in the Heb. and LXX has a superscription indicating that it was written by David. Chrys. says, τοῦτοδὲαὐτὸοἶμαιτὸκρύπτεινκ . μὴτιθέναιτὸνεἰρηκότατὴνμαρτυρίανἀλλ ʼ ὡςπεριφερομένηνκ . κατάδηλονοὖσανεἰσάγειν , δεικνύοντόςἐστιναὐτοὺςσφόδραἐμπείρουςεἶναιτῶνγραφῶν . And Thl., οὐλέγειτὸὄνοματοῦεἰπόντοςἅτεπρὸςἐπιστήμοναςτῶνγραφῶνδιαλεγόμενος . Bleek quotes numerous instances of the same formula citandi from Philo, as applied both to Scripture writers and profane authors. Thus De Ebrietate, § 14, vol. i. p. 365 end, εἶπεγάρπούτις , viz. Abraham, in Genesis 20:12: De Opif. Mund. § 5, p. 5, ὅπερκαὶτῶνἀρχαίωνεἶπέτις , viz. Plato: al. And our Writer has again, ch. 4:4, εἴρηκεγάρπουπερὶτῆςἑβδόμηςοὕτως , viz. Genesis 2:2. In all such cases the indefiniteness is designed and rhetorical. We can hardly infer, with Bleek and De Wette, that the Writer meant to express his feeling that the O. T. books had no human authors, but God Himself: for in this case, as Lü nemann remarks, the personal τις would hardly have been used, but a passive construction adopted instead) testified (the word διαμαρτυρέω has in Attic law the technical sense of appearing as a witness previously to the admission of a cause into court, for the plaintiff or defendant, to substantiate or oppugn its admissibility: so Harpocration, πρὸτοῦεἰσαχθῆναιτὴνδίκηνεἰςτὸδικαστήριον , ἐξῆντῷβουλομένῳδιαμαρτυρῆσαιὡςεἰσαγώγιμόςἐστινἡδίκη , ἢοὐκεἰσαγώγιμος . Hence the deponent middle, διαμαρτύρομαι , is to call in, or invoke witnesses to the justice of one’ s cause or truth of one’ s assertion. And thus it acquires its less proper senses of conjuring, earnestly beseeching, on the one hand: and affirming, positively asserting, either absolutely, as here, or with an accusative of reference, on the other. Both these two are found in the N. T. See reff.: the former occurs chiefly in the pastoral Epistles, the latter in reff. Acts, 1 Thess., Jer.), saying (this seems the proper place for a few remarks on the sense of the citation which follows, and on the connexion of thought in the rest of the chapter. The general import of the eighth Psalm may be described as being, to praise Jehovah for His glory and majesty, and His merciful dealing with and exaltation of mankind. All exegesis which loses sight of this general import, and attempts to force the Psalm into a direct and exclusive prophecy of the personal Messiah, goes to conceal its true prophetic sense, and to obscure the force and beauty of its reference to Him. This has been done by Bleek and others, who have made ‘ the Son of Man’ a direct title here of Christ. It is man who in the Psalm is spoken of, in the common and most general sense: the care taken by God of him, the lordship given to him, the subjection of God’ s works to him. This high dignity he lost, but this high dignity he has regained, and possesses potentially in all its fulness and glory, restored and for ever secured to him. How? and by whom? By one of his own race, the MAN Christ Jesus. Whatever high and glorious things can be said of man, belong de proprio jure to Him only, propriâ personâ to Him only, but derivatively to us His brethren and members. And this is the great key to the interpretation of all such sayings as these: whatever belongs to man by the constitution of his nature, belongs κατ ʼ ἐξοχήν to that man, who is the constituted head of man’ s nature, the second Adam, who has more than recovered all that the first Adam lost. To those who clearly apprehend and firmly hold this fundamental doctrine of Christianity, the interpretation of ancient prophecy, and the N. T. application of O. T. sayings to Christ, become a far simpler matter than they ever can be to others. And so here, it is to man, not to angels, that the ‘ world to come’ is subjected. This is the argument: and, as far as the end of ver. 8, it is carried on with reference to man, properly so called. There is here as yet no personal reference to our Lord, who is first introduced, and that in his lower personal human Name, at ver. 9. This has been missed, and thus confusion introduced into the argument, by the majority of Commentators. To hold that our Lord is from the first intended by ἄνθρωπος and υἱὸςἀνθρώπου here, is to disturb altogether the logical sequence, which runs thus: ‘ It is not to angels that He has subjected the latter dispensation, but to man. Still, we do not see man in possession of this sovereignty. No; but we do see Jesus, whose humiliation fulfilled the conditions of manhood, crowned with glory and honour, and thus constituted the Head of our race, so that His death and sufferings were our deliverance and our perfecting. And for this to be so, the Sanctifier and the sanctified must be all of one race.’ And the rest of the chapter is spent in laying forth with inimitable beauty and tenderness the necessity and effect of Jesus being thus made like us. The whole process of this second chapter stands without parallel for tender persuasiveness amidst the strictest logical coherence. And yet both of these are concealed and spoiled, unless we take these words of the Psalm, and the argument founded on them, of man generally, and then, and not till then, of Jesus, as man like ourselves. And so Clem.-alex. (Strom. iv. 3, pp. 566 f. P), Chrys., Thl., Thdrt. (τὸδὲ “ τίἐστινἄνθρωπος ” εἴρηταιμὲνπερὶτῆςκοινῆςφύσεως , ἁρμόττειδὲτῇἐξἡμῶνἀπαρχῇ , ὡςοἰκειουμένῃτὰπάσηςτῆςφύσεως . See also on the Psalm): so Pellicanus, Calvin, Piscator, Schlichting, Grot., Jansen., Bengel, and almost all the moderns, including Delitzsch. The principal upholders of the other view are Beza (in part), Calov., Seb.-Schmidt, and the Lutheran Commentators, and recently Bleek), What is man (some, e. g. Kuinoel, have understood this to mean, “ How great, how noble, is man; who even amongst the immensity of all these heavenly works of God, yet is remembered and visited of Him!” but against this are the words here used in the Heb.: א ֱ נ ו ֹ ש ׁ in the first member of the parallel, and ב ּ ֶ ן ־ א ָ ד ָ ם in the second, both betokening man on his lower side, of weakness and inferiority. There can be little doubt that the ordinary view is right— not ‘ quantus est homo,’ but ‘ quantulus est homo.’ This agrees far better also with the wonder expressed at God’ s thinking of and visiting him, below), that thou art mindful of him (i. e. objectively,— as shewn by Thy care of him), or (in the Heb. י ; ἤ is here doubtless substituted for it by the LXX, to indicate that the second member of the parallelism does not point to another subject additional to the first. Bleek is hardly right, when he says, that the ἤ has here a meaning somewhat modified from καί , as bringing out more definitely ‘ the Son of Man,’ the Messiah, who follows. For (see above), the thought of Him is as yet in the background,— nay, carefully kept back; and the reference as yet to man generally) the son of man (proceeding on the same view as that given above, it would be irrelevant here to enter on an enquiry as to the application of this title to our Lord, by others and by Himself,— inasmuch as it is not here appropriated to Him, but used of any and every son of Adam. It is true, our thoughts at once recur to Him on reading the words— but, if we are following the train of thought, only as their ulterior, not as their immediate reference), that Thou visitest (reff.: the common word by which the LXX express the Heb. פ ּ ָ ק ַ ד , and almost always in a good sense (see exceptions, Jeremiah 5:9, Jeremiah 5:29 al., in Trommius). The good sense is never departed from in the N. T. It is often found in the classics: e. g. in Ajax’ s celebrated speech, Soph. Aj. 854, ὦθάνατεθάνατε , νῦνμ ʼ ἐπίσκεψαιμολών : Eur. Heracl. 869, ὦΖεῦ , χρόνῳμὲντἄμ ʼ ἐπεσκέψωκακά . It is very commonly used of a physician or other visiting the sick; so Xen. Cyr. v. 4. 10, ὡςἐπισκέψαιτοτὸνΓαδάτανπῶςἔχοιἐκτοῦτραύματος : Mem. iii. 11. 10. See Palm and Rost’ s Lex.) him? 7. Thou madest him a little lower than the angels and of the thing : see Gesen. § 136. 1. מ ִ ן is usually taken comparative, ‘ in comparison of God:’ according to Hupfeld, it is properly partitive, ‘ of God:’ of the attributes which constitute the essence of God.” De Wette: and thus also Calvin: “ Tot decoribus ornatos esse dicit ut eorum conditio divina et cœ lesti gloria non longe sit inferior.” But when De W. goes on, in treating of מ ְ ע ַ ט , to say that some understand it, with the LXX, of time, and refers to Hebrews 2:6, Hebrews 2:7 to confirm this, I must venture to doubt, though I find the same very generally assumed (e. g. by Calvin,— “ Videtur apostolus verba trahere in diversum sensum quam intellexerit David. Nam βραχύτι videtur ad tempus referre ut sit paulisper, et imminutionem intelligit quum exinanitus fuit Christus, et gloriam ad resurrectionis diem restringit, quum David generaliter extendat ad totam hominis vitam.” And then he defends this method of quotation on the ground of there being “ nihil incommodi si allusiones in verbis quæ rat ad ornandam præ sentem causam.” Similarly Schlichting, Grotius, Hammond, Limborch, and most of the moderns: and, maintaining the sense of time in the Psalm also, Beza, Gerhard, Calov., Peirce, Michaelis, al.), whether this is so certain after all. The expression βραχύτι is used both in the classics and in Hellenistic Greek, just as much of space and quantity, as of time; as the following examples (besides reff.) will shew, gathered from Wetst., Bleek, and from various indices: Hippocrat. de Natur. Hominum i., τὸμὲνὅλονβιβλίονσχεδὸνεἰςχ ʹ στίχουςἢβραχύτιἧττονἐκτεταμένον : Thucyd. i. 63, βραχὺμέντιπροῆλθονὡςβοηθήσοντες : 2 Kings 16:1, καὶΔαυεὶδπαρῆλθεβραχύτιἀπὸτῆςῬώς : Galen, de Usu Part. xiv., ἐπειδὴἐντῇπρώτῃδιαπλάσειβραχύτιπλημμεληθῇ : id. de Facult. Med. Simpl. v., ὑπερβάλλουσινβραχύτιῥητίνῃκ . πίττᾳ : ib. vi., φαίνεταιμὲνγὰρἐναὐτῇβραχύτιτὸδριμύ , πλεῖστονδὲτὸπικρόν . Also Plato, Legg. x. p. 906 b, βραχύδέτικαὶτῆςἄντιςτῶντοιούτωνἐνοικοῦνἡμῖνσαφὲςἴδοι . It is used of time in Luke 22:58: Acts 5:34; Acts 27:28: Isaiah 57:17. This being the case, I do not see why it should be at once set down that the LXX or our Writer necessarily referred it to time, either here or in ver. 9: see below. So also Kuinoel, Heinrichs, Wahl, and Bretschneider. The only point remaining for discussion is ἀγγέλους , the LXX rendering of א ֱ ל ֹ ה ִ י ם , and the meaning understood also by the Chaldee paraphrast. The best Hebrew scholars seem to agree that it represents, not the personal God, but the abstract qualities of Godhead, in which all that is divine, or immediately connected with the Deity, is included. This, as Hupfeld himself confesses, the angels may well be, in so far as they may be called א ֱ ל ֹ ה ִ י ם , or ב ּ ְ נ ֵ י א ֱ ל ֹ ה ִ י ם . If so, then the rendering of the LXX and our text is, though not exhaustive of the original, yet by no means an inaccurate one. The angelic nature, being the lowest of that which is divine and heavenly, marks well the terminus just beneath which man is set. And it must be remarked, that the stress of the argument here is not on this mention of the angels, but on the assertion of the sovereignty of man. The verb ἐλαττοῦν is in frequent classical use: see Palm and Rost’ s Lex.: and notice the parallel from Philo in reff.): thou crownedst him with glory and honour : 8. thou didst put (the Heb. is perfect: on which Hupfeld remarks, “ The imperf. is at first continued from the foregoing verses, but in the concluding sentence all is finished with the perfect ש ׁ ַ ת ּ ָ ה , and treated as a standing arrangement and permanent ordering of things: ‘ all things hast thou put under his feet.’  ” So that our E. V., though imperfectly representing the Greek, is true to the original Heb.) all things under his feet (these words form in the Heb. and LXX the second member of a parallelism, the first of which, καὶκατέστησαςαὐτὸνἐπὶτὰἔργατῶνχειρῶνσου , is found indeed in our rec. text, but (see var. readd.) must be omitted on critical principles. The probable cause why the Writer omitted it, has been discussed by Bleek. He thinks that it was unnecessary to the argumentation, the latter clause expressing more definitely the same thing. This he gathers, believing the whole to apply to our Saviour: but the same will hold good on our understanding of the passage also. The words themselves are plain. Universal dominion is bestowed on man by his constitution as he came from God. That that bestowal has never yet been realized, is the next step of the argument: the Redeemer being at present kept out of sight, but by and by to be introduced as the real fulfiller of this high destiny of man, and on that account, incarnate in man’ s nature. It is, as Ebrard remarks, astonishing that a thorough Commentator like Bleek should have so entirely misread and misunderstood the logical connexion of so clear a passage: while he himself confesses, that it looks as if the Person were first introduced in ver. 9, to whom vv. 6, 7, have been pointing: and yet denies that in ver. 6 f. ἄνθρωπος can mean ‘ mankind.’ Besides all other objections, on Bleek’ s view, the question τίἐστινἄνθρωποςκ .τ .λ . loses all appropriate meaning. The connexion was first laid out by Hofmann, Weissag. u. Erfü ll. ii. 23 ff.: Schriftbeweis i. 185-188; ii. 1. 38 ff., and is adopted by Ebrard and Delitzsch). For (Bleek thinks that the γάρ rather repeats the former γάρ , ver. 5, than has any logical force of its own here. This peculiar use of γάρ , he says, is characteristic of our Epistle: see ch. 4:2, 3; 4:15; 5:1; 7:12, 13: see his vol. i. p. 330. Hofmann however protests strongly against this view (Weissag. ii. 26, &c. as above), holding the γάρ to be ratiocinative, and justificative of the Psalm, as referring back to Genesis 1:28 to substantiate the ὑπέταξας . But, as Delitzsch remarks, this would be but to prove idem per idem; for the ύπέταξας itself necessarily refers back to Genesis 1:28. He therefore prefers Bleek’ s view, which is also that of Tholuck, De Wette, and Winer,— that γάρ grounds, or rather begins to ground, that already asserted in ver. 5) in that he (viz. God: not the writer of the Psalm, as Heinrichs: unless indeed we are to understand ὑποτάξαι to mean εἰπεῖνὅτιὑποτέτακται , as St. Paul expresses it 1 Corinthians 15:27: but the other is much simpler, more analogous to usage, and more in the sense of the Psalm, which is a direct address to God) put all things under him (Man, again: not, Christ: see above, and remarks at the end of the verse) He left nothing (“ Nec cœ lestia videtur excepisse nec terrestria,” Primasius: and so Estius, al. Possibly: and in the application itself, certainly: but we can hardly say that such was his thought here. The idea that angels are especially here intended, has arisen from that misconception of the connexion, which I have been throughout endeavouring to meet) unsubjected (see reff. where, as in υἱοὶἀνυπότακτοι , Symm. 1 Kings 2:12, it is in the sense of rebellious. The word belongs to later Greek: we have, Arrian, Epictet. ii. 10, ταύτῃ (to the will of man) τὰἄλλαὑποτεταγμένα , αὐτὴδ ʼ ἀδούλωτονκ . ἀνυπότακτον : Porphyr. Oneirocrit. 196, ἀνυπότακτοςἔσταιπᾶσιν : Philo, Quis Rer. Div. Hæ r. § 1, vol. i. p. 473. ἀνυποτάκτῳφορᾷχρῆσθαι : and in Polyb. several times, ἀνυπότακτοςδιήγησις , “ narratio quæ non habet notitiam antecedentem in animo discentis cui ceu fundamento et basi innitatur.” Casaubon) to him: but (contrast bringing out the exception) now (‘ ut nunc est:’ in the present condition of things: not strictly temporal, but as the νῦν , ch. 11:16, and the νυνί , ch. 9:26) we see not yet (cf. on the whole, 1 Corinthians 15:24-27) all things (τὰπ ., again) put under him (the αὐτῷ in all three places referring to man: man has not yet attained his sovereignty. That the summing up of manhood in Christ is in the Writer’ s mind, is evident throughout, and that he wishes it to be before his readers’ minds also; but the gradual introduction of the humiliation and exaltation of Christ in His humanity is marred by making all this apply personally to Him. Manhood, as such, is exalted to glory and honour, and waiting for its primæ val prerogative to be fully assured, but it is in Christ, and in Him alone, that this is true: and in Him it is true, inasmuch as He, being of our flesh and blood, and having been Himself made perfect by sufferings, and calling us His brethren, can lead us up through sufferings into glory, freed from guilt by His sacrifice for our sins). 9] We do not see man, &c.: but (δέ , strong contrast again: ‘ but rather’ — see on ver. 6) him who is made (better than ‘ was,’ or ‘ hath been, made;’ His humanity in its abstract position being in view) a little (not necessarily, here either, of time (as Delitzsch here, though not above): nor are we at liberty to assume such a rendering: though of course it is difficult to say, when the same phrase has two analogous meanings both applicable, as this, how far the one may have accompanied the other in the Writer’ s mind) lower than (the) angels, we behold (notice the difference between the half-involuntary όρῶμεν above, the impression which our eyes receive from things around us,— and the direction and intention of the contemplating eye (here, of faith: cf. ch. 3:19; 10:25) in βλέπομεν ), (namely) Jesus (Lü nemann is quite right against Ebrard here. The latter would take the words thus: “ But we behold Jesus (object) τὸνβρ . τιπαρ ʼ ἀγγ . ἠλαττ . , ὲστεφανωμένον (predicate).” But this would be to throw Ἰησοῦν into a position of emphasis: and would have been expressed Ἰησοῦνδὲτὸνκ .τ .λ ., or, τὸνδὲβρ . τ . π . ἀγ . ἠλ . Ἰησοῦνβλέπομεν . As it is, Ἰησοῦν , standing as it does behind the verb, is, as Lü nem. well remarks, altogether unemphasized, and is merely an explicative addition, to make it clear who is intended by τὸνβρ . τιπαρ ʼ ἀγγ . ἠλαττωμένον . So that this latter clause is the object, διὰ to ἐστεφ . (see below) the predicate, and Ἰησοῦν an appositional elucidation of the object. So Hofmann now, Schriftb. i. 187. Formerly he took it as Ebrard; Weissag. u. Erfü ll. ii. 28. Delitzsch takes Ἰησοῦν as the object and τὸνἠλαττωμ . κ .τ .λ . as the appositional clause. But I prefer as above: see more below), on account of his suffering of death (it has been much doubted whether these words belong, 1. to the foregoing clause, βραχύτιπαρ . ὰγγ . ἠλαττ ., or, 2. to the following, δόξῃκ . τιμῇἐστεφανωμένον . The former connexion is assumed without remark by the ancient Commentators: so Origen in Joann. tom. ii. 6 (vol. iv. p. 62), ἀγγέλωνἐλάττοναδιὰτὸπάθηματοῦθανάτου : Augustine, contra Maximin. ii. 25, vol. viii. (misquoted in Bleek), “ Eum autem modico minus quam angelos minoratum vidimus Jesum propter passionem mortis. Non ergo propter naturam hominis, sed propter passionem mortis:” Chrys., Thdrt. (see below), (not Thl. as Bleek: see below), Beza, Schlichting, Justiniani, a-Lapide, Cameron , Calov., Limborch, Owen, Michaelis, Baumgarten, Semler, Dindorf, Wakefield. And these interpret the words two ways: α . on account of the suffering of death, i. e. because He has suffered death (οὐτῇφύσειτῆςθεότητοςτῶνἀγγέλωνἠλάττωται , ἀλλὰτῷπάθειτῆςἀνθρωπότητος , Thdrt.),— thus making βραχύτι refer to the time of His sufferings and death, or as Chrys. , al., to the three days of His being in the grave: β . for the sake of the suffering of death, = εἰςτὸπάσχειντ . θ . So Aug. above, and most of the foregoing list. But, 2. the latter connexion, with the following clause, is adopted by Theophylact (as Thl. has been said by Bleek to maintain the other connexion, I give his note entire: σπουδάζειδεῖξαιτὰῥηθέντατῷχριστῷπροσαρμόζοντα , καὶφησὶνὅτιεἰκαὶτὰπάνταὑπέταξενοὔπωδοκεῖἁρμόζειναὐτῷ , καίτοιἐδείξαμενὅτιπάντωςκαὶτοῦτοἐκβήσεται . ἀλλ ʼ οὖντὸβραχύτιἠλαττῶσθαιπαρ ʼ ἀλλέλους , τούτῳ · ἁρμόζειἢἡμῖν . καὶγὰρὁμὲντρεῖςἡμέραςγεγονὼςἐντῷᾅδῃὡςἄνθρωπος , βραχὺἠλάττωταιτῶνἀγγέλων , ἅτεμηδ ʼ ὅλωςθανάτῳὑπαγομένωνἐκείνων · ἡμεῖςδὲἐπὶπολὺφθειρόμενοι , οὐβραχὺἀλλὰπάμπολυαὐτῶνἠλαττώμεθα . καὶτὸδόξῃκαὶτιμῇἐστεφανῶσθαιδιὰτὸπάθος , ἐκείνῳμᾶλλονἁρμόζειἢἡμῖν . πάθημαδὲθανάτουεἰπών , τὸνἀληθῆθάνατονἐδήλωσεν . οὐφαντασίαγὰρθανάτου , ἀλλὰπάθημαἦνἔνεργον . ἀνέμνησεδὲτοῦσταυροῦκ . τοῦθανάτου , ἵναπείσῃαὐτοὺςγενναίωςφέρειντὰςφλίψεις , εἰςτὸνδιδάσκαλονἀφορῶντας . ἀλλὰκαὶδόξα , φησί , καὶτιμὴὁσταυρὸςαὐτῷγέγονεν · οὐκοῦνκαὶὑμῖναἱθλίψειςκ . τὰπάθη · τίοὖνἀποπηδᾶτετῶνστεφανούντων ; ἐκεῖνοςὑπὲρσοῦτοῦδούλουἔπαθε · σὺὑπὲραὐτοῦοὐκἀνέχῃθλιβῆναιτοῦδεσπότου ; Here, although he partially adopts the notion of βραχύτι referring to the three days, it is evident both from the words which I have noted by different type, and by the application which he makes to ourselves, that he joins διὰτὸπάθ . τ . θ . with δόξῃκ . τιμῇἐστεφανωμένον , not with the preceding clause), Luther, Calvin, Estius, Grot., Seb.-Schmidt, Bengel, Wetst., Schulz, Bö hme, Kuinoel, Bleek, Tholuck, Ebrard, Lü nemann, Delitzsch, al. The question must be determined by the arrangement of the words, and by the requirements of the context. And both these seem to require the latter, not the former connexion. The words διὰτὸπάθ . τ . θ . are emphatic; they are taken up again in the next sentence by διὰπαθημάτωντελειῶσαι (which words themselves are a witness that suffering and exaltation, not suffering and degradation, are here connected). But emphatic they could not be in the former connexion, coming as they would only as an explicatory clause, after βραχύτιπαρ ʼ ἀγγ . ἠλαττωμένον . Again, the former connexion hardly satisfies the διὰ with an accusative; certainly not if the sense α ., because He has suffered death, be taken; and if the other, β ., we should have expected rather εἰςτὸπάθηματοῦθ ., or εἰςτὸπαθεῖντὸνθ . Whereas the latter connexion entirely satisfies the context, the sufferings of Christ being treated of as necessary to His being our perfect Redeemer: entirely also fulfils the requirements of διὰ with an accusative; wherein, which is no small consideration in its favour, it is in strict analogy with the construction in ref. Phil., γενόμενοςὑπήκοοςμέχριθανάτου , θανάτουδὲσταυροῦ . διὸκαὶὁθεὸςαὐτὸνὑπερύψωσενκ .τ .λ . And this connexion will be made even clearer by what will be said on the next clause, ὅπωςκ .τ .λ .), crowned with glory and honour (viz. at His exaltation, when God exalted Him to His right Hand: not, as some (e. g. Hofmann, ubi supra; see also Schriftbeweis i. 271, um des Todes willen ist Iesus mit der Berufsherrlichkeit und Berufsehre gekront), at His incarnation, or His establishment as Saviour of the world: see above, ver. 7): in order that (how is this ὅπως logically constructed? In answering the question, we may at once dismiss all impossible senses of ὅπως , invented to escape the difficulty: such as the supposed ecbatic sense, “ so that” (Erasm. (paraphr.), Valck., Kuinoel, &c.), “ postquam mortem gustavit,” Schleusner; &c. &c. ὅπως has no such ecbatic sense any where: and its temporal sense is altogether unexampled with the subjunctive mood. It can have here none but its constant telic sense: ‘ in order that.’ And as to its dependence we must have recourse to no inversions of construction, but take it simply as we find it, however difficult. It depends then on the last clause, which clause it will be best to take in its entirety, διὰτὸπάθηματοῦθανάτουδόξῃκαὶτιμῇἐστεφανωμένον . The full connexion we cannot enter into, till the three other questions arising out of our clause are disposed of: χάριτιθεοῦ — ὑπὲρπαντός — and γεύσηταιθανάτου ) by the grace of God (here comes into question the very important various reading χωρὶςθεοῦ , the authorities for which see in the digest. That it does not owe its origin to the Nestorians, whatever use they may have made of it, is evident from Origen reading and expounding it. In his time it was the prevalent reading, the present ἐνχάριτιθεοῦ being found only ἔντισινἀντιγράφοις . Theodoret here, and on Ephesians 1:10 (see below), knew of no other reading: nor did Ambrose, nor Fulgentius. Jerome on Galatians 3:10 says, “ Quia Christus gratia Dei, sive ut in quibusdam exemplaribus legitur, absque Deo, pro omnibus mortuus est.” In the Greek Church, the Nestorians mostly held fast to the old reading, as favouring their views. It may be well to cite Theophylact on this point: οἱδὲΝεστοριανοὶπαραποιοῦντεςτὴνγραφήνφασι · “ χωρὶςθεοῦὑπὲρπαντὸςγεύσηταιθανάτου ,” ἵνασυστήσωσινὅτιἐσταυρωμένῳτῷχριστῷοὐσυνῆνἡθεότης , ἅτεμὴκαθ ʼ ὑπόστασιναὐτῷἡνωμένη , ἀλλὰκατὰσχέσιν . πρὸςοὓςὀρθόδοξόςτιςχλευάζωντὴνἀνοησίαναὐτῶνεἶπεν · ὅτιἐχέτω , ὥςφατε , ἡγραφή , καὶοὕτωςὑπὲρἡμῶνἐστιτὸλεγόμενον · χωρὶςγὰρθεοῦὑπὲρπαντὸςἄλλουἀπέθανενὁκύριος , καὶὑπὲρτῶνἀλλέλωναὐτῶν , ἵναλύσῃτὴνπρὸςἡμᾶςἐχθρὰναὐτῶνκαὶχαρὰναὐτοῖςπεριποιήσηται . And similarly Œ cumenius. In our copies of the Peschito this reading is not now found, but the passage runs “ Nam ipse Deus per gratiam suam pro omni homine gustavit mortem” (“ For He Aloha in his grace for every man hath tasted death,” Etheridge’ s version): but (see digest) in certain mss., we have a combination of the readings, “ Ipse enim excepto Deo per gratiam suam pro omni homine gustavit mortem,” [but this combination appears to be due to Editors only, and not to mss.] Bleek adduces, from the 8th century, Anastatius Abbas, a writer of Palestine: “ Absque Deo: sola enim divina natura non egebat.” In modern times, the reading has been defended by Camerarius, Colomesius, Bengel, Ch. Fr. Schmid, Paulus, and more recently Ebrard and Baumgarten. Hofmann once defended it, Weissag. u. Erfü ll. i. 92; but has now given it up;— Entstehungsgeschichte, u.s.w. p. 338. By those who have adopted it, it has been interpreted three different ways: 1. as Origen , Thdrt. , Thl. and Œ c. (hypothetically, see above), and Ebrard; and in a modification, Bengel and Schmid (“ Omne, præ ter Deum, Christo subjectum est,’ Beng.: in accordance with 1 Corinthians 15:27). 2. as Ambrose, Fulgentius, and the Nestorians, and Colomesius . 3. as Paulus and Baumgarten,— “ forsaken of God,” as witnessed by the cry on the cross. In considering the probability of this reading, as to, α . external evidence, and, β . internal probability, it must, α . be confessed, that such instances as this, where an important reading, prevalent in the early ages, is found only in two or three of our present mss., tend considerably to shake the trustworthiness of mere manuscript evidence as to the original text of the N. T., and to enhance the testimony of those sources which are anterior to any of our present mss., viz. the earlier Fathers. In treating of , we must deal with each of the assigned meanings separately. Of (1) it may be said, that however true in fact,— the thought that Jesus died for every rational being (παντὸςλογικοῦ as Origen), or for every thing (neut.), except God, is quite alien from the present context, where the sovereignty of man in the new world is the subject— of man, in and through the Son of man, Jesus Christ: cf. the πολλοὺςυἱούς ver. 10, τοῖςἀδελφοῖςμου ver. 12: &c. &c. And as to (2), it is even more alien from the context, as it also is from the N. T. Christology. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/alfordgnt/ Chap. 3:1-4:16. The Son of God greater also than Moses: and inferences therefrom. The Writer has arrived through the reasonings of ch. 1:2, at the mention of the High Priesthood of Jesus. He might at once have passed thence to the superiority of His High Priesthood to that of the imperfect priests on earth. But one point yet remains, without which the gospel would not have its entire comparison with the law. The law was given by angels in the hand of a mediator. Moses was that mediator. Moses was above all others the Prophet by whom God had spoken to the Fathers in times past. Christ therefore must be compared with Moses, and shewn to be greater than he. This being done, he returns again to his central idea, the High Priesthood of Christ (ch. 4:14); and from thenceforward treats of and unfolds it. Ebrard gives the detailed connexion well: “ The angel of the covenant came in the name of God before the people of Israel; Moses in the name of Israel before God: the High Priest came in the name of God before Israel (with the name י ה ו ה on his forehead), and in the name of Israel (with the names of the twelve tribes on his breast) before God (Exodus 28:9-29 and 36-68). Now the N. T. Messiah is above the angels, according to ch. 1:2: α . because in Himself as Son of God He is higher than they, and β . because in Him all humanity is exalted above the angels to lordship in the οἰκουμένημέλλουσα , and that by this means, because the Messiah is not only מ ל א ך , but also ἀρχιερεύς ,— not only messenger of God to men, but also the propitiatory sacerdotal representative of men before God. Now exactly parallel with this runs our second part. The fundamental thesis, ch. 3:3, πλείονοςγὰροὗτοςδόξηςπαρὰΜωυσῆνἠξίωται , is plainly analogous in form with the fundamental thesis of the first part, 1:4, τοσούτῳκρείττωνγενόμενοςτῶνἀγγέλων . The N. T. Messiah is above Moses, because He, α . of Himself, as Son of the house (3:6), is above him who was only the servant of the house , and, β . because the work, of bringing Israel into rest, which was not finished by Moses, is now finished by Him (4:1 ff.). And this work Christ has finished, by being not, as Moses, a mere leader and lawgiver, but at the same time a propitiatory representative, an ἀρχιερεύς (ch. 5:11 ff.). So far does the parallelism of the two portions reach even into details, that as the two divisions of the former part are separated by a hortatory passage, so are those of this part also:— “ I. The Son and the angels,II. The Son and Moses.α . The Son of God of Himself higher than the λειτουργικὰπνεύματα of God, 1:5-14.α . The Son of the house of Israel higher than the θεράπων of the house, 3:1-6.(Hortatory passage, 2:1-4.)(Hortatory passage, 3:7-19.)β . In Him manhood is exalted above the angels, 2:5-16.β . In Him Israel has entered into rest, 4:1-13.For He was also High Priest, 2:17, 18.Thus He is also our High Priest, 4:14-16.” Comm. pp. 123 f.Ebrard has perhaps not enough noticed the prevalence of the hortatory mood not only in the interposed passage, 3:7-19, but all through the section: cf. 4:1, 11, 14, 16. 1. Whence (i. e. seeing that we have such a helper: it is connected with the result of ch. 2: not, surely, with ch. 1:1, as De W. The fact just announced in 2:18, is a reason for κατανοήσατε : see below), hely brethren (Michaelis proposed to put a comma at ἀδελφοί , and treat the two as separate,— brethren (and) saints. But, as Bleek observes, the rhythm seems against this, κλής . ἐπαυρ . μέτοχοι following. And a graver objection may be found in the choice of the words themselves: for there can hardly be a doubt that both are used in reference to the ἁγιαζόμενοι and ἀδελφοί of ch. 2:11, 12. Not that the ἀδελφοί here are Christ’ s brethren: but that the use of the word reminds them of that brotherhood in and because of Christ, of which he has before spoken. Whether the idea of common nationality is here to be introduced, is at least doubtful. I should rather regard it as swallowed up in the great brotherhood in Christ: and Bleek has well remarked, that, had the Writer been addressing believing Jews and Gentiles, or even believing Gentiles only, he would have used the same term of address and without any conscious difference of meaning), partakers (see on μετέχειν , ch. 2:14: and reff. here) of a heavenly calling (κλῆσις , as usual, of the invitation, or summons, of God, calling men to His glory in Christ— and hence of the state which is entered by them in pursuance of that calling: cf. especially Philippians 3:14, τῆςἄνωκλήσεωςτοῦθεοῦἐνχριστῷἸησοῦ . Then also ἐπουρανίου (see reff.)— a calling made from heaven, see ch. 12:25: “ vocatio quæ de cœ lo,” Syr. Or it may mean, the calling which proposes a heavenly reward,— whose inheritance is in heaven. By far the best way is, to join the two meanings together: so Bengel, “ per Dominum e cœ lo factæ , et eo, unde facta est, perducentis.” In fact the calling being ἐπουράνιος and proceeding from heaven, must of necessity be heavenly in its purport and heavenward in its result; eine vom himmel aus ergangene und gen himmel rufende: ihr Ausgangsort, ihr Inhalt, ihr Ziel— das Alles ist himmlisch. Delitzsch), contemplate (survey, with a view to more closely considering. The word is used of the survey of the spies at Jericho (λαθόντεςγὰρτὸπρῶτονἅπασανἐπ ʼ ἀδείαςτὴνπόλιναὐτῶνκατενόησαν , τῶντετειχῶνὅσακαρτερὰκ .τ .λ . Jos. Antt. v. 1. 2: cf. also Genesis 42:9, κατάσκοποίἐστε , κατανοῆσαιτὰἴχνητῆςχώραςἥκατε , and Numbers 32:8, Numbers 32:9); and of fixing the thoughts on any object, see reff. Luke, with whom it is a favourite word. The meaning then of the exhortation here is not, ‘ pay attention to’ (“ ut sedule attendant ad Christum,” Calv.), ‘ be obedient to,’ but as above) the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Jesus (ἀπόστολον , as superior to the ἄγγελοι , being Himself the angel of the covenant, God’ s greatest messenger: the word ἄγγελον being, as Ebrard, avoided, on account of its technical use before, to prevent Christ being confused with the angels in nature. He is ὁἀπεσταλμένοςπαρὰπατρός : see John 20:21. (I may remark, that the circumstance of the Writer using ἀπόστολος without scruple, as designating our Lord, may shew that the ἀπόστολοι as a class were not so distinctly marked as they have since been: a view supported also by some expressions of St. Paul: e. g. 2 Corinthians 8:23.) Ebrard well remarks, that all the difficulties which Commentators have found in this term vanish, on bearing well in mind the comparison between Christ and the angels in ch. 1:2. See an instance of this in the elaborate discussion of its meaning on Hebraistic grounds in the last edition of Tholuck; who, by rendering ἀπόστ ., “ mediator,” has lost the joint testimony of the two, ἀπόστ . and ἀρχ ., to Christ’ s mediatorship. Bengel says well on the two,— “ τὸνἀπόστ ., eum qui Dei causam apud nos agit: τὸνἀρχ ., qui causam nostram apud Deum agit. Hic Apostolatus et Pontificatus uno mediatoris vocabulo continentur.” τῆςὁμολογίαςἡμ ., of our Christian confession,— i. e. of our faith: so Thl., τουτέστιτῆςπίστεως · οὐγὰρτῆςκατὰνόμονλατρείαςἀρχιερεύςἐστιν , ἀλλὰτῆςἡμετέραςπίστεως . And so Thdrt., Œ c., and Erasm., Calv., Beza, Grot., al. Tholuck objects, that thus we get no good sense for ἀπόστολος : but he does not seem to have taken into account the parallel with ch. 1:14. Thos. Aquinas, Luther, Camero, Calov., Owen (as an altern.), Wolf, al., and De Wette, and Tholuck, take the words as merely importing “ whom we confess.” But although De W. defends this from ch. 4:14, it does not seem to agree with the usage there, κρατῶμεντῆςὁμολογίας ,— nor with ch. 10:23,— nor 1 Timothy 6:12, 1 Timothy 6:13. To render ὁμολογία by “ covenant,” as Camerar., Tittmann, al., is not according to N. T. usage, which always has διαθήκη for this idea. There is a remarkable passage quoted by Wetst., out of Philo de Somn. i. § 38, vol. i. p. 654, containing the expression ὁμέγαςἀρχιερεὺςτῆςὁμολογίας : a parallel hardly to be accounted accidental, especially as the ἀρχιερεύς here spoken of is the λόγος . But Bleek has argued that, there being nothing in the context, or in the usage of Philo elsewhere, which can justify τῆςὁμολογίας there, the only inference open to us is, that it has been inserted in Philo’ s text from this passage. 2. First, a point of likeness between our Lord and Moses is brought out, and that by a reference to an O. T. declaration respecting the latter (μέλλειπροϊὼντὸνκατὰσάρκαχριστὸνπροτιθέναιΜωυσέως . ἀλλ ʼ ἐπειδή , εἰκαὶπιστοὶἦσανοὗτοιπρὸςοὓςὁλόγος , μεγάλαςἔτιδόξαςεἶχονπερὶΜωυσέως , ἵναμὴεὐθέωςἀποφράξωσιναὐτῶντὰὦτα , οὐκεὐθέωςπροτίθησιΜωυσέωςτὸνχριστόν , ἀλλὰτέωςἐξισοῖ · εἶταπροϊὼνπροτίθησιν Œ c.), who is (not, ‘ was.’ The present participle may always be contemporary with a previously expressed verb, of any tense, provided that verb be absolutely in construction with the participle, as ἀνέβλεψετυφλὸςὤν , “ he, being blind, received sight” = he was blind and received sight. But a present participle standing absolutely, or with a present verb, must retain its present force; as τυφλὸςὢνἄρτιβλέπω , “ I, being a blind man, now see,” = ‘ whereas I am (by infirmity, as every one knows, not, “ whereas I was,” as in E. V. in loco, John 9:25) blind, now I see.’ And so the present sense must be retained here. Then a question arises: are we to understand it strictly of present time, of Christ now in heaven,— or as in the case cited, of general designation? Clearly, I think, of the latter: Jesus, whose character it is, that He is πιστός . For the strict present would, to say nothing of other objections, not apply to the ἀπόστολον portion of the Lord’ s office, but only to the ἀρχιερέα . It, as Lü nemann has well expressed it, charakterisirt das Treusein als inhä rirende Eigenschaft) faithful (it is questioned, whether or not this word refers back to the πιστὸςἀρχιερεύς of ch. 2:18. The sense is certainly not the same: the faithfulness there being the fidelity wherewith He being like His brethren would, so to speak, reproduce their wants before God,— that here spoken of being His faithfulness to God, over whose house He is set, ver. 6. Still I cannot help thinking that the word itself is led to by, and takes up that other. That regarded more the sacerdotal, this regards the apostolic office of Christ) to him that made him (so we must render ποιήσαντι , not, “ that appointed him.” And so D-lat., “ fidelem esse creatori suo,” Ambrose, de Fide iii. 11, vol. ii. (iii. Migne) p. 512 , , Primasius (“ qui fidelis est eidem Deo Patri qui fecit eum (so vulg.), juxta quod alibi dicitur: qui factus est ei ex semine David secundum carnem (Romans 1:3).” ibid.), Schulz, Bleek, Lü nemann. The ordinary rendering, “ who appointed Him” does not seem to me to be sufficiently substantiated by any of the passages brought in its defence. That ποιεῖν with two accusatives signifies to appoint, to make into, of course no one doubts: cf. Genesis 27:37: Exodus 18:25: John 6:15: Acts 2:36. But our question is not of such constructions: we want to know whether ποιεῖντινα can ever be filled up with a second accusative out of the context. Two passages are most frequently alleged to prove the affirmative. One is ref. 1 Kings, μάρτυςκύριοςὁποιήσαςτὸνΜωυσῆνκαὶτὸνἈαρών , καὶὁἀναγαγὼντοὺςπατέραςὑμῶνἐξΑἰγύπτου . But here Bleek, against Gesenius and De Wette, holds fast, and I think rightly, to the original sense of ע ָ ש ׂ ָ ה , and renders “ who made Moses and Aaron.” The other place, Mark 3:14, ἐποίησεδώδεκαἵναὦσινμετ ʼ αὐτοῦκαὶἵναἀποστέλλῃαὐτοὺςκηρύσσειν , is less still to the point, because there the ἵναὦσινκ .τ .λ . qualifies the verb, and gives the second accusative, q. d. ἐποίησεδώδεκατοὺςἐσομένουςκ .τ .λ . And the phrase ὁποιήσαςαὐτόν , for God the Creator, is so common in the LXX, that had our Writer had that other meaning in his view, his readers would have been sure to misunderstand him. Bleek accumulates instances: cf. Isaiah 17:7; Isaiah 43:1; Isaiah 51:13; Isaiah 54:5: Hosea 8:14: Job 35:10: Psalms 94:6 (95:7); 149:2: Sir. 7:30; 10:12; 39:5, and many other places. He also presses the fact that ὁποιῶν in the Hellenistic Greek of Philo is the constant designation of God as the Creator. The word thus taken, is of course to be understood of that constitution of our Lord as our Apostle and High Priest in which He, being human, was made by the Father: not of Him as the eternal Word (as even Bleek and Lü nemann, explaining it of His generation before the worlds), which would be irrelevant here, besides being against all Scripture precedent. Even Athanasius himself, though arguing against this unwarranted inference of the Arians from the phrases, seems to have understood it as we have done above: for he says, Contra Arianos ii. (iii.) 8, vol. i. (ii. Migne), p. 376, οὐχὅτιὁλόγος , ᾗλόγοςἐστί , πεποίηται , νοεῖνθέμις · ἀλλ ʼ ὅτιλόγοςὢνδημιουργὸςὕστερονπεποίηταιἀρχιερεὺςἐνδυσάμενοςσῶματὸγεννητὸνκαὶποιητόν . And so also the orthodox Latins, Ambrose, Vigil-taps., Primasius, explaining “ creatio” by “ corporalis generatio.” The Greek Fathers, generally, repudiate strongly this view, as was natural, living as they did in the midst of the strife. Chrys. says, τίποιήσαντι ; ἀπόστολονκ . ἀρχιερέα · οὐδὲνἐνταῦθαπερὶοὐσίαςφησίν , οὐδὲπερὶτῆςθεότητος , ἀλλὰτέωςπερὶἀξιωμάτωνἀνθρωπίνων . And so Œ c. and Thl. Thdrt. even more plainly, ποίησινδὲοὐτὴνδημιουργίαν , ἀλλὰτὴνχειροτονίανκέκληκεν . And Epiphan. Hæ r. lxix. 38. 39, vol. ii. (Migne), p. 761, distinctly denies any reference even to the humanity of Christ as created,— οὐδὲτὴναὐτὴνπλάσινἐνταῦθαδιηγεῖταιτοῦσώματος , οὐδὲτῆςαὐτοῦἐνανθρωπήσεως , οὐπερὶκτίσεωςὅλωςφάσκει , ἀλλὰμετὰτὴνἐνδημίαντοῦἀξιώματοςτὸχάρισμα . See other testimonies from the Fathers in Suicer, ii. p. 788), as also (καί , to take another instance of faithfulness: thus, with every circumstance of honour, is Moses introduced, before any disparagement of him is entered upon) (was) Moses in all His house (from ref. Num., οὐχοὕτωςὁθεράπωνμουΜωυσῆςἐνὅλῳτῷοἴκῳμουπιστόςἐστι . 1. It may be well to remark, that the substitution of αὐτοῦ for μου at once indicates to whom αὐτοῦ is to be referred: viz. to God, τῷποιήσαντιαὐτόν : see also below on ver. 6. And so most ancient and modern Commentators. Ebrard would make it both times reflexive— “ his house,” i. e. the house to which he belongs: Bleek, both times to refer to Christ, whose house, as a Son, it is: Thl. gives the alternative, οἶκοντὸνλαὸνλέγει , ὡςκαὶἡμεῖςεἰώθαμενλέγειν , ὁδεῖνατῆσδετῆςοἰκίαςἐστίν · αὐτοῦ , δέ , ἤτοιτοῦθεοῦ , ἢτοῦΜωυσέως · καὶγὰρκαὶτοῦΜ . ἐλέγετοὁλαός , ὡςτὸὁλαόςσουἥμαρτεν . But this last expression had a special reference, and did not represent a general truth. 2. The circumstance of the quotation makes it far more natural to refer ἐνὅλῳτ . οἴκῳαὐτοῦ to Moses directly, and not to Christ, as Ebrard, al., putting a comma at Μωυσῆς . 3. The ellipsis is to be filled up by πιστὸςἦν after τῷοἴκῳαὐτοῦ , as in the place cited. 4. The signification of ὁοἶκοςαὐτοῦ is well illustrated by 1 Timothy 3:15, πῶςδεῖἐνοἴκῳθεοῦἀναστρέφεσθαι , ἥτιςἐστὶνἐκκλησίαθεοῦζῶντος . It imports the Church of God: and is one and the same here and in ver. 6; not two different houses, but the same, in the case of Moses taken at one time only,— in that of Christ, in its whole existence and development). 3. For (the γάρ is best connected, as commonly, with the κατανοήσατε above: as containing the reason why our attention should be thus fixed on Jesus: for, though He has the quality of faithfulness in God’ s house in common with Moses, yet is He far more exalted and glorious than he. Bleek, understanding αὐτοῦ above of Christ, inclines to connect γάρ immediately with it: “ it is His house, inasmuch as,” &c. But surely a ratiocination so taken up from a pronoun of at least ambiguous reference, would, without something to emphasize αὐτοῦ as = ἑαυτοῦ , be exceedingly obscure to the reader. Others, as De Wette, would join it to the immediately preceding and render it explicatively: but this seems harsh and incoherent) this person (the transposition in the later mss. to δόξηςοὗτος has probably been made to bring οὗτοςπαρὰΜωυσῆν together and πλείονοςδόξης . But it is characteristic of our Writer to separate words constructed together by an emphatic word) hath been held worthy (the word includes, with the idea of ‘ accounting worthy,’ that also of the actual bestowal of the dignity. So Philo, of Moses when a child, De Vit. Mos. i. 5, vol. ii. p. 83, τροφῆςοὖνἤδηβασιλικῆςκ . θεραπείαςἀξιούμενος . And De Decal. § 21, p. 198, τὴνμέντοιπρονομίανἧςἐντοῖςοὖσινἑβδομὰςἠξίωται : Diod. Sic. xix. 11, τὴνδ ʼ Εὐρυδίκην .… ἔκρινεμείζονοςἀξιῶσαιτιμωρίας : Arrian, Var. Hist. xii. 10, τῶνἀριστείωνἠξιώθησαν . See more examples in Bleek. The word refers to the honour and glory wherewith God hath crowned Christ, in His exaltation to His right Hand; which is taken for granted without further explanation, as a fact well known to the readers) of more glory than (on παρά after a comparative, see note, ch. 1:4), Moses, inasmuch as (this seems to give καθ ʼ ὅσον very happily, with just the same blending of analogy and inference) he hath more honour than the house (so is this gen. to be rendered, and not ‘ in,’ or ‘ from the house,’ as D-lat., “ quanto majorem honorem habet domus is qui præ paravit eam:” and so vulg., Luther, but combining with it the other rendering also (nachdem der eine grossere Ehre am hause hat der es bereitet denn das haus), Wolf, Peirce, al. This, that the Founder of the house had more glory from, or in the house, than Moses, was not true in fact of Christ: for they of the house had rejected Him. Cf. a very similar comparison in Philo, de Plant. Noë , § 16, vol. i. p. 340, ὅσῳγὰρὁκτησάμενοςτὸκτῆματοῦκτήματοςἀμείνων , κ . τὸπεποιηκὸςτοῦγεγονότος , τοσούτῳβασιλικώτεροιἐκεῖνοι . The majority of Commentators take it as above: e. g. Chrys, πλείονατιμὴνἔχειτῶνἔργωνὁτεχνίτης , ἀλλὰκαὶτοῦοἴκουὁκατασκευάζωναὐτόν : and Thdrt., ὅσηφησὶποιήματοςπρὸςποιητὴνδιαφορά , τοσαύτηΜωυσέωςπρὸςτὸνχριστόν . For the argument, see below) who established it (“ κατασκευάζεινοἶκον ,” says Bleek, “ is not to ‘ found a household,’ so that ὁκατασκευάσαςτὸνοἶκον should designate the paterfamilias,— a meaning which can hardly be defended:— but the formula refers beyond doubt primarily to the erection of an actual house. The word is so used, of the preparation of a building,— a house, or temple, or ship, or town, &c.,— and especially in later Greek. So in our Epistle (in St. Paul it never occurs), besides here and ver. 4,— as in reff. also. 1 Macc. 15:3, κατεσκεύασαπλοῖαπολεμικά : Jos. Vit. § 12, καθαιρεθῆναιτὸνοἶκονὑπὸἩρώδου … κατασκευασθέντα : Herodian, v. 6. 13, κατεσκεύασεδὲκαὶἐντῷπροαστείῳνεὼνμέγιστόντεκαὶπολυτελέστατον : ib. § 22, πύργουςτεμεγίστουςκαὶὑψηλοτάτουςκατασκευάσας : Plut. Numa, p. 67 a, ἐνταῦθακατασκευάζεταικατάγειοςοἶκοςοὐμέγας : Diod. Sic. xi. 62, ἄλλαςτριήρειςπολλὰςκατεσκεύασαν , &c. In almost all these places, the verb may be so taken as to include not only the erection of the building, ship, &c., but also the fitting up, providing with proper furniture , as indeed it is found more expressly used in Attic writers: e. g. Xen. Hiero ii. 2, μεγαλοπρεπεστάταςοἰκίαςκαὶταύταςκατεσκευασμέναςτοῖςπλείστουἀξίοις : id. Anab. iv. 1. 8, ἦσανδὲκαὶχαλκώμασιπαμπόλλοιςκατεσκευασμέναιαἱοἰκίαι , and al.; Demosth. p. 1208, ἔτιδὲσκεύεσινἰδίοιςτὴνναῦνκατεσκεύασα : p. 689, οἷςκατεσκευασμένηνὁρᾶτετὴνπόλιν : ib., ὥστετινὲςμὲναὐτῶνπολλῶνδημοσίωνοἰκοδομημάτωνσεμνοτέραςτὰςἰδίαςκατεσκευάκασινοἰκίας . And here also we may say, that κατασκευάζειν means more than οἰκοδομεῖνοἶκον , and includes, besides the building of the house, the fitting it up, and providing it with all requisites. So that to this κατασκευή of the house belong servants, male and female; and so here we may say that the οἰκέται , the servants of the house, are included. The sense then is this: just as he who has built and furnished a house,— for himself namely, as master of the house,— stands higher in honour than the house itself and the individual οἰκέται , so does Christ higher than Moses: and Christ is thus represented as he who has prepared the house of God (and therefore as its lord), to whom Moses also belongs, as an individual οἰκέτης . And so Chrys., Œ c., &c.” Wetstein and Bö hme have proposed a way of taking this verse which is at least specious: viz. to understand ὁκατασκευάσας not of the Son, but of the Father, and the sentiment to be, inasmuch as he who established the house has more honour than the house, which honour Christ, as His Son, shares. But however suitable this idea may be in the next verse (see below), it is well answered by Bleek, al., that the insertion of it here would be quite alien from the object of the Writer, who is clearly comparing, directly, Moses and Christ: and that besides, a reference to a sentiment lying out of the immediate path of the argument would be introduced not by καθ ʼ ὅσον , but by πλήν , or ἀλλά (or δέ , as in ver. 4). I am surprised to find Hofmann and Delitzsch upholding this last-mentioned interpretation as the only right one. Surely the ellipsis of the proposition ‘ the honour of the Father belongs to the Son also’ is not for a moment to be assumed. And besides, to suppose οὗτος in this verse, and ὁκατασκευάσας , not to refer to the same person, would involve a harshness and carelessness of style neither of which belongs to our Writer. See more on next verse). 4. For every house is established by some one (i. e. it belongs to the idea of a house that some one should have built and fitted it up: arrangement implies an arranger, design a designer): but (contrast as passing from the individual to the general) He which established all things is, God (= God is he which established all things; θεός being the subject, and ὁτὰπάντακατασκ ., the predicate. Before treating of the misunderstanding of this verse by the Fathers, and by many of the moderns, let us endeavour to grasp its true meaning. The last verse brings before us Christ as the κατασκευαστής of the house of God. And this He is, in whatever sense οἶκος be taken: whether on the narrower sense which best suits this present comparison, or in the wider sense implied by the faithful centurion in Matthew 8:9, in which all natural powers are His οἰκέται . But He is this not by independent will or agency. δι ʼ οὗκαὶἐποίησεντοὺςαἰῶνας , is our Writer’ s own language of the creation by Christ: and it is in accord with that of St. John, where he says πάνταδι ʼ αὐτοῦἐγένετο . He, as the Son, is ὁκατασκευάσας the house of God— the Church, or the world, or the universe; but, apparently (cf. ver. 6), the former of these: but it is as one with,— by virtue of his Sonship,— Him who is ὁπάντακατασκευάσας , viz. God. And thus the αὐτοῦ , twice repeated in vv. 5, 6, falls into its own place as belonging both times to God: Moses is His servant, part and portion of His household: Christ is His Son, over His household. And by this reference to God as the πρωτοκατασκευαστής , is the expression above, τῷποιήσαντιαὐτόν , illustrated and justified. So that this verse is not quasiparenthetic, as almost all the recent expositors make it— e. g. Tholuck, Bleek, Ebrard, Lü nemann,— but distinctly part of the argument. The ancient expositors, almost without exception, take θεός as predicate, and ὁπάντακατασκευάσας as a designation of Christ— “ now He that founded all things, is (must be) God:” thus making the passage a proof of the deity of Christ. The short-hand writer has apparently here blundered over Chrysostom’ s exposition, for it is meagre and confused to the last degree; but Thdrt., Œ c., and Thl., so explain it, regarding ver. 2 as an assertion of Christ’ s superiority to Moses quoad His human nature, and this verse as regards His divinity. ὅραπῶςἤρξατομὲντῆςσυγκρίσεωςἀπὸτῆςσαρκός , ἀνέβηδὲεἰςτὴνθεότητα , καὶἀσυγκρίτωςὑπερέχειντὸνποιητὴντοῦποιήματοςἔδειξε . And so also Beza, Estius, Cappellus, a-Lapide, Cameron, Seb. Schmidt, Calmet, Bengel πάντακατασκευάσας as in apposition; but He, who &c., is God), al. But, apart from the extreme harshness and forcing of the construction to bring out this meaning, the sentiment itself is entirely irrelevant here. If the Writer was proving Christ to be greater than Moses inasmuch as He is God, the founder of all things, then clearly the mere assertion of this fact would have sufficed for the proof, without entering on another consideration: nay, after such an assertion, all minor considerations would have been not only superfluous, but preposterous. He does however, after this, distinctly go into the consideration of Christ being faithful not as a servant but as a son: so that he cannot be here speaking of His Deity as a ground of superiority). 5. The argument proceeds, resuming the common ground of ver. 2: and Moses indeed (was) faithful in all His (God’ s, cf. above the words of the citation, on ver. 2) house, as a servant (cf. as above; the word θεράπων (see reff.) is often applied by the LXX to Moses. So also Wisd. 10:16: Barnabas, Ep. c. 14, Μωυσῆςθεράπωνὢνἔλαβεν , αὐτὸςδὲὁκύριοςἡμῖνἔδωκεν . θεράπων differs from δοῦλος , in embracing all who are, whether by occasion or by office, subservient to another: thus the Etym. Mag.: θεράπονταςοὐχ , ὥσπεροἱνεώτεροι , δούλους , ἀλλὰπάνταςτοὺςθεραπευτικῶςἔχοντας , ὡς “ ΔαναοὶθεράποντεςἌρηος · ” καί , τὸνἐνδευτέρᾳτάξειφίλον , ὡς “ ΠάτροκλοςἈχιλλέωςθεράπων .” Wetst., who also cites Apollonius, Ammonius, and Eustathius, to the same effect. This of course would allow the same person to be called by both names, as Moses is in Joshua 1:1 and 2 F. (not A), and al. Bleek well remarks here, that δοῦλος , had it been used of Moses in the place cited, would have served the Writer’ s purpose here just as well for the argument, but not for the words εἰςμαρτ . τῶνλαληθησομένων , which here follow, indicating the nature of his θεραπεία ), for testimony of the things which were to be (afterwards) spoken nor τῶνλαληθησομένων will bear such an interpretation. And yet it is acquiesced in by Syr. , Chrys. (not perhaps exactly: τίἐστιν , εἰςμαρτύριον ; ἵναὦσι , φησί , μάρτυρες , ὅτανἀναισχυντῶσινοὗτοι : but this surely will not suit the gen. τῶνλαληθ .), Thdrt. (ἐκεῖνοςμὲνπιστὸςἐκλήθη , ἵναδειχθῇἀξιόχρεωςνομοθέτης . τοῦτογὰρεἶπεν , εἰςμαρτ . τῶνλαλ .), Thl. , Œ c., Primas., Est., Corn.-a-Lap., Grot., Hamm., &c., Stuart, De W., Bleek, Lü nem. But, 1. the εἰς with μαρτύριον seems best to express an ulterior purpose of the whole of that which is spoken of in the preceding clause: cf. the same combination in reff. Gospp.:— 2. the neut. gen. after μαρτύριον is best understood of that to which the testimony referred, as in Acts 4:33: 1 Corinthians 1:6; 1 Corinthians 2:1: 2 Timothy 1:8:— and 3. the future participle requires that the λαληθησόμενα should be referred to a time wholly subsequent to the ministry of Moses. This has been felt by some of the expositors, and curiously evaded: e. g. by Jac. Cappellus, “ Rationi consentaneum erat ut statim initio fidelissimus comperiretur Moses, quo fide dignius esset testimonium quod postea perhibiturus erat in monte Sinai.” But unfortunately for this view, the incident from which this divine testimony to Moses is quoted, was long subsequent to the delivery of the law from Sinai. If then we are pointed onward to future time for τὰλαληθησόμενα , what are they? What, but the matter of the divine ἐλάλησενἡμῖνἐνυἱῷ of our ch. 1:1? The whole ministry of Moses was, εἰςμαρτύριον of these λαληθησόμενα . And when Bleek says that the participle would not be put thus absolutely with such a signification, but would be qualified by ἐπ ʼ ἐσχάτουτῶνἡμερῶν , or διὰτοῦυἱοῦ , or the like, or expressed τῶνμελλόντωνλαληθῆναι , we may well answer that the Writer, having in ch. 1:1 laid down λαλεῖσθαι as a common term for the revelations of the two dispensations, and again taken it up ch. 2:2, 3, had no need again to qualify it further than by the future participle. I interpret it then to mean the Gospel, with Calvin , Owen , Cameron, Calov., Seb. Schmidt, Limborch, Wolf, Peirce, Wetstein, Cramer, Baumg., al., Ebrard, and, as I have found since writing the above note, Hofmann and Delitzsch): but Christ , to correspond with the πιστὸνὄντα , ὡςκαὶκ .τ .λ . above, ver. 2. Some would supply ἐστιν only, as Erasm. (paraphr.), “ At Christus, ut conditor ac filius, administravit suam ipsius domum:” but thus the parallelism would be broken. Then, supplying πιστός , are we to join it with ἐπὶτὸνοἶκ . αὐτοῦ , as in Matthew 25:21, Matthew 25:23, ἐπὶὀλίγαἦςπιστός , or to insert it before ὡςυἱός , and take it absolutely? Certainly the latter, as shewn by the order of the words in the previous sentence; the ellipsis here being, to judge by that order, between δέ and ὡς , not between υἱός and ἐπί ) as a Son over his house , Thdrt. (on the following words: οἶκοντοῦθεοῦκέκληκετοὺςπιστεύονταςκατὰτὴνπροφητείαντὴνλέγουσαν , ἐνοικήσωἐναὐτοῖςκ .τ .λ .), D-lat. , Jerome , Corn.-a-Lap., Schlichting, Peirce, Bengel, Storr, Morus, Abresch, Dindorf, al.: and recently, Stuart (but only as a question between ἑαυτοῦ and αὐτοῦ , and apparently without being aware that αὐτοῦ may have both meanings), and Lü nemann. The greater number of Commentators refer it to Christ: many of them writing it αὑτοῦ , to which Bleek well replies, that had the Writer intended the emphatic reflexive pronoun to be understood, writing as he did without accents, he would certainly have used ἑαυτοῦ , in a matter so easily confused. Of the rest, some, e. g. Ebrard, take αὐτοῦ as referring to Christ: and others, as simply the reflexive pronoun after the generic υἱός : “ as a son over his (own) house:” thus Bö hme, Bleek, De Wette, al. But thus the parallelism is destroyed, and in fact the identity of the house in the two cases, on which depends the strictness of the comparison between Moses and Christ. Most of the expositors have not felt this: but Ebrard has distinctly maintained that two houses are intended: “ In the one house serves Moses for a testimony of the future revelations of God, the οἶκος itself being part of the μαρτύριον : the other οἶκος , the οἶκος of Christ, are we: it is a living house, built of living stones.” But this introduces a complicated comparison, and to my mind infinitely weakens the argument. There is but one house throughout, and that one, the Church of God, in which both are faithful; one as a servant, the other as a son: this house was Israel, this house are we, if we are found faithful in the covenant. So also I am glad to see Delitzsch takes the sentence. Dec. 31, 1858), whose (not (except by inference) Christ’ s, as Œ c., Jac. Cappellus, Estius, Owen, Bleek, De Wette, Ebrard, al., but, God’ s,— as Chrys. (οἶκοςγάρ , φησίν , ἐσόμεθατοῦθεοῦ … ἐάνπερκ .τ .λ .), Thdrt. , Thl. , Calvin , al., and Delitzsch. Besides the considerations urged above as affecting the question, we have the strong argument from Scripture analogy, cf. besides reff., 1 Corinthians 3:16, 1 Corinthians 3:17: 2 Corinthians 6:16: Ephesians 2:22: ch. 10:21; 12:22: Revelation 3:12: which alone, especially ch. 10:21, would go very far with me to decide the question) house ἐγενήθητετέκναἀγαθοποιοῦσαικ .τ .λ .) are we (the Writer and his Hebrew readers: = of whose house we are, even as Moses was), if we hold fast (reff. Bleek objects to the shorter text here, that the Writer has twice besides used this verb, and both times with a tertiary adjectival predicate: see reff. But such a consideration can hardly override critical evidence) the confidence , Hamm., Limborch, al., which would not suit κατάσχωμεν , a purely subjective word) and the (notice the article, which shews that this second noun is not merely explicative of the first, nor To Be Ranked In The Same category with it) matter of boasting (the concrete: not here to be confounded (although the confusion certainly did take place sometimes) with καύχησις , the abstract, as is done by Bleek, De Wette, Tholuck, &c. As παῤῥησία was subjective, our confidence, so is this objective, the object whereon that confidence is founded: see notes on reff. 2 Cor., where the same mistake has been made. And κατάσχωμεν is no objection to this: we may ‘ hold fast’ an object of faith, though (see above) we could not ‘ hold fast,’ except in a very far-off sense, an outward practice, such as a bold profession) of our hope (καλῶςεἶπετῆςἐλπίδος , ἐπειδὴπάνταἦνἐνἐλπίσιτὰἀγαθά · οὕτωδὲαὐτὴνδεῖκατέχειν , ὡςἤδηκαυχᾶσθαιὡςἐπὶγεγενημένοις : Chrys. See reff. and Romans 5:2). 7-19. See the summary at the beginning of the chapter. Exhortation, founded on the warning given by the Spirit in Psa_95, not to allow an evil heart of unbelief to separate them from this their participation in the house of God. 7. Wherefore (i. e. seeing that they are the house of Christ if they hold fast their confidence and boast of hope. It has been disputed, what verb is to be connected with, διό . Some (as Schlichting, J. Cappellus, Heinrichs, Cramer, Kuinoel, Ebrard, al.) join it immediately with μὴσκληρύνητε , and regard the Writer as making the Spirit’ s words his own: but this labours under the great difficulty that in ver. 9 the speaker is God Himself, and so an unnatural break is made at the end of ver. 8 (Delitzsch acknowledges this difficulty, but does not find it insuperable, and adopts the view). Others, as De W. and Tholuck, believe that the construction begun with διό is dropped, and never finished, as in Romans 15:3, Romans 15:21: 1 Corinthians 1:31; 1 Corinthians 2:9: supplying after διό , μὴσκληρύνητετὰςκαρδ . ὑμ .,— or understanding διό more freely, “ wherefore let it be so with you, as” &c. But by far the best way is, with Erasm. (annot.), Calv., Est., Pisc., Grot., Seb. Schmidt, Limborch, Bengel, Peirce, Wetst., Abresch, Bö hme, Bleek, Lü nem., al., to take the whole citation, including the formula of citation, as a parenthesis, and join διό with βλέπετε ver. 12. The length of such parenthesis is no objection to this view: see ch. 7:20-22; 12:18-24, where the Writer, after similar parentheses, returns back into the previous construction. Nor again is it any objection, that in the midst of the citation, another διό occurs, ver. 10: for that διό belongs strictly to the citation, and finds both its preparation and its apodosis within its limits. Nor again, that the sentence beginning with βλέπετε , ver. 12, is more an analysis of the citation than an application of it: had this been so, we should more naturally have expected to find βλέπετεοὖν ,— ch. 12:25 supporting, instead of impugning (as Tholuck) this last reply to the objection),— even as the Holy Spirit saith (in Psa_95, Heb. and Eng. This Psalm in the Heb. has no writer’ s name: in the LXX it is headed, αἶνοςᾠδῆςτῷΔαυείδ . And it is ascribed to David in ch. 4:7 below. The passage is cited as the direct testimony of the Holy Spirit, speaking through David: cf. reff.), To-day, if ye hear his voice (“ In the Psalm, according to the Hebrew, the words corresponding to these, ה ַ י ּ ו ֹ ם א ִ ם ־ ב ּ ְ ק ֹ ל ו ֹ ת ִ ש ׁ ְ מ ָ ע ו ּ , the second hemistich of the 7th verse, form an independent sentence, to be taken as a powerful exhortation expressed in the form of a wish, א ִ ם , o si, utinam, as often. The sense from ver. 6 is,— ‘ Come let us fall down and bow ourselves, kneel before Jehovah our Creator. For He is our God and we the people of his pasture and the flock of his hand.’ Then this sentence follows: ‘ O that ye might this day hearken to His voice!’ ה ַ י ּ ו ֹ ם stands first with strong emphasis, in contrast to the whole past time, during which they had shewn themselves disobedient and rebellious against the divine voice, as e. g. during the journey through the wilderness, alluded to in the following verses: ‘ to-day’ therefore means ‘ now,’ ‘ nunc tandem.’ Then in the following verses, to the end of the Psalm, is introduced, in the oratio directa, that which the divine voice, which they are to hear, addresses to them. And it is probable that the LXX took the words in the sense of the Hebrew: at least their rendering of א ִ ם by ἐάν elsewhere gives no sure ground for supposing the contrary, seeing that they often give ἐάν for א ִ ם as utinam, and that, in places where they would not well have understood it otherwise: e. g. Ps. 138:19. Yet it would be obvious, with such a translation, to take this period not as an independent sentence, but either in close connexion with the preceding period of the 7th ver., as a declaration of the condition of their being His people,— or in reference to the following, as a protasis to which ver. 8, μὴσκληρύνητεκ .τ .λ ., forms the apodosis. In this last way the Writer of our Epistle appears to have taken the words, from his beginning his citation with them: and yet more clearly from ver. 15, and ch. 4:7.” Bleek: and so De Wette, on the Psalm: and Tholuck and Lü nemann: and Calv. as an alternative. σήμερον will thus refer to the day in which the Psalm was used in public worship, whenever that might be. See below), harden not your hearts (Heb. heart. Bleek remarks, that this is the only place (in Heb. and LXX: βαρύνειντ . κ . of the act of man is found Exodus 8:15, Exodus 8:32: 1 Kings 6:6) where this expression ‘ to harden the heart’ is used of man’ s own act: elsewhere it is always of God’ s act, cf. Exodus 4:21; Exodus 7:3 (7:22; 8:19); 9:12 (35); 10:20, 27; 11:10; 14:4, 17: Isaiah 63:17, and τὸπνεῦμάτινος , Deuteronomy 2:30; whereas when the hardening is described as the work of man, the formula σκληρύνειντὸντράχηλοναὐτοῦ is used, Deuteronomy 10:16: Nehemiah 9:17, Nehemiah 9:29: 2 Chronicles 30:8 ; 36:13: Jeremiah 7:26 al., or τὸννῶτοναὐτοῦ , 4 Kings 17:14. For N. T. usage see reff.), as in the provocation (Heb. כ ּ ִ מ ְ ר ִ י ב ָ ה , “ as (at) Meribah.” In Exodus 17:1-7 we read that the place where the children of Israel murmured against the Lord for want of water was called Massah and Meribah,— καὶἐπωνόμασετὸὄνοματοῦτόπουἐκείνουΠειρασμὸςκαὶΛοιδόρησις , LXX. But the subsequent account of Num 20:1-13, makes it plain that the two names refer to two different events and places: and this is further confirmed by Deuteronomy 33:8, “ Thy holy One whom thou didst prove at Massah, and with whom thou didst strive at the waters of Meribah.” In the Psalm these two are mentioned together, and the LXX as usual translate the names, using here however the uncommon word παραπικρασμός , for λοιδόρησις , which is their word in Exodus 17:7, λοιδορία Numbers 20:24 (so B), and ἀντιλογία in Numbers 20:13 (24 Ald.); 27:14: Deuteronomy 32:51; Deuteronomy 33:8: Psalms 80:7; Psalms 105:32; the only places where they have preserved the proper name, being in Ezekiel 47:19 , 48:28 . In giving, for the proper names, their meaning and occasion, they have in fact cast light upon the sacred text; though it is rather exegesis than strict translation. The word itself, παραπικρασμός , is supposed by Owen to have found its way into the LXX from this citation: but there is no ground whatever for such a supposition. Though the subst. does not again occur, the verb παραπικραίνω occurs 35 times, and generally of men provoking God to anger. It has also been conjectured by Michaelis, that the LXX may, as they have never rendered Meribah by this word elsewhere, have read מ ָ ר ָ ה , Marah, in their Hebrew text here, which they render πικρία in Exodus 15:23: Numbers 33:8, Numbers 33:9. This may have been so, but is pure conjecture), in the time of (the κατά , as the Writer takes it, seems, by ver. 16 below, where only the verb παρεπίκραναν introduces the question, not παρεπ . καὶἐπείρασαν ,— to be subordinate to the παραπικρασμός , and as so often, to signify ‘ during,’ at the time of: so οἱκαθ ʼ ἡμᾶς , our contemporaries,— κατὰἌμασινβαδιλεύοντα ,— κατ ʼ Ἀλέξανδρον : see Bernhardy, p. 241: Blomf., Glossary on Agam. 342. In the Heb. this second clause is distinct from the first, and introduces a fresh instance: see below) the day of the temptation in the wilderness (Heb., כ ּ ְ י ו ֹ ם מ ַ ס ּ ָ ה ב ּ ַ מ ּ ִ ד ְ ב ּ ָ ר , as in the day of Massah in the wilderness: viz. that of the second murmuring against Moses and Aaron for want of water: see Numbers 20:1-13. The place was in the wilderness of Sin, near Kadesh: ib. ver. 1), where (we have the same construction of οὗ after τῆςἐρήμου in ref. ὅπου , τουτέστινἐντῇἐρήμῳ · ἤ , οὗἐπείρασανπειρασμοῦ , ἵναἢτὸοὗἄρθρον , ἀλλὰμὴτόπουδηλωτικόν . Œ c. And in this latter way it is taken by Erasm. Schmid, Francke, Bengel, and Peirce. But the former way seems the more likely, on account of the arrangement of the words: if the latter had been intended, the order would more probably have been τοῦπειρασμοῦ , οὗἐπείρασαν .… ἐντῇἐρήμῳ . And the usage of οὗ for ὅπου , though not found elsewhere in this Epistle, is not uncommon in the LXX,— cf. Psalms 83:3: Ezekiel 21:16: Esther 4:3: Sir. 23:21,— and is found 24 times in the N. T.) your fathers tempted by way of trial (‘ tempted (me) in trying,’ or ‘ proving (me).’ It will be seen that the more difficult reading is sustained by the consent of the most ancient mss., and expressly supported by ; who cites the whole passage, and, as is evident by his insertion of διό before προσώχθισα , from our Epistle: and continues, ἡδὲδοκιμασίατίςἐστινεἰθέλειςμαθεῖν , τὸἅγιόνσοιπνεῦμαἐξηγήσεται · καὶεἶδονκ .τ .λ . The idea of such a reading being “ an alteration to remove a seeming roughness of style” (Dr. Bloomfield) is simply absurd, the roughness existing not in the received text and LXX, but in the expression ἐπείρασανἐνδοκιμασίᾳ . It is very difficult to account for such a reading: and Bleek supposes that it may have existed in the Writer’ s copy of the LXX; ἐνδοκιμασίᾳ , i. e. Θ̅ΔΟΚΙΜΑϹΙΑ , being written for ΘΔΟΚΙΜΑϹ̅Α̅ ; and instances ch. 10:5, σῶμα , and ch. 12:15, ἐνοχλῇ , as similar cases. For the usage of the word δοκιμασία , see reff.), and saw my works (Heb., נ ּ ַ ם ־ ר ָ א ו ּ פ ָ ע ֳ ל ִ י , “ moreover they saw my work” — i. e. my penal judgments; so Ewald, and Bleek: and so the word פ ּ ֹ ע ַ ל is used in Psalms 64:10: Isaiah 5:12: Habakkuk 1:5; Habakkuk 3:2: for these penal judgments lasted during the forty years, and it is they which are described in the next sentence. The meaning given by most expositors, “ although they saw my works (miracles of deliverance, &c.) for forty years,” is not so likely, seeing that these provocations happened at the beginning of the forty years. But see below) forty years (these words in the Heb. most probably belong, as rendered in our E. V., to what follows: an arrangement rendered impossible here, on account of διό following. But that such arrangement was not unknown to our Writer is plain, from his presently saying, ver. 17, τίσινδὲπροσώχθισεντεσσερἀκονταἔτη ; It is therefore likely that he did not choose this arrangement without reason. And if we ask what that reason was, we find an answer in the probability that the forty years’ space is taken as representing to the Hebrews their space for repentance; their σήμερον , between the opening of the preaching of the gospel (cf. ch. 2:2), and their impending destruction. This idea was recognized by the Jews themselves in their books: e. g. Sanhedr. fol. 99. 1, “ R. Eliezer dixit: dies Messiæ sunt 40 anni, sicut dicitur, Quadraginta annos &c., Psalms 95:10;” and then follows a proof of it from this passage in the Psalm: Tanchuma, fol. 79. 4, “ Quamdiu durant anni Messiæ ? R. Akiba dixit, Quadraginta annos, quemadmodum Israelitæ per tot annos in deserto fuerunt.” “ And if,” continues Bleek, “ this idea of the days of the Messiah was prevalent, that they were the immediate precursors of the ע ו ֹ ל ָ ם ה ַ ב ּ ָ א (the age to come) as the time of the great Sabbath-rest, and the completed glory of the people of God,— this is something very analogous to the acceptation of the period of the forty years which seems to underlie what is said of them in our Epistle.” If so, it is possible that the meaning of καὶεἶδοντὰἔργαμου above may be, that they saw My wonderful works and took no heed to them, and thereby increased their guilt). 10. Wherefore I was offended (προσοχθίζω and ὀχθίζω are Alexandrine forms peculiar to the LXX. The classical word is ὀχθέω , frequently found in Homer; προσοχθέω is cited in Palm and Rost’ s Lexicon from Pisid fragm. (?). The root seems to be ἔχω , from which also we have the cognate word ἄχθος , -ομαι , which, says Passow, differs from ὀχθέω in being always used of a literal and material burden, whereas this is always of a metaphorical and mental one. ἔχθος in all probability is another cognate word similarly derived. The substantive ὄχθη does not seem to be any further connected with ὀχθέω and ὀχθίζω than by derivation from a common root. ὄχθη is that which stands out or protrudes: ὀχθέω , to stand out against to thrust oneself in the way of: “ affinis phrasis, adversum incedere, Leviticus 26:24, Leviticus 26:28,” Bengel: hence ὄχθαιποταμοῖο , the banks of a river: so Eustathius, ὄχθος , παρὰτὸἔχειντοπικὸνἐπανάστημα : but no nautical metaphor, as “ infringing (impinging?) upon the shore, running aground” , is to be thought of. Hesychius interprets with this generation (the LXX has ἐκείνῃ , as the rec. here: there is no demonstrative in the original Hebrew, ב ּ ְ ד ו ֹ ר . I quite think with Bö hme and Bleek, that the change is made by our Writer for a set purpose, viz. to extend the saying, by making γενεά thus import the whole Jewish people, over the then living race, as well as that which provoked God in the wilderness. Cf. Matthew 24:34, and note), and said, They do always err in their heart (Heb., “ They are a people of wanderers in heart.” Bleek thinks the ἀεί of the LXX is owing to the taking ע ַ ם , people, for ע ו ֹ ל ָ ם , or ע ַ ד , or ע ו ֹ ד , which last Symmachus has translated ἀεί in Psalms 49:10; Psalms 139:18), but they knew not (aor., as their ignorance preceded their wandering, and is treated as the antecedent fact to it. The not knowing, where matters of practical religion are concerned, implies the not following) my ways (i. e. the ways which I would have them to walk in, ד ּ ְ ר ָ כ ַ י : so Genesis 6:12: Exodus 18:20, σημανεῖςαὐτοῖςτὰςὁδοὺςἐναἷςπορεύσονται , and passim. The meaning given to the clause by Stuart, al., “ They disapproved of (?) God’ s manner of treating them,” is quite beside the purpose, and surely not contained in the words: see on Romans 7:15: 1 Corinthians 8:3), as (this ὡς corresponds to the Heb. א ֲ ש ׁ ֶ ר , which is often used as a conjunction, with various shades of meaning all derivable from its primitive sense, as ‘ quod’ in Latin. In Genesis 11:7, which De W. on the Psalm adduces to justify so dass, it has a telic force: and so the LXX, ἵναμὴἀκούσωσινἕκαστοςτὴνφωνὴντοῦπλησίον . But it seems hardly to bear the ecbatic, “ so that:” at least I can find no example. The sense here appears to be ‘ according as,’ ‘ in conformity with the fact, that:’ such conformity not necessarily implying that the excluding oath was prior to the disobedience, but only that the oath and the disobedience were strict correlatives of one another. As the one, so was the other) I sware (see Numbers 14:21 reff.; 32:10 ff.: Deuteronomy 1:34 ff.) in my wrath (not, ‘ by my wrath,’ though such a rendering would be grammatical (cf. Matthew 5:34; Matthew 23:16: Revelation 10:6: Psalms 62:11); for such a method of swearing on God’ s part is never found), If they shall enter (this elliptical form of an oath stands for a strong negative: it is sometimes, when man is the speaker, filled up by “ The Lord do so to me and more also, if … ” Cf. ref. Mark: 2 Samuel 3:35 al. It is interpreted below, ver. 18: τίσινδὲὤμοσενμὴεἰσελεύσεσθαικ .τ .λ .) into my rest (in the Psalm, and in the places referred to above, the rest is, primarily, the promised land of Canaan. Œ c. says, εἰςτοσοῦτόνφησινοὐκἔγνωσαντὰςὁδούςμου , ἕωςεἰςτοῦτόμεἤγαγον , ὥστεὀμόσαιμὴεἰσελθεῖναὐτοὺςεἰςτὴνκατάπαυσίνμου , τουτέστιτὴνγῆντῆςἐπαγγελίας , ἐνᾗεἰσελθόντεςἔμελλονἀπὸτῶνπολεμίωνἀναπαύεσθαι . In Deuteronomy 12:9, Deuteronomy 12:10, the words κατάπαυσις and καταπαύσειὑμᾶς are used of the promised inheritance of Canaan. But it has been well noticed, that after Joshua had led the people into the land, they never in reality enjoyed entirely the rest which had been promised;— and in consequence, the meaning of that threat of God opened out before them, and it became plain that more was denounced upon the γενεά than one generation merely could exhaust, more also than the mere not entering into Canaan. Hence the prophetic pregnancy of the oath became evident, and its meaning was carried on in this exhortation by the Psalmist, and is here carried on by the sacred Writer of this Epistle, to a further rest which then remained for Israel, and now still remains for the people of God. Bleek notices the use of κληρονομεῖντὴνγῆν in the Psalms, as a promise of blessings yet future (cf. Ps. 24:13; Psalms 36:9, Psalms 36:11, 22, 29), as pointing the same way: and it is interesting to remember that we have our Lord, in the opening of his ministry, taking up the same strain, and saying, μακάριοιοἱπραεῖς , ὅτιαὐτοὶκληρονομήσουσιντὴνγῆν ):— 12. take heed is hardly, as Bleek, to be explained by the interrogative force of μή : but falls under a class of constructions with ἵνα , ὅπως , ὡς , μή , in which there is a mingling, in case of μή , of the fear lest it should, and the suspicion that it will; and in case of the other particles, of the purpose that it may, and the anticipation that it will. This logical account of the construction is plainer when a past tense is concerned: as in Thuc. iii. 53, φοβούμεθαμὴἀμφοτέρωνἅμαἡμαρτήκαμεν , “ We fear lest (that,— in English idiom) we have missed both at once.” See Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. 140, and Bernhardy, p. 402: and cf. ref. Col.: and the examples in Bleek), brethren, lest (on ποτε not to be pressed as meaning ‘ at any time,’ see above on ch. 2:1) there shall be (for construction, see above) in any one of you (not the same as ἐνὑμῖν . Calvin (see also Schlichting in Bleek) remarks well, “ Nec tantum in universum præ cipit Apostolus ut sibi omnes caveant, sed vult ita de salute cujusque membri esse sollicitos, ne quem omnino ex iis qui semel vocati fuerint, sua negligentia perire sinant. Atque in eo boni pastoris officium facit, qui ita excubare pro totius gregis salute debet, ut nullam ovem negligat” ) an evil heart of unbelief belonging to, characteristic of, unbelief. This is plain, from the consideration that ἀπιστία is, throughout, the leading idea,— cf. ver. 19, and ch. 4:3,— and not the καρδίαπονηρά . Bleek, al. make it a gen. of origin, which in sense comes to the same, but is not so simple in grammar: Calv. , De W., al. a genitive of result (?), “ which leads to unbelief:” this latter is logically wrong:— Delitzsch, a qualitative genitive in the widest sense: but this would put ἀπιστίας too much in the background. ἀπιστία must be kept to its simple primary meaning, not rendered, as Schulz, and Bretschneider and Wahl in their Lexicons, disobedience; it was not this, but disbelief in the strictest sense, which excluded them, and against which the Hebrews are warned. That it led on to ἀπείθεια , we all know, but this is not before us here), in (the element in which the existence of such an evil heart of unbelief would be shewn) departing (viz. in the sense indicated by the cognate substantive: apostatizing, falling from the faith: see below) from (ἀποστῆναι is commonly constructed with ἀπό in N. T. and LXX: reff. 1 Tim., and Wisd. are exceptions. The classical writers usually construct it with a genitive only, as in these two last passages: see Demosth. p. 78. 21, and numerous other examples in Reiske’ s index: and Bleek) the living God (by using this solemn title of God, he not only warns them from Whom, and at what risk, they would depart, but also identifies the God whom they would leave, with Him who had so often called Himself by this name as the distinctive God of Israel, and as contrasted with the dumb and impotent idols of other nations. And thus he shews them that Israel, and the privileges and responsibilities of Israel, were now transferred to the Christian Church, from which if they fell away, they would be guilty of apostasy from the God of Israel. Compare the three other places (reff.) where the term occurs in our Epistle, and the notes there),— 13. but (ἀλλά after a negative sentence loses its stronger force of ‘ nevertheless,’ the contrast already lying in the context: and here the preceding exhortation though really a positive one, βλέπετε , passes as a negative one from the sense, as if it were, ‘ Let there not be,’ &c.) exhort yourselves day by day (reff.: so Xen. Mem. iv. 2. 12: De Re Equest. v. 9 al. generally in the classics καθ ʼ ἑκάστην , or καθ ʼ ἡμέραν , elliptically), as long as (ἄχρις , connected with ἄκρος , as μέχρι with μακρός , properly means ‘ to the height of,’ and hence, ‘ up to,’ of space,— ‘ until,’ of time. Hence, by a mixed construction, not unfrequently, as here, ‘ as long as,’ i. e. ‘ up to the moment of such or such a state enduring in existence:’ see in reff.) the (word) “ To-day” is named (i. e. as long as that period endures, which can be called by the name “ to-day” as used in the Psalm. That period would be here, the day of grace; the short time (see ch. 10:25, 37) before the coming of the Lord. And so Chrys.: τὸγὰρσήμερον , φησίν , ἀείἐστινἕωςἂνσυνεστήκῃὁκόσμος :— on the other hand, many Commentators understand, the term of their natural life; so Basil (Ep. 42. 5, vol. iv. p. 130), Thdrt., Thl., Primasius, Erasm., Corn. a-Lapide, al. But the words themselves, τὸσήμ . καλεῖται , are somewhat ambiguous in meaning. De W. with several others, take σήμερον as indicating the whole passage of which it is the first word, and καλεῖται as = κηρύσσεται : so Bengel, “ Dum Psalmus iste auditur et legitur.” But this seems neither so simple nor so applicable: seeing that, ch. 4:7, he again calls attention to this σήμερον not as indicating the whole passages, but as πάλιντινὰὁρίζονἡμέραν ), that from among you (emphatic, as contradistinguished from οἱπατέρεςύμῶν ver. 9. This not having been seen, the transposition, as in rec., has taken place) no one be hardened (as they, ver. 8) by deceit of (arising out of, belonging to) his sin (cf. Romans 7:11, ἡγὰρἁμαρτία .… ἐξηπάτησένμεκαὶ .… ἀπέκτεινεν . See also Eph. in reff. ὁρᾷς , says Chrysostom, ὅτιτὴνἀπιστίανἡἁμαρτίαποιεῖ . And Œ c., ἀπατηθεῖσαδιὰτῆςἀπιστίαςἣννῦνἁμαρτίανἐκάλεσεν . In ch. 11:25; 12:4, ἁμαρτία is similarly used for defection from God). 14. A reason given for βλέπετεκ .τ .λ ., enforcing the caution; since it is only by endurance that we can become partakers of Christ. For we have become (Bleek remarks, “ Our Writer loves the use of this word γέγονα , where he designates a state to which any one has attained, even where it would have been sufficient to have expressed by εἶναι simply the being (das sich befinden) in that state.” See reff. But here it is rather perhaps proleptic, looking on to the fulfilment of the condition to be stated) partakers of Christ (some, e. g. Michaelis, Paulus, Bretschn., De Wette, take these words as τοὺςμετόχουςσου ch. 1:9, to signify “ fellow-partakers with Christ;” but as Bleek remarks, in all the places where our Writer himself uses μέτοχος with a gen. (ch. 1:9 being a citation), it ever signifies partaker ‘ of,’ and not ‘ with,’ that genitive noun. So μετόχουςγενηθένταςπνεύματοςἁγίου , ch. 6:4; also ch. 3:1; 12:8;— and μετέχειντινός , ch. 2:14; 5:13; 7:13. So Chrys. (μετέχομεναὐτοῦφησινκ .τ .λ .), Thl. , Œ c., Primas., Luther, Bengel, Bleek, Lü nemann, &c.), if, that is , we hold fast (see on ver. 6) the beginning of our confidence (the earlier Commentators, down to Calvin, do not seem to have been aware that ὑπόστασις has in Hellenistic Greek the signification of ‘ confidence.’ That it has, is now proved beyond a doubt. Thus Polyb. iv. 54. 10, οἱδὲῬόδιοι , θεωροῦντεςτὴντῶνΒὐζαντίωνὑπόστασιν , πραγματικῶςδιενοήθησανπρὸςτὸκαθικέσθαιτῆςπροθέσεως : ib. vi. 55. 2, οὐχοὕτωτὴνδύναμιν , ὡςτὴνὑπόστασιναὐτοῦκαὶτόλμανκαταπεπληγμένωντῶνἐναντίων : Diodor. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/alfordgnt/ Chap. 4:1-13. In the Son, Israel enters into the true rest of God. On the mingling of the hortatory form with the progress of the argument, see the summary at ch. 3:1. 1. Let us fear therefore (Bleek remarks that the words φοβεῖσθαιμή , commonly used,— see Acts 27:29: 2 Corinthians 11:3; 2 Corinthians 12:20: Galatians 4:11,— of fear of something happening, here include also the desire to avoid that contingency. It might have been σπουδάσωμεν , as ver. 11, or βλέπωμενμήποτε , as ch. 3:12, or ἐπισκοπῶμεν , as 12:15. But the word seems purposely chosen to express the fear and trembling, Philippians 2:12, with which every servant of God, however free from slavish terror and anxiety, ought to work out his salvation) lest (on μήποτε as only indefinite, not expressing, ‘ lest at any time,’ see above on ch. 3:12), a promise being still left us (notice the present— not καταλειφθείσης . On the force of this present, very much of the argument rests. Many Commentators, as Erasm., Luther, Calv., Est., Schlichting, Limborch, al., have mistaken this participle to mean “ derelicta seu neglecta per infidelitatem ac diffidentiam pollicitatione divina” (Est.). The term καταλείπεινἐπαγγελίαν might perhaps bear this meaning, which however is not substantiated as to the verb by Acts 6:2, nor as to the object of the verb by Baruch 4:1. But it is decisive against this interpretation, 1. that the participle is present, not past, which it certainly in that case must have been: 2. that ἀπολείπεται in vv. 6, 9 takes up again this word: 3. that the article would be wanted before καταλειπ ., or it would stand τῆςἐπαγ . τῆςκατ . The meaning given above, ‘ to leave behind for others,’ so that καταλείπεσθαι = ‘ superesse,’ is common enough. Bleek gives many examples: e. g. Xen. Cyr. iii. 1. 6, καλὸν … κ . αὐτὸνἐλεύθερονεἶναι , κ . παισὶνἐλευθερίανκαταλιπεῖν : and often in Polybius, καταλείπεταιἐλπίς : and οὐμὴνκακῶναἱρέσεωςκαταλειπομένης : see Raphel. Again, as to construction, some, as Cramer and Ernesti, make this genitive governed by the verb ὑστερηκέναι . But against this the want of the article is, if not decisive, a very strong presumption. Our Writer would certainly have expressed this τῆςἐπ . τῆςκατ . It remains then to take it as a gen. absolute, representing the present matter of fact) of entering (compare ἐξουσίανπεριάγειν , 1 Corinthians 9:5: ὁρμὴὑβρίσαι , Acts 14:5: and such expressions as ὥραἀπιέναι , κωλύματαμὴαὐξηθῆναι . The more usual construction would be ἐπαγγελίατοῦεἰσελθ . See Winer, in reff.) into His rest (it is to be observed, that in the argument in this chapter, the Writer departs from the primary sense of the words κατάπαυσίνμου in the Psalm, and lays stress on αὐτοῦ , making it God’ s rest, the rest into which God has entered: see below on ver. 10. And this is very important as to the nature of the rest in question. So Estius: “ Hic per requiem promissam non intelligit terram Chanaan de qua secundum literam Psalmus locutus est, sed patriam cœ lestem, quam illa terrena quies mystice significavit.” Of course all references of the rest spoken of to the period after the destruction of Jerusalem, as Hammond (see Whitby’ s note against him), or to the cessation of Levitical ordinances, as Michaelis (on Peirce: he does not however repeat it in his other works), are inadequate and out of the question), any one of you (although the communicative form has been used before in φοβηθῶμεν , the second person is here returned to; and of purpose. A similar change is found in ch. 10:24, 25: and in Romans 14:13. The reading ἡμῶν (mss. 5. 56 vulg.-sixt. Thdrt.) is too obvious an alteration to what might be expected, to come into the text except on overwhelming authority, which it has not) appear (see below) to have fallen short of it has been given by Schö ttgen, Baumgarten, Schulz, Wahl, Bretschneider , Paulus, and recently taken up and defended with much spirit, and, as is his wont, with no little confidence, by Ebrard: “ lest any of you think that he has come too late for it” — i. e. should suppose that, all the promises having been now fulfilled, he has been born too late to have any share in this one. As far as mere usage of individual words is concerned, this interpretation might stand: for δοκεῖν has often, and in our Epistle, this meaning, e. g. ch. 10:29, πόσῳδοκεῖτεκ .τ .λ . And ὑστερεῖν has this meaning— ὑστερήσαντεςτῆςμάχης , Polyb.; ὑστεροῦντῆςβοηθείας , Diod. Sic. p. 391 c; ὑστερεῖντῆςπατρίδος , Xen. Ages. ii. 1. And this view also seems favoured by the perfect ὑστερηκέναι . As indeed against the general idea of the pleonastic δοκῇ , the perfect would be a strong argument for it. But it is very difficult to persuade oneself that it suits either the mode of expression, or the context. For if this were the object of the caution, why put so prominent a solemn φοβηθῶμεν would not the exhortation rather have been expressed in a reassuring form, μὴοὖντιςᾖφόβος , or μὴοὖνφοβηθῶμεν , or μὴδοκῶμεν , or the like? Again, what end would so solemn a caution serve, if merely to explain to the Hebrew converts the fact that the promise had yet a fulfilment waiting for them? This fact indeed the Writer does prove in the subsequent verses; but it is introduced with a καὶγάρ , and only subserves the purpose already enounced in this verse, that of awakening in them a fear lest their unbelief should be found in the end to have excluded them from the participation of that promise. The meaning here assigned to ὑστερέω , that of falling short of, is quite borne out: cf. Thucyd. iii. 31, ὁδ ʼ οὐδὲταῦταἐνεδέχετο , ἀλλὰτὸπλεῖστοντῆςγνώμηςεἶχεν , ἐπειδὴτῆςΜιτυλήνηςὑστερήκει (since he had failed of Mitylene), ὅτιτάχιστατῇΠελοποννήσῳπάλινπροσμιξαι : Jos. Antt. ii. 2. 1, οὐδενὸςὅλωςὑστερεῖν . For the usage of δοκέω , the Commentators quote Jos. Antt. ii. 6.9, οὐδ ʼ ὧνεἰςἐμὲδοκεῖτεἁμαρτάνειν , ἔτιμνημονεύω : which is a fair instance, notwithstanding Ebrard’ s nur auf eine stelle des schmü lstigen Josephus: and in Latin, Cic. de Off. iii. 2. 6, “ ut tute tibi defuisse videare.” The usage in Galatians 2:9, though not identical, is not very dissimilar, carrying the force of softening the verb to which it is attached). 2. The former half of this verse substantiates the καταλειπομένης of the last verse. The stress is not, ‘ we, as well as they,’ which would require ἡμεῖς to be expressed: but lies on εὐηγγελισμένοι , which includes both us and them. For good tidings have been also announced (καὶγάρ is often used where the γάρ in fact belongs to the chief word in the sentence, but is transposed back to the καί , because it cannot well stand third: see Hartung, i. 138. This passive use of εὐαγγελίζομαι is found in reff.) to us, as likewise to them (they were not the same good tidings in the two cases: but the Writer treats them as the same. To them indeed it was primarily the inheritance of the land of promise: but even then, as proved below, the κατάπαυσίνμου had a further meaning, which meaning reaches even down to us): nevertheless the word of their hearing (τῆςἀκοῆς , gen. of apposition; the word and the ἀκοή being commensurate: ‘ the word of (consisting in) that which they heard.’ See note on ref. 1 Thess., where however ἀκοή is connected with παρ ʼ ἡμῶν . Delitzsch says here: “ The classical use of ἀκοή (e. g. ἀκοὴνἔχωλέγειντῶνπροτέρων , i. e. a tradition from the ancients, Plato, Phæ dr. p. 274 c) does not by itself explain the apostolic; but we must refer to the Heb. ש ׁ ְ מ ו ּ ע ָ ה , that which is received by hearing, the tidings (with the gen. of the thing declared 2 Samuel 4:4, or of the declarer ref. Isa.). That is so called, which the Prophet hears from Jehovah and announces to the people, Isaiah 28:9: Jer_49 (29, LXX) 14: and thus there could not be a more appropriate word for that which is heard immediately or mediately from the mouth of the ἀκούσαντες (ch. 2:3), and thus for the N. T. preaching, so that the λόγοςἀκοῆς , considered as one idea (ref. 1 Thess.), betokens the N. T. word preached. The expression of this idea not being of itself a N. T. one, it may, without supposition of any reference to such passages as Exodus 19:5 , be used of God’ s word spoken to Israel in the time of Moses” ) did not profit them, unmingled as they were in faith with its hearers. The passage is almost a locus desperatus. The question of reading may be solved by consulting the digest. The nominative, which apparently makes the sense so easy, “ the word, not being mingled with faith in them that heard it,” rests on no manuscript authority, except that of the Codex Sinaiticus, but mainly on the Peschito and ancient Latin versions. It is notwithstanding retained by Mill, and Tischendorf Exo_7 [and 8], and defended, purely on subjective grounds, by Bleek, De Wette, Lü nemann, Ebrard, and Delitzsch. I own that the temptation is strong to follow their example: but the evidence on the other side is very strong, and internal grounds seem to me as decisive in its favour as external. No doubt the difficulty is great: but not, I think, so great in reality, as on the other more tempting and apparently easy construction. I will first discuss this latter, and thus approach the question of the real meaning. The above rendering, “ the word, not being mingled with faith in them that heard it,” is that of the great majority of modern expositors: who take τοῖςἀκούσασιν as a dative either, α . commodi, “ for,” or “ with” the hearers; β . as = ὑπὸτῶνἀκουσάντων , the dative of the subject after a passive; or, γ . as = “ with,” i. e. so that the hearers are they with whom the word was not mingled in, or by, faith. This latter appears to be the sense of the Syr.: “ quoniam non commixtus erat per fidem cum iis qui eum audierant:” and the general understanding of this has been, that as food profits not, unless assimilated and mingled with the body of the eater, so the word did not profit, there being no assimilation of it by faith with and , it not being mingled with faith in) the hearers. Ebrard, alone of all Commentators, strikes out confidently and with some assumption a different path, and, taking this reading, understands that not the non-receptivity of the hearers, but the incapacity of the O. T. word itself to carry faith with it, is meant. I need hardly remind the reader that such a sense is directly against the argument, which knows of but one word,— and against the plain assertion of ver. 12, which Ebrard tries, without the least indication in the text itself, to interpret of the N. T. word only. It is indeed lamentable that an able expositor, such as Ebrard on the whole is, should suffer himself to be so often carried away by unworthy crotchets, and when so carried away, to speak so confidently of them. But let us now discuss this whole class of renderings. The first objection to it appears to me to be, that it connects μὴσυγκεκραμένος with λόγος . Bleek felt this, and tried to help the sense by the conjecture τοῖςἀκούσμασιν , originally suggested, from Thdrt.’ s explanation, by Nö sselt. It would be surely unnatural that the word itself, and not the hearers, should be alleged as in any way the ground of their rejection. And if it be replied, that it is not the word itself, but the circumstance of its being not mixed with faith in them, I answer that such may have been the fact, but considering what our Writer says of the word of God in ver. 12, it seems to me very unlikely that he should so have expressed it. Then again the μή presents a difficulty on this interpretation. The usages of μή with participles are very difficult to limit accurately, amidst all the varieties of subjectivity introduced by personification and hypothesis: but I think we may safely say, that the occurrence of μὴσυγκεκραμένος applied to λόγος , and indicative of mere historical matter of fact, would not be so likely as that of μὴσυγκεκρασμένους , where persons are treated of. And yet more: it seems hardly probable from the form of the sentence, that ἐκείνους and τοῖςἀκούσασιν should refer to the same persons, as they must do, in case of the nominative reading being adopted. Why not in this case αὐτοῖς , or ἐναὐτοῖς , or simply τῇπίστει I feel however another, and a still weightier objection, to the art. τῇ , in that case. It might doubtless be there, and capable of a good meaning: but when we examine the habit of our Writer, we find that he never uses ἡπίστις for ‘ faith,’ abstract, but always for ‘ the faith,’ concrete, of some person spoken of. And this usage is very marked: for in ch. 11:1, where he gives a definition of Faith in the abstract, it is ἔστινδὲπίστιςἐλπιζομένωνὑπόστασις , not ἡδὲπίστιςἐστὶνκ .τ .λ . The other places where he uses it with the art. are ch. 11:39, μαρτυρηθέντεςδιὰτῆςπίστεως , “ by their faith:” — 12:2, εἰςτὸντῆςπίστεωςἀρχηγόν , “ of the faith:” — and 13:7, ὧνμιμεῖσθετὴνπίστιν , “ whose faith” … So that I conceive we cannot understand here otherwise than, ‘ in their faith,’ although the word ‘ their’ may be too strong when expressed in English, as almost implying the existence of real faith in them, which did not exist. And I own this consideration sets so strong a barrier against the rec. reading συγκεκραμένος , that, it seems to me, no difficulty consequent on adopting the other reading can bear me over it. On these grounds then, as well as external evidence, I feel that the accusative plural should be inflexibly maintained. Then, how are we to understand the sentence? The modern Commentators all declare that it cannot be understood at all. The Fathers, with the exceptions of Cyr.-alex. once, Thdrt. in one edition (both unreal ones, see Bleek, p. 505),— and Lucifer of Cagliari, all read the accus.; and mostly explain the clause, that they were not mingled in (in respect of) faith with those who really listened and obeyed, viz. Joshua and Caleb. So Chrys.: but his homilies on this Epistle have been so imperfectly reported, that he seems not unfrequently very confused: here, e. g., making Caleb and Joshua those who were not mixed with the multitude; so that Thl., who himself takes the above view, naï vely says of Chrys., τοῦτοδὲκατὰτὴνμεγάληναὐτοῦκ . βαθεῖανσοφίανὁἅγιοςοὗτοςεἰπών , ἐμοὶγοῦντῷἀναξίῳοὐκἔδωκενοῆσαιπῶςαὐτὸεἶπεν . And so Œ c. and Photius (in Bleek), Hammond, Cramer, Matthæ i, &c. But the objection to this reference will already have been seen by the student. The exceptions to the general unbelief are not brought out by our Writer, anxious to include all under it for the greater warning to his readers. Theodoret, though quoting ἀκούσασιν , seems to have read ἀκούσμασιν or ἀκουσθεῖσιν , for he interprets μὴπιστῶςδεξαμένους , κ . τῇτοῦθεοῦδυνάμειτεθαῤῥηκότας , κ . οἷοντοῖςθεοῦλόγοιςἀνακραθέντας . And Theodore of Mopsuestia says, οὐγὰρἦσανκατὰτὴνπίστιντοῖςἐπαγγελθεῖσισυνημμένοι · ὅθενοὕτωςἀναγνωστέον · μὴσυγκεκραμένουςτῇπίστειτοῖςἀκουσθεῖσιν , ἵναεἴπῃταῖςπρὸςαὐτοὺςγεγεννημέναιςἐπαγγελίαιςτοῦθεοῦδιὰΜωυσέως . We have also a testimony from Irenæ us of a character hardly to be doubted, pointing to the same reading. It occurs iii. 19.1, p. 212, “ Qui nude tantum hominem Eum dicunt ex Joseph generatum, perseverantes in servitute pristinæ inobedientiœ moriuntur, nondum commisti verbo Dei Patris.” If we could set aside the objection to ἀκουσθεῖσιν , that it has next to no external authority in its favour, it would be a not improbable reading, for we have this very participle in ch. 2:1; and in Stobæ us xlv. 8, we find these lines from Menander: δεῖτὸνπολιτῶνπροστατεῖναἱρούμενοντὴντοῦλόγουμὲνδύναμινοὐκἐπίφθονον , ἤθειδὲχρηστῷσυγκεκραμένηνἔχειν . But at present, it cannot come into question as a reading at all. Besides which, there would be this objection to it, that ἀκούσαντες has already occurred in this passage, and as implying those who heard the word, ch. 3:16. Taking then τοῖςἀκούσασιν , and rejecting the idea that it means Caleb and Joshua, or implies yielding assent and obedience, we have but this way open to us, which, though not without difficulty, is yet neither sinnlos nor contertwidrig. ὁλόγοςτῆςἀκοῆς having been mentioned in the general sense of ‘ the word heard,’ οἱἀκούσαντες is also in the general sense of ‘ its hearers,’ and the assumption is made, that the word heard has naturally recipients, of whom the normal characteristic is ‘ faith.’ And so these men received no benefit from ‘ the word of hearing,’ because they were not one in faith with its hearers; did not correspond, in their method of receiving it, with faithful hearers, whom it does profit. So that I would take τοῖςἀκούσασιν not as historical, ‘ those who heard it,’ as in John 5:25, οἱνεκροὶἀκούσονται .… κ . οἱἀκούσαντεςζήσονται . I fairly own that this interpretation does not satisfy me: but it seems the only escape from violation either of the rules of criticism or of those of grammar: and therefore I am constrained to accept it until some better is suggested. 3. For (taking up again τῇπίστει in ver. 2: not the καταλειπομένηςἐπαγγελίας of ver. 1, as rendering a new reason for it, as Bengel: nor the καὶγάρἐσμεν &c. of ver. 2, as De W. and Delitzsch. It may certainly be said, that the emphatic position of εἰσερχόμεθα includes also ver. 1 in that to which γάρ applies: but then it must not be forgotten that οἱπιστεύσαντες is equally, if not more emphatic, and thus ver. 2 is included, at the very least) we do enter (are to enter, as ὁἐρχόμενος and the like. On the reading εἰσερχώμεθα , see on Romans 5:1. Some Commentators have seen a communicative and conciliatory tone in the first person here. So Calvin: “ In prima persona loquendo majori eos dulcedine allexit, ab alienis ipsos separans.” But Bleek and Lü nem. well remark that it is not so; for οἱπιστεύσαντες brings out a class distinct from the rest, as in ch. 6:18; 12:25) into the (aforesaid) rest (not only, as E. V., “ into rest,” abstract), we who believed (the aor. is proleptical, the standing-point being the day of entering into the rest: so in reff. It was unbelief which excluded them: the promise still remains unfulfilled, see below: they who at the time of its fulfilment shall be found to have believed, shall enter into it), even as He hath said (this citation evidently does not refer to the whole of what has just been said, but only to the fact, that the rest has not yet been entered into in the sense of the promise. The condition, πιστεύσαντες , is not yet brought into treatment, but follows below in ver. 11 in hortatory form, having in fact been demonstrated already in ch. 3:12-19. Œ c. and Thl. understand the πιστεύσαντες as also substantiated by our verse: so also Bengel: “ An vero ex hoc testimonio efficitur, nos per fidem ingredi in Dei regnum? minime id quidem per se: sed ita est si omnia connectas, tum præ cedentia tum sequentia: nam si infidelitas arcet ab aditu, fides certe introducit.” But this seems unnatural: see the connexion below), As I sware in my wrath, If (see above on ch. 3:11) they shall enter into my rest: although (the context is much disputed. I believe it will be best taken thus: the Writer is leading on to the inference, that the entering into God’ s rest is a thing yet future for God’ s people. And this he thus brings about. ἡκατάπαυσίςμου is not a thing future for God:— He has already entered therein,— καίτοι to αὐτοῦ end of ver. 4. Still (ver. 5) we have again, after God had thus entered in, the oath, They shall not, &c. Consequently, since (ver. 6) it remains that some must enter in, and they to whom it was first promised did not, on account of unbelief,— for that they did not (i. e. none of them did), is plain by His repeating in David, after the lapse of so many centuries, the same warning again (ver. 7), which He would not have done if Joshua had led Israel into that rest (ver. 8):— since this is so, the sabbatism of God’ s people is yet future (ver. 9), and reserved for that time when they shall rest from their labours, as God from His (ver. 10). Then follows a concluding exhortation, vv. 11-16. Thus all is clear, and according to the progress of the argument. The other views have been, α . that of Lyra, Calvin, Beza, Seb. Schmidt, Wolf, Kuinoel, al., most of whom understand a second κατάπαυσιν before τῶνἔργων ,— and render καίτοι , “ idque,” “ and that” — “ in requiem meam, nempe illam ab operibus a fundatione mundi factis,” as Seb. Schmidt. But this involves two mistakes: καίτοι can never mean nempe or idque, and this meaning would require τῶνἀπὸκατ . κ . &c., without which article it is of necessity a primary, not a secondary predicate. And indeed thus some of the above (Limborch, Cramer) take it, and construe, still however forcing καίτοι ,— “ namely, into the rest which came in when the works were finished,” &c. β . That of Calvin , Beza, Bö hme, &c. And there is some portion of truth in this, but it does not rightly represent the context. For the fact, that God’ s rest is that into which we are to enter, is not proved, nor concluded, but taken for granted, and underlies the whole argument, the object of which is to shew that that κατάπ . μου is, though not a future rest for God, a future rest for us to enter into, when we have finished our works, as He his. γ . That of Erasm. (par.), a-Lapide, Grot., Hamm., Calov., and many others, who hold that two, or as Chrys., Œ c., Thdrt., Thl., that three different rests are spoken of . But this is manifestly wrong: there is not a word nor a hint of a second or third rest: the ordinance of the Sabbath is not so much as alluded to: ἡκατάπαυσίςμου is, all through, the rest into which God has entered; and the object, to shew that into this, God’ s people have yet to enter. The fact that men did not, by the ordinance of the Sabbath, enter into it, lies, as an easily to be assumed thing, beneath the surface, but is not asserted nor even implied. δ . It would be hardly worth while to mention Ebrard’ s view, were it not for his name and ability. It is strange in the last degree:— ἔργα are “ man’ s works:” not exactly good works, for we have none: not the works of the law, for they came afterwards: but all human works (alles das, was ἔργα gennant werden kö nne), which had been going on since the creation, yet were not sufficient to bring us into God’ s rest, but required a new way of salvation, viz. not one of works, but of faith, to effect this. So that τῶνἔργων is a contrast to πιστεύσαντες : and in ver. 4, τῶνἔργωναὐτοῦ a contrast to τῶνἔργων here, the one God’ s, the other man’ s, works. I need but state this to the reader, to shew him how utterly preposterous it is, and foreign from the context, in which not a word is indicated of the contrast between works and faith, but every thing of that between belief and unbelief) the works (viz. of God: an expression borrowed from the citation which follows) were constituted (i. e. finished. What Ebrard says against this meaning, that it is making the aorist participle = γεγενημένων , the perfect, is altogether without force. That the 1 aor. pass. of γίνομαι may almost always be tracked to its original passive meaning, once maintained in note on 1 Thessalonians 1:5, does not appear to be a safe assertion: see note there in 3rd and subsequent Edns. of Vol. III. In our Epistle, however, it may generally be done: e. g. ch. 5:5; 6:4 (10:33; 11:34). This being so, τὰἔργαἐγενήθη will simply mean, ‘ the works were constituted,’ ‘ were settled in their established order,’ ‘ were made;’ and so by consequence ‘ were finished.’ The word seems to be taken from the constant repetition of ἐγένετο in Gen. 1., and the passive used because the agent is here in question) from the foundation (καταβολή occurs in the N. T. only in this connexion, except ch. 11:11. See on ch. 6:1) of the world (i. e., as explained above on καίτοι , and substantiated in next verse, though God Himself had not that rest to enter into, and did not mean this by ἡκατ . μου , but had entered into the rest of which He speaks: the key verse to this being ver. 10). 4. Substantiation of the last assertion. For he (God, not Moses, nor ἡγραφή : see above on εἴρηκεν : see ch. 13:5) hath spoken somewhere (see above on ch. 2:6) concerning the seventh day on this wise, And God rested (in classical Greek καταπαύω is transitive, with an accusative of the person and a genitive of the thing: so Xen. Cyr. viii. 5. 25, ἤντιςἀρχῆςΚῦρονἐπιχειρῇκαταπαύειν . For this other usage, see ver. 10, and reff. LXX. The rest here spoken of must not be understood only as that of one day after the completion of creation; but as an enduring rest, commencing then and still going on,— into which God’ s people shall hereafter enter. Still less must we find here any discrepancy with such passages as John 5:17: Isaiah 40:28: God’ s rest is not a rest necessitated by fatigue, nor conditioned by idleness: but it is, in fact, the very continuance in that upholding and governing, of which the Creation was the beginning) on the seventh day from all His works: 5. and in this (place: but it is hardly necessary to fill up the ellipsis: Bleek quotes from Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 20, μαρτυρεῖδὲκαὶἘπίχαρμοςἐντῷδε . See reff. τούτῳ here means, not, this which follows, but this passage about which we are treating: our present passage) again (i. e. on the other hand: a citation which shall qualify and explain that other, making it impossible that men should have already entered into it), If they shall enter into my rest (these words are to be taken exactly as before, in a strong negative sense; not, as D1(see var. read.), and Primas., Bö hme, al., indicatively. The point raised is, that in the days of Moses, nay long after, of David, men had not yet, in the full sense at least, entered into that rest, because it was spoken of as yet future: it being of no import to the present argument, whether that future is of an affirmative or negative proposition: the negative denunciation in fact implying in itself the fact, that some would enter therein. So Calov. (in Bleek), “ Et in dicto paulo ante loco iterum loquitur Spiritus Sanctus de requie sua, ‘ Non ingredientur in requiem meam,’ significans scilicet hac comminatione, quandam adhuc quietem restare sperandam iis, qui non sunt increduli nec comminationi præ dictæ obnoxii” ). 6. Since then it yet remains (see reff.: this is the sense in all three places in our Epistle: remains over, not having been previously exhausted. ἀπολείπεται , ἀπομένει , Hesych. The time indicated by the present here is that following on the threat above) that some enter into it (viz. by the very expectation implied in the terms of the exclusion— ‘ These shall not:’ therefore there are that shall: because, the εἰσελεύσεσθαιτινάς being a portion of God’ s purposes, the failure of these persons will not change nor set aside that purpose. This latter consideration however does not logically come into treatment, but is enthymematically understood;— “ since what God once purposed, He always purposes.” We must beware of Delitzsch’ s inference, that the τινάς implies that some had on each occasion entered into it, meaning, “ there are some left yet to enter.” For thus the reasoning, as such, would be quite invalidated; which is concerned in establishing, not that some part of the entrance is yet future, but that the entrance itself, as such, is so. That some have entered in, as matter of fact, is true enough; but even they not yet perfectly, ch. 11:39 f.; and the τινάς here is used, not in respect of others who have entered in, but in respect of those who did not, when the words were used on the former occasion), and those who were formerly (as contrasted with David’ s time, and with the present) the subjects of its announcement (viz. the Israelites in the wilderness) did not enter in on account of disobedience (not, “ unbelief:” see on ch. 3:18. The first clause— ἐπεὶοὖνἀπολ . τινὰςεἰσελθ ., was a deduction from the terms of the divine denunciation, as to God’ s general purpose; and now this second clause is a particular concrete instance in which that general purpose was not carried out. Since some must, and they did not, the implied promise is again found recurring many centuries after), again (emphatic: anew) He limiteth (reff.: and Demosth. p. 952. 20, ὁμὲντοίνυννόμοςσαφῶςοὑτωσὶτὸνχρόνονὥρισεν — has fixed, specified, assigned, limited the time. See many more examples in Bleek) a certain day (Valcknaer and Paulus make τίνα interrogative, the former ending the question at ἡμέραν , the latter, at χρόνον . But this cannot well be, with the emphatic πάλιν prefixed), saying “ To-day” (He begins his citation here with the word σήμερον ; but having interrupted it by ἐνΔ . λέγων , μετὰτοσοῦτονχρόνον , καθὼςπροείρηται , takes it up again below. This is much the simplest way to take the sentence (so also Delitzsch): not, as Calv., Beza, Grot., Jac. Cappell., Bleek, De W., Bisping, to make the first σήμερον a terminus in apposition with τινὰἡμέραν , “ a certain day, viz. ‘ To-day,’  ” and then to go on from ἐν to προείρηται before coming to the citation: nor again to understand with Heinrichs, al. and E. V., the first σἡμερον as the whole of the first citation, and then to start with the second at καθὼςείρηται ) in David (‘ in,’ as in reff.: as we say, ‘ in Isaiah,’ meaning, ‘ in the book of Isaiah.’ This is better and more natural than, with Luther, Grot., Lü nem., Delitzsch, al., to understand ἐν instrumental (?), “ by David;” — or with Bengel, al., as he understands ch. 1:1, ἐνπροφήταις , ἐνυἱῷ , i. e. as local, dwelling in, inspiring,— though this is better than the other) after (the lapse of) so long a time (viz. the time between Joshua and David. The blunder of understanding the words, “ after such a time as we have before mentioned, viz. forty years (?)” has been endorsed by Dr. Bloomfield from Whitby, although in his previous note he had given the right interpretation, and although he puts καθὼςεἴρηται in a parenthesis in his text), as it has been said before (viz. ch. 3:7, 15. According to the reading προείρηται , there can hardly be a question that the reference of the words is backward, to what has been already cited, not forwards to the words which follow. This latter being imagined, the readings προείρηκεν and εἴρηται have arisen), To-day, if ye hear His voice, harden not your hearts. 8. Confirmation of the above, as against an exception that might be taken, that notwithstanding the exclusion of many by unbelief, those who entered the promised land with Joshua did enter into that rest of God. For if Joshua (Ἰησοῦς is the constant Greek form of the name י ְ ה ו ֹ ש ׁ ו ּ ע ַ , or as in the later books, Chron., Ezra, and Nehemiah, י ֵ ש ׁ ו ּ ע ַ . It does not appear that any parallel between the typical and the great final Deliverer is intended: but it could hardly fail to be suggested to the readers. Our translators, in retaining the word “ Jesus” here, have introduced into the mind of the ordinary English reader utter confusion. It was done in violation of their instructions, which prescribed that all proper names should be rendered as they were commonly used) had given them rest (led them into this rest of which we are treating: for the usage of καταπαύω , see above, on ver. 4: and compare reff.), He (God: the subject of ὁρίζει and λέγων above) would not speak (not “ have spoken,” as E. V. Compare Thuc. iii. 55, εἰδ ʼ ἀποστῆναιἈθηναίωνοὐκἠθελήσαμεν (if we had not consented &c.) ὑμῶνκελευσάντων , οὐκἠδικοῦμεν (we should be doing no wrong),— and John 15:24, εἰτὰἔργαμὴἐποίησαἐναὐτοῖς , ἃοὐδεὶςἄλλοςἐποίησεν , ἁμαρτίανοὐκεἴχοσαν , “ If I had not done &c.,— they would not have sin” ) after this of another day. 9. Consequence from the proposition in ver. 6. Some must enter therein: some, that is, analogous to, inheriting the condition of and promises made to, those first, who did not enter in because of disobedience. These are now specified as ‘ the people of God,’ cf. reff., doubtless with a reference to the true spiritual character of Israelites indeed, represented under their external name: and their rest is no longer a κατάπαυσις , but (see below) is called by a higher and nobler name. Therefore (see above) there remains (see on ver. 6: remains as yet unexhausted, unoccupied, unrealized) a keeping of sabbath (as regards the word, it is only found, besides here, in Plut. de Superstitione, c. 3, ὦβάρβαροιἐξευρόντες , Ἕλληνεςκακὰτῇδεισιδαιμονίᾳ , πηλώσεις , καταβορβορώσεις , σαββατισμούς , ῥίψειςἐπὶπρόσωπον , αισχρὰςπροκαθέσεις , ἀλλοκότουςπροσκυνήσεις . It is regularly formed from σαββατίζω (reff.), as ἑορτασμός from ἑορτάζω . It is used here to correspond to the κατάπαυσίςμου , specified and explained in ver. 4. God’ s rest was a σαββατισμός ; so also will ours be. Thdrt. remarks: σαββατισμὸνδὲτὴνκατάπαυσινκέκληκεν , ἐπειδὴἐντῇἑβδύμῃἡμέρᾳκατέπαυσενὁθεὸςἀπὸπάντωντῶνἔργωνὧνἐποίησεν , ἐντῷμέλλοντιδὲβίῳἄλυποςἔσταιζωὴκ . πόνωνἐλευθέρακαὶφροντίδωνἀπηλλαγμένη . σαββατισμὸντοίνυνὠνόμασετὴντῶνσωματικῶνἔργωνἀπαλλαγήν . τοῦτογὰρδηλοῖτὰἑξῆς . The idea of the rest hereafter being the antitype of the Sabbath-rest, was familiar to the Jews: see the quotations in Schö ttg., Wetst., and Bleek. They spoke of the tempus futurum as the “ dies qui totus est sabbathum.” It is hardly probable that the sacred Writer had in his mind the object which Calvin mentions: “ Non dubito quin ad Sabbathum data opera alluserit apostolus, ut Judæ os revocaret ab externa ejus observatione: neque enim aliter potest ejus abrogatio intelligi, quam cognito spirituali fine.” Still more alien from the sense and context is it to use this verse, as some have absurdly done, as carrying weight one way or the other in the controversy respecting the obligation of a sabbath under the Christian dispensation. The only indication it furnishes is negative: viz. that no such term as σαββατισμός could then have been, in the minds of Christians, associated with the keeping of the Lord’ s day: otherwise, being already present, it could not be said that it ἀπολείπεται ) for the people of God . Ver. 10 is taken in two ways (not to mention the untenable interpretation of Schulz, which refers ὁγὰρεἰσελθών to the people of God, “ for, when it has entered,” &c. This would be εἰσελθὼνγὰρ without the article): 1. as a general axiom, justifying the use of the word σαββατισμός above: For he that has entered into his (God’ s) rest, has himself also rested from his (own) works, like as God rested from his own. This has been the usual explanation. Thl. says, ἑρμηνεύειπῶςσαββατισμὸνὠνόμασετὴντοιαύτηνκατάπαυσιν · διότιφησὶκαταπαύομενκαὶἡμεῖςἀπὸτῶνἔργωντῶνἡμετέρων , ὥσπερκαὶὁθεός , καταπαύσαςἀπὸτῶνἔργωντῶνεἰςσύστασιντοῦκόσμου , σάββατοντὴνἡμέρανὠνόμασεν . This explanation labours under two difficulties: α . the aorist κατέπαυσεν , which thus is made into a perfect or a present. De Wette regards it as a reminiscence of the same word in ver. 4: so Delitzsch: but this is most unsatisfactory: β . the double reference of αὐτοῦ , first to God, and then to the man in question, especially when God’ s works are taken up by the strong term τῶνἰδίων . 2. The other interpretation has been that of Owen, Alting, Stark, and more recently Ebrard, who refer ὁεἰσελθών to Christ: For He that entered into his (own or God’ s) rest, Himself also rested from His works like as God rested from His own: and therefore, from our Forerunner having entered into this sabbatism, it is reserved for us, the people of God, to enter into it with and because of Him. Thus, as Ebrard says, Jesus is placed in the liveliest contrast to Joshua, who had not brought God’ s people to their rest; and is designated as ‘ That one, who entered into God’ s rest.’ And to this view I own I am strongly inclined, notwithstanding the protest raised against it by Bleek, Lü nemann, and Delitzsch. My reasons are, in addition to those implied above, α . the form of the assertion, as regards Joshua here and Jesus in ver. 14. That a contrast is intended between the Ἰησοῦς who did not give them rest, and the ἀρχιερέαμέγανδιεληλυθότατοὺςοὐρανούς , Ἰησοῦντὸνυἱὸντοῦθεοῦ , seems very plain. And if so, it would be easily accounted for, that Christ should be here introduced merely under the designation of ὁεἰσελθὼνεἰςτ . κατάπ . αὐτοῦ . β . The introduction of the words καὶαὐτός , lifting out and dignifying the subject of this clause as compared with ὁθεός , in a way which would hardly be done, had the assertion been merely of any man generally. γ . Scripture analogy. This rest, into which the Lord Jesus entered, is spoken of, Isaiah 11:10, καὶἔσταιἡἀνάπαυσιςαὐτοῦ , τιμή : and this work of His, in Isaiah 40:10, καὶτὸἔργονἐναντίοναὐτοῦ , and by Christ Himself, John 9:4, ἐμὲδεῖἐργάζεσθαιτὰἔργατοῦπέμψαντόςμεἕωςἡμέραἐστίν · ἔρχεταινύξ , ὅτεοὐδεὶςδύναταιἐργάζεσθαι . δ . The expression ἐκείνηντὴνκατάπαυσιν below, which stands harshly insulated unless it refers to the κατάπαυσιν in this verse. ε . The whole context: see summary at ch. 3:1. Render then: For He that entered into his rest, He Himself also (on this, see above) rested from his works (see above) as God from his own (τῶνἰδίων not with any distinction of kind, but used only to mark distinction of possession). 11-13. Exhortation, so frequently interspersed in the midst of the argument: see on ch. 3:1. Let us therefore (consequence from vv. 3-7; seeing that the promise is held out to us, as it was to them, and that they failed of it through disobedience) earnestly strive (not, as vulg., “ festinemus:” see reff.) to enter into that rest (viz. that mentioned in ver. 10, into which Christ has entered before, cf. ver. 14; ch. 6:20), lest any one fall into the same example (ὑπόδειγμα is found fault with by the Atticists: παράδειγμαλέγε , μὴὑπόδειγμα , Thom. Mag.: and similarly Phrynichus. But Bleek shews that it is in frequent use, from Xenophon downwards. Its proper meaning is, something shewn in a light and merely suggestive manner: so in ch. 8:5, οἵτινεςὑποδείγματικαὶσκιᾷλατρεύουσιντῶνἐπουρανίων . But it is oftener used, as here, to signify a pattern or example, good or bad: cf. besides reff., Jos. B. J. 6:1, καλὸνὑπόδειγμαβουλομένῳσώζειντὴνπατρίδασοιπρόκειταιβασιλεὺςἸουδαίωνἸεχονίας : and other examples in Bleek) of disobedience (not, unbelief: see on ch. 3:18. It was οἱἀπειθήσαντες who failed to enter in). 12, 13. Apart from the difficulties of some terms used, we may give the connexion thus: Such an endeavour is well worth all our σπουδή — for we have One to do with, who can discern and will punish every even the most secret disobedience. For the word of God (in what sense? 1. The λόγοςὑποστατικός , Personal Word, has been understood by many, e. g. the Fathers in general (see the copious reff. in Bleek’ s note here), Œ c., Thl. (as commonly supposed, but see below, and judge), Thdrt. (by no means certain), Thom. Aquin., Lyra, Cajetan, Corn. a-Lap. , Jac. Cappellus, Owen, Le Clerc, al. To this the first obvious objection is, that this mode of expression is confined to St. John among the N. T. writers. This, however, though clearly not to be met by alleging such passages as Luke 1:2 and Acts 20:32, is not decisive. For our Epistle, though perhaps anterior to all the writings of St. John, is yet so intimately allied to the Alexandrine terminology, that it would be no matter of surprise to find its Writer using a term so nearly ripe for his purpose as we find ὁλόγος in Philo (see below). The real objections to the Personal λόγος being simply and directly here meant, lie in the Epistle, and indeed in the passage itself. In the Epistle: for we have no where in it this term used with any definiteness of our Lord, nor indeed any approach to it; not even where we might have expected it most, in the description of His relation to the Father, ch. 1 init. Every where He is the Son of God, not His Word. And in ch. 6:5; 11:3, that expression is changed for ῥῆμαθεοῦ , when, especially in the latter place, had the idea of the personal λόγος been familiar to the Writer, he would almost certainly have said νοοῦμενκατηρτίσθαιτοὺςαἰῶναςλόγῳθεοῦ , not ῥήματιθ . And in the passage itself: for such adjectives as ἐνεργής and κριτικός , and even ζῶν , as matter of emphatic predication, would hardly be used of the Personal λόγος : and, which to my mind is stronger evidence still, had these words applied to our Lord, we should not have had him introduced immediately after, ver. 14, as Ἰησοῦντὸνυἱὸντοῦθεοῦ . But, 2. some of the ancient, and the great mass of modern Commentators, have understood by the term, the revealed word of God, in the law and in the gospel: or in the gospel alone, as contrasted with the former dispensation. And so even some of those who elsewhere in their writings have understood it of Christ: e. g. Origen (on Matthew 19:12, tom. xv. 4, vol. iii. p. 656, εἰτὸνλόγοντιςἀναλαβὼντὸνζῶντακ . ἐνεργῆκ .τ .λ ., … ἐκτέμνοιτὸτῆςψυχῆςπαθητικόν : on Romans 12:7, lib. ix. 3, vol. iv. p. 650: “ Verbum Dei omnia, etiam quæ in occulto sunt, perscrutatur: maxime cum vivens sit, et efficax &c. … etenim cum moralis in ecclesia sermo tractatur, tunc uniuscujusque intra semetipsam conscientia stimulatur” &c.), Euseb., Civ. Dei xx. 21. 2 (vol. vii.) al. But neither does this interpretation seem to meet the requirements of the passage. The qualities here predicated of the λόγος do not appear to fit the mere written word: nor does the introduction of the written word suit the context. I should be rather disposed with Bleek to understand, 3. the spoken word of God, the utterance of His power, by which, as in ch. 11:3, He made the worlds,— by which His Son, as in ch. 1:3, upholds all things. This spoken word it was, which they of old were to hear and not harden their hearts: σήμερον , ἐὰντῆςφωνῆςαὐτοῦἀκούσητεκ .τ .λ .: this spoken word, which interdicted them from entering into His rest— ὤμοσαἐντῇὀργῇμουΕἰεἰσελεύσονταιεἰςτὴνκατάπαυσίνμου . It seems then much more agreeable to the context, to understand this utterance of God, so nearly connected with God Himself, the breath of his mouth: and I would not at the same time shrink from the idea, that the Alexandrine form of expression respecting the λόγος , that semi-personification of it without absolutely giving it hypostatical existence, was before the mind of the Writer. Indeed, I do not see how it is possible to escape this inference, in the presence of such passages as this of Philo, Quis Rer. Div. Hæ r. § 26, vol. i. p. 491, ἵναἐννοῇςθεὸντέμνοντα , τάςτετῶνσωμάτωνκαὶπραγμάτωνἑξῆςἁπάσαςἡρμόσθαικαὶἡνῶσθαιδοκούσαςφύσεις , τῷτομεῖτῶνσυμπάντωναὐτοῦλόγῳ , ὃςεἰςτὴνὀξυτάτηνἀκονηθεὶςἀκμήν , διαιρῶνοὐδέποτελήγειτὰαἰσθητὰπάντα , ἐπειδὰνδὲμέχριτῶνἀτόμωνκαὶλεγομένωνἀμερῶνδιεξέλθῃκ .τ .λ .: and again, ib. § 27, p. 492, οὕτωςὁθεὸςἀκονησάμενοςτὸντομέατῶνσυμπάντωναὐτοῦλόγον , διαιρεῖτήντεἄμορφονκαὶἄποιοντῶνὅλωνοὐσίαν . See, on the whole, Delitzsch’ s note. The idea of Ebrard, that this word, meaning the gospel, is introduced to give weight to σπουδάσωμεν — “ Let us do our part, for the gospel of God is not wanting in power on its part,” is too absurd to need refutation or even mention, were it not for his name) is living (not, in contrast with the dead works of the law (Ebr.), of which there is no question here; nor, as Carpzov, nourishing, and able to preserve life: nor enduring, as Abresch and Schlichting: but as E. V., quick, i. e. having living power, in the same sense in which God himself is so often called “ the living God,” e. g. ch. 10:31. So in reff.: so Soph. Œ d. Tyr. 482, speaking of the prophecies, τὰδ ʼ ἀεὶζῶνταπεριποτᾶται , where the Schol. has, ἰσχύοντατῇἀληθείᾳ . Thl., who besides finds in ζῶν a proof of the hypostatic Personality, says well: ὥσπερτότε , φησίν , οὐπόλεμος , οὐμάχαιρααὐτοὺςἀπώλεσεν , ἀλλ ʼ ὁτοῦθεοῦλόγος , αὐτόματοιγὰρκατέπιπτον , οὕτωκαὶἐφ ʼ ἡμῖνἔσται . ὁγὰραὐτὸςλόγοςκαὶἐκείνουςἐκόλασεκαὶἡμᾶςκολάσει · ζῇγὰρἀεὶκαὶοὐκἔσβεσται . The emphatic position of ζῶν , the omission of ἐστι , the frequent repetition of καί , all tend to increase the rhythm and rhetorical force of the sentence. Some have thought that the Writer was citing from some other source: but for this there does not appear any reason) and active (= ἐνεργός , which is the commoner form (see Bleek), found in Xen., Demosth., and often in Polybius, in which latter however the mss. often give us ἐνεργής . In one place, xi. 23. 2, this latter seems undoubted,— ἐνεργῆποιούμενοιτὴνἔφοδον . It is a word of the κοινή or Macedonian dialect. This activity is the very first quality and attribute of life: so that the predicates form a climax: not only living, but energizing: not only energizing, but τομώτεροςκ .τ .λ .: and not only that, but διϊκνούμενοςκ .τ .λ .: nor that only, but reaching even to the spirit, κριτικὸςἐνθυμήσεωνκ . ἐννοιῶνκαρδίας ), and sharper (τομός , an adj. formed from τέμνω , is found in Plato, Tim. 61 e: Plut. Sympos. vi. 8; viii. 9: its comparative in ref., and Lucian, Toxar. ii. al.: the superlative, in the well-known exordium of Ajax’ s dying speech, Soph. Aj. 815) than (Bleek has shewn that the construction τομώτεροςὑπὲρμάχαιραν , for τόμοςὑπὲρμ . or τομώτεροςμαχαίρας , is not Hebraistic; for in Heb. there is no comparative; we have it in ref. Judges, ἀγαθώτεροςσὺὑπὲρΒαλὰκυἱὸνΖεπφώρ : and the similar construction with παρά in ch. 1:4, where see remarks) every two-edged sword (lit. two-mouthed: meaning, sharpened on both sides, both edge and back. The expression (reff.) is found in classic poetry, e. g. δίστομονξίφος , Eurip. Hel. 992: δίστομαφάσγανα , id. Orest. 1296, and other instances in Bleek. The more usual word is ἀμφήκης , Il. κ . 256: Soph. Aj. 286: Electr. 485. We have ἀμφίθηκτος , Antig. 1309. As regards the comparison itself, of the word of God or of men to a sword, it is common in Scripture: see Psalms 57:4; Psalms 59:7; Psalms 64:3: Wisd. 18:15, 16: Revelation 1:16: and above all, Ephesians 6:17. It has been questioned, whether the office here ascribed to the word of God is punitive, or merely searching: whether it regards the foes, or the servants of God. There seems no reason why we should separate the two. The same word, to which evidently by the succeeding clause is attributed the searching power, is powerful also to punish. The μάχαιρα belongs to the surgeon, and to the judge: has its probing as well as its smiting office. And so Chrys.: αὐτὸςτὰἐντῇκαρδίᾳκρίνει · ἐκεῖγὰρδιαβαίνεικαὶκολάζωνκαὶἐξετάζων . Bleek points out the close relation of this similitude to a series of passages in Philo, especially in the treatise Quis Rerum Divinarum Hæ res. There, in speaking of Abraham’ s sacrifice, and explaining διεῖλεναὐτὰμέσα , which act he refers to God, he says: τῷτομεῖτῶνσυμπάντωναὐτοῦλόγῳ · ὅς , εἰςτὴνὀξυτάτηνἀκονηθεὶςἀκμήν , διαιρῶνοὐδέποτελήγειτὰαἰσθητὰπάντα , ἐπειδὰνδὲμέχριτῶνἀτόμωνκαὶλεγομένωνἀμερῶνδιεξέλθῃ , πάλινἀπὸτούτωντὰλόγῳθεωρητὰεἰςἀμυθήτουςκαὶἀπεριγράφουςμοίραςἄρχεταιδιαιρεῖνοὗτοςὁτομεύς , § 26, vol. i. p. 491. And further on, he divides these διχοτομήματα made by the λόγος into triads, and says, ψυχὴγὰρτριμερήςἐστι , δίχαδὲἕκαστοντῶνμερῶν , ὡςἐδείχθη , τέμνεται · μοιρῶνδὲγινομένωνἕξ , ἕβδομοςεἰκότωςτομεὺςἦνἁπάντων , ὁἱερὸςκαὶθεῖοςλόγος . From these and similar passages (cf. esp. Quod Deterior Potiori Insid. § 29, p. 212: De Cherubim, § 9, p. 144 ff.), we may reasonably infer, that the writings of Philo were not unknown to the Writer of this Epistle. The same conclusion has been also drawn by Grotius and Bleek. See Prolegg. § i. 155), and reaching through (so ἱκνεῖταιλόγοςδιὰστήθεων , Æ sch. Sept. c. Theb. 515: διικνεῖσθαιδι ʼ ὤτωνποτὶτὰνψυχάν , Tim. Locr. p. 101 a: ἡδόξαδιῖκτομέχριβασιλέως , Plut. Deu_20) even to dividing of soul and spirit, both joints and marrow (there has been considerable diversity in the taking of these genitives. I have regarded them as follows: ψυχῆς and πνεύματος , not coupled by τεκαί , but only by καί , denote two separate departments of man’ s being, each subordinate to the process indicated by μερισμοῦ . The λόγος pierces to the dividing, not of the ψυχή from the πνεῦμα , but of the ψυχή itself and of the πνεῦμα itself: the former being the lower portion of man’ s invisible part, which he has in common with the brutes, the ἄλογοντῆςψυχῆς of Philo; the latter the higher portion, receptive of the Spirit of God, the λογικὸντῆςψυχῆς of the same; both which are pierced and divided by the sword of the Spirit, the word of God. Then, passing on to ἁρμῶντεκ . μυελῶν , I do not regard these terms as co-ordinate with the former ψυχῆςκ . πνεύματος , but as subordinate to them, and as used in a spiritual sense, not a corporeal (as many Commentators and recently Delitzsch): implying that both the ἁρμοί and the μυελοί of the ψυχή and of the πνεῦμα are pierced and divided by the λόγος . This I conceive is necessitated both by the τε , expressed in this second clause, and by the sense, which otherwise would degenerate into an anti-climax, if ἁρμῶντεκ . μυελῶν were to be understood of the body. εἰςαὐτὸντὸνμυελὸντῆςψυχῆς , Themist. Orat. 32, p. 357: χρῆνγὰρμετρίαςεἰςἀλλήλουςφιλίαςθνητοὺςἀνακίρνασθαικαὶμὴπρὸςἀκρὸνμυελὸνψυχῆς , Eur. Hippol. 255 ff. And ἁρμός is not an anatomical, but a common term, which might be applied to any kind of compages, as ἁρμὸςθύρας , Dion. Hal. v. 7: ἁρμοὶλίθων , ref. Sir. &c.) This, which is in the main the sense given by Grot., Kuin., Bl., De W., Lü nem. , being laid down, I proceed to examine the divergences from it. 1. That which regards the μερισμός as being a division of the soul from the spirit, the joints from the marrow (on this latter see below). This is given as early as by Chrys. as an alternative: ἡγὰρὅτιτὸπνεῦμαδιαιρεῖἀπὸτῆςψυχῆς , λέγει · ἢὅτικαὶαὐτῶντῶνἀσωμάτωνδιικνεῖται . And Œ c., understanding πνεῦμα of the Holy Spirit: ἡγοῦμαιοὖννῦντοῦτοεἰρῆσθαι , ὅτιχωρισμὸνἐργάζεταιτοῦἁγίουπνεύματος , κ . ἀφαιρεῖταιαὐτὸἀπὸτῆςψυχῆς : and so, but giving the alternative, Thl. And so Erasm.-paraph. , J. Cappellus, Wolf, Bengel, al. The objections to this are both psychological and contextual. It has been rightly urged (see especially Ebrard’ s note here) that the soul and spirit cannot be said to be separated in any such sense as this: and on the other hand, the ἁρμοί and μυελοί could not be thus said to be separated, having never been in contact with one another. 2. Many Commentators, who hold the division of soul from spirit, are not prepared to apply the same interpretation to the ἁρμῶντ . κ . μυελῶν ; although, reading the former τε , it becomes philologically necessary that the two clauses should be strictly parallel. Not reading the former τε , it becomes possible to make ἁρμῶντεκ . μυελῶν dependent, not on μερισμοῦ but on ἄχρι , which has been done by Cyril of Alexandria, de Fest. Pasch. Hom. xxii. vol. x. p. 275 b, καθικνεῖταιδὲκαὶμέχριςἁρμῶντεκαὶμυελῶν , and De Adorat. xvi. vol. i. p. 561, μέχριςἁρμῶντεκ . μυελῶντὸντοῦθεοῦκαθικνεῖσθαιλόγον , and Schlichting (see below), C. F. Schmid, Paulus, al. But certainly, had this been meant, the ἄχρις would have been repeated before ἁρμῶν . Otherwise it would be exceedingly harsh. 3. Many understand μερισμοῦ to mean, not the act of division, but the place where the division occurs. So Bö hme, “ Ita ut per intervalla, si quæ sint, animæ animique, et compagum medullarumque penetret, seque insinuet:” Schlichting, “ Ad loca usque abditissima ubi anima cum spiritu connectitur, itemque ubi sunt membrorum compages et medullæ .” And so, more recently, Ebrard. The objection to this is, partly the omission of what would in that case be the requisite article before μερισμοῦ , and partly as before, that thus ἁρμ . τ . κ . μυ . must be constructed with ἄχρι : see above. 4. One meaning is given by Œ c. , and Thl. . But clearly this cannot be the meaning, with γάρ after a caution), and a judger of (the) thoughts (ἐνθύμημα is the commoner word: but Thucyd. (i. 123), Eurip. (Frag. 20), Isæ us, and Aristotle (Bl.) use -ησις in much the same sense; -ησις being properly the action of the thought itself, -ημα the thing conceived or thought of. But these two become frequently confused in later Greek) and ideas (this seems the nearest term to ἔννοια . Plato gives rather a mysterious definition of it— συντονίαδιανοίας . But the usage, where the word wavers, as here, between the process in the mind itself and that which is the result of the process, points very much to our ‘ idea.’ Thus ἔννοιανλαμβάνειντινός , Demosth. p. 157 18: ἡκοινὴἔννοιάτινος , Polyb. x. 27. 8. In ib. i. 4. 9, we have ἔννοια distinguished from ἐπιστήμη : ἔννοιανμὲνγὰρλαβεῖνἀπὸμέρουςτῶνὅλωνδυνατόν · ἐπιστήμηνδὲκαὶγνώμηνἀτρεκῆἔχειν , ἀδύνατον . Certainly the “ intentiones” of the vulg. (“ intents,” E. V.), though apparently answering to the Platonic definition, does not give it here (though this seems the sense in 1 Peter 4:1), nor does “ consilia” of Erasmus: “ conceptus” of Crell. is better. Bengel says, “ ἐνθύμησις , intentio, involvit affectum; ἔννοια , cogitatio, quæ dicit simplicius, prius et interius quiddam.” But though strictly speaking this might be the meaning of ἐνθύμησις , it does not carry so much in ordinary usage) of the heart (the inner and thinking and feeling part of man in Scripture psychology; die innere Mitte des menschlichen Wesenbestandes, in welcher das dreifache Leben des Menschen zusammenlä uft, Delitzsch, biblische Psychologie, § 12 init., which see; and Beck, Umriss der biblischen Seelenlehre, p. 63 ff.): 13. and there is not a creature (for the concrete κτίσμα , as so often, see reff. The term embraces all created things, visible and invisible, cf. Colossians 1:16) unseen (a classical word: see Palm. and Rost’ s references) in his presence : but all things are naked and prostrate (see at the end of this note: resupinata, manifesta; πεφανερωμένα , Hesych. The various meanings given to this difficult word τραχηλίζειν , form a curious chapter in the history of exegesis. Its first and most common classical acceptation seems to be, to take by the throat, as an adversary in a struggle, or an athlete in wrestling might do, for the purpose of overthrowing. So (to give merely one example among many which will be found in Wetstein, and better arranged in Bleek) ὁρᾶτετὸνἀθλητὴνὑπὸπαιδισκαρίουτραχηλιζόμενον , Plut. de Curiositate, p. 521 b. And thus some have interpreted it here: “ laid open,” as an athlete, caught by the neck and overthrown, lies for all to see. But as Bl. remarks, this last particular, which does in fact carry the whole weight of the comparison, comes in far too accidentally and subordinately. Another meaning has been proposed by Perizonius (on Æ lian, Var. Hist. xii. 58) derived from the practice of stripping and bending back the necks of malefactors, that all might see their faces and shame, so producing the very opposite of the privacy which a man seeks when ashamed, by bowing down his head and covering his face. Thus Sueton. Vitel. 17: “ (Vitellius) relegatis post terga manibus, injecto cervicibus laqueo, veste discissa, seminudus in forum tractus est— reducto coma capite ceu noxii solent, atque etiam mento mucrone gladii subrecto, ut visendam præ beret faciem, neve submitteret.” And Pliny, Panegyr. 34. 3: “ Nihil tamen gratius, nihil sæ culo dignius, quam quod contigit desuper intueri delatorum supina ora retortasque cervices, agnoscebamus et fruebamur, quum velut piaculares publicæ sollicitudinis victimæ supra sanguinem noxiorum ad lenta supplicia gravioresque pœ nas ducerentur.” And this is the interpretation followed by Elsner, Wolf, Baumgarten, Kuinoel, Bretschneider, Bleek, De Wette, al. But here again, though the meaning is apposite enough, we have no precedent for the Greek word being thus used, or for any such custom being familiar to Greeks. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/alfordgnt/ Chap. 5:1-10:18. The High Priesthood of Christ: and this in several points of view. That which has before been twice by anticipation hinted at, ch. 2:17; 3:1; 4:14, 15, is now taken up and thoroughly discussed. First of all, vv. 1-10, two necessary qualifications of a high priest are stated, and Christ is proved to have fulfilled both: α . vv. 1-3, he must be taken from among men, capable, in respect of infirmity, of feeling for men, and, β . vv. 4-10, he must not have taken the dignity upon himself, but have been appointed by God. 1. For (takes up again ch. 4:15 with a view to substantiate it: see remarks below) every high priest (in the sense, Levitical high priest, the only class here in question. Delitzsch is however right in maintaining, that it is not right to limit the words to this sense, or to see in them this condition, which indeed is not brought forward, but only exists in the nature of the case, no other high priests being in view), being taken from among men (this participial clause belongs to the predicative portion of the sentence, and indeed carries the chief weight of it, having a slight causal force; ‘ inasmuch as he is taken from among men.’ And thus the clause is understood by Chrys., Thl., Primas., and Calv., Schlicht., Grot., Beng., Bl., De W., Lü nem., Ebrard, Delitzsch, al. Others, as Luth., Seb. Schm., Wetst., Storr, Kuinoel, al., take it as belonging to the subject, as does the E. V., “ Every high priest taken from among men,” and see in it a contrast, as in ch. 7:28, between human high priests, and the Son of God. But such contrast here is not only not in, but inconsistent with, the context: which does not bring out as yet any difference between Christ and the Jewish high priests, but rather (see below) treats of the attributes of a high priest from their example. λαμβανόμενος is no technical word, as ‘ capi’ in Latin: “ Eximie virgines Vestales, sed flamines quoque Diales, item pontifices et augures capi dicebantur,” Aul. Gell. i. 12: for the question here is not of electing or appointing, which comes below in καθίσταται , but simply of taking from among, as in reff.), is appointed (the ordinary classical word: ἰατροὺςκατέστησανὀκτώ , Xen. Anab. iii. 4. 30: and the pass., ἔδειβασιλέακαθίστασθαι , id. Ages. iii. 1, see also reff., and numerous examples in Bleek) for (on behalf of, for the benefit of: vicariousness must not be introduced where the context, as here, does not require it: see note on ch. 2:9) men (the stress is both times on this genitive and its preposition, ἐξἀνθρώπωνλαμβανόμενος , ὑπὲρἀνθρώπωνκαθίσταται : the former justifying the latter. This is a powerful additional reason for taking ἐξἀνθρ . λαμβ . predicatively: for if it be taken as attached to the subject, “ every high priest taken from among men,” with a necessary stress in such case on ‘ men,’ the same stress must be laid on ‘ men’ in the ὑπὲρἀνθρ ., with an implication that Christ, with whom on this hypothesis the human high priest is contrasted, was not appointed for men) in matters relating to God (see note on ch. 2:17. It is extraordinary how Calvin and Kypke could, in the face of usage and of ch. 2:17 and 7:28; 8:3, have supposed καθίσταται to be active, and τὰπρ . τ . θ . accus. after it: “ Curat Pontifex, vel ordinat, quæ ad Deum pertinent: … constructio melius fluit, et sententia est plenior,” Calv.: “ Cultum divinum instituit,” Kypke. So also Stuart in his summary, “ that he may superintend or direct the concerns which men have with God;” but not in his commentary. All the instances of an active (dynamic) sense of the middle of καθίστημι adduced by Kypke are in the aorists, which stand on different ground from the present), that he may offer (the technical word: see reff.) both gifts and sacrifices for sins , 2. being (one who is) able to be compassionate (μετριοπαθέω is a word apparently invented to serve the view of the Peripatetic school, as opposed to the ἀπάθεια of the Stoics. They held that we ought to rule our passions by reason, and denominated such moderation μετριοπάθεια . The word is not found,— except in a Pythagorean fragment of Archytas in Stobæ us, of doubtful authenticity,— before the time of Alexander: Diog. Laert. v. 31 says, ἔφηδὲ (Aristotle) τὸνσοφὸνμὴεἶναιμὲνἀπαθῆ , μετριοπαθῆδέ . See numerous other examples in Bleek. Hence we have the verb and its cognates frequently used of moderating the passion of anger: Plut. de Ira Cohib. p. 453, ἀναστῆσαικ . σῶσαικ . φείσασθαικ . καρτερῆσαιπραότητόςἐστικ . συγγνώμηςκαὶμετριοπαθείας : Appian, Bell. Hisp. p. 529, εἰμετριοπαθῶςσφίσιχρήσεται , παραδοῦσινἑαυτούς : Jos. Antt. xii. 3. 2, Οὐεσπατιάνουδ ʼ ἄντιςκαὶΤίτουτὴνμεγαλοφροσύνηνεἰκότωςἐκπλαγείη , μετὰπολέμουςκ . τηλικούτουςἀγῶνας , οὓςἔσχονπρὸςἡμᾶς , μετριοπαθησάντων . So the Etym. Mag., μετριοπαθεῖνἐκμέρουςτὰπάθηκαταδέχεσθαι , συγγινώσκειν : Hesych. μετριοπαθής · μικρὰπάσχων , ἢσυγγινώσκωνἐπιεικῶς . The meaning here therefore must be given according to this analogy, and the dative following explained as one of direction, or perhaps commodi) towards the ignorant and erring (the former mild word, though frequently used of sinners elsewhere without (e. g. Hosea 4:15: Sir. 5:15; 23:2 al.: Judith 5:20: Esdr. 8:75 (72): cf. 2 Chronicles 16:9: and so Thl. here, ὅραδέ , ὅτιπᾶνἁμάρτημαἄγνοιακ . πλάνηγεννᾷ ) as well as with the implication of ignorance (see Ecclesiastes 5:5: Leviticus 4:13; Leviticus 5:18), seems to be here placed, as well as πλανωμένοις , itself at all events a milder term than ἁμαρτάνουσιν , as suitable to the tone of the sentence, in which the feeling of a sinner towards his fellow-sinners is expressed. The sense might be filled up, ‘ towards those who (possibly after all) are ignorant and deluded.’ And thus the propriety of the next clause is rendered still greater; both these, ἄγνοια and πλάνη , being the results of ἀσθένεια , with which he himself is encompassed. On the exclusion on the one side from these designations of ‘ sinners with a high hand,’ and the inclusion in them, as above, of much more than sins, strictly speaking, of ignorance, see Delitzsch’ s note), seeing that he himself also is compassed about with infirmity . 3. And on account of it (the infirmity wherewith he himself is encompassed; not fem. for neut., as Bengel, altern.: nor is αὕτη , Matthew 21:42, which he alleges, the slightest justification for such a notion) he must (not meaning, it is his appointed duty according to the law: but, it is necessary for him, a priori, on higher ground than, and before, the ordinance of the law. See on ch. 2:17) even as for the people, so also for himself, offer (here only used absolutely in N. T., see Numbers 7:18) for (see on ch. 10:6) sins (and accordingly, such was the ordinance of the law: cf. Leviticus 4:3; Leviticus 9:7; Leviticus 16:6 al. Much has been said as to the applicability or otherwise of these considerations to Christ. Some have considered all that has hitherto been said as spoken of human high priests in contradistinction to Him: but it is better to understand it all as spoken of high priests in general: and then, as Ebrard well says, leave it to the Writer himself, ver. 5 ff., to determine how far these requisites are satisfied in Christ. The progress of the argument itself will shew us, ver. 8 f., and further on, ch. 7:27, in how far Christ is unlike the O. T. high priest). 4-10. Second requisite: divine appointment. 4. And (couples to ver. 1, of which the subsequent verses have been epexegetical) none taketh the office , οὔτεθέσμιαμεταλλάξας : see other examples in Bleek. Josephus uses it frequently of the high-priestly office: e. g Antt. iii. 8. 1, αὐτὸςὁθεὸςἈαρῶνατῆςτιμῆςταύτηςἄξιονἔκρινε ) to himself but (only when) called by God , as indeed was Aaron recte egistis, quod contra ipsum insurrexistis: jam vero Deus id ipsi dedit,” &c. This divine ordinance of Aaron and his sons to be high priests endured long in the Jewish polity: but long before this time the rule had been disturbed: Jos. Antt. xx. 10. 5, relates, τὴνδὲβασιλείανἩρώδηςπαρὰῬωμαίωνἐγχειρισθείς , οὐκέτιτοὺςἐκτοῦἈσαμωναίουγένουςκαθίστησινἀρχιερεῖς , ἀλλὰτισὶνἀσήμοις , καὶμόνονἐξἱερέωνοὖσι , πλὴνἑνὸςἈριστοβούλου , τὴντιμὴνἀπένεμε . Some of the early Commentators, e. g. Œ c., Thl., Primas., imagine that an allusion to this irregularity is here intended: αἰνίττεταιδὲἐνταῦθατοὺςτότεἀρχιερεῖςτῶνἸουδαίων , οἳἐπεπήδωντῇτιμῇ , ὠνητὴνταύτηνκτώμενοικαὶτὸννόμονδιαφθείροντες , Œ c. But, though even Bleek imagines such an allusion may have been in the Writer’ s mind, it seems I own to me very improbable). 5. Thus Christ also (as well as those others) did not glorify himself to be made High Priest (i. e. did not raise Himself to the office of High Priest. δοξάζειν is here used in its most general sense, of all those steps of elevation by which the dignity might be attained: see especially ref. John, which is exceedingly useful to the right understanding here. De Wette (so also Hofmann, Schrb. ii. 1. 182. See Delitzsch’ s note) is certainly very far wrong, in taking ἐδόξασεν of the ultimate well-known glorification of Christ, properly so called (ch. 2:9), for thus confusion is introduced into the members of the parallel, seeing that this sentence, οὐχἑαυτὸνἐδόξασενγενηθ . ἀρχ ., ought to correspond to οὐχἑαυτῷλαμβάνειτὴντιμήν above. In the construction, the inf. γενηθῆναι contains rather the result than the definite purpose: ‘ did not exalt himself so as to be made,’ i. e. ‘ did not use that self-exaltation which might make him’ ), but He (i. e. the Father) who spake to Him, Thou art my son, I have this day begotten thee , that the same Divine Person appointed Him High Priest, who said to Him “ Thou art my Son:” but it asserts, that such divine appointment was wrapped up and already involved in that eternal generation to the Sonship which was declared in these words. So Thl.: δοκεῖδὲἀνάρμοστοςεἶναιἡἐκτοῦδευτέρουψαλμοῦπροφητείαπρὸςτὸπροκείμενον · προὔκειτομὲνγὰρδήπουθενἀποδειχθῆναιἀρχιερέατὸνχριστόν , αὕτηδὲἡμαρτυρίατὸἐκτοῦπατρὸςγεννηθῆναιδηλοῖ . μάλισταμὲνοὖνκαὶτὸὑπὸτοῦθεοῦγεγεννῆσθαιπροκατασκευήἐστιτοῦὑπὸτοῦθεοῦχειροτονηθῆναι . And similarly Chrys. Then again, we must beware of imagining that ὁλαλήσας .… γεγέννηκάσε is a mere periphrasis of ὁπατήρ , as some have done. The true account seems to be this: the word ἐδόξασεν contains in it the whole process of exaltation (through suffering) by which the Lord Jesus has attained the heavenly High Priesthood. This whole process was not his own work, but the Father’ s, John 8:54. And in saying this, we involve every step of it, from the very beginning. Of these, unquestionably the first was His eternal generation by the Father. He did not constitute himself the Son of God, in virtue ultimately of which sonship He ἐγενήθηἀρχιερεύς . And therefore in proving this, the sacred Writer adduces first the declaration of the Father which sets forth this His generation as Son of God, on which all His δοξασθῆναι depended,— and then, when He was completed by sufferings, vv. 7-10, the direct declaration of his High Priesthood, also by the Father. This class of interpretations has been much impugned, principally by the Socinian interpreters, and those who lean that way. Schlichting, Grot., Hammond, Limborch, Peirce, Storr, De Wette, and even Tholuck, refer the saying to the time of Christ’ s exaltation through death: and therein the more directly Socinian of them (e. g. Schlichtg.) see a disproof of the eternal generation of the Son. To take one of the arguments by which even such Commentators as Tholuck support this view; he alleges that it best agrees with the τελείωσις spoken of vv. 7 ff., in which Christ by obedience became perfect as our High Priest. How fallacious this is, may readily be seen from the words καίπερὢνυἱός , which according to this view He was not, in the present sense, till those sufferings were ended. Delitzsch also would understand the words entirely of His triumphant glorified state, beginning with the Resurrection: on the ground that there is no connexion in the proposition that He who designated Him as His Eternal Son, also appointed Him to the High Priesthood. But surely this is not so: see above. On the whole question of the interpretation of the words themselves, as cited from the Psalm, see on ch. 1:5, where I have fully discussed it), 6. even as also he saith in another (place) , Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek (on the relation of this Psalm to Christ, see generally on ch. 1:13. I may add to what was there said, that it is thus declared, that He, in whom all the theocratic promises find their fulfilment, in whom the true Kingdom of God comes and is summed up, was to be, as in Zechariah 6:12 ff., “ a priest upon His throne,” and such a priest (i. e. necessarily High Priest, if a King; as indeed the word is given in ver. 10 and ch. 6:20) as should be after the order of Melchisedek. In examining this last predication, we find that κατὰτὴντάξιν , according to the ordinary meaning of τάξις , imports, according to the office or order, the rank which Melchisedek held. So Jos. Antt. vii. 11. 6, David appointed Amasa commander, καὶτὴντάξιναὐτῷἐφ ʼ ἧςἸωάβοςἦν , δίδωσιν : Polyb. ii. 24. 9, ἐφεδρείαςἔχοντεςτάξιν : Demosth. 313. 13, οἰκέτουτάξιν , οὐκἐλευθέρουπαιδός , ἔχων . See many other examples in Bleek. So that κατὰτὴντάξιν will be very nearly the same as κατὰτὴνὁμοιότητα , ch. 7:15: and the Peschito has this latter expression both in the Psalm, and throughout our Epistle. On εἰςτὸναἰῶνα , as indeed on the detailed application of the several expressions to Christ, see on ch. 7:20 ff.). 7 ff.] The sufferings of Christ are now adduced, as a portion of his δοξασθῆναι to be made High Priest. They were all in subjection to the will of the Father: they were all parts of his τελείωσις , by virtue of which He is now, in the fullest and most glorious sense, our High Priest. So that these verses are no digression, but stand directly in the course of the argument, as proving the proposition, οὐχἑαυτὸνἐδόξασενγενηθῆναιἀρχιερέα . Part of this connexion is recognized by Bleek, but not all. He regards the verses as introduced to shew that Christ was never, not even in his deepest humiliation, severed from the Father, whose Son He was, and who subsequently, at his resurrection, appointed Him to his High Priesthood: thus missing the one link which binds this passage into the argument, viz. that this obedience and these sufferings were all a part of His being glorified for his High Priestly office: a part of that office itself, performed before He was perfected by entrance, through the veil of His flesh by death, into the most holy place. This mistake about the time of commencement of the High Priesthood of Christ has misled several of the Commentators throughout this part of the Epistle. ὃςἐνκ .τ .λ .] It will be best to mark at once what I believe to be the connexion of this much-disputed sentence, and then to justify each portion in detail afterwards. Who in the days of his flesh, in that he offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears to Him that was able to save him from death, and was heard by reason of his reverent submission, though He was a son, learned, from the things which He suffered, his obedience, and being made perfect, became the cause of eternal salvation to all who obey Him, being addressed by God as High Priest after the order of Melchisedek. That is, being paraphrased,— ‘ who had a course of glorifying for the High Priest’ s office to go through, not of his own choice, but appointed for Him by the Father, as is shewn by that sharp lesson of obedience (not as contrasted with disobedience, but as indicating a glorious degree of perfect obedience, τὴνὑπακ .), familiar to us all, which He, though God’ s own Son, learned during the days of his flesh: when He cried to God with tears for deliverance from death, and was heard on account of His resignation to the Father’ s will ,’ &c. Then as to details: ἐνταῖςἡμέραιςτῆςσαρκὸςαὐτοῦ I understand as a general wide date for the incident which is about to be brought in,— as contrasted with His present days of glorification in the Spirit. προσφέρεινδέησιν is found in Achil. Tat. vii. 1 (Bl.), ὡςδὲοὐκἔπειθεν .… δευτέραναὐτῷπροσφέρειδέησιν , and Longin. Pastoral. ii. 23: Jos., B. J. iii. 8. 3, has προσφέρειεὐχήν . ἱκετηρία is properly an adjective used of κλάδος , ῥάβδος , &c. held out by the ἱκέτης . So Philo, Legat. ad Caium, § 36, vol. ii. p. 586, γραφὴδὲμηνύσειμουτὴνδέησιν , ἣνἀνθ ʼ ἱκετηρίαςπροτείνω . But it also was used as = ἱκεσία or ἱκετεία : so, joined as here with δέησις , by Isocr. de Pace 46, πολλὰςἱκετηρίαςκαὶδεήσεις : see reff. and more instances in Bleek. πρὸςτὸνδυνάμ . is to be taken with the substantives δεήσειςτεκαὶἱκετ ., not with the verb προσενέγκας , in which case the words would most probably be placed after μετὰκραυγ . ἰσχ . κ . δακρ ., next the verb. σώζειναὐτὸνἐκθανάτου is by Estius, Schulz, al. understood to mean, not as generally, to rescue Him from death, but “ ut celeriter eriperetur a morte quam erat passurus: quod,” Estius adds, “ factum est, quando a morte ad vitam immortalem resurrexit tertia die.” So also more recently Ebrard. But this is not only against the usage of σώζεινἐκθανάτου : cf. reff., and the examples given in Bl.: e. g. Od. δ . 755, ἡγάρκένμινἔπειτακαὶἐκθανάτοιοσαώσαι : Aristid. Plat. i. p. 90, σώζωνἐκθανάτουκαὶοὗτοςἀνθρώπουςκ . αὐτοὺςκ . χρήματα ,— but still more decidedly against the truth of the sacred narrative: “ Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me:” for we must of course assume, that in such a designation of the Father, the contents of the prayer made to Him are also indicated. The μετὰδακρύων is not distinctly asserted in the sacred narrative: but is a most obvious inference from what is there: cf. Matthew 26:37 . Bl. has noticed that from the juxtaposition of κραυγή and εἰσακουσθείς , it is probable that the Writer may have had before his mind such passages from the Psalms as 21:2, ὁθεόςμου , κεκράξομαιἡμέραςπρόςσεκαὶοὐκεἰσακούσῃ : ib. ver. 24, καὶἐντῷκεκραγέναιμεπρὸςαὐτὸνεἰσήκουσέμε : Psa_114 (116):1. I may remark, that there seems no reason for understanding the κραυγὴἰσχυρά and δάκρυα of any other time than the agony at Gethsemane, as some have done. This is adduced as the most illustrious instance of that learning obedience from suffering. Epiphanius reports that this weeping of the Lord in His agony was once related in some texts of St. Luke: see note on Luke 22:43, Luke 22:44. εἰσακουσθεὶςἀπὸτῆςεὐλαβείας is rendered in three different ways. 1. “ He was heard on account of His pious resignation.” 2. “ He was heard, and so delivered, from that which He feared.” 3. “ He was heard by Him who was His fear.” Of these, (3) may shortly be discussed. It is cited by Wolf, Curæ in loc., as the view of Albert Ehlers, and is justified by God being called “ the Fear of Isaac,” Genesis 31:42, Genesis 31:53. See also Isaiah 8:13. But as Wolf answers, “ Si Deum indicare voluisset Apostolus, procul dubio scripsisset, ὑπ ʼ αὐτοῦ , vel ἀπ ʼ αὐτοῦ , cum antea τοῦδυναμένουσώζειν , i. e. Dei facta fuisset mentio.” And usage would be wholly against such a sense of εὐλάβεια . (2) has found a formidable phalanx of supporters. The old Latin versions, “ exauditus a metu:” Ambrose on Psa_61. p. 957, “ exauditus ab illo metu:” Calv., Beza, Schlichting, Grot., Gerhard, Erasm. Schmid, Jac. Cappell., Hammond, Limborch, Schö ttgen, Wolf, Bengel, Wetst., Storr, Ernesti, Bretschn., Kuinoel, De Wette, Stuart, Tholuck, Ebrard, and many others. Of these, most understand εὐλάβεια of His own fear (abstr.), from which, by strengthening Him, God delivered Him: some, as Calv., Schlicht., Hamm., take it (concr.) of the thing itself which He feared, viz. death: “ ex eo quod timebat,” Calv. But neither can this be maintained. Bleek has most elaborately discussed the meanings of εὐλάβεια , and shewn, that however near it may seem to approach in some Greek sentences, to fear, yet it is always the fear of caution or modesty, not of terror: and even could it be thus taken , it would not be agreeable either to the propriety of the passage to express that Christ was delivered from death in such a phrase, when σώζεινἐκθανάτου has immediately preceded,— nor to its purpose, to predicate such a deliverance from death of Him at all, seeing that He did actually undergo that death which He feared. This would apply to the concrete acceptation of εὐλάβεια : and the abstract is precluded by the usage of the word. Besides which, the expression εἰσηκούσθηἀπό would be, if not altogether unprecedented, yet so harsh as to be exceedingly improbable. None of the precedents alleged for it apply. In Psalms 22:22, “ Thou hast heard me from among the horns of the unicorns,” the LXX (21:21) have κ . ἀπὸκεράτωνμονοκερώτωντὴνταπείνωσίνμου , which is no example: in Job 35:12, ἐκεῖκεκράξονταικαὶοὐμὴεἰσακούσῃκαὶἀπὸὕβρεωςπονηρῶν , the ἀπό belongs to the former verb κεκράξονται . The only case of a pregnant construction at all similar, seems to be, Ps. 117:5, εἰσήκουσέμουεἰςπλατυσμὸν : but as Bl. remarks, it surely is no reason, because a translator reproduces a Hebrew pregnancy, that a writer should have a far harsher construction of the same kind attributed to him when there is no such justifying reason. The other instances, from our Epistle, ch. 10:22, ῥεραντισμένοι … ἀπὸσυνειδήσεωςπονηρᾶς , 6:1, are to no purpose, as the verbs there carry in them the idea of being cleansed, or of turning, from something, and the prep. therefore naturally follows. It remains then to examine (1), against which it is urged by Beza, and even by Tholuck (but not in his last edn.), that ἀπό will not bear the meaning ‘ on account of.’ It is surprising that a scholar should ever have made such an objection, in the face of the instances in the reff., to which many more might be added out of the classics from those given by Bleek. The objection which Tholuck still brings, that such an interpretation would require αὐτοῦ after τῆςεὐλαβ ., is equally futile, the unusual expression of the art. after a preposition carrying the full force of a possessive. On the other hand it must be urged, that this meaning, ‘ He was heard on account of His pious resignation,’ as it is that given by all the Greek expositors, so is the only one which will satisfy the usage of εὐλάβεια . The account of the word, which I take mainly from Bleek, is this: it is derived from εὐλαβής , and that from εὖ and λαμβάνειν , denoting one who lays hold of any thing well, i. e. carefully, so as not to break or injure it; and is used of a man proceeding cautiously in his design, so as to avoid injury to himself or another. As such, it is opposed to θράσος by Demosth. 517. 21, κ . γὰρἐκτούτουφανερὰπᾶσινὑμῖνἥτετῶνἄλλωνἁπάντωνὑμῶνεὐλάβειαγενήσεταικ . τὸτούτουθράσος . Thus again in Plut. Marc. 9, p. 252, τὸθαῤῥαλέοναὐτοῦκ . δραστήριονπρὸςτὴνἐκείνουκεραννύντεςκ . ἁρμόττοντεςεὐλάβειανκ . πρόνοιαν . And Polyb. iii. 105. 8, διὰμὲντὴνΜάρκουτόλμανἀπόλωλετὰὅλα , διὰδὲτὴνεὐλάβειαντοῦΦαβίουσέσωσταικαὶπρὸτοῦκαὶνῦν . And hence the meaning sometimes approaches very near to fear: but, as above observed, always the fear of great caution or great modesty, not that of terror in any case. So Liban. iv. 265 a, μεστόςἐστινεὐλαβείαςκ . δέδοικεν : Jos. Antt. vi. 9. 2, μὴταπεινὸνἔστωφρόνημαμηδ ʼ εὐλαβές , ὦβασιλεῦ . And in Antt. xi. 6. 9, Esther is said to have come in to the king μετὰδέους , but he laid the sceptre on her neck, εὐλαβείαςαὐτὴνἀπολύων . So far is the word from representing the fear of terror, that it is expressly opposed to it: as e. g. by Demosth. 405. 19, τίναδὲοὗτοιμὲνἄτολμονκ . δειλὸνπρὸςτοὺςὄχλουςφασὶνεἶναι , ἐγὼδὲεὐλαβῆ ; ἐμέ . Diog. Laert. says of , τὴνδ ʼ εὐλάβειανοὖσανεὔλογονἔκκλισιν · φοβηθήσεσθαιμὲνγὰρτὸνσοφὸνοὐδαμῶς , εὐλαβηθήσεσθαιδέ . See also in Bleek a remarkable extract from Plutarch, where he mentions εὐλάβεια being used by the Stoics as an euphemism for φόβος . From these meanings the transition was very easy to that cautious reverence with which the pious man approaches a Divine Being. So Plut. Camill., τὴντοῦἈλβίνουπρὸςτὸθεῖονεὐλάβειανκ . τιμήν : l, εὐλαβεῖσθαιθεόν : Philo, Quis Rer. Div. Hæ r. § 6, vol. i. p. 476, εὐλαβείᾳτὸθαῤῥοῦνἀνακέκραται . τὸμὲνγὰρ “ τίμοιδώσεις (Genesis 15:2);” θάρσοςἐμφαίνει · τὸδὲ “ ὦδέσποτα ,” εὐλάβειαν : cf. also reff., especially ch. 12:28, the only other place where it is found in the N. T. And this religious sense certainly suits remarkably well in our passage. No term could more exactly express the reverent submission to His Heavenly Father’ s will which is shewn in those words, “ Not my will, but thine be done:” none the constant humbling of himself in comparison with the Father, and exalting Him in word and deed, of which our Saviour’ s life is full. I have no hesitation therefore in adopting this rendering, and feeling entirely satisfied with it. Besides fulfilling the requisites of philology and of fact, it admirably suits the context here, where the appointment of Christ by the Father to his High Priesthood and the various steps by which that High Priesthood was perfected, are in question. As the ancient schol. says, εἰκαὶχάριτι , φησί , πατρικῇὡςυἱὸςεἰσηκούσθη , ἀλλ ʼ ἀπὸτῆςοἰκείαςεὐλαβείας , εὐλαβείαςγὰρἦντὸλέγεινΠλὴνοὐχὡςἐγὼθέλω , ἀλλ ʼ ὡςσύ . The matter of fact represented by εἰσακουσθείς may require some explanation. He was heard, not in the sense of the cup passing away from Him, which indeed was not the prayer of his εὐλάβεια ,— but in strength being ministered to Him to do and to suffer that will of his Father, to fulfil which was the prayer of his εὐλάβεια — “ Not my will, but thine be done.” And I have little doubt that the word immediately refers to the “ angel from heaven, strengthening Him,” of Luke 22:43. Calvin’ s remarks , however true in the Christian life, do not apply here, because the real prayer of our Lord, as εὐλαβὴςπρὸςτὸνπατέρα , was granted in the very form in which it was expressed, not in another. καίπερὢνυἱός ] This clause, according to all analogy of the use of καίπερ with a participle, is to be taken by itself, not with what follows. So καίπερπολλὰπαθόντα , Od. η . 224; κοίπεροστέργωνὅμως , Æ sch. Sept. c. Theb. 714: &c. Bleek, who adduces many more examples, doubts whether any authentic instance of the use of καίπερ with a finite verb can be produced (not Revelation 17:8: see text there): see also reff. Thus much being certain, the next question is, to what these words are to be applied. A threefold connexion is mentioned by Photius (in Œ c.). The first alternative involves an inversion which would be unnatural in the last degree: ὃςἐντ . ἡμ . τῆςσαρκ . αὐτ ., καίπερὢνυἱός , δεήσειςκ . ἱκ . … προσενέγκας . The second is to take the words with the clause immediately preceding: εἰσηκούσθη , φησί , καίπερὢνυἱός , κ . μὴδεόμενοςεἰσακουσθῆναι . And so Thl. (Chrys. in one place, but see also below; Phot. prefers it among the three), al. And this doubtless is possible, both grammatically and contextually. For the καίπερὢνυἱός would thus come in as an exceptional clause, not to εἰσακουσθείς , in which light Bleek, Lü nem., al. object to it, seeing that his being a Son would be rather the reason why He should than why He should not be heard,— but to the whole clause εἰσακ . ἀπὸτῆςεὐλαβείας ,— though He was a Son, yet not this, but his εὐλάβεια , was the ground of his being heard: which gives an undoubted good sense. Not much dissimilar will be the sense given by the other and more general way: viz. to take the words with the following clause, ἔμαθενἀφ ʼ ὧνἔπαθεντὴνὑπακοήν : although He was a Son, He learned his obedience, not from this relation, but from his sufferings. So Chrys. (τίλέγεις ; ὁυἱὸςτοῦθεοῦἀπὸεὐλαβείαςἠκούετο ; καὶτίπερὶτῶνπροφητῶνπλέονἂνεἴποιτις ; ποίαδὲκαὶἀκολουθίαεἰπεῖνεἰσκουσθεὶςἀπὸτῆςεὐλαβείας , καὶἐπαγαγεῖν , καίπερὢνυἱὸςἔμαθενἀφ ʼ ὧνἔπαθετὴνὑπακοήν ; but see also above), Ambrose (Ep. 63. vol. iii. p. 1033: “ et ex iis quæ passus est, quamvis esset filius Dei, discere videretur obedientiam:” and alibi), and almost all the moderns. And there can be little doubt that this yields the better sense, and points to the deeper truth. Christ was a Son: as a Son, He was ever obedient, and ever in union with his Father’ s will; but ἡὑπακοή , His special obedience, that course of submission by which He became perfected as our High Priest, was gone through in Time, and matter of acquirement for Him, and practice, by suffering. The expression, ἔμαθενἀφ ʼ ὧνἔπαθεν , brings to mind a number of Greek sayings founded on the proverb, παθήματα , μαθήματα . So Herod. i. 207, of Crœ sus, τὰδέμοιπαθήματα , ἐόνταἀχάριστα , μαθήματαγέγονεν : Æ schyl. Agam. 177, τὸνπάθειμάθοςθέντα , and a very long list of examples in Wetstein and Bleek. The ancients found this assertion startling, attributing too narrow a sense to our Lord’ s παθήματα : so Thdrt., τὸδὲἔμαθενἀφ ʼ ὧνἔπαθετὴνὑπακοήν , ἡπερβολικῶςὁἀπόστολοςτέθεικε · τὴνγὰρὑπακοὴνοὐμετὰτὸπάθος , ἀλλὰπρὸτοῦπάθουςἀπεδείξατο . And Chrys., ὁμέχριθανάτουπρὸτούτουὑπακούσαςὡςπατρὶνἱός , πῶςδὲκαὶὕστερονἔμαθεν ; This indeed would be a difficulty, were the Writer speaking of the Passion only, in its stricter sense; but he is speaking, I take it, of that continuous course of new obedience entered on by new suffering, of which the prayer in Gethsemane furnishes indeed the most notable instance, but of which also almost every act of His life on earth was an example. Thl. is so scandalized by the whole passage as applied to Christ that he says, εἶδεςπῶςδιὰτὴντῶνἀκροατῶνὠφέλειανοὕτωσυγκατέβηΠαῦλος , ὥστεκαὶἄτοπάτιναλέγωνφαίνεσθαι . Two mistakes must be avoided: 1. though He was the Son, which I find in Craik’ s new translation of the Epistle: cf. ch. 3:5, 6, Μωυσῆς , ὡςθεράπων … χριστὸς , ὡςυἱός : and consider besides, that if we take from the simple predicative force of υἱός , as a well-known relative, we take from the καίπερὤν at the same time, by diminishing the general appreciation of the exceptional καίπερ : and, 2. that of Whitby, that ἔμαθεν here means “ taught (us).” If such a meaning ever could be admitted, least of all could it, from the context, here, where the subject treated is entirely Christ Himself, in his completion as our High Priest, and not till this is finished does that which He became to others come into question. τελειωθείς , see note on ch. 2:10, perfected, completed, brought to his goal of learning and suffering, through death: the time to which the word would apply is that of the Resurrection, when his triumph began: so our Lord Himself on the way to Emmaus, οὐχὶταῦταἔδειπαθεῖντὸνχριστόν , καὶ (τελειωθείς would come in here) εἰσελθεῖνεἰςτὴνδόξαναὐτοῦ ; Thdrt., τελείωσινδὲτὴνἀνάστασινκ . τὴνἀθανασίανἐκάλεσε · τοῦτογὰρτῆςοἰκονομίαςτὸπέρας . ἐγένετο , by means of that course which ended in His τελείωσις . In πᾶσιντοῖςὑπακούουσιναὐτῷ there is probably an allusion to the ὑπακοή above. As He obeyed the Father, so must we obey Him, if we would be brought to that σωτηρίααἰώνιος into which He has led the way. The expression is strictly parallel with οἱπιστεύσαντες , ch. 4:3, and τοὺςπροσερχομένουςδι ʼ αὐτοῦτῷθεῷ , ch. 7:25. Some have thought that in πᾶσιν , the Writer hints to his Jewish readers, that such salvation was not confined to them alone. But it hardly seems likely that such a by-purpose should lie in the word. This unlikelihood is increased if πᾶσιν (as it must do) begins, instead of closing the clause as in rec. αὐτῷ is of course Christ. αἴτιοςεἶναιτινίτινος is good Greek, and often found: see examples in Bleek, e. g. Xen. Cyr. viii. 5. 2, πολλῶνκ . ἀγαθῶναἴτιοιἀλλήλοιςἔσεσθε : Diod. Sic. iv. 82, τοῖςἄλλοιςαἴτιοςἐγένετοτῆςσωτηρίας : and the same expression in Jos. Antt. iii. 3. 1; vii. 1. 1: Philo de Agric. § 22, vol. i. p. 315:De Vita Contempl. § 11, vol. ii. p. 485. See reff. also on σωτηρίααἰώνιος . The next clause, προσαγορευθεὶςκ .τ .λ ., depends closely upon τελειωθείςκ .τ .λ . above, and belongs to the time of Christ’ s exaltation, indicated by τελειωθείς : and therefore must not be divided by a colon, as done by Griesbach, Bengel, Matthä i, al., from the foregoing, nor supposed to refer to the whole from ver. 7. As to the word itself, it refers to the passage of the Psalm above, and carries with it a slight causal force, ‘ being,’ or ‘ inasmuch as He is, named.’ προσαγορεύω in this connexion has a force of solemnity and formal appellation: so, Xen. Cyr. vii. 2. 4, Crœ sus says to Cyrus, χαῖρεὦδέσποτα · τοῦτογὰρἡτύχηκαὶἔχειν .… δίδωσίσοι , καὶἐμοὶπροσαγορεύειν : Diod. Sic. i. 4, ΓάϊοςἸούλιοςΚαῖσαρ , ὁδιὰτὰςπράξειςπροσαγορευθεὶςθεός . See reff. 2 Macc., and many more examples in Bleek. So that it here implies, not ‘ appointed’ or ‘ inaugurated,’ but ‘ addressed as,’ ‘ named,’ it being of course implied that He was both appointed and inaugurated. 11-6:20. Digression, before entering on the comparison of Christ with Melchisedek, complaining of the low state of spiritual attainment of the readers (11-14): warning them of the necessity of progress and the peril of falling back (6:1-8): but at the same time encouraging them by God’ s faithfulness in bearing in mind their previous labour of love, and in His promises generally, to persevere in faith and patience to the end (6:9-20). 11. Concerning whom (i. e. Melchisedek, as Syr. (which expresses Melchisedek after the relative), Calv., a-Lap., al., Bleek, De W., Tholuck, al.: not as Œ c., Prim., al., and Lü nem., Christ, of whom such an expression as this would hardly here be used, seeing that the whole Epistle hitherto has been concerning Him: nor is οὗ neuter, as Schlichting, Grot., Storr, Kuinoel, al.: and more recently, Delitzsch (περὶτοῦεἶναιχριστὸνἀρχ . κατὰτ . ταξ . Μ .): for the Writer returns to Melchisedek, ch. 7:1) our discourse (that which we have to say. The plural pronoun, not with any definite reference to Timothy or other companions of the Writer, nor intended to include the readers, which is here impossible: but as in some other places of the Epistle, see reff., merely indicating the Writer himself, as so frequently in the Epistles of St. Paul) is much, and difficult of interpretation to speak , Jac. Cappel., Peirce, Valcknaer, al. But surely this would be inadmissible as matter of construction, and would require ἐντῷλέγειν or ἐντῷλέγεσθαι . And in consequence, some who take this view connect λέγειν with λόγος , πολ . ἡμ . ὁλ . κ . δυσερμ . λέγειν , referring, as Wetst., to Lysias adv. Pancleon. p. 167. 25, ὅσαμὲνοὖναὐτόθιἐῤῥήθη , πολὺςἂνεἴημοιλόγοςδιηγεῖσθαι . But, as Bleek has noticed, there is this difference between the passages: that in ours, the adjectives are almost necessarily predicates, whereas in Lysias they are epithets: and, in consequence, here the verb must depend on δυσερμήνευτος . We are driven then to the other alternative, of making the Writer the subject to be supplied: so Chrys. , and Thl. , Erasm. (“ sed omnia perdifficile fuerit enarrare vobis, eo quod” &c.), Schlichting , al.: Bleek, De W., Lü nem., al. Then the infin. follows, as ὅπωςἂνὦσινὡςπιθανώτατοιλέγειν , Plato, Gorg. p. 479 gσῆματαυρόπουνὁρᾶν , Eur. Iph. Aul. 275: Γαλάτεια … λευκοτέραπακτᾶςποτιδεῖν , Theocr. xi. 20: and as in our phrase ‘ beautiful to look upon,’ ‘ hard to work upon,’ &c. Bleek (after Storr) and Lü nemann have supposed that a kind of zeugma is necessary to connect λόγος with both predicates, πολύς regarding more the discourse itself and the explanation of the subject given by the Writer,— δυσερμήνευτος , the contents of the λόγος , as thus explained. But it does not seem to me that such a supposition is needed: our λόγος , that which we have to say, is both πολύς , abundant in quantity, and δυσερμήνευτος , difficult to state perspicuously to you, in quality. And so also Delitzsch), since ye are become (not, “ are,” as E. V., Luther (not De W.), al. Chrys. says well, δηλοῦντοςἦν , ὅτιπάλαιὑγίαινονκαὶἦσανἰσχυροί , τῇπροθυμίᾳζέοντες , καὶὕστεροναὐτοὺςτοῦτοπαθεῖνμαρτυρεῖ ) dull (νωθρός , a lengthened and later form of νωθής . It is found as early as Plato, Theæ tet. p. 144 b, but more commonly in the later writers, Aristid., Plut., Polyb., al. See Elsn. and Wetst. Bleek thinks the most probable formation of it is from the negative νη and ὠθέω , as νωδός toothless, νώδυνος painless, νώνυμος nameless, νήπιος from ἔπω , = ‘ in-fans.’ Thus the two words mean, ‘ difficult to move:’ so ὄνοςνωθής , II. β . 559: ὄνωννωθρὸνδέμας , Oppian, Halieut. iii. 140. And so likewise as applied to the soul, Plut. Lycurg. 51 e: νωθρᾶς .… κ . πρὸςἀρετὴνἀφιλοτίμουψυχῆςσημεῖον : and to the senses, Heliodor. v. 10, ἐγὼμὲνοὖνοὐκᾐσθόμην .… τάχαμένπουκαὶδι ʼ ἡλικίαννωθρότεροςὢντὴνἀκοήν · νόσοςγὰρἄλλωντεκαὶὤτωντὸγῆρας . See many more examples in Bleek and Wetst.) in your hearing (more usually the accus., as in the last citation: but frequently in the (local or referential) dative, as e. g. 1 Corinthians 14:20, μὴπαιδίαγίνεσθεταϊςφρεσίν , ἀλλὰτῇκακίᾳνηπιάζετε . See examples in Winer, edn. 6, § 31. 6. ἀκοή is used in good Greek writers of the ear, with however this distinction, that it is of the ear with reference to the act of hearing, not merely as a member of the body. Philo draws the distinction, in ref. It is related to οὖς as ὄψις to ὀφθαλμός : cf. Xen. Mem. i. 4. 11, καὶὄψινκ . ἀκοὴνκ . στόμαἐνεποίησαν : Herod. i. 38, διεφθαρμένοςτὴνἀκοήν : and other examples in Bleek. The plur. here denotes not only the plurality of persons addressed, but also, as in ref. Mark, the double organ of hearing in each person). 12. For though (or, ‘ when:’ but in the presence of διὰτὸνχρόνον , which gives the temporal reference, it is perhaps better not to repeat it) ye ought (see on ver. 3, and ch. 2:17) on account of the time ,” as Schulz: nor “ on account of the present time ,” as proposed (not preferred, as Bl.) by Owen, and given by Braun: nor can we understand it, with a-Lapide, “ pro longitudine temporis, quo tum in lege Mosi, quum in Christianismo estis eruditi.” On the evidence given by expressions of this kind as to the time of writing the Epistle, and the persons to whom it is addressed, see Prolegg.) to be teachers, ye again have need that some one teach you or the accus. plur. neut. . The latter has been taken by our E. V., after considerable authorities: e. g. the Syr.; the Latin attached to D, “ iterum necesse est doceri nos, quæ sint,” &c.; vulg.; Tract. 98 in Joann. (vol. iii. pt. ii.): and indeed most Commentators, including Grot., Wolf, Bengel, Kuin., De Wette, Tholuck, Delitzsch. But the other rendering has also ancient authority for it: Œ c. says, πάλινχρ . ἔχετετοῦδιδάσκεινὑμᾶςτινα . τίδὲδιδάσκειν ; τὰστοιχεῖάφησι . And so Luth., Calv. , al., and Lachmann, Bleek, Ebrard, Lü nem. And indeed it is the only one which will fit either the context, or the construction strictly considered. The context: for it was not loss of power in them to distinguish between first elements and other portions of Christian doctrine, of which he complains, but ignorance altogether, and slowness of ear to receive divine knowledge: and they wanted some one to begin again with them and teach them the very first elements. And so far from τινά , ‘ some one,’ being, as Delitzsch most absurdly says, matt und nichtsfagend, it carries with it the fine keen edge of reproach; q. d. ‘ to teach you what all know, and any can teach.’ Then again, had τινα been interrogative, we should have expected διδάσκεσθαι , or some personal pronoun before διδάσκειν . This is perhaps not altogether certain, in the face of οὐχρείανἔχετεγράφειν , 1 Thessalonians 4:9, where I have retained the rec. (as against the correction ἔχομεν , admitted by Lachmann) and defended it as a mixture of two constructions. Still we have no right to assume such an irregularity where the context manifestly admits the common construction. Cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:1, οὐχρείανἔχετεὑμῖνγράφεσθαι : and reff. The acceptation of τοῦδιδάσκειν as a substantival infinitive (of the teaching) is precluded by ὑμᾶς following) the rudiments of the beginning (so “ prima elementa,” Quintil. Instit. i. 1: Hor. Sat. i. 1. 26: “ prima pueritiæ elementa,” Justin. Hist. vii. 5. The genitive specifies the elements, that they are not only such, but also belong to the very beginning of divine knowledge) of the oracles (λόγιον , properly a diminutive from λόγος , is used both in classical and Hellenistic Greek for an oracle, or a divine utterance. Very numerous instances are given in Bleek from both sources: and such will occur at once to every scholar. See Herod. iv. 178: Thucyd. ii. 8: and reff. Here it betokens that Christian doctrine (cf. ch. 6:1), which rests entirely on revelations from God: as Schlichting: “ doctrinæ Christianæ , quæ nil nisi Dei eloquia et oracula continet” ) of God: and ye have become (persons) having need of milk, and not of solid food . Ver. 13 renders a reason for vv. 11, 12, and especially for δυσερμήνευτος . Having before stated that what he had to say would be hard for him to explain to them, and then that they were become persons needing milk and not solid food, he now proceeds to join these two positions together: For every one who partakes of (in the sense of has for his share, in ordinary feeding: not, partakes of in common with other things, for that adults do: see 1 Corinthians 10:21) milk, is unskilled in the word of righteousness: for he is an infant (that is, ‘ for every partaker of milk, in the metaphorical sense in which I just now used the word, i. e. every one who requires yet to be taught the first principles &c., is devoid of understanding in the word of righteousness, in, that is, the positions and arguments which treat of God’ s salvation by Christ: for he is an infant: takes the same rank in spiritual understanding, that an infant does in worldly.’ Thus taken, I can see no difficulty such as Bleek represents in the contextual connexion. There is of course a mingling of the figure and the thing represented, which however is easy enough to any reader to whom both figure and thing are already familiar. But it is necessary to fix more satisfactorily the meaning of the somewhat obscure expression λόγοςδικαιοσύνης . Chrys. says, ἐσταῦθάμοιδοκεῖκαὶβίοναἰνίττεσθαι · ὅπερκαὶὁχριστὸςἔλεγεν , Ἐὰνμὴπερισσεύσῃἡδικαιοσύνηὑμῶνπλέονκ .τ .λ . τοῦτοκαὶαὐτόςφησιν · ἄπειροςλόγουδικαιοσύνης , τουτέστι , τῆςἄνωφιλοσοφίαςἄπειρος , οὐδύναταιπαραδέξασθαιβίονἄκρονκ . ἠκριβωμένον . Similarly Thl., giving however the alternative that δικαιοσύνη may mean χριστὸςαὐτός . Œ c. says, λόγονδέδικαιοσύνηςλέγειτὸνπερὶτῆςθεότητοςτοῦκυρίου . Thdrt., generally, τὰτελειότεραδόγματα , Primasius, “ Alienus est a discretione perfectæ justitiæ , quia nondum potest penetrare arcana mysteriorum, nec scit, ut expedit, discretionem facere inter bonum et malum.” And so a-Lapide, Bretschn., al. Others, as Beza, Pyle, Storr, Tholuck, al., take δικαιοσύνη of the doctrine of justification before God by faith in Christ: or, as Bengel and Cramer, justification and sanctification as well: uprightness of doctrine and practice. Calvin says, “ justitiæ nomine perfectionem intelligens, de qua paulo post loquitur” (ch. 6:1). Many others take λόγονδικαιοσύνης as = λόγουδικαίου : so Schlichting, Grot., Wahl, Kuinoel, al. Others again have appealed to the Heb. usage of צ ְ ד ָ ק ָ ה for ‘ truth,’ and understood it “ verbum veritatis:” so, with minor differences, Michaelis, Zachariä , Dindorf. Bleek half adopts a hint given by Carpzov, who interprets it of the “ doctrina de sacerdotio Jesu Christi Melchisedeciano, quæ dicitur λόγοςδικαιοσύνης propterea quod Melchisedecus, vi nominis, βασιλεύςδικαιοσύνης vertitur, vii. 2, eaque appellatio ad Christum sacerdotem applicatur, cujus πρέπον fuit πληρῶσαιπᾶσανδικαιοσύνην , Matthew 3:15:” Bleek, however, not accepting the reference in this shape, supposes that δικαιοσύνη is here used as belonging to the whole subject to which Melchisedek, as the βασιλεὺςδικαιοσύνης , also belongs: and that the δικαιοσύνη is that righteousness of which the fulness dwells in Christ, but of which Melchisedek, by his very name, was a type. But to this De Wette justly answers, that it would be very unnatural, to find a reference to an expression which, where it occurs, is not, any more than its cognate βασιλεὺςεἰρήνης , followed up,— and, so far from clearing this passage, itself needs explication. I incline more to Lü nemann’ s view of the meaning, based as it is on the requirements of the passage, in which the stress is not on λόγονδικαιοσύνης , but on ἄπειρος , and λόγ . δικ . follows as something of course and generally understood. Feeling this, he interprets it of the gospel in general: that λόγος of which the central point is, the righteousness which is of God. And he refers to 2 Corinthians 3:9, ἡδιακονίατῆςδικαιοσύνης , and 11:15, διάκονοιδικαιοσύνης . This acceptation would not altogether preclude βασιλεὺςδικαιοσύνης falling under the same general head, and thus would bring the two expressions into union, though without any distinct reference from one to another. Delitzsch, whose commentary I have seen since writing the above, explains λόγ . δικ . “ the capability to speak agreeably to righteousness” (die Fahigkeit, gerechtig-keitsgemä ss zu sprechen), and takes the genitive as one of attribute. But I cannot see how the general context justifies this. It is not speaking, but apprehending, which is here surely required of the readers): 14. but (continuation of and contrast to ver. 13) solid food belongs to (is the portion of) the grown up (so τέλειος often: e. g. Xen. Cyr. viii. 7. 3, ἐγὼγὰρπαῖςτεὢντὰἐνπαισὶνομιζόμενακαλὰδοκῶκεκαρπῶσθαι · ἐπεὶδὲἤβησα , τὰἐννεανίσκοις · τέλειόςτεἀνὴργενόμενος , τὰἐνἀνδράσι : Polyb. v. 29. 2, ἐλπίσαντεςὡςπαιδίῳνηπίῳχρήσασθαιτῷΦιλίππῳ , εὗροναὐτὸντέλειονἄνδρα . The spiritual sense is found in reff.: Thl. says, ὁρᾷςνηπιότηταἑτέραν , ἣνκαὶγέροντεςἔχουσι , τὴντῶνφρενῶν , καὶτελειότητα , ἣνκαὶνέουςἔχεινοὐδὲνἐμποδίζει . Then the qualification of τελείων follows), to those who by virtue of their (long) habit , Bengel : but, ‘ on account of (their) long usage,’ so that ἕξις stands in a causal, not in an instrumental relation to the result. Notice also that διὰτὴνἕξιν is not = δι ʼ ἕξιν , ‘ by virtue of habit’ (abstract),— and that, on account of its position, it belongs not to γεγυμνασμένα , but to the whole sentence) have their organs of sense exercised (reff.) with a view to (so in ref. 1 Tim., γύμαναζεδὲσεαυτὸνπρὸςεὐσέβειαν : see also reff. here. πρός most likely belongs to γεγυμνασμένα , not to the whole τῶν .… ἐχόντων , because of the art. τά , which makes γεγυμνασμένα a predicate, not an epithet. See the very similar passage of Galen in reff.) distinction of good and evil . Chap. 6:1. Therefore (on the connexion, see below) leaving (as behind, and done with; in order to go on to another thing. “ Jubet omitti ejusmodi elementa, non quod eorum oblivisci unquam debeant fideles, sed quia in illis minime est hæ rendum. Quod melius patet ex fundamenti similitudine quæ mox sequitur. Nam in exstruenda domo, nunquam a fundamento discedere oportet: in eo tamen jaciendo semper laborare ridiculum.” Calvin) the word of the beginning of Christ (= ἡἀρχὴτῶνλογίωντοῦθεοῦ above, ch. 5:12: that word, or discourse, which has respect to the fundamental and elementary things mentioned below), let us press on to maturity (φέρομαι in this sense is not uncommon: see Lycurg. in reff.: Xen. Venat. 3. 10, ἄνποθενἀκούσωσικραυγῆς , καταλείπουσαιτὰαὐτῶνἔργαἀπρονοήτωςἐπὶτοῦτοφέρονται : Polyb. v. 26. 6, πᾶσινἄδηλοςἦν , ἐπὶτίφέρεται , καὶἐπὶποίαςὑπάρχειγνώμης . Bleek cites on Valcknaer’ s authority φέρεσθαιἐπὶτὴνφιλοσοφίαν : and in the Pythagorean school our very expression, φέρεσθαιἐπὶτὴντελειότητα , was current. A question of some difficulty has divided the Commentators here: whether this sentence be meant as expressing the resolution of the Writer, as we say, ‘ let us now proceed’ to this or that,— or as conveying an exhortation to the readers. Each view has a formidable array of supporters. On the side of the former are Primasius, Erasmus, Luther, a-Lapide, Grot., Limborch, Wolf, Bengel, Michaelis, al., and Storr, Heinrichs, Abresch, Wahl, Bretschn., Kuinoel, Baumg. Crus., De Wette, Tholuck, Conybeare, al. The latter is adopted by Chrys., Thdrt., Phot., and Gennadius (in Œ c.), Thl. (not decidedly), Calvin, Justiniani, Estius, Jac. Cappellus, Bö hme, Stuart, Bleek, Ebrard, Lü nemann, Hofm. (Schrb. i. 553). Owen tries (and so also Delitzsch) to comprehend both meanings: giving, however, the alternative very lucidly: “ The Apostle either assumes the Hebrews unto himself, as to his work, or joins himself with them as to their duty. For if the words be taken the first way, they declare his resolution in teaching: if in the latter, their duty in learning.” Between these two, both equally legitimate, the context must decide. And in seeking for elements of decision, I own that the alternative seems to me to have been put too exclusively. What I mean will be plain, when we consider on the one hand that θεμέλιονκαταβαλλόμενοι can hardly be properly said of any but a teacher: and on the other, that vv. 4 ff., ἀδύνατονγὰρκ .τ .λ ., must necessarily have a general reference of warning to the hearers. It seems to me that the fact may be best stated thus: The whole is a συγκατάβασις of the Writer to his readers: he with his work of teaching comes down to their level of learning, and regards that teaching and learning as all one work, going on together: himself and them as bound up in one progress. Thus best may we explain the expressions, which seem to oscillate alternately between writer and readers. And thus will διό retain all its proper meaning, which on the first hypothesis was obliged to be wrested: so Schlichting, its advocate, confesses, and joins διό to ch. 5:11. But now it will mean, ‘ Wherefore, seeing that we (you and I, by communication) are in so low a state, babes, instead of grown men, let us,’ &c.): not again laying the foundation κατεβάλετο : Porphyr. de Abstin. viii. 10, οἰκίαςθεμέλιακαταβάλλεσθαι : Galen, Rat. Medendi ix., χρὴγὰροἶμαιτὰθεμέλιατοῖςοἰκοδομήμασινἰσχυρὰπροκαταβεβλῆσθαι : Jos. Antt. xi. 4. 4, εὐθὺςτοὺςθεμελίουςκατεβάλετο : ib. xv. 11. 3, ἀνελὼνδὲτοὺςἀρχαίουςθεμελίους , καὶκαταβαλόμενοςἑτέρους . Cf. 2 Macc. 2:29, ἀρχιτέκτονιτῆςὅληςκαταβολῆς , and see examples also of βάλλεσθαι , in Bleek. It is a curious instance of the occasional singularity and perversity of Ebrard’ s exposition, that he insists here on καταβαλλόμενοι meaning “ pulling down:” Not to dwell on the entire inconsistency with the context, how can one be said καταβάλλεσθαιθεμέλιον , which is in the ground already? The subjects to be supplied to καταβαλλόμενοι are the readers, with whom the Writer unites himself, as above explained) of (the genitives here indicate the materials of which the foundation consists. They are all matters belonging to the λόγοςτῆςἀρχῆςτοῦχριστοῦ : extending indeed in their influence over the whole Christian life, just as the shape of the foundation is that of the building: but to be laid down once for all and not afterwards repeated) repentance from dead works, and faith on God , Œ c. (ibid.), Storr, al. But neither of these meanings is borne out: the former being contrary to usage, the latter far-fetched and unlikely. It is much better to take νεκρός in its common and obvious meaning; dead, devoid of life and power: cf. νεκρὰπίστις , and νεκρὰἁμαρτία in the reff. St. Paul speaks, Ephesians 5:11, in nearly the same sense: cf. τὰἔργατὰἄκαρπατοῦσκότους . And Tholuck cites from Epict. Dissert. iii. 23, 29, νεκρὸςλόγος , in the sense of discourse without convincing power. But such dead or lifeless works again may be variously understood: either of the works of the flesh in the unconverted man, or of the Jewish works of the law which could not give life. Considering the readers and object of the Epistle, it is much more likely that the latter are here meant: those works by which they sought to set up a righteousness of their own, before they submitted themselves to God’ s righteousness. And so, nearly, Delitzsch, and Hofm. Weiss. u. Erf. ii. 166. The best explanation of πίστιςἐπὶθεόν is found in St. Paul’ s language, Romans 4:5, τῷδὲμὴἐργαζομένῳ , πιστεύοντιδὲἐπὶτὸνδικαιοῦντατὸνἀσεβῆ , λογίζεταιἡπίστιςαὐτοῦεἰςδικαιοσύνην . And by this, our expression is defined to mean, full trust, rested on God, that He has fulfilled his promises in Christ: so Wittich, cited in Bleek: “ Fides evangelio adhibita, hæ c fides dicitur ἐπὶθεόν , quia dum evangelio creditur, creditur præ stitisse Deum promissa facta patribus eaque in Christo implevisse.” We may observe, that the genitives arrange themselves in groups of pairs, of which this is the first), 2. of the doctrine of washings (not baptisms: βάπτισμα is generally the N. T. word for both Christian baptism and that of John. In reff., the word is used as here of washing, or lustration with water. On the meaning, see below. Our first question is, respecting the construction. The words are taken in two other ways besides that given above. 1. Some have taken βαπτισμῶν and διδαχῆς as two distinct genitives: so Chrys, (apparently, for he says, εἰγὰρπάλιναὐτοὺςἐβάπτισεκαὶἄνωθενκατήχησε , καὶπάλινἐξἀρχῆςβαπτισθέντεςἐδιδάσκοντοτὰπρακτέακ .τ .λ .), an interp. given in Œ c., … λόγον · ποῖονδὴτοῦτον ; τὸντῶνβαπτισμῶνκαὶδιδαχῆςκαὶἐπιθέσεωςτῶνχειρῶνκ .τ .λ .: and so Cajetan, Luther, Semler, Michaelis, al., and De Wette. But this seems very improbable. The rhythm of the sentence, which in all the other cases has two substantives in a clause, seems to forbid insulating the two words and forming a clause out of each: besides which, a double objection arises from the words themselves; that thus the plural βαπτισμῶν would not be accounted for, and that thus also διδαχή would have to bear a meaning which it is very doubtful if it can bear. 2. The two substantives being taken together, διδαχῆς is made the genitive dependent on βαπτισμῶν ,— those baptisms which were accompanied with διδαχή , in distinction from those other washings, which were not so accompanied. This view is taken by Bengel , Winer (making however the distinction between Christian and Jewish baptism, § 30. 3, Rem. 4, edn. 6), Michaelis, al. Still it cannot be denied that this would be a very strange expression, and that thus the plur. βαπτισμῶν would be more unaccountable than ever, seeing that it would apply to one kind of baptism only, viz. the Christian. As regards the plur. βαπτισμῶν , it has been very variously taken: by some as put for the singular, in which number the Syr. translates it: by Chrys. (to whom Calv. assents), as implying the repetition of baptism involved in the πάλιν ,— τίαὐτὸπληθυντικῶςεἶπε ; διὰτὸεἰπεῖν , μὴπάλινθεμ . καταβ . μετανοίας . εἰγὰρπάλιναὐτοὺςἐβάπτισε , καὶἄνωθενκατήχησε , καὶπάλινἐξἀρχῆςβαπτισθέντεςἐδιδάσκοντοτἀπρακτέα , καὶτὰμὴπρακτέα , διηνεκῶςἔμελλονἀδιόρθωτοιμένειν : by Thl. and Œ c. as pointing to a practice among the Hebrews of frequently repeating baptism (ἴσωςδὲοὗτοιὡςἔτιτοῦνόμουἀντεχόμενοιπολλοὺςβαπτισμοὺςἸουδαϊκῶςκαὶἐντῇχάριτιἐπρέσβευον , Thl.): by others, as referring to the threefold immersion in baptism: by Grot., al., “ de duplice baptismo, interiore et exteriore:” by Thdrt. of the plurality of the recipients, ἐπειδὴπολλοὶτῆςτοῦβαπτίσματοςἀπολαύουσιχάριτος : so Primas., Beza, Erasm. Schmid. But none of these seem to reach the point so well as that given above, which includes in the idea those various washings which were under the law, the baptism of John and even Christian baptism also perhaps included, the nature of which, and their distinctions from one another, would naturally be one of the fundamental and primary objects of teaching to Hebrew converts. This meaning, which is that of Jac. Cappellus, Seb. Schmidt, Schö ttg., Wolf, al., and Bö hme, Kuinoel, Klee, Bleek, Tholuck, al., is strongly combated by Lü nemann, and the insecurity of the consideration arising from the different form of βαπτισμός and -μα is urged on the ground that the Writer never uses βάπτισμα : but against this we may fairly allege that he does use βαπτισμός again (ch. 9:10), and in the ordinary sense of Jewish washings, not in that of Christian baptism. When it is objected to the view (as e. g. by Stuart) that the doctrine of Jewish washings would have had nothing to do with the elements of Christian teaching, we may fairly say that such objection is brought in mere thoughtlessness. The converts being Jews, their first and most obviously elementary instruction would be, the teaching them the typical significance of their own ceremonial law in its Christian fulfilment. It is obvious from what has been above said, that we must not, as Erasm., Calv., Beza, Schlichting, al., understand “ the teaching given as introductory to baptism:” Calvin identifying it with the other genitive terms of the sentence: “ Quæ enim baptismatis est doctrina, nisi quam hic recenset de fide in Deum, de pœ nitentia et de judicio, ac similibus?” ) and of laying on of hands (first, it is almost necessary, on account of the transposed place of βαπτισμῶν , and the coupling by τε , to understand ἐπιθέσεώςτε as gen. after διδαχῆς , and not after θεμέλιον (of the succeeding genitives, see below). And thus the doctrine of laying on of hands, like that of washings, not being confined to any one special rite, will mean, the reference and import of all that imposition of hands which was practised under the law, and found in some cases its continuance under the gospel. By laying on of hands, the sick were healed, Mark 16:18: Acts 9:12, Acts 9:17; 28:8: cf. 2 Kings 5:11: Matthew 9:18 al.; officers and teachers of the Church were admitted to their calling, Acts 6:6; Acts 13:3, 1 Timothy 4:14; 1 Timothy 5:22: Numbers 8:10; Numbers 27:18, Numbers 27:23: Deuteronomy 34:9; converts were fully admitted into the Christian Church after baptism, Acts 8:17; Acts 19:6:2 Timothy 1:6. And there can be little doubt that it is mainly to this last that the attention of the readers is here called, as the Writer is speaking of the beginning of Christian teaching: so Chrys., οὕτωγὰρτὸπνεῦμαἐλάμβανον : and Thdrt., διὰτῆςἱερατικῆςχειρὸςὑποδέχονταιτὴνχάριντοῦπνεύματος . Some have thought that the principal reference is to the laying of hands on the scapegoat as a type of our Lord’ s taking our sins upon Him: but this is unlikely) and of resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment (these words, as well as the foregoing clause, depend on διδαχῆς . This would be evident, were it merely for the sense, seeing that it is not the facts themselves of the resurrection and the judgment which would be laid as the foundation of the τοῦχριστοῦλὁγος , but the doctrine of these, that apprehension and recognition of them consequent on their being taught, as διδαχή implies. And then notice, that these also were points of Jewish doctrine, confirmed and brought into clearer light by the Gospel. Some, as Est., Schlicht., Schö ttg., Michaelis, Storr, al., have supposed ἀναστ . νεκρῶν to refer only to the righteous, as in John 6:39, John 6:40, John 6:44, John 6:54,— κρίματοςαἰωνίου only to the wicked. But it is more probable, in a passage of such very general reference, that the Writer speaks generally, without any such distinction here in view, of the two doctrines: of the ἀνάστασιςζωῆς and the ἀνάστασιςκρίσεως of John 5:29. And it is probable that he uses κρίματος in the same indefinite meaning. Cf. ref. Acts. κρῖμα , properly the result of κρίσις , gradually became in later Greek, as other substantives in -μα , confounded with the process in σις , and the two used convertibly. Our Writer has both: cf. ch. 10:27. αἰωνίου , probably as part of the proceedings of eternity, and thus bearing the character and stamp of eternal: or perhaps as Thl., τουτέστι , τῆςκρίσεωςτῆςαἰώνιαδιδούσηςἢἀγαθὰἢκολάσεις . So Erasm. (par.) and many others). 3. And this (viz. ἐπὶτὴντελειότηταφέρεσθαι , see below) we will do (on the reading, see digest. ποιήσομεν has been variously interpreted, Schlichting, Grot., Wetst., and several others, who suppose (see above) that φερώμεθα expresses the determination of the Writer, take it as referring to the participial clause μὴπάλ . θεμέλιονκαταβαλλόμενοι , and as meaning, “ even this we will do.” But surely this is impossible: first, we have to refer τοῦτο to a dependent clause, not to the whole sentence going before: and even if this could be got over, the μή attached to καταβαλλόμενοι is put aside, and the clause taken as if it were a positive one. Besides which, no convenient sense would be yielded by such a reference. For having asserted on this hypothesis that even the relaying of the foundation should be done, if God will, he goes on to say ἀδύνατονγὰρκ .τ .λ ., which would in no way (see below) fit in to the context. This being so, others, still regarding φερώμεθα as the first, refer the future ποιήσομεν to the φερώμεθα . So Primasius, “ Et hoc faciemus, i. e. et ad majora nos ducemus, et de his omnibus quæ enumeravimus plenissime docebimus nos, ut non sit iterum necesse ex toto et a capite ponere fundamentum:” and Thl., τοῦτοποιήσομεν . ποῖον ; τὸἐπὶτὴντελειότηταφέρεσθαι . And doubtless so a very good sense is given. In favour of ποιήσωμεν , it may be said, that it corresponds better with the hortatory tone of φερώμεθα , and though the less obvious reading, is more in accordance with the style of the Epistle) if, that is , God permit (Œ c., τὸἐάνπεροὐπρὸςτοῦτοεἶπεν , ὡςτοῦθεοῦοὐπάντωςἐπιτρέποντος — ἐπιτρέπειγὰρἀεὶὁθεὸςτὰκαλὰκαὶτέλεια — ἀλλ ʼ ὡςἔθοςἡμῖνλέγειν · — θεοῦθέλοντοςτοῦτοποιήσωμεν . And Thl., better, ἅμαδὲκαὶδιδάσκειἡμᾶςἐντεῦθεν , τὸπᾶντῆςἐκείνουἐξαρτᾶνθελήσεως , καὶμηδὲἐπὶτῶνὁμολογουμένωςκαλῶντῇοἰκείᾳθαῤῥεῖνκ . κρίσεικ . δυνάμει . It may here again be said, that the addition after the hortatory ποιήσωμεν is as delicate and beautiful, as it is frigid in the common acceptation after the indicative ποιήσομεν . For it is God who worketh in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure, Philippians 2:13. And it leads the way beautifully to what follows: ‘ If,’ I say, ‘ God permit: for when men have once fallen away, it is a thing impossible,’ &c.). 4. For (depends on the whole foregoing sentence, including the reference to the divine permission: not as Whitby and De Wette, on μὴπάλινθεμ . καταβαλλόμενοι . The connexion is: we must go on, for if we go back, it will be to perdition— a thing which (ver. 9) we do not think of you, and therefore expect your advance) it is impossible, in the case of (these words I insert, not as belonging to the Greek construction, but as necessary in English, to prevent the entire inversion of the Greek order of the sentence) those who have been (or, were: but the English perfect here represents idiomatically the Greek aorist, ἅπαξ in this clause referring pointedly enough to the time when the event took place. And indeed where there is no such plain reference as in the subsequent clauses, we are in the habit of expressing priority more by the perfect, the Greeks by the aorist. And here it is quite necessary to take our English perfect: for our indefinite past, ‘ who were enlightened and tasted … and were made … and tasted … ’ would convey to the mere English reader the idea that all this took place at one and the same time, viz. baptism,— whereas the participles clearly indicate progressive steps of the spiritual life. These remarks do not apply to cases like that of Act 19:2 f., but only to those where an aorist participle indicates priority to some present action) once (for all: indicating that the process needs not, or admits not, repetition: cf. reff. ἅπαξ occurs eight times in our Epistle, which is oftener than in all the rest of the N. T.) enlightened (Bleek gives a good ré sumé of the usage and meanings of φωτίζειν . It is a word of later Greek, principally found in the N. T. and LXX (reff.). It occurs in Polyb. xxx. 8. 1, τῶνγραμμάτωνἑαλωκότωνκ . πεφωτισμένων , “ taken and brought to light:” xxiii. 3. 10, ἐφώτισετὴνἑκατέρωναἵρεσιν : Arrian, Epict. i. 4, τῷ … τὴνἀλήθειαν … φωτίσαντικαὶεἰςἅπανταςἀνθρώπουςἐξενέγκαντι : Diog. Laert. i. 57, μᾶλλονοὖνΣόλωνὍμηρονἐφώτισενἢΠεισίστρατος . In all these places the sense is to bring to light, or cast light upon. The other meaning, to enlighten, applied to a person, is purely Hellenistic. So in ref. Judg., φωτισάτωἡμᾶς , τίποιήσωμεντῷπαιδαρίῳτῷτικτομένῳ . And the LXX usage is generally simply to teach, to instruct: so in ref. 4 Kings, and ib. 17:27, φωτιοῦσιναὐτοὺςτὸκρῖματοῦθεοῦτῆςγῆς . Here it implies, taught, by the preaching of the word of God. An historic interest belongs to the occurrence of this word here, as having in all probability given rise to a meaning of φωτίζειν and φωτισμός , as denoting baptism, which was current throughout the Church down to the Reformation. Justin Mart. Apol. i. 61, p. 80 says, καλεῖταιδὲτοῦτοτὸλοῦτρονφωτισμός , ὡςφωτιζομένωντὴνδιάνοιαντῶνταῦταμανθανόντων . Chrys. has two κατηχήσειςπρὸςτοὺςμέλλονταςφωτίζεσθαι , in the first of which (vol. ii. p. 228) he justifies the name φώτισμα for baptism by reference to the two places in this Epistle. Suicer (sub voce) gives a full account of this usage, from which it appears that the word never came simply and purely to signify outward baptism, but always included that illumination of the new birth which is the thing signified in the sacrament. So Ps.-Chrys, Hom. on John 1:1, vol. xii. p. 418, βάπτισμαἔχουσιν , οὐφώτισμα . καὶβαπτίζονταιμὲνσώματι , ψυχῇδὲοὐφωτίζονται · ὥσπεργὰρκαὶΣίμωνἐβαπτίσθη , ἀλλ ʼ οὐκἐφωτίσθη · οὕτωκαὶαὐτοὶἀκολούθωςεὑρίσκονται . The Syr. here translates, “ qui semel ad baptismum descenderunt.” And so all the ancient Commentators here, and some of the moderns, as Justiniani, Estius, a-Lapide, Calmet, Hammond, Pyle, Ernesti. Erasmus seems the first who interpreted the word aright , and almost all since have followed him), and (on the coupling by τε see below) have tasted (personally and consciously partaken of: see reff. 1 Pet. and Ps.: and on the general expression γεύεσθαίτινος , note on ch. 2:9) of the heavenly gift , Œ c. , remission of sins: and so Thl., Faber Stap., Erasm. (par.) , Hammond, De Wette, al.: Schlichting , Grot. , Justiniani, joy and peace in believing: Primas., Estius , Michaelis, the Sacrament of the Lord’ s Supper: Owen, Calmet, Ernesti, the Holy Spirit and His gifts: Seb. Schmidt, Bengel, and many more, Christ Himself: Kuinoel, Heinrichs, al., the religion of Christ,— the gospel: Pareus, faith: Klee, regeneration in general as distinguished from the special gifts of the Spirit in Baptism: Bleek and Tholuck, on account of the close coupling by τε to what has preceded, the φῶς itself conveyed in the φωτισμός . But I would rather, considering the emphatic position of γευσαμένους , take, as indeed do Lü nemann and Ebrard virtually (and Delitzsch, referring to 2 Corinthians 9:15), δωρεά to have a perfectly general reference, q. d. ‘ that which was bestowed on them thereby.’ This heavenly gift the persons supposed have tasted for themselves. The τε , in the style of this Epistle and St. Luke in the Acts, cannot be pressed so securely as in ordinary Greek and in the rest of the N. T.: and indeed on this last rendering is fully justified) and have been made (see note on ch. 4:3, for a discussion of the passive sense of ἐγενήθην : which, however true here, must not be too much pressed, so as to emphasize the participle: see below) partakers (see on ref.) of the Holy Spirit (outwardly, the agency would be the laying on of hands after baptism: but obviously the emphatic word is μετόχους — have become real sharers— εἰςἓνπνεῦμαποτισθέντες : so that the proper agent is He who only can bestow this participation, viz. God), 5. and have tasted (see above: γευς . is not emphatic here, as before, but having once borne its emphatic meaning, carries it again, in its repetition. On the government, see below) the good word of God and the powers of the world to come (Bengel, al. wish to establish a distinction here between the senses of the accus. and gen. government by γεύεσθαι . “ Alter partem denotat: nam gustum Christi, doni cœ lestis, non exhaurimus in hac vita: alter plus dicit, quatenus verbi Dei præ dicati gustus totus ad hanc vitam pertinet, quanquam eidem verbo futuri virtutes sæ culi annectuntur.” But thus even Bengel’ s own account of the distinction halts on one foot; and moreover the distinction itself is untenable, witness ὡςδὲἐγεύσατοτὸὕδωροἶνονγεγενημένον , ref. John: this being merely as it would appear a Hellenistic impropriety, not found in good Greek. (Another distinction is made by Delitzsch, h. l., from Kü hner, § 526, Anm. 3, al.; that words of bodily partaking take a gen. in a partitive sense, but an acc. where the object partaken is either considered as a whole, or is designated materially, or as an accustomed means of nourishment. But this also fails in the above instance, however true in general.) Here, as Bleek, after Bö hme, suggests, the acc. perhaps was adopted to avoid the ambiguity which would have arisen, in καλοῦγευσαμένουςθεοῦῥήματος , as to whether καλοῦ agreed with θεοῦ or with ῥήματος . But now, what are the things spoken of? What is καλὸνθεοῦῥῆμα The epithet is frequently applied to the word of God: see reff.: and usually with reference to its quickening, comforting, strengthening power, as sent or spoken by God to men. And in consequence it has been taken here to signify the comforting portion of the gospel, its promises: so Thdrt., τὴνὑπόσχεσιντῶνἀγαθῶν : Est., Schlicht., Grot., Kuinoel, Thol., and many others. Others understand it more generally, as Chrys. , Thl. , Œ c. , Primas., Faber Stapul., Corn. a-Lap., Bengel, al. This latter, or that modification of it which understands by ῥῆμαθεοῦ the wholesome and soul-preserving utterance of God in the gospel, seems to me better than the meaning taken by Bleek, who thinks ῥῆμα to be a personified attribute of God, as λόγοςτοῦθ . ch. 4:12, and the gospel, with its comforting message, an emanation from it, on which the soul feeds. Certainly the passage which he cites from Philo is much to the point: ζητήσαντεςκαὶτίτὸτρέφονἐστὶτὴνψυχὴν … εὗρονμαθόντεςῥῆμαθεοῦκαὶλόγονθεοῦ , ἀφ ʼ οὗπᾶσαιπαιδεῖαικαὶσοφίαιῥέουσινἀένναοι , De Profug. § 25, vol. i. p. 566, said of the Israelites in the wilderness. See also Allegor. iii. § 60 f. p. 121 f., where the manna is said to be designated by the ῥῆμαθεοῦ and λόγοςθεοῦ , with reference to Exodus 16:16, and to Deuteronomy 8:3. It certainly is not improbable that in using the expression τὸκαλὸνγευσαμένουςθεοῦῥῆμα , the Writer may have had in view this latter text, ἐπὶπαντὶῥήματιτῷἐκπορευομένῳδιὰστόματοςθεοῦζήσεταιὁἄνθρωπος : but the supposed personification does not seem to suit the context. Then it is a far more debated question, what is meant by δυνάμειςμέλλοντοςαἰῶνος . Some have said, those powerful foretastes of glory which belong indeed to the future state in their fulness, but are vouchsafed to believers here: so Schlichting, interpreting γεύσασθαι of this foretaste; so Primas., Seb. Schmidt, al. But most Commentators, and rightly, take αἰὼνμέλλων as equivalent to οἰκουμένημέλλουσα ch. 2:5 (where see note), and as designating the Christian times, agreeably to that name of Christ in ref. Isa., πατὴρτοῦμέλλοντοςαἰῶνος . Then the δυνάμεις of this ‘ world to come’ will be as in ch. 2:4, where we have ποικίλαιδυνάμεις enumerated with σημείοιςτεκαὶτέρασιν and πνεύματοςἁγίουμερισμοῖς , as God’ s testimonies to the gospel. Thus they would mean the χαρίσματα , given by the Spirit in measure to all who believed, “ distributing severally to every man as He will.” We need not necessarily limit these to external miraculous powers, or even προφητεία and the like: but surely may include in them spiritual powers bestowed in virtue of the indwelling Spirit to arm the Christian for his conflict with sin, the world, and the devil. The ancients were very uncertain in their exegesis of the words: Chrys., τίναςλέγειδυνάμεις ; ἢτὸθαύματαἐπιτελεῖν , ἢτὸνἀῤῥαβῶνατοῦπνεύματος . And some way on, he says, εἰπὼνδὲΚαλ . γευς . θεοῦῥ . δυνάμ . τεαἰῶνοςμέλλ ., οὐκἀποκαλύπτειαὐτό , ἀλλ ʼ αἰνίττεται , καὶμονονουχὶταῦταλέγει · ὅτιτὸζῆνὡςἀγγέλους , τὸμηδενὸςδεῖσθαιτῶνἐνταῦθα , τὸεἰδέναιὅτιτῆςτῶςμελλόντωναἰώνωνἀπολαύσεωςπρόξενοςἡμῖνἡυἱοθεσίαγίνεται , τὸεἰςτὰἄδυταἐκεῖναεἰσελθεῖνπροσδοκᾶν , διὰτοῦπνεύματόςἐστιταῦταμαθεῖν . τίἐστι , δυνάμειςτετοῦμέλλοντοςαἰῶνος ; ἡζωὴἡαἰώνιος , ἡἀγγελικὴδιαγωγή . τούτωνἤδητὸνἀῤῥαβῶναἐλάβομενδιὰτῆςπίστεωςπαρὰτοῦπνεύματος . Thdrt., δυνάμειςδὲμ . αἰ . τὸβάπτισμαπροσηγόρευσεκ . τὴνχάριντοῦπνεύματος · διὰτούτωνγὰρδυνατὸντῶνἐπηγγελμένωντυχεῖνἀγαθῶν . Photius, ἀντὶτοῦ , ἃδύναταιὁμέλλωναἰὼνἐκμαθόντας , by catechesis, for so he interprets γευσαμένους ), 6. and have fallen away , “ eum sermonem qui nobis se obtulit:” Legg. iii. p. 686, ἔδοξέμοιθαυμαστὸνκτῆμαπαραπεσεῖντοῖςἝλλησιν , “ Græ cis accidisse.” We first find trace of our present meaning in Xenophon, Hell. i. 6. 4, διαθροούντων … ὅτιΛακεδαιμόνιοιμέγισταπαραπίπτοιενἐντῷδιαλλάττειντοὺςναυαρχοὺςκ .τ .λ . Polyb. uses it frequently in this sense, but commonly with a gen. of that from which: so iii. 54. 5, πᾶντὸπαραπεσὸντῆςὁδοῦ : xii. 7. 2, παραπίπτειντῆςἀληθείας : viii. 13. 8, τοῦκαθήκοντος : and xviii. 19. 6 absolutely, τοῖςὅλοιςπράγμασινἀγνοεῖνἔφηκαὶπαραπίπτειναὐτόν . In the LXX it occurs often (reff.) in the ethical sense, and the cognate noun παράπτωμα often in the N. T. It is used here, as ἑκουσίωςἀμαρτάνειν , ch. 10:26, and ἀποστῆναιἀπὸθεοῦζῶντος , ch. 3:12,— see also ch. 10:29, and παραρυῶμεν ch. 2:1,— as pointing out the sin of apostasy from Christ: and the case supposed is very similar to that of the Galatians, to whom St. Paul says, κατηργήθητεἀπὸ [τοῦ ] χριστοῦοἵτινεςἐννόμῳδικαιοῦσθε , τῆςχάριτοςἐξεπέσατε , Galatians 5:4; and ib. 3:3, ἐναρξάμενοιπνεύματινῦνσαρκὶἐπιτελεῖσθε ; The fear was (see Prolegg. § iv. 1) lest these Hebrew converts should cast away their confidence in Christ, and take up again that system of types and shadows which He came to fulfil and abrogate: and nearly connected with this peril was their small progress in the doctrine of Christ. While speaking therefore of that, and exhorting them to be advancing towards maturity, he puts in this solemn caution against the fearful result to which their backwardness might lead), again (πάλιν does not belong to παραπεσόντας , but to ἀνακαινίζειν : the usual place of πάλιν , and the unvarying place in this Epistle, being before the verb to which it belongs) to renew (them) to repentance , Philo , and freq. in LXX. Observe St. Paul’ s usage in reff. The usage of the word, as Bleek remarks, is without reference to any previous existence of the state into which the renewal takes place: e. g. we cannot say here that the perfect state of man before the fall was in the Writer’ s mind. The verb is active, and implies a subject. This by some is made to be the foregoing accusatives, and ἑαυτούς is supplied after ἀνακαινίζειν : so Origen cites it (in Joann. tom. xx. 12, vol. iv. p. 322, ἀνακαινίζεινἑαυτόν in some mss., ἀνακαινισμὸνποιεῖνἑαυτῶν in others): so vulg. , and Erasmus, Vatabl., al. But it is far better, as in the translation, and usually, to make the subject indefinite: “ it is impossible to” &c. “ Instead of εἰςμετάνοιαν , one would expect ἐνμετανοίᾳ or διὰμετανοίας , inasmuch as ὰνακαινίζεσθαι in full measure can only be brought about by μετάνοια , and must therefore be preceded by it. But on the other side, μετάνοια itself, the change of disposition, may be considered as the result of the renewal of the man having taken place: and so it is here: to renew to μετάνοια , i. e. so to form anew, that entire change of disposition precedes.” Bleek. On the very general ancient reference of this to renewal of baptism, see below. It is really marvellous, that such a note as this of Dr. Burton’ s could have been written in England in the present century: “ ἀνακαινίζειν , once more to make them new creatures by baptism, εἰςμετάνοιαν , upon their repentance. Even if they repent, there is no power to readmit them by baptism” ), crucifying as they do (“ seeing they crucify” as E. V. well. The ratiocinative force is given by the omission of the article before the participle, as the demonstrative would be by its insertion. Some ancient Commentators, especially those who refer the foregoing clause to the repetition of baptism, join these participles closely to the verb ἀνακαινίζειν , as epexegetical of it; as indicating, that is, what such a πάλινἀνακαινίζεινεἰςμετ . would be: that it would amount to a new crucifying and putting to shame the Son of God: and they refer to St. Paul’ s declaration, that in baptism is symbolized the crucifixion of the old man with Christ (Romans 6:3 ff.), and understand it thus, that if baptism be repeated, Christ also would appear to be crucified anew. So Chrys., Thdrt., Eulogius (Phot. Bibl. 280, ed. Bekk. p. 538 a), Phot. (in Œ c.), Œ c. , Schol. Matthiæ , Thl., and similarly Faber Stapulensis, Erasm. (par.), Clarius. And so Calvin takes the connexion, even though he does not understand the foregoing of the repetition of baptism: that it is impossible that they should again be renewed to repentance, and their fall from Christ be forgiven them, for that thus God would be again crucifying His Son and putting Him to shame. This Beza also mentions as an alternative . “ But besides that which Seb. Schmidt adduces against the Greek Commentators, that they wrongly assume Christ to be crucified in baptism, whereas it is only our old man that is crucified,— the whole construction is, grammatically speaking, very unnatural; and only tolerable, if the men spoken of, whose renewal is said to be impossible, were not the object but the subject, if, that is, instead of ἀνακαινίζειν we had a passive, or it could be taken intransitively. And since this cannot be done, it is only possible, grammatically, to take the participles as a close specification of the foregoing object, an emphatic setting forth of the grievous offence of which they have become guilty by their apostasy, and on account of which it has become impossible to renew them again to repentance.” Bleek) afresh to themselves (ἑαυτοῖς is not, as some of the Fathers, e. g. Œ c., Thl., ὅσοντὸἐφ ʼ ἑαυτοῖς ,— nor by their means, as Schulz: but is that kind of ‘ dativus commodi’ which approaches very nearly to mere reference, though there never is, properly speaking, a dative of mere reference. So in ref. Gal., δι ʼ οὗἐμοὶκόσμοςἐσταύρωταικἀγὼκόσμῳ . Christ was their possession by faith: this their possession they took, and recrucified to themselves: deprived themselves of all benefit from Him, just as did the unbelieving Jews who nailed Him to the tree. Vatablus’ s “ in suorum perniciem,” approved by Lü nemann, is too strong. The ‘ dativus incommodi’ is only in fact a fine irony on the ‘ dativus commodi,’ and its edge must not be turned by too rough use. Bengel’ s characteristic antithesis, “ ἑαυτοῖς , sibi, facit antitheton ad παραδειγματίζοντας , ostentantes,” is in this case more fanciful than real) the Son of God (for solemnity, to shew the magnitude of the offence), and putting (Him) to open shame . It would be quite beyond the limits of mere annotation, to give any satisfactory analysis of the history of interpretation of this passage, and of the conflicts which have sprung up around it. Such accounts will be found admirably given in several of the Commentators, among whom I would especially mention Bleek and Tholuck; and for the English reader, Owen, who treats it at great length and very perspicuously. I will only mention the most notable points, and set down a few landmarks of the exegesis. 1. The passage was used by the Montanists and the Novatians, in ancient times, to justify the irrevocable exclusion from the Church, of those who had lapsed. Tertullian, de Pudicitia, § 20, vol. ii. p. 1021, cites it as the testimony of Barnabas, and adds, “ Hoc qui ab apostolis didicit et cum apostolis docuit, nunquam mœ cho et fornicatori secundam pœ nitentiam promissam ab apostolis norat.” See other testimonies in Bleek i. § 53, and h. 1. But, 2. in the Catholic Church this view was ever resisted, and the Fathers found in the passage simply a prohibition against the repetition of baptism. So Athanasius expressly, Eph_4, ad Serap. § 13, vol. i. (ii. Migne) p. 563, οὐκἐκκλεῖόνἐστιτῶνἁμαρτανόντωντὴνμετάνοιαν , ἀλλὰδεικνύον , ἓνεἶναιτὸτῆςκαθολικῆςἐκκλησίαςβάπτισμακαὶμὴδεύτερον . And so all the ancients who have noticed the passage, and some of the moderns: see above on φωτίζω . 3. In later times, the great combat over our passage has been between the Calvinistic and the Arminian expositors. To favour their peculiar views of indefectibility, the former have endeavoured to weaken the force of the participial clauses as implying any real participation in the spiritual life. So Calvin himself (“ Hoc (the elect only being truly regenerate) obstare nego quominus reprobos etiam gustu gratiæ suræ adspergat, irradiet eorum mentes aliquibus lucis suæ scintillis, afficiat eos bonitatis suæ sensu, verbumque suum utrumque animis eorum insculpat” ), Beza : so Owen (“ The persons here intended are not true and sincere believers:.… for, 1) in their full and large description there is no mention of faith or believing,” &c.), and recently Tait, Exposition of Epistle to the Hebrews. But all this is clearly wrong, and contrary to the plainest sense of the terms here used. The Writer even heaps clause upon clause, to shew that no such shallow tasting, no “ primoribus tantum labris gustasse” is intended: and the whole contextual argument is against the view, for it is the very fact of these persons having veritably entered the spiritual life, which makes it impossible to renew them afresh if they fall away. If they have never entered it, if they are unregenerate, what possible logic is it, or even common sense at all, to say, that their shallow taste and partial apprehension makes it impossible to renew them: what again to say, that it is impossible πάλινἀνακαινίζειν persons in whose case no ἀνακαινισμός has ever taken place? If they have never believed, never been regenerated, how can it be more difficult to renew them to repentance, than the heathen, or any unconverted persons? One landmark of exegesis then must be, to hold fast the simple plain sense of the passage, and recognize the fact that the persons are truly the partakers of the spiritual life— regenerate by the Holy Spirit. Elect of course they are not, or they could not fall away, by the very force of the term: but this is one among many passages where in the Scripture, as ever from the teaching of the Church, we learn that ‘ elect’ and ‘ regenerate’ are not convertible terms. All elect are regenerate: but all regenerate are not elect. The regenerate may fall away, the elect never can. 4. Again, the word ἀδύνατον has been weakened down to “ difficile” by the ancient Latin version in D, and thus explained by a-Lapide, Le Clerc, Limborch, Pyle, and many others. The readers of this commentary will not need reminding, that no such sense can be for a moment tolerated. And this is our second landmark of exegesis: ἀδύνατον stands immoveable. But let us see where, and how, it stands. It is the strongest possible case, which the Writer is putting. First there is considerable advance in the spiritual life, carefully and specifically indicated. Then there is deliberate apostasy: an enmity to Him whom they before loved, a going over to the ranks of His bitter enemies and revilers, and an exposing Him to shame in the sight of the world. Of such persons, such apostates from being such saints, the Writer simply says that it is impossible to bestow on them a fresh renewal to repentance. There remaineth no more sacrifice for sin than that one which they have gone through and rejected: they are in the state of crucifying the Son of God: the putting Him to shame is their enduring condition. How is it possible then to renew them to repentance? It is simply impossible, from the very nature of the case. The question is not, it seems to me, whether man’ s ministry or God’ s power is to be supplied as the agent, nor even whether the verb is active or passive: the impossibility lies merely within the limits of the hypothesis itself. Whether God, of His infinite mercy and almighty power, will ever, by judgments or the strong workings of His Spirit, reclaim the obdurate sinner, so that even he may look on Him whom he has pierced, is, thank Him, a question which neither this, nor any other passage of Scripture, precludes us from entertaining. There is no barring here of God’ s grace, but just as I have observed above, an axiomatic preclusion by the very hypothesis itself, of a renewal to repentance of those who have passed through, and rejected for themselves, God’ s appointed means of renewal. 5. Another dispute over our passage has been, whether the sin against the Holy Ghost is in any way brought in here. Certainly we may say that the fall here spoken of cannot be identical with that sin: for as Bleek has well remarked, that sin may be predicated of persons altogether outside the Christian Church, as were those with reference to whom our Lord uttered His awful saying on it. It is true, the language used in the parallel place, ch. 10:29, does approach that sin, where he says, τὸπνεῦματῆςχάριτοςἐνυβρίσας : but it is also clear that the impossibility here spoken of cannot depend on the fact of such sin having been committed, by the very construction of the participles, ἀνασταυροῦντας and παραδειγματίζοντας , which themselves render the reason for that impossibility. 7, 8. Illustration of the last position, by a contrast between profitable and unprofitable land. For land which has drunk in (“ γῆ , indefinite: ἡπιοῦσα , defined as to the kind of γῆ meant. So Galatians 2:20; Galatians 3:21; Galatians 4:27: Xen. Hell. i. 10. 1, ἀποτέμνεταιχεὶρἡδεξιά , ‘ a hand, namely, the right.’  ” Delitzsch) the rain frequently coming on it (so far, is the subject of both sides of the hypothesis: and not the word γῆ only. This is necessitated by the omission of the article at ἐκφέρουσα . The E. V., “ But that which beareth thorns” &c., would require ἡδὲἐκφέρουσα . Besides which, the E. V. has neglected the aorist part. here, in rendering, “ the earth which drinketh in.” The drinking in the rain is an act prior to both the hypotheses: the participles which convey the hypothesis itself being present. The verb πίνειν is not uncommonly used of land receiving rain, both in LXX (ref.), and classical writers: as, besides Herod. in reff., Anacreon xix. 1, ἡγῆμέλαιναπίνει : Virg. Ecl. iii. 111, “ sat prata biberunt:” Georg. iv. 32. Here it implies not only that the earth has received the rain, but that it has taken it in, sucked it in, “ being no impenetrable rocky soil, from which the rain runs off without sinking in. And thus it is an appropriate figure for men who have really taken into themselves the word of God, and experienced its power” (Bl.), and so furnishes an explanation of vv. 4, 5, as well as being explained by them. In the interpretation, ὑετός must not be too strictly confined to “ teaching,” as Chrys., Thl., Œ c., but taken as widely as the participial clauses before extend, as importing all spiritual influences whatever. Notice ἐπ ʼ αὐτῆς , not ἐπ ʼ αὐτήν , as we should expect of the falling rain: the gen. being used to indicate that the rain lies and abides over it, not running off, nor merely falling towards, but covering, ready to be sucked in) and brings forth (see reff. and Wetst.) plants , ἡδὲγῆμὴἐκθάλῃβοτάνην ) fit for those (it is a question whether ἐκείνοις depends on εὔθετος or on τίκτουσα . It will be seen that in the instances above quoted εὔθετος is followed by εἰς or πρός and not by a dative. But the construction with a dative is not altogether unprecedented: e. g. besides Luke 9:62, Nicolaus in Stob. Florileg. xiv. 7, οἶμαιδ ʼ ἐμαυτὸνεὔθετοντῷπράγματι , παῖδες , γεγονέναι : and the dative, whether after one or the other, is a dativus commodi, not equivalent, if taken after εὔθετον , to πρὸςἐκείνους , but to πρὸςβρῶσινἐκείνοις . To the sense, it is quite indifferent which connexion we take. The sentence is perhaps better balanced by joining ἐκείνοις with τίκτουσα , τίκτουσαβοτάνηνεὔθετον | ἐκείνοιςδι ʼ οὒςκαὶγεωργεῖται flowing more evenly than τίκτουσαβοτάνην | εὔθετονἐκείνοιςδι ʼ οὒςκαὶγεωργεῖται . The absolute use of εὅθετον need make no difficulty: cf. ref. Ps., προσεύξεταιπρόςσεπᾶςὅσιοςἐνκαιρῷεὐθέτῳ : Diod. Sic. v. 37, κατασκευάζουσινεὔθετοντὴνπρὸςτὰςἐργασίαςπραγματείαν : also ref. Susan.), on whose account , and Luther, Beza , Calv. , Erasm. (par.), al., render ungrammatically, “ by whom,” δι ʼ ὧν or ὑφ ʼ ὧν . It is a curious sign of the scholarship of Owen’ s days, that he says, “ διὰ with an accusative case is not unfrequently put for the genitive.… unquestionable instances of this may be given, and amongst them that of Demosth. Olynth. i. is eminent: καὶθεωρεῖτὸντρόπονδι ʼ ὃνμέγαςγέγονενἀσθενὴςὢντὸκατ ʼ ἀρχὰςΦίλιππος :” as if this were not a strictly normal use of διὰ with the accusative. Tert. and the old Latin version in D, have it right, “ propter quos:” and Œ c. says, γεωργεῖταιδὲδηλονότιεἰςσωτηρίανκ . κέρδοςαὐτῶνἐκείνωντῶνκαρποφορούντων . On the sense, see below) also it is tilled , partakes of (the verb is often used without any necessary reference to others also being sharers: see reff.) blessing from God (ἀπὸτοῦθεοῦ may be joined either with εὐλογίας or with μεταλαμβάνει . It is no objection to the former construction that it is not τῆςἀπὸτοῦθεοῦ : the insertion of the art. would in fact encumber the sentence. And this is the connexion which seems to me the more probable; it has a share in εὐλογίαἀπὸτοῦθεοῦ . So also Delitzsch: Bleek and Lü nemann support the other): but if it bear (Chrys., Œ c., Thl., and some of the moderns, a-Lapide, Grot., al., have drawn a distinction between ἐκφέρουσα and τίκτουσα : ὅραπῶςἐπὶτῶνἀκανθῶνοὐκεἶπετίκτουσαἀκάνθας , οὐδὲχρησίμῳτούτῳὀνόματιἐχρήσατο , ἀλλὰτί ; ἐκφέρουσαἀκάνθας , ὡςἂνεἴποιτιςἐκβράσσουσα , ἐκβάλλουσα . But it has been observed by Elsner, Raphel, Wetst., al. that ἐκφέρειν is a general word for to bring forth fruit: e. g. Herod. i. 193, ἔστιδὲχωρέωναὕτηἁπασέωνμακρῷἀρίστη .… Δήμητροςκαρπὸνἐκφέρειν . And see reff. LXX and other examples in Bleek and Wetst.) thorns and thistles (see reff.), is accounted worthless (‘ reproba,’ ‘ rejectanea,’ tried and found wanting. It occurs in the N. T. elsewhere only in St. Paul, 7 times: see reff. Being thus rejected, it gets no share of God’ s blessing) and nigh unto cursing , of which the end is unto burning. There is considerable doubt both as to the connexion, and as to the interpretation of the sense when obtained. To what does ἧς belong? to γῆς , or to κατάρας The latter is taken by (not Erasm. (par.), as so cited by Bleek: for it runs, “ exsecrationi divinæ : cujus exitus huc tendit, non ut demetatur, sed ut exuratur:” where the passives make it almost necessary to apply “ cujus” not to the curse, but to the land), Camerarius, Bleek, al.: the end, result, of which curse is that it tends to burning. But it does not seem to me that this would have been thus expressed. κατάρας holds a very subordinate predicatory place: and it is hardly likely that it should be taken up again and made the subject of a relative: especially in the presence of such phrases as reff. 2 Cor., Phil., and 1 Pet., in all of which the gen. aft. τέλος is of the finished, not of the finishing. I would therefore, with Chrys. (δηλῶνὅτιἐὰνμέχριτέλουςοὕτωςἐπιμείνῃ , τούτῳ (τοῦτο) πείσεται ), Thl. (οὐκεἶπενἣκατακαυθήσεται , ἀλλ ʼ ἧςτὸτέλ . εἰςκ ., τουτέστιν , ἐὰνκ .τ .λ . as Chrys.), Luth., Bengel, and most Commentators (including Delitzsch), refer ἧς to γῆς . But then, with what view will this ultimate burning take place? Some have said, with a salutary end, as in Virg. Georg. i. 84-93 (“ Sæ pe etiam steriles incendere profuit agros, Atque levem stipulam crepitantibus urere flammis: Sive inde occultas vires et pabula terræ Pinguia concipiunt, sive illis omne per ignem Excoquitur vitium atque exsudat inutilis humor.” See also Plin. H.N. xviii.39 (72)). Strange to say, this meaning is adopted, not by Roman-Catholic Commentators, but by such as Schlichting, Stuart , Dr. Bloomfield, al.: not seeing, except Schlichting, who attempts to repudiate it , that the inevitable conclusion from such an acceptation would be, the existence of purgatorial fire. The reference clearly is, as the whole context and the words ἧςτέλοςεἰς shew, not to purifying, but to consuming fire: as in ch. 10:26, 27, where the same ultimate fear is described as issuing in πυρὸςζῆλοςἐσθίεινμέλλοντοςτοὺςὑπεναντίους . So in Deuteronomy 29:22, Deuteronomy 29:23, the curse of the apostate land is described as consisting in “ brimstone, and salt, and burning; that it is not sown, nor beareth, nor any grass groweth therein, like the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah,” &c. And this destruction by burning is quite according to N. T. analogy: e. g. John 15:6: Matthew 3:10, Matthew 3:12; Matthew 7:19; Matthew 13:30, Matthew 13:40 ff. εἰςκαῦσιν is said by Kuin., Ebrard, al. to be a Hebraism for καῦσις . But this has been satisfactorily disproved by Winer, Gramm. § 29. 3 Remark. Chrys., continuing the same strain as above on κατάραςἐγγύς , beautifully concludes, ὥστε , ἐὰνἐκτέμωμενκ . κατακαύσωμεντὰςἀκάνθας , δυνησόμεθατῶνμυρίωνἀπολαῦσαιἀγαθῶν , κ . γενέσθαιδόκιμοι , κ . εὐλογίαςμετασχεῖν . And so Œ c., Thl., Primas. The stronger Calvinistic interpreters regard ἐγγύς as betokening the near approach of the judgment; as in ἤγγικενἡβας . τῶνοὐρ .; and some refer the whole to the destruction of Jerusalem: so Bengel: “ Strictura prophetica, per paucis annis ante combustam urbem Hierosolymorum. Perditissimi Judæ orum erant, qui in urbe, et circum eam, fidei repugnabant.” 9-20. Encouragement to perseverance: and first (9-12), from God’ s faithfulness: see summary at ch. 5:11. καθαψάμενοςτοίνυναὐτῶνἱκανῶςκ . φοβήσαςκ . πλῆξας , θεραπεύειπάλιν , ὥστεμὴπλέονκαταβαλεῖν , κ . ὑπτίουςἐργάσασθαι · τὸνγὰρνωθρὸνὁπλήττωννωθρότερονἐργάζεται . οὔτεοὖνπάντῃκολακεύειὥστεμὴἐπᾶραι , οὔτεπάντῃπλήττει , ὥστεμὴὑπτιωτέρουςποιῆσαι · ἀλλ ʼ ὀλίγονἐμβαλὼντὸπληκτικόν , πολὺτὸθεραπευτικὸνπροσφέρειδιὰτῶνἐπαγομένων , ὥστεὃβούλεταικατορθῶσαι . Chrys. 9. But we are persuaded (stronger than πεποίθαμεν , which would express only a subjective confidence, whereas πεπείσμεθα gives the result of actual conviction by proof. Notice the almost verbal correspondence of ref. Rom.) concerning you, beloved (“ Apposite eos sic vocat (see reff.) ne putarent eum aliquo ipsorum odio laborare, sed ut scirent eum amore Christiano erga ipsos flagrare: quiamor facit ut semper meliora ominemur iis quos amamus, et si quid severius dicimus, animo corrigendi, non nocendi cupido, dicamus.” Schlichting), the things which are better (the better course as regards your moral state: or, the better fate, as regards your ultimate end. So Chrys., drawing the same distinction, ἤτοιπερὶπολιτείας (ὅτιοὐκἐστὲὑμεῖςτοιοῦτοιἀκανθώδεις , added by Thl.) ἢπερὶἀντιδόσεως (ὅτιοὐκἐστὲκατάραςἐγγύς , οὔτεπρὸςκαῦσιν , ἀλλάτιςἄλληἀντιμισθίαὑμῖνἀπόκειται , added by Thl.) ταῦτάφησιν The latter is most probably the reference, seeing that what follows rests on God’ s ultimate faithfulness and justice in the day of retribution. The former is of course involved in it, as conditioning it. The art. is used, because it is not merely ‘ better things,’ of some sort, that he is persuaded, but, of two opposite courses, that one which is the more excellent), and (things) akin to salvation (the formula ἔχεσθαίτινος , ‘ to be next to,’ ‘ bordering on,’ has occasioned the participle ἐχόμενος to be used in the sense of akin to, partaking of the nature of. This use is frequent in Herodotus, e. g. v. 49, τοῖσιοὔτεχρυσοῦἐχόμενόνἐστινοὐδὲνοὔτεἀργύρου : i. 120, τὰτῶνὀνειράτωνἐχόμενα : cf. also ii. 77; iii. 25, 66; viii. 142. So that Augustine’ s, Erasmus’ s, and Beza’ s rendering, “ saluti adhæ rentia,” is better than vulg., “ viciniora saluti,” or D-lat., “ proximiora saluti.” There may certainly be a reminiscence, in the expression, of κατάραςἐγγύς above, as Schlichting, “ saluti non maledictioni vicina:” but it seems hardly probable, for as Bleek remarks, had this been meant, the Writer would, considering his love for παρονομασία , have used some more cognate expression. On σωτηρία , in the highest sense, eternal salvation, see note, ch. 1:14), if even we do thus speak (εἰκαί differs from καὶεἰ , in that the force of the εἰ extends over the whole of the addition or climax expressed by the καί , ‘ if even:’ whereas in καὶεἰ , the hypothesis itself is included in the climax, ‘ even if.’ See Hartung, Partikellehre i. 139 f. The present enlarges the speaking, so that it refers not merely to what has just been said, but to a habit of thus speaking: βέλτιονγὰρὑμᾶςῥήμασιφοβῆσαι , ἵναμὴτοῖςπράγμασινἀλγήσητε . Chrys.). 10. For God is not unjust, (so as) to forget (first, of the construction, ἄδικοςἐπιλαθέσθαι . Cf. οὐχἑαυτὸνἐδόξασενγενηθῆναιἀρχιερέα , ch. 5:5: it is epexegetic, and designates the act whereby or wherein the quality just predicated would be shewn. The aor. ἐπιλαθέσθαι must not be rendered “ ut oblitus sit,” “ so that He should have forgotten,” as Seb. Schmidt: neither can we say with Kü hner, § 445. 2, that there are infinitives in which all relation of time is lost, and the aor. = the pres.: but the distinction seems to be as in other cases where aorists and presents appear to be convertibly put, that whenever the act is one admitting of being treated as a momentary one, or of being grasped as a whole, the aor. is used: when, on the other hand, habit, or endurance is indicated, the present. This is strikingly shewn in one of Kü hner’ s own examples: Xen. Cyr. v. 1. 2, καλέσαςὁΚῦροςἈράσπηνΜῆδον , τοῦτονἐκέλευσεδιαφυλάξαιαὐτῷτήντεγυναῖκακ . τὴνσκηνήν — here is the whole act: as we say ‘ to keep safe,’ and αὐτῷ binds the office as one solemn duty on Araspes; but below, ib. 3, we have, ταύτηνοὖνἐκέλευσενὁΚῦροςδιαφυλάσσειντὸνἈράσπην , ἕωςἂναὐτὸςλάβῃ , where by ἕωςἄν , the duration of time is introduced, and the habitual present rendered necessary. Here, the whole forgetfulness would be one act of oblivion, which the aor. expresses. There are many places in the O. T. where forgetfulness on the part of God is thus denied: cf. Psalms 9:12, Psalms 9:18; Psalms 10:12: Amos 8:7: or deprecated, cf. 1 Samuel 1:11: Psalms 13:1; Psalms 42:9; Psalms 44:24; Psalms 74:19, Psalms 74:23: Isaiah 49:14 ff.: Lamentations 5:20 al.) your work (i. e. your whole Christian life of active obedience: so ἔργον absolutely in the passage 1 Corinthians 3:13-15; so besides reff., in Galatians 6:4, τὸδὲἔργονἑαυτοῦδοκιμαζέτωἕκαστος . See this work somewhat specified in ch. 10:32-34. It is a general term, including the labours of love mentioned below) and the love (the expressions nearly resemble those in 1 Thessalonians 1:3, from which the τοῦκόπου of the rec. seems to have come) which ye shewed (ἐνδείκνυμαι (see reff.) is used in classical Greek in this same sense, of exhibiting a quality or attribute of character: Aristoph. Plut. 785, ἐνδεικνύμενοςεὔνοιαν : Plut. Cicero, p. 877, πᾶσανἐνδεικνύμενοιφιλοφροσύνην . See more examples in Bleek: and note on Ephesians 2:7. Here, as there, the dynamic middle gives the personal reference: but not here, as there, conscious and predetermined) towards His name , and most Commentators, to suppose εἰςτὸὄν . αὐτ . a Hebraism for ἐν , or ἐπί , τῷὀνόματιαὐτ .: see Matthew 10:41, Matthew 10:42; Matthew 18:20. The ἅγιοι were those who were called by His name, so that beneficence towards them was in fact shewn towards His name. αὐτοῦ refers to God, as the antecedent expressed above: not to Christ, as Ernesti, Stuart (alt.), al.) in having ministered (probably, see ref. and 2 Corinthians 8:4, 2 Corinthians 8:19, 2 Corinthians 8:20; 2 Corinthians 9:1: Acts 11:29, if not exclusively, yet principally, in eleemosynary bestowals. It may hence perhaps be surmised that these Hebrews did not live in Judæ a: see Prolegg. § ii. 15) to the saints, and still ministering (ὅραδὲπῶςθεραπεύειαὐτούς · οὐγὰρεἶπεδιακονήσαντεςκαιἔστη , ἀλλὰπροσέθηκεκαὶδιακονοῦντες , τουτέστι , καὶἔτιαὐτὸποιοῦντες . Thl. There is a fine touch here of that delicate compliment, which is also characteristic of St. Paul. “ Necdum hæ c pietas in vobis cessavit, licet forte remiserit,” as Schlichting: but the Writer leaves the defect to be understood and states the excellency at its utmost. On the Christian doctrine of reward, as declared in this passage, see note in Delitzsch, p. 242). 11. But (the δέ carries a slight reproof, contrasting your need of exhortation to constancy with your past and partially remaining present practice) we earnestly desire that every one of you (πολλὴἡφιλοστοργία · κ . μεγάλωνκ . μικρῶνὁμοίωςκήδεται , καὶπάνταςοἶδε , κ . οὐδέναπαρορᾷ , ἀλλὰτὴναὐτὴνπερὶἕκαστονκηδεμονίανἐπιδείκνυται , κ . τὴνἰσοτιμίανπρὸςπάντας · ὅθενκαὶμᾶλλονἔπειθεδέξασθαιτὸφορτικὸντῶνῥημάτων . Chrys.) do shew (see above) the same diligence , Œ c., Thdrt., Thl., Grot., Limb., al., which would imply that the Writer was satisfied with their state hitherto, and only desired its continuance: an inference at variance with the facts of the Epistle: but, the same, with a view to the πληροφ . τῆςἐλπ . ἄχριτέλους , as they had already shewn with regard to the necessities of the saints. So Bengel, Cramer, Bö hme, Bleek, Lü nem., Ebrard, Delitzsch (doubtfully), al.) with regard to (the employment which this diligence is to find: the object with reference to which it is to energize) the full assurance (so, taking πληροφορία subjectively as in the other places of the N. T. (reff.), Erasm., Vatabl., Calvin, Beza, Estius, Jac.Cappell., Schlicht., Calov., Wolf, Tholuck, Ebrard, Lü nem., Delitzsch,— and many others. And so in fact Thl.: ἵναπλήρηκ . τελείαντὴνἐλπίδαἐνδείξησθεκ . μὴσκυλθῆτε . This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/alfordgnt/ Chap. 7:1-10:18. The High Priesthood of Christ after the order of Melchisedek, set forth in its distinction from the Levitical priesthood:— the new Covenant brought in by Christ, in its distinction from the old:— and the full propitiation wrought by Him, in distinction from the propitiatory sacrifices formerly offered. And herein, 7:1-10. The priesthood of Melchisedek: its nature, as eternal (1-3); as superior to the Levitical (4-10). 1-3. This forms grammatically but one sentence, μένει being the only verb, and the adjectives ἀπάτωρ &c. being only epithets, not predicates. This has been mistaken by Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Beza, al., who supply ἐστι to βασιλεὺςΣαλήμ and the following clauses. The epithetal clauses themselves however have some distinction from one another. As far as Ἀβραάμ , they are merely axiomatic, or historical, referring to matters of fact: after that they are predicatory, introduced and taken for granted by the Writer. For this Melchisedek, King of Salem : and most modern Commentators: among them being Grot., Drusius, Michaelis, Kuinoel, Gesenius, Hitzig on Isaiah 1:1, Von Raumer, Winer (Realw.), Lü nemann, Delitzsch, al. But many others, as Primasius, Jac. Cappell., Whitby, Cellarius, Reland, Rosenmü ller, Bleek, Ewald, al., contend that Jerusalem cannot be meant, because Jebus, and not Salem, was its old name, and Salem for Jerusalem occurs only in Psalms 76:2, a song of late date , and there as a poetical form, for the rhythm’ s sake. A prose writer of the primitive date of Genesis would not be likely to use such a form. They therefore suppose that this Salem was that mentioned John 3:23 as near to Æ non, where John baptized: probably also in Genesis 33:18, where LXX, vulg., and E. V. all recognize ש ל ם as the name of a place, though the Targumists, Josephus, al. regard it as an adjective. The same place seems to be mentioned in Judith 4:4, τὸναὐλῶναΣαλήμ . And for this view, there is very ancient and weighty authority. Jerome, Ep. 73 (126), ad Evagr., vol. i. p. 445, says that he had learned “ ex eruditissimis gentis illius, Salem non, ut Josephus et nostri omnes arbitrantur, esse Hierusalem nomen … sed oppidum juxta Seythopolim, quod usque hodie appellatur Salem.” And he goes on to say, “ et ostenditur ibi palatium Melchisedec ex magnitudine ruinarum veteris operis ostendens magnitudinem.” And Bleek, from whom this notice is mainly taken, argues with some probability that the Writer of our Epistle can hardly have thought of Jerusalem as indicated by Salem, or he would have pressed, not merely the etymology of the name, but all those sacerdotal associations which belonged to the holy city. Similarly Philo, Legg. Alleg. iii. 25, vol. i. p. 102 , though elsewhere (De Somn. ii. 38, p. 691) he urges the sanctity of Jerusalem, and its etymological significance as ὅρασιςεἰρήνης . And this latter view seems to me the more probable. As to the further question, whether Σαλήμ is here, or by Philo, meant as the name of a place at all, see on ver. 2), priest of God the most high (so Genesis l. c., כ ּ ֹ ה ֵ ן ל ְ א ֵ ל ע ֶ ל ְ י ו ֹ ן . The appellation, here and in the O. T., belongs to the true and only God: cf. Genesis 14:19, Genesis 14:22, where in this same history both Melchisedek and Abraham speak of “ the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth.” Philo, in explaining this same office, Legg. Alleg. iii. § 26, p. 103, says, θεοῦγὰρὑψίστουἐστὶνἱερεύς , οὐχὅτιἐστίτιςἄλλοςοὐχὕψιστος · ὁγὰρθεός , εἶςὤν , “ ἐντῷοὐρανῷἄνωἐστὶκαὶἐπὶγῆςκάτω , καὶοὐκἔστινἔτιπλὴναὐτοῦ .” ἀλλὰτῷμὴταπεινῶςκ . χαμαιζήλως , ὑπερμεγέθωςδὲκ . ὑπεραΰλωςκ . ὑψηλῶςνοεῖνπερὶθεοῦ , ἔμφασιντοῦὑψίστουκινεῖ . From the above passages it will appear, that the fact of the Phœ nicians in their polytheism having had one god called ע ֶ ל ְ י ו ֹ ן , Elion, or ὕψιστος , see Bl., De Wette: Philo Byblius in Euseb. Præ par. Ev. i. 10, p. 36, cannot be any further apposite here, than in so far as that one may have been the true God, whose worship still lingered up and down in heathen countries. The union of the kingly and priestly offices in one belonged to the simplicity of patriarchal times, and is found in Abraham himself, who offers sacrifice: cf. Gen_15 and 22. Bleek cites Serv. ad Æ n. iii. 80, “ Sane majorum hæ c erat consuetudo, ut rex etiam esset sacerdos vel pontifex:” and Arist. Pol. iii. 14, says of the heroic age, στρατηγὸςἦνκ . δικαστὴςὁβασιλεὺςκ . τῶνπρὸςτοὺςθεοὺςκύριος . Remember the prophetic announcement Zechariah 6:13, so familiar to every Christian. Our beloved Saviour, as the πατὴρμέλλοντοςαίώνος , restores again that first blessed family relation, which sin had disturbed), who met Abraham (it was, as the narrative in Gen. literally stands, the king of Sodom, who ἐξῆλθενεἰςσυνάντησιν to Abraham: but Melchisedek is mentioned in the same sentence as having brought forth bread and wine, and must be included in the category of those who came out to meet him also) returning from the defeat of the kings (all this from the LXX, which only differs in having, κοπῆςτοῦΧοδολλογομὸρκαὶτῶνβας . τῶνμετ ʼ αὐτοῦ . κοπή in this sense is Hellenistic, as also is κόπτειν used of ‘ defeating,’ ‘ cutting up’ in war. See Palm and Rost’ s Lex.) and blessed him (Gen. ver. 19: see the argument below, vv. 6, 7), to whom also Abraham apportioned a tenth of all δεκάτηνἀπὸπάντων : “ of all,” viz. the booty which he had taken from the kings: so Jos. Antt. i. 10. 2, τὴνδεκάτηντῆςλείας : and ver. 4 below. In the narrative, the whole has the solemnity of a formal act; of sacerdotal blessing on the part of Melchisedek, and recognition of him as High Priest of God on the part of Abraham. And so the Jews: the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan, as cited in Bleek, and Philo, de Abr. § 40, vol. ii. p. 34, ὁμέγαςἀρχιερεὺςτοῦμεγίστουθεοῦ … τὰἐπινίκιαἔθυε . The custom of setting apart the tenth to divine uses, was heathen as well as Jewish: see numerous examples in Wetstein. So far (see the summary above) is purely historical: now follow the inductions from the history: as Chrys., θεὶςτὴνδιήγησινπᾶσανἐνσυντόμῳμυστικῶςαὐτὴνἐθεώρηκεκαὶπρῶτονμὲνἀπὸτοῦὀνόματος ), first indeed being interpreted (i. e. as E. V., “ being by interpretation:” his name bearing this meaning when translated into Greek) king of righteousness ἦνΧαναναίωνδυνάστης , ὁτῇπατρίῳγλώσσῃκληθεὶςβασιλεὺςδίκαιος · ἦνγὰρδὴτοιοῦτος . And Philo, Leg. Alleg. iii. 25, vol. i. p. 103. Bleek remarks, that βασιλ . δικαιοσύνης not only comes nearer to the Semitic form, but is no doubt purposely chosen, inasmuch as Melchisedek is a prophetic symbol of Him who is not only righteous, but the fount and ground of all righteousness before God. Zechariah 9:9: Isaiah 9:7: Jeremiah 23:5, Jeremiah 23:6: Daniel 9:24: Malachi 4:2: 1 Corinthians 1:30), and next also (‘ being,’ not ‘ being interpreted,’ must be supplied. This is plain from the position of ἑρμηνευόμενος after πρῶτον , and from βας . Σαλήμ representing a matter of fact, and the interpretation following) King of Salem, which is, King of peace , without father, without mother, without genealogy (it is very difficult to assign the true meaning to these predicates. The latter of them seems indeed to represent a simple matter of fact: viz. that Melchisedek has not in Genesis any genealogy recorded, by which his descent is shewn (see below). But as to the two former, it cannot well be denied that, while they also may bear a similar sense, viz. that no father and mother of his are recorded in the sacred narrative, it is very possible on the other hand to feel that the Writer would hardly have introduced them so solemnly, hardly have followed them up by such a clause as μήτεἀρχὴνἡμερῶνμήτεζωῆςτέλοςἔχων , unless he had coupled with them far higher ideas than the former supposition implies. I confess this feeling to be present in my own mind:— indeed I feel, that such solemn words as μήτεἀρχὴνκ .τ .λ . seem to me to decide against that other supposition. So far I think all is clear: but when we come to enquire, what high and mysterious eminence is here allotted to Melchisedek, I own I have no data whereon to decide: nor, I think, is a decision required of us. The Writer assigns to him this mysterious and insulated position, simply as a type of Christ: and this type he is merely by virtue of negations, as far as these epithets are concerned: in what he was not, he surpasses earthly priests, and represents Christ: what he was, is not in the record. I would regard the epithets then as designedly used in this mysterious way, and meant to represent to us, that Melchisedek was a person differing from common men. It remains to give, 1. an account of each word used: 2. a summary of the opinions respecting the passage. 1. ἀπάτωρ , ἀμήτωρ occur in two senses: α . of those who have lost father or mother: so Pollux, Onomast. iii. 2. 4: see Herod. iv. 154: Soph. Trach. 300: Eur. Orest. 304: Herc. Fur. 114 f. This clearly has no place here. β . Of those who, with whatever meaning, can be said not to have had father or mother: whether it be meant literally, as where Plato, Symp. 8, calls the heavenly Aphrodite ἀμήτωρ , Οὐρανοῦθυγάτηρ : so ΔίαςἀμάτοροςΠαλλάδος , Eur. Phœ n. 676: and in Pollux, ὁμὴἔχωνμητέραἀμήτωρ , ὥσπερἡἈθηνᾶ , καὶἀπάτωρὁμὴἔχωνπατέρα , ὡςἭφαιστος (according to a legend that he was the son of Juno alone): see many other examples in Bleek:— or improperly, one whose father or mother is unknown, or ignoble— so Ion, Eur. Ion 850, is said to be ἀμήτωρ , ἀναρίθμητος , as being supposed to be the son of a humble slave: and in Horace’ s “ viros nullis majoribus ortos,” Sat. i. 6.10: Cic. de Orat. ii. 64, “ quibus nec mater nec pater, tanta confidentia estis?” (Bl. observes that neither the “ patre nullo” of Livy iv. 3, nor the ὡςἀμήτωρἀπάτωρτεγεγώς of Ion 109 can be adduced here, because in the former case there was a myth according to which the word might be literally used of Servius Tullius, and in the latter the ὡς deprives the words of their true meaning. Delitzsch has quoted ἀμήτωρ as used of Sarah by Philo, de Ebriet. 14, vol. i. 365 f.: Quis Rer. Div. Hæ r. 12, p. 481, “ quoniam ejus mater in sacris literis non memoratur” (Mangey): but this is not correct, for in both places Philo states the reason to be a mystical one, because she was related to Abraham by the father’ s, not by the mother’ s side.) ἀγενεαλόγητος occurs only here in all Greek literature. It can only mean, ‘ without genealogy.’ But this has been variously understood. Corn. a-Lapide says, “ Per genealogiam accipe prosapiam non tam parentum quam filiorum Melchisedech: nam de patre et matre ejus jam dixerat.” “ Dicet aliquis,” says Estius, “ Quorsum addidit, ‘ sine genealogia,’ cum jam dixisset ‘ sine patre, sine matre:’ quæ pars genealogiam satis videbatur exclusisse. Responderi potest, ea parte removeri genus, a quo Melchisedech descendit, id est, majores, non autem genus cujus ipse princeps fuit, id est, posteros ac nepotes. Proinde hujus generis gratia additum esse: ‘ sine genealogia.’ Nam utroque modo genus accipi constat, etiam apud Græ cos, ut et generationem apud Hebræ os. Unde est illud Gen_5, ‘ Hic est liber generationis Adam,’ et cap. x., ‘ Hæ generationes filiorum Noë ,’ et cap. xi., ‘ Hæ generationes Tharæ ,’ cum posteros eorum vellet recensere. Sic quidem Hieronymus hanc partem intellexit, quando cam interpretatur, sine nuptiis, lib. i. contra Jovinianum. Per nuptias enim genus in posteros propagatur. Unde et Martyr Ignatius in Epistola ad Philadelphios Melchisedech recenset inter sanctos qui cœ libem vitam duxerunt.” But this, which would be at the best but a doubtful deduction from the use of “ generatio,” is precluded by ver. 6, in which ὁμὴγενεαλογούμενοςἐξαὐτῶν clearly shews that it was ancestry, and not posterity, which was in the view of the Writer. 2. In giving a summary of the exegesis of the passage, I have made free use of the abundant materials at hand in the commentary of Bleek. The circumstance that Melchisedek is here stated to be ἀφωμοιωμένοςτῷυἱῷτοῦθεοῦ , has led many of the older expositors to regard these epithets as belonging to Melchisedek only in so far as he is a type of the Son of God, and as properly true of Him alone, not of Melchisedek, or only in an improper sense, and a subordinate manner. So Œ c., ὁγὰρτύποςοὐκατὰπάνταἴσοςἐστὶτῇἀληθείᾳ : Schol. Matth., ἀεὶγὰρἡεἰκὼνἀμυδροτέρατοῦπρωτοτύπουπρὸςἐμφέρειαν . Accordingly, they understand ἀπάτωρ of Christ in reference to his Humanity (ἀπάτωρ … ὡςἄνθρωπος , ἐκμόνηςγὰρἐτέχθημητρός , τῆςπαρθένουφημί . Thdrt.), ἀμήτωρ , in reference to his Divinity (ὡςθεός , ἐκμόνουγὰργεγέννηταιπατρός , id.), and so also ἀγενεαλόγητος (οὐγὰρχρῄζειγενεαλογίαςὁἐξἀγεννήτουγεγεννημένοςπατρός , id.). And so Chrys., Œ c., Thl., Marcus Eremita de Melchisedec, § 4 (Migne, Patr. Gr. vol. lxv. p. 1121), Cosmas Indicopleustes (de Mundo v. in Galland. Bibl. Patr. xi. p. 478), Lactantius, Inst. iv. 13, vol. i. p. 482: Ambros. de Fide iii. 11 (88), vol. ii. p. 513 al. And so Corn. a-Lap., Jac. Cappell., Gerhard, Bisping, al. But, however the word ἀπάτωρ might perhaps be conceded to be not unnaturally applied to Christ in virtue of his Humanity, the words ἀμήτωρ and ἀγενεαλόγητος lie so far off any obvious application to his Divinity, that we may safely say this view could not well have been in the Writer’ s mind. See further reasons, on the words ἀφωμ . δὲτῷυἱ . τ . θεοῦ below, for applying these epithets to Melchisedek, and not to Christ. But when they are so applied, we are met by two widely divergent streams of opinion, partly hinted at in the explanation of the rendering given above. The one of these regards Melchisedek as a superhuman being: the other finds nothing in this description which need point him out as any thing beyond a man. Jerome (see Ep. ad Evagr., vol. i. p. 440 ff.) had received from Evagrius an anonymous work (which in all probability was the “ Quæ stiones in V. et N. Test.,” by Hilarius the deacon), in which the “ quæ stio famosissima super Pontifice Melchisedec” was treated, and the writer tried to prove him “ divinioris naturæ fuisse, nec de hominibus æ stimandum: et ad extremum ausus est dicere, Spiritum Sanctum occurrisse Abrahæ , et ipsum esse qui sub hominis figura visus sit.” This strange opinion moved Jerome “ revolvere veterum libros, ut videret quid singuli dicerent.” And he found that Origen, in his 1st Hom. on Genesis (now lost), maintained him to have been an angel, as did Didymus the follower of Origen. Then he examined Hippolytus, Eusebius of Cæ sarea, and Eus. of Emesa, Apollinarius, Eustathius of Antioch, and found that all these held him to have been a man of Canaan, King of Jerusalem, and endeavoured to prove it in different ways. He then mentions the opinion of the Jews, that Melchisedek was Shem, the eldest son of Noah; and gives their calculation that this may well have been, for Shem survived Abraham forty years. On this he pronounces no opinion. The view, that Melchisedek was the Holy Ghost, was also entertained by Hieracas the Egyptian, and by a branch of the Theodotian heretics, founded by a younger Theodotus (Epiphan. Hæ r. lv. vol. i. pp. 468 ff.: de Hæ r. c. 34, vol. viii.), and called Melchisedekites: and Marcus Eremita (cir. 400), who wrote a treatise on M., mentions heretics who believed him to be ὁθεὸςλόγος , πρὶνσαρκωθῆναιἢἐκΜαρίαςγεννηθῆναι . This opinion Epiphanius, Hæ r. Lev_7, mentions as held by some within the Church: and Ambrose, from his remarks, De Mysteriis ch. 8 (46), vol. ii. p. 337: De Sacram. iv. 3 (12), p. 368 f.: De Abrahamo i. 3 (16), vol. i. p. 288, seems to have held this: though, De Fide as above, he expressly states him to have been merely a holy man, a type of Christ. This last view was ever the prevalent one in the Church. Cyr.-alex., Glaphyr. ii. vol. ii. pp. 46 ff., combats the two opinions that Melchisedek was a vision of the Holy Spirit, and that he was a great angel. In later times the idea that he was the Son of God was revived by Molinæ us (Vates, iv. 11 f.), by Cunæ us (cited above), by Hottinger (De Decimis Judæ orum, p. 15), Gaillard (M. Christus Unicus Rex Pacis, Ludg. Bat. 1686), and others. The theory that he was Shem has found many advocates: Lyra, Cajetan, Luther (on Gen_15), Melanchthon, Chemnitz, Gerhard, Selden (De Decimis, § 1), al. Jurieu (Histoire Crit. i. 10) believes him to have been Ham; Hulse (M. una cum Parente e Tenebris emergens, Lugd. Bat. 1706) and Calmet (Dissert. ii. pp. 271 f.), to have been Enoch reappearing on earth. Bleek refers, besides the above, for the general subject, to Deyling, Observv. Sacræ p. ii. pp. 71-87 (edn. 3, Lips. 1733): Fabricii Cod. Pseudepig. O. T. pp. 311-314 (edn. 2, 1722): Calmet, Bibl. Biblioth. pt. iv., where many dissertations are mentioned. A theory which identified Melchisedek with Job is mentioned by Wolf, Curæ Phil. in loc., and has recently been revived by Mr. Galloway, in his work, Egypt’ s Record of Time), having neither beginning of days nor end of life , Camero, Schlicht., Wittich, al., take ἀρχήν for the beginning of his sacerdotal life: others as Camero, Seb. Schmidt, Limborch, Schleusner, Kuinoel, take τέλος also for the end of his priestly life: “ Nullus ante eum defunctus est sacerdotio cui ipse deinde successit.… nullus commemoratur ei successisse in sacerdotio: qua in re typus fuit Christi,” Camero. But however ζωῆςτέλος may be legitimately thus referred, seeing that his priesthood and his life would expire together, ἀρχὴνἡμερῶν can hardly be understood of any thing but his natural life, especially as following ἀπάτωρ , &c., and in the presence of the general biblical usage of αἱἡμέραιτινός as a man’ s lifetime. Accordingly most expositors take the words in this their natural sense and interpret them as above. So Chrys. on Psa_110 § 8, vol. v. p. 277, οὔτεἀρχὴνοὖνἡμερῶνφαίνεταιἔχωνοὔτεζωῆςτέλοςὁΜ ., οὐτῷμὴἔχειν , ἀλλὰτῷμὴγενεαλογηθῆναι · ὁδὲἸησοῦς … τῷκαθ ʼ ὅλονμὴεἶναιἐπ ʼ αὐτοῦἀρχὴνχρονικὴνμηδὲτέλος · τὸμὲνγὰρἦνσκιά , τὸδὲἀλήθεια . Similarly Thdrt.: Eranistes, Dial. ii. vol. i. p. 88 f.: Cyr.-alex. Glaph. ii. p. 63: Primasius, who ends, “ neque enim sub quo natus est Melchisedek legitur, neque quando mortuus est narratur, sed subito introducitur sicut et Elias.” Again however no one, I think, can help feeling that such an interpretation is in fact no worthy acceptation of these solemn words of the sacred Writer. The expressions become incomparably more natural, as Bleek says, if the Writer really meant that M. had not, as mortal men, a definite beginning and end of his life. It really would seem to me almost childish, to say thus solemnly of any whose acts were related in the O. T., but whose birth and death were not related, that they had neither beginning of days nor end of life. Suppose e. g. such a thing were said of Hobab, father-in-law of Moses. Here again Delitzsch, who takes strongly the other view, quotes from Philo an expression respecting Cain which he supposes analogous: ὁΚαῒνοὐκἀποθανεῖται , τὸκακίαςσύμβολον , ἣνἀεὶδεῖζῆνἐντῷθνητῷγένειπαρ ʼ ἀνθρώπους . But surely it is hardly legitimate to conclude that, because Philo means only thus much, the Writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews means no more), but (yea, rather) likened to the Son of God (ἀφομοιόω (reff.) is a classical word. Plato, Rep. ii. 382 d, ἀφομοιοῦντεςτῇἀληθεῖτὸφεῦδες : al. in Bl. Aristot. Polit. i., τὰεἴδητῶνθεῶνἑαυτοῖςἀφομοιοῦνταιοἱἄνθρωποι . This clause stands alone and pendent, like the preceding, and must not be taken with μένειἱερεὺςεἰςτὸδιηνεκές , as Syr. (“ sed in similitudinem filii Dei manet sacerdos in æ ternum:” “ but in the likeness of the Son of Aloha standeth his priesthood for ever.” Etheridge’ s version), Schlichting (“ assimilatus filio Dei, i. e. illic ubi comparatus est cum Christo. Non enim usquam Scriptura de Melchisedeco seorsim et expresse dixit, eum manere sacerdotem in perpetuum: sed tantum in comparatione cum Christo, in illis nempe verbis de Christo positis, Tu es Sacerdos” &c.). To this there are three objections: 1. it would be extremely unnatural to say that from a text where it is said that the Son of God is a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek, Melchisedek himself derives the character of remaining a priest for ever: 2. it would be but a poor way of proving the eternal priesthood of Christ, to shew that He is a priest after the order of one who only appeared to have, but really had not, such eternal priesthood: and 3. it is clearly not in respect of priesthood that the ἀφομοίωσις is here meant, but in respect of the foregoing predicates: for it is as to these only that the Son of God would be an archetype for Melchisedek, seeing that, in respect of priesthood, Melchisedek was chronologically prior to our Lord. So Thdrt., τούτουχάριν (in reference to the ἀΐδιοςγέννησις and the ἀθάνατοςφύσις of the Son of God) οὐτὸνδεσπότηνχριστὸντῷΜελχισεδὲκἀφωμοίωσεν , ἀλλὰτὸνΜ . τῷχριστῷ · ἐκεῖνοςγὰρτούτουτύπος , οὗτοςδὲτοῦτύπουἡἀλήθεια · ἐνμέντοιτῇἱερωσύνῃ , οὐΜελχισεδὲκμεμίμηταιτὸνδεσπότηνχριστόν , ἀλλ ʼ ὁδεσπότηςχριστὸςἱερεὺςεἰςτὸναἰῶνακατὰτὴντάξινΜελχισεδέκ , in loc.: so also Eranistes, Dial. ii. vol. i. p. 88. These very words shew that the Writer does not regard Melchisedek as an appearance of the Son of God: and are so adduced by Epiphan. Hæ r. Lev_7, p. 474: οὐγάρτιςἑαυτῷὅμοιοςγενήσεταίποτε . The sense is then that Melchisedek, in being ἀπάτωρἀμήτωρἀγενεαλόγητος , μήτεἀρχὴνἡμερῶνμήτεζωῆςτέλοςἔχων , personally, not typically, resembles the Son of God— in his personal attributes, as the Son of God subsequently in His incarnation, resembled him in His priesthood), remaineth priest for ever (εἰςτὸδιηνεκές = εἰςτὸναἰῶνα above, ch. 6:20: and see reff. The expression is one which must be interpreted in each case by the context in which it occurs. Thus Sylla and Cæ sar were chosen dictators εἰςτὸδιηνεκές , “ dictatores perpetui,” that is, for life: Appian, B. C. i. p. 682. But that is no reason why here, where an eternal priesthood is in question, it should mean for life: indeed such meaning would be absurd, seeing that all were priests for life. In that case too, we should not have the present μένει . All kinds of ways have been devised to escape the plain assertion of these words. Most Commentators have had recourse to the same as before, viz. that no end of his priesthood is related to us in Scripture: so Œ c., Thl., Cyr.-alex., Epiphan., and many moderns. Schlichting takes it, that as our Lord’ s High Priesthood, which is said to be eternal, will endure to that time when the high-priestly office will cease, so Melchisedek’ s priesthood is said to endure for ever, “ quod et sacerdotium per longum aliquod temporis spatium egerit, et cum ipso veri Dei cultus et notitia inter homines illos extincta fuerit, ita ut sacerdotio, quod quidem vero Deo dicatum foret, nullus inter eos relictus esset locus. In æ ternum enim aliquid durare dicitur, quod et per longum tempus durat, et tamdiu duret quamdiu natura ipsius rei patitur. Sic David Deum so in æ ternum laudaturum dixit,” &c. Stier says, “ He stands in Scripture as a type of an eternal priest:” but the question here is not of type, but of fact. Tholuck, “ He remains, in so far as the type remains in the antitype, in so far as his priesthood remains in Christ,” after Primas., , Thos. Aq. But thus type and antitype are hopelessly confounded. Christ is to be proved to be a High Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek. Can we conceive then that the Writer, in setting forth what the order and attributes of Melchisedek are, should go back to Christ to find them? Again, to shew to what shifts interpreters have been reduced here, Jac. Cappellus, Pyle, Peirce, and Storr, actually understand ὅς before μένει , and construe, “ made like to the Son of God, who abideth” &c. Every thing shews that which has been maintained all through this difficult passage, that the assertions are made, and this chief one is above all made, simply of Melchisedek, and they are, as matters of fact, inferred and laid down by the sacred Writer from the historic notices of him. What further inference lies from such dignity being here put on Melchisedek, is not, as I before said, for us to enquire: certainly, none which can in any way interfere with Christ’ s eternal and sole priesthood, can be correct. It is one of those things in which we must not be wise above that which is written, but must take simply and trustingly the plain sense of our Bibles on a deep and mysterious subject, and leave it for the day when all shall be clear, to give us full revelation on the matter. See on the whole, Bleek’ s long and interesting note, to which I must again acknowledge my obligations, and with which in the main I agree, against most expositors, and among them De Wette, Tholuck, Lü nemann, Ebrard, and Delitzsch). 4-10. See summary at ver. 1. The Melchisedek priesthood greater than the Levitical, shewn by the fact that Melchisedek received tithes of Abraham and blessed him (4-8), and potentially, in Abraham, Levi (9, 10). 4. But observe (some take θεωρεῖτε indicative, but the imperative seems far better, both with regard to the sense of the verb, and the requirements of the context. The δέ also tends to sharpen up the verb. The distinction between θεωρέω and ὁράω , as behold and see, is, it is true, not always observed (see Luke 24:39: John 4:19; John 12:19: Acts 17:22), still less that laid down in Phavorinus, ὁρῶμὲνἐπὶσώματος , θεωρῶδὲἐπὶψυχῆς : but where the context plainly allows of the distinction, it ought to be borne in mind: so Demosth. p. 19. 23, θεωρῶνκαὶσκοπῶνεὑρίσκω : 93. 9, θεωρεῖτεγὰρτὸπαρὸνπρῶτονὃγίνεται : Ceb. Tab. 38, σὺτοίνυνοὕτωθεώρησον : and other examples in Bleek) how great (‘ quantus qualisque,’ of what dignity and personal excellence) this man (was) (let it be noticed that the argument still puts forward the personal dignity of Melchisedek, in a way quite inconsistent with the commonly received interpretation of the predicates above), to whom Abraham paid tithes also (went so far as to pay tithes, the καί belonging to δεκάτηνἔδωκεν , and of these, rather to δεκάτην , separated as it is from its verb), from the best (of the spoil) it was the tithe), the patriarch (added at the end of the sentence to emphasize the title: ‘ and he, the illustrious patriarch:’ οὐχὁτυχὼνἄνθρωπος , ἀλλ ʼ ὁἈβραάμ , ὁτοσοῦτος , ὁπατριάρχης · οὐκἀλόγωςγὰρτὸπατριάρχηςπροσέθηκεν , ἀλλ ʼ ἵν ʼ ἐξάρῃτὸπρόσωπον . Thl. Tholuck has noticed the full rhythm of the word itself, as forming the foot called Ionicus a minore, with which, and the Pæ on tertius, orators love to end their sentences. “ The word πατριάρχης is Hellenistic: formed from ἀρχή and πατριά , the last in the Hellenistic sense denoting single families and lines of descent, the minor subdivisions of races. It is often found in the LXX version of the Chronicles for the heads of these families. Later however it was used to signify also the head and originator of a race; in Acts 7:8, Acts 7:9, it is used of the twelve sons of Jacob, as heads of the tribes; in 4 Macc. 7:19, of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; in Acts 2:29, of David.” Bleek). 5. Continuation of ver. 4, setting forth the reason of the πηλίκος . And (‘ et quidem:’ the E. V. “ and verily,” is rather too strong) they of the sons of Levi who receive the priesthood have commandment to take tithes of (δεκατεύω is the Greek form, -όω the Hellenistic. See reff.) the people according to the law (the words κατὰτὸννόμον have been joined by Seb. Schmidt, Hammond, al., to τὸνλαόν : “ the (people according to law):” i. e. either God’ s people, who were under the law, or those who according to the law were the λαός , in distinction from the priests and Levites, as οἱδὲἱερεῖςκαὶὁλαός , Exodus 19:24. But, though an article after λαόν would not be, as commonly supposed, absolutely required in such a construction (witness οἱνεκροὶἐνχριστῷ , τοῖςκυρίοιςκατὰσάρκα , and the like), yet it is difficult to imagine the construction without it here. Bleek would refer the words to ἐντολὴνἔχουσιν , justifying it by ch. 9:19, λαληθείσηςγὰρπάσηςἐντολῆςκατὰτὸννόμονὑπὸΜωυσέως , where however it is far better to join it with λαληθείσης . If it there belonged to πάσηςἐντολῆς , we should certainly expect either τῆς , or τῶν , κατὰτὸννόμον . The commandment referred to, on the ordinary construction of the first words of the verse would be Numbers 18:20-32. But it seems more natural to understand those first words as I have given them in the alternative there, and then κατὰτὸννόμον falls into its place easily: ‘ Those of the sons of Levi, when they are invested with the priesthood, receive commandment to tithe the people according to the law.’ On the ways in which the right of tithe was understood at different times, and how it became at length attached to the priesthood only, see Bleek’ s note), that is, their brethren, though come out of the loins of Abraham (the formula ἐξέρχεσθαιἐκτῆςὀσφ . for to spring from, as an ancestor, is only Hellenistic, arising from the rendering by the LXX of the Heb. י ָ צ ָ א מ ֵ ח ַ ל ְ צ ֵ י , as in reff. Compare ἐκτῶνπλευρῶνσου , 3 Kings 8:19; ἐκτῶνμηρῶναὐτοῦ , Genesis 46:26. The meaning is very difficult to assign. Certainly it cannot be as Bleek, after Bö hme, “ Abrahamidas quidem, sed fratres tamen:” for this quite reverses the τουτέστιν and καίπερ . I take this to be intended: by the first clause, τουτέστιντοὺςἀδελφοὺςαὐτῶν , that the Levitical tithe right was all within the limits of one race, a privilege ‘ de Abrahamide in Abrahamidem,’ and therefore less to be wondered at, and involving less difference between man and man, than the tithe right of Melchisedek over Abraham, one of different race, and indeed over all his progeny with him. Then the second clause, καίπερἐξεληλυθόταςἐκτῆςὀσφύοςἈβρ ., is inserted to shew the deep subjection of the ordinary Abrahamid to the Melchisedek priesthood, seeing that, notwithstanding his privilege of descent, he was subjected to his own priest, his brother, who in turn paid tithes in Abraham to Melchisedek). 6. But (apodosis to μέν , ver. 5), he whose pedigree is never (see below) reckoned from them (contrast— οἱἐκτῶνυἱῶνΛευεί ,— ὁμὴγενεαλογούμενοςἐξαὐτῶν : also speaking for the connexion above advocated in ver. 5. The present part. gives the sense, ‘ who is not in the habit of having his genealogy made out’ … , whose descent no one thinks of deducing. This is also indicated by the subjective μή . Had it been οὐ (as οἱοὐκἠλεημένοι , 1 Peter 2:10) it would denote the mere matter of fact,— ‘ of whom no such genealogy exists.’ This is better than with Winer, edn. 6, § 55. 5, to regard the μή as only a stronger form of negation. The verb is good Greek: the Egyptian priests in Herodotus, Ἑκαταίῳγενεηλογήσαντιἑωϋτὸν .… ἀντεγενεηλόγησανκ .τ .λ ., ii. 143, see also ib. 146; and in Xen. Symp. iv. 51, we have γενεαλογοῦσιτὴνσυγγένειαν . ἐξαὐτῶν , viz. τῶνυἱῶνΛευεί : not as Epiphan. Hæ r. lxvii. 7, p. 716, a-Lapide, al., τῶνυἱῶνἸσραήλ , nor as Grot., from Levi and Abraham: and it means ‘ from them,’ i. e. their line of descent) hath taken tithes of Abraham (not took, aor. The sentence is cast into this form, because of the enduring nature of the office and priesthood of Melchisedek, which is given by the perfect tense. Doubtless the perfect might be used without any such reference, meaning, ‘ as the fact now stands:’ indicating, as Winer, § 40. 4, that the fact endures in its significance: see below, ver. 9: but considering the connexion here, I prefer supposing it to have been intended) and hath blessed the possessor of the promises (Klee would urge the present sense of the participle; “ him who now possesses the promises;” but there seems to be no necessity for this. I should rather take ὁἔχωντὰςἐπαγ . for a quasi-official designation of Abraham (see on ch. 6:12) as the possessor of the promises. As to the sense, Œ c. has well expressed it: ἐξῆρετὸνἈβραάμ , ἵναπλεῖονἐξάρῃτὸνΜελχισεδέκ ): 7. and (our English ‘ and’ is the nearest to this use of δέ , which is a faint ‘ but,’ introducing merely a new proposition. Were it not in the middle of a sentence, ‘ now’ after a period would best give its sense) without all controversy (πάντεςδὲκοινῶςκαὶἀναντιῤῥήτωςοἴδαμεν . Thl. See on ch. 6:16), the less is blessed by the better (the neuters here serve entirely to generalize, as in τὸκατέχονοἴδατε , 2 Thessalonians 2:6, taken up by ὁκατέχων , ver. 7: see reff.; and Winer, § 27. 5. So Thuc. iii. 11, τὰκράτισταἐπὶτοὺςὑποδεεστέρουςξυνεπῆγον : Xen. Anab. vii. 3. 11. On κρείττων , see note, ch. 1:4. It is obvious that the axiom here laid down only holds good where the blessing is a solemn and official one, as of a father, or a priest: as was the case here. In such cases the blesser stands in the place of God, and as so standing is of superior dignity). 8. Second item of superiority, in that M.’ s is an enduring,— the Levitical a transitory priesthood. And here indeed (ὧδε , ‘ ut res nunc se habent:’ the Levitical priesthood being still in existence in the Writer’ s time: οἱμὲνγὰρὧδε , τουτέστιν , ἐντῷνόμῳλαμβάνοντεςδεκάτας . Thl.) men who die (ἀποθν . first for emphasis as bringing out the point of the argument: but there is also a secondary emphasis on ἄνθρωποι : men, who die. Otherwise it need not have been expressed: see below) receive tithes (plur. as we also use the word, signifying the different sorts of tenths taken of different things): but there (ἐκεῖδέ , τουτέστινἐντῷκατὰΜελχισεδὲκπράγματι , Thl.), one of whom it is testified (ἄνθρωπος is not again expressed, nor is it to be supplied. The mysterious character of Melchisedek is still before the Writer. It is hardly needful to say that Christ cannot be meant, as Justiniani, Jac. Cappellus, Heinsius, and Pyle have imagined. This passive sense of μαρτυροῦμαι (reff.) is unknown in classical Greek. The testimony meant is certainly that of scripture; probably, that in Psalms 110:4, where an eternal priesthood, and therefore duration, is predicated of Melchisedek. So Thdrt., Bleek, al. It cannot well be, as Calv., Est., Drusius, Grot., Wolf, Bengel, Bisping, al., the mere negative fact of his death not being recorded, which would not amount to a testimony that he lives: and it is improbable that in so express a word as μαρτυρούμενος the Writer should, as Bö hme, al. imagine, intend to combine both the positive testimony and the inference from the omission) that he liveth (this clearly cannot be interpreted of the priesthood of Melchisedek enduring, as Œ c.: ἢἁπλούστερονδέξαιτὸεἰρημένον , ὅτιὁτρόποςτῆςἱερωσύνηςτῶνμὲνΛευΐτων , ἀποθνήσκει · καὶγὰρἐπαύσατο , τῆςἀληθείαςφανείσης · ὁδὲτοῦΜελχισεδὲκζῇ · ζῇγάρ : for what is here said is eminently personal, and that Melchisedek himself is meant, is shewn by the historical reference to the fact of his receiving tithes of Abraham. As Bleek well remarks, if ἀποθνήσκοντες applies personally to the sons of Levi, ζῇ must also apply personally to Melchisedek). 9. The Jew might reply, that it was nothing to him, if Abraham paid tithes to Melchisedek: for Abr. was no priest, and therefore paid tithes naturally to a priest: the Writer therefore proceeds to a third proof, shewing that in Abraham even Levi himself, the patriarch of the Jewish priesthood, paid tithes. So Chrys., Thdrt. And so to speak , Erasm., Luther, Beza, Schlichting, Grot., and most Commentators. Bleek has gone into both these meanings, and proved by many examples that either is legitimate. Both in fact run into one. The phrase is used when any thing is about to be said that is unexpected, or somewhat strained, not likely to be universally recognized, at least in the general way in which it is asserted. So sometimes it is used for ‘ roughly,’ ‘ improperly’ — Plato, Legg. ii. 656 e, μυριοστὸνἔτος .… οὐχὡςἔποςεἰπεῖνμυριοστόν , ἀλλ ʼ ὄντως . So that it may be here regarded as introducing and softening a strong saying: as Thl. above) by means of Abraham (Ἀβρ . is genitive, not accusative, as Aug. de Genesi ad lit. x. 19 (34), vol. iii. pt. ii., “ propter Abraham,” and Phot. ) Levi also, who receiveth tithes (who is the head and representative of the tithe-taking tribe. Indeed the name here is almost a collective one, the personal reference being taken up in the next clause), hath been taken tithes of (on the perfect, see above, ver. 6): 10. for he was yet in the loins of his father (i. e. his forefather, Abraham: for Isaac was not yet born, much less Jacob. But we need not hence understand τοῦπατρός to mean “ the patriarch,” as, strange to say, Bleek does. On the expression cf. ver. 5) when Melchisedek met him , which have been raised on this proof, see Bleek, Ebrard, and Owen. It may fairly be replied to one of them, whether Christ also did not pay tithe in Abraham, that He never was in the loins of an earthly father). 11-25. Further proofs of the perfection of Christ’ s priesthood, as compared with the Levitical: (11-14) in that He sprang from a tribe not recognized as a priestly one by the law, thus setting aside the law: (15-19) in that He was constituted priest not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life, thus impugning the former commandment as weak and unprofitable: (20-22) in that He was made with an oath, they without one: (23, 24) in that they by reason of their transitoriness were many, He, one and unchangeable. 11. If again (this seems the nearest English expression to εἰμὲνοὖν . It takes up the reasoning, not from the point immediately preceding, but from the main line of argument, of which what has just preceded has been merely a co-ordinate illustration. So that it is not necessary to say here, as some have attempted to do, from what point in the preceding chapters the reasoning is resumed. The main line of thought is again referred to, dependently on the promise of Psa 110:4, as made to our Lord and verified in Him) perfection : Primasius and Beza, moral perfection: Estius, Schlichting, al., perfect remission of sins. But manifestly these two latter are included in the idea, which is a far more extensive one than either) were (ἦν may be rendered either by the imperf. subj. or pluperf. subj. The former, ‘ if perfection were,’ would imply ‘ it is not:’ the latter, ‘ if perfection had been,’ would imply, ‘ it was not.’ The difficulty of deciding here arises from the apodosis being given in an elliptic form, viz. in that of a question in which the verb is left out) by means of (could be brought about by the instrumentality of) the Levitical priesthood (on ἱερωσύνη , see note, ver. 5),— for upon it (i. e. τῆςΛευϊτικῆςἱερωσύνης : not as, reading ἐπ ʼ αὐτῇ , many Commentators, τελειώσει , for the sake of obtaining perfection. Three meanings are legitimate for ἐπ ʼ αὐτῆς . 1. Concerning it, it being the objective basis or substratum of the νομοθέτησις : as in οὐλέγει .… ὡςἐπὶπολλῶν , Galatians 3:16: σημεῖαἃἐποίειἐπὶτῶνἀσθενούντων , John 6:2. This is taken by Schlichting, Grot., Bleek. So ‘ disserere’ or ‘ scribere super se.’ 2. In its time, as ἐπ ʼ Ὀλυμπιάδος , ἐπ ʼ ἄρχοντος . 3. On its ground, it being the subjective basis or substratum of the νομοθέτησις : it being presupposed, and the law-giving proceeding on it as ex concesso. This is taken with slight variations, by De Wette, Lü nemann, Ebrard, al. And this seems most agreeable to the sense. For (1) would seem hardly to account for the insertion of the parenthesis at all: that the law was enacted concerning the priesthood, would certainly be no reason for here introducing it: still less would the form of the parenthesis thus be accounted for, ὁλαὸςγὰρἐπ ʼ αὐτῆςνενομ ., see below: and (2) again, being a mere notice of date, would not account for the occurrence of the parenthesis. But it we consider the priesthood as the basis on which the law was constructed, so that not the priests only, but the people also (cf. the same παντὶτῷλαῷ , πάντατὸνλαόν , in ch. 9:19) were involved in the question of the dignity and finality of the priesthood, then a sufficient reason seems to be gained for inserting the parenthesis: q. d. not only they, but the whole system of which the priesthood was the basis and centre) the people (emphatic: not ἐπ ʼ αὐτῆςγὰρὁλαός , but ὁλαὸςγὰρἐπ ʼ αὐτῆς : see above) hath received the law (the verb νομοθετεῖν is common both in classical and Hellenistic Greek. It is used sometimes with a dative of the person, so Xen. Rev_15, περὶΛυκούργουτοῦΛακεδαιμονίοιςνομοθετήσαντος ,— sometimes with an accus. of the thing, so Xen. Rep. Laced. v. 1, ἃμὲνοὖνἑκάστῃἡλικίᾳἐνομοθέτησενὁΛυκοῦργος . The use of the passive hence is obvious: and although not justified by Greek usage, finds a parallel in such expressions as πιστεύομαίτι , εὐαγγελίζομαι , &c.: see Winer, § 39. 1, edn. 6. The LXX use the word rather differently, for to teach: e. g. Psalms 24:8, νομοθετήσειἁμαρτάνονταςἐνὁδῷ ,— ver. 12, νομοθετήσειαὐτῷἐνὁδῷ : Ps. 118:33, νομοθέτησόνμεκύριετὴνὁδὸντῶνδικαιωμάτωνσου . The perfect is used, as indicating the fact that the people was still remaining and observing the law),— what further need (was there) (what need after that,— any longer, that being so: so Sext. Empir. cited by Wetst.: εἰδὲἅπαξἐξὑποθέσεωςλαμβάνεταίτινα , καίἐστιπιστά , τίςἔτιχρείαἀποδεικνύναιαὐτά ;) that a different priest (ἕτερον , more than ἄλλον — not only another, but of a different kind) should arise (Herod. iii. 66, Σμέρδιν … βασιλέαἀνεστεῶτα . See reff. There is no idea in it of suddenness or unexpectedness, as Bö hme (not Tholuck in his last edn.)), after the order of Melchisedek, and that he (the priest that should arise) is said to be not after the order of Aaron (there have been various views as to the construction. Some, as Faber Stap., Luther, al., take the whole as one sentence only, thus: τίςἔτιχρείαλέγεσθαικατὰτ . τάξ . Μ . ἕτ . ἀνίστ . ἱερέα , κ . οὐκατὰτ . τάξ . Ἀαρ ., “ what further need was there for it to be said that another priest should arise, after Melchisedek’ s, and not after Aaron’ s order?” But thus we should have expected ἀνίστ . to be future (this perhaps is not decisive, but notwithstanding Tholuck’ s protest against Bleek, I cannot help still believing it would have been so): besides that the transposition of the infinitives is very harsh (Tholuck tries to justify this by ὅσῳ … τοσούτῳτὸτίχρὴποιεῖνσυμβουλεῦσαιχαλεπώτερονεἶναι , Demosth. p. 66. But the case is not parallel, inasmuch as there is no ambiguity in it). Besides which, ἕτερα can hardly have any other meaning than that in ver. 15, not = ἄλλος , but implying diversity of nature and order: in which case it cannot be the subject to λέγεσθαι , which has κατὰτὴντάξινἈαρών for its predicate, thus nullifying the ἕτερον . So that we must either take λέγεσθαι impersonal, ‘ that it is said,’ or, which is preferable, supply as above, ‘ that he (the coming priest) is said.’ οὐ would more naturally be μή , in a sentence expressing necessity, which of itself involves a judgment, see Hartung, Partikell. ii. 125. But in such cases οὐ may stand where the denial is carried in the particle itself, which seems to bring out a negative expression as set over against a positive one: e. g. Aristoph. Eccles. 581, ἀλλ ʼ οὐμέλλεινἀλλ ʼ ἅπτεσθαικαὶδὴχρὴτὰςδιανοίας : Thuc. i. 51, ὑποτοπήσαντεςἀπ ʼ Ἀθηνῶνεἶναιοὐχὅσαςἑώρωνἀλλὰπλείους . So here the οὐ must be closely joined with κατὰτὴντάξινἈαρ ., not with λέγεσθαι : or we must with Bleek suppose that χρείαἦν or ἠδύνατο is to be supplied with οὐ )? 12. For if the priesthood is changed , there takes place of necessity a change of the law (not ‘ of law,’ which would be decidedly wrong, and would require τοῦνόμου , as in a general sentence, implying ‘ the law’ of the particular case in view; νόμου , anarthrous, means that law, which had already begun to be used as a proper name, the well-known law of Moses) also (viz. of that law, which, as above, is legislated upon the ground of that priesthood: not, as Beza, Grot., al., of the law of the priesthood only, nor as Calvin, a-Lapide, Jac. Cappell., Bö hme, Kuinoel, al., of the ceremonial law only. Chrys. says rightly: εἰδὲἕτερονδεῖἱερέαεἶναι , μᾶλλονδὲἑτέρανἱερωσύνην , ἀνάγκηκαὶνόμονἕτερονεἶναι · τοῦτοδὲπρὸςτοὺςλέγοντας · τίἔδεικαινῆςδιαθήκης ; The connexion is with the parenthesis in ver. 11, which was inserted to prepare the way for our verse. Bleek, De Wette, al. deny the reference to the parenthetical clause in ver. 11, and regard our verse as preparing the way for what follows: “ It lays down the ground, why not without urgent cause a change of the priesthood took place” (De W.), that cause being that the law itself was to be abrogated. The Writer as yet expresses himself mildly and cautiously: the μετάθεσις here in fact amounts to the ἀθέτησις in ver. 18, but is not yet so expressed). 13. Confirmation of the position that a change is made in the law, by another fact indicative of a change in the priesthood. For He with reference to whom (cf. reff.: and ὠςἐπὶτὸπᾶνεἰπεῖν , Plato, Legg. ii. p. 667 d) these things (viz. the promise in Ps. 110.: not, these which I am now saying) are said, is member of (hath taken part in: the perfect implying the enduring of His humanity) a different tribe (from that of Levi, which has been already sufficiently indicated in the preceding context), of which (sprung from which, coming from which, see reff.) no one hath (ever, to this day) given attention to the altar (i. e. as a general and normal practice, had any thing to do with the service of the priesthood). 14. Proof of ver. 13. For it is plain to all (πρόδηλον , of that which lies before men’ s eyes, plain and undoubted. τὸπρόδηλον , ὡςἀναντίῤῥητοντέθεικε , Thdrt. Jos. B. J. ii. 3. 1, πρόδηλονἦντὸἔθνοςοὐκἠρεμῆσον : and other examples in Wetst. and Bleek) that our Lord (this is the only place in Scripture where Christ is called by this appellation, now so familiar to us, without the addition of either His personal or official name. 2 Peter 3:15, τὴνμακροθυμίαντοῦκυρίουἡμῶν , is hardly an exception: see there) hath arisen (some have thought that this word, which, as an intransitive verb, is generally used of the heavenly bodies, has reference to our Lord’ s rising as a Sun of righteousness: so Malachi 4:2, ἀνατελεῖὑμῖν … ἥλιοςδικαιοσύνης : Isaiah 60:1, ἥκεισουτὸφῶςκ . ἡδόξακυρίουἐπίσεἀνατέταλκεν : Numbers 24:17, ἀνατελεῖἄστρονἐξἸακώβ , to which Thl. thinks there is allusion here: σεμνὴἡλέξιςτὸἀνατέταλκε , καὶἐκτῆςτοῦΒαλαὰμπροφητείαςληφθεῖσακαὶἐκτοῦΜαλαχίουκ .τ .λ . And it is quite legitimate, and a very beautiful thought, to regard these sublime ideas as having been in the Writer’ s mind, while at the same time we confess, that the word is used of the springing or rising up of other things, e. g. of water, Herod. iv. 52: and especially of the sprouting of plants— Jos. Antt. i. 1, εὐθὺςφυτάτεκαὶσπέρματαγῆθενἀνέτειλεν : and see reff. And in this sense probably is ἀνατολή given as the rendering of צ ֶ מ ַ ח , “ Branch,” Zechariah 3:1; Zechariah 6:12, though the two ideas, of the Sun, and of a branch, came to be mingled together, as in Luke 1:78) out of Judah (this word may be the name, either of the tribe, or of the patriarch. From Genesis 49:9, Genesis 49:10, it would appear to be the personal name: but preceded and followed as it is here by φυλῆςἐτέρας , and εἰςἣνφυλήν , it would rather seem to be that of the tribe), with reference to (εἰς nearly as ἐπί above; that which is said with reference to any one, being regarded as tending towards, and finding its issue in him: for its usage, see reff.) which tribe Moses said nothing concerning priests (i. e. nothing to imply that any priest should be or be consecrated out of it: πάνταγὰρτὰτῆςἱερωσύνηςεἰςτὴνΛευϊτικὴνἀνέθηκεφυλήν . Thl.). 15-17. Another proof that the law is changed (set aside): for our Lord could not be of the law (= Levitical priesthood), seeing He is an eternal Priest. 15. And it (viz. the change of the law; the proposition of ver. 12.: so Œ c., οὐμόνονἔνθενδῆλόνἐστιν , ὅτιἐνηλλάγηἥτελατρείακαὶἡδιαθήκη … ἀλλὰκαὶἐξἐκείνουπερισσῶςδῆλόνἐστιν … καὶἐκτούτουκατάδηλόςἐστινἥτεἐναλλαγὴκαὶἡμετάθεσιςτῆςπαλαιᾶςδιαθήκης . Chrys. takes ‘ it’ to mean the distinction between the Levitical and the N. T. High Priesthood: τίἐστικατάδηλον ; τὸμέσοντῆςἱερωσύνης . Jac. Cappellus, and Bengel— “ illud quod in ver. 11 asseritur, nullam consummationem factam esse per sacerdotium Leviticum,” and so Delitzsch. Primasius, Hammond, al., that the priesthood is altered: Ebrard strangely supplies, “ that our Lord sprung from Judah:” indeed his whole comment on this verse is one of those curiosities of exegesis which unhappily abound in his otherwise valuable commentary. But the alteration of the law is the proposition here: and so Estius, Schlichting, Seb. Schmidt, Kuinoel, Tholuck, Bleek, Lü nem., al.) is yet more abundantly (see for περισσότερον , on ch. 2:1) manifest (κατάδηλος is another stronger form of δῆλος , common in the classics (reff.), but found only here in LXX and N. T.), if (i. e. siquidem, seeing that: τὸεἰἀντὶτοῦὅτινοήσεις , ἤγουνἐπειδή , Œ c.: “ si … rem dubitative loquitur, sed affirmative, quasi diceret … quia” &c., Primasius, in Bleek. See reff. ὅτι could not well have been used here, as the reader would have connected it with κατάδηλον , ‘ it is evident, that’ &c.) according to the similitude of (= κατὰτὴντάξιν before) Melchisedek ariseth a different priest (it is best to take ἱερεὺςἕτερος as the subject, ἕτερος being a mere epithet: not, as Schulz (also in ver. 11), ἱερεύς predicatively, “ another ariseth as priest,” nor as some (?) mentioned by Lü nem., to take ἱερεύς and ἕτερος both predicatively, “ He ariseth as another priest,” viz. our Lord). 16. who (viz. ἱερεὺςἕτερος . τίς ; ὁΜελχισεδὲκοὗτος ; οὔἀλλ ʼ ὁχριστός . Chrys.: and so Œ c. Thl. mentions both ways of taking it, and expounds both at some length) is appointed (hath become priest) not according to the law of a carnal commandment , Œ c. . Other Commentators, who take νόμον as I have done above, yet understand σαρκίνης as a subjective epithet, a law which was in itself transitory: so Bö hme, Kuinoel, al.), but according to the power of an indissoluble life (the two clauses closely correspond in rhythm, as is much the practice of the Writer. The power here spoken of does not, however, strictly correspond, in its relation to the priesthood spoken of, with ‘ the law of a carnal commandment’ above. That was the rule, by and after which the priesthood was constituted: this, the vigour inherent in the glorious priesthood of Christ,— for it is of His enduring Melchisedek-priesthood in glory (see Delitzsch and Hofmann) that this is spoken— to endure for ever. Camero, Calovius, al., have thought δύναμις to be, Christ’ s power to confer life on others: Carpzov, al., the enduring nature of the divine decree which constituted this priesthood: but both are shewn to be wrong by the next verse, in which the ἱερεὺςεἰςτὸναἰῶνα is the point brought out). 17. Proof of the last clause: κατασκευάζειπῶςεἶπετὸἀκαταλύτουζωῆς , καίφησινὅτιἡγραφὴλέγειαὐτὸνεἰςτὸναἰῶναεἶναιἱερέα . Thl. The stress of the citation is on εἰςτὸναἰῶνα . For he is borne witness of that (just as in μαρτυρούμενοςὅτιζῇ , ver. 8. The ὅτι belongs, not to the citation, but to the verb. If the rec. μαρτυρεῖ be taken, ὁθεός must be supplied, as in ch. 1:6, and passim in this Epistle. And then also the ὅτι belongs to the verb) Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek. 18, 19. These verses belong to the proof of 15-17, expanding the conclusion thence derived, and expressing it more decidedly than before in ver. 12. For moreover :” and in a sentence made as an example, ἐγὼμὲνκαὶΔιονύσιοςἐδειπνοῦμεν , σὺμὲνγὰροὐπαρεγένου — “ for you, you will remember, were not there (but we were).” See Hartung, Partikell. ii. 414. So here we may regard the μέν as elliptical, and pointing at an understood contrast in the permanence of the ζωὴἀκατάλυτος just mentioned. It is hardly possible, even with the right construction of the sentence (see below), to regard this μέν as answering to the δέ following ἐπεισαγωγή : its connexion with the γάρ will not allow this. If this had been intended, we should have expected the form of the sentence to be ἀθέτησιςγὰργίνεταιτῆςμὲνπροαγούσηςἐντολῆς ) there takes place (ἀπὸκοινοῦτὸγίνεται , Œ c.: that is, it belongs to both ἀθέτησις and ἐπεισαγωγή — see below) an abrogation of the preceding commandment (ἐντολῆς is anarthrous because the epithet προαγούσης is thrown strongly forward into emphasis, which emphasis would be weakened by τῆς preceding, and altogether lost in τῆςἐντολῆςτῆςπροαγούσης . The ἐντολή intended is that mentioned in ver. 16, according to which the priesthood was constituted, not, as Chrys., Thdrt., Œ c., Thl., Prim., Calv., Grot., Hamm., Kuinoel, al., the whole Mosaic law, however much that may be involved in the assertion, cf. the parenthesis in ver. 11. This commandment went before— not merely in time, but was an introduction to and gave way before the greater and final ordinance) on account of its weakness and unprofitableness (on the neuter concrete where the abstract substantive would rather be looked for, see Winer, edn. 6, § 34. 2, and besides reff., Romans 2:4; Romans 9:22: ch. 6:17 al. Romans 8:3, as Galatians 4:9, is remarkably parallel, both in thought and mode of expression: one of those coincidences which could hardly take place where there was not community of thought and diction),— for the law perfected nothing . Similarly Œ c. and Thl.),— and (δέ , see above on μὲνγάρ : ‘ and’ is the only English conjunction which will preserve the true connexion and construction of the sentence) (there takes place; γίνεται belongs to this also, see below) an introduction (ἐπεισαγωγή , superintroductio, a bringing in besides: the law being already there, this is brought in to and upon it: see ref.) of a better hope (the contrast is between the προάγουσαἐντολή , weak and unprofitable, and a better thing, viz. the ἐλπίς which brings us near to God. This κρείττονόςτινος , τουτέστιν , ἐλπίδοςκ .τ .λ ., is expressed by κρείττονοςἐλπίδος . This seems more natural, than with Chrys., Œ c., Thl., Prim., to suppose any comparison between the earthly hopes held out in the old covenant, and the heavenly hope of the new (εἶχεκαὶὁνόμοςἐλπίδα , φησίν , ἀλλ ʼ οὐτοιαύτην · ἤλπιζονγὰρεὐαρεστήσαντεςἕξειντὴνγῆν , μηδὲνπείσεσθαιδεινόν · ἐνταῦθαδὲἐλπίζομενεὐαρεστήσαντες , οὐγῆνκαθέξειν , ἀλλὰτὸνοὐρανόν . Chrys.)), by means of which we draw near to God (this note, of personal access to God, has been twice struck before, ch. 4:16; 6:19, and is further on in the Epistle expanded into a whole strain of argument. See ch. 9:11 ff.; 10:19 ff. It is that access, which was only carnally and symbolically open to them by shedding of the blood of sacrifices, but has been spiritually and really opened to us by the shedding of Christ’ s blood once for all, so that we being justified by faith can approach the very throne of God. The word ἐγγίζειν is the technical term in the LXX for the drawing near of the priests in their sacrificial ministrations. Notice the reading ἐγγίζωμεν , found in A al., as throwing light on the famous ἔχωμεν , Romans 5:1). It remains to treat of the connexion of the above sentence, vv. 18, 19, which has been entirely mistaken by many, and among them by E. V. The ending clause, ἐπεισαγωγὴδὲκ .τ .λ ., has been wrongly joined with οὐδὲνγὰρἐτελείωσενὁνόμος : and that, either, 1. as subject to ἐτελείωσεν , as E. V., “ but the bringing in of a better hope did” (Beza appears here, as in so many other cases, to have led our translators into error; and so also render Castellio, Paræ us, Schlichting, Seb. Schmidt, Michaelis, Stuart, al.): or, 2. as predicate to νόμος preceding, “ For the law perfected nothing, but was the introduction,” &c. So Faber Stap., Erasmus , Vatabl., Calvin, Jac. Cappel., Pyle, al. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/alfordgnt/ Chap. 8:1-13. Not only is Christ personally, as a High Priest, above the sons of Aaron, but the service and ordinances of the covenant to which his High Priesthood belongs are better than those of that to which they belong. 1. Now the principal matter πολλῶνἄλλωνγεγραμμένων , κεφάλαιονἦνκ .τ .λ .: Plato, Gorg. p. 453 a, ἡπραγματείααὐτῆςἅπασακ . τὸκεφάλαιονεἰςτοῦτοτελευτᾷ : Demosth. p. 815. 6, καὶτὸμὲνκεφάλαιονἀδικημάτων , ὡςἂνσυντομώτατ ʼ εἴποιτις , τοῦτ ʼ ἐστίν : and see many more examples in Bl. and Wetst., as in Thl., τὸμέγιστονκαὶσυνεκτικώτερον . The other meaning, sum total, would be apposite enough here, were the sense of κεφ . confined to ver. 1, which has been treated of before: but ver. 2 contains new particulars, which cannot be said to be the sum of any things hitherto said. Besides, even were that condition fulfilled, this sense would require not the present participle λεγομένοις , but the past, λεχθεῖσιν , or εἰρημένοις , and the participle itself would more probably be in the genitive, as in Isocr. Nicocl. p. 90, κεφάλαιοντῶνεἰρημένων : Themist. de Pace, p. 230, κεφάλαιοντοῦπαρόντοςλόγου . κεφάλαιον is not, “ a principal matter,” as Lü nem.:— words thus thrown forward do not require the article to make them definite: cf. the examples given above) in the things which we are saying (ἐπί , ‘ upon:’ lying as it were, by, and among. This seems best; we might render it, as in Luke 16:26, ‘ besides,’ but the present part. seems to forbid rendering “ the things already said,” as most Commentators and E. V. Hofmann, Schriftb. ii. 1, p. 287 f., adopts a curious arrangement: taking κεφάλαιονδέ by itself, he understands ἀρχιερεῦσιν after λεγομένοις , and renders, “ besides these, who are called high priests, we have,” &c. This is far-fetched and unnatural: for had λεγομένοις borne any such meaning, we should certainly have had the predicate, which would thus be emphasized, expressed, and not understood: as in 1 Corinthians 8:5, 1 Corinthians 8:6, εἴπερεἰσὶνλεγόμενοιθεοὶκ .τ .λ ., ἀλλ ʼ ἡμῖνεἷςθεὸςκ .τ .λ .): we have such an High Priest (emphasis on τοιοῦτον , which refers, not to what preceded, but to what is to follow, viz. ὃςἐκάθισενκ .τ .λ .) who sat down (“ In ch. 1:3, the sitting at the right hand of God was mentioned as a pre-eminence of the Son above the angels, who stand as ministering spirits before the presence of God: here, where the same is said of Christ as High Priest, Schlichting, Limborch, Klee, al. rightly remark that there is again a pre-eminence in καθίσαι over the Jewish high priests: for these, even when they entered the holiest place, did not sit down by the throne of God, but only stood before it for a moment: cf. ch. 10:11, 12, καὶπᾶςμὲνἀρχιερεὺςἕστηκενκαθ ʼ ἡμέρανλειτουργῶν .… οὗτοςδὲ .… εἰςτὸδιηνεκὲςἐκάθισενἐνδεξιᾷτοῦθεοῦ .” Bleek. Lü nem. calls this fanciful: but such distinctions are not surely to be overlooked altogether) on the right hand of the throne of majesty in the heavens (better thus, than “ of the majesty in the heavens,” τῆςμεγτῆςἐντοῖςοὐρ . The last words, ἐντοῖςοὐρ ., may belong not merely to τῆςμεγαλως ., but to the whole preceding, ἐκάθ . ἐνδεξ . τοῦθρ . τῆςμεγ . But see on ch. 1:3, where we have the very similar expression, ἐκάθισενἐνδεξιᾷτῆςμεγαλωσύνηςἐνὑψηλοῖς : and where it seems simpler to join ἐνὑψ . with τῆςμεγαλωσύνης . If taken as above, it will be best for this reason also to drop the English definite art. before ‘ majesty,’ and regard τῆςμεγ . as abstract. Hofmann (Schriftb. ii. 1. 289, and Weissagung u. Erfü llung, ii. 190) strangely joins ἐντοῖςοὐρ . with what follows, an order which hardly could be imagined in this Epistle, and wholly unnecessary for the sense, in which, Christ having been once asserted to have sat down in the heavens, it necessarily follows that the ἅγια afterwards spoken of are ἐντοῖςοὐρανοῖς . On the expression ὁθρόν . τῆςμεγ . Thl. remarks, τὸνπατρικόνφησι , ἢὅτικαὶὁπατὴρλεχθείηἂναὐτῷμεγαλωσύνη , ἢὅτιἁπλῶςοὕτωθρόνοςμεγαλωσύνηςὁμέγιστοςθρόνος . The former and not the latter is evidently the sense here. All such mere periphrases of the adjectival predicate would be unworthy of the solemnity and dignity of the subject and style), 2. minister (λεῖτονἐκάλουνοἱπαλαιοὶτὸδημόσιον , ὅθενλειτουργεῖντὸεἰςτὸδημόσιονἐργάζεσθαιἔλεγον . Schol. in Demosth. Lept. The LXX use the verb and subst. to express the Heb. ש ׁ ֵ ר ֵ ת and מ ְ ש ׁ ָ ר ֵ ת , in reference to the sacerdotal service in the sanctuary: see, for the verb, Exodus 28:31, Exodus 28:39 (35, 43); 29:30; 35:18: Deuteronomy 17:12: 3 Kings 8:11: 1 Chronicles 6:32: 2 Chronicles 13:10: Ezekiel 44:27, where we have λειτουργεῖνἐντῷἁγίῳ : 45:4 al.: and for the subst., Nehemiah 10:39: Isaiah 61:6: Sir. 7:30) of the holy places (τῶνἁγίων is taken as mase by τινες in Thl., and by Œ c., τῶνἡγιασμένωνπαρ ʼ αὐτοῦἀνθρώπων · ἡμῶνγάρἐστινἀρχιερεύς . But ἡμῶνἀρχιερεύς and ἡμῶνλειτουργός are very different things. The λειτουργός is subordinate to those whose minister he is, as in Joshua 1:1 Λ , τῷἸησοῦ … τῷλειτουργῷΜωυσῆ : see also 2 Kings 13:18: 3 Kings 10:5: 4 Kings 4:43; 6:15: 2 Chronicles 9:4. See also Numbers 3:6; Numbers 18:2. It is taken by Luther (und ist ein pfleger der heiligen Guter) as importing holy things, as it seems to be in Philo, Leg. Alleg. iii. 46, vol. i. p. 114, τοιοῦτοςδὲὁθεραπευτὴςκ . λειτουργὸςτῶνἁγίων , and De Profug. 17, p. 560, ἡΛευϊτικὴφυλὴνεωκόρωνκ . ἱερέωνἐστίν , οἷςἡτῶνἁγίωνἀνάκειταιλειτουργία . But this does not seem to answer to the usage of τὰἅγια in our Epistle. Cf. reff., in which τὰἅγια imports the holy place, i. e. the holy of holies. It does not seem necessary to supply any thing after τῶνἁγίων , as τῶνἁληθινῶν , or τῶνἐντοῖςοὐρανοῖς : this distinction is brought out by what follows. As yet Christ is spoken of as being in common with the Levitical priests τῶνἁγίωνλειτουργός . See below), and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord (here evidently the Father: see note on ch. 12:14) pitched , not (any) man (not οὐχὁἄνθρωπος , which would be the literal way of expressing ‘ not man,’ generically: because by the indefinite ἄνθρωπος , anarthrons, every individual man is excluded. It is an important question, symbolically considered, whether any and what distinction is intended by the Writer, between τῶνἁγίων and τῆςσκηνῆς . Delitzsch, in loc., has gone into it at length, and Hofmann has treated of it in two places especially, Weiss. u. Erf. ii. 188 ff. and Schriftb. ii. 1. 405 f. Both are agreed that τὰἅγια betokens the immediate, immaterial presence of God, the veritable Holy of Holies, beyond, and approached through, the heavens, ch. 4:14. But as regards σκηνή , they differ. Hofmann maintains it to be the glorified body of Christ, and argues that it alone will satisfy such expressions as that in ch. 9:11, οὐταύτηςτῆςκτίσεως : in order to satisfying which, this σκηνή must belong to the new creation, the παλιγγενεσία , which commences with the glorification of Christ. This glorified body of His is the new and abiding temple of God, in which He dwells and meets with us who are united to and have put on that glorified body, our house, eternal in the heavens: for so Hofmann interprets 2 Corinthians 5:1 ff. On the other hand, Delitzsch controverts this view as inconsistent with the symbolism in ch. 9:11, 12, where Christ διὰτῆςμείζονοςκ . τελειοτέραςσκηνῆς … εἰσῆλθεν … εἰςτὰἅγια , taking this connexion of the words: and also with our ver. 5, where the Mosaic tabernacle is set forth as the representation and shadow of the heavenly. Accordingly, he believes the σκηνή , here to be the heavenly Jerusalem, the worship-place (Anbetungsstä tte) of blessed spirits (Psalms 29:9) and of those men who have been rapt in vision thither (Isa_6),— the ναὸςτῆςσκηνῆςτοῦμαρτυρίου of Revelation 15:5,— the place where God’ s visible presence is manifested to His creatures angelic and human. See much more, well worth studying, in his note here. In weighing these two opinions, I own they seem to me to run into one, and of that one by far the larger component is on Hofmann’ s side. For what is the heavenly Jerusalem? What, but the aggregate, in their persons and their glorious abiding-place, of the triumphant saints and servants of God? And what is this aggregate, but the mystical body, of which Christ is the Head and they are the members, in its fulfilment and perfection? That glorified body of His, in which they are accepted before God, and in which as a heavenly temple, they serve God, and God dwells, He has passed through, not by passing out of it, but by finally establishing it as an accomplished thing in God’ s sight, and in and as proceeding forth from it carrying on his intercession and λειτουργίατῆςσκηνῆςτῆςἀληθινῆς in the ἅγια itself. See more on this subject, ch. 9:11: and the views of Bleek, Tholuck, al.: also a sermon of Schleiermacher’ s on the text, vol. ii. of his Predigten, p. 504. The idea of the σκηνή being the body of Christ is found in Joh. Philoponus (Cent. vii.) on Gen_1 (in Bleek): τὸδὲτοῦἀποστόλου , “ καὶτῆςσκηνῆς .… ἄνθρωπος ,” οὐχοὕτωπερὶτοῦοὐρανοῦλελέχθαιμοιδοκεῖ , καθάτινεςἔφρασαν , ὡςπερὶτοῦκυριακοῦσώματος , εἰἐπιστήσειτιςἀκριβῶντῷτόπῳ , κατὰτὸεἰρημένον ,— καὶὁλόγοςσὰρξἐγένετο , καὶἐσκήνωσενἐνἡμῖν . It is also the view of Beza, Gerhard, Owen, Bengel, al.). 3-6. This heavenly office and work our High Priest must have, if He be veritably a High Priest. 3. For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices (see the very similar passage, ch. 5:1, and note there): whence it is necessary that this (High Priest) also have somewhat which he may offer (there is here considerable difficulty. For the Writer is evidently, from what follows, laying the stress on the heavenly λειτουργία of Christ: and this ὃπροσενέγκῃ applies therefore to His work not on earth, but in heaven. If so, how comes it to be said that He has somewhat to offer in heaven, seeing that His offering, of Himself, was made once for all, in contradistinction to those of the Levitical priests which were being constantly offered? See especially ch. 10:11, 12, which, on this view, brings the Writer here into direct contradiction to himself. In order to avoid this, Lü nemann and Hofmann (Schriftb. ii. 1. 288) attempt to make the aor. προσενέγκῃ retrospective: “ it is necessary for Him to have (there, in heaven) somewhat (viz. His body) which he may have offered.” But surely this is a view of the aorist which cannot be admitted. In such sentences, the uses of the aor. and pres. seem to regard not the time, objectively, of the act expressed, but its nature, subjectively, as an act rapidly passing in each case, or enduring. The straightforward construction of our sentence makes it necessary that προσενέγκῃ should refer to an act done in the state pointed out by the ἔχειν , however the nature of that act may be, in each case of its being done, such as to be accomplished at the moment, and not enduring onwards: which latter, expressed by ὃπροσφέρῃ , would certainly involve the contradiction above spoken of. Thus regarded then, what is it which our High Priest in heaven has to offer? In ch. 5:7, He is described as προσενέγκας prayers and supplications in the days of His flesh: and it might be thought that His ἐντυγχάνεινὑπὲρἡμῶν , ch. 7:25, might be here meant, the offering being those intercessions. But this would hardly satisfactorily give the τι , which as Delitzsch remarks, is too concrete for such an interpretation. It must be something with which and by virtue of which, and as offering and applying which, our High Priest enters and ministers in the Holy of Holies above. Now if we look to the analogy of ch. 9:7, 12, we see, 1. that the high priest entered the holy place οὺχωρὶςαἵματος , ὃπροσφέρειὑπὲρἑαυτοῦκ . τῶντοῦλαοῦἀγνοημάτων ,— 2. that Christ is entered into the ἅγια of heaven οὐδι ʼ αἵματοςτράγωνκαὶμόσχων , διὰδὲτοῦἰδίουαἵματος : see also ib. ver. 25. This blood of the one offering, Christ is represented as bearing into the Holy Place, and its application is ever set forth to us as a continuing and constantly repeated one. Thus this blood of sprinkling is regarded as being in heaven, ch. 12:24: as being sprinkled on the believer as the end of his election, 1 Peter 1:2: as cleansing us from all sin, 1 John 1:7: as that wherein the saints wash their robes and make them white, Revelation 7:14. Still, as Delitzsch also remarks, this is not the place to enlarge on this matter, seeing that it is merely incidentally introduced here, the present object being to shew that it is in heaven, and not on earth, that our High Priest ministers. The Roman Catholic interpretation of this place, as represented by Corn. a-Lapide, is worth noticing, if only to remark how absolutely inconsistent it is with the argument of the Epistle: “ Ergo Christus in cœ lo suas hostias et munera offert, scilicet suum in cruce sacrificium, quod olim in monte Calvariæ obtulit, nunc quoque id ipsum per continuam commemorationem Patri in cœ lo offert. Secundo, et proprie, Christus in cœ lo offert sacrificia missæ , quæ toto orbe quotidie celebrantur; in his enim primus et primarius sacerdos qui consecrat, offert, et transubstantiationem peragit, est Christus.” Estius, more cautiously, “ Probabile est apostolum loqui de ea oblatione qua se ipsum quondam in cruce passum et oblatum, continuo nunc repræ sentat Patri in cœ lis. Nam de altera (Christum, etsi in cœ lo regnantem, offerre quotidie se ipsum adhuc in terris per ministros et vicarios suos sacerdotes) apostolus prorsus tacet, quia mysterium est, quod intelligendum relinquit fidelibus mysteriorum consciis.” This last would make a curious canon of interpretation). 4. Yea, if (or as rec., “ For if … ,” which follows more smoothly and naturally on the position of ver. 2, and on that very account is probably a correction. Hofmann, as above, laying all the stress on the aor. προσενέγκῃ , takes the γάρ as justifying that aorist: Er muss ein nicht erst darzubringendes, sondern, dargebrachtes Opfer haben:— denn wä re er auf Erden … But see on this above. The connexion is obvious: ‘ our High Priest must have somewhat to offer. But on earth this could not be: for’ &c.) he were (not, “ had been,” though grammatically it might be so: the pres. part. ὄντων , which follows, and λατρεύουσι , continuing it, shew that this ἧν is spoken of a continuing, not of a past hypothesis) on earth (some, as Grot., Wolf, al., supply μόνον after γῆς — and something in the same view Œ c., τοῦτοδὲἦνεἰμὴἐτεθνήκει , μηδὲἐγερθεὶςἀνελήφη : and Thdrt., περιττὸνἦναὐτὸνἐντῇγῇδιαιτώμενονἱερέακαλεῖν : others, as Gerhard, Heinrichs, al., supply ἀρχιερεύς or ἱερεύς : but this it seems to me would stultify the argument. There is no need of any thing supplied) He would not even be a priest , but the stress is on the verb ἦν , and it is taken ex concesso that the ἀρχιερεύς belonged to the genus ἱερεύς : ‘ He would not even belong to the category of priests.’ In the background lies, ‘ and if not so, certainly could not be a High Priest:’ but it is not brought forward, nor does it belong to the argument, which continues ὄντων , not ὄντος ), since there are , as is shewn by λατρεύουσιν below. The time indicated is that of writing the Epistle) those who offer the gifts according to (the) law (the law, equally, with or without the article; not only because but one law can be meant, but because the art. is so constantly omitted after a preposition even when required in translation), 5. men who serve (λατρεύειν occurs eight times in St. Luke, four times in St. Paul, and six times in this Epistle, It has more the general sense of ‘ serving,’ either God, as almost always, or some especial portion of divine service or sacred things, as here and ch. 13:10. λειτουργεῖν is the more proper word for priestly ministration. On the construction, see below) the delineation (ὑπόδειγμα cannot as in ch. 4:11 mean, a pattern, or example: but must be taken, less usually but more strictly as answering to ὑποδεικνύναι , ‘ oculis subjicere,’ here and in ch. 9:23, as meaning a suggestive representation, or sketch. So Thl., ὑποδείγματα , τουτέστινἀμυδρὰδείγματακαὶοἷονσκιαγραφήματατὰἐντῇπαλαιᾷὑποδειχθέντατῷΜωυσεῖ . It corresponds to δειχθέντασοι in the following citation) and shadow (‘ adumbration,’ σκιαγράφημα . See on ch. 10:1, where σκιά and εἰκών are contrasted. As regards the construction: Calvin, Bengel, al. take λατρεύουσιν absolutely, and ὑποδείγματικ .τ .λ . ablatively: “ who serve (God) in a delineation and shadow” &c. But this is far-fetched, and unnecessary, especially in the presence of ch. 13:10, where it is hardly possible to regard τῇσκηνῇ otherwise than as the objective dative to λατρεύοντες ) of the heavenly things (i. e. the things in heaven, in the heavenly sanctuary: correspondent to τὸντύποντὸνδειχθέντασοιἐντῷὄρει : see also ch. 9:23, 24. Chrys. understands it of spiritual things: τίναλέγειἐνταῦθατὰἐπουράνια ; τὰπνευματικά · εἰγὰρκαὶἐπὶγῆςτελεῖται , ἀλλ ʼ ὅμωςτῶνοὐρανῶνεἰσινἄξια ,— and then goes on to instance the work of the Spirit in baptism, the power of the keys, the utterance of Christian praise, &c. And Luther renders, der himmlischen Guter. But the context clearly requires the other view): even as Moses was commanded (“ admonished of God,” E. V., an excellent rendering. χρηματίζω is used in the later classics, but as early as Demosthenes, for to give a decisive answer, “ responsum ex deliberatione reddere,” as Reiske. Hence it came afterwards to be appropriated mainly to responses, warnings, commands, given from the Deity: so Diod. Sic. iii. 6, τοὺςγὰρθεοὺςαὐτοῖςταῦτακεχρηματικέναι ; xv. 10, περὶδὲτῶνχρησμῶνἔφησε , μὴχρηματίζειντὸνθεὸνκαθόλουπερὶθανάτου . And so constantly in the Scriptures both LXX and N. T. reff. and Jer_32(25):30; 37(30):2; Luke 2:26. The earlier classical verb is χράω of the deity giving the oracle, χράομαι of the person consulting it. Observe the perfect, not the aor., giving a fine distinction not reproducible in English: viz. that these figures of the heavenly things were still subsisting as ordained to Moses, when the Epistle was written) when about to complete the tabernacle: for (γάρ justifies the assertion by the following citation) Take heed, He says (supply ὁθεός ; there can be no doubt of this here, where the words following are God’ s own), that thou makest (ποιήσῃς and ποιήσεις give a like sense, and in English must be expressed by the same. The former is better Greek; the latter according to the LXX: manuscript authority must prevail) all things according to the pattern which was shewn thee in the mount. If now we ask what this τύπος was, we are met with various replies. Faber Stapulensis says, “ Arbitror id insinuare, non nudam veritatem in monte Mosi fuisse ostentatam, sed veritatis adumbrationem et remotam quandam ideam. Et quomodo etiam vidisset veritatem, nisi per speciem nude et revelate divina conspexisset, quod viatorum et adhuc in vita mortali peregrinantium non est. Typus igitur erat quod videbat, nondum ipsa veritas et archetypus.” And so Schlichting, concluding, “ adeo ut tabernaculum antiquum exemplar tantum fuerit exemplaris, et umbra umbræ .” This view, which is that also of Bleek and Storr, is strongly controverted by Delitzsch, who takes the τύπος to be the veritable heavenly things themselves, not seen however by Moses directly and naturally, which would be impossible, but made visible to him in a vision. I do not see that there is much to choose between the two views. If the latter be taken, then surely the vision thus vouchsafed to Moses was itself only an intermediate representation, and so this view comes much to the same as the other. 6. But now , and frequently in St. Paul: ‘ ut res se habet:’ νυνὶδέφησιν , ἐπειδὴμὴἔστινἐντῇγῇ , ἀλλ ʼ ἐντῷοὐρανᾷ , βελτίονοςἐπέτυχελειτουργίας , τουτέστινἐπὶβελτίοναλειτουργίανἐστὶνἀρχιερεύς Œ c.) He hath obtained (τέτευχα (rec.) is properly the Ionic form of the perfect, but occurs in Aristotle and later writers: but τέτυχα is also found in later writers, as Plutarch and Diod. Sic. The other reading here, τετύχηκεν , is the true Attic form) a more excellent ministry (than that of any earthly priests), in proportion as (there is an ellipsis in the earlier clause of τοσούτῳ , which now lurks under the comparative: so in ch. 3:3) He is also (καί , introducing a special reference to an already acknowledged fact, as in ch. 6:7, where see note) mediator (see reff. The meaning of μεσίτης , a later Greek word, is not far from that of ἔγγυος ,— one who becomes a goer between two persons, assuring to each the consent of the other to some point agreed on in common. The Atticists give us the Attic Greek for it, μεσέγγυος . Philo uses the title of Moses, οἷαμεσίτηςκ . διαλλακτὴς … τὰςὑπὲρτοῦἔθνουςἐποιεῖτο . And so St. Paul, in ref. Gal. The genitive after μεσίτης may either be of the persons between whom, as in ref. 1 Tim., εἷςκαὶμεσίτηςθεοῦκ . ἀνθρώπων : or of one of the parties concerned, as in Jos. Antt. xvi. 2. 2, τῶνπαρ ʼ Ἀγρίππατινῶνἐπιζητουμένωνμεσίτηςἦν : or of the object of the mediation, the agreement or covenant, as Diod. Sic. iv. 54, μεσίτηνγεγονότατῶνὁμολογιῶνἐνΚόλχοις : Jos. Antt. iv. 6. 7, ταῦταὀμνύοντεςἔλεγονκαὶθεὸνμεσίτηνὧνὑπισχνοῦντοποιούμενοι . And in this last sense is the gen. here. Jesus is the mediator, between God and us) of a better covenant, of one which (ἥτις , ‘ quippe quæ ,’ as always. This specific relative brings the thing referred to into its category, not only identifying it as ἡ would do, but classing it, and educing its property as belonging to the matter in hand: and thus having a ratiocinative force) has been laid down (see on ref. The word νόμος is also used of the new covenant by St. James 1:25; 2:12: see also 4:12, and St. Paul, Romans 3:27; Romans 8:2; Romans 9:31) upon (on the condition of … : so Xen. Hell. ii. 2. 20, ἐποιοῦντοεἰρήνην , ἐφ ʼ ᾧτάτεμακρὰτείχη … καθελόνταςκ .τ .λ .) better promises (viz. those which are about to be particularized in the following citation. Theodoret says, ἡμὲνγὰρπαλαιὰδιαθήκησωματικὰςἐπαγγελίαςεἶχεσυνεζευγμένας , γῆνῥέουσανγάλακ . μέλι … καὶπαίδωνπλῆθος , κ . τὰτούτοιςπροσόμοια · ἡδὲκαινὴζωὴναἰώνιονκ . οὐρανῶνβασιλείαν . And so Œ c., Thl., Primas., Bengel, al. But as Bleek objects, it would be very improbable that the Writer should intend to refer the promises, on which the old covenant was based, to mere earthly blessings, in the face of such a designation of the hope of Abraham and the patriarchs as we find in ch. 11:10-19). 7. Argumentation, exactly as in ch. 7:11, from sayings of God, to shew the imperfection of the former covenant. So Chrys.: ὥσπεργὰρλέγειὅτιεἰἡτελείωσιςκ .τ .λ . (7:11), οὕτωκαὶἐνταῦθατῷαὐτῷσυλλογισμῷκέχρηται . For if that first (covenant) were , prefers the aorist) blameless (τὸἄμεμπτοςἀντὶτοῦτελείατέθεικε , τουτέστινἀποχρῶσαπρὸςτελειότητα , ἀμέμπτουςτοὺςἐργαζομένουςἐργαζομένη . Thdrt. It is the contrary of ἀσθενὲςκ . ἀνωφελές , ch. 7:18), a place would not be sought (i. e. space opened, viz. in the words of the following prophecy, which indicate the substitution of such a covenant for the old one. Bleek gives a rather far-fetched interpretation,— that the τόπος is the place in men’ s hearts, as distinguished from the tables of stone on which the first covenant was written; referring to 2 Corinthians 3:3 for a similar distinction. But it is far better to understand it of a place in history, and regard the expression as τόπονεὑρίσκειν and τόπονλαμβάνειν in reff., see also τόπονδιδόναι , Romans 12:19. ἐζητεῖτο must not be rendered pluperfect, as in E. V., al., but, as in vulg. above, imperf.) for a second . 8-12. Proof, that a place for a second is contemplated, by citation from Jeremiah. 8. For (there is an ellipsis of ζητεῖταιδέ , and the γάρ introduces the substantiation of the assertion) blaming them (so ref. 2 Macc., μεμψάμενοςαὐτοῖςεἶπεν . The dative after μέμφομαι is common in Greek: see Herod. iii. 4; iv. 180: Xen. Cyr. i. 4. 6, and many other examples in Bleek. But seeing that it appears difficult, after the word ἄμεμπτος has been used of the covenant, to apply the blame in μεμφόμενος to any object but the covenant, many Commentators have taken the participle absolutely, and joined αὐτοῖς with λέγει . So Faber Stapulensis, Piscator, Schlichting, Grot., Limborch, Peirce, Michaelis, Storr, Kuinoel, Bleek, De Wette, Lü nem., al. But I cannot believe that the objective pronoun would be so loosely and ambiguously put, were it meant to be joined to λέγει . It surely must have been λέγειαὐτοῖς . And there is a propriety, which the ancients have not failed to observe, in αὐτοῖς , instead of αὐτῇ or αὐτήν . So Chrys., having explained εἰ .… ἦνἄμεμπτος , by εἰἀμέμπτουςἐποίει , proceeds, ὅτιγὰρπερὶτούταυφησίν , ἄκουετὰἑξῆς · … οὐκεἶπεμεμφόμενοςδὲαὐτῇ , ἀλλά , μ . δὲαὐτοῖς . And so Syr., vulg., Œ c., Thl., Luther, Calv., Beza, Bengel, Wolf, al.) He saith (the following citation is the great prophetic passage Jer_31 (38):31-34, see also Ezekiel 36:25-27. “ After the sack of Jerusalem, Jeremiah with the other captives was brought in chains to Rama, where Nebuzaradan had his head quarters. There took place, at God’ s special command, his prophecies of the future entire restoration of Israel, of another David, of Rachel’ s wailing over her children at Rama, and their future return, of the new covenant resting on absolute and veritable forgiveness of sins which Jehovah would make with his people, these prophecies forming the third part of the third trilogy of the three great trilogies into which the prophecies of Jeremiah may be divided: ch. 21-25, the book against the shepherds of the people; ch. 26-29, the book of Jeremiah’ s conflict against the false prophets; ch. 30:31, the book of restoration.” Delitzsch. “ The question which has before now been abundantly handled, whether the saying refers to the return of the exiles, or to the covenant of which Christ is the mediator, or to the future general conversion of the Jews, or whether some things in it to one of these, some to another, or whether the whole in its lower literal sense to the return of the exiles and in its higher spiritual sense to Christ and His kingdom, must be answered by the considerations before adduced on ch. 1:5. It belongs throughout to the cycle of Messianic prophecies, and is one of the most beautiful and sublime of them; and its true fulfilment can only be sought in the covenant brought in by the Saviour, and in the salvation through Him imparted to mankind, and ever more and more unfolded and completed. This is the case, however this salvation, in the perception and declaration of the Prophet, is bound up with the restoration of the ancient covenant people and their reunion in the land of their home.” Bleek), Behold, the days come, saith the Lord (φησικύριος LXX-B, but λέγει . “ The prophecy, taken from this rich cycle of eschatologic prophecies, whose clear Messianic sense allows of no evasion, begins with Jeremiah’ s constant formula, ἰδοὺἡμέραιἔρχονται .” Delitzsch), and (καί explicative, answering to the Heb. ו ־ in an apodosis), I will accomplish upon (LXX, διαθήσομαιτῷοἴκῳκ .τ .λ . The difference is beyond doubt intentional, to set forth the completeness of the new covenant. Twice in this same book (reff.), the LXX have rendered this same Heb. expression, כ ּ ָ ר ַ ת ב ּ ְ ר ִ י ת by συντελεῖνδιαθήκην . Augustine urges the word “ consummabo,” De Spir. et Lit. c. 19 (34), vol. x. pt. i, “ Quid est consummabo, nisi implebo?” ἐπί , with the accusative of motion, the covenant being brought upon them) the house of Israel and upon the house of Judah (both these, Israel first and Judah afterwards, were sent into captivity for their sins: and both are specified severally in God’ s promise of grace and restoration) a new covenant (on διαθήκη see on ch. 7:22), 9. (this covenant is first specified negatively: it is not to be like that first one) not according to the covenant (ל ֹ א כ ַ ב ּ ְ ר ִ י ת , different in quality from, not after the measure of) which I made (LXX again, διεθέμην : see reff.) to (not “ with:” it is a pure dative, and betokens mere agency on the part of the subject, God: the people of Israel, the objects, being only recipients, not co-agents) their fathers, in the day of my taking hold of their hand (the idiom is Hebraistic: ב ּ ְ י ו ֹ ם ה ֶ ח ֱ ז ִ י ק ִ י ב ְ י ָ ד ָ ם . Justin M. Dial. c. Tryph. c. 11, p. 112, cites it ἐνἡμέρᾳᾗἐπελαβόμην . This expression would shew beyond a doubt, being one which the Writer of our Epistle would never have adopted in a translation of his own, that he is quoting the LXX) to bring them out of the land of Egypt: because they abode not in my covenant, and I disregarded them (thus, making ὅτι render a reason for the foregoing, and attaching it to the whole following sentence, most of the moderns: and this is apparently most agreeable to the Heb., א ֲ ש ׁ ֶ ר ־ ה ֵ מ ּ ָ ה ה ֵ פ ֵ ר ו ּ א ֶ ת ־ ב ּ ְ ר ִ י ת ִ י , where, says Bleek, the א ֲ ש ׁ ֶ ר is only a particle of relation or connexion with the preceding, either for the subject, “ quippe illi,” or for the object, “ quod fœ dus meum:” and either way it = “ for (or because) they broke my covenant.” But many take the sentence beginning with ὅτι as an independent one— “ because they abode not in my covenant, I also disregarded them.” So Chrys. , Thl., Bö hme, Kuinoel, Klee, al.), saith (φησί , LXX) the Lord. On the fact, οὐκἐνέμειναν , Delitzsch gives a striking quotation from Schelling, Offenbarungsphilosophie,— “ The Law appears to be the mere ideal of a religious constitution, as it has never existed in fact: in practice, the Jews were almost throughout polytheists. The substance of their national feeling was formed by heathendom: the accidents only, by revelation. From the queen of heaven down to the abominations of the Phœ nicians, and even to Cybele, the Jews passed through every grade of paganism.” “ In fact,” adds Delitzsch, “ there is no period of the history of Israel before the captivity, in which more or less idolatry was not united with the worship of Jehovah, except the time of David and the first years of Solomon, during which the influence of Samuel still continued to be felt. And when by the captivity Idol-worship was completely eradicated from the people, as far at least as regards that part of it which returned, it is well known that a hypocritical letter-worship got the mastery over them, which was morally very little better.” See note on Matthew 12:43. 10. For this (predicate, explained in what follows) is the covenant which I will establish to the house of Israel (Israel here in its wider sense, comprehending both Israel proper and Judah: because then all Israel shall be again united), after those days (Œ c. understands τὰςτῆςἐξόδου , ἐναἷςἔλαβοντὸννόμον : Thl. says, ἐμοὶδοκεῖπερὶἐκείνωντῶνἡμερῶνλέγειν , περὶὧνἀνωτέρωεἶπεν , ἰδοὺἡμέραιἔρχονται . μεθ ʼ ὃοὖνδιέλθωσιναἱἡμέραιἐκεῖναι , τοιαύτηνδιαθήκηνδιαθήσομαι , οἵανἑξῆςἀκούσῃ . But the ἐκείνας seems to point immediately to the time indicated by the aorist ἠμέλησα : and thus μετὰτὰςἡμ . ἐκ . will be, after the end of that dispensation, when those days of disregard are over), saith (φησί LXX) the Lord; giving (the LXX-א have διδοὺςδώσω : the Heb. נ ָ ת ַ ת ּ ִ י . But A agrees with the text: and by the Writer repeating the same in ch. 10:16, it is probable that he had this reading in his copy of the LXX. The participle, as it stands, is best joined, as Œ c., with διαθήσομαι , and καὶ … ἐπιγράψω taken as a fresh and independent clause. This is the first of the κρείττονεςἐπαγγελίαι on which the new covenant is established) my laws into their mind , and on their heart (LXX-A, καὶἐπιγρ . αὐτοὺςἐπὶτὰςκ . αὐτῶν . Either gen., dat. (as B), or accus. is suitable: if accus., the act of transference by inscription, rather than the fact of being inscribed, is in view: if gen. sing., which from the analogy of διάνοιαν , and of Pro 7:3 [Alex.] Ald. [so Tromm.: not Holmes] , our καρδίας most likely is, then the fact of their superimposition and covering of the heart: if the dat., then that of their situation upon its tablet. See instances of the gen. and accus. in reff.) will I inscribe (γράψω LXX-B) them (contrast to the inscription of the old law, which was on tables of stone: see 2 Corinthians 3:3): and I will be to them for (εἶναιεἰς , ה ָ י ָ ה ל ְ , as ch. 1:5, which see) a God, and they shall be to me for a people. 11. Second of the κρείττονεςἐπαγγελίαι — universal spread of the knowledge of God: following on the other, that God would put His laws in their minds and write them in their hearts. And they shall not have to teach (see var. readd., which give the later usage of οὐμή with the indic. fut.) every man his (fellow-) citizen (א ֶ ת ר ֵ ע ֵ ה ו ּ . LXX-A ἀδελφόν : Bא , as text. The LXX have several times rendered ר ֵ ע ֵ ה ו ּ by πολίτης , see reff.), and every man his brother , saying Know the Lord: because all shall know (εἰδήσω is properly an Ionic future of εἴδω , but used, at least in its aoristic form εἴδησα , by the Attics also, e. g. Aristot. de Anima i. 2 (so Lobeck: but I cannot find it). See Lobeck, Phryn. p. 743, where more examples are given, but none of the Attic use of εἰδήσω : nor does this fut. seem to occur elsewhere either in the LXX or N. T.) me, from the small (one) in expressing the αὐτῶν : ל ְ מ ִ ק ּ ְ ט ַ נ ּ ָ ם ו ְ ע ַ ד ־ נ ּ ְ ד ו ֹ ל ָ ם . The formula is found generally without the pronoun, as in reff. and Genesis 19:11: 1 Kings 5:9; 30:2, 19: 4 Kings 23:2; 25:26, &c.: but with it in Jeremiah 6:13: Jonah 3:5) even to the great (one) of them (that is, “ they shall be all taught of God,” as cited by our Lord in John 6:45, from Isaiah 54:13, as written ἐντοῖςπροφήταις , alluding to such passages as this and Joe 2:28, Joe 2:29. See also 1 John 2:20, 1 John 2:27, and notes there. Under the old covenant, the priests’ lips were to keep knowledge, and they were to teach the people God’ s ways: under the New, there is no more need for the believer to have recourse to man for teaching in the knowledge of God, for the Holy Spirit, which is given to all that ask, reveals the things of Christ to each, according to the measure of his spiritual attainment and strength of faith. And the inner reason of this now follows, making, formally, the third of these better promises, but in fact bound up with, and the condition of, the last mentioned): 12. because (not, as Michaelis on Peirce, “ shall know me, that:” but ὅτι is the causal particle: see above, and cf. the conclusion, Isaiah 33:24. “ By God passing by the former guilt of His sinful people, and beginning a new relation of grace with them, is this blessed change made possible.” De Wette. Bleek and Delitzsch have good notes here) I will be merciful (א ֶ ס ְ ל ַ ח . “ In other places also is the verb ס ָ ל ַ ח given in the LXX by the formula ἵλεώςεἰμι : always of God only, in reference to men; sometimes absolutely, 3 Kings 8:30, 39: 2 Chronicles 6:21: Amos 7:2; but generally with a dative, either of the person whom God forgives, Numbers 14:20: Jeremiah 5:1, Jeremiah 5:7; Jer_27 (50):20, or the sins which are forgiven, 1 (3) Kings 8:34, 36, 50: Jer_43 (36):3.” Bleek) to their iniquities (plur. in N. T. here only, but frequently in LXX, e. g. 1 Kings 3:13: Jeremiah 2:22; Jeremiah 18:23: Ezekiel 12:2: Hosea 10:13 &c.), and of their sins (see var. readd.) will I make mention no more. 13. Transition to the antithetical parallel which he is about to draw between the former, earthly and ceremonial, and the latter, heavenly and actual tabernacle: see summary at ch. 9:1. In saying , “ a new (covenant),” He hath made old (παλαιόω , a word peculiar to biblical usage, and in the N. T. to Heb. and St. Luke. The LXX have it a few times, in this same meaning: e. g. Lamentations 3:4, ἐπαλαίωσενσάρκαμουκαὶδέρμαμου : Job 9:5, ὁπαλαιῶνὅρη . Cf. also Job 32:15: Isaiah 65:22: Daniel 7:25 Theod. Made old, viz. by speaking of,— and where God is the speaker, actually in decree establishing, seeing that all God’ s sayings are realities,— a new one. Some have taken the word as signifying “ hath set aside, abrogated,” “ antiquavit,” as Erasmus. But this, besides being unexampled, and not answering to the technical meaning of ‘ antiquare,’ does not tally with the present participle of the same verb below, which cannot be rendered ‘ is being abrogated:’ see below. Far better is the rendering, of somewhat questionable Latinity, but very expressive, “ veteravit,” of the ital. and vulg.: see again below) the first (covenant). Now (transition, by δέ , from a particular assertion, to an axiomatic general truth: as in Romans 14:23) that which is being made old (the saying of God πεπαλαίωκεν that first covenant: the state of παλαίωσις thereby induced, continues, as the perfect (not aor., ἐπαλαίωσε , because the act was not a passing one, contemporaneous with the saying) shews,— and hence the covenant παλαιοῦται continually. The vulg., which had “ veteravit” before, here adopts “ antiquatur” for the old ital. “ veteratur,” which, as above shewn, was far better) and getting into old age , is nigh unto (see ref. and note) vanishing away (εἰςἀφανισμὸνεἶναι or γενέσθαι is a common phrase with the LXX. See reff., and 3 Kings 9:7: 4 Kings 22:19 &c., in Trommius. The Writer uses the expression of the whole time subsequent to the utterance of the prophecy. At that time the παλαίωσις began, by the mention of a new covenant: and from that time the first covenant might be regarded as ever dwindling away, so to speak, and near its end, which God might bring on at any time. It is far better to regard the ἐγγὺςἀφανισμοῦ thus, than, with some, to place it at the time of the Writer, when in fact it had already taken place). Chap. 9:1. The chief train of thought and argument, although in the main forwarded, has been for the present somewhat broken, by the long citation in the last chapter. It is now resumed. Christ is the High Priest of a heavenly tabernacle, the Mediator of a covenant established upon better promises. This latter has been shewn out of Scripture: and it has been proved that the old covenant was by that Scripture pronounced to be transitory and near its end. As such, it is now compared in detail with this second and better one, as to its liturgical apparatus, and proffered means of access to God. These are detailed somewhat minutely, mention being even made of some which are not insisted on, nor their symbolism explained: and the main point of comparison, the access into the holiest place, is hastened on. In this particular especially the infinite superiority of the new covenant is insisted on: and the whole access of Christ into God’ s presence for us is elaborately contrasted with the former insufficient ceremonial access by means of animal sacrifices. In one point, above all, is this contrast brought out: the supreme efficacy of the blood of Christ, as set against the nullity of the blood of bulls and of goats to purge away sin. Then the subject of the heavenly tabernacle and holy place is recurred to, and the future prospect of Christ’ s re-appearing from thence opened. 1-5. The liturgical appliances of the first covenant. 1. Now accordingly (μέν answers to δέ ver. 6, not to δέ ver. 11, see there. οὖν takes up the thought of ch. 8:5, where the command is recited directing Moses to make the tabernacle after the pattern shewn him in the mount. In pursuance of that command it was that ἡπρώτηκ .τ .λ .) the first (covenant) (not, the first tabernacle, as the rec. wrongly and clumsily glosses. There is no question between a first and second tabernacle: the μείζωνκαὶτελειοτέρασκηνή is a prototype, not an after-thought. The gloss has probably arisen from a blunder in interpreting τῆςπρώτηςσκηνῆς in ver. 8: see there) had (it was no longer subsisting in the Writer’ s time as a covenant, however its observances might be still surviving. ὡσεὶἔλεγε , τότεεἶχε , νῦνοὐκἔχει · δείκνυσινἤδητούτῳαὐτὴνἐκκεχωρηκυῖαν · τότεγὰρεἶχε , φησίν . ὥστενῦν , εἰκαὶἕστηκεν , οὐκἔστιν . Chrys. Or perhaps the εἶχε may refer back to the time indicated in ch. 8:5, when Moses made the tabernacle: had, when its liturgical appliances were first provided. But I prefer the other view) also (as well as this second and more perfect covenant: not that this has all the things below mentioned, but that it too possesses its corresponding liturgical appliances, though of a higher kind) ordinances (“ The vulg. renders ‘ justificationes culturœ .’ But the idea of δικαίωμα is ever passive. It imports always the product of either right appointment, or righteous judgment, or righteous conduct: the ordinance having the force of right (ref. Luke), the righteously uttered judgment (Romans 5:16), the decree according to righteousness (Revelation 15:4), the righteous performance (Romans 5:18); here beyond doubt, and ver. 10, in the first of these senses, in which the LXX have it for מ ִ ש ׁ ְ פ ּ ָ ט , ח ֹ ק and their synonyms. It is from δικαιοῦν , to give the force of law, to make of legal obligation. The old covenant also had liturgical ordinances, which were ‘ juris divini,’ ordinances which rested their obligatory right upon revelation from God and declaration of His will.” Delitzsch) of service (worship: see ch. 8:5 and note), and its (or, the: see below) worldly sanctuary (Thom. Aq., Luther, al. take ἅγιον not in a local but in an ethical sense, = ἁγιότης : Wolf understands by it “ vasa sacra totumque apparatum Leviticum.” But as the whole passage treats of the distinction between two sanctuaries, one into which the Levitical priests entered, and the other into which Christ is entered, it is certain that the signification must be local only. As regards the meaning of κοσμικόν , it must not be taken with Homberg as = κόσμιον , 1 Timothy 2:9; 1 Timothy 3:2, for both usage and the art. are against this: nor again, with Theodor.-mops., Thdrt., Œ c.(alt.), Grot., Wetst., Hammond, as σύμβολοντοῦκόσμου : nor again as Kypke, “ toto terrarum orbe celebratum,” as Jos. B. J. iv. 5. 2, where the high priests Ananus and Jesus are described as τῆςκοσμικῆςθρησκείαςκατάρχοντες , προσκυνούμενοίτετοῖςἐκτῆςοἰκουμένης ,— a meaning which would apply only to the temple, not to the tabernacle, which, from ver. 2, is here spoken of: nor again as Chrys. , Thl., Erasmus, al., which would only be true of a part of the ἅγιον , viz. the court of the Gentiles: but as in ref., and constantly in the Fathers, “ mundanus,” belonging to this world. So Plut., Consol. in Bl., κατὰ .… τὴνκοσμικὴνδιάταξιν : Hierocl. Carm. Aur. 126, τῆςκοσμικῆςεὐταξίας . So that it stands opposed to ἐπουράνιον , and is an epithet distinguishing the sanctuary of the first covenant from that of the second, not one common to the two. This is also shewn by the art. τό , to the consideration of which we now come. The art. itself is remarkable, as is also the non-repetition of it before κοσμικόν . And this latter circumstance has induced some, among whom is Delitzsch, to take κοσμικόν as a predicate, “ and its (or, the) sanctuary, a worldly one.” For the necessity or veri similitude of this, usage is alleged, and such passages as τὸσῶμαθνητὸνἅπαντεςἔχομεν , where we have ἔχω with a definite subst. as an object, and an indefinite predicate attached. But if I do not mistake, the peculiar arrangement of the clause here forbids such a rendering. For, 1. εἶχεν is not peculiar to this clause, but common to the two of which the sentence consists: and we should therefore expect, especially from a writer so careful of rhetorical equilibrium, that the objects in the two clauses should correspond: not that the first of them should be merely objective, and the second predicative. Again, 2. the use and position of the copula τε seems to forbid any such disjoining of substantive and epithet: being, however loosely used in later Greek, a closer copula than καί . I conceive the article to be rather used to distribute the object and epithet which follow it: the first covenant had not merely a worldly sanctuary, but the only sanctuary which was upon earth: that one which was constructed after the pattern of things in the heavens. Possibly another reason for inserting it might be, to define beyond doubt the substantival use of the neuter adj. ἅγιον when joined with an epithet such as κοσμικόν . As to the omission of the art. before κοσμικόν , it is no bar to rendering the adj. as an epithet: cf. τοῦαἰῶνοςτοῦἐνεστῶτοςπονηροῦ , Galatians 1:4). 2-5. Epexegetic of τὸἅγιονκοσμικόν , by a particular detail. 2. For the tabernacle (most Commentators, as De Wette, Bleek, Lü nemann, Delitzsch, al., render (correctly enough for the Greek, cf. ch. 6:7: Acts 10:41; Acts 19:11; Acts 26:22), “ a tabernacle,” and then take ἡπρώτη as specifying. But I should rather query, whether this be not carrying nicety too far for the idiom of modern languages: and whether we can come closer in English to σκηνὴἡπρώτη , and σκηνὴἡλεγομένηἁγία , than by ‘ the tabernacle, namely, the first one,’ and ‘ the tabernacle which was called holy.’ For as Delitzsch remarks, “ the general idea σκηνή is put forward anarthrously, and afterwards defined by appositional epithets having the article.” But when we say ‘ a tabernacle,’ we do not express the general idea σκηνή , but an indefinite concrete example of it. The English only admits such expressions in plurals and abstracts: e. g. γῆἡπιοῦσα , “ land which hath drunk:” δυνάμειςοὐχαἱτυχοῦσαι , “ miracles of no common sort.” Or we may say that in both cases σκηνή being thrown emphatically forward, loses its article. At all events, by rendering it “ a tabernacle” in both places, as Delitzsch (not the rest, that I can discover), we give a tinge of indefiniteness which certainly does not belong to it, and seem to lose the solemn reference to the well-known tabernacle) was established the first one (πρώτη , in situation, to those entering: see Acts 16:12 note, and compare the Homeric expression ἐνπρώτῃσιθύρῃσι . In the citation from Josephus above, the expression is used in a temporal sense, as distinguished from the subsequent one, in the temple of Solomon. The question, whether the Writer thinks (locally) of two tabernacles, or is speaking of the first portion of one and the same tabernacle, is of no great importance: the former would be but a common way of expressing the latter: and we can hardly deny that ‘ two tabernacles’ are spoken of, in the presence of σκ . ἡλεγομένηἅγιαἁγίων below), in which were (not, “ are,” as Lü nem., holding it to be ruled by λέγεται below. But λέγεται only refers to a name, now, as then, given: the position of the articles enumerated in the πρώτησκηνἡ must be contemporaneous with κατεσκ . above) the candlestick (with seven lights: of gold, carved with almond flowers, pomegranates and lilies: see Exodus 25:31-39; Exodus 37:17-24. There were ten of these in the temple of Solomon, see 1 Kings 7:49: 2 Chronicles 4:7: but in the second temple, the Mosaic regulation was returned to, and only one placed in the tabernacle: see 1 Macc. 1:21; 4:49: Jos. Antt. xii. 7. 6: also B. J. v. 5. 5 (see below); vii. 5. 5, where he describes Vespasian’ s triumph, and the candlestick as borne in it, which is now to be seen in relief on the arch of Titus at Rome) and the table (for the shewbread; of shittim (acacia?) wood, overlaid with gold, Exodus 25:23-30; Exodus 37:10-16, of which there was one only in the Mosaic tabernacle, and in the second temple (1 Macc. ut supra), but ten in Solomon’ s temple, see 2 Chronicles 4:8; also ib. ver. 19: 1 Chronicles 28:16: 1 Kings 7:48) and the shew of the bread : which tabernacle is called the holy place (Erasmus, Steph., Eras. Schmid, Mill, al. write this ἁγία , as fem., and agreeing with σκηνή , and so Luther, die heilige, and E. V., “ the sanctuary.” The vulg., “ quæ dicitur sancta,” appears to refer the clause to “ propositio panum” immediately preceding. D-lat. (see D1 in digest) has “ sancta sanctorum.” There can be no doubt that it is neut. plur. This is insisted on as early as by Thdrt.: προπαροξυτόνωςἀναγνωστέοντὰἅγια · οὕτωγὰρἡμᾶςδιδάσκεινοεῖντὸἕτερονὄνομα : viz. ἅγιαἁγίων , ver. 3. So Erasm. (annot.) and all the moderns. But even thus the omission of the art. is significant. The Writer is not so much speaking of the holy place by name, τὰἅγια , as by quality and predication, (the) holy (places). 3. But after the second veil (καταπέτασμα , class. παραπέτασμα , see ch. 6:19, is used in the LXX for the veil or curtain hanging before the sanctuary. There were in reality two of these, as described in Exodus 26:31-37: one before the holy of holies itself, פ ּ ָ ר ֹ כ ֶ ת (vv. 31-35), the other before the tabernacle door, מ ָ ס ָ ך ְ (vv. 36, 37). For both of these the LXX in Exod. l. c have καταπέτασμα , and so also for the first veil in Numbers 3:26. And Josephus, B. J. v. 5. 4, πρὸδὲτούτωνἰσόμηκεςκαταπέτασμα : and below, § 5, τὸδ ʼ ἐνδοτάτωμέρος … διείργετοὁμοίωςκαταπετάσματιπρὸςτὸἔξωθεν . Similarly in Antt. viii. 3. 3, κατεπέτασεδὲκαὶταύτας (the outside doors) τὰςθύρας , ὁμοίωςτοῖςἐνδοτέρωκαταπετάσμασι . Usually however in the LXX, the exterior veil is called κάλυμμα or ἐπίσπαστρον , and the word καταπέτασμα reserved for the interior one. So Exodus 26:36: cf. Leviticus 21:23, πλὴνπρὸςτὸκαταπέτασμαοὐπροσελεύσεται : 24:3: Numbers 4:5. And so in Philo, Vita Mos. iii. 9, vol. ii. p. 150, ὅπερἐστὶνεἰπεῖνπρόναον , εἰργόμενονδυσὶνὑφάσμασι , τὸμὲνἔνδονὂνκαλεῖταικαταπέτασμα , τὸδ ʼ ἐκτὸςπροσαγορεύεταικάλυμμα : so also above, § 5, p. 148. But elsewhere he calls both by the name καταπέτασμα , by implication at least: e. g. De Victim. § 10, p. 246, ἀντικρὺτοῦπρὸςτοῖςἀδύτοιςκαταπετάσματος , ἐσωτέρωτοῦπροτέρου : and De Gigant. § 12, vol. i. p. 270, τὸἐσώτατονκαταπέτασμακ . προκάλυμματῆςδόξης ) the (not “ a,” see above) tabernacle which is called holy of holies (ἅγια again, not ἁγία , see above. ק ֹ ד ֶ ש ׁ ה ַ ק ּ ָ ד ָ ש ׁ ִ י ם , sometimes τὸἅγιοντῶνἁγίων , a periphrasis of the superlative adopted from the Heb.), 4. having (on ἔχουσα , see below) a golden censer (or, altar of incense) θυμιατήριονπαρέθηκε , καὶἐθυμιᾶτοαὐτῷ . It is true, the LXX have generally called the altar of incense τὸθυσιαστήριονθυμιάματος or -των , cf. Exodus 30:1, Exodus 30:27: Leviticus 4:7: 1 Chronicles 6:49; 1 Chronicles 28:18: 2 Chronicles 26:16, 2 Chronicles 26:19: or τὸθυσιαστήριοντὸχρυσοῦν , Exodus 40:5, Exodus 40:24 (26): Numbers 4:11: 3 Kings 7:48: 2 Chronicles 4:19: or τὸθυσιαστ . τὸἀπέναντικυρίου , Leviticus 16:12, Leviticus 16:18: or merely τὸθυσιαστήριον , where the context shews which altar is meant, Leviticus 16:20: Numbers 4:13, Numbers 4:14: Deuteronomy 33:10: 3 Kings 6:20: and also θυσιαστήρια , where both the altars, of burnt-offering and of incense, are intended, Exodus 31:8: Numbers 3:31. But later, the more appropriate word θυμιατήριον became the usual Hellenistic name for the altar of incense. So Philo, Quis Rer. Div. Hæ r. § 46, vol. i. p. 504, τριῶνὄντωνἐντοῖςἁγίοιςσκευῶν , λυχνίας , τραπέζης , θυμιατηρίου , τὸμὲνθυμιατήριονκ .τ .λ .: and id. Vita Mos. iii. § 7, vol. ii. p. 149, ἐδημιουργεῖτοκαὶσκεύηἱερά , κιβωτός , λυχνία , τράπεζα , θυμιατήριον , βωμός . And Josephus, Antt. iii. 6. 8; iii. 8. 2, 3: B. J. v. 5. 5, καὶτὸμὲνπρῶτονμὲρος … εἶχενἐναὐτῷτρίαθαυμασιώτατακ . περιβόηταπᾶσινἀνθρώποιςἔργα , λυχνίαν , τράπεζαν , θυμιατήριον . So also Strom. v. 6. 33, pp. 665 f. P., and other Fathers. And thus it has been taken here by the old lat. in D, by Œ c. on ver. 7 (καὶθυμιάσειἐπ ʼ αὐτοῦ , τουτέστιν , ἐπὶτοῦχρυσοῦθυμιατηρίουοὗἦνἐντοῖςἁγίοιςτῶνἁγίωνκ .τ .λ .), and of later expositors Tostatus (on Exo_25 qu. 6; on 1Ki_6 qu. 16), Calvin, Justiniani, Estius, Corn. a-Lap., La Cerda (Adverss. c. 81, p. 112), Schlichting, Junius, J. Cappellus, Gerhard, Brochmann, Mynster, Owen, Bleek, De Wette, Ebrard, Lü nemann, Delitzsch. On the other hand, the meaning “ censer” is adopted by Syr., vulg. , Thl. (μετάγετοῦχρυσοῦθυμιατηρίουἅπαξεἰσῄειτοῦἐνιαυτοῦεἰςτὰἅγιατῶνἁγίων · ἄλλογὰρθυμιατήριονκαὶἄλλοθυσιαστήριον , on ver. 7), Anselm, Th. Aquin., Lyra, Luther, Grot., Villalpandus (on Ezek.), Hammond, De Dieu, Calov., Reland, Limborch, Wolf, Bengel, Wetst., Carpzov, Deyling, Michaelis, Schulz, Bö hme, Stuart, Kuinoel, Von Gerlach, Stier, Bisping, al. And on this side of the question it is remarkable, that much stress is laid by the Mischna upon the censer to be used on the day of expiation, as distinguished from that used on any other day: on the fact of its being of gold, and of a particular and precious kind of gold. I give nearly the whole passage from Surenhusius, Ordo Festorum, ii. 229, as certainly forming an important element in deciding the difficulty. “ In omni die deprompsit thuribulo argenteo et in aureum infundebat: hodie deprompsit aureo, et intrabat cum eo. In omni die deprompsit thuribulo quod quatuor cabos continebat, et in alterum infundebat quod tres cabos capiebat: hodie deprompsit thuribulo quod tres cabos capiebat, et intrabat cum eo.… In omni die grave, hodie leve: in omni die manus ejus brevis erat, hodie longa: in omni die aurum ejus viride erat, hodie rufum” . See also the citation below on τὴνκιβωτόν . If this latter interpretation be adopted, we are involved in the following difficulty. This golden censer is no where named in the law: the word rendered “ censer” by E. V., in Leviticus 16:12, is מ ַ ח ְ ת ּ ָ ה , a shallow basin, in which the high priest on the day of atonement was to take incense from the incense-altar into the holy place: and is called in the LXX πυρεῖον , not θυμιατήριον . Besides which, it is not specified as golden; nor was it kept in the holy of holies. Indeed it could not have been, or the high priest would have been obliged to fetch it from thence before burning incense in it, which is most improbable. Of these, the first-mentioned objection is not decisive; for our Writer is speaking, not of Mosaic usage only, but of several things outside the provisions of the law itself; and thus our explanation of any difficulty need not be sought in the provisions of the law only, but also in subsequent Jewish usage. This especially against Delitzsch, who, strictly confining us to Mosaic ordinance here, and asserting that the Writer speaks of it and nothing else, yet below, on the pot of manna, &c., confesses that he follows tradition. If now, influenced by the above difficulties, we adopt the interpretation ‘ altar of incense,’ for θυμιατήριον , a difficulty arises, certainly not less than any of those adduced above. On the one hand the word ἔχουσα at first sight seems to admit of no other meaning than a local one, ‘ containing.’ The parallelism with ἐνᾗ above appears to demand this, and the fact that the other things mentioned are beyond question intended to be in, not merely belonging to, the Holy of holies. On this, see more below. Taking it as our first impression, we are startled by the fact, that the altar of incense was not in the Holy of holies, but outside it, ἔσωτοῦπροτέρουκαταπετάσματος , as Philo de Vict. Off. § 4, vol. ii. p. 253. Hence Bleek, De Wette, and Lü nemann, suppose that the Writer has fallen into a mistake, and Bleek infers from this that he was not an inhabitant of Palestine, but an Alexandrine. But as Delitzsch observes, whichever he were, he must have been a Monstrum von Unwissenheit, to have fallen into any such error. “ Then,” continues Delitzsch, “ since we cannot submit him to such an imputation, is there any intent which our Writer may have had, inducing him to ascribe the altar of incense to the Holy of holies, notwithstanding that he knew its local situation to be in the Holy place?” There is such an intent, recognized even by Bleek himself. “ The Author,” says Bleek, and after him Tholuck, “ treats the Holy of holies, irrespective of the veil, as symbolical of the heavenly sanctuary, and had also a motive to include in it the altar of incense, whose offerings of incense are the symbol of the prayers of the saints, Revelation 8:3 f.” And even so it is. Not only the N. T. writings, but the O. T. also, Isaiah 6:6, speak of a heavenly altar, which is the antitype there of the earthly מ ִ ז ְ ב ּ ֵ ח ַ ד ַ ז ּ ָ ה ָ ב . Considering the fact that this antitypical altar belonged to the Holy of holies, into which Christ entered through the torn veil, it was obvious for our Writer to reckon the typical altar also among the things belonging to the Holy of holies. Philo, who regarded the λυχνία as the type of heaven, the θυμιαιήριον as σύμβολοντῶνπεριγείων , ἐξὧναἱἀναθυμιάσεις (Vita Mos. iii. 10, vol. ii. p. 251), had no such motive. Our second question then is, whether our Writer is justified, having this motive, in reckoning the altar of incense among the furniture of the Holy of holies. And our answer is, Entirely so: but not for the reason given by Ebrard, because the smoke of the incense was not intended to roll backwards, but to penetrate into the holiest place as the symbol of supplication and homage: which reason is none at all (but see below), seeing that the same might be said of the smoke of the fat of the altar of burnt-offering, and in the same way the golden table and the shewbread might be reckoned in the Holy of holies; for the cakes, a thank-offering of the twelve tribes for the blessing bestowed on them, lay on the table, that He who sat between the cherubim might behold them. Nor can we refer to Exodus 26:35, where the only reason for the altar of incense not being named among the furniture outside the veil, is, that its construction was not yet prescribed;— nor can we adduce the fact of its being called in Exodus 30:10, ק ֹ ד ֶ ש ׁ ־ ק ָ ד ָ ש ׁ ִ י ם , holy of holies, seeing that the altar of burnt-offering is in Exodus 40:10, distinguished by the same name. But the following considerations have weight: α . that the altar of incense, by Exodus 30:6 and 40:5, is to be placed before the ark of the covenant or before the Capporeth (mercy-seat), i. e. in the middle between the candlestick on the right and the table of shewbread on the left, so that its place is subordinate to the ark of the covenant: β . that on the day of atonement, it, as well as the mercy-seat, was sprinkled with the blood of the sin-offering: γ . that in 1 Kings 6:22, as well as by our Writer, it is reckoned to the Holy of holies, being there called ח ַ מ ּ ִ ז ְ ב ּ ֵ ח ַ א ֲ ש ׁ ֶ ר ל ַ ד ּ ְ ב ִ י ר , the altar belonging to the sanctuary . Thenius indeed holds ל ַ ד ּ ְ ב ִ י ר to be an error for ל ִ פ ּ ְ נ ֵ י ה ַ ד ּ ְ ב ִ ד , “ before the sanctuary,” but Keil maintains rightly that that passage of Kings and our passage here mutually defend and explain one another. The solution to be gathered from this would be, that the altar of incense, being appointed by the Mosaic ordinance to stand in immediate contiguity to the veil separating the Holy of holies, and being destined in its use especially for the service of the Holy of holics (for this, notwithstanding the objection brought by Delitzsch, might have weight; the exterior altar of burnt-offering did not belong in any such strict sense to the sanctuary and mercy-seat), and being described in more than one place of Scripture (e. g. Exodus 30:6: 1 Kings 6:22) as connected with the sanctuary, is taken by the Writer as appertaining to the Holy of holies: he choosing, thus to describe it, the somewhat ambiguous word ἔχουσα , and not ἐνᾗ as before. For we may set off against what was just now said about the strict parallel at first sight between ἐνᾗ in the former clause and ἔχουσα in this, that it may be fairly alleged, that the very fact of variation of terms, in such a parallelism, points to some variation of meaning also. I have thus given both views of the solution to be sought: and will now state the result. 1. On either hypothesis, ἔχουσα cannot be kept to its stricter meaning of containing. For neither the censer nor the incense-altar was kept in the holy of holies. 2. The language of the Mischna concerning the golden censer is very strong, and more weight still is given to it when we reflect that it is especially of the day of expiation that our Writer is preparing to speak. 3. The word χρυσοῦν should not be overlooked in the consideration. When the ark of the covenant by and by is spoken of, which like the altar of incense was overlaid with gold, it is not said to be χρυσοῦν , but only περικεκαλυμμένηπάντοθενχρυσίῳ . And this predicate being thus emphatically thrown forward, it is hardly possible to help feeling that a stress is laid on it, and it is not used without design. And if we enquire what this design is, we can hardly find fault with the reply which says that it is to distinguish a χρυσοῦνθυμιατήριον from some other kinds of θυμιατήρια . 4. On the whole then I should say that the balance inclines towards the ‘ censer’ interpretation, though I do not feel by any means that the difficulty is removed, and should hail any new solution which might clear it still further) and the ark of the covenant (see Exodus 25:10 ff.; Exodus 37:1 ff.: called by this name, א ֲ ר ו ֹ ן ה ַ ב ּ ְ ר ִ י ת , Joshua 3:6 and passim) covered round on all sides (ἔσωθενκαὶἔξωθεν , Exodus 25:11) with gold (χρυσίῳ , not χρυσῷ , perhaps for a portion of gold, or perhaps, as Delitzsch, for wrought gold. See Palm and Rost’ s Lex. But all distinction between the words seems to have been lost before Hellenistio Greek arose, and the tendency of all later forms of speech is to adopt diminutives where the elder forms used the primitives. The ark, a chest, was of shittim (acacia) wood, overlaid with plates of fine gold, Exod. l. c. The ark of the covenant was in the Holy of holies in the Mosaic tabernacle, and in the temple of Solomon, 1 Kings 8:4, 1 Kings 8:6. In the sack by the Chaldeans, it disappeared. See a legend respecting its fate in 2 Macc. 2:1-8, where curiously enough τὴνσκηνὴνκαὶτὴνκιβωτὸνκαὶτὸθυσιαστήριοντοῦθυμιάματος are classed together. The second temple did not contain it, but it was represented by a stone basement three fingers high, called א ֶ ב ֶ ן ש ׁ ְ ת ִ י ָ ה , “ the stone of foundation” (Delitzsch: see Gesen. Thesaurus, under ש ׁ ָ ת ָ ה , iii.). So in the Mischna, “ Ex quo abducta est arca, lapis ibi erat a diebus priorum prophetarum, et lapis fundationis fuit vocatus; altus e terra tribus digitis, et super ipsum thuribulum collocabat.” So Jos. B. J. v. 5. 5, of the sanctuary, in his time, τὸδ ʼ ἐνδοτάτωμέροςεἴκοσιμὲνἦνπηχῶν · διεέργετοδὲὁμοίωςκαταπετάσματιπρὸςτὸἔξωθεν . ἔκειτοδὲοὐδὲνὅλωςἐναὐτῷ , ἄβατονδὲκ . ἄχραντονκ . ἀθέατονἦνπᾶσιν , ἁγίουδὲἅγιονἐκαλεῖτο ), in which (was) a golden pot (Exodus 16:32-34. The word ‘ golden,’ λάβεστάμνονχρυσοῦνἕνα , is added by the LXX: so also Philo de Congr. Quæ r. Erud. Gr. 18, vol. i. p. 533, ἐνστάμνῳχρυσῷ : the Heb. has merely “ a pot,” as E. V.) containing the manna (viz. an omer, each man’ s daily share, laid up for a memorial, cf. Exodus 16:32 with ib. 16. That this pot was to be placed in the ark, is not said there, but it was gathered probably from the words “ before the Lord.” In 1 Kings 8:9 and 2 Chronicles 5:10, it is stated that there was nothing in the ark in Solomon’ s temple, except the two tables which Moses put therein at Horeb. But this, as Delitzsch observes, will not prove any thing against the pot of manna and the rod having once been there; nay rather, from the express declaration that there was then nothing but the tables of stone, it would seem that formerly there had been other things there. The Rabbis certainly treat of the pot of manna as of the rod, as being in the ark: see the testimonies of Levi ben Gershom and Abarbanel in Wetst., h. 1.), and the rod of Aaron which budded (see Numbers 17:1-11. It was to be laid up “ before the testimony,” in which Ben Gershom sees a proof that it was in the ark: “ ex eo autem, quod dicit coram testimonio potius quam coram area, discimus, intra arcam fuisse.” Abarbanel refers to “ traditio quæ dam Rabbinorum nostrorum.” See Wetst. as above. The Gemara (Joma 52 b) mentions a tradition that with the ark disappeared the pot of manna, and the cruse of anointing oil, and the rod of Aaron with its almonds and blossoms, and the chest which the Philistines sent for a trespass-offering, 1 Samuel 6:4, 1 Samuel 6:8), and the tables of the covenant (viz. the tables of stone on which the ten commandments were written by the finger of God, Exodus 25:16; Exodus 31:18: Deuteronomy 10:1-5: 1 Kings 8:9: 2 Chronicles 5:10, as above. It will be seen from these references, that these tables were ordered to be put in the ark): 5. and over above it (the ark of the covenant) (the) cherubim (the well-known fourfold animal forms, fencing from human approach, and at the same time bearing up and supporting, the glory of God: symbolizing, as I believe and have elsewhere maintained (Hulsean Lectures for 1841, Lect. i. See also note on Revelation 4:6-8), the creation of God. See more below) of glory (ἢτὰἔνδοξα , ἢτὰὄντατῆςδόξης , τουτέστιτοῦθεοῦ : Œ c., Cyril, similarly Thl., … ἢτὰλειτουργικὰτοῦθεοῦ , κ . πρὸςδόξαναὐτοῦὄντα : and Chrys., … ἢτὰὑποκάτωτοῦθεοῦ . There can be little doubt that the latter class of meanings is to be taken, though Camerar., Beza (vers.), Est., Corn. a-Lap., Schlichting, Kuinoel, al. adopt the former. For we may well say, why such a periphrasis if a mere epithet were intended, when we have already the epithets χρυσοῦν and περικεκαλυμμένηνχρυσίῳ The δόξα is the Shechinah, or bright cloud of glory, in which Jehovah appeared between the cherubic forms, and to which, as attendants, and watchers, and upholders, they belonged. The want of the art. before δόξης is no argument for the other view, as δόξα is often used thus anarthrous for the Shechinah: cf. Exodus 40:28 (34), κ . ἐκάλυψενἡνεφέλητὴνσκηνὴντοῦμαρτυρίου , κ . δόξηςκυρίουἐπλήσθηἡσκηνή : 1 Kings 4:22: Ezekiel 9:3; Ezekiel 10:18 al. On the Cherubim, see further Winer, Realw. sub voce) overshadowing (casting shadow down upon, causing to be κατάσκιον : see reff. Exod. χερουβίν here, as usually, is neuter: cf. Genesis 3:24: Exodus 25:18 al.: sometimes the LXX have used it masc.: e. g. Exodus 25:20; Exodus 28:23 al. There seems to be a reason for the variation: the neut. being employed when they are spoken of merely as figures, the masc. when as agents. The neut. prevails in Philo: Josephus has οἱχερουβεῖς Antt. iii. 6. 5, and αἱχερουβεῖς ib. viii. 3. 3) the mercy-seat : concerning which it is not (opportune) (this use of ἐστιν with inf.,= ἔξεστιν , is pure Attic) now to speak one by one . 6, 7. We now have that whereunto the above details have been tending, viz. the use made of the sanctuary by the high priest on the day of atonement. 6. But (transitional) these things being thus arranged (it is impossible in English to give the force of the perfect participle as connected with the present which follows. To say ‘ having been arranged,’ and follow it by ‘ enter,’ would be a solœ cism: which shews, that our participle ‘ having been’ is not so much a perfect as an aorist. Resolved, the sentence would be: ‘ these things have been thus arranged (i. e. were thus arranged and continue so), and the priests enter.’ In taking our present-perfect participle, ‘ being,’ we lose the historical past involved in the perfect, pointing to the time when they were so arranged. To carry the sense of ‘ abiding even now,’ in the perfect, so far, as to suppose the Writer to imagine that the ark &c. were still, at the time he was writing, in the Sanctuary (Bl., Lü nem., De W.), is quite unnecessary, and indeed unreasonable: he clearly conceives of the whole system and arrangement as subsisting, but not in every minute detail. The arrangement was essential to the system: the failure of some of its parts, accidental to it. κατεσκευασμ . in allusion to the same word ver. 2), into the first (foremost) tabernacle (indeed) continually (i. e. day by day, at any time, without limits prescribed by the law: certainly, twice at least in every day, see Exodus 30:7 ff.) enter the priests (the ordinary priests) accomplishing the services (so Herod., ἄλλαςτεθρησκίαςμυρίαςἐπιτελέουσι : he uses ἐπιτελεῖν likewise of θυσίας , ii. 63; iv. 26: εὐχωλάς , ii. 63: ὁρτάς , iv. 186. See other examples in Bl. The services meant are the morning and evening care of the lamps, the morning and evening offering of incense, and the weekly change of the shewbread), 7. but into the second (innermost, the Holy of holies) once in the year (i. e. on the day of atonement, the 10th day of the 7th month: the same expression is used in reff. Exod. and Levit. The entrance took place, on that day, twice at least, from Leviticus 16:12-16: the Mischna says, four (three?) times, Joma v. 1; vii. 4. Much trouble has been spent by antiquarians on the question: see the whole treated in Bleek, if it be thought worth while: it may suffice here to say that the Writer follows the ordinary way of speaking among the Jews and ourselves, meaning by ‘ once,’ on one occasion. No one would think, if I said I was in the habit of seeing a certain person but once in every year, of asking how long I spent in his company during that day, and how often I looked upon him. Cf. Philo, Leg. ad Cai. § 39, vol. ii. p. 591, εἰςἃἅπαξτοῦἐνιαυτοῦὁμέγαςἱερεὺςεἰσέρχεταιτῇνηστείᾳλεγομένῃμόνονἐπιθυμιάσων . So ἅπαξδι ʼ ἔτους , id. de Monarch. ii. 2, p. 223: ἅπαξκατ ʼ ἐνιαυτόν , Jos. B. J. v. 5. 7: and 3 Macc. 1:11) the high priest alone, not without (see ch. 7:20) blood, which he offers (see ch. 8:3) on behalf of himself and the ignorances (sins of ignorance, see ch. 5:2: cf. Philo, Plant. Noë , § 25, vol. i. p. 345, αἱ … θυσίαι … ὑπομιμνήσκουσαιτὰςἑκάστωνἀγνοίαςτεκ . διαμαρτίας . See Schweighä user’ s Lexicon Polybianum, where he gives as the sense of ἄγνοια , “ peccatum, delictum, præ sertim errore et per imprudentiam commissum:” giving numerous instances. But further on, he says, “ Nonnunquam tamen de graviori culpa et deliberato crimine usurpatur:” giving also examples. And similarly under ἀγνοέω , “ nude, peccare: πολεμεῖντοῖςἀγνοήσασι , bellum gerere cum eis qui peccarunt, deliquerunt, v. 11. 5: τὰἠγνοημένα , errata, peccata, xxxviii. 1. 5.” So that here the word may have a wider meaning than mere sins of ignorance) of the people , Luth., Calv. (vers.), Schlichting, Limborch (vers.), al.: but as above Syr., D-lat. , Faber Stap., Vatabl., Erasm. (vers.), Beza (vers.), Calov., Bengel, Schulz, Bö hme, De Wette, al. And no doubt grammatically this latter is in strictness right: the other rendering requiring τῶν before ἑαυτοῦ . The question however in all such cases is not whether the sense would not be better expressed by a more elegant construction, but whether the N. T. dialect was likely to have expressed it without that more elegant construction. And here, though I prefer the more strictly grammatical rendering, I am by no means sure that the other is absolutely excluded. The parallel of ch. 7:27, πρότερονὑπὲρτῶνἰδίωνἁμαρτιῶν , … ἔπειτατῶντοῦλαοῦ , is very strong: and we have a similar irregularity of grammatical construction in 1 John 2:2, ἱλασμὸςπερὶτῶνἁμαρτιῶνἡμῶν , οὐπερὶἡμετέρωνδὲμόνον , ἀλλὰκαὶπερὶὅλουτοῦκόσμου ): 8. the Holy Spirit signifying this (which follows), that the way to (‘ of:’ so in reff.,— see Kü hner ii. p. 176, Anm. 4: but not in τὴνεὐθὺςἌργουςκἀπιδαυρίαςὁδόν , Eur. Hipp. 1197, where the genitives are governed by εὐθύς : cf. εὐθὺςσφῶν … πλεῖν , Thuc. viii. 96, and Lob. on Phryn. p. 144) the holy places (i. e. the true holy places in heaven: for it is of antitype, not of type, that the Writer is here speaking. Hence there is no danger of mistaking τὰἅγια here for the outer tabernacle: it is as in reff., and τὸἅγιον in Ezekiel 41:23 and Leviticus 16:16, Leviticus 16:17, Leviticus 16:20, Leviticus 16:23, Leviticus 16:27, the holy place κατ ʼ ἐξοχήν . Syr. has a curious rendering— “ the way of the holy ones” (masc.)) has not yet been manifested (not, had not: the present form is maintained throughout: see below) while the first tabernacle is as yet standing : Christ. But both of these ideas are well refuted by Delitzsch, who reminds us that the first as well as the second tabernacle was symbolical of heavenly things. Thl. says, ἄρχεταιλοιπὸνἀναγωγικώτερονθεωρεῖντὰπερὶτῶνσκηνῶν , καὶφησίν , ὅτιἐπειδὴτὰμὲνἅγιατῶνἁγίωνἄβαταἦντοῖςἄλλοιςἱερεῦσιν , ἂτύποςεἰσὶτοῦοὐρανοῦ , ἡμέντοιπρώτησκηνή , τουτέστινἡμετὰτὸἔξωθενθυσιαστήριοντὸχαλκοῦνπρώτηεὐθὺςοὖσα , βάσιμοςἦναὐτοῖςδιὰπαντός , σύμβολονοὖσατῆςκατὰνόμονλατρείας , ἑδηλοῦτοσυμβολικῶς , ὅτιἕωςοὗἵσταταιἡσκηνὴαὕτη , τουτέστινἕωςοὗκρατεῖὁνόμοςκαὶαἱκατ ʼ αὐτὸνλατρεῖαιτελοῦνται , οὐκἔστιβάσιμοςἡτῶνἁγίωνὁδός , τουτέστινἡεἰςτὸνοὐρανὸνεἴσοδος , τοῖςτὰςτοιαύταςλατρείαςἐπιτελοῦσιν , ἀλλὰτούτοιςμὲνἀφανήςἐστικαὶἀποκέκλεισται , μόνῳδὲτῷἑνὶἀρχιερεῖχριστῷἀφωρίσθηἡὁδὸςαὕτη . The phrase στάσινἔχειν , besides ref. Polyb., occurs in Plut. Symp. viii. 8, εἰνέαπάθητότεπρῶτονἔσχενἐντῇφύσειγένεσινκ . στάσιν : and in Dion. Hal. vi. p. 415, μέχριςἂνοὐρανόςτεκαὶγῆτὴναὐτὴνστάσινἔχωσι . See other examples in Kypke. On the sense, cf. Jos.Antt. iii. 7. 7, τὴνδὲτρίτηνμοῖρανμόνῳπεριέγραψετῷθεῷδιὰτὸκαὶτὸνοὐρανὸνἀνεπίβατονεἶναιτοῖςἀνθρώποις ), 9. the which (ἥτις = ‘ quippe quæ ,’ as almost always. ἥτις , viz. the first or anterior tabernacle, and that especially considered as obstructing, by its yet remaining, the way into the holiest. This is better than with Primasius to understand quæ res, and account for the gender by attraction) is (not, “ was,” see above) a parable (τουτέστιτύποςκ . σκιαγραφία , Thl. παραβολή is predicate, not subject, as Calvin, Storr, De W., al. If we make it subject, the verb to be supplied would not be the mere copula, but a significant verb, which would require to be expressed) for (in reference to: or it may be taken as indicating the terminus ad quem, ‘ until:’ but I prefer the other: see reff.) the time (period, or season, with reference to the divine dispensations) now present , according to which (παραβολήν : so Œ cum., καθ ʼ ἣνπαραβολὴνκαὶκαθ ʼ ὃντύπον : i. e. in accordance with which typical meaning; a specification accounting for and justifying the profitless character of the ordinances about to be spoken of. Some (as Lü n., al.) have referred ἥν to πρώτηςσκηνῆς , but καθ ʼ ἥν would hardly thus apply: we should rather expect ἐνᾗ . Those who read καθ ʼ ὅν naturally refer it to καιρόν , thereby modifying their view of what is to be understood by τὸνκαιρ . τ . ἐνεστηκότα : see above) both gifts and sacrifices are offered (see reff. for these words. The present implies only the matter-of-fact endurance of the Levitical offerings, not their subsistence in the divine plan) having no power (μὴδυν ., subjective, ‘ quæ non valeant:’ not οὐδυν ., ‘ invalida,’ ‘ quæ non valent.’ The gender of the participle, as so often, is taken from the subst. next to it) to perfect in conscience (see below) him that serveth , 10. only (consisting) in (supply οὖσαι or προσφερόμεναι , and understand ἐπί as pointing out the ground whereupon, the condition wherein, the offering of the δῶράτεκαὶθυσίαι subsisted. Some of the ancient Commentators joined ἐπί with τελειῶσαι ,— “ not able to perfect.… in his conscience, only as regards meats and” … So Œ c., αἱλατρεῖαι , φησίν , οὐκἴσχυονψυχικῶςτινατελειῶσαι , ἀλλὰπερὶτὴνσάρκαεἶχοντὴνἐνέργειανκ . τὰσαρκικὰκ .τ .λ . And so recently Ebrard. But this is not the fact, as it would be here stated. The gifts and offerings, e. g. those of the day of atonement, had far other reference than merely to meats and drinks and washings: nay, these were parables in reference to higher things. Another set joined it with λατρεύοντα , “ him who serveth under condition of meats” &c. But this is questionable as to usage, and would make a very lame and dragging sentence. Thl. apparently joins ἐπί with ἐπικείμενα below: μόνον , φησίν , ἐπικείμενατοῖςτότεἀνθρώποιςκ . διαταττόμεναπερὶβρωμάτωνκ . πομάτων . Others, as Grot., Bengel, Bleek, De Wette, give ἐπί the meaning “ together with,” which is hardly either philologically or contextually suitable. If δικαιώμασιν be read, then on this view it would be more likely ἄλλοιςδικαιώμασιν : if δικαιώματα , it could hardly be said that the meats and drinks and washings were δικαιώματα in the same sense as the δῶράτεκ . θυσίαι , seeing that they were only their conditions, not their cognates) meats and drinks and divers washings (probably the Writer has in mind both the legal and the Talmudical conditions imposed upon the λατρεύοντες . See the very parallel place, Colossians 2:16. The law prescribed much about eating: nothing about drinking, except some general rules of uncleanness, such as Leviticus 11:34,— and in peculiar cases, such as the prohibition of wine to the Nazarite, Numbers 6:3,— and to the priests when on actual service in the tabernacle, Leviticus 10:9. But subsequent circumstances and usage added other observances and precedents: as e. g. Daniel 1:8: Haggai 2:13. See Matthew 23:24: Romans 14:21. So there is no necessity to suppose that the allusion is to the feasts after sacrifice (ch. 13:10), or to the passover. The διάφοροιβαπτισμοί may refer to all the various washings ordained by the law, Exodus 29:4: Levit. 11:25, 28, 32, 40; 14:6-9; 15:5 ff.; 16:4, 24 ff.: Numbers 8:7; Numbers 19:17 ff. al. But it seems likely that not the sacerdotal washings, so much as those prescribed to or observed by the people, are mainly in view: such as those mentioned in Mark 7:4), ordinances of (the) flesh (i. e. belonging to flesh, as opposed to spirit. They regarded material things, gifts, sacrifices, meats, drinks, washings, which from their very nature could only affect the outward, not the inward man. Of course δικαιώματασαρκός is in apposition with δῶράτεκαὶθυσίαι . The ordinary reading, καὶδικαιώμασιν , has, besides manuscript authority, these two objections against it: 1. seeing that the things mentioned were themselves δικαιώματασαρκός , we should rather require (see above) καὶἄλλοιςδικαιώμασιν : 2. we should have δυνάμεναι followed by ἐπικείμενα , which, however possibly allowable, would certainly be very harsh), imposed (cf. Il. ζ . 458, κρατερὴἐπικείσετ ʼ ἀνάγκη : also Acts 15:10, Acts 15:28, which is a remarkable parallel. ἐπεὶδὲζυγὸςἦνὁνόμοςβαρύς , εἰκότωςεἶπετὸἐπικείμενα . Thl.: who then, as Œ c., quotes Acts 15:10) until the season of rectification (i. e. when all these things would be better arranged, the substance put where the shadow was before, the sufficient grace where the insufficient type. διόρθωσις , cf. ref. and Aristot. Polit. 8: τῶνπιπτόντωνοἰκοδομημάτωνκ . ὁδῶνσωτηρίακαὶδιόρθωσις . See many more instances of its use in Lobeck’ s note on Phryn. p. 250 f. The expression probably refers to ch. 8:8 f.,— the time when God would make with His people a better covenant. I need hardly remind the reader who has kept pace with what has been said on τὸνκαιρὸντὸνἐνεστηκότα above, that this καιρὸςδιορθώσεως is one and the same with that. Those who give another meaning there, yet agree in referring these words to Christian times). 11, 12. The fulfilment of these types by Christ. But (the contrast is to the μὴδυνάμ . and the μέχρικαιρ . above— to the ineffectiveness and the merely provisional nature of the Levitical offerings) Christ (not ‘ Jesus’ here: because the Writer will introduce with emphasis that name which carries with it the fulfilment of all type and prophecy. Nor again, ὁχριστός (παραγεν . δὲὁχρ .), because he will not say that ‘ the Messiah’ was come, but will use that well-known name as a personal name belonging to Him whom now all Christians know by it) having appeared (παραγίγνεσθαι is the usual word for appearing or coming forward as a historical person: appearing on the stage of the world: see reff. And it is of this appearance of Christ in history that the word is here used. That appearance was the point of demarcation between prophecy and fulfilment, between the old covenant and the new. So that παραγενόμενος is rather to be taken of the whole accomplished course of Christ summed up in one, than either of His first incarnation upon earth, or of His full inauguration into His Melchisedek High Priesthood in heaven. Chrys., Thl., al. join it so closely to ἀρχιερεὺςτ . μ . ἀγ . as to make that predicatory clause the very object of His παραγενέσθαι : so Thl., οὐκεἶπεδὲγειόμενοςἀρχ . ἀλλὰπαραγενόμενοςἀρχ ., τουτέστινεἰςαὐτὸτοῦτοἐλθών . οὐπρότερονπαρεγένετο , εἶτα , συμβὰνοὕτω , ἐγένετοἀρχιερεύς , ἀλλ ʼ ὁσκοπὸςτοῦπαραγεγονέναιαὐτὸνεἰςτὴνγῆνἡἀρχιερωσύνηἦν . Chrys. very similarly, adding, εἰςαὐτὸτοῦτοἐλθών , οὐχἕτερονδιαδεξάμενος · οὐπρότερονπαρεγένετο , καὶτότεἐγένετο , ἀλλὰἅμαἦλθε . But there is no need of this. It was not εἰςτὸεἶναιἀρχιερέα , but as being ἀρχιερεύς , that Christ παρεγένετο . There is no need for a comma after παραγενόμενος on the rendering above given) as High Priest of the good things to come (the question of the reading has much divided Commentators here. I have had no hesitation in retaining the rec., believing γενομένων to have been either a clerical error, or a correction in the sense given e. g. by Ebrard, who requires a contrast between the mere antitypical and foreshadowed goods of the O. T. and the substantial and fulfilled goods of the N. T. But no such contrast is here to be found. The contrast is between weak rites which could not, and the sacrifice of Christ which can, purify the conscience: the stress of our sentence is not at all on τὰμέλλοντα or τὰγενόμεναἀγαθά , but on χριστός in the first degree, and on παραγενόμενος in the second. ἀρχιερεύς is the office common to both the subjects of comparison. τὰμέλλονταἀγαθά are in this case the blessed promises of the Christian covenant, different, in the very nature of the case, from their μέλλονταἀγαθά , but still, in formal expression, a term common to them and us: so that the expression ἀρχιερεὺςτῶνμελλόντωνἀγαθῶν might in its scantiness of sense have been used of a Jewish high priest, just as it is in its fulness of completed sense used of Christ now. Herein I should differ both from Hofmann and Delitzsch, the former of whom (Schriftb. ii. 1. 292) maintains that the difference between the O. T. and the N. T. High Priest is that the one is an ἀρχιερεὺςἀγαθῶν , which the other was not: and the latter, disputing this distinction, states the difference to be, that the one is an ἀρχ . τῶνμελλόντωνἀγαθῶν , which the other was not. The fact being, that both might be described as ἀρχ . τῶνμελλόντωνἀγαθῶν , but that Christ has by His revelation brought life and immortality to light; so that those words bear another and a more blessed meaning now than they could then: in fact, that, as brought out in ch. 10:1, which is a key-text to open this, the law had σκιὰντῶνμελλόντωνἀγαθῶν , whereas we have αὐτὴντὴνεἰκόνατῶνπραγμάτων . After what has been said, it is hardly necessary to add that I take μέλλοντα as meaning not, which were future ‘ respectu legis,’ but which are now future; the κληρονομίαἄφθαρτος of 1 Peter 1:4, the ἐλπιζόμενα of our ch. 11:1: see our Writer’ s usage in reff. The gen. after ἀρχιερεύς is, as Hofm. and Delitzsch well remark, not an attributive, but an objective one: the μέλλονταἀγαθά are the objects and ultimate regard of his High Priesthood), through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is, not of this creation (1. How are these words to be constructed? 2. To what tabernacle do they refer? 1. They belong to εἰσῆλθεν below, not to παραγενόμενοςἀρχιερεύς above, as Primasius, Luther, Schulz, al. For in that case, οὐδέ would be left without any preceding member of the negation to follow, or it must be considered as the sequence to οὐταύτηςτῆςκτίσεως , or to οὐχειροποιήτου , either of which would be absurd. So likewise recently Hofmann, joining however the whole, down to ἰδίουαἵματος , with the subject ἀρχιερεύς . Of his whole view, I shall treat below. 2. The διὰ is local: as the Jewish high priest passed through the πρώτησκηνή in entering into the earthly ἅγια , so our High Priest has passed through the μείζωνκ . τελειοτέρασκηνή to enter into the heavenly ἅγια (on the second διὰ , see below). But, this settled, what is this greater and more perfect tabernacle? The Fathers for the most part interpret it of Christ’ s body or human nature. So Chrys. , Thl. (similarly), Thdrt., Œ c., Ambros. (on Psa_118), Primas., Clarius, Calvin, Beza, Est., Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, Hammoud, Bengel, al. Ebrard takes it of Christ’ s holy life, and τὰἅγια of His exaltation; passing, in fact, from reality into symbol: Œ colampadius, Cajetan, Corn. a-Lap., Calov., Wittich, Wolf, al. of the Church on earth: Justiniani and Carpzov (relying on several passages of Philo, where the world is called the temple of God), the whole world: Hofmann, the glorified Body of Christ, which, and not the Body of His flesh, he maintains can alone be said to be οὐταύτηςτῆςκτίσεως , and in which dwells (Colossians 2:9) all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Bleek, De Wette, Lü nem., and Stier, the lower region of the heavens, through which Christ passed in ascending to the throne of God: Tholuck, merely a superadded feature, having no representation in reality, but serving only to complete the idea of a heavenly sanctuary. Delitzsch keeps to his interpretation in ch. 8:2 (which see discussed in note there) as against Hofmann. But here, as there, I believe that his and Hofmann’ s views run up into one: though perhaps here the weight is on his side, as it was there on Hofmann’ s. Hofm.’ s reason for joining διὰτῆςμείζ .… ἰδίουαἵματος , with ἀρχιερεύς , is, that unless it be so joined, the stress laid on εἰσῆλθενἐφάπαξ is split up and weakened by the negative and positive qualifications appended to εἰσῆλθεν . But the answer is plain, with Delitzsch, that nothing can be farther from the truth; these qualifications being in fact the very conditions, on which the completeness and finality of that entrance depended. Another of Hofm.’ s objections may be as easily answered; viz. that if we join διὰ .… δι ʼ both with εἰσῆλθεν we must understand the first διὰ local, the second instrumental. But as the preposition in Greek carries both meanings, so does it both in German (durch), and in English (through): and besides, both meanings are, in their inner import, one and the same. The σκηνή here, as in ch. 8:2, is the οὐρανοί through which Christ passed not only locally, but conditionally, being the abode of blessed spirits and just men made perfect = His mystical Body (see on ch. 8:2: and below, on the other epithets of this tabernacle), and τὰἅγια is the ὁοὐρανὸςαὐτός , the especial abode of the invisible and unapproachable God. As regards the epithets of this σκηνή , first it is distinguished by the art. τῆς , = nearly ἐκείνηςτῆς , ‘ that tabernacle of which we know.’ Then it is called μείζων , in contrast with the small extent and import of that other, and τελειοτέρα , in contrast with its ineffectiveness and its exclusion from the divine presence: perhaps also with its merely symbolical, and its transitory nature. “ The indeterminate οὐχειροποιήτου , a word of St. Luke in similar connexion. Acts 7:48; Acts 17:24, is explained by the Writer himself by οὐταύτηςτῆςκτίσεως , and serves as an apposition to the preceding. That tabernacle is not built by hands of men, but by the Lord Himself, ch. 8:2; it is of His own immediate placing, not belonging to this creation, not only not to this material creation which surrounds us, out of which we get our building materials, but altogether not to this first and present creation: it belongs to the age of the future, to the glorified world.” Delitzsch. The rendering “ not of this building,” E. V., also Erasm., Luther, Beza, Wolf, Bengel, Kuinoel, al., is wrong, and misses the idea, giving in fact a tautological explanation for οὐχειροποιήτου . As to the word χειροποίητος , it is classical, see Herod. ii 140: Thuc. ii. 77: Pausan. Eliac. ii. 19: Polyb. i. 75. 4; iv. 64. 4; and other examples in Bleek), nor yet through (as a medium of preparation and approach. The instrumental sense very nearly approaches the local: so that there need be no scruple about the apparently different senses given to διὰ in the two clauses: see above) blood of goats and calves (the plurals are simply generic: for the portion of the ceremonies of the day of atonement, see ref. Levit.), nay rather (on this strongly contrasting δέ , see note ch. 2:6) through (see above; through, as His medium of entrance: it was as a key opening the holiest to Him) His own blood (not δι ʼ αἵματοςἰδίου , nor διὰτοῦαἵματοςτοῦἰδίου , but, which is more emphatic than either after the former anarthrous αἵματος , διὰτοῦἰδίουαἵματος — q. d. ‘ through that blood of His own.’ St. Luke has used the very same expression in ref. Acts) entered (χριστός above is the emphatic subject of the whole sentence) once for all (see ref.) into the holy places, and obtained (on εὑρίσκω in this sense, see ch. 4:16. The aor. part. is contemporary with the aor. itself εἰσῆλθεν . The redemption was not accomplished when He entered, but accomplished by His entering. And our only way of expressing this contemporaneity in English is by resolving the part. into another aorist with the copula, as in ἀποκριθεὶςεἶπε , and similar cases. Consult the note on ch. 2:10, which is not, however, a strictly parallel case. Here as there, the contemporaneous completion of the two acts must be kept in view, and any such rendering as Ebrard’ s, “ in bringing about,” carefully avoided. The form of the word, εὑράμενος , is Alexandrine, found also in Philo, but not in Attic Greek: see Lobeck on Phryn. p. 139 f. The middle is of that force which Krü ger calls dynamic, Sprachlehre § 52.8. It imports the full casting of oneself into the action: thus in an ordinary case, τοὺςτὸνπόλεμονποιοῦντας , Isocr., but Ἄγιςοὐκἐκπαρέργουτὸνπόλεμονἐποιεῖτο , Thucyd. So that εὑράμενος here gives an energy and full solemnity to the personal agency of our Redeemer in the work of our redemption, which εὑρών would not give) eternal redemption for us (αἰωνίαν , answering to ἐφάπαξ above: as Hofmann remarks, the λύτρωσις is the aim and end of the approach of our High Priest to God: if then this approach has once for all taken place, the λύτρωσις is therewith for ever accomplished. For the fem. form αἰωνίαν , see ref. 2 Thess. It occurs sometimes in the LXX: e. g. Numbers 25:13: Isaiah 61:4 al. λύτρωσις (reff.) is used elsewhere by St. Luke only: so also λυτρώτης , Acts 7:35. λυτροῦσθαι , Luke 24:21, is also used by St. Paul once, Titus 2:14, and St. Peter, 1 Peter 1:18. ἀπολύτρωσις is St. Paul’ s word, occurring also in Luke 21:28, and in our ver. 15, and ch. 11:35. In both words, as applied to our final redemption at the coming of Christ, the idea of ransom is rather in the background, and that of deliverance prevails over it: but in both, as applied to the redemption which Christ wrought by His death, the idea of price paid for redemption and redemption by that price, is kept prominent. This may be especially shewn by the two great texts Matthew 20:28 (and Mark), ὁυἱὸςτ . ἀνθ .… ἦλθενδοῦναιτ . ψυχὴναὐτοῦλύτρονἀντὶπολλῶν , and 1 Timothy 2:6, ὁδοὺςἑαυτὸνἀντίλυτρονὑπὲρπάντων . The price paid for our redemption is His death (ver. 15) as the sacrifice of Himself, Titus 2:14: 1 Timothy 2:5 f.,— His blood Ephesians 1:7, as the sacrifice of His life, Matthew 20:28: 1 Peter 1:19. And here also it is His blood which is the λύτρον . Delitzsch, from whom the substance of the above is taken, goes on to shew, on the ground of the analogy between Christ and the O. T. high priests who took the blood in before God and sprinkled it on His mercy seat, that it was God to whom this λύτρον was paid, and not, as many of the Fathers held, Satan. See his notes, in his Comm. pp. 386-7. On the matter itself,— the entrance of Christ into the holiest διὰτοῦἰδίουαἵματος , I cannot do better than refer the student to the following pages of Delitzsch, where he has treated at length, and in a most interesting manner, the various hypotheses. I do not sum up the results here, because it is a subject of such peculiar solemnity, that the mind requires its treatment in full, in order to approach it reverently: and such full treatment would far exceed the limits of a general commentary. I have indicated some of the principal lines of hypothesis on ch. 12:24, where the direct mention of the αἷμαῥαντισμοῦ makes it necessary). 13-10:18. Enlargement upon, and substantiation of, αἰωνίανλύτρωσινεὑράμενος : on which then follows, 10:19 ff., the third or directly hortatory part of the Epistle. “ For the blood of His self-offering purifies inwardly unto the living service of the living God (vv. 13, 14): His redeeming death is the inaugurating act of a new covenant and of the heavenly sanctuary (vv. 15-23): His entrance into the antitypical holiest place is the conclusion of his all-sufficing atonement for sin (vv. 24-26), after which only remains His reappearance to complete the realization of Redemption (vv. 27, 28). In distinction from the legal offerings which were constantly repeated, He has, by his offering of Himself, performed the actual will of God which willed salvation (ch. 10:1-10): our Sanctification is now for ever accomplished, and the exalted Saviour reigns in expectation of ultimate victory (10:11-14): and the promised new covenant has come in, resting on an eternal forgiveness of sins which requires no further offering (10:15-18).” Delitzsch. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/alfordgnt/ Chap. 10:1-18. Solemn conclusion of the argument: 1. Christ’ s voluntary self-offering, as contrasted with the yearly offerings of victims under the law, is the carrying out of God’ s real will (vv. 1-10): 2. Christ’ s priestly service, in contrast to the daily repeated service of the priests of the law, is for ever perfected by one High-priestly act, which has issued in His Kingly exaltation and waiting till His foes be subdued under Him (vv. 11-14): 3. Christ’ s finished work is the inauguration of that new covenant before referred to, in which, the law being written on the heart, and sin put away and forgotten, there is no more need for sin-offering (vv. 15-18). And so, as Delitzsch observes, in this passage the leading thoughts of the whole argument are brought together in one grand finale, just as in the finale of a piece of music all the hitherto scattered elements are united in an effective whole. 1-10. See above. 1. For (γάρ connects with the whole passage ch. 9:24-28: hitherto has been shewn the impossibility of Christ’ s offering being repeated as were those of the law: now is to be shewn its absolute perfection as compared with those of the law) the law, having (as it has; the participle has a ratiocinative force, which passes on upon what follows) a shadow (or, ‘ the shadow,’ which in sense would be much the same. The putting forward of the word to the beginning of the sentence would render it anarthrous. I prefer, however, ‘ a shadow,’ because of the meaning of σκιάν , presently to be treated of: see below) of the good things to come (viz. the same good things of which, in ch. 9:11, Christ is said to be the High Priest,— which belong to the μέλλωναἰών of ch. 6:5, whose δυνάμεις are working in the present dispensation,— and to the completion of the οἰκουμένημέλλουσα of ch. 2:5: the good things which are still future to us as they were to those under the law, but are now made sure to us in and by Christ), not the very image of the things (every representation of μελλόντωνἀγαθῶν must be an εἰκών , whether it be in words, or in types, or in any other method of representation. The full description and entire revelation of the things thus designated will be αὐτὴἡεἰκὼντῶνπραγμάτων : which we possess in the gospel covenant: the very setting forth and form of the heavenly realities themselves. So that the gen. πραγμάτων is the ‘ genitivus substantiæ ,’ as in Colossians 3:10, τὸνἀνακαινούμενον … κατ ʼ εἰκόνατοῦκτίσαντοςαὐτόν , and Romans 8:29, συμμόρφουςτῆςεἰκόνοςτοῦυἱοῦ ,— ὁκτίσας in the one and ὁυἱὸςαὐτοῦ in the other, being and furnishing the εἰκών . But the law had no such εἰκών constructed out of the heavenly realities themselves, “ ipsas res, certa sua forma et effigie præ ditas,” as Stier: it had merely σκιάν , merely a rough sketch or outline: so Chrys., not however to my mind entirely apprehending the identity of the εἰκών with the πράγματα which furnish it,— σκιὰν … τουτέστινοὐκαὐτὴντὴνἀλήθειαν . ἕωςμὲνγὰρἂνὡςἐνγραφῇπεριάγῃτιςτὰχρώματα , σκιάτιςἐστίν · ὅτανδὲτὸἄνθοςἐπαλείψῃτιςκαὶἐπιχρίσῃτὰχρώματα , τότεεἰκὼνγίνεται . See also Thdrt. and Œ c.), year by year with the same sacrifices (most Commentators assume some inversion of arrangement in constructing the words κατ ʼ ἐνιαυτόν : some (Calvin, Erasm. Schmid, Wolf, Heinrichs, Bleek, De Wette, Stuart, al.) joining them with αἷςπροσφέρουσιν , others (Lü nem., al.) with ταῖςαὐταῖςθυσίαις , others (Carpzov, al.) with τοὺςπροσερχομένους . But there is no need to disturb the plain order of the sentence, in which κατ ʼ ἐνιαυτόν belongs to all that follows, viz. to the verb, οὐδέποτεδύναται , with its instrumental clause, ταῖςαὐταῖςθυσίαιςαἷςκ .τ .λ . And so Ebrard, Hofmann, and Delitzsch. “ This,” says Del., “ is more accordant with the sense of the Writer: for he does not say, that the law by means of the offerings which were always the same year by year never was able to perfect, &c.,— but that the law, year by year, by the repetition of the same offerings, testified its inability to perfect, &c., viz. on the day of atonement, on which the same expiatory offerings were always repeated, being necessary, not withstanding the many offerings brought throughout the year, and after which the same round of offerings again began anew.” It will be evident that ταῖςαὐταῖςθυσίαις must refer, not to the daily offering, but to those of propitiation on the great day of atonement) which they (the ministering priests, not οἱπροσερχόμενοι , as Hofmann ii. 1. 314, which would be against all the terminology of the Epistle, in which προσφέρειν is without exception confined to priests. We have the same distinction as regards the προσερχόμενοι in ch. 7:25) offer continually never (not even at any time) is able to perfect (see on ref., where I have entered into the meanings of τελειοῦν in our Epistle) those who draw near (to God, by means of them. Tholuck well remarks that this threefold κατ ʼ ἐνιαυτόν , ταῖςαὐταῖςθυσίαις , εἰςτὸδιηνεκές , graphically sets forth the ever recurring cycle of the yearly sacrifices for sin). 2. For (if it were so, if the law were able to perfect the worshippers) would they not have ceased being offered, on account of the worshippers (the servers in the service of the tabernacle, used here in a wide sense, including priests and people) having no longer any conscience of sins (for construction, see reff.: = guilt of sin on the conscience, consciousness of the guilt of sin), if once (for all) purified? That this sentence is to be read ἐπεὶοὐκἄν , and as a question, is pretty universally agreed. Some, as Thdrt. , D-lat. , Beza , Whitby, Valcknaer, read οὐκ , and yet no question; understanding, “ for then they would not have ceased to be offered,” viz. on the coming in of the N. T. dispensation. But this is surely hardly worth refutation. The rec. not reading οὐκ , might indeed be well thus rendered, “ for in that case they would have ceased to be offered.” But then ἀλλά comes in awkwardly, which, when as here without any emphasis, more naturally follows a negative sentence. The taking our verse interrogatively is as old as Œ c.: ἐπεὶοὐκἂνἐπαύσαντοκατ ʼ ἐρώτησινἀνάγνωθι . So also Thl. 3. Which cessation is far from being the case, as is the having no more conscience of sin:— But (on the contrary: ἀλλά opposes the whole question of ver. 2, in both its clauses) in them (the sacrifices: not in the fact of their being offered, but in the course of their being offered on the day of atonement, see below) there is a recollection θυσίανἀναμιμνήσκουσανἁμαρτίαν : De Victim. 7, vol. ii. p. 244, εὔηθεςγάρ , τὰςθυσίαςμὴλήθηνἁμαρτημάτων , ἀλλ ʼ ὑπόμνησιναὐτῶνκατασκευάζειν : and Vita Mos. iii. 10, p. 151, εἰμὲνγὰρἀγνώμωνκαὶἄδικος , ἄθυτοιθυσίαι , καὶἀνίεροιἱερουργίαι , καὶεὐχαὶπαλίμφημοι , παντελῆφθοραὶἐνδεχόμεναι . καὶγὰρὁπότεγίνεσθαιδοκοῦσιν , οὐλύσινἁμαρτημάτων , ἀλλ ʼ ὑπόμνησινἀργάζονται ) of sins year by year: 4. And that on account of inherent defect in the sacrifices themselves: for it is impossible, that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sin (the Writer by no means denies the typical virtue of the O. T. sacrifices, but asserts that which the schoolmen explained by saying that they wrought remission of sin not ‘ propria virtute,’ but ‘ per accidens,’ viz. by means of the grace of the true Propitiation which was to come, and of faith directed to it. And thus only is it said, Leviticus 17:11, that the blood upon the altar makes an atonement for the soul: it was shed, as Ebrard well observes, not as the instrument of complete vicarious propitiation, but as an exhibition of the postulate of vicarious propitiation). 5-10. Christ’ s voluntary self-offering shewn to be the perfect fulfilment of the will of God. 5. Wherefore (seeing that the animal sacrifices of the O. T. had no power to take away sin, and that for that end a nobler sacrifice was wanting) coming into the world he saith , Sacrifice (of slain animals) and offering (of any kind: see reff.) thou wouldest not (similar declarations are found frequently in the O. T., and mostly in the Prophets: see Psalms 50:7-15; Psalms 51:16 f.: Isaiah 1:11: Jeremiah 6:20; Jeremiah 7:21-23: Hosea 6:6: Amos 5:21 ff.: Micah 6:6-8), but a body didst thou prepare for me (א ָ ז ְ נ ַ י ִ ם כ ּ ָ ר ִ י ת ָ ל ּ ִ י , “ mine ears hast thou opened,” “ fodisti,” “ concavas reddidisti,” i. e. to hear and obey Thee. The idea of there being any allusion to the custom of boring through the ear of a slave who voluntarily remained subject to his master, Exodus 21:6 and Deuteronomy 15:17, seems to be a mistake. Neither the verb כ ּ ָ ר ָ ה , nor the plural substantive א ָ ז ְ נ ַ י ִ ם , will bear it without forcing: in Exod. l. c., the subst. is singular, and the verb is ר ָ צ ַ ע . See Bleek, vol. ii. p. 633, note. The difficulty is, how such a clause can be rendered by σῶμακατηρτίσωμοι , as it is in the LXX. Some (e. g. Bleek, Lü nem., after Usher de LXX Int. Vers. p. 85 sq., Semler, Michaelis, Ernesti, al.) have supposed a misreading, owing to the last letter of the foregoing word ἠθέλησαΣ preceding ΩΤΙΑ , the ΤΙ being mistaken for M. The reading ὠτία is now found only in one ms. of the LXX (Holmes, 39), ὦτα in two (Holmes, 142, 156): it is the rendering of Theodotion, of the Quinta and Sexta in Origen, of Jerome , of Eusebius , of the Psalterium San-Germanense , and Irenæ us (Interp. iv. 17. 1, p. 248), which two last Delitzsch suspects, but apparently without ground, of being corrections from the vulgate. Over against this hypothesis, of the present LXX text having sprung from a misreading, we may set the idea that the LXX have chosen this expression σῶμακατηρτίσωμοι by which to render the Hebrew, as being more inteligible to the reader. This is the hypothesis adopted by Delitzsch, and that which was maintained with slight variation by Jac. Cappellus , Wolf , Carpzov, Tholuck, Ebrard, al. Others again suppose that the Writer of this Epistle has altered the expression to suit better the prophetical purpose. So an old Scholiast in the Lond. edn. of the LXX, 1653: τὸὠτίαδὲκατηρτίσωμοιὁμακάριοςΠαῦλοςεἰςτὸσῶμαμεταβαλὼνεἴρηκεν , οὐκἀγνοῶντὸἙβραϊκόν , ἀλλὰπρὸςτὸνοἰκεῖονσκοπὸντούτῳχρησάμενος . I would leave the difficulty an unsolved one, not being satisfied by either of the above views, and having no other to propound. As Christian believers, our course is plain. How the word σῶμα came into the LXX, we cannot say: but being there, it is now sanctioned for us by the citation here: not as the, or even a proper rendering of the Hebrew, but as a prophetic utterance, equivalent to and representing that other): 6. whole burnt-offerings (ὁλοκαύτωμα , a subst. from the Alexandrine form ὁλοκαυτόω (-τέω . in Xenoph. Cyr. viii. 3. 11: Anab. vii. 8. 3 al.), is the ordinary LXX rendering for the Heb. ע ו ֹ ל ָ ה , an offering of a whole animal to be burnt on the altar. See Winer, Realw. art. Brandopfer) and (sacrifices) for sin (in the LXX also we have the same ellipsis: see reff.) thou didst not approve (it is probable that our Writer had εὐδοκήσας in his ms. of the LXX. He repeats it again below; and Cyr.-alex., even where he expressly cites the Psalm, has it. Possibly it may have come in here from the similarity to Psalms 50:16 (18), ὁλοκαυτώματαοὐκεὐδοκήσεις : it is also possible, as Bl. suggests, that our Writer may have used the word, as a stronger one than ᾔτησας or ἐζήτησας , with reference to that well-known passage. The construction of εὐδοκέω with an accus. is not unfrequent in the LXX and Hellenistic Greek: see reff. εὐδοκεῖντινι or ἔντινι is more usual: Polyb. uses both): 7. then I said (viz. when Thou hadst prepared a body for me), Behold, I am come, in the volume of the book it is written concerning me, to do, O God, thy will . 8. The Writer now proceeds to expound the prophecy; and in so doing, cites it again, but in a freer form, and one accommodated to the explanation which he gives. Saying (as he does) above , that (mere particle of recitation: cf. reff.) sacrifices and offerings, and whole burnt-offerings, and sacrifices concerning sin thou wouldest not, nor yet didst approve (observe that the two distinct clauses of the previous citation are now combined, for the sake of throwing into contrast the rejection of legal sacrifices and the acceptable self-sacrifice of the Son of God), of such sort as (αἵτινες does not, like the simple relative αἵ , identify, but classifies, the antecedent) are (habitually) offered according to (in pursuance of the commands of) the law,— 9. then (more logical than chronological; but used probably in allusion to that τότε above, in the passage itself), hath he said, Behold I am come to do thy will. He (Christ again) taketh away the first, that he may set up (establish, see reff.) the second (ποῖόνἐστιτὸπρῶτον ; αἱθυσίαι . ποῖοντὸδεύτερον ; τὸθέληματοῦπατρός . Thl. It is a mistake to understand with Peirce, θέλημα after πρῶτον and δεύτερον : the contrast is between that which God wills not, and that which He wills. This is very plain both on other grounds, and on account of the ἐνᾧθελήματι in the next verse). 10. In (the course of, the fulfilment of: not properly “ by,” which belongs more to the διὰ below) which will , Schö ttgen, and Carpzov. But clearly this cannot be so) we have been sanctified (see on the word ἁγιάζω , and on the use of the present and past passive participles of it, note on ch. 2:11. Here the perfect part. is used, inasmuch as it is the finished work of Christ in its potentiality, not the process of it on us, which is spoken of: see ver. 14, τετελείωκενεἰςτὸδιηνεκὲςτοὺςἁγιαζομένους : which final completion is here indicated by the perfect part.) through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ, once for all , Schlichting, Jac. Cappell., Limborch, Stein, al., and against Bleek, Lü nem., Hofm., Delitzsch, and most of the best Commentators). 11-14. See summary at ver. 1. 11. And every high priest standeth (see reff. No priest nor other person might sit in the inner court of the temple, except the king. There is perhaps more than a fortuitous contrast to ἐκάθισεν below. So Œ c. and Thl., aft. Chrys.: ἄρατὸἑστάναισημεῖόνἐστιτοῦλειτουργεῖν , τὸδὲκαθῆσθαι , ὥσπερὁχριστὸςἐκάθισενἐνδεξιᾷτοῦπατρός , σημεῖόνἐστιτοῦλειτουργεῖσθαιοἷαθεὸνὄντα . The vulgate rendering, “ præ sto est,” is clearly wrong) day by day ministering (see note, ch. 8:2), and (καί brings out that in the λειτουργία , which the Writer wishes most to emphasize) often offering the same sacrifices, the which (i. e. of a sort which, such as) can never take away (lit. ‘ strip off all round:’ so of a ring, Genesis 41:42: Esther 3:10: Jos. Antt. xix. 2. 3: Æ lian V. H. i. 21: Herod. iii. 41: of clothes from the body, Genesis 38:14: Deuteronomy 21:13: Jonah 3:6: 2 Macc. 4:38. See reff.: and many more examples in Bleek. And such a word is peculiarly fitting to express the removal of that of which it is said, ch. 5:2, αὐτὸςπερίκειταιἀσθένειαν , and which is called, ch. 12:1, ἡεὐπερίστατοςἁμαρτία . The sacrifice might bring sense of partial forgiveness: but it could never denude the offerer of sinfulness— strip off and take away his guilt) sins: 12. but He (‘ this (man),’ or, (priest): but such rendering should be avoided if possible, as should all renderings which import a new generic idea into the text, as always causing confusion: cf. for a notable example, 1 Corinthians 2:11 end in E. V.) having offered one sacrifice for sins (on the punctuation, see below) for ever (εἰςτὸδιηνεκές may be joined either with the preceding or with the following words. If with the preceding, as Thl. (θυσίαν … εἰςτὸδ . ἀρκοῦσανἡμῖν , and so Œ c.), Luther, Castellio, Beza b, Chr. F. Schmid, Bengel, Bö hme, Stein, al., we observe the usage of the Epistle, which is to place εἰςτὸδιηνεκές after that which it qualifies (reff.): we have μίαθυσίαεἰςτὸδιηνεκές opposed to τὰςαὐτὰςθυσίαςπολλάκις ; and we keep the propriety of the sense, according to what follows, τὸλοιπὸνἐκδεχόμενοςἕωςκ .τ .λ ., and according to 1 Corinthians 15:28, where we are expressly told, that the session of our triumphant Saviour will have its end as such. If we join the words with the following, as Syr., D-lat., Faber Stap., Erasm., Calvin, Schlichting, Grot., Wolf, al., Schulz, De Wette, Bleek, Lü nem., Ebrard, Hofmann, Delitzsch, al., we more thoroughly satisfy the construction, in which εἰςτὸδιηνεκές seems to refer better to an enduring state than to a past act, or at all events not to this last without a harsh ellipsis, “ having offered one sacrifice (the virtue of which will endure) for ever:” we preserve the contrast between ἕστηκενκαθ ʼ ἡμέραν and εἰςτὸδιηνεκὲςἐκάθισεν : we preserve also the balance between the clauses ending προσφέρωνθυσίας , and προσενέγκαςθυσίαν : and we are in full accordance with the ἱερεὺςεἰςτὸναἰῶνα so often insisted on. And to this latter arrangement I incline, not however laying it down as certain. The objection taken above, as to the change in the nature of Christ’ s session at the end, when all things shall have been put under His feet, may be met by saying that such change, being obviously included in His ultimate state of reception into God’ s presence in heaven, does not here count as a change, where the question is of renewal of sacrifice, with regard to which that session is eternal) sat down on the right hand of God, 13. henceforth waiting (this sense of ἐκδέχομαι is said to belong exclusively to later Greek: but not altogether accurately, cf. Soph. Phil. 123, κεῖνονἐνθάδ ʼ ἐκδέχου . It is, however, much more frequent in the later classics. We have ἐκδέχ . ἕωςἄν in Dion. Hal. vi. 67) until his enemies be placed as footstool of his feet (the ἕως construction is adopted for the sake of preserving the words of Psa 110:1. I cannot see how Bleek and Lü nem. can find any real discrepancy between this passage and 1 Corinthians 15:23-26. If this seems to date the subjection of all to Christ before the second advent, and that places it after the same event, we may well say, that the second advent is not here taken into account by the Writer, whose object is the contrast between the suffering and triumphant Christ, as it is by St. Paul, who is specially giving an account of the resurrection which is so inseparably bound up with that παρουσία . The second advent is no break in Christ’ s waiting till his enemies be subdued to him, but it is the last step but one of that subjection; the last of all being the subjection of Himself, and his mystical body with him, to Him that did put all things under him. For among the enemies are His own elect, who were enemies: and they are not thoroughly subject to Him, till He with them is subject to the Father, the mediatorial veil being withdrawn, and the One God being all in all). 14. And He need not renew his sacrifice: For by one offering (we might read also μίαγὰρπροσφορά , nominative: and Bengel prefers this, from the fact that in ver. 11 the sacrifices are the subject, αἵτινεςοὐδέποτεδύνανταικ .τ .λ . But here more probably Christ is the subject throughout, and therefore the dative is better: there being no relative to connect with θυσίαν , as there) He hath perfected for ever them who are being sanctified (“ The Writer says not τοὺςτελειωμένους , but τοὺςἁγιαζομένους . Sanctification, i. e. the imputed and implanted purification from sins (for both these are alike contained in the idea), is the way whereby the objective perfection already provided in the self-sacrifice of Christ gradually renders itself subjective in men.” Delitzsch). 15-18. See summary at ver. 1. The prophetic word testifies the same, making absolute and final forgiveness of sins a characteristic of the new covenant. 15. Moreover the Holy Spirit also testifies to us (Christians in general: and ἡμῖν is the dat. commodi, μαρτυρεῖ being used absolutely— testifies the fact which I am maintaining. Raphel, Wolf, al. regard ἡμῖν as signifying merely the Writer, and take the dat. as in Polyb. xviii. 11. 8, μαρτυρεῖδὲτοῖςἡμετέροιςλόγοις … τὸτέλοςτοῦπολέμου : but the other is far better): for after having said (then the citation proceeds much as in ch. 8:10 ff. with some differences, noticed below. On the common points, see notes there), 16. This is the covenant which I will make with them (in ch. 8:10, τῷοἴκῳἸσραήλ . Here the prophecy is taken out of its national limits and universalized) after those days, saith the Lord: giving my laws into their hearts , and on their mind (ἐπὶκαρδίας , ch. 8:10) will I in scribe them:— 17. Now comes the apodosis of the μετὰγὰρτὸεἰρηκέναι , then,— καὶἔσομαιαὐτοῖςεἰςθεὸνκ .τ .λ ., and καὶοὐμὴδιδάξωσινκ .τ .λ ., ch. 8:10, 11, being omitted (see below), he further says: and their sins and their transgressions will I remember no more (it has been generally held since Beza and Camerarius, that the apodosis is introduced by λέγεικύριος , all that follows belonging to it. The reason for this, alleged by the later Commentators, is, the harshness of understanding ὕστερονλέγει , or the like, inserted in some unimportant mss. at the beginning of ver. 17, as inconsistent with the concinnity of our Writer’ s style. But as against this objection, may fairly be alleged the still greater harshness of breaking διαθήσομαι from its qualifying διδούς , and the improbability that the words λέγεικύριος , which occur in the passage cited, should be taken by the Writer as his own. But still more cogent reasons for making the apodosis begin at ver. 17 are, 1. that there the εἰρημένον ends, not at λέγεικύριος : there a hiatus in the citation occurs, and the Writer first passes on to that which is said after: 2. that ver. 17 itself carries the whole burden of the citation with it. This is the object of the citation, to prove that there needs no more sacrifice for sins. And the previous portion of it is adduced to shew that this, τῶνἁμαρτ . αὐτ . κ . τῶνἀνομ . αὐτ . οὐμὴμνησθήσομαιἔτι , does form an integral part of the prophecy of the introduction of the new and spiritual covenant. So that both construction and sense are troubled by the modern idea of breaking at λέγεικύριος . With regard to any supposed harshness in the ellipsis at ver. 17, I may remark that our Writer frequently uses καί in a kindred sense, as adducing new quotations: see ch. 1:5; 2:13 bis; 4:5; ver. 30. The break at ver. 17 is adopted by several cursive mss. (see Scholz), by Primasius, Clarius, Zeger, Schlichting, Estius, Jac. Cappellus, Grotius, Limborch, Carpzov, Heinrichs, Stuart, al.: the other, at λέγεικύριος , by Beza, Camer., al., and almost all the recent Commentators). 18. But (or, ‘ now:’ it is the ‘ but’ of the demonstration, referring to a well-known axiomatic fact as contrasting with the contrary hypothesis) where there is remission of these, there is no longer offering concerning sin. “ Here ends the finale (10:1-18) of the great tripartite arrangement (7:1-25; 7:26-9:12; 9:13-10:18) of the middle portion of the Epistle. ‘ Christ a High Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek,’ this was its great theme, now brought to a conclusion. That the Priesthood of Christ, as Melchisedekite, is as high above the Levitical as God’ s heaven is above the earth,— that Christ, with His One High-priestly self-sacrifice, has accomplished that which the Levitical priesthood with its sacrifices was unable to accomplish,— that henceforth, both our present possession of salvation, and our future completion of salvation, are as certain to us as that He is with God, ruling as a priest and reigning as a king, once more to appear, no more as a bearer of our sins, but in glory as a Judge;— these are the three great fundamental thoughts, now brought to their full development. What it is, to be a High Priest after the order of Melchisedek and not of Aaron, is set forth, ch. 7:1-25. That Christ however as High Priest is Aaron’ s antitype, ruling in the true holy place by virtue of His self-sacrifice here on earth,— and Mediator of a better covenant, whose essential character the old covenant only shadowed forth and typified, we learn, 7:26-9:12. And that the self-sacrifice of Christ, offered through the eternal Spirit, is of everlasting power, as contrasted with the unavailing cycle of legal offerings, is established in the third part, 9:13-10:18: the second half of this portion, 10:1-18, being devoted to a reiterated and conclusive treatment of the main position of the whole,— the High-priesthood of Christ, grounded on His offering of Himself,— its Kingly character, its eternal accomplishment of its end, confirmed by Psa_40, Psa_110, Jer_31” Delitzsch. 19-13:25. The third great division of the Epistle: Our duty in the interval of waiting between the beginning and accomplishment of our salvation. And herein, 10:19-39, exhortation to enter boldly into the holiest place, 19-22: to hold fast our profession, 23: to stir up one another, 24, 25: in consideration of the fearful punishment which awaits the rejecters of Christ, 26-31: and in remembrance of the previous sufferings which they underwent when first converted, 32-34. Finally, exhortation not to cast away confidence, for the time until His coming is short, and during that time, faith is the life of the soul. There has been no exhortation, properly speaking, since ch. 7:1, i. e. during the great doctrinal argument of the Epistle. Before that, argument and exhortation were rapidly alternated. But so exquisite is the skill of arrangement and development, that the very exhortation with which he closed the former portion of the Epistle where first he began to prepare the way for his great argument, ch. 4:14-16, is now resumed, deepened indeed and expanded by the intervening demonstration, but in spirit and substance the same: προσερχώμεθαμετ ʼ ἀληθινῆςκαρδίαςἐνπληροφρίᾳπίστεως here, answering to προσερχώμεθαμετὰπαῤῥησίαςτῷθρόνῳτῆςχάριτος there, and κατέχωμεντὴνὁμολογίαν here to κρατῶμεντῆςὁμολογίας there. 19. Having therefore (as above proved: οὖν collects and infers), brethren (see on ch. 3:1), confidence (see on ch. 3:6 παῤῥησία here as well as there is not justification, right (ἐξουσίαν Hesych.) to enter, but purely subjective, confidence, boldness) as regards the (our, see below) entering into the holy places in the blood of Jesus (the ἐν introduces that wherein the confidence is grounded: cf. ref., ἐνᾧἔχομεντὴνπαῤῥησίανκαὶ [τὴν ] προσαγωγήν . He having once entered in with His blood as our High Priest, and thereby all atonement and propitiation having been for ever accomplished, it is in that blood that our boldness to enter in is grounded. To understand ἐν , with Bleek and Stier, as in ch. 9:25, εἰσέρχεταιεἰςτὰἅγια … ἐναἵματιἀλλοτρίῳ , is in fact to make us, as priests, renew Christ’ s offering of Himself. “ We enter,” says Stier, “ with the blood of Jesus, even with the same, wherewith He entered before us:” which is very like a contradiction in terms, and is at all events inaccurate theology. We do not take the blood of Christ with us into the presence of God: it is there already once for all, and our confidence of access is therein grounded, that it is there. See note on ch. 12:24), 20. which (entrance: so Œ c. (below), Thl. (below), and most Commentators. Some, as Est., Erasm., Calv., Beza, refer the relative to αἵματι , making it attracted into the fem. by ὁδόν . Some again, as Seb. Schmidt, Hammond, al., and D-lat., refer it to παῤῥησίαν . The vulg., “ quam initiavit nobis viam novam,” will bear either) He initiated (first opened: better than E. V., “ consecrated,” which seems as if it existed before: so Œ c., ἢνεἴσοδοντῶνἁγίωννῦννεωστὶἔτεμε : and Thl., ἥντιναεἴσοδοντῶνἁγίωναὐτὸςἡμῖνὁδὸνἐνεκαίνισε , τουτέστινέανὁδὸνἐποίησεν , αὐτὸςταύτηςἀρξάμενος , καὶαὐτὸςταύτηνβαδίσαςπρῶτος . On the word, see note, ch. 9:18) for us (as) a way recent (ὡςτότεπρῶτονφανεῖσαν , Thdrt.: cf. Romans 16:25, Romans 16:26, μυστηρίουχρόνοιςαἰωνίοιςσεσιγημένου , φανερωθέντοςδὲνῦνκ .τ .λ ., and ch. 9:26. “ On the use of πρόσφατος , see esp. Wetst. h.l. and Lobeck on Phryn. p. 374 f. The original meaning is ‘ slain before,’ from πρό and σφάζω or σφάττω ; and thus, just before, recently, slain or killed: so Il. ω . 757. According to usage, it means ‘ fresh,’ recens, in contrast to παλαιός , old or antiquated: and is used not only of recently slain meat (Hippocr.), or a fresh corpse, νεκρὸςπρόσφατος (Herod. ii. 89, 121), but also ἰχθύς , αἷμα , πόμα , σταφυλή (Dioscorid. v. 12: Numbers 6:3), ἄλφιτον , φῦκος , ἄνθος , ἔλαιον , ἕλκος , χιών (Polyb. iii. 55. 1), μάρτυρες (Aristot. Rhet. i. 15), νίκη (Plutarch), ἀτύχημα (Polyb. i. 21. 9), εὐεργεσίαι (id. ii. 46. 1), δίκαι (Æ schyl. Choeph. 800), ὀργή (Lys. p. 151. 5: Jos. Antt. i. 18. 3), φθόνος (Plut. Themistocl. p. 124 a), Demosth. p. 551. 15, ἕκαστος , ἄντισυμβῇ , πρόσφατοςκρίνεται (see also reff.): and Ecclesiastes 1:9, οὐκἔστιπᾶνπρόσφατονὑπὸτὸνἥλιον .” Bleek. Others, as Passow, derive the word from πρό , and φένω . But πρόσφατος has not, as Ebrard would make it, the meaning of “ ever fresh:” only that of new, ‘ of late origin.’ “ None before Him trod this way: no believer under the O. T. dared or could, though under a dispensation of preparatory grace, approach God so freely and openly, so fearlessly and joyfully, so closely and intimately, as we now, who come to the Father by the blood of Jesus, His Son.” Stier) and living through the veil, that is, his flesh (on καταπέτασμα , see note, ch. 6:19. The Flesh of Christ is here spoken of as the veil hung before the holiest place; that weak human mortal flesh was the state through which He had to pass before He could enter the holiest in heaven for us, and when He put off that flesh, the actual veil in the temple was rent from top to bottom, Matthew 27:51. And so in the main, the great body of interpreters: the Greek Commentators however, not quite accurately: e. g. Chrys., ἡγὰρσὰρξαὕτηἔτεμεπρώτητὴνὁδὸναὐτῷἐκείνην , ἣνκαὶἐγκαινίσαιλέγει , τῷκαὶαὐτὸςἀξιῶσαιδιὰταύτηςβαδίσαι · καταπέτασμαδὲεἰκότωςἐκάλεσετὴνσάρκα · ὅτεγὰρᾐρέθηεἰςὕψος , τότεἐφάνητὰἐντοῖςοὐρανοῖς . And similarly Thl. and Œ c., the latter however giving an alternative, καὶὅτιἔκρυπτενἐνἑαυτῇτὴνθεότητα · καὶτοῦτογὰρἴδιονκαταπετάσματος . Thdrt. understands it of the body of the Lord partaken in the Holy Communion: no less strangely than erroneously: for it is not the Body, but the Flesh of Christ which is the veil: and what our Writer means by that expression is evident from ch. 5:7, where ἐνταῖςἡμέραιςτῆςσαρκὸςαὐτοῦ points to the time of His suffering Humanity),— 21. and (‘ having:’ τὸἔχοντεςἀπὸκοινοῦ , Œ c.) a great Priest (i. e. a great High Priest; but here his Priesthood, not his High-priesthood, is more brought into prominence. Do not suppose that μέγαςἱερεύς imports ‘ High Priest,’ as ὁἱερεὺςὁμέγας in the LXX and Philo: our Writer always uses ἀρχιερεύς for it, and in ch. 4:14, calls our Lord ἀρχιερέαμέγαν . He is ἱερεὺςμέγας , because He is a Priest on his throne, a “ sacerdos regius et rex sacerdotalis,” as Delitzsch quotes from Seb. Schmidt) over the house of God (this substitution of the preposition of motion for that of rest, is indicative of a later phase of a language, and requires the supplying of τεταγμένον , or some similar word, to make it good Greek: so Ξενοκλέαἔταξενἐπὶτοὺςἱππεῖς , Xen. Cyr. iv. 5. 19. The οἶκοςθεοῦ here need not be more limited in meaning than in the similar passage ch. 3:2: οἶκονδὲθεοῦτοὺςπιστοὺςπροσηγόρευσεν , Thdrt., Œ c., Estius, al. But it is alleged that the expression here must mean the heaven: Thl. having mentioned the other, says, ἤ , ὅπεροἶμαιμᾶλλον , τὸνοὐρανόν · ἐκεῖνονγὰρκαὶἅγιακαλεῖ , καὶἐνἐκείνῳλειτουργεῖντὸνἱερέαλέγει , ὑπὲρἡμῶνἐντυγχάνοντα : and so many Commentators. But Delitzsch well observes that the one meaning, the narrower, need not exclude the other, the wider. It is hardly probable, to begin with, that our Writer should in two places describe Christ as set ἐπὶτὸνοἶκοντοῦθεοῦ , in meanings entirely different from each other. Clearly, the heavenly sanctuary is regarded by him as also including the earthly, the Church above as the home of the Church below: see ch. 12:22 ff.), 22. let us approach (προσέρχεσθαι , see ref., = ἐγγίζειντῷθεῷ ch. 7:19, and is a word belonging to worship. So that the participial clauses which follow are best regarded as both belonging to προσερχώμεθα , since they also describe requisite preparations for worship: see this further treated below, on ver. 23) with a true heart in full assurance (πληροφορία , subjective, as in ch. 6:11: see note there) of faith (with no doubt as to the certainty of our access to God by the blood of Jesus), having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience (a conscience polluted with the guilt of sin: for “ if a man’ s practice be bad, his conscience, in so far as it is the consciousness of that practice, is πονηρά :” see Delitzsch, Biblische Psychologie, p. 163) and having our body washed with pure water (both these clauses refer to the legal purifications of the Levitical priests, which took place by means of blood and water. At their first dedication, Aaron and his sons were sprinkled with blood, their bodies and their clothes, Exodus 29:21: Leviticus 8:30. And so are we to be as God’ s priests, having access to Him, sprinkled with blood, not outwardly with that of the ram of consecration, but inwardly with that of the Lamb of God: the first could only produce καθαρότητατῆςσαρκός (ch. 9:13), but the second, pureness of heart and conscience in God’ s sight. The washing with water also (Exodus 29:4) was to be part of the cleansing of Aaron and his sons: nor only so, but as often as they entered the holy place or approached the altar, they were to wash their hands and feet in the brazen laver, Exodus 30:20; Exodus 40:30-32: and the high priest, on the day of atonement, λούσεταιὕδατιπᾶντὸσῶμααὐτοῦ , Leviticus 16:4. There can be no reasonable doubt that this clause refers directly to Christian baptism. The λουτρὸντοῦὕδατος of Ephesians 5:26, and the λουτρὸνπαλιγγενεσίας , Titus 3:5, are analogous expressions: and the express mention of σῶμα here, as distinguished from καρδίας before, stamps this interpretation with certainty. This distinction makes it impossible, with Calvin, Limborch, Owen, Bengel, Ebrard, and the old Socinians, Schlichting, al., to spiritualize away the meaning into “ Christi spiritus et doctrina, seu spiritualis illa aqua, qua suos perfundit Christus, ipsius etiam sanguine non excluso” (Schlichting); for σῶμα confines the reference to an outward act. And so Thl. , Thdrt., Œ c., al. Bö hme, Kuin., Thol., De W., Bleek, Lü nem., Delitzsch, and the majority of Commentators. Still in maintaining the externality of the words, as referring, and referring solely, to Baptism, we must remember, that Baptism itself is not a mere external rite, but at every mention of it carries the thought further, viz. to that spiritual washing of which it is itself symbolical and sacramental. Notice here that the word is τὸσῶμα , and not τὴνσάρκα , as ch. 9:13: our whole natural life, and not the mere outside surface: that in which our soul dwells and works, the seat of the emotions and desires: this also must be purified in those who would approach God in Christ. So that I would understand with Delitzsch (whose note here by all means see), that the sprinkling the heart from an evil conscience is, so to speak, intra-sacramental, a spiritual application of the purifying Blood, beyond sacramental rites, and the washing the body with pure water is purely sacramental, the effect of baptism taken in its whole blessed meaning and fulfilment as regards our natural existence. The end of his note is very beautiful: “ As priests we are sprinkled, as priests we are bathed: sprinkled so that our hearts are freed from an evil conscience, and thus from self-condemnation, sprinkled with Christ’ s Blood, to be sprinkled with which and to be certain of and joyful in justification before God is one and the same thing,— washed in Holy Baptism, whose pure water penetrates with its saving power not only into the depths of our self-conscious life, but also into the very foundation of our corporeity, and thus sanctifies us not only in the flesh, but in the body and in the spirit: so bringing us, in our whole personal existence, through the Blood speaking in the Sanctuary, through the Water welling forth out of the Sanctuary, into so real a connexion, so close an union with the Sanctuary itself, that we are at all times privileged to enter into the Sanctuary, and to use, in faith, the new and living way.” On the further details of the passage see Hofmann, Weissagung u. Erfü llung, ii. 234: Schriftbeweis, ii. 2. 161. The perfect participles shew that a state is spoken of introduced by one act the effect of which is abiding): 23. (First we must treat of the punctuation and connexion. I have stated above the ground for attaching καὶλελουμένοικ .τ .λ . to the foregoing, with Syr., Primas., Faber Stap., Luther, E. V., Estius, Seb. Schmidt, Cramer, Michaelis (paraphr.), Wolf, Baumgarten, Storr, Kuin., De Wette, Bleek, Delitzsch,— not to κατέχωμεν with Erasm., Beza, Erasm. Schmid, Bengel, Peirce (and Michaelis as Peirce), Griesb., Knapp, Heinrichs, Schulz, Bö hme, Lachmann, Tholuck, Tischdf. (edn. 2), Ebrard, Lü nemann. Besides, 1. the ground there alleged, it may be further urged, 2. that the λελουμένοι has no imaginable connexion with κατέχωμενκ .τ .λ ., whereas it continues to describe the condition in which we are to approach God: and, 3. that by joining this participial clause with what follows, the rhythm of the sentence (agst. Lü nem.) is entirely broken up. Then, thus much being determined, our next question is, what stop to set after καθαρῷ . Bleek prefers a period, Delitzsch a comma only. I believe a colon, as after ἐπαγγειλάμενος , would best give the form of the sentence, in which the three verbs, προσερχώμεθα … κατέχωμεν … καὶκατανοῶμεν , are correlative) let us hold fast (= κρατῶμεν , ch. 4:14: let us hold with full and conscious possession: see ch. 3:6, 14) the confession (see on ch. 4:14: subjective, but in a pregnant sense,— that which we confess, held in our confession of it) of our hope (see ch. 3:6: and bear in mind that ἐλπίς is used also for the object of hope subjectivized: our hope (subj.), as including that on which it is fixed) so that it may be without wavering (“ Valcknaer compares ἔχεινἀκλινῆτὸνλογισμόν , 4 Macc. 6:7” Del. The adjective predicates that which the confession becomes by being held fast: = βεβαίαν , ch. 3:14. The word itself is late Greek, found in Æ lian, V. H. xii. 64: Lucian, Encom. Demosth. 33: Philo, al): for He is faithful that promised (viz. God, see reff.: and ch. 6:13; 11:11; 12:26, as referring to Him the title ὁἐπαγγειλάμενος . Thl. interprets it, ὁχριστὸςὁεἰπών , ὅτιὍπουεἰμὶἐγώ , καὶὁδιάκονοςὁἐμὸςἔσται , and similarly Œ c., al., but not so accurately): 24. and (“ How beautifully does this chain of exhortations of our Writer fall into a triple division, according to St. Paul’ s trias of the Christian life, 1 Corinthians 13:13: 1 Thessalonians 1:3; 1 Thessalonians 5:8: Colossians 1:4 f. Next to an exhortation to approach God in full assurance of faith, follows one to hold fast the confession of hope, and now comes one to emulate one another in love.” Delitzsch. On the connexion, see above: we are still dependent on ἔχοντεςοὖν above) let us consider one another , Thdrt., Primas., Michaelis, Bleek (who endeavours to unite both views): κατανοεῖν has already been noticed, ch. 3:1) with a view to provocation of (tending to produce: or we may say that it is a παροξυσμὸςἀγάπης , the love itself being thereby excited) love and good works; 25. not deserting the assembling together of ourselves (the word ἐπισυναγωγή , as its verb ἐπισυνάγειν , belongs to late Greek: Bleek gives examples from Polyb., Plut., Phæ drus. The LXX use the verb many times, of gathering in a hostile sense (Micah 4:11: Zechariah 12:3; Zechariah 14:2: Ps. 30:14 : 1 Macc. 3:58; 5:9) and of God gathering His people together ; 105:47; 146:2: 2 Macc. 1:27; 2:18). And so in N. T. (Matthew 23:37; Matthew 24:31: Mark 13:27: Luke 13:34). In the only place (ref.) where the substantive occurs, it is of our gathering together to Christ at His coming, just as the verb in the above-cited places of the Gospels. Here, the question is whether it is to be understood of the congregation of the faithful generally, the Church,— as the word congregation has come from the act of assembling to signify the body thus assembled,— or of the single acts of assembling and gathering together of the various assemblies of Christians at various times. The former is held by Primasius , Calvin, Justiniani , Jac. Cappell., Bö hme, Bretschneider, al. But the other is held by most Commentators, and seems far more appropriate here. Thus Chrys. , Œ c. , Thl. (similarly), Beza, Camero, Schlichting, Limborch, Schö ttgen, Wolf, al., and Tholuck, De Wette, Ebrard, Lü nem., Hofm., Delitzsch, al. Del. suggests that our Writer may have used ἐπισυναγωγή , not συναγωγή , to avoid the Judaistic sound of this latter. Otherwise the use would be accountable enough, ἐπισυναγωγή being a συναγ . ἐπὶτὸαὐτό , and thus pointing more at the several places where the assemblies were held), as is the habit with some , but exhorting , Hofmann, al., but ἑαυτούς , out of the ἑαυτῶν just preceding. See ch. 3:13, ἀλλὰπαρακαλεῖτεἑαυτοὺςκαθ ʼ ἑκάστηνἡμέραν . An alternative in Œ c. supplies τοὺςἀσθενεστέρους : but it is an unnecessary limitation: all would need it); and so much the more , as ye see (this βλέπετε , in the second person, is unexpected in the midst of the ‘ oratio communicativa.’ It appeals at once to the watchfulness and discernment of the readers as regards the signs of the times. That Day indeed, in its great final sense, is always near, always ready to break forth upon the Church: but these Hebrews lived actually close upon one of those great types and foretastes of it, the destruction of the Holy City— the bloody and fiery dawn, as Delitzsch finely calls it, of the Great Day) the day (this shortest of all designations of the day of the Lord’ s coming is found only in reff. “ It is the Day of days, the ending-day of all days, the settling-day of all days, the Day of the promotion of Time into Eternity, the Day which for the Church breaks through and breaks off the night of this present world.” Delitzsch) approaching. 26-31. Caution, arising from the mention of that day,— which will be not a day of grace, but a day of judgment,— of the fearful peril of falling away from Christ. The passage finds a close parallel in ch. 6:4 ff., and much of what was there said will apply here. 26. For if we willingly sin with the preceding exhortations, and by the description of one who has so sinned in ver. 29. Neglect of assembling together, and loss of mutual exhortation and stimulus, would naturally result in (as it would be prompted by an inclination that way at first) the ἀποστῆναιἀπὸθεοῦ of ch. 3:12; the παραπεσεῖν of ch. 6:6. It is the sin of apostasy from Christ back to the state which preceded the reception of Christ, viz. Judaism. This is the ground-sin of all other sins. Notice the present, not the aor. part. ‘ If we be found wilfully sinning,’ not ‘ if we have wilfully sinned,’ at that Day. It is not of an act or of any number of acts of sin, that the Writer is speaking, which might be repented of and blotted out: but of a state of sin, in which a man is found when that day shall come) after the receiving (having received) the knowledge (“ It is usually said that γνῶσις is the weaker word, ἐπίγνωσις the stronger: or, the former the more general, the latter the more special: or, the former the more quiescent, the latter the more active: the truth in all these is, that when ἐπίγνωσις is used, there is the assumption of an actual direction of the spirit to a definite object and of a real grasping of the same: so that we may speak of a false γνῶσις , but not of a false ἐπίγνωσις . And the Writer, by the use of this word, gives us to understand that he means by it not only a shallow historical notion about the Truth, but a living believing knowledge of it, which has laid hold of a man and fused him into union with itself.” Delitzsch. It is most important here to keep this cardinal point distinctly in mind: that the ἑκουσίωςἁμαρτάνοντες are not mere professors of religion, but real converts, or else ver. 29 becomes unintelligible) of the truth (the truth of God, as so often in St. Paul and St. John), there is no longer left remaining (see on ch. 4:6) a sacrifice for sins ; 27. but (there is left remaining: ἀπολείπεται is common to both clauses) a certain (this attaching of τις to an adjective is an elegance belonging to the more polished style of our Writer, and often found in the classics: e. g. ἐπίπονόντιναβίον , Diod. Sic. v. 39: ὅτιμικρόντιμέροςεἴηστρατηγικῆςτὰτακτικά , Xen. Cyr. i. 6. 14: καὶΚύρῳδὲμεγάληντινὰδοκῶἡμᾶςχάρινὀφείλειν , ibid. vi. 4. 7: see also ref. Acts, and cf. Winer, § 25. 2. c. Bernhardy’ s account of the usage, Syntax, p. 442. seems to be the true one, that it has the power of a doubled adjectival sense, and generalizes the quality predicated, indicating some one of that kind, it may be any one. This is exemplified where numerals, or the like of numerals are joined with τις ,— e. g. πᾶςτις , ἕκαστόςτις , οὐδείςτις , τισὶνοὐπολλοῖς (Thuc. vi. 94), τινὲςδύονῆες (id. viii. 100), ἑκατόντι (Arr. Ind. 7), ταύταςτινὰςτρεῖς (Plato, Rep. x. p. 601 d), as Cicero, “ tres aliqui.” So here, some one φοβερὰἐκδοχή out of all that might befall various men and dispositions. The indefiniteness makes the declaration more awful) fearful (objective,— ‘ tremendus,’ not ‘ timidus,’ surchtbar, not surchtsam: fearful to think of, frightful. No figure of hypallage must be thought of, as if φοβερὰἐκδοχὴκρίσεως = ἐκδοχὴκρίσεωςφοβερᾶς , as Jac. Cappellus, Heinrichs, al., and Wolf, alt.) reception ἐκδοχήν . But of the subjective sense, derived from the later meaning of ἐκδέχομαι , I find no hint or example, except the mere assertion in our N. T. lexicons, that it has that meaning in this place. From what follows, it is much better to take it objectively; all which ἀπολείπεται is, the reception of the doom of judgment, and the πυρὸςζῆλος , &c.) of judgment (i. e. by the context, unfavourable judgment), and fervour of fire which shall devour the adversaries . 28, 29. Argument ‘ a minori,’ to shew how grievous will be the punishment of the apostate from Christ. There is a very similar inference in ch. 2:2, 3; 12:25. 28. Any one having set at nought the law of Moses λατρεύσωσινθεοῖςἑτέροιςκ .τ .λ .) dies (the normal present) without benefit of (χωρίς , apart from: not implying that no one felt compassion for him, but that such compassion, be it what it might, could not affect his doom) mercies (the merciful feelings of any who might be interested for him. οἰκτιρμός , see on ref. Rom., says Bleek, is a purely Alexandrine word, and in the LXX and N. T. is generally in the plural, answering to the Hebrew ר ַ ח ֲ מ ִ י ם , bowels. χωρὶςοἰκτιρμῶν , φησί , ὥστεοὐδεμίασυγγνώμηοὐδὲἔλεοςἐκεῖ . Chrys.) before two or three witnesses : 29. of how much worse punishment (though τιμωρία does not elsewhere occur in the N. T., we have the verb, Acts 22:5; Acts 26:11), think ye (δοκεῖτε stands separate from the construction, and forms an appeal to the judgment of the readers themselves), shall he be found worthy (viz. by God. The participle is in the aor., as pointing to the single fact of the doom, not to a continued estimate), who trampled under foot the Son of God (the higher title of the Mediator of the new covenant is used, to heighten the enormity of the crime), and accounted common the blood of the covenant (the αἷματῆςδιαθήκης , being the τίμιοναἷμα of Christ Himself, far above all blood of sprinkling under the old covenant. Even that (Leviticus 16:19) had hallowing power: how much more this. But the apostate κοινὸνἡγήσατο this blood— accounted it mere ordinary blood of a common man, and if so, consented to its shedding, for then Christ deserved to die as a blasphemer. And this, of that holy Blood, by which we have access to God! So that we have quite enough for the solemn sense, by rendering κοινόν common, without going to the further meaning, unclean. Chrys. gives both meanings: κοινόν , τίἐστι ; τὸἀκάθαρτον , ἢτὸμηδὲνπλέονἔχοντῶνλοιπῶν : Œ c., κοινόν , τὸμηδὲντῶνἄλλωνδιαφέρον , οἷονλέγουσινοἱφάσκοντεςαὐτὸνψιλὸνἄνθρωπον · οὗτοιγὰροὐδὲντοῦἡμετέρουδιαλλάττονεἰςτιμὴνλέγουσιναὐτό : Beza compares 1 Corinthians 11:29, μὴδιακρίνωντὸσῶμα : and Bretschneider quotes Justin Mart. Apol. i. 66, p. 83, οὐγὰρὡςκοινὸνἄρτονοὐδὲκοινὸνπόματαῦταλαμβάνομεν . Cf. Acts 10:28, ἐμοὶὁθεὸςἔδειξενμηδένακοινὸνἢἀκάθαρτονλέγεινἄνθρωπον , where the two are distinguished. Syr. has “ hath counted the blood of the covenant of him by which (whom?) he hath been sanctified as that of every man.” The reader will recall our Lord’ s own τὸαἷματὸτῆςκ . διαθήκης , cf. ref. Matt. Mark. See also our ch. 13:20) in which (as sprinkled with which; as his element and condition of sanctification) he was sanctified (see Leviticus 16:19 LXX, and our ch. 13:12 and 9:13. He had advanced so far in the reality of the spiritual life, that this blood had been really applied to his heart by faith, and its hallowing and purifying effects were visible in his life: which makes the contrast the more terrible. And Delitzsch finely remarks, as against the assertors of mere shallow supralapsarianism, that without former experience of grace, without a life of faith far more than superficial, so irrecoverable a fall into the abyss is not possible. It is worthy of remark how Calvin evades the deep truth contained in the words ἐνᾧἡγιάσθη : “ Valde indignum est sanguinem Christi, qui sanctificationis nostræ materia est, profanare: hoc vero faciunt, qui desciscunt a fide:” thus making ἡγιάσθη into ἁγιαζόμεθα . Lightfoot’ s idea, that Christ is the subject of ἡγιάσθη , is hardly worth refutation (Hor. Hebr. in 1 Corinthians 11:29): as neither is that of Claudius, in Wolf, that διαθήκη is the subject), and insulted (ἐνυβρίζω , in prose, belongs to later Greek: but is found in the poets, e. g. Eur. Electr. 68, ἐντοῖςἐμοῖςοὐκἐνυβρίσαςκακοῖς : Aristoph. Thesm. 719, τάχ ʼ οὐχαίρωνἴσωςἐνυβρίσεις : Soph. Philoct. 342, with an accus. as here, πρᾶγμ ʼ ὅτῳσ ʼ ἐνύβρισαν . In prose it is found in Æ lian, Polybius, Herodian, Josephus, principally with a dative of the object) the Spirit of grace (for τὸπν . τῆςχάριτος , see ref. No two things can be more opposed, as Del. remarks, than ὕβρις and χάρις . And this remark guides us to the answer to the question whether χάριτος here is a gen. objective or subjective: whether it is the πνεῦμα which belongs to χάρις , so that it is the gift of the divine χάρις (so Grot., Schlicht., De W., Bleek, Lü nem., and most of the moderns), or χάρις which belongs to πνεῦμα , so that it is the gift of and the character of the πνεῦμα . The latter is adopted by Calv., Estius, a-Lapide, Justiniani , Beza, Owen, al., Bö hme, Von Gerlach, Delitzsch, al., and is much the more probable, both on account of the prophecy which is referred to, ἐκχεῶ … πνεῦμαχάριτοςκ . οἰκτιρμοῦ ,— and on account of ἐνυβρίσας , which is most naturally referred to a Person as its object. Chrys. strikingly says, ὁτὴνεὐεργεσίανμὴπαραδεχόμενος , ὕβρισετὸνεὐεργετήσαντα . ἐποίησέσευἱόν · σὺδὲθέλειςγενέσθαιδοῦλος ; ἦλθεκατασκηνῶσαιπρόςσε · σὺδὲἐπεισάγειςσαυτῷπονηροὺςλογισμούς . He does not hold with any definiteness that apostasy is here meant, but applies the whole text homiletically to wilful sin of any kind. Thl., in reproducing Chrys.’ s sentence, puts τὸνδιάβολον for πονηροὺςλογισμούς )? 30, 31. And this ἐκδοχὴκρίσεως and πυρὸςζῆλος are certainties, testified to by God Himself. 30. For we know Him who said, To me belongeth vengeance, I will repay, saith the Lord (the citation is from Deuteronomy 32:35, and is given not in agreement with the Hebrew text (ל ִ י נ ָ ק ָ ם ו ְ ש ׁ ַ ל ּ ֵ ם , “ To me (belongeth) vengeance and recompense” ) nor with the LXX (ἐνἡμέρᾳἐκδικήσεως (i. e. ל י ו ם נ , as is read in the Samaritan Pent.) ἀνταποδώσω , so also Philo, Leg. Alleg. iii. § 34, vol. i. p. 108), but, remarkably enough, in verbal accordance with St. Paul’ s citation of the same text, Romans 12:19, even to the adding of the words λέγεικύριος , which are neither in the Heb. nor the LXX. Two solutions of this are possible: 1. that the expression had become a common saying in the Church; 2. that our Writer takes it from St. Paul’ s citation. A third alternative is of course open; that it is St. Paul himself, who quotes here as there. For a solution, see Prolegg. on the authorship of this Epistle): and again, The Lord will judge His people (no doubt quoted primarily from the passage where it primarily occurs, in ref. Deut. The κρινεῖ there expresses another function of the judge from that which is adduced here. There, He will judge for rescue and for defence: here, for punishment and for condemnation. But the office of Judge, generally asserted by κρινεῖ , involves all that belongs to a judge: and if there it induces the comforting of those whom He εἶδενπαραλελυμένους , κ . ἐκλελοιπόταςἐνἐπαγωγῇ , κ . παρειμένους , here the same general office of judgment also induces the punishment of the wilful sinner and apostate). 31. Axiomatic conclusion of these solemn warnings. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God (yet in reff. Kings, 1 Chron., David says, ἐμπεσοῦμαιδὴεἰςχεῖραςκυρίου , ὅτιπολλοὶοἱοἰκτιρμοὶαὐτοῦσφόδρα , εἰςδὲχεῖραςἀνθρώπουοὐμὴἐμπέσω : and in ref. Sir. we have ἐμπεσούμεθαεἰςχεῖραςκυρίου , καὶοὐκεἰςχεῖραςἀνθρώπων · ὡςγὰρἡμεγαλωσύνηαὐτοῦ , οὕτωκαὶτὸἔλεοςαὐτοῦ . But the two sentiments are easily set at one. For the faithful, in their chastisement, it is a blessed thing to fall into God’ s hands: for the unfaithful, in their doom, a dreadful one. On ζῶν , as a characteristic of θεός , see on ch. 3:12. Here, the idea of life and energy, attached to the name of God, brings vividly out the ζῆλος with which He will consume His adversaries). 32-34. As in ch. 6:9-12, so here, the Writer turns from solemn exhortation and warning to encouragement arising from the conduct of his readers in the past. This their firmness did not look likely to end in apostasy: and accordingly by the memory of it he now cheers and invigorates them. φησὶνοὖνὅτιμὴἄλλουςτινὰςμιμήσασθε , ἀλλ ʼ αὐτοὶἑαυτούς . ὅραδὲπνευματικὴνσοφίαν · πρότερονκατασείσαςαὐτῶντὰςψυχὰςδιὰτοῦτῆςγεέννηςἀναμνῆσαι , νῦνμαλάττειδι ʼ ἐγκωμίων , οὐκολακεύων , ἀλλὰδι ʼ αὐτῶντούτωνπροτρεπόμενος · ἀξιοπιστότεροςγὰρὁσυμβουλεύωντινὶἑαυτὸνμιμήσασθαικαὶἃπροειργάσατοἔργα . Thl.: and Thdrt., κεράννυσιτῶνεἰρημένωντὸαὐστηρὸντῇμνήμῃτῶνἤδηκατωρθωμένων . οὐδὲνγὰροὕτωςεἰςπροθυμίανδιεγείρειὡςτῶνοἰκείωνκατορθωμάτωνμνήμη . 32. But (in contrast to these fearful things which have been spoken of) call ever to mind (ἀναμιμνήσκεσθε , stronger than the simple verb— call over in your minds, one by one: this meaning seems legitimate when a plural follows: and present, as implying a constant habit. The verb may be indicative, but is from the whole cast of the sentence, much more likely imperative) the former days (the accus. after ἀναμιμνήσκομαι is as good Greek as the gen.), in which when (first) enlightened (see on φωτίζω , note, ch. 6:4), ye underwent (scil. with fortitude: which though not implied in the word, signifying mere endurance, yet often is in the context: cf. Xen. Hiero 7. 4 (Bl.), ὥστεἐμοὶμὲνεἰκότωςδοκεῖτεταῦταὑπομένειν , ἃφέρετεἐντυραννίδι , ἐπείπερτιμᾶσθεδιαφερόντωςτῶνἄλλωνἀνθρώπων ) much (‘ multum magnumque:’ πολύς when used with words whose sense admits intensifying, strengthens, as well as repeats, the idea) contest (ἄθλησις tells its own meaning, from ἆθλος , ἀθλέω , as ‘ certamen,’ a struggle or contest: and in this sense it occurs in reff.) of sufferings (the gen. may be either subjective, implying that your contest consisted of sufferings; or objective, that it was waged with sufferings, as the foe to be contended against: the former perhaps is the more probable from what follows: cf. συνεπαθήσατε , ver. 34), This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/alfordgnt/ Chap. 11.— ‘ We are of faith,’ concluded the last chapter. And now this great word comes before the mind of the Writer for its definition, its exemplification, its triumphs. By this, all the servants of God from the first have been upheld, and stimulated, and carried through their glorious course. By this exemplification the Writer evermore warmed and carried forward breaks out at last into a strain of sublime eloquence, in which he gathers together in one the many noble deeds of faith which time and space would not allow of his specifying severally. 1. Now Faith is (the rec. text has a comma after πίστις , thus throwing the stress upon ἔστιν , and making it mean either, “ Now there is a faith, which is” &c., or “ Now faith really exists, being” &c. And the alleged ground for this arrangement is, that the ordinary rendering, “ Now faith is,” would require πίστιςδέἐστιν , or ἡδὲπίστιςἐστίν . But this argument is nugatory. ἔστιν at the opening of the sentence does, it is true, often indicate emphatically absolute existence, e. g. ch. 4:13: Acts 13:15: 1 Corinthians 8:5; 1 Corinthians 15:44 al. fr. (in Del.); but frequently it is the mere logical copula, with a certain emphasis on it, carrying a strong affirmation or negation of the truth of the subsequent predication. See Delitzsch here, and Winer, § 7. 3. So that our Writer does not say, ‘ There is a faith, which is.… ,’ nor ‘ Faith has a real existence, being.… ,’ but he describes that πίστις to which in ch. 10:39 he had stated us to belong. And this word ‘ describes’ is perhaps more strictly correct than ‘ defines:’ for the words which follow are not a definition of that in which faith consists, but of that which faith serves as and secures to us. A definition would approach rather from the side of the subjective phæ nomena of faith. Yet when speaking broadly and not strictly, we may well call this the definition of faith: and nearly so Thomas Aquinas (in Del.), “ Respondeo dicendum, quod licet quidam dicant præ dicta Apostoli verba non esse fidei definitionem, quia definitio indicat rei quidditatem et essentiam, tamen, si quis recte consideret, omnia, ex quibus potest fides definiri, in præ dicta descriptione tanguntur, licet verba non ordinentur sub forma definitionis.” Delitzsch compares several forms of similar definitions in Philo, e. g. ἔστιδὲστεναγμὸςσφόδρακαὶἐντεταμένηλύπη (Leg. Alleg. iii. 75, vol. i. p. 129): ἔστιδὲεὐχὴαἴτησιςἀγαθῶνπαρὰθεοῦ (Quod Deus Immut. 19, p. 285): ἔστιγὰρφιλοσοφίαἐπιτήδευσιςσοφίας , σοφίαδὲἐπιστήμηθείωνκ . ἀνθρωπίνωνκαὶτῶντούτωναἰτιῶν (De Congr. Quæ r. Erud. Gr. 14, p. 530): and an appositional one of faith itself, De Conf. Ling. 9, p. 409, where it is said to be ἡὀχυρωτάτηκαὶβεβαιοτάτηδιάθεσις , and, De Migr. Abr. 9, p. 442, he says of faith, ἀρτηθεῖσαγὰρκαὶἐκκρεμασθεῖσαἐλπίδοςχρηστῆς , καὶἀνενδοίαστανομίσασαἤδηπαρεῖναιτὰμὴπαρόντα , διὰτὴντοῦὑποσχομένουβεβαιοτάτηνπίστιν , ἀγαθὸντέλειον , ἆθλονεὕρηται . It was this passage apparently which led Jerome to make the remark which Grotius quotes in his note on James 2:23, “ Quæ si quis recte consideret, inveniet optime concurrere cum eo quod Scriptor ad Hebræ os, Philoneum aliquid spirans ut Hieronymo videtur, scripsit, ἔστιδὲπίστιςκ .τ .λ .” Notice that it is of faith in general, all faith, not here of faith in God in particular, that the Writer is speaking: and πίστις is anarthrous, as throughout the chapter) confidence (there has been much difference concerning the meaning of ὑπόστασις . The ancients for the most part understand it here as “ substantia” (so vulg.), substance, the real and true essence: faith gives reality to things not yet seen, so that they are treated as veritably present. So e. g. Chrys., ἐπειδὴγὰρτὰἐνἐλπίδιἀνυπόσταταεἶναιδοκεῖ , ἡπίστιςὑπόστασιναὐτοῖςχαρίζεται · μᾶλλονδὲοὐχαρίζεταιἀλλ ʼ αὐτόἐστινοὐσίααὐτῶν · οἷονἡἀνάστασιςοὐπαραγέγονενοὐδέἐστινἐνὑποστάσει , ἀλλ ʼ ἡἐλπὶςὑφίστησιναὐτὴνἐντῇἡμετέρᾳψυχῇ : Thdrt., δείκνυσινὡςὑφεστῶτατὰμηδέπωγεγενημένα : Œ c., πίστιςἐστὶναὐτὴἡὑπόστασιςκαὶοὐσίατῶνἐλπιζομένωνπραγυάτων · ἐπειδὴγὰρτὰἐνἐλπίσινἀνυπόστατάἐστινὡςτέωςμὴπαρόντα , ἡπίστιςοὐσίατιςαὐτῶνκαὶὑπόστασιςγίνεται , εἶναιαὐτὰκαὶπαρεῖναιτρόποντινὰπαρασκευάζουσαδιὰτοῦπιστεύεινεἶναι : Thl., οὐσίωσιςτῶνμήπωὄντωνκαὶὑπόστασιςτῶνμὴὑφεστώτων : (De Pœ nit. ii. 3 (15), vol. ii. p. 419), (In Joann. Tract. lxxix. 1, vol. iii. pt. ii.), Vatablus , H. Steph. , Schlichting, Bengel, Heinrichs, Bisping, al. Others have rendered it “ fundamentum:” so Faber Stap., Erasm. (paraphr.), Calvin, Beza , Clarius, Stein, Sykes, Carpzov, al. On the other hand the majority of modern Commentators have preferred the meaning which ὑπόστασις bears in ch. 3:14, where see note: viz. “ confidence.” So Luther, Camero, Grotius, Hammond, Wolf, Bö hme, Bleek, De Wette, Tholuck, Stuart, Ebrard, Lü nemann, Delitzsch, al. And there can be no reasonable doubt, that this is the true rendering here. Thus only do the two descriptions given correspond in nature and quality: and thus only does ὑπόστασις itself answer to what we might expect by ἐλπιζομένων being used and not some word like ἀνυποστάτων . The one being subjective in both these cases of parallel, it is but reasonable that the other should be also. Delitzsch, as usual when any psychological question arises, has gone into this matter at great length, and his note should by all means be read. He compares a very remarkable passage of Dante, Paradiso, xxiv. 52-81) of things hoped for , demonstration (another dispute has arisen, about the meaning of ἔλεγχος . From ἐλέγχειν , to convict, or convince, of persons,— to prove or demonstrate, of things, comes ἔλεγχος , conviction, or proof: Aristot. Rhet. ad Alex. c. 14, ἔλεγχοςδέἐστινὁμὲνμὴδυνατὸςἄλλωςἔχεινἀλλ ʼ οὕτωςὡςἡμεῖςλέγομεν . So the vulg. has rendered “ argumentum,” — Aug., Prosper., Mutianus, “ convictio,” — Calvin, “ demonstratio” or “ evidentia” (“ evidence,” E. V.), Hammond (and similarly Luther), “ firma persuasio.” Chrys. says, βαβαίοἵᾳἐχρήσατολέξειεἰπὼνἔλεγχοςοὐβλεπομένων · ἔλεγχοςγὰρλέγεταιἐπὶτῶνλίανἀδήλων · ἡπίστιςτοίνυνἐστὶνὄψιςτῶνἀδήλων , φησί , καὶεἰςτὴναὐτὴντοῖςὁρωμένοιςφέρειπληροφορίαντὰμὴὁρώμενα : Œ c., ἀπόδειξιςτῶνοὐβλεπομένων · ἀποδείκνυσιδὲὁρατὰτὰἀόραταἡπίστις · πῶς ; τῷνῷκαὶταῖςἐλπίσινὁρῶσατὰμὴφαινόμενα : Thl., ἔλεγχος , τουτέστιδεῖξιςκαὶφανέρωσιςἀδήλωνπραγμάτων · ποιεῖγὰρταῦταβλέπεσθαιτῷνῷἡμῶνὡςπορόντα . The old Latin version in D renders most strangely, “ accusator non videntium.” The modern Commentators are divided: some have taken the subjective sense of conviction,— inward persuasion of the truth of: so Menken, Bleek, De W., Lü nem. But, as Tholuck remarks, this sense of the word is hardly borne out by usage. And therefore we seem driven back on the objective meaning as referred to things, viz. proof, or demonstration. This is adopted by Bengel, Bö hme, Stier, Ebrard, Hofmann, al. As far as the sense is concerned, both come to the same in the end. It is faith, an act of the mind, which is this demonstration: it is therefore necessarily subjective in its effect,— is the demonstration to him who believes) of matters (see above) not seen . 2. For (q. d. ‘ and so high a description of faith is not undeserved, seeing that … ’ The γάρ does not bring in any proof of the foregoing description, only shews that faith is noble enough to be dignified with the offices just named) in (not, “ by,” merely: but elemental; in the domain, or region, or matter, of: so ἐπαινέσωὑμᾶςἐντούτῳ , 1 Corinthians 11:22: and “ vituperari in amicitia,” in Cicero (Del.)) this the elders (i. e. not merely those who lived before us, but those ancients whom we dignify with the name of elders: cf. Philo de Abrahamo, § 46, vol. ii. p. 39, ὁγὰρἀληθείᾳπρεσβύτερος , οὐκἐνμήκειχρόνου , ἀλλ ʼ ἐνἐπαινετῷβίῳθεωρεῖται : and Thdrt., τουτέστινοἱπάλαιγεγενημένοι , οἱπρὸτοῦνόμουκαὶἐντῷνόμῳδιαλάμψαντεςἅγιοι . Bleek cites Æ schin. p. 20. 4, Ὁμήρου , ὃνἐντοῖςπρεσβυτάτοιςκαὶσοφωτάτοιςτῶνποιητῶνεἶναιτάττομεν . So also οἱπατέρες , see Romans 9:5: Hebrews 1:1) were testified of (so reff. In this absolute usage, it is of course implied, that the testimony was a good one. The usage is principally that of St. Luke, Acts 6:3; Acts 10:22; Acts 16:2; Acts 22:12. There is no need with Bleek and Lü nem. to separate the verb from ἐνταύτῃ , and supply after ‘ hac in fide,’ “ constituti” or the like: see on the construction above). 3. The Writer now begins his series of examples of the power of faith. But instead of opening them with the example of our first parents, which he probably passes over as not sufficiently recorded in Scripture, he adduces the great and primary postulate of faith which has regard to a fact contemporaneous indeed with them, and holding this first chronological place in the series: viz. the creation of the world itself. By faith (πίστει is the instrumental dative, nearly = διὰπίστεως , with which indeed it is interchanged in ver. 33) we perceive (see ref. Rom., where the verb is used in the same sense of intellectual perception, τὰἀόρατα of God being the νοούμενα . The world itself, and the things therein, καθορᾶται by us: but the fact of its creation by God νοεῖται , with our rational or spiritual faculties) the ages (see note on ch. 1:2, where I have maintained that the expression οἱαἰῶνες includes in it all that exists under the conditions of time and space, together with those conditions of time and space themselves, conditions which do not bind God, and did not exist independently of Him, but are themselves the work of His word. Chrys. here replaces τοὺςαἰῶνας in his paraphrase by τὰπάντα , the universe. Since writing the note above referred to, I have seen Delitzsch’ s commentary, which strongly maintains the mere material sense of οἱαἰῶνες , but not to me convincingly) to have been framed (so E. V. for κατηρτίσθαι : and we cannot perhaps do better. It is rather however, furnished forth, ‘ made to be, and to be what we find them:’ see reff. Ps.) by the word of God (so Philo, in Del., διὰῥήματοςτοῦαἰτίουὁσύμπαςκόσμοςἐδημιουργεῖτο . ῥῆμα differs from λόγος , in being the spoken word, the command, as throughout Gen_1, whereas λόγος may be, as Del., the inward shaping of the thing willed, as well as its outward manifestation. Cf. Philo de Sacr. Abel et Cain, § 18, vol. i. p. 175, ὁγὰρθεὸςλέγωνἅμαἐποίειμηδὲνμεταξὺἀμφοῖντιθείς . ῥῆμα must not here be taken for the personal word: ch. 1:2 is on a different matter), so that (it seems necessary here, with almost all Commentators except Hofmann, Lü nem., and Delitzsch, to keep to the ecbatic εἰςτό as against the telic. For even granted that we have on the whole a good sense given by the telic,— that God’ s purpose in framing the αἰῶνες was that &c. (which I own I can hardly see), yet there would be two weighty reasons against admitting it here: 1. that it would be unnaturally introduced, because it is not this purpose of God which we apprehend by faith, but the fact which is supposed to testify to this purpose: whereas if we take the telic sense of εἰςτό , we must include the purpose itself in that which we apprehend: 2. that it does violence to γεγονέναι , which on that hypothesis ought to have been some subjective word, not, as it is now, a mere record of past fact. It would be philological labour thrown away to shew that the ecbatic sense of εἰςτό is legitimate. The directive force of εἰς may lie either in the purpose of the worker, or in the tendency of the result. Cf. esp. Luke 5:17) not out of things apparent hath that which is seen (i. e. the visible world) been made (the first and chief difficulty here is in the position of μή , and the conclusion which we are thence to form as to our rendering. Most of the translations (Syr., D-lat., “ ut ex non apparentibus,” vulg., “ ut ex invisibilibus,” Erasmus, Luther, al.) regard it as belonging to φαινομένων , and render as if it were ἐκτῶνμὴφαινομένων (so Scriv.’ s a, a secunda manu). And so likewise Chrys. , Thdrt. , Œ c., Thl., Faber Stap., Jac. Cappell., Estius, Calov., Heinrichs, Valcknaer, Tholuck, al. And, thus taking the construction, these render in two different ways: 1. take the μὴφαινόμενα as things unseen, in contrast to the things seen; 2. as things non-existent, as contrasted with things existent. The former of these regard the assertion as meaning that God created the world out of the previously non-apparent Chaos, the “ Thohu wa-Bohu” of Genesis 1:3; the latter as referring to the creation out of the ideas in the divine mind, in which (see this ably argued out in Delitzsch’ s Biblische Psychologie, pp. 23, 24) all creation præ existed from eternity. As against both these views it is asserted positively by Lü nemann, and contended by Bleek and De Wette, that such a transposition of the negative particle is altogether impossible. Delitzsch replies that Chrys. and the Greek interpreters who so transposed it, understood their own language: and argues for the admissibility of the transposition, citing such expressions as ἡγουμένωνἀνδρῶνοὐτῶνἀδυνατωτάτων , Thuc. i. 5, and οὺκἐπὶμεγάλοιςμεγάλωςδιεσπουδάζετο , Arrian. Alex. vii. 23. 12, and such opinions as that of Valcknaer here, who calls it “ consuetam Græ cis transpositionem voculæ negantis,” and Rost, § 135. 1, “ If a single idea expressed by a noun is to be emphatically denied, which noun is preceded by an article or a preposition, then the particle of negation is put before the article or the preposition,” And certainly it does seem difficult to deny the existence of such cases, and to say with Bleek, that no examples have been given where a μή or οὐ belonging to a participle or adjective is separated from it by a governing preposition: the only apparently applicable instance, 2 Macc. 7:28, ὅτιοὐκἐξὄντωνἐποίησεναὐτὰὁθεός , being struck away by the Vatican reading being ἐξοὐκὄντων . Still, if we grant the legitimacy of the inversion in cases of emphatic denial, it will remain for us to consider, whether such inversion is to be assumed here. And, I own, it seems to me quite unnecessary. The ultimate sense is in the main the same in either case; but the straightforward construction of the words gives by far the more apposite expressed meaning. In all that we see with our sense, of re-creation and reproduction, τὸβλεπόμενονἐκφαινομένουγέγονεν . The seed becomes the plant: the grub the moth. But that which is above sight, viz. faith, leads us to apprehend, that this has not been so in the first instance: that the visible world has not been made out of apparent materials. On this acceptation of the construction, we need not interpret φαινόμενα otherwise than according to its plain meaning, things apparent: nor does the text stand committed to the before-mentioned præ -existence, or to any Philonian scheme of creation: being simply a negative proposition). 4. By faith (see above) Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain (not elliptic, for παρὰτὴντοῦΚάϊν : but as in reff., ‘ than Cain did.’ But how πλείοναθυσίαν First, there can be no doubt that the adj. must be taken not of quantity, but of quality. So Chrys., τὴνἐντιμοτέρανλέγει , τὴνλαμπροτέραν , τὴνἀναγκαιοτέραν : and Thdrt. and Thl., τὴντιμιωτέραν . But how was it so? Our text answers us, πίστει . The more excellence must be looked for then rather in the disposition with which the sacrifice was offered than in the nature of the sacrifice itself. Gregory the Great (cited by Del.) says well, “ Omne quod datur Deo, ex dantis mente pensatur; unde scriptum est, ‘ Respexit Deus ad Abel et ad munera ejus, ad Cain autem et ad munera ejus non respexit.’ Neque enim sacrum eloquium dicit, respexit ad munera Abel et ad Cain munera non respexit, sed prius ait quia respexit ad Abel, ac deinde subjunxit, ‘ et ad munera ejus.’ Idcirco non Abel ex muneribus, sed ex Abel munera oblata placuerunt.” This beyond doubt is the principal ground of the πλείονα . With regard to the sacrifices themselves; with our present knowledge of type and sacrifice, many reasons might be alleged why that of Abel should be more according to God’ s will than that of Cain; but none of those reasons can be safely or decisively applied here. That Abel’ s consisted of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof— the first and the best, whereas Cain’ s was merely an offering of the fruit of the ground, perfunctory and common-place,— may be a circumstance not without weight in appreciating the term πίστει . That Abel’ s was an offering of slain animals, God’ s own appointed way, so soon after, of the sinner’ s approach to Him, whereas Cain’ s was only a gift, as if he could approach God without shedding of blood,— this may also be an important element in the term πίστει . But it would not be safe here to insist on either of these. The difference alleged by Hofmann, Schriftb. ii. 1. 141, that Abel brought the flesh of those beasts whose skin had covered his bodily nakedness,— in faith, as an offering imputing the covering of his soul’ s nakedness by God’ s grace,— is too far-fetched, and too alien from any subsequent typology of sacrifice, to be entertained for a moment), by means of which (viz. which faith, not, which sacrifice, as Cramer: δι ʼ ἧς must apply to the same as δι ʼ αὐτῆς below, and that surely can refer to nothing but the πίστις which is the great leading idea of the chapter) he was testified (see above, ver. 2) to be righteous (when? by whom? not, by our Saviour, nor by St. John (reff.), though in both places such testimony is borne to him: but as explained in the next clause, at the time of his sacrifice, and by God Himself), God bearing testimony upon his gifts (of what kind this testimony was, there can be little doubt. Theodotion’ s rendering, καὶἐνεπύρισεναὐτὰὁθεός , though wrong as a rendering, is probably right in fact. Cf. Exodus 14:24: 1 Kings 18:24, 1 Kings 18:38. Chrys. refers to this rendering, but erroneously attributes it to the Syr.: Thl. says, λέγεταιδὲὅτικαὶπῦρκατελθὸνἀπὸτοῦοὐρανοῦἀνήλωσετὴνθυσίαν , καὶἐκτούτουκαὶὁΚάϊνἐπέγνωὅτιπροετιμήθηὁἈβέλ . πῶςγὰρἂνἄλλως ; διὸκαίτιςτῶνμεταθεμένωντὴνἙβραΐδαεἶςτὴνἙλλάδαγλῶττανοὕτωςἔθηκεν , ἘπέβλεπενἐπὶτὰςθυσίαςἈβὲλὁκύριοςκαὶἐνέπρησε . Œ c. also mentions the report); and by means of it (his faith, again, not, as Œ c., al., his sacrifice: see above) having died (join together, not δι ʼ αὐτῆςἀποθανών , as Œ c., πρόφασιςγὰραὐτῷγέγονενἡθυσίασφαγῆς , but δι ʼ αὐτῆςλαλεῖ : see below) he yet speaketh (viz. as interpreted by the parallel place, ch. 12:24, where it is said of the αἷμαῥαντισμοῦ , that it κρεῖττονλαλεῖπαρὰτὸνἈβέλ ,— by means of his blood, of which it is said by God in Genesis 4:10, φωνὴαἵματοςτοῦἀδελφοῦσουβοᾷπρόςμεἐκτῆςγῆς . So Th. Aquinas, Galen, Ribera, Jac. Cappell., Grot., Erasm., al., Bleek, De Wette, Lü nem., Ebrard, Delitzsch. The interpretation of λαλεῖ (and of λαλεῖται , so that no safe inference can be gathered as to the reading from the fact of this interpretation) has usually been as in Chrys., πῶςἔτιλαλεῖ ; τοῦτοκαὶτοῦζῆνσημεῖόνἐστινκαὶτοῦπαρὰπάντωνᾄδεσθαιθαυμάζεσθαικαὶμακαρίζεσθαι (see also below): Thdrt., τὸδὲἔτιλαλεῖ , ἀντὶτοῦἀοίδιμόςἐστιμέχριτοῦπαρόντοςκαὶπολυθρύλλητος , καὶπαρὰπάντωνεὐφημεῖταιτῶνεὐσεβῶν : Œ c., λαλεῖδὲτῇφήμῃ , τῇδόξῃ , τῇμνήμῃ : Thl., δοξαζόμενος , μνημονευόμενοςλαλεῖ , ὡςκαὶὁοὐρανὸςλαλεῖὁρώμενοςμόνον . Probably the change to the passive has been due to this interpretation, that voice seeming more naturally to express it. Some of those who read λαλεῖ , have taken it in the sense of “ speaks to us to follow his example.” So Chrys. in the next words to those quoted above: ὁγὰρπαραινῶντοῖςἄλλοιςδικαίοιςεἶναι , λαλεῖ : Thl., ἡπίστιςαὐτὸνἐποίησενἔτιζῆνκαὶδιδάσκαλονκαθίστασθαιπᾶσι , λαλοῦνταμονονουχὶΜιμήσασθέμεκ .τ .λ .: Corn. a-Lapide,— joining however the two,— “ Pietas, martyrium et memoria adhuc recens est et celebratur apud omnes fideles eosque ad sui imitationem exhortatur melius quam si Abel mille linguis eos exhortaretur:” Valcknaer, Kuinoel, al. And perhaps Stuart may be partly right, who, recognizing the allusion to Genesis 4:10, says, “ The form of expression only in our verse seems to be borrowed from Genesis 4:10; for here it is the faith of Abel which makes him speak after his death; viz. to those who should come after him, exhorting and encouraging them to follow his example.” I say partly right, for however this may be in the background, the cry of his blood is obviously primary in the Writer’ s thought, from ch. 12:24, where the voice of Abel is contrasted with that of the Christian blood of sprinkling. Calvin and Delitzsch appear to have exactly hit the right point, in saying, “ Porro singulare divini erga eum amoris hoc testimonium fuit, quod Deus curam habuit mortui: atque inde patet reputari inter Dei sanctos, quorum mors illi pretiosa est” ). 5, 6. The example of Enoch: and axiomatic declaration upon it. 5. By faith (πῶςδὲπίστειμετετέθη ; ὅτιτῆςμεταθέσεωςἡεὐαρέστησιςαἰτία , τῆςδὲεὐαρεστήσεωςἡπίστις . Chrys.) Enoch was translated, not to see death μετέθηκεναὐτὸνὁθεός . μετετέθη , as in reff., by a sudden disappearance from this earth: οὐχηὑρίσκετο , cf. the similar expression of Livy i. 16, in relating the supposed disappearance of Romulus in the storm, “ nec deinde in terris Romulus fuit.” This translation was hardly, as Calvin, “ mors quæ dam extraordinaria,” though he means this in no rationalistic sense, as is plain from his accompanying remarks:— but rather a change which passed upon him altogether without death, from corruptibility to incorruptibility, from the natural body to the spiritual. The τοῦμὴἰδεῖν is purpose and purport in one. The construction, after a sentence and in relation to it, is said by Winer, § 44. 4. b, to be chiefly familiar, in the N. T., to St. Luke and St. Paul. See reff.), and was not found (see above), because God translated him. For before his translation a testimony is given to him (the perfect implies the continued existence of the testimony in the text of Scripture) that he hath pleased God : 6. but apart from faith it is impossible αὐτῷ ) to please (Him, as is evident) at all : for it behoves him that cometh to God (Luther, al. render, “ him that will come:” but it is much more probable that ὁπροσερχόμενος is the habitual, official present— ‘ the comer to God.’ For the expression, see reff. It is that approach which is elsewhere designated ἐγγίζειντῷθ ., ch. 7:19,— for the purposes of worship or of communion, or of trust, or service generally) to believe (aor., not πιστεύειν , because it is not here the state in which the comer is at his coming, but the state which has originated his coming, of which that coming is the fruit, which is insisted on) that He is , and becomes a renderer of reward (ch. 2:2) to them that seek Him out (ἐκζητέω , more than ζητέω , as ‘ exoro’ than ‘ oro.’ Thus his faith is also to him an ἐλπιζομένωνὑπόστασις : God’ s existence is realized to him by it, and by it his future reward assured). 7. Example of Noah. Genesis 6:8 ff. By faith, Noah, having been warned (viz. by God, Genesis 6:13 ff. On the word, see note ch. 8:5) concerning the things not yet seen (these words belong to χρηματισθείς , not to εὐλαβηθείς , as Erasm.(vers.) and Grotius. The latter asserts that εὐλαβεῖσθαιπερίτινος occurs in Plato; but the passage appears to be Legg. xi. p. 927 c, εὐλαβούμενονπερὶτροφήντεκαὶπαιδείανὀρφανῶν , and it is asserted by others that εὐλαβεῖσθαιπερίτινος is not found. Still it might surely be legitimate: we have εὐλαβεῖσθαιἀμφίτινι in Lucian, Gall. 21. But the other arrangement is more rhythmical, and more obvious), taking forethought (see, on ch. 5:7, the distinction made by the Stoics, Diog. Laert. vii. 63: φοβηθήσεσθαιμὲντὸνσοφὸνοὐδαμῶς , ἀλλ ʼ εὐλαβηθήσεσθαι · εὐλάβειανεἶναιἐναντίαντῷφόβῳ , οὖσανεὔλογονἔκκλισιν . Many interpret it, “ fearing God,” understanding θεόν : and most, “ fearing,” but the above distinction is important) prepared the ark (not “ an ark:” see 1 Pet. l. c. The word κιβωτός had become appropriated to the well-known ark, and so was used anarthrously) for the preservation of his house (cf. Philo de Abr. § 8, vol. ii. p. 8, μόνοςδὲεἷςοἶκος , ὁτοῦλεχθέντοςἀνδρὸςδικαίουκαὶθεοφιλοῦς , διασώζεται ; by means of which (to what does ἧς refer? to σωτηρίαν , to κιβωτόν , or to πίστει Certainly not to the former: for thus Noah’ s σωτηρία would be the inheriting of the righteousness which is by faith. Possibly, to κιβωτόν (so Chrys., Œ c., Thl., Faber Stap., Calvin, Beza, Jac. Cappell., Grot., Carpzov, Cramer, Michaelis, Bisping, al.); for it was by the building of it that he condemned the world in its unbelief, and by it that in some sense, as the manifested result of his faith, he became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. But it must be confessed that this latter part of the interpretation halts considerably. And on this account as well as on account of its inadequacy to the spirit of the passage, I do not hesitate, with Primas., Thomas Aquin., Luther, Cajetan, Justiniani, Wolf, Bengel, and most of the recent Commentators, to prefer πίστει as the antecedent: ‘ by which faith,’ as above on δι ʼ αὐτῆς . ver. 4. It is true, that πίστει here is somewhat far off; but it is the burden of the chapter, and continually before the Writer’ s mind, and it was by his faith, rather than by the results of that faith that he κατέκρινενκ .τ .λ ., and κληρ . ἐγένετοκ .τ .λ .) he condemned (κατέκρινεν may be either imperfect, he condemned, while building the ark, the unbelieving world around,— or aor., he once for all condemned the unbelieving then, and in them, the world, which lies in unbelief. Better perhaps the latter. On the sense, Limborch says, “ Et ille dicitur aliquem damnare, qui suo facto ostendit quid alterum oportuerit facere, et, quia non fecit, illum criminis commissi convincit, ac propterea juste puniri.” See a like use in reff.) the world (reff.), and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith (Noah is the first in Scripture who is called δίκαιος , צ ַ ד ּ ִ י ק , Genesis 6:9, as Philo, πρῶτοςοὗτοςδίκαιοςἐνταῖςἱεραῖςἀνεῤῥήθηγραφαῖς , Congr. Erud. Grat. § 17, vol. i. p. 532. Elsewhere Philo interprets the name itself of Noah thus: ἑρμηνεύεταιγὰρΝῶεἀνάπαυσιςἢδίκαιος , Leg. Alleg. iii. 24, p. 102: ὃςἙβραίωνμὲνγλώττῃκαλεῖταιΝῶε , τῇδὲἙλλήνωνἀνάπαυσιςἢδίκαιος , De Abr. 5, vol. ii. p. 5. See also Ezekiel 14:14, Ezekiel 14:20, where he is named together with Daniel and Job as an example of δικαιοσύνη : and Wisd. 10:4, 6: Sir. 44:17: 2 Peter 2:5; where he is called κήρυξδικαιοσύνης . And this righteousness, which is matter of history in the O. T., our Writer refers to his faith as its measure. So Calvin, “ Moses refert illum fuisse justum: causam et radicem hujus justitiæ fidem fuisse, quia ille historice non refert, ex re ipsa apostolus testatur.” This δικαιοσύνηκατὰπίστιν seems to be altogether in St. Paul’ s sense, the righteousness which is by faith, Romans 4:13, though the expression itself is foreign to St. Paul. The κληρονόμος idea is also according to St. Paul. It should be noticed that the whole expression is used, in an Epistle in which righteousness by faith forms no part of the main subject, as one familiar and well known to the readers). 8-22. Thus far the examples have been taken from the antediluvian world. Next, he takes them from the patriarchs of Israel; with whom the promise was ever the object of faith: a land, in which they were strangers: a son, who was not yet born: a people, who were yet to be. 8. Abraham’ s example. By faith Abraham, being called (viz. by God, Genesis 12:1 ff. With the art. (see var. read.), ὁκαλούμενοςἈβραάμ can hardly mean any thing but ‘ he that was called, named, Abraham.’ And the sense thus would be very good,— whatever Bleek and Delitzsch have said against it,— when we take into account the meaning of the name Abraham, the father of nations. That this change of name did not take place till 25 years after his removal from Haran, is no objection, but is just what would be the point raised: ‘ By faith, he who was (afterwards) called Abraham, father of nations’ &c. Lü nemann’ s rendering of ὁκαλούμενος , “ he that was called by God,” hardly requires refutation. But on the whole, I adhere to the rec. text. The manuscript evidence is strong for the other, but not overwhelming; and the comparison of πίστειχρηματισθεὶςΝῶε with πίστεικαλούμενοςἈβραάμ gives great support to the rec. In fairness it should be said, as Del. points out, that καλούμενος , appended to names, is exceedingly common with St. Luke (Luke 1:36; Luke 6:15; Luke 7:11; Luke 8:2; Luke 10:39, &c.), and, as he also remarks, it may appear that Clem.-rom. read and understood this “ he that was called Abraham,” for he says, Ἀβραὰμὁφίλοςπροσαγορευθεὶςπιστὸςεὑρέθηἐντῷαὐτὸνὑπήκοονγενέσθαιτοῖςῥήμασιτοῦθεοῦ . Of the Greek Commentators, Thdrt. says, τὸὁκαλούμενοςἈβραάμ , διὰτὴντοῦὀνόματοςἐναλλαγὴνεἴρηκεν : Œ c., θεοῦκαλοῦντοςὑπήκουσε , πιστεύσαςὅτιἐπ ʼ ἀγαθῷκαλεῖ : Thl., πίστειὑπήκουσενἈβραάμ , κελευόμενοςἀφεῖναιτὴνπατρίδα ) obeyed to go out (the infin. is epexegetic, explaining wherein he obeyed. Cf. Revelation 16:9: Colossians 1:22, &c. Winer, § 44. 1) to a (or, ‘ the,’ even without τόν , after a preposition) place which he was hereafter to receive for an inheritance (not that he was conscious even of this promise when he went out, for it was made to him afterwards in Canaan, see Genesis 12:7), and went out, not knowing where (whither) he was (is) going (coming. The indic. ἔρχεται is perfectly normal, a matter of fact, not one of possibility only, being in question. Cf. εἶδονποῦμένει , ref. John: ἐπίστασθε … πῶςμεθ ʼ ὑμῶνἐγενόμην , Acts 20:18. But οὐκἔχειποῦτὴνκεφαλὴνκλίνῃ , Matthew 8:20, when the matter is one of mere possibility. See Winer, § 41. 4). 9. By faith he sojourned in (pregnant construction, as often in St. Luke, see Acts 7:4; Acts 8:40; Acts 12:19; Acts 18:21: Luke 11:7: he went into the land and sojourned there) the land (γῆ is one of those words which very commonly drop the article, especially when in government) of the promise (concerning which the promise, Genesis 12:7, had been given) as a stranger’ s (as if it did not belong to him, but to another: see ref. Acts, which is strictly parallel, and cf. γῇοὐκἰδία , Genesis 15:13), dwelling (the aor. part. is contemporary with the aor. before) in tents (cf. Genesis 12:8; Genesis 13:3; Genesis 18:1 ff. ὅπερτῶνξένωνἐστί , τῶνἄλλοτεεἰςἄλλομέροςμεταβαινόντωνδιὰτὸμὴἔχειντιἵδιον . Thl.) with Isaac and Jacob (Thl., Bengel, Bö hme, Kuinoel, Griesb., Lachm., al. join these words with παρῴκησεν above. But they more naturally belong to ἐνσκηναῖςκατοικήσας , which has just preceded: for otherwise we should expect ἐξεδέχοντο in ver. 10) the heirs with him of the same promise (τῆςἐπ . τῆςαὐτῆς , as ποιμένεςἦσανἐντῇχώρᾳτῇαὐτῇ , Luke 2:8; the only other place where this arrangement is found. What is implied is, not so much that the promise was renewed to them, as that all three waited for the performance of the same promise, and in this waiting, built themselves no permanent abode): 10. for (reason of his παροικία in the land of promise as in a strange land) he waited for (the prep. in ἐκδέχομαι , as in ἐκζητέω above, ver. 6, intensifies the expectation) the city which has the foundations (beyond doubt, the heavenly city, the ἄνωἹερουσαλήμ , thus contrasted with the frail and moveable tents in which the patriarchs dwelt. Delitzsch shews that the idea was an Old Testament one; and no other interpretation will suit the language here used. The πόλιςθεοῦζῶντος of ch. 12:22, and the μέλλουσαπόλις of ch. 13:14, must be here meant also. Of the earthly Jerusalem indeed it is said, ref. Ps., οἱθεμέλιοιαὐτοῦἐντοῖςὄρεσιτοῖςἁγίοις : but it is impossible that the earthly Jerusalem can be meant here. The lives of the dwellers in her rather corresponded to the precarious dwelling in tents than to the abiding in a permanent city: and the true reference of τοὺςθεμελίουςἔχουσα is to be found in ref. Rev., τὸτεῖχοςτῆςπόλεωςἔχωνθεμελίουςδώδεκα . As having these foundations, it forms a contrast to the tent, placed on the ground, and easily transported. Ebrard objects to this view, that it is unhistoric to say that the patriarchs looked for the heavenly city: but Del. well answers, that it is not the mere historic question, what they knew and expected, with which our Writer is concerned, but the question what it was that their faith, breaking through this knowledge in its yearnings for the future, framed to itself as matter of hope. The expectation of the literal fulfilment of a promise is one thing: the hopes and prospects and surmises built upon the character of that promise, another. The one is mere belief: the other is faith), of which the architect and master-builder is God (very similarly, ch. 8:2, ἣνἔπηξενὁκύριος , οὐκἄνθρωπος : cf. also ver. 16 below. τεχνίτης , so ref. Wisd., οὔτετοῖςἔργοιςπροσσχόντεςἐπέγνωσαντὸντεχνίτην . And Philo, Leg. Alleg. i. 7, vol. i. p. 47, οὐτεχνίτηςμόνονἀλλὰκαὶπατὴρὢντῶνγιγνομένων : De Mut. Nom. § 4, p. 583, ὁγεννήσαςκαὶτεχνιτεύσαςπατήρ : ib. (of men), δημιούργηματοῦτῶνκαλῶνκαὶἀγαθῶνμόνουτεχνίτου . In Xen. Mem. i. 4. 7, it is said of the world, πάνυἔοικεταῦτασοφοῦτινοςδημιουργοῦκαὶφιλοζώουτεχνήματι : and Plato, Tim. § 9, calls God δημιουργὸντοῦκόσμουκαὶτεκταινόμενοναὐτόν . See Wetst.). 11. Example of Sarah, whose faith worked with that of Abraham to produce Isaac. By faith Sarah herself also (the καὶαὐτή has been very variously interpreted. “ Even S. who before was barren,” says Schlichting: and to this view perhaps the gloss στεῖρα , or ἡστεῖρα , or στεῖραοὖσα , is owing (see digest): Chrys. says, ἐντρεπτικῶςἐνταῦθαἤρξατο , εἴγεγυναικὸςὀλιγοψυχότεροιφανεῖεν : and similarly Thl., Œ c., al.: Bleek says, “ even S. who was once incredulous:” and so De W., Winer, Lü nem. But I believe Delitzsch is perfectly right in rejecting all these and falling back on St. Luke’ s usage of αὐτός and καὶαὐτός , which is very frequent, as Winer remarks, § 22. 4, Remark: see Luke 20:42, καὶαὐτόςΔαυείδ : 24:15, καὶαὐτὸςἸησοῦς : Acts 8:13, ὁδὲΣίμωνκαὶαὐτός : and especially καὶαὐτὸςἦνἸησοῦςὡσεὶἐτῶντριάκονταἀρχόμενος , Luke 3:23: from which it appears that the words merely indicate transition from one personal subject to another, the new subject being thus thrown out into prominence) received power for (δύναμιςεἰς is an expression of St. Luke’ s, Luke 5:17, δύναμιςκυρίουἦνεἰςτὸἰᾶσθαιαὐτόν : the preposition indicating the direction in which the power is exercised) the deposition of seed (power, to fructify seed deposed. So Œ c., ἐνεδυναμώθηεἰςτὸὑποδέξασθαιπαιδοποιὸνσπέρμα . I am satisfied that this and no other is the meaning, from the fact that the expression is one so constantly used in this sense, and that the Greek reader would be sure thus to take it. No Greek Father, no ancient version, dreamt of any other meaning. So Chrys., εἰςτὸκατασχεῖντὸσπέρμα , εἰςὑποδοχὴνδύναμινἔλαβεν . Thl., τουτέστιν , ἐνεδυναμώθηεἰςτὸὑποδέξασθαικαὶκρατῆσαιτὸκαταβληθὲνεἰςαὐτὴνσπέρματοῦἈβραάμ (giving another alt., dependent on the idea τὴνγυναῖκαοἶόντισπέρμαἀφ ʼ ἑαυτῆςσυνεισάγειν and interpreting the καταβολή of herself). Thdrt., ἀπηγόρευσεγὰρτὸντόκονοὐμόνοντὸγῆρας , ἀλλὰκαὶτῆςμήτραςἡπήρωσις . With regard to the phrase, see numerous examples in Wetst. and Bleek. Galen has, among many other passages, τὸτοῦἄῤῥενοςσπέρματὸκαταβαλλόμενονεἰςτὰςμήτραςτοῦθήλεως . But this is objected to by several modern Commentators, Bö hme, Stier, Bleek, De Wette, Lü nem., who take καταβολή as in καταβολὴκόσμου , and σπέρμα the seed which should descend from her, her posterity, as in Genesis 12:7 al. freq., and in ver. 18 and ch. 2:16 of our Epistle. Of this meaning instances are not wanting, but all of them derive that sense from the other, and it is hardly possible, though such expressions as καταβολὴῬωμύλου (Plut. de Fort. Rom. p. 320), γενῶνἀρχαὶκαὶκαταβολαί (Plut. Vita Marc. Anton. p. 932) may occur, where the context makes it plain what is meant, that such an one as καταβολὴσπέρματος should occur, so calculated to mislead, if both words had been intended in an unusual and metaphorical sense), and that beyond (in inconsistency with, contrary to the law of) the time of age , seeing that she esteemed Him faithful who had promised (see ref.). 12. Wonderful result of this faith of Abraham and Sarah. Wherefore also (διὸκαί , which occurs again ch. 13:12, is frequent in St. Luke and St. Paul, see reff.) from one sprung there (the reading is doubtful, but ἐγεν . ἀπό seems to suit better the father, whereas ἐγενν . ἀπό , ‘ these were born from,’ would almost necessarily be said of the mother) and that (from one) deadened (past that vital power which nature requires: see ref. Rom.) even as (it may be asked what is the subject to ἐγενήθησαν Some supply τέκνα or ἔκγονοι , see Winer, § 64. 3: but it is better to make the whole, καθώς to the end, the virtual subject, latent in καθώς = ὡμοιωμένοιτοῖςἄστρ . κ .τ .λ .) the stars of the heaven in multitude, and as the sand which is by the lip (margin, cf. παρὰχεῖλοςἑκατέρουτοῦποταμοῦ in ref. Herod. and Polyb. v. 14. 6; iii. 43. 8 al. fr. in index) of the sea which is innumerable . 13-16. Before the Writer passes on to more examples of faith, he looks back over the patriarchal age, and gathers in one the attributes of their faith. 13. In (according to, consistently with, in the course of: not this time πίστει , because their deaths were not the results of their faith, but merely according to and consistent with it) faith died these all (there is no need to say with Œ c., Thl., Primas., al., ἐξῃρημένουτοῦἘνώχ : the promises began with Abraham, and it is evident from the end of our verse, and from ver. 15, that the reference is solely to the patriarchs), not having received (the participial clause conditions and substantiates the κατὰπίστιν … ἀπέθανον : and for this reason it is μὴλαβ . and not οὐ : ‘ as those who did not receive’ &c.) the promises , but having seen them from afar , and greeted them , and confessed that they were strangers and sojourners upon the earth (this Abraham did, ref. Gen., to the children of Heth, πάροικοςκαὶπαρεπίδημοςἐγώεἰμιμεθ ʼ ὑμῶν : and Jacob, Genesis 47:9, to Pharaoh, αἱἡμέραιτῶνἐτῶντῆςζωῆςμοιἃςπαροικῶκ .τ .λ . See Psalms 118:19: Ecclesiastes 12:5: Philo de Agricult. § 14, vol. i. p. 310, τῷὄντιπᾶσαμὲνψυχὴσοφοῦπατρίδαμὲνοὐρανόν , ξένηνδὲγῆνἔλαχεν : and Confus. Ling. § 17, p. 416, διὰτοῦτοοἱκατὰΜωυσῆνσοφοὶπάντεςεἰσάγονταιπαροικοῦντες · αἱγὰρτούτωνψυχαὶστέλλονταιμὲνἀποικίανδήποτετὴνἐξοὐρανοῦ . In Wetst., several citations are given from the classics where human life is called a παρεπιδημία . The word is found in Æ lian (V. H. viii. 4) and Polybius (xxxii. 22. 4), and παρεπιδημέω and -μία often). 14. For (justification of the assertion, that it was κατὰπίστιν that they ran and finished their course, by the inference from their own confession) they who say such things make manifest that they seek after (in ἐπιζητέω , the preposition implies the direction of the wish or yearning) a home (our English word ‘ country,’ without some possessive pronoun, does not give the idea strongly enough. Even Bleek, who might have given it, dass sie ein Baterland suchen, has rendered, dass sie nach der Heimath suchen:— οἱξένουςἑαυτούς , φησίν , ὀνομάζοντες , δηλοῦσινὡςοὐδὲνοἰκεῖονκρίνουσιτῶνπαρόντων , ἀλλ ʼ ἑτέρωνἐπιθυμοῦσιπραγμάτων . Thdrt.). 15. And if indeed (‘ posito,’ that.… : hence the indicative) they were mindful (see below. Bl., De W., Lü nem. render it, “ had made mention,” as in ver. 22. And so Del. inclines. But this would necessitate a very harsh ellipsis: If we found them making mention &c., they might have had opportunity to gratify the wish thus expressed) of that (home) from which they went out, they would continually be having opportunity to return (ἀνακάμπτω is neuter generally, in classical Greek also: cf. Herod. ii. 8, ταύτῃμὲνλῆγονἀνακάμπτειεἰςτὰεἴρηταιτὸὄρος . The two imperfects in this sentence present some little difficulty. The general rendering of dependent imperfects is as in John 5:46, εἰἐπιστεύετεΜωυσεῖ , ἐπιστεύετεἂνἐμοί , “ If ye believed Moses, ye would believe me.” So also in Latin: “ Servi.… mei si me isto pacto metuerent, ut te metuunt omnes cives tui, domum meam relinquendam putarem,” Cic. in Cat. i. 7: “ If my slaves feared me.… I should think.” But such a rendering here is out of the question, both events being past and gone: we could not say, ‘ If they remembered.… they might have opportunity.’ It would therefore seem that the imperfects are here used not so much in their logical temporal places, as on account of the habitual sense which both members of the sentence are meant to convey: ‘ If they were, through their lives, mindful &c., they would have through their lives,— they would continually be having, opportunities’ &c.): 16. but now (as the case now is: the logical νῦν : see 1 Corinthians 13:13 note, and our ch. 8:6) they desire (ὀρέγεσθαίτινος , classical: see many instances in Wetst. on 1 Timothy 3:1) a better (home), that is, a heavenly one (the justification of this assertion, which seems to ascribe N. T. ideas to the O. T. fathers, must be found in such sayings as that of the dying Jacob, Genesis 49:18, which only represent a wide class of their faithful thoughts): wherefore God is not ashamed of them (reff.) to be called (here ἐπαισχύνεσθαι has a double object, αὐτούς and ἐπικαλεῖσθαι . For the latter construction also see reff.) their God (viz. in reff. Exod. Thdrt. (not Chrys. as Bleek) says, ὁγὰρτῶνδυνάμεωνκύριοςκαὶτῶνἀγγέλωνδεσπότηςκαὶοὐρανοῦκαὶγῆςποιητής , ἐρωτηθεὶςΤίὄνομάσου , τἄλλαπάντακαταλιπὼνἔφηἘγὼθεὸςἈβραάμ , καὶθεὸςἸσαάκ , καὶθεὸςἸακώβ . From the present ἐπαισχύνεται , and especially from the clause which follows, it is probable, as Bleek has well remarked, that the Writer intends not merely to adduce that God did once call Himself their God, but that he is now not ashamed to be so called, they enduring and abiding with Him where He is: in the same sense in which our Lord adduces the same circumstance, Matthew 22:31 ff. and . See below): for He prepared for them a city . 17-31. Having spoken thus generally of the faith of the patriarchs, he returns to individual instances, and begins again with Abraham, recounting the severest test to which his faith was put. ἐνταῦθαοὐτοὺςἀνθρωπίνουςμόνονὑπερβῆναιἐχρῆνλογισμούς , ἀλλὰκαὶἕτερόντιπλέονἐπιδείξασθαι · τὰγὰρτοῦθεοῦἐδόκειτοῖςτοῦθεοῦμάχεσθαι , καὶπίστιςἐμάχετοπίστεικαὶπρόσταγμαἐπαγγελίᾳκ .τ .λ . Chrys. Cf. Sir. 44:20 : Wisd. 10:5 : 1 Macc. 2:52: James 2:21. 17. By faith, Abraham hath offered (perfect, as if the work and its praise were yet enduring: not, “ was offering” as commonly taken, “ was in purpose to offer,” which would be the imperfect. Bleek quotes from Salvian de Gubernat. Dei i. 8, p. 17, “ Immolari sibi Deus filium jussit: pater obtulit, et quantum ad defunctionem cordis pertinet immolavit.” Besides which consideration, the προσφέρειν , the ἀνενέγκαιαὐτὸνἐπὶτὸθυσιαστήριον , did actually take place) Isaac when tempted (cf. καλούμενος ver. 8: and ref. Gen.), and (the καί rises into climax: not only Abraham Isaac, but &c.) he that had accepted the promises (ἀναδεξάμενος , more than ἔχων , ch. 7:6; he had as it were with open arms accepted and taken to himself each and all of the promises, the possession of Canaan, the multiplication of his seed, the blessing of all nations in his seed) was offering (now the Writer transforms the time into the purely temporal and strict one— he was in the act of offering— the work was begun) his only begotten in Genesis 22:2, for ב ּ ִ נ ְ ך ָ א ֶ ת ־ י ְ ח ִ י ד ְ ך ָ τὸνυἱόνσουτὸνἀγαπητόν , LXX. And so Philo de Somn. i. § 34, vol. i. p. 650, Ἀβραὰμἐπὶτῆςτοῦἀγαπητοῦκαὶμόνουπαιδὸςὁλοκαυτώσεως . Chrys. says, τίοὖνὁἸσμαήλ ; πόθενἦν ; μονογενῆλέγω , φησίν , ὅσονεἰςτὸντῆςἐπαγγελίαςλόγον ), 18. he to whom (πρὸςὅν refers, not to Isaac, as many Commentators and our E. V., “ of whom it was said,” but to Abraham, the immediate antecedent in the text, and the immediately resumed subject, after the relative clause, λογισάμενοςκ .τ .λ .) it was spoken (by God: but the aor. need not be made into a pluperfect), In Isaac (the ὅτι is found in ref. Gen., and in a causal meaning. The most probable account of its appearing here is, that the Writer takes it from the O. T. text, but uses it as the recitative particle) shall thy seed be called (“ Three ways,” says Delitzsch, “ of interpreting this are possible, 1. after Isaac shall thy seed be named (Hofm.): 2. in, through, of, Isaac shall seed be called into being to thee (Drechsler): 3. in Isaac shall seed be named to thee, i. e. in or through him shall it come that a seed of Abraham shall be possible (Bleek).” Then he puts aside the first, seeing that only once is the seed of Abraham called Isaac (Amos 7:9), and the second, seeing that ק ָ ר ָ א (though sometimes bearing the meaning, see Isaiah 41:4) never so absolutely signifies “ to call into existence” as it must on that interpretation: and prefers the third. In Isaac, through and in descent from him, shall thy seed be called thy seed: only Isaac’ s descendants shall be known as Abraham’ s seed): 19. (reason of this paradoxical conduct: because Abraham’ s faith was able, in anticipation, to clear the suspicion of God’ s faithfulness by the suggestion of His power. He could and would make a way to the keeping of His own promise) reckoning that God is (not, was, see below) able to raise (no supply of “ him” is admissible, as mistakenly inserted by many Commentators and even by the E. V. It was not God’ s power to raise Isaac, but God’ s power, generally, to raise from the dead, that Abraham believed. This, which is so plain from the form of the sentence, is made plainer still by the use of the present ἐγείρειν , not the aor. ἐγεῖραι which would more probably be used if a single case had been in view: see Matthew 16:21: Mark 14:28: Luke 3:8; Luke 9:22. The aor. here (see digest) has probably been a correction arising from the application to Isaac) even from (among) the dead , from whence (i. e. from the dead: so Thdr.-mops., Castellio, Beza, Schlichting, Grot., Lamb. Bos, Michaelis, Schulz, Bö hme, Bleek, De Wette, Tholuck, Stier, Hofmann, Delitzsch. But most Commentators regard ὅθεν as the illative particle, “ whence,” “ unde,” as in the other five places where it occurs in this Epistle, ch. 2:17; 3:1; 7:25; 8:3; 9:18. The whole meaning is discussed below) he also (καί ; besides the λογίσασθαι . It belongs, not to ἐνπαραβολῇ alone, but to the whole fact, ἐνπαραβολῇἐκομίσατο — to the verb with its qualifying adverb) received him back : of a fortress or city, ii. 51. 6 al. fr. So Philo de Joseph. § 35, vol. ii. p. 71, κομίσασθαιτὸνἀδελφὸνἀνύβριστον : § 38, p. 74, τίςγὰρἂνγένοιτοπατρὶδωρεὰμείζωνἢτὸνἀπογνωσθέντα (Joseph) κομίσασθαι ; And Josephus, Antt. i. 13. 4, uses the word of Abraham and Isaac on the very occasion here in question: οἱδὲπαρ ʼ ἐλπίδαςἑαυτοὺςκεκομισμένοι . See also reff. and 1 Macc. 13:37: 2 Macc. 7:29; 10:1. In the face of these examples, Sykes and Schulz assert that the word never has this meaning) in a parable (figuratively: in what sense, see below). This clause has been very variously interpreted. The prevalent understanding of it, since Camerarius and Raphel, has been, “ whence (= wherefore) also he received him by means of (in, instrumental) his surrender of him.” And this Lü nemann, who has adopted it, calls the simple and only right sense of the words. According to this view παραβολή signifies a giving up to danger, a παραβάλλεσθαι , which latter is an expression often found, e. g. Hom. Il. ι . 322: Thuc. ii. 44. But though there is abundant example of the verb in this sense, there is none of the substantive, nor any thing approaching to one (in Passow indeed we have as a sense of παραβολή , das Dransessen, aufs Spiel sessen, Wagen, Wagniss, Wagstuct: and in Liddell and Scott, “ the making a venture;” but it is entirely unsupported by example, either in classic or Hellenistic Greek, and therefore very properly excluded by Palm and Rost). This rendering then must fall to the ground, unless it can be shewn that no other will serve, and thus we are justified in supposing it the only case in which παραβολή occurs in this sense. Near akin to this is the view of Raphel (and Krebs), who says, “ Quemadmodum ἐνἀληθείᾳ pro ἀληθῶς , ἐντάχει pro ταχέως , aliaque hujusmodi dicuntur: ita etiam ἐνπαραβολῇ pro παραβόλως puto accipi posse: quo verbo sæ pius utitur Polybius: cujus interpres Casaubonus, licet verterit audacter, et Camerarius in comment. utriusque linguæ periculose, certum tamen est, aliquibus locis etiam insperato verti posse:” cf. παρ ʼ ἐλπίδας in Josephus, above. Then he attempts to prove this from Polybius and from Pliny, Ep. ix. 26. 4, “ Sunt enim maxime mirabilia quæ maxime insperata, maxime periculosa, utque Græ ci magis exprimunt, παράβολα .” But neither this nor any of the passages from Polyb. proves his point; every one of them having the meaning boldly, not unexpectedly. It seems then that we must abandon all idea of this class of interpretations, and fall back on the usual one, found in our ch. 9:9, and every where else in the N. T., of a likeness or figure. In favour of this meaning it may also be asked, Is it in the least probable that our Writer would have put before his readers so common an expression in so uncommon a sense? But, when we have taken the more ordinary meaning, we are by no means set at rest. For, α . Hammond, Lamb. Bos, Alberti, Mill, Sykes, Schulz, Stuart, refer the words to the birth of Isaac,— “ from whence,” i. e. ἐκνενεκρωμένουσώματος , “ he had at first received him.” But, 1. this would certainly require the more definite pluperfect, not the quasi-pluperfect of an aorist reaching back beyond λογισάμενος ; and, 2. it would be harsh and unnatural that the ἐκνεκρῶν should refer to the person himself who ἐκομίσατοαὐτόν . β . Corn. a-Lapide regards Isaac himself as the παραβολή , interpreting by the Latin “ in parabolam ; id est, ut Isaac esset parabola, fabula, proverbium, exemplum memorabile &c.… ut cum Deus per se aut suos nobis aliquid jusserit licet arduum et difficile, exemplum Isaac ob oculos habentes, fidenter et generose nos offeramus,” &c. γ . Bengel, on the other hand, regards Abraham as the παραβολή , “ omnis enim posteritas celebrat fidem Abrahæ , offerentis unigenitum.” δ . Others take ἐνπαραβολῇ to mean, as a type; either of the Resurrection generally (so Thdrt., ὡςἐνσυμβόλῳκαὶτύπῳτῆςἀναστάσεως · τῇγὰρτοῦπατρὸςἀναιρεθεὶςπροθυμίᾳ , τῇτοῦκεκωλυκότοςτὴνσφαγὴνἀνεβίωφωνῇ — but afterwards he refers the figure to the passion of Christ: al.),— or of our Lord’ s sufferings (so Chrys., τουτέστιν , ἐνὑποδείγματι · ἐντῷκριῷ , φησί . πῶς ; τοῦγὰρκριοῦσφαγισθέντοςοὗτοςἐσώθη · ὥστεδιὰτοῦκριοῦαὐτὸνἔλαβεν , ἀντὶτούτουσφάξαςἐκεῖνον . ταῦταδὲτύποιτινὲςἦσαν · ἐνταῦθαγὰρὁυἱόςἐστιτοῦθεοῦὁσφαγιαζόμενος : Œ c., among many interpretations, Primas., Carpzov, al.). But, undeniable as is the typical reference of the whole occurrence to Christ, His sufferings and Resurrection, it seems exceedingly improbable that our Writer should have intended so much for his readers by ἐνπαραβολῇ . We come then, approaching what I believe to be the true meaning, to, ε . that given by Theodore of Mopsuestia: τοῦτολέγει , ὅτιἀκολούθωςἔτυχεντῇἑαυτοῦπίστει · τῇγὰρἀναστάσειπιστεύσας , διὰσυμβόλωντινῶνἀποθανόντααὐτὸνἐκομίσατο . τὸγὰρἐνπολλῇτοῦθανάτουπροσδοκίᾳγενόμενονμηδὲνπαθεῖν , τοῦἀληθῶςἀναστησομένουσύμβολονἦν , ὅσοντοῦθανάτουπρὸςβραχὺγευσάμενος , ἀνέστημηδὲνὑπὸτοῦθανάτουπαθών · τὸγοῦνἐνπαραβολῇἀντὶτοῦἐνσυμβόλοις . So Calvin, “ Tametsi vere non resurrexerit Isaac, quodammodo tamen videtur resurrexisse, quum repente et mirabiliter inexspectata Dei gratia eripitur:” Castellio, Beza, Schlichting, Grot., Jac. Cappell., Scaliger, Heinsius, and many others, Bleek, De W., Stier, Hofmann, Delitzsch. The objection to this seems to be that which Del. himself brings against some of its supporters, that it does not go far enough for ἐνπαραβολῇ , but by its “ quodammodo,” and “ similitudine quadam,” weakens it too much. We may with reason ask, What was the παραβολή if it is meant merely, that though not actually, yet in some sense, Abraham received Isaac from the dead, would not ὡςἔποςεἰπεῖν be the more obvious way of expressing this? The true identification of the παραβολή is I am persuaded to be found in the figure under which Isaac was sacrificed, viz. the ram, as already hinted by Chrysostom. Abraham virtually sacrificed his son: God designated Isaac for the burnt-offering, but provided a ram in his stead. Under the figure of that ram, Isaac was slain, being received back by his father in his proper person, risen from that death which he had undergone ἐνπαραβολῇ , in, under, the figure of the ram. Chrys. himself afterwards, in recapitulating, gives this very interpretation as an alternative: ὅθεναὐτὸνφησί , καὶἐνπαραβολῇἐκομίσατο · τουτέστιν , ἐναἰνίγματι · ὥσπεργὰρπαραβολὴἦνὁκριὸςτοῦἸσαάκ . 20. By faith, Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things future also (the καί belongs, not to πίστει ,— πίστεικαὶπερὶμελλ ., by faith and that respecting things future,— as Lü nem., al. (Syr. joins πίστειπερὶμελλ .), for πίστιςπερί , though good Greek, is not N. T. language,— but to περὶμελλ .,— blessed them concerning not only things present, but things future also. Jacob is named before Esau, as the worthier and more important in the theocratic sense; perhaps also as having gained the greater portion of the blessing). 21. By faith Jacob, when dying (reff.), blessed each of the sons of Joseph (the faith consisted in transposing his hands wittingly, laying the right hand on the head of the younger, Ephraim, who was to become the greater tribe): and he worshipped (this incident is not connected with the other, but took place before it, on another occasion, when Jacob made Joseph swear to him that he would bury him with his fathers, and not in Egypt, Genesis 47:31. Perhaps the Writer inverts the order of the two, to bring the two acts of blessing, that of Isaac and that of Jacob, together. This act of worship was one of faith, inasmuch as it was connected with a command, the point of which was, God’ s promise respecting the land of Canaan. And the faith was shewn by the turning of his aged and dying body in a posture of thankful adoration) on the top of his staff (an incalculable quantity of idolatrous non-sense has been written on these words by R.-Cath. Commentators, taking as their starting-point the rendering of the Vulg. “ et adoravit fastigium virgæ ejus,” and thence deriving an argument for the worship of images, assuming that there was an image or symbol of power upon Joseph’ s staff, to which they apply the words. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/alfordgnt/ Chap. 12:1-11. Exhortation, mixed with reproof, on looking back at all these witnesses, and looking also to Jesus, who has come to glory through suffering, not to faint in the conflict with sin; nor to forget the love of our Father, who visits us with chastisement that we may bring forth the fruit of righteousness. This exhortation was begun at ch. 10:19, and broken off by the insertion of all those examples of the nature and triumphs of faith. It is now resumed, having, so to speak, accumulated new momentum by the interruption, and is pressed home directly on the readers. 1. Wherefore we also (as well as those just enumerated) having so great a cloud (see below) of witnesses surrounding us (in order to understand μαρτύρων aright, we must bear in mind both the similitude here used, and the connexion with the preceding chapter. “ Hic versus totus constat vocibus agonisticis,” says Hammond. And this being so, who can help referring this cloud of witnesses which surrounds us to the agonistic scene which is depicted, and regarding them as lookers on while our race is run? Whoever denies such reference, misses, it seems to me, the very point of the sense. But even thus we have not exhausted the meaning of μάρτυρες . It is improbable, as Delitzsch well observes, that the Writer should have used the word μάρτυρες so closely upon μαρτυρηθέντες , ch. 11:39, without any reference to that idea. See also ib. vv. 2, 4, 5. So that we can hardly help giving to ‘ witnesses’ a sense not confined to their looking on upon us, but extending to their ethical condition of witnesses for the faith. But we may notice, that Delitzsch in contending for this double sense, has in fact a triple reference of the word to justify: they are borne witness to, they have their μαρτυρία , ch. 11:5: and by this they become μάρτυρες : and they carry out that office in being witnesses of our conflict here below. Bö hme (cited by Del.) remarks, that this manifold reference of the word has been the reason why the Writer has not written μάρτυρεςτῆςπίστεως or the like. And now the propriety of the other words used at once appears. νέφος , not only an immense multitude (νέφοςμιμούμενοντῇπυκνότητι , Thdrt.: cf. ἅμαδὲνέφοςεἵπετοπεζῶν , ref. Hom.: τοῖονἙλλάνωννέφοςἀμφίσεκρύπτει , ref. Eur.), and that number as it were pressing us all around as the spectators did the combatants in the circus (περικείμενον , see reff. τουτέστι , πάντοθενἡμᾶςπεριέχον , Thl.),— but also fitly compared to a cloud from the fact of its being above us, they looking on from that heavenly bliss which they entered at Christ’ s triumph. So that the words must be taken as distinctly so far implying community between the church triumphant and the church below, that they who have entered into heavenly rest are conscious of what passes among ourselves. Any interpretation short of this leaves the exhortation here tame and without point. If they are merely quasi-witnesses, merely witnesses in a metaphor, the motive, as far as this clause supplies one, is gone. The Greek expositors generally regard μαρτύρων as referring only to their having witnessed for the faith. So Chrys., ἐμαρτύρησαντῇτοῦθεοῦμεγαλειότητι : Thdrt., πλῆθοςτοσοῦτον … μαρτυρεῖτῇδυνάμειτῆςπίστεως : Thdr.-mops., μαρτύρωνἐνταῦθαοὐτῶνπεπονθότωνλέγει , ἀλλὰτῶνμαρτυρούντωνπρὸςτὴνπίστιν . Most of the moderns take this meaning (even Lü nemann); others that of martyrs, rejected above by Thdr.-mops. : cf. Acts 22:20: Revelation 2:13 (11:3); 17:6. νέφος is interpreted by the Greek expositors (not Thdrt.) as affording shade and protection. So Chrys., περικείμενονκύκλῳ , ἐνμείζονιἀδείᾳεἰκότωςεἶναιποιήσει : and Œ c., in his altern. more explicitly, νέφοςδὲἐκάλεσεναὐτούς , ἢἀπὸμεταφορᾶςτῶνὑπὸκαύματοςκαταφλεγομένωνκαὶὑπεισελθόντωνεἰςνεφελὴνδροσίζουσανκαὶπαραμνθηθέντων . καὶγὰρἡτῶνἁγίωνμνήμητοὺςὑπὸτοῦκαύσωνοςτῶνπειρασμῶνἐκλελυμένουςπαραμυθεῖται . ἢὅτινοητὴν (spiritual) ἡμῖν , φησί , δρόσοννέμουσιν , ὑπὲρἡμῶντὸνθεὸνἱκετεύοντες . I need not say, that such an idea is completely precluded by the nature of the argument, and the following participial clause in ver. 2. The best note on the whole idea and imagery is that of Schlichting: “ Introducit nos veluti in theatrum quoddam amplissimum, in quod magna spectatorum turba confluxerit, quæ , omnibus locis et subselliis repletis, veluti nubes quæ dam densa in medio certantibus circumfusa videatur. In tantæ multitudinis totque spectatorum veluti oculis certantes nos facit. Quemadmodum autem olim certantibus tanta spectatorum multitudo addebat animos, et ingens erat ad summam vincendi contentionem stimulus: sic et nobis tot testes, qui et ipsi in eodem certamine desudarunt, alacritatem addere debent, ut summis viribus cœ ptum stadium decurramus. Testes autem eos vocat, non tantum per prosopopœ iam quandam alludens ad certaminum spectatores ut dictum est, qui sunt testes quidam virtutis eorum qui certant: sed etiam, idque multo magis, propterea, quod de Deo ejusque bonitate et justitia testentur, et omnes uno veluti dicant ore, esse Deum, et esse remuneratorem eorum qui ipsum quæ runt: apud eum, tanquam summum agonothetam, brabeum esse strenue certantibus repositum: veracem illum esse in suis promissionibus: etiam post mortem posse reddere felices eos, qui ipsius causa vitam prodegissent. Testium enim nomine illi imprimis hoc loco sunt intelligendi, qui suo sanguine de Dei fide et bonitate testantur. Unde et κατ ʼ ἐξοχήν , martyres, id est, testes, hic appellantur” ), laying aside all superfluous weight (ὄγκος , according to Buttmann, Lexil., from ἔγκω , from which comes ἤνεγκον ,— any superfluous mass or burden, as in the case of the pregnant, so Eurip. Ion 15, γαστρὸςδιήνεγκ ʼ ὄγκον : or the corpulent, so Æ lian, Hist. Anim. ii. 13, σαρκὸςὄγκος : a state of being puffed up, either literally or metaphorically. It is used doubtless here with direct reference to athletes, who before running trained themselves so as to get rid of all superfluous flesh. So Galen, in Epid. Hippocr. iii. 6 (Bl.), καὶγὰρδρόμοιταχεῖςκαὶγυμνάσιαποιαῦτακαὶσαρκῶνὄγκονκαθαίρεικαὶχυμῶνπλῆθοςκενοί : see other examples in Bl. But ὄγκος is also used of weight accessory from without, as well as of weight carried on the person. So Xen. Venat. viii. 8, διὰτὸβάθοςτῆςχιόνοςκαὶδιὰτὸκάτωθεντῶνποδῶνλασίωνὄντωνπροσέχεσθαιαὐτῷὄγκονπολύν . So that the word may be taken, as in E. V., of every weight of every kind which may weigh down the runner; though, on account of what follows, I should understand it rather of weight of the person than weight on the person. See below. Some, as Castelho, Heinsius, Bengel, interpret it “ fastus,” haughtiness or pride, which it may be, but the sense does not seem to belong here) and sin which is ever besetting us (εὐπερίστατος , being an ἅπαξλεγόμενον in all ancient Greek literature, has been very variously interpreted. Its sense must be sought purely from derivational usage, and the requirements of the context. Some have taken it actively, from the sense of περιΐστημι ‘ to circumvent:’ so Carpzov, “ dolosum, seducens;” Schulz, “ which hems us in on all sides.” But against this is the fact that though verbals in -τος are often active, no case has been adduced of any such verbal derived from ἵστημι or its compounds being active: they are all intransitive or passive: e. g. στατός , ἄστατος , ἀνάστατος ; διάστατος , ἀδιάστατος ; εὐκατάστατος , δυσκατάστατος ; ἀμετάστατος , εὐμετάστατος ; ἀσύστατος ; ὑπόστατος : and so περίστατος and ἀπερίστατος : and thus our word might be taken passively,— ‘ which can easily be avoided,’ lightly evaded: cf. περιΐστασο 2 Timothy 2:16: Titus 3:9, and Hammond here: or, ‘ which can be easily circumvented,’ and so conquered. Thus in the interpretation which Chrys. prefers before the active one: his words are, εὐπερίστατον , ἤτοιτὴνεὐκόλωςπεριϊσταμένηνἡμᾶς , ἢτὴνεὐκόλωςπερίστασινδυναμένηνπαθεῖν , λέγει · μᾶλλονδὲτοῦτο · ῥᾴδιονγάρ , ἐὰνθέλωμεν , περιγενέσθαιτῆςἁμαρτίας : so Ps.-Athanas. quæ st. 130 de Parabol. Scripturæ , vol. iv. p. 280, εὐπερίστατονεἶπετὴνἁμαρτίαν , ἐπειδὰνμόνιμονστάσινοὐκἔχει , ἀλλὰταχέωςτρέπεταικαὶκαταλύεται : Hesych., εὔκολον , εὐχερῆ : Suidas, μωρόν , ταχέωςπεριτρεπόμενον : D-lat, “ fragile:” Le Clerc, al., “ quæ facile circumvenitur, vincitur.” But to this there are two objections. First the word περιΐστασθαι does not seem ever to have this meaning, overcoming: and then that it would be exceedingly out of place thus to describe sin, and especially that sin against which the Writer considers it necessary to warn his readers, by one single epithet, as a thing lightly to be got rid of. Just as unnatural would be the sense given by Wetst., “ peccatum vestrum.… non in occulto potest committi et latere, non magis quam lapsus cursoris, sed conspicietur ab omnibus.” Another passive sense is given by Ernesti after Hemsterhuis, “ a spectatoribus circumdatus,” “ surrounded by men who look on:” so Isocrat. de Permut., θαυματοποιΐαιςταῖς .… ὑπὸτῶνἀνοήτωνπεριστάτοιςγενομέναις , which Suidas interprets περὶἃςκύκλῳἵστανταιοἱθεώμενοι : Jambl. Vit. Pyth. v. 7, εὐθὺςδὲπερίβλεπτοςκαὶπερίστατοςἐγένετο : and so ἀπερίστατος is used of a man whom others do not gird around, one void of friends: so Phocyl. 24, σῶσονδ ʼ ἀπερίστατονἄνδρα . And thus Ernesti here would have us understand εὐπερίστατος of sin as being very popular, having many friends and frequenters. This sense Bleek thinks has much to be said for it, both as to analogy and as fitting the context. I own I do not feel that the analogy of εὖ in composition quite justifies it. But he prefers the ordinary acceptation of the word here, and in this I fully agree. Taking περιΐσταμαι as a middle, to place itself around, be around, and hence to surround, we should have, sin which easily surrounds us. And so the former of the alternatives in Chrys. (see above), which he does not prefer in his homily on this passage, but adopts in several other places: e. g. Hom. on Psa_48 § 3. 4, vol. v. p. 227 (Migne), ταύτηνοὖνδέδοικατὴνἀπατῶσάνμεἁμαρτίαν , τὴνκυκλοῦσάνμε . διὸκαὶὁΠαῦλοςαὐτὴνεὐπερίστατονκαλεῖ , τὴνσυνεχῶςπεριβάλλουσανδηλῶν , τὴνεὐκόλως , τὴνῥᾳδίως . And on 2 Cor. Hom. ii. vol. x p. 402, εὐπερίστατονγὰρἡἁμαρτία , πάντοθενἱσταμένη , ἔμπροσθεν , ὄπισθεν , καὶοὕτωςἡμᾶςκαταβάλλουσα . And so the vulg. “ circumstans:” the E. V., “ which doth so easily beset us:” and by far the greater part of expositors, some with, some without the sense of active hostility. Thus Syr., “ quod omni tempore paratum est nobis:” Ps.-Anselm, “ quod nos inique impellit et circumvallat:” Castellio, “ nos ambiens, sicut arbores hedera:” Valcknaer, “ quod ad cingendum et irretiendum promptum est:” Bugenhagen, “ semper oppugnans nos peccatum:” Erasm.(par), “ quod nos undique complectitur:” al. The word being thus taken, the various acceptations of the similitude intended are well summed up by Bleek: we must understand ἁμαρτίαν either as our inner propensity to sin, which clings fast to us and will not part from us (Erasm.(vers. and not.), Luther, Vatabl., Calv., Gerhard, Seb. Schmidt, Calov., Ernesti: cf. ch. 5:2, περίκειταιἀσθένειαν ): or as a cumbersome garment girding us round and hindering us from running (Jac. and Lud. Cappell., Schlichting, Wittich, Braun, Wakefield, al.), or personified, as an adversary, who surrounds us on all sides and waylays us to make us his prey (Beza, Cramer); or generally, as something which lies about us and is ever ready to catch us (De Dieu, and Syr. above): or which is ever from all sides standing in the way so as to entangle and impede our course (Grot., Limborch, Baumgarten, Bretschn., al., and recently Delitzsch). But the connexion with ἀποθέμενοι , which evidently Del. feels, seems to me fatal to his view, and indeed to all views except that which makes ἁμαρτία to lie about us, as a garment, or beset us, as an inward propensity. Of both these ἀποθέσθαι may be said; of the former literally, of the latter figuratively. And in choosing between these two, I have no hesitation in choosing the former. The Writer is speaking of our race: and having expected us to lay aside all superfluous weight of body, which the athletes did, he passes to their other lightening for the race, viz. stripping naked, and exhorts us to put off sin, which lies so easily about us. And thus we have a strict analogy with the imagery in Ephesians 4:22, Ephesians 4:24, ἀποθέσθαιὑμᾶς … τὸνπαλαιὸνἄνθρωπον … καὶἐνδύσασθαιτὸνκαινὸνἄνθρωπον ,— and with Colossians 3:9, ἀπεκδυσάμενοιτὸνπαλαιὸνἄνθρωπονσὺνταῖςπράξεσιναὐτοῦ . Most likely the sin alludes especially, though it need not exclusively, to apostasy. There does not seem to be any allusion to the different sins which may, in the sense now so common, and originally derived from this passage in E. V., “ beset” various persons: though, of course, such an application of the passage is quite admissible. The above note, as to its enumeration of opinions, is principally gathered from Bleek and Delitzsch, both of whom have gone into the matter at far greater length. Various other shades and subtleties of meaning will be found discussed by them), let us through endurance run the race set before us (reff., and Lucian, Anachars. 15, κοινόςτιςἀγὼν … τοῖςἀγαθοῖςπολίταιςπρόκειται : Cicero pro Flacco, 37 (92), “ magnum ei erat certamen propositum” ); 2. looking unto (so E. V. very exactly. ἀφορᾶνεἰς , or πρόςτι , is an ordinary word for to direct the gaze upon any thing. So, of the outward eye, Jos. Antt. iv. 4. 7, Ἀαρὼν … θνήσκει , τοῦπλήθουςεἰςαὐτὸνἀφορῶντος : of the inward eye, Arrian, Epictet. iv. 1, εἰςταῦταἀφορᾷτὰπαραδείγματα : Jos. B. J. 2:17.2, μάλισταδὲἀφορῶντεςεἰςτὸνἘλεάζαρονστρατηγοῦντα : Arrian, Epict. ii. 19, εἰςτὸνθεὸνἀφορῶνταςἐνπαντὶμικρῷκαὶμεγάλῳ . See many more examples in Bleek. There does not appear to be in the preposition ἀφ -, any intimation of looking off from every thing else unto, as sometimes asserted. It merely implies direction from the person acting, or the place from which he acts, as in the similar compounds ἀπιδεῖν , ἀποβλέπειν (ch. 11:26), ἀφορμᾶσθαι , ἀφικνεῖσθαι , &c.) the Leader (one who precedes others by his example, they following him: [or rather Author:] see the note on ch. 2:10, where the meanings of ἀρχηγός are classified) and Perfecter (τελειωτής , only found here, is variously interpreted. Chrys. says, τὸνἀρχηγὸνκαὶτελειωτήν . τίἐστιτοῦτο ; τουτέστιναὐτὸςἐνἡμῖντὴνπίστινἐνέθηκεν , αὐτὸςτὴνἀρχὴνδέδωκεν (John 15:16).… εἰδὲαὐτὸςτὴνἀρχὴνἡμῖνἐνέθηκεν , αὐτὸςκαὶτὸτέλοςἐπιθήσει . And so Œ c. and Thl., Primas., Erasm., Jac. Cappell., Wittich, Braun. Another view is that He perfects the faith by bringing it to an end in the capacity of βραβευτής , giving it its final reward: so Schlichting, Grot., Limborch, Calmet, al. Again Bl., De Wette, Ebrard would understand merely that He exhibited faith in perfection in his own example. And so nearly Bengel : and Thdrt., when he says, κατὰτὸἀνθρώπινονἀμφότερατέθεικεν . And doubtless this meaning must not be excluded; but neither must it be held exclusively. He ἐτελείωσενπίστιν , inasmuch as He perfected faith in his own person and example: but He ἐτελείωσεντὴνπίστιν also, inasmuch as He became the Author of perfect salvation to them that obey Him. His going before us in faith has made faith possible for us: His perfecting faith in his own person and example, has made faith effectual for us) of the faith (viz. that faith of which we have been speaking through ch. 11: and thus rather ‘ the faith’ than “ our faith,” which latter is liable to the mistake so often made in English, viz. to being taken as if it = faith in us, so that Jesus should be said to be “ author and finisher” of each individual Christian’ s faith which he has within him. We may render merely ‘ faith’ without the art.; but seeing that πίστις has been anarthrous before (ch. 11:1) when it was abstract, it would seem most probable that the art. here is intended to have a definite force. Besides which, the ascription of faith to our Lord is so plain in our Epistle (cf. ch. 2:13; 3:2) that we must not seem to exclude this sense in our rendering, which we certainly do by “ our faith:” whereas ‘ the faith’ includes both, and satisfies that which follows, in which His own example of endurance in prospect of triumph is set before us), (even) Jesus, who for the joy set before Him (ἀντὶτῆςπροκειμένηςαὐτῷχαρᾶς has been otherwise interpreted both by ancients and moderns. The Syr., Nazianz. in Œ c., Beza, al. take it to mean, “ instead of the joy which He had before His incarnation.” ᾧἐξὸνμένεινἐπὶτῆςἰδίαςδόξηςτεκαὶθεότητος , οὐμόνονἑαυτὸνἐκένωσενἄχριτῆςδούλουμορφῆς , ἀλλὰκαὶσταυρὸνὑπέμεινεν . Naz. But this, though more according to the common meaning of ἀντί , seems to me doubly objectionable. First, which many have noticed, χαρά which He already had could not well be designated as προκειμενη : and then, which I have not seen noticed, χαρά can hardly be used of a state of bliss in which one already is, a quiescent or præ -existent joy, but more naturally applies to joy prompted by some cause of active rejoicing. Then another modification of this same view is found in Chrys., τουτέστιν , ἐξῆναὐτῷμηδὲνπαθεῖν , εἴπερἐβούλετο . οὐδὲγὰρἁμαρτίανἐποίησεν , οὐδὲδόλοςεὑρέθηἐντῷστόματιαυτοῦ · καθὼςκαὶαὐτόςφησινἐντοῖςεὐαγγελίοις · ἔρχεταιὁτοῦκόσμουἄρχων , καὶοὐκἔχειἐνἐμοὶοὐδέν . προὔκειτοτοίνυναὐτῷ , εἴπερἐβούλετο , μὴἐλθεῖνεἰςτὸνσταυρόν · ἐξουσίανγὰρἔχω , φησί , θεῖναιτὴνψυχήνμου , καὶἐξουσίανἔχωπάλινλαβεῖναὐτήν . And so Œ c., Thl., Luther (da er wohl hatte mö gen freude haben, duldete er u.s.w.), Calvin , al. But this again, though it might satisfy προκειμένης , falls short of the above sense maintained for χαρᾶς . Another kindred meaning is found in Erasm., Wolf, Raphel, Carpzov, Wetst., Paulus, Bretschn. This makes χαρά = ἡδονή , besides giving a low and unworthy sense to ἡπροκειμένηαὐτῷχαρά , in making it to mean the pleasures of this life. The sense given above, ‘ for the joy set before Him,’ i. e. as in comparison with, as in exchange for, the joy which was to come after, in the day of His triumph, is adopted by Thdrt. , Primasius, Corn. a-Lap., Justiniani, Schlichting, Grot., Hammond, Seb. Schmidt, Braun, Limborch, Bengel, Winer, Bö hme, De Wette, Kuinoel, Bleek, Tholuck, Ebrard, Lü nem., Delitzsch, al. And it is fully borne out both by usage, and the context. For thus we have ἀντί in reff., and in Xen. Hell. iv. 8. 6, ὀργιζόμενοςτοῖςΛακεδαιμονίοιςἀνθ ʼ ὧνἐπεπόνθει : Aristoph. Plut. 434, ἢσφὼποιήσωτήμερονδοῦναιδίκηνἀνθ ʼ ὦνἐμὲζητεῖτονἐνθένδ ʼ ἀφανίσαι . See Winer, § 47. a) endured crucifixion (σταυρόν , anarthrous and put after the verb; and thus representing rather in the abstract, the kind of death, than in the concrete, “ the cross” on which He was crucified), despising shame (or, “ the shame:” when an anarthrous noun comes before a verb in the place of emphasis, it is not so easily determined whether it is definite or indefinite. But from the analogy of σταυρόν before, it is most probable that this is indefinite also,— every kind of shame, even to that of the shameful death which He died), and (τε is used as a copula, apart from καί , once by St. Matt. (28:12), once by St. Mark (15:36), twice by St. John (4:42; 6:18), four times by St. Paul (Romans 2:19; Romans 16:26: 1 Corinthians 4:21: Ephesians 3:19): but seventy-nine times by St. Luke: and in this Epistle four times (1:3; 6:5; 9:1; 12:2) is set down (so E. V. rightly, reading the perfect as in text. The aor. would express the fact, as it happened: the perf. gives it as it now endures, having happened. So that the latter is more real and graphic as concerns the readers) on the right hand of the throne of God (i. e. on the throne of God, at His right hand: see on ch. 8:1, and cf. Revelation 3:21). 3. For compare (with yourselves. ἀναλογίσασθε is very difficult to express in English. It is as Bengel, “ comparatione instituta cogitare,” “ to think on, by way of comparison.” So Plato, Theæ t. p. 186 a, ἀναλογιζομένηἐνἑαυτῇτὰγεγονόκαὶτὰπαρόνταπρὸςτὰμέλλοντα (comparing): Diod. Sic. xx. 8, τὸμέγεθοςτοῦδιείργοντοςπελάγουςἀναλογιζόμενοι , τὴνσωτηρίανἀπεγίνωσκον (reputantes, bethinking themselves of, comparing with their power to cross it). So here it is, consider Him as set in comparison with yourselves. If the word to ‘ ponder’ had any trace left of its primitive meaning, it might serve; but it has now become equivalent to ‘ meditate’ ) Him who hath endured (perf. part. again, to set before them Christ as not merely a character of the past, but one ever present) such contradiction (ἀντιλογία need not be confined to words: see note on ch. 6:16, and cf. ref. John, ἀντιλέγειτῷΚαίσαρι . Œ c. says, ἀντιλογίανδέφησιτὸνγέλωτα , τὰςπληγάς , τὰςχλευασίας , καὶὅσαἀντέλεγοντοῖςαὐτοῦδόγμασικαὶδιδάγμασι , καὶτὰςἐπὶτοῦΠιλάτουκραυγάς . And so Chrys. and Thl. Lü nemann in vain denies this sense of ἀντιλογία and ἀντιλέγειν : see reff., and Bleek’ s and Delitzsch’ s notes) by the sinners against Himself (i. e. by those who sinned against Him. Whether ἑαυτόν or αὐτόν be read, the sense will be the same. Beware of Ebrard’ s strange interpretation, given below on τὴνἁμαρτίαν : “ All mankind would be opposed to Christ as the sinners (the class of sinners); but the enemies of the gospel could not be opposed to the readers of the Epistle as the sinners, seeing that those readers themselves were sinners.” All such notions of οἱἁμαρτωλοί arise from wrongly connecting εἰςἑαυτόν , which follows ἁμαρτωλῶν and not ἀντιλογίαν . So ἥμαρτονεἰςτὸνοὐρανόν Luke 15:18, Luke 15:21. See also Luke 17:4: Acts 25:8), that ye weary not (reff.), fainting in your souls (ταῖςψ . ὑμῶν may be joined either with κάμητε or with ἐκλυόμενοι . In ref. Job, we have κάμνωντῇψυχῇμου : and ἐκλύεσθαιτῇψυχῇ is found in Polyb. ref., and xx. 4. 7, οὐμόνοντοῖςσώμασινἐξελύθησαν , ἀλλὰκαὶταῖςψυχαῖς . So also in Diod. Sic. xx. 1, διὰτὸμῆκοςκαὶτὴνἀκαιρίαντοῦσυγγραφέωςἐκλυθέντεςτὰςψυχάς . And this latter is preferable, on account of the rhythm, and the improbability of the participle standing thus alone at the end of the sentence). 4. Bengel’ s remark, which De Wette charges with pedantry, “ a cursu venit ad pugilatum, ut Paulus, 1 Corinthians 9:26, is nevertheless a just one. Not yet have ye resisted (so ἀντικαθίστασθαι absolutely, Thuc. i. 62, εἶδοντοὺςἐναντίουςπαρασκευαζομένουςεἰςμάχην , ἀντικαθίσταντοκαὶαὐτοί : and 71, ταύτηςμέντοιτοιαύτηςἀντικαθεστηκυίαςπόλεως , ὦΛακεδαιμόνιοι , διαμέλλετε . See below) unto blood (many take this to mean, have not yet sacrificed your lives. So Chrys., ὃδὲλέγει , τοῦτόἐστιν · οὔπωθάνατονὑπέστητε · μέχριχρημάτωνὑμῖνἡζημία , μέχριδόξης , μέχριτοῦἐλαύνεσθαι . And Thl., οὔπω , φησίν , ἄχριθανάτουἐφθάσατε , ἀλλὰἄχριδιωγμῶν , ἄχριςἁρπαγῆς · ὁδὲχριστὸςἄχριθανάτουἦλθεν . And this may be so: but I would rather abide by the idea of the pugilistic figure being intended, and apply μέχριςαἵματος to the figure, not to the interpretation. Cf. Seneca, Ep. i. 13, “ Non potest athleta magnos spiritus ad certamen afferre, qui nunquam suggillatus est. Ille qui vidit sanguinem suum, cujus dentes crepuerunt sub pugno, ille qui supplantatus adversarium toto tulit corpore, nec projecit animum projectus, qui quoties cecidit contumacior resurrexit, cum magna spe descendit ad pugnam.” For the expression, cf. reff., and Niceph. Hist. a. 741, ἐνωμότουςαὐτῷσυνθήκαςδεδώκεσαν , ὡςμέχριςαἵματοςὑπὲραὐτοῦἀνελέσθαιτὸνκίνδυνον . On the relation of such passages as this to the date of the Epistle, see in the Prolegomena, § ii. 29 ff.), contending against (πρός , of the direction towards which the athlete’ s force was directed: cf. μάχεσθαιπρὸςΤρῶας , Il. ρ . 471: Matthiæ , § 591, and Winer, § 49, h. α .) sin (personified, as an adversary: not to be limited in its meaning to sin in themselves, or to sin in their persecutors, but understood of both. Delitzsch, who would confine it to the latter, says that it was not sin in themselves which would shed their blood, but rather, which would spare its being shed. Yes, and for this very reason the resisting that sin of unfaithfulness which would lead them to spare their blood, would if carried far enough, lead to the shedding of it. Similarly, the sin in their persecutors, which they were to resist, would, if yielded to, spare their blood by seducing them into apostasy. The joining πρὸςτὴνἁμαρτίαν with ἀνταγωνιζόμενοι is even more certain than the similar connexion in ver. 3, seeing that ἀντικατέστητε has already had its qualifying clause in μέχριςαἵματος . And so almost all Commentators, except Bengel). 5. And ye have completely forgotten (ἐκλανθάνεσθαι , more usually ἐπιλανθάνεσθαι , is seldom found. See in reff.: Il. π . 602, οὐδ ʼ ἄρ ʼ Ἀχαιοὶἀλκῆςἐξελάθοντο . It is perhaps chosen here, as Del. suggests, not without some reference to the sound of ἐκλυόμενοι before and ἐκλύου following. See var. readd. There is a great difference among Commentators as to whether these words are to be read affirmatively or interrogatively. The former view is taken by all the ancient expositors, and many moderns, among whom are Wittich, Surenbusius, Wolf, Bengel, Kuinoel, Klee, Tholuck, De Wette, Ebrard. The interrogative view is taken by Calvin, Beza (b), Braun, Bö hme, Lachmann, Bleek, De Wette, Bisping, Lü nemann, Delitzsch. The ground on which this latter is defended is that, if declarative, the words would be too severe for the general tenor of the passage. I own I cannot see this. The fact of their having thus forgotten the exhortation is surely assumed below, in vv. 7-11: and from this point forward the Writer takes up the tone of reproof, which comes to its height in vv. 16, 17. And not only this. The interrogative form would surely be most unnatural, coupled closely as it would be with an assertion of fact, οὔπω .… ἀντικατέστητε ) the exhortation (παράκλησις , as elsewhere in N. T. and especially in St. Luke (reff.), unites the ideas of exhortation and consolation. See on ch. 6:18, and on παρακαλεῖν , ch. 3:13), the which discourses with you (so διαλέγεσθαι in the Acts, of opening a discourse with any one: see reff.) as with sons, My son (υἱέ in LXX: see digest), despise not (ὀλιγωρέω is not uncommon in the classics, and with a genitive, as here) the chastening of the Lord, nor faint, when corrected by Him : 6. for whom the Lord loveth, He chasteneth , yea, and (the δέ throws out the new feature into a climax) scourgeth every son whom He receiveth (“ In the Heb. this clause according to the present punctuation is ו ּ כ ְ א ָ ב א ֶ ת ־ ב ּ ֵ ן י ִ ר ְ צ ֶ ה , ‘ and (that) as a father the son in whom he delighteth.’ The LXX, instead of כ ּ ְ א ָ ב , have expressed כ ּ ֵ א ֵ ב , the Pihel of כ ּ ָ א ֵ ב ‘ to feel pain,’ and have taken it as = ‘ to cause pain,’ as the Hiphil ה ִ כ ְ א ִ י ב occurs sometimes, e. g. Job 5:18, of God’ s chastisement of men. Certainly by this rendering the parallelism with the first hemistich, and the whole expression, gain in completeness, whereas according to the Masoretic punctuation there is an appearance of lameness about it.” Bleek: who thinks, as does Del., that the LXX have expressed better the sense of the Writer than the Masoretic punctuators. “ For the translation of כ ּ ֵ א ֵ ב by μαστιγοῦν , to scourge, to whip, instead of generally to punish, cf. Psa_32 (31) 10, μάστιγες for מ ַ כ ְ א ו ֹ ב ִ י ם : and for the use of the Greek verb for divine chastisement (reff.), Tobit 11:14 [ ], ἐμαστίγωσαςκ . ἠλέησάςμε : 13:2 (5, 9), αὐτὸςμαστιγοῖκ . ἐλεεῖ : Judith 8:27, εἰςνουθέτησινμαστιγοῖκύριοςτοὺςἐγγίζοντααὐτῷ .” ὃνπαραδέχεται , see reff., whom He takes to him as a veritable son, receives in his heart and cherishes). 7, 8. Application of the passage of Scripture to the readers. 7. First, as to the reading. As between εἰς and εἰ , the case stands thus: εἰ is found in “ minuscc. multis ut videtur,” Tischdf. (edn. 7 [8]): in Chrys. (but more than doubtful: see below), in Thdrt. (also doubtful), in Thl. (certain). This is really all the authority that can be cited for it. εἰς is found in the six uncial mss. which contain the passage, in about thirty cursive mss., in all the ancient versions (apparently): in all the Fathers who cite and explain the words: e. g. Chrys. (in whose text in this Homily (xxix.) the εἰπαιδείανὑπομένετε is evidently a correction to the later reading: for, after quoting the text as in rec., his sentence runs, εἰπαιδεύει , ἄραεἰςδιόρθωσιν , ἀλλ ʼ οὐκεἰςκόλασιν , οὐδὲεἰςτιμωρίαν , οὐδὲεἰςτὸκακῶςπαθεῖν : where it must be obvious to any one that εἰπαιδεύει ought to be εἰςπαιδείαν , or the sentence is without coherence. In the Catena, this appears still more decisively: where he says, εἰςπαιδείανὑπομένετε , φησίν · οὐκεἰςκόλασιν , οὐδὲεἰςτιμωρίαν ),— Thdrt. (in all probability: his present text runs thus: εἰπαιδείανὑπομένετε · εἰφέρετεγενναίωςτὰςἐπιφερομέναςπαιδείας . But it is hardly possible that εἰφέρετεγενναίως should be the exposition of εἰὑπομένετε , in the sense which the verb must bear in the rec. text, and it is here again to be suspected, as even Bleek confesses, that the εἰ has been a correction to the rec.),— Œ c. . Of modern critical editors, Matthæ i regards εἰς as the right reading, Griesbach puts it in his inner margin, Lachmann of course adopts it, and Tregelles: also Tischendorf edd. 7, 8, but in his 2nd edn. he retained the rec.: as do Bleek, Tholuck, and Lü nem.: and among ourselves, Dr. Bloomfield, who tries to explain the (angebliche) correction into εἰς by saying that εἰ “ seldom begins a sentence.” In the N. T., where εἰ stands alone without μή , it begins a sentence at least nine times out of ten. See Brü der. εἰς is adopted and strongly defended, by Ebrard and Delitzsch. And it seems to me the only defensible reading. The mere fact that εἰ appears at first sight to yield a better sense, should never be allowed to weigh against the almost unanimous consent of antiquity. And if we examine closer this supposed better sense, we shall find it fail us. For first, the verb ὑπομένειν is not one which will bear the mere accidental sense thus given to it. The sense which we want, with εἰ , is, ‘ If ye are suffering chastisement:’ asserting a mere matter of fact. παιδείανὑπομένειν can only signify, ‘ patiently to endure chastisement.’ Then, taking this only possible meaning, what have we? ‘ If ye patiently endure chastisement, God is dealing with you as with sons:’ i. e. ‘ your method of endurance is a sign of God’ s method of treatment:’ a sentence which stultifies itself. Next, what is the sense with εἰς I see no reason for departing from that given by Chrys. in the Catena (see above): “ It is for chastisement that ye are enduring, not for punishment, not for any evil purpose.” “ Your ὑπομονή , like His ὑπομονή , will not be thrown away. He had joy before Him, you have life (καὶζήσομεν , ver. 9) before you.” Or if we please we may take ὑπομένετε , as Œ c. above, imperatively: “ Endure with a view to chastisement:” which sense however is not so good nor so natural, nor is it so likely, from the collocation of the words: for thus ὑπομένετε would come first, and it would probably be εἰςτὸπαιδεύεσθαι . It is for chastisement that ye are enduring: as with sons, God is dealing with you (προσφέρεσθαι , see reff., united with οὕτως , τούτῳτῷτρόπῳ , βέλτιον , φιλικῶς , and similar adverbs, is common in good Greek of all ages. Bleek brings forward several passages very similar in construction to this: αἷςἐὰνὡςμιᾷπροσφέρῃ .… ἐὰνδὲὡςπολλαῖςκ .τ .λ ., Plato, Rep. p. 435 a: Πυθαγόραςἐρωτηθείς , πῶςδεῖἀγνωμονούσῃπατρίδιπροσφέρεσθαι , εἶπεν · ὡςμητρί , &c., Stobæ us, c. 39). For what son is there (two other ways of taking the words are possible: 1. as Luther, adopted by Delitzsch, to make τίς the subject and υἱός the predicate, “ who is a son?” 2. as Bö hme, to make υἱός the subject and τίς the predicate, “ of what sort is a son?” Both of these are bad: the former, from the exceeding harshness and oddity of the question, “ what man is a son, whom, &c.?” the second, from the forcing of τίς , where its natural sense serves, and from the absence of the art. before υἱός . As usually rendered, the question is exactly like τίς [ἐστιν ] ἐξὑμῶνἄνθρωπος ; Matthew 7:9; Matthew 12:11. See also 1 Corinthians 2:11, τίςγὰροἶδενἀνθρώπων ;) whom a father is one of those words which, from their being singular in their kind, often lose the article) chasteneth not? 8. But if ye are without (separate from, no partakers in) chastisement, of which all (God’ s sons: or those above mentioned, ch. 11, which is better, on account of the perfect verb) have been made partakers (μέτοχος , see reff. and note), then ye are . He proceeds to say that Klotz’ s view, that ἄρα is not properly syllogistic but only expresses “ leviorem et liberiorem quandam ratiocinationem,” is not confirmed by N. T. usage, nor indeed by classical, cf. Plato, Phæ do § 26, οὐχὁρατόν · ἀειδὲςἄρα ) bastards , and not sons. 9. Then again (εἶτα brings in a fresh argument: “ furthermore,” as E. V. “ deinde considerare debemus,” Primas. It is taken interrogatively here by Raphel, al., as in Plato, Apol. Socr. p. 28 b, εἶτ ʼ οὐκαἰσχύνει , ὦΣώκρατεςκ .τ .λ .; But, 1. this would be only admissible in the case of strong indignation being expressed, which is not so here: and, 2. it would certainly require καὶοὐπολὺμᾶλλονκ .τ .λ .),— we once had (imperfect, of a state of former habit) the fathers of our flesh (see below) as chastisers ) and reverenced them (reff.: ἐντρέπομαι is found in classical Greek with a gen. of the object, e. g. τίβαιὸνἐντρέπεισῆςσυμμάχου ; Soph. Aj. 90: but in later (e. g. LXX, Polyb., Dionys., Diod. Sic., Plutarch, al.) and N. T. Greek with an accus.): shall we not much rather be in subjection (so the E. V. well expresses the subjective force of the fut. pass.) to the Father of spirits (or, ‘ of our spirits,’ understanding ἡμῶν again. But (see also below) the other is more majestic, and more in accord with the text which probably was before the Writer’ s mind, Numbers 16:22, θεὸςτῶνπνευμάτωνκαὶπάσηςσαρκός , and again 27:16) and live (viz. in life eternal, as in reff.)? An enquiry arises out of the πατέρας , τῆςσαρκὸςἡμῶν and πατρὶτῶνπνευμάτων here, in what sense our earthly fathers are said to be the fathers of our flesh, and God the Father of (our) spirits. To deal with the latter first: several explanations have been given. Understanding ἡμῶν , some have taken it as, the Creator of human souls. So Primasius , Thl. (as Chrys. below, but preferring this), and among the moderns, Calvin, Beza, Jac. Cappell., Estius, Justiniani, Wetst., Heinrichs, Ernesti, al., and more recently Delitzsch, as a proof of the doctrine of Creationism (the direct creation of every man’ s soul by God) against Traducianism (the derivation of our souls ex traduce from parent to parent). Some again, as the originator of spiritual life: so Seb. Schmidt, Calov., Cramer, Grotius, Hammond(par.), Limborch, Corn. a-Lapide, and more recently Bleek, De Wette, Lü nem., Ebrard. Others, not understanding ἡμῶν , take it as the Father of the spirit-world, of spiritual existences. So Erasm. Schmid, Bretschn. (lex.), al. All these three meanings are enumerated by the ancient expositors: by Chrys. without deciding between them, τῷπατρὶτῶνπνευμάτων · ἤτοιτῶνχαρισμάτωνλέγει , ἤτοιτῶνεὐχῶν , ἤτοιτῶνἀσωμάτωνδυνάμεων : so Œ c.: Thl. says, πατέραδὲπνευμάτωνἢτῶνχαρισμάτωνἢτῶνἀσωμάτωνδυνάμεων · ἤ , ὅπερκαὶοἰκειότερον , τῶνψυχῶν · πρὸςγὰρἀντιδιαστολὴντῶνσαρκικῶνπατέρωνεἶπετὸνπνευματικόν . Thdrt. takes the meaning, Author of spiritual life, alone: πατέραγὰρπνευμάτωντὸνπνευματικὸνπατέρακέκληκεν , ὡςτῶνπνευματικῶνχαρισμάτωνπηγήν · δι ʼ ἐκείνωνδὲἡμῖνδέδωκετὸτῆςυἱοθεσίαςἀξίωμα . Others understand by πατέρα not the originator, but the upholder, cherisher: so Morus, Dindorf, Kuinoel, Bö hme , Bretschn. . But, though this latter sense must not be excluded, being as it is manifestly operative in inducing present submission, to remember present dependence, so neither must the idea of origination be excluded, for it is from that fact that all a father’ s rights and loving-kindnesses spring. In endeavouring to decide between these meanings, one safe standing-place may, I think, be gained, by getting free from that class of meanings which understands ἡμῶν , any further than it is necessarily involved in all spirits. τοὺςτῆςσαρκὸςἡμῶνπατέρας , and τῷπατρὶτῶνπνευμάτων without ἡμῶν , are widely and surely purposely distinct. He is described here as the Father of spirits, not as the Father of our spirits. And therefore I would understand the expression as an exalted contrast of God, a Spirit Himself, and the Creator of spirits, His like, to men, flesh themselves, and the progenitors of fleshly bodies, their like. On the consequence, as regards Creationism and Traducianism, I will not here enter. It would require far more comparison of other passages and more deliberate estimation how far this one propounds a further truth than the argument requires, to be included in a mere note. Cf. Delitzsch’ s argument here. 10. The a fortiori is strengthened, by bringing out the difference between the two chastisements as to their character. For they indeed (our earthly parents) for a few days (see the meaning below. πρός as in reff. mainly temporal, but also indicating reference: ‘ during, and with a view to.’ See below) chastised us (imperf. as above, ver. 9) after their own pleasure (according to that which seemed good to them: their standard and rule of action in the matter was at best their own view of what was right, and too often their own caprice or temper, ἡδονὴνπληροῦντεςπολλάκις , Chrys.), but He in order to (ἐπί , of the contemplated direction of the result) that which is profitable, in order to our partaking of His holiness . Two questions arise regarding this verse: 1. what is the intended reference of πρὸςὀλίγαςἡμέρας 2. what are the clauses opposed to one another? The former of these questions in fact involves the latter. πρὸςὀλίγαςἡμέρας has been understood by many of the duration of our natural life, as the term to which the chastisement of our natural parents had reference, whereas that of our Heavenly Father regarded eternity. So Calv., Estius, Justiniani, Corn. a-Lap., Calmet, Schlichting, Limborch, Bengel, Tholuck, Ebrard, al. But this cannot be the meaning of the Writer. For in the first place it is not true that all earthly correction had regard only to the present life. And in the next, there is not one word in the latter clause expressing the eternal nature of God’ s purpose, which surely there would have been. The other interpretation, ‘ during and in reference to the time of our being subject to their chastisement,’ is certainly the right one. So Œ c. , Thl., Schol.-Matthæ i, vulg. . D-lat., Erasm.(par.), Luth, Jac. Cappell., Grot., Wetst., Bö hme, Kuinoel, Bleek, Lü nem., Delitzsch, al. Then we come to the second question, how the antitheses are to be arranged. Some, as Wetst., Storr, Bö hme, Kuinoel, and Bleek, have thought that πρὸςὀλίγαςἡμέρας is to be supplied in the second member of the sentence also: seeing that the divine chastisement, like the human, lasts for a few days only, i. e. for the term of this time of trial. Others again would supply in the second member some contrast to πρὸςὀλ . ἡμ . So Œ c. , Thl., Jac. Cappell., al. Delitzsch takes the antithesis thus: The second pair of contrasts, with which he begins, is κατὰτὸδοκοῦναὐτοῖς and ἐπὶτὸσυμφέρον . The other is, πρὸςὀλίγαςἡμέρας , and εἰςτὸμεταλ . τ . ἁγιότητοςαὐτοῦ . As in πρός the meanings of duration and intention are mingled, so in εἰς the meanings of intention and result. But I cannot think that Delitzsch is right. Both order of words, and correspondence of meaning, are against him. Surely the true antithesis is that pointed out by the order of the clauses themselves, and by their correspondence: 1. πρὸςὀλίγαςἡμέρας and ἐπὶτὸσυμφέρον : 2. κατὰτὸδοκοῦναὐτοῖς and εἰςτὸμεταλ . τ . ἁγ . αὐτοῦ . In (1), we have set over against one another,— the short time during which, the temporary reference with which, their chastisement was inflicted,— and the great purpose, implied as eternal from its very expression as τὸσυμφέρον for an immortal being, for which He chastises us: and in (2), are opposed,— their purpose and standard of action, to satisfy their own seeming, be it good or bad,— and His purpose, to make us partakers of His holiness, which holiness, absolute and pure, is His rule of acting, and no mere δοκοῦναὐτῷ . Thus all is straightforward, and no clause need be supplied. 11. Recurrence to the common ground of ver. 8, in describing the attribute of all chastisement, divine as well as human. That this reference of the verse is right, I am fully persuaded. Delitzsch’ s view, that divine chastisement only is intended, confuses the logical sequence, and would certainly require, after what has gone before, some distinctive mark to indicate such restriction of the sense. The sequence of οἱμὲν .… ἐπαίδευον .… ὁδὲ … .… πᾶσαδὲπαιδεία could not be otherwise interpreted than by taking πᾶσα as including the οἱμέν and the ὁδέ . It is true that in asserting what he does of πᾶσαπαιδεία , the Writer lets fall out of view the capricious nature and uncertain result of human chastisement, and regards it more as a type and representative of that which is divine: all παιδεία properly so called, and answering its proper purpose. This is brought out in the second clause: the first is equally true of every sort of παιδεία . Now (exactly gives the δέ , which resumes the general from the particular, introducing an axiom to which all will assent) all chastisement for the time present seems (καλῶςεἶπεν · οὐδοκεῖ . οὐδὲγὰρἐστὶλύπηςἡπαιδεία , ἀλλὰμόνονδοκεῖ . Chrys.) not to be matter of joy , but of grief: but afterwards it yields peaceable fruit of righteousness , Jac. Cappell. (Calv. in Bleek, but he says, “ Fructus justitiæ dicitur timor Domini:” which is rather the other way), Schulz, Kuinoel, Klee, al., who make δικαιος . an attribute not of God, but of the men spoken of: as in ref. Phil., πεπληρωμένοικαρπὸνδικαιοσύνηςτὸνδιὰἸησοῦχριστοῦ , and in Liban. Decl. i. p. 198 b, μηδὲτοῦτ ʼ ἄδηλον , πότερονὁτῆςδικαιοσύνηςκαρπὸςἢτῆςπονηρίαςἀμείνων . But seeing that παιδείακαρπὸνἀποδίδωσιν , it must be its own fruit, and not that belonging to righteousness, that it yields. And thus Estius, Schlichting, Calov., Bengel, Storr, Bö hme, Bleek, De Wette, Lü nem., Delitzsch, al. And this fruit, thus considered, is the practical righteousness which springs from faith, not the forensic righteousness which comes by faith (as in Romans 5:1). And this fruit is called εἰρηνικός , in contrast to the ἀγών by which it is won: it is, as Tholuck expresses it, “ fruit of righteousness to be enjoyed in peace after the conflict.” This is far better than to understand it ‘ salutaris’ because ש ׁ ָ ל ו ֹ ם , peace, is used also for salvation (so Castellio, Michaelis, Storr, Ernesti, Dindorf, Schleusner, Wahl, Bretschn., Kuinoel): or with Primas., Grot., Wittich, Braun, Lamb. Bos, to take it as = “ gratissimum atque acceptissimum.” The same sounding words occur together in ref. James, but the reference is different: see note there) to those who have been exercised by it (viz. παιδείας . The γεγυμνασμένοις is a clear reference to the conflict alluded to in the former verses. τίἐστι , τοῖςδι ʼ αὐτῆςγεγυμν .; τοῖςἀνασχομένοιςἐπὶπολὺκαὶκαρτερήσασιν . ὁρᾷςπῶςκαὶεὐφήμῳὀνόματικέχρηται ; ἄραγυμνασίαἐστὶνἡπαιδεία , τὸνἀθλητὴνἰσχυρὸνἐργαζομένηκαὶἀκαταγώνιστονἐντοῖςἀγῶσικαὶἄμαχονἐντοῖςπολέμοις . Chrys.). 12-17. Further exhortation, rather to promote the running the Christian race, and to take care, following peace and holiness, that there be no bitter root of sin among them, which, as in Esau’ s case, might deprive them of the promised blessing. 12. Wherefore (connects with the reasoning, and also with the imagery, of the foregoing verses: because suffering chastisement is the part of God’ s sons— because the running the race successfully brings joy and peace. And so Chrys., ὡςπρὸςδρομεῖςκαὶπύκταςκαὶπολεμιστὰςδιαλέγεται · ὁρᾷςπῶςαὐτοὺςκαθοπλίζει , πῶςαὐτοὺςἐπαίρει ; and I see no reason with Bleek to doubt this. He does so mainly because ver. 14 would come in abruptly on the other view. But of that see below) put straight again (into their proper places) the relaxed hands (παρειμένος , not far from παραλελυμένος in sense— unstrung by infirmity, so as to be incapable of healthy motion. The two words are frequently joined together: in ref. Isa., with the same substantives as here, but ἀνειμέναι for παρ -: ἰσχύσατεχεῖρεςἀενιμέναικαὶγόναταπαραλελυμένα : in Sir. 25:23, the very same words, χεῖρεςπαρειμέναικαὶγόναταπαραλελυμένα : in Deuteronomy 32:36, εἶδεγὰρπαραλελυμένουςαὐτοὺς … καὶπαρειμένους . And so Polyb. i. 58. 9, τήντεδύναμινπαρελέλυντοκαὶπαρεῖντο . In ref. 2 Kings, we have ἐξελύθησαναἱχεῖρεςαὐτοῖςκ . πάντεςοἱἄνδρεςἸσραὴλπαρείθησαν . See other examples in Bl.) and the paralyzed knees (παραλελυμένος is a word confined to St. Luke elsewhere in the N. T. It is used generally, of lameness, by the LXX and later writers: cf. reff., and Arrian, Epict. ii. 18, πῶςσουτὰσκέληπαραλύεται ;): 13. and make straight tracks for your feet (Carpzov appears first to have noticed that these words, καὶτροχιὰςὀρθὰςποιήσατετοῖςποσὶνὑμῶν , constituted an hexameter line. They are quoted in substance from Proverbs 4:26, ὀρθὰςτροχιὰςποίεισοῖςποσίν . τροχιά is properly the mark left by the τροχός , the rut or wheel-mark, indicating a track or road. See reff. τοῖςποσίν is best taken dative, ‘ for your feet,’ not ablative (Schulz, Thol., Bleek, De Wette, Lü nem., al.) “ with your feet” as instrumental: see on the following clause. And the meaning seems to be, Let your walk be so firm and so unanimous in the right direction, that a plain track and highway may be thereby established for those who accompany and follow you to perceive and walk in. Cf. Isaiah 35:8), that that which is lame be not turned out of the way, but rather be healed , Thl. , Schlichting, Grot., Wolf, Carpzov, Cramer, Michaelis, Ernesti, Schleusner, Heinrichs, Bretschn., Klee, De Wette, Stuart, al. But against this there are two objections: 1. the common usage of the word; which (see Wetst. on 1 Timothy 1:6, and reff.) is, to be turned aside: and even in the place quoted from Galen by Carpzov to justify the other meaning, it far more likely has this one: τῆςὑγιεινῆςἔργον , τὸκατὰμικρὰτὴνεἰςτὸπαρὰφύσινἐκτροπὴν (deviation) ἐπανορθοῦσθαι : 2. the μᾶλλονδέ , introducing the second clause, which seems to shew, that more is contained in the contrast than was in the member with which it was contrasted, and thus fully justifies the falling short in the meaning of ἐκτραπῇ from that of ἰαθῇ : q. d. ‘ should not be turned out of the way; nay rather than suffer any the least increase of its infirmity, should be healed of it.’ It should be noticed that the Writer has still the image of a race before him. The making a beaten track for all is, that they may not miss the way and lose the prize). 14. Follow peace with all , Thl. , Jac. Cappell., Grot., Calov., al., and Bö hme, Lü nem., al. But thus taken the exhortation would lose much of its proper force here. For it is introduced by a caution that the lame be not turned out of the way, and followed by taking heed that none fail of the grace of God: and between these two an exhortation to follow peace with all mankind would come in very flat and disjointed. It is clearly the brethren who are here meant by πάντων : and this is further shewn by the collocation of the words, which on the other view would more naturally be εἰρήνηνμετὰπάντωνδιώκετε . The sentiment thus is the same as in Romans 14:19, ἄραοὖντὰτῆςεἰρήνηςδιώκωμεν , καὶτὰτῆςοἰκοδομῆςτῆςεἰςἀλλήλους ), and sanctification , Thdrt., Œ c., Thl., , , and Jac. Cappell., Bengel, al. But the wider meaning, as a rule, must always be kept where the context does not require a narrower. And thus understood, the reference of it is well given by Limborch: “ ne, dum paci studeat, nimis aliis obsequendi studio quidquam contra sanctimouiam Christianam delinquat” ), without (apart from) which (χωρίς seems to be put after its case for rhythm’ s sake. In Palm and Rost’ s art. on χωρίς , this arrangement is quoted frequently from the poets and tragedians, but does not seem to occur often in prose) none shall see the Lord : 15. looking well (ἐπισκοποῦντες , τουτέστιν , ἀκριβῶςἐρευνῶντες , ἐπισκεπτόμενοι , καταμανθάνοντες , Chrys. τουτέστιν , ἀκριβῶςπροσέχοντεςκαὶἐρευνῶντες , Œ c. The word is found in Plato, e. g. Cratyl. 399 c, ὧνὁρᾷοὐδὲνἐπισκοπεῖ , al.: in Xenophon, e. g. De Laced. Rep. 3. 1, ὁβουλόμενοςκαὶταῦταἐπισκοπείσθω , al. freq.), lest any one falling short of the grace of God (on ὑστερέω , see on ch. 4:1. It is here explained by Chrys., καθάπερὁδόντιναμακρὰνὁδευόντωνἐνσυνοδίᾳπολλῇ , βλέπετε , φησί , μήτιςἀπέμεινεν : and so Thl. In that case ἀπό must mean ‘ far from’ the grace of God, as the goal to which the journey is being made. But it is far more probably in its ordinary sense, and ἀπό as in reff., and as Œ c.: μήτιςεἴηἀπολελειμμένοςτῆςχάριτοςτοῦθεοῦ . The whole sentence is imitated from Deuteronomy 29:18, μήτιςἐστὶνἐνὑμῖνἀνὴρἢγυνὴἢπατριὰἢφυλή , τινὸςἡδιάνοιαἐξέκλινενἀπὸκυρίουτοῦθεοῦὑμῶν , πορευθέντεςλατρεύειντοῖςθεοῖςτῶνἐθνῶνἐκείνων · μήτιςἐστὶνἐνὑμῖνῥίζαἄνωφύουσαἐνχολῇκαὶπικρίᾳ . And perhaps to this the ἀπό may be due, as Delitzsch suggests. But however this may be, the form of this sentence may certainly be inferred from observing that one. It is broken off at τοῦθεοῦ in order to take up the second clause of that, μήτιςῥίζακ .τ .λ . So that we need not understand ᾖ after the participle here, as generally done, even by Thol. and Ebrard, but may pass on to the next clause, finding a common verb to both subjects in ἐνοχλῇ below. And so Heinrichs, Bleek, De Wette, Lü nem., Delitzsch), lest any root of bitterness (not = ῥίζαπικρά , but πικρία is the origin and the ingrained character of the root, not its mere attribute. So Chrys. well, οὐκεἶπεπικρά , ἀλλά , πικρίας · τὴνμὲνγὰρπικρὰνῥίζανἐστὶκαρποὺςἐνεγκεῖνγλυκεῖς , τὴνδὲπικρίαςῥίζανκαὶπηγὴνκαὶὑπόθεσινοὐκἐστὶποτὲγλυκὺνἐνεγκεῖνκαρπόν · πάνταγάρἐστιπικρά , οὐδὲνἔχειἡδύ , πάνταπικρά , πάνταἀηδῆ , πάνταμίσουςκαὶβδελυγμίαςγέμοντα . And similarly Œ c. and Thl. and several moderns) springing up (φύω intrans., see reff.) trouble you (it is remarkable that the LXX [as edited] (see above) in Deut. l. c. has not ἐνοχλῇ , but ἐνχολῇ , as the Heb.: and Delitzsch supposes that the Writer followed the sound of ἐνχολῇ and substituted for it ἐνοχλῇ : as in Jude 1:12 the ἀπάταις of 2 Peter 2:13 is changed into ἀγάπαις (or vice versa). But this is hardly likely, especially when we find that the Alexandrine copy of the LXX, with which our Writer so often agrees, has ἐνοχλῇ [as has also B1]. Delitzsch indeed supposes that this reading crept in after our Epistle was written: and strengthens his view by the superfluous and unintelligible καὶπικρία following the word in the alex. text. But clearly that is no reason: nor is it probable that such correction should have been only one of four which are found in the mss. in Holmes, the other three being ενοχλῃ , ενοχῃ , ενωχολῃ . The fact of ἐνοχλεῖν , ref. Luke, ὀχλεῖν Acts 5:16, παρενοχλεῖν Acts 15:19, being all in St. Luke, does not make for Delitzsch’ s view: all men (taking his hypothesis of the authorship by St. Luke) are more free in quoting sayings where their own favourite words occur), and by its means the many (the whole congregation: see Galatians 5:9 quoted below) be polluted (how? by intercourse, by compromise, by over-persuasion, by imitation. The kind of pollution he explains in the next verse to arise from fornication and profanity. Thl. says, ὁδὲἀλλαχοῦγράφει · μικρὰζύμηὅλοντὸφύραμαζυμοῖ (Galatians 5:9), τοῦτοκαὶἐνταῦθάφησι · μήτιςπονηρὸςεἰςλύμηνπλειόνωνεἶναισυγχωρείσθω ): 16. lest (there be) any fornicator (to be taken literally, not as alluding to spiritual fornication, cf. Deuteronomy 31:16: Exodus 34:15 f.: for as Del. observes, this sense is foreign to the N. T. except in the Apocalypse: and it is very unlikely that the Writer should have used a meaning lying so far from the context, and not suggested either by the passage of Deut. to which he was before alluding, or by the history of Esau which he is now introducing. Nearly connected with the question of the sense of πόρνος , is that of the punctuation: whether by a comma after it we are to sever it from connexion with Esau, or not. Most Commentators join it with what follows. So Thdrt., Schol.-Matthæ i, Isidor.-pelus., Primas., al., and explain it partly of the gluttony of Esau, partly of his having wedded strange women, partly by the character of a fornicator which is given him by later Jewish tradition: cf. numerous testimonies in Wetst. But others divide πόρνος from what follows. So Chrys., Joh. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/alfordgnt/ Chap. 13:1-16. Various exhortations to Christian virtues: more especially to the imitation of the faith of their leaders who had departed in the Lord: to firmness in the faith: and following of Jesus, who suffered outside the camp to teach us to bear His reproach. 1. Let brotherly love (φιλαδελφία in the classics, the love of brothers and sisters for one another: in the N. T., the love of the Christian brethren. In ref. 2 Pet. it is expressly distinguished from ἀγάπη , the more general word) remain (we learn from the Acts,— on the hypothesis of this Epistle being addressed to the church at Jerusalem (on which, however see Prolegg.),— how eminent this brotherly love had been in that church, and, without any hypothesis as to the readers, we see from our ch. 10:32 ff. that the persons here addressed had exercised it aforetime, and from ch. 6:10, that they still continued to exercise it. Let it then remain, not die out. And it is put first, as being the first of the fruits of faith. The exhortations in ch. 3:12 f.; 10:24 f.; 12:12 ff., point the same way). 2, 3. φιλαδελφία is now specifically urged in two of its departments, hospitality, and care of prisoners. 2. Forget not hospitality to strangers (so in ref. 1 Pet., after recommending ἀγάπηνἐκτενῆεἰςἑαυτούς , he proceeds φιλόξενοιεἰςἀλλήλους . Cf. also ref. Rom., and Titus 1:8: 1 Timothy 3:2. Bleek remarks that the notices found in the writings of the enemies of Christianity shew how much this virtue was practised among the early believers: and refers to Julian, Ep. 49, and Lucian de Morte Peregrini, ch. 16): for thereby (by exercising it) some unawares entertained angels quæ Latine exprimi non potest.” On ἔλαθονξενίσαντες , Chrys. says, τίἐστινἔλαθον ; οὐκεἰδότεςφησὶνἐξένισαν : and Thl., ἀντὶτοῦἠγνόησανὅτιἄγγελοιἦσανοἱξενιζόμενοι , καὶὅμωςφιλοτίμωςαὐτοὺςἐξένισαν . Cf. Herod. i. 44, οἰκίοισιὑποδεξάμενοςτὸνξεῖνονφονέατοῦπαιδὸςἐλάνθανεβόσκων . The vulg. rendering, “ latuerunt quidam angelis hospitio receptis,” has led some R.-Cath. expositors mentioned in Estius to imagine that Lot’ s escape by the men of Sodom being smitten with blindness is alluded to. Bleek refers to, and with reason, a very beautiful sermon of Schleiermacher’ s, vol. i. p. 645, “ Ueber die Christliche Gastfreundschaft.” He there sets forth, how the motive, though no longer literally applying to us, is still a real one, inasmuch as angels were the messengers of God’ s spiritual purposes, and such messengers may be found in Christian guests, even where least expected). 3. Remember (cf. ch. 2:6) them that are in bonds, as if bound with them (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:26: as fully sympathizing with them in their captivity: not, as Bö hme, al., “ quippe ejus naturæ et conditionis homines, qui ipsi quoque pro captivis sint, nimirum in ecclesia pressa degentes,” which is travelling too far from the context): those in distress , as also yourselves being in the body , Thl., and most Commentators). 4. Exhortation to chastity. Let your marriage (γάμος , elsewhere in N. T. in the sense of a wedding, here has its ordinary Greek meaning) be (held) in honour in all things (see below) and your marriage bed be undefiled: for fornicators and adulterers God shall judge. There are several debateable matters in this verse. First, is it a command or an assertion? The latter view is taken in Syr. “ Honourable is marriage among all, and their bed is undefiled:” Beza, Grot., our E. V., al. And so Chrys. , Œ c., Thdrt. (apparently). But against this is the following clause, καὶἡκοίτηἀμίαντος : for it is impossible to keep to the same rendering in this case: cf. Syr. above: the E. V. has evaded this difficulty by rendering, “ and the bed undefiled,” leaving it, as its guide Beza does, uncertain whether “ undefiled” is an epithet, as usually taken by English readers, or a predicate, as the Greek absolutely requires. For had the meaning been, “ Marriage is honourable among all, and the (an) undefiled bed,” certainly the article could not have stood before κοίτη without standing also before ἀμίαντος : it must have been καὶκοίτηἀμίαντος or καὶἡκοίτηἡἀμίαντος . So that the indicative supplement, ἐστιν , must be dismissed, as inconsistent with the requirements of the latter clause; and, I might add, with the context: in which, besides that the whole is of a hortatory character, the very same collocation of words immediately follows in ἀφιλάργυροςὁτρόπος , where no one suggests ἐστιν as our supplement. The imperative view has accordingly been taken by very many Commentators: as e. g. by Thl. (see below), and the great mass of moderns. Delitzsch holds that no supplement is wanted, the clause being an exclamation carrying with it a hortatory force. But surely this is equivalent to supplying ἔστω . The next question respects ἐνπᾶσιν , whether it is to be taken as masculine, ‘ among all men,’ or as neuter, ‘ in all things.’ The doubt was felt as early as Thl., who thus expresses it: ἐνπᾶσινοὖν , μὴἐντοῖςπροβεβηκόσιμέν , ἐνδὲτοῖςνέοιςοὔ , ἀλλ ʼ ἐνπᾶσιν . ἢκαὶἐνπᾶσιτρόποιςκαὶἐνπᾶσικαιροῖς , μὴἐνθλίψειμέν , ἐνἀνέσειδὲοὔ , μὴἐντούτῳμὲνμέρειτίμιος , ἐνἄλλῳδὲοὔ , ἀλλ ʼ ὅλοςἐνὅλῳτίμιοςἔστω . The masculine is taken by Erasmus, Cajetan, Luther, Calvin, Beza, and most Commentators, especially Protestants, and in later times by Schulz, Bö hme, De Wette, Wahl, Kuinoel, Tholuck. And it is variously interpreted: either, α . as by Luther, that all should keep marriage in honour, by not violating it; β . as by Bö hme, Schulz, al., that the unmarried should not despise it, but it should be held in honour by all; or, γ . as Calvin, al., that it is allowed to all conditions of men, not denied to any, as e. g. it is to the Romish priesthood. But it is altogether against the masculine sense, 1. that ἐνπᾶσιν would not be the natural expression for it, but παρὰπᾶσιν : cf. Matthew 19:26 (bis), and : Acts 26:8: Romans 2:13: 2 Thessalonians 1:6: James 1:27 : and, 2. that our Writer uses ἐνπᾶσιν in this very chapter for ‘ in all things,’ ver. 18. See also reff., and Colossians 1:18: Philippians 4:12. So that the neuter view is to be preferred: and so Œ c., Corn. a-Lap., Calmet, the R.-Cath. expositors generally, Bleek, De Wette, Lü nem., Delitzsch, al. For the phrase κοίτηἀμίαντος , Wetst. quotes from Plutarch de Fluviis, p. 18, ὑπὸτῆςμητρυιᾶςφιλούμενος , καὶμὴθέλωνμιαίνειντὴνκοίτηντοῦγεννήσαντος . The latter clause carries with it the anticipation of condemnation in κρινεῖ . Man may, or may not, punish them: one thing is sure: they shall come into judgment, and if so into condemnation, when God shall judge all. 5, 6. St. Paul usually couples with filthy desire, filthy lucre, as both of them incompatible with the kingdom of God: e. g. 1 Corinthians 5:10, 1 Corinthians 5:11; 1 Corinthians 6:9 f.: Ephesians 5:3, Ephesians 5:5: Colossians 3:5. 5. Let your manner of life (reff.) be void of avarice: contented (sufficed) with things present (the construction is precisely as in ref. Rom., ἡἀγάπηἀνυπόκριτος · ἀποστυγοῦντεςτὸπονηρὸνκ .τ .λ . On ἀρκούμενος and τοῖςπαροῦσιν , see Bleek’ s examples. Among them, we have the very phrase in Teles. in Stobæ us, serm. 95, βιώσῃἀρκούμενοςτοῖςπαροῦσι , τῶνἀπόντωνοὐκἐπιθυμῶν : Democrit. in Stobæ us, serm. 1, τοῖςπαρεοῦσινἀρεκεῖσθαι : Phoeyl. 4, ἀρκεῖσθαιπαρεοῦσι , καὶἀλλοτρίωνἀπέχεσθαι . The construction ἀρκεῖσθαίτινι occurs in Herod. ix. 33, οὐδ ʼ οὕτωἔφηἔτιἀρκέεσθαιτούτοισιμούνοισι , and al. (Bl.): see also reff.): for He hath said, I will not leave thee, no nor will I forsake thee (passages bearing some resemblance to this are found in the O. T., but no where the words themselves: see reff. But in Philo, Confus. Ling. § 32, vol. i. p. 431, we have, λόγιουτοῦἵλεωθεοῦμεστὸνἡμερότητοςἐλπίδαςχρηστὰςὑπογράφοντοῖςπαιδείαςἐρασταῖςἀνῄρηταιτοιόνδε , Οὐμήσεἀνῶ , οὐδ ʼ οὐμήσεἐγκαταλίπω . This is certainly singular, and cannot be mere coincidence. Bleek and Lü nemann suppose the Writer to have made the citation direct from Philo (see Prolegg. § i. par. 156), whereas Delitzsch believes that the expression was taken from Deuteronomy 31:6 A, οὐμήσεἀνῇοὐδ ʼ οὐμήσεἐγκαταλείπῃ , and had become inwoven into some liturgical or homiletic portion of the services in the Hellenistic synagogue. οὐδ ʼ οὐμή occurs again Matthew 24:21): 6. so that we say (not ‘ can say’ nor ‘ may say,’ both which weaken the confidence expressed) with confidence, The Lord (י ה ו ה in the Psalm, and probably used of the Father, as in other citations in this Epistle, e. g. ch. 7:21; 8:8-11; 10:16, 30; 12:5 al., and without a citation ch. 8:2) is my helper , [and (not in Heb., see also digest)], I will not be afraid: what shall man do unto me )? 7. Remember that the course of these ἡγούμενοι is past, and it is remembering with a view to imitation that is enjoined) your leaders (ἡγούμενοι , vv. 17, 24, are their leaders in the faith: cf. also προηγούμενοι , in Clem.-rom. ad Cor. i. c. 21, p. 256. It is a word of St. Luke’ s, cf. reff., answering to the προϊστάμενοι of St. Paul, 1 Thessalonians 5:12. It is found in later Greek,— in Polyb., Herodian, Diod. Sic. al.,— in this same sense. See also Sir. 9:17; 10:2 al.), the which (of that kind, who) spoke to you the word of God . The phrase λαλεῖντὸνλόγοντοῦθεοῦ , is the usual one with St. Luke, cf. reff.), of whom surveying (ἀνα -θεωρεῖν , like ἀνα -ζητεῖν , to contemplate, or search from one end to the other. Bl. quotes from Winer de Verborum cum Prepp. compos. in N. T. Usu, p. iii, “ aliquam rerum seriem ita oculis perlustrare, ut ab imo ad summum, ab extremo ad principium pergas.” Similarly Chrys., συνεχῶςστρέφοντεςπαρ ʼ ἑαυτοῖς . The word occurs elsewhere in St. Luke only (ref.)) the termination (by death: not as Œ c., but without deciding, πῶςδιεξέρχονταικαλῶςτὴνἐντῷβίῳἀναστροφήν : nor, as Braun and Cramer, the result for others of their Christian walk, viz. their conversion: nor as Storr, al., the result for themselves, viz. their heavenly reward, which their followers could not in any sense ἀναθεωρεῖν . We have ἔξοδος in the sense of death Luke 9:31: 2 Peter 1:15: and ἄφιξις Acts 20:29. It is perhaps to be inferred that these died by martyrdom, as Stephen, James the brother of John, and possibly (but see the matter discussed in Prolegg. to James, and in Delitzsch’ s note here) James the brother of the Lord: and possibly too, St. Peter (see Prolegg. to 1 Pet.). So the ancient Commentators: so Thdor.-mops., Θεόδωρόςφησινἡγουμένουςτοὺςπαρ ʼ αὐτοῖςκαταγγείλανταςτὸνλόγοντῆςεὐσεβείαςκαὶτελειωθένταςὑπὸἸουδαίωναὐτόθι · πολλοὶδὲἦσαν , οὔτεΣτέφανοςμόνονκαὶἸάκωβοςὁμαχαίρᾳἀναιρεθείς , ἀλλὰκαὶὁτοῦκυρίουἀδελφὸςἸάκωβος , ἕτεροιδὲπλεῖστοισιωπῇπαραδεδομένοι . Similarly Thdrt., al.) of their conversation (i. e. their Christian ἀναστρέφεσθαι , behaviour, walk, course. No English word completely gives it. For usage, see reff.), imitate the faith. 8. Jesus Christ is yesterday and to-day the same, and for ever (as to the construction, ὁαὐτός is the predicate to all three times, not as vulg. (not Syr., if at least Etheridge’ s version of it is to be trusted), “ Jesus Christus heri et hodie: ipse et in sæ cula;” (passim), Calvin, al. As to the connexion, the verse stands as a transition from what has passed to what follows. ‘ It was Christ whom these ἡγούμενοι preached, ἐλάλησαντὸνλόγοντοῦθεοῦ : Christ who supported them to the end, being the author and finisher of their faith; and He remains still with regard to you (ὥσπερτοὺςἡγουμένουςὑμῶνοὐκατέλιπεν , ἀλλ ʼ ἐνπᾶσινἀντελαμβάνετοαὐτῶν , οὕτωκαὶὑμῶνἀντιλήψεται · ὁαὐτὸςγάρἐστι , altern. in Thl. Similarly Chrys. alt.) the same: be not then carried away’ &c. As to the meaning of the words, ἐχθές (the common and also Attic form, whereas χθές is Epic, Ionic, and Attic) refers to the time past, when their ἡγούμενοι passed away from them; σήμερον to the time present, when the Writer and the readers were living. In our E. V., this verse, by the omission of the copula ‘ is,’ appears as if it were in apposition with “ the end of whose conversation:” and in the carelessly printed polyglott of Bagster, the matter is made worse, by a colon being substituted for the period after “ conversation.” Observe Ἰησοῦςχριστός , not common with our Writer: only e. g. ver. 21, where he wishes to give a solemn fulness to the mention of the Lord: Jesus, the Person, of whom we have been proving, that He is χριστός , the Anointed of God. Cf. also ch. 10:10). 9. Be not carried away (the rec. περιφ . is probably from Ephesians 4:14. παραφέρεσθαι , as the prep. indicates, is to be carried out of the right course. So Plato, Phæ dr. p. 265 b, ἴσωςμὲνἀληθοῦςτινοςἐφαπτόμενοι , τάχαδ ʼ ἂνκαὶἄλλοσεπαραφερόμενοι : Plut. Timoleon 6, αἱκρίσεις .… σείονταικαὶπαραφέρονταιῥᾳδίωςὑπὸτῶντυχόντωνἐπαίνωνκαὶψόγων , ἐκκρουόμενοιτῶνοἰκείωνλογισμῶν . Æ lian has ὑπὸτοῦοἴνουπαραφερόμενος . Œ c. says, τὸδὲπαραφ . ἀπὸμεταφορᾶςτῶνμαινομένωντῶντῇδεκἀκεῖσεπαραφερομένωνεἴρηται . The fixed point from which they are not to be carried away, is clearly that given in the last verse, viz. Jesus Christ) by various (ποικίλαις , παντοδαπαῖς · αἱτοιαῦταιγὰροὐδὲνβέβαιονἔχουσιν , ἀλλ ʼ εἰσὶδιάφοροι · μάλισταδὲτὸτῶνβρωμάτωνδιάφορον . Chrys. Thl. says, τουτέστινπαρὰτοῦδετόδε .… ἡγὰρἀλήθειαμονοειδής , καὶπρὸςἓνἀφορῶσα . The reference, from what follows, is to teachings about various meats) and strange (τουτέστιν , ἀλλότριαιτῆςἀληθείας , Thl. The use of ἕτερος is similar, from which ἑτεροδοξία has its technical sense) doctrines (teachings: so διδασκαλίαι , Matthew 15:9: Colossians 2:22: 1 Timothy 4:1): for it is good that the heart be confirmed (reff.) with grace (God’ s grace, working on us by faith: δείκνυσινὅτιτὸπᾶνπίστιςἐστίν · ἂναὐτῇβεβαιώσῃ , ἡκαρδίαἐνἀσφαλείᾳἕστηκεν , Chrys.), not with meats (it is a question whether βρώμασιν be meant of meat eaten after sacrifices, or of “ meats” as spoken of so much by St. Paul, meats partaken of or abstained from as a matter of conscience: cf. 1 Corinthians 8:8, βρῶμαἡμᾶςοὐπαρίστησιντῷθεῷ : ib. ver. 13; ib. 6:13: Romans 14:15, Romans 14:20, μὴἕνεκενβρώματοςκατάλυετὸἔργοντοῦθεοῦ . The former view is taken by Schlichting, Bleek, Lü nemann, al., on the grounds, 1. that the expression will not suit meats abstained from, only those partaken of: “ Cor non reficitur cibis non comestis, sed comestis. Ciborum ergo usui, non abstinentiæ , opponitur hic gratia,” Schlicht.; 2. that ver. 10, which is in close connexion with this, speaks of an altar and of partaking of meats sacrificed: and, 3. that this same reference, to meats offered in sacrifice, is retained throughout, to ver. 15. The other view is taken by Chrys., Thdrt., Œ c., Thl., Primas., Faber Stap., Erasm., Calv., Beza, the great body of later Commentators, and recently by Bö hme, Tholuck, and Delitzsch. It is defended against the above objections, 1. by remembering that in the other passages where βρώματα occurs with this reference, it is used not merely in the concrete, for meats absolutely partaken of, but in the abstract, for the whole department or subject of βρώματα , to be partaken of or abstained from: 2. see below on the verse: (3) stands or falls with (2). And besides, it is supported by the following considerations: 4. that βρώματα is a word not found in the law where offerings are spoken of (in Leviticus 19:6 and 22:30, we have βρωθήσεται of peace-offerings and thank-offerings): but in the distinction of clean and unclean, Leviticus 11:34: 1 Macc. 1:63: 5. that in all N. T. places, where βρῶμα is used in a similar connexion, it applies to clean and unclean meats: 6. that διδαχαῖςποικίλαιςκαὶξέναιςμὴπαραφέρεσθε must refer, not to meats eaten after sacrifices, but to some doctrines in which there was variety and perplexity, as to those concerning clean and unclean. And I own these reasons incline me strongly to this view, to the exclusion of the other. Two ‘ monstra interpretationis’ need only be mentioned: that of the R.-Cath. Bisping, who interprets χάριτι “ by the eucharist:” and that of Ebrard, who renders βεβαιοῦσθαι , “ cling fast to,” and χάριτι and βρώμασιν as datives), in which (the observance of which, βρώματα , as above, being used for the observance of rules concerning meats and drinks &c.) they who walked were not profited (the ἐν belongs, not to ὠφελήθησαν , but to περιπατήσαντες , according to the very usual construction, περιπατεῖνἔντινι , for to observe, to live in the practice of any thing: see reff. and Acts 21:21. So Chrys., τουτέστιν , οἱδιὰπαντὸςφυλάξαντεςαὐτά . These, who walked in such observances, are the whole people of God under the O. T. dispensation (notice the historic aorists), to whom they were of themselves useless and profitless, though ordained for a preparatory purpose: so that Calvin’ s objection is answered, “ Certe patribus qui sub lege vixerunt utilis fuit pæ dagogia cujus pars erat ciborum discrimen.” Yes, and so was the shedding of the blood of bulls and goats part of the pæ dagogia: but it was useless to take away sin. Cf. Thl., οἱτῇτῶνβρωμάτωντηρήσειστοιχήσαντεςδιὰπαντὸςοὐδὲνεἰςτὴνψυχὴνὠφελήθησαν , ὡςτῆςπίστεωςἔξωὄντεςκαὶτῷνόμῳτῷἀνωφελεῖδουλεύοντες . But he understands it of τοὺςτὴνἸουδαϊκὴνπαρατήρησιντῶνβρωμάτωνεἰσάγοντες ). 10. What is the connexion with ver. 9? It is represented as being entirely done away by our interpretation of βρώματα . If I regard it aright, it is not only not done away, but established in its proper light. Those ancient distinctions are profitless: one distinction remains: that ourtrue meat is not to be partaken of by those who adhere to those old distinctions: that Christianity and Judaism are necessarily and totally distinct. See more below. We have an altar (to what does the Writer allude? Some have said (Schlichting, Sykes, Michaelis, Kuinoel, and even Tholuck) that no distinct idea was before him, but that he merely used the term altar, to help the figure which he was about to introduce. And this view has just so much truth in it, that there is no emphasis on θυσιαστήριον ; it is not θυσιαστήριονἔχομεν . The altar bears only a secondary place in the figure; but still I cannot think that it has not a definite meaning. Others understand by the altar, Christ himself. So Suicer, Wolf, al. So Cyr.-alex. de Adoratione, ix. vol. i. p. 310, αὐτὸςοὖνἄραἐστὶτὸθυσιαστήριον , αὐτὸςδὲτὸθυμίαμα , καὶἀρχιερεύς . This again has so much truth in it, that the Victim is so superior to the altar as to cast it altogether into shade; but still is not Himself the altar. Some again (Corn. a-Lapide, Bö hme, Bä hr, Ebrard, Bisping, Stier, al.) understand, the table of the Lord, at which we eat the Lord’ s Supper. This is so far true, that that table may be said to represent to us the Cross whereupon the Sacrifice was offered, just as the bread and wine, laid on it, represent the oblation itself: but it is not the altar, in any propriety of language, however we may be justified, in common parlance, in so calling it. Some again, as Bretschneider, have interpreted it to mean the heavenly place, where Christ now offers the virtue of His Blood to the Father for us. This again is so far true that it is the antitype of the Cross, just as the Cross is the antitype of the Lord’ s table: but we do not want, in this word, the heavenly thing represented by, any more than the enduring ordinance representing, the original historic concrete material altar: we want that altar itself: and that altar is, the Cross, on which the Lord suffered. That is our altar: not to be emphasized, nor exalted into any comparison with the adorable Victim thereon offered; but still our altar, that wherein we glory, that for which, as “ pro aris,” we contend: of which our banners, our tokens, our adornments, our churches, are full: severed from which, we know not Christ; laid upon which, He is the power of God, and the wisdom of God. And so it is here explained by Thos. Aquinas, Jac. Cappell., Estius, Bengel, Ernesti, Bleek, De Wette, Stengel, Lü nem., Delitzsch) to eat of which they have not licence who serve the tabernacle (who are these? Some, as Schlichting, Morus, and strange to say more recently Hofmann, Schriftb. ii. 1. 322 ff., understand by them the same, viz. Christians, as the subject of ἔχομεν . We Christians have an altar whereof (even) they who serve the (Christian) tabernacle have no right to eat: i. e. as explained by Hofmann, as the high priest himself did not eat of the sin-offerings whose blood was brought into the tabernacle, but they were burnt without the camp, so we Christians have no sacrifice of which we have any right to eat, no further profit to be derived from that one sacrifice, by which we have been reconciled to God. But this is, 1. false in fact. We have a right to eat of our Sacrifice, and are commanded so to do. All that our Lord says of eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood (explain it how we will) would be nullified and set aside by such an interpretation. And, 2. it is directly against the whole context, in which the βρώματα , whatever they are, are pronounced profitless, and they who walked in them contrasted with us who have higher privileges. To what purpose then would it be to say, that we have an altar of which we cannot eat? that we have a sacrifice which brings us no profit, but only shame? I pass over the interpretation which understands by the words some particular class of Christians among the Hebrews, because it involves the anachronism of a distinction between clergy and laity which certainly then had no place: and also because it would furnish no sense at all suiting the passage, referring as it then would to some Christians only, not to all. The only true reference of our words, as also that which has been all but universally acknowledged, is that to the Jewish priesthood, and in them to those who have part with them in serving the rites and ordinances of the ceremonial law. These have no right to eat of our altar: for just as the bodies of those beasts whose blood was brought into the sanctuary were burnt without the camp, so Jesus suffered altogether without the gate of legal Judaism. Let us then not tarry serving that tabernacle which has no part in Him, but go forth to Him without the camp, bearing His reproach. For we cleave not to any abiding city, such as the earthly Jerusalem, but seek one to come. Let us then not tarry in the Jewish tabernacle, serving their rites, offering their sacrifices; but offer our now only possible sacrifice, that of praise, the fruit of a good confession, acceptable to God through Him. Thus and thus only does the whole context stand in harmony. Thus the words in οἱτῇσκηνῇλατρεύοντες keep their former meanings: cf. ch. 8:5, where we have λατρεύοντεςὑποδείγματικαὶσκιᾷτῶνἐπουρανιων : and remember that ἡσκηνή , barely so placed, cannot by any possibility mean any part of the Christian apparatus of worship, nor have an antitypical reference, but can only import that which throughout the Epistle it has imported, viz. the Jewish tabernacle: cf. ch. 8:5; 9:21 al. Bengel, with his keen sight for nice shades of meaning, has noticed, “ est aculeus, quod dicit τῇσκηνῇ , non ἐντῇσκηνῇ ” ). 11. For (reason why this exclusion has place: because our great Sacrifice is not one of those in which the servants of the tabernacle had any share, but answers to one which was wholly taken out and burnt: see below) of the animals of which the blood is brought into the holy place by the high priest, of these the bodies are consumed by fire outside the camp (there was a distinction in the sacrifices as to the subsequent participation of certain parts of them by the priests. Those of which they did partake (I take these particulars mainly from Delitzsch) were: 1. the sin-offering of the rulers (a male kid), and the sin-offering of the common people (a female kid or lamb), Leviticus 4:22 ff., Leviticus 4:27 ff. (compare the rules ib. ch. 6 about eating and not eating the sacrifices): 2. the dove of the poor man, Leviticus 5:9: 3. the trespass-offering, Leviticus 7:7: 4. the skin of the whole burnt-offering, ib. ver. 8: 5. the wave-breast and heave-shoulder of the peace-offerings: 6. the wave-offerings on the feast of weeks, entire. But those of which they did not partake were, 1. the sin-offering of the high priest for himself, Leviticus 4:5-7, esp. ver. 12: 2. the sin-offerings for sins of ignorance of the congregation, Levit. 4:16-21, cf. Numbers 15:24: 3. the sin-offering for high priest and people combined, on the great day of atonement, the blood of which was brought not only into the holy but into the holiest place, Leviticus 16:27. Besides which we have a general rule, to which doubtless the Writer here alludes, Leviticus 6:30, “ No sin-offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the tabernacle of the congregation to reconcile withal in the holy place, shall be eaten: it shall be burnt in the fire.” As regards particular expressions: τὰἅγια here, as in ch. 9:8, 12, 24, 25, and 10:19, probably means not the holy place commonly so called, but the holy of holies, into which the blood of the sin-offering was brought on the day of atonement, and which only typified heaven, whither Christ as High Priest is entered with His Blood. ἔξωτῆςπαρεμβολῆς refers to the time when Israel was encamped in the wilderness: the enclosure of the camp was afterwards replaced by the walls of Jerusalem, so that ἔξωτῆςπύλης below answers to it). 12. Wherefore (as being the antitype of the sin-offering on the day of atonement: “ ut ille typus veteris testamenti impleretur, illa figura quæ est de carnibus extra castra comburendis,” Est.) Jesus also, that He might sanctify (see on ch. 2:11) the people (see on ch. 2:17) through His own blood, suffered outside the gate (ἔξωτῆςπόλεωςἹερουσαλήμ , Œ c. It is necessary in order to understand this rightly, to trace with some care the various steps of the symbolism. The offering of Christ consists of two parts: 1. His offering on earth, which was accomplished on the cross, and answered to the slaying of the legal victim and the destruction of its body by fire, the annihilation of the fleshly life; and, 2. His offering in the holy place above, which consisted in His entering heaven, the abode of God, through the veil, that is to say His flesh, and carrying His blood there as a standing atonement for the world’ s sin. This, the sanctifying of the people through His own blood, was the ulterior end of that sacrifice on earth: and therefore whatever belonged to that sacrifice on earth is said to have been done in order to that other. This will sufficiently account for the telic clause here, without making it seem as if the ultimate end, the sanctification of God’ s people, depended on the subordinate circumstance of Christ’ s having suffered outside the gate. It did depend on the entire fulfilment by Him of all things written of Him in the law: and of them this was one). 13. So then (τοίνυν commonly in Greek stands second at least in a sentence. But in later writers as in the LXX (reff.), it is not uncommonly put first, as here; and sometimes even in classical Greek: cf. Lobeck on Phrynichus, p. 342 f., who gives an example from Aristoph. Acharn. 904, ἐγῷδα · τοίνυνσυκοφάντηνἔξαγε : and several from later authors) let us go forth to Him outside the camp (ἀντὶτοῦἔξωτῆςκατὰνόμονγενώμεθαπολιτείας , Thdrt. This is certainly intended, and not the meaning given by Chrys. (τὸνσταυρὸναὐτοῦαἰρῶμενκαὶἔξωκόσμουμένωμεν , in his second exposition in Hom. xxxiii. His first exposition is very similar, not as quoted by Bleek, that we should follow the Lord in his sufferings: this latter is the explanation of τὸνὀνειδισμὸναὐτοῦφέροντες : see below. I may mention that the fact of Chrys. having given two expositions of the passage, as of some others, has much bewildered the Commentators. Delitzsch, e. g., charges Bleek with error in saying that Chrys. omits περὶἁμαρτίας in ver. 11. He does omit it the second time, but not the first), Limborch, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, al., nor that of Schlichting , Grot., Michaelis, Storr, al. Both these may be involved in that which is intended; the latter particular is presently mentioned: but they are not identical with it. Possibly there may be a reference to Exodus 33:7, ἐγένετο , πᾶςὁζητῶνκύριονἐξεπορεύετοεἰςτὴνσκηνὴντὴνἔξωτῆςπαρεμβολῆς . Bleek objects that if so, we should not expect ἡσκηνή to have been so shortly before mentioned as representing the Jewish sanctuary, in distinction from the Christian. But this seems hardly sufficient reason for denying the reference. The occasion in Exo_33 was a remarkable one. The people were just quitting Sinai, the home of the law; and the πᾶςὁζητῶντὸνκύριον seems to bear more than ordinary solemnity), bearing His reproach (see on ch. 11:26. τουτέστι , τὰαὐτὰπάσχοντες . κοινωνοῦντεςαὐτῷἐντοῖςπαθήμασιν , Chrys., Œ c.). 14. For (reason why such going forth is agreeable to our whole profession: not, as Bengel, al., why the word παρεμβολή , and not πόλις , is used above) we have not here (on earth: not, as Heinrichs, in the earthly Jerusalem. ὧδε in a local sense is said by Bö hme, after Aristarchus, to be hardly Greek: but it is a mistake; the sense being found in the classics from Homer downwards. Palm and Rost, sub voce, maintain the correctness of Aristarchus’ s view: but it seems beyond question that in such expressions as Ἡφαῖστεπρομόλ ʼ ὧδε , the local meaning must be recognized) an abiding city, but we seek for (ἐπιζητεῖν , see on ref.) that (abiding city) which is to come (“ Futuram civitatem hanc vocat, quia nobis futura est. Nam Deo, Christo, Augelis jam præ sens est.” Schlichting. Yet this is not altogether true. The heavenly Jerusalem, in all her glory, is not yet existing, nor shall be until the number of the elect is accomplished. Then she shall come down out of heaven as a bride prepared for her husband, Revelation 21:2. This verse certainly comes with a solemn tone on the reader, considering how short a time the μένουσαπόλις did actually remain, and how soon the destruction of Jerusalem put an end to the Jewish polity which was supposed to be so enduring). 15. Through Him (placed first, as carrying all the emphasis— through Him, not by means of the Jewish ritual observances) therefore (this οὖν gathers its inference from the whole argument, vv. 10-14) let us offer up (see on ref.) a sacrifice of praise (θυσίααἰνέσεως is the term for a thank-offering in the law: see Leviticus 7:12 (5, LXX). Cf. reff. and Ps. 49:23, θυσίααἰνέσεωςδοξάσειμε , and 115:17 (116:8), σοὶθύσωθυσίαναἰνέσεως . The Commentators quote an old saying of the Rabbis, “ Tempore futuro omnia sacrificia cessabunt, sed laudes non cessabunt.” Cf. Philo de Victim. Offer. § 3, vol. ii. p. 253, τὴνἀρίστηνἀνάγουσιθυσίαν , ὕμνοιςτὸνεὐεργέτηνκαὶσωτῆραθεὸνγεραίροντες ) continually (not at fixed days and seasons, as the Levitical sacrifices, but all through our lives) to God, that is, the fruit of lips (καρπὸνχειλέων is from Hosea (ref.), where the LXX give ἀνταποδώσομενκαρπὸνχειλέωνἡμῶν as the rendering of נ ְ ש ׁ ַ ל ּ ְ מ ָ ה פ ָ ר ִ י ם ש ׂ ְ פ ָ ת י נ ו ּ , “ we will account our lips as calves” (for a sacrifice): E. V., “ we will render the calves of our lips.” The fruit of the lips is explained by the next words to be, a good confession to God) confessing to His name (i. e. the name of God, as the ultimate object to which the confession, δι ʼ -αὐτοῦ , Jesus, is referred. For the construction, see reff.). 16. But of beneficence and communication (of your means to others who are in want, see reff.: an usage of the word which, as Bleek remarks, sprung up in the primitive Christian church, as also the corresponding one of the verb: see on ch. 2:14) be not forgetful (ver. 2): for with such sacrifices (viz. εὐποιΐᾳκαὶκοινωνίᾳ , not including ver. 15, which is complete in itself) God is well pleased (εὐαρεστοῦμαίτινι (ref.) is not elsewhere found in N. T. or LXX, but in the later Greek writers, e. g. Diog. Laert. iv. 6. 18: Diod. Sic. iii. 54; xx. 18: Clem.-alex. Strom. vii. 7, § 45, p. 858, ib. 12, § 74, p. 876 P.: and so in Polyb. iii. 8. 11, δυσηρεστοῦντοτοῖςὑπ ʼ Ἀννίβουπραττομένοις ). 17-end.] Concluding exhortations and notices. 17. Having already in ver. 7 spoken of their deceased leaders in the church, and thereby been reminded of their stedfastness in the faith, he has taken occasion in the intervening verses to admonish them respecting the danger of apostasy to Judaism, and to exhort them to come fearlessly out of it to Christ. Now he returns to their duty to their leaders. Obey your leaders (περὶἐπισκόπωνλέγει , Œ c., Thl.), and submit (to them) (πείθεσθαι , in the regular course of your habits, guided by them, persuaded that their rule is right: ὑπείκειν , where that rule interferes with your own will: πείθεσθαι has more of free following, ὑπείκειν of dutiful yielding): for they keep watch on behalf of your souls (not = ὑπερὑμῶν as Bö hme, but rather = ὑπερὑμῶνεἰςσωτηρίαν : the ψυχή bringing in the idea of immortality), as having to give an account (Thdrt. well-remarks, παραινεῖμὲντοῖςμαθηταῖςὑπακούειντοῖςδιδασκάλοις · διήγειρεδὲκατὰταὐτὸνκαὶτοὺςδιδασκάλουςεἰςπλείοναπροθυμίαν · διδάσκειγὰραὐτοὺςἀγρυπνεῖνκαὶτὰςεὐθύναςδειμαίνειν . Chrys. de Sacerdotio, lib. vi. init., vol. i. 2, p. 677 (Migne), says, τὸγὰρπείθεσθετοῖςἡγ . κ .τ .λ .… ἀποδώσοντες , εἰκαὶπρότερονεἶπον , ἀλλ ʼ οὐδὲνῦνσιωπήσομαι · ὁγὰρφόβοςταύτηςτῆςἀπειλῆςσυνεχῶςκατασείειμουτὴνψυχήν ): that they may do this (viz. watch, not give an account, for thus the present ποιῶσιν , and τοῦτογὰρἀλυσιτελὲςὑμῖν would be inapplicable) with joy, and not lamenting (over your disobedience): for this (their having to lament over you) is unprofitable for you (λυσιτελεῖ is found in Luke 17:2. “ The exhortation is like Paul in its spirit, cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:12, 1 Thessalonians 5:13, but more like Luke in its expression. And as we proceed, St. Luke’ s and St. Paul’ s expressions are found mingled together.” Delitzsch). 18. Pray for us (here, as elsewhere, it is probably a mistake to suppose that the first person plural indicates the Writer alone. As Del. observes, the passage from the ἡγούμενοι to the Writer individually would be harsh. And when Bleek finds in ver. 19 a proof that the Writer only is meant, he misses the point, that this ἡμῶν , including the Writer and his companions, is in fact a transition note between ver. 17 and ver. 19. Cf. Ephesians 6:19: Romans 15:30: 2 Corinthians 1:11): for we are persuaded (πειθόμεθα , which is St. Luke’ s way of speaking, cf. Acts 26:26, has been changed into πεποίθαμεν , which is St. Paul’ s, cf. Galatians 5:10: Philippians 1:25; Philippians 2:24) that (Bengel, al. pause at πεποίθαμεν (rec.) γάρ , rendering ὅτι “ quia: nam confidimus ponitur absolute, uti audemus, 2 Corinthians 5:8.” But the other is the better and more probable rendering, even with the rec.: and with πειθόμεθα , more necessary still) we have a good conscience (St. Luke’ s expression, see reff.: and here chosen perhaps to correspond to καλῶς below), desiring in all things (not as Chrys., Erasm.(par.), Luth., al., masculine,— οὐκἐνἐθνικοῖςμόνον , ἀλλὰκαὶἐνὑμῖν ,— but as in ver. 4) to behave ourselves with seemliness (τουτέστιν , ἀπροσκόπωςδιάγεινσπουδάζοντεςκαὶἀσκανδαλίστως . Thl. This appears to point at some offence of the same kind as we know to have been taken at the life and teaching of St. Paul with reference to the law and Jewish customs). 19. But I the more abundantly (see on ch. 2:1) exhort you to do this (ποῖοντοῦτο ; τὸεὔχεσθαιπερὶἡμῶν , Œ c.), that I may be the sooner restored to you (reff., and Polyb. iii. 98. 7, ἐὰνἐξαγαγὼντοὺςὁμήρουςἀποκαταστήσῃτοῖςγονεῦσικαὶταῖςπόλεσιν . Cf. St. Paul’ s expression Philemon 1:22, ἐλπίζωγὰρὅτιδιὰτῶνπροσευχῶνὑμῶνχαρισθήσομαιὑμῖν . On the inferences from this and the other notices in this concluding passage, see Prolegg.). 20, 21. Solemn concluding prayer. πρῶτονπαρ ʼ αὐτῶναἰτήσαςτὰςεὐχάς , τότεκαὶαὐτὸςαὐτοῖςἐπεύχεταιπάντατὰἀγαθά . Chrys. 20. But (δέ often introduces a concluding sentence, breaking off, as we use but: see again ver. 22, and passim at the end of St. Paul’ s Epistles) the God of peace (so, often, at the end of St. Paul’ s Epistles: see reff., and 2 Thessalonians 3:16. In the presence of so many instances of the expression under different circumstances, it would perhaps be hardly safe to infer from it here any reference to danger of strife within the church addressed. Still the words are not a mere formula, and in all the above places, some reference is made, doubtless, to circumstances either of internal dissension or external tribulation. And certainly both the exhortations in vv. 17-19 point to a state in which there was danger of disobedience within and suspicion towards the Writer and those who were on his part. So that ‘ peace’ was a natural wish for them, even without taking into account those troubles which harassed and threatened them from without, in regard of which it would be also a haven, where they would be), who brought up from the dead (περὶἀναστάσεωςεἴρηταιτοῦτο , Chrys. But perhaps not of the Resurrection only, but of the Ascension also. Delitzsch well remarks that ἀνά is not only rursum, but sursum: and Bl. refers to Plato, Rep. vii. p. 521 c, πῶςτιςἀνάξειαὐτοὺςεἰςφῶς , ὥσπερἐξᾅδουλέγονταιδήτινεςεἰςθεοὺςἀνελθεῖν ; “ This is the only place where our Writer mentions the Resurrection. Every where else he lifts his eyes from the depth of our Lord’ s humiliation, passing over all that is intermediate, to the highest point of His exaltation. The connexion here suggests to him once at least to make mention of that which lay between Golgotha and the throne of God, between the altar of the Cross and the heavenly sanctuary, the resurrection of Him who died as our sin-offering.” Delitzsch) the great shepherd of the sheep (the passage before the Writer’ s mind has been that in the prophetic chapter of Isaiah (ref.), where speaking of Moses, it is said, ποῦὁἀναβιβάσαςἐκτῆςθαλάσσηςτὸνποιμένατῶνπροβάτων , where A and the Codex Marchalianus read ἐκτῆςγῆς , as 46 Chrys. read here, and the Complutensian having ἐκγῆς . In Isa. the shepherd is Moses; and the comparison between Moses and Christ is familiar to our Writer, ch. 3:2-6. The addition of τὸνμέγαν as applied to Christ, is correspondent to His title ἱερεὺςμέγας , ch. 10:21. To deny this reference, with Lü nemann, seems impossible, with the remarkable conjunction of τὸνποιμένατῶνπροβάτων . The connexion here in which this title of our Lord is brought in, may be, that οἱἡγούμενοι having been just mentioned, and himself also, and his labours and theirs for the settlement of the Church in peace being before his mind, he is led to speak of Him who is the Chief Shepherd (1 Peter 5:4), who was brought again from the dead by the God of Peace), in the blood of the everlasting covenant (but in what sense? First διαθήκηαἰώνιος is as Thdrt., αἰώνιονδὲτὴνκαινὴνκέκληκεδιαθήκην , ὡςἑτέραςμετὰταύτηνοὐκἐσομένης · ἵναγὰρμήτιςὑπολάβῃ , καὶταύτηνδι ʼ ἄλληςδιαθήκηςπαυθήσεσθαι , εἰκότωςαὐτῆςτὸἀτελεύτητονἔδειξε . Then, the expression itself can hardly but be a reminiscence of Zec 9:11, καὶσὺἐναἵματιδιαθήκηςσουἐξαπέστειλαςδεσμίουςσουἐκλάκκουοὐκἔχοντοςὕδωρ : and if so, the import of the preposition here will be at least indicated by its import there. And there it is, by virtue of, in the power of, the blood of thy covenant, i. e. of that blood which was the seal of the covenant entered into with thee. So also we must understand it here. Did the sentence apply only to the exaltation of Christ, the ἐν might be taken as by Bleek after Calv., ‘ with the blood,’ so that Christ took the blood with Him. So Œ c. and Thl., ἤγειρεναὐτὸνἐκνεκρῶνσὺναἵματιδιαθήκηςαἰωνίου , τουτέστισὺντῇἐγέρσειαὐτοῦκαὶτὸαἷμααὐτοῦκεχάρισταιἡμῖνεἰςδιαθήκηναἰώνιον : and Calvin, “ Videtur mihi apostolus hoc velle, Christum ita resurrexisse a mortuis, ut mors tamen ejus non sit abolita, sed æ ternum vigorem retineat: ac si dixisset, Deus Filium suum excitavit, sed ita ut sanguis, quem semel in morte fudit, ad sanctionem fœ deris æ terni post resurrectionem vigeat, fructumque suum proferat perinde ac si semper flueret.” But here it is joined to the exaltation only by means of the resurrection. And thus, as Del. maintains, the instrumental, conditioning-element force of ἐν seems to predominate: through, or in virtue of, the blood (Acts 20:28). It is surely hardly allowable to join the words ἐναἵματιδιαθήκηςαἰωνίου with τὸνποιμένατὸνμέγαν . Yet this is done by Beza, Estius, Grot., Limborch, Schulz, Bö hme, Kuinoel, Lü nem., Ebr., al., some of them joining it with μέγαν . It seems to me that τόν would in this case be repeated after μέγαν . The idea however is no less true, and is indeed involved in the connexion with ἀναγαγών , and thus with the whole sentence. The Lord Jesus did become, in His mediatorial work, the great Shepherd of the sheep, by virtue of that covenant which was brought in by His blood (Acts, ubi sup.): and by virtue of that blood also He was raised up as the great Shepherd, out of the dead, and to God’ s right hand. Cf. on the whole, reff.; and Isaiah 55:3; Isaiah 61:8: John 10:11-18), even our Lord Jesus , 21. perfect you (πληρώσαι , τελειώσαι , Œ c. μαρτυρεῖαὐτοῖςμεγάλα · τὸγὰρκαταρτιζόμενόνἐστιτὸἀρχὴνἔχον , εἶταπληρούμενον , Chrys. Still, as Bleek remarks, the praise of having made a beginning is not necessarily involved in the wish that they may be perfected) in every good work, towards the doing His will , doing in you that which is well-pleasing in His sight (ἐνώπιοντοῦθεοῦ , an expression of St. Luke’ s principally. It is a pregnant construction, involving τὸἀγαθὸνἐνώπιοναὐτοῦ , καὶδιὰτοῦτοεὐάρεστοναὐτῷ . See Ephesians 5:10 al.), through Jesus Christ (the reference is variously given: to εὐάρεστον , well-pleasing &c. through J. C.; so Grot., Hammond (“ secundum Christi præ cepta” &c.), al.: or to the verb, ποιῶν , as Thl., ὥστε , ὅτανποιῶμενἡμεῖςτὸκαλόν , ὁθεὸςποιεῖτοῦτοἐνἡμῖνδιὰἸησοῦχριστοῦ , τουτέστι , μεσίτῃκ . ἐνέργῳτούτῳχρώμενος : so Œ c. The latter is by far the more probable, as the former would introduce a superfluity): to whom (i. e. to God, the chief subject of the whole sentence, God, who is the God of peace, who brought up the Lord Jesus from the dead, who can perfect us in every good work, to accomplish His will, and works in us that which is well-pleasing to Him through Jesus Christ. The whole majesty of the sentence requires this reverting to its main agent, and speaks against the referring ᾧἡδόξα to our blessed Lord, who is only incidentally mentioned. See the very similar construction 1 Peter 4:11, where however the reference is not by any means equally certain) be (in 1 Pet. l. c. ἐστίν : and possibly also here: but perhaps ἔστω is the more probable supplement) the glory for ever. Amen. 22. But (‘ claudendi,’ see above, ver. 20) I beseech you, brethren, endure (reff.) the word of my exhortation (or, of exhortation. ἀσμένωςδέξασθετὰπαρ ʼ ἐμοῦγράμματα , Schol.-Matth. Cf. Philo, Quod Omn. Prob. Liber, § 6, vol. ii. p. 451, καὶπῶςπατρὸςμὲνἢμητρὸςἐπιταγυάτωνπαῖδεςἀνέχονται ; I may observe, that παράκλησις is rendered by the vulg. wrongly “ solatium.” In that case no ἀνέχεσθε would have been needed. The expression λόγοςπαρακλήσεως applies without doubt to the whole Epistle, from what follows: not as Beza, Calov., al., to the few exhortations preceding, nor as Grot. to ch. 10-13 only: nor as Kuinoel, al., to the exhortations scattered up and down in the Epistle. It is St. Luke’ s expression, see reff.): for also (besides other reasons, there is this) in (by means of, in the material of) few (words) (few in comparison of what might have been said on such a subject. τοσαῦταεἰπὼνὅμωςβραχέαταῦτάφησιν , ὅσονπρὸςἃἐπεθύμειλέγειν . Thl.: for the expression, see reff.) I have written (the epistolary aorist, as ‘ dabam,’ ἔγραψα , freq. in St. Paul, al. The word is elsewhere peculiar to St. Luke in N. T., see reff.) to you. 23. Know (γινώσκετε can hardly but be imperative, standing as it does at the beginning of the sentence. In τὴνδὲδοκιμὴναὐτοῦγινώσκετε , Philippians 2:22, it is otherwise arranged. When the knowledge already exists, the fact is the prominent thing: when the knowledge is first conveyed, the information) that our brother Timotheus is dismissed (the construction is good Greek: Del. gives as instances ἤκουσετὴνχώρανδῃουμένην , Xen. Anab. v. 5. 7: πυθόμενοιβασιλέατεθνηκότα , Thuc. iv. 50: γνῶτεἀναγκαῖονὂνὑμῖνἀνδράσινἀγαθοῖγενέσθαι , ib. vii. 77. It is in fact the original government of the accus. and inf. with a participial predicate substituted for the infinitive: ‘ Know him being,’ for ‘ know him to be.’ ἀπολύειν , on which see Prolegg. § ii. 24, does not occur in St. Paul, but is frequent in St. Luke; e. g. Luke 22:68; Luke 23:16 ff.: Acts 3:13; Acts 4:21, of dismissal from prison or custody; Acts 13:3; Acts 15:30, of official sending away; Acts 15:33, of solemn dismissal, and Acts 19:41; Acts 23:22, of simple dismissal), with whom, if he come (πρόςμε … εἰκὸςγὰρἦν , ἀπολελύσθαιμὲναὐτόν , μήπωδὲἀπεληλυθέναιπρὸςτὸνΠαῦλον . Œ c.) soon (Luther, Schulz, al. take this in the Attic sense of ἐὰνθᾶττον or ἐπειδὰνθᾶττον , “ as soon as,” “ simul atque:” but such can hardly be the sense here), I will see you (πρὸςὑμᾶςἐρχόμενος . Œ c.). 24. Salute all your leaders, and all the saints. They from Italy salute you (on this, see Prolegg. § ii. 13). 25. Grace Ἰησοῦ , e. g. (Romans 16:24) 1 Corinthians 16:23: 2 Corinthians 13:13 al. fr.) be with all of you (πάντων first, carrying the emphasis. ὑμῶνπάντων would express more the totality of the church: πάντωνὑμῶν , every individual). Amen.